The mariners compass, gunpowder, and the art of printing, were all discovered nearly about the same time; and, independent of their great and permanent effects, they were wonderfully calculated to alter the situation of nations at that period.The navigation of the ocean, which led to the discovery of a passage to the East Indies, and of America, gave a mortal blow to the nations situated on the borders of the Mediterranean Sea, who thus found themselves deprived of the commerce of the East.The discovery of gunpowder, a means so powerful of annoying an enemy, without the aid of human force, which places a giant and a dwarf in some sort upon an equality, was wonderfully adapted for doing away the illusions of knight errantry, that had such a powerful effect in making war be preferred to commerce: while printing facilitated the communication of every species of knowledge.It was then that northern nations began to cultivate arts and sciences, as those of the south under a mild heaven, and on a fertile soil, had done three thousand years before. But ingenuity and invention took a different direction in the north from what they had done in the southern climates; instead of sovereigns and slaves, men were more in mutual want of each other, and therefore a more equal division of the fruits of industry was required.The manufactures of former times had been confined chiefly to luxuries for the great, and simple necessaries for slaves; and commerce, though productive of great wealth to a few, was in its limits equally confined.---{66} For the dates see the chart, and for their effects, chap. i. book ii. [Transcriber's note: See in the Chart "Mariners Compass /Gunpowder/Printing Invented 1300-1400"].-=-[end of page #73]It was natural that the two nations which had first discovered the passage to the East, and the continent of the West, which abounded with the precious metals, should become rich and powerful, as those cities had formerly done that possessed exclusively the channels of commerce. Those two countries were Spain and Portugal; but here again we find the same fatality attend the acquisition of wealth that had formerly been remarked. It was, indeed, not to be expected, that the steadiness and virtue of the Spaniards and Portuguese could resist the operation of a cause, that neither the wisdom of the Egyptians; the arts and industry of Greece, nor the stubborn and martial patriotism of the Romans could withstand.Those two nations soon sunk, and the Dutch, the French, and the English, became participators of the commerce.Manufactures were a new source of wealth, almost unknown to the ancient world. Those begun first to be set in activity in Flanders, then in Holland and France, and, last of all, in England; but, like commerce, and every other means by which wealth is acquired, they have a tendency to leave a country. The cause and the effect are at variance, after a certain time; and though we cannot illustrate this from history, as we may the migrations of wealth arising from other sources, the tendency appears of the same nature, though with this difference; that men may always labour for themselves, and enjoy the fruits of their labours, though they cannot always find the means of being the carriers to other nations, or becoming merchants.This alteration in the nature of wealth; the inventions of mankind; the alterations brought on by the facility of communicating knowledge; the systematical manner in which men pursue their interests, and other changes: give reason to hope that, in the present situation of things, those possessions may be rendered permanent, that have hitherto been found to be so evanescent and fugitive.Where wealth has not been wrested from a country by absolute force, (in doing which the poorer nations were always successful,) it has emigrated from other causes, and taken up its abode amongst a new people, where circumstances were more favourable for its encouragement. [end of page #74]Before we leave this recapitulation, it is necessary, however, to take notice of one revolution that did not take place on similar principles with the others, so far as wealth and luxury are in question; but which has in some respects a similarity, and, in others, is precisely the reverse.About two centuries and a half ago, the Polish nation was one of the most powerful in Europe; Russia could not then, nor for long after, contend with it. The Prussians were its vassals; and the capital of the German empire, when besieged by the Turks, in 1650, owed its safety to the Poles, its brave and faithful allies.Such was the case; but, at this day, the Polish nation is no longer in existence: it is subdued, parcelled out, and divided, amongst those very powers, to any of which it was at least equal, and to the others superior, at so late a period.It may be asked, whether Poland was one of those states that has been borne down by its own wealth and opulence? If its ambition, injustice, or any of the other causes so prominent in the decline of nations, operated in the total extinction of it from the rank of independent states? Not one of those causes operated, but still it is not altogether an exception to the general rule.When the feudal system was established all over Europe, nations under its influence were so far on an equality; and as they all emerged from that situation nearly about the same time, Poland excepted, they still preserved their relative situations. The Poles, during this change in other states, comparatively lost power. Amongst the alterations produced, was that of placing in the hands of the sovereign all the disposable revenue and force of a country, with which standing armies were maintained. Those irregular militias, till then composed of the barons and their retainers; a species of force, at best, far inferior to regular armies, became useless; but particularly so, after the modes of fighting had been changed by the invention of gunpowder, and the adoption of large trains of artillery, which could never have been employed in the feudal armies.The disposable force of Poland and its revenues did not, by any means, keep pace with those of neighbouring nations; and what was still worse, the strength of that unfortunate country was divided; the [end of page #75] monarchy was elective, and foreign influence had a means of exertion, which, under a hereditary line of kings, is not practicable. Poland was not only weaker than its neighbours, but became a prey to intestine divisions, cabal, and intrigue.Though Poland was not wealthy, according to the meaning applied to that word, it was a populous and fertile country, and therefore a desirable possession to the neighbouring states. To Prussia, a most ambitious and aggrandising power, with a military government, and of a very limited extent, it was peculiarly desirable. To Russia, extensive as it is, the fruitful territory was also an object of ambition, from its proximity to the seat of an empire, the most fertile and fine provinces of which lie at a distance. The same desire of possessing what they wanted, operating at the same time on two neighbouring nations, occasioned them to unite their power in a first dismemberment of Poland, for their mutual benefit. The interior convulsions of the country served as a pretext, and its weakness furnished the means of executing the design. In 1772, that independent country first lost some of its finest provinces; but this was only a prelude to its final fall.The nature of ambition is to augment with success, and as the same divisions continued in the state, a pretence for a farther interference in its affairs was easily found; and, in 1794, Poland ceased to be one of the number of European states. In this last seizure, the house of Austria had no immediate hand. It was, however, necessary to have its consent: and, as the aggrandisement of Prussia was not an object of indifference to Austria, participation in the spoils was proposed, as the price of acquiescence, and it was readily accepted.In this case, the weakness of Poland, and the ambition of its rivals and neighbours, were the immediate causes of its destruction; but that weakness arose from a want of true patriotism and proper attention in the people themselves. Jealous of liberties, and disobedient to their king, the Poles were slaves to the feudal proprietors of the soil. Though the first cause was different, yet their divisions and quarrels were the same in effect, as if they had proceeded from real causes of discontent, and a deranged state of society, such as we have seen, when the love of the country is lost. In Poland, that love of the country [end of page #76] was not lost, but it was badly directed, which is nearly the same thing; at least, it is equally dangerous.Why, it may be asked, did not the other powers of Europe interfere? To this, indeed, it would be difficult to give a satisfactory answer. Those who did not interfere, probably, may have cause to repent their indifference. It was an infraction of that sort of federation of nations, which had been found necessary to prevent a repetition of conquests like those of Alexander, or of the Romans; yet, still there is a way of accounting for their conduct, though it cannot be vindicated.In the first place, Poland lays =sic= remote from those powerful nations that have had the greatest sway in modern times. It was not very easy to interfere with great efficacy; besides, as Poland was previously under foreign influence, the essential evil was done. The example of partitions, indeed, was not given, but it is not impossible that some powers on the continent, though they got no share, might not be sorry to see such an example. Britain and Spain certainly could not wish for the example, but others might, and others probably did wish for it.The first division was, besides, only a beginning; some degree of moderation was preserved, and Poland was only mutilated; it was not destroyed. The case was not entirely new, nor without example.The second and last division took place at a time when the nations whose interest it was, and whose wish it might have been to interfere, had not the means of doing so. It was when the republican frenzy in France was at its most desperate height, and whom =sic= the whole of civilized Europe appeared to be in danger.There is one more excuse to be found. The aspect of affairs in Poland resembled, with regard to its revolutions, those of France so much, that those, who at another time would have probably interfered, were rather inclined to co-operate in stifling a rising flame in the north, similar to that which had endangered the whole of the south of Europe.In all this, the thing the most difficult to be accounted for, is the conduct of the Polish nation; but an inquiry into the causes of that would be quite foreign to the present subject: this is, however, an instance of the danger arising from not keeping pace with other nations [end of page #77] in those arts of government, and internal policy, which constitute the power of nations in the general order of things, whatever that may be.Although we have seldom found intestine divisions carried to so blameable a length in any other nation that was not corrupt in itself, yet, it is clear, that the influence obtained by the wealth of its neighbours was at the bottom of those highly blameable, and dreadfully fatal divisions.When aggrandisement is the aim of modern states, there will not now be any difficulty of pleading example; and there is one of those very powers that on this occasion participated in the division which has all the seeds of discord in itself that brought on the ruin of the Polish empire. That power has already felt the effect of example; and, though it may repine, it cannot complain, as it might otherwise have done; or if it does, it cannot expect equal commiseration.EXPLANATION OF THE PLATE INTENDED TO ILLUSTRATE THE RISE AND FALL OF NATIONS.In the chart, at the beginning of the work, the lines, from top to bottom, represent the division of time into centuries, each indicating the year, marked under and above it, in the same way that has been adopted in Dr. Priestley's Chart of Universal History, in works of chronology, and in statements of commerce and finance.The countries that have flourished, whether by commerce, or any other means are supposed to be represented by the parallel spaces from right to left, according to the names written on the right hand.The rise of the black part, something like a distant range of low mountains, shews at what periods the country was great; when its greatness began and when it ended. This plan would be unexceptionally correct, if the materials for it could be procured; but if they were, it would not lead to any very different conclusion from what it does in its present state. The times, when the elevation began, and its duration are exact. The rises and falls are, as nearly as I am able, estimated from existing documents.The part shaded of a darkish colour, and growing gradually lighter at both edges, represent those centuries of ignorance which succeeded the fall of the Roman empire. [end of page #78]At the bottom, on the part not stained, is a chronological list of events, inventions, and discoveries, connected with the subject. Those which are not, however, important or curious, have no place.The commerce of France, Britain, Russia, and America, are upon a true scale with respect to their proportional amount, as well as to their rise and progress. The others are not, owing to want of documents; but, as before observed, the amount has very little to do with the subject; the business is to see how wealth and power were divided at any particular time, if they were rising or falling, or if they were at their height, comparing them with the manners of the people at the time.This is the use of the chart, as to the representation of individual places and nations.The general conclusion is, from taking the whole together, that wealth and power have never been long permanent in any place. That they never have been renewed when once destroyed, though they have had rises and falls, and that they travel over the face of the earth, something like a caravan of merchants. On their arrival, every thing is found green and fresh; while they remain all is bustle and abundance, and, when gone, all is left trampled down, barren, and bare.This chart is a sort of a picture, intended to make those migrations and change of place distinct and easily conceived, on which the whole of this book has been occupied. Being once acquainted with the changes that have taken place, we may more accurately compare them with the state of this country at the present time. Those who will take the trouble to read Ferguson's History of the Roman Republic, and Gibbon's Decline and Fall of the Empire, may form a judgement of the accuracy or inaccuracy of the chart.EXAMPLE OF THE MANNER OF INSPECTING THE CHART.To know when Rome was at the highest pitch of greatness, find, on the right hand, the space marked Roman empire: then look between the lines for the highest part of the dark ground, and look immediately under for the year, it will be seen to be at the birth of Christ, that is, during the reign of Augustus; and by the same means it will be found declining gradually till the year 490. [end of page #79]In like manner, Carthage will be found at the zenith of its power about 300 years before Christ. The founding of Alexandria and the wars with Rome began then to diminish both its wealth and power.It is intended by the author of this to execute a chart of the same sort on a very large scale, and assign to the different powers spaces proportioned to their importance, as nearly as he can ascertain.With respect to the chronology of this chart, to prevent criticisms which might perhaps be made; but do not apply to it, according to the purpose for which it was constructed, the reader is requested to observe, that I am desirous of illustrating a very important investigation, by representing a very confused and long series of events. The result to be derived from this, is not to be affected by any small inaccuracy. In counting before the birth of Christ, having found many different opinions, and much uncertainty relative to dates, (which I neither have abilities nor inclination to investigate,) I measured backwards, without pretending to settle the year of the world, respecting which there are so many different opinions.The materials for ancient history are few, and sometimes not much to be relied upon; but, in great leading facts, such as alone are of use in this picture, the authenticity is not to be doubted.The Assyrian and Egyptian empires had attained wealth and power previous to the time at which this commences. They stood then, and for long after, as if it =sic= were alone in the world; their revolutions, and the rise, prosperity, and decline of other nations, are all represented.I have not wished to continue the view of France, since the revolution, its present real situation is so imperfectly known; and, from what is known of it, it cannot be compared with any other nation, or with itself previous to that period. [end of page #80]========BOOK II.========CHAP. I.Of the Interior Causes of Decline, arising from the Possession of Wealth. -- Its general Operation on the Habits of Life, Manners, Education, and Ways of thinking and acting of the Inhabitants of a Country.AS necessity was the first cause of industry and invention, from which wealth and power arise, it is natural that, when the action of that necessity becomes less urgent, those exertions to which it gave rise will gradually fall away. Though habit may sometimes counteract this tendency, in the individual, yet, taken upon a general scale, and from generation to generation, it must inevitably take place.In this case, an individual who has obtained wealth enjoys an advantage, which no nation ever can expect. With only common prudence, he may cease from exertion or industry, and remain in affluence. If he has property in land, he may let it, and live on the rent; if in money, he may lend it, and live on the interest; but one nation cannot let its lands, or lend its capital to another. It must, by its own industry, render them productive. The great bulk of every nation, then, must be industrious, however wealthy it may be; otherwise, the wealth will soon be dissipated and disappear. The people of Flanders cannot, for example, cultivate the fields of the French, and live in Flanders; and, if the agriculture of a country is neglected, that country must soon become poor and miserable. {67}---{67} We have seen what became of the Romans, when the tribute paid by other nations enabled them to live in idleness. The influx of wealth from America produced nearly the same effect on Spain: though it lasted for a very short time, yet it ruined the country.-=-[end of page #81]It is not absolutely necessary, then, for an individual to conciliate affluence with industry, or, which is the same thing, to preserve one of the effects of necessity, after the necessity has ceased to exist. But if it were possible for a sum of money, or property of any sort, to be given to each individual in a nation, which would be sufficient, in the midst of an industrious people, to enable him to live in perfect idleness, the whole nation could not become idle. Such a case never can exist, as that of all the individuals in a country becoming sufficiently rich to live without labour. But something approaching towards that state of things actually does take place, when, by the general increase of wealth, the necessity for labour is diminished. The number of idle people is constantly augmenting; and even those who continue to labour do it less intensely than when the operation of necessity was more severe. When a cause is diminished, the effect must in time fall off in proportion.With individuals, nature has given very powerful auxiliaries to necessity, which strengthen and prolong its operation, but which do not operate equally on nations.Habit or custom is the one auxiliary, and ambition or avarice is the other.Habit, in all cases, diminishes the reluctance to labour, which is inherent in the most part of mankind, and sometimes entirely overcomes it. {68} Ambition, which appears under many different forms, renders labour absolutely an enjoyment. Sometimes ambition is merely a desire of amassing property, an avaricious disposition: sometimes it is a desire to create a family; and even, sometimes, the vain and delusive idea of retiring from business, and becoming happy in a state of total idleness, spurs a man on to labour. It is a very curious, but well-known fact, that, after necessity has entirely ceased to promote industry, the love of complete idleness, and the hope of enjoying it at some distant date, leads the wealthy man on, to his last hour, in a train of augmented industry. Thus has nature most wisely counteracted---{68} There are many instances where habit has rendered a particular sort of labour absolutely a want. It has become a necessary,-- a means of enjoyment without which life has become a burthen.-=-[end of page #82]the disposition of man to idleness; by making the very propensity to it, after a certain time, active in promoting industry.But this can never be the case with a race of men: {69} and, as a nation consists of a greater number of individuals, so, also, its existence consists of successive generations.There is a difference between idleness and inaction. It is the natural propensity of man to be idle, but not to be inactive. Enjoyment is his aim, after he has secured the means of existence. Enjoyment and idleness are supposed, in many cases, to go hand in hand; at any rate, they can be reconciled, whereas inaction and enjoyment are irreconcilable. {70}But we may still go farther. As taste for any particular enjoyment is acquired when a man is young, and the same taste continues in a more advanced age; a man who has been long in business has had no time to acquire a taste for those enjoyments that are incompatible with, or perhaps that admit of being substituted for it.Reading the study of the fine arts, and such other means of employing time as men enjoy, who, at an early period of life, are exempted from labour, afford no amusement to the man who has been always accustomed to a life of business, {71} with whom there is an absolute ne----{69} It is perhaps amongst chances that seem likely enough; the only one that has never happened, that of a race of misers, in the same lineal descent, for several generations. The reason why I say it never has happened is, that, if it had, the effects would have become so conspicuous, by the riches accumulated, that they could not have passed unobserved.{70} By inaction is not meant the opposite of loco-motion, such as laying =sic= in bed, or basking in the sun; it is supposed that a man, to enjoy himself, must be reading, talking, in company, ordoing something.{71} They sometimes affect this, but it is little else than through vanity. It would be easy to give a hundred striking proofs, but their frequency renders that unnecessary.Hunting and fishing, the two most anxious and painful occupations in the world, are, in all countries, followed by the affluent and idle as amusements; they want to interest the mind, and occupy themselves. Gaming, which is attended with very painful sensations, is followed much more frequently from propensity than from the love of gain; and, indeed, it would appear, that a life without occupations that interest the mind, is of all others the most insipid: it appears to be worse, it appears to be miserable.-=-[end of page #83]cessity of filling up the time in one way or another. A certain portion of time may be spent in company; but even that, to be enjoyed, must be spent in the society of men of the same class. The inducement, then, to a man who has dedicated the first part of his life advantageously to industry, to become idle, is not great, even when he is at free liberty to follow his inclination.It is totally different with a young man; his propensity is to idleness, without any of those favourable circumstances that counteract that propensity. Necessity alone can be expected to operate on him; it is in vain to seek for any other substitute. Not that we mean, by idleness, to signify inaction; but that sort of idleness, which resists regular labour. There is a natural propensity to action, but then it is a propensity that operates irregularly, unless under the influence of necessity. It is a continued and regular exertion, directed to a proper object, that is wanted to obtain wealth; to procure this, it is well to imitate nature, and create necessity.But, in proportion as a nation grows wealthy, that necessity is done away. It is of the art of prolonging necessity, or rather of reconciling necessity with affluence and ease, for which we are going to search, that we may, by that means, reconcile affluence with industry.We must, in the first place, find what the natural operation is by which industry leaves a country.When a country is in a state of poverty, it maintains the same degree of industry, from generation to generation, without any effort. The new race is brought up in the same way that the former was before it, and the same pressure of necessity, acting on the same desire (but no greater desire) to shun labour, produces the same effect at one time that it did at another. The son of a man, who has arrived at a greater degree of affluence than that to which he was born, is generally brought up differently. He is not brought up so hardily in his infancy as his father was, nor so soon called to labour; and probably when he is called to it, he is neither called with so imperious a voice, nor is he so willing to obey the call.Though we do not live long enough to see an example of this operation on a whole nation, the progression being too slow for the life [end of page #84] of a man, yet we see it in different parts of the same country, that are in different degrees of advancement. How frequent are the instances of men, bred in distant counties, (particularly in the North,) bringing all that industry and those habits of labour to London, that the poverty of their parents, and the state of their part of the country naturally occasioned. Some of those have arrived at affluence, and many of them have to competency; and even those who do not arrive at a comparatively higher rank in London, than their father held in his own county, bring up their children in a very different manner.Suppose, for example, a blacksmith, from Northumberland, or a baker, from Scotland, settles in London, as his father did at Newcastle or Edinburgh, his son or sons will be bred very differently from what he was; and, after their father's death, the business will most probably go to some new comer, from a distant county.The father was brought up with the necessity of labouring, or the alternative of wanting food to eat. From his earliest days, he considered himself as fortunate if he could obtain a competent living by honest industry; and this impression, with the habits acquired while it was strong, lead a man, so brought up, to fill his place in life with honour and advantage.The son, who sees that his father is in affluence, and who partakes of the fruits of a whole life of industry, seldom considers that he must continue that industry, otherwise, that the affluence will cease with the life of his father. It is impossible to make a young man, brought up in this manner, feel as his father did; and, not having the same impulse given to him at first, he never can set off in his course of life with the same energy.But the cause of this evil does not stop here. Frequently the mother is an enemy to the industry of her son; and between the workings of real affection, badly exercised, which leads her to humour the lad; and a sort of silly vanity, equally misplaced, she encourages him, if not in idleness, at least, in the hope that he will never need to stoop to incessant industry. It is not necessary to ascertain the absolute portion of idleness and pride that is infused into the young man; that depends [end of page #85] on particular circumstances: {72} but, in most cases, it is sufficient to prevent his following the footsteps of his father with equal energy.Perhaps the capital, or the connections a father leaves in trade, may, in some degree, and for some time, compensate for this; but the instances where they do so are not numerous.This is an example of the manner in which every succeeding generation is brought up differently from that preceding it; but it is an extreme example, and one that, though very real in the individuals, can never suddenly take place on a national scale.The difference between the general affluence of a nation, and the change of its manners during the life of a man, is by no means equal to the difference between a remote province and the capital of an empire; but, though the example is extreme, the same effect is produced, in the course of several generations upon a nation, that was occasioned by change of place in one individual family from father to son. {73}When a change like this takes place in one family, (and there are numerous instances of it every day,) poverty comes on again, and the children fall back into the laborious class of society, probably in a degraded state; but as the evil is supplied by new people rising up, it is little felt on the nation; if, however, it occurs very generally, it must have a bad effect; and, indeed, the best thing that can happen for the---{72} If the mother has been herself born in affluence, she generally has a sort of smothered contempt for the mean origin of her husband. She seldom is fully sensible of the merit by which he has raised himself, and consequently cannot be capable of appreciating the advantage of bringing up her boy in the same way; on the contrary, the habits of industry, which the father acquired at an early age, under the pressure of necessity, are generally secret objects of ridicule to the rest of the family. If, again, the woman has been of low origin in herself, and is become affluent, then matters are ten times worse. Then there is all the pride and vanity that ignorance, and a desire to hide that mean extraction create. Incapable of shewing delicacy and fine breeding in herself, she spoils her harmless children by converting them into specimens of the gentility of the family. For more of this, see the chapter on Education.{73} In Rome, after the taking of Carthage; and in Portugal, immediately after it got possession of the trade to India; the change must have been as great over the whole of the people in one generation, as it is generally between a remote province and near the capital.-=-[end of page #86]general welfare is, that such men may return to a state of insignificance and labour as fast as possible; for, while they remain above that, and in a declining state, they are filling their place in society badly.It is different where the change goes on through a whole country, then no one can supply the place, they are all going the same way, and at nearly the same rate; {74} the consequence will be, that this will not be the fall of a family, but the fall of a whole people; the motion will, indeed, be much more slow, but the moving body will be vastly greater, and the effect will be in proportion.In every nation in Europe there is, between the capital and the distant provinces, a difference of affluence, of wealth, &c. equal to what probably takes place in a nation in one or two centuries. The inhabitants of the capital have some great advantages over those that come from a distance; they have connections, they have money and stock; and, generally speaking, in their early years, they possess a more ready and marketable knowledge. But all these avail nothing against habits of industry, and being taught to expect nothing from others, but to depend all on one's own powers. With this single, but signal, advantage, the sons of the wealthy citizens are always yielding to the son of the peasant; they are one by one giving way, and their places are filled by a new race; while their descendants are sinking into poverty, and filling prisons, poor-houses, and hospitals.This vicissitude is so observable, that it would be unnecessary to dwell upon it were it, =sic= not of such infinite importance. {75}The alarming and lamentable increase of the poor, in proportion as---{74} It is always to be observed, that this reasoning is only applicable in general, and not in every particular case. It has been remarked by the writer of the notes on the Wealth of Nations, that where a fortune is not realized in a family, sufficient to enable it to withdraw entirely from trade, it seldom remains wealthy above two generations. The sons most frequently want intelligence or industry to augment what their father got, and the grandsons have generally dissipation enough to squander entirely away what remains. This is so frequent a case in London, that it may be called the regular routine of the business; and, what arises by regular routine, must be derived from some general and natural cause.{75} In the chapter on Education, this subject is entered into more fully, and the education of women makes a principal part. A subject not noticed by the author of the Wealth of Nations, though very important.-=-[end of page #87]a nation becomes rich, is a proof that it is not in capital cities alone that the effect takes place, but over the whole of a country. {76}In England, the number of inhabitants is about six times the number of those in Scotland; and, perhaps, it costs twice as much to maintain a poor person in the former as in the latter. The sum necessary for the maintenance of the poor in England may then be reckoned at about twelve times as much as in Scotland, in order to preserve a just proportion between the two countries. But the poor cost more than sixty times as much in England as in Scotland; that is, at least five times more than the true proportion that ought to be !!!This, it may be said, is owing to the different manner of managing the business, and, in some degree, it no doubt is; {77} but, as the poor are only maintained in England, and as they are also maintained in Scotland, it would be wrong to allow so great a difference for that alone.In order, however, to put the matter out of all doubt, let us compare England with itself, and we shall find that the poor's rates, or the expense of maintaining the indigent, has increased more rapidly than the price of provisions, or the price of labour. This ought not to be the case, as they would only have augmented in the same proportion, unless the number of poor was increased as well as the price of the provisions they eat, at the same time that the nation is growing more wealthy.
The mariners compass, gunpowder, and the art of printing, were all discovered nearly about the same time; and, independent of their great and permanent effects, they were wonderfully calculated to alter the situation of nations at that period.
The navigation of the ocean, which led to the discovery of a passage to the East Indies, and of America, gave a mortal blow to the nations situated on the borders of the Mediterranean Sea, who thus found themselves deprived of the commerce of the East.
The discovery of gunpowder, a means so powerful of annoying an enemy, without the aid of human force, which places a giant and a dwarf in some sort upon an equality, was wonderfully adapted for doing away the illusions of knight errantry, that had such a powerful effect in making war be preferred to commerce: while printing facilitated the communication of every species of knowledge.
It was then that northern nations began to cultivate arts and sciences, as those of the south under a mild heaven, and on a fertile soil, had done three thousand years before. But ingenuity and invention took a different direction in the north from what they had done in the southern climates; instead of sovereigns and slaves, men were more in mutual want of each other, and therefore a more equal division of the fruits of industry was required.
The manufactures of former times had been confined chiefly to luxuries for the great, and simple necessaries for slaves; and commerce, though productive of great wealth to a few, was in its limits equally confined.
---
{66} For the dates see the chart, and for their effects, chap. i. book ii. [Transcriber's note: See in the Chart "Mariners Compass /Gunpowder/Printing Invented 1300-1400"].
-=-
[end of page #73]
It was natural that the two nations which had first discovered the passage to the East, and the continent of the West, which abounded with the precious metals, should become rich and powerful, as those cities had formerly done that possessed exclusively the channels of commerce. Those two countries were Spain and Portugal; but here again we find the same fatality attend the acquisition of wealth that had formerly been remarked. It was, indeed, not to be expected, that the steadiness and virtue of the Spaniards and Portuguese could resist the operation of a cause, that neither the wisdom of the Egyptians; the arts and industry of Greece, nor the stubborn and martial patriotism of the Romans could withstand.
Those two nations soon sunk, and the Dutch, the French, and the English, became participators of the commerce.
Manufactures were a new source of wealth, almost unknown to the ancient world. Those begun first to be set in activity in Flanders, then in Holland and France, and, last of all, in England; but, like commerce, and every other means by which wealth is acquired, they have a tendency to leave a country. The cause and the effect are at variance, after a certain time; and though we cannot illustrate this from history, as we may the migrations of wealth arising from other sources, the tendency appears of the same nature, though with this difference; that men may always labour for themselves, and enjoy the fruits of their labours, though they cannot always find the means of being the carriers to other nations, or becoming merchants.
This alteration in the nature of wealth; the inventions of mankind; the alterations brought on by the facility of communicating knowledge; the systematical manner in which men pursue their interests, and other changes: give reason to hope that, in the present situation of things, those possessions may be rendered permanent, that have hitherto been found to be so evanescent and fugitive.
Where wealth has not been wrested from a country by absolute force, (in doing which the poorer nations were always successful,) it has emigrated from other causes, and taken up its abode amongst a new people, where circumstances were more favourable for its encouragement. [end of page #74]
Before we leave this recapitulation, it is necessary, however, to take notice of one revolution that did not take place on similar principles with the others, so far as wealth and luxury are in question; but which has in some respects a similarity, and, in others, is precisely the reverse.
About two centuries and a half ago, the Polish nation was one of the most powerful in Europe; Russia could not then, nor for long after, contend with it. The Prussians were its vassals; and the capital of the German empire, when besieged by the Turks, in 1650, owed its safety to the Poles, its brave and faithful allies.
Such was the case; but, at this day, the Polish nation is no longer in existence: it is subdued, parcelled out, and divided, amongst those very powers, to any of which it was at least equal, and to the others superior, at so late a period.
It may be asked, whether Poland was one of those states that has been borne down by its own wealth and opulence? If its ambition, injustice, or any of the other causes so prominent in the decline of nations, operated in the total extinction of it from the rank of independent states? Not one of those causes operated, but still it is not altogether an exception to the general rule.
When the feudal system was established all over Europe, nations under its influence were so far on an equality; and as they all emerged from that situation nearly about the same time, Poland excepted, they still preserved their relative situations. The Poles, during this change in other states, comparatively lost power. Amongst the alterations produced, was that of placing in the hands of the sovereign all the disposable revenue and force of a country, with which standing armies were maintained. Those irregular militias, till then composed of the barons and their retainers; a species of force, at best, far inferior to regular armies, became useless; but particularly so, after the modes of fighting had been changed by the invention of gunpowder, and the adoption of large trains of artillery, which could never have been employed in the feudal armies.
The disposable force of Poland and its revenues did not, by any means, keep pace with those of neighbouring nations; and what was still worse, the strength of that unfortunate country was divided; the [end of page #75] monarchy was elective, and foreign influence had a means of exertion, which, under a hereditary line of kings, is not practicable. Poland was not only weaker than its neighbours, but became a prey to intestine divisions, cabal, and intrigue.
Though Poland was not wealthy, according to the meaning applied to that word, it was a populous and fertile country, and therefore a desirable possession to the neighbouring states. To Prussia, a most ambitious and aggrandising power, with a military government, and of a very limited extent, it was peculiarly desirable. To Russia, extensive as it is, the fruitful territory was also an object of ambition, from its proximity to the seat of an empire, the most fertile and fine provinces of which lie at a distance. The same desire of possessing what they wanted, operating at the same time on two neighbouring nations, occasioned them to unite their power in a first dismemberment of Poland, for their mutual benefit. The interior convulsions of the country served as a pretext, and its weakness furnished the means of executing the design. In 1772, that independent country first lost some of its finest provinces; but this was only a prelude to its final fall.
The nature of ambition is to augment with success, and as the same divisions continued in the state, a pretence for a farther interference in its affairs was easily found; and, in 1794, Poland ceased to be one of the number of European states. In this last seizure, the house of Austria had no immediate hand. It was, however, necessary to have its consent: and, as the aggrandisement of Prussia was not an object of indifference to Austria, participation in the spoils was proposed, as the price of acquiescence, and it was readily accepted.
In this case, the weakness of Poland, and the ambition of its rivals and neighbours, were the immediate causes of its destruction; but that weakness arose from a want of true patriotism and proper attention in the people themselves. Jealous of liberties, and disobedient to their king, the Poles were slaves to the feudal proprietors of the soil. Though the first cause was different, yet their divisions and quarrels were the same in effect, as if they had proceeded from real causes of discontent, and a deranged state of society, such as we have seen, when the love of the country is lost. In Poland, that love of the country [end of page #76] was not lost, but it was badly directed, which is nearly the same thing; at least, it is equally dangerous.
Why, it may be asked, did not the other powers of Europe interfere? To this, indeed, it would be difficult to give a satisfactory answer. Those who did not interfere, probably, may have cause to repent their indifference. It was an infraction of that sort of federation of nations, which had been found necessary to prevent a repetition of conquests like those of Alexander, or of the Romans; yet, still there is a way of accounting for their conduct, though it cannot be vindicated.
In the first place, Poland lays =sic= remote from those powerful nations that have had the greatest sway in modern times. It was not very easy to interfere with great efficacy; besides, as Poland was previously under foreign influence, the essential evil was done. The example of partitions, indeed, was not given, but it is not impossible that some powers on the continent, though they got no share, might not be sorry to see such an example. Britain and Spain certainly could not wish for the example, but others might, and others probably did wish for it.
The first division was, besides, only a beginning; some degree of moderation was preserved, and Poland was only mutilated; it was not destroyed. The case was not entirely new, nor without example.
The second and last division took place at a time when the nations whose interest it was, and whose wish it might have been to interfere, had not the means of doing so. It was when the republican frenzy in France was at its most desperate height, and whom =sic= the whole of civilized Europe appeared to be in danger.
There is one more excuse to be found. The aspect of affairs in Poland resembled, with regard to its revolutions, those of France so much, that those, who at another time would have probably interfered, were rather inclined to co-operate in stifling a rising flame in the north, similar to that which had endangered the whole of the south of Europe.
In all this, the thing the most difficult to be accounted for, is the conduct of the Polish nation; but an inquiry into the causes of that would be quite foreign to the present subject: this is, however, an instance of the danger arising from not keeping pace with other nations [end of page #77] in those arts of government, and internal policy, which constitute the power of nations in the general order of things, whatever that may be.
Although we have seldom found intestine divisions carried to so blameable a length in any other nation that was not corrupt in itself, yet, it is clear, that the influence obtained by the wealth of its neighbours was at the bottom of those highly blameable, and dreadfully fatal divisions.
When aggrandisement is the aim of modern states, there will not now be any difficulty of pleading example; and there is one of those very powers that on this occasion participated in the division which has all the seeds of discord in itself that brought on the ruin of the Polish empire. That power has already felt the effect of example; and, though it may repine, it cannot complain, as it might otherwise have done; or if it does, it cannot expect equal commiseration.
EXPLANATION OF THE PLATE INTENDED TO ILLUSTRATE THE RISE AND FALL OF NATIONS.
In the chart, at the beginning of the work, the lines, from top to bottom, represent the division of time into centuries, each indicating the year, marked under and above it, in the same way that has been adopted in Dr. Priestley's Chart of Universal History, in works of chronology, and in statements of commerce and finance.
The countries that have flourished, whether by commerce, or any other means are supposed to be represented by the parallel spaces from right to left, according to the names written on the right hand.
The rise of the black part, something like a distant range of low mountains, shews at what periods the country was great; when its greatness began and when it ended. This plan would be unexceptionally correct, if the materials for it could be procured; but if they were, it would not lead to any very different conclusion from what it does in its present state. The times, when the elevation began, and its duration are exact. The rises and falls are, as nearly as I am able, estimated from existing documents.
The part shaded of a darkish colour, and growing gradually lighter at both edges, represent those centuries of ignorance which succeeded the fall of the Roman empire. [end of page #78]
At the bottom, on the part not stained, is a chronological list of events, inventions, and discoveries, connected with the subject. Those which are not, however, important or curious, have no place.
The commerce of France, Britain, Russia, and America, are upon a true scale with respect to their proportional amount, as well as to their rise and progress. The others are not, owing to want of documents; but, as before observed, the amount has very little to do with the subject; the business is to see how wealth and power were divided at any particular time, if they were rising or falling, or if they were at their height, comparing them with the manners of the people at the time.
This is the use of the chart, as to the representation of individual places and nations.
The general conclusion is, from taking the whole together, that wealth and power have never been long permanent in any place. That they never have been renewed when once destroyed, though they have had rises and falls, and that they travel over the face of the earth, something like a caravan of merchants. On their arrival, every thing is found green and fresh; while they remain all is bustle and abundance, and, when gone, all is left trampled down, barren, and bare.
This chart is a sort of a picture, intended to make those migrations and change of place distinct and easily conceived, on which the whole of this book has been occupied. Being once acquainted with the changes that have taken place, we may more accurately compare them with the state of this country at the present time. Those who will take the trouble to read Ferguson's History of the Roman Republic, and Gibbon's Decline and Fall of the Empire, may form a judgement of the accuracy or inaccuracy of the chart.
EXAMPLE OF THE MANNER OF INSPECTING THE CHART.
To know when Rome was at the highest pitch of greatness, find, on the right hand, the space marked Roman empire: then look between the lines for the highest part of the dark ground, and look immediately under for the year, it will be seen to be at the birth of Christ, that is, during the reign of Augustus; and by the same means it will be found declining gradually till the year 490. [end of page #79]
In like manner, Carthage will be found at the zenith of its power about 300 years before Christ. The founding of Alexandria and the wars with Rome began then to diminish both its wealth and power.
It is intended by the author of this to execute a chart of the same sort on a very large scale, and assign to the different powers spaces proportioned to their importance, as nearly as he can ascertain.
With respect to the chronology of this chart, to prevent criticisms which might perhaps be made; but do not apply to it, according to the purpose for which it was constructed, the reader is requested to observe, that I am desirous of illustrating a very important investigation, by representing a very confused and long series of events. The result to be derived from this, is not to be affected by any small inaccuracy. In counting before the birth of Christ, having found many different opinions, and much uncertainty relative to dates, (which I neither have abilities nor inclination to investigate,) I measured backwards, without pretending to settle the year of the world, respecting which there are so many different opinions.
The materials for ancient history are few, and sometimes not much to be relied upon; but, in great leading facts, such as alone are of use in this picture, the authenticity is not to be doubted.
The Assyrian and Egyptian empires had attained wealth and power previous to the time at which this commences. They stood then, and for long after, as if it =sic= were alone in the world; their revolutions, and the rise, prosperity, and decline of other nations, are all represented.
I have not wished to continue the view of France, since the revolution, its present real situation is so imperfectly known; and, from what is known of it, it cannot be compared with any other nation, or with itself previous to that period. [end of page #80]
========
BOOK II.
========
CHAP. I.
Of the Interior Causes of Decline, arising from the Possession of Wealth. -- Its general Operation on the Habits of Life, Manners, Education, and Ways of thinking and acting of the Inhabitants of a Country.
AS necessity was the first cause of industry and invention, from which wealth and power arise, it is natural that, when the action of that necessity becomes less urgent, those exertions to which it gave rise will gradually fall away. Though habit may sometimes counteract this tendency, in the individual, yet, taken upon a general scale, and from generation to generation, it must inevitably take place.
In this case, an individual who has obtained wealth enjoys an advantage, which no nation ever can expect. With only common prudence, he may cease from exertion or industry, and remain in affluence. If he has property in land, he may let it, and live on the rent; if in money, he may lend it, and live on the interest; but one nation cannot let its lands, or lend its capital to another. It must, by its own industry, render them productive. The great bulk of every nation, then, must be industrious, however wealthy it may be; otherwise, the wealth will soon be dissipated and disappear. The people of Flanders cannot, for example, cultivate the fields of the French, and live in Flanders; and, if the agriculture of a country is neglected, that country must soon become poor and miserable. {67}
---
{67} We have seen what became of the Romans, when the tribute paid by other nations enabled them to live in idleness. The influx of wealth from America produced nearly the same effect on Spain: though it lasted for a very short time, yet it ruined the country.
-=-
[end of page #81]
It is not absolutely necessary, then, for an individual to conciliate affluence with industry, or, which is the same thing, to preserve one of the effects of necessity, after the necessity has ceased to exist. But if it were possible for a sum of money, or property of any sort, to be given to each individual in a nation, which would be sufficient, in the midst of an industrious people, to enable him to live in perfect idleness, the whole nation could not become idle. Such a case never can exist, as that of all the individuals in a country becoming sufficiently rich to live without labour. But something approaching towards that state of things actually does take place, when, by the general increase of wealth, the necessity for labour is diminished. The number of idle people is constantly augmenting; and even those who continue to labour do it less intensely than when the operation of necessity was more severe. When a cause is diminished, the effect must in time fall off in proportion.
With individuals, nature has given very powerful auxiliaries to necessity, which strengthen and prolong its operation, but which do not operate equally on nations.
Habit or custom is the one auxiliary, and ambition or avarice is the other.
Habit, in all cases, diminishes the reluctance to labour, which is inherent in the most part of mankind, and sometimes entirely overcomes it. {68} Ambition, which appears under many different forms, renders labour absolutely an enjoyment. Sometimes ambition is merely a desire of amassing property, an avaricious disposition: sometimes it is a desire to create a family; and even, sometimes, the vain and delusive idea of retiring from business, and becoming happy in a state of total idleness, spurs a man on to labour. It is a very curious, but well-known fact, that, after necessity has entirely ceased to promote industry, the love of complete idleness, and the hope of enjoying it at some distant date, leads the wealthy man on, to his last hour, in a train of augmented industry. Thus has nature most wisely counteracted
---
{68} There are many instances where habit has rendered a particular sort of labour absolutely a want. It has become a necessary,-- a means of enjoyment without which life has become a burthen.
-=-
[end of page #82]
the disposition of man to idleness; by making the very propensity to it, after a certain time, active in promoting industry.
But this can never be the case with a race of men: {69} and, as a nation consists of a greater number of individuals, so, also, its existence consists of successive generations.
There is a difference between idleness and inaction. It is the natural propensity of man to be idle, but not to be inactive. Enjoyment is his aim, after he has secured the means of existence. Enjoyment and idleness are supposed, in many cases, to go hand in hand; at any rate, they can be reconciled, whereas inaction and enjoyment are irreconcilable. {70}
But we may still go farther. As taste for any particular enjoyment is acquired when a man is young, and the same taste continues in a more advanced age; a man who has been long in business has had no time to acquire a taste for those enjoyments that are incompatible with, or perhaps that admit of being substituted for it.
Reading the study of the fine arts, and such other means of employing time as men enjoy, who, at an early period of life, are exempted from labour, afford no amusement to the man who has been always accustomed to a life of business, {71} with whom there is an absolute ne-
---
{69} It is perhaps amongst chances that seem likely enough; the only one that has never happened, that of a race of misers, in the same lineal descent, for several generations. The reason why I say it never has happened is, that, if it had, the effects would have become so conspicuous, by the riches accumulated, that they could not have passed unobserved.
{70} By inaction is not meant the opposite of loco-motion, such as laying =sic= in bed, or basking in the sun; it is supposed that a man, to enjoy himself, must be reading, talking, in company, ordoing something.
{71} They sometimes affect this, but it is little else than through vanity. It would be easy to give a hundred striking proofs, but their frequency renders that unnecessary.
Hunting and fishing, the two most anxious and painful occupations in the world, are, in all countries, followed by the affluent and idle as amusements; they want to interest the mind, and occupy themselves. Gaming, which is attended with very painful sensations, is followed much more frequently from propensity than from the love of gain; and, indeed, it would appear, that a life without occupations that interest the mind, is of all others the most insipid: it appears to be worse, it appears to be miserable.
-=-
[end of page #83]
cessity of filling up the time in one way or another. A certain portion of time may be spent in company; but even that, to be enjoyed, must be spent in the society of men of the same class. The inducement, then, to a man who has dedicated the first part of his life advantageously to industry, to become idle, is not great, even when he is at free liberty to follow his inclination.
It is totally different with a young man; his propensity is to idleness, without any of those favourable circumstances that counteract that propensity. Necessity alone can be expected to operate on him; it is in vain to seek for any other substitute. Not that we mean, by idleness, to signify inaction; but that sort of idleness, which resists regular labour. There is a natural propensity to action, but then it is a propensity that operates irregularly, unless under the influence of necessity. It is a continued and regular exertion, directed to a proper object, that is wanted to obtain wealth; to procure this, it is well to imitate nature, and create necessity.
But, in proportion as a nation grows wealthy, that necessity is done away. It is of the art of prolonging necessity, or rather of reconciling necessity with affluence and ease, for which we are going to search, that we may, by that means, reconcile affluence with industry.
We must, in the first place, find what the natural operation is by which industry leaves a country.
When a country is in a state of poverty, it maintains the same degree of industry, from generation to generation, without any effort. The new race is brought up in the same way that the former was before it, and the same pressure of necessity, acting on the same desire (but no greater desire) to shun labour, produces the same effect at one time that it did at another. The son of a man, who has arrived at a greater degree of affluence than that to which he was born, is generally brought up differently. He is not brought up so hardily in his infancy as his father was, nor so soon called to labour; and probably when he is called to it, he is neither called with so imperious a voice, nor is he so willing to obey the call.
Though we do not live long enough to see an example of this operation on a whole nation, the progression being too slow for the life [end of page #84] of a man, yet we see it in different parts of the same country, that are in different degrees of advancement. How frequent are the instances of men, bred in distant counties, (particularly in the North,) bringing all that industry and those habits of labour to London, that the poverty of their parents, and the state of their part of the country naturally occasioned. Some of those have arrived at affluence, and many of them have to competency; and even those who do not arrive at a comparatively higher rank in London, than their father held in his own county, bring up their children in a very different manner.
Suppose, for example, a blacksmith, from Northumberland, or a baker, from Scotland, settles in London, as his father did at Newcastle or Edinburgh, his son or sons will be bred very differently from what he was; and, after their father's death, the business will most probably go to some new comer, from a distant county.
The father was brought up with the necessity of labouring, or the alternative of wanting food to eat. From his earliest days, he considered himself as fortunate if he could obtain a competent living by honest industry; and this impression, with the habits acquired while it was strong, lead a man, so brought up, to fill his place in life with honour and advantage.
The son, who sees that his father is in affluence, and who partakes of the fruits of a whole life of industry, seldom considers that he must continue that industry, otherwise, that the affluence will cease with the life of his father. It is impossible to make a young man, brought up in this manner, feel as his father did; and, not having the same impulse given to him at first, he never can set off in his course of life with the same energy.
But the cause of this evil does not stop here. Frequently the mother is an enemy to the industry of her son; and between the workings of real affection, badly exercised, which leads her to humour the lad; and a sort of silly vanity, equally misplaced, she encourages him, if not in idleness, at least, in the hope that he will never need to stoop to incessant industry. It is not necessary to ascertain the absolute portion of idleness and pride that is infused into the young man; that depends [end of page #85] on particular circumstances: {72} but, in most cases, it is sufficient to prevent his following the footsteps of his father with equal energy.
Perhaps the capital, or the connections a father leaves in trade, may, in some degree, and for some time, compensate for this; but the instances where they do so are not numerous.
This is an example of the manner in which every succeeding generation is brought up differently from that preceding it; but it is an extreme example, and one that, though very real in the individuals, can never suddenly take place on a national scale.
The difference between the general affluence of a nation, and the change of its manners during the life of a man, is by no means equal to the difference between a remote province and the capital of an empire; but, though the example is extreme, the same effect is produced, in the course of several generations upon a nation, that was occasioned by change of place in one individual family from father to son. {73}
When a change like this takes place in one family, (and there are numerous instances of it every day,) poverty comes on again, and the children fall back into the laborious class of society, probably in a degraded state; but as the evil is supplied by new people rising up, it is little felt on the nation; if, however, it occurs very generally, it must have a bad effect; and, indeed, the best thing that can happen for the
---
{72} If the mother has been herself born in affluence, she generally has a sort of smothered contempt for the mean origin of her husband. She seldom is fully sensible of the merit by which he has raised himself, and consequently cannot be capable of appreciating the advantage of bringing up her boy in the same way; on the contrary, the habits of industry, which the father acquired at an early age, under the pressure of necessity, are generally secret objects of ridicule to the rest of the family. If, again, the woman has been of low origin in herself, and is become affluent, then matters are ten times worse. Then there is all the pride and vanity that ignorance, and a desire to hide that mean extraction create. Incapable of shewing delicacy and fine breeding in herself, she spoils her harmless children by converting them into specimens of the gentility of the family. For more of this, see the chapter on Education.
{73} In Rome, after the taking of Carthage; and in Portugal, immediately after it got possession of the trade to India; the change must have been as great over the whole of the people in one generation, as it is generally between a remote province and near the capital.
-=-
[end of page #86]
general welfare is, that such men may return to a state of insignificance and labour as fast as possible; for, while they remain above that, and in a declining state, they are filling their place in society badly.
It is different where the change goes on through a whole country, then no one can supply the place, they are all going the same way, and at nearly the same rate; {74} the consequence will be, that this will not be the fall of a family, but the fall of a whole people; the motion will, indeed, be much more slow, but the moving body will be vastly greater, and the effect will be in proportion.
In every nation in Europe there is, between the capital and the distant provinces, a difference of affluence, of wealth, &c. equal to what probably takes place in a nation in one or two centuries. The inhabitants of the capital have some great advantages over those that come from a distance; they have connections, they have money and stock; and, generally speaking, in their early years, they possess a more ready and marketable knowledge. But all these avail nothing against habits of industry, and being taught to expect nothing from others, but to depend all on one's own powers. With this single, but signal, advantage, the sons of the wealthy citizens are always yielding to the son of the peasant; they are one by one giving way, and their places are filled by a new race; while their descendants are sinking into poverty, and filling prisons, poor-houses, and hospitals.
This vicissitude is so observable, that it would be unnecessary to dwell upon it were it, =sic= not of such infinite importance. {75}
The alarming and lamentable increase of the poor, in proportion as
---
{74} It is always to be observed, that this reasoning is only applicable in general, and not in every particular case. It has been remarked by the writer of the notes on the Wealth of Nations, that where a fortune is not realized in a family, sufficient to enable it to withdraw entirely from trade, it seldom remains wealthy above two generations. The sons most frequently want intelligence or industry to augment what their father got, and the grandsons have generally dissipation enough to squander entirely away what remains. This is so frequent a case in London, that it may be called the regular routine of the business; and, what arises by regular routine, must be derived from some general and natural cause.
{75} In the chapter on Education, this subject is entered into more fully, and the education of women makes a principal part. A subject not noticed by the author of the Wealth of Nations, though very important.
-=-
[end of page #87]
a nation becomes rich, is a proof that it is not in capital cities alone that the effect takes place, but over the whole of a country. {76}
In England, the number of inhabitants is about six times the number of those in Scotland; and, perhaps, it costs twice as much to maintain a poor person in the former as in the latter. The sum necessary for the maintenance of the poor in England may then be reckoned at about twelve times as much as in Scotland, in order to preserve a just proportion between the two countries. But the poor cost more than sixty times as much in England as in Scotland; that is, at least five times more than the true proportion that ought to be !!!
This, it may be said, is owing to the different manner of managing the business, and, in some degree, it no doubt is; {77} but, as the poor are only maintained in England, and as they are also maintained in Scotland, it would be wrong to allow so great a difference for that alone.
In order, however, to put the matter out of all doubt, let us compare England with itself, and we shall find that the poor's rates, or the expense of maintaining the indigent, has increased more rapidly than the price of provisions, or the price of labour. This ought not to be the case, as they would only have augmented in the same proportion, unless the number of poor was increased as well as the price of the provisions they eat, at the same time that the nation is growing more wealthy.