the distribution of functions among them and the creation of the settled order which alone makes commerce possible.We cannot argue to the action without understanding the structure of which the agent is a constituent part,and which determines all the details of his action.The building up of society implies the influence not of any single desire,but of all the desires,modes of thought,and affections of human beings.If,therefore,a comprehension of existing institutions be necessary to political economy,the deductive method is clearly unequal to the task which he,partly following Comte,regards as implied in 'sociology'generally.To deduce,not the social structure at large,but any social organ,from such an abstraction is hopeless,because every organ is affected through and through by its dependence upon other organs.Mill virtually supposes that because the particular function can be understood by abstracting from accidental influences,the organ of which it is a function can be understood by abstracting from its essential relations to the organism.
Here,in fact,is the error which I take to be implied in Mill's individualism.Given the social structure as it is,you may fairly make some such abstraction as the postulates.You may consider large classes of actions,exchange of wealth,and all the normal play of commercial forces,as corresponding to the rather vague 'desire for wealth,'and ask how an individual or a number of individuals will act when under the influence of that dominant motive.That is legitimate,and applies to what is called 'pure political economy'--the relatively superficial study of the actual working of the machinery without considering how the machinery came to have its actual structure.But directly you get beyond this,to problems involving organic change,you get to 'sociology,'and can only proceed --if progress be possible --by the 'historical method,'or,in other words,by studying the growth of the institutions of which we form a part,and of which we may be considered as the product.This again means that the general conception of the Utilitarians,which recognises nothing but the individual as an ultimate unit,though capable of combining and grouping in various ways,omits one essential element in the problem.It regards all social structures as on the same plane,temporary and indefinitely alterable arrangements;and involves a neglect of the historical or general point of view which is essential not only to an understanding of society,but also of the individuals whose whole nature and character is moulded by it.I have tried to show the results upon the legal and political conceptions of Mill's teachers.We now see how the conception of political economy as a 'deductive'or a priori science naturally misled the school.When they mistook their rough generalisations for definitive science,they brought discredit upon the theory,and played into the hands of their enemies,the sentimentalists,who,finding that the science was not infallible,resolved to trust to instincts and defy 'laws of nature'in general.Read as common-sense considerations upon social questions,the writings of Mill and his followers were generally to the point and often conclusive.
When read as scientific statements,they fail from their obvious inadequacy and the vague terminology which takes the airs of clearly defined conceptions.Yet it is impossible to conclude without noticing two admirable characteristics of Mill and his disciples.The first is the deep and thorough conviction that the elevation of the poorer classes is the main end of all social inquiries.The second and the rarer is the resolution to speak the plain truth,and to denounce all sophists who,professing the same end,would reach it by illusory means.Mill's sympathies never blinded him to the duty of telling the whole truth as he saw it.
NOTES:
1.Mill's Political Economy reached a sixth edition in 1865.Apopular edition was first reprinted in 1865from the sixth edition.I quote from the popular edition of 1883by chapter and section.This is applicable,with very slight exception,to all editions.The 'table of contents'is almost identical from the first to the last edition.Some sections were expanded by adding later information as to land-tenures and co-operation.The early chapter upon Ireland was altered on account of changes,which Mill thought,made it no longer appropriate.An addition was made to the chapter on "International Values";and book ii,chap.i was rewritten in order to give a more favourable estimate of Socialism.On the whole,the changes were remarkably small.
2.See Unsettled Questions (1877)p.1.
3.Political Economy,p.265(bk.iii.ch.i.section 1).
4.Ibid.p.270(bk.iii.ch.ii.section 3).
5.Logical Method of Political Economy (1875),p.4.
6.See Morley's Life of Cobden (1881),ii.249.
7.Prentice's Anti-Corn Law League,i.77,378.
8.Cobden's famous debate with Feargus O'Connor,the Chartist leader,took place on 5th August 1844.Cobden's victory is admitted even by the Chartist historian,who regards it as a proof of O'Connor's incapacity --R.C.Gammage's Chartist Movement (1894),p.254.Prentice has much to say of the perverseness of the Chartist leaders.
9.Hodder's Shaftesbury,p.341.This was in 1841.Shaftesbury afterwards accepted free trade.
10.See,e.g.Cobden's Political Speeches,i.119,197.
11.Reprinted in 1884.
12.Report of 1834,p.73.
13.Report of 1834,p.169.
14.Report,p.167.
15.Autobiography,p.193.
16.Gammage's Chartist Movement,p.54.
17.Alfred's Factory Movement,pp.70-78.Alfred is a pseudonym for Samuel Kydd.
