It is surprising how few people, comparatively speaking, are aware of the fact, that the history of Boston has been treated as the history of no other city in this country has been. The year 1880 was the two hundred and fiftieth anniversary of its founding, and, commemorative of that year, a work, in four beautiful quarto volumes, has been issued in this city by Messrs. Ticknor and Company. The object of this work, and the importance attached to it is what leads us to speak of it in this place and at this time. This object is primarily to present the leading historical phases of the town's and city's life and developement, together with the traces of previous occupation, and the natural history of the locality. To accomplish this almost herculean task, the sections were assigned to writers well-known in their respective spheres,—many of them of national reputation,—who from study and associations were in a measure identified with their subjects. The entire work was critically edited by Mr. Justin Winsor, Librarian of Harvard University, with the co-operation of a committee appointed at a meeting of the gentlemen interested, consisting of the Rev. Edward Everett Hale, D.D., Samuel A. Green, M.D. and Charles Deane, LL.D. Now, it is not our purpose to enter into any description of this carefully planned, skilfully written, beautifully illustrated, printed and bound specimen of the art of book-making; but rather, again to call attention to its great merits and claims upon the interested public. The work deals almost exclusively with facts, and impartially also, and these facts are alike valuable to the man of letters, the man of science, the historian, the student, and the vast public whose patriotism invites them to seek the story of their city. A better conceived work has never been published on this continent; but it is unnecessary to commend what easily commends itself to the eye, the mind, and the purse of well-to-do people.

There is need of a more careful study of politics on the part of the people of this country. The recent elections in this State and in other States again recalls this need, and have again shown that altogether too many men cast their ballots, not in accordance with their intelligence or with their convictions, but as they are told to cast them. The first duty of an American citizen should be a thorough acquaintance with American political institutions, their origin, their growth and progress, their utility or their worthlessness. The right of suffrage is one of the inalienable rights of the people. It is one of their most sacred rights also, and ought not to be exercised except under most careful, candid and conscientious conditions.

One cannot suppose, even for a moment, that our people are not aware of the accuracy of these assertions. We are not advocates of property ownership as a qualification of voting, nor would we seek to lay down any arbitrary sine qua non, to be rigidly adhered to in our system of voting. But, is it enough that a man should know how to read and write before he can cast a ballot? Do these qualifications comprise everything that is necessary to a proper and safe exercise of the right of suffrage? If so, then politics can never be formulated as a science, and politicians can never be regarded other than what many of them seem to be,—tricksters trading on the incredulity and ignorance of the masses. It is only when people understand how and why they vote, that they can vote intelligently.

It may not be generally known that we have in this state, with allied organizations in other states, a Society for "Political Education," carrying on its work by furnishing and circulating at a low price sound economic and political literature. Its aim is to publish at least four pamphlets a year on subjects of vital importance. During the present year, the "Standard Silver Dollar and the Coinage Law of 1878" has been treated by Mr. Worthington C. Ford, secretary of the society; "Civil Service Reform in Cities and States," by Edward M. Shepard; "What makes the Rate of Wages," by Edward Atkinson, and others have also been published,—in all sixteen pamphlets since the foundation of the Society.

The first Secretary of the Society was Richard L. Dugdale, the author of the remarkable social study called "The Jukes." The twelfth number of the Economic Tracts of the Society gives a sketch of his life, and from it the following quotation is pertinent:—

"The education of the people in true politics, it seemed to Mr. Dugdale and his associates, would not only greatly aid popular judgment on political questions, but would be a necessary preliminary to the election of public representatives and officers upon real issues. If elections were so held, successful candidates would come generally to be men competent to consider and expert in dealing with questions of state and administration. And if legislators and executives were so competent and expert, and were not merely men accomplished in intrigue or active in party contests, we should have from them conscientious and intelligent social reforms. Legislative committees, governors, mayors, commissioners of charities and corrections, superintendents of prisons, reformatories, almshouses, and hospitals, would then patiently listen and intelligently act upon discussions and of the condition of the extremely poor and the vicious, and especially of children and young men and women not yet hopelessly hardened."

Few persons will deny that such a work as this needs everywhere to be done so that the charities of the country shall no longer be administered in the interests of a party.

The Society has been in active operation about four years, and its success has thus far been most gratifying. It has already induced hundreds of people to make a careful study of American history and politics, and its influence is now felt throughout the length and breadth of this land. The very fact of such an effort is one of the encouraging signs of the times, and should be encouraged by all who aim for the welfare of the Republic.

But there is still another open field for work in this direction, and this perhaps lies more in the power of the people themselves. We allude to the necessity of public lectures, in every community, on the great themes pertaining to American politics and history. It must be evident to every observer that our so-called "Lyceum Courses" are to-day sadly deficient in efforts to educate the people. There is a perfect craze at the present time for concerts, readings, and a similar order of entertainments,—all of which are doubtless good enough of their kind and are capable of exerting a certain moral influence that cannot be questioned. But is it plausible that such pabulum meets all the needs of those people who frequent these entertainments? If it does, the fault lies with the people and not with those who are capable of amusing them.

We would suggest to the public-spirited ladies and gentlemen living in our towns and cities to try the following experiment;—Plan a lecture course, to be filled by public speakers residing in your own communities. Establish a course of say four, six, eight, or a dozen evenings, and let only those questions be discussed which pertain to history, political economy, and politics. We venture the assertion that such a course, conducted thoroughly in an unpartisan spirit, would be well patronized, and would exert an influence for good. Never was there a better time to try the experiment than now.

The death of General George B. McClellan at Newark, N.J., October 29, reminds us how narrow is becoming the circle of living generals who took part in the great Civil War. It is two decades only since the struggle ceased; but, one by one, the famous leaders have passed away, and now McClellan has gone—the first to follow his great commander, Grant.

It is not easy to comment upon the career of General McClellan without evoking, either from his admirers or his censors, the criticism of being unfair. To many, especially to the soldiers who fought under his leadership, he became an ideal of soldierly virtue, and has always held a warm place in their hearts; while to many others his military and civil career alike have seemed worthy only of disapprobation.

It was natural that General McClellan should have a large and devoted following, for he was a man gifted with those personal qualities that always win popularity to their possessor, so that among the soldiers of the Army of the Potomac, and among those in civil life with whom he came in contact, he was usually regarded with admiration. As a military commander, it must be conceded by his most determined critics, even, that he possessed certain qualities unsurpassed by those of any other general in the war. This was true of his ability as an organizer of volunteer troups, in which capacity he probably rendered more effectual service than any other man in the Union army. He was also well versed in the science of war, and was a strategist of a higher order than has generally been conceded. As is often the case, he failed to receive just recognition of his really great abilities, because he lacked the needed complementary qualities. McClellan could admirably plan a campaign, and could perhaps have carried it to a brilliant issue, had all the circumstances conformed to his plan, but this not happening, he seemed unable to adapt his plan to the circumstances. Other generals with inferior plans would succeed by taking some sudden advantage at a critical time; McClellan on the contrary must either carry out his carefully arranged programme, or acknowledge himself foiled.

That General McClellan was not a firm patriot is an assertion not entitled to any weight whatever. He was devoted to the cause of the Union, and in his career as a general we believe he should be given the credit of performing his duty to the best of his ability. That he could not triumph over unexpected obstacles was doubtless a cause of regret to him more than to any one else.

General McClellan has been accused of an undue ambition for political preferment, and it must be admitted that he would have succeeded better in those positions to which he attained, had he been less solicitous for the future; but it is not yet proved that he ever enlisted unworthy or dishonorable means in the cause of his personal advancement.