DR. CHALMERS AS AN ECONOMIST.
[TO THE EDITOR OP THE "SPECTkTOR..1
rely upon the Spectator's sense of fairness in requesting leave to refer to some facts, not opinions, in connexion with Dr. Chalmers as an economist. Your reviewer and I hold different opinions as to how the social problem should be treated ; and to these I do not allude. But he bases his criticism of my work upon certain alleged facts, and he tells your readers that the reputation of Dr. Chalmers "requires some vindication from the panegyric contained" in my book. This vindication is required first because I represent Dr. Chalmers as holding that "other economists ignored religion and morals." I do not once use the term "religion" in this connexion, but I supply evidence that in Chalmers's opinion the economists of his day separated morals froom economics. To this he constantly refers : and I give two notable quotations in support of this view. I also cite his words when commenting upon M. Guizot's acknowledgment that the connexion between the moral and economic was not recognised in France. And on this Dr. Chalmers makes the remark that it is nearly as little studied in England. No one, indeed, who reads Dr. Chalmers's economic writings can fail to see how frequently he laments the neglect of the moral factor when economic subjects are discussed. This is the ground upon which my "prejudice," as your reviewer designates my statement of a well-known fact, rests. Your reviewer takes exception to my quoting St. Paul's words, "No man liveth unto himself," as expressing a principle which is Socialistic, and says that the passage does not bear the meaning which I attribute to it. I know that St. Paul is discussing the question of the observance of certain days and the eating of certain meats. But is a rigid exegesis to prevent one from perceiving the principle in all its applications which gave force to the Apostle's argument ? Besides, how do "we live unto the Lord" ? Is it not through service ? "Inasmuch as ye have done it," says our Lord, "unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me" ; and an Apostle asks the question : "If a man love not his brother whom he hath seen, how can he love God whom he hath not seen ?"
Next, your reviewer says that I neglect Dr. Chalmers's "un- faltering and impassioned vindication of the religious, moral, and economic value of the doctrine of personal responsibility." I am astonished at this charge of neglect ; for when dealing with Dr. Chalmers's teaching respecting personal responsibility I give the greatest prominence to his religious fervour. Then your reviewer quotes a passage from my treatment of the social ideal, and puts against it one from Dr. Chalmers which seems to affirm the reverse of what I state. Granted; but I am not in that part of my book dealing with Dr. Chalmers's views. I am stating my Own.
But the part to which your reviewer takes the gravest objection is my interpretation of present Socialistic tendencies. It is quite easy for him to show that Dr. Chalmers was opposed to State relief, and that his theory is also opposed to much that is held to-day. All this I have fully stated in my work ; and, indeed, it is only here and in relation to Dr. Chalmers's treatment of educational agencies that I differ from the great ecclesiastic. One is surely entitled to differ from him. Experience teaches all of us something. But I do not in a single Instance make Dr. Chalmers responsible for my views.
One final word. Your reviewer states as a fact that Dr. Chalmers's "Political Economy" is not a systematic work, and that "his treatment of pauperism is the ablest exposition of the subject which has ever been written." I endorse the latter state- ment, though I cannot accept his readings as always correct. But as for the former statement, it is enough to say that Dr. Chalmers regarded his "Political Economy" as a systematic work, and the one upon which he set the greatest value. Dr. Hanna, his biographer, calls it "the favourite child of his intellect." His "Christian Polity of a Nation" was published in 1821, but it was in 1827 that he wrote in his "Journal": "My chief earthly ambition is to finish IL treatise on political economy." This proves that he was then engaged on his "Political Economy," and that, in his own opinion, he had not yet spoken the last word on economics. His "Political Economy" was published in 1832. In his "Christian Polity of a Nation" he deals with many local details, but it is only in his "Political Economy" that he discusses the questions which belong to the science; and there he anticipates many conclusions of present-day writers.
I know that Dr. Chalmers's opposition to State pensions to the aged was based on the fear that they might prove hostile to "the virtues of prudence and natural piety "; but it is a fact, which I was surely at liberty to state, that old-age pensions are now being given with the approval of the great mass of the people. I am equally at liberty to hold and insist that they are not yet [We have submitted Dr. Wilson Harper's letter to our reviewer, who comments on it as follows :—" Dr. Wilson Harper is certainly `at liberty to hold and to insist' on any opinions that seem good to him. Our point is that, in these so-called Chalmers Lectures, Dr. Harper has, rightly or wrongly, taken up an attitude and advanced opinions which are fundamentally opposed to those of Chalmers. We expressly said that we did not know how far the terms of the foundation requiredthe lecturer to be the apologist for Chalmers, but the occasion, we admit, led us to expect that the lecturer would attempt a modern application of Chalmers's principles. Dr. Harper has not taken this view of his office, and he has clearly not regarded himself as a mere expositor of Chalmers. We are sorry if, by paying too exclusive attention to the teaching of Chalmers, we have done an injustice to Dr. Harper. We did not venture, it may be added, to criticise Dr. Harper's opinions further than to point out that, as he now admits, they were not the opinions of Dr. Chalmers, and this after all is the important point at issue. May we not say, Cadit guacstio With regard to the value of Chalmers's contribution to political economy proper, we must frankly express our opinion that dis- service is done to Chalmers's reputation by giving an undue pro- minence to it. The verdict of economists at tho present day will not, we fear, differ much from that of a very competent critic, Professor Smart, of Glasgow University, who in his recent 'Economic Annals' (p. 208) describes Chalmers's Inquiry into the Extent and Stability of National Resources ' as showing, it must be confessed, little economic grasp, and marked by an absurd depreciation of manufactures as compared with agricultural produce.' After making this admission, in which we fear Dr. Harper will decline to join, we may be allowed to repeat our con- viction that Chalmers's exposition of the theory of pauperism and relief, a subject on which he had full knowledge and experience, is the best and most philosophical that has ever been written. For those who wish to have the best of Chalmers gathered from his multifarious writings, we recommend Mr. Masterman's very useful compilation, 'Chalmers on Charity.' "—En. Spectator.]
Previous page
