honest labour?--And why? One of the late scribblers against us gives
a bill of fare of the provisions at my daughter's wedding, and
proclaims to all the world, that we had the insolence to eat beef and
pudding!--Has he not read the precept in the good book, _Thou shalt
not muzzle the mouth of the ox that treadeth out the corn_; or does
he think us less worthy of good living than our oxen?
O, but the manufacturers! the manufacturers! they are to be favoured,
and they must have bread at a cheap rate!
Hark ye, Mr. Oaf:--The farmers live splendidly, you say. And pray,
would you have them hoard the money they get? Their fine clothes
and furniture, do they make them themselves or for one another, and
so keep the money among them? Or, do they employ these your darling
manufacturers, and so scatter it again all over the nation?
The wool would produce me a better price, if it were suffered to
go to foreign markets; but that, Messieurs the Public, your laws
will not permit. It must be kept all at home, that our _dear_
manufacturers may have it the cheaper. And then, having yourselves
thus lessened our encouragement for raising sheep, you curse us for
the scarcity of mutton!
I have heard my grandfather say, that the farmers submitted to the
prohibition on the exportation of wool, being made to expect and
believe, that when the manufacturer bought his wool cheaper, they
should also have their cloth cheaper. But the deuce a bit. It has
been growing dearer and dearer from that day to this. How so? Why,
truly, the cloth is exported; and that keeps up the price.
Now if it be a good principle, that the exportation of a commodity is
to be restrained, that so our people at home may have it the cheaper;
stick to that principle, and go thorough stitch with it. Prohibit the
exportation of your cloth, your leather, and shoes, your ironware,
and your manufactures of all sorts, to make them, all cheaper at
home. And cheap enough they will be, I will warrant you--till people
leave off making them.
Some folks seem to think they ought never to be easy till England
becomes another Lubberland, where it is fancied the streets are paved
with penny-rolls, the houses tiled with pancakes, and chickens, ready
roasted, cry, Come eat me.
I say, when you are sure you have got a good principle, stick to
it, and carry it thorough.--I hear it is said, that though it was
_necessary and right_ for the m----y to advise a prohibition of the
exportation of corn, yet it was _contrary to law_; and also, that
though it was _contrary to law_ for the mob to obstruct waggons,
yet it was _necessary and right_.--Just the same thing to a tittle.
Now they tell me, an act of indemnity ought to pass in favour of
the m----y, to secure them from the consequences of having acted
illegally.--If so, pass another in favour of the mob. Others say,
some of the mob ought to be hanged, by way of example.---If so,--but
I say no more than I have said before, _when you are sure that you
have got a good principle, go through with it_.
You say, poor labourers cannot afford to buy bread at a high price,
unless they had higher wages.--Possibly.--But how shall we farmers be
able to afford our labourers higher wages, if you will not allow us
to get, when we might have it, a higher price for our corn?
By all that I can learn, we should at least have had a guinea a
quarter more, if the exportation had been allowed. And this money
England would have got from foreigners.
But, it seems, we farmers must take so much less, that the poor may
have it so much cheaper.
This operates then as a tax for the maintenance of the poor. A very
good thing, you will say. But I ask, why a partial tax? why laid on
us farmers only? If it be a good thing, pray, Messieurs the Public,
take your share of it, by indemnifying us a little out of your
public treasury. In doing a good thing, there is both honour and
pleasure--you are welcome to your share of both.
For my own part, I am not so well satisfied of the goodness of this
thing. I am for doing good to the poor, but I differ in opinion about
the means. I think the best way of doing good to the poor, is, not
making them easy _in_ poverty, but leading or driving them _out_
of it. In my youth I travelled much, and I observed in different
countries, that the more public provisions were made for the poor,
the less they provided for themselves, and of course became poorer.
And, on the contrary, the less was done for them, the more they did
for themselves, and became richer. There is no country in the world
where so many provisions are established for them; so many hospitals
to receive them when they are sick or lame, founded and maintained
by voluntary charities; so many alms houses for the aged of both
sexes, together with a solemn general law made by the rich to subject
their estates to a heavy tax for the support of the poor. Under all
these obligations, are our poor modest, humble, and thankful? And do
they use their best endeavours to maintain themselves, and lighten
our shoulders of this burthen? On the contrary, I affirm, that
there is no country in the world in which the poor are more idle,
dissolute, drunken, and insolent. The day you passed that act, you
took away from before their eyes the greatest of all inducements to
industry, frugality, and sobriety, by giving them a dependence on
somewhat else than a careful accumulation during youth and health,
for support in age or sickness. In short, you offered a premium for
the encouragement of idleness, and you should not now wonder, that
it has had its effect in the increase of poverty. Repeal that law,
and you will soon see a change in their manners, _Saint Monday_, and
_Saint Tuesday_, will soon cease to be holidays. Six _days shalt thou
labour_, though one of the old commandments long treated as out of
date, will again be looked upon as a respectable precept; industry
will increase, and with it plenty among the lower people; their
circumstances will mend, and more will be done for their happiness
by inuring them to provide for themselves, than could be done by
dividing all your estates among them.
Excuse me, Messieurs the Public, if upon this _interesting_ subject,
I put you to the trouble of reading a little of _my_ nonsense; I am
sure I have lately read a great deal of _yours_, and therefore from
you (at least from those of you who are writers) I deserve a little
indulgence.
I am yours, &c.
ARATOR[88].
FOOTNOTES:
[86] The following extracts of a letter signed Columella, and
addressed to the editors of the Repository for select Papers on
Agriculture, Arts, and Manufactures (See Vol. I. p. 352.) will again
serve the purpose of preparing those who read it, for entering upon
this paper.
"GENTLEMEN,
"There is now publishing in France a periodical work, called
Ephemeridis du Citoyen, in which several points, interesting to those
concerned in agriculture, are from time to time discussed by some
able hands. In looking over one of the volumes of this work a few
days ago, I found a little piece written by one of our countrymen,
and which our vigilant neighbours had taken from the London Chronicle
in 1766. The author is a gentleman well known to every man of letters
in Europe, and perhaps there is none, in this age, to whom mankind in
general are more indebted.
"That this piece may not be lost to our own country, I beg you will
give it a place in your Repository: it was written in favour of the
farmers, when they suffered so much abuse in our public papers, and
were also plundered by the mob in many places."
The principles on which this piece is grounded are given more at
large in the Political Fragments, art. 2. B. V.
[87] It is not necessary to repeat in what degree Dr. Franklin
respected the ministers, to whom he alludes.--The embargo upon corn
was but a single measure, which, it is enough to say, an host of
politicians thought well advised, but ill defended. Of the great
and honourable services of the earl of Chatham to his country, Dr.
Franklin has borne the amplest testimony. B. V.
[88] The late Mr. Owen Ruffhead, being some time ago employed in
preparing _a digest of our poor laws_, communicated a copy of it to
Dr. Franklin for his advice. Dr. Franklin recommended, that provision
should be made therein, for the printing on a sheet of paper and
dispersing, in each parish in the kingdom, annual accounts of every
disbursement and receipt of its officers. It is obvious to remark,
how greatly this must tend to check both the officers and the poor,
and to inform and interest the parishioners with respect to parish
concerns.--Some of the American colonies actually practise this
measure with a success which might justify its adoption here. B. V.
TO BENJAMIN VAUGHAN, ESQ[89].
_On Luxury, Idleness, and Industry._
Written in 1784.
It is wonderful how preposterously the affairs of this world are
managed. Naturally one would imagine, that the interest of a few
individuals should give way to general interest; but individuals
manage their affairs with so much more application, industry, and
address, than the public do theirs, that, general interest most
commonly gives way to particular. We assemble parliaments and
councils, to have the benefit of their collected wisdom; but we
necessarily have, at the same time, the inconvenience of their
collected passions, prejudices, and private interests. By the help of
these, artful men overpower their wisdom, and dupe its possessors:
and if we may judge, by the acts, arrets, and edicts, all the world
over, for regulating commerce, an assembly of great men is the
greatest fool upon earth.
I have not yet, indeed, thought of a remedy for luxury. I am not
sure that in a great state it is capable of a remedy, nor that the
evil is in itself always so great as it is represented. Suppose we
include in the definition of luxury all unnecessary expence, and then
let us consider, whether laws to prevent such expence are possible
to be executed in a great country, and whether, if they could be
executed, our people generally would be happier, or even richer. Is
not the hope of being one day able to purchase and enjoy luxuries, a
great spur to labour and industry? May not luxury therefore produce
more than it consumes, if, without such a spur, people would be,
as they are naturally enough inclined to be, lazy and indolent? To
this purpose I remember a circumstance. The skipper of a shallop,
employed between Cape-May and Philadelphia, had done us some small
service, for which he refused to be paid. My wife, understanding
that he had a daughter, sent her a present of a new-fashioned cap.
Three years after, this skipper being at my house with an old farmer
of Cape-May, his passenger, he mentioned the cap, and how much his
daughter had been pleased with it. "But (said he) it proved a dear
cap to our congregation." "How so?" "When my daughter appeared with
it at meeting, it was so much admired, that all the girls resolved
to get such caps from Philadelphia; and my wife and I computed, that
the whole could not have cost less than a hundred pounds." "True
(said the farmer), but you do not tell all the story. I think the cap
was nevertheless an advantage to us, for it was the first thing that
put our girls upon knitting worsted mittens for sale at Philadelphia,
that they might have wherewithal to buy caps and ribbons there,
and you know that that industry has continued, and is likely to
continue and increase to a much greater value, and answer better
purposes."--Upon the whole, I was more reconciled to this little
piece of luxury, since not only the girls were made happier by having
fine caps, but the Philadelphians by the supply of warm mittens.
In our commercial towns upon the sea-coast, fortunes will
occasionally be made. Some of those who grow rich will be prudent,
live within bounds, and preserve what they have gained for their
posterity: others, fond of showing their wealth, will be extravagant,
and ruin themselves. Laws cannot prevent this: and perhaps it is not
always an evil to the public. A shilling spent idly by a fool, may
be picked up by a wiser person, who knows better what to do with
it. It is therefore not lost. A vain silly fellow builds a fine
house, furnishes it richly, lives in it expensively, and in a few
years ruins himself: but the masons, carpenters, smiths, and other
honest tradesmen, have been by his employ assisted in maintaining and
raising their families; the farmer has been paid for his labour, and
encouraged, and the estate is now in better hands. In some cases,
indeed, certain modes of luxury may be a public evil, in the same
manner as it is a private one. If there be a nation, for instance,
that exports its beef and linen, to pay for the importation of claret
and porter, while a great part of its people live upon potatoes,
and wear no shirts, wherein does it differ from the sot, who lets
his family starve, and sells his clothes to buy drink? Our American
commerce is, I confess, a little in this way. We sell our victuals to
the islands for rum and sugar; the substantial necessaries of life
for superfluities. But we have plenty, and live well nevertheless,
though, by being soberer, we might be richer.
The vast quantity of forest land we have yet to clear, and put
in order for cultivation, will for a long time keep the body of
our nation laborious and frugal. Forming an opinion of our people
and their manners, by what is seen among the inhabitants of the
sea-ports, is judging from an improper sample. The people of
the trading towns may be rich and luxurious, while the country
possesses all the virtues, that tend to promote happiness and public
prosperity. Those towns are not much regarded by the country; they
are hardly considered as an essential part of the states, and the
experience of the last war has shown, that their being in the
possession of the enemy did not necessarily draw on the subjection
of the country, which bravely continued to maintain its freedom and
independence notwithstanding.
It has been computed by some political arithmetician, that if every
man and woman would work for four hours each day on something useful,
that labour would produce sufficient to procure all the necessaries
and comforts of life, want and misery would be banished out of the
world, and the rest of the twenty-four hours might be leisure and
pleasure.
What occasions then so much want and misery? It is the employment
of men and women in works, that produce neither the necessaries
nor conveniences of life, who, with those who do nothing, consume
necessaries raised by the laborious. To explain this.
The first elements of wealth are obtained by labour, from the earth
and waters. I have land, and raise corn. With this, if I feed a
family that does nothing, my corn will be consumed, and at the end of
the year I shall be no richer than I was at the beginning. But if,
while I feed them, I employ them, some in spinning, others in making
bricks, &c. for building, the value of my corn will be arrested and
remain with me, and at the end of the year we may all be better
clothed and better lodged. And if, instead of employing a man I feed
in making bricks, I employ him in fiddling for me, the corn he eats
is gone, and no part of his manufacture remains to augment the wealth
and convenience of the family: I shall therefore be the poorer for
this fiddling man, unless the rest of my family work more, or eat
less, to make up the deficiency he occasions.
Look round the world, and see the millions employed in doing nothing,
or in something that amounts to nothing, when the necessaries and
conveniences of life are in question. What is the bulk of commerce,
for which we fight and destroy each other, but the toil of millions
for superfluities, to the great hazard and loss of many lives, by the
constant dangers of the sea? How much labour is spent in building and
fitting great ships, to go to China and Arabia for tea and coffee,
to the West Indies for sugar, to America for tobacco? These things
cannot be called the necessaries of life, for our ancestors lived
very comfortably without them.
A question may be asked: could all these people now employed in
raising, making, or carrying superfluities, be subsisted by raising
necessaries? I think they might. The world is large, and a great part
of it still uncultivated. Many hundred millions of acres in Asia,
Africa, and America, are still in a forest, and a great deal even
in Europe. On a hundred acres of this forest a man might become a
substantial farmer, and a hundred thousand men, employed in clearing
each his hundred acres, would hardly brighten a spot big enough to be
visible from the moon, unless with Herschel's telescope; so vast are
the regions still in wood.
It is, however, some comfort to reflect, that, upon the whole, the
quantity of industry and prudence among mankind exceeds the quantity
of idleness and folly. Hence the increase of good buildings, farms
cultivated, and populous cities filled with wealth, all over Europe,
which a few ages since were only to be found on the coasts of the
Mediterranean; and this notwithstanding the mad wars continually
raging, by which are often destroyed in one year the works of many
years peace. So that we may hope the luxury of a few merchants on the
coast will not be the ruin of America.
One reflection more, and I will end this long rambling letter. Almost
all the parts of our bodies require some expence. The feet demand
shoes; the legs stockings; the rest of the body clothing; and the
belly a good deal of victuals. Our eyes, though exceedingly useful,
ask, when reasonable, only the cheap assistance of spectacles, which
could not much impair our finances. But the eyes of other people are
the eyes that ruin us. If all but myself were blind, I should want
neither fine clothes, fine houses, nor fine furniture.
FOOTNOTE:
[89] This letter is taken from a periodical publication, that existed
only for a short period, entitled, The Repository, to which it was
communicated by the person to whom it is addressed. _Editor._
_On Smuggling, and its various Species[90]._
SIR,
There are many people that would be thought, and even think
themselves, _honest_ men, who fail nevertheless in particular points
of honesty; deviating from that character sometimes by the prevalence
of mode or custom, and sometimes through mere inattention; so that
their _honesty_ is partial only, and not _general_ or universal. Thus
one, who would scorn to over-reach you in a bargain, shall make no
scruple of tricking you a little now and then at cards; another, that
plays with the utmost fairness, shall with great freedom cheat you in
the sale of a horse. But there is no kind of dishonesty, into which
otherwise good people more easily and frequently fall, than that of
defrauding government of its revenues by smuggling, when they have an
opportunity, or encouraging smugglers by buying their goods.
I fell into these reflections the other day, on hearing two gentlemen
of reputation discoursing about a small estate, which one of them
was inclined to sell, and the other to buy; when the seller, in
recommending the place, remarked, that its situation was very
advantageous on this account, that, being on the sea-coast in a
smuggling country, one had frequent opportunities of buying many
of the expensive articles used in a family (such as tea, coffee,
chocolate, brandy, wines, cambrics, Brussels laces, French silks,
and all kinds of India goods), 20, 30, and in some articles 50 _per
cent_ cheaper, than they could be had in the more interior parts, of
traders that paid duty.--The other _honest_ gentlemen allowed this
to be an advantage, but insisted, that the seller, in the advanced
price he demanded on that account, rated the advantage much above its
value. And neither of them seemed to think dealing with smugglers a
practice, that an _honest_ man (provided he got his goods cheap) had
the least reason to be ashamed of.
At a time when the load of our, public debt, and the heavy expence
of maintaining our fleets and armies to be ready for our defence on
occasion, makes it necessary, not only to continue old taxes, but
often to look out for new ones, perhaps it may not be unuseful to
state this matter in a light, that few seem to have considered it in.
The people of Great Britain, under the happy constitution of this
country, have a privilege few other countries enjoy, that of choosing
the third branch of the legislature, which branch has alone the
power of regulating their taxes. Now whenever the government finds
it necessary for the common benefit, advantage, and safety of the
nation, for the security of our liberties, property, religion, and
every thing that is dear to us, that certain sums shall be yearly
raised by taxes, duties, &c. and paid into the public treasury,
thence to be dispensed by government for those purposes; ought not
every _honest man_ freely and willingly to pay his just proportion
of this necessary expence? Can he possibly preserve a right to that
character, if, by any fraud, stratagem, or contrivance, he avoids
that payment in whole or in part.
What should we think of a companion, who, having supped with his
friends at a tavern, and partaken equally of the joys of the evening
with the rest of us, would nevertheless contrive by some artifice
to shift his share of the reckoning upon others, in order to go off
scot-free? If a man who practised this would, when detected, be
deemed and called a scoundrel, what ought he to be called, who can
enjoy all the inestimable benefits of public society, and yet by
smuggling, or dealing with smugglers, contrive to evade paying his
just share of the expence, as settled by his own representatives in
parliament; and wrongfully throw it upon his honester and perhaps
much poorer neighbours? He will perhaps be ready to tell me, that
he does not wrong his neighbours; he scorns the imputation, he only
cheats the king a little, who is very able to bear it. This however
is a mistake. The public treasure is the treasure of the nation,
to be applied to national purposes. And when a duty is laid for a
particular public and necessary purpose, if, through smuggling, that
duty falls short of raising the sum required, and other duties must
therefore be laid to make up the deficiency, all the additional sum
laid by the new duties and paid by other people, though it should
amount to no more than a halfpenny or a farthing per head, is so
much actually picked out of the pockets of those other people by
the smugglers and their abettors and encouragers. Are they then
any better or other than pickpockets? and what mean, low, rascally
pickpockets must those be, that can pick pockets for halfpence and
for farthings?
I would not however be supposed to allow in what I have just said,
that cheating the king is a less offence against honesty, than
cheating the public. The king and the public in this case are
different names for the same thing; but if we consider the king
distinctly it will not lessen the crime: it is no justification of
a robbery, that the person robbed was rich and able to bear it. The
king has as much right to justice as the meanest of his subjects;
and as he is truly the common _father_ of his people, those that rob
him fall under the scripture woe, pronounced against the son _that
robbeth his father, and saith it is no sin_.
Mean as this practice is, do we not daily see people of character and
fortune engaged in it for trifling advantages to themselves?--Is any
lady ashamed to request of a gentleman of her acquaintance, that when
he returns from abroad, he would smuggle her home a piece of silk or
lace from France or Flanders? Is any gentleman ashamed to undertake
and execute the commission?--Not in the least. They will talk of it
freely, even before others whose pockets they are thus contriving to
pick by this piece of knavery.