Chapter IX: Part 9

The Navigation Act was, if you will have it so, the last effort of the human mind, at a time when every notion relative to commerce, was nearly confined to _England_ alone; but I question much whether the _Opposition_ the most warm in invoking that tutelary God, against the Minister who dares to offer the least encroachment upon its worship, would not be very much pleased to see it destroyed before they themselves should come into office: it is an old idol, to which incense is offered through mere policy, and for which a veneration is kept up in the minds of the people, for the sole purpose of making it subservient to the downfall of the man who might be courageous enough to attempt its destruction. I shall pass over in silence the obstacles which that famous Act daily opposes to regulations as well adapted to the present state of things, as those it contains were to the circumstances that gave it birth; but, to the intoxication produced by its success, I shall be bold enough to impute one of the most mistaken notions on the true aim of national commerce: it is a very fatal error, to imagine that money ought to be the _object_ of those operations of which it is only the _means_. This chimera, it is true, has never been realised; the wisdom of private cupidities has always triumphed over the folly of general cupidity: nothing more clear than the exactness with which the treasures of _America_ have been shared amongst all the nations of _Europe_, each in proportion to her agriculture and her industry, that is, according to her wants: at least it appears to me, that the two balances of _England_ and _France_, which I have produced, are incontrovertible proofs of what I here advance, though they have been imagined and received as proofs of the very contrary; nevertheless, the prejudice concerning these two _formidable balances_ still subsists, and it is this prejudice which daily gives life to new prohibitions, and new restrictions: there is not perhaps in all _Europe_, a single modern regulation of that kind which does not owe its establishment to this prejudice, and to the power it derives from the veneration paid to it in the place where it was first conceived. The nation who takes the lead in point of commercial knowledge, is every where carefully watched. On the least of her operations, other nations make use of the light she has held forth; her principles are studied, her maxims adopted, her examples followed; every where they are on their guard against her pretensions, pretensions openly avowed, prosecuted without mystery, and crowned, as it is supposed, with success; and when they see, that within the course of a twelvemonth, she has really received more gold and silver than she was wont to receive in three years; when they see the intoxication of her inhabitants on the arrival of those treasures which obey her call from all parts of _Europe_; when they hear the complaints of her news-paper writers against the untractableness of the _Americans_, in not suffering themselves to be entirely stripped of their specie; when they attend to her invectives on the combinations of the _American_ merchants to prevent those of _England_ from taking away that trifling sum in specie which the _United States_ want, to give more consistency to their paper-money;—_then_, indeed, _then_ it is possible to forget every thing else; it is possible not to remark, that, with the same excess of avowed cupidity, _England_, nevertheless, has not received, in the course of a whole century, (_a period sufficient to determine an experiment_) _England_, I say, during a whole century, has disdained to receive her dividend of the treasures imported into _Europe_; the paper-money circulating in _England_ stands evidently in lieu of a great part of the sum it represents, _and which it was at her own option to procure_. It is also very pardonable not to reflect _then_, that it is impossible for _England_ to keep long in her hands without hurting herself, more than any other nation, any money above what is necessary for her. No one takes the trouble of arguing long on causes, when the effect is instantaneously and powerfully felt: _Not ~Europe~ alone, but the ~United States~ of ~America~, are stript of their money by ~England~; ~England~ therefore wants not any longer to import foreign goods, or when she advances the price of her own merchandise, she refuses paying dearer for that of other nations._ The other nations do not hesitate—_English_ goods are instantly prohibited.

The following principles are such as, I think, can never mislead.

There is not a single nation that cannot boast some palpable advantage over another; nay, there is not a nation, a single province, that has not received some peculiar favour from nature, which the same soil to all appearance, the same temperature, the same exposure, refuse to yield any where else but _with double the labour, and double the expence_, and which, even with such additional aids, they yield at last only in a state of degradation. Now, that portion of such peculiar favours, which the proprietor of the land does not chuse to consume, belongs only to the greatest quantity of other favours that it is possible to procure in exchange. The more the proprietor procures of such other favours in exchange, the more is he encouraged to increase the quantity of articles which have enabled him to procure those favours; on the contrary, the more he is restrained with regard to those exchanges which he might procure, the more he is circumscribed, even in his means of production. Every restriction therefore tending to diminish either the production or the price of any article whatever, is a theft committed upon the proprietor of the land, upon the province blessed with that favour which is peculiar to it, upon the nation whose general revenue is decreased by the whole amount of the productions stifled in the very bud, upon the exchequer of that nation which would receive a duty on those productions; and finally upon every one capable of presenting the nation with another exchangeable commodity, or waiting only to see those productions, in order to create an equivalent to pay for them.—Does it signify in what part of the world? Must it not, at last, reach the original proprietor, if he be not paid?

What is said of the productions of agriculture, may be applied to those of industry. It is a gross mistake to imagine, that all things can be equally well manufactured every where: how many fabrics, the perfection of which depends on the quality of the water, and other local causes for which it is impossible to account! How many more derive their perfection from the bent of national genius, from the general dispositions, the natural qualities of the inhabitants! Can we expect from the vivacity of the _Frenchman_, who desires only to consume, what we may expect from the patience of the _Englishman_, who labours only to enjoy? This latter will always, and in spite of himself, give to his work a solidity which will increase its price as well as its value; the other, in spite of himself, will be busy about the forms best calculated to procure a quick sale: objects of real comfort will always belong to the former, the latter will ever lead the fashions. To hope that the one will produce, without difficulty, what costs little or nothing to the other, would be attempting to give to the wines of hot countries the pleasing acidity proper to the wines of _Germany_; to these, the restorative and balsamic qualities of the _Spanish_ and _Italian_ wines in the places where they understand how to make them; to the wines of _Italy_ and _Germany_, that native generosity proper to the wine of _Bordeaux_; to all of them, the flavour of _Burgundy_ and the sprightliness of _Champaign_. It is possible, say they, to imitate every thing;—say rather, to adulterate, to corrupt, nay even to poison every thing, if Art can find no other way to counterfeit Nature: _and these are the blessed effects of restrictions and prohibitions_. It is a strange idea, to think of doing without others; as if that did not lead them to think of doing without us; as if the savage, of whom I have spoken, had not the same reason to prefer his state to that of civilisation.

Nor would it be less strange to persist in setting the interest of the people in opposition to that of the Exchequer, if it were possible to reconcile them together, _instead of rendering, almost on every object at present, the infamous trade of informers more lucrative than labour_.

Smuggling is hurtful to the State; it deprives government of the duties on the articles smuggled into or out of the kingdom; but is it so very advantageous to succeed in the measures adopted to prevent it, if by bartering a great number of honest smugglers against a great number of informers and a great number of custom-house imps, you make so many thieves of the first, so many much more contemptible wretches of the second, a rabble almost equally vile as the third; and succeed, at the same time, in debasing in the hands of several manufacturers and landed proprietors, the value of all those articles, which were before taken from them by the smugglers to their mutual benefit?

_England_, it is true, suffered no damage, when a prodigious quantity of _English_ goods, which are not comprehended in the _modest_ balance with _France_, as stated by Sir _Charles Whitworth_, because they were introduced into _France_ by smugglers, were sold nevertheless, without much ado, all over that kingdom, and particularly in _Paris_, publicly advertised on the shop-boards, in large gold letters;—but had not _France_ some reason to think herself ill used, when an equal quantity of _French_ goods, introduced also by smugglers into _England_, without any information given to Sir _Charles_, ceased to pay the value of the goods smuggled from _England_, and sold publicly all over _France_, and when, instead of a small balance, sometimes given, sometimes received, _France_ found herself obliged to remit to _London_ an enormous sum in hard cash, for payments which she had hitherto discharged in merchandise?

It is a pitiful policy on the part of _France_, (as remarked very justly in all the _English_ papers after the first of _August_, 1785) to deprive herself of a thousand _English_ luxuries which she is so fond of, and which she is so able to procure;—but is _English_ policy much better, in rejecting thousands of _French_ luxuries, which she finds so pleasing, and which she is so able to pay for?

Smuggling is but a very poor corrective, a partial corrective, of the iniquity ever attendant on Monopoly;—a feeble compensation for the restrictions and prohibitions obtained in its favour: Smuggling, duly considered in this light, is but too just; and it is shocking to be obliged to punish so barbarously the unhappy men who gain a living by it. But will not this necessity be removed, together with smuggling itself, at the very moment that to those absurd regulations which encourage that practice, shall be substituted a system of bartering, equally advantageous to the nations which now find a benefit in smuggling?—a system, which would mutually furnish to all parties interested, all the means of introducing and procuring, in the best condition, at the cheapest rate, with the least risk, and with the greatest advantage to the Treasury, every article which before was introduced and procured at a greater risk, almost always dearer, of the worst quality, and to the detriment of the public revenue.

Let me ask whether that mass of prohibitions and restrictions, which _legally_ establishes monopoly in _England_, be any thing more than a mass of privileges granted to a chosen few, to the prejudice of the whole community? Were we to look at every particular regulation, and consider it distinctly, is there one which would not find the whole nation against it, _except the humble Petitioners who share in the benefit_? And must it not be very strange to imagine, very absurd to say, and above human power to effect, that a system of regulations, not one of which favours above one man against thousands, should, upon the whole, be serviceable to the State?

Independent of the advantages which would arise from a truly free and judicious system of commerce, viz. 1st, That of procuring what we have not, by means of some article which we have in abundance, and which our neighbours want;—2dly, The bartering of the superfluity of our best articles in one kind, for the superfluity of what is best in a different kind;—3dly, Not to barter what we can make cheaper than others, except for goods which would cost us more were we to manufacture them;—independent, I say, of these three, advantages, where would be the inconvenience, though our bartering should be confined merely to the innocent folly of exchanging one toy for another, or one rag for another? The great, the true, the only advantage, of an exchange of property, would not even in this case be lost to mankind; the man who is employed only in marking the game, while two persons are amusing themselves, whole days, in tossing a ball from one to the other in a tennis-court, is nevertheless supported at the expence of the players. And are not the owner of the court, his wife and children, maintained likewise at their cost? If, having considered the Exchequer metaphorically, under the type of the Keeper of the Tennis Court, we afterwards, without a metaphor, consider this Keeper as a poor man who chooses this way of subsistence, do not the players pay this tax (which they impose on themselves) in favour of the poor, with more pleasure, though the tax may be greater, than a certain other tax, which perhaps becomes necessary, only from the difficulties with which we embarrass both the game of passing from one parish to another, and the game of imports and exports, which is as innocent, and more lucrative than that of tennis?

_The nominal Value of the generality of Exports, considered in different Periods, and with respect to its Effect on foreign Correspondence._

When a manufacturer is compelled, by the general augmentation of prices, arising from taxation, to pay his workmen and materials ten _per cent._ I suppose, dearer than usual, and he exports 1000 hats, _upon each of which_ a draw-back of 6 shillings, I will suppose, is allowed him on exportation, he does not reflect on the difference of 10 _per cent._ diffused through the general run of prices, by the mechanical reaction of the total of the taxes on all that is not taxed; he remembers well the effect of this reaction in the account which he makes out for himself, to know at what rate he must in future sell his hats in foreign markets; he only considers the draw-back, the remittance of the 6 shillings duty, and concludes that it puts him in a situation to deal with foreigners on the same terms as he did previous to the taxes, which have increased every thing to the amount of 10 _per cent_. Nevertheless, the thousand hats, with which, previous to the taxes, he furnished his foreign friends for 1000_l._ I will suppose, are now raised to 1200_l._—Point out this circumstance to him, he will tell you he cannot sell his hats cheaper, and that foreigners must pay 1200_l._ instead of 1000_l._ since the foreigner wants them. “Besides, (says he) what is the sum of two hundred pounds more, divided among a thousand persons, who will purchase the hats from the merchant abroad, to whom he sells them?” The manufacturer does not want to look further; and the writer who from the nature of his subject, or his manner of considering it, wants only to reflect a little more, will only add, _Thus it is that foreigners pay our taxes, and never suspect that they do so_. This is the truth, but not the whole truth. I shall endeavour to find it out.

The general trade of _England_ with the rest of _Europe_ is not confined to some thousands of pounds sterling, to be settled once for all; it is an immense sum, _which must_ be renewed every year. Let us begin by being thoroughly convinced of this necessity, in order to submit to its consequences: we shall find moreover that these consequences are not destructive.

The annual exports of _England_ amount to about a fifth of the products of her industry, and consequently represent about a fifth of the labour of her artificers.

If the taxes, after the war of 1755, had raised the price of every thing at the rate of 10 _per cent._ (I can err but by a little more or less) the total of her exports, which, before that war, amounted, on a medium of ten years, (see Sir _Charles Whitworth_) only to a sum of 12,776,614 pounds sterling, let us say 13 millions, amounted, after the peace, to 14 millions 300 thousand.

Let us now suppose the trade of _England_ exhibiting to its foreign correspondents, in the year 1762, this total in exports of 13 millions (at the old prices) under the name of 14 millions 300 thousand pounds, (a price rendered unavoidable by the advance in the prices of all commodities, on account of the taxes); and let us suppose these correspondents to have, really and annually, no more to pay them than 13 millions of their own manufactures, indicated by this modest number, because they had not the honour to support, during seven years, a war the most brilliant and successful in the memory of man, in _Germany_, _America_, and _India_. I think one of the three following consequences must be the result:

_Either_

That the total of _English_ exports must have been reduced from 14 millions 300 thousand pounds to 13 millions, for want of means in our foreign buyers to pay the whole amount of _English_ exports at their advanced price:

_Or_,

That _England_ must have been complaisant enough to call 13 millions, in a foreign market, the amount of her exports, which the effects of her new taxes obliged her to call 14 millions 300 thousand pounds at home:

_Or_,

That _England_ must have allowed her foreign connexions to call 14 millions 300 thousand pounds the same quantity and quality of their manufactures, which, before the effect of _English_ taxation, they called only 13 millions, and which, _till then_, had made the balance of what they imported from _England_.

In the first case, the _English_ manufactories, which furnish the exports, would have been necessarily reduced one tenth; upon which it is necessary to observe, that the tenth of the _English_ exportation makes a fiftieth of the total value of the product of her industry, and that the inutility of the fiftieth of those products, occasioned by the impossibility of their being purchased by foreigners at the price occasioned by the _English_ new taxes, must have deprived of subsistence, as well as of employment, a fiftieth of the _English_ artisans, and rendered useless a fiftieth of the capitals appropriated to exportation.

In the second case, the prices of commodities would not be perceptibly increased any where else but in _England_; the prices of her correspondents would have been, ten years after the peace, almost as they were in 1754.

In the third case, the prices would have increased, among the foreign correspondents of the _English_, nearly in the same proportion as in _England_.

The first case is evidently false, since Sir _Charles Whitworth_’s _Statements_ prove that the exports of _England_, which amounted, as we have before observed, upon a medium of 10 years before the war, only to 12 millions 776,614 pounds sterling, amounted, upon a medium of 10 years after the peace, to 14 millions 921,067 pounds sterling, and even to 15 millions 11,211 pounds sterling, if we take a medium of 12 years from the peace to 1773, at which period Sir _Charles Whitworth_’s _Statements_ conclude; (which exhibits, _independently of the nominal augmentation supposed to have been occasioned by the taxes_, a _real_ augmentation of about a 17th, notwithstanding _the real vacuum owing to the loss of those men who would have increased this exportation, if they had not perished in ~Germany~, ~India~, ~America~, and at sea_.)

The second case is more universally acknowledged to be false, since there is not a single country in _Europe_ where the price of every thing has not, upon a medium, increased at least 10 _per cent._ from 1754 to 1770;—which proves the truth of the third case:—thus it happens that foreigners have paid the old taxes of _England_, without suspecting it; as _England_ does not, in the least, suspect that those taxes are no longer paid either in _England_ or elsewhere, although their produce returns nevertheless to the public creditor.

Let us consider, however, whether this general increase of prices could finally prove prejudicial to _England_, or to her connexions abroad.

It could not prove so to _England_, because she was obliged to submit to this increase, or else to give up the manufacturing of a tenth of the commodities she exported to foreign countries (_where she exports nothing of what she can sell at home_), and because a deficiency of a 10th of her exports would have inevitably deprived a 50th of her artisans of sustenance, and rendered useless a 50th of the capitals devoted to exportation. Besides, considering this object in another light, what loss would _England_ sustain by receiving, under the denomination of 14, I suppose, the same commodities which before were furnished for 13, while she gave for the purchase, only 13 (old prices) which the effect of taxation made her call 14?

It could not prejudice her foreign connexions, because this increase of prices, which _abroad was not owing to taxation_, was only an encouragement to labour, which must in general have increased its products, always entitled to a profit over and above the price paid for that labour.

A circumstance which was necessary for _England_, without doing her the least harm, has, then, proved useful to the rest of _Europe_.⸺

But let up remark two very essential points:

The first is, that it is impossible in the nature of things, to keep up foreign consumption, _upon which depends the continuation of our exports_, without giving foreigners leave to increase the price of theirs, by so much as the commodities carried to them must be increased by our taxes;—in the same manner as it is impossible in the nature of things, to keep up interior consumption, national consumption, _upon which depends the payment of taxes_, without a general interior increase in the price of labour, as well as in the price of its products, when the wants of the State require new contributions.

The second observation which I deem equally essential, is, that such a work, (_a work of an utility which may be called universal_) has been brought about, consummated, without the Ministers of any State whatsoever being entitled to any glory from the event, except that of having facilitated the operation, if they have favoured the general liberty of communication in all articles of trade; and without their having deserved any other blame but that of retarding it, if their zeal, their greediness for the _favourable balance_, has suggested to them any _device_ to attract and overthrow it in the only country entrusted to their management. We must universally ruin Credit, Trade, Commerce, and the Banking business, if we pretend to prevent Wealth from extending itself universally, a little sooner or later. _The owner of any kind of riches whatever, has it not in his power to do any thing else, but to choose the place, the object, and the time, of giving the first motion_; all the rest is merely the effect of a stone cast into the water: observe how the undulations succeed one another, how they are renewed and extended;—can you fix the point where they shall stop?—We pretend to direct them!—_Scilicet is superûm labor est?_ ... _Istæne animia cœlestibus curæ?_—Indeed, indeed, too many cares occupy the minds of our Gods!

I return to the grand points.

Methinks upon viewing the picture I have drawn, it is easy now to conceive, why, as I have observed in page 62, _a person, however strongly convinced of the cruel effect which ought naturally to arise from a debt of 64 millions sterling, contracted from 1754 to 1762, could not nevertheless cite in ~England~, from 1763 to 1775, a single indication of a decay in agriculture or commerce, nor any falling-off in the enjoyment of luxury, public or private, nor less insolence in the bulk of the people_. The reason is this: the two capitalists, who failed not to increase the price of every thing they were concerned in, according to the exigency of the taxes, determined also (_after a few little formalities, always necessary with regard to the people, when nothing but luxury has been taxed_) to augment the price of labour in proportion to that of its products; foreigners, on the other hand, raised the price of their goods in proportion as taxes had increased the goods of _England_ exported to them; and the old equilibrium was restored every where, as soon as the general increase of prices had made the general power of consumption, equal to the need the State was in of an exterior as well as an interior, _i. e._ of a foreign as well as a national consumption, in order that all the taxes might be productive.

But if the debt of 64 millions, contracted from 1754 to 1762, had increased, by 10 _per cent._ the nominal value of all merchandise exported from _England_ since that period, how shall we prevent the 60 millions of the last debt, from increasing, from 8 to 10 _per cent._ the nominal value of all commodities to be exported after this later period?

And if the general augmentation of prices, which has clearly followed the debt contracted in _England_ from 1754 to 1762, has proved advantageous to all _Europe_, without hurting _England_, why should not the general increase of prices, which results, and will inevitably result from the last _English_ debt, prove unprejudicial to _England_, although it will prove advantageous to all _Europe_?

But if this increase of 10 _per cent._ generally acknowledged, in the price of all merchandise in _Europe_, had extended only to the products of industry; if the price of the total of the produce of agriculture had not increased in the same proportion;—_had not Nature always silently and successfully opposed all the dreams of speculation on this head, to what a degree of misery and wretchedness would not agriculture have been reduced in all parts of our so much enlightened ~Europe~!_—It was not so.[10]

The quantity of wheat sold at _Berne_ at 69 _batz_, on a medium of five years taken from 1751 to 1755, was sold for 92⅗ _batz_ from 1766 to 1770.

The quantity of wheat sold at _Dijon_ at the lowest, 2_l._ 11_s._ 5_d._ on a medium of 5 years from 1753 to 1757, was sold at the lowest, 4_l._ 5_s._ 9_d._ on a medium of 5 years from 1766 to 1770.

The quantity of wheat sold at _Bâle_ for 9_l._ 9_s._ on a medium of 5 years from 1754 to 1758, was sold for 13_l._ 14_s._ 2_d._ on a medium of 5 years from 1766 to 1770.

The quantity of wheat sold at _Geneva_ for 27 _florins_, on a medium of 5 years from 1751 to 1755, was sold for 37 _florins_, on a medium of 5 years from 1766 to 1770, (see _Arthur Young_’s Political Arithmetic.)

We find upon the total, from 1755 to 1770, as I observed in my _Reflexions on a singular revolution in France_, about 40 _per cent._ increase in the price of wheat.—Ten _per cent._ was enough to discharge, without expence to any body, and without any attention being paid to it, the interest of the debt contracted in _England_, from 1755 to 1762; but 30 _per cent._ more was necessary, in order to come (without injuring _England_) nearly to an equality with the _English_ price, a price advantageous to the agriculture of all _Europe_; an advantageous price, which the _barriers_ and barricadoes set up in _France_, had till then prevented from extending to _Switzerland_.

The barriers having been removed, _Switzerland_ and _France_ must necessarily have been enriched, or _England_ ruined:—_France_ and _Switzerland_ were better pleased to be enriched; and so it will necessarily happen after the removal of the barriers subsisting between _England_ and _Ireland_, that the agriculture of the latter must be enriched;—unless she should choose to do herself a real prejudice by keeping to all her former low prices, in order to procure an imaginary advantage to _Irish_ industry, in hopes of prejudicing the _British_ manufacturer;—which would indeed be very strange.

But if this proportionate augmentation in the price of every thing,—as evident as it is necessary,—as general as it is useful,—as natural as it is little suspected,—in consequence of a national debt contracted by a country trading with all _Europe_,—getting rich by trading with all _Europe_,—and who cannot get rich without sharing her wealth with all _Europe_,—be also a complete demonstration of the burden being NULL, so soon as the little private interests have rendered it general, and no longer permit the supposition of its being productive of any other bad effects, but such as necessarily result from a bad system of taxation; does the point lie in rectifying the system, or in effecting a reimbursement?—At least, is a tax to be levied for the purpose of reimbursing, before we have searched deep into THE QUESTION THE MOST INTERESTING TO SOCIETY THAT EVER WAS PROPOUNDED?

And in the supposition, that it should result from the examination, as it does from my ideas, _that there neither is, nor can be any real and lasting harm in the taxes, but that which is the consequence of a bad system of taxation_; as there is however so much more harm done, at least of a transient nature, as there are more taxes imposed, even in the best manner,—would it not be necessary to conclude, that loans bearing annuities, esteemed the most advantageous to the State, (although they always require an heavier, and sometimes a double taxation), might have proved the most pernicious and worst devised, _in any other circumstance but that of a total discredit_, if they did not now furnish the Sovereign with the means of redressing what is most oppressive in the old taxes, without imposing new ones?

_On Luxury._

_I can sum up all that I have said hitherto, by transcribing a couple of pages out of a pamphlet written in ~America~ in the year 1774, laid before the Academy of Sciences in 1778, and printed at Paris in 1781. I should certainly be excusable had I no other motive in this respect, than to prove that my opinions are neither suggested by, nor depending on circumstances. The reflexion contained in the following quotation from that pamphlet, on the war that broke out in 1779, is but a survey of the new order of things, which would not have presented itself to my mind, had it not been in my power, even then, to have published in several large volumes, that which I now comprise within three hundred and some pages, in order to render its perusal less laborious to the reader._

“All the mystery of society, consists in establishing, without
the knowledge, and to the greatest advantage of the parties
concerned, the most equal, the most exact, and the most
equitable division that possibly can be made, between the land
proprietors, who are in possession of all, and the _pilferers_
who are in possession of nothing.

“This division operates of itself, by shackling, as little as
possible, the natural passions of the one, and the factitious
passions of the others, that is to say, by obstructing, as
little as possible, communications of all kinds.

“This division is inseparable from the greatest possible
quantity of productions and consumptions, which cannot be
effected but by the greatest number of _productors_ and
consumers, who will always be found and attracted where the
laws shall be as little prohibitory as possible.

“A prohibitory law in one country, may be, should be,
and no doubt will be, instantly followed by ten others,
in ten different countries, which will soon enforce the
_re-establishment of the equilibrium dictated by Nature, the
only one that deserves to be attended to, and the only one that
must prevail at last_.

“To the present war, _a war of revolution if ever there was
one_, will probably succeed the only useful and necessary
war that can be waged between nations enlightened by the
longest and most melancholy experience; a war essential to the
happiness of mankind, since the only contest left for decision
will be, who shall prove the most able to devise, or the most
ready to adopt, those laws that are calculated to procure _the
greatest possible consumption_, on which depends _the highest
degree of public revenue_:—

“Discussions these, important at all times, dangerous for
every one a few years ago, unbecoming perhaps in a private
individual at a time when the true politicians of _Europe_ will
find themselves compelled to make them the object of their
most serious meditations;—discussions, in fine, entirely out
of the way of a cultivator, who could not, without a palpable
folly, suffer himself to be led into them by the examination
of his blade of grass, and of a principle too evident to be
contested.” (_Essai sur la culture de la canne à sucre._)

_When a man has shewn himself capable of looking upon a war as the readiest means that could conduce to a general union of interests, no one will be surprised if that very man should allow to luxury the principal honour in the accomplishment of such a prophecy. Nor would any one be surprised if he were to add, that the rage for luxury, in a discerning despot, would soon lead him to establish within his dominions the greatest freedom, from which alone he can expect the greatest display of all kinds of luxury, the choice and first fruits of which would be always at his command. Nor again would any one be surprised were the prophet to add, that wherever luxury should be at its summit, none but the idle would be at a loss for a livelihood, and that not a mean one; that even the idiot, as well as the worn-out labourer, would find there, under the designation of a ~hospital~, an asylum equal to the habitation of a King:—The habitation of the Kings of Great Britain is not comparable to some of her hospitals._

Would not the question about luxury, reduced to its elements, like those other questions which I have touched upon hitherto, present consequences diametrically opposite to those ideas which perhaps are yet too common, only because they have not been thoroughly examined? Methinks I have advanced one step towards the solution of the problem, by proving (if I have proved it) that the tax laid on that pretended monster, Luxury, is in fact the most oppressive for the people, on account of the following effects, from which the impost cannot be freed.

First, If that tax lessens the consumption of the article taxed, provision must be made, by a fresh tax, for the _deficit_ in the first, which nevertheless has already deprived of sustenance, those who derived it only from that article of consumption annihilated by the tax.

Secondly, If the rage for the article taxed, gets the better of the rigour of the tax, or in other words, of the absurd disproportion thereby established between the real and nominal value of that article, the land proprietor has no other resource left, whereby to provide for the tax, and for the rest of his standing expences, than to raise the prices of his commodities accordingly; and the poor, whose consumption has not been taxed, pays dearer, nevertheless, for his bread, and for all that he consumes besides, whilst the tax laid on luxury alone, is pleaded by all the _capitalists_ as a pretence for not increasing the price of labour amongst the people they employ.

Thirdly, If the little private calculations, of which I have spoken, did not rectify (as I contend they do by degrees, and as they ought to do sooner) the mistakes of the grand calculations in the administration of finances; that is to say, if the land proprietor did not increase the price of his commodities, in proportion as the tax bears heavy on that article of luxury which he still persists to consume: it would appear still more heinous in the eyes of the moralist; for those artificers who, without remorse, without a blush, should employ themselves in the work of _Satan_, of which the consumption should continue the same, would subsist undisturbed in peace and plenty on that very work, whilst a considerable number of scrupulous artisans, employed hitherto on articles free from censure, but of which the consumption should have decreased by the counter-blow of the taxes on luxury, would most scandalously be left starving and unemployed.

I shall now inspect the question more minutely; for all I have said hitherto is not so much an apology for luxury, as an exposition of the inconveniences attending its being made the principal object of taxation: I beg to be excused, if I grow unwillingly more familiar in my style, when the dignity of the subject seems to require one of suitable dignity in the manner of treating it.

It is the quality of the land that determines the division of its products: however ungrateful the soil, the man who cultivates it, first deducts what is necessary for his subsistence, and a trifle more; the rest is divided amongst the landlord and some others, for one reason or another admitted to a share. This division, determined by the most general quality of the land, brings down the proprietor, who farms out his estate, to about one third of its productions, and reduces nearly to the like proportion, those who are employed in wresting them from the bottom of the earth.

In order therefore to consume as much as 80 men, the proprietor must have a landed estate capable of giving food to 240; and out of these 240, 160 must be provided for before the proprietor can think on his own consumption. Consequently, it would be unreasonable to call him to any other account than for that portion which he has received: but I readily subscribe to the necessity of having that account examined with the utmost rigour, since the object is to justify the dissipation of so considerable a surplus, and since the employment of that surplus, well ascertained, will give us sufficient light on the employment of the other parts of the revenue, which by that means it will be useless to examine.

The highest pitch of extravagance, in point of luxury, is, beyond contradiction, that which, in the smallest possible compass, contains the largest quantity, as well as the greatest perfection of labour, and of a labour the most easy to destroy.

Let us suppose a man who, to the fancy of being possessed of such an article, should join that of seeing constantly at work all those hands which must be employed to complete it; such a fancy never produces any other effect, but that of tertiating or doubling the price of things. The Patriarchs of old, busied and amused themselves, no doubt, in setting to work those whom they enabled to eat; they lived too near the time when man was condemned to labour, to maintain them in idleness. The modern Patriarch of whom I am speaking, provided with a pound weight of flax, which costs him 6_d._ divides it among 25 working people, who give it every preparation necessary to answer the purpose it is intended for. After an entire month of the most slavish precautions, the most minute details, a thread, hardly perceptible to the naked eye, presents to the warm imagination of the proprietor, the idea of the _chef-d’œuvre_ of which this thread is to be the foundation; after 4 or 5 months more, devoted to the most patient and assiduous industry, he is at last put in possession of some slips of lace, weighing in all 4 or 5 drachms, picked out and sorted, thanks to the last refinement of art, from that pound of flax which had cost six-pence. Five-pence three farthings, and a few fractions, are then, it seems, in the strictest calculation, the only real loss—the only devastation which is occasioned by luxury carried to the highest pitch of extravagance; and this loss is compensated by some very curious pieces of workmanship, which it is impossible to value at less than 227_l._ 10_s._ being the amount of 4550 days work at 12_d._ paid to each of the 25 working people, who have owed their subsistence, for six months, to that pretended inutility.—Amongst all the passions with which Providence has been pleased to gratify the rich for the advantage of the poor, name me only one that occasions less devastation, and maintains a greater number of indigent persons, than luxury carried to excess. O ye rigid men, who have left off wearing lace, join with me who have left it off too,—join with me in teaching those who continue to wear it, how many of their brethren they nourish without knowing it! Make them virtuous by teaching them, that in order to be so, they need only do, from a sentiment of humanity, what hitherto perhaps they have done through a motive of puerile vanity, or from a principle of ostentation, which, when considered, needs to be considered with some indulgence.

Another aspect, whimsical enough perhaps, but by no means foreign to the title of this pamphlet, would be that under which we should view those prodigies of art and patience, as the work not only of 25 artificers who were busied upon it for six months, but also of 12 or 15 husbandmen whose existence and labour were indispensable for the sustenance, during the same time, of the 25 labouring people employed in that great work.... A peevish man would perhaps exclaim, _Was it indeed worth while to be born, if all ends with this life?_—And yet, even in this case, thread-lace ought not to be proscribed: it was not worth while indeed to come into the world, solely to make lace; but, once born, we must work at something, in order to bear, without weariness, every instant even of a life which should not require lace-making for its support: as to the nature of the work, let us not find fault with that of others, before we justly estimate our own.... Can we find many of our fellow-creatures, who on their death-bed are able to shew the work of their whole life ... worth the smallest shred of lace then in being?

After this single instance of luxury, by which 25 men are fed during six months at the expence of another, by daily reducing his revenue from 80 to 55, I think that, without being an enthusiast or a declaimer, it would be difficult, even for a good man in the right sense of the word, to withstand the pleasure (although perhaps rather of the mischievous kind) of observing that little more is wanted beyond two such fancies as we have stated, to bring the Proprietor, reduced in the origin from 240 shillings to 80, and then from 80 to 55—to bring him, I say, exactly to the level of the cultivator, whom he has brought down to 9_d._ or 10_d._ and of the mechanic on whom he has bestowed 11 or 12_d._; however, I am willing to allow him 24 for his real, personal, and daily consumption. Twenty-four pence! will it be said, _What signifies being so rich, to consume so little_! Yes, twenty-four pence; and this is by much too much, if we deduct, as we ought, from the price of each article supposed to be consumed by the rich, the sum that remains in the hands of the pilferers of all kinds, who stand, unknown to him, between him and that article.—_How! what say you then to that plate of green-peas which costs 6, 8, or 10 guineas!_—But, my good friend the consumer of green peas, if you knew how many pilferers it conceals, of whom you have not the least idea! if you knew how many wants it has supplied to some, how many indulgences of luxury it has procured to others, before it found its way to the table of an Epicure, or of an ostentatious man!—Let us try to enumerate them: workers of mines and quarries, masons, carpenters, glaziers, colliers, lock-smiths, _English_ and _French_ sailors for the common-spice trade; _Dutch_ seamen, for the more precious kinds; ships of war of the three Powers, indispensable for the protection of the merchantmen employed on those objects; wood-fellers in _Sweden_, sail-cloth weavers in _Russia_, ship-builders, pilots, admirals of the three nations, husbandmen busied in the four parts of the world in procuring food for themselves, in order to prepare food for all those wood-fellers, glaziers, admirals, &c. exclusive of the _Dutch_ gardener, and the _French_ cook who alone can worthily crown the mighty operation.—Imagination loses itself in that single plate of green peas. How many reductions from 16 pence to 8, and from 8 to 4, have been required to produce it! It is inconceivable that it should not sell for more than 6 or 8 guineas;—but if each of those pilferers above mentioned takes back the small portion by which he has increased the intrinsic value of the article.... O ye, who must have swallowed up 500 _properties_, in order to eat, without being guilty of extravagance, that plate of green peas, and who flatter yourselves with the idea of having consumed on that day fifty or sixty crowns worth, learn and reflect henceforward, without remorse and without vanity, that you have not spent above half one penny, the real value of any other dish of greens which you might have substituted to the peas you have consumed.

Scrutinise, in the same manner, your wearing apparel; choose, like a child, what pleases most the eyes of the body; or, like a fastuous man, all that is most imposing to the eyes of the imagination; or, miser-like, that which costs least money; or, in fine, like a man of sense, what your means or your taste incline you to wear; the difference, as to essentials, is little or none. It cannot be positively asserted, that your consumption will be more or less considerable in one than in the other case; but recollect that thread lace, for which you could not pay less than 227_l._ 10_s._ because there stand between you and the pound of flax from which it has been extracted, 35 or 40 intermediate pilferers, to be fed during six months;—this lace, however, in spite of that extravagant price, could not, as you have seen, be set down to account amongst the articles of your real and personal consumption, for more than sixpence, supposed to be the intrinsic value of a pound weight of flax, which has gone through so many hands to be converted into lace. Now, on this principle, you might be wrapped in lace from head to foot: and your entire _mummy_, instead of presenting to the eye of a sworn appraiser a consumption of 30 or 40,000_l._ would in this instant of its highest splendor, only present him with a devastation of 200_lb._ of flax, sacrificed to decorate that mummy, or to hide its defects.—And as the object would be 200_lb._ of flax, the value of which is fully known by the number of people to whom it would afford support, instead of dealing so lightly as I did with a single pound, when I introduced my Patriarch, the appraiser would reckon with you rigorously; he would consider, that in the hands of the Arts, no part of the works of the creation can be lost; that, as it is their triumph, so it is their duty, to divide into 10, 20, or 30 parts, whatever requires such a division, in order that each may receive the degree of utility of which it is susceptible, and which the Arts are bound to account for to society: the appraiser would then carry you to the lace-merchant, in order to lay before you ten different sorts of an inferior lace, taken from parts chosen successively after that which serves you for a wrapper, and descending still from pilfery to pilfery, he would at last inveigle you into the cabins of some pretended wretch, where he would shew you the quantity of coarse and substantial shirts, necessary to teach you that 3 or 4 _lb._ of flax, at the most, are the only possible devaluations your mummy can be reproached with, as two shillings are the only expence your vanity can boast of in the 25 or 30,000_l._ which you could presume to have consumed.

Yet, let us grant something to the pretended importance of being possessed of 500 _properties_, each of them sufficient to the support of one man. I shall accordingly suppose you to be habitually cloathed in those stuffs, which, to the richness of the materials that compose them, join the perfection of workmanship, (which concerns you, as you have seen, in no other light, but that of either a benevolent, or an unintentional provider for the necessary consumption of the labouring man);—but 10 _lb._ of silk, as they come out of Nature’s hands, are not worth 30 shillings:—without enquiring why they may then be valued at 30 shillings, bring all the other parts of your dress to the touchstone I have furnished you with; consider, that if you wear the same coat every day, it would be far from being worn out at the end of the year,—and how far it would be of course from standing for two or three pence in the account of your daily consumption;—add thereto your real and personal wastings in coals, wood, pomatum, essences, elixirs, &c. _valued after the same principle_;—at what a distance you still remain from the 24 pence I have granted you for consumption!—And do not say that you renew your coat every season;—had you swallowed up 5000 instead of 500 _properties_, and should you change cloaths every day, your real consumption would not be the greater for it: would not your _valet de chambre_, to whom you should have given that suit of cloaths, for which you had paid 40 guineas, and which you had worn only once—would not, I say, your _valet de chambre_ sell it for 15 guineas to an old cloaths-man, who would get 20_l._ for it from a strolling player?—Be pleased now to trace that suit from _Paris_ to _Lisle_, to _Brussels_, _Dresden_, _Poland_, _Russia_; see how many people will get a livelihood by carrying it about; how many guineas it will bring to the travelling _Roscius_, who will shine in so many countries at your expence; reflect, on the revolutions which the elegance of that dress will occasion in the modes at _Petersburgh_; how many draughtsmen, embroiderers, working people of all sorts, will be employed and fed, (_thanks to your luxury_), in copying that master-piece of taste and fancy.—This is not all; you might probably, at the end of 15 years, meet again in _Paris_ with the same suit, cut into small pieces, in the hands of some ladies of the first rank, busily engaged in unweaving the rags, to send, as soon as possible, those precious relics of your seemingly spoiled cloaths, to _Lyons_, &c. where ten workmen are waiting its arrival, to get bread by restoring to it a great part of its former value, under another form.—And you would presume to have consumed it?... The work of God is not so easily destroyed, nor his beneficence so easily concentered.

_Was it worth being so rich, to consume so little?_