Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-94fs2 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-19T11:34:55.820Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Some Classical Economists, Laissez Faire, and the Factory Acts

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  03 February 2011

Lloyd R. Sorenson
Lloyd R. Sorenson
Affiliation:
University of Oregon
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Until very recently scholars have been able to solve certain problems of historical interpretation to their own and presumably to their reader's satisfaction by merely uttering the magic words, “laissez faire.” Thus, much of what was done and most of what was not done, some of what was good and practically all of what was evil in nineteenth-century England and America have been accounted for by a facile reference to laissez faire. During the past few years, however, several studies have cast much doubt on the validity of this catchall interpretation. Laissez faire, it seems now, is a principle more easily imposed upon nineteenth-century data than found there; and in successive investigations supposed instances of this principle have dropped away one by one.

Type
Articles
Information
The Journal of Economic History , Volume 12 , Issue 3 , Summer 1952 , pp. 247 - 262
Copyright
Copyright © The Economic History Association 1952

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Brebner, J. Bartlet lists several such studies undertaken at the suggestion of the Committee on Research in Economic History.— “Laissez Faire and State Intervention in Nineteenth-Century Britain,” The Tasks of Economic History (Supplemental issue of The Journal of Economic History), VIII (1948), 59CrossRefGoogle Scholar. Several of these studies have now been expanded into books.

2 Unfortunately Walker's, K. O. study of this hardly went beyond 1833; consequently most of the pertinent data is still unrevealed.—“The Classical Economists and the Factory Acts,” The Journal of Economic History, I (November 1941), 168–77CrossRefGoogle Scholar. The study of Linnenberg, C. C. Jr., is traditional and inconclusive in its treatment of the economists' attitude toward the factory acts.—“The Laissez-Faire State in Relation to the National Economy,” The Southwestern Social Science Quarterly, XXIV (December 1943), 235–36.Google Scholar

3 Lectures on the Industrial Revolution of the Eighteenth Century in England (new ed.; London: Longmans, Green & Co., 1908), p. 113Google Scholar. Neither the writer nor K. O. Walker (“The Classical Economists etc.,” 173) has been able to find any confirmation for this undocumented statement in Toynbee.

4 The Modern Factory System (London: Kegan Paul, Trench, Tr¨bner & Co., Ltd., 1891), pp. 128–70.Google Scholar

5 The Growth of English Industry and Commerce (6th ed.; Cambridge: The University Press, 1929), II, pt. II, 789Google Scholar.

6 A History of Factory Legislation (2d ed.; London: P. S. King & Son, 1911), pp. 49–50Google Scholar.

7 The Letters of John Stuart Mill, ed. Elliot, Hugh S. R. (London: Longmans, Green & Co., 1910), I, 46Google Scholar.

8 “The Function and Problems of Economic Theory,” The Journal of Political Economy, XXVI (January 1918), 74Google Scholar.

9 J. S. Mill, Letters, I, 45.

10 The best discussion of Torrens' work is found in Seligman, E.R.A., “On Some Neglected British Economists,” The Economic Journal, XIII (September 1903), 341–47Google Scholar. Seligman insists that Torrens was a creative thinker, that he discovered the law of rent independently of Malthus and Ricardo, that he advanced a theory of wages adopted by Ricardo, that he discovered the principle of comparative costs though Ricardo usually gets the credit, and that his theory of profits was much more satisfactory than Ricardo's.

11 Writing in 1821 Torrens expressed the opinion that devotion to economics as science and to the scientific method in economics would resolve all outstanding differences among economists within twenty years.—An Essay on the Production of Wealth (London: Longman, Hurst, Rees, Orme, and Brown, 1821), Preface, p. xiiiGoogle Scholar.

12 Although he could not accept Ricardo's labor theory of value, his respect for the founders of “the science of Political Economy” was so great that he seems almost to have suspected his own judgment in this.—A Reprint of Economic Tracts: John Stuart Mill on the Measure of Value, edited by Hollander, J. H. (Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins Press, 1936), p. 10.Google Scholar

13 Levy, S. Leon, Nassau W. Senior, The Prophet of Modern Capitalism (Boston: Bruce Humphries, Inc., 1943), P. 2440Google Scholar. Apparently Mill had been “bitten” by Carlyle, too.

14 Torrens, , On Wages and Combinations (London: Longman, Rees, Orme, Brown, Green, & Longman, 1834), p. 87Google Scholar.

15 Ricardo, David, Works, ed. McCulloch, J. R. (London: J. Murray, 1852), p. 52n.Google Scholar

16 Torrens, On Wages, pp. 11–13.

17 Ibid., pp. 7–8, 20.

18 Ibid., pp. 20–22.

19 Ibid., pp. 1–2.

20 Ibid., p. 26.

21 Ibid., p. 87.

22 Ibid., p. 79. Torrens thought that the corn laws offset the advantage of superior efficiency and urged their repeal.

23 Hansard, , Parliamentary Debates (London: T. C. Hansard, 1833), 3d series, XIX, 902Google Scholar. The reference to the freedom of adults to form such contracts as they desired obviously did not preclude joint action by adults for this purpose nor action by the state when individual action proved ineffective.

24 The Dictionary of National Biography, XII, 464.

25 Edwin Hodder, The Life and Work, of the Seventh Earl of Shajteshury, K. G. (London: Cassell & Company, Ltd., 1887), I, 157–58.

26 Ratzlaff, C. J., The Theory of Free Competition (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1936), p. 84CrossRefGoogle Scholar, quoting J. K. Ingram in Encyclopaedia Britannica, 9th ed., XV, 134–35.

27 The Principles of Political Economy (Edinburgh: Adam and Charles Black, 1849), p. viGoogle Scholar.

28 Ibid., pp. 262–63.

29 Ricardo, Works, p. 50; McCulloch, , A Discourse on the Rise, Progress, Peculiar Objects, and Importance of Political Economy (A. Constable & Co., 1824), p. 68Google Scholar.

30 Discourse on … Political Economy, pp. 60–61.

31 A Treatise on the Circumstances which Determine the Rate of Wages and the Condition of the Labouring Classes (London: Longman, Brown, Green, and Longman, 1851), pp. 93–95, 97.Google Scholar

32 Principles, pp. 184–85.

33 Treatise on Wages, p. 96.

34 Principles, p. 185.

35 Treatise on Wages, p. 97.

36 Letters on the Factory Act (London: B. Fellows, 1837), pp. 10–13Google Scholar.

37 Bowley, Marian, Nassau Senior and Classical Economics (London: G. Allen & Unwin, Ltd., 1937). p. 357n.Google Scholar

38 Industrial Efficiency and Social Economy, edited by Levy, S. Leon (New York, Henry Holt & Co., ca. 1928), II, 307.Google Scholar

39 Ibid., II, 302.

40 Principles, 309.

41 Social Economy, II, 302.

42 Letters on the Factory Act, p. 9.

43 Bowley, Nassau Senior, p. 257n.

44 Social Economy, p. 308.

45 Principles of Political Economy (London: John W. Parker & Son, 4th ed., 1855), II, 557–59.Google Scholar

46 Social Economy, II, 302.