Thatistosay，thatthedistinctiondrawnbytheoldindividualismbetweenthestateinstitutionsandthosecreatedbyprivateactionceasestohavetheoldsignificance。Whenasocietyoncedevelopsanelaborateandcomplexstructure，itbecomesalmostpedantictodrawaprofounddistinctionbetweenasystemwhichispracticallyindispensableandonewhichislegallyimperative。
IwillnotinquirefurtherwhetherMill’spositioncouldbemadelogicallycoherent。Onethingisprettyclear。Ifhisviewshadbeenactuallyadopted；ifthestateeducated，nationalisedtheland，supportedthepoor，restrainedmarriage，regulatedlabourwhereindividualcompetitionfailed，anduseditspowertoequalisewealth，itwouldverysoonadoptstateSocialism，andlosesightofMill’sreservations。Mill，asIbelieve，hadbeenquiterightwhenheinsistedonthevastimportanceofstimulatingthesenseofindividualresponsibility。Thatis，andmustalwaysbe，oneessentialmomentoftheargument。Hismisfortunewas，thathavingabsorbedanabsolutesysteminhisyouth，andacceptingitsclaimstoscientificvalidity，hewasunablewhenhesawitsdefectstoseethetruelineifanyoneyetseesthetruelineofconciliation。Hisdoctrine，therefore，containedfragmentsofoppositeandinconsistentdogmas。Whilefancyingthathewasdevelopingtheindividualisttheories，headoptednotonlySocialism，butevenaversionofSocialismopentotheobjectionsonwhichhesometimesforciblyinsisted。MillandtheSocialistarebothindividualists；onlytheSocialistmakesrightprecedefact，andMillwouldmakefactprecederight。
Everyindividual，saystheSocialist，hasarighttosupport；theconsequencesofgrantingtherightmustbelefttoProvidence。
This，saysMillfollowingMalthus，wouldbefatal，becausetheindividualwouldhavenomotivetosupporthimself。Hemustonlyhavesucharightasimpliespersonalresponsibility。Butthen，asfactsalsoshow，manyindividualsmaybeunabletosupportthemselveseveniftheywishit，andtheirresponsibilitybecomesamockery。Ifweenforcedutiesonall，mustwenotmakethedutypossible？Mustnoteveryonebesotrainedandsoplacedthatworkwillbesureofreward？Thereistheproblem，whichheseesandfeels，thoughhisanswerseemstoimplyadoubtfulshiftingbetweenantagonistictheories。
VIII。LOGICALMETHOD
ImustglancefinallyattherelationofMill’smethodtohisgeneralprinciples。Inanearlyessay162*hedeclaresthatthemethodmustbe’apriori，’thatis，asheexplains，’reasoningfromanassumedhypothesis。’163*IntheLogicitistreatedasacaseofthe’directdeductivemethod。’Thisinvolvesanimportantpointinhissystem。HehadderivedfromComte，ashetellsus，164*onlyone’leadingconception’ofapurelylogicalkind，theconception，namely，ofthe’historical’or’inversedeductivemethod。’Thismethod，impliedinComte’ssociology，starts，asMillsays，fromthe’collationofspecificexperience。’NowMillagreesthatthis’historical’methodwasappropriatetosociologyingeneral。Heagrees，too，withComtethatitwasnotthemethodusedbyeconomists。But，whereasComtehadinferredthatpoliticaleconomymustforthatreasonbeashamscience，165*Millholdsthateconomistswerejustifiedinusingadifferentmethod。Comte，hethought，hadfailedtoseethatincertaincasesthemethodof’directdeduction’wasapplicabletosociologicalinquiry。Onesuchcase，thoughhewillnotundertaketodecidewhatotherinstancestheremaybe，ispoliticaleconomy。166*Hedecidesthatthedifficulties，regardedbyComteasinsuperable，maybeovercome。Hisearlyaccountisstillvalid；andhethereforeexplicitlyrejectsthe’historical’method。
Iconfessthattheuseofthesetechnicalphrasesappearstometoberathermagniloquent，andtoleadtosomeconfusion。
Settingthemaside，Mill’sviewmaybebrieflystated。Heargues，inthefirstplace，thatwecannotapplytheordinarymethodofexperimenttoeconomicproblems。Tosettlebyexperiencewhetherprotectionwasgoodorbad，weshouldhavetofindtwonationsagreeingineverythingexcepttheirtariffs；andthat，ofcourse，ifnotimpossible，isexceedinglydifficult。167*Itfollowsthatiftherebeatruescienceofpoliticaleconomy，itmusthaveadifferentmethod。WemightindeedadoptComte’sanswer：
’Thereisnosuchscience’；aviewforwhichthereismuchtobesaid。Mill，however，beingconfidentthatthescienceexistedhadtojustifyitsmethods。Politicaleconomy，hesays，considersmansolelyasawealth-desiringbeing；itpredictsthe’phenomenaofthesocialstate’whichtakeplaceinconsequence；andmakesabstractionofeveryothermotiveexceptthelazinessorthedesireofpresentenjoymentwhich’antagonise’thedesireofwealth。Henceitdeducesvariouslaws，though，asafact，thereisscarcelyanyactionofaman’slifeinwhichotherdesiresarenotoperative。Politicaleconomystillholdstruewhereverthedesireofwealthisthemainend。’Othercasesmayberegardedasaffectedbydisturbingcauses’——comparable，ofcourse，totheinevitable’friction’——anditisonlyonaccountofthemthatwehavean’elementofuncertainty’inpoliticaleconomy。
Otherwiseitisademonstrablescience，presupposingan’arbitrarydefinition’ofamanasgeometrypresupposesan’arbitrarydefinition’ofastraightline。’168*
TherelationofthisdoctrinetoMill’sgeneralviewsonlogicisclear，butsuggestssomeobviouscriticisms。’Desireforwealth，’forexample，isnotasimplebutahighlycomplexdesire，involvingindifferentwayseveryhumanpassion。169*Toarguefromit，asthoughitsdefinitionwereasunequivocalasthatofastraightline，isatleastaudacious。Mill，nodoubt，meanstoexpressanundeniabletruth。Industry，ingeneral，impliesdesireforwealth，andthewholemechanismsupposesthatmenpreferaguineatoapound。Thefactisclearenough，andifproofberequiredcanbeprovedbyobservation。Wemustagainadmitthatwhateverpsychologicaltheoremisimpliedinthefactmustbeassumedastrue。Butitdoesnotfollowthatbecauseweassumethe’desireforwealth’wecandeducethephenomenafromthatassumption。Thatinferencewouldconfounddifferentthings。
Ifwewereaccountingfortheactionsofanindividual，wemightadoptthemethod。Insomeactionsamanisguidedbyloveofmoney，andinothersbyloveofhisneighbour。Wemay’deduce’
hisactioninhiscounting-housefromhisloveofmoney，andconsideranoccasionalfitofbenevolenceasamere’disturbingcause’tobeneglectedingeneralortreatedasmere’friction。’
Asimilarprinciplemightbeappliedtopoliticaleconomyifwecouldregarditasthetheoryofparticularclassesofactions。
Butwehavetoconsiderothercircumstancestoreachanygeneralandtenabletheory。Wehavetoconsiderthewholesocialstructure，theexistenceofamarketandallthatitimplies，andthedivisionofsocietyintoclassesandtheircomplexrelations：
thedistributionoffunctionsamongthemandthecreationofthesettledorderwhichalonemakescommercepossible。Wecannotarguetotheactionwithoutunderstandingthestructureofwhichtheagentisaconstituentpart，andwhichdeterminesallthedetailsofhisaction。Thebuildingupofsocietyimpliestheinfluencenotofanysingledesire，butofallthedesires，modesofthought，andaffectionsofhumanbeings。If，therefore，acomprehensionofexistinginstitutionsbenecessarytopoliticaleconomy，thedeductivemethodisclearlyunequaltothetaskwhichhe，partlyfollowingComte，regardsasimpliedin’sociology’generally。Todeduce，notthesocialstructureatlarge，butanysocialorgan，fromsuchanabstractionishopeless，becauseeveryorganisaffectedthroughandthroughbyitsdependenceuponotherorgans。Millvirtuallysupposesthatbecausetheparticularfunctioncanbeunderstoodbyabstractingfromaccidentalinfluences，theorganofwhichitisafunctioncanbeunderstoodbyabstractingfromitsessentialrelationstotheorganism。
Here，infact，istheerrorwhichItaketobeimpliedinMill’sindividualism。Giventhesocialstructureasitis，youmayfairlymakesomesuchabstractionasthepostulates。Youmayconsiderlargeclassesofactions，exchangeofwealth，andallthenormalplayofcommercialforces，ascorrespondingtotherathervague’desireforwealth，’andaskhowanindividualoranumberofindividualswillactwhenundertheinfluenceofthatdominantmotive。Thatislegitimate，andappliestowhatiscalled’purepoliticaleconomy’——therelativelysuperficialstudyoftheactualworkingofthemachinerywithoutconsideringhowthemachinerycametohaveitsactualstructure。Butdirectlyyougetbeyondthis，toproblemsinvolvingorganicchange，yougetto’sociology，’andcanonlyproceed——ifprogressbepossible——bythe’historicalmethod，’or，inotherwords，bystudyingthegrowthoftheinstitutionsofwhichweformapart，andofwhichwemaybeconsideredastheproduct。ThisagainmeansthatthegeneralconceptionoftheUtilitarians，whichrecognisesnothingbuttheindividualasanultimateunit，thoughcapableofcombiningandgroupinginvariousways，omitsoneessentialelementintheproblem。Itregardsallsocialstructuresasonthesameplane，temporaryandindefinitelyalterablearrangements；andinvolvesaneglectofthehistoricalorgeneralpointofviewwhichisessentialnotonlytoanunderstandingofsociety，butalsooftheindividualswhosewholenatureandcharacterismouldedbyit。IhavetriedtoshowtheresultsuponthelegalandpoliticalconceptionsofMill’steachers。Wenowseehowtheconceptionofpoliticaleconomyasa’deductive’orapriorisciencenaturallymisledtheschool。Whentheymistooktheirroughgeneralisationsfordefinitivescience，theybroughtdiscredituponthetheory，andplayedintothehandsoftheirenemies，thesentimentalists，who，findingthatthesciencewasnotinfallible，resolvedtotrusttoinstinctsanddefy’lawsofnature’ingeneral。Readascommon-senseconsiderationsuponsocialquestions，thewritingsofMillandhisfollowersweregenerallytothepointandoftenconclusive。
Whenreadasscientificstatements，theyfailfromtheirobviousinadequacyandthevagueterminologywhichtakestheairsofclearlydefinedconceptions。YetitisimpossibletoconcludewithoutnoticingtwoadmirablecharacteristicsofMillandhisdisciples。Thefirstisthedeepandthoroughconvictionthattheelevationofthepoorerclassesisthemainendofallsocialinquiries。Thesecondandtherareristheresolutiontospeaktheplaintruth，andtodenounceallsophistswho，professingthesameend，wouldreachitbyillusorymeans。Mill’ssympathiesneverblindedhimtothedutyoftellingthewholetruthashesawit。
NOTES：
1。Mill’sPoliticalEconomyreachedasixtheditionin1865。A
populareditionwasfirstreprintedin1865fromthesixthedition。Iquotefromthepopulareditionof1883bychapterandsection。Thisisapplicable，withveryslightexception，toalleditions。The’tableofcontents’isalmostidenticalfromthefirsttothelastedition。Somesectionswereexpandedbyaddinglaterinformationastoland-tenuresandco-operation。TheearlychapteruponIrelandwasalteredonaccountofchanges，whichMillthought，madeitnolongerappropriate。Anadditionwasmadetothechapteron“InternationalValues“；andbookii，chap。iwasrewritteninordertogiveamorefavourableestimateofSocialism。Onthewhole，thechangeswereremarkablysmall。
2。SeeUnsettledQuestions1877p。1。
3。PoliticalEconomy，p。265bk。iii。ch。i。section1。
4。Ibid。p。270bk。iii。ch。ii。section3。
5。LogicalMethodofPoliticalEconomy1875，p。4。