"abolition." Now, this is a very different thing from the "conversion of all that refines and beautifies life into bread and beef." The latter is no doubt a conceivable process, but no one who has studied the facts of economic history in Europe will hold that it is a probable process. On the whole, the growth of moderate at the expense of large incomes seems to me the best thing for the general happiness, though I am quite aware that it will involve some loss. But I should certainly not hold this, if I believed, as Mr. Inge apparently does, that the change will continue at an accelerating pace till the moderate incomes have all become minimum incomes, and the whole produce of industry is limited to necessaries. The standard of living may be trusted to exert a restraining influence even when there are no millionnaires.

I am grateful to Mr. Inge for pointing out an error in the table given on p. 159 of my first article.1 The increase of population in the decade ending 1841 should have been given as 10 instead of 2 per cent. I carelessly wrote the figure belonging to the next decade. But, so far as I can see, there is no error in the figures referring to 1841-51, 1851-61, and even with the correction I have made the rate of increase of population is less than that of wealth.

Mr. Inge is quite right in saying that my statistics as to the comparative longevity of married and celibate are "very old; " but it does not therefore follow that they are wrong, or that they are useless. Human nature does not alter so fast as to make facts of even fifty years ago inapplicable to the present. But here are some later figures, taken, I believe, from official French sources.

2

DEATHS PER HUNDRED LIVING IN FRANCE AT EACH AGE,

If this table is compared with that given in my second article,' it will be seen that it is no less unfavourable to the celibate's chances of longevity as compared with the married man or woman. It is no answer to say, as Mr. Inge does, that this is caused partly by the greater carelessness of life among the unmarried, or by their comparative unhealthiness. To account for facts is not to disprove them. I never intended to assert that the superior vitality of the married was wholly due to physiological causes; such causes as those cited by Mr. Inge were allowed for in my article. But they do not account for the extraordinary mortality of widows and widowers as compared with the married. Mr. Inge accounts for this by denying it. But there are the figures. I cannot think that there is a conspiracy among French statisticians to depreciate a widower's chances of longevity, and, therefore, until Mr. Inge produces some counter-evidence, I must believe the facts as given in the tables quoted.

With regard to the death-rate of married persons under twenty, it will be noticed that Levasseur does not include that age in his table. He holds that the numbers are too small to form the basis of a "demographic law." This may be so, but it is to be regretted that he did not give us the evidence for what it is worth. I gather from his remarks, at all events, that the statistics do not contradict the inference drawn by Bertillon and confirmed by Dr. Farr, that youthful marriages are dangerous to life and health.

Lastly, as to France, Mr. Inge blames me for "attacking France so severely." My so-called attack was for the most part a statistical statement. Can it be asserted that the French population is increasing as rapidly as that of other nations; that men marry as early as in England; that illegitimacy is decreasing; that the number of divorces. is not increasing? These are questions of fact, and require the evidence of facts and figures. I said nothing about the "loss of virility in France; it is not manliness that is wanting, but men, and the fact remains that, unless a change in this respect takes place, France in fifty years' time must have sunk below her rivals in numerical and, therefore, also in military and industrial strength.

ARTHUR T. LYTTELTON.

(III.)—Mr. Lyttelton's answer shows me that I was wrong to use his name in pressing my questions upon the Socialists, and that he is less of a Socialist than I, who am in favour of the painless extinction of plutocrats. However, his last paragraph proves to me that we are 1 Economic Review, July, 1892, p. 386.

2 Levasseur, l.c, p. 151.

farther apart than I thought. I hold, with Mill, that a stationary population is the ideal state, and in spite of Mr. Lyttelton's "therefore," in his last sentence, I continue to believe that 40 or even 35 millions of Frenchmen will have nothing to fear from 500 millions of Chinese, or 50 millions of Cockneys. (I plead guilty to writing 66 constant pressure " for "continuous" in my second paragraph. course the pressure is not constant.)

W. R. INGE.

Of

THE STUDY OF ECONOMICS IN GERMANY.-Even those whose acquaintance with the contemporary economic literature of Germany is limited to the summary account of it given by Dr. Ingram in his History of Political Economy cannot fail to be surprised at the variety of the contributions made by German writers to this science. The recent translation of Professor Böhm Bawerk's work on Capital is an evidence of the conviction that German work cannot be disregarded by the English student of political economy; it is only necessary, too, to turn over the leaves of Professor Marshall's Principles of Economics to assure one's self of his familiarity with German work, and his respect for his German contemporaries. The rise of the German historical school is noticed in Dr. Ingram's pages. Some account is given by him of the stubborn conflict that has been waged for so many years between the adherents of the orthodox school and the disciples of the new teaching-a conflict whose bitterness has been recently increased by the attacks made on the historical school by prominent Austrian professors, who have come to the rescue by invigorating the old theoretical methods with the life of new principles. With this controversy I have no especial concern-a large number of works and review articles have made it already familiar; nor have I any intention of giving a resume of the views held on disputed points by the several representatives of the German historical school. An interesting article. in the Revue de l'Économie politique, April, 1892, by Professor St. Mare of Bordeaux, has already covered this ground. Those who wish to be enlightened on the works and personal opinions of the chief German professors cannot do better than to refer to this just and cleverly written account. My own aim is different, and much simpler: namely, to give a few scattered notes on the way' economic science is taught and studied in German universities.

It cannot certainly be said against the orthodox school that its system was not adapted to teaching. All that the ordinary student needed to know he could find in such admirable works as Mill's System or Fawcett's Manual. The science was taught in clear language-with

rigid logic; the illustrations of the great principles were always apt and forcible, even when they were fictitious. Political economy was difficult because it required a clear head, an ability to follow involved arguments. The materials for study were few-its isolation made it easy of access. The historical school has attacked the old theories; it avoids generalization; it occupies itself with the investigation of minute facts, with the description of phenomena regarded formerly as entirely outside the range of economic study. A great change of method and scope in the study of political economy has brought with it the question of teaching a science that in its new form is much more difficult to present satisfactorily to the student. In the German universities we shall see how this difficulty is dealt with. I shall restrict myself to the lectures given on subjects in the department of economic science in the three larger German universities-Berlin, Leipzig, and Munich. In Berlin the following courses are given in the first Semester : general theory of political economy; practical political economy; coinage and banking; State debts; public income; industry and trade; social questions; colonies; industrial history; history of entrepreneurs. In Leipzig history of political and social theories; social policy of England and Germany; statistics; practical political economy; colonial policy. In Munich general political economy; special political economy; social history of the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries; history of social theories. In the second Semester there are the following courses in Berlin: freedom and property; history of economic literature; general political economy; practical political economy; statistics; demography; economic history. In Leipzig: poor and poorlaw; practical economy; finance; statistics; colonial policy; history of political economy; general theory of political economy. In Munich : finance; industrial history of Germany; economics as a science; banking and currency; general political economy. In all the three universities a few hours each week are given up to Seminary work, some account of which will follow further on.

In the case of the first two universities, Leipzig and Berlin, I cannot go beyond the names of the courses, but the names alone will be instructive in showing the variety of subjects treated. My own personal experience is limited to the university named last in the list-Munich. The courses given there may be assumed to be typical, and I shall confine myself to those that are delivered at that university by Professor Brentano. His eminent position as an economist is well-known outside of Germany. Before coming to Munich he had taught in Berlin, Breslau, Strassburg, Vienna, and Leipzig; in the article in the French review already cited will be

found a list of his works, and an appreciative account of his contributions to economic thought. I am simply concerned with his lectures as typical courses in a German university: I have no intention of characterizing Professor Brentano's system or stating his individual position towards particular economic questions. The courses of lectures delivered by him are the following: in the first Semestergeneral political economy, five hours a week; special political economy, five hours in the second Semester-industrial history of Germany, four hours; finance, five hours; political economy as a science, one hour. The lectures on general political economy follow in their outline the treatment and order adopted in most text-books. To the discussion of method no great space is given-definitions are given only after others have been subjected to searching criticism and found unsatisfactory. A good deal of historical and statistical material is presented, and carefully analyzed, in order to prove the relative value of economic laws. The lectures on special political economy deal with Germany of the present day-a description of its industrial condition; its agriculture, its manufactures, the condition of the labouring classes are the objects of investigation; the technique of the several industries is dealt with in connection with the kind of labour called for and its influence on the labourer. To this course, the lectures on the industrial history of Germany are an introduction. These open with a rapid survey of the economic condition of the Roman Empire, especially of that portion of the Roman world to whose influence the Teutonic nations were exposed; the villa system; the Roman industrial guilds. Then follows an account of the land system of the Teutons, with the changes introduced by contact with the Empire and by the development of the feudal system; the growth of trade in the Mediterranean in the early Middle Ages; the communication with Constantinople; the influence of the Church on industry; the industrial aspect of the Crusades; the development of the Italian Republics; the growth of the free cities in Germany, with a description of the organization and working of the guild system; the industrial importance of the Low Countries and the great trading companies of the Hansa cities; the Reformation and the effect of religious wars in Germany; the mercantile system under the House of Brandenburg, and general industrial conditions until the present time. The course on finance opens with a plea for the study of actual and real systems of public income; attempts to manufacture a theoretically perfect system of the State are put aside; the economy of the State is discriminated from the economy of the individual; then comes a description of financial administration from this point the course is divided into the great divisions, VOL. III.-No. 1.

I