Columbia suutititfp 
 intlje(Cbpaflrt»Parli 
 
 SELIGMAN LIBRARY OF ECONOMICS 
 
 PURCHASED 
 
 UNIVERSITY 
 
INTRODUCTORY LECTURE 
 
 POLITICAL ECONOMY; 
 
 DELIVERED AT NASSAU-HALE, 
 
 JANUART 31, 1831. 
 
 BY PROFESSOR VETHAKE. 
 
 PUBLISHED AT THE REQUEST OF THE SENIOR CLASS. 
 
 PRINCETON. 
 HUNTED BT WM. D’HART. 
 
 1831 . 
 
 t 
 
INTRODUCTORY LECTURE 
 
 TO A COURSE OB 
 
 POLITICAL ECONOMY. 
 
 Ip we look around us, we shall perceive that society is so 
 constituted, that, while only, a small portion of mankind are 
 placed by Providence in circumstances of such affluence, as 
 to render them disinclined to make any exertions, either 
 bodily or mental, to enlarge their means of enjoyment, most 
 persons are engaged in producing, either what is to be directly 
 appropriated to satisfy their own desires, or, more frequently, 
 what is destined, by being exchanged for the products of the 
 labour of others, to minister to the enjoyment of their fellow- 
 men. In other words, most men are producers ot utility, in 
 ■ the sense in which that word is employed in political economy. 
 For, leaving to the moralist the decision of the question, 
 whether many objects of man’s pursuit may not in reality be 
 injurious to him, and whether he be not often making a 
 sacrifice of higher, but future, gratifications, or even sometimes 
 subjecting himself to future suffering, that he may administer 
 to himself perhaps a small amount only of present enjoyment, 
 the political economist regards every thing as useful, which 
 
4 
 
 is capable of satisfying, in any degree whatever, any of man’s 
 actual wants and desires. Thus, spirituous liquors, and 
 tobacco, are both of them said to be possessed of utility, 
 because they are of a nature to be objects of men’s desire; 
 which desire they evince, and afford a measure of, by the 
 sacrifices they are willing to make in order to obtain them; 
 and this utility is ascribed to those articles, notwithstand¬ 
 ing that their use may, in most cases, be justly condemned, 
 and the philanthropist, and the Christian, may feel it a duty 
 to make every proper exertion to repress the inconveniences, 
 or mischiefs, they occasion. 
 
 But I wish not to be misunderstood. I do not mean to 
 insinuate, or to admit, that the political economist, because he 
 employs the word utility in reference to man as he is, and 
 not as he ought to be, and because the immediate object he 
 has in view is not the moral improvement of the species, 
 adopts either a lower standard of morals, or is necessarily 
 indifferent to such improvement. As well might the votary 
 of any one department of science be justly chargeable with 
 necessarily undervaluing, and taking no interest in the progress 
 of, any other; and the pursuits of the chemist or the as¬ 
 tronomer be condemned as vicious in their tendency, because, 
 in observing the phenomena, and investigating the laws, of 
 material nature, they take no cognizance of the categories 
 of right and wrong. So far, indeed, is the science of political 
 economy from leading to conclusions adverse to the best 
 interests of mankind, and so far is it from even turning the 
 attention of individuals, or of governments, entirely from moral 
 to physical considerations, and teaching them to advance the 
 happiness of society by measures unconnected with morality. 
 
that I hope to make it appear, to the conviction of my auditors, 
 in the progress of the course of instruction to which the 
 present lecture is introductory, as a legitimate deduction from 
 the principles of the science, that the most efficient method, 
 (I had almost said the only efficient method,) of promoting 
 the physical well-being of a people, is to diffuse among them, 
 as extensively as possible, the blessings of religion, of morals, 
 and of education,—and that no branch of human knowledge 
 discovers to us more beautiful illustrations of the consistency 
 of all truth, and of that unity of design which pervades the 
 various provinces of creation. 
 
 No person, after having become acquainted with the 
 elements of our present subject, will fail to perceive the 
 desirableness, if not the necessity, of having some word to 
 designate the idea, intended to be conveyed by the term utility, 
 as I have defined it; and if any inconveniences should result 
 from the same term being occasionally employed in another 
 acceptation, this will only be one of many instances of a 
 similar kind, that are continually occurring, out of the domain 
 of the exact sciences, and which require from the student,- as 
 an essential condition to the acquisition of real knowledge, a 
 certain perspicacity m readily perceiving the different shades 
 of meaning, of which the same forms of language admit. 
 Whenever, also, an idea is considered as of sufficient impor¬ 
 tance to require it to be designated by a single term, almost 
 the only practicable method of proceeding, in fixing upon 
 the proper word for the purpose intended, is to select such a 
 one as is already employed to denote some idea bearing an 
 analogy to that which is to be expressed; for to coin an 
 entirely new word may be regarded as wholly out. of the 
 
6 
 
 question. The closer, too, the analogy the better, ag less 
 violence is then done to existing usage. Now in the instance 
 under consideration, the term utility is certainly employed 
 very much in accordance with the meaning attached to it in 
 common language. We speak of a bad use of an object, as 
 well as of a good use of it; and we speak of the utility of 
 weapons, both of offence and defence, although, if men were 
 prevented, by the non-existence of those of the former de¬ 
 scription, from injuring one another, a considerable addition 
 would be implied to the sum of human happiness. It seems 
 to me, then, that it cannot reasonably be denied, that the 
 political economists are fully justified in the use they make of 
 the term utility; while it may be allowed, that they are 
 likewise called upon to be cautious how they confound that 
 use of it with its more dignified acceptation, when it refers, 
 not to the gratification alone of bis present 'desires, but to 
 man’s happiness in reference to the whole of his future 
 career. 
 
 The utility produced by the instrumentality of human 
 exertion, or labour, is readily distinguishable into, first, that 
 which, so to speak, embodies itself in some material substance, 
 that has thus a utility communicated to it, of which it was 
 before destitute, and ofwhichitis subsequently deprived by its 
 being actually applied to use, or consumed;—secondly, into 
 that which fulfils its object without the intervention of matter, 
 by the direct operation of one individual on another. All 
 persons engaged in agriculture, manufactures, or commerce, 
 produce the first kind of utility; and magistrates, lawyers, 
 physicians, teachers, poets, philosophers, clergymen,—as also 
 players, opera-dancers, jugglers, and mountebanks, are among 
 
7 
 
 the producers of the second kind. It is to the utility derived 
 to us through the agency of matter, whether it be the 
 immediate gift of nature, as is sometimes, though very rarely, 
 the case, or whether it he a product of labour, that the attention 
 of the political economist is primarily, but not exclusively, 
 directed. 
 
 Of the various objects of the material world possessed of 
 utility, there are a few, distinguished from the rest, by one of 
 these two peculiarities; that they are either not susceptible of 
 appropriation; or are supplied to us gratuitously in such 
 abundance by the liberality of nature, that no one is willing 
 to bestow his labour, or what amounts to the same thing, the 
 products of his labour, for the purpose of procuring them. The 
 air we breathe, the light and heat of the sun, and, very 
 generally, the water we drink, are examples of this class. 
 All other material objects having utility, besides these, are 
 comprehended under the general denomination of wealth. 
 And the province of political economy may now be stated to 
 be, to determine the laws which regulate the production, 
 distribution, and consumption, of wealth, with the practical 
 object in view of ascertaining the course to be pursued, or 
 avoided, by individuals, and by governments, in the disposal 
 of the wealth under their control, so as to promote, in as great 
 a degree as possible, the happiness of mankind. 
 
 In exploring this province, and pursuing this object, the 
 investigations of the political economist are directed, among 
 others, to the following topics, viz: the principles that deter¬ 
 mine the prices of commodities, and the rates of the accumu¬ 
 lation of wealth, and of the increase of population,—the 
 circumstances that influence the condition of the labouring 
 
8 
 
 classes, together with the proper method of dealing with the 
 pauperism, which, in the most favored lands, every where 
 presents itself, and makes its appeal to the sympathy and 
 benevolence of the more prosperous portion of the communi¬ 
 ty,—the effects of improvements in machinery and the arts,— 
 the operation of interferences on the part of governments 
 with the natural direction of capital and industry,—the 
 theories of money, and of banking, of finance, and of taxation. 
 The importance to the public welfare of the prevalence of 
 correct views on the subjects enumerated, will hardly be 
 questioned by any one, who reflects on how much of the 
 legislation of nations, and more especially of those most 
 advanced in civilization and refinement, has reference to some, 
 if not to all, of them; and it will, perhaps, be conceded, that 
 the study of the science, which professes to explain them, must 
 be in a high degree useful, and even indispensable, to the 
 statesman, and to every one who is ambitious of occupying a 
 station in public life. 
 
 But if this be granted, it will also be manifest, that it ought 
 not to be a matter of indifference to the humblest individual in 
 the community. In proportion as the right of suffrage is 
 extended, and the people have the appointment of rulers and 
 legislators in their own hands, are they called on to examine 
 the principles on which the measures of government should 
 be made to rest, in order that they may be ehabled to exercise 
 their duties as electors in an understanding manner, and to 
 rise above being mere partizans of men, or tools of aspiring 
 demagogues. Our republican institutions are built on the 
 foundation of the assumed capacity of the people generally for 
 self-government. Where ignorance prevails, this capacity will 
 
9 
 
 be wanting; and that citizen of a free country, who neglects 
 his opportunities, whatever they may be, for acquiring substan¬ 
 tial political knowledge, will necessarily fail in the proper 
 performance of the peculiar and honourable functions assigned 
 him in society, and, (however patriotic his feelings may be,) 
 he will incur, on that account, a greater hazard of becoming 
 an instrument of injury to the well-being of his fellow- 
 citizens, or to his country’s essentia] interests. As one of the 
 people, then, and destined in future life to exercise the privilege, 
 and perform the duty, of an independent elector, every student 
 who hears me ought to feel himself bound to direct a portion 
 of his attention to the science, of which we are now speaking. 
 
 This, however, is not the only inducement for him to do so, 
 even though he should not aim at obtaining a place in the 
 councils of his country. Every individual, who lias received 
 a. liberal education, obtains naturally a degree of influence in 
 society, which it is impossible he should have had, were he 
 to have remained comparatively uninformed. He may be 
 likened, in the language of the Bible, to a city set on a hill, 
 which cannot be hid. He will necessarily excite the observa¬ 
 tion of all around him. His opinions will make a certain 
 impression on those who hold communication with him per¬ 
 sonally, and, perhaps, a still greater one if he undertake to 
 diffuse them by means of the press. How important must it. 
 therefore, be to the community of which he is a member, 
 that those opinions, like his opinions of a religious and moral 
 character, should be correct! Arid how great his responsibility 
 for using all. diligence to make them so! 
 
 It is possible that some individual who hears me may 
 think, that an escape is open to him from all responsibility of 
 
10 
 
 the kind, by avoiding to express his sentiments on subjects 
 which he may not understand, and that, in this way, it is 
 practicable not to exercise an injurious influence on society, by 
 simply declining to exercise any influence whatever. To 
 convince such a person of his mistake, nothing more, need be 
 done, than to put to him the questions: Of the two classes 
 of men, the learned, and the unlearned, are the latter less 
 apt to express a decided opinion on matters of a moral or 
 political character, provided these be in any wise connected 
 with then interests, present or future, than the former 1 And, 
 (descending to particulars,) how .many persons do we every¬ 
 where meet with, who hesitate not to express an opinion 
 dogmatically in favour of, or in opposition to, the existing tariff 
 policy Of the United States, or who are zealous advocates of 
 some favourite scheme for the relief of pauperism, without 
 being at all aware, that, to the full consideration of all the cir¬ 
 cumstances that bear on a proper decision of each of these 
 contested questions, the study of a science is necessary ? Man 
 has, indeed, frequently to struggle in the pursuit of knowledge, 
 not against ignorance alone, but likewise against a knowledge 
 or philosophy, falsely so called; and one half of the knowledge 
 which, in many departments of investigation, we are ever able 
 to attain to,' is to know our own ignorance, where we are 
 really ignorant. This will be found to be true, in reference 
 to almost every subject, admitting at all of a diversity of 
 sentiment. 
 
 But again, were it possible for us to remain neutral in die 
 contest that is continually going on in the world between truth 
 and error, would we feel justified in wilfully remaining so ? 
 Are we not called on by a sense of duty to take a side, at least 
 
ii 
 
 if we have the opportunity afforded us of acquiring the requisite 
 information to enable us to make up an-opinion 1 And does 
 not he who remains neutral in such a contest, and in such 
 circumstances, in fact take the side of error, by contributing to 
 retard the progress of knowledge, and to delay the period of 
 the ultimate triumph of troth, which it is in his power, and 
 which it is his duty, to accelerate ? 
 
 Independently, too, of the inducements to the study of political 
 economy, which have been drawn from considerations common 
 to the circumstances of every educated man, it may be men¬ 
 tioned, that there are some of the avocations of private life, in 
 which a knowledge of its principles is more particularly 
 important, in respect to the interests of the individual. The 
 merchant, for example, will certainly derive some information 
 from this source, which will be of service to him in the every¬ 
 day transactions of his business. The lawyer, likewise, will 
 often find his investigations facilitated, and his views on many- 
 complicated points rendered clearer, by a familiarity with the 
 principles in question. Not to mention that, since the bar is 
 with us in the United States, for reasons not now necessary 
 <o be specified, the stepping-stone to almost all political prefer¬ 
 ment of the higher order, every lawyer ought, as well with a 
 view to his own reputation, as on public considerations, to make 
 an adequate preparation for the business of public life, in a 
 systematic study of the different branches of political philoso¬ 
 phy ; unless he resolve deliberately on no occasion to step out 
 of the routine of his profession. And I am well convinced, 
 that an acquaintance with political economy cannot but be of 
 service to the clergyman, both in the exercise of his appropriate 
 functions, and in his beneficent and charitable ministrations. 
 
12 
 
 Without it, he will be in danger, much oltener than he is 
 aware of, whenever he deviates in his discourses from the 
 strict path of theology, and attempts to illustrate his positions 
 from the facts of common life, and whenever, more especially, 
 he touches on what may be denominated the ethics of man’s 
 social and political relations, of lowering himself in the 
 estimation of the better informed portion of his auditors, thus 
 contributing to lessen his own usefulness as a preacher of 
 Christianity,—and of leading others to combine error with the 
 truths of religion—a combination calculated to bring the latter 
 into discredit, when the error associated with it comes to be 
 exposed. In reference to his exalted functions of patron of 
 the poor and wretched within the field of his ministrations, 
 mere benevolence, so far from being an adequate guide to their 
 beneficial performance, will often add to the very wretchedness 
 he proposes to alleviate, if not to extirpate, when unenlightened 
 by correct views in relation to the subjects of pauperism and 
 charity, which are to be derived, mediately or immediately, 
 only from the researches of -the political economist. To 
 confirm the opinions I have just "expressed, I may refer to the 
 authority and example of Dr. Chalmers. What stress that 
 distinguished divine lays on the study of political economy, as 
 a part of the stock of knowledge with which he laboured to 
 furnish his pupils—such, too, as had the Christian ministry 
 in view as their destination in life—may be seen in Orme’s 
 interesting lifeof Urquhart; and, while now filling the Divinity 
 chair in the University of Edinburgh, he delivers weekly 
 lectures on political economy to his class. 
 
 The remarks I have been making on the advantages of 
 the study of political economy are founded on the assumption, 
 
that, we shall thus be led to a discovery of the solution of'a; 
 number of questions, on which much diversity of sentiment 
 has hitherto prevailed, and the solution of which cannot but 
 tend to the improvement of society, and, more partictiliarly, of 
 the condition of the labouring poor. But individuals are not 
 wanting, as well in our own country, as in Europe, who, so far 
 from putting a high value on the subject, regard it as shedding 
 little or no light on the questions alluded to, and its speculations 
 as nearly barren of all practical utility; and some persons 
 there .are, who go so far as to denounce it, as false in its 
 conclusions, and mischievous in its tendency. 
 
 To make any attempt, in the present introductory lecture, 
 to explain intelligibly, how political economy is brought to 
 bear advantageously on the practice of individuals, or of 
 governments, would be attempting an impossibility. The 
 connexion of theory and practice, in the case before us, as in 
 many others, can only be understood, after the theory has 
 been learned; and I can now only confidently assure those 
 whom I am addressing, that the connexion just mentioned 
 will distinctly appear as we proceed. This js as much as the 
 mathematican, whose science admits of so many, and such 
 striking, applications to the useful purposes of life, can say to 
 his pupil, when he sets him to learn the definitions and 
 axioms of geometry. And, indeed, if it were required to 
 demonstrate the. utility of every thing, as an indispensable 
 condition to its being learned, the stock of knowledge in the 
 world would be most sadly reduced. But, although I am 
 obliged to rest the utility of our science on a conviction to be 
 acquired after the learner shall have made some advances in 
 the study of it, there is no such necessity in regard to many 
 
14 
 
 of the reasons that have been urged to produce a persuasion 
 of its inutility, and to excite a prejudice against it, in the 
 public mind. As, moreover, most of these are afloat on the 
 surface of society, and are frequently to be heard in conversa¬ 
 tion, or to be met with in essays and speeches, it may be 
 worth my while, in the remainder of this lecture, to enumerate 
 the more prominent of them, and, by exposing their fallacy, 
 to remove out of the student’s way any stumbling blocks, 
 which they might possibly have already thrown into it, and 
 which might otherwise impede the activity of his first foot¬ 
 steps. 
 
 In the first place, it has been asked; What dependence can 
 be justly placed on the conclusions of the political economists, 
 and how absurd must it be to carry into execution the 
 measures recommended by them, when they are not yet 
 agreed among themselves, as to the proper meaning of many 
 of the technical and fundamental terms of then science, and 
 when, more especially, so many different definitions have 
 been given by them of wealth, the laws that regulate the 
 production, distribution, and consumption, of which, all of them, 
 without any exception, at the same time regard, as compre¬ 
 hending the immediate subjects of their investigation? And 
 it has been triumphantly said, and with some appearance of 
 plausibility, that it would be time enough for them to under¬ 
 take to dictate,to the statesman the course he ought to 
 pursue, for the promotion of the national welfare, when it 
 shall have been ascertained, beyond dispute, what wealth in 
 reality is. To all this it may be replied, that many of the 
 apparent discrepancies in the definitions of-wealth given by 
 different authors will be found, on examination, to be merely 
 
15 
 
 verbal, the idea intended to be conveyed being the same in 
 all of them; and that,, at the present day, the opinions of 
 political economists may be considered as narrowed down to 
 a choice between two definitions only. Some are for confining 
 the application of the term wealth to material objects; while 
 others are disposed to extend it to whatever fulfils the condi¬ 
 tions involved in the definition of it which I have given, 
 whether it be material or not. These last regard the prescrip¬ 
 tion of the physician, and the opinion of the lawyer, to be 
 constituent portions of wealth, equally with the products of 
 of the farmer or manufacturer. My reasons for preferring to 
 confine wealth to matter I must postpone to a subsequent 
 part of my course; for ; on his first entrance upon the study 
 of political economy, the student would be unable properly 
 to appreciate them. It may, however, be stated here, that, 
 perhaps, in this way, an exposition of the principles of the 
 science may be made more simply and perspicuously, and 
 with a closer adherence to the common use of language, than 
 in any other; and it must be obvious to every one, that, in so 
 far as respects wealth itself, the restricting of it to matter is 
 perfectly agreeable to the common acceptation of the term. 
 No one, for instance, speaks of a large amount of medical 
 advice received by a patient, as of the acquisition of so much 
 wealth; and the like anomaly in the use of language would 
 appear in the application of the term to every thing else of an 
 immaterial, or unsubstantial, nature, bestowed upon any 
 individual, however important or useful it might be to the 
 recipient. The reasons that have guided me in the adoption 
 of the definition of wealth, which I have given, have likewise 
 operated on the minds of by far the majority of contemporary 
 
16 
 
 writers on political economy, and have thus contributed to 
 remove, in a great measure, the objection that has been stated 
 to the science, supposing it to have been at any time well 
 founded. But we must be careful not to exaggerate the 
 errors resulting from the employment of a word in more 
 acceptations than one, even when it is so important in its 
 signification, as wealth is in the subject under consideration. 
 Propositions expressed in the same language by different 
 writers will, no doubt, be then significant of different ideas; 
 and a diversity of opinion will frequently appear to exist 
 among those who, in reality, are perfectly agreed in sentiment. 
 The proper inference to be drawn is, that, in all cases of the 
 kind; we ought to be particularly careful to weigh the import 
 of words; and in political economy it must be granted, that, 
 without the constant habit of doing so, and the greatest caution 
 in the consistent use of language, we are vevy likely to reason 
 inaccurately, or to lose ourselves in an inextricable labyrinth. 
 On the contrary, if such a habit be once acquired, and constantly 
 exercised, confusion will be transformed into order, and a 
 subject, otherwise calculated to disgust and repel the student 
 from its prosecution, will become in a high degree attractive. 
 With respect to wealth, I must not forget to mention here, 
 that the laws which regulate its production, distribution, and 
 consumption, bear a very close analogy to each other, in the 
 two. cases, of its being restricted, or not restricted, to material 
 objects, provided the other conditions, contained in the defini¬ 
 tion I have laid down, be adhered to in both cases; and that, 
 consequently, the conclusions of those political economists, 
 who erect the superstructure of the science, on the basis 
 of the other of the two definitions in question, will not be as 
 
17 
 
 verbally discrepant, as might be supposed on a superficial 
 view, from those to which we shall be led as we proceed. 
 
 But an attempt is also very frequently made, to bring the 
 science into disrepute, by exaggerating the real differences of 
 opinion among political economists. They are represented as 
 being, in fact, agreed on very few of the points that he at the 
 very foundation of the whole subject. Such representations 
 arise from a misapprehension of the nature of the science, and 
 from confoundingthe writings ofthe men, who have established 
 •its principles, and who have contributed to its advancement by 
 carrying out those principles to their legitimate results, with the 
 publications of others, who have nothing in common with 
 them, but that they profess to treat the same subjects, and to 
 find a solution of the same questions. On no subject, however, 
 ought those who think justly to be made responsible for the 
 errors of those who do not. And if the existence alone of 
 differences of opinion were to be admitted as satisfactory 
 evidence against the importance, or utility, of any science, 
 what would become of some of the most valuable and essen¬ 
 tial branches of our knowledge ? Our attention would, then, 
 have to be directed exclusively to mathematical and physical 
 science, omitting, too, the consideration of many points of the 
 latter, on which a universal agreement does not subsist among 
 philosophers. 
 
 We sometimes hear political economy objected to as meta¬ 
 physical. That this, if a correct description of it, should be 
 regarded as affixing upon it a stigma, must appear singular 
 to him, who has been accustomed to look upon metaphysics 
 asmerely another name for the philosophy of the human mind. 
 If nothing else could be adduced in disparagement of a science, 
 
18 
 
 than that it involves considerations appertaining to our intellec¬ 
 tual or moral nature, so far from needing a defence, it would 
 require no better recommendation;—for that which is in 
 any way connected with the knowledge of himself must 
 necessarily be an object of interest to every one possessed of a 
 rational curiosity. The sense, however, attached by the ob¬ 
 jector to the epithet metaphysical cannot be this. It will be 
 found, on examination, that when it is applied to political 
 economy, it is very generally used as synonymous with un¬ 
 intelligible. Where such is the case, the opinion expressed, 
 may be properly viewed in the light of a testimony borne by 
 those, who, by their own confession, do not understand the 
 subject of which they speak; and it may be fairly met by the 
 contrary testimony of those, who profess that they do under¬ 
 stand it. 
 
 Political economy is sometimes attempted to be stigmatized 
 by styling it an abstract study. If it is meant to be implied, 
 that it is on that account unintelligible, the charge looks very 
 like an acknowledgment of mental imbecility on the part of 
 those who prefer it. And it is, indeed, nothing new, that all 
 men are not endowed with an equal capacity for comprehend¬ 
 ing abstract or general reasoning. While some are enabled 
 to soar to the upper regions of the intellectual world, the 
 leaden wings of others for ever prevent them from doing 
 more than explore its inferior, and less etlierial, strata. But 
 if nothing more be intended than that the abstractness of the 
 subject renders it not easily comprehensible by ordinary 
 minds, the correctness of the position may be granted, in so 
 far at least as some of its more recondite principles are con¬ 
 cerned; and I have already mentioned, that, without the 
 
19 
 
 utmost attention to avoid being led astray by the ambiguities 
 of language,—a matter that is by no means of easy accom¬ 
 plishment to a mind not properly disciplined,—little or ho ad¬ 
 vantage will be derived from the study of it. Books of political 
 economy,—I speak of such as constitute the genuine records 
 of the science, and not of their counterfeits,—are not only to 
 be read, but to be thought, through. That this should be 
 made an objection to their study is, however, altogether 
 absurd. To those who are disposed to make it one I can 
 only say, that the objection cannot be removed. There is 
 no more a royal road to political economy, than there is one 
 to geometry. And, indeed, intellectal labour is the price to 
 be paid for all knowledge that is truly valuable, and that 
 reaches deeper than the mere superficies of a subject. 
 
 Singular as it may seem, political economy is very often 
 condemned by another class of persons, as putting forth un¬ 
 founded pretensions to throw light on subjects, of a nature 
 sufficiently simple to be understood without much reflection 
 by every person of common sense, or at least by every such 
 person, who may have rendered himself practically familiar 
 with business, either private, or public. The objectors in 
 this case, as may well be supposed, will be generally found 
 among those, who have read little or nothing on the subject 
 which they presume to pronounce sentence on, and who are 
 so very ignorant respecting it, as not to have the remotest 
 suspicion of their ignorance. These “ practical men” are led, 
 loo, into a denial of the very existence of a science of political 
 economy, partly from their natural antipathy to the “ theo¬ 
 rist,” who claims to possess a superiority of knowledge in 
 relation to matters with which the former are every day con- 
 
20 
 
 versant, and still worse, who ventures even to read to them 
 lectures on the course which they ought to pursue in their 
 “ practice,” for the advantage of themselves, and their fellow- 
 men,—and partly, also, from the nature of many of the objects 
 with which the speculations of the political economist are con¬ 
 cerned. Wages, profits, rent, money, capital, taxation, &c., 
 are words in every one’s mouth, and express ideas with which 
 all people are familiar, or think themselves familiar; and 
 which, for that reason, may, very possibly, seem to some 
 superficial thinkers to be hardly capable of furnishing the ele¬ 
 ments of scientific research. 
 
 I pass on to remark on the objection not seldom urged by 
 the “ practical men” against political'economy, as “ all theory.” 
 But so is every other science; and to condemn it on that 
 account would, of course, be tantamount to the condemnation 
 of every other. It would be, while acknowledging, as all 
 needs must do, the utility of the mechanical and chemical arts, 
 to denounce the mechanical philosopher and the chemist, as 
 altogether engaged in futile inquiry. And it would be to deny 
 all merit to the labours of the treometncian and the astrono¬ 
 mer, whose theories have enabled man to subject the ocean to 
 his dominion, and to explore the wonders of every region of his 
 earthly habitation. All this is so absurd, that veiy few persons 
 indeed can seriously be disposed to proscribe all theory what¬ 
 soever, and thus to degrade the man of science below the 
 level of the mere empiric. We must, in charity, suppose the 
 objectors, in the case under consideration, to mean, either that 
 the political economist does not construct his theories with a 
 due regard to all the relevant circumstances, or that the causes 
 in operation to produce the effects that constitute the politico- 
 
21 
 
 economical phenomena are so numerous, and the comparative 
 degree of their efficiency so inappreciable, as to render the 
 theories deduced inapplicable to practical purposes, because 
 altorrcther wanting in precision. That there should, however, 
 exist a propensity in political economy, more than in any 
 other department of inquiry, to form theories, without a regard 
 to all the circumstances that co-operate to produce the effects 
 to be accounted for, is quite paradoxical. Surely the powers 
 of the human under.standinir are not suli|ected to alteration, 
 according to the channel into which its investigations may he 
 directed; and it will scarcely he maintained that our subject 
 exercises such a peculiarly injurious, as well as magical, effect 
 on the minds of all who attempt to examine it, as necessarily 
 to pervert their judgments, and deteriorate their reasoning 
 faculties. Whether it he true, or not, that the circumstances 
 involved in the investigations of the political economists arc 
 so numerous, and so indefinite, as to lead to a despair of their 
 arriving at any fixed or valuable conclusions, can only be 
 known by an actual examination of their writings. Before 
 sentence be passed against them, they have a right to demand 
 as much as this. And, as I have already observed, I have no 
 doubt, that, on such an examination, my hearers, however 
 disposed occasionally to question the correctness of the opinions 
 of this or that writer, will find ample reason to acknowledge 
 the comprehensiveness of view of the science of which they 
 treat, as well as its practical value. 
 
 To attempt to contrast theory with practice, and set them 
 iii opposition to each other, as is sometimes done, is one of the 
 most egregious of all absurdities; for no theorist pretends to 
 claim, for his theory any respect or value, excepting in so far 
 
22 
 
 as it is founded on facts, and, therefore, lhore or less connected 
 noth practice, at least where the facts relate to objects which 
 man has the power in any degree of corrtroling; and, on the 
 other hand, practice, unles^ allied with theory, is plainly 
 nothing but empiricism, which is totally at a loss, and useless, 
 in circumstances at all dissimilar to those in which it has 
 always operated. Moreover, the propensity to search into the 
 hidden causes of things, that is to theorise, is a principle im¬ 
 planted in the mind of every man; and to whatever class of 
 the community he may belong, and whatever may be the 
 degree of his mental cultivation, or acquired knowledge, one of 
 the most difficult things for him to do, is to make a simple state¬ 
 ment of facts, divested of any expression of opinion. The 
 difficulty, too, will always he found to be the. greater, just in 
 proportion as the mind of the individual lias not been trained 
 to the discipline of examining and comjiaring facts in reference 
 to general principles, or, in other words, according as he 
 approaches the nearer to the character of the mere practical 
 man; and this though he should be professedly at war with 
 all theoretical speculation. No where is a better opportunity 
 afforded of witnessing an illustration of what I have just 
 mentioned than in our courts of justice. Every lawyer knows, 
 that a good witness, or one who null answer the questions put 
 to.him, saying neither more nor less, and making no unneces¬ 
 sary comment, is extremely rare, and that a continual inter¬ 
 ference is required with the witnesses who are least to be 
 suspected of any speculative propensities, in order to keep them 
 to the point, and to extract from them the mere facts of a case. 
 And while the skilful and accomplished physician will make 
 “ a simple and genuine specification of the phenomena, which 
 
23 
 
 mark a particular disease,” “a village apothecary,” as an 
 ernini t 1 eals,' 1 and, if possible, m a still greater 
 degree, an experienced nurse, is seldom able to describe the 
 plainest case, without employing a phraseology, of which 
 every word is a theory.” 
 
 The lateness of its origin has been most preposterously 
 objected to political economy. It is usual to fix the date of its 
 prefermff a just title to rank among the sciences, at the first 
 appearance of the great work of Adam Smith, in 1776; and 
 no one pretends to consider it as having been entitled to that 
 distinction, earlier than the publication, in 175S, of the " Tab¬ 
 leau Economique” of the celebrated Quesnay. The fact of the 
 late origin of political economy as a science is then undenia¬ 
 ble. But this can surely be no valid objection to its study; for, 
 if so, consistency would lead us to discard the whole of modem 
 chemistry; which branch of our knowledge can scarcely be 
 said to have .emerged from confusion into order, and from 
 empiricism to the dignity of a science, prior to the time of 
 Black, of Priestley, and of Lavoisier. And we ought not to 
 stop here. All the improvements in science and art, that have 
 in these latter ages been poured upon the world in such 
 amazing profusion, should likewise be rejected. We must 
 forego the use of the telescope, and the steam engine; for these, 
 loo, are comparatively novel. And how far back shall we go 1 
 When was the happy period in the history of the species, 
 when man was at liberty to receive, instead of rejecting, the 
 ingenuity of his fellow? The absurdity, however, is too 
 glaring for me to trace it farther. 
 
 Intimately allied with the ob|ection just considered is 
 another:—that the political economist sets up his own judg- 
 
21 
 
 went, and conclusions, in opposition to the wisdom of ages, 
 and is disposed to disturb the existing state of society by the 
 introduction of changes, which must, on that account , be either 
 injurious in their tendency, or altogether unnecessary; and it 
 is asserted, that nations have prospered, from the beginning of 
 time to the present hour, without the assistance of any of his 
 counsel. Now as regards the setting up of his own conclusions 
 in opposition to the wisdom of ages, every one who has ever 
 been guilty of expressing an original thought has done the 
 same thing; and it is only by such “ settings up” that there 
 has been, at any time, an improvement in the condition of 
 mankind, physical, moral, or political. Since, too, other changes 
 that have occurred, and are continually occurring, among men, 
 are acknowledged to be of a beneficial nature:—why should 
 the changes proposed by the political economist alone be inju¬ 
 rious, or unnecessary to society ? And without any mention of 
 nations winch, instead of advancing in prosperity without the 
 aid of political economy, have declined without the like aid, 
 are we to take for granted a priori, that, because a country 
 enjoys a certain degree of prosperity, the counsels of the political 
 economist would have no influence to augment that prosperi¬ 
 ty? The causes that conspire to produce the actual condition 
 of a people are manifold, some of them operating advantage¬ 
 ously, and others disadvantagcously. "Will not, then, the 
 science that comprehends within its scope the discovery of 
 these causes, together with the means of giving additional 
 activity to the former description of them, and of removing, or 
 weakening, the energy of the latter, have a natural tendency 
 in favour of the public welfare ? But, again, let us not be 
 deceived by high-sounding phrases. National prosperity, as the 
 
25 
 
 . xpression is generally employed, is perfectly consistent with 
 a vast amount of misery. The condition of the great majority 
 of the people, for example, in many European countries, which 
 no, one hesitates to denominate prosperous, cries aloud for im¬ 
 provement ; and such improvement, it will be recollected, is 
 one of the principal objects of political economy. 
 
 One reason why the science is still undervalued, by not a 
 few persons, is the authority of many public men of high 
 eminence and worth, as well as of most existing governments, 
 exemplified in their perseverance in measures which the 
 political economist denounces, as tending to repress the pro¬ 
 gress of wealth and population. But the facts can readily be 
 accounted for, without the necessity of yielding any thing to 
 that-authority. All men are slow to alter the opinions in 
 which they have been educated, and which have been, as it 
 were, interwoven into their general system of thinking, and 
 intimately associated, perhaps, with many other favorite doc¬ 
 trines ; and such alteration is more especially difficult, if the 
 individual have, in mature or advanced life, committed himself 
 before the public in support of his opinions. The pride natural 
 to man, combining then with the prejudices of education, 
 sometimes produce an unwillingness • to do so much as 
 examine the evidence adduced in opposition to one’s views of 
 a subject, and, often constitute an obstacle impervious to the 
 force of argument. There were those who refused to look 
 through Galileo’s telescope, lest their preconceived opinions 
 of the system of the world should be interfered with by ocular 
 demonstration. And it is said, that scarcely a physician in 
 Europe over forty years of age, at the time of Harvey’s 
 discovery of the circulation of the blood, admitted its validity. 
 D 
 
26 
 
 In the next generation, however, the circulation of the blood 
 was regarded as an undeniable fact. So will it soon be with 
 many of the truths of political economy. When those who 
 are now rising into life shall have assumed the duties and the 
 responsibilities of their fathers, they will look with surprise 
 on the tenaciousness with which some, in other respects 
 among the most distinguished of the men now on the political 
 field of action, both in our own country, and abroad, adhered 
 to an inheritance of error. 
 
 Once more, and I shall have done. The speculations of 
 the political economist have been sometimes suspected of 
 leading to conclusions inconsistent with the precepts of re¬ 
 vealed religion, more particularly with respect to pauperism 
 and its relief. That opinions of this nature may have been 
 occasionally broached by some economists, I shall not under¬ 
 take to question; but they are certainly not legitimately 
 deducible from the principles of the science, as I am confident 
 my hearers will be ready to acknowledge, when we shall 
 have discussed the subjects alluded or referred to. They will 
 find, here, as in every other case, truth to be always consis¬ 
 tent with itself. 
 
 I feel satisfied that there is nothing in the objections I have 
 enumerated, that ought to deter from the study on which 
 we are now entering; and that, on the contrary, the nature 
 of the principal topics of inquiry to which it directs the atten¬ 
 tion of the student, together with its late origin, and rapid 
 advancement, by means of which he is enabled to acquire 
 important information, which was not yet revealed, in the ' 
 progress of knowledge, to the minds of a Pitt, a Burke, or a 
 Hamilton, speak much to encourage to its diligent prosecution. 
 
27 
 
 I conclude with remarking, that the last mentioned circum¬ 
 stance, though undoubtedly true, ought not to make us vain 
 of the information in question, when it shall have been 
 acquired. Let us study to be modest in asserting our superi¬ 
 ority, in 'any respect, to the generations that are past, by 
 recollecting that we owe that superiority entirely to the 
 accidental circumstance of living at a later period in the 
 history of the world; and let us cultivate humility of mind, 
 by the consideration, that the generations that are to come 
 will look down, in their turn, upon us, in many respects as 
 comparatively mere children in knowledge.