He stands nearer to socialism than any other French economist proper，but it is only in sentiment，not in opinion，that heapproximates to it；he does not recommend any socialistic scheme.On the contrary，he declares in a memorable passagethat，whilst he sees where justice lies，he must confess himself unable to suggest the means of realising it in practice；thedivision of the fruits of industry between those who are united in their production appears to him vicious；but it is，in hisjudgment，almost beyond human power to conceive any system of property absolutely different from that which is known tous by experience.He goes no further than protesting，in view of the great evils which he saw around him，against thedoctrine of laisser faire ，and invoking，somewhat vaguely，the intervention of Governments to regulate the progress ofwealth and to protect the weaker members of the community.
His frank confession of impotence，far wiser and more honourable than the suggestion of precipitate and dangerousremedies，or of a recurrence to outworn mediaeval institutions，has not affected the reputation of the work.A prejudice wasindeed early created against it in consequence of its partial harmony of tone，though，as we have seen，not of policy，withsocialism，which was then beginning to show its strength，as well as by the rude way in which his deions of the modernindustrial system，especially as it existed in England，disturbed the complacent optimism of some members of the so-calledorthodox school.These treated the book with ill-disguised contempt，and Bastiat spoke of it as preaching an économiepolitique àrebours .But it has held its place in the literature of the science，and is now even more interesting than when itfirst appeared，because in our time there is a more general disposition，instead of denying or glossing over the serious evilsof industrial society，to face and remove or at least mitigate them.The laisser faire doctrine，too，has been discredited intheory and abandoned in practice；and we are ready to admit Sismondi's view of the State as a power not mere intrustedwith the maintenance of peace，but charged also with the mission of extending the benefits of the social union and of modernprogress as widely as possible through all classes of the community.Yet the impression which his treatise leaves behind it isa discouraging one；and this because he regards as essentially evil many things which seem to be the necessary results of thedevelopment of industry.The growth of a wealthy capitalist class and of manufacture on the great scale，the rise of a vastbody of workers who live by their labour alone，the extended application of machines，large landed properties cultivated withthe aid of the most advanced appliancesall these he dislikes and deprecates；but they appear to be inevitable.The problemis，how to regulate and moralise the system they imply；but we must surely accept it in principle，unless we aim at a thoroughsocial revolution.Sismondi may be regarded as the precursor of the German economists known under the inexactdesignation of Socialists of the Chair；but their writings are much more hopeful and inspiring.
To the subject of population he devotes special care，as of great importance for the welfare of the working classes.So far asagriculturists are concerned，he thinks the system of what he calls patriarchal exploitation，where the cultivator is alsoproprietor，and is aided by his family in tilling the land a law of equal division among the natural heirs being apparentlypresupposedthe one which is most efficacious in preventing an undue increase of the population.The father is，in such acase，able distinctly to estimate the resources available for his children，and to determine the stage of sub-division whichwould necessitate the descent of the family from the material and social position it had previously occupied.When childrenbeyond this limit are born，they do not marry，or they choose amongst their number one to continue the race.This is theview which，adopted by J.S.Mill，makes so great a figure in the too favourable presentation by that writer of the system ofpeasant proprietors.
In no French economic writer is greater force or general solidity of thought to be found than in Charles Dunoyer(17861862)，author of La Libertédu Travail (1845；the substance of the first volume had appeared under a different title in1825)，honourably known for his integrity and independence under the régime of the Restoration.What makes him of specialimportance in the history of the science is his view of its philosophical constitution and method.With respect to method，hestrikes the keynote at the very outset in the words "rechercher expérimentalement，"and in professing to build on "lesdonnées de l'observation et de l'expérience."He shows a marked tendency to widen economics into a general science ofsociety，expressly describing political economy as having for its province the whole order of things which results from theexercise and development of the social forces.This larger study is indeed better named Sociology；and economic studies arebetter regarded as forming one department of it.But the essential circumstance is that，in Dunoyer's treatment of his greatsubject，the widest intellectual，moral，and political considerations are inseparably combined with purely economic ideas.Itmust not be supposed that by liberty，in the title of his work，is meant merely freedom from legal restraint or administrativeinterference；he uses it to express whatever tends to give increased efficiency to labour.He is thus led to discuss all thecauses of human progress，and to exhibit them in their historical working.
