DELIVERED BEFORE THE UNIVERSITY OF OXFORD. BY NASSAU W. SENIOR, A.M., LATE FELLOW OF MAGDALEN COLLEGE, PROFESSOR OF POLITICAL ECONOMY. LONDON: LONGMAN, BROWN, GREEN, AND LONGMANS. 1852. London : Spottiswoodes and Shaw , New-street-Square. LECTURE I. CAUSES THAT HAVE RETARDED THE PROGRESS OF POLITICAL ECONOMY. LECTURE II. POLITICAL ECONOMY A MENTAL STUDY. LECTURE III. REASONS FOR TREATING POLITICAL ECONOMY AS A SCIENCE. LECTURE IV. THAT POLITICAL ECONOMY IS A POSITIVE, NOT AN HYPOTHETICAL SCIENCE

Political Economy, as a separate branch of study, may be said to be about a century old. Many of the facts which are its subject-matter, have indeed attracted human attention from the earliest times; many opinions, right or wrong, have been formed respecting them, and many customs and laws, beneficial or injurious, have been the consequence: but it was not until nearly the middle of the last century, that any attempt was made to reduce those opinions into a system, or to ascertain the grounds on

In the present and the following two Lectures, I shall consider whether Political Economy is a physical or a mental study; whether it may be more conveniently treated as a science or as an art; and whether its premises are to be taken solely from observation and consciousness, or rest, in part, on arbitrary assumptions. And I shall begin by stating, at some length, the distinction between science and art,—not with the hope of saying anything new, but because I believe that that distinction, thou

In the following Lecture I shall consider whether Political Economy may be better treated as a science or as an art. If Political Economy is to be treated as a science, it may be defined as “the science which states the laws regulating the production and distribution of wealth, so far as they depend on the action of the human mind.” If it be treated as an art, it may be defined as “the art which points out the institutions and habits most conducive to the production and accumulation of wealth.”

In the present Lecture I shall consider whether the science of Political Economy may be more conveniently based on positive or on hypothetical principles, and shall afterwards explain, more fully than I have as yet done, the sense in which I use the word wealth. Mr. John Mill, who has contributed much to Political Economy, as he has, indeed, to every science which he has touched, maintains that it is based on hypothesis. As it is impossible to change Mr. Mill’s language for the better, I shall e