In immediate connection with this difficulty there rises the question, Is Wealth, in the economic sense of Is Wealth

the

the term, really the subject-matter of Political subjectEconomy? If so, and if Wealth consists, as we matter? have seen it defined, of all objects necessary, useful, or agreeable to man, then Political Economy must be a very comprehensive science indeed, for there is scarcely an object that can be mentioned the possession of which is not more or less necessary, useful, or agreeable to some one, somewhere, at one time or other; and if, as J. S. Mill and his followers tell us, it is the object of Political Economy to investigate the nature of the laws which regulate the production and distribution (and, according to some, even the accumulation and consumption) of all things which constitute Wealth, there would absolutely be no limit to the inquiry, which would embrace an investigation into the nature of, and the laws which govern, everything under the sun. It is evident that economic writers have never sufficiently considered the import of this definition, or they could not have put it forth to the world in the manner they have done.

ques

Is Political

Economy a

There is another consideration involved in this tion. If Wealth consists of material objects (which no economic writer has yet called in question, although Mill would not limit his definition to these), then Political Economy

mental or

a physical

science ?

"7. It is better to form new words as technical terms than to employ old ones in which the three last aphorisms cannot be complied with." Dissert. on the Progress of Ethical Philosophy. Works, vol. i. p. 5.

would be a physical and not a mental science. On the other hand, if Political Economy be a mental science, it has just as much concern with the objects which constitute wealth as Psychology, for instance, or Ethics has with the external world. It is a matter of the very greatest importance to have clear ideas on this point, as for want of them most writers on this subject. have helplessly involved themselves in a maze of

error.

Mill's view.

The confusion of ideas we find existing, even amongst the most eminent authorities, as to the true character of Economic Science, is most remarkable. The only writers who have attempted to define the position of Political Economy are J. S. Mill and Prof. Cairnes, and neither of them has, it appears to me, succeeded in dealing with the subject in a satisfactory manner. "The laws of the production of the objects which constitute wealth," says Mill, "are the subject-matter both of Political Economy and of almost all the physical sciences. Such, however, of these laws as are purely laws of matter, belong to physical science, and to that exclusively. Such of these as are the laws of human mind, and no others, belong to Political Economy, which finally sums up the result of both combined." It would be difficult to put together statements more irreconcilable with each other than those contained in the three sentences I have just quoted. "The laws of the objects

1

1 Some Unsettled Questions of Political Economy, p. 132.

which constitute wealth," we are told in the first sentence, "are the subject-matter of Political Economy" in common with all the physical sciences; in the second we are informed that only "such of these laws as are the laws of human mind" belong to this science; and in the third, notwithstanding we have just been informed that Political Economy has to deal with only a portion of these laws, it is stated, that it "finally sums up the result of both combined." One thing only is certain, that all three statements cannot be correct; for if Political Economy has to deal with the laws of matter, it cannot be a mental science; if, on the other hand, it has to deal with the laws of mind, it cannot be a physical science; and lastly, if it has to deal with both, it cannot be exclusively either the one or the other.

Prof. Cairnes's explanation is, if possible, still more unintelligible. Political Economy is, Cairnes's according to this writer, "the science which, view. accepting as ultimate facts the principles of human nature and the physical laws of the external world, investigates the laws of the production and distribution of wealth, which results from their combined operation." This definition is comprehensive enough if it has not the merit of clearness, and his remarks. farther on do not help to simplify matters in the least. "The laws of the phenomena of wealth which belong to Political Economy to explain," he says, "depend equally

1 Character and Logical Method of Political Economy, p. 10.

on physical and mental laws," and "the subject-matter of Political Economy, namely, wealth, is neither purely physical nor purely mental, but possesses a complex character equally derived from both departments of nature, and the laws of which are neither mental nor physical laws, though they are dependent, and, as I maintain, dependent equally, on the laws of matter and on those of mind." And again :-"Political Economy belongs neither to the department of physical nor that of mental inquiry, but occupies an intermediate position."1 I confess I am unable to understand what these laws are which are neither physical nor mental; and I am equally at a loss to conceive the nature of the science which is here said to occupy an intermediate position between matter and mind.

mental

science.

At this stage of the inquiry, I content myself with Political stating that I regard Political Economy as a Economy a purely mental science. When we consider that industrial phenomena are the product of human actions, and that human actions again are the product of mental impulses, no other conclusion appears to me to be possible. It is true that in treating of industrial phenomena we come into contact with material objects, but the fact does not necessarily make Political Economy a physical science. Even in the science of pure mind, we are constantly brought face to face with matter, as, for instance, when we trace ideas and sensations to certain external objects which produce them; but mental

1 Character and Logical Method of Political Economy, p. 24.

science does not concern itself with the external objects, being occupied exclusively with the sensations and ideas of which they are merely the inciting cause. So it is with the material objects which constitute Wealth. It is not with these that Political Economy has to deal, but with the impressions which they produce, the mental associations connected with them, and the Desires which their presence or absence incite. Thus the presence of food produces a sensation of pleasure, and the absence of food a sensation of pain. The association connected in the mind with these sensations, and an object supposed to be capable of producing them, incite a desire to obtain possession of that object. These are all mental phenomena; and I maintain that it is with these, and with these exclusively, that Economic Science has to deal. Whether wheat, for instance, is a more nourishing article of human food than oats or barley, is no concern of the farmer who grows it, of the miller who grinds it, or of the baker who bakes it; the fact that wheat is an object of human desire is alone sufficient to ensure the expenditure of human labour in its production; and the various processes involved in its production, its conversion into flour and again into bread, form no part of the subject-matter of Economic Science, but belong properly to practical agriculture and domestic economy. The sole importance which this or any other object of Wealth has to the student of Economic Science, lies in the fact that it is, has been, or may become, an object of human desire.