Physiocratic School

The Rule of Nature.

These conclusions as to the revolu tionary tendencies of the school are not at all affected by the fact that the form of government preferred by Quesnay and some of his chief followers was what they called a legal despotism, which should embrace within itself both the legislative and the executive function. The reason for this preference was that an enlightened central power could more promptly and efficaciously introduce the policy they advocated than an assem bly representing divergent opinions and fettered by constitutional checks and limitations. Turgot used the absolute power of the Crown to carry into effect some of his measures for the liberation of industry, though he ultimately failed because unsustained by the requisite force of character in Louis XVI. But what the physiocratic idea with respect to the normal method of govern ment was appears from Quesnay's advice to the dauphin, that when he became king he should "do nothing, but let the laws rule," the laws having been, of course, first brought into con formity with the ius naturae. The partiality of the school for agriculture was in harmony with the sentiment in favour of "nature" and primitive simplicity which then showed itself in so many forms in France, especially in combination with the revolu tionary spirit, and of which Rousseau was the most eloquent exponent. The members of the physiocratic group were un dolibtedly men of thorough uprightness, and inspired with a sincere desire for the public good, especially for the material and moral elevation of the working classes. Quesnay was phy sician to Louis XV., and resided in the palace at Versailles; but in the midst of that corrupt court he maintained his integrity, and spoke with manly frankness what he believed to be the truth. And never did any statesman devote himself with greater singleness of purpose or more earnest endeavour to the service of his country than Turgot, who was the principal practical rep resentative of the school.

The physiocratic school never obtained much direct popular influence, even in its native country, though it strongly attracted many of the more gifted and earnest minds. Its members, writing

on dry subjects in an austere and often heavy style, did not find acceptance with a public which demanded before all things charm of manner in those who addressed it. The physiocratic tenets, which were in fact partly erroneous, were regarded by many as chimerical, and were ridiculed in the contemporary literature; as, for example, the imp& unique by Voltaire in his L'Homme aux quarante ecus, which was directed in particular against P. P. Mercier-Lariviere (172o-1794). It was justly objected to the group that they were too absolute in their view of things; they supposed, as Smith remarks in speaking of Quesnay, that the body politic could thrive only under one precise regime—that, namely, which they recommended—and thought their doctrines universally and immediately applicable in practice. They did not, as theorists, sufficiently take into account national diversities or different stages in social development ; nor did they, as poli ticians, adequately estimate the impediments which ignorance, prejudice and interested opposition present to enlightened states manship.

The physiocratic system, after guiding in some degree the policy of the Constituent assembly, soon ceased to exist as a living power; but its good elements were incorporated into the more complete construction of Adam Smith.

See the articles on QUESNAY (with bibliography), MIRABEAU and TURGOT; also Tocqueville, L'Ancien regime et la revolution, ch. iii.; Taine, Les Origines de la France contemporaine, vol. i.; R. Stourm, Les Finances de l'ancien regime et de la revolution (1885) ; J. F. X. Droz, Histoire du regne de Louis XVI.; L. de Lavergne, Economistes franfais du XVIII.e siecle (1876) ; H. Higgs, The Physiocrats (1897) ; C. Landauer, Die Theorien der Merkantilisten and der Physiokraten fiber die iikonomische Bedeutung des Luxus (Munich, 1915) ; R. Savatier, La Theorie du commerce chez les physiocrates (1918) ; R. Gonnard, Hist. des doctrines economique (3 vols., 1921-22) .