Much useful work has been done by Frenchmen (with whom Belgians may here be associated)in the history of politicaleconomy，regarded either as a body of theory or as a systemor series of systemsof policy.Blanqui's history (183738)isnot，indeed，entitled to a very high rank，but it was serviceable as a first general draft.That of Villeneuve-Bargemont (1839)was also interesting and useful，as presenting the Catholic view of the development and tendencies of the science.C.Perin's Les doctrines économiques depuis un siècle (1880)is written from the same point of view.A number of valuablemonographs on particular statesmen or thinkers has also been produced by Frenchmen，as，for example，that of A.Batbie onTurgot (Turgot Philosophe，?conomiste，et Administrateur ，1861)；of A.Neymarck on the same statesman (Turgot et sesdoctrines，1885)；of Pierre Clement on Colbert (Histoire de Colbert et de son Administration ，2d ed.，1875)；of H.
Baudrillart on Bodin J.Bodin et son Temps ；Tableau des Theories politiques et des Idles économiques au 16siècle ，1853)'，of Léonce de Lavergne on the physiocrats (Les ?conornistes Fran?ais du 18siècle ，1870).The treatise of M.de Laveleye，De la Proprietéet de ses formes primitives (1874；Eng.trans.by G.R.Marriott，1878)，is specially worthy of action，notmerely for its array of facts respecting the early forms of property，but because it co-operates strongly with the tendency ofthe new school to regard each stage of economic life from the relative point of view，as resulting from an historic past，harmonising with the entire body of contemporary social conditions，and bearing in its bosom the germs of a future，predetermined in its essential character，though modifiable in its secondary dispositions.
M.de Laveleye has done much to call attention to the general principles of the historical school，acting in this way mostusefully as an interpreter between Germany and France.But he appears in his latest manifesto (Les Lois naturelles et l'objetde l'économie Politique ，1883)to separate himself from the best members of that school，and to fall into positive error，when he refuses to economics the character of a true science (or department of a science)as distinguished from an art，anddenies the existence of economic laws or tendencies independent of individual wills.Such a denial seems to involve that ofsocial laws generally，which is a singularly retrograde attitude for a thinker of our time to take up，and one which cannot beexcused since the appearance of the Philosophic Positive .The use of the metaphysical phrase "necessary laws "obscures thequestion；it suffices to speak of laws which do in fact prevail.M.de Laveleye relies on morals as supplying a parallel case，where we deal，not with natural laws，but with "imperative preions，"as if these preions did not imply，as theirbasis，observed coexistences and sequences，and as if there were no such thing as moral evolution.He seems to be as farfrom the right point of view in one direction as his opponents of the old school in another.All that his arguments have reallyany tendency to prove is the proposition，undoubtedly a true one，that economic facts cannot be explained by a theory whichleaves out of account the other social aspects，and therefore that our studies and expositions of economic phenomena mustbe kept in close relation with the conclusions of the larger science of society.
We cannot do more than notice in a general way some of the expository treatises of which there has been an almostcontinuous series from the time of Say downwards，or indeed from the date of Germain Gamier's Abégédes Principes del'économie Politique (1796).That of Destutt de Tracy forms a portion of his ?léments d'Ideéologie (1823).Droz broughtout especially the relations of economics to morals and of wealth to human happiness (?conomie Politique ，1829).
Pellegrino Rossi，an Italian，formed，however，as an economist by studies in Switzerland，professing the science in Paris，andwriting in French (Cours d'économie Politique ，183854)，gave in classic form an exposition of the doctrines of Say，Malthus，and Ricardo.Michel Chevalier (18061879)，specially known in England by his tract，translated by Cobden，on thefall in the value of gold (La Baisse d'Or，1858)，gives in his Cours d'économie Politique (184550)particularly valuablematter on the most recent industrial phenomena，and on money and the production of the precious metals.Henri Baudrillart，author of Les Rapports de la Morale et de l'économie Politique (1860；2d ed.，1883)，and of Histoire du Luxe (1878)，published in 1857a Manuel d'économie Politique (3d ed.，1872)，which Cossa calls an "admirable compendium."JosephGamier (Traits de l'économie Politique ，1860；8th ed.，1880)in some respects follows Dunoyer.J.G.Courcelle-Senenil，thetranslator of J.S.Mill，whom Prof.F.A.Walker regards as "perhaps the ablest economist writing in the French languagesince J.B.Say，"besides a Traitéthéorique et pratique des opérations de Banque and Théorie des Enterprises Industrielles (1856)，wrote a Traitéd'économic Politique (185859；2d ed.，1867)，which is held in much esteem.Finally，the Genevese，Antoine ?lise Cherbuliez (d.1869)，was author of what Cossa pronounces to be the best treatise on the science in theFrench language (Précis de la Science économique ，1862).L.Walras，in ?léments d'économie Politique pure (187477)，and Théorie Mathematique de la Richesse Sociale (1883)，has followed the example of Cournot in attempting amathematical treatment of the subject.
