to proceed from this to the assumption that the steady pursuit of wealth, because it is better than the reckless indulgence of the animal appetites, is to be dealt with as the final and most desirable condition of man, and is to furnish the standard to which all moral requirements are to be lowered, is really nothing less than that deification of an evil principle, which the Christian Church was once wont to denounce as the worship of Antichrist.

It appears to me, that, within the lifetime of the present generation, acts have been perpetrated in the name of political economy, which would not be at all too strongly characterized by that ancient language of the Christian community. It happened, some years ago, that certain landlords in Ireland became convinced that certain portions of land, if held by single farmers with capital, would yield more produce and more rent, for a given amount of labour, than if each were divided amongst a considerable number of families. The conclusion, under certain circumstances, was a truth as reliable as any known astronomical fact which governs the compilers of the Nautical Almanack. But then came its conversion into a rule of action, the tacit assumption being that that procedure which would yield the greatest amount of wealth was legitimate, and might be adopted in disregard of every other consideration whatever. Portions of land, accordingly, which were in the occupation of several families, were, according to the common phrase, cleared, with a view to the consolidation of the holdings. In many cases, parties whose fathers and grandfathers had worn themselves out in toil upon the same land, and who clung to it, not only from affectionate remembrance, but because there seemed nothing else in the wide world between them and starvation, were thus removed, sometimes with violence, their houses being burned or pulled down to expel them, always with heart-rending grief, and with parents bed-ridden, and wives or children, as often happened, lying in fever, cast out upon the road-side, either to perish speedily by the merciful visitation of Heaven, or to be spared for the

endurance of such wretchedness as none but the homeless know. Those acts were done in reliance upon a certain economical truth, which it was assumed might be taken as a rule of action. For my part, I admit the truth, with some limitation, and have no doubt that the means taken to produce increased wealth were successful. Yet I entertain a firm conviction, that the perpetrators of those deeds will have to answer for them before the bar of the Eternal Justice, as surely as the veriest wretch that ever expiated his crime upon a scaffold. The strong affections which were entwined around those ruined thresholds and extinguished hearths, and which were rent asunder by such measures, had grown up by the action of far more sacred laws than any which the science of wealth interprets'.

Doctrine of Laisser-faire.

There is one comprehensive dogma which has arisen in connection with the study of political economy, and which in many minds has acquired even more than the authority of a simple moral principle. It is a mystically sacred rule, to be carried out under all circumstances whatsoever, and, if necessary, at the cost of an amount of suffering which, even if the principle were a part of the moral law, might make the strictest casuist pause before refusing to allow an exception. The dogma is expressed in the well-known answer of the French merchants to the minister who wished to serve them, when they, smarting under all kinds of galling restrictions, begged only to be let alone. In various forms, this principle of Laisser-faire, or Let alone, is pleaded against measures called for by the most

To prevent misconception, it may be as well to state, that the above remarks were in type before the writer heard anything of the recent ejectments in the west of Ireland; upon which transactions, not knowing the whole of the facts, he passes no judgment; but those remarks contain no sanction of a doctrine so subversive of property and society, as that tenants must be left upon the land whether they pay

rent or not.

urgent motives of justice and humanity, with an assumption of authority to which, whether in the general domain of morals or in that part of it which is called government, it has no shadow of title. The import of the principle of Laisser-faire is nothing less than this-that Government, divesting itself of every relic of moral character, of every claim upon those sentiments of reverence which the constitution of man in all ages has led him to feel for legal authority, should exercise no function but that of protecting the lives and properties of individuals. It means that, the strong being prevented from enslaving the weak, and the poor from plundering the rich, in all other respects, every man, woman, and child should be left to rely upon self. If infancy is abandoned, let it perish. If old age is neglected, let it perish too. If strong men habitually wither and die in the foul atmosphere of towns, which only a collective and authoritative force can purify, still let them perish. If the young, who in a few years will be the people of the land, are growing up with intellect and conscience torpid for want of culture, and passions stimulated by the sight of wealth, with mind and body depraved and debilitated by the premature and exhausting toil to which parental recklessness subjects them, even yet the sacred principle will not yield, but, with the coolness of an ancient inquisitor, while the tongues of flame were playing on the limbs of his victims, lays its hand upon the legislator, and tells him to be still-to let those victims go headlong down to the ruin which awaits them, because the partial evil will be the universal good, and all things will come right in the end. There is no doubt that the Laisser-faire dogmatism, though sometimes a cloak of selfishness, is often well meant Indeed, it is never dangerous except when it Its aspect is so hideous and revolting, that, except for the gleams of benevolence in its eyes, the world would have long ago chased it away as a monster. It is no doubt benevolent after its fashion. Torquemada did not love evil for its own sake; Pope Gregory XIII. was solicitous for the glory of God, when he ordered a thanksgiving for the massacre of

is so.

St. Bartholomew; and Cromwell surely had noble ends in view when he thought to shorten the way to them at Drogheda, by the slaughter of helpless women and their little ones. Neither the economical nor the religious fanaticism, therefore, when it is found to sanction acts of cruelty, should cause the actors to be viewed personally in the same light with those who violate moral laws from selfish impulses. But still, whenever benevolence or policy, or a so-called social science, seeks to compass its object by tampering with those primary affections and sympathies which have been implanted in the heart of man, and with those moral laws which they disclose, the narrow and audacious presumption ought to be branded as rebellion against the supreme government of the universe'.

The dogma of Laisser-faire is simply a rash extension of a principle which, within its original limits, was sufficiently correct. For more than a hundred years before the French economists worked out the conclusions which prepared the way for Adam Smith, every commercial reform that took place in France was the removal of a restriction. Every step of improvement, therefore, was an approach to Laisser-faire. Very similar has been our experience in England, and it is sufficiently near a truth to be admitted, that men are able to make better pecuniary bargains for themselves than Government can make for them. But the moment it becomes a question concerning something higher than making good bargains, every vestige of claim which the maxim might have to attention at once disappears. And this is true universally, not merely of the disputable, but of the most firmly-established conclusions of

If these remarks should appear to any one to be a mere beating of the air, it may be observed, that the folly is shared in by one of the ablest statesmen and political philosophers in Europe; for example

"Près de là j'en vois d'autres qui, au nom des progrès, s'efforçant de matérialiser l'homme, veulent trouver l'utile sans s'occuper du juste, la science loin des croyances, et le bien-être séparé de la vertu : ceux-là se sont dits les champions de la civilisation moderne, et ils se mettent insolemment à sa tête, usurpant une place qu'on leur abandonne et dont leur indignité les repousse."-DE TOCQUEVILLE.

political economy. There is not one of them that must not give way when it clashes with a moral principle, unless it be admitted that man's highest and only proper object is the pursuit of wealth. In a Christian nation, political economy has no title whatever to assume the character of a legislator. It is her business to present such counsels and information as she can, concerning the production of wealth; but their value and application are to be determined upon principles of which she knows nothing.

Resistance to the Principle of Laisser-faire.

Happily, the practice of England has been in accordance with this view. Political economy, in the minds of its most conspicuous representatives, reached the practical conclusion, some thirty years ago, that the poor-laws ought to be-not reformed—but abolished'. The motives of those thinkers were unquestionably humane; but the conclusion was inspired by that prejudice in favour of the extreme principle of non-interference which had been generated by a long conflict with mis

"It is true, certainly, that keeping a number of the people on charity diminishes the funds of labour, and maintains a population which the society cannot fairly support. But this is no argument against relieving a portion of the people who, owing to some accidental circumstances, are thrown into misery. If you do not relieve them, they must perish, and the population is thus made adequate to the demand. This is the mode of acting recommended. I must say, it is to the full as cruel as the most extensive plan of war and conquest.”—LORD JOHN RUSSELL.

The short Essay on Political Economy from which this extract is taken, and which was written in 1819, contains some opinions which the noble author has since seen to be erroneous; but it also contains some very weighty truths, such as these: that the great limit to the science "is the difficulty of collecting data sufficient upon which to found any certain rules;" that complexities of fact often render its questions "more difficult to solve than almost any problem in the range of mathematics;" and that there is a further limit "to the science of political economy which has been nearly overlooked by its preachers, the customs, habits, and manners of nations." The valu able work of Mr. Jones on Rent has, since that period, done much to wipe away this just reproach, and to the great work of Mr. Mill it is wholly inapplicable. Mr. Mill's expositions of the effect of national peculiarities are full of instruction, and his single chapter on Competition and Custom contains matter for a volume.