So far as science is concerned,the emphasis he laid on the relative historical study of stages of civilization as affectingeconomic questions,and his protest against absolute formulas,had a certain value;and the preponderance given to thenational development over the immediate gains of individuals was sound in principle;though his doctrine was,both on itspublic and private sides,too much of a mere chrematistic,and tended in fact to set up a new form of mercantilism,ratherthan to aid the contemporary effort towards social reform.
Most of the writers at home or abroad hitherto mentioned continued the traditions of the school of Smith,only developinghis doctrine in particular directions,sometimes not without one-sidedness or exaggeration,or correcting minor errors intowhich he had fallen,or seeking to give to the exposition of his principles more of order and lucidity.Some assailed the abuseof abstraction by Smith's successors,objected to the conclusions of Ricardo and his followers their non-accordance with theactual facts of human life,or protested against the anti-social consequences which seemed to result from the application ofthe (so-called)orthodox formulas.A few challenged Smith's fundamental ideas,and insisted on the necessity of altering thebasis of general philosophy on which his economics ultimately rest.But,notwithstanding various premonitory indications,nothing substantial,at least nothing effective,was done,within the field we have as yet surveyed,towards the establishmentof a really new order of thinking,or new mode of proceeding,in this branch of inquiry.Now,however,we have to describea great and growing movement,which has already considerably changed the whole character of the study in the conceptionsof many,and which promises to exercise a still more potent influence in the future.We mean the rise of the HistoricalSchool,which we regard as marking the third epoch in the modern development of economic science.
NOTES
1.An English translation of the Dixme Royale was published in 1708.
2."Richard Cantillon and the Nationality of Political Economy,"in Contemporary Review ,Jan.1881.Cantillon is quoted inthe Wealth of Nations ,bk.i.chap.8.
3.Gournay strongly recommended to his friends Cantillon's book as "ouvrage excellent qu'on négligeait."Mémoires deMorellet ,i.38.
4.See Cliffe Leslie's Essays in Political and Moral Philosophy .p.151.
5.Prof.Ricca-Salemo (Le Dottrine Finanziarie in Inghilterra )has called attention to the fact that the proposal of a singletax,on land,grounded on theoretic principles identical with those of the Physiocrats,was put forward,and supported withmuch clearness and force,so early as 1714,by Jacob Vanderlint.an Englishman,in his tract entitled Money answers allthings .
6.A complete edition of the OEuvres économiques et philosophiques of Quesnay was published by Oncken in 1888.
7.Wealth of Nations,bk.iv,chap.9.
8.Ibid.bk.i,chap.11.
9.Gournay's inspiration was,without doubt,largely English."Il avait lu,"says Morellet,"de bons livres Anglais d'Économiepolitique,tells que Petty,Davennat,Gee,Child,etc."--Mémoires ,i.18.
10.Other less prominent members of the group were Letrosni and the AbbéBaudeau.
11.On Galiani's Dialogues ,see page 72.Soon after the appearance of this book Turgot wrote to Mlle.de Lespinasse --"Jecrois possible de lui faire une très bonne réponse;mais cela demande bien de l'art.Les économistes sont trop confiants pourcombattre contre un si adroit ferrailleur.Pour l'abbe Morellet,il ne faut pas qu'il y pense."Morellet's work was prohibited bythe Controller-Général Terray;though printed in 1770,some months after Galliani's,it was not published till 1774--AdamSmith speaks of Morellet as "an eminent French author,of great knowledge in matters of political economy"(Bk,v,chap,I).
12.Hume,in a letter to Morellet,1769,calls them "the set of men the most chimerical and arrogant that now exist."Heseems intentionally to ignore Morellet's close connection with them.
13.Turgot said,"Quiconque n'oublie pas qu'il y a des états politiques séparés les uns des autres et constitués diversement,netraitera jamais bien aucune question d'Économie politique."Letter to Mlle.des Lespinasse ,1770.
14.See also Grimm:"C'est Piaton avec la verve et les gestes d'Ariequin."Diderot called the book "modèle de dialogues quireatera àcôtéles lettres de Pascal."15.J.S.Mill,in his Principles,bk.i.chap.I,takes credit to his father for having first illustrated and made prominent inrelation to production what he strangely calls,a fundamental principle of Political Economy,"namely,that "all that man doesor can do with matter"is to "move one thing to or from another."But the is clearly put foward by Verri in his Meditazioni ,sect.3:"Accostare e separare sono gt uaici elementi che l'ingegno umano ritrova analizzando l'idea della riproduzione."16.History of America ,note 193
17.Philosophie Positive ,vol.v p.759.
18.Roschel,Geschichte der N.O.in Deutschland ,p.498.
19.An earlier work of P.de la Court,the Interese van Holland ofte Gronden van Hollands-Welvaren (1662),was muchread in the seventeenth century There is one English and three German translations of this book.
20.Bk.v,chap.i,art.3.
