In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:

277 [vol. 5, p. 16. “Guerre aux chaires d’économie politique.” June 1847. n.p.] We know with what bitterness men who restrict the trade of others for their own advantage complain that political economy stubbornly refuses to extol the merit of these restrictions. Although they do not hope to obtain the elimination of science, at least they pursue the dismissal of those who teach it, retaining from the Inquisition this wise maxim, “If you wish to get the better of your opponents, then shut their mouths.” We were therefore not surprised to learn that to mark the draft law on the organization of the university, they addressed to the minister of education a lengthy memorandum, from which we quote a few excerpts here: “Do you really mean it, minister? Do you wish to introduce the teaching of political economy in the university! Is this a deliberate act to discredit our privileges?” “If there is one venerable maxim, it is most assuredly this: In any country, education ought to be in harmony with the principle of government. Do you  14  The War Against Chairs of Political Economy1,2 1. The teaching of political economy (essentially liberal) began rather late in France. From 1815 Jean-Baptiste Say taught at the Athénée and then at the Conservatoire national des arts et métiers. Under the July Monarchy, two chairs were created: one at the Collège de France, in 1831, occupied first by Say and then by Pellegrino Rossi and Michel Chevalier; the other was created at the École des ponts et chaussées in 1846. It was occupied by Joseph Garnier. 2. (Paillottet’s note) Three years before the demonstration that triggered the preceding pamphlet [Paillottet is referring to “Plunder and Law”], the removal of professors and the abolition of chairs of political economy had been formally requested by the members of the Mimerel Committee, who shortly afterward softened their position and limited themselves to claiming that the theory of protectionism should be taught at the same time as that of free trade. Bastiat used the weapon of irony to combat this revised proposal, now surfacing for the first time, in the issue of the journal Le Libre-échange dated 13 June 1847. 278 War Against Chairs of Political Economy think that in Sparta or Rome the treasury would have paid teachers to speak out against the plunder resulting from war or against slavery? And you want to allow restrictionism to be discredited in France!”3 “Nature, sir, has so ordained things that society can exist only on the products of work, and at the same time it has made work burdensome. This is why in all eras and in all countries an incurable propensity for mutual pillage has been noted in men. It is so pleasant to lay the burden on one’s neighbor and keep the payment for oneself!” “War is the first means that people thought of. There is no shorter and simpler way of seizing other people’s property.” “Then followed slavery, which is a more subtle means, and it has been proved that reducing prisoners to servitude instead of killing them was a major step toward civilization.” “Last, the passage of time has substituted for these two crude means of plunder another that is more subtle and for this very reason has much more likelihood of lasting, especially since its very name, protection, is admirably suited to dissimulating its odious aspect. You are not unaware of the way names can sometimes deceive us in regard to the bad side of things.” “As you see, minister, preaching against protectionism in modern times or against slavery in ancient times is exactly the same thing. It always undermines social order and upsets the peace of mind of a very respectable class of citizens. And if pagan Rome showed great wisdom and a farsighted spirit of conservation in persecuting the new sect that arose within its midst to proclaim aloud the dangerous words peace and fraternity, why should we have any more pity for professors of political economy? However, our customs are so gentle and our moderation so great that we do not require you to deliver them to the wild beasts. Forbid them to speak and we will be satisfied.” “Or at least, if they are so intent on speaking, can they not do this with a degree of impartiality? Can they not trim science a bit to suit our wishes? By what quirk of fate have...

Share