of eftates. The firft was exactly the term beyond poverty, the fecond was double, the third triple, the fourth quadruple to the firft. In the first cenfus, luxury was equal to a cipher; in the fecond to one, in the third to two, in the fourth to three; and thus it followed in an arithmetical proportion.

Confidering the luxury of different nations with refpect to one another, it is in each ftate in a compound proportion to the inequality of the fubject's fortunes, and to the inequality of the wealth of the different ftates. In Poland, for example, there is an extreme inequality of fortunes; but the poverty of the whole hinders them from having fo much luxury as in a more opulent ftate.

Luxury is alfo in proportion to the populoufness of the towns, and especially of the capital; fo that it is in a compound proportion to the riches of the ftate, to the inequality of private fortunes, and to the number of people fettled in particular places.

In proportion to the populoufnefs of towns, the inhabitants are filled with vain notions, and actuated by an ambition of diftinguishing themselves by trifles t. If they are fo very numerous, that most of them are frangers to one another, the paffion of diftinguishing themselves redoubles, because there are greater hopes of fuccefs. As luxury infpires thefe hopes, each man affumes the marks of a fuperior condition. But, by endeavouring thus at diftinction, every one becomes equal, and diftinction ceases; as all of them are defirous of respect, nobody is taken notice of.

Hence arifes a general inconveniency. Thofe who excel in a profeffion fet what value they please upon their labour; this example is followed by people of inferior abilities; and then there is an end of all proportion between our wants and the means of fatisfying them.

In a great city, fays the author of the Fable of the Bees, vol. I. p. 133. they drefs above their condition, in order to be efteemed more than what they really are by the multitude. This to a weak perfon is almost as great a pleafure as the accomplishment of his defires.

When I am forced to go to law, I must be able to fee counsel; when I am fick, I must be able to fee a phyfi

cian.

It is the opinion of feveral, that the affembling fo great a multitude of people in capital cities is an obftruction to commerce, becaufe by this means the inhabitants are no longer within a proper diftance from each other. But 1 cannot think fo; for men have more defires, more wants, more fancies, when they live together.

CHA P. II.

Of fumptuary laws in a Democracy.

WE have obferved, that in a republic where riches

are equally divided, there can be no fuch thing as luxury; and as this equal diftribution conflitutes the excellency of a republican government; hence it follows that the lefs luxury there is in a republic, the more perfect it is. There was none amongst the old Romans, none among the Lacedæmonians; and, in republics where this equality is not quite loft, the fpirit of commerce, industry, and virtue, renders every man able and willing to live on his own property, and confequently prevents the growth of luxury.

The laws concerning the new divifion of lands, infifted upon fo eagerly in fome republics, were of the moft falutary nature. They were dangerous only as they were fudden. By reducing inftantaneously the wealth. and riches of fome, and increafing that of others, they form a revolution in each family, and muft produce a general one in the state.

In proportion as luxury gains ground in a republic, the minds of the people are turned towards their particular intereft. Those who are allowed only what is neceffary have nothing to wish for but their own and their country's glory. But a foul depraved by luxury has many other defires, and foon becomes an enemy to the laws that confine it. The luxury in which the garrifon of Rhegio began to live was the caufe of their maffacring the inhabitants.

No fooner were the Romans corrupted, than their defires became boundless and immenfe. Of this we may judge by the price they fet on things. A pitcher of Falernian wine was fold for a hundred Roman denarii; a barrel of falt-meat from the kingdom of Pontus, cost four hundred; a good cook four talents, and for boys no price was reckoned too great.

When the whole world, impelled by the force of a general corruption, is immerfed in voluptuousness †, what must then become of virtue?

THE

CHA P. III.

Of fumptuary laws in an Ariftocracy.

'HERE is this inconveniency in an ill conftituted aristocracy, that the wealth centers in the nobility, and yet they are not allowed to fpend; for, as luxury is contrary to the fpirit of moderation, it must be banished thence. This government comprehends therefore only people that are extremely poor and cannot acquire, and people that are vaftly rich and cannot fpend.

In Venice the people are compelled by the laws to moderation. They are fo habituated to parfimony, that none but courte fans can make them part with their money. Such is the method made use of for the fupport of industry; the most contemptible of women fpend freely their money without danger, whilft thofe who fupport them confume their days in the greatest obfcurity.

Admirable in this refpect were the inftitutions of the principal republics of Greece. The rich employed their money in feftivals, mufical chorufes, chariots, horferaces, and chargeable offices. Wealth was therefore as burthenfome there as poverty.

* Fragment of the 36th book of Diodorus, quoted by Const. Porphyrogen, in his extract of virtues and vices.

↑ "Cum maximus omnium impetus ad luxuriam effet." Ibid.

CHA P. IV.

Of fumptuary laws in a monarchy.

TACITUS fays t, "That the Suiones, a German "nation, have a particular refpect for riches; for "which reason they live under the government of one "perfon." This fhews that luxury is extremely proper for monarchies, and that under this government there must be no fumptuary laws.

As riches, by the very conftitution of monarchies, are unequally divided, there is an abfolute neceffity for luxury. Were the rich not to spend their money freely, the poor would ftarve. It is even neceffary here, that the expences of the rich should be in proportion to the inequality of fortunes, and that luxury, as we have already obferved, should increase in this proportion. The augmentation of private wealth is owing to its having deprived one part of the citizens of their neceffary fupport; this must therefore be reftored to them.

For the prefervation therefore of a monarchical state, luxury ought continually to increase and to grow more extenfive, as it rifes from the labourer to the artificers, to the merchants, to the magiftrates, to the nobility, to the great officers of state, up to the very prince; otherwife the nation will be undone.

In the reign of Auguftus, a propofal was made in the Roman fenate, which was compofed of grave ma giftrates, learned civilians, and of men whofe heads were filled with the idea of the primitive times, to reform the manners and luxury of women. It is curious to fee in Dio |, with what art this prince eluded the importunate folicitations of thofe fenators. was because he was founding a monarchy, and diffolving a republic.

This

De morib. German.

Dio Caffius, lib. 54.

Under Tiberius the ediles proposed in the fenate the re-establishment of the ancient fumptuary laws *. This prince, who did not want fenfe, oppofed it: "The "ftate," said he, "could not poffibly fubfift in the "prefent fituation of things. How could Rome, how "could the provinces live? We were frugal while we "were inhabitants of a fingle city; now we confume the "riches of the univerfe, and employ both mafters and "flaves in our service." He plainly saw that fumptuary laws would not fuit the prefent form of government.

When a propofal was made under the fame emperor to the fenate, to prohibit the governors from carrying their wives with them into the provinces, because of the diffoluteness and irregularities which followed those ladies, the propofal was rejected. It was faid, "that the "examples of ancient aufterity had been changed into a "more agreeable method of living t." They found there was a neceffity for different manners.

Luxury is therefore abfolutely neceffary in monarchies, and neceffary alfo in defpotic ftates. In the former it is the use people make of what share of liberty they poffefs; in the other, it is the abufe they make of the advantages of their flavery. A flave fingled out by his master to tyrannize over the other flaves, uncertain of enjoying to-morrow the bleffings of to-day, has no other felicity than that of glutting the pride, the paffions, and voluptuoufnefs of the prefent moment.

Hence arises a very natural reflection. Republics end with luxury; monarchies with poverty ‡.

*Tacit. Annal. lib. 3.

"Multa duritici veterum melius et lætius mutata." Tacis Ann. I. 3.

"Opulentia paritura mox egeftatem." Florus, lib. 3.