----------------- HES POSTING ----------------- 
 
An important reference relating to all this, which seems to have been ignored in the
discussion so far, is the review of Senior's 'Outline' (1836) in the Edinburgh Review,
October 1837, pp. 73-102.
 
The reviewer clearly contrasts the 'English' with the 'foreign' school of political
economy.
 
'The English writers, or chrysologists, as M. Cherbuliez would call them, or followers of
Dr Smith (though his own definition of Political Economy differs widely from that of his
successors), define their science as that of the laws which regulate the prduction and
distribution of wealth. Their opponents say that it both investigates those laws, and,
moreover, directs the legislator how to regulate distribution, so as secure that
proportion in the enjoyment of it which is most conducive to the general welfare. The
foreign school (we term them so for convenince, although there are many English authors
whose views assimilate to theirs) hold, that it is the office of the political economist
to point out in what way social happiness may best be attained through the medium of
national wealth. Our own writers reply, that this is the province, not of the economist,
but of the politician.
      . . . We contend that the study is purely a science: our opponents, that it includes
the practical adaptations of the science to existing circumstances'
(p. 77) 
 
Anthony Waterman 
 
------------ FOOTER TO HES POSTING ------------ 
For information, send the message "info HES" to [log in to unmask]