PROFESSOR JOHN MCVICKAR.

In the continuity of historico-political studies at Columbia College there was another important influence contemporary with Professor Anthon; namely, the Rev. John McVickar, who was appointed Professor of Philosophy, Rhetoric, and Belles Letters in the year 1817. This man, the successor of the Rev. Dr. Bowden, is too little known to American students of History and Economics-in both of which studies he was a remarkable pioneer. It would be a useful, as well as pious service, if some one of the present instructors in the School of Political Science at Columbia would prepare an academic memorial of John McVickar, as he did of his worthy predecessor, Dr. Bowden (1751–1817), in an address delivered to the Alumni of Columbia College, October 4, 1837. Although the life of the Rev. John McVickar has been written, as a "clerical biography," by his son (New York: Hurd & Houghton, 1872), there is so much of academic interest in his life and writings, so much unused biographical material in the archives of Columbia College, that a special study of his professorial career would certainly repay the younger generation of teachers.

In general, the service rendered by Professor McVickar to Historical and Political Science at Columbia College resembles that rendered by Profesor Francis Bowen in Harvard College. Under the broad ægis of a philosophical professorship, both teachers protected and encouraged historicopolitical studies. Both inclined most strongly toward politico economics. Both produced text-books of political economy, which, in their day and generation, proved very helpful to American students. In these days, when the study of economics is coming to the front in our colleges and universities, it will be recognized as a distinguished honor for Professor McVickar that he was one of the first men in this country to lecture upon political economy to students, and also one of the first to publish a text-book upon the subject.

John McVickar (1787-1863) was the son of a leading merchant of New York City, and was of Scotch descent. Heredity and environment gave him a natural inclination toward the study of economic questions. Born in the business center of the United States, into family acquaintance with wealthy and influential men, into association with Albert Gallatin, Isaac Bronson, and Mr. Biddle, young McVickar could not escape the great problems of currency and banking which agitated his times. Although, after his graduation from Columbia College, educated as a theologian and for a time settled as rector of a parish in Hyde Park, he readily accepted the philosophical professorship made vacant by the death of Dr. Bowden in 1817; and, within a year, petitioned to have Political Economy added to his already wide domain, without any increase of salary. The year 1818 marks the establishment of economic science in Columbia College, which was one of the first to

1

1 William and Mary College is an historic rival of Columbia with regard to priority' of recognition of economics in the curriculum. In a letter from Joseph C. Cabell to Thomas Jefferson, dated August 4, 1816, is this statement: "Dr. Smith has adopted

recognize this subject in the United States. For several years the need of a text-book of Political Economy was deeply felt by McVickar as an aid to his lectures. In 1821 he appears to have urged Edward Everett to prepare a suitable hand-book; but the great orator, while expressing interest in the subject, pleaded other engagements. In 1825 McVickar brought out his Outlines of Political Economy. This thin octavo volume, which an American student may well prize if he can now secure a copy, was an American adaptation of J. R. M'Culloch's article on Political Economy originally published in the Edinburgh supplement to the old Encyclopædia Britannica. This article, by the first Ricardo lecturer on Political Economy, well deserves comparison with that in the new edition of the Encyclopædia Britannica, for the sake of the historical method which both articles represent. M'Culloch, with his review of the rise of economic science, the mercantile system, the manufacturing system, the opinions of Mr. Mun, Sir Josiah Child, Dudley North, Mr. Locke, et al., may be as truly called a representative of the historical school of economics as Knies or Roscher.

It is interesting to reflect that the English historical method of J. R. M'Culloch was introduced into America by John McVickar, more than the Review of Montesquieu [by Count Destutt Tracy] as the text-book on the Principles of Government for the students of William and Mary. He will adopt either Say or Tracy on Political Economy, as the one or the other may appear best, when the latter comes out." Tracy's Treatise on Political Economy, for the translation and publication of which Jefferson had early arranged, was issued from the press of Joseph Milligan, at Georgetown, D. C., in 1817, with a brief introductory sketch of the history of economic literature from Jefferson's own pen. Cabell was meditating a translation of Say, but gave up the project. Tracy's elaborate Review of Montesquieu was published at Jefferson's instance in Philadelphia, circa 1812. This work, which was adopted at William and Mary College in 1816, contained Tracy's economic views. Jefferson said, when recommending it through Cabell: "Dr. Smith, you say, asks what is the best elementary book on the principles of government? None in the world equal to the Review of Montesquieu, printed at Philadelphia a few years ago. It has the advantage, too, of being equally sound and corrective of the principles of political economy, and all within the compass of a thin 8vo." Jefferson was one of the first promoters of political economy in this country. In 1816 he wrote to Cabell that he would render the country a great service by translating Say, "for there is no branch of science of which our countrymen seem so ignorant as political economy." Jefferson came very near capturing the French economist for his own Central College, afterward the University of Virginia. Jefferson wrote to his friend Cabell January 5, 1815: "I have lately received a letter from Say. He has in contemplation to remove to this country, and to this neighborhood particularly." Failing in that brilliant scheme, Jefferson secured, in 1817, the professorial services of Dr. Thomas Cooper, the English economist and refugee, who had settled in Pennsylvania some years before, and had there written upon economic subjects. As early as 1810 Jefferson said of Cooper: "The best pieces on political economy which have been written in this country were by Cooper." This universal scholar, of whom so little is now known, never actually taught political economy in the University of Virginia, which chose him for its first professor, but from which he early resigned on account of sectarian opposition. He became eminent as a teacher of economics in the College of South Carolina, where he early published a text-book of political economy, which should be compared with that of McVickar.

twenty-five years before the rise of either of these German pioneers. By more than fifty years did the Scotch student of M'Culloch and Adam Smith anticipate the American disciples of Knies and Roscher in advocating historico-political economy. McVickar appended many original notes to M'Culloch; and, among other good things, he said of political economy: "To the rising government of America it teaches the wisdom of European experience." He called economics "the redeeming science of modern times-the regenerating principle that, in connection with the spirit of Christianity, is at work in the civilized gov ernments of the world, not to revolutionize, but to reform." Besides his original notes, which show not only deep moral, but profound prac tical insight into economic questions, McVickar appended a general summary of economic science, which probably reveals something of his own method of presenting the subject to his classes. This text-book, which is said to be "the first work on the science of political economy published in America," (McVickar's Life of John McVickar, 85) was welcomed by Chancellor Kent and Thomas Jefferson in the warmest terms. The sage of Monticello said of the subject which the book represented: "I rejoice to see that it is beginning to be cultivated in our schools. No country on earth requires a sound intelligence of it more than ours." Among the early economic writings of McVickar are the following pamphlets: Interest Made Equity (1826), an English article, like his textbook, with American notes; Hints on Banking (1827), an original paper of forty or more pages, addressed to a member of the New York legislature, and said to have been the origin of the free banking law of New York (1833), and the scientific forerunner of practical reforms in the Bank of England, 1844, and also the National Bank Act of the United States in 1863 (Appendix to the Life of McVickar, 411). A more distinct foreshadowing of our present national system of banking was Professor McVickar's article, published in 1841, entitled "A National Bank: Its Necessity and most Advisable Form." This and other financial articles were published by McVickar in the New York Review, which closed its influential career in 1842. He wrote on " American Finances"; on "The Expediency of Abolishing Damages on Protested Bills of Exchange"; on "The Evils of Divers State Laws to regulate Damages on Foreign Bills of Exchange," &c. A complete bibliography of the writings of John McVickar would be a helpful addition to the Dewey system of classification in the excellent library of Columbia College. In the history of economic thought in the United States John McVickar will surely take an honorable place as an academic pioneer. Practical economists, like Franklin, Robert Morris, and Alexander Hamilton, this country had,

1 This statement, as will appear from the previous foot-note, is not strictly true, for Destutt Tracy's Treatise on Political Economy appeared in 1817. McVickar undoubtedly deserves great credit for pioneer work, but the claim to absolute priority in this country as a lecturer upon Political Economy, asserted for him by his filial biographer, should be viewed with caution until the facts are more fully known,

indeed, developed; but professorial economists, with original and independent views, were rare in America before the days of John McVickar. His chief rival to priority was Professor Cooper, of Dickinson College and of the University of Pennsylvania, the friend of Jefferson, and the predecessor of Francis Lieber, in Columbia, S. C. By a singular chance the two lines of economic teaching came together at last in Columbia College, New York, when, in 1857, Francis Lieber was called to that institution as the successor to John McVickar.

The subject of History was also taught by Professor McVickar as a branch of his philosophical department. The statutes of Columbia College show that from the beginning of the present century Greek and Roman History, or Classical Antiquities, remained in the hands of the classical department. But some attention was always given to Modern History; and this appears, to have been intrusted to the professor of Philosophy, Rhetoric, and Belles Lettres. It was probably a natural continuation of the original historical work of John Gross, teacher of Geog. raphy and German, who was made Professor of Philosophy, also, in 1787. The preparation which Professor McVickar enjoyed for the teaching of history was not as good as that which came to him by nature and associations for the teaching of political economy. While yet a theological student, he appears, however, to have pursued a course of historical reading, and to have invented a system of mnemonics which he applied to Bossuet's Chronolgy. Entering upon his professorship, McVickar worked out his own methods of instruction by a long course of experience, the results of which may be generalized upon the basis of the following authentic testimony.

In a report of a committee of the trustees of Columbia College, a statement was made, in 1856, by Professor McVickar, with respect to the duties of his department. He said his professorship comprised a "union of historical and philosophical studies," of which he advised the division. To the sophomores, during their first semester, he taught "Modern European History, more especially from the latter half of the fifteenth century, being the period suggested by Heeren as the true commencement of the European system. The second session was the exact and critical study of English History, as the great storehouse of our political wisdom. In addition to this, there were essays on subjects connected with the course read and criticised in the lecture-room; the whole embodied in notes, as stated in my annual reports." In regard to his method of teaching, Professor McVickar told the committee that any good history in the hands of students was sufficient. He said, "The subject is studied, not the text-book. My practice is, at the commencement, to explain the subject of text-books, and to give the class a list of the best, any one of which would be satisfactory. I have made it a point to ascertain from the best students of other colleges the results of studying from text-books, and have felt that such instruction makes little impression on the memory." In reply to a question from

the committee as to whether he delivered his lectures from notes, Professor McVickar said: "I have written notes; and in the earlier periods I used to read lectures. Experience brought me to a freer use of notes, as guiding the analysis of the subjects, but not controlling the words." All this has a modern tone, and indicates a man of sensible ideas. There was, however, one radical fault found with Professor McVickar, which he perhaps inherited from Dr. Bowden; he did not succeed in keeping good discipline among his students. In his eulogy of Dr. Bowden, McVickar said, with a certain reflex significance, "As a disciplinarian he held lightly the staff of authority." McVickar's own students appear to have recognized this amiable weakness in their master, and to have presumed upon it. Some dissatisfaction was felt by the administration with what was allowed in the recitation-room of Professor McVickar; and the inquiry into his methods of instruction reveals a certain animus, with a decided tendency toward a reconstruction of the entire department.

In 1857, by the advice and consent of Professor McVickar, the duties of his too laborious and too comprehensive professorship were divided into three independent chairs: (1) Moral and Intellectual Philosophy; (2) Ancient and Modern Literature (Belles Lettres); (3) History and Political Science. Professor McVickar was transferred to the chair of Evidences of Natural and Revealed Religion which he held until 1864, when he retired from office, his duties passing to the then president. The chair of Philosophy was given to Professor Charles Murray Nairns. The chair of Belles Lettres was offered to Samuel Eliot, of Boston; but he declined it, and the duties were then intrusted to Professor Nairns.

ADVICE OF PROFESSOR ANTHON.

In the report of the committee above cited is a statement by Professor Anthon, with reference to the status of history at Columbia College, in the year 1856, at which time there was considerable discussion among the trustees with reference to the reorganization of departments and the conversion of the college into a university. In answer to a question propounded by the committee as to whose duty it then was to teach Ancient History, Professor Anthon said that, as regards freshmen, it belonged to the Adjunct Professor of Latin and Greek, He said, also, that the historical teaching of subsequent classes-the continuation of freshman History and Geography-belonged to the philosophical department of Professor McVickar. Then follows Professor Anthon's recommendation for a distinct chair of History. "In my opinion," he said, "the whole subject ought to be assigned to a separate department, called the Professorship of History, distinct from the other departments and embracing both Ancient and Modern History." This was the same idea which influenced Harvard College, in the year 1839, to institute the McLean Professorship of Ancient and Modern 757 ED, NO. 2——5