[end of page #68]

Germany, Poland, and Russia; but that time is now over, and it owes its present existence to the jealousy of other powers. It is possessed of a greater quantity of good territory than all the leading nations of Europe, Russia excepted; and it is not the interest of men living in less favoured climates, to endeavour to renovate the country of Alexander, and of the other great nations of antiquity.

The Turkish nation is represented as greatly on the decline, but, soon after its establishment, it had every vice that could well exist in a government, and its greatest weakness now arises more from the alteration produced in other nations for the better, than in itself for the worse. The difficulty of keeping people in ignorance is becoming every day greater; and when the Ottoman throne falls the usual order of things will be reversed. For, as other governments may attribute their destruction to corruption of manners, and to ignorance, the Turkish government looks there for its security; and the day that any reasonable degree of light breaks in amongst its subjects will be its last.

To endeavour tracing the causes of decline in a state that owes its existence to its defects, and is in every respect different from other nations, would be useless in the present Inquiry, it has only been noticed to shew, that, in the infinite variety of things, some may owe their existence to what is in general the cause of destruction. [end of page #69]



CHAP. VII. [sic—error in printer's copy, should read VIII.]

General View and Analysis of the Causes that operated in producing the Decline of all Nations, with a Chart, representing the Rise, Fall, and Migrations of Wealth, in all different Countries, from the Year 1500, before the Birth of Christ, to the End of the Eighteenth Century, —a Period of 3300 Years.

From the revolutions that have taken place amongst wealthy and powerful nations to the present time, though the origin has been owing to very different causes, and the decline and removal from one place to another has been attended with circumstances not similar; yet the same leading cause for that decline may not only be traced easily and distinctly, but is so evident that it is impossible for it to be overlooked or mistaken.

Local situation, or temporary circumstances, have always afforded the first means of rising to wealth and greatness. The minds of men, in a poor state, seem never to have neglected an opportunity, presented either by the one or the other, and they have generally proved successful, till energy of mind and industry were banished, by the habits of luxury, negligence, and pride, which accompany, or at least soon follow, the acquisition of either.

Where wealth has been acquired first, power has generally been sought for afterwards; and, where power came first, it has always sought the readiest road to wealth, by attacking those who were in possession of it.

The nations and cities on the borders of the Mediterranean Sea, where arts and commerce first began, where agriculture flourished, and population had risen to a high pitch, carried on perpetual struggles to supplant each other; and, in those struggles, the most wealthy generally sunk under; till Alexander, the first great conqueror, with whose history we are tolerably well acquainted, reduced them all to [end of page #70] his yoke; one small and brave people triumphing over the Egyptian and Assyrian empires, where wealth and luxury had already produced their effects.

Though this triumph of poverty over riches was very complete, except in one single instance, it did not occasion any real change, either in the abodes of wealth, or the channels of commerce. Tyre, the richest commercial city till then, was ruined, to make way for the prosperity of Alexandria, which became the most wealthy; drawing great part of the commerce from Carthage on the west, and taking the whole from Rhinocolura on the east: but, in Egypt and Syria, Babylon and Memphis still remained great cities.

The whole of this ancient world was for a moment under one chief, but was soon again divided amongst the generals who succeeded to that great conqueror; and the Egyptian and Persian empires became rivals, as Egypt and Syria had been before. The Grecian nations still remained the chief seats of civilization and the fine arts; and this continued till the Romans, originally a poorer people than the Macedonians, conquered the whole. This was the second great triumph of poverty and energy over wealth and grandeur, and, in this struggle, Greece itself fell.

The effects of wealth were not less formidable to the Romans themselves, than they had been to those nations they had enabled that brave and warlike people to conquer; so that the mistress of the world, in her turn, fell before nations that were rude and barbarous, but uncorrupted by wealth and luxury.

The conquerors of Rome were too rude, and too many in number, to become themselves enervated by wealth, which disappeared under their rapacious grasp, and which they neither had the art nor inclination to preserve.

This invasion of the fertile and rich provinces by men rude and ignorant, but who came from northern climates, established a new order of things; and only a small remnant of former wealth and greatness was preserved in Egypt and at Constantinople.

For several centuries of war and confusion commerce and the arts appear to have been undervalued and neglected; but still the taste [end of page #71] for oriental luxuries was not entirely banished, and, at the first interval of peace and safety, sprung up again. It was then that Alexandria, Venice, Genoa, and Constantinople, became the channels through which the people of Europe procured the luxuries of Asia. Babylon, Memphis, Palmyra, and all the other great cities of antiquity, were no more; even Greece had lost its arts and splendour; Alexandria and Constantinople were repeatedly assailed, taken, and conquered, by the barbarians, who envied their wealth, but who still found an interest in continuing them as channels for procuring to European nations the refinements of the East. Though Venice and Genoa were wealthy, they were but small, and of little importance; and all the nations who might have crushed them at a blow, only considering them as sea-ports of convenience and utility, allowed them to remain independent.

As an intercourse had been established between the northern and southern parts, a taste for the luxuries of Asia had extended to the shores of the Baltic, soon after the victorious arms of Charlemagne had carried there some degree of civilization, and the Christian religion.

Then it was that a new and more widely-extended system of commerce, but something like what had formerly existed in Tyre and Carthage, began in all the maritime towns of Europe, when Italy and Flanders became the most wealthy parts of Europe. A spirit of chivalry, and a desire of conquest, not founded on the same principles with the conquests of ancient nations, or of Rome, to obtain wealth, pervaded all Europe, and the greatest confusion prevailed. In the history of wealth and power, as connected together, this is a chasm. Those who had power despised wealth, and were seeking after what they esteemed more—military glory; and wealth was confined to a number of insulated spots, and possessed by men who were merchants, without any share of power or authority.

This extraordinary and unprecedented state of things gave rise to the Hanseatic League, which rose at last to such importance that those who had been so long seeking after glory, without finding it, began to see the importance which was derived from wealth. They began to see that, even in the pursuit of their favourite object, wealth was an ex- [end of page #72] cellent assistant, and the friendship of merchants begun sic to be solicited by princes, as in the days of Tyre and Sidon.

This progress was greatly facilitated and accelerated by the crusades, which, at the same time that they beggared half the nobility of Europe, gave them a taste for the refinements of the East, and taught them to set some value on the means by which such refinements could be procured.

In this manner were things proceeding, when three great discoveries changed the situation of mankind. {66}

The mariners compass, gunpowder, and the art of printing, were all discovered nearly about the same time; and, independent of their great and permanent effects, they were wonderfully calculated to alter the situation of nations at that period.

The navigation of the ocean, which led to the discovery of a passage to the East Indies, and of America, gave a mortal blow to the nations situated on the borders of the Mediterranean Sea, who thus found themselves deprived of the commerce of the East.

The discovery of gunpowder, a means so powerful of annoying an enemy, without the aid of human force, which places a giant and a dwarf in some sort upon an equality, was wonderfully adapted for doing away the illusions of knight errantry, that had such a powerful effect in making war be preferred to commerce: while printing facilitated the communication of every species of knowledge.

It was then that northern nations began to cultivate arts and sciences, as those of the south under a mild heaven, and on a fertile soil, had done three thousand years before. But ingenuity and invention took a different direction in the north from what they had done in the southern climates; instead of sovereigns and slaves, men were more in mutual want of each other, and therefore a more equal division of the fruits of industry was required.

The manufactures of former times had been confined chiefly to luxuries for the great, and simple necessaries for slaves; and commerce, though productive of great wealth to a few, was in its limits equally confined.

—- {66} For the dates see the chart, and for their effects, chap. i. book ii. [Transcriber's note: See in the Chart "Mariners Compass /Gunpowder/Printing Invented 1300-1400"]. -=-

[end of page #73]

It was natural that the two nations which had first discovered the passage to the East, and the continent of the West, which abounded with the precious metals, should become rich and powerful, as those cities had formerly done that possessed exclusively the channels of commerce. Those two countries were Spain and Portugal; but here again we find the same fatality attend the acquisition of wealth that had formerly been remarked. It was, indeed, not to be expected, that the steadiness and virtue of the Spaniards and Portuguese could resist the operation of a cause, that neither the wisdom of the Egyptians; the arts and industry of Greece, nor the stubborn and martial patriotism of the Romans could withstand.

Those two nations soon sunk, and the Dutch, the French, and the English, became participators of the commerce.

Manufactures were a new source of wealth, almost unknown to the ancient world. Those begun first to be set in activity in Flanders, then in Holland and France, and, last of all, in England; but, like commerce, and every other means by which wealth is acquired, they have a tendency to leave a country. The cause and the effect are at variance, after a certain time; and though we cannot illustrate this from history, as we may the migrations of wealth arising from other sources, the tendency appears of the same nature, though with this difference; that men may always labour for themselves, and enjoy the fruits of their labours, though they cannot always find the means of being the carriers to other nations, or becoming merchants.

This alteration in the nature of wealth; the inventions of mankind; the alterations brought on by the facility of communicating knowledge; the systematical manner in which men pursue their interests, and other changes: give reason to hope that, in the present situation of things, those possessions may be rendered permanent, that have hitherto been found to be so evanescent and fugitive.

Where wealth has not been wrested from a country by absolute force, (in doing which the poorer nations were always successful,) it has emigrated from other causes, and taken up its abode amongst a new people, where circumstances were more favourable for its encouragement. [end of page #74]

Before we leave this recapitulation, it is necessary, however, to take notice of one revolution that did not take place on similar principles with the others, so far as wealth and luxury are in question; but which has in some respects a similarity, and, in others, is precisely the reverse.

About two centuries and a half ago, the Polish nation was one of the most powerful in Europe; Russia could not then, nor for long after, contend with it. The Prussians were its vassals; and the capital of the German empire, when besieged by the Turks, in 1650, owed its safety to the Poles, its brave and faithful allies.

Such was the case; but, at this day, the Polish nation is no longer in existence: it is subdued, parcelled out, and divided, amongst those very powers, to any of which it was at least equal, and to the others superior, at so late a period.

It may be asked, whether Poland was one of those states that has been borne down by its own wealth and opulence? If its ambition, injustice, or any of the other causes so prominent in the decline of nations, operated in the total extinction of it from the rank of independent states? Not one of those causes operated, but still it is not altogether an exception to the general rule.

When the feudal system was established all over Europe, nations under its influence were so far on an equality; and as they all emerged from that situation nearly about the same time, Poland excepted, they still preserved their relative situations. The Poles, during this change in other states, comparatively lost power. Amongst the alterations produced, was that of placing in the hands of the sovereign all the disposable revenue and force of a country, with which standing armies were maintained. Those irregular militias, till then composed of the barons and their retainers; a species of force, at best, far inferior to regular armies, became useless; but particularly so, after the modes of fighting had been changed by the invention of gunpowder, and the adoption of large trains of artillery, which could never have been employed in the feudal armies.

The disposable force of Poland and its revenues did not, by any means, keep pace with those of neighbouring nations; and what was still worse, the strength of that unfortunate country was divided; the [end of page #75] monarchy was elective, and foreign influence had a means of exertion, which, under a hereditary line of kings, is not practicable. Poland was not only weaker than its neighbours, but became a prey to intestine divisions, cabal, and intrigue.

Though Poland was not wealthy, according to the meaning applied to that word, it was a populous and fertile country, and therefore a desirable possession to the neighbouring states. To Prussia, a most ambitious and aggrandising power, with a military government, and of a very limited extent, it was peculiarly desirable. To Russia, extensive as it is, the fruitful territory was also an object of ambition, from its proximity to the seat of an empire, the most fertile and fine provinces of which lie at a distance. The same desire of possessing what they wanted, operating at the same time on two neighbouring nations, occasioned them to unite their power in a first dismemberment of Poland, for their mutual benefit. The interior convulsions of the country served as a pretext, and its weakness furnished the means of executing the design. In 1772, that independent country first lost some of its finest provinces; but this was only a prelude to its final fall.

The nature of ambition is to augment with success, and as the same divisions continued in the state, a pretence for a farther interference in its affairs was easily found; and, in 1794, Poland ceased to be one of the number of European states. In this last seizure, the house of Austria had no immediate hand. It was, however, necessary to have its consent: and, as the aggrandisement of Prussia was not an object of indifference to Austria, participation in the spoils was proposed, as the price of acquiescence, and it was readily accepted.

In this case, the weakness of Poland, and the ambition of its rivals and neighbours, were the immediate causes of its destruction; but that weakness arose from a want of true patriotism and proper attention in the people themselves. Jealous of liberties, and disobedient to their king, the Poles were slaves to the feudal proprietors of the soil. Though the first cause was different, yet their divisions and quarrels were the same in effect, as if they had proceeded from real causes of discontent, and a deranged state of society, such as we have seen, when the love of the country is lost. In Poland, that love of the country [end of page #76] was not lost, but it was badly directed, which is nearly the same thing; at least, it is equally dangerous.

Why, it may be asked, did not the other powers of Europe interfere? To this, indeed, it would be difficult to give a satisfactory answer. Those who did not interfere, probably, may have cause to repent their indifference. It was an infraction of that sort of federation of nations, which had been found necessary to prevent a repetition of conquests like those of Alexander, or of the Romans; yet, still there is a way of accounting for their conduct, though it cannot be vindicated.

In the first place, Poland lays sic remote from those powerful nations that have had the greatest sway in modern times. It was not very easy to interfere with great efficacy; besides, as Poland was previously under foreign influence, the essential evil was done. The example of partitions, indeed, was not given, but it is not impossible that some powers on the continent, though they got no share, might not be sorry to see such an example. Britain and Spain certainly could not wish for the example, but others might, and others probably did wish for it.

The first division was, besides, only a beginning; some degree of moderation was preserved, and Poland was only mutilated; it was not destroyed. The case was not entirely new, nor without example.

The second and last division took place at a time when the nations whose interest it was, and whose wish it might have been to interfere, had not the means of doing so. It was when the republican frenzy in France was at its most desperate height, and whom sic the whole of civilized Europe appeared to be in danger.

There is one more excuse to be found. The aspect of affairs in Poland resembled, with regard to its revolutions, those of France so much, that those, who at another time would have probably interfered, were rather inclined to co-operate in stifling a rising flame in the north, similar to that which had endangered the whole of the south of Europe.

In all this, the thing the most difficult to be accounted for, is the conduct of the Polish nation; but an inquiry into the causes of that would be quite foreign to the present subject: this is, however, an instance of the danger arising from not keeping pace with other nations [end of page #77] in those arts of government, and internal policy, which constitute the power of nations in the general order of things, whatever that may be.

Although we have seldom found intestine divisions carried to so blameable a length in any other nation that was not corrupt in itself, yet, it is clear, that the influence obtained by the wealth of its neighbours was at the bottom of those highly blameable, and dreadfully fatal divisions.

When aggrandisement is the aim of modern states, there will not now be any difficulty of pleading example; and there is one of those very powers that on this occasion participated in the division which has all the seeds of discord in itself that brought on the ruin of the Polish empire. That power has already felt the effect of example; and, though it may repine, it cannot complain, as it might otherwise have done; or if it does, it cannot expect equal commiseration.

EXPLANATION OF THE PLATE INTENDED TO ILLUSTRATE THE RISE AND FALL OF NATIONS.

In the chart, at the beginning of the work, the lines, from top to bottom, represent the division of time into centuries, each indicating the year, marked under and above it, in the same way that has been adopted in Dr. Priestley's Chart of Universal History, in works of chronology, and in statements of commerce and finance.

The countries that have flourished, whether by commerce, or any other means are supposed to be represented by the parallel spaces from right to left, according to the names written on the right hand.

The rise of the black part, something like a distant range of low mountains, shews at what periods the country was great; when its greatness began and when it ended. This plan would be unexceptionally correct, if the materials for it could be procured; but if they were, it would not lead to any very different conclusion from what it does in its present state. The times, when the elevation began, and its duration are exact. The rises and falls are, as nearly as I am able, estimated from existing documents.

The part shaded of a darkish colour, and growing gradually lighter at both edges, represent those centuries of ignorance which succeeded the fall of the Roman empire. [end of page #78]

At the bottom, on the part not stained, is a chronological list of events, inventions, and discoveries, connected with the subject. Those which are not, however, important or curious, have no place.

The commerce of France, Britain, Russia, and America, are upon a true scale with respect to their proportional amount, as well as to their rise and progress. The others are not, owing to want of documents; but, as before observed, the amount has very little to do with the subject; the business is to see how wealth and power were divided at any particular time, if they were rising or falling, or if they were at their height, comparing them with the manners of the people at the time.

This is the use of the chart, as to the representation of individual places and nations.

The general conclusion is, from taking the whole together, that wealth and power have never been long permanent in any place. That they never have been renewed when once destroyed, though they have had rises and falls, and that they travel over the face of the earth, something like a caravan of merchants. On their arrival, every thing is found green and fresh; while they remain all is bustle and abundance, and, when gone, all is left trampled down, barren, and bare.

This chart is a sort of a picture, intended to make those migrations and change of place distinct and easily conceived, on which the whole of this book has been occupied. Being once acquainted with the changes that have taken place, we may more accurately compare them with the state of this country at the present time. Those who will take the trouble to read Ferguson's History of the Roman Republic, and Gibbon's Decline and Fall of the Empire, may form a judgement of the accuracy or inaccuracy of the chart.

EXAMPLE OF THE MANNER OF INSPECTING THE CHART.

To know when Rome was at the highest pitch of greatness, find, on the right hand, the space marked Roman empire: then look between the lines for the highest part of the dark ground, and look immediately under for the year, it will be seen to be at the birth of Christ, that is, during the reign of Augustus; and by the same means it will be found declining gradually till the year 490. [end of page #79]

In like manner, Carthage will be found at the zenith of its power about 300 years before Christ. The founding of Alexandria and the wars with Rome began then to diminish both its wealth and power.

It is intended by the author of this to execute a chart of the same sort on a very large scale, and assign to the different powers spaces proportioned to their importance, as nearly as he can ascertain.

With respect to the chronology of this chart, to prevent criticisms which might perhaps be made; but do not apply to it, according to the purpose for which it was constructed, the reader is requested to observe, that I am desirous of illustrating a very important investigation, by representing a very confused and long series of events. The result to be derived from this, is not to be affected by any small inaccuracy. In counting before the birth of Christ, having found many different opinions, and much uncertainty relative to dates, (which I neither have abilities nor inclination to investigate,) I measured backwards, without pretending to settle the year of the world, respecting which there are so many different opinions.

The materials for ancient history are few, and sometimes not much to be relied upon; but, in great leading facts, such as alone are of use in this picture, the authenticity is not to be doubted.

The Assyrian and Egyptian empires had attained wealth and power previous to the time at which this commences. They stood then, and for long after, as if it sic were alone in the world; their revolutions, and the rise, prosperity, and decline of other nations, are all represented.

I have not wished to continue the view of France, since the revolution, its present real situation is so imperfectly known; and, from what is known of it, it cannot be compared with any other nation, or with itself previous to that period. [end of page #80]



======== BOOK II. ========



CHAP. I.

Of the Interior Causes of Decline, arising from the Possession of Wealth.—Its general Operation on the Habits of Life, Manners, Education, and Ways of thinking and acting of the Inhabitants of a Country.

As necessity was the first cause of industry and invention, from which wealth and power arise, it is natural that, when the action of that necessity becomes less urgent, those exertions to which it gave rise will gradually fall away. Though habit may sometimes counteract this tendency, in the individual, yet, taken upon a general scale, and from generation to generation, it must inevitably take place.

In this case, an individual who has obtained wealth enjoys an advantage, which no nation ever can expect. With only common prudence, he may cease from exertion or industry, and remain in affluence. If he has property in land, he may let it, and live on the rent; if in money, he may lend it, and live on the interest; but one nation cannot let its lands, or lend its capital to another. It must, by its own industry, render them productive. The great bulk of every nation, then, must be industrious, however wealthy it may be; otherwise, the wealth will soon be dissipated and disappear. The people of Flanders cannot, for example, cultivate the fields of the French, and live in Flanders; and, if the agriculture of a country is neglected, that country must soon become poor and miserable. {67}

—- {67} We have seen what became of the Romans, when the tribute paid by other nations enabled them to live in idleness. The influx of wealth from America produced nearly the same effect on Spain: though it lasted for a very short time, yet it ruined the country. -=-

[end of page #81]

It is not absolutely necessary, then, for an individual to conciliate affluence with industry, or, which is the same thing, to preserve one of the effects of necessity, after the necessity has ceased to exist. But if it were possible for a sum of money, or property of any sort, to be given to each individual in a nation, which would be sufficient, in the midst of an industrious people, to enable him to live in perfect idleness, the whole nation could not become idle. Such a case never can exist, as that of all the individuals in a country becoming sufficiently rich to live without labour. But something approaching towards that state of things actually does take place, when, by the general increase of wealth, the necessity for labour is diminished. The number of idle people is constantly augmenting; and even those who continue to labour do it less intensely than when the operation of necessity was more severe. When a cause is diminished, the effect must in time fall off in proportion.

With individuals, nature has given very powerful auxiliaries to necessity, which strengthen and prolong its operation, but which do not operate equally on nations.

Habit or custom is the one auxiliary, and ambition or avarice is the other.

Habit, in all cases, diminishes the reluctance to labour, which is inherent in the most part of mankind, and sometimes entirely overcomes it. {68} Ambition, which appears under many different forms, renders labour absolutely an enjoyment. Sometimes ambition is merely a desire of amassing property, an avaricious disposition: sometimes it is a desire to create a family; and even, sometimes, the vain and delusive idea of retiring from business, and becoming happy in a state of total idleness, spurs a man on to labour. It is a very curious, but well-known fact, that, after necessity has entirely ceased to promote industry, the love of complete idleness, and the hope of enjoying it at some distant date, leads the wealthy man on, to his last hour, in a train of augmented industry. Thus has nature most wisely counteracted

—- {68} There are many instances where habit has rendered a particular sort of labour absolutely a want. It has become a necessary,—a means of enjoyment without which life has become a burthen. -=-

[end of page #82]

the disposition of man to idleness; by making the very propensity to it, after a certain time, active in promoting industry.

But this can never be the case with a race of men: {69} and, as a nation consists of a greater number of individuals, so, also, its existence consists of successive generations.

There is a difference between idleness and inaction. It is the natural propensity of man to be idle, but not to be inactive. Enjoyment is his aim, after he has secured the means of existence. Enjoyment and idleness are supposed, in many cases, to go hand in hand; at any rate, they can be reconciled, whereas inaction and enjoyment are irreconcilable. {70}

But we may still go farther. As taste for any particular enjoyment is acquired when a man is young, and the same taste continues in a more advanced age; a man who has been long in business has had no time to acquire a taste for those enjoyments that are incompatible with, or perhaps that admit of being substituted for it.

Reading the study of the fine arts, and such other means of employing time as men enjoy, who, at an early period of life, are exempted from labour, afford no amusement to the man who has been always accustomed to a life of business, {71} with whom there is an absolute ne-

—- {69} It is perhaps amongst chances that seem likely enough; the only one that has never happened, that of a race of misers, in the same lineal descent, for several generations. The reason why I say it never has happened is, that, if it had, the effects would have become so conspicuous, by the riches accumulated, that they could not have passed unobserved.

{70} By inaction is not meant the opposite of loco-motion, such as laying sic in bed, or basking in the sun; it is supposed that a man, to enjoy himself, must be reading, talking, in company, or doing something.

{71} They sometimes affect this, but it is little else than through vanity. It would be easy to give a hundred striking proofs, but their frequency renders that unnecessary.

Hunting and fishing, the two most anxious and painful occupations in the world, are, in all countries, followed by the affluent and idle as amusements; they want to interest the mind, and occupy themselves. Gaming, which is attended with very painful sensations, is followed much more frequently from propensity than from the love of gain; and, indeed, it would appear, that a life without occupations that interest the mind, is of all others the most insipid: it appears to be worse, it appears to be miserable. -=-

[end of page #83]

cessity of filling up the time in one way or another. A certain portion of time may be spent in company; but even that, to be enjoyed, must be spent in the society of men of the same class. The inducement, then, to a man who has dedicated the first part of his life advantageously to industry, to become idle, is not great, even when he is at free liberty to follow his inclination.

It is totally different with a young man; his propensity is to idleness, without any of those favourable circumstances that counteract that propensity. Necessity alone can be expected to operate on him; it is in vain to seek for any other substitute. Not that we mean, by idleness, to signify inaction; but that sort of idleness, which resists regular labour. There is a natural propensity to action, but then it is a propensity that operates irregularly, unless under the influence of necessity. It is a continued and regular exertion, directed to a proper object, that is wanted to obtain wealth; to procure this, it is well to imitate nature, and create necessity.

But, in proportion as a nation grows wealthy, that necessity is done away. It is of the art of prolonging necessity, or rather of reconciling necessity with affluence and ease, for which we are going to search, that we may, by that means, reconcile affluence with industry.

We must, in the first place, find what the natural operation is by which industry leaves a country.

When a country is in a state of poverty, it maintains the same degree of industry, from generation to generation, without any effort. The new race is brought up in the same way that the former was before it, and the same pressure of necessity, acting on the same desire (but no greater desire) to shun labour, produces the same effect at one time that it did at another. The son of a man, who has arrived at a greater degree of affluence than that to which he was born, is generally brought up differently. He is not brought up so hardily in his infancy as his father was, nor so soon called to labour; and probably when he is called to it, he is neither called with so imperious a voice, nor is he so willing to obey the call.

Though we do not live long enough to see an example of this operation on a whole nation, the progression being too slow for the life [end of page #84] of a man, yet we see it in different parts of the same country, that are in different degrees of advancement. How frequent are the instances of men, bred in distant counties, (particularly in the North,) bringing all that industry and those habits of labour to London, that the poverty of their parents, and the state of their part of the country naturally occasioned. Some of those have arrived at affluence, and many of them have to competency; and even those who do not arrive at a comparatively higher rank in London, than their father held in his own county, bring up their children in a very different manner.

Suppose, for example, a blacksmith, from Northumberland, or a baker, from Scotland, settles in London, as his father did at Newcastle or Edinburgh, his son or sons will be bred very differently from what he was; and, after their father's death, the business will most probably go to some new comer, from a distant county.

The father was brought up with the necessity of labouring, or the alternative of wanting food to eat. From his earliest days, he considered himself as fortunate if he could obtain a competent living by honest industry; and this impression, with the habits acquired while it was strong, lead a man, so brought up, to fill his place in life with honour and advantage.

The son, who sees that his father is in affluence, and who partakes of the fruits of a whole life of industry, seldom considers that he must continue that industry, otherwise, that the affluence will cease with the life of his father. It is impossible to make a young man, brought up in this manner, feel as his father did; and, not having the same impulse given to him at first, he never can set off in his course of life with the same energy.

But the cause of this evil does not stop here. Frequently the mother is an enemy to the industry of her son; and between the workings of real affection, badly exercised, which leads her to humour the lad; and a sort of silly vanity, equally misplaced, she encourages him, if not in idleness, at least, in the hope that he will never need to stoop to incessant industry. It is not necessary to ascertain the absolute portion of idleness and pride that is infused into the young man; that depends [end of page #85] on particular circumstances: {72} but, in most cases, it is sufficient to prevent his following the footsteps of his father with equal energy.

Perhaps the capital, or the connections a father leaves in trade, may, in some degree, and for some time, compensate for this; but the instances where they do so are not numerous.

This is an example of the manner in which every succeeding generation is brought up differently from that preceding it; but it is an extreme example, and one that, though very real in the individuals, can never suddenly take place on a national scale.

The difference between the general affluence of a nation, and the change of its manners during the life of a man, is by no means equal to the difference between a remote province and the capital of an empire; but, though the example is extreme, the same effect is produced, in the course of several generations upon a nation, that was occasioned by change of place in one individual family from father to son. {73}

When a change like this takes place in one family, (and there are numerous instances of it every day,) poverty comes on again, and the children fall back into the laborious class of society, probably in a degraded state; but as the evil is supplied by new people rising up, it is little felt on the nation; if, however, it occurs very generally, it must have a bad effect; and, indeed, the best thing that can happen for the

—- {72} If the mother has been herself born in affluence, she generally has a sort of smothered contempt for the mean origin of her husband. She seldom is fully sensible of the merit by which he has raised himself, and consequently cannot be capable of appreciating the advantage of bringing up her boy in the same way; on the contrary, the habits of industry, which the father acquired at an early age, under the pressure of necessity, are generally secret objects of ridicule to the rest of the family. If, again, the woman has been of low origin in herself, and is become affluent, then matters are ten times worse. Then there is all the pride and vanity that ignorance, and a desire to hide that mean extraction create. Incapable of shewing delicacy and fine breeding in herself, she spoils her harmless children by converting them into specimens of the gentility of the family. For more of this, see the chapter on Education.

{73} In Rome, after the taking of Carthage; and in Portugal, immediately after it got possession of the trade to India; the change must have been as great over the whole of the people in one generation, as it is generally between a remote province and near the capital. -=-

[end of page #86]

general welfare is, that such men may return to a state of insignificance and labour as fast as possible; for, while they remain above that, and in a declining state, they are filling their place in society badly.

It is different where the change goes on through a whole country, then no one can supply the place, they are all going the same way, and at nearly the same rate; {74} the consequence will be, that this will not be the fall of a family, but the fall of a whole people; the motion will, indeed, be much more slow, but the moving body will be vastly greater, and the effect will be in proportion.

In every nation in Europe there is, between the capital and the distant provinces, a difference of affluence, of wealth, &c. equal to what probably takes place in a nation in one or two centuries. The inhabitants of the capital have some great advantages over those that come from a distance; they have connections, they have money and stock; and, generally speaking, in their early years, they possess a more ready and marketable knowledge. But all these avail nothing against habits of industry, and being taught to expect nothing from others, but to depend all on one's own powers. With this single, but signal, advantage, the sons of the wealthy citizens are always yielding to the son of the peasant; they are one by one giving way, and their places are filled by a new race; while their descendants are sinking into poverty, and filling prisons, poor-houses, and hospitals.

This vicissitude is so observable, that it would be unnecessary to dwell upon it were it, sic not of such infinite importance. {75}

The alarming and lamentable increase of the poor, in proportion as

—- {74} It is always to be observed, that this reasoning is only applicable in general, and not in every particular case. It has been remarked by the writer of the notes on the Wealth of Nations, that where a fortune is not realized in a family, sufficient to enable it to withdraw entirely from trade, it seldom remains wealthy above two generations. The sons most frequently want intelligence or industry to augment what their father got, and the grandsons have generally dissipation enough to squander entirely away what remains. This is so frequent a case in London, that it may be called the regular routine of the business; and, what arises by regular routine, must be derived from some general and natural cause.

{75} In the chapter on Education, this subject is entered into more fully, and the education of women makes a principal part. A subject not noticed by the author of the Wealth of Nations, though very important. -=-

[end of page #87]

a nation becomes rich, is a proof that it is not in capital cities alone that the effect takes place, but over the whole of a country. {76}

In England, the number of inhabitants is about six times the number of those in Scotland; and, perhaps, it costs twice as much to maintain a poor person in the former as in the latter. The sum necessary for the maintenance of the poor in England may then be reckoned at about twelve times as much as in Scotland, in order to preserve a just proportion between the two countries. But the poor cost more than sixty times as much in England as in Scotland; that is, at least five times more than the true proportion that ought to be !!!

This, it may be said, is owing to the different manner of managing the business, and, in some degree, it no doubt is; {77} but, as the poor are only maintained in England, and as they are also maintained in Scotland, it would be wrong to allow so great a difference for that alone.

In order, however, to put the matter out of all doubt, let us compare England with itself, and we shall find that the poor's rates, or the expense of maintaining the indigent, has increased more rapidly than the price of provisions, or the price of labour. This ought not to be the case, as they would only have augmented in the same proportion, unless the number of poor was increased as well as the price of the provisions they eat, at the same time that the nation is growing more wealthy.

Of whom do the poor in every nation consist, but of the lame, the sick, the infirm, the aged, or children unprovided for? Of those, the number, in proportion to the total number of inhabitants, will be pretty nearly the same at all times; for it is nature that produces this species of helpless poverty. It would then appear that there is another species of poverty, not of nature's creation, that comes in and destroys the proportion. It would likewise appear, that that new species of poverty

—- {76} The Poor's Rate, and regulations respecting that augmenting class of persons, are treated in a chapter by itself.

{77} For this see the chapter on the Poor, in which the subject is investigated at considerable length. At present, it is only mentioned by way of illustrating the effect of wealth on the manners of the people; and to prove, that it is not confined to the capital alone, but is general all over the country of England. -=-

[end of page #88]

is occasioned by the general wealth, since it increases in proportion to it.

If we find, then, that the increase of wealth renders the descendants of a particular family helpless, and unable to maintain their place in society; if we find, also, that it gives those portions of a country, which are the least advanced, an advantage over those which are the most advanced; and, if we find that the number of indigent increase most where the wealth is greatest, we surely must allow, that there is a strong tendency to decay that accompanies the acquisition of wealth. The same revolutions that arise amongst the rich and poor inhabitants of a country, who change places gradually, and without noise, must naturally take place between the inhabitants of rich and poor countries, upon a larger scale and in a more permanent manner. {78} Such changes are generally attended with, or, at least, productive of, violent commotions. Nations are not subservient to laws like individuals, but make forcible use of the means of which they are possessed, to obtain the ends which they have in view.

As this tendency is uniformly felt by a number of individuals over the whole of a country, when it advances in wealth, and over whole districts that are more advanced than the others, it must operate, in length of time, in producing the decline of a whole nation, as well as it does of a certain portion of its people at all times.

Changes, in the interior of a nation, take place by piece-meal or by degrees; the whole mass sees nothing of it, and, indeed, it is not felt. {79} But it is vain to think, that the same cause that gives the poorer inhabitants of a nation an advantage over the richer, will not likewise

—- {78} As we find that wealth seldom goes amongst people of business past the second, and almost never past the third generation, families that rise so high as to be partners in profit, and not in labour or attention, are an exception. Nations resemble the families that acquire enough to be affluent, but not enough to retire from business. A nation can never retire; it must always be industrious. The inference is clear and cannot be mistaken; neither can the fact stated be denied.

{79} The number of bankruptcies have been considered as signs of wealth; and their increase is a sign most undoubtedly of more trade; but this is a barometer, of which it requires some skill to understand the real index. -=-

[end of page #89]

give poor nations an advantage over rich ones; or, at least, tend to raise the one and draw down the other. Though we find, from the history of the various revolutions that have taken place in different countries, that they arose from a variety of causes, some peculiar to one nation, and some to another; yet we have found a change of manners and ways of thinking and acting, more or less operating in all of them.

Amongst the interior causes of the decline of wealthy nations, arising from the wealth itself, we must set this down as one of a very general and natural operation. We must be particularly careful to remove this, as far as possible, if we mean to avert those evils which hitherto have arisen from a superior degree of wealth and power in every nation.

We are now going to examine other internal causes; but though they are separate from this, yet this is at the root of all, this is perpetually operating, we meet with it in every corner and at every turning. It is what Mr. Pope says, speaking of the master-passion in individuals:

"The great disease that must destroy at length,

Grows with our growth, and strengthens with our strength."

This radical case of decline is augmented by an ill conceived vanity in the parents, as well as by necessity ceasing to act on the children. Each is following a very natural inclination; the one to indulge, the other to be indulged. It is the duty and the interest of the state to counteract this tendency, and the manner how that it is to be done will be inquired into in the first chapter of the third book of this work. sic —there is none.

But it is not merely a neglect of industry and the means of rising in society, or keeping one's place in it that is hurtful; the general way of thinking and acting becomes different, and, by degrees, the character of a nation is entirely altered. This change was the most rapid, and the most observable in the Roman republic, and was the cause that brought it to an end, and prepared the people for submitting to be ruled by the emperors. The human character was as much degraded under them, when the citizens were rich, as it ever had been exalted under their consular government, when the people were indigent. [end of page #90]

The various effects of this change in manners will be considered under different heads, but it is too deeply rooted in human nature ever to be entirely counteracted, much less entirely done away. It is firmly connected with the first principles of action in man, and can no more be removed than his entire nature can be altered. What is in the extreme, if dangerous, may be diminished; and that is all that it would be any way useful to attempt: it may be rendered less formidable in its operation, and that is all that can be expected.

The degradation of moral character; the loss of attention to the first principles to which a society owes its prosperity and safety, both of which accompany wealth, are most powerful agents in the decline of nations. We have seen that the Romans, the greatest of all nations, were ruined, chiefly, by degradation of character, by effeminacy, by ignorance; for we generally find that idleness degenerates, at last, into sloth and inaction. To a love of justice, and a power of overcoming danger, or of preventing it, listlessness and a total want of energy succeed: at length, the mind becomes estranged from hope, and the body incapable of exertion. This is the case with those who have for a time enjoyed luxury when they begin to decline; their fall is then inevitable. The Eastern empire, as well as the Western, fell by this means; and it may be said to have been the ordinary course in the decline of nations that have fallen gradually.

The Turks, {80} the Spaniards, and the Portuguese, all owe part of their present feebleness to this cause; and the government of France certainly, in a great measure, owed its downfal sic to the same. There the courtiers had sunk in character, and it was become impossible even for the energy, the activity, and intelligence of the nation at large, to counteract the baneful effect of the change that had taken place amongst those who regulated its affairs.

In history we have seen scarcely any thing similar to this, for it was the effect operating on the rulers of the nation only; the strength of the great body of the nation, on which it did not operate, supported that

—- {80} Those nations resemble each other in feebleness, and in the cause of it, though, with respect to the Turks, it has existed for a longer period. -=-

[end of page #91]

pride and ignorance; whereas in Spain, Portugal, and Turkey, this evil being general throughout the state, those who have the conducting of affairs are held in some check by the general feebleness of the nation. {81} This not only limits the power of action, but is so visible, that it is impossible for those who govern not to be led to reflection, and to be taught moderation by it.

The power of laying on taxes and the means of defending itself against other nations are regulated by the situation of the people; but the wisdom with which the affairs are conducted is dependent on the rulers, and those who govern. It is therefore fortunate, when the rulers are so far sensible of the feeble state of the country as to be moderate and reasonable. {82}

None of the nations that know their own weakness would ever have risked the experiment that was made on St. Domingo by the French; neither would any nation, in the vigour of acquiring riches, have done so. It required a nation, ruled by men who were ignorant of the true principles, who were corrupted with wealth, and, at the same time, had a vigorous nation to govern, to admit of such a situation of things. {83} Had the nation been less wealthy or weaker, so as to have made the poverty or weakness obvious, this could not have happened; or, had the rulers been less corrupted and ignorant, it could not have taken place. {84}

—- {81} The French nation, in reality, was never so powerful and wealthy as at the time of the revolution breaking out. The effects of luxury had only perverted the city of Paris and the court. The power which the energies of the people at large put at the disposition of the government was ill applied.

{82} Perhaps some of the greatest advantages that arise from a form of government like that of England are, that those who have ruled, owe their places to their abilities, and not to favour; that they maintain their situations by exertion, and not by flattery; and that the situation of the nation never can be long disguised. Without the turbulence of a democracy, we have most of the advantages that arise from one, while we have, at the same time, the benefits that proceed from the stability and order of established monarchy.

{83} When the Portuguese were for abandoning the India trade, it was a case pretty similar.

{84} Though the men who overturned the commerce of France were not the same with the members of the ancient government, yet they also were men ignorant of the true interests of the nation. A few amongst them were bent upon an experiment, regardless of the ruin with which it might be attended. -=-

[end of page #92]

In all the interior causes, for the decline of nations, which we are endeavouring to investigate, we shall find a change of manners, and ways of thinking, constantly producing some effect in the direction towards decline. This takes place, from the time that a nation becomes more wealthy than its neighbours; until then, when it is only struggling to equal them, a nation cannot be said to be rich, but to be emerging from poverty.

The great aim then should be, to counteract this change of mind and manners, that naturally attends an increased state of prosperity.

[end of page #93]



CHAP. II.

Of the Education of Youth in Nations increasing in Wealth.—the Errors generally committed by Writers on that Subject.—Importance of Female Education on the Manners of a People.—Not noticed by Writers on Political Economy.—Education of the great Body of the People the chief Object.—In what that consists

The changes of which we have spoken, that take place, gradually, in a nation, from the increasing luxury and ease in which every succeeding generation is raised, cannot be prevented. They are the natural consequences of the situation of the parents being altered. But when that period of life comes, when children enter upon what is called education, then a great deal may be done; for, though the fathers and mothers have still power over their offspring, it is a diminished power; besides which, they are seldom so much disposed to exert even what power remains, as at an earlier period.

It is necessary and fair, after the severe censure that has been passed on parents, for bringing up children wrong, at an early period, to admit, that for the most part, they would not run into that error, and spoil their children, if they were sensible of doing so; and that, as they grow up, they would have them properly instructed, if it were in their power: that is to say, if they had the means.

There are certain things for which individuals can pay, but which it is impossible for them to provide individually; and if they attempt to do it collectively, it is liable to great abuse, and to be badly done.

Individuals never could afford to send their letters, from one end of the kingdom to the other, without combining together, unless government furnished them the means: but, by the aid of the government, they are enabled to do it at a very cheap rate, with expedition and safety, whilst a profit arises to government greater than any regular business in the world produces.

There is a possibility of an individual sending a letter by a particu- [end of page #94] lar messenger, at his own expense, to the greatest distance, provided he can afford it; but, as it happens, there are many more letters require sending than there are messengers to send, or money to defray the expenses.

It is the same with the education of youth. A man may have a tutor to his son, and educate him privately, if he can afford it; but it happens, as with the letters, that there are many more sons to educate than there are tutors to be found, or money to pay them.

As the individual, in the case of the letters, would be obliged to depend on some self-created carrier, if government did not interfere, so they are with regard to the education of their children; and, as in the one case they would be very badly served, so they generally are in the other.

In the first place, the plans of education are every where bad, and the manner of executing still worse.—Those to whom the education of youth, one of the most important offices in society, is intrusted undergo no sort of examination, to ascertain whether they are fit for the business. They, in general, depend upon their submissive conduct towards the parents and improper indulgence of the children for their success. It was found that the judges of criminal and civil law could not be intrusted with the administration of justice, while they depended on the pleasure of the crown. Can it then be expected that a much more numerous set of men, who are, in every respect, inferior in rank and education, to judges, will maintain that upright and correct conduct that is necessary, when they are infinitely more dependent than the judges ever were at any period?

This is one of the questions that is to be argued on the same principles, that the independence, under a monarchical or democratic government, is decided. Under the dominion of one chief, on particular occasions, which occur but seldom, it may be necessary to yield to his will, if the ruler is shameless enough and infamous enough to insist upon it; but, with a community for one's master, there is a complete system of submission, a perpetual deviation from that which is right.

In the first place, the fathers and mothers are no judges themselves of the merits of the master, or the proficiency of the boy, whom the [end of page #95] master is obliged to treat with indulgence, that he may not complain. Where there is a complete ignorance of the right and wrong of the case, any thing will turn the balance; and it is clear, that where there is no proof of superior merit, there must be good will, flattery, or some other method taken, to obtain a preference.

There are, occasionally, men of real merit, who distinguish themselves as teachers; and who, having a solid claim to a preference, use no mean arts to obtain it. It is but justice to parents in general, to say that such men are always encouraged, while they keep their good qualities uncontaminated by some fault that counterbalances them. {85}

As this is a case where individuals cannot serve themselves, nor provide the means of being properly served, it is one of those in which the government of every country ought to interfere. Not in giving salaries, at the public expense, to men, who, perhaps, would do no duty; but in seeing that the men who undertake the task of education are qualified, and that when they have undertaken it they do their duty, and follow a proper system.

There should be proper examinations, from time to time, and registers should be kept of the number of scholars, and the satisfaction they have given to those who examined them.

Parents would then have a measure, by which they could estimate the merit of a school; the master would have another motive for action, and there would be an emulation amongst the scholars. The business professed to be done, and undertaken, would then be performed. At present, at about three times the expense necessary, children learn about half what they are intended to be taught.

Interfering in this manner would be no infringement on private liberty; nothing would be done that could hurt, in any way, the individuals, but what must greatly benefit them. The evil habits that are contracted in early childhood, at home, would be counteracted, and the

—- {85} As even those find it is necessary to make a strong impression on the minds of parents, (and as some wish their children to be treated with rigour,) there are teachers, who obtain a credit by overstraining the discipline, after having obtained a fair reputation, by carrying it only to a proper length. -=-

[end of page #96]

youth would be taught to know what it is that renders a man happy in himself, and respected and valued by society.

But the consideration of the system to be followed is not the least important part of the business. The useful should be preferred to the useless, and in this the example of the ancients might be followed with advantage. They had no dead languages to study, and the mind appears to have been in many cases expanded, far beyond its present compass.

Nothing, indeed, can equal the ignorance of the most part of boys, when they leave school; those who are considered as bad scholars, have lost the good opinion of themselves, that ought to be maintained throughout life; they think every thing difficult or impossible. Those, again, who have excelled, are something less ignorant, but become vain and conceited, owing perhaps to their having learnt some useless and superfluous pieces of knowledge.

Education, on the general principle, consists in learning what makes a man useful, respectable, and happy, in the line for which he is destined, whether for manual labour, or for study; for a high or a low occupation.

What is useful becomes a question, in some sort depending upon place, and still more on circumstances, it will therefore be better to discuss it at length in the Third Book, where England is the place, and particular circumstances are taken into consideration.

There are, however, some general rules that apply to all places and to all situations.

Good principles, honour, honesty, and integrity, are equally necessary in every rank of society; with those qualities, even a beggar is respectable, and will be respected; without them, no man ever was or ever will be so. In every mode of education, the importance of those should be inculcated; and that they may be adhered to, every man, either by inheritance, or by talents, or by habits of industry, should have it put in his power to command the means of living in the way that he has been brought up.

Were this attended to, many scenes of misery and vice would be prevented. Admitting that there are propensities in some minds, [end of page #97] that lead to evil, independent of every possible check or control, it must be allowed that the far greater proportion of those who do well or ill in the world owe it to the manner in which they have been brought up in their early days.

It follows, from this general rule, that parents should carefully avoid bringing up children in a manner in which they have not the means of being afterwards maintained; and that, in the second place, when they cannot leave them in an independent fortune, they should, by making them learn a trade or profession, give them the means of obtaining what they have been accustomed to consider as necessary for them to enjoy.

There are, indeed, great numbers, and the greatest numbers of all; unable even to have their children taught what is called a trade. But there are none whom poverty prevents from bringing their children up to industry; and, if they have been taught to live according to their situation, they will find themselves above their wants, and therefore the same general rule will still apply.

Most writers have considered the subject of education as relative to that portion of it only which applies to learning; but the first object of all, in every nation, is to make a man a good member of society; and this can never be done, unless he is fitted to fill the situation of life for which he is intended.

Governments and writers on education fall, generally speaking, into the same errors. They would provide for the education of persons destined for the learned professions and sometimes for the fine arts; but agriculture, commerce, and manufactures, are totally left out: {86} the most essential, the most generally useful, are not noticed at all.

As so much value is set upon the language of the Greeks and Romans, surely we might pay a little attention to the example of those distinguished nations.

The Greeks studied the Egyptian learning, and improved upon it; but this was only confined to those who followed learning as a profes-

—- {86} Lord Somerville has some excellent observations, relative to this, in his publication on Agriculture, published in 1800. -=-

[end of page #98]

sion, or whose means allowed them to prosecute it as a study. The common education of citizens was different; it consisted in teaching them to perform what was useful, and to esteem what was excellent. It was a principle with them that all men ought to know how happiness is attained, and in what virtue consists; but they neither trusted to precept nor example. They enforced by habit and practice, and in this the Romans followed the plan the Greeks had laid down, and, by that means, they surpassed all other nations.

When those great nations of antiquity abandoned their attention to the useful parts of education, they soon sunk in national character. It so happens, in this case, that the mode of education and the manners of a people are so closely connected that it is difficult, from observation, to know which is the cause, and which the effect. Youth, badly educated, make bad men, and bad men neglect the education of their children; they set them a wrong example: such is the case, when a government does not interfere. How this is to be done with advantage is the question.

Writers on political economy have, in general, considered female education as making no part of the system; but surely, if the wealth and happiness of mankind is the end in view, there can scarcely be a greater object, for none is more nearly connected with it.

Let it be granted that, in the first instance, women are not educated with any view to carry on those labours and manufactures, on which wealth is considered as depending. Let all this be admitted, and that, in an early state of life, they are of no importance in this respect; yet, surely, when they become wives and mothers, when the economy of the family, and the education of the younger children depend chiefly on them, they are then of very great importance to society. Their conduct, in that important situation, must be greatly influenced by their education.

Female education ought then to be considered as one of the things, on the conducting of which well the prosperity of a state does in a great measure depend; it ought, therefore, to be attended to in the same manner as the education of youth of the other sex.

In this case, also, so much depends on place and circumstances, [end of page #99] that we shall follow the same rule as with male education. It shall be treated of as for England, and with the different ranks of society as they are; but there are some general rules not to be forgotten, and which are applicable to all places and all countries.

The great error, in female education, does not consist in neglecting to instil good principles; for that is, in most countries, for obvious reasons, pretty well attended to; but good principles, without the means of adhering to them, are of little avail. If a desire for dress, or other enjoyments, that cannot be gratified fairly, and by the means of which they are possessed, are encouraged, principles will be abandoned in order to gratify passions.—Females are taught frivolous accomplishments in place of what would be useful, and expensive vanity is substituted for that modest dignity that should be taught; the consequence is, that, in every rank of life, according to her station, the woman aims at being above it, and affects the manners and dress of her superiors.

There is too much pains taken with adorning the person, and too little with instructing the mind, in every civilized country; and when women are wise, and good, and virtuous, it is more owing to nature than to education.

As, indeed, the duties of a woman, in ordinary life, are of a nature more difficult to describe than those of a man, who, when he has learnt a trade, has little more to do, the care employed in seeing that proper persons only are intrusted with the important office of teaching them to perform those duties ought to be proportionally great.

The farther remarks on the subject of education are deferred to the Fourth Book sic—there is none., where place and circumstances come into consideration. It is, however, to be observed, that, in all cases, as a nation becomes more wealthy, the business of education becomes more important, and has a natural tendency to be worse managed; it therefore demands a double share of attention.

If the women of a nation are badly educated, it must have a great effect on the education of their sons, and the conduct of their husbands. The Spartan and Roman mothers had the glory of making [end of page #100] their sons esteem bravery, and those qualities in a man that were most wanted in their state of society. It should be one part of female education to know and admire the qualities that are estimable in the other sex. To obtain the approbation of the other sex, is, at a certain time of life, the greatest object of ambition, and it is never a matter of indifference.

The great general error consists in considering the woman merely in her identical self, without thinking of her influence on others. It appears to be for this reason, that writers on political economy have paid no attention to female education; but we find no state in which the virtue of men has been preserved where the women had none; though there are examples of women preserving their virtues, notwithstanding the torrent of corruption by which that of the men has been swept away. [end of page #101]



CHAP. III.

Of increased Taxation, as an Interior Cause of Decline.—Its different Effects on Industry, according to the Degree to which it is carried.—Its Effects on the People and on Government.

There has been no instance of a government becoming more economical, or less expensive, as it became older, even when the nation itself was not increasing in wealth; but, in every nation that has increased in wealth, the expenditure, on the part of government, has augmented in a very rapid manner.

Amongst the interior causes of the decline of nations, and the overthrow of governments, the increase of taxes has always been very prominent. It is in the levying of taxes that the sovereign and the subject act as if they were of opposite interests, or rather as if they were enemies to each other.

In every case almost, where the subjects have rebelled against their sovereign, or where they have abandoned their country to its enemies, the discontents have been occasioned by taxes that were either too heavy, imprudently laid on, or rigorously levied.

Sometimes the manner of laying on the tax has given the offence; sometimes its nature, and sometimes its amount. The revolution in England, in Charles the first's time, began about the manner of levying a tax. The revolution of the American colonies began in the same way; and it is generally at the manner that nations enjoying a certain degree of freedom make objection. The excise had very nearly proved fatal to the government of this country, as the stamp duties did to that of France, and as the general amount and enormity of taxes did to the Western Empire. {87}

—- {87} The system of taxation was ill understood amongst the Romans, and its execution, under a military government, is always severe. The Romans were so tormented, at last, that they lost all regard for their country. Taxes seem to be the price we pay for the con-[end of page #102] stitution we live under, and as they increase, the value of the purchase lessens. The difference between value paid, and value received, constitutes the advantage or loss of every bargain. -=-

Perhaps the chief motive for submitting to the difficulties, the oppressions, and the burthens, which people submit to under republican forms of government arises in deception. They seem to be paying taxes to themselves, and for themselves, when, in reality, they are not doing so any more than under a monarchy, where the taxes, in proportion to the service done, are generally less than in a republic.{88}

—- {88} America is an exception, but then there is no similarity between the United States and any other country in the world. Their existence, as an independent country, is only of twenty-five years standing; they have had no wars during that time, and the revolutionary war cost little in actual money. The comparison between the states and other nations will not hold, but, if we compare the expense of their government now, and when under the British, it will be found they pay near thirty times as much; and, even allowing their population to have risen one-half, they still pay proportionately twenty times as much. Their revenue now amounts to 16,000,000 of dollars. The public expense, in 1795, when they revolted, was about 350,000 dollars. -=-

This was the case in Holland and Venice. In England, the first great increase of taxes took place under the long Parliament and Commonwealth.

The only administration carried on by delegated authority, that is from necessity obliged to be executed with unabaiting rigour, is the department of finance. Money is a thing of such a nature, that strict rules are absolutely necessary in its administration. There is here a great distinction between money and other property, or money's worth. A menial servant, of whose honesty there is no proof, and even when it may be dubious, is habitually trusted with the care of property to a considerable amount, and the account rendered is seldom very rigorous; but, in the case of trusting with money, every precaution is first taken, as to being trust-worthy. Security is generally demanded, and neither friendship, confidence, nor the highest respectability, will supply the place of a strict account, which, when not rendered, leaves an indelible stain. There are many causes for this, but they are so generally understood, or, at least, so generally felt, that it is not necessary to examine them; the consequences are in some cases, however, not so evident. One of the most important is, that the accuracy with [end of page #103] which those appointed to collect taxes are obliged to render their accounts, compels them to a strictness in doing their duty that appears frequently rigorous to an extreme degree, and scarcely consistent with justice or humanity.

A king is considered as an unrelenting creditor, and he certainly appears in that character; but it should be considered why he is obliged to be so; for, as a master, he is generally the most indulgent in his dominions.

No duty or service is exacted with less rigour than that belonging to a civil department under government, when it is not connected with accountability in money; none so rigorous where money is concerned. How is this to be accounted for, unless it is by shewing that the nature of the situation admits of giving way to the feelings of humanity in one case, and not in the other? A few examples will illustrate this point, which is very important, very well known, but not well understood.

A clerk in a public office wants, either for health or private business, or, perhaps, only for amusement, to absent himself from duty; if his conduct merits any indulgence, and if his request is any way reasonable, it is immediately granted, though his salary during his absence may amount to a considerable sum; but he receives the gift under the form of time, not of money. If the same clerk is in arrear for taxes to one-twentieth part of the amount, if he does not pay, his furniture will be seized, and that perhaps by order of the same superior from whom he obtained the leave of absence from his duty. {89}

The consequences would be fatal if the case were reversed. Supposing that leave of absence had been refused, and that a remission of taxes had been granted, the man who remitted the tax would be liable to suspicion, which he could never do away; the receipt of the revenue would never be secure, and the clerk, who had demanded a fair indulgence, would be disgusted and provoked at the refusal.

We cannot, however, alter the nature of things. Taxes cannot be remitted, in any case, without discretional authority, and that it would

—- {89} Accountability in money may be compared to military discipline, when on duty. No allowances are to be made for negligence or deviation from rule. Of this we have lately had a most striking and memorable example. -=-

[end of page #104]

be ruinous to the revenue to give, we must, therefore, never expect that the augmentation of taxes will take place without an increase of discontent, or, at least, an augmented indifference towards government.

Perhaps nothing evinces more the general feeling, (even of the respectable part of society,) with regard to the revenues of the state, than the disposition to profit by evading the payment of duties imposed upon articles of consumption.

The most respectable of the nobility or gentry will conceal a contraband article, or one on which there is a heavy duty, on their return from abroad: and what is more, if detected, they are more ashamed, on account of their want of address, than on account of the crime; for such it is, whatever custom may have taught us to think.

A man who is rigorously treated, by what is commonly called a lawful creditor, whom he would never attempt to defraud must naturally feel doubly incensed, when still more rigorously treated by one whom he would think it very little harm, and no disgrace, to defraud. It is then very clear, that, the common habits of thinking on the subject of debts due to the king, is such as does not favour taxation, or incline people to submit willingly to rigorous modes of recovery.

All taxes raise the prices of the articles taxed, but those are most felt and most obnoxious which fall on personal property, or on persons themselves.

All taxes, then, when they pass a certain point, have a tendency to send away persons, and property, and trade, from a country, which, if they do, its decline is inevitable. The extent, however, of that effect must depend on a great variety of circumstances, such as the comparative situation of other nations, their distance, the difficulty of removing, &c.

If America were as near to England as France is, the industrious class would emigrate in multitudes; and, if in France, property and persons were as safe and free as in England, part of both would go there; but, as matters are, to the former it is impossible to remove, and, to the latter, the risk surpasses the advantage.

An increase of taxation tends to raise the wages of labour, and, where it does so in due proportion, the labourer pays almost nothing; he still for all that seems to pay, and he has the same disagreeable feeling [end of page #105] as if he did pay. No feeling is more disagreeable than that of being obliged, after earning money that can ill be spared, to pay it away to a surly tax-gatherer, who treats a man and his family with insolence, while he receives the money that should purchase them bread. Besides this, though the prices of many articles keep pace with the wages of labour, yet many others do not. Thus, in a country where wages are rapidly altering, though some are bettered by it, penury is entailed on others, who have not the means of raising their prices.

If heavy taxes are levied on a few articles of consumption, then they become inefficient, and if they are divided amongst a great many, they become troublesome, so that either way they are attended with inconvenience and difficulty.

In every country, where taxation has been carried to a great height, it has, at last, become necessary to bear heavily upon personal property. Such taxes are always attended with disagreeable feelings, and peculiar inconveniency. The tax always comes in the form of a debt, and whether convenient to be paid or not, it admits at best but of little delay. {90}

In England the nature of the government, the disposition of the people, and the same sort of genius that made them succeed in commercial intercourse and regulation, led them to adopt the least objectionable modes of taxation.

The customs were the first great branch of revenue at the time of the revolution. The excise, land-tax, and stamps, rose next, none of which can be objected to; for the person who pays the tax to government only advances the money, and is reimbursed by the consumer, who, again on his part, when he really pays the tax (for good and all) does it under the form of an advance in price. Thus, then, the tax is disguised to him that really pays it, and it is optional, inasmuch as he

—- {90} It will be seen, in a future part of this work, that the farmers have lost nothing, but rather got by the high prices of grain in this country, and it is so probably in all others. Those who sell necessaries raise the price; those who make or sell superfluities have no such resource, and therefore pay in the severest manner. -=-

[end of page #106]

may avoid the tax, by not consuming the article. He never can be sued for the tax, and he pays it by degrees, as he can spare the money. {91}

Some time before the taxation which the American war rendered necessary, it was thought that the customs and excise could not be carried much farther. Ministers did not chuse sic to venture on an additional tax on land, and, consequently, stamps were augmented and extended, as were also duties on windows. A variety of new taxes on particular articles of consumption were resorted to. Those sort of taxes harassed and tormented individuals more than they filled the treasury, yet still, when, after an interval of a few years of peace, new burthens became necessary, in 1793, the same plan was pursued, till it was found ineffectual, being too troublesome and tedious, besides being unequal to the increase of expenditure.

It was necessity that suggested a plan, which is the simplest and easiest of any, so long as it succeeds and is productive. sic To increase the excise and customs by an additional five or ten per cent. on the articles that were supposed able to bear it. This has been done again and again with those two branches of revenue, and with the stamps likewise.

But the necessities of the state still outrun the means, and the assessed taxes, the worst and most obnoxious of all, were augmented in the same way; but even those were not productive. The inducement to privation was too great, and the restraints laid on expenditure, suggested the adoption of a tax on income; that is, on the means a man has to pay, which carries in its very name a description of its nature.

We have mentioned the influence that necessity has on industry. One of the effects of taxes, as well as of rent, is to prolong the operation of necessity, or to increase it. A man who has neither rent nor taxes to pay, as is the case in some savage nations, only labours to supply his wants. Whatever proportion rent and taxes bear to the wants of

—- {91} The land-tax is not precisely the same, but very nearly. It operates as a tax on the produce of land, that is on commodities for the use of man, the same as those articles subject to duties of customs or excise. The landholder just feels as the brewer, distiller, or importer of foreign goods, he gets the tax reimbursed by the farmer, and the farmer is reimbursed by the consumer. -=-