( PDF ) An Inquiry into the Principles of Political Economy

Download PDF

ads:

An Inquiry into the Principles of Political Economy

James Steuart

An Inquiry into the Principles of Political Economy being an

Essay on the Science of Domestic Policy in Free Nations.

in which are particularly considered

Population, Agriculture, Trade, Industry, Money, Coin, Interest,

Circulation, Banks, Exchange, Public Credit, and Taxes

by Sir James Steuart, Bart.

Ore trabit quodcumque potest atque addit acervo.

Hor. Lib. I. Sat. 1

in Two Volumes.

London:

Printed for A. Millar, and T. Cadell, in the Strand.

MDCCLXVII

PREFACE

It is with the greatest diffidence that I present to the

public this attempt towards reducing to principles, and forming

into a regular science, the complicated interests of domestic

policy. When I consider the time and labour employed in the

composition, I am apt to value it from selfish considerations.

When I compare it even with my own abilities, I still think

favourably of it, for a better reason; because it contains a

summary of the most valuable part of all my knowledge. But when I

consider the greatness of my subject, how small does the result

of my application appear!

The imperfections, therefore, discovered in this work, must

be ascribed to the disproportion between the extent of the

undertaking, and that of my capacity. This, I can assure my

reader, has been exerted to the utmost: and if, after all, I have

failed, it may, at least, with justice, be said, that I have

miscarried in an attempt of the greatest importance to mankind.

I no where, I think, have shewn a desire to make my court to

any particular minister, whose administration might have been

hinted at. I have freely followed the thread of my reasoning

without a bias, either in favour of popular opinions, or of any

of the numberless systems which have been formed by those who

have written upon particular parts of my subject. The warmth of

my temper may have led me sometimes into commendations when I

have been pleased; but when I felt the effects of ill humour on

being dissatisfied with particular circumstances, relating to

countries, to men, and to things, which I had in my eye at the

time I was writing, I was immediately aware of the danger of

blaming the steps of any administration, without being well

formed of the whole combination of circumstances which the

minister may have had before him at the time.

This composition being the successive labour of many years

spent in travelling, the reader will find some passages in which

the unities of time and place have not been observed. These I

could have corrected with ease, had I not been advised to leave

ads:

Livros Grátis

http://www.livrosgratis.com.br

Milhares de livros grátis para download.

them as characters to point out the circumstances under which I

wrote, and thereby to confirm the authenticity of certain facts.

The modes of thinking, also, peculiar to the several

countries where I have lived, have, no doubt, had an influence on

what I have written concerning their customs: this work,

therefore, will not, in general, correspond to the meridian of

national opinions any where; and of this it is proper the reader

should be apprised, that he may not apply to the domestic

circumstances of his own country what was intended to refer to

those of other nations; nor impute to wilful prejudice, what was

the irresistible effect of my experience and conviction.

Since the first publication of this work some criticisms upon

it have been published in which little regard has been paid to

this advertisement.

The greater part of it by far, (the three first books

particularly) was composed abroad. Can it be supposed, that

during an absence of near twenty years, I should in my studies

have all the while been modelling my speculations upon the

standard of English notions.

It has been alleged that I have imbibed prejudices abroad, by

no means consistent with the present state of England, and the

genius of Englishmen.

To which I answer, that I flatter myself to have imbibed no

prejudices either abroad or at home, at least I think I have

exhibited none of them in my work; because there I have rejected

all party opinions whatever.

According to my way of treating this subject no general rule

can be laid down in political matters: every thing there must be

considered according to the circumstances and spirit of the

nations to which they relate. Accordingly we shall find in this

inquiry some reasonings built on the principles of arbitrary

power, others on those of national liberty, others again on those

of democracy. Had I, in compliment to the sentiments of

Englishmen, suppressed every combination which might apply to the

circumstances of those very countries where I was studying my

subject, from the actual inspection of their policy, what merit

should I have had to plead with my own countrymen from my travels

and from my studies, any local English writer describing English

policy and sounding through every page the most peculiar opinions

of this nation, might have amused his readers far better than

ever I could pretend to.

If, from this work, I have any merit at all, it is by

divesting myself of English notions, so far as to be able to

expose in a fair light, the sentiments and policy of foreign

nations, relatively to their own situation.

Now the principal attention of an intelligent reader who

peruses a book like this, will be directed towards the

investigatory part of it: every step of the reasoning will be

weighed by him until the final conclusion be drawn; he will then

give his assent to it in proportion to the accuracy of the

induction; but he never will recoil from what he has once

assented to, in order to form a general notion conceding any

result by comparing it with his own animal feelings or with the

popular opinion of his countrymen.

This much I am obliged to say in my own justification, with

respect to several passages which have been written at times when

England was very distant from my thoughts.

I have read many authors on the subject of political

oeconomy; and I have endeavoured to draw from them all the

instruction I could. I have travelled, for many years, through

different countries, and have examined them, constantly, with an

ads:

eye to my own subject. I have attempted to draw information from

every one with whom I have been acquainted: this, however, I

found to be very difficult until I had attained to some previous

knowledge of my subject. Such difficulties confirmed to me the

justness of Lord Bacon's remark, that he who can draw information

by forming proper questions, must be already possessed of half

the science.

I could form no consistent plan from the various opinions I

met with: hence I was engaged to compile the observations I bad

casually made, in the course of my travels, reading, and

experience. From these I formed the following work after

expunging the numberless inconsistencies and contradictions which

I found had arisen from my separate inquiries into every

particular branch.

I had observed so many persons declining in knowledge as they

advanced in years, that I resolved early to throw upon paper

whatever I had learned; and to this I used to have recourse, as

others have to their memories. The unity of the object of all my

speculations, rendered this practice more useful to me than it

would be to one whose researches are more extended.

Whoever is much accustomed to write for his own use merely,

must contract a more careless style than another who has made

language his study, and who writes in hopes of acquiring a

literary reputation. I never, till very lately, thought of

appearing as an author on this subject; and, in the frequent

perusals of what I had written, my corrections were chiefly in

favour of perspicuity. add to this, that the language in which I

now write was, for many years, foreign to those with whom I lived

and conversed. When these circumstances are added to the

intricacy of my subject, which constantly carried off my

attention from every ornament of language, I flatter myself that

those of my readers, at least, who enter as heartily as I have

done into the spirit of this work, will candidly overlook the

want of that elegance which adorns the style of some celebrated

authors in this Augustan age.

I present this enquiry to the public as nothing more than an

essay which may serve as a canvass for better hands than mine to

work upon.

It contains such observations only as the general view of the

domestic policy of the countries I have seen, has suggested. It

is a speculation, and no more. It is a rough drawing of a mighty

plan, proportioned in correctness to my own sagacity, to my

knowledge of the subject, and to the extent of my ideas.

It goes little farther than to collect and arrange some

elements relating to the most interesting branches of modern

policy, such as population, agriculture, trade, industry, money,

coin, interest, circulation, banks, exchange, public credit, and

taxes. The principles deduced from all these topics, appear

tolerably consistent; and the whole is a train of reasoning,

through which I have adhered to the connection of subjects as

faithfully as I could: but the nature of the work being a

deduction of principles, not a collection of institutions, I

seized the opportunities which my reasoning threw in my way, to

connect every principle, as I went along, with every part of the

inquiry to which it could refer; and when I found the connexion

sufficiently shewn, I broke off such disquisitions as would have

led me from the object then present.

When principles thus casually applied in one part, to matters

intended to be afterwards treated of in another, came to be taken

up a-new, they involved me in what may appear prolixity. This I

found most unavoidable, when I was led to thoughts which were new

to myself, and consequently such as must have cost me the

greatest labour to set in a clear and distinct point of view. Had

I been master of my subject on setting out, the arrangement of

the whole would have been rendered more concise: but had this

been the case, I should never have been able to go through the

painful deduction which forms the whole chain of my reasoning,

and upon which, to many readers slow in forming combinations, the

conviction it carries along with it in a great measure depends:

to the few, again, of a more penetrating genius, to whom the

slightest hint is sufficient to lay open every consequence before

it be drawn, in allusion to Horace, I offer this apology, Clarus

esse laboro, prolixus fio.

The path I have taken was new to me, after all I had read on

the subject. I examined, by my own principles, what I had

gathered from others; and adopted it as far as I found it tally

with collateral circumstances. When, on the other hand, I found a

disagreement, I was apprized immediately of some mistake; and

this I found constantly owing to the narrowness of the

combinations upon which it had been founded.

The great danger of running into error upon particular points

relating to this subject, proceeds from our viewing them in a

light too confined, and to our not attending to the influence of

concomitant circumstances, which render general rules of little

use. Men of parts and knowledge seldom fail to reason

consequentially on every subject; but when inquiries are made

concerning the complicated interests of society, the vivacity of

an author's genius is apt to prevent him from attending to the

variety of circumstances which render uncertain every

consequence, almost, which he can draw from his reasoning. To

this I ascribe the habit of running into what the French call

Systèmes. These are no more than a chain of contingent

consequences, drawn from a few fundamental maxims, adopted,

perhaps, rashly. Such systems are mere conceits; they mislead the

understanding, and efface the path to truth. An induction is

formed, from whence a conclusion, called a principle, is drawn

and defined; but this is no sooner done, than the author extends

its influence far beyond the limits of the ideas present to his

understanding, when he made his definition. The best method,

therefore, to detect a pretended system, is always to substitute

the definition in place of the term.

The imperfection also of language engages us frequently in

disputes merely verbal; and instead of being on our guard against

the many unavoidable ambiguities attending the most careful

speech, we place a great part of our learning when at school, and

of our wit when we appear on the stage of the world, in the

prostitution of language. The learned delight in vague, and the

witty in equivocal terms. In general, we familiarize ourselves so

much to words, and think so little, when we speak and write, that

the signs of our ideas take the place of the images which they

were intended to represent.

Every true proposition, when understood, must be assented to

universally. This is the case always, when simple ideas are

affirmed or denied of each other. Nobody ever doubted that sound

is the object of hearing, or colour that of sight, or that black

is not white. But whenever a dispute arises concerning a

proposition, wherein complex ideas are compared, we may often

rest assured, that the parties do not understand each other.

Luxury, says one, is incompatible with the prosperity of a state.

Luxury is the fountain of a nation's welfare and happiness, says

another. There may, in reality, be no difference in the

sentiments of these two persons. The first may consider luxury as

prejudicial to foreign trade, and as corrupting the morals of a

people. The other may consider luxury as the means of providing

employment for such as must live by their industry, and of

promoting an equable circulation of wealth and subsistence,

through all the classes of inhabitants. If each of them had

attended to the other's complex idea of luxury, with all its

consequences, they would have rendered their propositions less

general.

The difference, therefore, of opinion between men is

frequently more apparent than real. When we compare our own

ideas, we constantly see their relations with perspicuity; but

when we come to communicate these relations to other people, it

is often impossible to put them into words sufficiently

expressive of the precise combination of them we have made in our

own minds.

This being the case, I have avoided, as much as possible,

condemning such opinions as I have taken the liberty to review;

because I have examined such only as have been advanced by men of

genius and reputation; and since all matters of controversy

regard the comparison of our ideas, if the terms we use to

express them were sufficiently understood by both parties, most

political disputes would, I am persuaded, be soon at an end.

Here it may be objected, that we frequently adopt an opinion,

without being able to give a sufficient reason for it; and yet we

cannot persuade ourselves to give it up, though we find it

combated by the strongest arguments. To this I answer, that in

such cases we do not adhere to our own opinions, but to those of

others received upon trust. It is our regard for the authority,

and not for the opinion, which makes us tenacious: for were the

opinion truly our own, we could not fail of seeing, or at least

we should not long be at a loss in recollecting, the ground upon

which it is built. But when we assent implicitly to any political

doctrine, there is no room for reason: we then satisfy ourselves

with the persuasion that those whom we trust have sufficient

reasons for what they advance. While our assent therefore is

implicit, we are beyond conviction; not because we do not

perceive the force of the arguments brought against our opinion,

but because we are ignorant of the force of those which can be

brought to support it: and as no body will sell what belongs to

him, without being previously informed of its value, so no body

will give up an implicit opinion, without knowing all that can be

said for it. To this class of men I do not address myself in this

inquiry.

But I insensibly run into a metaphysical speculation, in

order to prove, that in political questions it is better for

people to judge from experience and reason, than from authority

to explain their terms, than to dispute about words; and to

extend the combinations of their own ideas, than to follow

conceits, however decorated with the name of systems. How far I

have avoided such defects, the reader will determine.

Every writer values himself upon his impartiality; because he

is not sensible of his fetters. The wandering and independent

life I have led may naturally have set me free, in some measure,

from strong attachments to popular opinions. This may be called

impartiality. But as no man can be deemed impartial, who leans to

any side whatever, I have been particularly on my guard against

the consequences of this sort of negative impartiality; because I

have found it sometimes carrying me too far from that to which a

national prejudice might have led me.

In discussing general points, the best method I found to

maintain a just balance in this respect, was to avert my eye from

the country in which I lived at the time; and to judge of absent

things by the absent. Objects which are present, are apt to

produce perceptions too strong to be impartially compared with

those recalled by memory only.

When I have had occasion to dip into any question concerning

the preference to be given to certain forms of government above

others, and to touch upon points which have been the object of

sharp disputes, I have given my opinion with freedom, when it

seemed proper: but in stating the question, I have endeavoured to

avoid all trite, and, as I may call them, technical terms of

party; which in such disputes every side chuses to take in their

own acceptation: and as there is no sentiment of concord or

good-will in their hearts, instead of coming to explanations

together, they are charmed to find an occasion to differ

concerning general propositions, from those they hate for

particular considerations.

I have sometimes entered so heartily into the spirit of the

statesman, as to be apt to forget my station in the society where

I live; and when as a private man I have read over the work of

the politician, my natural partiality in favour of individuals

has led me to condemn, as Machiavellian principles, every

sentiment, approving the sacrifice of private concerns in favour

of a general plan.

In order, therefore, to reconcile me to myself in this

particular, and to prevent certain expressions here and there

interspersed, from making the slightest impression upon a reader

of delicate sentiments, I must observe, that nothing would have

been so easy as to soften many passages, where the politician

appears to have snatched the pen out of the hand of the private

citizen: but as I write for such only who can follow a close

reasoning, and attend to the general scope of the whole inquiry,

I have, purposely, made no correction; but continued painting, in

the strongest colours, every inconvenience which must affect

certain individuals living under our free modern governments,

whenever a wise statesman sets about correcting old abuses,

proceeding from idleness, sloth, or fraud in the lower classes,

arbitrary jurisdictions in the higher, and neglects in

administrations with respect to the interests of both. The more

any cure is painful and dangerous, the more ought men carefully

to avoid the disease. This leads me to say a word concerning the

connection between the theory of morals and that of politics.

I lay it down as a general maxim, that the characteristic of

a good action consists in the conformity between the motive, and

the duty of the agent. Were there but one man upon earth, his

duty would contain no other precepts than those dictated by

self-love. If he come to be a father, a husband, a friend, his

self-love falls immediately under limitations: he must withhold

from himself, and give to his children; he must know how to

sacrifice some of his fancies, in order to gratify, now and then,

those of his wife, or of his friend. If he come to be a judge, a

magistrate; he must frequently forget that he is a friend, or a

father: and if he rise to be a statesman, he must disregard many

other attachments more comprehensive, such as family, place of

birth, and even, in certain cases, his native country. His duty

here becomes relative to the general good of that society of

which he is the head: and as the death of a criminal cannot be

imputed to the judge who condemns him, neither can a particular

inconvenience resulting to an individual, in consequence of a

step taken for a general reformation, be imputed to him who sits

at the helm of government.

If it should be asked, of what utility a speculation such as

this can be to a statesman, to whom it is in a manner addressed

from the beginning to the end: I answer, that although it seem

addressed to a statesman, the real object of the inquiry is to

influence the spirit of those whom he governs; and the variety of

matter contained in it, may even suggest useful hints to himself.

But his own genius and experience will enable him to carry such

notions far beyond the reach of my abilities.

I have already said that I considered my work as no more than

a canvass prepared for more able hands than mine to work upon.

Now although the sketch it contains be not sufficiently correct,

I have still made some progress, I think, in preparing the way

for others to improve upon my plan, by contriving proper

questions to be resolved by men of experience in the practical

part of government.

I leave it therefore to masters in the science to correct and

extend my ideas: and those who have not made the principles of

policy their particular study, may have an opportunity of

comparing the exposition I have given of them with the commonly

received opinions concerning many questions of great importance

to society. They will, for instance, be able to judge how far

population can be increased usefully, by multiplying marriages,

and by dividing lands: how far the swelling of capitals, cities

and towns, tends to depopulate a country: how far the progress of

luxury brings distress upon the poor industrious man: how far

restrictions laid upon the corn trade, tend to promote an ample

supply of subsistence in all our markets: how far the increase of

public debts tends to involve us in a general bankruptcy: how far

the abolition of paper currency would have the effect of reducing

the price of all commodities: how far a tax tends to enhance

their value: and how far the diminution of duties is an essential

requisite for securing the liberty, and promoting the prosperity

and happiness of a people.

Is it not of the greatest importance to examine, with

candour, the operations by which all Europe has been engaged in a

system of policy so generally declaimed against, and so contrary

to that which we hear daily recommended as the best? To shew,

from the plain principles of common sense, that our present

situation is the unavoidable consequence of the spirit and

manners of the present times; and that it is quite compatible

with all the liberty, affluence, and prosperity, which any human

society ever enjoyed in any age, or under any form of government?

A people taught to expect from a statesman the execution of

plans, big with impossibility and contradiction, will remain

discontented under the government of the best of Kings.

Book I

Of Population and Agriculture

Introduction

Oeconomy, in general, is the art of providing for all the

wants of a family, with prudence and frugality.

If any thing necessary or useful be found wanting, if any

thing provided be lost or misapplied, if any servant, any animal,

be supernumerary or useless, if any one sick or infirm be

neglected, we immediately perceive a want of oeconomy. The object

of it, in a private family, is therefore to provide for the

nourishment, the other wants, and the employment of every

individual. In the first place, for the master, who is the head,

and who directs the whole; next for the children, who interest

him above all other things; and last for the servants, who being

useful to the head, and essential to the well-being of the

family, have therefore a title to become an object of the

master's care and concern.

The whole oeconomy must be directed by the head, who is both

lord and steward of the family. It is however necessary, that

these two offices be not confounded with one another. As lord, he

establishes the laws of his oeconomy; as steward, he puts them in

execution. As lord, he may restrain and give his commands to all

within the house as he thinks proper; as steward, he must conduct

with gentleness and address, and is bound by his own regulations.

The better the oeconomist, the more uniformity is perceived in

all his actions, and the less liberties are taken to depart from

stated rules. He is not so much master, as that he may break

through the laws of his oeconomy, although in every respect he

may keep each individual within the house, in the most exact

subordination to his commands. Oeconomy and government, even in a

private family, present therefore two different ideas, and have

also two different objects.

What oeconomy is in a family, political oeconomy is in a

state: with these essential differences, however, that in a state

there are no servants, all are children: that a family may be

formed when and how a man pleases, and he may there establish

what plan of oeconomy he thinks fit; but states are found formed,

and the Oeconomy of these depends upon a thousand circumstances.

The statesman (this is a general term to signify the legislature

and supreme power, according to the form of government) is

neither master to establish what oeconomy he pleases, or, in the

exercise of his sublime authority, to overturn at will the

established laws of it, let him be the most despotic monarch upon

earth.(1*)

The great art therefore of political oeconomy is, first to

adapt the different operations of it to the spirit, manners,

habits, and customs of the people; and afterwards to model these

circumstances so, as to be able to introduce a set of new and

more useful institutions.

The principal object of this science is to secure a certain

fund of subsistence for all the inhabitants, to obviate every

circumstance which may render it precarious; to provide every

thing necessary for supplying the wants of the society, and to

employ the inhabitants (supposing them to be free-men) in such a

manner as naturally to create reciprocal relations and

dependencies between them, so as to make their several interests

lead them to supply one another with their reciprocal wants.

If one considers the variety which is found in different

countries, in the distribution of property, subordination of

classes, genius of people, proceeding from the variety of forms

of government, laws, climate, and manners, one may conclude, that

the political oeconomy in each must necessarily be different, and

that principles, however universally true, may become quite

ineffectual in practice, without a sufficient preparation of the

spirit of a people.

It is the business of a statesman to judge of the expediency

of different schemes of oeconomy, and by degrees to model the

minds of his subjects so as to induce them, from the allurement

of private interest, to concur in the execution of his plan.

The speculative person who, removed from the practice,

extracts the principles of this science from observation and

reflection, should divest himself, as far as possible, of every

prejudice in favour of established opinions, however reasonable,

when examined relatively to particular nations: he must do his

utmost to become a citizen of the world, comparing customs,

examining minutely institutions which appear alike, when in

different countries they are found to produce different effects:

he should examine the cause of such differences with the utmost

diligence and attention. It is from such inquiries that the true

principles are discovered.

He who takes up the pen upon this subject, keeping in his eye

the customs of his own or any other country, will fall more

naturally into a description of one particular system of it, than

into an examination of the principles of the science in general;

he will applaud such institutions as he finds rightly

administered at home; he will condemn those which are

administered with abuse; but, without comparing different methods

of executing the same plan in different countries, he will not

easily distinguish the disadvantages which are essential to the

institution, from those which proceed from the abuse. For this

reason a land-tax excites he indignation of a Frenchman, an

excise that of an Englishman. One who looks into the execution of

both, in each country, and in every branch of their management,

will discover the real effects of these impositions, and be able

to distinguish what proceeds from abuse, from what is essential

to the burden.

Nothing is more effectual towards preparing the spirit of a

people to receive a good plan of oeconomy, than a proper

representation of it. On the other hand, nothing is better

calculated to keep the statesman, who is at the head of affairs,

in awe.

When principles are well understood, the real consequences of

burdensome institutions are clearly seen: when the purposes they

are intended for are not obtained, the abuse of the statesman's

administration appears palpable. People then will not so much cry

out against the imposition, as against the misapplication. It

will not be a land-tax of four shillings in the pound, nor an

excise upon wines and tobacco, which will excite the murmurs of a

nation; it will be the prodigal dissipation and misapplication of

the amount of these taxes after they are laid on. But when

principles are not known, all inquiry is at an end, the moment a

nation can be engaged to submit to the burden. It is the same

with regard to many other parts of this science: while people

remain blind they are always mistrustful.

Having pointed out the object of my pursuit, I shall only

add, that my intention is to attach myself principally to a clear

deduction of principles, and a short application of them to

familiar examples, in order to avoid abstraction as much as

possible. I farther intend to confine myself to such parts of

this extensive subject, as shall appear the most interesting in

the general system of modern politics; of which I shall treat

with that spirit of liberty, which reigns more and more every

day, throughout all the polite and flourishing nations of Europe.

When I compare the elegant performances which have appeared

in Great Britain and in France with my dry and abstracted manner

of treating the same subject, in a plain language void of

ornament, I own I am discouraged on many accounts. If I be

obliged to set out by laying down, as fundamental principles, the

most obvious truths, I dread the imputation of pedantry, and of

pretending to turn common sense into science. If I follow these

principles through a minute detail, I may appear trifling. I

therefore hope the reader will believe me, when I tell him, that

these defects have not escaped my discernment, but that my

genius, the nature of the work, and the connection of the

subject, have obliged me to write in an order and in a style,

where every thing has been sacrificed to perspicuity.

My principal aim shall be to discover truth, and to enable my

reader to touch the very link of the chain where I may at any

time go astray.

My business shall not be to seek for new thoughts, but to

reason consequentially; and if any thing new shall be found, it

will be in the conclusions.

Long steps in political reasoning lead to error: close

reasoning is tedious, and to many appears trivial: this, however,

must be my plan, and my consolation is, that the farther I

advance, I shall become the more interesting.

Every supposition must be considered as strictly relative to

the circumstances presupposed; and though, in order to prevent

misapplication, and to avoid abstraction as much as possible, I

frequently make use of examples for illustrating every principle;

yet these, which are taken from matters of fact, must be supposed

divested of every foreign circumstance inconsistent with the

supposition.

I shall combat no particular opinion in such intricate

matters; though sometimes I may pass them in review, in order to

point out how I am led to differ from them.

I pretend to form no system, but, by tracing out a succession

of principles, consistent with the nature of man and with one

another, I shall endeavour to furnish some materials towards the

forming of a good one.

Chap. I

Of the Government of Mankind

Man we find acting uniformly in all age, in all countries,

and in all climates, from the principles of self-interest,

expediency, duty, or passion. In this he is alike, in nothing

else.

These motives of human actions produce such a variety of

circumstances, that if we consider the several species of animals

in the creation, we shall find the individuals of no class so

unlike to one another, as man to man. No wonder then if people

differ in opinion with regard to every thing almost which relates

to our species.

As this noble animal is a sociable creature, both from

necessity and inclination, we find also, in all ages, climates

and countries, a certain modification of government and

subordination established among them. Here again we are presented

with as great a variety, as there are different societies; all

however agreeing in this, that the end of a voluntary

subordination to authority is with a view to promote the general

good.

Constant and uninterrupted experience has proved to man, that

virtue and justice, in those who govern, are sufficient to render

the society happy, under any form of government. Virtue and

justice, when applied to government, mean no more than a tender

affection for the whole society, and an exact and impartial

regard for the interest of every class.

All actions, and all things indeed, are good or bad by

relation only. Nothing is so complex as relations when considered

with regard to a society, and nothing is so difficult as to

discover truth, when involved and blended with these relations.

We are not to conclude from this, that every operation of

government must become problematical and uncertain as to its

consequences: some are evidently good; others are notoriously

bad; those, the tendency of which is less evident, are always the

least essential, and the more complex they appear to a discerning

eye, the more trivial they are found to be in their immediate

consequences.

A government must be continually in action, and one principal

object of its attention must be, the consequences and effects of

new institutions.

Experience alone will shew, what human prudence could not

foresee; and mistakes must be corrected as often as expediency

requires.

All governments have what they call their fundamental laws;

but fundamental, that is, invariable laws, can never subsist

among men, the most variable thing we know: the only fundamental

law, salus populi, must ever be relative, like every other thing.

But this is rather a maxim than a law.

It is however expedient, nay absolutely necessary, that in

every state, certain laws be supposed fundamental and invariable:

both to serve as a curb to the ambition of individuals, and to

point out to the statesman the outlines, or sketch of that plan

of government, which experience has proved to be the best adapted

to the spirit of his people.

Such laws may even be considered as actually invariable,

while a state subsists without convulsions or revolutions;

because then the alterations are so gradual, that they become

imperceptible to all, but the most discerning, who can compare

the customs and manners of the same people in different periods

of time and under different circumstances.

As we have taken for granted the fundamental maxim, that

every operation of government should be calculated for the good

of the people, so we may with equal certainty decide, that in

order to make a people happy, they must be governed according to

the spirit which prevails among them.

I am next to explain what I mean by the spirit of a people,

and to show how far this spirit must be made to influence the

government of every society.

Chap. II

Of the Spirit of a People

The spirit of a people is formed upon a set of received

opinions relative to three objects; morals, government, and

manners: these once generally adopted by any society, confirmed

by long and constant habit, and never called in question, form

the basis of all laws, regulate the form of every government, and

determine what is commonly called the customs of a country.

To know a people, we must examine them under these general

heads. We acquire the knowledge of their morals with ease, by

consulting the tenets of their religion, and from what is taught

among them by authority.

The second, or government, is more disguised, as it is

constantly changing from circumstances, partly resulting from

domestic and partly from foreign considerations. A thorough

knowledge of their history, and conversation with their ministers

of state, may give one, who has access to these helps, a very

competent knowledge of this branch.

The last, or the knowledge of the manners of a people, is by

far the most difficult to acquire, and yet is the most open to

every person's observation. Certain circumstances with regard to

manners are supposed by every one in the country to be so well

known, so generally followed and observed, that it seldom occurs

to any body to inform a stranger concerning them. In one country

nothing is so injurious as a stroke with a stick, or even a

gesture which implies a design or a desire to strike. in another

a stroke is not near so offensive as an opprobrious expression.

An innocent liberty with the fair sex, which in one country

passes without censure, is looked upon in another as the highest

indignity. In general, the opinion of a people with regard to

injuries is established by custom only, and nothing is more

necessary in government, than an exact attention to every

circumstance peculiar to the people to be governed.

The kingdom of Spain was lost for a violence committed upon

chastity;(2*) the city of Genoa for a blow;(3*) the kingdoms of

Naples and Sicily have ever been ready to revolt; because having

been for many ages under the dominion of strangers, the people

have never been governed according to the true spirit of their

manners. Let us consult the revolutions of all countries, and we

shall find, that the most trivial circumstances have had a

greater influence on such events, than the more weighty reasons,

which are always set forth as the real motives. I need not

enlarge upon this subject, my intention is only to suggest an

idea which any one may pursue, and which will be applied upon

many occasions as we go along; for there is no treating any point

which regards the political oeconomy of a nation, without

accompanying the example with some supposition relative to the

spirit of the people.

I have said, that the most difficult thing to learn

concerning a people, is the spirit of their manners.

Consequently, the most difficult thing for a stranger to adopt,

is their manner. Men acquire the language, nay even lose the

foreign accent, before they lose the peculiarity of their manner.

The reason is plain. The inclinations must be changed, the taste

for amusements must be new-modelled; established maims upon

government, manners, nay even upon some moral actions, must

undergo certain new modifications, before the stranger's

conversation and behaviour can become consistent with the spirit

of the people with whom he lives.

From these considerations, we may find the reason, why

nothing is more heavy to bear than the government of conquerors,

in spite of all their endeavours to render themselves agreeable

to the conquered. Of this, experience has ever proved the truth,

and princes are so much persuaded of it, that when a country is

subdued in our days, or when it otherwise changes masters, there

is seldom any question of altering, but by very slow degrees and

length of time, the established laws and customs of the

inhabitants. I might safely say, there is no form of government

upon earth so excellent in itself, as, necessarily, to make the

people happy under it. Freedom itself, imposed upon a people

groaning under the greatest slavery, will not make them happy,

unless it is made to undergo certain modifications, relative to

their established habits.

Having explained what I mean by the spirit of a people, I

come next to consider, how far this spirit must influence

government.

If governments be taken in general, we shall find them

analogous to the spirit of the people. But the point under

consideration is, how a statesman is to proceed, when expediency

and refinement require a change of administration, or when it

becomes necessary from a change of circumstances.

The great alteration in the affairs of Europe within these

three centuries, by the discovery of America and the Indies, the

springing up of industry and learning, the introduction of trade

and the luxurious arts, the establishment of public credit, and a

general system of taxation, have entirely altered the plan of

government every where.

From feudal and military, it is become free and commercial. I

oppose freedom in government to the feudal system, to mark only

that there is not found now that chain of subordination among the

subjects, which made the essential part of the feudal form. The

head there had little power, and the lower classes of the people

little liberty. Now every industrious man, who lives with

oeconomy, is free and independent under most forms of government.

Formerly, the power of the barons swallowed up the independency

of all inferior classes. I oppose commercial to military; because

the military governments now are made to subsist from the

consequences and effects of commerce only. that is, from the

revenue of the state, proceeding from taxes. Formerly, every

thing was brought about by numbers; now, numbers of men cannot be

kept together without money.

This is sufficient to point out the nature of the revolution

in the political state, and of consequence in the manners of

Europe.

The spirit of a people changes no doubt of itself, but by

slow degrees. The same generation commonly adheres to the same

principles, and retains the same spirit. In every country we find

two generations upon the stage at a time; that is to say, we may

distribute into two classes the spirit which prevails; the one

amongst men between twenty and thirty, when opinions are forming;

the other of those who are past fifty, when opinions and habits

are formed and confirmed. A person of judgment and observation

may foresee many things relative to government, from an exact

attention to the rise and progress of new customs and opinions,

provided he preserve his mind free from all attachments and

prejudices, in favour of those which he himself has adopted, and

in that delicacy of sensation necessary to perceive the influence

of a change of circumstances. This is the genius proper to form a

great minister.

In every new step the spirit of the people should be first

examined; and if this be not found ripe for the execution of the

plan, it ought to be put off, kept entirely secret, and every

method used to prepare the people to relish the innovation.

The project of introducing popery into England was blown

before it was put in practice, and so miscarried. Queen Elizabeth

kept her own secret, and succeeded in a similar attempt. The

scheme of a general excise was pushed with too much vivacity, was

made a matter of party, was ill-timed, and the people nowise

prepared for it; hence it will be the more difficult to bring

about at another time, without the greatest precautions.

In turning and working upon the spirit of a people, nothing

is impossible to an able statesman. When a people can be engaged

to murder their wives and children, and to burn themselves,

rather than submit to a foreign enemy, when they can be brought

to give their most precious effects, their ornaments of gold and

silver, for the support of a common cause; when women are brought

to give their hair to make ropes, and the most decrepit old men

to mount the walls of a town for its defence; I think I may say,

that by properly conducting and managing the spirit of a people,

nothing is impossible to be accomplished. But when I say, nothing

is impossible, I must be understood to mean, that nothing

essentially necessary for the good of the people is impossible;

and this is all that is required in government.

That it requires a particular talent in a statesman to

dispose the minds of a people to approve even of the scheme which

is the most conducive to their interest and prosperity, appears

from this, that we see examples of wise, rich, and powerful

nations languishing in inactivity, at a time when every

individual is animated with a quite contrary spirit; becoming a

prey to their enemies, like the city of Jerusalem, while they are

taken up with their domestic animosities, merely because the

remedies proposed against these evils contradict the spirit of

the times.

The great art of governing is to divest oneself of prejudices

and attachments to particular opinions, particular classes, and

above all to particular persons; to consult the spirit of the

people, to give way to it in appearance, and in so doing to give

it a turn capable of inspiring those sentiments which may induce

them to relish the change, which an alteration of circumstances

has rendered necessary.

Can any change be greater among free men, than from a state

of absolute liberty and independence to become subject to

constraint in the most trivial actions? This change has however

taken place over all Europe within these three hundred years, and

yet we think ourselves more free than ever our fathers were.

Formerly a gentleman who enjoyed a bit of land, knew not what it

was to have any demand made upon him, but in virtue of

obligations by himself contracted. He disposed of the fruits of

the earth, and of the labour of his servants or vassals, as he

thought fit. Every thing was bought, sold, transferred,

transported, modified, and composed, for private consumption, or

for public use, without ever the state's being once found

interested in what was doing. This, I say, was formerly the

general situation of Europe, among free nations under a regular

administration; and the only impositions commonly known to affect

landed men, were made in consequence of a contract of

subordination, feudal or other, which had certain limitations;

and the impositions were appropriated for certain purposes.

Daily experience shews, that nothing is more against the

inclinations of a people than the imposition of taxes; and the

less they are accustomed to them, the more difficult it is to get

them established.

The great abuse of governors in the application of taxes

contributes not a little to entertain and augment this repugnancy

in the governed: but besides abuse, there is often too little

management used to prepare the spirits of the people for such

innovations; for we see them upon many occasions submitting with

cheerfulness to very heavy impositions, provided they he

well-timed, and consistent with their manners and disposition. A

French gentleman, who cannot bear the thought of being put upon a

level with a peasant in paying a land-tax, pays contentedly, in

time of war, a general tax upon all his effects, under a

different name. To pay for your head is terrible in one country;

to pay for light appears as terrible in another.

It often happens, that statesmen take the hint of new

impositions from the example of other nations, and not from a

nice examination of their own domestic circumstances. But when

these are rightly attended to, it becomes easy to discover the

means of executing the same plan, in a way quite adapted to the

spirit, temper, and circumstances of the people. When strangers

are employed as statesmen, the disorder is still greater, unless

there be extraordinary penetration, temper, and, above all,

flexibility and discretion.

Statesmen have sometimes recourse to artifice instead of

reason, because their intentions often are not upright. This

destroys all confidence between them and the people; and

confidence is necessary when you are in a manner obliged to ask a

favour, or when what you demand is not indisputably your right. A

people thus tricked into an imposition, though expedient for

their prosperity, will oppose violently, at another time, a like

measure, even when essential to their preservation.

At other times, we see statesmen presenting the allurement of

present ease, precisely at the time when people's minds are best

disposed to receive a burden. I mean when war threatens, and when

the mind is heated with a resentment of injuries. Is it not

wonderful, at such a time as this, to increase taxes in

proportion only to the interest of money wanted; does not this

imply a shortsightedness, or at least an indifference as to what

is to come? Is it not more natural, that a people should consent

to come under burdens to gratify revenge, than submit to repay a

large debt when their minds are restored to a state of

tranquility.

From the examples I have given, I hope what I mean by the

spirit of a people is sufficiently understood, and I think I have

abundantly shewn the necessity of its being properly disposed, in

order to establish a right plan of oeconomy. This is so true,

that many examples may be found, of a people's rejecting the most

beneficial institutions, and even the greatest favours, merely

because some circumstance had shocked their established customs.

No wonder then, if we see them refuse to come under limitations,

restraints, and burdens, when the utmost they can be flattered

with from them, is a distant prospect of national good.

I have found it necessary to premise these general

reflections, in order to obviate many objections which might

naturally enough occur in the perusal of this inquiry. I shall

have occasion to make a number of suppositions, and to draw

consequences from them, which are abundantly natural, provided a

proper spirit in the people be presupposed, but which would be

far from being natural without this supposition. I suppose, for

example, that a poor man, loaded with many children, would be

glad to have the state maintain them; that another, who has waste

lands, would be obliged to one who would gratuitously build him a

farm-house upon it. yet in both suppositions I may prove

mistaken; for fathers there are, who would rather see their

children dead than out of their hands; and proprietors are to be

found, who, for the sake of hunting, would lay the finest country

in Europe into a waste.

In order to communicate an adequate idea of what I understand

by political oeconomy, I have explained the term, by pointing out

the object of the art; which is, to provide food, other

necessaries, and employment to every one of the society.

This is a very simple and a very general method of defining a

most complicated operation.

To provide a proper employment for all the members of a

society, is the same as to model and conduct every branch of

their concerns.

Upon this idea may be formed, I think, the most extensive

basis for an inquiry into the principles of political oeconomy.

The next thing to be done, is to fall upon a distinct method

of analysing so extensive a subject, by contriving a train of

ideas, which may be directed towards every part of the plan, and

which, at the same time, may be made to arise methodically from

one another.

For this purpose I have taken a hint from what the late

revolutions in the politics of Europe have pointed out to be the

regular progress of mankind, from great simplicity to complicated

refinement.

This first book shall then set out with taking up society in

the cradle, as I may say. I shall here examine the principles

which influence their multiplication, the method of providing for

their subsistence, the origin of their labour, the effects of

their liberty and slavery, the distribution of them into classes,

with some other topics which relate to mankind in general.

Here we shall find the principles of industry influencing the

multiplication of mankind, and the cultivation of the soil. This

I have thrown in on purpose to prepare my reader for the subject

of the second book; where he will find the same principle (under

the wings of liberty) providing an easy subsistence for a

numerous populace, by the means of trade, which sends the labour

of an industrious people over the whole world.

From the experience of what has happened these last two

hundred years, we find to what a pitch the trade and industry of

Europe has increased alienations, and the circulation of money. I

shall therefore closely adhere to these, as the most immediate

consequences of the preceding improvement; and, by analysing

them, I shall form my third and fourth books, in which I intend

to treat of money and credit.

We see also how credit has engaged nations to avail

themselves of it in their wars, and how, by the use of it, they

have been led to contract debts; which they never can satisfy and

pay, without imposing taxes. The doctrine, then, of debts and

taxes will very naturally follow that of credit in this great

chain of political consequences.

By this kind of historical clue, I shall conduct myself

through the great avenues of this extensive labyrinth; and in my

review of every particular district, I shall step from

consequence to consequence, until I have penetrated into the

inmost recesses of my own understanding.

When a subject is broken off, I shall render my transitions

as gradual as I can, by still preserving some chain of connexion;

and although I cannot flatter myself (in such infinite variety of

choice, as to order and distribution) to hit at all times on that

method, which may appear to every reader the most natural and the

most correct, yet I shall spare no pains in casting the materials

into different forms, so as to make the best distribution of them

in my power.

Chap. III

Upon what Principles, and from what natural Causes do Mankind

multiply? And what are the Effects of Procreation in Countries

where Numbers are found to increase?

The multiplication of mankind has been treated of in

different ways; some have made out tables to show the progression

of multiplication, others have treated the question historically.

The state of numbers in different ages of the world, or in

different countries at different times, has been made the object

of inquiry; and the most exact scrutiny has been made into

ancient authors, as the means of investigating the truth of this

matter. All passages relative to the subject have been laid

together, and accompanied with glosses and interpretations the

most plausible, in order to determine the main question. The

elaborate performances of Mr Hume, and Dr Wallace, who have

adopted opposite opinions in regard to the populousness of the

ancient world, have left nothing new to be said upon this

subject; at least the application they appear to have given in

examining the ancients, is a great discouragement to any one who

might otherwise still flatter himself to find out circumstances

in them, proper to cast a new light upon the question.

My intention in this chapter is not to decide, nor even to

give my opinion upon that matter, far less to combat the

arguments advanced on either side. I am to consider the question

under a different point of view; not to inquire what numbers of

people were found upon the earth at a certain time, but to

examine the natural and rational causes of multipliCation. If we

can discover these, we may perhaps be led to judge how far they

might have operated in different ages and in different countries.

The fundamental principle of the multiplication of all

animals, and consequently of man, is generation; the next is

food: generation gives existence, food preserves it. Did the

earth produce of itself the proper nourishment for man with

unlimited abundance, we should find no occasion to labour in

order to procure it. Now in all countries found inhabited, as in

those which have been found desolate, if the state of animals be

inquired into, the number of them will be found in proportion to

the quantity of food produced by the earth, regularly throughout

the year, for their subsistence. I say, regularly throughout the

year, because we perceive, in those animals which produce in

great abundance, such as all the feathered sort, that vast

multitudes are destroyed in winter; they are brought forth with

the fruits of the earth, and fall in proportion to their decay.

This principle is so natural, that I think it can hardly be

controverted.

As to man, the earth does not spontaneously produce

nourishment for him in any considerable degree. I allow that as

some species of animals support life by devouring others, so may

man; but it must be observed, that the species feeding must

always be much inferior in number to the species fed upon. This

is evident in reason and in fact.

Were the earth therefore uncultivated, the numbers of mankind

would not exceed the proportion of the spontaneous fruits which

she offers for their immediate use, or for that of the animals

which might be the proper nourishment of man.

There is therefore a certain number of mankind which the

earth would be able to maintain without any labour: allow me to

call this quantity (A). Does it not, from this exposition of the

matter, appear plain, that without labour (A) never can increase

any more than animals, which do not work for themselves, can

increase beyond the proportion of food provided for them by

nature? Let it be however observed, that I do not pretend to

limit (A) to a determinate number. The seasons will no doubt

influence the numbers of mankind, as we see they influence the

plenty of other animals; but I say (A) will never increase beyond

the fixed proportion above mentioned.

Having resolved one question with regard to multiplication,

and shewn that numbers must become greater or smaller according

to the productions of nature, I come to the second thing proposed

to be treated of in the chapter; to wit, what will become of the

generative faculty after it has produced the full proportion of

(A), and what effects will afterwards follow.

We see how beneficent, I might have said prodigal, nature is

in bestowing life by generation. Several kinds of animals,

especially insects, multiply by thousands, and yet the species

does not appear annually to increase. Nobody can pretend that

particular individuals of any species have a privilege to live,

and that others die from a difference in their nature. It is

therefore reasonable to conclude, that what destroys such vast

quantities of those produced, must be, among other causes, the

want of food. Let us apply this to man.

Those who are supposed to be fed with the spontaneous fruits

of the earth, cannot, from what has been said, multiply beyond

that proportion; at the same time the generative faculty will

work its natural effects in augmenting numbers. The consequence

will be, that certain individuals must become worse fed,

consequently weaker. consequently, if, in that weakly state,

nature should withhold a part of her usual plenty, the whole

multitude will be affected by it; a disease may take place, and

sweep off a far greater number than that proportioned to the

deficiency of the season. What results from this? That those who

have escaped, finding food more plentiful, become vigorous and

strong. generation gives life to additional numbers, food

preserves it, until they rise up to the former standard.

Thus the generative faculty resembles a spring loaded with a

weight, which always exerts itself in proportion to the

diminution of resistance: when food has remained some time

without augmentation or diminution, generation will carry numbers

as high as possible; if then food come to be diminished, the

spring is overpowered; the force of it becomes less than nothing.

Inhabitants will diminish, at least, in proportion to the

overcharge. If, upon the other hand, food be increased, the

spring which stood at 0, will begin to exert itself in proportion

as the resistance diminishes; people will begin to be better fed;

they will multiply, and, in proportion as they increase in

numbers, the food will become scarce again.

I must here subjoin a remark very analogous to this subject.

That the generative faculty in man (which we have compared to a

spring), and the care and love we have for our children, first

prompt us to multiply, and then engage us to divide what we have

with our little ones. Thus from dividing and subdividing it

happens, that in every country where food is limited to a certain

quantity, the inhabitants must be subsisted in a regular

progression, descending down from plenty and ample subsistence,

to the last periods of want, and even sometimes starving for

hunger.

Although the examples of this last extremity are not common

in some countries, yet I believe they are more so than is

generally imagined; and the other stages of want are productive

of many diseases, and of a decay which extinguishes the faculty

of generation, or which weakens it, so as to produce children

less vigorous and less healthy. I appeal to experience, if this

reasoning be not just.

Put two or three pairs of rabbits into a field proper for

them, the multiplication will be rapid; and in a few years the

warren will be stocked: you may take yearly from it a hundred

pairs, I shall suppose, and keep your warren in good order: give

over taking any for some years, you will perhaps find your

original stock rather diminished than increased, for the reasons

above mentioned. Africa yearly furnishes many thousands for the

cultivation of America; in this she resembles the warren. I have

little doubt but that if all her sons were returned to her at

once, by far the greater part would die of hunger.

Chap. IV

Continuation of the same Subject, with regard to the natural and

immediate Effects of Agriculture, as to Population

I now suppose man to add his labour and industry to the

natural activity of the soil: so far, as by this he produces an

additional quantity of food, so far he lays a foundation for the

maintenance of an additional number. This number I shall call

(B). From this I conclude, that as (A) is supposed to be in a

constant proportion to the spontaneous fruits, so (B) must be in

proportion to agriculture (by this term I understand at present

every method of augmenting food by labour), consequently the

number maintained by the labour of mankind must be to the whole

number of mankind as (B) is to (A + B), or as (B) is to (A) and

(B) jointly.

By this operation we find mankind immediately divided into

two classes; those who, without working, live upon the

spontaneous fruits of the earth; that is, upon milk, cattle,

hunting, &c. The other part, those who are obliged to labour the

soil. It is proper next to inquire what should naturally oblige a

man to labour; and what are the natural consequences of it as to

multiplication.

We have already said, that the principle of generation is

inherent in man, and prompts him to multiply. Another principle,

as naturally inherent in the mind, as the first is in the body,

is self-love, or a desire of ease and happiness, which prompts

those who find in themselves any superiority, whether personal or

political, to make use of every natural advantage. Consequently,

such will multiply proportionably: because by appropriating to

themselves the fruits of the earth, they have the means of

subsisting their offspring. The others, I think, will very

naturally become their servants; as this method is, of all

others, the most easy to procure subsistence. This is so

analogous to the nature of man, that we see every where, even

among children, that the smallest superiority in any one over the

rest, constantly draws along with it a tribute of service in one

way or other. Those who become servants for the sake of food,

will soon become slaves: for slavery is but the abuse of service,

established by a civil institution; and men who find no

possibility of subsisting otherwise, will be obliged to serve

upon the conditions prescribed to them.

This seems a consequence not unnatural in the infancy of the

world: yet I do not pretend to affirm that this was the origin of

slavery. Servants, however, there have always been; and the abuse

of service is what we understand by slavery. The subordination of

children to their parents, and of servants to their masters,

seems to be the most rational origin of society and government.

The first of these is natural, and follows as the unavoidable

consequence of an entire dependence: the second is political, and

may very naturally take place as to those who cannot otherwise

procure subsistence. This last species of subordination may, I

think, have taken place, the moment man became obliged to labour

for subsistence, but no sooner.

The wants of man are not confined to food, merely. When food

is to be produced from the rude surface of the earth, a great

part of his time must be taken up with this object, even

supposing him to be provided with every utensil proper for the

exercise of his industry: he must therefore be in a worse

condition to provide for his other wants: consequently, he may be

willing to serve any one who will do it for him. Whereas, on the

other hand, if we suppose all mankind idle and fed, living upon

the spontaneous fruits of the earth, the plan of universal

liberty becomes quite natural: because under such circumstances

they find no inducement to come under a voluntary subordination.

Let us now borrow the idea of a primitive society, of a

government, of a king, from the most ancient history we have, the

better to point out the effects of agriculture and

multiplication. The society is the whole taken together; it is

Jacob, his sons, their wives, their children, and all the

servants. The government regards the institutions prescribed by

Jacob, to every one of the family, concerning their respective

subordination and duty. Multiplication will here go forward, not

in proportion to the generative faculty, but according to the

employment of the persons already generated. If Jacob continue

pasturing his herds, he must extend the limits of his right of

pasture; he must multiply his stock of cattle, in proportion as

the mouths of his family augment. He is charged with all this

detail: for he is master, and director, and statesman, and

general provider. His servants will work as they are ordered; but

if he has not had the proper foresight, to break up lands so soon

as his family comes nearly up to that proportion which his flocks

can easily feed; if in this case, a dry season should burn up the

grass in Palestine, he will be obliged to send some of his stock

of cattle, by some of his family, to market, there to be sold;

and with the price he must buy corn. For in this early age, there

was money, there were manufactures of sackcloth, of common

raiment, and of party-coloured garments; there was a trade in

corn, in spicery, balm, and myrrh. Jacob and his family were

shepherds, but they lived not entirely on flesh; they eat bread:

consequently there was tillage in those days, though they

exercised none. The famine however was ready to destroy them, and

probably would have done it, but for the providential

circumstance of Joseph's being governor of Egypt. He relieved

their distress, he gave to his family the best country in the

whole kingdom for pasture; and they had a gratuitous supply of

bread.

No doubt, so long as these favourable circumstances

subsisted, multiplication would go on apace. What supernatural

assistance God was pleased to grant for the increase of his

chosen people, does not concern my inquiry.

I have mentioned transiently this example of the patriarch,

to point out only how ancient the use of money, the invention of

trade and manufactures appear to have been. Without such previous

establishments, I consider mankind as savages, living on the

spontaneous fruits of the earth, as in the first supposition; and

confined, as to numbers, to the actual extent of these

productions.

From what has been said, we may conclude, that the numbers of

mankind must depend upon the quantity of food produced by the

earth for their nourishment; from which, as a corollary, may be

drawn.

That mankind have been, as to numbers, and must ever be, in

proportion to the food produced; and that the food produced will

be in the compound proportion of the fertility of the climate,

and the industry of the inhabitants.

From this last proposition it appears plain, that there can

be no general rule for determining the number of inhabitants

necessary for agriculture, not even in the same country. The

fertility of the soil when laboured, the ease of labouring it,

the quantity of good spontaneous fruits, the plenty of fish in

the rivers and sea, the abundance of wild birds and beasts, have

in all ages, and ever must influence greatly the nourishment,

and, consequently, regulate the multiplication of man, and

determine his employment.

To make an establishment in a country not before inhabited,

to root out woods, destroy wild and venomous animals, drain

marshy grounds, give a free course to water, and to lay down the

surface into corn fields, must surely require more hands than to

cultivate the same after it is improved. For the truth of this, I

appeal to our American brethren.

We may therefore conclude, that the most essential requisite

for population, is that of agriculture, or the providing of

subsistence. Upon this all the rest depends: while subsistence is

upon a precarious footing, no statesman can turn his attention to

any thing else.

The great importance of this object has engaged some to

imagine, that the luxurious arts, in our days, are prejudicial

both to agriculture and multiplication. It is sometimes of ill

consequence to fix one's attention too much upon any one object,

however important. Nobody can dispute that agriculture is the

foundation of multiplication, and the most essential requisite

for the prosperity of a state. But it does not follow from this,

that every body almost in the state should be employed in it;

that would be inverting the order of things, and turning the

master into the servant. The duty and business of man is not to

feed; he is fed, in order to do his duty, and to become useful in

his profession; whether agriculture, art, or science.

It is not sufficient for my purpose to know, that the

introduction of agriculture, by multiplying the quantity of the

earth's productions, does evidently tend to increase the numbers

of mankind. I must examine the political causes which must

concur, in order to operate this effect.

For this purpose, my next inquiry shall be directed towards

discovering the true principles which influence the employment of

man, with respect to agriculture. I shall spare no pains in

examining this point to the bottom, even though it should lead me

to anticipate some branches of my subject.

I shall endeavour to lay down principles consistent with the

nature of man, with agriculture, and with multiplication, in

order, by their means, to discover both the use and abuse of the

two last. When these parts are well understood, the rest will go

on more smoothly, and I shall find the less occasion to interrupt

my subject, in order to explain the topics upon which the whole

depends.

Chap. V

In what Manner, and according to what Principles, and political

Causes, does Agriculture augment Population?

I have already shewn, how the spontaneous fruits of the earth

provide a fund of nourishment for a determinate number of men,

and have slightly touched upon the consequences of adding labour

to the natural activity of the soil.

Let me now carry this inquiry a little farther. Let me

suppose a country fertile in spontaneous productions, capable of

improvements of every kind, inhabited by a people living under a

free government, and in the most refined simplicity, without

trade, without the luxurious arts, and without ambition. Let me

here suppose a statesman, who shall inspire a taste for

agriculture and for labour into those who formerly consumed the

spontaneous fruits of the earth in ease and idleness. What will

become of this augmentation of food produced by this additional

labour?

The sudden increase of food, such as that here supposed, will

immediately diffuse vigour into all; and if the additional

quantity be not very great, no superfluity will be found. No

sooner will the inhabitants be fully nourished, but they will

begin to multiply a-new: then they will come to divide with their

children, and food will become scarce again.

Thus much is necessary for the illustration of one principle;

but the effects, which we have been pointing out, will not be

produced barely by engaging those who lived by hunting (I

suppose) to quit that trade, and turn farmers. The statesman must

also find out a method to make the produce of this new branch of

industry circulate downwards, so as to relieve the wants of the

most necessitous: Otherwise, the plenty produced, remaining in

the hands of those who produced it, will become to them an

absolute superfluity; which, had they any trade with a

neighbouring state, they would sell, or exchange, and leave their

fellow-citizens to starve. And as we suppose no trade at all,

this superfluity will perish like their cherries, in a year of

plenty; and consequently the farmers will immediately give over

working.

If, to prevent this inconveniency, the statesman shall force

certain classes to labour the soil, and, with discretion,

distribute the produce of it to all that have occasion for

subsistence, taking in return their services for the public

benefit; this will prove an infallible way of multiplying

inhabitants, of making them laborious, and of preserving a

simplicity of manners; but it is also the picture of ancient

slavery, and is therefore excluded from the supposition.

If he acts consistently with that spirit of liberty, which we

have supposed to animate his subjects, he has no method left, but

to contrive different employments for the hands of the

necessitous, that, by their labour, they may produce an

equivalent which may be acceptable to the farmers, in lieu of

this superfluity; for these last certainly will not raise it, if

they cannot dispose of it; nor will they dispose of it, but for a

proper equivalent. This is the only method (in a free state) of

procuring additional food, and of distributing it through the

society, as the price of those hours which before were spent in

idleness: and, as this will prove a more certain and more

extensive fund of subsistence, than the precarious productions of

spontaneous fruits, which cannot be increased at discretion, and

in proportion to demand, it will greatly increase numbers; but,

on the other hand, it must evidently destroy that simplicity of

manners which naturally reigns among nations who do not labour.

A people, therefore, who have an industrious turn, will

multiply in proportion to the superfluity produced by their

farmers; because the labour of the necessitous will prove an

equivalent for it.

Now this additional number of inhabitants, being raised and

fed with the superfluity actually produced by the farmers, can

never be supposed necessary for providing this quantity, which

(though relatively to the farmers it be called a superfluity) is

merely a sufficiency relatively to the whole society. and,

therefore, if it be found necessary to employ the new inhabitants

also in farming, it must be with a view only to a still greater

multiplication.

Farther, we may lay it down as a principle, that a farmer

will not labour to produce a superfluity of grain relatively to

his own consumption, unless he finds some want which may be

supplied by means of that superfluity'. neither will other

industrious persons work to supply the wants of the farmer for

any other reason than to procure subsistence, which they cannot

otherwise so easily obtain. These are the reciprocal wants which

the statesman must create, in order to bind the society together.

Here, then, is one principle: Agriculture among a free people

will augment population, in proportion only as the necessitous

are put in a situation to purchase subsistence with their labour.

If, in any country which actually produces nourishment for

its inhabitants, according to the progression above-mentioned, a

plan is set on foot for the extension of agriculture; the

augmentation must be made to bear a due proportion to the

progress of industry and wants of the people, or else an outlet

must be provided for disposing of the superfluity. And if, at

setting out, a foreign consumption cannot be procured for the

produce of husbandry, the greatest caution must be had to keep

the improvement of the soil within proper bounds: for, without

this, the plan intended for an improvement will, by over-doing,

turn out to the detriment of agriculture. This will be the case,

if the fruits of the earth be made to increase faster than the

numbers and the industry of those who are to consume them. For if

the whole be not consumed, the regorging plenty will discourage

the industry of the farmer.

But if, together with an encouragement to agriculture, a

proper outlet be found for the superfluity, until the numbers and

industry of the people, by increasing, shall augment the

home-consumption, which again by degrees will diminish the

quantity of exportation, then the spring will easily overcome the

resistance; it will dilate; that is, numbers will continue to

increase.

From this may be derived another principle: That agriculture,

when encouraged for the sake of multiplying inhabitants, must

keep pace with the progress of industry; or else an outlet must

be provided for all superfluity.

In the foregoing example, I have supposed no exportation, the

more to simplify the supposition: I was, therefore, obliged to

throw in a circumstance, in order to supply the want of it; to

wit, an augmentation of inland demand from the suspension of

hunting; and I have supposed those who formerly supported

themselves by this, to consume the superfluous food of the

farmers for the price of their labour. This may do well enough as

a supposition, and has been made use of merely to explain

principles. but the manners of a people are not so easily

changed; and therefore I have a little anticipated the

supposition of trade, to shew only how it must concur with

industry, in the advancement of agriculture and multiplication.

Let me next consider the consequences of an augmentation of

agriculture in a country where the inhabitants are lazy; or where

they live in such simplicity of manners, as to have few wants

which labour and industry can supply. In this case, I say, the

scheme of agriculture will not succeed; and, if set on foot, a

part of the grounds will soon become again uncultivated.

The laziest part of the farmers, disgusted with a labour

which produces a plenty superfluous to themselves, which they

cannot dispose of for any equivalent, will give over working, and

return to their ancient simplicity. The more laborious will not

furnish food to the necessitous for nothing: such therefore who

cannot otherwise subsist, will naturally serve the industrious,

and thereby sell their service for food. Thus by the diminution

of labour, a part of the country, proportional to the quantity of

food which the farmers formerly found superfluous, will again

become uncultivated.

Here then will be found a country, the population of which

must stop for want of food; and which, by the supposition, is

abundantly able to produce more. Experience every where shews the

possible existence of such a case, since no country in Europe is

cultivated to the utmost: and that there are many still, where

cultivation, and consequently multiplication, is at a stop. These

nations I consider as in a moral incapacity of multiplying: the

incapacity would be physical, if there was an actual

impossibility of their procuring an augmentation of food by any

means whatsoever.

These principles seem to be confirmed by experience; whether

we compare them with the manner of living among the free American

savages, or among the free, industrious, and laborious Europeans.

We find the productions of all countries, generally speaking, in

proportion to the number of their inhabitants; and, on the other

hand, the inhabitants are most commonly in proportion to the

food.

I beg that this may not be looked upon as a quibble, or what

is called a vicious circle. I have qualified the general

proposition by subjoining that it is found true most commonly;

and from what is to follow, we shall better discover both the

truth and meaning of what is here advanced. While certain causes

operate, food will augment, and mankind will increase in

proportion; when these causes cease, procreation will not augment

numbers; then the general proposition will take place; numbers

and food will remain the same, and balance one another. This I

imagine to be so in fact; and I hope to shew that it is rational

also. Let me now put an end to this chapter, by drawing some

conclusions from what has been laid down, in order to enlarge our

ideas, and to enable us to extend our plan.

First, One consequence of a fruitful soil, possessed by a

free people, given to agriculture, and inclined to industry, will

be the production of a superfluous quantity of food, over and

above what is necessary to feed the farmers. Inhabitants will

multiply; and, according to their increase, a certain number of

the whole, proportional to such superfluity of nourishment

produced, will apply themselves to industry and to the supplying

of other wants.

Secondly, From this operation produced by industry, we find

the people distributed into two classes. The first is that of the

farmers who produce the subsistence, and who are necessarily

employed in this branch of business; the other I shall call free

hands; because their occupation being to procure themselves

subsistence out of the superfluity of the farmers, and by a

labour adapted to the wants of the society, may vary according to

these wants, and these again according to the spirit of the

times.

Thirdly, If, in the country we are treating of, both money

and the luxurious arts be supposed to be unknown, then the

superfluity of the farmers will be in proportion to the number of

those whose labour will be found sufficient to provide for all

the other necessities of the inhabitants; and, so soon as this is

accomplished, the consumption and produce becoming equally

balanced, the inhabitants will increase no more, or at least very

precariously, unless their wants be multiplied.

Chap. VI

How the Wants of Mankind promote their Multiplication

If the country we were treating of in the former chapter be

supposed of a considerable extent and fruitfulness, and if the

inhabitants have turn for industry, in a short time luxury, and

the use of money (or of something participating of the nature of

money), will infallibly be introduced.

By LUXURY, I understand the consumption of any thing produced

by the labour or ingenuity of man, which flatters our senses or

taste of living, and which is neither necessary for our being

well fed, well clothed, well defended against the injuries of the

weather, or for securing us against every thing which can hurt

us.(4*)

By MONEY, I understand any commodity, which purely in itself

is of no material use to man for the purposes above-mentioned,

but which acquires such an estimation from his opinion of it, as

to become the universal measure of what is called value, and an

adequate equivalent for any thing alienable.(5*)

Here a new scene opens. This money must be found in the hands

of some of the inhabitants; naturally, of such as have had the

wit to invent it, and the address to make their countrymen fond

of it, by representing it as an equivalent value for food and

necessaries; that is to say, the means of procuring, without work

or toil, not only the labour of others, but food itself.

Here then is produced a new object of want. Every person

becomes fond of having money; but how to get it is the question.

The proprietors will not give it for nothing, and, by our former

supposition, every one within the society was understood to be

abundantly supplied with food and necessaries; the farmers, from

their labouring the ground; the free hands, by the return of

their own ingenuity, in furnishing necessaries. The proprietors

therefore of this money have all their wants supplied, and still

are possessors of this new kind of riches, which we now suppose

to be coveted by all.

The natural consequence here will be, that those who have the

money will cease to labour, and yet will consume; and they will

not consume for nothing, for they will pay with money.

Here then is a number of inhabitants, who live and consume

the produce of the earth without labouring; food will soon become

scarce; demand for it will rise, and that will be paid with

money, this is the best equivalent of all; many will run to the

plough; the superfluity of the farmers will augment; the rich

will call for superfluities; the free hands will supply them, and

demand food in their turn. These will, the rich, who not be found

a burden on the husbandman, as formerly hired of them their

labour or service, must pay them with money, and this money in

their hands will serve as an equivalent for the superfluity of

nourishment produced by additional agriculture.

When once this imaginary wealth (money) becomes well

introduced into a country, luxury will very naturally follow; and

when money becomes the object of our wants, mankind become

industrious, in turning their labour towards every object which

may engage the rich to part with it; and thus the inhabitants of

any country may increase in numbers, until the ground refuses

farther nourishment. The consequences of this will make the

subject of another chapter.

Before we proceed, something must be said, in order a little

to restrain these general assertions.

We have supposed a very rapid progress of industry, and a

very sudden augmentation of inhabitants, from the introduction of

money. But it must be observed, that many circumstances have

concurred with the money to produce this effect.

We have supposed a country capable of improvement, a

laborious people, a taste for refinement and luxury in the rich,

an ambition to become so, and an application to labour and

ingenuity in the lower classes of men. According to the greater

or less degree of force, or concurrence of these and like

circumstances, will the country in question become more or less

cultivated, and consequently peopled.

If the soil be vastly rich, situated in a warm climate, and

naturally watered, the productions of the earth will be almost

spontaneous: this will make the inhabitants lazy. Laziness is the

greatest of all obstacles to labour and industry. Manufactures

will never flourish here. The rich, with all their money, will

not become luxurious with delicacy and refinement; for I do not

mean by luxury the gratification of the animal appetites, nor the

abuse of riches, but an elegance of taste and in living, which

has for its object the labour and ingenuity of man; and as the

ingenuity of workmen begets a taste in the rich, so the

allurement of riches kindles an ambition, and encourages an

application to works of ingenuity, in the poor.

Riches therefore will here be adored as a god, but not made

subservient to the uses of man; and it is by the means of swift

circulation only (as shall be observed in its proper place) that

they become productive of the effects mentioned above.(6*)

When money does not circulate, it is the same thing as if it

did not exist; and as the treasures found in countries where the

inhabitants are lazy do not circulate, they are rather ornamental

than useful.

It is not therefore in the most fruitful countries of the

world, nor in those which are the best calculated for nourishing

great multitudes, that we find the most inhabitants. It is in

climates less favoured by nature, and where the soil produces to

those only who labour, and in proportion to the industry of every

one, where we may expect to find great multitudes; and even these

multitudes will be found greater or less, in proportion as the

turn of the inhabitants is directed to ingenuity and industry.

In such countries where industry is made to flourish, the

free hands (of whom we have spoken above) will be employed in

useful manufactures, which, being refined upon by the ingenious,

will determine what is called the standard of taste; this taste

will increase consumption, which again will multiply workmen, and

these will encourage the production of food for their

nourishment.

Let it therefore never be said, that there are too many

manufacturers employed in a country; it is the same as if it were

said, there are too few idle persons, too few beggars, and too

many husbandmen.

We have more than once endeavoured to shew, that these

manufacturers never can be fed but out of the superfluity of the

farmers. It is a contradiction, I think, to say, that those who

are fed upon the surplus of those who cultivate the soil are

necessary for producing a sufficiency to themselves. For if even

this surplus were to diminish, the manufacturers, not the

labourers, would be the first to be extinguished for want of

nourishment.

The importance of the distributive proportion of mankind into

labourers and free hands appears so great, and has so intimate a

connection with this subject, that it engages me to seek for an

illustration of the principles I have been laying down, in an

example drawn from facts, as they are found to stand in one of

the greatest and most flourishing nations in Europe. But before I

proceed farther in this part of my subject, I must examine the

consequences of slavery with regard to the subject we are now

upon. Relations here are so many and so various, that it is

necessary to have sometimes recourse to transitions, of which I

give notice to my reader, that he may not lose the connection.

Chap. VII

The Effects of Slavery upon the Multiplication and Employment of

Mankind

Before I go on to follow the consequences of the above

reasoning, I must stop to consider a difference of no small

importance between ancient and modern times, which will serve to

illustrate the nature of slavery, with regard to population and

the employment of mankind.

We have endeavoured to lay down the principles which seem to

influence this question, supposing all to be free. In this case,

I imagine the human species will multiply pretty much in

proportion to their industry; their industry will increase

according to their wants, and these again will be diversified

according to the spirit of the times.

From this I conclude, that the more free and simple the

manners of any country are, caeteris paribus, the fewer

inhabitants will be found in it. This is proved by experience

every where. The Tartars, who freely wander up and down a country

of vast extent, multiply but little; the savages in America, who

live upon hunting, in a state of great independence; the

inhabitants of several mountainous countries in Europe, where

there are few manufactures, and where the inhabitants do not

leave the country; in all such places mankind do not multiply.

What is the reason of this? One would imagine, where there is a

great extent of ground capable of producing food, that mankind

should multiply until the soil refused to give more. I imagine

the answer may be easily discovered from the principles above

laid down.

Where mankind have few wants, the number of free hands

necessary to supply them is very small, consequently very little

surplus from the farmers is sufficient to maintain them. When

therefore it happens, that any poor family in the class of free

hands is very numerous, division there comes to be carried to its

utmost extent, and the greatest part become quite idle, because

there is no demand for their work. As long as they can be fed by

the division of the emoluments arising from the labour of their

parents, or by the charity of others, they live; when these

resources fail, they become miserable. In so wretched a situation

it is not easy to find bread. The farmers will not double their

diligence from a charitable disposition. Those who have land will

not allow those indigent people a liberty to raise grain in it

for nothing; and although they should, the poor are not in a

capacity to provide what is necessary for doing it. All other

work is fully stocked, the wretched die, or extinguish without

multiplying.

To make this more evident, let us suppose the wants of

mankind, in any polite nation of Europe, which lives and

flourishes in our days upon the produce of its own soil, reduced

all at once to the simplicity of the ancient patriarchs, or even

to that of the old Romans. Suppose all the hands now employed in

the luxurious arts, and in every branch of modern manufactures,

to become quite idle, and all foreign trade to be cut off, how

could they be subsisted? What oeconomy could be set on foot, able

to preserve so many lives useful to the state? Yet it is plain by

the supposition, that the farmers of the country are capable of

maintaining them, since they actually do so. It would be absurd

to propose to employ them in agriculture, since there are enough

employed in this, to provide food for the whole.

If it be certain that such people would die for want without

any resource; must it not follow that, unless their parents had

found the means of maintaining them when children, and they

themselves the means of afterwards subsisting by their industry

in supplying wants, they could not have existed beyond their

first infancy?

This seems to strike deep against the populousness of the old

world, where we know that the wants of mankind, with regard to

trades and manufactures, were so few.

But in those days the wants of mankind were of a different

nature. At present, there is a demand for the ingenuity of man;

then, there was a demand for his person and service. Now,

provided there be a demand for man, whatever use he be put to,

the species will multiply; for those who stand in need of them

will always feed them, and, as long as food is to be found,

numbers will increase.

In the present times food cannot, in general, be found, but

by labour, and that cannot be found but to supply wants. Nobody

will feed a free man, more than he will feed the wild birds or

beasts of the field, unless he has occasion for the labour of the

one or flesh of the other.

In the old world the principles were the same, but the spirit

of nations was different. Princes wanted to have numerous armies.

Free states sought for power in the number of their citizens. The

wants of Mankind being few, and a simplicity of manners

established, to have encouraged industry, excepting in

agriculture, which in all ages has been the foundation of

population, would have been an inconsistency. To make mankind

labour beyond their wants, to make one part of a state work to

maintain the other gratuitously, could only be brought about by

slavery, and slavery was therefore introduced universally.

Slavery was then as necessary towards multiplication, as it would

now be destructive of it. The reason is plain. If mankind be not

forced to labour, they will labour for themselves only; and if

they have few wants, there will be little labour. But when states

come to be formed, and have occasion for idle hands to defend

them against the violence of their enemies, food at any rate must

be procured for those who do not labour; and, as by the

supposition, the wants of the labourers are small, a method must

be found to increase their labour above the proportion of their

wants.

For this purpose slavery was calculated: it had two excellent

effects with respect to population. The first, that, in

unpolished nations, living upon the spontaneous fruits of the

earth, and almost continually in war, lives were preserved for

the sake of making slaves of the captives. These, sold to private

people, or different states, were sure of being fed; whereas,

remaining in their own country, they occupied a place only,

which, by the force of the generative faculty, as has been

observed, was soon to be filled up by propagation: for it must

not be forgot, that when numbers are swept off, by any sudden

calamity, which does not proportionally diminish subsistence, a

new multiplication immediately takes place. Thus we perceive the

hurt done by plagues, by war, and by other devastations, either

among men, or cattle, repaired in a few years, even in those

countries where the standard number of both is seldom found to

increase. What immense quantities of cattle are yearly

slaughtered ! Does any body imagine that if all were allowed to

live, numbers would increase in proportion? The same is true of

men.

The second advantage of slavery was, that in countries where

a good police prevailed, and where the people had fewer wants by

far than are felt in modern times, the slaves were forced to

labour the soil which fed both them and the idle freemen, as was

the case in Sparta; or they filled all the servile places which

freemen fill now, and they were likewise employed, as in Greece

and in Rome, in supplying with manufactures those whose service

was necessary for the state.

Here then was a violent method making mankind laborious in

raising food; and provided this be accomplished, (by any means

whatever,) numbers will increase.

Trade, industry, and manufactures, tend only to multiply the

numbers of men, by encouraging agriculture. If it be therefore

supposed, that two states are equally extended, equally fruitful,

and equally cultivated, and the produce consumed at home, I

believe they will be found equally peopled. But suppose the one

laboured by free men, the other by slaves, what difference will

be found in making war? In the first, the free hands must, by

their industry and labour, purchase their food, and a day lost is

in a manner a day of fasting: in the last, the slaves produce the

food, they are first fed, and the rest costs nothing to the body

of free men, who may be all employed in war, without the smallest

prejudice to industry.

From these principles it appears, that slavery in former

times had the same effect in peopling the world that trade and

industry have now. Men were then forced to labour because they

were slaves to others; men are now forced to labour because they

are slaves to their own wants.

I do not, however, pretend, that in fact slavery in ancient

times did every where contribute to population, any more than I

can affirm that the spirit of industry in the Dutch is common to

all free nations in our days. All that is necessary for my

purpose is, to set forth the two principles, and to shew the

natural effects of the one and the other, with respect to the

multiplication of mankind and advancement of agriculture, the

principal objects of our attention throughout this book.

I shall at present enlarge no farther upon this matter, but

return to where I left off in the preceding chapter, and take up

the farther examination of the fundamental distribution of

inhabitants into labourers and free hands.

Chap. VII

What Proportion of Inhabitants is necessary for Agriculture, and

what Proportion may be usefully employed in every other

Occupation?

I have proposed this question, not with an intention to

answer it fully, but to point out, how, with the proper lights

given, it may be answered.

As I write under circumstances not the most favourable for

having recourse to books, I must employ those I have. The article

Political Arithmetic, of Mr Chambers's Cyclopedia, furnishes me

with some extracts from Sir William Petty, and Dr Davenant, which

I here intend to employ, towards pointing out a solution of the

question proposed. These authors consider the state of England as

it appeared to them, and what they say is conclusive with respect

to that state only.

Sir William Petty supposes the inhabitants of England to be

six millions, the value of grain yearly consumed by them ten

millions sterling, the bushel of wheat reckoned at 5s., and that

of barley at 2s. 6d. If we cast the two together, and reckon upon

an average, this will make the quarter, or eight bushels of

grain, worth 1l. 10s.: but in regard, the barley cannot amount to

one half of all the grain consumed, especially as there is a good

quantity of rye made use of, which is worth more than the barley,

though less than the wheat; let us suppose the grain worth 32s.

per quarter, at a medium; then ten millions sterling will

purchase six millions of quarters of grain, or thereabouts;

which, used for nourishment, in bread and beer, gives the mean

quantity of one quarter, or 512 pounds troy of grain for every

inhabitant, including the nourishment of his proportional part of

animals; supposing that Sir William attended to this

circumstance, for it is not mentioned by Chambers. And I must

observe, by-the-bye, that this computation may hold good as to

England, where people eat so little bread; but would not answer

in France, nor in almost any other country I have seen.

Dr Davenant, correcting Sir William's calculation, makes the

inhabitants 5,545,000. These, according to Sir William's prices

and proportions, would consume to the amount of 8,872,000l.

sterling. but the Dr carries it, with reason, a little higher,

and states it at 9,075,000l. sterling; the difference, however,

is inconsiderable. From this he concludes the gross produce of

the corn-fields to be about 9,075,000l. sterling. I make no

criticism upon this computation.

Next, as to the value of other lands; I find Sir William

reckons the gross produce of them in butter, cheese, milk, wool,

horses yearly bred, flesh for food, tallow, hides, hay, and

timber, to amount to 12,000,000l. sterling: The amount therefore

of the gross produce of all the lands in England must be equal to

these two sums added together, that is, to 21,075,000l. sterling.

From these data, the Dr values the yearly rent of corn-lands

at two million sterling, and those of pasture, &c. at seven

millions; in all, nine millions.

From this it appears, that the land-rents of England are to

the gross produce, as nine is to twenty-one, or thereabouts.

Let me now examine some other proportions.

The rents of the corn-lands are to the gross produce of them,

as two is to nine; those of pasture, as seven to twelve.

Now it is very certain, that all rents are in a pretty just

proportion to the gross produce, after deducting three principal

articles.

First, The nourishment of the farmer, his family, and

servants.

Secondly, The necessary expences of his family, for

manufactures, and instruments for cultivating the ground.

Thirdly, His reasonable profits, according to the custom of

every country.

Of these three articles, let us distinguish what part implies

the direct consumption of the pure produce, from what does not.

Of the first sort are the nourishment of men and cattle, wool

and flax for clothing, firing, and other smaller articles.

Of the second are all manufactures bought, servants' wages,

the hire of labourers occasionally, and profits, either spent in

luxury, (that is, superfluity,) lent, or laid up.

The three articles above mentioned (which we have distributed

under two heads) being deducted from the gross produce, the

remaining value shews the land-rent.

This being the case, I am next to examine the cause of the

great disproportion between the rents of corn-lands, and those of

pasture, when compared with the gross produce, in order to draw

some conclusion, which may lead to the solution of the question

here proposed.

This difference must proceed from the greater proportion of

labouring and other inhabitants employed in consequence of

tillage; which makes the expence of it far greater than that of

pasture. And since, in the one and the other, every article of

necessary expence or consumption ought naturally to be

proportionally equal among those concerned in both, that is,

proportional to the number of labouring inhabitants; it follows,

that the proportion of people employed in agriculture, and upon

the account of it, in different countries, is nearly in the ratio

of the gross produce, to the land-rent; or, in other words, in

the proportion of the consumption made by the farmers, and by

those employed necessarily by them, to the net produce, which is

the same thing.

Now as the consumption upon corn-farms is 7/9, and that upon

pasture 5/12, the proportion of these two fractions must mark the

ratio between the populousness of pasture-lands, and those in

tillage; that is to say, tillage-lands in England were, at that

time, peopled in proportion to pasture-lands, as 84 is to 45, or

as 28 to 15.

This point being settled, I proceed to another: to wit, the

application of this net produce or surplus of the quantity of

food and necessaries remaining over and above the nourishment,

consumption, and expence, of the inhabitants employed in

agriculture; and which we have observed above to be equal to the

land-rents of England, that is to say, to nine millions yearly.

Must not this of necessity be employed in the nourishment,

and for the use of those whom we have called the free hands; who

may be employed in manufactures, trades, or in any other way,

according to the taste of the times?

Now the numbers of a people, I take to be very nearly in the

proportion of the quantity of food they consume; especially when

a society is taken thus, in such accumulative proportion, and

when all are supposed to be under the same circumstances as to

the plenty of the year.

The whole gross produce of England we have said to be

21,000,000 l. sterling, of which 9 millions have remained for

those not employed in agriculture; the farmers, therefore, and

their attendants, must annually consume 12 millions; co