Models too perfect may sometimes rather impede than promote
improvement--Mr Godwin's essay on 'Avarice and
Profusion'--Impossibility of dividing the necessary labour of a society
amicably among all--Invectives against labour may produce present evil,
with little or no chance of producing future good--An accession to the
mass of agricultural labour must always be an advantage to the labourer.
Mr Godwin in the preface to his Enquirer, drops a few expressions which
seem to hint at some change in his opinions since he wrote the
Political Justice; and as this is a work now of some years standing, I
should certainly think that I had been arguing against opinions which
the author had himself seen reason to alter, but that in some of the
essays of the Enquirer, Mr Godwin's peculiar mode of thinking appears
in as striking a light as ever.
It has been frequently observed that though we cannot hope to reach
perfection in any thing, yet that it must always be advantageous to us
to place before our eyes the most perfect models. This observation has
a plausible appearance, but is very far from being generally true. I
even doubt its truth in one of the most obvious exemplifications that
would occur. I doubt whether a very young painter would receive so much
benefit, from an attempt to copy a highly finished and perfect picture,
as from copying one where the outlines were more strongly marked and
the manner of laying on the colours was more easily discoverable. But
in cases where the perfection of the model is a perfection of a
different and superior nature from that towards which we should
naturally advance, we shall not always fail in making any progress
towards it, but we shall in all probability impede the progress which
we might have expected to make had we not fixed our eyes upon so
perfect a model. A highly intellectual being, exempt from the infirm
calls of hunger or sleep, is undoubtedly a much more perfect existence
than man, but were man to attempt to copy such a model, he would not
only fail in making any advances towards it; but by unwisely straining
to imitate what was inimitable, he would probably destroy the little
intellect which he was endeavouring to improve.
The form and structure of society which Mr Godwin describes is as
essentially distinct from any forms of society which have hitherto
prevailed in the world as a being that can live without food or sleep
is from a man. By improving society in its present form, we are making
no more advances towards such a state of things as he pictures than we
should make approaches towards a line, with regard to which we were
walking parallel. The question, therefore, is whether, by looking to
such a form of society as our polar star, we are likely to advance or
retard the improvement of the human species? Mr Godwin appears to me to
have decided this question against himself in his essay on 'Avarice and
Profusion' in the Enquirer.
Dr Adam Smith has very justly observed that nations as well as
individuals grow rich by parsimony and poor by profusion, and that,
therefore, every frugal man was a friend and every spendthrift an enemy
to his country. The reason he gives is that what is saved from revenue
is always added to stock, and is therefore taken from the maintenance
of labour that is generally unproductive and employed in the
maintenance of labour that realizes itself in valuable commodities. No
observation can be more evidently just. The subject of Mr Godwin's
essay is a little similar in its first appearance, but in essence is as
distinct as possible. He considers the mischief of profusion as an
acknowledged truth, and therefore makes his comparison between the
avaricious man, and the man who spends his income. But the avaricious
man of Mr Godwin is totally a distinct character, at least with regard
to his effect upon the prosperity of the state, from the frugal man of
Dr Adam Smith. The frugal man in order to make more money saves from
his income and adds to his capital, and this capital he either employs
himself in the maintenance of productive labour, or he lends it to some
other person who will probably employ it in this way. He benefits the
state because he adds to its general capital, and because wealth
employed as capital not only sets in motion more labour than when spent
as income, but the labour is besides of a more valuable kind. But the
avaricious man of Mr Godwin locks up his wealth in a chest and sets in
motion no labour of any kind, either productive or unproductive. This
is so essential a difference that Mr Godwin's decision in his essay
appears at once as evidently false as Dr Adam Smith's position is
evidently true. It could not, indeed, but occur to Mr Godwin that some
present inconvenience might arise to the poor from thus locking up the
funds destined for the maintenance of labour. The only way, therefore,
he had of weakening this objection was to compare the two characters
chiefly with regard to their tendency to accelerate the approach of
that happy state of cultivated equality, on which he says we ought
always to fix our eyes as our polar star.
I think it has been proved in the former parts of this essay that such
a state of society is absolutely impracticable. What consequences then
are we to expect from looking to such a point as our guide and polar
star in the great sea of political discovery? Reason would teach us to
expect no other than winds perpetually adverse, constant but fruitless
toil, frequent shipwreck, and certain misery. We shall not only fail in
making the smallest real approach towards such a perfect form of
society; but by wasting our strength of mind and body, in a direction
in which it is impossible to proceed, and by the frequent distress
which we must necessarily occasion by our repeated failures, we shall
evidently impede that degree of improvement in society, which is really
attainable.
It has appeared that a society constituted according to Mr Godwin's
system must, from the inevitable laws of our nature, degenerate into a
class of proprietors and a class of labourers, and that the
substitution of benevolence for self-love as the moving principle of
society, instead of producing the happy effects that might be expected
from so fair a name, would cause the same pressure of want to be felt
by the whole of society, which is now felt only by a part. It is to the
established administration of property and to the apparently narrow
principle of self-love that we are indebted for all the noblest
exertions of human genius, all the finer and more delicate emotions of
the soul, for everything, indeed, that distinguishes the civilized from
the savage state; and no sufficient change has as yet taken place in
the nature of civilized man to enable us to say that he either is, or
ever will be, in a state when he may safely throw down the ladder by
which he has risen to this eminence.
If in every society that has advanced beyond the savage state, a class
of proprietors and a class of labourers must necessarily exist, it is
evident that, as labour is the only property of the class of labourers,
every thing that tends to diminish the value of this property must tend
to diminish the possession of this part of society. The only way that a
poor man has of supporting himself in independence is by the exertion
of his bodily strength. This is the only commodity he has to give in
exchange for the necessaries of life. It would hardly appear then that
you benefit him by narrowing the market for this commodity, by
decreasing the demand for labour, and lessening the value of the only
property that he possesses.
It should be observed that the principal argument of this Essay only
goes to prove the necessity of a class of proprietors, and a class of
labourers, but by no means infers that the present great inequality of
property is either necessary or useful to society. On the contrary, it
must certainly be considered as an evil, and every institution that
promotes it is essentially bad and impolitic. But whether a government
could with advantage to society actively interfere to repress
inequality of fortunes may be a matter of doubt. Perhaps the generous
system of perfect liberty adopted by Dr Adam Smith and the French
economists would be ill exchanged for any system of restraint.
Mr Godwin would perhaps say that the whole system of barter and
exchange is a vile and iniquitous traffic. If you would essentially
relieve the poor man, you should take a part of his labour upon
yourself, or give him your money, without exacting so severe a return
for it. In answer to the first method proposed, it may be observed,
that even if the rich could be persuaded to assist the poor in this
way, the value of the assistance would be comparatively trifling. The
rich, though they think themselves of great importance, bear but a
small proportion in point of numbers to the poor, and would, therefore,
relieve them but of a small part of their burdens by taking a share.
Were all those that are employed in the labours of luxuries added to
the number of those employed in producing necessaries, and could these
necessary labours be amicably divided among all, each man's share might
indeed be comparatively light; but desirable as such an amicable
division would undoubtedly be, I cannot conceive any practical
principle according to which it could take place. It has been shewn,
that the spirit of benevolence, guided by the strict impartial justice
that Mr Godwin describes, would, if vigorously acted upon, depress in
want and misery the whole human race. Let us examine what would be the
consequence, if the proprietor were to retain a decent share for
himself, but to give the rest away to the poor, without exacting a task
from them in return. Not to mention the idleness and the vice that such
a proceeding, if general, would probably create in the present state of
society, and the great risk there would be, of diminishing the produce
of land, as well as the labours of luxury, another objection yet
remains.
Mr Godwin seems to have but little respect for practical principles;
but I own it appears to me, that he is a much greater benefactor to
mankind, who points out how an inferior good may be attained, than he
who merely expatiates on the deformity of the present state of society,
and the beauty of a different state, without pointing out a practical
method, that might be immediately applied, of accelerating our advances
from the one, to the other.
It has appeared that from the principle of population more will always
be in want than can be adequately supplied. The surplus of the rich man
might be sufficient for three, but four will be desirous to obtain it.
He cannot make this selection of three out of the four without
conferring a great favour on those that are the objects of his choice.
These persons must consider themselves as under a great obligation to
him and as dependent upon him for their support. The rich man would
feel his power and the poor man his dependence, and the evil effects of
these two impressions on the human heart are well known. Though I
perfectly agree with Mr Godwin therefore in the evil of hard labour,
yet I still think it a less evil, and less calculated to debase the
human mind, than dependence, and every history of man that we have ever
read places in a strong point of view the danger to which that mind is
exposed which is entrusted with constant power.
In the present state of things, and particularly when labour is in
request, the man who does a day's work for me confers full as great an
obligation upon me as I do upon him. I possess what he wants, he
possesses what I want. We make an amicable exchange. The poor man walks
erect in conscious independence; and the mind of his employer is not
vitiated by a sense of power.
Three or four hundred years ago there was undoubtedly much less labour
in England, in proportion to the population, than at present, but there
was much more dependence, and we probably should not now enjoy our
present degree of civil liberty if the poor, by the introduction of
manufactures, had not been enabled to give something in exchange for
the provisions of the great Lords, instead of being dependent upon
their bounty. Even the greatest enemies of trade and manufactures, and
I do not reckon myself a very determined friend to them, must allow
that when they were introduced into England, liberty came in their
train.
Nothing that has been said tends in the most remote degree to
undervalue the principle of benevolence. It is one of the noblest and
most godlike qualities of the human heart, generated, perhaps, slowly
and gradually from self-love, and afterwards intended to act as a
general law, whose kind office it should be, to soften the partial
deformities, to correct the asperities, and to smooth the wrinkles of
its parent: and this seems to be the analog of all nature. Perhaps
there is no one general law of nature that will not appear, to us at
least, to produce partial evil; and we frequently observe at the same
time, some bountiful provision which, acting as another general law,
corrects the inequalities of the first.
The proper office of benevolence is to soften the partial evils arising
from self-love, but it can never be substituted in its place. If no man
were to allow himself to act till he had completely determined that the
action he was about to perform was more conducive than any other to the
general good, the most enlightened minds would hesitate in perplexity
and amazement; and the unenlightened would be continually committing
the grossest mistakes.
As Mr Godwin, therefore, has not laid down any practical principle
according to which the necessary labours of agriculture might be
amicably shared among the whole class of labourers, by general
invectives against employing the poor he appears to pursue an
unattainable good through much present evil. For if every man who
employs the poor ought to be considered as their enemy, and as adding
to the weight of their oppressions, and if the miser is for this reason
to be preferred to the man who spends his income, it follows that any
number of men who now spend their incomes might, to the advantage of
society, be converted into misers. Suppose then that a hundred thousand
persons who now employ ten men each were to lock up their wealth from
general use, it is evident, that a million of working men of different
kinds would be completely thrown out of all employment. The extensive
misery that such an event would produce in the present state of society
Mr Godwin himself could hardly refuse to acknowledge, and I question
whether he might not find some difficulty in proving that a conduct of
this kind tended more than the conduct of those who spend their incomes
to 'place human beings in the condition in which they ought to be
placed.' But Mr Godwin says that the miser really locks up nothing,
that the point has not been rightly understood, and that the true
development and definition of the nature of wealth have not been
applied to illustrate it. Having defined therefore wealth, very justly,
to be the commodities raised and fostered by human labour, he observes
that the miser locks up neither corn, nor oxen, nor clothes, nor
houses. Undoubtedly he does not really lock up these articles, but he
locks up the power of producing them, which is virtually the same.
These things are certainly used and consumed by his contemporaries, as
truly, and to as great an extent, as if he were a beggar; but not to as
great an extent as if he had employed his wealth in turning up more
land, in breeding more oxen, in employing more tailors, and in building
more houses. But supposing, for a moment, that the conduct of the miser
did not tend to check any really useful produce, how are all those who
are thrown out of employment to obtain patents which they may shew in
order to be awarded a proper share of the food and raiment produced by
the society? This is the unconquerable difficulty.
I am perfectly willing to concede to Mr Godwin that there is much more
labour in the world than is really necessary, and that, if the lower
classes of society could agree among themselves never to work more than
six or seven hours in the day, the commodities essential to human
happiness might still be produced in as great abundance as at present.
But it is almost impossible to conceive that such an agreement could be
adhered to. From the principle of population, some would necessarily be
more in want than others. Those that had large families would naturally
be desirous of exchanging two hours more of their labour for an ampler
quantity of subsistence. How are they to be prevented from making this
exchange? it would be a violation of the first and most sacred property
that a man possesses to attempt, by positive institutions, to interfere
with his command over his own labour.
Till Mr Godwin, therefore, can point out some practical plan according
to which the necessary labour in a society might be equitably divided,
his invectives against labour, if they were attended to, would
certainly produce much present evil without approximating us to that
state of cultivated equality to which he looks forward as his polar
star, and which, he seems to think, should at present be our guide in
determining the nature and tendency of human actions. A mariner guided
by such a polar star is in danger of shipwreck.
Perhaps there is no possible way in which wealth could in general be
employed so beneficially to a state, and particularly to the lower
orders of it, as by improving and rendering productive that land which
to a farmer would not answer the expense of cultivation. Had Mr Godwin
exerted his energetic eloquence in painting the superior worth and
usefulness of the character who employed the poor in this way, to him
who employed them in narrow luxuries, every enlightened man must have
applauded his efforts. The increasing demand for agricultural labour
must always tend to better the condition of the poor; and if the
accession of work be of this kind, so far is it from being true that
the poor would be obliged to work ten hours for the same price that
they before worked eight, that the very reverse would be the fact; and
a labourer might then support his wife and family as well by the labour
of six hours as he could before by the labour of eight.
The labour created by luxuries, though useful in distributing the
produce of the country, without vitiating the proprietor by power, or
debasing the labourer by dependence, has not, indeed, the same
beneficial effects on the state of the poor. A great accession of work
from manufacturers, though it may raise the price of labour even more
than an increasing demand for agricultural labour, yet, as in this case
the quantity of food in the country may not be proportionably
increasing, the advantage to the poor will be but temporary, as the
price of provisions must necessarily rise in proportion to the price of
labour. Relative to this subject, I cannot avoid venturing a few
remarks on a part of Dr Adam Smith's Wealth of Nations, speaking at the
same time with that diffidence which I ought certainly to feel in
differing from a person so justly celebrated in the political world.