In no country had mercantilist views a stronger hold than in Germany，though in none，in the period we are now considering，did the system of the balance of trade receive a less extensive practical application.All the leading German economists of theseventeenth century --Bornitz，Besold，Klock，Becher，Horneck，Seckendorf，and Schr?der --stand on the common basis ofthe mercantile doctrine.And the same may be said of the writers of the first half of the eighteenth century in general，andnotably of Justi (d.1771)，who was the author of the first systematic German treatise on political economy，a work which，from its currency as a text-book，had much effect on the formation of opinion.Only in Zincke (1692-1769)do we findoccasional expressions of a circle of ideas at variance with the dominant system，and pointing in the direction of industrialfreedom.But these writers，except from the national point of view，are unimportant，not having exercised any influence onthe general movement of European thought.
The principles of the physiocratic system met with a certain amount of favour in Germany.Karl Friedrich，Margrave ofBaden，wrote for the use of his sons an Abrégédes principes d'?conomie Politique ，1772，which is in harmony with thedoctrines of that system.It possesses，however，little scientific value.Schlettwein (1731-1802)and Mauvillon (1743-1794)were followers of the same school.Theodor Schmalz (1764-183a)，who is commonly named as "the last of the physiocrats，"may be here mentioned，though somewhat out of the historic order.He compares Colbertism with the Ptolemaic system，physiocratism with the Copernican.Adam Smith he represents as the Tycho Brahe of political economy --a man of eminentpowers，who could not resist the force of truth in the physiocrats，but partly could not divest himself of rooted prejudices，and partly was ambitious of the fame of a discoverer and a reconciler of divergent systems.Though Smith was now "thefashion，"Schmalz could not doubt that Quesnay's doctrine was alone true，and would ere long be triumphant everywhere.(18)Just before the appearance of Smith，as in England Steuart and in Italy Genovesi，so in Austria Sonnenfels (1733-1817)，thefirst distinguished economist of that country，sought to present the mercantile system in a modified and more enlightenedform；and his work (Grunds?tze der Polizei，Handlung，und Finanz ，1765；8th ed.，1822)exercised even during aconsiderable part of the present century much influence on opinion and on policy in Austria.
But the greatest German economist of the eighteenth century was，in Roscher's opinion，Justus M?ser (1720-1794)，theauthor of Patriotische Phantasieen (1774)，a series of fragments，which，Goethe nevertheless declares，form "ein wahrhaitesGanzes."The poet was much influenced by M?ser in his youth，and has eulogised in the Dichtung und Wahrheit (Bk.xiii)his spirit，intellect，and character，and his thorough insight into all that goes on in the social world.Whilst others occupiedthemselves with larger and more prominent public affairs and transactions，M?ser observed and reproduced the commondaily life of his nation，and the thousand "little things"which compose the texture of popular existence.He has beencompared to Franklin for the homeliness，verve，and freshness of his writings.In opinions he is akin to the Italian Ortes.Heis opposed to the whole spirit of the "Aufk?rung"，and to the liberal and rationalistic direction of which Smith's work becameafterwards the expression.He is not merely conservative but reactionary，manifesting a preference for medieval institutionssuch as the trade guilds，and，like Carlyle in our own time，seeing advantages even in serfdom，when compared with the sortof freedom enjoyed by the modern drudge.He has a marked antipathy for the growth of the money power and ofmanufactures on the large scale，and for the highly developed division of labour.He is opposed to absolute private propertyin land，and would gladly see revived such a system of restrictions as in the interest of the state，the commune，and the familywere imposed on medieval ownership.In his wayward and caustic style，he often criticises effectively the doctrinairenarrowness of his contemporaries，throws out many striking ideas，and in particular sheds real light on the economicphenomena and general social conditions of the Middle Ages.
THE NETHERLANDS
In the Netherlands，tendencies towards the new economic ideas showed themselves about the middle of the seventeenthcentury.Dirck Graswinckel (1600-1668)advocated free trade in corn，and was in general opposed to restrictions onindustry.Pieter de la Court (1618-1685)dealt in a similar spirit with most of the practical questions of his country and age.
He is in favour of the perfect liberty of citizens to buy and sell，produce and consume，as well as to learn and teach；and hesharply criticised the system of trade corporations.He was in literary alliance with the Grand Pensionary，John de Witt.Hisprincipal work (Aanwysing def heilsame politike gronden en Maximan van de Republike van Hollanden Westfriesland ，1669)(19)was commonly attributed to that statesman，it is better known in the French translation (1709)which appearedunder the title of Memoirs de Jean de Witt.Jan de la Court (1622-1660)，the brother of Pieter，followed the same direction，The works of Salmasius (1633，1640)were of great importance in the controversy on the necessity and lawfulness ofinterest on money loans.
