TE Cliffe Leslie Critics of Ricardo

ADVANCE PUBLICATION
Thomas Edward Cliffe Leslie’s

Enthralling Journeys and His
Critique of Ricardianism: From
Inductive Political Economy to the
Downloaded from http://read.dukeupress.edu/hope/article-pdf/doi/10.1215/00182702-10956596/2012255/10956596.pdf by guest on 14 October 2023

Emergence of British Historical
Economics
Manolis Manioudis
1. Introduction
Irish historicism is considered the original prelude of the British historical
school (Coleman 1987; Kadish 1989; Koot 1975, 1987; Hodgson 2001).
Two of its leading members, Thomas Edward Cliffe Leslie (1825–82) and
John Kells Ingram (1823–1907), are generally regarded as its authentic
founders, since they attempted to rebuild economics on an inductive,
historical, and observational basis (Bladen 1941: 21). For Hodgson (2001:
69), among “the two leading Irish historicists, Leslie made the more sig
nificant theoretical contribution” and laid the foundations of the British
historical movement in economics. For Koot (1975), Leslie, together with
Richard Jones (1790–1855), was one of the pioneers of the inductive and
historical method in Great Britain.
Cliffe Leslie was born in 1825 and learned Latin, Greek, and Hebrew at
a very young age (Ingram 1888: ix). He attended King William’s College,
and then at the age of fifteen he entered Trinity College Dublin (Lipkes
1999: 137). He was an excellent student and graduated in 1847 with the
gold medal in logic and ethics (137). In 1853 he was appointed professor
Correspondence may be addressed to Manolis Manioudis, Department of Economics, Univer

sity of Crete (m.manioudis@uoc.gr). I am grateful to Kevin Hoover for helpful editorial revi
sions and suggestions and to Paul Dudenhefer’s editorial capacity. Also, I would like to thank
two anonymous reviewers for their constructive comments.
History of Political Economy 56:1 DOI 10.1215/00182702-10956596
Copyright 2024 by Duke University Press
140 History of Political Economy 56:1 (2024)
of jurisprudence and political economy at Queens College Belfast, suc

ceeding William Neilson Hancock (1820–88) from 1853 until 1882
(Boylan and Foley 1993: 124). In the late 1850s, he began to write essays
and critical reviews for (the radical) Frazer’s Magazine, the Athenaeum,
the Academy, and John Morley’s Fortnightly Review. During the same

period, he commenced his frequent visits to the European continent, espe
cially to Belgium and to some districts of France and Germany. During
these trips, he collected economic, judicial, and social material that fig
ured importantly in his subsequent writings. As Ingram (1888: x)
observed, Leslie, in this way, “gained extensive and accurate acquain
tance with Continental rural economy, of which he made excellent use in
studying parallel phenomena at home.”
Cliffe Leslie’s economic writings were published in three collected vol
umes: the Essays in Political Economy (1879), the Essays in Political and
Moral Philosophy (1879), and his early Land Systems and Industrial
Economy of Ireland, England, and Continental Countries (1870).
Unfortunately, the draft of what was to be his magnum opus on English
economic and legal history was lost in 1875 during his unfortunate trip to
Nancy.1 Leslie’s essays highlight two important phases in his political
economy (Ingram 1882). The first is the “early phase,” which is marked by
his texts on applied political economy. This period attained its climax in
1870 with the publication of his Land Systems. As Ingram (1882) observed,
“Leslie’s work may be distributed under two heads, that of applied politi
cal economy, and that of discussion on the philosophical method of the
science” (quoted in Collison Black 2002: 17). In the first period Leslie
wrote extensively on applied economic matters, such as the political econ
omy of military systems, fiscal issues, the gold question, wage determina
tion, and land tenures in continental Europe. Indeed, his frequent trips
provided him the opportunity to collect material, for his applied political
economy and his critique of Ricardianism. The applied character of these
texts had drawn the attention of J. S. Mill, who characterized Leslie as an
eminent applied political econom ist of his age. The “later phase” is
stamped by Leslie’s discussion on the philosophical method of political
economy and the history of economic thought (Milonakis and Fine 2009:
142). The most illustrious product of this period is his 1876 essay, “On the
Philosophical Method of Political Economy,” which was a historicist
1. He attempted, unsuccessfully, to rewrite the most important parts of the lost manuscript
but the project was beyond his abilities. He never published a full-length book.
UNCORRECTED PROOFS
Manioudis / Cliffe Leslie’s Critique of Ricardianism 141
critique of Ricardian political economy. This article turned out to be the

classical methodological foundation of historical economics in Britain
(Koot 1987). During this period, Leslie directed his attack on David
Ricardo (1772–1823) and post-Ricardians—especially Robert Lowe
(1811–92)—and drafted his magnum opus on British legal and economic

history which, as already noted, was lost.
This article follows Ingram’s (1882) proposed periodizat ion and
attempts to delineate the “core elements” of the “early Lesliean phase.” By
examining Cliffe Leslie’s records of his enthralling journeys, we show
how his inductive surveys on European land systems prepared the ground
for the emergence of English historical economics. Presenting Leslie’s
applied political economy in detail is beyond the scope of this article.
Collison Black (2002) discussed Leslie’s views on the Irish land question
and on several aspects of political economy. In this article an attempt is
made to go beyond it, by sketching out Leslie’s influences. We propose a
fresh rereading of his travel notes as being of critical importance in pre
paring his attack on Ricardian economics. As Boianovsky and Maas
(2022: 383) point out, there are “manifold relations between economists,
their travels, and the development of the economic discipline.” Thus, by
discussing Leslie’s views of Belgium, Germany, and France, we present
the relation between his journeys and his applied political economy, jour
neys that were crucial in laying the ground for the emergence of the Brit
ish historical school.
2. Cliffe Leslie’s Influences: The Inductive Side of Adam Smith

and the Importance of the Millian Heritage
Cliffe Leslie studied “available political economy extensively and in-
depth” (Milonakis and Fine 2009: 146) and was well informed about its
epistemic evolution.2 Leslie was influenced by the inductive (historical)
side of Adam Smith and John Stuart Mill (Manioudis 2020), by Thomas
Robert Malthus (Koot 1987: 42), by the historical jurisprudence and legal
history of Sir Henry Maine (Collison Black 2002; Tribe 2002: 16;
Milonakis and Fine 2009: 143), by the English historian William Stubbs
(Tribe 2002: 16), by the historical protest of Richard Jones, and by the
2. Sir William Ashley informs us that “Cliffe Leslie had been among the first Englishmen to
understand the work of the German historical school” and “had wide European contacts”
(quoted in Koot 1987: 39–40).
UNCORRECTED PROOFS
heretical tradition of Trinity College Dublin (Koot 1987: 32). Furthermore,

he admired the work of comparative agrarian political economists such
as Léonce Guilhaud de Lavergne (1809–80) and Émil Louis Victor de
Laveleye (1822–92), who called for the creation/efficiency of small pro
prietorships (Winch 2013: 16). In Leslie’s (1879: vi) words, the political

economist should be trained “in the schools of both Mr. Stubbs and Sir
Henry Maine, as well as in that of Mr. Mill.” Adam Smith’s and (chiefly)
J. S. Mill’s influence was decisive for the development of Lesliean politi
cal economy (Hollander 1911: 697). Mill’s influence impelled some
schola rs to characterize him as a “wayward disciple” of Mill (Moore
1995: 58) or even a “heretic” student of the eminent political economist
(Lipkes 1999).
According to Cliffe Leslie, Smith’s work represented an example of
an explicit inductive investigation within a natur al law framework (Tribe
2002: 15). As he pointed out, the methodological collision between
inductive and deductive political economists is rooted in Smith’s Wealth
of Nations. In his interesting essay titled “The Political Economy of
Adam Smith” (1870), he traced the methodological duality within the
Smithian economic methodology (Koot 1987: 40). Leslie ([1870] 1888:
23) observed that Smith used a priori, deductive reasoning in certain
aspects of his system of political economy, but at the same time his
method “was in a large measure inductive.” He noted that Smith was
influenced by Montesquieu’s (1689–1755) inductive method, which
protected him “from many errors into which the method of deduction”
would have falsely led him (Leslie [1870] 1888: 31). Leslie adopted a
variety of Smith’s notions—such as “the natural progress of opulence,”
the tight connection between security and economic advancement, and
the “stages theory”—while remaining critical of the deductive side of
his method. At the same time, he praised him for being the first econo
mist who applied the inductive method in his political economy.
Furthermore, Cliffe Leslie was highly influenced by Mill. Mill believed
that Leslie was an eminent applied political economist, and he wrote to
him frequently. Late in his life, Mill included his review essay on Leslie’s
Land Systems in his volu me of selected essays, Dissertations and
Discussions. As just mentioned, in Mill’s interesting correspondence,
Leslie’s name appears many times, indicating his respect for Leslie’s
work. Mill’s first letter to Leslie is dated August 18, 1860. It is the first
expression of Mill’s interest in Leslie’s draft version of his 1860 essay,
“The Future of Europe Foretold in History,” published in Macmillan’s
UNCORRECTED PROOFS
Magazine.3 In this, Mill ([1860] 1972: 702–3) expressed his agreement

with Leslie’s attack on Buckle’s generalizations.4
The second letter from Mill to Leslie appeared in November 1861 and
contained a sympathetic review of Leslie’s views on saving (Mill [1861]
1972a). On December 20, 1861, Mill ([1861] 1972b) criticized Leslie’s

draft of his “Income-Tax Reform” and expressed his variance “on several
matters of detail & some of principle” (756). In November 1863 Mill
wrote to Leslie and praised the draft version of his celebrated “The
Distribution and Value of the Precious Metals in the Sixteenth and
Nineteenth Century,” which was published in Macmillan’s Magazine in
August 1864. Mill ([1863] 1972: 898) encouraged Leslie to continue the
elaboration of the project, while at the same time making a set of revisions
“here and there.” Furthermore, in one of his letters to Thomas Hughes
(1822–96), the lawyer and liberal politician, Mill ([1866] 1972: 1222)
noted that Leslie “is an excellent popular expositor of scientific thought”
and “one of our best political economists.” In one of his letters to John
Elliott Cairnes (1823–75), on July 23, 1867, Mill ([1867] 1972) recom
mended Cliffe Leslie for a one-year replacement for Cairnes in the chair
of political economy at University College. Mill pointed out that “Leslie
is, next to you, by far the fittest person I know to fill the place, among
those who would take it” (1294). In his correspondence with Edwin
Chadwick (1800–1890), the celebrated social reformer, Mill ([1868] 1972:
1350) noted that Leslie’s “Military Systems of Europe” “is very impor
tant, and ought to be made widely known if possible.” This essay was
published in the North British Review and introduced Leslie to English
academia.
The next letter from Mill to Leslie is dated Febr uary 8, 1869.5 Mill
([1869] 1972a) expressed his pleasure for Cliffe Leslie’s twin 1869 essays:
“Changes in Prices” (January 1869), published in the Economist; and “A
Visit to La Creuse, 1868” (February 1869). Mill thought highly of Leslie’s
3. Cliffe Leslie sent his essay manuscript to Mill in August; Mill revised the text and sent
corrections to Cliffe Leslie, who published it the following month. Collison Black (2002: 21)
noted that this essay “first caused J.S. Mill to make contact with Leslie.” However, it seems evi
dent that Cliffe Leslie sought Mill’s views upon his essay and had communicated it to him.
Lipkes (1999: 72), in the same direction, points out that “Mill generously commented at some
length on the draft or proof, and Leslie incorporated some suggestions.”
4. Henry Thomas Buckle (1821–62) was a historian and friend of John Stuart Mill.
5. Lipkes (1999: 72) rightly observes that although the first exchange of letters between Mill
and Leslie “took place not long after Mill had met Cairnes and Fawcett, the friendship was
slower to ripen.”
UNCORRECTED PROOFS
inductive surveys and asked him to continue his visits to continental

Europe. He believed that Leslie’s surveys, like that of La Creuse, contrib
uted to the science of political economy and were “useful articles of
travel” (Mill [1869] 1972b: 1600). Mill, once again, expressed his pleasure
in Leslie’s inductive studies, as in one of his letters to him, on October 5,

1869, he observed, “You seem to have had a long & varied tour & I look
forward with much pleasure to reading your observations on the districts
you visited, more especially as I have but little personal acquaintance with
most of them” (Mill [1869] 1972c: 1642). In June 1870 Mill composed a
positive review of Leslie’s Land Systems, which was published in the
Fortnightly Review. Mill ([1871] 1972) wrote again to Leslie on December
1, 1871, as a reply to his draft of “Financial Reform.” Mill’s letters to
Cliffe Leslie and his correspondence with Cairnes and others illustrate his
great willingness to support Leslie’s candidacy for a variety of professor
ships. Moreover, his correspondence reveals that he regarded Leslie as
one of the well-rounded economists of the late nineteenth century.
Leslie ([1869] 1888: 128) also thought highly of Mill and believed that
everything Mill said “was sagacious and instructive.” Leslie ([1876] 1888:
168) thought that Mill was the “illustrious successor” of Smith, being a
great English philosopher ([1868] 1870: 366) and “the great leader of eco
nomic science” ([1873] 1888a: 162). Leslie ([1876] 1888: 168) noted that
Mill did not employ “a systematic application of historical and inductive
investigation” but adopted the majority of his radical tenets regarding the
relativity of economic doctrines, economic methodology, economic pol
icy, and the role of history. Leslie criticized Mill’s definition of political
economy but shared his views on the importance of distribution. For
instance, Leslie, among others, praised Mill in correcting Ricardo by not
ing that “the rate of profit depends, not on the wages, but on the cost of
labour” ([1879] 1888b: 234). In addition, Leslie commended Mill’s mature
consideration in abandoning the wage-fund doctrine and adopted Mill’s
view that distribution is a socially/historically determined process (Leslie
[1876] 1888).6 He noted that Mill had illustrated the fact that “human
institutions, laws of property and succession, are necessary chief agen
cies” in determining the distribution of produced wealth (Leslie [1870]
6. For Leslie ([1876] 1888: 174), “One has but to think of the different partition of land in
England and France, of the different partition of real and personal property in England and
France, of the different partition of real and personal property in England, of the different par
tition of both between the two sexes, of the influence of the State, the Church, the Family, of
marriage and succession.”
UNCORRECTED PROOFS
1888: 36). He adopted Mill’s firm belief that democratic institutions are
associated with a more just distribution of wealth. For Leslie ([1869] 1888:
131–32), “If democratic institutions be compared with monarchic or aris
tocratic, abundant proof will, it is true, be found of the superior tendency
of the first to diffuse mater ial prosperity throughout the mass of the

people.”
Cliffe Leslie’s collected volume of essays on land systems was an ode
to small proprietorships, which were regarded by him as the appropriate
institution “for the evils of the wretched state of Ireland” ([1870] 1888:
30). Leslie’s political economy of small proprietorships seems to be influ
enced by Mill’s twin scripta: The Principles of Political Economy (1848)
and England and Ireland (1868). Leslie ([1870] 1888: 21) considered from
many angles the Millian thesis of the relativity of economic doctrines,
which moved him away from Ricardian political economy: “Political
economy is not a body of natural laws in the true sense, or of universal
and immutable truths, but an assemblage of speculations and doctrines
which are the result of a particular history, coloured even by the history
and character of its chief writers.” He believed that Mill possessed a bril
liant historical mind and that his thought was influenced by John Austin,
Jeremy Bentham, and James Mill (Leslie [1875] 1888: 56). In addition, he
praised Mill’s openness to new ideas by observing that “history affords
scarcely another example of a philosopher so ready to review his posi
tions, to abandon them if untenable, and to take lessons from his own dis
ciples” (Leslie [1875] 1888: 54).
To conclude, Cliffe Leslie adopted Mill’s methodological distinction
between the “laws of production” and those “of distribution” and incorpo
rated it into his analysis (Vallier 2010: 116). Generally, Mill’s influence is
more apparent in the first period of his authorship, which is characterized
by his inductive surveys, his applied political economy, and his essays on
the Irish land question. In his early essays, which received Mill’s praise,
Leslie elaborated on the epistemological thesis of the relativity of eco
nomic doctrines, illustrated the methodological and theoretical impor
tance of distribution, and expressed his thoughts on the Irish land question.
This material turned out to be his means for preparing his critique of
Ricardian political economy. Although Mill influenced Leslie in impor
tant ways, Leslie’s work was in no way a simple by-product of Mill’s eco
nomic thought. As is well known, Mill attempted to relativize Ricardian
principles. However, Cliffe Leslie’s political economy was far more radi
cal (Moore 1999).
UNCORRECTED PROOFS
3. Rereading Cliffe Leslie’s Land Systems

The first period of Cliffe Leslie’s economic thought is marked by his volu
minous Land Systems, published in 1870 (Ingram 1882). Strangely
enough, although Land Systems attracted Mill’s attention and has to be
considered as the magnum opus of Leslie’s political economy, it is under

estimated in the history of economic thought. The second part of the
book, in which Leslie discusses his visits to and impressions of European
countries such as Germany, France, and Belgium, is almost marginal
among historians of economic thought. However, the essays in the second
part are far more descriptive than those in the first part, which are devoted
to the land systems of Ireland and England (Lipkes 1999: 133). This sec
tion proposes a rereading of Leslie’s Land Systems while attempting to
show how this work prepared the ground for the emergence of British
historicism.
Cliffe Leslie followed Maine’s proposal that political economy should
“begin with a comparative and historical study of land systems” (Koot
1987: 47). Through his frequent trips in the 1860s he sketched out a set of
inductive and historical surveys that are interesting even to the modern
social scientist. Leslie’s historically and institutionally informed approach
contributed to the penning of a considerable bulk of papers that are full of
historical interest. His invitation to political economists to conduct empir
ical surveys and describe them at length recalls Smith’s synthetic method
as delineated in his History of Astronomy. In Leslie’s ([1867] 1870: 296)
verba, “They ought . . . to regard such inquires as most useful, because
they add the book of nature to their studies; for every branch of human
science, to whatever the stature it has grown, gathers, Antaeus-like, fresh
vigour from falling back on earth, from which Newton himself learned
the movements of the heavens.”
Leslie believed that geographical disparities test the validity of theoret
ical principles, improve the corpus of existing theory, and contribute to
the formation of new principles through the assistance of the inductive-
historical and comparative method. For him, empirical facts, instead of
being irrelevant to the political econom ist, “are the phenomena from
which he must infer his general principles, and by which he ought con
stantly to verify his deductions” (Leslie [1868] 1870: 358). His empirical
surveys constitute an integral part of his political economy and attest to
the pluralistic nature of his economic methodology. His empirical studies
exhibit the close conjunction of political economy, economic history,
UNCORRECTED PROOFS
economic geography, political science, and anthropology and are quite

different from the dominant Ricardian mode of economic thinking. In his
empirical surveys, Leslie was assisted by key informers, while his excel
lent acquaintance with English and Irish statistics helped him to employ
his comparative method.

Initially, Cliffe Leslie’s historical and institutionally focused analysis of
Westphalia was presented in two papers published in 1869 and 1870. He
visited the region twice and recorded the differences. These essays reflect
de Lavergne’s and de Laveleye’s influence, since Leslie illustrated the
importance of physical conditions, geological particularities, and climate
diversif icat ions in the determ inat ion of economic phenomena. For
instance, he pointed out that different natural advantages of different
localities produce considerable inequalities in profits, wages, and rents.
This view moved Leslie’s (inductive) political economy closer to Mill’s
(Mill [1848] 1965: bk. 2, chaps. 6–7).7 This movement made him note that
it is impossible to understand inequalities through Ricardian political
economy, as it had “taken away the key of knowledge—the investigation
of facts—which Adam Smith and Mr. Mill had put into our hands” (Leslie
[1873] 1888b: 363).
Cliffe Leslie believed that local differentiations, even within the same
province, are of prime importance in determining economic, social, polit
ical, and even cultural phenomena. This view is methodologically crystal
lized in his comparative-historical method, in the context of which he
decided to divide specific regions—such as Auvergne or Westphalia—
into smaller partitions and draw careful generalization from them. Such a
methodological stance helped him to perceive differentiations in seem
ingly identical provinces. Leslie ([1869] 1870b: 230) noted that in
Westphalia, as in Auvergne (see sec. 4), “the old world and the new, the
world of immobility and custom, and the world of change and progress,
[are] seen in closer proximity and contrast.” For him, Westphalia is con
nected with the rapid march of Prussian industry (230). In what can be
called an early version of economic geography and economic history, he
informs us that the Ruhr Basin (which occupies the middle region of
Westphalia) is the mining and manufacturing center of the province. The
mountainous regions of Sauerland and Siegerland are vestiges of an
ancient mode of rural life (230–31). Leslie observed and recorded in min
ute detail the ancient cultivating methods of the isolated district of south
7. Thanks to an anonymous reviewer for bringing this to my attention.
UNCORRECTED PROOFS
Westphalia, where the “plough as old as the time of Arminius is a sign of

the tenacity with which ancient custom is still clung” (237). Based on his
inductive analysis he noted that the maintenance of customary farming
techniques is the direct consequence of the physical and climatic environ
ment of this region. According to his broad-brush geology/economic

geography, in Westphalia mountains “have played a great part in shaping
the history of mankind; they have been staunch guardians of customs, and
obstacles to new ideas and arts” (237). For him, the formation of peasant
proprietorships, together with the construction of railways, is an efficient
way to transmit those ideas. Following Mill’s criticism of the “law of pri
mogeniture,” Leslie concluded that in south Westphalia, the concession of
peasant lands to the eldest son had been a prima causa of constant pau
perism in towns.
Cliffe Leslie visited the industrial center of Westphalia, the Ruhr Basin,
and observed that mining and manufacturing enterprises were carried out
on a grand scale. He noted that the coal of the Ruhr Basin had “since
raised the province to the first rank of industrial Europe” (Leslie [1869]
1870b: 240). Leslie added that the Krupp firm has to be regarded as the
most representative manufacturer of the Ruhr Basin since its buildings
form a considerable town and “the steel-works alone give employment to
upwards of 8.000 men, who with families of those who are married, make
a population of 25.000 maintained by this single establishment” (242).8
Leslie, like Smith and Mill, stressed the role of power in the determina
tion of economic affairs. He illustrated the importance of Krupp in the
economy of the Ruhr Basin. He noted that Alfred Krupp (1812–87),
through the exertion of his power, determined political decisions and the
formation of economic institutions. Leslie employed Krupp’s example to
illustrate the fact that English political economists had ignored the role of
power in determining the wealth of mankind (243). As early as the late
1860s, Leslie had observed the rapid economic development of Germany.
He cited statistical data from the Ruhr Basin’s coal production to illustrate
his view that the Ruhr Basin produced in 1868 “nearly half as much coal
as the great northern coal-field of England” (244). Leslie attributed the
sudden economic growth of the Ruhr Basin to the introduction of railways
8. Cliffe Leslie offered factual data to support his views. He pointed out that in 1867 the
steelworks included “412 melting-furnaces, 195 steam-engines, some of them of a thousand
horse-power, 49 steam hammers, 110 smiths’ forges, 675 different machines; and allthese num
bers now are exceeded” (242).
UNCORRECTED PROOFS
and the low charge for the carriage of coal. For him, the “railways and
coal-mines rend er each other reciprocal serv ice; the carriage of
Westphalian coal is now one of the most important branches of traffic on
several of the chief Prussian lines, and the low rates at which it is carried
enable it to find a distant market” (245).

In contrast to David Ricardo and J. R. McCulloch (1789–1864), Cliffe
Leslie expressed his sympathy for trade unions. He noted that in the Ruhr
Basin there are “admirable institutions and regulations for the benefit of
the workmen” due to trade unionism (Leslie [1869] 1870b: 248). He
pointed out that the concord between capitalists and workers is the direct
consequence of trade unions. He noted further that in the Ruhr Basin
small proprietorships are extended and, as a consequence, the wealth of
the peasantry had “enormously increased in the last twenty years, and the
so-called bauer is sometimes a man worth above 15.000l.” (251), while
“steam threshing-machines are common, lent or hired from one farm to
another” (252).
On his second visit to Westphalia (1869), Cliffe Leslie observed the
economic progress of the southern region due to the diffusion of railways.
However, he also detected scanty harvests in south Westphalia and
expressed his belief that small proprietorships could offer a considerable
revenue to the peasant, arguing that it “would be better for the man to give
up his trade than his land” (Leslie 1870d: 258). In the Rhine, where small
proprietorships were limited, children in the villages of south Westphalia
“are allcomfortably clothed, and are never seen bare-footed, as both chil
dren and adults are in the plain of the Rhine, where so many families are
without a bauer-gut [proprietorship]” (258).9 Leslie cited historical data to
stress the differences in wages between different regions of south
Westphalia and pointed out that they are “generally lower than in the Ruhr
Basin” (258). Furthermore, he pointed out that wage rates even in the
same region, as south Westphalia, exhibited considerable inequalities.
Leslie, once again, expressed his direct opposition to the “iron law of
wages” and concluded that “whatever conclusions Ricardo’s hypotheses
may lead to, the real economic conditions of production and distribution
9. Cliffe Leslie noted that “in these villages . . . it should be remembered that many of the
people are themselves the children of serfs—of sclaven, as the author has heard them say; a
term which, though not the correct one, for their legal status was not that of slavery, shows how
abject their condition really was, and from what prostration they have risen under their land
system to independence and comfort, in a period during which the peasantry of a great part of
England have socially and economically sunk” (258).
UNCORRECTED PROOFS
have nowhere equalised wages, profits, or rent” (259). His descriptions of

south Westphalia recall Mill’s stationary state, in which economic activity
is bounded by customary structures and social bonds. However, in Leslie’s
account, the promotion of small proprietorships secures a balanced agri
cultural development that would preserve the “natu ral progress of

opulence.”
In 1868 Cliffe Leslie visited La Creuse, a region of central France, and
sketched out its economy and society. His analysis, like that of
Westphalia, reveals his economic thought and methodology. Leslie
([1869] 1870a: 266) noted that La Creuse contained desert hills, hamlets,
and a vanishing peasantry. He informs us that the region had not changed
since the Middle Ages, as it was without “a railway until the other day,
ill-provided with roads, and its narrow valleys blocked up as it were in
culs-de-sac by the peculiar formation of its mountains and hills” (266).
Following Adam Smith, Leslie pointed out that the division of labor,
owing to small markets, is underdeveloped in La Creuse: “One may see,
for example, from the carriage a woman tending cattle or sheep, knitting
at the same time a stocking or a waistcoat, while under her arm is the
signal for the train—at once shepherdess, manufacturer, and railway
official” (267).
Cliffe Leslie pointed out that property rights in land are mostly com
munal and observed that the “towns” “are allvillages, the ‘villages’ ham
lets, often no more than four or five cottages” (Leslie [1869] 1870a: 268).
What is more, in Le Creuse there is no retail trade, “even of the common
est articles of clothing,” and the population is steadily diminishing (274).10
Leslie, once again, employed his empirical surveys to demonstrate the
futility of Ricardian economics. He criticized the classical view that the
depopulation of La Creuse could be attributed to the simplistic formula of
the demand for and the supply of labor. He noted that “on each side of La
Creuse lie flourishing industrial cities—on its eastern border Montluçon,
the entrepôt of a great coal basin; on its western border Limoges, ‘the pot
teries’ of France; yet no emigration takes place to either, nor does the one
solitary seat of manufacture in La Creuse itself, Aubusson, obtain any
increase of population from the country around it” (276).
10. Cliffe Leslie cited factual evidence to illustrate the depopulation of La Creuse. He noted
that in 1865 the population was estimated at 279,000 and “in 1866, the total had decreased to
274.000; it is now [i.e., 1869] further reduced, and a doubled conscription threatens to consum
mate the depopulation of the department” (274).
UNCORRECTED PROOFS
Leslie concluded his interesting essay by noting that the depopulation

of the French countryside, and the intense urbanization of great towns, is
the direct consequence of administrative policies from the imperial gov
ernment. For Leslie (1870c: 283), the “land system of France cannot be
estimated fairly without reference to the political conditions under which

it has been tried.” He believed that the French land system contributed to
the transition from the simple peasant of La Creuse to the builder of pal
aces in Paris.
Lastly, Cliffe Leslie provided an empirical survey of the peasantry and
the farm system of Belgium through two formative essays published in
Frazer’s Magazine.11 He pointed out that Belgian agriculture is an inter
esting study for politicians and political economists, as it combines “the
respective effects of large estates and large farms on the one hand, and
peasant properties and la petite culture upon the other” (Leslie [1867]
1870: 294). The main purpose of his twin visits to Belgium was, through
his comparative method, to illustrate the similarities between Belgium
and Ireland and to propose the necessity of adopting small proprietor
ships in Irish land. This attitude moves Leslie closer to thinkers such as
Henri de Saint-Simon (1760–1825) and Jean Charles Léonard de
Sismondi (1773–1842) and Mill (Mill [1848] 1965; Collison Black 2002;
Manioudis 2020).
Based on his economic geography and comparative/historical method,
Leslie ([1867] 1870: 297) observed that Belgium should not be studied as
a uniform whole, as it was “remarkable for broad contrasts.” He employed
a kind of ethological analysis, noting that these contrasts are exemplified
by the fact that two different ethnolinguistic groups in Belgium speak dif
ferent languages:12 “one, occupying the northern half, famous now for its
husbandry alone, though once as famous for pre-eminence in manufac
tures; the other, backward for the most part, by comparison in agriculture,
but holding a foremost position in manufactures which is of modern date”
(297). For Leslie, the most striking feature of Belgian agriculture is that
the traveler “sees the most perfect and most productive cultivation where
the soil is most sterile by nature, and where there is no mineral wealth
whatever to create for the farmer great industrial markets; while, on the
11. Mill ([1870] 1875: 126) noted that although Cliffe Leslie’s “essays on the Ruhr Basin and
on La Creuse are most interesting reading,” his essays on Belgium are “the most valuable for
the general purpose of the book.”
12. I would like to thank Kevin Hoover for bringing this to my attention.
UNCORRECTED PROOFS
contrary, agriculture is found backward, not in rude regions alone . . . but

within easy reach of rich and busy mines and a flourishing manufacture
industry” (298).
Following de Laveleye, Cliffe Leslie pointed out that there are four
farming techniques in Belgium. In the first of them, half of the arable land

was always subject to fallow; in the second, “the fallow comes only every
third year”; in the third, there is the cyclical rotation of crops; and in the
fourth, which is the typical technique in Flanders, “the ground not only is
never let rest, but gives two crops in the year” (Leslie [1867] 1870: 298).
Through a comparative analysis of these techniques, he offered some
broad strokes toward an agricultural, economic, and social history of
Belgium. He noted that the first technique survives in the Belgian prov
ince of Luxemburg and is characterized as an ancient practice exemplified
by “the pasture of cattle in the rudest fashion” (299). Leslie pointed out
that, according to the Smithian stages theory, this part of the Belgian
province has remained in the hunting and fishing stage, “for not only do
fish and flying game abound, but the forests are alive with deer and boar,
and the wolf still holds his own” (299). Leslie cited de Laveleye’s “inimi
table pictures” of the Ardenne region of Belgium,13 and he noted that the
eminent agricult urist stressed “their hospit ality to strangers” (301).
Following Leslie’s ethological approach, we understand that this hospital
ity is a sign of the “hunting and fishing” stage of economic development,
as it “is a primitive virtue, sometimes accompanied by that primitive
development of the intellect” (301). Leslie did not provide details for the
second and the third technique, but he extensively described the institu
tion of small proprietorships.
Once again, Cliffe Leslie reminds us of Mill by observing that the
intensive cultivation of the soil, which is tightly connected with small pro
prietorships, implies increased farming productivity. He noted that even
Smith, in his celebrated Wealth of Nations (1776), had pointed out the
prosperity of Flemish husbandry and registered its wonderful products.
Leslie believed that this prosperity was the direct consequence of small,
intensely cultivated farms, which had accelerated “the natural progress of
opulence” and led to foreign trade and manufacturing at home (Leslie
[1867] 1870: 319). He pointed out that the emergence of small proprietor
ships in Flanders was not the result of the development of manufactures
13. Leslie spelled Ardenne with no s on the end.
UNCORRECTED PROOFS
and commerce, but was a specific feature of the Flemish economy.14

According to his descriptions, “the great majority of the non-agricultural
population of Flanders is engaged in operations arising directly out of
agriculture” (318–19). In addition, Leslie cited de Laveleye’s lively pic
tures to illustrate the fact that the small proprietorship (or la petite cul

ture) is not compatible with its soil and climate—which in reality are not
appropriate for petty tillage—but is “an evident proof that the soil owes
almost allits value to culture” (305). He cited data to illustrate his views
and noted that 12l. are given by a hectare in its natural state while 120l.
were given by la petite culture (305). Leslie, as in the majority of his
inductive surveys, presented the advantages of the small proprietorship in
direct comparison to la grande culture. He cited de Laveleye’s Essai sur
l’ economie rurale de la Belgique (1863) and noted that the Flemish land
system had four distinct features: “first, the great variety of crops; sec
ondly, the extensive practice of intermediate cropping; thirdly, the abun
dant use of the most active manures; and lastly the extreme minuteness of
the farms” (306).
Cliffe Leslie regarded the minuteness of farms as the necessary condi
tion for earning the benefits of the Flemish land system. He observed that
“minute care, minute economy, are the natural consequences: nothing is
lost; the most are made of the least, and multum in parvo [much in little]
is the result” (Leslie [1867] 1870: 307). For him, la petite culture allows
the farmer to cultivate without fallow, and as a result, contrary to the
ancient technique, “his ground, being never left to rest, becomes as active
as himself” (307). In his ethological analysis the small proprietorship is
the chief reason for the fact that the cultivator loves his ground and likes
his efforts (309). This “love” emanated from the fact that “half the small
farmers of Flanders own at least a part of the land they cultivate” (309).
Leslie believed that the small proprietor in Flanders is “in reality not
worse fed than many of his fellows in England, and he is always well
housed” (310). He has learned, “in the neat cottages surrounding him
from his childhood, those habits of cleanliness, care, and economy which
make half the success of la petite culture, and which he will carry with
him into la grande culture, if he succeeds in enlarging his farm” (311).
Furthermore, the Flemish peasant, due to the micromanagement of his
14. Cliffe Leslie cited de Laveleye’s observations, according to which “each village being,
moreover, the dwelling-place of a certain number of small proprietors, constitutes a centre of
local activity independent of the chief towns of the province” (316).
UNCORRECTED PROOFS
farm, developed abilities that differentiated him from the typical landless
farm-laborer. Leslie concluded that the Flemish peasant was the securest,
freest, and boldest of his time and cited factual data to illustrate his social
and economic position, which, in his mind, was much better than the
English one. He pointed out that in 1856 “there were 100 houses to every

102 families in East Flanders, and every 101 families in the western prov
inces. Even the pauper thinks existence insupportable without a separate
cottage” (329). Leslie observed that even in the late 1840s, when pauper
ism was at its height in East Flanders, the “peasant proprietor of a farm of
even five acres is never in indigence” (329).
On his second visit to Belgium, in 1870, Leslie (1870a: 343) observed
that the small proprietorship continued to be the dominant mode of farm
ing.15 He noted that the burst of commercial activity, and the emergence of
crowded markets, was an additional impetus for the extension of small-
scale farming. For him, “the progress of manufactures and trade tend nat
urally, not to the accumulation of land, but its diffusion” (350). He
observed that “the change in comparative prices, consequent on commer
cial progress, . . . is a revolution in favour of small farming everywhere”
(344), while the scientific progress of agricultural chemistry is an addi
tional stimulus to the advancement of small proprietorships and contrib
utes to the nonexhaustion of fertile soil (346). For instance, he cited the
official report of the Belgian Ministry of Agriculture and pointed out that
new manures have come into common use among farmers, “including, in
addition to guano, animal black, superphosphate of lime, pulverised bones
&c” (346), while noting that the “steam threshing-machine again has
made great way even in the last four years” (346).
The mutual feature of Cliffe Leslie’s twin essays on the Belgian land
system is that in Belgium, despite the disadvantages of soil and climate,
the small proprietorship is per petually advancing.16 Moreover, Leslie,
through his second visit to Belgium, once more illustrated the falsity of
the wage-fund doctrine, or “the theory of wages propounded by Ricardo
and M’Culloch” (Leslie 1870a: 354). He cited factual data in support of
this falsity. For instance, he observed that the price of agricultural labor in
15. Cliffe Leslie cited statistical data from the “Enquête agricole” and noted that “in East
Flanders, of 88,300 cultivators of less than three hecta res (less than seven acres and a half)
32,201 are proprietors, 37,283 are tenants under lease. Of cultivators of above three hectares,
12,346 are proprietors, against 11,481 tenants” (343).
16. Leslie (1870a: 348) observed that the “soil of Flanders, moreover, is so poor by nature,
that even ‘second’ or intermediate crops . . . require special manure.”
UNCORRECTED PROOFS
the Walloon province, where grand estates are the most frequent form of
landed property, is double that in Flanders. As in Westphalia, Leslie
employed his economic geography by noting that wage differences are the
direct consequence of a “difference in local geological conditions” (354).
Later, Leslie, noted that the wage-fund doctrine was condemned by a

variety of continental political economists, such as Gustav Cohn (1840–
1919), de Laveleye, and de Lavergne, and was criticized by other political
economists including the younger Mill, Henry Fawcett (1833–84), and
William Stanley Jevons (1835–82). For Leslie ([1879] 1888d: 98), the pur
est refutation of the “wages fund doctrine” lies in the fact that there is no
such a thing as perfect mobility of both capital and labor “as would make
allthe sums expendible in wages practically one fund.” Leslie utilized
factual data from his journeys to document the inequalities of wages in
different parts of the same country, noting that inequalities in wages and
prices correspond to specific historical and geographical particularities.
Lastly, it must be noted that Cliffe Leslie’s essays on Belgium had a
political dimension. He believed that the example of Flanders should be
the “core paradigm” of Ireland, as his fatherland had those advantages of
fertility, beauty, and climate that are appropriate for the development of
small proprietorships. Leslie ([1867] 1870: 335) noted that agricultural
productiveness is higher in Flanders owing to the presence of security of
tenure and “the protection of numerous centres of civic life and liberty,
during centuries in which the inhabitants of most other parts of Belgium
were farther both from the busy mart and the vigorous republic.” What is
more, Leslie stressed the importance of institutions in ensuring the secu
rity of tenure and promoting— through the complete movement from sta
tus to contract—the natural progress of opulence.
4. Cliffe Leslie’s Journey to Auvergne

One of the most well-known surveys written by Cliffe Leslie, and not
included in his Land Systems, is his analytical presentation of the econ
omy and society of Auvergne. Leslie’s account of Auvergne was praised
by Mill and provided to him material to specify the role of history in
determining economic phenomena. In this journey, Leslie ([1874] 1888:
415) observed that Auvergne’s “chief economic and social phenomena . . .
are . . . so related to some of its physical features, that the latter cannot be
left altogether unnoticed.” He provided a minute geographical analysis of
the region of Auvergne and provided a variety of spatial, natu ral,
UNCORRECTED PROOFS
economic, social, and cultural details.17 He followed again a historical

approach and stressed the importance of the institutional framework in
determining economic affairs. He pointed out that noneconomic factors,
such as custom, traditions, and culture, determ ine property rights and
direct production and distribution. According to Leslie, property rights in

land are different in its plain and mountainous districts. He noted that the
dominant form of property in the plain is the small proprietorship (la
petite propriete), while in the mountains the large property (la grande
propriete) is frequently found. In a highly ethological note, he observed
that this sort of difference is a matter of custom and tradition. Leslie elab
orated on historical facts to illustrate his views and quoted the report of
the “Enquête agricole”:
In the plain an inheritance is almost always partitioned or sold when a
succession (of more than one child) takes place; if partitioned, each of
the heirs takes a part of each parcel; if it is sold, it is so in detail, and by
the smallest fractions, in order the more readily to find buyers.
Everything thus contributes to indefinite subdivision in the plain. In the
mountains they cling to the conservation of the inheritance unbroken,
and do allthat is possible in order not to destroy the work of the family,
and not to divide the paternal dwelling. (Leslie [1874] 1888: 418–19)
According to his analysis, the emigration of mountain people was asso
ciated—on top of the comparative unproductiveness of mountain land—
with customary/institutional structures, such as the “law of primogeniture.”
He noted that “the younger sons, as the ‘Enquête Agricole’ states, seek a
subsistence elsewhere, to leave the property undivided to the elder brother;
or occasionally it is the elder brother who emigrates, relinquishing his
share to a younger one remaining at home” (419).18 Leslie’s approach leads
him to point out that the historical element is of prime importance in
understanding economic and social affairs. For instance, he informs us
that, “in the Auvergne mountains at this day, ‘the younger brother sinks
into the priest,’ just as Sir Henry Maine describes him as doing under the
influence of primogeniture in feudal society” (421). According to Leslie,
17. John Morley (1838–1923), the editor of the Fortnightly Review, told to Leslie that Mill
said to him “that no one wrote accounts at once so instructive and interesting as your narratives
of your foreign visits” (Leslie 1888: x–xi).
18. Cliffe Leslie, following Mill, pointed out that ideas/institutions, such as primogeniture
or entails, “are among the oldest in human society—subordination to the male head of the fam
ily, and conservation of the family property, unalienated and unpartitioned” (420).
UNCORRECTED PROOFS
the survival of medieval institutions—such as the “law of primogeniture”

or the “law of entails”—had reversed the “natural progress of opulence”
and resulted in conditions that cannot become understandable through the
doctrines of classical political economy. Because of its historical/institu
tional framework, the economy of Auvergne cannot be exemplified by

classical motifs such as the wage-fund doctrine.
Cliffe Leslie provided valuable information about the education, reli
gion, and culture of the Auvergne people and illustrated the diversity of
habits, thought, and beliefs even in the same province.19 He noted that
religious feelings and family bonds are of prominent importance in the
formation of property rights, production, and the distribution of wealth in
the mountainous Auvergne. According to Leslie, this social status is the
direct consequence of the differences in the physical environment and the
economic conditions of life. He observed that “on its moral and social
side, the contrast between mountain and plain is the contrast between the
old world and the new; between the customs, thoughts, and feelings of
ancient and modern times” (Leslie [1874] 1888: 421).
He extended his judicial analysis and noted that in Auvergne, the posi
tive law of the plain was directly opposed to the customary structures of
the mountainous area. According to him, such a conflict had to be ascribed
to physical, climatic, and cultural differences. He expressed his sympathy
toward “mountainous” people, but observed that the “mountain is, as it
were, the country in its rudest primitive form, while the plain is, as it
were, a great suburb of the towns it contains and has continual intercourse
with” (423). Following Mill, de Lavergne, and de Laveleye, Cliffe Leslie
pointed out that a small proprietorship in the plain leads to the develop
ment of individuality and to the disintegration of family bonds that were
powerful enough in previous societal forms. In this vein, we may say that
this view moved Leslie closer to a kind of institutional individualism that
was developed by Smith, Mill, and even Turgot (Song 1995; Fontaine
1997; Zouboulakis 2002).
At the same time, Cliffe Leslie described the “watering-places” of
Auvergne and noted that its inhabitants “spend here in the mass a great
sum of money at hotels, and on baths, carriages, sadd le-horses,
19. For instance, Leslie ([1874] 1888: 421) observed that “there are no girls’ schools in the
mountains; the daughters of parents who can afford it are, therefore, sent to convents to be edu
cated, and the education they receive both unfits them and gives them a distaste for the rude life
of a mountain farmhouse. They learn to make lace and embroidery, but not to mend stockings
or to make butter or cheese.”
UNCORRECTED PROOFS
sedan-chairs, shops, the casino, &c.; and as their numbers yearly increase,
local prices rise” (Leslie [1874] 1888: 432). He informs us that one of its
chief towns, Bourboule, is a tourist center that attracted “members of the
National Assembly, authors, country gentlemen, Parisians, provincial
townspeople, military men, ecclesiastics, besides a multitude of nonde

script young gentlemen and ladies” (432–33). According to Leslie’s induc
tive research, Bourboule’s economic cond ition is determ ined by its
physical conditions and climate.
Cliffe Leslie’s analysis is opposed to the ahistorical nature of Ricardian
economics and is illustrative of his ethological mode of analysis, where
the “national character” (an influential factor in economic activity) is
determ ined by physical, climatic, intellect ual, and cult ural factors.
According to him, local (physical) cond itions determ ine the struc
ture/function of social and economic phenomena and “produce distinct
types of human life, character, and pursuit” (Leslie [1874] 1888: 431). In
his words,
The persistence in the Auvergne mountains of ancient ideas and feel
ings on such subjects as both the clergy and family property . . . affords
an instructive example, on the one hand, of the profound influence of
physical geography on the mental constitution of man, and the history
of the different branches of the race, and, on the other hand, of the
operation of laws of human nature and motives to human conduct, pow
erfully affecting the economic structure of society, the division of
occupations, the amount and the distribution of wealth, which are abso
lutely ignored in what still passes with some professed economists for a
science of wealth. (424)
Leslie remarked that climate and physical conditions are of prime impor
tance in directing the economic activity of nations. He observed that this
fact was ignored by classical economists. For him, “Climate certainly
plays a great part in determining the economic condition of mankind; and
its agency, along with other physical influences, has been too generally
overlooked by economists in their eagerness to explain the whole econ
omy of society by reference to the single assumption of a desire of every
one to obtain additional wealth” (428).
Cliffe Leslie’s inductive, ethological, and historical analysis illustrated
the importance of history, economic geography, and other social factors.
For him, the diversities in the economic structures of Auvergne are tightly
associated with cultural, customa ry, physical, and even psychological
UNCORRECTED PROOFS
conditions. His pluralistic, comparative, and institutional approach moved

him away from the abstracted schemes of Ricardian political economy
and revealed the importance of historical specificity in economic analysis.
Leslie criticized the use of the abstract character of the deductive method
of Ricardo, as to “isolate a single force, even if a real force and not a mere

abstraction, and to call deductions from it alone the laws of wealth, can
lead only to error, and is radically unscientific” (Leslie [1879] 1888c: 212).
Thus, according to Leslie ([1874] 1888: 434), the analytical description of
Auvergne suffices to show “the importance of taking account, in eco
nomic investigations, of physical geography and environment, and the
necessary fallaciousness of a theory which professes to account for the
division of labour in every country, the amount and distribution of its
wealth, and the movements of money and prices, by deductions from the
principle of pecuniary interest.”
5. Cliffe Leslie’s “On the Philosophical Method of Political

Economy” (1876) and the Emergence of Historical Economics
in Britain
As already noted, Cliffe Leslie’s journeys offered him the opportunity to
develop an economic approach that moved him closer to Mill, yet even
further. Leslie called for a historical and inductive political economy. In
his 1876 classical paper, “On the Philosophical Method of Political
Economy,” which can be considered as the manifesto of British historical
economics, Leslie was sure that the relativization of Ricardian political
economy was impossible. He noted that the abstract (or deductive) method
“yields no explanation of the causes which regulate either the nature or the
amount of wealth” (Leslie [1876] 1888: 174). For Leslie, the bane of
Ricardian political economy “has been the haste of its students to possess
themselves of a complete and symmetrical system, solving allthe prob
lems before it with mathematical certainty and exactness” (189). Leslie
was well aware of this already from the late 1860s. Through his empirical
studies of continental Europe, he tested the validity of the laws of
Ricardian political economy and concluded that these laws were far from
possessing “the universality or independence of time and place usually
attributed to them” and have to “be conditioned and qualified, if not aban
doned” (Leslie [1869] 1888: 126). The radical character of Leslie’s induc
tive political economy is synopsized in his view that political economy “is
not a body of natural laws in the true sense, or of universal and immutable
UNCORRECTED PROOFS
truths, but an assemblage of speculations and doctrines which are the

result of a particular history . . . that, so far from being of no country, and
unchangeable from age to age, it has varied much in different ages and
countries” (Leslie [1870] 1888: 21; emphasis added).
Cliffe Leslie’s criticism of Ricardianism is explicit in his seminal “On

the Philosophical Method of Political Economy,” where he observed that
wealth, which is the core notion of political economy, “undergoes great
changes in kind in different states of society, and one of the most impor
tant features of economical history is the evolution of new kinds, pro
foundly affecting the material as well as the moral condition of nations”
(Leslie [1876] 1888: 164).20 Thus, Leslie criticized Ricardian political
economy—and post-Ricardians, such as Lowe—for identifying wealth
with the abstracted category of the “desire for wealth,” which confounds a
great diversity of different and essentially heterogeneous motives. For
Leslie, the main ontological tenet of Ricardian and post-Ricardian eco
nomics, the “desire for wealth,” is historically animated, as it is influenced
by the state of society and is decisively determined by the stage of eco
nomic and social development. Similarly, the accumulation of wealth,
consumption, expenditure, and so on are determined by the state of soci
ety and are influenced by different institutions and surrounding conditions
such as “passions, appetites, affections, moral and religious sentiments,
family feelings, aesthetical tastes, and intellectual wants” (178). Evidently,
therefore, according to Lesliean political economy, the theories of produc
tion, consumption and distribution of wealth vary according to different
states of society and, as such, political economy is tightly associated with
economic history. Leslie is more than explicit when he noted that “out
wealth is historical wealth, has been made what it is by historical causes,
and preserves visible traces of its history” (178). Thus, any economic doc
trine is historically (and socially) relative. In his own words,
The amount of wealth has been proved to depend on allthe conditions
determining the direction and employments of human energies, as well
as on the state of the arts of production, and the means of supply. And
the distribution of wealth has been shown to be the result, not of
exchange alone, but also of moral, religious, and family ideas and
20. According to Leslie’s economic history, “The wealth of Rome under the Caesars dif
fered from its wealth in the first age of the Republic, in quality as well as quantity; and there are
essential differences, as well as resemblances and historical relations, between the constituents
of medieval and modern wealth” (164).
UNCORRECTED PROOFS
sentiments, and the whole history of the nation. The distribution . . .
varies at different stages of social progress, and is by no means in
accordance with the doctrines of a priori political economy. (189–90)
Cliffe Leslie then directed his fiercest criticism toward political econo
mists of the classical tradition, according to whom political economy “has

no nation.” Following his historical approach, the British economy is the
historical result of specific circumstances, and as such the theory to ana
lyze it is historically relative to these circumstances. For him,
The economic society which we behold in England, and which is the
result of the social evolution referred to, is, however, one which displays
on every side the influence of tradition, custom, law, political institu
tions, religion and moral sentiment; it is one in which the State, the
Family, and even the Church, are powerful elements directly or indi
rectly, and in which the pursuits of individuals, the nature and value of
different kinds of wealth, the structure of trades and professions, are
incapable of explanation apart from history. (179)
Leslie’s article includes an overall critique of classical political economy
and encompasses his vehement attack which was incubated in his travels
across the Continental Europe. Leslie’s radical views contested the over
simplification of economic reality as was promoted by classical political
economists. The methodological aspects of Leslie’s critique provided the
framework of the “relativity of economic doctrines” thesis which turned to
be the epistemological pillar of the British historical school and of histori
cal economists as Sir William Ashley (1860–1927). In discussing Political
Economy in the United States Leslie ([1880] 1888: 142) noted that:
Economic theories and systems may be regarded in several different
lights: (1) in reference to their causes, as the products of particular,
social, political, and physical conditions of thought; (2) in reference to
their truth or error; (3) as factors in the formation of public opinion
and policy.
6. Conclusion
Cliffe Leslie’s journeys offered him the opportunity to collect descriptive
material and prepare his attack on the Ricardian School of political econ
omy. Cliffe Leslie’s political economy is far more radical than Smith’s and
Mill’s. For the founder of British historicism, the relation between
UNCORRECTED PROOFS
economic phenomena and the moral, intellectual, and political super

structure is totally “undreamt of by the old school of economists” (Leslie
[1874] 1888: 435). Leslie believed that without the historicist, compara
tive, and holistic survey of laws, customs, traditions, mores, and religion
of a particular society, generalizations result in misleading and void con

clusions. However, the transition from political economy to economics
ostracized the historical and social elements from economic reasoning
(Milonakis and Fine 2009). It is interesting to note that Cliffe Leslie,
although on cordial terms with Jevons, expressed his antipathy to his
deductivism and marginalism (Leslie [1879] 1888a). Not surprisingly,
Cliffe Leslie’s journeys prepared the ground for the methodological raison
d’être of historicism, through the destruction of Ricardian political econ
omy. According to Leslie ([1874] 1888: 436–37, “The method of abstract
reasoning from crude assumption, in place of careful investigation of eco
nomic phenomena and their causes, has prevented the discovery of a mass
of evidence respecting the real origin of differences in the aims, qualities,
and circumstances of mankind in different countries and situations.”
Cliffe Leslie’s political economy, and especially his applied work, can
then be viewed as following the inductive elements of Smith’s and Mill’s
political economy, contrary to Ricardo’s deductivism. His early inductive
texts illustrated the ties between the inductive (historical) side of classical
political economy and British historicism, preparing in this way the emer
gence of the British historical school.
References
Bladen, Vincent Wheeler. 1941. “Mill to Marshall: The Conversion of the
Economists.” Journal of Economic History 1, no. 1: 17–29.
Boianovsky, Mauro, and Harro Maas. 2022. “Introduction: Roads to Economic
Knowledge; The Epistemic Virtues of Travel across the History of Thought.”
History of Political Economy 54, no. 3: 383–92.
Boylan, Tom, and Tadhg Foley. 1993. “The Teaching of Economics at the Queen’s
Colleges in Ireland (Belfast, Cork, Galway), 1845–1900.” In The Market for
Political Economy: The Advent of Economics in British University Culture,
1850–1905, edited by Alon Kadish and Keith Tribe, 111–36. London: Routledge.
Coleman, David. 1987. History and the Economic Past: An Account of the Rise and
Decline of Economic History in Britain. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Collison Black, R. D. 2002. “The Political Economy of Thomas Edward Cliffe Leslie
(1826–82): A Re-assessment.” European Journal of the History of Economic
Thought 9, no. 1: 17–41.
UNCORRECTED PROOFS
Fontaine, Philippe. 1997. “Turgot’s ‘Institutional Individualism.’” History of Political

Economy 29, no. 1: 1–20.
Hodgson, Geoffrey. 2001. How Economics Forgot History. London: Routledge.
Hollander, James. 1911. “The Letters of John Stuart Mill.” Political Science Quarterly
26, no. 4: 697–706.
Ingram, John Kells. 1882. “Thomas Edward Cliffe Leslie.” Encyclopaedia Britannica

14:477–78.
Ingram, John Kells. 1888. “Biographical Notice of the Author.” In Essays in Political
Economy, by Thomas Edward Cliffe Leslie, ix–xii. London: Longmans, Green, &
Co.; Dublin: Hodges, Figgis, & Co.
Kadish, Alon. 1989. Historians, Economists, and Economic History. London:
Routledge.
Koot, Gerard M. 1975. “T. E. Cliffe Leslie, Irish Social Reform, and the Origins of
the English Historical School of Economics.” History of Political Economy 7,
no. 3: 312–36.
Koot, Gerard M. 1987. English Historical Economics, 1870–1926: The Role of
Economic History and Neomercantilism. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
Leslie, T. E. Cliffe. (1867) 1870. “The Peasantry and Farms of Belgium, 1867.” In
Leslie 1870b: 294–340.
Leslie, T. E. Cliffe. (1868) 1870. “Political Economy and the Rate of Wages.” In
Leslie 1870b: 357–79.
Leslie, T. E. Cliffe. (1869) 1870a. “A Visit to La Creuse, 1868.” In Leslie 1870b: 265–
82.
Leslie, T. E. Cliffe. (1869) 1870b. “Westphalia and the Ruhr Basin, 1868–1869.” In
Leslie 1870b: 230–53.
Leslie, T. E. Cliffe. (1869) 1888. “Political Economy in the United States.” In Leslie
1888: 126–54.
Leslie, T. E. Cliffe. 1870a. “The Farms and Peasantry of Belgium, 1870.” In Leslie
1870b: 341–55.
Leslie, T. E. Cliffe. 1870b. Land Systems and Industrial Economy of Ireland,
England, and Continental Countries. London: Longmans, Green.
Leslie, T. E. Cliffe. 1870c. “A Second Visit to La Creuse.” In Leslie 1870b: 265–93.
Leslie, T. E. Cliffe. 1870d. “Westphalia and the Ruhr Basin, 1869–1870.” In Leslie
1870b: 254–64.
Leslie, T. E. Cliffe. (1870) 1888. “The Political Economy of Adam Smith.” In Leslie
1888: 21–40.
Leslie, T. E. Cliffe. (1873) 1888a. “Economic Science and Statistics.” In Leslie 1888:
155–62.
Leslie, T. E. Cliffe. (1873) 1888b. “Prices in England in 1873.” In Leslie 1888: 363.
Leslie, T. E. Cliffe. (1874) 1888. “Auvergne.” In Leslie 1888: 414–37.
Leslie, T. E. Cliffe. (1875) 1888. “John Stuart Mill.” In Leslie 1888: 54–59.
Leslie, T. E. Cliffe. (1876) 1888. “On the Philosophical Method of Political Economy.”
In Leslie 1888: 163–90.
UNCORRECTED PROOFS
Leslie, T. E. Cliffe. 1879. Essays in Political and Moral Philosophy. London:

Longmans, Green; Dublin: Hodges, Figgis.
Leslie, T. E. Cliffe. (1879) 1888a. “Jevons’ ‘Theory of Political Economy.’” In Leslie
1888: 66–72.
Leslie, T. E. Cliffe. (1879) 1888b. “The Known and the Unknown in the Economic
World.” In Leslie 1888: 234–42.

Leslie, T. E. Cliffe. (1879) 1888c. “Political Economy and Sociology.” In Leslie 1888:
191–220.
Leslie, T. E. Cliffe. (1879) 1888d. “Roscher’s ‘Principles of Political Economy.’” In
Leslie 1888: 95–100.
Leslie, T. E. Cliffe. (1880) 1888. “Political Economy in the United States.” In Leslie
1888: 126–54.
Leslie, T. E. Cliffe. 1888. Essays in Political Economy. London: Longmans, Green;
Dublin: Hodges, Figgis.
Lipkes, Jeff. 1999. Politics, Religion, and Classical Political Economy in Britain:
John Stuart Mill and His Followers. London: Macmillan.
Manioudis, Manolis. 2020. “J. S. Mill and the Irish Land Question: From Irish
Economic History to Coherent Socialism and Irish Historicism.” Irish Economic
and Social History 48, no. 1: 27–46.
Mill, John Stuart. (1848) 1965. Principles of Political Economy with Some of Their
Applications to Social Philosophy. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.
Mill, John Stuart. (1860) 1972. Letter to T. E. Cliffe Leslie. August 18. In vol. 2 of
The Later Letters of John Stuart Mill, 1849–1873, edited by Francis E. Mineka
and Dwight N. Lindley, 702–4. Toronto: University of Toronto Press; London:
Routledge & Kegan Paul.
Mill, John Stuart. (1861) 1972a. Letter to T. E. Cliffe Leslie. November. In vol. 2 of
Routledge and Kegan Paul.
Mill, John Stuart. (1861) 1972b. Letter to T. E. Cliffe Leslie. December 20. In vol. 2
of The Later Letters of John Stuart Mill, 1849–1873, edited by Francis E. Mineka
Mill, John Stuart. (1863) 1972. Letter to T. E. Cliffe Leslie. November 14. In vol. 2 of
Mill, John Stuart. (1866) 1972. Letter to Thomas Hughes. December 18. In vol. 3 of
Mill, John Stuart. (1867) 1972. Letter to John Elliott Cairnes. July 23. In vol. 3 of The
Later Letters of John Stuart Mill, 1849–1873, edited by Francis E. Mineka and
UNCORRECTED PROOFS
Dwight N. Lindley, 1293–94. Toronto: University of Toronto Press; London:

Mill, John Stuart. (1868) 1972. Letter to Edwin Chadwick. January 9. In vol. 3 of The

Mill, John Stuart. (1869) 1972a. Letter to T. E. Cliffe Leslie. February 8. In vol. 4 of
Mill, John Stuart. (1869) 1972b. Letter to T. E. Cliffe Leslie. May 8. In vol. 4 of The
Mill, John Stuart. (1869) 1972c. Letter to T. E. Cliffe Leslie. October 5. In vol. 4 of
Mill, John Stuart. (1870) 1875. “Professor Leslie on the Land Question.” In vol. 5 of
Dissertations and Discussions: Political, Philosophical, and Historical. New
York: Henry Holt.
Mill, John Stuart. (1871) 1972. Letter to T. E. Cliffe Leslie. December 1. In vol. 4 of
Milonakis, D., and B. Fine. 2009. From Political Economy to Economics. London:
Routledge.
Moore, Gregory C. G. 1995. “T. E. Cliffe Leslie and the English Methodenstreit.”
Journal of the History of Economic Thought 17, no. 1: 57–77.
Moore, Gregory C. G. 1999. “John Kells Ingram, the Comtean Movement, and the
English Methodenstreit.” History of Political Economy 31, no. 1: 53–78.
Song, Hyun-Ho. 1995. “Adam Smith as an Early Pioneer of Institutional
Individualism.” History of Political Economy 27, no. 3: 425–48.
Tribe, Keith. 2002. “Historical Schools of Economics: German and English.” Keele
Economics Research Papers, Department of Economics, Keele University.
Vallier, Kevin. 2010. “Production, Distribution, and J. S. Mill.” Utilitas 22, no. 2:
103–25.
Winch, Donald. 2013. “Land Reform and Popular Political Economy in Victor ian
Britain.” Intellectual History Archive, University of St. Andrews. https://arts.st
-andrews.ac.uk/intellectualhistory/items/show/82.
Zouboulakis, Michalis. 2002. “John Stua rt Mill’s Institutional Individualism.”
History of Economic Ideas 10, no. 3: 29–45.
UNCORRECTED PROOFS

TE Cliffe Leslie Critics of Ricardo

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

TE Cliffe Leslie Critics of Ricardo

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

ADVANCE PUBLICATION

Thomas Edward Cliffe Leslie’s

Downloaded from http://read.dukeupress.edu/hope/article-pdf/doi/10.1215/00182702-10956596/2012255/10956596.pdf by guest on 14 October 2023

Correspondence may be addressed to Manolis Manioudis, Department of Economics, Univer­

of juris­pru­dence and polit­i­cal econ­omy at Queens College Belfast, suc­

Downloaded from http://read.dukeupress.edu/hope/article-pdf/doi/10.1215/00182702-10956596/2012255/10956596.pdf by guest on 14 October 2023

cri­tique of Ricardian polit­i­cal econ­omy. This arti­cle turned out to be the

Downloaded from http://read.dukeupress.edu/hope/article-pdf/doi/10.1215/00182702-10956596/2012255/10956596.pdf by guest on 14 October 2023

2. Cliffe Leslie’s Influences: The Inductive Side of Adam Smith

heret­i­cal tra­di­tion of Trin­ity College Dublin (Koot 1987: 32). Furthermore,

Downloaded from http://read.dukeupress.edu/hope/article-pdf/doi/10.1215/00182702-10956596/2012255/10956596.pdf by guest on 14 October 2023

Magazine.3 In this, Mill ([1860] 1972: 702–3) expressed his agree­ment

Downloaded from http://read.dukeupress.edu/hope/article-pdf/doi/10.1215/00182702-10956596/2012255/10956596.pdf by guest on 14 October 2023

induc­tive sur­veys and asked him to con­tinue his vis­its to con­ti­nen­tal

Downloaded from http://read.dukeupress.edu/hope/article-pdf/doi/10.1215/00182702-10956596/2012255/10956596.pdf by guest on 14 October 2023

Downloaded from http://read.dukeupress.edu/hope/article-pdf/doi/10.1215/00182702-10956596/2012255/10956596.pdf by guest on 14 October 2023

3. Rereading Cliffe Leslie’s Land Systems

Downloaded from http://read.dukeupress.edu/hope/article-pdf/doi/10.1215/00182702-10956596/2012255/10956596.pdf by guest on 14 October 2023

eco­nomic geog­ra­phy, polit­i­cal sci­ence, and anthro­pol­ogy and are quite

Downloaded from http://read.dukeupress.edu/hope/article-pdf/doi/10.1215/00182702-10956596/2012255/10956596.pdf by guest on 14 October 2023

7. Thanks to an anon­y­mous reviewer for bring­ing this to my atten­tion.

Westphalia, where the “plough as old as the time of Arminius is a sign of

Downloaded from http://read.dukeupress.edu/hope/article-pdf/doi/10.1215/00182702-10956596/2012255/10956596.pdf by guest on 14 October 2023

Downloaded from http://read.dukeupress.edu/hope/article-pdf/doi/10.1215/00182702-10956596/2012255/10956596.pdf by guest on 14 October 2023

have nowhere equalised wages, prof­its, or rent” (259). His descrip­tions of

Downloaded from http://read.dukeupress.edu/hope/article-pdf/doi/10.1215/00182702-10956596/2012255/10956596.pdf by guest on 14 October 2023

Leslie con­cluded his inter­est­ing essay by not­ing that the depop­u­la­tion

Downloaded from http://read.dukeupress.edu/hope/article-pdf/doi/10.1215/00182702-10956596/2012255/10956596.pdf by guest on 14 October 2023

con­trary, agri­cul­ture is found back­ward, not in rude regions alone . . . ​but

Downloaded from http://read.dukeupress.edu/hope/article-pdf/doi/10.1215/00182702-10956596/2012255/10956596.pdf by guest on 14 October 2023

13. Leslie spelled Ardenne with no s on the end.

and com­merce, but was a spe­cific fea­ture of the Flem­ish econ­omy.14

Downloaded from http://read.dukeupress.edu/hope/article-pdf/doi/10.1215/00182702-10956596/2012255/10956596.pdf by guest on 14 October 2023

Downloaded from http://read.dukeupress.edu/hope/article-pdf/doi/10.1215/00182702-10956596/2012255/10956596.pdf by guest on 14 October 2023

Downloaded from http://read.dukeupress.edu/hope/article-pdf/doi/10.1215/00182702-10956596/2012255/10956596.pdf by guest on 14 October 2023

4. Cliffe Leslie’s Journey to Auvergne

eco­nomic, social, and cul­tural details.17 He followed again a his­tor­i­cal

Downloaded from http://read.dukeupress.edu/hope/article-pdf/doi/10.1215/00182702-10956596/2012255/10956596.pdf by guest on 14 October 2023

the sur­vival of medi­e­val insti­tu­tions—such as the “law of pri­mo­gen­i­ture”

Downloaded from http://read.dukeupress.edu/hope/article-pdf/doi/10.1215/00182702-10956596/2012255/10956596.pdf by guest on 14 October 2023

Downloaded from http://read.dukeupress.edu/hope/article-pdf/doi/10.1215/00182702-10956596/2012255/10956596.pdf by guest on 14 October 2023

con­di­tions. His plu­ral­is­tic, com­par­a­tive, and insti­tu­tional approach moved

Downloaded from http://read.dukeupress.edu/hope/article-pdf/doi/10.1215/00182702-10956596/2012255/10956596.pdf by guest on 14 October 2023

5. Cliffe Leslie’s “On the Philosophical Method of Political

truths, but an assem­blage of spec­u­la­tions and doc­trines which are the

Downloaded from http://read.dukeupress.edu/hope/article-pdf/doi/10.1215/00182702-10956596/2012255/10956596.pdf by guest on 14 October 2023

Downloaded from http://read.dukeupress.edu/hope/article-pdf/doi/10.1215/00182702-10956596/2012255/10956596.pdf by guest on 14 October 2023

eco­nomic phe­nom­ena and the moral, intel­lec­tual, and polit­i­cal super­

Downloaded from http://read.dukeupress.edu/hope/article-pdf/doi/10.1215/00182702-10956596/2012255/10956596.pdf by guest on 14 October 2023

Fontaine, Philippe. 1997. “Turgot’s ‘Institutional Individualism.’” History of Political

Downloaded from http://read.dukeupress.edu/hope/article-pdf/doi/10.1215/00182702-10956596/2012255/10956596.pdf by guest on 14 October 2023

Leslie, T. E. Cliffe. 1879. Essays in Political and Moral Philosophy. London:

Downloaded from http://read.dukeupress.edu/hope/article-pdf/doi/10.1215/00182702-10956596/2012255/10956596.pdf by guest on 14 October 2023

Dwight N. Lindley, 1293–94. Toronto: University of Toronto Press; London:

Downloaded from http://read.dukeupress.edu/hope/article-pdf/doi/10.1215/00182702-10956596/2012255/10956596.pdf by guest on 14 October 2023

You might also like

Correspondence may be addressed to Manolis Manioudis, Department of Economics, Univer

of jurisprudence and political economy at Queens College Belfast, suc

critique of Ricardian political economy. This article turned out to be the

heretical tradition of Trinity College Dublin (Koot 1987: 32). Furthermore,

Magazine.3 In this, Mill ([1860] 1972: 702–3) expressed his agreement

inductive surveys and asked him to continue his visits to continental

economic geography, political science, and anthropology and are quite

7. Thanks to an anonymous reviewer for bringing this to my attention.

have nowhere equalised wages, profits, or rent” (259). His descriptions of

Leslie concluded his interesting essay by noting that the depopulation

contrary, agriculture is found backward, not in rude regions alone . . . but

and commerce, but was a specific feature of the Flemish economy.14

economic, social, and cultural details.17 He followed again a historical

the survival of medieval institutions—such as the “law of primogeniture”

conditions. His pluralistic, comparative, and institutional approach moved

truths, but an assemblage of speculations and doctrines which are the

economic phenomena and the moral, intellectual, and political super