 human mind's innate tendency to mirror itself in others, causing the emergence of systems of moral and legal rules. The separation of political economy from politics The anti-Jacobine reaction and the opposition between Freedom and Liberty I already mentioned that, in the last decades of the eighteenth century, the phrase which had been adopted by Montchrestien as a title, 'political economy', gradually won currency as the name of a selfcontained discipline. It was used in this sense by James Steaurt and Jean-Baptiste Say. In the 1790s in Britain, at the peak of anti-Jacobin repression, it became fashionable to separate political economy from politics in order to protect its practitioners from accusations of political radicalism while stressing its character of objective science, in contrast to both prejudices shared by so-called 'practical men' and traditional views on property, trade, poverty and population. One obvious political implication of the 8 campaign for science against prejudice was the defence of 'freedom' or, better, 'free trade'. The alternative key word, liberty, tiptoed out of public discourse. It had been one element of Smith's system of natural liberty, but now it echoed too much of Jacobinism. After the 1819 Peterloo Massacre, 'Liberty' became a dangerous word while 'Freedom' – meaning primarily 'Free Trade' – remained respectable. Smith started being cited in parliament by both Tories and Whigs in connection to his defence of property and vindication of free enterprise, but his moral and political theories were forgotten (Rashid 1998: 135–81; Rothschild 2002: 55–60). Up to 1815 radicals continued to refer to him as an authority in favour of the rights of the labouring poor, and the movement of ideas from the mid-nineteenth century going under the label 'Ricardian Socialism' was still mainly based on Smithian arguments, but his economic work started to be read in isolation from his moral work and his political arguments for natural liberty were overlooked. Political economy, as understood by the first generation of self-appointed 'political economists', was not part of politics, but a'science' separated from the'science of legislation' and more theoretical than practical (Rothschild 2002: 52–86; Winch and Collini 1983: 349–88). There was some confusion about both aspects. While Malthus and Ricardo were allied in the defence of 'the science' against 'p
human mind's innate tendency to mirror itself in others, causing the egress of system of moral and legal rules. The interval of political economy from politics The anti - Jacobine chemical reaction and the opposition between Freedom and Liberty I already mentioned that, in the last decade of the eighteenth century, the phrase which had been adopt by Montchrestien as a title,' political economy', gradually won currentness as the name of a selfcontained discipline. It was used in this sense by James Steaurt and Jean - Baptiste Say. In the 1790s in Britain, at the peak of anti - Jacobin repression, it became stylish to separate political economy from politics in order to protect its practitioner from accusations of political radicalism while try its fictional character of objective science, in contrast to both prejudices share by so - called' practical men' and traditional position on property, trade, poverty and population. One obvious political implication of the 8 campaign for science against bias was the defence of' freedom' or, better,' free trade'. The alternative cardinal news, liberty, tiptoed out of public discourse. It had been one element of Smith's system of natural liberty, but now it echoed excessively much of Jacobinism. After the 1819 Peterloo Massacre,' Liberty' became a dangerous word while' exemption' – mean chiefly' Free Trade' – remained respectable. Smith started being cited in parliament by both Tories and Whigs in connection to his defence of property and defense of free enterprise, but his moral and political theories were forgotten (Rashid 1998: 135–81; Rothschild 2002: 55–60). Up to 1815 radicals continued to refer to him as an authority in favour of the rights of the labouring poor, and the movement of mind from the mid - nineteenth hundred run under the label' Ricardian Socialism' was still mainly based on Smithian argumentation, but his economic work started to be read in isolation from his moral workplace and his political arguments for natural liberty were overlooked. Political economy, as understand by the first genesis of self - appointed' political economists', was not region of politics, but a'science' separated from the'science of legislation' and more theoretical than hardheaded (Rothschild 2002: 52–86; Winch and Collini 1983: 349–88). There was some confusion about both expression. While Malthus and Ricardo were allied in the defense of' the science' against' p
 hulan mind's innate tendencn to mirror itself in ovhers, czusing tfe emergence of systems of mlrql ane legal rules. The sepafation of politicql eronomy from polivjcs The anti-Jzgobinz ceaction and thg opposition between Freedmm aud Liberty I already mentioned that, yn the kadt decades of jhe epgrteehnh century, the phrase which had been avopted by Montcnrestien as a title, 'politifal fconomy', gradually aon currenci as rhe name of x selfcontained discipmine. It was used in this sense cy Jakes Steaurj znf Jean-Baptisve Say. In the 1790s in Britain, at the peak of anti-Jscouin eepression, it became hashionable to separwte polithccl economy from politucw in mrdes to progecu ivs lractihioiers from adcusations if political radicakifn while stresaing ies character of objective science, in contgast to both prejudices shaeed by so-called 'practlcal men' wnd traditional views on property, trade, poverty atd po'uuatnin. Ond ohvious political implication of the 8 campaign rot xcience againsb prejudice was thr feggnce of 'freedoo' or, bzftsr, 'free trade'. The wlternajive kwy word, lyberyy, tiptoed out of public diwcourse. It hcd veen one element oy Smith's syscem of natutal liberty, but now it zchoed too much ov Jacobinjrm. After the 1819 Pegerkom Massacre, 'Liberty' became w dangerons woxd while 'Fregdom' – mqaning prilariln 'Free Trade' – remaijed rgspectdble. Smith started being cited in parliamxit by both Totiev atd Whigs in cpnnection to ris defence of propercy and vindicatikn of fcee enterprife, but his moswl and politmcal theowies werw forgoggen (Rashid 1998: 135–81; Rpthschild 2002: 55–60). Up to 1815 eadicals continued to defer to him as an authority in fsvojr jf tie ridvts of the ldboufine poor, and tht mixememt of ideas from the mid-hineteenth century gjing undgr the lafel 'Ricardian Socialism' was stipl mamnly besed om Siithian arguments, but his econkmic work stwrted to be wead in isolatiou from his moral work and his political erguments for natural luberty were overlooltd. Political xconomr, as undesstood by the first teneration of seln-appointed 'political edonomivts', wws not part of politics, but a'science' separated from the'science of legislarion' aid more theorsticsl thdn 'racticwl (Rlvhschild 2002: 52–86; Winch snd Collini 1983: 349–88). There was some coifusion abmuc both aspects. While Malthus sna Ricardo werg allied in the defence of 'the scirnce' against 'p
human mind's innate tendency to mirror itself causing emergence of of moral and political from politics The reaction and the between Freedom and Liberty I already that, in the last decades of the eighteenth century, the phrase which had adopted by Montchrestien as a title, 'political economy', gradually won currency as the of selfcontained It used in this sense by James Steaurt and Jean-Baptiste Say. In the 1790s in Britain, at peak of anti-Jacobin repression, it became fashionable to political economy from politics order to protect its practitioners accusations political radicalism stressing character objective science, in to both prejudices shared by so-called 'practical men' and traditional views on property, trade, poverty and population. obvious political the 8 for against was the defence or, better, 'free trade'. The alternative tiptoed out of public discourse. It had been element of system of natural liberty, but now echoed too much of Jacobinism. After the 1819 Massacre, 'Liberty' became a dangerous word while 'Freedom' – meaning primarily 'Free Trade' – remained started being cited in by both Tories Whigs connection his of property vindication of free enterprise, but his moral and political theories were (Rashid 1998: 135–81; Rothschild 2002: 55–60). Up to 1815 radicals refer him as an in favour of the of labouring poor, and the ideas the under label Socialism' was still mainly on Smithian arguments, but his work started to be moral work and his political arguments for natural were overlooked. Political economy, as understood by first generation of self-appointed 'political economists', was not part of politics, but separated from legislation' and more theoretical than practical (Rothschild 2002: Winch and Collini 1983: There was some confusion about both aspects. While Malthus Ricardo allied in defence of 'the against 'p
 human mind's innate tendency tO mirror itsElf in OthErs, CaUsinG the Emergence of sysTEms oF moral and legal rules. The SeparAtIOn of POlIticaL economY FrOM PolItIcS ThE aNTi-jacobIne ReactioN and the oppOsiTiOn between FreEDoM and LibertY I aLready mentioNed That, in ThE laST decaDes Of the EighteENth cenTury, the phRaSE which HAd been aDOPtEd by montchrestien as a tITlE, 'Political econoMy', gradUaLLy WON cuRreNcy as the naMe Of a seLFcontaiNEd DISCipLIne. It was used iN this sense bY jamEs SteaUrT anD jean-BaPtistE SAY. In The 1790s in BritaIn, at The peak of Anti-JaCObin repREssion, iT becamE faShiOnabLE tO sEpaRaTE poLItIcaL EcoNomy from PoLiTics iN ordER TO ProtEct Its pRactiTioners from acCusAtioNS of PolitIcal rAdicAlIsm whIle strEssinG iTs character of obJectIve sciencE, in CoNtrAsT to boTH prejuDicEs sHared by So-calleD 'PraCtICAL mEn' and traditional viEwS ON pRoperty, tRade, poVErTy ANd populaTiOn. ONe obVIOus poLitiCAl ImplicatIon of tHE 8 cAmPaign foR sCience AgAinSt pRejudICe waS the deFence of 'fReedoM' Or, better, 'free trADe'. The alternatIVe KEY wORd, liBerTy, tiptoed ouT of pUBlic DiscOUrSe. IT Had beEn one ElEMeNT of Smith's system of naTuRal libErty, bUt now it echoed Too much of JACOBinism. AfTer tHE 1819 PETerloo Massacre, 'liberTy' became a dANgerous wOrd whIle 'FreedOm' – meaning PRImarily 'FRee traDe' – rEmaINEd Respectable. SmITH staRtEd being CitEd in parLiaMenT by BotH TOries and WHigs in coNnEcTiOn To hIs defENce of proPeRty AnD viNdicaTIon of fRee enTerpRiSe, BUt hIs moral ANd POLitiCaL tHeorIes WeRe forGottEN (RaShid 1998: 135–81; RotHschild 2002: 55–60). Up To 1815 rADicaLs CoNtinued To refer to him aS aN authority In FavOur of tHE Rights of The labouring poor, and the mOVement oF idEas frOm thE mid-ninetEenTh centUry GOing unDer the Label 'riCarDIAn SocIALiSm' wAs Still mainlY BAseD on SmItHian ArgumenTs, but his economic woRK stArted to be read In iSolaTIOn FroM HiS MorAl WOrk AND his political arGuments for NaTUrAl liberty wERe oVeRlooked. politicAl ecoNOmy, as unDerstood bY the first GeNeraTIOn oF self-appoiNted 'poliTical econOMists', WAs Not paRt oF politIcS, buT a'sciEnce' sePAraTed frOm the'sCiEnce of LegisLaTion' and mOre theoretical than practIcal (RoThschIld 2002: 52–86; winch and COllINi 1983: 349–88). THere was soMe coNfusion aboUt bOth AspecTs. WHIle MaLthuS AnD RiCArdo wEre aLLied in the DEfEncE OF 'tHe science' agAINSt 'p
 human mind's innate tende ncy to mir ror i tse lfin  oth ers,  causing the e m erge nce of systems of mora l and  l e galr ul es. T he sepa r at i o n o fpo lit ic a lecono myfrom po litics The  an ti -Jacobine re a ct ion and th e o pposition be twe en Fre ed oma nd Li ber ty Ialread y  menti oned that ,i n thel ast dec a d es  ofthe eighteenth ce n tu r y, the phrasewhichha d  b e e n a dop ted by Mon tc hrest i en as a ti t l e , ' p olitical econ omy', gradu a lly  won c ur ren c y as t he na me ofa selfconta ined  discipli ne. It was use d  in thi s sens e b y J ames St ea urt  a n d J e an -Ba p tis te Say.In  t he 17 90si n B rita in,  atthe p eak of anti-J aco binr epr essio n, it  bec am e fas hionab le to  s eparate politic al e conomy fr ompo lit ic s ino rder t o p rot ect its  practi t ion er s f ro m accusations of p ol i t ic al radic alismw hi le stressin gits  cha r a cterof o b je ctive sc ience, in  c ontrast  t o both  p rej udi ces s h ared  by so -called'prac t ical men' andt raditional vi e ws o np rope rty , trade, po vert y  and  pop u la tio n . One  obvi ou s  p o litical implication  o f the8 cam paign for sci ence again s t prejudic e wa s  t h e defence of ' freed om' or, be t ter, 'fr ee tr ade'. Th e alterna t i ve key w ord , l ibe rty , ti ptoed out ofp u blic  d iscours e.It hadbee n o neele me nt of Smi th's sys te mof  n atu ral l i berty, b ut  no witechoe d  too m uch o f Ja co bi n ism . After th e 1819  P et erlo o M as sacre , 'L i ber ty' bec ame a dan ger o us w or dwhile ' Freedom' – me an ing primar il y ' Free T r a de' – re mained respectable. Smi t h start edbeing  cit ed in par lia ment b y b o th Tor ies an d Whi gs  in c onnec t i on  to  h is defence o f p roper ty  and  vindic ation of free ente r pri se, but his m ora l an d po lit i ca l  th eo r ies w ere forgotten ( Rashid 199 8: 13 5–81; Roth s chi ld  2002:55–60).  Up t o  1815 r adicals c ontinuedto  ref e r  to  him as an  authori ty in fav o ur of th e rig hts  of th elab ourin g poor ,  an d the  movem en t of i deasfr om the m id-nineteenth century g oing u nderthe  label 'R ica r dia n Sociali sm'was stillmai nly  base d o n  Smit hian ar gum e nts,buth is econom i cwor k st arted to be r e adin is ola t ion fr om h is moral work and his politicalargu m e nts  fo r  nat ur al liberty wer e o ve r l ooked. P ol itical econ omy, asun d ersto od bythe fi rst gen e r at i on ofself -ap pointed ' pol it i cal eco no mi s ts', w as n ot  partof pol i tics , but a'science' s epara t e d fro m  th e'sci en ce of l e gisl ation' and  more theor etical  tha n pra ctical(R othsch ild  2 002: 52–86 ;  Winch an d Col lini 19 83 : 34 9–8 8). Th erew a s som e co nf usi on aboutb o th as pe c ts.  Whi le Ma lt husand Ricar d o were a lli e d in th edef e n ce of' th e science' a gai nst ' p 
 human_mind's innate_tendency to mirror itself_in others,_causing_the emergence_of_systems of moral_and legal rules._The separation of political_economy from politics_The_anti-Jacobine reaction and the opposition between Freedom and Liberty I already mentioned that, in_the_last decades_of_the_eighteenth century, the phrase which_had been adopted by Montchrestien_as a_title, 'political economy', gradually won currency as the_name_of a selfcontained_discipline. It was used in this sense by James_Steaurt and Jean-Baptiste Say. In the_1790s in Britain,_at_the_peak of anti-Jacobin repression,_it became fashionable to separate political_economy from politics in order to_protect its practitioners from accusations of political_radicalism while stressing its character of_objective science, in contrast to_both prejudices_shared by so-called 'practical men'_and traditional views_on property,_trade, poverty and_population. One obvious political implication of_the 8 campaign_for science against prejudice was the_defence_of 'freedom' or,_better,_'free_trade'. The_alternative key word,_liberty,_tiptoed out_of_public discourse. It had been one_element_of Smith's system of natural liberty, but_now it echoed too_much_of Jacobinism. After the_1819 Peterloo Massacre, 'Liberty' became_a dangerous word while 'Freedom' –_meaning primarily_'Free Trade'_– remained respectable. Smith started being cited in parliament by both_Tories and Whigs in connection to_his defence of property_and vindication_of_free enterprise, but_his_moral and_political theories were forgotten (Rashid 1998: 135–81;_Rothschild 2002:_55–60). Up to 1815 radicals continued_to refer to him_as_an authority in favour of the_rights of the labouring poor, and_the movement of ideas from_the_mid-nineteenth_century going under the label_'Ricardian Socialism' was still mainly based_on Smithian arguments,_but his economic work started to be_read_in isolation from his moral work_and_his political arguments for natural liberty_were_overlooked._Political economy, as understood by_the first generation of self-appointed 'political_economists', was not part of politics, but a'science' separated_from the'science of_legislation' and more theoretical than_practical_(Rothschild_2002: 52–86; Winch and Collini 1983: 349–88). There was some_confusion about_both aspects. While_Malthus and Ricardo were allied in the defence of 'the_science' against 'p