It is not the result of mere chance that the greatest economists have been both historians and philosophers. We need only mention Adam Smith, Turgot, Malthus, Sismondi, Droz, Rossi and LÉon Faucher. It is too frequently forgotten that the father of modern Political Economy, Adam Smith, looked upon the science as only one part of the course of moral philosophy which he taught at Glasgow, and which embraced four divisions: 1. Universal theology.—The existence and attributes of God; principles or faculties of the human mind, the basis of religion. 2. Ethics.—Theory of the moral sentiments. 3. Moral principles relating to justice.—In this, as we learn from one of Adam Smith's pupils in a sketch preserved by David Stewart, he followed a plan which seems to have been suggested to him by Montesquieu. He endeavored to trace the successive advances of jurisprudence from the most barbarous times to the most polished. He carefully showed how the arts which minister to subsistence, and to the accumulation of property, act on laws and governments, and are productive of advances and changes in them analogous to those they experience themselves. In the first part of his course, as we learn from the same authority, he examined the various political regulations not founded on the principle of justice but in expediency, the object of which is to increase the wealth, the power and the prosperity of the state. From this point of view, he considered the political institutions relating to commerce, finance, the ecclesiastical and military establishments. His lectures on the different subjects constitute the substance of the work he afterwards published on the wealth of nations. A pupil of Hutcheson, Adam Smith always applied the experimental method, “which, instead of losing itself in magnificent and hazardous [pg 028] Malthus' chief title to distinction, his work on Population, is as much a historical work as a politico-economical one; and it is not sufficiently known that he was professor of history and Political Economy in the college of the East India Company at Aylesbury. We need say no more on this subject. The works of the other writers whom we have mentioned are too well known to permit any one to think that they excluded history and moral science from the study of Political Economy. Hence [pg 029] |