The Suntory and Toyota International Centres for Economics and Related Disciplines

Mill on Bentham and Coleridge by F. R. Leavis; Essays on Some Unsettled Questions of

Political Economy by J. S. Mill
Review by: T. W. Hutchison
Economica, New Series, Vol. 19, No. 73 (Feb., 1952), pp. 78-81
Published by: Wiley on behalf of The London School of Economics and Political Science and The
Suntory and Toyota International Centres for Economics and Related Disciplines
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2549918 .
Accessed: 15/02/2015 04:54

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Wiley, The London School of Economics and Political Science, The Suntory and Toyota International Centres
for Economics and Related Disciplines are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to
Economica.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 128.235.251.160 on Sun, 15 Feb 2015 04:54:43 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 [FEBRUARY

Book Reviews
Mill on Benthamand Coleridge: withan Introductionby F. R. Leavis.
Chatto and Windus. I950. i68 pp. 7s. 6d.
Essays on Some UnsettledQuestionsof Political Economy. By J. S.
MILL. Seriesof Reprintsof Scarce Worksin Political Economy.
No. 7. London School of Economics. (I844) 1948. vi +
I 64 pp. i Os. 6d .
Gladstoneis said to have referredto J. S. Mill as " the Saint of
Rationalism". Thanks to ProfessorHayek,we have recentlybecome
aware of some morehuman and perhapsless saintlyaspects of Mill's
complex and, in parts, elusive personality. But for the defence
of the intellectualsaintlinesswhichGladstoneascribedto him, there
can hardlybe any betterdocumentsin Mill's writingsthan the essays
on Benthamand Coleridgewhichhe wrotein I838-39 at a timewhen
he had thrownoff,as far as he ever did, the dogmaticrigiditiesof his
father,but was not yet muchpermeatedby the strenuousand slightly
paranoiac influencesof his gifted wife. The constituentelements
of this intellectualsaintliness-(ofwhich' Rationalism' hardlyseems
today to be a suitable description)-are pointed out very clearlyin
F. R. Leavis's Introduction. Located in the regionwhereintellectual
and moralqualitiesmeet,it consistedin a toleranceof,and a capacity
for immenseeffortsat understanding, doctrinesand argumentsdia-
metricallyopposedto thoseof his intellectualinheritance and youthful
milieu. Alongwiththiswenta keennessofperceptionforany element
(f the truthwhereverit lurked,the capacityto reconcileand contain
superficially or potentiallyopposingelementsin his own systemof
thought,and, above all, therejectionofthe slogansand over-simplifica-
tions of politico-intellectual gang-warfare.As Dr. Leavis puts it,
Mill possessed " a true and whollyadmirablehumilitythat is at the
same time a tenacityin workingalong his own arduous path . . .
He spenthis lifein a strenuousendeavour,pursuedwith magnificent
integrity,to justify his contentionthat ' the Benthams and the
Coleridges, thesetwosortsof men,whoseemedto be, and believethem-
selves to be, enemies,are in realityallies ': the side fromwhichhe
inevitablyworkedhavingbeendetermined by hisupbringing,he worked
iindefatigably to correctand completeUtilitarianismby incorporating
intoit the nicasureoftruthattainedby the otherside." Or in a single
sentencefromMill's Autobiography:"I did not seek and cultivate
Carlyle less on account of the fundamental differencesin our
philosophy ".
The significance of these two essays does not, however,lie only in
theviewtheyaffordofthenoblestaspectofMill'sintellectualpersonal-
ity. They also give an accountby a greatrepresentative mindof two
78

This content downloaded from 128.235.251.160 on Sun, 15 Feb 2015 04:54:43 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
1952] BOOK REVIEWS 79
othergreat representativeminds, " the two great seminal minds of
England in theirage ". They are, therefore, essentialreadingforthe
studentof almost any branchof igth centurythought. Dr. Leavis
has extractedthe essays fromthe inaccessiblevolumes of " Disserta-
tions and Discussions" with the ambitionof makingthem " current
classics forthe literarystudent". They may be of interestalso to
students of Political Economy. For a debate which runs closely
parellelto that between" the Benthamsand the Coleridges" has been
a perennialone, now in the foreground now in the background,in the
historyof Political Economy,and Mill's effortat understanding both
sides mightbe taken as a model,even if it cannot be regardedas
entirelysuccessful.
Mill wroteof Coleridgewordswhichone would like to be able to
apply to himself: " Both the theoryand practice of enlightened
tolerancein mattersof opinion,mightbe exhibitedin extractsfrom
his writingsmorecopiouslythanin thoseof any otherwriterwe know,
thoughthereare a few(and but a few)exceptionsto his own practice
of it
But thereis anotherside of the picture. Very unfortunately, the
" exceptions" in Mill's writingsare not unimportantand one,
where he argued at a considerablyless than saintly level of toler-
ance and perceptiveness,occurredat a key point in his systemof
economictheorywhichis touchedupon in one of the 'Essays on some
UnsettledQuestions', writtenat the age of 23-4. Two oftheseessays
are very distinguished,and even classical contributions,to their
subjects (those on the Laws of InterchangebetweenNations and on
the Definitionand Method of Political Economy), but perhaps it is
that 'On the Influenceof Consumptionupon Productioni'which has
in recentyears had the widestinterest,and it is this which we take
to illustrateanother-and quitecontrasting-facetofMill'sintellectual
character.
Mill opens his essay with a barrageof ' revolutionary ' claims on
behalfof what Thomas Chalmersaptly called " the modernparadox "
of the " new economists"-(i.e., JamesMill, Say, and Ricardo)-that
" general over-productionis impossible". The 23-year old Mill
dutifully castigatesthe" perniciousmistakes", so " flagrantlyabsurd",
than which " thereis nothingwhichimpressesa personof reflection
with a strongersense of the shallownessof the political reasonings
of the last two centuries", i.e., the reasoningsof such as Petty,
Mandeville, Berkeley, Boisguillebert,Cantillon, Steuart, Quesnay,
and others,who would certainlyhave had no use for James Mill's
dogmaticcatch-phraseabout " theimpossibility ofgeneralover-produc-
tion", orforthe reallyrathertrivialterminological rigmaroleby which
it was supported,and the drasticpracticalconclusionsdrawnfromit.
J. S. Mill explains, however: " In opposition to these palpable
absurdities,it was triumphantly establishedby political economists,
that consumptionneverneeds encouragement.All whichis produced

This content downloaded from 128.235.251.160 on Sun, 15 Feb 2015 04:54:43 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 8o ECONOMICA [FEBRUARY

is alreadyconsumed,eitherforthe purposeofreproduction or ofenjoy-

ment. The personwho saves his incomeis no less a consumerthan he
who spendsit. He consumesit in a different way ".
With all the ambivalencewhichis so remarkablea featureof the
treatmentof most of the great issues in the Principles,Mill then
goes on to presentin his essay an excellentlypreciseand penetrating
analysis of " over-production", which can only leave the modern
reader at a loss to understandwhat conceivable significanceMill
consideredto remainin the catch-phraseabout its " impossibility ",
and in the great intellectualrevolutionwhich the proofof this im-
possibilityapparentlyusheredin. (J. B. Say had comparedhis new
doctrinewiththe discoveriesof Copernicusand Galileo.) In thisessay,
there stands out as black beside white the contrast betweenMill's
mechanical rehearsal of his father's rigiditiesand terminological
dogmatisms,and his own understandingand penetratinganalytical
insights-whichunfortunately he was neverto employmuchfurther in
economictheory.
The formofMill'sdiscussionshowscloseparallelswiththat" modern
paradox " of the " new economists" (2oth centurystyle)who recently
proved the " impossibility " of divergencesbetween savings and
investmentby a somewhatsimilarprocessand withan approximately
similar amount of significanceand justification. All this may be
found excusable in the 23-year old Mill. But the youthfulin-
discretions-if Mill ever was youthful-insteadof dissolvingbefore
a maturer approach, hardened into " orthodox" middle-aged
dogmatisms. The treatment in the Principles nearly 20 years
later,whereMill explicitlyhails the intellectualachievementsof his
fatherand J. B. Say, was even more dogmaticthan in the essay,
and there are various passages denouncingthe views of Malthus,
Chalmers,and Sismondi,and the i8th-century economistsgenerally,in
the most extraordinary terms,(notablyat theend of Book III, Ch. I4,
Section4). On the otherhand,the Principlesis even moreambivalent
than the essay, because elsewherethe argumentin the chapter " Of
the Tendencyof Profitsto a Minimum" is held to " altermaterially"
manyofthepracticalconclusions" longadmittedas truebythehighest
authoritieson the subject"-(i.e., apparently Adam Smith and
possibly James Mill). In this chapter Mill gives a refutationfor
' mature economies-including, apparently, Britain in I848-
of what came to be known eventuallyas " the Treasuryview"
regardinga sort of fixedcapital fund which made any government
investmenta mere transferfromprivateinvestment(Principles,Book
4, Ch. 5, Section i).
What a pitythat Milldid not make a seriouseffortto thinkout the
subjectafresh,as he had withhisutilitarianism,and thatafterexamining
the centralprinciplesof his fatherand Ricardo,withthesame detached
penetrationthat he applied in his essay on Bentham,he did not try
to repeat the effortof sympatheticunderstandingin respect of the

This content downloaded from 128.235.251.160 on Sun, 15 Feb 2015 04:54:43 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
1952] BOOK REVIEWS 8i

i 8th-century ideas of Malthus,Chalmersand others,in the manner

of his essay on Coleridge. How immenselysubsequent political
economywould have gained fromhis constructivemediationbetween
the greaterrealisinof the one side and the (possibly)superiorlogic
of the other. Instead,Mill confuseda centralpart of his economic
theoryby repeatinguncritically the intolerantformulxof his rather
lamentablefather,and providedhis orthodoxfollowerswith perfect
opportunities to use his autlhority in supportof the dogmatismswhich
suited them, while neglectilng the valuable but quite unreconciled
analysisin otherpartsof his work. For example,Fawcett,Marshall's
predecessorat Cambridge,in his text book constructedout of Mill's
Principles withthe aid of Leslie Stephen,began his chapteron Over-
productionin very similarterms to those of Mill's youthfulessay 40
years' before,by conivicting " all econcmistswhoprecededYaines Mlill
and Ricardo", and morespecifically Chalmers,Malthusand Sismondi,
of " most mischievouseconomicfallacies", and by attributing to them
the view that thereis a seriousdanger of over-production in a ' real '
absolutesense: that is, that moremay be producedthan people want
at any price. This is surelyan audacious misunderstanding whichit
wouldbe verydifficult to parallelin thewritingsofthe" neweconomics"
of the 20th century-perhaps some slight consolation to one
contemplatingthe more dismal respectsin whichintellectualhistory
so nearlyrepeatsitself. T. W. HUTCHISON.

Competition AmongtheFew. By WILLIAM J.FELLN ER. AlfredA. Knopf,

New York. 1949. ix + 328 + iii pp. $5.
Classical oligopoly theory was concerned primarilywith those
situationsin whicheach duopolisttriedto maximisehis ownindividual
profits,i.e., behaved competitively. ProfessorFellner aims at re-
orientatingthe analysis of problems involving small numbers of
sellers,by postulatingmonopolisticbehaviour,i.e., the pursuitof the
maximum monopoly profit. Competitiveaction is only, if at all,
relevant as a special case whichariseswhen the corporatespirit of
producersdisintegrates, and it is then merelythe preludeto another
attemptto achievethe monopolysituation.
Where we have undifferentiated oligopoly,the monopolyprice and
output can always be calculated. The shape and position of the
oligopolists'cost functionswill determinehow much of the monopoly
output each must produce. Implicitin this distributionof the joint
profit-maximising outputwill be a distributionof the sales and of the
profits. It mightverywell be, however,that this profitdistribution
is not one that is acceptable to the colludingoligopolists,forit might
not give to each the share of the monopolyprofitto whichhe believes
his relative strengthentitleshim. If this is so, then the monopoly
profittan only be maximisedif each firm'sprofitis divorcedfromits
own output. Such a divorce is achieved by a Pooling Agreement,
F

This content downloaded from 128.235.251.160 on Sun, 15 Feb 2015 04:54:43 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions