PREFACE TO THE THIRD EDITION.

The first edition of this work, which appeared in 1825, was nearly a reprint of the article on Political Economy in the Supplement to the “Encyclopædia Britannica,” edited by our friend the late Mr. Macvey Napier. That article was necessarily, from the limited space within which it had to be compressed, confined to a statement of the fundamental principles of the science, prefaced by a short sketch of its history,1 and admitted of but few illustrations of the practical working of the different systems and measures referred to in the course of the work. If this were a defect in the original essay, it was but slightly amended on its first republication in a separate volume. But, on further reflection, we were led to believe that the work would gain in utility and interest, and that the distinguishing doctrines of the science would, at the same time, be better understood, if more attention were paid to practical considerations, and it were shown how the interests of society were affected, as Edition: current; Page: [viii] well by the neglect as by the application of its theories. Hence the second edition of the work published in 1830, had much more of a practical character than the first; and while we endeavoured to simplify the theoretical investigations, and to set the general principles and conclusions in a clear point of view, we added a chapter on the Interference of Government, and extended those portions which treat of the application of the science, or of the influence which its principles, if acted upon, would most likely exert over some of the more important departments of national economy.

Time has since been afforded for additional observation and consideration; and these have strengthened the conviction, that the principle we followed in drawing up the edition of 1830, is, on the whole, the best. In this edition, consequently, a still greater extension has been given to the practical parts, or to inquiries respecting the real or probable influence of different systems of economical legislation, over the wealth and well-being of society. The work, indeed, is no longer to be regarded as a mere attempt to trace and exhibit the principles of Political Economy; but also as an attempt, however imperfect, to exhibit their more important applications.

We are aware that, in adopting this course, it may be said that we have stepped beyond the proper limits of the science, and encroached on ground belonging to the legislator and politician. But the truth is, that Political Economy and Politics are so very closely allied, and run into and mix with each Edition: current; Page: [ix] other in so many ways, that they cannot always be separately considered. Mr. Senior,1 the ablest and most distinguished defender of what may be called the restricted system of Political Economy, says “that wealth, and not happiness,” is the subject with which the economist has to deal. But, supposing this to be the case, the latter, in explaining the circumstances most favourable for the production of wealth and its accumulation, is not to content himself with showing the influence of the security of property, the division and combination of employments, and the freedom of industry over its production. If he stopped at this point, he would have done little more than announce a few barren generalities, of little real utility. It is not enough to point out the general rule or principle to be appealed to on any given occasion; the really useful and important part is to show how the objections that may be made to the application of such rule or principle may be repelled, to point out its limitations, and to estimate its practical operation and real influence. Every one admits, for example, that security of property, at least to some extent, is indispensable to the production of wealth; but security is not to be confined to the mere freedom to dispense at pleasure of property during one’s own life. It extends to many other things. It is necessary, for example, that individuals should be permitted to exert some degree of authority over the disposal of property in the event of their Edition: current; Page: [x] death; and this being admitted, it follows that all the knotty questions respecting conditions in wills, the influence of primogeniture and entails, compared with the system of equal partition, and so forth, come legitimately within the scope of the inquiries belonging to this science; the economist being bound to show the bearing of each system that may be proposed over the production and distribution of wealth.

It would be easy to give innumerable examples of the way in which this science necessarily involves discussions and inquiries extending beyond what may, at first sight, be supposed to be its natural limits. It may, for example, be laid down as a general rule, that the more individuals are thrown on their own resources, and the less they are taught to rely on extrinsic and adventitious assistance, the more industrious and economical will they become, and the greater, consequently, will be the amount of public wealth. But even in mechanics, the engineer must allow for the friction and resistance of matter; and it is still more necessary that the economist should make a corresponding allowance, seeing that he has to deal not only with natural powers, but with human beings enjoying political privileges, and imbued with the strongest feelings, passions, and prejudices. Although, therefore, the general principle as to self-reliance be as stated above, the economist or the politician who should propose carrying it out to its full extent in all cases and at all hazards, would be fitter for bedlam than for the closet or the cabinet. When any Edition: current; Page: [xi] great number of work-people are thrown out of employment, they must be provided for by extraneous assistance in one way or other; so that the various questions with respect to a voluntary and compulsory provision for the destitute poor, are as necessary parts of this science as the theories of rent and of profit.

It is obvious, too, that all the complicated and difficult questions, with respect to the influence of taxes and loans over the wealth and well-being of the public, come within the scope of this science, and form, indeed, one of its most attractive departments. But, owing to their extent and difficulty, we have been unable to profit by the interest they might have given to this work. We hope, however, to be able, at some not very distant period, to investigate, in detail, the various matters connected with taxation; and to embody the results of our researches in a supplementary volume on its principles and practical influence.1

We are also inclined to dissent from Mr. Senior, when he lays it down that the economist “is not to give a single syllable of advice,” and that “his business is neither to recommend nor dissuade, but to state general principles!” This, no doubt, is a part of his business; but we cannot bring ourselves to believe that it is either the whole or even the greater part of it. On the contrary, it appears to us Edition: current; Page: [xii] that the economist is bound, whenever he sees cause, to dissuade, censure, and commend, quite as much as the politician, or any one else. In treating, for example, of the influence of restrictions, is he not to censure those which, by fettering the freedom of industry, hinder the production of wealth? and is he not to commend the measures by which, and the ministers by whom, such restrictions are abolished? The economist who confines himself to the mere enunciation of general principles, or abstract truths, may as well address himself to the Pump in Aldgate, as to the British public. If he wish to be anything better than a declaimer, or to confer any real advantage on any class of his countrymen, he must leave general reasoning, and show the extent of the injury entailed on the community by the neglect of his principles; how their application may be best effected; and the advantages of which it will be productive. This science has its practical as well as its theoretical portion; and the economist will abdicate his principal functions if he do not call the public attention to every institution or regulation which appears, on a careful inquiry, to be adverse to the increase of public wealth and happiness. Unless he do this, he can be little else than a mere ideologist, about whose speculations most people will, very properly, care little or nothing.

We have elsewhere (Introductory Discourse to the Wealth of Nations) endeavoured to point out the distinction between Politics and Political Economy; and here we shall merely observe, that, though all inquiries into the constitution and character of Edition: current; Page: [xiii] Governments be foreign to the business of the economist, it is his province to examine such laws or regulations as may appear (whether directly or indirectly is immaterial) to influence the production and distribution of wealth. It may be inexpedient for him to give any opinion upon the policy of measures involving various considerations; but, if he make a fair estimate of their influence in an economical point of view, and show their probable operation over the wealth and comforts of the people, he is acting strictly in his sphere, and is entitling himself to the gratitude of his country.

Besides improperly limiting the sphere of the science, and depriving it of all practical utility, Mr. Senior appears to take an erroneous view of the evidence on which its principles and conclusions are founded. He affirms, for example, that the facts on which its general principles rest may be stated in a very few sentences, or rather in a very few words; and that the difficulty is merely in reasoning from them. But while we admit the difficulty of drawing correct inferences, we greatly doubt whether the general principles can be so easily established as Mr. Senior supposes. He lays it down, for example, as a general principle, or rather axiom, that, supposing agricultural skill to remain the same, additional labour employed on the land will, speaking generally, yield a less return. But though this proposition be undoubtedly true, it is at the same time quite as true that agricultural skill never remains the same for the smallest portion of time; and that its improvement Edition: current; Page: [xiv] may eountervail, for any given period, the decreasing fertility of the soils to which recourse is necessarily had in the progress of civilisation. It would, indeed, be easy to show, that the worst lands now under tillage in England, yield more produce per acre, and more as compared with the outlay, than the best lands did in the reigns of the Edwards and the Henrys. It is, therefore, to no purpose to say, that the science rests on principles of this description. They, no doubt, form a part of its foundation; but as they are modified in different degrees by others, the only general principles of any practical value are those deduced from observations made on their combined action; or, in other words, on the phenomena really manifested in the progress of society. “Il ne suffit,” to use the words of M. Say, “de partir des faits: il faut se placer dedans, marcher avec eux, et comparer incessamment les conséquences que l’on tire avec les effets qu’on observe. L’économie politique, pour être véritablement utile, ne doit pas enseigner, fût-ce par des raisonnemens justes, et en partant des premisses certaines, ce qui doit nécessairement arriver; elle doit montrer comment ce qui arrive réellement est la conséquence d’un autre fait réel. Elle doit découvrir la chaine que les lie, et toujours constater par l’observation, l’existence des deux points où la chaine des raisonnemens se rattache.”1

That a free commercial intercourse amongst different nations would be for their mutual advantage, is a proposition which is very generally true; and being so, every proposal for a restriction on commerce Edition: current; Page: [xv] may be fairly presumed to be inexpedient till the reverse be established. There can, however, be no manner of doubt that there are cases, though but few in number, in which nations would grossly overlook their own interests if they permitted a free intercourse with their neighbours. Suppose, for example, we had a monopoly of the supply of coal, it would not be difficult to show that it would be good policy, with a view to the increase of national wealth and security, either wholly to prohibit, or to lay a high duty on its exportation; and so in other instances.

The recent history of the theory of population affords a striking instance of the abuse of general principles, or rather of the folly of building exclusively upon one set of principles, without attending to the influence of the antagonist principles by which they are partly or wholly countervailed. The principle of increase, as explained by Malthus,1 and afterwards by Chalmers, appeared to form an insuperable obstacle to all permanent improvement in the condition of society, and to condemn the great majority of the human race to a state approaching to destitution. But farther inquiries have shown that the inferences drawn by these and other authorities from the principle now referred to, are contradicted by the widest experience; that the too rapid increase of Edition: current; Page: [xvi] population is almost always prevented by the influence of principles which its increase brings into activity; that a vast improvement has taken place in the condition of the people of most countries, particularly of those in which population has increased with the greatest rapadity;1 and that, so far from being inimical to improvement, we are really indebted to the principle of increase for most part of our comforts and enjoyments, and for the continued progress of arts and industry.2

The real difficulty does not, therefore, lie in discussing matters connected with this science, in the statement of general principles, or in reasoning fairly from them; but it lies in the discovery of the secondary or modifying principles, which are always in action, and in making proper allowance for their influence. Food is necessary to existence; and it may, therefore, be laid down as a general principle, that this necessity on the one hand, and the difficulty of getting food on the other, tend to make every man die of hunger. Such, however, and so powerful are the countervailing influences, that not one individual out of 10,000 dies of want; and this being the case, Edition: current; Page: [xvii] a theory which should overlook these influences would not, we think, be good for much.

We have had occasion, in several parts of the following work, to regret that the evidence to which it is in our power to appeal, is insufficient to enable any certain conclusions to be come to with respect to some important questions involved in the application of the science. Generally, indeed, we may predicate, with considerable confidence, the more immediate results that would follow the adoption of any novel system of measures; but it is extremely difficult, or rather, perhaps, impossible, without an extensive analogous experience, to foretell its remoter consequences; because we must, in the absence of such experience, be necessarily in the dark respecting the nature and influence of the modifying principles which the change of measures would no doubt bring into action. Notwithstanding the pretensions so frequently put forward by politicians and economists, some of the more interesting portions of the sciences which they profess are still very imperfectly understood; and the important art of applying them to the affairs of mankind, so as to produce the greatest amount of permanent good, has made but little progress, and is hardly, indeed, advanced beyond infancy. Initiatos nos credimus dum in vestibulo hæremus. Nor, considering the totally different circumstances under which society is now placed, from those under which it was placed in previous ages, and the consequent want of applicable experience, is this deficiency of knowledge to be wondered at. The Edition: current; Page: [xviii]Leges Legum, to which Lord Bacon says appeal may be made to learn quid in singulis legibus bene aut perperam positum aut constitutum sit, have yet, in great measure, to be ascertained. However humiliating the confession, it is certainly true that, owing to the want of information, not a few of the most interesting problems in economical legislation are at present all but insoluble; and it must be left to the economists of future ages, who will, no doubt, be able to appeal to principles that have not yet developed themselves, or that have escaped observation, to perfect the theoretical, and to complete or reconstruct the practical part of the science.

But, however we may differ from Mr. Senior in our view of the principles of the science, and the mode of its application to the business of life, we cordially agree in all that he has stated as to the duty of every one who attempts to explain its principles, or to show how they should be applied:—“Employed as he is upon a science, in which error, or even ignorance, may be productive of such intense and extensive mischief, he is bound, like a juryman, to give deliverance true according to the evidence, and to allow neither sympathy with indigence, nor disgust at profusion or at avarice; neither reverence for existing institutions, nor disgust at existing abuses; neither love of popularity, nor of paradox, nor of system, to deter him from stating what he believes to be the facts, or from drawing from those facts what appear to be the legitimate conclusions.”

We have endeavoured as well as we could to Edition: current; Page: [xix] conduct our investigations under a deep sense of the obligations so forcibly set forth in this admirable paragraph. Where, however, the subjects are so very difficult, and the evidence not unfrequently conflicting, incomplete, and questionable, we doubt whether we have been always sagacious enough to arrive at a “true deliverance.” But we have done our best to avoid error; and while we have not hesitated to speak with the utmost freedom of the institutions, systems, and opinions we have had to review, we are not conscious of having, in any instance, allowed our judgment to be warped by personal feeling or political prejudice.

London,

November 1842.

Edition: current; Page: [xx]