Should they proceed to agriculture,these bounds would be much extended,and require ages before the straitness would befelt again.In process of time a compleat division of labour would take place,and they would have not only husbandmen,but artists,manufacturers,and merchants,monied men and gentlemen of landed property,soldiers and men of letters,withall their servants,to exchange their various commodities and labours for the produce of the soil.A noble author,in thenorth of Britain,is of opinion,that "a nation can scarce be too populous for husbandry,as agriculture has the singularproperty of producing food in proportion to the number of consumers."(12)But is it not clear,that when all that is fertile hasbeen cultivated to the highest pitch of industry,the progress must of necessity be stopped,and that when the humanspecies shall have multiplied in proportion to this increase of food,it can proceed no further?Indeed,as we have remarkedalready of the savage state,should they establish a community of goods,their numbers for a time would certainly increase;but the quantity of food not being augmented in proportion,and that which had been sufficient only for a given numberbeing now distributed to the increasing multitude,all would have too little,and the weakly would perish sooner than if hewho tilled the soil had been left to reap the undivided fruits of his industry and labour.Nations may for a time increase theirnumbers beyond the due proportion of their food,but they will in the same proportion destroy the ease and comfort of theaffluent,and,without any possible advantage,give universality to that misery and want,which had been only partial.Thecourse of nature may be easily disturbed,but man will never be able to reverse its laws.
The earth is no where more fertile than it is in China,nor does any country abound so much in people;yet the cries ofdeserted children prove,that even they have found limits to their population.Few countries have been more productivethan the land of Canaan was;a land described as flowing with milk and honey,fertile in corn,and rich in pastures:yet evenin the land of Canaan they had many poor;and it was said to them,but not in the way of threatening,"the poor shall nevercease from among you."(13)Indeed it was impossible they ever should,because whilst men have appetites and passions,what but distress and poverty can stop the progress of population?The inhabitants of Europe are said to have doubled theirnumbers every five hundred years:from which we may infer that their quantity of food has been doubled in these periods.
Throughout America,for the same reason,they have been doubled every five-and-twenty years;and in some colonies,inthe space of fifteen years.
If a new and equal division of property were made in England,we cannot doubt that the same inequality which we nowobserve would soon take place again:the improvident,the lazy,and the vicious,would dissipate their substance;theprudent,the active,and the virtuous,would again increase their wealth.If the legislature were to make this distribution,theevil would not be equal to the injustice of the measure:things would soon return into their proper channel,order andsubordination would be again restored,diligence would be encouraged,and the virtuous would be fed.But by establishinga permanent community of goods,and neither increasing the quantity of food,nor limiting the number of those who are toshare it,they divert the occasional surplus of national wealth from the industrious to the lazy,they increase the number ofunprofitable citizens,and sow the seeds of misery for the whole community;increasing the general distress,and causingmore to die for want,than if poverty had been left to find its proper channel.
It is well known that our commons,without stint,starve all our cattle.Here we clearly see the natural effects of thatcommunity of goods,which the poor laws would render universal.In the infancy of the Christian church,this experimentwas fairly tried;but even whilst the Apostles,blest with a perfect knowledge of the human heart,were yet alive,it wasfound to be intolerable.We have adopted it in England;and what has been the consequence?Are poverty andwretchedness unknown?or rather,are not poverty and wretchedness increasing daily,in exact proportion with our effortsto restrain them?One of the nearest writers of the English nation,who understood this subject,has well observed,"thesufferings of the poor are less known than their misdeeds:they starve,and freeze,and rot among themselves;but they beg,and steal,and rob among their betters.There is not a parish in the liberty of Westminster,which doth not raise thousandsannually for the poor;and there is not a street in that liberty,which doth not swarm all day with beggars,and all night withthieves."His expression is nervous,his deion animated;but even the simple truth,when divested of all its ornaments,must excite astonishment.The effect is striking;but the cause of this phaenomenon will be evident to those only who canexamine it with a fixed attention.
There is a parish in the West of England which has never wanted poor,and in which,excepting for one short period,thepoor have never wanted work;yet their poverty and misery have uniformly advanced constantly,outstripping all effortswhich have been made to provide for their distress.The farmers at this time pay ten shillings in the pound on the improvedrents;yet wretchedness seems to have taken up its residence in every cottage,and the most miserable are they whose gainshave been the greatest.
