Hisprincipalwritingsofageneralcharacterwere—TheEconomist[i。e。，Physiocrat]Refuted，1808;EssayontheProduction
ofWealth，1821;EssayontheExternalCornTrade（eulogisedbyRicardo），3ded。，1826;TheBudget，aseriesofLetterson
Financial，Commercial，andColonialPolicy，1841—3。HarrietMartineau（1802—1876）popularisedthedoctrinesofMalthus
andRicardoinherIllustrationsofPoliticalEconomy（1832—34），aseriesoftales，inwhichthereismuchexcellent
description，buttheeffectofthenarrativeisoftenmarredbythesomewhatponderousdisquisitionshereandtherethrownin，
usuallyintheformofdialogue。
OtherwriterswhooughttobenamedinanyhistoryofthescienceareCharlesBabbage，OntheEconomyofMachineryand
Manufactures（1832），chieflydescriptive，butalsoinparttheoretic;WilliamThomasThornton，Overpopulationandits
Remedy（1846），APleaforPeasantProprietors（1848），OnLabour（1869;2ded。，1870）;HermanMerivale，Lectureson
ColonisationandColonies（1841—2;newed。，1861）;T。C。Banfield，TheOrganisationofIndustryExplained（1844;2ded。，
1848）;andEdwardGibbonWakefield，AViewoftheArtofColonisation（1849）。ThomasChalmers，wellknowninother
fieldsofthought，wasauthorofTheChristianandcivicEconomyofLargeTowns（1821—36），andOnPoliticalEconomyin
ConnectionwiththeMoralStateandMoralPropsectsofSociety（1832）;hestronglyopposedanysystemoflegalcharity，
andwhilstjustlyinsistingontheprimaryimportanceofmorality，industry，andthriftasconditionsofpopularwell—being，
carriedtheMalthusiandoctrinestoexcess。NorwasIrelandwithoutashareintheeconomicmovementoftheperiod。（52）Whately，havingbeensecondDrummondprofessorofpoliticaleconomyatOxford（insuccessiontoSenior），anddelivered
inthatcapacityhisIntroductoryLectures（1831），foundedin1832，whenhewenttoIrelandasarchbishopofDublin，a
similarprofessorshipinTrinityCollege，Dublin。ItwasfirstheldbyMountifortLongfield，afterwardsJudgeoftheLanded
EstatesCourt，Ireland（d。1884）。Hepublishedlecturesonthesciencegenerally（1834），onPoorLaws（1834），andonCommerceandAbsenteeism（1835），whichweremarkedbyindependenceofthoughtandsagaciousobservation。Hewas
laudablyfreefrommanyoftheexaggerationsofhiscontemporaries;hesaid，in1835，\"inpoliticaleconomywemustnot
abstracttoomuch，\"andprotestedagainsttheassumptioncommonlymadethat\"menareguidedinalltheirconductbya
prudentregardtotheirowninterest。\"JamesA。Lawson（afterwardsMr。JusticeLawson，d。1887）alsopublishedsome
lectures（1844），deliveredfromthesamechair，whichmaystillbereadwithinterestandprofit;hisdiscussionofthequestion
ofpopulationisespeciallygood;healsoassertedagainstSeniorthatthescienceisavidedefaits，andthatitmustreason
abouttheworldandmankindastheyreallyare。
ThemostsystematicandthoroughgoingoftheearliercriticsoftheRicardiansystemwasRichardJones（1790—1855），
professoratHaileybury。Joneshasreceivedscantjusticeatthehandsofhissuccessors。J。S。Mill，whilstusinghiswork，
gavehismeritsbutfaintrecognition。EvenRoschersaysthathedidnotthoroughlyunderstandRicardo，withoutgivingany
proofofthatassertion，whilstheissilentastothefactthatmuchofwhathasbeenpreachedbytheGermanhistoricalschool
isfounddistinctlyindicatedinJones’swritings。HehasbeensometimesrepresentedashavingrejectedtheAndersonian
doctrineofrent;butsuchastatementisincorrect。AttributingthedoctrinetoMalthus，hesaysthatthateconomist\"showed
satisfactorilythatwhenlandiscultivatedbycapitalistslivingontheprofitsoftheirstock，andabletomoveitatpleasureto
otheremployments，theexpenseoftillingtheworstqualityoflandcultivateddeterminestheaveragepriceofrawproduce，
whilethedifferenceofqualityofthesuperiorlandsmeasurestherentsyieldedbythem。\"Whathereallydeniedwasthe
applicationofthedoctrinetoallcaseswhererentispaid;hepointedoutinhisEssayontheDistributionofWealthandon
theSourcesofTaxation，1831，thatbesides\"farmers’rents，\"which，underthesupposedconditions，conformtotheabove
law，thereare\"peasantrents，\"paideverywherethroughthemostextendedperiodsofhistory，andstillpaidoverbyfarthe
largestpartoftheearth’ssurface，whicharenotsoregulated。Peasantrentshedividedundertheheadsof（1）serf，（2）
mitayer，（3）ryot，and（4）cottierrents，aclassificationafterwardsadoptedinsubstancebyJ。S。Mill;andheshowedthatthe
contractsfixingtheiramountwere，atleastinthefirstthreeclasses，determinedratherbycustomthanbycompetition。
PassingtothesuperstructureoftheoryerectedbyRicardoonthedoctrineofrentwhichhehadsoundulyextended，Jones
deniedmostoftheconclusionshehaddeduced，especiallythefollowing:——thattheincreaseoffarmers’rentsisalways
contemporarywithadecreaseintheproductivepowersofagriculture，andcomeswithlossanddistressinitstrain;thatthe
interestsoflandlordsarealwaysandnecessarilyopposedtotheinterestsofthestateandofeveryotherclassofsociety，。that
thediminutionoftherateofprofitsis—exclusivelydependentonthereturnstothecapitallastemployedontheland;and
thatwagescanriseonlyattheexpenseofprofits。
ThemethodfollowedbyJonesisinductive;hisconclusionsarefoundedonawideobservationofcontemporaryfacts，aided
bythestudyofhistory。\"If，\"hesaid，\"wewishtomakeourselvesacquaintedwiththeeconomyandarrangementsbywhich
thedifferentnationsoftheearthproduceanddistributetheirrevenues，Ireallyknowofbutonewaytoattainourobject，and
thatis，tolookandsee。Wemustgetcomprehensiveviewsoffacts，thatwemayarriveatprinciplesthataretruly
comprehensive。Ifwetakeadifferentmethod，ifwesnatchatgeneralprinciples，andcontentourselveswithconfined
observations，twothingswillhappentous。First，whatwecallgeneralprincipleswilloftenbefoundtohavenogenerality——weshallsetoutwithdeclaringpropositionstobeuniversallytruewhich，ateverystepofourfurtherprogress，wesh&llbe
obligedtoconfessarefrequentlyfalse;and，secondly，weshallmissagreatmassofusefulknowledgewhichthosewho
advancetoprinciplesbyacomprehensiveexaminationoffactsnecessarilymeetwithontheirroad。\"Theworldheprofessed
tostudywasnotanimaginaryworld，inhabitedbyabstract\"economicmen，\"buttherealworldwiththedifferentforms
whichtheownershipandcultivationofland，and，ingeneral，theconditionsofproductionanddistribution，assumeat
differenttimesandplaces。Hisrecognitionofsuchdifferentsystemsoflifeincommunitiesoccupyingdifferentstagesinthe
progressofcivilisationledtohisproposalofwhathecalleda\"politicaleconomyofnations。\"Thiswasaprotestagainstthe
practiceoftakingtheexceptionalstateoffactswhichexists，andisindeedonlypartiallyrealised，inasmallcornerofour
planetasrepresentingtheuniformtypeofhumansocieties，andignoringtheeffectsoftheearlyhistoryandspecial
developmentofeachcommunityasinfluencingitseconomicphenomena。
Itissometimesattemptedtoeludethenecessityforawiderrangeofstudybyallegingauniversaltendencyinthesocial
worldtoassumethisnowexceptionalshapeasitsnormalandultimateconstitution。Evenifthistendencywerereal（whichis
onlypartiallytrue，fortheexistingorderamongstourselvescannotberegarded%entirelydefinitive），itcouldnotbe
admittedthatthefactswitnessedinourcivilizationandthoseexhibitedinlessadvancedcommunitiesaresoapproximateas
tobecapableofbeingrepresentedbythesameformula。AsWhewell，ineditingJones’sRemains，1859，wellobserved，itis
trueinthephysicalworldthat\"allthingstendtoassumeaformdeterminedbytheforceofgravity;thehillstendtobecome
plains，thewater，theriverstofallstoeatawaytheirbedsanddisappear，formlakesinthevalleys，theglacierstopourdown
incataracts。\"Butarewetotreattheseresultsasachieved，becauseforcesareinoperationwhichmayultimatelybringthem
about？Allhumanquestionsarelargelyquestionsoftimeiandtheeconomicphenomenawhichreallybelongtotheseveral
stagesofthehumanmovementmustbestudiedastheyare，unlesswearecontenttofallintogrievouserrorbothinour
theoretictreatmentofthemandinthesolutionofthepracticalproblemstheypresent。
Jonesisremarkableforhisfreedomfromexaggerationandone—sidedstatement;thus，whilstholdingMalthusin，perhaps，
undueesteem，hedeclinestoacceptthepropositionthatanincreaseofthemeansofsubsistenceisnecessarilyfollowedby
anincreaseofpopulation;andhemaintainswhatisundoubtedlytrue，thatwiththegrowthofpopulation，inall
well—governedandprosperousstates，thecommandoverfood，insteadofdiminishing，increases。
Muchofwhathehasleftus—alargepartofwhichisunfortunatelyfragmentary—isakintothelaboursofCliffeLeslieatalater
period。Thelatter，however，hadtheadvantageofacquaintancewiththesociologyofComte，whichgavehimafirmergrasp
ofmethod，aswellasawiderviewofthegeneralmovementofsociety;and，whilstthevoiceofJoneswasbutlittleheard
amidstthegeneralapplauseaccordedtoRicardointheeconomicworldofhistime，Lesliewrotewhendisillusionhadsetin，
andthecurrentwasbeginningtoturninEnglandagainsttheapriorieconomics。
Comtesomewherespeaksofthe\"transientpredilection\"forpoliticaleconomywhichhadshownitselfgenerallyinwestern
Europe。ThisphaseoffeelingwasspeciallynoticeableinEnglandfromthethirdtothefifthdecadeofthepresentcentury。\"
Uptotheyear1818，\"saidawriterintheWestministerReview\"，thesciencewasscarcelyknownortalkedofbeyondasmall
circleofphilosophers;andlegislation，sofarfrombeinginconformitywithitsprinciples，wasdailyrecedingfromthemmore
andmore。\"Millhastolduswhatachangetookplacewithinafewyears。\"Politicaleconomy\"，hesays\"，hadasserteditself
withgreatvigourinpublicaffairsbythepetitionofthemerchantsofLondonforfreetrade，drawnupin1820byMr。Tooke
andpresentedbyMr。AlexanderBaring，（53）andbythenobleexertionsofRicardoduringthefewyearsofhisparliamentary
life。Hiswritings，followinguptheimpulsegivenbythebullioncontroversy，andfollowedupintheirturnbytheexpositions
andcommentsofmyfatherandM’Culloch（whosewritingsintheEdinburghReviewduringthoseyearsweremost
valuable），haddrawngeneralattentiontothesubject，makingatleastpartialconvertsintheCabinetitself。andHuskisson，
supportedbyCanning，hadcommencedthatgradualdemolitionoftheprotectivesystemwhichoneoftheircolleagues\"
[Peel]\"virtuallycompletedin1846，thoughthelastvestigeswereonlysweptawaybyMr。Gladstonein1860。\"Whilstthe
sciencewasthusattractingandfixingtheattentionofactiveminds，itsunsettledconditionwasfreelyadmitted。The
differencesofopinionamongitsprofessorswereafrequentsubjectofcomplaint。Butitwasconfidentlyexpectedthatthese
discrepancieswouldsoondisappear，andColonelTorrenspredictedthatintwentyyearstherewouldscarcely\"existadoubt
respectinganyofitsmorefundamentalprinciples。\"\"Theprosperity，\"saysMr。Sidgwick，\"thatfollowedontheabolitionof
thecornlawsgavepracticalmenamostimpressiveandsatisfyingproofofthesoundnessoftheabstractreasoningbywhich
theexpediencyoffreetradehadbeeninferred，\"andwhen，in1848，\"amasterlyexpositorofthoughthadpublishedaskilful
statementofthechiefresultsofthecontroversiesoftheprecedinggeneration，\"withthedue\"explanationsand
qualifications\"ofthereigningopinions，itwasforsomeyearsgenerallybelievedthatpoliticaleconomyhad\"emergedfrom
thestateofpolemicaldiscussion，\"atleastonitsleadingdoctrines，andthatatlengthasoundconstructionhadbeenerected
onpermanentbases。
ThisexpositorwasJohnStuartMill（1806—73）。Heexercised，withoutdoubt，agreaterinfluenceinthefieldofEnglish
economicsthananyotherwritersinceRicardo。Hissystematictreatisehasbeen，eitherdirectlyorthroughmanualsfounded
onit，especiallythatofFawcett，thesourcefromwhichmostofourcontemporariesinthesecountrieshavederivedtheir
knowledgeofthescience。Butthereareotheranddeeperreasons，asweshallsee，whichmakehim，inthisasinother
departmentsofknowledge，aspeciallyinterestingandsignificantfigure。
In1844hepublishedfiveEssaysonsomeUnsettledQuestionsofPoliticalEconomy，whichhadbeenwrittenasearlyas
1829and1830，buthad，withtheexceptionofthefifth，remainedinmanuscript。Intheseessaysiscontainedanydogmatic
contributionwhichhecanberegardedashavingmadetothescience。Thesubjectofthefirstisthelawsofinterchange
betweennations。Heshowsthat，whentwocountriestradetogetherintwocommodities，thepricesofthecommodities
exchangedonbothsides（which，asRicardohadproved，arenotdeterminedbycostofproduction）willadjustthemselves，
throughtheplayofreciprocaldemand，insuchawaythatthequantitiesrequiredbyeachcountryofthearticlewhichit
importsfromitsneighbourshallbeexactlysufficienttopayforoneanother。Thisisthelawwhichappears，withsomeadded
developments，inhissystematictreatiseunderthenameofthe\"equationofinternationaldemand。\"Hethendiscussesthe
divisionofthegains。Themostimportantpracticalconclusion（not，however，byanymeansanundisputedone）atwhichhe
arrivesinthisessayis，thattherelaxationofdutiesonforeigncommodities，notoperatingasprotectionbutmaintainedsolely
forrevenueshouldbemadecontingentontheadoptionofsomecorrespondingdegreeoffreedomoftradewithEnglandby
thenationfromwhichthecommoditiesareimported。Inthesecondessay，ontheinfluenceofconsumptiononproduction，
themostinterestingresultsarrivedatarethepropositions—（1）thatabsenteeismisalocal，notanational，evil，and（2）that，
whilsttherecannotbepermanentexcessofproduction，theremaybeatemporaryexcess，notonlyofanyonearticle，butof
commoditiesgenerally，—thislast，however，notarisingfromover—production，butfromawantofcommercialconfidence。The
thirdessayrelatestotheuseofthewords\"productive\"and\"unproductive\"asappliedtolabour，toconsumption，andto
expenditure。Thefourthdealswithprofitsandinterest，especiallyexplainingandsojustifyingRicardo’stheoremthat\"profits
dependonwages，risingaswagesfallandfallingaswagesrise。\"WhatRicardomeantwasthatprofitsdependonthecostof
wagesestimatedinlabour。Henceimprovementsintheproductionofarticleshabituallyconsumedbythelabourermay
increaseprofitswithoutdiminishingtherealremunerationofthelabourer。Thelastessayisonthedefinitionandmethodof
politicaleconomy，asubjectlaterandmorematurelytreatedintheauthor’sSystemofLogic。
In1848MillpublishedhisPrinciplesofPoliticalEconomy，withsomeoftheirApplicationstoSocialPhilosophy。Thistitle，
though，asweshallsee，opentocriticism，indicatedonthepartoftheauthoralessnarrowandformalconceptionofthe
fieldofthesciencethanhadbeencommonamongsthispredecessors。Heaimed，infact，atproducingaworkwhichmight
replaceinordinaryusetheWealthofNations，whichinhisopinionwas\"inmanypartsobsoleteandinallimperfect。\"Adam
Smithhadinvariablyassociatedthegeneralprinciplesofthesubjectwiththeirapplications，andintreatingthoseapplications
hadoftenappealedtootherandfarlargerconsiderationsthanpurepoliticaleconomyaffords，AndinthesamespiritMill
desired，whilstincorporatingalltheresultsarrivedatinthespecialsciencebySmith’ssuccessors，toexhibitpurelyeconomic
phenomenainrelationtothemostadvancedconceptionsofhisowntimeonthegeneralphilosophyofsociety，asSmithhad
doneinreferencetothephilosophyoftheeighteenthcentury。（54）
Thisdesignhecertainlyfailedtorealise。Hisbookisveryfarindeedfrombeinga\"modernAdamSmith。\"Itisanadmirably
lucidandevenelegantexpositionoftheRicardianeconomics，theMalthusiantheorybeingofcourseincorporatedwith
these，but，notwithstandingtheintroductionofmanyminornovelties，itis，initsscientificsubstance，littleornothingmore。
WhenCliffeLesliesaysthatMillsoqualifiedandamendedthedoctrinesofRicardothatthelattercouldscarcelyhave
recognizedthem，hecertainlygoesagreatdealtoofar，。Seniorreallydidmoreinthatdirection。Mill’seffortisusuallyto
vindicatehismasterwhereothershavecensuredhim，andtopalliatehisadmittedlaxitiesofexpression。Alreadyhisprofound
esteemforRicardo’sservicestoeconomicshadbeenmanifestinhisEssays，wherehesaysofhim，withsomeinjusticeto
Smith，that，\"havingasciencetocreate，\"hecouldnot\"occupyhimselfwithmorethantheleadingprinciples，。’andaddsthat
\"noonewhohasthoroughlyenteredintohisdiscoveries\"willfindanydifficultyinworkingout\"eventheminutiaeofthe
science。\"JamesMill，too，hadbeenessentiallyanexpounderofRicardo;andtheson，whilstgreatlysuperiortohisfatherin
theattractivenessofhisexpositorystyle，is，inregardtohiseconomicdoctrine，substantiallyatthesamepointofview。Itis
intheirgeneralphilosophicalconceptionsandtheirviewsofsocialaimsandidealsthattheelderandyoungerMilloccupy
quitedifferentpositionsinthelineofprogress。Thelattercouldnot，forexample，inhisadultperiodhaveputforwardasa
theoryofgovernmenttheshallowsophistrieswhichtheplaingoodsenseofMacaulaysufficedtoexposeinthewritingsof
theformer;andhehadanoblenessoffeelingwhich，inrelationtothehighersocialquestions，raisedhimfarabovethe
ordinarycoarseutilitarianismoftheBenthamites。
ThelargerandmorephilosophicspiritinwhichMilldealtwithsocialsubjectswasundoubtedlyingreatmeasureduetothe
influenceofComte，towhom，asBainjustlysays，hewasundergreaterobligationsthanhehimselfwasdisposedtoadmit。
Hadhemorecompletelyundergonethatinfluencewearesometimestemptedtothinkhemighthavewroughtthereformin
economicswhichstillremainstobeachieved，emancipatingthesciencefromtheapriori;system，andfoundingagenuine
theoryofindustriallifeonobservationinthebroadestsense。Butprobablythetimewasnotripeforsuchaconstruction，and
itispossiblethatMill’snativeintellectualdefectsmighthavemadehimunfitforthetask，for，asRoscherhassaid，\"ein
historischerKopfwarernicht。\"Howeverthismighthavebeen，theeffectsofhisearlytraining，inwhichpositivewere
largelyalloyedwithmetaphysicalelements，sufficedinfacttopreventhisattainingaperfectlynormalmentalattitude。He
neveraltogetherovercametheviciousdirectionwhichhehadreceivedfromtheteachingofhisfather，andtheinfluenceof
theBenthamitegroupinwhichhewasbroughtup。Henceitwasthat，accordingtothestrikingexpressionofRoscher，his
wholeviewoflifewas\"zuwenigausEinemGusse。\"Theincongruousmixtureofthenarrowdogmasofhisyouthfulperiod
withthelargerideasofalaterstagegaveawaveringandundeterminatecharactertohisentirephilosophy。Heis，onevery
side，eminently\"un—final;\"herepresentstendenciestonewformsofopinion，andopensnewvistasinvariousdirections，but
foundsscarcelyanything，andremainsindeed，sofarashisownpositionisconcerned，notmerelyincompletebut
incoherent。（55）Itis，however，preciselythisdubiouspositionwhichseemstoustogiveaspecialinteresttohiscareer，by
fittinghiminapeculiardegreetoprepareandfacilitatetransitions。
Whathehimselfthoughttobe\"thechiefmeritofhistreatise\"wasthemarkeddistinctiondrawnbetweenthetheoryof
productionandthatofdistribution，thelawsoftheformerbeingbasedonunalterablenaturalfacts，whilstthecourseof
distributionismodifiedfromtimetotimebythechangingordinancesofsociety。Thisdistinction，wemayremark，mustnot
betooabsolutelystated，fortheorganizationofproductionchangeswithsocialgrowth，and，asLauderdalelongago
showed，thenatureofthedistributioninacommunityreactsonproduction。Butthereisasubstantialtruthinthedistinction，
andtherecognitionofittendstoconcentrateattentiononthequestion—Howcanweimprovetheexistingdistributionof
wealth？ThestudyofthisproblemledMill，asheadvancedinyears，furtherandfurtherinthedirectionofsocialism;and，
whilsttotheendofhislifehisbook，howeverotherwisealtered，continuedtodeducetheRicardiandoctrinesfromthe
principleofenlightenedselfishness，hewaslookingforwardtoanorderofthingsinwhichsynergyshouldbefoundedon
sympathy。
ThegradualmodificationofhisviewsinrelationtotheeconomicconstitutionofsocietyissetforthinhisAutobiography。In
hisearlierdays，hetellsus，he\"hadseenlittlefurtherthantheoldschool\"（notethissignificanttitle）\"ofpoliticaleconomy
intothepossibilitiesoffundamentalimprovementinsocialarrangements。Privateproperty，asnowunderstood，and
inheritanceappearedthederniermotoflegislation。\"Thenotionofproceedingtoanyradicalredressoftheinjustice\"
involvedinthefactthatsomeareborntorichesandthevastmajoritytopoverty\"hehadthenreckonedchimerical。But
nowhisviewsweresuchaswould\"classhimdecidedlyunderthegeneraldesignationofsocialist;\"hehadbeenledto
believethatthewholecontemporaryframeworkofeconomiclifewasmerelytemporaryandprovisional，andthatatime
wouldcomewhen\"thedivisionoftheproduceoflabour，insteadofdepending，asinsogreatadegreeitnowdoes，onthe
accidentofbirth，wouldbemadebyconcertonanacknowledgedprincipleofjustice。\"\"Thesocialproblemofthefuture\"he
consideredtobe\"howtounitethegreatestindividuallibertyofaction，\"whichwasoftencompromisedinsocialistic
schemes，\"withacommonownershipintherawmaterialoftheglobe，andanequalparticipationinallthebenefitsof
combinedlabour。\"Theseideas，hesays，werescarcelyindicatedinthefirsteditionofthePoliticalEconomy，rathermore
clearlyandfullyinthesecond，andquiteunequivocallyinthethird，theFrenchRevolutionof1848havingmadethepublic
moreopentothereceptionofnoveltiesinopinion。
Whilstthuslookingforwardtoaneweconomicorder，heyetthinksitsadventveryremote，andbelievesthatthe
inducementsofprivateinterestwillinthemeantimebeindispensable。（56）Onthespiritualsidehemaintainsasimilarattitude
ofexpectancy。Heanticipatestheultimatedisappearanceoftheism，andthesubstitutionofapurelyhumanreligion，but
believesthattheexistingdoctrinewilllongbenecessaryasastimulusandacontrol。Hethussapsexistingfoundations
withoutprovidinganythingtotaketheirplace，andmaintainsthenecessityofconservingforindefiniteperiodswhathehas
radicallydiscredited。Nay，evenwhilstsowingtheseedsofchangeinthedirectionofasocialisticorganisationofsociety，he
favourspresentorproximatearrangementswhichwouldurgetheindustrial，worldtowardsotherissues。Thesystemof
peasantproprietorshipoflandisdistinctlyindividualisticinitswholetendency，。yetheextravagantlypraisesitintheearlier
partofhisbook，onlyrecedingfromthatlaudationwhenhecomestothechapteronthefutureofthelabouringclasses。And
thesystemofso—calledco—operationinproductionwhichhesowarmlycommendedinthelatereditionsofhiswork，andled
someofhisfollowerstopreachastheonethingneedful，wouldinevitablystrengthentheprincipleofpersonalproperty，and，
whilstprofessingatmosttosubstitutethecompetitionofassociationsforthatofindividuals，wouldbynomeansexcludethe
latter。
TheelevationoftheworkingclasseshebounduptooexclusivelywiththeMalthusianethics，onwhichhelaidquitean
extravagantstress，though，asBainhasobserved，itisnoteasytomakeouthisexactviews，anymorethanhisfather’s，on
thissubject。Wehavenoreasontothinkthatheeverchangedhisopinionastothenecessityofarestrictiononpopulation;
yetthatelementseemsforeigntothesocialisticideatowhichheincreasinglyleaned。Itijatleastdifficulttoseehow，apart
fromindividualresponsibilityforthesupportofafamily，whatMalthuscalledmoralrestraintcouldbeadequatelyenforced。
Thisdifficultyisindeedthefatalflawwhich，inMalthus’sownopinion，vitiatedtheschemeofGodwin。
Mill’sopennesstonewideasandhisenthusiasmforimprovementcannotbetoomuchadmired。Butthereappearstohave
beencombinedwiththesefinetraitsinhismentalconstitutionacertainwantofpracticalsense，afailuretorecognizeand
acquiesceinthenecessaryconditionsofhumanlife，andacravingfor\"betterbreadthancanbemadeofwheat。\"He
entertainedstrangelyexaggerated，orratherperverted，notionsofthe\"subjection\"，thecapacities，andtherightsofwomen。
Heencouragesaspiritofrevoltonthepartofworkingmenagainsttheirperpetualcondemnation，asaclass，tothelotof
livingbywages，withouthavingsatisfactoryproofthatthisstateofthingsiscapableofchange，andwithoutshowingthat
suchalot，dulyregulatedbylawandmorality，isinconsistentwiththeirrealhappiness。Healsoinsistsonthe\"independence\"
oftheworkingclass——which，accordingtohim，faràdasè——insuchawayastoobscure，ifnottocontrovert，thetruthsthat
superiorrankandwealtharenaturallyinvestedwithsocialpower，andareboundindutytoexerciseitforthebenefitofthe
communityitlarge，andespeciallyofitslessfavouredmembers，Andheattachesaquiteundueimportancetomechanical
andindeed，illusoryexpedients，suchasthelimitationofthepowerofbequestandtheconfiscationofthe\"unearned
increment\"ofrent。
Withrespecttoeconomicmethodalso，heshiftedhisposition;yettotheendoccupieduncertainground。Inthefifthofhis
earlyessaysheassertedthatthemethodapriori;istheonlymodeofinvestigationinthesocialsciences，andthatthemethodaposteriori;\"isaltogetherinefficaciousinthosesciences，asameansofarrivingatanyconsiderablebodyofvaluable
truth。\"WhenhewrotehisLogic，hehadlearnedfromComtethattheaposteriorimethod—intheformwhichhechosetocall
\"inversededuction\"——wastheonlymodeofarrivingattruthingeneralsociology;andhisadmissionofthisatoncerenders
theessayobsolete。But，unwillingtorelinquishtheapriorimethodofhisyouth，hetriestoestablishadistinctionoftwo
sortsofeconomicinquiry，oneofwhich，thoughnottheother，canbehandledbythatmethod。Sometimeshespeaksof
politicaleconomyasadepartment\"carvedoutofthegeneralbodyofthescienceofsociety，。\"whilstontheotherhandthe
titleofhissystematicworkimpliesadoubtwhetherpoliticaleconomyisapartof\"socialphilosophy\"atall，andnotrathera
studypreparatoryandauxiliarytoit。Thus，onthelogicalaswellasthedogmaticside，hehaltsbetweentwoopinions。
Notwithstandinghismisgivingsandevendisclaimers，heyetremained，astomethod，amemberoftheoldschool，andnever
passedintothenewor\"historical\"school，towhichthefuturebelongs。Thequestionofeconomicmethodwasalsotaken
upbytheablestofhisdisciples，JohnElliottCairnes（1824—75），whodevotedavolumetothesubject（LogicalMethodof
PoliticalEconomy，1857，。2ded。，1875）。ProfessorWalkerhasspokenofthemethodadvocatedbyCairnesasbeing
differentfromthatputforwardbyMill，andhasevenrepresentedtheformerassimilarto，ifnotidenticalwith，thatofthe
Germanhistoricalschool。Butthisiscertainlyanerror。Cairnes，notwithstandingsomeapparentvacillationofviewand
certainconcessionsmoreformalthanreal，maintainstheutmostrigourofthedeductivemethod;