POL JTICAL ECONOMY AS MORAL PHILOSOPHY: DUGALD STEWART OF EDINBURGH

SALIM RASHID::'

I

Dugald Stewart was professor of Moral Philosophy at Edinburgh dur ing t h c last decade of t he eighteenth century and the first decade of t h e n ine teenth . H e was also the first professor t o dc l ivera highly popular and influential course of lec tures on political economy a t any British university. Both J a c o b Hul lander (1927) and James Bonar (1939) have emphasized the impor tance of these lectures. which were delivered between 1798 and 1808, in propagating Smithian political economy. ' Even if W E cons ider Stewart as a n unoriginal expositor of the Wealth of Nations, it is surprising. in view of the considerable attention paid to the spread of Adam Smith's ideas, t ha t n o detailed study of these lectures has been made . However. recent research has cast doub t on t h e speed with which Smithian ideas came to dominate British economic thought (Willis 1979; Rashid 1982) . In view of Stewart 's authoritative position a t a t ime when the ideas of Adam Smith . Sir J ames Stcuart and the Physiocrats were all jostling for supremacy. his lectures deserve scrutiny. More recently, it has been claimed tha t Stewart 's offering a separa te course of lectures o n political economy served t o make political economy independent of Moral philosophy' (Berg 1980: Winch 1983. p. 512). Whe the r o r no t such independence was intended by Stewart has not however been queried.

A careful reading of Stewart 's lectures soon dispels t he idea tha t he was only providing a simplified version of t he U'ealtlz of Nafioris. Indeed , Stewart 's monetary analysis is adopted almost entirely from "critics" of Adam Smith . H e followed Sir lames Steuart a n d rejected the quantity theory of money a n d agreed entirely with Benthain's cri t ique of Adam Smith's views on the desirability of a legal maximum rate of interest . Unlike Adain Smi th , Stewart generally accepted t h e J o h n Lau-Bi shop Berkeley school of monetary analysis. which put great emphas is o n the fiat na ture of money and very little o n its value as a precious metal. Stewart even snubs Adam Smith's famous passage o n the debilitating effects of the division

I am grateful t o t he referees for some very helpful comments

'Throughout this eshay I h l i e l l rcfcr t o the C o / / f ~ / e d W'orlis o/ nrrgnld Stc?cmrl. c'd. by Sir \V. Hani i l to t i (Edinburgh: 1858-3878). 1 I voIu~nc's. Volumes V I I I and IS constitute the Lccturcs 011 Polrtrcrrl Ecorroriry. hereafter referred to as Lcclirrcs I and II respectively.

'Stewart's biographer. J o h n Vcitcti. appears to havc been the first to make this point i n his"Menioir of Dugald Stewart". Collected I l ' o r k ~ . Vol. S. l i . The poin t is nu t 5 0 niuch incorrect. I shall suggest belotv, ns misleading by its inconipletc.nrss.

146 A U S T R A L I A N ECONOMIC PAPERS 1 U N E

of labour by quoting only Adam Ferguson’s treatment of this point, without even referring to Smith’s account’ (Hamowy 1968).

Stewart displays a much stronger Agrarian bias than Adam Smith, a point of view that was n o doubt reinforced by Stewart’s admiration for the P h y s i o c r a t ~ . ~ H e does, however, lay emphasis on the role of manufactures in creating new wants

The only thing that can quicken human industry, is the wants of men, real or imaginary; and these wants can be created only by the introduction of manufactures (Stewart, Lectures I, p. 154).

Stewart’s treatment ofthis issue is richerthan that ofAdam Smith because he avails himself of the Principles of Sir James Steuart in his presentation. The historical consciousness of Sir James, which earned the praise of Karl Marx, saw clearly that the prosperity of modern Europe had its basis in a free industrious class and was radically distinct from classical slaveholding societies. The existence of such free men meant that the industry of the poor now had to be extracted by new means and, despite its cynicism, Stewart approvingly quoted the view of Sir James that “as a modern statesman cannot make slaves of his subjects, he must engage them to become slaves to their own passions and desires” (Stewart, Lectures, I, p. 156).

Stewart viewed the basic structure of Smithian economics, with its emphasis upon free trade, to be essentially correct and his own role to consist of tidying u p various loose ends. Not only did Stewart freely criticize Adam Smith on several points. such as the definition and use of the measure of value, but he also made some original contributions on the issues of population and the division of labour. This essay will focus on those aspects of Stewart’s lectures that had the greatest potential to influence the future course of classical political economy, particularly Stewart’s admiration for Physiocracy and his views on the scope and method of economics.

11.

Those who consider Stewart a mere follower of Adam Smith should read the almost brutal manner in which he dissects Smith’s arguments on the measure of value. Smith had said that “a man must be rich or poor according to the quantity of labour which he can command, or which he can afford to purchase. Labour, therefore, is the real measure of the exchangeable value of all commodities.”The confusion of this definition, Stewartbelieved, arose from the attempt to borrow from the exact sciences the practice of measuring one variable, such as a n angle, by another fixed standard, such as the arc of a circle. Stewart goes on to quote a t length Smith’s own words admitting that different qualities of labour are not physically comparable and, hence, indicating the contradictory nature of Smith’s quest (Stewart, Lectures, I , pp. 351-352).

Having dismissed the quest for some “true” measure of value, Stewart interprets the real question t o be that of finding a cost-of-living deflator.

‘Dugald Stewart, Lecfures, I . 329-30.

‘For the relationship between Physiocracy and Agrarian sympathies in Britain a t this time see Semmel 11970).

19x7 POLITIC \ L ECONOhl \ AS RIOKAL P H I I L ) S O P t i L 147

On wha t principle, then. shall the value of riroriey ai rliffcreiil tiriws bc c s i i r~a ied . or 1iow shall the real prices of corrrmodiiies arid labour bc coriiputed? This I conceive to be the simple statement of t he question. which Mr. Smith under takes to resolve. [einphasis in originol) (Stewart . LPcturm, I , p. 3 5 2 ) .

Smith‘s answer . as is well known . is tha t labour is t he best such deflator. Whi le Stewart agrees with the conclusion, he finds the a rgument faulty. Smith had claimed tha t “Labour was the first price: t he original purchase money tha t was paid for all things . . .,” this was unacceptable to S tewar t because the a rgument was valid only for “ tha t rude period which preceded the accumulation of s tock” a n d hence was irrelevant for capitalistic society. O n c e again, Stewart has no difficulty in quoting from t h e Wcalih of Natiorrs to show that Smi th hiinself admitted the validity of the objection (Stewart . LecturPs. I . pp . 353-351).

Smith’s second defence - Stewart calls it “another metaphysical a rgument”- is based on the claim tha t ”equal quantit ies of labour must at all t imes be of equal value to t he labourer.” What sort o f v a l u e is being referred to here. asks Stewart? Was it what Smi th had earlier called “value in use.” and which Stewart thought t o be just ano the r name for utility. o r was it .‘value in exchange.” or what was cornnionly referred to simply as the value of a good. Smith’s new terminology Stewart found t o be both pointless and confusing.’ Stewart then proceeds t o justify the use o f a labour-deflator without recourse t o any ”metaphysical theory concern ing labour” - a doc t r ine tha t Stewart characteristically traces back to Rice Vaughn (1675) and J o h n Locke (1691).

I merely consider [deflation by wages]. when accurately ascertained, a n d when d u e allowances a re made for collateral circumstances, as an evidence o f t h e average price of corn and the necessaries of life. a t any particular period. Mr. Smith‘s rcasoning, you will observe. reverses this order , and deduces the rule founded on the money price of corn from a illetaphysical speculation concerning the fixed and unalterable value of labour (Stewart . Lectures. I . p. 364).

The impatience displayed by Stewar t in dealing with Adam Smith’s a rguments on the measure of value turns almost t o indignation when h e considers t h e description of Physiocracy in the Weal th of Natioiis. A careful presentation of Quesnay’s system was needed “in order to correct those misapprehensions of its na ture which have prevailed to a considerable degree, iir coriscqilerrcc o/ ihe accouiit o/ it g i z l ~ t z by Mr . Smith” (Stewart , Lectures. I . p. 268, emphas is added) . In Book IV of t he Wcnl th of Nnfioris i t is stated of the Physiocrats tha t “Their capital c r ror seeins to be in considering the class o f artificers. manufacturers a n d merchants a s altogether unproductive a n d barren.” W h a t really irked Stewart was the fact that Smith had in several places accepted t h e substance of Physiocratic doc t r ines a n d yet had misrepresented them in his portrait of their system. The facts on which the Physiocratic classification was based were frequently stressed by n o o n e o ther than Smith himself. In the chapter “ O f t h e Different Employmentsof Capital” there is

‘Ihid.. 355-356 Stewart‘s interpretat ion ol S i n i t l i i s challenged by V . W. Bladen (1975). Bladcn illso

notes that this point ha5 been subjrct to a variety 01 interpretations ; t i id provides relevant rclcrcnces. A curious feature o f t h i s essay i s Bladen‘s insistence that the Iabot~r-cornn~;indc~d and lahour-cinbodird w r s i o n s o f the t t i eo ry of va I u c‘ iii ea n t h e sa in e t h i t i g - a 11 ti rgu in en t that rcq u i rc‘b c‘u 11 st a11 cy o I’ t I1 e wage ahare f o r its validity.

118 AUSTRALIAN ECONOMIC PAPERS J U N E

an extensive discussion of the manner in which nature works along with man in Agriculture and how this gives rise to a source of revenue, rent, which is not derived from human labour. Stewart notes that thisgrants all the Economists contend for. (Stewart, Lectures, I, p. 271).

Adam Smith had considered the Physiocratic treatment of all non-agricultural labour as “unproductive” not only to be paradoxical but also to have contributed to the popularity of that school. Stewart found such an assertion to be extraordinary and unjustified.

. . . to affirm of manufacturing labour, that the epithet productiue cannot be applied to it in the same sense in which it is applied to agriculture, so far from having the air of a paradox, strikes me as bordering upon a self-evident proposition (Stewart, Lectures, I , p. 277).

Throughout his presentation of Physiocratic doctrines Stewart makes what can only be considered minor and tangential criticisms. In concluding his account Stewart ventures what he considers to be serious criticisms of the system of Quesnay. Their most grievious fault, it appears, lay in focusing upon long-run equilibrium and in being too idealistic (Stewart, Lectures, I, pp. 302-305). In claiming that the returns of the manufacturer will always be equal to the value of raw materials purchased plus the manufactures subsistence. the Physiocrats, according t o Stewart, had undoubtedly pointed to an ultimate tendency and also to a truth in most established occupations; but in abstracting from shortrun considerations, such as the super-normal profits of new manufactures, the Physiocrats had left themselves open to the charge of theorizing upon tendencies rather than realities.

The second major fault of the Physiocrats lay in their being too idealistic. Benjamin Franltlin had deduced from their principles that there were but three ways of getting rich: War, which was robbery; Commerce, which must involve cheating, since long-run profits tended to a minimum; and Agriculture, the only honest way. Having accepted the basic tenets of the Physiocrats Stewart finds himself backed into a corner and his reply to Franklin consists in exclaiming that “the tone of morality here assumed is much too elevated for the actual condition of the human race” (Stewart, Lectures, I , 305). It was Smith’s realism that set him apart from the Physiocrats in Stewart’s eyes, because Smith had been able to deduce the validity of Free Trade while adopting his speculations “to the present state of the world.” Stewart’s general conclusion then is that while the theory of the Physiocrats was sounder, it was less applicable to the ordinary state of affairs than that of Smith.

. . . if , on the one hand, the language of the Economists be more precise and definite. and the result of a more accurate metaphysical analysis than that of Mr. Smith . . . the doctrines inculcated in the Wealth of Nations are, on the other hand, of greater practical utility (Stewart. Lectures. I . 306).

Even this half-praise is then qualified by stating that it applies only to the doctrine of free trade and that the student must keep in mind Adam Smith’s failure to emphasize the preeminence of agriculture (Stewart, Lectures, I , pp. 306-307). Dugald Stewart and Adam Smith were both Scottish professors of Moral Philosophy but Stewart seems to have had reservations about the originality and correctness of much of the economic analysis provided by his distinguished predecessor.

1987

111.

Whatever t l ie impor tance o f Agr icu l tu re may have been for i i o i ieconomic reasons. there was little doubt i n the minds of ' those econoinists who fo l l o~ \ , cd i l t l a m Sni i th that n ianufac- tu r i ng was the ma in source o f labour produc t iv i t y and that the pr imary reason fo r t h i s was the effectiveness of the d iv is ion o f labour i n niar iufact t i r i i ig. Stewart's t reatment 0 1 th is topic i s more d isc r im ina t ing than tha t of many later classical economists. Stewart po in ts out several ear l ier references t o demonstrate that eveti t h u t ~ g h the d iv is ion o f labour ~ v a s given most emphasis by Admii Smi th the idea itself \vas no t new. Xenopt ion 's v iews are quoted at length. a long w i t h the pcrcept ive remarl t that wh i l e the Greeks s a w the d iv is iun of labour as the source 01 an i i i i p rovemcnt i n qual i ty. Sn i i th i r t i t l t l i e inodcrns were largely impressed by i ts role in increasing t h e cluantity o t p roduc ts (Ste\vart. I , c ~ c f ~ / r r s . I . p. 31 1 ) .

I n h i s detai led analysis, S t e w r t finds consid era b le i nat lcq tiacieb in Ad a i i i S i i i i t 11's

presentat ion. I n Chapter I o t R o o k I o f the \!'ra/t/7 of Nrt t iom three reasons werc given fo r t Ii c b in creased pro cl u c t i v i ty c o t i se q u e 11 t u p o ii s p ec i a I i sa t i o 11 : f i rs t , t I1 e i n c re a se d d c~ x t e r i ty o f the worker : secondly. the saving o f t ime i n not hav ing to t i love from one' iob t o another : and f inal ly. the tendency o f the d iv is ion of labour to encourage the i nven t ion o f mach inery . Stewart cr i t ic ised each po in t i n tu rn . Tha t ii w o r k m a n gains iii dc l te r i t y by concent ra t ing o n one task. Stewart has n o doubt. bu t t h e ef f ic iency gains thus ob ta incd he considers to he, quite l imi ted. Indeed so sl ight are the gains f r o m this source t h a t n iuch work in p inmal t ing was done by ch i ld ren (Stewart . Lccfirrrs. I. p. 315).

Secondly. w h i l e i t was perfectly t rue that a worltcr saved t i i i i e by r i o t hav ing to change jobs, " t h e economy o f t ime gained in this way must p la in ly bear a st i l l i i i o rc i i icoi is iderahlc~ p ropor t i on than the former, to t h e niapni tut le o f t h e effect w h i c h i t is brought to explain." I f then the d iv is ion of l abour is to exp la in the produc t iv i t y of l abour i t must he by i t s i r i t luencc~ upon the i nven t ion o fmac t i i ne ry . Smith 's e x a m p l e o t u boy improv ing the steam engine i n o rder t o play longer w i t h h is f r iends Stewart f inds "extrcnic ly unsatisfactory." W i t h o u t d ispu t ing the fact. he considers such incidents improbab le oi t g rounds o f self-interest because t h e eff'ect of such improvements w o ~ i l d riot be t o shortei i the workday fo r the i nvcn to r and indeed n i igh t even lend to h is be ing unctnploycd. More impor tan t ly . theeffect ol' the d iv is ion of l abour \vas to fix a t ten t ion on cine s in ip le opera t ion w h i l e the i iii p rov e in e n t of n i a c t i i t i cs ry rcq u i re c l a I< n o w I cd gc o t' a g rea v a r i e t y c) t' o 11 csrii t i () ii s ( S t c w ii r t . I.ccfitrcs. I . p. 318).

A closer analysis lends Stcuart. w h o \4ns probab ly inf luenced by Lord Lauclcrdalc. t o

111 iili c t w o sign i f i ca t i t i n n ov;i t i o i i s ."

The obvious effect o f the d iv is ion of l abour i n a n y compl ica ted mechanical opera t ion is. t o analyse that opera t ion i n t o the siitiplest steps wh ich c a n b e car r i cd on separately. 01' these steps, there may prohub ly be s o m e w h i c h c a n on ly be perl'ornied by the h u m a n hand. wh i l e others. c i ther i n w h o l e or iii part. admi t o t t h e subst i t i i t iot i o fmach ines . N o ~ v , i t is on ly by rcw) lv ing ; i r i optbration i n t o i tsbimplest elemelits. that t h i s scpar;it ion c a n he i i i a c l c ~ . so i i s to I'orc~coii t l i e

150 AUSTRALIAN ECONOMIC PAPERS IUNE

attention of the mechanist, in their simplest forms, those particular cases where his ingenuity may be useful (Stewart, Lectures, I , p. 319).

In the first place, Stewart’s analysis of production has focused upon the separation of tasks into the simplest ones, those most capable of mechanical duplication, and the gain in time and dexterity followed as a corollary of this attempt to gain simplicity. Secondly, the entrepreneur and not the worker is put a t the centre of the stage. It is the capitalist who is driven by the lure of profits to continually improve his machinery and Smith’s picture is thus misleading.

The macroeconomic concept typifying thegrowth potential of an economy, according to Adam Smith, was the proportion of the labour force devoted to “productive labour.” The Physiocrats had used the same expression to denote those who were connected with extracting value from the land - a view following logically from their belief that only land produced a surplus. As Smith denied the Physiocratic notion, he had to find some other way of describing those workers whose activities produced the “surplus” that permitted accumulation and growth. Smith defined productive labour as that species of labour which fixed itself upon some durable and vendible commodity, so that the sale of the commodity replaced the expense of the labourer; unproductive labour, on the other hand, consisted of services which perished as soon as they were performed. The manner in which Smith conjoins vendibility and durability would suggest that the two properties could be expected to coincide.

Whether productive labour be fixed in some saleable commodity or not Stewart finds to be an accidental circumstance which should not determine the nature of the labour performed (Stewart, Lectures, I , 280). If a housemaid spins flax for her master’s use this is clearly n o different from her services in sweeping his apartment. In both cases she relieves her master of an expense that would otherwise have to be incurred, but in neither case is the commodity provided by the maid put up for sale. If it be argued that the flax spun by the maid could be sold by the master, it must equally be admitted that he could have hired out her services as a sweeper, so vendibility is just as inherent in one form of labour as in the other. The same considerations show that durability cannot decide whether a species of labour is saleable (an opera “perishes” as it is performed) and Stewart felt that once such distinctions were admitted, degrees of durability would give rise to “the absurd conclusion” of degrees of productiveness. At another point, Stewart, whose writings always display a pronounced subjective bias, seems to argue against the whole point of such a classification. Adam Smith had argued that employing menial servants (“unproductive”) could ruin a master while employing workers (“productive”) would enrich him. Stewart retorted that an excess of workers could ruin a master just a s effectively a s a multitude of menial servants (Stewart, Lectures, I , pp. 265,276). A substantial portion of later classical economists, and of course, neoclassical economists, have accepted the basis of Stewart’s criticisms.

IV.

Even though both Adam Smith and Dugald Stewart lectured on political economy within the framework of a Moral Philosophy course, the two men viewed the scope of political economy quite differently. That “Wealth” and “Power” were the twin aims of English economic thought prior to Adam Smith has been convincingly established by Jacob Viner (1969). In John Locke (1691) we find the two aimsgiven parallel importance; by the time of Joseph Harris (1754) English dominance was so widely perceived that power becomes a

14x7 POl , lT lC4L ECONOhl\l ,AS hIOR/IL P H I L O S O P H Y 151

secondary consideration. This ordering of priorities is again visible in the Wealth of Nat ions . whose primary emphas is is upon the analysis ofexchangeable value. W h e n Smith does deviate from the consideration of marke t value, i t is frequently motivated by considc- rations of "Power". such as the oft-repeated s ta tement tha t "det'cnse is of more impor tance than opulence." Stewart recognises tha t this delimitation of scope has been the practice of the established English writers as well a s of Adam Smith. Sir J ames Steuart and the Physiocrats bu t h e considers t he scope of t h e subject t o o nar row when confined t o Wealth and Population o r t he resources of the S ta te . S ince political laws derive the i r justification from the object of providing for t he happiness of political society, Stewart found i t only proper tha t those w h o study the most impor tan t aspect of political life. a s Stewart undoubtedly considered economics to be. should constantly keep the ult imate ends of social life i n vie\v.

If ' we could suppose tha t this depar ture from the common language of Political writers were to be sanc t ioned by general use, its advantages. if I d o not deceive myself. would be found of material impor tance . I shall only mention at present t he effect it would necessarily have in keeping constantly before the mind o f t h e speculative Politician. t he Strrrzdarri by which t h e wisdom and expediency of every institution is to be estimated; and in chcclting those partial views of human affairs which have led so many eminent writers in their zeal for t he advancement of Nutioiral Kichcs. to overlook the more essential objects of t h e Political Union (Stewart . Lectures, I . p. 10).

Viewed in historical perspective. i t is Hume , Steuart and Smith w h o depar ted from established Scottish acadeniical tradit ion and followed the English in treating political economy a s largely a n independent subject. T h e impor tance of Stewart 's a t tempt to re- in t roduce the primacy of Moral Philosophy canno t be overeniphasised. Fully aware tha t h e was breaking with the English and with the most eminent Scots of recent years, Stewart nonetheless advocated a wide scope for political economy. This is also h o w Adam Ferguson. Stewart 's predecessor a t Edinburgh. had viewed things and Stewart 's a t tempt should remind us of the fact tha t t h e Scottish Enlightenment was by n o means a homogeneous affair. Recent research has shown how the normative a ims of t h e "Neu- lights" and "Moderates" wc'rc qui te distinct from those of H u m e a n d Smi th , and Dugald Stewart shares much more with t h e intellectual Scots Presbyterians than with the sceptical Whigs (Sher 1985).

Three aspects o f t h e Moral Philosophy approach tha t a r e relevant to Stewart 's case can be rephrased i n modern terminology as follows. First. csplicit consideration was given t o potential externalities of everyday life a s in t h e section on "Servitudes" in Hutcheson ' s lectures. Secondly, domestic happiness played such a large part in justifying t h e political un ion , that close attention was paid to laws regulating the family. Thirdly, t he distribution of wealth was considered a n integral part of the task of the moral philosopher. In addition to these specific issues, moral philosophy also saw proper t o make deduct ions about "right action" by appea l ing to "nature" (Hutcheson 1937). It mus t b e emphasised that these s ta tements were not taken by moral philosophers to b e value judgments in the sense tha t t he moderns consider

I like green shirts. W a r is abhorren t .

152 AUSTRALIAN E C O N O M I C PAPERS J U N E

to be equivalent in that n o scientific grounds can be given for distinguishing between the two value judgements. Until the advent of logical positivism, it was widely held that a science of moral philosophy was indeed possible and to eighteenth century moral philosophers claims about nature’s intentions possessed a higher ethical status than simple value judgments.

The ease with which normative and positive elements blended in Stewart’s mind due to the appeal to “nature” are illustrated by the following quote:

Where the freedom of industry is unjustly restrained by laws borrowed from less enlightened ages, and more especially where that species of industry on which man depends for his subsistence is depressed below its proper level, it is hisdufy to remonstrate against so fatal a perversion of Political Institutions. In doing so, he does not arrogate to himself any superiority of practical knowledge over those whose professional labours are the subject of his discussions; but he thinks himself entitled to be heard, while his conclusions rest, not on the details of any particular art, but on the principles of human nature, and on the physical condition of the human race (Stewart, Lectures, I , p. 13).

In a related context, Stewart wrote that “the only infallible rules of political wisdom are founded ultimately on a knowledge of the prevailing springs of human action.” This extreme emphasis, so reminiscent of the Austrian school, upon human psychology as sufficient grounds for general rules of economic policy is unique t o Stewart. It was on such grounds that an unassailable case for Free-Trade could be based. Perhaps it is because Stewart thought Adam Smith’s principal contribution - Free Trade - to be irrefutable that he stated himself to be mainly following the Wealth of Nations, even though he freely criticised so many of the subidiary positions of that epochal work.’

Stewart’s vision of economics as encompassing much more than a study of wealth is most apparent in his treatment of population. Since people were both an important factor of production as well as the ultimate beneficiaries of economic prosperity, Stewart begins by asking: what political arrangements serve to accelerate or retard the growth of population? It is here that Stewart’s insistence on a wider scope for economics becomes apparent. The first factor he considers is whether marriage or concubinage is more favourable to the propagation of children. The details of Stewart’s views are perhaps of minor interest today but the grounds on which Stewart rests his defense of marriage are clearly indicative of the sorts of value judgments he thought proper.

. . . marriage . . . is the result (in the first instance) of that order of things which tzature herself has established; and the proper business of the legislator is here. as in other cases. limited to the task of seconding and enforcing her recommendations (Stewart, Lectures, I , 79) (emphasis added).

Subsequently, using arguments drawn from “nature,” Stewart strongly reprobates poly- gamy and urges the legislator to prohibit polygamy. It distressed Stewart that marriage was so unfashionable among his contemporaries, chiefly because of exaggerated ideas of a decent standard of living. While Adam Smith’s Lectures on jurisprudence contain a fairly

’See Rashid (1985). Steuart’s insistence on tracing economic causation down to the micro-level is probably why Stewart found the monetary theory of Sir James so attractive. See Skinner (1967).

1487 I'OLITIC \ L FCONORl ' r 4s RlORAL FHILOSOPH'r 153

extensive discussion of the laws regulating marriage, two points should be made on the differcnce betwcen Smith and Stewart . First. Smith completely omitted such issues froni his definition of economics, as may be seen by their complete absence from the M'cnlth of Nations. Secondly. Smith's treatment in his Lectirres focuses more upon the historical evolution of the laws of marriage. especially a s exemplified by the Greeks and Romans. Stewart's predilection for deducing such laws from "nature" is much more marked.'

Stewart accepted the theoryof population commonly attributed to Malthiis (but which is actually a direct descendant of the views of Robert Wallace and Sir Janies Steuart) . independently of Malthus. Stewart emphasised the role of a conventional minimum standard of living that had to be met before people would marry and argued that the rapid incrcase of Irish population was largely due to the lower living s tandards acceptable to the Irish (Stewart . Lectures. 1, p. 98). Stewart waseven more emphat ic than Malthus in desiring the abolition of the poor laws. This was not so much from adherence to a policy of non- interference, as from a desire to give scope to the benevolence of t he rich.

The apparent indifference to distributional issues it1 the Wealth of Nations has been remarked upon by several scholars and indicates yet ano the r issue where Stewart fclt it incumbent upon the moral philosopher to adop t a wider viewpoint. Stewart 's paternalisin readily asserted itself in his search for ways to prevent thc poor from drinking to excess. It is even more apparent in his advocacy of a policy of providing land to the poor . Such a grant would givc the poor something permanent t o look after and inculcate habits offorethought and providence. The last sentence of the following quote paints a gloomy picture of the condition of the lower classes under capitalism when the legislature does not take care to rcgulate for thcm.

Whatever circumstance stimulates a n individual t o look forward to a distant futurity, cultivates his habits of self-command, a n d advances him in the scale of moral beings; removing him from the condition of those savages. w h o hunt o r fish when they are hungry, and eat and sleep till they hun t or fish again. Such, i i i

t ruth, must necessarily be the condition of the lower classes in any civilized na - t ion, iiriless the Legislatiire irzterposes in their failoiir (Stewart . Lectures. I . p. 323) (emphasis added) .

Traces of' the civic-republican tradit ion are also visible in Stewart's support for Agrarian laws, which would prevent concentrations of lancl-holding. once again taking us back to Francis Hutcheson and diverging from thc Hurne-Sniith point of view.

The concern for distribution however was frequently tcnipercd by eff'icicncy arguments. Three topics that had been popularly debated during the latter half of the eighteenth century were the desirability of capital accumulation, of enlarging farms and of the introduction of machinery. Stewart's analytical mind saw that all three issucs really reflected one larger question - how can measures be defended which help some citizens while hurting others - and goes on to support all three policies (Stewart . Ixctirrris. I , p. 193).

I t i s hardly possible to introduce suddenly the smallest innovation into the Political Economy of a State, let it be ever so reasonable, nay. ever so profitable.

'This is also true 0 1 Hutcheson ( 1 7 4 7 ) .

154 AUSTRALIAN ECONOMIC PAPERS J U N E

without incurring some inconveniences. But temporary inconveniences furnish n o objection t o solid improvements. Those which may arise from the sudden introduction of a machine cannot possibly be of long continuance. The workmen will, in all probability, be soon able to turn their industry into some other channel; and they are certainly entitled to every assistance the public can give them, when they are thus forced to change their professional habits.

In the above quote one finds the Smithian concern with efficiency, coupled with the belief that the market would succeed in employing displaced workers but the assertion that these workers “are certainly entitled to every assistance the public can give them” suggest a more compassionate framework than that of the Wealth of Nations.’

V.

The merits of Dugald Stewart as a lecturer have been frequently attested to by his hearers. In the case of some of his audience, such as James Mill, it is difficult to find traces of any direct influence. In the case of other distinguished economists, such as Francis Horner, there are passages where one finds almost a direct adoption of Stewart’s views on the originality and correctness of the Physiocrats (Horner 1957, p. 53); it is also apparent in J . R. McCulloch’s claim that political economy was a science of recent origin because it was only after the slaveholding and warlike habits of earlier ages had been renounced that commerce could be seen for its true worth (McCulloch 1824, pp. 8-9). Stewart’s lectures also have a peculiar importance to students of the late eighteenth century because of the great care he pays to contemporary economic debates; has the population of Britain increased or decreased? Should both gold and silver be legal tender? Is Parliament needed to regulate the grain trade during scarcities? and so on. Few lecturers have made a stronger effort to convince their audience of the relevance of political economy and this is perhaps one reason why Stewart exerted such great influence.

In terms of the history of ideas, the superstitious reverence for Adam Smith’s name that Francis Horner found prevalent was surely not due to a lack of effort on Stewart’s part to publicise the Physiocrats. Doctrinally, Stewart can be shown to have independently arrived a t most of Malthus’ population views; he reformulated Adam Smith’s views on the division of labour so as to anticipate E. G. Wakefield and Charles Babbage. Stewart criticised the material embodiment concept of wealth well before Nassau Senior and pointed out the futility of a n absolute measure of value as clearly as Samuel Bailey.

Why has the value of Dugald Stewart’s lectures remained hidden so long? During his most active years, between 1790 and 1800, Stewart’s advocacy of the Physiocrats hurt his reputation as the Physiocrats were seen as adumbrating revolutionary ideas; in the period between 1800 and 1810 Stewart’s anti-Bullionist ideas made him of little use to the Whigs. Politics thus made Stewart pay dearly for his honesty, first with the Tories and then with the Whigs (Veitch, 1858, Ixxi). That Stewart’s lectures were not published until 1858, at which time all its original points had been rediscovered could not have helped Stewart’s cause.

’Stewart then quotes from Sir James Steuart to show that if individual hardship wereasufficient reason to abandon a measure one would never negotiate peace during a war for fear of disbanding soldiers. There is considerable similarity between the words of Sir James Steuart and Dugald Stewart on this issue. See Steuart (1966), pp. 121.122. I am grateful to one of the referees for this point.

1987 I 'OLITICAL ECONOhl \ r A S R I O R A L PHILOSOI 'H l I55

which was already handicapped by Stewart 's o w n modest a n d unassuming na ture : and finally. Stewart 's insistence o n the truth of Free Trade. and on the irrefutable na ture of Adam Smith's a rguments o n this point. may have led people t o believe that. s ince the differences between Smith a n d Stewar t did no t affect any major policy decisions. i t was perhaps needless to delve into the details of their differences.

What of Stewart 's attenipt to retain economics within the folds of moral philosophy. with i t s emphas is upon legal rights, upon the regulation of t h e family and upon the distribution of the economic product. T h e first two aspec ts can be quickly treated, since S tewar t hitnself minimised the interface between law and economics a n d as justifications of the nuclear family became pedant ic in the early nineteenth century. T h e question of distribution however cont inued t o haunt classical economis ts from Mal thus and Ricardo down t o J o h n Stuart Mill. Closer a t ten t ion to Stewart would have muted t h e most popular complaint against political economy between 1820-1840 which was its alleged indifferencc to distri- bution (Scrope 1831) . Whe the r Stewart 's specific argunients un distribution would have been upheld is however doubtful. "Natural" laws ceased to b e quite so transparent in the early ninctcenth century a n d were much too p rone to misuse. Even so honest a n d open a mind as Stewart 's is led to suppor t Free Trade with the naive a rgument tha t this duc t r ine was merely the econoiiiic equivalent of the moral precept tha t "Honesty is t h e best policy"! (Stewart . Lectures. 11, pp. 347-318) . I n t he hands of less discritninating economists such a s Francis Horner , i t could lead to the much less defensible view tha t the e r rors of Stnith's views should not be publicised until t h e good effects of his system had run their course (Horne r 1553. pp. 237-2381, The irony of the si tuation can bc appreciated by noting tha t D LI pa I d S tewar t c in p h a s i sed t h e in c rea s i 11 g i n t erd e p e t i d e n c e c 11 t a i I cd by in od ern I i fe.

There is nothing. indeed . in thc history of human affairs more striking than this obvious fact. tha t in proportion a s t he intellectual and moral faculties of t he species a re unfolded and cultivated. and in proportion a s t h e joint wealth and power o f t he communi ty increase. individuals. considered apart . should become more and more connec ted with o n e ano the r , a n d man should be rendered more necessary to man (Stewart , Lectures, I . p . 328).

This very observation. when combined with the moral viewpoint of a Karl Mars . led t o the necessity of socialism. O n e canno t imagine a conclusion further from Stewart 's desires! Perhaps i t is just a s well that modern economics h a s not followed Dugald Stewart o n this issue.

R t F t r( t N c ES

Rcrg. M.. Thr Rlachiricy Qircstiorr arid f h ~ illakirig of Political E c o r r o r t i y (Camhridgc: C.U.P., 1980).

Bladen. V. \V.. "Command ovcr Labour, .A Study in Misintcrprctrltion". C'rrriadinri /ourrin/ of Ecorioritics (1975) . \'Ill. 4. 504~519.

Bonar. 1.. "Why Scotland had Attractiiins for British Econoniists iii 1803". Ecorromic / / / s / ( J ~ (1939).

Hainowy. K.. "Adam Smith. Adam Fergurson and the Divisinn nl Labour". Ecorrorrrrca (Augus t . 1968). 259-259.

Harris. 1 . .A /? E ~ r n v o r r Alflirey arid ('orris (London. 1757-58)

156 AUSTRALIAN ECONOMIC PAPERS J U N E

Horner. F., The Economic Writings o f Francis Horner, ed. F. W. Fetter (London. 1957).

Hutcheson. F., A Short Irztroduction to Moral Philosophy (Glasgow, 1757), reprinted in Collected Works, vol. IV (George Olms, Darmstadt, 1969).

McCullough, J. R.. A Discourse on the Rise, Progress . . . of Political Economy (Edinburgh, 1824).

Marx, I<., Theories of Surplus Value (Moscow, 1960). 3 vols

Rashid, S., “Adam Smith’s Rise to Fame: A Re-examination of the Evidence”, The Eighteenth Century (1982). 23, 1, 64-85.

Rashid, S.. “Dugald Stewart, Baconian Methodology and Political Economy”, journal o f the History o f Ideas (June, 1985), 46, 2.

Rashid. S., “Adam Smith and the Division of Labour: A Historical View”, Scottish journal o f Political Economy (August, 1986).

Scrope, G. P.. “The Archbishop of Dublin on Political Economy”, Quarferly Review (November, 1831).

Semmel, B., The Rise of Free-Trade Imperialism (Cambridge: C.U.P., 1970)

Sher, R., Church and University in the Scottish Enlightenment (Princeton. Princeton U.P.. 1985).

Skinner, A. S.. “Money and Prices: A Critique of the Quantity Theory”, Scottish journal of Political Economy (Nov., 1967), 275-90.

Steuart, Sir James, A n fnquiry into the Principles of Political Economy (London: Oliver and Boyd, 1966), 2 vols.

Stewart, D., Lectures on Political Economy. 2 vols., published as Volumes XI11 and IX of Collected Words of Dugald Stewart.

Willis, I<., “The Role in Parliament of the Economic Ideas of Adam Smith, 1776-1800”. History o f Political Economy (Winter, 1979), 505-44.

Winch, D.. “Science and the Legislator: Adam Smith and After”, Economic journal (1983), 93. 510- 521.

Vaughn, R., A Discourse of Coin and Coinage (London, 1675)

Veitch, J., “Memoir of Dugald Stewart”, in Collected Words of Dugald Stewart, ed. Sir W. Hamilton (Edinburgh 1858-78), Vol. X.

Viner. J . , “Power versus Plenty as Objectives of Foreign Policy in the Seventeenth and Eighteenth Centuries”, World Politics (1948), reprinted in D. C. Coleman, ed., Revisions in Mercantilism (London, Methuen, 1969).