Like all students who are familiar with but one language, or whose familiarity with foreign tongues is of but too recent origin to have enabled them to extract the thoughts of the masterminds who have written in languages other than their own, Mr. Perry gives undue and improper prominence, and lends an exaggerated importance to the labors of those authors which he is, or until recently has been, able to study.

We are not disposed to disparage the well-earned fame of Adam Smith, or pluck a single laurel from the brow of that great Scotch philosopher, and even, if we were disposed so to do, our weak voice of dissent would not be heard in the chorus of anthems which are sung to the praise of the founder of political economy; but one who gives a sketch of the history of the science should not leave unheeded the claims of Antonio Genovesi, who remains unrecognized and almost forgotten because he was eclipsed, though by a light but slightly greater than himself.

Antonio Genovesi, the rival of Adam Smith, as the father of political economy, was born at Castiglione, in Naples, in 1712, and died at Naples on the twenty-second day of December, 1769. He was educated for the priesthood; but, unfortunately for the plans of his family, young Genovesi fell in love. His father, fearing that both the spiritual and temporal welfare of his son was endangered by his proximity to the fair charmer, removed Antonio to a remote village. But there Thespis usurped the place held by Cupid, and the incorrigible Antonio went on the stage. So many tergiversations were more than the Church could bear, and young Antonio was excommunicated by the Archbishop of Conza. Through the influence of his family the ban was removed, and Genovesi was ordained at Palermo, in 1736. Having gained the good favor of the Archbishop of Naples, he obtained the chair of Rhetoric and Eloquence at the seminary of that city. Thenceforward he devoted himself to the study of the abstract and physical sciences, and, becoming familiar with the works and an enthusiastic admirer of Locke and of Leibnitz, he asked and obtained permission to lecture on Philosophy. In 1743, he published the substance of his lectures in a work, entitled "Elements of Metaphysics," which was rapidly followed by the publication of a work on Logic. His philosophical labors drew upon him the animadversion of the Church, but gained him the favor of the philosophical spirits of his day. Benedict XIV., one of the most enlightened prelates that ever sat in the apostolic chair, appointed Genovesi professor of Commerce and Political Economy at the University of Naples. His work, entitled "Lezzioni di

Commercio e di Economia Civile," is a proof how far Genovesi was before his age. As early as 1763, he foretold the speedy independence of the British colonies from British rule, and upon all questions relating to colonial policy, to free trade, to taxation, and the influence of liberty upon the production of wealth, Genovesi was up with his contemporary, Adam Smith.

While we miss in Genovesi "that power of analysis which enabled Smith to base the science of Political Economy on solid foundations, we have, on the other hand, a deductive reasoning from the meagre premises which the science then afforded, and a power of generalization far superior to that exhibited in the "Wealth of Nations." Genovesi is also deserving of notice because he was the first man who lectured on Political Economy in any university in Europe, and who recognized the importance of making that science a distinct branch of study. As Mr. Perry does not even mention the name of Genovesi, we must perforce conclude that he is ignorant of his existence.

The indebtedness of Political Economy to those thinkers of the middle of the eighteenth century who first examined the rights of man from the stand-point of principle, and whose polished satire, trenchant epigrams, and profound philosophical speculations, contributed more than aught else to the undermining of class privileges, and to the directing of the world's march of progress towards democratic institutions, is slurred over in a sentence or two of this introductory chapter.

But we are not disposed to be too severe with Mr. Perry for that neglect. The Professor has the laudable ambition to see his work a text-book upon Political Economy in American schools and colleges, and any work would at once be placed upon the Index Expurgatoria of American schools and colleges which would contain a word of praise of Voltaire, Helvetius, Condillac, Baron D'Holbach, etc.; or in which the author should feel disposed, even slightly, to acknowledge the indebtedness of the world to the French philosophers who preceded the revolution of '89.

One only of continental economists, Frederic Bastiat, has full justice done to him at the hands of Mr. Perry. He says of Bastiat's "Harmonies Economique," that "it is the most important contribution to the science since the time of Adam Smith ;" an opinion which we fully endorse. But how Mr. Perry, who appears to have read Bastiat, can have overlooked the claims to honorable mention among leading Political Economists of August Comte, author of "Traité de Legislation," and "Traité de la Proprieté,' and Charles Dunoyer, author of "De la Liberté du Travail," both of whom advanced the science to that degree that Bastiat's Law

of harmony of interest was the next step and necessary development of the science, can only be explained by the fact that Bastiat's work has been translated, and Comte and Dunoyer are as yet not to be found in an English dress. But after all we have no right to complain of Mr. Perry for not being familiar with Comte. Bastiat, in a letter written to his friend Coudroy in 1845, says: "On est ici accablé de lecture, si je te disai que sauf Dunoyer et Say aucun de mes collaborateurs n'a lu Comte. J'ai entendu dire à quelqu'un qu'il y avait du bon dans le Traité de Legislation, et surtout dans le Traité de la Proprieté. Pauvre Comte!" All that Mr. Perry seems to know of German savans in Political Economy, judging from all that he says upon the subject in his "History of the Science," is that "able men are teaching the subject in German universities." Taking into consideration the character of the universities of Germany we deem that remark rather a safe one to venture upon.

With the exception of a single line which states that Turgot was a disciple of Quesnay, there is no mention whatever of the greatest and best man who ever held high office in France. Turgot was called to the ministry by Louis XVI. in 1774, and received his congé in 1776. During those two years he managed to relieve France of most of the abuses which had grown up during centuries of class legislation. For two years Turgot fought in every conceivable shape with class interests. He abolished iniquity after iniquity. He enfranchised internal trade, and projected a system of the most absolute free trade with foreign nations. He was the first minister of France, and indeed of the world, who perceived the mischievous influence of protection.

Toward the eve of Turgot's life (1778) he wrote that memorable letter to Dr. Price, of London, on the American constitutions, in which he proves himself not only before his age but considerably in advance of our own. We extract from that letter the following passages:*

"But it appeared that you imputed to me the indiscretion of having flown in the face of the general opinion of my nation; and there I think you neither did justice to me, nor to my nation, which is much more enlightened than is generally supposed among you, and in which perhaps it is easier than even with you, to call the public attention to ideas of reason. I judge so from the infatuation of the British in the prospect of conquering America,

*The translation of this letter which we give is to be found in the fourth volume of the works of John Adams. This letter called forth Adams's Defence of the Constitutions.

which continued until the adventure of Burgoyne made them, in some degree, open their eyes. I judge so from the system of monopoly and exclusion, which governs all your political writers upon commerce, except Mr. Adam Smith and Dean Tucker, a system which is the true prime cause of your separation from your colonies. I judge so from all your polemic writings upon questions which have been agitated for twenty years back, and in which, before yours appeared, I do not recollect to have read a single piece in which the true point in dispute has been rightly taken up. I have been unable to conceive how a nation which hath so successfully cultivated every branch of the natural sciences, can have continued so much beneath herself in the most interesting science of the whole, that of the public good; a science wherein the liberty of the press, which she alone enjoys, must have given her a mighty advantage over all the rest of Europe. Is it national pride which hath hindered you from making the utmost of that advantage? Is it because you are something better off than others, that you have turned all your speculations towards persuading yourselves that you are quite happy? Is it the spirit of party, and the wish to form self-support out of popular opinions, which hath retarded your progress by leading your politicians to treat as empty metaphysics all those speculations which tend to establish some fixed principles respecting the rights and true interests of individuals and of nations? How comes it to pass that you are almost the first among your writers, who have just notions of liberty, and who have exposed the falsehood of that threadbare sentiment of the greatest class of even the most republican writers, that liberty consists in being subject only to laws, as if a man oppressed by an unjust law was free? This would not be true, even if we suppose all the laws to be the work of the entire nation assembled; because, in fact, the individual has certain rights, which the nation cannot take from him, but by violence, and an illegal use of force. Although you have had regard to this truth, and have explained yourself thereon, yet perhaps it merits your care, to develop it more at large, considering the little attention which hath been paid to it by even the most zealous partisans of liberty.

"It is also a strange thing that it should not be counted in England a trifling observation to say that one nation can never have a right to govern another; and that such a government could have no foundation but that of force, upon which also are supported robbery and tyranny. That the tyranny of a people is, of all known in the world, the most cruel and intolerable, leaving no remedy for the oppressed; whereas, a single despot is at length stopped in his career by self interest; he has the check of

remorse, or that of public opinion; but a multitude makes no calculation, feels no remorse, and decrees to itself glory, when in fact it deserves the utmost disgrace.

"Events are to the English nation a terrible commentary upon your book. For some months they have been falling headlong with accelerated rapidity. The knot is untied in regard to America. Lo she is independent irrecoverably. Will she be free and happy? Will this new people, situated so advantageously to give the world the example of a constitution wherein man may enjoy all his rights, exercise freely his whole faculties, and be governed only by nature, by reason, and by justice, know how to form such a constitution, know how to fix it upon everlasting foundations by guarding against all causes of division and corruption, which would sap it by degrees and overturn it?

"I am not satisfied, I own, with any constitutions which have as yet been framed by the different American states. You blame with reason that of Pennsylvania, for exacting a religious test upon admission into the representative body. It is much worse in others. There is one of them, I think that of the Jerseys, which requires*

"I see in the greatest number an unreasonable imitation of the usages of England. Instead of bringing all the authorities into one, that of the nation, they have established different bodies, a house of representatives, a council, a governor, because England has a house of commons, a house of lords, and a king. They undertake to balance these different authorities, as if the same equilibrium of powers which has been thought necessary to balance the enormous preponderance of royalty, could be of any use in republics formed upon the equality of all the citizens; as if every article which constitutes different bodies was not a source of divisions. By striving to prevent imaginary dangers, they have created real ones. They wish to have nothing to fear from the clergy, and yet unite them under the barrier of a common proscription. By rendering them ineligible, they become formed into a body and such a one as is foreign to the state. Why should one citizen, who has the same interest as others in the common defence of liberty and property, be excluded from contributing toward it his genius and virtues, because he is of a profession in which genius and virtue are essentials? The clergy are only dangerous when they compose a body in the state; when they conceive themselves to have rights and interests as a body;

(Note by Dr. Price.) "It is the constitution of Delaware that imposes the test here meant."