LUXURY NO POLITICAL EVIL.

THE influence of Luxury on the proſpe⯑rity of States, gives riſe to one of thoſe queſtions, on which moſt men have ſomething to ſay; but wherein they gene⯑rally diſagree.

If to acquire a juſt idea of Luxury, with reſpect to bodies politic, were a matter of mere curioſity, one would not dream of treating on a ſubject, which ſo many wri⯑ters have handled already, and to little pur⯑poſe; but the reaſoning which may be eſta⯑bliſhed on this head is of the utmoſt import⯑ance. [2] It intereſts the proſperity of States, and, of courſe, it is the duty of a good citizen to throw all the light upon it he can.

There is one ſtriking obſervation that oc⯑curs upon this ſubject; though in theory the common opinion is againſt it; in prac⯑tice, the world is for it: though moraliſts inveigh againſt it, wiſe ſtateſmen have en⯑couraged it. If Luxury be a vice, and cauſe thoſe diſaſters ſo often imputed to it, why have not ſome meaſures been taken to ſup⯑preſs it? But if, on the contrary, it be a neceſſary reſource, without which every thing would languiſh, we cannot place this truth in too clear a view, leſt any unfore⯑ſeen, any impolitic attack upon it ſhould de⯑ſtroy that ſource, on which the opulence of the State, and public welfare, depend.

Where there is a certain extent of empire, the genius and labour of a numerous people are able to effect wonders; and it is the chief intereſt of ſuch a State to encourage labour and induſtry to the utmoſt.

Nature facilitates this object, by that di⯑verſity ſhe has ſcattered in her productions; [3] by the wants ſhe has laid man open to; by the faculty ſhe has endowed him with, and by the deſire ſhe has implanted in him, for all kinds of indulgences, conſiſtent with his being.

The legiſlature, then, after the moſt ſacred aſſurances to the artificer, that he ſhall en⯑joy the whole fruits of his labour, ought to leave him to the full ſcope of his abilities, and the conſumer to the luxuriance of his fancy; without any other reſtriction, than to prohibit the purchaſe of foreign produc⯑tions, and that only in certain caſes, very maturely conſidered, and more ſeldom re⯑ſtrained than is commonly thought neceſ⯑ſary.

Certain aſſurances that every one ſhall receive the price of his labour is ſo capital a condition, that, without it, emulation would die away; and the hope of obtain⯑ing by our labour ſufficient to gratify our wiſhes, is another condition equally capital, without which there would ſcarce be any emulation at all.

Could we ſuppoſe a ſtate where luxuries are prohibited, men would be, in a great [4] meaſure, idle; for our natural wants con⯑ſuming leſs than our labour will produce, if other incitements did not actuate the in⯑duſtry of the people, the progreſs of the State would ſtand ſtill, when it might other⯑wiſe be carried to a great extent; for, though the leiſure hours of the people might be employed in ſecuring their ter⯑ritory from the encroachments of an ene⯑my, yet, theſe being completed, time would hang heavy upon their hands; and, as ex⯑ceſs of plenty would embarraſs, and men are not fond of working without a proſpect of perſonal advantage, they would limit their productions to the bounds of con⯑ſumption, and, being forbidden the enjoy⯑ment of indulgences, they wouId work no more.

But if, among a numerous people, the workman be left to the full ſcope of his induſtry, and the conſumer to the luxuri⯑ance of his fancy, the mind will unfold, and arts will multiply; every inclination be animated, and the State, if not checked in its progreſs by a defect in its conſtitu⯑tion, [5] will ſtretch to the utmoſt extent of proſperity.

For the arts, whether uſeful or frivolous, create, without intermiſſion, a variety of in⯑dulgences, many indeed of a ſhort dura⯑tion, but which leave with us ſuch a wiſh for their continuance, as to become after⯑wards a kind of want. Hence, a ſpirit of induſtry is kept up; hence, an abundance of every thing we wiſh; hence, a nume⯑rous population. This chain of effects brings wealth, brings ſtrength, brings laſt⯑ing felicity to an empire.

Wealth reſults from this chain of effects, by the quantity of materials produced; and ſtrength, by the number of men theſe ma⯑terials ſupport.

But, with reſpect to a numerous popula⯑tion, we muſt advert to obſervation, and reaſon from the ſuperintendence of Provi⯑dence, which is particularly careful of every ſpecies of animals, increaſing or diminiſh⯑ing the ſpecies, in proportion to the quan⯑tity of proviſions among them, and the uſes to which they are appropriated. Beaſts of prey, that proul the deſarts for ſubſiſtence, [6] and which, being of a carnivorous kind, men uſe not for food, are ſlow breeders, and very few in number; ſuch are, the lion, the tiger, and ſome others: but graminivorous animals, that live upon the ſpontaneous pro⯑ductions of the earth, ſuch as the ſheep, the ſwine, the hare, and many others, are faſt breeders, and multiply exceedingly; for theſe would live even without the aſſiſt⯑ance of man. Where there is plenty of food, the animal race will multiply ſurpriſingly, witneſs the great encreaſe of vermin in a gra⯑nary full of corn. And as it is with ani⯑mals of an inferior claſs, ſo it is with man. One man and one woman might, in the na⯑ture of things, have thirty children; but, in general, they might have ten, five males and five females. At every generation, then, was mankind propagated to the ut⯑moſt, they would increaſe in number five times; ſo that, in a very ſhort ſpace of time, a nation might become exceedingly popu⯑lous. Now, it is the difficulty of procur⯑ing food, and obtaining the neceſſaries of life, that checks this propagation. A very wiſe interference of Providence!—Hence it [7] is, that, in the brutal creation, the lioneſs does not breed ſo faſt as the hare, it requir⯑ing a large tract of country to ſupply the former with food; and hence it is, with the human ſpecies, in tribes of ſavages, who live by hunting, and require an extenſive diſtrict to furniſh them with proviſions, that propagation does not take place in ſo great a degree as in civilized ſocieties, where, by the genius and induſtry of man, a few acres of ground are rendered ſufficient to ſupport a family.

As the wealth, then, and ſtrength of a country depend, in a great meaſure, upon its population; and as population increaſes or diminiſhes in proportion to the proviſions of life; would it not be wiſe to encourage huſbandry, as well as manufactures, and cul⯑tivate the country to the utmoſt?

But to return to my ſubject. Though man is formed to live upon the ſpontaneous productions of the earth, a thirſt for Luxu⯑ries is natural to him; and without ſuch a thirſt, ſocieties could neither flouriſh nor exiſt. Without a deſire for Luxuries, our intellectual faculties would be a diſadvan⯑tage [8] to us; we ſhould languiſh away our hours in ſtupidity, occupied only with the momentary want; and that being, deſtined by nature to unite itſelf with its fellow-crea⯑tures in embelliſhing the earth, would wear away its days in ſolitude, loſt in the foreſts with the lower claſs of animals. It is the idea alone of improving our ſituation, and adding to our happineſs, that urges us to the trouble of thinking; and to no other ob⯑ject could our underſtanding be applied.

The views of creation take place with certainty; they produce their effects infal⯑libly. Though man, in the midſt of unfa⯑vourable circumſtances that weaken or check the exertion of his faculties, be ſtill, through the favour of Providence, in a ſituation to preſerve his exiſtence, without any other care than that of gathering the proviſions that are ſcattered round him; and though this may ſuggeſt to him an idea of being in ſolitude; yet the Author of all that breathes has not left him at liberty to withdraw him⯑ſelf from the purpoſes for which he was created. That active ſpirit, that intellectu⯑all faculty, that power of completion with [9] which he is endowed, will not ſuffer him to ſhut himſelf up in the narrow ſphere of ab⯑ſolute neceſſity. It reſts not with him to re⯑ject his benefits, when he perceives the means of procuring them. His firſt at⯑tempts make him ſenſible of a want of union with other men; and this is the origin of all ſocieties.

As a thirſt then for indulgences or Luxu⯑ries, or a wiſh to render life more comfort⯑able than nature beſtows it, is the firſt cauſe of ſocieties, ſo it is the very ſoul and ſupport of them. The more raging this thirſt is, the more men ſtudy to reap advantages from one another, and from every thing about them. The mind quickens; the means of every individual increaſe, and theſe means are the ſinews of the body po⯑litic.

What ſtrength would a ſociety of naked ſavages have, repoſing in a thicket, living from day to day by hunting, and on wild fruits; changing their place of abode, as they exhauſt the diſtrict, poſſeſſing only a bow, a few arrows, and perhaps a toma⯑hawk, [10] and having no time to ſpare from the ſearch of their daily food?

Such a ſociety cannot derive an advan⯑tage even from numbers; the mode of each man's living requiring a great extent of ground. Now, independent of that check to population, occaſioned by fatigue and ſcarcity of food, incident to ſuch a ſtate of life; it is evident, that if families here en⯑creaſe, they will be obliged to divide and ſeparate at great diſtances from each other, in order to procure proviſions; and preſent⯑ly becoming enemies, by contention for an object ſo eſſential as food, they will fall on one another furiouſly. Such is the picture the uncivilized part of the world preſents us.

The ſavage, however, who makes uſe of a bow, has already ſtept over the firſt boun⯑daries of his nature. This inſtrument is a convenience, by which he extends his pri⯑mitive power, and facilitates the execution of his deſigns. It is a ſpecies of Luxury. This ſavage, without any aſſiſtance, could ſupply his wants, before he had a bow. He who makes uſe of a carriage, well hung, to convey himſelf without fatigue where [11] his affairs call him, acts no otherwiſe than he who employs a weapon to obtain his prey, without being at the trouble of run⯑ning after it.

A little reflection will be ſufficient to ſhew the effects which a deſire to render life comfortable has, upon the ſtrength and power of a nation.

Once a ſociety of men, weary of wander⯑ing and living in the open air, begins to erect cabbins for their defence againſt the in⯑juries of time, and of courſe to fix their abode, it is eaſy to conceive that this firſt idea of convenience will give birth to a thou⯑ſand others. The ſame inclination that produces one, leads them to covet more. When they can ſtore proviſions, they wiſh to collect them. They ſow grain about their dwellings, raiſe vegetables, and breed different kinds of animals, both for food and for labour.

In this ſtate their ſubſtance increaſes; they have time upon their hands; are more ſedentary, and communicate a great deal together. By ſuch comunication they catch ideas from each other, and what they [12] already poſſeſs furniſhes them with means to carry their ideas into execution. Fami⯑lies increaſe, in conſequence of their eaſe; and where there is ſufficient extent of ter⯑ritory, the ſociety is continually ſpreading. Each individual applies his genius to faci⯑litate his labour. The diſcoveries of ſome, become a benefit to others; and, with the aid of theſe inventions, the labour of a few ſupplies the wants of many.

Such as are unemployed in huſbandry will not ſtraggle wide in ſearch of new lands to cultivate. Attached to each other by the ties of friendſhip, parentage, and ha⯑bit, they will continue with their brethren, and ſeek, by their genius and induſtry, to repay thoſe who furniſh them with ſub⯑ſiſtence.

Whilſt then a people, living ſtrangers to Luxury, and confining themſelves to the firſt ſimple gifts which Nature beſtows, living naked, without any ſettled habita⯑tion, without agriculture, continues ever, while it ſo exiſts, in the ſame ſtate of weak⯑neſs, indigence, and ſtupidity; a more ac⯑tive people, ſtudying to improve their ſitua⯑tion, [13] becomes daily more and more enlight⯑ened, and are conſtantly gathering ſtrength and wealth, ſo long as moral cauſes do not impede their progreſs. Hence then occurs the following plain reaſoning.

The idea of building a houſe, and that of raiſing plants for food, are dictated by that natural inſtinct, which leads man to profit by his genius, employing it to procure himſelf conveniences. From theſe firſt ideas flow a thouſand others, as a conſequence of the ſame principle, and altogether produce the formation of great ſocieties and their power. Hence ariſe arts, manufactures, trades, and all the luxuries of life, that conſtitute the ſtrength and power of a nation.

To reaſon cloſely, gilded cielings, bronzes, porcelain, are, in fact, no more Luxuries than ſhoes or ſtockings. In Poland, in Hungary, and in ſome parts of Scotland, the peaſantry, in common, cover not their feet or legs with any thing; whenever they do, it is by way of dreſs, as white gloves are worn by us. Men and women there take long journeys barefooted, even at times when the country is covered with [14] ſnow. All is relative. Shoes, to a perſon who never wore any, are a very trouble⯑ſome ſuperfluity. A precious vaſe upon a chimney-piece, is an agreeable ſuperfluity. Ornaments that decorate the houſe, the clothes, or the furniture, of the rich, are per⯑haps leſs ſuperfluities to them, than the money would be with which they purchaſe them, if they had no other uſe to convert it to.

It is idle to talk of one thing being more a Luxury than another. All ſuperfluities are Luxuries; and what is not immediately neceſſary, is ſuperfluous; of courſe, eveyr thing that is not eſſential to our exiſtence, is a Luxury. He, who, not finding himſelf at eaſe, when ſleeping on the ground, con⯑trived to weave the firſt mat of ruſhes for his repoſe, conſulted his indulgence as much as he who ſince compoſed the bed of down. They each made uſe of thoſe ma⯑terials they could get. It was circumſtance only that prevented the one, as well as the other, from accompliſhing the object of his wiſhes.

[15]If I may, without Luxury, cover myſelf with a ſheep-ſkin, merely cut and made in⯑to a form to fit me, and enable me to uſe my limbs; if I may, alſo, without being re⯑proached with Luxury, carry my ingenuity further, and make me a coat with the wool of this animal, coarſely ſpun; do I deſerve to be called luxurious, if I ſpin this wool finer, weave it better, and clothe myſelf with a better kind of ſtuff? I make uſe only of my abilities and my underſtanding to anſwer my intentions in the beſt man⯑ner poſſible, which is to clothe myſelf con⯑veniently and comfortably. As ſoon then as I am allowed to make uſe of art, be it ever ſo little, to procure me any one enjoy⯑ment; upon what principles would they prohibit my employing all the art, of which I am capable? Would they alledge that Luxury conſiſts in cleverneſs of execution?

And, if I may, without Luxury, make uſe of the wool, a part of one animal, I may, equally, without incurring reproach, employ the parts of any other animal, or any thing convertible into clothes, whether it be goats-beard, flax, cotton, or ſilk. [16] Theſe materials bear all the ſame rank in nature; and when I can obtain them, I may indifferently uſe them as I pleaſe; one is, in itſelf, no more a Luxury than another. The ſame may be ſaid of every thing I uſe. The materials of which a thing is made, are no more a Luxury than the thing itſelf. Gold and lead, diamonds and flints, are productions of the earth intrinſically equal. My choice only is reprehenſible or not, according as the qualities of the materials I uſe, anſwer or not anſwer my intentions. In conſidering things abſolutely, there is no other rule to go by.

If, then, uſeful inventions, and thoſe that are merely pleaſurable, partake (as is evident they do) of the ſame principle; if all things that are not immediately neceſ⯑ſary, are Luxuries, it is ridiculous to con⯑demn either this or that; a manufacture of the moſt trifling article is not without its advantage to the ſtate, as it tends to cre⯑ate that diſburſement from which the ſtate draws it reſources, and employs a number of hands.

He that would have the moſt frivolous toy, or the moſt uſeful piece of furniture, [17] cannot acquire either one or the other, but by his own labour, or by paying for the labour of a workman. If he makes the thing himſelf, whether it be uſeful or fri⯑volous, he muſt be precedently provided with ſubſiſtence, or ſupply, for his other neceſſary wants, during the time he is at work. If he borrows the aſſiſtance of ano⯑ther, he muſt feed, and ſupply the wants of that other, during the time he employs him, or give him an equivalent for his trouble. In both theſe caſes, no time is employed that is ſubtracted from neceſſary want. The two inhabitants are ſupported, the taxes are paid, and the produce of this labour, be it of what kind it will, equally augments the ſtock of national wealth. Unneceſſary things bear a price, as well as things of uſe.

Further, it generally happens, that, in the fabrication of a frivolous thing, the maker gets a living, which perhaps he could not otherwiſe do; and the purchaſer an enjoy⯑ment, which he would not otherwiſe have. Beſides, in making this bauble, the artiſt, perhaps, exerciſes a talent, which, one day or other, may be applied to more uſeful [18] purpoſes. The toyman, for example, who makes dolls of papier macheé to-day, ſhall, if required, make inſtrument-caſes, and boxes of the ſame materials to-morrow. He knows how to ſet about it.

Let us ſuppoſe, for a moment, that ſuper⯑fluities or unneceſſary things were prohi⯑bited or unknown; and let us ſuppoſe, which is by no means the truth, that every man had ground to till. In this caſe, the active man, who, by the fruits of his la⯑bour, would be in a ſituation to procure himſelf ſuperfluities, but having no ſuch de⯑ſire, and not knowing what to do with the product of his labour, would work no long⯑er. The man alſo whoſe profeſſion it is to make ſuperfluities, cultivates as much ground as ſupplies him with food; and he works no more. Here now are two inhabitants merely ſupported in a contrary hypotheſis; and how is the ſtate affected by the change? Cultivation is not ſo extended, and the va⯑lue of thoſe ſuperfluities, which would otherwiſe have been made, is loſt; for, the natural wants of man conſuming leſs than his labour will produce, if his ſpare time [19] be not employed in neceſſary articles, the benefit of his time muſt be loſt to ſociety.

It is the ſame in gratifications, from which we draw nothing ſubſtantial; ſuch as dancing, muſic, public exhibitions, and the like. Suppreſs theſe pleaſures, and let the men who are thus employed, buſy themſelves in cultivation; what then? Thoſe before employed in huſbandry would not have oc⯑caſion to work ſo much; conſequently there would be no more hands employed in cul⯑tivation than before; nor any greater quan⯑tity of productions; and ſociety, at the ſame time, would have fewer arts, and leſs enjoy⯑ments.

Government might certainly, in many caſes, employ the time and induſtry of the people, in a more advantageous manner to the ſtate, than by ſuffering them to labour for the produce of unneceſſary things: but, if Government has no employ to ſet them about, (and the time muſt come when Government cannot employ every indivi⯑dual unengaged in huſbandry or neceſſary buſineſs), or if Government does not employ them, after men have provided for their [20] natural wants, if ſuperfluities are prohibited, they will be idle. On the contrary, if Luxu⯑ries are encouraged, whatever be the object on which theſe men employ their ſpare time, it cannot but turn to the advantage of the nation, ſince the object they covet muſt be acquired by work.

Work, if I may uſe the expreſſion, is a ſecond creator. Without the form which this gives to matter, almoſt all that infinity of productions, with which the earth teems, would be loſt to us. Surrounded with a thouſand poſſible benefits, we ſhould wear out our days bereft of all.

A nation can no way multiply its poſ⯑ſeſſions, be rich or powerful, nor can it any⯑way be proſperous, but through the labour of the people. The great object, then, in adminiſtration, is to encourage and reward induſtry. No matter what the object be that incites it. Not even trifles can be produced, but by that uſeful labour which adds to the ſtrength of a ſtate. There would be no muſicians, mountebanks, or makers of toys, unleſs men gained a livelihood by ſuch pro⯑feſſions. Theſe men muſt be fed, and they [21] are fed by the labour of others, in return for the amuſements they afford. Provi⯑ſions therefore produced by theſe objects do not exiſt the leſs, becauſe the objects are frivolous; and as proviſions cannot be pro⯑duced, but by cultivation of land, it follows, that muſicians, mountebanks, &c. are pro⯑portionally inſtrumental to cultivation. Like the minſtrels of old, who were employ⯑ed by lords of manors to divert the copy⯑holders whilſt they were at work for them. As muſic enlivens the ſpirits, and encreaſes activity, where is the impropriety of one man's ſaying to another, on condition that you will pipe to me whilſt I am employed, I will do your work as well as my own. Without ſuch an incitement, a man would abate in his exertions, and he would work only for himſelf. Beſides, theſe men ſo fed, and theſe proviſions that feed them, may be otherwiſe employed, as circumſtances may require; and it is no ſmall advantage to a ſtate, to have a number of men in reſerve; for, by the doctrine before advanced, plen⯑ty of proviſions naturally increaſes popula⯑tion; and as occaſional inclination to ſpend [22] money in amuſements, idle as it may ap⯑pear, encourages work, this work multi⯑plies proviſions, promotes population, and augments the wealth of individuals; ſo that ſociety not only has a reſerve of men to anſwer particular purpoſes, but the public taxes are more cheerfully paid; for if a man's taxes amount to ten pounds, his con⯑tribution is leſs felt, if he poſſeſſes ſixty pounds, than if he poſſeſſed only thirty.

We are too apt to annex the idea of Luxu⯑ry to articles which indulge a ſenſual grati⯑fication, to things of ornament and magni⯑ficence, to the delicacies of the table, and certain peculiar indulgences; but this is begging the queſtion. I have already prov⯑ed, that whatever is not immediately neceſ⯑ſary to our exiſtence, is a Luxury; and if a Luxury is not condemnable in one caſe, it is not in another; I ſpeak now, as to Luxu⯑ries in general; there may be indeed cer⯑tain ſpecies of Luxuries that may injure the morals of a community, and to this the Legiſlative power ſhould advert; but this is no argument for condemning Luxuries in the groſs, ſince it is by Luxury alone that any ſtate can exiſt.

[23]We do not reflect, that when the firſt ne⯑ceſſaries of life are ſupplied, man is in want of things that give pleaſure, as much as any other; and that theſe articles which re⯑freſh him, are, probably, leſs ſuperfluous than a great number of inventions that are merely uſeful. The wine a man drinks can, perhaps, leſs be diſpenſed with, than the watch in his pocket. That which pleaſes, intereſts as much as that which is uſeful. There is no diſſipation or corruption in this: both are equally good in their place. A gold enamelled box, which a variety of arts combine to embelliſh, is not, indeed, ſo uſe⯑ful as a clock; it is equally uſeful, how⯑ever, with a roſe or a tulip, whoſe form and richneſs of colouring enrapture the eye. Pleaſure is a real good. Nature would make us ſenſible of it, and with this view, ſhe has taken care to adorn her works. Was the earth without flowers, without verdure, to produce only fruits, would human beings, in its dreary ſurface, robbed of the odorife⯑rous perſumes and enchanting ſcenes of ſpring, loſe nothing? Would they have nothing to regret?

[24]Thoſe who declaim againſt Luxury ſeem wilfully blind. They call nothing Luxuries, that is of any ſtanding; this cenſure falls only on modern inventions and refine⯑ments; they cannot be made to ſee, that what they permit as uſeful and allowable, is of the ſame nature with that they con⯑demn; nor will they reflect, that ſuch things as eſcape their cenſure now, were, at the time they were firſt made, and, according to their principles, ought to be, as much claſſ⯑ed among Luxuries, as things they now proſcribe. They will not ſee that the mo⯑dern improvements they condemn, are the natural conſequence of perfection in the arts, and the progreſs of the mind and taſte.

Men have always carried Luxury to the higheſt pitch they could. Want of means, or knowledge, was the only thing that ſtop⯑ped them. If we build our houſes more magniſicently, ornament them more ſuperb⯑ly, and make them more convenient than was done five hundred years ago, it is, be⯑cauſe we have found out, that it is better ſo to do, and becauſe the progreſs of arts enable us to do it. It is on the ſame prin⯑ciple, [25] that we widen our ſtreets, and pave them better.

Say not, that Luxury is injurious to a people: caſt your eyes over the face of the world, and take the nations in review. Thoſe people where you find the greateſt Luxury, are the moſt powerful. England, France, Italy hold, doubtleſs, the firſt rank in Europe, and theſe are the countries where Luxury reigns in her greateſt glory. What renown for power and grandeur did the ancient people of Aſia, ſo famous for their Luxury, acquire? Aſia, even now, in ſpite of the deſtructive effects of thoſe govern⯑ments that are there eſtabliſhed, preſerves ſtill a degree of Luxury. How much does it eclipſe both Africa and the greateſt part of America, whoſe unfortunate inhabitants are acquainted with ſcarce any thing be⯑yond the firſt neceſſaries of life!

It may be objected, that a thirſt for Luxu⯑ries, in augmenting the deſires and expences of each individual, neceſſarily augments the price of labour throughout all claſſes of men; that, of courſe, the ſtate is under a neceſſity of paying higher ſalaries to its of⯑ficers, [26] and encreaſing its penſions; and that ſuch a ſurcharge of expence, undermining it by degrees, muſt end in its ruin. This is eaſily anſwered. That a deſire for Luxu⯑ries increaſes the price of labour, is very true; but this increaſe of price does not ariſe from an augmentation of our deſires and wants, but from an increaſe of wealth brought about by the encouragement thus given to induſtry, and that ſpur to work, which is the ſource of almoſt all our riches. If then, through the exiſtence of Luxury, Government is obliged to pay a greater price, it has alſo more reſources to pay it from. Its expences and reſources are pro⯑portioned to each other, and the State gains by Luxury, in becoming more happy and more powerful.

In reaſoning from facts, on a principle of politics, we muſt take care not to attribute to Luxury, evils which flow only from a defect in that government, where ſuch facts are obſerved. The pretenſions of officers in any ſtate, can never force it to pay greater ſalaries than it is capable of doing, or than its natural means will admit of. An oeco⯑nomy [27] founded on reaſon, and modified by circumſtances, ſhould preſide over the pub⯑lic expences. It is not neceſſary that for a hundred ſheep there ſhould be fifty ſhep⯑herds; nor that an impolitic financier, prodi⯑gal of the public money, ſhould be at liberty to tax the people at his will to ſupport thoſe ſhepherds. That Luxury favours the pro⯑ſperity of States is evident; but this is, pro⯑vided the conſtitution of the government there eſtabliſhed, does not deſtroy its uſeful influence.

It has been ſaid, that Luxury renders men venal, robs them of their public ſpirit, and diſpoſes them to become ſlaves. This I de⯑ny. Men never ſell themſelves, but when there are proper purchaſers. Suppreſs the abilities of the corrupter, and they will con⯑tinue uncorrupted in the midſt of the great⯑eſt Luxury. On the contrary, whoever has many favours to beſtow, and is in poſſeſſion of great power, will turn them to his ad⯑vantage, whether men are luxurious or not. It is not Luxury that corrupts mankind; they are naturally corrupt from diſpoſition, and when ſo diſpoſed, would as ſoon devote [28] themſelves to another for a mere livelihood, as for great ſums of money. Sp. Maelius in Rome aſpired to the throne. He gain⯑ed one half the people by the corn he diſ⯑tributed; and had it not been for the acti⯑vity of the Senate, who diſcovered this pro⯑ject, the Romans, ſo jealous of their liberty, would have loſt it from that hour.

The ſame reaſoning will hold good among ourſelves. If the vices of adminiſtration did not, by ſecret penſions and other re⯑wards, enable gentlemen to purchaſe their ſeats in parliament, there would be no ſeats to be purchaſed. Time was, when we were obliged to court gentlemen to repreſent us, and even pay them for their attendance; but ſince a corrupt ſyſtem of politics has in⯑troduced venality into parliament, the very electors themſelves will not give their votes without a reward.

Public ſpirit ſeldom gives way in the members of a State, but when men derive no advantage from ſuch ſpirit; and we do not renounce liberty, but when we deſpair of preſerving it. It is not Luxury that gives birth to theſe unfortunate diſpoſitions: they [29] ariſe from a conſtitution of government, where the rights of the people and the prince are all combined for the common intereſts of both.

It is an error, therefore, to reproach Luxury with gradually gaining ſuch an aſ⯑cendency over minds, that are more con⯑ſtrained by obligations, or by neceſſity, to be thus corrupt, than from any natural inclina⯑tions. If men devote themſelves to the ſer⯑vice of others, it is becauſe they are ſo cir⯑cumſtanced that they cannot avoid it. Should it be urged, that the unneceſſary ex⯑pences we enter into, lead us into ſuch ſitua⯑tions; I do aver, that theſe extra expences are ultimately owing to the conſtitution of a State. Spending of money, through mere oſtentation, can never be general, but in a country where the law bends under the powerful, and is ſtrong only againſt the weak; where favour decides all; where we cannot hope to obtain any thing, through equity, merit, or reaſon ſolely; and where money chiefly opens the gates to honours, to dignities, and to high offices. We ſee, then, that it is not Luxury that rules, even [30] when we give the greateſt way to it; we are led on by very different motives, by views of vanity, ambition, and fortune, and even, in many caſes, by the ſimple view of ſupporting the ſituation we are in. Where men are reſpected according to the appearance they make, they will endeavour to make the beſt appearance they can.

In Switzerland and Holland, we nowhere ſee that ridiculous extravagance, reſulting from a ſumptuous outſide, with poverty and miſery beneath it. Expences there are more judiciouſly diſtributed. And why? Men are not there formed of a different nature. They have not a finer diſcernment in that which truly conſtitutes their happineſs; and if we eſtimate the general expence of the whole inhabitants of theſe countries, we ſhall find that each ſpends in conveniencies, in ſuperfluities, in ſhort in luxuries, a good deal more than do thoſe people whom we think we are juſtifiable in re⯑proaching with being extravagantly luxu⯑rious. The good conduct of the Swiſs and the Dutch in this matter, is cleared up by the political conſtitution of their countries. [31] No degree of deſpotiſm is there known. Offices are not venal. The rigor of the laws, and the determination of appointments, are not in proportion there to credit, and the reputation of being rich. A man may become poor among them, without any dan⯑ger to his ſafety or his advancement. In whatever place it be, where other manners reign, with another form of government, it would be idle to attempt a reformation of thoſe manners, by the voice of exhortation, until a change took place in its political conſtitution.

But men, ſay the adverſaries of Luxury, enter thus into expences they cannot afford. Who can determine this? What is more fluctuating, or more unknown, than the for⯑tunes of individuals? What is more vari⯑able than the uſe made of theſe fortunes? You tax a man with Luxury for running into certain expences, becauſe you ſuppoſe his circumſtances will not admit of them: they do however admit of them, of courſe they muſt be more conſiderable than you imagine; or, perhaps, the man ſaves it in ſome articles, to ſpend it upon others, and thus puts himſelf in a ſituation to gratify [32] himſelf in thoſe objects you condemn. When a man enters into expences of Luxury, the fact proves, that, for the moment, he is enabled to do it. He is certainly without reproach, if his expences do not tend to injure his fortune. If they do, it is not his deſire for Luxuries that ought to be con⯑demned, but his miſconduct. He would be equally to blame, if he hurt his fortune by any other expences, or even idleneſs. Such ſteps would equally reduce him to the ſitua⯑tion of thoſe who ruin themſelves by Luxury; becauſe, in ſuch a caſe, a man is more expenſive than he ought to be. His fault is, not ſpending his money upon any particular object, but ſpending, in the whole, more than he can afford. But this, though an injury to himſelf, is not ſo to the ſtate, on which the preſent queſtion only hangs.

As little as we are accuſtomed to conſider things in a general way, we know that one individual cannot injure his fortune, nor render himſelf reprehenſible for his ex⯑pences, without enriching, or at leaſt giv⯑ing bread, by this means, to other indivi⯑duals. We know that theſe expences, what⯑ever [33] they are, being entered into in ſociety, go, if I may ſo expreſs myſelf, merely from the left-hand to the right, and do no injury to the body politic.

There is no doubt, but that the gratifi⯑cations of Luxury, as far as they tend to injure individuals, may, with ſome founda⯑tion, be condemned from the pulpit, and by ſuch writers as undertake to adviſe mankind for their private good ^*. Luxury, diſpro⯑portioned to a man's fortune in life, is cer⯑tainly blameable; nay, though proportion⯑ed to his fortune, it is ſtill reprehenſible, when the expences it leads him into, and the indulgences he gives way to, carry him beyond the proper bounds of decency and moderation.

But what is vicious in theſe two caſes, does not intereſt the body politic, and is not injurious, but to thoſe individuals on [34] whom ſuch cenſure juſtly falls. Policy, which ſees nothing but in the aggregate, is not affected by any ſmall number of parti⯑cular inconveniences. She does not feel the folly of a citizen, whoſe Luxury has ruined his affairs, and provoked the public cenſure. She finds in a general ſpirit of Luxury, a principle to encourage labour, and in labour, a fund of riches and enjoy⯑ments, without end; from whence reſult the power of the State, and the happineſs of its ſubjects. Luxury, ſays Melon ^*, is an idle term, which would baniſh every operation of policy and commerce, it carrying with it falſe, vague, and confuſed ideas, whoſe abuſe tends to check induſtry in its ſource.

A ſpirit of Luxury, continually labouring to create new pleaſures and furniſh new conveniences, begets indeed a great many frivolous things; but how ſeducing ſoever this deſire for frivolous things may be ſup⯑poſed, we have no reaſon to fear that it will ſo invade a whole nation, as to make them madly neglect the uſeful and truly conve⯑nient, [35] in order to dedicate their whole time, pains, and induſtry, to procure themſelves trifles. We ſhall never ſee a perſon de⯑prive himſelf of bread to purchaſe baubles for his chimney-piece; nor go without ſhoes, to adorn himſelf with lace. Trifles have no attraction, but with people who know no want.

The wretched ſituation of numbers abounding in wealth and indulgences, mi⯑litates againſt Luxury, and leads us to con⯑ſider it as debauchery. We become an⯑gry, to ſee whole families languiſhing un⯑der the want of neceſſaries, whilſt others are ſquandering their ſubſtance in pleaſures, trifles, and oſtentation. Why, ſay we, ſhould man, ſtanding by birth upon a na⯑tural equality, experience ſo different a lot? Our ſenſibility ſhakes our judgment. We ſeverely reproach the wealthy with their enjoyments, as if theſe enjoyments were taken from the ſubſiſtence of the poor; and as if the poor would not feel equal diſtreſs, were the rich to bury their treaſures. Whilſt we are touched with commiſeration for the unfortunate, who groan under the ſcourge [36] of poverty, we ſhould not ſuffer our feelings to ſhut our eyes againſt the injuſtice of thoſe who complain.

The proſperity of a State neceſſarily de⯑pends upon right of property. If the enjoyment of the fruit of my induſtry, if my ſavings, my acquiſitions are not ſecured to me in the moſt ſacred manner, ſo that they are fully and wholly at my own diſ⯑poſal, my emulation dies away, and I ſhould ceaſe to work, where I reap no profit. What⯑ever uſe the owner may make of his reve⯑nue or his gains, he does not enjoy it at the expence of another. If he hoards, his pro⯑perty is of no uſe to any one but himſelf; if he ſpends, that is to ſay, if he indulges himſelf in Luxury, then, every agent he em⯑ploys for his gratifications, receives part of his fortune, in the ſums of money he pays. In diſtributing his income thus, he is far more beneficial to the State, than if, forgetting himſelf, he ſhould diſpoſe of it in acts of beneficence. Theſe men on whom his liberality would fall, would conſume it, without producing any thing; whereas the [37] produce of thoſe who worked for him, would continue after the conſumption of their pay, and be of ſome value.

Beſides, in the latter caſe, the ſtate would contain every where men verſed in the practice of the arts, inſtead of uſeleſs men, who know not how to turn their hands to any thing. Emulation, diffuſed among workmen, animates their induſtry; a variety of inventions ſprings from their efforts; the mind gathers knowledge and powers; progreſſion takes place; and ſo⯑ciety gains in a thouſand ways, by the con⯑currence of ſo many effects.

But the utility of Luxury in men of property, is not confined to the emulation ſpread among workmen, who have only to depend upon their labour. A deſire for Luxuries begets a love of property, makes a man attentive to the preſervation of his wealth, puts him upon the ſearch of means to improve his income, excites others to the ſame by his example, and will not ſuf⯑fer any order of men to vegetate in idle⯑neſs. Without ſuch a ſpur as a deſire for Luxuries occaſions, many, perhaps, ſenſible [38] of no want, would ſleep over their wealth, and turn it to little or no advantage.

What is it that ſupports this country but its Luxuries? Were ſumptuary laws eſta⯑bliſhed, or the ſuperfluities of life taxed ſo high, as to render men of ſmall fortune un⯑able to procure them, Government would defeat its own views, and the intereſt of the national debt would be unpaid. Were we to conſider well the vaſt ſums of money which the Luxuries of life bring into the Public Treaſury, it would ſoon ſhew the impolicy of any ſtep towards their extinc⯑tion. Half the revenues of this country ariſes from duties on articles not imme⯑diately neceſſary to the exiſtence, or even the happineſs, of the people, ſuch as wine, ſpirits, beer, tobacco, tea, ſugar, glaſs, china, pictures, wheels, poſt-chaiſes, men ſervants, newſpapers, and a thouſand others that could be very well diſpenſed with. But on the encouragement of Luxuries, the riches of a kingdom depend; it not only enables a ſtate to provide for its internal defence, to extend its territories, and aug⯑ment its commerce; but, contrary to a re⯑ceived [39] opinion, it tends to increaſe popula⯑tion, as I have already ſhewn, and in which the wealth and ſtrength of a nation has long been allowed to conſiſt.

But, after all, What is the inconvenience attending Luxury, that it is ſo much de⯑cried? I have corn and wine, more than I can conſume. Their quantity puts me to an expence to keep it. It is a ſuperfluity that encumbers me. I exchange it for a ſuperfluity I wiſh for, the enjoyment of which rewards my labours, and ſtimulates my emulation. How, then, would you have me diſpoſe of this ſuperfluity? Give it to the indigent, who are in want of ſuſ⯑tenance? I do ſo; but, inſtead of giving it to an idle pauper, one without talents, and whom charity has rendered of little uſe to ſociety, I give it to perſons who, relying upon trade or induſtry for ſupport, have no occaſion to ſtoop to others for their bread. They eat it without humiliation. They have earned it. It is their own. Beſides, in giving it to ſuch people, I ſerve the State, by the taxes their labour produces, [40] whilſt, at the ſame time, I am ſerving them.

Luxury is accuſed of decreaſing popula⯑tion; that Luxury, which ſupports ſo many families, which invites ſo many workmen to marry, by the eaſe they ac⯑quire in exchange for their induſtry. Let us turn our thoughts, for a moment, to the negroes, to the ſavages of Louiſiana.— Luxury does not devour theſe people; and yet, are they numerous? On the other hand, how populous was Spain under the dominion of the Moors, and yet what peo⯑ple were ever more brave, or more luxu⯑rious?

So far from Luxury's depopulating a State, if there be any thing to fear from it, it is that it will introduce an enormous population. It is the fate of ſublunary things to fall away by the very cauſes that promoted their progreſs. The ſources of the proſperity of a State corrupt it in the end, where a prudent adminiſtration does not direct and conduct its courſe. Emula⯑tion, produced by Luxury, and by the ſe⯑curity of property, gives birth to a prodigi⯑ous [41] abundance, and from this abundance ſprings a ſtill more prodigious population; the number of the human race in a country being always in proportion, as was before obſerved, to the productions which that country furniſhes for the uſe of man. Of courſe, if no ſteps are taken to prevent an exceſs of population, it becomes an evil.

For where the inhabitants are too nume⯑rous, every other intereſt, except that of ob⯑taining a livelihood is ſilent; all progreſs in the ſciences, the fine arts, and even the more mechanical ones, ſtops; no one thinks either of glory, honour, or happineſs; every one looks about to ſupport exiſtence; and to obtain the means, all methods are judged right. Neceſſity compels it. Men become crafty, ſubtle, and fraudulent. The mind is enervated, as the ſpirits relax: and a na⯑tion, which had raiſed itſelf to the higheſt degree of power and happineſs, is no more, by a natural concatenation of cauſes and effects, than a nation exceedingly numerous, ſordid, wretched, and low. Exceſs of po⯑pulation has brought China to this fatal point.

[42]It is in this ſenſe, only, that we can ſay with reaſon, that Luxury is dreadful: but here Providence ſteps in again, and fre⯑quently interpoſes. May it not be owing to an interference of the Creator, that wars are kindled between neighbouring powers, as much to thin the number of the human ſpecies, as for other purpoſes? If ſo, a long war may, in the end, benefit a ſtate, which exceſs of population might otherwiſe ruin. May not the great number of people that are carried off in Turkey by the plague, be an effect of the wiſdom of that ſame Provi⯑dence, who thus wiſely provides againſt the too great increaſe of the ſpecies, that might there ariſe from a plurality of wives? May not their doctrine of predeſtination, which forbids them to fly from the peſtilence, tend alſo to this end? May not emigrations alſo have the ſame tendency? But this is diving into cauſes beyond our reach to fathom: all that is neceſſary to our preſent purpoſe is, not to meet misfortunes half way, but to act as conſummate prudence ſhall direct, and leave the event to Heaven.

[43]There are doubtleſs proper remedies to moderate exceſs of population, ſo as to pre⯑vent any evil ariſing from Luxury. The States of Switzerland lend out their troops to foreign nations, for hire; for that coun⯑try being improved to the higheſt degree of cultivation, after retaining a ſufficient num⯑ber of hands to keep it always in this con⯑dition, and for the ſupport of every manu⯑factory, they deem it political, from the great ſurplus of inhabitants, to allow their troops to go into foreign ſervices, leſt an exceſs of population ſhould prove injurious to the nation. Theſe troops, by ſtipulation, may be recalled by the States on any emer⯑gency, which ſecures their internal defence. But how far is the reſt of Europe from hav⯑ing any thing to dread on this account! Would to God it was threatened with it!— Before Luxury can injure a people, it muſt lead them to the very height of proſperity, and it muſt appear that no previous ſteps have been taken, to render this proſperity laſting. Let us not heſitate then, to encou⯑rage Luxury, in ſpite of the evil which a courſe of time may draw with it. We think [44] ourſelves juſtifiable in taking little or no ac⯑count of a future evil, which the actual ſituation of things place at an infinite diſ⯑tance; which a thouſand new cauſes may diſſipate for ever, and which can only be the reſult of a very long proſperity; for the bleſſings of which, it is wiſe to run an uncertain chance of a ſubſequent injury.

The Luxury of a town is an inconteſtible proof of the opulence of its inhabitants. Luxury, ſpread to the ſmalleſt hamlets of a kingdom, is a certain ſign that ſuch king⯑dom enjoys the greateſt abundance. Luxury ever takes its level from the public proſpe⯑rity. It is its thermometer. In vain do our deſires lead us to enjoyments that pre⯑ſent themſelves, when our circumſtances will not permit us to embrace them. Our ex⯑pences are always confined to things within our reach. It is either my own property, or the property of others who entruſt me, that I conſume.—In both theſe caſes, it is ever ſome exiſting property which enables me to purchaſe a Luxury. If I exceed my means, my part is ſoon played. The diſſi⯑pation of my fortune is immediately ſuc⯑ceeded [45] by want and humiliation. Thus where Luxury reigns, there is certainly a degree of opulence proportionable to the extent of it. The aggregate of means may be greater than the conſumption, but it can⯑not be leſs. Whatever exceſs an individual may run into, he conſumes only things that exiſt, and things which would be conſumed by others, if they were not by him.

Why, then, be alarmed at Luxury, and conſider it as a ſcourge, ſince a people can⯑not give way to it, but in proportion to their means? Is it not conſonant to reaſon, to in⯑dulge, where it can lawfully be done? Wealth would be of little or no advantage, were we forbidden to enjoy the comforts it brings. We ſpend only in Luxuries, that which Government leaves, and, when its neceſſary wants are ſupplied, ought to leave. What inconveniencies, then, can a State feel, by its ſubjects expending that in the com⯑forts and indulgences of life, which it has no right to take from them, and which it could not take, without injuring itſelf?

That Luxury has been declaimed againſt for many ages, I allow, ſoevior armis luxu⯑ria, [46] is an old reproach. But men, however they may applaud invectives againſt it, have ever given into it, and to the utmoſt of their power. That good ſenſe, with which na⯑ture has endowed them, keeps them from fol⯑lowing, in practice, the errors of ſpeculation. In all ages, men have indulged themſelves in Luxuries, fearleſs of the dangers they annexed to ſuch a proclivity. Nay, though ſince the time of Juvenal, Luxury has ex⯑tended itſelf from Italy, to France, to Eng⯑land, and to Germany, theſe countries, al⯑moſt deſerted in many places of old, are now very powerful States. Thus it appears, in oppoſition to all opinions, that the happi⯑neſs and proſperity of men depend upon the indulgences of life, and that Luxury is by no means a political evil. ‘That which nature loves,’ ſays Young, ‘is neceſſari⯑ly good.’ We do not conſider, that every fetter with which we ſhackle either trade or induſtry, is a ſtep towards circumſcribing public proſperity. What object would trade and induſtry have, if it was not for Luxury? Should you obſerve an empire falling into decay in ſome parts of which Luxury reigns, [47] attribute not its ruin to the expenditure of individuals; but extend your view further, and you will find it owing to exorbitant taxes, to tyranny, to that want of percep⯑tion in policy, which diſcourages labour, and every where obſtructs the reſources of power.

A ſpirit of Luxury may corrupt and diſ⯑grace individuals. We have given it the term of diſſuaſor honeſti. A love of riches will do the ſame; but does it follow that riches are prejudicial to a State? Woe be to them whoſe deſires are not bounded by reaſon and honour! They deſerve every cenſure; but call not that a vice, which centres wholly in the perſon abuſing it. Will you, like Mahomet, prohibit the uſe of wine, becauſe this ſalutary drink intoxicates the intemperate?

The expenditure of Government is the only thing whoſe exceſs can be detrimental to the State; becauſe the taxes Adminiſtra⯑tion is obliged to levy, and which muſt be paid, exceeding the proportion which the general circumſtances of the people can an⯑ſwer without affecting them, rob them of [48] their neceſſary means of ſupport, or of in⯑creaſing their income, and is, therefore, a general diſcouragement. Whereas the ex⯑pences of individuals, as exceſſive as they may be with reſpect to themſelves, are al⯑ways confined to a certain circle; ſo that the populace in general are not affected thereby.

If Luxury had a deſtructive effect, what would be the preſent ſtate of things? Men, for ſome thouſands years, have indulged themſelves in it, as far as they could. Their eagerneſs to do ſo, never gives way, but when their means fail them. Though we, at this day, inveigh ſo bitterly againſt theſe exceſſes, we ſee not among us ſuch men as Lucullus and Apicius ^*. The moſt ſuperb buildings of the preſent age, do not reach the magnificence of the palace of Semira⯑mis, and our moſt ſtudied entertainments do not equal thoſe of Cleopatra. Neither London nor Paris know, either in common life or in public pleaſures, ſuch refinements as were in general uſe in Babylon, Athens, and Rome, at the time of their ſplendour. [49] Even our anceſtors, as they grew wealthy, thoſe anceſtors of whoſe ſimplicity we boaſt, were as fond of magnificence and ſplendor as the Greeks and Romans.

In this country, people of moderate for⯑tune, in common life, covered their tables with a great variety of diſhes. Cloaths were rich to that degree, that, according to an ancient Chronicle, commencing in 1400 and ending in 1477, valets, in imitation of their maſters, and the lower claſs of people, indifferently wore doublets of ſilk and velvet.

The Author of an Engliſh Tract, called a Plan of Trade, which ran through five editions in a very little time, propoſed, as a means of augmenting the trade of this country, to ſend miſſionaries to the Negroes and Savages of America, not to propagate the faith, but to induce them to clothe them⯑ſelves, and inſpire them with a taſte for Luxuries. His idea is, that if we could once bring them to adopt our cuſtoms, they would apply themſelves more to work, in order to gratify their new deſires; that they would unite themſelves more together, mul⯑tiply and become rich; that, of courſe, [50] there would be among them, a greater number of people in a ſituation to buy, and whom we might furniſh with a variety of articles. No one can deny this way of reaſoning to be juſt, and that the effects which ſuch a plan promiſes, would take place, could we bring the Savage nations to adopt our manners. Every one alſo muſt allow, that Savages could not follow our modes of dreſs, build themſelves houſes more commodious than their preſent cabbins, and furniſh them with conveniences, with⯑out ſuch novelties being to them Luxuries; though, at the ſame time, theſe additional comforts and conveniences ſhould not ex⯑ceed thoſe of our common peaſantry. In fact, Savages have reached theſe improve⯑ments; and as the Luxury into which they have entered, begins to enrich them, by in⯑ducing them to work, which is the ſource of all riches, how ſhould Luxury have a con⯑trary effect among us, where the force of this reaſoning is much greater; as, with us, work of all kinds is more readily entered into, and meets with more encouragement, [51] than among a people juſt emerging from the primitive ſtate of Nature?

Let us ſuppoſe, for a while, that the great⯑eſt part of Luxuries was aboliſhed, and let us conſider the effects of ſuch a change. Men thenceforth would content themſelves with cabbins, whoſe conſtruction would re⯑quire no art, and theſe would be very ſcan⯑tily and very clumſily furniſhed. They would clothe themſelves in ſkins, and would have no utenſils, but ſuch as are immediate⯑ly neceſſary.—From the moment they were reſtrained in this point, half the inhabitants would be reduced to look out for new re⯑ſources; and thoſe who have eſtates in land, embarraſſed with their incomes, would be at a loſs how to ſpend them. The arts being abandoned, an infinite quantity of dif⯑ferent materials would become of no value. Commerce would ceaſe between country and country, between town and town; ſhips of trade would be uſeleſs, and neither buſineſs nor intereſt would urge men to travel; of courſe, roads would be neglected, and fall to ruin; communications would be obſtructed; correſpondence would ceaſe; and, as in for⯑mer [52] times, it would be a great undertaking to go forty miles to ſee a friend.

From this failure in the arts, from this failure in communication, ignorance and barbariſm would undoubtedly ſpring. Hence, alſo, thoſe who are employed in huſbandry, having fewer reſources, and leſs knowledge, would attend leſs to their bu⯑ſineſs, and their harveſt, of courſe, would be ſmaller. Each diſtrict, thus confined, and limited to its own reſources, would de⯑cline under the intemperature of ſeaſons, and famine, as in ancient times, would ſtalk abroad.

The nation, almoſt reduced for proviſions to the harveſt of the year, and having neither money in ſtore, nor any other wealth, would not be in a ſituation to pay for any thing but in kind or in labour. Hence the State would be under a neceſſity of de⯑manding the perſonal ſervice even of land⯑holders, and hence would follow, as ſubſti⯑tutes for them, the ſervitude or vaſſalage of the lower claſs of men, employed by the landholders, for want of reſponſible men to occupy their lands. This obligation of per⯑ſonal [53] ſervice would deprive the State of a ſtanding army, and conſequently reduce its fate, in time of war, to the hazard of a ſingle battle.

In tracing the inevitable conſequences of an extinction of Luxury, we ſhould find ourſelves in the ſituation of our anceſtors, during the feudal ſyſtem; when the lord's rents were paid in labour, and military ſer⯑vices were performed in perſon. Wars were then carried on rather by excurſions than regular campaigns; a ſingle defeat decided the fate of the vanquiſhed, and ig⯑norance and barbariſm were complete. Now, an extinction of Luxury, whether brought on by wars, by continual diſaſters, or by pro⯑hibitory laws, would equally produce the ſame effects. It would deſtroy emulation, put a ſtop to induſtry, annihilate wealth, and bring a country into the ſame ſituation, as would a poverty, cauſed by the ravages of a continual inteſtine war, or the vices of a bad adminiſtration.

The hiſtory of other countries, beſides our own, will ſhew the ſuperiority of ſtrength and power, which Luxury, and its [54] offspring; the arts, give birth to in a nation, Caeſar, with a ſmall number of troops, in ten years ſubjected the Gauls, a brave and diſciplined people, but who lived in the greateſt ſimplicity, and conſequently were not wealthy, or acquainted with the value of the arts. The Romans, then maſters of Gaul, carried Luxury from Italy into this new province. The country became rich and flouriſhing. The barbarians from Ger⯑many and the North, attracted by the opu⯑lence of theſe Gauls, poured in upon them like a deluge. But theſe being as ſimple and as little luxurious as the ancient Gauls, they were repulſed and kept back for three hundred years, without being able to obtain any other eſtabliſhment than as ſubjects of the empire; nor could they find a ſovereignty there, till after they had taken up the arts and manners of the Romans.

Adminiſtrations are apt to think, that they have only to lay taxes upon the inha⯑bitants of a country, to oblige them to work. This was the ſpirit of that device, which the council of finances eſtabliſhed by the regent of France in 1717, took for a coat of arms, [55] viz. a plough furrowing a field, with the motto, ſecat et auget. But in this Governors are miſtaken: for, if they only leave cul⯑tivators in poſſeſſion of means ſufficient to carry on their huſbandry and pay their taxes, they diſcourage them, and in a little time taxes are not paid at all. To enable them to pay a tax, and to add to it from year to year, if occaſion requires, care muſt be taken to put no check to induſtry; which cannot be avoided any other way, than by leaving ſuch perſons a reſidue of their gains, at their own diſpoſal, after the tax is paid, in order to ſweeten their toils, reward their labour, and encourage them to proceed. Not only juſtice and humanity require this, but policy. The productions of the earth are always in proportion to labour and induſtry. The huſbandman however takes no pains, but as he hopes to reap a profit by his la⯑bour. What he conſumes himſelf of the produce of his lands, is not all that intereſts him. His views are chiefly turned to the profits he ſhall otherwiſe gain. To make a man work his whole life, merely to ſupport his exiſtence, would be as bad as condemn⯑ing [56] him for life to the galleys, or putting him on board the ballaſt-lighters at Woolwich.

Perhaps it may be ſaid, that we ought to contract the ſphere of our wants. Dio⯑genes taught us this. We enrich ourſelves, according to him, in proportion as we learn to do without a great number of things. When it ſhall be even true, that abſtinence, with reſpect to the happineſs of individuals, is equally gratifying with enjoyments, and that we ſhall gain more, by ſaving ourſelves the trouble of acquiring or preſerving, than we ſhould loſe by renouncing the advan⯑tages of poſſeſſion, this philoſophy will not be leſs irreconcilable with public intereſt; which requires that a State ſhould be able to make itſelf reſpectable abroad as well as at home.

In a nation accuſtomed to live upon a little, the wants of the State are almoſt the ſame, and coſt as much as in a nation where ſuperfluities are admitted. Among the moſt luxurious people, as well as among thoſe who are leaſt ſo, ſoldiers and ſailors, employed by the State, are paid nearly alike; that is to ſay, at as low a rate as poſſible, ſo [57] as to afford them exiſtence. The ſame works require the ſame quantity of mate⯑rials; and if the conductors of public un⯑dertakings are better paid by a luxurious people, the aſſiſtance ſuch a people derive from the arts which flouriſh among them, counterbalances the extraordinary ſums paid, and, upon a calculation, renders the expence leſs to them, than it would be to a leſs luxurious, and of courſe a poorer na⯑tion, though paying ſmaller ſums of money. A nation, then, whoſe individuals contract their expences, and abridge their conſump⯑tion, advances as much to the public wants, as a nation whoſe individuals live with leſs frugality. Hence it is, that among a people who mortify themſelves, by denying them⯑ſelves indulgences, the public expences can⯑not be adequate to the wants of the State, without being exceſſive in compariſon to the wants of individuals; and that the exceſs of theſe public charges prevents ſuch a na⯑tion providing for the wants of the State, agreeable to the neceſſity of circumſtances; and conſequently the State muſt continue [58] weak, contemptible, and ſubject to the inva⯑ſion of the firſt aggreſſor.

It will probably be objected, that the charges of the State, though exceſſive in proportion to the wants of individuals, not being in reality heavier than they reaſon⯑ably ought to be, a head of a family con⯑tributes more eaſily to its ſupport, when he ſpends little upon himſelf and family, than when he ſpends a great deal. To give ſtrength to this argument, it muſt firſt be proved, that men, who ſcarce wiſh for any indulgence, will exert themſelves, and en⯑creaſe their labour, without any other object than a very diſtant advantage, derived from the benefits the State acquires, and which is not very ſenſibly felt by individuals. He who ſpends but little, comforts himſelf with an eaſy life, which, in his opinion, compen⯑ſates for the loſs of every other enjoyment. It is not in human nature, to exert itſelf, and undergo fatigue, without a proſpect of reward. This is a principle I have already explained, and which ſhould not be loſt ſight of.

[59]Let us admit, for a moment, contrary to all likelihood, that among a people living a rigid life, where Luxury is unknown, pa⯑triotic zeal, carried by education even to heroiſm, encourages them cheerfully to ſupply the public wants, though exceeding in a great diſproportion the perſonal wants of the contributors. Even under this ſup⯑poſition, a nation, with manners ſo reſpec⯑table, would ſtill want ſolid ſtability. A State cannot always foreſee its neceſſities. Accidental, unthought of wants ariſe. Sup⯑poſe there is a ſufficient ſtore of arms, am⯑munition, and artillery. An enemy, in the courſe of an unfortunate war, deſtroys the magazines. Fire conſumes them. A thou⯑ſand accidents may exhauſt them. In ſuch a caſe, then, what reſource would a people have, that had reduced themſelves to this ſimple life we have been ſpeaking of? None. They would not repair ſuch loſſes with that convenient expedition which the inhabitants of a country could, who, accuſ⯑tomed to enjoy an ample ſuperfluity, have ſtores of materials of every kind. As they generally conſume more than is neceſſary, [60] they can eaſily ſpare, in a caſe of diſtreſs, ſufficient to ſupply the neceſſities of the State. And that which to each would be little or no deprivation, when collected from a whole community would prove an eſſen⯑tial aſſiſtance. On the contrary, in a coun⯑try whoſe inhabitants conſume but little, there is but little reſerve among individuals; and, as the inhabitants of this country con⯑fine their conſumption almoſt to things im⯑mediately neceſſary, they have nothing to ſpare. Thus, in ſuch unfortunate and un⯑expected caſes, which defeat all foreſight, a nation who contracts its expences to the utmoſt, would find itſelf ill provided, and without means of defence. Whatever zeal, whatever courage we may ſuppoſe it to have, it cannot avoid, in the end, being con⯑quered and deſtroyed.

Again, Luxury is charged with corrupt⯑ing the manners, degrading the ſoul, ſtifling of virtue, introducing a thouſand vices, and, by ſuch effects, working the ruin of States. It is ſaid, alſo, by the oppoſers of Luxury, that the preſent race of men are not equal to what their anceſtors were, and that the [61] human ſpecies is degenerating. Now it is two thouſand years that this language has been held, and yet the experience of twenty centuries, which has given the lie to ſuch declarations, has not been able to ſtop their mouths.

Hiſtory, by no means, confirms ſuch an opinion of Luxury. Let us look back and run through the laſt five centuries. From the year 1280 to the preſent time, Luxury has not ceaſed to be prevalent in France (I point to that country, as we ſeem to draw our manners, as well as our faſhions from thence;) and at certain periods, in this inter⯑val of time, with more profuſion, than at this day. Since this, however, the French monarchy has certainly not diminiſhed its grandeur. No revolution has happened, for five hundred years paſt, in any part of Europe, that we can, with any ſhadow of truth, attribute to a depravation of manners occaſioned by Luxury. If we except the taking of Conſtantinople by the Turks, and the expulſion of the Moors from Spain, events whoſe real cauſe, like thoſe of all other public events which we attribute to [62] the effect of Luxury upon manners, have no relation to it whatever; if we except, I ſay, theſe two caſes, the principal ſtates that have divided Europe for five hundred years paſt, continue ſtill to divide it, with little difference in their boundaries, notwithſtand⯑ing a very great degree of Luxury was in⯑troduced into ſome of theſe States before this epoch, and has continued there ever ſince. Where then is the devaſtation cauſed by Luxury? And ſince, in ſpite of its effects, for ſo long a ſpace of time, theſe great empires have nearly preſerved the ſame ex⯑tent of territory, how can we maintain that a ſpirit of Luxury alters the manners, ſo as to be prejudicial to the preſervation of States? And it is even obſervable, that the moſt powerful of thoſe empires are thoſe where Luxury has reigned the moſt.

It has been often ſaid that corruption of manners overthrew the Roman power; and it has been very wantonly ſaid. Rome began to give way to Luxury one hundred and fifty years before the Chriſtian aera, yet, in ſpite of a very corrupt form of government eſta⯑bliſhed among the Romans by Auguſtus, the [63] empire ſupported itſelf, without any dimi⯑nution, three hundred years after the birth of Chriſt. It continued to exiſt in the weſt till the end of the year 476, and in the eaſt under the name of the Grecian Empire, to the year 1453. This duration, reckoning from the introduction of Luxury into Rome, is a ſpace of 1600 years. How abſurd is it then to quote empires as ſeated upon ruin⯑ous foundations, which ſubſiſted for ſo long a time! The notion that Luxury was de⯑ſtructive to the Roman power, took its riſe from conſidering the revolution in Rome, under Julius Caeſar, as the termination of the Roman empire. No ſuch change, however, took place in its form of govern⯑ment then, as had frequently done before, ſince the time of Romulus.

Beſides, if Luxury could ever be ſuppoſed to have injured the Roman power, which I cannot any way admit, the example will not hold good at preſent. The Romans were a warlike people, inſatiate for extent of empire, which could only be acquired by the ſword. Indulgence, therefore, to a warrior, may naturally be ſuppoſed to enervate his [64] arm, and make him leſs fit for enterprize, than when inured to danger and fatigue. So great was their thirſt for dominion, that no boundary would ſerve them, but that of the whole world. They were a people bred up to arms, and from a ſavage ſtate, labour⯑ed to overrun the whole globe. Luxury, to ſuch a people, might counteract their de⯑ſigns; for growing leſs hardy and reſolute from indulgence, the barbarians from the north poured in upon them, and deſtroyed them. The complexion and ſyſtem of the times is very different now. Tempora mu⯑tantur, et nos mutamur in illis. Future ages may as well ſay, that it was the luxury of the Engliſh that loſt them America. As the diſmemberment of the Roman empire was chiefly owing to their vaſt extent of terri⯑tory, too remote from its ſeat, and too popu⯑lous to be controlled at ſuch a diſtance; ſo was the ſeparation of North America from us. It were idle to ſuppoſe, that ſuch an extent of country, ſo well peo⯑pled, and at ſo great a diſtance, would continue long ſubject to the control of this iſland. Had not the event taken place now, [65] it would certainly have done ſo in leſs than half a century. But, to return to my ſubject, territory is, at this day, in a greater num⯑ber of hands; ſtates are more divided, na⯑tions more civilized, and that hardy rough⯑neſs of former ages, is not ſo neceſſary now. If a State has a ſufficient ſoldiery to bear its part in the ſcale of Europe, in propor⯑tion to its extent of domain, it requires no more. It is not the ſyſtem of modern States to aim, as did the Romans, at extent of ter⯑ritory by conqueſt. Their wiſh is only to enrich the country they at preſent poſſeſs, to render themſelves as powerful as their nature and ſituation will admit of, and to defend themſelves from encroachments; and if, at any time, they ſtand in need of aſſiſtance, neighbouring States are ready to lend their aid, in order to preſerve a balance of power, leſt any one State ſhould become too powerful for the reſt. As things, there⯑fore, now ſtand, any enervation of ſavage ſtrength, any ſoftneſs of manners brought on by Luxury, is ſo far from being injuri⯑ous to States, that it renders them more civi⯑lized, more friendly, and more conformable [66] to that mildneſs of diſpoſition, with which Providence hath humanized mankind.

On a ſuppoſition that the attraction of indulgences opening the boſom to deſire, diſpoſes men to neglect their duty, and deadens the voice of conſcience, we ſhould expect to find leſs virtue in a country where Luxury predominates, than where the people live a more ſimple life; for, under this idea, we muſt ſuppoſe that in a nation living in a ſimple manner, there are fewer objects ca⯑pable of inflaming deſire, and conſequently fewer occaſions where a wiſh for gratification carries men beyond the bounds they ought to keep. But the fact is not ſo.

Let a nation live either ſplendidly or poorly, it is equally expoſed to thoſe diſor⯑ders which deſire draws after it. Paſſions derive their ſtrength more from the diſpo⯑ſition of the heart, than from the variety or value of thoſe things that inflame them. Envy, jealouſy, ambition, vanity, all the affections of the ſoul that give birth to de⯑ſire, are alive to ſmall objects, when great ones do not preſent themſelves. There was nothing rare, or of any great value in Lace⯑demon. [67] The people there coveted trifles. Tarpeia, in the early time of Rome, that is to ſay, at the time when Rome was poor, delivered up the capital to the enemies of her country, for an object that would not here tempt any perſon of her rank.

All is comparative. What is nothing in one circumſtance, is every thing in another. A Negro Prince ſets as great a value on the feathers that encircle his head, as does the Mogul on the diamonds that decorate his throne.

Luxuries do not inflame deſire, nor make us exceed the bounds preſcribed, but when we covet or regret them, from a motive in⯑dependent of the pleaſures attached to the enjoyment. What is the motive that leads us to wiſh immediately for the means of living luxuriouſly? The ambition of ſur⯑paſſing or equalling the ſituation of our fellow-citizens; of eclipſing them, and thus obtaining a certain degree of credit; it is the fear of falling into contempt, and too often the danger that ariſes from not ap⯑pearing opulent. I am ſorry to ſay it, but it is the misfortune, in the preſent age, to [68] rate men, not ſo much by their intrinſic merits, as by the appearance they make in life; and as moſt people covet the eſteem of the world, they, as I ſaid before, endea⯑vour to make the beſt appearance they can, though, in order to make ſuch appearance, they ſpend more than they can afford. We covet not the favours of fortune, merely for the pleaſures of indulgence, but for the gratification of diſplaying our wealth, and in many caſes, for the proſpect of encreaſ⯑ing it. The covetous man, who ſacrifices his honour, his repoſe, his every thing to the encreaſe of his riches, and who is then prodigal of theſe ſame riches in luxurious expences, is ſcarce ever a ſenſual man. Va⯑nity is the only thing that animates him, or the greedy hope of adding to his wealth, encreaſing his power, and gaining autho⯑rity. It is not Luxury, but the ſemblance of it.

Vanity acts upon the mind, in proportion to the object this paſſion has in view, and not according to the means we employ to gratify it. Thus, wherever vanity ſprings, it has the ſame influence whether its object be [69] trifles, or things of greater magnitude. Now, in whatever manner a nation lives, as ſoon as it admits of property, there will neceſſarily be differences in fortune, and in the expences of individuals, and, of courſe, on account of theſe differences, vanity and deſire will take a certain lead in ſuch a na⯑tion, whether it be leſs luxurious or more ſo. Don't we obſerve, in villages, that a very little expence which one inhabitant enters into more than another, in order to ſupport his family, creates as much jealouſy and longing, as the eclat of the greateſt Luxury can excite in an opulent capital? Among the peaſantry, he who poſſeſſes a little flock of ſheep, and a cow or two, is thought rich by his companions and townſ⯑men, who look upon him with an envious eye, and who covet his happy ſituation, as much as others do the wealth and ſplendor of thoſe above them.

The more, dignity, rank, and diſtinction take place in poliſhed nations, whatever ſyſtem they follow with regard to Luxury, the greater is the degree of deſire common to all. However true it may be, that where [70] Luxury is unknown, temptations are fewer; the nation which prohibits indulgences, is not, on that account, free from covetouſneſs or venality; for by an effect conſtantly proceeding from the nature of man, his de⯑ſires, when he is able only to exerciſe them on a ſmall number of objects, actuate him more eagerly, than when he can exerciſe them on a greater number.

It does not appear, then, that our man⯑ners would improve by a voluntary contrac⯑tion of our wants; nor that we ſhould ex⯑pect more virtue in a country whoſe inha⯑bitants live hard, than in one where they lead a more comfortable life. Among both one and the other, paſſions riſe from the ſame baſis, and are actuated by the ſame, or equal incitements.

If we caſt our eyes over the different na⯑tions that cover the earth, and look back to what hiſtory teaches us of paſt ages, we ſhall diſcover more outrageouſneſs, more re⯑bellious actions, and, in general, manners leſs civilized, in times when the conveni⯑ences and indulgences of life were never coveted, than in thoſe where they were [71] moſt ſtudied. Reaſon teaches us this. A deſire for indulgences leads to diſſipation, and induces men freely to communicate with each other. By this communication, the mind, accuſtomed to wandering, is leſs ſuſ⯑ceptible of ſtrong paſſions; and the neceſſity of ſtudying continually to pleaſe thoſe with whom we communicate, habitually ſerves to ſoften the temper and poliſh the manners. All theſe circumſtances prove that men, in an opulent nation, enjoying their opulence, are naturally more mild, moderate, and leſs diſpoſed to commit crimes of any magni⯑tude.

Let us examine into the lower claſs of people in our own country. Thoſe who compoſe it, have no ſuperfluities, nor have they any wiſh to obtain them. They are abſolutely ſo much out of their reach, that they never think of them. Now, what are the manners of theſe people? Let us com⯑pare them with the manners of thoſe who live at their eaſe, who have already, in a certain degree, taſted the ſweets of Luxury, and who, with a view of encreaſing their enjoyments, are ſtrongly tempted to encreaſe [72] their fortune. May we not ſay, and with truth too, that the manners of the middle claſs of people, exceed in goodneſs thoſe of the lower claſs?

Our attributing to Luxury ſuch a change of manners as is injurious to public proſpe⯑rity, riſes from want of diſcernment. We do not properly diſtinguiſh between thoſe manners that are ſufficient to form the hap⯑pineſs of ſociety, and thoſe which rigid rec⯑titude preſcribes. Our ideas of civil mora⯑lity are far from being preciſe, and we are too apt to confound it with that which is ſpeculative. There is, however, in matters of policy, a great deal of difference between the two.

Speculative morality tends to guide us by a pure and diſintereſted love of rectitude; or to detach us from temporal things, by directing our views to thoſe which are eter⯑nal. Conſidering actions in themſelves, independent of all relation to ſociety, and connected only with the rules of perfection, it will not admit of any deviation. What I call civil morality, which has no object but to ſweeten and ſecure the commerce of [73] men among themſelves, and to maintain good public order, requires not a ſtrict ob⯑ſervation of all its precepts, but admits of every relaxation conſiſtent with the peace and proſperity of Society. In judging, then, of the manners of a people, by the princi⯑ples of ſpeculative morality, we ſhall find that a ſpirit of Luxury in certain perſons, too worldly-minded to be ſenſible of the value of perfect purity, weakens the prac⯑tice and authority of ſome of its doctrines. But, in judging of manners by the principles of civil morality, we ſhall ſee nothing perni⯑cious in theſe relaxations, ſuggeſted by a ſpirit of Luxury, whilſt they trouble not the harmony of ſociety, or impede the mo⯑tion of its ſprings.

In fact, the political machine rolls on, without embarraſſment, notwithſtanding theſe irregularities. Why then ſhould we be in pain about them? They are attended with no bad conſequences; and the cauſe which produces them produces alſo a thou⯑ſand important advantages. But this is ſaying too little. Without a ſpirit of Luxury among the people, as I have already obſerv⯑ed, [74] ſociety would not only languiſh, but even be annihilated. Luxury is the tie that unites men together. Of what uſe then are all our invectives againſt it? To what pur⯑poſe is it to rail at a thing which cannot be diſpenſed with?—There are great inconve⯑niences attending the neceſſity of eating; and yet the moſt eloquent pen cannot induce us to refrain from this neceſſity, but we eat on ſtill, and muſt eat whilſt we live.

Vainly will you pretend to make a diſ⯑tinction between Eaſe and Luxury. Where will you draw the line? How will you de⯑termine it for every claſs of men, and for every individual in each claſs? You have no principles capable of guiding you in this matter. Scarcely ſhall you point out the eſſentials for one or two claſſes of people, but you will find yourſelf obliged to re⯑nounce the taſk, and confeſs, that in things made uſe of by men, there are, in fact, but two kinds, Luxuries and Neceſſaries.

Principles of virtue are, doubtleſs, neceſ⯑ſary in a nation. Vices lead to its ruin. A State cannot ſubſiſt, nor have any power, but by an attention to the duties of ſociety. [75] All the vices, however, and all the virtues do not equally intereſt the preſervation of an empire. All ſocial obligations are not ſo ſtrict, as to admit of no extenſion. There are even violations, and very common ones, that no way attack the public proſperity. A ſyſtem of morality adopted by a numerous people, is not, in all its points, equally eſſential to every individual. The well-being of a little nation requires a ſtricter obedience to ſome certain precepts, which, without any bad conſequences, may be ne⯑glected by a great number of people in a nation more conſiderable.

The object of men uniting in a State, is very different from that of men uniting in a Cloiſter. The attention of the firſt is di⯑rected to the preſent life; their view is to render their time here eaſy, tranquil, and pleaſant: the other think only of a future life, and ſtudy to ſecure their happineſs hereafter. Theſe laſt cannot impoſe too ſe⯑vere a diſcipline; whereas the firſt preſcribe and obey rules which tend to their temporal intereſt, leaving every individual to judge [76] for himſelf, with reſpect to his eternal in⯑tereſt, according to his conſcience.

Severity, or reſtraint of manners, and domeſtic regularity, are certainly very praiſe-worthy. Far be it from me to depre⯑ciate the merit of theſe virtues! But com⯑fortable and profitable as they are to thoſe who obſerve them, with regard to the pro⯑ſperity of a kingdom, they have not that im⯑portance that is attributed to them. When once the principles of probity and honour are ſo generally practiſed and reſpected in a nation, as to ſecure the common good, mo⯑rality has done all that policy requires. It muſt look to other ſources for the happineſs and power of a people. Now, what are theſe ſources? Phyſical means; the unfold⯑ing and exertion of the faculties both of mind and body; ingenuity in the arts of peace and war; capacity in buſineſs; an enlightened patriotiſm, that is to ſay, a ſpirit of policy. From theſe it is that public proſperity is principally derived. Theſe are the objects to which a good citizen ſhould direct his attention. Their import⯑ance [77] will draw every other neceſſary after them.

There have, indeed, exiſted ſome ſmall nations, who, though given up to a volun⯑tary or conſtrained poverty, have neverthe⯑leſs performed ſome great exploits in war; but we muſt not conclude, that, to be as illuſtrious as them, we ſhould live as they did. It muſt be obſerved, that their ſucceſs was not owing to their poverty, but to the enthuſiaſm of their virtues, produced by the education they received; to the attention they gave to their affairs; to their applica⯑tion to the uſe of arms; and that their po⯑verty was an obſtacle which they had the greateſt difficulty to ſurmount. We muſt obſerve alſo, that their rivals were not very powerful; that, for the moſt part, they lived as hard as their enemies, and that where the conquerors and the conquered led the ſame kind of life, it is not in the manner of living that we muſt look up for the cauſe of victory.

Beſides, triumphs in war do not prove the good morals of a people. The Bucca⯑neers who made the new world tremble, [78] and who, in the raſheſt enterprizes perform⯑ed prodigies of valour, were banditti. The Tartars, who conquered China, were rob⯑bers. What was Pizarro and his aſſociates who conquered Peru? They ſubdued and maſſacred an inoffenſive people, habituated to the practice of ſocial virtues. To con⯑quer, it is ſufficient to know the art of war better, and employ it better than the enemy. Nothing is more foreign to the purity of manners. It is not in camps, in the midſt of licentiouſneſs and military barbarity, that we learn to regulate them.

We quote often the Romans and the Spartans; as if the Romans were powerful during the time they lived hard; and as if the Spartans, otherwiſe ſurrounded than they were, would have been able, in keep⯑ing up their poverty, to have rendered themſelves formidable to their neighbours, or even to have preſerved themſelves.

Every time that theſe old examples are brought to prove that a diſpoſition to ſpend money, and a deſire for various enjoyments are prejudicial to a State, as tending to the extinction of virtue; how is it that ſo [79] ſtriking an obſervation is not, in ſome de⯑gree, a check to us? The people of Greece did not cultivate the arts, give into magni⯑ficence, or ſtudy pleaſure ſo much as the Athenians, and yet the hiſtory of the Athe⯑nians furniſhes more renowned ſayings, more glorious actions, and more illuſtrious achievements, both public and private, than that of the Spartans, of whoſe ſeverity in living, ſo much boaſt is made.

Among the illuſtrious men of Plutarch and Cornelius Nepos, there are ſix Lacede⯑monians and fifteen Athenians. To theſe may be added Socrates and Plato, of whom Plutarch and Cornelius Nepos are ſilent, they having been neither commanders of armies, nor public miniſters; though they are not leſs illuſtrious on that account. Among the ſix Lacedemonians are Pauſa⯑nias and Lyſander, who, though able men, and renowned for valiant exploits, were far from being good men.

The manners of the Spartans, though brilliant in certain reſpects, were, in general, very bad. Enthuſiaſm carried them beyond [80] all example; but ſober reaſon condemned them.

Good morals, conſidered only as they reſpect ſociety, and without any view of a life to come, like civil morals, are of greater value, in proportion as they render men happy on this ſide the grave. Morals, or manners, in this light, are better or worſe, as they encreaſe or diminiſh the happineſs of the people. This is the touchſtone by which we ſhould judge of them.

The Spartans were brave and valiant, in⯑flamed with the love of their country and of liberty; but they were perfidious, ungrate⯑ful, envious, arrogant, eager to rule, unjuſt, inhuman, and often mean. Their ſociety yielded them neither comforts, pleaſure, nor ſecurity. Such is the idea we are taught to conceive of this people from ancient hiſtory.

But let us not revert to former ages. All there is too much enveloped in obſcurity. The facts of thoſe times, as far as they con⯑cern us, ſtand ſingle, and are few in num⯑ber. They cannot be ſufficiently known in their detail, nor as they relate to the cauſes of the miſery or proſperity of thoſe nations [81] to which they belong, ſo as to give any coun⯑tenance to political ſyſtems at this day. We ought not to form our ideas on ſuch uncer⯑tain grounds, leſt fatal errors ſhould be the conſequence.

Modern times afford us facts more cer⯑tain and concluſive. We inhabit a king⯑dom, and we have neighbouring States, where Luxury has a long time reigned. We ſee not Sparta in Italy, in France, or in England; and yet, are theſe countries leſs illuſtrious, in war or in peace? To look back but two hundred years, have they not produced renowned generals, celebrated writers, able miniſters, enlightened magiſ⯑trates, and very diſtinguiſhed inventors and artiſts? What bravery, what abilities, what greatneſs of ſoul, what fortitude, what in⯑genuity, what diſintereſtedneſs, may we not trace, in this ſpace of time, among the inhabitants of theſe countries; ſuch as would do honour to ancient Greece, or an⯑cient Rome! How many noble and bril⯑liant actions are loſt in the crowd, of which we are ſtill ignorant!

[82]Since theſe powerful nations then exiſt, where a ſpirit of Luxury is limited only by the means, or by the fortune of a people, and among whom we find theſe moral qua⯑lities eſſential to the ſupport of theſe States; ſince theſe nations flouriſh (for certainly England, France, and Italy, may be ſaid to flouriſh, in contradiſtinction to Spain, where the inhabitants live upon onions; to Swe⯑den, where there are ſumptuary laws; and to Poland, where the people go almoſt naked); it muſt be allowed, that a deſire for enjoy⯑ments, in changing the manners, do not render them worſe; or that policy, in not curbing this deſire, rectifies its bad effects, ſo as not to leave it prejudicial to the State.

Extenſion of enjoyments has nothing in itſelf incompatible with innocence and vir⯑tue. It is more conſonant to true wiſdom to profit by the bleſſings of nature, than to refuſe them. Uſeful virtues are more practicable in opulence than in poverty; and hardneſs of living neceſſarily leads to poverty, as a ſpirit of Luxury, in exerciſing all the faculties, leads commonly to opu⯑lence. If opulence gives facility to follow [83] a vicious inclination; poverty, foſtering ig⯑norance and coarſeneſs of manners, encou⯑rages and ſtrengthens other vices more per⯑nicious and odious. Let us dwell no longer on the compariſon. We are, certainly, not to look for the good or evil morals of a people, in their modes of living.

Manners take their riſe from the conſti⯑tution of government, and the tenets ſpread throughout a nation, reſpecting all the ob⯑jects that intereſt it. When the tenets which a nation follow are ſound, when its conſti⯑tution is wiſe, then, whether the people be luxurious or not, their manners are good; they practiſe the virtues; and adminiſtra⯑tion adding puniſhments and rewards to the ſtrength of the general opinion, vice finds ſo many barriers, and ſo few advantages, that the number of the vicious is always too ſmall, or the kind of vices of too little con⯑ſequence, to injure the ſecurity of the State.

The tenets of a nation reſpecting the objects that intereſt it, and the conſtitution of its government, depend upon the man⯑ner in which it has been inſtructed. Man⯑ners, then, primarily depend upon educa⯑tion. [84] Inculcate the principles of honour, juſtice, and virtue, by a good education; ſupport them, not on falſe or confuſed no⯑tions, but upon ſound and clear ideas; let your pupils be well inſpired with this great maxim, N'uſurpe point et reſpecte-toi, a maxim more preciſe than the ancient pro⯑verb ſo well known, Do not to others what you would not have them do unto you; take care, by your form of government, to make it the common intereſt to keep up to this principle, and you will acknowledge that the enjoyments of Luxury, innocent in themſelves, will never corrupt a purity of manners.

The influence of education is all-power⯑ful. Religions are propagated and ſupport⯑ed by inſtruction. Give a free flight to li⯑terature; encourage the liberty of the preſs; let no conſtraint ſtifle the voice of thoſe men, who, devoted to ſtudy, reflect for man⯑kind, and enrich the world with the fruits of their genius; and all the reformations neceſſary for the public good, will break out, one after another, without confuſion, and without trouble. Should error get hold of [85] ſome minds, and extend itſelf, by means of ſuch liberty of the preſs, a thouſand oppoſers would, by that ſame liberty, riſe againſt it. The ſun of criticiſm and diſcuſſion will diſſipate every cloud, and nothing will gain an eſtabliſhment, which does not bear the ſeal of reaſon and of truth.

In ſhort, whatever may be ſaid of the influence of Luxury on the manners of the people; as men aſſociate only to procure themſelves enjoyments, and, as the attrac⯑tion to ſuch enjoyments is the ſole ſource of the power and happineſs of ſociety, it muſt be conſulted, though the morals of the Public were, in ſome meaſure, to be affected thereby. If temporal utility be merely con⯑ſidered, ſuch morals as are conſiſtent with a ſpirit of Luxury are ſufficiently good; ſince ſociety cannot exiſt without Luxury, any more than without morality; and as ſocieties, the ſupport of which is the ſole end of civil morality, have not only exiſted for many ages, but have been more happy, more numerous, and more powerful, in proportion to the degree of Luxury among them, where the nature of their govern⯑ment [86] has not fruſtrated the advantages de⯑rived from this ſource.

Upon the whole, in countries where Luxury is predominant, we ſee a vaſt num⯑ber of towns, an infinite population, good order exiſting, and nature embelliſhed to the utmoſt; on the contrary, in thoſe new climates, where the induſtry of man, ſtill enveloped, leaves him but little exertion for ſuperfluities, the beſt ſoils are but bound⯑leſs deſarts. Nature preſents but a ſhape⯑leſs ſcene; her riches are thinly ſcattered, and loſt in the confuſion, while the human ſpecies, ſmall in number, wandering in the foreſts, ſubmitting to the inclemency of ſeaſons, and often pining under the horrors of want, is, in its happieſt moments, obliged to contend with every animal for ſub⯑ſiſtence.

Though a ſpirit of Luxury has bene commonly accuſed as the ſcourge of States, an examination of its effects has given me a very different idea. An extinction, or even a great diminution of Luxury, would, in my opinion, bring on miſery, barbariſm, and an immenſe depopulation; and in a com⯑mercial [87] State, like ours, involved in a vaſt na⯑tional debt, the intereſt of which can be paid only by its Luxuries, total ruin. On the other hand, free Luxury, under a well-ordered go⯑vernment, appears to me to be attended with plenty, wealth, and public happineſs. Theſe ideas, too much unknown till now, ſtrike me with their importance. I have ventur⯑ed to declare them, and if theſe beſt inten⯑tions may, in any degree, recommend a work, mine has a claim to the attention of every thinking man.

Careful and diligent as I may have been; like other men, I am not ſecure againſt illu⯑ſion. I hope, however, I am entitled to indulgence. When a man thinks himſelf able to deſtroy a fatal opinion, he is com⯑mendable in the attempt; nay, he is not allowed to be ſilent.