mentary reform, should have been held forth by thinkers of such eminence as a complete theory. It is not to be imagined possible, nor is it true in point of fact, that these philosophers regarded the few premises of their theory as including all that is required for explaining social phenomena, or for determining the choice of forms of government and measures of legislation and administration. They were too highly instructed, of too comprehensive intellect, and some of them of too sober and practical a character, for such an error. They would have applied, and did apply, their principles with innumerable allowances. But it is not allowances that are wanted. There is little chance of making due amends in the superstructure of a theory for the want of sufficient breadth in its foundations. It is unphilosophical to construct a science out of a few of the agencies by which the phenomena are determined, and leave the rest to the routine of practice or the sagacity of conjecture. We either ought not to pretend to scientific forms, or we ought to study all the determining agencies equally, and endeavour, so far as it can be done, to include all of them within the pale of the science; else we shall infallibly bestow a disproportionate attention upon those which our theory takes into account, while we misestimate the rest, and probably underrate their importance. That the deductions should be from the whole and not from a part only of the laws of nature that are concerned, would be desirable even if those omitted were so insignificant in comparison with the others, that they might, for most purposes and on most occasions, be left out of the account. But this is far indeed from being true in the social science. The phenomena of society do not depend, in essentials, on some one agency or law of human nature, with only inconsiderable modifications from others. The whole of the qualities of human nature influence those phenomena, and there is not one which influences them in a smail degree. There is not one, the removal or any great alteration of which would not materially affect the whole aspect of society, and change more or less the sequences of social phenomena generally. The theory which has been the subject of these remarks is, in this country at least, the principal cotemporary example of what I have styled the geometrical method of philosophising in the social science; and our examination of it has, for this reason, been more detailed than would otherwise have been suitable to a work like the present. Having now sufficiently illustrated the two erroneous methods, we shall pass without further preliminary to the true method; that which proceeds (conformably to the practice of the more complex physical sciences) deductively indeed, but by deduction from many, not from one or a very few, original premises; considering each effect as (what it really is) an aggregate result of many causes, operating sometimes through the same, sometimes through different mental agencies, or laws of human nature. CHAPTER IX. OF THE PHYSICAL, OR CONCRETE § 1. AFTER what has been said to illustrate the nature of the inquiry into social phenomena, the general character of the method proper to that inquiry is sufficiently evident, and needs only to be recapitulated, not proved. However complex the phenomena, all their sequences and co-existences result from the laws of the separate elements. The effect produced, in social phenomena, by any complex set of circumstances, amounts precisely to the sum of the effects of the circumstances taken singly; and the complexity does not. arise from the number of the laws themselves, which is not remarkably great, but from the extraordinary when the question is that of compounding several tendencies together, and computing the aggregate result of many co-existent causes; and especially when, by attempting to predict what will actually occur in a given case, we incur the obligation of estimating and compounding the influences of all the causes which happen to exist in that case; we attempt a task to proceed far in which surpasses the compass of the human faculties. If all the resources of science are not sufficient to enable us to calculate number and variety of the data or elements-of the agents which, in obedience to that small number of laws, co-operate towards the effect. The Social Science, therefore, (which, by a convenient barbarism, has been termed Sociology,) is a deductive science; not, indeed, after the model of geometry, but after that of the more complex physical sciences. It infers the law of each effect from the laws of causation on which that effect depends; not, however, from the law merely of one cause, as in the geome trical method; but by considering allà priori, with complete precision, the the causes which conjunctly influence mutual action of three bodies gravithe effect, and compounding their laws tating towards one another; it may with one another. Its method, in be judged with what prospect of sucshort, is the Concrete Deductive Me- cess we should endeavour to calculate thod; that of which astronomy fur- the result of the conflicting tendencies nishes the most perfect, natural philo- which are acting in a thousand diffesophy a somewhat less perfect example, rent directions and promoting a thouand the employment of which, with sand different changes at a given inthe adaptations and precautions re- stant in a given society: although quired by the subject, is beginning to we might and ought to be able, from regenerate physiology. the laws of human nature, to distinguish correctly enough the tendencies themselves, so far as they depend on causes accessible to our observation; and to determine the direction which each of them, if acting alone, would impress upon society, as well as, in a general way at least, to pronounce that some of these tendencies are more powerful than others. Nor does it admit of doubt that similar adaptations and precautions are indispensable in sociology. In applying to that most complex of all studies what is demonstrably the sole method capable of throwing the light of science even upon phenomena of a far inferior degree of complication, we ought to be aware that the same superior complexity which renders the But, without dissembling the neinstrument of deduction more neces-cessary imperfections of the à priori sary, renders it also more precarious; method when applied to such a suband we must be prepared to meet, by ject, neither ought we, on the other appropriate contrivances, this increase hand, to exaggerate them. The same of difficulty. objections which apply to the Method of Deduction in this its most difficult employment, apply to it, as we formerly showed,* in its easiest; and would even there have been insuperable, if there had not existed, as was then fully explained, an appropriate remedy. This remedy consists in the process which, under the name of Verification, we have characterised as the third essential constituent part of the Deductive Method; that of The actions and feelings of human beings in the social state are, no doubt, entirely governed by psychological and ethological laws; what ever influence any cause exercises upon the social phenomena, it exercises through those laws. Supposing, therefore, the laws of human actions and feelings to be sufficiently known, there is no extraordinary difficulty in determining from those laws the nature of the social effects which any given cause tends to produce. But * Supra, p. 295. collating the conclusions of the ratio- | next chapter, that there is a kind of cination either with the concrete phe- sociological inquiries to which, from nomena themselves, or, when such their prodigious complication, the are obtainable, with their empirical method of direct deduction is altolaws The ground of confidence in gether inapplicable, while by a happy any concrete deductive science is not compensation it is precisely in these the à priori reasoning itself, but the cases that we are able to obtain the accordance between its results and best empirical laws: to these inquiries, those of observation à posteriori. therefore, the Inverse Method is exEither of these processes, apart from clusively adapted. But there are also, the other, diminishes in value as the as will presently appear, other cases subject increases in complication, and in which it is impossible to obtain this in so rapid a ratio as soon to be- from direct observation anything come entirely worthless; but the re-worthy the name of an empirical liance to be placed in the concurrence law; and it fortunately happens that of the two sorts of evidence not only these are the very cases in which the does not diminish in anything like Direct Method is least affected by the same proportion, but is not neces- the objection, which undoubtedly must sarily much diminished at all. No- always affect it in a certain degree. thing more results than a disturbance in the order of precedency of the two processes, sometimes amounting to its actual inversion: insomuch that, in stead of deducing our conclusions by reasoning, and verifying them by observation, we in some cases begin by obtaining them provisionally from specific experience, and afterwards connect them with the principles of human nature by à priori reasonings, which reasonings are thus a real Verification. We shall begin, then, by looking at the Social Science as a science of direct Deduction, and considering what can be accomplished in it, and under what limitations, by that mode of investigation. We shall, then, in a separate chapter, examine and endeavour to characterise the inverse process. § 2. It is evident, in the first place, that Sociology, considered as a system of deductions à priori, cannot be a The only thinker who, with a com- science of positive predictions, but petent knowledge of scientific me- only of tendencies. We may be able thods in general, has attempted to to conclude, from the laws of human characterise the Method of Sociology, nature applied to the circumstances M. Comte, considers this inverse of a given state of society, that a order as inseparably inherent in the particular cause will operate in a nature of sociological speculation. certain manner unless counteracted; He looks upon the social science as but we can never be assured to what essentially consisting of generalisa-extent or amount it will so operate, tions from history, verified, not origi- or affirm with certainty that it will nally suggested, by deduction from not be counteracted; because we can the laws of human nature. Though seldom know, even approximately, there is a truth contained in this opinion, of which I shall presently endeavour to show the importance, I cannot but think that this truth is enunciated in too unlimited a manner, and that there is considerable scope in sociological inquiry for the direct, as well as for the inverse, Deductive Method. It will, in fact, be shown in the all the agencies which may co-exist with it, and still less calculate the collective result of so many combined elements. The remark, however, must here be once more repeated, that knowledge insufficient for prediction may be most valuable for guidance. It is not necessary for the wise conduct of the affairs of society, no more than of any one's private concerns, mer. A department of science may thus be constructed, which has received the name of Political Economy. The motive which suggests the separation of this portion of the social phenomena from the rest, and the creation of a distinct branch of science relating to them, is, that they do mainly depend, at least in the first resort, on one class of circumstances only; and that even when other circumstances interfere, the ascertainment of the effect due to the one class of circumstances alone is a sufficiently intricate and difficult business to make it expedient to perform it once for all, and then allow for the effect of the modifying circumstances; especially as certain fixed combinations of the former are apt to recur often, in conjunction with ever-varying circumstances of the latter class. Political Economy, as I have said on another occasion, concerns itself only with "such of the phenomena of the social state as take place in consequence of the pursuit of wealth. It makes entire abstraction of every other human passion or motive, except those which may be regarded as perpetually antagonising principles to the desire of wealth, namely, aversion to labour, and desire of the present enjoyment of costly indulgences. These it takes, to a certain extent, into its calculations, because these do not merely, like our other desires, occasionally conflict with the pursuit of wealth, but accompany it always as a drag or impediment, and are therefore inseparably mixed up in the consideration of it. Political Economy considers mankind as occupied solely in acquiring and consuming wealth, and ains at showing what is the course of action into which mankind, living in a state of society, would be impelled if that motive, except in the degree in which it is checked by the two perpetual counter-motives above adverted to, were absolute ruler of all their actions. Under the influence of this desire, it shows mankind accumulating wealth, and employing that wealth in the production of other wealth; sanctioning by mutual agreement the institution of property; establishing laws to prevent individuals from encroaching upon the property of others by force or fraud; adopting various contrivances for increasing the productiveness of their labour; settling the division of the produce by agreement, under the influence of competition, (competition itself being governed by certain laws, which laws are therefore the ultimate regulators of the division of the produce ;) and employing certain expedients (as money, credit, &c.) to facilitate the distribution. All these operations, though many of them are really the result of a plurality of motives, are considered by political economy as flowing solely from the desire of wealth. The science then proceeds to investigate the laws which govern these several operations, under the supposition that man is a being who is determined, by the necessity of his nature, to prefer a greater portion of wealth to a smaller in all cases, without any other exception than that constituted by the two counter-motives already specified; not that any political economist was ever so absurd as to suppose that mankind are really thus constituted, but because this is the mode in which science must necessarily proceed. When an effect depends on a concurrence of causes, these causes must be studied one at a time, and their laws separately investigated, if we wish, through the causes, to obtain the power of either predicting or controlling the effect; since the law of the effect is compounded of the laws of all the causes which determine it. The law of the centripetal and that of the projectile force must have been known before the motions of the earth and planets could be explained or many of them predicted. The same is the case with the conduct of man in society. In order to judge how he will act under the variety of desires and aversions which are concurrently operating upon him, we must know how he would act under the exclusive influence of each one in particular. There is, perhaps, no action of a man's life in which he is neither under the immediate nor under the remote influence of any impulse but the mere desire of wealth. With respect to those parts of human conduct of which wealth is not even the principal object, to these political economy does not pretend that its conclusions are applicable. But there are also certain departments of human affairs in which the acquisition of wealth is the main and acknowledged end. It is only of these that political economy takes notice. The manner in which it necessarily proceeds is that of treating the main and acknowledged end as if it were the sole end; which, of all hypotheses equally simple, is the nearest to the truth. The political economist inquires, what are the actions which would be produced by this desire, if within the departments in question it were unimpeded by any other. In this way a nearer approximation is obtained than would otherwise be practicable to the real order of human affairs in those departments. This approximation has then to be corrected by making proper allowance for the effects of any impulses of a different description which can be shown to interfere with the result in any particular ca e. Only in a few of the most striking cases (such as the important one of the principle of population are these corrections interpolated into the expositions of political economy itself; the strictness of purely scientific arrangement being thereby somewhat departed from, for the sake of practical utility. So far as it is known, or may be presumed, that the conduct of mankind in the pursuit of wealth is under the collateral influence of any other of the properties of our nature than the desire of obtaining the greatest quantity of wealth with the least labour and self-denial, the conclusions of political economy will so far fail of being applicable to the explanation or prediction of real events, until they are modified by a correct allowance for the degree of influence exercised by the other cause.' Extensive and important practical guidance may be derived, in any given state of society, from general propositions such as those above indicated ; even though the modifying influence of the miscellaneous causes which the theory does not take into account, as well as the effect of the general social changes in progress, be provisionally overlooked. And though it has been a very common error of political economists to draw conclusions from the elements of one state of society, and apply them to other states in which many of the elements are not the same, it is even then not difficult, by tracing back the demonstrations, and introducing the new premises in their proper places, to make the same general course of argument which served for the one case serve for the others too. For example, it has been greatly the custom of English political economists to discuss the laws of the distribution of the produce of industry, on a supposition which is scarcely realised anywhere out of England and Scotland, namely, that the produce is 'shared among three classes, altogether distinct from one another, labourers, capitalists, and landlords; and that all these are free agents, permitted in law and in fact to set upon their labour, their capital, and their land, whatever price they are able to get for it. The conclusions of the science, being all adapted to a society thus constituted, require to be revised whenever they are applied to any other. They are inapplicable where the only capitalists are the landlords, and the labourers are their property, as in slave countries. They are inapplicable where the almost universal landlord is the state, as in India. They are inapplicable where the agricultural labourer is generally the owner both of the land itself and |