But first let me point to the number of political economists who have followed Mill in the discussion of the relation of society to the "wealth" it produces. Mill's "Political Economy" was more of a systematic summary of the prevailing doctrines than an original work. It long formed, however, the basis of ordinary English knowledge on the subject, and by its adhesion to the Wages Fund and other erroneous theories, it did not a little harm as well as good to Economic Science. Mill's most enthusiastic disciple in economics, =Henry Fawcett (1833-1884)=, went far beyond his master in his acceptance of the main doctrines of the Ricardo school. Many of the positions maintained in his "Political Economy" were abandoned by Mill before his death, particularly the Wages Fund theory; and in his "Autobiography" he traced his own progress to views which, as he said, would class him "under the general designation of Socialist." He declared himself in favour of "the common ownership in the raw material of the globe, and an equal participation of all in the benefits of combined labour."[18] Professor Fawcett, who published his "Manual of Political Economy" in 1863, continued to the last to hold to the old views, and especially to favour as little as possible the intervention of the State. As member of Parliament, first for Brighton and afterwards for Hackney, he did great service by his criticisms of Indian finance. For more than four years (1880-1884) he held the position of Postmaster-General, and introduced many valuable reforms into the department under his administration. Other economists of importance, =John Elliott Cairnes (1824-1875)= and =William Stanley Jevons (1835-1882)=, have differed from Mill in many theoretic principles; but the fairest survey of the later developments of Mill's economics is given by =Henry Sidgwick (1838- )=, Knightbridge Professor of Moral Philosophy at Cambridge, and by Alfred Marshall (born 1842). In his "Principles of Political Economy" (1883) Sidgwick attempts, with great clearness, to criticise the conflicting views of the older economists in the light of the modern and more socialist views. He also attempts in his "Methods of Ethics" (1874) a compromise between the Utilitarian and the Intuitionist schools, and he does this also in his "Elements of Politics" (1891), a comprehensive survey of political science. Mr Marshall, who holds the Chair of Political Economy at Cambridge, has written "Economics of Industry" (1879), and "Principles of Economics" (1890). A writer who did much to make foreign economists known in England, and who seemed at one time destined to be the able leader of a new school, was =Thomas Edward Cliffe Leslie (1827-1882)=, whose "Essays" are full of terse and suggestive criticism. Cliffe Leslie died, however, without writing any work of first-rate importance. He did something, however, following the line of writers like Richard Jones (1790-1855), to bring academic theory to the test of actual facts.