This was won by Ricardo, whose _Principles of Political Economy and Taxation_ (1817) were accepted by James Mill, MacCulloch, Nassau Senior, to say nothing of others, as the Institutes of their creed. MacCulloch thought it not worth his while to print what Ricardo had thought it worth his while to write, in vindication of his positions against Malthus.[462] The strongest ally of Malthus was Sismondi. It was not till Ricardo had reigned for thirty years that there was serious sign of defection, when the son of James Mill broke with his father’s traditions;[463] and, though in the hands of Thornton, Cliffe Leslie, Walker, and others, the reaction has been carried to the utmost, the eclipse of Ricardo has done nothing to rescue Malthus from obscurity. The very success of the _Essay on Population_ may have deepened the oblivion of the other writings in virtue of the popular fallacy that a man cannot be equally great in general theory and in the advocacy of one particular reform. The _Political Economy_ of Malthus has its faults; but it contains in outline the main truths which writers of our own time think they have established against Ricardo. First and foremost, he maintains with them that the proper study of the science is not Wealth, but Man, or more definitely, Wealth in relation to Man. The qualities of man and the earth he cultivates are according to Malthus so many and variable in relation to each other that a study of their relations cannot be an exact science like mathematics; it may contain “great general principles” to which there are few exceptions, and “prominent landmarks” that will be safe guides to us in legislation or in life; but “even these when examined will be found to resemble the most general rules in morals and politics founded upon the known passions and propensities of human nature.”[464] Human conduct is characterized by such variation and aberration that we must always be prepared for exceptions to our principles, and for qualifications which spoil the charm of uniformity, but are faithful to facts,[465] like George Eliot’s “analyses in small and subtle characters,” which stimulate no enthusiasm but alone tell the whole truth. In the second place, we are told that the nature of the subject makes a peculiarly cautious Method necessary. Our first business being to account for things as they are,[466] till we are sure that our theories do so we cannot act on them.[467] A good economical definition must conform to the ordinary usage of words. We must take if possible a meaning which would agree with the ordinary use of words “in the conversation of educated persons.”[468] If this does not give sufficient distinctness, we must fall back on the authority of the most celebrated writers on the science, particularly of the founder or founders of it; “in this case, whether the term be a new one born with the science, or an old one used in a new sense, it will not be strange to the generality