his fortune, and reduces himself to want and beggary. Where they entrench upon no virtue, but leave ample subject, whence to provide for friends, family, and every pro-per object of generofity or compaffion, they are entirely innocent, and have in every age been acknowledged fuch by almoft all moralifts. To be entirely occupied with the luxury of the table, for inftance, without any relish for the pleasures of ambition, ftudy or converfation, is a mark of grofs ftupidity, and is incompatible with any vigour of temper or genius. To confine one's expence entirely to fuch a gratification, without regard to friends or family, is an indication of a heart entirely devoid of humanity or benevolence. But if a man reserve time fufficient for all laudible pursuits, and money fufficient for all generous purposes, he is free from every fhadow of blame or reproach.

Since luxury may be confidered either as innocent or blameable, one may be furprized at thofe prepofterous opinions, which have been entertained concerning it; while men of libertine principles bestow praises even on vitious luxury, and reprefent it as highly advantageous to fociety; and on the other hand, men of fevere morals blame even the most innocent luxury, and represent it as the source of all the corruptions, diforders, and factions incident to civil government.

Our author endeavours in this difcourfe to correct both these extremes, by proving, first, that the ages of refinement and luxury are both the happieft and moft virtuous; and, fecondly, that wherever luxury ceases to be innocent, it alfo ceases to be beneficial, and when carried a degree too far, is a quality pernicious, tho' perhaps not the most pernicious, to political fociety. In order to prove his firft point, he confiders the effects of luxury both in private and public life; and fhews that industry, knowledge and humanity, are linked together by an indiffoluble chain, and are found, from experience as well as reafon, to be peculiar to the more polished and luxurious ages.

• What has chiefly induced fevere moralifts, fays he, to declaim against luxury and refinement in pleafure, is the example of ancient Rome, which, joining to its poverty and rufticity, virtue and public fpirit, rofe to fuch a furprising height of grandeur and liberty; but having learned from its conquered provinces the Grecian and Afiatic luxury, fell into every kind of corruption; whence arofe fedition and civil wars, attended at last with the total lofs of liberty. All the Latin claffics, whom we perufe in our infancy, are full of these fentiments, and univerfally afcribe the ruin of

C 4

their

their state to the arts and riches imported from the east.— But it would be eafy to prove, that thefe writers mistook the cause of the diforders in the Roman ftate, and afcribed to luxury and the arts what really proceeded from an illmodeled government, and the unlimited extent of conquefts. Luxury or refinement on pleasure has no natural tendency to beget venality and corruption. The value, which all men put upon any particular pleafure, depends on comparifon and experience; nor is a porter lefs greedy of money, which he fpends on bacon and brandy, than a courtier who purchases champagne and ortolans. Riches are valuable at all times, and to all men, because they always purchase pleasures, fuch as men are accuftomed to and defire; nor can any thing reftrain or regulate the love of money but a fenfe of honour and virtue; which if it be not nearly equal at all times, will naturally abound moft in ages of luxury and knowledge.

The liberties of England, fo far from decaying fince the origin of luxury and the arts, have never flourished fo much as during that period. And tho' corruption may seem to encrease of late years, this is chiefly to be afcribed to our eftablished liberty, when our princes have found the impoffibility of governing without parliaments, or of terrifying parliaments by the phantom of prerogative. Not to mention, that this corruption or venality prevails infinitely. more among the electors than the elected; and therefore cannot justly be afcribed to any refinements in luxury.

If we confider the matter in a proper light, we fhall find, that luxury and the arts are rather favourable to liberty, and have a natural tendency to preferve, if not produce a free government. In rude unpolifhed nations, where the arts are neglected, all the labour is bestowed on vaffals or tenants. The latter are neceffarily dependent and fitted for flavery and fubjection; efpecially where they poffefs no riches, and are not valued for their knowledge in agriculture; as must always be the cafe where the arts are neglected. The former naturally erect themselves into petty tyrants; and muft either fubmit to an abfolute mafter for the fake of peace and order; or if they will preferve their independency, like the Gothic barons, they muft fall into feuds and contefts among themselves, and throw the whole fociety into fuch confufion as is perhaps worse than the most defpotic government. But where luxury nourishes commerce and induftry, the peafants, by a proper cultivation of the land, become rich and independent; while the tradef

men

men and merchants acquire a fhare of the property, and draw authority and confideration to that middling rank of men ; who are the beft and firmeft bafis of public liberty. These fubmit not to flavery, like the poor peafants, from poverty and meanness of fpirit; and having no hopes of tyrannizing over others, like the barons, they are not tempted, for the fake of that gratification, to fubmit to the tyranny of their fovereign. They covet equal laws, which may fecure their property, and preferve them from monarchical, as well as ariftocratical tyranny.

The houfe of commons is the fupport of our popular government; and all the world acknowledge, that it owed its chief influence and confideration to the increase of commerce, which threw such a balance of property into the hands of the commons. How inconfiftent, then, is it to blame fo violently luxury, or a refinement in the arts, and to reprefent it as the bane of liberty and public fpirit.'

In the three laft pages of this difcourfe, our author endeavours to prove his fecond point, and begins with confidering what vicious luxury is. "No gratification, fays he, however fenfual, can of itself, be efteemed vicious. A gratification is only vicious, when it ingroffes all a man's expence, and leaves no ability for fuch acts of duty and generofity as are required by his fituation and fortune. Suppose, that he correct the vice, and employ part of his expence in the education of his children, in the fupport of his friends, and in relieving the poor; would any prejudice refult to fociety? On the contrary, the fame confumption would arife; and that labour, which, at prefent, is employed only in producing a flender gratification to one man, would relieve the neceffitous, and beftow fatisfaction on hundreds. The fame care and toil, which raife adifh of pease at Christmas, would give bread to a family during fix months. To fay, that, without a vicious luxury, the labour would not have been employed at all, is only to fay, that there is fome other defect in human nature, fuch as indolence, felfishness, inattention to others, for which luxury, in fome meafure, provides a remedy; as one poifon may be an antidote to another. But virtue, like wholefome food, is better than poifons, however corrected.

Suppose the fame number of men, that are, at prefent, in Britain, with the fame foil and climate; I ask, is it not poffible for them to be happier, by the most perfect way of life, that can be imagined, and by the greatest reformation, which omnipotence itfelf could work in their temper and

difpofition?

difpofition? To affert, that they cannot, appears evidently ridiculous. As the land is able to maintain more than all its inhabitants, they cou'd never, in fuch an Utopian ftate, feel any other ills, than thofe which arife from bodily fickDefs; and these are not the half of human miferies. All other ills fpring from fome vice, either in ourselves or others; and even many of our diseases proceed from the fame origin. Remove the vices, and the ills follow. You muft only take care to remove all the vices. If you remove part only, you may render the matter worse. By banishing vicious luxury, without curing floth and an indifference to others, you only diminish induftry in the ftate, and add nothing to men's charity or their generofity. Let us, therefore, reft contented with afferting, that two oppofite vices in a state, may be more advantageous than either of them alone; but let us never pronounce vice, in itself, advantageous. Is it not very inconfiftent for an author to affert in one page, that moral diftinctions are inventions of politicians for public intereft; and in the next page maintain, that vice is advantageous to the public? And indeed, it feems, upon any fyftem of morality, little lefs than a contradiction in terms, to talk of a vice, that is in general beneficial to fociety.

I thought this reafoning neceffary, in order to give fome light to a philofophical queftion, which has been much difputed in Britain. I call it a philofophical queftion, not a political one. For whatever may be the confequence of fuch a miraculous transformation of mankind, as would endow them with every species of virtue, and free them from every vice, this concerns not the magiftrate, who aims only at poffibilities. He cannot cure every vice, by fubsticuting a virtue in its place. Very often he can cure only one vice by another; and in that cafe, he ought to prefer what is leaft pernicious to fociety. Luxury, when exceffive, is the fource of many ills; but is in general preferable to floth and idlenefs, which would commonly fucceed in its place, and are more pernicious both to private perfons and to the public. When floth reigns, a mean uncultivated way of life prevails amongft individuals, without fociety, without enjoyment. And if the fovereign, in fuch a fituation, demands the fervice of his fubjects, the labour of the state suffices only to furnifh the necellaries of life to the labourers, and can afford nothing to thofe, who are employed in the public fervice.'

The

The Subject of our Author's third difcourfe is Money; a fubject, on which he has made many curious and uncom mon obfervations, The abfolute quantity of money in any ftate, he tells us, is a matter of great indifference, and that there are only two circumftances of any importance, viz. its gradual increase, and its thorough concoction and circulation through the state; the influence of both which circumstances is in this difcourfe very particularly explained.

In his fourth difcourfe our author treats of intereft; he introduces it with obferving that nothing is esteemed a more certain fign of the flourishing condition of any nation than the lowness of intereft, but that plenty of money, tho' it be generally affigned as the cause of lowness of intereft, is not the true one; money, however plentiful, having no other effect, if fixt, than to raise the price of labour. High intereff, fays he, arifes from three circumftances: a great demand for borrowing; little riches to fupply that demand; and great profits ariling from commerce: and these circumftances are a clear proof of the fmall advance of commerce and industry, not of the scarcity of gold and filver. Low intereft, on the other hand, preceeds from the three oppofite circumftances: a fmall demand for borrowing; great riches to fupply that demand; and small profits arifing from commerce: and these circumftances are all connected together, and proceed from the increase of industry and commerce, not of gold and filver.' These points he endeavours fully and diftinctly to prove in the fubfequent part of this difcourfe, and points out the reasons of this popular miftake with regard to the caufe of low-intereft.

In treating of the balance of trade, the fubject of our author's fifth difcourfe, after taking notice of feveral grofs and palpable errors that have prevailed amongst nations ignorant of the nature of commerce, he obferves that there ftill prevails, even amongst nations well acquainted with commerce, a ftrong jealoufy with regard to the balance of trade, and a fear, that all their gold and filver may be leaving them. This feems to him, almoft in every cafe, a very groundless apprehenfion; but as it can never be refuted by a particular detail of all the exports, which counterbalance the imports, he forms a general argument to prove the impoffibility of fuch an event, as long as the people and induftry of a kingdom are preferved.

Suppofe, fays he, four parts of all the money in Britain to be annihilated in one night, and the nation reduc'd

to