The life and activity prevailing in the study of law, and the brilliant successes that study has recently achieved, are due, in great part, to the illustrious representatives of the historical school. We may add, here, that the French historical school, which has so worthily inherited the spirit of Montesquieu, has not achieved less in this direction than the older German school. It has reconciled the opposing but not mutually hostile, tendencies of Savigny and Thibaut. It has conscientiously scrutinized facts to show their concatenation, and to allow their meaning and bearing to be clearly grasped. A French jurisconsult, who is at the same time our highest authority in the natural law, opened the way by his excellent essays on the necessity of reforming the historical studies applicable to law; on the influence of the legists on French civilization(19) etc.; and by his prefaces, equal in value to whole works, on hypothecation, sales, loans, partnership, charter-parties etc. He may truly be said to have renewed the ancient and prolific alliance of history and law. Instead of pursuing a pure abstraction, this historical school has confined itself to the knowledge of the life of man and the evolution of society. It has applied to law, with what success is well known, the principle which has regenerated the social sciences, philosophy, letters, history, Political Economy,—sciences which are, so to speak, different provinces of one intellectual empire, which interpenetrate one another without being confounded one with another, between which no jealous barrier should be raised, and between which reciprocity of exchange should be encouraged by the suppression of factitious duties, which have existed only too long. IV. We need not dwell any longer on the character of the historical method as applied to law, nor on the services it has already rendered. On this point, there can be no two opinions. And, if any one wonders that we should speak of it at all, in a work on Political Economy, we can only say to him, that we have done so to call his attention to an instructive precedent, and for the further reason that the same method is peculiarly well adapted to the study of Political Economy. Its advantages are the same here, its tendencies the same, and the same motives exist to induce us to use it here. In describing the successive phases of the question in the case of law, we have performed an important part of the task we had imposed upon ourselves, of vindicating the employment of the historical method, in the sphere of Political Economy. The study of history is the best and most powerful antidote against social romances and ideal fancies. François Beaudouin was right when he said: “_Cæca sine historia jurisprudentia_;” and we are very sure that, without history as an element in it, Political Economy runs a great risk of walking blindfold.