from the country; (2) that the surplus of the first class seeks employment in the trades and professions which require mental skill. We may, perhaps, accept (1); Mr. Marshall, in his recent work, says something of the same kind. As for (2), it is, no doubt, true that the sons of the farmer, of the country gentleman, and clergyman (Mr. Hansen points out that the sons of the Protestant parish clergy are, in Germany, a most valuable element in the middle class), do not, as a rule, become mere labourers; but what his tables show is that, although all labour is a great deal more mobile than one would expect à priori-even among the operatives of Berlin only 60 per cent. are native born-yet that the higher the class of labour, the more skilled (mental) it is, the more readily it moves from place to place to compete for employment. The author's economic science appears to be somewhat uncertain (see, e.g., p. 50, a confusion of utility and value, and p. 345, the account of the source whence the interest on national debts is derived). In physiocratic style he speaks of the land only as spontaneously producing wealth. His whole conception of capital in its relation to land, and of the interest paid for the use of it, is coloured by dwelling too much on those cases where the wealth borrowed is not used productively by the debtor, where interest may not unjustly be described as a breed of barren money.

On the other hand, he turns the favourite Socialistic doctrine of the exploitation of the labourer, the origin of profit in the unpaid-for value created by labour, with some skill, against the followers of Marx. The manual labourer, like the landlord, receives the full value of what he gives; mental labour-the skill of the employer and administratoralone creates wealth much of which does not fall to the share of the producer. Thus he explains, a question somewhat neglected by economists, the nature of the dividends of a joint-stock company; and is able to see that the rent of landlords and the interest of the capitalist rise with the skill of the farmer and of the undertaker.

It is not, however, as containing a theory of economics, nor even as an exhaustive work on the subject with which it deals, but as a pleasantly written and suggestive essay, that Mr. Hansen's book may be recommended.

P. F. WILlert.

NICHOLAS BARBON: Ein Beitrag zur Vorgeschichte der klassischen Ekonomik. Von DR. STEPHEN BAUER, in Wien. [Reprinted from the Jahrbücher für Nationalökonomie und Statistik. Gustav Fischer. Jena, 1890.]

This little pamphlet of some thirty pages is a most valuable contribution to the history of English economic science on its theoretical

side. It is ably and clearly written, and displays an amount of research and learning which makes it of the utmost value to economic students. Nicholas Barbon was probably a son of the well-known “Praise-God” Barebone, and lived from about 1640 to 1698. He was educated for the medical profession, and received the degree of M.D. from Leyden, but seems to have deserted medicine for business. He was the founder of the first Fire Insurance Office in London (1681), and also of a Friendly Society formed with a similar object. He then bought land in London, and went in for building speculations, in which he seems to have been successful, becoming in 1690 a Member of Parliament. He was concerned in various financial schemes, such as the Land Bank of John Briscoe, and, when he died, recommended his executor to pay none of his debts. His works were nearly all published anonymously, and hence have frequently been erroneously ascribed to other authors, the only one quoted under his name being "A Discourse concerning Coining the New Money Lighter." (Dr. Bauer quotes a list of references to this "Discourse," to which we may add those made by G. L. C. Craik "History of British Commerce," ii. 217; and by Mr. Ingram : "History of Political Economy," p. 54.) The works to which Dr. Bauer specially directs our attention are those signed only "N.B.," of which the most important are "An Apology for the Builder" (1685) and "A Discourse of Trade: by N. B., M.D." (1690).

66

The "Apology for the Builder" was written to allay the fear caused by the rapid erection of new houses in London after the great fire of 1666. House-owners were alarmed at the fall in house-rents, landowners at the rise in wages and the influx of labourers into towns, and statesmen at the increase in the capital of a population that might possibly prove unruly. Barbon sought to prove these fears groundless, and to point out that the cause of the erection of houses must be the natural growth of population, due to the simple fact that more men are born than die, and that these men require shelter. But here comes in the interesting part of his book as regards economic theory, for he takes occasion to point out his view of the origin of Rent. Rent, he thinks, arises naturally from the possession of property, whether in goods or in land. And this possession. makes "the difference among men of rich and poor. The rich are fed,

clothed, and housed by the labour of other men, but the poor by their own; and the goods made by this labour are the rent of the rich men's land; for to be well fed, well clothed, and well lodged, without labour either of body or mind, is the true definition of a rich man." Here, for the first time, Dr. Bauer remarks, we have the conception of "unearned increment "(des arbeitslosen Einkommens) clearly set forth, and called Rent. Barbon, moreover, sees at once that the increase of

houses, so far from decreasing land-rents, will increase them. In fact, we see in him the outline of some of the most advanced theories of our own day, especially the theory of rent which declares rent to be identical with interest, both being merely a return upon capital (Vermögensertrag), whether that capital consist of land, money, goods, or machinery.

The "Discourse of Trade" may be described as the first conscious analysis of the economics of international commerce, and is chiefly noticeable for its lucid treatment of the questions of Value, Price, and Freedom of exchange. Value, says Barbon, depends on use, and price is present value: "The price of wares is the present value, and ariseth by computing the occasion or use for them with the quantity to serve that occasion; for, the value of things depending on the use of them, the over-plus of those wares which are more than can be used become worth nothing, so that plenty in respect of the occasion makes things cheap and scarcity dear." As a natural corollary it follows that "there is no fixed price or value of anything for the wares of trade "a statement which many a business man sorrowfully endorses. Hence, too, it may be seen that there is no such thing as intrinsic value. As to exchange, his remarks may be summed up in two of his own sentences: "The freer the trade is, the better a nation will thrive;" and "The balance of trade is a notion that serves rather to puzzle all debates of trade than to discover any particular advantages that a nation may get by regulating of trade."

Probably enough has been said, even in this brief review, to show that Barbon was an economist of considerable insight, and a precursor of much that is valuable in modern theory. It is a pity that his writings are not easily accessible; and it would be a distinct service to economic science in this country, if a well-edited edition of at least his three chief treatises (on Building, Trade, and Coinage) could be issued, with Dr. Bauer's excellent brochure as an introduction. It certainly seems a reflection upon English economic scholarship that, for example, the issue of solid economic literature like the Jahrbücher, and reprints of German and Austrian economists, should be so extremely scanty as it is at present in England. Dr. Bauer deserves the thanks of all English scholars for the timely publication of his pamphlet upon a pre-classical English economist, and for the skilful and interesting manner in which he has presented his facts.

H. DE B. GIBBINS.

A FRAGMENT ON GOVERNMENT. By JEREMY BENTHAM. Edited, with an Introduction, by F. C. MONTAGUE, M.A., late Fellow of Oriel College, Oxford. [xii.-241 pp. Price, 7s. 6d. Clarendon Press. Oxford, 1891.]

"The Introduction prefixed aims at showing the place of Bentham in the history of thought, and the significance of the Fragment' as a contribution to political philosophy." These are the last words of Mr. Montague's preface. There can be no question that his aims are abundantly fulfilled. His introduction is divided into four sections : "Life of Bentham," "Characteristics," "Contributions to Theory of Legislation," "The Fragment on Government." The first and second. of these are short, entertaining, and wonderfully successful in giving a vivid impression of Bentham's personality. But why does Mr. Montague accuse Bentham of "lack of imagination," on the same page where he quotes Bentham's own words, "When I got hold of a novel, I identified myself with all the personages, and thought more of their affairs than of any affairs of my own. I have wept for hours over Richardson's 'Clarissa.' In 'Gil Blas' . . . I was happy in the happiness, uneasy in the uneasiness, of everybody in it"? If that is not imagination, what is it? Mr. Montague means, not that Bentham had a weak or dull imagination, but that it was very limited in its scope. He could only imagine a very few states of emotion, or character, or social relation; but those he imagined intensely. Could a man give years of his life to ground-plans of a model prison, unless he was sustained by a clear vision and passionate feeling of its working and consequences? Also, why has Mr. Montague omitted that most characteristic incident of the fire-irons ? Surely two or three lines might have been found for this.

In the third and fourth sections the work is done admirably. The only deficiency is in the account of Blackstone. The "Fragment" is a criticism on part of Blackstone's Introduction to the "Commentaries," and we ought to have a little more information as to what Blackstone said than is given in the scattered quotations contained in the "Fragment" itself. Mr. Montague contents himself with saying that " we read the Fragment on Government' in order to see, not how far Blackstone was wrong, but how far Bentham was right," and 1 H. Sidgwick, in Fortnightly Review, May, 1877, p. 636. "Dumont has asked his master to send Talleyrand a set of economical and political works. It occurs to Bentham that it will be a stroke of diplomacy to forward along with the books 'a set, or two sets, of my brother's patent but never-sold fire-irons, of which the special and characteristic property is levity.' They would serve, he thinks, as a specimen of the Panopticon system. One might be kept by T.' (Talleyrand); 'the other, if he thought fit, passed on to B.' (Bonaparte)."

6

that in these days we "do not regard Blackstone as an authority upon speculative questions of politics or history, and therefore do not need to have Blackstone's theories corrected or disproved." But we are at least entitled to have Blackstone put before us in a continuous form. Mr. Montague ought, if he did nothing more, to have reprinted the few pages which contain the incriminated passages. If we had the text before us, perhaps Blackstone would not look quite such a fool as Bentham makes him. (In one particular case Mr. Montague acknowledges that he is not answer that Blackstone's "Commentaries the diligent student ought to consult them. and Beccaria fairly accessible, and Mr. Montague has not disclaimed to tell us something about these.

see p. 84.) Of course, Mr. Montague may are fairly accessible, and But so are Montesquieu

The interest of the "Fragment on Government" to modern political students is that it marks an important step in the development of the "analytical" or "Austinian" theory of sovereignty. Bentham is led, by consideration of Blackstone's desperate attempts to reconcile political sovereignty with the obligations of political morality, to the conclusion that "the authority of the supreme body cannot, unless where limited by express convention, be said to have any assignable, any certain bounds. That to say there is any act they cannot do,-to speak of any act of theirs as being illegal,-as being void;-to speak of their exceeding their authority (whatever be the phrase)-their power, their right,-is, however common, an abuse of language." (The italics are Bentham's.) Mr. Montague gives us the history of this conclusion, and supplies the limitations which are necessary to make it accord with the facts. But he does not expressly at this point, although he sufficiently states it earlier, on p. 23, explain the underlying motive that leads Bentham to raise the question of the limits of sovereignty at all. Bentham says that sovereignty is unlimited, because Blackstone says that it is limited by the moral law; but why does Bentham trouble himself to refute this particular portion of Blackstone's fallacies? For the sake of another portion, the portion in which Blackstone defends the unreformed law of England. As Mr. Montague says, "The reform of law was the one object of all his " (Bentham's) "labours." "He is not to be regarded as strictly a moralist, a psychologist, an economist, or a logician." In short, his political science rises out of his desires in the way of practical politics. And was there ever a political science that did not? When Hobbes said that there is somewhere a supreme and absolute power, he meant that it was wrong to resist Charles I. When Blackstone said that no human laws should be suffered to contradict the Divine law, he meant