George W. Wilson's argument would be irrefutable if one could analyze long-term economic trends in terms of monetary theory alone. Undoubtedly, Mun's point was that specie judiciously exported for purposes of foreign trade would not be “lost to die Realm,” as the bullionists feared, but would return witii interest. If, then, we could assume no change in nonmonetary factors, pursuit of the policy advocated by Mun would ultimately make a rise of internal prices inevitable, save by a “flight from gold” on a scale uncongenial to mercantilist preconceptions. So far, Mr. Wilson's logic compels a modification of my argument, and for this demonstration I am grateful.

The Economic History Association is an interdisciplinary organization of widely varying interests. The Association has several times considered the relationships between Economic Theory and Economic History, but it has paid little attention to that between the applied field of Business Administration and Economic History. It is appropriate to do so now because significant special interests have arisen within and around Economic History in recent years which have been of particular interest to students of Business Administration. I refer to the studies in Business History, Entrepreneurial History, Economic Development, and Innovation. Like Economic History, Business Administration is interdisciplinary, at least in part, and relies considerably, though at the applied level, on the same fundamental social sciences that interest economic historians. Also we have seen an outpouring of histories of individual enterprises, as American business, once more proud of its accomplishments and increasingly conscious of the value of public relations, has sat for its portrait. At the same time, in the field of Business Administration there has been a growing recognition of the importance of the long-range view in appraising administration, and of the use of the social sciences to improve its quality. It therefore is time to attempt some integration of these strands of thought.

I am not aware of having “censored and manipulated” the data, unless rejection from the sample of the revolutionary year 1789 and of the two years following the 1815 collapse is to be viewed as unreasonable.

During the last twenty years Business History has become one of Economic History's most important subdivisions. This has been partly, but certainly not altogether, the result of prosperity. With highlevel employment and income the general attitude toward the businessman has changed. He is no longer popularly regarded as the personification of viliainy. In the “new Business History” he has fared very well indeed. He has not been restored to a place among the saints, but he certainly is back among the choir boys. There are two points of view on this whole development. One is to condemn the new Business History as a sinister plot on the part of Big Business to bamboozle the American public. The other is to regard the new Business History as the most promising of the three major developments that have taken place in Economic History during the last thirty years.

The Editors regret the error in the title of Miss Sylvia L. Thrupp's article in the December 1957 issue. The correct title is “The Role of Comparison in the Development of Economic History.”

There is now a rough consensus of opinion among English economic historians about the broad chronology of English population history. According to this chronology there were three main phases of rapid growth. The first occurred in the twelfth and thirteenth centuries, and was brought to an end by a marked fall in population in the fourteenth century. The second phase occupied most of the sixteenth century and the early seventeendi, after which there was some slowing down in the later seventeenth century and possibly an absolute check in the 1720's and 1730's. And finally tliere was the sustained cumulative increase that started in the later eighteenth century.