“His book on labour is an excellent one; it made a great impression on Mill, and caused him to _abandon his theory of wages fund_; which has also been opposed by Lange, by the American Economist Walker, and by Bretano.” Many of the inaccuracies of Mill have been exposed by Professor Cairnes.[21] Mr. Cook says:-- “Mill, however, is said to have _abandoned the seesaw theory_ in his latest and yet unpublished essays.”[22] Macleod also, in writing on the question of rent says:-- “This does not exhaust the _absurdity_ of the Ricardo-Mill theory of rent ... but in fact _Mill himself has completely overthrown_ this theory of rent.”[23] Anyone who has carefully studied the writings of Mill cannot fail to be struck with the manner in which he allows that which Herbert Spencer terms “Political Bias,” and which Cossa terms Mill’s “narrow philosophic utilitarianism,” to affect his opinion, and warp his better judgment; and when this is the case, he is guilty of absurdities, inconsistencies, and illogical reasoning that would disgrace a school-boy.[24] FOOTNOTES: [14] I venture to maintain that political economy is not a body of natural laws in the true sense, or of universal and immutable truths, but an assemblage of speculations and doctrines which are the result of a particular history coloured even by the history and character of the chief writers.--T. Cliffe Leslie, _Fortnightly Review_, Oct. 1870. [15] Guida Allo Studio dell’Economio Politico.--L. Cossa. [16] Some Unsettled Questions of Political Economy, J. S. Mill, p. 156. [17] Mill’s Political Economy, Bk. V. Chap. X. [18] Cossa’s Political Economy, Bk. II. Chap. III. [19] Practical Political Economy, by Profr. Bonamy Price. [20] Cossa’s Political Economy, Bk. II. Chap. III. [21] Some Leading Principles of Political Economy newly expounded by Professor Cairnes. 1874. [22] Labour. Joseph Cook, p. 179. [23] Macleod’s Economics, p. 116. [24] An illustration of this is given in Chap. XV. CHAPTER VII. POLITICAL EXTRAVAGANCE. You are very fond, my Friend, of talking about political economy. Suppose, for a change, we discuss a certain political extravagance, of which you are guilty. “Look!” you say, “at the visible signs of prosperity caused by free trade, our annual imports are in excess of our exports by £100,000,000. This represents the annual accumulation of our national wealth.” Now, my friend, I want you to try and take a common-sense view of things:--