A distinguished writer of the present century has clearly stated some advantages which the community derives from theintroduction of luxury,and would from thence conclude,that private vices are public benefits.His conclusion we cannotgrant him;nor can we allow the premises,if by luxury be meant any thing inconsistent with morality.If in our idea ofluxury we include only the comforts and conveniences of life,then a taste for luxury must be productive of industry andvirtue,must increase the happiness of individuals,and promote the welfare of the state.If men were contented to go naked,to lie under hedges,and,according to the fiction of the poets,to feed on acorns,there would be none to labour till theacorns were consumed.In general the industry of man bears proportion to his real or imaginary wants.Could the landlordbe contented with the produce of his native soil,he would cultivate only what would be sufficient for the consumption ofhis family;or could the labourer be contented with what was barely sufficient to satisfy his hunger,when he no longer feltthe cravings of his appetite,he would cease to labour.But as their wants are multiplied,the master is willing to employmore workmen,and the workman himself is reconciled to constant labour.There was a time when the inhabitants ofEurope had neither rum,brandy,spices,tea,sugar,nor tobacco:they now covet these,and these new desires haveproduced new efforts to gratify them.There was a time when they had neither linen,shoes,nor stockings;they now feel thewant of these,and receive them as the rewards of industry.But supposing that,with these new desires,they could obtainnot only linen,shoes,and stockings,but spices,spirits,tea,sugar,and tobacco,without care or labour,whatencouragement would they have to industry?By the present system of our poor laws,at least as they are nowadministered,the benefits which arise from luxury,in promoting industry among the labouring poor,are lost;and the mostimprovident may rest assured,that he shall,at all events,share these superfluities with the most active and laborious;andthat in times of scarcity his wants shall be the first supplied,and his comfort the first consulted.To be consistent,thelegislature should make the same provision for farmers,manufacturers,and merchants;that in case,by their profusion orneglect o[business,they should be insolvent,their debts might all be paid,and themselves,together with their families,might be supported in the stile and manner to which they had been accustomed;all out of the revenues of the state,or byspecial rates to be collected;not by voluntary donations,but by compulsive payments,and not merely from the opulent,butfrom those who had themselves been struggling with poverty and want:nay,to be consistent,they should pass a law thatno man should reap the fruit of his indiscretion;or,to be perfectly consistent,they should repeal all penal statutes.
Hesiod,in his Georgics,or didactic poem on agriculture,describes with beautiful simplicity the excellent effects ofemulation,representing two kinds of strife and contention among men;the one productive of violence,the other of peace,harmony,and plenty.The one is intent only upon plunder,whilst the other seeing wealth as attendant upon industry,isinduced to labour,in order to obtain those comforts which the diligent only can command.
This principle has been perverted by our laws;and now the person who excites the envy and emulation of the lazy andimprovident,is not the man who by his activity is acquiring affluence,but the indolent poor in every parish,who by hisimpudence and by his importunity has obtained the most ample and the most unmerited relief.This our poet has describedas the natural emulation among beggars.
