2. English Philosophical Radicalism and Utilitarianism.— Utilitarianism, a term used by Jeremy Bentham and given currency by John Stuart Mill, is the designation usually applied to the school of writers headed by Bentham (17484832) • and including, among others, James Mill, George Grote, John Austin, Alexander Bain and John Stuart Mill. They represented primarily the spirit and tenets of economic liberalism in the field of political theory, and their work constituted the only significant contribution of England to this field between the time of Burke and that of Spencer. Essentially, they were a further development of that philosophical radicalism in England which grew out of English sympathy with the French Revolution, and was represented by William Godwin, Thomas Paine, William Cobbert, Francis Place an-i that group of literary men, such as Shelly, Byron and Words worth, with whose works and ideas Mr. Brails ford has recently made English readers famil iar. This group stood in direct opposition to the satisfaction which Blackstone and Burke expressed over the alleged perfection of British institutions and maintained the necessity of radical changes in the direction of eliminat ing archaic laws, institutions and practices. In his earlier years Bentham might have been logically classed with this group, for his first notable work Fragment on Government' (1776) —was a violent attack upon the com placency of Blackstone. But he gradually de veloped a general philosophy of reform and thus remolded radicalism into utilitarianism. His doctrines were based upon the hedonistic psychology, which had been anticipated by Machiavelli, Hobbes and Helvetius, and upon the ethical slogan of the greatest happiness for the greatest number"— a principle earlier enunciated but not greatly developed by Hutcheson, Beccaria and Priestley. Institutions were to be judged according to their contribu tions to the attainments of this °greatest happi ness." His practical program of reform, however, indicated that, like the economic liberals, he re garded unrestricted competition and enlightened self-interest as the chief avenues through which his utilitarian program could be realized. His chief concern was with the abolition of restric tive legislation, but he did urge some positive reforms, such as education of the masses, the extension of savings institutions, public health legislation and prison reform. Further, though Bentham and his immediate followers might seem to have regarded the "greatest good to the greatest number" as best attainable through conferring "the greatest amount of goods upon the business classes;' his terminology was one which, if honestly interpreted, was excellently adapted to serving as a basis for urging a large amount of positive remedial legislation in the behalf of the proletariat. In this way the utilitarian premises later became an important force supporting constructive social legislation. In fact: this evolution of utilitarianism is evi dent even within the circle of its own ad herents, for John Stuart Mill eventually evolved from an exponent of marked individualism into a vigorous exponent of social legislation in the interest of the laboring classes and a not unappreciative student of distinctly socialistic proposals. Probably the only im portant achievement of this group in the way of aiding the lower classes was the work of Francis Place and Joseph Hume in securing the temporary legalization of trade-unionism, but they made important contributions to securing that abolition of obstructive Iegisla tion which was described above in connection with the practical results of economic liberalism.
3. The Rise of Distinct Forms of Oppo sition to the Individualism of Economic Liberalism.—A. The Criticism of Economists.— There were a number of theoretical difficulties in economic liberalism which would naturally attract the opposition of political economists.
While Smith had actually assumed to be more concerned with the wealth of a "nation" than of a class, it is, nevertheless, true that his fol lowers seemed to be chiefly concerned with the wealth of the new business class rather than with the problem of increasing the prosperity of the entire nation. This brought upon the school the criticism of economists who presented a national or social theory of wealth and main tained that the increase of the wealth of in dividuals or classes was no safe criterion for judging of the value of an economic, social or political policy to the state or society. This was the point of view especially of the English man, Lord Lauderdale (1759-1839), and the Scotch-Canadian, John Rae (1786-1873). The position of the economic liberals generally and of Senior and Say, in particular, that the economist must maintain his science as a purely abstract and descriptive discipline and severely refrain from advocating any policy of state manship or social reform was vigorously at tacked by Jean Charles Leonard de Sismondi (1773-1842), an itinerant Swiss scholar. He was the most distinguished and effective ex ponent in his age of the notion that economics has a distinct function in promoting general prosperity and social reform, a point of view since urged with vigor by economists like Schmoller, Gide, Webb, Hobson, Fisher, Fetter and Seager. He saw clearly that economics should be intimately concerned with the prob lems of practical statesmanship and applied sociology and, more than any other writer of his time, he foreshadowed modern social eco nomics. Moreover, his practical program of reform embraced most of what is now included in trade-unionism, factory legislation and social insurance. He was a solitary figure in his age, but his doctrines were later accorded respect, as economics swung back more and more to the social point of view. Again, the economic liberals were internationalists and exponents of free trade. This attitude was attacked by the early nationalistic economists, Adam Hein rich Muller (1779-1829), Frederick List (1789 1846) and Henry C. Carey (1793-1879). They defended the policy of a national protective tariff to give national self-sufficiency and pros perity. The nation, rather than individuals, classes or human society as a whole, received their special solicitude. They were not, how ever, inflexibly dogmatic in this position and List, in particular, held that after the Indus trial Revolution had become thoroughly estab lished in a country free trade might be bene ficial, but to protect infant industries in the first stages of industrial development a pro tective tariff was indispensable. Finally, the economic liberals erred in the direction of too great an abstraction and absolutism in economic doctrines. They generalized too much from contemporary conditions and were confident in the universal and eternal applicability of their economic laws and theories. This defect was corrected by the early representatives of the historical school of economics, chiefly Richard Jones (1790-1855), Bruno Hildebrand (1812 78), Wilhelm Roscher (1817-94), and Karl Knies (1821-98). The predominance of the Germans in this group has led to the practical identification of the historical school with Ger man economists. These writers ridiculed the element of absolutism in the classical economic doctrines and maintained that any set of eco nomic theory could be true only for the society from which the facts or premises were drawn. Therefore, economic theories must change with historical alterations in the economic consti tution of societies, and there can be no in variable economic laws nor any valid economic theory which ignores the dynamic eletifent of economic progress.