Old School of Political Economists,

from Adam Smith right down through Ricardo, John Stuart Mill, McCulloch, Walker, and Marshall, and down to the younger and more brilliant school of economists in the Old Country, there is not a single man of them but what bends his energies to dissociate real wealth from mere money. And Ruskin, who puts his arguments before us in such beautiful Saxon language, without the scientific jargon of the political economist, has put that argument clear before us that men may read and men may know. And the old school of philosophers, from Aristotle to Bacon, from the German school of Hegelism to the philosophers of our time, the Benthams, men of the Huxley and Tyndal type, and more especially men of the Herbert Spencer type—these men have long ago given us in their philosophic writings some of the history of the development of the human mind, of the various forms of government, of the intellectual and industrial changes which page 17 have taken place. But neither scientist nor philosopher has in any single instance ever admitted that there is in the human family one distinct type superior to another. No scientist or philosopher has ever said that any men are born with any special endowments or special faculties superior to those of others. No political economist has ever indicated that in Nature one section of the community have special rights over another section. No political economist ever backed up monopoly. No political economist of any note has ever let go the opinion that man should be