instinctive intuition exercised by the public an accurate one? Is it not absurd to expect that the fate of the great industrial establishments throughout the kingdom should be determined by men whose reasonings are constructed à priori; who care not what the effect of things may be ; and who, in fact, too rarely go inside a factory or workshop to be able to appreciate the working conditions essential to successful production?

The professor of Laissez-faire prefers to reason from assumptions and not from facts. But how is it possible for them correctly to assume anything not based upon, or deduced from, an actual fact? If an assumption is not based, or deduced from, a fact, it cannot be explained; and if it cannot be explained it cannot survive. It becomes a useless hypothesis and a waste of mental energy. Intellect is given to man to reason from the known effect of things. To hazard the fortunes of men on probabilities based upon assumptions when we have fact to go upon is to my mind the greatest of all economic political blunders.

Economics should deal with the known effect of things. "The deepest things in life are not known by way of the intellect, but are lived and felt. The profoundest truths of life we know intuitively and directly, with a deeper certainty than the understanding can give." If philosophy and experience teach us this truth, is there any

reason why the sphere of economics should be an exception to the application of this truth?

A well-known professor of political economy, one whom I admire and respect, in a letter he wrote to me mentioned that "the free trade theory is all right on its assumptions, but then one goes on to consider its application." Now I contend that even on its assumptions it is all wrong, for the simple reason that a nation can produce standard utilities more cheaply than it can buy them; and this point I have endeavoured to prove in the following pages.

It is to be hoped that politicians, and business men for that matter, will have learnt the lesson by this time that political science cannot be divorced from economic science; and, that, whilst men of theory serve a very useful purpose, if their reasonings are not entirely divorced from the practical side of things, it is altogether unwise to seek for inspiration and guidance upon such matters wholly from that source. This leads me to the conclusion that the nation, in order to safeguard itself against similar mistakes in the future, should, in addition to establishing a Ministry of Industry and Commerce, also establish a Ministry of Economics by means of which men of theory might be brought into contact with practical business men in reviewing our National System of Commerce, and in studying the effect

which our Foreign Policy and Agreements may have upon that system from time to time.

The point I am endeavouring to make clear is this, that there can be no two sciences upon the same subject; and if a Ministry of Economics were to be founded, it might, with the interchange of ideas between men of theory and practice which such an organisation would effect, bring about a quicker realisation of this fact. It might, at any rate, be the means of our students at the public schools and universities being taught sounder economic theory and practice.

Economic science, in so far as it concerns production and distribution, is precise and definite. Cause and effect have been thoroughly mastered by men of business and the leaders of organised labour. But any economic system which ignores considerations of morality and humanity is bound to fall of its own dead weight. The production and distribution of wealth is mainly concerned with human well-being. The science should therefore be judged by the good it can do to humanity, and this can be its only starting-point. It is for this reason, therefore, that I favour the teachings of Smith, Say, List and Colwell, by far the greatest and most original thinkers of the last century, because their works rest upon the Baconian system of philosophy. They have had many imitators since, but their leading and main

ideas have been carried to absurd extremes by theoretical reasonings constructed à priori.

John Stuart Mill was the greatest offender in this respect. He rejected the method of reasoning adopted by Smith, Say, List and Colwell which was founded upon induction and observation of facts, and upon reasonings constructed à posteriori, i. e. from the effect to the cause.

Mill in his attempt to be original constructed his reasonings à priori, or, in other words, from cause to effect; which is, in fact, the method followed by the whole school of Laissez-faire. After explaining how certain differences lead men astray and how they involve the old feud between men of theory and practice, Mill says: "In the definition which we have attempted to frame of the science of political economy, we have characterised it as essentially an abstract science, and its method as the à priori." "It reasons, and, as we contend, must necessarily reason from assumptions, not from facts." "That which is true in the abstract is always true in the concrete with proper allowances."

Has absurdity ever been carried to such extremes? Man's destiny is decided beforehand by certain abstract propositions, but with proper allowances, and these are not even defined.

The danger of following the à priori method of reasoning is this, that every natural moral

tendency is bound to be ignored. Human impulse of the moral order cannot be controlled, nor can it be made to tolerate an injustice.

With the application of science to industry, whether in the sphere of chemistry or engineering, there arises a continual accession of problems, subversive and constructive, which can only be judged and decided from the standpoint of experience as they arise. And knowledge and experience are only gained from the effect of things, not from the cause; although the wise man will always take steps to ascertain the cause of the effect. In the development of modern industry, the business man has substituted investigation and accuracy for intuition and empiricism. The modern business man is, if anything, inquisitive and a great believer in the importance of evidence, and rightly so.

It may safely be taken for granted that business men and the leaders of organised labour care not whether men of theory construct their reasonings à priori or à posteriori; although if a choice had to be made they would certainly prefer the latter method. From their vast experience of the effect of things, and the cause of the effect, they are able to speak ex cathedra on matters which immediately affect their interests. And who better than they can do so?

The natural inclination of labour, for instance,