Economy. Why is this? Evidently, we think, because those who are for reconstructing society upon an artificial basis, and abolishing all interest on capital, which is essentially the abolition of all individual property, find no encouragement whatever for their new theories, in any of the teachings of this science; while, on the other hand, those who would hold on to the institutions of the past, who wish to continue exclusive legislation in favor of wealth, by which it is every year brought more and more into larger aggregations, or combinations, and by monopolies and undue advantages, made more and more able to oppress and overreach labor, find themselves equally at war with all its principles.

Thus one denounces, and the other sneers at the science; while the masses of the people, ignorant of its teachings, are easily made the dupes of both.

There is no remedy for all this, but in the general diffusion of knowledge on this subject among the people, and this can only be done through our invaluable common school system of education.

The great questions, now started, are never, we trust and believe, to be settled, until the enormous evils now complained of, are removed; the sooner, therefore, the laws of wealth become a subject of universal study, the sooner will these agitations cease.

The second proposition with which I commenced my discourse, I will now consider briefly; namely, that Political Economy is adapted to common schools.

The formulas of this science are all plain and comprehensible, and when presented and illustrated, as they may be, easily understood by any one who is suffi

ciently advanced to study English grammar to advantage.

The science has already been much simplified. The work of Mr. Say was an improvement on the voluminous treatise of Adam Smith, and that of President Wayland is a great improvement, so far as a systematic and simple arrangement is concerned, upon that of Mr. Say. If we mistake not, there is room for still further advances in this direction, and especially by the introduction of a more consistent and philosophical system of currency, than any that has ever yet been presented in any work on the science hitherto published.

Again, this study is one that excites an interest in youthful minds. The scholar sees at once that it will be of use to him, that it treats of topics which all men regard as important, that it explains to him many things hitherto incomprehensible, and enables him to understand most of the great questions of the day. There are some studies, in our higher seminaries of learning, the utility of which it sometimes puzzles the scholar, and perhaps even the teacher, to understand. They are pursued, because they are required, and required for some supposed indirect or incidental advantage; but not so with Political Economy. There is not a proposition, the bearings of which on human interests, are not seen, as soon as the terms of it are understood. therefore interests the student at once, and deeply. No study would be pursued in our common schools with more eagerness or pleasure.

It

Again, the moral bearings of this science make it admirably adapted to those schools in which the young receive their earliest and strongest impressions. Its

teachings are eminently pacific, and in harmony with the benevolent spirit of Christianity. The Rev. Dr. Bethune, in an address delivered before the literary societies of Yale College, in 1845, speaks of it as "that philosophical science which, next to the Gospel, whose legitimate child it is, will do more than anything else, for the elevation and fraternization of our race."

It has been called "a sacred science," and if the elevation of the degraded and oppressed, if the diffusion of noble and lofty sentiments among men, if the establishment of justice and right, if the promotion of permanent and universal peace, and a practical recognition of the brotherhood of man, be a sacred theme, then is Political Economy a sacred science.

I am aware that there are those who sneer at this science. There are those, too, who sneer at Christianity, and, for the same reason; namely, they do not mean to conform their lives to its teachings, and, of course, to keep themselves in countenance, must deny its authenticity. One of the objections which this class of men. bring forward is, that great differences of opinion have existed among the different teachers of Political Economy, and, therefore, its doctrines are unworthy of being received. Now this objection has no more relevancy or force, in regard to this, than every other science. In moral philosophy, for instance, how great have been, and still are, the differences among its distinguished professors, yet who denies that it is a science?

It is true, indeed, that Adam Smith rejects the theory of Quesnoy, as Bucer rejected the fallacies of Aristotle, and as Mr. McCulloch, one of the most distinguished writers on the science, very properly observes, "the

discrepancies among the theories successively put forth, by the ablest physicians, chemists, natural philosophers, and moralists, are quite as great as any that have existed among those advanced by the ablest economists. But who would therefore conclude that medicine, chemistry, natural philosophy, and morals, rest on no solid foundation, or that they are incapable of presenting a system of well established and consentaneous truths? We do not refuse our assent to the demonstrations of Newton and La Place, because they are subversive of the theories of Ptolemy, Tycho Brahé, and Descartes; why should we refuse our assent to the demonstrations of Smith and Ricardo, because they have subverted the false theories that had previously been advanced, respecting the sources and distribution of wealth? Political Economy has not been exempt from the fate common to all sciences. None has been simultaneously carried to perfection, but more or less error has insinuated itself into the speculations of its earlier cultivators."

It must be admitted that writers, both in this country and in Europe, have too often allowed themselves to be obstructed in their inquiries by existing institutions, and their opinions to be swayed by the prejudices of the times; and instead of a fearless and faithful induction of principles, from well established facts, have in too many instances accommodated their reasonings and conclusions to the current opinions of the day, and moulded their economic philosophy to their political creed; and this, too, often, doubtless, without being conscious of the influences by which they were swayed.

In conclusion, I will only remark, that I can antici

pate but one serious objection to the proposal to introduce this new study into our common schools, and that is, that we already have as many as there is time for, that our scholars are now superficial in their attainments, in consequence of having too many objects of pursuit. I deny this. I deny that there is not time for this study, and other studies, if need be. By a recurrence to the last annual report of the Massachusetts Board of Education, I find that the average length of the schools in the state, the last year, was only seven months and twenty-four days. Now our schools ought to be kept at least nine or ten months in the year, and one of the most effective means for lengthening the schools, will be to increase the number of studies, especially, those of an elevated character. And it would not only tend to the lengthening of the schools, but to the retention of scholars to a later period of life, and this is felt to be a very desirable matter.

By a reference to the report just mentioned, it appears that there is not one scholar in twenty in all our schools over sixteen years of age. Why is this? Because before that period, the youth has received all the education he needs? No, but because, as a general fact, it is regarded as beneath his dignity to attend after that age. Now if higher and more attractive studies were required, the case would soon be altered, and young persons would remain in school, as they should, to a more advanced age.

High as our standard of education in Massachusetts is thought to be, and it is doubtless high compared with other communities, still our schools are too limited, in time, and too low, in attainments. We greatly need a