"When I became a member of the Political Economy Club, I soon marked a questionable assumption there--viz., that whatever is in accordance with the laws of political economy is necessarily right and expedient, and _vice versâ_. Question on this point happened to be raised one evening by a remark from a member that the position maintained on one side in the debate then going on was hostile to general happiness; the answer to which was, not that the objector was mistaken, but that the objection was irrelative; seeing that the aim of political economy was not the general happiness, but the wealth of nations. I took the liberty to point out that while political economists might, of course, define their science as they pleased, they must remember that under such restriction its unaided conclusions could not claim to guide legislative action; since it was at least conceivable, and perhaps not improbable, that in certain cases the course most tending to a nation's wealth might differ from that most tending to its weal. I am much inclined to think that neglect of this distinction is amongst the causes which have at different times brought this important science into discredit, led the world to regard its professors as hard--nay, heartless--and in a measure invalidated their plea that they are not inventors, but only discoverers; that they create no laws, but merely set forth the logic of facts. So far, however, as I can observe in my retirement, such distinction is in the way to acquire recognition."