in a nation, do, by the same reasoning, increase the people of the
nation, that furnishes them, and diminish the people of the nation,
that uses them. Laws, therefore, that prevent such importations,
and, on the contrary, promote the exportation of manufactures to
be consumed in foreign countries, may be called (with respect to
the people that make them) _generative laws_, as, by increasing
subsistence, they encourage marriage. Such laws likewise strengthen
a country doubly, by increasing its own people, and diminishing its
neighbours.
17. Some European nations prudently refuse to consume the
manufactures of East India:--they should likewise forbid them to
their colonies; for the gain to the merchant is not to be compared
with the loss, by this means, of people to the nation.
18. Home luxury in the great increases the nation's manufacturers
employed by it, who are many, and only tends to diminish the families
that indulge in it, who are few. The greater the common fashionable
expence of any rank of people, the more cautious they are of
marriage. Therefore luxury should never be suffered to become common.
19. The great increase of offspring in particular families is not
always owing to greater fecundity of nature, but sometimes to
examples of industry in the heads, and industrious education, by
which the children are enabled to provide better for themselves,
and their marrying early is encouraged from the prospect of good
subsistence.
20. If there be a sect, therefore, in our nation, that regard
frugality and industry as religious duties, and educate their
children therein, more than others commonly do, such sect must
consequently increase more by natural generation than any other sect
in Britain.
21. The importation of foreigners into a country, that has as many
inhabitants as the present employments and provisions for subsistence
will bear, will be in the end no increase of people, unless the
new-comers have more industry and frugality than the natives, and
then they will provide more subsistence, and increase in the country;
but they will gradually eat the natives out.--Nor is it necessary to
bring in foreigners to fill up any occasional vacancy in a country;
for such vacancy (if the laws are good, § 14, 16) will soon be filled
by natural generation. Who can now find the vacancy made in Sweden,
France, or other warlike nations, by the plague of heroism 40 years
ago; in France, by the expulsion of the protestants; in England,
by the settlement of her colonies; or in Guinea by a hundred years
exportation of slaves, that has blackened half America? The thinness
of the inhabitants in Spain is owing to national pride, and idleness,
and other causes, rather than to the expulsion, of the Moors, or to
the making of new settlements.
22. There is, in short, no bound to the prolific nature of plants
or animals, but what is made by their crowding and interfering with
each other's means of subsistence. Was the face of the earth vacant
of other plants, it might be gradually sowed and the overspread
with one kind only, as for instance, with fennel; and were it empty
of other inhabitants, it might, in a few ages, be replenished from
one nation only, as for instance, with Englishmen. Thus there are
supposed to be now upwards of one million of English souls in North
America (though it is thought scarce 80,000 have been brought over
sea) and yet perhaps there is not one the fewer in Britain, but
rather many more, on account of the employment the colonies afford to
manufacturers at home. This million doubling, suppose but once in 25
years, will, in another century, be more than the people of England,
and the greatest number of Englishmen will be on this side the water.
What an accession of power to the British empire by sea as well as
land! What increase of trade and navigation! What numbers of ships
and seamen! We have been here but little more than a hundred years,
and yet the force of our privateers in the late war, united, was
greater, both in men and guns, than that of the whole British navy in
queen Elizabeth's time. How important an affair then to Britain is
the present treaty[78] for settling the bounds between her colonies
and the French! and how careful should she be to secure, room enough,
since on the room depends so much the increase of her people?
23. In fine, a nation well regulated is like a polypus[79], take
away a limb, its place is soon supplied; cut it in two, and each
deficient part shall speedily grow out of the part remaining. Thus,
if you have room and subsistence enough, as you may, by dividing,
make ten polypuses out of one, you may, of one, make ten nations,
equally populous and powerful; or, rather, increase a nation tenfold
in numbers and strength.
* * * * *
FOOTNOTES:
[77] This paper and the answer to it are the last we have to extract
from Mr. Collinson's collection. The papers that follow, having notes
with the signature B. V., are from the collection referred to before,
Vol. I, p. 399. _Editor._
[78] In 1751.
[79] A water insect, well-known to naturalists.
R. J.[80] ESQ. OF LONDON, TO BENJAMIN FRANKLIN, ESQ. AT PHILADELPHIA.
_Remarks on some of the foregoing Observations, showing
particularly the Effect which manners have on Population._
DEAR SIR,
It is now near three years since I received your excellent
_Observations on the Increase of Mankind_, &c. in which you have
with so much sagacity and accuracy shown in what manner, and by
what causes, that principal means of political grandeur is best
promoted; and have so well supported those just inferences you have
occasionally drawn, concerning the general state of our American
colonies, and the views and conduct of some of the inhabitants of
Great Britain.
You have abundantly proved, that natural fecundity is hardly to
be considered, because the _vis generandi_, as far as we know,
is unlimited, and because experience shows, that the numbers of
nations is altogether governed by collateral causes, and among these
none of so much force as quantity of subsistence, whether arising
from climate, soil, improvement of tillage, trade, fisheries,
secure property, conquest of new countries, or other favourable
circumstances.
As I perfectly concurred with you in your sentiments on these heads,
I have been very desirous of building somewhat on the foundation you
have there laid; and was induced, by your hints in the twenty-first
section, to trouble you with some thoughts on the influence manners
have always had, and are always likely to have, on the numbers of a
people, and their political prosperity in general.
The end of every individual is its own private good. The rules it
observes in the pursuit of this good are a system of propositions,
almost every one founded in authority, that is, derive their
weight from the credit given to one or more persons, and not from
demonstration.
And this, in the most important as well as the other affairs of
life, is the case even of the wisest and philosophical part of the
human species; and that it should be so is the less strange, when we
consider, that it is perhaps impossible to prove, that _being_, or
life itself, has any other value than what is set on it by authority.
A confirmation of this may be derived from the observation, that, in
every country in the universe, happiness is sought upon a different
plan; and, even in the same country, we see it placed by different
ages, professions, and ranks of men, in the attainment of enjoyments
utterly unlike.
These propositions, as well as others framed upon them, become
habitual by degrees, and, as they govern the determination of the
will, I call them _moral habits_.
There are another set of habits, that have the direction of the
members of the body, that I call therefore _mechanical habits_. These
compose what we commonly call _the arts_, which are more or less
liberal or mechanical, as they more or less partake of assistance
from the operations of the mind.
The _cumulus_ of the moral habits of each individual is the manners
of that individual; the _cumulus_ of the manners of individuals makes
up the manners of a nation.
The happiness of individuals is evidently the end of political
society; and political welfare, or the strength, splendour, and
opulence of the state, have been always admitted, both by political
writers, and the valuable part of mankind in general, to conduce to
this end, and are therefore desirable.
The causes, that advance or obstruct any one of these three objects,
are external or internal. The latter may be divided into physical,
civil, and personal, under which last head I comprehend the moral and
mechanical habits of mankind. The physical causes are principally
climate, soil, and number of subjects; the civil, are government and
laws; and political welfare is always in a ratio composed of the
force of these particular causes; a multitude of external causes,
and all these internal ones, not only control and qualify, but are
constantly acting on, and thereby insensibly, as well as sensibly,
altering one another, both for the better and the worse, and this not
excepting the climate itself.
The powerful efficacy of manners in encreasing a people is manifest
from the instance you mention, the Quakers; among them industry and
frugality multiply and extend the use of the necessaries of life;
to manners of a like kind are owing the populousness of Holland,
Switzerland, China, Japan, and most parts of Indostan, &c. in every
one of which, the force of extent of territory and fertility of soil
is multiplied, or their want compensated by industry and frugality.
Neither nature nor art have contributed much to the production of
subsistence in Switzerland, yet we see frugality preserves and
even increases families, that live on their fortunes, and which,
in England, we call the gentry; and the observation we cannot but
make in the southern part of this kingdom, that those families,
including all superior ones, are gradually becoming extinct,
affords the clearest proof, that luxury (that is, a greater expence
of subsistence than in prudence a man ought to consume) is as
destructive as a proportionable want of it; but in Scotland, as
in Switzerland, the gentry, though one with another they have not
one-fourth of the income, increase in number.
And here I cannot help remarking, by the by, how well founded your
distinction is between the increase of mankind in old and new settled
countries in general, and more particularly in the case of families
of condition. In America, where the expences are more confined, to
necessaries, and those necessaries are cheap, it is common to see
above one hundred persons descended from one living old man. In
England, it frequently happens, where a man has seven, eight, or more
children, there has not been a descendant in the next generation,
occasioned by the difficulties the number of children has brought on
the family, in a luxurious dear country, and which have prevented
their marrying.
That this is more owing to luxury than mere want appears from what I
have said of Scotland, and more plainly from parts of England remote
from London, in most of which the necessaries of life are nearly as
dear, in some dearer than London, yet the people of all ranks marry
and breed up children.
Again; among the lower ranks of life, none produce so few children
as servants. This is, in some measure, to be attributed to their
situation, which hinders marriage, but is also to be attributed to
their luxury and corruption of manners, which are greater than among
any other set of people in England, and is the consequence of a
nearer view of the lives and persons of a superior rank, than any
inferior rank, without a proper education, ought to have.
The quantity of subsistence in England has unquestionably become
greater for many ages; and yet if the inhabitants are more numerous,
they certainly are not so in proportion to our improvement of the
means of support. I am apt to think there are few parts of this
kingdom, that have not been at some former time more populous than
at present. I have several cogent reasons for thinking so of great
part of the counties I am most intimately acquainted with; but as
they were probably not all most populous at the same time, and as
some of our towns are visibly and vastly grown in bulk, I dare not
suppose, as judicious men have done, that England is less peopled
than heretofore.
This growth of our towns is the effect of a change of manners, and
improvement of arts, common to all Europe; and though it is not
imagined, that it has lessened the country growth of necessaries,
it has evidently, by introducing a greater consumption of them, (an
infallible consequence of a nation's dwelling in towns) counteracted
the effects of our prodigious advances in the arts.
But however frugality may supply the place, or prodigality counteract
the effects, of the natural or acquired subsistence of a country,
industry is, beyond doubt, a more efficacious cause of plenty than
any natural advantage of extent or fertility. I have mentioned
instances of frugality and industry united with extent and fertility.
In Spain and Asia Minor, we see frugality joined to extent and
fertility, without industry; in Ireland, we once saw the same;
Scotland had then none of them but frugality. The change in these
two countries is obvious to every one, and it is owing to industry
not yet very widely diffused in either. The effects of industry and
frugality in England are surprising; both the rent and the value of
the inheritance of land depend on them greatly more than on nature,
and this, though there is no considerable difference in the prices of
our markets. Land of equal goodness lets for double the rent of other
land lying in the same county, and there are many years purchase
difference between different counties, where rents are equally well
paid and secure.
Thus manners operate upon the number of inhabitants, but of their
silent effects upon a civil constitution, history, and even our
own experience, yields us abundance of proofs, though they are
not uncommonly attributed to external causes: their support of a
government against external force is so great, that it is a common
maxim among the advocates of liberty, that no free government was
ever dissolved, or overcome, before the manners of its subjects were
corrupted.
The superiority of Greece over Persia was singly owing to their
difference of manners; and that, though all natural advantages were
on the side of the latter, to which I might add the civil ones; for
though the greatest of all civil advantages, liberty, was on the
side of Greece, yet that added no political strength to her, than
as it operated on her manners, and, when they were corrupted, the
restoration of their liberty by the Romans, overturned the remains of
their power.
Whether the manners of ancient Rome were at any period calculated
to promote the happiness of individuals, it is not my design to
examine; but that their manners, and the effects of those manners
on their government and public conduct, founded, enlarged, and
supported, and afterwards overthrew their empire, is beyond all
doubt. One of the effects of their conquest furnishes us with a
strong proof, how prevalent manners are even beyond quantity of
subsistence; for, when the custom of bestowing on the citizens of
Rome corn enough to support themselves and families was become
established, and Egypt and Sicily produced the grain, that fed the
inhabitants of Italy, this became less populous every day, and the
_jus trium liberorum_ was but an expedient, that could not balance
the want of industry and frugality.
But corruption of manners did not only thin the inhabitants of the
Roman empire, it rendered the remainder incapable of defence, long
before its fall, perhaps before the dissolution of the republic; so
that without standing disciplined armies, composed of men, whose
moral habits principally, and mechanical habits secondarily, made
them different from the body of the people, the Roman empire had been
a prey to the barbarians many ages before it was.
By the mechanical habits of the soldiery, I mean their discipline,
and the art of war; and that this is but a secondary quality appears
from the inequality that has in all ages been between raw, though
well disciplined armies, and veterans, and more from the irresistible
force a single moral habit, religion, has conferred on troops,
frequently neither disciplined nor experienced.
The military manners of the noblesse in France, compose the chief
force of that kingdom, and the enterprising manners and restless
dispositions of the inhabitants of Canada have enabled a handful of
men to harass our populous, and, generally, less martial colonies;
yet neither are of the value they seem at first sight, because
overbalanced by the defect they occasion of other habits, that would
produce more eligible political good: and military manners in a
people are not necessary in an age and country where such manners may
be occasionally formed and preserved among men enough to defend the
state; and such a country is Great Britain, where, though the lower
class of people are by no means of a military cast, yet they make
better soldiers than even the noblesse of France.
The inhabitants of this country, a few ages back, were to the
populous and rich provinces of France, what Canada is now to the
British colonies. It is true, there was less disproportion between
their natural strength; but I mean, that the riches of France were a
real weakness, opposed to the military manners founded upon poverty
and a rugged disposition, then the character of the English; But it
must be remembered, that at this time the manners of a people were
not distinct from that of their soldiery, for the use of standing
armies has deprived a military people of the advantages they before
had over others; and though it has been often said, that civil wars
give power, because they render all men soldiers, I believe this has
only been found true in internal wars following civil wars, and not
in external ones; for now, in foreign wars, a small army, with ample
means to support it, is of greater force than one more numerous, with
less. This last fact has often happened between France and Germany.
The means of supporting armies, and consequently the power of
exerting external strength, are best found in the industry and
frugality of the body of a people living under a government and laws,
that encourage commerce: for commerce is at this day almost the only
stimulus, that forces every one to contribute a share of labour for
the public benefit.
But such is the human frame, and the world is so constituted, that
it is a hard matter to possess ones self of a benefit, without
laying ones self open to a loss on some other side; the improvements
of manners of one sort often deprave those of another: thus we see
industry and frugality under the influence of commerce, which I
call a commercial spirit, tend to destroy, as well as support, the
government it flourishes under.
Commerce perfects the arts, but more the mechanical than the liberal,
and this for an obvious reason; it softens and enervates the manners.
Steady virtue and unbending integrity are seldom to be found where
a spirit of commerce pervades every thing; yet the perfection of
commerce is, that every thing should have its price. We every day
see its progress, both to our benefit and detriment here. Things,
that _boni mores_ forbid to be set to sale, are become its objects,
and there are few things indeed _extra commercium_. The legislative
power itself has been _in commercio_, and church livings are seldom
given without consideration, even by sincere Christians, and, for
consideration, not seldom to very unworthy persons. The rudeness of
ancient military times and the fury of more modern enthusiastic ones
are worn off; even the spirit of forensic contention is astonishingly
diminished, all marks of manners softening; but luxury and corruption
have taken their places, and seem the inseparable companions of
commerce and the arts.
I cannot help observing, however, that this is much more the case in
extensive countries, especially at their metropolis, than in other
places. It is an old observation of politicians, and frequently
made by historians, that small states always best preserve their
manners. Whether this happens from the greater room there is for
attention in the legislature, or from the less room there is for
ambition and avarice, it is a strong argument, among others, against
an incorporating union of the colonies in America, or even a federal
one, that may tend to the future reducing them under one government.
Their power, while disunited, is less, but their liberty; as well
as manners, is more secure; and, considering the little danger
of any conquest to be made upon them, I had rather they should
suffer something through disunion, than see them under a general
administration less equitable than that concerted at Albany[81].
I take it, the inhabitants of Pensylvania are both frugal and
industrious beyond those of any province in America. If luxury should
spread, it cannot be extirpated by laws. We are told by Plutarch,
that Plato used to say, _It was a hard thing to make laws for the
Cyrenians, a people abounding in plenty and opulence_.
But from what I set out with, it is evident, if I be not mistaken,
that education only can stem the torrent, and, without checking
either true industry or frugality, prevent the sordid frugality and
laziness of the old Irish, and many of the modern Scotch, (I mean
the inhabitants of that country, those who leave it for another
being generally industrious) or the industry, mixed with luxury, of
this capital, from getting ground, and, by rendering ancient manners
familiar, produce a reconciliation between disinterestedness and
commerce; a thing we often see, but almost always in men of a liberal
education.
To conclude: when we would form a people, soil and climate may be
found at least sufficiently good; inhabitants may be encouraged to
settle, and even supported for a while; a good government and laws
may be framed, and even arts may be established, or their produce
imported: but many necessary moral habits are hardly ever found
among those who voluntary offer themselves in times of quiet at
home, to people new colonies; besides that the moral, as well as
mechanical habits adapted to a mother country are frequently not so
to the new settled one, and to external events, many of which are
always unforeseen. Hence it is we have seen such fruitless attempts
to settle colonies, at an immense public and private expence, by
several of the powers of Europe: and it is particularly observable,
that none of the English colonies became any way considerable, till
the necessary manners were born and grew up in the country, excepting
those to which singular circumstances at home forced manners fit for
the forming a new state.
I am, sir, &c.
R.J.
FOOTNOTES:
[80] Richard Jackson, an English barrister. _Editor._
[81] The reader will see an account of this plan in the subsequent
volume. _Editor._
_Plan, by Messieurs Franklin and Dalrymple, for benefitting distant
unprovided Countries[82]._
_Aug. 29, 1771._
The country called in the maps New Zealand has been discovered by the
Endeavour, to be two islands, together as large as Great Britain:
these islands, named Acpy-nomawée and Tovy-poennammoo, are inhabited
by a brave and generous race, who are destitute of _corn_, _fowls_,
and _all quadrupeds_, except _dogs_.
These circumstances being mentioned lately in a company of men of
liberal sentiments, it was observed, that it seemed incumbent on such
a country as this, to communicate to all others the conveniences of
life, which we enjoy.