As generally at all points, so the materialism of the age particularly appears, in that the political economists take wealth, defining their science in the vulgar acceptation, rather than in the good old English sense, welfare, well-being.  If they occasionally venture a remark of a more liberal bearing on the general subject of public welfare; such is the exception to the general rule.  Money, with its equivalents and exchangeables, is their usual theme in treating of wealth; thought the common use of the word economy might suggest a higher science.  For he does not exhaust our idea of a good economist, who manages to have at command abundant materials for rendering home happy; while, for lack of wisdom to turn such materials to account, that home may be less happy than the next-door neighbor’s, where want is hardly staved off.  We exact, for fulfilling that character, wisdom in using the material means—­provision for physical, intellectual, and moral training of the household—­the just apportionment between labor and recreation-the true contentment, which frets not at present imperfection, while it still presses on to that perfection conceived to be attainable.  Our writers on political economy would do well, to give the word as liberal a latitude of sense, as it legitimately assumes, when used in its primitive meaning of household management.

But, rather than attempt to raise a scientific term so much above its received sense, I use another word, and say, Policy must begin with the admission, that self-love is the mightiest mover of human conduct; and not a self-love enlightened, deep, calculating, directed to the sources of fullest contentment; but following the groveling estimate, that riches, power, office, ease, being the object of envy or admiration, are the chief goods of life.

Every business man admits, that his security for men’s conduct must be found in their self-interest.  He admits thus much practically, so for as his own business is concerned; the exceptions being so rare, as not to justify neglect of the general rule.  Yet, neither business men nor politicians grasp the principle clearly, nor consequently apply it consistently.  And he who would make a new application of it, is met with charges of great uncharitableness.

This backwardness to generalize a rule, found so necessary practically to be followed, may be resolved into that flattering conceit of human dignity, which is yielded reluctantly, inch by inch, as plain demonstration wrests it away.  And further, self-love conceals itself, because generally it operates first to pervert the judgment.  The consciousness of preferring private interest to worthier considerations, is too painful to be endured.  The man therefore strives, but too successfully, to misrepresent the case to himself.  He contrives to make that seem right, which tends to his own advantage.  But though indirect, the operation of self-love is none the less sure.  Whether the individual be any the less blamable, because self-love assumes this disguise, is not now to be considered.