THE YALE REVIEW

A QUARTERLY JOURNAL FOR THE SCIENTIFIC DISCUSSION OF

ECONOMIC, POLITICAL, AND SOCIAL QUESTIONS.

THE YALE REVIEW is owned by The Yale Publishing Company. It is edited by Professors HENRY W. FARNAM, E. G. Bourne, JOHN C. SCHWAB, IRVING FISHER, HENRY C. EMERY, CLIVe Day and ALBERT G. KELLER.

Committed to no party and to no school, but only to the advancement of sound learning, it aims to present the results of the most scientific and scholarly investigations in political science, but contributors alone are responsible for the opinions expressed in the articles.

It is published by THE TUTTLE, MOREHOUSE & TAYLOR COMPANY, 125 Temple Street, New Haven, Conn., to whom all business communications should be addressed and all subscriptions paid.

All communications relating to articles, book reviews, exchanges, and editorial work in general should be addressed to

THE EDITORS, YALE REVIEW,

YALE STATION,

New Haven, Conn.

Copyright, 1903, by

The Yale Publishing Company, New Haven, Conn.

THE

YALE REVIEW.

NOVEMBER, 1903.

COMMENT.

The New Cambridge Curriculum in Economics; Mr. Balfour

ΤΗ

and Protection.

HE University of Cambridge adopted on the 6th of June, 1903, a new curriculum in economics and associated branches of political science, which seems destined to produce far-reaching effects upon university education in England. Great credit for this movement is due to Professor Alfred Marshall, who published in 1902 his Plea for the Creation of a Curriculum in Economics, and who has now issued a small pamphlet explaining what has been done. From the schedule of subjects, printed on another page of this issue, it is clear that the study of economics, which has hitherto been required only in connection with history or the moral sciences, is now given recognition as an independent and important subject, with a well-defined course of work leading the student to university honors, while the requirements in French and German indicate a commendable breadth in the range of studies.

The details of the new curriculum are to the trans-atlantic observer not so important, however, as the reasons for its adoption. The committee of the Senate in dwelling upon "the increasing importance and complexity of economic issues and their close connexion with political problems" do not hesitate to say that "hitherto, however, the responsibilities of Universities in this respect have been more fully recognized abroad than in this

country. In the United States of America, in particular, and in Germany, the subjects of Economics and Political Science are commonly represented by a strong and numerous staff, and afford the main route by which large numbers of students obtain University Honours England on the other hand, which long held the undisputed leadership in Economics, has suffered in recent years from the lack of adequate provision for the study of that subject at the Universities, and from the consequent scarcity of students who have been able to give it that undivided attention which is demanded by its growing breadth and difficulty." (p. 1.) Two classes of students are expected to be benefited by this change; those who desire economics as a partial training for business and public life, and those who plan to become professional economists. It is not easy to meet the needs of both classes by the same course of study, but Professor Marshall thinks that the curriculum as outlined gives sufficient latitude to supply both wants. One of the influences which helped to move the University authorities was a resolution of the London Chamber of Commerce expressing warm approval of the project of establishing the curriculum. It is perhaps not unfair to assume that international competition in trade, as well as in scholarship, had a part in stimulating Cambridge to modernize its courses. it is not without significance that in the same year in which the new curriculum goes into effect Mr. Mosely should be personally conducting a large party of English educators to the United States in order to study our institutions. Education would seem to exist no longer for the attainment of mere culture, admirable and attractive as have been its results in this respect in the old universities. It is becoming, to a certain extent, imbued with the spirit of patriotism, for it is not so much to benefit the individual business man as it is to maintain the business prestige and influence of England as a whole that this broadening of the studies is demanded.

And

It is interesting to compare Professor Marshall's plea with the views expressed by Dr. Goldwin Smith regarding university questions in England twenty-four years ago. In an essay published in the Princeton Review for November, 1879, he discussed what were then the important questions, such as celibacy, religious

tests, university extension, examinations, athletics, co-education, etc., but the curriculum itself seemed to him then fairly satisfactory. "Till about five and twenty years ago," he says, this "was confined to classics and mathematics. Now physical science, history and jurisprudence are included as optional subjects for the final examinations, and admitted to equal honors with the old studies." The subject of economics is not so much as mentioned by him as among the possibilities of university education. But the past four and twenty years have seen the founding of the London School of Economics, the expansion of the University of London into an institution for teaching, and the creation of important departments of economics in the new universities of Manchester and Birmingham. The adoption of the new curriculum at Cambridge shows that this ancient seat of learning is still able to adapt itself to modern educational requirements.

The

It is no mere coincidence that Mr. Balfour's Economic Notes on Insular Free Trade should appear in the year of the adoption of the new curriculum at Cambridge. Both spring from a reaction against that comfortable satisfaction in past achievement which has become a dominant note in English life. Notes, though political in their aim, are likely to be no less educational in their effects than the new curriculum, and the articles which have already been stimulated by Mr. Balfour's criticism and by the still more aggressive attitude of Mr. Chamberlain in leaving the Cabinet to carry on an active campaign for higher duties, represent but the beginning of what may be expected to be a thorough examination of the situation. The very success of free trade in England has been a hindrance to the thought of the country. Supported as it was by the classical economists it became a veritable shibboleth. From a practical maxim of commercial policy it became almost the center of a philosophical system, so that to be other than a free trader was to stamp oneself as heterodox and uninstructed in economics. So deepseated is this feeling that Mr. Balfour himself, while doing his utmost to aim damaging criticisms at the free trade policy of England and trying to prove that the country is on the whole

worse off than it would have been if it had never adopted free trade, still stoutly proclaims himself a free trader. It is true that the extreme doctrine of laissez-faire, which may be said to be the philosophical basis of the current free trade doctrine, has been generally repudiated by English economists as regards the regulation of the relations of labor and capital, and other subjects of internal policy; but as regards foreign trade it still holds undisputed sway. It is noticeable that among the economists who have thus far expressed themselves in print on the subject the historians seem to be more inclined to favor Mr. Chamberlain's views than the theoretical economists. This is, perhaps, due to the natural reaction of historians against the extreme laissez-faire doctrine, rather than to any convictions that they have gained in favor of the policy of protection.

However wise a policy may be, it is unfortunate to give it the character of a creed, and the effect of emphasizing the importance of free trade to England has apparently been to lead Mr. Balfour to concentrate his criticisms on that one feature of her policy. He sees that certain countries, such as Germany and the United States, which have a protective tariff, are making rapid progress as compared with England. He does not see that those countries have also been foremost in stimulating technical education and intelligent interprise on the part of their business men. Thus, while he makes much of the evils which England suffers from having the surplus product of protective countries "dumped" upon her shores, he does not explain how it happens that the British Government has given important engineering contracts to American firms, or why the English railroads deliberately import American locomotives. Clever as his criticism of insular free trade undoubtedly is, it is altogether too narrow.

At this stage of the movement it is impossible to discuss positive measures of reform because England's political leaders do not yet seem to have agreed upon a policy. Mr. Balfour apparently advocates retaliatory tariffs which will put England in a position to negotiate with other countries for a reduction of their duties. Mr. Chamberlain seems to be carrying on his campaign for preferential duties in favor of the Colonies. The former would seem to lay stress upon the maintenance of British trade;