II.Economics must be constantly regarded as forming only one department of the larger science of Sociology,in vitalconnection with its other departments,and with the moral synthesis which is the crown of the whole intellectual system.Wehave already sufficiently explained the philosophical grounds for the conclusion that the economic phenomena of societycannot be isolated,except provision ally,from the rest,that,in fact,all the primary social elements should be habituallyregarded with respect to their mutual dependence and reciprocal actions.Especially must we keep in view the high moralissues to which the economic movement is subservient,and in the absence of which it could never in any great degree attractthe interest or fix the attention either of eminent thinkers or of right-minded men.The individual point of view will have tobe subordinated to the social;each agent will have to be regarded as an organ of the society to which he belongs and of thelarger society of the race.The consideration of interests,as George Eliot has well said,must give place to that of functions.
The old doctrine of right,which lay at the basis of the system of "natural liberty,"has done its temporary work;a doctrineof duty will have to be substituted,fixing on positive grounds the nature of the social co-operation of each class and eachmember of the community,and the rules which must regulate its just and beneficial exercise.
Turning now from the question of the theoretic constitution of economics,and viewing the science with respect to itsinfluence on public policy,we need not at the present day waste words in repudiating the idea that "non-government "in theeconomic sphere is the normal order of things.The laisser-faire doctrine,coming down to us from the system of naturalliberty,was long the great watchword of economic orthodoxy.It had a special acceptance and persistence in England inconsequence of the political struggle for the repeal of the corn laws,which made economic discussion in this country turnalmost altogether on free tradea state of things which was continued by the effort to procure a modification of theprotective policy of foreign nations.But it has now for some time lost the sacrosanct character with which it was formerlyinvested.This is a result not so much of scientific thought as of the pressure of practical needsa cause which has modifiedthe successive forms of economic opinion more than theorists are willing to acknowledge.Social exigencies will force thehands of statesmen,whatever their attachment to abstract formulas;and politicians have practically turned their backs on laisser faire .The State has with excellent effect proceeded a considerable way in the direction of controlling,for ends ofsocial equity or public utility,the operations of individual interest.The economists themselves have for the most part beenconverted on the question;amongst theorists Herbert Spencer found himself almost a vox clamantis in deserto in protestingagainst what he called the new slavery"of Governmental interference.He will protest in vain,so far as he seeks torehabilitate the old absolute doctrine of the economic passivity of the State.But it is certainly possible that even by virtue ofthe force of the reaction against that doctrine there may be an excessive or precipitate tendency in the opposite direction.
With the course of production or exchange considered in itself there will probably be in England little disposition to meddle.
