ments for the Act of the Union between England and Ireland are forcibly expressed. When a century later the Union was accomplished, its promoters reproduced much that Petty had already brought forward. His attitude toward the native Irish cannot be called sympathetic. Yet it was an intelligent attitude. He was not indifferent to Ireland's troubles. He had studied the needs of the people. The policy which he regarded as best for Ireland was, as we might expect, in the interest of the English settlers. It was, however, a well defined and enlightened policy. It was the result of careful consideration, not a blind following of racial and religious antipathy.
We have traced in a general way the debt Petty owed to Hobbes. We believe his influence is apparent chiefly on Petty's method and in the characteristics of his thoughts. It is possible to find actual resemblances; for example, in the analysis of wealth into land and labor.[1] But I do not think that verbal identity is so likely to prove Hobbes' influence over him as does the kind of affinity upon which I have already commented. Petty is hardly the man who could be a mere copyist.
In Sir William Temple we meet with a political writer who can well be compared with our author. His tracts on the Low Countries and on Irish trade deal with subjects treated fully by Petty. When two very intelligent men are both reviewing the same ground, it is probable that we shall find remarks in one easily paralleled by the other. The smallness of the Irish trade, Temple tells us, is due to revolutions, political intrigue, bad government and
- ↑ Cf. Roscher's remarks on Hobbes in his already cited essay.
