increase of their city? I cannot find any great benefit resulting to
individuals from that circumstance; but I conclude, that the same
advantages which many find in particular, must be common to great
numbers, consequently great numbers are gathered together.
The principal objections against great cities are, that health there is
not so good, that marriages are not so frequent as in the country, that
debauchery prevails, and that abuses are multiplied.
To this I answer, that these objections lie equally against all cities,
and are not peculiar to those complained of for their bulk; and that the
evils proceed more from the spirit of the inhabitants, than from the
size of the capital. As for the prolongation of life, it is more a
private than a public concern.
It is farther urged, that the number of deaths exceeds the number of
births in great cities; consequently smaller towns, and even the
country, is stripped of its inhabitants, in order to recruit these
capitals.
Here I deny, first, that in all capitals the number of deaths exceeds
the number of births; for in Paris it is otherwise. But supposing the
assertion to be true, what conclusion can be drawn from it, except that
many people who are born in the country die in town. That the country
should furnish cities with inhabitants is no evil. What occasion has the
country for supernumerary hands? If it has enough for the supply of its
own wants, and of the demands of cities, has it not enough? Had it more,
the supernumeraries would either consume without working, or, if added
to the class of labourers, instead of being added to the number of free
hands, would overturn the balance between the two classes; grain would
become too plentiful, and that would cast a general discouragement upon
agriculture: whereas, by going to cities, they acquire money, and
therewith purchase the grain they would have consumed, had they remained
in the country; and this money, which their additional labour in cities
will force into circulation, would otherwise have remained locked up, or
at least would never have gone into the country, but in consequence of
the desertion of the supernumeraries. The proper and only right
encouragement for agriculture, is a moderate and gradual increase of
demand for the productions of the earth: this works a natural and
beneficial increase of inhabitants; and this demand must come from
cities, for the husbandmen never have occasion to demand; it is they who
offer to sale.
The high prices of most things in large cities is surely a benefit, not
a loss to the country. But I must observe, that the great expence of
living in capitals does not affect the lower classes, nor the moderate
and frugal, in any proportion to what it does the rich. If you live on
beef, mutton, bread, and beer, you may live as cheap in London and in
Paris as in most cities I know. These articles abound, and though the
demand be great, the provision made for supplying it is in proportion.
But when you come to fish, fowl, and game; delicacies of every kind
brought from far, by the post, by ships, and messengers; when you have
fine equipages, large houses, expensive servants, and abundance of waste
in every article, without one grain of oeconomy in any, it is no wonder
that money should run away so fast.
I do not, from what has been said, conclude, that there is any evident
advantage in having so overgrown a capital as London in such a kingdom
as England; but only that I do not find great force in the objections I
have met with against it. That there may be others which I do not know,
I will not deny, because I am not sufficiently acquainted with that
kingdom to be a competent judge of the matter.
Let me now conclude this chapter, by mentioning in what respects I think
cities an advantage, in general, to a country; and, as I go along, I
shall point out wherein they prove a disadvantage, in particular, to
some parts of it.
The general advantages of them are;
I. To remove the unnecessary load upon the land; those idle people, who
eat up a part of the produce of labour without contributing to it.
II. The opportunity of levying taxes, and of making these affect the
rich, in proportion to the consumption they make, without hurting
industry or exportation.
III. The advantages resulting to the landed interest are no less
considerable. This is proved by universal experience: for we see every
where, that the moment any city, town, or village, begins to increase,
by the establishment of trade or manufactures, the lands round about
immediately rise in their value. The reason of this seems easily deduced
from the above principles.
When a farmer has got his oeconomy under right regulations, not one
supernumerary, nor useless mouth, but abundance of hands for every kind
of labour, which is generally the case near towns and cities, the
proximity of them discharges him of every superfluity. His cattle
consume the exact quantity of grain and of forage necessary; what
remains is money; a superfluous egg is money; a superfluous day of a
cart, of a horse, a superfluous hour of a servant, is all money to the
farmer. There is a constant demand for every thing he can do or furnish.
To make this the more sensibly perceived, remove into a province, far
from a town, and compare situations. There you find abundance of things
superfluous, which cannot be turned into money, which therefore are
consumed without much necessity, and with no profit. It is good to have
an estate there, when you want to live upon it; it is better to have one
near the great town, when you do not.
It may be alledged, that the disadvantages felt by the distant farmer
and proprietor, when they compare situations with those situated near
the town, proceed from the town: this must be examined.
If the town consume the produce of this distant farm, it must consume it
in competition with every place at a smaller distance; consequently this
competition must do more good than harm to the distant farm. If the city
consumes none of the produce, wherein does it affect it? It may be
answered, that, by entering into competition with the distant farmer for
the labouring inhabitants, these desert agriculture, in favour of a more
lucrative occupation, to be found in the city. Scarcity of hands in the
country raises the price of labour on one hand, while it diminishes the
demand on the other; consequently the farmer suffers a double
disadvantage. Of this there can be no doubt; but as these revolutions
cannot by their nature be sudden, it becomes the duty of the statesman,
whom I suppose constantly awake, to set on foot directly some branch of
industry in every such distant part of the country; and as prices will
diminish for a while, for the reasons above-mentioned, this will prove
an encouragement to the establishment; this again will accelerate
propagation, as it will prove an outlet for children, and, in a short
time, the farmer will find himself in a better situation than ever. But
even without this assistance from the state, a few years will set all to
rights, providing the spirit of industry is kept up: for cities, by
swelling, extend their demand to the most distant corners of a country;
the inhabitants who desert do not cease to consume, and thereby they
repair the hurt they did by their desertion. I appeal to experience for
the truth of this. Do we not perceive demand extending every year
farther and farther from great capitals? I know places in France which,
twenty years ago, never knew what it was to send even a delicacy to
Paris, but by the post, and which now send thither every week loaded
waggons, with many thousand weight of provisions; in so much that I may
almost say, that a fatted chicken in the most distant province of that
country can be sold with great profit in the Paris market during all the
winter season; and cattle carry thither their own flesh cheaper than any
waggon can. What distant farm then can complain of the greatness of that
noble city? There is however a case, where a distant part of a country
may suffer in every respect, to wit, when the revolution is sudden; as
when a rich man, used to spend his income in his province, for the
encouragement of industry, goes to Paris or London, and stays away for a
year or two, without minding the interest of the estate he abandons. No
doubt that must affect his province in proportion; but in every
revolution which comes on gradually by the desertion of such as only
lived by their industry, new mouths are born and supply the old. The
only question is about employing them well: while you have superfluous
food and good oeconomy, a country will always reap the same benefit from
her natural advantages.
IV. Another advantage of cities is, the necessity arising from thence of
having great roads, and these again prove a considerable encouragement
to agriculture.
The miserable condition of roads over all Europe almost, till within
these hundred years, is a plain proof of the scanty condition of the
cities, and of the small encouragement formerly given towards extending
the improvement of the soil.
Let any one examine the situation of the landed interest before the
making of great roads in several provinces in France, and compare it
with what it is at present. If this be found a difficult inquiry, let
him compare the appearance of young gentlemen of middling fortune, as he
finds them at Paris, or in their regiment, with that of their fathers,
who live in their province in the old way, and he will have a very good
opportunity of perceiving the progress of ease and refinement in that
class, which has proceeded from no other cause than the improvement of
the soil. People complain that prices are risen; of this there is no
doubt with regard to many articles. Is it not quite consistent with our
principles? It is not because there is now a larger mass of money in the
kingdom, though I allow this to be true, and also that this circumstance
may have contributed to raise prices; but the direct principle which has
influenced them, and which will always regulate their rise and fall, is
the increase of demand. Now the great roads in a manner carry the goods
to market; they seem to shorten distances, they augment the number of
carriages of all sorts, they remove the inconveniencies above-mentioned
resulting from the distance of the city. The more distant parts of the
country come to market, in competition with the farmers in the
neighbourhood of the cities. This competition might make the rents of
lands lying round such as were the first to encourage industry, sink in
their value. But the hurt in this respect done to the proprietors of
these lands would soon be repaired. The cities would increase in bulk,
demand would increase also, and prices would rise a-new. Every thing
which employs inhabitants usefully promotes consumption; and this again
is an advantage to the state, as it draws money from the treasures of
the rich into the hands of the industrious. The easy transportation of
fruits produces this effect: the distant farmer can employ his idle
hours in providing, and the idle days of his servants and cattle in
sending things to market, from farms which formerly never knew what it
was to sell such productions.
I shall carry these speculations no farther, but conclude by observing,
that the making of roads must advance population, as they contribute to
the advancement of agriculture.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
CHAP. XI.
_Of the Distribution of Inhabitants into Classes; of the Employment and
Multiplication of them._
Having deduced the effects of modern policy, in assembling so large a
proportion of inhabitants into cities, it is proper to point out the
principles which should direct the statesman to the proper means of
providing, supporting, and employing them. Without this they neither can
live nor multiply. Their parent, Earth, has in a manner banished them
from her bosom; they have her no more to suckle them in idleness;
industry has gathered them together, labour must support them, and that
must produce a surplus for bringing up children. If this resource should
fail, misery will ensue: the depopulation of the cities will be followed
by the ruin of the lands, and all will go to wreck together.
We have already laid down the principles which appear the most natural
to engage mankind to labour, supposing all to be free; and we have
observed how slavery, in former times, might work the same effect, as to
peopling the world, that trade and industry do now; men were then forced
to labour because they were slaves to others, men are forced to labour
now because they are slaves to their own wants: provided man be made to
labour, and make the earth produce abundantly, and providing that either
authority, industry or charity, can make the produce circulate for the
nourishment of the free hands, the principle of a great population is
brought to a full activity.
I shall now suppose these principles to be well understood. Wants
promote industry, industry gives food, food increases numbers: the next
question is, how numbers are to be well employed?
It is a general maxim in the mouth of every body; increase the
inhabitants of the state: the strength and power of a state is in
proportion to the number of its inhabitants.
I am not fond of condemning opinions; but I am very much for limiting
general propositions. I have hardly ever escaped being led into error by
every one I have laid down. Nothing is so systematical, nothing so
pretty in a treatise as general maxims; they facilitate the distribution
of our ideas, and I have never been able to dash them out but with a
certain regret.
As I often recur to private oeconomics for clearing up my ideas
concerning the political, I have asked myself, if it be a general rule,
that the master of a family should increase the mouths of it, to the
full proportion of all he can feed? Now it is my opinion, that in a
small family well composed, and where every one is properly employed,
both master and servants are much happier than in others vastly more
numerous, where the same order and regularity is not kept up; and that a
small number of well disciplined soldiers is more formidable, and really
stronger, than the numerous populace of a large city.
The use of inhabitants is to be mutually serviceable one to another in
particular, and to the society in general. Consequently, every state
should, in good policy, first apply itself to make the inhabitants they
have answer that purpose, before they carry their views towards
augmenting their numbers. I think it is absurd to wish for new
inhabitants, without first knowing how to employ the old; and it is
ignorance of the real effects of population, to imagine that an increase
of numbers will infallibly remove inconveniencies which proceed from the
abuses of those already existing.
I shall then begin by supposing that inhabitants require rather to be
well employed than increased in numbers.
If I know the number of inhabitants, I may know the proportion which die
every year: consequently, I know how many pairs of breeders are
necessary to keep up the stock. If I want to raise twenty bushels of
grain only, I do not sow my lands with twenty bushels. If I have as many
children born as there are people who die, I have enough by the
supposition. But these children must be raised proportionally, from the
different classes of inhabitants, which I here consider as distributed
into two conditions; those who do not labour, and those who do. May I
not venture to say, that there is no absolute necessity that those of
the first class should multiply in order to recruit the second. If then
the second class is kept up to its proper standard by its own
multiplication, and if their work be all consumed, will it not be found
that the diminution of those mouths who do not work, and which appear
only useful in consideration of the consumption they make, is no real
loss to the nation? But to this it is objected, that if the number of
the first class be diminished, the work of the second will lie upon
hand.
Here I look for my answer from what daily experience points out. Two
persons (A) and (B) have each 1000_l._ a year; (A) has many children,
(B) has none: they both spend their income; (A) upon the necessaries of
life for his family, and for the education of his children; for the
supplying of which, those of the working class are only employed, for
who ever does or gives any thing for money, I consider as a worker: (B)
spends his income as a fashionable young gentleman; he has a fine
chariot, abundance of footmen in laced liveries; in short, without
examining into the particulars of his expence, I find the whole 1000_l._
spent at the end of the year. Neither (A) nor (B) do any work; nor are
any of (A’s) children necessary as a supply to the working hands, by the
supposition. Is it not true then, that (B) has consumed as much work or
service, for these I consider as the same thing, as (A) with his family?
Nay, I may still go farther, and affirm, that (B) has contributed as
much, if not more, to population than (A). For if it be true, that he
who gives food gives numbers, I say, that the expence of (B) has given
food to the children of the industrious employed by him: consequently,
in place of having directly contributed to the increase of the idle of
the state, which is the case with (A), he has indirectly contributed to
the multiplication of the industrious. What good then does the state
reap from (A’s) children, from his marriage, from his multiplication?
Indeed, I see no harm although he had remained a batchelor: for those
who produce only idle consumers, certainly add neither riches, strength,
or ease to a state. And it is of such people alone that there is any
question here.
From this I conclude, that there can be no determined number of rich
idle consumers necessary to employ a determined number of industrious
people, no more than of masters to employ a fixt number of menial
servants. Do we not see a single man frequently attended by more
servants than are necessary when he gets a wife and family: nay, it many
times happens, that a young man, upon his marriage, diminishes the
number of his domestics, in order to give bread to his children.
If riches are calculated, as I hope to be able to shew, for the
encouragement of industry; if circulation is to be accelerated by every
method, in order to give bread to those who are disposed to work, or, in
other words, who are disposed to become vigorous members of the
commonwealth, by contributing with their strength, their ingenuity, or
their talents, to supply her wants, to augment their riches, to promote
and administer a good government at home, or to serve it abroad: then, I
say, the too great multiplication of those, who come under none of these
classes, the idle consumers as I have called them, contribute directly
to make the other part languish.
There is no governing a state in perfection, and consequently no
executing the plan of a right distribution of the inhabitants, without
exactly knowing their situation as to numbers, their employment, the
gains upon every species of industry, the numbers produced from each
class. These are the means of judging how far those of a particular
trade or occupation are in a situation to bring up a family. To examine,
on the other hand, the state of the higher classes who do not labour,
the ease of their circumstances, and the use the state has for their
service, may appear superfluous. Since those who do not work, must be
supposed to have wherewithal to live; and consequently, not to stand in
need of assistance. But this is not every where, nor always the case:
many excellent subjects are lost to a state, for want of a proper
attention in the statesman to this object.
I have observed how necessary a thing it was to govern a people
according to their spirit: now by governing I understand, protecting,
cherishing, and supporting, as well as punishing, restraining, and
exacting. If, therefore, there be found in any country, a very numerous
nobility, who look upon trade and the inferior arts, as unbecoming their
birth; a good statesman must reflect upon the spirit of former times,
and compare it with that of the present. He will then perceive, that
these sentiments have been transmitted from father to son, and that six
generations are not elapsed since, over all Europe, they were
universally adopted: that although the revolution we talked of in the
10th chap. has in effect rendered them less adapted to the spirit of the
present times, they are however productive of excellent consequences;
they serve as a bulwark to virtue, against the allurements of riches;
and it is dangerous to force a set of men who form a considerable body
in a state, from necessity, to trample under foot, what they have been
persuaded from their infancy to be the test of a noble and generous
mind.
About 200 years ago, the nobility of several nations, I mean, by this
term, all people well born, whether adorned with particular marks of
royal favour or not, used to live upon the produce of their lands. In
those days there was little luxury, little circulation; the lands fed
numbers of useless mouths, in the modern acceptation of useless,
consequently produced a very moderate income in money to the
proprietors, who were, notwithstanding, the most considerable persons in
the state. This class of inhabitants remaining inactive in the country,
during the revolution above mentioned, have, in consequence of the
introduction of industry, trade and luxury, insensibly had the balance
of wealth, and consequently of consideration turned against them. Of
this there is no doubt. This class however has retained the military
spirit, the lofty sentiments; and notwithstanding of their depression in
point of fortune, are found calculated to shine the brightest, when set
in a proper elevation. In times of peace, when trade flourishes, the
lustre of those who wallow in public money, the weight and consideration
of the wealthy merchant, and even the ease and affluence of the
industrious tradesman, eclipse the poor nobility: they become an object
of contempt to bad citizens, an object of compassion to the good; and
political writers imagine they render them an important service, when
they propose to receive them into the lower classes of the people. But
when danger threatens from abroad, and when armies are brought into the
field, compare the behaviour of those conducted by a warlike nobility,
with those conducted by the sons of labour and industry; those who have
glory, with those who have gain for their point of view. Let the state
only suffer this nobility to languish without a proper encouragement,
there is no fear but they will soon disappear; their lands will become
possessed by people of a way of thinking more a la mode, and the army
will quickly adopt new sentiments, more analogous to the spirit of a
moneyed interest.
I find nothing more affecting to a good mind, than to see the distress
of a poor nobility in both sexes. Some have proposed trade for this
class. Why do you not trade? I answer, for the nobility; Because, in
order to trade, I must have money. This objection is unanswerable. Why
then do you not apply to other branches of industry? If it is the state
who is supposed to ask the question, I ask, in my turn, What advantage
she can reap from their industry? What profit from their becoming
shop-keepers, weavers, or taylors? Are not, or ought not all these
classes to be provided with hands from their own multiplication? What
advantage can she reap by the children of one class taking the bread out
of the mouths of another?
If the sentiments in which the nobility have been educated, prove
detrimental to the state, throw a discouragement upon them. If birth is
to be no mark of distinction, let it not be distinguished by any
particular privilege, which in appearance sets that class above the
level of those with whom the state intends they should be incorporated.
You do not make your valet de chambre get behind your coach, though upon
an occasion it might be convenient, and though perhaps he had been your
footman the day before; you would even turn him out of doors, did he not
change his company with his rank.
If you cannot afford to have a nobility, let it die away: grant, as in
England, the title of noble to one of a family, and let all the rest be
commoners; that is to say, distinguished by no personal privilege
whatsoever from the lowest classes of the people. But if you want them
to serve you as soldiers, and that they should preserve those sentiments
you approve of in a soldier, take care at least of their children. If
these appear to you poor and ragged, while they are wandering up and
down their fathers lands, chasing a wretched hare or a partridge,
compare them, when in the troops, with those of your wealthy neighbours,
if any such you have.
The establishment of an _hôtel militaire_ shews at least that there are
people who lend an ear to such representations. I do not propose that a
prince should divert into that channel those streams of wealth which
flow from every part of the state, though nothing is more reasonable
than for men to pay in order to protect their gains, but let a tax be
imposed upon noble property, and let that be applied for the education
of the generous youth from their earliest years. There the state will
have all under her eye, they are her children, her subjects, and they
ask no more than to be taken from the obscurity of their habitations,
and rendered capable of being employed while young and vigorous. When
they have done their task, the country which produced them will receive
them back into her warm bosom; there they will produce others like
themselves, and support the spirit and propagation of their own class,
without becoming any charge upon others.
A statesman should make it his endeavour to employ as many of every
class as possible, and when employment fails in the common run of
affairs, to contrive new outlets for young people of every denomination.
The old and idle are lost beyond recovery in many particulars.
The mutual relations likewise, through industry, between class and class
should be multiplied and encouraged to the utmost. Relations by
marriage, I am apt to believe, prove here more hurtful than beneficial.
That is to say, I would rather discourage the intermarriage of the
persons of different classes; but I would encourage, as much as
possible, all sorts of mutual dependencies between them, in the way of
their trades. The last tends to keep every one employed, according to
the wants and spirit of his class; the first is productive in general of
no good effect that I can perceive; which is reason sufficient for a
state to give at least no encouragement to such marriages, and this is
all the restraint proper to be imposed.
Such members of the society as remain unemployed, either from natural
infirmities or misfortunes, and who thereby become a load upon others,
are really a load upon the state. This is a disease which must be
endured. There is no body, no thing, without diseases. A state should
provide retreats of all sorts, for the different conditions of her
decayed inhabitants: humanity, good policy, and christianity, require
it. Thus much may be said in general upon the principles which direct
the employment and distribution of inhabitants, which in every state
must be different, according to circumstances relating to the extension,
situation and soil of the country, and above all, to the spirit of the
people. I am next to offer some considerations with regard to the proper
methods of augmenting numbers.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
CHAP. XII.
_Of the great Advantage of combining a well digested Theory and a
perfect Knowledge of Facts with the practical Part of Government, in
order to make a People multiply._
We have the happiness to live in an age where daily opportunities offer,
of perceiving the difference between exercising an art according to the
mechanical received practice, and according to the principles which
study and refinement have introduced for bringing it to perfection. This
will appear in the strongest light to one who compares the operation of
building an ordinary house, with that of executing a great public work,
where the most able architects are employed; the making a common parish
road, with that of a military way, through mountains, forests, and
marshes. In the first, every difficulty appears unsurmountable: in the
second, the greatest obstacles are made to vanish. By comparing these
things, we distinguish between the artist, who proceeds by the rules of
the science, and the ordinary tradesman, who has no other resource than
common practice, aided by his own ingenuity.
Every branch of science must be carried to perfection by a master in it,
formed by the hand of nature, and improved by application and
experience. The great genius of Mr. de Colbert saw through the confusion
and perplexity of the administration of the French finances; he invented
resources for swelling the public treasure, which never would have been
liable to so many inconveniencies as are complained of, had the
administration been conducted with as much disinterestedness, as it was
set on foot with ability. The genius of Mr. Law was original as to
figures and paper credit. Sir Robert Walpole discovered new principles
of taxation, he extended the plan of public credit, and reduced the
application of it to a science. These were born statesmen, they were
creators of new ideas, they found out new principles for the government
of men, and led them by their interest to concur in the execution of
their plans. Men of a speculative disposition may broach hints, although
the force of theory, destitute of practice, and unassisted by
experiment, be not sufficient to carry them the length of forming a
plan. A great genius, with power and authority, has occasion for no more
than a hint to strike out the system, and to carry it, with success,
into execution.
No problems of political oeconomy seem more obscure than those which
influence the multiplication of the human species, and which determine
the distribution and employment of them, so as best to advance the
prosperity of each particular society.
I have no where found these matters treated to my wish, nor have I ever
been able to satisfy myself concerning them. There are many clouds which
still cover the fruitful fields of this science; and until these be
dissipated, the political eye cannot take in the whole landscape, nor
judge of the deformities which appear in the many representations which
our modern painters are daily giving of it.
I may here, without an imputation of vanity, put myself so far upon a
level with the great Montesquieu, as to adopt the saying of Correggio,
_Io anche son pittore_; I am also a dawber; for I frankly acknowledge my
own insufficiency to treat this subject with perspicuity: my frequent
repetitions, and my often returning to it at different times, in order
to clear up my ideas and those of my readers, shews plainly, that I am
sensible of my own insufficiency. By setting it in different lights, and
viewing it as it were from different stations, perhaps both my reader
and I may come at last to see a little clearer.
In a former chapter, I have endeavoured to lay down the principles which
influence multiplication; but alas! they are all so general, that they
can be considered only as the most remote. They may satisfy a slight
speculation, but can be of little use in practice. I have principally
insisted upon those which are found to operate at all times among
societies where primitive simplicity prevails. Now this matter comes to
be examined in a more complex light, as relative to the modern manners
of mankind, which no statesman, however able, can change, where trade,
industry, luxury, credit, taxes, and debts, are introduced. In these the
most polite nations of Europe are involved. This is a chain of adamant,
it hangs together by a cohesion, which the successive revolutions of
three centuries have so cemented with the spirit of nations, that it
appears to be indissoluble. It is not my business to examine how far the
modern system is to be preferred to the antient; my point of view is, to
investigate how a statesman may turn the circumstances which have
produced this new plan of oeconomy to the best advantage for mankind,
leaving the reformation of such plan to time and events, of which I am
not the master. Schemes of recalling antient simplicity, and of making
mankind honest and virtuous, are beautiful speculations: I admire them
as much as any body, but not enough to believe them practicable in our
degenerate age.
If therefore the principles I here lay down appear contradictory to so
amiable a system of policy, let no man thence conclude any thing to my
disadvantage upon the account of my particular opinion of it, which is a
matter of no importance whatsoever. My object is to examine the
consequences of what we feel and see daily passing, and to point out how
far the bad may be avoided, and the good turned to the best advantage.
The loss of antient simplicity, and the introduction of this complicated
scheme of living, has rendered the mechanism of government infinitely
more difficult, and almost every disorder in the political body affects
multiplication. Depopulation is as certain a mark of political diseases,
as wasting is of those in the human body. The increase of numbers in a
state shews youth and vigour; when numbers do not diminish, we have an
idea of manhood, and of age when they decline.
The importance of the subject therefore requires me to bring it once
more upon the carpet, in order to inquire into the proper methods of
restoring and preferring youth, and of diffusing vigour into every
articulation, into every vein, into every nerve, as I may say, of a
modern society.
In the republic of Lycurgus an unmarried man met with no respect;
because no reason but debauchery could prevent his marrying. Marriage
was no load in a state where all were fed and taken care of at the
public charge. A Spartan who did not marry, was considered as one who
refused to contribute towards recruiting of the army, only to gratify a
vicious habit.
The _jus trium liberorum_, and the other encouragements given by
Augustus Cæsar to engage the Romans to marry, were calculated chiefly
for the nobility, and only for the citizens, but not at all for the
inferior class (the slaves) bound to labour. The vice to be corrected,
and that which the emperor had in his eye in those institutions, was the
prodigal and dissolute life of rich men who lived in celibacy. This
affected the Roman state, and deprived it of its principal force, the
military power, the equites. Judge of the force of this class by the
numbers of them destroyed at Cannæ. In those days, the chief
encouragement to multiplication was to be directed towards the higher
classes; the lower classes of the people (by far the most numerous in
all countries and in all ages) were easily recruited, by the importation
of slaves, as they are now in the West-Indies, where, consequently, the
same principle must naturally operate, which fixed the attention of the
wise emperor. The state of affairs in Europe, and in England
particularly, is changed entirely, by the establishment of universal
liberty. Our lowest classes are absolutely free; they belong to
themselves, and must bring up their own children, else the state becomes
depopulated. There is no resource to us from importation, whether by
ships, or acts of parliament for naturalization. We shall always have a
numerous and free common people, and shall constantly have the same
inconveniencies to struggle with, as long as the lowest classes remain
in such depression as not to be able to support their own numbers. Here
then lies the difficulty. In order to have a flourishing state, which
Sir William Temple beautifully compared to a pyramid, we must form a
large and solid basis of the lowest classes of mankind. As the classes
mount in wealth, the pyramid draws narrower until it terminate in a
point, (as in monarchy) or in a small square, as in the aristocratical
and mixed governments. This lowest class therefore must be kept up, and,
as we have said, by its own multiplication. But where every one lives by
his own industry, a competition comes in, and he who works cheapest
gains the preference. How can a married man, who has children to
maintain, dispute this preference with one that is single? The unmarried
therefore force the others to starve; and the basis of the pyramid is
contracted. Let this short sketch of a most important part of our
subject suffice at present; it shall be taken up and examined at more
length, in the chapter of physical necessaries, or natural wants.
From this results the principal cause of decay in modern states: it
results from liberty, and is inseparably connected with it.
Several modern writers upon this subject, recommend marriage, in the
strongest manner, to all classes of inhabitants; yet a parish priest
might, properly enough, not be warranted to join a couple unless they
could make it appear that their children were not likely to become a
burden to the parish. Could any fault be found, reasonably, with such a
regulation? Those who are gratuitously fed by others are a load upon the
state, and no acquisition, certainly, so long as they continue so.
Nothing is so easy as to marry; nothing so natural, especially among the
lower sort. But as in order to reap, it is not sufficient to plow and to
sow, so in order to bring up children, it is not sufficient to marry. A
nest is necessary for every animal which produces a helpless brood: a
house is the nest for children; but every man who can beget a child
cannot build or rent a house.
These reflections lead me to make a distinction which I apprehend may be
of use in clearing up our ideas concerning population. Let me therefore
consider the generation of man in a political light, and it will present
itself under two forms. The one as a real multiplication; the other only
as procreation.
Children produced from parents who are able to maintain them, and bring
them up to a way of getting bread for themselves, do really multiply and
serve the state. Those born of parents whose subsistence is precarious,
or which is proportioned only to their own physical necessary, have a
precarious existence, and will undoubtedly begin their life by being
beggars. Many such will perish for want of food, but many more for want
of ease; their mendicity will be accompanied with that of their parents,
and the whole will go to ruin; according to the admirable expression of
the Marechal de Vauban, in his Dixme Royale. _La mendicité_, says he,
_est un mal qui tue bientot son homme_. He had many examples of the
truth of it before his eyes; whoever has not, must have seen little of
the world.
When marriage is contracted without the requisites for multiplication,
it produces a procreation, attended with the above mentioned
inconveniencies; and as by far the greater part of inhabitants are in
the lower classes, it becomes the duty of a statesman to provide against
such evils, if he intends, usefully, to increase the number of his
people.
Every plan proposed for this purpose, which does not proceed upon an
exact recapitulation of the inhabitants of a country, parish by parish,
will prove nothing more than an expedient for walking in the dark. Among
such recapitulations or lists I would recommend, as an improvement upon
those I have seen in the Marechal de Vauban’s excellent performance
above cited, and in the states of his Prussian Majesty, or elsewhere, to
have one made out, classing all the inhabitants, not only by the trades
they exercise, but by those of their fathers, with a view to distinguish
those classes which multiply, from those which only procreate. I should
be glad also to see bills of mortality made out for every class,
principally to compare the births and deaths of the children in them.
Let me take an example. Suppose then, that I have before me a general
recapitulation of all the inhabitants of a country, parish by parish,
where they may appear distributed under the respective denominations of
their fathers’ employment. I shall immediately find a considerable
number produced from the higher classes, from those who live upon an
income already provided, and upon branches of industry which produce an
easy and ample subsistence. These have no occasion for the assistance of
the state in bringing up their children, and you may encourage marriage,
or permit celibacy in such classes, in proportion to the use you find
for their offspring when they are brought up. When I come to the lower
classes, I examine, for example, that of shoemakers, where I find a
certain number produced. This number I first compare with the number of
shoemakers actually existing, and then with the number of marriages
subsisting among them, (for I suppose recapitulations of every kind)
from which I discover the fertility of marriage, and the success of
multiplication in that part. When the state of the question is examined,
class by class, I can decide where marriage succeeds, and where it does
not. I have said, that I imagine it an advantage that every class should
support at least its own numbers; and when it does more, I should wish
(were it possible) that the higher classes might be recruited from the
lower, rather than the lower from the higher; the one seems a mark of
prosperity, the other of decay: but I must confess that the first is by
far the most difficult to be obtained.
According therefore to circumstances, and in consistence with these
principles, I would encourage marriage by taking the children off the
hands of their parents. Where marriage succeeds the worst, if it happens
to be in a very low class, great encouragement should be given to it:
perhaps the whole should be taken care of. Certain trades may be loaded
with one child, others with two, and so progressively. But of this, more
in another place. I beg it may not here be imagined that I propose, that
the whole of the lower classes of people are to marry and propagate, and
that the state is to feed all their offspring. My view extends no
farther, than to be assured of having such a number of children yearly
taken care of as shall answer the multiplication proposed, and that
these be proportionally raised from each class, and from each part of
the country, and produced from marriages protected by the state,
distinguished from the others, which under a free government must always
be found exposed to the inconveniencies of want and misery. To guard
against such evils ought to be another object of public care. Hospitals
for foundlings are an admirable institution; and colonies are an outlet
for superfluous inhabitants. But I insensibly enter into a detail which
exceeds my plan. To lay down a scheme, you must suppose a particular
state perfectly known. This lies beyond my reach, and therefore I shall
go no farther, but illustrate what I have said, by some observations and
reflections which seem analogous to the subject.
I have not here proposed plans of multiplication inconsistent with the
spirit of the nations with which I am a little acquainted; nor with the
religion professed in Europe, for many reasons, obvious to any rational
man. But principally, because, I believe, it will be found, that a
sufficient abundance of children are born already; and that we have
neither occasion for concubinage, nor polygamy, to increase their
numbers. But we want a right method of taking care of those we have, in
order to produce a multiplication proportioned to the possibility of our
providing nourishment and employment. I have therefore proposed, that a
statesman, well informed of the situation of his people, the state of
every class, the number of marriages found in each, should say, let
there be so many marriages authorised in every class, distributed in a
certain proportion for every parish, city, burrow, &c. in the country;
let rules be laid down to direct a preference, in case of a competition,
between different couples; and let the consequence of this approbation
be, to relieve the parents of all children above a certain number, as
has been said. I propose no new limitations upon marriage, because I am
a friend to liberty, and because such limitations would shock the spirit
of the times. I therefore would strongly recommend hospitals for
foundlings over all the country; and still more strongly the frugal
maintenance of children in such hospitals, and their being bred up early
to fill and recruit the lowest classes of the people.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
CHAP. XIII.
_Continuation of the same Subject, with regard to the Necessity of
having exact Lists of Births, Deaths, and Marriages, for every Class of
Inhabitants in a modern Society._
Mr. Derham has furnished some tables which shew the proportion between
marriages and births in England, to be as 1 to 4; that of births to
burials as 1 12⁄100to 1: from which it appears that multiplication there
goes on, though slowly: a mark of youth and vigour. Dr. Davenant values
the augmentation at 9000 a year. Could matters be kept at that standard,
I should prefer it by far to a more rapid multiplication: it amounts to
about a million in a century (without entering into accumulations or
exact calculations) and the longer youth is preserved so much the
better. A rapid multiplication will stop at some period, and that stop,
which marks distress, must produce great inconveniencies.
These calculations extracted from very lame vouchers, shew how necessary
it is to have authentic recapitulations: since, lame as they are, it is
from these and the like, that Dr. Halley, and others, have calculated
the value of annuities, which (at a time when all the states of Europe
are borrowing money at the expence of every man’s private industry or
property) ought to be valued at their real worth. Now, in all these
calculations of mortality, it appears that what we have called the abuse
of marriage or procreation is included.
If it be true, as I think it is, from what I have seen and observed,
that numbers, especially of children, among the lower classes, perish
from the effects of indigence; either directly by want of food, or by
diseases contracted gradually from the want of convenient ease; and that
others perish for want of care, when the slightest assistance of a
surgeon to let them blood, would be sufficient to preserve them against
the inflammatory distempers to which they are chiefly exposed.
If these things are so, must we not infer, that calculations formed upon
a conclusion drawn from the births and deaths of mankind in general,
cannot possibly be so exact as if the like were drawn from those of
every class of inhabitants taken separately.
It may here be answered, that among the rich and easy, there are found
diseases which sweep off numbers, in as great a proportion as other
distempers do of the poor: that we see very large families brought up
among the lowest classes, while a great man has all the pains in the
world to preserve a young boy from the wreck of a number of children.
All this I agree may be true; but I should be glad to see in what
proportion it _is_ so, and to be certain of the fact. I want to know the
diseases of the rich and of the poor; I want to have as particular
details of the births and deaths of every class, as I can have of those
of the cities of Paris, London, or Breslaw. I want to know from what
parents those multitudes of poor which I find every where are sprung;
and most of all to have such accounts from different countries, where
different manners prevail. For no just conclusion can be drawn from the
comparison of facts, without examining circumstances. The most barren
class in one country, may be the most fruitful in another. As an example
of this, let any one compare the state of marriage among the footmen of
London and of Paris.
I find error concealed every where under general propositions. The
children of the poor, says one, thrive better than those of the rich. If
it be so, it ought not to be so in common reason. But the same person
will tell you, I have made my son a merchant; he will be a rich man.
Why? Because (A B) was a merchant, who, from nothing, died worth a
hundred thousand pounds. But if you go through all the letters of the
alphabet following (A B), among those who set out as he did, you will
find, that perhaps every one of them died a bankrupt. Those who prove
successful are remarkable: those who miscarry are never heard of. It is
just so with respect to the question before us. But to return to our
tables, and what are called calculations.
One marriage produces four children at a medium in England. If you
reckon 6,000,000 of people in that country, and that 1⁄30 part dies
annually, then to keep up the stock it is sufficient that 200,000 be
annually born; add to this the yearly increase of 9000, the total of
births will then be 209,000: for if 200,000 die this year, and if
209,000 be born, this must certainly imply an increase of 9000,
providing we suppose the acquisition of foreigners to be equal to the
exportation of the natives. As this is only meant as an illustration, I
need not examine the matter of fact. The next question is, how many
marriages, properly contracted or encouraged as above, will give this
increase? For we may know that these subsisting in that kingdom, joined
with the effects of extramatrimonial conjunctions, is just sufficient to
produce it. I imagine that nothing but experiment can give the solution
of this question. Mr. King supposes every 104th person in England to
marry yearly, that is 57,682 persons, or 28,841 couples. If this number
of marriages be supposed to subsist with fertility for seven years,
producing a child every year, the number of 200,000 births would be
procured; but I apprehend that marriages, rightly contracted, subsist
much longer in general than seven years, even with fertility, though not
in proportion to a child every year: consequently, the number of
marriages constantly subsisting with fertility in England, where it is
supposed that 28,841 are yearly contracted, must be much greater than
seven times that number, or than 201,887. If we suppose the whole of the
209,000 births to be produced by marriages, at three marriages to every
child annually produced, then the number of marriages subsisting will be
627,000. From these speculations (for I do not pretend to call them
calculations) I conclude, that the more fruitful marriages are rendered
(not with regard to procreation, merely, but multiplication, which I
have above distinguished) the fewer become necessary; and the fewer
unnecessary marriages are contracted, the better for the state, and the
less misery for those who contract them. I shall here stop, and leave to
the reader to draw his conclusions, putting him in mind of the wide
difference that is always found between theory and practice.
From this reasoning I infer, that no exact judgment can be formed, as to
the numbers in any society, from the single datum of the annual number
of deaths among them; and although the just proportion between numbers
and deaths may exactly be determined in one particular place, yet that
proportion will not serve as a general standard, and being taken for
granted may lead to error.
Here are the reasons for my opinion.
Were no body to marry but such as could maintain their children, the
bills of births and burials would, I apprehend, diminish, and yet
numbers might remain as before; and were every body to marry who could
procreate, they certainly would increase, but still numbers would never
exceed the proportion of subsistence. Could we but see bills of births
and deaths for the city of Rome, while in all its glory; or indeed for
the sugar colonies in America, where slaves are imported, adding the
number of those imported to that of births, and supposing the colony
neither upon the growing nor the declining hand, then the deaths and
births would be equal; but the proportion of them to all in the colony,
I apprehend, would be far less than in any state in Europe, where
slavery does not prevail.
It may be alledged, that were all to marry, the consequence would be a
great multiplication. I say not; or if it were, what sort of
multiplication would it be? A multitude of children who never could come
to manhood; or who would starve their parents, and increase misery
beyond expression. All therefore that can be learned from bills of
mortality, &c. is, that if the births exceed the deaths, and that all
remain in the country, numbers will increase; that if the deaths exceed
the births, numbers will diminish; but while they stand at par, no
conclusion can be drawn as to numbers in general: these will be in a
less proportion as abusive procreation goes forward; and, _vice versa_,
they will be in a greater. There still hangs a cloud upon this subject:
let me therefore reason upon an example. Suppose the inhabitants of a
country to stand at 6,000,000, one thirtieth to die every year, and as
many to be born, that is, the births and burials to stand at 200,000;
that every three marriages subsisting produce a child every year, that
is 600,000 marriages; let the quantity of food be supposed the same,
without a possibility of being augmented. Would not the consequence be,
that numbers could not increase? Now let me suppose marriages carried to
1,000,000, I say the effect would be, either that they would become in
general less fruitful, or if they suffered no diminution in this
particular, that the bills of births and deaths would rise to 333,333;
that is to say, they would be to the number of inhabitants as 1 to 18,
instead of being as 1 to 30. Now this increase of mortality proceeding
from want of food, either the old would starve the young, or the young
would starve the old; or a third case, more probable than either, would
happen, the rich would starve the poor. What would be the consequences
in all these three suppositions? In the first, the number of 6,000,000
would be found to diminish; because the proportion of large consumers
would rise, and mortality would increase among the children. In the
second, the standard number would augment, because the proportion of
small consumers would rise, and mortality would increase among the
parents. In the third, numbers would remain pretty much the same, but
misery and distress would lay all the lower classes waste. It is
computed that one half of mankind die before the age of puberty in
countries where numbers do not augment; from this I conclude, that too
many are born. If methods therefore are fallen upon to render certain
diseases less mortal to children, all the good that will be got by it,
in general, will be to render old people of the lower classes more
wretched; for if the first are brought to live, the last must die.
From these speculations I cannot help wishing to see bills of mortality
made out for different classes, as well as for different ages. Were this
executed it would be an easy matter to perceive, whether the mortality
among children proceeds from diseases to which infancy is necessarily
exposed, or from abusive procreation. I am pretty much convinced before
I see the experiment, that it proceeds from the latter; but should
experience prove it, the principles I have laid down would acquire an
additional force. In the mean time, I must conclude, that it is not for
want of marrying that a people does not increase, but from the want of
subsistence; and it is miserable and abusive procreation which starves
one half of the whole, and is the fountain of so much wretchedness.
Upon the whole, I may say, that were it possible to get a view of the
general state of births and burials in every class of the inhabitants of
a country, marriage might surely be put upon a better footing than ever
it has been, for providing a determined number of good and wholesome
recruits every year towards national multiplication. This is walking in
the light, and is a means of procuring whatever augmentation of hands
you wish for. What difficulties may be found in the execution, nothing
but experience can shew; and this, to a judicious eye, will point out
the remedy. In my opinion, this will be far better than a general
naturalization, which I take to be a leap in the dark. For however easy
it may be to naturalize men, I believe nothing is so difficult as to
naturalize customs and foreign habits; and the greatest blessing any
nation can enjoy, is an uniformity of opinion upon every point which
concerns public affairs and the administration of them. When God blesses
a people, he makes them unanimous, and bestows upon them a governor who
loves them, and who is beloved, honoured and respected by them; this,
and this only, can create unanimity.
Let this suffice at present, as to the distribution, employment, and
increase of a people. Upon the proper employment of the free hands, the
prosperity of every state must depend: consequently the principal care
of a statesman should be, to keep all employed, and for this purpose he
must acquire an exact knowledge of the state of every denomination, in
order to prevent any one from rising above, or sinking below that
standard which is best proportioned to the demand made for their
particular industry. As the bad consequences resulting from the loss of
this exact balance are not immediate, a moderate attention, with the
help of the proper recapitulations, will be sufficient to direct him.
This and the two preceding chapters have in a manner wholly treated of
the employment of the free hands: I must now consider the effects of an
overcharge of those employed in agriculture. Here we shall still
discover inconveniencies, resulting from the want of that just
proportion in the distribution of classes, which gives health and vigour
to a state; and we shall see how it may happen, that even an overcharge
of inhabitants in general may become a political disease; as an
abundance of blood, however rich and good, may affect the health of the
human body.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
CHAP. XIV.
_Of the Abuse of Agriculture and Population._
I have taken notice above of two performances, wherein the authors, with
equal ability, have treated of the numbers of mankind; a subject which
has a very close connection with political oeconomy.
Although (as I have said) I do not pretend to decide between them as to
the point in dispute, I find that in this chapter I shall be naturally
led into a chain of reasoning very contrary to that of Mr. Wallace,
which is a thing I should have dispensed with, did not the merit of his
performance in the eyes of the learned world appear sufficient to draw
my attention.
Agriculture is without all doubt the foundation of multiplication, which
must ever be in proportion to it; that is, to the earth’s productions,
as has been said. But it does not follow, that in proportion to
multiplication those produced must of course become useful to one
another, and useful to the society in general. Now I consider
multiplication as no otherwise useful to a state, than in so far as the
additional number becomes so, to those who are already existing, whom I
consider as the body-politic of the society. If it therefore happens,
that an additional number produced do no more than feed themselves, then
I perceive no advantage gained to the society by their production. If,
without rendering any equivalent service, they are fed by others, there
is a loss.
Agriculture may be said to be carried to its utmost extent, when the
earth is so laboured as to produce the greatest quantity of fruits
possible for the use of man; and in judging of the improvement of two
spots of ground of the same extent, that may be said to be most improved
which produces the greatest quantity of food: but as to population, the
question does not stop there; for let the quantity be equal on both, yet
if the inhabitants of the one be more frugal livers than those of the
other, this circumstance alone will make an inequality. If agriculture
therefore be considered only with respect to population, we must
consider that country as the best peopled, where productions are the
most abundant, and where the inhabitants are the most sober. Thus much
with regard to the extent of agriculture and population: we come now to
consider the inconveniencies which may result to a society from an
over-stretch, or from what I call an abuse of either the one or the
other.
I call every thing an abuse in society which implies a contradiction to
the spirit of it, or which draws along with it an inconveniency to
certain classes, which is not compensated by the general welfare.
The political oeconomy of government is brought to perfection, when
every class in general, and every individual in particular, is made to
be aiding and assisting to the community, in proportion to the
assistance he receives from it. This conveys my idea of a free and
perfect society, which is, _a general tacit contract, from which
reciprocal and proportional services result universally between all
those who compose it_.
Whenever therefore any one is found, upon whom nobody depends, and who
depends upon every one, as is the case with him who is willing to work
for his bread, but who can find no employment, there is a breach of the
contract, and an abuse. For the same reason, if we can suppose any
person entirely taken up in feeding himself, depending upon no one, and
having nobody depending on him, we lose the idea of society, because
there are no reciprocal obligations between such a person and the other
members of the society.
Those who are for employing the whole of a people in agriculture may
answer, that all their time cannot be employed in this occupation, and
that in the intervals they may apply themselves to supply reciprocal
wants.
I very readily agree, that any person, who would calculate his labour in
agriculture, purely for his own subsistence, would find abundance of
idle hours. But the question is, whether in good oeconomy such a person
would not be better employed in providing _nourishment_ for others, than
in providing for any other want. When he provides food, he surely
provides for a want; and experience shews, that it is better for a man
to apply close to one trade, than to turn himself to several.
Hence I conclude, that the best way of binding a free society together,
is by multiplying reciprocal obligations, and creating a general
dependence between all its members. This cannot be better effected, than
by appropriating a certain number of inhabitants, for the production of
the quantity of food required for all, and by distributing the remainder
into proper classes for supplying every other want. I say farther, that
this distribution is not only the most rational, but that mankind fall
naturally into it; and misery attends and has ever attended those who
have been found without a particular employment.
It must not be concluded from this reasoning, that abuse is always
implied when we find any of the classes of the free hands of a state
casually employed in agriculture.
There is such a variety of circumstances in every country, that without
a peculiar talent of laying principles together, so as to answer every
combination, the most perfect theory which can be proposed must appear
defective.
In countries ill-improved, where industry begins to take root, we are
not to conclude, that good policy requires a sudden and immediate
separation between the dwellings of the husbandmen and free hands.
Sudden revolutions are constantly hurtful, and a good statesman ought to
lay down his plan of arriving at perfection by gradual steps.
If he finds, as is the case of rude and uncivilized societies, that many
are occupied, partly, in providing subsistence for their own family,
partly, in other useful pursuits, he may by degrees detach as many as he
can from every other branch of industry, except that of agriculture. The
most wealthy are the most proper to carry this branch to any degree of
perfection. The landed men ought to be encouraged by every means to
apply to the study of farming. This employment has been considered as
honourable in all ages of the world, and very well suits the rank, the
interest, and the amusement of gentlemen.
The next step is to introduce manufactures into the country, and to
provide a ready market abroad for every superfluous part of them. The
allurement of gain will soon engage every one to pursue that branch of
industry which succeeds best in his hands. By these means many will
follow manufactures and abandon agriculture; others will prosecute their
manufactures in the country, and avail themselves at the same time, of
small portions of land, proper for gardens, grass for cows, and even for
producing certain kinds of fruit necessary for their own maintenance.
This I do not consider as a species of farming. It is more properly, in
a political light, a sort of village life, only the village here appears
dispersed over a large extent; and I call it a village life, because
here the occupation of the inhabitants is principally directed towards
the prosecution of their trades: agriculture is but a subaltern
consideration, and will be carried on so far only, as it occasions no
great avocation from the main object. It will however have the effect to
parcel out the lands into small possessions: a system admirably
calculated for the improvement of the soil, and advantageous to
population, when the spirit of industry is not thereby checked. This is
not the case when such possessors apply totally to agriculture, and
content themselves with a bare subsistence from it, without prosecuting
any other branch of industry, or forming any plan of ambition for
themselves, or for their children’s emerging from so circumscribed a
sphere of life: from this alone proceeds, in most countries, the
inconveniency of a minute subdivision of land property.
We shall presently see, by various examples, the truth of this
proposition; and from what observations I have been able to make, it
appears, that a great inconvenience flows from it; the _property_ of the
lands, and not the _bare possession_ of them, is vested in the lower
classes. While they only remain as tenants, the interest of the
proprietor, on one hand, will lead him to incorporate these small
possessions into larger farms, the moment the possessors, by relaxing
from their principal occupation, (industry) are no longer able to pay a
rent above the value of the grounds when let in farms; and the interest
of these tenants, on the other hand, will frequently lead them to
abandon such small possessions, when the prosecution of their industry
demands a change of habitation. Thus the interest of agriculture will go
hand in hand with that of industry, and classes will separate their
habitations, according as their respective interests require.
It is certainly the interest of every landlord, whose land is ill
improved, to multiply habitations upon it, providing he makes choice of
such people as can live by some other branch of industry than bare
agriculture: and, in many cases, it may be his advantage to incorporate
his lands into farms as soon as they are fully cultivated. By this plan
he will advance the improvement of his land; he will multiply the useful
inhabitants; and he will at the same time share the profits of their
industry beyond the value of the land rent.
By these means has the woollen manufacture in England, and the linen in
Ireland and Scotland been greatly augmented. But as the improvement of
land goes on, this oeconomy will decline: towns will swell in
consequence of the principles we are now going to deduce; the lands will
become more thinly inhabited; and farms will by degrees grow more
extensive. I appeal to experience for the justness of this opinion.
Hence it plainly appears, that, in every light this matter can be
represented, we still find it impossible to employ usefully above a
certain part of a people in agriculture. The next question is, how to
determine the just proportion. For this purpose we must have recourse to
facts, not to theory. We have, in a former chapter, examined the state
of this question with regard to one country. I shall here only add,
that, in proportion to the culture of the soil, and to the number of
crops it is made to produce, a greater or less number will be required;
and in proportion to the surplus of food above what is necessary to
maintain the labourers, will a number of free hands be provided for. If
therefore a species of agriculture can be found established, which
produces little or no surplus, _there_ little or no industry can be
exercised; few wants can be supplied: this will produce a wonderful
simplicity of manners, will ruin the system of modern policy, and
produce what I must call an abuse. Let me look for some examples, in
order to set this question in a clearer light.
In the wine-provinces of France, we find the lands which lie round the
villages divided into very small lots, and there cultivation is carried
to a very extraordinary height. These belong _in property_ to the
peasants, who cultivate the vines. No frugality can be greater than in
the consumption of this produce, and the smallest weed which comes up
among the grain, is turned to account, for the food of animals. The
produce of such lands, I may say, is intirely consumed by the proprietor
and his family, who are all employed in the cultivation, and there is no
superfluous quantity here produced for the maintenance of others. Does
not this resemble the distribution of lands made by the Romans in favour
of 5000 Sabine families, where each received two _plethra_ of ground.
[See Numbers of Mankind, p. 117.] Now let me examine the political state
of agriculture, and of other labour performed by my French vine-dresser.
By the supposition we imply, that the bit of land is sufficient for
maintaining the man and his family, and nothing more; he has no grain to
sell, no food can by him be supplied to any other person whatever; but
the state of other lands capable of yielding a surplus, such as the
vineyard, produces a demand for his labour. This labour, considered with
respect to the vine-dresser, is a fund for providing all his wants in
manufactures, salt, &c. and what is over must be considered as his
profits, out of which he pays the royal impositions. The same labour,
considered with regard to the proprietor of the vineyard, enters into
that necessary deduction out of the fruits, which, when deducted, leaves
the remainder, which we call surplus, or what answers to the land rent.
This belongs to the proprietor, and becomes a fund for supplying all his
wants.
Here we have an idea of society. The vine-dresser depends upon the
proprietor for the price of his labour; the proprietor upon the
vine-dresser for his surplus. But did we suppose all the kingdom
parcelled out, and laboured, as the spot which lies round the village,
what would become of the vine-dresser with regard to all his other
wants; there would be no vines to dress, no surplus nourishment any
where found, consequently no employment, not even life, for those who
had no land. From this example we discover the difference between
agriculture exercised _as a trade_ and _as a direct means of
subsisting_, a distinction to be attended to, as it will very frequently
occur in the prosecution of our subject. We have the two species in the
vine-dresser: he labours the vineyard as a trade, and his spot of ground
for subsistence. We may farther conclude, that, as to the last part, he
is only useful to himself; but, as to the first, he is useful to the
society, and becomes a member of it; consequently, were it not for his
trade, the state would lose nothing, though the vine-dresser and his
land were both swallowed up by an earthquake. The food and the consumers
would both disappear together, without the least political harm to any
body: consequently, such a species of agriculture is no benefit to a
state; and consequently, neither is that species of multiplication,
implied by such a distribution of property, any benefit. Thus an
over-extension of agriculture and division of lands becomes an abuse,
and so, consequently, does an over-multiplication.
Here I am obliged to conclude, that those passages of Roman authors
which mention the frugality of that people, and the small extent of
their possessions cannot be rightly understood, without the knowledge of
many circumstances relative to the manners of those times. For if you
understand such a distribution of lands to have extended over all the
Roman territory, the number of the citizens would have far exceeded what
they appear to have been by the Census, and even surpass all belief. But
farther, I may be allowed to ask, whether or no it be supposed that
these frugal Romans laboured this small portion of lands with their own
hands and consumed the produce of it? If I am answered in the
affirmative, (which is necessary to prove the advantages of
agriculture’s being exercised by all the classes of a people) then I
ask, from whence were the inhabitants of Rome, and other cities,
subsisted; who fed the armies when in the field? If these were fed by
foreign grain imported, or plundered from their neighbours, where was
the advantage of this subdivision of lands, and of this extensive
agriculture, which could not feed the inhabitants of the state? If it be
said, that notwithstanding this frugal distribution of property among
the citizens, there was still found surplus enough to supply both Rome
and the armies, will it not then follow, that there was no necessity for
employing all the people in agriculture, since the labour of a part
might have sufficed.
_That number of husbandmen_, therefore, _is the best, which can provide
food for all the state; and that number of inhabitants is the best,
which is compatible with the full employment of every one of them_.
Idle mouths are only useful to themselves, not to the state;
consequently, are not an object of the care of the state, any farther
than to provide employment for them; and their welfare (while they
remain useless to others) is, in a free country, purely a matter of
private concern. Let me take another example for the farther
illustration of this matter.
Those who travel into the southern provinces of Spain, find large tracts
of land quite uncultivated, producing only a scanty pasture for herds of
the lesser cattle. Here and there are found interspersed some spots of
watered lands, which, from the profusion of every gift which nature can
bestow, strike a northern traveller with an idea of paradise. In such
places villages are found, and numbers of inhabitants. It must be
allowed that industry and labour do not here go forward as in other
countries; but to supply this want charity steps in. Charity in Spain
(in proportion to its extent) is as powerful a principle towards
multiplication as industry and labour. _Whatever gives food gives
numbers_: but charity cannot extend beyond superfluity, and this must
ever be in proportion to industry. These watered lands are well laboured
and improved. The value of them in one sense, is in proportion to their
fertility, and the surplus of the labourers should naturally be given
for an equivalent in money or work: but this equivalent cannot be found,
because the consumers have neither the one nor the other. If the
Spaniards, therefore, were not the most charitable people upon earth, it
is very plain that the labouring of these watered lands would diminish,
until it came upon a level with the wealth and industry of the
consumers. But here it is otherwise: labour goes on mechanically, and
without combination of circumstances, and the poor live in ease, in
proportion to the plenty of the year.
Here then is a third principle of multiplication. The first is slavery,
or a violent method of making mankind labour; the second is industry,
which is a rational excitement to it; the third is charity, which
resembles the manna in the desert, the gift of God upon a very
extraordinary occasion, and when nothing else could have preserved the
lives of his people. Whether, in all cases, this principle of
christianity advances the prosperity of a modern society (when complied
with from obedience to precept, without consulting reason as to the
circumstances of times and situations) is a question which lies out of
my road to examine. The action, considered in the intention of the
agent, must in every case appear highly beautiful, and we plainly see
how far it contributes to multiplication, though we do not so plainly
perceive how this again is advantageous to society.
Now if we examine the state of agriculture in the territory of this
Spanish village, we find, upon the whole, no more surplus of fruits than
upon the French vine dresser’s portion of land; consequently, if all
Spain was laboured and inhabited like this village and its small garden,
as it is called, it would be the most populous country in the world, the
most simple in the manner of living; but it never could communicate the
idea of a vigorous or a flourishing state. It is the employment alone of
the inhabitants which can impress that character.
Now in this last example, what a number of free hands do we find! are
not all the poor of this class? Would it not be better if all these by
their labour could purchase their subsistence, than be obliged to
receive it in the precarious manner they do? Can one suppose all these
people industrious, without implying what I call superfluity of labour?
Is not this luxury, according to my definition of it? Where would be the
harm if the Spanish farmer, who gives a third of his crop in charity,
should in return receive some changes of raiment, some convenient
furniture for his house, some embellishment to his habitation; these
things would cost him nothing; he would receive them in exchange for
what he now gives from a principle of charity, and those who have a
precarious, would have a certain livelihood. Let us travel a little
farther in search of the abuse of population.
In Germany, we find many small towns, formed into corporations, which
enjoy certain privileges. The freedom of such towns is not easily
purchased; and one, upon considering outward circumstances, must be not
a little surprized to hear of the sums refused, when offered, to obtain
it. Round these towns there is a small territory divided into very small
portions, and not able to maintain the inhabitants: these lands
therefore are infinitely overstocked with husbandmen; for every
proprietor, less or more, concerns himself with the cultivation. Here,
one who would aspire to extend his possession would, according to the
sentiment of Manius Curius Dentatus, certainly be considered as a
dangerous citizen, and a hurtful member of the society. Those lots are
divided among the children of the proprietors, who are free of the town,
by which means they are constantly splitting by multiplication, and
consolidating by death, and by marriage: these nearly balance one
another, and property remains divided as before. A stranger is at a loss
to find out the reason why the liberty of so poor a little town should
be so valuable. Here it is; first there are certain advantages enjoyed
in common, such as the privilege of pasture on the town lands, and
others of a like nature; but I find the charges which the burgesses are
obliged to pay, may more than compensate them. The principal reason
appears to be, that no one who has not the liberty of the town, can
settle in a way of industry so as to marry and have a family: because
without this his labour can only be directed towards furnishing the
wants of peasants who live in villages; these are few, and little
ingenuity is required for it. In towns there is found a greater
diversity of wants, and the people there have found out mechanically,
that if strangers were allowed to step in and supply them, their own
children would starve; therefore the heads of the corporation, who have
an interest to keep up the price of work, have also an interest to hold
the liberty of their town at a high value. This appears to me a pretty
just representation of the present state of some towns I have seen,
relative to the present object of inquiry.
But as industry becomes extended, and trade and manufactures are
established, this political oeconomy must disappear.
Such a change, however, will not probably happen without the
interposition of the sovereign, and a new plan of administration; what
else can give a turn to this spirit of idleness, or rather, as I may
call it, of this trifling industry? Agriculture can never be a proper
occupation for those who live in towns: this therefore is an abuse of
it, or rather indeed an abuse of employment.
Ease and plenty can never enter a little town, but by the means of
wealth; wealth can never come in but by the produce of labour going out;
and when people labour purely for their own subsistence, they only make
the little money they have circulate, but can acquire nothing new; and
those who with difficulty can maintain themselves, can never hope to
increase their numbers.
If in spite of the little industry set on foot in such towns, the
generative faculty shall work its effect and increase numbers, this will
make the poor parents still divide, and misery will ensue; this again
may excite compassion, and that will open the chests of those who have a
charitable disposition: hospitals are founded for the relief of the
poor, they are quickly filled, and as many necessitous remain as ever.
The reason is plain; the hospital applies a palliative for the abuse,
but offers no cure. A tree is no sooner discharged of its branches than
it pushes new ones. It has been said, that numbers are in proportion to
food; consequently, poor are in proportion to charity. Let the King give
his revenue in charity, he will soon find poor enough to consume it. Let
a rich man spend 100,000_l._ a year upon a table, he will find guests
(the best in the kingdom) for every cover. These things, in my way of
considering them, are all analogous, and flow from the same principle.
And the misery found in these little German towns, is another
modification of the abuse of population. These examples shew the
inconveniencies and abuses which result from a misapplication of
inhabitants to agriculture, which produces a population more burthensome
than beneficial to a modern state.
If the simplicity of the antients is worthy of imitation, or if it
appears preferable to the present system, which it is not my business to
decide, then either slavery must be introduced to make those subsist who
do not labour, or they must be fed upon charity. Labour and industry can
never, I think, be recommended on one hand, and the effects of them
proscribed on the other. If a great body of warlike men (as was the case
in Sparta) be considered as essential to the well being of the state; if
all trade and all superfluity be forbid amongst them, and no employment
but military exercises allowed; if all these warriors be fed at public
tables, must you not either have a set of helotes to plow the ground for
them, or a parcel of charitable Spanish farmers to feed them gratis.
Thus much I have thought might be of use to say to illustrate the
principles I have laid down. I find these very contrary to the reasoning
which runs through the whole of the performance which I mentioned above,
and which I have had in my eye. A more particular examination of it
might be useful, and even amusing; but it would engage me in too long a
disquisition for the nature of this work. I cannot however help, in this
place, adding one observation more, in consequence of our principles,
which _seems_ contrary to the strain of our ingenious author’s
reasoning. I say _seems_, because almost all difference of opinion upon
such subjects proceeds from the defect of language in transmitting our
ideas when complex or abstract.
The effect of diseases which sweep off numbers of people does not
essentially diminish population, except when they come suddenly or
irregularly, any more than it would necessarily dispeople the world if
all mankind were to be swept off the stage at the age of forty six
years. I apprehend that in man, as in every other animal, the generative
faculty is more than able to repair all losses occasioned by regular
diseases; and I have shewn, I think, more than once, that multiplication
never can stop but for want of food. As long then as the labour of man
can continue annually to produce the same quantity of food as at
present, and that motives are found to make him labour, the same numbers
may be fed, and the generative faculty, which from one pair has produced
so many millions, would certainly do more than keep up the stock,
although no person were to pass the age above mentioned. Here is the
proof: was the life of man confined to forty six years, the state of
mortality would be increased in the proportion which those who die above
forty six bear to those who die under this age. This proportion is, I
believe, as 1 to 10, consequently, mortality would increase 1⁄10,
consequently, numbers would be kept up by 1⁄10 increase upon births; and
surely the generative faculty of man far exceeds this proportion, when
the other requisites for propagation, to wit, food, &c. are to be found,
as by the supposition.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
CHAP. XV.
_Application of the above Principles to the State of Population in_
Great-Britain.
A letter from Dr. Brakenridge, F. R. S. addressed to George Lewis Scott,
Esq; which I found in the Danish Mercury for March 1758, furnishes me
with a very good opportunity of applying the principles we have been
laying down to the state of population in Great-Britain. I shall
therefore, according to my plan, pass in review that gentleman’s
opinion, without entring upon any refutation of it. I shall extract the
propositions he lays down, examine the conclusions he draws from them,
and then shew wherein they differ from those which result from the
theory established in this inquiry.
The author’s calculations and suppositions as to matters of fact shall
be taken for granted, as I believe the first are as good as any that can
be made, upon a subject where all the data required for solving the
problem are quite a piece of guess-work.
I must follow the Mercury, not having the original.
PROP. I. After a very close examination, says our author, I find, that
our islands gain, as to population, absolutely no more than what is
requisite for repairing their losses, and that, in England itself,
numbers would diminish, were they not recruited from Ireland and
Scotland.
PROP. II. Men, able to carry arms, that is from 18 to 56 years, make,
according to Dr. Halley, the fourth part of a people; and when a people
increase in numbers, every denomination, as to age, increases in that
proportion: consequently in England, where the number of inhabitants
does not exceed six millions, if the annual augmentation upon the whole
do not exceed 18,000, as I am pretty sure it does not, the yearly
augmentation of those fit to carry arms will be only 4,500.
PROP. III. In England, burials are to births, as 100 is to 113. I
suppose that, in Scotland and Ireland, they may be as 100 is to 124. And
as there may be, in these two last kingdoms, about two millions and a
half of inhabitants, the whole augmentation may be stated at 15,000; and
consequently that, of such as are fit to carry arms, at 3,750. Add this
number to those annually produced in England, and the sum total of the
whole augmentation in the British isles will be about 8,250.
PROP. IV. The strangers, who arrive in England, in order to settle, are
supposed to compensate those who leave the country with the same intent.
PROP. V. It is out of this number of 8,250, that all our losses are to
be deduced. If the colonies, wars, and navigation, carry off from us
annually 8,000 men, the British isles cannot augment in people: if we
lose more, numbers must diminish.
PROP. VI. By calculations, such as they are, our author finds, that,
upon an average of 66 years, from 1690 to 1756, this number of 8000 have
been annually lost, that is, have died abroad in the colonies, in war,
or on the account of navigation.
PROP. VII. That, since the inhabitants of Britain and Ireland are about
8,000,000, and that the augmentation is annually about 8000, we may
conclude in general for all Europe, that, for every million of
inhabitants, there is an annual augmentation of 1000; consequently,
every thousand men slain in war must destroy all the augmentation of a
million of inhabitants during a year. Consequently France, which
contains 14 millions, according to Sir William Petty, having lost above
14,000 men a-year, during the same 66 years, cannot have augmented in
population.
PROP. VIII. That the progress of trade and navigation augmenting the
loss of people by sea, must consequently have diminished population over
all Europe.
PROP. IX. The exportation of our corn proves what the above propositions
have demonstrated. For supposing the progress of agriculture to
compensate the additional quantity distilled of late years, there is
still 1⁄6 of the crop exported, which proves that our numbers are small,
and that they do not augment.
From these propositions our author concludes, that what stops
multiplication in the British isles is, 1st, That living in celibacy is
become a-la-mode: 2dly, That wars have been carried on beyond the
nation’s force: 3dly, That the use of spirituous liquors destroys great
numbers of inhabitants.
I shall now shortly apply the principles I have been laying down, in
order to resolve every phenomenon here described, as to the population
of Great Britain. These I shall willingly take for granted, as it is of
no consequence to my reasoning, whether they be exact or not: it is
enough that they may be so; and the question here is only to account for
them.
England, says he, would diminish in numbers, were it not recruited from
Scotland and Ireland. This, I say, is a contingent, not a certain
consequence: for did those grown-up adventurers cease to come in, the
inhabitants of England themselves would undoubtedly multiply, provided
an additional number of breeders could be found, able to bring up their
children. Now the importation of grown men into a country in so far
resembles the importation of slaves into our colonies, that the one and
the other diminishes the price of labour, and thereby prevents marriage
among certain classes of the natives, whose profits are not sufficient
for bringing up a family: and when any such do marry notwithstanding,
they do not multiply, as has been said. Now were the Scots and Irish to
come no more into England, the price of labour would rise; those who now
cannot bring up children, might then be enabled to do it, and this would
make the English multiply themselves; that is, it would augment the
number of their own breeders. On the other hand, did the price of labour
continue too low to prove a sufficient encouragement for an additional
number of English breeders, the contingent consequence would take place;
that is, numbers would diminish, according to our author’s supposition,
and the exportation of grain would increase, in proportion to that
diminution; and did foreign demand for grain also diminish, then
agriculture would suffer, and every thing would decline: but of this
more as we go along.
The representation he gives of the state of population in these
countries, is one modification of what I have called a moral incapacity
of a people’s increasing in numbers. It is just so in Africa, where the
inhabitants are sold; just so in Switzerland, and in many mountainous
countries, where inhabitants desert, in order to seek their fortunes
elsewhere. The national stock remains at an equal standard, and the
augmentation upon births above burials is constantly in proportion to
the exportation of inhabitants. Let this proportion rise ever so high,
an increase of national population is noways essentially to be implied
from this phenomenon alone, but must proceed from other causes.
I can find nothing advanced by our author to prove, or even to induce
one to believe, that had the lives of those eight thousands been yearly
preserved from extraordinary dangers, numbers would have augmented.
England enjoyed in a manner 26 years peace after the treaty of Utrecht.
For many years before, a very destructive war had been carried on. Had
the bills of births been produced from 1701 to 1713, had they been
compared with those from this last period to 1739, when the Spanish war
began, had we seen a gradual augmentation from year to year during those
last 26 years, such as might be expected from the preservation of a
considerable number at least of the 8,250 able healthy men, just in the
period of life fit for propagation, one might be tempted to conclude,
that the preceding war had done hurt to population, by interrupting the
propagation of the species. But if, by comparing the bills of births for
a considerable number of years, in war and in peace, one can discover no
sensible difference, it is very natural to conclude, either that those
wars did not destroy many breeders, or that others must have slipt in
directly, and bred in the place of those who had been killed. What
otherwise can be the reason why the number which our author supposes to
have been destroyed abroad, should so exactly compensate the annual
augmentation, but only that those nations are stocked to the full
proportion of their subsistence: and what is the reason why, after a
destructive war, which, by the suddenness of the revolution, sweeps off
numbers of the grown men, and diminishes the original stock, numbers
should in a few years get up to the former standard, and then stop
a-new.
From our author’s representation of the bills of births and deaths, I
should be apt to suspect, in consequence of my principles, that upon a
proper examination it would be found, that, in those years of war, the
proportion of births to deaths had been higher than in years of peace,
because more had died abroad. And, had the slaughter of the inhabitants
gone gradually on, increasing every year beyond the 8,250, I am of
opinion, that the proportion of births might very possibly have kept
pace with it. On the contrary, during the years of peace, the proportion
should have diminished, and had nobody died out of the country at all,
the births and deaths would have become exactly equal.
From what I have here said, the reader may perceive, that it is not
without reason that I have treated the principles relating to my subject
in general, and that I avoid as much as possible to reason from facts
alledged as to the state of particular countries. Those our author
builds upon may be true, and may be false: the proportion of births and
deaths in one place is no rule for another; we know nothing exactly
about the state of this question in the British isles; and it may even
daily vary, from a thousand circumstances. War _may_ destroy population
as well as agriculture, and it _may not_, according to circumstances.
When the calamity falls upon the breeders, and when these are supposed
the only people in the country in a capacity of bringing up their
children, births will soon diminish. When it destroys the indigent, who
cannot bring up their children, or who do not marry, births will remain
the same. The killing the wethers of a flock of sheep does not diminish
the brood of lambs next year; the killing of old pigeons makes a
pigeon-house thrive. When the calamity falls upon the farmers, who make
our lands produce, agriculture is hurt, no doubt: does it fall upon the
superfluities of cities, and other classes of the free hands, it may
diminish manufacturers, but agriculture will go on, while there is a
demand for its produce; and if a diminution of consumption at home be a
consequence of the war, the augmentation upon exportation will more than
compensate it. I do not find that war _diminishes_ the demand for
subsistence.
The long wars in Flanders in the beginning of this century interrupted
agriculture now and then, but did not destroy it. That in the Palatinate
in the end of the last ruined the country so, that it has hardly as yet
recovered it. War has different effects, according to circumstances.
OBJ. The population of the British isles is not stopt for want of food,
because one-sixth part of the crop is annually exported. I answer, That
it is still stopt for want of food, for the exportation only marks that
the home demand is satisfied; but this does not prove that the
inhabitants are full fed, although they can buy no more at the
exportation-price. Those who cannot buy, are exactly those who I say die
for want of subsistence: could they buy, they would live and multiply,
and no grain perhaps would be exported. This is a plain consequence of
my reasoning; and my principal point in view throughout this whole book,
is to find out a method for enabling those to buy who at present cannot,
and who therefore do not multiply; because they can give no equivalent
to the farmers for their superfluity, which consequently they export. By
this application of our principles, I have no occasion to call in
question our author’s facts. It is no matter what be the state of the
case: if the principles I lay down be just, they must resolve every
phenomenon.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
CHAP. XVI.
_Why are some Countries found very populous in respect of others,
equally well calculated for Improvement?_
This question comes immediately under the influence of the principles
already laid down, and must be resolved in consequence of them. It is
with a view to make the application of these, that I have proposed it;
and, in the examination, we shall prove their justness, or discover
their defects.
It may be answered in general, that every such difference must proceed
from what I call the spirit of the government and of the people, which
will not only decide as to numbers, but as to many other things. I must
however observe, that the question in itself is of little importance, if
nothing but numbers be considered; for of what consequence is it to know
how many people are in a country, when the employment of them does not
enter into the inquiry? Besides, it is only by examining the employment
of a people, that I can form any judgment as to this particular. But as
the numbers of mankind have been thought a point worthy of examination,
I have chosen this title for a chapter, which might perhaps have more
properly stood under another.
While slavery prevailed, I see no reason to conclude against the numbers
of mankind, as I have said already: when slavery was abolished, and
before industry took place, if my principles be true that period I think
should mark the time of the thinnest population in Europe; for I believe
it will be found, that there never was an example of a country, however
fertile by nature, where every one was absolutely free; where there was
little or no industry, nor labour, but in agriculture; and where, at the
same time, there were many inhabitants, not beggars, nor living upon
charity. I have mentioned this so often, that I am afraid of tiring my
reader with useless repetitions. I have brought it in here, only to give
him an opportunity of applying this principle to the solution of the
question before us.
I shall begin my inquiry by asking what is understood by a country’s
being populous; for that term presents different ideas, if circumstances
are not attended to. I have heard it said, that France was a desert, and
that there was nobody found in it but in towns; while in England one
cannot travel half a mile without finding a farm, perhaps two together;
and in looking round, one sees the whole country divided into small
possessions. The difference here found, I apprehend, decides nothing in
favour of, or against the real populousness of the one or the other, but
proceeds entirely from circumstances relative to agriculture, and to the
distribution of free hands. These circumstances will be better
understood from the examination of facts, than from the best theory in
the world. Let one consider the state of agriculture in Picardy and in
Beauce, and then compare it with the practice in many provinces in
England, and the contrast will appear striking. Were there more forest
in England, to supply the inhabitants with fuel, I imagine many
inclosures, useful at first for improving the grounds, would be taken
away, and the country laid more open; were wolves less common in France,
there would be found more scattered farms. Cattle there must be shut up
in the night, and cannot be left in the fields; this is a great
discouragement to inclosing. Where there are no inclosures, there are
few advantages to be found from establishing the farm-house exactly upon
the spot of ground to be laboured; and then the advantages which result
to certain classes of inhabitants, from being gathered together, the
farmers with the tradesmen, are found to preponderate. Thus the French
farmers are gathered into villages, and the English remain upon their
fields. But farther, in Picardy and Beauce agriculture has been long
established, and, I imagine, that, at the time when lands were first
broken up, or rather improved, their habitations must have been closer
together.
This drawing together of inhabitants must leave many ruinous
possessions, and this, by the by, is one reason why people cry out upon
the desolation of France, because ruinous houses (which may often times
be a mark of improvement, not of desertion) are found in different
places in the country. Paris has grown considerably in bulk, and from
this it naturally happens, that the country round is purged of idle
mouths. If this makes labour dear in the country, it is the city alone
which suffers by it, the country must certainly be the gainers. So much
for two species of population in two of the best inhabited countries of
Europe. I now come to another in one of the worst.
In some countries you find every farm-house surrounded with small huts,
possessed by numbers of people, supposed to be useful to the farmer.
These in Scotland are called cottars, (cottagers) because they live in
cottages. If you consider them in a political light, they will appear to
be inhabitants appropriated for agriculture. In one sense they are so,
if by that you understand the gathering in of the fruits; in another
they are not, if by agriculture you understand the turning up the
surface. I bring in this example, and shall enlarge a little upon it,
because I imagine it to be, less or more, the picture of Europe 400
years ago.
The Scotch farmer must have hands to gather in a scanty produce, spread
over a large extent of ground. He has six cottars, I shall suppose; but
these cottars must have wives, and these wives will have children, and
all must be fed before the master’s rent can be paid. It never comes
into the cottar’s head to suppose that his children can gain money by
their labour; the farmer never supposes that it is possible for him to
pay his rent without the assistance of his cottars to tend his cattle,
and gather in his crop; and the master cannot go against the custom of
the country, without laying his land waste. All these children are ready
at the farmer’s disposal; he can, without any expence, send what parcels
of sheep he pleases, to different distances of half a mile or more, to
feed upon spots of ground which, without the conveniency of these
children, would be entirely lost. By this plan of farming, landlords who
have a great extent of country which they are not able to improve, can
let the whole in a very few farms, and at the same time all the
spontaneous produce of the earth is gathered in and consumed. If you
compare the rent of these lands with the extent, it appears very small;
if you compare it with the numbers fed upon the farm, you will find that
an estate in the highlands maintains, perhaps, ten times as many people
as another of the same value in a good and fertile province. Thus it is
in some estates as in some convents of the begging order, the more
mouths the better cheer.
I shall now suppose our modern policy to inspire an ingenious or public
spirited lady to set up a weaver or two at a farm-house. The cottars
begin to spin; they will be a long time in attaining to a dexterity
sufficient to appear at the weaver’s house, in competition with others
who are accustomed to the trade; consequently this manufacture will be
long in a languishing condition; but if the undertaking is supported
with patience, these obstacles will be got the better of. Those who
tended herds of cattle for a poor maintenance, will turn themselves to a
more profitable occupation; the farmer will find more difficulty in
getting hands, he will complain, perhaps give way; the master will lose
a year’s rent, and no body will take so extensive a farm; it must be
divided, then it must be improved, and then it produces more grain upon
one tenth, than perhaps formerly was produced upon the whole. This grain
is bought with the price of spinning; the parents divide with the
children, who are fed, and spin in their turn. When this is
accomplished, what is the revolution? Why, formerly the earth fed all
the inhabitants with her spontaneous productions, as I may call them;
now more labour is exercised upon turning up her surface, this she pays
in grain, which belongs to the strong man for his labour and toil; women
and children have no direct share, because they have not contributed
thereto, as they did in feeding cattle. But they spin, and have money to
buy what they have not force to produce; consequently they live; but as
they become useless as cottars, they remove from their mother earth, and
gather into villages. When this change is effected the lands appear less
inhabited; ruinous huts (nay, villages I may call them) are found
frequently, and many would be apt to conclude, that the country is
depopulated; but this is by no means found to be the case, when the
whole is taken together.
The spirit therefore of the principal people of a country determines the
employment of the lower classes; the employment of these determines
their usefulness to the state, and their usefulness, their
multiplication. The more they are useful, the more they gain, according
to the definition of the contract of society; the more they gain, the
more they can feed; and consequently the more they will marry and divide
with their children. This increases useful population, and encourages
agriculture. Compare the former with the present situation, as to
numbers, as to ease, as to happiness!
Is it not plain, that when the earth is not improved it cannot produce
so much nourishment for man as when it is? On the other hand, if
industry does not draw into the hands of the indigent, wherewith to
purchase this additional nourishment, no body will be at a considerable
first expence to break up grounds in order to produce it. The
withdrawing therefore a number of hands from a trifling agriculture
forces, in a manner, the husbandman to work the harder; and by hard
labour upon a small spot, the same effect is produced as with slight
labour upon a great extent.
I have said, that I imagined the state of agriculture in the Scotch
farm, was a pretty just representation of the general state of Europe
about 400 years ago: if not in every province of every country, at least
in every country for the most part. Several reasons induce me to think
so: first, where there is no industry, nothing but the earth directly
can feed her children, little alienation of her fruits can take place.
Next, because I find a wonderful analogy between the way of living in
some provinces of different countries with what I have been describing.
Pipers, blue bonnets, and oat meal, are known in Swabia, Auvergne,
Limousin, and Catalonia, as well as in Lochaber: numbers of idle, poor,
useless hands, multitudes of children, whom I have found to be fed, no
body knows how, doing nothing at the age of fourteen, keeping of cattle
and going to school, the only occupations supposed possible for them. If
you ask why they are not employed, they tell you because commerce is not
in the country: they talk of commerce as if it was a man, who comes to
reside in some countries in order to feed the inhabitants. The truth is,
it is not the fault of these poor people, but of those whose business it
is to find out employment for them.
Another reason I derive from the nature of the old tenures, where we
find lands which now produce large quantities of grain, granted for a
mere trifle, when at the same time others in the neighbourhood of cities
and abbies are found charged with considerable prestations. This I
attribute to the bad cultivation of lands at that time, From which I
infer, a small population. In those days of trouble and confusion,
confiscations were very frequent, large tracts of lands were granted to
the great lords upon different revolutions, and these finding them often
deserted, as is mentioned in history, (the vassals of the former, being
either destroyed or driven out to make place for the new comers) used to
parcel them out for small returns in every thing but personal service.
Such sudden and violent revolutions must dispeople a country; and
nothing but tranquillity, security, order and industry, for ages
together, can render it populous.
Besides these natural causes of population and depopulation (which
proceed, as we have observed, from a certain turn given to the spirit of
a people) there are others which operate with irresistible force, by
sudden and violent revolutions. The King of Prussia, for example,
attempted to people a country all at once, by profiting of the desertion
of the Saltzburgers. America is become very poorly peopled in some spots
upon the coast, and in some islands, at the expence of the exportation
of millions from Europe and from Africa; such methods never can succeed
in proportion to the attempt. Spain, on the other hand, was depopulated
by the expulsion of its anti-christian inhabitants. These causes work
evident effects, which there is little occasion to explain, although the
more remote consequences of them may deserve observation. I shall, in
another place, have occasion to examine the manner of our peopling
America. In this place, I shall make a few observations upon the
depopulation of Spain, and finish my chapter.
That country is said to have been antiently very populous under the
government of the Moors. I am not sufficiently versed in the politics,
oeconomy and manners of that people, to judge how far these might be
favourable to population: what seems, however, to confirm what we are
told, is, the large repositories they used for preserving grain, which
still remain entire, though never once made use of. They watered the
kingdoms of Valencia, Murcia and Granada. They gathered themselves into
cities of which we still can discover the extent. The country which they
now possess (though drier than Spain) furnishes Europe with considerable
quantities of grain. The palace of the Moorish King at Granada, shews a
taste for luxury. The mosque of Cordoua speaks a larger capital. All
these are symptoms of population, but they only help one to guess. The
numbers which history mentions to have been driven out, is a better way
still of judging, if the fidelity of historians could be depended upon,
when there is any question about numbers.
Here was an example of a country depopulated in a very extraordinary
manner: yet I am of opinion, that the scarcity of inhabitants complained
of in that country, for a long time after the expulsion, did not so much
proceed from the effects of the loss sustained, as from the contract
between the spirit of those christians who remained after the expulsion,
and their catholic deliverers. The christians who lived among the Moors,
were really Moors as to manners, though not as to religion. Had they
adopted the spirit of the subjects of Castile, or had they been governed
according to their own, numbers would soon have risen to the former
standard. But as the christian lord governed his Murcian, Andalousian,
and Granada subjects, according to the principles of christian policy,
was it any wonder that in such an age of ignorance, prejudice, and
superstition, the country (one of the finest in the world) should be
long in recovering? Recover, however, it did; and sooner perhaps than is
commonly believed: for I say it was recovered so soon as all the flat
and watered lands were brought into cultivation; because I have reason
to believe that the Moors never carried their agriculture farther in
these southern provinces.
From this I still conclude, that no destruction of inhabitants by
expulsion, captivity, war, pestilence or famine, is so permanently
hurtful to population, as a revolution in that spirit which is necessary
for the increase and support of numbers. Let that spirit be kept up, and
let mankind be well governed, numbers will quickly increase to their
former standard, after the greatest reduction possible: and while they
are upon the augmenting hand, the state will be found in more heart and
more vigour, than when arrived even at the former height; for so soon as
a state ceases to grow in prosperity, I apprehend it begins to decay
both in health and vigour.
------------------------------------------------------------------------