laid down in the commencement of most of the professed treatises on the
subject, is to the following effect:--That Political Economy informs us
of the laws which regulate the production, distribution, and consumption
of wealth. To this definition is frequently appended a familiar
illustration. Political Economy, it is said, is to the state, what
domestic economy is to the family.
This definition is free from the fault which we pointed out in the
former one. It distinctly takes notice that Political Economy is a
science and not an art; that it is conversant with laws of nature,
not with maxims of conduct, and teaches us how things take place of
themselves, not in what manner it is advisable for us to shape them,
in order to attain some particular end.
But though the definition is, with regard to this particular point,
unobjectionable, so much can scarcely be said for the accompanying
illustration; which rather sends back the mind to the current loose
notion of Political Economy already disposed of. Political Economy is
really, and is stated in the definition to be, a science: but domestic
economy, so far as it is capable of being reduced to principles, is an
art. It consists of rules, or maxims of prudence, for keeping the family
regularly supplied with what its wants require, and securing, with any
given amount of means, the greatest possible quantity of physical
comfort and enjoyment. Undoubtedly the beneficial _result_, the great
practical _application_ of Political Economy, would be to accomplish
for a nation something like what the most perfect domestic economy
accomplishes for a single household: but supposing this purpose
realised, there would be the same difference between the rules by which
it might be effected, and Political Economy, which there is between the
art of gunnery and the theory of projectiles, or between the rules of
mathematical land-surveying and the science of trigonometry.
The definition, though not liable to the same objection as the
illustration which is annexed to it, is itself far from unexceptionable.
To neither of them, considered as standing at the head of a treatise,
have we much to object. At a very early stage in the study of the
science, anything more accurate would be useless, and therefore
pedantic. In a merely initiatory definition, scientific precision is not
required: the object is, to insinuate into the learner's mind, it is
scarcely material by what means, some general preconception of what are
the uses of the pursuit, and what the series of topics through which he
is about to travel. As a mere anticipation or _ébauche_ of a definition,
intended to indicate to a learner as much as he is able to understand
before he begins, of the nature of what is about to be taught to him,
we do not quarrel with the received formula. But if it claims to be
admitted as that complete _definitio_ or boundary-line, which results
from a thorough exploring of the whole extent of the subject, and is
intended to mark the exact place of Political Economy among the
sciences, its pretension cannot be allowed.
"The science of the laws which regulate the production, distribution,
and consumption of wealth." The term wealth is surrounded by a haze of
floating and vapoury associations, which will let nothing that is seen
through them be shewn distinctly. Let us supply its place by a
periphrasis. Wealth is defined, all objects useful or agreeable to
mankind, except such as can be obtained in indefinite quantity without
labour. Instead of all objects, some authorities say, all material
objects: the distinction is of no moment for the present purpose.
To confine ourselves to production: If the laws of the production of all
objects, or even of all material objects, which are useful or agreeable
to mankind, were comprised in Political Economy, it would be difficult
to say where the science would end: at the least, all or nearly all
physical knowledge would be included in it. Corn and cattle are material
objects, in a high degree useful to mankind. The laws of the production
of the one include the principles of agriculture; the production of the
other is the subject of the art of cattle-breeding, which, in so far as
really an art, must be built upon the science of physiology. The laws of
the production of manufactured articles involve the whole of chemistry
and the whole of mechanics. The laws of the production of the wealth
which is extracted from the bowels of the earth, cannot be set forth
without taking in a large part of geology.
When a definition so manifestly surpasses in extent what it professes to
define, we must suppose that it is not meant to be interpreted literally,
though the limitations with which it is to be understood are not stated.
Perhaps it will be said, that Political Economy is conversant with such
only of the laws of the production of wealth as are applicable to _all_
kinds of wealth: those which relate to the details of particular trades
or employments forming the subject of other and totally distinct
sciences.
If, however, there were no more in the distinction between Political
Economy and physical science than this, the distinction, we may venture
to affirm, would never have been made. No similar division exists in any
other department of knowledge. We do not break up zoology or mineralogy
into two parts; one treating of the properties common to all animals, or
to all minerals; another conversant with the properties peculiar to each
particular species of animals or minerals. The reason is obvious; there
is no distinction _in kind_ between the general laws of animal or of
mineral nature and the peculiar properties of particular species. There
is as close an analogy between the general laws and the particular ones,
as there is between one of the general laws and another: most commonly,
indeed, the particular laws are but the complex result of a plurality of
general laws modifying each other. A separation, therefore, between the
general laws and the particular ones, merely because the former are
general and the latter particular, would run counter both to the
strongest motives of convenience and to the natural tendencies of the
mind. If the case is different with the laws of the production of
wealth, it must be because, in this case, the general laws differ in
kind from the particular ones. But if so, the difference in kind is the
radical distinction, and we should find out what that is, and found our
definition upon it.
But, further, the recognised boundaries which separate the field of
Political Economy from that of physical science, by no means correspond
with the distinction between the truths which concern all kinds of
wealth and those which relate only to some kinds. The three laws of
motion, and the law of gravitation, are common, as far as human
observation has yet extended, to all matter; and these, therefore, as
being among the laws of the production of all wealth, should form part
of Political Economy. There are hardly any of the processes of industry
which do not partly depend upon the properties of the lever; but it
would be a strange classification which included those properties among
the truths of Political Economy. Again, the latter science has many
inquiries altogether as special, and relating as exclusively to
particular sorts of material objects, as any of the branches of physical
science. The investigation of some of the circumstances which regulate
the price of corn, has as little to do with the laws common to the
production of all wealth, as any part of the knowledge of the
agriculturist. The inquiry into the rent of mines or fisheries, or into
the value of the precious metals, elicits truths which have immediate
reference to the production solely of a peculiar kind of wealth; yet
these are admitted to be correctly placed in the science of Political
Economy.
The real distinction between Political Economy and physical science must
be sought in something deeper than the nature of the subject-matter;
which, indeed, is for the most part common to both. Political Economy,
and the scientific grounds of all the useful arts, have in truth one and
the same subject-matter; namely, the objects which conduce to man's
convenience and enjoyment: but they are, nevertheless, perfectly
distinct branches of knowledge.
3. If we contemplate the whole field of human knowledge, attained or
attainable, we find that it separates itself obviously, and as it were
spontaneously, into two divisions, which stand so strikingly in
opposition and contradistinction to one another, that in all
classifications of our knowledge they have been kept apart. These are,
_physical_ science, and _moral_ or psychological science. The difference
between these two departments of our knowledge does not reside in the
subject-matter with which they are conversant: for although, of the
simplest and most elementary parts of each, it may be said, with an
approach to truth, that they are concerned with different subject-
matters--namely, the one with the human mind, the other with all things
whatever except the mind; this distinction does not hold between the
higher regions of the two. Take the science of politics, for instance,
or that of law: who will say that these are physical sciences? and yet
is it not obvious that they are conversant fully as much with matter as
with mind? Take, again, the theory of music, of painting, of any other
of the fine arts, and who will venture to pronounce that the facts they
are conversant with belong either wholly to the class of matter, or
wholly to that of mind?
The following seems to be the _rationale_ of the distinction between
physical and moral science.
In all the intercourse of man with nature, whether we consider him as
acting upon it, or as receiving impressions from it, the effect or
phenomenon depends upon causes of two kinds: the properties of the
object acting, and those of the object acted upon. Everything which can
possibly happen in which man and external things, are jointly concerned,
results from the joint operation of a law or laws of matter, and a law
or laws of the human mind. Thus the production of corn by human labour
is the result of a law of mind, and many laws of matter. The laws of
matter are those properties of the soil and of vegetable life which
cause the seed to germinate in the ground, and those properties of the
human body which render food necessary to its support. The law of mind
is, that man desires to possess subsistence, and consequently wills the
necessary means of procuring it.
Laws of mind and laws of matter are so dissimilar in their nature, that
it would be contrary to all principles of rational arrangement to mix
them up as part of the same study. In all scientific methods, therefore,
they are placed apart. Any compound effect or phenomenon which depends
both on the properties of matter and on those of mind, may thus become
the subject of two completely distinct sciences, or branches of science;
one, treating of the phenomenon in so far as it depends upon the laws of
matter only; the other treating of it in so far as it depends upon the
laws of mind.
The physical sciences are those which treat of the laws of matter, and
of all complex phenomena in so far as dependent upon the laws of matter.
The mental or moral sciences are those which treat of the laws of mind,
and of all complex phenomena in so far as dependent upon the laws of
mind.
Most of the moral sciences presuppose physical science; but few of the
physical sciences presuppose moral science. The reason is obvious. There
are many phenomena (an earthquake, for example, or the motions of the
planets) which depend upon the laws of matter exclusively; and have
nothing whatever to do with the laws of mind. Many, therefore, of the
physical sciences may be treated of without any reference to mind, and
as if the mind existed as a recipient of knowledge only, not as a cause
producing effects. But there are no phenomena which depend exclusively
upon the laws of mind; even the phenomena of the mind itself being
partially dependent upon the physiological laws of the body. All the
mental sciences, therefore, not excepting the pure science of mind, must
take account of a great variety of physical truths; and (as physical
science is commonly and very properly studied first) may be said to
presuppose them, taking up the complex phenomena where physical science
leaves them.
Now this, it will be found, is a precise statement of the relation in
which Political Economy stands to the various sciences which are
tributary to the arts of production.
The laws of the production of the objects which constitute wealth, are
the subject-matter both of Political Economy and of almost all the
physical sciences. Such, however, of those laws as are purely laws of
matter, belong to physical science, and to that exclusively. Such of
them as are laws of the human mind, and no others, belong to Political
Economy, which finally sums up the result of both combined.
Political Economy, therefore, presupposes all the physical sciences; it
takes for granted all such of the truths of those sciences as are
concerned in the production of the objects demanded by the wants of
mankind; or at least it takes for granted that the physical part of the
process takes place somehow. It then inquires what are the phenomena of
_mind_ which are concerned in the production and distribution [8] of
those same objects; it borrows from the pure science of mind the laws of
those phenomena, and inquires what effects follow from these mental
laws, acting in concurrence with those physical one. [9]
From the above considerations the following seems to come out as the
correct and complete definition of Political Economy:--"The science
which treats of the production and distribution of wealth, so far as
they depend upon the laws of human nature." Or thus--science relating to
the moral or psychological laws of the production and distribution of
wealth."
For popular use this definition is amply sufficient, but it still falls
short of the complete accuracy required for the purposes of the
philosopher. Political Economy does not treat of the production and
distribution of wealth in all states of mankind, but only in what is
termed the social state; nor so far as they depend upon the laws of
human nature, but only so far as they depend upon a certain portion of
those laws. This, at least, is the view which must be taken of Political
Economy, if we mean it to find any place in an encyclopedical division
of the field of science. On any other view, it either is not science at
all, or it is several sciences. This will appear clearly, if, on the one
hand, we take a general survey of the moral sciences, with a view to
assign the exact place of Political Economy among them; while, on the
other, we consider attentively the nature of the methods or processes by
which the truths which are the object of those sciences are arrived at.
Man, who, considered as a being having a moral or mental nature, is the
subject-matter of all the moral sciences, may, with reference to that
part of his nature, form the subject of philosophical inquiry under
several distinct hypotheses. We may inquire what belongs to man
considered individually, and as if no human being existed besides
himself; we may next consider him as coming into contact with other
individuals; and finally, as living in a state of _society_, that is,
forming part of a body or aggregation of human beings, systematically
co-operating for common purposes. Of this last state, political
government, or subjection to a common superior, is an ordinary
ingredient, but forms no necessary part of the conception, and, with
respect to our present purpose, needs not be further adverted to.
Those laws or properties of human nature which appertain to man as a
mere individual, and do not presuppose, as a necessary condition, the
existence of other individuals (except, perhaps, as mere instruments or
means), form a part of the subject of pure mental philosophy. They
comprise all the laws of the mere intellect, and those of the purely
self-regarding desires.
Those laws of human nature which relate to the feelings called forth in
a human being by other individual human or intelligent beings, as such;
namely, the _affections_, the _conscience_, or feeling of duty, and the
love of _approbation_; and to the conduct of man, so far as it depends
upon, or has relation to, these parts of his nature--form the subject of
another portion of pure mental philosophy, namely, that portion of it on
which _morals_, or _ethics_, are founded. For morality itself is not a
science, but an art; not truths, but rules. The truths on which the
rules are founded are drawn (as is the case in all arts) from a variety
of sciences; but the principal of them, and those which are most nearly
peculiar to this particular art, belong to a branch of the science of
mind.
Finally, there are certain principles of human nature which are
peculiarly connected with the ideas and feelings generated in man by
living in a state of _society_, that is, by forming part of a union or
aggregation of human beings for a common purpose or purposes. Few,
indeed, of the elementary laws of the human mind are peculiar to this
state, almost all being called into action in the two other states. But
those simple laws of human nature, operating in that wider field, give
rise to results of a sufficiently universal character, and even (when
compared with the still more complex phenomena of which they are the
determining causes) sufficiently simple, to admit of being called,
though in a somewhat looser sense, _laws_ of society, or laws of human
nature in the social state. These laws, or general truths, form the
subject of a branch of science which may be aptly designated from the
title of _social economy_; somewhat less happily by that of _speculative
politics_, or the _science_ of politics, as contradistinguished from the
art. This science stands in the same relation to the social, as anatomy
and physiology to the physical body. It shows by what principles of his
nature man is induced to enter into a state of society; how this feature
in his position acts upon his interests and feelings, and through them
upon his conduct; how the association tends progressively to become
closer, and the co-operation extends itself to more and more purposes;
what those purposes are, and what the varieties of means most generally
adopted for furthering them; what are the various relations which
establish themselves among human beings as the ordinary consequence of
the social union; what those which are different in different states of
society; in what historical order those states tend to succeed one
another; and what are the effects of each upon the conduct and character
of man.
This branch of science, whether we prefer to call it social economy,
speculative politics, or the natural history of society, presupposes the
whole science of the nature of the individual mind; since all the laws
of which the latter science takes cognizance are brought into play in a
state of society, and the truths of the social science are but
statements of the manner in which those simple laws take effect in
complicated circumstances. Pure mental philosophy, therefore, is an
essential part, or preliminary, of political philosophy. The science of
social economy embraces every part of man's nature, in so far as
influencing the conduct or condition of man in society; and therefore
may it be termed speculative politics, as being the scientific
foundation of practical politics, or the art of government, of which the
art of legislation is a part. [10]
It is to _this_ important division of the field of science that one of
the writers who have most correctly conceived and copiously illustrated
its nature and limits,--we mean M. Say,--has chosen to give the name
Political Economy. And, indeed, this large extension of the
signification of that term is countenanced by its etymology. But the
words "political economy" have long ceased to have so large a meaning.
Every writer is entitled to use the words which are his tools in the
manner which he judges most conducive to the general purposes of the
exposition of truth; but he exercises this discretion under liability to
criticism: and M. Say seems to have done in this instance, what should
never be done without strong reasons; to have altered the meaning of a
name which was appropriated to a particular purpose (and for which,
therefore, a substitute must be provided), in order to transfer it to an
object for which it was easy to find a more characteristic denomination.