Sketches of the history of man: In four volumes. By Henry Home, Lord Kaims, ... [pt.2]

Table of contents

- [halftitle]

- [titlepage]

- SKETCHES OF THE HISTORY OF MAN. BOOK I. Continued.

- SKETCH VII. Progress of MANNERS.

- SKETCH VIII. Progress and Effects of LUXURY.

- SKETCHES OF THE HISTORY OF MAN. BOOK II. Progress of MEN in SOCIETY.

- PREFACE.

- SKETCH I. Appetite for SOCIETY.—Origin of NATIONAL SOCIETIES.

- SKETCH II. General View of GOVERNMENT.

- SKETCH III. Different FORMS OF GOVERNMENT compared.

- SKETCH IV. PROGRESS OF STATES from small to great, and from great to small.

- SKETCH V. GREAT and SMALL STATES compared.

- SKETCH VI. WAR and PEACE compared.

- SKETCH VII. Rise and Fall of PATRIOTISM.

- SKETCH VIII. FINANCES.

- PREFACE.

- FINANCES.

- SECTION I. GENERAL CONSIDERATIONS on TAXES.

- SECT. II. POWER of IMPOSING TAXES.

- SECT. III. DIFFERENT SORTS OF TAXES, with their Ad vantages and Disadvantages.

- SECT. IV. MANNER OF LEVYING TAXES.

- SECT. V. RULES TO BE OBSERVED in TAXING.

- SECT. VI. EXAMINATION OF BRITISH TAXES.

- SECT. VII. REGULATIONS for advancing INDUSTRY and COMMERCE.

END of the SECOND VOLUME.

SKETCHES OF THE HISTORY OF MAN.

VOLUME II.

SKETCHES OF THE HISTORY OF MAN.

IN FOUR VOLUMES.

By HENRY HOME, Lord KAIMS, Author of Elements of Criticism, &c.

VOLUME II.

DUBLIN: Printed for JAMES WILLIAMS, No. 5, SKINNER-ROW. M,DCC,LXXV.

SKETCHES OF THE HISTORY OF MAN.
BOOK I. Continued.

SKETCH VII.
Progress of MANNERS.

THERE are peculiarities in the appearance, in the expressions, in the actions, of some persons, which, in opposition to the manners of the generality, are termed their manners. Such peculiarities in the bulk of a nation, by which it differs from other nations, or from itself at different periods, are termed the manners of that nation. Manners therefore signify a mode of behaviour peculiar to a certain person, or to a certain nation. The term is not applied to mankind in general; except perhaps in contradistinction to other beings.

Manners are distinguished from morals; but in what respect has not been clearly explained. Do not the same actions relate to both? Certainly; but in different respects: an action considered as right or wrong, belongs to morals; considered as characteristical of a person, or of a people, it belongs to manners.

Manners, peculiar to certain tribes and to certain governments, fall under other branches of this work. The intention of the present sketch is, to trace out the manners of nations, in the different stages of their progress, from infancy to maturity. I am far from regretting, that manners, produced by climate, by soil, and by other permanent causes, fall not under my plan: I should indeed make but a poor figure upon a subject that has been learnedly discussed by the greatest genius of the present age[a].

I begin with external appearance, being the first thing that draws attention. The human countenance hath a greater variety of expressions than that of any other animal; and some persons differ widely from the generality in these expressions. The same variety is observable in human gestures; and the same peculiarity in particular persons, so as to be known by their manner of walking, or even by so slight an action as that of putting on or taking off a hat; some men are known even by the sound of their feet. Whole nations are distinguishable by the same peculiarities. And yet there is less variety in looks and gestures, than the different tones of mind would produce, were men left to the impulses of pure nature: man, an imitative animal, is prone to copy others; and by imitation, external behaviour is nearly uniform among those who study to be agreeable; witness people of fashion in France. I am acquainted with a blind man, who, without moving his feet, is constantly balancing from side to side, excited probably by some internal impulse. Had he been endowed with eye-sight, he would have imitated the manners of others. I rest upon these outlines: to enter fully into the subject would be an endless work; disproportioned at any rate to the narrowness of my plan.

Dress must not be omitted, because it enters into external appearance. Providence hath clothed all animals that are unable to clothe themselves. Man can clothe himself; and he is endowed beside with an appetite for dress, no less natural than an appetite for food. That appetite is proportioned in degree to its use: in cold climates it is vigorous; in hot climates, extremely faint. Savages must go naked till they learn to cover themselves; and they soon learn where covering is necessary. The Patagonians, who go naked in a bitter-cold climate, must be woefully stupid. And the Picts, a Scotch tribe, who, it is said, continued naked down to the time of Severus, did not probably much surpass the Patagonians in the talent of invention.

Modesty is another cause for clothing: few savages expose the whole of the body without covering. It gives no high idea of Grecian modesty, that at the Olympic games people wrestled and run races stark naked.

There is a third cause for clothing, which is, the pleasure it affords. A fine woman, seen naked once in her life, is a desirable object; desire being inflamed by novelty. But let her go naked for a month; how much more charming will she appear, when dressed with propriety and elegance! Cloathing is so essential to health, that to be less agreeable than nakedness would argue an incongruity in our nature. Savages probably at first thought of cloathing as a protection only against the weather; but they soon discovered a beauty in dress: men led the way, and women followed. Such savages as go naked, paint their bodies, excited by the same fondness for ornament, that our women shew in their party-coloured garments. Among the Jews, the men wore ear-rings as well as the women[b]. When Media was governed by its own kings, the men were sumptuous in dress: they wore loose robes, floating in the air; had long hair covered with a rich bonnet, bracelets, chains of gold, and precious stones: they painted their faces, and mixed artificial hair with that of nature. As authors are silent about the women, they probably made no figure in that kingdom, being shut up, as at present, in seraglios. Very different was the case of Athenian ladies, after polygamy was banished from Greece. They consumed the whole morning at the toilette; employing paint, and every drug for cleaning and whitening the skin: they laid red even upon their lips, and took great care of their teeth: their hair, made up in buckles with a hot iron, was persumed and spread upon the shoulders: their dress was elegant, and artfully contrived to set off a fine shape. Such is the influence of appetite for dress: vanity could not be the sole motive, as Athenian ladies were never seen in public. We learn from St. Gregory, that women in his time dressed their heads extremely high; environing them with many tresses of false hair, disposed in knots and buckles, so as to resemble a regular fortification. Josephus reports, that the Jewish ladies powdered their hair with gold dust; a fashion that was carried from Asia to Rome. The first writer who mentions white powder for the hair, the same we use at present, is L'Etoile, in his journal for the year 159•. He relates, that nuns walked the streets of Paris curled and powdered. That fashion spread by degrees through Europe. For many years after the civil wars in France, it was the fashion in Paris to wear boots and spurs with a long sword; a gentleman was not in full dress without these accoutrements. The sword continues an article of dress, tho' it distinguishes not a gentleman from his valet. To show that a taste for dress and ornament is deeply rooted in human nature, savages display that taste upon the body, having no covering to display it upon. Seldom is a child left to nature: it is deprived of a testicle, a finger, a tooth; or its skin is engraved with figures.

Cloathing hath no slight influence, even with respect to morals. I venture to affirm, at the hazard of being thought paradoxical, that nakedness is more friendly to chastity than covering. Adultery is unknown among savages, even in hot climates where they have scarce any covering. A woman dressed with taste is a more desirable object than one who always goes naked. Dress, beside, gives play to the imagination, which pictures to itself many secret beauties, that vanish when rendered familiar by sight: if a lady accidentally discovers half a leg, imagination is instantly inflamed, tho' an actress appearing in breeches is beheld with indifference: a naked Venus makes not such an impression, as when a garter only is discovered. In Sparta, men and women lived together without any reserve: public baths were common to both; and in certain games they danced and combated together naked as when born. In a later period, the Spartan dames were much corrupted; occasioned, as authors say, by a shameful freedom of intercourse between the sexes. But remark, that corruption was not confined to the female sex, men having degenerated as much from their original manhood as women from their original chastity; and I have no difficulty to maintain, that gold and silver, admitted contrary to the laws of Lycurgus, were what corrupted both sexes. Opulence could not fail to have the same effect there that it has every where; which is to excite luxury and sensuality. The Spartans accordingly, shaking off austerity of manners, abandoned themselves to pleasure: the most expensive furniture, the softest beds, superb tapestry, precious vases, exquisite wines, delicious ••ands, were not now too delicate for an effeminate Spartan, once illustrious for every manly virtue. Lycurgus understood human nature better than the writers do who carp at him. It was his intention, to make his countrymen soldiers, not whining lovers: and he justly thought, that familiar intercourse between the sexes would confine their appetites within the bounds of nature; an useful lesson to women of fashion in our days, who expose their nakedness in order to attract and enslame lovers. What justifies this reasoning is, the ascendant that Spartan dames had over their husbands while the laws of Lycurgus were in vigour: they in effect ruled the state as well as their own families. Such ascendant cannot be obtained nor preserved but by strict virtue: a woman of loose manners may be the object of loose desire; but seldom will she gain an ascendant over any man, and never over her husband. Among no people was there more freedom of intercourse than among the ancient Germans: males and females slept promiscuously round the walls of their houses; and yet we never read of an attempt upon a married woman. The same holds true of the Scotch highlanders.

Cleanliness is an article in external appearance. Whether it be inherent in the nature of man, or only a refinement of polished nations, may at first sight appear doubtful. What pleads for the former is, that cleanliness is remarkable in several nations that have made little progress in the arts of life. The savages of the Caribbee islands, once a numerous tribe, were remarked by writers as neat and cleanly. In the island Otaheite, or King George's Island, both sexes are cleanly: they bathe frequently, never eat nor drink without washing before and after, and their garments as well as their persons are kept free of spot or blemish. Ammianus Marcellinus, describing the Gauls, says, that they were cleanly; and that even the poorest women were never seen with dirty garments. The negroes, particularly those of Ardrah in the slavecoast, have a scrupulous regard to cleanliness. They wash morning and evening, and persume themselves with aromatic herbs. In the city of Benin, in Guinea, women are employ'd to keep the streets clean; and in that respect they are not outdone by the Dutch. In Corea, people mourn three years for the death of their parents; during which time they never wash. Dirtiness must appear dismal to that people, as to us[*]. But instances are no less numerous that favour the other side of the question. Amminianus Marcellinus reports of the Huns, that they wore the same coat till it fell to pieces with dirt and rottenness. Plan Carpin, who visited the Tartars anno 1246, says, "That they never wash face nor hands; that they never clean a dish, a pot, nor a garment; that, like swine, they made food of every thing, not excepting the vermin that crawl on them." The present people of Kamskatka answer to that description in every article. The nasliness of North American savages, in their food, in their cabins, and in their garments, passes all conception. As they never change their garments till they fall to rags, nor ever think of washing them, they are eat up with vermin. The Esquimaux, and many other tribes, are equally nasty.

As cleanness requires attention and industry, the cleanliness of some savages must be the work of nature and the dirtiness of others must proceed from indolence counteracting nature. In fact, cleanliness is agreeable to all; and nastiness disagreeable: no person prefers dirt; and even those who are the most accustomed to it, are pleased with a cleanly appearance in others. It is true, that a taste for cleanness, like that for order, for symmetry, for congruity, is extremely faint during its infancy among savages. Its strongest antagonist is indolence, which savages indulge to excess: the great fatigue they undergo in hunting makes them ••nd of ease at home; and dirtiness, when once habitual, is not easily conquered. But cleanliness improves gradually with manners, and makes a figure in every industrious nation. Nor is a taste for cleanness bellow'd on man in vain: its final cause is conspicuous, cleanness being extremely wholesome, and nastiness no less unwholesome[*].

Thus it appears, that a taste for cleanness is inherent in our nature. I say more: cleanliness is evidently a branch of propriety, and consequently a self-duty. The performance is rewarded with approbation; and the neglect is punished with contempt[c].

A taste for cleanness is not equally distributed among all men; nor indeed is any branch of the moral sense equally distributed: and if by nature one person be more cleanly than another, a whole nation may be so. I judge that to be the case of the Japanese, so finically clean as to find sault even with the Dutch for dirtiness. Their inns are not an exception, nor their little houses, in which water is always at hand for washing after the operation. I judged it to be also the case of the English, who, high and low, rich and poor, are remarkable for cleanliness all the world over; and I have often amused myself with so singular a resemblance between islanders, removed at the greatest distance from each other. But I was forc'd to abandon the resemblance, upon a discovery that the English have not always been so cleanly as at present. Many centuries ago, as recorded in monkish history, one cause of the aversion the English had to the Danes, was their cleanliness: they combed their hair, and put on a clean shirt once a-week. And the celebrated Erasmus, who visited England in the reign of Henry VIII. complains of the nastiness and slovenly habits of its people; ascribing to that cause the frequent plagues which at that time infested them. "Their floors," says he, "are commonly of clay strewed with rushes, under which lies unmolested a collection of beer, grease, fragments, bones, spittle, excrements of dogs and cats, and of every thing that is nauscous[d]." A change so extraordinary in the taste and manners of the English, rouses our curiosity; and I slatter myself that the following cause will be satisfactory. A savage, remarkably indolent at home, tho' not insensible of his dirtiness, cannot rouse up activity sufficient to attempt a serious purgation; and would be at a loss where to begin. The industrious, on the contrary, are improved in neatness and propriety by the art or manufacture that constantly employs them: they are never reduced to purge the stable of Augeas; for being prone to action, they suffer not dirt to rest unmolested. Industrious nations accordingly, all the world over, are the most cleanly. Arts and industry had long flourished in Holland, where Erasmus was born and educated: the people were clean above all their neighbours, because they were industrious above all their neighbours; and upon that account the dirtiness of England could not fail to strike a Hollander. At the period mentioned, industry was as great a stranger to England as cleanliness: from which consideration, may it not fairly be inferred, that the English are indebted for their cleanliness to the great progress of industry among them in later times? If this inference holds, it places industry in an amiable light. The Spaniards, who are indolent to a degree, are to this day as dirty as the English were formerly. Madrid, their capital, is nauseously nasty: heaps of unmolested dirt in every street raise in that warm climate a pestiferous steam, which threatens to knock down every stranger. A purgation was lately set on foot by royal authority. But people habituated to dirt are not easily reclaimed: to promote industry is the only effectual remedy[*]. The nastiness of the streets of Lisbon before the late earthquake was intolerable; and so is at present the nastiness of the streets of Cadiz.

Tho' industry be the chief promoter of cleanliness, yet it is seldom left to operate alone: other causes mix, some to accelerate the progress, some to retard it. The moisture of the Dutch climate has a considerable influence in promoting cleanliness; and joined with industry produces a surprising neatness and cleanliness among people of business: men of figure and fashion, who generally resort to the Hague, the seat of government, are not so cleanly. On the other hand, the French are less cleanly than the English, tho' not less industrious. But the lower classes of people, being in England more at their ease than in France, have a greater taste for living well, and in particular for keeping themselves clean.

A beard gives to the countenance a rough and fierce air, suited to the manners of a rough and fierce people. The same face without a beard appears milder; for which reason, a beard becomes unfashionable in a polished nation. Demosthenes the orator lived in the same period with Alexander the Great, at which time the Greeks begun to leave off beards A bust however of that orator, found in Herculaneum, has a beard; which must either have been done for him when he was young, or from reluctance in an old man to a new fashion. Barbers were brought to Rome from Sicily in the 454th year after the building of Rome. And it must relate to the time following that period, what Aulus Gellius says[e], that people accused of any crime were prohibited to shave their beards till they were absolved. From Hadrian, downward, the Roman Emperors wore beards. Julius Capitolinus reproaches the Emperor Verus for cutting his beard, at the instigation of a concubine. All the Roman generals wore beards in Justinian's time[f]. When the Pope shaved his beard, it was reckoned a manifest apostasy by the Greek church; because Moses and Jesus Christ were always drawn with beards by the Greek and Latin painters. Upon the dawn of smooth manners in France, the beaus cut their beards into shapes, and curled their whiskers. That fashion produced a whimsical effect, viz. that men of gravity left off beards altogether: a beard in its natural shape was too fierce, even for them; and they could not for shame copy after the beaus.

Language, when brought to any perfection among a polished people, may justly be considered as one of the fine arts; and in that view is handled above. But it belongs to the present sketch, considered as a branch of external behaviour. Every part of external behaviour is influenced by temper and disposition, and language more than any other part. In Elements of Criticism[g] it is observed, that an emotion in many instances bears a resemblance to its cause. The like holds universally in all the natural sounds prompted by passion. Let a passion be bold, rough, chearful, tender, or humble, still it holds, that the natural sound prompted by it is in the same tone: and hence the reason why these natural sounds are the same in all languages. Some slight resemblance of the same kind is discoverable in many artificial sounds. The language of a savage is harsh; of polite people, smooth; and of women, soft and musical. The tongues of savage nations abound in gutturals, or in nasals; yet one would imagine that such words, pronounced with difficulty, would be avoided by savages, as they are by children. But temper prevails, and suggests to savages harsh sounds, conforformable to their roughness and cruelty. The Esquimaux have a language composed of the harshest gutturals; and the tongues of the northern European nations are not remarkably more smooth. The Scotch peasants are a frank and plain people; and their dialect is in the tone of their character. The Huron tongue hath stateliness and energy above most known languages; and the Hurons still retain a certain elevation of mind, which is more conformable to the majesty of their discourse, than to their present low condition. Thus the manners of a people may in some measure be gathered from their language. Nay, manners may frequently be gathered from single words. The Hebrew word LECHOM signifies both food and fighting; and TEREPH signifies both food and plunder. KARAB signifies to draw near to one, and signifies also to fight. The Greek word LEIA, which signified originally, spoil procured by war or piracy, came to signify wealth. And the great variety of Greek words signifying good and better, signified originally strong and violent.

Government, according to its different kinds, hath considerable influence in forming the tone of a language. Language in a democracy is commonly rough and coarse; in a republic, manly and plain; in a monarchy, courteous and insinuating; in despotism, imperious with respect to inferiors, and humble with respect to superiors. The government of the Greek empire is well represented in Justinian's edicts, termed Novellae Constitutiones, the style of which is stiff, formal, and affectedly stately; but destitute of order, of force, and of ligament. About three centuries ago, Tuscany was filled with small republics, who spoke a dialect manly and plain. Its rough tones were purged off when united under the Great Duke of Tuscany; by which means the Tuscan dialect has arrived nearer to perfection than any other in Italy. The tone of the French language is well suited to the nature of its government: every man is politely submissive to those above him; and this tone forms the character of the language in general, so as even to regulate the tone of the few who have occasion to speak with authority. The freedom of the English government forms the manners of the people: the English language is accordingly more manly and nervous than the French, and abounds more with rough sounds. The Lacedemonians of old, ap roud and austere people, affected to talk with brevity, in the tone of command more than of advice; and hence the Laconic style, dry but masculine. The Attic style is more difficult to be accounted for: it was sweet and copious; and had a remarkable delicacy above the style of any other nation. And yet the democracy of Athens produced rough manners; witness the comedies of Aristophanes, and the orations of Eschines and Demosthenes. We are not so well acquainted with the Athenians as to account for the difference between their language and their manners: and are equally at a loss about the Russian tongue, which, notwithstanding the barbarity of the people, is smooth and sonorous. All that can be said is, that the operation of a general cause may be disturbed by particular circumstances. Languages resemble the tides: the influence of the moon, which is the general cause of tides, is in several instances overbalanced by particular causes acting in opposition.

There may be observed in some savage tribes, a certain refinement of language that might do honour to a polished people. The Canadians never give a man his proper name, in speaking to him. If he be a relation, he is addressed to in that quality: if a stranger, the speaker gives him some appellation that marks affection; such as, brother, cousin, friend.

From speech we advance to action. Man is naturally prone to motion; witness children, who are never at rest but when asleep. Where reason governs, a man restrains that restless disposition, and never acts without a motive. Savages have few motives to action when the belly is full: their huts require little industry; and their covering of skins, still less. Hunting and fishing employ all their activity. After much fatigue in hunting, rest is sweet; which the savage prolongs, having no motive to action till the time of hunting returns. Savages accordingly, like dogs, are extremely active in the field, and extremely indolent at home[*]. The savages of the torrid zone are indolent above all others: they go naked; their huts cost them no trouble; and they never hunt except for vegetables, which are their only food. The Spaniards who first landed in Hispaniola, were surprised at the manners of the inhabitants. They are described as lazy, and without ambition; passing part of their time in eating and dancing, and the rest in sleep; having no great share of memory, and still less of understanding. The character given of these savages belongs to all, especially to savages in hot climates. The imperfection of their memory and judgement is occasioned by want of employment. The same imperfection was remarkable in the people of Paraguay, when under Jesuit government; of which afterward[h].

In early times, people lived in a very simple manner, ignorant of such habitual wants as are commonly termed luxury. Rebecca, Rachel, and the daughters of Jethro, tended their fathers flocks: they were really shepherdesses. Young women of fashion drew water from the well with their own hands. The joiner who made the bridal bed of Ulysses, was Ulysses himself[i]. The Princess Nausicaa washes the family-cloaths; and the Princes her brothers, upon her return, unyoke the car, and carry in the cloaths[k]. Queens, and even female deities, are employed in spinning[l]. Is it from this fashion that young women in England are denominated spinsters? Telemachus goes to council with no attendants but two dogs:

" Soon as in solemn form th' assembly sat,

" From his high dome himself descends in state;

" Bright in his hand a pond'rous jav'lin shin'd;

" Two dogs, a faithful guard, attend behind;

ODYSSEY, book 2.

Priam's car is yoked by his own sons, when he went to redeem from Achilles the body of his son Hector. Telemachus yokes his own car[m]. Homer's heroes kill and dress their own victuals[n]. Achilles entertaining Priam, as now mentioned, slew a snow-white sheep; and his two friends flead and dressed it. Achilles himself divided the roasted meat among all[*].

Not to talk of gold, silver was scarce in England during the reign of the third Edward. Rents were paid in kind; and what money they had was locked up in the coffers of the great barons. Pieces of plate were bequeathed even by kings of England, so trifling in our estimation, that a gentleman of a moderate fortune would be ashamed to mention such in his will.

We next take under consideration the progress of such manners as are more peculiarly influenced by internal disposition; preparing the reader by a general view, before entering into particulars. Man is by nature a timid animal, having little ability to secure himself against harm: but he becomes bold in society, and gives vent to passion against his enemies. In the hunter-state, the daily practice of slaughtering innocent animals for food, hardens men in cruelty: they are worse than bears or wolves, being cruel even to their own kind. The calm and sedentary life of a shepherd tends to soften the harsh manners of hunters; and agriculture, requiring the union of many hands in one operation, inspires a taste for mutual good offices. But here comes in the hoarding appetite to disturb that auspicious commencement of civilization. Skilful husbandry, producing the necessaries of life in plenty, paves the way to arts and manufactures. Fine houses, splendid gardens, and rich apparel, are desirable objects: the appetite for property becomes headstrong, and to obtain gratification tramples down every obstacle of justice or honour[o]. Differences arise, fomenting discord and resentment: war is raised, even among those of the same tribe; and while it was lawful for a man to take revenge at his own hand[p], that fierce passion swallowed up all others. Inequality of rank and fortune fostered dissocial passions: witness pride in particular, which produced a custom, once universal among barbarians, of killing men, women, dogs, and horses, for serving a dead chieftain in the other world. Such complication of selfish and stormy passions, tending eagerly to gratification, and rendering society uncomfortable, cannot be stemmed by any human means other than wholesome laws: a momentary obstacle inflames desire; but perpetual restraint deadens even the most fervid passion. The authority of good government gave vigour to kindly affections; and appetite for society, which acts incessantly, though not violently, gave a currency to mutual good offices. A circumstance concurred to blunt the edge of dissocial passions: the first societies were small; and small states in close neighbourhood produce discord and resentment without end: the junction of many such states into a great kingdom, remove people farther from their enemies, and render them more gentle[q]. In that situation, men have leisure and sedateness to relish the comforts of social life: they find that selfish and turbulent passions are subversive of society; and through fondness for society, they patiently undergo the severe discipline of restraining passion, and smoothing manners. Violent passions that disturb the peace of society have subsided, and are now seldom heard of: humanity is in fashion, and social affections prevail. Men improve in urbanity by conversing with women; and however selfish at heart, they conciliate favour, by assuming an air of disinterestedness. Selfishness thus refined becomes an effectual cause of civilization. But what follows? Turbulent and violent passions are buried, never again to revive; leaving the mind totally ingrossed by self-interest. In the original state of hunters and fishers, there being little connection among individuals, every min minds his own concerns, and selfishness governs. The discovery that hunting and fishing are best carried on in company, promotes some degree of society in that state: it gains ground in the shepherd-state, and makes a capital figure where husbandry and commerce flourish. Private concord is promoted by social affection; and a nation is prosperous in proportion as the amor patriae prevails. But wealth, acquired whether by conquest or commerce, is productive of luxury and sensuality. As these increase, social affections decline, and at last vanish. This is visible in every opulent city that has long flourished in extensive commerce. Selfishness becomes the ruling passion: friendship is no more; and even blood-relation is little regarded. Every man studies his own interest; and love of gain and of sensual pleasure are idols worshipped by all. And thus in the progress of manners, men end as they begun: selfishness is no less eminent in the last and most polished state of society, than in the first and most savage state.

From a general view of the progress of manners, we descend to particulars. And the first scene that presents itself is, cruelty to strangers, extended in process of time against members of the same tribe. Anger and resentment are predominant in savages, who never think of smothering passion. But this character is not universal: some tribes are remarkable for humanity, as mentioned in the first sketch. Anger and resentment formed the character of our European ancestors, and made them fierce and cruel. The Goths were so prone to blood, that in their first inroads into the Roman territories they massacred man, woman, and child. Procopius reports, that in one of these inroads they left Italy thin of inhabitants. They were however an honest people; and by the polish they received in the civilized parts of Europe, they became no less remarkable for humanity, than formerly for cruelty. Totila, their king, having mastered Rome after a long and bloody siege, permitted not a single person to be killed in cold blood, nor the chastity of any woman to be attempted. One cannot without horror think of the wanton cruelties exercised by the Tartars against the nations invaded by them under Gengizcan and Timor Bec.

A Scythian, says Herodotus, presents the king with the heads of the enemies he has killed in battle; and the man who brings not a head, gets no share of the plunder. He adds, that many Scythians clothe themselves with the skins of men, and make use of the sculls of their enemies to drink out of. Diodorus Siculus reports of the Gauls, that they carry home the heads of their enemies slain in battle: and after embalming them, deposit them in chests as their chief trophy; bragging of the sums offered for these heads by the friends of the deceased, and refused. In similar circumstances men are the same all the world over. The scalping of enemies, in daily use among the North-American savages, is equally cruel and barbarous.

No savages are more cruel than the Greeks and Trojans were, as described by Homer; men butchered in cold blood, towns reduced to ashes, sovereigns exposed to the most humbling indignities, no respect paid to age nor to sex. The young Adrastus[r], thrown from his car, and lying on his face in the dust, obtained quarter from Menelaus. Agamemnon upbraided his brother for lenity: "Let none from destruction escape, not even the lisping infant in the mother's arms: all her sons must with Ilium fall, and on her ruins unburied remain." He pierced the supplicant with his spear; and setting his foot on the body, pulled it out. Hector, having stripped Patroclus of his arms, drags the slain along, vowing to lop the head from the trunk, and to give the mangled corse a prey to the dogs of Troy. And the seventeenth book of the Iliad is wholly employed in describing the contest about the body between the Greeks and Trojans. Beside the brutality of preventing the last duties from being performed to a dead friend, it is a low scene, unworthy of heroes. It was equally brutal in Achilles to drag the corse of Hector to the ships, tied to his car. In a scene between Hector and Andromache[s], the treatment of vanquished enemies is pathetically described; sovereigns massacred, and their bodies left a prey to dogs and vultures; sucking infants dashed against the pavement; ladies of the first rank forced to perform the lowest acts of slavery. Hector doth not dissemble, that if Troy were conquered, his poor wife would be condemned to draw water like the vilest slave. Hecuba, in Euripides, laments, that she was chained like a dog at Agamemnon's gate; and the same savage manners are described in many other Greek tragedies. Promethus makes free with the heavenly fire, in order to give life to man. As a punishment for bringing rational creatures into existence, the gods decree, that he be chained to a rock, and abandoned to birds of prey. Vulcan is introduced by Eschylus rattling the chain, nailing one end to a rock, and the other to the breast-bone of the criminal. Who but an American savage can at present behold such a spectacle and not be shocked at it? A scene representing a woman murdered by her children, would be hissed by every modern audience; and yet that horrid scene was represented with applause in the Electra of Sophocles. Stoboeus reports a saying of Menander, that even the gods cannot inspire a soldier with civility: no wonder that the Greek soldiers were brutes and barbarians, when war was waged, not only against the state, but against every individual. At present, humanity prevails among soldiers as among others; because we make war only against a state, not against individuals. The Greeks are the less excusable for their cruelty, as they appear to have been sensible that humanity is a cardinal virtue. Barbarians are always painted by Homer as cruel; polished nations as tender and compassionate:

" Ye gods! (he cried) upon what barren coast,

" In what new regions is Ulysses tost;

" Possess'd by wild barbarians fierce in arms,

" Or men whose bosom tender pity warms?"

ODYSSEY, book 13. 241.

Cruelty is inconsistent with true heroism; and accordingly very little of the latter is discoverable in any of Homer's warriors. So much did they retain of the savage character, as, even without blushing, to fly from an enemy superior in bodily strength. Diomedes, who makes an illustrious figure in the fifth book of the Iliad, retires when Hector appears: "Diomedes beheld the chief, and shuddered to his inmost soul." Antilochus, son of Nestor, having slain Melanippus[t], rushed forward, eager to seize his bright arms. But seeing Hector, he fled like a beast of prey who shuns the gathering hinds. And the great Hector himself shamefully turns his back upon the near approach of Achilles: "Periphetes, endowed with every virtue, renowned in the race, great in war, in prudence excelling his fellows, gave glory to Hector, covering the chief with renown." One would expect a fierce combat between these two bold warriors. Not so. Periphetes stumbling, fell to the ground; and Hector was not ashamed to transfix with his spear the unresisting hero.

In the same tone of character, nothing is more common among Homer's warriors than to insult a vanquished foe. Patroclus, having beat Cebriones to the ground with a huge stone, derides his fall in the following words.

" Good heav'ns! what active feats yon artist shows,

" What skilful divers are our Phrygian foes!

" Mark with what ease they sink into the sand.

" Pity! that all their practice is by land."

The Greeks are represented[u] one after another stabbing the dead body of Hector: "Nor stood an Argive near the chief who inflicted not a wound. Surely now, said they, more easy of access is Hector, than when he launched on the ships brands of devouring fire."

When such were the manners of warriors at the siege of Troy, it is no wonder that the heroes on both sides were not less intent on stripping the slain than on victory. They are every where represented as greedy of spoil.

The Jews did not yield to the Greeks in cruelty. It is unnecessary to give instances, as the historical books of the Old Testament are in the hands of every one. I shall select one instance for a specimen, dreadfully cruel without any just provocation: "And David gathered all the people together, and went to Rabbah, and fought against it, and took it. And he brought forth the people that were therein, and put them under saws, and under harrows of iron, and under axes of iron, and made them pass through the brick-kiln: and thus did he unto all the cities of the children of Ammon[x]."

That cruelty was predominant among the Romans is evident from every one of their historians. Brutality to their offspring was conspicuous. Children were held, like cattle, to be the father's property: and so tenacious was the patria potestas, that if a son or daughter sold to be a slave was set free, he or she fell again under the father s power, to be sold a second time, and even a third time. The power of life and death over children was much less unnatural, while no public tribunal existed for punishing crimes. A son, being a slave, could have no property of his own. Julius Caesar was the first who privileged a son to retain for his own use spoils acquired in war. When law became a lucrative profession, what a son gained in that way was declared to be his property. In Athens, a man had power of life and death over his children; but as they were not slaves, what they acquired belonged to themselves. So late as the days of Dioclesian, a son's marriage did not dissolve the Roman patria potestas[y]. But the power of selling children wore out of use[z]. When powers so unnatural were given to men over their children, and exercised so tyrannically as to make a law necessary prohibiting the disinheriting of children, can there be any doubt of their cruelty to others? During the second triumvirate, horrid cruelties were every day perpetrated without pity or remorse. Antony, having ordered Cicero to be beheaded, and the head to be brought to him, viewed it with savage pleasure. His wife Fulvia laid hold of it, struck it on the face, uttered many bitter execrations, and having placed it between her knees, drew out the tongue, and pierced it with a bodkin. The delight it gave the Romans to see wild beasts set loose against one another in their circus, is a proof not at all ambiguous of their taste for blood, even at the time of their highest civilization. The Edile Scaurus sent at one time to Rome 150 panthers, Pompey 410, and Augustus 410, for the public spectacles. Their gladiatorian combats are not so clear a proof of their ferocity: the courage and address exerted in these combats gave a manly pleasure that balanced in some measure the pain of seeing these poor fellows cut and slash one another. And that the Romans were never cured of their itch for blood, appears from Caligula, Nero, and many other monsters, who governed the Romans from Augustus downward. There is no example in modern times of such monsters in France, though an absolute monarchy, nor even in Turky.

Ferocity was in the Roman empire considerably mollified by literature and other fine arts; but it acquired new vigour upon the irruption of the barbarous nations who crushed that empire. In the year 559, Clotaire, King of the Franks, burnt alive his son, with all his friends, because they had rebelled against him. Queen Brunehaud being, by Clotaire II. condemned to die, was dragged through the camp at a horse's tail till she gave up the ghost. The ferocity of European nations became altogether intolerable during the anarchy of the feudal system. Many peasants in the northern provinces of France being sorely oppressed in civil wars carried on by the nobles against each other, turned desperate, gathered together in bodies, resolving to extirpate all the nobles. A party of them, anno 1358, forced open the castle of a knight, hung him up upon a gallows, violated in his presence his wife and daughters, roasted him upon a spit, compelled his wife and children to eat of his flesh, and terminated that horrid scene with massacring the whole family, and burning the castle. When they were ashed, says Froissard, why they committed such abominable actions, their answer was, "That they did as they saw others do; and that all the nobles in the world ought to be destroyed." The nobles, when they got the upper hand, were equally cruel. They put all to fire and sword; and massacred every peasant who came in the way, without troubling themselves to separate the innocent from the guilty. The Count de Ligny encouraged his nephew, a boy of fifteen, to kill with his own hand some prisoners who were his countrymen; in which, says Monstrelet, the young man took great delight. How much worse than brutal must have been the manners of that age! for even a beast of prey kills not but when instigated by hunger. The third act, of stealing from the lead-mines in Derby, was, by a law of Edward I. punished in the following manner: A hand of the criminal was nailed to a table; and in that state he was left without meat or drink, having no means for freedom but to employ the one hand to cut off the other. The barbarity of the English at that period made severe punishments necessarary: but the punishment mentioned goes beyond severity; it is brutal cruelty. The barbarous treatment of the Jews, during the dark ages of Christianity, gives pregnant evidence, that Christians were not short of Pagans in cruelty. Poison and assassination were most licentiously perpetrated, no farther back than the last century. Some pious men made vigorous efforts in more than one general council to have assassination condemned, as repugnant to the law of God; but in vain[*].

I wish to soften the foregoing scene: it may be softened a little. Among barbarians, punishments must be sanguinary; as their bodies only are sensible of pain, not their minds.

The restoration of arts and sciences in Europe, followed with a reformation in religion, had a wonderful effect in sweetening manners, and promoting the interests of society. Of all crimes high treason is the most involved in circumstances, and upon that account the most difficult to be defined or circumscribed: at the same time, the influence of government upon its judges seldom permits a fair trial. And yet, for that crime are reserved the most exquisite torments. In England, the punishment is, to cut up the criminal alive, to tear out his heart, to dash it about his ears, and to throw it into the flames. The same punishment continues in form, not in reality: the heart indeed is torn out, but not till the criminal is strangled. Even the virulence of religious zeal is considerably abated. Savonarola was condemned to the flames as an impious impostor; but he was first privately strangled. The fine arts, which humanize manners, were in Italy at that time accelerating toward perfection. The famous Latimer was in England condemned to be burnt for heresy: but bags of gunpowder were put under his arms, that he might be burnt with the least pain. Even Knox, a violent Scotch reformer, acknowledges, that Wishart was strangled before he was thrown into the flames for heresy. So bitter was the late persecution against the Jesuits, that not only were their persons proscribed, but in many places their books, not even excepting books upon mathematics, and other abstract subjects. That persecution resembled in many particulars the persecution against the knightstemplars: fifty-nine of the latter were burnt alive: the former were really less innocent; and yet such humanity prevails at present, that not a drop of Jesuit-blood has been shed. A bankrupt in Scotland, if he has not suffered by unavoidable misfortune, is by law condemned to wear a party-coloured garment. That law is not now put in execution, unless where a bankrupt deserves to be stigmatized for his culpable misconduct.

Whether the following late instance of barbarity does not equal any of those above mentioned, I leave to my readers. No traveller who visited Petersburgh during the reign of the Empress Elizabeth can be ignorant of Madam Lapouchin, the great ornament of that court. Her intimacy with a foreign ambassador having brought her under suspicion of plotting with him against the government, she was condemned to undergo the punishment of the knout. At the place of execution she appeared in a genteel undress, which heightened her beauty. Of whatever indiscretion she might have been guilty, the sweetness of her countenance, and her composure, left not in the spectators the slightest suspicion of guilt. Her youth also, her beauty, her life and spirit pleaded for her.—But all in vain: she was deserted by all, and abandoned to surly executioners; whom she beheld with astonishment, seeming to doubt whether such preparations were intended for her. The cloak that covered her bosom being pulled off, modesty took the alarm, and made her start back: she turned pale, and burst into tears. One of the executioners stripped her naked to the waist, seized her by both hands, and threw her on his back, raising her some inches from the ground. The other executioner laying hold of her delicate limbs with his rough fists, put her in a posture for receiving the punishment. Then laying hold of the knout, a sort of whip made of a leathern strap, he retreated a few steps, and with a single stroke tore off a slip of skin from the neck downward, repeating his strokes till all the skin of her back was cut off in small slips. The executioner finished his task with cutting out her tongue; after which she was banished to Siberia[*].

The native inhabitants of the island Amboyna are Malayans. Those on the sea-coast are subject to the Dutch: those in the inland parts are declared enemies to the Dutch, and never give quarter. A Dutch captive, after being confined five days without food, is ripped up, his heart cut out, and the head, severed from the body, is preserved in spice for a trophy. Those who can show the greatest number of Dutch heads are the most honourable.

In early times, when revenge and cruelty trampled on law, people formed associations for securing their lives and their possessions. These were common in Scandinavia and in Scotland. They were also common in England during the Anglo-Saxon period, and for some ages after the Conquest. But instead of supporting justice, they contributed more than any other cause to anarchy and confusion, the members protecting each other, even in robbery and murder. They were suppressed in England by a statute of Richard II.; and in Scotland by reiterated statutes.

Roughness and harshness of manners are generally connected with cruelty; and the manners of the Greeks and Trojans are accordingly represented in the Iliad as remarkably rough and harsh. When the armies were ready to engage[a], Menestheus King of Athens, and Ulysses of Ithaca, are bitterly reproached by Agamemnon for lingering, while others were more forward. "Son of Peleus, he said, and thou versed in artful deceil, in mischief only wise, why trembling shrink ye back from the field; why wait till others engage in fight? You it became, as first in rank, the first to meet the flame of war. Ye first to the banquet are called when we spread the feast. Your delight is to eat, to regale, to quaff unstinted the generous wine." In the fifth book Sarpedon upbraids Hector for cowardice. And Tlepolemus, ready to engage with Sarpedon, attacks him first with reviling and scurrilous words. Because Hector was not able to rescue the dead body of Sarpedon from the Greeks, he is upbraided by Glaucus, Sarpedon's friend, in the following words. "Hector, though specious in form, distant art thou from valour in arms. Undeserved hast thou fame acquired, when thus thou shrinkest from the field. Thou sustainest not the dreadful arm, nor even the sight of god-like Ajax. Thou hast shunned his face in the fight: thou darest not approach his spear."

Rough and harsh manners produced slavery; and slavery sostered rough and harsh manners, by giving them constant exercise. The brutality of the Spartans to the Helots, their slaves, is a reproach to the human species. Beside the harshest usage, they were prevented from multiplying by downright murder and massacre. Why did not such barbarity render the Spartans detestable, instead of being respected by their neighbours, as the most virtuous people in Greece? There can be but one reason, that the Greeks were all of them cruel, the Spartans a little more, perhaps, than the rest. In Rome, a slave, chained at the gate of every great house, gave admittance to the guests invited to a feast: could any but barbarians bear such a spectacle without pain? If a Roman citizen was found murdered in his own house, his whole household-slaves, perhaps two or three hundred, were put to death without mercy, unless they could detect the murderer. Such a law, cruel and unjust, could never have been enacted among a people of any humanity.

Whence the rough and harsh manners of our West-Indian planters, but from the unrestrained licence of venting ill humour upon their negro slaves[*]? Why are carters a rugged set of men? Plainly because horses, their slaves, submit without resistance. An ingenious writer, describing Guiana in the southern continent of America, observes, that the negroes, who are more numerous than the whites, must be kept in awe by severity of discipline. And he endeavours to justify the practice; urging, that beside contributing to the safety of the white inhabitants, it makes the slaves themselves less unhappy. "Impossibility of attainment," says he, "never fails to annihilate desire of enjoyment; and rigid treatment, suppressing every hope of liberty, makes them peaceably submit to slavery." Sad, indeed, must be the condition of slaves, if harsh treatment contribute to make them less unhappy. Such reasoning may be relished by rough European planters, intent upon gain: I am inclined, however, to believe, that the harsh treatment of these poor people is more owing to the avarice of their masters, than to their own perverseness[*]. That slaves in all ages have been harshly treated, is a melancholy truth. One exception I know, and but one, which I gladly mention, in honour of the Mandingo negroes. Their slaves, who are numerous, receive very gentle treatment; the women especially, who are generally so well dressed as not to be distinguished from those who are free.

Many political writers are of opinion, that for crimes instigated by avarice only, slavery for life and hard work, would be a more adequate punishment than death. I would subscribe to that opinion, but for the following consideration, that the having such criminals perpetually in view would harden the hearts of the spectators, and eradicate pity, a capital moral passion. Behold the behaviour of the Dutch, in the Island of Amboyna. A native who is found guilty of theft is deprived of his ears and nose, and made a slave for life. William Funnel, who was there anno 1705, reports, that five hundred of these wretches were secured in prison, and never suffered to go abroad, but in order to saw timber, to cut stone, or to carry heavy burdens. Their food is a pittance of coarse rice, boiled in water, and their bed the hard ground. What is still worse, poor people, who happen to run in debt, are turned over to the servants of the East India company, who send them to work among their slaves, with a daily allowance of two pence, which goes to the creditor. A nation must be devoid of bowels, who can establish such inhumanity by law. But time has rendered that practice familiar to the Dutch, so as to behold, with absolute indifference, the multiplied miseries of their fellowcreatures. It appears, indeed, that such a punishment would be more effectual than death, to repress theft; but can any one doubt, that society would suffer more by eradicating pity and humanity, than it would gain by removing every one by death who is guilty of theft? At the same time, the Dutch, however cruel to the natives, are extremely complaisant to one another: seldom is any one of them punished but for murder: a small sum will procure pardon for any other crime.

A degree of coarseness and indelicacy is connected with rough manners. The manners of the Greeks, as copied by Plautus and Terence, from Menander and other Greek writers, were extremely coarse; such as may be expected in a people living among their slaves, without any society with virtuous women. The behaviour of Demosthenes and Eschines to each other, in their public harangues, is woefully coarse. But Athens was a democracy; and a democracy, above all other governments, is rough and licentious. In the Athenian comedy, neither gods nor men are spared. The most respectable persons of the republic are ridiculed by name, in the comedies of Aristophanes, which wallow in looseness and detraction. In the third act of Andromaché, a tragedy of Euripides, Peleus and Menelaus, Kings of Thessaly and Sparta, fall into downright ribaldry; Menelaus swearing that he would not give up his victim, and Peleus threatening to knock him down with his staff. The manners of Jason, in the tragedy of Medea by Euripides, are woefully indelicate. With unparalleled gratitude to his wife Medea, he, in her presence, makes love to the King of Corinth's daughter, and obtains her in marriage. Instead of shunning a person he had so deeply injured, he endeavours to excuse himself to her in a very sneaking manner, "that he was an exile like herself, without support; and that his marriage would acquire powerful friends to them and to their children." Could he imagine, that such frigid reasons would touch a woman of any spirit? But the most striking picture of indelicate manners is exhibited in the tragedy of Alcestes. Admetus prevails upon Alcestes, his loving and beloved wife, to die in his stead. What a barbarian must the man be, who grasps at life upon such a condition? How ridiculous is the bombast flourish of Admetus, that, if he were Orpheus, he would pierce to hell, brave the three-headed Cerberus, and restore his wife to earth again! And how indecently does he scold his father, for refusing to die for him! What pretext could the monster have to complain of his father, when he himself was so disgracefully fond of life, as even to solicit his beloved wife to die in his stead! What stronger instance, after all, would one require of indelicacy in the manners of the Greeks, than that they held all the world, except themselves, to be barbarians? In that particular, however, they are not altogether singular. Though the Tartars, as mentioned above, were foul-feeders, and hoggishly nasty, yet they were extremely proud, despising, like the Greeks, every other nation. The people of Congo think the world to be the work of angels; except their own country, which they hold to be the handywork of the supreme architect. The Greenlanders have a high conceit of themselves; and, in private, make a mock of the Europeans, or Kablunets, as they call them. Despising arts and sciences, they value themselves on their skill in catching seals, conceiving it to be the only useful art. They hold themselves to be the only civilized and well-bred people; and when they see a modest stranger, they say, "he begins to be a man;" that is, to be like one of themselves.

So coarse and indelicate were Roman manners, that whipping was a punishment inflicted on the officers of the army, not even excepting centurions[b]. Doth it not show extreme grossness of manners, to express, in plain words, the parts that modesty bids us conceal? and yet this is common in Greek and Roman writers. In the Cyclops of Euripides, there is represented a scene of the vice against nature, grossly obscene, without the least disguise. How woefully indelicate must the man have been, who could sit down gravely to compose such a piece! and how dissolute must the spectators have been, who could behold such a scene without hissing! Next to the indecency of exposing one's nudities in good company, is the talking of them without reserve. Horace is extremely obscene, and Martial no less. But I censure neither of them, and, as little, the Queen of Navarre for her Tales; for they wrote according to the manners of the times. It is the manners I censure, not the writers. A woman taken in adultery was prostituted in the public street to all comers, a bell ringing the whole time. This abominable practice was abolished by the Emperor Theodosius[c].

The manners of Europe, before the revival of letters, were no less coarse than cruel. In the Cartularies of Charlemagne, judges are forbid to hold courts but in the morning, with an empty stomach. It would appear, that men in those days were not ashamed to be seen drunk, even in a court of justice. It was customary, both in France and Italy, to collect for sport all the strumpets in the neighbourhood, and to make them run races. Several feudal tenures give evidence of manners both low and coarse. Struvius mentions a tenure, binding the vassal, on the birth-day of his lord, to dance and fart before him. The cod-piece, which, a few centuries ago, made part of a man's dress, and which swelled, by degrees, to a monstrous size, testifies shamefully-coarse manners; and yet it was a modest ornament, compared with one used in France, during the reign of Lewis XI. which was the figure of a man's privy parts worn upon the coat or breeches. In the same period, the Judgement of Paris was a favourite theatrical entertainment: three women, stark-naked, represented the three goddesses, Juno, Venus, and Minerva. Nick-names, so common not long ago, are an instance of the same coarseness of manners; for to fix a nick-name on a man, is to use him with contemptuous familiarity. In the thirteenth century, many clergymen refused to administer the sacrament of the Lord's supper, unless they were paid for it[*].

Swearing, as an expletive of speech, is a violent symptom of rough and coarse manners. Such swearing prevails among all barbarous nations. Even women in Plautus swear fluently. Swearing prevailed in Spain and in France, till it was banished by polite manners. Our Queen Elizabeth was a bold swearer; and the English populace, who are rough beyond their neighbours, are noted by strangers for that vice. Tho' swearing, in order to enforce an expression, is not in itself immoral; it is, however, hurtful in its consequences, rendering sacred names too familiar. God's-beard, the common oath of William Rufus, suggests an image of our Maker as an old man with a long beard. In vain have acts of parliament been made against swearing: it is easy to evade the penalty, by coining new oaths; and as that vice proceeds from an overslow of spirits, people in that condition brave penalties. Polished manners are the only effectual cure for that malady.

When a people begin to emerge out of barbarity, loud mirth and rough jokes come in place of rancour and resentment. About a century ago, it was usual for the servants and retainers of the court of session in Scotland, to break out into riotous mirth and uproar the last day of every term, throwing bags, dust, sand, or stones, all around. We have undoubted evidence of that disorderly practice from an act of the court, prohibiting it under a severe penalty, as dishonourable to the court, and unbecoming the civility requisite in such a place[d].

And this leads to the lowness of ancient manners; plainly distinguishable from simplicity of manners: the latter is agreeable, not the former. Among the ancient Egyptians, to cram a man was an act of high respect. Joseph, the King's first minister, in order to honour Benjamin above his brethren, gave him a five-sold mess[e]. The Greeks, in their feasts, distinguished their heroes by a double portion[f]. Ulysses cut a fat piece out of the chine of a wild boar for Demodocus the bard[g]. The same respectful politeness is practised at present among the American savages; so much are all men alike in similar circumstances. Telemachus[h] complains bitterly of Penelope's suitors, that they were gluttons, and consumed his beef and mutton. The whole fourteenth book of the Odyssey, containing the reception of Ulysses by Eumaeus the swine-herd, is miserably low. Manners must be both gross and low where common beggars are admitted to the feasts of princes, and receive scraps from their hands[i]. In Rome, every guest brought his own napkin to a feast. A slave carried it home, filled with what was left from the entertainment. Sophocles, in his tragedy of Iphigenia in Aulis, represents Clytemnestra stepping down from her car, and exhorting her servants to look after her baggage, with the anxiety and minuteness of a lady's waiting woman. Homer paints, in lively colours, the riches of the Phoeacians, their skill in navigation, the magnificence of the king's court, of his palace, and of the public buildings. But, with the same breath, he describes Nausicaa, the king's daughter, travelling to the river on a waggon of greasy cloaths, to be washed there by her and her maids. Possibly it will be urged that such circumstances, however low in our opinion, might appear otherwise to the Greeks. If they had appeared low to the Greeks, they would not have been introduced by their greatest poet. But what does this prove, other than that the Greeks were low in their manners? Their manners did not correspond to the delicacy of their taste in the fine arts. Nor can it be expected that they should correspond, when the Greeks were strangers to that polite society with women, which refines behaviour, and elevates manners. The first kings in Greece, as Thucydides observes, were elective, having no power but to command their armies in time of war; which resembles the government that obtains at present in the Isthmus of Darien. They had no written laws, being governed by custom merely. To live by plunder was held honourable; for it was their opinion, that the rules of justice are not intended for restraining the powerful. All strangers were accounted enemies, as among the Romans; and inns were unknown, because people lived at home, having very little intercourse even with those of their own nation. Inns were unknown in Germany; and to this day are unknown in the remote parts of the Highlands of Scotland; but for an opposite reason, that hospitality prevailed greatly among the ancient Germans, and continues to prevail so much among our Highlanders, that a gentleman takes it for an affront, if a stranger pass his house. At a congress between Francis I. of France, and Henry VIII. of England, among other spectacles for public entertainment, the two kings had a wrestling-match. Had they forgot that they were sovereign princes?

One would imagine war to be a soil too rough for the growth of civilization; and yet it is not always an unkindly soil. War between two small tribes is fierce and cruel: but a large state mitigates resentment, by directing it, not against individuals, but against the state in general. We know no enemies but those who are in arms: we have no resentment against others, but rather find a pleasure in treating them with humanity. Barbarity and cruelty, having thus in war few individuals for their objects, naturally subside; and magnanimity in their stead transforms soliders from brutes to heroes. Some time ago, it was usual in France to demand battle; and it was held dishonourable to decline it, however unequal the match. Here was heroism without prudence; but in all reformations it is natural to go from one extreme to the other. While the King of England held any possessions in France, war was perpetual between the two nations, which was commonly carried on with more magnanimity than is usual between inveterate enemies. It became customary to give prisoners their freedom, upon a simple parole to return with their ransom at a day named. The same was the custom in the border-wars between the English and Scots, before their union under one monarch. Both parties found their account equally in such honourable behaviour. Edward Prince of Wales, in a pitched battle against the French, took the illustrious Bertrand du Guesclin prisoner. He long declined to accept a ransom; but finding it whispered that he was afraid of that hero, he instantly set him at liberty without a ransom. This may be deemed impolitic or whimsical: but is love of glory less praiseworthy than love of conquest? The Duke of Guise, victor in the battle of Dreux, rested all night in the field of battle; and gave the Prince of Conde, his prisoner, a share of his bed, where they lay like brothers. The Chevalier Bayard, commander of a French army, anno 1524, being mortally wounded in retreating from the Imperialists, placed himself under a tree, his face however to the enemy. The Marquis de Pescara, General of the Imperial forces, finding him dead in that posture, behaved with the generosity of a gallant adversary: he directed his body to be embalmed, and to be sent to his relations in the most honourable manner. Magnanimity and heroism, in which benevolence is an essential ingredient, are inconsistent with cruelty, persidy, or any groveling passion. Never was gallantry in war carried to a greater height, than between the English and Scotch borderers before the crowns were united. The night after the battle of Otterburn, the victors and vanquished lay promiscuously in the same camp, without apprehending the least danger one from the other. The manners of ancient warriors were very different. Homer's hero, tho' superior to all in bodily strength, takes every advantage of his enemy; and never feels either compassion or remorse. The politic of the Greeks and Romans in war, was to weaken the state by plundering its territory, and destroying its people. Humanity with us prevails even in war. Individuals not in arms are secure, which saves much innocent blood. Prisoners were set at liberty upon paying a ransom; and by later improvements in manners, even that practice is left off, as too mercantile, a more honourable practice being substituted, viz. a cartel for exchange of prisoners. Humanity was carried to a still greater height, in our late war with France, by an agreement between the Duke de Noailles and the Earl of Stair, That the hospitals for the sick and wounded soldiers should be secure from all hostilities. The humanity of the Duke de Randan, in the same war, makes an illustrious figure even in the present age, remarkable for humanity to enemies. When the French troops were compelled to abandon their conquests in the electorate of Hanover, their Generals every where burnt their magazines, and plundered the people. The Duke de Randan, who commanded in the city of Hanover, put the magistrates in possession of his magazines, requesting them to distribute the contents among the poor; and he was beside extremely vigilant to prevent his soldiers from committing acts of violence[*]. The necessity of fortifying towns to guard from destruction the innocent and defenceless, affords convincing evidence of the savage cruelty that prevailed in former times. By the growth of humanity, such fortifications have become less frequent; and they serve no purpose at present but to defend against invasion; in which view a small fortification, if but sufficient for the garrison, is greatly preferable; being constructed at a much less expence, and having no mouths to provide for but the garrison only.

In the progress of society there is commonly a remarkable period, when social and dissocial passions seem to bear equal sway, prevailing alternately. In the history of Alexander's successors, there are frequent instances of cruelty, equalling that of American savages; and instances no less frequent of gratitude, of generosity, and even of clemency, that betoken manners highly polished. Ptolemy of Egypt, having gained a complete victory over Demetrius, son of Antigonus, restored to him his equipage, his friends, and his domestics, saying, that "they ought not to make war for plunder, but for glory." Demetrius having defeated one of Ptolemy's Generals, was less delighted with the victory, than with the opportunity of rivalling his antagonist in humanity. The same Demetrius having restored liberty to the Athenians, was treated by them as a demi-god; and yet afterward, in his adversity, their gates were shut against him. Upon a change of fortune he laid siege to Athens, resolving to chastise that rebellious and ungrateful people. He assembled the inhabitants in the theatre, surrounding them with his army, as preparing for a total massacre. But their terror was short; he pronounced their pardon, and bestowed on them 100,000 measures of wheat. Ptolemy, the same who is mentioned above, having at the siege of Tyre summoned Andronicus the governor to surrender, received a provoking and contemptuous answer. The town being taken, Andronicus gave himself over for lost: but the King, thinking it below his dignity to resent an injury against an inferior, now his prisoner, not only overlooked the affront, but courted Andronicus to be his friend. Edward the Black Prince is an inslance of refined manners, breaking, like a spark of fire, through the gloom of barbarity. The Emperor Charles V. after losing 30,000 men at the siege of Metz, made an ignominious retreat, leaving his camp filled with sick and wounded, dead and dying. Though the war between him and the King of France was carried on with unusual rancour, yet the Duke of Guise, governor of the town, exerted in those barbarous times a degree of humanity that would make a splendid figure even at present: He ordered plenty of food for those who were dying of hunger, appointed surgeons to attend the sick and wounded, removed to the adjacent villages those who could bear motion, and admitted the remainder into the hospitals that he had fitted up for his own soldiers; those who recovered their health were sent home, with money to defray the expence of the journey.

In the period that intervenes between barbarity and humanity, there are not wanting instances of opposite passions in the same person, governing alternately; as if a man could this moment be mild and gentle, and next moment harsh and brutal. To vouch the observation, I beg leave to introduce two rival monarchs, who for many years distressed their own people, and disturbed Europe, viz. the Emperor Charles, and the French King Francis. The Emperor, driven by contrary winds on the coast of France, was invited by Francis, who happened to be in the neighbourhood, to take shelter in his dominions, proposing an interview at Aigues-Mortes, a sea-port town. The Emperor instantly repaired there in his galley; and Francis, relying on the Emperor's honour, visited him on shipboard, and was received with every expression of affection. Next day, the Emperor repaid the confidence reposed in him: he landed at Aigues-Mortes with as little precaution, and found a reception equally cordial. After twenty years of open hostilities, or of secret enmity, after having formally given the lie, and challenged each other to single combat, after the Emperor had publicly inveighed against Francis as void of honour, and Francis had accused the Emperor as murderer of his own son; such behaviour will scarce be thought consistent with human nature. But these monarchs lived in a period verging from cruelty to humanity; and such periods abound with surprising changes of temper and conduct. In the present times, such changes are unknown.

Conquest has not always the same effect upon the manners of the conquered. The Tartars who subdued China in the thirteenth century, adopted immediately the Chinese manners: the government, laws, customs, continued without variation. And the same happened upon their second conquest of China in the seventeenth century. The barbarous nations also who crushed the Roman empire, adopted the laws, customs, and manners, of the conquered. Very different was the fate of the Greek empire when conquered by the Turks That warlike nation introduced every where their own laws and manners: even at this day they continue a distinct people, as much as ever. The Tartars, as well as the barbarians who overthrew the Roman empire, were all of them rude and illiterate, destitute of laws, and ignorant of government. Such nations readily adopt the laws and manners of a civilized people, whom they admire. The Turks had laws, and a regular government; and the Greeks, when subdued by them, were reduced by luxury and sensuality to be objects of contempt, not of imitation.

Manners are deeply affected by persecution. The forms of procedure in the Inquisition enable the inquisitors to ruin whom they please. A person accused is not confronted with the accuser: every sort of accusation is welcome, and from every person: a child, a common prostitute, one branded with infamy, are reputable witnesses: a son is compelled to give evidence against his father, and a woman against her husband. Nay, the persons accused are compelled to inform against themselves, by guessing what sin they may have been guilty of. Such odious, cruel. and tyrannical proceedings, made all Spain tremble: every man distrusted his neighbour, and even his own family: a total end was put to friendship, and to social freedom. Hence the gravity and reserve of a people, who have naturally all the vivacity of a temperate clime and bountiful soil[*]. Hence the profound ignorance of that people, while other European nations are daily improving in every art and in every science. Human nature is reduced to its lowest state, when governed by superstition clothed with power.

We proceed to another capital article in the history of manners, viz. the selfish and social branches of our nature, by which manners are greatly influenced. Selfishness prevails among savages; because corporeal pleasures are its chief objects, and of the e every savage is perfectly sensible. Benevolence and kindly affection are too refined for a savage, unless of the simplest kind, such as the ties of blood. While artificial wants were unknown, selfishness made no sigure: the means of gratifying the calls of nature were in plenty; and men, who are not afraid of ever being in want, never think of providing against it; and far less do they think of coveting what belongs to another. But men are not long contented with simple necessaries: an unwearied appetite to be more and more comfortably provided, leads them from necessaries to conveniencies, and from these to every luxury of life. Avarice turns headstrong; and locks and bars, formerly unknown, become necessary to protect individuals from the rapacity of their neighbours. When the goods of fortune, money in particular, come to be prized, selfishness soon displays itself. In Madagascar, a man who makes a present of an ox or a calf, expects the value in return: and scruples not to say, "You my friend, I your friend; you no my friend, I no your friend; I salamanca you, you salamanca me." Salamanca means, the making a present. Admiral Watson being introduced to the King of Baba, in Madagascar, was asked by his Majesty, what presents he had brought. Hence the custom, universal among barbarians, of always accosting a king, or any man of high rank, with presents. The peculiar excellence of man, above all other animals, is the capacity he has of improving by education and example. In proportion as his faculties refine, he acquires a relish for society, and finds a pleasure in benevolence, generosity, and in every other kindly affection, far above what selfishness can afford. How agreeable is this scene! Alas, too agreeable to last for ever. Opulence and luxury inflame the hoarding appetite; and selfishness at last prevails as it did originally. The selfishness however of savages differs from that of pampered people. Luxury, confining a man's whole views to himself, admits not of friendship, and scarce of any other social passion. But where a savage takes a liking to a particular person, the whole force of his social affection being directed to a single object, becomes extremely fervid. Hence the unexampled friendship between Achilles and Patroclus in the Iliad; and hence many such friendships among savages.

But there is much more to be said of the influence of opulence on manners. Rude and illiterate nations are tenacious of their laws and manners; for they are governed by custom, which is more and more rivetted by length of time. A people, on the contrary, who are polished by having passed through various scenes, are full of invention, and constantly thinking of new modes. Manners in particular can never be stationary, in a nation which is refined by prosperity and the arts of peace. Good government will advance men to a high degree of civilization; but the very best government will not preserve them from corruption, after becoming rich by prosperity. Opulence begets luxury, and envigorates the appetite for sensual pleasure. The appetite, when inflamed, is never confined within moderate bounds, but clings to every object of gratification, without regard to propriety or decency. When Septimius Severus was elected Emperor, he found on the roll of causes depending before the judges in Rome no fewer than three thousand accusations of adultery. From that moment he abandoned all thoughts of attempting a reformation. Love of pleasure is similar to love of money: the more they are indulged the more they are inflamed. Polygamy is an incentive to the vice against nature; one act of incontinence leading to others, without end. When the Sultan Achmet was deposed at Constantinople, the people breaking into the house of one of his favourites, found not a single woman. It is reported of the Algerines, that in many of their seraglios there are no women. For the same reason, polygamy is far from preventing adultery, a truth finely illustrated in Nathan's parable to David. What judgement then are we to form of the opulent cities London and Paris, where pleasure is the ruling passion, and where riches are coveted as instruments of sensuality? What is to be expected but a pestiferous corruption of manners? Selfishness, ingrossing the whole soul, eradicates patriotism, and leaves not a cranny for social virtue. If in that condition men abstain from robbery or from murder, it is not love of justice that restrains them, but dread of punishment. Babylon is arraigned by Greek writers for luxury, sensuality, and profligacy. But Babylon represents the capital of every opulent kingdom, ancient and modern: the manners of all are the same; for power and riches never fail to produce luxury, sensuality, and profligacy. Canghi Emperor of China, who died in the year 1722, deserves to be recorded in the annals of fame, for resisting the softness and effeminacy of an Asiatic court. Far from abandoning himself to sensual pleasure, he passed several months yearly in the mountains of Tartary, mostly on horseback, and declining no fatigue. Nor in that situation were affairs of state neglected: many hours he borrowed from sleep, to hear his ministers, and to issue orders. How few monarchs, bred up like Canghi in the downy indolence of a feraglio, have resolution to withstand the temptations of sensual pleasure!

In no other history is the influence of prosperity and opulence on manners so conspicuous as in that of old Rome. During the second Punic war, when the Romans were reduced by Hannibal to fight pro aris et focis, Hiero King of Syracuse sent to Rome a large quantity of corn, with a golden statue of victory weighing three hundred and twenty pounds, which the senate accepted. But though their finances were at the lowest ebb, they accepted but the lightest of forty golden vases presented to them by the city of Naples; and politely returned, with many thanks, some golden vases sent by the city of Paestum, in Lucania: A rare instance of magnanimity! But no degree of virtue is proof against the corruption of conquest and opulence. Upon the infiux of Asiatic riches and luxury, the Romans abandoned themselves to every vice: they became in particular wonderfully avaricious, breaking thro' every restraint of justice and humanity[*]. Spain in particular, which abounded with gold and silver, was for many years a scene, not only of oppression and cruelty, but of the basest treachery, practised against the natives by successive Roman generals in order to accumulate wealth. Lucullus, who afterward made a capital figure in the Mithridatic war, attacked Cauca, a Celtiberian city, without the slightest provocation. Some of the principal citizens repaired to his camp with olive-branches, desiring to be informed upon what conditions they could purchase his friendship. It was agreed, that they should give hostages, with an hundred talents of silver. They also consented to admit a garrison of 2000 men, in order, as Lucullus pretended, to protect them against their enemies. But how were they protected? The gates were opened by the garrison to the whole army; and the inhabitants were butchered, without distinction of sex or age. What other remedy had they, but to invoke the gods presiding over oaths and covenants, and to pour out execrations against the Romans for their perfidy? Lucullus, enriched with the spoils of the town, felt no remorse for leaving 20,000 persons dead upon the spot. Shortly after, having laid siege to Intercatia, he solicited a treaty of peace. The citizens, reproaching him with the slaughter of the Cauceans, asked, whether, in making peace, he was not to employ the same right hand, and the same faith, he had already pledged to their country-men. Seroclius Galba, another Roman general, persuaded the Lusitanians to lay down their arms, promising them a fruitful territory instead of their own mountains; and having thus got them into his power, he ordered all of them to be murdered. Of the few that escaped Viriatus was one, who, in a long and bloody war against the Romans, amply avenged the massacre of his countrymen. Our author Appian reports, that Galba, surpassing even Lucullus in covetousness, distributed but a small share of the plunder among the soldiers, converting the bulk of it to his own use. He adds, that tho' Galba was one of the richest men in Rome, yet he never scrupled at lies nor perjury to procure money. But the corruption was general: Galba being accused of many misdemeanors, was acquitted by the senate through the force of bribes. A tribe of the Celtiberians, who had long served the Romans against the Lusitanians, had an offer made them by Titus Didius of a territory in their neighbourhood, lately conquered by him. He appointed them a day to receive possession; and having inclosed them in his camp under shew of friendship, he put them all to the sword; for which mighty deed he obtained the honour of a triumph. The double-dealing and treachery of the Romans, in their last war against Carthage, is beyond example. The Carthaginians, suspecting that a storm was gathering against them, sent deputies to Rome for securing peace at any rate. The senate, in appearance, were disposed to amicable measures, demanding only hostages; and yet, though three hundred hostages were delivered without loss of time, the Roman army landed at Utica. The Carthaginian deputies attended the consuls there, desiring to know what more was to be done on their part. They were required to deliver up their arms; which they chearfully did, imagining that they were now certain of peace. Instead of which, they received peremptory orders to evacuate the city, with their wives and children; and to take up no habitation within eighty furlongs of the sea. In perusing Appian's history of that memorable event, compassion for the distressed Carthaginians is stifled by indignation at their treacherous oppressors. Durst the monsters, after such treachery, talk of Punica sides? The profligacy of the Roman people, during the triumvirate of Caesar, Pompey, and Crassus, is painted in lively colours by the same author. "For a long time, disorder and confusion overspread the common-wealth: no office was obtained but by faction, bribery, or criminal service: no man was ashamed to buy votes, which were sold in open market. One man there was, who, to obtain a lucrative office, expended eight hundred talents[i]: ill men enriched themselves with public money, or with bribes: no honest man would stand candidate for an office; and into a situation so miserable was the commonwealth reduced, that once for eight months it had not a single magistrate." Cicero, writing to Atticus that Clodius was acquitted by the influence of Crassus, expresses himself in the following words. "Biduo, per unum servum, et eum ex gladiatorio ludo, confecit totum negotium. Accers••it ad se, promisit, intercessit, dedit. Jam vero, O dii boni, rem perditam! etiam noctes certarum mulierum, atque adolescentulorum nobilium, introductiones nonnullis judicibus pro mercedis cumulo suerunt[*] [k]." Ptolomy King of Egypt was dethroned by his subjects for tyranny. Having repaired to Rome for protection, he sound means to poison the greater part of an hundred Egyptians, his accusers, and to assassinate Dion, their chief. And yet these crimes, perpetrated in the heart of Rome, were suffered to pass with impunity. But he had secured the leading men by bribery, and was protected by Pompey. The following instance is, it possible, still more gross: Ptolomy, King of Cyprus, had always been a faithful ally to the Romans. But his gold, jewels, and precious moveables, were a tempting bait to the avarice of Rome; and all was confiscated by a decree of the people, without even a pretext. Money, procured by profligacy, is not commonly hoarded up; and the Romans were no less voluptuous than avaricious. Alexander ab Alexandro mentions the Fanian, Orchian, Didian, Oppian, Cornelian, Ancian, and Julian laws, for repressing luxury of dress and of eating, all of which proved ineffectual. He adds, that Tiberius had it long at heart to contrive some effectual law against luxury, which now had surpassed all bounds; but that he found it impracticable to stem the tide. He concludes, that by tacit agreement among a corrupted people all sumptuary laws were in effect abrogated; and that the Roman people, abandoning themselves to vice, broke through every restraint of morality and religion[k]. Tremble, O Britain, on the brink of a precipice! how little distant in rapacity from Roman senators are the leaders of thy people!

Riches produce another lamentable effect: they enervate the possessor, and degrade him into a coward. He who commands the labour of others, who eats without hunger, and rests without fatigue, becomes feeble in mind, as well as in body, has no confidence in his own abilities, and is reduced to flatter his enemies, because he hath not courage to brave them.

Selfishness, among the rude and illiterate, is rough, blunt, and undisguised. Selfishness, which, in an opulent kingdom, usurps the place of patriotism, is smooth, refined, and covered with a veil. Pecuniary interest, a low object, must be covered with the thickest veil: ambition, less disnonourable, is less covered: but delicacy, as to character and love of fame, is so honourable, that even the thinnest veil is thought unnecessary. History justifies these observations. During the prosperity of Greece and Rome, when patriotism was the ruling passion, no man ever thought of employing a hostile weapon, but against the enemies of his country: swords were not worn during peace, nor do we ever read of a private duel. The frequency of duels, in modern times, is no slight symptom of degeneracy: regardless of our country, selfishness is exerted without disguise, when reputation or character is in question; and a nice sense of honour prompts revenge for every imagined affront, without regard to justice. How much more manly and patriotic was the behaviour of Themistocles, when insulted by the Lacedemonian general, in deliberating about the concerns of Greece! "Strike," says he, "but first hear me."

When a nation, formerly in a flourishing state, is depressed by luxury and selfishness, what follows next? Let the Egyptians answer the question. That unhappy people having, for many ages, been a prey to every barbarous invader, are now become effeminate, treacherous, cruel, and corrupted with every vice that debases humanity. A nation in its infancy, however savage, is susceptible of every improvement; but a nation, worn out with age and disease, is susceptible of no in provement. There is no remedy, but to let the natives die out, and to re-people the country with better men.

I fly from a scene so dismal, to one that will give no pain. Light is intended by our Maker for action, and darkness for rest. In the fourteenth century, the shops in Paris were opened at four in the morning: at present, a shopkeeper is scarce awake at seven. The King of France dined at eight in the morning, and retired to his bed-chamber at the same hour in the evening; an early hour at present for public amusements. The Spaniards adhere to ancient customs[*]. Their King, to this day, dines precisely at noon, and sups no less precisely at nine in the evening. During the reign of Henry VIII. fashionable people in England breakfasted at seven in the morning, and dined at ten in the forenoon. In Elizabeth's time, the nobility, gentry, and students dined at eleven forenoon, and supped between five and six afternoon. In the reign of Charles II. four in the afternoon was the appointed hour for acting plays: at present, even dinner is at a later hour. The King of Yeman, the greatest prince in Arabia Foelix, dines at nine in the morning, sups at five after noon, and goes to rest at eleven. From this short specimen it appears, that the occupations of day-light commence gradually later and later; as if there was a tendency in polite nations of converting night into day, and day nto night. Nothing happens without a cause. Light disposes to action, darkness to rest: the diversions of day are tournaments, hunting, racing, and such like active exercises: the diversions of night are sedentary; plays, cards, conversation. Balls are of a mixed nature; partly active, in dancing; partly sedentary, in conversing. Formerly, active exercises prevailed among a robust and plain people: the milder pleasures of society prevail as manners refine. Hence it is, that candlelight amusements are now fashionable in France, and in other polished countries: and when such amusements are much relished, they banish the robust exercises of the field. Balls, I conjecture, were formerly more frequent in day-light: at present, candle-light is their favourite time; the active part is, at that time, equally agreeable; and the fed ntary part much more so.

Gaming is the vice of idle people. Savages are addicted to gaming; and those of North America, in particular, are fond to distraction of a game termed the Platter. A losing gamester will strip himself to the skin; and some have been known to stake their liberty, though by them valued above all other blessings. Negroes in the slavecoast of Guinea will stake their wives, their children, and even themselves. Tacitus[l], talking of gaming among the Germans, says, "Extremo ac novissimo jactu de libertate et de corpore contendant[*]." The Greeks were an active and sprightly people, constantly engaged in war, or in cultivating the sine arts. They had no leisure for gaming, nor any knowledge of it. Happy for them was their ignorance; for no other vice tends more to render men selfish, dishonest, and, in the modish style, dishonourable. A gamester, a friend to no man, is a bitter enemy to himself. The luxurious of the present age pass every hour in gaming, that can be spared from sensual pleasure. Idleness is their excuse, as it is among savages; and they would in some degree be excusable, were they never actuated by a more disgraceful motive.

Writers do not carefully distinguish particular customs from general manners. Formerly, women were not admitted upon the stage in France, Italy, or England. At that very time, none but women were admitted in Spain. From that fashion it would be rash to infer, that women have more liberty in Spain, than in the other countries mentioned; for the contrary is true. In Hindostan, established custom prompts women to burn themselves alive, with the bodies of their deceased husbands; but from that singular custom, it would be a false inference, that the Hindow women are either more bold, or more affectionate to their husbands, than in other countries. The Polanders, even after they became Christians in the thirteenth century, adhered to the customs of their forefathers, the Sarmatians; the killing, for example, infants born deformed, and men debilitated by age; which would betoken horrid barbarity, if it were not a singular custom. Roman Catholics imagine, that there is no religion in England nor in Holland, because, from a spirit of civil liberty, all sects are there tolerated. The encouragement given to assassination in Italy, where every church is a sanctuary, makes strangers rashly infer, that the Italians are all assassins. Writers sometimes fall into an opposite mistake, attributing to a particular nation, certain manners and customs common to all nations in one or other period of their progress. It is remarked by Heraclides Ponticus, as peculiar to the Athamanes, that the men fed the flocks, and the women cultivated the ground. This has been the practice of all nations, in their progress from the shepherd-state to that of husbandry; and is at present the practice among American savages. The same author observes, as peculiar to the Celtae and Aphitaei, that they leave their doors open without hazard of theft. But that practice is common among all savages in the first stage of society, before the use of money is known.

Hitherto there appears as great uniformity in the progress of manners, as can reasonably be expected among so many different nations. There is one exception, extraordinary indeed, if true, which is, the manners of the Caledonians, described by Ossian, manners so pure and refined, as scarce to be equalled in the most cultivated nations. Such manners, among a people in the first stage of society, acquainted with no arts but hunting and making war, would, I acknowledge, be miraculous: and yet, to suppose all to be invented by an illiterate savage, seems little less miraculous. One, at first view, will, without hesitation, declare the whole a pure fiction; for how is it credible, that a people, rude at present, and illiterate, were, in the infancy of their society, highly refined in sentiments and manners? And yet, upon a more accurate inspection, many weighty considerations occur to balance that opinion.

From a thousand circumstances it appears, that the works of Ossian are not a late production. They are composed in an old dialect of the Celtic tongue; and as, till of late, they were known only in the Highlands of Scotland, the author must have been a Caledonian. The translator[m] saw, in the Isle of Sky, the first four books of the poem Fingal, written in a fair hand, on vellum, and bearing date in the year 1403. The natives believe that poem to be very ancient: every person has passages of it by heart, transmitted by memory from their forefathers. Their dogs bear commonly the name of Luath, Bran, &c. mentioned in these poems, as our dogs do of Pompey and Caesar[*]. Many other particulars might be mentioned; but these are sufficient to evince, that the work must have existed at least three or four centuries. And, taking that for granted, I proceed to certain considerations tending to evince, that the manners described in Ossian were Caledonian manners, and not a pure fiction. And after perusing with attention these considerations, I am not afraid, that even the most incredulous will continue altogether unshaken.

It is a noted and well-founded observation, That manners are never painted to the life by any one to whom they are not familiar. It is not difficult to draw the outlines of imaginary manners; but to fill up the picture with all the variety of tints that manners assume in different situations, uniting all in one entire whole,—"hic labor, hoc opus est." Yet the manners here supposed to be invented, are delineated in a variety of incidents, of sentiments, of images, and of allusions, making one entire picture, without once deviating into the slightest incongruity. Every scene in Ossian relates to hunting, to fighting, and to love, the sole occupations of men, in the original state of society: there is not a single image, simile, nor allusion, but what is borrowed from that state, without a jarring circumstance. Supposing all to be mere invention, is it not amazing to find no mention of Highland Clans, nor of any name now in use? Is it not still more amazing, that there is not the slightest hint of the Christian religion, not even in a metaphor or allusion? Is it not equally amazing, that, in a work where deer's flesh is frequently mentioned, and a curious method of roasting it, there should not be a word of fish as food, which is so common in later times? Very few Highlanders know that their forefathers did not eat fish; and, supposing it to be known, it would require attention more than human, never once to mention it. Can it be supposed, that a modern writer could be so constantly on his guard, as never to mention corn, nor cattle? In a story so scanty of poetical images, the sedentary life of a shepherd, and the industry of a husbandman, would make a capital figure: the cloven foot would somewhere appear. And yet, in all the works of Ossian, there is no mention of agriculture; and but a slight hint of a herd of cattle in one or two allusions. I willingly give all advantages to the unbeliever. Supposing the author of Ossian to be a late writer, embellished with every refinement of modern education: yet, even upon that supposition, he is a miracle, far from being equalled by any other author, ancient or modern.

But difficulties multiply, when it is taken into the account, that the poems of Ossian have existed three or four centuries at least. Our Highlanders, at present, are rude and illiterate; and were, in fact, little better than savages, at the period mentioned. Now, to hold the manners described in that work to be imaginary, is, in effect, to hold, that they were invented by a Highland savage, acquainted with the rude manners of his country, but utterly unacquainted with every other system of manners. From what source did he draw the refined manners so deliciously painted by him? Supposing him to have been a traveller, of which we have not the slightest hint, the manners, at that period, of France, of Italy, and of other neighbouring nations, were little less barbarous than those of his own country. I can discover no source, other than direct inspiration. In a word, whoever seriously believes the manners of Ossian to be fictitious, may well say, with the religious enthusiast, "Credo, quia impossibile est:" [I believe it, because it is impossible.]

But further: The uncommon talents of the author of this work will chearfully be acknowledged by every reader of taste: he certainly was a great master in his way. Now, whether the work be late, or composed four centuries ago, a man of such talents inventing an historical fable, and laying the scene of action among savages in the hunter-state, would naturally frame a system of manners, the best suited, in his opinion, to that state. What then could tempt him to adopt a system of manners so opposite to any notion he could frame of savage manners? The absurdity is so gross, that we are forced, however reluctantly, to believe, that these manners are not fictitious; but, in reality, the manners of his country, coloured, perhaps, or a little heightened, according to the privilege of an epic poet. And, once admitting that fact, there can be no hesitation in ascribing that work to Ossian, son of Fingal, whose name it bears: we have no better evidence for the authors of several Greek and Roman books. Upon the same evidence we must believe, that Ossian lived in the reign of the Emperor Caracalla, of whom frequent mention is made under the designation of Caracul the Great King; at which period the shepherd state was scarce known in Caledonia, and husbandry not at all. Had he lived so late as the twelfth century, when there were flocks and herds in that country, and some sort of agriculture, a poet of genius, such as Ossian undoubtedly was, would have drawn from these his finest images.

The foregoing considerations, I am persuaded, would not fail to convert the most incredulous, were it not for a consequence extremely improbable, that a people, little better at present than savages, were, in their primitive hunter-state, highly refined; for such Ossian describes them. And yet it is not less improbable, that such manners should be invented by an illiterate Highland bard. Let a man chuse either side, the difficulty cannot be solved, but by a miracle. What shall we conclude upon the whole? for the mind cannot for ever remain in suspense. As dry reasoning has left us in a dilemma, taste, perhaps, and feeling may extricate us. May not the case be here as in real painting? A portrait drawn from fancy may resemble the human visage; but such peculiarity of countenance and expression, as serves to distinguish a certain person from every other, is always wanting. Present a portrait to a man of taste, and he will be at no loss to say, whether it be copied from the life, or be the product of fancy. If Ossian paint from fancy, the cloven foot will appear: but if his portraits be complete, so as to express every peculiarity of character, why should we doubt of their being copied from life? In that view, the reader, I am hopeful, will not think his time thrown away in examining some of Ossian's striking pictures. I see not any other resource.

Love of fame is painted by Ossian as the ruling passion of his countrymen, the Caledonians. Warriors are every where described as esteeming it their chief happiness to be recorded in the songs of the bards: that feature is never wanting in any of Ossian's heroes. Take the following instances: "King of the roaring Strumon, said the rising joy of Fingal, do I behold thee in arms after thy strength has failed? Often hath Morni shone in battles, like the beam of the rising sun, when he disperses the storms of the hill, and brings peace to the glittering fields. But why didst thou not rest in thine age? Thy renown is in the song: the people behold thee, and bless the departure of mighty Morni[n]. Son of Fingal, he said, why burns the soul of Gaul? My heart beats high: my steps are disordered; and my hand trembles on my sword. When I look toward the foe, my soul lightens before me, and I see their sleeping host. Tremble thus the souls of the valiant in battles of the spear? How would the soul of Morni rise, if we should rush on the foe! Our renown would grow in the song, and our steps be stately in the eye of the brave[*] [o]."

That a warrior has acquired his fame, is a consolation in every distress: "Carril, said the King in secret, the strength of Cuchullin fails. My days are with the years that are past; and no morning of mine shall arise. They shall seek me at Temora, but I shall not be found. Cormac will weep in his hall, and say, Where is Tura's chief? But my name is renowned, my same in the song of bards. The youth will say in secret, 'O let me die as Cuchullin died: renown cloathed him like a robe; and the light of his fame is great.' Draw the arrow from my side; and lay Cuchullin below that oak. Place the shield of Caithbat near, that they may behold me amid the arms of my fathers[p]." Fingal speaks: "Ullin, my aged bard, take the ship of the King. Carry Oscar to Selma, and let the daughters of Morven weep. We shall fight in Erin for the race of fallen Cormac. The days of my years begin to fail: I feel the weakness of my arm. My fathers bend from their clouds to receive their gray-hair'd son. But, Tremor! before I go hence, one beam of my fame shall rise: in fame shall my days end, as my years begun: my life shall be one stream of light to other times[q]." Ossian speaks: "Did thy beauty last, O Ryno! stood the strength of car-borne Oscar[*]! Fingal himself passed away, and the halls of his fathers have forgot his steps. And shalt thou remain, aged bard, when the mighty have failed? But my fame shall remain; and grow like the mighty oak of Morven, which lifts its broad head to the storm, and rejoiceth in the course of the wind[r]."

The chief cause of affliction, when a young man is cut off in battle, is, his not having received his fame: "And •ell the swiftest in the race, said the King, the first to bend the bow? Thou scarce had been known to me; why did young Ryno fall? But sleep thou softly on Lena, Fingal shall soon behold thee. Soon shall my voice be heard no more, and my footsteps cease to be seen. The bards will tell of Fingal's name: the stones will talk of me. But, Ryno! thou art low indeed, thou hast not received thy same. Ullin, strike the harp for Ryno; tell what the chief would have been. Farewel, thou first in every field. No more shall I direct thy dart. Thou that hast been so fair; I behold thee not.—Farewel[t]." "Calthron rushed into the stream: I bounded forward on my spear: Teutha's race fell before us: night came rolling down. Dunthalmo rested on a rock, amidst an aged wood: the rage of his bosom burned against the car-borne Calthron. But Calthron stood in his grief; he mourned the fallen Colmar; Colmar slain in youth, before his fame arose[u]." Lamentation for loss of fame. Cuchullin speaks: "But, O ye ghosts of the lonely Cromla! ye souls of chiefs that are no more! be ye the companions of Cuchullin, and talk to him in the cave of his sorrow. For never more shall I be renowned among the mighty in the land. I am like a beam that has shone; like a mist that has fled away when the blast of the morning came, and brightened the shaggy side of the hill. Connal, talk of arms no more: departed is my fame. My sighs shall be on Cromla's wind, till my footsteps cease to be seen. And thou, whitebosom'd Brag•la, mourn over the fall of my fame; for, vanquished, never will I return to thee, thou sun-beam of Dunscaich[x]."

Love of fame begets heroic actions, which go hand in hand with elevated sentiments: of the former there are examples in every page: of the latter take the following examples: "And let him come, replied the King. I love a soe like Ca•hmor: his soul is great; his arm strong; and his battles full of fame. But the little soul is like a vapour that hovers round the marshy lake, which never rises on the green hill, left the winds meet it there[y]." Ossian speaks: "But let us fly, son of Morni, Lathmor descends the hill. Then let our steps be slow, replied the fair-hair'd Gaul, lest the soe say with a smile, Behold the warriors of night: they are like ghosts, terrible in darkness; but they melt away before the beam of the East[z]." "Son of the feeble hand, said Lathmon, shall my host descend! They are but two, and shall a thousand lift their steel! Nuah would mourn in his hall for the departure of Lathmon's fame: his eyes would turn from Lathmon, when the tread of his feet approached. Go thou to the heroes, son of Dutha, for I behold the stately steps of Ossian. His fame is worthy of my steel: let him fight with Lathmon[a]." "Fingal doth not delight in battle, tho' his arm is strong. My renown grows on the fall of the haughty: the lightning of my steel pours on the proud in arms. The battle comes; and the tombs of the valiant rise; the tombs of my people rise, O my fathers! and I at last must remain alone. But I will remain renowned, and the departure of my soul shall be one stream of light[b]." "I raised my voice for Favor-gormo, when they laid their chief in earth. The aged Crothar was there, but his sigh was not heard. He searched for the wound of his son, and found it in his breast: joy rose in the face of the aged: he came and spoke to Ossian: King of spears, my son hath not fallen without his fame: the young warrior did not fly, but met death as he went forward in his strength. Happy are they who die in youth, when their renown is heard: their memory shall be honoured in the song; the young tear of the virgin falls[c]." "Cuchullin kindled at the fight, and darkness gathered on his brow. His hand was on the sword of his fathers: his red-rolling eye on the foe. He thrice attempted to rush to battle, and thrice did Connal stop him. Chief of the Isle of Mist, he said, Fingal subdues the foe: seek not a part of the fame of the King[d]."

The pictures that Ossian draws of his countrymen are no less remarkable for tender sentiments, than for elevation. Parental affection is finely touched in the following passage: "Son of Comhal, replied the chief, the strength of Morni's arm hath failed. I attempt to draw the sword of my youth, but it remains in his place: I throw the spear, but it falls short of the mark; and I feel the weight of my shield. We decay like the grass of the mountain, and our strength returns no more. I have a son, O Fingal! his soul has delighted in the actions of Morni's youth; but his sword has not been lifted against the foe, neither has his same begun. I come with him to battle, to direct his arm. His renown will be a sun to my soul, in the dark hour of my departure. O that the name of Morni were forgot among the people, that the heroes would only say, Behold the father of Gaul[e]." And no less finely touched is grief for the loss of children: "We saw Oscar leaning on his shield: we saw his blood around. Silence darkened on the face of every hero: each turned his back and wept. The King strove to hide his tears. He bends his head over his son; and his words are mixed with sighs. And art thou fallen, Oscar, in the midst of thy course! The heart of the aged beats over thee. I see thy coming battles: I behold the battles that ought to come, but they are cut off from thy fame. When shall joy dwell at Selma? when shall the song of grief cease on Morven? My sons fall by degrees, Fingal will be the last of his race. The fame I have received shall pass away: my age shall be without friends. I shall sit like a grey cloud in my hall: nor shall I expect the return of a son with his sounding arms. Weep, ye heroes of Morven; never more will Oscar rise[g]." Crothar speaks: "Son of Fingal! dost thou not behold the darkness of Crothar's hall of shells? My soul was not dark at the feast, when my people lived. I rejoiced in the presence of strangers, when my son shone in the hall. But, Ossian, he is a beam that is departed, and left no streak of light behind. He is fallen, son of Fingal, in the battles of his father.—Rothmar, the chief of grassy Tromlo, heard that my eyes had failed; he heard, that my arms were fixed in the hall, and the pride of his soul arose. He came toward Croma; my people sell before him. I took my arms in the hall; but whta could sightless Crothar do? My steps were unequal; my grief was great. I wished for the days that were past, days wherein I fought and won in the field of blood. My son returned from the chace, the fair-hair'd Fovargormo. He had not listed his sword in battle, for his arm was young. But the soul of the youth was great; the fire of valour burnt in his eyes. He saw the disordered steps of his father, and his sigh arose. King of Croma, he said, is it because thou hast no son; is it for the weakness of Fovar-gormo's arm that thy sighs arise? I begin, my father, to feel the strength of my arm; I have drawn the sword of my youth; and I have bent the bow. Let me meet this Rothmar with the youths of Croma: let me meet him, O my father; for I feel my burning soul, and thou shalt meet him, I said, son of the sightless Crothar! But let others advance before thee, that I may hear the tread of thy feet at thy return; for my eyes behold thee not, fair-haired Fovar-gormo!—He went, he met the foe; he sell. The foe advances toward Croma. He who slew my son is near, with all his pointed spears[h]."

The following sentiments, about the shortness of human life, are pathetic: "Desolate is the dwelling of Moina, silence in the house of her fathers. Raise the song of mourning over the strangers. One day we must fall; and they have only fallen before us.—Why dost thou build the hall, son of the winged days! Thou lookest from thy towers to-day: soon will the blast of the desert sert come. It howls in thy empty court, and whistles over thy half-worn shield[i]." "How long shall we weep on Lena, or pour our tears in Ullin! The mighty will not return; nor Oscar rise in his strength: the valiant must fall one day, and be no more known. Where are our fathers, O warriors, the chiefs of the times of old! They are set, like stars that have shone: we only hear the sound of their praise. But they were renowned in their day, and the terror of other times. Thus shall we pass, O warriors, in the day of our fall. Then let us be renowned while we may; and leave our same behind us, like the last beams of the sun, when he hides his red head in the west[k]."

In Homer's time heroes were greedy of plunder, and, like robbers, were much disposed to insult a vanquished foe. According to Ossian, the ancient Caledonians had no idea of plunder: and, as they fought for same only, their humanity over•••…∣ed to the vanquished. American savages, it is true, are not addicted to plunder, and are ready to bestow on the first comer what trifles they force from the enemy. But they had no notion of a pitched battle, nor of single combat: on the contrary, they value themselves upon slaughtering their enemies by surprise, without risking their own sweet persons. Agreeable to the magnanimous character given by Ossian of his countrymen, we find humanity blended with courage in all their actions. "Fingal pitied the white-armed maid: he stayed the uplifted sword. The tear was in the eye of the King, as bending forward he spoke: King of streamy Sora, fear not the sword of Fingal: it was never stained with he blood of the vanquished; it never pierced a fallen foe. Let thy people rejoice along the blue waters of Tora: let the maids of thy love be glad. Why should'st thou fall in thy youth, King of streamy Sora[l]!" Fingal speaks: "Son of my strength, he said, take the spear of Fingal: go to Teutha's mighty stream, and save the carborne Colmar. Let thy fame return before thee like a pleasant gale: that my soul may rejoice over my son, who renews the renown of our fathers. Ossian! be thou a storm in battle, but mild where thy foes are low. It was thus my same arose, O my son; and be thou like Selma's chief. When the haughty come to my hall, my eyes behold them not; but my arm is stretched forth to the unhappy, my sword defends the weak[m]." "O Oscar! bend the strong in arm, but spare the feeble hand. Be thou a stream of many tides against the foes of thy people, but like the gale that moves the grass to those who ask thy aid. Never search for the battle, nor shun it when it comes. So Trenmor lived; such Trathal was; and such has Fingal been. My arm was the support of the injured; and the weak rested behind the lightning of my steel[n]."

Humanity to the vanquished is displayed in the following passages. After deseating in battle Swaran, King of Lochlin, Fingal says, "Raise, Ullin, raise the song of peace, and sooth my soul after battle, that my ear may forget the noise of arms. And let an hundred harps be near, to gladden the King of Lochlin: he must depart from us with joy; none ever went sad from Fingal. Oscar, the lightning of my sword is against the strong; but peaceful it hangs by my side when warriors yield in battle[o]." "Uthal fell beneath my sword, and the sons of Berrathon sled. It was then I saw him in his beauty, and the tear hung in my eye. Thou art fallen, young tree, I said, with all thy budding beauties round thee. The winds come from the desert, and there is no sound in thy leaves. Lovely art thou in death, son of car-borne Lathmor[p]."

After the scenes above exhibited, it will not be thought that Ossian deviates from the manners represented by him, in describing the hospitality of his chieftains:
"We heard the voice of joy on the coast, and we thought that the mighty Cathmor came; Cathmor, the friend of strangers, the brother of red-hair'd Cairbar. But their souls were not the same; for the light of heaven was in the bosom of Cathmor. His towers rose on the banks of Atha: seven paths led to his hall▪ seven chiefs stood on these paths, and called the stranger to the feast. But Cathmor dwelt in the wood, to avoid the voice of praise[q]."
"Rathmor was a chief of Clutha. The feeble dwelt in his hall. The gates of Rathmor were never closed: his feast was always spread. The sons of the stranger came, and blessed the generous chief of Clutha. Bards raised the song, and touched the harp▪ joy brightened on the face of the mournful. Dunthalmo came in his pride, and rushed into combat with Rathmor. The chief of Clutha overcame. The rage of Dunthalmo rose: he came by night with his warriors; and the mighty Rathmor sell: he sell in his hall, where his feast had been often spread for strangers[r]." It seems not to exceed the magnanimity of his chieftains, intent upon glory only, to feast even their enemies before a battle. Cuchullin, after the first day's engagement with Swaran, King of Lochlin or Scandinavia, says to Carril, one of his bards, "Is this feast spread for me alone, and the •ing of Lochlin on Ullin's shore; far from the deer of his hills, and sounding halls of his feasts? Rise, Carril of other times, and carry my words to Swaran; tell him from the roaring of waters, that Cuchullin gives his feast. Here let him listen to the sound of my groves amid the clouds of night: for cold and bleak the blustering winds rush over the foam of his seas. Here let him praise the trembling harp, and hear the songs of heroes[s]." The Scandinavian King, less polished, refused the invitation. Cairbar speaks: "Spread the feast on Lena, and let my hundred bards attend. And thou, redhair'd Olla, take the harp of the King. Go to Oscar, King of Swords, and bid him to our feast. To-day we feast and hear the song; tomorrow break the spears[t]." "Olla came with his songs. Oscar went to Cairbar's feast. Three hundred heroes attend the chief, and the clang of their arms is terrible. The gray dogs bound on the heath, and their howling is frequent. Fingal saw the departure of the hero: the soul of the King was sad. He dreads the gloomy Cairbar: but who of the race of Trenmor fears the foe[u]?"

Cruelty is every where condemned as an infamous vice. Speaking of the bards, "Cairbar seared to stretch his sword to the bards, tho' his soul was dark; but he closed us in the midst of darkness. Three days we pined alone: on the fourth, the noble Cathmor came. He heard our voice from the cave, and turned the eye of his wrath on Cairbar. Chief of Atha, he said, how long wilt thou pain my soul? Thy heart is like the rock of the desert, and thy thoughts are dark. But thou art the brother of Cathmor, and he will fight thy battles. Cathmor's soul is not like thine, thou feeble hand of war. The light of my bosom is stained with thy deeds. The balds will not sing of my renown; they may say, Cathmor was brave, but he fought for gloomy Cairbar: they will pass over my tomb in silence, and my same shall not be heard. Cairbar, loose the bards; they are the sons of other times; their voice shall be heard in other ages, when the Kings of Temora have sailed[x]." "Ullin rais'd his white sails: the wind of the south came forth. He bounded on the waves toward Selma's walls. The feast is spread on Lena: an hundred heroes reared the tomb of Cairbar; but no song is raised over the chief, for his soul had been dark and bloody. We remembered the fall of Cormac; and what could we say in Cairbar's praise[y]?"

Genuine manners never were represented more to the the life by a Tacitus nor a Shakespear. Such painting is above the reach of pure invention, and must be the work of knowledge and seeling.

One may discover the manners of a nation from the figure their women make. Among savages, women are treated like slaves; and they acquire not the dignity that belongs to the sex, till manners be considerably refined. According to the manners above described, women ought to have made a considerable figure among the ancient Caledonians. Let us examine Ossian upon that subject, in order to judge whether he carries on the same tone of manners to every particular. That women were highly regarded appears from the following passages: "Daughter of the hand of snow! I was not so mournful and blind, I was not so dark and forlorn, when Everallin loved me, Everallin with the dark-brown hair, the white-bosomed love of Cormac. A thousand heroes sought the maid, she denied her love to a thousand; the sons of the sword were despised; for graceful in her eyes was Ossian. I went in suit of the maid to Lego's sable surge; twelve of my people were there, sons of the streamy Morven. We came to Branno, friend of strangers, Branno of the sounding mail.—From whence, he said, are the arms of steel? Not easy to win is the maid that has denied the blueeyed sons of Erin. But blest be thou, O son of Fingal, happy is the maid that waits thee. Tho' twelve daughters of beauty were mine, thine were the choice, thou son of fame! Then he opened the hall of the maid, the dark-hair'd Everallin. Joy kindled in our breasts of steel, and blest the maid of Branno[z]." "Now Connal, on Cromla's windy side, spoke to the chief of the noble car. Why that gloom, son of Semo? Our friends are the mighty in battle. And renowned art thou, O warrior! many were the deaths of thy steel. Often has Bragela met thee with blue-rolling eyes of joy; often has she met her hero returning in the midst of the valiant, when his sword was red with slaughter, and his foes silent in the field of the tomb. Pleasant to her ears were thy bards, when thine actions rose in the song[a]." "But, King of Morven, if I shall fall, as one time the warrior must fall, raise my tomb in the midst, and let it be the greatest on Lena. And send over the dark-blue wave the sword of Orla, to the spouse of his love; that she may show it to her son, with tears, to kindle his soul to war[b]." "I lifted my eyes to Cromla, and I saw the son of generous Semo.—Sad and slow he retired from his hill toward the lonely cave of Tura. He saw Fingal victorious, and mixed his joy with grief. The son is bright on his armour, and Connal slowly followed. They sunk behind the hill, like two pillars of the fire of night, when winds pursue them over the mountain, and the flaming heath resounds. Beside a stream of roaring foam, his cave is in a rock. One tree bends above it; and the rushing winds echo against its sides. There rests the chief of Dunscaich, the son of generous Semo. His thoughts are on the battles he lost; and the tear is on his cheek. He mourned the departure of his fame, that fled like the mist of Cona. O Bragela, thou art too far remote to cheer the soul of the hero. But let him see thy bright form in his soul; that his thoughts may return to the lonely sun-beam of Dunscaich[c]." "Ossian, King of swords, replied the bard, thou best raisest the song. Long hast thou been known to Carril, thou ruler of battles. Often have I touched the harp to lovely Everallin. Thou, too, hast often accompanied my voice in Branno's hall of shells. And often amidst our voices was heard the mildest Everallin. One day she sung of Cormac's fall, the youth that died for her love. I saw the tears on her cheek, and on thine, thou chief of men. Her soul was touched for the unhappy, though she loved him not. How fair, among a thousand maids, was the daughter of the generous Branno[d]!" "It was in the days of peace, replied the great Clessammor, I came in my bounding ship to Balclutha's walls of towers. The winds had roared behind my sails, and Clutha's streams received my dark-bosomed vessel. Three days I remained in Reuthamir's halls, and saw that beam of light, his daughter. The joy of the shell went round, and the aged hero gave the fair. Her breasts were like foam on the wave, and her eyes like stars of light: her hair was dark as the raven's wing: her soul was generous and mild. My love for Moina was great: and my heart poured forth in joy[e]." "The fame of Ossian shall rise: his deeds shall be like his father's. Let us rush in our arms, son of Morni, let us rush to battle. Gaul, if thou shalt return, go to Selma's lofty hall. Tell Everallin that I •ell with •ame: carry the sword to Branno's daughter: let her give it to Oscar when the years of his youth shall arise[f]."

Next to war, love makes the principal figure: and well it may; for in Ossian's poems it breathes every thing sweet, tender, and elevated. "On Lubar's grassy banks they sought; and Grudar fell. Fierce Cairbar came to the vale of the echoing Tura, where Brassolis, fairest of his sisters, all alone raised the song of grief. She sung the actions of Grudar, the youth of her secret soul: she mourned him in the field of blood; but still she hoped his return. Her white bosom is seen from her robe, as the moon from the clouds of night: her voice was softer than the harp, to raise the song of grief: her soul was fixed on Grudar, the secret look of her eye was his;—when wilt thou come in thine arms, thou mighty in the war? Take, Brassolis, Cairbar said, take this shield of blood: fix it on high within my hall, the armour of my foe. Her soft heart beat against her side: distracted, pale, she flew, and found her youth in his blood.—She died on Cromla's heath. Here rests their dust, Cuchullin; and these two lonely yews, sprung from their tombs, wish to meet on high. Fair was Brassolis on the plain, and Grudar on the hill. The bard shall preserve their names, and repeat them to future times[g]." "Pleasant is thy voice, O Carril, said the blue-eyed chief of Erin; and lovely are the words of other times: they are like the calm shower of spring, when the sun looks on the field, and the light cloud flies over the hill. O strike the harp in praise of my love, the lonely sunbeam of Duscaich: strike the harp in praise of Bragela, whom I left in the isle of mist, the spouse of Semo's son. Dost thou raise thy fair face from the rock to find the sails of Cuchullin? the sea is rolling far distant, and its white foam will deceive thee for my sails. Retire, my love, for it is night, and the dark winds sigh in thy hair: retire to the hall of my feasts, and think of times that are past; for I will not return till the storm of war cease.—O Connal, speak of war and arms, and send her from my mind; for lovely with her raven-hair is the white-bosomed daughter of Sorglan[h]." Malvina speaks. "But thou dwellest in the soul of Malvina, son of mighty Ossian. My sighs arise with the beam of the east, my tears descend with the drops of night. I was a lovely tree in thy presence, Oscar, with all my branches round me; but thy death came like a blast from the desert, and laid my green head low: the spring returned with its showers, but of me not a leaf sprung. The virgins saw me silent in the hall, and they touched the harp of joy. The tear was on the cheek of Malvina, and the virgins beheld my grief. Why art thou sad, they said, thou first of the maids of Lutha? Was he lovely as the beam of the morning, and stately in thy sight[i]?" "Fingal came in his mildness, rejoicing in secret over the actions of his son. Morni's face brightened with gladness, and his aged eyes looked faintly through tears of joy. We came to the halls of Selma, and sat round the feast of shells. The maids of the song came into our presence, and the mildly-blushing Everallin. Her dark hair spreads on her neck of snow, her eye rolls in secret on Ossian. She touches the harp of music, and we bless the daughter of Branno[k]".

Had the Caledonians made slaves of their women, and thought as meanly of them as savages commonly do, it could never have entered the imagination of Ossian to ascribe to them those numberless graces that exalt the female sex, and render many of them objects of pure and elevated affection. Without the aid of inspiration, such refined manners could never have been conceived by a savage. I say more: Supposing a savage to have been divinely inspired, manners so inconsistent with their own would not have been relished, not even comprehended, by his countrymen. And yet that they were highly relished is certain, having been universally diffused among all ranks, and preserved for many ages by memory alone, without writing. Here the argument mentioned above strikes with double force, to evince, that the manners of the Caledonians must have been really such as Ossian describes.

Catharina Alexowna, Empress of Russia, promoted assemblies of men and women, as a means to polish the manners of her subjects. And in order to preserve decency in such assemblies, she published a body of regulations, of which the following are a specimen. "Ladies who play at forfeitures, questions and commands, &c. shall not be noisy nor riotous. No gentleman must attempt to force a kiss, nor strike a woman in the assembly, under pain of exclusion. Ladies are not to get drunk upon any pretext whatever; nor gentlemen before nine." Compare the manners that required such regulations with those described above. Can we suppose, that the ladies and gentlemen of Ossian's poems ever amused themselves, after the age of twelve, with hide and seek, questions and commands, or such childish play? Can it enter into our thoughts, that Bragéla or Malvina were so often drunk, as to require the reprimand of a public regulation? or that any hero of Ossian ever struck a woman of fashion in ire?

The immortality of the soul was a capital article in the Celtic creed, inculated by the Druids[l]. And in Valerius Maximus we find the following passage. "Gallos, memoriae proditum est, pecunias mutuas, quae sibi apud inferos redderentur, dare: quia persuasum habuerint, animas hominum immortales esse. Dicerem stultos, nisi idem braccati sensissent quod palliatus Pythagoras sensit[*] [m]." All savages have an impression of immortality; but few, even of the most enlightened before Christianity prevailed, had the least notion of any occupations in another life, but what they were accustomed to in this. Even Virgil, with all his poetical invention, finds no amusements for his departed herces, but what they were fond of when alive; the same love for war, the same taste for hunting, and the same affection to their friends. As we have no reason to expect more invention in Ossian, the observation may serve as a key to the ghosts introduced by him, and to his whole machinery, as termed by critics. His description of these ghosts is copied plainly from the creed of his country.

In an historical account of the progress of manners, it would argue gross insensibility to overlock those above mentioned. The subject, it is true, has sweiled upon my hands beyond expectation; but it is not a little interesting. If these manners be genuine, they are a singular phenomenon in the History of Man: if they be the invention of an illiterate bard, among savages utterly ignorant of such manners, the phenomenon is no less singular. Let either side be taken, and a sort of miracle must be admitted. In the Instances above given, such a beautiful mixture there is of simplicity and dignity, and so much life given to the manners described, that real manners were never represented with a more striking appearance of truth. If these manners be fictitious, I say again, that the author must have been inspired: they plainly exceed the invention of a savage; nay, they exceed the invention of any known writer. Every man will judge for himself: it is perhaps fondness for such refined manners, that makes me incline to reality against fiction.

I am aware at the same time, that manners so pure and elevated, in the first stage of society, are difficult to be accounted for. The Caledonians were not an original tribe, to found a supposition that they might have manners peculiar to themselves: they were a branch of the Celtae, and had a language common to them with the inhabitants of Gaul, and of England. The manners probably of all were the same, or nearly so; and if we expect any light for explaining Caledonian manners, it must be from that quarter: we have indeed no other resource. Diodorus Siculus[n] reports of the Celtae, that, though warlike, they were upright in their dealings, and far removed from deceit and duplicity. Caesar[o], "Galli homines aperti minimeque in•idiosi, qui per virtutem, non per dolum, dimicare consueverunt[*]." And though cruel to their enemies, yet Pomponius Mela[p] observes, that they were kind and compassionate to the supplicant and unfortunate. Strabo[q] describes the Gauls as studious of war, and of great alacrity in fighting; otherwise an innocent people, altogether void of malignity. He says, that they had three orders of men, bards, priests, and druids; that the province of the bards was to study poetry, and to compose songs in praise of their deceased heroes; that the priests presided over divine worship; and that the druids, beside studying moral and natural philosophy, determined all controversies, and had some direction even in war. Caesar, less attentive to civil matters, comprehends these three orders under the name of druids; and observes, that the druids teach their disciples a vast number of verses, which they must get by heart. Diodorus Siculus says, that the Gauls had poets termed bards, who sung airs accompanied with the harp, in praise of some, and dispraise of others. Lucan, speaking of the three orders, says,

" Vos quoque, qui fortes animas, belloque peremptas,

" Laudibus in longum, vates, dimittitis aevum,

" Plurima securi fudistis carmina bardi[†]."

With respect to the Celtic women in particular, it is agreed by all writers, that they were extremely beautiful[r]. They were no less remarkable for spirit than for beauty. If we can rely on Diodorus Siculus, the women in Gaul equalled the men in courage. Tacitus, in his life of Agricola, says, that the British women frequently joined with the men, when attacked by an enemy. And so much were they regarded, as to be thought capable of the highest command.
"Neque enim sexum in imperiis discernunt[*],"
says the same author[s]. And accordingly, during the war carried on by Caractacus, a gallant British King, against the Romans, Cartismandua was Queen of the Brigantes. Boadicea is recorded in Roman annals as a queen of a warlike spirit. She led on a great army against the Romans; and in exhorting her people to behave with courage, she observed, that it was not unusual to see a British army led on to battle by a woman; to which Tacitus adds his testmony: "Solitum quidem Britannis foeminarum ductu bellare[†] [t]." No wonder that Celtic women, so amply provided with spirit, as well as beauty, made a capital figure in every public entertainment[u].

The Gallic Celtae undoubtedly carried with them their manners and customs to Britain, and spread them gradually from south to north. And as the Caledonians, inhabiting a mountainous country in the northern parts of the island, had little commerce with other nations, they preserved long in purity many Celtic customs, particularly that of retaining bards. All the chieftains had bards in their pay, whose province it was to compose songs in praise of their ancestors, and to accompany those songs with the harp. This entertainment enflamed their love for war, and at the same time softened their manners, which, as Strabo reports, were naturally innocent and void of malignity. It had beside a wonderful influence in forming virtuous manners: the bards, in praising deceased heroes, would naturally select virtuous actions, which make the best figure in heroic poetry, and tend the most to illustrate the hero of their song: vice may be flattered; but praise is never willingly nor successfully bestowed upon any atchievement but what is virtuous and heroic. It is accordingly observed by Ammianus Marcellinus[x], that the bards inculcated in their songs virtue and actions worthy of praise. The bards, who were in high estimation, became great proficients in poetry; of which we have a conspicuous instance in the works of Ossian. Their capital compositions were diligently studied by those of their own order, and much admired by all. The songs of the bards, accompanied with the harp, made a deep impression on the young warrior, elevated some into heroes, and promoted virtue in every hearer[*]. Another circumstance concurred to form Caledonian manners, common to them with every nation in the first stage of society; which is, that avarice was unknown among them. People in that stage, ignorant of habitual wants, and having a ready supply of all that nature requires, have little notion of property, and not the slightest notion of accumulating the goods of fortune; and for that reason are always found honest and disinterested. With respect to the female sex, who make an illustrious figure in Ossian's poems, if they were so eminent both for courage and beauty as they are represented by the best authors, it is no wonder that they are painted by Ossian as objects of love the most pure and refined. Nor ought it to be overlooked, that the soft and delicate notes of the harp have a tendency to purify manners, and to refine love.

Whether the causes here assigned of Celtic manners be fully adequate may well admit of a doubt; but if authentic history be relied on, we can entertain no doubt, that the manners of the Gallic and British Celiae, including the Caledonians, were such as are above described. And as the manners ascribed by Ossian to his conntrymen the Caledonians, are in every particular conformable to those now mentioned, it clearly follows, that Ossian was no inventor, but drew his pictures of manners from real life. This is made highly probable from intrinsic evidence, the same that is so copiously urged above: and now by authentic history that probability is so much heightened as scarce to leave room for a doubt.

Our present highlanders are but a small part of the inhabitants of Britain; and they have been sinking in their importance, from the time that arts and sciences made a figure, and peaceable manners prevailed. And yet in that people are discernible many remaining features of their forefathers the Caledonians. They have to this day a disposition to war, and when disciplined make excellent soldiers, sober, active, and obedient. They are eminently hospitable; and the character given by Strabo of the Gallic Celiae, that they were innocent, and devoid of malignity, is to them perfectly applicable. That they have not the magnanimity and heroism of the Caledonians, is easily accounted for. The Caledonians were a free and independent people, unawed by any superior power, and living under the mild government of their own chieftains: compared with their forefathers, the present highlanders make a very inconsiderable figure: their country is barren, and at any rate is but a small part of a potent kingdom; and their language deprives them of intercourse with their polished neighbours.

There certainly never happened in literature a discovery more extraordinary than the works of Ossian. To lay the scene of action among hunters in the first stage of society, and to bestow upon such a people a system of manners that would do honour to the most polished state, seemed at first an ill-contrived forgery. But if a forgery, why so bold and improbable? why not invent manners more congruous to the savage state? And as at any rate the work has greater merit, why did the author conceal himself? These considerations roused my attention, and produced the foregoing disquisition; which I finished, without imagining that any more light could be obtained. But after a long interval, a thought struck me, that as the Caledonians formerly were much connected with the Scandinavians, the manners of the latter might probably give light in the present enquiry. I chearfully spread my sails in a wide ocean, not without hopes of importing precious merchandise. Many volumes did I turn over of Scandinavian history; especially where the manners of the inhabitants in the first stage of society are delineated; and now I proceed to present my readers with the fruits of my labour.

The Danes, says Adam of Bremen, are remarkable for elevation of mind: the punishment of death is less dreaded by them than that of whipping. "The philosophy of the Cimbri," says Valerius Maximus, "is gay and resolute: they leap for joy in a battle, hoping for a glorious end: in sickness they lament, for fear of the contrary." What fortified their courage was a persuasion, that those who die in battle fighting bravely, are instantly translated to the hall of Odin, to drink beer out of the skull of an enemy. "Happy in their mistake," says Lucan, "are the people who live near the pole: persuaded that death is only a passage to long life, they are undisturbed by the most grievous of all fears, that of dying: they eagerly run to arms, and esteem it cowardice to spare a life they shall soon recover in another world." Such was their magnanimity, that they scorned to snatch a victory by surprise. Even in their piratical expeditions, instances are recorded of setting aside all the ships that exceeded those of the enemy, lest the victory should be attributed to superiority of numbers. It was held unmanly to decline a combat, however unequal; for courage, it was thought, rendered all men equal. The shedding tears was unmanly, even for the death of friends.

The Scandinavians were sensible in a high degree to praise and reproach; for love of fame was their darling passion. Olave, King of Norway, placing three of his scalds or bards around him in a battle, "You shall not relate," said he, "what you have only heard, but what you are eye-witnesses of." Upon every occasion we find them insisting upon glory, honour, and contempt of death, as leading principles. The bare suspicion of cowardice was attended with universal contempt: a man who lost his buckler, or received a wound behind, durst never again appear in public. Frotho King of Denmark, taken captive in a battle, obstinately refused either liberty or life. "To what end," says he, "should I survive the disgrace of being made a captive? Should you even restore to me my •••…er, my treasure, and my kingdom, would these benefits restore me to my honour? Future ages will always have it to say, that Protho was taken by his enemy[y]."

Much efficacy is above ascribed to the songs of Caledonian bards; and with satisfaction I find my observations justified in every Scandinavian history. The Kings of Denmark, Norway, and Sweden, are represented in ancient chronicles as constantly attended with scalds or bards; who were treated with great respect, especially by princes distinguished in war. Harold Harfager at his feasts placed them above all his other officers; and employed them in negotiations of the greatest importance. The poetic art, held in great estimation, was cultivated by men of the first rank. Rogvald, Earl of Orkney, passed for an able poet. King Regnar was distinguished in poetry, no less than in war. It was the proper province of bards in Scandinavia, as in other countries, to celebrate in odes the atchievements of deceased heroes. They were frequently employed in animating the troops before a battle. Hacon, Earl of Norway, in his famous engagement against the warriors of Iomsburg, had five celebrated poets, each of whom sung an ode to the soldiers ready to engage. Saxo Grammaticus, describing a battle between Waldemar and Sueno, mentions a scald belonging to the former, who, advancing to the front of the army, reproached the latter in a pathetic ode as the murderer of his own father.

The odes of the Scandinavian bards have a peculiar energy; which is not difficult to be accounted for. The propensity of the Scandinavians to war, their love of glory, their undaunted courage, and their warlike exploits, naturally produced elevated sentiments, and an elevated tone of language; both of which were displayed in celebrating heroic deeds. Take the following instances. The first is from the Edda, which contains the birth and genealogy of their gods. "The giant Rymer arrives from the east, carried in a chariot: the great serpent, rolling himself furiously in the waters, listeth up the sea. The eagle sereams, and with his horrid beak tears the dead. The vessel of the gods is set afloat. The black prince of sire issues from the south, surrounded with flames: the swords of the gods beam like the sun: shaken are the rocks, and fall to pieces. The female giants wander about weeping: men in crowds tread the paths of death. Heaven is split asunder, the sun darkened, and the earth sunk in fhe ocean. The shining stars vanish: the fire rages the world draws to an end; and the flame ascending licks the vault of heaven. From the bosom of the waves an earth emerges, clothed with lovely green: the floods retire: the fields produce without culture: misfortunes are banished from the world. Balder and his brother, gods of war, return to inhabit the ruined palace of Odin. A palace more resplendent than the sun rises now to view; adorned with a roof of gold: there good men shall inhabit▪ and live in joy and pleasure through all ages." In a collection of ancient historical monuments of the north, published by Biorner, a learned Swede, there is the following passage. "Grunder, perceiving Grymer rushing furiously through opposing battalions, cries aloud, Thou alone remainest to engage with me in single combat. It is now thy turn to feel the keenness of my sword. Their sabres, like dark and threatening clouds, hang dreadful in the air. Grymer's weapon darts down like a thunderbolt: their swords furiously strike: they are bathed in gore. Grymer cleaves the casque of his enemy, hews his armour in pieces, and pours the light into his bosom. Grunder sinks to the ground; and Grymer gives a dreadful shout of triumph." This picture is done with a masterly hand. The capital circumstances are judiciously selected; and the narration is compact and rapid. Indulge me with a moment's pause to compare this picture with one or two in Ossian's manner. "As autumn's dark storm pour froms two echoing hills; so to each other approach the heroes. As from high rocks two dark streams meet, and mix and roar on the plain; so meet Lochlin and Innis-fail, loud, rough, and dark in battle. Chief mixes his strokes with chief, and man with man; steel sounds on steel, helmets are cleft on high. Blood bursts, and smoaks around. Strings murmur on the polished yew. Darts rush along the sky. Spears fall like sparks of flame that gild the stormy face of night. As the noise of the troubled ocean when roll the waves on high, as the last peal of thundering heaven, such is the noise of battle. Though Cormac's hundred bards were there, feeble were the voice of an hundred bards to send the deaths to future times; for many were the heroes who fell, and wide poured the blood of the valiant." Again, "As roll a thousand waves to the rocks, so came on Swaran's host: as meets a rock a thousand waves, so Innis-fail met Swaran. The voice of death is heard all around, and mixes with the sound of shields. Each hero is a pillar of darkness, and the sword a beam of fire in his hand. From wing to wing echoes the field, like a hundred hammers that rise by turns on the red sun of the furnace. Who are those on Lena's heath, so gloomy and dark? they are like two clouds, and their swords lighten above. Who is it but Ossian's son, and the carborne chief of Erin?" These two descriptions make a deeper impression, and swell the heart more than the former: they are more poetical by short similes finely interwoven; and the images are far more lofty. And yet Ossian's chief talent is sentiment, in which Scandinavian bards are far inferior: in the generosity, tenderness, and humanity of his sentiments, he has not a rival.

The ancient Scandinavians were undoubtedly a barbarous people compared with the southern nations of Europe; but that they were far from being gross savages, may be gathered from a poem still extant, named HAVAMAAL; or, The sublime Discourse of Odin. Though that poem is of great antiquity, it is replete with good lessons and judicious reflections; of which the following are a specimen:

- Happy he who gains the applause and good-will of men.

- Love your friends, and love also their friends.

- Be not the first to break with your friend: sorrow gnaws the heart of him who has not a single friend to advise with.

- Where is the virtuous man that hath not a failing? Where is the wicked man that hath not some good quality?

- Riches take wing: relations die: you yourself shall die. One thing only is out of the reach of fate; which is, the judgement that passes on the dead.

- There is no malady more severe than the being discontented with one's lot.

- Let not a man be over-wise nor over-curious: if he would sleep in quiet, let him not seek to know his destiny.

- While we live, let us live well: a man lights his fire, but before it be burnt out, death may enter.

- A coward dreams that he may live for ever: if he should escape every other weapon, he cannot escape that of old age.

- The flocks know when to retire from pasture: the glutton knows not when to retire from the feast.

- The lewd and dissolute make a mock of every thing, not considering how much they deserve to be mocked.

- The best provision for a journey is strength of understanding: more useful than treasure, it welcomes one to the table of the stranger.

Hitherto the manners of the Scandinavians resemble, in many capital circumstances, those delineated in the works of Ossian. I lay not, however, great stress upon that resemblance, because such manners are found among several other warlike nations in the first stage of society. The circumstance that has occasioned the greatest doubt about Ossian's system of manners, is the figure his women make. Among other savage nations, they are held to be beings of an inferior rank; and as such are treated with very little respect: in Ossian they make an illustrious figure, and are highly regarded by the men. I have not words to express my satisfaction, when I discovered, that anciently among the barbarous Scandinavians, the female sex made a figure no less illustrious. A resemblance so complete with respect to a matter extremely singular among barbarians, cannot fail to convert the most obstinate infidel, leaving no doubt of Ossian's veracity.—But I ought not to anticipate. One cannot pass a verdict till the evidence be summed up; and to that task I now proceed, with sanguine hopes of success.

It is a fact ascertained by many writers, That women in the north of Europe were eminent for resolution and courage. Caesar, in the first book of his Commentaries, describing a battle he fought with the Helvetii, says, that the women, with a warlike spirit, exhorted their husbands to persist, and placed the waggons in a line, to prevent their flight. Florus and Tacitus mention that several battles of those barbarous nations were renewed by their women, presenting their naked bosoms, and declaring their abhorrence of captivity. Flavius Vopiscus, writing of Proculus Caesar, says, that an hundred Samaritan virgins were taken in battle. The Longobard women, when many of their husbands were cut off in a battle, took up arms, and obtained the victory[d]. The females of the Galactophagi, a Scythian tribe, were as warlike as the males, and went often with them to war[e]. In former times, many women in Denmark applied themselves to arms[f]. Jornandes describes the women of the Goths as full of courage, and trained to arms like the men. Joannes Magnus, Archbishop of Upsal, says the same; and mentions in particular an expedition of the Goths to invade a neighbouring country, in which more women went along with the men than were left at home[g]. Several Scandinavian women exercised piracy[h]. The Cimbri were always attended with their wives, even in their distant expeditions, and were more afraid of their reproaches, than of the blows of the enemy. The Goths, compelled by famine to surrender to Belisarius the city of Ravenna, were bitterly reproached by their wives for cowardice[i]. In a battle between Regner, King of Denmark, and Fro, King of Sweden, many women took part with the former, Langertha in particular, who fought with her hair flowing about her shoulders. Regner, being victorious, demanded who that woman was, who had behaved so gallantly; and finding her to be a virgin of noble birth, he took her to wife. He afterward divorced her, in order to make way for a daughter of the King of Sweden. Regner being unhappily engaged in a civil war with Harald, who aspired to the throne of Denmark, Langertha, overlooking her wrongs, brought from Norway a body of men to assist her husband; and behaved so gallantly, that, in the opinion of all, Regner was indebted to her for the victory.

To find women, in no inconsiderable portion of the globe, dropping their timid nature, and rivalling men in their capital property of courage, is a singular phoenomenon. That this phoenomenon must have had an adequate cause, is certain; but of that cause, it is better to acknowledge our utter ignorance, however mortifying, than to squeeze out conjectures that will not bear examination.

In rude nations, prophets and soothsayers are held to be a superior class of men: what a figure then must the Vandal women have made, when, in that nation, as Procropius says, all the prophets and soothsayers were of the female sex? In Scandinavia, women are said to have been skilful in magic arts, as well as men. Tacitus informs us, that the Germans had no other physicians but their women. They followed the armies, to staunch the blood, and suck the wounds of their husbands[*]. He mentions a fact, that sets the German women in a conspicuous light, That female hostages bound the Germans more strictly to their engagements than male hostages. He adds, "Inesse quin etiam sanctum aliquid et providum putant: nec aut consilia earum aspernantur, aut responsa negliguntur[†]." The histories and romances of the north represent women, and even princesses, acting as physicians in war.

Polygamy sprung up in countries where women are treated as inferior beings: it can never take place where the two sexes are held to be of equal rank. For that reason, polygamy never was known among the northern nations of Europe. Saxo Grammaticus, who wrote the history of Denmark in the twelfth century, gives not the slightest hint of polygamy, even among kings and princes. Crantz, in his history of the Saxons[k], affirms, that polygamy was never known among the northern nations of Europe; which is confirmed by every other writer who gives the history of any of those nations. Scheffer, in particular, who writes the history of Lapland, observes, that neither polygamy nor divorce were ever heard of in that country, not even during paganism.

We have the authority of Procopius[l], that the women in those countries were remarkable for beauty, and that those of the Goths and Vandals were the finest that ever had been seen in Italy; and we have the authority of Crantz, that chastity was in high estimation among the Danes, Swedes, and other Scandinavians. When these facts are added to those above-mentioned, it will not be thought strange, that love between the sexes, even among that rude people, was a pure and elevated passion. That it was in fact such, is certain, if history can be credited, or the sentiments of a people expressed in their poetical compositions. I begin with the latter, as evidence the most to be relied on. The ancient poems of Scandinavia contain the warmest expressions of love and regard for the female sex. In an ode of King Regner Lodbrog, a very ancient poem, we find the following sentiments: "We fought with swords upon a promontory of England, when I saw ten thousand of my foes rolling in the dust. A dew of blood distilled from our swords: the arrows, that flew in search of the helmet, hissed through the air. The pleasure of that day was like the clasping a fair virgin in my arms." Again, "A young man should march early to the conflict of arms; in which consists the glory of the warrior. He who aspires to the love of a mistress, ought to be dauntless in the clash of swords." These Hyperboreans, it would appear, had early learned to combine the ideas of love and of military prowess; which is still more conspicuous in an ode of Harald the Valiant, of a later date. That prince, who made a figure in the middle of the eleventh century, traversed all the seas of the north, and made piratical incursions even upon the coasts of the Mediterranean. In this ode he complains, that the glory he had acquired made no impression on Elissir, daughter to Jarislas, King of Russia. "I have made the tour of Sicily. My brown vessel, full of mariners, made a swift progress. My course, I thought, would never slacken—and yet a Russian maiden scorns me. The troops or Drontheim, which I attacked in my youth, exceeded ours in number. Terrible was the conflict: I left their young king dead on the field—and yet a Russian maiden scorns me. Eight exercises I can perform: I fight valiantly: firm is my seat on horseback: inured I am to swimming: swift is my motion on scates: I dart the lance: I am skilful at the oar—and yet a Russian maiden scorns me. Can she deny, this young and lovely maiden, that near a city in the south I joined battle, and left behind me lasting monuments of my exploits?—and yet a Russian maiden scorns me. My birth was in the high country of Norway, famous for archers: but ships were my delight; and, far from the habitations of men, I have traversed the seas from north to south—and yet a Russian maiden scorns me." in the very ancient poem of Havamaal, mentioned above, there are many expressions of love to the fair-sex. "He who would gain the love of a maiden, must address her with smooth speeches, and showy gifts. It requires good sense to be a skilful lover." Again, "If I aspire to the love of the chastest virgin, I can bend her mind, and make her yield to my desires." The ancient Scandinavian chronicles present often to our view young warriors endeavouring to acquire the favour of their mistresses, by boasting of their accomplishments, such as their dexterity in swimming and scating, their talent in poetry, their skill in chess, and their knowing all the stars by name. Mallet, in the Introduction to his History of Denmark, mentions many ancient Scandinavian novels, that turn upon love and heroism. These may be justly held as authentic evidence of the manners of the people: it is common to invent facts; but it is not common to attempt the inventing manners.

It is an additional proof of the great regard paid to women in Scandinavia, that in Edda, the Scandinavian Bible, female deities make as great a figure as male deities.

Agreeable to the manners described, we find it universally admitted among the ancient Scandinavians, that beauty ought to be the reward of courage and military skill. A warrior was thought intitled to demand in marriage any young woman, even of the highest rank, if he overcame his rivals in single combat: nor was it thought any hardship on the young lady to be yielded to the victor. The ladies were not always of that opinion; for the stoutest fighter is not always the handsomest fellow, nor the most engaging. And in the Histories of Denmark, Sweden, and Norway, many instances are related, of men generously interposing to rescue young beauties from brutes, destitute of every accomplishment but strength and boldness. Such stories have a fabulous air; and many of them probably are mere fables. Some of them, however, have a strong appearance of truth: men are introduced, who make a figure in the real history of the country; and many circumstances are related, that make links in the chain of that history. Take the following specimen: The ambassadors of Frotho, King of Denmark, commissioned to demand in marriage the daughter of a King of the Hunns, were feasted for three days, as the custom was in ancient times; and being admitted to the young Princess, she rejected the offer: "Because," says she, "your King has acquired no reputation in war, but passes his time effeminately at home." In Biorner's Collection of Ancient Historical Monuments, mentioned above, there is the following history: Charles, King of Sweden, kept on foot an army of chosen men. His Queen had borne him a daughter, named Inguegerda, whose lively and graceful accomplishments were admired still more than her birth and fortune. The breast of the King overflowed with felicity. Grymer, a youth of noble birth, knew to dye his sword in the blood of his enemies, to run over craggy mountains, to wrestle, to play at chess, and to trace the motions of the stars. He studied to shew his skill in the apartment of the damsels, before the lovely Inguegerda. At length he ventured to open his mind. "Wilt thou, O fair Princess! accept of me for a husband, if I obtain the King's consent?" "Go," says she, "and supplicate my father." The courtly youth, respectfully addressing the King, said, "O King, give me in marriage thy beautiful daughter." He answered sternly, "Thou hast learned to handle thy arms: thou hast acquired some honourable distinctions: but hast thou ever gained a victory, or given a banquet to savage beasts that rejoice in blood?" "Where shall I go, O King! that I may dye my sword in crimson, and render myself worthy of being thy son-in-law?" "Hialmar, son of Harec," said the King, "who governs Biarmland, has become terrible by a keen sword: the firmest shields he hews in pieces, and loads his followers with booty. Go, and prove thy valour, by attacking that hero: cause him to bite the dust, and Inguegerda shall be thy reward." Grymer, returning to his fair mistress, saluted her with ardent looks of love. "What answer hast thou received from the King?" "To obtain thee I must deprive the fierce Hialmar of life." Inguegerda exclaimed with grief, "Alas! my father hath devoted thee to death." Grymer selected a troop of brave warriors, eager to follow him. They launch their vessels into the wide ocean: they unfurl their sails, which catch the springing gale: the shrowds rattle: the waves foam, and dash against the prows: they steer their numerous vessels to the shore of Gothland; bent to glut the hungry raven, and to gorge the wolf with prey. Thus landed Grymer on Gothland: and thus did a beauteous maiden occasion the death of many heroes. Hialmar demanded who the strangers were. Grymer told his name; adding, that he had spent the summer in quest of him. "May your arrival," replied Hialmar, "be fortunate; and may health and honour attend you! You shall partake of my gold, with the unmixed juice of the grape. Thy offers, said Grymer, I dare not accept. Prepare for battle; and let us hasten to give a banquet to beasts of prey. Hialmar laid hold of his white cuirass, his sword, and his buckler. Grymer, with a violent blow of his sabre, transfixes Hialmar's shield, and cuts off his left hand. Hialmar, enraged, brandishes his sword, and striking off Grymer's helmet and cuirass, pierces his breast and sides; an effusion of blood following the wounds. Grymer, raising his sabre with both hands, lays Hialmar prostrate on the ground; and he himself sinks down upon the dead body of his adversary. He was put on ship-board, and seemed to be at the last period of life when he landed. The distressed Princess undertook his cure, and restored him to health. They were married with great solemnity, and the beauteous bride of Grymer filled the heart of her hero with unfading joy."

According to the rude manners of those times, a lover did not always wait for the consent of his mistress. Joannes Magnus, Archbishop of Upsal, observes, in his history of the Goths, that ravishing of women was of old no less frequent among the Scandinavians than among the Greeks. He relates, that Gram, son to the King of Denmark, carried off the King of Sweden's daughter, whose beauty was celebrated in verses existing even in his time. Another instance he gives, of Nicolaus King of Denmark[m], who courted Uluilda, a noble and beautiful Norvegian lady, and obtained her consent. Nothing remained but the celebration of the nuptials, when she was carried off by Suercher, King of Sweden. We have the authority of Saxo Grammaticus, that Skiold, one of the first Kings of Denmark, fought a duel for a beautiful young woman, and obtained her for a wife. That author relates many duels of the same kind. It was indeed common among the Scandinavians, before they became Christians, to fight for a wife, and to carry off the desired object by force of arms. No cause of war between neighbouring kings was more frequent. Fridlevus King of Denmark sent a solemn embassy to Hasmundus King of Norway, to demand in marriage his daughter. Hasmundus had a rooted aversion to the Danes, who had done much mischief in his country. "Go," says he to the ambassadors, "and demand a wife where you are less hated than in Norway." The young lady, who had no aversion to the match, intreated leave to speak. "You seem," said she, "not to consult the good of your kingdom in rejecting so potent a son-in-law, who can carry by force what he is now applying for by intreaties." The father however continuing obstinate, dismissed the ambassadors. Fridlevus sent other ambassadors, redoubling his intreaties for a favourable answer. Hasmundus said, that one refusal might be thought sufficient; and in a fit of passion put the ambassadors to death. Fridlevus invaded Norway with a potent army; and, after a desperate battle, carried off the lady in triumph.

The figure that women made in the north of Europe by their courage, their beauty, and their chastity, could not fail to produce mutual esteem and love between the sexes: nor could that love fail to be purified into the most tender affection, when their rough manners were smoothed in the progress of society. If love between the sexes prevail in Lapland as much as any where, which is vouched by Scheffer in his history of that country, it must be for a reason very different from that now mentioned. The males in Lapland, who are great cowards, have no reason to despise the females for their timidity; and in every country where the women equal the men, mutual esteem and affection naturally take place. Two Lapland odes communicated to us by the author mentioned, leave no doubt of this fact, being full of the tenderest sentiments that love can inspire. The following is a literal translation.

FIRST ODE.
I.

Kulnasatz my rain-deer,

We have a long journey to go;

The moors are vast,

And we must haste;

Our strength, I fear,

Will fail if we are slow;

And so

Our songs will do.

II.

Kaigé, the watery moor,

Is pleasant unto me,

Though long it be;

Since it doth to my mistress lead,

Whom I adore:

The Kilwa moor

I ne'er again will tread.

III.

Thoughts fill'd my mind

Whilst I through Kaigé past

Swift as the wind,

And my desire,

Wing'd with impatient fire,

My rain-deer, let us haste.

IV.

So shall we quickly end our pleasing pain:

Behold my mistress there,

With decent motion walking o'er the plain.

Kulnasatz my rain-deer,

Look yonder, where

She washes in the lake:

See while she swims,

The waters from her purer limbs

New clearness take.

SECOND ODE.
I.

With brightest beams let the sun shine

On Orra moor:

Could I be sure

That from the top o' th' lofty pine

I Orra moor might see,

I to its highest bow would climb,

And with industrious labour try

Thence to descry

My mistress, if that there she be.

II.

Could I but know, amid what flowers,

Or in what shade she stays,

The gaudy bowers,

With all their verdant pride,

Their blossoms and their sprays,

Which make my mistress disappear,

And her in envious darkness hide,

I from the roots and bed of earth would tear.

III.

Upon the raft of clouds I'd ride,

Which unto Orra fly:

O' th' ravens I would borrow wings,

And all the feather'd inmates of the sky:

But wings, alas, are me deny'd,

The stork and swan their pinions will not lend,

There's none who unto Orra brings,

Or will by that kind conduct me befriend.

IV.

Enough, enough! thou hast delay'd

So many summer's days,

The best of days that crown the year,

Which light upon the eye-lids dart,

And melting joy upon the heart:

But since that thou so long hast stay'd,

They in unwelcome darkness disappear.

Yet vainly dost thou me forsake;

I will pursue and overtake.

V.

What stronger is than bolts of steel?

What can more surely bind?

Love is stronger far than it;

Upon the head in triumph she doth sit;

Fetters the mind,

And doth control

The thought and soul.

VI.

A youth's desire is the desire of wind;

All his essays

Are long delays:

No issue can they find.

Away fond counsellors, away,

No more advice obtrude:

I'll rather prove

The guidance of blind love;

To follow you is certainly to stray:

One single counsel, tho' unwise, is good.

In the Scandinavian manners here described is discovered a striking resemblance to those described by Ossian. And as such were the manners of the Scandinavians in the first stage of society, it no longer remains a wonder, that the manners of Caledonia should be equally pure in the same early period. And now every argument above urged in favour of Ossian as a genuine historian has its full weight, without the least counterpoise. It is true, that Caledonian manners appear from Ossian to have been still more polished and refined than those of Scandinavia; but that difference may have proceeded from many causes, which time has buried in oblivion.

I make no apology for insisting so largely on Scandinavian manners; for they tend remarkably to support the credit of Ossian, and consequently to ascertain a fact extremely interesting, that our forefathers were by no means such barbarians as they are commonly held to be. All the inhabitants of Britain were of Celtic extraction; and we have reason to believe, that the manners of Caledonia were the manners of every part of the island, before the inhabitants of the plains were enslaved by the Romans. The only circumstance peculiar to the Caledonians, is their mountainous situation: being less exposed to the oppression of foreigners, and farther removed from commerce, they did longer than their southern neighbours preserve their manners pure and untainted.

I have all along considered the poems of Ossian merely in an historical view. In the view of criticism they have been examined by a writer of distinguished taste[n]; and however bold to enter a field where he hath reaped laurels, I imagine that there still remain some trifles for me to glean. Two of these poems, Fingal and Temora, are regular epic poems; and perhaps the single instances of epic poetry moulded into the form of an opera. We have in these two poems both the Recitativo and Aria of an Italian opera; dropped indeed in the translation, from difficulty of imitation. Ossian's poems were all of them composed with a view to music; though in the long poems mentioned it is probable, that the airs only were accompanied with the harp, the recitative being left to the voice. The poems of Ossian are singular in another respect, being probably the only work now remaining that was composed in the hunter-state. Some songs of that early period may possibly be remaining, but nothing like a regular work. One may advance a step farther, and pronounce, with a high degree of probability, that Fingal and Temora are the only epic poems that ever were composed in that state. How great must have been the talents of the author, beset with every obstruction to genius, the manners of his country alone excepted; a cold unhospitable climate, with such deformity on the face of the country as scarce to afford a pleasing object; and he himself absolutely illiterate! One, advancing still farther, may venture boldly to affirm, that such a poem as Fingal or Temora never was composed in any other part of the world under such disadvantageous circumstances.

Tho' permanent manners enter not regularly into the present sketch, I am however tempted to add a few words concerning the influence of soil upon the disposition of man, in order to show the wisdom of Providence, which fits the ground we tread on, not only for supplying our wants, but for improving our manners. The stupidity of the inhabitants of New Holland, mentioned above, is occasioned by the barrenness of their soil, yielding nothing that can be food for man or beast. Day and night they watch the ebb of the tide, in order to dig small fish out of the sand; and sleep in the intervals, without an hour to spare for any other occupation. People in that condition must for ever remain ignorant and brutish. Were all the earth barren like New Holland, all men would be ignorant and brutish, like the inhabitants of New Holland. On the other hand, were every portion of this earth naturally so fertile as spontaneously to feed all its inhabitants, which is the golden age figured by poets, what would follow? Upon the former supposition, man would be a meagre, patient, and timid animal: upon the latter supposition, he would be pampered, lazy, and effeminate. In both cases, he would be stupidly ignorant, and incapable of any manly exertion, whether of mind or body. But the soil of our earth is more wisely accommodated to man, its chief inhabitant. Taking it general, it is neither so fertile as to supersede labour, nor so barren as to require our whole labour. The laborious occupation of hunting for food produced originally some degree of industry: and though all the industry of man was at first necessary for procuring food, cloathing, and habitation; yet the soil, by skill in agriculture, came to produce plenty with less labour, which to some afforded spare time for thinking of conveniences. A habit of industry thus acquired excited many to bestow their leisure-hours upon the arts, proceeding from useful arts to fine arts, and from these to the sciences. Wealth, accumulated by industry, has a wonderful influence upon manners: feuds and war, the offspring of wealth, call forth into action friendship, courage, heroism, and every social virtue, as well as many selfish vices. How like brutes do we pass our time, without once reflecting on the conduct of Providence operating even under our feet!

Diversity of manners, at the same time, enters into the plan of Providence, as well as diversity of talents, of feelings, and of opinions. Our Maker hath given us a taste for variety; and he hath provided objects in plenty for its gratification. Some soils, naturally fertile, require little labour: some soils, naturally barren, require the extremity of labour. But the advantages of such a soil are more than sufficient to counterbalance its barrenness: the inhabitants are sober, industrious, vigorous; and consequently courageous, so far as courage depends on bodily strength[*]. The disadvantages of a fertile soil, on the contrary, are more than sufficient to counterbalance its advantages: the inhabitants are rendered indolent, weak, and cowardly. Hindostan may seem to be an exception; for though it be extremely fertile, the people however are industrious, and export manufactures in great abundance at a very low price. But Hindostan properly is not an exception. The Hindows, who are prohibited by their religion to kill any living creature, must abandon to animals for food a large proportion of land; which obliges them to cultivate what remains with double industry, in order to procure food for themselves. The populousness of their country contributes also to make them industrious. Arragon was once the most limited monarchy in Europe, England not excepted: the barrenness of the soil was the cause, which rendered the people hardy and courageous. In a preamble to one of their laws, the states declare, that were they not more free than other nations, the barrenness of their country would tempt them to abandon it. Opposed to Arragon stands Egypt, the fertility of which renders the inhabitants soft and effeminate, and consequently an easy prey to every invader[†]. The fruitfulness of the province of Quito in Peru, and the low price of every necessary, occasioned by its distance from the sea, have plunged the inhabitants into supine indolence, and excessive luxury. The people of the town of Quito in particular have abandoned themselves to every sort of debauchery. The time they have to spare from wine and women is employed in excessive gaming. In other respects also the manners of a people are influenced by the country they inhabit. A great part of Calabria, formerly populous and fertile, is at present covered with trees and shrubs, like the wilds of America; and the ferocity of its inhabitants correspond to the rudeness of the fields. The same is visible in the inhabitants of Mount Etna in Sicily: the country and its inhabitants are equally rugged.

SKETCH VIII.
Progress and Effects of LUXURY.

THE wisdom of Providence is in no instance more conspicuous than in adjusting the constitution of man to his external circumstances. Food is extremely precarious in the hunter-state; sometimes superabounding with little fatigue, sometimes failing after great fatigue. A savage, like other animals of prey, has a stomach adjusted to that variety: he can bear a long fast; and gorges voraciously when he has plenty, without being the worse for it. Whence it is, that barbarians, who have scarce any sense of decency, are great and gross feeders[*]. They are equally addicted to drunkenness; and peculiarly fond of spirituous liquors. Drinking was a fashionable vice in Greece, when Menander, Philemon, and Diphilus, wrote, if we can rely on the translations or imitations of those writers by Plautus and Terence. Diodorus Siculus reports, that in his time the Gauls, like other barbarians, were much addicted to drinking. The ancient Scandinavians, who, like other savages, were intemperate in eating and drinking, swallowed large cups to their gods, and to such of their countrymen as had fallen bravely in battle. We learn from the 25th fable of the Edda, which was their sacred book, that to hold much liquor was reputed an heroic virtue. Coatarini the Venetian ambassador, who wrote ann. 1473, says, that the Russians were abandoned to drunkenness; and that the whole race would have been extirpated, had not strong liquors been discharged by the sovereign. The Kamskatkans love fat; and a man entertains his guests by cramming into their mouths fat slices of a seal, or a whale, cutting off with his knife what hangs out.

A habit of fasting long, acquired as above in the hunter-state, made meals in the shepherd-state less frequent than at present, though food was at hand. Anciently people fed but once a-day, a fashion that continued even after luxury was indulged in other respects. In the war of Xerxes against Greece, it was pleasantly said of the Abderites, who were burdened with providing for the King's table, that they ought to thank the gods for not inclining Xerxes to eat twice a-day. Plato held the Sicilians to be gluttons for having two meals a-day. Arrian[a] observes, that the Tyrrhenians had a bad habit of two meals a-day. In the reign of Henry VI. the people of England fed but twice a-day. Hector Boyes, in his history of Scotland, exclaiming against the growing luxury of his cotemporaries, says, that some persons were so gluttonous as to have three meals a-day.

Luxury undoubtedly, and love of society, tended to increase the number of meals beyond what nature requires. On the other hand, there is a cause that abridged the number for some time, which is, the introduction of machines. Bodily strength is essential to a savage, being his only tool; and with it he performs wonders. Machines have rendered bodily strength of little importance; and as men labour less than originally, they eat less in proportion[*]. Listen to Hollinshed the English historian upon that article: "Heretofore there hath been much more time spent in eating and drinking than commonly is in these days; for whereas of old we had breakfasts in the forenoon, beverages or nuntions after dinner, and thereto rear suppers when it was time to go to rest; now these odd repasts, thanked be God, are very well left, and each one contenteth himself with dinner and supper only." Thus, before cookery and luxury crept in, a moderate stomach, occasioned by the abridging bodily labour, made eating less frequent than formerly. But the motion did not long continue retrograde: good cookery, and the pleasure of eating in company, turned the tide; and people now eat less at a time, but more frequently.

Feasts in former times were carried beyond all bounds. William of Malmsbury, who wrote in the days of Henry II. says, "That the English were universally addicted to drunkenness, continuing over their cups day and night, keeping open house, and spending the income of their estates in riotous feasts, where eating and drinking were carried to excess, without any elegance." People who live in a corner imagine, that every thing is peculiar to themselves: what Malmsbury says of the English, is common to all nations, in advancing from the selfishness of savages to a relish for society, but who have not yet learned to bridle their appetites. Leland[b] mentions a feast given by the Archbishop of York at his installation, in the reign of Edward IV. The following is a specimen: 300 quarters of wheat, 300 tons of ale, 100 tons of wine, 1000 sheep, 104 oxen, 304 calves, 304 swine, 2000 geese, 1000 capons, 2000 pigs, 400 swans, 104 peacocks, 1500 hot venison pasties, 4000 cold, 5000 custards hot and cold. Such entertainments are a picture of manners. At that early period, there was not discovered in society any pleasure but that of crouding together in hunting and feasting. The delicate pleasures of conversation, in communicating opinions, sentiments, and desires, were to them utterly unknown. There appeared, however, even at that early period, a faint dawn of the fine arts. In such feasts as are mentioned above, a curious desert was sometimes exhibited, termed SUTTEITIE, viz. paste moulded into the shape of animals. On a saint's day, angels, prophets, and patriarchs were set on the table in plenty. A feast given by Trivultius to Lewis XII. of France, in the city of Milan, makes a figure in Italian history. No fewer than 1200 ladies were invited; and the Cardinals of Narbon and St. Severin, with many other prelates, were among the dancers. After dancing followed the feast, to regulate which there were no fewer employed than 160 masterhouseholds. Twelve hundred officers, in an uniform of velvet, or satin, carried the victuals, and served at the side-board. Every table, without distinction, was served with silver plate, engraved with the arms of the landlord; and, beside a prodigious number of Italian lords, the whole court, and all the household of the King, were feasted. The bill of-fare of an entertainment given by Sir Watkin Williams Wynn to a company of 1500 persons, on his coming of age, is a sample of ancient English hospitality, which appears to have nothing in view but crouding and cramming merely. The following passage is from Hollinshed: "That the length and sumptuousness of feasts formerly in use, are not totally left off in England, notwithstanding that it proveth very beneficial to the physicians, who most abound where most excess and misgovernment of our bodies do appear." He adds, that claret, and other French wines, were despised, and strong wines only in request. The best, he says, were to be found in monasteries; for "that the merchant would have thought his soul would go straightway to the devil, if he should serve monks with other than the best." Our forefathers relished strong wine, for the same reason that their forefathers relished brandy. In Scotland, sumptuous entertainments were common at marriages, baptisms, and burials. In the reign of Charles II. a statute was thought necessary to confine them within moderate bounds.

Of old, there was much eating, with little variety: at present, there is great variety, with more moderation. From a houshold-book of the Earl of Northumberland, in the reign of Henry VIII. it appears, that his family, during winter, fed mostly on salt meat, and salt fish; and with that view there was an appointment of 160 gallons of mustard. On flesh-days through the year, breakfast for my Lord and Lady was a loaf of bread, two manchets, a quart of beer, a quart of wine, half a chine of mutton, or a chine of beef boiled. On meagre days, a loaf of bread, two manchets, a quart of beer, a quart of wine, a dish of butter, a piece of salt fish, or a dish of buttered eggs. During lent, a loaf of bread, two manchets, a quart of beer, a quart of wine, two pieces of salt fish, six bacon'd herring, four white herring, or a dish of sproits. There was as little variety in the other meals, except on festival-days. That way of living was at the time high luxury: a lady's waitingwoman at present w uld never have done with grumbling at such a table. We learn from the same book, that the Earl had but two cooks for dressing victuals to more than two hundred domestics. In those days, hen, chicken, capon, pigeon, plover, partridge, were reckoned such delicacies, as to be prohibited except at my Lord's table[c].

But luxury is always creeping on, and delicacies become more familiar. Hollinshed observes, that white meats, milk, butter, and cheese, formerly the chief food of his countrymen, were in his time degraded to be the food of the lower sort; and that the wealthy fed upon flesh and fish. By a roll of the King of Scotland's household-expence, anno 1378, we find, that the art of gelding cattle was known. The roll is in Latin, and the gelt hogs are termed porcelli eunuchi. Mention is also made of chickens, which were not common on English tables at that time. Olive oil is also mentioned.

In this progress, cooks, we may believe, came to make a figure. Hollinshed observes, that the nobility, rejecting their own cookery, employ'd as cooks musical-headed Frenchmen and strangers, as he terms them. He says, that even merchants, when they gave a feast, rejected butcher's meat as unworthy of their tables; having jellies of all colours, and in all figures, representing flowers, trees, beasts, fish, fowl, and fruit. Henry Wardlaw Archbishop of St. Andrew's, observing the refinements in cookery introduced by James I. of Scotland, who had been eighteen years a prisoner in England, exclaimed against the abuse in a parliament held at Perth 1433: he obtained a law, restraining superfluous diet; and prohibiting the use of baked meat to any under the degree of gentlemen, and permitting it to gentlemen on festival-days only; which baked meat, says the bishop, was never before seen in Scotland. The peasants in Sicily regale themselves with ice during summer. They say, that a scarcity of snow would be more grievous to them than a scarcity of corn, or of wine. Such progress has luxury made, even among the populace. People of fashion in London and in Paris, who employ their whole thoughts on luxurious living, would be surprised to be told, that they are still deficient in that art. In order to advance luxury of the table to the ACME of perfection, there ought to be a cook for every dish, as there was in ancient Egypt a physician for every disease.

Barbarous nations, being great eaters, are fond of large joints of meat: and love of show retains great joints in fashion, even after meals become more moderate: a wild boar was roasted whole for a supper-dish to Antony and Cleopatra; and when stuffed with poultry and wild-fowl, it was a favourite dish at Rome, termed the Trojan boar, in allusion to the Trojan horse. The hospitality of the Anglo-Saxons was sometimes exerted in roasting an ox whole. Great joints are left off gradually, as people become more and more delicate in eating. In France, great joints are less in use than formerly; and in England, the voluminous surloin of roast beef, formerly the pride of the nation, is now in polite families relegated to the side-board. In China, where manners are carried to a high degree of refinement, dishes are composed entirely of minced meat.

In early times, people were no less plain in their houses than in their food. Toward the end of the sixteenth century, when Hollinshed wrote, the people of England were beginning to build with brick and stone. Formerly houses were made of posts wattled together, and plaistered with clay to keep out the cold: the roof was straw, sedge, or reed. It was an observation of a Spaniard in Queen Mary's days, "These English have their houses of sticks and dirt, but they fare as well as the King." Hollinshed mentioning multitudes of chimnies lately erected, observes, upon the authority of some old men, that in their younger days there were not above two or three, if so many, in most uplandish towns of the realm, religious houses and manor-places of their lords excepted; but that each made his fire against a rere-dosse in the hall, where he dined, and dressed his meat. From Lord Northumberland's household-book, it would seem, that grates were unknown at that time, and that they burnt their coal upon the hearth: a certain sum is allotted for purchasing wood; because, says the book, coals will not burn without it. There is also a certain sum allotted for purchasing charcoal, that the smoke of the sea-coal might not hurt the arras. In the fourteenth century, the houses of private persons in Paris, as well as in London, were of wood. The streets of Paris, not being paved, were covered with mud; and yet for a woman to travel those streets in a cart, was held an article of luxury, and as such prohibited by Philip the Fair. Paris is enlarged two thirds since the death of Henry IV. tho' at that time it was perhaps not much less populous than at present.

They were equally plain in their household-furniture. While money was scarce, servants got land instead of wages. An old tenure in England binds the vassal to find straw for the King's bed, and hay for his horse. From Lord Northumberland's household-book, mentioned above, it appears, that the linen allowed for a whole year amounted to no more than seventy ells; of which there were to be eight table-cloths (no napkins) for his Lordship's table, and two towels for washing his face and hands. Pewter vessel was prohibited to be hired, except on Christmas, Easter, St. George's day, and Whitsunday. Hollinshed mentions his conversing with old men who remarked many alterations in England within their remembrance; that their fathers, and they themselves formerly, had nothing to sleep on but a straw pallat, with a log of timber for a pillow; a pillow, said they, being thought meet only for a woman in childbed; and that if a man in seven years after marriage could purchase a flock-bed, and a sack of chaff to rest his head upon, he thought himself as well lodged as the lord of the town; who, peradventure, lay seldom on a bed entirely of feathers. Another thing they remarked, was change of household-vessel from timber plates into pewter, and from wooden spoons into tin or silver.

Nor were they less plain in their dress. By an act of parliament in Scotland, anno 1429, none were permitted to wear silk or costly furs, but knights and lords of 200 merks yearly rent. But luxury in dress advanced so fast, that by another act, anno 1457, the same dress was permitted to aldermen, bailies, and other good worthy men within burgh. And by a third act, anno 1471, it was permitted to gentlemen of L. 100 yearly rent. By a sumptuary law in Scotland, anno 1621, cloth of gold and silver, gold and silver lace, velvet, satin, and other silk stuffs, were prohibited, except to noblemen, their wives and children, to lords of parliament, prelates, privy counsellors, lords of manors, judges, magistrates of towns, and to those who have 6000 merks of yearly rent. Such distinctions, with respect to landed rent especially, are invidious; nor can they ever be kept up. James, the first British monarch, was, during infancy, committed to the care of the Dowager-Countess of Mar, who had been educated in France, The King being seized with a cholic in the nighttime, his household servants flew to his bed-chamber, men and women, naked as they were born; the Countess alone had a smock.

During the reign of Edward III. the imports into England were not the seventh part of the exports. Our exports at that time were not the seventh part of our present exports; and yet our luxury is such, that with all our political regulations, it is with difficulty that the balance of trade is preserved in our favour.

Men in different ages differ widely in their notions of luxury: every new object of sensual gratification, and every indulgence beyond what is usual, are commonly termed luxury; and cease to be luxury when they turn habitual. Thus, every historian, ancient and modern, while he inveighs against the luxury of his own times, wonders at former historians for characterising as luxury what he considers as conveniencies merely, or rational improvements. Hear the Roman historian, talking of the war that his countrymen carried on successfully against Antiochus King of Syria: "Luxuriae enim peregrinae origo ab exercitu Asiatico invecta urbem est. Ii primum lectos aeratos, vestem stragulam pretiosam, plagulas et alia textilia, et quae tum magnificae supellectilis habebantur, monopodia et abacos Romam advexerunt. Tunc psaltriae, sambusistriaeque, et convivalia Iudionum oblectamenta addita epulis▪ epulae quoque ipsae et cura et sumptu majore adparari coeptae: tum coquus, vilissimum antiquis mancipium estimatione et usu, in pretio esse; et, quod ministerium fuerat, ars haberi coepta. Vix tamen illa, quae tum conspiciebantur, femina erant futurae luxuriae[*] [d]." Household-furniture at Rome must at that period have been exceedingly plain, when a carpet and a one-footed table were reckoned articles of luxury. When the gelding of bulls and rams was first practised, it was probably considered as abominable luxury. Galvanus Fiamma, who in the fourteenth century wrote a History of Milan, his native country, complains, that in his time plain living had given way to luxury and extravagance. He regrets the times of Frederic Barbarossa and Frederic II. when the inhabitants of Milan, a great capital, had but three flesh meals in a week, when wine was a rarity, when the better sort made use of dried wood for candles, and when their shirts were of serge, linen being confined to persons of the highest rank. "Matters," says he, "are wonderfully changed: linen is a common wear: the women dress in silk, ornamented frequently with gold and silver; and they wear gold pendants at their ears." An historian of the present times would laugh at Fiamma, for stating as articles of luxury what are no more but decent for a tradesman and his wife. John Musso, a native of Lombardy, who also wrote in the fourteenth century, declaims against the luxury of his time, and particularly against the luxury of the citizens of Placentia, his countrymen. "Luxury of the table," says he, "of dress, of houses and household-furniture, in Placentia, begun to creep in after the year 1300. Houses have at present halls, rooms with chimneys, porticos, wells, gardens, and many other conveniencies unknown to our ancestors. A house that has now many chimneys, had none in the last age. The fire was placed in the middle of the house, without any vent for the smoke but the tiles: all the family sat round it, and the victuals were dressed there. The expence of household-furniture is ten times greater than it was sixty years ago. The taste for such expence comes to us from France, from Flanders, and from Spain. Eating-tables, formerly but twelve inches long, are now grown to eighteen. They have table-cloths, with cups, spoons, and forks, of silver, and large knives. Beds have silk coverings and curtains. They have got candles of tallow or wax, in candlesticks of iron or copper. Almost every where there are two fires, one for the chamber and one for the kitchen. Confections have come greatly in use, and sensuality regards no expence." Hollinshed exclaims against the luxury and effeminacy of his time. "In times past," says he, "men were contented to dwell in houses builded of sallow, willow, plumtree, or elm; so that the use of oak was dedicated to churches, religious houses, princes palaces, noblemens lodgings, and navigation. But now these are rejected, and nothing but oak any whit regarded. And yet see the change; for when our houses were builded of willow, then had we oaken men; but now that our houses are made of oak, our men are not only become willow, but many, thro' Persian delicacy crept in among us, altogether of straw, which is a fore alteration. In those days, the courage of the owner was a sufficient defence to keep the house in safety; but now, the assurance of the timber, double doors, locks and bolts, must defend the man from robbing. Now have we many chimneys, and our tenderlings complain of rheums, catarrhs, and poses. Then had we none but rere-dosses, and our heads did never ake. For as the smoke in those days was supposed to be a sufficient hardening for the timber of the house; so it was reputed a far better medicine to keep the goodman and his family from the quack or pose, wherewith very few were then acquainted." Not many years above fifty, French wine, in the Edinburgh taverns, was presented to the guests in a small tin vessel, measuring about an English pint. A single drinking-glass served a company the whole evening; and the first persons who insisted for a clean glass with every new pint were accused of luxury. A knot of highlanders benighted, wrapped themselves up in their plaids, and lay down on the snow to sleep. A young gentleman making up a ball of snow, used it for a pillow. His father[e], striking away the ball with his foot, "What, Sir," says he, "are you turning effeminate?" Crantz, describing the kingdom of Norway, and the manners of the people, has the following reflection. "Robustissimus educat viros, qui, nulla frugum luxuria moliti, saepius impugnant alios quam impugnantur[*]." In the mountainous island of Rum, one of the western islands of Scotland, the corn produced serves the inhabitants but a few months in winter. The rest of the year they live on flesh, fish, and milk; and yet are healthy and long-lived. In the year 1768, a man died there, aged 10•, who was 50 years old before he ever tasted bread. This old man frequently harangued upon the plain fare of former times, finding fault with his neighbours for indulging in bread; and upbraiding them with their toiling like slaves for the production of such an unnecessary article of luxury.

Thus every one exclaims against the luxury of the present times, judging more favourably of the past; as if what is luxury at present, would cease to be luxury when it becomes customary. What is the foundation of a sentiment so universal? In point of dignity, corporeal pleasures are the lowest of all that belong to our nature: and for that reason, persons of delicacy dissemble the pleasure they take in eating and drinking[f]. When corporeal pleasure is indulged to excess, it is not only low, but mean. But as in judging of things that admit of degrees, comparison is the ordinary standard, every refinement in corporeal pleasure beyond what is customary, is held to be an excess, blameable as below the dignity of human nature. Thus every improvement in living is pronounced to be luxury while recent, and drops that character when it comes into common use. For the same reason, what is moderation in the capitol, is esteemed luxury in a country town. Doth luxury then depend entirely on comparison? is there no other foundation for distinguishing moderation from excess? This will hardly be maintained.

This subject is thrown into obscurity by giving different meanings to the term luxury. A French writer holds every sort of food to be luxury, but raw flesh and acorns, which were the original food of savages; and every sort of covering to be luxury but skins, which were their original cloathing. According to that definition, the plough, the spade, the loom, are all of them instruments of luxury; and in that view he justly extols luxury to the skies. Let every man enjoy the privilege of giving his own meaning to words: at the same time, when a man deviates so far from their usual meaning, the neglect to define them is inexcusable. In common language, and in common apprehension, luxury always implies a faulty excess; and upon that account is condemned by all writers, such only excepted as affect to be singular.

This is clearly one branch of the definition of luxury. Another is, that the excess must be habitual: a single act of intemperance, however faulty, is not denominated luxury: reiteration must be so frequent as to become a confirmed habit.

Nor are these particulars all that enter into the definition of luxury. There are many pleasures, however intemperate or habitual, that are not branded with that odious name. Mental pleasure, such as arises from sentiment or reasoning, falls not within the verge of luxury, to whatever excess indulged. If to relieve merit in distress be luxury, it is only so in a metaphorical sense: nor is it deemed luxury in a damsel of fifteen to peruse love-novels from morning to evening. Luxury is confined to the external senses: nor does it belong to every one of these; the fine arts have no relation to luxury. A man is not even said to be luxurious, merely for indulging in dress, or in fine furniture. Hollinshed inveighs against drinking-glasses as an article of luxury. At that rate, a house adorned with fine pictures or statues would be an imputation on the proprietor. Thus passing in review every pleasure of external sense, we find, that in proper language the term luxury is not applicable to any pleasure of the eye or ear. That term is confined to the pleasures of taste, touch, and smell, which appear as existing at the organ of sense, and upon that account are held to be merely corporeal[g].

Having thus circumscribed our subject within its proper bounds, the important point that remains to be ascertained is, Whether we have any rule for determining what excess in corporeal pleasure may justly be denominated faulty. About that point we are at no loss. Though our present life be a state of trial, yet our Maker has kindly indulged us in every pleasure that is not hurtful to the mind, or to the body; and therefore it can only be hurtful excess that falls under the censure of being luxurious. It is faulty as a transgression of self-duty; and as such it is condemned by the moral sense. The most violent declaimer against luxury will not affirm, that bread is luxury, or a snow-ball used for a pillow; for these are innocent, because they do no harm. As little will it be affirmed, that dwelling-houses more capacious than those originally built ought to be condemned as luxury, since they contribute to chearfulness as well as to health. The plague, some centuries ago, made frequent visits in London, promoted by air stagnating in narrow streets, and small houses. After the great fire anno 1666, the houses and streets were enlarged, and the plague has not once been known in London.

Man consists of soul and body, so intimately connected, that the one cannot be at ease while the other suffers. In order to have "mens sana in corpore sano," it is necessary to study the health of both: bodily health supports the mind; and nothing tends more than chearfulness to support the body, even under a disease. To preserve this complicated machine in order, certain exercises are proper for the body, and certain for the mind; which ought never to encroach the one on the other. Much motion and bodily exercise tend to make us robust; but in the mean time the mind is starved: much reading and reflection sortify the mind, but in the mean time the body is starved. Nor is this all: excess in either is destructive to both; for exercise too violent, whether of mind or body, wears the machine. Indolence, on the other hand, relaxes the machine, and renders it weak or languid. Bodily indolence breeds the gout, the gravel, and many other diseases: nor is mental indolence less pernicious, for it breeds peevishness and pusillanimity. Thus health both of mind and body is best preserved by moderate exercise. And hence a general proposition, That every indulgence in corporeal pleasure, which favours either too violent or too languid exercise, whether of mind or body, is hurtful, and consequently is luxury in its proper sense. It is scarce necessary to be added, that every such indulgence is condemned by the moral sense; for every man can bear testimony of this from what he himself feels.

Too great indulgence in corporeal pleasure seldom prompts violent exercise; but instances are without number of its relaxing even that moderate degree of exercise which is healthful both to mind and body. This in particular is the case of too great indulgence in eating or drinking: such indulgence creates an habitual appetite, which demanding more than nature requires, loads the stomach, depresses the spirits, and brings on a habit of listlessness and inactivity, which renders men cowardly and effeminate[*]. And what does the epicure gain by such excess? In the grandest palace the master occupies not a greater space than his meanest domestic; and brings to his most sumptuous feast perhaps less appetite than any of his guests. Satiety withal makes him lose the relish even of rarities, which afford to others a poignant pleasure. What enjoyment then have the opulent above others? Let them bestow their riches in making others happy: such benevolence will double their own happiness, first, in the direct act of doing good; and next, in reflecting upon the good they have done, the most delicate of all feasts.

Had the English continued Pagans, they would have invented a new deity to preside over cookery. I say it with regret, but must say it, that a luxurious table, covered with every dainty, seems to be their favourite idol. A minister of state never withstands a feast; and the link that unites those in opposition is, the cramming one another[†]. I shall not be surprised to hear, that the cramming a mistress has become the most fashionable mode of courtship. That sort of luxury is not unknown in their universities; and it is perhaps the only branch of education that seldom proves abortive. It has not escaped observation, that between the years 1740 and 1770 no fewer than six mayors of London died in office, a greater number than in the preceding 500 years: such havock doth luxury in eating make among the sons of Albion. How different the manners of their forefathers! Bonduca their Queen, ready to engage the Romans in a pitched battle, encouraged her army with a pathetic speech, urging in particular the following consideration: "The great advantage we have over them is, that they cannot, like us, bear hunger, thirst, heat, nor cold. They must have fine bread, wine, and warm houses: every herb and root satisfies our hunger; water supplies the want of wine; and every tree is to us a warm house[h] [*]."

The indulging in down-beds, soft pillows, and easy seats, is a species of luxury, because it tends to enervate the body, and to render, it unfit for fatigue. Some London ladies employ an operator for pairing their nails. Two young women of high quality, who were sisters, employed a servant with soft hands to raise them gently out of bed in a morning. Nothing less than all-powerful vanity can make such persons submit to the fatigues of a toilet: how can they ever think of submitting to the horrid pangs of child-bearing? In the hot climates of Asia, people of rank are rubbed and chaffed twice a-day; which, beside being pleasant, is necessary for health, by moving the blood, in a hot country, where sloth and indolence prevail. The Greeks and Romans were curried, bathed, and oiled, daily; though they had not the same excuse for that practice: it was luxury in them, though not in the Asiatics.

With respect to exercise, the various machines that have been invented for executing every sort of work, render bodily strength of less importance than formerly. This change is favourable to mental operations, without hurting bodily health. The travelling on horseback, though a less vigorous exertion of strength than walking, is not luxury, because it is a healthful exercise. I dare not say so much for wheel-carriages: a spring-coach, rolling along a smooth road, gives no exercise; or so little, as to be preventive of no disease: it tends to enervate the body, and in some measure also the mind. The increase of wheel-carriages within a century is a pregnant proof of the growth of luxurious indolence. During the reign of James I. the English judges rode to Westminster on horseback, and probably did so for many years after his death. Charles I. issued a proclamation, prohibiting hackney-coaches to be used in London, except by those who travel at least three miles out of town. At the restoration, Charles II. made his public entry into London on horseback, between his two brothers, Dukes of York and Gloucester. We have Rushworth for our voucher, that in London, not above a hundred years ago, there were but twenty hackney-coaches; which at the same time did not ply on the streets, but were kept at home till called for. He adds, that the King and Council published a proclamation against them, because they raised the price of provender upon the King, nobility, and gentry. At present, one thousand hackney-coaches ply on the streets of London, beside a great number of stage-coaches for travelling from London to all parts of the kingdom. The first coach with glasses in France was brought from Brussels to Paris, anno 1650, by the Prince of Condé. Sedanchairs were not known in England before the year 1634. Cookery and coaches have reduced the military spirit of the English nobility and gentry to a languid state: the former, by overloading the body, has infected them with dispiriting ailments; the latter, by fostering ease and indolence, have banished labour, the only antidote to such ailments. Too great indulgence in the fine arts consumes part of that time which ought to be employed on the important duties of life: but the fine arts, even when too much indulged, produce one good effect, which is, to soften and humanize our manners: nor do they harm the body, if they relax not that degree of exercise which is necessary for supporting it in health and vigour.

The enervating effects of luxury upon the body are, above all, remarkable in war. The officers of Alexander's army were soon tainted with Asiatic manners. Most of them, after bathing, had servants for rubbing them, and, instead of plain oil, used precious ointments. Leonatus, in particular, commissioned from Egypt the powder he used when he wrestled, which loaded several camels. Alexander reproved them mildly: "I wonder that men who have undergone such fatigues in war, are not taught by experience, that labour produces sweeter and sounder sleep than indolence. To be voluptuous, is an abject and slavish state. How can a man take care of his horse, or keep his armour bright, who disdains to employ his own hands upon what is dearest to him, his own body[i]?"

When we attend to the mind singly, manifold are the pernicious effects of luxury. Corporeal pleasures, being all of them selfish, tend, when much indulged, to make selfishness the leading principle. Voluptuousness, accordingly, relaxing every sympathetic affection brings on a beastly selfishness, which leaves nothing of man but the external figure. Luxury, beside, renders the mind so effeminate, as to be subdued by every distress: the slightest pain, whether of mind or body, is a real evil: and any higher degree becomes a severe torture. The French are far gone in that disease. Pictures of deep distress, which attract English spectators, are, to the French, insupportable: their aversion to pain overcomes the attractive power of sympathy, and debars from the slage every distress that makes a deep impression on the heart. The British are gradually sinking into the same weakness of mind: Venice Preserved collects not such numbers as it did originally; and would scarce be endured at present, were not our sympathy blunted by familiarity: a new play upon a similar plan would not take. The gradual decay of manhood in Britain appears from their funeral rites. Formerly the deceased were attended to the grave by relations and friends of both sexes, and the day of their death was preserved in remembrance with solemn lamentations, as the day of their birth was, with exhilerating cups. In England a man was first relieved from attending his deceased wise to the grave, and afterward from attending his deceased children; and now such effeminacy of mind prevails there, that instantly upon the least groan, the deceased, abandoned by every relation, is delivered to an undertaker by profession, who is left at leisure to mimick the funeral rites. In Scotland, such refinement has not yet taken place: a man is indeed excused from attending his wife to the grave; but he performs that duty in person to every other relation, his children not excepted. I am told, that people of high fashion in England begin to leave the care of their sick relations to hired nurses, and think they do their duty in making short visits from time to time.

Hitherto I have considered Luxury with respect to those only who are infected with it; and did its poisonous effects spread no wider, the case perhaps would be the less deplorable. But unhappily, where luxury prevails, the innocent suffer with the guily. A man of oeconomy, whether a merchant or manufacturer, lays up a stock for his children, and adds useful members to the state. A man, on the contrary, who lives above his fortune, or his profits, accustoms his children to luxury, and abandons them to poverty when he dies. Luxury, at the same time, is a great enemy to population: it enhances the expence of living, and confines many to the bachelor-state. Luxury of the table, in particular, is remarkable for that effect: "L'homme riche met toute sa gloire à consommer, toute sa grandeur à perdre en un jour à sa table plus de biens qu'il n'en faudroit pour faire subsister plusieurs familles. Il abuse également et des animaux et des hommes; dont le reste demeure affamé, languit dans la misére, et ne travaille que pour satisfaire, à l'appétit immodéré, et à la vanité encore plus insatiable, de cet homme; qui detruisant les autres par la disette, se detruit lui-même par les exces[k] [*]."

To consider luxury in a political view, no refinement of dress, of the table, of equipage, of habitation, is luxury in those who can afford the expence; and the public gains by the encouragement that is given to arts, manufactures, and commerce. But a mode of living above a man's annual income, weakens the state, by reducing to poverty, not only the squanderers themselves, but many innocent and industrious persons connected with them. Luxury is above all pernicious in a commercial state. A person of moderation is satisfied with small profits: not so the luxurious, who despise every branch of trade but what returns great profits: other branches are ingrossed by foreigners, who are more frugal. The merchants of Amsterdam, and even of London, within a century, lived with more oeconomy than their clerks do at present. Their country houses and gardens make not the greatest articles of their expence. At first, a merchant retires to his country-house, on Sundays only and holydays: but beginning to relish indolent retirement, business grows irksome, he trusts all to his clerks, loses the thread of his affairs, sees no longer with his own eyes, and is now in the high way to perdition. Every cross accident makes him totter; and in labouring circumstances he is tempted to venture all, in hopes of re-establishment. He falls at last to downright gaming; which, setting conscience aside, is a prudent measure: he risks only the money of his creditors, for he himself has nothing to lose: it is now with him,
"Caesar aut nihil[†]."
Such a man never falls without involving many in his ruin.

The bad effects of luxury, above displayed, are not the whole, nor indeed the most destructive. In all times, luxury has been the ruin of every state where it prevailed. But that more important branch of the subject is reserved to particular sketches, where it will make a better figure.

In the savage state, man is almost all body, with a very small proportion of mind. In the maturity of civil society, he is complete both in mind and body. In a state of degeneracy by luxury and voluptuousness, he has neither mind nor body[*].

Notes

a
Montesquieu.
↵

b
Exod. xxii. 2.
↵

*
Many animals are remarkable for cleanliness. Beavers are so, and so are cats. This must be natural. Tho' a taste for cleanliness is not remarkable in dogs, yet, like men, they learn to be cleanly.
↵

*
The plague, pestilential severs, and other putrid diseases, were more frequent in Europe formerly than at present; especially in great cities, where multitudes were crowded together in small houses, and narrow streets. Paris, in the days of Henry IV. occupied not the third part of its present space, and yet contained nearly the same number of inhabitants; and in London the houses are much larger, and the streets wider, than before the great fire, 1666. There is also a remarkable alteration in point of diet. Formerly, people of rank lived on salt meat the greater part of the year: at present, fresh meat is common all the year round. Potherbs and roots are now a considerable article of food: about London, in particular, the consumption at the Revolution was not the sixth part of what it is now. Add the great consumption of tea and sugar, which I am told by physicians to be no inconsiderable antiseptics. But the chief cause of all is cleanliness, which is growing more and more universal, especially in the city of London. In Constantinople, putrid diseases reign as much as ever; not from unhealthiness in the climate, but from the narrowness and nastiness of the streets.
↵

c
Elements of Criticism, chap. 10.
↵

d
Epist. 432.
↵

*
Till the year 1760, there was not a privy in Madrid, tho' it is plentifully supplied with water. The ordure, during night, was thrown from the windows into the street, where it was gathered into heaps. By a royal proclamation, privies were ordered to be built. The inhabitants, tho' long accustomed to an arbitrary government, resented this proclamation as an infringement of the common rights of mankind, and struggled vigorously against it. The physicians were the most violent opposers: they remonstrated, that if the filth was not thrown into the streets, a fatal sickness would ensue; because the putrescent particles of air, which the filth attracted, would be imbibed by the human body.
↵

e
Lib. 3. cap. 4.
↵

f
Procopii Historia Vandalica, lib. 2.
↵

g
Chap. 2. part 6.
↵

*

Quotiens bella non ineunt, non multum venatibus; plus per otium transigunt, dediti somno, ciboque. Fortissimus quisque ac bellicosissimus nihil agens, delegata domus et penatium et agrorum cura feminis senibusque, et infirmissimo cuique ex familia, ipsi hebent; mira diversitate naturae, cum iidem homines sic ament inertiam, et oderint quietem.
Tacitus, De moribus Germanorum, cap. 15.—[In English thus: "While not engaged in war, they do not often spend their time in hunting, but chiefly in indolence, minding nothing but their sleep and food. The bravest and most warlike among them, having nothing to do, pass the time in a sluggish stupidity, committing the care of the house, the family, and the culture of the lands, to women, old men, and to the most weakly. Such is the wonderful diversity of their nature, that they are at once the most indolent of beings, and the most impatient of rest."]

↵

h
Book 2. sketch 1.
↵

i
Odyssey, book 23.
↵

k
Book 6. & 7.
↵

l
Book 10.
↵

m
Odyssey, book 15.
↵

n
Odyssey, book 19. & 20.
↵

*
Pope, judging it below the dignity of Achilles to act the butcher, suppresses that article, imposing the task upon his two friends. Pope, it would appear, did not consider, that from a lively picture of ancient manners proceeds one of the capital pleasures we have in perusing Homer.
↵

o
See sketch 3.
↵

p
See Historical Law-tracts, tract 1.
↵

q
See this more fully handled, book 2. sketch 1.
↵

r
Book 6. of the Iliad.
↵

s
Iliad, book 6
•

↵

t
Book 15.
↵

u
Book 22.
↵

x
2 Samuel, xii. 29.
↵

y
l. 1. Cod. cap. De patria potestate.
↵

z
l. 10. eod.
↵

*
It required the ferocity and cruelty of a barbarous age to give currency to a Mahometan doctrine, That the sword is the most effectual means of converting men to a dominant religion. The establishment of the Inquisition will not permit me to say, that Christians never put in practice a doctrine so detestable: on the contrary, they surpass the Mahometans, giving no quar er to heretics, either in this life, or in that to come. The eternity of hell torments is a doctrine no less inconsistent with the justice of the Deity, than with his benevolence.
↵

*
The present Empress has laid an excellent foundation for civilizing her people, which is a Code of laws, founded on principles of civil liberty, banishing slavery and torture, and expressing the utmost regard for the life, property, and liberty, of all her subjects, high and low. Peter I. reformed many bad customs: but being rough in his own manners, he left the manners of his people as he found them. If this Empress happens to enjoy a long and prosperous reign, she may possibly accomplish the most difficult of all undertakings, that of polishing her people. No task is too arduous for a woman of such spirit.
↵

a
Book 4.
↵

*

C'est de cet esclavage de negres, que les Crèoles tirent peut-être en partie un certain caractere, qui les fait paroitre bizarres, santasques, et d'une société peu goûtée en Europe. A peine peuvent-ils marcher dans l'enfance, qu'ils voient autour d'eux des hommes grands et robustes, destinés à deviner, à prevenir leur volonte. Ce premier coup d'oeil doit leur donner d'eux-mémes Popinion la plus extravagante. Rarement exposés a trouver de la résistance dans leurs fantaisies même injustes, ils prennent un esprit de présomption. de tyrannie, et de mépris extrême, pour une grande portion du genre humain. Rien n'est plus insolent que l'homme que vit presque toujours avec ses inferieurs; mais quand ceuxci sont des esclaves, accoutumées à servir des enfans, à craindre jusqu' à des cris qui doivent leur attirer des châtimens; que peuvent devenir des maîtres qui n'ont jamais obéi, des méchans qui n'ont jamais été punis, des foux qui mettent des hommes à la chaîne?
Histoire Philosophique et Politique des Etablissemens des Européens dans les Deux Indes, l. 4. p. 201.—[In English thus: "It is from this slavery of negroes, that the Creoles derive, in a great measure, that character which makes them appear capricious and fantastical, and of a style of manners which is not relished in Europe. Scarcely have the children learned to walk, when they see around them tall and robust men, whose province it is to guess their inclinations, and to prevent their wishes. This first observation must give them the most extravagant opinion of themselves. From being seldom accustomed to meet with any opposition, even in their most unreasonable whims, they acquire a presumptuous and tyrannical disposition, and entertain an extreme contempt for a great part of the human race. None is so insolent as the man who lives almost always with his inferiors; but when these inseriors are slaves, accustomed to serve insants, and to fear even their crying, for which they must suffer punishment, what can be expected of those masters who have never obeyed, profligates who have never met with chastisement, and madmen who load their fellow-creatures with chains?"]

↵

*
In England, slavery subsisted so late as the sixteenth century. A commission was issued by Queen Elizabeth, anno 1574, for enquiring into the lands and goods of all her bondmen and bondwomen in the counties of Cornwall, Devon, Somerset, and Gloucester, in order to compound with them for their manumission or freedom, that they might enjoy their own lands and goods as freemen.
↵

b
Julius Capitolinus, in the Life of Albinus.
↵

c
Socrates, Hist. Eccl. lib. 5. cap. 18.
↵

*

Corpus Christi tenentes in manibus, (says the canon), ac si dicerent, Quid mihi vultis dare, et ego eum vobis tradam?
—[In English thus: "Holding the body of Christ in their hands, as if they said, What will you give me for this?"]

↵

d
Act of Sederunt, 21st February, 1663.
↵

e
Gen. xliii. 34.
↵

f
Odyssey, b. 8. v. 513. b. 15. v. 156.
↵

g
Odyssey, b. 8. v. 519.
↵

h
Odyssey, b. 2.
↵

i
See 17th & 18th books of the Odyssey.
↵

*
Such kindliness in an enemy from whom nothing is expected but mischief, is an illustrious instance of humanity And a similar instance will not make the less figure that it was done by a man of inferior rank. When Mons. Thurot, during our late war with France; appeared on the coast of Scotland with three armed vessels, the terror he at first spread soon yielded to admiration inspired by his humanity. He paid a rull price for every thing he wanted; and in general behaved with so much affability, that a countryman ventured to complain to him of an officer who had taken from him fifty or sixty guineas. The officer acknowledged the fact; but said, that he had divided the money among his men. Thurot ordered the officer to give his bill for the money, which, he said, should be stopped out of his pay, if they were so fortunate as to return to France. Compare this incident with that of the great Scipio, celebrated in Roman story, who restored a beautiful bride to the bridegroom, and it will not suffer by the comparison. Another instance is no less remarkable. One of his officers gave a bill upon a merchant in France, for the price of provisions purchased by him. Thurot having accidentally seen the bill, informed the countryman that it was of no value, reprimanded the officer bitterly for the cheat, and compelled him to give a bill upon a merchant who he knew would pay the money. At that very time, Thurot's men were in bad humour, and were disposed to mutiny. In such circumstances, would not Thurot have been excused, for winking at a fraud to which he was not accessary? But he acted all along with the strictest honour, even at the hazard of a mutiny. Common honesty to an enemy is not a common practice in war. Thurot was strictly honest in circumstances that made the exertion of common honesty an act of the highest magnanimity. These incidents ought to be held up to princes as examples of true heroism. War carried on in that manner would, from desolation and horror, be converted into a fair-field for acquiring true military glory, and for exercising every manly virtue. I feel the greatest satisfaction in paying this tribute of praise to the memory of that great man. He will be kept in remembrance by every true-hearted Briton. tho' he died fighting against us But he died in the field of honour, fighting for his country.
↵

*
The populace of Spain, too low game for the inquisition, are abundantly chearful, perhaps more so than those of France.
↵

*

Postquam divitiae honori esse coeperent, et eas gloria, imperium, potentia sequebatur; hebescere virtus, paupertas probro haberi, innocentia pro malevolentia duci, coepit, Igitur ex divitiis juventutem luxuria, atque avaritia, cum superbia invasere.
Sallust. Bell. Cat. c. 12.—[In English thus: "After it had become an honour to be rich, and glory, empire, and power, became the attendants of riches, virtue declined apace, poverty was reckoned disgraceful, and innocence was held secret malice. Thus to the introduction of riches our youth owe their luxury, their avarice, and pride."]

↵

i
About L. 150,000 Sterling.
↵

*
"In two days he completed the affair, by the means of one slave, a gladiator. He sent for him, and by promises, wheedling, and large gifts, he gained his point. Good God, to what an infamous height has corruption at length arrived! Some judges were rewarded with a night's lodging of certain ladies; and others, for an illustrious bribe, had some young boys of Noble family introduced to them."
↵

k
Lib. 1. epist 13.
↵

k
Lib. 3. cap. 11.
↵

*
Manners and fashions seldom change, where women are locked up.
↵

l
De Moribus Germanorum, cap. 24.
↵

*
"For their last throw, they stake their liberty and life."
↵

m
Mr. Macpherson.
↵

*
In the Isle of Sky, the ruins of the castle of Dunscaich, upon an inaccessible rock hanging over the sea, are still visible. That castle, as vouched by tradition, belonged to Cuchullin, Lord of that Isle, whose history is recorded in the Poem of Fingal. Upon the green before the castle there is a great stone, to which, according to the same tradition, his dog Luath was chained.
↵

n
Lathmon.
↵

*
Love of fame is a laudable passion, which every man values himself upon. Fame in war is acquired by courage and candour, which are esteemed by all: it is not acquired by fighting for spoil, because avarice is despised by all. The spoils of an enemy were displayed at a Roman triumph, not for their own sake, but as a mark of victory. When nations at war degerate from love of fame to love of gain, stratagem, deceit, breach of faith, and every sort of immorality, are never-failing consequences.
↵

o
Lathmon.
↵

p
The death of Cuchullin.
↵

q
Temora.
↵

*
Several of Ossian's heroes are described as fighting in cars. The Britons in general fought in that manner. Britanni dimicant non equitatu modo, aut pedite, verum et bigis et curribus. (Pomponius Mela, l. 3.)—[In English thus: "The Britons fight, not only with cavalry, or foot, but also with cars and chariots."]
↵

r
Berrathon.
↵

t
Fingal.
↵

u
Calthon and Colmar.
↵

x
Fingal.
↵

y
Lathmon.
↵

z
Lathmon.
↵

a
Lathmon.
↵

b
Lathmon.
↵

c
Croma.
↵

d
Fingal.
↵

e
Lathmon.
↵

g
Temora.
↵

h
Croma.
↵

i
Carthon.
↵

k
Temora.
↵

l
Carrie-thura.
↵

m
Calthon and Colmal.
↵

n
Fingal, book 3.
↵

o
Fingal, book 6.
↵

p
Berrathon.
↵

q
Temora.
↵

r
Calthon and Colmal.
↵

s
Fingal, book 1.
↵

t
Temora.
↵

u
Temora.
↵

x
Temora.
↵

y
Temora.
↵

z
Fingal, book 4.
↵

a
Fingal, book 5.
↵

b
Fingal, book 5.
↵

c
Fingal, book 5.
↵

d
Fingal, book 5.
↵

e
Carthon.
↵

f
Lathmon.
↵

g
Fingal, book 1.
↵

h
Fingal, book. 1.
↵

i
Croma.
↵

k
Lathmon.
↵

l
Pomponius Mela. Ammianus Marcellinus.
↵

*
"It is reported, that the Gauls frequently lent money to be paid back in the infernal regions, from a firm persuasion that the souls of men were immortal. I would have called them fools, if those wearers of breeches had not thought the same as Pythagoras who were a cloak."
↵

m
Lib. 2.
↵

n
Lib. 5.
↵

o
De beilo Africo.
↵

*
"The Gauls are of an open temper, not at all insidious; and in fight they rely on valour, not on stratagem."
↵

p
Lib. 3.
↵

q
Lib. 4.
↵

†

" You too, ye bards! whom sacred raptures fire,

" To chant your heroes to your country's lyre;

" Who consecrate in your immortal strain,

" Brave patriot souls, in righteous battle slain.

" Securely now the tuneful task renew,

" And noblest themes in deathless songs pursue."

ROWE.

↵

r
Diodorus Siculus, lib. 5. Athenaeus, lib. 13.
↵

*
"They made no distinction of sex in conferring authority."
↵

s
Vita Agricolae, cap. 16.
↵

†
"The Britons even followed women as leaders in the field."
↵

t
Annalium lib. 14.
↵

u
Athenaeus, lib. 10.
↵

x
Lib. 15.
↵

*
Polydore Virgil says, ‘Hiberni sunt musicae peritissimi.’—[in English thus: "The Irish are most skilful in music."—Ireland was peopled from Britain; and the music of that country must have been derived from British bards. The Welsh bards were the great champions of independence; and in particular promoted an obstinate resistance to Edward I. when he carried his arms into Wales. And hence the tradition, that the Welsh bards were all slaughtered by that King.
↵

y
Saxo Grammaticus.
↵

d
Paulus Diaconus.
↵

e
Nicolaus Damascenus.
↵

f
Saxo Grammaticus.
↵

g
Book 1.
↵

h
Olaus Magnus.
↵

i
Procopius, Historia Gothica, lib. 2.
↵

*
The expression of Tacitus is beautiful: "Ad matres, ad conjuges, vulnera serunt: nec illae numerare aut exsugere plagas pavent: cibosque et hortamina pugnantibus gestant."—[In English thus: "When wounded, they find physicians in their mothers and wives, who are not afraid to count and suck their wounds. They carry provisions for their sons and husbands, and animate them in battle by their exhortations."]
↵

†
"They believe that there is something sacred in their character, and that they have a foresight of futurity: for this reason their counsels are always respected; nor are their opinions ever disregarded."
↵

k
Lib. I. cap. 2.
↵

l
Historia Gothica, lib. 3.
↵

m
Book 18.
↵

n
Doctor Blair, professor of Rhetoric in the college of Edinburgh.
↵

*
That a barren country is a great spur to industry, appears from Venice and Genoa in Italy. Nuremberg in Germany, and Limoges in France. The sterility of Holland required all the industry of its inhabitants for procuring the necessaries of life; and by that means chiefly they become remarkably industrious. Cambden ascribes the success of the town of Halifax in the clothmanufacture, to its barren soil.
↵

†
Fear, impressed by strange and unforeseen accidents, is the most potent cause of superstition. What then made the ancient Egyptians so superstitious? No other country is less liable to strange and unforeseen accidents: no thunder, scarce any rain, perfect regularity in the seasons, and in the rise and fall of the river. So little notion had the Egyptians of variable weather as to be surprised that the rivers of Greece did not overflow like the Nile. They could not comprehend how their fields were watered: rain, they said, was very irregular; and what if Jupiter should take a conceit to send them no rain? The fertility of the soil, and the inaction of the inhabitants during the inundation of the river, enervated both mind and body, and rendered them timid and pusillanimous. Superstition was the offspring of this character, as it is of strange and unforeseen accidents in other countries.
↵

*
In the Iliad of Homer, book. 9 Agamemnon calls a council at night in his tent. Before entering on business. they go to supper, (line 122.). An embassy to Achilles is resolved on. The ambassadors again sup with Achilles on pork-griskins, (line 271.) Achilles rejects Agamemnon's offer; and the same night Ulysses and Diomed set out on their expedition to the Trojan camp: returning before day, they had a third supper.
↵

a
Lib. 4. cap. 16.
↵

*
Before fire-arms were known, people gloried in address and bodily strength, and commonly fought hand to hand. But violent exercises becoming less and less necessary, went insensibly out of fashion.
↵

b
Cellectanea.
↵

c
Household-book above mentioned.
↵

*
"For the Asiatic soldiers first introduced into Rome the foreign luxury. They first brought with them beds ornamented with brazen sculptures, painted coverings, curtains and tapestry, and what were then esteemed magnificent furniture, side-boards, and tables with one foot. Then to the luxury of our feasts were added singing girls, female players on the lute, and morris-dancers: greater care and expence were bestowed upon our entertainments: the cook, whom our foresathers reckoned the meanest slave, became now in high esteem and request; and what was formerly a servile employment was now exalted into a science All these however scarcely deserve to be reckoned the seeds or buds of the luxury of after-times."
↵

d
Tit. Liv. lib. 39. cap. 6.
↵

e
Sir Evan Cameron.
↵

*
"It produces a most robust race of men, who are enervated by no luxury of food, and are more prone to attack and harass their neighbours than subjected to their attacks."
↵

f
Elements of Criticism, vol. 1. p. 356. edit. 5.
↵

g
See Elements of Criticism, Introduction.
↵

*
Luxury and selfishness render men cowards. People who are attached to riches, and sensual pleasure, cannot think of abandoning them without horror. A virtuous man considers himself as placed here in order to obey the will of his Maker: he performs his duty, and is ready to quit his post upon the first summons.
↵

†
This was composed in the year 1770.
↵

h
Dion Cassius.
↵

*
Providence has provided the gout as a beacon on the rock of luxury to warn against it. But in vain: during distress, vows of temperance are made: during the intervals, these vows are forgot. Luxury has gained too much ground in this island to be restrained by admonition.
↵

i
Plutarch.
↵

k
Buffon.
↵

*
"The sole glory of the rich man is, to consume and destroy; and his grandeur consists in lavishing in one day, upon the expence of his table, what would procure subsistence for many families. He abuses equally animals and his fellow creatures; a great part of whom, a prey to famine, and languishing in misery, labour, and toil, to satisfy his immoderate desires, and insatiable vanity; who, destroying others by want, destroys himself by excess.".
↵

†
"Caesar or nothing.
↵

*
In ancient Egypt, execution against the person of a debtor was prohibited. Such a law could not obtain but among a temperate people, where bankruptcy happens by misfortune, and seldom by luxury or extravagance.
↵

SKETCHES OF THE HISTORY OF MAN.
BOOK II.
Progress of MEN in SOCIETY.

PREFACE.

IN treating of this subject, no opportunity has been omitted of suggesting an important doctrine, That patriotism is the corner-stone of civil society; that no nation ever became great and powerful without it; and, when extinguished, that the most powerful nation is in the high-way to contempt and dissolution. But it is sufficient for me to suggest facts: the reader will have frequent opportunities to make the observation; and he will value his own reflections more than what are inculcated by an author, were he even to ascend the pulpit, and at every turn to pronounce a serious harangue.

SKETCH I.
Appetite for SOCIETY.—Origin of NATIONAL SOCIETIES.

THAT there is in man an appetite for society, never was called in question[*]. But to what end the appetite serves, whether it be in any manner limitted, and how far men are naturally fitted for being useful members of civil society, and for being happy in it, are questions that open extensive views into human nature, and yet have been little attended to by writers. I grieve at the neglect, because the present enquiry requires an answer to these questions, however abstruse.

As many animals, beside man, are social, it appeared to me probable, that the social laws by which such animals are governed, might open views into the social nature of man. But here I met with a second disappointment: for after perusing books without end, I found very little satisfaction; though the laws of animal society make the most instructive and most entertaining part of natural history. A few dry facts, collected occasionally, enabled me to form the embryo of a plan, which I here present to the reader: if his curiosity be excited, 'tis well; for I am far from expecting that it will be gratified.

Animals of prey have no appetite for society, if the momentary act of copulation be not excepted. Wolves make not an exception, even where, instigated by hunger, they join in attacking a village: as fear prevents them singly from an attempt so hazardous, their casual union is prompted by appetite for food, not by appetite for society. So little of the social is there in wolves, that if one happens to be wounded, he is put to death, and devoured by those of his own kind. Vultures have the same disposition. Their ordinary food is a dead carcase; and they never venture but in a body to attack any living creature that appears formidable. Upon society happiness so much depends, that we do not willingly admit a lion, a tyger, a bear, or a wolf, to have any appetite for society. And in with-holding it from such animals, the goodness of Providence to its favourite man, is conspicuous: their strength, agility, and voracity, make them singly not a little formidable: I should tremble for the human race, were they disposed to make war in company[*].

Such harmless animals as cannot defend themselves singly, are provided with an appetite for society, that they may defend themselves in a body. Sheep are remarkable in that respect, when left to nature: a ram seldom attacks; but the rams of a flock exert great vigour in defending their females and their young[*]. The whole society of rooks join in attacking a kite when it hovers about them. A family of wild swine never separate till the young be sufficiently strong to defend themselves against the wolf; and when the wolf threatens, they all join in a body. The pecary is a sort of wild hog in the isthmus of Darien: if one of them be attacked, the rest run to assist it. There being a natural antipathy between that animal and the American tyger, it is not uncommon to find a tyger slain with a number of dead pecaries round him.

The social appetite is to some animals useful, not only for desence, but for procuring the necessaries of life. Society among beavers is a notable instance of both. As water is the only refuge of that innocent species against an enemy, they instinctively make their settlement on the brink of a lake or of a running stream. In the latter case, they keep up the water to a proper height by a dam-dike, constructed with so much art as to withstand the greatest sloods: in the former, they save themselves the labour of a dam-dike, because a lake generally keeps at the same height. Having thus provided for defence, their next care is to provide food and habitation. The whole society join in erecting the dam-dike; and they also join in erecting houses. Each house has two apartments: in the upper there is space for lodging from six to ten beavers: the under holds their provisions, which are trees cut down by united labour, and divided into small portable parts[a]. Bees are a similar instance. Aristotle[b] says, "that bees are the only animals which labour in common, have a house in common, eat in common, and have their offspring in common." A single bee would be still less able than a single beaver to build a house for itself and for its winter-food. The Alpine rat or marmount has no occasion to store up food for winter, because it lies benumbed without motion all the cold months. But these animals live in tribes; and each tribe digs a habitation under ground with great art, sufficiently capacious for lodging the whole tribe; covering the ground with withered grass, which some cut, and others carry. The wild dogs of Congo and Angola hunt in packs, waging perpetual war against other wild beasts. They bring to the place of rendezvous whatever is caught in hunting; and each receives its share[*]. The baboons are social animals, and avail themselves of that quality in procuring food; witness their address in robbing an orchard, described by Kolben in his account of the Cape of Good Hope. Some go into the orchard, some place themselves on the wall, the rest form a line on the outside, and the fruit is thrown from hand to hand, till it reach the place of rendezvous. Extending the enquiry to all known animals, we find that the appetite for society is with-held from no species to which it is necessary, whether for defence or for food. It appears to be distributed by weight and measure, in order to accommodate the internal frame of animals to their external circumstances.

On some animals an appetite for society is bestowed, though in appearance not necessary either for defence or for food. With regard to such, the only final cause we can discover is the pleasure of living in society. That kind of society is found among horses. Outhier, one of the French academicians employed to measure a degree of the meridian toward the north pole, reports, that at Torneo all bulky goods are carried in boats during summer; but in winter, when the rivers are frozen, and the ground covered with snow, that they use sledges drawn by horses; that when the snow melts, and the rivers are open, the horses, set loose, rendezvous at a certain part of the forest, where they separate into troops, and occupy different pasturefields; that when these fields become bare, they occupy new ground in the same order as at first; that they return home in troops when the bad weather begins; and that every horse knows its own stall. No creature stands less in need of society than a hare, whether for food or for defence. Of food, it has plenty under its feet; and for defence, it is provided both with cunning and swistness. Nothing however is more common in a moon-light night, than to see hares sporting together in the most social manner. But society for pleasure only, is an imperfect kind of society; and far from being so intimate, as where it is provided by nature for defence, or for procuring food[*].

With respect to the extent of the appetite, no social animal, as far as can be discovered, has an appetite for associating with the whole species. Every species is divided into many small tribes; and these tribes have no appetite for associating with each other: on the contrary, a stray sheep is thrust out of the flock, and a stray bee must instantly retire, or be stung to death. Every work of Providence contributes to some good end: a small tribe is sufficient for mutual defence; and a very large tribe would find difficulty in procuring subsistence.

How far brute animals are by nature fitted for being useful members of civil society, and for being happy in it, is a question that no writer hath so much as stumbled on. And yet, as that branch of natural history is also necessary to my plan, I must proceed; tho' I have nothing to lay before the reader but a few scattered observations, which occurred when I had no view of turning them to account. I begin with the instinctive conduct of animals, in providing against danger. When a flock of sheep, in the state of nature, goes to rest, centinels are appointed; who, on appearance of an enemy, stamp with the foot, and make a hissing sound; upon which all take the alarm: if no enemy appear, they watch their time, return to the slock, and send out others in their stead. And in flocks that have an extensive range in hilly countries, the same discipline obtains, even after domestication. Tho' monkies sleep upon trees, yet a centinel is always appointed, who must not sleep, under pain of being torn to pieces. They preserve the same discipline when they rob an orchard: a centinel on a high tree is watchful to announce the very first appearance of an enemy. M. Buffon, talking of a sort of monkey, which he terms Malbrouck, says, that they are fond of fruit, and of sugar-canes; and that while they are loading themselves, one is placed centinel on a tree, who, upon the approach of a man, cries, Houp! Houp! Houp! loudly and distinctly. That moment they throw away the sugar-canes that they hold in their left hand, and run off upon three feet. When the marmounts are at work in the field, one is appointed to watch on a high rock; which advertises them, by a loud whistle, when it sees a man, an eagle, or a dog. Among beavers, notice is given of the approach of an enemy, by lashing the water with the tail, which is heard in every habitation. Scale always sleep on the beach; and to prevent surprise, centinels are placed round at a considerable distance from the main body. Wild elephants, which always travel in company, are less on their guard in places unfrequented: but when they invade cultivated fields, they march in order, the eldest in the front, and the next in age closing the rear. The weak are placed in the centre, and the females carry their young on their trunk. They attack in a body; and upon a repulse, retire in a body. Tame elephants retain so much of their original nature, that if one, upon being wounded, turns its back, the rest instantly follow. Next in order is the government of a tribe, and the conduct of its members to each other. It is not unlikely, that society among some animals, and their mutual affection, may be so entire as to prevent all discord among them; which indeed seems to be the case of beavers. Such a society, if there be such, requires no government, nor any laws. A flock of sheep occupies the same spot every night, and each hath its own resting-place. The same is observable in horned cattle when folded. And as we find not, that any one ever attempts to dislodge another, it is probable that such restraint makes a branch of their nature. But society among brute animals is not always so perfect. Perverse inclinations, tending to disturb society, are visible among some brute animals, as well as among rational men. It is not uncommon for a rook to pilfer sticks from another's nest; and the pilferer's nest is demolished by the lex talionis. Perverse inclinations require government, and government requires laws. As in the case now mentioned, the whole society join in inflicting the punishment, government among rooks appears to be republican. Apes, on the contrary, are under monarchical government. Apes in Siam go in troops, each under a leader, who preserves strict discipline. A female carnally inclined, retired from the troop, and was followed by a male. The male escaped from the leader, who pursued them; but the female was brought back, and in presence of the whole troop received fifty blows on the cheek, as a chastisement for its incontinence[c]. But probably there are not many instances, among brutes, of government approaching so near to that of men. Government among horned cattle appears to have no other end but to preserve order. Their government is monarchical; and the election is founded upon personal valour, the most solid of all qualifications in such a society. The bull, who aspires to be lord of the herd, must fight his way to preferment; and after all his rivals are beat off the field, the herd tamely submit. At the same time he is not secured in the throne for life; but must again enter the lists with any bull that ventures to challenge him. The same spirit is observable among oxen, though in a lower degree. The master-ox leads the rest into the stable, or into the fold, and becomes unruly if he be not let first out: nay, he must be first yoked in the plough or waggon. Sheep are not employed in work, but in every other respect the same oeconomy obtains among them. Where the rams happen to be few, in proportion to the other sheep, they sometimes divide the flock among them, instead of fighting for precedence. Five or six score of sheep were purchased a few years ago by the author of this work. The rams, who were only two, divided the flock between them. The two parcels could not avoid pasturing in common, because they were shut up in one inclosure: but they had different spots for rest during night; nor was it known, that a sheep ever deserted its party, or even changed its restingplace. In the two species last mentioned, I find not that there is any notion of punishment; nor does it appear to be necessary: the leader pretends to nothing but precedence, which is never disputed. I blush to present these impersect hints, the fruit of casual observation, not of intentional enquiry: but I am glad to blow the trumpet, in order to raise curiosity in others: if the subject be prosecuted by men of taste and enquiry, many final causes, I am persuaded, will be discovered, tending more and more to display the wisdom and goodness of Providence. But what I have chiefly in view at present is, to observe, that government among brute animals, however simple, appears to be perfect in its kind; and adapted with great propriety to their nature. Factions in the state are unknown: no enmity between individuals, no treachery, no deceit, nor any other of those vices that infest the human race. In a word, they appear to be perfectly well fitted for that kind of society to which they are prompted by their nature, and for being happy in it.

Storing up the foregoing observations till there be occasion for them, we proceed to the social nature of man. That men are endued with an appetite for society, will be vouched by the concurring testimony of all men, each vouching for himself. There is accordingly no instance of people living in a solitary state, where the appetite is not obstructed by some potent obstacle. The inhabitants of that part of New Holland which Dampier saw, live in society, though less advanced above brutes than any other known savages; and so intimate is their society, that they gather their food, and eat, in common. The inhabitants of the Canary islands lived in the same manner, when first seen by Europeans, which was in the fourteenth century; and the savages mentioned by Condamine, drawn by a Jesuit from the woods to settle on the banks of the Oroonoko, must originally have been united in some kind of society, as they had a common language. In a word, that man hath an appetite for food, is not more certain than that he hath an appetite for society. And here I have occasion to apply one of the observations made above. Abstracting altogether from the pleasure we have in society, similar to what we have in eating; evident it is, that to no animal is society more necessary than to man, whether for food or for defence. In society, he is chief of the terrestrial creation; in a solitary state, the most helpless and forlorn. Thus the first question suggested above, viz. To what end was a social appetite bestowed on man, has received an answer, which I flatter myself will give satisfaction.

The next question is, Whether the appetite be limited, as among other animals, to a society of moderate extent; or whether it prompts an associaation with the whole species. That the appetite is limited, will be evident from history. Men, as far back as they can be traced, have been divided into small tribes or societies. Most of these, it is true, have, in latter times, been united into large states: such revolutions however have been brought about, not by an appetite for a more extensive society, but by conquest, or by the junction of small tribes for defence against the more powerful. A society may indeed be too small for complete gratification of the appetite; and the appetite thus cramped welcomes every person into the society till it have sufficient scope: the Romans, a diminutive tribe originally, were fond to associate even with their enemies after a victory. But, on the other hand, a society may be too large for complete gratification. An extensive empire is an object too bulky: national affection is too much diffused; and the mind is not at ease till it finds a more contracted society, corresponding to the moderation of its appetite. Hence the numerous orders, associations, fraternities, and divisions, that spring up in every great state. The ever-during Blues and Greens in the Roman empire, and Guelphs and Gibelines in Italy, could not have long subsisted after the cause of their enmity was at an end, but for a tendency in the members of a great state to contract their social connections[*]. Initiations among the ancients were probably owing to the same cause; as also associations of artisans among the moderns, pretending mystery and secrecy, and excluding all strangers. Of such associations or brotherhoods, the free masons excepted, there is scarce now a vestige remaining.

We find now, after an accurate scrutiny, that the social appetite in man comprehends not the whole species, but a part only; and commonly a small part, precisely as in other animals. Here another final cause starts up, no less remarkable than that explained above. An appetite to associate with the whole species would form states so unwieldy by numbers, as to be incapable of any government. Our appetite is wisely confined within such limits as to form states of moderate extent, which of all are the best fitted for good government; and we shall see afterward that they are also the best fitted for improving the human powers, and for envigorating every manly virtue. Hence an instructive lesson, That a great empire is ill suited to human nature, and that a great conqueror is in more respects than one an enemy to mankind.

The limiting our social appetite within moderate bounds suggests another final cause. An appetite to associate with the whole species would collect into one society all who are not separated from each other by wide seas and inaccessible mountains; and consequently would distribute mankind into a very few societies, consisting of such multitudes as to reduce national affection to a mere shadow. Nature hath wisely limited the appetite in proportion to our mental capacity. Our relations, our friends, and our other connections, open an extensive field for the exercise of affection: nay, our country in general, if not too extensive, would alone be sufficient to engross our whole affection. But that beautiful speculation falls more properly under the principles of morality; and there it shall not be overlooked.

What comes next in order, is to examine how we stand affected to those who are not of our tribe or society. I pave the way to this examination, by taking up man naked at his entrance into life. An infant at first has no feeling but bodily pain; and it is familiarized with its nurse, its parents, and perhaps with others, before it is susceptible of any passion. All weak animals are endowed with a principle of fear, which prompts them to shun danger; and fear, the first passion discovered in an infant, is raised by every new face: the infant shrinks and hides itself in the bosom of its nurse[*] [d]. Thus every stranger is an object of fear to an infant; and consequently of aversion, which is generated by fear. Fear lessens gradually as our circle of acquaintance enlarges, especially in those who rely on bodily strength. Nothing tends more effectually to dissipate fear, than consciousness of security in the social state: in solitude, no animal is more timid than man; in society, none more bold. But remark, that aversion may subsist after fear is gone: it is propagated from parents to their children through an endless succession; and is infectious like a disease. Thus enmity is kept up between tribes, without any particular cause. A neighbouring tribe, constantly in our sight, and capable to hurt us, is the object of our strongest aversion: it lessens in proportion to distance; and terminates in absolute indifference with respect to very distant tribes. Upon the whole, it appears, that the nature of man with respect to those of his own kind is resolvable into the following particulars. First, Affection for our private connections, and for our country in general. Second, Aversion to neighbours who are strangers to us, and to neighbouring tribes in general. Third, Indifference with respect to all others.

As I neither hope nor wish, that the nature of man, as above delineated, be taken upon my authority, I propose to verify it by clear and substantial facts. But to avoid the multiplying instances unnecessarily, I shall confine myself to such as concern the aversion that neighbouring tribes have to each other; taking it for granted, that private affection, and love to our country, are what no person doubts of. I begin with examples of rude nations, where nature is left to itself, without culture. The inhabitants of Greenland, good-natured and inoffensive, have not even words for expressing anger or envy: stealing among themselves is abhorred; and a young woman guilty of that crime, has no chance for a husband. At the same time, they are faithless and cruel to those who come among them: they consider the rest of mankind as a different race, with whom they reject all society. The morality of the inhabitants of New Zealand is not more refined. Writers differ about the inhabitants of the Marian or Ladrone islands: Magellan, and other voyagers, say, that they are addicted to thieving: and their testimony occasioned these islands to be called Ladrones. Pere le Gobien, on the contrary, says, that, far from being addicted to thieving, they leave every thing open, having no distrust one of another. These accounts differ in appearance, not in reality. Magellan was a stranger; and he talks of stealing from him and from his companions. Father Gobien lived long among them, and talks of their fidelity to each other. Plan Carpin, who visited Tartary in the year 1246, observes of the Tartars, that, though full of veracity to their neighbours, they thought themselves not bound to speak truth to strangers. The Greeks anciently were held to be pirates: but not properly; for they committed depredations upon strangers only. Caesar, speaking of the Germans[e], says, "Latrocinia nullam habent infamiam quae extra fines cujusque civitatis fiunt[*]." This was precisely the case of our highlanders, till they were brought under due subjection after the rebellion 1745. Bougainville observes, that the inhabitants of Otaheite, named by the English, King-George's island, made no difficulty of stealing from his people; and yet never steal among themselves, having neither locks nor bars in their houses. The people of Benin in Negroland are good-natured, gentle, and civilized; and so generous, that if they receive a present, they are not at ease till they return it double. They have unbounded confidence in their own people; but are jealous of strangers, though they politely hide their jealousy. Russian peasants think it a greater sin to eat meat in Lent, than to murder one of another country. Among the Koriacs, bordering on Kamskatka, murder within the tribe is severely punished; but to murder a stranger is not minded. While Rome continued a small state, neighbour and enemy were expressed by the same word[f]. In England of old, a foreigner was not admitted to be a witness. Hence it is that, in ancient history, we read of wars without intermission among small states in close neighbourhood. It was so in Greece; it was so in Italy during the infancy of the Roman republic; it was so in Gaul, when Caesar commenced hostilities against that country[g]; and it was so all the world over. Many islands in the South sea, and in other remote parts, have been discovered by Europeans; who commonly found the natives with arms in their hands, resolute to prevent the strangers from landing. Orellana, lieutenant to Gonzales Pisarro, was the first European who sailed down the river Amazon to the sea. In his passage, he was continually assaulted with arrows from the banks of the river; and some even ventured to attack him in their canoes.

Nor does such aversion wear away even among polished people. An ingenious writer[h] remarks, that almost every nation hate their neighbours, without knowing why. I once heard a Frenchman swear, says that writer, that he hated the English, parce qu'ils versent du beurre fondu sur leur veau roti[*]. The populace of Portugal have to this day an uncommon aversion to strangers: even those of Lisbon, though a trading town frequented by many different nations, must not be excepted. Travellers report, that the people of the duchy of Milan, remarkable for good-nature, are the only Italians who are not hated by their neighbours. The Piedmontese and Genoese have an aversion to each other, and agree only in their antipathy to the Tuscans. The Tuscans dislike the Venetians; and the Romans abound not with good-will to the Tuscans, Venetians, or Neapolitans. Very different is the case with respect to distant nations: instead of being objects of aversion, their manners, customs, and singularities, amuse us greatly[*].

Infants differ from each other in aversion to strangers; some being extremely shy, others less so; and the like difference is observable in whole tribes. The people of Milan cannot have any aversion to their neighbours, when they are such favourites of all around them. The inhabitants of some Southsea islands, mentioned above[i], appear to have little or no aversion to strangers. But that is a rare instance, and has scarce a parallel in any other part of the globe. It holds also true, that nations the most remarkable for patriotism, are equally remarkable for aversion to strangers. The Jews, the Greeks, the Romans, were equally remarkable for both. Patriotism, a vigorous principle among the English, makes them extremely averse to naturalize foreigners. The inhabitants of New Zealand, both men and women, appear to be of a mild and gentle disposition; they treat one another with affection: but are implacable to their enemies, and never give quarter. It is even customary among them to eat the flesh of their enemies.

To a person of humanity, the scene here exhibited is far from being agreeable. Man, it may be thought, is of all animals the most barbarous; for even animals of prey are innoxious with respect to their own kind[*]. Aversion to strangers makes a branch of our nature: it exists among individuals in private life; it flames high between neighbouring tribes; and is visible even in infancy. Can such perversity of disposition promote any good end? This question, which pierces deep into human nature, is reserved to close the present sketch.

From the foregoing deduction, universal benevolence, inculcated by several writers as a moral duty, is discovered to be erroneous. Our appetite for society is limitted, and our duty must be limitted in proportion. But of this more directly when the principles of morality are taken under consideration.

We are taught by the great Newton, that attraction and repulsion in matter are, by alteration of circumstances, converted one into the other. This holds also in affection and aversion, which may be termed, not improperly, mental attraction and repulsion. Two nations, originally strangers to each other, may, by commerce, or other favourable circumstance, become so well acquainted, as to change from aversion to affection. The opposite manners of a capital and of a country-town afford a good illustration. In the latter, people, occupied with their domestic concerns, are in a manner strangers to each other: a degree of aversion prevails, which gives birth to envy and detraction. In the former, a court, with public amusements, promote general acquaintance: repulsion yields to attraction, and people become fond to associate with their equals. The union of two tribes into one, is another circumstance that converts repulsion into attraction. Such conversion, however, is far from being instantaneous; witness the different small states of Spain, which were not united in affection for many years after they were united under one monarch; and this was also the case of the two kingdoms of England and Scotland. In some circumstances the conversion is instantaneous; as where a stranger becomes an object of pity or of gratitude. Many low persons in Britain contributed chearfully for maintaining some French seamen, made prisoners at the commencement of the late war. It is no less instantaneous, when strangers, relying on our humanity, trust themselves in our hands. Among the ancients, it was hospitality to strangers only that produced mutual affection and gratitude: Glaucus and Diomede were of different countries. Hospitality to strangers is a pregnant symptom of improving manners. Caesar, speaking of the Germans[k], says, "Hospites violare, fas non putant: qui, qua-qua de causa, ad eos venerunt, ab injuria prohibent, sanctosque habent; iis omnium domus patent, victusque communicatur[*]." The ancient Spaniards were fond of war, and cruel to their enemies; but in peace, they passed their time in singing and dancing, and were remarkably hospitable to the strangers who came among them. It shews great refinement in the Celtae, that the killing a stranger was capital, when the killing a citizen was banishment only[l]. The Swedes and Goths were eminently hospitable to strangers; as indeed were all the northern nations of Europe[m]. The negroes of Fouli are celebrated by travellers as extremely kind to strangers. The native Brazilians are singularly hospitable. A stranger no sooner arrives among them than he is surrounded with women, who wash his feet, and set before him to eat the best things they have. If a stranger have occasion to go more than once to the same village, the person whose guest he was takes it much amiss if he thinks of changing his lodging.

There are causes that for a time suspend enmity between neighbouring states. The small states of Greece, among whom war had no end, frequently smothered their enmity to join against the formidable monarch of Persia. There are also causes that suspend for a time all animosity between factions in the same state. The endless factions in Britain about power and pre-eminence, not a little disagreeable during peace, are laid asleep during a foreign war.

On the other hand, attraction is converted into repulsion by various causes. One is, the splitting a great monarchy into many small states; of which the Assyrian, the Persian, the Roman, and the Saracen empires, are instances. The amor patriae, faint in an extensive monarchy, readily yields to aversion, operating between two neighbouring states, less extensive. This is observable between neighbouring colonies even of the same nation: the English colonies in North America, though they retain some affection for their mother-country, have contracted an aversion to each other. And happy for them is such aversion, if it prevent their uniting in order to acquire independency: wars without end would be the inevitable consequence, as among small states in close neighbourhood.

Hitherto the road has been smooth, without obstruction. But we have not yet finished our journey; and the remaining question, viz. How far are men fitted by their nature for being useful members of civil society, and for being happy in it, will, I suspect, lead into a road neither smooth nor free from obstruction. The social branch of human nature would be wofully imperfect, if man had an appetite for society without being fitted for that state; the appetite, instead of tending to a good end, would be his bane. And yet, whether he be or be not fitted for society, seems doubtful. In examining the conduct of man, he is to us a disgustful object in his aversion to those of a different tribe; and I violently suspect, that in his behaviour even to those of his own tribe, he will scarce be found an agreeable object. That he is fitted by nature for being an useful member of a social state, and for being happy in it, appears from facts many and various. I instance first, several corresponding principles or propensities, that cannot be exerted nor gratified but in society, viz. the propensities of veracity, and of relying on human testimony; appetite for knowledge, and desire to communicate knowledge; anxiety in distress to be pitied, and sympathy with the distressed; appetite for praise, and inclination to praise the deserving[†]. Such corresponding propensities not only qualify men for the social state as far as their influence reaches, but attract them sweetly into society for the sake of gratification, and make them happy in it. But this is not all, nor indeed the greater part. Do not benevolence, compassion, magnanimity, heroism, and the whole train of social affections, demonstrate our fitness for society, and our happiness in it? And justice, above all other virtues, promotes peace and concord in that state. Nor ought the faculty of speech to be overlooked, which in an eminent degree qualifies man for society, and is a plentiful source of enjoyment in it.

On the other hand, there are facts, not fewer in number, nor less various, tending to evince, that man is ill fitted for society, and that there is little happiness for him in it. What can be more averse to concord in society than dissocial passions? and yet these prevail among men. Are not envy, malice, revenge, treachery, deceit, avarice, ambition, &c. &c. noxious weeds that poison society? We meet every where persons bent on the destruction of others, evincing that man has no enemies more formidable than of his own kind, and of his own tribe. Are not discord and feuds the chief articles in the history of every state, factions violently bent against each other, and frequently breaking out into civil wars? Appian's history of the civil wars of Rome exhibits a horrid scene of massacres, proscriptions, and forfeitures; the leaders sacrificing their firmest friends, for liberty to suck the blood of their enemies; as if to shed human blood was the ruling passion of man. But the Romans were far from being singular: the polite Greeks, commonly so characterized, were still more brutal and bloody. The following passage is copied from a celebrated author[n]. "Not to mention Dionysius the elder, who is computed to have butchered in cold blood above 10,000 of his fellow-citizens; nor Agathocles, Nabis, and others, still more bloody than he; the transactions even in free governments were extremely violent and destructive. At Athens, the thirty tyrants, and the nobles, in a twelvemonth, murdered without trial about 1200 of the people, and banished above the half of the citizens that remained. In Argos, near the same time, the people killed 1200 of the nobles, and afterwards their own demagogues, because they had refused to carry their prosecutions farther. The people also in Corcyra killed 1500 of the nobles, and banished 1000. These numbers will appear the more surprising, if we consider the extreme smallness of those states. But all ancient history is full of such instances." Upon a revolution in the Saracen empire, ann. 750, where the Ommiyan family was expelled by that of the Abassians, Abdolah, chief of the latter, published an act of oblivion to the former, on condition of their taking an oath of allegiance to him. The Ommiyans, embracing the condition, were in appearance graciously received. But in preparing to take the oath, they were knocked down every one of them by the Emperor's guards. And fully to glut the monster's cruelty, these princes, still alive, were laid close together, and covered with boards and carpets; upon which Abdolah feasted his officers, "in order," said he, "that we may be exhilarated with the dying groans of the Ommiyans." During the vigour of the feudal system, when every man was a soldier who aspired to be a gentleman, justice was no defence against power, nor humanity against bloody resentment. Stormy passions raged every where with unrelenting fury; every place a chaos of confusion and distress. No man was secure but in his castle; and to venture abroad unless well armed, and well attended, would have been an act of high temerity. So little intercourse was there among the French in the tenth century, that an abbot of Clugni, invited by the Count of Paris to bring some monks to the abbey of St. Maur, near that city, excused himself for declining a journey through a strange and unknown country. In the history of Scotland, during the minority of James II. we find nothing but barbarous and cruel manners, depredations, burning of houses, bloodshed and massacre without end. Pitscottie says, that oppression, theft, sacrilege, ravishing of women, were but a dalliance. How similar to beasts of prey set loose against each other in the Roman Circus!

Men are prone to split into parties for the very slightest causes; and when a cause is wanting, parties are often formed upon words merely. Whig and Tory subsisted long in England, upon no better foundation. The Tories professed passive obedience; but declared, that they would not be slaves. The Whigs professed resistance; but declared it unlawful to resist unless to prevent the being madeslaves. Had these parties been disposed to unite, they soon would have discovered, that they differed in words only. The same observation is applicable to many religious disputes. One sect maintains, that we are saved by faith alone; another, that good works are necessary. The difference lies merely in words. The first acknowledges, that if a man commit sin, he cannot have faith; and consequently under faith are comprehended good works. The other acknowledges, that good works imply good intention, or, in other words, faith; and consequently, under good works faith is comprehended[o]. The following instance, solemnly ludicrous, is of parties formed merely from an inclination to differ, without any cause real or verbal. No people were less interested in the late war between the Queen of Hungary and the King of Prussia, than the citizens of Ravenna. They however split into two parties, which renounced all society with each other. After the battle of Rosbach, a leading partyman withdrew for a month, without once showing his face in public. But our catalogue is not yet complete. Differences concerning civil matters make no figure compared with what concerns religion. It is lamentable to observe, that religious sects resemble neighbouring states; the nearer they are to one another, the greater is their rancour and animosity. But as all histories are full of the cruelty and desolation occasioned by differences in religious tenets, I cannot bear to dwell longer upon such horrid scenes.

What conclusion are we to draw from the foregoing facts, so inconsistent in appearance with each other? I am utterly at a loss to reconcile them, otherwise than by holding man to be a compound of principles and passions, some social, some dissocial. Opposite principles or passions cannot at the same instant be exerted upon the same object[p]; but they may be exerted at the same instant upon different objects, and at different times upon the same object. This observation serves indeed to explain a seeming inconsistency in our nature, as being at one time highly social, and at another time no less dissocial: but it affords not a solution to the question, Whether, upon the whole, men be fitted for society, and for being happy in it. In order to a solution, we find it necessary to take a second view of the natural history of man.

In a nascent society, where men hunt and fish in common, where there is plenty of game, and where the sense of property is faint, mutual affection prevails, because there is no cause of discord; and dissocial passions find sufficient vent against neighbouring tribes. Such is the condition of the North-American savages, who continue hunters and fishers to this day; and such is the condition of all brute animals that live in society, as mentioned above. The island Otaheite is divided into many small cantons, having each a chief of its own. These cantons never make war on each other, tho' they are frequently at war with the inhabitants of neighbouring islands. The inhabitants of the new Philippine islands, if Father Gobien be credited, are better fitted for society than any other known nation. Sweetness of temper, and love to do good, form their character. They never commit acts of violence: war they have no notion of; and it is a proverb among them, That a man never puts a man to death. Plato places the seat of justice and of happiness among the first men; and among them existed the golden age, if it ever did exist. But when a nation, becoming populous, begins with rearing flocks and herds, proceeds to appropriate land, and is not satisfied without matters of luxury over and above; selfishness and pride gain ground, and become ruling and unruly passions. Causes of discord multiply, vent is given to avarice and resentment; and among a people not yet perfectly submissive to government, dissocial passions rage, and threaten a total dissolution of society: nothing indeed suspends the impending blow, but the unwearied, though silent, operation of the social appetite. Such was the condition of the Greeks at a certain period of their progress, as mentioned above; and such was the condition of Europe, and of France in particular, during the anarchy of the feudal system, when all was discord, blood, and rapine. In general, wherever avarice and disorderly passions bear rule, I boldly pronounce, that men are ill qualified for society.

Providence extracts order out of confusion. Men, in a society so uncomfortable, are taught by dire experience, that they must either renounce society, or qualify themselves for it—the choice is easy, but how difficult the practice! After infinite struggles, appetite for society prevailed; and time, that universal conqueror, perfected men in the art of subduing their passions, or of dissembling them. Finding now no enjoyment but in society, we are solicitous about the good-will of others; and we adhere to justice and good manners: disorderly passions are suppressed, kindly affections encouraged, and men become less unfit for society than formerly.

But is the progress of men toward the perfection of society to stop here? are lust of power and of property to continue for ever leading principles? are envy, revenge, treachery, deceit, never to have an end? "How devoutly to be wished, (it will be said), that all men were upright and honest; and that all of the same nation were united like a single family in concord and mutual affection! Here indeed would be perpetual sunshine, a golden age, a state approaching to that of good men made perfect in heavenly mansions." Beware of indulging such pleasing dreams. The system of Providence differs widely from our wishes; and shall ignorant man venture to arraign Providence? Are we qualified to judge of the whole, when but so small a part is visible? It is our duty to believe, that were the whole visible, it would appear beautiful. We are not however reduced to an act of pure faith: a glimmering light, breaking in, makes it at least doubtful, whether upon the whole it be not really better for us to be as we are. Let us follow that glimmering light to see where it will lead us.

I begin with observing, that tho' in our present condition we suffer much distress from selfish and dissocial passions, yet custom renders our distresses familiar, and hardens us not only to bear but to brave them. Strict adherence to the rules of justice would indeed secure our persons and our property: robbery and murder would vanish, and locks and guns be heard of no more. So far excellent, were no new evils to come in their place: but the void must be filled, and mental distresses would break in of various kinds, such particularly as proceed from refined delicacy and nice sensibility of honour, little regarded while we are exposed to dangers more alarming. And whether the change would be much to our advantage, appears doubtful: pain as well as pleasure is measured by comparison; and the slightest pain, such for example, as arises from a transgression of civility or good-breeding, will overwhelm a person who has never selt any more severe. At any rate, natural evils will remain; and that extreme delicacy and softness of temper which are produced by eternal peace and concord, would render such evils insupportable: the slight inconveniencies of a rough road, bad weather, or homely fare, would become serious evils, and afflict the traveller past enduring. The French, among whom society has obtained a more refined polish than in any other nation, have become so soft and delicate as to lose all •ortitude in distress. They cannot bear even a representation of severe affliction in a trag•dy: an English audience would fall asleep at the slight distresses that make a deep impression in the French theatre.

But now supposing, that a scrupulous adherence to the rules of morality would be a real improvement in society; yet to me it appears evident, that men as individuals would suffer more by that improvement, than they would gain as members of society. In order to preserve the rules of justice untainted, and to maintain perfect concord and affection among men, all dissocial and selfish passions must necessarily be extirpated, or brought under absolute subjection. Attend to the consequences: they deserve our most sober attention. Agitation is requisite to the mind as well as to the body: a man engaged in a brisk pursuit, whether of business or of pleasure, is in his element, and in high spirits; but when no object is in view to be attained or to be avoided, his spirits flag, and he sinks into languor and despondence. To prevent a condition so baneful to man, he is provided with many passions, which impel him to action without intermission, and envigorate both mind and body. But, upon the present supposition, scarce any motive to action would remain; and man, reduced to a lethargic state, would rival no being above an oyster or a sensitive plant.

Nor ought it to be overlooked, that an uniform life of peace, tranquillity, and security, would not be long relished. Constant repetition of the same pleasures would render even a golden age tasteless, like an Italian sky during a long summer. Nature has for wise purposes impressed upon us a taste for variety[q]; and without it, life would be altogether insipid. Paragua, when governed by the Jesuits, affords a fine illustration. It was divided into parishes, in each of which a Jesuit presided as king, priest, and prophet. The natives were not suffered to have any property, but laboured incessantly for their daily bread, which was delivered to them out of a public magazine. The men were employed in agriculture, the women in spinning; and certain precise hours were allotted for labour, for food, for prayer, and for sleep[*]. They sunk into such a listless state of mind, as to have no regret at dying when attacked by disease or by old age. Such was their indifference about what might befall them, that tho' they adored the Jesuits, yet they made no opposition, when the fathers were, ann. 1767, attacked by the Spaniards, and their famous republic demolished. The monkish life is contradictory to the nature of man: the languor of that state is what, in all probability, tempts many a monk and nun, to find occupation even at the expence of virtue. The lives of the Maltese knights is far from being agreeable, now that their knighterrantry against the Turks has subsided. While they reside in the island, a strict uniformity in their manner of living is horridly irksome. Absence is their only relief, when they can obtain permission. There will not at last remain a knight in the island, except such as by office are tied to attendance.

I proceed to another consideration. Familiarity with danger is necessary to eradicate our natural timidity; and so deeply rooted is that principle, that familiarity with danger of one sort does not harden us with respect to any other sort. A soldier, bold as a lion in the field, is faint-hearted at sea, like a child; and a seaman, who braves the winds and waves, trembles when mounted on a horse of spirit. Courage does not superabound at present, even in the midst of dangers and unforeseen accidents: sedentary manufacturers, who seldom are in the way of harm, are remarkably pusillanimous. What would men be in the supposed condition of universal peace, concord, and security? they would rival a hare or a mouse in timidity. Farewell, upon that supposition, to courage, magnanimity, heroism, and to every passion that ennobles human nature! There may perhaps be men, who, hugging themselves in being secure against harm, would not be altogether averse to such degeneracy. But if such men there be, I pray them only to reflect, that in the progress from infancy to maturity, all nations do not ripen equally. One nation may have arrived at the supposed perfection of society, before another has advanced much beyond the savage state. What security hath the former against the latter? Precisely the same that timid sheep have against hungry wolves.

I shall finish with one other effect of the supposed perfection of society, more degrading, if possible, than any mentioned. Exercise, as observed above, is not less essential to the mind than to the body. The reasoning faculty, for example, without constant and varied exercise, will remain weak and undistinguishing to the end of life. By what means doth a man acquire prudence and foresight, but by practice? It is precisely here as in the body: deprive a child of motion, and it will never acquire any strength of limbs. The many difficulties that men encounter, and their various objects of pursuit, rouse the understanding, and set the reasoning faculty at work for means to accomplish desire. The mind, by continual exercise, ripens to its perfection; and, by the same means, is preserved in vigour. It would have no such exercise in the supposed perfection of society; where there would be little to be desired, and less to be dreaded: our mental faculties would for ever lie dormant; and we should remain for ever ignorant that we have such faculties. The people of Paragua are described as mere children in understanding. What wonder, considering their condition under Jesuit government, without ambition, without property, without fear of want, and without desires? The wants of those who inhabit the torrid zone are easily supplied: they need no cloathing, scarce any habitation; and fruits, which ripen there to perfection, give them food without labouring for it. Need we any other cause for their inferiority of understanding, compared with the inhabitants of other climates, where the mind, as well as body, are constantly at work for procuring necessaries[*]?

That curious writer Mandevil, who is always entertaining, if he does not always instruct, exults in maintaining a proposition seemingly paradoxical, That private vices are public benefits. He proves, indeed, most triumphantly, that theft produced locks and bars, and that war produced swords and guns. But what would have been his triumph, had he discovered, that selfish and dissocial vices promote the most elevated virtues, and that if such vices were eradicated, man would be a groveling and contemptible being?

How rashly do men judge of the conduct of Providence? So flattering to the imagination is a golden age, a life of perpetual sun-shine, as to have been a favourite topic among poets, ancient and modern. Impressed with the felicity of such a state, it is not easy to be satisfied with our condition in this life. Such a jumble of good and ill, malice mixed with benevolence, friendship alloy'd with fraud, peace with alarms of war, and frequent bloody wars,—can we avoid concluding, that in this unhappy world chance prevails more than wisdom? What better cause can freethinkers wish for declaiming against Providence, while men, better disposed, sigh inwardly, and must be silent[*]? But behold the blindness of men with respect to the dispensations of Providence! A golden age would to man be more poisonous than Pandora's box; a gift, sweet in the mouth, but bitter, bitter, in the stomach. Let us then forbear repining; for the subject before us must afford conviction, if any thing can, that our best course is to submit humbly to whatever befals, and to rest satisfied, that the world is governed by wisdom, not by chance. What can be expected of barbarians, but utter ignorance of Providence, and of divine government? But as men ripen in the knowledge of causes and effects, the benevolence as well as wisdom of a superintending Being become more and more apparent. How pleasant is that observation! Beautiful final causes without number have been discovered in the material as well as moral world, with respect to many particulars that once appeared dark and gloomy. Many continue to have that appearance: but with respect to these, is it too bold to maintain, that an argument from ignorance, a slender argument at any rate, is altogether insufficient in judging of divine government? How salutary is it for man, and how comfortable, to rest on the faith, that whatever is, is the best!

SKETCH II.
General View of GOVERNMENT.

THE progress of government, accurately delineated, would produce a great volume: in this work there is room but for a few hints. What are the means that fit men for society, is explained above; but writers are far from being unanimous about the means that fit them for government. All agree, that submission to our governors is a duty: but they appear to be at a loss upon what foundation to rest that duty; as if it were not evident, that by our nature we are fitted for government as well as for society[a]. If justice or veracity be essential to society, submission to government is no less so; and each of these equally is declared by the moral sense to be our duty. But to qualify man for government, the duty of submission alone is not sufficient: diversity of temper and of talents are also necessary; and accordingly it is so ordered by Providence, that there are never wanting in any society men who are qualified to lead, as well as men who are disposed to follow. Where a number of people convene for any purpose, some will naturally assume authority without the formality of election, and the rest will as naturally submit. A regular government, founded on laws, was probably not thought of, till people had frequently suffered by vicious governors[*].

During the infancy of national societies, government is extremely simple; and no less mild than simple. No individual is by nature intitled to exercise magisterial authority over his fellows; for no individual is born with any mark of pre-eminence to vouch that he has such a privilege. But nature teaches respect for men of age and experience; who accordingly take the lead in deliberating and advising, leaving execution to the young and vigorous[†]. War indeed cannot be carried on without a commander; but originally his authority was limited to actual war; and he returned home a private person, even when crowned with victory. The wants of men were originally so few, and so easily satisfied, as feldom to occasion a controversy among members of the same tribe. And men, finding vent for their dissocial passions against other tribes, were fond to live peaceably at home. Introduction of money made an amazing change. Wealth bestow'd by fortune, or procured by rapine, made an impression on the vulgar: different ranks were recognized: the rich became imperious, and the poor mutinous. Selfishness, prevailing over social affection, stirred up every man against his neighbour; and men, overlooking their natural enemies, gave vent to dissocial passions within their own tribe. It became necessary to strengthen the hands of the sovereign, for repressing passions inflamed by opulence, which tend to a dissolution of society. This slight view fairly accounts for the gradual progress of government from the milde•∣form to the most despotic. The second part of the progress is more pleasing. Men, long enured to the authority of government, acquire a habit of repressing their turbulent passions; and becoming by degrees regular and orderly, they are easily restrained from doing wrong.

During the infancy of a society punishments must be mild; because government has no sufficient authority over the minds of men to enforce what are severe. But government in time acquires authority; and when its authority is firmly rooted in the minds of the people, punishments more rigorous can be made effectual; and such punishments are necessary among a people not yet well disciplined. When men at last become regular and orderly under a steady administration, punishments become less and less necessary, and the mildest are sufficient,[b]. The Chinese government is extremely mild, and its punishments are in the same tone. A capital punishment is never inflicted, till the sentence be examined by a sovereign court, and approved by the Emperor. Thus government, after passing through all the intermediate degrees from extreme mildness to extreme severity, returns at last to its original temper of mildness and humanity[*].

SKETCH III.
Different FORMS OF GOVERNMENT compared.

OF all governments, democracy is the most turbulent: despotism, which benumbs the mental faculties, and relaxes every spring of action, is in the opposite extreme. Mixed governments, whether monarchical or republican, stand in the middle: they promote activity, but seldom any dangerous excess.

Pure democracy, like that of Athens, Argos, and Carthage, is the very worst form of government, if we make not despotism an exception. The people, in whom resides the sovereign power, are insolent in prosperity, timid in adversity, cruel in anger, blind and prodigal in affection, and incapable of embracing steadily a prudent measure. Thucydides relates[a], that Agis with a gallant army of Spartans surrounded the army of Agos; and, though secure of victory, suffered them to retreat, upon solemn assurances from Thrasyllus, the Argian general, of terminating all differences in an amicable treaty; Agis, perhaps justly, was bitterly censured for suffering victory to slip out of his hands: but the Argians, dreaming of victory when the danger was over, brought their general to trial, confiscated his effects, and would have stoned him to death, had he not taken refuge in a temple. Two Athenian generals, after one naval victory, being intent on a second, deputed Theramenes to perform the last duty to their dead. A violent storm prevented Theramenes from executing the trust reposed in him; but it did not prevent the people of Athens from putting their two generals to death, as if they had neglected their duty. The fate of Socrates is a sad instance of the changeable, as well as violent, disposition of a democratical state. He was condemned to death, for attempting innovations in the established religion: the sentence was grossly unjust; for he attempted no innovation; but only, among his friends, expressed purer notions of the Deity than were common in Greece at that time. But his funeral obsequies were scarce ended, when bitter remorse seized the people. His accusers were put to death without trial, every person banished who had contributed to the sentence pronounced against him, and his statue was erected in the most public part of the city. The great Scipio, in his camp near Utica, was surrounded with three Carthaginian armies, which waited only for day-light to fall upon him. He prevented the impending blow, by surprising them in the dead of night; which gave him a complete victory. This misfortune, for it could scarce be called bad conduct, provoked the democracy of Carthage, to pronounce sentence of death against Asdrubal their general. Great trading towns cannot flourish, if they be not faithful to their engagements, and honest in their dealings: Whence then the Fides Punica? A democracy is in its nature rash, violent, and fluctuating; and the Carthaginians merited the reproach, not as individuals, but as a democratical state.

A commonwealth, governed by the best citizens, is very different from a democracy, where the mob rules. At the same time, the solid foundation of such a commonwealth is, equality among the citizens. Inequality of riches cannot be prevented in a commercial state; but inequality of privileges may be prevented, by excluding no citizen from the opportunity of commanding as well as of obeying. The invidious distinction of Patrician and Plebeian was a gross malady in the Roman republic, a perpetual source of dissension between two bodies of men, equally well born, equally rich, and equally fit for war. This ill-poised government would have put an end to the republic, had not the Plebeians prevailed, who were the more numerous. That reformation produced to Rome plenty of able men, qualified to govern whether in peace or in war.

A commonwealth is the best form of government for a small state: there is little room for inequality of rank or of property: and the people can act in a body. Monarchy is preferable for a large state, where the people, widely spread, cannot be easily collected into a body. Attica was a kingdom, while its twelve cantons were remote from each other, and but slenderly connected. Theseus, by collecting the people of figure into the city of Athens, and by a general assembly of all the cantons held there, fitted Attica to be a commonwealth.

When a nation becomes great and populous, it is ill fitted for being a commonwealth. Ambition is apt to trample upon justice; selfishness upon patriotism; and the public is sacrificed to private views. To prevent corruption from turning incurable, the only remedy is a strict rotation in office, which ought never to be dispensed with on any pretext[*]. By such rotation, every citizen in his turn governs and is governed: the highest office is limited as to time, and the greatest men in the state must submit to the sacred law of obeying as well as of commanding. A man long accustomed to power is not happy in a private station: that corrupting habit is prevented by an alternate succession of public and private life; which is more agreeable by variety, and contributes no less to virtue than to happiness. It was that form of government in ancient Rome, which produced citizens without number, illustrious for virtue and talents. Reflect upon Cincinnatus, eminent among heroes for disinterested love to his country. Had he been a Briton, a seat in parliament would have gratified his ambition, as affording the best opportunity of serving his country. In parliament he joins the party that appears the most zealous for the public. Being deceived in his friends, patriots in name only, not in reality, he goes over to the court; and, after fighting the battles of the ministry for years, he is compelled by a shattered fortune to accept a post or a pension, Fortunate Cincinnatus! born at a time and in a country where virtue was the passport to power and glory. Cincinnatus, after serving with honour and reputation as chief magistrate, chearfully retired to a private station, in obedience to the laws of his country: nor was that change a hardship on a man who was not corrupted by a long habit of power.

Political writers define a free state to be, where the people are governed by laws of their own making. This definition is lame; for laws made by the people are not always just. There were many unjust laws enacted in Athens during the democratical government; and in Britain instances are not wanting of laws, not only unjust, but oppressive. The true definition of a free state is, where the legislature adheres strictly to the laws of nature; and calculates everyone of its regulations for improving society, and for promoting industry and honesty among the people. If that definition be just, despotism is the worst species of government; being contrived to support arbitrary will in the sovereign, without regarding the laws of nature, or the good of society. The lawless cruelty of a King of Persia is painted to the life by a single expression of a Persian grandee, "That every time he left the King's apartment, he was inclined to feel with his hand whether his head was on his shoulders." In the Russian empire, men approach the throne with terror: the slightest political intrigue is a sufficient foundation for banishing the greatest nobleman to Siberia, and for confiscating his estate. The laws of that empire smell no less rank of slavery than of oppression. No person dares game with money that bears the impression of the present sovereign: a man going along the street that fronts the Emperor's apartment, must pull off his hat; and it is a heinous trespass to write a letter with the Emperor's name in small characters. Despotism is every where the same: it was high treason to sell a statue of a Roman Emperor; and it was doubted, whether it was not high treason to hit an Emperor's statue with a stone thrown at random[b]. When Elisabeth Empress of Russia was on death-bed, no person durst enquire about her; and even after her death, it was not at first safe to speak of it. The deep silence of the Russians upon matters of government arises from the encouragement given to accusations of treason. The by-standers must lay hold of the person accused: a father arrests his son, a son his father, and nature suffers in silence. The accused with the accuser are hurried to prison, there to remain till they be tried in the secret court of chancery. That court, composed of a few ministers named by the Emperor, have the lives and fortunes of all at their mercy. The nobility, slaves to the crown, are prone to retaliate upon their inferiors. They impose taxes at pleasure upon their vassals, and frequently seize all at short hand[*].

Servility and depression of mind in the subjects of a despotic government cannot be better marked than in the funeral rites of a Roman Emperor, described by Herodian[c]. The body being burnt privately, a waxen image representing the Emperor is laid in a bed of state. On the one side sit the senators several hours daily, clothed in black; and on the other, the most respectable matrons, clothed in white. The ceremony lasts seven days, during which the physicians from time to time approach the bed, and declare the Emperor to be worse and worse. When the day comes of declaring him dead, the most dignified of the nobility carry the bed upon their shoulders, and place it in the old forum, where the Roman magistrates formerly laid down their office. Then begin doleful ditties, sung to his memory by boys and women. These being ended, the bed is carried to the Campus Martius, and there burnt upon a high stage with great solemnity. When the flames ascend, an eagle is let loose, which is supposed to carry the soul of the Emperor to heaven. Is that farce less ridiculous than a puppet-shew? Is it not much more ridiculous? Dull must have been the spectator who could behold the solemnity without smiling at least, if not laughing outright; but the Romans were crushed by despotism, and nothing could provoke them to laugh. That ridiculous farce continued to be acted till the time of Constantine: how much later I know not.

The finest countries have been depopulated by despotism; witness Greece, Egypt, and the Lesser Asia. The river Menam, in the kingdom of Siam, overflows annually like the Nile, depositing a quantity of slime, which proves a rich manure. The river seems to rise gradually as the rice grows; and retires to its channel when the rice, approaching to maturity, needs no longer to be watered. Nature beside has bestowed on that rich country variety of delicious fruits, requiring scarce any culture. In such a paradise, would one imagine that the Siamites are a miserable people? The government is despotic, and the subjects are slaves: they must work for their monarch six months every year, without wages, and even without receiving any food from him. What renders them still more miserable is, that they have no protection either for their persons or their goods: the grandees are exposed to the rapacity of the king and his courtiers; and the lower ranks are exposed to the rapacity of the grandees. When a man has the misfortune to possess a tree remarkable for good fruit, he is required in the name of the King, or of a courtier, to preserve the fruit for their use. Every proprietor of a garden in the neighbourhood of the capital must pay a yearly sum to the keeper of the elephants; otherwise it will be laid waste by these animals, whom it is high treason to molest. From the sea-port of Mergui to the capital, one travels ten or twelve days through immense plains of a rich soil, finely watered. That country appears to have been formerly cultivated, but is now quite depopulated, and left to tigers and elephants. Formerly, an immense commerce was carried on in that fertile country: historians attest, that in the middle of the sixteenth century above a thousand foreign ships frequented its ports annually. But the King, tempted with so much riches, endeavoured to engross all the commerce of his country; by which means he annihilated successively mines, manufactures, and even agriculture. The country is depopulated, and few remain there but beggars. In the island Ceylon, the King is sole proprietor of the land; and the people are supinely indolent: their huts are mean, without any thing like furniture: their food is fruit that grows spontaneously; and their covering is a piece of coarse cloth, wrapped round the middle. The settlement of the Dutch East-India company at the Cape of Good Hope is profitable to them in their commerce with the East Indies; and it would be much more profitable, if they gave proper encouragement to the tenants and possessors of their lands. But these poor people are ruled with a rod of iron: what the company wants is extorted from them at so low a price as scarce to afford them common necessaries. Avarice, like many other irregular passions, obstructs its own gratification: were industry duly encouraged, the product of the ground would be in greater plenty, and goods be afforded voluntarily at a lower price than they are at present obtained by violence. The Peruvians are a sad example of the effects of tyranny; being reduced to a state of stupid insensibility. No motive to action influences them; neither riches, nor luxury, nor ambition: they are even indifferent about life. The single pleasure they feel is, to get drunk, in order to forget their misery. The provinces of Moldavia, Walachia, and Bessarabia, situated between the 43d and 48th degrees of latitude, are defended on three sides by the Niester, the Black Sea, and the Danube. The climate of that region, and the fertility of its soil, render it not inferior to any other country in Europe. Its pastures, in particular, are excellent, producing admirable horses, with an incredible number of sheep and horned cattle; and its industrial fruits, such as corn, wine, oil, honey, and wax, were formerly produced in great plenty. So populous was that region a few centuries ago, that the prince of Walachia was able, in that province alone, to raise an army of seventy thousand men. Yet, notwithstanding all these advantages, the wretched policy of the Turkish government has reduced these provinces to be almost a desert. A despotic government stifles, in the birth, all the bounties of nature, and renders the finest spots of the globe equally sterile with its barren mountains. When a patriotic king travels about to visit his dominions, he is received with acclamations of joy. A despotic prince dares not hope for such reception: he is locked up in his seraglio, ignorant of what passes; and indolently suffers his people to be pillaged, without even hearing of their distresses.

At the same time, despotism, though calculated to elevate the Sovereign above the rules of justice, and to make him the only free person in his dominions, tends, above all other governments, to render him insecure. He becomes odious by oppression; and every hand would be raised against him, but for the restraint of fear. A situation so ticklish lays him open to every bold spirit, prompted by revenge to seek his ruin, or by ambition to usurp his throne. In that respect, Russia and Turkey are precisely similar: conspiracies against the Sovereign are equally frequent, and equally successful. The moment an usurper seizes the palace, all obstructions vanish: all prostrate themselves before the throne, without enquiring about the possessor's title. In that manner was the present Empress of Russia established, notwithstanding a very unfavourable circumstance, that of dethroning her own husband Peter III. No free spirit regrets such events in a despotic government: the only thing to be regretted is, that they concern the monarch only; not the people, who remain abject slaves as formerly. The present Empress, sensible of her precarious situation, is intent to humanize her people, and to moderate the despotism. In that view, she has published a code of laws fit for a limited monarchy, and expressing great regard to the lives, liberties, and property of her subjects.

But a monarchy, with all the moderation that despotism can admit, is inconsistent with liberty of the press. Political pamphlets, and even newspapers, are no less useful for instructing the King, than for securing his subjects. In France, the ministry are deprived of that means of acquiring knowledge; and are reduced to the necessity of trusting to insinuating men, who cunningly creep into favour, with a view to their own interest. After the late peace, 1763, that ministry formed a plan for establishing a colony in Guiana; and no fewer than twelve thousand persons were landed there all at one time. But so grossly ignorant were they of the preparations necessary for planting a colony in the torrid zone, that contagious diseases, occasioned by unwholesome food, and want of accommodation, left not a single person alive. This could not have happened in England: every article of management would have been canvassed, and light would have broke in from every quarter.

I have insisted longer upon the deplorable effects of despotism than perhaps is necessary; but I was fond of the opportunity to justify, or rather applaud the spirit of liberty so eminent in the inhabitants of Britain. I now proceed to compare different forms of government, with respect to various particulars; beginning with patriotism. Every form of government must be good that inspires patriotism; and the best form to invigorate that noble passion is a commonwealth founded on rotation of power, where it is the study of tho•e in office to do good, and to merit approbation from their fellow-citizens. In the Swiss Cantons, the salaries of magistrates and public officers are scarce sufficient to defray their expences; and those worthy persons desire no other recompence, but to be esteemed and honoured[*]. A republic so modelled inspires virtues of every sort. The people of Switzerland seldom think of writing to confirm a bargain: a lawsuit is scarce known among them; and many there are who have never heard of an advocate nor of an attorney. Their doors are never shut but in winter. It is patriotism that Montesquieu has in view, when he pronounces virtue to be the leading principle in a republic. He has reason to term it so, because patriotism is connected with every social virtue; and, when it vanishes, men regard themselves only, not their fellow-citizens. Democracy will never be recommended by any enlightened politician, as a good form of government; were it for no other reason, but that patriotism cannot long subsist where the mob governs. In monarchy, the king is exalted so high above his subjects, that his ministers are little better than servants. Such condition is not friendly to patriotism: it is as little friendly to ambition; for ministers are still servants, however much raised above other subjects. Wealth, being the only remaining pursuit, promotes avarice to be their ruling passion. Now, if patriotism be not found in ministers who have power, far less in men who have no power; and thus in monarchy, riches are preferred before virtue, and every vicious offspring of avarice has free course.

Without piercing to the foundation, one can have no just notion of the various forms that government assumes in different states. Monarchy is of many different kinds, and so is a republic. Rome and Carthage, the two great rival republics of ancient times, differed widely in their original constitution. Much has been said of these republics by historians and political writers. There is one point of comparison that will set in a clear light the difference of their constitutions, with respect to peace and war. Carthage, advantageously situated for commerce, became a great and flourishing trading town. The Carthaginians, having no object but riches, admitted none into a participation of their privileges. War was against their genius: but conquest was not, if it produced wealth; and therefore they made war in order to load their new subjects with taxes. Rome, on the contrary, was ill situated for commerce: its inhabitants were, from the beginning, employed in war, either defensive or offensive. Their great object accordingly was power; to which end they were always disposed to adopt, as citizens, the best of those they conquered. Thus Rome became a city of warriors, Carthage of merchants. The subjects of the latter were always ripe for a revolt, while the subjects of the former were always faithful. Between two such states there could be no equality in war; and, had the Carthaginians been as skilful in politics as they were in commerce, they would have avoided, with the strictest circumspection, every occasion of quarrel with the Romans. Rome employed its own citizens in war: Carthage had none to employ but mercenaries. In an offensive war, the object of the latter was riches; that of the former was power and glory, motives much superior, and more animating. In a defensive war, the difference is infinite between mercenaries, who have no interest but to receive their pay, and citizens, who fight for their country, and for their wives and children. What then are we to think of Hannibal, who, reversing the laws of nature, carried on war against the Romans with an army of mercenaries, was successful in every engagement, and brought them to the very brink of ruin? He certainly was the greatest General the world ever saw. If any one is to be excepted, it is the present King of Prussia.

I next compare different forms of government, with respect to the influence of opulence. Riches, which, joined with ambition, produce bold attempts for power, are, however, not dangerous in monarchy, where the sovereign is so far superior, as to humble to the dust the most aspiring of his subjects. But riches, joined with ambition, are dangerous in a republic: ambition will suggest the possibility of sowing dissention among the leaders; riches will make the attempt successful; and then adieu to the republic. Wealth, accumulated by commerce in Carthage and in Athens, extinguished patriotism, and rendered their democracy unjust, violent, and tyrannical. It had another bad effect; which was, to make them ambitious of conquest. The sage Plutarch charges Themistocles with the ruin of Athens. "That great man," says he "inspired his countrymen with desire of naval power. That power produced extensive commerce, and, consequently, riches: riches again, beside luxury, inspired the Athenians with a high opinion of their power, and made them rashly engage in every quarrel among their neighbours." Suppress the names, and one will believe it to be a censure on the conduct of Britain. Successful commerce prompted the Carthaginians, against their natural interest, to make war for gain. Had they been successful against the Romans, both nations would have fallen a sacrifice to the ambition of Hannibal: after subduing Italy, what Carthaginian durst have opposed the glorious conqueror, returning with a victorious army, devoted to his will? That event was long dreaded by Hanno, and the wiser part of the Carthaginian senate; and hence their scanty supplies to Hannibal. But what is only a supposition with respect to Carthage proved to be the fate of Rome. Inequality of rank, opulence, and luxury, relaxed every fundamental principle of the commonwealth, particularly rotation of power, which ought to have been their palladium. Conquest at a distance led them unwarily, in some instances, to suspend that fundamental law, of which Caesar availed himself in his Gallic war, by debauching from their duty the best disciplined army of the republic: and it was that army, under a leader little inferior to Hannibal, which determined the fate of Rome.

A state with a small territory, such as Hamburgh or Holland, may subsist long as a commonwealth, without much hazard from the opulence of individuals. But an extensive territory in the hands of a few opulent proprietors is dangerous in a commonwealth; because of their influence over numbers who depend on them for bread. The island of Britain is too large for a commonwealth. This occurred to a profound political writer[a], who does honour to his country; and to remedy the evil, he proposes an Agrarian law. But it is vain to think, that accumulation of land can be prevented by an Agrarian law: a trust-deed is a ready screen for covering accumulation beyond law: and dark transactions will be carried on without end; similar to what is practised, most dishonestly, by those who elect and are elected members of parliament. When such comes to be the condition of land-property, the Agrarian law will be ripe for dissolution.

In early times we discover greater variety of character than at present; among sovereigns especially, who are not taught to govern their passions. Perusing the History of Spain in particular, one is struck with an amazing variety of character in the Moorish Kings. In some of them, outrageous cruelty; in others, mildness, and affection for their people: in some, unbounded ambition, surmounting every obstacle of justice and humanity; in others, strict attention to commerce, and to every moral virtue; some heaping up treasure; some squandering all upon voluptuousness; some cultivating peace; some fond of war. During the nonage of society, men exert their natural bias without reserve: in the progress of society, they are taught to moderate their turbulent passions: at last, mild and courtly behaviour, produced by education and imitation, give an air to men of figure, as if they were all copies from one original; which is peculiarly the case in France. The mildness of external behaviour must have a considerable influence on the internal part; for nothing tends more to soften or to suppress a passion, than never to give it vent; and, for that reason, absolute monarchy in France is far from being so dreadful as it was formerly. It is at present far from being violent or sanguinary; the manners of the people having the same influence there, that laws have in a free country. The King, delicate with respect to his conduct, and dreading the censure of the world, is guilty of few excesses; and the people, tame and submissive, are easily kept in order. Among men of rank, to be discharged the court, or to be relegated to their country-seats, is more terrible than a capital punishment.

We finish this short essay with a comparison of different governments, as to the execution of laws. Laws relative to property and pecuniary interest are every where preserved in vigour, because the violation of them hurts many. Laws respecting the public are kept alive in monarchical governments; because the King, to whom execution of law is intrusted, seldom benefits by their transgression. For a steady execution of such laws, a democracy has nothing to rely on but patriotism; and when that subsides, such laws fall asleep. The reason is, that the powers, both of legislature and execution, center in the people; and a multitude, frequently no better than a mob, will never with constancy direct execution against themselves.

SKETCH IV.
PROGRESS OF STATES from small to great, and from great to small.

WHEN tribes, originally small, spread wider and wider by population, till they become neighbours, the slightest differences enflame mutual aversion, and investigate hostilities that never end. Weak tribes unite for defence against the powerful, and become insensibly one people: other tribes are swallowed up by conquest. And thus states become more and more extensive, till they are confined by seas and mountains. Spain originally contained many small states, which were all brought under the Roman yoke. In later times, it was again possessed by many states, Christian and Mahometan, continually at war, till by conquest they were united in one great kingdom. Portugal still maintains its independency, a blessing it owes to the weakness of Spain, not to advantage of situation. The small states of Italy were subdued by the Romans; and those of Greece by Philip of Macedon, and his son Alexander. Scotland escaped narrowly the paws of Edward I. of England; and would at last have been conquered by its more potent neighbour, had not conquest been prevented by a federal union.

But at that rate, have we not reason to dread the union of all nations under one universal monarch? There are several causes that for ever will prevent a calamity so dreadful. The local situation of some countries, defended by strong natural barriers, is one of these. Bitain is defended by the sea; and so is Spain, except where divided from France by the Pyrenean mountains. Europe in general, by many barriers of seas, rivers, and mountains, is fitted for states of moderate extent: not so Asia, which, being divided into very large portions, is prepared by nature for extensive monarchies[*]. Russia is the only exception in Europe; a weak kingdom by situation, though rendered formidable by the extraordinary talents of one man, and of more than one woman.

A second cause is, the weakness of a great state. The strength of a state doth not increase with its bulk, more than that of a man. An overgrown empire, far from being formidable to its neighbours, falls to pieces by its weight and unwieldiness. Its frontiers are not easily guarded: witness France, which is much weakened by that circumstance, though its greater part is bounded by the sea. Patriotism vanishes in a great monarchy: the provinces have no mutual connection; and the distant provinces, which must be governed by bashaws, are always ripe for a revolt. To secure Nicomedia, which had frequently suffered by fire, Pliny suggested to the Emperor Trajan, a firecompany of one hundred and fifty men. So infirm at that period was the Roman empire, that Trajan durst not put the project in execution, fearing disturbances even from that small body.

The chief cause is the luxury and effeminacy of a great monarchy, which leave no appetite for war, either in the sovereign, or in his subjects. Great inequality of rank in an extensive kingdom, occasioned by a constant flow of riches in the capital, introduces show, expensive living, luxury, and sensuality. Riches, by affording gratification to every sensual appetite, become an idol, to which all men bow the knee; and when riches are worshipped as a passport to power, as well as to pleasure, they corrupt the heart, eradicate every virtue, and foster every vice. In such dissolution of manners, contradictions are reconciled; avarice and meanness unite with vanity; dissimulation and cunning, with splendor. Where subjects are so corrupted, what will the prince be, who is not taught to moderate his passions, who measures justice by appetite, and who is debilitated by corporeal pleasures? Such a prince never thinks of heading his own troops, nor of extending his dominions. Mostazen, the last Califf of Bagdat, is a conspicuous instance of the degeneracy described. His kingdom being invaded by the Tartars in the year 1258, he shut himself up in his seraglio with his debauched companions, as in profound peace; and, stupified with sloth and voluptuousness, was the only person who appeared careless about the fate of his empire. A King of Persia, being informed that the Turks had made themselves masters of his best provinces, answered, that he was indifferent about their success, provided they would not disturb him in his city of Ispahan. Hoatsang, the last Chinese Emperor of the Chinese race, hid himself in his palace, while the Tartars were wresting from him his northern provinces, and Listching, a rebel mandarine, was wresting from him the remainder. The Empress strangled herself in her apartment; and the Emperor, making a last effort, followed her example. The ninth Chinese Emperor of the blood of Genhizcan, addicted to women and priests, was despised by his people. A person without a name, who had been a servant in a convent of Bonzes, putting himself at the head of some robbers, dethroned the monarch, and extinguished the royal family.

The Tonquinese, after a long subjection to the Emperor of China, regained their independence, and were governed by kings of their own nation. These princes having, by long peace, become indolent, luxurious, and effeminate, abandoned the government of the kingdom to their ministers. The governor of Cochin-china, being at a great distance from the capital, revolted first, and that country became a separate kingdom. The governor of Tonquin, within which province the King resided, usurped the sovereignty: but, respecting the royal family, he only locked up the King in his palace; leaving to the King's descendents the name of BOVA, or King, with some shadow of royalty. The Usurper and his successors content themselves with the title of CHOVA, or Generalissimo; which satisfies the people, who pierce no deeper than what eye-sight discovers. A revolution of the same kind happened in Japan. Similar causes produce similar effects. The luxurious and indolent successors of Charlemagne in the kingdom of France, trusting their power and authority with the mairs of their palace, were never seen in public, and were seldom heard of. The great power of these officers inflamed them with an appetite for more. Pepin and his successors were for a long time kings de facto, leaving to the rightful sovereign nothing but the empty name. Charles Martel reigned for some time without even naming a king. And at last, Pepin the younger, anno 751, throwing off the mask, ordered himself to be proclaimed King of France.

Montesquieu[a], discoursing of luxury in great empires, and effeminacy in the monarchs, describes the danger of revolutions, from ambitious men bred to war, in the following words: "En effet il étoit naturel que des Empereurs nourris dans les fatigues de la guerre, qui parvenoient à faire descendre du trone une famille noyée dans les delices, conservassent la vertu qu'ils avoient eprouv•e si utile, et craignissent les voluptés qu'ils avoient vue si funestes. Mais après ces trois ou quatre premiers princes, la corruption, le luxe, Poisivété, les delices, s'emparent des successeurs; ils s'enferment dans le palais, leur esprit s'affoiblit, leur vie s'accourcit, la famille decline; les grands s'él vent, les eunuques s'acreditent, on ne met sur le trone que des enfans; le palais devient ennemi de l'empire, un people oisif qui I habite, ruine celui qui travaille; l'Empereur est tué ou destruit par un usurpateur, qui fonde une famille, dont le troisieme ou quatrieme successeus va dans le meme palais se renfermer encore[*]."

Little reason, then, have we to apprehend the coalition of all nations into an universal monarchy. We see, indeed, in the history of mankind, frequent instances of the progress of nations from small to great; but we see also instances, no less frequent, of extensive monarchies being split into many small states. Such is the course of human affairs: states are seldom stationary; but, like the sun, are either advancing to their meridian, or falling down gradually, till they sink into obscurity. An empire, subjected to effeminate princes, and devoid of patriotism, cannot long subsist entire. The fate of all, with very few exceptions, has been uniformly the same. The governors of provinces, losing all regard for a voluptuous and effeminate monarch, take courage, set up for themselves, and assume regal authority, each in his own province. The puissant Assyrian monarchy, one of the earliest we read of in history, after having been long a terror to its neighbours, was dismembered by the governors of Media and of Babylon, who detached these extensive provinces from the monarchy. Mahomet and his immediate successors erected a great empire, of which Bagdat became the capital. The latter Califfs of that race, poisoned with sensual pleasure, lost all vigour of mind, and sunk down into sloth and effeminacy. The governors of the distant provinces were the first who ventured to declare themselves independent. Their success invited other governors, who stripped the Califf of his remaining provinces, leaving him nothing but the city of Bagdat; and of that he was deprived by the Tartars, who put an end to that once illustrious monarchy. The same would have been the fate of the Persian empire, had it not been subdued by Alexander of Macedon. But, after his death, it submitted to the ordinary fate: his generals assumed regal power, each of them in the province he governed. Had not the Roman empire been dismembered by the Barbarians, it would have been dismembered by the governors of its provinces. The weakness of Charlemagne's successors hatched in France and in Germany an endless number of petty sovereigns. About the time that a passage to the East-Indies by the Cape of Good Hope was discovered, the great peninsula beyond the Ganges was comprehended under the powerful empire of Bisnagar. Its first monarchs had established themselves by valour and military knowledge. In war, they headed their troops: in peace, they directed their ministers, visited their dominions, and were punctual in rendering justice to high and low. The people carried on an extensive and lucrative commerce, which brought a revenue to the Emperor, that enabled him to maintain a standing army of one hundred thousand foot, thirty thousand horse, and seven hundred elephants. But prosperity and opulence ruined all. The Emperors, poisoned with pride and voluptuousness, were now contented with swelling titles, instead of solid fame. King of kings, and Husband of a thousand wives, were at the head of a long catalogue of such pompous, but empty epithets. Corrupted by flattery, they affected divine honours, and appeared rarely in public; leaving the care of their dominions to their ministers, and to the governors of their provinces. At the beginning of the sixteenth century, neighbouring princes encroached on all sides. In the year 1565, Bisnagar, the capital, was taken and sacked by four Moorish kings. The governors of the provinces declared themselves independent; and out of that great empire sprung the kingdoms of Golconda, Visapour, and several others. The empire of Hindostan, once widely extended, is now reduced to a very small kingdom, under a prince, who no longer is intitled to be designed the Great Mogul; the governors of his provinces having, as usual, declared themselves independent.

Our North-American colonies are in a prosperous condition, increasing rapidly in population and in opulence. The colonists have the spirit of a free people, and are enflamed with patriotism. Their population will equal that of Britain and Ireland in less than a century; and they will then be a match for the mother-country, if they chuse to be independent: every advantage will be on their side, as the attack must be by sea, from a very great distance. Being thus delivered from a foreign yoke, their first care will be, the choice of a proper government; and it is not difficult to foresee what government will be chosen. A people, animated with the new blessings of liberty and independence, will not incline to a kingly government. The Swiss cantons joined in a federal union, for protection against the potent house of Austria; and the Dutch embraced the like union, for protection against the more potent King of Spain. But our colonies will never join in such a union; because they have no potent neighbour, and because they have an aversion to each other. We may pronounce then, with tolerable certainty, that each colony will chuse for itself a republican government. And their present constitution prepares them for it: they have a senate; and they have an assembly representing the people. No change will be necessary, but to drop the governor, who represents the King of Britain. And thus a part of a great state will be converted into many small states.

SKETCH V.
GREAT and SMALL STATES compared.

NEIGHBOURS, according to the common saying, must be sweet friends or bitter enemies: patriotism is vigorous in small states; and the hatred to neighbouring states no less so: both vanish in a great monarchy.

Like a maximum in mathematics, emulation has the finest play within certain bounds; it languisheth where its objects are too many, or too few: and hence it is, that the most heroic actions are performed in a state of moderate extent. Appetite for applause, or fame, may subsist in a great monarchy; but by that appetite, without the support of emulalation, heroic actions are seldom atchieved.

Small states, however corrupted, are not liable to despotism: the people being contiguous to the seat of government, and accustomed to see their governors daily, talk familiarly of their errors, and publish them every where. On Spain, which formeryl consisted of many small states, a profound writer[a] makes the following observation. "The petty monarch was but little elevated above his nobles: having little power, he could not command much respect; nor could his nobles look up to him with that reverence which is felt in approaching great monarchs." Another thing is equally weighty against despotism in a small state: the army cannot easily be separated from the people; and for that reason, is very little dangerous. The Roman Pretorian bands were billeted in the towns near Rome; and three cohorts only were employed in guarding that city. Sejanus, perfect of these bands under Tiberius, lodged the three cohorts in a spacious barrack within the city, in order to gain more authority over them, and to wean them from familiarity with the people. Tacitus, in the 4th book of his Annals, relates the story in the following words. "Vim praefecturae modicam antea, intendit, dispersas per urbem cohortes una in castra conducendo; ut simul imperia acciperent, numeroque et robore, et visu, inter se, fiducia ipsis, in caeteros metus, crearetur[*]."

What is said above suggests the cause of a curious fact recorded in ancient history, viz. That of many attempts to usurp the sovereignty of different Greek republics, very few succeeded; and that no usurpation of that kind was lasting. Every circumstance differs in an extensive state: the people, at a distance from the throne, and having profound veneration for the sovereign, consider themselves, not as members of a body-politic, but as subjects merely, bound implicitly to obey: by which impression they are prepared beforehand for despotism. Other reasons concur: the subjects of a great state are dazzled with the splendor of their monarch; and as their union is prevented by distance, the monarch can safely employ a part of his subjects against the rest, or a standing army against all.

A great state possesses one eminent advantage, viz. ability to execute magnificent works. The hanging gardens of Babylon, the pyramids of Egypt, and its lake Meris, are illustrious examples. The city of Heliopolis in Syria, named Balbek by the Turks, is a pregnant instance of the power and opulence of the Roman empire. Even in the ruins of that city, there are remains of great magnificence and exquisite taste. If the imperial palace, or the temple of the Sun, to mention no other building, were the work of any European prince existing at present, it would make a capital figure in the annals of his reign. And yet so little eclat did these works make at the time of execution, that there is not a hint of them in any historian. The beneficence of some great monarchs is worthy of still greater praise. In the principal roads of Japan hot baths are erected at proper distances, with other conveniencies, for the use of travellers. The beneficence of the Chinese government to those who suffer shipwreck, gives a more advantageous impression of that monarchy, than all that is painfully collected by Du Halde. To verify the observation, I joyfully lay hold of the following incident. In the year 1728, the ship Prince George took her departure from Calcutta in Bengal for Canton in China, with a cargo L. 60,000 value. A violent storm drove her ashore at a place named Timpau, a great way west from Canton. Not above half the crew could make the shore, worn out with fatigue and hunger, and not doubting of being massacred by the natives. How amazed were they to be treated with remarkable humanity! A mandarin appeared, who not only provided for them victuals in plenty, but also divers to assist them in fishing the wreck. What follows is in the words of my author, Alexander Wedderburn of St. Germains, a gentleman of known worth and veracity, who bore office in the ship. "In a few days we recovered L. 5000 in bullion, and afterward L. 1•…,000 more. Before we set forward to Canton, the mandarin our benefactor took an exact account of our money, with the names of the men, furnished us with an escort to conduct us through his district, and consigned us dead or alive to one Suqua at Canton, a Chinese merchant well known to the English there. In every one of our resting-places, victuals were brought to us by the villagers in plenty, and with great cordiality. In this manner we passed from one district to another, without having occasion to lay out a single farthing, till we reached Canton, which we did in nine days, travelling sometimes by land, and sometimes by water. Our case had been represented to the court at Pekin, from whence orders came to distribute amongst us a sum of money; which was done by the Chuntuck, Hoppo, and other officers, civil and military, assembled in great state. After a short speech, expressing regret for our calamity, with an eulogium on the humane and generous disposition of their master; to each of us was presented the Emperor's bounty, in a yellow bag, on which was inscribed the nature of the gift. The first supercargo received 450 tales in silver, the second 350, myself 250, the mate 75, and each common seamen 15; the whole amounting to about 2000 tales, or L. 800. This is an example worthy imitation, even where Christianity is professed; though its tenets are often, on like occasions, scandalously perverted." So far my author: and I add, that this bounty was undoubtedly established by law; for it has not the appearance of an occasional or singular act of benevolence. If so, China is the only country in the world, where charity to strangers in distress is a branch of public police.

Another advantage of a great state I mention with peculiar pleasure, because all who aspire to be eminent in literature, are interested in it. A small kingdom, like Denmark, like Sweden, like Portugal, cannot naturally be productive of good writers; because where there are few readers, there is no sufficient incitement to exert literary talents: a classical work produced at present in the Celtic language, would be little less than a miracle. France is eminent above all other nations for the encouragement it affords to good writers: it is a populous country; it is the chief seat of taste, arts, and sciences; and its language has become universal in Europe, being the court-language every where: what wonder then is it, that French writers carry the palm? But let not the British despond; for doth not a glorious prospect lie before them? The demand for English books in America is considerable; and is increasing daily. Population goes on vigorously: the number of British already settled upon the river Ohio approach to 10,000; and the delicious country from that river down to the mouth of the Mississippi, will be filled with people whose native tongue is English. What reason is there to doubt, but that so fine a climate and so rich a soil will be productive of readers in plenty? The prospect of so many readers, though in distant parts of the globe, must rouse our ambition; and our ambition will be happily directed, if we lay aside all local distinctions, and aspire to rival the French writers in real merit only.

But the foregoing advantages of a great state, however illustrious, are sadly overbalanced by manifold disadvantages. The first is, the corruption of its kings, which, with a different view, is mentioned in the sketch immediately preceding. And beside corruption, there is another disadvantage that great monarchs are subjected to; which is, that being highly elevated above their subjects, they are acquainted with none but their ministers. And ministers, who, in a despotic government, are subject to no controul but that of their master, commonly prefer their own interest, without regard to his honour. Solyman Emperor of the Turks, tho' accomplished above any of his predecessors, could not escape the artifices of his wife Roxalana, and of his Visir Rustan. They poisoned his ears with repeated calumnies against his eldest son Mustapha, a young prince of great hopes. They were not in hazard of detection, because no person had access to the Emperor but by their means. And the concluding scene was an order from the Emperor to put his son to death[b]. If a great monarch lies thus open in his own palace to the artifices of his ministers, his authority, we may be certain, will be very slight over the governors of his distant provinces. Their power is precarious; and they oppress the people without intermission, in order to amass wealth: the complaints of the people are disregarded; for they can never reach the throne. The Spanish governors of the Philippine islands afford a deplorable instance of this observation. The heat of the climate promotes luxury: and luxury prompts avarice, which rages without controul, the distance of the capital removing all fear of detection. Arbitrary taxes are imposed on the people, and excessive duties on goods imported, which are rigorously exacted, and converted by the governor to his own use. An arbitrary estimate is made of what every field may produce; and the husbandman is severely punished if he sail to deliver the appointed quantity, whether his land has produced it or not. Many thousands have abandoned their native country; and the few miserable wretches who remain, have taken refuge among inaccessible mountains.

The corruption of a court spreads through every member of the state. In an extensive kingdom, powerful above its neighbours, the subjects, having no occasion to exert themselves in defence of their country, lose their manhood, and become cowards. At the same time, great inequality of rank and fortune engender luxury, selfishness, and sensuality[*]. The fine arts, it is true, gain ground, manufactures are perfected, and courtly manners prevail: but every manly virtue is gone; and not a soul to be found, who will venture his life to save his country. That disease is spreading in Britain; and the only circumstance that guards France from equal pusillanimity, is an established mode, that every gentleman must serve some campaigns in the army.

A third disadvantage of an extensive monarchy is, that it is liable to internal convulsions or revolutions, occasioned commonly either by a standing army, or by the governors of distant provinces. With respect to the former, the government of a great kingdom, enervated by luxury, will always be military, and consequently despotic. A numerous army will soon learn to contemn a pusillanimous leader, and to break loose from every tie of subjection: the sovereign is often changed at the caprice of the army; but despotism continues invariable. In Turky, Janisaries dethrone the Sultan, without scruple; but being superstitiously attached to the royal family, they confine themselves to it in electing a new Sultan. The Pretorian bands were the Janissaries of the Roman empire, who never scrupled to dethrone the Emperor on the slightest disobligation. But as there was no royal family, they commonly carried the crown to market, and bestowed it on the highest bidder. With respect to the latter, the governors of distant provinces, accustomed to act without controul, become fond of power, and put no bounds to ambition. Let them but gain the affection of the people they govern, and boldness will do the rest. The monarch is dethroned before he is prepared for defence, and the usurper takes his place without opposition. Success commonly attends such undertakings; for the sovereign has no soul, and the people have no patriotism. In Hindostan, formerly, some discontented favourite or souba took up arms to avenge fancied, or perhaps affected wrongs: venturing not however upon independence, he screened himself with setting up some person of the royal blood, whom he proclaimed sovereign. The voluptuousness and effeminacy of the late kings of Persia have rendered that kingdom a prey to every bold invader. There perhaps never existed a state that so often has changed its master, as Persia has done of late years.

In the fourth place, a nation corrupted with luxury and sensuality is a ready morsel for every invader: to attempt the conquest, and •o succeed, are almost the same. The potent Assyrian monarchy, having long subsisted in peace without a single enemy, sunk into sloth and effeminacy, and became an easy prey to the kings of Media and Babylon. These two nations, in like circumstances of sloth and effeminacy, were in their turn swallow'd up by Cyrus King of Persia. And the great empire of Persia, running the same course, was subdued by Alexander of Macedon with a small army of thirty five thousand men[*].

And this leads to a fifth disadvantage of a great empire, which is, the difficulty of guarding its frontiers. A kingdom, like an animal, becomes weak in proportion to its excess above a certain size. France and Spain would be less fitted for defence, were they enlarged beyond their present extent: Spain in particular was a very weak kingdom, while it comprehended the Netherlands and the half of Italy. In their present size, forces are soon collected to guard the most distant frontiers. Months are required to assemble troops in an overgrown kingdom like Persia: if an army be defeated at the frontier, it must disperse, fortified places being seldom within reach. The victor, advancing with celerity, lays siege to the capital, before the provincial troops can be formed into a regular army: the capital is taken, the empire dissolved, and the conqueror at leisure disputes the provinces with their governors. The Philippine islands made formerly a part of the extensive empire of China; but as they were too distant to be protected, or well governed, it show'd consummate wisdom in the Chinese government to abandon them, with several other distant provinces.

A small state, on the other hand, is easily guarded. The Greek republics thought themselves sufficiently fortified against the Great King, by their courage, their union, and their patriotism. The Spanish Christians, beat out of the open country by the Saracens, retired to the mountains of Asturia, and elected Don Pelayo to be their King. That warlike prince walled none of his towns, nor did he fortify a single pass; knowing, that while his people were brave, they would be invincible; and that walls and strong-holds serve but to abate courage. The Romans, while circumscribed within Italy, never thought of any defence against an enemy but good troops. When they had acquired a vast empire, even the Rhine appeared a barrier too weak: the numberless forts and legions that covered their frontiers could not defend them from a panic upon every motion of the barbarians[*]. A nation in which the reciprocal duties of sovereign and subject are conscientiously fulfilled, and in which the people love their country and their governors, may be deemed invincible; provided due care be taken of the military branch. Every particular is reversed in a great empire: individuals grasp at money, per fas aut nefas, to lavish it upon pleasure: the governors of distant provinces tyrannize without control, and, during the short period of their power, neglect no means, however oppressive, to amass wealth. Thus were the Roman provinces governed; and the people, who could not figure a greater tyrant than a Roman proconsul, were ready to embrace every change. The Romans accordingly were sensible, that to force their barrier, and to dismember their empire, were in effect the same. In our times the nations, whose frontiers lie open, would make the most resolute stand against an invader; witness the German states, and the Swiss cantons. Italy enjoys the strongest natural barrier of any country that is not an island; and yet for centuries has been a prey to every invader.

Two methods have been practised for securing the frontiers of an extensive empire: one is to lay the frontiers waste; the other is, to establish feudatory princes in the distant provinces. Sha Abbas, King of Persia, in order to prevent the inroads of the Turks, laid waste part of Armenia, carrying the inhabitants to Ispahan, and treating them with great humanity. Land is not much valued by the great monarchs of Asia: it is precious in the smaller kingdoms of Europe, and the frontiers are commonly guarded by fortified towns. The other frontiers of Persia are guarded by feudatory princes; and he same method is practised in China, in Hindostan, and in the Turkish empire. The princes of Little Tartary, Moldavia, and Wallachia, have been long a security to the Grand Signior against his powerful neighbours in Europe.

SKETCH VI.
WAR and PEACE compared.

NO complaints are more frequent than against the weather, when it suits not our purpose: "A dismal season! we shall be drowned, or we shall be burned up." And yet wise men think, that there might be more occasion to complain, were the weather left to our own direction. The weather is not the only instance of distrusting Providence: it is a common topic to declaim against war; "Scourge of nations, Destroyer of the human race, Bane of arts and industry! Will the world never become wise! Will war never have an end!" Manifold indeed are the blessings of peace; but doth war never produce any good? A fair comparison may possibly make it doubtful, whether war, like the weather, ought not to be resigned to the conduct of Providence: seldom are we in the right when we repine at its dispensations.

The blessings of peace are too well known to need illustration: industry, commerce, the fine arts, power, opulence, &c. &c. depend on peace. What has war in store for balancing blessings so substantial? Let us not abandon the field without making at least one effort.

Humanity, it must be acknowledged, gains nothing from the wars of small states in close neighbourhood: such wars are brutal and bloody; because they are carried on with bitter enmity against individuals. Thanks to Providence, that war at present bears a less savage aspect: we spare individuals, and make war upon the nation only: barbarity and cruelty give place to magnanimity; and soldiers are converted from brutes into heroes. Such wars give exercise to the elevated virtues of courage, generosity, and disinterestedness, which are always attended with consciousness of merit and of dignity[*]. Friendship is in peace cool and languid; but in a war for glory, exerts the whole fire of its enthusiasm. The long and bloody war sustained by the Netherlanders against the tyrant of Spain, made even Dutchmen heroes: they forced their way to the Indies during the hottest period of the war; and gained by commerce what supported them against their ferocious enemy. What have they gained since by peace? Their immense commerce has eradicated patriotism, and every appetite but for wealth. Had their violated rights been restored without a struggle, they would have continued a nation of frogs and fishermen. The Swiss, by continual struggles for liberty against the potent house of Austria, became a brave and active people, feared and courted by neighbouring princes. Their federal union has secured to them peace and tranquillity; which, notwithstanding their mountainous situation, would have sunk them into effeminacy, but for a commerce they carry on, of hiring out their men for soldiers. Monks are commonly pusillanimous: their way of life, which removes them from danger, enervates their minds, and renders them spiritless and cowardly.

Industry, manufactures, and wealth, are the fruits of peace; but advert to what follows. Luxury, a never-failing concomitant of wealth, is a slow poison, that debilitates the mind, and renders it incapable of any manly exertion; courage, magnanimity, heroism, come to be ranked among the miracles that are supposed never to have existed but in fable; and the fashionable properties of sensuality, avarice, cunning, and dissimulation, engross the mind. In a word, man by constant prosperity and peace degenerates into a mean, impotent, and selfish animal: more despicable, if less odious, than an American savage, who treasures up the scalps of his enemies as trophies of his prowess. Such are the fruits of perpetual peace with respect to individuals.

Nor is the state itself less debilitated by itth an its members. Figure a man wallowing in riches, and immersed in sensual pleasure, but dreading the insection of a plague raging at his gate; or figure him in continual dread of an enemy, watching every opportunity to burn and destroy. This man represents a commercial state, that has long enjoyed peace, without disturbance. A state that is a tempting object to an invader, without means of defence, is in a woful situation. The republic of Venice was once famous for the wisdom of its constitution, and for being the Christian bulwark against the Turks; but by long peace it has become altogether effeminate. Its present principles of government are conformable to its character. Every cause of quarrel with a neighbour is anxiously avoided; and disturbances at home prevented by watchful spies. Holland, since the days of King William, has not produced a man fit to command a regiment: and the Dutch have nothing to rely on for independence, but mutual jealousy among their neighbours. Hannibal appeared upon the stage too early: had the Romans, after their conquest of Italy, been suffered to exchange their martial spirit for luxury and voluptuousness, they would have been no match for that great general. It was equally lucky for the Romans, that they came late upon Macedon. Had Alexander finished his conquest of Greece, and the Romans theirs of Italy, at the same period, they would probably have been confined each of them within their own limits. But Asiatic luxury and effeminacy, which had got hold of the Greeks and Macedonians before the Roman invasion, rendered them an easy prey to the invadders. It was the constant cry of Cato the Censor, "Delenda est Carthago." Scipio Nasica was a more able politician: his opinion was, to give peace to Carthage, that the dread of that once powerful republic might preserve in vigour the military spirity of his country. What happened afterwards sets the wisdom of that advice in a conspicuous light. The battle of Actium, after a long train of cruel civil wars, gave peace to Rome under the Emperor Augustus. Peace had not subsisted much above thirty years, when a Roman army, under Quintilius Varus, was cut to pieces in Germany. The consternation at Rome was great, as there was not a fortified town to prevent the Germans from pouring down upon Italy. Instant orders were given for levying men; but so effeminate had the Romans already become, that not a single man would enlist voluntarily. And Augustus was forced to use severe measures, before he could collect a very small army. How different the military spirit of the Romans during the second Punic war, when several Roman armies were cut off, greater than that of Varus. The citizens who could bear arms were reduced to 137,000; and yet in the later years of that war, the Romans made shift to keep the field with no fewer than twenty-three legions[a]. The Vandals, having expelled the Romans from Afric, enjoyed peace for a century without seeing the face of an enemy. Procopius[b] gives the following account of them. Charmed with the fertility of the soil and benignity of the climate, they abandoned themselves to luxury, sumptuous dress, high living, and frequent baths. They dwelt in the theatre and circus, amusing themselves with dancers, pantomimes, and other gay entertainments: their villas were splendid, and their gardens were adorned with water-works, beautiful trees, and odoriferous flowers: no regard to chastity, nor to any manly virtue. In that effeminate condition, they made scarce any resistance to Belisarius with an army far inferior to their own in number. The Saracens of Asia, corrupted by prosperity and opulence, were able to make no head against the Turks. About that time, the Spaniards, having by the same means become effeminate, were overpowered by the Saracens of Afric, who, remote from the corrupt manners of Asia, retained their military spirit. The wealth of the kingdom of Whida in Guinea, from fertility of soil, great industry, and extensive commerce, produced luxury and effeminacy. The king, no less luxurious than his people, gave himself up to sensual pleasures, leaving government to his ministers. In that situation was Whidah in the year 1727, when the king of Dahomay, an inland state, requested access to the sea for trade, offering to purchase the privilege with a yearly tribute. A haughty denial furnished a pretext for war. The king of Dahomay invaded the territories of his enemy with a disciplined army, and pierced to the capital without meeting any resistance. The king of Whidah with his women had fled to an island, and his people were all dispersed. It amazed the conqueror, that a whole nation, without striking a blow, had thus deserted their wives, their children, their gods, their possessions, and all that was dear to them. The Japanese became warlike during long and bloody civil wars, which terminated, about the end of the sixteenth century, in rendering their Emperor despotic. From that period no opportunity has occurred for exercising their military spirit, except in the education of their youth: heroism, with contempt of death, are inculcated; and the histories of their illustrious heroes are the only books that boys at school are taught to read. But the profound tranquillity that the empire now enjoys in a strict and regular government, will in time render that warlike people effeminate and cowardly: human nature cannot resist the poison of perpetual peace and security. In the war between the Turks and Venetians, anno 1715, the latter put great confidence in Napoli di Romania, a city in the Morea strongly fortified, and provided with every necessary for an obstinate defence. They had not the least doubt of being able to draw their whole force together, before the Turks could make any progress in the siege. But, to their astonishment, the taking of that city, and of every other fortified place in the Morea, was the work of but a single campaign. So much had the Venetians degenerated by long peace, from the courage and patriotism of their forefathers who conquered that country from the Turks. In some late accounts from China, we are told, that the King of Bengala or Bracma, having invaded Yunnan, an opulent province of China, obtained a complete victory over the Emperor's army, commanded by his son-in-law; which struck the inhabitants of that province with such a panic, that multitudes, for fear of the conqueror, hanged and drowned themselves. To what a torpid state by this time would Europe have been reduced, had the plan for a perpetual peace, projected by Henry IV. of France, been carried into execution? Conquest, in a retrograde motion, would have directed its progress from the east to the west. Our situation in an island, among several advantages, is so far unlucky, that it puts us off our guard, and renders us negligent in providing for defence: we never were invaded without being subdued[*].

Montesquieu, in a warm panegyric on the English constitution, has overlooked one particular, in which it is superior to every other monarchy; and that is, the frequent opportunities it affords of exerting mental powers and talents. What agitation among the candidates and their electors on the approach of a new parliament: what freedom of speech and eloquence in parliament; ministers and their measures laid open to the world, the nation kept alive, and inspired with a vigour of mind that tends to heroism! This government, it is true, gerates factions, which sometimes generate revolutions: but the golden age, so lusciously described by poets, would to man be worse than an iron age. At any rate, better to have a government liable to storms, than to attempt a cure by the dead calm of despotism[†].

Law-suits within a state, like war between different states, accustom people to opposition, and prevent too great softness and facility of manners. In a free government, a degree of stubbornness in the people is requisite for resisting encroachments on their liberties. The fondness of the French for their sovereign, and the easiness and politeness of their manners, have corrupted a good constitution. The British constitution has been preserved entire by a people jealous of their prince, and stubborn against every encroachment of regal power.

There is another advantage of war, which ought not to be overlooked, though not capital. It serves to drain the country of idlers, few of whom are innocent, and many not a little mischievous. In the years 1759 and 1760, when we were at war with France, there were but twenty-nine criminals condemned at the Old Bailey. In the years 1770 and 1771, when we were at peace with all the world, the criminals condemned there amounted to one hundred and fifty-one.

But though I declare against perpetual peace, perpetual war is still more my aversion. The condition of Europe was deplorable in the dark ages, when vassals assumed the privilege of waging war without consent of the sovereign. Deadly feuds, which prevailed universally, threatened dissolution of all government: the human race never were in a more woful condition. But anarchy never fails soon or late to provide a cure against itself, which effeminacy, produced by long peace, never does. Revenge and cruelty, it is true, are the fruits of war; but so are likewise firmness of mind and undaunted courage; which are exerted with better will in behalf of virtue than of revenge. The crusades were what first gave a turn to the fierce manners of our ancestors. A religious enterprise, which united numbers, formerly at variance, enlarged the sphere of social affection, and sweetened the manners of Christians to one another. These crusades filled Europe with heroes, who, at home, were ready for any new enterprize that promised laurels. Moved with the oppressive and miserable consequences of deadly feuds, they joined in bonds of chivalry for succouring the distressed, for redressing wrongs, and for protecting widows and orphans. Such heroism enflamed every one who was fond of glory and warlike atchievements. Chivalry was relished by men of birth; and even kings were proud to be of the order. An institution, blending together valour, religion, and gallantry, was wonderfully agreeable to a martial people, and tended strongly to improve their manners: humanity and gentleness could not but prevail in a society, whose profession it was, to succour every person in distress. And as glory and honour were the only wished-for recompence, chivalry was esteemed the school of honour, of truth, and of fidelity. Thus, truth without disguise, and a scrupulous adherence to promises, became the distinguishing virtues of a gentleman. It is true, that the enthusiasm of protecting widows and orphans, degenerated sometimes into extravagance; witness knights who wandered about in quest of adventures. But it would be unfair to condemn the whole order, because a few of their number were foolish. The true spirit of chivalry produced undoubtedly a signal reformation in the manners of Europe. To what other cause can we so justly ascribe the point of honour, and that humanity in war, which characterize modern manners[c]? Are peace, luxury, and selfishness, capable of producing such effects?

That man should be the only animal who makes war upon his own kind may at first appear strange and unaccountable. Would men listen to cool reason, they never would make war. Hear the celebrated Rousseau on that subject. "Un prince, qui pour reculer ses frontiers, perd autant de ses anciens sujets qu'il en acquiert de nouveaux, s'affoiblit en s'agrandissant; parce qu'avec un plus grand espace à defendre, il n'a pas plus de défenseurs. Or on ne peut ignorer, que par la maniere dont la guerre se fait aujourd'hui, la moindre depopulation qu'elle produit est celle qui se fait dans les armées: c'est bien-là la perte apparente et sensible; mais il s'en fait en même tems dans tout l'état une plus grave et plus irreparable que celle des hommes qui meurent, par ceux qui ne naissent pas, par l'augmentation des impôts, par l'interruption du commerce, par la désertion des campagnes, par l'abandon de l'agriculture; ce mal qu'on n'apparcoit point d'abord, se fait sentir cruellement dans la suite: et c'est alors qu'on est étonné d'être si foible, pour s'être rendu si puissant. Ce qui rend encore les conquêtes moins intéressantes, c'est qu'on sait maintenant par quels moyens on peut doubler et tripler sa puissance, non seulement sans étendre son territoire, mais quelquefois en le resserrant, comme fit très sagement l'Empereur Adrien. On sait que ce sont les hommes seuls qui sont la force des Rois; et c'est une proposition qui découle de ce que je viens de dire, que de deux états qui nourrissent le même nombre d'habitans, celui qui occupe une moindre étendue de terre, est réellement le plus puissant. C'est donc par de bonnes loix, par une sage police, par de grandes vues économiques, qu'un souverain judicieux est sùr d'augmenter ses forces, sans rien donner au hazard[*]." But war is necessary for man, being a school for improving every manly virtue; and Providence renders kings blind with respect to their true interest, in order that war may sometimes take place. To rely upon Providence in the government of this world, is the wisdom of man.

Upon the whole, perpetual war is bad, because it converts men into beasts of prey: perpetual peace is worse, because it converts men into beasts of burden. To prevent such woful degeneracy on both hands, war and peace alternately are the only effectual means; and these means are adopted by Providence.

SKETCH VII.
Rise and Fall of PATRIOTISM.

THE members of a tribe, in their original state of hunting and fishing, being little united but by a common language, have no notion of a patria; and scarce any notion of society, unless when they join in an expedition against an enemy, or against wild beasts. The shepherd-state, where flocks and herds are possessed in common, gives a clear notion of a common interest; but still none of a patria. The sense of a patria begins to unfold itself, when a people leave off wandering, to settle upon a territory which they call their own. Agriculture connects them together; and government still more: they become fellow-citizens; and the territory is termed the patria of every person born in it. It is so ordered by Providence, that a man's country, and his countrymen, are to him in conjunction an object of a peculiar affection, termed amor patriae, or patriotism; an affection that rises high among a people intimately connected by regular government, by husbandry, by commerce, and by a common interest. "Cari sunt parentes, cari liberi, propinqui, familiares; sed omnes omnium caritates patria una complexa est: pro qua quis bonus dubitet mortem oppetere[*]?"

Social passions and affections, beside being greatly more agreeable than selfish, are those only which command our esteem[d]. Patriotism stands at the head of social affections; and stands so high in our esteem, that no actions but what proceed from it are termed grand or heroic. When that affection appears so agreeable in contemplation, how sweet, how elevating, must it be in those whom it inspires! Like vigorous health, it beats constantly with an equal pulse: like the vestal fire, it never is extinguished. No source of enjoyment is more plentiful than patriotism, where it is the ruling passion: it triumphs over every selfish motive, and is a firm support to every virtue. In fact, wherever it prevails, the morals of the people are found to be pure and correct.

These are illustrious effects of patriotism with respect to private happiness and virtue; and yet its effects with respect to the public are still more illustrious. A nation in no other period of its progress is so flourishing, as when patriotism is the ruling passion of every member: during that period, it is invincible. Atheneus remarks, that the Athenians were the only people in the world, who, though clothed in purple, put formidable armies to flight at Marathon, Salamine, and Platea. But at that period patriotism was their ruling passion; and success attended them in every undertaking. Where patriotism rules, men do wonders, whatever garb they wear. The fall of Saguntum is a grand scene; a people exerting the utmost powers of nature, in defence of their country. The city was indeed destroyed; but the citizens were not subdued. The last effort of the remaining heroes was, to burn themselves, with their wives and children, in one great funeral pile. Numantia affords a scene not less grand. The citizens, such as were able to bear arms, did not exceed 8000; and yet braved all the efforts of 60,000 disciplined soldiers commanded by Scipio Nasica. So high was their character for intrepidity, that even when but a few of them were left alive, the Romans durst not attempt to storm the town. And they stood firm till, subdued by famine, they were no longer able to crawl. While the Portuguese were eminent for patriotism, Lopez Caraico, one of their sea-captains, in a single ship with but forty men, stumbled upon the King of Achin's fleet of twenty gallies, as many junks, and a multitude of small vessels. Resolute to perish rather than yield, he maintained the fight for three days, till his ship was pierced through and through with cannon-shot, and not a single man left unwounded. And yet, after all, the King's fleet found it convenient to sheer off.

Patriotism at the same time is the great bulwark of civil liberty; equally abhorrent of despotism on the one hand, and of licentiousness on the other. While the despotic government of the Tudor family subsisted, the English were too much depressed to have any affection for their country. But when manufactures and commerce began to flourish in the latter end of Elizabeth's reign, a national spirit broke forth, and patriotism made some figure. That change of disposition was perhaps the chief cause, though not the most visible, of the national struggles for liberty, which were frequent during the government of the Stewart family, and which ended in a free government at the Revolution.

Patriotism is too much cramped in a very small state, and too much relaxed in an extensive monarchy. But that topic has already been discussed in the first sketch of this book.

Patriotism is enflamed by a struggle for liberty, by a civil war, by resisting a potent invader, or by any incident that forcibly draws the members of a state into strict union for the common interest. The resolute opposition of the seven provinces to Philip II. of Spain, in the cause of liberty, is an illustrious instance of the patriotic spirit rising to a degree of enthusiasm. Patriotism, roused among the Corsicans by the oppression of the Genoese, exerted itself upon every proper object. Even during the heat of the war, they erected an university for arts and sciences, a national bank, and a national library; improvements that would not have been thought of in their torpid state. Alas! they have fallen a victim to thirst of power, not to superior valour. Had Providence favoured them with success, their figure would have been considerable in peace as in war[*].

But violent commotions cannot be perpetual: one party prevails, and prosperity follows. What effect may this have on patriotism? I answer, that nothing is more animating than success after a violent struggle: a nation in that state resembles a comet, which in passing near the sun, has been much heated, and continues full of motion. Patriotism made a capital figure among the Athenians, when they became a free people, after expelling the tyrant Pisistratus. Every man exerted himself for his country: every man endeavoured to excell those who went before him: and hence a Miltiades, an Aristides, a Themistocles, names that for ever will figure in the annals of time. While the Roman republic was confined within narrow bounds, austerity of manners, and disinterested love to their country, formed the national character. The elevation of the Patricians above the Plebeians, a source of endless discord, was at last remedied by placing all the citizens upon a level. This signal revolution excited an animating emulation between the Patricians and Plebeians; the former, by heroic actions, labouring to maintain their superiority; the latter straining every nerve to equal them: the republic never at any other period produced so great men in the art of war.

But such variety there is human affairs, that tho' men are indebted to emulation for their heroic actions, yet actions of that kind never fail to suppress emulation in those who follow. An observation is made above[e], that nothing is more fatal to the progress of an art, than a person of superior genius, who damps emulation in others: witness the celebrated Newton, to whom the decay of mathematical knowledge in Britain is justly attributed. The observation holds equally with respect to action. Those actions only that flow from patriotism are deemed grand and heroic; and such actions, above all others, rouse a national spirit. But beware of a Newton in heroism: instead of exciting emulation, he will damp it: despair to equal the great men who are the admiration of all men, puts an end to emulation. After the illustrious atchievements of Miltiades, and after the eminent patriotism of Aristides, we hear no more in Greece of emulation or of patriotism. Pericles was a man of parts, but he sacrificed Athens to his ambition. The Athenians sunk lower and lower under the Archons, who had neither parts nor patriotism; and were reduced at last to slavery, first by the Macedonians, and next by the Romans. The Romans run the same course, from the highest exertions of patriotic emulation, down to the most abject selfishness and effeminacy.

And this leads to other causes that extinguish patriotism, or relax it. Factious disorders in a state never fail to relax it; for there the citizen is lost, and every person is beheld in the narrow view of a friend or an enemy. In the contests between the Patricians and Plebeians of Rome, the public was totally disregarded: the Plebeians could have no heart-affection for a country where they were oppressed; and the Patricians might be fond of their own order, but they could not sincerely love their country, while they were enemies to the bulk of their countrymen. Patriotism did not shine forth in Rome, till all equally became citizens.

To support patriotism, it is necessary that a people be in a train of prosperity: when a nation becomes stationary, patriotism subsides. The ancient Romans upon a small foundation erected a great empire; so great indeed, that it fell to pieces by its unwieldiness. But the plurality of nations, whether from their situation, from the temper of their people, or from the nature of their government, are confined within narrower limits; beyond which their utmost exertions avail little, unless they happen to be extraordinary favourites of fortune. When a nation becomes thus stationary, its pushing genius is at an end: its plan is to preserve, not to acquire: the members, even without any example of heroism to damp emulation, are infected with the languid tone of the state: patriotism subsides; and we hear no more of bold or heroic actions. The Venetians are a pregnant instance of the observation. Their trade with Aleppo and Alexandria did for centuries introduce into Europe the commodities of Syria, Egypt, Arabia, Persia, and India. The cities of Nuremberg and Augsburgh in particular, were supplied from Venice with these commodities; and by that traffick became populous and opulent. Venice, in a word, was for centuries the capital trading town of Europe, and powerful above all its neighbours, both at sea and land. A passage to the East Indies by the Cape of Good Hope was indeed an animating discovery to the Portuguese; but it did not entitle them to exclude the Venetians. The greater distance of Venice from the Cape, a trifle in itself, is more than balanced by its proximity to Greece, Germany, Hungary, Poland, and to the rest of Italy. But the Portuguese at that period were in the spring of prosperity; and patriotism envigorated them to make durable establishments on the Indian coast, overpowering every nation that stood in opposition. The Venetians, on the contrary, being a nation of merchants, and having been long successful in commerce, were become stationary, and unqualified for bold adventures. Being cut out of their wonted commerce to India, and not having resolution to carry on commerce in a new channel, they sunk under the good fortune of their rivals, and abandoned the trade altogether.

No cause hitherto mentioned hath such influence in depressing patriotism, as inequality of rank and of riches in an opulent monarchy. A continual influx of wealth into the capital, generates show, luxury, avarice, which are all selfish vices; and selfishness, enslaving the mind, eradicates every fibre of patriotism[*]. Asiatic luxury, flowing into Rome in a plentiful stream, produced an universal corruption of manners, and metamorphosed into voluptuousness the warlike genius of that great city. The dominions of Rome were now too extensive for a republican government, and its generals too powerful to be disinterested. Passion for glory wore out of fashion, as austerity of manners had done formerly: power and riches were now the only objects of ambition: virtue seemed a farce; honour, a chimera; and fame, mere vanity: every Roman, abandoning himself to sensuality, flattered himself, that he, more wise than his forefathers, was pursuing the cunning road to happiness. Corruption and venality became general, and maintained their usurpation in the provinces as well as in the capital, without ever losing a foot of ground. Pyrrhus attempted by presents to corrupt the Roman senators, but made not the slightest impression. Deplorable was the change of manners in the days of Jugurtha:—"Pity it is, said he, "that no man is so opulent as to purchase a people so willing to be sold." Cicero, mentioning an oracle of Apollo, that Sparta would never be destroyed but by avarice, justly observes, that the prediction holds in every nation as well as in Sparta. The Greek empire, sunk in voluptuousness without a remaining spark of patriotism, was no match for the Turks, enflamed with a new religion, that promised paradise to those who should die fighting for their prophet. How many nations, like those mentioned, illustrious formerly for vigour of mind, and love to their country, are now sunk by contemptible vices as much below brutes as they ought to be elevated above them: brutes seldom deviate from the perfection of their nature, men frequently.

Successful commerce is not more advantageous by the wealth and power it immediately bestows, than it is hurtful ultimately by introducing luxury and voluptuousness, which eradicate patriotism. In the capital of a great monarchy, the poison of opulence is sudden; because opulence there is seldom acquired by reputable means: the poison of commercial opulence is slow, because commerce seldom enriches without industry, sagacity, and fair dealing. But by whatever means acquired, opulence never fails soon or late to smother patriotism under sensuality and selfishness. We learn from Plutarch and other writers, that the Athenians, who had long enjoyed the sunshine of commerce, were extremely corrupt in the days of Philip, and of his son Alexander. Even their chief patriot and orator, a professed champion for independence, was not proof against bribes. While Alexander was prosecuting his conquests in India, Harpalus, to whom his immense treasure was intrusted, fled with the whole to Athens. Demosthenes advised his fellow-citizens to expell him, that they might not incur Alexander's displeasure. Among other things of value, there was the King's cup of massy gold, curiously engraved. Demosthenes, surveying it with a greedy eye, asked Harpalus what it weighed. To you, said Harpalus smiling, it shall weigh twenty talents; and that every night he sent privately to Demosthenes twenty talents with the cup. Demosthenes next day came into the assembly with a cloth rolled about his neck; and his opinion being demanded about Harpalus, he made signs that he had lost his voice. The Capuans, the Tarentines, and other Greek colonies in the lower parts of Italy, when invaded by the Romans, were no less degenerate than their brethren in Greece when invaded by Philip of Macedon; the same depravation of manners, the same luxury, the same passion for feasts and spectacles, the same intestine sactions, the same indifference about their country, and the same contempt of its laws. The Portuguese, enflamed with love to their country, when they discovered a passage to the Indies by the Cape of Good Hope, made great and important settlements in that very distant part of the globe; and of their immense commerce there is no parallel in any age or country. Prodigious riches in gold, precious stones, spices, perfumes, drugs, and manufactures, were annually imported into Lisbon from their settlements on the coasts of Malabar and Coromandel, from the kingdoms of Camboya, Decan, Malacca, Patana, Siam, China, &c. from the islands of Ceylon, Sumatra, Java, Borneo, Moluccas, and Japan: and to Lisbon all the nations in Europe resorted for these valuable commodities. But the downfall of the Portuguese was no less rapid than their exaltation; unbounded power and immense wealth having produced a total corruption of manners. If sincere piety, exalted courage, and indefatigable industry, made the original adventurers more than men; indolence, sensuality, and effeminacy, rendered their successors less than women. Unhappy it was for them to be attacked at that critical time by the Dutch, who, in defence of liberty against the tyranny of Spain, were enflamed with love to their country, as the Portuguese had been formerly[*]. The Dutch, originally from their situation a temperate and industrious people, became heroes in the cause of liberty as just now mentioned; and patriotism was their ruling passion. Prosperous commerce spread wealth through every corner; and yet such was the inherent virtue of that people, that their patriotism resisted very long the contagion of wealth. But as appetite for riches increases with their quantity, patriotism sunk in proportion, till it was totally extinguished; and now the Dutch never think of their country, unless as subservient to private interest. With respect to the Dutch East-India company in particular, it was indebted for its prosperity to the fidelity and srugality of its servants, and to the patriotism of all. But these virtues were undermined, and at last eradicated, by luxury, which Europeans seldom resist in a hot climate. People go from Europe in the service of the company, bent beforehand to make their fortune per fas aut nefas; and their distance from their masters renders every check abortive. The company, eat up by their servants, is rendered so feeble, as to be incapable of maintaining their ground against any extraordinary shock. A war of any continuance with the Indian potentates, or with the English company, would reduce them to bankruptcy. They are at present as ripe for being swallowed up by any rival power, as the Portuguese were formerly for being swallowed up by them. Quaeritur, Is the English East-India company in a much better condition? Such is the rise and fall of patriotism among the nations mentioned; and such will be its rise and fall among all nations in like circumstances.

It grieves me, that the epidemic distempers of luxury and selfishness are spreading wide in Britain. It is fruitless to dissemble, that profligate manners must in Britain be a consequence of too great opulence, as they have been in every other part of the globe. Our late distractions leave no room for a doubt. Listen to a man of figure, thoroughly acquainted with every machination for court-preferment. "Very little attachment is discoverable in the body of our people to our excellent constitution: no reverence for the customs nor for the opinions of our ancestors; no attachment but to private interest, nor any zeal but for selfish gratifications. While party-distinctions of Whig and Tory, high church and low church, court and country, subsisted, the nation was indeed divided, but each side held an opinion, for which he would have hazarded every thing; for both acted from principle: if there were some who sought to alter the constitution, there were many who would have spilt their blood to preserve it from violation: if divine hereditary right had its partisans, there were multitudes to stand up for the superior sanctity of a title founded on an act of parliament, and the consent of a free people. But the abolition of party-names have destroyed all public principles. The power of the crown was indeed never more visibly extensive over the great men of the nation; but then these men have lost their influence over the lower orders: even parliament has lost much of its authority; and the voice of the multitude is sct up against the sense of the legislature: an impoverished and heavily-burdened public, a people luxurious and licentious, impatient of rule, and despising all authority, government relaxed in every sinew, and a corrupt selfish spirit pervading the whole[f]." It is a common observation, that when the belly is full, the mind is at ease. That observation, it would appear, holds not in London; for never in any other place did riot and licentiousness rise to such a height, without a cause, and without even a plausible pretext[*].

It is deplorable, that in English public schools, patriotism makes no branch of education; young men, on the contrary, are trained up to selfishness. Keep what you get, and get what you can, is the chief lesson inculcated at Westminster, Winchester, and Eaton. Students put themselves in the way of receiving vails from strangers; and that dirty practice continues, tho' far more poisonous to manners, than the giving vails to menial servants, which the nation is now ashamed of. The Eaton scholars are at times sent to the highway to rob passengers. The strong without control tyrannize over the weak, subjecting them to every servile office, wiping shoes not excepted. They are permitted to trick and deceive one another; and the finest fellow is he who is the most artful. Friendship indeed is cultivated, but such as we find among robbers: a boy would be run down, if he had no associate. In a word, the most determined selfishness is the capital lesson.

When a nation, formerly warlike and publicspirited, is depressed by luxury and selfishness, doth nature afford no means for restoring it to its former state? The Emperor Hadrian declared the Greeks a free people; not doubting, but that a change so animating, would restore the fine arts to their pristine lustre.—A vain attempt: for the genius of the Greeks vanished with their patriotism; and liberty to them was no blessing. With respect to the Portuguese, the decay of their power and of their commerce, have reduced them to a much lower condition, than when they rose as it were out of nothing At that time they were poor, but innocent: at present they are poor, but corrupted with many vices. Their pride in particular swells as high as when masters of the Indies. The following ridiculous instance is a pregnant proof: shoes and stockings are prohibited to their Indian subjects; tho' many of them would pay handsomely for the privilege. There is one obvious measure for reviving the Portuguese trade in India; but they have not so much vigour of mind remaining, as even to think of execution. They still possess in that country, the town and territory of Goa, the town and territory of Diu, with some other ports, all admirably situated for trade. What stands in the way but indolence merely, against declaring the places mentioned free ports, with liberty of conscience to traders of whatever religion? Free traders flocking there, under protection of the Portuguese, would undermine the Dutch and English companies, which cannot trade upon an equal footing with private merchants; and by that means, the Portuguese trade might again flourish. But that people are not yet brought so low as to be compelled to change their manners, tho' reduced to depend on their neighbours even for common necessaries. The gold and diamonds of Brasil are a plague that corrupt all. Spain and Portugal afford instructive political lessons: the latter has been ruined by opulence; the former, as will be seen afterward, by taxes no less impolitic than oppressive. To enable these nations to recommence their former course, or any nation in the same situation, I can discover no means but pinching poverty. Commerce and manufactures taking wing, may leave a country in a very distressed condition: but a people may be very distressed, and yet very vitious; for vices generated by opulence are not soon eradicated. And tho' other vices should at last vanish with the temptations that promoted them, indolence and pusillanimity will remain for ever, unless by some powerful cause the opposite virtues be introduced. A very poor man, however indolent, will be tempted for bread to exert some activity; and he may be trained gradually from less to more by the same means. Activity at the same time produces bodily strength; which will restore courage and boldness. By such means a nation may be put in motion with the same advantages it had originally; and its second progress may prove as successful as the first. Thus nations go round in a circle, from weakness to strength, and from strength to weakness. The first part of the progress is verified in a thousand instances; but the world has not subsisted long enough to afford any clear instance of the other.

I close this sketch with two illustrious examples of patriotism; one ancient, one modern; one among the whites, and one among the blacks. Aristides the Athenian is famed above all the ancients for love to his country. Its safety and honour were the only objects of his ambition; and his signal disinterestedness made it the same to him, whether these ends were accomplished by himself or by others, by his friends or his foes. One conspicuous instance occurred before the battle of Marathon. Of the ten generals chosen to command the Athenian army, he was one: but sensible that a divided command is subjected to manifold inconveniencies, he exerted all his influence for delegating the whole power to Miltiades; and at the same time zealously supported the proposal of Miltiades, of boldly meeting the Persians in the field. His disinterestedness was still more conspicuous with regard to Themistocles, his bitter enemy. Suspending all enmity, he cordially agreed with him in every operation of the war; assisting him with his counsel and credit, and yet suffering him to engross all the honours of victory. In peace he was the same, yielding to Themistocles in the administration of government, and contenting himself with a subordinate place. In the senate and in the assembly of the people, he made many proposals in a borrowed name, to prevent envy and opposition. He retired from public business in the latter part of his life; passing his time in training young men for serving the state, instilling into them principles of honour and virtue, and inspiring them with love to their country. His death unsolded a signal proof of the contempt he had for riches; he who had been treasurer of Greece during the lavishment of war, left not sufficient to defray the expence of his funeral: a British commissary in like circumstances acquires the riches of Croesus.

The scene of the other example is Fouli, a negro kingdom in Africa. Such regard is paid there to royal blood, that no man can succeed to the crown, but who is connected with the first monarch, by an uninterrupted chain of females: a connection by males would give no security, as the women of that country are prone to gallantry. In the last century, the Prince of Sambaboa, the King's nephew by his sister, was invested with the dignity of Kamalingo, a dignity appropriated to the presumptive heir. A liberal and generous mind, with undaunted courage, rivetted him in the affections of the nobility and people. They rejoiced in the expectation of having him for their King. But their expectation was blasted. The King, fond of his children, ventured a bold measure, which was, to invest his eldest son with the dignity of Kamalingo, and to declare him heir to the crown. Tho' the Prince of Sambaboa had for him the laws of the kingdom, and the hearts of the people, yet he retired in silence to avoid a civil war. He could not however prevent men of rank from flocking to him; which the King interpreting to be a rebellion, raised an army in order to put them all to the sword. As the King advanced, the Prince retired, resolving not to draw his sword against an uncle, whom he was accustomed to call father. But finding that the command of the King's army was bestowed on his rival, he made ready for battle. The Prince obtained a complete victory: but his heart was not elated: the horrors of a civil war stared him in the face: he bid farewell to his friends, dismissed his army, and retired into a neighbouring kingdom; relying on the affections of the people to be placed on the throne after his uncle's death. During banishment, which continued thirty tedious years, frequent attempts upon his life put his temper to a severe trial; for while he existed, the King had no hopes that his son would reign in peace. He had the fortitude to stand every trial; when, in the year 1702, beginning to yield to age and misfortunes, his uncle died. His cousin was deposed; and he was called by the unanimous voice of the nobles, to reign over a people who adored him.

SKETCH VIII.
FINANCES.

PREFACE.

IN the following slight essay, intended for novices only, it is my sole ambition to rival certain painstaking authors, who teach history in the perspicuous mode of question and answer. Among novices, it would be unpardonable to rank such of my fellow-citizens, as are ambitious of a seat in parliament; many of whom sacrifice the inheritance of their ancestors, for an opportunity to exert their patriotism in that august assembly. Can such a sacrifice permit me to doubt, of their being adepts in the mysteries of government, and of taxes in particular? they ought at least to be initiated in these mysteries.

It is of importance, that taxes, and their effects, be understood, not only by the members of our parliament, but also by their electors: a representative will not readily vote for a destructive tax, when he cannot hope to disguise his conduct. The intention of the present sketch, is to unfold the principles upon which taxes ought to be founded, and to point out what are beneficial, what noxious. I have endeavoured to introduce some light into a subject involved in Egyptian darkness; and if that end be attained, I shall die in the faith, that I have not been an unprofitable servant to my country.

FINANCES.

THIS subject consists of many parts, not a little intricate. A proper distribution will tend to perspicuity; and I think it may be fitly divided into the following sections. 1st, General considerations on taxes. 2d, Power of imposing taxes. 3d, Different sorts of taxes, with their advantages and disadvantages. 4th, Manner of levying taxes. 5th, Rules to be observed in taxing. 6th, Examination of British taxes. 7th, Regulations for advancing industry and commerce.

SECTION I.
GENERAL CONSIDERATIONS on TAXES.

AS opulence is not friendly to study and knowledge, the men best qualified for being generals, admirals, judges, or ministers of state, are seldom opulent; and to make such men serve without pay, would be in effect to ease the rich at the expence of the poor. With respect to the military branch in particular, the bulk of those who compose an army, if withdrawn from daily labour, must starve, unless the public, which they serve, afford them maintenance. A republican government, during peace, may indeed be supported at a very small charge among a temperate and patriotic people. In a monarchy, a public fund is indispensable, even during peace: and in war it is indispensable, whatever be the government. The Spartans carried all before them in Greece, but were forced to quit their hold, having no fund for a standing army; and the other Greek states were obliged to confederate with the Athenians, who after the Persian war became masters at sea. A defect so obvious in the Spartan government did assuredly not escape Lycurgus, the most profound of all legislators. Foreseeing that conquest would be destructive to his countrymen, his sole purpose was to guard them from being conquered; which in Sparta required no public fund, as all the citizens were equal, and equally bound to defend themselves and their country. A state, it is true, without a public fund, is ill qualified to oppose a standing army, regularly disciplined, and regularly paid. But in political matters, experience is our only sure guide; and the history of nations, at that early period, was too barren to afford instruction. Lycurgus may well be excused, considering how little progress political knowledge had made in a much later period. Charles VII. of France was the first in modern times who established a fund for a standing army. Against that dangerous innovation, the crown-vassals had no resource but to imitate their sovereign; and yet, without even dreaming of a resource, they suffered themselves to be undermined, and at last overturned, by the King their superior. Thus, on the one hand, a nation, however warlike, that has not a public fund, is no match for a standing army enured to war. Extensive commerce, on the other hand, enables a nation to support a standing army; but, by introducing luxury, it eradicates manhood, and renders that army an unfit match for any poor and warlike invader. Hard may seem the fate of nations, laid thus open to destruction from every quarter. All that can be said is, that the Deity never intended to stamp immortality upon any production of man.

The stability of land fits it, above all other subjects, for a public patrimony. But as crown-lands lie open to the rapacity of favourites, it becomes necessary, when these are dissipated, to introduce taxes; which have the following properties; that they unite in one common interest the sovereign and his subjects, and that they can be augmented or diminished according to exigencies.

The art of levying money by taxes was so little understood in the sixteenth century, that after the famous battle of Pavia, in which the French King was made prisoner, Charles V. was obliged to disband his victorious army, tho' consisting but of 24,000 men, because he had not the art to levy, in his extensive dominions, the sum that was necessary to keep it on foot. So little knowledge was there in England of political arithmetic in the days of Edward III. that L. 1: 2: 4 on each parish was computed to be sufficient for raising a subsidy of L. 50,000. It being found, that there were but 8700 parishes, exclusive of Wales, the parliament, in order to raise the said subsidy, assessed on each parish L. 5, 16s.

In imposing taxes, ought not the expence of living to be deducted, leaving the remainder of a man's stock as the only taxable subject? This method was adopted in the state of Athens. A rent of 500 measures of corn, burdened the landlord with the yearly contribution of a talent: a rent of 300, burdened him with half a talent: a rent of 200, burdened him with the sixth part of a talent; and land under that rent paid no tax. Here the tax was not in proportion to the estate, but to what could be spared out of it; or, in other words, in proportion to the ability of the proprietor. At the same time, ability must not be estimated by what a man actually saves, which would exempt the profuse and profligate from paying taxes, but by what a man can pay who lives with oeconomy according to his rank. This rule is founded on the very nature of government: to tax a man's food, or the subject that affords him bare necessaries, is worse than the denying him protection: it starves him. Hence the following proposition may be laid down as the corner-stone for taxation-buildiding, "That every man ought to contribute to the public revenue, not in proportion to his substance," but to his ability. I am sorry to observe, that this rule is little regarded in British taxes; though nothing would contribute more to sweeten the minds of the people, and to make them fond of their government, than a regulation fraught with so much equity.

Taxes were long in use before it was discovered that they could be made subservient to other purposes beside that of supporting government. In the fifteenth century, the states of Burgundy rejected with indignation a demand made by the Duke of a duty on salt, though they found no other objection, but that it would oppress the poor people, who lived mostly on salt meat and salt fish. It did not occur to them, that such a tax might hurt their manufactures, by raising the price of labour. A tax of two shillings on every hearth, known by the name of hearth-money, was granted to Charles II. his heirs and successors for ever. It was abrogated by an act of William and Mary, ann. 1688, on the following preamble. "That it is not only a great oppression upon the poorer sort, but a badge of slavery upon the whole people, exposing every man's house to be entered into ••d searched at pleasure by persons unknown to him." Had the harm done by such a tax to our manufactures been at that time understood, it would have been urged as the capital reason against the tax. Our late improvements in commercial pol tics have unfolded an important doctrine, That taxes are seldom indifferent to the public good; that frequently they are more oppressive to people, than beneficial to the sovereign; and, on the other hand, that they may be so contrived, as to rival bounties in promoting industry, manufactures, and commerce. These different effects of taxes have rendered the subject not a little intricate.

It is an article of importance in government, to have it ascertained, what proportion of the annual income of a nation may be drawn from the people by taxes, without impoverishing them. An eighth part is held to be too much: husbandry, commerce, and population would suffer. Davenant says, that the Dutch pay to the public annually the fourth part of the income of their country; and he adds, that their strict oeconomy enables them to bear that immense load, without raising the price of labour so high as to cut them out of the foreign market. It was probably so in the days of Davenant; but of late matters are much altered: the dearness of living and of labour has excluded all the Dutch manufactures from the foreign market. Till the French war in King William's reign, England paid in taxes but about a twentieth part of its annual income.

SECT. II.
POWER of IMPOSING TAXES.

THAT to impose taxes belongs to the sovereign, and to him only, is undoubted. But it has been doubted, whether even king and parliament, who possess the sovereign authority in Britain, can legally impose a tax without consent of the people. The celebrated Locke, in his Essay on Government[a], lays down the following proposition as fundamental. "'Tis true, governments cannot be supported without great charge, and 'tis fit every one who enjoys his share of protection should pay out of his estate his proportion for the maintenance of it. But still it must be with his own consent, i.e. the consent of the majority, giving it, either by themselves, or their representatives chosen by them; for if any one shall claim a power to lay and levy taxes on the people by his own authority, and without such consent of the people, he thereby invades the fundamental law of property, and subverts the end of government. For what property have I in that which another may by right take, when he pleases, to himself?" No author has reflected more honour on his native country, and on mankind, than Mr. Locke. Yet no name is above truth; and I am obliged to observe, though with regret, that, in the foregoing reasoning, the right of imposing taxes is laid upon a very crazy foundation. It may indeed be said, with some colour, that the freeholder, virtually impower their representatives to tax them. But their vassals and tenants, who have no vote in electing members of parliament, empower none to tax them: yet they are taxed like others; and so are the vassals and tenants of peers. Add to these, an immense number of artisans, manufacturers, day-labourers, domestics, &c. &c. with the whole female sex; and it will appear, on calculation, that those who are represented in parliament make not the hundredth part of the taxable people. But further, it is acknowledged by our author, that the majority of the Lords and Commons must bind the minority. This circumstance alone might have convinced him of his error; for surely the minority, in this case, are bound without their consent; nay, against their consent. That a state cannot tax its subjects without their consent, is a rash proposition, totally subversive of government. Locke himself has suggested the solid foundation of taxes, though inadvertently he lays no weight on it. I borrow his own words: "That every one who enjoys his share of protection, should pay out of his estate his proportion for the maintenance of the government." The duties of sovereign and of subject are reciprocal; and common justice requires, that a subject, or any person who is protected by a government, ought to pay for that protection. Similar instances, without number, of such reciprocal duties, occur in the laws of every civilized nation. A man calls for meat and drink in a tavern: is he not bound to pay the bill, though he made no agreement beforehand? A man is wafted over a river in a ferry-boat: must he not pay the common fare, though he made no promise? Nay, it is every man's interest to pay for protection: government cannot subsist without a public fund; and what will become of individuals, when no longer protected, either in their persons or goods? Thus taxes are implied in the very nature of government; and the interposition of sovereign authority is only necessary so determining the expediency of a tax; and the quota, if found expedient.

Many writers, misled by the respectable authority of Locke, boldly maintain, that a British parliament cannot legally tax the American colonies, who are not represented in parliament. This proposition, which has drawn the attention of the public of late years, has led me to be more explicit on the power of imposing taxes, than otherwise would be necessary. Those who favour the independence of our colonies, urge, "That a man ought to have the disposal of what he acquires by honest industry, subject to no control: whence the necessity of a parliament for imposing taxes, where every individual is either personally present, or by a representative of his own election. The aid accordingly given to a British sovereign is not a tribute, but a free and voluntary gift." What is said above will bring the dispute within a very narrow compass. If our colonists be British subjects, which hitherto has not been controverted, they are subjected to the British legislature in every article of government; and as from the beginning they have been protected by Britain, they ought, like other subjects, to pay for that protection. There never was a time less favourable to their claim of freedom from taxes, than the close of the late war with France. Had Britain seasonably interposed, they would have been swallowed up by France, and become slaves to despotism.

If it be questioned, By what acts is a man understood to claim protection of government? I answer, by setting his foot on the territory. If, upon landing at Dover, a foreigner be robbed, the law interposes for him as for a native. And, as he is thus protected, he pays for protection, when he purchases a pair of shoes, or a bottle of beer. The case is clear with respect to a man who can chuse the place of his residence. But what shall be said of children, who are not capable of choice, nor of consent? They are protected, and protection implies the reciprocal duty of paying taxes. As soon as a young man is capable of acting for himself, he is at liberty to chuse other protectors, if those who have hitherto protected him be not agreeable.

If a legal power to impose taxes without consent of the people did necessarily imply a legal power to impose taxes at pleasure, without limitation, Locke's argument would be invincible, in a country of freedom at least. A power to impose taxes at pleasure would indeed be an invasion of the fundamental law of property; because, under pretext of taxing, it would subject every man's property to the arbitrary will of the sovereign. But the argument has no weight, where the sovereign's power is limited. The reciprocal duties between sovereign and subject imply, that the people ought to contribute what sums are necessary for the support of government, and that the sovereign ought not to demand more. It is true, that there is no regular check against him, when he transgresses his duty in this particular: but there is an effectual check in the nature of every government, that is not legally despotic, viz. a general concert among all ranks, to vindicate their liberty against a course of violence and oppression; and multiplied acts of that kind have more than once brought about such a concert.

As every member of the body-politic is under protection of the government, every one of them, as observed above, ought to pay for being protected; and yet this proposition has been controverted by an author of some note[b], who maintains, "That the food and raiment furnished to the society by husbandmen and manufacturers, are all that these good people are bound to contribute: and supposing them bound to contribute more, it is not till others have done as much for the public." At that rate, lawyers and physicians ought also to be exempted from contributing; especially those who draw the greatest sums, because they are supposed to do the most good. That argument, the suggestion of a benevolent heart, is however no proof of an enlightened understanding. The labours of the farmer, of the lawyer, of the physician, contribute not a mite to the public fund, nor tend to defray the expence of government. The luxurious proprietor of a great estate has still a better title to be exempted than the husbandman, because he is a great benefactor to the public, by giving bread to a variety of industrious people. In a word, every man ought to contribute for being protected; and if a husbandman be protected in working for himself one-and-fifty weeks yearly, he ought thankfully to work one week more, for defraying the expence of that protection.

SECT. III.
DIFFERENT SORTS OF TAXES, with their Advantages and Disadvantages.

ALL taxes are laid upon persons; but in different respects: a tax laid on a man personally, for himself and family, is termed a Capitation-tax; a tax laid on him for his property, is termed a Tax on goods. The latter is the only rational tax, because it may be proportioned to the ability of the proprietor. It has only one inconvenience, that his debts must be overlooked; because, to take these into the account, would lead to endless intricacies. But there is an obvious remedy for that inconvenience: let the man who complains get quit of his debts, by selling land or moveables; which will so far relieve him of the tax. Nor ought this measure to be considered as a hardship: it is seldom the interest of a landholder to be in debt; and, with respect to the public, the measure not only promotes the circulation of property, but is favourable to creditors, by procuring them payment. A capitation-tax goes upon an erroneous principle, as if all men were of equal ability. What prompts it is, that many men, rich in bonds and other moveables, that can be easily hid from public inspection, cannot be reached otherwise than by a capitation-tax. But as, by the very supposition, such men cannot be distinguished from the mass of people, that mode of taxing, as miserably unequal, is rarely practised among enlightened nations. Some years ago, a capitation-tax was imposed in Denmark, obliging even day-labourers to pay for their wives and children. Upon the same absurd plan, a tax was imposed on marriage. One would be tempted to think, that population was intended to be discouraged. The Danish government, however, have been sensible of the impropriety of such taxes; for a tax imposed on those who obtain titles of honour from the crown, is applied for relieving husbandmen of their capitation-tax. But a tax of this kind lies open to many other objections. It cannot fail to raise the price of labour, a poisonous effect in a country of industry; for the labourer will relieve himself of the tax, by heightening his wages: more prudent it would be to lay the tax directly on the employer, which would remove the pretext for heightening wages. The taxing of day-labourers has beside an effect contrary to what is intended: instead of increasing the public revenue, it virtually lessens it, by raising the pay of soldiers, sailors, and of every workman employed by government.

Taxes upon goods are of two kinds, viz. upon things consumable, and upon things not consumable. I begin with the latter. The land-tax in Britain, paid by the proprietor according to an invariable rule, and levied with very little expence, is, of all taxes, the most just, and the most effectual. The proprietor, fore-knowing the sum he is subjected to, prepares accordingly: and as each proprietor contributes in proportion to his estate, the tax makes no variation in their relative opulence. The only improvement it is susceptible of is, the Athenian regulation, of exempting small estates, that are no more than sufficient to afford bread to the frugal proprietor. In France, the land-tax seems to have been established on a very false foundation, viz. That the clergy perform their duty to the state, by praying and instructing; that the noblesse fight for the state; and, consequently, that the only duty left to the farmer is, to desray the charges of government. This argument would hold, if the clergy were not paid for praying, and the noblesse for fighting. Such a load upon the poorest members of the state is an absurdity in politics. And, to render it still more absurd, the tax on the farmer is not imposed by an invariable rule: every one is taxed in proportion to his apparent circumstances, which, in effect, is to tax industry. Nor is this all: Under pretext of preventing famine, the exporting of corn, even from province to province, is srequently interrupted; by which it happens, that the corn of a plentiful year is destroyed by insects, and in a year of scarcity is engrossed by merchants. Suppose a plan were requested for discouraging agriculture, here is one actually put in execution, the success of which is infallible. "Were it related," observes a French writer, "in some foreign history, that there is a country extremely fertile, in a fine climate, enjoying navigable rivers, with every advantage for the commerce of corn; and yet that the product is not sufficient for the inhabitants: would not one conclude the people to be stupid and barbarous? This, however, is the case of France." He adds the true reason, which is, the discouragement husbandry lies under by oppressive taxes. We have Diodorus Siculus for our authority, that the husbandman was greatly respected in Hindostan. Among other nations, says he, the land, during war, lies untilled; but in Hindostan, husbandmen are sacred, and no soldier ventures to lay a hand on them. They are considered as servants of the public, who cannot be dispensed with.

It is a gross error to maintain, that a tax on land is the same with a tax on the product of land. The former, which is the English mode, is no discouragement to industry and improvements: on the contrary, the higher the value of land is raised, the less will the tax be in proportion. The latter, which is the French mode, is a great discouragement to industry and improvements; because the more a man improves, the deeper he is taxed. The tenth part of the product of land is the only tax that is paid in China. This tax, of the same nature with our tithes paid to the clergy, yields to the British mode of taxing the land itself, and not its product; but is less exceptionable than the land-tax in France, because it is not arbitrary. The Chinese tax, paid in kind, is stored in magazines, and sold from time to time for maintaining the magistrates and the army, the surplus being remitted to the treasury. In case of famine, it is sold to the poor people at a moderate price. In Tonquin there is a land-tax, which, like that in France, is laid upon peasants, exempting people of condition, and the literati in particular. Many grounds that bear not corn contribute hay for the king's elephants and cavalry; which the poor peasants are obliged to carry to the capital, even from the greatest distance; a regulation no less slavish than impolitic.

The window-tax, the coach-tax, and the plate-tax come under the present head, being taxes upon things not consumable. In Holland there is a tax on domestic servants, which deserves well to be imitated. Var•ty in Britain, and love of show, have multiplied domestics, far beyond necessity, and even beyond convenience. A number of idlers collected in a luxurious family, become vitious and debauched; and many useful hands are withdrawn from husbandry and manufactures. In order that the tax may reach none but the vain and splendid, those who have but one servant pay nothing: two domestics subject the master to five shillings for each, three to ten shillings for each, four to twenty shillings, five to forty shillings, and so on, in a geometrical progression. In Denmark, a farmer is taxed for every plough he uses. If the tax be intended for discouraging extensive farms, it is a happy contrivance, agreeable to sound politics; for small farms tend not only to population, but to rear a temperate and robust species of men, fit for every sort of labour.

Next of taxes upon things consumable. The taxes that appear the least oppressive, because disguised, are what are laid on our manufactures: the tax is advanced by the manufacturer, and drawn from the purchaser as part of the price. In Rome, a tax was laid upon every man who purchased a slave. It is reported by some authors, that the tax was remitted by the Emperor Nero; and yet no alteration was made, but to oblige the vender to advance the tax. Hear Tacitus on that subject[a]:
Vectigal quintae et vicesimae venalium mancipiorum remissum, specie magis quam vi; quia cum venditor pendere juberetur, in partem pretii emptoribus accrescebat[*]."
Thus, with respect to our taxes on soap, shoes, candles, and other things consumable, the purchaser thinks he is only paying the price, and never dreams that he is paying a tax. To support the illusion, the duly ought to be moderate: to impose a tax twenty times the value of the commodity, as done in France with respect to salt, raises more disgust in the people, as an attempt to deceive them, than when laid on without disguise. Such exorbitant taxes, which are paid with the utmost reluctance, cannot be made effectual, but by severe penalties, equal to what are inflicted on the most atrocious criminals; which has a bad effect with respect to morals, as it tends to lessen the horror one naturally conceives at great crimes.

Such taxes are attended with another signal advantage: they bear a strict proportion to the ability of the contributors, the opulent being commonly the greatest consumers. The taxes on coaches and on plate are paid by men of fortune, without loading the industrious poor; and on that account are highly to be praised: being imposed, however, without disguise, they are paid with more reluctance by the rich, than taxes on consumption are by the poor.

I add one other advantage of taxes on consumption. They are finely contrived to connect the interest of the sovereign with that of his subjects; for his profit arises from their prosperity.

Such are the advantages of a tax on consumption; but it must not be praised, as attended with no inconvenience The retailer, under pretext of the tax, raises the price higher than barely to indemnify himself; by which means the tax is commonly doubled upon the consumer. The inconvenience, however, is but temporary. "Such extortion," says Davenant, "cannot last long; for every commodity in common use finds in the market its true value and price."

There is another inconvenience much more distressing because it admits not a remedy, and because it affects the state itself. Taxes on consumption, being commonly laid on things of the greatest use, raise a great sum to the public, without much burdening individuals; the duty on coal, for example, on candle, on leather, on soap, on salt, on malt, and on malt-liquor. These duties, however, carry in their bosom a slow poison, by raising the price of labour and of manufactures. De Wit observes, that the Dutch taxes upon consumption have raised the price of their broad cloth forty per cent. and our manufactures, by the same means, are raised at least thirty per cent. Britain has long laboured under this chronical distemper, which, by excluding her from foreign markets, will not only put an end to her own manufactures, but will open a wide door to the foreign, as smuggling cannot be prevented, where commodities imported are much cheaper than our own.

Nor ought it to be overlooked, that taxes on consumption are not equally proper in every situation. They are proper in a populous country, like Holland; because the expence of collecting is but a trifle, compared with the sums collected. But in a country thinly peopled, such taxes are improper; because the expence of collecting makes too great a proportion of the sums collected: in the Highlands of Scotland, the excise on ale and spirits defrays not the expence of levying; the people are burdened, and the government is not supported.

A lottery is a sort of tax different from any that have been mentioned. It is a tax of all the most agreeable, being entirely voluntary. An appetite for gaming, inherent even in savages, prompts multitudes to venture their money, in hopes of the highest prize; though they cannot altogether hide from themselves the inequality of the play. But lucky it is, that the selfish passions of men can be made subservient to the public good Lotteries, however, produce one unhappy effect: they blunt the edge of industry, by directing the attention to a more compendious method of gain. At the same time, the money acquired by a lottery seldom turns to account; for what comes without trouble goes commonly without thought.

SECT. IV.
MANNER OF LEVYING TAXES.

TO avoid the rapacity of farmers, a mild government will, in most cases, prefer management; i.e. it will levy taxes by officers appointed for that purpose. Montesquieu[a] has handled that point with his usual sprightly elegance.

Importation-duties are commonly laid upon the importer before the cargo is landed, leaving him to add the duty to the price of goods; and facility of levying is the motive for preferring that method. But is it not hard, that the importer should be obliged to advance a great sum in the name of duty, before drawing a shilling by the sale of his goods? It is not only hard, but grossly unjust: for if the goods perish without being sold, the duty is lost to the importer; he has no claim against the public for restitution. This has more the air of despotism than of a free government. Would it not be more equitable, that goods should be lodged in a public warehouse, under custody of revenue-offcers, the importer paying the duty as the goods are sold? By the present method, the duty remains with the collector three years, in order to be repaid to the importer, if the goods be experted within that time: but, by the method proposed, the duty would be paid to the treasury as the goods are sold, which might be within a month from the time of importation, perhaps a week; and the treasury would profit, as well as the fair trader. There are public ware-houses adjoining to the custom-house of Bourdeaux, where the sugars of the French colonies are deposited, till the importer finds a market; and he pays the duty gradually, as sales are made. It rejoices me, that the same method is practised in this island, with respect to some foreign articles necessary in our trade with Africa: the duty is not demanded till the goods are shipped for that continent. It is also put in practice with respect to foreign salt, and with respect to rum imported from our sugar-colonies.

Beside the equity of what is here proposed, which relieves the importer from advance of money, and from risk, many other advantages would be derived from it. In the first place, the merchant, having no occasion to reserve any portion of his capital for answering the duty, would be enabled to commence trade with a small stock, or to encrease his trade, if his stock be large: trade would flourish, and the public revenue would encrease in proportion. Secondly, It would lessen smuggling. Many a one who commences trade with upright intention, is tempted to smuggle for want of ready money to pay the duty. Thirdly, This manner of levying the duty would not only abridge the number of officers, but remove every pretext for claiming discount on presence of leakage, samples, and the drying or shrinking of goods. In the present manner of levying, that discount must be left to the discretion of the officer: a private understanding is thus introduced between him and the merchant, hurtful to the revenue, and destructive to morals. Fourthly, the merchant would be enabled to lower his prices, and be forced to lower them, by having many rivals; which, at the same time, would give access to augment importation-duties, without raising the price of foreign commodities above what it is at present. But the capital advantage of all would be, to render, in effect, every port in Britain a free port, enabling English merchants, many of whom have great capitals, to outstrip foreigners in what is termed A COMMERCE OF SPECULATION. This island is well situated for such commerce; and were our ports free, the productions of all climates would be stored up in them, ready for exportation, when a market offers; an excellent plan for encreasing our shipping, and for producing boundless wealth.

SECT. V.
RULES TO BE OBSERVED in TAXING.

THE different objects of taxes, and the intricacy thereby occasioned, require general rules, not only for directing the legislature in imposing them, but for enabling others to judge what are beneficial, and what hurtful.

The first rule I shall suggest is. That wherever there is an opportunity of smuggling, taxes ought to be moderate; for smuggling can never effectually be restrained, where the cheapness of imported goods is in effect an ensurance against the risk; in which view, Swift humorously observes, that two and two do not always make four. A duty of 15 per cent. upon printed linen imported into France, encourages smuggling: a lower duty would produce a greater sum to the public, and be more beneficial to the French manufacturer. Bone-lace imported into France is charged with a duty of 20 per cent in order to favour that manufacture at home: but in vain; for bone-lace is easily smuggled, and the price is little higher than before. The high duty on "succus liquoritiae" imported into Britain, being L. 7: 2: 6 per hundred weight, was a great encouragement to smuggling; for which reason it is reduced to 30s. per hundred weight[a].

The smuggling of tea, which extracts great sums from Britain, is much encouraged by its high price at home. As far as I can judge, it would be profitable, both to the public and to individuals, to lay aside the importation-duty, and to substitute in its stead a duty on the consumer. Freedom of importation would enable the East-India company to sell so cheap, as effectually to banish smuggling; and the low price of tea would enable the consumer to pay a pretty smart duty, without being much out of pocket. The following mode is proposed merely as an example: it is a hint that may lead to improvements. Let every man who uses tea be subjected to a moderate tax, proportioned to his mode of living. Absolute precision cannot be expected in proportioning the tax on families; but gross inequality may easily be prevented. For instance, let the mode of living be determined by the equipage that is kept. A coach or chaise with two horses shall subject a family to a yearly tax of L. 10, heightening the tax in proportion to the number of horses and carriages; two servants in livery, without a carriage, to a tax of 40s. ; every other family paying 20s. Every family where tea is used must be entered in the collector's books, with its mode of living, under a heavy penalty; which would regulate the coach-tax, as well as that on tea. Such a tax, little expensive in levying, would undoubtedly be effectual: a master of a family is imprudent indeed, if he puts it in the power of the vender, of a malicious neighbour, or of a menial servant, to subject him to a heavy penalty. This tax at the same time would be the least disagreeable of any that is levied without disguise; being in effect a voluntary tax, as the mode of living is voluntary. Nor would it be difficult to temper the tax, so as to afford a greater sum to the public than it receives at present from the importation-duty, and yet to cost our people no more for tea than they pay at present, taking into computation the high price of that commodity.

High duties on importation are immoral, as well as impolitic; and it would be unjustifiable in the legislature, first to tempt, and then to punish for yielding to the temptation.

A second rule is, That taxes expensive in the levying ought to be avoided; being heavy on the people, without a proportional benefit to the revenue. Our land-tax is admirable: it affords a great sum, levied with very little expence. The duties on coaches, and on gold and silver plate, are similar; and so would be the tax on tea above proposed. The taxes that are the most hurtful to trade and manufactures, such as the duty on soap, candle, leather, are expensive in levying.

A third rule is, To avoid arbitrary taxes. They are disgustful to all, not excepting those who are favourably treated; because self-partiality seldom permits a man to think, that justice is done him in such matters. A tax laid on persons in proportion to their trade, or their opulence, must be arbitrary, even where strict justice is intended; because it depends on the vague opinion or conjecture of the collector: every man thinks himself injured; and the sum levied does not balance the discontent it occasions. The tax laid on the French farmer in proportion to his substance, is an intolerable grievance, and a great engine of oppression: if the farmer exerts any activity in melicrating his land, he is sure to be doubly taxed. Hamburgh affords the only instance of a tax on trade and riches, that is willingly paid, and that consequently is levied without oppression. Every merchant puts privately into the public chest, the sum that in his own opinion he ought to contribute: A singular example of integrity in a great trading town; for there is no suspicion of wrong in that tacit contribution. But this state is not yet corrupted by luxury.

Because many vices that poison a nation arise from inequality of riches, I propose it as a fourth rule, to remedy that inequality as much as possible, by relieving the poor, and burdening the rich. Proprietors of overgrown estates can bear without inconvenience very heavy taxes; and those especially who convert much land from profit to pleasure, ought not to be spared. Would it not contribute greatly to the public good, that a tax of L. 50 should be laid on every house that has 50 windows; L. 150 on houses of 100 windows; and L. •00 on houses of •00 windows? By the same principle, every deer-park of 200 acres ought to pay L. 50; of 500 acres L. 200; and of 1000 acres L. •…00. Fifty acres of pleasure ground to pay L. 30; 100 such acres L. 80; 150 acres L. •…0; and 200 acres L. 300. Such a tax would have another good effect: it would probably move high minded men to leave out more ground for maintenance of the poor, than they are commonly inclined to do.

A fifth rule of capital importance, as it regards the interest of the state in general, is, That every tax which tends to impoverish the nation ought to be rejected with indignation. Such taxes contradict the very nature of government, which is to protect, not to oppress. And supposing the interest of the governing power to be only regarded, a state is not measured by the extent of its territory, but by what the subjects are able to pay annually without end. A sovereign, however regardless of his duty as father of his people, will regard that rule for his own sake: a nation impoverished by oppressive taxes will reduce the sovereign at last to the same poverty; for he cannot levy what they cannot pay.

Whether taxes imposed on common necessaries, which fall heavy upon the labouring poor, be of the kind now mentioned, deserves the most serious consideration. Where they tend to promote industry, they are highly salutary: where they deprive us of foreign markets, by raising the price of labour, and of manufactures, they are highly noxioous. In some cases, industry may be promoted by taxes, without raising the price of labour and of manufactures. Tobolski in Siberia is a populous town, the price of vivres is extremely low, and the people on that account are extremely idle. While they are masters of a farthing, they work none: when they are pinched with hunger, they gain in a day what maintains them a week: they never think of to-morrow, nor of providing against want. A tax there upon necessaries would probably excite some degree of industry. Such a tax, renewed from time to time, and augmented gradually, would promote industry more and more, so as to squeeze out of that lazy people three, four, or even five days labour weekly, without raising their wages, or the price of their work. But beware of a general rule. The effect would be very different in Britain, where moderate labour, without much relaxation, is requisite for living comfortably: in every such case, a permanent tax upon necessaries will not fail in time to raise the price of labour. It is true, that in a single year of scarcity there is commonly more labour, and even better living, than in plentiful years. But suppose scarcity to continue a number of years successively, or suppose a permanent tax on necessaries, wages must rise till the labourer finds comfortable living: if the employer obstinately stands out, the labourer will in despair abandon work altogether, and commence beggar; or will retire to a country less burdened with taxes. Hence a salutary doctrine, That where expence of living equals, or nearly equals, what is gained by bodily labour, moderate taxes renewed from time to time after considerable intervals, will promote industry, without raising the price of labour; but that permanent taxes will unavoidably raise the price of labour, and of manufactures. In Holland, the high price of provisions and of labour, occasioned by permanent taxes, have excluded from the foreign market every one of their manufactures that can be supplied by other nations. Heavy taxes have put an end to their once flourishing manufactures of wool, of silk, of gold and silver, and many others. The prices of labour and of manufactures have in England been immoderately raised by the same means.

To prevent a total downfall of our manufactures, several political writers have given their opinion, that the labouring poor ought to be disburdened of all taxes. The royal tithe proposed for France, instead of all other taxes, published in the name of Mareschal Vauban, or such a tax laid upon land in England, might originally have produced wonders. But the expedient would now come too late, at least in England: such profligacy have the poorrates produced among the lower ranks, that to relieve them from taxes, would probably make them work less, but assuredly would not make them work cheaper. It is vain therefore to think of a remedy against idleness and high wages, while the poor-rates subsist in their present form. Davenant pronounces, that the English poor-rates will in time be the bane of their manufactures. He computes, that the persons receiving alms in England amount to one million and two hundred thousand, the half of whom at least would have continued to work, had they not relied on parish-charity. But of this more at large in a separate sketch.

Were the poor-rates abolished, a general act of naturalization would not only augment the strength of Britain, by adding to the number of its people, but would compel the natives to work cheaper, and consequently to be more industrious.

If these expedients be not relished, the only one that remains for preserving our manufactures is, to encourage their exportation by a bounty, such as may enable us to cope with our rivals in foreign markets. But where is the fund for a bounty so extensive? It may be raised out of land, like the Athenian tax above mentioned, burdening great proprietors in a geometrical proportion, and freeing those who have not above L. 100 of land-rent. That tax would raise a great sum to the public, without any real loss to those who are burdened; for comparative riches would remain the same as formerly. Nay, such a tax would in time prove highly beneficial to land-proprietors; for by promoting industry and commerce, it would raise the rent of land much above the contribution. Can money be laid out so advantageously at common interest? And to reconcile land-holders to the tax, may it not be thought sufficient, that, without a bounty, our foreign commerce must vanish, and land be reduced to its original low value? Can any man hesitate about paying a shilling, when it ensures him against losing a pound?

I shall close with a rule of deeper concern than all that have been mentioned, which is, To avoid taxes that require the oath of party. They are "contra bonos mores," as being a temptation to perjury. Few there are so wicked, as to hurt others by perjury: at the same time, there are not many of the lower ranks so upright, as to scruple much at perjury, when it prevents hurt to themselves. Consider the duty on candle. Those only who brew for sale, pay the duty on malt-liquor; and to avoid the brewer's oath, the quantity is ascertained by officers who attend the process. But the duty on candle is oppressive, not only as comprehending poor people who make no candle for sale, but as subjecting them to give oath on the quantity they make for their own use. Figure a poor widow, burthened with five or six children: she is not permitted to make ready a little food for her infants, by the light of a rag dipped in grease, without paying what she has not to pay, or being guilty of perjury. However upright originally, poverty and anxiety about her infants will tempt her to conceal the truth, and to deny upon oath:—a sad lesson to her poor children: ought they to be punished for copying after their mother, whom they love and revere? whatever she does appears right in their eyes. The manner of levying the salt-tax in France is indeed arbitrary; but it is not productive of immorality: an oath is avoided; and every master of a family pays for the quantity he is presumed to consume. French wine is often imported into Britain as Spanish, which pays less duty. To check that fraud, the importer's oath is required; and if perjury be suspected, a jury is set upon him in exchequer. This is horrid: the importer is tempted by a high duty on French wine to commit perjury; for which he is prosecuted in a sovereign court, open to all the world: he turns desperate, and loses all sense of honour. Thus custom-house oaths have become a proverb, as meriting no regard; and corruption creeping on, will become universal. Some goods imported pay a duty "ad valorem;" and to ascertain the value the importer's oath is required. In China, the books of the merchant are trusted, without an oath. Why not imitate so laudable a practice? If our people be more corrupted, perjury may be avoided, by ordaining the merchant to deliver his goods to any who will demand them, at the rate stated in his books; with the addition of ten per cent. as a sufficient profit to himself. Oaths have been greatly multiplied in Britain since the Revolution, without reserve, and contrary to sound policy. New oaths have been contrived against those who are disaffected to the government; against fictious titles in electing parliament-members; against defrauding the revenue, &c. &c. They have been so hackneyed, and have become so familiar, as to be held a matter of form merely. Perjury has dwindled into a venial transgression, and is scarce held an imputation on any man's character. Lamentable indeed has been the conduct of our legislature: instead of laws for reforming or improving morals, the imprudent multiplication of oaths has not only spread corruption through every rank, but, by annihilating the authority of an oath over conscience, has rendered it entirely useless.

SECT. VI.
EXAMINATION OF BRITISH TAXES.

THERE is no political subject of greater importance to Britain, than the present: a whole life might be profitably bestowed on it, and a large volume. My part is only to suggest hints; which will occur in considering taxes with regard to their effects. And in that view, they may be commodiously distinguished into five kinds. First, Taxes that encrease the public revenue, without producing any other effect, good or bad. Second, Taxes that encrease the public revenue; and are also beneficial to manufactures and commerce. Third, Taxes that encrease the public revenue; but are hurtful to manufactures and commerce. Fourth, Taxes that are hurtful to manufactures and commerce, without encreasing the public revenue. Fifth, Taxes that are hurtful to manufactures and commerce; and also lessen the public revenue. I proceed to instances of each kind.

The land-tax is an illustrious instance of the first kind: it produces a revenue to the public, levied with very little expence: and it hurts no mortal; for a landholder who pays for having himself and his estate protected, cannot be said to be hurt. The duty on coaches is of the same kind. Both taxes at the same time are agreeable to sound principles. Men ought to contribute to the public revenue, according to the benefit that protection affords them: a rich man requires protection for his possessions, as well as for his person, and therefore ought to contribute largely: a poor man requires protection for his person only, and therefore ought to contribute very little.

A tax on foreign luxuries is an instance of the second kind. It encreases the public revenue; and it greatly benefits individuals; not only by restraining the consumption of foreign luxuries, but by encouraging our own manufactures of that kind. Britain enjoys a monopoly of coal exported to Holland; and the duty on exportation is agreeable to sound policy, being paid by the Dutch. This duty is an instance of the second kind: it raises a considerable revenue to the public; and it enables us to cope with the Dutch in every manufacture that employs coal, such as dying, distilling, works of glass and of iron. And these manufactures in Britain, by the dearness of labour, are entitled to some aid. A tax on horses, to prevent their increase, would be a tax of the same kind. The incredible number of horses used in coaches and other wheel-carriages, has raised the price of labour, by doubling the price of oat-meal, the food of the labouring poor in many parts of Britain. The price of wheat is also raised by the same means; because the vast quantity of land employed in producing oats, leaves so much the less for wheat. I would not exempt even plough-horses from the tax; because in every view it is more advantageous to use oxen[*]. So little regard is paid to these considerations, that a coach, whether drawn by two horses or by six, pays the same duty.

As to the third kind, I am grieved to observe, that we have many taxes more hurtful to individuals than advantageous to the public revenue. Multiplied taxes on the necessaries of life, candle, soap, leather, ale, salt, &c. raise the price of labour, consequently of manufactures. If they shall have the effect to deprive us of foreign markets, which we have reason to dread, depopulation and poverty must ensue. The salt-tax in particular is more out of rule than any of the others mentioned: with respect to these, the rich bear the greatest burden, being the greatest consumers; but the share they pay of the salt-tax is very little, because they never touch salt provisions. The salt-tax is still more absurd in another respect, salt being a choice of manure for land. One would be amazed to hear of a law prohibiting the use of lime as a manure: he would be still more amazed to hear of the prohibition being extended to salt, which is a manure much superior: and yet a heavy tax on salt, which renders it too dear for being used as a manure, surprises no man. But the mental eye, when left without culture, resembles that of the body: it seldom perceives but what is directly before it: inferences and consequences go far out of sight. Many thousand quarters of good wheat have been annually with-held from Britain by the salt-tax. What the treasury has gained will not amount to the fiftieth part of that loss The absurdity of with holding from us a manure so profitable has at last been discovered; and remedied in part, by permitting English foul salt to be used for manure, on paying four pence of duty per bushel[b]. Why was not Scotland permitted to taste of that bounty? Our candidates, it would appear, are more solicitous of a seat in parliament, than of serving their country when they have obtained that honour.

The window-tax is more detrimental to the common interest than advantageous to the public revenue. In the first place, it promot s large farms in order to save houses and windows; whereas small farms tend to multiply a hardy and frugal race, useful for every purpose. In the next place, it is a discouragement to manufactures, by taxing the houses in which they are carried on. Manufacturers, in order to relieve themselves as much as possible from the tax, make the whole side of their house a single window; and there are instances where in three stories there are but three windows. The tax, at the same time, is imposed with no degree of equality: a house in a paultry village that affords not five pounds of yearly rent, may have a greater number of windows than one in London rented at fifty. In this respect it runs counter to sound policy, by easing the rich, and burdening the poor. The same objection lies against the plate-tax. It is not indeed hurtful to manufactures and commerce: but it is hurtful to the common interest; because plate converted into money may be the means of saving the nation at a crisis, and therefore ought to be encouraged, instead of being loaded with a tax. On pictures imported into Britain, a duty is laid in proportion to the size. Was there no intelligent person at hand, to inform our legislature, that the only means to rouse a genius for painting, is to give our youth ready access to good pictures? Till these be multiplied in Britain, we never shall have the reputation of producing a good painter. So far indeed it is lucky, that the most valuable pictures are not loaded with a greater •uty than the most execrable. Fish, both salt and fresh, brought to Paris, pay a duty of •8 per cent. by an arbitrary estimation of the value. This tax is an irreparable injury to France, by discouraging the multiplication of seamen. It is beneficial indeed in one view, as it tends to check the growing population of that great city.

Without waiting to rummage the British taxes for examples of the fourth kind, I shall present my reader with a foreign instance. In the Austrian Netherlands, there are inexhaustible mines of coal, the exportation of which would make a considerable article of commerce, were it not absolutely barred by an exorbitant duty. This absurd duty is a great injury to proprietors of coal, without yielding a farthing to the government. The Dutch many years ago offered to confine themselves to that country for coal, on condition of being relieved from the duty; which would have 〈…〉 down the price below that of British coal. 〈…〉 wonderful, that the proposal was rejected? But ministers seldom regard what is beneficial to the nation, unless it produce an immediate benefit to their sovereign or to themselves. The coal mines in the Austrian Netherlands being thus shut up, and the art of working them lost, the British enjoy the monopoly of exporting coal to Holland.

The duty on coal water-borne is an instance of the fifth kind. A great obstruction it is to many useful manufactures that require coal; and indeed to manufactures in general, by increasing the expence of coal, an essential article in a cold country. Nay, one would imagine, that it has been intended to check population; as poor wretches, benumbed with cold, feel little of the carnal appetite. It has not even the merit of adding much to the public revenue; for, laying aside London, it produces but a mere trisle. But the peculiarity of this tax, which intitles it to a conspicuous place in the fifth class, is, that it is not less detrimental to the public revenue than to individuals. No sedentary art nor occupation can succeed in a cold climate without plenty of sewel. One may at the first glance distinguish the coal-countries from the rest of England, by the industry of the inhabitants, and by plenty of manufacturing towns and villages. Where there is scarcity of fewel, some hours are lost every morning; because people cannot work till the place be sufficiently warmed, which is especially the case in manufactures that require a soft and delicate finger. Now, in many parts of Britain which might be provided with coal by water, the labouring poor are deprived of that comfort by the tax. Had cheap firing encouraged these people to prosecute arts and manufactures; it is more than probable, that at this day they would be contributing to the public revenue by other duties, much greater sums than are drawn from them by the duty on coal. At the same time, if coal must pay a duty, why not at the pit, where it is the cheapest? Is it not an egregious blunder, to lay a great duty on those who pay a high price for coal, and no duty on those who have it cheap? If there must be a coalduty, let water-borne coal at any rate be exempted; not only because even without duty it comes dear to the consumer, but also for the encouragement of seamen. For the honour of Britain this duty ought to be expunged from our statute book, never again to show its face. Great reason indeed there is for continuing the duty on coal consumed in London; because every artifice should be put in practice, to prevent the increase of a head, that is already too large for the body, or for any body Towns are unhealthy in proportion to their size; and a great town like London is a greater enemy to population than war or samine.

SECT. VII.
REGULATIONS for advancing INDUSTRY and COMMERCE.

OF all sciences, that of politics is the most intricate; and its progress toward maturity is slow in proportion. In the present section, taxes on exportation of native commodities take the lead; and nothing can set in a stronger light the gross ignorance of former ages, than a maxim universally adopted, That to tax exportation, or to prohibit it altogether, is the best means for having plenty at home. In Scotland we were not satisfied with prohibiting the exportation of corn, of fish, and of horses: the prohibition was extended to manufactures; linen cloth, for example, candle, butter, cheese, barked hides, shoes[*] [a].

Duties on exportation are in great favour from a notion that they are paid by foreigners. This holds sometimes, as in the above-mentioned case of coal exported to Holland: but it fails in every case where the foreign market can be supplied by others; for whatever be the duty, the merchant must regulate his price by the market. And even supposing the market-price at present to be sufficient for the duty, with a reasonable profit to the exporter, those who pay no duty will strain every nerve of rivalship, till they cut us out by low prices. The duty on French wine exported from France, is equal to a bounty to the wines of neighbouring countries. At the same time, the duty is unskilfully imposed, being the same upon all wines exported, without regard to flavour or strength: which bars the commerce of small wines, though much more plentiful. A moderate duty on exportation, such as small wines can bear, would add a greater sum to the revenue, and also be more beneficial to commerce. To improve the commerce of wine in France, the exportation ought to be free, or, at most, charged with a moderate duty ad valorem. In Spain an excessive duty is laid upon the plant barrile when exported; from a persuasion that it will not grow in any other country. It is not considered, that this tax, by lessening the demand, is a discouragement to its culture. A moderate duty would raise more money to the public, would employ more hands, and would make that plant a permanent article of commerce. The excessive duty has set invention at work, for some material in place of that plant. If such a material shall be discovered, the Spanish ministry will be convinced of a salutary maxim, That it is not always safe, to interrupt by high duties the free course of commerce. Formerly in Britain the exportation of manufactured copper was prohibited. That blunder in commercial politics was corrected by a statute in the reign of King William, permitting such copper to be exported, on paying a duty of four shillings the hundred weight. The exportation ought to have been declared free; which was done by a statute of Queen Anne. But as people are apt to overdo in the rage of improvement, this statute permits even unwrought copper, a raw material, to be exported. This probably was to favour copper-mines: but did it not also savour foreign copper-manufactures? Goods and merchandize of the product or manufacture of Great Britain may be exported duty free[b]. Alum, lead, and some other commodities specified in the statute, are excepted; and a duty formerly paid on exportation is continued, for encouraging such of our own manufactures as employ any of the articles specified. In Ireland to this day, goods exported are loaded with a high duty, without even distinguishing made work from raw materials; corn, for example, fish, hops, butter, horned cattle, wrought iron, leather, and every thing made of it, &c. &c. And that nothing may escape, all goods exported that are not contained in the book of rates, pay 5 per cent. ad valorem.

When Sully entered on the administration of the French finances, the corn in France was at an exorbitant price, occasioned by neglect of husbandry during the civil war. That sagacious minister discovered the secret of re-establishing agriculture, and of reducing the price of corn, which is, to allow a free exportation. So rapid was the success of that bold but politic measure, that in a few years France became the granary of Europe; and what at present may appear wonderful, we find in the English records, anno 1621, bitter complaints of the French underselling them in their own markets. Colbert, who, fortunately for us, had imbibed the common error, renewed the ancient prohibition of exporting corn, hoping to have it cheap at home for his manufacturers. But he was in a gross mistake; for that prohibition has been the chief cause of many famines in France since that time. The corn-trade in France lay long under great discouragements; and the French ministry continued long blind to the interest of their country. At last edicts were issued, authorising the commerce of corn to be absolutely free, whether sold within the kingdom or exported. The generality however continued blind. In the year 1768, the badness of the harvest having occasioned a famine, the distresses of the people were excessive, and their complaints universal. Overlooking altogether the bad harvest, they, from amazing partiality, attributed their misery to the new law. It was in vain inculcated, that freedom in the corn-trade encourages agriculture: the popular opinion was adopted even by most of the parliaments; so difficult it is to eradicate established prejudices. In Turky, about thirty years ago, a grand vizir permitted corn to be exported more freely than had been done formerly, a bushel of wheat being sold at that time under seventeen pence. Every nation flocked to Turky for corn; and in particular no fewer than three hundred French vessels, from twenty to two hundred tons, entered Smyrna bay in one day. The Janissaries and populace took the alarm, fearing that all the corn would be exported, and that a famine would ensue. In Constantinople they grew mutinous, and could not be appeased till the vizir was strangled, and his body thrown out to them. His successor, who resolved not to split on the same rock, prohibited exportation absolutely. In that country, rent is paid in proportion to the product; and the farmers, who saw no demand, neglected tillage. In less than three years the bushel of wheat rose to six shillings, and the distresses of the people became intolerable. To this day, the fate of the good vizir is lamented.

We have improved upon Sully's discovery, by a bounty on corn exported, which has answered our most sanguine expectations. A great increase of gold and silver subsequent to the said bounty, which has raised the price of many other commodities, must have also raised that of corn, had not still a greater increase of corn, occasioned by the bounty, reduced its price even below what it was formerly; and by that means our manufactures have profited by the bounty no less than our husbandry. The bounty is still more important in another respect: agriculture in France lies under many discouragements; the greatest of which is, that our wheat can be afforded as cheap in their markets as their own: and by prohibiting exportation, it is in our power, during a war, to dash all the French schemes for conquest, by depriving them of bread[*]. This bounty therefore is our palladium, which we ought religiously to guard, if we would avoid being a province of France. Some sage politicians have begun of late to mutter against the bounty, as feeding our rival manufacturers cheaper than our own; which is a mistake, for the expence of exportation commonly equals the bounty. But supposing it true, will the evil be remedied by withdrawing the bounty? On the contrary, it will discourage manufactures, by raising the price of wheat at home. It will beside encourage French husbandry, so as in all probability to reduce the price of their wheat below what we assord it to them. In France, labour is cheaper than in England, the people are more frugal, they possess a better soil and climate: what have we to balance these signal advantages but our bounty? and were that bounty withdrawn, I should not be surprised to see French corn poured in upon us, at a lower price than it can be furnished at home; the very game that was played against us, during Sully's administration.

The exportation of British manufactures to our American colonies ought to meet with such encouragement as to prevent them from rivalling us: it would be a gross blunder to encourage their manufactures, by imposing a duty on what we export to them. We ought rather to give a bounty on exportation; which, by underselling them in their own markets, would quash every attempt to rivalship.

As the duty on foreign linen imported into Britain is drawn back when exported to America, our legislature gave a bounty on our coarse linen exported to that country, which enables us to cope with the Germans in the American markets. The staining, or printing of linen cloth, has of late become a considerable article in the manufactures of Britain; and there is no sort of linen more proper for that manufacture than our own. The duty of foreign linen is drawn back when exported to America, whether plain or stamped: and as we lose the bounty on our coarse linen when stamped, none but foreign linen is employed in the stamping manufacture. This is an oversight such as our legislature is guilty of sometimes.

It is not always true policy, to discourage the exportation of our own rude materials: liberty of exportation gives encouragement to produce them in greater plenty at home; which consequently lowers the price to our manufacturers. Upon that principle, the exporting corn is permitted, and in Britain even encouraged with a bounty. But where exportation of a rude material will not encrease its quantity, the prohibition is good policy, For example, the exporting of rags for paper may be prohibited; because liberty of exporting will not occasion one yard more of linen cloth to be consumed.

Lyons is the city of Europe where the greatest quantity of silk stuffs is made: it is at the same time the greatest staple of raw silk; the silk of Italy, of Spain, of the Levant, and of the south of France, being there collected. The exportation of raw silk is prohibited in France, with a view to lessen its price at home, and to obstruct the silk-manufacture among foreigners. The first is a gross error; the prohibition of exportation producing scarcity, not plenty: and with respect to the other view, it seems to have been overlooked, that the commerce of the silks of Italy, of Spain, and of the Levant, is not confined to France, but is open to all trading nations. This prohibition is indeed so injudicious, that without any benefit to France, it has done irreparable mischief to the city of Lyons: while the commerce of raw silk, both buying and selling, was monopolized by the merchants of that city, they had it in their power to regulate the price; but to compel foreigners to go to the fountain-head, not only raises the price by concurrence of purchasers, but deprives Lyons of a lucrative monopoly. The same blunder is repeated with respect to raw silk spun and dyed. In Lyons, silk is prepared for the loom with more art than any where else; and to secure the silk-manufacture, the exportation of spun silk is prohibited; which must rouse foreigners to bestow their utmost attention upon improving the spinning and dressing of silk: and who knows whether reiterated trials by persons of genius, may not, in England for example, bring these branches of the manufacture to greater perfection, than they are even in Lyons?

Whether we have not committed a blunder of the same kind in prohibiting exportation of our wool, is a very serious question, which I proceed to examine. A spirit for husbandry, and for every sort of improvement, is in France turning more and more general. In several provinces there are societies, who have command of public money for promoting agriculture; and about no other article are these societies more solicitous, than about improving the staple of their wool. A book lately published in Sweden, and translated into French, has inspired them with sanguine hopes of success; as it contains an account of the Swedish wool being greatly improved in quality, as well as in quantity, by importing Spanish and English sheep for breed. Now as France is an extensive country, situated between Spain and England, two excellent wool-countries, it would be strange, if there should not be found a single corner in all France, where wool may be advanced to some degree of perfection. Britain may be justly apprehenfive of these attempts; for if France can cope with us under the disadvantage of procuring our wool by smuggling, how far will they exceed us with good wool of their own? The woollen cloth of England has always been held its capital manufacture; and patriotism calls on every one to prevent if possible the loss of that valuable branch. Till something better be discovered, I venture to propose what at first may be thought a strange measure, and that is, to permit the exportation of our wool upon a moderate duty, such as will raise the price to the French, but not such as to encourage smuggling. The opportunity of procuring wool in the neighbourhood at a moderate price, joined with several unsuccessful attempts to improve the staple of their own wool, would soon make the French abandon thoughts of that improvement.

Experience has unfolded the advantages of liberty to export corn: it has greatly encouraged agriculture, and, by increasing the quantity of corn, has made it even cheaper at home than formerly. Have we not reason to expect a similar consequence, from the same measure with respect to wool? A new vent for that commodity would increase the number of our sheep, meliorate the land by their dung, and probably bring down the price of our wool at home. It is proper indeed to prohibit the exportation of wool, as of corn, when the price rises above a certain sum; which would have the double effect of securing plenty to ourselves, and distressing our rivals at critical times when the commodity is scarce.

There is one reason that should influence our legislature to permit the exportation of wool, even supposing the foregoing arguments to be inconclusive: Very long experience may teach us, if we can be taught by experience, that vain are our endeavours to prevent wool from being exported: it holds true with respect to all prohibitions, that smuggling will always prevail, where the profits rise above the risk. Why not then make a virtue of necessity, by permitting exportation under a duty? One other measure would restore the English woollen manufacture to its pristine splendor, which is, to apply the sum arising from the tax as a premium for exporting woollen goods. Were that measure adopted, the liberty of exporting wool would prove a singular blessing to England.

I close this branch with a commercial lesson, to which every other consideration ought to yield. The trade of a nation depends for the most part on very delicate circumstances, and requires to be carefully nursed. Foreigners, in particular, ought to be flattered and encouraged, that they may prefer us before others. Nor ought we ever to rely entirely on our natural advantages; for it is not easy to foresee what may occur to overbalance them. As this reflection is no less obvious than weighty, facts will be more effectual than argument for making a deep impression. The Swiss some years ago imported all their wines from the King of Sardinia's dominions. The King laid a high duty on these wines, knowing that the Swiss had not ready access to any other wine-country. He did not foresee, that this high duty was equal to a premium for cultivating the vine at home. They succeeded; and now are provided with wine of their own growth. The city of Lyons, by making silver-thread in perfection, had maintained a monopoly of that article against foreigners, as well as natives. But a high duty on the exporting it, in order to monopolize also the manufacture of silver-lace, will probably excite foreigners to improve their own silver-thread and silver-lace; and France will be deprived of both monopolies, by the very means employed for securing both. English goods purchased by Spaniards for the American market, pay to the King of Spain on exportation a duty equal to their value. This impolitic measure opens a wide door to smuggling; as English goods can be furnished 50 per cent. cheaper from Jamaica. The Spanish governor of Mexico joins underhand in the smuggling; which is commonly carried on in the following manner. The governor, to whom early notice is given, issues a proclamation, bearing, that a foreign ship, with English goods on board, every article being specified, is hovering on the coast; and prohibiting, under severe penalties, any person to be a purchaser. That public proclamation, which is virtually a public advertisement, has the desired effect. All flock to the shore, and purchase in perfect tranquillity.

Beside heavy duties, commerce with foreigners has been distressed by many unwary regulations. The herring-fishery, which is now an immense article of commerce, was engrossed originally by the Scots. But grasping at all advantages, the royal boroughs of Scotland, in the reign of the second James, prohibited their fishermen to sell herrings at sea to foreigners; ordering, that the herring should be first landed, in order that they themselves might be first served. Such was the police of those times. But behold the consequence. The Netherlanders, and people of the Hanse towns, being prohibited to purchase as formerly, became fishers themselves, and cut the Scots out of that profitable branch of trade. The tar-company of Sweden, taking it for granted, that the English could not otherwise be supplied, refused to let them have any pitch or tar, even for ready money, unless permitted to be imported into England in Swedish bottoms; and consequently in such quantities only as the company should be pleased to furnish. This hardship moved the parliament to give a bounty for pitch and tar made in our own colonies. And if we be not already, we shall soon be altogether independent of Sweden. The Dutch, excited by the profitable trade of Portugal with the East Indies, attempted a north-east passage to China; and that proving abortive, they set on foot a trade with Lisbon for East-India commodities. Portugal was at that time subject to the King of Spain; and the Dutch, though at war with Spain, did not doubt of their being well received in Portugal, with which kingdom they had no cause to quarrel. But the King of Spain, overlooking not only the law of nations, but even his own interest as King of Portugal, confiscated at short-hand the Dutch ships and their cargoes, in the harbour of Lisbon. That unjust and unpolitic treatment provoked the Dutch to attempt an East-India trade, which probably they would not otherwise have thought of; and they were so successful, as to supplant the Portuguese in every quarter. And thus the King of Spain, by a gross error in politics, exalted his enemies to be a powerful maritime state. Had he encouraged the Dutch to trade with Lisbon, other nations must have resorted to the same market. Portugal thereby would have been raised to such a height of maritime power, as to be afraid of no rival. The Dutch would not have thought of coping with them, nor would any other nation.

We proceed to foreign commodities, and the measures laid down for regulating their importation, which have different views. One is, to keep down a rival power; in which view it is prudent to prohibit importation from one country, and to encourage it from another. It is judicious in the British legislature, to load French wines with a higher duty than those of Portugal; and in France, it would be a proper measure, to prefer the beef of Holstein, or of Russia, before that of Ireland; and the tobacco of the Ukraine, or of the Palatinate, before that of Virginia. But such measures of government ought to be sparingly exercised, for fear of retaliation.

There is no cause more cogent for regulating importation, than an unfavourable balance. By permitting French goods to be imported free of duty, the balance against England was computed to be a million Sterling yearly. In the year 1678, that importation was regulated; which, with a prohibition of wearing East-India manufactures, did in twenty years turn the balance of trade in favour of England.

Most of the British regulations with regard to goods imported, are contrived for promoting our own manufactures, or those of our colonies. A statute, 3o Edward IV. cap. 4. intitled, "Certain merchandises not lawful to be brought ready wrought into the kingdom," contains a large list of such merchandises; showing the good sense of the English in an early period, intent on promoting their own manufactures. To favour a new manufacture of our own, it is proper to lay a duty on the same manufacture imported. To encourage the art of throwing silk, the duty on raw silk imported is reduced, and that on thrown silk is heightened. But such a measure ought to be taken with great circumspection, lest it recoil against ourselves. The Swedes, some years ago, intent on raising manufactures at home, prohibited at once foreign manufactures, without due preparation. Smuggling ensued, for people must import what they cannot find at home; and the home manufactures were not benefited. But the consequences were still more severe. Foreign manufactures were formerly purchased with their copper, iron, timber, pitch, tar, &c.: but now, as foreigners cannot procure these commodities but with ready money, they resort to Russia and Norway, where commodities of the same kind are procured by barter. The Swedish government, perceiving their error, permit several foreign manufactures to be imported as formerly. But it is now too late; for the trade flows into another channel; and at present, the Swedish copper and iron works are far from flourishing as they once did. In the year 1768, an ordinance was issued by the court of Spain, prohibiting printed or painted linen and cotton to be imported; intended for encouraging a manufacture of printed cottons projected in Catalonia and Aragon. The Spanish ministry have all along been singularly unlucky in their commercial regulations. It is easy to foresee, that such a prohibition will have no effect, but to raise the price on the subjects of Spain; for the prohibited goods will be smuggled, discouraging as much as ever the intended manufacture. The prudent measure would have been, to lay a duty upon printed cottons and linens imported, so small as not to encourage smuggling; and to apply that duty for nursing the infant manufacture. A foreign manufacture ought never to be totally prohibited, till that at home be in such plenty, as nearly to supply the wants of the natives. During ignorance of political principles, a new manufacture was commonly encouraged with an exclusive privilege for a certain number of years. Thus in Scotland, an exclusive privilege of exporting woollen and linen manufactures, was given to some private societies[c]. Such a monopoly is ruinous to a nation; and frequently to the manufacture itself[d]. I know no monopoly that in sound politics can be justified, except that given to authors of books for fourteen years by an act of Queen Anne[*]. Exemption from duty, premiums to the best workmen, a bounty on exportation, joined with a duty on goods of the same kind imported, and at last a total prohibition, are the proper encouragements to a new manufacture.

The importation of raw materials ought to be encouraged in every manufacturing country, permitting only a moderate duty for encouraging our own rude materials of the same kind. By a French edict 1654, for encouraging ship-building, ship-timber imported pays no duty. But perhaps a moderate duty would have been better policy, in order to encourage such timber of the growth of France. Deal timber accordingly, and other timber, imported into Britain from any part of Europe, Ireland excepted, pays a moderate duty. And oakbark imported pays a duty, which is an encouragement to propagate oak at home. The importation of lean cattle from Ireland, which in effect are raw materials, is, by a statute of Charles II. declared a public nuisance. What gross ignorance! Is it not evident, that to feed cattle, is more profitable than to breed them? The chief promoter of that notable statute, was Sir John Knight, infamous for an insolent speech in King William's reign against naturalizing foreign Protestants, and proposing to kick out of the kingdom those already settled. Experience hath proved the benefit of importing lean cattle into England; witness the vast quantities imported yearly from Scotland. Diamonds, pearls, and jewels of every kind, paid formerly upon importation a duty of ten per cent. ad valorem; which by act 6o George II. cap. 7. was taken off, upon the following preamble: "That London is now become a great mart for diamonds and other precious stones, from whence most foreign countries are supplied; that great numbers of rough diamonds are sent here to be cut and polished; and that a free importation would encrease the trade."

Sorry am I to observe, that several of our duties on importation, are far from being conformable to the foregoing rule; many raw materials necessary for our manufactures being loaded with a duty on importation, and some with a heavy duty. Barilla, for example, is a raw material used in the glass-manufacture: the exportation from Spain is loaded with a very high duty: and to raise the price still higher, we add another duty on importation; without having the pretext of encouraging a raw material of our own growth, for barilla grows not in this island. Hair is a raw material employed in several manufactures; and yet every kind of it, human hair, horse hair, goat's hair, &c. pays a duty on importation; which consequently raises the price of our own hair, as well as of what is imported. Nor has this duty, more than the former, the pretext of being an encouragement to our own product; for surely there will not on that account be reared one child more, or foal, or kid. The same objection lies against the duty on foreign kelp, which is very high. Rancid oil of olives, fit for soap and woollen manufactures, pays upon importation a high duty: were it free of duty, we should be able to serve ourselves with Castile soap of home manufacture; and likewise our colonies, which are partly supplied by the French. Each of the following raw materials ought in sound policy to be free of duty on importation; and yet they are loaded with a duty, some with a high duty; pot-ashes, elephant's teeth, raw silk from the East Indies, lamp-black, bristles dressed or undressed, horns of beeves. Undressed skins, though a rude material, pay a duty on importation; and French kid-skins are honoured above others with a high duty: to reject a great benefit to ourselves rather than afford a small benefit to a rival nation, savours more of peevishness than of prudence.

For encouraging our colonies, coffee is permitted to be imported from the plantations free of duty, while other coffee pays six pence per pound. The heavy duty on whalebone and whale-oil imported, which was laid on for encouraging our own whale-fishing, is taken off with respect to the importation from our American colonies[e]. This may put an end to our own whale-fishery: but it will enable the Americans to cope with the Dutch; and who knows whether they may not at last prevail? For encouraging the culture of hemp and flax in America, there is a bounty given upon what is imported into Britain. One would imagine, that our legislature intended to enable the colonies to rival us in a staple manufacture, contrary to the fundamental principle of colonization. But we did not see so far: we only foresaw a benefit to Britain, in being supplied with hemp and flax from our colonies, rather than from Russia and the Low Countries. But even abstracting from rivalship, was it not obvious, that a bounty for encouraging the culture of hemp and flax at home, would be more successful, than for encouraging the culture in America, where the price of labour is excessively high, not to talk of the freight[*].

The encouragement given to foreign linen-yarn, by taking off the duty on importation, is a measure that greatly concerns Britain; and how far salutary shall be strictly examined, after stating some preliminary observations. The first is, That as the price of our own commodities can never rise above that of foreign commodities sold here, the price of imported linen must regulate the price of homemade linen. The next is, That though the duty on importation is paid by the merchant at the first instance, he relieves himself of it, by raising the price on the purchaser; which of course raises the price of the same sort of goods made at home; and accordingly a duty on importation is in effect a bounty to our own manufacturers. A third observation is, That the price of our linen-cloth ought to be divided between the spinner and the weaver, in such proportion as to afford bread to both. If the yarn be too high, the weaver is undone; and if too low, the spinner is undone. This was not attended to, when, for encouraging our spinners, a duty of three pence was laid on every pound of imported linen-yarn; which had the effect to raise the price of our own yarn beyond what the weaver could afford. This mystery being unveiled, the duty was first lowered to two pence, and then to a penny: our spinners had tolerable bread, and our weavers were not oppressed with paying too high a price for yarn.

Some patriotic gentlemen, who had more zeal than knowledge, finding the linen-manufacture benefited by the several reductions of the duty, rashly concluded, that it would be still more benefited by a total abolition of the duty. The penny accordingly was taken off[f], and linen-yarn was permitted to be imported duty free; which, if matters had continued as at the date of the act, would have left us not a single spinner by profession; because it would have reduced the price of our yarn below what could afford bread to the spinner. Lucky it has been for our linen-manufacture, that the German war, which soon followed, suspended all their manufactures, and spinning in particular; which proved a favourable opportunity for diffusing widely the art of spinning, and for making our spinners more and more dexterous. And yet, now that the war is at an end, it is far from being certain, that our yarn can be afforded as cheap as what is imported from Silesia. We have good authority for asserting, that the English spinners have suffered by that statute: from the books of many parishes it appears, that soon after the statute, a number of women, who had lived by spinning, became a burden upon the parish. One thing is evident, that as spinning is the occupation of females who cannot otherwise be so usefully employ'd, and as more hands are required for spinning than for weaving, the former is the more valuable branch of the manufacture. It ought then to be the peculiar concern of our legislature, not to destroy that branch by impolitic regulations. And yet very little attention seems to have been given to the public interest, in passing the act under consideration. Why was it not enquired into, whether the intended reduction of the price of yarn would leave bread to the British spinner? The result of that enquiry would have been fatal to the intended act; for it would have been clearly seen, that the Scotch spinner could not make bread by her work, far less the English. Other particulars ought also to have been suggested to the legislature, that flax-spinning is of all occupations the fittest for women of a certain class, confined within small houses; that a flax-wheel requires less space than a wheel for wool; and that the toughness of British flax makes it excel for sail-cloth, dowlas, ticking, and sheeting. The British spinner might, in a British statute, have expected the cast of the scale, had it been but a half-penny per pound on importation.

At the same time, why should there be any inconsistency in our commercial regulations, when the wisest heads of the nation are employed about them? Flax, rough or undressed, being a rude material, is imported duty-free, but dressed flax pays a high duty; both of them calculated for encouraging our own manufacturers. Behold now a flat inconsistency: though dressed flax, for the reason given, pays a high duty; yet when by additional labour it is converted into yarn, it pays no duty. How absurd is this! Further, foreign yarn is not only made welcome duty-free, but even receives a bounty when converted into linen, and exported to our plantations. Have we no reason to be afraid, that such indulgence to foreign yarn will deprive us of foreign rough flax? The difference of bulk and freight will determine the Germans to send us nothing but their yarn, and equally determine our importers to commission that commodity only.

Goods imported, if subjected to a duty, are generally of the best kind; because the duty bears a less proportion to such than to meaner sorts. The best French wines are imported into Britain, where the duty is higher than in any other country. For that reason, the best linen-yarn was imported while the duty subsisted; but now the German yarn is sorted into different kinds, of which the worst is reserved for the English market.

Regulations concerning the exportation of commodities formerly imported, come next in order. And for encouraging such exportation, one method practised with success, is, to restore to the merchant the whole or part of the duty paid at importation; which is termed a drawback. This in particular is done with respect to tobacco; which by that means can be afforded to foreigners at two pence halfpenny per pound, when the price at home is eight pence halfpenny. But by an omission in the act of parliament, a drawback is only given for raw tobacco; which bars the exportation of snuff or manufactured tobacco, as foreigners can undersell us five-and-thirty per cent. Tobacco being an article of luxury, it was well judged in our legislature to lay a heavier duty on what is consumed at home, than on what is exported. Upon the same principle, the duty that is paid on the importation of coffee and cocoa from our American plantations, is wholly drawn back when exported[g]. But as China earthen ware is not intitled to any encouragement from us, and as it is an article of luxury, it gets no drawback, even when exported to America (7 George III. cap. 46.) The exporter of rice from Britain, first imported from America, is intitled to draw back but half the duty paid on importation. Rice imported duty-free might rival our wheat-crop. But the whole duty ought to be drawn back on exportation: it ought to be afforded to our neighbours at the lowest rate, partly to rival their wheat-crop, and partly to encourage our rice-colonies.

Tobacco is an article of luxury; and it is well ordered, that it should come dearer to us than to foreigners. But every wise administration will take the opposite side with respect to articles that concern our manufactures. Quicksilver pays upon importation a duty of about 8 d. per pound; 7 d. of which is drawn back upon exportation. The intention of the drawback was to encourage the commerce of quicksilver; without adverting, that to afford quicksilver to foreign manufacturers cheaper than to our own, is a gross blunder in commercial politics. Again, when quicksilver is manufactured into vermilion or sublimate, no drawback is allowed; which effectually bars their exportation: we ought to be ashamed of such an absurdity. In the reign of Queen Elizabeth, dyers were prohibited to use logwood, which was ordered to be openly burnt. But the English dyers having acquired the art of fixing colours made of logwood, it was permitted to be imported[h], every ton paying on importation L. 5; L. 4. of which was to be drawn back upon exportation. That law, made in the days of ignorance, was intended to encourage the commerce of logwood; and had that effect: but the blunder of discouraging our own manufactures, by furnishing logwood cheaper to our rivals, was overlooked. Both articles were put upon a better footing[i], giving a greater encouragement to the commerce of logwood, by allowing it to be imported duty-free; and by giving an advantage to our own manufactures, by laying a duty of 40 s. upon every hundred weight exported. Lastly, Still more to encourage the commerce of logwood[k], the duty upon exportation is discontinued. It will have the effect proposed: but will not that benefit be more than balanced by the encouragement it gives to foreign manufactures? By the late peace, we have obtained the monopoly of gum-senega; and proper measures have been taken for turning it to the best account: the exportation from Africa is confined to Great Britain; and the duty on importation is only six pence per hundred weight: but the duty on exportation from Britain is thirty shillings per hundred weight[l]; which, with freight, commission, and insurance, makes it come dear to foreigners. Formerly, every beaver's skin paid upon importation seven pence of duty; and the exporter received a drawback of four pence; as if it had been the purpose of the legislature, to make our own people pay more for that useful commodity than foreigners. Upon obtaining a monopoly of beaver-skins by the late peace, that absurd regulation was altered: a penny per skin of duty is laid on importation, and seven pence on exportation[m]. By that means beaver-skins are cheaper here than in any other country of Europe. A similar regulation is established with respect to gum-arabic. A hundred weight pays on importation six pence, and on exportation L. 1, 10 s.[n]. As the foregoing articles are used in various manufactures, their cheapness in Britain, by means of these regulations, will probably balance the high price of labour, so as to keep open to us the foreign market.

James I. of England issued a proclamation, prohibiting gold and silver, whether in coin or plate, goldsmith's work, or bullion, to be exported. Not to mention the unconstitutional step of an English King usurping the legislative power, it was a glaring absurity to prohibit manufactured work from being exported. Gold and silver, coined or uncoined, are to this day prohibited from being exported from France; a most absurd prohibition, for a merchant will never willingly export gold and silver; but if the balance be against him, the exportation is unavoidable. The only effect of the prohibition is, to swell the merchant's debt; for he must have recourse to a smuggler, who must be tempted with a high bribe to undertake the exportation.

A French author remarks, that in no country are commercial regulations better contrived than in Britain; and instances the following particulars: 1st, Foreign commodities, such as may rival their own, are prohibited, or burdened with duties. 2d, Their manufactures are encouraged by a free exportation. 3d, Raw materials, which cannot be produced at home, cochineal, for example, indigo, &c. are imported free of duty. 4th, Raw materials of their own growth, such as wool, suller's-earth, &c. are prohibited to be exported. 5th, Every commodity has a free course through the kingdom, without duty. And lastly, Duties paid on importation, are repaid on exportation. This remark is for the most part well sounded; and yet the facts above set forth will not permit us to say, that the English commercial laws have as yet arrived at perfection.

HAVING thus gone through the several articles that enter into the present sketch, I shall close with some general reflections. The management of the finances is a most important branch of government; and no less delicate than important. Taxes may be so contrived as to promote in a high degree the prosperity of a state; and without much contrivance, they may do much mischief. The latter, by rendering the sovereign odious, and the people miserable, effectually eradicate patriotism: no other cause is more fruitful of rebellion; and no other cause reduces a country to be a more easy prey to an invader. To that cause were the Mahomerans chiefly indebted for their conquest of the Greek empire. The people were glad to change their master; because, instead of multiplied, intricate, and vexatious duties, they found themselves subjected to a simple tribute, easily collected, and easily paid. Had the art of oppressive taxes been known to the Romans, when they put in practice against the Carthaginians the utmost perfidy and cruelty, for making them abandon their city, they probably would have chosen the softer method of imposing high duties on exportation and importation, which would have gratified their avarice, and at the same time have emaciated Carthage, and reduced it to beggary.

But such taxes require not the aid of external force to subdue a nation: they alone will reduce it to the most contemptible weakness. From the union of the different Spanish kingdoms under one monarch, there was reason to expect an exertion of spirit, similar to that of the Romans, when peace was restored under Augustus. Spain was at that period the most potent kingdom in Europe, or perhaps in the world; and yet, instead of flourishing in that advantageous condition, it was, by noxious taxes, brought down to poverty and depopulation. The political history of that kingdom, with respect to its finances, ought to be kept in perpetual remembrance, that kings and their ministers may shun the destructive rock upon which Spain hath been wrecked. The cortes of Spain had once as extensive powers as ever were enjoyed by an English parliament; but at the time of their union, their power being sunk to a shadow, the King and his ministers governed without much control. Britain cannot be too thankful to Providence for her parliament. From the history of every modern European nation, an instructive lesson may be gathered, that the three estates, or a parliament in our language, are the only proper check against the ignorance and rapacity of ministers. The fertility of the Spanish soil is well known. Notwithstanding frequent droughts to which it is liable, it would produce greatly with diligent culture; and in fact, during the time of the Roman domination, produced corn sufficient for its numerous inhabitants, and a great surplus, which was annually exported to Italy. During the domination of the Moors, Arabian authors agree, that Spain was extremely populous. An author of that nation, who wrote in the tenth century, reports, that in his time there were in Spain 80 capital cities, 300 of the second and third orders, beside villages so frequent, that one could not walk a mile without meeting one or more of them. In Cordova alone, the capital of the Moorish empire, he reckons 200,000 houses[*], 600 mosques, and 900 public baths. In the eleventh century, another author mentions no fewer than 12,000 villages in the plain of Seville. Agriculture at that period must have been in the utmost perfection, when Spain could feed such multitudes. What was the extent of their internal commerce is not recorded; but all authors agree, that their foreign commerce was immense. Beside many articles of smaller value, they exported raw silk, oil, sugar, a sort of cochineal, quicksilver, iron, wrought and unwrought manufactures of silk, of wool, &c. The annual revenue of Abdoulraham III. one of the Spanish Caliphs, was, in money, 12,145,000 dinares, above five millions Sterling, beside large quantities of corn, wine, oil, and other fruits. That prince's revenue must indeed have been immense, to supply the sums expended by him. Beside the annual charges of government, fleets, and armies, he laid out great sums on his private pleasures. Though engaged continually in war, he had money to spare for building a new town three miles from Cordova, named Zehra, after his favourite mistress. In that town he erected a magnificent palace, sufficiently capacious for his whole seraglio of six thousand three hundred persons. There were in it fourteen hundred columns of African and Spanish marble, nineteen of Italian marble, and one hundred and forty of the finest kind, a present from the Greek Emperor. In the middle of the great saloon were many images of birds and beasts in pure gold, adorned with precious stones, pouring water into a large marble bason. That prince must have had immense stables for horses, when he entertained, for his constant guard, no fewer than twelve thousand horsemen, having sabres and belts enriched with gold. Upon the city of Zehra alone, including the palace and gardens, were expended annually three hundred thousand dinares, which make above one hundred thousand pounds Sterling; and it required twenty-five years to complete these works[*].

The great fertility of the soil, the industry of the Moors, and their advantageous situation for trade, carried on the prosperity of Spain down to the time that they were subdued by Ferdinand of Arragon. Of this we have undoubted evidence, from the condition of Spain in the days of Charles V. and of his son Philip, being esteemed at that period the richest nation in the universe. We have the authority of Ustariz, that the town of Seville, in the period mentioned, contained sixty thousand silk looms. During the sixteenth century, the woollen cloth of Segovia was esteemed the finest in Europe; and that of Caralonia long maintained its preference in the Levant, in Italy, and in the adjacent islands. In a memorial addressed to the second Philp, Louis Valle de la Cerda reports, that in the fair of Medina he had negotiated bills of exchange to the extent of one hundred and fifty-five millions of crowns; and in Spain, at that time, there were several other fairs no less frequented.

The expulsion of the Moors deprived Spain of six or seven hundred thousand frugal and industrious inhabitants; a wound that touched its vitals, but not mortal: tender care, with proper remedies, would have restored Spain to its former vigour. But unhappily for that kingdom, its political physicians were not skilled in the method of cure: instead of applying healing medicines, they inflamed the disease, and rendered it incurable. The ministry, who, instigated by the clergy, had prevailed on the King to banish the Moors, dreading loss of favour if they should suffer the King's revenues to sink, were forced, in self-defence, to double the taxes upon the remaining inhabitants. And what could be expected from that fatal measure, but utter ruin; when the poor Christians, who were too much of gentlemen to be industrious, had scarce been able to crawl under the load of former taxes?

But a matter that affords a lesson so instructive merits a more particular detail. So late as the beginning of the last century, there were extensive plantations of sugar in the kingdom of Granada, which, upon the occasion mentioned, were deeply taxed, so as that, with the former taxes, sugar paid thirty-six per cent. This branch of husbandry, which could not fail to languish under such oppression, was in a deep consumption when the first American sugars were imported into Europe, and was totally extinguished by the lower price of these sugars. Spain once enjoyed a most extensive commerce of spirits manufactured at home, perhaps more extensive than France does at present. But two causes concurred to ruin that manufacture; first, oppressive taxes; and next, a prohibition to the manufacturer, of vending his spirits to any but to the farmers of the revenue; a slavery past all endurance. Spanish salt is superior in quality to that of Portugal, and still more to that of France: when refined in Holland, it produces 10 per cent. more than the former, and 20 per cent. more than the latter; and the making of salt requires in Spain less labour than in Portugal or in France. Thus Spanish salt may be afforded the cheapest, as requiring less labour; and yet may draw the highest price, as superior in quality: notwithstanding which shining advantages, scarce any salt is exported from Spain; and no wonder, for an exorbitant duty makes it come dearer to the purchaser than any other salt. A more moderate duty would bring more profit to the government; beside easing the labouring poor, and employing them in the manufacture. The •uperior quality of Spanish raw silk makes it in great request; but as the duty upon it exceeds 60 per cent. it can find no vent in a foreign market: nor is there almost any demand for it at home, as its high price has reduced the silk-manufacture in Spain to the lowest ebb, But the greatest oppression of all, as it affects every sort of manufacture, is the famous tax known by the name of alcavala, upon every thing bought and sold, which was laid on in the fifteenth century by a cortes or parliament, limited expressly to eight years, and yet kept up, contrary to law, merely by the King's authority. This monstrous tax, originally 10 per cent. ad valorem, was, by the two Philips III. and IV. augmented to 14 per cent.; sufficient of itself to destroy all internal commerce, by the encouragement it gives to smuggling[*]. The difficulty of recovering payment of such oppressive taxes heightened the brutality of the farmers; which hastened the downfall of the manufactures: poverty and distress banished such workmen as could find bread elsewhere; and reduced the rest to beggary. The poor husbandmen sunk under the weight of taxes: and, as if this had not been sufficient to ruin agriculture totally, the Spanish ministry superadded an absolute prohibition against exporting corn. The most amazing article of all is, that it has been the practice, for more than three centuries, to set a price on corn; which ruins the farmer when the price is low, and yet refuses him the relief of a high price. That agriculture in Spain should be in a deep consumption, is far from being a wonder: it is rather a wonder that it has not long ago died of that disease. Formerly there was plenty of corn for twenty millions of inhabitants, with a surplus for the great city of Rome; and yet at present, and for very many years back, there has not been corn for seven millions, its present inhabitants. Their only resource for procuring even the necessaries of life, were the treasures of the new world, which could not last for ever; and Spain became so miserably poor, that Philip IV. was necessitated to give a currency to his copper coin, almost equal to that of silver. Thus in Spain, the downfall of husbandry, arts, and commerce, was not occasioned by expulsion of the Moors, and far less by discovery of a new world[*], of which the gold and silver were favourable to husbandry at least; but by exorbitant taxes, a voracious monster, which, after swallowing up the whole riches of the kingdom, has left nothing for itself to feed on. The following picture is drawn by a writer of that nation, who may be depended on for veracity as well as knowledge[a]. "Poverty and distress dispeople a country, by banishing all thoughts of marriage. They even destroy sucking children; for what nourishment can a woman afford to her infant, who herself is reduced to bread and water, and is overwhelmed with labour and despair? A greater proportion accordingly die here in infancy, than where the labouring poor are more at ease; and of those who escape by strength of constitution, the scarcity of cloathing and of nourishment makes them commonly shortlived."

So blind however are the Spaniards in the administration of their finances, that the present ministry are following out the same measures in America, that have brought their native country to the brink of ruin. Cochineal, cocoa, sugar, &c. imported into Spain duty-free, would be a vast fund of commerce with other nations: but a heavy duty on importation is an absolute bar to that commerce, by forcing the other European nations to provide themselves elsewhere. Spanish oil exported to America would be a great article of commerce, were it not barred by a heavy duty on exportation, equal almost to a prohibition: and the Spanish Americans, for want of oil, are reduced to use fat and butter, very improper for a hot climate. The prohibition of planting vines in Mexico, and the excessive duty on the importation of Spanish wines into that country, have introduced a spirit drawn from the sugar-cane, which, being more destructive than a pestilence, is prohibited under severe penalties. The prohibition, however, has no effect, but to give the governors of the provinces a monopoly of those spirits, which, under their protection, are sold publicly; a commerce no less shameful than destructive.

But this subject seems to be inexhaustible. The silver and gold mines in the Spanish West Indies are, by improper taxes, rendered less profitable, both to the King and to the proprietors, than they ought to be. The King's share is the fifth part of the silver, and the tenth part of the gold, that the mines produce. There is beside a duty of eighty piastres upon every quintal of mercury employed in these mines. These heavy exactions, have occasioned an abandon of all mines but what are of the richest sort. The inhabitants pay 33 per cent. on the goods imported to them from Spain, and they are subjected beside to the alcavala, which is 14 per cent. for every thing bought and sold within the country. The most provoking tax of all is what is termed la cruciade, being a sum paid for indulgence to eat eggs, butter, and cheese, during Lent, which is yielded by the Pope to the King of Spain. The government, it is true, obliges no person to take out such an indulgence: but the priests refuse every religious consolation to those who do not purchase; and there is not perhaps a single person in Spanish America who is bold enough to stand out against such oppression.

There is recorded in history another example of destructive taxes similar to that now mentioned. Augustus, on his conquest of Egypt, having brought to Rome the treasure of its kings, gold and silver overflowed in Italy; the bulk of which found its way to Constantinople, when it became the seat of empire. By these means, Italy was sadly impoverished: the whole ground had been covered with gardens and villas, now deserted; and there was neither corn nor manufactures to exchange for money. Gold and silver became now as rare in Italy as they had been of old; and yet the same taxes that had been paid with ease during plenty of money, were rigidly exacted, which ruined all.

Notes

*
This appetite is not denied by Vitruvius; but it seems to have been overlooked in the account he gives (book 2. ch. 1.) of the commencement of society, which is as follows. "In ancient times, men, like wild beasts, lived in caves and woods, feeding on wild food. In a certain place it happened, that the trees, put in motion by tempestuous winds, and rubbing their branches one against another, took fire. Those in the neighbourhood fled for fear: but as the flames abated, they approached; and finding the heat comfortable, they threw wood into the fire, and preserved it from being extinguished. They then invited others to take benefit of the fire. Men, thus assembled, endeavoured to express their thoughts by articulate sounds; and by daily practice, certain sounds, signifying things in frequent use, came to be established. From that casual event, language arose. And thus, fire having attracted many to one place, they soon discovered that they were by nature superior to other animals, differing from them not only in an erect posture, which gave them opportunity to behold the beauties of the heavens as well as of the earth; but also in their hands and fingers, fitted for executing whatever they could invent. They therefore began to cover their habitations with the boughs of trees; some dug caves in the mountains; and, in imitation of a swallow's nest, some sheltered themselves with sprigs and loam. Thus, by observing each other's work, and turning their thoughts to invention, they by degrees improved their habitations, and became daily more and more skilful." Has not the celebrated Rousseau been guilty of the same oversight in his Essay on the Inequality of Men? These authors suggest to me the butcher, who made diligent search for his knife, which he held between his teeth.
↵

*
The care of Providence in protecting the human race from animals of prey, is equally visible in other particulars. I can discover no facts to make me believe, that a lion or a tyger is afraid of a man; but whatever secret means are employed by Providence, to keep such fierce and voracious animals at a distance, certain it is, that they shun the habitations of men. At present there is not a wild lion in Europe. Even in Homer's time there were none in Peloponnesus, tho' they were frequent in Thrace, Macedon, and Thessaly, down to the time of Aristotle: whence it is probable, that these countries were not at that time well peopled. When men and cattle are together, a lion always attacks a beast, and never a man. M. Buffon observes, that the bear, tho' far from being cowardly, never is at ease but in wild and desert places. The great condor of Peru, a bird of prey of an immense size, bold, and rapacious, is never seen but in deserts and high mountains. Every river in the coast of Guinea abounds with crocodiles, which lie basking in the sun during the heat of the day. If they perceive a man approaching, they plunge into the river, though they seldom fly from any other animal. A fox, on the contrary, a pole-cat, a kite, though afraid of man, draw near to inhabited places where they find prey in plenty. Such animals do little mischief; and the little they do, promotes care and vigilance. But if men, like sheep, were the natural prey of a lion or a tyger, their utmost vigour and sagacity would scarce be sufficient for self-defence. Perpetual war would be their fate, without having a single moment for any other occupation; and they could never have emerged out of brutal barbarity. It is possible that a few cattle might be protected by armed men, continually on the watch; but to defend flocks and herds covering a hundred hills, would be impracticable. Agriculture could never have existed in any shape.
↵

*
M. Buffon has bestowed less pains than becomes an author of his character, upon the nature and instincts of animals: he indeed scarce once stumbles upon truth in his natural history of the sheep. He holds it to be stupid, and incapable to defend itself against any beast of prey; maintaining, that the race could not have subsisted but under the care and protection of men. Has that author forgot, that sheep had no enemy more formidable than men, in their original hunter-state? Far from being neglected by nature, there are few animals better provided for defence. They have a sort of military instinct, forming a line of battle, like soldiers, when threatened with an attack. The rams, who, in a natural state, make half of the flock, join together; and no lion or tyger is able to resist their united impetuosity.
↵

a
See the works of the beaver described most accurately by M. Buffon, vol 8.
↵

b
History of animals, b. 9. c. 40.
↵

*
However fierce with respect to other animals, yet so submissive are these dogs to men, as to suffer their prey to be taken from them without resistance. Europeans salt for their slaves what they thus obtain.
↵

*
Pigeons must be excepted, if their society be not necessary either for food or habitation, of which I am uncertain. Society among that species is extremely intimate; and it is observable, that the place they inhabit contributes to the intimacy. A crazy dove-cot moved the proprietor to transfer the inhabitants to a new house built for them; and to accustom them to it, they were kept a fortnight within doors, with plenty of food. When they obtained liberty, they flew directly to their old house; and seeing it laid flat, walked round and round, lamenting. They then took wing and disappeared, without once casting an eye on their new habitation.
↵

c
Memoirs of Count Forbin.
↵

*
The never-ceasing factions in Britain proceed, not from a society too much extended, but from love of power and of wealth, to restrain which there is no sufficient authority in a free government.
↵

*
In this respect the human race differs widely from that of dogs: a puppy, the first time it sees a man, runs to him, licks his hand, and plays about his feet.
↵

d
Elements of Criticism, vol. 1. p. 441. edit. 5.
↵

e
Lib. 6. c. 23. de Bello Gallico.
↵

*
"They hold it not infamous to rob without the bounds of their canton."
↵

f
Hostis.
↵

g
Lib. 6. c. 15. de Bello Gallico.
↵

h
Baretti.
↵

*
"Because they pour melted butter upon their Roast veal."
↵

*
Voltaire, (Universal History, ch. 40.) observing, rightly, that jealousy among petty princes is productive of more crimes than among great monarchs, gives a very unsatisfactory reason, viz. That having little force, they must employ fraud, poison, and other secret crimes; not adverting, that power may be equally distributed among small princes as well as among great men. It is antipathy that instigates such crimes, which is always the most violent among the nearest neighbours.
↵

i
Book 1. Sketch 1.
↵

*
"Denique caetera animantia in suo genere probe degunt: congregari videmus, et stare contra dissimilia: leonum feritas inter se non dimicat: serpentum morsus non petit serpentes; ne maris quidem belluae ac pisces, nisi in diversa genera, saeviunt. At, Hercule, homini plurima ex homine funt mala." Pliny, lib. 7. Prooemium. [In English thus: "For other animals live at peace with those of their species. They gather themselves in troops, and unite against the common enemy. The ferocious lion fights not against his species: the poisonous serpent is harmless to his kind: the monsters of the sea prey but on those fishes that differ from them in nature: man alone of animals is foe to man!"]
↵

k
Lib. 6. c. 23. de Bello Gallico.
↵

*
"They hold it sacrilege to injure a stranger. They protect from outrage, and venerate those who come among them: their houses are open to them, and they are welcome to their tables."
↵

l
Nicholaus Damascenus.
↵

m
Saxo Grammaticus. Crantz.
↵

†
Appetite for praise is inherent even in savages: witness those of North America, who, upon that account, are fond of dress. I mean the men; for the women are such miserable slaves as to have no spirit for ornament.
↵

n
Essay of the Populousness of Ancient Nations, by David Hume, Esq:
↵

o
See Knox's Ecclesiastical History of Scotland, p. 13.
↵

p
Elements of Criticism, vol. 1. p. 143. edit. 5.
↵

q
Elements of Criticism, vol. 1. p. 320. edit. 5.
↵

*
Beside Paragua tea, for which there is great demand in Peru, cotton, tobacco, and sugar-canes, were cultivated in Paragua, and the product was stored up in magazines. No Indian durst keep in his house so much as an ounce of any of these commodities, under pain of receiving twelve lashes in honour of the twelve apostles, beside fasting three days in the house of correction. The fathers seldom inflicted a capital punishment, because it deprived them of a profitable slave.
↵

*
The blessings of ease and inaction are most poetically display'd in the following description. "O felix Lapo, qui in ultimo angulo mundi sic bene lates, contentus et innocens. Tu nec times annonae charitatem, nec Martis proelia, quae ad tuas oras pervenire nequeunt, sed florentissimas Europae provincias et urbes, unico momento, saepe dejiciunt et delent. Tu dormis hic sub tua pelle, ab omnibus curis, contentionibus, rixis, liber, ignorans quid sit invidia. Tu nulla nosti discrimina, nisi tonantis Jovis fulmina. Tu ducis innocentissimos tuos annos ultra centenarium numerum, cum facili senectute et summa sanitate. Te latent myriades morborum nobis Europaeis communes. Tu vivis in sylvis, avis instar, nec sementem facis, nec metis; tamen alit te Deus optimus optime." Linnaeus, Flora Lapponica.—[In English thus: "O happy Laplander, who, on the utmost verge of habitable earth, thus livest obscure in rest, content, and innocence. Thou fearest not the scanty crop, nor ravages of war; and those calamities which waste whole provinces and towns can ne'er attain thy peaceful shores. Wrapt in thy covering of fur, thou canst securely sleep; a stranger to each tumultuous care; unenvying and unenvied. Thou fearest no danger, but from the thunder of heaven. Thy harmless days slide on in innocence, beyond the period of a century. Thy health is firm; and thy declining age is tranquil. Millions of diseases, which ravage the rest of the world, have never reached thy happy climate. Thou livest as the birds of the wood, thou carest not to sow nor reap, for bounteous Providence has supplied thee in all thy wants."—So eloquent a panegyrist upon the Lapland life would make a capital figure upon an oyster. No creature is freer from want, no creature freer from war, and probably no creature is freer from fear; which, alas! is not the case of the Laplander.
↵

*

L'homme qui ne peut que par le nombre, qui n'est fort que par sa réunion, qui n'est heureux que par la paix, a la fureur de s'armer pour son malheur et de combattre pour sa ruine. Excité par l'insatiable avidité, aveuglé par l ambition encore plus insatiable, il renonce aux sentiments d'humanité, cherche à s'entre-détruire, se détruit en effet; et après ces jours de sang et de carnage, lorsque la fumée de la gloire s'est dissipée, il voit d'un oeil triste la terre dévastée, les arts ensevelies, les nations dispersées, les peuples affoiblis, son propre bonheur ruiné, et sa puissance réelle anéantie.
"Grand Dieu! dont la seule presence soutient la nature et maintient l'harmonie des loix de l'univers; Vous, qui du trône immobile de l'empirée, voyez rouler sous vos pieds toutes les sphéres célestes fans choc et sans confusion; qui du sein du repos, reproduisez à chaque instnat leurs mouvemens immenses, et seul régissez dans une paix profonde ce nombre infini de cieux et de mondes; rendez, rendez enfin le calme à la terre agitée! Qu' elle soit dans le silence! Qu' à votre voix la discorde et la guerre cessent de faire retenter leurs clameurs orgueilleuses! Dieu de bonté, auteur de tous les êtres, vos regards paternels embrassent tous les objets de la création: mais l'homme est votre être de choix; vous avez éclairé son ame d'une rayon de votre lumiére immortelle; comblez vos bienfaits en pénétrant son coeur d'un trait de votre amour: ce sentiment divin se répandant par-tout, réunira les natures ennemies; l'homme ne craindra plus l'aspect de l'homme, le fer homicide n' armera plus sa main; le feu dévorant de la guerre ne fera plus tarir la source des générations; l'espéce humaine maintenant affoiblie, mutilée, moissonnée dans sa fleur, germera de nouveau et se multipliera sans nombre; la nature accablée sous le poids de fléaux, stérile, abandonnée, reprendra bientôt avec une nouvelle vie son ancienne sécondité; et nous, Dieu Bienfaiteur, nous la seconderons, nous la cultiverons, nous l'observerons fans cesse pour vous offrir à chaque instant un nouveau tribut de reconnoissance et d'admiration." Buffon Histoire Naturelle, vol. 9. 8vo. edit.

[In English thus:
"Man who is powerful only by numbers, whose strength consists in the union of forces, and whose happiness is to be found alone in a state of peace, has yet the madness to take arms for his own misery, and fight to the ruin of his species. Urged on by insatiable avarice, and blinded by ambition still more insatiable, he banishes from his breast every sentiment of humanity, and, eager for the destruction of his fellow-creatures, in effect destroys himself. When the days of blood and carnage are past, when the vapour of glory is dissipated, he looks around with a sorrowful eye upon the desolated earth, he sees the arts extinct, the nations dispersed, and population dead: his happiness is ruined, and his power is reduced to nothing.
"Great God! whose sole presence sustains the creative power, and rules the harmony of nature's laws! who from the permanent celestial throne beholdest the motion of the nether spheres, all perfect in their course which knows no change; who broughtest from out the womb of rest by endless re-production those never-ceasing movements; who rulest in peace the infinity of worlds: Eternal God! vouchsafe at length to send a portion of that heavenly peace to calm the agitated earth. Let every tumult cease: at thy celestial voice, no more be heard around the proud and clamorous shouts of war and discord. All-bounteous Creator! Author of being! each object of thy works partakes of thy paternal care; but chief of all, thy chosen creature man. Thou hast bestowed on him a ray of thine immortal light: O deign to crown that gift, by penetrating his heart with a portion of thy love. Soon will that heavenly sentiment, pervading his nature, reconcile each warring and contradictory principle: man will no longer dread the sight of man: the murdering blade will sleep within its sheath: the fire of war will cease to dry up the springs of generation: the human race, now languishing and withering in the bloom, will bud afresh, and multiply: nature, which now sinks beneath the scourge of misery, sterile and desolated, will soon renew her wasted strength, and regain her first fertility. We, O God of benevolence, we thy creatures will second the blessing. It will be ours to bestow on the earth that culture which best can aid her fruitfulness; and we will pay to thee the most acceptable of sacrifices, in endless gratitude and adoration."

How natural is this prayer; how unnatural the state thus anxiously requested! M. Buffon's devotional fits are fervent: pity it is, that they are not better directed.

↵

a
Principles of Equity, p. 177. edit. 2.
↵

*
At first, when a certain regimen was once approved, it may be that all was permitted to the wisdom and discretion of those who were to rule; till by experience this was found very inconvenient, so as the thing devised for a remedy did increase the sore which it should have cured. They saw, "that to live by one man's will became the cause of all mens misery." This constrained them to come into laws, wherein all men might see their duty beforehand, and know the penalties of transgressing them. Hooker's Eccl. Pol. I. 1. § 10.
↵

†
Such as are acquainted with no manners but what are modern, will be puzzled to account for the great veneration paid to old age in early times. Before writing was invented, old men were the repositories of knowledge, which they acquired by experience; and young men had no access to knowledge but from them. At the siege of Troy, Nestor, who had seen three generations, was the chief adviser and director of the Greeks But as books are now the most patent road to knowledge, to which the old and young have access, it may justly be observed, that by the invention of writing and printing, old men have lost much of their pristine importance.
↵

b
Historical Law-tracts, tract 1.
↵

*
An ingenious writer observes, that as our American settlements are now so prosperous, banishment to these settlements is scarce a punishment. He therefore proposes, that criminals be transported to Hudson's Bay, or to some other uncultivated country. My doubt is, that in proportion as manners improve, the severity of punishment ought to be mitigated. Perhaps, the transportation to any of our American colonies,
•
ho' less dreadful than formerly, may however be now a sufficient punishment for theft, or other crime of no deeper dye.

↵

a
Lib. 5.
↵

*
A commonwealth with such a rotation may be aptly compared to a group of jets d'eau, rising one above another in beautiful order, and preserving the same order in descending: the form of the group continues invariable, but the forming parts are always changing.
↵

b
l. 5. ad legem Juliam Majestatis.
↵

*
The following incident is a striking example of the violence of passion, indulged in a despotic government, where men in power are under no control. Thomas Pereyra, a Portuguese general, having assisted the King of Pegu in a dangerous war with his neighbour of Siam, was a prime favourite at court, having elephants of state, and a guard of his own countrymen. One day coming from court mounted on an elephant, and hearing music in a house where a marriage was celebrating between a daughter of the family and her lover, he went into the house, and desired to see the bride. The parents took the visit for a great honour, and chearfully presented her. He was instantly smit with her beauty, ordered his guards to seize her, and to carry her to his palace. The bridegroom, as little able to bear the affront as to revenge it, cut his own throat.
↵

c
Lib. 4.
↵

*
No human work can be everlasting. The seventy-two bailiages of the extensive canton of Bern threaten ruin to the republic. Those lucrative offices, which the great council appropriates to its own members, occasion a constant influx of riches into the capital. Patriotism is observed, of late years, to be on the decline among the citizens of Bern; and no wonder, considering that luxury and selfishness are the never-failing offspring of opulence. When selfishness becomes the ruling passion of that people, those in power will pilfer the public treasure, which is immense, and enrich themselves with the spoils of the republic. Confusion and anarchy must ensue, and the state will settle in a monarchy, or, more probably, in an odious democracy.
↵

a
Harrington.
↵

*

En Asie on a toujours vu de grands empires; en Europe ils n'ont jamais pu subsister. C'est que l'Asie que nous connoissons a de plus grandes plaines: elle est coupée en plus grands morceaux par les montagnes et les mers; et comme elle est plus au midi, les sources y sont plus aisement taries, les montagnes y sont moins couvertes des nieges, et les fleuves, moins grossis, y forment des moindres barriers.
(L'Esprit des Loix, liv. 17. c. 6.)—[In English thus: "In Asia there have always been great empires: such could never subsist in Europe. The reason is, that in Asia there are larger plains, and it is cut by mountains and seas into more extensive divisions: as it lies more to the south, its springs are more easily dried up, the mountains are less covered with snow, and the rivers, proportionally smaller, form less considerable barriers."]

↵

a
L'Esprit des Loix, liv. 7. chap. 7.
↵

*
"It was indeed natural, that emperors, trained up to all the fatignes of war, who had effected the dethronement of a family immersed in sensual pleasures, should adhere to that virtue of which they had experienced the utility, and dread that voluptuousness, whose fatal effects they had seen. But after a succession of three or four such princes, corruption, luxury, and indolence, appear again in their successors: they shut themselves up in their palace, their soul is enervated, their life is shortened, and their family declines: the grandees acquire power, the eunuchs gain credit, and children are set on the throne: the palace is at variance with the empire, the indolent statesmen ruin the industrious people. The Emperor is assassinated or deposed by an usurper, who founds a new race of monarchs, of which the third or fourth in succession, sinking again into indolence, pursues the same course of ruin, and lays the foundation of a new change."
↵

a
Dr. Robertson.
↵

*
"He extended the power of the prefecture, by collecting into one camp those Pretorian cohorts which were formerly dispersed all over the city; that thus, being united, they might be more influenced by his orders, and while their confidence in their power was increased by the constant view of their own numbers and strength, they might at the same time strike a great terror in others."
↵

b
See Dr. Robertson's history of Charles V. where this incident is related with uncommon spirit.
↵

*
The following passage is from a late Russian writer. "It is a truth founded on experience, that commerce polishes manners: but it is also a truth, that commerce, by exciting luxury, corrupts manners. With the increase of foreign fashions and foreign commerce in Russia, foreign luxury has increased there in proportion, universal dissipation has taken the lead, and profligacy of manners has followed. Great landlords squeeze and grind their people, to supply the incessant demands of luxury: the miserable peasant, disabled by a load of taxes, is frequently compelled to abandon his habitation, and to leave his land uncultivated. And thus agriculture and population diminish daily; than which nothing worse can befal a state."
↵

*
In Europe, neighbouring nations differ little in manners, or in fortitude. In Asia, we step instantly from the fierce Tartars, inhabiting a cold and barren country, to the effeminate people of a countty warm and fertile. Hence in Asia perpetual conquests from north to south, to which even the great wall of China makes scarce any obstacle.
↵

*
The use of cannon, which place the weak and strong upon a level, is the only resource of the luxurious and opulent against the poor and hardy.
↵

*

In the war carried on by Lewis XII. of France against the Venetians, the town of Brescia being taken by storm, and abandoned to the soldiers, suffered for seven days all the distresses of cruelty and avarice No house escaped but that where Chevalier Bayard was lodged. At his entrance, the mistress, a woman of figure, fell at his feet, and deeply sobbing, "Oh! my Lord, save my life, save the honour of my daughters" Take courage, Madam, said the Chevalier, your life and their honour shall be secure while I have life. The two young ladies, brought from their hiding-place, were presented to him; and the family, thus re-united, bestowed their whole attention on their deliverer. A dangerous wound he had received gave them opportunity to express their zeal: they employed a notable surgeon; they attended him by turn day and night; and when he could bear to be amused, they entertained him with concerts of music. Upon the day fixed for his departure, the mother said to him, "To your goodness, my Lord, we owe our life, and to you all that we have belongs by right of war; but we hope from your signal benevolence, that this slight tribute will content you;" placing upon the table an iron coffer full of money. "What is the sum," said the Chevalier. "My Lord," answered she trembling, "no more but 2500 ducats, all that we have;—but if more be necessary, we will try our friends."—"Madam," said he, "I never shall forget your kindness, more precious in my eyes than an hundred thousand ducats. Take back your money, and depend always on me."—"My good Lord, you kill me to refuse this small sum: take it only as a mark of your friendship to my family."—"Well," said he, "since it will oblige you, I take the money; but give me the satisfaction of bidding adieu to your amiable daughters." They came to him with looks of regard and affection. "Ladies," said he, "the impression you have made on my heart will never wear out. What return to make I know not; for men of my profession are seldom opulent: but here are two thousand five hundred ducats, of which the generosity of your mother has given me the disposal. Accept them as a marriage present; and may your happiness in marriage equal your merit." "Flower of chivalry," cried the mother, "may the God who suffered death for us reward you here and hereafter." Can peace afford so sweet a scene?

The following incident is still more interesting: it is of a late date; it happened among our countrymen; and will, for these reasons, make the deeper impression. The scene of action was in Admiral Watson's ship at the siege of Chandernagore, where Captain Speke, and his son, a youth of sixteen, were both of them wounded by the same shot. The history is related by Mr. Ives surgeon of the ship; which follows in his own words, only a little abridged. The Captain, whose leg was hanging by the skin, said to the Admiral, "Indeed, Sir, this was a cruel shot, to knock down both father and son." Mr. Watson's heart was too full for a reply; he only ordered both to be carried down to the surgeon. The Captain, who was first brought down, told me how dangerously his Billy had been wounded. Presently after the brave youth himself appeared, with his eyes overflowing with tears, not for himself but for his father. Upon my assurance that his father's wound was not dangerous, he became calm; but refused to be touched, till his father's wound should be first dressed. Then pointing to a fellow s;ufferer, "Pray, Sir, dress also that poor man, who is groaning so sadly beside me." I told him that the man had already been taken care of; and begged, that I now might have liberty to examine his wound. He submitted: and calmly said, "Sir, I fear you must amputate above the joint." I replied, "My dear, I must." He clasped his hands together; and, lifting his eyes towards heaven, he offered up the following short but earnest petition: "Good God! do thou onable me to behave in my present circumstances worthy of my father." He then told me he was all submission. I performed the operation above the joint of the knee; and during the whole time the intrepid youth never spoke a word, nor uttered a groan that could be heard at the distance of a yard. It is easier to imagine than to express the feelings of the father at this time: but whatever he felt, tears were the only expression. Both of them were carried to Calcutta: the father was lodged in the house of his brother-in-law; and the son was placed with me in the hospital. For the first week I gave comfort to both, carrying good tidings to them of one another. But, alas! all the good symptoms that had attended the young man began to disappear. The Captain perceived all in my countenance; and so unwilling was he to add to my distress, as seldom to speak about his son. One time he said, "How long, my friend, do you think my Billy may remain in a state of uncertainty?" I replied, that if he survived the fifteenth day after the operation, there would be strong hopes of his recovery. On the thirteenth he died; and on the sixteenth, the Captain, looking me stedfastly in the face, "Well, Ives, how fares it with my boy?" Discovering the truth from my silence, he cried bitterly, squeezed my hand, and begged me to leave him for one half-hour. When I returned, he appeared, as he ever after did, perfectly calm and serene. The excellent youth had been delirious the evening before his death; and at two o'clock in the morning, he sent me a note written with a pencil, of which the following is a copy. "Mr. Ives will consider the disorder a son must be in when he is dying, and is yet in doubt about his father.—If Mr. Ives is not too busy to honour this note, which nothing but the greatest uneasiness could draw from me—The boy waits an answer." I immediately repaired to him; and he had still sense enough to know me. He then said, "And is he dead?"—"Who, my dear?"—"My father, Sir."—"No, my love; nor is he in any danger; he is almost well,"—"I thank God: I am now satisfied, and am ready to die." He had a locked jaw, and was in great pain, but I understood every word he uttered. He begged my pardon for having disturbed me at so early an hour; and before the day was ended, he surrendered a life that deserved to he immortal.—So far my author; and I only add, Does peace afford any scene that can compare with this in moving our sympathetic feelings?

↵

a
Titus Livius, lib. 26. cap. 1.
↵

b
Historia Vandalica, lib. 2.
↵

*
The situation of the King of Sardinia, environed on all sides with powerful monarchs, obliges him to act with the greatest circumspection; which circumstance seems to have formed the character of the princes of that house. These princes have exerted more sagacity in steering their political course, and more dexterity in availing themselves of every wind, than any other race of sovereigns that figure in history. Robertson's history of the Emperor Charles V.
↵

†

On n'entend parler dans les auteurs que des divisions qui perdirent Rome; mais on ne voit pas que ces divisions y étoient nécessaires, qu'elles y avoient toujours été, et qu'elles y devoient toujours être. Ce fut uniquement la grandeur de la republique qui fit le mal, et qui changea en guerres civiles les tumultes populaires. Il falloit bien qu'il y eut a Rome des divisions; et ces guerriers si fiers, si audacieux, si terribles au dehors, ne pouvoient pas être bien modérés au dedans. Demander dans un état libre des gens hardis dans la guerre, et timides dans la paix, c'st vouloir des choses impossibiles: et pour regle générale, toutes les fois qu'on vera toute le monde tranquille dans un état qui se donne le nom de republique, on peut être assuré que la liberté n'y est pas.
Montesquieu, grandeur des Romains, ch. 9.—[In English thus: "Many writers have said a great deal on those factions which destroyed Rome; but they want the penetration to see, that those factions were necessary, that they had always subsisted, and ever must have subsisted. It was the grandeur of the state which alone occasioned the evil, and changed into civil wars the tumults of the people. There must of necessity have been factions in Rome; for how was it possible, that those who abroad subdued all by their undaunted bravery and by the terror of their arms, should live in peace and moderation at home? To look for a people in a free state who are intrepid in war, and, at the same time, timid in peace, is to look for an impossibility; and we may hold it as a general rule, that in a state which professes a republican form of government, if the people are quiet and peaceable, there is no real liberty."

↵

c
Dr. Robertson's history of the Emperor Charles V.
↵

*
"A prince, who in extending his territories sustains the loss of as many of his old subjects as he acquires new, weakens in fact his power while he aims at strengthening it: he increases the territory to be defended, while the number of defenders is not increased. Who does not know, that in the modern manner of making war, the greatest depopulation is not from the havock made in the armies? That indeed is the obvious and apparent destruction; but there is, at the same time, in the state a loss much more severe and irreparable; not that thousands are cut off, but that thousands are not born: population is wounded by the increase of taxes, by the interruption of commerce, by the desertion of the country, and by the stagnation of agriculture: the misfortune which is overlooked at first is severely felt in the event: and it is then that we are astonished to find we have been growing weak, while increasing our power. What renders every new conquest still the less valuable, is the consideration of the possibility of doubling and tripling a nation's power, without extending its territory, nay, even by diminishing it. The Emperor Adrian knew this, and wisely practised it. The numbers of the subjects are the strength of the prince: and a consequence of what I have said is this proposition, That of two states equal in the number of inhabitants, that is in reality the more powerful which occupies the smaller territory. It is by good laws, by a salutary police, and great oeconomical schemes, that a wise sovereign gains a sure augmentation of strength, without trusting any thing to the fortune of his arms."
↵

*
"Our parents are dear to us; so are our children, our relations, and our friends: all these our country comprehends; and shall we fear to die for our country?"
↵

d
Elements of Criticism, vol. 1. p. 113. edit. 5.
↵

*
The elevation of sentiment that a struggle for liberty inspires, is conspicuous in the following incident. A Corsican being condemned to die for an atrocious crime, his nephew with deep concern addressed Paoli in the following terms. "Sir, if you pardon my uncle, his relations will give to the state a thousand zechins, beside furnishing fifty soldiers during the siege of Furiali. Let him be banished, and he shall never return." Paoli, knowing the virtue of the young man, said to him. "You are acquainted with the circumstances of that case: I will consent to a pardon, if you can say, as an honest man, that it will be just or honourable for Corsica." The young man, hiding his face, burst into tears, saying, "I would not have the honour of our country sold for a thousand zechins."
↵

e
Book 1. Sketch 5. § 1.
↵

*
France is not an exception. The French are vain of their country, because they are vain of themselves. But such vanity must be distinguished from patriotism, which consists in loving our country independent of ourselves.
↵

*
While patriotism was the ruling passion of the Portuguese, their illustrious general Don Alphonso d'Albuquerque carried all before him in the Indies. He adhered to the ancient frugality of his countrymen, and notwithstanding his great power and wealth, remained uncorrupted. Tho' liberal in praising his officers, he never preferred any who attempted to gain his favour by flattery. In private life he was of the strictest honour; but as justice is little regarded between nations, it was no obstruction to his ambitious views of extending the dominions of Portugal.
↵

f
The Honourable George Greenville.
↵

*
This was composed in the year 1770.
↵

a
Chap. 11. § 140.
↵

b
L'Ami des Hommes.
↵

a
Annal. lib. 13.
↵

*
"The tax of a twenty-fifth upon slaves to be sold was remitted more in appearance than in reality; because when the seller was ordered to pay it, he laid it upon the price to the buyer."
↵

a
L'Esprit des Loix, liv. 13. chap. 19.
↵

a
7^0 Geo. III. cap. 47.
↵

*
They are preserable for husbandry in several respects. They are cheaper than horses: their food, their harness, their shoes, the attendance on them, much less expensive; and their dung much better for land. Horses are more subject to diseases, and when diseased or old are totally useless; upon which account, a stock of horses for a farm, must be renewed at least every ten years; whereas a stock of oxen may be kept entire for ever without any new expence, as they will always draw a full price when fatted for food. Nor is a horse more docile than an ox: a couple of oxen in a plough require not a driver more than a couple of horses. The Dutch at the Cape of Good Hope plough with oxen; and exercise them early to a quick pace, so as to equal horses both in the plough and in the waggon. The people of Malabar use no other animal for the plough nor for burdens. About Pondichery no beasts of burden are to be seen but oxen. The vast increase of horses of late years for luxury as well as for draught, makes a great consumption of oats. If in husbandry oxen only were used, which require no oats, many thousand acres would be saved for wheat and barley. But the advantages of oxen would not be confined to the farmer. Beef would become much cheaper to the manufacturer, by the vast addition of fat oxen sent to market; and the price of leather and tallow would fall; a national benefit, as every one uses shoes and candles.
↵

b
8o Geo. III. cap. 25.
↵

*
Oil was the only commodity that by the laws of Solon was permitted to be exported from Attica. The figs of that country, which are delicious, came to be produced in such plenty, that there was no sufficient consumpt for them at home; and yet the law prohibiting exportation was not abrogated. Sycophant denotes a person who informs against the exporter of figs: but the prohibition appearing absurd, sycophant became a term of reproach.
↵

a
Act 59. parl. 1753.
↵

b
George I. cap. 14. act 8.
↵

*
Between the years 1715 and 1755 there was of wheat exported from England into France twenty one millions of septiers, estimated at two hundred millions of livres. The bounty for exporting corn has sometimes amounted to L. 150,000 for a single year. But this sum is not all lost to the public; for frequently our corn is exchanged with goods that pay a high duty on importation.
↵

c
Act 42. parl. 1661.
↵

d
See Elements du Commerce, tom. 1. p. 334.
↵

*
That act is judiciously contrived, not only for the benefit of authors, but for that of learning in general. It encourages men of genius to write, and multiplies books both of instruction and amusement; which, by concurrence of many editors after the monopoly is at an end, are sold at the cheapest rate. Many well-disposed persons complain, that the exclusive privilege bestowed by the statute upon authors is too short, and that it ought to be perpetual. Nay, it is asserted, that authors have a perpetual privilege by common law; and it was determined lately in the court of king'sbench, that by the common law of England the privilege is perpetual. Nothing more frequently happens, than by grasping at the shadow, to lose the substance; for I have no difficulty to maintain that a perpetual monopoly of books would prove more destructive to learning, and even to authors, than a second irruption of Goths and Vandals. It is the nature of monopoly to raise the price of commodities; and by a perpetual monopoly in the commerce of books, the price of good books would be raised far beyond the reach of most readers: they would be sold like pictures of the great masters. The works of Shakespeare, for example, or of Milton, would be seen in very few libraries. In short, the sale of good books would be confined to a few learned men, such as have money to spare, and to a few rich men, who buy out of vanity, as they buy a diamond or a fine coat. Fashions at the same time are variable; and books, even the most splendid, would wear out of fashion with men of opulence, and be despised as antiquated furniture. And with respect to men of taste, their number is so small as not to afford encouragement even for the mostfrugal edition. Thus booksellers, by grasping too much, would put an end to their trade altogether; and men of genius would not write, when no price could be afforded for their works. At the same time, our present authors and booksellers would not be much benefited by such a monopoly. Not many books have so long a run as fourteen years; and the success of a book on the first publication is so uncertain, that a bookseller will give little more for a perpetuity, than for the temporary privilege of the statute. This was foreseen by the legislature; and the privilege was wisely consined to fourteen years, equally beneficial to the public and to authors.
↵

e
A George III. cap. 29.
↵

*
Between the mother-country and her colonies the following rule ought to be sacred, That with respect to commodities wanted, each of them should prefer the other before all other nations. Britain should take from her colonies whatever they can furnish for her use; and they should take from Britain whatever she can furnish for their use. In a word, every thing regarding commerce ought to be reciprocal, and equal between them. To bar a colony from access to the fountainhead for commodities that cannot be furnished by the mother-country but at second-hand, is oppression: it is so far degrading the colonists from being free subjects to be slaves. What right, for example, has Britain to prohibit her colonies from purchasing tea or porcelane at Canton, if they can procure it cheaper there than in London? No connection between two nations can be so intimate, as to make such restraint an act of justice. Our legislature however have acted like a step-mother to her American colonies. by prohibiting them to have any commerce but with Britain only. They must land first in Britain all their commodities, even what are not intended to be sold there; and they must take from Britain, not only its own product, but every foreign commodity that is wanted. This regulation is not only unjust but impolitic; as by it the interest of the colonies in general is sacrificed to that of a few London merchants. Our legislature have at last so far opened their eyes, as to give a partial relief. Some articles are permitted to be carried directly to the place of destination, without being first entered in
〈◊〉
, wheat for example, rice, &c.

↵

f
29 George II.
↵

g
7 George III. cap. 46.
↵

h
Act 13 & 14 Charles II. cap. 11. § 26, 27.
↵

i
Act 8 George I. c. 14.
↵

k
7 George III. cap. 47.
↵

l
5 George III. cap. 37.
↵

m
4 George III. cap. 9.
↵

n
5 George III. cap. 37.
↵

*
Dwelling-houses, at that time, were not so large, nor so expensive, as they came to be in later times.
↵

*
A present made to Abdoulrahman by Abdoulmelik, when chosen prime vizir, is a specimen of the riches of Spain in that period. 1st, 408 pounds of virgin gold. 2d, The value of 420,000 sequins in silver ingots. 3d, 400 pounds of the wood of aloes, one piece of which weighed 180 pounds. 4th, 500 ounces of ambergrease, of which there was one piece that weighed 100 ounces. 5th, 300 ounces of the finest camphire. 6th, 300 pieces of gold-stuff, such as were prohibited to be worn but by the Caliph himself. 7th, A quantity of fine fur. 8th, Horse-furniture of gold and silk, Bagdad fabric, for 48 horses. 9th, 4000 pounds of raw silk. 10th, 30 pieces of Persian tapestry of surprising beauty. 11th, Complete armour for 800 war-horses. 12th, 1000 bucklers, and 100,000 arrows. 13th, Fifteen Arabian horses, with most sumptuous furniture; and one hundred other Arabian horses for the King's attendants. 14th, Twenty mules, with suitable furniture. 15th, Forty young men, and twenty young women, complete beauties, all of them dressed in superb habits.
↵

*
The following passage is from Ustariz, ch. 96. "After mature consideration of the duties imposed upon commodities, I have not discovered in France, England, or Holland, any duty laid upon the homesale of their own manufactures, whether the first or any subsequent sale. As Spain alone groans under the burden of 14 per cent. imposed not only on the first sale of every parcel, but on each sale, I am jealous that this strange tax is the chief cause of the ruin of our manufactures." As to the ruinous consequences of this tax, see Bernardo de Ulloa upon the Manufactures and Commerce of Spain, Part 1. ch. 3. ch. 13. And yet so blind was Philip.II. of Spain, as to impose the alcavala upon the Netherlands, a country flourishing in commerce both internal and external. It must have given a violent shock to their manufactures.
↵

*
Ustariz in his Theory and Practice of Commerce, proves, from evident facts, that the depopulation of Spain is not occasioned by the West Indies. From Castile few go to America, and yet Castile is the worst peopled country in Spain. The northern provinces, Gallicia, Asturia, Biscay, &c. send more people to Mexico and Peru than all the other provinces; and yet of all are the most populous. He ascribes the depopulation of Spain to the ruin of the manufactures by oppressive taxes; and asserts, that the West Indies tend rather to people Spain: many return home laden with riches; and of those who do not return, many remit money to their relations, which enables them to marry, and to rear children.
↵

a
Don Gieronimo de Ustariz.
↵

Information about this book

Title statement

Sketches of the history of man: In four volumes. By Henry Home, Lord Kaims, ... [pt.2]

Kames, Henry Home, Lord, 1696-1782.

Publication

Distributor

University of Oxford Text Archive
Oxford University Computing Services
13 Banbury Road
Oxford
OX2 6NN
ota@oucs.ox.ac.uk

ID [ota]

http://ota.ox.ac.uk/id/4513

ID [isbn10]

1106015126

ID [isbn13]

9781106015129

ID [TCP]

K059867.002

ID [BIBNO]

CW3317445150

ID [ECRP]

0032300302

Availability

Distributed by the University of Oxford under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License

Source

— Sketches of the history of man: In four volumes. By Henry Home, Lord Kaims, ..., Kames, Henry Home, Lord, 1696-1782.. 4v. ; 12⁰. Dublin :: printed for James Williams,. 1774-75.. [Vols. 1,2 dated 1775; vols. 3,4 dated 1774.] [Reproduction of original from the British Library.] [Alston, III.309] [English Short Title Catalog, ESTCT70420.] [Electronic data. Farmington Hills, Mich. : Thomson Gale, 2003. Page image (PNG). Digitized image of the microfilm version produced in Woodbridge, CT by Research Publications, 1982-2002 (later known as Primary Source Microfilm, an imprint of the Gale Group).]

Creation

Created by converting TCP files to TEI P5 using tcp2p5.xsl, TEI @ Oxford.

Editorial practices

This electronic text file was keyed from page images and partially proofread for accuracy. Character capture and encoding have been done following the guidelines of the ECCO Text Creation Partnership, which correspond roughly to the recommendations found in Level 4 of the TEI in Libraries Guidelines. Digital page images are linked to the text file.