{"collection":"philosophy-ethics","full_text_available":true,"graph_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/api/page/gutenberg_16575/graph","html_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/page/gutenberg_16575","id":"gutenberg_16575","license":"Public Domain (US)","rights_basis":"gutenberg_metadata_copyright_false","source":"gutenberg","source_url":"https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/16575","summary":null,"tags":["Category: Economics","Category: History - Other","Economics","Great Britain -- Economic conditions","History -- Philosophy"],"text":"Produced by Robert W. Jones from an original print of the\n1st edition held by The British Library, London. (Shelfmark:\n432d12/432.d.12). The text was then compared against that\nof an original print of the 2nd edition held by the Library\n(Archives & Rare Books), London School of Economics and\nPolitical Science.\n\n\n\n\n\n\n-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=\nThis book was copy TYPED by\nR.W. Jones <rwj@freeshell.org>\nfrom an original print of the 1st edition held by\nThe British Library, London.\n(Shelfmark: 432d12/432.d.12).\n\nThe resultant text was then compared, using a\ntext to speech player, against that of an original\nprint of the 2nd edition held by the\nLibrary (Archives & Rare Books),\nLondon School of Economics and Political Science.\nThis e-text incorporates the (very few)\nmodifications included in the later edition.\n\nImages of the four Charts are not included nor\nwere they or the Indexes of the respective\neditions compared.\n-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=\n\n\n\n{Here appears before the fly-leaf the first chart, entitled\n\"Chart\nof\nUniversal Commercial History,\nfrom the year 1500 before the Christian Era\nTO THE PRESENT YEAR 1805.\nbeing a space of Three Thousand three hundred and four years,\nby William Playfair.\nInventor of Linear Arithmetic\"}\n\n\nAN\nINQUIRY\nINTO THE\nPERMANENT CAUSES\nOF THE\nDECLINE AND FALL\nOF\nPOWERFUL AND WEALTHY NATIONS,\nILLUSTRATED BY FOUR ENGRAVED CHARTS.\n\n---o0o---\n\nBy\n\nWILLIAM PLAYFAIR,\n\nAUTHOR OF NOTES AND CONTINUATION OF AN INQUIRY\nINTO THE NATURE AND CAUSES OF THE WEALTH OF\nNATIONS, BY ADAM SMITH, LL.D. AND INVENTOR OF\nLINEAR ARITHMETIC, &C.\n\n---o0o---\n\nDESIGNED TO SHEW HOW THE\nPROSPERITY OF THE BRITISH EMPIRE\nMAY BE PROLONGED.\n\n===========================\n\n___________________\nTHE SECOND EDITION\n___________________\n\n\nLONDON:\n\nPRINTED FOR GREENLAND AND NORRIS, BOOKSELLERS,\nFINSBURY-SQUARE.\n\n1807.\n\nW. Marchant, Printer, 3 Greville-Street, Holborn.\n\n\n\n\n---o0o---\n\nP R E F A C E.\n\n---o0o---\n\n\nIf it is of importance to study by what means a nation may acquire\nwealth and power, it is not less so to discover by what means wealth\nand power, when once acquired, may be preserved.\n\nThe latter inquiry is, perhaps, the more important of the two; for many\nnations have remained, during a long period, virtuous and happy,\nwithout rising to wealth or greatness; but there is no example of\nhappiness or virtue residing amongst a fallen people.\n\nIn looking over the globe, if we fix our eyes on those places where\nwealth formerly was accumulated, and where commerce flourished,\nwe see them, at the present day, peculiarly desolated and degraded.\n\nFrom the borders of the Persian Gulf, to the shores of the Baltic Sea;\nfrom Babylon and Palmyra, Egypt, Greece, and Italy; to Spain and\nPortugal, and the whole circle of the Hanseatic League, we trace the\nsame ruinous [end of page #iii] remains of ancient greatness,\npresenting a melancholy contrast with the poverty, indolence, and\nignorance, of the present race of inhabitants, and an irresistible proof\nof the mutability of human affairs.\n\nAs in the hall, in which there has been a sumptuous banquet, we\nperceive the fragments of a feast now become a prey to beggars and\nbanditti; if, in some instances, the spectacle is less wretched and\ndisgusting; it is, because the banquet is not entirely over, and the\nguests have not all yet risen from the table.\n\nFrom this almost universal picture, we learn that the greatness of\nnations is but of short duration. We learn, also, that the state of a\nfallen people is infinitely more wretched and miserable than that of\nthose who have never risen from their original state of poverty. It is\nthen well worth while to inquire into the causes of so terrible a\nreverse, that we may discover whether they are necessary, or only\nnatural; and endeavour, if possible, to find the means by which\nprosperity may be lengthened out, and the period of humiliation\nprocrastinated to a distant day.\n\nThough the career of prosperity must necessarily have a termination\namongst every people, yet there is some reason to think that the\ndegradation, which naturally follows, and which has always followed\nhitherto, may be [end of page #iv] averted; whether it may be, or may\nnot be so, is the subject of the following Inquiry; which, if it is of\nimportance to any nation on earth, must be peculiarly so to England; a\nnation that has risen, both in commerce and power, so high above the\nnatural level assigned to it by its population and extent. A nation that\nrises still, but whose most earnest wish ought to be rather directed to\npreservation than extension; to defending itself against adversity\nrather than seeking still farther to augment its power.\n\nWith regard to the importance of the Inquiry, there cannot be two\nopinions; but, concerning its utility and success, opinions may be\ndivided.\n\nOne of the most profound and ingenious writers of a late period, has\nmade the following interesting observation on the prosperity of\nnations. {1}\n\n\"In all speculations upon men and human affairs, it is of no small\nmoment to distinguish things of accident from permanent causes, and\nfrom effects that cannot be altered. I am not quite of the mind of those\nspeculators, who seem assured, that necessarily, and, by the\nconstitution of things, all states have the same period of infancy,\nmanhood, and decrepitude, that are found in the individuals who\ncompose them. The objects which are\n\n---\n{1} Mr Burke.\n-=-\n\n[end of page #v]\n\nattempted to be forced into an analogy are not founded in the same\nclasses of existence. Individuals are physical beings, subject to laws\nuniversal and invariable; but commonwealths are not physical, but\nmoral essences. They are artificial combinations, and, in their\nproximate efficient cause, the arbitrary productions of the human\nmind.\n\nWe are not yet acquainted with the laws which necessarily influence\nthat kind of work, made by that kind of agent. There is not, in the\nphysical order, a distinct cause by which any of those fabrics must\nnecessarily grow, flourish, and decay; nor, indeed, in my opinion,\ndoes the moral world produce any thing more determinate on that\nsubject than what may serve as an amusement (liberal indeed, and\ningenious, but still only an amusement) for speculative men. I doubt\nwhether the history of mankind is yet complete enough, if ever it can\nbe so, to furnish grounds for a sure theory on the internal causes,\nwhich necessarily affect the fortune of a state. I am far from denying\nthe operation of such causes, but they are infinitely uncertain, and\nmuch more obscure, and much more difficult to trace than the foreign\ncauses that tend to depress, and, sometimes, overwhelm society.\"\n\nThe writer who has thus expressed his scepticism on this sort of\ninquiry, speaks, at the same time, of the im-[end of page #vi] portance\nof distinguishing between accidental and permanent causes. He doubts\nwhether the history of mankind is complete enough, or, if ever it can\nbe so, to furnish grounds for a sure theory, on the internal causes\nwhich necessarily affect the fortune of a state. Thus, he not only\nadmits the existence of permanent causes, but says, clearly, that it is\nfrom history they are discoverable, if ever their discovery can be\naccomplished. This is going as far as we could wish, and, as for the\nsure theory, we join issue with him in despairing of ever obtaining one\nthat will deserve the name of sure.\n\nThe meaning of the word, sure, in this place, appears to be intended in\na sense peculiarly strict. It seems to imply a theory, that would be\ncertain in its application to those vicissitudes and fluctuations to which\nnations are liable, and not merely to explaining their rise and decline.\nAs to such fluctuations, it would be absurd to enter into any theory\nabout them; they depend on particular combinations of circumstances,\ntoo infinite, in variety, to be imagined, or subjected to any general\nlaw, and of too momentary an operation to be foreseen.\n\nThat Mr. Burke alludes to such fluctuation is, however, evident, from\nwhat that fanciful but deeply-read man says, immediately after: \"We\nhave seen some states which have spent their vigour at their\ncommencement. Some have [end of page #vii] blazed out in their\nglory a little before their extinction. The meridian of some has been\nthe most splendid. Others, and they the greatest number, have\nfluctuated, and experienced, at different periods of their existence, a\ngreat variety of fortune. The death of a man at a critical juncture, his\ndisgust, his retreat, his disgrace, have brought innumerable calamities\non a whole nation; a common soldier, a child, a girl, at the door of an\ninn, have changed the face of fortune, and almost of nature.\"\n\nFrom this it is abundantly evident, that the theory he wished for, but\ndespaired of ever establishing, was one that would explain such\neffects; but the object of this Inquiry is totally different.\n\nWhen the Romans were in their vigour, their city was besieged by the\nGauls, and saved by an animal of proverbial stupidity; but this could\nnot have happened when Attila was under the walls, and the energy of\nthe citizens was gone. The taking or saving the city, in the first\ninstance, would have been equally accidental, and the consequences of\nshort duration; but, in the latter days, the fall of Rome was owing to\n_PERMANENT_ causes, and the effect has been without a remedy.\n\nIt is, then, only concerning the permanent causes, (that is to say,\ncauses that are constantly acting, and produce [end of page #viii]\npermanent effects) that we mean to inquire; and, even with regard to\nthose, it is not expected to establish a theory that will be applicable,\nwith certainty, to the preservation of a state, but, merely to establish\none, which may serve as a safe guide on a subject, the importance of\nwhich is great, beyond calculation.\n\nThere remains but one other consideration in reply to this, and that is,\nwhether states have, necessarily, by the constitution and nature of\nthings, the same periods of infancy, manhood, and decrepitude, that\nare found in the individuals that compose them? Mr. Burke thinks they\nhave not; and, indeed, if they had, the following Inquiry would be of\nno sort of utility. It is of no importance to seek for means of\npreventing what must of necessity come to pass: but, if the word\nnecessity is changed for tendency or propensity, then it becomes an\nInquiry deserving attention, and, as all states have risen, flourished,\nand fallen, there can be no dispute with the regard to their tendency to\ndo so.\n\nHowever much, at first sight, Mr. Burke's opinion may appear to\nmilitate against such an Inquiry, when duly considered, it will be\nfound, not only to approve of the end, but to point out the manner in\nwhich the inquiry ought to be conducted; namely, by consulting\nhistory. [end of page #ix]\n\nIf it is allowed that any practical advantage is to be derived from the\nhistory of the past, it can only be, in so far as it is applicable to the\npresent and the future; and, if there is none, it is melancholy to reflect\non the volumes that have been written without farther utility than to\ngratify idle curiosity. Are the true lessons of history, because they are\nnever completely applicable to present affairs, to be ranked with the\nentertaining, but almost useless, pages of romance? No, certainly. Of\nthe inheritance possessed by the present generation, the history of\nthose that are gone before, is not the least valuable portion. Each\nreader now makes his application in his own way. It is an irregular\napplication, but not an useless one; and it is, therefore, hoped, that an\nInquiry, founded on a regular plan of comparison and analogy, cannot\nbut be of some utility.\n\nBut why do we treat that as hypothetical, of which there can be no\ndoubt? Wherefore should there be two opinions concerning the utility\nof an inquiry into those mighty events, that have removed wealth and\ncommerce from the Euphrates and the Nile, to the Thames and the\nTexel? Does not the sun rise, and do not the seasons return to the\nplains of Egypt, and the deserts of Syria, the same as they did three\nthousand years ago? Is not [end of page #x] inanimate nature the same\nnow that it was then? Are the principles of vegetation altered? Or have\nthe subordinate animals refused to obey the will of man, to assist him\nin his labour, or to serve him for his food? No; nature is not less\nbountiful, and man has more knowledge and more power than at any\nformer period; but it is not the man of Syria, or of Egypt, that has\nmore knowledge, or more power. There he has suffered his race to\ndecay, and, along with himself, his works have degenerated.\n\nWhen those countries were peopled with men, who were wise,\nprudent, industrious, and brave, their fields were fertile, and their\ncities magnificent; and wherever mankind have carried the same\nvigour, the same virtues, and the same character, nature has been\nfound bountiful and obedient.\n\nThroughout the whole of the earth, we see the same causes producing\nnearly the same effects; why then do we remain in doubt respecting\ntheir connection? Or, if under no doubt, wherefore do we not\nendeavour to trace their operation, that we may know how to preserve\nthose advantages we are so eager to obtain?\n\nIf an Inquiry into the causes of the revolutions of nations is more\nimperfect and less satisfactory than when [end of page #xi] directed to\nthose of individuals, and of single families, if, ever it should be\nrendered complete, its application will, at least, be more certain.\nNations are exempt from those accidental vicissitudes which derange\nthe wisest of human plans upon a smaller scale. Number and\nmagnitude reduce chances to certainty. The single and unforeseen\ncause that overwhelms a man in the midst of prosperity, never ruins a\nnation: unless it be ripe for ruin, a nation never falls; and when it does\nfall, accident has only the appearance of doing what, in reality, was\nalready nearly accomplished.\n\nThere is no physical cause for the decline of nations, nature remains\nthe same; and if the physical man has degenerated, it was before the\nauthentic records of history. The men who built the most stupendous\npyramid in Egypt, did not exceed in stature those who now live in\nmean hovels at its immense base. If there is any country in the world\nthat proves the uniformity of nature, it is this very Egypt. Unlike to\nother countries, that owe their fertility to the ordinary succession of\nseasons, of which regular registers do not exist, and are never\naccurate, it depends on the overflowing of the waters of a single river.\nThe marks that indicated the rising of the Nile, in the days of the\nPharaos, and of the Ptolemies, do the same [end of page #xii] at the\npresent day, and are a guarantee for the future regularity of nature, by\nthe undeniable certainty of it for the past.\n\nBy a singular propensity for preserving the bodies of the dead, the\nEgyptians have left records equally authentic, with regard to the\nstructure of the human frame. {2} Here nothing is fabulous; and even\nthe unintentional errors of language are impossible. We have neither\nto depend on the veracity nor the correctness of man. The proofs\nexhibited are visible and tangible; they are the object of the senses,\nand admit of no mistake.\n\nBut while that country exhibits the most authentic proofs of the\nuniform course of nature, it affords also the most evident examples of\nthe degradation of the human mind. It is there we find the cause of\nthose ruins that astonish, and the desolation that afflicts. Had men\ncontinued their exertions, the labour of their hands would not have\nfallen to decay.\n\nIt is in the exertion and conduct of man, and in the information of his\nmind, that we find the causes of the mutability of human affairs. We\nare about to trace\n\n---\n{2} Most part of the mummies found in Egypt, instead of being of a\nlarger size, are considerably under the middle stature of the people of\nEngland. Those dead monuments of the human frame give the direct\nlie to Homer and all the traditions about men's degenerating in size\nand strength.\n-=-\n\n[end of page #xiii]\n\nthem through an intricate labyrinth; but, in this, we are not without a\nguide.\n\nThe history of three thousand years, and of nations that have risen to\nwealth and power, in a great variety of situations, all terminating with\na considerable degree of similarity, discovers the great outline of the\ncauses that invigorate or degrade the human mind, and thereby raise or\nruin states and empires. {3}\n\n_____________________________________________________________________\n\n{3} The utility of this Inquiry is considerably strengthened by the\nopinion of a writer of great information and first-rate abilities. {*}\n\nAn historical review of different forms under which human affairs\nhave appeared in different ages and nations naturally suggests the\nquestion, whether the experience of former times may not now furnish\nsome general principles to enlighten and direct the policy of future\nlegislators? The discussion, however, to which the question leads is of\nsingular difficulty; as it requires an accurate analysis of by far the\nmost complicated class of phenomena that can possibly engage our\nattention; those which result from the intricate and often from the\nimperceptible mechanism of political society--a subject of\nobservation which seems at first view so little commensurate to our\nfaculties, that it has been generally regarded with the same passive\nemotions of wonder and submission with which, in the material world,\nwe survey the effects produced by the mysterious and uncontroulable\noperation of phisical =sic= causes. It is fortunate that upon this, as on\nmany other occasions, the difficulties which had long baffled the\neffort of solitary genius begin to appear less formidable to the united\nexertions of the race; and that, in proportion as the experience and the\nreasonings of different individuals are brought to bear on the objects,\nand are combined in such a manner as to illustrate and to limit each\nother, the science of politics assumes more and more that systematical\nform which encourages and aids the labours of future inquirers.\n\n_____________________________________________________________________\n\n---\n{*} Mr Dongald Stuart, whose name is well known and much\nhonoured amongst men whose studies have led them to investigate\nthese subjects: the intimate friend and biographer of Dr. Adam Smith.\n-=-\n\n[end of page #xiv]\n\n\n\n\n_ADVERTISEMENT_.\n\n---o0o---\n\n\n    _In the following Inquiry I have inserted four engraved Charts, in\n    order to illustrate the subjects treated of in the Book, by a method\n    approved of both in this and in other countries. {4}\n\n    The Chart, No. 1, representing the rise and fall of all nations or\n    countries, that have been particularly distinguished for wealth or\n    power, is the first of the sort that ever was engraved, and has,\n    therefore, not yet met with public approbation.\n\n    It is constructed to give a distinct view of the migrations of commerce\n    and of wealth in general. For a very accurate view, there are no\n    materials in existence; neither would it lead to any very different\n    conclusion, if the proportional values were ascertained with the\n    greatest accuracy.\n\n    I first drew the Chart in order to clear up my own ideas on the\n    subject, finding it very troublesome to retain a distinct notion of the\n    changes that had taken place. I found it answer the purpose beyond my\n    expectation, by bringing into one view the result of details that are\n    dispersed over a very wide and intricate field of universal history;\n    facts sometimes connected with each other, sometimes not, and always\n    requiring reflection each time they were referred to. I found the first\n    rough draft give =sic= me a better\n\n    ---\n    {4} The Charts, Nos. 3 and 4, were copied in Paris, before the\n    revolution, and highly approved of by the Academy of Sciences. No. 2,\n    though of late invention, has been copied in France and Germany. Of\n    No. 1, the public has yet to judge, and, perhaps, it will treat me with\n    indulgence and good nature, as on former occasions.\n    -=-\n\n[end of page #xv]\n\n    comprehension of the subject, than all that I had learnt from\n    occasional reading, for half of my lifetime; and, on the supposition\n    that what was of so much use to me, might be of some to others, I have\n    given it with a tolerable degree of accuracy.\n\n    No. 2, relates entirely to the present state of nations in Europe, and\n    the extent, revenue, and population, as represented, are taken from the\n    most accurate documents. Where statistical writers differed, I\n    followed him who appeared to me the most likely to be right.\n\n    Nos. 3 and 4, relate entirely to England, and are drawn from the most\n    accurate documents.\n\n    Opposite to each Chart are descriptions and explanations.\n\n    The reader will find, five minutes attention to the principle on which\n    they are constructed, a saving of much labour and time; but, without\n    that trifling attention, he may as well look at a blank sheet of paper\n    as at one of the Charts.\n\n    I know of nothing else, in the Book, that requires previous\n    explanation.\n\n    _________________________________________________________________\n\n    I think it well to embrace this opportunity, the best I have had, and,\n    perhaps, the last I ever shall have, of making some return, (as far as\n    acknowledgement is a return,) for an obligation, of a nature never to\n    be repaid, by acknowledging publicly, that, to the best and most\n    affectionate of brothers, I owe the invention of those Charts.\n\n    At a very early period of my life, my brother, who, in a most\n    examplary manner, maintained and educated the family his father left,\n    made me keep a register of a thermometer, expressing the variations\n    by lines on a divided scale. He taught me to know, that, whatever can\n    be expressed in numbers, may be represented by lines. The Chart of\n    the thermometer was on the same principle with those given here; the\n    application only is different. The brother to whom I owe this, now\n    fills the Natural Philosophy Chair in the University of Edinburgh_.\n\n[end of page #xvi]\n\n\n\n\nCONTENTS.\n\n---o0o---\n\n                                                              Page.\n\n\n=BOOK I.=\n\n\nCHAP. I.\n\nINTRODUCTION and plan of the work.--Explanation of what the\nauthor understands by wealthy and powerful nations, and of the\ngeneral cause of wealth and power......1\n\nCHAP. II.\n\nOf the general causes that operate, both externally and internally, in\nbringing down nations that have risen above their level to that\nassigned to them by their extent, fertility, and population; and of the\nmanner in which wealth destroyed power in ancient\nnations...............14\n\nCHAP. III.\n\nOf the nations that rose to wealth and power previous to the conquests\nin Asia and Africa, and the causes which ruined them...............20\n\nCHAP. IV.\n\nOf the Romans.--The causes of their rise under the republic, and of\ntheir decline under the emperors.--The great error generally fallen\ninto with respect to the comparison between Rome and Carthage;\nproofs that it is wrong, and not at all applicable to France and\nEngland................27\n\nCHAP. V.\n\nOf the cities and nations that rose to wealth and power in the middle\nages, after the fall of the Western Empire, and previous to the\ndiscovery of the passage to the East Indies by the Cape of Good Hope,\nand of America.--Different effects of wealth on nations in cold and in\nwarm climates, and of the fall of the Eastern Empire..............44\n\n[end of page #xvii]\n\nCHAP. VI.\n\nDigression concerning the commerce with India.--This the only one\nthat raised ancient nations to wealth.--Its continual variations.--The\nenvy it excited, and revolutions it produced....................51\n\nCHAP. VII.\n\nOf the causes that brought on the decline of the nations that had\nflourished in the middle ages, and of Portugal, Spain, Holland, and the\nHans Towns..........62\n\nCHAP. VIII.\n\nGeneral view and analysis of the causes that operated in producing the\ndecline of all nations, with a chart, representing the rise, fall, and\nmigrations of wealth, in all different countries, from the year 1500,\nbefore the birth of Christ, to the end of the eighteenth century,--a\nperiod of 3300 years...............70\n\n\n\n\n=BOOK II.=\n\n\nCHAP. I.\n\nOf the interior causes of decline, arising from the possession of\nwealth.--Its general operation on the habits of life, manners,\neducation, and ways of thinking and acting of the inhabitants of a\ncountry................81\n\nCHAP. II.\n\nOf the education of youth in nations increasing in wealth.--The errors\ngenerally committed by writers on that subject.--Importance of\nfemale education on the manners of a people.--Not noticed by writers\non political economy.--Education of the great body of the people the\nchief object.--In what that consists............94\n\nCHAP. III.\n\nOf increased taxation, as an interior cause of decline.--Its different\neffects on industry, according to the degree to which it is carried.--Its\neffects on the people and on government.............102\n\nCHAP. IV.\n\nOf the interior causes of decline, arising from the encroachments of\npublic and privileged bodies; and of those who have a common\ninterest on those who have no common interest.....................116\n\n[end of page #xviii]\n\nCHAP. V.\n\nOf the internal causes of decline, arising from the unequal division of\nproperty, and its accumulation in the hands of particular persons.--Its\neffects on the employment of capital...............125\n\nCHAP. VI.\n\nOf the interior causes of decline, which arise from the produce of the\nsoil becoming unequal to the sustenance of a luxurious people.--Of\nmonopoly............137\n\nCHAP. VII.\n\nOf the increase of the poor, as general affluence becomes greater.--\nOf children left unprovided for.--Of their division into two classes.--\nThose that can labour more or less, and those that can do no\nlabour.................. 156\n\nCHAP. VIII.\n\nOf the tendency of capital and industry to leave a wealthy country,\nand of the depreciation of money in agricultural and commercial\ncountries............. 161\n\nCHAP. IX.\n\nConclusion of the interior causes.--Their co-operation.--Their\ngeneral effect on the government and on the people.--The danger\narising from them does not appear till the progress in decline is far\nadvanced......... 166\n\nCHAP. X.\n\nOf the external causes of decline.--The envy and enmity of other\nnations.--Their efforts, both in peace and war, to bring wealthy\nnations down to their level........ 175\n\nCHAP. XI.\n\nWhy the intercourse between nations is ultimately in favour of the\npoorer one, though not so at first............................. 179\n\nCHAP. XII.\n\nConclusion of exterior causes.--Are seldom of much importance,\nunless favoured by interior ones.--Rich nations, with care, capable, in\nmost cases, of prolonging their prosperity.--Digression on the\nimportance of public revenue, illustrated by a statistical\nchart................... 184\n\n[end of page #xix]\n\n\n\n\n=BOOK III.=\n\n\nCHAP. I.\n\nResult of the foregoing Inquiry applied to Britain.--Its present state,\nin what its wealth consists; illustrated by a chart, shewing the increase\nof revenue and commerce........................191\n\nCHAP. II.\n\nOf education, as conducted in England.--Amelioration proposed.--\nNecessity of government interfering, without touching the liberty of\nthe subject............................ 216\n\nCHAP. III.\n\nOf the effects of taxation in England........229\n\nCHAP. IV.\n\nOf the national debt and sinking fund.--Advantages and\ndisadvantages of both.--Errors committed in calculating their effects.\n--Causes of error.--Mode proposed for preventing future\nincrease....................234\n\nCHAP. V.\n\nOf taxes for the maintenance of the poor.--Their enormous increase.--\nThe cause.--Comparison between those of England and Scotland.--\nSimple, easy, and humane mode of reducing them..............247\n\nCHAP. VI.\n\nCauses of decline, peculiar to England.................... 257\n\nCHAP. VII.\n\nCircumstances peculiar to England, and favourable to it............. 261\n\nCHAP. VIII.\n\nConclusion.................... 276\n\nApplication of the present Inquiry to nations in general..............289\n\n\n\n\n_AN\n\nI N Q U I R Y,\n\n&c. &c._\n\n\n======\nBOOK I.\n======\n\nCHAP. I.\n\n_Introduction and Plan of the Work.--Explanation of what the Author\nunderstands by Wealthy and Powerful Nations, and of the General\nCauses of Wealth and Power_.\n\nOne of the most solid foundations on which an enquirer can proceed\nin matters of political economy, as connected with the fate of nations,\nseems to be by an appeal to history, a view of the effects that have\nbeen produced, and an investigation of the causes that have operated\nin producing them.\n\nUnfortunately, in this case, the materials are but very scanty, and\nsometimes rather of doubtful authority; nevertheless, such as they are,\nI do not think it well to reject the use of them, and have, therefore,\nbegun, by taking a view of the causes that have ruined nations that\nhave been great and wealthy, beginning with the earliest records and\ncoming down to the present time. {5}\n\n---\n{5} Dr. Robertson very truly says, \"It is a cruel mortification, in\nsearching for what is instructive in the history of past times, to find\nthat the exploits of conquerors who have desolated the earth, and the\nfreaks of tyrants who have rendered nations unhappy, are recorded\nwith minute, and often disgusting accuracy, while the discovery of\nuseful arts, and the progress of the most beneficial branches of\ncommerce are passed over in silence, and suffered to sink in oblivion.\"\nDisquisition on the Ancient Commerce to India.\n-=-\n\n[end of page #1]\n\nI divide this space into three periods, because in each is to be seen a\nvery distinct feature.\n\nDuring the first period, previous to the fall of the Roman empire, the\norder of things was such as had arisen from the new state of mankind,\nwho had gradually increased in numbers, and improved in sciences\nand arts. The different degrees of wealth were owing, at first, to local\nsituation, natural advantages, and priority in point of settlement, till\nthe causes of decline begun to operate on some; when the adventitious\ncauses of wealth and power, producing conquest, began to establish a\nnew order of things.\n\nThe second period, from the fall of the Roman government till the\ndiscovery of America, and the passage to the East Indies, by the\nocean, has likewise a distinct feature, and is treated of by itself.\n\nThe rulers of mankind were not then men, who from the ease and\nleisure of pastoral life, under a mild heaven, had studied science, and\ncultivated the arts; they were men who had descended from a cold\nnorthern climate, where nature did little to supply their wants, where\nhunger and cold could not be avoided but by industry and exertion;\nwhere, in one word, the sterility of nature was counteracted by the\nenergy of man.\n\nThe possessors of milder climates, and of softer manners, falling\nunder the dominion of such men, inferior greatly in numbers, as well\nas in arts, intermixed with them, and formed a new race, of which the\ncharacter was different; and it is a circumstance not a little curious,\nthat while mankind were in a state at which they had arrived by\nincreasing population, and by the arts of peace, slavery was universal:\nbut that when governed by men who were conquerors, and owed their\nsuperiority to force alone, where slavery might have been expected to\noriginate, it was abolished. {6}\n\n---\n{6} This fact, which is indisputable, has, at first sight, a most\nextraordinary appearance, that is to say, seems difficult to account for;\nbut a little examination into circumstances will render it easily\nunderstood.\n\nIn warm and fertile countries, the love of ease is predominant, and the\nservices wanted are such as a slave can perform. The indolent habits\nof people make them consider freedom as an object of less importance\nthan exemption from care. While the rulers of mankind were indolent\nand luxurious, they were interested in continuing slavery, which must\nhave [end of page #2] originated in barbarism and ignorance. But the\nnorthern nations were different; with them, neither the moral\ncharacter, the physical powers, or the situation of things, favoured\nslavery. The services one man wanted of another were not such as a\nslave could be forced to perform: neither are men who are fitted for\nperforming such offices disposed to submit to slavery. Shepherds may\nbe reduced to the situation of slaves, but hunters will not be likely to\nsubmit to such a situation, even if their occupation admitted of it.\nSlaves can only be employed to perform labour that is under the eye\nof an overseer or master, or the produce of which is nearly certain: but\nthe labour of a hunter is neither the one nor the other, it is, therefore,\nnot of the sort to be performed by slaves. The athletic active life\nnecessary for a hunter is, besides, unfriendly to slavery, if not totally\nat variance with it. What does a slave receive in return for his service?\nLodging, nourishment, and a life free from care. A hunter is obliged to\nprovide the two former for himself, and the latter it is impossible for\nhim to enjoy. The same thing goes even to hired servants. In the rudest\nstate of shepherds, there are hired servants, but men in a rude state\nnever hunt for wages: they are their own masters: they may hunt in\nsociety or partnership, but never as slaves or hired servants.\n-=-\n\nThe progress towards wealth in this new state of things was very slow,\nbut the equality that prevailed amongst feudal barons, their love of\nwar and glory, and the leisure they enjoyed, by degrees extended the\nlimits of commerce very widely, as the northern world never could\nproduce many articles which its inhabitants had by their connection\nwith the south learnt to relish and enjoy.\n\nThe intermediate countries, that naturally formed a link of connection\nbetween the ancient nations of the east and the rough inhabitants of\nthe north, profited the most by this circumstance; and we still find the\nborders of the Mediterranean Sea, though no longer the seat of power,\nthe places where wealth was chiefly concentrated.\n\nThe impossibility of the inhabitants of the northern countries\ntransporting their rude and heavy produce, in order to exchange it for\nthe luxuries of the south, gave rise to manufactures as well as fishing\non the southern confines of the Baltic Sea; from whence arose the\nwealth of Flanders, Holland, and the Hans Towns. This forms an\nepoch entirely new in its nature and description, and its termination\nwas only brought on by the great discovery of the passage to Asia, by\nthe Cape of Good Hope, and to America, by sailing straight out into\nthe Atlantic Ocean.\n\nThe nations that had till those discoveries been the best situated for\n[end of page #3] commerce no longer enjoyed that advantage; by that\nmeans it changed its abode; but not only did it change its abode, it\nchanged its nature, and the trifling commerce that had hitherto been\ncarried on by the intervention of caravans by land, or of little barks\ncoasting on the borders of the Mediterranean Sea, (never venturing,\nwithout imminent danger, to lose sight of the shore,) {7} was dropt for\nthat bold and adventurous navigation, connecting the most distant\nparts of the world; between which since then large vessels pass with\ngreater expedition and safety than they formerly did between the\nGrecian Islands, or from Italy to Africa.\n\nThree inventions, two in commerce and the other in war, nearly of\nequal antiquity, formed this into one of these epochs that gives a new\nfeature to things.\n\nThe discovery of the magnetic power of the needle improved and\ntotally altered navigation. The art of printing gave the means of\nextending with facility, to mankind at large, the mode of\ncommunicating thoughts and ideas, which had till then been attended\nwith great difficulty, and confined to a few. This placed men nearer\nupon an equality with respect to mind, and greatly facilitated\ncommerce and the arts. The invention of gun-powder nearly at the\nsame time changed the art of war, not only in its manner, but in its\neffect, a point of far greater importance. While human force was the\npower by which men were annoyed, in cases of hostility, bodily\nstrength laid the foundation for the greatness of individual men, as\nwell as of whole nations. So long as this was the case, it was\nimpossible for any nation to cultivate the arts of peace, (as at the\npresent time), without becoming much inferior in physical force to\nnations that preferred hunting or made war their study; or to such as\npreferred exercising the body, as rude nations do, to gratifying the\nappetites, as practised in wealthy ones. To be wealthy and powerful\nlong together was then impossible.\n\nSince this last invention, the physical powers of men have ceased to\noccupy any material part in their history; superiority in skill is now the\ngreat object of the attainment of those who wish to excel, {8} and\n\n---\n{7} It was forbidden by law, formerly, in Spain, to put to sea from the\n11th of November to the 10th of March.\n\n{8} In the divine poem of the Iliad, Nestor, for experience and\nwisdom, and Ulysses, for [end of page #4] cunning, are the only two\nheroes whose minds gave them a superiority; but they make no figure\ncompared to Achilles and Hector, or even the strong, rough, and\nignorant Ajax. To bear fatigue, and understand discipline, is the great\nobject at present; for though, of late years, the increased use of the\nbayonet seems to be a slight approximation to the ancient mode of\ncontending by bodily strength, it is to be considered, on the other\nhand, that artillery is more than ever employed, which is increasing\nthe dissimilarity. Again, though the bayonet is used, it is under\ncircumstances quite new. Great strength enabled a single man, by\nwearing very thick armour, and wielding a longer sword or spear, to\nbe invulnerable to men of lesser force, while he could perform what\nfeats he pleased in defeating them. As gun-powder has destroyed the\nuse of heavy armour, though with the sabre and bayonet men are not\nequal, they are all much more nearly so. No one is invulnerable, even\nin single combat, with the _arme blanche_, and with fire arms they are\nnearly on an equality. The changes that this makes, through every\ndepartment of life, are too numerous to be enlarged upon, or not to be\nvisible to all.\n-=-\n\nmen may devote themselves to a life of ease and enjoyment without\nfalling under a real inferiority, provided they do not allow the mind to\nbe degraded or sunk in sloth, ignorance, or vice.\n\nThose discoveries, then, by altering the physical powers of men, by\nchanging their relations and connections, as well as by opening new\nfields for commerce, and new channels for carrying it on, form a very\ndistinct epoch in the history of wealth and power, and alter greatly\ntheir nature in the detail; though, in the main outline and abstract\ndefinition, they are still the same; having always the same relation to\neach other, or to the state of things at the time.\n\nThis last period is then very different in its nature, and much more\nimportant than either of the others that preceded it; yet, in one thing,\nthere is a similarity that runs through the whole, and it is a very\nimportant one.\n\nThe passions and propensities of mankind, though they have changed\ntheir objects, and the means of their gratification, have not changed\ntheir nature. The desire of enjoyment; and of enjoyment with the least\ntrouble possible, appears to be the basis of all the passions. Hence,\nenvy, jealousy, friendship, and the endless train of second-rate effects,\nappear all to be produced by that primary passion; {9} and as from\n\n---\n{9} The very learned and ingenious author of the Inquiry into the\nOrigin and Causes of the Wealth of Nations, traces all this to an innate\npropensity to barter. But barter is only a means, and not even the\nmeans to which mankind shew the greatest pro-[end of page #5]\npensity; for, wherever they have power to take by force or pillage,\nthey never barter. This is seen both in an infantine and adult state;\nchildren cry for toys, and stretch at them before they offer to\nexchange; and, conquerors or soldiers never buy or barter, when they\ncan take, unless they are guided by some other motive than mere\nnatural propensity. A highwayman will pay for his dinner at an inn, as\nwillingly as a traveller, because he acts from other motives than\npropensity, but he will strip the inn-keeper when he meets him on the\nroad.\n-=-\n\nthis originate the wealth as well as the decline of nations, the history\nof the revolutions in wealth and power, during the two first periods,\nare by no means unimportant; besides, as their duration was much\nlonger than that of the latter, they lead to a more certain conclusion.\n\nThe review of what has taken place will occupy the first book; and\nserve as a data for an inquiry into the nature and causes of the fall of\nnations.\n\nThe first part of the second book will be dedicated to investigating the\ninternal causes of decline; that is to say, all those causes which arise\nfrom the possession of wealth and power, operating on the habits,\nmanners, and minds of the inhabitants; as also on the political\narrangements, laws, government, and institutions, so far as they are\nconnected with the prosperity or decline of nations.\n\nThe latter part of the same book will treat of the exterior causes of\ndecline, arising from the envy of other nations; their advancement in\nthe same arts to which the nations that are rich owe their wealth, or\ntheir excelling them in other arts, by which they can be rivalled,\nreduced, or subdued.\n\nAfter having inquired into external and internal causes; and the\noperation of each and of both, (though they never act quite\nseparately,) accidental causes, will make an object for consideration,\nwhich will bring the general inquiry to a conclusion.\n\nThe third book will begin with an application of the information\nobtained to the present state of England: by comparing its situation\nwith that of nations that were great; and, by endeavouring to point out\na means by which its decline may be prevented.\n\nThough we know that, in this world, nothing is eternal, particularly in\nthe institutions of man; yet, by a sort of fiction in language, when the\nfinal term is not fixed, and the end desirable, what is known to be [end\nof page #6] temporary is considered as perpetual. Thus, the contract\nbetween the king and the people, the constituent laws of a country,\n&c. are considered as permanent and of eternal duration.\n\nIn this case, though the final decline of a nation cannot be prevented;\nthough the nature of things will either, by that regular chain of causes\nwhich admits of being traced, or by their regular operation of\ncoincident causes which is termed accidental, sooner or later put an\nend to the prosperity of every nation, yet we shall not speak of\nprolonging prosperity, but of preventing decline, just as if it were\nnever to happen at any period.\n\nBefore entering upon this Inquiry, it may be well, for the sake of being\nexplicitly understood, to define what I mean by wealthy and powerful\nnations.\n\nIn speaking of nations, wealth and power are sometimes related to\neach other, as cause and effect. Sometimes there is between a mutual\naction and re-action. In the natural or ordinary course of things, they\nare, at first, intimately connected and dependent on each other, till, at\nlast, this connection lessening by degrees, and they even act in\nopposite directions; when wealth undermines and destroys power, but\npower never destroys wealth. {10}\n\nThough wealth and power are often found united, they are sometimes\nfound separated. Wealth is altogether a real possession; power is\ncomparative. Thus, a nation may be wealthy in itself, though\nunconnected with any other nation; but its power can only be\nestimated by a comparison with that of other nations.\n\nWealth consists in having abundance of whatever mankind want or\ndesire; and if there were but one nation on earth, it might be wealthy;\nbut it would, in that case, be impossible to measure its power.\n\nWealth is, however, not altogether real; it is in a certain degree\ncomparative, whereas power is altogether comparative.\n\nThe Romans, for example, may very justly be called the most\n\n---\n{10} Till a nation has risen above its neighbours, and those to whom it\ncompares itself, wealth and power act in the same direction; but, after\nit has got beyond that point, they begin to counteract each other.\n-=-\n\n[end of page #7]\n\npowerful nation that ever existed, yet a single battalion of our present\ntroops, well supported with artillery, would have probably destroyed\nthe finest army they ever sent into the field. A single ship of the line\nwould certainly have sunk, taken, or put to flight, all the fleets that\nRome and Carthage ever sent to sea. The feeblest and least powerful\nof civilized nations, with the present means of fighting, and the\nknowledge of the present day, would defeat an ancient army of the\nmost powerful description. Power then is entirely relative; and what is\nfeebleness now, would, at a certain time, have been force or power.\n\nIt is not altogether so with wealth, which consists in the abundance of\nwhat men desire. The Egyptians, Greeks, and Romans, had wealth;\nand this, though, perhaps, not consisting in the same objects, was,\nperhaps, not inferior to ours at the present time; but as wealth, purely\nand simply, no comparison between different nations was necessary,\nfarther than that men's desires are augmented, by seeing the\nabundance possessed by others; and therefore they become\ncomparative, as to wealth. Without, however, entering into a long\nexamination respecting the various possible combinations of wealth\nand power, which are something similarly connected in states, as\nhealth and strength are in the animal body, {11} let both be considered\nonly in a comparative way; the comparison either being made with\nother nations at the same time, or with the same nation at different\ntimes. Thus, for example, in comparing the wealth and power of\nBritain now, with what they were at the latter end of Queen\nElizabeth's reign, we find that the merchants of Liverpool, during the\nfirst three years of last =sic= war, fitted out a force of privateers equal\nto the Spanish armada; and consequently superior to the whole naval\nforce of England at that time; there can be no doubt, then, that both the\nwealth and power of the nation are increased. Again, if we find that\nour ships block up the\n\n---\n{11} A man may be very feeble, yet in very good health for his whole\nlife-time. He may also have great strength, though he may not enjoy a\nvery good state of health; yet nevertheless, health and strength are\nvery intimately connected, and never can be completely separated.\n-=-\n\n[end of page #8]\n\nports of Holland, and prevent their navy from venturing to sea, we\nmust conclude, that the relative power of the two nations is altered,\nsince the time that the Dutch fleet rode triumphant in the river\nThames. But, if we want to make a comparison between the naval\npower of England and that of France and Spain, we must not compare\nit with the strength of their navies in the year 1780, when they bid us\ndefiance at Plymouth, but take things actually as they are at this\npresent time.\n\nWhen a nation is upon an equality with others, for wealth, it may be\nconsidered as neither deserving the name of a rich or a poor nation,\nwhatever its real wealth or poverty may be. The same thing holds with\npower. When a nation is merely able to protect itself, but fully equal\nto that, though unable to make conquests, or aggrandize itself, against\nthe will of other nations, it may be said to be neither weak nor strong.\nThus, for example, Denmark as a nation is upon a par with others; and\nneither to be called wealthy and powerful, nor weak and poor, though\nit certainly has both more actual wealth and power than it had in the\neighth century, when the Danes burnt London, Paris, and Cologne.\n\nThus, then, with respect to my reasoning, the whole is to be\nconsidered as applying to other nations at the same time; and the\ndegree they are above or below par, is the measure of wealth and\npower, poverty and weakness. {12}\n\nBut, with respect to a nation itself, wealth is comparative in the\nprogression of time. In speaking of power, we compare nations at the\nsame period, and, in speaking of wealth, we may either compare a\nnation with itself at different periods, or with others at the same time.\n\nWe shall not find any example of a nation's becoming less wealthy\nwhilst it increased in power; but we shall find many instances of\nnations becoming wealthy whilst they were losing their power,\nthough,\n\n---\n{12} According to this definition, if all the nations on earth were to\nincrease in wealth and power equally, they would be considered as\nstationary; their relative situations would remain the same; like those\nof the fixed stars, or those of soldiers who march in a regiment with\nperfect regularity, and retain their relative portion in the same manner\nas if they stood still. But this case, among nations, is only an\nimaginary one; therefore, the definition given answers the true\npurpose of investigation.\n-=-\n\n[end of page #9]\n\ntogether with the power, the wealth always, a little sooner or a little\nlater, vanishes away.\n\nSometimes nations owe their wealth and greatness to accidental\ncauses, that, from their nature, must vanish away; and sometimes to\ncauses which, depending upon the nations themselves, may be\nprolonged. In general, both the two sorts of causes have united to\nrender every nation great that has been distinguished amongst others\nfor riches or power.\n\nThe causes, then, divide themselves into two of distinct kinds;--those\nwhich are independent of the nation itself, and those over which it has\nsome degree of influence and controul.\n\nIn early ages, when knowledge was but little advanced, and when the\nsmall stock that had been accumulated was confined nearly to a single\nspot, the first description of causes were the principal ones.--Local\nsituation, priority in discovery, or in establishment, gave to one nation\na superiority over others, and occasioned the accumulation of wealth,\nand the acquisition of power and territory. {13} As in the early stages\nof human life, a few years more or less occasion a greater difference,\nboth in physical powers and mental faculties, than any difference of\ninnate genius, or adventitious circumstances; so, in the early days of\nthe world, when it was young in knowledge, and scanty in population,\npriority of settlement gave a great advantage to one nation over others,\nand, of consequence, enabled them to rule over others; thus the\nAssyrian and Egyptian empires were great, powerful, and extensive,\nwhile the nations that were beyond their reach were divided into small\nstates or kingdoms, on the most contemptible scale.\n\nTime, however, did away the advantages resulting from priority of\nestablishment.\n\nLocal situation was another cause of superiority, of a more permanent\nnature; but this, also, new discovery has transferred from one na-\n\n---\n{13} It is not meant, by any means, to enter into an inquiry, much less\ncontroversy, respecting the antiquity of mankind; but it is very clear\nthat the knowledge of arts and sciences can be traced to an infant state\nabout two thousand years before the Christian aera.\n-=-\n\n[end of page #10]\n\ntion to another. Qualities of the soil and climate are counteracted by\nthe nature and habits of the inhabitants, which frequently, in the end,\ngive the superiority where there was at first an inferiority.\n\nIf ever the nations of the world come to a state of permanence, (which\nin all probability will never be the case,) it must be when population is\nnearly proportioned to the means of subsistence in different parts;\nwhen knowledge is nearly equally distributed and when no great\ndiscoveries remain to be made either in arts, science, or geography.\n\nWhile the causes from which wealth and power rise in a superior\ndegree, are liable to change from one nation to another, wealth and\npower must be liable to the same alterations and changes of place; so\nlong any equal balance among nations must be artificial. But when\ncircumstances become similar, and when the pressure becomes equal\non all sides, then nations, like the particles of a fluid, though free to\nmove, having lost their impulse, will remain at rest.\n\nIf such a state of things should ever arrive, then the wealth and power\nwould be only real, not comparative. The whole might be very rich,\nvery affluent, and possess great abundance of every thing, either for\nenjoyment or for defence, without one nation having an advantage\nover another: they would be on an equality.\n\nBut this state of things is far from being likely soon to take place.\nPopulation is far from come to its equilibrium, and knowledge {14} is\nfarther distant still. Russia and America, in particular, are both behind\nin population, and the inhabitants of the latter country are far from\nbeing on a par in knowledge with the rest of Europe; when they\nbecome so, the balance will be overturned, and must be re-established\nanew.\n\nThe great discoveries that have taken place in knowledge and\ngeography have been connected.\n\nWhile navigation was little understood, the borders of the\nMediterranean Sea, and the islands in it, were naturally the first places\nfor wealth and commerce.\n\nThe discovery of the compass, and others that followed, rendered\n\n---\n{14} By knowledge is only meant the knowledge of the arts that make\nmen useful, =sic= such as agriculture, manufactures, legislation, &c.\n-=-\n\n[end of page #11]\n\nthe navigation of the open ocean, more easy and safe than that of the\ncircumscribed seas. This laid a great foundation for change and\ndiscovery; it brought Britain into importance, ruined Italy, Genoa,\nVenice, &c. and has laid the foundation for further changes still.\n\nAs for discoveries in arts, it would be bold and presumptuous indeed\nto attempt to set any bounds to them. Discoveries, however, that alter\nthe relations of mankind very materially, are probably near at an end.\nIn arts they give only a temporary preference. {15} If a method should\nbe discovered to cultivate a field with half the trouble, and to double\nthe produce, which seems very possible, it would be a great discovery,\nand alter the general state of mankind considerably; but it would soon\nbe extended to all nations, as the use of gunpowder has been. New\nproduce, or means of procuring the old more easily, are the things\nchiefly sought after. Potatoes, coffee, tea, sugar, cotton, silk, distilled\nspirits, are new productions, unknown to the Romans. Glass,\ngunpowder, printing, windmills, watermills, steam-engines, and the\nmost part of spinning and weaving machines, are new inventions, but\nthey can be extended to all countries. The mariners compass changed\nthe relative position of places, and no new invention of the same\nimportance, as to its effects on nations, probably can take place.\nNavigation does not admit of a similar improvement to that which it\nhas received. If goods could be conveyed for a quarter of the present\nprice it would not produce the same sort of effect. To render\nnavigating the ocean practicable was a greater thing than any possible\nimprovement on that practicability.\n\nAs for new discoveries in geography, they are nearly at an end. The\nform and the extent of the earth are known, and the habitable regions\nare nearly all explored.\n\nWe have, then, arrived at a state of things where many of the causes\nthat formerly operated on reducing wealthy nations can never again\nproduce a similar effect. But still there are other causes which ope-\n\n---\n{15} The end of all discovery is to supply men with what they want;\nand, accordingly, all nations that are considered as civilised find the\nmeans of participating in the advantage of a new discovery, by\nimitating that which possesses the invention first, and that is done\nalmost immediately. It was very different formerly.\n-=-\n\n[end of page #12]\n\nrate as they did formerly; accordingly, wealth and power are very\nunequally distributed amongst nations at this moment; and, in Europe,\nthere is not one nation that is not either rising or on its decline. (see\nAppendix A.) =sic--there is none.=\n\nThe purpose of the present Inquiry is, by tracing those causes that still\ncontinue to operate, to discover how nations that now stand high may\nbe prevented from sinking below their level: a thing to which history\nshews they have a natural tendency, and which history shews also is\nattended with very distressing consequences.\n\nWe do not labour in Utopia on schemes, but in Britain on real\nbusiness; and the inquiry is, how a nation, situated as this is, and\nhaving more than its share of power, importance, and wealth, may\nprolong their possession?\n\nIn this Inquiry we shall begin with taking a lesson from history, which\nwill serve as some guide.\n\nAs to the rise of other nations, we neither can nor should attempt to\nimpede that; let them rise to our level, but let us not sink down to\ntheirs. [end of page #13]\n\n\n\n\nCHAP. II.\n\n\n_Of the General Causes that operate, both externally and internally,\nin bringing down Nations that have risen above their Level to that\nassigned to them by their Extent, Fertility, and Population; and of the\nManner in which Wealth destroyed Power in ancient Nations_.\n\nWithout considering the particular causes that have raised some\nnations greatly above others, there are some general causes of decline\nwhich operate in all cases; but even the general causes are not always\nsimilar, they vary their way of producing the effect, according to\ncircumstances.\n\nIf a nation excels in arts and manufactures, others acquire a taste for\nwhat they make, and imitate them. If they excel in the art of war, they\nteach their enemies to fight as well as themselves. If their territories\nare large, the unprotected and far distant parts provoke attack and\nplunder. They become more difficult and expensive to govern. If they\nowe their superiority to climate and soil, they generally preserve it but\na short time. Necessity acts so much more powerfully on those who do\nnot enjoy the same advantages, that they soon come to an equality.--\nIn whatever the superiority exists, emulation and envy prompt to\nrivalship in peace, and to frequent trials of strength in war. The\ncontempt and pride which accompany wealth and power, and the envy\nand jealousy they excite amongst other nations, are continual causes\nof change, and form the great basis of the revolutions amongst the\nhuman race.\n\nThe wants of men increase with their knowledge of what it is good to\nenjoy; and it is the desire to gratify those wants that increases\nnecessity, and this necessity is the spur to action.\n\nThere are a few natural wants that require no knowledge in order to be\nfelt; such as hunger and thirst, and the other appetites which men have\nin common with all animals, and which are linked, as it [end of page\n#14] were, to their existence. {16} But while nations satisfy\nthemselves with supplying such wants, there is neither wealth nor\npower amongst them. Of consequence, it is not into the conduct of\nsuch that we are to inquire.\n\nExcepting, however, those wants which are inseparable from our\nexistence, all the others are, more or less, fictitious, and increase with\nour knowledge and habits; it is, therefore, evident that the nation that\nis the highest above others feels the fewest wants; or, in other words,\nfeels no wants. She knows nothing that she does not possess, and\ntherefore may be said to want nothing; or which is the same thing, not\nknowing what she does want, she makes no effort to obtain it.\n\nThus necessity of rising higher, does not operate, on a nation that sees\nnone higher than itself; at least, it does only operate in a very slender\ndegree. {17} Whereas, in the nation that is behind hand with other\nnations around, every one is led by emulation and envy, and by a\nfeeling of their own wants, to imitate and equal those that are farther\nadvanced.\n\n---\n{16} A child cries for food without knowing what it is; and all the\nother natural appetites, though they may be increased by habit, by\nknowledge, and fancy, are independent of the mind in its first state.\n\n{17} The necessity, no doubt, continues to preserve what they have;\nand, therefore, tends to keep them in a permanent state. Some\nindividuals again, in less affluence than others, endeavour to equal\nthem; by which means some progress is still making in the nation that\npossesses the greatest share of wealth and power; but it is only partial\nand feeble. Those who live in the nation that is the most advanced are\ncontented and have all they wish; they possess every thing of which\nthey know, they can have no particular desire for any thing they have\nnot got, that will produce great energy and exertion. A man may wish\nfor wings, or for perpetual youth; but, as he can scarcely expect to\nobtain either, he will make little exertion. With things really\nattainable, but not known, the case is less productive of energy still.\nThe people of Asia found silk a natural produce of their country; till\nthe Europeans saw it, they never attempted to produce so rich a\nmaterial; but no pains has since been spared to try to produce it, in\nalmost every country, where there was the least chance of success. We\nimitated the silk mills of Italy, and the Italians (as well as many other\nnations) are now imitating our cotton mills. In the case of a nation that\nfollows others, it always knows what it wants, and may judge whether\nit can obtain it; but the nation the most advanced, gropes in the dark.\n-=-\n\n[end of page #15]\n\nThus it is, that necessity acts but in a very inferior degree on the\nnation that is the farthest advanced; while it operates in a very\npowerful way on those that are in arrear; and this single reason,\nwithout the intervention of wars or any sort of contest or robbery,\nwould, in the process of time, bring nations to a sort of equality in\nwealth and refinement; that is, it would bring them all into possession\nof the means of gratifying their wants.\n\nWar, excited by the violent and vile passions,--by the overbearing\npride and insolence of one, and the envy and villainy of another,\nderange this natural and smooth operation, which, nevertheless,\ncontinues to act in silence at all times, and in every circumstance, and\nwhich, indeed, is in general the chief cause of those very disorders by\nwhich its operations are sometimes facilitated; sometimes apparently\ninterrupted; sometimes, their effect for a moment reversed; but their\naction never, for one instant, totally suspended.\n\nThe desire of enjoyment makes all mankind act as if they were\nrunning a race. They always keep the goal in view, though they\nattempt to be the foremost to arrive at it by various means. But the\ngreatest exertions are never made by those who have got the advance\nof their competitors. Amongst the wants of mankind, ease is one of\nvery permanent operation; and whenever the necessity of supplying\nother wants ceases, the desire of supplying that, leads to a state of\ninaction and rest. {18} To seek ease, however, does not imply\nnecessarily to seek total inaction or rest; a diminished exertion is\ncomparative ease; and this is always observable in a state of\nprosperity, either of an individual or of a nation, after the prosperity\nhas been long enough\n\n---\n{18} The truth of this may be disputed by those who look at mankind\nin an artificial state; because a variety of their actions seem without\nany particular motive. But not the smallest exertion is ever made\nwithout it. The man who walks out and takes exercise, wants health or\namusement as much as the working man does bread. Even those who\ntoil in the rounds of pleasure, are always in pursuit of something.\nTheir not finding the object is another part of the consideration; but\nthey always have one in view. As to savages, and the poorer classes of\npeople, they shew their propensity by a more simple process; that is,\nmerely by resting inactive, when they are not compelled to labour.\n-=-\n\n[end of page #16]\n\nenjoyed to create a certain degree of lassitude and indifference, which\nit does on every nation. {19}\n\nWhatever may be the accidental circumstance which first raises one\nnation above others, or the train of adventitious ones that increase for\na while and continue that superiority, nothing can be more clear and\ncertain, than, that they have a natural tendency to come back to a\nlevel, merely by the exertions of men in the direction of acquiring\nwealth by industry, and without any of those causes which arise out of\nwar, or interrupting the career of each other.\n\nWhen, from the conduct of one nation towards another, or from\nwhatever other cause war, =sic= becomes the means by which the\nsuperiority of two nations is to be decided, there are many things in\nfavour of the least wealthy nation.\n\nIt has less to protect and to lose, and more to attack and to gain; the\ntask is much easier and more alluring. There is a sort of energy in\nattempting to obtain, that is not to be found in those who are only\nexerting themselves to keep, of which it is difficult to explain the\ncause, but of which the existence is very certain.\n\nWhere natural strength, and the struggle with want is great, as is the\ncase with nations who have made but little progress in acquiring\nwealth, the contest with a people more enervated by ease, and less\ninured to toil is very unequal, and does more than compensate those\nartificial aids which are derived from the possession of property. {20}\nFrom this cause, the triumph of poorer over more wealthy nations has\ngenerally arisen, and, in most cases, has occasioned the contest to end\nin favour of the more hardy and poorer people.\n\nOf the revolutions that took place in the ancient world; whether\noperated by degrees or by violence and suddenly, those may be ge-\n\n---\n{19} Doctor Garth, in his admirable poem of the Dispensary, says;--\n\n\"_Even health for want of change becomes disease_.\"\n\nThis is the case with nations sunk in prosperity.\n\n{20} Why men should have been less tenacious to keep that which is\nfairly theirs, than rapaciously to obtain that which is not, is a strange\nthing; but nothing is more certain; and the effects of that propensity\nare very great, and its existence very general. In the ruin of nations, it\nis a most active and powerful cause.\n-=-\n\n[end of page #17]\n\nnerally traced as the causes. In those ancient nations any considerable\ndegree of luxury and military success were incompatible with each\nother; but, in the present age, the case is greatly altered. Military\ndiscipline is not near so severe as formerly, and bodily strength has\nbut little effect, while the engines of war can only be procured by\nthose resources which wealth affords; by this means, the decline of\nnations is, at least, now become a less natural and slower progress\nthan formerly; the operations of war have now a quite different\ntendency from what they formerly had, and this effect is produced by\nthe introduction of cannon, and a different mode of attack and\ndefence; to carry on which, a very considerable degree of wealth is\nnecessary. {21}\n\nIn former times, the character and situation of the people, the object\nthey had in view, their bravery and the skill of their leaders, did every\nthing; but now the skill of leaders and the command of money are the\nchief objects; for there is not sufficient difference between any two\nnations in Europe as to counterbalance those: and, indeed, (except so\nfar as military skill is accidental,) it is to be found principally in\nnations who have a sufficient degree of wealth to exercise it and call it\ninto action.\n\nWe shall see that the first revolutions in the world were effected by\nthe natural strength, energy, and bravery of poor nations triumphing\nover those that were less hardy, in consequence of the enjoyment of\nwealth, until the time of the Romans; who, like other nations, first\ntriumphed by means of superior energy and bravery; and, afterwards\nby making war a trade, continued, by having regular standing armies,\nto conquer the nations who had only temporary levies, or militias, to\nfight in their defence.\n\nThe triumph of poor nations, over others in many respects their\nsuperiors, continued during the middle ages, but the wealth acquired\nby certain nations then was not wrested from them by war, but by an\naccidental and unforeseen change in the channel through which it\n\n---\n{21} An idea has gone abroad, since the successes of the French\narmies, that money is not necessary to war, even in the present times.\nIt will be shewn, in its proper place, that the French armies were\nmaintained at very great expense, and that a poor country could not\nhave done what France did.\n-=-\n\nflowed. At the same time that this change took place, without the\nintervention of force, the art of war changed in favour of wealthy\nnations, but the changes took place by slow degrees, and the power of\nnations now may almost be estimated by their disposable incomes.\n\nThis change, however, has by no means secured the prosperity of\nwealthy nations; it has only prevented poor ones, unable by means of\nfair competition to do by conquest what they could not effect by\nperseverance in arts and industry; for, in other respects, though it\nmakes the prosperity of a nation more dependant =sic= on wealth, and\nmore independent of violence; it prevents any nation from preserving\nits political importance after it loses its riches. It does not by any\nmeans interrupt that progress by which poor nations gradually rise up\nand rival richer ones in arts. It has not done away the advantages that\narise from superior industry and attention to business, or from the\ngradual introduction of knowledge amongst the more ignorant,\nthereby lessening their inferiority, and tending to bring nations to a\nlevel; on the contrary, by increasing the advantages, and securing the\ngradual triumphs gained by arts and industry, from the violence of\nwar, it makes wealth a more desirable object, and the loss of it a\ngreater misfortune. It tends to augment the natural propensity that\nthere is in poor nations to equal richer ones {22}, although it, at the\nsame time, augments the difficulty of accomplishing their intentions.\n\nThe superior energy of poverty and necessity which leads men, under\nthis pressure, to act incessantly in whatever way they have it in their\npower to act, and that seems likely to bring them on a level with those\nthat are richer, is then the ground-work of the rise and fall of nations,\nas well as of individuals. This tendency is sometimes favoured by\nparticular circumstances, and sometimes it is counteracted by them;\nbut its operation is incessant, and it has never yet failed in producing\nits effect, for the triumph of poverty over wealth on the great scale as\non the small, though very irregular in its pace, has continued without\ninterruption from the earliest records to the present moment.\n\n---\n{22} The present inferiority of Poland, Denmark, Sweden, Spain, and\nPortugal, compared with the rank they held in former times, is easily\naccounted for by looking at the scale of their revenues.\n-=-\n\n[end of page #19]\n\n\n\n\nCHAP. III.\n\n\n_Of the Nations that rose to Wealth and Power previously to the\nConquests in Asia and Africa, and the Causes which ruined them_.\n\nPrevious to the conquests made by Alexander the Great, the\nhistory of ancient nations is confused, incomplete, and inaccurate.\n\nDuring the contests of his successors, the intricacy and confusion are\nstill continued, but materials are more plentiful, more accurate, and\nmore authentic.\n\nDuring the first period, excepting what is contained in sacred history,\na few detached facts, collected by writers long after, are our only\nguides in judging of the situation of ancient states, some of which\nconsisted of great empires, and others of single cities possessed of a\nvery small territory.\n\nAdd to this, that great and striking events occupied almost exclusively\nthe attention of historians. The means by which those events were\nproduced were considered as of lesser importance.\n\nSo far, however, as the present inquiry can be elucidated, although\nmaterials are few, yet, by adhering to a distinct plan, and keeping the\nobject always before us, we may arrive at a conclusion.\n\nThe countries that appear to have been first inhabited were Syria and\nEgypt, {23} both of them situated on the borders of the Mediterranean\nSea; and as early as any authentic records extend, those were great and\npowerful countries in which agriculture and population had made\ngreat progress, and into which commerce had already brought many of\nthe luxuries of the East.\n\nThe Phoenicians, a people differing in name from those who were\nsubjected to the Assyrian monarchs, occupied that part of Syria, now\ncalled the Levant, directly on the borders of the Mediterranean Sea;\nthey were the first who rose to wealth and power by arts and com-\n\n---\n{23} Reasons have been given in the preface for not taking any view\nof the situation of India, though, by its produce, it appears, at least of\nequal antiquity.\n-=-\n\n[end of page #20]\n\nmerce. Tyre and Sidon were the abodes of commerce long before the\narrival of the Jews in the land of Canaan, situated in the adjacent\ncountry, with whom, in the days of David and Solomon, the\nPhoenicians were on terms of friendship and alliance, {24} assisting\nthe latter to carry on commerce, and enrich his people. (See Appendix\nB.) =sic--there is none.=\n\nThe whole coast of the Mediterranean lay open to them for navigation,\nas did also the Grecian islands, and as their own soil was barren, they\npurchased the necessaries of life, giving in exchange the rich stuffs\nthey had manufactured, and the produce of the East of which they\nalmost exclusively possessed the commerce.\n\nThe Egyptians were possessed of the most fertile soil in the world,\nbounded by the Mediterranean Sea on the north, and on the east and\nwest by barren deserts. Their country was of a triangular form, and\nwatered by the Nile, which, passing through it in its greatest extent,\nruns nearly down the middle.\n\nThus situated, in the country depending on the Nile for its fertility, and\non all sides protected from enemies, it was exceedingly natural to\ncultivate the arts of peace, and it was not possible that it should be\ndivided into many different nations, as in other countries in early\ntimes was the case, when sovereignty rose from parental authority,\nand when there was no natural bond between the heads of different\nfamilies.\n\nThe great abundance with which the inhabitants were supplied, in\nyears when the Nile overflowed in a favourable manner, and the\nuncertainty of future plenty were inducements for accumulation and\nforesight, which are not equally necessary in countries where the\nimportant circumstances of plenty or want do not depend on one\nsingle event over the whole face of a country, separated, besides, from\nothers by a sea, which they could not navigate, and by deserts not very\neasy to pass over.\n\nThe difficulties of transporting corn, which were sufficient to deter the\nEgyptians from depending on a supply from other parts, did not,\nhowever, prevent other nations from applying to them in times of\nscarcity, and accordingly it was the granary of the ancient world.\n\n---\n{24} For farther particulars of this commerce see the Digression on\nthe Trade to India.\n-=-\n\n[end of page #21]\n\nTo those natural advantages, the Egyptians added some others,\ndifferent in their nature, but not less precious.\n\nThey enjoyed a mild government, and an admirable and simple code\nof laws. Their docility and obedience have never been equalled, and as\none maxim, was, to admit of no person being idle, it is evident that the\npopulation must have increased rapidly, and that there must have been\nan impossibility to employ the whole labour of so many hands on the\nmeans of providing subsistence in a country, where the manners were\nsimple, the soil fertile, and the wants few.\n\nThe surplus of the industry of Egypt appears to have been at the\ndisposal of the sovereigns to whom all the lands belonged, and for\nwhich they exacted a rent in kind, as is the custom among the native\npowers on both peninsulas of India to this day. By that means, they\nwere enabled to produce those stupendous works which have been the\nadmiration and wonder of all succeeding generations, and of every\nnation. The city of Thebes, with the labyrinth; Memphis, the canals,\nand the pyramids would all be incredible, had not their singular\nstructure preserved those latter efforts of industry from the ravages of\ntime, and left them nearly entire to the present day.\n\nThe Phoenicians were a colony from that great country; for the\nEgyptians in general had a dislike to the sea. It is well known,\nhowever, that people who live immediately on the coast have a\npropensity to navigation, and it is probable that those Egyptians who\nleft their own fruitful land to settle on the barren borders of Syria,\nwere from the delta of Lower Egypt, which lies on the sea coast, and\nis intersected by a number of branches of the river Nile. {25}\n\nIt is not surprising that such a colony, following the natural propensity\nto naval affairs, and carrying with it the arts of dying and weaving,\ntogether with whatever else the Egyptians knew, should become under\nthe influence of necessity, and in a favourable situation for arts and\ncommerce, as much celebrated for commercial riches, as their mother\ncountry had long been for agriculture and the cultivation of the\nsciences.\n\n---\n{25} That the Phoenicians were from Egypt is not doubted, and their\nbecoming a totally different people from being on a different soil and\nin a different situation, is a strong proof of the influence of physical\ncircumstances on the characters of nations.\n-=-\n\n[end of page #22]\n\nTyre accordingly is the first example of a city becoming rich and\npowerful by arts and commerce, and though few details are known,\nyet those are of a very decided character.\n\nThe pride of the Tyrians appears to have been the cause of their fall,\nand that pride was occasioned by the possession of wealth, far beyond\nthat of any other people then in the world. While they were great they\naimed at monopoly, and were partly the cause of the rapid decay of\nJerusalem. After the death of Solomon, they founded a colony, well\nsituated for the extention of their own trade, which consisted chiefly in\nbringing the rich produce of Arabia, and India, into the western world.\nCarthage was placed on the south coast of the Mediterranean to the\nwest of Egypt, so as never to have any direct intercourse with India\nitself, while it lay extremely well for distributing the merchandize,\nbrought by the Tyrians, from thence in the interior of Africa, Spain,\nSicily, Italy, and the parts that lay distant from the mother city. {26}\n\nFrom the extent of its territory and situation, Tyre could only be\nwealthy; it never could be powerful, as the great Assyrian monarchy,\nwhich lay immediately to the eastward, prevented the possibility of its\nextention; and, as to power at sea, there was =sic= at that time no\ncontests on that element; the most then that could be expected was,\nthat it should have sufficient strength to protect itself, which, being on\na small island, very near the shore, was not difficult. If Alexander the\nGreat had not joined it to the land by an earthen mound, or mole, Tyre\ncould never have been taken till some other power got the superiority\nby sea; which could not have been till after the Romans had conquered\nCarthage.\n\nBabylon, which was the centre of the Assyrian empire, and commu-\n\n---\n{26} The best account of the commodities in which the commerce of\nthe Tyrians consisted, as well as the best description of their wealth,\nand the cause of the downfall is to be found in Ezekiel, chap. xxvi.\nand the two following. It is perfectly distinct and conclusive with\nrespect to the principal points of wealth, pride, and luxury founded on\nwealth.\n\nThe Tyre here spoken of is not the same taken by the king of Babylon,\nor Assyrian monarch long before Alexander's time, which only\nappears to have been a settlement on the main land belonging to the\nsame people, and subject to the same prince.\n-=-\n\n[end of page #23]\n\nnicated with the eastern part of Asia, by the river Euphrates, and by\nthe Persian Gulf with India, was, as Memphis, of Egypt, a capital; but\nthe Assyrians were not protected on all sides, like the Egyptians, from\nforeign inroads; they consequently did not cultivate the arts of peace\nand the sciences so much. On the east, were the Medes and Persians;\non the north, the Scythians and Partheans; but, as the territory was\nfertile and extensive, under one of the finest climates of the world, the\nmonarchs became rich and luxurious, which was the cause of their\nsubjection, and they were always subdued by people less advanced in\nluxury than themselves.\n\nThe whole of these countries, Egypt, Syria, Phoenicia, and Greece,\nfell under the arms of Alexander. This was the first great and general\nrevolution in that part of the world, from which Carthage alone, of all\nthe ancient seats of wealth and greatness, escaped.\n\nThe triumph of Alexander was, no doubt, that of a great captain; but,\nexcept the destruction of Tyre, and the foundation of Alexandria,\nwhich changed the principal seat of commerce, there was nothing\ndurable in his conquests. The reigning families were destroyed, and\nthe dynasties altered; but, under his immediate successors, the\nEgyptians, the inhabitants of Syria, and the Greeks, had different\nmasters.\n\nIt was after the foundation of Alexandria, and under the successors of\nAlexander, that Egypt became really a commercial country. Its wealth\nhad hitherto arisen rather from the great population and fertility of the\ncountry, than from any participation in the trade to the East; but after\nAlexandria was founded, the seat of empire, which had always been in\nUpper Egypt, was established in Lower Egypt, canals were dug, and\nevery means taken to make the passage from the Red Sea to the\nMediterranean as commodious as possible.\n\nCarthage began then to decline. Tyre was no more: and Alexandria\nwas situated on the same side of the Mediterranean Sea, in a much\nmore advantageous position for receiving the productions of the East,\nand equally advantageous for distributing them.\n\nThe Phoenicians never recovered their importance; and indeed it was\nnot the interest of the Persian monarch to encourage trade by [end of\npage #24] the old channel of the Red Sea and Rhinocolura, but rather\nto come directly through the Persian Gulf, ascend the Euphrates, and\ncross the country to the borders of the Mediterranean, which was a\nway not much more expensive than by the old rout =sic=. As the\ngreater part of the produce imported was to be consumed at the\nluxurious court of Persia, and in the numerous rich cities with which\nthat empire was filled, there is no doubt that the way by the Persian\nGulf was by much the least expensive; for even Solomon, King of\nJerusalem, long before, though he lived at one extremity of the\njourney, and had ships for trading by the other channel, had carried on\ntrade by this way; and, in order to facilitate it, had laid the foundation\nof the magnificent city of Palmyra, nearly in the middle between the\nMediterranean Sea and the Gulf of Persia.\n\nWhilst those revolutions were effecting amongst the ancient nations\non the continents of Asia and Africa, the Greeks, who had been the\nmost barbarous of all, became, by degrees, the most refined; their\nlearning and arts were all founded, originally, on the Egyptian\nlearning; and though at last they carried them to a higher pitch than\ntheir masters; yet Egypt, for many centuries, was looked up to, even\nby the Greeks, as they were afterwards for a number of centuries by\nthe Romans, and the other nations of the world.\n\nThe education of the Greeks; very different in some of the states from\nwhat it was in others, had, however, the same tendency in all; that\ntendency was to invigorate the body, and instruct and strengthen the\nmind. While this continued, we see them at first resist the Persians,\nthough in very unequal numbers; and, at last, the Grecian vigour,\ndiscipline, and skill, subdue the whole of the then civilized world.\n\nAfter the conquests of Alexander, the wealth and luxury of Asia were\nintroduced into Greece, and indeed the Greeks refined on that luxury.\nAt Athens and the other cities which might be said to give manners to\nthe rest, shews, and theatrical representations were after that more\nattended to than the military art; and cabal, intrigue, and corruption,\nwere introduced in the place of that manly, pure, and admirable love\nof their country, for which, in less wealthy, but in better [end of page\n#25] times, they had been so highly distinguished above every other\npeople.\n\nThis was the situation of things when a nation, less advanced in arts,\nand uncorrupted with the possession of wealth, but which was still\nconsidered by the Greeks as barbarous, prepared at once to subdue the\nwhole of them, and give a still more striking proof of the triumph\nwhich vigour and energy obtain over those who have only wealth; the\npossession of which, undoubtedly, gives a certain means of defence,\nthough one very unequal to resisting a nation when excited by the\ndesire of sharing its possessions, and yet vigorous and strong, not\nbeing unnerved by the enjoyment of ease and luxury. [end of page\n#26]\n\n\n\n\nCHAP. IV.\n\n\n_Of the Romans.--the Causes of their Rise under the Republic, and of\ntheir Decline under the Emperors.--the great Error generally fallen\ninto with respect to the Comparison between Rome and Carthage;\nProofs that it is wrong, and not at all applicable to France and\nEngland_.\n\nIn the rise and greatness of Rome, there was nothing accidental, all\nwas the effect of the most unremitting perseverance in a plan, at first,\nof petty robbery; which, as it extended, was honoured with the title of\nconquest; and, as it succeeded, has been considered as deserving the\nappellation of great.\n\nIt is true, that there were talents exercised, and methods practised,\nwhich deserve the highest praise, and are worthy of imitation. It is\nimpossible to withhold admiration at the recital, but the end in view,\nfrom the beginning, cannot be justified.\n\nAlthough neither the end in view, nor, generally speaking, the means\nemployed, are deserving of imitation, yet we shall find more\nadvantage from examining them than from the history of any other\nnation.\n\nIn the first place, so far as prosperity depends on good conduct, and\ngood conduct depends on the state of the mind, the Romans are a most\nstriking example. While they preserved the manners that first\noccasioned their rise, they continued to become more powerful; as\nthey forsook these manners, their power abandoned them; and they,\nafter having conquered all with whom they ever contended, because\nthey had more skill or less corruption, were themselves overcome, by\nmen infinitely inferior to what they had been, before they became\nenervated and corrupt.\n\nThe smallness of the territory, which the Romans at first possessed,\nlaid them under the necessity of extending it, and drawing resources\nfrom their neighbours; who, being brave and hardy, could not be\neasily either robbed or subdued. [end of page #27]\n\nThe Romans began with robbing, and finished with subduing them all,\nbut the modes they practised deserve attention.\n\nIt is in vain to think that superior bravery or skill would alone have\ndone the business; those are often triumphant, but occasionally\ndefeated. The Romans owed their gradual aggrandizement to a line of\nconduct that, whether in good or ill fortune, tended to make them the\nsovereigns of the world. A line of conduct in which, if it had been in\nhuman nature to persevere, they would have preserved the situation to\nwhich they had elevated themselves.\n\nAlong with this decided conduct, which seems to have arisen from\nsomething innate in themselves, or to have been occasioned by some\ncircumstance that is not known, the Romans possessed a number of\nmethods, in addition to personal bravery, by which they advanced the\nend they had in view.\n\nWhen the kings were abolished, Rome was only a small, rude,\nirregular place, and a receptacle for plunder; inhabited, however, by\nmen who had great strength of mind, and who possessed a great\ncommand over themselves.\n\nTheir moral code was suitable to their situation. To rob, plunder, and\ndestroy an enemy was a merit; to betray a trust, or to defraud a fellow\ncitizen, was a crime of the greatest magnitude. With the Romans,\noaths were inviolable; and attachment to the public was the greatest\nvirtue.\n\nAs they had neither arts nor commerce, and but very little territory,\nplunder was their means of subsistence; it was to them a regular\nsource of wealth, and it was distributed with perfect impartiality; they\nwere in fact an association; the wealth of the public, and of the\nindividual, were, to a certain degree, the same; they were as an\nincorporated company, in which private interest conspired with the\nlove of their country to forward the general interest.\n\nPlundering and pillage, as well as the modes of dividing the spoil,\nwere reduced to system and method; and the religious observation of\noaths was conducive to the success of both. Every soldier was sworn to\nbe faithful to his country, both in fighting its battles, and in giving\na rigid account of whatever might be the fruits of the contest. [end of\npage #28]\n\nThe moveables and lands taken from an enemy were sold for the\nbenefit of the public; the former went wholly for that purpose, and the\nlatter were divided into two equal portions; one of which, like the\nmoveables, went into the general stock, the other was distributed to\nthe poorer citizens, at the price of a small acknowledgement.\n\nThe consequence of this system was, a perpetual state of warfare; in\nwhich it was clear that the armies must obtain a superiority over\nneighbours, who but occasionally employed themselves in acts of\nhostility.\n\nFrom such a plan of operations it naturally followed that they must\neither have been subdued altogether, or come off in general with some\nadvantage, otherwise it would have been impossible to proceed. Of\nthis they seem to have been fully sensible; for, with them, it was a\nmaxim never to conclude peace unless they were victorious, and never\nto treat with an enemy on their own territory.\n\nActing in this manner, and engaging in wars with different nations,\nunconnected with each other by treaties of alliance; without any\ncommon interest, or even any knowledge of each others =sic= affairs;\nignorant, in general, even of what was going on, the Romans had, in\nmost cases, a great advantage over those with whom they had to\ncontend.\n\nThere were in Italy some very warlike people, and those were nearest\nto Rome itself. The contest with those was long obstinate, and\nrepeatedly renewed; but still the system of conquest was followed; and\nat last prevailed.\n\nThe consular government was favourable, also, for perpetual warfare.\nThose temporary chief magistrates did not enjoy their dignity long\nenough to become torpid or careless, but were interested in\ndistinguishing themselves by the activity of their conduct while in\noffice; whereas, in hereditary power, or elective monarchy, the\npersonal feelings of the chief, which must have an influence upon the\nconduct of a nation, must sometimes, happily for mankind, lead him to\nseek peace and quietness. {27}\n\n---\n{27} During the interruption of consular government, by the\ndecemvirs, though they did not reign long, the energy of the people\nwas suspended, and their enemies found them much less difficult to\nresist.\n-=-\n\n[end of page #29]\n\nEven when the Gauls burned the city, the Romans yielded no\nadvantages in treaty; they abandoned it to its fate, retired to Veii, and\nrenewed the war.\n\nIn the art of war, the Romans had those advantages which men\ngenerally possess in whatever is the natural bent of their genius, and\ntheir constant occupation. Every thing that continual attention,\nexperience, or example, could do to increase their success was\nattended to; and their hardy manner of education and living, with\nconstant exercise, enabled them to practice =sic= what other men were\nunable to perform.\n\nThey accustomed themselves to heavier armour than any other nation.\nTheir rate of marching was between four and five miles an hour, for\nfour or five hours together, loaded with a weight of above 60lb. Their\nweapons for exercising were double the usual weight, and they were\ninured to running and leaping when completely armed.\n\nThe success of the Romans in Europe was not sufficiently rapid, nor\nwere the nations they conquered sufficiently rich to bring on that\nluxury and relaxation of discipline, which were the consequences in\nthose victories obtained in Egypt, Syria, and Greece; nor were the\nsoldiers the only persons inured to such exercises, for the Roman\ncitizens practised the same at home, in the Campus Martius.\n\nNo people educated with less hardiness of body, or a less firm\nattachment to their country, could have undergone, or would have\nsubmitted, to the terrible fatigues of a Roman soldier, which were\nsuch, that, even at a very late period of the republic, they were known\nto ask as a favour to be conducted to battle, as a relief from the\nfatigues they were made to undergo in the camp. {28}\n\nIn addition to this unremitting and very severe discipline, and to the\ninventions of many weapons, machines, and stratagems, unknown to\nother nations, they had the great wisdom to examine very carefully, if\nthey found an enemy enjoy any advantage, in what that advantage\nconsisted. If it arose from any fault of their own, it was rectified\n\n---\n{28} This happened under Sylla, in the war against Mithridates, which\nimmediately preceded the fall of the republic.\n-=-\n\n[end of page #30]\n\nwithout delay; and if it arose from any new mode of fighting, or\nsuperior weapons, they adopted methods with such promptitude that\nthe advantage was only once in favour of the enemy. {29}\n\nThe Asiatic methods of fighting with elephants, though new, never\ndisconcerted them twice. If they knew of any superior art that they\ncould imitate, it was done; and when the advantage arose from natural\ncircumstances, and they could not themselves become masters of the\nart, they took other methods. Expert slingers from the Balearian\nIslands, and bowmen from Crete, were added to their legions; as, in\nmodern times, field-ordnance and riflemen are added to ours.\n\nIt is impossible not to view with astonishment and admiration such\nwise conduct in such haughty men, whose simple citizens treated the\nsovereigns of other nations as equals; but that greatness of mind had a\nwell-founded cause. They knew that the physical powers of men are\nlimited, and that to obtain a victory with the greatest ease possible it\nwas necessary to join together all the advantages that could be\nobtained; they knew, also, that war is altogether a trial of force, and a\ntrial of skill, and that neither of the contending parties can act by rule,\nbut must be guided by circumstances and the conduct of the enemy.\n{30}\n\nThis conduct of the Romans in war was supported by the laws at\nhome. The equal distribution of lands, their contempt for commerce\nand luxury, preserved the population of the country in that state where\ngood soldiers are to be obtained. The wealthy, in any state, cannot be\nnumerous; neither are they hardy to bear the fatigue. Their servants,\nand the idle, the indolent, and unprincipled persons they have about\nthem are totally unfit, and a wretched populace, degraded by want, or\ninured to ease and plenty are equally unfit.\n\n---\n{29} This conduct appears the more admirable to those who live in the\npresent times that in the revolutionary war with the French, who\ninvented a number of new methods of fighting, and had recourse to\nnew stratagems, the regular generals opposed to them never altered\ntheir modes of warfare, but let themselves be beat in the most regular\nway possible. One single general (the Archduke Charles) did not think\nhimself above the circumstances of the case, and his success was\nproportioned to his merit.\n\n{30} The copying the form and structure of a Carthaginian galley that\nwas stranded.\n-=-\n\n[end of page #31]\n\nIt has been a favourite opinion among many writers on political\neconomy that artists and workmen are cowardly and unfit for soldiers;\nbut experience does not warrant that conclusion; though it is certain\nthat, according to the manner the Romans carried on war, the bodily\nfatigue was greater than men bred up promiscuously to trades of\ndifferent sorts could in general undergo.\n\nSo long as the Romans had enemies to contend with, from whom they\nobtained little, the manners and laws, the mode of education, and the\ngovernment of their country, remained pure as at first. Their business,\nindeed, became more easy; for the terror of their name, their\ninflexibility, and the superior means they had of bringing their powers\ninto action, all served to facilitate their conquests. But when they\nconquered Carthage, and begun =sic= to taste the fruits of wealth,\ntheir ground-work altered by degrees, and the superstructure became\nless solid. {31}\n\nWealth, as we have already seen, was confined to Asia and Africa, and\nof it the Carthaginians possessed a great share. It has long been the\nopinion adopted by writers on those subjects that the Carthaginians, as\nbeing a commercial and a trading nation, were quite an unequal match\nfor the Romans; that in Rome all was virtue, public spirit, and every\nthing that was great and noble, while at Carthage all was venal, vile,\nand selfish. A spirit of war and conquest reigned, say they, in one\nplace together with a spirit of glory, in the other a spirit of gain\npresided over private actions and public counsels.\n\nThis is all very true, and very well said, with respect to the fact, but\nwith respect to the cause there is one of the greatest errors into which\na number of men of discernment and ability have ever fallen. {32}\n\nThe true state of the case is easily to be understood, if we only\n\n---\n{31} It will be seen, in the subsequent part of this inquiry, that, in the\npresent mode of warfare, the Romans would not have had equal\nadvantage.--Skill, and not personal strength, is now the great object,\nand money to purchase arms and ammunition is the next.\n\n{32} M. Montesquieu, notwithstanding his very superior knowledge,\naccuracy, and acuteness, enlarges upon this subject; and never takes\nany notice of the corrupt, mercenary, and degraded state into which\nRome fell when it became as rich as Carthage.\n-=-\n\n[end of page #32]\n\nthrow aside, for a moment, the favour for the brave warrior, and the\ndislike to the selfish trader. The fact was, that Rome, in the days of its\nvigour, when it was poor, attacked Carthage in the days of its wealth\nand of its decline; but let us compare Carthage before its fall to Rome\nin the time of the Gordians, of Maximus, or Gallus, and see which was\nmost vile, most venal, or most cowardly. This would at least be a fair\ncomparison; and nothing relative to the two cities is more certain, than\nthat Rome became far more degraded, in the character both of citizens\nand soldiers, than ever Carthage was.\n\nWealth procured by commerce, far from degrading a nation more than\nwealth procured by conquest, does not degrade it near so much; and\nthe reason is easily understood. Whenever a commercial nation\nbecomes too corrupted and luxurious, its wealth vanishes, and the evil\ncorrects itself. Whereas, a country that lives by tribute received from\nothers, may continue for a considerable while to enjoy its revenues.\nThis is so evident, that it would be absurd to enlarge on the subject.\n\nThe reduction of Carthage, and the wealth it produced at Rome, soon\nbrought on a change in the education, the nature, and the manner of\nacting, both in private life and public concerns. The conquest of\nGreece, Syria, and Egypt, completed the business; and the same\npeople who had conquered every enemy, while they retained their\npoverty and simplicity, were themselves conquered, when they\nbecame rich and luxurious.. =sic=\n\nAfter the fall of Carthage {33}, Rome was fundamentally changed;\nbut the armies still continued to act. Their ambition was now\nstrengthened by avarice, and became ten times more active and\ndangerous to other nations. They then carried on war in every\ndirection, and neither the riches of the East, nor the poverty of the\nNorth, could secure other nations from the joint effects of ambition\nand avarice.\n\nBut the Romans did not only get gold and wealth by their con-\n\n---\n{33} Considering circumstances, it is wonderful that the\nCarthaginians made so excellent a stand against the Romans: for a\nlong time they were victorious; they fought excellently, even at the\nbattle of Zama. The Romans could not say so much for themselves,\nwhen afterwards they were attacked by the barbarians.\n-=-\n\n[end of page #33]\n\nquests; they became corrupted by adopting the manners of the\ninhabitants of countries that had long been drowned in every\nvoluptuous pleasure. Then it was that they ceased to trust so much to\ntheir bravery for their conquests; they began to employ politics and\nintrigue to divide their enemies. With the poorer states, they found\ngold a very useful weapon, and, with the richer, they employed\nweapons of iron.\n\nThe terror of the Roman name, the actual force that they could exert\nagainst a powerful enemy, and the facility with which a weak one\ncould be silenced, till a proper opportunity arrived for his destruction,\nwere all calculated, and force and fraud were both called into action.\n\nWhatever truth or honour the Romans had amongst themselves, they\nat least had none towards other nations. They, in the most wanton\nmanner, interfered in every quarrel between strangers; and, whenever\nit suited their conveniency to make war, they begun without almost\nbeing at the pains to search for a pretext. They set themselves up\nabove all opinion, while, at the same time, they required all nations to\nsubmit to theirs.\n\nIn a city where all great offices were elective, the evil effects of the\nintroduction of riches were soon displayed. The first great changes\nwere, that the people became corrupted, dependent, and degraded;\nfortunes became unequally divided; the provinces groaned under the\nheavy contributions of generals and proconsuls; and, at last, the\ncountry splitting into factions, the government was overturned.\n\nThe splendour of Rome augmented, as a fiery meteor shines most\nbright before it falls; but the means by which it obtained the\nascendency over other nations had long been at an end.\n\nThe same laws that had been found excellent, when the state was\nsmall and poor, did not answer now that it had become great and\nsplendid. The freedom of the city, and the title and privileges of a\nRoman citizen had been very widely extended; they were therefore\nbecome an illusion, and a very dangerous one for the public weal; they\nserved as a foundation for cabal and intrigue of every description.\n\nTowards the latter days, after all those internal causes of decline,\nwhich are common to other nations had rendered Rome feeble, several\n[end of page #34] external ones began to act.\n\nThe provinces became exhausted, and those who ruled them gradually\nretained more and more of the money. {34} Thus, while the\noppression of the provinces was augmenting, the resources of the state\nwere daily on the decline.\n\nThe first effect of conquests had been to free the people at home from\ntaxes; and when, in a state of poverty and simplicity, the effect was\nadvantageous and tended to preserve that spirit by which the Roman\nempire aggrandized itself. After wealth flowed in from the destruction\nof Carthage, donations and shews were in use. The Roman populace,\nidle and degraded, clamoured for corn and public games. It is almost\nas difficult to conceive the degree to which the character of the people\nwas degraded, as it is to give credit to the wealth and luxury of the\ngreat, in the latter days of the empire.\n\nAgriculture was neglected; and the masters of the world, who had\nobtained every thing for which they contended, while they preserved\ntheir purity of manners, now became unable either to govern others, to\nprotect themselves, or even to provide food. Sicily and Africa supplied\nthe Roman people with bread, long before the empire had become\nfeeble, and even at the very time when it is reckoned to have been in\nits greatest splendour in the Augustan age. {35} The cause of its\ndecline was fixed beyond the power of human nature to counteract: it\nbegan by unnerving the human character, and therefore its progress\nwas accelerated and became irresistible.\n\nOf all the nations, into which luxury is introduced, none feels its\neffects\n\n---\n{34} The detached facts related of the wealth of the governors of\nprovinces, compared with the poverty of the state, are, if not\nincredible, at least, difficult to conceive. They are, however, too well\nattested to admit of a doubt, though the details are not sufficiently\ncircumstantial to enable us to know exactly how they happened.\n\n{35} In the time of Augustus, the people depended on the supplies\nfrom Sicily and Egypt, in so complete a manner, that, if those failed,\nthere was no remedy; and, at one time, when there was only a\nsufficient quantity of grain for twenty-four hours, that emperor was\ndetermined to have put an end to his existence: but the supply arrived\nin time. Such is the terrible situation into which a people is thrown,\nwhen agriculture and industry are abandoned, and when the\npopulation becomes too great for the production of the country!! This,\nhowever, was a very recent change. Till some time after the conquest\nof Egypt, Greece, and Sicily, it could not have happened.\n-=-\n\n[end of page #35]\n\nso severely as one where it comes by conquest. A people of\nconquerors, who are wealthy, must, at all events, be under military\nauthority, and that is never a desirable circumstance; depending also\non revenues which come without the aid of industry, they must\nbecome doubly degraded.\n\nWith such a people, it would be fair to compare the Carthaginians\nbefore their fall; for, to say nothing more than that the principle of\ntraffic and commerce is founded on morality and virtue, in\ncomparison to that trade of pillage which robbed and ruined all\nnations; the physical situation of the Carthaginians was preferable to\nthat of the Romans in the days of their decline. This is evident, from\nthe noble struggle that the former made, and the contemptible manner\nin which the mistress of the world terminated her career.\n\nMontesquieu bewails the fate of a monarch, who is oppressed by a\nparty that prevails after his fall. His enemies are his historians; and\nthis reflection is employed in mitigation of the crimes imputed to\nTarquin; but, surely, if true, on that occasion, it is no less so with\nrespect to Carthage. All the historians that give us the character of the\ntwo nations were Romans and of the victorious party; yet most of\nthem are more equitable than the historians of modern times, for they\nhad not seen their own country in its last state of degradation and\nmisery. Those who now make the comparison have proper materials;\nand it is the business of the writers of history to free it from the errors\ninto which cotemporary =sic= authors fall, whether from prejudice, or\nfrom want of knowing those events which happened after their days.\n\nIn the case of the Roman historians, the error arose from a\ncombination of three different causes. In the first place, they compared\nRome in its healthy days and its vigour, to Carthage in its decline.--\nThey were, next to that, led into an error, by not knowing that all\ncountries that have been long rich are liable to the same evils as\nCarthage. And, last of all, they wrote with a spirit of party, and a\nprediliction =sic= in favour of Rome. These three causes are certain;\nand, perhaps, there was another. It is possible they did not dare to\nspeak the truth, if they did know it.\n\nIt is true, that the human mind is not proof against the effect pro-[end\nof page #36] duced by what is splendid and brilliant; and that success\nin all cases diminishes, and, in some, does away the reproach naturally\nattached to criminality. It is also to be admitted, that in the Roman\ncharacter there was a degree of courage and magnanimity that\ncommands admiration, though the end to which it was applied was in\nitself detestable. Even in individual life (moral principle apart) there is\nsomething that diminishes the horror attendant on injustice and\nrapacity, when accompanied with courage and prodigality.\n\nIt is no less true, that the manners of commercial men, though their\nviews are legitimate and their means fair, are prejudicial to them in the\nopinion of others. Individuals, gaining money by commerce, may\nsometimes have the splendour and magnanimity of princes; but\nnations that depend only on commerce for wealth never can. No\nnation, while it continues great or wealthy, can rid itself of the\ncharacteristic manners that attend the way in which it obtains its\nwealth and greatness. Merchants owe their wealth to a strict adherence\nto their interest, and they cannot help shewing it.\n\nThe cruelties of the Spaniards have not excited the detestation they\ndeserved, because they were accompanied with courage, and crowned\nwith success; and that nation found means, in the midst of the most\nhorrible of human crimes, to preserve an appearance of greatness and\ndignity of character. But the Dutch, who have gained wealth, like the\nCarthaginians, and though they were conquerors, never quitted the\ncharacter of merchants, and they never possessed dignity of character,\nthough they triumphed by virtue, perseverance, and bravery, over that\nvery Spain which did preserve her dignity.\n\nIt is much more difficult to reconcile the character of trading nations\nwith the qualities that are improperly called great, than that of any\nother. A commercial nation naturally will be just; it may be generous;\nbut it never can become extravagant and wasteful; neither can it be\nincumbered with the lazy and the idle; for the moment that either of\nthese takes place, commerce flies to another habitation. {36}\n\n---\n{36} It follows, from this, that a commercial people never become so\ndegraded as those who obtain wealth by other means; but, then, it also\nfollows, that they exist a much shorter time after they become so, and\nthat wealth and power leave them much more speedily.\n-=-\n\n[end of page #37]\n\nThe purpose of this inquiry being, to examine the effects of wealth,\nand its operation in the decline of nations; it appears to be of\nconsiderable importance to remove the error, in which historians and\nother writers have so long persevered, relative to the two greatest\nrepublics of antiquity; particularly as their example applies the most\nreadily, and is the most frequently applied to two rival nations of\nmodern times; although the parallel is extremely imperfect in almost\nevery particular, and in some directly inadmissible. {37}\n\nIt cannot but be attended with some advantage to set this matter right.\nIt may, perhaps, tend in some degree to prevent the French from\nattempting to imitate the Romans, when we shew them that a state,\nwhether a whole people, or a single city, exempted from taxes, and\nliving by the tribute of other countries, must, at all events, be\ndependent on its armies. In short, military government and tributary\nrevenue are inseparable. We see how closely they were connected in\nancient Rome. It is fit that its imitators should know at what rate they\npay (and in what coin) for those exemptions from taxes, occasioned by\nthe burthens imposed upon other nations.\n\nIn general we find, that all nations are inclined to push to the extreme\nthose means by which they have attained wealth or power; and it will\nalso be found that their ruin is thereby brought on with greater\nrapidity.\n\n---\n{37} The reader must see the allusion is to England and France; but, in\npoint of time, their situation is absolutely different. France is\nfarther advanced in luxury than England. Rome was far behind Carthage.\nThe Romans exceeded their rivals in perseverance; in following up their\nplans, and in attention to their liberty. The contrary is the case with\nFrance and England.\n\nThe French, indeed, resemble the Romans in restlessness and\nambition; but not in their mode of exerting the former, or of gratifying\nthe latter: the resemblance, therefore, is a very faint one, even where it\ndoes hold at all. The English, in whatever they may resemble the\nCarthaginians, such as they have been represented, neither do it in\ntheir want of faith and honour, nor in their progress towards decline.\nThe different wars with Rome, in which Carthage came off a loser and\nbecame tributary, though only for a limited time, were not the only\ncauses of its decline. The trade of Alexandria, which was better\nsituated for commerce, had diminished the resources of Carthage; so\nthat it was, in every sense of the word, a falling nation. It will be seen,\nin the subsequent part of this inquiry, how, from the different modes\nof making war and also the different effects of wealth in the present\ntimes, the comparison is still less founded.\n-=-\n\n[end of page #38]\n\nHad the Romans stopped the career of conquest at an earlier period,\nthey probably would not have so soon sunk into a state of corruption.\nIt is very probable, that if Caesar had never attempted the useless\nconquest of Britain, he never would have succeeded in conquering the\nliberties of his own country. The reputation of having conquered an\nisland, and the passage of the British Channel, made way for the\npassage of the Rubicon, and the battle of Pharsalia.\n\nConquerors must be paid as well as common soldiers: and though\nevery man may have his price, and money and dignities may be a\nsufficient reward for the most part, there are some who despise any\nreward under that of royal power.--Caesar was one of those men; and\nboth ancient and modern history shew, that though, perhaps, in his\nabilities, he has had no equal, there have been others who have rated\ntheirs at as high a price.\n\nThe Romans at last became sensible, when too late, that they had\npushed the spirit of conquest too far; and, as they had something great\nin all they did, they had the magnanimity to retract their error.\n\nThe greatest extent of the Roman empire being from the north of\nEngland to the Gulf of Persia, they consequently abandoned Britain,\nand those conquests in Asia, which were the most difficult to keep.\nThe river Euphrates became the boundary, the Emperor Adrian\nhaving, in a voluntary manner, given up all the country to the north of\nthat river, situated on its left bank.\n\nThe decline of the empire might have been as regular as the rise of the\nrepublic, had it not been for the different characters of the emperors;\nsome of whom did honour to human nature, from their possessing\nalmost every virtue, while others were such monsters, that their crimes\nexcite the highest degree of horror and indignation, and are almost\nbeyond credibility.\n\nIt is but justice to the Romans to observe, that though they robbed and\nconquered, yet their policy was to instruct, improve, and civilize those\nwhom they had robbed and conquered, wherever they stood in want of\nit. They aimed, in every case, at making the most of the circumstances\nin which they were placed, and they very truly conceived, that it was\nmore profitable and advantageous, to rule over a civilized than a rude\npeople. [end of page #39]\n\nAfter the great influx of wealth had corrupted Rome, its public\nexpenses increased at an enormous rate, till at last that portion of the\ntribute exacted from the provinces, which it pleased the armies and the\ngenerals to remit to Rome, became unequal to the expenditure.\nTaxation of every kind then became necessary, in Italy itself, and the\nevils that attend the multiplication of imposts were greatly augmented\nby the ignorant manner in which they were laid on, by men who\nunderstood little but military affairs, added to the severe manner in\nwhich were they =sic= levied by a rude, imperious, and debauched\nsoldiery.\n\nThe characters of soldier and citizen, which had been so long united,\nceased to have any connection. Soon after this, the corruption of\nmanners became general; and, at last, the Romans unable to find\nsoldiers amongst themselves, were obliged to retain barbarians to fight\nin their defence, {38} and to bribe the Persians, and other nations, to\nleave them in a state of tranquility.\n\nNo nation that ever yet submitted to pay tribute, has long preserved its\nindependence. The Romans knew this well; and if any one, having had\nrecourse to that expedient, has escaped ruin, it has been from some\nother circumstance than its own exertion; or it has sometimes been the\neffort of despair when pushed to extremity.\n\nThough, in many respects, Montesquieu's opinion of the affairs of\nRome is by no means to be taken, yet his short account of the whole is\nunexceptionally just.\n\n\"Take,\" says that able and profound writer, \"this compendium of the\nRoman history. The Romans subdued all nations by their maxims; but,\nwhen they had succeeded in doing so, they could no longer preserve\ntheir republican form of government. It was necessary to change the\nplan, and maxims contrary to their first, being introduced, they were\ndivested of all their grandeur.\"\n\nThis was literally the case; but then it is clear that this compendium,\nonly includes the secondary causes, and their effects; for the\nperseverance in maxims till they had obtained their end, and then\nchanging\n\n---\n{38} This is exactly one of the charges brought against the\nCarthaginians in the last Punic war.\n-=-\n\n[end of page #40]\n\nthem, which was not an act of the will, must have been occasioned by\nsome cause inherent in their situation, which had gradually changed.\n\nIn searching for this cause we shall be very much assisted, and the\nconclusion will be rendered more certain, by observing in what\nparticular circumstances, they resembled other nations who had\nundergone a similar changes. =sic=\n\nIn doing this, we find the inquiry wonderfully abridged indeed, and\nthe conclusion reduced nearly to a mathematical certainty, by\nobserving that the change of maxims, that is to say, the change in\nways of thinking, whenever it has taken place, has followed soon after\nthe introduction of wealth and refinement, which change manners, and\nconsequently maxims.\n\nWealth, acquired by conquest, was incompatible with that austere\nvirtue and independent principle which form the basis of republican\nprosperity.\n\nAs all public employments were obtained by the favour of the people;\nand as all wealth and power were obtained by the channels of public\nemployment; bribery and corruption, which cannot take place in a\npoor republic, became very common in this wealthy one; so that this\nrepublican government, so constituted, lost all those advantages it\npossessed while it was poor.\n\nHad the murderers of Julius Caesar, either understood the real\ncorruption of the commonwealth, or foreseen that a new master would\nrise up, they would never have destroyed that admirable man. Had\nRome not been ready to receive a master, Julius Caesar, with all his\nambition, would never have grasped at the crown.\n\nIn nations that obtain wealth by commerce, manufactures, or any other\nmeans than by conquests, the corruption of the state is not naturally so\ngreat. The wealth originates in the people, and not in the state; and,\nbesides that they are more difficult to purchase, there is less means of\ndoing so, and less inducement; neither can they, being the sources of\nwealth themselves, become so idle and corrupted. {39}\n\n---\n{39} The wild and ungovernable direction that the French revolution\ntook originated chiefly in the creation of assignats, which not only\nexempted the people from taxes at first, but had the effect of\nproducing an artificial and temporary degree of wealth, that [end of\npage #41] enabled vast numbers, either in the pay of others, or at their\nown expense, to make cabals and politics their whole study. Rome\nnever was in such a licentious state, because, before the citizens got\ninto that situation, the military power was established.\n-=-\n\nIn the ancient nations that fell one after another, we have seen the\nyoung and vigorous subdue the more wealthy and luxurious; or we\nhave seen superior art and skill get the better of valour and ignorance;\nbut, in the fall of the Roman empire, the art and skill were all on the\nside of those who fell, and the vigour of those who conquered was not\nso powerful an agent as the very low and degraded state into which\nthe masters of the world had themselves fallen.\n\nIt is by no means consistent with the plan of this work, nor is it any\nway necessary for the inquiry, to enter into the particular details of the\ndegraded and miserable state to which the Romans were reduced;\ninsomuch, that those who emigrated previously to its fall, and settled\namongst barbarous nations, found themselves more happy than they\nhad been, being freed from taxation and a variety of oppressions.\n\nThough the Roman people are, of all others, those whose rise and fall\nare the most distinctly known; yet, in some circumstances, their case\ndoes not apply to nations in general. Had they cultivated commerce\nand the arts, with the same success that they pursued conquest, they\nmust have become wealthy at a much earlier period, and they would\nnot have found themselves in possession of an almost boundless\nempire, composed of different nations, subdued by force, and\nrequiring force to be preserved.\n\nThe decline of nations, who become rich by means of industry, may\nbe natural; but, the fall of a nation, owing its greatness to the\nsubjugation of others, must be necessary. Human affairs are too\ncomplicated and varied to admit of perfect equality, and the relative\nsituations of mankind are always changing; yet, in some instances,\nperhaps, changes might be obviated, or protracted, by timely\npreventives. But there is no possibility of keeping them long in so\nunnatural a situation, as that of a nation of wealthy and idle people,\nruling over and keeping in subjection others who are more hardy,\npoorer, and more virtuous, than themselves.\n\nBefore the western empire fell, the following causes of its weakness\nwere arrived at a great height. [end of page #42]\n\nManners were corrupted to the highest degree; there was neither\npublic nor private virtue; intrigue, cabal, and money, did every thing.\n\nProperty was all in the hands of a few; the great mass of the people\nwere wretchedly poor, mutinous, and idle.\n\nItaly was unable to supply its inhabitants with food. The lands were in\nthe possession of men, who, by rapacity in the provinces, had acquired\nlarge incomes, and to whom cultivation was no object; the country\nwas either laid out in pleasure grounds, or neglected.\n\nThe revenues of the state were wasted on the soldiers; in shews to\nkeep the people occupied, and on the purchase of corn, brought to\nRome from a distance.\n\nThe load of taxes was so great, that the Roman citizens envied the\nbarbarians, and thought they could not be worse than they were,\nshould they fall under a foreign yoke. All attachment to their country\nwas gone; and every motive to public spirit had entirely ceased to\noperate.\n\nThe old noble families, who alone preserved a sense of their ancient\ndignity, were neglected in times of quiet, and persecuted in times of\ntrouble. They still preserved an attachment to their country, but they\nhad neither wealth, power, nor authority.\n\nThe vile populace, having lost every species of military valour, were\nunable to recruit the armies; the defence, against the provinces which\nrebelled, was in the hands of foreign mercenaries; and Rome paid\ntribute to obtain peace from some of those she had insulted in the hour\nof her prosperity and insolence.\n\nGold corrupted all the courts of justice; there were no laws for the\nrich, who committed crimes with impunity; while the poor did the\nsame through want, wretchedness, and despair.\n\nIn this miserable state of things, the poor, for the sake of protection,\nbecame a sort of partizans or retainers of the rich, whom they were\nready to serve on all occasions: so that, except in a few forms, there\nwas no trace left of the institutions that had raised the Romans above\nall other nations. [end of page #43]\n\n\n\n\nCHAP. V.\n\n\n_Of the Cities and Nations that rose to Wealth and Power in the\nmiddle Ages, after the Fall of the Western Empire, and previously to\nthe Discovery of the Passage to the East Indies by the Cape of Good\nHope, and of America.--Different Effects of Wealth on Nations in cold\nand in warm Climates, and of the Fall of the Eastern Empire_.\n\nAfter the fall of the western empire, the Italian states were the first\nthat revived commerce in the west of Europe, which they may indeed\nbe said alone to have kept alive, with the single exception of the city\nof Marseilles.\n\nVenice had begun to flourish when the barbarians took Rome; and\nFlorence afforded a refuge for those of the nobility who escaped from\ntheir terrible grasp: but, for four centuries after, till the time of\nCharlemagne, there was, indeed, nothing that had either the semblance\nof power, wealth, or greatness, in Europe. The Saracens, as early as\nthe seventh century, had got possession of Egypt, and had extended\ntheir ravages in Asia, to the borders of the Black Sea, having in vain\nendeavoured to take the city of Constantinople, and make themselves\nmasters of the eastern empire, as their rivals, the Goths, had conquered\nthat in the west.\n\nThe momentary greatness which shone forth in the reign of\nCharlemagne was, in many respects, like that during the reign of\nAlexander the Great. The power of each depended on the individual\ncharacter of the man, and their empires, extended by their courage and\nskill, fell to pieces immediately after they were no more.\n\nAs the only permanent change that Alexander had effected was that of\nremoving the chief seat of commerce from Phoenicia to the southern\nborder of the Mediterranean Sea; so, the only permanent effect of the\nreign of Charles the Great was, his extending Christianity, and some\ndegree of civilization, to the north of the Danube; {40} thus bring-\n\n---\n{40} The people to the north of the Danube had never been subdued\nby the Romans. In the time of Charlemagne they were Pagans, and in\na most rude state of barbarism.\n-=-\n\n[end of page #44]\n\ning the borders of the Baltic Sea within the limits of the civilized\nworld.\n\nCharlemagne paved the way for the greatness of the Flemings, the\nSaxons, and the Hans Towns, which began to flourish a few centuries\nafter his time; but his own country was never in a more abject\nsituation than soon after his decease.\n\nThe Danes took and burned the city of Paris, and they conquered,\nsettled, and gave its name to the present country of Normandy. {41}\n\nIt would throw no light on the subject of the present inquiry to notice\nthe quarrels, the feuds, and revolutions, that took place during the dark\nages, and the reign of the feudal system, previously to the time of the\ncrusades; when a wild romantic spirit extended civilization a little\nmore widely than before, and laid the foundation for a new order of\nthings, and a new species of wealth and power, different from those of\nthe ancient world, the extent of which was bounded by the fertile\nregions of the south.\n\nThe first holy war took place in the eleventh century, and commerce\nand industry were introduced into the north of Europe very soon after.\nThe Danes, who alone had power by sea in those times, exercised it by\npiracies and seizing all merchant vessels; particularly such as passed\nthe Sound, from the Baltic to the North Sea. This rendered it necessary\nfor the cities that had commerce to carry on to associate for the sake of\nprotection, as the Arabian merchants had formerly done by land, and\ndo to this day, to prevent being robbed by those who live by hunting\nand depredation.\n\nThis gave rise to the famous Hanseatic League, which began to\nbecome formidable towards the end of the twelfth century. {42}\n\nAs men living in northern countries have many wants unknown to\nthose of the south, so the industry that began on the borders of the\n\n---\n{41} They were equally successful in England, but that country was\nnot then to be considered as making any part of that world, with the\nrevolutions of which this inquiry is connected.\n\n{42} There is a dispute relative to this: but, as no writers give it a\nlater date, and some give it an earlier one, it is certain that it must\nhave existed at that time. Many disputes never ascertain the point\nintended, yet clear up something else that is equally useful.\n-=-\n\n[end of page #45]\n\nBaltic was very different from that which had flourished in ancient\ntimes on those of the Mediterranean Sea.\n\nIn this new order of things, Flanders, for its fertility, might be\ncompared to Egypt, and Holland to Phoenicia, from its want of\nterritory: but clothing of a more substantial sort, and conveniences and\npleasures of a different nature being necessary, industry took a\ndifferent turn. Besides this, the nature of the governments, where men\nwere more nearly upon an equality, made it necessary to provide for\ntheir wants in a very different way.\n\nInstead of building pyramids for the tombs of kings, industry was\nemployed in procuring comfort for those who inhabited the country;\nand instead of the greatest art being employed on the fabrication of\nfine linen, and dying of purple, making vessels of gold and silver, and\nevery thing for the use of courts, the art of making warm clothing of\nwool, and of fishing and salting fish, occupied the attention of this\nnew race of men.\n\nThe Flemish had three sources of wealth at one time: they possessed\nthe depots of Indian produce, and dispersed it over the north of\nEurope; they were the first who excelled in the art of weaving, and in\nthat of curing fish.\n\nThe towns of Flanders and Brabant were associated in the Hanseatic\nLeague, and continued rising from the twelfth to the middle of the\nsixteenth century, when several circumstances operated in bringing on\ntheir decline.\n\nThe Hanseatic association was one arising from the circumstances of\nthe times and from necessity. It was an artificial connection or\nalliance, where towns, subject to different governments, acted as\nindependent states, entering into a society which treated on a footing\nof equality with kings, and made war and peace like any single\nsovereign. It was not to be expected that such a sort of alliance could\ngreatly outlive the cause of its formation. But neither did the\ndestruction of the league or federation, of necessity, draw along with it\nthat of the towns of which it was composed. We shall see, however,\nthat the general prosperity, and that of the individual members of the\nleague, disappeared for the most part nearly together. [end of page\n#46]\n\nThe Dutch were far inferior to the Flemings for natural advantages;\nbut they acted under the influence of necessity, which spurred on their\nindustry; and no nation ever shewed so well how powerful its\noperation is: so that, though they were at first behind the Flemings in\ncommerce and manufactures, they got the better, and became more\nrich and powerful. While the persecution of Philip, who was King of\nSpain, while his brother Ferdinand, Emperor of Germany, was at the\nhead of the Austrian dominions there, and was a dependant of the\nSpanish monarchs.\n\n--While the persecution of Philip, uniting the authority of the\nhereditary dominions of Austria with that of Spain, compelled many\nof the most industrious artisans, of that portion of the Low Countries\nthat has since been distinguished by the title of the Austrian\nNetherlands, to leave their country, the Dutch provinces were making\npreparations to throw off the yoke of Spain.\n\n[Transcriber's note: possible partly duplicated section, here reproduced\nas-is from the original.]\n\nNot only did the Dutch become more wealthy than their neighbours,\nbut they became also more tenacious of their liberty, more patriotic\nand free; for the situation of their country required economy, union,\nand patriotic exertion, even for the preservation of its existence.\n\nAfter Holland had already made considerable advances towards\nwealth, it obtained great superiority by a fortunate improvement on\nthe art of curing herrings. Though herrings had been barrelled for\nexportation, for more than two hundred years, it was only towards the\nend of the fourteenth, or beginning of the fifteenth century, that the\npresent method of curing them was invented by the Dutch, which gave\nthem a decided superiority in that article. {43} This prepared the way\nfor the downfal =sic= of Flanders; to which its pride, and the mutinous\nspirit of the manufacturers in the towns did not a little contribute.\n\nThe decline of the Austrian Low Countries was brought on entirely by\nthree causes; the oppression of the government, the Dutch excelling\nand supplanting them in arts and industry, and their own pride and\ninsolence. At one time, Bruges, at another time, Antwerp, took on\nthem to act as sovereigns, and as if independent, while, at the same\ntime, the people were almost constantly disobedient to their\nmagistrates. They had first become industrious under the influence of\n\n---\n{43} It was discovered in 1397, or soon after.\n-=-\n\n[end of page #47]\n\nnecessity; but that was gone, and they could not continue in the same\ncourse, when in full enjoyment of wealth, and of every thing they\nwanted.\n\nThe Hanseatic Towns, from at first merely defending their trade\nagainst the Danes, became their conquerors at sea, and, in the years\n1361 and 1369, they took and burnt Copenhagen, the capital, twice.\nCrowned heads became desirous of their alliance, and no power, at\nsea, was equal to oppose them; but their insolence to the Dutch, their\noppressions of the English, of Spain, and other powers, laid the\nfoundation for their decline in less than half a century afterwards.\n{44}\n\nAs the first three centuries of this extraordinary and unexampled\nassociation, were employed in protecting commerce and protecting\ntrade, all those concerned in its success were ambitious of being\nadmitted members, or received as friends: but when they began to\nassume the pride and dignity of sovereigns, and to meddle in political\nquarrels, to become irascible and unjust, their numbers diminished;\nand of those members that remained, the wealth and prosperity\ngradually began to fall.\n\nThe Dutch, by great industry, by a strict attention to their interest, and\nby keeping down pride, continued to increase in wealth, while the\nHans Towns and Flanders were considerably advanced in their\ndecline.\n\nWhile this was happening on the northern shores of the continent of\nEurope; to which and to Italy trade had been nearly confined, Spain\nand Portugal, France and England, began to see the advantages of\nmanufactures and commerce, and to encourage them. If money was\nwanted to be borrowed, it was either in Italy or Flanders, or in some of\nthe Hans Towns, that it could alone be found; so, that though the\nmonarchs of those days rather despised commerce, yet, as a means\nmerely of procuring what they found so indispensably necessary, they\nbegan to think of encouraging it.\n\nSpain had taken possession of the Canary Islands, and Portugal had\nmade conquests on the coast of Africa, and seized the island of\n\n---\n{44} In 1411 they were compelled, by Henry IV. of England, to give\nhim satisfaction for some of the injuries done.\n-=-\n\n[end of page #48]\n\nMadeira in the early part of the fifteenth century, and by an attention\nto naval affairs, and setting a value on possessions beyond seas, laid a\nfoundation for those new discoveries which have totally changed the\nface of the world.\n\nIn Europe then, at the end of the fifteenth century, the nations were\nnearly in the following state. The Italians, possessed of the whole\ntrade to India, were wealthy but feeble. They had more art, policy, and\nmoney, than other nations; but they had of themselves scarcely any\neffective power, except a little exercised by the Venetians and\nGenoese at sea.\n\nThe Hanse Towns, extending over the northern part of Europe and\nFlanders, which had become wealthy and powerful by their own\nindustry, and a participation of the trade to India with the Italians,\n(though at second hand,) were on the decline, through pride and\nluxury.\n\nHolland alone was advancing fast towards wealth, by industry, and an\nattention to commerce and economy. Spain and Portugal had turned\ntheir attention to new discoveries; and France and England were\nendeavouring to follow, though at a great distance, those who, in this\ncareer, had gone before them.\n\nOf the places that enjoyed wealth, all were declining in power from\nthe abuse of it; and Spain, which alone had possessed much power\nwithout wealth, was abusing it, by banishing industry from Flanders,\nand the Moors from their own country. In one case, there was wealth\nwithout power; in the other, there was power without wealth; and, in\nboth, mistaken views and unwise conduct had laid the foundation for\ndecline.\n\nThe other nations that had not yet either wealth or power were all\nseeking with great energy to acquire them; and they were successful in\ntheir attempts. Even Spain, which had unwisely banished the Moors,\nand thereby laid a foundation for its own decline and fall, found that\nevent retarded for a century, by a most unexpected discovery: in\nconsequence of which discovery it fell from a greater height at a later\nperiod. {45}\n\n---\n{45} It would not be to the purpose to speak at present either of\nPoland, Sweden, or Russia, or of the German empire, in which many\nof the Hanse Towns were situated. [end of page #49] The history of\nthe Hanse Towns is very curious, and well worth attention: perhaps, next\nto that of Rome, it is the best calculated to illustrate the subject of\nthis inquiry; but it is too long to be entered on.\n-=-\n\nAs for the eastern empire; held up by a participation of the commerce\nof India, and retaining still some of the civilization of the ancient\nworld, it had sustained the irregular, though fierce attacks of the\nbarbarians till the middle of this century; when, having very\nimprudently made a display of the riches of the city, and the beauty of\nthe women, the envy of the Mahomedan barbarians was raised to a\npitch of frenzy, that it would, in any situation, have been difficult to\nresist, but for which the enervated emperors of the east were totally\nunequal.\n\nThis added one instance more of a poor triumphing over an enervated\nand rich people. Nothing could exceed the poverty of the Turks,\nunless it was the ugliness of their women. But the case was not the\nsame here as when the Goths and Vandals, from violence and revenge,\nattacked Rome merely to plunder and destroy. The Turks were,\ncomparatively, from a southern climate themselves; though poor, they\nhad been living amongst the wreck of ancient greatness, and they\nconquered with an intention to occupy and enjoy.\n\nThus was extinguished the last remains of ancient grandeur, in the\nmiddle of the fifteenth century. About fifty years before, many new\nsources of wealth were discovered, and the old ones were entirely\nconverted into a channel that was new also. Thus, those who had,\nfrom the earliest ages, been in possession of wealth were preparing the\nway for enriching poor nations, that, from their geographical situation\nand other circumstances, never could otherwise have participated in it.\n[end of page #50]\n\n\n\n\nCHAP. VI.\n\n\n_Digression concerning the Commerce with India.--This the only one\nthat raised ancient Nations to Wealth.--Its continual Variations.--\nThe Envy it excited, and Revolutions it produced_.\n\nBefore there are any authentic records, Syria and Egypt were\npopulous; and the monarchs that ruled in those extensive countries had\nestablished their governments upon the plan that has more or less been\nadopted by all countries. There were different ranks of people. The\nsame offices did not fall indifferently upon all. Wealth was unequally\ndivided; and, of course, a foundation was laid for that commerce\nwhich consists in supplying the affluent with articles of taste and\nluxury, which are only produced in some countries; whereas, articles\nof necessity are produced in every country that is inhabited.\n\nCommerce appears at first to have been entirely confined to the\nproductions of the eastern and middle parts of Asia, which have, from\nthe earliest periods, been sought after with great avidity by the people\nof other countries.\n\nAll that is most grateful to the taste, the eye, or the smell, is found in\npeculiar excellence in India. It is not to be wondered at then, if such\nobjects of the desires of men were an abundant source of riches to\nthose nations who had the means of obtaining them.\n\nEgypt and Syria lay immediately in the road for this commerce. They\nwere rivals, and many contests and vicissitudes were the consequence:\nfor no commerce has ever created so much envy and jealousy. None\nhas ever raised those who carried it on so high, or, on forsaking them,\nleft them so low, as that which has been carried on with India.\n\nThough at a very early period Egypt had a share of this lucrative\ncommerce, yet the greatest part was carried on through Syria and\nArabia, between the Persian Gulf and the Mediterranean Sea; that part\nnow called the Levant, where Tyre and Sidon once stood. [end of page\n#51]\n\nWe shall examine briefly the changes of this commerce; the only one\nalmost existing, in early times, or at least which gave rise to nearly all\nthat did exist. {46}\n\nAs the common necessaries of life are found in greater or less\nabundance in every country, and as the population is in some degree\nregulated by their quantity, they made no objects of trade, except in\nthe cases of famine. The precious metals, spices, jewels, and\naromatics, rare in their production, universally desirable and easily\ntransported, were long the chief objects of commerce; and the changes\nwhich this commerce has undergone and produced, amongst those\nwho possessed it, greatly elucidate the subject of this inquiry.\n\nThe distance from Babylon to the Persian gulf, down the Euphrates, to\nwhere Bussora now stands, was not great, and across the country to\nTyre there was little interruption; the Assyrian empire extending to the\nsea-coast, and its monarchs being too powerful to have any thing to\nfear.\n\nThere was, however, at a very early period, another channel, by which\nthe Tyrians obtained the productions of the East, namely, by sailing up\nthe Red Sea, or Arabian Gulf, and across Arabia Petrea to\nRhinocolura. {47}\n\nThe Egyptians, at that time, obtained the same sorts of merchandize,\nby sailing likewise up the Red Sea, and landing at the western\nextremity; from whence they were distributed through Lower Egypt.\n\nCommerce was carried on in this manner, and was nearly all\nengrossed by Tyre, when Alexander the Great, bred up under his\nfather, who had been educated at Athens, and travelled through\nGreece,\n\n---\n{46} To carry on trade, capital is necessary; that is to say, there must\nbe some means of getting an article before it can be carried away and\nsold. Spices, precious stones, and the other produce of the East, cost\nlittle or almost nothing amongst those who had more than they could\nuse; and, as they produced an immense profit to merchants, they laid a\nfoundation for those capitals that afterwards were employed in other\nsorts of business.\n\n{47} Rhinocolura was merely a sort of sea port for embarking the\nmerchandizes that had been brought across the desert from the Red\nSea, It was situated at the south-east extremity or corner of the\nMediterranean Sea, and till Alexandria was built was the nearest port\nto the Red Sea.\n-=-\n\n[end of page #52]\n\nturned his arms against those countries in which there was the most to\nbe got by conquest, and from whom there was the least danger of\ndefeat.\n\nBefore this took place, the pride and insolence of the inhabitants of\nTyre and Sidon had displayed itself on more than one occasion. After\nhaving been on friendly terms with the Jews, under David and\nSolomon, they became their enemies, and excited the King of Babylon\nto take Jerusalem; by that means destroying a neighbouring and\ndangerous rival. The wealth of these two cities had afterwards induced\nthe Babylonians to attack them also. Sidon was taken and destroyed;\nand that part of the city of Tyre fell, which was upon the main land;\nbut the Tyre that was the place of real trade, escaped the rage of the\nAssyrian monarchs.\n\nAlexander seems to have determined on destroying Tyre, in order to\nfound Alexandria, which he placed indeed in a better situation for the\neastern trade. His romantic expedition to India had in view the getting\npossession of the countries which had produced those gems and\naromatics that were so much sought after in the other parts of the\nworld.\n\nHad Alexander lived, perhaps he would not have found it in his\ninterest to depress Syria; but the division of his conquests amongst his\ngenerals gave to Egypt and Syria two different masters. They were\nrivals, and then every advantage that nature gave to Alexandria was\nimproved to the highest pitch under the Ptolemys.\n\nThe river Nile, much more navigable than the Euphrates, was also\nbetter adapted for this trade, because, in coming from India, it was\nnecessary to ascend the latter, while the other was descended. Besides\nthis, the flat country of the Delta was cut into canals, which greatly\nfacilitated this channel of commerce. {48}\n\nThis was the first great revolution in eastern commerce. It was brought\non first by the envy of Alexander and the pride of the in-\n\n---\n{48} It does not appear what returns were made to the Indians for\ntheir produce, therefore it must have been money. The trade then\nconsisted in bringing from thence goods, comparatively weighty, and\nreturning, as it were, empty. The current of the rivers being in\ndifferent directions was then an object of importance.\n-=-\n\n[end of page #53]\n\nhabitants of Tyre, and gave a very great superiority to Egypt, which\nwas increased by the canals dug in that country, and the discovery of\nthe regular monsoon, (a periodical wind,) which, at a certain time of\nthe year, carried navigators straight from the mouth of the Red Sea to\nthe Malabar coast. {49}\n\nUnder these disadvantages, flowing from superior prerogatives of\nEgypt, the commerce of Syria fell off almost to nothing, till, by\nanother of those changes to which this commerce seems peculiarly\nliable, the Roman empire, which had swallowed up the whole of the\ncivilized world, was itself divided into two, and one of the capitals\nfixed at Constantinople.\n\nThe channel through Syria obtained then a preference for all the\neastern part of the empire; and owing to some change, either in the\npolitics or religion of the Persians, when conquered by the Parthians,\nthey became willing to permit them the navigation of the Euphrates,\nwhich had long been shut up.\n\nThis continued to be the state of matters, particularly after the fall of\nthe western empire, when barbarians got possession of all that part of\nEurope that used to be supplied with East India produce by the way of\nAlexandria. It continued till the middle of the seventh century of the\nChristian aera, when the Mahometan religion was established from the\nwesternmost part of Africa to the confines of the Chinese empire; and\nas the followers of that religion were unfriendly to commerce, and\nnone could be carried on with India that did not pass through their\ncountry, it was nearly annihilated, and was almost wholly confined to\nthe caravans of pilgrims, who, going to visit Jerusalem and Mecca,\nunder the cloak of religious zeal, exchanged the various articles of\ntraffic which they had collected in their different countries and on\ntheir journey.\n\n---\n{49} This passage, from the straits of Babelmandel to the point of the\npeninsula of India, saved a very long and dangerous navigation by the\ncoast. It is almost due east, and with the advantage of being much\nshorter, and having a fair wind, was next to the discovery of the\npassage of the Cape of Good Hope, the greatest discovery for\nshortening the route to India. This was discovered during the time that\nEgypt was a Roman province.\n-=-\n\n[end of page #54]\n\nSuch were the vicissitudes, changes, and variations of this commerce\nin early periods, and during the middle ages; and, when we come to\ntreat of the same within the last two centuries, we shall find it equally\nliable to alteration.\n\nOf all the spots on the face of the earth that have undergone revolution\nand ruin, they that are now the most completely sunk below their\nnatural level, are those which were formerly the highest above it.\n\nWe have left uninterrupted the detail of the commercial greatness of\nthose places, in order not to break the narrative; but as cities cannot be\ngreat without connection, it is necessary to notice, that Marseilles in\nFrance, and Carthagena, and some other places on the coast of Spain,\nwere those, by which eastern luxuries came into Europe from\nAlexandria and Tyre. The Carthaginians, a Tyrian colony, had the\nproduce from Tyre, and from Rhinocolura, and supplied Spain and the\nwestern portion of Africa; but when Alexandria arose, Carthage began\nto fall. Alexandria, situated near to it on the same coast, was a rival,\nnot a friend, as Tyre had been, and the first Punic war, in which the\npride of that republic had involved it with Rome, following soon after,\nhastened its decline. {50}\n\nThe nations of Greece, which had risen to power and wealth, owed\nthese more to their superiority in mind, in learning, and the fine arts,\nthan to any attention they ever paid to commerce; they had begun by\nbeing the most barbarous of all the people in that part of the globe,\nand got their first knowledge from the Egyptians, whom they long\nconsidered as their superiors in science, as the Romans afterwards did\nthe Greeks; but when the barbarians broke down the western empire,\nlearning as well as commerce was very soon extinguished.\n\nIt was the share of Indian commerce, settled at Constantinople, that\ntended more than any other circumstance to preserve that empire so\nlong. To that, and to the barbarians having other occupation, rather\n\n---\n{50} Marseilles was founded soon after the city of Rome, but it was a\ngovernment of itself, and made no part of ancient Gaul. The Gauls\nwere warlike barbarians. The inhabitants of Marseilles were polished,\nlike the inhabitants of other towns that enjoyed commercial wealth.\nThey were always allies, and steady friends to the Romans, whom\nthey never abandoned.\n-=-\n\n[end of page #55]\n\nthan to any intrinsic strength of its own, did the eastern empire owe its\nlong preservation.\n\nA new channel for this varying commerce of the East, was opened, as\ncivilization extended to the north of Europe, and this chiefly on\naccount of the very small supply that was obtained through the\nMahomedan countries.\n\nGoods were transported by land from Hindostan and China, to\nEsterhabad, situated on the south-east corner of the Caspian Sea; from\nwhence they were carried in vessels to the north-east corner of the\nsame sea, and from thence by the Wolga and the Don; two rivers\nwhich rise in Russia, and, after nearly meeting together, fall into the\nCaspian Sea, and the Black Sea. By ascending the Wolga a short\ndistance, and descending the Don, with only a few miles of land-\ncarriage, the produce of India arrived at the Black Sea, and\nConstantinople became the emporium of the Indian trade. This was a\ngreat stroke to Venice and Genoa, {51} which rivalled each other in\nbringing the Asiatic commodities, for the supply of Europe, through\nthe old channels. This jealousy of each other, and of Constantinople,\nwas at its height when the crusades carried most of the princes and\nnobles of Europe to Venice and Constantinople. The Venetians,\nmerely a mercantile people, with little territory or power, neither gave\nnor received umbrage from those warlike chiefs; but it was not so with\nConstantinople, the seat of a great empire; so that the crusaders and\nVenetians united against that power, and the eastern emperors were\ncompelled to divide their city into four parts: the sovereignty of one\npart fell to the lot of the Venetians, who, for more than half a century,\nhad by this means a decided superiority over both its rivals, and\nengrossed nearly the whole commerce of the East. The Genoese and\nGreek emperors now found\n\n--\n{51} In the chart which I have given, Venice and Genoa are put\ntogether, as if one, though they were rivals, and the prosperity of the\none injured the other; but as nearly situated the same, and neither\nbeing considered as a nation, but merely as an abode of commerce, I\ndid not think it necessary to distinguish them in the general history\nmore than the variations that take place between the different cities of\nthe same country. If, however, I should do the chart on a large scale, I\nshould certainly separate them, and shew their rises and falls minutely.\n-=-\n\n[end of page #56]\n\nit their interest to unite against Venice, and the Genoese, by\nsupporting their ally with money, expelled the Venetians from\nConstantinople. The imperial family was reinstated, and the Genoese\nhad the suburbs of Pera as a reward for their assistance. This quarter\nof the city the Genoese fortified, and the Venetians were compelled to\nreturn to their old channels by Egypt and Syria. {52}\n\nDuring those contests, Florence arose, and became a rival both to\nVenice and Genoa; and some degree of civilization, or, at least, a taste\nfor the luxuries and produce of the East was brought into the north of\nEurope by those who returned from the crusades. The consumption of\nAsiatic produce in the North, occasioned depots to be established, and\nBruges and Antwerp became to the north, what Venice and Genoa\nwere to the south of Europe. The Hans Towns rose to wealth and\nopulence just about that period; but the effects of wealth acquired by\ncommerce in the north were found to be different from what they had\nbeen in southern climates. Italy was going to decay, while three of its\ncities were increasing in splendour; but, in the north, the riches\nacquired by the cities set industry at work: manufactures were\nimproved, and affluence and the comforts of life became more\ngenerally diffused than they had ever before been, or than they are in\nthe southern countries even at the present day.\n\nWhile Constantinople was thus rivalling the cities of Italy, a new\nrevolution took place there, which overturned the Greek empire, and\nestablished that of the Ottomans.\n\nWhen Mahomet II. mounted the throne, the Genoese were expelled\nfrom Pera, {53} and Venice regained the preponderance in eastern\n\n---\n{52} The depot of India commerce being in the Crimea, which is near\nthe mouth of the Wolga, is a strong reason for believing the trade was\ncarried on through the Caspian Sea; but it has been asserted, that the\nchief route was directly by land from the Tigris to the Black Sea. This\nseems a very good way; but, in that case, why cross the Black Sea to\ngo to the Crimea? Any one who looks at the map will be able to judge\nthat as being very unlikely. Doctor Robertson, however, has taken no\nnotice of this difficulty. Two things are certain: that the depot was in\nthe Crimea, and that merchants never go out of their road without\nhaving some cause for doing it. The reader must then determine for\nhimself.\n\n{53} Before the Genoese were expelled, their insolence and avarice\nhad time to display themselves in their full extent; about the year\nthirteen hundred and forty, says an eye-witness, [end of page #57]\n(Nicepho[r/i]as [illeg.] Gregoras,) they dreamed that they had acquired\nthe dominion of the sea, and claimed an exclusive right to the trade of\nthe Euxine, prohibiting the Greeks to sail to the Chersonesus, or any\npart beyond the mouth of the Danube, without a licence from them.\nThe Venetians were not excepted, and the arrogance of the Genoese\nwent so far as to form a scheme for imposing a toll on every vessel\npassing through the Bosphorous.\n-=-\n\ncommerce, which she maintained, till the discovery of the passage by\nthe Cape of Good Hope, which opened a new channel, more certain,\nmuch less expensive, and not so liable to interruption from the\nrevolutions that nations are liable to. It is deserving of observation,\nthat whatever alterations took place in the channel through which the\nIndia trade was carried on, whatever were the vicissitudes or the\ndifficulties, the trade itself never was suspended; so great was the\npropensity of those who were affluent in the West, to enjoy the\nproductions of the East. {54}\n\nThe vicissitudes of this eastern commerce were thus very great in\nformer times. The wealth and arrogance which the possession of it\nproduced, and the envy it excited, may, in general, be ascribed as the\ncause; indeed it is not certain whether the envy of the Genoese, at the\nsuccess of the Venetians, did not make them, in an underhand manner,\nfavour those attempts to find out a new channel which might destroy\nthe prosperity of a haughty and successful rival. {55}\n\nWhether it was so or not, it is certain that the discovery of the passage\nby the Cape of Good Hope was not accidental; but that the Portuguese\nwere induced to listen to the proposal of trading to India by that route,\nunder the certainty of rivalling the greatest commercial city of the\nworld, if she should succeed.\n\nThough no new channel can now be expected, and the present one is\nevery day becoming more easy and frequented, yet the capricious\nshiftings of the India trade were not ended by this new discovery.\n\nInstead of the contest being, as formerly, between cities situated on\n\n---\n{54} The prices of Asiatic produce were exorbitant. Silk was sold for\nits weight in gold; and a Roman emperor refused his empress the\nluxury, or rather the splendour, of a silk gown.\n\n{55} Amongst the passions that get hold of rivals in commerce, that of\nenvy is so great, when avarice is defeated, that, to humble a successful\nrival, they will meet ruin themselves, without fear, and even with\nsatisfaction.\n-=-\n\n[end of page #58]\n\nthe borders of the Mediterranean Sea, those maritime powers who\nnavigated the main ocean became the contending parties.\n\nThere are only two ways by which wealth is accumulated and brought\ninto few hands; the one by compulsion and levying taxes, the other by\nproducing or procuring objects of desire; for a small quantity of\nwhich, people give up a great portion of their labour.\n\nSovereigns have amassed wealth and possessed revenue by the first\nmeans, and the use they have put it to has been magnificence in\nbuilding, or in great or useful works, for war, or for pleasure.\n\nThe wealth obtained by the other means, of which the trade to the East\nseems to have been the chief, produced a different effect. In Italy it\noccasioned the invention of bills of exchange, and gave\nencouragement to the fine arts, and to some manufactures. In the north\nof Europe it infused a general spirit for trade and manufactures; for the\nluxuries of the East only served to teach the people of the north the\nnecessity of acquiring comfort by manufacturing the produce of their\nown country.\n\nTo improve the arts of weaving, to make woollen and linen cloths of a\nfiner texture, was very natural, after having seen the silks and muslins\nthat came from India; particularly to people living in a cold climate,\nwhere a more substantial covering was wanted, and where the\nmaterials were in abundance.\n\nIt was, accordingly, in Flanders, and the adjacent country, that the\nmodern spirit of manufactures rose up, nourished by the wealth which\nthe ancient commerce of India had produced.\n\nIn the early ages, when the Tyrians had this trade, they amassed great\nwealth, though they had not any large countries to supply; for,\nprobably, neither Egypt nor the eastern part of Syria would receive the\nproduce by so circuitous a road. But, during the first ages, sacrifices to\nthe gods and the funeral ceremonies consumed vast quantities of\naromatics of every sort, as well as the enjoyments of the living. The\ntwo former causes of request for aromatics have long been at an end,\nowing to the changes in religion. They are now neither burned on the\naltar nor at the grave; and custom and taste, which are to a certain [end\nof page #59] degree variable and arbitrary, have lessened the\nconsumption of some, and others have been supplied by the progress\nthat we have ourselves made in manufactures. {56}\n\nWhile this diminution of consumption took place, the western world\nwas advancing in civilization, and the progress of wealth became\nvastly more extended; so that if the consumers of eastern luxuries\nwere less profuse in the use of them, they were, at the same time,\ngreatly increased in number.\n\nThe taste for tea, alone, which was introduced not much above a\ncentury ago, has alone, overbalanced all the others, and it is still\naugmenting in Europe; besides the discovery of a new quarter of the\nworld rapidly increasing in population, into which the custom of\ndrinking tea, as in Britain, has been introduced also.\n\nThe reasonable price at which an article can be afforded, always\naugments the consumption: and though we have no criterion to go by\nin judging of the prices in former times, yet it is certain they must\nhave been very great. At the time when silk was sold for its weight in\ngold, that metal was compared with common labour of six times the\nvalue that it is now; silk was, then, at least three hundred times as dear\nas it is now; indeed, even that extravagant price scarcely accounts for\nthe parsimony of the Roman emperor, who refused his wife a robe of\nthat rich material. {57}\n\nThough new discoveries have robbed Egypt and Syria for ever of the\ncommerce of the East; and though the loss of trade was the proximate\ncause of the degradation, yet both countries had long been desolate\nand\n\n---\n{56} Wrought silks, muslins, and porcelains. Cotton stuffs are now no\nlonger bought as formerly, so that, except in porcelain, the raw\nmaterial is the only object of commerce. The silk worm was\nintroduced into Italy during the time that the intercourse with the East\nwas very difficult, and therefore had not the increase of wealth, and a\ntaste for new articles extended the demand and brought a new one, the\ntrade would at last have been nearly done away.\n\n{57} The carriage is 24 L. a ton backwards and forwards, or out and\nhome, which is only equal to what is paid in England by land for 500\nmiles. Indeed, none but articles of a very great value and high price\ncould pay for the carriage by any of the channels hitherto discovered\nbut that of the Cape.\n-=-\n\n[end of page #60]\n\ndegraded before this change happened; for though the commerce came\nthrough their countries, the riches it produced centred in Italy. Syria\nhad long become a desert, and the ruined palaces were become the\nhabitations of scorpions, reptiles, and beasts of prey, long before those\ndiscoveries which seemed to have sealed their doom. That discovery\nonly completed what had long been begun, and rendered permanent\nand irrevocable what might otherwise have been altered. {58}\n\nAt the rate at which this trade now goes on to increase, all the gold\nand silver mines in the West, will soon be insufficient to afford\nenough of the precious metals to pay for produce from that country:\nfor few European manufactures are taken in return. This is laying a\nfoundation for a great revolution, either in manners or in nations at\nsome future day.\n\nIt is extraordinary that, from the earliest ages, the inhabitants of India\nhave been receiving gold and silver from all other countries, and yet,\nthat those metals are not so abundant there as with European nations.\nAs our demand for the produce of the mines increases in order to send\nremittances in specie to that country, the mines themselves diminish in\ntheir produce, so that whatever change this may bring on, can be at no\nvery great distance. {59}\n\n---\n{58} What Dr. Robertson says of Palmyra may be applied nearly to all\nthe cities in Asia and Africa that shared in this commerce. \"Palmyra,\nafter the conquest by Aurelian never revived.\" At present, a few\nmiserable huts of beggarly Arabs are scattered in the courts of its\nstately temples, or deform its elegant porticoes, and exhibit a\nhumiliating contrast to its ancient magnificence.\n\n{59} If the taste of the Anglo Americans for tea continues, allowing\none pound to each person in the year, which is very little, one hundred\nmillions of pounds weight will be annually wanted in less than half a\ncentury.\n-=-\n\n[end of page #61]\n\n\n\n\nCHAP. VII.\n\n\n_Of the Causes that brought on the Decline of the Nations that had\nflourished in the middle Ages, and of Portugal, Spain, Holland, and\nthe Hans Towns_.\n\nThe trade with India, which had been almost the only one, and\nalways an occasion for envy and contest, was sought for by the\nSpaniards and the Portuguese; who, as we have seen, were the first\namongst modern nations that seemed to aspire at naval discovery.\n\nThe manner in which Spain discovered America; and Portugal, the\npassage by the Cape of Good Hope, both nearly at the same period,\nand at the beginning of the sixteenth century, is too well known to\nrequire the smallest detail.\n\nEuropeans, with the superior degree of knowledge they possessed, and\nparticularly that of the use of fire-arms: incited also by the love of\ngold; and careless of keeping their word with the unsuspecting\nnatives, soon triumphed wherever they went, and the consequence\nwas, that both nations brought home immense riches. The trade of\nVenice, Alexandria, and Aleppo, was all transferred to Lisbon, {60}\nand never was so small a country so suddenly enriched; and it may be\nadded, more quickly deprived afterwards of the chief source of its\nwealth.\n\nThe Dutch had triumphed over the power of Spain, on their own soil,\nand they soon rivalled that of Portugal in the East. It was a very\ndifferent thing to combat the natives, and to fight with the Dutch, who\nvery soon deprived Portugal of the rich means of wealth she had\ndiscovered in India.\n\nThe prosperity of Portugal, arising from its possession =sic= in the\nEast, continued at its height exactly a century. Its decline is accounted\nfor by the following causes.\n\n---\n{60} Lisbon had its depot for the north of Europe, at Antwerp, and the\nvalue of the consignments have been estimated at a million of crowns,\nannually; but this is, probably, an exaggeration.\n-=-\n\n[end of page #62]\n\nIts domineering principles, too great an extent of conquests, which\nwere widely scattered, and the haughtiness of the Portuguese, both\ntowards the natives and Europeans; the envy and rivalship which\nbrought the Dutch into the same countries; a great want of attention\nand energy; and, lastly, giving a preference to the trade to the Brazils.\nThe Brazils had been first discovered by the Portuguese, afterwards\nseized upon by the Dutch, whom they, however, expelled about the\nmiddle of the sixteenth century; that is, about fifty years after its first\ndiscovery, and an equal period of time previous to the decline of their\ntrade in India.\n\nThe possession of the whole of this lucrative trade, that had enriched\nso many great nations, and that by so easy a channel, and without\nalmost any contest, for nearly a whole century, had so enriched the\nsmall kingdom of Portugal, that after being too eager, and grasping at\ntoo much, it was almost ready to resign the whole without a struggle,\nhad it not been for some reasons of another sort. {61} So immense\nwas the influx of wealth, from the united sources of India and the\nBrazils, that the former, which has been at every other period the\nobject of ambition of all nations, and is so still, was considered as\nscarcely worth retaining.\n\nIt is almost unnecessary to add, that from that moment Portugal has\nbeen on the decline. If ever the cup of prosperity ran over, in large\nstreams, it was then; and when the possession of the trade to India was\nscarcely thought worth preserving, it is clear that no great efforts\ncould be made to encourage internal industry.\n\nSpain, extensive and powerful before it discovered the Indies, did not\nso immediately feel the effects of the wealth imported, as the\nPortuguese had done; but its prosperity was of less duration, though\nthe decline was not quite so rapid.\n\nThe Dutch must have known the effects of wealth on a nation, else\n\n---\n{61} It was debated in council, at Lisbon, whether it would be worth\nwhile to keep India, the wealth from the Brazils was so much more\neasily obtained. A scruple of conscience, least =sic= the missionaries\nshould be destroyed, turned the scale in favour of retaining the trade\nof India!!\n-=-\n\n[end of page #63]\n\nthey would scarcely have tried to throw off the yoke of Spain, at the\nvery moment when it appeared in its greatest splendour and power.\n{62}\n\nInsolence and pride, we have too often had occasion to remark,\naccompany wealth; and Philip was no more proof against its effects,\nthan those potentates who had gone before him.--There was a great\nresemblance between the project of invading England, with the\ninvincible armada, as it was called, and the attack on Greece by the\nKing of Persia. That monarch must have thought very meanly of\nEngland, to suppose that the island could be conquered by 30,000\nmen, even if they could have made good their landing. Indeed, to try\nsuch an experiment on a nation that had supported its claim to valour\nso well at Agincourt and Cressy, and which was not, in any respect,\ndegenerated, manifests his being blinded by the effects of wealth and\ngreatness.\n\nThe consequence was, a gradual decline of the affairs of his kingdom;\nso that, in little less than a century, England placed a king on the\nthrone of Spain.\n\nThough the effect produced on Spain was not so rapid as on Portugal,\nit was, in some respects, more irretrievable. The vast numbers of\npersons who quitted that country, in quest of gold, injured its\npopulation, already reduced by the expulsion of the Moors, who were\nthe most industrious of its inhabitants.\n\nThe wealth that came to Spain, came in a very unequal distribution,\nwhich is a considerable disadvantage, and hastens on that state of\nthings which is the natural forerunner of the decay of a nation. Wealth,\narising by commerce, however great its quantity, must be distributed\nwith some degree of equality; but the great adventurers in the gold\nmines only shared with their sovereign, and the whole of their wealth\ncame in prodigious quantities, pouring in upon the country. {63}\n\n---\n{62} Though the Dutch were subject to Spain, yet that had not\nprevented them from acting in an independent manner in their modes\nof following trade and commerce.\n\n{63} We see an example of this in our own trade to India. Captains of\nships, merchants, and all those who get money by that trade, come\nhome with moderate fortunes; but the governors, and civil and\nmilitary officers, who have been settled in the country, come home\nwith princely fortunes, and eclipse the old nobility of the country.\n-=-\n\n[end of page #64]\n\nBoth Spain and Portugal, finding that wealth came with such ease\nfrom India and America, neglected industry. This, indeed, was a very\nnatural consequence; and, when the sources of their riches began to\ndry up, they found, though too late, that instead of having increased in\nwealth, they had only been enriching more industrious nations, and\nruining themselves. The gold that arrives from the West passes\nthrough the hands of its masters with almost the same rapidity as if\nthey were only agents for the English and the Dutch; so chimerical an\nidea is that of wealth existing without industry.\n\nThe Dutch were the only rivals of the Portuguese in the East Indies;\nfor though other nations came afterwards in for a share, yet the\ntransition from wealth to weakness was already made by the\nPortuguese, before any of them had begun to set seriously to work, in\nacquiring possessions, or in carrying on trade with that country.\n\nPortugal thus fell, merely from the rivalship of a more industrious and\nless advanced nation, after having embraced more territory than she\nhad power to keep. Spain fell, because she had embraced a wrong\nobject as a source of riches. {64}\n\nThe Hans Towns, which owed their prosperity, partly to their own\nwisdom and perseverance, in the beginning, and partly to the contempt\nwith which sovereigns, in the days of chivalry, viewed commerce,\nmight, with very little penetration, and much less exertion of wisdom\nthan they had displayed, have seen that the spirit of commerce was\nbecoming general, and that moderation and prudence were necessary\nto preserve them in their proud situation; but the prudence which they\npossessed at first had given way to pride, and abandoned them; and\nthe first great stroke they received was from Queen Elizabeth. The\nruin of so widely-extended a confederacy could not be astonishing,\nand, indeed, was a natural consequence of the changes in the manners\nof the times: but it was not so with Flanders. There was nothing to\nhave prevented the Flemish from continuing to enjoy wealth, and\nfollow up industry, except in the rivalship of other nations,\n\n---\n{64} So short a time did the wealth remain in the country, that, when\nthe famous armada was fitted out against England, a loan of money\nwas solicited, from Genoa, for the purpose.\n-=-\n\n[end of page #65]\n\nparticularly of Holland and England; for, though France was farther\nadvanced, as a manufacturing and wealthy nation, than England, yet it\nwas not in the same line of industry with the people of the\nNetherlands, whose prosperity was not therefore injured by it in the\nsame degree.\n\nAs for the Dutch, they continued to increase in wealth till the end of\nthe seventeenth century, and their decline requires a more particular\nattention.\n\nIn addition to their great industry, the fisheries, and art of curing fish,\nthe Dutch excelled in making machines of various sorts, and became\nthe nation that supplied others with materials, in a state ready prepared\nfor manufacturing: this was a new branch of business, and very\nlucrative, for, as the machines were kept a secret, the abbreviation of\nlabour was great, and the materials had still the advantage in their sale\nthat a raw material has over manufactured goods; so that the\nadvantages were almost beyond example.\n\nAdd to all this, that the Dutch were the first who established the\nbanking system, (copying in part from the Italians,) on a solid plan.\nThe advantages that Holland enjoyed were, indeed, all of its own\nprocuring, but they were numerous and inappretiable, without\ncounting the trade to India, of which it enjoyed a greater share than\nany other nation, for a considerable period.\n\nNo nation has shewn, so completely as the Dutch, how exterior\nenemies may be repelled, and difficulties overcome, while there is a\ntrue attention to the real welfare of the country. The exertions of the\nRomans, to conquer others, scarcely surpassed those of the Dutch to\npreserve themselves, when they were in a state of necessity; but, when\nthey became affluent, energy and unanimity left them. The\nmanufacturers became merchants, and the merchants became agents\nand carriers; so that the solid sources of riches gradually disappeared.\n\nAll this time, taxation increased, and though no nation ever allowed its\nmanners to be less corrupted by the possession of wealth, yet there\nwas a sensible change; but the change in the way of thinking was the\nmost pernicious. Discontent with the government, and disagreements\namongst themselves, completed their misfortunes, while England was\n[end of page #66] all the time endeavouring to supplant them in the\nmost beneficial sources of their wealth.\n\nThe Dutch, fairly sunk by that rivalship, and natural change of things,\nwhich transfers the seat of wealth and commerce from one nation to\nanother. There was no violent revolution, no invasion by an enemy; it\nwas the silent operation of that cause of decline, which has been\nalready mentioned in the Second Chapter, and will be farther and\nmore particularly illustrated and explained.\n\nThe Dutch had a superabundance of capital; the interest of money was\nlow; and wealth had begun to leave Holland long before the symptoms\nof decay became visible; by which means, the trade of other countries\nwas encouraged, and, as always will be the case, capital emigrated, the\nmoment it could find secure employment, and greater profits than\nwere to be obtained at home. The leading causes of the decline of\nHolland may be distinguished thus:\n\nThe taxes were gradually increasing.\n\nIts superiority in manufactures over other countries was continually\ndiminishing; consequently, industry was not so well rewarded, and\nless active.\n\nThe merchants preferred safe agencies for foreigners to trading on\ntheir own bottom, thereby lending their credit.\n\nDutch capital was employed to purchase goods in one country and sell\nthem in another: so that the Dutch became carriers for others, instead\nof manufacturing and carrying for themselves.\n\nThe trade to India, and the banking business, were both taken up by\nother nations; so that Holland then lost her superiority in these\nbranches.\n\nThus circumstanced, Holland was gradually sinking, when political\ntroubles, the end of which it is not easy to foresee, put her at the feet\nof France: an event that would not have happened in the manner it did,\nwhen the true spirit of patriotism reigned, that distinguished her in her\nmore prosperous days. From this, at least, there is one distinct lesson\nto be learnt, that however it may be natural for nations to lose a\nsuperiority, owing to arts, inventions, or foreign trade, yet, if the\nminds of the people and their manners remain pure, they will not be\ndegraded, by falling a prey to an enemy. When Holland was not rich\n[end of page #67] it resisted Spain in all her glory, during a very hard,\narduous, and continued struggle; but then the people were united as\none man: there were no traitors to raise a voice for Spain against their\ncountry. When Holland was wealthy, it did not even attempt to resist\nFrance when invaded; but then Holland was divided, and there were in\nevery city men, who wished more for the plunder than the prosperity\nof their country.\n\nIn viewing the fall of those nations that sunk before the discovery of\nAmerica, the eastern empire was the last that attracted attention. It had\nbeen reduced by the Turks, with a vigour and energy that promised a\nrenovation, which, however, it did not effect. The Turks brought with\nthem the Mahometan religion, which has debased the manners and\ndegraded the minds of every people. Constantinople, by this change,\nlost the remains of ancient learning and of commerce, which even the\nweakness of the emperors, and the repeated wars, had not been able\nentirely to destroy. The Greeks were reduced to a state of\nsubordination and slavery, but the Turks were not civilized. They\nadopted what was luxurious and effeminate of Grecian manners, yet\nstill retained their former ignorance and ferocity. Amongst modern\nnations, the Turkish government is, in form, a monster, and its\nexistence an enigma; yet it extended its sway over all that was most\nvaluable or most splendid in the ancient world. Greece, Egypt,\nPhoenicia, Syria, the three Arabias, and countries then but little\nknown, are subject to a brutish people, who do not even condescend to\nmix with the inhabitants of the country, but who rule over them in a\nmanner the most humiliating and disgraceful. {65}\n\nThe Turkish government has never been powerful. The city of Venice\nwas always its equal at sea; and, as it disdains to adopt the systems of\nother nations, it is every day becoming weaker, in comparison with\nthem. It has formerly maintained successful struggles against\n\n---\n{65} In all other conquests, the conquered and the conquerors have\nbecome, at last, one people, when they have settled in the same\ncountry, whether Christians or Pagans; but the Turks and Greeks keep\nas distinct to this day as at the first, and this is probably owing to the\nnature of the Turkish religion.\n---\n\n[end of page #68]\n\nGermany, Poland, and Russia; but that time is now over, and it owes\nits present existence to the jealousy of other powers. It is possessed of\na greater quantity of good territory than all the leading nations of\nEurope, Russia excepted; and it is not the interest of men living in less\nfavoured climates, to endeavour to renovate the country of Alexander,\nand of the other great nations of antiquity.\n\nThe Turkish nation is represented as greatly on the decline, but, soon\nafter its establishment, it had every vice that could well exist in a\ngovernment, and its greatest weakness now arises more from the\nalteration produced in other nations for the better, than in itself for the\nworse. The difficulty of keeping people in ignorance is becoming\nevery day greater; and when the Ottoman throne falls the usual order\nof things will be reversed. For, as other governments may attribute\ntheir destruction to corruption of manners, and to ignorance, the\nTurkish government looks there for its security; and the day that any\nreasonable degree of light breaks in amongst its subjects will be its\nlast.\n\nTo endeavour tracing the causes of decline in a state that owes its\nexistence to its defects, and is in every respect different from other\nnations, would be useless in the present Inquiry, it has only been\nnoticed to shew, that, in the infinite variety of things, some may owe\ntheir existence to what is in general the cause of destruction. [end of\npage #69]\n\n\n\n\nCHAP. VII. [=sic=--error in printer's copy, should read VIII.]\n\n\n_General View and Analysis of the Causes that operated in producing\nthe Decline of all Nations, with a Chart, representing the Rise, Fall,\nand Migrations of Wealth, in all different Countries, from the Year\n1500, before the Birth of Christ, to the End of the Eighteenth Century,\n--a Period of 3300 Years_.\n\nFrom the revolutions that have taken place amongst wealthy and\npowerful nations to the present time, though the origin has been owing\nto very different causes, and the decline and removal from one place\nto another has been attended with circumstances not similar; yet the\nsame leading cause for that decline may not only be traced easily and\ndistinctly, but is so evident that it is impossible for it to be overlooked\nor mistaken.\n\nLocal situation, or temporary circumstances, have always afforded the\nfirst means of rising to wealth and greatness. The minds of men, in a\npoor state, seem never to have neglected an opportunity, presented\neither by the one or the other, and they have generally proved\nsuccessful, till energy of mind and industry were banished, by the\nhabits of luxury, negligence, and pride, which accompany, or at least\nsoon follow, the acquisition of either.\n\nWhere wealth has been acquired first, power has generally been\nsought for afterwards; and, where power came first, it has always\nsought the readiest road to wealth, by attacking those who were in\npossession of it.\n\nThe nations and cities on the borders of the Mediterranean Sea, where\narts and commerce first began, where agriculture flourished, and\npopulation had risen to a high pitch, carried on perpetual struggles to\nsupplant each other; and, in those struggles, the most wealthy\ngenerally sunk under; till Alexander, the first great conqueror, with\nwhose history we are tolerably well acquainted, reduced them all to\n[end of page #70] his yoke; one small and brave people triumphing\nover the Egyptian and Assyrian empires, where wealth and luxury had\nalready produced their effects.\n\nThough this triumph of poverty over riches was very complete, except\nin one single instance, it did not occasion any real change, either in the\nabodes of wealth, or the channels of commerce. Tyre, the richest\ncommercial city till then, was ruined, to make way for the prosperity\nof Alexandria, which became the most wealthy; drawing great part of\nthe commerce from Carthage on the west, and taking the whole from\nRhinocolura on the east: but, in Egypt and Syria, Babylon and\nMemphis still remained great cities.\n\nThe whole of this ancient world was for a moment under one chief,\nbut was soon again divided amongst the generals who succeeded to\nthat great conqueror; and the Egyptian and Persian empires became\nrivals, as Egypt and Syria had been before. The Grecian nations still\nremained the chief seats of civilization and the fine arts; and this\ncontinued till the Romans, originally a poorer people than the\nMacedonians, conquered the whole. This was the second great\ntriumph of poverty and energy over wealth and grandeur, and, in this\nstruggle, Greece itself fell.\n\nThe effects of wealth were not less formidable to the Romans\nthemselves, than they had been to those nations they had enabled that\nbrave and warlike people to conquer; so that the mistress of the world,\nin her turn, fell before nations that were rude and barbarous, but\nuncorrupted by wealth and luxury.\n\nThe conquerors of Rome were too rude, and too many in number, to\nbecome themselves enervated by wealth, which disappeared under\ntheir rapacious grasp, and which they neither had the art nor\ninclination to preserve.\n\nThis invasion of the fertile and rich provinces by men rude and\nignorant, but who came from northern climates, established a new\norder of things; and only a small remnant of former wealth and\ngreatness was preserved in Egypt and at Constantinople.\n\nFor several centuries of war and confusion commerce and the arts\nappear to have been undervalued and neglected; but still the taste [end\nof page #71] for oriental luxuries was not entirely banished, and, at the\nfirst interval of peace and safety, sprung up again. It was then that\nAlexandria, Venice, Genoa, and Constantinople, became the channels\nthrough which the people of Europe procured the luxuries of Asia.\nBabylon, Memphis, Palmyra, and all the other great cities of antiquity,\nwere no more; even Greece had lost its arts and splendour; Alexandria\nand Constantinople were repeatedly assailed, taken, and conquered, by\nthe barbarians, who envied their wealth, but who still found an interest\nin continuing them as channels for procuring to European nations the\nrefinements of the East. Though Venice and Genoa were wealthy, they\nwere but small, and of little importance; and all the nations who might\nhave crushed them at a blow, only considering them as sea-ports of\nconvenience and utility, allowed them to remain independent.\n\nAs an intercourse had been established between the northern and\nsouthern parts, a taste for the luxuries of Asia had extended to the\nshores of the Baltic, soon after the victorious arms of Charlemagne\nhad carried there some degree of civilization, and the Christian\nreligion.\n\nThen it was that a new and more widely-extended system of\ncommerce, but something like what had formerly existed in Tyre and\nCarthage, began in all the maritime towns of Europe, when Italy and\nFlanders became the most wealthy parts of Europe. A spirit of\nchivalry, and a desire of conquest, not founded on the same principles\nwith the conquests of ancient nations, or of Rome, to obtain wealth,\npervaded all Europe, and the greatest confusion prevailed. In the\nhistory of wealth and power, as connected together, this is a chasm.\nThose who had power despised wealth, and were seeking after what\nthey esteemed more--military glory; and wealth was confined to a\nnumber of insulated spots, and possessed by men who were\nmerchants, without any share of power or authority.\n\nThis extraordinary and unprecedented state of things gave rise to the\nHanseatic League, which rose at last to such importance that those\nwho had been so long seeking after glory, without finding it, began to\nsee the importance which was derived from wealth. They began to see\nthat, even in the pursuit of their favourite object, wealth was an ex-\n[end of page #72] cellent assistant, and the friendship of merchants\nbegun =sic= to be solicited by princes, as in the days of Tyre and\nSidon.\n\nThis progress was greatly facilitated and accelerated by the crusades,\nwhich, at the same time that they beggared half the nobility of Europe,\ngave them a taste for the refinements of the East, and taught them to\nset some value on the means by which such refinements could be\nprocured.\n\nIn this manner were things proceeding, when three great discoveries\nchanged the situation of mankind. {66}\n\nThe mariners compass, gunpowder, and the art of printing, were all\ndiscovered nearly about the same time; and, independent of their great\nand permanent effects, they were wonderfully calculated to alter the\nsituation of nations at that period.\n\nThe navigation of the ocean, which led to the discovery of a passage\nto the East Indies, and of America, gave a mortal blow to the nations\nsituated on the borders of the Mediterranean Sea, who thus found\nthemselves deprived of the commerce of the East.\n\nThe discovery of gunpowder, a means so powerful of annoying an\nenemy, without the aid of human force, which places a giant and a\ndwarf in some sort upon an equality, was wonderfully adapted for\ndoing away the illusions of knight errantry, that had such a powerful\neffect in making war be preferred to commerce: while printing\nfacilitated the communication of every species of knowledge.\n\nIt was then that northern nations began to cultivate arts and sciences,\nas those of the south under a mild heaven, and on a fertile soil, had\ndone three thousand years before. But ingenuity and invention took a\ndifferent direction in the north from what they had done in the\nsouthern climates; instead of sovereigns and slaves, men were more in\nmutual want of each other, and therefore a more equal division of the\nfruits of industry was required.\n\nThe manufactures of former times had been confined chiefly to\nluxuries for the great, and simple necessaries for slaves; and\ncommerce, though productive of great wealth to a few, was in its\nlimits equally confined.\n\n---\n{66} For the dates see the chart, and for their effects, chap. i. book ii.\n[Transcriber's note: See in the Chart \"Mariners Compass\n/Gunpowder/Printing Invented 1300-1400\"].\n-=-\n\n[end of page #73]\n\nIt was natural that the two nations which had first discovered the\npassage to the East, and the continent of the West, which abounded\nwith the precious metals, should become rich and powerful, as those\ncities had formerly done that possessed exclusively the channels of\ncommerce. Those two countries were Spain and Portugal; but here\nagain we find the same fatality attend the acquisition of wealth that\nhad formerly been remarked. It was, indeed, not to be expected, that\nthe steadiness and virtue of the Spaniards and Portuguese could resist\nthe operation of a cause, that neither the wisdom of the Egyptians; the\narts and industry of Greece, nor the stubborn and martial patriotism of\nthe Romans could withstand.\n\nThose two nations soon sunk, and the Dutch, the French, and the\nEnglish, became participators of the commerce.\n\nManufactures were a new source of wealth, almost unknown to the\nancient world. Those begun first to be set in activity in Flanders, then\nin Holland and France, and, last of all, in England; but, like\ncommerce, and every other means by which wealth is acquired, they\nhave a tendency to leave a country. The cause and the effect are at\nvariance, after a certain time; and though we cannot illustrate this\nfrom history, as we may the migrations of wealth arising from other\nsources, the tendency appears of the same nature, though with this\ndifference; that men may always labour for themselves, and enjoy the\nfruits of their labours, though they cannot always find the means of\nbeing the carriers to other nations, or becoming merchants.\n\nThis alteration in the nature of wealth; the inventions of mankind; the\nalterations brought on by the facility of communicating knowledge;\nthe systematical manner in which men pursue their interests, and other\nchanges: give reason to hope that, in the present situation of things,\nthose possessions may be rendered permanent, that have hitherto been\nfound to be so evanescent and fugitive.\n\nWhere wealth has not been wrested from a country by absolute force,\n(in doing which the poorer nations were always successful,) it has\nemigrated from other causes, and taken up its abode amongst a new\npeople, where circumstances were more favourable for its\nencouragement. [end of page #74]\n\nBefore we leave this recapitulation, it is necessary, however, to take\nnotice of one revolution that did not take place on similar principles\nwith the others, so far as wealth and luxury are in question; but which\nhas in some respects a similarity, and, in others, is precisely the\nreverse.\n\nAbout two centuries and a half ago, the Polish nation was one of the\nmost powerful in Europe; Russia could not then, nor for long after,\ncontend with it. The Prussians were its vassals; and the capital of the\nGerman empire, when besieged by the Turks, in 1650, owed its safety\nto the Poles, its brave and faithful allies.\n\nSuch was the case; but, at this day, the Polish nation is no longer in\nexistence: it is subdued, parcelled out, and divided, amongst those\nvery powers, to any of which it was at least equal, and to the others\nsuperior, at so late a period.\n\nIt may be asked, whether Poland was one of those states that has been\nborne down by its own wealth and opulence? If its ambition, injustice,\nor any of the other causes so prominent in the decline of nations,\noperated in the total extinction of it from the rank of independent\nstates? Not one of those causes operated, but still it is not altogether an\nexception to the general rule.\n\nWhen the feudal system was established all over Europe, nations\nunder its influence were so far on an equality; and as they all emerged\nfrom that situation nearly about the same time, Poland excepted, they\nstill preserved their relative situations. The Poles, during this change\nin other states, comparatively lost power. Amongst the alterations\nproduced, was that of placing in the hands of the sovereign all the\ndisposable revenue and force of a country, with which standing armies\nwere maintained. Those irregular militias, till then composed of the\nbarons and their retainers; a species of force, at best, far inferior to\nregular armies, became useless; but particularly so, after the modes of\nfighting had been changed by the invention of gunpowder, and the\nadoption of large trains of artillery, which could never have been\nemployed in the feudal armies.\n\nThe disposable force of Poland and its revenues did not, by any\nmeans, keep pace with those of neighbouring nations; and what was\nstill worse, the strength of that unfortunate country was divided; the\n[end of page #75] monarchy was elective, and foreign influence had a\nmeans of exertion, which, under a hereditary line of kings, is not\npracticable. Poland was not only weaker than its neighbours, but\nbecame a prey to intestine divisions, cabal, and intrigue.\n\nThough Poland was not wealthy, according to the meaning applied to\nthat word, it was a populous and fertile country, and therefore a\ndesirable possession to the neighbouring states. To Prussia, a most\nambitious and aggrandising power, with a military government, and of\na very limited extent, it was peculiarly desirable. To Russia, extensive\nas it is, the fruitful territory was also an object of ambition, from its\nproximity to the seat of an empire, the most fertile and fine provinces\nof which lie at a distance. The same desire of possessing what they\nwanted, operating at the same time on two neighbouring nations,\noccasioned them to unite their power in a first dismemberment of\nPoland, for their mutual benefit. The interior convulsions of the\ncountry served as a pretext, and its weakness furnished the means of\nexecuting the design. In 1772, that independent country first lost some\nof its finest provinces; but this was only a prelude to its final fall.\n\nThe nature of ambition is to augment with success, and as the same\ndivisions continued in the state, a pretence for a farther interference in\nits affairs was easily found; and, in 1794, Poland ceased to be one of\nthe number of European states. In this last seizure, the house of\nAustria had no immediate hand. It was, however, necessary to have its\nconsent: and, as the aggrandisement of Prussia was not an object of\nindifference to Austria, participation in the spoils was proposed, as the\nprice of acquiescence, and it was readily accepted.\n\nIn this case, the weakness of Poland, and the ambition of its rivals and\nneighbours, were the immediate causes of its destruction; but that\nweakness arose from a want of true patriotism and proper attention in\nthe people themselves. Jealous of liberties, and disobedient to their\nking, the Poles were slaves to the feudal proprietors of the soil.\nThough the first cause was different, yet their divisions and quarrels\nwere the same in effect, as if they had proceeded from real causes of\ndiscontent, and a deranged state of society, such as we have seen,\nwhen the love of the country is lost. In Poland, that love of the country\n[end of page #76] was not lost, but it was badly directed, which is\nnearly the same thing; at least, it is equally dangerous.\n\nWhy, it may be asked, did not the other powers of Europe interfere?\nTo this, indeed, it would be difficult to give a satisfactory answer.\nThose who did not interfere, probably, may have cause to repent their\nindifference. It was an infraction of that sort of federation of nations,\nwhich had been found necessary to prevent a repetition of conquests\nlike those of Alexander, or of the Romans; yet, still there is a way of\naccounting for their conduct, though it cannot be vindicated.\n\nIn the first place, Poland lays =sic= remote from those powerful\nnations that have had the greatest sway in modern times. It was not\nvery easy to interfere with great efficacy; besides, as Poland was\npreviously under foreign influence, the essential evil was done. The\nexample of partitions, indeed, was not given, but it is not impossible\nthat some powers on the continent, though they got no share, might\nnot be sorry to see such an example. Britain and Spain certainly could\nnot wish for the example, but others might, and others probably did\nwish for it.\n\nThe first division was, besides, only a beginning; some degree of\nmoderation was preserved, and Poland was only mutilated; it was not\ndestroyed. The case was not entirely new, nor without example.\n\nThe second and last division took place at a time when the nations\nwhose interest it was, and whose wish it might have been to interfere,\nhad not the means of doing so. It was when the republican frenzy in\nFrance was at its most desperate height, and whom =sic= the whole of\ncivilized Europe appeared to be in danger.\n\nThere is one more excuse to be found. The aspect of affairs in Poland\nresembled, with regard to its revolutions, those of France so much,\nthat those, who at another time would have probably interfered, were\nrather inclined to co-operate in stifling a rising flame in the north,\nsimilar to that which had endangered the whole of the south of\nEurope.\n\nIn all this, the thing the most difficult to be accounted for, is the\nconduct of the Polish nation; but an inquiry into the causes of that\nwould be quite foreign to the present subject: this is, however, an\ninstance of the danger arising from not keeping pace with other\nnations [end of page #77] in those arts of government, and internal\npolicy, which constitute the power of nations in the general order of\nthings, whatever that may be.\n\nAlthough we have seldom found intestine divisions carried to so\nblameable a length in any other nation that was not corrupt in itself,\nyet, it is clear, that the influence obtained by the wealth of its\nneighbours was at the bottom of those highly blameable, and\ndreadfully fatal divisions.\n\nWhen aggrandisement is the aim of modern states, there will not now\nbe any difficulty of pleading example; and there is one of those very\npowers that on this occasion participated in the division which has all\nthe seeds of discord in itself that brought on the ruin of the Polish\nempire. That power has already felt the effect of example; and, though\nit may repine, it cannot complain, as it might otherwise have done; or\nif it does, it cannot expect equal commiseration.\n\nEXPLANATION OF THE PLATE INTENDED TO ILLUSTRATE\nTHE RISE AND FALL OF NATIONS.\n\nIn the chart, at the beginning of the work, the lines, from top to\nbottom, represent the division of time into centuries, each indicating\nthe year, marked under and above it, in the same way that has been\nadopted in Dr. Priestley's Chart of Universal History, in works of\nchronology, and in statements of commerce and finance.\n\nThe countries that have flourished, whether by commerce, or any\nother means are supposed to be represented by the parallel spaces\nfrom right to left, according to the names written on the right hand.\n\nThe rise of the black part, something like a distant range of low\nmountains, shews at what periods the country was great; when its\ngreatness began and when it ended. This plan would be\nunexceptionally correct, if the materials for it could be procured; but if\nthey were, it would not lead to any very different conclusion from\nwhat it does in its present state. The times, when the elevation began,\nand its duration are exact. The rises and falls are, as nearly as I am\nable, estimated from existing documents.\n\nThe part shaded of a darkish colour, and growing gradually lighter at\nboth edges, represent those centuries of ignorance which succeeded\nthe fall of the Roman empire. [end of page #78]\n\nAt the bottom, on the part not stained, is a chronological list of events,\ninventions, and discoveries, connected with the subject. Those which\nare not, however, important or curious, have no place.\n\nThe commerce of France, Britain, Russia, and America, are upon a\ntrue scale with respect to their proportional amount, as well as to their\nrise and progress. The others are not, owing to want of documents;\nbut, as before observed, the amount has very little to do with the\nsubject; the business is to see how wealth and power were divided at\nany particular time, if they were rising or falling, or if they were at\ntheir height, comparing them with the manners of the people at the\ntime.\n\nThis is the use of the chart, as to the representation of individual\nplaces and nations.\n\nThe general conclusion is, from taking the whole together, that wealth\nand power have never been long permanent in any place. That they\nnever have been renewed when once destroyed, though they have had\nrises and falls, and that they travel over the face of the earth,\nsomething like a caravan of merchants. On their arrival, every thing is\nfound green and fresh; while they remain all is bustle and abundance,\nand, when gone, all is left trampled down, barren, and bare.\n\nThis chart is a sort of a picture, intended to make those migrations and\nchange of place distinct and easily conceived, on which the whole of\nthis book has been occupied. Being once acquainted with the changes\nthat have taken place, we may more accurately compare them with the\nstate of this country at the present time. Those who will take the\ntrouble to read Ferguson's History of the Roman Republic, and\nGibbon's Decline and Fall of the Empire, may form a judgement of the\naccuracy or inaccuracy of the chart.\n\nEXAMPLE OF THE MANNER OF INSPECTING THE CHART.\n\nTo know when Rome was at the highest pitch of greatness, find, on\nthe right hand, the space marked Roman empire: then look between\nthe lines for the highest part of the dark ground, and look immediately\nunder for the year, it will be seen to be at the birth of Christ, that is,\nduring the reign of Augustus; and by the same means it will be found\ndeclining gradually till the year 490. [end of page #79]\n\nIn like manner, Carthage will be found at the zenith of its power about\n300 years before Christ. The founding of Alexandria and the wars\nwith Rome began then to diminish both its wealth and power.\n\nIt is intended by the author of this to execute a chart of the same sort\non a very large scale, and assign to the different powers spaces\nproportioned to their importance, as nearly as he can ascertain.\n\nWith respect to the chronology of this chart, to prevent criticisms\nwhich might perhaps be made; but do not apply to it, according to the\npurpose for which it was constructed, the reader is requested to\nobserve, that I am desirous of illustrating a very important\ninvestigation, by representing a very confused and long series of\nevents. The result to be derived from this, is not to be affected by any\nsmall inaccuracy. In counting before the birth of Christ, having found\nmany different opinions, and much uncertainty relative to dates,\n(which I neither have abilities nor inclination to investigate,) I\nmeasured backwards, without pretending to settle the year of the\nworld, respecting which there are so many different opinions.\n\nThe materials for ancient history are few, and sometimes not much to\nbe relied upon; but, in great leading facts, such as alone are of use in\nthis picture, the authenticity is not to be doubted.\n\nThe Assyrian and Egyptian empires had attained wealth and power\nprevious to the time at which this commences. They stood then, and\nfor long after, as if it =sic= were alone in the world; their revolutions,\nand the rise, prosperity, and decline of other nations, are all\nrepresented.\n\nI have not wished to continue the view of France, since the revolution,\nits present real situation is so imperfectly known; and, from what is\nknown of it, it cannot be compared with any other nation, or with\nitself previous to that period. [end of page #80]\n\n\n\n\n========\nBOOK II.\n========\n\n\n\n\nCHAP. I.\n\n\n_Of the Interior Causes of Decline, arising from the Possession of\nWealth.--Its general Operation on the Habits of Life, Manners,\nEducation, and Ways of thinking and acting of the Inhabitants of a\nCountry_.\n\nAs necessity was the first cause of industry and invention, from which\nwealth and power arise, it is natural that, when the action of that\nnecessity becomes less urgent, those exertions to which it gave rise\nwill gradually fall away. Though habit may sometimes counteract this\ntendency, in the individual, yet, taken upon a general scale, and from\ngeneration to generation, it must inevitably take place.\n\nIn this case, an individual who has obtained wealth enjoys an\nadvantage, which no nation ever can expect. With only common\nprudence, he may cease from exertion or industry, and remain in\naffluence. If he has property in land, he may let it, and live on the rent;\nif in money, he may lend it, and live on the interest; but one nation\ncannot let its lands, or lend its capital to another. It must, by its own\nindustry, render them productive. The great bulk of every nation, then,\nmust be industrious, however wealthy it may be; otherwise, the wealth\nwill soon be dissipated and disappear. The people of Flanders cannot,\nfor example, cultivate the fields of the French, and live in Flanders;\nand, if the agriculture of a country is neglected, that country must soon\nbecome poor and miserable. {67}\n\n---\n{67} We have seen what became of the Romans, when the tribute paid\nby other nations enabled them to live in idleness. The influx of wealth\nfrom America produced nearly the same effect on Spain: though it\nlasted for a very short time, yet it ruined the country.\n-=-\n\n[end of page #81]\n\nIt is not absolutely necessary, then, for an individual to conciliate\naffluence with industry, or, which is the same thing, to preserve one of\nthe effects of necessity, after the necessity has ceased to exist. But if\nit were possible for a sum of money, or property of any sort, to be given\nto each individual in a nation, which would be sufficient, in the midst\nof an industrious people, to enable him to live in perfect idleness, the\nwhole nation could not become idle. Such a case never can exist, as\nthat of all the individuals in a country becoming sufficiently rich to\nlive without labour. But something approaching towards that state of\nthings actually does take place, when, by the general increase of\nwealth, the necessity for labour is diminished. The number of idle\npeople is constantly augmenting; and even those who continue to\nlabour do it less intensely than when the operation of necessity was\nmore severe. When a cause is diminished, the effect must in time fall\noff in proportion.\n\nWith individuals, nature has given very powerful auxiliaries to\nnecessity, which strengthen and prolong its operation, but which do\nnot operate equally on nations.\n\nHabit or custom is the one auxiliary, and ambition or avarice is the\nother.\n\nHabit, in all cases, diminishes the reluctance to labour, which is\ninherent in the most part of mankind, and sometimes entirely\novercomes it. {68} Ambition, which appears under many different\nforms, renders labour absolutely an enjoyment. Sometimes ambition is\nmerely a desire of amassing property, an avaricious disposition:\nsometimes it is a desire to create a family; and even, sometimes, the\nvain and delusive idea of retiring from business, and becoming happy\nin a state of total idleness, spurs a man on to labour. It is a very\ncurious, but well-known fact, that, after necessity has entirely ceased\nto promote industry, the love of complete idleness, and the hope of\nenjoying it at some distant date, leads the wealthy man on, to his last\nhour, in a train of augmented industry. Thus has nature most wisely\ncounteracted\n\n---\n{68} There are many instances where habit has rendered a particular\nsort of labour absolutely a want. It has become a necessary,--a means\nof enjoyment without which life has become a burthen.\n-=-\n\n[end of page #82]\n\nthe disposition of man to idleness; by making the very propensity to it,\nafter a certain time, active in promoting industry.\n\nBut this can never be the case with a race of men: {69} and, as a\nnation consists of a greater number of individuals, so, also, its\nexistence consists of successive generations.\n\nThere is a difference between idleness and inaction. It is the natural\npropensity of man to be idle, but not to be inactive. Enjoyment is his\naim, after he has secured the means of existence. Enjoyment and\nidleness are supposed, in many cases, to go hand in hand; at any rate,\nthey can be reconciled, whereas inaction and enjoyment are\nirreconcilable. {70}\n\nBut we may still go farther. As taste for any particular enjoyment is\nacquired when a man is young, and the same taste continues in a more\nadvanced age; a man who has been long in business has had no time to\nacquire a taste for those enjoyments that are incompatible with, or\nperhaps that admit of being substituted for it.\n\nReading the study of the fine arts, and such other means of employing\ntime as men enjoy, who, at an early period of life, are exempted from\nlabour, afford no amusement to the man who has been always\naccustomed to a life of business, {71} with whom there is an absolute\nne-\n\n---\n{69} It is perhaps amongst chances that seem likely enough; the only\none that has never happened, that of a race of misers, in the same\nlineal descent, for several generations. The reason why I say it never\nhas happened is, that, if it had, the effects would have become so\nconspicuous, by the riches accumulated, that they could not have\npassed unobserved.\n\n{70} By inaction is not meant the opposite of loco-motion, such as\nlaying =sic= in bed, or basking in the sun; it is supposed that a man, to\nenjoy himself, must be reading, talking, in company, or _doing\nsomething_.\n\n{71} They sometimes affect this, but it is little else than through\nvanity. It would be easy to give a hundred striking proofs, but their\nfrequency renders that unnecessary.\n\nHunting and fishing, the two most anxious and painful occupations in\nthe world, are, in all countries, followed by the affluent and idle as\namusements; they want to interest the mind, and occupy themselves.\nGaming, which is attended with very painful sensations, is followed\nmuch more frequently from propensity than from the love of gain;\nand, indeed, it would appear, that a life without occupations that\ninterest the mind, is of all others the most insipid: it appears to be\nworse, it appears to be miserable.\n-=-\n\n[end of page #83]\n\ncessity of filling up the time in one way or another. A certain portion\nof time may be spent in company; but even that, to be enjoyed, must\nbe spent in the society of men of the same class. The inducement,\nthen, to a man who has dedicated the first part of his life\nadvantageously to industry, to become idle, is not great, even when he\nis at free liberty to follow his inclination.\n\nIt is totally different with a young man; his propensity is to idleness,\nwithout any of those favourable circumstances that counteract that\npropensity. Necessity alone can be expected to operate on him; it is in\nvain to seek for any other substitute. Not that we mean, by idleness, to\nsignify inaction; but that sort of idleness, which resists regular labour.\nThere is a natural propensity to action, but then it is a propensity that\noperates irregularly, unless under the influence of necessity. It is a\ncontinued and regular exertion, directed to a proper object, that is\nwanted to obtain wealth; to procure this, it is well to imitate nature,\nand create necessity.\n\nBut, in proportion as a nation grows wealthy, that necessity is done\naway. It is of the art of prolonging necessity, or rather of reconciling\nnecessity with affluence and ease, for which we are going to search,\nthat we may, by that means, reconcile affluence with industry.\n\nWe must, in the first place, find what the natural operation is by which\nindustry leaves a country.\n\nWhen a country is in a state of poverty, it maintains the same degree\nof industry, from generation to generation, without any effort. The\nnew race is brought up in the same way that the former was before it,\nand the same pressure of necessity, acting on the same desire (but no\ngreater desire) to shun labour, produces the same effect at one time\nthat it did at another. The son of a man, who has arrived at a greater\ndegree of affluence than that to which he was born, is generally\nbrought up differently. He is not brought up so hardily in his infancy\nas his father was, nor so soon called to labour; and probably when he\nis called to it, he is neither called with so imperious a voice, nor is he\nso willing to obey the call.\n\nThough we do not live long enough to see an example of this\noperation on a whole nation, the progression being too slow for the\nlife [end of page #84] of a man, yet we see it in different parts of the\nsame country, that are in different degrees of advancement. How\nfrequent are the instances of men, bred in distant counties,\n(particularly in the North,) bringing all that industry and those habits\nof labour to London, that the poverty of their parents, and the state of\ntheir part of the country naturally occasioned. Some of those have\narrived at affluence, and many of them have to competency; and even\nthose who do not arrive at a comparatively higher rank in London,\nthan their father held in his own county, bring up their children in a\nvery different manner.\n\nSuppose, for example, a blacksmith, from Northumberland, or a baker,\nfrom Scotland, settles in London, as his father did at Newcastle or\nEdinburgh, his son or sons will be bred very differently from what he\nwas; and, after their father's death, the business will most probably go\nto some new comer, from a distant county.\n\nThe father was brought up with the necessity of labouring, or the\nalternative of wanting food to eat. From his earliest days, he\nconsidered himself as fortunate if he could obtain a competent living\nby honest industry; and this impression, with the habits acquired while\nit was strong, lead a man, so brought up, to fill his place in life with\nhonour and advantage.\n\nThe son, who sees that his father is in affluence, and who partakes of\nthe fruits of a whole life of industry, seldom considers that he must\ncontinue that industry, otherwise, that the affluence will cease with the\nlife of his father. It is impossible to make a young man, brought up in\nthis manner, feel as his father did; and, not having the same impulse\ngiven to him at first, he never can set off in his course of life with the\nsame energy.\n\nBut the cause of this evil does not stop here. Frequently the mother is\nan enemy to the industry of her son; and between the workings of real\naffection, badly exercised, which leads her to humour the lad; and a\nsort of silly vanity, equally misplaced, she encourages him, if not in\nidleness, at least, in the hope that he will never need to stoop to\nincessant industry. It is not necessary to ascertain the absolute portion\nof idleness and pride that is infused into the young man; that depends\n[end of page #85] on particular circumstances: {72} but, in most\ncases, it is sufficient to prevent his following the footsteps of his\nfather with equal energy.\n\nPerhaps the capital, or the connections a father leaves in trade, may, in\nsome degree, and for some time, compensate for this; but the instances\nwhere they do so are not numerous.\n\nThis is an example of the manner in which every succeeding\ngeneration is brought up differently from that preceding it; but it is an\nextreme example, and one that, though very real in the individuals,\ncan never suddenly take place on a national scale.\n\nThe difference between the general affluence of a nation, and the\nchange of its manners during the life of a man, is by no means equal to\nthe difference between a remote province and the capital of an empire;\nbut, though the example is extreme, the same effect is produced, in the\ncourse of several generations upon a nation, that was occasioned by\nchange of place in one individual family from father to son. {73}\n\nWhen a change like this takes place in one family, (and there are\nnumerous instances of it every day,) poverty comes on again, and the\nchildren fall back into the laborious class of society, probably in a\ndegraded state; but as the evil is supplied by new people rising up, it is\nlittle felt on the nation; if, however, it occurs very generally, it must\nhave a bad effect; and, indeed, the best thing that can happen for the\n\n---\n{72} If the mother has been herself born in affluence, she generally\nhas a sort of smothered contempt for the mean origin of her husband.\nShe seldom is fully sensible of the merit by which he has raised\nhimself, and consequently cannot be capable of appreciating the\nadvantage of bringing up her boy in the same way; on the contrary, the\nhabits of industry, which the father acquired at an early age, under the\npressure of necessity, are generally secret objects of ridicule to the rest\nof the family. If, again, the woman has been of low origin in herself,\nand is become affluent, then matters are ten times worse. Then there is\nall the pride and vanity that ignorance, and a desire to hide that mean\nextraction create. Incapable of shewing delicacy and fine breeding in\nherself, she spoils her harmless children by converting them into\nspecimens of the gentility of the family. For more of this, see the\nchapter on Education.\n\n{73} In Rome, after the taking of Carthage; and in Portugal,\nimmediately after it got possession of the trade to India; the change\nmust have been as great over the whole of the people in one\ngeneration, as it is generally between a remote province and near the\ncapital.\n-=-\n\n[end of page #86]\n\ngeneral welfare is, that such men may return to a state of\ninsignificance and labour as fast as possible; for, while they remain\nabove that, and in a declining state, they are filling their place in\nsociety badly.\n\nIt is different where the change goes on through a whole country, then\nno one can supply the place, they are all going the same way, and at\nnearly the same rate; {74} the consequence will be, that this will not\nbe the fall of a family, but the fall of a whole people; the motion will,\nindeed, be much more slow, but the moving body will be vastly\ngreater, and the effect will be in proportion.\n\nIn every nation in Europe there is, between the capital and the distant\nprovinces, a difference of affluence, of wealth, &c. equal to what\nprobably takes place in a nation in one or two centuries. The\ninhabitants of the capital have some great advantages over those that\ncome from a distance; they have connections, they have money and\nstock; and, generally speaking, in their early years, they possess a\nmore ready and marketable knowledge. But all these avail nothing\nagainst habits of industry, and being taught to expect nothing from\nothers, but to depend all on one's own powers. With this single, but\nsignal, advantage, the sons of the wealthy citizens are always yielding\nto the son of the peasant; they are one by one giving way, and their\nplaces are filled by a new race; while their descendants are sinking\ninto poverty, and filling prisons, poor-houses, and hospitals.\n\nThis vicissitude is so observable, that it would be unnecessary to dwell\nupon it were it, =sic= not of such infinite importance. {75}\n\nThe alarming and lamentable increase of the poor, in proportion as\n\n---\n{74} It is always to be observed, that this reasoning is only applicable\nin general, and not in every particular case. It has been remarked by\nthe writer of the notes on the Wealth of Nations, that where a fortune\nis not realized in a family, sufficient to enable it to withdraw entirely\nfrom trade, it seldom remains wealthy above two generations. The\nsons most frequently want intelligence or industry to augment what\ntheir father got, and the grandsons have generally dissipation enough\nto squander entirely away what remains. This is so frequent a case in\nLondon, that it may be called the regular routine of the business; and,\nwhat arises by regular routine, must be derived from some general and\nnatural cause.\n\n{75} In the chapter on Education, this subject is entered into more\nfully, and the education of women makes a principal part. A subject\nnot noticed by the author of the Wealth of Nations, though very\nimportant.\n-=-\n\n[end of page #87]\n\na nation becomes rich, is a proof that it is not in capital cities alone\nthat the effect takes place, but over the whole of a country. {76}\n\nIn England, the number of inhabitants is about six times the number of\nthose in Scotland; and, perhaps, it costs twice as much to maintain a\npoor person in the former as in the latter. The sum necessary for the\nmaintenance of the poor in England may then be reckoned at about\ntwelve times as much as in Scotland, in order to preserve a just\nproportion between the two countries. But the poor cost more than\nsixty times as much in England as in Scotland; that is, at least five\ntimes more than the true proportion that ought to be !!!\n\nThis, it may be said, is owing to the different manner of managing the\nbusiness, and, in some degree, it no doubt is; {77} but, as the poor are\nonly maintained in England, and as they are also maintained in\nScotland, it would be wrong to allow so great a difference for that\nalone.\n\nIn order, however, to put the matter out of all doubt, let us compare\nEngland with itself, and we shall find that the poor's rates, or the\nexpense of maintaining the indigent, has increased more rapidly than\nthe price of provisions, or the price of labour. This ought not to be the\ncase, as they would only have augmented in the same proportion,\nunless the number of poor was increased as well as the price of the\nprovisions they eat, at the same time that the nation is growing more\nwealthy.\n\nOf whom do the poor in every nation consist, but of the lame, the sick,\nthe infirm, the aged, or children unprovided for? Of those, the number,\nin proportion to the total number of inhabitants, will be pretty nearly\nthe same at all times; for it is nature that produces this species of\nhelpless poverty. It would then appear that there is another species of\npoverty, not of nature's creation, that comes in and destroys the\nproportion. It would likewise appear, that that new species of poverty\n\n---\n{76} The Poor's Rate, and regulations respecting that augmenting\nclass of persons, are treated in a chapter by itself.\n\n{77} For this see the chapter on the Poor, in which the subject is\ninvestigated at considerable length. At present, it is only mentioned by\nway of illustrating the effect of wealth on the manners of the people;\nand to prove, that it is not confined to the capital alone, but is general\nall over the country of England.\n-=-\n\n[end of page #88]\n\nis occasioned by the general wealth, since it increases in proportion to\nit.\n\nIf we find, then, that the increase of wealth renders the descendants of\na particular family helpless, and unable to maintain their place in\nsociety; if we find, also, that it gives those portions of a country,\nwhich are the least advanced, an advantage over those which are the\nmost advanced; and, if we find that the number of indigent increase\nmost where the wealth is greatest, we surely must allow, that there is a\nstrong tendency to decay that accompanies the acquisition of wealth.\nThe same revolutions that arise amongst the rich and poor inhabitants\nof a country, who change places gradually, and without noise, must\nnaturally take place between the inhabitants of rich and poor\ncountries, upon a larger scale and in a more permanent manner. {78}\nSuch changes are generally attended with, or, at least, productive of,\nviolent commotions. Nations are not subservient to laws like\nindividuals, but make forcible use of the means of which they are\npossessed, to obtain the ends which they have in view.\n\nAs this tendency is uniformly felt by a number of individuals over the\nwhole of a country, when it advances in wealth, and over whole\ndistricts that are more advanced than the others, it must operate, in\nlength of time, in producing the decline of a whole nation, as well as it\ndoes of a certain portion of its people at all times.\n\nChanges, in the interior of a nation, take place by piece-meal or by\ndegrees; the whole mass sees nothing of it, and, indeed, it is not felt.\n{79} But it is vain to think, that the same cause that gives the poorer\ninhabitants of a nation an advantage over the richer, will not likewise\n\n---\n{78} As we find that wealth seldom goes amongst people of business\npast the second, and almost never past the third generation, families\nthat rise so high as to be partners in profit, and not in labour or\nattention, are an exception. Nations resemble the families that acquire\nenough to be affluent, but not enough to retire from business. A nation\ncan never retire; it must always be industrious. The inference is clear\nand cannot be mistaken; neither can the fact stated be denied.\n\n{79} The number of bankruptcies have been considered as signs of\nwealth; and their increase is a sign most undoubtedly of more trade;\nbut this is a barometer, of which it requires some skill to understand\nthe real index.\n-=-\n\n[end of page #89]\n\ngive poor nations an advantage over rich ones; or, at least, tend to\nraise the one and draw down the other. Though we find, from the\nhistory of the various revolutions that have taken place in different\ncountries, that they arose from a variety of causes, some peculiar to\none nation, and some to another; yet we have found a change of\nmanners and ways of thinking and acting, more or less operating in all\nof them.\n\nAmongst the interior causes of the decline of wealthy nations, arising\nfrom the wealth itself, we must set this down as one of a very general\nand natural operation. We must be particularly careful to remove this,\nas far as possible, if we mean to avert those evils which hitherto have\narisen from a superior degree of wealth and power in every nation.\n\nWe are now going to examine other internal causes; but though they\nare separate from this, yet this is at the root of all, this is perpetually\noperating, we meet with it in every corner and at every turning. It is\nwhat Mr. Pope says, speaking of the master-passion in individuals:\n\n\"The great disease that must destroy at length,\n\nGrows with our growth, and strengthens with our strength.\"\n\nThis radical case of decline is augmented by an ill conceived vanity in\nthe parents, as well as by necessity ceasing to act on the children.\nEach is following a very natural inclination; the one to indulge, the\nother to be indulged. It is the duty and the interest of the state to\ncounteract this tendency, and the manner how that it is to be done will\nbe inquired into in the first chapter of the third book of this work. =sic\n--there is none.=\n\nBut it is not merely a neglect of industry and the means of rising in\nsociety, or keeping one's place in it that is hurtful; the general way of\nthinking and acting becomes different, and, by degrees, the character\nof a nation is entirely altered. This change was the most rapid, and the\nmost observable in the Roman republic, and was the cause that\nbrought it to an end, and prepared the people for submitting to be\nruled by the emperors. The human character was as much degraded\nunder them, when the citizens were rich, as it ever had been exalted\nunder their consular government, when the people were indigent. [end\nof page #90]\n\nThe various effects of this change in manners will be considered under\ndifferent heads, but it is too deeply rooted in human nature ever to be\nentirely counteracted, much less entirely done away. It is firmly\nconnected with the first principles of action in man, and can no more\nbe removed than his entire nature can be altered. What is in the\nextreme, if dangerous, may be diminished; and that is all that it would\nbe any way useful to attempt: it may be rendered less formidable in its\noperation, and that is all that can be expected.\n\nThe degradation of moral character; the loss of attention to the first\nprinciples to which a society owes its prosperity and safety, both of\nwhich accompany wealth, are most powerful agents in the decline of\nnations. We have seen that the Romans, the greatest of all nations,\nwere ruined, chiefly, by degradation of character, by effeminacy, by\nignorance; for we generally find that idleness degenerates, at last, into\nsloth and inaction. To a love of justice, and a power of overcoming\ndanger, or of preventing it, listlessness and a total want of energy\nsucceed: at length, the mind becomes estranged from hope, and the\nbody incapable of exertion. This is the case with those who have for a\ntime enjoyed luxury when they begin to decline; their fall is then\ninevitable. The Eastern empire, as well as the Western, fell by this\nmeans; and it may be said to have been the ordinary course in the\ndecline of nations that have fallen gradually.\n\nThe Turks, {80} the Spaniards, and the Portuguese, all owe part of\ntheir present feebleness to this cause; and the government of France\ncertainly, in a great measure, owed its downfal =sic= to the same.\nThere the courtiers had sunk in character, and it was become\nimpossible even for the energy, the activity, and intelligence of the\nnation at large, to counteract the baneful effect of the change that had\ntaken place amongst those who regulated its affairs.\n\nIn history we have seen scarcely any thing similar to this, for it was\nthe effect operating on the rulers of the nation only; the strength of the\ngreat body of the nation, on which it did not operate, supported that\n\n---\n{80} Those nations resemble each other in feebleness, and in the\ncause of it, though, with respect to the Turks, it has existed for a\nlonger period.\n-=-\n\n[end of page #91]\n\npride and ignorance; whereas in Spain, Portugal, and Turkey, this evil\nbeing general throughout the state, those who have the conducting of\naffairs are held in some check by the general feebleness of the nation.\n{81} This not only limits the power of action, but is so visible, that it\nis impossible for those who govern not to be led to reflection, and to\nbe taught moderation by it.\n\nThe power of laying on taxes and the means of defending itself against\nother nations are regulated by the situation of the people; but the\nwisdom with which the affairs are conducted is dependent on the\nrulers, and those who govern. It is therefore fortunate, when the rulers\nare so far sensible of the feeble state of the country as to be moderate\nand reasonable. {82}\n\nNone of the nations that know their own weakness would ever have\nrisked the experiment that was made on St. Domingo by the French;\nneither would any nation, in the vigour of acquiring riches, have done\nso. It required a nation, ruled by men who were ignorant of the true\nprinciples, who were corrupted with wealth, and, at the same time, had\na vigorous nation to govern, to admit of such a situation of things.\n{83} Had the nation been less wealthy or weaker, so as to have made\nthe poverty or weakness obvious, this could not have happened; or,\nhad the rulers been less corrupted and ignorant, it could not have taken\nplace. {84}\n\n---\n{81} The French nation, in reality, was never so powerful and wealthy\nas at the time of the revolution breaking out. The effects of luxury had\nonly perverted the city of Paris and the court. The power which the\nenergies of the people at large put at the disposition of the government\nwas ill applied.\n\n{82} Perhaps some of the greatest advantages that arise from a form\nof government like that of England are, that those who have ruled,\nowe their places to their abilities, and not to favour; that they maintain\ntheir situations by exertion, and not by flattery; and that the situation\nof the nation never can be long disguised. Without the turbulence of a\ndemocracy, we have most of the advantages that arise from one, while\nwe have, at the same time, the benefits that proceed from the stability\nand order of established monarchy.\n\n{83} When the Portuguese were for abandoning the India trade, it was\na case pretty similar.\n\n{84} Though the men who overturned the commerce of France were\nnot the same with the members of the ancient government, yet they\nalso were men ignorant of the true interests of the nation. A few\namongst them were bent upon an experiment, regardless of the ruin\nwith which it might be attended.\n-=-\n\n[end of page #92]\n\nIn all the interior causes, for the decline of nations, which we are\nendeavouring to investigate, we shall find a change of manners, and\nways of thinking, constantly producing some effect in the direction\ntowards decline. This takes place, from the time that a nation becomes\nmore wealthy than its neighbours; until then, when it is only\nstruggling to equal them, a nation cannot be said to be rich, but to be\nemerging from poverty.\n\nThe great aim then should be, to counteract this change of mind and\nmanners, that naturally attends an increased state of prosperity.\n\n[end of page #93]\n\n\n\n\nCHAP. II.\n\n\n_Of the Education of Youth in Nations increasing in Wealth.--the\nErrors generally committed by Writers on that Subject.--Importance\nof Female Education on the Manners of a People.--Not noticed by\nWriters on Political Economy.--Education of the great Body of the\nPeople the chief Object.--In what that consists_\n\nThe changes of which we have spoken, that take place, gradually, in\na nation, from the increasing luxury and ease in which every\nsucceeding generation is raised, cannot be prevented. They are the\nnatural consequences of the situation of the parents being altered. But\nwhen that period of life comes, when children enter upon what is\ncalled education, then a great deal may be done; for, though the\nfathers and mothers have still power over their offspring, it is a\ndiminished power; besides which, they are seldom so much disposed\nto exert even what power remains, as at an earlier period.\n\nIt is necessary and fair, after the severe censure that has been passed\non parents, for bringing up children wrong, at an early period, to\nadmit, that for the most part, they would not run into that error, and\nspoil their children, if they were sensible of doing so; and that, as they\ngrow up, they would have them properly instructed, if it were in their\npower: that is to say, if they had the means.\n\nThere are certain things for which individuals can pay, but which it is\nimpossible for them to provide individually; and if they attempt to do\nit collectively, it is liable to great abuse, and to be badly done.\n\nIndividuals never could afford to send their letters, from one end of\nthe kingdom to the other, without combining together, unless\ngovernment furnished them the means: but, by the aid of the\ngovernment, they are enabled to do it at a very cheap rate, with\nexpedition and safety, whilst a profit arises to government greater than\nany regular business in the world produces.\n\nThere is a possibility of an individual sending a letter by a particu-\n[end of page #94] lar messenger, at his own expense, to the greatest\ndistance, provided he can afford it; but, as it happens, there are many\nmore letters require sending than there are messengers to send, or\nmoney to defray the expenses.\n\nIt is the same with the education of youth. A man may have a tutor to\nhis son, and educate him privately, if he can afford it; but it happens,\nas with the letters, that there are many more sons to educate than there\nare tutors to be found, or money to pay them.\n\nAs the individual, in the case of the letters, would be obliged to\ndepend on some self-created carrier, if government did not interfere,\nso they are with regard to the education of their children; and, as in the\none case they would be very badly served, so they generally are in the\nother.\n\nIn the first place, the plans of education are every where bad, and the\nmanner of executing still worse.--Those to whom the education of\nyouth, one of the most important offices in society, is intrusted\nundergo no sort of examination, to ascertain whether they are fit for\nthe business. They, in general, depend upon their submissive conduct\ntowards the parents and improper indulgence of the children for their\nsuccess. It was found that the judges of criminal and civil law could\nnot be intrusted with the administration of justice, while they\ndepended on the pleasure of the crown. Can it then be expected that a\nmuch more numerous set of men, who are, in every respect, inferior in\nrank and education, to judges, will maintain that upright and correct\nconduct that is necessary, when they are infinitely more dependent\nthan the judges ever were at any period?\n\nThis is one of the questions that is to be argued on the same principles,\nthat the independence, under a monarchical or democratic\ngovernment, is decided. Under the dominion of one chief, on\nparticular occasions, which occur but seldom, it may be necessary to\nyield to his will, if the ruler is shameless enough and infamous enough\nto insist upon it; but, with a community for one's master, there is a\ncomplete system of submission, a perpetual deviation from that which\nis right.\n\nIn the first place, the fathers and mothers are no judges themselves of\nthe merits of the master, or the proficiency of the boy, whom the [end\nof page #95] master is obliged to treat with indulgence, that he may\nnot complain. Where there is a complete ignorance of the right and\nwrong of the case, any thing will turn the balance; and it is clear, that\nwhere there is no proof of superior merit, there must be good will,\nflattery, or some other method taken, to obtain a preference.\n\nThere are, occasionally, men of real merit, who distinguish themselves\nas teachers; and who, having a solid claim to a preference, use no mean\narts to obtain it. It is but justice to parents in general, to say that\nsuch men are always encouraged, while they keep their good qualities\nuncontaminated by some fault that counterbalances them. {85}\n\nAs this is a case where individuals cannot serve themselves, nor\nprovide the means of being properly served, it is one of those in which\nthe government of every country ought to interfere. Not in giving\nsalaries, at the public expense, to men, who, perhaps, would do no\nduty; but in seeing that the men who undertake the task of education\nare qualified, and that when they have undertaken it they do their duty,\nand follow a proper system.\n\nThere should be proper examinations, from time to time, and registers\nshould be kept of the number of scholars, and the satisfaction they\nhave given to those who examined them.\n\nParents would then have a measure, by which they could estimate the\nmerit of a school; the master would have another motive for action,\nand there would be an emulation amongst the scholars. The business\nprofessed to be done, and undertaken, would then be performed. At\npresent, at about three times the expense necessary, children learn\nabout half what they are intended to be taught.\n\nInterfering in this manner would be no infringement on private liberty;\nnothing would be done that could hurt, in any way, the individuals,\nbut what must greatly benefit them. The evil habits that are contracted\nin early childhood, at home, would be counteracted, and the\n\n---\n{85} As even those find it is necessary to make a strong impression on\nthe minds of parents, (and as some wish their children to be treated\nwith rigour,) there are teachers, who obtain a credit by overstraining\nthe discipline, after having obtained a fair reputation, by carrying it\nonly to a proper length.\n-=-\n\n[end of page #96]\n\nyouth would be taught to know what it is that renders a man happy in\nhimself, and respected and valued by society.\n\nBut the consideration of the system to be followed is not the least\nimportant part of the business. The useful should be preferred to the\nuseless, and in this the example of the ancients might be followed with\nadvantage. They had no dead languages to study, and the mind\nappears to have been in many cases expanded, far beyond its present\ncompass.\n\nNothing, indeed, can equal the ignorance of the most part of boys,\nwhen they leave school; those who are considered as bad scholars,\nhave lost the good opinion of themselves, that ought to be maintained\nthroughout life; they think every thing difficult or impossible. Those,\nagain, who have excelled, are something less ignorant, but become\nvain and conceited, owing perhaps to their having learnt some useless\nand superfluous pieces of knowledge.\n\nEducation, on the general principle, consists in learning what makes a\nman useful, respectable, and happy, in the line for which he is\ndestined, whether for manual labour, or for study; for a high or a low\noccupation.\n\nWhat is useful becomes a question, in some sort depending upon\nplace, and still more on circumstances, it will therefore be better to\ndiscuss it at length in the Third Book, where England is the place, and\nparticular circumstances are taken into consideration.\n\nThere are, however, some general rules that apply to all places and to\nall situations.\n\nGood principles, honour, honesty, and integrity, are equally necessary\nin every rank of society; with those qualities, even a beggar is\nrespectable, and will be respected; without them, no man ever was or\never will be so. In every mode of education, the importance of those\nshould be inculcated; and that they may be adhered to, every man,\neither by inheritance, or by talents, or by habits of industry, should\nhave it put in his power to command the means of living in the way\nthat he has been brought up.\n\nWere this attended to, many scenes of misery and vice would be\nprevented. Admitting that there are propensities in some minds, [end\nof page #97] that lead to evil, independent of every possible check or\ncontrol, it must be allowed that the far greater proportion of those who\ndo well or ill in the world owe it to the manner in which they have\nbeen brought up in their early days.\n\nIt follows, from this general rule, that parents should carefully avoid\nbringing up children in a manner in which they have not the means of\nbeing afterwards maintained; and that, in the second place, when they\ncannot leave them in an independent fortune, they should, by making\nthem learn a trade or profession, give them the means of obtaining\nwhat they have been accustomed to consider as necessary for them to\nenjoy.\n\nThere are, indeed, great numbers, and the greatest numbers of all;\nunable even to have their children taught what is called a trade. But\nthere are none whom poverty prevents from bringing their children up\nto industry; and, if they have been taught to live according to their\nsituation, they will find themselves above their wants, and therefore\nthe same general rule will still apply.\n\nMost writers have considered the subject of education as relative to\nthat portion of it only which applies to learning; but the first object\nof all, in every nation, is to make a man a good member of society; and\nthis can never be done, unless he is fitted to fill the situation of\nlife for which he is intended.\n\nGovernments and writers on education fall, generally speaking, into\nthe same errors. They would provide for the education of persons\ndestined for the learned professions and sometimes for the fine arts;\nbut agriculture, commerce, and manufactures, are totally left out: {86}\nthe most essential, the most generally useful, are not noticed at all.\n\nAs so much value is set upon the language of the Greeks and Romans,\nsurely we might pay a little attention to the example of those\ndistinguished nations.\n\nThe Greeks studied the Egyptian learning, and improved upon it; but\nthis was only confined to those who followed learning as a profes-\n\n---\n{86} Lord Somerville has some excellent observations, relative to\nthis, in his publication on Agriculture, published in 1800.\n-=-\n\n[end of page #98]\n\nsion, or whose means allowed them to prosecute it as a study. The\ncommon education of citizens was different; it consisted in teaching\nthem to perform what was useful, and to esteem what was excellent. It\nwas a principle with them that all men ought to know how happiness\nis attained, and in what virtue consists; but they neither trusted to\nprecept nor example. They enforced by habit and practice, and in this\nthe Romans followed the plan the Greeks had laid down, and, by that\nmeans, they surpassed all other nations.\n\nWhen those great nations of antiquity abandoned their attention to the\nuseful parts of education, they soon sunk in national character. It so\nhappens, in this case, that the mode of education and the manners of a\npeople are so closely connected that it is difficult, from observation, to\nknow which is the cause, and which the effect. Youth, badly educated,\nmake bad men, and bad men neglect the education of their children;\nthey set them a wrong example: such is the case, when a government\ndoes not interfere. How this is to be done with advantage is the\nquestion.\n\nWriters on political economy have, in general, considered female\neducation as making no part of the system; but surely, if the wealth\nand happiness of mankind is the end in view, there can scarcely be a\ngreater object, for none is more nearly connected with it.\n\nLet it be granted that, in the first instance, women are not educated\nwith any view to carry on those labours and manufactures, on which\nwealth is considered as depending. Let all this be admitted, and that,\nin an early state of life, they are of no importance in this respect; yet,\nsurely, when they become wives and mothers, when the economy of\nthe family, and the education of the younger children depend chiefly\non them, they are then of very great importance to society. Their\nconduct, in that important situation, must be greatly influenced by\ntheir education.\n\nFemale education ought then to be considered as one of the things, on\nthe conducting of which well the prosperity of a state does in a great\nmeasure depend; it ought, therefore, to be attended to in the same\nmanner as the education of youth of the other sex.\n\nIn this case, also, so much depends on place and circumstances, [end\nof page #99] that we shall follow the same rule as with male\neducation. It shall be treated of as for England, and with the different\nranks of society as they are; but there are some general rules not to be\nforgotten, and which are applicable to all places and all countries.\n\nThe great error, in female education, does not consist in neglecting to\ninstil good principles; for that is, in most countries, for obvious\nreasons, pretty well attended to; but good principles, without the\nmeans of adhering to them, are of little avail. If a desire for dress, or\nother enjoyments, that cannot be gratified fairly, and by the means of\nwhich they are possessed, are encouraged, principles will be\nabandoned in order to gratify passions.--Females are taught frivolous\naccomplishments in place of what would be useful, and expensive\nvanity is substituted for that modest dignity that should be taught; the\nconsequence is, that, in every rank of life, according to her station, the\nwoman aims at being above it, and affects the manners and dress of\nher superiors.\n\nThere is too much pains taken with adorning the person, and too little\nwith instructing the mind, in every civilized country; and when\nwomen are wise, and good, and virtuous, it is more owing to nature\nthan to education.\n\nAs, indeed, the duties of a woman, in ordinary life, are of a nature\nmore difficult to describe than those of a man, who, when he has\nlearnt a trade, has little more to do, the care employed in seeing that\nproper persons only are intrusted with the important office of teaching\nthem to perform those duties ought to be proportionally great.\n\nThe farther remarks on the subject of education are deferred to the\nFourth Book =sic--there is none.=, where place and circumstances\ncome into consideration. It is, however, to be observed, that, in all\ncases, as a nation becomes more wealthy, the business of education\nbecomes more important, and has a natural tendency to be worse\nmanaged; it therefore demands a double share of attention.\n\nIf the women of a nation are badly educated, it must have a great\neffect on the education of their sons, and the conduct of their\nhusbands. The Spartan and Roman mothers had the glory of making\n[end of page #100] their sons esteem bravery, and those qualities in a\nman that were most wanted in their state of society. It should be one\npart of female education to know and admire the qualities that are\nestimable in the other sex. To obtain the approbation of the other sex,\nis, at a certain time of life, the greatest object of ambition, and it is\nnever a matter of indifference.\n\nThe great general error consists in considering the woman merely in\nher identical self, without thinking of her influence on others. It\nappears to be for this reason, that writers on political economy have\npaid no attention to female education; but we find no state in which\nthe virtue of men has been preserved where the women had none;\nthough there are examples of women preserving their virtues,\nnotwithstanding the torrent of corruption by which that of the men has\nbeen swept away. [end of page #101]\n\n\n\n\nCHAP. III.\n\n\n_Of increased Taxation, as an Interior Cause of Decline.--Its\ndifferent Effects on Industry, according to the Degree to which it is\ncarried.--Its Effects on the People and on Government_.\n\nThere has been no instance of a government becoming more\neconomical, or less expensive, as it became older, even when the\nnation itself was not increasing in wealth; but, in every nation that has\nincreased in wealth, the expenditure, on the part of government, has\naugmented in a very rapid manner.\n\nAmongst the interior causes of the decline of nations, and the\noverthrow of governments, the increase of taxes has always been very\nprominent. It is in the levying of taxes that the sovereign and the\nsubject act as if they were of opposite interests, or rather as if they\nwere enemies to each other.\n\nIn every case almost, where the subjects have rebelled against their\nsovereign, or where they have abandoned their country to its enemies,\nthe discontents have been occasioned by taxes that were either too\nheavy, imprudently laid on, or rigorously levied.\n\nSometimes the manner of laying on the tax has given the offence;\nsometimes its nature, and sometimes its amount. The revolution in\nEngland, in Charles the first's time, began about the manner of levying\na tax. The revolution of the American colonies began in the same way;\nand it is generally at the manner that nations enjoying a certain degree\nof freedom make objection. The excise had very nearly proved fatal to\nthe government of this country, as the stamp duties did to that of\nFrance, and as the general amount and enormity of taxes did to the\nWestern Empire. {87}\n\n---\n{87} The system of taxation was ill understood amongst the Romans,\nand its execution, under a military government, is always severe. The\nRomans were so tormented, at last, that they lost all regard for their\ncountry. Taxes seem to be the price we pay for the con-[end of page\n#102] stitution we live under, and as they increase, the value of the\npurchase lessens. The difference between value paid, and value\nreceived, constitutes the advantage or loss of every bargain.\n-=-\n\nPerhaps the chief motive for submitting to the difficulties, the\noppressions, and the burthens, which people submit to under\nrepublican forms of government arises in deception. They seem to be\npaying taxes to themselves, and for themselves, when, in reality, they\nare not doing so any more than under a monarchy, where the taxes, in\nproportion to the service done, are generally less than in a\nrepublic.{88}\n\n---\n{88} America is an exception, but then there is no similarity between\nthe United States and any other country in the world. Their existence,\nas an independent country, is only of twenty-five years standing; they\nhave had no wars during that time, and the revolutionary war cost\nlittle in actual money. The comparison between the states and other\nnations will not hold, but, if we compare the expense of their\ngovernment now, and when under the British, it will be found they\npay near thirty times as much; and, even allowing their population to\nhave risen one-half, they still pay proportionately twenty times as\nmuch. Their revenue now amounts to 16,000,000 of dollars. The\npublic expense, in 1795, when they revolted, was about 350,000\ndollars.\n-=-\n\nThis was the case in Holland and Venice. In England, the first great\nincrease of taxes took place under the long Parliament and\nCommonwealth.\n\nThe only administration carried on by delegated authority, that is from\nnecessity obliged to be executed with unabaiting rigour, is the\ndepartment of finance. Money is a thing of such a nature, that strict\nrules are absolutely necessary in its administration. There is here a\ngreat distinction between money and other property, or money's\nworth. A menial servant, of whose honesty there is no proof, and even\nwhen it may be dubious, is habitually trusted with the care of property\nto a considerable amount, and the account rendered is seldom very\nrigorous; but, in the case of trusting with money, every precaution is\nfirst taken, as to being trust-worthy. Security is generally demanded,\nand neither friendship, confidence, nor the highest respectability, will\nsupply the place of a strict account, which, when not rendered, leaves\nan indelible stain. There are many causes for this, but they are so\ngenerally understood, or, at least, so generally felt, that it is not\nnecessary to examine them; the consequences are in some cases,\nhowever, not so evident. One of the most important is, that the\naccuracy with [end of page #103] which those appointed to collect\ntaxes are obliged to render their accounts, compels them to a strictness\nin doing their duty that appears frequently rigorous to an extreme\ndegree, and scarcely consistent with justice or humanity.\n\nA king is considered as an unrelenting creditor, and he certainly\nappears in that character; but it should be considered why he is\nobliged to be so; for, as a master, he is generally the most indulgent in\nhis dominions.\n\nNo duty or service is exacted with less rigour than that belonging to a\ncivil department under government, when it is not connected with\naccountability in money; none so rigorous where money is concerned.\nHow is this to be accounted for, unless it is by shewing that the nature\nof the situation admits of giving way to the feelings of humanity in\none case, and not in the other? A few examples will illustrate this\npoint, which is very important, very well known, but not well\nunderstood.\n\nA clerk in a public office wants, either for health or private business,\nor, perhaps, only for amusement, to absent himself from duty; if his\nconduct merits any indulgence, and if his request is any way\nreasonable, it is immediately granted, though his salary during his\nabsence may amount to a considerable sum; but he receives the gift\nunder the form of time, not of money. If the same clerk is in arrear for\ntaxes to one-twentieth part of the amount, if he does not pay, his\nfurniture will be seized, and that perhaps by order of the same superior\nfrom whom he obtained the leave of absence from his duty. {89}\n\nThe consequences would be fatal if the case were reversed. Supposing\nthat leave of absence had been refused, and that a remission of taxes\nhad been granted, the man who remitted the tax would be liable to\nsuspicion, which he could never do away; the receipt of the revenue\nwould never be secure, and the clerk, who had demanded a fair\nindulgence, would be disgusted and provoked at the refusal.\n\nWe cannot, however, alter the nature of things. Taxes cannot be\nremitted, in any case, without discretional authority, and that it would\n\n---\n{89} Accountability in money may be compared to military discipline,\nwhen on duty. No allowances are to be made for negligence or\ndeviation from rule. Of this we have lately had a most striking and\nmemorable example.\n-=-\n\n[end of page #104]\n\nbe ruinous to the revenue to give, we must, therefore, never expect\nthat the augmentation of taxes will take place without an increase of\ndiscontent, or, at least, an augmented indifference towards\ngovernment.\n\nPerhaps nothing evinces more the general feeling, (even of the\nrespectable part of society,) with regard to the revenues of the state,\nthan the disposition to profit by evading the payment of duties\nimposed upon articles of consumption.\n\nThe most respectable of the nobility or gentry will conceal a\ncontraband article, or one on which there is a heavy duty, on their\nreturn from abroad: and what is more, if detected, they are more\nashamed, on account of their want of address, than on account of the\ncrime; for such it is, whatever custom may have taught us to think.\n\nA man who is rigorously treated, by what is commonly called a lawful\ncreditor, whom he would never attempt to defraud must naturally feel\ndoubly incensed, when still more rigorously treated by one whom he\nwould think it very little harm, and no disgrace, to defraud. It is then\nvery clear, that, the common habits of thinking on the subject of debts\ndue to the king, is such as does not favour taxation, or incline people\nto submit willingly to rigorous modes of recovery.\n\nAll taxes raise the prices of the articles taxed, but those are most felt\nand most obnoxious which fall on personal property, or on persons\nthemselves.\n\nAll taxes, then, when they pass a certain point, have a tendency to\nsend away persons, and property, and trade, from a country, which, if\nthey do, its decline is inevitable. The extent, however, of that effect\nmust depend on a great variety of circumstances, such as the\ncomparative situation of other nations, their distance, the difficulty of\nremoving, &c.\n\nIf America were as near to England as France is, the industrious class\nwould emigrate in multitudes; and, if in France, property and persons\nwere as safe and free as in England, part of both would go there; but,\nas matters are, to the former it is impossible to remove, and, to the\nlatter, the risk surpasses the advantage.\n\nAn increase of taxation tends to raise the wages of labour, and, where\nit does so in due proportion, the labourer pays almost nothing; he still\nfor all that seems to pay, and he has the same disagreeable feeling\n[end of page #105] as if he did pay. No feeling is more disagreeable\nthan that of being obliged, after earning money that can ill be spared,\nto pay it away to a surly tax-gatherer, who treats a man and his family\nwith insolence, while he receives the money that should purchase\nthem bread. Besides this, though the prices of many articles keep pace\nwith the wages of labour, yet many others do not. Thus, in a country\nwhere wages are rapidly altering, though some are bettered by it,\npenury is entailed on others, who have not the means of raising their\nprices.\n\nIf heavy taxes are levied on a few articles of consumption, then they\nbecome inefficient, and if they are divided amongst a great many, they\nbecome troublesome, so that either way they are attended with\ninconvenience and difficulty.\n\nIn every country, where taxation has been carried to a great height, it\nhas, at last, become necessary to bear heavily upon personal property.\nSuch taxes are always attended with disagreeable feelings, and\npeculiar inconveniency. The tax always comes in the form of a debt,\nand whether convenient to be paid or not, it admits at best but of little\ndelay. {90}\n\nIn England the nature of the government, the disposition of the people,\nand the same sort of genius that made them succeed in commercial\nintercourse and regulation, led them to adopt the least objectionable\nmodes of taxation.\n\nThe customs were the first great branch of revenue at the time of the\nrevolution. The excise, land-tax, and stamps, rose next, none of which\ncan be objected to; for the person who pays the tax to government\nonly advances the money, and is reimbursed by the consumer, who,\nagain on his part, when he really pays the tax (for good and all) does it\nunder the form of an advance in price. Thus, then, the tax is disguised\nto him that really pays it, and it is optional, inasmuch as he\n\n---\n{90} It will be seen, in a future part of this work, that the farmers have\nlost nothing, but rather got by the high prices of grain in this country,\nand it is so probably in all others. Those who sell necessaries raise the\nprice; those who make or sell superfluities have no such resource, and\ntherefore pay in the severest manner.\n-=-\n\n[end of page #106]\n\nmay avoid the tax, by not consuming the article. He never can be sued\nfor the tax, and he pays it by degrees, as he can spare the money. {91}\n\nSome time before the taxation which the American war rendered\nnecessary, it was thought that the customs and excise could not be\ncarried much farther. Ministers did not chuse =sic= to venture on an\nadditional tax on land, and, consequently, stamps were augmented and\nextended, as were also duties on windows. A variety of new taxes on\nparticular articles of consumption were resorted to. Those sort of taxes\nharassed and tormented individuals more than they filled the treasury,\nyet still, when, after an interval of a few years of peace, new burthens\nbecame necessary, in 1793, the same plan was pursued, till it was\nfound ineffectual, being too troublesome and tedious, besides being\nunequal to the increase of expenditure.\n\nIt was necessity that suggested a plan, which is the simplest and\neasiest of any, so long as it succeeds and is productive. =sic= To\nincrease the excise and customs by an additional five or ten per cent.\non the articles that were supposed able to bear it. This has been done\nagain and again with those two branches of revenue, and with the\nstamps likewise.\n\nBut the necessities of the state still outrun the means, and the assessed\ntaxes, the worst and most obnoxious of all, were augmented in the\nsame way; but even those were not productive. The inducement to\nprivation was too great, and the restraints laid on expenditure,\nsuggested the adoption of a tax on income; that is, on the means a man\nhas to pay, which carries in its very name a description of its nature.\n\nWe have mentioned the influence that necessity has on industry. One\nof the effects of taxes, as well as of rent, is to prolong the operation of\nnecessity, or to increase it. A man who has neither rent nor taxes to\npay, as is the case in some savage nations, only labours to supply his\nwants. Whatever proportion rent and taxes bear to the wants of\n\n---\n{91} The land-tax is not precisely the same, but very nearly. It\noperates as a tax on the produce of land, that is on commodities for the\nuse of man, the same as those articles subject to duties of customs or\nexcise. The landholder just feels as the brewer, distiller, or importer of\nforeign goods, he gets the tax reimbursed by the farmer, and the\nfarmer is reimbursed by the consumer.\n-=-\n\n[end of page #107]\n\na people their industry will be increased in the same proportion, unless\ntheir forces are exceeded, and then the operation is indeed very\ndifferent.\n\nIt follows, from this, that both rent and taxes, to a certain degree,\nincrease the wealth of a people, by augmenting their industry. As rent\nis not compulsive, it never can in general be carried beyond the point\nthat augmented industry will bear; but taxes are not either regulated by\nthe industry of the individual, or of the community; they may\ntherefore be carried too far, and when they are, the people become\ndegraded, disheartened, their independent spirit is lost and broken,\nand industry, in place of increasing, as it did in the first stages of\ntaxation, flies away.\n\nThe government, in this case, generally becomes more severe, and\ncertainly more obnoxious. The broken spirit of the people makes\nsubmission a matter of course, so that there is no effectual resistance\nmade to its power. Incapacity to pay comes at last, and defeats the\nend; but, between incapacity and resistance, the difference is very\nwide.\n\nAs calculators have been predicting the moment of a total stoppage to\nthe increase of revenue for nearly half a century; as ministers,\nthemselves, have never ventured to lay on a new burthen, except when\nforced to it by necessity. {92} As taxes have been laid on at random,\nin a manner similar to that in which the streets and houses of old cities\nwere built, without regularity or design, and as the effects predicted\nhave not taken place, it is fair to conclude, that the subject is not well\nunderstood. If it were, the evil would be in the way to be obviated; but\nstill the conclusion would be the same, that increased taxation tends to\nbring on discontent, and to drive men and capital from a country. The\ndegree of tendency, and the rapidity of its operations, are a question;\nbut respecting the tendency itself there can be no question.\n\nTwo things more are to be observed, relative to the effects of taxation,\nas tending towards decline. The first is, that the taxes are levied by\nand expended on men, who, having income only for their lives,\n\n---\n{92} Mr. Pitt seems an exception to this; but the establishment of a\nsinking fund, at the end of the war, was as necessary for his\nadministration as any of the loans, during the war, were for Lord\nNorth; and both measures required new taxes.\n-=-\n\n[end of page #108]\n\ngenerally leave families in distress. Those who lose their parents when\nyoung are often left destitute, and those who are farther advanced are\nfrequently ruined by being educated and accustomed to a rank in life\nthat they are not able to support. This is a very great evil, and is\nrenewed as it were every generation. As the revenues of a country\nincrease, this evil increases also: for, except what goes to the\nproprietors of money in the stocks, all the public revenue, very nearly,\ngoes to people whose income perishes with themselves. To begin with\nthose who collect the taxes, custom-house officers, excise men,\ncollectors, and clerks of every rank and demonination =sic=, there is\nnot one in ten who does not die in indigence; and if he leaves a family,\nhe leaves it in distress.\n\nIt is no doubt the lot of the great bulk of mankind, that is to say, the\nlabouring part of the community in every country, to leave children\nunprovided for; but then they are left in a rank of society that does not\nprevent their going to work or to service, which is not the case with\nthe vast number left by those who enjoy, during life, a genteel and\neasy existence under government.\n\nThe education of such persons is either neglected entirely, or ill fitted\nfor the line of life into which they are to go. If the sum-total of human\nvice and misery was to be divided into shares, and if it were calculated\nhow much fell to each person, there is not a doubt but at least a double\nportion would fall to the lot of those unfortunate persons who are left\nby parents enjoying offices for life; who are generally obliged to\nexpend their income as they earn it. As, according to the natural\nchance of things, a number of such persons must leave young families,\nthe seeds of misery are continually sowing a-fresh, to the great\ndetriment of society. This evil depends in a great degree upon the\nhabits and nature of the people, which augment or diminish it; and, in\ncommercial nations, the evil is far the greatest. Where commerce does\nnot flourish, persons belonging to the revenue-department are seldom\nhighly paid, and they by no means consider themselves as a class of\npersons distinguished above the general run, or obliged to live more\nexpensively; but, in a manufacturing country, to live without working,\nimplies a degree of gentility that is extremely ruinous to those who\nenjoy that fatal and flimsy pre-eminence. [end of page #109]\n\nA manufacturer, who is getting a thousand pounds a year, will,\nperhaps, not assume so much importance as a man in office who does\nnot get one hundred pounds; and the former, as well as his family,\nknowing that they are beholden to industry for what they have, do not\nthink themselves above following it. {93}\n\nUnfortunately, it also happens, that, in all sorts of occupation where\ntrust is reposed and punctuality required, more than in ordinary\nbusiness, it is rather late in life before those employed rise to\nsituations of considerable emolument. When they are old, their\nfamilies are generally young; thus it is, that the persons who are the\nmost unfit to marry late in life are generally those who do so. This\norder of things cannot easily be changed. In the rate of payments\ngovernments are regulated by the service done, and by the dependence\nthat can be placed on the person employed, who, on the other hand,\nfollows the natural propensities of human nature. When young, and on\na small allowance, a revenue-officer remains single; but when it is\nnecessary to become serious, attentive, and confidential, and when he\nfinds he has the means, he betakes himself to a domestic life, which is\nthe most natural to men arrived at a certain time of life, and the best\nfitted for those who are to be depended upon for the correctness of\ntheir conduct. It is impossible to prevent this natural state of things;\nand if let go uncorrected, if not counteracted, the consequences are\nvery pernicious. It is to this, in a great measure, the augmentation of\nvice and mendicity =sic= is to be attributed in nations, as they become\nwealthy and great.\n\nPerhaps more depends upon the manner of taxation than the amount;\nat least it certainly is so in all countries where the amount is not very\nhigh. In America, for example, the amount is of no importance; the\nmanner might be of very pernicious consequence. In France, before\nthe revolution, the taxes were more oppressive, from the manner of\nlevying them than from their amount. The same thing might be said\n\n---\n{93} This is a very important part of the consideration; but, as\neducation and it are connected, and that comes into the Fourth Book\n=sic--there is none.=, the whole consideration is left till then; not only\nthe national prosperity is injured, but the feelings of humanity are\nhurt, and the sum of human misery increased by this consequence.\n-=-\n\n[end of page #110]\n\nof almost every country in Europe, England and Holland excepted. At\npresent, the case is greatly altered, in many countries, by the increase:\nyet, still, one of the principal evils arises from the manner of levying\nthe taxes; the restraints imposed by them, the inconveniency, the\nvexation, and, finally, the misery and ruin they, in many cases,\noccasion.\n\nOf all the examples, where taxation contributed most to the fall of a\ncountry, Rome is the greatest. The luxury of the imperial court, and\nthe expenses of a licentious and disorderly army, added to the\nignorance of the subject, rendered the taxes every way burthensome.\nFrom the fall of Rome, to the time of Louis XIV. the splendour of\ncourts, and their expenses, were objects of no great importance. We\nare but lately arrived at a new aera in taxation; for, though taxation has\nbeen the occasion of much discontent at all times, it was carried to no\nconsiderable length, in any country in Europe, except in Spain and\nHolland, till within this last century.\n\nIndeed, when we consider the great noise that has often been made\nabout raising an inconsiderable sum, it is impossible not to be\nastonished at the reluctance with which people pay taxes, when they\nfeel that they are paying them, and are not accustomed to the feeling.\n\nTaxation is, then, to the feelings of men, disagreeable; to their\nmanners hurtful; they are also, in their operation, to a certain degree,\ninimical to liberty. The ultimate consequence of this is, that persons\nand property have both of them a tendency to quit a country where\ntaxes are high, and to go to one, where, with the same means, there\nmay be more enjoyment.\n\nTaxes may be called a rent paid for living in a country, and operate\nexactly like the rent of houses or land, or rent for any thing else; that\nis, they make the tenant remove to a cheaper place, unless he finds\nadvantages where he is to counterbalance the expense.\n\nUnfortunately, the persons who have the greatest disposition to quit a\ncountry that is heavily taxed are those, who, having a certain income,\nwhich they cannot increase, wish to enjoy it with some degree of\neconomy. They are, likewise, the persons who can remove with the\ngreatest [end of page #111] facility. Thus, people whose income is in\nmoney are always the first to quit a country that is become too dear to\nlive in with comfort.\n\nMany circumstances may favour or counteract this tendency, such as\nthe difficulty of finding an agreeable place to retire to, where the\nmoney will be secure, or the interest regularly paid; but, an inquiry\ninto that will come more properly when we examine the external\ncauses of decline.\n\nThough the increase of taxes, by augmenting the expense of living, and of\nthe necessaries of life, is little felt by the labouring class, their\nwages rising in proportion; yet a most disastrous effect is produced on\nthe fine arts, and on all productions of which the price does not bear a\nproportional rise.\n\nWhere taxes are high, and luxury great, there must be some persons\nwho have a great deal of ostentation, even if they have little taste. A\npicture or a jewel of great value will, very certainly, find a purchaser,\nbut that will only serve as a motive for bringing the fine painting from\nanother country, where the necessaries of life are cheaper, and where\nmen enjoy that careless ease which is incompatible with a high state of\ntaxation.\n\nWhen Rome became luxurious, to the highest pitch, there were neither\npoets, painters, nor historians, bred within its walls; buffoons and\nfiddlers could get more money than philosophers, and they had more\nsaleable talents. Had Virgil not found an Augustus, had he lived three\ncenturies later, he must either have written ballads and lampoons, or\nhave starved; otherwise he must have quitted Italy.\n\nWhen Rome was full of luxury, and commanded the world and its\nwealth, there was not an artist in it capable of executing the statues of\nits victorious generals. {94}\n\nSome Greek island, barren and bare, would breed artists capable of\nmaking ornaments for imperial Rome.\n\n---\n{94} They were obliged to cut the heads off from ancient statues, as\ntheir artists were only sufficiently expert to carve the drapery of the\nbody.\n-=-\n\n[end of page #112]\n\nIt is an easy matter, in a rich country, to pay for a fine piece of art,\nBut a difficult matter to find a price for the bringing up a fine\nartist. {95}\n\nThe fine arts have not, indeed, any intimate or immediate connection\nwith the wealth or strength of a nation. The balance of trade has never\nbeen greatly increased by the exportation of great masterpieces of art,\nnor have nations been subdued by the powers of oratory; but the\nknowledge and the arts, by which wealth and greatness are obtained,\nfollow in the train of the finer performances of human genius.\n\nWhere money becomes the universal agent, where it is impossible to\nenjoy ease or comfort for a single day without it, it becomes an object\nof adoration, as it were. To despise gold, which purchases all things, is\nreckoned a greater crime than to despise him to whose bounty we are\nindebted for all things; consequently, ambition, without which there\nnever is excellence, is, at an early period of life, bent towards the\ngaining a fortune. A man, indeed, must either be of a singularly odd\nand obstinate disposition, or very indifferent about the opinion of\nothers, and even about the good things of this world, (as they are\ntermed,) to persevere in obtaining perfection in science or art, while\nwithout bread, when he might, with a tenth part of the care and study,\nlive in affluence, and get money from day to day. There are few such\nobstinate fools; and without them, in a wealthy country, there can be\nfound few men profound in science, or excelling in any of the arts.\n\nThe augmentation of taxes, by rendering the produce of industry\ndearer than in other countries, tends to cut off a nation of that de-\n\n---\n{95} This is liable to some exceptions. Natural genius may make a\nman excel; but, even then, it is ten to one if he is not compelled to\nlabour in order to get bread, in place of trying to obtain fame. It was\nthus the great Dr. Johnson, with a genius that might have procured\nhim immortal fame, drudged, during life, on weekly or daily labours,\nwhich will soon be forgotten. Even his dictionary, wonderful as it is\nfor a single man, is not worthy of the English nation, and Johnson's\nname is little known beyond the limits of his own country. His genius\nwas great, but his labours were little. His mind was in fetters; it was\nSampson grinding at the mill to amuse the Philistines; not Sampson\nslaying lions, and putting to flight armies.\n-=-\n\n[end of page #113]\n\nscription, from the markets in poorer countries. If all other countries\nare poorer; and the taxes lower; it has a tendency to shut it out from all\nthe markets in the world.\n\nAn operation, that, at the same time that it renders people less happy,\nless contented, and more indifferent to the fate of their country, and at\nthe same time tends to shut them out from foreign markets, is certainly\nvery hurtful to any country, but particularly so to one, the greatness of\nwhich is founded on manufactures and commerce.\n\nIt would be useless to enlarge on so self-evident a consequence; yet,\neven in this case, we shall find something of that mixture of good,\nalong with the bad, which is to be found in all human things.\n\nAs exertion originates in necessity or want, which it removes, taxation\nhas the effect of prolonging the operation of necessity, after it would\notherwise have ceased, and of rendering its pressure greater than it\notherwise would be; the consequence of this is a greater and larger\ncontinued exertion on the part of those who have to pay the taxes.\nHuman exertion, either in the way of invention or of industry, is like a\nspring that is pressed upon, and gains strength according to the\npressure, until a certain point, when it gives way entirely.\n\nThose investigators, who have calculated the effect of such and such a\ndegree of taxation, of national debt, &c. have all erred, in not making\nany, or a sufficient, allowance for the action of this elastic power. Mr.\nHume and Mr. Smith, certainly, both of them, men of profound\nresearch, have erred completely in this. The former, in calculating the\nultimatum of exertion, at a point which we have long since passed;\nand, the latter, in reasoning on the taxation at the time he wrote, as if\nnearly the utmost degree, though it has since trebled, and the difficulty\nin paying seems to be diminished; at least it appears not to have\naugmented.\n\nTo fix the point at which this can stop is not, indeed, very easy;\nparticularly, as the value of gold and silver, which are the measures of\nother values, do themselves vary. Thus, for example, a working man\ncan, with his day's wages, purchase as much bread and beer as he\ncould have done with it forty years ago. Though the national debt [end\nof page #114] is five times as great as it was then, at the present price\nof bread, it would not take twice the number of loaves to pay it that it\nwould have required at that time.\n\nThe depreciation of money, then, as well as the continuation and\naugmented pressure of necessity, counteract, to a certain degree, and\nfor a certain time, the natural tendency of taxes; but that counteraction,\nthough operating in all cases, in its degree and duration, must depend\nupon particular circumstances; and though, perhaps, it cannot be, with\nmuch accuracy, ascertained in any case, it is impossible to attempt\nresolving the question in a general way; we shall, therefore, return to\nthe subject, when we apply the general principles to the particular\nsituation of England.\n\nOne conclusion, however, is, that as taxes, carried to a great extent,\nare very dangerous, though not so if only carried to a certain point; as\nthat point cannot be ascertained, it ought to be a general rule to lay on\nas few taxes as possible; and the giving as little trouble and\nderangement to the contributor as may be, is also another point, with\nrespect to which there cannot be two different opinions. [end of page\n#115]\n\n\n\n\nCHAP. IV.\n\n_Of the interior Causes of Decline, arising from the Encroachments of\npublic and privileged Bodies, and of those who have a common\nInterest; on those who have no common Interest_. {96}\n\nFrom the moment that any particular form of government or order is\nestablished in a nation, there must be separate and adverse interests;\nor, which is the same thing, bodies acting in opposition to each other,\nand seeking their own power and advantage at the expense of the rest.\n\nIn a country where the executive government is under no sufficient\ncontrol, its strides to arbitrary power are well known; but, in a\ngovernment poised like that of England, where there are deliberative\nbodies, with different interests, acting separately, and interested in\nkeeping each other and the executive in check, it is not from the\ngovernment that much danger is to be apprehended.\n\nIt is not meant to dwell on this particular part of the subject. As those\ngoverned hold a check on the executive power, which alone can be\nsupposed to profit by oppression, there is a means of defence, in the\nfirst instance, and of redress, in the second, which diminishes greatly,\nif it does not entirely do away all danger from encroachment.\n\nAnother thing to be said about this government is, that government\nand the subject never come into opposition with each other, except\nwhere there is law or precedent to determine between them.\n\nThe danger, then, of encroachment on that side, is not very great, and\nit is the less so in this country, that, when there have been contests,\nthey have always ended in favour of the people; whereas, in most\n\n---\n{96} The public certainly has a common interest, but it feels it not,\nand even those who have separate interests make part of that very\npublic.--This will be exemplified, in a variety of instances, in the\ncourse of the present chapter.\n-=-\n\n[end of page #116]\n\nother countries, they have terminated in favour of the executive\npower.\n\nIt is not so, however, with many other of the component parts of\nsociety. Those deliberating bodies, who have separate interests, and all\nthose who live, as it were, on the public, and have what they call, in\nFrance, _l'esprit du corps_, for which we have no proper expression,\nthough it may be defined to be those who have a common interest, a\nfellow feeling, and the means of acting in concert, are much more\ndangerous.\n\nIn nations where the executive power has no control, the progress of\npublic bodies is less dangerous than where the power of the king is\nlimited. It is always the interest of the sovereign, who monopolises all\npower, and those around him, to prevent any man, or body of men,\nfrom infringing on the liberty of the subject, or becoming rivals, by\nlaying industry under contribution, so we find that, in every such\nnation, the clergy excepted, all public bodies are kept under proper\nsubjection. {97}\n\n---\n{97} In all countries, those who have the care of religious matters\nmust necessarily have some control over the minds of the people,\nwhich they can to a certain degree turn either to a good or a bad\npurpose. It is, therefore, impossible that the government and clergy\ncan, for any length of time, act in opposition to each other: one or\nother of the two must soon fall, and there have been instances of the\ntriumph of each. We have sometimes seen kings triumph over the\nclergy, but not very often; and we have frequently seen governments\noverturned by their means: except, therefore, in a state of revolution,\nthey must mutually support each other. This is the natural state of\nthings; but, in Roman Catholic countries, priests have a superior sway\nto what they have in any other, for several reasons that are very\nobvious. In the first place, the sovereign of the nation is not the head\nof the church; and, in the second, by means of a very superior degree\nof art and attention, during the dark ages, when the laity were sunk in\nignorance, the catholic clergy contrived to entail the church property,\nfrom generation to generation, upon the whole body: at the same time,\nenjoining celibacy, by which all chance of alienation, even of personal\nproperty, was done away. As to the means of acquiring property, and\nof augmenting it; they were many, and, in every contest with the\nsecular authority, they had a great advantage, by speaking, as it were,\nthrough ten thousand mouths at once, and giving the alarm to the\nconsciences of the weak. In countries where the protestant religion has\nbeen established, the case is widely different. Gothic darkness was\nnearly fled before the reformation: besides this, the clergy are like\nother men, with regard to the manner of living; they are fathers and\nhusbands, and, as such, liable to have all the property that is their own\nalienated, as much as any other set of men [end of page #117]\nwhatever. The reformers, who were neither destitute of penetration nor\nzeal, and who knew all the abuses of the church of Rome, in matters\nof regulation as well as of opinion, were very careful to settle the new\norder of things on such a plan, as to be free from the evils which they\nhad experienced, and against which they had risen with such energy\nand zeal.\n-=-\n\nThe simple state of the case is, that the interest of the people is that of\nthe sovereign; and, except in cases where there is a profound\nignorance of what is good for the nation, every wise sovereign takes\nthe part of the people. But, under a limited monarchy, or in a\ndemocracy, the case is different. There, those bodies, which an\narbitrary monarch would reduce to obedience at once, stand upon\nprerogative themselves; they form a band in the legislature, and act\ntrue to their own interests; so that the sovereign himself is compelled\nto admit of abuses, which he is willing but not able to remedy.\n\nIt is a great mistake, and one of the greatest into which people have of\nlate been apt to run, that the government and people of a country are\nof opposite interests; and that governments wish to oppress the people,\nand rob them of the means of being affluent and happy: the very\ncontrary is the case; all enlightened monarchs have acted quite\ndifferently.\n\nAlfred the Great, Edward III. Queen Elizabeth, and nearly all her\nsuccessors have endeavoured to increase the wealth and happiness of\nthe people in England. Henry IV. of France, even Louis XIV. Peter the\nGreat of Russia, Catherine, and indeed all his successors, as also the\nKings of Prussia, the Grand Duke of Tuscany, and other sovereigns,\nwho know how to shew their disposition, have tried to enrich their\npeople, and render them happy. The great study of the English\ngovernment has always been directed to that end, and the Romans\nextended their care even to the nations they subdued. Though there are\nmany sovereigns who have not known how to do this, and therefore\nhave either not attempted it, or erred in the mode they have taken; yet,\nwith very few exceptions indeed, sovereigns have been found to wish\nfor the prosperity of the nations over which they ruled.\n\nIn all human institutions there is much that is bad, and something [end\nof page #118] that is good; and the best, as well as the worst, are only\ncombinations of good and evil, differing in the proportions. In mixt\ngovernments, or in limited governments, the people can defend their\nrights better against the sovereign than against those bodies that spring\nup amongst themselves: whereas, in pure monarchies, they have only\nto guard against the encroachments of the sovereign; and he will take\ncare to prevent them from being oppressed by any other power.\n\nThis tendency to destruction, from encroachments of public bodies in\nestablished governments, is more to be dreaded in limited monarchies,\nand in democracies, than in pure monarchies; but we have had little\noccasion to observe the progress in governments of the former sort,\nexcepting the clergy, though the military and the nobles generally play\ntheir part.\n\nIn Rome, the military never were dangerous, while the armies were\nonly raised, like militias, for the purpose of a particular war; but, when\nthey became a standing body, they were the proximate efficient cause\nof destroying liberty, though this was only the prelude to that decline\nwhich afterwards took place.\n\nIn limited monarchies, the lawyers are the greatest body, from which\nthis sort of danger arises, and the reasons are numerous and evident.\n\nUnited in interest, and constantly occupied in studying the law of the\ncountry, while the public at large are occupied on a variety of different\nobjects, and without any bond of union, there can be nothing more\nnatural than that they should contrive to render the business which\nthey alone can understand, of as much importance and profit as\npossible.\n\nIn the criminal law of the country, where the king is the prosecutor,\nand where the lawyers are not interested in multiplying expense or\nembarrassment, our laws are administered with admirable attention;\nthough, perhaps, in some cases, they are blamed for severity, they are\njustly admired over the world for their mode of administration.\n\nIt is very different in cases of property, or civil actions, where it is\nman against man, and where both solicitor and council =sic= are\ninterested in the intricacy of the case. Here, indeed, the public is so\nglaringly imposed upon, that it would be almost useless to dwell on\nthe sub-[end of page #119] ject, and, as a part of the plan of this work\nis to offer, or point out, a remedy, it may be sufficient, in this case, to\ngo over the business once, and leave the examples till the relief is\nproposed.\n\nAt present, it is, however, necessary to shew why, as things are\nconstituted in mixed governments like this, no remedy is to be had.\nThe public only acts by representatives; and, in the House of Lords,\nthe law-lords, who have _l'esprit du corps_, may easily contrive to\nmanage every thing. One or two noblemen excepted, no one either\nhas, or pretends to have sufficient knowledge to argue or adjust a\npoint of law. Indeed, it is no easy matter to do so with effect, for,\nbesides that, the law-lords have ministers on their side, or, which is\nthe same thing, are on the side of ministers, the speaker is himself at\nthe head of the law. The other members who look up to the law-lords,\nand who are generally very few in number on a law-question,\ngenerally give their assent. In the House of Commons, in which there\nare a number of lawyers, they are still less opposed. The country\ngentlemen profess ignorance. They think that to watch money-bills,\nthe privileges of the house, the general interests of the nation, roads,\ncanals, and inclosures, is their province. The mercantile, and other\ninterests, composed of men getting money with great rapidity,\nconsider the abuses of law as not to them of much importance; they do\nnot feel the inconvenience, and have neither time nor inclination to\nstudy the subject. {98}\n\nThe prerogative of the king to refuse his assent, might, perhaps, be\nexpected to come in as a protection, but here there is least of all any\nthing to be expected. In the first place, it is thought to be wise never to\nuse that prerogative, and, in the second place, the lord-high-chancellor\nis the king's guide in every thing of the sort, insomuch, that he is\nstyled the keeper of the king's conscience.\n\nWith power, influence, and interest on one side, and nothing to oppose\nit on the other, (for the common proverb is true, as all common\n\n---\n{98} The law is the widest, and the shortest, and the nearest road to a\npeerage. A Howe, Nelson, and St. Vincent, play a game, partly of\nskill, and partly of chance, for title; they must have luck and\nopportunity. The others are sure with fewer competitors to have more\nprizes.\n-=-\n\n[end of page #120]\n\nproverbs are, that what is every body's business is nobody's,) the\nlawyers must encroach on the public, and they have done so to a most\nalarming degree.\n\nIn this case, it is not, as in others, where the great cut out work for and\nemploy the small. No. The great generally (indeed almost always)\nbegin with the advice and by the means of an attorney, who is only\nsupposed to understand law-practice. The proceeding does not\noriginate with the council, who could form some judgment of the\njustice of the case, so that a mean petty-fogging attorney may, for a\ntrifle, which he puts into his own pocket, ruin two ignorant and honest\nmen; he may set the ablest council to work, and occupy, for a time, the\ncourts of justice, to the general interruption of law, and injury of the\npublic.\n\nThis is, perhaps, one of the greatest and most crying evils in the land,\nand calls out the most loudly for redress, as the effects are very\nuniversal. In a commercial country, so many interests clash, and there\nare such a variety of circumstances, that the vast swarms of attorneys,\nwho crowd the kingdom, find no difficulty in misleading one of the\nparties, and that is the cause of most law-suits.\n\nAs commercial wealth increases the evil augments, not in simple\nproportion, but in a far more rapid progression; first, in proportion to\nthe wealth and gain to be obtained, and, secondly, according to the\nopportunities which augment with the business done.\n\nIn addition to the real dead expense, the loss of time, the attention, and\nthe misfortune and misery occasioned by the law, are terrible evils;\nand, if ever the moment comes, that a general dissatisfaction prevails,\nit will be the law that will precipitate the evil.\n\nThe mildness of the civil laws in France, and the restraints under\nwhich lawyers are held, served greatly to soften the rigours of the\nrevolution for the first two years. Had they possessed the power and\nthe means they do in England, the revolution must have become much\nmore terrible than it was at the first outset.\n\nThe lawyers owe all their power to the nature of the government. An\narbitrary monarch will have no oppressor but himself, but here the\n[end of page #121] different interests are supposed to be poised; and\nwhen they are, all goes right, but, when they happen not to be so, the\nmost active interest carries the day.\n\nThough the law is the greatest of those bodies that is of a different\ninterest from the public at large, yet there are some others deserving\nnotice, and requiring reformation. It is the interest of all those who are\nconnected with government to do away abuses that tend to endanger\nits security, or diminish its resources.\n\nAs the public revenue is all derived from those who labour, and as it\ncan come from no other persons, if the prosperity and happiness of the\nsubject were a mere matter of indifference, which it cannot be\nsupposed to be; still it would be an object for government to preserve\nhis resources undiminished. It was our lot, in another chapter, to\nmention the enormous increase of the poor's rate, which was in part\nattributed to the general increase of wealth; mal-administration is,\nhowever, another cause, and, the public is the more to be pitied, that\nthe parish-officers defend their conduct against their constituents at\nthe expense of their constituents.\n\nIn an inquiry after truth, it should be spoken without fear of offending;\nand, in this case, though the feelings of Englishmen may, perhaps, be\nhurt, and their pride wounded, it must be allowed, that if it were not\nfor the mock-democratical form of administrating =sic= the funds for\nthe maintenance of the poor, they would never suffer the extortion,\nand the bare-faced iniquities that are committed. {99} The ship-\nmoney, the poll-tax, the taxes on the Americans, and others, that have\ncaused so much bloodshed and strife, never amounted to one-tenth, if\nall added together, of what the English public pays to be applied to\nmaintain the poor, and administered by rude illiterate men, who render\nscarcely any account, and certainly, in general, evade all regular\ncontrol. Those administrators, though chosen by the people, always,\nwhile in office, imbibe _l'esprit du corps_, and make a common\ncause.\n\n---\n{99} In Brabant and Flanders the people were very jealous of their\nliberties. They were, however, most terribly oppressed by the\nchurchmen and lawyers.\n-=-\n\n[end of page #122]\n\nThe repairs of highways, bridges, streets, and expenses of police in\ngeneral; whatever falls on parishes, towns, or counties, in the form of\na tax or rate, is generally ill-administered, and the wastefulness\nincreases with wealth. The difficulty of controling or redressing those\nevils proceeds from the same spirit pervading all the separate\nadministrations. Government alone can remedy this; and it is both the\ninterest and duty of the government to keep a strict watch over every\nbody of men that has an interest separate from that of the public at\nlarge. Similar to the human body, which becomes stiff and rigid with\nage, so, as states get older, regulation upon regulation, and\nencroachment on encroachment, add friction and difficulty to the\nmachine, till its force is overcome, and the motion stops. In the human\nbody, if no violent disease intervenes, age occasions death. In the\nbody politic, if no accidental event comes to accelerate the effect, it\nbrings on a revolution; hence, as a nation never dies, it throws off the\nold grievances, and begins a new career.\n\nThe tendency that all laws and regulations have to become more\ncomplicated, and that all bodies, united by one common interest, have\nto encroach on the general weal, are known from the earliest periods;\nbut we have no occasion to go back to early periods for a proof of that\nin this country. As wealth increases, the temptation augments, and the\nresistance decreases. The wealthy part of society are scarcely pressed\nupon by the evils, and they love ease too well to trouble themselves\nwith fighting the battles of the public. Those who are engaged in trade\nare too much occupied to spare time; and, if they were not, they\nneither in general know how to proceed, nor have they any fund at\ntheir disposal, from which to draw the necessary money for\nexpenditure.\n\nIt sometimes happens, that an individual, from a real public spirit, or\nfrom a particular humour or disposition, or, perhaps, because he has\nbeen severely oppressed, musters sufficient courage to undertake the\nredress of some particular grievance; but, unless he is very fortunate,\nand possesses both money and abilities, it is generally the ruin of his\npeace, if not of his fortune. He finds himself at once beset with a host\nof enemies, who throw every embarrassment in his way: his friends\n[end of page #123] may admire and pity, but they very seldom lend\nhim any assistance. If some progress is made in redressing the\ngrievance, it is generally attended with such consequences to the\nindividual, as to deter others from undertaking a similar cause. Thus\nthe incorporated body becomes safe, and goes on with its\nencroachments with impunity.\n\nMuch more may be said upon this subject; but, as it is rather one of\nwhich the operation is regulated by particular circumstances, than by\ngeneral rules, the object being to apply the result of the inquiry to\nEngland, we shall leave it till we come to the application of it to that\ncountry, only observing, that the church, the army, and the law, are the\nthree bodies universally and principally to be looked to as dangerous;\nand each of them according to the situation and the form of\ngovernment of the respective countries, though, in England, the\nchurch has less means than in any country in Europe of extending its\nrevenues or power, the law and corporate bodies the most; and, under\narbitrary governments, the church and the military have the most, and\nthe law and corporate bodies little or none. [end of page #124]\n\n\n\n\nCHAP. V.\n\n\n_Of the internal Causes of Decline, arising from the unequal Division\nof Property, and its Accumulation in the Hands of particular Persons.--\nIts Effects on the Employment of Capital_.\n\nIn every country, the wealth that is in it has a natural tendency to\naccumulate in the hands of certain individuals, whether the laws of the\nsociety do or do not favour that accumulation. Although it has been\nobserved in a former chapter that wealth follows industry, and flies\nfrom the son of the affluent citizen to the poor country boy, yet that is\nonly the case with wealth, the possessor of which requires industry to\nkeep it; for, where wealth has been obtained, so as to be in the form of\nland or money at interest, this is no longer the case. {100}\n\nIn America, and in countries that are new, or in those of which the\ninhabitants have been sufficiently hardy, and rash to overturn every\nancient institution, precautions have been taken against the\naccumulation of too much wealth in the hands of one person, or at\nleast to discourage and counteract it; but, in old nations, where we do\nnot chuse =sic= to run such risks, the case is different. The natural\nvanity of raising a family, the means that a rich man has to\naccumulate, the natural chance of wealth accumulating by marriages,\nand many other circumstances, operate in favour of all those rich men,\nwho are freed from risk, and independent of industry. In some cases,\nextravagance dissipates wealth, but the laws favour accumulation of\nlanded property, and counteract extravagance; the advantages are in\nfavour of all the wealthy in general, and the consequence is, that from\nthe first origin of any particular order of things, till some convulsion\ntakes place, the division of property becomes more and more unequal.\n\nFar from counteracting this by the laws of the land, in all those\n\n---\n{100} Amongst the Romans, in early times, property in land was by\nlaw to be equally divided; but that absurd law was never strictly\nattended to, and when the country became wealthy was totally set\naside.\n-=-\n\n[end of page #125]\n\ncountries, the governments of which took strength during this feudal\nsystem, there are regulations leading greatly to accelerate the progress.\nThe law of primogeniture has this effect; and the law of entails, both\nimmoral and impolitic in its operation, has a still greater tendency.\n\nThese laws only extend to agricultural property; but commerce, which\nat first tends to disseminate wealth, in the end, has the same effect of\naccumulating it in private hands.\n\nIndustry, art, and intelligence, are, in the early ages, the spring of\ncommerce; but, as machinery and capital become necessary, a set of\npersons rise up who engross all the great profits, and amass immense\nfortunes. {101}\n\nThe consequence of great fortunes, and the unequal division of\nproperty, are, that the lower ranks, though expensively maintained,\nbecome degraded, disorderly, and uncomfortable, while the middling\nclasses disappear by degrees. Discontent pervades the great mass of\nthe people, and the supporters of the government, though powerful,\nare too few in number, and too inefficient in character to preserve it\nfrom ruin.\n\nThe proprietors of land or money should never be so far raised above\nthe ordinary class of the people as to be totally ignorant of their\nmanner of feeling and existing, or to lose sight of the connection\nbetween industry and prosperity; for, whenever they do, the\nindustrious are oppressed, and wealth vanishes. {102}\n\nIt requires not much knowledge, and little love of justice, to see that\nthere must be gradations in society, which, instead of diminishing,\nincrease the general happiness of mankind; but when we\n\n---\n{101} Invention has nearly the same effect in commerce that the\nintroduction of gunpowder and artillery have on the art of war. Wealth\nis rendered more necessary to carry them on. Every new improvement\nthat is made, in either the personal strength and energy of man\nbecomes of less importance.\n\n{102} Some of the greatest proprietors in this kingdom, much to their\nhonour, are the most exemplary men in it, with respect to their\nconduct to their tenantry; but though the instances are honourable and\nsplendid, they are not general; nor is it in the nature of things that they\ncan be general. In France, matters were in general different; and the\ninattention of the nobility to their duty was one cause of the\nrevolution; they had forgot, that, if they neglected or oppressed the\nindustrious, they must ruin themselves.\n-=-\n\n[end of page #126]\n\nfind that the chance of being born half an hour sooner or later makes\none man the proprietor of 50,000 acres and another little better than a\nbeggar; when we consider that, by means of industry, he never may be\nable to purchase a garden to grow cabbages for his family, it loosens\nour attachment to the order of things we see before us, it hurts our\nideas of moral equity. A man of reflection wishes the evil to be\nsilently counteracted, and if he is violent, and has any disposition to\ntry a change, it furnishes him with arguments and abettors.\n\nWhen the Romans (with whose history we are tolerably well\nacquainted) {103} grew rich, the division of property became very\nunequal, and the attachment of the people for their government\ndeclined, the middle classes lost their importance, and the lower\norders of free citizens became a mere rabble. When Rome was poor,\nthe people did not cry for bread, but when the brick buildings were\nturned into marble palaces, when a lamprey was sold for fifty-six\npounds, {104} the people became a degraded populace, not much\nbetter, or less disorderly than the Lazzeroni of Naples. A donation of\ncorn was a bribe to a Roman citizen; {105} though there is not,\nperhaps, an order of peasantry in the most remote corner of Europe,\nwho would consider such a donation in ordinary times as an object\neither worthy of clamour or deserving of thanks. {106}\n\nThe Romans, at the time when Cincinatus held the plough, and the\nconquerors of nations roasted their own turnips, would have thought\nthemselves degraded by eating bread obtained by such means; but it\nwas different with the Romans after they had conquered the world.\n\nIn a more recent example, we may trace a similar effect, arising from a\ncause not very different.\n\n---\n{103} We know better about the laws and manners of the Romans\n2000 years ago, in the time of the first Punic War, than about those of\nEngland, in the time of Henry the Fourth. They had fixed laws, their\nstate was young, and the division of property tolerably equal.\n\n{104} See Arbuthnot on Coins.\n\n{105} Do not the soup-shops of late invention, and certainly well\nintended, bear some resemblance to these days of Roman\nwretchedness and magnificence.\n\n{106} It is to be observed, these donations were not on account of\nscarcity, but to save the people from the trouble of working to earn the\ncorn; they were become idle in body and degraded in mind.\n-=-\n\n[end of page #127]\n\nThe unequal division of property in France was one of the chief causes\nof the revolution; the intention of which was, to overturn the then\nexisting order of things. The ignorance of the great proprietors\nconcerning of their true interests, and the smallness of their numbers,\ndisabled them from protecting themselves. The middle orders were\ndiscontented, and wished for a change; and the lower orders were so\ndegraded, that, at the first signal, they became as mutinous and as\nmean as the Plebians at Rome, in the days of its splendor. {107}\n\nThat this was not alone owing to the unequal division of property is\ncertain, there were other causes, but that was a principal one. As a\nproof that this was so in England, where property is more equally\ndivided than it was in France, the common people are more attached\nto government, and of a different spirit, though they are changing\nsince the late great influx of wealth into this country, and since\ndifficulties which have accumulated on the heads of the middle orders,\nwhile those who have large fortunes feel a greater facility of\naugmenting them than at any former period.\n\nIn those parts of this country, where wealth has made the least\nprogress, the character of the people supports itself the best amongst\nthe lower classes; and the inverse progress of that character, and of the\nacquisition of wealth, is sufficiently striking to be noticed by one who\nis neither a very near, nor a very nice observer.\n\nDiscontent and envy rise arise from comparison; and, where they\nbecome prevalent, society can never stand long. They are enemies to\nfair industry.\n\nWhatever may have been the delusive theories into which ill-\nintentioned, designing, and subtile men have sometimes deluded the\ngreat mass of the people, they have never been successful, except\nwhen they could fight under the appearance of justice, and thereby\ncreate discontent. The unequal division of property has frequently\nserved them in this case.\n\n---\n{107} The Parisian populace were the instruments in the hand of those\nwho destroyed the former government, as the regular army is in the\nhands of him who has erected that which now exists.\n-=-\n\n[end of page #128]\n\n[Transcriber's note: possible omissis--page 128 ends as above, page 129\nstarts as next follows...]\n\nwhile it increased the ignorance, and diminished the number of the\nenemies they had to encounter.\n\nAs this evil has arisen to a greater height in countries which have had\nless wealth in the aggregate than England, it is not the most dangerous\nthing we have to encounter; but, as the tendency to it increases very\nrapidly of late years, we must, by no means, overlook it. A future\nChapter will be dedicated to the purpose of inquiring how this may be\ncounteracted in some cases, in others modified and disguised, so as to\nprevent, in some degree, the evil effects that naturally arise from it.\n\nOf all the ways in which property accumulates, in particular hands, the\nmost dangerous is landed property; not only on account of entails, and\nthe law of primogeniture, (which attach to land alone,) but because it\nis the property the most easily retained, the least liable to be alienated,\nand the only one that augments in value in a state that is growing rich.\n\nAn estate in land augments in value, without augmenting in extent,\nwhen a country becomes richer. A fortune, lent at interest, diminishes,\nas the value of money sinks. A fortune engaged in trade is liable to\nrisks, and requires industry to preserve it: but industry, it has been\nobserved, never is to be found for any great length of time in any\nsingle line of men; consequently, there are few great monied men,\nexcept such as have acquired their own fortunes, and those can never\nbe very numerous nor overgrown.\n\nBesides our having facts to furnish proofs that there are no very great\nfortunes, except landed fortunes; it can scarcely have escaped the\nnotice of any one, that no other gives such umbrage, or shews the\ninferiority men =sic= who have none so much. {108}\n\nThat there is a perpetual tendency to the accumulation of property, in\nthe hands of individuals, is certain; for, amongst the nations\n\n---\n{108} If a man has wealth, in any other form, it is only known by the\nexpenditure he makes, and it is quickly diminished by\nmismanagement; but the great landed estate, which is seldom well\nattended to, is mismanaged to the public detriment without ruin to the\nproprietor.\n-=-\n\n[end of page #129]\n\nof Europe, those who are the most ancient, exhibit the most striking\ncontrasts of poverty and riches.\n\nNations obtaining wealth by commerce are less liable to this danger\nthan any others; at least we are led to believe so, from the present\nsituation of things: we are, perhaps, however, not altogether right in\nthe conclusion.\n\nIn France there were, and in Germany, Russia, and Poland, there are\nsome immense fortunes, though general wealth is not nearly equal to\nthat of England: so much for a comparison between nations of the\npresent day. Again, it is certain, there were some fortunes in England,\nin the times of the Plantagenets and Tudors, much greater than any of\nthe present times. {109} England was not then near so wealthy as it is\nnow, and had very little commerce: it would then appear, that whether\nwe compare England with what it was before it became a wealthy and\ncommercial nation, or with other nations, at the present time, which\nare not wealthy, commerce and riches appear to have operated in\ndividing riches, and making that division more equal, rather than in\nrendering their accumulation great in particular hands, and their\ndistribution unequal.\n\nBefore we are too positive about the cause, though we admit this\neffect, let us inquire whether there are not some other circumstances\nthat are peculiar to the present situation of England, that may, if not\nwholly, at least in part, account for it.\n\nThe form of government in England is different from that of any of\nthose countries. It is also different in its nature, though not in its\nform, from what it was under the Plantagenets and Tudors. Court favour\ncannot enrich a family in this country, and the operation of the law is\ntolerably equal. As neither protection, nor rank, in this country, raise\na man above the rest of society, so the richest subject is obliged to\nobtain, by his expenditure, that consideration which he would ob-\n\n---\n{109} Two centuries ago, land was sold for twelve years purchase,\nand the rents are five times as great as they were then; 10,000 L.\nemployed in buying land then would now produce 5000 L. a year. Had\nthe same money been lent, at interest, it would but produce 500 L. The\nland, too, would sell for 140,000 L. The monied capital would remain\nwhat it was.\n-=-\n\n[end of page #130]\n\ntain by other means, under another form of government, {110} and he\nis as much compelled to pay his debts as any other man.\n\nIt is not, however, the great wealth of one individual, or even of a few\nindividuals, that is an object of consideration. It will be found that the\ngreat number of persons, who live upon revenues, sufficiently\nabundant to exempt them from care and attention, and to enable them\nto injure the manners of the people, (being above the necessity of\neconomy, feeling none of its wants, and contributing nothing by their\nown exertion to its wealth or strength,) is a very great evil, and one\nthat tends constantly to increase.\n\nBut if this progress goes on, while a nation is acquiring wealth, how\nmuch faster does it not proceed when it approaches towards its\ndecline? It is, then, indeed, that the extremes of poverty and riches are\nto be seen in the most striking degree.\n\nThe higher classes can never be made to contribute their share towards\nthe prosperity of a state; where there are no middling classes to\nconnect the higher and lower orders, and to protect the lower orders\nfrom the power of the higher, a state must gradually decline.\n\nIt is in the middling classes that the freedom, the intelligence, and the\nindustry of a country reside. The higher class may be very intelligent,\nbut can never be very numerous; and being above the feeling of want,\nexcept in a few instances, (where nature has endowed the wealthy\nwith innate good qualities,) there is nothing to be expected or obtained\nof them, {111} towards the general good.\n\nFrom the working and laborious classes, again, little is to be expected.\nThey fill the part assigned to them when they perform their duty to\nthemselves and families; and they have neither leisure, nor other\nmeans of contributing to general prosperity as public men;\n\n---\n{110} In France, the richest subject under the crown was a prince of\nthe blood, &c.\n\n{111} In this case, the English form of government is good, because,\nit not only hinders any man from forgetting that he is a man, but\nwhenever there is any ambition, no one in this country can rise above\nthe necessity of acting with, and feeling for, their inferiors, of whom\nthey sometimes have to ask favours, which they never do under a pure\nmonarchy.\n-=-\n\n[end of page #131]\n\nthey, indeed, pay more than their share of taxes in almost every\ncountry; {112} but they cannot directly, even by election, participate\nin the government of the country.\n\nIf any number of persons engross the whole of the lands of a nation,\nthen the labourers that live on those lands must be in a degraded\nsituation; they then become less sound and less important members of\nthe state than they would otherwise be.\n\nNecessity does not act with that favourable impulse on people, where\nproperty is very unequally divided, that it does where the gradation\nfrom the state of poverty to that of riches is more regular.\n\nAs the action of the body is brought on by the effect produced on the\nmind; and as there is no hope of obtaining wealth where it appears\nvery unequally divided, so also there is no exertion where there is no\nhope. {113}\n\nWhere there is no regular gradation of rank and division of property,\nemulation, which is the spur to action, when absolute necessity ceases\nto operate, is entirely destroyed; thus the lower classes become\ndegraded and discouraged, as is universally found to be the case in\nnations that have passed their meridian; the contrary being as regularly\nand constantly the case with rising nations.\n\nBesides the degradation and listlessness occasioned in the lower ranks,\nby an unequal distribution of property, the most agreeable, and the\nstrongest bond of society is thereby broken. The bond that\n\n---\n{112} This is less the case in England than in any other country.\n\n{113} It is strange how possibility, which is the mother of hope, acts\nupon, and controuls, the passions. Envy is generally directed to those\nwho are but a little raised above us. They are reckoned to be madmen\nwho envy kings, or fall in love with princesses, and, in fact, they are\nsuch, unless when they belong to the same rank themselves.\n\nLove, for example, which is not a voluntary passion, or under the\ncontroul of reason, ought, according to the chances of things,\nsometimes to make a sensible and wise man become enamoured of a\nprincess, but that never happens. It would appear, that, in order to\nbecome the object of desire, there must be a hope founded on a\nreasonable expectation of obtaining the object. This can be but very\nsmall in the lower classes, when they look at the overgrown rich, and\nhave no intermediate rank to envy or emulate.\n-=-\n\n[end of page #132]\n\nconsists, in the attachment of the inferior classes, to those immediately\nabove them. Where the distance is great, there is but little connection,\nand that connection is merely founded upon conveniency, not on a\nsimilarity of feeling, or an occasional interchange of good actions, or\nmutual services. By this means, the whole society becomes, as it were,\ndisjointed, and if the chain is not entirely broken, it has at least lost\nthat strength and pliability that is necessary, either for the raising a\nnation to greatness, or supporting it after it has risen to a superior\ndegree of rank or power.\n\nAmongst the causes of the decline of wealthy nations, this then is one.\nThe great lose sight of the origin of their wealth, and cease to\nconsider, that all wealth originates in labour, and that, therefore, the\nindustrious and productive classes are the sinews of riches and power.\nThe French nation, to which we have had occasion to allude already,\nwas in this situation before the revolution. Rome was so likewise\nbefore its fall. We are not, however, to expect to find this as a\nprincipal cause in the fall of all nations; many of them fell from\nexterior and not interior causes. Venice, Genoa, and all the places that\nflourished in the middle ages, fell from other causes. Whatever their\ninternal energy might have been, their fate could not have been\naltered, nor their fall prevented. The case is different with nations of\nwhich the extent is sufficiently great to protect them against the\nattacks of their enemies; and where the local situation is such as to\nsecure them from a change taking place in the channels of commerce,\na cause of decline which is not to be resisted by any power inherent in\na nation itself.\n\nIn Spain and Portugal the internal causes are the preponderating ones,\nand, in some measure, though not altogether so, in Holland. If\nEngland should ever fall, internal causes must have a great share in\nthe catastrophe. In this inquiry, then, we must consider the interior\nstate of the country as of great importance.\n\nWhen property is very unequally divided, the monied capital of a\nnation, upon the employment of which, next to its industry, its wealth,\nor revenue, depend, begins to be applied less advantageously. A\npreference is given to employments, by which money is got with most\nease and [end of page #133] certainty, though in less quantity. A\npreference also is given to lines of business that are reckoned the most\nnoble and independent.\n\nManufacturers aspire to become merchants, and merchants to become\nmere lenders of money, or agents. The detail is done by brokers, by\nmen who take the trouble, and understand the nature of the particular\nbranches they undertake, but who furnish no capital.\n\nThe Dutch were the greatest example of this. Independent of those\ngreat political events, which have, as it were, completed the ruin of\ntheir country, they had long ceased to give that great encouragement\nto manufactures, which had, at first, raised them to wealth and power\nin so surprising a manner. They had, in the latter times, become agents\nfor others, rather than merchants on their own account; so that the\ncapital, which, at one time, brought in, probably, twenty or twenty-\nfive per cent. annually, and which had, even at a late period, produced\nten or fifteen, was employed in a way that scarcely produced three.\n\nIf it were possible to employ large capitals with as much advantage,\nand to make them set in motion and maintain as much industry as\nsmall ones are made to do, there would scarcely be any limit to the\naccumulation of money in a country; but a vast variety of causes\noperate on preventing this.\n\nWhatever, therefore, tends to accumulate the capital of a nation in a\nfew hands (thereby depriving the many) not only increases luxury, and\ncorrupts manners and morals, but diminishes the activity of the capital\nand the industry of the country. {114}\n\nIn all the great places that are now in a state of decay, we find families\nliving on the interest of money, that formerly were engaged in\nmanufactures or commerce. Antwerp, Genoa, and Venice, were full\n\n---\n{114} It is a strange fact, that when this country was not nearly so far\nadvanced as it is now, almost all the merchants traded on their own\ncapitals; they purchased goods, paid for them, sold them, and waited\nfor the returns; but now it is quite different. They purchase on credit,\nand draw bills on those to whom they sell, and are continually obliged\nto obtain discounts; or, in other words, to borrow money, till the\nregular time of payment comes round; they may, therefore, be said to\nbe trading with the capital of money-lenders, who afford them\ndiscount.\n-=-\n\n[end of page #134]\n\nof such, but those persons would not have ventured a single shilling in\na new enterprise. The connection between industry and revenue was\nlost in their ideas. They knew nothing of it, and the remnants of the\nindustrious, who still cultivated the ancient modes of procuring\nwealth, were considered as an inferior class of persons, depending\nupon less certain means of existence, and generally greatly straitened\nfor capital, which, as soon as they possessed in sufficient quantity,\nenabled them to follow the same example, and to retire to the less\naffluent, but more esteemed and idle practice of living upon interest.\n\nIn countries where there are nobility, the capital of the commercial\nworld is constantly going to them, either by marriage of daughters, or\nby the other means, which rich people take to become noble. Even\nwhere there are no nobility, the class of citizens living without any\nimmediate connection with trade consider themselves as forming the\nhighest order of society, and they become the envy of the others.\nThere appears to be no means of preventing capital, when unequally\ndivided, from being invested in the least profitable way that produces\nrevenue. When more equally divided, it is employed in the way that\nproduces the greatest possible income, by setting to work and\nmaintaining the greatest possible quantity of labour.\n\nIf there is not sufficient means of employing capital within a nation or\ncountry that has a very unequal division of wealth, there are plenty of\nopportunities furnished by poorer nations. Accordingly, every one of\nthe nations, states, or towns, that has ever been wealthy, has furnished\nthose who wanted it with capital, at a low interest. Amsterdam has lent\ngreat sums to England, to Russia, and France. The French owed a very\nlarge sum to Genoa at the beginning of the revolution. Antwerp,\nCologne, and every one of the ancient, rich, and decayed towns had\nvested money in the hands of foreign nations, or lent to German\nprinces, or to the great proprietors of land, on the security of their\nestates. The American funds found purchasers amongst the wealthy all\nover Europe, when they could not find any in their own states; and, it\nis probable, that the far greater portion of their debt is at this time in\nthe hands of foreigners.\n\nThus it is that wealthy nations let the means by which the wealth [end\nof page #135] was acquired go out of their hands; each individual in a\nnew state, or in an old, follows his own interest and disposition in the\ndisposal of his property. In the new state, the individual interest and\nthat of the country are generally the same; in the old one, they are in\nopposition to each other, and that opposition is greatly increased by\nthe unequal division of property. The middling class of proprietors\nnever seek the most profitable employment for their money; the very\nwealthy are always inclined to seek for good security and certain\npayment, without any consideration of the interest of their country.\n\nTo counteract the tendency of property to accumulate, without\ninfringing on the rights of individuals, will be found desirable. In the\nFourth Book =sic--there is none.=, a mode of doing this shall be\nattentively taken into consideration.\n\n[end of page #136]\n\n\n\n\nCHAP. VI.\n\n\n_Of the Interior Causes of Decline, which arise from the Produce of\nthe Soil becoming unequal to the Sustenance of a luxurious People.--\nOf Monopoly_.\n\nIt has already been mentioned, and we have seen, in the case of Rome\nand Italy, that the country which was sufficient to maintain a certain\npopulation, when the manners of the people were simple, becomes\nincapable of doing so, when wealth has introduced luxury.\n\nThe case of the Romans, though the most clearly ascertained of any,\nand the circumstances the best known, is only in part applicable to an\ninquiry into the effects of luxury at the present day. The nature of\nluxury, the nature of the wants of man, and the diffusion of that\nluxury, its distribution amongst the different classes, are so unlike to\nwhat they were, that the comparison scarcely holds in any single\ninstance.\n\nA most enormous increase of population (a forced population as it\nwere) in a small country, together with large tracts of land converted\nfrom agriculture to the purposes of pleasure were the principal causes\nwhy Italy, in latter times, was incapable of supplying itself with corn.\nWherever wealth comes in more easily and in abundance, by other\nmeans than by agriculture, that is to a certain degree neglected. To\ncultivate ceases to be an object where it is more easy to purchase. This\ncertainly is, at all times, and in all places, one of the consequences of\nan influx of wealth, from wheresoever it comes, or by whatever means\nit is acquired; though, in Italy, it was felt more than perhaps in any\nother part of the world. The manner in which wealth comes into a\nnation has a great effect on the consumption of produce, owing to the\ndescription of persons into whose hands it first comes. In Rome, the\nwealth came into the hands of the great. The slaves and servants,\nthough more numerous, were, perhaps, fed in the same manner with\nthe slaves in earlier periods, though probably not with so much\neconomy. In a manufacturing country, [end of page #137] the greatest\npart of the wealth comes first into the hands of the labouring people,\nwho then live better and consume more of the produce of the earth;\nnot by eating a greater quantity, but by eating of a different quality.\n\nIn every manufacturing or commercial country, wealth displays itself\nin general opulence amongst the lower orders, and the means of\nsupplying that greater consumption is the same as it was in Rome. The\nmoney that arrives from other countries enables the community to\npurchase from other countries the deficiency of provisions, and\nprevents the evil effects from being felt at the moment.\n\nWhen, in course of time, there comes to be a difficulty of obtaining\nthe supply, from the want of produce in the country itself, then the\ndecline begins; and as no wealth, arising either from conquest,\ncolonies, or commerce, bears any great proportion to the daily food of\na people, its effect is soon felt in a very ruinous and terrible manner.\n\nEngland is the greatest country for extensive commerce that ever\nexisted, yet the amount of the whole of its foreign trade would not do\nmuch more than furnish the people with bread, and certainly not with\nall the simple necessaries of life. If, therefore, a country, such as this\nis, were unable to furnish itself with the necessaries of life, the whole\nbalance of trade, now in its favour, would not be sufficient to supply\nany considerable deficiency.\n\nThe desire of eating animal food, in place of vegetables, is very\ngeneral and, amongst a people living by manufactures, will always be\nindulged. If the country was fully peopled, before animal food was so\nmuch used; that is, if the population was as great as the vegetable\nproduce of the country was able to supply; as the same quantity of\nground cannot feed the same number of people with animal food,\nthere will be a necessity of importing the deficiency.\n\nThe change that this produces, when once it begins to operate, is a\nmost powerful and effectual cause of decline; and, without the\nintervention of conquest, or any violent revolution, would of itself be\nsufficient to impoverish, in the first instance, and, in the second, to\ndepopulate a country.\n\nWe find every country that was once wealthy, but that has fallen [end\nof page #138] into decline, is thinly peopled; and if it were not for the\nwant of information, from which the cause may be traced, a deficiency\nof food might most probably be found to be one of the most efficient.\n\nFlanders, which is one of the most fertile countries in Europe, and has\nexperienced a partial decline, is probably not near so fully peopled as\nit once was. Its present population would not support those armies, or\ngive it that rank amongst nations which it at one time maintained. It is\ntrue there have been persecutions and emigrations, which must have\nreduced the population of the country for a time, but not to an extent\nthat would account for such a diminution in its numbers, as there is\nreason to think has taken place.\n\nGhent, a town of an amazing size, could, at one time, send out fifty\nthousand fighting men. It certainly could not now (that is to say, at the\ntime the French subdued the country) have furnished one-fourth part\nof the number. Ghent is not the only town in this situation, the others\nhave all fallen off in the same manner. When manufactures declined,\nthe people did not go to live in the country, for that also is thinly\ninhabited, the richness of the soil being taken into consideration.\n\nThe peasants of that country lived much better than their French\nneighbours; they apparently brought up their children with more ease,\nand fed them more fully; but the country was not so populous, in\nproportion to its fertility.\n\nIn southern climates, where the heat of the sun is great, and vegetation\ndifficult, unless the crop is of a nature to protect the ground from its\neffects, natural grass is never luxuriant; and the cattle are neither so\nlarge nor so fat as in more northerly latitudes. Corn, on the other hand,\nwhich rises to a sufficient height, before the hot season, to protect the\nground from the rays of the sun, is a more profitable crop; and, indeed,\nthe only one that could (potatoes excepted) support a great population.\n\nIn such countries, scarcely any degree of general affluence would\nenable the labouring classes to eat animal food. No degree of wealth,\nthat can well be supposed, would enable the inhabitants of the\nsouthern parts of France, or of Spain, to live on butcher-meat, which,\n[end of page #139] if it became to be in general demand, would be\ndearer than poultry, or even than game. The absolute necessity of\nliving on vegetables, or rather the absolute impossibility of contracting\na habit of living on animal food, must, then, in those countries,\ncounteract the taste, and prevent depopulation being produced by that\ncause.--But it is very different with more northerly countries, where it\nis almost a matter of indifference, in point of expense, to an individual\nwho enjoys any degree of affluence, whether he lives on vegetable or\nanimal food, and where he gives a decided preference to the former.\n{115}\n\nIt is probable that nature (so admirable in adapting the manners of the\ninhabitants to the nature of the country) has made heavy animal food\nless congenial to the taste of southern nations than to those of the\nnorth. There is, indeed, reason to believe it is so, but, whether it is or\nnot, as natural philosophy is not here the study, but political economy,\nthe fact is, that if southern nations had the same propensity, it would\nbe impossible to indulge it to an equal extent.\n\nAs wealth and power are intimately connected with population, and\ndepend in a great measure upon it, wherever they are the cause of\nintroducing a taste that will, in the end, depopulate a country, they\nmust, in so far, undermine their own support, and bring on decay. This\nis a case that applies to all northern nations, and particularly to\nBritain; in order, therefore, to treat the subject at full length, it\nwill be better to enter into the minute examination when we come to\napply the case directly to this country, and seek for a remedy.\n\n---\n{115} The proportion between the prices of bread and butcher meat\nwill help to a conclusion on this subject. The warmer and dryer the\nclimate, the cheaper bread is in proportion. At Paris, which is a dry,\nbut not a very warm climate, the proportion, in ordinary times, was as\nfour to one. A loaf of bread of four pounds, and a pound of meat, were\nsupposed to be nearly the same price, but the meat was generally the\nhigher of the two. In England, the proportion (before the late\nrevolution in prices) was about two to one, and, in Ireland, where the\nsoil and climate are more moist, and better for cattle, flesh meat was\nstill cheaper, in proportion. The poverty of the people, indeed,\nprevented them from living on animal food, but buttermilk, (an animal\nproduction) and potatoes, a cheaper vegetable, are their chief\nsustenance.\n-=-\n\n[end of page #140]\n\nThough this cause of depopulation, arising from wealth, increasing the\nconsumption of food, is peculiar to northern nations, yet there are\nothers that have a similar effect, that fall more heavily on the\ninhabitants of the south.\n\nRest from labour is, in warm climates, a great propensity, and easily\nindulged. In no northern nation could there be found so idle a set of\nbeings as the Lazzeroni of Naples. If the nations of the north have a\ndesire to indulge themselves in consuming more, those of the south have\na propensity to be idle, and produce less, the effect of which is in\nnearly the same; for, whether they produce any thing or not, they must\nconsume something. The same listlessness and desire of rest, that\nproduces idleness and beggary amongst the poor, makes the rich\ninclined to have a great retinue of servants, and, as those servants are\nidly inclined, they serve for low wages, on condition of having but\nlight work to perform. Thus it is that the fertility of the soil, and the\nother natural advantages are destroyed by the disposition of the\ninhabitants.\n\nIt does not appear, however, that this disposition was indulged or\nencouraged to any hurtful extent, until wealth had vitiated the original\nmanners of the inhabitants. The Egyptians, Greeks, and Romans, all of\nthem performed works requiring great exertion. They encouraged\nindustry and arts, and became great, wealthy, and populous; but, when\nonce they fell to decline, the same fate attended the descendants of\nthem all. {116}\n\nOf all the countries that were once great, and have fallen to decay,\nItaly has retained its population the best; but, for this, there is an\nevident cause to be found in the natural fertility of the country, and the\nresource still drawn from foreigners, who have never ceased to visit\nthat once famous seat of arts and military glory.\n\nThe number of horses and of domestic animals maintained by the\n\n---\n{116} After the Augustan age, the populace of Rome seem to have\ndegenerated with great rapidity, as the donations of corn clearly prove.\nHad the tributary countries not furnished the means of providing food,\nthe Goths would have been saved the trouble of sacking the city, as\nthe people must have perished for want.\n-=-\n\n[end of page #141]\n\nfruits of the earth, but producing nothing, as they increase, in every\ncountry where wealth prevails, may be considered as a cause of\ndepopulation, confined to no part of the world. Thus we find either the\nsame cause acting throughout, or different causes producing the same\neffect in different countries; thereby reducing them all much more\nnearly to an equality than we could at first imagine.\n\nIt has been observed, that when wealth comes to the working orders,\nand makes them indulge in animal food, it produces a greater effect,\nwith respect to the consumption of produce, than if the same wealth\ncame into the hands of the rich; this is, however, in some degree,\ncompensated by their not keeping pleasure horses, the greatest of all\nconsumers of the produce of the earth. One horse will consume as\nmuch as a family of four persons living on corn, and the ordinary\nvegetables used in England; and as much as two families, living as\nthey do in Ireland or Scotland, on oat-meal, milk, and potatoes.\n\nAs we find depopulation one of the effects that is universally\noccasioned by decline, it must originate in some cause equally\ngeneral, and that cause must be one attending the state of wealth and\ngreatness, for it does not appear to be a necessary effect of decline.\nWe can very easily conceive a people, degraded and numerous,\nreduced to live poorly, as they do in Naples, Cairo, and some other\nparticular spots: but taking the whole of those countries together, we\nfind evident marks of a falling off in population; and we find it not\nprogressive, but of long standing. Those countries seem to have found\na new maximum of population, far inferior to the former standard,\nimmediately after they ceased to be wealthy and flourishing.\n\nPerhaps it was from this cause that the idea of sumptuary laws\noriginated; for though, in some cases, the pride of being distinguished\nmight occasion the sovereign to enact, or the higher orders of society\nto solicit them, yet they were always considered as tending to prevent\nruinous extravagance. When states become very wealthy, they may\nconsider such regulations as ridiculous, and perhaps they may neither\nbe necessary nor effectual; yet, nevertheless, there must be some cause\nfor the general opinion of their utility. Though it is not the fashion of\nthe present times to hold an opinion as good be-[end of page #142]\ncause it is general, and its prevalence in ignorant times is considered\nas a mark of its being erroneous; yet, observation and common sense\nhave never been wanting at any period, and it is from those sources\nthat such maxims and opinions arise. Any man who had travelled, first\nthrough Italy and Spain, and then through England and America,\nwould be very likely to invent sumptuary laws, if he had never heard\nof such a thing before. In the application of sumptuary laws, as a\ndevice, for preventing decline, the traveller might, perhaps, be very\nwhimsical; sometimes forbidding what would never be attempted; but\nthere would be nothing at all ridiculous in his general intention. {117}\n\nIt will certainly be found that, in all the causes of the decay of nations,\nthe increase of consumption, and decrease of production, takes the\ngreatest variety of forms, and disguises itself the most; it is,\ntherefore, one that is much to be guarded against, particularly as its\neffects seem to be difficult to remedy.\n\nAs the manner in which a country acquires riches has a considerable\ninfluence on the habits of the people, a country acquiring riches by\nconquest, or colonies, must naturally expend it in splendour and\nmagnificence.\n\nMerchants are less splendid than conquerors and planters. Their\nostentation is of a different sort; and, as the fortunes made in that way\nare rather more equally divided, they cannot launch out quite so far.\nBesides, merchants are seldom entirely independent of credit and\nindustry; at least, when acquiring their fortunes they were not so; and,\ntherefore, whether the necessity continues or not, the habit, once\ncontracted, is never quite effaced.\n\nManufacturers, again, are still less splendid than merchants. With\nthem, the gifts of fortune are more equally divided than with either of\nthe other three, and they seldom arrive at more than an ordinary\ndegree of affluence; which affords the means of gratifying personal\nwants, of living with hospitality, ease, and comfort.\n\n---\n{117} If, for example, it were a law at Manchester or Birmingham,\nthat no man should keep above fifty servants in livery, or burn more\nthan three-dozen wax-lights at a time, it would be like mockery, and\nwould be perfectly useless; at Rome it would be very useful.\n-=-\n\n[end of page #143]\n\nThe greatest part of manufacturing wealth, and that, indeed, is divided\nwith a pretty equal hand, is that which goes to the working people,\nwho spend nearly the whole on personal enjoyment.\n\nThe quantity of food that an individual may consume is nearly limited\nby nature; but the extent of ground on which that food grows depends\nchiefly on the quality. Thus, for example, it will require nearly ten\ntimes the number of acres to maintain one hundred people, who live\non animal food, that =sic= it would require to supply the same persons\nliving on vegetables; and, as wealth increases, animal food always\nobtains the preference. This is evident, from so many proofs, that it\nscarcely needs illustration. In London, which is the most wealthy part\nof England, there is more animal food consumed than in any other\npart, in proportion to the numbers; and, in the country there is always\nless than in the towns. In the country, and in the towns of England,\nthere is more than in any proportional part of Scotland, or in France,\nor, indeed, any part of Europe. Expensive as animal food is here, still\nit bears less proportion to the wages of labour, or the general wealth,\nthan in any other country. In every country, as riches have increased,\nthe consumption of the produce of the earth has augmented.\n\nThe Dutch seem to have been well aware of the danger of wealth\nmaking the people consume too much. A man in moderate\ncircumstances loses his credit there, who roasts his meat instead of\nboiling it. It is reckoned wastefulness, and, as such, is the occasion of\nconfidence being withdrawn from him: it has nearly as bad an effect\non a man's credit, as if he were seen coming from a gaming-house.\n\nIt will, perhaps, be said, that the parsimony of the Dutch is ridiculous,\nbut we ought not to attribute this merely to parsimony, but to a feeling\nsimilar to what we have very properly in England when we see bread\nwasted. It arises from a feeling of the general want, not of the\nparticular loss, which is totally a different thing. If a man give away\nimprudently, that loss is to himself, not to the community. As there\ncannot be givers without receivers it is a change of hands, but there\nends the matter. A habit of wasting is another [end of page #144]\nthing, it is a general loss, and, therefore, hurts the community at large\nas well as the individual.\n\nWhen this augmented consumption takes place, to any great extent, it\nis the infallible cause of depopulation. How nearly depopulation and\ndecline are connected with each other is very easily and well\nunderstood; indeed, it is impossible not to see their intimate\nconnection. {118}\n\nWhile the exports of a country amount to a great sum, a few millions\ncan be spared for the importation of provisions, without any great\ndifficulty; but the evil may increase imperceptibly, till it becomes\nimpossible to remedy it. The distress that must be occasioned, in such\na case, is beyond the power of calculation; for though, in times of\nplenty, animal food is preferred, whenever there comes any thing like\nwant, that can only be supplied by corn, and there is no wealth\nsufficient, in any country, to procure that for a number of years, to any\ngreat extent. {119}\n\nIt is calculated, by the author of the notes on Dr. Smith's Inquiry into\nthe Wealth of Nations, that, if the supply of corn were to fall short,\none-fourth part, in England, for a number of years running, there\nwould be no means of finding either corn to buy, ships to transport it,\nor money to pay for it, without totally deranging the commerce of the\ncountry.\n\nIn every country there are a number of persons who can afford to\n\n---\n{118} Till within these twelve or fourteen years, England always was\nable to export some grain; but now the demand for importation is great\nand regular. It has had a vast influence on the balance of trade, which,\nthough it has been great some years, has not, upon the whole, been\nequal to what it was previous to the American war, when the whole\namount of foreign commerce was not one-half of what it has been for\nthese last ten years.\n\n{119} If it could be done, it would bring on poverty; but, as the excess\nof crops over the consumption is not, in any nation, equal to one-tenth\nof its whole revenue; and, as the expense of eatables amount to nearly\none-half, the wealth of a nation would soon be destroyed, if it were\npossible to produce from other nations a supply. The calculation\nwould be nearly as under for England, putting the population at nine\nmillions.\n\nIn ordinary times, nine millions of people living on bread, potatoes,\n&c. would require about four millions of acres; but nine millions,\nliving on animal food, will require thirty-six millions of acres.\n-=-\n\n[end of page #145]\n\nlive in a more expensive way than the rest; perhaps, this may be\nreckoned at one-fourth, but, in countries that are poor, even that fourth\ncannot afford to eat animal food. If, however, a country becomes\nsufficiently rich for one-sixth to live chiefly on animal food, and the\nother five-sixths to live one day in the week on that food, the effect\nwill be as if one-third lived on it constantly, which would require two-\nthirds more territory than when the whole lived on bread.\n\nThose who think that such matters find their own level, and regulate\nthemselves, may be right in the long run, for so they indeed do. But\nhow? When poverty and want came, no doubt the consumption of\nflesh-meat would be diminished; when the country had no means of\nsupplying itself as it did when it was rich, famine would play its part\nin becoming one of the regulators; but, before this regulation could be\neffected, the evil we wish to prevent would have taken place. The\ncountry would be depopulated and ruined. We must, therefore, in\ntrying to avert the decline of a nation, not set any thing down for the\ncounteracting and adjusting power, which is known sometimes to\ninterfere so very advantageously in the affairs of men. Though it is true\nthat it does interfere, it is in all cases of this sort too late, it is\nan effect of the cause which we wish to avoid; we can only look to it here\nfor stopping the career in process of time, but, never for preventing it.\nWe know that the extravagance of an individual impairs his fortune,\nand, that the diminution of means will, at length, counteract the\nextravagance; but, then it will do so when it is too late, and after he is\nruined. Wastefulness may be stopped, but it cannot possibly stop\nitself, as the diminution of means is the cause of the extravagance\nceasing, and itself is an effect of the prior existence of the\nextravagance.\n\nRegarding men merely then as producing and consuming, (the\nproportion between which regulates the wealth of a nation,) we find\nthat, in their own persons, there is a rooted tendency to bring on the\ndecline. But we shall farther find that not only do people in wealthy\nand luxurious nations produce less and consume more than in nations\nless advanced, but they increase the number of unproductive\nlabourers, all of whom consume without producing. They also main-\n[end of page #146] tain animals who consume, but do nothing towards\nproduction. {120} No country, in which the people live much upon\nanimal food, can be well peopled. Two hundred persons to a square\nmile of country is nearly the highest population of any nation in\nEurope, that is, as near as may be, three acres and a quarter to each\nperson; but, on an average, even in France, there are more than four\nacres to each.\n\nSupposing that one-half of the land is cultivated, then that gives about\ntwo acres to each person.\n\nSupposing, again, that one-third of this is consumed by horses or other\nanimals who labour; or, supposing that they do not serve for the food\nof man, then there will be nearly about one acre and a quarter for the\nmaintenance of each person.\n\nIt will, however, only require half an acre to one person, if they all\nlived on field vegetables; {121} and, if they all lived on fresh meat, it\nwould require four acres; the natural conclusion is, that one-fourth live\non animal food, and the other three-fourths on vegetables, or what is\nthe same thing, that the proportions of the two sorts of food are as one\nto three.\n\nAccording to the proportion of the prices in France, of four to one, it\nwould certainly cost double the price to live on animal food that =sic=\nit does on vegetables; that is to say, if the only vegetable was bread,\nsupposing which is the case, that one pound of meat supplies the place\nof two pounds of bread, as it certainly does. In England, where beef is\nonly twice the price of bread, {122} it is almost a matter of\nindifference as to price, whether a working man lives on vegetables or\nanimal food. To the taste and the stomach, however, it is no matter of\nindifference, the animal food, therefore, is preferred; but if it were a\nmatter of some importance, in point of economy, that would not\nprevent the people of a country, flourishing by manufactures, from\n\n---\n{120} One good horse well kept, whether for pleasure or labour (it has\nalready been said) will consume nearly as much as a moderate family.\n\n{121} Vegetables raised in the kitchen-garden would go vastly\nfurther, but this is a rough average, the subject neither admitting of,\nnor requiring accurate investigation.\n\n{122} That is about the usual proportion, though about a year ago it\nwas four times as much in France.\n-=-\n\n[end of page #147]\n\neating it, and thereby at length sinking to a lower degree of population\nthan a poor country living on vegetable food.\n\nIn all nations getting wealthy this is a consideration, but most so when\nthe wealth is acquired by manufactures, when the lower and numerous\nclass have an opportunity of gratifying themselves by indulging in the\nspecies of food which they find the most agreeable.\n\nThis, like the other changes of manners, of which it is only a part, is a\nnatural consequence of a propensity inherent in human nature; it\ncannot, therefore, be prevented or done away, though it may, to a\ncertain degree, be counteracted. The manner of counteracting it not\nbeing a general manner, but depending on circumstances, shall be\ntreated of when investigating the increasing danger, arising from this\ncause, in the English nation.\n\nIt remains at present for us to examine another evil attendant on the\ninadequacy of the soil to supply the consumption of a country.\n\nOne of the most alarming circumstances attendant on this situation of\nthings is, that provisions become an object of monopoly, and the most\ndangerous and destructive of all objects. The law has interfered in\nregulating the interest of money, but not in the rent of houses or of\nother use of property. Circumstances may occur, in which the\nnecessity of procuring a loan of money is so great, as to induce the\nborrower to engage to pay an interest that would be ruinous to\nhimself, and that would grant the lender the means of extortion, or of\nobtaining exorbitant profit. The same interference would be just as\nreasonable, wherever the same sort of necessity, by existing, puts one\nman in the power of another. This is the case with every necessary\narticle of provision, which, indeed, may be considered as all one\narticle, for the price of one is connected with the prices of all the\nothers.\n\nProvisions, indeed, are, in general, articles that cannot be preserved\nfor any very great length of time; but then, again, they are articles of a\nnature that the consumers must have within a limited time also, and\nfor which they are inclined to give an exorbitant price rather than not\nto have. The interference of the law between a man and the use of his\nproperty, ought to be as seldom as possible; but it has never been\nmaintained as a general principle, that it ought never to interfere. [end\nof page #148] If it is at any time, or in any case, right to interfere\nlegally, the question of when it is to be done becomes merely one of\nexpediency, one of circumstance, but not one that admits of a general\ndecision.\n\nA writer of great (and deservedly great) reputation has said so much\non this subject, and treated it in a way that both reason and experience\nprove to be wrong, that it is become indispensably necessary to argue\nthe point. {123} Monopoly, regrating, and forestalling, which two last\nare only particular modes of monopolizing, have been considered as\nchimeras, as imaginary practices that have never existed, and that\ncannot possibly exist. They have been likewise assimilated to\nwitchcraft, an ideal belief, arising in the times of ignorance. It is now\nbecome the creed of legislators and ministers, that trade should be left\nto regulate itself, that monopoly cannot exist.\n\nWith all the respect justly due to the learned writer who advanced so\nbold an opinion, it may be asked, since many instances occur, both in\nsacred and profane history, in ancient times, and in our own days, of\nprovisions, on particular occasions, selling at one hundred times their\nnatural price, (and, every price above the natural one, is called a\nmonopoly price,) how can it be asserted that they may not become an\nobject of monopoly in a more general way, though not at so exorbitant\na price?\n\nHow, it may be asked, can this thing, that has so often occurred in an\nextreme degree, a thing that is allowed to be possible, be compared\nwith the miraculous effect of witchcraft, of the existence of which\nthere does not appear to be one authentic record? The one, at all\nevents, a natural, and the other, a supernatural effect. How are those to\nbe admitted in fair comparison?\n\nIf we know that, at the siege of Mantua, the provisions rose to one\nhundred times their usual price, we may believe the same thing\npossible, at the siege of Jerusalem, two thousand years ago, and at the\nsiege of Leyden, or at that of Paris. If we know that a guinea is given\nfor a\n\n---\n{123} Dr. Smith, in his Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the\nWealth of Nations. The author of the notes, and continuation, has,\nindeed, answered his arguments; but that does not render it less\nnecessary to do so here.\n-=-\n\n[end of page #149]\n\nbad dinner at an inn, which is not worth a shilling, merely because\nsome particular circumstance has drawn more people together than\ncan be provided for; and, because hunger admits not patiently of\ndelay, can we dispute the inclination to extortion on the one hand, and\nthe disposition to submit to it on the other?\n\nIf that is admitted, the interference of the law is allowable on the same\nprinciple on which it regulates the interest of money, though not to the\nsame extent; that is, it is allowable, in particular instances, where the\neffects are similar, but not in all instances, because, in all instances,\nthey are not similar. {124}\n\nThe rate of provisions is then liable, on particular occasions, to rise to\na monopoly price, such as that of those rare productions of nature, the\nquantity of which cannot be increased, whatever the demand may be.\n{125} It follows, as an evident consequence, that the price increases\nas the scarcity augments; but, if it only did so, the evil would not be\nso great as it really is. In the first place, the anxiety attendant on\nthe risk of wanting so necessary an article creates a greater competition\namongst buyers than the degree of scarcity would occasion in an article\nof less necessity and importance. In a wealthy nation, the evil is\nstill farther increased, by two other causes.\n\nThe high price which one part of the society is able to afford, and the\nwealth of those who sell, enables them to keep back the provisions\nfrom the market; the first cause operates in all countries nearly alike,\nfor, the anxiety to have food is nearly equal all the world over. But the\nlast two operate more or less, according to the wealth of the buyers\nand of the sellers, as the eagerness and ability of the former to\npurchase, and the interest and ability of the latter to keep back from\nselling, are regulated by the degree of wealth in a country. {126}\n\n---\n{124} The law concerning money is a general law, because, at all\ntimes, there are some individuals in want of it, and would be liable to\ngrant exorbitant interest. It is not so with provisions, for, it is only\noccasionally that they cannot be had at reasonable prices.\n\n{125} Dr. Smith divides produce into three different sorts; the two\nfirst are such as can be only produced in a certain quantity, whatever\nthe demand may be; and such as can be produced always in sufficient\nquantity.\n\n{126} This was proved by what happened in Paris in 1789, and in\nEngland in 1790. The [end of page #150] want in Paris was so real\nthat there often was not, in that great city, bread, and materials to\nmake it, more than sufficient for twenty-four hours: yet it never rose\nto above double the usual price, or twopence English the pound, (that\nis, sixteen sols for the four-pound loaf,) although the people were\nobliged to wait from six in the morning till two or three in the\nafternoon, before they could get a loaf a piece, and more they were not\npermitted to purchase or carry away. In London, where bread could\nalways be had in plenty, for money, it rose to more than three times\nthe usual price, (one and tenpence the quartern loaf,) yet bread is a\nmuch more necessary article to the poor in Paris than in London. But\nthe case was, in London, the people are richer, and, in each place, it\nrose as high as the people were found able to pay.\n-=-\n\nWhen the necessaries of life become dear, and arrive at a monopoly-\nprice, then all taxes and other burthens laid on the people become a\nmatter comparatively of little importance. In England, where the taxes\nare higher than in any nation in the world, they do not come on the\npoor to above three pounds a head; {127} and, of those, at least one-\nhalf can be avoided by a little self-denial. But, when the provisions\nincrease one-half in price, it amounts to at least four pounds a head to\neach person; so that the effect falls on the population of the country,\nwith a most extraordinary degree of severity.\n\nBut, great as this evil is, it has, by the circumstances and nature of\nthings, a tendency to increase the very cause in which it originates.\nThough the highness of price diminishes the consumption of victuals\nin general, it diminishes the consumption of vegetable food, or bread,\nmore than it does that of animal food. Though all sorts of eatables rise\nin price, in times of scarcity, yet bread, being the article that excites\nthe greatest anxiety, rises higher in proportion than the others. This\naffords an encouragement to gratify the propensity for eating animal\nfood; and this propensity is encouraged by an absurd and mistaken\npolicy, by which (or perhaps rather an affectation of policy) economy\nin bread is prescribed, and not in other food; so that when people\ndevour animal food, and increase the evil, they think they are most\npatriotically and humanely diminishing it. {128}\n\n---\n{127} The whole taxes in this country do not amount to above four\npounds a head, of which one-third is paid entirely by those wealthy, or\nat least affluent; it is, then, putting the share paid by the labouring\nbody very high to put it at three pounds each person.\n\n{128} Both in France and England, during the last scarcity, the use of\nevery other sort of [end of page #151] food was recommended, to save\nthe consumption of bread-corn. Potatoes are the only substitute that\ntended really to relieve the distress; all others, and, in particular,\nanimal food, had an effect in augmenting it.\n-=-\n\nThe danger of wanting food, though very formidable, does not act so\ninstantaneously as to serve as an excuse for want of reflection, like an\nalarm of fire, where the anxiety to escape sometimes prevents the\npossibility of doing so; yet the fact is, that all the measures that have\ngenerally been taken, in times of scarcity, have tended rather to\nincrease than to diminish the evil.\n\nIn monopoly, a sort of combination is supposed to exist between the\nsellers of an article, when the article does not happen to be all in the\nhands of one person, or one body of persons. But combinations are of\nvarious sorts; there are express combinations entered into by people\nhaving the same interest for a particular purpose. Those are done by a\nsort of an agreement, when the interest of the individual and of the\nbody are the same. Such combinations are generally effectual, {129}\nbut unlawful. There are combinations not less effectual, that arise\nmerely from circulating intelligence of prices, and certain\ncircumstances on which prices are known to depend, amongst all\nthose concerned, who immediately know how to act in unison.--This\nis not unlawful.\n\nAn elegant historian has said that there was a time when the sovereign\npontiff, like the leader of a band of musicians, could regulate all the\nclergy in Europe, so that the same tones should proceed from all the\npulpits on the same day. The list of prices, at a great corn-market, has\nthe same effect on the minds of all the sellers within a certain distance.\nIntelligence now flies so swift that there is no interval of uncertainty;\nthe whole of the dealers know how to act, according to circumstances,\nand they are all led to act nearly as if they were in one single body.\nLike gamesters, who have won a great deal, rather than hasten to sell,\neven when they fear that prices may fall, they keep back their stock,\nand risk to lose something of what they have gained, by continuing to\nspeculate on the agreeable and winning chance by which they have\nalready profited.\n\n---\n{129} There are sometimes combinations which it is the interest of a\nwhole body to preserve, but of each individual to break, if he can with\nimpunity; such generally soon fall to the ground.\n-=-\n\n[end of page #152]\n\nThe dealers in an article of ready sale, or for which there is a certain\ndemand, have never any difficulty, in a wealthy country, of procuring\nmoney to make purchases, or to enable them to keep their stock; and\nthe gains are so immense that there is no speculation equally\nattractive.\n\nAs the rent of land, in England, is reckoned at twenty-five millions a\nyear; and it is reckoned that, in a common year, the rent is worth one-\nthird of the produce; it follows that, of all sorts of produce of land, the\nvalue is seventy-five millions. But, in the year 1799, when the prices\nwere more than doubled, the value was one hundred and fifty millions,\nof which the landlord received (as usual) twenty-five to his share,\nleaving for the farmer, &c. one hundred and twenty-five, instead of\nfifty, the usual sum. As the wages of servants remained the same, and,\nin an ordinary year, would amount to one-third of the rent, eight\nmillions went for that, leaving one-hundred and seventeen millions, in\nplace of forty-two, the usual residue. Two-thirds of the value of rent,\nor sixteen millions, is, in an ordinary year, supposed to go for seed,\nthe maintenance of cattle, and labourers; so that, in that year, the\nportion so consumed must be estimated at double value, or thirty-four\nmillions, which, deducted from one hundred and seventeen, leaves\neighty-three for the farmers, in place of twenty-five, in an ordinary\nyear: so that, when the price doubles, the farmers =sic= profit does\nmore than triple. In the year 1799, the farmers were known to have the\nprofit of four ordinary years, supposing that they had been the actual\nsellers in the market. The fact was otherwise no doubt, with regard to\nthose who pocketed the profit, which went in part only to farmers, and\nthe rest went to the monopolists, dealers, regraters, forestallers, &c.\nwho advanced money to keep up the price. To the public who paid,\nthe matter is the same, and, to the business itself, there is little\ndifference as to who profited, or who found capital; for, as they shared\nthe profit amongst them, and as they received three times as much as\nin an ordinary year, they could, out of the sales of the first four or five\nmonths, make all the payments [end of page #153] for the whole year\nto the landlord; and, therefore, could have the means of keeping the\nremainder, just as long as they thought proper.\n\nThus, then, while there is any degree of scarcity, the provisions of a\ncountry are at a monopoly-price; and the dealers act, though\nindividually, as if they enjoyed one general monopoly. {130}\n\nBefore leaving his important subject, it is necessary to observe, that,\nthough dealers in provisions, in times of any degree of scarcity, that is,\nwhen there is not quite enough fully to supply the consumption of the\ncountry, act, in keeping up prices, as if they had an exclusive privilege\nfor monopoly, yet that is the only cases =sic= in which they do so. A\nsingle monopolizer can diminish the quantity, and perhaps destroy a\npart of it with advantage to himself. Thus the Dutch East India\ncompany were said to have done with the spices. {131} But the\nindividual dealer, though he is interested in a general high price and\nmonopoly, is still more interested in selling as much as he can; and the\nhigher the price, the more careful he is not to waste or consume more\nthan he can help. In this respect, the monopoly of the many is not half\nso hurtful as the individual monopoly. This proves that all the vulgar\nerrors, which occasion reports of farmers and dealers destroying their\ncorn, are not only without foundation, but would produce an effect\nquite contrary to the avaricious principle, by which such men are\nconsidered as being governed. {132}\n\n---\n{130} There is one moment only when they do not, that is, when they\nfind out, for certain, that prices are going to fall. There, for a moment,\nindividual interest, and general interest are opposite, and they hasten\nto sell, and to reduce the price too much. But even this does not\nrelieve the public; for, though it makes the reduction very rapid for a\ntime, and may sometimes bring it below the level, it quickly rises\nagain and finishes when the panic amongst the dealers is over, by\nremaining higher than it ought to be.\n\n{131} If diminishing the quantity one-quarter rises =sic= the price\none-half, then the monopolist gains, if he possesses the whole market;\nbut the individual dealer, if he were to burn his whole stock, would\nnot diminish the quantity in the country one-thousandth part, and\ntherefore make no sensible difference.\n\n{132} Both in London and Paris, the reports of this sort, and, (making\na little allowance for the language and nature of the people,)\nexceedingly similar in nature and tendency, prevailed during the\nscarcity of 1789 and 1799.\n-=-\n\n[end of page #154]\n\nMonopoly of this sort, by raising the prices of the necessaries of life,\nin the end, augments the prices of labour, the rent of land, and the\ntaxes of a country. We have already examined the tendency of all this;\nit is only necessary to observe that the rise in prices, or depreciation of\nmoney, which other causes bring on by degrees, this brings on\nviolently and suddenly. {133} This cause will always exist in a\ncountry that cannot provide enough for its own subsistence.\n\nHow far this may go it is not easy to say; for if it is clear that the\nfarmer, by double prices, gets eighty-three pounds in place of twenty-\nfive, he can certainly afford to give his landlord something more. If he\ngave him double the usual rent, it would still leave more than double\nfor himself. {134}\n\nOf all the causes, then, that hasten the crisis of a country, none is\nequal to that of the produce becoming unequal to the maintenance of\nthe inhabitants; for it is only in that case that the effects of monopoly\nare to be dreaded.\n\nIn the case of animal food becoming too much in request, there is a\nremedy which may be easily applied; of which it will be our purpose\nto speak, in treating of the application of the present inquiry to the\nadvantage of the British dominions.\n\n---\n{133} The few years of dearth altered wages and rent more than had\nbeen known for half a century before. Wages rose more, from 1790 to\n1802, than they had done from 1740 to 1790.\n\n{134} As the usual rent was twenty-five, and the usual profit twenty-\nfive, the landlord and tenant had fifty to divide, at ordinary prices; but,\nat double prices, they had eighty-three added to twenty-five, or one\nhundred and seven to divide: so that, if the farmer gave fifty, that is,\ndouble, he would still have fifty-seven to himself, which is more than\ndouble, by nearly one-third over and above.\n\nNo allowance has been made in this calculation for the diminution in\nquantity. The reason is, that was comparatively very small; increased\nconsumption, rather than deficiency of produce, being the cause.\nBesides, we only stated the rise as being double the usual price,\nwhereas, it was three times greater. [end of page #155]\n-=-\n\n\n\n\nCHAP. VII.\n\n\n_Of the Increase of the Poor, as general Affluence becomes greater.--\nOf Children left unprovided for.--Of their Division into two Classes--\nThose that can labour more or less, and those that can do no Labour_.\n\nIn the career of wealth, in its early state, when individual industry is\nalmost without any aid from capital, men are as nearly on an equality\nas the nature of things can admit. But, in proportion as capital comes\nin to the aid of industry, that equality dies away, and men, who have\nnothing but industry, lose their means of exerting it with advantage,\nsome become then incapable of maintaining their rank in society\naltogether.\n\nAt the same time that this is taking place, articles of every sort, that\nare necessary for the existence of men, are becoming dearer. As some\nranks of society have been described as bringing up their children not\nto know the existence of necessity, others, who are depressed below\nthe natural situation of men, are bringing them up to feel the extreme\npressure of want.\n\nThere is no situation of things in which a man, with natural strength,\nand a very slender capacity, may not gain sufficient to maintain\nhimself, if he will be industrious; but, in a wealthy country, numbers\nare so pressed upon by penury, in their younger years, that neither the\npowers of their body, nor of their mind, arrive at maturity.\n\nAccustomed, from an early age, to depend rather upon chance, or\ncharity, for existence, than upon industry, or energy of their own, they\nneither know the value of labour, nor are they accustomed to look to it\nfor a supply to their wants.\n\nWhilst the foundation of idleness and poverty is laid in, for one part of\na nation, from the affluence of their parents, another portion seems as\nif it were chained down to misery, from the indigence in which they\nwere born and brought up. [end of page #156]\n\nThe depressed and degraded populace of great and wealthy cities are\nnot the accidental victims of misfortune; they are born to its hard\ninheritance, and their numbers contaminate more, who, were it not for\ntheir own misconduct and imprudence, might have shared a better lot.\n\nWhen nations increase in wealth, the fate of individuals ceases to\nbecome an object of attention; and, of all the animals that exist, and\nare capable of labour, the least value is set upon the human species.\n{135} Like individuals who rise to wealth, and forget their origin,\nsocieties forget the first foundation of all wealth, happiness, and\npower. That individuals should do so is not to be wondered at. They\nnever saw society in an infant state; nor is it the business of individual\ncitizens to occupy themselves with public affairs; but those who are\nintrusted with their management, and whose business is to know the\noriginal sources of prosperity, ought to attend to and counteract this\ngrowing evil.\n\nWhen the Romans were poor, the people depended on exertion, and\nthey enjoyed plenty; but when Lucullus and other citizens were\nsquandering millions, at a single banquet, the people were clamouring\nfor bread. While the person of a Roman lady was ornamented with the\nwealth of a province, the multitude were covered with rags, and\ndepressed with misery. It would have been no hard matter, then, to\nhave foretold the fate of Rome. The natural order of things was\nderanged to too violent an extreme to be of long duration. The state\nwas become like a wall that had declined from the perpendicular,\nwhile age was every day weakening the cement, by which it was held\ntogether, and though of the time and hour of destruction no man knew,\nthe event was certain.\n\nIt would, at first sight, appear that great cities are the only places in\nwhich misery of this description arises; but that is not the case.\n\n---\n{135} It was never heard of, that a young horse, or any useful animal\nof the brute creation, was left to die with hunger in a land of plenty;\nbut it happens to many of the human race, because there is no\nprovision made, by which those who furnish them food may be repaid\nby their labour, which would be a very easy matter to adjust, if a little\nattention were paid to the subject.\n-=-\n\n[end of page #157]\n\nGreat cities are the refuge of the miserable, who, perhaps, find it in\nsome shapes augmented, by a residence in so friendless an asylum; but\nthere they avoid shame, they see not the faces that have smiled upon\nthem in better days; they are more at ease amongst strangers, and they\nare kept in countenance by companions in penury and want. {136}\n\nIn every wealthy nation, the rich shun the view of wretchedness,\nwhich is attended with a silent reproach. Those who have property,\nmistrust the honesty, and blame the conduct of those who have none.\nIn this state of things, the country affords no retreat nor residence, and\nwant and wretchedness find the evils of a crowded society, where they\npass unnoticed, much more tolerable.\n\nIn most countries, the law has taken precautions to punish, or to stop\nthe evil in the individual; but in no great and wealthy country has it\nbeen thought of sufficient importance to take effectual means to\nprevent it.\n\nIn small states, when society is new, and under some absolute\nsovereigns, (remarkable for their penetration, genius, and love of their\npeople,) a momentary stop has been put to this career of misery; but,\nin the first place, there has been no such monarch in any wealthy\ncountry; and, in the second, as soon as power fell into other hands, the\nprogress has begun again where it left off.\n\nOne great cause of the increase of mendicity is the increase of\nunproductive labourers, as a state becomes more wealthy, who, dying\nbefore their children are able to provide for themselves, increase the\nnumber of the indigent. Men living by active industry naturally marry\nat an early age; menial servants, revenue officers, and all those who\nadminister to the gratifications of a wealthy and luxurious people,\nmarry later in life; and besides their not having an industrious example\nto set before their children, are torn from them sooner, by the course\nof things.\n\n---\n{136} If one of the brute creation is in want, it will supply that where\nit is most easily to be had, physical difficulty is the only one it knows;\nbodily pain the only one it feels. But men are different, they often\nundergo great want amongst strangers, to avoid more insufferable\nfeelings amongst friends.\n-=-\n\n[end of page #158]\n\nIt has been noticed, that, in every society, as wealth increases\nhospitality dies away. And those good offices interchanged between\nman and man, to which life owes many of its comforts in a less\nadvanced state of society, and which protect individuals from the\nfrowns of fortune, gradually disappear. The social feelings become\nless active, and men turn selfish and interested, thinking for\nthemselves, and careless for the community; while, on the other hand,\nthe causes for poverty increase; on the other, the means of relief are\nmisapplied, neglected, or squandered away. The funds that ought to be\nadministered with disinteredness and integrity are committed to the\nhands of men who live on the general misfortune, and thus the\nwretched, who are relieved, are not fairly treated, while the public,\nthat is burthened with their misfortunes, is loaded far beyond its\nproper degree.\n\nThe population of a country is diminished in a double ratio as the poor\nincreases: they create nothing, but they consume; and if a country sees\none-tenth of its population living on charity, it is equivalent at least to\nseeing one-seventh diminished in numbers altogether.\n\nMost sorts of labour require those employed in it to have some capital,\nsuch as decent clothes, or tools, or money to live upon till wages are\ndue. Little as that capital is, yet thousands are reduced to absolute\nbeggary for want of it; their industry finding no means of exertion. A\nman becomes dependant =sic= on charity for existence; and, though\nable to work, eats the bread of idleness, and that without being in\nfault.\n\nThe number of persons absolutely unable to labour is nearly the same\nin every country, and is not much augmented by its wealth; so that if\nthere were, as there easily might be, always employment for those\nwho would otherwise be entitled to relief, and if they were allowed a\nfair price for their labour, they would then cease either to be a burthen\nto themselves or to the public.\n\nLittle coercion would, in this case, be necessary. A few proper\nregulations, to prevent theft and losses, would be all that could be\nwanted with those who could labour; and those who could not, being\nfew in number, would be provided for in a better manner than when\n[end of page #159] they can be, where their portion is shared with\nthose who are able to procure for themselves an existence.\n\nWe must by no means look for relief, in cases of this sort, from\ndifficult or intricate management and regulation. If we look at the\nnature of things, it points out the way.\n\nThose that cannot labour are the only persons who ought to be a\nburthen on the public; and they are the only ones that would be so, if\nthe matters were properly regulated and attended to. As it is in most\ncountries, there are many who cannot get work to do, and those are\nprovided for in different ways, but always at the expense of the public.\nSometimes it is by a regular assessment, sometimes by theft and\ndepredation, sometimes by individual charity, or those other means to\nwhich a man has recourse before he will absolutely starve for want.\n\nThose who, from philanthropy, are for relieving all, soon find\nthemselves deceived, and unable to proceed. Those who, disgusted\nwith the vices of a few, consider them all as equally culpable are much\nto blame. Surely, the individual case of a fellow-creature in misfortune\nis worth attending to; and he must be ignorant indeed who cannot, in\nmost instances, avoid deception. [end of page #160]\n\n\n\n\nCHAP. VIII.\n\n\n_Of the Tendency of Capital and Industry to leave a wealthy Country,\nand of the Depreciation of Money in agricultural and commercial\nCountries_.\n\nAs the increase of capital in every country is the consequence of\nformer productive industry, so also is it the support of future exertion.\n\nWhen the capital of a country has become sufficient for all the\nemployment that can be procured for it, the first effect is the lowering\nof interest, which sinks down under the rate appointed by law, and\nunder the rate at which it is lent out at in other countries.\n\nWhen capital is not in sufficient quantity, those who want to borrow\nare more numerous than those who have money to lend; then the\ncompetition is amongst the borrowers to obtain the preference, and\nthey all give as high an interest as the law allows, and would give\nmore if they could avoid the penalty, which, in all countries, has been\nattached to accepting more than the regulated sum; a sum regulated\nmerely to prevent the effect of competition, which might induce\npeople to give more than in the end they would find they could afford\nto pay.\n\nWhen capital becomes over abundant, the very reverse takes place; the\nlenders become rivals, and offer to lend at an under rate of interest.\n\nThe first effect of this is, that people who were but scantily supplied\nwith capital before borrow, and carry on business more at ease, so that\nmore capital is employed in business, and new employments are found\nout for capital.\n\nThe usual employments for a superabundant capital are improving\nlands, building houses, erecting machines, digging canals, &c. for the\nuse of trade; and finally, giving longer credit to merchants in other\ncountries, {137} as well as to those who are running in debt in their\nown. The stock on hand in manufactured goods increases something\nalso. But when all these have taken place, to as great an extent as\nwanted, then the money begins to flow into other countries. By\ndegrees, more money is sent away than should go, and the persons\nwho are the proprietors of it frequently follow.\n\nIf the capital that leaves a country were only that which cannot find\nemployment in it, the harm would not be great, though it would tend\nto enrich other countries, and bring them nearer a level. But that is not\nthe case, the advantage of lending money abroad, if regularly paid at a\nhigher interest than can be obtained at home, induces people to draw\ntheir money from trade, and vest it in the hands of foreigners. The\nVenetians, the Genoese, the Dutch, the Hanseatic Towns, and the\ncities of Flanders, did this; and the capital, which, when employed at\nhome, formerly maintained perhaps one hundred people in affluence\nand industry, only supported one single family living in indolence and\nsplendid penury. {138}\n\nAfter being in possession of money for a considerable time, men\nprefer a certain employment at a low interest to one attended with risk,\neven where the interest is higher; and when great sums have been got\nby trade, those who have got them retire and live on the interest,\nwhich men, who have only gained a small capital cannot do.\n\nThere are many other circumstances, besides the abundance of capital,\nthat tend to carry it away from a wealthy country. The depreciation of\nmoney that takes place, in every country that grows\n\n---\n{137} As the subject is here treated in the general way, applicable to\nall nations, the employment found by national debt, and the funds\nrising is not taken into account, as it will be noticed in the case of\nEngland. When money is plenty, all individuals in trade give longer\ncredit; but this employs little more capital, when they give it to each\nother it employs no more, but when to consumers it does.\n\n{138} The manner in which those families live is peculiar to\nthemselves; great shew with great economy, and without the smallest\nspark of love, either for their fellow-citizens or their country.\n-=-\n\n[end of page #162]\n\nrich, falls nearly all on the lender at interest, {139} who, as he cannot\nbring back things to their former value, seeks enjoyment in another\ncountry, and obtains, by change of place, what he lost by lapse of\ntime.\n\nThe weight of taxes is another cause that drives capital from wealthy\nto poorer countries; and last of all, in case of anxiety, or of mistrust,\nthe capitalists are generally the first to emigrate. [{140}] Anxiety and\nmistrust are periodical amongst a wealthy people.\n\nAs the burthens sustained by a people in prosperity are generally\ngreat, in proportion to their capital and industry, it is clear, that when\ncapital and industry diminish, the burthens, (which do not admit of\nbeing diminished in the same proportion,) fall more heavily on those\nwho remain; this increased cause produces, naturally, an increased\neffect. Thus, like a falling column, the weight increases, and the\nmomentum becomes irresistible.\n\nIt is then that necessity, the spur to industry in new and rising nations,\n(that spur which taxes and rent continue to excite, for the good of\nmankind, for a certain period,) begins to crush what it had raised, and\nto stab where it formerly stimulated. Then it is that the money-lenders,\nwho, at first, sent off their capital, having ceased to be engaged in\ntrade, withdraw, by degrees, and rather content themselves with a\ndiminished income in another country, than struggle with the\ndifficulties they find they have to encounter in their own.\n\n---\n{139} Money lent out at interest loses, money laid out in purchases\ngains, in a country that is advancing in riches.\n\nIf a man, who had 2000 L. thirty years ago, had laid out 1000 L. at\ninterest, and, with the other bought land, he would, indeed, have got\nless rent for his land at first, but now it would be doubled, he would\nget 60 L. a year, and if he wished to sell he would get 2000 L.\nwhereas, the other 1000 L. would only produce 50 L. and, if called in,\nthe single thousand would be all he would receive.\n\n{140} [Transcriber's note: footnote not assigned a place in the original\ntext, intended location assumed to be as shown] This was seen at the\nbeginning of the French revolution, though the assignats, by lowering\nthe rate of exchange, frightened many from transferring their money, at\nan apparent loss of twelve or fifteen per cent. But those that overlooked\nthis loss have rejoiced in it ever since, as the others have repented\nbitterly the avarice that made them risk all to save a little, and to\nbecome beggars.\n-=-\n\n[end of page #163]\n\nIt is difficult to say at what point this would stop, if the effect\nproduced did not affix the boundary.\n\nThe prices of land, of rent, of houses, and of provisions, sink low, and\ninduce some people to remain; for, as those articles cannot be\ntransported, or carried off, and are always worth possessing and\nenjoying, it is clear there must be a term set to the decay and\nemigration, by the nature of things. Unfortunately for countries that\nhave been great, that term does not seem to arrive till it is reduced far\nbelow the level of other nations. {141}\n\nThere are, however, some peculiar causes that operate in some modern\nnations, in counteracting this effect, so far as it is occasioned by a\nsuperabundance of capital; but, as this is not general to all nations, the\nproper place for speaking of it will be when we come to treat of the\ntendency of capital to quit this country.\n\nThe effects, arising from that depreciation of money, which takes\nplace in every wealthy country, are great and numerous, and have\nbeen always found where wealth abounded. The people in such\ncountries can easily command the labour of others that are not so rich,\nbut the others cannot afford to pay for theirs; this tends to remove\nindustry. On the other hand, if a supply of the necessaries of life are\nwanted in a rich country, they may be obtained from countries where\nthe value of money is less, without throwing prices out of their level;\nwhereas, in the country where money is of great value, that is not the\ncase.\n\nThe price of bread, for instance, is, at Paris, one penny the pound, and\nin London at eight-pence the quartern loaf, which weighs just four\nFrench pounds, the price is exactly double. If every thing was\nconducted in a fair way, corn, from all countries, where it is equally as\ncheap as in France, might be brought and sold in London, at the\n\n---\n{141} At Bruges, (in Flanders) at Antwerp, Cologne, Ghent, or any of\nthose decayed towns, house-rent was fallen, before the French\nrevolution, to little more than an acknowledgement for occupation,\nwhere the houses were large and retired. This induced people to live at\nthose places, who would not otherwise have done so. Small houses,\nlately built, were more expensive than the large old ones, built in the\ntime that commerce flourished.\n-=-\n\n[end of page #164]\n\nusual market price; but, before Paris could get a supply from London,\nthe bread would cost three times its usual price. This circumstance, if\nproperly managed, might be turned to advantage; why it is not, is\ndifficult to say, and is a proof that there are either regulations, or\npractices without regulation, that counteract the true nature of things;\nfor it would not cost a farthing a pound to bring the corn from Paris to\nthe London market.\n\nParis is only mentioned here for the sake of comparison, and because\nthe average prices have nearly the proportion of one to two. The\nreasons why corn is not brought from thence are no secret, but the\nsame reasoning will apply to American corn, corn from Barbary, or\nthe Baltic, and from other places, where the value of money is greater\nthan in England. {142}\n\nThe principal of the other effects of the depreciation of money are to\nbe found in the chapter on the exterior Causes of the Decline of\nNations, as it is in its foreign transactions that the depreciation of\nmoney is the most felt.\n\nIn the interior, that depreciation only acts when there is a considerable\nlapse of time, during which the value has altered; it has, in general, no\neffect on transactions that are begun and finished within a short\nperiod, and in the interior of the country itself.\n\nThe depreciation of money, wherever it takes place, would cause an\nincrease of taxes, even if there were no other reason for it; but, in so\nfar it counteracts itself, by making them to be more easily born. =sic=\nWhatever its particular effects may be, and however complicated they\nare, the general tendency of the depreciation of money is to depress\nindustry in that country, and to encourage it in others, where the value\nis greater than in it.\n\n---\n{142} In America the value of money is less than in England,\ncompared with wages; but the usual proportion, between the wages of\nlabour and the price of corn, is different in that country from every\nother with which we have any connection.\n-=-\n\n[end of page #165]\n\n\n\n\nCHAP. IX.\n\n\n_Conclusion of the interior Causes.--Their Co-operation.--Their\ngeneral Effect on the Government and on the People.--The Danger\narising from them does not appear till the Progress in Decline is far\nadvanced_.\n\nThough these causes enumerated have all one general tendency, yet\ntheir distinguishing characteristics deserve attention.\n\nSome begin their operation from the moment the wealth of a country\ncommences, others are only felt late in the progress of its decline. The\neffects of some may be diminished greatly, others may be prevented\nentirely; but, in all cases, the attention of government is necessary, and\nthat before the operation of decline is actually commenced; for,\nprevention, and not remedy, is what ought to be aimed at, besides\nwhich, when decline has once begun, governments are too feeble to be\ncapable of any effectual regulations.\n\nTo assist nature, in every case where her operations are favourable to\nthe enjoyment and happiness of men, and to counteract those that are\nunfavourable, is the business of individuals and of states. What the\nindividual is unable to do, should be done by those to whom the care\nof public affairs is given; by those who act for the benefit of all, and in\nthe name of all.\n\nFrom the first approaches of a state to wealth and greatness, we find\nthat there are a combination of causes that begin to operate in\npromoting its decline. The first moving principle, necessity, is\ngradually done away, and with it flies industry; so that, from one\ngeneration to another, both the moral and physical man becomes\nchanged, till he is unable to sustain the weight that he has raised; and,\nat last, he is crushed by the decent =sic= of the ponderous mass.\n\nWhile a gradual progress destroys that industry, from which all wealth\nsprings, other causes act to remove or misapply the labour [end of\npage #166] that is left, while others again are putting capital to flight,\nor leading to a misapplication of it.\n\nLast of all come discord and war, the most universal cause of all those\nthat tend to depopulate a country, and to diminish as well as degrade\nthe inhabitants, thus giving durability to misfortune, and rendering\nhopeless the fate of a fallen nation.\n\nAmongst all the causes of decline, one alone is found that has a double\neffect, and counteracts in one direction what it promotes in another.\n\nThis is taxation, a very certain cause of ruin if carried too far, and\nalways dangerous; but, for a length of time, having a very powerful\neffect in repressing the progress of luxury, in continuing the action of\nnecessity, the mother of industry, and in preventing that species of\nconsumption that lays the foundation for the depopulation of a\ncountry.\n\nFrom this it would seem to be almost as dangerous to take off the\nburthens that have been laid upon a people, as to lay them on with too\nheavy a hand. There is not any example worth noticing of such a case,\ntherefore, it must stand on its own ground: history informs us nothing\non the subject.\n\nThe supposed case would be thus. That a nation should rise to a high\npitch of wealth by industry, and support a heavy load of taxes, still\nincreasing in wealth, and superior to most other nations. We are to\nsuppose the load of taxes greatly diminished, and then to investigate\nthe consequences.\n\nPerhaps this is an useless hyyothesis =sic=, the case never has been, and\nperhaps never will be; but, still it is, at least, a possible case; it is\na matter of curiosity, at least, if it is not one of utility, and I have a\ngreat example to plead as my apology. Dr. Adam Smith amused himself in\nhis inquiry into the causes of the wealth of nations =sic= in a similar\nmanner, by a hypothesis concerning the taxation of the British\ncolonies.\n\nSupposing the pressure of necessity were to be suddenly taken away,\nthose whose income is regulated by their efforts would relax in\nexertion; that is to say, the productive labourers of the country would\nrelax, while those whose incomes are fixed, that is principally [end of\npage #167] the unproductive labourers, would become comparatively\nmore opulent, and their luxury would increase.\n\nThis is an effect very different from what the public expects. The most\nuseful class would gain little or nothing, while the drones of society\nwould find their wealth greatly augmented, which would be one of the\nmost unfortunate effects that could well be conceived, and might very\nsoon bring about a very serious and disagreeable event.\n\nIn the course of investigating the national debt of England, in the\nFourth Book =sic--there is none.=, it will be necessary to examine this\nat length, but, there it will be attended with another circumstance, not\none of general consideration; (as national debt is not any general or\nnecessary appendage to a government) namely, the letting loose a\ngreat monied capital, which must either be employed here, or it will\nseek employment in another country, which may rise on the ruin of\nthis.\n\nIn considering the reduction of taxes that have been long standing, and\nhave risen to a great amount, there is certainly reason to fear evil\nconsequences, though this is no argument in favour of taxation; on the\ncontrary, it is a reason for avoiding it, for, it is in all cases dangerous\nto do what it will be attended with danger to undo.\n\nThough the precise case of taxes being done away may never come\nbefore us, there is, at this time, an operation going on that is nearly\nsimilar, and the result of which will soon be known.\n\nThe French people were loaded with nearly twenty-five millions\nsterling annually to the church, and they do not now pay three. This,\nindeed, was partly in taxes, and part in church-lands; they have also\ngot rid of a great deal of rent, by the sale of emigrant estates, the lands\nhave got into the hands of men, who mostly cultivate them\nthemselves, and have no rent to pay.\n\nOn the supposition that the new government is not more expensive\nthan the old, (and it ought not to be so, the debts having been nearly\nall wiped off,) the burthens on industry will be much less than\nformerly, it will then be curious to observe if agriculture flourishes\nmore, if prices are reduced, and if the taxes that still remain are better\npaid. There are, indeed, many concomitant circumstances that will\ntend to derange the experiment, or render the conclusion uncertain;\nbut, still it is an in-[end of page #168] teresting and a great event, and\nwill be worth attentive observation. {143}\n\nWe must, so far as this investigation goes, conclude, that, unless the\nnatural tendency of things to decline is powerfully counteracted, every\ncountry that rises to wealth must have a fall; and that, therefore, it\nmerits investigation, whether it is or is not possible to counteract the\ntendency to decline, without interrupting the progress towards greater\nprosperity, and, to manage matters so, that whether it is not possible,\nafter having attained the summit of wealth, we may remain there\ninstead of immediately descending, as most nations have hitherto\ndone.\n\nFrom individuals, the exertion necessary is not to be expected; but, it\nmay be looked for from the government of a country, which, though\ncomposed of individuals, the succession of persons is differently\ncarried on; it is not from age to age, and from an old father to a young\nson, but from men in the vigour of life, to men in the vigour of life,\nwho, while they are occupied in public affairs, may be considered,\nwith respect to whatever is to be done for the good of the nation, (for\nits prosperity, defence, or protection,) as animated with the same\nspirit, without any interruption.\n\nWith respect to the interior causes of decline, they may be\ncounteracted always with more or less effect, by a proper system of\ngovern-\n\n---\n{143} The burthens on the industry of old France, were,\n\n                                                Livres.\nRent of land                                700,000,000\nRevenues of clergy                          600,000,000\nTaxes, including the expense of levying     800,000,000\n                                           ____________\n                                          2,100,000,000\n\nIn sterling money                         L. 87,500,000\nHalf land now occupied by the cultivators, }\nand the remainder let at lower rents }      350,000,000\nRevenues of clergy, and the expenses         50,000,000\nTaxes as before                             800,000,000\n                                          _____________\n                                          1,200,000,000\nOr in sterling money                      L. 50,400,000\n\nThis makes a diminution of L. 37,100,000; or something more than a\nthird of the whole expense, and more than all the taxes to the state\nestimated at the highest rate.\n-=-\n\n[end of page #169]\n\nment. In the latter portion of this work we shall endeavour to shew\nhow that may be attempted with safety, if not accomplished with full\nsuccess.\n\nBefore, however, we conclude this subject, and rely on government, it\nis necessary to mention that, in treating with other nations, a kind of\noverbearing haughty pride is natural to those who govern a powerful\nand wealthy people. In that case, they act as individuals, and are not to\nbe trusted; and the less so, that a nation of proud pampered citizens is\nbut too apt to applaud insolence in those who govern them.\n\nThis pride has been a very constant forerunner of the fall of wealthy\nand great nations, and, in Rome excepted, it has never failed. The\nemperors of Rome were much less haughty than the ambassadors of\nthe republic; a love of false splendour had supplanted a ferocious\naffectation of dignity, yet, the former was the less humiliating of the\ntwo to other nations. {144}\n\nWhile the rulers of wealthy nations are apt to act haughtily to others,\nthey are liable to fall into another error, in mistaking the strength of\ntheir own people, and loading them too heavily, trusting too much\nboth to their internal energy, and external force.\n\nAs the near observers of the inability of the people are generally afraid\nto carry unwelcome tidings to their superior; and, if they did, as he is\nseldom inclined to give credit to unwelcome news, the ruin of a nation\nhas probably made a very considerable progress before he, whose\nbusiness it is to put a stop to it, is aware of the danger.\n\nThe continual clamour that is made about every new burthen that is\nlaid on, and the cry of ruin, which perpetually is sounded in the ears of\na minister, and of those who execute his orders, are some ex-\n\n---\n{144} The appearance of virtue and self-command, which the\nrepublican Romans preserved, added to the bravery with which they\nmaintained whatever claims they put in, overawed a great part of their\nenemies; and those, who were not absolutely overawed thought that\ndefeat and submission were, at least, robbed of their shame, when\nsuch was the character of the conqueror; and the claim once allowed\nwas no longer questioned. Very different was the case, when the\nemperor was a fidler, or a buffoon, the senators puppets, and the pro-\nconsuls themselves robbers.\n-=-\n\n[end of page #170]\n\ncuses for their not attending to them; but the consequence is not the\nless fatal to the nation on that account.\n\nA nation that is feeble has, at least, the advantage of knowing it, and is\nnot insensible if she receives a wound; but the government of a\npowerful nation is like the pilot of a ship, who navigates in a sea, the\ndepth of which he cannot sound, and who spreads all his sails: if he\nstrikes upon a rock, his ship is dashed to pieces in a moment. The\nother, sailing amongst shallows and sands, proceeds with caution,\navoids them if possible, and, if she touches, it is so gently, that even\nher feeble frame is scarcely injured.\n\nThe rulers of nations appear, in general, not to be aware of the evil\nthat arises from the government they have to manage becoming too\nunwieldly =sic=, or too complicated; in either case, a check, though\nbut of short duration, is irretrievable. This is a great oversight, and, at\nleast, greatly augments the chances against the durability of a\ngovernment. In proportion as the machine is unmanageable and\ncomplex, the embarrassment of those who have the conduct of it will\nbe great, and the enemies will be proportionately bold and audacious.\nIn all such conflicts, much depends on the spirit of the combatants,\nand more still on that of those who, at first, are lookers on, who act in\nconsequence of the opinion they have of the force or feebleness of\neither party. {145}\n\nThe tendency that a nation has to decline is not, then, in general,\ncounteracted, by the government; but, on the contrary, is pushed on by\nit, and precipitated into the gulf. No wonder, then, that the career is\nrapid, and the fall irretrievable.\n\nIt is, nevertheless, to the government, and to it alone, that we must\nlook for that counteracting force that is to stay the general current.\nIndividuals can only look to their own conduct, and they neither can\n\n---\n{145} Not only when the French revolution began, but a hundred\ntimes afterwards, did the party triumph that appeared the strongest,\nmerely because it appeared so. All those who stand neutral at first,\ntake a side the moment they have fixed their opinion as to the strength\nof the contending parties, and this decision is always in favour of the\nparty they think the strongest.\n-=-\n\n[end of page #171]\n\nbe expected to have time nor inclination to study the public welfare,\nand, even if they had, they would want the means.\n\nGovernment can never be better employed than in counteracting this\ntendency to decay. It has the means, and is but performing its duty in\ndoing so. The previous step to all this, however, is a knowledge of\nwhat is to be done, a full sense of the necessity of doing it, and a\ndisposition to submit to the regimen necessary.\n\nFor this purpose, both the government and the people must give up\nsomething. The people must allow government to interfere in the\neducation of children, and, in that, give up a little of their liberty;\n{146} and those who govern must attend to many things which are\ngenerally neglected. To do the routine business of the day is the\noccupation of most of the governments of Europe, whether in war or\nat peace; they therefore habitually become agents of necessity, and\nwhat can be procrastinated is never done; that is to say, what is good\nis very seldom done, and what is necessary to prevent immediate evil,\nis always the chief, and sometimes the only, occupation.\n\nThere are some men in the world who prosper merely because they\nlook beforehand, and conduct their affairs. There are others who, with\nequal industry, and much more trouble and care, are always a little\nbehind, and allow their affairs to conduct them; such men never\nsucceed, and, if they can keep off the extreme of misfortune, it is all\nthat is to be expected.\n\nMost governments, in wealthy nations, are like those latter species of\nindividuals,--they do not conduct their affairs, but are conducted by\nthem, and think they succeed, when the necessary business of the day\nis done. This listlessness must be done away, and, though the\n\n---\n{146} From the impossibility of a nation, once immersed in sloth and\nluxury, returning to the tone and energy of a new people, we may\njudge of the impossibility of a nation going on progressively towards\nwealth, not suffering from the manner of educating children. The\nleading distinction between a rising and a fallen people is the\ndisposition to industry and exertion, in the one, and to sloth and\nnegligence, in the other. It is while a nation is increasing in wealth that\nthis alteration gradually takes place; and, as this is the main point on\nwhich all depends, the nation is safe when it is well attended to, even\nif other things are, in some degree, neglected.\n-=-\n\n[end of page #172]\n\ngovernments of countries that are wealthy have no occasion, like Peter\nthe Great, or the founders of new states, to create new institutions, and\neternally try to ameliorate, they ought to be very carefully and\nconstantly employed in preventing those good things that they enjoy\nfrom escaping their grasp, so far as it depends upon interior\narrangement. Exterior causes are not within their power to regulate,\ntherefore they should be the more attentive to those that are; and,\nthough exterior causes are out of their dominion, yet, sometimes, by\nwise interior regulations, the evil effects of exterior ones may be\nprevented. Nothing of all this can be done, however, until the\ngovernment rises above the routine business of the day, and until all\nthe necessary and pressing business is got over. The first thing, then,\nfor a government is to extricate itself from the situation of one who\nstruggles with necessity, after which, but not before, it may study what\nis beneficial, and of permanent utility.\n\nSo far it would appear all nations are situated alike, with regard to the\ngeneral tendency to decay; {147} and so far all of them may be guided\nby general rules, but as to the particular manner of applying those\nrules, it must depend on the peculiar circumstances of the nation to\nwhich they are meant to be applied.\n\nIn general, revenue has become the great object with modern nations:\nand, as their rulers have not ventured to tax the necessaries of the\npeople to any high degree, but have laid their vices, rather than their\nwants, under contribution, the revenue-system, (as it may be called,)\ntends to make a government encourage expensive vice, by which it\nprofits, and check innocent enjoyment, by which it has nothing to\ngain. This is a terrible, but it is a very prevalent system; it is immoral,\ninhuman, and impolitic.\n\nSo far as this goes, a government, instead of checking, accelerates the\ndecline of a people; but, as this is not a natural cause of decline, as\nit is not universal or necessary, it is to be considered with due\n\n---\n{147} The Chinese, and, in general, the nations of Asia have not been\nconsidered as included in this inquiry. The Chinese, in particular, are a\npeople in a permanent situation: they do not increase in riches, and\nthey seem to have no tendency to decline. Their laws and mode of\neducation and living remain the same.\n-=-\n\n[end of page #173]\n\nregard to particular circumstances. In general, we may say, that, in\nplace of inviting the lower classes to pass their time in drinking, by the\ninnumerable receptacles that there are for those who are addicted to\nthat vice, every impediment should be put in the way. Drinking is a\nvice, the disposition to which grows with its gratification; most other\navocations (for drinking in moderation is only such) have no tendency\nof the sort. Those enjoyments which have a tendency to degenerate\ninto vice should be kept under some check; those which have no such\ntendency ought to be encouraged; for, where the main and general\nmass of the population of a country is corrupted, it is impossible to\nprevent its decline. If it remains uncorrupted, the matter is very easy,\nor, more properly, it may be said that prosperity is the natural\nconsequence.\n\nManners will always be found of more consequence than laws, and\nthey depend, in a great measure, on the wise regulations of\ngovernment in every country.\n\nNot only do most governments profit by laying the vices of the people\nunder contribution; but, as revenue is, by a very false rule, taken as a\ncriterion from which the prosperity of a nation may be estimated, the\nvery evil that brings on decay serves to disguise its approach. A nation\nmay be irretrievably undone, before it is perceived that it has any\ntendency to decline; it is, therefore, unwise for governments to wait\ntill they see the effects of decay, and then to hope to counteract them;\nthey must look before-hand, and prevent, otherwise all their exertions\nwill prove ineffectual. [end of page #174]\n\n\n\n\nCHAP. X.\n\n\n_Of the external Causes of Decline.--the Envy and Enmity of other\nNations.--their Efforts, both in Peace and War, to bring Wealthy\nNations down to their level_.\n\nThe external causes of the decline of nations are much more simple\nin themselves than the internal ones, besides which, their action is\nmore visible; the way of operation is such as to excite attention, and\nhas made them thought more worthy of being recorded.\n\nThe origin of envy and enmity are the same. The possession of what is\ndesirable, in a superior degree, is the cause of envy. That occasions\ninjurious and unjust proceedings, and enmity is the consequence,\nthough both originated in the same feeling at first, they assume\ndistinct characteristics in the course of time.\n\nThe desire of possession, in order to enjoy, is the cause of enmity and\nenvy; and all the crimes of nations, and of individuals, have the same\ncommon origin.\n\nIt follows, as a natural consequence, arising from this state of things,\nthat those nations which enjoyed a superior degree of wealth, became\nthe objects of the envy of others. If that wealth was accompanied by\nsufficient power for its protection, then the only way to endeavour to\nshare it was by imitation; but if the wealth was found unprotected,\nthen conquest or violence was always considered as the most ready\nway of obtaining possession.\n\nThe wandering Arabs, who are the only nations that profess robbery at\nthe present day, (by land,) follow still the same maxim with regard to\nthose whose wealth they mean to enjoy. If too powerful to be\ncompelled by force to give up what they have got, they traffic and\nbarter with the merchants of a caravan; but if they find themselves\nable to take, they never give themselves the trouble to adopt the\nlegitimate but less expeditious method of plunder and robbery =sic=.\n[end of page #175]\n\nAs it has been found that wealth operates, by degrees, in destroying\nthe bravery of a people, after a certain time, so it happens that, in the\ncommon course of things, a moment arrives when it is considered\nsafe, by some one power or other, to attack the wealthy nation, and\npartake of its riches; thus it was that the cities of Tyre and of Babylon\nwere attacked by Alexander; and thus it was that his successors, in\ntheir turn, were attacked and conquered by the Romans; and, again,\nthe Romans themselves, by the barbarous nations of the north.\n\nBesides those great revolutions, of which the consequences were\npermanent, there have been endless and innumerable struggles for the\npossession of wealth, amongst different nations; but the real and\nleading causes are so uniform, and so evident, that there is not a\nshadow of a doubt left on that subject.\n\nMr. Burke had good reason to say that the external causes were much\neasier traced, and more simple, than the internal ones; for, the Romans\nexcepted, the instances of rich nations attacking and conquering poor\nones are very rare indeed.\n\nThe Romans had erected their republic on a different plan from that of\nany other; they had neither arts, industry, nor territory of their own,\nand they conquered nations upon speculation, and for the sake of\ncivilizing the people, and making them contribute revenue; how they\nwere successful has been explained. But even the Romans would not\nhave attacked poor nations, if they had been, at an earlier period,\npossessed of the means of attacking those that were wealthy.\n\nNecessity obliged them to begin with Italy: their safety made them\ndefend themselves against the Gauls, and, till they had a navy, it was\nimpracticable to carry their conquests into Asia or Africa; but, after\nthey had conquered Carthage, they lost very little time in attacking\nEgypt, and those countries occupied by the successors of Alexander.\n\nThe taking of Constantinople was the last decided victory of this sort,\nand in nothing but time and circumstance did it differ from the others;\nin all the great outlines it was exactly the same. [end of page #176]\n\nThe effeminacy and luxury of the rich, those interior causes, of which\nwe have already spoken, always give facility to those efforts which\nenvy and avarice excite.\n\nThe rivalship, in time of peace, is a contest confined to modern\nnations; or, at least, but little known to the ancients. Indeed, it is\nonly amongst commercial nations that it can exist. There can be no\ncompetition in agriculture; and, indeed, it is only in war, or in\ncommerce, that nations can interfere with each other.\n\nThe Phoenicians were the only commercial people of antiquity.\nCarthage was the colony, and received the Indian produce at second\nhand. It was in no way a rival.\n\nWhen Solomon mounted on the throne of his father David, he applied\nhimself to commerce; but the wisdom and power he possessed were\nsuch as bore down all opposition during his reign. Having married the\ndaughter of the King of Egypt, who assisted him in several conquests,\nhe founded the city of Palmyra, or Tadmore in the Wilderness, for the\ngreater conveniency of the Eastern trade. The King of Tyre was his\nally, but he was so, most probably, from necessity, for the alliance was\nvery unnatural; and, soon after the death of Solomon, the Tyrians\nexcited the King of Babylon to destroy Jerusalem: so, that if there had\nbeen, in ancient times, more people concerned in commerce, there is\nno doubt there would likewise have been more envy and rivality.\n=sic=\n\nThe cities of Italy, the Dutch, the Flemish, the English, and the\nFrench, have been incessantly struggling to supplant each other in\nmanufactures and commerce; and the war of custom-house duties and\ndrawbacks has become very active and formidable.\n\nThis modern species of warfare is not only less bloody, but the object\nis more legitimate, and the consequences neither so sudden nor so\nfatal as open force; to which is to be added, that if a nation will but\ndetermine to be industrious, it never can be greatly injured. If it\nenjoyed any peculiarly great advantages, those may, indeed, be\nwrested from it, but that is only taking away what it has no right to\npossess, and what it may always do without. [end of page #177]\n\nThe intention of this inquiry is not to discover a method by which a\nnation may engross the trade that ought to belong to others, it is only\nto enable it, by industry and other means, to guard against the\napproaches of adversity, which tend to sink it far below its level,\nthereby making way for the elevation of some other nation, on the\nruins of its greatness.\n\nAs, in the interior causes of decline, we have traced the most part to\nthe manners and habits of the people, so, in the exterior causes, it will\nbe found that much depends upon the conduct of the government. [end\nof page #178]\n\n\n\n\nCHAP. XI.\n\n\n_Why the Intercourse between Nations is ultimately in Favour of the\npoorer one, though not so at first_.\n\nIn all commercial intercourse with each other, (or competition in\nselling to a third nation,) the poorer nation has the advantage in its\ngain; but this advantage is generally prevented by the length of credit\nwhich the wealthy nation is enabled to give, by which manufacturers\nare sometimes ruined in their own country by strangers, who can\nneither rival them in lowness of price nor goodness in quality.\n\nIn countries that are poor, those who have the selling, but not the\nmanufacturing of goods, are so much greater gainers by selling goods\npurchased on credit, of which they can keep a good stock and\nassortment, than in selling from a shop or store scantily supplied with\nready money, that there is not almost any question about either price\nor quality; there is not scarcely an alternative. In one line, a man can\nbegin who has scarcely any capital, and do a great deal of business; he\ncan even afford to sell the articles he purchases on credit with very\nlittle profit, because they procure him ready money; whereas, if he\nsells an article upon which he has no credit, he must replace it with\nanother, by paying money immediately. The consequence is, that\nwhile those who sell to the public are poor, the nation or manufacturer\nthat gives the longest credit will have the preference; but this is daily\ndiminishing, for even with the capital of the rich nation itself, the\nmanufactures of the poor one are encouraged; the manner is as\nfollows:\n\nA, at New York, purchases goods for one thousand pounds from B, at\nLondon, which he sells without any profit, and, perhaps, at a\nconsiderable loss; because B gives him twelve months credit. But A,\nwho has, by this means, got hold of money, as if by a loan, will not lay\nthat out with B, nor let him touch it till the year's end; and, having\nmade no profit by the sale of B's goods, he must turn to advantage the\nmoney he obtained for them. According to the situation of mat-[end\nof page #179] ters in the country, and the nature of A's concerns, he\nwill make more or less, but what he makes it is not the business to\ninvestigate; it is sufficient to know, that he will lay his ready money\nout with those who will sell cheap, in order to get by it; that is to say,\nhe will lay it out with some person in his own country. {148} Thus,\nthough the rich nation sells goods on credit at a price which cannot be\nobtained for them by the purchaser, yet its capital serves to give\nactivity to the manufacturers in the poor country. It is true, that this\noperation is slow, but it produces an effect in time, and finishes by\nrobbing the wealthy nation of its superiority, obtained by giving credit.\nIt is thus that in all their intercourse, the first advantage is to the\nrich nation, but terminates in favour of the poor; for whenever equality\nof prices are the question, and both can give sufficient credit, the\npoorer nation has the advantage in point of price.\n\nWith regard to rivalling each other, in a third place, the poor nation\nhas the advantage, if the merchants there have the means of paying\nwith ready money, because the price is lower than that of the richer\ncountry. {149} If they have not that means, they cannot deal with\nthem, but must wait till they have, by perseverance; and, in course of\ntime, come to have the means when the poor nation is certain to enter\ninto competition with advantage.\n\nBut this is not the only way in which the capital of a rich nation is\nemployed in fostering a rivalship in a poorer nation. Were the\nmanufacturers the only persons who sold goods, it would be confined\nto this; but that is not the case, for merchants, who are the sellers,\nstudy only where they can purchase the cheapest; thus English\nmerchants purchase cloths in Silesia, watches in Switzerland, fire-\narms at Liege,\n\n---\n{148} The Dutch used to give long credit, and buy with ready money,\nby which means they had great advantage for a long time; but, at last,\nthe ready money they paid to some, and the credit they gave to others,\nset their industry at work, and they became rivals. Dutch capital was,\nat one period, of great service to the English, as that of England now is\nto the Americans.\n\n{149} This is not meant to apply to any particular sort of manufacture.\nIn some, a nation may have a permanent advantage over another; in\nothers, only a temporary one, and in the greater portion no other\nadvantage than what arises from superior capital.\n-=-\n\n[end of page #180]\n\nin preference to laying out the money in England or Ireland; and they\nwill give credit, as before explained, to the nation that wants it.\n\nIn this manner it is, that the capital of a rich country supplies the want\nof it in poorer ones, and that, by degrees, a nation saps the foundation\nof its own wealth and greatness, and gives encouragement to them in\nothers.\n\nIt is then that the weight of taxes, the high price of commodities, and\nthe various causes which encumber those who live in wealthy nations,\nbegin to produce a pernicious effect. The tendency of industry is to\nremove its abode, and the capital of the merchants, who know no\ncountry, but understand arithmetic, and the profits of trade, gives the\nindustry the means of doing it with more ease and promptitude.\n\nThe Dutch, for the last century, employed their capital in this manner,\nand, at one time, were the chief carriers, for they secured custom by\npaying readily and giving credit largely. They ruined many of their\nown manufactures in this manner, but it is impossible to separate the\ncalculation of gain from the mercantile system and mercantile practice\nin individuals; therefore it is no reproach to their patriotism, for\npatriotism cannot be the rule in purchasing goods from an individual.\nA merchant can have no other rule, but his own advantage, or, if he\nhas, he will soon be ruined.\n\nThere are many manufactures in England that originally rose by\nmeans of Dutch capital, not lent capital, but by ready money paid for\ngoods, which were carried to other nations, and sold here upon credit.\n\nThe English have, for a long time, been able to do this piece of\nbusiness for themselves; and, of course, the Dutch did not find the\nsame means of supporting their carrying trade; and as they had ruined\nmany of their own manufactures, they sunk both as a commercial and\nmanufacturing people.\n\nIf the time should ever come that capital should be so abundant in all\nnations, as that obtaining credit will not be an object, then it will be\nseen that no nation will have so very great a share of manufactures\nand commerce more than others, as has hitherto been the case.\n\nIn countries where the common practice is to sell, chiefly, for [end of\npage #181] ready money, great fortunes are seldom gained. Even in\nwealthy countries, in branches of business where no credit is given,\ngreat fortunes are very seldom got, and for a very simple reason. The\nbusiness is pretty equally divided. But in a country that gives long\ncredits, or in a branch of trade on which long credits are given, we\nalways see some individuals gaining immense fortunes, by means of\ndoing a great deal more business than others, who, having less capital,\nare enabled to do less.\n\nThere is not any one thing in which a nation resembles an individual\nso much, as in mercantile transactions; the rule of one is the rule of all,\nand the rich individual acts like a rich nation, and the poor one like a\npoor nation. The consequences are the same in both cases. The rich\ncarry on an extensive trade, by means of great capital; the poor, a\nlimited one, dependant =sic= chiefly on industry; but wherever the\npoor persevere in good conduct, they finish by getting the command\nof the capital of the rich, and then becoming their rivals.\n\nThere is one thing peculiar to the intercourse of rich and poor nations,\nin which it differs from the intercourse between rich and poor\nindividuals in the same country. Money, which is the common\nmeasure of value, has a different price in different countries, and,\nindeed, in different parts of the same country. If a man, from a poor\ncountry, carries a bushel of corn with him into a rich, he can live as\nlong upon it as if he had remained where he was; but if he carry the\nmoney, that would have bought a bushel of corn at home, he perhaps\nmay not be able to live upon it half so long. {150}\n\nThe effect that this produces, in the intercourse between two countries,\nis, that in proportion as the difference becomes greater, the rich\ncountry feels it can command more of the industry of the poor, and the\npoor feels it can command less of the industry of the rich; so that\n\n---\n{150} In common life, this difference, between carrying money and\nnecessaries, is perfectly well understood, but it is experience that is\nthe teacher; and the rough countryman, or woman, when they have the\nopportunity of judging from fact, understand the motives as well as\nthe most profound and ingenius =sic= writer on political economy.\n-=-\n\n[end of page #182]\n\nwhen their industry can be both applied, with any degree of equality,\nto the same object, the poor supplies the rich, and therefore increases\nits own wealth.\n\nIt is thus that great numbers of the people in London are fed with\nbutcher-meat from Scotland, and wear shoes from Yorkshire; but there\nwould be a very limited sale in either of those places for meat from\nSmithfield, or shoes manufactured in London. {151}\n\nThis diminution of the value of money, that takes place in all rich\ncountries, serves farther to increase the advantage of poorer ones in\nmanufacturing, and accelerates the natural effect of competition,\nwhich is facilitated, as has been said, by the capital of the rich country\ngiving activity to the industry of the poorer one.\n\nThis last neither can be called an exterior nor an interior cause, as it is\nderived entirely from the relative situations of the two countries, and\nbelongs to both, or originates in both; but, as it raises the poor nation\nnearer the level of the rich one, its effect gradually becomes less\npowerful. Though there is no means of preventing the operation of\ntwo nations coming nearly to a level by this means, yet it does not\nappear to be a necessary consequence that the nation that was the\nricher should become the poorer. As this, however, has been a general\ncase, we must conclude it to be a natural one, but there we stop, and\nmake a distinction between what is natural only, and what is a\nnecessary effect. Their coming to a level was a necessary effect; but,\nthough the other may be natural, it cannot be necessary, and therefore\nmay be counteracted; to find the means of doing this, is all that is\nproposed by the present inquiry.\n\n---\n{151} If it was not for taxes and rent, that are chiefly spent in large\ntowns, as well as law-expenses, and the prices of luxuries, of dress,\nand furniture, the cities, like London, would soon be reduced.\n-=-\n\n[end of page #183]\n\n\n\n\nCHAP. XII.\n\n\n_Conclusion of exteror Causes.--Are seldom of much Importance,\nunless favoured by interior ones.--Rich Nations, with care, capable,\nin most Cases, of prolonging their Prosperity.--Digression on the\nImportance of Public Revenue, illustrated by a statistical Chart_.\n\nThe exterior causes of the decline of any nation, that has risen above\nits level, though formidable, are nothing, in comparison to the interior\ncauses, and are of no great effect without their co-operation.\n\nAs the government of a country has an influence over the interior\ncauses, so its alliances, and the laws of nations, though not very well\nattended to, (yet seldom altogether forgot,) have a tendency to stop the\nprogress of the exterior causes, before they advance too far; that is to\nsay, before they absolutely depress a nation.\n\nFor several centuries, the stronger nations of Europe protected the\nweaker, and the matter was carried so far, that the weak powers\ngenerally gained the most. Prussia and Sardinia are two examples of\nnations rising by political connections; and though the system is lately\nchanged, and Poland has been despoiled and divided amongst nations,\nto each of which it was superior in power only two centuries ago, and\nthough Holland and Switzerland groan under the yoke of France, yet,\nit is to be hoped, the old system is not abandoned, otherwise there will\nbe no end to the encroachments of the great powers on the smaller.\n\nThe means of communicating, between nations, are now easy; they\nhave felt the advantage of preserving a sort of balance, {152} and the\nad-\n\n---\n{152} The expression, balance of power, gives a false idea. It seems\nto imply, that alliances in Europe were so nicely arranged, as to make\nthe force of nations, in opposite interests, equal; but this never was the\ncase for half an hour, nor was it ever intended. The whole [end of page\n#184] that is meant, is to prevent the present order from being\noverturned, by one nation annihilating or subduing another; and then,\nby their united strength, swallowing up a third, as was the case with\nthe Romans.\n-=-\n\nvantages are so great, that they probably never will be entirely\nabandoned, though we have strong proofs, of late years, that they are\nnot always held very sacred.\n\nThe chart subjoined to this, giving a statistical representation of the\npowers of Europe, shews nearly in what manner power is distributed\nat this time; the population and extent are there represented with\naccuracy: these are the foundation of power; and the amount of the\nrevenue may be said to shew the means, which a nation has of\nexerting that power. (For the description and explanation see the page\nopposite the chart). [Transcriber's note: seemingly a reference to Chart\nNo. 2; the explanation in fact appears on page 190.]\n\nThe balance of power, however well attended to, could not prevent the\ndecline of a nation from interior causes. It may prevent the operation\nof exterior causes from pushing a nation to the extreme of humiliation,\nby taking advantage of its internal situation. But the decline of almost\nevery nation has commenced within its own bosom, and has been\ncompleted by causes acting from without.\n\nThe common termination of the interior causes of decline is revolt, or\na division into parties, when the party that has the disadvantage\ngenerally calls in some neighbour to its aid. This is the most miserable\nfate that can befal =sic= a country, and no punishment is sufficiently\nsevere for the men, who have so far lost every sentiment of patriotism\nas to have recourse to such a step.\n\nThe exterior causes of decline, namely, rivalship in peace and the\ncombined efforts of enemies in war may be considered as irresistible,\nif the government, which has the direction of a nation, does not act\nwisely; but, if it does, they may be put at defiance. If a nation\npreserves its interior sources of prosperity, and acts with moderation\nand firmness towards others, their envy and efforts will be without\neffect, and need never be a cause of much uneasiness.\n\nIn its relation to other nations, the government of a country acts like\nan individual. The first thing is to regulate its interior affairs, and,\nthe next is, in treating with others, to consider circumstances, and take\njustice and moderation for a rule of conduct. [end of page #185]\n\nThe circuitous politics attributed to ambassadors, who represent states,\nis a common theme of invective: as custom has established it as a sort\nof rule, in all such transactions as they conduct, to conceal a part of\nwhat is meant, to demand more than is expected to be obtained, and\noffer less than is intended to be given, there is no immediate remedy;\nbut this is only in the mode and manner of treating, and does not\nnecessarily imply unfair intention. If it has become a custom to ask\nthree by way of obtaining two, and of offering only two to prevent the\nnecessity of giving four, (which would be expected if three, the\nnumber intended to be given, were offered at first) it is an abuse of\nlanguage, in so far that what is expressed is neither meant by one, nor\nunderstood by the other to be meant; but, it is nothing more: neither is\nit a custom void of meaning; it is founded on the nature of man.\n\nIf men were perfect, and capable of seeing at one view what was fair,\neach might come prepared to ask exactly what he wanted, and\ndetermined not to yield any thing; and it would result from their being\nperfect, that each would just demand what was right, and the other\nwas disposed to give; but, as men are not perfect, and as it is the\ninclination and even the duty of each to obtain the most favourable\nterms he can, (and as he does not see exactly what is right,) he\nnaturally demands more than he has a right to expect, or than the other\nis disposed to give. If ambassadors met together with a determination\nto speak explicitly at first, and with a determination not to recede, the\nconsequence would probably be, that they would not treat at all, so\nthat the mode of receding a little does not absolutely imply that more\nis asked than is wished for, but that each party over-rates its own\npretensions, in order to obtain what is right.\n\nOne thing is certain, that the treaties that have been the best observed\nhave been those founded on equity, where the contracting parties were\nneither of them under the influence of fear or necessity.\n\nThe exterior dangers of a country are not only more simple in their\nnature than the interior ones, but, being less silent and gradual in their\nprogress have been more noticed by historians.\n\nEven the ambitious rapacity of the Romans was first directed [end of\npage #186] against Carthage, on account of its pride and injustice in\nattacking other states; and, in the history of the nations of the world,\nthere is scarcely a single example of national prosperity being\nunattended with some degree of pride, arrogance, and injustice; nor\ncan it easily be otherwise, for, notwithstanding all the boasted law of\nnations, power seems amongst them to be one of the principal claims\non which right is founded, though, in the moral nature of things,\npower and right have not the most distant connection.\n\nIt is then an object for those who govern nations, in the first place, to\ncounteract as much as possible the internal tendency to decline,\narising from the causes that have been enumerated; and, after having\ndone that, to regulate their conduct with regard to other nations, so as\nto protect themselves from those external causes of decline, on the\nexistence of which they have no direct influence, but which are not\ncapable of producing any great effect, unless favoured by the internal\nstate of the country, and by the unwise conduct of those by whom it is\ngoverned.\n\n========\n\n_Digression concerning the Importance of Public Revenue_.\n\nNo state, what ever its wealth may be, can possess power, unless a\ncertain portion of that wealth is applicable to public purposes. As the\nwant of revenue has not been a very common cause of weakness, we\nshall give, as an example, the almost solitary, but very strong, case of\nPoland. Its feebleness, in repelling the attacks of its enemies, was\noccasioned, in a great measure, by want of revenue. It was with far\nsuperior population, with more fertile soil, and a people no way\ninferior in bravery, greatly inferior in actual exertion to Prussia.\nWhen, at last, the Poles, seeing their danger, united together, and were\nwilling to make every personal exertion and sacrifice, to preserve their\ncountry, they had no means of executing their good intentions. They\nhad not kept up an army when it was not wanted, and they could not,\non the emergency, create one when it was become necessary. [end of\npage #187]\n\nThe definition given of power makes it a relative thing, and, therefore,\nthe revenue necessary to maintain that power or force must be relative\nalso; it, therefore, depends on circumstances, what is to be considered\nas a sufficient or insufficient revenue.\n\nIf the United States of America were accessible with ease to European\nnations, or if they had powerful neighbours on their own soil, they\nwould find their present revenues quite unequal to preserving their\nindependence; but, as it is, perhaps they are the most wealthy\ncivilized nation in the world, if an excess of revenue constitutes\nwealth.\n\nIn Europe, whatever nations are unable to keep up forces sufficient to\nmake those exertions which, according to their alliances and dangers,\nmay be necessary, they are weak from want of revenue, and ought to\naugment it.\n\nIn the course of making greater exertions than the revenues would\nbear, some nations have contracted debts. It is not the purpose here to\nenter into the complication such debts occasion, and the alterations\nthey make on the revenue, and the disposal of the revenue of a\ncountry; but, so far as that subject is yet understood, it appears that the\nclear revenue, after paying the interest of the debt, ought to be as great\nas it would be altogether, if there were no debt; that is to say, after\npaying interest, there ought to remain a sufficient surplus to pay all the\nexpenses necessary for government and defence.\n\nThe money that goes for the payment of interest has some tendency to\nincrease the influence of government at home, but is of no manner of\nuse with regard to enemies.\n\nFrom the statistical chart here annexed, which shews the relative\nproportion of the revenues of all the nations in Europe, as well as their\nactual amount, it is perfectly clear, that, great and extensive as the\nRussian empire is, it will not be very powerful until its revenues are\nconsiderably increased.\n\nThe great value of money, and the prices of provisions, and many\nsorts of warlike stores, enable great armies to be maintained in that\ncountry, even with small revenues; but the Russians can make no great\neffort, at a distance from home, till their revenues are augmented.\n\nThe revenues of Spain are considerable; but the free revenue is not,\n[end of page #188] and it has no credit to supply the place. The same\nthing may be said of Portugal; and if England had no credit, it would\nbe in the same situation; but as it has better credit than any nation ever\nhad, so, likewise, it is the only one whose efforts have never been in\nany way, or at any time, either restricted or suspended, for want of\nmoney to carry them into effect.\n\nThe Dutch were, at one time, situated nearly as England is now; they\nhad not sufficient free revenue, but they had good credit; of which,\nhowever, they were not willing to make the necessary use, and the\nFrench marched into Amsterdam with greater ease than the Russians\ndid into Warsaw.\n\nThe greatest victories of the French, during the revolution, were\ngained at a time when her regular revenues were inconsiderable, and\nwhen she was in a state of absolute bankruptcy. This is considered by\nsome as a proof that force is independent of revenue, and that\nFrederick the Great was mistaken in saying, that money was the\nsinews of war; but this case has been misunderstood as well as\nmisrepresented.\n\nThough, in general, regular resources for money are necessary to\nsupport war, and regular resources imply revenue, it never was\nasserted, that, if irregular resources could be obtained, they would not\nanswer the same purpose, so long as they lasted. During the first five\nyears of the French revolution, a sum equal to at least four hundred\nmillions sterling was consumed, besides what was pillaged from the\nenemy. So that at the time that France was without regular revenue,\nshe was actually expending seventy-five millions sterling per annum:\na sum greater than any other nation ever had at its disposal.\n\nThe impossibility of such a resource continuing is of no importance in\nthe present argument, although it is luckily of very great importance to\nthe peace of mankind. France supported war, for a certain time, by\nconsuming capital, and without revenue, but not without money; so\nthat what his Prussian Majesty said, stands uncontroverted, and the\nnecessity of revenue, regular and durable, for the maintenance of\nregular and durable force, is established beyond the power of\ncontradiction. [end of page #189]\n\nEXPLANATION OF STATISTICAL CHART, NO. 2.\n\nIn this chart, the different nations of Europe are represented by circles,\nbearing the proportion of their relative extent. This is done in order to\ngive a better idea of the proportions than a geographical map, where\nthe dissimilar and irregular forms prevent the eye from making a\ncomparison.\n\nThe graduated scale of lines represents millions of pounds sterling;\nand the red lines, that rise on the left of each circle, express the\nnumber of inhabitants in millions, which may be known by observing\nat what cross-line the red one stops.\n\nThe yellow lines, on the right of the circles, shew the amount of\nrevenue in pounds sterling.\n\nThe nations stained green, are maritime powers; those stained pale\nred, are only powerful by land.\n\nThe dotted lines, to connect the extremities of the lines of population\nand revenue, serve, by their descent from right to left, or from left to\nright, to shew how revenue and population are proportioned to each\nother.\n\nThe impression made by this chart is such, that it is impossible not to\nsee by what means Sweden and Denmark are of little importance, as\nto wealth or power; for, though population and territory are the\noriginal foundation of power, finances are the means of exerting it.\n\nWhat must the consequences be if the Russian empire should one day\nbecome like other nations? If ever that should happen, it either will be\ndivided, or it will crush all Europe.\n\nThe prodigious territory of Russia, and the immense revenues of\nEngland, are the most astonishing things represented in that chart;\nthey are out of all proportion to the rest. [end of page #190]\n\n\n\n\n=========\nBOOK III.\n=========\n\n\n\n\nCHAP. I.\n\n\n_Result of the foregoing Inquiry applied to Britain.--Its present State,\nin what its Wealth consists, illustrated by a Chart, shewing the\nIncrease of Revenue and Commerce_.\n\nHaving now taken a view, and inquired into the causes that have\nruined nations that have been great and wealthy, from the earliest to\nthe present time; having also inquired into the causes that naturally\nwill operate where those did not, and that would, at a later period,\nhave produced the same effect; it is now the business to examine how\nfar and in what way the result of the inquiry applies to the British\nempire.\n\nThe power and wealth of Britain, according to the definition given at\nthe beginning of this work, are founded not on conquests, extent of\nterritory, superior population, or a more favourable soil or climate, or\neven in bravery; for in those it is but on a par with other nations.\n\nThe only natural advantages of Britain are, its insular situation and the\ndisposition of the people, and the excellent form of its government.\n\nFrom the two first have arisen that good government, commerce, and\nindustry; and on those have arisen again a great naval power, and an\nuncommon degree of wealth.\n\nIn arms, it does not appear that England is so powerful by land, in\nproportion as in former times: her power must then be considered as a\nnaval power, and that founded principally on commerce. {153}\n\n---\n{153} Our last brilliant achievements by land were under the Duke of\nMarlborough; but even then, with allies to assist, we were but a\nbalance to France. Before the conquest, England seems to have been\nfar below the level of most other nations, as a power by land. Soon\nafter [end of page #191] she appears to have risen above France, and\nother nations, or they probably rather sunk; but, ever since England\nbecame formidable at sea, she has lost her superiority in the army;\nalthough she has never sunk under the level, and never, in any\ninstance, were her armies beat when the numbers were equal to those\nof the enemy.\n-=-\n\n{Here appears at page 192 the second chart, entitled\n\n\"Chart\nRepresenting the\nExtent, Population & Revenue\n-of the-\nPRINCIPAL NATIONS in EUROPE\n--in 1804--by\nW. Playfair\"}\n\nAs such then we have only to examine the foundation on which she\nstands, and find in what she is vulnerable.\n\nWe must first begin with the interior situation, to follow the same\norder that has been attended to in the rest of the work.\n\nChanges of manners, habits of education, and the natural effects of\nluxury, are as likely to operate on the British empire, as on some\nothers which they have destroyed.\n\nFrom the unequal division of property, there is perhaps less danger,\nbut from the employment of capital there is more than almost in any\nother nation.\n\nFrom the abuses of law and public institutions and _l'esprit du corps_,\nwe run a very great risk; more indeed than under an arbitrary\ngovernment or even a republic. These last are the dangers that most\nseriously threaten a nation living under a mixed government.\n\nAs to the produce of the soil becoming unequal to the maintenance of\na people addicted to luxurious habits, we have much also to fear from\nthat: the operation is begun, and its effects will soon be most serious:\nthey are already felt, and very visible.\n\nFrom taxation, unproductive and idle people, we have more to fear\nthan most nations; and from an alteration in the manner of thinking,\nand persons and property leaving the nation, we have as much as any\nother nation, according to the degree of wealth that we possess; so\nthat, upon the whole, the interior causes of decline are such as it is\nextremely necessary to guard against in the most attentive manner.\n\nIn respect to the exterior causes, we are exempt entirely from some,\nfrom others we are not; and, in one case, we have exterior causes for\nhope that no nation ever yet had.\n\nThe advancement of other nations, their enmity and envy, are full as\nlikely to operate against this nation as against any other that ever\nexisted; but as we owe none of our superiority to geographical situa-\n[end of page #192] tion like the Greek islands, the Delta of Egypt, and\nborders of the Mediterranean Sea, we run no risk of any discovery in\ngeography, or in navigation, operating much to our disadvantage.\n\nWe are not so far advanced before other nations in arts as to have any\ngreat reason to dread that their advancement will be our ruin; but still\nwe must allow, that a number of external causes may combine to bring\nus to their level, when the effects of our present wealth may soon\noperate in reducing us under it.\n\nSince, then, commerce is the foundation of our wealth, and since our\npower, which is naval, is built upon commerce, let us begin with\ntaking a view of its present situation.\n\nThe increase of the trade of Britain to foreign parts, within these last\nfifteen years, though a very natural effect of the causes that have\noperated during that period, is not itself a natural increase, because the\ncauses that produced it are uncommon, temporary, and unnatural.\n\nThe East and West India trades have been both lost to France and\nHolland. The French, before the revolution, had a greater share of the\nWest India trade than ever we had, and they could undersell us in\nforeign markets.\n\nThe Dutch and French together had a very great share of the\ncommerce of the East; this partly accounts for the rapid increase of\nEnglish commerce since they lost theirs. Besides, the French nation\nitself, which formerly consumed scarcely any English manufactures,\nand supplied Germany, and many parts of Europe, with its own, has\nbeen employed for several years in consuming its manufactured stock,\neating up its capital, and ruining its own manufactories; so that France\nitself, Germany, and a great portion of the continent, have been\nobliged to apply to Britain, both for manufactures and colonial\nproduce, as well as for the goods that come from India.\n\nAdd to this, that capital on the continent of Europe has suffered an\nunexampled diminution, from a variety of causes. A great part has\nbeen consumed in France, and in all the countries into which her\narmies have penetrated, particularly in Holland; and that confidence,\n[end of page #193] which serves in place of capital, has been impaired\nin all countries, and ruined in many.\n\nIt has already been shewn that the want of capital prevents a poor\nnation from supplying itself, and furnishes a rich one with the means\nof supplying it, and, as it were, extorting usury from it by giving\ncredit. The misfortunes of the continent had, by this means, all of\nthem a direct tendency to advance the commercial prosperity of\nEngland; but still the matter does not rest even here, for the real\ncapital that fled from the continent of Europe has, in part, taken refuge\nin England. We have risen, (for the moment,) by their depression; and\nthough the advantage will be of some duration, yet we ought not to\nconsider it as permanent. {154}\n\nThose causes have operated, as indeed might be expected, in a most\npowerful manner, but that operation has already begun to cease. In\nsuch uncommon and unexampled circumstances as the present, it is\nimpossible to forsee =sic= what may happen, yet it is scarcely possible\nto suppose things will remain as they are. Terror and alarm are too\npainful to continue their action long on the human mind; and even if\nthe cause were not diminished, the effect would become less violent\nwith time and custom. Again, we are not to suppose, that such times as\nthose of 1793 and 1794 are ever to return, therefore the alarm will be\ndiminished, new capital will rise up, and, as security of private\nproperty is now understood to be the basis of all wealth and\nprosperity, confidence will be restored by degrees.\n\nThe increase of trade is not then to be expected from the same causes\nthat have of late operated with so rapid and powerful an effect: on the\ncontrary, they may be expected so far to cease, as to occasion a\ndiminution of our exports.\n\nThis will, however, be counteracted by some circumstances, while\nothers will tend to augment the violence of its effects.\n\nThe trade with the American States and with Russia increase, from\n\n---\n{154} As one proof of capital taking refuge in England, the sudden\nrise of stock, during the first three years of the French revolution, may\nbe adduced, without fear of being contradicted as to the fact, or the\nassigned cause controverted. [end of page #194]\n-=-\n\nno temporary or fallacious cause. In the former country, population\nvery rapidly increases, and, in the latter, wealth and civilization, which\nhave a similar effect {155} upon the wants of a nation. These are in\nfavour of a manufacturing country, like England.\n\nThese two are not only, then, permanent, but augmenting causes for\nour commerce; {156} they are causes that augment rapidly, and may,\nwith proper care, be carried to a great extent.\n\nThe superiority in the West India trade is so far of a permanent nature,\nthat France will never again be a formidable rival there. St. Domingo\nis not only lost, but probably lost for ever, while it is expected that\nBritain may retain her islands. This trade, then, may be set down as\npermanent; that is to say, that there does not seem to be any immediate\ncause for its decline; {157} and the government of this country is\nsufficiently aware of consequences not to neglect taking every\nprecaution possible.\n\nThe East India trade does not, indeed, appear equally secure. There we\nare powerfully rivalled by the Americans, and the merchants of other\ncountries; but, on the other hand, the demand for the produce of Asia\nis augmenting rapidly all over the continent of Europe; so that perhaps\nwe may be able to maintain our ground, even though other nations\nregain part of the trade they have lost.\n\nTo remain, then, in the situation in which we are, with respect to\n\n---\n{155} The great augmentation of fine fertile territory, in America, will\nretard the progress of manufactures and commerce in that country, by\nemploying the capital and attention of the inhabitants on agriculture.\nThis may be the case for half a century, and, if England improves, the\ncircumstances may continue to operate in favour of British\nmanufactures for many centuries to come.\n\n{156} The ports in the Black Sea add a new district to the commercial\nworld, which, in course of time, must greatly increase the demand for\nsuch articles, as a civilized people consume. The fineness of the\nclimate and of the country will enable the inhabitants to gratify the\ntaste which civilization will bring along with it.\n\n{157} It would be quite foreign to the end of this inquiry to examine\ninto the interior state of the West India islands, or as to their\ncontinuing subject to Great Britain. This is entirely a political affair,\nunconnected with commerce, though its effects on it would be\nprodigious. [end of page #195]\n-=-\n\nforeign trade, we must exert ourselves; those external causes that have\nforced trade upon us, for these last fifteen years, being but of a\ntemporary nature.\n\nIn order to be more sensible of this necessity, let us consider a few\nother circumstances.\n\nThe wealth of England, which was the envy of Europe, even previous\nto the American war, in which we stood single-handed and alone\n(having the three most powerful maritime nations against us, and none\nto take our part) has now become more conspicuous, and much more\nlikely to excite envy.\n\nNot only the situation of Britain is much more exalted, but the other\nnations feel a comparison that is infinitely more humiliating; add to\nthis, that old attachments, and a regard to the laws of nations, and to a\nbalance of power in Europe, are much enfeebled, or rather nearly done\naway.\n\nBritain has alone, for some time, stood forward to resist the\ninnovations and power of France; and, after having at first subsidized\nevery nation that would fight in the common cause, it has alone\nmaintained the common right itself, thereby adding a double\nhumiliation to those who wanted means of assisting, or whose courage\nhad failed.\n\nFrance, with all its acquisition of territory and alliance, with all that\ninfluence over neutral nations, which terror of its arms inspires, will\nnever cease to combat the prosperity of England. Some other nations,\nthrough envy or shame, stimulated by a hope of partaking in the\nwealth that England loses, will either sit passive or assist. {158}\n\nThe East India trade is that which excites the greatest portion of envy,\nand it will be difficult to resist its effects. This superior degree of\nenvy is occasioned by three principal causes:\n\nThe splendid establishments of the East India company, its fleets,\n\n---\n{158} Gratitude, some will say, may prevent this; but nations have no\ngratitude, they only know their interest, and nothing retrospective is\nany motive for action. We need not search into remote periods for\nproofs of this, see Holland, Spain, Russia, &c. during the latter part of\nthe last war. [end of page #196]\n-=-\n\nand the fact that it is the greatest commercial company that does now,\nor ever did, exist, constitute the first cause, not only for envy, but\nfor a wish to participate in the trade.\n\nThe second cause arises from the extent of our possessions, the\nimmensity of the territorial revenues, and the evident injustice of a\ncompany of merchants becoming sovereigns, and holding the ancient\nprinces of the East, and the successors of the Great Mogul, as tributary\nvassals. {159}\n\nIt is in vain that we say the people are happier than they were before\nwe did them the honour to become their masters. Whether this is true\nor not, there is no means of proving it, besides there can be no right\nestablished by London merchants to force the inhabitants of Hindostan\nto become happy, whether they will or not.\n\nThe same pretence has been used by the French, in subduing Flanders\nand Brabant, in governing Holland and Switzerland; but they have not\nbeen able to obtain credit. The regular governments, who partitioned\nPoland, have pretended the same thing; and our slave-merchants and\nplanters give very positive assurances that the negroes toiling on the\nWest India plantations are much happier than they were in their own\ncountry; yet, in defiance of all this cloud of witnesses, there is\nsomething in the human breast that resists and rejects such evidence;\nevidence doubtful, on account of the quarter from whence it comes,\nand the interests of the witnesses, as well as con-\n\n---\n{159} However we may look upon this, other nations certainly see the\nmatter as iniquitous and unjust; and it is well known with what\nfeelings such a belief is entertained.\n\nThough the revolutions in Farther Asia have not made any part of the\nbasis of our inquiry, yet it is impossible, having mentioned the Mogul\nempire, not to notice its rapid and terrible fall. In 1707, only ninety-\neight years ago, the Great Mogul ruled over a country equal in extent,\nand little inferior in population, to France, Spain, Germany, and\nEngland. His revenues amounted to thirty-two millions sterling,\nwhich, at that time, was nearly equal to the whole revenues of all the\nmonarchs of Europe. He is now circumscribed to a territory less than\nthe smallest county in England, and is the vassal at will of a company\nof English merchants, who, with all their greatness, do not divide\nprofits equal to one week of his former revenues! [end of page #197]\n-=-\n\ntrary to the natural feelings of beings endowed with the power of\nreason; at variance, also, with an opinion of a very ancient origin,\n\"that coercion and force are enemies to enjoyment.\"\n\nIn defiance, then, of our assertions, the other nations of Europe will\nand do view this acquired territory with anger, as well as envy; and,\nthough it is true, that, out of the immense revenues that arise to the\ncompany, they divide little profit, though their debts are annually\naugmenting, yet individual Englishmen, it must be admitted, bring\nhome great fortunes.\n\nThis fact is not to be denied, and is so much the worse, that though a\ngovernment even of merchants may be supposed to obtain revenues\nfairly, individuals, who rapidly acquire great wealth are always\nsupposed to do it by extortion or unfair means. {160}\n\nThe third cause for envy is of great antiquity. The commerce of the\nEast, from the earliest ages, has been that which has enriched all the\nnations that ever possessed it; and, consequently, has been a perpetual\ncause of envy and contention, as we have already seen, in its proper\nplace. For all those reasons, not one of which we can remove entirely,\nthe East India trade is a particular object of envy; and, unless great\ncare is taken, will entail the same danger on this country, as it has on\nall those that ever possessed it. Tyre and Sidon, in Syria, Alexandria,\nin Egypt, Venice, Genoa, the Hans Towns, and Portugal, have all been\nraised and ruined by this trade, which seems to\n\n---\n{160} So far back as 1793, Mr. Dundas estimated the sums remitted\nby individuals at an annual million; add to this, plunder arising from\nwar, (which is become as natural a state in India as peace,) and we\nshall see that now the revenues and establishments are nearly doubled.\nThe following will not be an unfair estimate:\n\nPrivate fortunes remitted in 1793            L. 1,000,000\nAverage ditto arising from years\nof war, the plunder of\nSeringapatam, &c                                  300,000\nIncrease remitted home since,\nin proportion to revenue                          700,000\n                                             ____________\n\nRemitted now by the same description\nof men                                       L. 2,000,000\n\nBesides what is remitted home, those servants of the company expend\nimmense sums in the country, living there in the greatest luxury. [end\nof page #198]\n-=-\n\nhave been the cradle and the grave of most of those nations that have\nbecome rich and powerful by the means of commerce.\n\nOur West India wealth, though derived from a source still more, or at\nleast equally, impure, and though not inferior in amount, is, for several\nreasons, not the cause of so much envy. It is not confined to a\ncompany, and therefore the splendour and ostentation that, in the case\nof the Asiatic trade, occasion envy, do not exist in that to the\nAmerican islands.\n\nOur monopoly is by no means so complete, which has a double effect\nin our favour; for, besides preventing others from envying us so much,\nit prevents them from condemning us so severely.\n\nThe same nations that see, in its full force, the injustice of subjecting\nthe inhabitants of the East, in their own country, in a way that, at the\nworst, is not very rigorous, join cordially in robbing Africa of its\ninhabitants, to make them slaves in America, in a way, that, at the\nbest, is very rigorous.\n\nSuch are the baneful effects of sordid interest acting on the mind of\nman! But our business is not here to investigate opinions, but their\nresult; and, in the present instance, we find that to admit participation\nin criminality is the only way to avoid envy and offence.\n\nThe third cause for envy is likewise wanting. The commerce with the\nWest Indies is but of a recent date, and no nation has ever owed its\ngreatness or decline to that single source. {161} It is not like the\nAsiatic trade, a sort of hereditary cause of quarrel; a species of\nheirloom, entailing upon the possessor the envy and enmity of all\nother nations.\n\nThe envy occasioned by the West India trade is farther diminished by\nthe circumstance that the plantations have been raised with the money\nof the persons by whom they are possessed; and that if they had no\noriginal right to the soil in its barren state, the cultivation at least is\nowing to their capital and industry.\n\nThe most solid and secure portion of our trade is that which con-\n\n---\n{161} France was the nation that, before the revolution, gained the\nmost by this trade; indeed, no nation has, to this date, gained so much\nas it did.\n-=-\n\n[end of page #199]\n\nsists of our manufactures at home. In those, though we excite envy,\nwe excite no other of the hateful passions. Emulation is natural, and\nadmiration is unavoidable, on seeing the vast progress that arts and\nindustry have made in this country; so that England is absolutely\nconsidered as the first country in the world for manufactures.\n\nThis cause of greatness and wealth operates in a more uniform and\ndurable manner; though, like others, it has its bounds, yet the nature of\nthem is not easily ascertained.\n\nIn this there are two things essential,--the procuring a market, and the\nmeans of supplying it. We have always yet found the means of\nsupplying every market we have got; but we have not always been\nable to extend our market so much as it might have been wished.\n\nAmerica and Russia offer new markets, as has already been observed,\nbut, to extend our old markets, we must either reduce the price,\nimprove the quality, or extend the credit, and invention is the only\nmeans by which these things can be done; and there is no possibility\nof knowing where to set bounds to invention, aided by capital and the\ndivision of labour. We are, however, not to forget that priority in point\nof time being one of the causes of a nation's rise, and being of a nature\nto be destroyed in the course of years, the superiority we enjoy may\nleave us, as it did other nations in former times.\n\nWhen a country produces the raw material, and labour is cheap, and\nthe art established, we might suppose the superiority secure; but it is\nnot. The cotton trade was first established in the East Indies, where the\nmaterial grows, where the labour is not a tenth of the price that it is in\nEngland, and the quality of the manufactured article is good; yet\nmachinery and capital have transplanted it to England. But the same\nmachinery may give a superiority, or at least an equality, to some\nother country; it is, therefore, our business to persevere in encouraging\ninvention, by the means that have hitherto been found so successful.\n{162}\n\n---\n{162} The law of patents, and the premiums offered by the Society of\nArts, suggest improvements, and reward them when made. To those,\nto the security of property, and nature of the government, we chiefly\nowe the great improvements made in England.\n-=-\n\n[end of page #200]\n\nThe most necessary thing for our commerce is the support of\nmercantile credit, without which it is in vain to expect that trade will\nbe carried on to any great amount. In 1772, when a great failure\noccasioned want of confidence, the exports of the country fell off\nabove three millions, but its imports fell off very little. {163} In 1793,\nwhen the internal credit of the mercantile people was staggered,\nprecisely the same effect was produced. These are the only two\ninstances of individual credit being staggered to such a degree, as to\nprevent mercantile men from putting confidence in each other; and\nthey are the only two instances of any very great falling off in the\nexports in one year, except during the American war, when the chief\nbranches of trade in the country were cut off or diminished.\n\nThe falling off, in exports, in 1803, which was very great indeed,\n(being no less than one-third of the whole,) was not occasioned by the\nsame cause, but appears to have been owing to three others of a\ndifferent nature.\n\nFirst, the French had actually shut us out from a great extent of coast,\nand this occasioned a diminution of exports, which will, in part, be\ndone away, when new channels of conveyance are found out. It will\nnevertheless operate in causing some diminution, as circuitous\nchannels render goods more difficult to be introduced, and\nconsequently dearer to the consumers.\n\nThe second cause appears to have been, the uncertainty of our\nmerchants where to send the goods, and who to trust, as the fear of the\nextension of French power took away confidence, and produced a sort\nof irresolution, which is always hurtful to business.\n\nThe third cause of the diminution of trade, no doubt, arose from the\ncessation of that alarm about property, that has been described as\nhaving occasioned so much to be sent from the continent to England.\nIn other words, it is the return of the pendulum which had vibrated,\n\n---\n{163} This is a sort of paradox: when money became scarce, the\nnation bought nearly as much as ever, but sold less. This is not the\ncase with individuals, and, at first sight, does not appear natural.\n-=-\n\n[end of page #201]\n\nthrough a temporary impulse, beyond the natural perpendicular. Had\nthere been no revolution in France, and had it not been conducted on\nthe principles it was, our trade could not have augmented so fast as it\ndid; but a falling off of fifteen millions in one year is too much to be\nascribed to that cause alone. An examination of the branches that did\nfall off will elucidate this.\n\nThe commerce with the United States of America is one of those that\nhas fallen off, and is the only one that does not appear to be directly\nconnected with these causes. There are some reasons, however, for\nthinking that it had an indirect connection with them.\n\nWhatever interrupts our connection with the continent of Europe, or\nrenders it unsafe, has, in some degree, the same effect with a\nstagnation of credit at home. This has taken place; and as it of course\naffected every branch of trade, that with America felt the blow\namongst the rest, and, indeed, more than in proportion; for, as there is\nno course of exchange with any town in America, and as the credits\nthere are long, the exportation to that country suffers in a particular\nmanner when there is any heaviness in the money market here. Thus it\nwas that, in 1772, the American exports suffered a diminution of two\nmillions from the stagnation; and, in 1793, of rather more than half a\nmillion. In the former case, the American trade seems alone almost to\nhave suffered, and, even in the latter case, it fell off more than in its\njust proportion.\n\nIt has been observed, that the improving our manufactures at home is\nthe most secure support of our foreign trade, which chiefly depends on\nsuperior skill, industry, and invention, the wages of labour being\ngreatly against us. We shall consider by what stability of tenure we\nhold that advantage.\n\nThe nation or individual that proceeds first in improvement is always\nuncertain how much farther it can be carried; those who follow, on the\ncontrary, know what can be done, and therefore act with certainty and\nconfidence. As to individuals, those who are the foremost in\nimprovement have great difficulties to encounter; they seldom can\nprocure the pecuniary aid necessary, and always do so with great\ndifficulty; whereas, those who copy, without half their merit, or, [end\nof page #202] perhaps, without any merit at all, meet with support\nfrom every quarter. {164}\n\nFrom this it is very evident, that the nation the farthest advanced in\ninvention has only to remain stationary a few years, and it will soon be\novertaken, and perhaps surpassed. Holland, Flanders, and France,\nwere all originally superior, in the arts of manufacturing most goods,\nto England; and, indeed, it is no great length of time since we obtained\nthe superiority over Holland in several articles of importance, and in\nparticular where machinery was wanting. If it were necessary, it\nwould not be difficult to give examples, to shew with what eagerness\nthose who imported inventions were taken by the hand, on the bare\nprobability of success, while the inventors of machines, and of\nmethods of manufacturing entirely new, and of still more importance,\nwere left to grope their way, and, until crowned with success, rather\nconsidered as objects of pity than of praise or admiration. {165}\n\nIt is not then altogether by a sure or lasting tenure that we hold this\nsuperiority of manufactures. We have examined several other sources\nof wealth, and the general conclusion is, that, without care and atten-\n\n---\n{164} Mr. Arkwright, who produced the cotton-spinning machine,\nunderwent great difficulties for many years; as also did Mr. Watt, the\ningenious and scientific improver of the steam-engine; and, had not\ngood fortune thrown him in the way of Mr. Boulton, a man of fortune\nand resource, and himself a man of genius, he probably must have\nlanguished in obscurity, and the nation remained without his\nadmirable invention. The profits derived from the spinning-machine\nmay, at first sight, appear the greater national advantage of the two;\nbut it is not so in reality, for the spinning-machine only manufactures\na raw material, brought from another country, cheaper than before;\nwhereas, the steam-engine enables us to obtain raw materials from our\nown soil cheaper; a thing more important, more permanent, and of\nwhich we were more in want: besides this, the steam-engine is\nextending the scope of its utility every day; whereas, the spinning\nmachines can go little farther. But to leave this digression, which is\nnot altogether foreign to the purpose, and return to the facility with\nwhich inventors are followed, it is a fact, that in almost every country\nin Europe, money can be got by any adventurer who will propose to\nestablish either a cotton spinning machine, or a manufactory of steam-\nengines; and it is a fact, that immense sums have been, and are still\ngiven, for those purposes.\n\n{165} Slitting-mills, saw-mills, the art of imitating porcelain, and of\nmaking good earthen-ware, and paper, together with a vast number of\nother inventions, were imported from Holland; in every one of which\nwe have gone beyond the Dutch, just as they got the better of the\nFlemings in the art of curing herrings. Priority of invention is not then\na permanent tenure.\n-=-\n\n[end of page #203]\n\ntion, this nation cannot be expected long to maintain its superiority\nover others, in the degree it at present enjoys.\n\nThe American market, {166} and the Russian (in a smaller degree,)\nhowever, hold out a prospect of increased commerce to us, from\nexternal causes, that we cannot flatter ourselves with in the internal\nones. It is to those we must look, and to those only, for the extension\nof the sale of our manufactures; but, even in this case, we must use\nefforts, for it is very seldom that a good end is effected by accident, or\nwithout a view towards its accomplishment.\n\nHaving now taken a view of the situation of this country, and seen\nthat, though it is not likely to be deprived of its commerce by\nconquest, like Babylon, Tyre, or Alexandria, or by a new discovery in\ngeography and the art of navigation, like Venice and Genoa; though,\nindeed, it has no great appearance of sharing the fate of Spain,\nPortugal, or Holland, yet there are other causes that may stop its\ncareer. If it is exempt from the dangers they laboured under, it is\nsubject to others from which they were free.\n\nWe have already examined the effect of taxes and national debt on the\nindustry of a country, even whilst augmenting in wealth; but we have\nnot examined what that effect will be when a country comes to be on a\nlevel with other nations that do not labour under the same burthens.\n\nThere is no possibility of standing long still with a burthen on the\nshoulders, it must either be thrown off or it will become a cause of\ndecline. Let us endeavour to point out methods by which that may be\naverted, or at least procrastinated. In doing this, we are either exposing\nour ignorance and presumption, or doing a signal service to our\ncountry.\n\n---\n{166} The American exports from this country consist almost entirely\nin manufactures; we neither supply that country with East or West\nIndia produce. The Russians are aspiring at possessions in the West\nIndies, and, no doubt, will succeed; they are advancing still more\nrapidly in power than the Americans are in population. It was only in\n1769, (not forty years ago,) that the first Russian flag was seen in the\nMediterranean Sea, and now Russia stands fair to be sovereign of a\nnumber of the Greek islands; and, at any rate, by the Dardanelles, to\ncarry on a great commerce. What may thirty years more not effect\nwith such a country, and such a race of sovereigns?\n-=-\n\n[end of page #204]\n\nThe load must be taken off, or it will crush the bearer; but how this is\nto be done is the difficulty. If our debt is paid off, the capital will go\nto other nations, for it will not find employment amongst ourselves; and\nthis will reduce the nation, and raise others. If it continues, we sink\nunder it; and, if we break faith with the creditors, it destroys\nconfidence for ever; we can no longer give law, by means of our\ncapital, to the markets in other nations, and we probably overturn the\ngovernment of our own.\n\nAmongst the _exterior_ causes of decline that are general, none\napplies so completely to Great Britain as that of the envy and enmity,\noccasioned by the possession of colonies we have settled, or countries\nwe have conquered.\n\nThe wealth of Britain and its power arise from agriculture,\nmanufactures, commerce, colonies, and conquests. The envy they\nexcite is not, however, in proportion to the wealth that arises from\nthem, but rather to the right we have to possess them, and the\nconsequent right that others have to contest the possession.\n\nImproved agriculture has never been a source of enmity amongst\ncivilized nations, though it has been an object of conquest when an\nopportunity presented itself.\n\nManufactures, the great source of our wealth, are, in a certain degree,\nbeyond the reach of our enemies. Our greatest consumption for them\nis amongst ourselves, and if we did not export to any part of the world,\nexcept enough to procure materials, we should enjoy nearly all that we\nnow do. Our wealth would not be very materially diminished, though\nour naval strength would. The means of destroying our manufactures\nis not then very easily to be found.\n\nThe commerce with other nations, our enemies, or rivals, have a more\neffectual means of diminishing, by the laying on duties on our\nmanufactures, and augmenting those duties when the goods happen to\nbe carried in English vessels; but still the advantage we enjoy in this\ncompetition is great.\n\nNot so with our colonies and conquests. The whole imports from the\nEast Indies, from 1700 to the present day, have only amounted [end of\npage #205] to 165,000,000 L. and our exports, during the same period,\nto 83,000,000 L. while our total exports have amounted to 1,486,000\nL. during the same period. {167}\n\nThere would be much affectation, and little accuracy, in attempting to\nmake any thing like a strict comparison between the relative\nproportions of the wealth procured by general trade, and that procured\nby trade with India. The exports amount to about one-nineteenth part\nof the whole; and, perhaps, as they are manufactured goods, to about\none-tenth part of the whole manufactures of the country exported: but\nthe manufactures exported are not equal to one-third part of those\nconsumed at home, so that not above one-thirtieth part of our\nmanufacturers are maintained by the trade to India.\n\nIn 1793, when the charter of the company was renewed, the India-\nbudget stated the private fortunes acquired and brought home, at one\nmillion annually: that has probably increased since then; but it was at\nthat time greater than it had been before: if, then, we take the annual\narrival, since the year 1765, at one million, it will make forty millions,\nwhich, compared with the balance of trade during that period, amounts\nto about one-sixth part of the balance supposed to come into the\ncountry.\n\nHow much of our national debt might be set down to the account of\nIndia, is another question. By debt contracted, and interest of debt\npaid, during the same period, we have disbursed the sum of\n1,100,000,000 L. which is equal to more than twelve times the whole\nof the property acquired by our India affairs, supposing the\n45,000,000 L.\n\n---\n{167} Comparison between the total foreign trade of the country, to\nthat with the East Indies only, for 104 years.\n\nTotal Exports.        Total Balance        Exports to India.\n                      in our favour.\nFrom\n\n1700\nto 1760,\nL540,000,000           L249,000,000        L18,000,000\n\n1760 to\n1785,\nL370,000,000           L101,000,000        L25,000,000\n\n1785 to\n1805,\nL576,000,000           L142,000,000        L40,000,000\n____________           ____________        ____________\nL1,486,000,000         L492,000,000        L80,000,000\n____________           ____________        ____________\n\n\n[Transcriber's note: L=GBP/Pounds Sterling.]\n\nThis is about a nineteenth part of our foreign trade, and the balance\nis greatly against us.\n-=-\n\n[end of page #206]\n\nremitted, to be all gain, together with one-half of the 83,000,000 L.\nwhich surely is allowing the gain at the highest rate for both. {168}\n\nSupposing, then, that the wars that India has occasioned have cost (or\nthe proportion of the debt they have occasioned) one-sixth part of the\nwhole of our debt, and that the profits on goods to India, and private\nfortunes, came into the public treasury, there would still have been a\ngreat loss to the state; but this has not been the case, the interest of\nthe debt has been levied on the people, and will continue to be so, till\nall is paid off; which, according to the plan of the sinking fund, will be\nin thirty-five years, so that we shall have about 750,000,000 L. more to\npay, {169} supposing we have peace all that time, and continue to\npossess India.\n\nThere is something very gloomy in this view of national affairs, and\nyet there is no apparent method of making it more pleasing.\n\nIt is, on the contrary, very possible, that as Malta, on account of its\nbeing supposed the key to India, has cost us 20,000,000 L. within a\nfew years, that, in less than thirty-five years, it may cost us\n_something_ more; and, it is not by any means impossible, that, before\nthat period, we may either lose India, or give it away; on either of\nwhich suppositions, the arithmetical balance of profit and loss will be\ngreatly altered, to our farther disadvantage.\n\nOn the possessions in India, and the complicated manner in which our\nimports (again exported) affect the nation, a volume might be written,\nbut it would be to very little purpose, in a general inquiry of this sort.\nIt is sufficient to shew here that the wealth obtained by that channel is\nnot of great magnitude, in comparison either of the\n\n---\n{168} The nearness of the balance of trade, to the amount of debt\ncontracted, will naturally excite attention, but it appears merely\naccidental, and to have not any real connection.\n\nDebt borrowed                              L500,000,000\nInterest paid                              L590,000,000\n                                         ______________\n                                         L1,090,000,000\n\n[Transcriber's note: L=GBP/Pounds Sterling.]\n\n{169} Let the future profits and expenses be set against each other,\nlike the last.\n-=-\n\n[end of page #207]\n\nwealth acquired by foreign trade, or by our industry at home; and that,\nat the same time, we see that it excites more envy and jealousy than all\nthe rest of the advantages we enjoy put together.\n\nBadly as men act in matters of interest, and much as envy blinds them\nin cases of rivalship, yet still there is a certain degree of justice\npredominant in the mind, that admits the claim of merit and true\ndesert. Every person, who has heard the conversation, or read the\nopinions of people in other nations, on the wealth and greatness of\nEngland, will allow, that, as commercial men, and as manufacturers,\nwe are the wonder of the world, and excite admiration; but,\nconcerning our dominion over India, and our plantations in the\nAmerican islands, foreigners speak very differently.\n\nIn order to bring down a nation, that has risen above its level, there is\nfollowed a system of enmity in war, and rivalship in peace.\n\nThe Portuguese seized on a lucky opportunity to undermine and\nsupplant the Venecians and the Genoese, who had long been the envy\nof all nations, for the wealth they obtained, by the monopoly of the\ntrade to India. The Dutch soon rivalled the Portuguese in trade, and\nthe Flemings in manufactures; and, indeed, there is no saying in how\ngreat a variety of ways the superiority of a nation may not be pulled\ndown.\n\nEngland, commencing later than any, has now obtained her full share\nof the commerce of the East, and of manufactures; but the nations that\nenvy the wealth of others have always several great advantages. The\nnation that is highest treads in discovery, invention, &c. a new path,\nand is never certain how far she can go, nor how to proceed. Those\nwho follow have, in general, but to copy, and, in doing that, it is\ngenerally pretty easy to improve. At all events, a day must arrive when\nthe nation that is highest, ceasing to proceed, the others must overtake\nit.\n\nAs the nation that is farthest advanced is ignorant of the improvements\nthat may be made, it does not feel what it wants; and, like a man in\nfull health, will give no encouragement to the physician. The countries\nthat follow behind act differently; and they generally, in order [end of\npage #208] to protect their rising manufactures, impose duties on\nsimilar ones imported; thus preventing a competition between old\nestablished manufactures, and those recently begun.\n\nSo far as priority of settlement, or of invention, give a superiority to a\nnation over others, the equalizing principle acts with a very natural\nand evident force; but, when the manners and modes of thinking of a\npeople have once taken a settled turn, in addition to their proficiency\nin manufactures, it does not appear easily to be altered.\n\nThe Germans excelled at working in metals, and possessed most of the\narts, in a superior degree to any other people in Europe, a few\ncenturies ago. In some arts they have been surpassed by the French, in\nmore by the Dutch, and in nearly all by the English. {170}\n\nConquests and colonies are wrested from nations suddenly and by\nforce; arts and manufactures leave them in time of peace, silently and\nby degrees, without noise or convulsion; but the consequences are not\nthe less fatal on that account; nor, indeed, is the effect slower, though\nmore silent. Though colonies or conquests pass away at once, such\nchanges only take place after a long chain of causes have prepared the\nway for them; whereas, manufactures are perpetually emigrating from\none country to another: the operation, though slow and silent, is\nincessant, and the ultimate effect great beyond calculation.\n\nA good government, and wise laws, that protect industry and property,\nand preserve, in purity, the manners of the people, are the most\ndifficult obstacles for a rival nation to overcome. Prosperity, which is\nfounded upon that basis, is of all others the most secure. There are\nsometimes customs and habits that favour industry, the operation of\nwhich is not perceptible to those who wish to imitate and rival\nsuccessful and wealthy nations.\n\nIn general, it is not to be expected that the southern nations can come\nin competition with those living in more northerly climates in\n\n---\n{170} The individual German workmen have not been excelled by the\nworkmen of any other nation, but the German nation itself has been\noutdone.\n-=-\n\n[end of page #209]\n\nthose manufactures, where continued or hard labour is necessary.\nNature has compensated the inhabitants of such countries for this\nincapacity, by giving them a fine climate, and, in general, a fertile soil;\nand, when they do justice to it, they may live affluent and happy. But,\nsince industry and civilization have got into northern countries, it is\nimpossible for the southern ones to rival them in manufactures.\n\nIt would be impossible for any people living on the banks of the Nile,\nwhere the finest linen was once manufactured, to rival the cloths of\nSilesia, or of Ireland: as well might we think to bring back the\ncommerce with India to Alexandria by the Red Sea.\n\nThe fine manufactures of India, notwithstanding the materials are all\nfound in the country, the lowness of labour, and the antiquity of their\nestablishment, are, in many cases, unable to keep their ground against\nthe invention and industry of Europeans. The art of making porcelain-\nware, from a want of some of the materials, has not, in every respect,\nequalled that manufactured in China; but in everything else, except\nmaterial, it excels so much, that the trade to that country in that article\nis entirely over.\n\nMany of the finest stuffs are nearly sharing the same fate, and they all\nprobably will do so in time. Those whom we hope to surpass are\ndetermined to remain as they are, while Europeans aim at going as far\nin improvement as the nature of things will allow.\n\nBut the nations that follow others in arts are not always confined to\nimitation, though we have seen that even there they have a great\nadvantage. It frequently happens that they get hold of some invention\nwhich renders them superior, in a particular line, to those whom they\nonly intended to imitate.\n\nWhen the superiority of a nation arises from the natural produce of the\nearth, such as valuable minerals, then it is very difficult for others to\nrival it with advantage; and it is very unwise of any nation to employ\nits efforts in rivalling another in an article where nature has given to\nthe other a decided advantage; and it is equally ill-judged of a nation\nto neglect cultivating the advantages which she enjoys from nature, as\nthey are the most permanent and their possession the most certain of\nany she can enjoy.\n\n[end of page #210]\n\nIf nations were to consider in what branches of manufacture they are\nbest fitted to excel, it would save much rivalship, misunderstanding,\nand jealousy; at the same time that it would tend greatly to increase\nthe general aggregate wealth of mankind. It is not to industry and\neffort alone that mankind owe wealth, but to industry and effort well\ndirected.\n\nThis is well explained in the excellent Inquiry into the Causes of the\nWealth of Nations, and it is to be regretted that this truth is not more\ngenerally understood; for it would contribute still more to the peace\nand happiness of mankind, than to their commercial wealth.\n\nThere is not, however, any subject on which nations are so apt to err,\nand, indeed, the error is natural enough, if the ambition of a rival is\nnot checked by judgement and attention to circumstances.\n\nWhen a nation is particularly successful in one branch of manufacture\nmore than in any other, it is generally because some peculiar\ncircumstances give it an advantage. This ought to operate as a reason\nfor doubting whether it might be prudent to attempt to rival a nation in\nan object in which it had particular advantages; but quite the contrary\nis the case; a rival nation aims directly at the thing in which another\nexcels the most, and frequently fails when, in any other object, she\nmight have proved successful. {171}\n\nThe changes of the taste and manners of mankind, as well as\ndiscoveries in arts and science, lay a foundation for political changes;\nbut it is an irregular foundation for change; its operation is sometimes\nin favour of, and sometimes against the same nation, and it never can\nbe calculated beforehand.\n\nAs the nations that have improved in manufactures the latest have\nalways carried them to the greatest perfection, it is natural to inquire\nhow this happens.\n\nThe exertion of the mind and body are both of them greatly aug-\n\n---\n{171} How many ridiculous attempts have been made, in the north, to\nrival the Italians in raising silk, and by enlightened men too; but it is\nnot sufficient to be enlightened, it is necessary to follow a proper train\nof reasoning.--Good natural sense sometimes supplies the place of\nregular reasoning, and, as if it were intuitively, arrives at a true\nconclusion.\n-=-\n\n[end of page #211]\n\nmented by success, and diminished by any thing of a contrary\ndescription. The rising nation has always an increased energy, and that\nwhich is about being rivalled a sort of discouragement and dismay.\nThis is one cause, but there are others.\n\nSo far as methods of working and machinery are connected, the\nimitating nation has the advantage; it copies the best sort of machine,\nand the best manner of working at once. The workmen have neither an\nattachment to the old inferior methods, nor do they use old inferior\nmachines, to avoid the expense of new ones. {172} In short, they\nadopt all improvements without much additional expense; and, as\nmen's minds are always more occupied in thinking about a new object\nthan an old one, they are even more likely to make improvements.\n\nAs to difficulties in rivalling a nation in skill, in any mechanical art,\nthere are none. The only difficulties in manufactures are in the\ninventions and improvements, and those have been overcome by the\nleading nation, and are no difficulties to that which follows. There are,\nindeed, some arts which require particular talents, and a real exertion\nof genius; but those are so few in number, and have so little\nconnection with the common affairs of mankind, or the wealth of\nnations, that they do not deserve to be noticed.\n\nThere is nothing in the art of weaving, or working in metals, or in any\nother material for common use, that is of such difficulty but that any\nman, with a common capacity, may do it nearly as well as any other\nman. The habits and manners of mankind, their disposition to labour,\nand the nature of the government under which they live, may\nencourage or discourage manufacturing; but both the strength and\ncapacity of any of the natives of Europe, taking them on an average,\nare fully sufficient to enable them to excel in any work.\n\n---\n{172} Where machines are very expensive, new improvements, that\nrequire other machinery, are sometimes crushed and rejected on that\naccount. To adopt them, a man must sometimes begin by sacrificing\nhalf his fortune, by destroying his old machinery.\n\nThere have been several instances of this seen, particularly in the\nmaking of iron, when it was proposed to convert the rough gueze into\ngood malleable iron bar, by rolling it at a welding heat, instead of\nhammering it by a forge-mill.\n-=-\n\n[end of page #212]\n\n{Here appears at page 212 the third chart, entitled\n\"Chart\nShewing the Amount of the\nExports and Imports\n-of-\nENGLAND\nto and from all parts\nfrom 1800 to 1805\"}\n\nThe British nation has begun to seek for wealth from agriculture. It\nhad long been the mode to pay attention and give the preference to\nmanufactures; but the current is, for the present, set in, in another\ndirection. Calculation has, till of late, been confined to mercantile\nmen; but, after all, they have not carried it to a very great length: and,\nas to their speculative wisdom, it consists chiefly in taking a ready\nadvantage of some immediate object.\n\nEXPLANATION OF PLATE NO. III.\n\nThe space from right to left is divided into years, each line\nrepresenting the year marked under and above. From the beginning of\nthe last century, till the year 1770, every tenth year only is expressed,\nand the average amount of exports and imports only is shewn; but,\nfrom 1770 to the present time, every year is separately represented by\na line going from the top to the bottom.\n\nThe divisions from top to bottom are millions of pounds sterling, each\nrepresenting a million, measuring from the bottom, the number of\nmillions indicated is marked on the right margin.\n\nAs the exports, which are expressed by a red line, increased or\ndiminished, the red line rises or falls, crossing the division\nrepresenting the year at the line which indicates the number of\nmillions to which the exports amounted that year.\n\nThe yellow line is drawn on the same principle, and represents the\nimports for the same years; the difference between the two, which is\nstained green, being the balance for or against England.\n\nThus, for example, we see that, till the year 1775, the exports rose\nvery fast, and were far above the imports, but that then their\nproportion begun =sic= to vary; insomuch that, in 1781, the yellow\nline rose above the red, when the balance in favour of England turned\nagainst it, to the amount of a million for one year. In 1782, the balance\nagain became favourable; but, though the trade was increasing, the\nbalance was once more, in 1785, against England; ever since which it\nhas been more or less in our favour.\n\nThe difference between the two lines is stained pale green, when the\nbalance was favourable, but of a pale red when against England.\n\n[end of page #213]\n\nThe advantages proposed by this mode of representing matters are the\nsame that maps and plans have over descriptions, and dimensions\nwritten in figures; and the same accuracy is in one case as the other;\nfor, whatever quantities can be expressed in numbers may be\nrepresented by lines; and, where proportional progression is the\nbusiness, what the eye does in an instant, would otherwise require\nmuch time.\n\nThe impression is not only simple, but it is as lasting in retaining as it\nis easy in receiving. Such are the advantages claimed for the invention\ntwenty years ago, when it first appeared; the claim has been allowed\nby many, and not objected to, so far as the inventor knows, either in\nthis or in any other country.\n\nEXPLANATION OF PLATE NO. IV.\n\nChart of revenue, from the time of Queen Elizabeth to the present day.\n\nTill the accession of William III. in 1688, the materials for this are not\naltogether accurate; but they are not far wrong, and indeed, the low\nstate of the revenue, previous to that period, is such that it is a matter\nof little importance whether or not they are very exact. It is\nrepresented here rather as a contrast to the present high revenue, and a\nmatter of curiosity, than as being of much importance.\n\nThe pale red part expresses the free revenue, or what is over, after\npaying the interest of our debt.\n\nThis free revenue has not increased so fast as the value of money has\ndecreased, previous to the year 1793; and certainly, at that time, the\nannual sum of 7,000,000 L. was no equal to 4,000,000 L. in the reign\nof Queen Anne.\n\nThe green part shews the annual interest of the national debt, and\nproves, beyond contradiction, that, under such a system, expenses of\nwar (for the whole debt has been contracted for wars) augment in\nmuch more than a simple proportion.\n\nThe yellow part, bounded by a curved line, shews the manner in which\nthe sinking fund will increase in its operation of paying off the debt,\non the supposition that the nation continues to borrow as it has [end of\npage #214] done for the last twelve years; setting apart one per cent.\non every new loan, for its liquidation.\n\nAs comparative views are the great object of these charts, a yellow\ndotted line is made, representing the amount of the revenue of France\nduring the same period, till 1789, when the revolution stopped its\nprogress; since which its amount has not been regularly known. {173}\n\n---\n{173} The author published an Atlas, containing twenty-seven charts\nof the different branches of commerce, revenue, and finance, of\nEngland, which was translated into French. The fifth edition, much\nimproved, and brought to the present time, is now printing, and will be\npublished in November.\n-=-\n\n[end of page #215]\n\n\n\n\nCHAP. III. [=sic=--error in printer's copy, should read II.]\n\n\n_Of Education, as conducted in England.--Amelioration proposed.--\nNecessity of Government interfering, without touching the Liberty of\nthe Subject_.\n\nThe importance of education has been already mentioned, as it in\ngeneral regards all nations, and certainly when we have examples to\nshew what are the lasting and terrible consequences of degradation of\nnational character and manners, it is impossible to pay too strict an\nattention to that subject.\n\nThe natural tendency in a nation, while growing richer, to alter its\ncharacter, owing to the different manner in which the children are\neducated and brought up, applies particularly to England, and to every\nnation getting rich by trade or manufactures. In another part, it has\nbeen observed, that where the wealth of a country circulates amongst\nthe labouring classes first, it alters the manner of living more than\nwhen it originates with the higher; it produces, also, a greater change\non the education of children.\n\nNo part of the general inquiry is so particularly applicable to England,\nin an excessive degree, as that relative to education. In proportion as\nignorant people arrive at that sort of affluence, which manufactures\nand trade produce, in that same proportion do they ruin their children.\nThe manners, the nature of the government, and the way of thinking of\nthe people, all lead to this in England; and so far as it is possible to\nobserve the effect, it may be said to appear as if it operated with\nrapidity at the present period.\n\nMany volumes have been written on education, by the ablest men; but\nit has already been observed, that they have all treated the subject in a\nmanner much too intricate and complex. Fully aware of the\nimportance, they seem to have thought that it could not be treated too\nmuch at length, or investigated too minutely; and, by this means, what\nthey have said is little applicable to general purposes; for, if to educate\na man for common life were a difficult complicated operation, it\nwould very seldom be performed. [end of page #216]\n\n{Here appears at page 216 the fourth and final chart, entitled\n\"Chart\nRepresenting the\nIncrease of the Annual Revenues\n-of-\nENGLAND AND FRANCE,\nfrom the beginning of the 17th Century to\nthe present time\"}\n\nThe word education itself appears to be misapplied or misunderstood,\nowing, probably, to its original construction and use, and no other\nword having been substituted in its place.\n\nBy education was meant, in former times, the teaching to read and\nwrite; and these accomplishments, which, at that time, distinguished a\ngentleman from the lower classes, and, by that means, education is\nstill considered as only applying to the learning of what is taught at\nschools or universities. It is principally in this light that those who\nhave written on it have viewed it, though in fact _well brought up\n(bien eleve)_ comes nearer to the meaning than being _well learnt_,\nwhich is equivalent to well educated.\n\nIn this, as in every other thing, the end in view should never be\nforgotten; but, as it happens with respect to the middling and lower\norders, it is forgotten so soon as affluence has made a little progress in\na country.\n\nThe education of the higher classes is generally pretty well conducted;\nand, indeed, human beings, when beyond the reach of want, who do\nnot inherit the necessity derived from Adam, of gaining their bread by\nthe sweat of their brows, require much more teaching than others,\nwhose conduct is regulated by necessity, and who have not the means\nof giving way to the passions that beset human nature.\n\nWith respect, however, to the higher classes, it is scarcely possible for\na government to interfere to much purpose. Those who are possessed\nof fortune will act according to inclination; and, in respect to this class\nof society, in England, it is already in less need of reform or\ninterference than any others, while the lower and middling classes\nrequire it more.\n\nThere is no possibility for an ignorant man to become of any\nimportance in this country, even with the aid of wealth and fortune.\nAn immoral character, or a mean selfish one, has not a much better\nchance, while, by talents and good conduct, every thing desirable may\nbe obtained: perhaps, nothing further can be done to excite men of\nrank and fortune to emulation and virtue.\n\nWith respect to the learned professions, the modes by which students\nare brought up to them are by no means unexceptionable; but that is\nnot a point of very great national importance; at any rate, [end of page\n#217] it is not the part in which England stands the most in need of\nattention {174} and interference from the government of the country.\n\nThe two classes to whom bringing up, as it is generally understood,\nwould apply better than the word education, are the middle rank of\nsociety, and the lower order of people in trade.\n\nThe middle rank of society is, in all countries, the most important in\npoint of principles and manners. To keep it pure is always of the\nhighest importance, and it is the most difficult, for there a baneful\nchange is the most apt to take place.\n\nGentlemen of rank, in all countries, resemble each other very nearly;\nnot, perhaps, in exterior, because that depends on fashion, which is\narbitrary, but in mind and manners there is less difference than\nbetween men in a second rank of society.\n\nThe lower orders, so far as they are forced, by necessity, to labour,\nresemble each other also; they are pressed by necessities and passions\non one side, and the desire of rest on the other; and a fair allowance\nbeing made for variety of climate, of circumstances, and of natural\ndispositions, there is nothing very different amongst them. {175}\n\nWhat applies with respect to the higher and lower orders does not\n\n---\n{174} Our lawyers (barristers) are probably superior to those of any\nother nation, and the clergy are, at least, equal. This is not, indeed,\nsaying a great deal; but it is so difficult, in matters of religion, to\ntemper zeal, and draw a line between emulation and fanaticism, that,\nperhaps, it is better that they should be a little remiss than righteous\novermuch. It is not in the education of churchmen, but in the manner\nof paying and providing for them, that the error lies; and that subject is\ntreated elsewhere.\n\n{175} Cervantes, in his admirable romance of Don Quixote, paints the\nmind of a gentleman, which all countries will acknowledge to be like\nthe truth. The madness apart, the manner of thinking and acting was\nthat of the gentleman of Spain, France, Germany, or England. Neither\nwas he the gentleman of the fifteenth or eighteenth century, but of any\nother century. His dress was Spanish; his madness and manners\nbelonged to the ages of chivalry and romance, but the mind and\nprinciples of the gentleman suited all ages and all countries.\n\nSancho, again, barring likewise his oddities, is the peasant of all\ncountries; studying to live as well as he can, and labour as little as he\nmay. In short, a mind continually occupied about personal wants, and\nalive to personal interest. In the middle ranks of society there is no\nsuch similarity.\n-=-\n\n[end of page #218]\n\napply at all to the middling classes, nor even to the most wealthy class\nof labourers in a manufacturing country: in those we can find no fixed\ncharacter; it is as variable as the circumstances in which the\nindividuals are placed, and it is there that a government should\ninterfere. It should interfere in guiding the richer classes of working\npeople, and the middling ranks, in the education of their children, and\nin assisting those of the lower orders, who are too much pressed upon\nby indigence.\n\nThe end in view in all education is to make the persons, whether men\nor women, fill their place well and properly in life; and this is only to\nbe done by setting a good example, instilling good principles,\naccustoming them, when young, to good habits; and, above all, by\nteaching them how to gain more than they are habituated to spend.\n\nIt follows from this, that industry, and a trade, are the chief parts of\neducation, that reading and writing are not, being but of a very\ndoubtful utility to the labouring class of society.\n\nOn this subject, it is absolutely necessary to advert to what Dr. Smith\nsays relative to apprenticeships; the opinion of so great a writer is of\ntoo much importance not to be examined, and refuted, if found wrong.\n\nApprenticeships, or teaching a trade, is the basis of the future\nhappiness and prosperity of the individual in the lower and middle\nclasses. On this subject, however, Mr. Smith says quite the contrary.\nThat the idleness of apprentices is well known, that their inducement\nto industry is small, and that, as to what they have to learn, a few\nweeks, or sometimes a few days, would, in most cases, be sufficient.\nIn short, he maintains, that they would learn better, be more\nindustrious and useful, if employed on wages, than if bound for a term\nof years; and, finally, that there were no apprentices amongst the\nancients. As to there being no apprentices in the ancient world, if that\nwas the case, is no argument with respect to the present state of things;\nfor, while most part of working men were slaves, there could not\npossibly be much occasion for apprentices; but are we quite certain,\nthat the freed men, so often mentioned, were not people who had\nserved apprenticeships? Freed men are so often mentioned, that there\nmust have been probably something else to which they owed their\nfreedom, besides the goodwill or [end of page #219] caprice of their\nmasters, particularly as that goodwill must have been exercised to\ndeserving objects, and consequently the sacrifice made in giving\nliberty was the greater. {176}\n\nAs men cultivated difficult arts; that is, as luxury increased, it must\nhave become difficult to get labour done by slaves, merely by\ncompulsive means; there must have been bargain and mutual interest\nsettled between the master and the slave, so as to accomplish the end\nintended. {177} Amongst rewards to a slave, liberty, at a certain\nperiod, is not only the greatest, but is the only one that effectually\nserves the slave; for, while he remains the property of a master, his\nrewards can consist of little else than good treatment, as all property\ngiven is liable to be taken back again.\n\nSupposing, however, the point yielded, and that there were no\napprentices in the early ages; but that the practice originated in the\ndays of ignorance; in the dark ages, under the feudal system, together\nwith the invention of corporations and privileged bodies, against\nwhose existence the whole set of economists have leagued together, as\nthe Greeks did against Troy; still the obscurity of the origin is no\nobjection. A constitution like that of Britain, for example, is not an\ninvention of antiquity; it took its rise in the dark ages and in times of\nignorance, but it is not for that the less an object of admiration. Many\nother examples may be furnished of the admirable things that took rise\nin the dark ages; and amongst them, not the least, is the abolition of\nslavery itself. {178}\n\nLet us, however, examine the effect of apprenticeships in those places\nwhere they can be compared with persons brought up entirely free.\n\n---\n{176} We may form some idea of the difficulty of getting work done\nby people in no way interested in the success, by the workhouses in\nthis country. The smallest quantity, and of the most simple nature, is\nall we get done, because the overseers are ignorant, and the nation\ninattentive, and the labour compulsive.\n\n{177} In Egypt, and most other ancient countries, the son followed, by\nlaw, the trade of his father: this was equivalent to an apprenticeship.\n\n{178} Whether it arose from the mixture of a northern with the\nsouthern people, or from what other cause, it is certain, that, during\nthe ages of ignorance, the foundation was laid for almost all that is\ngreat, at the present time.\n-=-\n\n[end of page #220]\n\nIf there are trades, where it is true, (as Mr. Smith affirms,) that the art\nof working may be learnt in a few weeks, what are the consequences?\nAt the age of sixteen or seventeen, a boy can get as much money as he\nwill be able to earn at any future time in his life; he will be able to get\nas much as a man, who has a wife and five or six children to maintain.\nThere will be required a very great share of moderation and wisdom,\nindeed, under such circumstances, to prevent such a boy from wasting\nhis money in ways that will incapacitate him from living easy when he\nshall become a father of a family himself, or from idling away the\nspare time that his gains afford him. He will, naturally, do part of\nboth: but the way that is generally done is this. Without controul from\na master, and totally independent of parents, who are quite left behind\nin poverty, (not having more to maintain their whole family than the\nyouth himself earns,) he despises them, saves a little money at first,\nand purchases finery. The novelty of dress soon wears off, and the\nmore immediate pleasures of eating, drinking, and keeping company,\nas it is termed, take the lead. The consequence of the same is idleness\nand rags. Ashamed to shew himself amongst persons of better\nconduct, the youth changes his place of residence and work; habit has\ngot hold of him, and labour becomes hateful; a soldier's life appears\nthe best for a youth of such a description; and, it is an undoubted fact,\nthat, at those places where trades are carried on, that can be learnt in a\nshort time, {179} there are more recruits obtained for the army than in\nany other districts of equal population. It is also an undoubted fact,\nthat, in these same districts, the most respectable people bind their\nsons apprentices; and, in doing so, they are guided by experience, and\naffection for their children, not by interested motives.\n\n---\n{179} This is not the case with many trades, and Mr. Smith is under a\nmistake as to the fact; but, granting it to be true, the places in\nquestion, Birmingham, Sheffield, Manchester, and other towns where the\ndivision of labour reduces every operation to great simplicity, are the\nbest for recruiting the army. In those places, all respectable people,\nwho can afford it, bind their sons apprentices, to prevent the danger.\n-=-\n\n[end of page #221]\n\nIn the other case, again, where a trade is not easily learnt, how is skill\nto be obtained but by an apprenticeship. The bringing the son up to his\nfather's trade, a practice that prevails in the eastern parts of Asia, is\none way; parental authority needs not the aid of a written indenture;\nbut, where this is not the case, who is to teach a youth, if he is not to\nbe bound for a certain number of years, but to go away as soon as he\nhas learnt a trade? The father, in some cases, may be able to pay for\nhis son learning the trade, and this experiment has sometimes been\ntried, but generally with very imperfect success. The youth, for the\nmost part, in those cases, considers himself as independent of the\nmaster, and gives himself very little trouble to learn his business.\n\nWhere the reward of the master, or rather the remuneration for his\npains and trouble, is to arise from the labour of the boy, the master is\ninterested in his learning; and the other feels an obligation, as well as\nan interest in learning. Though the apprentice is not absolutely paid\nfor what he does, he finds his ease, his importance, and comfort, all\ndepend on his proficiency; and, with young minds, such motives are\nmuch more powerful, and act through a better channel than avarice.\n\nThe power that the legislature gives to a master over his apprentice\nappears not only to be wise but necessary; and, if rewards for earning\na trade could be given, in addition to that without infringing on liberty,\nor burthening the state, it would be a great advantage.\n\nBut learning a trade is not the only advantage of an apprenticeship; a\ngood moral conduct, fidelity, and attention to his duties, are all\nacquired at the same time, or ought to be so; whereas, the youth who,\nat an early age, is left without control, is apt to learn just the\ncontrary.\n\nWhere people have fortune, circumstances give them a control over\ntheir children by expectancies; but, where there is no fortune, and\nchildren must provide for themselves, an apprenticeship is a substitute\nfor expectancies, which appears highly necessary; and it is wonderful\nhow so discriminating and profound a man as Dr. Smith could\noverlook so material a circumstance. It shews how far prejudice, and\nan [end of page #222] opinion once adopted, will lead men of the first\njudgement and genius astray; {180} for it is not to be supposed that\nany person will stand forward of himself to maintain an opinion\nagainst which experience speaks so decidedly.\n\nTo learn a trade, and be taught a good moral conduct, and attention to\none's duty, is certainly the essential part of education, both in the\nlower and middling classes; and that portion of education, which\nappears to have got an exclusive title to the name, reading and writing,\nare, with the working classes, a very inferior object.\n\nOne of the duties of government, then, is to watch over the education\nof the children of the middling and lower orders, which has a tendency\nto grow worse, as the nation advances in wealth.\n\nIn England, the pride of the middling classes is to have their children\neducated at boarding-schools, where the business of eating, sleeping,\ndressing, and exercise, is pretty well understood; where the branches\nof education, pretended to be taught, are little attended to, (writing,\nand some exterior accomplishments, of which the father and mother\ncan judge, excepted,) where moral conduct, the duties in life, and the\nconduct necessary to be followed, are scarcely once thought of.\n\nIt is true, that, till a certain age, it is generally not known for what\nparticular line of life a young man is intended; but, there are certain\nthings necessary to every line of life, and those should never be\nneglected. The habits contracted at schools are very often of a sort\nnever to be got the better of; and how can good habits be contracted\nwhen no attention is bestowed on the subject?\n\nThe consequence of this is, that, when the good sense of the father or\nmother, or of the boy himself, does not correct the evil, he is bred up\nto consider himself as born to be waited on, and provided for, without\nany effort of his own; he is led to suppose that he is to indulge\n\n---\n{180} In the notes upon the Wealth of Nations, this case is argued, but\nthe matter is too important not to be examined on every occasion and\nopportunity. The opinion here alluded to is that general way of\nthinking, respecting corporations, privileges, and regulations, or\nrestraints of every sort imposed on trade, which the writers on political\neconomy, in general, think ought all to be entirely done away.\n-=-\n\n[end of page #223]\n\nin a life similar to that his father leads at home, where a few\nindulgencies =sic= are the natural consequences of age, and the fair\nreturns for a life employed in care and industry.\n\nIn England, it would be absolutely necessary to make school-masters\nundergo an examination; not only at first, and before the school should\nbe licensed, but the boys should be examined twice a year, and the\nresult enregistered, so that the business would really be to learn\nsomething, and not merely to spend the time.\n\nThe small proficiency made in the schools, in England, and around\nLondon in particular, is incredible. It is even difficult to conceive how\nthe boys avoid learning a little more than they generally do, during\neight or ten years. {181} The masters pretend, for the most part, to\nteach boys Latin, by way of teaching them English, but without almost\never accomplishing it. In arithmetic, the common rules are taught, but\nscarcely ever decimal fractions, and almost never book-keeping, so\nuseful and so easy an art.\n\nWriting and spelling are better taught, perhaps, than in any other\ncountry, and, certainly, those are great advantages; but, according to\nthe time and money spent, it is the least that can be expected. Here we\nmay remark, that those are the only acquirements with the proficiency\nin which the father and mother are necessarily acquainted; it therefore\ngives reason for thinking, that, if the same check were held in other\nbranches of their education, they would be excited to make equal\nprogress.\n\nWhen the time comes that it is fixed on what line of life a young man\nis to adopt, then there should be schools for different branches, where\n\n---\n{181} Without contesting the point, whether dead languages are of\nany use, it will be allowed that the study costs pretty dear. Three-\nquarters of the time, for seven years employed on that is equal to five\nyears employed constantly, and twenty pounds a year, at least, is the\nexpense. Not above one in one hundred learns to read even Latin\ndecently well, that is one good reader for every 10,000 L. expended.\nAs to speaking Latin, perhaps, one out of one thousand may learn that,\nso that there is a speaker for each sum of 100,000 L. spent on the\nlanguage. It will, perhaps, be said, that Latin is necessary to the\nunderstanding English, but the Greeks, (particularly at Athens,) who\nlearnt no language but their own, understood and spoke it better than\nthe people of any other country.\n-=-\n\n[end of page #224]\n\nthere should be knowledge taught, analogous to the profession. For the\nmercantile line, for agriculture, for every line of life, boys should be\nprepared; and, above all, it should never be neglected to instil into\nthem the advantages of attention to industry, to doing their duty, and\nin every case making themselves worthy of trust.\n\nPublic examinations, such honours and rewards as would be\ngratifying, but not expensive, for those that excelled, would produce\nemulation. Though, perhaps, it is not of very great importance to excel\nin some of the studies to which a young man applies at school, yet it is\nof great importance to be taught that habit of application that produces\nexcellence.\n\nWith regard to the education of the lower classes, it would be no great\nadditional burthen to the nation if there were proper schools\nestablished in every parish in the kingdom, at the expense of the\npublic, in order that there might be a proper control over those who\nteach, and over what is taught. {182} Without going so far as to\ncompel people of the lower classes to send their children to school,\nthey might be induced to do it for a short time, and, at all events, care\nshould be taken that the teachers were fit for the office they undertake.\n\nIn no country do the lower classes neglect the care of their children\nmore, or set them a worse example, than in England; they are mostly\nbrought up as if the business of eating and drinking were the chief\npurpose of human existence; they are taught to be difficult to please,\nand to consider as necessary what, in every other nation in Europe, is\nconsidered, by the same rank of people, as superfluous.\n\nAlthough the lower orders have as good a right as the most affluent to\nindulge in every enjoyment they can afford, yet to teach this to\nchildren, without knowing what may be their lot, is doing both them\nand society an injury. A great number of crimes arise from early\nindul-\n\n---\n{182} As there are between nine and ten thousand parishes, twenty\npounds given in each, to which the schoolmaster would be allowed to\nadd what those who were able could pay, might perhaps answer the\npurpose, and would not amount to a great sum.\n-=-\n\n[end of page #225]\n\ngence of children, and from neglecting to instil into them those\nprinciples which are necessary to make them go through life with\ncredit and contentment. {183}\n\nThe Spartans used to shew their youth slaves or Helots in a state of\nintoxication, in order to make them detest the vice of drunkenness; but\nthis was the exhibition of a contemptible and mean person in a\ndisgraceful situation. The effect is very different when children see\nthose they love and respect in this state; it must have the effect of\neither rendering the parent contemptible, or the vice less odious, it\nperhaps has some effect both ways; but, at all events, it must operate\nas a bad example, and, amongst the lower classes, it is a very common\none.\n\nWhen a nation becomes the slave of its revenue, and sacrifices very\n=sic= thing to that object, abuses that favour revenue are difficult to\nreform; but surely it would be well to take some mode to prevent the\nfacility with which people get drunk, and the temptation that is laid to\ndo so. The immense number of public houses, and the way in which\nthey give credit, are undoubtedly, in part, causes of this evil. It would\nbe easy to lessen the number, without hurting liberty, and it would be\nno injustice if publicans were prevented from legal recovery for beer\nor spirits consumed in their houses, in the same manner that payment\ncannot be enforced of any person under twenty-one years of age,\nunless for necessaries. There could be no hardship in this, and it would\nproduce a great reform in the manners of the lower orders.\n\nThere are only three modes of teaching youth the way to well-doing,--\nby precept, by example, and by habit at an early age. Precept,\nwithout example and habit, has but little weight, yet how can a child\nhave either of these, if the parents are encouraged and assisted in\nliving a vicious life? Nations and individuals should guard\n\n---\n{183} The French, before the revolution, were not be =sic=\nconsidered as a more virtuous people than the English, yet there were\nfewer crimes, and less dissipation amongst the lower orders than in\nEngland, and more amongst the higher. The French, particularly the\nmothers, have less affection for their children, yet they brought them\nup better, both in habits and in principles.\n-=-\n\n[end of page #226]\n\nagainst those vices to which they find they have a natural disposition;\nand drinking and gluttony are the vices to which the common people\nin this country are the most addicted.\n\nWhatever other things may be taught, let this truth be instilled into all\nchildren brought up to earn their bread, that in proportion to their\ndiligence will be their ease and enjoyment, and that this world is a\nworld of sorrow and grief to the idle and the ignorant; that knowledge\ndoes not consist in being able to read books, but in understanding\none's business and duty in life, and that industry consists in doing it.\n\nFemale education, in England, requires as much reform as that of the\nother sex; but, though the subject is not much less important, it is\nperhaps still more difficult. It has been remarked, by those who have\ntravelled abroad, that, in other countries, women are in general not\nbetter, but rather worse dressed than men of the same rank: in England\nit is different; for, at an early age, the women are dressed, both as to\nstyle and quality of clothes, far above their rank. This might, perhaps,\nnot be difficult to account for, but it undoubtedly is a misfortune, and\none that is greatly increased by the mode of education and manner of\nthinking; for the main and indispensable virtue of that amiable sex\nexcepted, (for which Englishwomen are highly distinguished,) perhaps\nno women in the world are brought up in a more frivolous unmeaning\nmanner. The French women, with all their vivacity and giddy airs,\nhave more accomplishment; {184} and, as they speak their mind\npretty plainly, they have, on many occasions, testified surprise to find\nEnglish ladies, who had studied music for years, who could scarcely\nplay a tune, and who, after devoting years to the needle, were\nincapable of embroidering a pin-cushion.\n\nNovels, a species of light, insipid, and dangerous reading, are the bane\nof English female education. They teach a sort of false romantic\nsentiment, and withdraw the mind from attention to the duties of\n\n---\n{184} The emigrants have taught to ladies of rank, fashions; and to\nthose of an inferior class, arts and industry. The English women did\nnot know half what they could do, till the French came amongst them,\nabout twelve years ago.\n-=-\n\n[end of page #227]\n\nlife, at a time when it should be taught to learn their high importance.\nIn female education the government should interfere; for the education\nof the mother will always have an influence on the education of the\nson, as her conduct in life must have on that of her husband.\n\nAs one general observation, relative to the education given at most\npublic schools, it may be observed, that, whilst much time is taken up\nin teaching things that can never probably be of great utility, that\nspecies of knowledge that does not belong to any particular class, but\nwhich is of the utmost importance, is left to chance and to accident.\nWhile a boy is tormented with learning a dead language he is left to\nglean, as in a barren field, for all those rules of conduct on which the\nprosperity and happiness of his future life depends. {185}\n\nA public education is, in many respects, better than a private one for\nboys, but, in some things, it is inferior: consequently those who can\nafford it, and wish to give their sons the most complete education, try\nto unite the advantages of both, by sending them to a public school,\nunder the care of a private tutor. It is not in the power of the middling\nclasses to do this; but modes should be adopted to give the boys, either\nby books or public lectures, those instructions, relative to moral\nconduct, to prudence, behaviour, &c. which a private tutor gives to\nthose under his particular charge.\n\nAs to female education, it is a difficult subject: one great improvement\nwould, nevertheless, be not to allow above a certain number in any\none seminary; to have people of irreproachable conduct over them,\nand, wherever the parents can, to bring them home at the age of\nthirteen or fourteen. The public education ought certainly to finish at\nan early age, and, in all cases, with respect to females, a private is\nmuch preferable to a public education. {186}\n\n---\n{185} The most virtuous of the Roman emperors attributed to his\npreceptors every one of those excellent qualities he possessed. The\nancient education of Greece and Rome was very different from that of\nthe moderns.\n\n{186} Since this was written, we understand a book for this very\npurpose is about to be printed, with the professed design of uniting the\nadvantages of a public and private education.\n-=-\n\n[end of page #228]\n\n\n\n\nCHAP. III.\n\n\n_Of the Effects of Taxation in England_.\n\nWhat has been said of the increase of taxes, their tendency to ruin a\nnation, and bring on its decline, together with the counteraction\noccasioned by the continuance of necessity, as being applicable to all\nnations in general, applies, in every sense, to England, and even more\nto England than to any other nation. Taxes are carried to greater\nexcess than in any other country; and, as England flourishes by trade\nand manufactures, (the price of which taxes enhance,) they gradually\ntend to shut foreign markets against us. This has already been\nexplained; we, however, still have to inquire into the particular\nmanner in which it operates upon this country.\n\nThat the system of taxation, though irregular in England, is less so\nthan in any other country, in proportion to the extent to which it has\nbeen carried, is true; but still, however, if a number of the most\ntroublesome and ill-contrived taxes were done away, and others\nestablished in their place, it would be a great advantage.\n\nGreater danger arises from the augmentation of taxes in a wealthy\ncountry than in a poor one, when they stretch beyond the proper line,\nbecause the general prosperity hinders the effect from being visible,\ntill it has advanced beyond the power of remedy; whereas, in a poor\ncountry, the injury is soon felt.\n\nThe invention and industry of this country have been most\nwonderfully increased by the necessity of exertion, under the\nprotection of good laws, which rendered property secure. But we trust\ntoo much to our resources, and, like men in health and vigour, are the\nmost likely to injure our constitution.\n\nThe most part of the arts, in point of manufacturing, seem to have\ncome to nearly the last degree of perfection, so far as abbreviation of\nlabour can carry them. [end of page #229]\n\nThe division of labour, and the modes of working in the iron and\nmetal branches, have not of late been in any material degree improved\nin our towns, the most famous for them; and as to any particular gift\nof bringing things to perfection, or reducing prices, it does not appear\nto be confined to England. Watches and fire-arms are two of the most\ningenious and nice branches of metal manufactures; yet, at Liege, the\nlatter is carried to greater perfection than at Birmingham, and London\nand Lancashire are outdone by Switzerland, in the former. Those,\nindeed, are not manufactures of which the taste or form is constantly\naltering; but they are a proof of the ability to work with equal\nadvantage, both as to quality and price, with the manufacturers of this\ncountry.\n\nThe next great branches are the weaving. For silks, France has always\nhad the advantage of us; and our fine woollen cloths have never\nequalled those of Louvier and Sedan for quality, although, in point of\nprice, they have the advantage.\n\nIn linens, we enjoy no particular pre-eminence; and, in the American\nmarket, we are beginning to be undersold by those of Silesia. For a\nsecond quality of woollen cloth, and for the manufacture of cotton, in\nall its branches, we still have the superiority; but our great advantage,\nthe cause of the general preference to our manufactures is the long\ncredit we give, which, if it should ever cease to be practicable, would\nruin not one, but all our manufactures, nearly at a stroke.\n\nIt is very natural and very well for Englishmen, who have never been\nout of their own country, to ascribe to superiority of quality, (and\ninferiority of price is the same thing,) the great success they have in\nselling their goods in foreign countries; but such as have had an\nopportunity to see how it really is, know the contrary; and those who\nhave not, may know it by observing who are the individuals in any\nbranch of business at home that do the most, and they will find it\nalways to be those who have the power of giving the longest credit. It\nis true that, in the course of time, and by struggling hard, those who\nhave little means of extending their business at first, do it by degrees;\nbut, until they do, they never can, in point of quantity, rival those who\ngive long credit.\n\n[end of page #230]\n\nIn the inability of other nations to give equal length of credit, consists\nour principal advantage; but we have seen, by the vicissitudes of\nancient nations, that the wants of others, or their being behindhand,\nare but a very insecure tenure for the prosperity of any nation.\n\nThe exportation of Britain was but inconsiderable at the beginning of\nlast =sic= century, or about one-ninth of what it was two years\nago.{187} Previous to the American war, it gradually increased to\nabout three times what it was in the year 1700; that is, in seventy-five\nyears. The progression was pretty regular till the year 1750, when it\nhad risen to nearly double; but, in twenty-five years after, it increased\nas much as it had in fifty years before. The American war threw it\nback forty years, but it soon got up again to where it probably would\nhave been, had the American war not intervened; it, however, rose\nbeyond any thing that had ever been seen. It doubled in less than ten\nyears; and, from this, we are led to conclude, that the taxes had not\nthen begun to hurt national industry. But we shall see the reason, for\nthe great increase was not owing so much to any cause inherent in this\nnation, as to the absolute impossibility of other nations continuing\ntheir commerce. We had got all the East and West India trade of the\nFrench and Dutch, and America had again become our greatest\ncustomer for British manufactures.\n\nCapital that could be removed was, in a manner, banished from the\ncontinent of Europe, and had taken refuge in England, and a great\nextent of the continent had been desolated with war. We are not,\nhowever, to expect this amazing export trade to continue; indeed, it\nhas already fallen, in one year, as much as it ever rose in any three\nyears; it fell fifteen millions in one year. The taxes may have operated\nmuch against our prosperity, without our knowing it, in a crisis of this\nsort, though they did not absolutely counteract the favourable effect\nproduced by other causes.\n\nThe commerce of the American states, which were, (like England,)\nout of the vortex of danger, and secure, increased in fully as rapid\n\n---\n{187} In 1802, the exports amounted to 45,500,000 L. In 1702 to\n5,500,000 L.\n-=-\n\n[end of page #231]\n\na manner as ours, and fell off in the same way. We must not then,\nconsider as durable, or owing to ourselves, circumstances that arose\nout of the general and temporary situation of other nations.\n\nIt has been said in the general chapter on taxation, and again repeated\nin that on national debt, that both the one and the other operate, for a\ncertain time, in augmenting the industry and wealth of a country, but\nthat there is some point at which they begin to have a contrary effect;\nthat point, however, being dependent on a variety of circumstances, is\nnot a fixed one, it cannot be discovered by investigation before the\ntime, but it may by symptoms and signs that become visible soon\nafter.\n\nIt is a sign that a nation has passed the point at which taxes cease to be\na spur to industry, when the duties on consumption, or optional duties,\nwhich one may avoid paying, by not using the article taxed, become\nless productive than formerly, and when it is found necessary to lay\ntaxes on land, houses, and such sort of property as can be made to pay,\nindependent of the will of the proprietor.\n\nWhen taxes are laid upon property, not on consumption, it is to be\nsupposed the latter can bear no more. Taxes on property are forced\ntaxes; on consnmption =sic=, they are generally, to a certain degree,\nvoluntary, though not always so.\n\nThe augmentation of wealth has, in this country, been great, but it has\nnever been regular or uninterrupted; that of taxation has, on the\ncontrary, been uninterrupted, and this is better seen from the chart\nthan from any thing that can be said. There can be no doubt that,\nthough hitherto our increasing prosperity has been so great as to\ncounteract the effect of heavy taxation, yet that the same thing cannot\nbe expected to continue long. How long it may continue, or whether it\nhas not already ceased, or is on the point of ceasing, is uncertain; but\nthere is nothing more positive, than that, if taxes increase, they must,\nin process of time, crush industry, and, therefore, at all events, they\nshould be kept as low as possible.\n\nThe whole income of the country is estimated only at 150,000,000 L.\nThe taxes to the state amount to 40,000,000 L. and those for the\nmaintenance of the poor to 5,500,000 L. But this is the mere money\nac-[end of page #232] count, without estimating loss of time, trouble,\nand inconvenience; so that it may fairly and reasonably be put down at\none-third of the whole revenue or income of the individuals, yet the\ncomplaints are not so loud, and the clamour is not so great, as when\nthey did not amount to one-twentieth of that revenue. This may,\nhowever, be accounted for.\n\nOne-third part of revenue is derived from the state itself, so that there\nare but two-thirds remain independent of it. The habit of bearing\nburthens, and experience of the inutility of complaint, are likewise\nreasons for acquiescence; besides these, we cannot but all be sensible,\nthat complaints were very violent when there was little occasion for\nthem. We cannot deny, that the nation has been prospering for a\nhundred years, while the cry of ruin has been resounding perpetually\nin every corner; it is therefore natural to mistrust our fears, and sit in\nsilence, waiting the event.\n\nThe portion of our expense that consists in interest of money, on\nwhich no economy can operate, is so great, that it prevents any hope\nof much diminution from economy; and, indeed, in the time of peace,\nno economy that could be practised, more than what has commonly\nbeen done, would diminish our burthens one-fiftieth part. Even that\nwould be very difficult, perhaps impracticable; for our free revenue, in\ntime of peace, has not augmented in proportion to the diminution of\nthe value of money; so that, in 1792, the expenses of the state were\ncomparatively less than in the reign of Queen Anne.\n\nEconomy, then, is not the mode in which we must seek relief in time\nof peace. To carry on war in a less expensive manner in future, and\ntake a solid and effectual method of reducing our debts, are the means,\nboth of which are treated of in their proper place.\n\nThe modes of relief then, are three:\n\n1. Economy in war.\n\n2. A solid and fair method of reducing the present interest.\n\n3. Attention, to render the system of taxation as little troublesome, and\nas fair and equal as possible.\n\n[end of page #233]\n\n\n\n\nCHAP. IV.\n\n\n_Of the National Debt and Sinking Fund.--Advantages and\nDisadvantages of both.--Errors committed in calculating their\nEffects.--Causes of Error.--Mode proposed for preventing future\nIncrease_.\n\nIn no circumstance does the British empire differ so widely from all\nnations recorded in history, or from any now in existence, as with\nregard to the national debt.\n\nNot only the invention of contracting debt to carry on war is but of\nrecent origin, but no nation has ever carried it to near the extent that it\nhas arrived at in England. The Italian states, in which this mode was\nfirst practised, never had the means of carrying it very far. In Spain,\nFrance, and Holland, national debt met with obstacles that arrested its\nprogress long before it arrived at the pitch to which it has now come in\nthis country.\n\nThe interest of the debt is above thrice the free revenue of the country,\nin time of peace, as that revenue was, previous to hostilities in 1793.\n\nWhenever any operation is begun, the result of which is not known,\nowing to its being new, but which is in itself of great importance; the\nanxiety it occasions must be great, and, generally, the alarm is more\nthan proportioned to the danger. If ever this truth was exemplified in\nany thing, it has been with regard to the national debt of England,\nwhich has been a continual object of terror since its first creation; not\na public terror, merely amongst the ignorant, but the most profound\nand enlightened statesmen. Calculators, and writers on political\neconomy, have served to augment the uneasiness by their predictions\nof a fatal termination.\n\nWhile the debt has been augmenting with great rapidity, the wealth\nand resources of the nation have, at least, augmented equally fast, and\nthe matter of fact has given the lie to all the forebodings of those who\n[end of page #234] occasioned the alarm. This very extraordinary\ncircumstance merits an investigation.\n\nIt unfortunately happens, that, where people are deeply interested in a\nsubject, they form their opinion before they begin to examine and\ninvestigate, and consequently the mind commences with a bias, and\nacts under its influence, the consequence of which is, that the\nconclusion is not so accurate as it otherwise would be. Not that, in\ncalculating with figures, the disposition of the mind can make an unit\nof difference, the question being once fairly stated; but the previous\nimpression on the mind tends to prevent the fair statement of the\nquestion.\n\nThat an uninterrupted practice of borrowing must end in an inability to\npay is a self-evident axiom. It is not a matter that admits of dispute;\nbut to fix the point where the inability will commence is a problem to\nresolve of a very difficult nature; it is indeed a problem, the re-\nsolution =sic= of which depends upon some circumstances that cannot\nbe ascertained. There are, it is true, certain fixed principles; but there\nare some points also that depend on events entirely unconnected with\nthe debt, and, in themselves, uncertain. Two great considerations, that\noperate powerfully, have been omitted by most writers on this subject.\nThe first, is the increased energy of human exertion, under an\nincreased operation of necessity; the second, is the effect that the\ndepreciation of money has, on lessening the apparent burthen\noccasioned by the interest of the debt. That these two causes, which\nhave not been taken into account, have rendered the calculations\nerroneous, there is not a doubt; and how far they may still continue to\noperate is, at this time, as uncertain as ever; but they ought not to be\nconsidered as of operation beyond a certain unknown point, else the\npractice of contracting debt would be capable of infinite extension,\nwhich is impossible.\n\nBut the augmentation of the debt itself is not the only circumstance\nthat excites attention, as intimately connected with the fate of this\nnation.\n\nThe increasing wealth and prosperity of the nation, under the heavy\nload of taxes, of which the debt is the principal occasion, is as much a\nmatter of surprize as the ultimate result is an object of anxiety.\n\nSo long, however, as the nation is not actually born =sic= down by the\n[end of page #235] weight of taxes, its wealth must increase; and,\nwhat is considered as a very strange phenomenon, is only the natural\nand necessary consequence of increased taxation.\n\nWhen men inhabit and cultivate land of their own, they are under no\nnecessity of creating any greater value than they consume; but, when\nthey pay RENT and TAXES, they are laid under a necessity of\nproducing enough to supply their own wants, and to pay the rent and\ntaxes to which they are subject. The same is the case with regard to\nmanufacturers in every line of business, for though they do not,\nperhaps, consume any part of what they produce, (what comes to the\nsame thing is that,) they are obliged to produce as much as will\nexchange, or sell, for all they want to consume, over and above paying\ntheir rent and taxes.\n\nWithout rent and taxes there are only three things that excite the\nexertion of man:--Necessity, arising from natural wants; a love of\npleasure; or, a love of accumulation.\n\nWhen a man labours no more than for his mere natural necessities, he\nis a poor man, in the usual acceptation =sic= of the word, that is, he\nhas no wealth; {188} and a nation, peopled with such men, would\njustly be called a poor nation. When a man labours for nothing more\nthan what he expends on pleasure, or to gratify his taste and passions,\nit is still the same, he consumes what he creates, and there is an end of\nthe matter; and, whether he creates much or little, as his consumption\nis regulated by it, no difference is made to society; but, when rent and\ntaxes constitute a part of the price of every commodity, the\nconsumption of every man, whether he pays any taxes directly or not,\nhimself, is attended with an increase to the revenues of those who\nreceive the rent and taxes, and obliges him to create more than he\nconsumes.\n\n---\n{188} Some philosophers call a man rich, who wants little, and has\nthat little; they are quite right, in their way, but that does not apply\nhere. Perhaps, according to their definition, the Lazzaroni of Naples\nare richer than the merchants of London; and, a man who is contented\nin a parish work-house, is, beyond dispute, rich; to say that such a man\nis wealthy would be absurd, because wealth, with writers on political\neconomy, implies being possessed of real tangible property.\n-=-\n\n[end of page #236]\n\nIt arises from this, that the aggregate wealth of a people increases with\nrent and taxes; for, where there are neither, the desire of accumulation\nis the only thing that increases wealth. {189}\n\nIt is for this reason, that, by obliging a man to create more than he\nhimself consumes, taxation increases the wealth of a nation; so that\nthe flourishing state of England is a very natural effect of heavy\ntaxation. The misery and poverty of those people who have little or\nnothing to pay, is equally natural, though it does not astonish one quite\nso much.\n\nAs there is nothing in the world without a bound, and a limit, it is\nclear, that, in laying it down as a principle, that rent and taxes\noccasion wealth instead of poverty, it is only to be understood, to a\ncertain extent; that is to say, to the length to which the nature of things\nwill admit of the exertion of man augmenting his industry, but not a\nstep farther.\n\nTo ascertain this point would be to solve a most curious problem;\nobserving, that the solution would, in every case, depend on a great\nvariety of particular circumstances.\n\nSomething like a general investigation, however, is possible. It will\nnot be accurate, nor is that wanted, but it may lay the foundation for\nunderstanding the matter better at a future period.\n\nIn London, rent and taxes are heavier than in any other part of the\nkingdom, and in Scotland they are less than in any other; yet, the\nworking people, from all parts of the kingdom, come to London, and\nfrom the poorest places, in the greatest numbers. Ireland, Scotland,\nand Wales, are the poor countries, _lightly taxed_, and from them\n\n---\n{189} Accumulation is sometimes not a passion, but arises from\nnecessity; by accumulation, is meant the increasing the value of the\nstock you possess, whether it consists of land, cattle, money, or\nmerchandize.\n\nThus, for example, the Americans are increasing in wealth, from\nnecessity, because their country is becoming better, by being\ncultivated, in order to produce what is necessary. They cannot have\nwhat they want, in the way they wish, without increasing or bettering\nthe property of which they have taken possession.\n\nIf they had no more rent and taxes than they have, and if this were not\nthe case, they would remain a poor people. Thus, the inhabitants of\nSyria, of Egypt, of Arabia Felix, formerly the finest countries in the\nworld, having a property that does not better in their possession, and\nhaving scarcely either rent or taxes to pay, remain, from generation to\ngeneration, creating little, and consuming what they create.\n-=-\n\n[end of page #237]\n\npeople come, perpetually, to pay _heavy taxes_ in London. Yes, but it\nwill be said, in answer, these are poor countries. They are, however,\nricher than England was in the days of Queen Elizabeth; and, if the\nnature of things could have admitted of people _changing centuries_,\nas they _change countries_, the people of the seventeenth century,\nwith light taxes, would have emigrated to the nineteenth century, with\nall its heavy taxes, just as those Irish and Scotch come to London.\n\nThis proves that, even in London, the excess of taxes is not yet such as\nto create a retrograde effect, and it proves it in a very striking manner.\nThough there may, at first sight, appear something ludicrous in the\nidea of emigrating from the seventeenth to the nineteenth, from the\nreign of Queen Elizabeth to that of his present majesty, it is a perfectly\nfair comparison, and will hold good, examine it as much as one will.\nThe common expression, (and a very significant one it is,) that one\npart of the country is a century behind another, or twenty years, or\nfifty years, is exactly the same idea, expressed in other words, for it is\na comparison between the changes which a lapse of time makes in one\ncase, and a removal of place in the other. The present times are then\nbetter to live in than those of Elizabeth, as London is better than any\ndistant part of the country.\n\nThat the ability of the nation to sustain a given burthen, for a certain\nnumber of years, is no proof of a permanent ability to support it, must\nbe admitted, even if the same annual resources were to continue; but,\nthat permanent ability becomes much less certain, when we consider\nthat the annual resources are perpetually varying, that, therefore, they\nhave so many uncertain quantities, that it is impossible to resolve the\nproblem.\n\nAs to the effect, with respect to the increasing the burthens of the\npeople, that has been treated under the general head of taxation.\nWhether the money goes to pay for a ship of war, a regiment of\nsoldiers, or the interest of loans, makes no difference to him who pays\nthe tax; and, indeed, makes little to the general system of national\neconomy, as, in every case, what is paid to the state is employed on\nunproductive labourers or idle people. That is to say, it is consumed,\nand never appears again.\n\n[end of page #238]\n\nNational debt, then, so far as it increases the taxes of a country, is like\nany other national expenditure; and, in maintaining unproductive and\nidle people, it is also the same; but it has, in another point of view, a\ndifferent effect, and that effect is an advantageous one.\n\nIn every nation, the greatest part of the capital is employed, or, as it is\ncalled, sunk. Land, houses, machines, merchandize, &c. are the\nprincipal employments of capital. As those are transferred from one to\nanother, or as the use or produce of them is paid for, by one to\nanother, money is wanted occasionally; and, if there were no other\nemployments, money must either be lying idle in some persons =sic=\nhands, till an employment could be found for it, or the possessor of it\nmust begin some enterprise, and sink it himself.\n\nBut, when money is thus employed, it is no longer in the power of the\nproprietor; and, though money may be borrowed on such sort of\nsecurity, it is slowly, and with difficulty. The expense, the\ninconveniency =sic=, and time necessary, prevent the lenders of\nmoney from lending any for occasional purposes on such sort of\nsecurity; but when a nation borrows, and the stock is divisible and\ntransferable at will, money can always be realized when it is wanted\nfor any purpose that affords a greater advantage than the stock affords.\n{190}\n\nWithout this had been one of the effects of national debt, how could\nthe facility of borrowing have increased, {191} as it has done? or how\ncould merchants and individuals raise the sums they now do? {192}\n\n---\n{190} In 1793, 5,000,000 L. was lent to merchants on exchequer-bills.\nThe property, on which the money was secured, was really\nmerchandize, but the lenders would have nothing to do with the\ngoods; government stepped in, and took the goods as a security,\ncreating a stock transferrable, that represented the same goods, and, as\nif by magic, the money was found in a moment. I know of no\noperation so fit for elucidating the advantage of national debt as this.\n\n{191} Borrowing on life rents is bad, for this reason; where there is no\nemployment of this sort, all money is constantly employed in some\nsort of trade or enterprise that will produce profit, but cannot be\nrealised. Example, Paris, &c.\n\n{192} When money was wanted, in Queen Anne's time, the\nChancellor of the Exchequer, (Mr. Montague,) attended by the Lord\nMayor and Sheriffs, went about, from shop to shop, to borrow it,\nmuch in the way that is occasionally practised by the beadles for a\npublic charity!! Yet England's credit was good, it owed little, the war\nwas popular, and the country rich.\n-=-\n\n[end of page #239]\n\nIt must be allowed that one hundred millions, or at least a much\nsmaller sum than our debts amount to now, would have produced this\neffect, and might answer every purpose of this sort, but there is still a\nconsideration arising from the fluctuations in a stock, when it is small,\nand also from the number of persons possessed of it. People buy in\nand sell out with total indifference when the quantity is great, and the\nfluctuations small; but, the moment the funds are agitated, whether in\nrising or falling, money becomes scarce for those who want it for\nother purposes.\n\nThat the number of persons ready to buy and sell must be\nproportioned, in some degree, to the quantity of stock, is of itself so\nevident, that it would be useless to enlarge upon it; but it must be\ngranted that the national debt has long ago passed the sum that was\nnecessary to produce this advantage.\n\nWe find, then, that the evils attending the increase of debt are greatly\ncounteracted by the debt itself, and that, to a certain amount, it is\nproductive of a very considerable advantage to a trading nation. As\nthose who calculated its ill effects, and foretold the ruin it would bring\nupon the state, did not take into account those circumstances, the\nresult of their enquiries was necessarily wrong, in point of time,\nthough the effect of which they spoke is perfectly certain to take place,\nif the debt continues to increase. Their reasoning may be compared to\nthat of an astronomer, who observed the position of a planet, but, in\nhis calculations, made no allowance for the refraction of the\natmosphere, who would therefore err as to the place of the star, but not\nas to its existence.\n\nLet us now consider the natural consequence, supposing that future\nincrease is prevented by means of the sinking fund established for that\npurpose. As to the probability of this, it depends on so many\ncircumstances that are concealed in the womb of time, that it would be\nmadness to give any other than a hypothetical solution of the question.\n\nIf the war continues, and expenses increase nearly as they have\nhitherto done, great as is the operation of a sinking fund, it will not\nhave time to counteract the evil. If the war stops soon, it will dim-\n[end of page #240] inish the debt with a most prodigious rapidity,\n{193} if it continues; the question, whether taxes can be found to pay\nthe interest or not? can only be answered as a matter of opinion, which\nis, in a case of this sort, equivalent to no answer at all.\n\nWith respect to the supposed case of the debt augmenting, the\nobservations that apply to that have been made already; they now only\nremain to be made with respect to the debt being paid off.\n\nIt has been observed already, in the chapter on Taxation, that the case\nof taxes being taken off to a great amount would be a new one of\nsudden and hurtful operation. Wages of labour would be diminished,\nas well as the burthens on those who live on settled income; it would\ntherefore render people of fixed income more affluent, without giving\nease to those who want it; in short, as the augmentation of taxes falls\nmost on people with fixed incomes, so the advantages of this would\nprincipally be felt by them; and, as the baneful operation carries a sort\nof counteracting antidote with it, so, likewise, this beneficial operation\nwould be attended with some drawback and inconveniency =sic=.\n\nThe diminution of taxes, though the ultimate is not, however, the\nimmediate consequence of the operation of the sinking fund, the\nefficacy of which depends on the taxes being kept up to their full\nextent for a considerable time. =sic= The first effect of the fund is,\nthat a large sum, annually expended, as revenue drawn from the\nsubject, is reimbursed to the stockholders, and becomes capital.\n\nThis would immediately raise the funds, and thereby would counteract\nthe sinking fund itself in a very material degree. Money would\nbecome abundant for all the purposes of trade, and it would be\ndifficult\n\n---\n{193} A sort of ridicule has been thrown on the operation of\ncompound interest, because its effects are so amazing as not to be\ncapable of being realized; but, on this subject, two things are to be\nsaid,--first of all, it has never been to the operation during the first\nhundred years that either incredulity or ridicule have applied, and the\nsinking fund was never meant to continue to operate so long.\nSecondly, though there are many drawbacks on the employment of\nlarge sums laid out at interest, that diminish, and would at last destroy,\nthe result of the calculation in accumulating; it is not so in paying off\ndebt, where the effect calculated is produced with the greatest\ncertainty.\n-=-\n\n[end of page #241]\n\nto find employment for it; and, if the progress continued, part of it\nwould most undoubtedly be sent to other countries, and so be the\nmeans of impoverishing this.\n\nIf, then, we could suppose fifty years of peace, and that the national\ndebt could be paid off, (as it might be in that time,) the situation of\nproductive labourers would be worse; of unproductive, better; and,\nfinally, capital would leave the country, which would be deprived of\nthat transferable stock, the beneficial effects of which have been\nmentioned.\n\nThe necessity that creates industry would be diminished, so that\nnothing could tend more effectually to bring on the decline of the\nnation than if all the debt were to be paid off; an operation which,\nthough possible in calculation, never certainly would take place; the\nevils attending it would be so manifest, so clear, and so palpably felt\nbefore that was accomplished.\n\nTo let the national debt continue to increase is, then, certain ruin, at\nsome period unknown, but perhaps not very distant; to pay it off\nwould be equally dangerous: what then are we to do?\n\nWe must try to raise the resources necessary for war within the year,\nby which means we may avoid augmenting the debt. That is not,\nhowever, to be done while the present heavy interest remains, and that\ncannot be got rid of, according to any method yet publicly known,\nwithout bankruptcy, breaking faith with creditors, or paying off the\ndebt; a resource in itself dangerous, and one that, after all, would bring\nrelief at a very distant day.\n\nSince the debt has been contracted, let it be kept up; but let a mode be\ntaken of reducing the interest, without breaking faith with the creditors\nof the state, so that we may never be obliged to borrow any more.\n\nAt present, the sum that goes annually for interest, and for the sinking\nfund, (that is for paying off capital,) amounts to twenty-four millions,\nand the expenses of a year of war do not exceed that sum. Twelve\nmillions of this may be found by war-taxes, and twelve millions\ndiminution of the interest would just leave a residue sufficient to pay\nfor a constant state of war; and, if peace came, the war-taxes would be\ntaken off. The enemies of England would then not be able to make\nnotches [end of page #242] in a stick, and say, \"When we come to\nsuch a notch England will be ruined.\"\n\nIf this could be done it would be a solid and permanent system of\nrevenue, arising out of an unsolid and transitory one.\n\nAny thing like want of faith with the creditors would, however, not\nonly be disgraceful and dishonourable, but would reduce such\nnumbers to beggary, and ruin credit so completely, that the nation\nwould be lost for ever; and, certainly, if we are to be ruined, there is\nno balancing between ruin with honour and ruin with disgrace.\n\nThere is a mode that would be fair and practicable, and the present is\nthe most favourable moment for executing it; indeed, it is perhaps the\nonly one when it has been practicable or would be just. By\npracticability and justice, two words very well understood, we mean,\nin this instance, that it is a moment when those who would have to pay\nthe difference would be willing to do it, would see their interest in\ndoing it, and would feel that they ought to do it.\n\nWe mean not to propose any of those imaginary means, by which\ndebts will be paid off without burthens laid on. We have no talent for\nschemes, where all is produced from nothing, and no faith in their\npracticability.\n\nThe late and present wars, which have occasioned one-half of the debt,\nand for which our exertions are to be continued, were undertaken for\nthe preservation of property; for, though the French system is so\ncompletely bad that even the beggars in England would be losers by\nadopting it, yet, it will be allowed, that the evil to people of property\nwould be much greater than to those who have no property. Let us\nlook to Flanders, Holland, and other countries, and say no if we can.\n\nIt was on this idea that an income-tax, afterwards termed a property-\ntax, was laid on, by which the rich are made to pay, and the poor are\nexempted. The justice and expediency of this was universally\nadmitted: there might be some difference of opinion as to modes and\nrates, but there was none as to the general principle.\n\nWe would, then, propose to RAISE LOANS, at a low rate of interest\nto reimburse the present creditors, ON THE SAME PRINCIPLE ON\nWHICH THE PROPERTY-TAX EXISTS, in the following manner:\n\nThere are, by Mr. Pitt's calculation, (and his may be taken [end of\npage #243] in order to prevent caviling) 2,400,000,000 L. of capital in\nthe kingdom. Let us then create a two and a half per cent. stock, into\nwhich every person possessed of property should be _compelled_ to\npurchase at par, in proportion to their capital, so as to redeem fifty\nmillions every year, thereby creating fifty millions of new debt at two\nand a half per cent. and reimbursing an equal sum bearing an interest\nof five per cent.\n\nA loan of two per cent. per annum, on each man's capital would do\nthis, and would never be an object for the safety of the whole,\nparticularly as it would only last for ten years. As he would have\ninterest at two and a half per cent. he would, in reality, only lose half,\nthat is, one per cent. a year during twelve years; so that a man, with\n10,000 L. would only have given 100 L. a year for twelve years.\n\nAt the end of ten years, the interest of the national debt would be\nreduced to one-half its present amount, which, together with the war-\ntaxes, would be sufficient to prevent the necessity of creating more\ndebt. This, however, is not all, a more prompt effect and advantage\nmay be expected. It is more than probable, that the moment our enemy\nfound that the nation, could, without any great exertion, put its\nfinances on a permanent footing, the present contest would finish. It is\nnow only continued, in hopes of ruining our finances, and it is on the\naccumulation of the debt that the expectation of that is alone founded.\n\nWe observed, in the beginning of this Chapter, that most people are\nbiased by hope or fear, in examining a question of great importance;\nand that, therefore, they do not state it quite fairly, without being\nsensible of their error. In the case of the gloomy calculators of this\ncountry, fear and anxiety operated in causing a misstatement; but, with\nregard to our enemies, hope is the cause of their magnifying the effect\nof our national debt, and, it must be allowed, that hope had seldom\never a more easy business to perform. The general conclusion is\ncertain, and all the question that remains, is with respect to time.\n\nThe only mode of putting an end to this hope of our enemy, and to the\nwar, at once, will be by shewing that enemy _that it is quite out of his\npower to augment our debt_, but untill =sic= a method shall be\nadopted by [end of page #244] us, that is PRACTICABLE AND\nEASILY UNDERSTOOD, that will not be believed by our enemy.\n\nThe rapidity of the operation of a sinking fund is easily calculated, but\nnot so easily credited, particularly by people not inclined to do so, and\nwho would not themselves have the constancy and self-denial to leave\nit time to operate. Besides, by this operation, we shall not get free of\ndebt till the taxes are raised far above their present amount. Our\nenemies may be pardoned for believing it impracticable, particularly\nas many of our friends are of the same opinion.\n\nFrance, which has always been the rival of this country, and hates it\nnow more than ever, (envy being now an ingredient of its hatred,)\nknows well that it is fallen and degraded, that it has less wealth and\nhappiness than England; but then it considers, that, however bad its\nfinances may be, they are getting no worse; that to continue the war\nfor twenty years will bring no more ruin on the nation, while half the\nterm would probably ruin us. Till we show the fallacy of this\ncalculation, we cannot expect a durable peace. Our ruin is become an\nobject, not only of ambition, but of necessity, as it were, to France;\nand nothing but despair of being able to accomplish their object will\nmake them abandon the attempt.\n\nWe must be permitted here to ask a few questions:\n\nIs not the time favourable for the plan here proposed?\n\nWould it not be fair in its operation?\n\nWould it not bring relief effectually and speedily?\n\nWould it not reduce our burthens, without breaking faith with the\ncreditors of the state?\n\nWould it not reduce the interest, without setting too much capital\nafloat, that might leave the country?\n\nCould our enemies then calculate on the national debt destroying\nEngland?\n\nThe affairs of nations, it has been observed, become so complicated,\nand the details so multiplied, that those who have the management of\nthem are scarcely equal to the business of the day; and they have no\nleisure to inquire into the best modes of keeping off evil when it is yet\ndistant; of this we have had ample experience.\n\n[end of page #245]\n\nAllowing all the credit possible to the sinking fund, (and a great deal\nis due,) still during war its operation is a sort of paradox; it does not\nobtain relief: it is liable to be questioned; but we are come to a point,\nwhere the stability of our finances ought to be put out of doubt, and\nbeyond all question. The mode of settling our affairs ought not only to\nbe such as in the end may succeed, but its efficacy and practicability\nought to be such as our enemies can understand and give credit to.\nWithout this, we shall have no end to the contest.\n\nWith respect to what our enemies will give credit to, a good deal\ndepends on their own natural disposition. A fickle and arbitrary\npeople, who are continually breaking their faith, can have little belief\nin the constancy of a sinking fund, but they will be perfectly well\ninclined to believe, that men of property may be compelled, and will\neven be glad to pay one per cent. a year, for ten years, to ensure the\nsafety of that property. Supposing then that the sinking fund were the\nbetter plan of the two in reality, it would not be so in the present\ncircumstances, because it would not obtain credit, and the other will.\n\nAs to the rest, deprive the French of their hopes of ruining our\nfinances, and they will make peace on reasonable terms, whenever we\nplease; their object for continuing the war will then be at an end; and,\nif they do continue it, we can go on as long as they can, without any\naddition to our burthens.\n\nWhatever the cause of a war may be, the hope of success is the only\npossible motive for persisting in it. The French have been led into two\nerrors; first, by the comparison of this country to Carthage, and of\ntheir own to Rome, (an absurd comparison that does not hold,) and, in\nthe second place, by looking on our ruin, from the increase of our\ndebt, as certain. We ought to undeceive them, and then they will have\nless inclination to persist in war. No pains has hitherto been taken to\nset them right; nor, indeed, with respect to the national debt, can it\never be done by the present method, till they see the effect; for though\nthe progress of a sinking fund in peace is easily understood, in time of\nwar there is much appearance of deception; it looks like slight =sic=\nof hand more than a real and solid transaction.\n\n[end of page #246]\n\n\n\n\nCHAP. V.\n\n\n_Of Taxes for the Maintenance of the Poor.--Their enormous\nIncrease.--The Cause.--Comparison between those of England and\nScotland.--Simple, easy, and humane Mode of reducing them_.\n\nAmongst the interior causes that threaten England with decline,\nnone is more alarming than the increasing expenses of the poor;\nexpenses evidently rising in a proportion beyond our prosperity, and\ntotally without example, either in the history of past times, or in that\nof any modern nation.\n\nThe poor of England cost more to maintain than the free revenue of\nthe country amounted to thirty years ago, and to nearly three times the\namount of the whole revenues of the nation, at the time of the\nrevolution.\n\nThe proportion between the healthy and the sick cannot have changed\nso much as to account for this augmentation; we must, therefore, seek\nfor the cause elsewhere.\n\nIt probably arises from several causes; the increasing luxury, which\nleaves more persons in indigence when they come to an advanced age,\nowing to their being unwilling or unable to undergo the hardships to\nwhich nature subjects those who have been born to labour, and outlive\ntheir vigour; being thereby deprived of those indulgences which, in\nbetter days, they have experienced. In England, menial servants are\naccustomed to consume more than people of moderate fortune do in\nother countries, and they are the race of people most likely to be left to\npenury in their old age. In countries where there are, indeed, greater\ntrains of menial attendants than in England, they, in general, belong to\nthe great, who make some provision for them, or who, keeping them\nfrom ostentation, can retain them to a more advanced age; and, at all\nevents, as they live a less luxurious life, they can make a better stand\nagainst that penury which it is their hard destiny to encounter. [end of\npage #247]\n\nIn a commercial country there is less attachment between master and\nservant, than in any other; and the instances of provision for them are\nvery rare.\n\nIn proportion as a nation gets wealthy, the human race shares the same\nfate with other animals employed in labour; they are worked hard, and\nwell fed while they are able to work, but their services are not\nregarded when they can do but little. {194}\n\nWant of economy in the management of the funds destined for the\npurpose of their maintenance is another cause of increase in the\nexpense of the poor. In a nation where every individual is fully\noccupied with his affairs, and has little time to attend to any thing else,\nthose who manage the affairs of the poor find that few are inclined to\nlook close into matters, and fewer still have the means of doing it if\nthey would; so that abuses increase, as is always the case when there\nis no counteracting check to keep them within bounds.\n\nAnother cause, no doubt, is that, as the number of unproductive\nlabourers increase, greater numbers of children are left in want.\n\nTo all those causes we must add the increase of towns, and the\ndecrease of hamlets and villages. Towns are the places where\nindigence has the greatest consolation, and where the relief which is\nheld out is attended with the least degree of humiliation and reproach.\n\nWhen we compare the cases of England and Scotland, the causes\ncannot be doubted; for, there, servants live harder, the working class\ndo not labour so hard, and are not so soon worn out, neither have the\ntowns increased so much, at the expense of the hamlets and villages.\n\nThe greatest of all the causes of the increase of poor, however, arises\nfrom taxation and rent. It has been observed, in the chapter on\nTaxation, that, for a certain length, taxes and rent are productive of\nindustry, and that, at last, they finish by crushing it entirely.\n\n---\n{194} If it were the custom to keep horses that were worn out till they\ndied a natural death, the maintenance of them would cost more in\nEngland than in any other country; for their vigour is exhausted before\nthe term of old age arrives. The calculation is in this country, to pay\nwell, and be well served.\n-=-\n\n[end of page #248]\n\nThe manner that this happens, is, that long before a country is as\nhighly taxed as the majority of its inhabitants will bear, those who are\nthe least able to pay are crushed, and reduced to absolute poverty.\n\nThere are two causes which may render a person unable to support the\nburthen of taxation: the one is, having a great family; the other is,\nbeing able to gain but little from weakness, or some other cause; and,\nwhere there are two causes that tend to produce the same effect,\nthough they operate separately, they must, of course, sometimes act in\nconjunction.\n\nThe weakest part of society gives way first, in every country; and, on\naccount of the arbitrary and ignorant, though lavish method of\nrelieving that portion of society, in England, the evil is increased to\nmore than double.\n\nThere is no relief at home in their own houses, no help, no aid, for the\nindigent, which might produce so admirable an effect, by\ncounteracting the ruin brought on by heavy taxes and high prices; no,\nthe family must support itself, or go wholesale to the workhouse. This\nis one of those clumsy rude modes of proceeding that a wealthy\npeople, not overburthened with knowledge, naturally takes to\novercome a difficulty, but without care or tenderness for the feelings\nof those relieved, or that regard for public interest, which ought to go\nhand in hand. For this it would be well to search a remedy.\n\nA father and mother, and six children, will cost, at least, fifty pounds a\nyear in a workhouse; but, perhaps, the aid of twelve or fifteen pounds\nwould keep them from going there, and by that means save the\ngreatest part of the money, while the country, which loses their\nindustry, would be doubly a gainer.\n\nThere is a sort of rough, vulgar, and unfeeling character, prevalent\namongst the parish-officers, that is a disgrace to the country and to the\ncharacter of Englishmen. It is highly prejudicial to the nation; and, if\nthere were no moral evil attending it, if the feelings of the poor were\nno object, =sic= the rich ought to attend to it for self-interest. If they\nwill not, the government of the country is interested, both in honour\nand in interest, to do so.\n\nExemption from taxes will do little or nothing, the lower orders [end\nof page #249] are nearly all exempt, but that general dearness, that is\nthe consequence of a general weight of taxes, is severely felt by them,\nand from that they cannot be exempted. They must get relief by\nassistance, and that assistance ought to be given in a manner that will\nnot throw them altogether a burthen on the public. {195}\n\nIt is impossible to tax the people of a nation so highly, as they can all\nbear, because, before some will feel, others will be crushed; before the\nbachelor feels the tax, the father of a large family is obliged to starve\nhis innocent offspring. Before he who has only two children feels the\nhard pressure, the family of twelve will be reduced to want; and so in\nproportion. The mode, then, to raise the most money possible, would\nbe to tax the whole nearly as high as the bachelor can bear, and then to\ngive a drawback in favour of the man with the children, they would\nthen be on a perfect equality as to taxation, and the highest sum\npossible might be raised without hurting any one portion of the people\nmore than another.\n\nIf the links of a chain are not all equally strong, before any strain is\nfelt by the strong links the weak ones give way, and the chain is\nbroken. The case is the same with the members of a community. Now,\nwhen you lay on taxes, the general tendency is to raise the price of\nfood and labour; most labourers receive the advantage of the price of\nlabour, but many pay unequally for the rise of food.\n\nA tax on the wealthy, it will be said, is the thing proposed, but no, that\nwould do nothing, it must be a premium or drawback to men with\nfamilies who are poor, not merely to counteract the effect of any one\ntax, but the total effect of taxation with respect to maintaining their\nchildren. Wide, indeed, is the difference between a tax on those who\nare well able to pay, and a premium or drawback in favour of those\nwho are not.\n\nThe manner of providing for the poor in England leads to a degree\n\n---\n{195} Probably, the reason that so small a sum serves the purpose in\nScotland is, that relief is administered to the families, at their own\nhouses, by the minister and elders of the parish. It is a rare instance of\nan administration, without emoluments and without controul. The\nfunds are distributed with clean hands, in all cases, and impartially in\nmost.\n-=-\n\n[end of page #250]\n\nof wastefulness and improvidence unknown in any other country.\nImprovidence ought as much as possible to be discouraged; for, with\nthose who labour hard and are indigent, the desire to gratify some\npressing want, or present appetite, is continually uppermost. This may\nbe termed the war between the belly and the back, in which the former\nis generally the conqueror. It would be a small evil if this victory were\ndecided seldom, as in other countries, but in the great towns of\nEngland there is as it were a continual state of hostility. In London,\nthe battle is fought, on an average, at least, once a week; and idleness,\nand the profits of those sort of petty usurers, called pawnbrokers, are\ngreatly promoted by it.\n\nSome part of this evil cannot, perhaps, be remedied, but there are\ncertain articles that ought not to be taken in pledge, such as the clothes\nof young children and working tools. {196}\n\nThere is no doubt but, that, in a populous inhospitable trading town,\nwhere there is no means of obtaining aid, from friendship, where the\nwant is sometimes extreme, the resource of pledging is a necessary\none. This is to be admitted in the degree, but by no means without\nlimitation; for the facility creates the want, (even when it is a real\nwant) for it brings on improvidence and carelessness. The lower\nclasses come to consider their apparel as money, only that it requires\nchanging before it is quite current. {197}\n\nIf this matter were well looked into, together with the other causes\nfrom which mendicity proceeds, which increases so rapidly, we\nshould\n\n---\n{196} In Scripture it is forbidden to pledge the upper or the nether\nmill-stone. This is a proof, of very great antiquity, and indisputable\nauthority, of the care taken to prevent that sort of improvidence that\nhurts the general interest of a people. It should be imitated in this\ncountry with regard, to all portable implements of labour, such as\nmill-stones were in those early times.\n\n{197} In Scotland, twenty years ago, there were not so many\npawnbrokers as there are in Brentford, or any little village round\nLondon. In Paris, as debauched a town as London, and where charity\nwas as little to be expected, there was only one lending company, the\nprofits of which, after dividing six per cent., went to the Foundling\nHospital. It was, as in London, a resource in cases of necessity, but\nthere was too much trouble to run it on every trifling occasion, as is\ndone in London, and, indeed, in most towns in England.\n-=-\n\n[end of page #251]\n\nsoon perceive a diminution of the poors' rates, and the wealthiest\ncountry of Europe would not exhibit the greatest and most multiplied\nscenes of misery and distress.\n\nThe numbers of children left in indigence, by their parents, would be\ncomparatively lower, and there would not be that waste in the\nadministration of the funds on which they are supported.\n\nThere is, probably, no means of greatly diminishing the number of\nhelpless poor, but by an encouragement to lay up in the hour of health\nan abundance to supply the wants of feebleness and age, but this\nmight go a great way to diminishing the evil. All persons who have\nplaces under government, of whatever nature, ought to be compelled\nto subscribe to such institutions; this would be doing the individuals,\nas well as the community, a real service, and would go a great way to\nthe counteracting of the evil. {198} Preventatives are first to be\napplied, and after those have operated as far as may be, remedies.\n\nThe poor, &c. to whose maintenance 5,500,000 L. a year goes, (a sum\ngreater than the revenues of any second rate monarchy in Europe,)\nmay be divided into three classes:\n\nFirst, Those who by proper means might be prevented from wanting\naid.\n\nSecond, Those who, for various reasons, cannot get a living in the\nregular way, but might, with a little aid, either maintain themselves, or\nnearly so; and,\n\nThird, Those who, from inability, extreme age, tender youth, or bodily\ndisease, are unable to do any thing, and must be supported at the\npublic expense. Nobody will dispute that there are of all those\ndescriptions maintained at pressnt =sic=; and, therefore, all that can\ncreate a difference of opinion is about the proportions between the\nthree.\n\nIt is probable that one-half, at least, could maintain, or nearly\n\n---\n{198} The widows scheme, as it is called in Scotland, for the aid of\nthe widows and children of clergymen, is a most excellent institution;\nit has been attended with the best effects, both on individual happiness\nand national prosperity so far as it goes. The plan is such as might,\nwith very little variation, be applied to all the officers of the revenue,\nclerks in office, &c. &c.\n-=-\n\n[end of page #252]\n\nmaintain, themselves; one-quarter might be prevented from ever\nrequiring any aid at all; and the other quarter would be assisted as at\npresent.\n\nThis would reduce the expenses to less than one-third, and, probably,\nto one-quarter of what they are now; that is, of 5,500,000 L. there\nwould be a saving of 3,500,000 L. but that is not all, for the national\nindustry would be augmented by 2,000,000 L. and more; that is to say,\nby the industry of the half that maintained themselves, so that the\nnation would gain partly in money saved, and partly in money got,\n5,500,000 L.\n\nAccording to the true spirit of the English nation, in which there is a\ngreat fund of generosity and goodness at the bottom, it may perhaps\nbe said, that the poor are not able to labour at all, and, that the plan\nwould not answer. This is but a rough manner of answering a\nproposal, which neither is in reality, nor is meant to be, void of\nhumanity. There were, by last years =sic= accounts, nearly 900,000\npersons of one sort and another maintained or relieved, which does not\nmake above six pounds a year for each person, now, where is there a\nperson that can work at all, that cannot earn above four-pence a day in\nEngland? {199}\n\nThe plan for remedying this abuse ought to be very simple, for it will\nbe administered by such ignorant and rough directors, that, if it is not\nsimple, it must fail entirely.\n\n---\n{199} It would be foreign to the plan of this Inquiry to enter into the\ndetails of the poor persons, and shew the absurdity of the\nmanagement; but, it is very evident, from those that are printed, that\nthey get no work to do, the quantity of materials delivered to them to\nwork upon will not admit of earning money to maintain themselves.\n\nThe following is a specimen of the attention given to this subject, and\nthe means taken to enable the poor to pay for their maintenance, by\ntheir labour. In Middlesex, where the expense amounted, in 1803, to\n123,700 L. or about 340 L. a day, the sum expended to buy materials\namounted to no more than 4L.1s.11d. !!! It is impossible to\ncomprehend how this capital stock could be distributed amongst\nabove ten thousand labourers. It is not very easy to conceive the\nimpertinence of those who presented this item, as a statement to the\nHouse of Commons, which would have done well to have committed\nto the custody of the sergeant-at-mace, the persons who so grossly\ninsulted it. One thing, however, is very easily understood and\ncollected from all this. The business altogether is conducted with\nignorance, and executed carelessly and negligently, and that to an\nextreme and shameful degree.\n-=-\n\n[end of page #253]\n\nTo have a good surgeon or physician is essential; and those who\nwould not work, and who were able, should have the same allowance\nthat a prisoner has in a jail; but those who would work should be paid\na fair price, and allowed to lay out the money, to hoard it, or do as\nthey please, except drinking to excess. [{200}]\n\nThough many for want of vigour are refused employment in a\nworkshop, some for want of character, and others for various reasons,\nbecome burthensome, yet there are not a few, who, from mere\nlaziness, throw themselves upon the parish, where they live a careless\nlife, free from hunger, cold, and labour. When the mind is once\nreconciled to this situation, the temptation is considerable, and there\nare many of those poor people, who will boast that the have\nthemselves been overseers, and paid their share to the expenses.\n\nWhatever evil is found to have a tendency to increase with the wealth\nof a nation ought, most carefully, to be kept under; and this is one not\nof the least formidable, and, of all others, most evidently arising from\nbad management and want of attention.\n\nIt would be necessary to have all sorts of employment, that the\npersons in such places can, with advantage, be occupied in doing, and\na small allowance should be made to defray general expenses;\namongst which, ought to be that of surveyors of districts, who should,\nlike those employed by the excise-office, inspect into the state of the\ndifferent poor-houses, and the whole should be reported, in a proper\nand regular manner, to the government of the country, from time to\ntime.\n\nThose little paltry parish democracies that tax one part of the people,\nand maltreat the other, ought to be under some proper con-\n\n---\n{200} [Transcriber's note: assumed location--footnote not assigned a\nplace in the text.]\nThe system, in England, of only employing people in the vigour of life\nis a source of much mischief, and is an increasing evil, which\ngovernment, the East India company, and all the public bodies, are\nencouraging. Men are treated in this instance exactly like horses. They\nare worked hard and well rewarded in their vigour; but, in so wealthy\na county =sic= as this, those occupied in commerce, and men in\npower, will not be troubled with any but such as can do their business\nwith little trouble to the master. They do not consider what mischief\nthey are preparing for their country. Shenstone, the poet, seems to\nhave thought of this when he says, in a case of woe:\n\n\"But power and wealth's unvarying cheek was dry.\"\n-=-\n\n[end of page #254]\n\ntroul; and the happiness and prosperity of England should not be left\nat their mercy.\n\nIn a country where every thing is done with such admirable accuracy\nin the revenue-department, as England, it would be useless to attempt\npointing out the manner of executing the plan; it is sufficient to shew\nits practicability and the necessity of attending to it.\n\nIf, in the first instance, the advantage would be such as is here\nmentioned, it would, in a few years, be much greater, particularly in so\nfar as fewer families would be left in a state of indigence; for, it is\nclear, that such families are a continual encumbrance on the rising\ngeneration, and tend to the diminution of the general mass of useful\ncitizens.\n\nIf it should so happen, that taxes augment, or that trade falls off, (both\nof which may very likely happen,) then the interference of\ngovernment may become a matter of absolute necessity; but then,\nperhaps, it may be too late. It would be much better if government\nwould interfere, before the evil is actually come to the highest pitch.\nThe parishes might, perhaps, look with jealousy on an interference of\nthis sort, as being an infringement on their rights; for Englishmen are\nsometimes very tenacious of privileges that are highly pernicious to\nthemselves. This difficulty, (for it probably would be one,) might be\ngot over, by previously establishing inspectors in the different bishop's\nsees, who should be obliged to render an account to the bishop, to be\ncommunicated to government, by which means, the evil would either\nbe removed, or its existence ascertained, so as to answer the\ncomplaints that might be made, and thereby prevent all discontent on\nthe subject.\n\nWithout being able to say what might absolutely be the best remedy, it\nis, at least, fair to ask the question, whether it is fit that the\nadministration of 5,500,000 L. a year should be intrusted to the hands\nof ignorant men? It may likewise be asked, if the feelings of the\nnecessitous ranks of society (as keen in many instances as those of\ntheir betters,) should be wounded by men, who have not sufficient\nknowledge of any sort to act with the humanity necessary. The\ncandidates for popular favour, amongst the lower housekeepers, are\ngenerally flattering, fauning =sic=, cringing men, and such are almost\nwithout exception, cunning, ignorant, and overbearing, wherever they\nhave the least [end of page #255] authority over others. Such, in\ngeneral, are the parish-officers, to whose care this important affair is\ncommitted.\n\nThough this is an institution almost on the purely democratic principle\nof equal representation, it is a very bad specimen of that mode of\ngovernment. The shameful lawsuits between parishes, about paupers,\nthe disgraceful and barbarous treatment of women, who have been\nbetrayed and abandoned, admit of no excuse. They are not productive\neven of gain or economy. Amongst some tribes of savage Indians, the\naged and helpless are put to death, that they may not remain a burthen\non those who are able and in health; and it is equally true, that, in\nEngland, the young innocents, who have not parents to protect them,\nare considered as a burthen; and, if they are not absolutely sent out of\nthe world, the means necessary to preserve them in it are very\ninadequate to the purpose. If criminality could be engraved on a\ngraduated scale, their deaths ought in general to be written down at\nsome intermediate point between accidental homicide and wilful\nmurder. The persecution of this unfortunate race may be said to\ncommence before they are born; and, though the strength of a nation\ndepends much on its population, less care is taken to encourage it,\nthan to produce mushrooms, or to preserve hares and partridges.\n\n[end of page #256]\n\n\n\n\nCHAP. VI.\n\n\n_Causes of Decline, peculiar to England_.\n\nIn addition to the causes of decline which Britain, as a wealthy\ncountry, has, in common with most other nations, it has some peculiar\nto itself, (or of which the degree at least is peculiar to it).\n\nThe national debt, the high rate of taxation, the prodigious expense of\nthe poor, and the nature of the government, are peculiar to this\ncountry. There are other circumstances in its favour, of which we shall\nspeak in the next chapter; but, in this, we shall review those that are\nagainst it, and of an unfavourable nature and operation.\n\nThe high rate of taxation, for the very reason that it is the highest ever\nknown, inspires our enemies with hopes of our downfall, and makes\nthem persevere in continuing to put us to expense.\n\nThe unprecedented commerce we enjoy, of which every other nation\nwould wish to have a share, (and of which each, most mistakenly,\nthinks it would have a share, if Britain was undone,) is a cause of\nattracting envy and enmity, and repelling friendship. Our colonies in\nthe West, and our possessions in the East, act like the conductors that\ndraw the electric fluid to a building, but they do not, like those\nconductors, serve to protect it from violence. We have seen, that the\nadvantage arising from them is more than doubtful, that they enrich\nindividuals and impoverish the state; but all this would be nothing\nnew, were it not for the vast scale on which those evils exist.\n\nThe poor's rate, which is in itself completely unexampled, though a\ncommon thing to all nations, is so exorbitant in England, that it may\nvery properly be ranked amongst the dangers peculiar to this country.\nWho would believe, that Frederick the Great of Prussia carried on his\nbrilliant and successful wars against the most formidable enemies,\nexpended more than one-eighth of his revenues annually on the\nencouragement of industry, and left his treasury well stored, yet all\nthis with an income, less by one-fourth than the sums that go to\nsupport [end of page #257] the poor in England, notwithstanding all\nthe miserable manoeuvres that are practiced =sic= to avoid giving\nthem assistance?\n\nThe form of government in England, though best for the liberty of the\nsubject, and for the security of persons and property, is deficient in the\nmeans of repressing those infringements which particular bodies of\npeople make upon the community at large. The representative system,\nwhen well understood, divides itself into parties, having different\ninterests. There are the commercial, the landed, the East India, the\nWest India, and the law, all of which have great parliamentary\ninfluence, and can be formidable to any minister; they therefore have a\nmeans of defending their interests, and they are concerned so deeply\nas to take a very active part whenever any questions are agitated\nrelative to them.\n\nThe landed interest and the law are, indeed, the only ones that have\nany great party in the House of Peers; but then the House of Peers\nseldom interferes in matters that concern the interests of the others.\nThe Lords seem not to think it their province; and, in general, more\nthrough diffidence than negligence, they avoid meddling, though, to\ndo that honourable house justice, to it we owe much. Many bills, of a\ndangerous tendency, have been thrown out by it, after they had passed\nthe other house; and it has been generally done with a wisdom,\nmagnanimity, and moderation, which is only to be accounted for by a\ntrue love of the country and an upright intention. {201}\n\n---\n{201} It is wonderful to what a length good intention, (zeal apart,)\nwill go in leading men right, even when they have not paid very\nparticular attention to a subject. There is a feeling of what is wise, as\nwell as of what is right, that partakes a little of instinct, perhaps, but\nis more unerring than far fetched theory on many occasions. This was\nseen in a most exemplary manner, at the time that the principles of the\nFrench revolution were most approved of here. Those principles were\nplausible, though flimsy, and founded on sophisms, and a species of\nreasoning, that plain unlettered men could not answer, and men who\ndid give themselves the pains to reason might have answered; yet,\nthree times in four, it was the man who could not answer it, who,\nguided by upright intentions, rejected it as bad, without being able to\ntell why. The most acute were, in this case, the most deceived; for it\nmust now be allowed, that all approbation of the theories, relative to\nthe rights of man, and the manner of asserting them were wrong.\nMany of those who fell into the error had, no doubt, unblameable\nintentions, but they did not consult common sense.\n-=-\n\n[end of page #258]\n\nIn every assembly, a small number, who completely understand their\nown interest, can do a great deal, if they will act together; but, this is\nnot all, they can use arguments with a minister that pave the way for\nobtaining the ends they have in view, while the general interests of the\ncountry alarm no one but upon great occasions.\n\nUnder arbitrary monarchs, all bodies with separate interests, are kept\nin due order, they have no means of defending themselves but by\nremonstrance, which, against power, is but a very inadequate\nprotection.\n\nThere is nothing forced or chimerical in this statement of the case, and\nthe consequence is, that no country ever saw any bodies rise to such a\nheight, except the clergy in Roman Catholic countries, and the barons\nduring the feudal system, when they had arms in their hands; who, if\nthey could not absolutely resist their sovereign, were at least able to\nrefuse him aid, and could annoy him greatly. But those examples will\nbear no comparison with the separate interests in England at this time.\nThe barons have long lost their power, and the Roman Catholic clergy\nhave lost the greatest part of their power and revenue also. If they had\nnot, wealthy and powerful kingdoms would not have existed.\n\nUnder a free government, where people think that an opposition to a\nminister in parliament is a most excellent thing, the energies of the\nnation, as to war, are greatly lessened. This must, in its connections\nwith other nations, produce very hurtful effects; but, where the evil is\nwithout a remedy, there is no advantage in dwelling upon it; and it\ndoes not appear that there is any possibility of separating from a free\ngovernment, some sort of an opposing power, that must hamper the\nexecutive, and lessen the energies of the nation.\n\nUnder pure monarchies, kings can reward merit; they can encourage\ntalents, and act according to circumstances. In England, the king, or\nhis ministers, have no fund from which they can do this. An\napplication to parliament is expensive and troublesome; and, in many\ncases, where the object would be fair, it would be unattainable. But\nthis is not all, for when, by act of parliament, any thing of the sort is\n[end of page #259] once done, it is left without proper controul, and\nthe expense is generally double what it ought to be.\n\nOn the whole, there is too little of discretional =sic= power in a\nrepresentative government; good cannot be done but by rules, which,\nin many cases, it is impossible to comply with. This is a disadvantage\nwhich we labour under, and is a sort of drawback on our excellent\nform of government; but this is not like the opposition in the senate, it\nmay be got over, and merits attention.\n\nSuch appear to be the disadvantages to which Britain is peculiarly\nliable, either in toto, or in the degree; but, on the other hand, she has\nmany circumstances in her favour, if they are properly taken hold of;\nand, indeed, some, of which the effect will be favourable, whether any\nparticular attention is paid to them or not. To those we shall advert\nwith peculiar pleasure, and hope that they will not be neglected, but\nthat they may afford a means of continuing our career of prosperity on\nthe increasing scale, or that, at least, they may prevent us from sharing\nthe fate of those nations that have gone before.\n\n[end of page #260]\n\n\n\n\nCHAP. VII.\n\n\n_Circumstances peculiar to England, and favourable to it_.\n\nIt has been observed, that, in northern nations, where luxury is not\nattended with such a degree of sloth and effeminacy as in warm\nclimates, the habits of industry can never so completely leave a\ncountry. The feelings of cold and a keen appetite are enemies to sloth\nand laziness; indeed they are totally incompatible with those habits\nand that degradation of character, that are to be found in southern\nclimates. This advantage Britain shares with other nations of the\nnorth; but she has some peculiar to herself.\n\nSituated in an island, the people have a character peculiar to\nthemselves, that prevents foreigners and foreign influence from\nproducing those baneful effects that are so evident in many nations,\nwhere they come and depart with more facility, and where a greater\nsimilarity in manners and in character enable them to act a\nconspicuous and a very dangerous part, in the cases of\nmisunderstanding and party dispute.\n\nIn all the wars, bloody and long-contested as they were, between the\nhouses of York and Lancaster, foreign influence never produced any\neffect such as that of Spain did in France, previous to the accession of\nHenry IV. or as the influence of France and Spain have produced in\nItaly, or that of France on Spain itself, or those of Russia and Prussia\nin Poland, with numerous other examples on the continent.\n\nWe know of no ideal boundaries in this country. In this country we are\nall one people, and can distinguish ourselves from any other; indeed,\nthe national character is rather too averse to mixing with people from\nthe continent; but this, that seems now a fault, may some day be\nconsidered as a very useful virtue.\n\nEven in the times when an unfortunate jealousy and mistaken interest\nkept England and Scotland at variance, and when the latter kingdom\nwas in the habit of adopting the politics of France, and [end of page\n#261] embracing its interests, there seems to have been some repelling\nprinciple that kept the little nation out of the gripe of the great one.\n\nThe French never had any preponderating power there, and, indeed, in\nlatter times so little, as not to be able to defend Queen Mary or the\nRomish religion against the reformers; to do both of which there was\nno want of inclination. It appears, then, very clearly, that though, on\nthe best terms of friendship, the Scotch had at the bottom that British\nmistrust of foreigners, that, ever since it was civilized, has freed the\nisland from foreign influence.\n\nThe form of government, the security of property, and the free scope\nthat is given to exertion in every line of business, will continue to\nenable this country to hold itself high, even if some of its present\nsources of wealth should be dried up; and, whatever may be the\nfeelings of the representatives of the people upon ordinary occasions,\nthe moment that any real danger occurs, they will, we are certain, act\nlike men, determined to stand by their country.\n\nHow feeble was the former French government when assailed with\ndifficulty? It was at once as if struck motionless, or, the little\nanimation that was left was just sufficient to enable it to go from one\nblunder to another. How different has England been on every\nemergency? In place of the arm of government seeming to slacken in\nthe day of danger, it has risen superior to it. We have never seen the\nsame scenes happen here, that have taken place in Poland, Sweden,\nand so many other places. In the three attempts to invasion, {202}\n(Monmouth's and the two other rebellions,) where foreign influence\nwas used, the event was the most fatal possible to those who made\nthem; they were contemptible in the extreme; and, if it is considered in\nwhose favour they were, it is probable the support from a foreign\npower rather did injury to the cause.\n\n---\n{202} Here we must not confound the case of the Stuarts with that of\nthe King of France. In England, it was the government that was\ndivided, the legislative being against the executive; _one_ part of the\ngovernment was feeble, but the other was not, and therefore we cannot\nsay that the government was feeble. In France, the king and ministers\ngoverned alone, they were the whole government, and therefore as\nthey were feeble, the government may be taxed with weakness.\n-=-\n\n[end of page #262]\n\nThe form of government has this great advantage in it, that, as abilities\nare the way to preferment, the higher classes (at least) have a better\neducation than the same rank of persons in any other nation, so far as\nregards the interest of the public, and the nature of the connection\nbetween the different orders of society; ignorance of which, is the\nsurest way to be destroyed.\n\nIn all new and rising states the higher orders, even under despotic\ngovernments, and where all the distinctions of ranks are completely\nestablished, have a proper regard for the importance and welfare of the\nlower orders of people. As they increase in wealth and have lost sight\nof its origin, which is industry, they change their mode of thinking;\nand, by degrees, the lower classes are considered as only made for the\nconvenience of the rich. The degradation into which the lower orders\nthemselves fall, by vice and indolence, widens the difference and\nincreases the contempt in which they are held. This is one of the\ninvariable marks of the decline of nations; but the nature of the\nEnglish government prevents that, by keeping up a connection and\nmutual dependence amongst the poor and the rich, which is not found\neither under absolute monarchies or in republics. In republics, the\npeople become factious and idle, when they become any way wealthy.\nIn this country, besides the insular situation, circumstances in general\nare such as to prevent the lower classes from falling into that sort of\nidleness, apathy, and contempt, that they do in other countries, even\nsupposing these burthens were done away, that at present necessitate\nexertion.\n\nTo those causes let another still be added, the religious worship of the\ncountry, which, without any dispute or question, is greatly in its\nfavour.\n\nTo speak nothing of the religious opinions or modes of worship in\nancient times, there are three at present that merit attention and admit\nof comparison.\n\nThe Christian religion is distinguished for raising men in character,\nand the Mahomedan for sinking them low. Whenever the Mahomedan\nfaith has extended, the people are degraded in their manners, and the\ngovernments despotic. The disposition of a Mahomedan king [end of\npage #263] or emperor is more different in its nature, from that of a\nChristian sovereign, than the form of a hat is from that of a turban.\n\nUnder the most despotic Christian sovereigns, matters are governed by\nlaw, there are no regular murders committed by the hand of power,\nwithout the intervention of justice; and if plenitude of power admits of\nthe greatest excesses in the sovereign, in some Christian countries, the\nopinion of his fellow men, the fear of his God, or some sentiment or\nprinciple in his own breast, restrains him in the exercise of it.\n\nIt is not so with Mahomedan princes: with them, nothing is sacred that\nthey hate, nothing shameful that they do. Whatever their conscience\nmay be, whatever may be the nature of their moral rules, rapine and\nmurder are certainly not forbidden by them, or the law is not obeyed.\nIn proportion to the despotism and ferocity of the sovereign, is the\nslavishness of the people, their brutality, and vice, in all Mahomedan\ncountries; their character and its great inferiority is so well known,\nthat it is impossible for any person to be ignorant of it.\n\nWhen the Mahomedan governments possess power, they are proud\nand overbearing; the people luxurious, and given to every refinement\nin vice. When they sink, that pride becomes ferocity, and the luxury\ndegenerates into brutality and sloth; but neither in the one nor in the\nother case have they the proper value for science, for literature, for\nliberty, or for any of the acquirements that either make a man\nestimable or useful. They neither excel in arts, nor in science;\nphisically =sic=, they are inferior in utility, and their minds are less\ninstructed. They are not equal to Christians either in war or in peace,\nnor to be compared to them for any one good quality.\n\nThe greatest and the best portion of the old world is, however, in their\nhands; but, in point of wealth or power, they are of little importance,\nand every day they are sinking lower still.\n\nAmongst those who profess Christianity it has been remarked, by all\nwho have travelled, and who have had an opportunity of observing it,\nthat agriculture, commerce, and manufactures, flourish most in\nProtestant countries. Even where there are different sects of the\nChristian religion in the same country, arts, manufactures, and\ncommerce, appear to have flourished most amongst the Protestants.\nThe [end of page #264] cruelties of the Duke of Alva, and the absurd\nbigotry of Louis XIV. drove the most industrious inhabitants from the\nNetherlands, and from France, merely because they happened to be\nProtestants, which is a proof that there is a connection between that\nbranch of the Christian religion and industry. The Protestants were the\nmost industrious.\n\nThe Protestants appear also to be the most attentive to preserving a\ngood form of government, and to set a greater value upon liberty than\npeople of any other religion. In this, England has an advantage that is\ninappretiable. {203}\n\nThe reformation in religion, and the establishment of manufactures in\nEngland, date from nearly the same period; it was about the same time,\nalso, that the spirit of liberty began to break out first in Scotland,\nand then in England, which terminated in the revolution. There are,\ntherefore, many reasons, from experience, for believing that the\nProtestant religion is particularly favourable to industry and freedom.\nThere are other reasons, likewise, that arise from a consideration of\nthe subject, that would lead one to the same conclusion, even if there\nwere no experience of the fact.\n\nWhatever frees the human mind from useless prejudice, and leads it to\npure morality, gives dignity to man, and increases his power of\nbecoming a good and useful member of society.\n\nThe Christian religion not only contains the most pure moral code, but\nthe best, most useful, and simple rules for conduct in life are\n\n---\n{203} The great influence, founded on attachment to her person, and\nthe feeling of the long happiness they had enjoyed, under Queen\nElizabeth: her great authority, supported by esteem, and confirmed by\nlong habit, restrained the spirit of freedom which so soon after\ntormented her successors. James had had full experience of that spirit\nbefore he left Scotland; and, when he mounted the English throne, was\nknown, frequently, to exclaim against presbytry, as the enemy of\nmonarchy. He, as was very natural, thought that the difference of\nreligion caused the superior love of freedom in Scotland, for he was\nnot sensible of the different effects produced by the calm, steady, and\ndignified deportment of Elizabeth, and the unsteady conduct of his\nunhappy mother, Mary. He also confounded hatred for arbitrary\nprerogative in kings, with hatred for kings themselves; and considered\nmonarchy, and his own sort of monarchy, as essentially the same. Had\nhe lived in our days, he would have experienced the difference, and\nnot have considered the church of Scotland as being a greater enemy\nto kingly power than that of England, or as being more favourable to\nliberty.\n-=-\n\n[end of page #265]\n\nthere promulgated. The Roman Catholic faith was clogged, in the\nearly days of the church, with a great number, both of dogmatical and\npractical errors, that tend not only to fetter the mind, but actually\nembarrass the business of human life.\n\nIn a former chapter, we had occasion to speak of the encroachments\nmade by public bodies on the general mass of the people, but none\never was so pernicious in its effects, so grasping, and so well\ncalculated to retain, as the Roman Catholic church.\n\nTheir celibacy took away from the clergy every disposition to alienate\neven personal property, while the practice of auricular confession, and\nthe doctrine of the remission of sins, gave them an opportunity of\nbesieging the human mind in its weakest moment, and the weakest\nplace, in order to rob posterity, and enrich the church. In the moment\nof weakness, when a man's mind is occupied in reflecting on the\nerrors, and perhaps the crimes, of a long and variegated life; when his\nties to this world are loosened, and his interest in eternity becomes\nmore lively, and near; a religion that enables a zealous or interested\npriest (aided by the casuistry and argument of centuries) to barter a\npromise of everlasting bliss, for lands and tenements bequeathed to\nthe church, provides amply for the acquisition of earthly treasure, for\nits ministers, and those devoted to a life of religious pursuits. It is,\nindeed, wonderful, that, with such means, the church, in Roman\nCatholic countries, did not become more wealthy than it was. {204}\nWith a continual means of acquiring, and none of alienating, it\nappears well qualified for absorbing the whole landed property of a\nnation. Such an encroachment on the public wealth, and industry of a\npeople, is a sufficient reason for the Protestant countries (where the\nclergy have not the same means) becoming more wealthy and\nindustrious.\n\nIt would not be difficult to prove that there is an effect produced on\nthe minds of individuals in Protestant countries, that is favourable to\nindustry; but a discussion of this nature might seem displaced in a\nbook of this sort. It is sufficient that we see, from experience and\n\n---\n{204} In France, before the revolution, the revenues of the clergy, in\nlands, tythes, &c. were reckoned to amount to 25,000,000 L. sterling\nper annum. The number of feasts and fasts was also a great drawback\non industry.\n-=-\n\n[end of page #266]\n\nreason, that, of all religions, the Christian is the most favourable to the\nprosperity of a people, and that of its different branches, the\nProtestant, or what is termed the Reformed Religion, is again the best.\nIt is the religion established in Britain.\n\nAnother source of hope arises from a circumstance of very great\nimportance, and very peculiarly favourable to Great Britain.\n\nIt has been observed, that the colonies in the West, and conquests in\nthe East, cost a great deal and produce little; that, in short, their\npossession is of very doubtful advantage.\n\nThe possession of the North American provinces, now the United\nStates, were a great burthen to England, from their first settlement till\nabout the year 1755, when their trade began to be of advantage to this\nnation; but, in twenty years after, the revolt took place, and cost\nEngland a prodigious sum.\n\nTo enter into a long detail on this subject it is not necessary; but no\nsooner were the hostilities at an end, than the American states bought\nmore of our manufactures than ever. Their laws and manners are\nsimilar to our own, the same language, and a government evidently\napproaching as near to ours as a republican well can to a monarchical\nform. There is not, at this time, any branch of trade, either so great in\nits amount, or beneficial in its nature, as that with the United States;\nwith this farther advantage, that it is every day augmenting, {205} and\nas no country ever increased so fast in population and wealth, so none\never promised to afford so extensive a market for our mannfactures\n=sic= as the United States. This market is the more secure, that it will\nnot be the interest of the people who have got possession of that\nimmense tract of country to neglect agriculture and become\nmanufacturers, for a long period of time.\n\nThe greatest project, by which any nation ever endeavoured to enrich\nitself, was certainly that of peopling America with a civilized race of\ninhabitants. It was a fair and legitimate mode of extending her means\nof acquiring riches; but Britain failed in the manner of obtaining her\nobject, though not in the object itself, and\n\n---\n{205} By this is not literally meant, that the trade every year is greater\nthan the preceding, but that it continues to increase.\n-=-\n\n[end of page #267]\n\nthe United States promise to support the industry of England, now that\nit has humbled its ambition, far more than both the Indies, which\ngratify it so much.\n\nIt is highly probable, that America will increase more rapidly in\nwealth and population than in manufactures, such as she at present\ntakes from great Britain; but if the ratio merely continues the same\nthat it is now, the purpose will be completely answered, and a market\nfor British manufactures insured for ages to come. In 1802, by the last\ncensus, the inhabitants of the United States amounted to about eight\nmillions; and, for several years together, the exports of British goods\nhave amounted to seven millions, so that it is fair to reckon a\nconsumption equal to sixteen shillings a year to each person. It was\nabout the same in 1774, previous to the revolt; and, as the population\ndoubles in about fifteen years, in the course of thirty years more, the\nexports to that country alone would amount to 24,000,000 L. provided\nwe continue to be able to sell at such rates as not to be undersold by\nothers =sic= nations in the American market.\n\nThere is nothing great, nothing brilliant, in this commerce, all is solid\nand good; it is a connection founded on mutual wants and mutual\nconveniencey, not on monopoly, restriction, or coercion; for that\nreason it will be the more durable, and ought to be the more valued;\nbut it is not. Governments, like individuals, are most attached to what\nis dear to purchase and difficult to keep. It is to be hoped, however,\nthat this matter will be seen in its true light.\n\nOne circumstance, that makes the matter still more favourable for\nBritain is, that the western country of America, by far the most fertile,\nas well as the most extensive, is now peopling very rapidly. The\nlabour and capital of the inhabitants are entirely turned to agriculture\nand not to manufactures, and will be so for a great number of years;\nfor, when there are fifty millions of inhabitants in the United States,\ntheir population will not amount to one-half of what may naturally be\nexpected, or sufficient to occupy the lands. The fertility of the soil will\nenable the Americans, with great ease to themselves, to make returns\nin produce wanted in Europe, so that we may expect a durable, a great,\nand an advantageous trade with them. In British [end of page #268]\nmanufactures our trade was not near so great before the revolt, for we\nthen supplied America with every article.\n\nThis, however, will depend partly on our circumstances; for, if wages\nand the prices of our manufactures rise, as they lately have done, our\nmerchants will buy upon the continent of Europe, what they otherwise\nwould purchase in England, to supply the American market.\n\nAmerica is the only country in the world where, with respect to the\nwages of labour, and the produce of industry, money is of less value\nthan in England. The Americans will then be able to afford to\npurchase English goods, when other nations will not; but then, they\nwill only purchase such articles as cannot be had elsewhere; for\nthough they may and will continue able to purchase, they will not do it\nif they can get goods that suit them elsewhere. {206}\n\nNo country, that we read of in history, ever enjoyed equal advantages\nwith the American states; they have good laws, a free government,\nand are possessed of all the inventions and knowledge of the old\nworld. Arts are now conveyed across the Atlantic with more ease than\nthey formerly were from one village to another. It is possible, that a\nnew market of so great an extent being opened may do away those\njealousies of commerce, which have, for these two or three last\ncenturies, occasioned many quarrels, and which are peculiarly\ndangerous to a nation that has risen high above its level.\n\nAll those things, with care and attention, will prove advantageous to\nBritain in a superior degree. They afford us much reason for hope and\ncomfort, and do away one of the causes for fearing a decline that has\nbeen stated, namely, the being supplanted by poorer nations, or by not\nhaving a market for our increasing manufactures.\n\nThere remains yet another consideration in favour of Britain, as a\nmanufacturing and a commercial country; for, as such, we must view\nit, reckoning more on industry than on the ideal wealth of our colonies\nin the West, and our conquests in the East. It is this, we are the\n\n---\n{206} England begins already to lose the market for linen-cloth,\nwindow-glass, fire-arms, and a number of other articles. It would have\nentirely lost that of books, if any nation on the continent of Europe\ncould print English correctly. As, it is, they are printing in America, in\nplace of our keeping the trade, which we might have done with great\nprofit and advantage.\n-=-\n\n[end of page #269]\n\nlatest of European nations that has risen to wealth by commerce and\nmanufactures. In looking over the map, there does not seem to be any\none to supplant us; all those, who have great advantages, have already\ngone before, and, till we see the example of a country renewing itself,\nwe have a right to disbelieve that it is possible.\n\nRussia is the only country in Europe that is newer than England, and\nmany circumstances will prevent it from becoming a rival in\ncommerce. It does not, nor it ever can increase in population, and\ncarry civilization and manufactures to the same point. Though, very\nnew, as a powerful European nation, the people are as ancient as most\nothers in Europe; the territory is so extensive, the climate so cold, and\nthe Baltic Sea so much to the north, and frozen so many months in the\nyear, that it never will either be a carrying or a manufacturing country.\nTo cultivate its soil, and export the produce of its mines, the skins,\ntallow, hides, timber, &c. &c. will be more profitable, and suit better\nthe inhabitants than any competition in manufactures.\n\nIt is not in great extensive empires that manufactures thrive the most,\nthey are great objects for small countries, like England or Holland;\nbut, for such as Russia, Turkey, or France, they are a less object than\nattention to soil and natural productions; and, thus we see, that China,\nthe greatest of all countries in extent, encourages interior trade and\nmanufactures, but despises foreign commerce. {207}\n\nOne peculiar advantage England enjoys favourable to manufactures,\ndeserves notice. The law of patents, if it does not make people invent\nor seek after new inventions, it at least encourages and enables them\nto improve their inventions. Invention is the least part of the business\nin respect to public wealth and utility. There has long been a\ncollection of models, at Paris, made by one of the most in-\n\n---\n{207} The smaller a district, or an island is, the exports and imports\nwill be the greater, when compared with the number of inhabitants.\nTake the exports and imports of all Europe, with the other quarters of\nthe world;--considering Europe as one country, and it will not be\nfound to amount to one shilling a person per annum. Take the amount\nin Britain, it will be found about forty shillings a person. Consider\nwhat is bought and sold by a single village, and it will be still greater\nthan that; and, last of all, a single labouring family buys all that it\nuses, and sells all that it produces. And the meanest family, taken in\nthis way, does proportionably =sic= more buying and selling than the\nrichest state, taken in a body. Consider the whole earth as one state,\nand it neither exports nor imports.\n-=-\n\n[end of page #270]\n\ngenious mechanics of the last century, (Mr. Vaucusson,) at the\nexpense of that government, in which were nearly all the curious\ninventions brought forth in England, together with many not known in\nit. Some Englishmen, in going through it, brought over new inventions\nhere, for which they obtained patents, and, by which, they, as well as\nthe public, were gainers, while the inventions lay useless and dormant\nin France.\n\nInvention is not a thing in a man's power, and great inventions are\ngenerally more the effect of accident than of superior abilities; at any\nrate, no encouragement is certain to produce invention, but it always\nwill produce improvement on invention. When a man has a patent for\nfourteen years, he does every thing in his power to make the object of\nthat patent become as generally useful as possible, and this is only to\nbe done by carrying the improvements as far as he is able. {208}\nOthers, again, who have no patent, but are of the same trade,\nendeavour to preserve their business by improvement, and to this\ncontest in excellence may be attributed the great progress, made in\nEngland, in bringing manufactures to a higher degree of perfection\nthan in any other country.\n\nThe great inventions, from which others branch out and spring, are not\ndue, it has often been asserted, to natives of this country. Probably this\nmay be owing to the circumstance, that they were known before the\nadvancement of this country in any of the arts; but let that be as it\nmay, there are a vast number of inventions carried to greater\n\n---\n{208} This is sufficiently important to deserve to be illustrated by\nsome examples. The improvement of the steam-engine, by Mr. Watt,\nwas a matter of accident; an accident, indeed, that could not have\nhappened, had he been an ignorant man; but the improvement of it\nwas not accidental. It was, in consequence of great encouragement\ngiven, and to the prolongation of the patent, by an express act of\nparliament. This patent has been the occasion of almost totally\nchanging the machine, and of extending its use to a vast variety of\nobjects, to which it probably might never have been extended, had it\nnot been the sole business of a very able man, aided by a number of\nother ingenious persons, whom he was enabled to employ. It was the\ncause of improving the mechanism of mills for grinding corn, and\nothers of different descriptions, far beyond what they had been,\nalthough the most able engineer in that line (Mr. Smeaton) died before\nthe last and greatest improvements were made.\n\nThe same thing may be observed of the cotton-spinning-machines, and\nwith a little difference of all the inventions that have been brought to\nperfection, under the influence of exclusive privileges.\n-=-\n\n[end of page #271]\n\nperfection, and turned to more advantage in this country than in any\nother.\n\nThis advantage, which England enjoys over other countries, is a more\nsolid one than it appears to be, for it is intimately connected with the\ngovernment and laws of the country, and with that spirit which sees\nthe law well administered, which, in the case of patents, is a matter of\nno small difficulty, and prevents others from becoming our rivals, or\nattaining the same degree of perfection; {209} for, unless the law is\nwell administered, there can never be the great exertion that is\nnecessary to create excellence.\n\nThe fine arts and the mechanic arts are quite different in regard to the\nmanner in which they are brought to perfection. Individual capacity\nand genius will make a man, even without much teaching, excel in one\nof the fine arts; whereas, in the mechanic arts, to know how an\noperation is performed is every thing, and all men can do it nearly\nequally well. The consequence of this is, that, as experience improves\nthe manner of working, the mechanic arts improve, from age to age, as\nlong as they are encouraged and practised. It is not so with the fine\narts, or only so in a very small degree, and from this it arises, that, in\nsculpture, poetry, painting, and music, the ancients, perhaps, excelled\nthe moderns. In the mechanic arts they were quite inferior. The best\nexamples of this, (and better need not be,) are an antique medal,\nboldly and finely executed, but ragged on the edges, not on a flat\nground, or of equal thickness, compared with a new guinea, or a\nBirmingham button tamely engraved but trimly executed. In the\nformer, there is every mark of the artist, none of the machine. In the\nlatter, there are some faint and flat traces of an artist, but great proof\nof mechanical excellence. The skill of the artist, necessary to produce\nthe first, cannot be commanded, though it may, by encouragement, be\ncalled forth; but the reunion of talents, such as are necessary for the\nlatter, is so certainly obtainable, that it, at all times, may be procured\nat will, after it has once been possessed.\n\n---\n{209} In 1790 the French laid down the law of patents, on the English\nplan, and rather, in some respects, improved; but the people never\nunderstood it. The lawyers never understood it; and, even before the\nanarchy came on, it was evident it would never produce any very great\neffect, for want of proper administration.\n-=-\n\n[end of page #272]\n\nSecurity, to reap the fruits of improvements, is all that is wanted, and\nthis the law of patents, as applied and enforced in England, affords in\na very superior degree. Although, by the communication everywhere,\nthe ground-work of every art whatever is now no longer confinable to\nany one nation, though the contrary is the case, and that the\nknowledge necessary circulates freely, and is extended by a regular\nsort of system, in periodical publications of various descriptions, yet\nthe manner of turning that knowledge to advantage does not, by any\nmeans, seem equally easy to communicate.\n\nThe legislature of the United States of America has, indeed, in this\ncase, done full justice to the encouragement of arts and to inventions;\nbut circumstances, as has been already said, make other objects more\nadvantageous for the employment of labour and skill in that country.\nFor these reasons, therefore, we may look forward with some\nconfidence, to the flourishing of arts and manufactures, for a long\nterm of years, if the same attention that has been paid to their\nencouragement still continues; but neither this advantage alone, nor all\nthe advantages united, that have been enumerated, will be sufficient to\npreserve our superiority, if those, who regulate the affairs of the\ncountry, do not favour them.\n\nIt is in consequence of great pains and care, that manufactures have\nflourished in this country, and they cannot be preserved without a\ncontinuation of the same care, although it is individual effort that\nappears to be the principal cause. Thus, the travellers, on a well-made\nhighway, proceed with rapidity and ease, at their individual expense,\nand by their individual energy; but, if the road is not kept in repair,\ntheir progress must be impeded, and their efforts will cease to produce\nthe same effect, for they cannot individually repair the road.\n\nSuch appear to be the peculiar circumstances that favour Great\nBritain; and that under disadvantages that are also peculiarly great,\ngive hopes of prolonging the prosperity of the country.\n\nThere is still, however, something wanting to increase our advantage.\nAny person acquainted with the manufactures of England will\nnaturally have observed, that they are all such as meet with a market\nin this country. We have no mannfactories =sic= for goods, for the\nsole [end of page #273] purpose of our foreign markets; so that,\nthough we consider ourselves as so much interested in foreign trade,\nyet we have adapted all our manufacturies, expressly, as if it were to\nsupply the home market.\n\nThis observation will be found to apply very generally, though there\nare a few exceptions, and though the quality of the goods\nmanufactured, and intended for exportation, is adapted to the market\nfor which they are destined. This last, indeed, is very natural, nor\ncould it well be otherwise, but that is not going half the length\nnecessary.\n\nInstead of carrying our goods into a strange country, and trying\nwhether the inhabitants will purchase, we should bring home patterns\nof such articles as they use themselves, and try if we can supply them\nwith advantage. Nations vary, exceedingly, in taste, and so they\nalways will. The colour of the stuffs, the figures on printed cottons,\nand even the forms of cutlery, and articles of utility, are, in some sort,\nmatters of taste. If we are to manufacture for other nations, let us try to\nsuit their taste as we do to suit that of our own people at home. The\nreasons why we do not do this are pretty evident. In the first place, it\nwould not answer the purpose of an individual to procure the\ninformation necessary, and make a collection where the advantage, in\ncase of success, would be divided with all that chose to imitate them;\nbesides this, in many cases, the means are wanting to procure what is\nnecessary.\n\nThe study of botany has been greatly advanced, and kitchen gardens\ngreatly enriched, by the importation of exotic plants; and, probably,\nour manufactures might be greatly extended, if the same care were\ntaken to collect foreign articles, the produce of industry. {210} We do\nnot find every foreign plant succeed in this country, but if it seems\npro-\n\n---\n{210} A collection of all sorts of stuffs, with the prices in the country,\nwhere worn, and the same of all sorts of hardware, toys, trinkets, &c.,\nshould be made, at the public expense, and be open, on application, to\nthe inspection of every person who might apply in a proper manner;\nand even specimens, or patterns, should be delivered out, on the value\nbeing deposited. In Persia, and many places, if we would copy their\ncolours and patterns, we might sell great quantities of cotton stuffs.\nOur hatchets, and some other of our tools, are not made of a form\nliked by the Americans.\n-=-\n\n[end of page #274]\n\nbable, and worth trying, we never fail to do that; we trust it would be\nso with foreign manufactures, if we had proper patterns. A fair trial\nwould be made, where success seemed probable, and the event would\ndetermine the future exertion.\n\nAccidental circumstances, a few centuries ago, brought new plants\ninto this country, they now come into it in consequence of regular\nexertions for that purpose. What was then true, with regard to plants\nimported, is still true with respect to manufactures exported. We\nmanufacture for ourselves, and if any thing of the same sort suits other\nnations, we send it, if not, there is no trade to that part; now, this must\nbe allowed to be an accidental cause, for the promotion of foreign\ntrade.\n\nWherever it is possible to prevent the debasing the quality of an\narticle, so as to hinder it answering the purpose, or gratifying the\nexpectations of the purchaser, that ought to be done, for it has long\nbeen such a practice for English manufacturers to undersell each other,\nthat they stick at no means of being able to do so.\n\nA variety of qualities, according to price, is necessary. All persons\ncannot afford to buy the best sort of goods; but, when a reduction of\nprice is carried so far as to be obtained by making an article that is\nuseless, this is a means of losing the trade; and it would be very easy\nto prove that such examples are very numerous, and that various\nbranches of trade have been lost by that means.\n\nWith regard to the extent of sea coast, the advantage that may be\nderived from the fisheries, and the benefit arising from that\ncircumstance to commerce, they are natural advantages, and already\nperfectly understood. [end of page #275]\n\n\n\n\nCHAP. VIII.\n\n\n_Conclusion_.\n\nAfter having gone through the subject of the Inquiry, according to\nthe mode that appeared to be the best, in which there has been one\ninvariable rule, never to oppose theory and reasoning to facts, but to\ntake experience as the surest guide, a recapitulation can scarcely be\nvery necessary; but a conclusion, applicable to the situation of this\ncountry, certainly may.\n\nThis, however, ought to be short, as the reader has all the materials for\nit in his own power, but it may save him trouble.\n\nThe great end of all human effort is, to improve upon the means which\nnature has furnished men with, for obtaining the objects of their wants\nand wishes, and to obviate, to counteract, or do away those\ninconveniencies =sic= and disadvantages which nature has thrown in\nthe way of their enjoyment. {211}\n\nWith the mind, the same course should be used as with material\nbodies. It is impossible, in either case, to create; but we may turn the\ngood to as profitable an advantage as we are able, and counteract the\nbad.\n\nTo attempt to hinder men from following their propensities, when in\npower, is always arduous, generally ineffectual, and frequently\nimpracticable; besides, when it can be done coercively, it infringes too\nmuch on the liberty and the enjoyment of mankind. A controuling\npower should be employed as seldom as possible.\n\n---\n{211} Thus, in building a house, you form the stones, the clay, and\nother materials, which nature has furnished, in order to counteract the\neffect of heat or cold, moist or dry, as is most agreeable. Thus, men\nhave learned to melt and vitrify the sand on the sea-shore, to make\nglass, grind it into a form, and make a microscope to view the most\nminute objects of nature, or to bring the most distant nearer, by the\ntelescope: thus, rectifying the imperfection of human sight. Perhaps\nthe burning of _coals_ to convert _water_ into _steam_, and, with that\n_steam_, raising _coals_ and _water_ from the mine is the most\ncomplete triumph of human skill over physical difficulties. How\ninvention and discovery have improved the state of man since the time\nthat the uses of corn and fire were unknown in Greece!!!\n-=-\n\n[end of page #276]\n\nTo attempt to smother the passions is vain, to controul them difficult;\nbesides, it is from energy, arising from passions or propensities, that\nall good, as well as all evil, arise. The business, then, will neither be\nto curb nor to crush, but to give a proper direction. This is to be done\nby good habits, when young, and a proper education, which cannot be\nobtained by individual exertion, without the assistance of government;\nan assistance that it is therefore bound to give.\n\nThe general tendency of wealth and power are to enervate people, to\nmake them proud and indolent, and, after a certain time, they leave a\ncountry. Individuals have no means to counteract this tendency, unless\nthe governing power of the country gives a general impulse to them,\nin cases where they can act, and acts itself, with care and attention,\nwhere individuals can do nothing.\n\nIn the case of education and manners, in the case of providing for\nchildren, individuals may do much, but government must not only\ngive the means, but the impulse. In the case of the soil becoming\ninsufficient for the inhabitants, and of taxes and national debt\nincreasing, government may stop the progress; and in the cases of\nindividual bodies trenching on the general weal, as well as in the\ntendency of inventions, capital, &c. to emigrate to other countries, the\ngovernment may counteract, and, perhaps, totally prevent them all.\n\nIn all cases, individuals will and must follow their lawful propensities,\nboth in the means of employing capital and expending revenue; that is,\nthey must be left free, in a general way, and only interrupted and\nregulated in particular cases; but, sometimes, the means must be\nfurnished them of going right, and in other cases the inducements to\ndo so augmented. We shall take the subjects in the same order that\nthey followed in the Second Book.\n\nThough the manners of people, arrived at maturity, can only be\nregulated by their education, when young, if that is properly attended\nto, it will be sufficient; for though it will not prevent the generation\nthat has attained wealth, from enjoying it according to the prevailing\ntaste, it will prevent contamination being communicated with\nincreased force, as it now is, to the children. The evils then will go on\nin a simple proportion; they now go on with a compound one, and the\nevils arising from the [end of page #277] luxury of each generation are\ndoubled on that which follows after. If that is prevented, it will be all\nthat probably is necessary; at all events it is probably all that is\npossible.\n\nIn taxation, the government should study to do away what is\nobnoxious in its mode of collection, for that does more injury to the\nsubject, in many cases, than an equal sum would do levied in another\nmanner; and when payments are to be made, the mode should be\nrendered as easy as possible. Every unnecessary trouble should be\navoided in collecting a tax. In the tax on receipts and bills, why should\nthe sums to which they extend not be printed on them, so as to prevent\nerror, which is sometimes attended with great loss, and always with\ninconvenience? If this had been done, how many law-suits, how many\nnefarious tricks, would have been prevented? But not to speak of those\ninconveniences only, how much useless trouble, uneasiness, and\nuncertainty, would have been saved in the common way of transacting\nbusiness? In most cases, the subject is treated as if neither his time,\nnor his conveniency, nor his feelings, were worth attending to. This is\nequally impolitic and unjust: there is, perhaps, no country where\npeople are more careful to keep within the pale of the law, than in\nEngland; but when they are within it, and have power, no people use it\nwith a more insulting rigour; and for this there is no redress.\n\nIn many cases, this would be entirely prevented by proper attention in\nfirst laying on the tax. There should be a board of taxation, to receive,\ndigest, and examine, the suggestions of others. In short, pains should\nbe taken to bring to perfection the system. At present, it is left to\nchance; that is to say, it is left for those to do who have not time to do\nit, and, of consequence, the blunders committed are seen by all the\nworld. {212}\n\n---\n{212} An act of parliament for a new tax is seldom ever right till it\nhas been evaded a number of times, and even then in perfectioning\n=sic= it, an increase of revenue is the only object attended to; the\nconveniency of the subject is scarcely ever thought of. Taxes are laid\non, that experience proves to be unproductive and oppressive, and\nsometimes are, and oftener ought, to be repealed; thousands of persons\nare sometimes ruined for a mere experiment. As the public pays for it,\nthey, at least, might be indulged with a little attention; nothing costs\nless than civility. If half the attention were paid to preventing\nunnecessary trouble to the subject, [end of page #278] in cases of\ntaxation, that is paid to the preservation of partridges, we should have\nthe thing very differently managed. There should also be a public\noffice, to hear just complaints against those who give unnecessary\ntrouble, as there is for hackney coachmen. Men in all situations\nrequire to be under some controul, where they have power. Most of\nthose who _drive_ others, go wrong sometimes, unless held in check\nby some authority.\n-=-\n\nThe encroachments of separate bodies on the public, it is entirely in\nthe power of the state to prevent. It is owing to weakness or\ncarelessness, or ignorance, that governments admit of such\nencroachments, and they are easily to be prevented, partly, as has been\nshewn, by positive regulation, and partly by counteracting them,\nwhenever they appear to be proceeding in a direction any way\ndoubtful. When they do so, the conclusion may be, that they are\nworking for themselves; and, in that case, they ought to be very\nminutely examined into; and, as all public bodies, and men belonging\nto a class that has a particular interest generally derive their means of\ntrenching on the public from government, it may very easily controul\ntheir action, or counteract the effect.\n\nAs lawyers have the administration of justice amongst themselves; as\nthe executive part is in their hand, the law-makers should be\nparticularly careful to make them amenable by law for bad conduct; it\nought not to be left in the bosom of a court, to strike off, or keep on,\nan improper man. It is not right, on the one hand, that attorneys, or any\nset of men, should be subject to an arbitrary exertion of power; and it\nis equally unfair for them to be protected, by having those who are to\njudge between them and the public, always belonging to their own\nbody. In defence of this, it is said, that attornies are servants of the\ncourt, and that the business of the court being to do justice, their\ncorrection cannot be in better hands. This is a tolerably ingenious\nassertion, if it were strictly true; but the court consists both of judge\nand jury; whereas, in this case, the judge assumes all the power; that is\nto say, when a case is to be determined relative to the conduct of a\nlawyer, a lawyer is to be the sole judge, and the jury, who represent\nthe public, are to have their power set aside; thus, when their opinion\nis most wanted, it is not allowed to be given. Under such regulation,\nwhat real redress can be expected? As for the taxing costs by a master,\nit is [end of page #279] rarely that a client, from prudential motives,\ndares appeal; and, when he does, the remedy is frequently worse than\nthe disease; and, even in this case a lawyer judges a lawyer. Without\nsaying any thing against the judgments, it will be allowed, that in\nneither case is the principle of Magna Carta adhered to, of a man\nbeing judged by his peers; besides, in every other fraud there is\npunishment proportioned to the crime. In this case there is no\npunishment, unless the extortion is exorbitant, and then the\npunishment is too great. It ought to be proportioned to the offence, as\nin cases of usury, and then it would be effectual; but to let small\nmisdemeanors go free and to punish great ones beyond measure is the\nway to elude punishment in all cases. A man ought to pay his bill; let\nthe attorney take the money at his peril, and let there be a court to\njudge fairly, at little expense, and with promptitude, and punish the\nextortion by a treble fine. This would answer; but all regulations,\nrelative to law, are left to the lawyers themselves; and the fable of the\nMan, the Lion, and the Picture, was never so well exemplified, Never,\nin any case, was redress more wanted; perhaps, never was it less likely\nto be had.\n\nThe unequal division of property, as has been shewn, arises partly\nfrom bad laws, and partly from neglect of regulation; it is, indeed, one\nof the most delicate points to interfere in; nevertheless, as it has been\nproved, that laws do already interfere between a man and the use of\nhis property, (and that it is, in some cases, necessary that they should\ndo so) the question is reduced to one of circumstances and\nexpediency, it is not one to be determined, in the abstract, on\nprinciple. It is also of too nice a nature to be touched roughly by\ngeneral regulation; but, if large estates in land, and large farms, were\ntaxed higher in proportion than small ones, it would counteract, to a\ncertain degree, the tendency of landed property to accumulate in any\none person's hand; and, except in land, property seldom remains long\nenough in one family to accumulate to a dangerous degree. {213}\n\n---\n{213} Besides the above truth, of other property being liable to be\ndissipated from its nature the law of primogeniture does not attach on\nit, and the evil, if it did, would not be any way considerable.\n-=-\n\n[end of page #280]\n\nThe increased consumption of a nation, which we have found one of\nthe causes of decline that increases with its wealth, may be more\neffectually prevented than any other; not by interfering with the mode\nin which individuals expend their wealth, but by managing it so that\nvegetable food shall always be in abundance; and if so, the high prices\nof animal food, and the low price of vegetables will answer the\npurpose of counteracting the taste for the former, which is the cause of\nthe dearth, and brings on depopulation; and therefore its hurtful effect\nwill be prevented. {214}\n\nTo this, gentlemen of landed property may object, and no doubt will\nobject, but let them consider how rapidly ruin is coming on. At the\nrate matters now go, it would not be a surprising, but a natural effect,\nif most of the fields in Britain were converted into pasture, and our\nchief supply of corn obtained from abroad. The rent of land would,\nindeed, be doubled, the wages of labour would rise more than in an\nequal proportion, and a very few years would complete the ruin of this\ncountry. The landed proprietors surely would not, for any momentary\ngain, risk the ruin of themselves and of their country, for both may be\nthe consequence of persisting in this system. {215} Or, if they will\npersist in it, will the government, which has other interests to consult\nand to protect, allow that single one to swallow up all the rest?\n\nIt is true, the freedom of trade will be invoked; but the freedom of\n\n---\n{214} Suppose that, of the waste lands, eleven millions of acres were\ncultivated, and that as much as possible (suppose five millions) were\nalways in grain, those five millions would be able to supply the nation\nnearly in an ordinary year. A law might also be made, compelling all\nlandlords and farmers to have only three-fourths in grass; this could be\nno hardship. There would then be always corn in plenty; monopoly\nwould be prevented, because anxiety would be avoided; for a real\ndeficiency to a small amount gives cause to great anxiety and grievous\nmonopoly. The waste lands, when disposed of, might have whatever\ncondition attached to them was thought fit.\n\n{215} We say persisting in this system, for when bread fell to be at a\nmoderate price, last summer, (1804,) the outcry amongst the farmers\nwas great and violent, and the legislature altered the law about\nexports; the consequence of this was, that the price of wheat rose\nregularly every week till it was doubled. All this was the effect of\nopinion, for the price of corn rose too quickly to allow any to be sent\nout of the kingdom, by the new law.\n-=-\n\n[end of page #281]\n\ntrade is a principle not to be adopted without limitation, but with due\nregard to times and circumstances; let it then never be invoked upon a\ngeneral question, without examination. Though this is the true way of\narguing the question, let freedom of trade be taken in another way; let\nit be considered as a general principle, it will then be immutable, and\ncannot be changed. {216} The present corn-laws must on that\nprinciple be done away, and no bounty allowed for exportation or for\nimportation, which indeed would be the best way; but, at all events, let\nus have one weight and one measure for both parties, and not invoke\nfreedom of trade to protect the corn-dealers when prices are high, and\nenact laws to counteract the effects of plenty, which produces low\nprices.\n\nOn this subject, government must set itself above every consideration,\nbut that of the welfare of the country: it is too important to be trifled\nwith, or to be bartered for any inferior consideration.\n\nThe prices of our manufactures will soon become too high for other\nnations. Our inventions, to abbreviate labour, cannot be perpetual,\nand, in some cases, they can go no farther than they have already\ngone; besides, the same inventions, copied by nations where labour is\ncheaper, give them still a superiority over us.\n\nIf increased consumption was the leading cause of the destruction of\nRome, to which money was sent from tributary nations, and employed\nto purchase corn, (so that its supply was independent of its industry,)\nhow much more forcible and rapid must be its effects in this country,\nliving by manufactures, and having no other means to procure a\nsupply from strangers, when that is necessary? {217}\n\nThe burthens of our national taxes continuing the same, those for\n\n---\n{216} When corn was dear, and the public cry was for regulation, it\nwas announced, in the highest quarters, that trade was free. Ministers\nacted as if they had been the colleagues of of =sic= the economist\nTurgot; but, when prices fell, the language was changed, and new\nregulations were made. Compare the Duke of Portland's letter, in\n1799, with the act for the exportation of grain, in 1804.\n\n{217} The money sent out of the country for corn is a direct\ndiminution of the balance due to us from other nations, and it now\namounts to near three millions a year on an average. The balance in\nour favour is not much more than twice that sum at the most, and was\nnot equal to that till lately: the imports of grain may soon turn the\nbalance against us.\n-=-\n\n[end of page #282]\n\nthe poor increasing, our means diminishing; what could possibly\nproduce a more rapid decline?\n\nThe danger is too great and too evident to require any thing farther to\nbe said; particularly as the last ten years have taught us so much, by\nexperience.\n\nIt is unnecessary to repeat what was said about the mode of reducing\nthe interest of the national debt without setting too much capital\nafloat; without breaking faith with the creditors of the state, or\nburthening the industry of the country.\n\nOn the increase of the poor and the means of diminishing their\nnumbers enough has been said. That must originate with government\nin every case and in some cases exclusively belongs to it. They must\nact of themselves entirely, with respect to the very poor and to their\nchildren. With those who are not quite reduced to poverty, they should\ngrant aid, to enable them to struggle against adversity, and prevent\ntheir offspring from becoming burthensome to the public.\n\nThe other affairs well attended to, capital and industry will lose their\ntendency to leave the country; and, if they should continue to leave it,\nthe case will be desperate; for, after the lands are improved, and the\nbest encouragement given to the employment of capital, and to the\ngreatest extent nothing more can be done. It will find employment\nelsewhere.\n\nThe efficacy of a remedy, like every thing else in this world, has a\nboundary, but the extent and compass of that depends, in a great\ndegree, on exertion and skill, and particularly so in the present\ninstance. It remains with the government to make that exertion, either\ndirectly itself, or by putting individuals in the way to make it.\n\nThe government of a country must then interfere, in an active manner,\nin the prevention of the interior causes of decline. As to the exterior\nones, they do not depend on a country itself; but, so far as they do, it is\nexclusively on the government, and in no degree on the individual\ninhabitants.\n\nThe envy and enmity which superior wealth create, can only be\ndiminished by the moderation and justice with which a nation\nconducts itself towards others; and if they are sufficiently envious and\n[end of page #283] unfair to persist, a nation like Britain has nothing\nto fear. But we must separate from envy and enmity occasioned by the\npossession of wealth, that envy and enmity that are excited by the\nunjust manner in which wealth is acquired.\n\nIn respect to Britain, it has been shewn, that the envy and enmity\nexcited, are chiefly by her possessions in the East Indies; we have\nseen, also, that the wealth obtained by those possessions is but very\ninconsiderable, and that they have, at least, brought on one-third of\nour national debt; it would then be well, magnanimously to state the\nquestion, and examine whether we ought not to abandon the\npossession of such unprofitable, such expensive, and such a dangerous\nacquisition; till we do so, it is to be feared that we shall never have a\ntrue friend, nor be without a bitter enemy.\n\nWe have had experience from America, which is become precious to\nus now, that we have lost it, and which was a mill-stone about our\nneck, while we were in possession of it. Let us take a lesson from\nexperience, and apply its result to what is at this moment going on,\nand we cannot mistake the conclusion to be formed. Let the nation be\nabove the little vanity of retaining a thing, merely because it has\npossessed it. {218} Let the great general outline of happiness, and of\npermanent happiness, be considered, and not that ephemerical\nsplendour and opulence, that gilded pomp that remains but for a day,\nand leaves a nation in eternal poverty and want. Britain can only be\nfirm and just in its conduct towards other nations, give up useless\npossessions, defend its true rights to the last point, encourage industry\nat home, and take every step to prevent the operation of those causes\nof decline that we have been examining; let merit be encouraged, and\n\n---\n{218} In this country, public opinion would be against a minister, who\nproposed to give up any possession abroad, however useless. This is\nowing to the pride occasioned by wealth. The people are not rapacious\nfor conquests, but once in possession they are very unwilling to let\nthem go.\n\nIt is not necessary to quit the trade to India, or abandon all our\npossessions, but to diminish our establishments, circumscribe our\nconquests, and not aim at possessing more than we had thirty years\nago. That moderation would conciliate all nations, and envy would\nfind its occupation gone.\n-=-\n\n[end of page #284]\n\nlet it never be forgotten or lost sight of, that wealth and greatness can\nonly be supported, for a length of time, by industry and abilities well\ndirected, guided by justice and fair intention. This is the truth of which\nwe are never to lose sight. We may keep sounding for the bottom, and\nreconnoitring the shore, the better to direct our steps, but we must\nnever lose sight of the beacon, with the help of which alone we can\nsafely enter the wished-for harbour.\n\nThere is a great disposition in the human mind to give the law, when\nthere is the power of doing it. The abuse of power appears to be\nnatural and dangerous; yet, we have seen, that most nations, both\nancient and modern, have fallen into that error. The hour of British\ninsolence has also been mentioned, and, certainly, with regard to\nAmerica, we did not more materially mistake our power than we did\nthe rights of those with whom we had to treat.\n\nIt is much to be questioned, whether the undaunted and brave spirit of\nour naval commanders does not, in some cases, lead them too far in\ntheir rencontres with vessels of other nations on the high seas, and we\nought not to forget that, in this case, the match played is that of\nEngland against all the world. As no other nation is under the same\ncircumstances with this, no one will be inclined to take our part, or to\nwink at, or pardon, any error we may commit.\n\nThe Hans Towns, at one time, were paramount at sea; they could bid\ndefiance to all the world; and, at first, they did great actions, and\nemployed their power to a good purpose. They destroyed the pirates,\nand humbled the Danes, after they had robbed both the English and\nFrench, and burnt both London and Paris; but they also had their hour\nof insolence. They began to be unjust, and to be insolent, and the cities\nthat had begged to be united to them, in the times when their conduct\nwas honourable and wise, withdrew from the participation of their\ninjustice, pride, and arrogance. While they attended to protecting\nthemselves, and to following their own affairs, they did numberless\ngood offices to the ships of foreign nations; they had universal good\nwill and commanded admiration. But, when they became supercilious,\nand a terror to others, their pride was soon humbled, never again to\nrise. [end of page #285]\n\nIn considering the whole, there is a considerable degree of consolation\narises to British subjects, to see the very mistaken comparisons that\nhave, in the first place, been made between Rome and Carthage; and,\nin the second place, the still more unfair comparison made between\nthose two rival powers, and France and England.\n\nAs opinion and belief have a great power over the minds of men,\nwhether they act in conformity to their views and wishes, or in\nopposition to them, it is of great importance to remove an error, which\nwas of very long standing, very general, and had the direct tendency to\nmake the people of both countries think the parallel well drawn, and\ntherefore conclude that this mercantile country must, sooner or later,\nsink under the power of France. But, when it appears that most authors\nhave been inadvertently led into the same mistake, with respect to\nthose two ancient republics, and that, even if there had not been the\nmistake, the parallel drawn would not have been true, then France will\nprobably cease to found her hopes on that comparison, and we may, at\nleast, cease to feel any apprehension from so ill-grounded a cause.\n\nThat a nation once gone on in the career of opulence can never go\nback with impunity is as certain as its tendency to going back is. The\npossession of riches is of a transitory nature, and their loss attended\nwith innumerable evils. Though nations in affluence, like men in\nhealth, refuse to follow any regimen, and use great freedom with\nthemselves, yet they should consider there is a vast difference. A man,\nwell and in health, is in his natural state; yet even that will not resist\ntoo much liberty taken with his constitution; but a nation that has risen\nto more wealth than others is always in an artificial state, insomuch as\nit owes its superiority, not to nature, but either to peculiar\ncircumstances, our =sic--sc.: or = superior exertion and care; it is\ntherefore not to be supposed capable of being preserved, without some\nof that attention and care, which are necessary to all nations under\nsimilar circumstances, and which, in the history of the world, we have\nnot yet seen one nation able to resist.\n\nThere are sufficient circumstances, new and favourable in the [end of\npage #286] case of Britain, to inspire us with the courage necessary\nfor making the effort.\n\nThere is one part of the application of this Inquiry, to the British\ndominions, left intentionally incomplete. It has been left so with a\ndesign to keep clear of those discussions that awaken a spirit of party,\nwhich prevents candid attention. It is of little use to enquire, unless\nthose who read can do it without prevention or prejudice. It is\ntherefore, very necessary not to awaken those feelings, by adding any\nthing that may rouse a spirit of party; and it is difficult to touch\nmatters that concern men, deeply interested in an object, without that\ndanger. What seems impartial to an unconcerned man, seems partial to\nthose who are concerned; and sometimes the observer is blamed by\nboth the parties, between whom he thinks he is keeping in the middle\nway.\n\nThe advantages of the form of government adopted in Britain have\nbeen fairly stated in account; but constitutions and forms of\ngovernment, however good, are only so in the degree; they are never\nperfect, and have all a tendency to wear out, to get worse, and to get\nencumbered. The French were the first, perhaps, that ever tried the\nmad scheme of remedying this by making a constitution that could be\nrenewed at pleasure. But it was a violent remedy, to implant, in the\nconstitution itself, the power of its own destruction, under the idea of\nrenovation. The English constitution has taken, perhaps, the best way\nthat is possible for this purpose; it has given to king, lords, and\ncommons, the power of counteracting each other, and so preserving its\nfirst principles. Without going into that inquiry, it is sufficient to say,\nthat the advantages which may be derived from the British\nconstitution can only be expected by the three different powers having\nthat will, and exercising it; for, if they should act together on a system\nof confidence, without an attention to preserving the balance, they\nmust overset, instead of navigating the vessel.\n\nThe individuals of whom a nation is composed, we have seen, never\ncan, by their efforts, prevent its decline, as their natural propensities\ntend to bring it on. It is to the rulers of nations we must look for the\n[end of page #287] prolongation of prosperity, which they cannot\naccomplish, unless they look before them, and, in place of seeking for\nremedies, seek for preventatives.\n\nIt is very natural and very common for those who wield the power of a\ngreat nation, to trust to the exertion of that power, when the moment\nof necessity arrives; but that will seldom, if ever, be found to answer.\nThe time for the efficacy of remedy will be past before the evil\npresents itself in the form of pressing necessity; and that very power,\nwhich can so effectually be applied in other cases, in this will be\ndiminished, and found unequal to what it has to perform.\n\n[end of page #288]\n\n_Application of the present Inquiry to Nations in general_\n\nIF there is a lesson taught by political economy that is of greater\nimportance than any other, it is, that industry, well directed, is the way\nto obtain wealth; and that the modes by which nations sought after it\nin the early and middle ages, by war and conquest, are, in comparison,\nvery ineffectual.\n\nNotwithstanding that princes themselves are now convinced of the\ntruth of this, by a strange fatality, the possession of commercial wealth\nhas itself become the cause of wars, not less ruinous than those that\nformerly were the chief occupation of mankind.\n\nIt was discovered a few centuries ago, that small principalities, and\neven single cities, acquired more wealth by industry, than all the\nmighty monarchs of the middle ages did by war; but we are not yet\nadvanced to the ultimate end of the lessons that experience and reason\ngive in regard to the interests of nations, with regard to wealth and\npower.\n\nTo suppose that mankind will ever live entirely at peace is absurd, and\nis to suppose them to change their nature. Such a reverie would only\nsuit one of the revolutionists of France; but let us hope that there is\nstill a possibility to lessen the causes of quarrels amongst nations. The\ntrue principles of political economy lead to that, and the object is\nsufficiently important.\n\nBy _agriculture_ and _manufactures_; that is, by producing such\nthings as are conducive to the happiness of man, the _aggregate\nwealth of mankind_ can alone be increased.\n\nBy _commerce_, which consists in conveying or selling the produce\nof industry, the aggregate wealth of mankind is not increased, but its\n_distribution is altered_. {219}\n\n---\n{219} Though the produce of soil is not obtained without industry,\nyet, to make a distinction that is simple and easily understood and\nretained, we suppose manufactured produce to go by the name of the\nproduce of industry.\n-=-\n\n[end of page #289]\n\nAs individuals, and sometimes nations, have obtained great wealth,\nnot by producing, but by altering the distribution of wealth produced;\nthat is, by commerce, that seems, to those who aim at wealth, to be the\ngreatest object of ambition.\n\nIf every nation in the world were industrious, and contented with\nconsuming the articles it produced, they would all be wealthy and\nhappy without commerce; or, if each nation enjoyed a share of\ncommerce, in proportion to what it produced, there would be no\nsuperiority to create envy.\n\nVariety of soil and climate, difference of taste, of manners, and an\ninfinity of other causes, have rendered commerce necessary, though it\ndoes not increase the aggregate wealth of mankind: but nations are in\nan error when they set a greater value on commerce than on\nproductive industry.\n\nSome nations are situated by nature so as to be commercial, just as\nothers are to raise grapes and fine fruits; therefore, though one nation\nhas more than what appears to be an equal share of commerce, it\nought not to be a reason for envy, much less for enmity.\n\nSome nations also find it their interest to attend chiefly to agriculture,\nothers may find it necessary to attend more to manufactures; but that\nought to be no cause of enmity or rivalship.\n\nWith a view, if possible, to diminish a little the envy and rivalship that\nstill subsists, let us take a view of this business in its present state.\n\nBritain, the wealthiest of nations, at this time, sells little of the\nproduce of her soil, and a great deal of the produce of her industry; but\nshe purchases a great deal of the produce of the soil of other countries,\nthough not much of their industry: in this there is great mutual\nconveniency and no rivalship. In fact, her wealth arises nearly\naltogether from internal industry, and, by no means from that\ncommerce that is the envy of other nations; for it is clear, that whoever\nproduces a great deal may consume a great deal, without any\nexchange of commodities, and without commerce.\n\nThe English, number for number, produce more, by one-half, than\n[end of page #290] any other people; they can, therefore, consume\nmore; they are, therefore, richer.\n\nIf France would cultivate her soil with the same care that we attend to\nmanufactures, (at the same time manufacturing for herself as much as\nshe did before the revolution,) she would be a much richer country\nthan England, without having a single manufacture for exportation.\nHer wines, brandies, fruits, &c. &c. would procure her amply\nwhatever she might want from other nations. Let France make good\nlaws to favour industry; and, above all, render property secure, and\nshe will have no occasion to envy England.\n\nRussia, part of Germany, Spain, Italy, and Portugal, are all in a similar\nsituation with France in this respect; they will each be as rich as\nEngland the moment they are as industrious, and have as many\ninventions for the abbreviation of labour.\n\nHolland, Sweden, Denmark, Prussia, and some parts of Germany, are,\nmore or less, in the same situation with England; they require to pay\nattention to manufactures, for they have not the means of raising\nproduce enough to exchange for all they want.\n\nIf there is any occasion for rivalship, or ground for envy, it is then but\nvery small, and it happens that the rivalship which exists is between\nthose nations that, in reality, ought to be the least envious of each\nother, the nations who have the fewest quarrels are those who really\nmight be rivals.\n\nRivalship is natural between those who are in similar situations.\nFrance, Spain, and Portugal, might be rivals. England, Holland,\nPrussia, and Denmark, might also be rivals; but there can be no reason\nfor France envying England her manufactures and commerce, any\nmore than for England envying France for her climate, soil, extent,\n=sic= of territory and population.\n\nThe way to produce the most, being to give industry its best direction.\nNations, differently situated, ought never to be rivals or enemies, on\naccount of trade.\n\nIf those, who regulate the affairs of nations, were to consider this in its\ntrue light, there would be less jealousy and more industry. [end of\npage #291]\n\nThere appears to be only one real cause for war, so far as it is\noccasioned by a wish to obtain wealth; and that arises from\npossessions in the East and West Indies, and in America.\n\nIf there were no such possessions, or if they were more equally\ndivided, there would be very little cause for war amongst nations.\n\nIt may, very possibly, at some distant time, be an object for a general\ncongress of nations, to settle this point; so that it shall be no longer an\nobject of jealousy. This can be done only by abandoning entirely, or\ndividing more equally; but, at present, the animosity and enmity\noccasioned is considerable, though not well founded.\n\nThe Spaniards are not envied for the possession of Peru, nor the\nPortuguese for the Brazils, though they draw more wealth from them\nthan ever England or Holland did from their foreign possessions; yet,\nEngland is, and Holland was, an object of envy, on account of\npossessions abroad. This is the more unreasonable, that the Spaniards\nand Portuguese keep the trade strictly to themselves, while England\nallows nations, at peace with her, the most liberal conditions for\ntrading with her Indian possessions: conditions, indeed, that give them\na superiority over ourselves. {220} This conduct ought not to bring\ndown upon England, envy or enmity, (though it does); for the fact is,\nthat if all nations were at peace with England, they might, if they had\ncapital and skill, (and that they have not is no fault of England,) trade\nwith India to great advantage, while we should have the trouble of\ndefending our establishments, and of keeping the country.\n\nBefore the revolution, France obtained more produce from Saint\nDomingo alone, in one year, than Britain did from all her West India\nIslands together, in three years, and much more than England did from\nall her foreign possessions together; yet, France was never obnoxious\nto other nations on that account.\n\n---\n{220} This may seem strange, but it is literally true; the quarrels\nbetween the India Company, and the free trade, as it is called, are an\nample proof of the truth of it. The free-trade-merchants chiefly act\nunder the name of agents for Swedish and Danish houses, so liberally\nhas England acted with regard to neutral nations.\n-=-\n\n[end of page #292]\n\nIt appears, then, very evident, that the envy and jealousy do not arise\nfrom the _magnitude or value of foreign possessions_, but from some\nother cause, though it is laid to that account. This cause is worth\ninquiring into.\n\nIt appears that Holland and England have, alone, been causes of\njealousy to other nations, on account of foreign possessions; but, that\nSpain, Portugal, and France, never have, though there was more real\nreason for envy and jealousy.\n\nThe reason of this appears to be, that those nations, who excited no\nenvy, escaped it, because their indolence, or internal economy,\nprevented them from becoming rich; but, that Holland and England,\nwhich, in reality, owed their wealth chiefly to internal industry, and\nvery little of it to foreign possessions, have excited great envy, and\nthat England does so to the present hour. {221}\n\nIt is, then, wealth arising from industry, that is the object to be aimed\nat, and that cannot be obtained by war or conquest. The purpose is not\nadvanced, but retarded, by such contests; and if those, who rule\nnations, would condescend to enter into the merits of the case, they\nwould find, not only that the happiness of the people, and every\npurpose at which they aim, would be better answered than by\ncontesting about the means of wealth, which, consisting in internal\nindustry, does not admit of a transfer. One nation may be ruined, and\nanother may rise, (as, indeed, they are continually doing,) but one\nnation does not rise merely by ruining another; the wealth of a nation,\nlike the happiness of an individual, draws the source from its own\n\n---\n{221} From both the East and West Indies, England never has, till\nwithin these last ten years, drawn three millions a year, that could be\ntermed profit or gain, and, even in the last and most prosperous times,\nnot eight millions, which is not equal to more than one-twentieth part\nof the produce of national industry at home. Even the foreign\ncommerce of England, except so far as it procures us things we want,\nin exchange for things we have to spare, is not productive of much\nwealth. Supposing the balance in our favour to be six millions a year,\nwhich it has never uniformly been, it would only amount to one-\ntwenty-fourth of our internal productive industry. In short, we gain\nfive times as much by a wise division of labour, the use of machinery,\nready and expeditious methods of working, as by the possession of\nboth the Indies!!!\n-=-\n\n[end of page #293]\n\nbosom. The possession of all the Indies would never make an indolent\npeople rich; and while a people are industrious, and the industry is\nwell directed, they never can be poor.\n\nIt is to be hoped, that the time is fast approaching, when nations will\ncease to fight about an object that is not to be obtained by fighting,\nand that they will seek for what they want, by such means as are safe\nand practicable. [end of page #294]\n\n\n\n\n======\nINDEX.\n======\n\n******************************************************************\n[Transcriber's note: the original work itself omits the page\nreferences in the many instances where there is a trailing comma.]\n******************************************************************\n\n\n[=sic=--no section heading in original]\n\nABSOLUTE monarchy, in some particular instances, has an\nadvantage over limited monarchy; particularly in preventing the\ninfringement made by corporate bodies or professions on the public,\n117, 118, 119.\n\nAGES, middle, commerce made slow progress during them, 3.--What\nplaces flourished in them, 44 to 50.\n\nAGE, golden, the tradition, if that founded in any thing, must have\nbeen a very ignorant one, though very happy, 214.\n\nALEXANDER, the Great, history confused before his time, 20.--His\nconquests had no permanent consequences, 24.--The only permanent\nconsequence was Alexandria supplanting Tyre, 52.--His expedition to\nIndia was on purpose to get possession of the fine countries that\nproduced aromatics and precious stones, 53.\n\nALEXANDRIA, rendered Egypt first a commercial country, and\nbrought on the decline of Carthage, 24.--Loses its commerce in the\n7th century by the conquests of the Mahomedans, 54, 55.\n\nALFRED the Great, made many efforts to render the people happy,\n118.\n\nAMBASSADOR. See Diplomacy.\n\nAMBITION, sometimes renders labour an enjoyment, 82.\n\nAMERICA, its discovery forms a new epoch in the history of\ncommerce, 3.--Little similarity between it and other nations, 103.--\nUnited States, of, their revenues, ib.--May take all the goods Britain\ncan manufacture, 195.--British exports to, consist nearly all of\nmanufactured goods, 204.--Probability of its great increase and\nconsumption of English manufactures, 268, 269.--Encourages arts\nand inventions, but agriculture a better object to it, 273.\n\nANCIENT nations. See Nations.\n\nANIMAL food, much used in northern nations and by manufacturing\npeople, 138.--Its effects on population, 139 to 146.--Price compared\nwith bread, 147.--In case of the demand becoming too great, a\nremedy proposed, 155.\n\nANTWERP, at one time acted as a sovereign, 47.--Became, in the\nnorth, what Venice was in the south of Europe, 57.\n\nAPPRENTICES. See Education.\n\nARABIAN Gulf. See Red Sea.\n\nARKWRIGHT, Sir Richard, as an inventor met with great difficulties,\n203.\n\nARTS. See Manufactures.\n\nARTS, fine. See Fine Arts.\n\nARTISTS, not unfit for soldiers, 32.--Banished by luxury from a\ncountry, 113.\n\nASIA, passage to it by the Cape of Good Hope a new aera in\ncommerce, 3.--Its mode of fighting with elephants only disconcerted\nthe Romans once, 31.\n\nASSIGNATS. See France.\n\nATHENS. See Greece.\n\nAUGUSTUS, his resolution to kill himself when supplies of corn\nwere likely to fail, 35.\n\n[=sic=--no section heading in original]\n\n\nBABYLON. See Syria.\n\nBALANCE of trade, of England, has never much exceeded five\nmillions.--To be seen on the chart 3, p.213, during 105 years.--Is not\nequal to more than one twenty-fourth of the produce of industry, 293.\n\nBALANCE of power could not preserve a nation from interior causes\nproducing decline, 185.\n\nBALTIC Sea, manufacturers early established on its southern shores,\n45 to 48.\n\nBARTER, not an innate principle, as Dr. Smith thinks, 5, 6.\n\nBLACK Sea, a new market opened to commerce,195.\n\nBIRMINGHAM division of labour renders business easy, 217.--\nApprenticeships not necessary to learn the art, but for other reasons.--\nRecruiting service succeeds there, ib.\n\nBOARDING Schools. See Education.\n\nBODIES Corporate and Public, their tendency to trench on the public,\n117 to 124.\n\nBOULTON, M. Esq. his spirited conduct in bringing forward the\nimprovements, invented by Mr. Watt, on the steam-engine, 203.\n\nBORROWING. See Money.\n\nBRAZILS. See Portugal.\n\nBREAD, proportion between the price of, and butchers meat, 140.--\nPrices in Paris and London,164.\n\nBRITAIN, in what its power and wealth consist, 191.--Its interior\nsituation and exterior, 192, 193, 194, 195.--Its conquests and\ncolonies, 196 to 200.--Its great increase, 201.--\n\n[end of page #295] Farthest advanced in manufacture, the\nconsequence of that investigated, 203, 204, 205.--Comparison\nbetween its general trade and that to India, 206 to 211.--Begins to\nencourage agriculture, 213.--Its exports and imports represented in\nchart 3 described, 213, 214.\n\nBRUGES acted once as a sovereign, 47.--Became a depot for India\ngoods in the north, as Venice was in the south, 157.\n\nBURKE, Right Honourable Edmund, his opinion relative to exterior\ncauses of decline, 176.\n\nBUTCHERS meat. See Animal Food.\n\n\nC.\n\nCAPE of Good Hope. Its passage a new epoch in commercial history,\n3.\n\nCAPITAL, the result of past industry, 161.--Commands trade, but\nsupplies poor countries at the expense of richer ones, 181.--Tends to\nleave a country when it becomes too abundant, 161, 162, 163.--\nWould leave England if the sinking fund were to operate long in time\nof peace, 242.\n\nCARTHAGE, of wealthy places alone escaped the conquests of\nAlexander, 24.--Mistake relative to its state, 32, 33.--Its fall ruined\nthe Roman manners, ib.--Comparison between it and Rome unfair,\n36, 37, 38.--Was never so degraded as Rome, ib.\n\nCASPIAN Sea, goods brought by that route from India, 56.\n\nCHANGES, interior, take place by degrees, 89.--Most rapid and\nobservable amongst the Romans, 91.\n\nCHARLEMAGNE, from the fall of the Roman empire till his time,\nnothing like wealth or power, 44.--Paved the way for civilizing and\nenriching the north of Europe, 45.\n\nCHARTS, description and explanation of, illustrating the rise and fall\nof nations, 78, 79, 80.--Statistical explanation of, 190.--Of\ncommerce, exports and imports, 213.--Of revenue and debts, 214.\n\nCHILDREN. See Education.\n\nCHRISTIAN religion most favourable to industry, 263, 264, 265, 267.\n\nCOMMERCE, progress slow in feudal times, 3.--Changed its abode\nwhen the magnet rendered navigating the ocean practicable, 4.--\nCommercial wealth degrades a nation less than wealth obtained by\nconquests, 33.--Commercial spirit, its operation on national character,\n37.--Commerce with India, the only one in the ancient world, 51.--\nHow carried on, 52.--Its vicissitudes, the envy it created, quarrels and\nrevolutions it occasioned, 53 to 59.--Of Britain during the last fifteen\nyears; the increase great, but not arising from any permanent cause,\n193.--Its dependence on credit, 201.\n\nCONSTANTINOPLE shares in the trade of India, 56.--Revolution\noccasioned partly by the contests about that commerce, 57.--Sunk\nbefore the discovery of America, by the conquest of the eastern\nEmpire by the Turks, 68.\n\nCONSUMPTION of food regulates the population of a country, 140.--\nIts nature and tendency in northern nations, 141, 142, 143.--Requires\nattention from government, 146.\n\nCONQUEST first altered the natural state of the world, 2.--Its first\neffect to lessen taxes, 35.--Ultimately degrades a nation, ib.\n\nCONDUCT in life. See Education.\n\nCORN, donations of at Rome, 35.--State of crops in England, 145.--\nImpossibility, if it fell much short, to find ships to bring over the\nquantity wanted, ib.--calculations concerning, 146 to 154.\n\nCREDIT necessary to carry on trade extensively, 202, 203.\n\nCRUSADES tended to extend civilization and commerce, 45.\n\nCUSTOMS, the first great branch of public revenue, 106.\n\nCURING herrings, an improvement in the mode of, raised Holland\nabove Flanders, 47.\n\n\nD.\n\nDEAD languages. See Education.\n\nDECAY. See Decline.\n\nDECLINE of nations. Though it cannot be finally prevented, may be\nconsidered as if it never were to come on in this Inquiry, 7.--Are of\ntwo sorts, 10.--Of the Carthaginians attended with less degradation\nthan that of the Romans, 36.--Mistaken or misrepresented by\nhistorians in the instances of Rome and Carthage, 37.--Cause of it\namongst the Romans, 39, 40, 41, &c.--Cause of in Flanders, 47.--\nGeneral in all nations that had been wealthy at the time of the\ndiscovery of the passage to India and of America, 49.--Of the Turkish\ngovernment, 69.--Occasioned by taxation, 167.--How to be\nprevented or retarded, 169.--Interior causes may be counteracted, ib.--\nIn general hastened by the conduct of governments, 171.--Might be\notherwise, ib.--Certain causes of, common to all nations, 173.--\nExternal causes of operating on a nation, envy, enmity, &c. 176, 177,\n178.--Causes of peculiar to Great Britain, 257, 258, 259, 260.\n\nDENMARK. Example of comparative power.--Occasions the\nHanseatic League by its piracies, and is afterwards pillaged and nearly\nruined by that confederacy, 48.\n\nDEPRECIATION of money counteracts the effect of taxation, 114,\n115.--Takes place where ever wealth is, 164.--Its effects in dealing\nwith poor nations, 165.\n\nDIPLOMACY. The circuitous conduct ascribed to ambassadors,\npartly necessary and not to be blamed, 186.\n\n[end of page #296]\n\nDIVISION of land. See Property.\n\nDIVISION of property. See Property.\n\nDUTCH. See Holland.\n\n\nE.\n\nEAST INDIES. See India.\n\nEASTERN Empire. See Constantinople.\n\nEDUCATION of children in all countries grows worse as a nation\ngrows more wealthy, 90.--Brings on a change of manners, 91.--\nWould be better managed if parents were aided by govetnment, =sic=\n94.--Cannot be properly taken care of without the aid of government,\n95.--In what it consists generally, 96, 97, 98.--Has been in general\nwrong understood =sic= by writers on it, 98, 99.--Female, its\nimportance, ib.--Has been ill understood and conducted, 100, 101.--\nIts importance, 216.--Of the higher classes of society is well enough,\n217.--Not so of the lower, ib.--Apprenticeships, their advantages,\n218.--To become a good member of society, the end of all education,\nwhatever the rank or situation, 219.--Dr. Smith's opinion about\napprenticeships examined, ib. and 220, 221, 222, 223, 224, 225, 226.--\nOf females in England badly conducted, 227, 228.\n\nEGYPT, one of the first countries settled, 20.--Its fertility, &c. 21.--\nIts surplus industry appears to have belonged to the sovereign, 22.--\nShared in the commerce to India at an early period, 51, 52.--Became\nthe chief channel for the trade to India after the founding of\nAlexandria, 54.\n\nELIZABETH, queen, Spanish armada in her reign not equal to the\nprivateers of our merchants now, 8.--Endeavoured to enrich the\ncountry, 118.\n\nEMIGRANT ladies, astonishment shewn by them at the little progress\nmade in female education at public schools in this country, 228.\n\nENERGY of those who attack greater than that of they =sic= who\ndefend, 17.--Occasioned by poverty, and necessity the cause of\nchanges and revolution, 19.\n\nENGLAND began to see the advantages of manufactures and\ncommerce very late, 48, 74.--Its form of government a great\nadvantage, 191.--Manners likely to change, 193.--Increase of its\ntrade since 1791, owing to temporary causes, 195.--The American\nand Russian markets great and increasing, 204.--Envy and enmity\nexcited by its conquests in India, 206.--Effects of taxation on it, 229,\n230, 231, 232, 233.--Its national debt, 234 to 246.--Causes of decline\npeculiar to it, 257 to 260.--Circumstances peculiarly favourable to it,\n261 to 270.--Ought not to be envied for its possessions in India 291.--\nOwes its wealth chiefly to internal industry, 293.\n\nENVY leads to rivalship in peace and brings on war, 14.--One of the\nexternal causes of the fall of nations, 175.--Occasioned the fall of\nJerusalem after the death of Solomon, 177.--Excited by the wealth of\nEngland, and particularly by its possessions in the east, 206.\n\nESPRIT DE CORPS. See Bodies public and corporate.\n\nEUPHRATES. See Syria.\n\nEUROPE, wealth and power unequally divided in it, 13.--Division of\nstates, with the population and revenues, illustrated by a statistical\nchart,190.\n\nEXCISE, established long after the customs, 107.\n\nEXPENDITURE of England consists chiefly in interest of debt, 233.--\nCannot by any economy be much reduced in time of peace. ib.\n\nEXPORTS, chart shewing, 213.\n\nEXTERNAL causes of decline, cannot be prevented altogether by\ninternal arrangements, but their effect greatly diminished, 173.--More\nsimple than the internal causes, 175.--Envy and enmity, ib.--Opinion\nof Mr. Burke, 176, 177, 178.--Causes arising from poor nations\nhaving the advantage over rich in all dealings, 179.--High value of\nmoney in poorer nations, 182.--Conclusion of exterior causes, 184 to\n187.\n\n\nF.\n\nFALL. See Decline.\n\nFINANCES. See Revenue.\n\nFINE arts do not flourish in a very wealthy country, 113.--Very\ndifferent as to their improvement, from the mechanic arts.\n\nFLANDERS enriched by manufactures, 3, 46.--The discovery of a\nbettar =sic= method of curing herrings by the Dutch is hurtful to it, 47.\n\nFLORENCE served as a refuge for the nobles of Rome, when the city\nwas taken by the Goths, 44.\n\nFOOD. See Animal Food and Corn.\n\nFORCE, human, the superiority it gave nearly done away by the\ninvention of gun-powder, 4.\n\nFORESTALLING. See MONOPOLY.\n\nFRANCE has, since the revolution, invented new modes of fighting,\n31.--Does not resemble Rome, 38.--Its assignats the principal cause\nof the nature of the revolution, 48.--Its monied capital was sent away\nwhen the revolution broke out,163.--Its burthens before the\nrevolution, 169.--It expended great sums in the last war, 189.--It,\nbefore the revolution, gained more by the west-India trade than any\nother nation, 193.--Have now nearly lost it, ib.--Its capital greatly\ndiminished, ib.--Will probably never possess great West-India trade\nagain, 195.--Will never cease to be an enemy to England, 196.\n\nFREED men.\n\nFREE revenue. See Revenue.\n\nFUND, public. See National Debt.\n\nFUND, sinking. See National Debt.\n\n\nG.\n\nGAMING, though attended with painful sensations, is oftener\nfollowed from propensity, as a mode of occupying the mind and\ninteresting it, than from a love of gain, 83. [end of page #297]\n\nGENTLEMEN resemble each other pretty nearly in all countries, 218.\n\nGEOGRAPHICAL discovery so far as connected with the rise and fall\nof nations nearly at an end, 12.\n\nGENOA, why put with Venice in the chart of commercial history, 56.--\nIts greatness, ib.--Loses its superiority, 57.--Its power in the Black-\nSea, ib.\n\nGOLD. See Money.\n\nGOLDEN Age. See Age.\n\nGOVERNMENTS ought to aid in the education of the lower and\nmiddling classes, 94, 95.--Neglect education in the useful arts, 98.--\nShould counteract the internal causes of decline, 172, 173, 187.--\nGovernment of Great Britain should take care of education, 225.\n\nGRAIN. See Corn.\n\nGREEKS, their education peculiar to themselves, 25.--Studied\nEgyptian learning, 98, 99.\n\nGUN-POWDER changed the art of war, 4.\n\n\nH.\n\nHANS Towns rose first to wealth in the north of Europe, 3.--Became\nformidable towards the end twelfth century, 45.--Arose from the\ncircumstances of the times and necessity.--Became conquerors, 48.--\nBegan to decline through pride and luxury, 49.\n\nHERRINGS, a new mode of curing them, discovered by the Dutch,\nraised that country, and began to make Flanders decline, 47.\n\nHISTORY, an appeal to the best mode of inquiry, 1.--Dr. Robertson's\ncomplaint about the scarcity of materials, ib.--Is confused previous to\nthe conquests of Alexander the Great, 20.--Commercial chart of, for\n3005 years, 78.\n\nHOLLAND compared to the Phoenicians, 46.--New method of curing\nherrings raised it above Flanders. Great industry and economy, 48.--\nTriumph over Spain at home, and Portugal in India, 62, 63, 64, 65.--\nIncrease in wealth till the end of the seventeenth century, 66.--The\nbest example of overcoming difficulties, ib.--How it began to fall,\n67.--How it at last sunk before France, 68.\n\nHORSES, there =sic= great consumption of food, 147, 157.\n\nHOUSE rent. See Rent.\n\nHUME, David, Esq. his errors respecting national debt, though a man\nof great abilities, 114.\n\n\nI.\n\nJAMES I. did not understand the true reason, why the Scotch were\ngreater lovers of liberty in his time than the English, 280.\n\nIDLENESS, incompatible with riches in a nation, in every case, but\nnot so with an individual, 82.\n\nIMPORTS of, England, chart of, 213.\n\nINDIA. Its productions seem to have been the first objects of\ncommerce, 51.--Digression concerning this trade, 51 to 69.--Its trade\nand possessions excite envy, 193, 194, 195.--Our possessions too\ngreat, 197.--Budget, its statement and calculation of sums remitted\nhome, 198.--Has lost the cotton trade notwithstanding the low rate of\nlabour, 200.--Its trade compared with that of the country at large, 206,\n207.--A peculiar cause of other nations envying England, 257.--\nOught not to be so, as they produce very little wealth compared with\nwhat springs from national industry, 291.--The division of labour,\nready methods of working, and inventions produce more wealth than\nboth the Indies, 293.\n\nINDIES, West, the trade of, lost to France, 193.--Trade of England to,\nof a permanent nature, 195.--A cause of envy, 196, 197, 198, 199.--\nOught not to be a cause of envy.\n\nINDIVIDUALS, some may live without labour, but all those of a\ncountry never can, 82.--Can pay for certain things, for which they\ncannot provide, 95.\n\nINDUSTRY caused by poverty and necessity, 19.--A more\npermanent source of wealth than any other, 42.--Industry in youth, the\ngreat advantage of through life, 84.--Diminishes as wealth increases,\n90.--Tends to leave a wealthy nation after a certain time, 161.--\nIndustry of England, the great support of its wealth, and if other\nnations were as industrious, each in the way most advantageous, they\nwould be as rich as England, 292.\n\nINTERIOR causes of decline enumerated and examined as habits of\nlife and manners, 81 to 93.--Arising from education, 94 to 101. The\neffects on the people and the government, from 102 to 115.--Arising\nfrom public bodies, from 116 to 124.--Arising from unequal division\nof property and employment of capital, from 125 to 136.--Arising\nfrom the produce of the soil, becoming unequal to the consumption,\nfrom page 137 to 160.--From the tendency of industry and capital to\nleave a wealthy country, from 161 to 166.--Conclusion of interior\ncauses, from 166 to 174.\n\nINTEREST, compound, its progress, more certain in paying off debts\nthan in accumulating capital, 241.\n\nINVENTIONS, three great ones almost totally changed the state of\nmankind, 4.--Inventions render more capital necessary to commerce,\n126.--Is one of the things that renders our superiority in manufactures\nsecure, 202.--A nation that remains stationary will soon be surpassed,\n203.\n\nJOHNSON, Dr. would have been a greater man if he had lived in a\npoorer nation, 113.\n\nITALY was unable to supply its inhabitants with food in the splendour\nof the Roman empire, 43.\n\n\nL.\n\nLABOUR, some individuals may, but a nation never [end of page\n#28] can exist without it, 82.--Division of, produces great wealth.\n\nLAND, price of, two centuries ago, and comparison of the profit of\npurchasing, or lending on interest in a nation increasing in wealth,\n130.--Its unequal division discourages industry, 132, 133, 134.--Total\namount of rent in England, 153, 154, 155.\n\nLANGUAGES, dead. See Education.\n\nLAWS better administered in England in criminal than civil cases,\n119.--Tend to become more complicated, 123.\n\nLAWYERS, their ESPRIT DE CORPS, 120, 121, 122.--Individuals\nhave no means to resist their incroachments, 123.--Government ought\nto do it, 124.\n\nLIVERPOOL fitted out privateers last war, equal in tonnage and men\nto the Spanish Armada, 8.\n\nLOANS. See National Debt.\n\nLOCAL situation, one of the causes of wealth, 2.--The discoveries in\ngeography and navigation have changed that with regard to particular\nnations,\n\nLONDON burnt by the Danes, 9.--Rent and taxes heavier than in any\nother place, 237.--People prefer living in London, where all is dear, to\nthe cheaper parts of England, 238, 239.\n\n\nM.\n\nMISERS, never a race of them for three or four generations, 83.\n\nMOGUL, the prodigious and rapid decline of his empire, 197.\n\nMONEY corrupted every thing at Rome when its decline begun, 46.--\nMoney to borrow, only to be found in Italy and Flanders, 48.--Let\n=sic= out at interest, loses; laid out to buy land, gains in a country\ngrowing rich, 163.--Its value less in England than any country except\nAmerica, 165.--Though the best measure of value is not accurate,\nbeing different in different countries, 182.--Its great value in poor\ncountries serves to enrich them in dealing with wealthy nations, 183.\n\nMONARCHY. See Absolute Monarchy.\n\nMONOPOLY not an imaginary evil, 49.--Dr. Smith's opinion\ncontradicted by experience, 150.--Proof of its existence, 151, 152,\n153, 154.--Augments rent, and labour, and prices, 153.\n\nMONTESQUEU, his mistake relative to Rome and Carthage, 32.--\nHis opinion of the affairs of Rome, 40.\n\nMONTAGUE, chancellor of the exchequer, attended by the lord\nmayor and sheriffs, went from shop to shop in London to borrow\nmoney, 239.\n\nMORALS. See Education.\n\nMOTHERS. See Education.\n\nMACHINERY. See Manufactures.\n\nMAHOMEDAN RELIGION, its rapid establishment, 54.--Its effects\non the commerce with India, ib.\n\nMANNERS greatly corrupted at Rome, 43.--A change in them\nconstantly going on, and tending to bring decline,\n\nMANUFACTURES settled early on the shores of the Baltic, 3.--\nThose who possess them first, lose them by imitation of others, 14.--\nIndia surpassed in them by England, 63.--In ancient times, only,\nextended to luxuries for the great and simple necessaries for the poor,\n73.--Manufacturers less splendid than merchants, 143.--The working\nmen consume more animal food than the same rank of people in any\nother nation, 144.--England considered as excelling all other nations\nfor manufacturers =sic=, 200.--The effects of the inventions of the\nsteam engine and spinning machines, 203.--Scarcely any thing sold to\nthe American states, except our own manufactures, 204.--Southern\nnations cannot rival northerly ones, 210.--Manufactures, and\nagriculture, more conducive to wealth than commerce, are not the\nsame thing, 209.\n\nMEDITERRANEAN, its shores the first abodes of commerce, 3 and\n4, 20.--Lost its importance by the discovery of America, the magnet,\nand the passage to India by the Cape,\n\nMERCHANTS less splendid than conquerors and planters, 143.--Can\nhave no rule of conduct in transactions but their own advantage, 181.\n\n\nN.\n\nNATIONS, none that ever submitted to pay tribute, ever flourished\nlong, 40.--Enriched by commerce, not so certain to decline as by\nconquests, 41.--There =sic= situation with respect to wealth and\npower previous to the discovery of America, 49.--Feeble nations have\nsome advantage in knowing their weakness, 171.--Exterior causes of\ntheir decline of less importance than interior ones, 184.--Should\nconsider which is the best object on which to employ their industry,\n210, 211.--Their comparative extent, revenues, and population,\nillustrated by an engraved chart, 213, 214.--Nations of Europe,\napplication of the present inquiry to them, 284.\n\nNECESSITY consisting of a desire to supply wants, the cause of\nindustry and wealth, 14.--Necessity ceases its operation on the nation\nthat is risen highest, 15, 16.--Operated very powerfully on the Dutch,\n47.--Habit prolongs the action of it, 81.--With young men that can,\nalone, produce industry, 84.--Less and less on each generation as\nwealth increases, 85. The consequences of this, 87.--Its operation\nprolonged to a certain degree by taxation, 239.--\n\nNORTHERN countries most favourable to industry, 44.\n\nNILE. See Egypt.\n\n\nP.\n\nPALMYRA founded by Solomon, King of Israol =sic=, for the\npurpose of trading with India,\n\nPARIS burnt by the Danes soon after the death of Charlemagne.\nPrices of bread at, compared with those of London, 150.\n\nPARISH-OFFICERS defend themselves against the public at the\nexpense of the public, 122.--Bad administrators, 123, 124.--Rough,\nvulgar, and a disgrace to the country, 249.\n\nPATENTS, laws of, its utility, 200, 201.\n\nPETER the Great endeavoured to improve his country, and make his\npeople happy, 118.\n\nPITT, Right Hon. W. his estimate of national property, 243, 244.\n\nPOLAND, causes of its decline, and subjugation, different from that\nof most other nations, 75.\n\nPOOR, their wretched state at Rome, 43.--Of England cost six times\nas much, in proportion, as in Scotland, and fifty times as much in\nreality, 88.--Increase, as capital becomes necessary for industry, 156.--\nCauses of their increase, &c. &c. 157, 158, 159, 160.--Of England,\ncost more to maintain, than the revenues of many kingdoms, 247.--\nCauses, inquired into, and remedy, 248 to 256.\n\nPOPULATION, 142.--Connected with wealth, and the manner of\nliving, so that a nation may not require to import ordinary food in\ngreat quantities 159.--May be considered as diminished in a double\nratio as the poor increase, 249.\n\nPORTUGAL, 65.\n\nPOWER in nations, sometimes united with wealth, sometimes not, 7.--\nDefinition of, 8, 9.--Sought after by the Romans, and most nations,\ntoo eagerly, 39.--Quitted Rome when wealth was too great, 36.\n\nPRICES of animal and vegetable food; highness of price diminishes\nconsumption, 161.--Those of the late dearth at Paris compared with\nLondon, ib.--When known to the corn-dealers, they can combine\nwithout any express stipulation, 152, 153.--Rises to that of monopoly\nas soon as an article of necessity becomes scarce, 154, 155.--Of rent\nand wages have advanced more within these last twelve years, than in\nhalf a century before, 155.\n\nPRINCIPLES. See Education.\n\nPRIORITY of possession of settlement, or of invention, one of the\ncauses of wealth and power,\n\nPRODUCE, indulging in eating animal food renders it unequal to\nmaintaining the population of a country, 138, 139.--Of Italy,\ninadequate to its population in the time of Augustus, 3.--Easier\npurchased than raised when a nation is rich,\n\nPROPERTY at Rome very unequally divided before its fall, 43.--Has\na natural tendency to accumulate in particular hands as a nation gets\nrich, 125, 126, 127.--Its accumulation and unequal division, one of\nthe causes of decline, 128.--In land, the accumulation is the most\ndangerous, 129 to 136.\n\nPROSPERITY. See Wealth and Power.\n\n\nR.\n\nREFORMATION favourable to manufactures and industry,\n\nRELIGION, Christian, more favourable than any other to industry and\ngood moral conduct, 264.--Protestant still more favourable than the\nRoman Catholic, 265, 266, 267.\n\nRENT. See Prices.\n\nREVENUE of Rome wasted on soldiers and public shews, 43.--Want\nof, tended to ruin Poland, 75.--Digression concerning, 187, 188, 189,\n190.--When it becomes the chief object of, to government,\nencourages vice, 226.\n\nREVOLUTIONS in ancient nations traced, 17, 18, 53, 54, 55.--Of\nPoland, the account of, 75, 76, 77.\n\nROBINSON, Dr. his complaint about ancient history, 1.\n\nROME, her rise not accidental, but from the most unremitting\nperseverance, 27.--An account of her conduct in war, and internal\npolicy, 28 to 33.--Lost her purity of manners, neglected agriculture\nand the arts, when she became rich by her conquests in Asia, and the\nfall of Carthage, 34, 35.--Became more degraded than ever Carthage\nwas, 36, 37.--Her courts of justice became venal, property divided in\na very unequal way, taxes became oppressive, her armies enervated,\nand she fell, 38, 39, 40.\n\n\nS.\n\nSARACENS got possession of Egypt, &c. 44.\n\nSCHOOLS. See Education.\n\nSINKING Fund, its progress shewn in a stained chart, 215.--Will not\nimmediately diminish the taxes, 241.--When the capital was\nreimbursed to individuals, part of it would leave the country, 242.--If\nit completely paid off the debt in time of peace, would be productive\nof much mischief, ib.--Plan proposed to be substituted for it, 243.--If\never so effectual, its operation in time of war will never obtain credit\namongst ourselves, and much less with the enemy, 244, 245, 246.\n\nSMITH, Dr. Adam, did not make proper allowance about national\ndebt, 114.--His opinions concerning monopoly, examined, 149, 150.--\nHis opinion about apprentices, 219.\n\nSOLOMON, king of Israel, on terms of friendship with the king of\nTyre, 21.--Founded Palmyra for the purpose of trade to India, 25.--\nAfter his death, rivalship in trade, and the envy of the Tyrians, caused\nthem to excite the king of Babylon to besiege Jerusalem, 53.\n\nSPAIN, its grand armada not equal to the privateers fitted out at\nLiverpool during the last war, 8.--Persecutes the Flemings, 47.--The\neffects of wealth on it, 63.--Its insolence and pride, 64.--And sudden\ndecline, ib.--Wealth made it neglect industry, 65.--Gains great sums\nby South America, yet is not an object of envy, 292.\n\n\nT.\n\nTAXES at Rome, in its decline, became terrible, 40,--41, 42.--Taxes\nin France taken off while the assignats were creating, 42.--So great at\nRome, that the citizens envied the barbarians, 43.--The power of\nlaying on depends on circumstances, 92.--Always increasing, 102.--\nOf the American States an exception, 103.--Why collected rigorously,\n104.--Those which fall on persons or personal property, the most\nobnoxious, 105.--Of England, laid on better than in any other nation,\n106.--Prolong the action of necessity, and augment industry to a\ncertain point, which, when they pass, they crush it, 107, 108.--Their\nproduce expended on unproductive people, 109, 110, 111.--Are like a\nrent paid for living in a country, 112 to 115.--In England, their\neffects, 229 to 233.--Taxes and rent augment industry, 236, 237.--In\nLondon, heavier than elsewhere, yet people crowd to London, 238,\n239.--If taken off suddenly, would be hurtful, 240 to 244.--For the\nmaintenance of poor, 247 to 256.\n\nTRADE--See Commerce.\n\nTREATIES, the best observed, have been those founded on equity\nadd =sic= mutual interest, 186.\n\nTYRE, early commerce, 21, 23.--Its destruction one of the most\npermanent effects of Alexander's wars, 24.--Excited the king of\nBabylon to take Jerusalem, 45.\n\n\nV.\n\nVENICE, its greatness, 56, 57.\n\nUNITED STATES. See States of America.\n\n\nW.\n\nWAGES. See Prices.\n\nWAR generally occasioned by envy or rivalship, 14, 175, 219.--\nOught not to be followed to procure wealth, as it is much more easily\ndone by industry, 293.\n\nWATT, James Esq. his invention of the steam engine, 203.\n\nWEALTH, its definition in contra-distinction to power, 8, 9, 10.--\nDiminishes the necessity of industry, 29, 30.--Leaves richer to go into\npoorer countries, 93.--In England arises from industry, not from\nforeign possessions, 293, 294.\n\nWEST Indies. See Indies, West.\n\n\nY.\n\nYOUTH. See Education.\n\n\n\n\n---> _The reader will observe, on one =sic= of the pages, reference to\nan Appendix, but the design was altered, from the consideration that\nreaders of history do not require solitary facts, by way of illustration,\nthough such are very easy to be produced._\n\n\n\nTHE END.\n\n--------------------------------------\n\nW. Marchant, Printer, Greville-street.\n\n--------------------------------------\n\n\n\n\n**************************************************************\n[Transcriber's note:\nIn the original work:\n--the footnotes are designated by [*] but are here serially\nnumbered for ease of reference;\n--in some cases the same word is spelt differently in various\nparts of the text, e.g. controul/control; Hans/Hanse Towns,\nshew/show (one instance only of the latter) etc. These and\nother vagaries are reproduced largely without special note.\nLikewise treated are the numerous examples of the number\nof the subject not agreeing with that of the verb.]\n**************************************************************","title":"An inquiry into the permanent causes of the decline and fall of powerful and wealthy nations : $b Designed to shew how the prosperity of the British empire may be prolonged","tradition":"philosophy-ethics","translated_text":null,"word_count":122354}