for these very reasons that we adopt the definition of the science as being that of exchanges. The definition of it as the Production, Distribution, and Consumption of Wealth was not very intelligible when it was confined to the exchange of material products, but now that it is enlarged so as to embrace the theory of wages and the great commerce in debts, it is utterly unintelligible, and the definition of it as that of Exchanges is the only one which will fit the facts.

We have seen that Whately, who, as far as we know, was the first to call it by this name in this country, would have preferred to call it CATALLACTICs, in order to mark its nature more clearly. But the name by which a science is called is of very small importance; the real requisite is that its nature and objects should be clearly defined. There is no advantage to be gained by changing the name of a science which has once acquired a firm hold in popular usage, even though that name would not, perhaps, have been the best that might have been selected if the science were a new creation. There are few sciences which have not received a great extension or alteration of application of what the meaning of their names would suggest. Plato long enough ago laughed at the idea of calling the science which treated of the motion of the heavenly bodies. geometry, yet geometry has retained its name from that day to this; and the French call a great analyst a great geometer. Trigonometry has long ago expanded beyond the measuring of triangles. Who could tell what Chemistry or Electricity meant by their names? In ancient times Music meant all the liberal arts; in modern times it is restricted to the modulation of sounds.

57. The name of Political Economy, or Economic Science, is so firmly rooted in the public mind, that no advantage would be got by changing it. And, furthermore, there is no reason for changing it, as the true character of the science is expressed in its very name. Many persons suppose that oikos in Greek means a house, and that an Economist is the master of a house. But oikos in Greek has a much more extensive meaning than that of a house: it means Property, Estate, or substance of every description. Thus Homer, Odyssey II., 238, says:— κατέδουσι βιαίως

Οἶκον Οδυσσῆος, τὸν δ ̓ οὐκέτι φασὶ νέεσθαι. They forcibly devour the substance of Ulysses, who, they say, will never return.

Ökonomin = Unwaltung Seifmaterialien äußern) Ver. mogens, des Jan-beda, &i familion-Unterhabies,

§ 56, 57.]

MEANING OF ECONOMICS.

So, Od. IV.—Εσθίεταί μοι οἶκος.

My property is being devoured.

So, Herodot. III., 53—καὶ οἶκον τοῦ πατρὸς διαφορηθέντα. And the property of your father wasted away.

121

So, Herodot. VII., 224—τὸν οἶκον πάντα τὸν ἑωυτοῦ ἐπέδωκε.
He gave him back, too, the whole of his property.

So, Demosthenes, against Aphobus, 833, 24-olko
διπλάσιοι καὶ τριπλάσιοι γεγόνασι.

Their fortunes have doubled and tripled.

So, Lysias, against Eratosthenes-rove idiovs OČKOVE OUTOL
ἐκτήσαντο.

These men increased their private fortunes.

*

And in the Economicus of Xenophon, Socrates expressly points out the distinction between oikos and oikia, the latter being the house only, while the former was all a man's property, or substance.

So, Ammonius says-οἶκος λέγεται ἡ πᾶσα οὐσία.

oikos means all property.

The word oikos was not only used by Greek writers to signify property of every description, but it was the technical term in Attic Law for the whole of a man's goods and chattels, or substance or estate, of every description. Hence, if such property as shares in commercial companies, the funds, or copyright, had existed at that time, they would all have been classed as oikos. Hence, Economics is an apt and fitting term to denote the Science which treats of the Exchanges of Property.

The only change we propose to make-if indeed it can be called a change is this: The science is in popular language called both "Political Economy," and "Economic Science," or "Economics." Now the first term is too much associated with politics in the popular apprehension; and indeed included all government as used by the Physiocrates. J. B. Say was the first who restricted Political Economy to Wealth. Now it seems to us better to adopt that name which most clearly defines its nature and extent, and is most analogous to the names of similar sciences. Therefore we shall henceforth in this work, use the name of "Economics" exclusively, and discontinue that of Political Economy.

The definition of the Science which we offer is this:ECONOMICS is the Science which treats of the Laws which govern the Relations of Exchangeable Quantities.

This definition appears to state clearly and distinctly the nature and extent of the science, and to be free from the ambiguities connected with the words Wealth and Value; and M. Michel Chevalier has done us the honour to say that he considers it the best definition of the science that has yet been proposed.

58.

We are happy to say that one of the latest and most distinguished American Economists takes exactly the same view of the subject. Professor Perry says-"Political Economy is the science of exchanges, or, what is exactly equivalent, the science of value."" So far as men satisfy their own wants by their own efforts without exchange, they stand outside the pale of this science. Under these circumstances the idea of Value could neither have birth or being, and, of course, there could be no such thing as a science of value." 2- "The only one which seems to the present writer to be exactly right, is the definition given by Archbishop Whately, namely, the science of exchanges. This definition or its precise equivalent, the science of value, gives a perfectly definite field to Political Economy. Wherever value goes this science goes, and where value stops this science stops. Political Economy is the science of value, and of nothing else." "This definition is drawing to itself the most recent investigators in France, England, and America; and the scientific development of it has already put political economy into a new and better posture."

4

59. Adopting, then, this conception of the Science of Economics which we have clearly shewn to be the mere generalization of the idea of the two preceding schools of Economists, and which must commend itself to every one accustomed to the study of other sciences, we have a distinct body of phenomena all based upon a single idea, and therefore fitted to form a great demonstrative science of the same rank as Mechanics or Optics,

1 Elements of Political Economy. By Arthur Latham Perry, Professor of Political Economy in Williams College, Mass., p. 1. 3 Ibid., p. 44.

Ibid., p. 38.

4 Ibid., p. 27.

Another great body of par

or any other Physical Science. ticulars won from the vague, floating, and uncertain mass of knowledge, is fixed and circumscribed by a single conception, and formed into a great Inductive Science, whose investigations must be governed by the same general principles of Inductive Logic, as others are, and yet will be found to contribute its quota to Inductive Logic, bearing a general similarity to its sister sciences, and yet with peculiarities of its own,

Facies non omnibus una,

Nec diversa tamen; quales decet esse sororum.

And as quantities of such divers natures as men, cattle of all sorts, the wind, gravity, gunpowder, steam, &c., all come under the science of Mechanics, because they all exert force, whose effects can be measured numerically, and mechanics regards them simply as forces, wholly irrespective of any other qualities they may possess; so we see how quantities of such divers natures as money, houses, lands, debts, men, copyrights, cattle, the funds, the sciences, clothes, labour, and rights of all sorts, are all included in the science of Economics, because they all have the quality of exchangeability, and Economics regards them in respect of this quality alone, wholly irrespective of any other qualities they may possess. Thus we see the true field of the Science: an Economist is one who reasons about the Laws of Value. It has often happened in many countries that in cases of a great scarcity of corn, the government has imported corn with the benevolent intention of lowering its price, and making it more plentiful. But the effect has usually been to make it more scarce and dear. This shews that they did not correctly understand the laws of Economics. And this also shews how it is a Physical Moral Science, because its laws are obtained by observing the mores-the 50-of men, and its effects are shewn by the numerical amounts in which the several quantities will exchange with each other.

It is also seen what questions are beyond its limits. Nothing can be more vague and ill defined than the popular notions of what is, and what is not an Economic question. Thus, when the Legislature recently passed an act to give tenants in Ireland certain rights which they had not before, many of its opponents set up a cry that this was against the laws of Political Economy. The answer is that it was not a question of Economics at all,

but of Morality. It was a pure question of Morality and Justice whether the tenants should have these rights or not; it did not become a question of Economics until these rights were brought into commerce, or exchanged.

The pure science of Economics is therefore capable of rigorous mathematical demonstration, and it is better to appropriate the name to a subject which is of universal application. But there are several subjects closely allied to it which we shall have to consider, such as Taxation, Poor Laws, Colonization, Population, &c., which we may call mixed Economics and Morals. The sum raised by taxation is the sum paid by the community for certain services done to the State. But how that sum should be raised, and who should pay it, is very much a question of Morals-of opinion and argument—and not a question of demonstration. But so far as Taxation affects the values of quantities, it is a question of Economics. It is also a question of Morals whether there should be a Poor Law or not; but how Poor rates affect the Value of Labour, is a question of Economics. And so on of the other cognate subjects. So the questions of inheritance and bequest are, properly speaking, social or moral subjects; all these are, in many respects, uncertain and variable, and greatly dependent on particular circumstances. It is not possible to arrive at absolute, universal, demonstrative truth in them.

60. Hence we see the fundamental distinction between a Socialistic and an Economic state of society. A Socialistic state of society is expressly devised for the purpose of abolishing private property and free exchanges, and thus extinguishing the notion of Value. An Economic state of society is where the right of private property exists, and where free exchanges are allowed, and the very object of Economie Science is to discover the laws which govern these exchanges. It is so notorious that the science of Political Economy is founded on the conception of private property and free exchanges that it is well known that the Socialists have declared a most deadly war against it, and when they got the upper hand for a short time in Paris the first thing they did was to abolish all the chairs of Political Economy in the country.