SKETCH IX.
MILITARY Branch of GOVERNMENT.

DURING the infancy of a nation, every member depends on his own in­dustry for procuring the necessaries of life: he is his own mason, his own taylor, his own physician; and on himself he chiefly relies for offence as well as defence. Every savage can say, what few beggars among us can say, Omnia mea mecum porto; and hence the apti­tude of a savage for war, which makes little alte­ration in his manner of living. In early times accordingly, the men were all warriors, and every known art was exercised by women; which is [Page 2] the case at present of American savages. And even after arts were so much improved as to be exercised by men, none who could bear arms were exempted from war. In feudal governments, the military spirit was carried to a great height: all gentlemen were soldiers by profession; and every other art was despised, as low, if not con­temptible.

Even in this untoward state, arts made some progress, not excepting those for amusement; and many conveniencies, formerly unknown, became necessary to comfortable living. A man cannot bear to be deprived of the conveniencies and amusements to which he is accustomed: he hates war, and clings to the sweets of peace. Hence the necessity of a military establishment, hard­ening men by strict discipline to endure the fa­tigues of war. By standing armies, war is carried on more regularly and scientifically than in feudal governments; and as it is carried on with infinite­ly greater expence; nations are more reserved in declaring war than formerly. Long experience has at the same time made it evident, that a nation seldom gains by war; and that agriculture, ma­nufactures, and commerce, are the only solid foundations of power and grandeur. These arts accordingly have become the chief objects of European governments, and the only rational cau­ses of war. Among the warlike nations of Greece and Italy, how would it have sounded, that their effeminate descendants would employ soldiers by profession to fight their battles? And yet this is necessary, in every country where arts and manu­factures flourish; which, requiring little exercise, tend to enervate the body, and of course the mind. Gain, at the same time, being the sole object of industry, advances selfishness to be the ruling passion, and brings on a timid anxiety about [Page 3] property and self-preservation. Cyrus, tho' flaming with resentment against the Lydians for revolting, listened to the following sagacious ad­vice, offered by Croesus, their former King. ‘"O Cyrus, destroy not Sardis, an ancient city, famous for arts and arms; but, pardoning what is past, demand all their arms, encourage lux­ury, and exhort them to instruct their children in every art of gainful commerce. You will soon see, O King, that instead of men, they will be women."’ The Arabians, a brave and generous people, conquered Spain, and drove into the inaccessible mountains of Biscay and Austria, the few natives who stood out. When no longer an enemy appeared, they turned their swords into plough-shares, and became a rich and flourishing nation. The inhabitants of the mountains, hard­ened by poverty and situation, ventured, after a long interval, to peep out from their strong-holds, and to lie in wait for straggling parties. Finding themselves now a match for a people, whom opu­lence had betrayed to luxury, and the arts of peace to cowardice; they took courage to display their banners in the open field; and after many military atchievements, succeeded in reconquering Spain. The Scots, inhabiting the mountainous parts of Caledonia, were an overmatch for the Picts, who occupied the fertile plains, and at last subdued them ^*.

[Page 4] Where arts, manufactures, and commerce, have arrived at perfection, a pacific spirit pre­vails universally: not a spark is left of military ardor, nor will any man be a soldier. Hence in such a state, the necessity of mercenary troops, hired among nations less effeminate, who fight for pay, not for the state they serve. Benjamin de Tudele, a Spanish Jew, who wrote in the twelfth century, reports, that the Greeks, by luxury and effeminacy, had contracted a degree of softness, that made them resemble women more than men; and that the Greek Emperor was reduced to the necessity of employing mercenary troops, to de­fend his country against the Turks. And accord­ingly when, in the year 1453, the city of Con­stantinople, defended by a garrison not exceeding 6000 men, was besieged by the Turks, and re­duced to extremity, not a single inhabitant had courage to take up arms, all waiting with torpid despondence the hour of utter extirpation. Venice, Genoa, and other small Italian states, became so effeminate by long and successful commerce, that not a citizen ever thought of serving in the army; which obliged them to employ mercenaries, offi­cers as well as private men. These mercenaries at first fought conscientiously for their pay; but re­flecting, that the victors were not better paid than [Page 5] the vanquished, they learned to play booty. In a battle particularly between the Pisans and Flo­rentines, which lasted from sun-rising to sun­setting, there was but a single man lost, who, having accidentally fallen from his horse, was trode under foot. Charles VIII. of France, when he invaded Italy anno 1498, understood nothing of such mock battles; and his men were held to be devils incarnate, who seemed to take delight in shedding human blood. The Dutch, who for many years have been reduced to mercenary troops, are more indebted to the mutual jea­lousy of their neighbours for their indepen­dence, than to their own army. In the year 1672, Lewis of France invaded Holland, and in forty days took forty walled towns. That country was saved, not by his army, but by being laid un­der water. Frost, which is usual at that season, would have put an end to the seven United Pro­vinces.

The small principality of Palmyra is the only instance known in history, where the military spirit was not enervated by opulence. Pliny de­scribes that country as extremely pleasant, and blessed with plenty of springs, tho' surrounded with dry and sandy deserts. The commerce of the Indies was at that time carried on by land; and the city of Palmyra was the centre of that commerce between the East and the West. Its territory being very small, little more than suffi­cient for villas and pleasure-grounds, the inhabi­tants, like those of Hamburgh, had no way to employ their richess for profit but in trade. At the same time, being situated between the two mighty empires of Rome and Parthia, it required great address, and the most assiduous military dis­cipline, to preserve the inhabitants from being swallowed up by the one or the other. This [Page 6] ticklish situation preserved them from luxury and effeminacy, the usual concomitants of riches. They made a better figure with their superfluous wealth: they laid it out on magnificent buildings, and adorning their country-seats. The fine arts in general, were among them carried to a high degree of perfection. The famous Zenobia, their Queen, led captive to Rome after being de­prived of her dominions, was admired and cele­brated for spirit, for learning, and for an exqui­site taste in the fine arts.

Thus, by accumulating wealth, a manufactur­ing and commercial people become a tempting object for conquest; and by effeminacy become an easy conquest. The military spirit seems to be much decayed in Britain; and ere it be gone, will no phantom appear, even in a dream, to disturb our downy rest? Formerly, the culture of corn in the temperate regions of Europe and Asia, proved a tempting bait to northern savages who wanted bread: have we no cause to dread a simi­lar fate from some warlike neighbour, impelled by hunger, or by ambition, to extend his domi­nions? The difficulty of providing for defence, without hurting industry, has produced a general opinion among political writers, that a nation, if it will preserve its military spirit, must exclude industry; and, if it will preserve its industry, must give up all hopes of retaining its military spirit. In the former case, we are secure against any invader: in the latter, we indeed make a considerable figure, but lie open to every invader. Happy would Britain be, could the spirit of war and of commerce be made compatible by some mi­litary plan, that would protect us against enemies, without hurting our industry and manufactures. That such a plan is not absolutely impracticable, will, I hope, appear from what follows; tho' [Page 7] I am far from hoping that it will meet with uni­versal approbation. To prepare the reader, I shall premise an account of the different military establishments that exist, and have existed, in Europe, with the advantages and disadvantages of each. In examining these, who knows whether some hint may not occur of a plan more perfect than any of them.

The most illustrious military establishment of antiquity is that of the Romans, by which they subdued almost all the known world. The Roman citizens were many of them husbandmen, and all of them soldiers. The inhabitants of Rome, in particular, lived upon their pay when in the field; but if they happened not to be suc­cessful in plundering, they had no means of li­ving at home. An annual distribution of corn among them became necessary, which in effect corresponded to the halfpay of our officers. It is believed, that such a constitution would not be adopted by any modern state. It was a forc'd constitution; contrary to nature, which gives different dispositions to men, in order to supply hands for every necessary art. It was, at the same time, extremely precarious, there being in it no medium between universal conquest and the most wretched slavery. Had the Gauls, who conqured Rome, entertained any view but of plunder, Rome would never have been more heard of. It was on the brink of ruin in the war with Hannibal. What would have happened had Hannibal been victorious? It is easy to judge, by comparing it with Carthage. Carthage was a commercial state, the people all employ'd in arts, manufactures, and navigation. The Carthaginians were subdued; but they could not be reduced to extremity, while they had access to the sea. In fact, they pro­spered so much by commerce, even after they [Page 8] were subdued, as to raise jealousy in their masters, who thought themselves not secure while a house remained standing in Carthage. On the other hand, what resource for the inhabitants of Rome, had they been subdued? They must have perish­ed by hunger; for they could not work. In a word, ancient Rome resembles a gamester who ventures all upon one decisive throw: if he lose, he is undone.

I take it for granted, that our feudal system will not have a single vote. It was a system that led to confusion and anarchy, as little fitted for war as for peace. And as for mercenary troops, it is unnecessary to bring them again into the field, after what is said of them above.

The only remaining forms that merit attention, are a standing army, and a militia; which I shall examine in their order, with the objections that lie against each. The first standing army in modern times was established by Charles VII. of France, on a very imperfect plan. By an edict anno 1448, he appointed each parish to furnish an archer: these were termed franc-archers, because they were exempted from all taxes. This little army was intended for restoring peace and order at home, not for disturbing neighbouring states. This good prince had been forced into many peri­lous wars, some of them for restraining the tur­bulent spirit of his vassals, and most of them for defending his crown against a powerful adversary, Henry V. of England. As these wars were car­ried on in the feudal manner, the soldiers, who had no pay, could not be restrained from plunder­ing; and inveterate practice rendered them equal­ly licentious in peace and in war. Charles, to leave no pretext for free quarters, laid upon his [Page 9] subjects a small tax, sufficient for regular pay to his little army ^*.

First attempts are commonly crude and defec­tive. The franc-archers, dispersed one by one in different villages, and never collected but in time of action, could not easily be brought under re­gular discipline. They were idle when not in the field; and in the field, they displayed nothing but vicious habits, a spirit of laziness, of disorder, and of pilfering. Neither in peace were they of any use: their character of soldier made them despise agriculture, without being qualified for war: in the army they were no better than peas­ants: at the plough, no better than idle soldiers. But in the hands of a monarch, a standing army is an instrument of power, too valuable ever to be abandoned: if one sovereign entertain such an army, others in self-defence must follow the ex­ample. Standing armies are now established in every European state, and are brought to a com­petent degree of perfection.

This new instrument of government, has pro­duced a wonderful change in manners. We now [Page 10] rely on a standing army, for defence as well as offence: none but those who are trained to war, ever think of handling arms, or even of defending themselves against an enemy: our people in ge­neral have become altogether effeminate, terrifi­ed at the very sight of a hostile weapon. It is true, they are not the less qualified for the arts of peace; and if manufacturers be protected from being obliged to serve in the army, I discover not any incompatibility between a standing army and the highest industry. Husbandmen at the same time make the best soldiers: a military spirit in the lower classes arises from bodily strength, and from affection to their natal soil: both are emi­nent in the husbandman: constant exercise in the open air renders him hardy and robust; and fond­ness for the place where he finds comfort and plenty, attaches him to his country in general ^*. An artist or manufacturer, on the contrary, is [Page 11] attached to no country but where he finds the best bread; and a sedentary life, enervating his body, renders him pusillanimous. For these reasons, among many, agriculture ought to be honoured and cherished above all other arts. It is not only a fine preparation for war, by breeding men who love their country, and whom labour and sobriety fit for being soldiers; but is also the best founda­tion for commerce, by furnishing both food and materials to the industrious.

But several objections of the most interesting nature occur against a standing army, that call aloud for a better model than has hitherto been e­stablished, at least in Britain. The subject is of importance, and I hope for attention from every man who loves his country. During the vigour of the feudal system, which made every land-proprietor a soldier, every inch of ground was te­naciously disputed with an invader: and while a sovereign retained any part of his dominions, he never lost hopes of recovering the whole. At present, we rely entirely on a standing army, for defence as well as offence, which has reduced e­very nation of Europe to a very precarious con­dition. If the army of a state happen to be de­feated, [Page 12] even at the most distant frontier, there is little resource against a total conquest. Compare the history of Charles VII. with that of Lewis XIV. Kings of France. The former, tho' dri­ven into a corner by Henry V. of England, and deprived of the bulk of his provinces, was howe­ver far from yielding: on the contrary, relying on the military spirit of his people, and indefati­gably intent on stratagem and surprise, he reco­vered all he had lost. When Lewis XIV. suc­ceeded to the crown, the military spirit of the people, was contracted within the narrow span of a standing army. Behold the consequence. That ambitious monarch, having provoked his neighbours into an alliance against him, had no resource against a more-numerous army, but to purchase peace by offering to abandon all his con­quests, upon which he had lavished much blood and treasure ^a. France at that period contain­ed several millions capable of bearing arms; and yet was not in a condition to make head against a disciplined army of 70,000 men. Poland, which continues upon the ancient military esta­blishment, wearied out Charles XII. of Sweden, and had done the same to several of his predeces­sors. But Saxony, defended only by a standing army, could not hold out a single day against the prince now mentioned, at the head of a greater army. Mercenary troops are a defence still more feeble, against troops that fight for glory, or for their country. Unhappy was the invention of a standing army; which, without being any strong bulwark against enemies, is a grievous burthen on the people; and turns daily more and more so. Listen to a first-rate author on that point. ‘"Sitot qu' un etat augmente ce qu' il appelle ses [Page 13] troupes, les autres augmentent les leurs; de façon qu'on ne gagne rien par̄la que la ruine commune. Chaque monarque tient sur pied toutes les armées qu'il pourroit avoir si ses peuples étoient en danger d'être exterminées; et on nomme paix cet état d'effort de tous contre tous. Nous sommes pauvres avec les richesses et le commerce de tout l'univers; et bientôt à force d'avoir des soldats, nous n'au­rons plus que des soldats, et nous serons com­me de Tartares ^{* b}."’

But with respect to Britain, and every free nation, there is an objection still more formida­ble; which is, that a standing army is dangerous to liberty. It avails very little to be secure against foreign enemies, supposing a standing army to af­ford security, if we have no security against an enemy at home. If a warlike king, heading his own troops, be ambitious to render himself abso­lute, there are no means to invade the impending blow; for what avail the greatest number of effe­minate cowards against a disciplined army, de­voted to their prince, and ready implicitly to ex­ecute his commands? In a word, by relying en­tirely on a standing army, and by trusting the [Page 14] sword in the hands of men who abhor the re­straint of civil laws, a solid foundation is laid for military government. Thus a standing army is dangerous to liberty, and yet no sufficient bul­wark against powerful neighbours.

Deeply sensible of the foregoing objections, Harrington proposes a plan for a militia, which he holds to be unexceptionable. Every male be­tween eighteen and thirty, is to be trained to mi­litary exercises, by frequent meetings, where the youth are excited by premiums to contend in running, wrestling, shooting at a mark, &c. &c. But Harrington did not advert, that such meet­ings, enflaming the military spirit, must create an aversion in the people to dull and fatiguing la­bour. His plan evidently is inconsistent with in­dustry and manufactures: it would be so at least in Britain. A most successful, plan it would be, were defence our sole object; and not the less successful, by rendering Britain so poor as scarce to be a tempting conquest. Our late war with France is a conspicuous instance of the power that can be exerted by a commercial state, entire in its credit; a power that amaz'd all the world, and ourselves no less than others. Politicians be­gin to consider Britain, and not France, to be the formidable power that threatens universal monar­chy. Had Harrington's plan been adopted, Bri­tain, like Sweden or Denmark, must have been contented with an inferior station, having no am­bition but to draw subsidies from its more potent neighbours.

In Switzerland, it is true, boys are, from the age of twelve, exercised in running, wrestling, and shooting. Every male who can bear arms is regimented, and subjected to military discipline. Here is a militia in perfection upon Harrington's plan, a militia neither forced nor mercenary; in­vincible [Page 15] when fighting for their country: and as the Swiss are by no means an idle people, we learn from this instance, that the martial spirit is not an invincible obstruction to industry. But the original barrenness of Switzerland, compel­led the inhabitants to be sober and industrious: and industry hath among them become a second nature, there scarcely being a child above six years of age but who is employed, not excepting children of opulent families. England differs widely in the nature of its soil, and of its peo­ple. At the same time, there is little occasion to insist upon that difference; as Switzerland af­fords no clear evidence, that a militia gives no obstruction to a spirit of industry: the Swiss, it is true, may be termed industrious; but their in­dustry is confined to necessaries and convenien­cies: they are less ambitious of wealth than of military glory; and they have few arts or ma­nufactures, either to support foreign commerce, or to excite luxury.

Fletcher of Salton's plan of a militia, differs little from that of Harrington. Three camps are to be constantly kept up in England, and a fourth in Scotland; into one or other of which, every man must enter upon compleating his one and twentieth year. In these camps the art of war is to be acquired and practised: those who can maintain themselves must continue there two years, others but a single year. Secondly, those who have been thus educated, shall for ever after have fifty yearly meetings, and shall exercise four hours every meeting. It is not said, by what means young men are compelled to resort to the camp; nor is any exception mentioned of persons destined for the church, for liberal sci­ences, or for the fine arts. The weak and the sickly must be exempted; and yet no regulation [Page 16] is proposed against those who absent themselves on a false pretext. But waving these, the capi­tal objection against Harrington's plan strikes equally against Fletcher's, That by rousing a mi­litary spirit, it would alienate the minds of the people from arts and manufactures, and from any constant and uniform occupation. The author himself remarks, that the use and exercise of arms, would make the youth place their honour upon that art, and would enflame them with love of military glory; not adverting, that love of military glory, diffused through the whole mass of the people, would unqualify Britain for being a manufacturing and commercial country, rendering it of little weight or consideration in Europe.

The military branch is essential to every spe­cies of government: the Quakers are the only people who ever doubted of it. Is it not then mor­tifying, that a capital branch of government, should to this day remain in a state so imperfect? One would suspect some inherent vice in the na­ture of government, that counteracts every effort of genius to produce a more perfect mode. I am not disposed to admit any defect of Providence, especially in an article essential to the well-being of society; and rather than yield to the charge, I venture to propose the following plan, even at the hazard of being thought an idle projector. And what animates me greatly to make the at­tempt is, a firm conviction, that a military and an industrious spirit are of equal importance to Britain; and that if either of them be lost, we are undone. To reconcile these seeming anta­gonists, is my chief view in the following plan; to which I shall proceed, after paving the way by some preliminary considerations.

[Page 17] The first is, that as military force is essential to every state, no man is exempted from bearing arms for his country: all are bound; because none can be bound, if every one be not bound. Were any difference to be made, persons of fi­gure and fortune ought first to be called to that service, as being the most interested in the wel­fare of their country. Listen to a good soldier delivering his opinion on that subject. ‘"Les levées qui se font par supercherie font tout aussi odieuses; on met de l'argent dans la po­chette d'un homme, et on lui dit qu'il est sol­dat. Celles qui se font par force, le font en­core plus; c'est une desolation publique, dont le bourgeois et l'habitant ne se sauvent qu'a force d'argent, et dont le fond est toujours un moyen odieux. Ne voudroit-il pas mieux établer, par une loi, que tout homme, de quelque condition qu'il fût, seroit obligé de servir son prince et sa patrie pendant cinq ans? Cette loi ne sçauroit être desapprovée, parce qu'il est naturel et juste que les citoyens s'em­ploient pour la défense de l'état. Cette me­thode de lever des troupes seroit un fond in­épuisable de belles et bonnes recrues, qui ne seroient pas sujetes a déserter. L'on se feroit même, par la suite, un honneur et un devoir de server sa tâche. Mais, pour y parvenir, il faudroit n'en excepter aucune condition, être sévére sur ce point, et s'attacher a faire exé­cuter cette loi de préférence aux nobles et aux riches. Personne n'en murmureroit. Alors ceux qui auroient servi leur temps, verroient avec mépris ceux qui repugneroient à cette loi, et insensiblement on se feroit un honneur de servir: le pauvre bourgeois seroit consolé par [Page 18] l'exemple du riche; et celui-ci n'oseroit se plaindre, voyant servir le noble ^{a *}."’

Take another preliminary consideration. While there remained any portion of our original mar­tial spirit, the difficulty was not great of recruit­ing the army. But that task hath of late years become extremely troublesome; and more disa­greeable [Page 19] still than troublesome, by the necessity of using deceitful arts for trepanning the unwary youth. Nor are such arts always successful: in our late war with France, we were necessitated to give up even the appearance of voluntary ser­vice, and to recruit the army on the solid princi­ple of obliging every man to fight for his country: the justices of peace were empowered by the le­gislature, to force into the service such as could be best spared from civil occupation. If a single clause had been added, limiting the service to five or seven years, the measure would have been unexceptionable, even in a land of liberty. To relieve officers of the army from practising de­ceitful arts for recruiting their corps, by substi­tuting a fair and constitutional mode, was a valua­ble improvement. It was of importance with re­spect to its direct intendment; but of much greater with respect to its consequences. One of the few disadvantages of a free state, is licenti­ousness in the common people, who may wallow in disorder and profligacy without control, if they be but cautious to refrain from gross crimes, pu­nishable by law. Now, as it appears to me, there never has been devised a method more ef­ficacious for restoring industry and sobriety, than that under consideration. Its salutary effects were conspicuous, even during the short time it sub­sisted. The dread of being forced into the ser­vice, rendered the populace peaceable and order­ly: it did more; it rendered them industrious in order to conciliate favour. The most beneficial discoveries have been accidental: without having any view but for recruiting the army, our legi­slature stumbled upon an excellent method for re­claiming the idle and the profligate; a matter, in the present depravity of manners, of greater importance than any other that concerns the po­lice [Page 20] of Britain. A perpetual law of that kind, by promoting industry, would prove a sovereign remedy against mobs and riots, diseases of a free country, full of people and of manufactures ^*. Why were the foregoing statutes, for there were two of them, limited to a temporary existence? There is not on record another statute better in­titled to immortality.

And now to the project, which, after all my efforts, I produce with trepidation; not that I doubt of its solidity, but as ill suited to the pre­sent manners of this island. To hope that it will be put in practice, would indeed be highly ridi­culous: this can never happen, till patriotism flourish more in Britain than it has done for some time past. Supposing now an army of 60,000 men to be sufficient for Britain, a rational me­thod for raising such an army, were there no standing forces, would be, that land-proprietors, in proportion to their valued rents, should fur­nish men to serve seven years, and no longer ^§. But as it would be no less unjust than imprudent, to disband at once our present army, the soft and natural way is, to begin with moulding gra­dually [Page 21] the old army into the new, by filling up vacancies with men bound to serve seven years and no longer. And for raising proper men, a matter of much delicacy, it is proposed, that in every shire a special commission be given to cer­tain landholders of rank and figure, to raise re­cruits out of the lower classes, selecting always those who are the least useful at home.

Second. Those who claim to be dismissed af­ter serving the appointed time, shall never again be called to the service, except in case of an ac­tual invasion. Every one of them shall be in­titled to a premium of eight or ten pounds, for enabling him to follow a trade or calling, with­out being subjected to corporation laws. The private men in France are inlisted but for six years; and that mode has never been attended with any inconvenience.

Third. With respect to the private men, idleness must be totally and for ever banished. Supposing three months yearly to be sufficient for military discipline, the men, during the rest of the year, ought to be employed upon public works, forming roads, erecting bridges, making rivers navigable, clearing harbours, &c. &c. Why not also furnish men for half pay to private undertakers of useful works? And supposing the daily pay of a soldier to be ten pence, it would greatly encourage extensive improvements, to have at command a number of stout fellows, un­der strict discipline, at the low wages of five pence a-day. An army of 60,000 men thus em­ployed, would not be so expensive to the public, as 20,000 men upon the present establishment: for beside the money contributed by private un­dertakers, public works carried on by soldiers, [Page 22] will be miserably ill contrived, if not cheaply purchased with their pay ^*.

The most important branch of the project, is what regards the officers. The necessity of re­viving in our people of rank some portion of mi­litary spirit, will be acknowledged by every person of reflection; and in that view, the following articles are proposed. First: That there be two classes of officers, one serving for pay, one with­out pay. In filling up every vacant office of cor­net or ensign, the latter are to be preferred; but in progressive advancement, no distinction is to be made between the classes. An officer who has served seven years without pay, may retire with honour.

Second. No man shall be privileged to repre­sent a county in parliament, who has not served seven years without pay; and, excepting an ac­tual burgess, none but those who have perform­ed that service, shall be privileged to represent a borough. The same qualification shall be ne­cessary to every one who aspires to serve the public or the King in an office of dignity, ex­cepting only churchmen and lawyers, with regard to offices in their respective professions. In old Rome, none were admitted candidates for any civil employment, till they had served ten years in the army.

Third. Officers of this class are to be exempt­ed from the taxes imposed on land, coaches, win­dows, and plate; not for saving a trifling sum, but as a mark of distinction.

[Page 23] The military spirit must in Britain be miser­ably low, if such regulations prove not effectual to decorate the army with officers of figure and fortune. Nor need we to apprehend any bad con­sequence, from a number of raw officers who serve without pay: among men of birth, emula­tion will have a more commanding influence than pay or profit; and at any rate, there will always be a sufficiency of old experienced officers re­ceiving pay, ready to take the lead in every dif­ficult enterprize.

Fourth. To improve this army in military discipline, it is proposed, that when occasion of­fers, 5 or 6000 of them be maintained by Great Britain, as auxiliaries to some ally at war. And if that body be changed from time to time, knowledge and practice in war will be diffused through the whole army.

Officers who serve for pay, will be greatly be­nefited by this plan: frequent removes of those who serve without pay, make way for them; and from the very nature of the plan, buying and selling is absolutely excluded.

I proceed to the alterations necessary for ac­commodating this plan to our present military establishment. As a total revolution at one in­stant would breed confusion, the first step ought to be a specimen only, such as the levying two or three regiments on the new model; the ex­pence of which ought not to be grudged, as the forces presently in pay, are not sufficient, even in peace, to answer the ordinary demands of go­vernment. And as the prospect of civil employ­ments, will excite more men of rank to offer their service than there is room for, the choice must be in the crown, not only with respect to the new regiments, but with respect to the vacant cornet­cies and ensigncies in the old army. But as these [Page 24] regulations will not instantly produce men qualified to be secretaries of state or commissioners of treasury, so numerous as to afford his majesty a satisfactory choice, that branch of the plan may be suspended, till those who have served seven years without pay, amount to one hundred at least. The article that concerns members of par­liament must be still longer suspended: it may however, after the first seven years, receive ex­ecution in part, by privileging those who have received no pay to represent a borough, refusing that privilege to others, except to actual burges­ses. We may proceed one step farther, That if in a county there be five gentlemen who have the qualification under consideration, over and above the ordinary legal qualifications, one of the five must be chosen, leaving the electors free as to their other representative.

With respect to the private men of the old army, a thousand of such as have served the longest may be disbanded annually, if so many be willing to retire; and in their stead an equal num­ber may be inlisted, to serve but seven years. Upon such a plan, it will not be difficult to find recruits.

The advantage of this plan, in one particular, is eminent. It will infallibly fill the army with gallant officers: Other advantages concerning the officers themselves, shall be mentioned afterward. An appetite for military glory cannot fail to be roused in officers who serve without pay, when their service is the only passport to employments of trust and honour. And may we not hope, that officers who serve for pay, will, by force of imi­tation, be inspired with the same appetite? No­thing ought to be more sedulously inculcated into every officer, than to despise riches, as a mercan­tile object, below the dignity of a soldier. Often [Page 25] has the courage of victorious troops been blunted by the pillage of an opulent city; and may not rich captures at sea have the same effect? Some sea-commanders have been suspected, of bestow­ing their fire more willingly upon a merchantman, than upon a ship of war. A triumph, an ovation, a civic crown, or some such mark of honour, were in old Rome the only rewards for military atchievements ^*. Money, it is true, was sometimes distributed among the private men, as an addition to their pay, after a fatiguing campaign; but not as a recompence for their good behaviour, be­cause all shared alike. It did not escape the pe­netrating Romans, that wealth, the parent of lux­ury and selfishness, fails not to eradicate the mi­litary spirit. The soldier who to recover his bag­gage performed a bold action, gave an instructive lesson to all governments. Being invited by his general to try his fortune a second time; Invite, says the soldier, one who has lost his baggage. Many a bold adventurer goes to the Indies, who, returning with a fortune, is afraid of every breeze. Britain, I suspect, is too much infected with the spirit of gain. Will it be thought ridiculous in [Page 26] any man of figure, to prefer reputation and re­spect before riches; provided only he can afford a frugal meal, and a warm garment? Let us compare an old officer, who never deserted his friend nor his country, and a wealthy merchant, who never indulged a thought but of gain: the wealth is tempting;—and yet does there exist a man of spirit, who would not be the officer rather than the merchant, even with his millions? Sultan Mechmet granted to the Janisaries a pri­vilege of importing foreign commodities free of duty: was it his intention to metamorphose sol­diers into merchants, loving peace, and hating war?

But though I declare against large appointments beforehand, which, instead of promoting service, are a temptation to luxury and idleness; yet to an officer of character, who has spent his younger years in serving his king and country, a govern­ment, or other suitable employment that enables him to pass the remainder of his life in ease and affluence, is a proper reward for merit, reflecting equal honour on the prince who bestows, and on the subject who receives; beside affording an enlivening prospect to others, who have it at heart to do well.

With respect to the private men, the rotation proposed, aims at improvements far more impor­tant, than that of making military service fall light upon individuals. It tends to unite the spirit of industry with that of war, and to form the same man to be an industrious labourer, as well as a good soldier. The continual exercise recom­mended, cannot fail to produce a spirit of indus­try; which will occasion a demand for the private men after their seven years service, as valuable above all other labourers, not only for regularity, but for activity. And with respect to service in [Page 27] war, constant exercise is the life of an army, in the literal as well as metaphorical sense. Boldness is inspired by strength and agility, to which con­stant motion mainly contributes. The Roman citizens, trained to arms from their infancy, and never allowed to rest, were invincible. To men­tion no other works, spacious and durable roads carried to the very extremities of that vast em­pire, show clearly how the soldiers were employ­ed during peace; which hardened them for war, and made them orderly and submissive ^a. So essential was labour held by the Romans for training an army, that they never ventured to face an enemy, with troops debilitated in any degree by idleness. The Roman army in Spain, having been worsted in several engagements, and confin­ed within their entrenchments, were sunk in idleness and luxury. Scipio Nasica, after demo­lishing Carthage, taking the command of that army, durst not oppose it to the enemy, till he accustomed the soldiers to temperance and hard labour. He exercised them without relaxation in marching and countermarching, in fortifying camps and demolishing them, in digging trenches and filling them up, in building high walls and pul­ling them down; he himself, from morning to night, going about, and directing every operation. Marius, before engaging the Cimbri, exercised his army in turning the course of a river. Ap­pian relates, that Antiochus, during his winter­quarters at Calchis, having married a beautiful virgin, with whom he was greatly enamoured, spent the whole winter in pleasure, abandoning his army to vice and idleness: and when the time [Page 28] of action returned with the spring, he found his soldiers unfit for service. The idleness of our soldiers in time of peace, promoting debauchery and licentiousness, is no less destructive to health than to discipline. Unable for the fatigues of a first campaign, our private men die in thousands, as if smote with a pestilence ^*. We never read of any mortality in the Roman legions, though frequently engaged in climates very different from their own. Let us listen to a judicious writer, to whom every one listens with delight: ‘"Nous remarquons aujourd'hui, que nos ar­mées périssent beaucoup par le travail immodé­ré des soldats; et cependant c'étoit par un tra­vail immense que les Romains se conservoient. La raison en est, je croix, que leurs fatigues étoient continuelles; au lieu que nos soldats passent fans cesse d'un travail extreme à une extreme oisivété, ce qui est la chose du monde la plus propre à les faire perir. Il faut que je rapporte ici ce que les auteurs nous disent de l'education de soldats Romains. On les ac­coutumoit [Page 29] à aller le pas militaire, c' est-a-dire, à fair en cinq heures vingt milles, et quelque­fois vingt-quatre. Pendant ces marches, on leur faisoit porter de poids de soixante livres. On les entretenoit dans l'habitude de courir et de sauter tout armés; ils prenoient dans leurs exercices des epées, de javelots, de slêches, d'une pésanteur double des armes ordinaires; et ces exercices étoient continuels. Des hom­mes si endurcis étoient ordinairement sains; on ne remarque pas dans les auteurs que les ar­mées Romaines, qui faisoient la guerre en tant de climats, perissoient beaucoup par les mala­dies; au lieu qu'il arrive presque continuelle­ment aujourd'hui, que des armées, sans avoir combattu, se fondent, pour ainsi dire, dans une campagne ^{* a}."’ Mareschal Saxe, a soldier, [Page 30] not a physician, ascribes to the use of vinegar the healthiness of the Roman legions: were vinegar so potent, it would of all liquors be the most in request. Exercise without intermission, during peace as well as during war, produced the salutary effect; which every prince will find, who is dis­posed to copy the Roman discipline ^*. The Ma­reschal guesses better with respect to a horse. Discoursing of cavalry, he observes, that a horse becomes hardy and healthful by constant exercise, and that a young horse is unable to bear fatigue; for which reason he declares against young horses for the service of an army.

That the military branch of the British govern­ment is susceptible of improvements, all the world [Page 31] will admit. To improve it, I have contributed my mite; which is humbly submitted to the public, a judge from whom there lies no appeal. It is submitted in three views. The first is, Whether an army, modelled as above, would not secure us against the boldest invader; the next, Whether such an army be as dangerous to liberty, as an army in its present form; and the last, Whether it would not be a school of industry and moderation to our people.

With respect to the first, we should, after a few years, have not only an army of sixty-thou­sand well-disciplined troops, but the command of another army, equally numerous, and equally well disciplined. It is true, that troops inured to war have an advantage over troops that have not the same experience: but with assurance it may be pronounced impracticable, to land at once in Britain an army that can stand against 100,000 British soldiers well disciplined, fighting even their first battle, for their country, and for their wives and children.

A war with France raises a panic on every slight threatening of an invasion. The security afforded by a proposed plan, would enable us to act offensively at sea, instead of being reduced to keep our ships at home, for guarding our coasts. Would Britain any longer be obliged to support her continental connections? No sooner does an European prince augment his army, or improve military discipline, than his neighbours, taking fright, must do the same. May not one hope, that by the plan proposed, or some such, Britain would be relieved from jealousy and solicitude a­bout its neighbours?

With respect to the second view, having long enjoyed the sweets of a free government, under a succession of mild princes, we begin to forget, [Page 32] that our liberties ever were in danger. But drou­sy security is of all conditions the most dangerous; because the state may be overwhelmed before we even dream of danger. Suppose only, that a Bri­tish King, accomplished in the art of war, and beloved by his soldiers, heads his own troops in a war with France; and after more than one suc­cessful campaign, gives peace to his enemy, on terms advantageous to his people: what security have we for our liberties, when he returns with a victorious army, devoted to his will? I am talk­ing of a standing army in its present form. Troops modelled as above will not be so obsequi­ous: a number of the prime nobility and gentry serving without pay, who can be under no tempta­tion to enslave themselves and their country, will prove a firm barrier against the ambitious views of such a prince. And even supposing that army to be totally corrupted, the prince can have little hope of success against the nation supported by a­nother army, composed of men, who, having completed their military service, may be relied on as champions for their country.

And as to the last view mentioned, the plan proposed cannot fail to promote industry and vir­tue, not only among the soldiers, but among the working people in general. To avoid hard la­bour and severe discipline in the army, men will be sober and industrious at home; and such un­tractable spirits as cannot be reached by the mild laws of a free government, will be effectually tamed by military law. At the same time, as so­briety and innocence are constant attendants upon industry, the manners of our people would be much purified; a circumstance of infinite impor­tance to Britain. The salutary influence of the plan would reach persons in a high sphere. A young gentleman, whipt at school, or falling be­hind [Page 33] at college, contracts an aversion to books; and flies to the army, where he is kept in coun­tenance by numbers, idle and ignorant like him­self. How many young men are thus daily ruin­ed, who, but for the temptation of idleness and gaiety in the army, would have become useful subjects! In the plan under consideration, the officers who serve for pay would be so few in number, and their prospect of advancement so clear, that it would require much interest to be admitted into the army. None would be admit­ted but those who had been regularly educated in every branch of military knowledge; and idle boys would be remitted to their studies.

Here is displayed an agreeable scene with rela­tion to industry. Supposing the whole threescore thousand men to be absolutely idle; yet, by dou­bling the industry of those who remain, I affirm, that the sum of industry would be much greater than before. And the scene becomes enchanting, when we consider, that these threescore thousand men, would not only be of all the most industri­ous, but be patterns of industry to others.

Upon conclusion of a foreign war, we suffer grievously by disbanded soldiers, who must plun­der or starve. The present plan is an effectual remedy: men accustomed to hard labour under strict discipline, can never be in want of bread: they will be sought for every where, even at higher than ordinary wages; and they will prove excellent masters for training the pleasants to hard labour.

A man indulges emulation more freely in be­half of his friends or his country, than of himself: the latter is selfish; the former proceeds from a social principle. In that view, have we not rea­son to hope, that the separating military officers into different classes, will excite a laudable emu­lation, [Page 34] prompting individuals to exert themselves on every occasion, for the honour of their corps? Nor will such emulation, a virtuous passion, be any obstruction to private friendship between members of different classes. On the contrary, may it not be expected, that young officers of birth and fortune, zealous to qualify themselves, at their own expence, for serving their country, will cling for instruction to officers of experience, who have no inheritance but personal merit? Both find their account in that connection: men of rank become adepts in military affairs, a valua­ble branch of education for them; and officers who serve for pay, acquire friends at court, who will embrace every opportunity of testifying their gratitude.

The advantages mentioned are great and ex­tensive; and yet are not the only advantages. Will it be thought extravagant to hope, that the proposed plan would form a better system of edu­cation for young men of fortune, than hitherto has been known in Britain? Before pronouncing sentence against me let the following considera­tions be duly weighed. Our youth go abroad to see the world in the literal sense; for to pierce deeper than eye-sight, cannot be expected of boys. They resort to gay courts, where they find nothing for imitation but pomp, luxury, dissembled virtues, and real vices: such scenes make a deep impression on young men of a warm imagination. Our plan would be an antidote to such poisonous education. Supposing eighteen to be the earliest time for the army, here is an ob­ject held up to our youth of fortune, for rousing their ambition: they will endeavour to make a figure, and emulation will animate them to excel: supposing a young man to have no ambition, shame alone will push him on. To acquire the [Page 35] military art, to discipline their men, to direct the execution of public works, and to conduct other military operations, would occupy their whole time, and banish idleness. A young gentleman, thus guarded against the inticing vices and saun­tering follies of youth, must be sadly deficient in genius, if, during his seven years service, reading and reflection have been totally neglected by him. Hoping better things from our youth of fortune, I take for granted, that during their service they have made some progress, not only in military knowledge, but in morals, and in the fine arts, so as at the age of twenty-five to be qualified for profiting, instead of being undone, by seeing the world ^*.

Further, young men of birth and fortune, ac­quire indeed the smoothness and suppleness of a court, with respect to their superiors; but the constraint of such manners, makes their temper break out against inferiors, where there is no constraint. Insolence of rank is not so visible in Britain, as in countries of less freedom; but it is sufficiently visible to require correction. To that end, no method promises more success than mili­tary service; as command and obedience alter­nately, are the best discipline for acquiring tem­per and moderation. Can pride and insolence be [Page 36] more effectually stemmed, than to be command­ed by an inferior?

Still upon the important article of education. Where pleasure is the ruling passion in youth, interest will be the ruling passion in age: the self­ish principle is the foundation of both, the object only is varied. This observation is sadly verified in Britain: our young men of rank, loathing an irksome and fatiguing course of education, aban­don themselves to pleasure. Trace these very men through the more sedate part of life, and they will be found grasping at power and profit, by means of court-favour, with no regard to their country, and with very little regard to their friends. The education proposed, holding up a tempting prize to virtuous ambition, is an excel­lent fence against a life of indolent pleasure. A youth of fortune, engaged with many rivals in a train of public service, acquires a habit of busi­ness; and as he is constantly employed for the public, patriotism becomes his ruling passion ^*.

[Page 37] The advantages of a military education, such as that proposed, are not yet exhausted: one of considerable importance remains to be unfolded. Under regular government promoting the arts of peace, social intercourse refines, and fondness for company increases in proportion. And hence it is, that the capital is crouded with every person who can afford to live there. A man of fortune, who has no taste but for a city life, happens to be forced into the country by business: finding business and the country equally insipid, he be­comes impatient, and returns to town, with a disgust at every rural amusement. In-France, the country has been long deserted: such fond­ness for society prevails there, that seldom has the King occasion to inflict a greater punishment on a man of fashion, than to banish him to his coun­try-seat. In Britain the same fondness for a town-life is gaining ground daily. A stranger considering the immense sums expended in En­gland upon country-seats, would conclude in ap­pearance with great certainty, that the English spend most of their time in the country. But how would it surprise him to be told, not only that people of fashion in England pass little of their time in the country, but that the immense sums laid out upon gardening and pleasure­grounds, are the effect of vanity more than of taste! In fact, such embellishments are begin­ning to wear out of fashion; appetite for society leaving neither time nor inclination for rural plea­sures. If the progress of that disease can be stayed, the only means is military education. In youth lasting impressions are made; and men of fortune who take to the army, being confined mostly to the country in prime of life, contract a liking for country occupations and amusements; which withdraw them from the capital, and con­tribute [Page 38] to the health of the mind, no less than of the body.

A military education would contribute equally to moderation in social enjoyments. The pomp, ceremony, and expence, necessary to those who adhere to a court, and live always in public, are not a little fatiguing and oppressive. Man is na­turally moderate in his desire of enjoyment; and it requires much practice to make him bear excess, without satiety and disgust. The pain of excess, prompts men of opulence to pass some part of their time in a snug retirement, where they live at ease, free from pomp and ceremony. Here is a retirement, which can be reached without any painful circuit; a port of safety and of peace, to which we are piloted by military education, avoiding every dangerous rock, and every fati­guing agitation.

Reflecting on the advantages of military educa­tion above displayed, is it foolish to think, that our plan might produce a total alteration of man­ners in our youth of birth and fortune? The idlers, the gamesters, the profligate, compared with our military men, would make a despicable figure: shame, not to talk of pride, would compel them to reform.

How conducive to good government might the proposed plan be, in the hands of a virtuous king, supported by a public-spirited ministry! In the present course of advancement, a youth of qua­lity who aspires to serve his country in a civil em­ployment, has nothing to rely on but parliamenta­ry interest. The military education proposed, would afford him opportunity to improve his ta­lents, and to convince the world of his merit. Honour and applause thus acquired, would intitle him to demand preferment; and he ought to be employed, not only as deserving, but as an en­neglecting [Page 39] couragement to others. Frequent instances of neglecting men who are patronized by the public, might perhaps prove dangerous to a British mini­ster.

If I have not all this while been dreaming, here are displayed illustrious advantages of the military education proposed. Fondness for the subject excites me to prolong the entertainment; and I add the following reflection, on the education of such men as are disposed to serve in a public sta­tion. The sciences are mutually connected; and a man cannot be perfect in any one, without be­ing in some degree acquainted with every one. The science of politics, in particular, being not a little intricate, cannot be acquired in perfection by any one whose studies have been confined to a single branch, whether relative to peace or to war. The Duke of Marlborough made an eminent figure in the cabinet, as well as in the field; and such was equally the illustrious Sully, who may serve as a model to all ministers. The great aim in modern politics is, to split government into the greatest number possible of departments, trusting nothing to genius. China is a complete model of such a government. National affairs are there so simplified by division, as to require scarce any capacity in the mandarines. These officers, having little occasion for activity, either of mind or of body, sink down into sloth and sensuality: motives of ambition or of fame make no impression: they have not even so much delicacy as to blush when they err: and as they regard no punishment but what touches the person or the purse, it is not un­usual to see a mandarine beaten with many stripes, sometimes for a very slight transgression. Let arts be subdivided into many parts; the more sub­divisions the better: but I venture to pronounce, that no man ever did, nor ever will, make a capi­tal [Page 40] figure in the government of a state, whether as a judge, a general, or a minister, whose edu­cation is rigidly confined to one science ^*.

Sensible am I that the foregoing plan is in seve­ral respects imperfect; but if it be sound at bot­tom, polish and improvement are easy operations. My capital aim has been, to obviate the objections that press hard against every military plan, hither­to embraced or proposed. A standing army in its present form, is dangerous to liberty; and but a feeble bulwark against superior force. On the other hand, a nation in which every subject is a soldier, must not indulge any hopes of becoming powerful by manufactures and commerce: it is indeed vigorously defended, but is scarce worthy of being defended. The golden mean of rotati­on and constant labour in a standing army, would discipline multitudes for peace as well as for war. And a nation so defended would be invin­cible.

SKETCH X.
PUBLIC POLICE with respect to the POOR.

AMONG those nations of Europe where government is a science, that part of public police which concerns the poor, makes now a con­siderable branch of statute-law. The poor-laws are so multiplied, and so anxiously framed, as to move one to think, that there cannot remain a single person wanting bread. It is however a sad truth, that the disease of poverty, instead of be­ing eradicated, has become more and more inve­terate. England in particular overflows with beg­gars, tho' in no other country are the indigent so amply provided for. Some radical defect there must be in these laws, when, after endless attempts to perfect them, they all prove abortive. Every writer, dissatisfied with former plans, fails not to produce one of his own; which, in its turn, meets with as little approbation as any of the foregoing.

The first regulation of the states of Holland concerning the poor, was in the year 1614, pro­hibiting all begging. The next was in the year 1649. ‘"It is enacted, That every town, vil­lage, [Page 42] or parish, shall maintain its poor out of the income of its charitable foundations and collections; and in case these means fall short, the magistrates shall maintain them at the ge­neral expence of the inhabitants, as can most conveniently be done: Provided always, that the poor be obliged to work either for mer­chants, farmers, or others, for reasonable wages, in order that they may, as far as pos­sible, be supported that way; provided also, that they be indulged in no idleness nor inso­lence."’ The advice or instruction here given to magistrates, is sensible; but falls short greatly of what may be termed a law, the execution of which can be inforced in a court of ju­stice.

In France, the precarious charity of monaste­ries proving ineffectual, a hospital was erected in the city of Paris anno 1656, having different apartments; one for the innocent poor, one for putting vagabonds to hard labour, one for found­lings, and one for the sick and maimed; with certain funds for defraying the expence of each, which produce annually much about the same sum. In imitation of Paris, hospitals of the same kind were erected in every great town of the king­dom.

The English began more early to think of their poor; and in a country without industry, the ne­cessity probably arose more early. The first English statute bears date in the year 1496, di­recting, ‘"That every beggar unable to work, shall resort to the hundred where he last dwelt or was born; and there shall remain, upon pain of being set in the stocks three days and nights, with only bread and water, and then shall be put out of town."’ This was a law against vagrants, for the sake of order. There [Page 43] was little occasion, at that period, to provide for the innocent poor; their maintenance being a burden upon monasteries. But monasteries being put down by Henry VIII. there was a statute, 22d year of his reign, cap. 12. impowering the justi­ces of every county, to grant licences to poor aged and impotent persons, to beg within a certain district; those who beg without it, to be whipt, or set in the stocks. In the first year of Edward VI. cap. 3. a statute was made in favour of im­potent, maimed, and aged persons, that they shall have convenient houses provided for them, in the cities or towns where they were born, or where they resided for three years, to be relieved by the willing and charitable disposition of the parishioners. By 2d and 3d Philip and Mary, cap. 5. the former statutes of Henry VIII. and Edward VI. were confirmed, of gathering weekly relief for the poor by charitable collections. ‘"A man licenced to beg, shall wear a badge on his breast and back openly."’

The first compulsory statute was 5 ^o Elisab. cap. 3. empowering justices of peace to raise a weekly sum for the poor, by taxing such per­sons as obstinately refuse to contribute, after re­peated admonitions from the pulpit. In the next statute, 14 ^o Elisab. cap. 5. a bolder step was made, impowering justices to tax the inha­bitants of every parish, in a weekly sum for their poor. And taxations for the poor being now in some degree familiar, the remarkable statutes, 39 ^o Elisab. cap. 3. and 43 ^o Elisab. cap. 2. were enacted, which make the ground-work of all the subsequent statutes concerning the poor. By these statutes, certain house-holders, named by the justices, are, in conjunction with the church-wardens, appointed overseers for the poor; and these overseers, with consent of two justices, [Page 44] are empowered to tax the parish in what sums they think proper, for maintaining the poor.

Among a people so tenacious of liberty as the English are, and so impatient of oppression, is it not surprising, to find a law, that, without cere­mony, subjects individuals to the arbitrary will of men, who seldom either by birth or education de­serve that important trust; and without even pro­viding any effectual check against embezzlement? At present, a British parliament would reject with scorn such an absurd plan; and yet, being familiarized to it, they never seriously have at­tempted a repeal. We have been always on the watch to prevent the sovereign's encroachments, especially with regard to taxes: but as parish-officers are low persons who inspire no dread, we submit to have our pockets picked by them, almost without repining. There is provided, it is true, an appeal to the general sessions for re­dressing inequalities in taxing the parishioners: but it is no effectual remedy; artful overseers will not over-rate any man so grossly as to make it his interest to complain, considering that these overseers have the poor's money to defend them­selves with. Nor will the general sessions readily listen to a complaint, that cannot be verified but with much time and trouble. If the appeal have any effect, it will make a still greater inequality, by relieving men of figure at the expence of their inferiors; who must submit, having little interest to obtain redress.

The English plan, beside being oppressive, is grossly unjust. If it should be reported of some distant nation, that the burden of maintaining the idle and profligate, is laid upon the frugal and in­dustrious, who work hard for a maintenance to themselves; what would one think of such a na­tion? Yet this is literally the case of England. [Page 45] I say more: the plan is not only oppressive and unjust, but miserably defective in the checking of mal-administration. In fact, great sums are levied beyond what the poor receive: it requires brigu­ing to be named a church-warden: the nominati­on, in London especially, gives him credit at once; and however meagre at the commencement of his office, he is round and plump before it ends. To wax fat and rich by robbing the poor! Let us turn our eyes from a scene so hor­rid ^*.

Inequality in taxing, and embezzlement of the money levied, which are notorious, poison the minds of the people; and impress them with a notion, that all taxes raised by public authority are ill managed.

These evils are great, and yet are but slight compared with what follow. As the number of poor in England, as well as the expence of main­tenance, are increasing daily, proprietors of land, in order to be relieved of a burden so grievous, drive the poor out of the parish, and prevent all persons from settling in it who are likely to be­come a burden: cottages are demolished, and marriage obstructed. Influenced by the present [Page 46] evil, they look not forward to depopulation, nor to the downfall of husbandary and manufactures by scarcity of hands. Every parish is in a state of war with every other parish, concerning pauper settlements and removals.

The price of labour is generally the same in the different shires of Scotland, and in the different parishes. A few exceptions are occasioned by the neighbourhood of a great town, or by some ex­tensive manufacture that requires many hands. In Scotland, the price of labour resembles water, which alway levels itself: if high in any one corner, an influx of hands brings it down. The price of labour varies in every parish of England. A labourer who has gained a settlement in a parish, on which he depends for bread when he inclines to be idle, dares not remove to another parish where wages are higher, fearing to be cut out of a settlement altogether. England is in the same condition with respect to labour, that France lately was with respect to corn; which, however plentiful in one province, could not be exported to supply the wants of another. The pernicious effects of the latter with respect to food, are not more obvious, than of the former with respect to manufactures.

English manufactures labour under a still greater hardship than inequality of wages. In a country where there is no fund for the poor but what nature provides, the labourer must be satisfied with such wages as are customary: he has no re­source; for pity is not moved by idleness. In England, the labourers command the market: if not satisfied with customary wages, they have an excellent resource; which is, to abandon work altogether, and to put themselves on the parish. Labour is much cheaper in France than in Eng­land: I have heard several plausible reasons; but [Page 47] in my opinion, the difference arises from the poor­laws. In England, every man is entitled to be idle; and every idler is entitled to a maintenance. In France, the funds appropriated to the poor, yield the same sum annually: that sum is always pre-occupied; and France, with respect to all but those on the list, approaches to the state of a nation that has no fund provided by law for the poor.

Depopulation, inequality in the price of labour, and extravagant wages, are deplorable evils. But the English poor-laws are productive of evils still more deplorable: they are subversive both of morality and industry. This is a heavy charge, but no less true than heavy. Fear of want is the only effectual motive to industry with the labour­ing poor: remove that fear, and they cease to be industrious. The ruling passion of those who live by bodily labour, is to save a pittance for their children, and for supporting themselves in old age: stimulated by desire of accomplishing these ends, they are frugal and industrious; and the prospect of success is to them a continual feast. Now what worse can malice invent against such a man, under colour of friendship, than to secure bread to him and his children whenever he takes a dislike to work; which effectually deadens his sole ambition, and with it his honest industry? Relying on the certainty of a provision against want, he relaxes gradually till he sink into idle­ness: idleness leads to profligacy: profligacy be­gets diseases: and the wretch becomes an object of public charity before he has run half his course. Such are the genuine effects of the English tax for the poor, under a mistaken notion of charity. There never was known in any country, a scheme for the poor more contradictory to sound policy. Might it not have been foreseen, that to a grovel­ing [Page 48] creature, who has no sense of honour, and scarce any of shame, the certainty of mainte­nance would prove an irresistible temptation to idleness and debauchery? The poor-house at Lyons contained originally but forty beds, of which twenty only were occupied. The eight hundred beds it contains at present, are not suffi­cient for the poor who demand admittance. A premium is not more successful in any case, than where it is given to promote idleness. A house for the poor was erected in a French village, the revenue of which, by oeconomy, became con­siderable. Upon a representation by the curate of the parish, that more beds were necessary, the proprietor undertook the management. He sold the house, with the furniture; and to every proper object of charity, he ordered a moderate proportion of bread and beef. The poor and sick were more comfortably lodged at home, than formerly in the poor-house. And by that plan of management, the parish-poor decreased, instead of increasing, as at Lyons. How few English manufacturers labour the whole week, if the work of four or five days afford them mainte­nance? Is not this a demonstration, that the malady of idleness is widely spread? In Bristol, the parish-poor twenty years ago did not exceed four thousand: at present, they amount to more than ten thousand. But as a malady, when left to itself, commonly effectuates its own cure; so it will happen in this case: when, by prevailing idleness, every one without shame claims parish-charity, the burden will become intolerable, and the poor will be left to their shifts.

The immoral effects of public charity are not confined to those who depend on it, but extend to their children. The constant anxiety of a labour­ing man to provide for his children, endears them [Page 49] to him. Being relieved of that anxiety by the tax for the poor, his affection cools gradually, and he turns at last perfectly indifferent about them. Their independence, on the other hand, weans them from their duty to him. And thus, affection between parent and child, which is the corner-stone of society, is in a great measure ob­literated among the labouring poor. In a plan published by the Earl of Hillsborough, there is an article, obliging parents to maintain their indigent children, and children to maintain their indigent parents. Natural affection must indeed be at a low ebb, where such a regulation is necessary: but it is necessary, at least in London, where it is common to see men in good business neglect­ing their aged and diseased parents, for no better reason, than that the parish is bound to find them bread: Proh tempora, proh mores!

The immoral effects of public charity spread still wider. It fails not to extinguish the virtue of charity among the rich; who never think of giving charity, when the public undertakes for all. In a scheme published by Mr. Hay, one ar­ticle is, to raise a stock for the poor by voluntary contributions, and to make up the deficiency by a parish-tax. Will individuals ever contribute, when it is not to relieve the poor, but to relieve the parish? Every hospital has a poor-box, which seldom produces any thing ^*. The great comfort of society is assistance in time of need; [Page 50] and its firmest cement is, the bestowing and re­ceiving kindly offices, especially in distress. Now to unhinge or suspend the exercise of chari­ty, by rendering it unnecessary, relaxes every so­cial virtue, by supplanting the chief of them. The consequence is dismal: exercise of benevo­lence to the distressed is our surest guard against the encroachments of selfishness: if that guard be withdrawn, selfishness will prevail, and become the ruling passion. In fact, the tax for the poor has contributed greatly to the growth of that gro­veling passion, so conspicuous at present in En­gland.

English authors who turn their thoughts to the poor, make heavy complaints of decaying chari­ty, and increasing poverty: never once drea­ming, that these are the genuine effects of a legal provision for the poor; which on the one hand eradicates the virtue of charity, and on the other is a violent temptation to idleness. Wonderfully ill contrived must the English charity-laws be, when their consequences are to sap the foundati­on of voluntary charity; to deprive the labour­ing poor of their chief comfort, that of providing for themselves and children; to relax mutual af­fection between parent and child; and to reward, instead of punishing, idleness and vice. Consider whether a legal provision for the poor, be suffici­ent to atone for so many evils.

No man had better opportunity than Fielding to be acquainted with the state of the poor: let us listen to him. ‘"That the poor are a very great burden, and even a nuisance to the kingdom; that the laws for relieving their distresses, and restraining their vices, have not answered; and that they are at present very ill provided for, and much worse governed, are truths which every one will acknowledge. Every [Page 51] person who hath property, must feel the weight of the tax that is levied for the poor; and every person of understanding, must see how absurdly it is applied. So useless indeed is this heavy tax, and so wretched its disposi­tion, that it is a question, whether the poor or rich are actually more dissatisfied, since the plunder of the one serves so little to the real advantage of the other: for while a million yearly is raised among the rich, many of the poor are starved; many more languish in want and misery; of the rest, numbers are found begging or pilfering in the streets to­day, and to-morrow are locked up in goals and Bridewells. If we were to make a pro­gress through the outskirts of the metropolis, and look into the habitations of the poor, we should there behold such pictures of human misery, as must move the compassion of every heart that deserves the name of human. What indeed must be his composition, who could see whole families in want of every ne­cessary of life, oppressed with hunger, cold, nakedness, and filth; and with diseases, the certain consequence of all these! The suffe­rings indeed of the poor are less known than their misdeeds; and therefore we are less apt to pity them. 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 thousands annually for the poor; and there is not a street in that liberty, which doth not swarm all day with beggars, and all night with thieves."’

There is not a single beggar to be seen in Pen­sylvania. Luxury and idleness have got no footing [Page 52] in that happy country; and those who suffer by misfortune, have their maintenance out of the public treasury. But luxury and idleness cannot for ever be excluded; and when they take place, this regulation will be as pernicious in Pensylva­nia, as the poor-rates are in Britain.

Of the many proposals that have been pub­lished for reforming the poor-laws, not one has pierced to the root of the evil. None of the au­thors entertain the slightest doubt, of a legal pro­vision being necessary, tho' all our distresses arise evidently from that very cause. Travellers com­plain, of being infested with an endless number of beggars in every English town; a very different scene from what they meet with in Holland or Switzerland. How would it surprise them to be told, that this proceeds from an overflow of cha­rity in the good people of England!

Few institutions are more ticklish than those of charity. In London, common prostitutes are treated with singular humanity: a hospital for them when pregnant, disburdens them of their load, and nurses them till they be again fit for business: another hospital cures them of the ve­nereal disease: and a third receives them with open arms, when, instead of desire, they become objects of aversion. Would not one imagine, that these hospitals have been erected for encouraging prostitution? They undoubtedly have that effect, tho' far from being intended. Mr Stirling, super­intendant of the Edinburgh poor-house, deserves to be kept in perpetual remembrance, for a scheme he contrived to reform common prosti­tutes. A number of them were confined in a house of correction, on a daily allowance of three pence; and even part of that small pittance was embezzled by the servants of the house. Pin­ching hunger did not reform their manners; for [Page 53] being so absolutely idle, they encouraged each o­ther in vice, waiting impatiently for the hour of deliverance. Mr Stirling, with consent of the magistrates, removed them to a clean house; and instead of money, which is apt to be squandered, appointed for each a pound of oat meal daily, with salt, water, and fire for cooking. Relieved now from distress, they long for comfort: what would they not give for milk or ale? Work, says he, will procure you plenty. To some who of­fered to spin, he gave flax and wheels, engaging to pay them half the price of their yarn, retain­ing the other half for the materials furnished: The spinners earned about nine pence weekly, a comfortable addition to what they had before. The rest undertook to spin, one after another; and before the end of the first quarter, they were all of them intent upon work. It was a branch of his plan, to set free such as merited that fa­vour; and some of them appeared so thoroughly reformed, as to be in no danger of a relapse.

The ingenious author of The Police of France, who wrote in the year 1753, observes, that not­withstanding the plentiful provision for the poor in that kingdom, mentioned above, there was a general complaint, of the increase of beggars and vagrants; and adds, that the French political writers, dissatisfied with their own plan, had pre­sented several memorials to the ministry, pro­posing to adopt the English parochial assessments, as greatly preferable. This is a curious fact; for at the very same time people in London, no less dissatisfied with these assessments, were wri­ting pamphlets in praise of the French hospitals. One thing is certain, that no plan hitherto inven­ted has given satisfaction. Whether an unexcep­tionable plan is at all possible, seems extremely doubtful.

[Page 54] In every plan for the poor that I have seen, workhouses make one article; to provide work for those who are willing, and to make those work who are unwilling. With respect to the former, men need never be idle in England for want of employment; and they always succeed the best at the employment they chuse for themselves. With respect to the latter, punishment will not compel a man to labour seriously: he may assume the appearance, but will make no progress; and the pretext of sickness or weakness is ever at hand for an excuse. The only compulsion to make a man work seriously, is fear of want.

A hospital for the sick, for the wounded, and for the maimed, is an excellent establishment; being productive of good, without doing any harm. Such a hospital should depend partly on voluntary charity; to procure which a general conviction of its being well managed, is necessa­ry. Hospitals that have a sufficient fund of their own, and that have no dependence on the good will of others, are commonly ill managed.

Lies there any objection against a workhouse, for training to labour destitute orphans, and beg­ging children? It is an article in Mr. Hay's plan, that the workhouse should relieve poor families of all their children above three. This has an enticing appearance, but is unsound at bottom. Children require the tenderness of a mother, du­ring the period of infantine diseases; and even af­ter that period, they are far from being safe in the hands of mercenaries, who study nothing but their own ease and interest. Would it not be better, to distribute small sums from time to time among poor families overburdened with children, so as to relieve them from famine, not from la­bour? And with respect to orphans and begging [Page 55] children, I incline to think, that it would be a more salutary measure, to encourage mechanicks, manufactures, and farmers above all, to edu­cate such children. A premium for each, the half in hand, and the other half when they can work for themselves, would be a proper encou­ragement. The best-regulated orphans-hospital I am acquainted with, is that of Edinburgh. Or­phans are taken in from every corner, provided only they be not under the age of seven, nor above that of twelve: under seven, they are too tender for a hospital; above twelve, their relations can find employment for them. Beside the being taught to read and write, they are carefully in­structed in some art, that may afford them com­fortable subsistence.

No man ever called in question the utility of the marine society; which will reflect honour on the members as long as we have a navy to protect us: they deserve a rank above that of gartered knights. That institution is the noblest exertion of charity and patriotism, that ever was known in any country.

A sort of hospital for servants who for twenty years have faithfully adhered to the same master, would be much to my taste; with a few adjoin­ing acres for a kitchen-garden. The fund for purchasing, building, and maintenance, must be raised by contribution; and none but the contri­butors should be entitled to offer servants to the house. By such encouragement, a malady would be remedied, that of wandering from master to master for better wages, or easier service, which seldom fails to corrupt servants. They ought to be comfortably provided for, adding to the allow­ance of the house what pot-herbs are raised by their own labour. A number of virtuous men thus associated, would end their days in com­fort; [Page 56] and the prospect of attaining a settlement so agreeable, would form excellent servants. How advantageous would such a hospital prove to hus­bandry in particular!

Of all the mischiefs that have been engendered by over-anxiety about the poor, none have prov­ed more fatal than foundling-hospitals. They tend to cool affection for children, still more ef­fectually than the English parish-charity. At every occasional pinch for food, away goes a child to the hospital; and parental affection among the lower sort turns so languid, that many who are in no pinch, relieve themselves of trouble by the same means. It is affirmed, that of the chil­dren born annually in Paris, about a third part are sent to the foundling-hospital. The Paris almanack for the year 1768, mentions, that there were baptized 18,576 infants, of whom the foundling-hospital received 6025. The propor­tion originally was much less; but vice creeps on with a swift pace. How enormous must be the degeneracy of the Parisian populace, and their want of parental affection!

Let us next turn to infants shut up in this hos­pital. Of all animals, infants of the human race are the weakest: they require a mother's affecti­on to guard them against numberless diseases and accidents; a wise appointment of Providence to connect parents and children in the strictest union. In a foundling-hospital, there is no fond mother to watch over her tender babe; and the hireling nurse has no fondness but for her own little profit. Need we any other cause for the destruction of in­fants in a foundling-hospital, much greater in proportion than of those under the care of a mo­ther? And yet there is another cause equally po­tent, which is corrupted air. What Hanway observes upon parish-workhouses, is equally ap­plicable [Page 57] to a foundling-hospital. ‘"To at­tempt,"’ says he, ‘"to nourish an infant in a workhouse, where a number of nurses are congregated into one room, and consequently the air become putrid, I will pronounce, from intimate knowledge of the subject, to be but a small remove from slaughter; for the child must die."’ Down then with foundling-hos­pitals, more noxious than pestilence or famine. An infant exposed at the door of a dwelling-house, must be taken up: but in that case, which sel­dom happens, the infant has a better chance for life with a hired nurse than in a hospital; and a chance perhaps little worse, bad as it is, than with an unnatural mother. I approve not indeed of a quarterly payment to such a nurse: would it not do better to furnish her bare maintenance for three years; and if the child be alive at that time, to give her a handsome addition?

A house of correction is necessary for good or­der; but belongs not to the present essay, which concerns maintenance of the poor, not punish­ment of vagrants. I shall only by the way bor­row a thought from Fielding, that fasting is the proper punishment of profligacy, not any punish­ment that is attended with shame. Punishment, he observes, that deprives a man of all sense of honour, never will contribute to make him vir­tuous.

Charity-schools might have been proper, when few could read, and fewer write; but these arts are now so common, that in most fami­lies children may be taught to read at home, and to write in a private school at little expence. Cha­rity-schools at present are more hurtful than be­neficial: young persons who continue there so long as to read and write fluently, become too delicate for hard labour, and too proud for ordi­nary [Page 58] labour. Knowledge is a dangerous acquisi­tion to the labouring poor: the more of it that is possessed by a shepherd, a ploughman, or any drudge, the less fitted is he to labour with content. The only plausible argument for a charity-school, is, ‘"That children of the labouring poor are taught there the principles of religion and of morality, which they cannot acquire at home."’ The argument would be invincible, if with­out education we could have no knowledge of these principles. But Providence has not left man in a state so imperfect: the principles of theology and of morality are stamped on his heart; and none can be ignorant of them, who attend to their own perceptions. Education is indeed of use to ripen such perceptions; and it is a singular use to those who have time for reading and thinking: but education in a charity-school is so slight, as to render it doubtful, whether it be not more hurtful by fostering laziness, than advantageous by conveying instruction. The natural impressi­ons of religion and morality, if not obscured by vicious habits, are sufficient for good conduct: preserve a man from vice by constant labour, and he will not be deficient in his duty either to God or to man. Hesiod, an ancient and respectable poet, says, that God hath placed labour as a guard to virtue. More integrity accordingly will be found among a number of industrious poor ta­ken at random, than among the same number in any other class.

I heartily approve every regulation that tends to prevent idleness. Chief Justice Hale says, ‘"That prevention of poverty and idleness would do more good than all the gibbets, whipping­posts, and goals in the kingdom."’ In that view, gaming-houses ought to be heavily taxed, as well as horse-racing, cock-fighting, and all [Page 59] meetings that encourage idleness. The admitting low people to vote for members of parliament, is a source of idleness, corruption, and poverty. The same privilege is ruinous to every small parliament borough. Nor have I any difficulty to pronounce, that the admitting the populace to vote in the election of a minister, a frequent practice in Scotland, is productive of the same pernicious effects.

What then is to be the result of the forego­ing enquiry? Is it from defect of invention that a good legal establishment for the poor is not yet discovered? or is it impracticable to make any legal establishment that is not fraught with corruption? I incline to the latter, for the follow­ing reasons, no less obvious than solid, That in a legal establishment for the poor, no distinction can be made between virtue and vice; and con­sequently that every suchest ablishment must be a premium for idleness. And where is the necessi­ty, after all, of any public establishment? By what unhappy prejudice have people been led to think, that the Author of our nature, so benefi­cent to his favourite man in every other respect, has abandoned the indigent to famine and death, if municipal law interpose not? We need but in­spect the human heart to be convinced, that per­sons in distress are his peculiar care. Not only has he made it our duty to afford them relief, but has superadded the passion of pity to enforce the performance of that duty. This branch of our nature fulfils in perfection all the salutary purposes of charity, without admitting any one of the deplorable evils that a legal provision is fraught with. The contrivance, at the same time, is extremely simple: it leaves to every man the objects as well as measure of his charity. No man esteems it a duty to relieve wretches reduced [Page 60] to poverty by idleness and profligacy: they move not our pity; nor do they expect any good from us. Wisely therefore is it ordered by Provi­dence, that charity should in every respect be vo­luntary, to prevent the idle and profligate from depending on it for support.

This plan is in many respects excellent. The exercise of charity, when free from compulsion, is extremely pleasant. The pleasure, it is true, is scarce felt where charity is rendered unnecessa­ry by municipal law; but were that law laid aside, the gratification of pity would become one of our sweetest pleasures. Charity, like other affecti­ons, is invigorated by exercise, and no less en­feebled by disuse. Providence withal hath scat­tered benevolence among the sons of men with a liberal hand: and notwithstanding the obstruction of municipal law, seldom is there found one so obdurate, as to resist the impulse of compassion, when a proper object is presented. In a well re­gulated government, promoting industry and vir­tue, the persons who need charity are not many: and such persons may, with assurance, depend on the charity of their neighbours ^*.

It may, at the same time, be boldly affirmed, that those who need charity, would be more com­fortably provided for by the plan of Providence, than by any legal establishment. Creatures, loathsome by disease or nastiness, affect the air in a poor-house, and have little chance for life, without more care and kindliness, than can be hoped from servants, render callous by continual scenes of misery. Consider, on the other hand, [Page 61] the consequences of voluntary charity, equally agreeable to the giver and receiver. The kind­ly connection it forms between them, grows stronger and stronger by reiteration; and squal­lid poverty, far from being an obstruction, ex­cites a degree of pity, proportioned to the di­stress. It may happen for a wonder, that an indigent person is overlooked; but for one who will suffer by such neglect, multitudes suffer by compelled charity.

But what I insist on with peculiar satisfaction is, that natural charity is an illustrious support to virtue. Indigent virtue can never fail of re­lief, because it never fails to enflame compassion. Indigent vice, on the contrary, raises indignation more than pity ^a; and therefore can have lit­tle prospect of relief. What a glorious incite­ment to industry and virtue, and how discou­raging to idleness and vice! Lamentable it is, that so beautiful a structure should be razed to the ground by municipal law, which, in provi­ding for the poor, makes no distinction between virtue and vice. The execution of the poor­laws would indeed be impracticable, were such a distinction attempted by enquiring into the conduct and character of every pauper. Where are judges to be found who will patiently follow out such a dark and intricate expiscation? To accomplish the task, a man must abandon every other concern.

In the first English statutes mentioned above, the legislature appear carefully to have avoided compulsory charity: every measure for promo­ting voluntary charity was first tried, before the fatal blow was struck, empowering parish-offi­cers [Page 62] to impose a tax for the poor. The legisla­ture certainly did not foresee the baneful conse­quences: but how came they not to see that they were distrusting Providence, declaring in effect, that the plan established by our Maker for the poor, is insufficient? Many are the mu­nicipal laws that enforce the laws of nature, by additional rewards and punishments; but it was singularly bold to abolish the natural law of cha­rity, by establishing a legal tax in its stead. Men will always be mending: what a confused jumble do they make, when they attempt to mend the laws of Nature! Leave Nature to her own operations: she understands them the best.

Few regulations are more plausible than what are political; and yet few are more deceitful. An ingenious writer makes the following obser­vations upon the 43 ^o Eliz. establishing a mainte­nance for the poor. ‘"Laws have been enacted in many other countries, which have punish­ed the idle beggar, and exhorted the rich to extend their charity to the poor: but it is peculiar to the humanity of England, to have made their support a matter of obligation and necessity on the more wealthy. The English seem to be the first nation in Europe in science, arts, and arms: they likewise are possessed of the freest and most perfect of constitutions, and the blessings consequential to that freedom. If virtues in an individual are sometimes supposed to be rewarded in this world, I do not think it too presumptuous to suppose, that national virtues may likewise meet with their reward. England hath, to its peculiar honour, not only made their poor free, but hath provided a certain and solid establishment to prevent their necessities and indigence, when they arise from what the law [Page 63] calls the act of God: and are not these benefi­cent and humane attentions to the miseries of our fellow-creatures, the first of those poor pleas which we are capable of offering, in behalf of our imperfections, to an all-wise and merciful Creator!"’ To this writer, who shows more zeal than knowledge, I oppose ano­ther, whose reflections are more rational. ‘"In England, there is an act of the legislature, obliging every parish to maintain its own poor. Scarce any man living, who has not seen the effects of this law, but must approve of it; and yet such are its effects, that the streets of London are filled with objects of misery be­yond what is seen in any other city. The la­bouring poor, depending on this law to be provided in sickness and old age, are little so­licitous to save, and become habitually pro­fuse. The principle of charity is established by Providence in the human heart, for reliev­ing those who are disabled to work for them­selves. And if the labouring poor had no de­pendence but on the principle of charity, they would be more religious; and if they were influenced by religion, they would be less abandoned in their behaviour. Thus this seeming-good act turns to a national evil: there is more distress among the poor in Lon­don than any where in Europe; and more drunkenness both in males and females ^a."’

I am aware, that during the reign of Elizabeth, some compulsion might be necessary to preserve the poor from starving. Henry VIII. had seque­stered all the hospitals, a hundred and ten in number, and squandered their revenues; he had [Page 64] also demolished all the abbeys. By these means, the poor were reduced to a miserable condition: especially as private charity, for want of exer­cise, was at a low ebb. That critical juncture required indeed help from the legislature; and a temporary provision for the poor would have been a proper measure; so contrived as not to supersede voluntary charity, but rather to pro­mote it. Unlucky it is for England, that such a measure was overlooked; but Queen Elizabeth and her parliaments had not the talent of foresee­ing consequences without the aid of experience. A perpetual tax for the poor was imposed, the most pernicious tax that ever was imposed in any country.

With respect to the present times, the reason now given pleads against abolishing at once a le­gal provision for the poor. It may be taken for granted, that charity is in England not more vi­gorous at present, than it was in the days of Eli­zabeth. Would our ministry but lead the way, by showing some zeal for a reformation, expe­dients would probably be invented, for support­ing the poor, without unhinging voluntary cha­rity. The following expedient, is proposed, merely as a specimen. Let a tax be imposed by parliament on every parish for their poor, varia­ble in proportion to the number; but not to ex­ceed the half of what is necessary; and directing the landholders to make up quarterly, a list of the names and condition of such persons as in their opinion need charity; with an estimate of what each ought to have weekly. The public tax makes the half, and the other half is to be raised by voluntary contribution. To prevent collusion, the roll of the poor, and their weekly appointment, with a subscription of gentlemen for their part of the sum, shall be examined by [Page 65] the justices of peace at a quarterly meeting; who, on receiving satisfaction, must order the sum ari­sing from the public tax to be distributed among the poor contained in the roll, according to the estimate of the landholders. As the public fund lies dead till the subscription is completed, it is not to be imagined, that any gentleman will stand out: it would be a public imputation on his character. Far from apprehending any deficien­cy, confident I am, that every gentleman would consider it as honourable to contribute largely. This agreeable work must be blended with what is rather disagreeable, that of excluding from the roll every profligate, male or female. If that rule be followed out with a proper degree of severity, the innocent poor will diminish daily; so as in time to be safely left upon voluntary charity, without necessity of any tax.

But must miserable wretches, reduced to po­verty by idleness or intemperance, be, in a Christi­an country, abandoned to diseases and famine? It is this very argument, shallow as it is, that has corrupted the industry of England, and reduced multitudes to diseases and famine. Those who are able to work, may be locked up in a house of correction, to be fed with bread and water; but with liberty of working for themselves. And as for the remainder, their case is not desperate, when they have access to such tender-hearted persons as are more eminent for pity than for prin­ciple. If by neglect or oversight any happen to die of want, the example will tend more to re­formation, than the most pathetic discourse from the pulpit.

Even at the hazard of losing a few lives by neglect or oversight, common begging ought ab­solutely to be prohibited. The most profligate are the most impudent, and the most expert at [Page 66] feigning distress. If begging be indulged to any, all will rush into the public: idlers are fond of that wandering and indolent sort of life; and there is no temptation to idleness more successful, than liberty to beg. In order to be relieved from common beggars, it has been proposed, to fine those who gave them alms. Little penetration must they have, to whom the insufficiency of such a remedy is not palpable. It is easy to give alms without been seen; and compassion will ex­tort alms, even at the hazard of suffering for it; not to mention, that every one in such a case will avoid the odious character of an informer. The following remedy is suggested, as what probably may answer better. An officer must be appoint­ed in every parish, with a competent salary, for apprehending and carrying to the workhouse every strolling beggar; under the penalty of losing his office, with what salary is due to him, if any beggar be found strolling four and twenty hours after the fact comes to his knowledge. In the workhouse such beggars shall be fed with bread and water for a year, but with liberty of working for themselves.

I declare resolutely against a perpetual tax for the poor. But if there must be such a tax, I know of none less subversive of industry and mo­rals, than that established in Scotland, obliging the landholders in every parish to meet at stated times, in order to provide a fund for the poor; but leaving the objects of their charity, and the measure, to their own humanity and discretion. In this plan, there is no encroachment on the natural duty of charity, but only that the mi­nority must submit to the opinion of the majo­rity.

In large towns, where the character and cir­cumstances of the poor-are not so well known as [Page 67] in country-parishes, the following variation is proposed. Instead of landholders, who are pro­per in country-parishes, let there be in each town-parish a standing committee, to be chosen by the proprietors of houses, the third part to be chang­ed annually. This committee, with the minister, make up a list of such as deserve charity, adding an estimate of what, with their own labour, may be sufficient for each of them. The minister, with one or two of the committee, carry about this list to every family that can afford charity, suggesting what may be proper for each to contri­bute. This list, with an addition of the sum contributed or promised by each householder, must be affixed on the principal door of the parish­church, to honour the contributors, and to inform the poor of the provision made for them. Some such mode may probably be effectual, without transgressing the bounds of voluntary charity. But if any one obstinately refuse to contribute after several applications, the committee at their discretion may tax him. If it be the possessor who declines contributing, the tax must be laid upon him, reserving relief against his land­lord.

In great towns, the poor, who ought to be pro­hibited from begging, are less known than in country parishes. And among a crowd of inha­bitants, it is easier for an individual to escape the eye of the public, when he with-holds charity, than in country-parishes. Both defects will be remedied by the plan above proposed: it will bring to light, in great cities, the poor who de­serve charity; and it will bring to light every person who with-holds charity.

SKETCH XI.
A GREAT CITY considered in Physical, Moral, and Political Views.

IN all ages an opinion seems to have been pre­valent, that a great city is a great evil, and that a capital may be too great for the state, as a head may be for the body. Considering however the very shallow reasons that have been given for this opinion, it should seem to be but slightly founded. There are several ordinances limiting the extent of Paris, and prohibiting new buildings beyond the prescribed bounds; the first of which is by Henry II. ann. 1549. These ordinances have been renewed from time to time, down to the year 1672, in which year there is an edict of Louis XIV. to the same purpose. The reasons assigned are, ‘"First, That by enlarging the city, the air would be rendered unwholesome. Second, That cleaning the streets would prove a great additional labour. Third, That adding to the number of inhabitants would raise the price of provisions, of labour, and of manu­factures. Fourth, That ground would be [Page 69] covered with buildings instead of corn, which might hazard a scarcity. Fifth, That the country would be depopulated by the desire that people have to resort to the capital. And, lastly, That the difficulty of governing such numbers would be an encouragement to robbery and murder."’

These reasons for confining the city of Paris within certain bounds are wonderfully shallow. The most important of them conclude justly against permitting an increase of inhabitants: the second and fourth conclude only against enlarging the city; and these, at the best, are trifling. The first reason urged against enlarging the city, is a solid reason for enlarging it, supposing the num­bers to be limited; for to prevent crouding is an excellent preventive of unwholesome air. Paris, with the same number of inhabitants that were in the days of the fourth Henry, occupies thrice the space, much to the health as well as comfort of the inhabitants. Had the ordinances mentioned been made effectual, the houses in Paris must all have been built, like those in the old town, story above story, ascending to the sky like the tower of Babel. Before the great fire anno 1666, the plague was frequent in London; but by widening the streets, and enlarging the houses, there has not since been known in that great city, any contagious distemper that deserves the name of a plague. The third, fifth, and last reasons, conclude against permitting any addition to the number of inhabitants; but conclude nothing against enlarging the town. In a word, the mea­sure adopted in these ordinances has little or no tendency to correct the evils complained of; and infallibly would enflame the chief of them. The [Page 70] measure that ought to have been adopted, is to limit the number of inhabitants, not the extent of the town.

Queen Elizabeth of England, copying the French ordinances, issued a proclamation anno 1602, prohibiting any new buildings within three miles of London. The preamble is in the fol­lowing words: ‘"That foreseeing the great and manifold inconveniencies and mischiefs which daily grow, and are likely to increase, in the city and suburbs of London, by confluence of people to inhabit the same; not only by reason that such multitudes can hardly be governed to serve God, and obey her Majesty, without constituting an addition of new officers, and enlarging their authority; but also can hardly be provided of food and other necessaries at a reasonable price; and finally, that as such multitudes of people, many of them poor, who must live by begging, or worse means, are heaped up together, and in a sort smo­thered, with many children and servants, in one house or small tenement; it must needs follow, if any plague or other universal sickness come amongst them, that it would presently spread through the whole city and confines, and also into all parts of the realm."’

There appears no deeper penetration in this pro­clamation, than in the French ordinances. The same error is observable in both, which is the li­miting the extent of the town, instead of limiting the number of inhabitants. True it is indeed, that the regulation would have a better effect in London than in Paris. As stone is in plenty about Paris, houses there may be carried to a very great height; and are actually so carried in the old town: but there being no stone about [Page 71] London, the houses formerly were built of timber, now of brick; materials too frail for a lofty edifice.

Proceeding to particulars, the first objection, which is the expence of governing a great multi­tude, concludes against the numbers, not against the extent of the city. At the same time, the objection is at best doubtful in point of fact. Though vices abound in a great city, requiring the strictest attention of the magistrate; yet with a well-regulated police, it is much less expensive to govern 600,000 in one city, than the same number in ten different cities. The second ob­jection, viz. the high price of provisions, strikes only against numbers, not extent. Beside, what­ever might have been the case in the days of Elizabeth, when agriculture and internal com­merce were in their infancy; there are at present not many towns in England, where a temperate man may live cheaper than in London. The hazard of contagious distempers, which is the third objection, is an invincible argument against limiting the extent of a great town. It is men­tioned above, that from the year 1666, when the streets were widened, and the houses enlarged, London has never been once visited by the plague. If the proclamation had taken effect, the houses must have been so crouded upon each other, and the streets so contracted, as to have occasioned plagues still more frequently than before the year 1666.

The ministry of the Queen's immediate suc­cessors were not more clear-sighted than she and her ministers were. In the year 1624, King James issued a proclamation against building in London upon new foundations. Charles I. is­sued two proclamations to the same purpose; one in the year 1625, and one in the year 1630.

[Page 72] The progress of political knowledge has un­folded many bad effects of a great city, more weighty than any urged in these proclamations. The first I shall mention is, that people born and bred in a great city are commonly weak and ef­feminate. Vegetius ^a observing, that men bred to husbandry make the best soldiers, adds what follows. ‘"Interdum tamen necessitas exigit, etiam urbanos ad arma compelli: qui ubi nomen dedere militiae, primum laborare, decurrere, portare pondus, et solem pulveremque ferre, condiscant; parco victu utantur et rustico; interdum sub divo, interdum sub papilionibus, commorentur. Tunc demum ad usum erudi­antur armorum: et si longior expeditio emer­git, in angariis plurimum detinendi sunt, pro­culque habendi a civitatis illecebris: ut eo modo, et corporibus eorum robur accedat, et animis ^*."’ The luxury of a great city des­cends from the highest to the lowest, infecting all ranks of men; and there is little opportunity in it for such exercise as renders the body vigor­ous [Page 73] and robust. This is a physical objection against a great city: the next regards morality. Virtue is exerted chiefly in restraint: vice, in giving freedom to desire. Moderation and self­command form a character the most susceptible of virtue: superfluity of animal spirits, and love of pleasure, form a character the most liable to vice. Low vices, pilfering for example, or ly­ing, draw few or no imitators; but vices that indicate a soul above restraint, fail not to pro­duce admirers. Where a man boldly struggles against unlawful restraint, he is justly applauded and imitated; and the vulgar are not apt to dis­tinguish nicely between lawful and unlawful re­straint: the boldness is visible, and they pierce no deeper. It is the unruly boy, full of animal spirits, who at a public school is admired and imi­tated; not the virtuous and modest. Vices ac­cordingly that show spirit, are extremely infec­tious; virtue very little. Hence the corrupti­on of a great city, which increases more and more in proportion to the number of inhabitants. But it is sufficient here barely to mention that objection; because it has been much insisted on in antecedent parts of this work.

The following bad effects are more of a poli­tical nature. A great town is a professed enemy to the free circulation of money. The current coin is accumulated in the capital: and distant provinces must sink into idleness; for without ready money neither arts nor manufactures can flourish. Thus we find less and less activity, in proportion commonly to the distance from the capital, and an absolute torpor in the extremities. It may be observed beside, that as horses in a great city must be provided with provender from a distance, the country is robbed of its dung for the benefit of the rich fields round the city. But [Page 74] as manure laid upon poor land is of more advan­tage to the farmer than upon what is already highly improved, the depriving distant parts of manure is a loss to the country in general. Nor is this all: The dung of an extensive city, the bulk of it at least, is so remote from the fields to which it must be carried, that the expence of carriage swallows up the profit.

Another bad effect of accumulating money in the capital is, to raise there the price of labour; and the temptation of high wages, making every one flock to the capital, robs the country of its best hands. And as they who resort to the ca­pital are commonly young people, who remove as soon as they are fit for work, distant provin­ces are burdened with their maintenance, with­out reaping any benefit by their labour.

But of all, the most deplorable effect of a great city, is the preventing of population, by shortening the lives of its inhabitants. Does a capital swell in proportion to the numbers that are drained from the country? Far from it. The air of a populous city is infected by multitudes crouded together; and people there seldom make out the usual time of life. With respect to London in particular, the fact is but too well ascertained. The burials in that immense city greatly exceed the births: the difference some affirm to be no less than ten thousand yearly: by the most moderate computation, not under seven or eight thousand. As London is far from being on the decline, the consumption of so many inhabitants must be supplied from the country; and the annual supply amounts pro­bably to a greater number than were needed an­nually for recruiting our armies and navies in the late war with France. If so, London is a greater enemy to population, than a bloody war [Page 75] would be, supposing it even to be perpetual. What an enormous tax is Britain thus subjected to for supporting her capital! The rearing and educating yearly for London 7 or 8000 persons, require an immense sum.

In Paris, if the bills of mortality can be relied on, the births and burials are nearly equal, be­ing each of them about 19,000 yearly; and ac­cording to that computation, Paris should need no recruits from the country. But in that city, the bills of mortality cannot be depended on for burials. It is there universally the practice of high and low, to have their infants nursed in the country, till they be three years of age; and consequently those who die before that age, are not inlisted. What proportion these bear to the whole is uncertain. But a guess may be made from such as die in London; which are comput­ed to be one half of the whole that die ^a. Now giving the utmost allowance for the healthi­ness of the country above that of a town, Paris children that die in the country before the age of three, cannot be brought so low as a third of those that die. On the other hand, the London bills of mortality are less to be depended on for births than for burials. None are inlisted but infants baptized by clergymen of the English church; and the numerous children of Papists, Dissenters, and other sectaries, are left out of the account. Upon the whole, the difference between the births and burials in Paris and in London, is much less than it appears to be on comparing the bills of mortality of these two cities.

[Page 76] At the same time, giving full allowance for children that are not brought into the London bills of mortality, there is the highest probabili­ty that a greater number of children are born in Paris than in London; and consequently that the former requires fewer recruits from the coun­try than the latter. In Paris, domestic servants are encouraged to marry: they are observed to be more settled than when batchelors, and more attentive to their duty. In London, such mar­riages are discouraged, as rendering a servant more attentive to his own family, than to that of his master. But a servant attentive to his own family, will not, for his own sake, neglect that of his master. At any rate, is he not more to be depended on, than a servant who continues a batchelor? What can be expected of idle and pampered batchelors, but debauchery, and every sort of corruption? Nothing restrains them from absolute profligacy, but the eye of the mas­ter, who for that reason is their aversion not their love. If the poor-laws be named the folio of corruption, batchelor-servants in London may well be considered as a large appendix. And this attracts the eye to the poor-laws, which indeed make the chief difference between Paris and London, with respect to the present point. In Paris, certain funds are established for the poor, the yearly produce of which admits but a limit­ed number. As that fund is always pre-occu­pied, the low people who are not on the list, have little or no prospect of bread, but from their own industry; and to the industrious, mar­riage is in a great measure necessary. In Lon­don, a parish is taxed in proportion to the num­ber of its poor; and every person who is pleased to be idle, is entitled to maintenance. Most things thrive by encouragement, and idleness [Page 77] above all. Certainty of maintenance, renders the low people in England idle and profligate; especially in London, where luxury prevails, and infects every rank. So insolent are the London poor, that scarce one of them will condescend to eat brown bread. There are accordingly in Lon­don, a much greater number of idle and profli­gate wretches, than in Paris, or in any other town in proportion to the number of inhabitants. These wretches, in Doctor Swift's style, never think of posterity, because posterity never thinks of them: men who hunt after pleasure, and live from day to day, have no notion of being bur­dened with a family. These causes produce a greater number of children in Paris than in Lon­don; though probably they differ not much in populousness.

I shall add but one other objection to a great city, which is not slight. An overgrown capi­tal, far above a rival, has, by numbers and riches, a distressing influence in public affairs. The populace are ductile, and easily misled by ambitious and designing magistrates. Nor are there wanting critical times, in which such ma­gistrates, acquiring artificial influence, may have power to disturb the public peace. That an overgrown capital may prove dangerous to sove­reignty, has more than once been experienced both in Paris and London.

It would give one the spleen, to hear the French and English zealously disputing about the extent of their capitals, as if the prosperity of their country depended on that circumstance. To me it appears like one glorying in the king's-evil, or in any contagious distemper. Much bet­ter employed would they be, in contriving means for lessening those cities. There is not a politi­cal measure, that, in my opinion, would tend [Page 78] more to aggrandize the kingdom of France, or of Britain, than to split its capital into several great towns. My plan would be, to confine the inhabitants of London to 100,000, composed of the king and his household, supreme courts of justice, government-boards, prime nobility and gentry, with necessary shop-keepers, artists, and other dependents. Let the rest of the inhabitants be distributed into nine towns properly situated, some for internal commerce, some for foreign. Such a plan would diffuse life and vigour through every corner of the island.

To execute such a plan, would, I acknow­ledge, require the deepest political skill, and much perseverance. I shall suggest what occurs at present. The first step must be, to mark proper spots for the nine towns, the most advan­tageous for trade, or for manufactures. If any of these spots be occupied already with small towns, so much the better. The next step is a capitation-tax on the inhabitants of London; the sum levied to be appropriated for encouraging the new towns. One encouragement would have a good effect; which is, a premium to every man who builds in any of these towns, more or less, in proportion to the size of the house. This tax would banish from London, every manufacture but of the most lucrative kind. When, by this means, the inhabitants of London are reduced to a number not much above 100,000, the near prospect of being relieved from the tax, will make every householder active to banish all above that number: and to prevent a renewal of the tax, a greater number will never again be per­mitted. It would require great penetration to proportion the sums to be levied and distributed, so as to have their proper effect, without over­burdening [Page 79] the capital on the one hand, or giving too great encouragement for building on the other, which might tempt people to build for the premium merely, without any further view. Much will depend on an advantageous situation: houses built there will always find inhabitants.

The two great cities of London and Westmin­ster are extremely ill fitted for local union. The latter, the seat of government and of the noblesse, infects the former with luxury and with love of show. The former, the seat of commerce, infects the latter with love of gain. The mixture of these opposite passions, is productive of every groveling vice.

SKETCH XII.
Origin and Progress of AMERICAN NATIONS.

HAVING no authentic materials for a natural history of all the Americans, the following observations shall be confined to a few tribes, the best known; and to the kingdoms of Peru and Mexico, as they were at the date of the Spanish conquest.

As there appears no passage by land to America from the old world, no problem has more embar­rassed the learned, than to give an account from whence the Americans sprang: there are as many different opinions, as there are writers. Many attempts have been made for discovering a passage by land; but hitherto in vain. Kamskatka, it is true, is divided from America by a narrow strait, full of islands: and M. Buffon, to render the passage still more easy than by sea, conjectures, that thereabout there may formerly have been a land-passage, though now washed away by vio­lence of the ocean. There is indeed great ap­pearance of truth in this conjecture; as all the [Page 81] quadrupeds of the north of Asia seem to have made their way to America; the bear, for ex­ample, the roe, the deer, the rain-deer, the beaver, the wolf, the fox, the hare, the rat, the mole. He admits that in America there is not to be seen a lion, a tiger, a panther, or any other Asiatic quadruped of a hot climate: not, says he, for want of a land-passage; but because the cold climate of Tartary, in which such ani­mals cannot subsist, is an effectual bar against them ^*.

But in my apprehension, much more is required to give satisfaction upon this subject, than a pas­sage from Kamskatka to America, whether by land or sea. An enquiry much more decisive is totally overlooked, relative to the people on the two sides of the streight; particularly, whether they speak the same language. Now by late ac­counts from Russia we are informed, that there is no affinity between the Kamskatkan tongue, and that of the Americans on the opposite side of the streight. Whence we may conclude with great certainty, that the latter are not a colony of the former.

But I go farther. There are several cogent ar­guments to evince, that the Americans are not descended from any people in the north of Asia or in the north of Europe. Were they descended from either, Labrador, or the adjacent countries, [Page 82] must have been first peopled. And as savages are remarkably fond of their natal soil, they would have continued there, till by over-population they should have been compelled to spread wider for food. But the fact is directly contrary. When America was discovered by the Spaniards, Mexico and Peru were fully peopled; and the other parts less and less, in proportion to their distance from these central countries. Fabry reports, that one may travel one or two hundred leagues north-west from the Missisippi, without seeing a human face, or any vestige of a house. And some French officers say, that they travelled more than a hundred leagues from the delicious country watered by the Ohio, through Louisiana, without meeting a single family of savages. Labrador is very thin of inhabitants; no people having been discovered in it, but the Esquimaux, a very small tribe. And as that tribe has plenty of food at home, there is no appearance, that they ever sent a colony to any other part of America. The civilization of the Mexicans and Peruvians, as well as their populousness, make it extremely probable that they were the first inhabitants of America. In travelling northward, the people are more and more ignorant and savage: the Esquimaux, the most northern of all, are the most savage. In travelling southward, the Pa­tagonians, the most southern of all, are so stupid as to go naked in a bitter cold region.

I venture still farther; which is, to conjecture, that America has not bee peopled from any part of the old world. The external appearance of the inhabitants, makes this conjecture approach to a certainty; as that appearance differs widely from the appearance of any other known people. Excepting the eye-lashes, eye-brows, and hair of [Page 83] the head, which is invariably jet black, there is not a single hair on the body of any American▪ not the least appearance of a beard. Another distinguishing mark is their copper-colour, uni­formly the same in all climates, hot and cold; and differing from the colour of all other nations. Ulloa remarks, that the Americans of Cape Breton, resemble the Peruvians in complexion, in manners, and in customs; the only visible dif­ference being, that the former are of a larger stature. A third circumstance no less distinguish­ing is, that American children are born with down upon the skin, which disappears the eighth or ninth day, and never grows again. Children of the old world are born with skins smooth and polished, and no down appears till pu­berty.

That the original inhabitants of America are a race distinct from all others, I once thought de­monstrable from some reports concerning the Esquimaux. The author of the history of New France, and several other writers report, that the Esquimaux are bold, mischievous, suspicious, and untamable; that it is not even safe to con­verse with them but at a distance; that no European skin is whiter; and that they are beard­ed up to the eyes. Supposing these facts to be true, had I not reason to believe, that the Esqui­maux must have sprung from some nation in the north of Europe or Asia, though I could not pretend to say, whether the transmigration was by land or sea? From the same facts, however, I was forced to conclude, that the rest of the Americans could not have had the same origin: for if the Canadians or any other American na­tion were of Asiatic or European extraction, they must, like the Esquimaux, have had a [Page 84] beard and white skin to this day. But one cannot be too cautious in giving faith to odd or singular facts, reported of distant nations. It is discovered by later accounts more worthy of credit, that the foregoing description of the Esquimaux is false in every particular. Of all the northern nations, not excepting the Lap­landers, the Esquimaux are of the smallest size, few of them exceeding four feet in height. They have heads extremely gross, feet and hands very small. That they are neither cruel nor suspicious, appears from what Ellis says in his account of a voyage anno 1747, for dis­covering a north-west passage, that they offer­ed their wives to the English sailors, with ex­pressions of satisfaction for being able to ac­commodate them. But what is the most to the present purpose; they are of a copper colour, like the other Americans, only a degree lighter, occasioned probably by the intense cold of their climate; and they are also altogether destitute of a beard. It is common indeed among them, to bring forward the hair of the head upon the face, for preserving it from flies, which rage in that country during summer; an appearance that probably has been mistaken by travellers for a beard.

It has been lately discovered, that the lan­guage of the Esquimaux is the same with that of the Greenlanders. A Danish missionary, who by some years residence in Greenland had acqui­red the language of that country, made a voy­age with Commodore Paliser to Newfoundland ann. 1764. Meeting a company of about two hundred Esquimaux, he was agreeably surprised to hear the Greenland tongue. They received him kindly, and drew from him a promise to re­turn [Page 85] the next year. And we are informed by Crantz, in his history of Greenland, that the same Danish missionary visited them the very next year, in company with the Rev. Mr. Dra­chart. They agreed, that the difference be­tween the Esquimaux language and that of Greenland was not greater than between the dia­lects of North and South Greenland, which dif­fer not so much as the High and Low Dutch. Both nations call themselves Innuit or Karalit, and call the Europeans Kablunet. Their stature, features, manners, dress, tents, darts, and boats, are entirely the same. As the language of Greenland resembles not the language of Fin­land, Lapland, Norway, Tartary, nor that of the Samoides, it is evident, that neither the Esquimaux nor Greenlanders are a colony from any of the countries mentioned. Geographers begin now to conjecture, that Greenland is a part of the continent of North America, without intervention of any sea ^*. One thing is certain, that the Greenlanders resemble the North-Ame­ricans in every particular: they are of a copper colour, and have no beard; they are of a small size, like the Esquimaux, and have the same language. And thus I am obliged to abandon my favourite argument, for proving the Ameri­cans, the Esquimaux excepted, to be indigenous, and not indebted to the old world for their exist­ence. At the same time, the other arguments urged above remain entire; and from what is now [Page 86] said a circumstance occurs, that fortifies greatly the chief of them. People, who with a bold face surmount all difficulties rather than give up a favourite opinion, make light of the copper co­lour and want of beard, willing to attribute all to the climate. We want data, I acknowledge, to determine with accuracy what effects can be pro­duced by a climate. But luckily we have no oc­casion at present to determine that difficult point. It is sufficient that the climate of Labrador is much the same with that of the northern parts of Europe and Asia. From that circumstance I conclude with certainty, that the copper colour and want of beard in the Esquimaux cannot be the result of climate. And if so, what foundation can there be for making these circumstances de­pend on the climate in any other part of Ameri­ca? Truly none at all. I add, that as the cop­per colour and want of beard continue invariably the same in every variety of climate, hot and cold, moist and dry, they must depend on some invariable cause acting uniformly; which may be a singularity in the race of people ^a, but cannot proceed from the climate.

If we can rely on the conjectures of an eminent writer ^b, America emerged from the sea later than any other part of the known world: and supposing the human race to have been planted in America by the hand of God later than the days of Moses, Adam and Eve might have been the first parents of mankind, i. e. of all who at that time existed, without being the first parents of the Americans.

[Page 87] The Terra Australis incognita is separated from the rest of the world by a wide ocean, which carries a ship round the earth without interrup­tion. How has that continent been peopled? There is not the slightest probability, that it ever has been joined to any other land. Here a local creation, if it may be termed so, appears una­voidable; and if we must admit more than one act of creation, even the appearance of difficulty, from reiteration of acts, totally vanisheth. M. Buffon, in his natural history, bears testimony, that not a single American quadruped of a hot cli­mate is found in any other part of the earth: with respect to these we must unavoidably admit a local creation; and nothing seems more natural, than under the same act to comprehend the first parents of the American people.

It is possible, indeed, that a ship with men and women may, by contrary winds, be carried to a very distant shore. But to account thus for the peopling of America, will not be much relished: Mexico and Peru must have been planted before navigation was known in the old world, at least before a ship was brought to such perfection as to bear a long course of bad weather. Will it be thought, that any supposition ought to be embra­ced, however improbable, rather than admit a separate creation? We are, it is true, much in the dark as to the conduct of creative Provi­dence; but every rational conjecture leans to a separate creation. America and the Terra Au­stralis must have been planted by the Almighty with a number of animals and vegetables, some of them peculiar to those vast continents: and when such care has been taken about inferior life, can so wild a thought be admitted, as that man, the noblest work of terrestrial creation, would be left to chance? But it is scarce necessary to insist [Page 88] upon this topic, as the external characters of the Americans above mentioned reject the supposition of their being descended from any people of the old world.

It is highly probable, that the fertile and de­licious plains of Peru and Mexico were the first planted of all the American countries; being more populous at the time of the Spanish invasion than any other part of that great continent. This conjecture is supported by analogy: we believe that a spot, not centrical only, but extremely fertile, was chosen for the parents of the old world; and there is not in America a spot more centrical, or more fertile, than Mexico or Peru, for the parents of the new world.

Having thus ventured to throw out what oc­curred upon the origin of the Americans, with­out pretending to affirm any thing as certain, we proceed to their progress. The North-American tribes are remarkable with respect to one branch of their history, that, instead of advancing, like other nations, toward the maturity of society and government, they continue to this hour in their original state of hunting and fishing. A case so singular rouses our curiosity; and we wish to be made acquainted with the cause.

It is not the want of animals capable to be do­mesticated, that obliges them to remain hunters and fishers. The horse, it is true, the sheep, the goat, were imported from Europe; but there are plenty of American quadrupeds no less docile than those mentioned. There is, in particular, a species of horned cattle peculiar to America, having long wool instead of hair, and an excre­scence upon the shoulder like that of the East-In­dia buffalo. These wild cattle multiply exceed­ingly in the fertile countries which the Missisippi traverses; and Hennepin reports, that the Indi­ans, [Page 89] after killing numbers, take no part away but the tongue, which is reckoned a delicious morsel. These creatures are not extremely wild; and, if taken young, are easily tamed: a calf, when its dam is killed, will follow the hunter and lick his hand. The wool, the hide, the tallow, would be of great value in the British colonies.

If the shepherd-state be not obstructed in America by want of proper cattle, the only ac­count that can or need be given is, paucity of in­habitants. Consider only the influence of custom, in rivetting men to their local situation and man­ner of life: once hunters, they will always be hunters, till some cause more potent than custom force them out of that state. Want of food, oc­casioned by rapid population, brought on the shepherd-state in the old world. That cause has not hitherto taken place in North America: the inhabitants, few in number, remain hunters and fishers, because that state affords them a compe­tency of food. I am aware, that the natives have been decreasing in number from the time of the first European settlements. But even at that time the country was ill peopled: take for exam­ple the country above described, stretching north­west from the Missisippi: the Europeans never had any footing there, and yet to this day it is little better than a desert. I give other exam­ples. The Indians who surround the lake Nippi­song, from whence the river St. Laurence issues, are in whole but five or six thousand; and yet their country is of great extent: they live by hunting and fishing, having bows and arrows, but no fire-arms; and their cloathing is the skins of beasts: they are seldom, if ever, engaged in war; have no commerce with any other people, Indian or European, but live as if they had a [Page 90] world to themselves ^a. If that country be ill peopled, it is not from scarcity of food; for the country is extensive, and well stored with every sort of game. On the south and west of the lake Superior, the country is level and fruitful all the way to the Missisippi, having large plains co­vered with rank grass, and scarce a tree for hundreds of miles: the inhabitants enjoy the grea­test plenty of fish, fowl, deer, &c.; and yet their numbers are far from being in proportion to their means of subsistence. In short, it is the conjecture of the ablest writers, that in the vast extent of North America, when discovered, there were not as many people, laying aside Mex­ico, as in the half of Europe.

Paucity of inhabitants explains clearly why the North-American tribes remain hunters and fish­ers, without advancing to the shepherd-state. But if the foregoing difficulty be removed, an­other starts up, no less puzzling, viz. By what adverse fate are so rich countries so ill peopled? It is a conjecture of M. Buffon, mentioned above, that America has been planted later than the other parts of this globe. But supposing the fact, it has however not been planted so late as to prevent a great population, witness Mexico and Peru, fully peopled at the aera of the Spanish in­vasion. We must therefore search for another cause; and none occurs but the infecundity of the North-American savages. M. Buffon, a re­spectable author, and for that reason often quo­ted, remarks, that these savages are feeble in their organs of generation, that they have no ar­dor for the female sex, and that they have few children; to enforce which remark he adds, that [Page 91] the quadrupeds of America, both native and tran­splanted, are of a diminutive size, compared with those of the old world. A woman never ad­mits her husband, till the child she is nursing be three years old; and this led Frenchmen to go often astray from their Canadian wives. The case was reported by the priests to their superiors in France; but what order was taken has escaped my memory. Among the males, it is an invio­lable law, to abstain from females while they are engaged in a military expedition. This is preg­nant evidence of their frigidity; for among sava­ges the authority of law, or of opinion, seldom prevails over any strong appetite: vain would be the attempt to restrain them from spirituous li­quors, tho' much more debilitating. Neither is there any instance, of violence offered by any North-American savage, to European women taken captives in war.

Mexico and Peru, when conquered by the Spaniards, afforded to their numerous inhabitants the necessaries of life in profusion. Cotton was in plenty, more than sufficient for the cloathing needed in warm climates: Indian wheat was uni­versal, and was cultivated without much labour. The natural wants of the inhabitants were thus supplied with very little trouble; and artificial wants had made no progress. But the present state of these countries is very different. The Indians have learned from their conquerors a mul­titude of artificial wants, good houses, variety of food, and rich cloaths, which must be imported, because not manufactured at home. They are prohibited from exercising any art or calling ex­cept agriculture, which scarce affords them ne­cessaries; and this obliges a great proportion of them to live single. Even agriculture itself is cramped; for in most of the provinces there is a [Page 92] prohibition to plant vines or olives. In short, it is believed that the inhabitants who existed at the Spanish invasion are reduced to a fourth part. The savages also of North-America who border on the European settlements are visibly diminish­ing. When the English settled in America, the five nations could raise 15,000 fighting men: at present they are not able to raise 2000. Upon the whole it is computed by able writers, that the present inhabitants of America amount not to a twentieth part of those who existed when that continent was discovered by Columbus. This decay is ascribed to the intemperate use of spirits, and to the small-pox, both of them introduced by the Europeans ^*.

[Page 93] It is observable, that every sort of plague becomes more virulent when transplanted, than in its na­tive place. The plague commits less ravage in Egypt, its native place, than in any other coun­try. The venereal disease was for many ages more violent and destructive in Europe, than ever it was in America, where it was first known. The people who sailed with Christopher Colum­bus, brought it to Spain from Hispaniola. Co­lumbus, with thirty or forty of his sailors, went directly to Barcelona, where the King then was, to render an account of his voyage. All the in­habitants, who at that time tripled the pre­sent number, were immediately seized with the venereal disease, which raged so furiously as to threaten destruction to all. The small pox comes under the same observation; for it has swept away many more in America, than ever it did in Europe. In the year 1713, the crew of a Dutch vessel infected the Hottentots with the small pox; which left scarce a third of the inhabi­tants. And the same fate befel the Laplanders and Greenlanders. In all appearance, that dis­ease, if it abate not soon of its transplanted vi­rulence, will extirpate the natives of North Ame­rica; for they know little of inoculation.

But spirituous liquors are a still more effectual cause of depopulation. The American savages, male and female, are inordinately fond of spiritu­ous liquors; and savages generally abandon them­selves to appetite, without the least control from shame. The noxious effects of intemperance in spirits, are too well known, from fatal experi­ence among ourselves: before the use of gin was prohibited, the populace of London were debi­litated by it to a degree of losing, in a great mea­sure, the power of procreation. Happily for the human species, the invention of savages ne­ver [Page 94] reached the production of gin; for spirits in that early period would have left not one person alive, not a single Noah to restore the race of men: in order to accomplish the plan of Provi­dence, creation must have been renewed oftener than once ^*.

In the temperate climates of the old world, there is great uniformity in the gradual progress of men from the savage state to the highest civi­lization; beginning with hunting and fishing, advancing to flocks and herds, and thereafter to agriculture and commerce. One would be much disappointed if he expected the same progress in America. Among the northern tribes, there is nothing that resembles the shepherd-state: they continue hunters and fishers as originally; be­cause there is no cause so potent as to force them from that state to become shepherds. So far clear. But there is another fact of which we have no example in the old world, that seems not so easily explained; these people, without passing through the shepherd-state, have advan­ced to some degree of agriculture. Before the seventeenth century, the Iroquois, or five nati­ons, had villages, and cultivated Indian corn: the Cherokees have many small towns; they raise corn in abundance, and fence in their fields: they breed poultry, and have orchards of peach­trees: The Chickesaws and Creek Indians live [Page 95] pretty much in the same manner. The Apala­chites sow and reap in common; and put up the corn in granaries, to be distrubuted among in­dividuals when they want food. The Hurons raise great quantities of corn, not only for their own use, but for commerce. Many of these na­tions, particularly the Cherokees, have of late got horses, swine, and tame cattle; an improve­ment borrowed from the Europeans. But corn is of an early date: when Sir Richard Greenville took possession of Virginia in the reign of Queen Elizabeth, the natives had corn; and Hennepin assures us, that the nations bordering on the Mis­sisippi had corn long before they were visited by any European. Husbandry, it is true, is among those people still in its infancy; being left to the women, who sow, who reap, who store up in public granaries, and who distribute as need re­quires. The inhabitants of Guiana in South America, continue to this day hunters and fish­ers. But though they have neither flocks nor herds, they have some husbandry; for the wo­men plant cassava, yams, and plantains. They make a liquor, like our ale, termed piworee, which they drink with their food. And though they are extremely fond of that liquor, their indolence makes them often neglect to provide against want. To a people having a violent pro­pensity to intemperance, as all savages have, this improvidence is a blessing; for otherwise they would wallow in perpetual drunkenness. They are by no means singular; for unconcern about futurity is the characteristic of all savages. To forego an immediate for a distant enjoyment, can only be suggested by cultivated reason. When the Canary Islands were first visited by the Eu­ropeans, which was in the fourteenth century, the inhabitants bad corn; for which the ground [Page 96] was prepared in the following manner. They had a wooden instrument, not unlike a hoe, with a spur or tooth at the end, on which was fixed a goat's horn. With this instrument the ground was stirred; and if rain came not in its proper season, water was brought by canals from the ri­vulets. It was the womens province to reap the corn: they took only the ears; which they threshed with sticks, or beat with their feet, and then winnowed in their hands. Husbandry pro­bably will remain in its present state among American savages; for as they are decreasing daily, they can have no difficulty about food. The fact however is singular, of a people using corn before tame cattle: there must be a cause, which, on better acquaintance with that people, will probably be discovered.

America is full of political wonders. At the time of the Spanish invasion, the Mexicans and Peruvians had made great advances toward the perfection of society, while the northern tribes, separated from them by distance only, remained in the original state of hunters and fishers, and remain so at this day. To explain the difference, appears difficult. It is still more difficult to ex­plain, why the Mexicans and Peruvians, in­habitants of the torrid zone, were highly polish­ed in the arts of society and government; con­sidering that in the old world, the inhabitants of the torrid zone are, for the most part, little better than savages. We are not sufficiently ac­quainted with the natural history of America, nor with that of its people, to attempt an ex­planation of these wonders: it is however part of our task, to state the progress of society among the Mexicans and Peruvians; which cannot fail to amuse the reader, as he will find these two na­tions differing essentially from the North-Ameri­can [Page 97] tribes, in every article of manners, govern­ment, and police.

When the Spaniards invaded America, the Mexicans were skilful in agriculture. Maize was their chief grain, which, by careful culture, produced great plenty, even in the mountainous country of Tlascalla. They had gardening and botany, as well as agriculture: a physic-garden belonging to the Emperor was open to every one for gathering medicinal plants.

The art of cookery was far advanced among that people. Montezuma's table was generally covered with 200 dishes, many of them exqui­sitely dressed in the opinion even of the Spaniards. They used salt, which was made by the sun.

The women were dexterous at spinning; and manufactures of cotton and hair abounded every where.

The populousness of Mexico and Peru afford irrefragable evidence, that the arts of peace were there carried to a great height. The city of Mexico contained 60,000 families ^*; and Mon­tezuma had thirty vassals who could bring into the field, each of them, 100,000 fighting men. Tlascalla, a neighbouring republic, governed by a senate, was so populous as to be almost a match for the Emperor of Mexico.

The public edifices in the city of Mexico, and houses of the nobility, were of stone, and well built. The royal palace had thirty gates [Page 98] opening to as many streets. The principal front was of jasper, black, red, and white, well po­lished. Three squares, built and adorned like the front, led to Montezuma's apartment, hav­ing large rooms, floors covered with mats of dif­ferent kinds, walls hung with a mixture of cot­ton-cloth and rabbit-furs; the innermost room adorned with hangings of feathers, beautified with various figures in lively colours. In that building, large ceilings were formed so artifici­ally without nails, as to make the planks sustain each other. Water was brought into the city of Mexico, from a mountain at a league's distance.

Gold and silver were in so high esteem, that vessels made of these metals were permitted to none but to the Emperor. Considering the value put upon gold and silver, the want of current coin would argue great dulness in that nation, if instances did not daily occur of improvements, after being carried to a considerable height, stop­ping short at the very threshold of perfection. The want of current coin made fairs the more necessary, which were carried on with the most perfect regularity: judges on the spot decided mercantile differences; and inferior officers, making constant circuits, preserved peace and order. The abundance and variety of the com­modities brought to market, and the order pre­served by such multitudes, amazed the Spani­ards; a spectacle deserving admiration, as a tes­timony of the grandeur and good government of that extensive empire.

The fine arts were not unknown in Mexico. Their goldsmiths were excellent workmen, par­ticularly in moulding gold and silver into the form of animals. Their painters made land­scapes and other imitations of nature with fea­thers, so artfully mixed as to bestow both life [Page 99] and colouring; of which sort of work, there were instances no less extraordinary for pati­ence than for skill. Their drinking-cups were of the finest earth exquisitely made, differing from each other in colour, and even in smell. Of the same materials, they made great variety of vessels both for use and ornament.

They were not ignorant either of music or of poetry; and one of their capital amusements was songs set to music upon the atchievements of their kings and ancestors.

With such a progress both in the useful and fine arts, is it not surprising, that though they had measures, they knew nothing of weights?

As to the art of writing, a capital article in the conduct of government, they were extreme­ly deficient. That art, as mentioned above, was no farther advanced than the using figures com­posed of painted feathers, by which they made a shift to communicate some simple thoughts; and in that manner was Montezuma informed of the Spanish invasion.

There was great ingenuity shewn in regulating the calendar: the Mexican year was divided into 365 days; and into 18 months, containing 20 days each, which made 360; the remaining five intercalary days were added at the end of the year, for making it correspond to the course of the sun. They religiously employed these five days upon diversions, being of opinion that they were appropriated to that end by their ancestors.

Murder, theft, and corruption in officers of state, were capital crimes. Adultery also was capital; for female chastity was in high estima­tion. At the same time, consent was deem­ed a sufficient cause of divorce, the law leaving it to the parties concerned, who ought to be the [Page 100] best judges. In case of a divorce, the father took care of the male children, leaving the fe­male children with the mother. But to prevent rash separations, it was capital for them to unite again.

It may be gathered from what has been said, that there was a distinction of rank among the Mexicans. So religiously was it observed, as to be displayed even in their buildings: the city of Mexico was divided into two parts, one appro­priated to the Emperor and nobility, and one left to plebeians.

Education of children was an important article in the Mexican police. Public schools were al­lotted for plebeian children; and colleges well endowed for the sons of the nobility, where they continued till they were fit for business. The masters were considered as officers of state; not without reason, as their office was to qualify young men for serving their king and country. Such of the young nobles as made choice of a military life, were sent to the army, and made to suffer great hardships before they could be inlist­ed. They had indeed a powerful motive for perseverance, the most honourable of all em­ployments being that of a soldier. Young wo­men of quality were educated with no less care, by proper matrons chosen with the utmost cir­cumspection.

As hereditary nobility, especially in an exten­sive empire, leads to monarchy, the government of Mexico was monarchichal; and as the pro­gress of monarchy is from being elective to be hereditary, Mexico had advanced no farther than to be an elective monarchy, of which Montezu­ma was the eleventh king. It would in time have become hereditary, had it not been subdued by [Page 101] the Spaniards. And it was an example of an elective monarchy that approaches the nearest to hereditary; for the power of election, as well as the privilege of being elected, were confined to the princes of the blood royal. As a talent for war was chiefly regarded in chusing a successor to the throne, the Mexican kings always command­ed their own armies. The Emperor-elect, be­fore his coronation, was obliged to make some conquest, or perform some warlike exploit; a custom that supported the military spirit, and en­larged the kingdom. From every king was ex­acted a coronation-oath, to adhere to the religi­on of his ancestors, to maintain the laws and customs of the empire, and to be a father to his people.

The various affairs of government were distri­buted among different boards with great proprie­ty. The management of the royal patrimony was allotted to one board; appeals from inferior tribunals, to another; the levying of troops, and the providing of magazines, to a third: matters of supreme importance were reserved to a coun­cil of state, held generally in the king's presence. These boards, all of them, were composed of men experienced in the arts of war and of peace: the council of state was composed of those who elected the Emperor.

Concerning the patrimony of the crown, mines of gold and silver belonged to the Emperor; and the duty on salt brought in a great revenue. But the capital duty was, a third of the land-rents, the estates of the nobles excepted; upon whom no tribute was imposed, but to serve in the army with a number of their vassals, and to guard the Emperor's person. Goods manufactured and sold were subjected to a duty; which was not preju­dicial [Page 102] to their manufactures, because there was no rival nation within reach.

Montezuma introduced a multitude of ceremo­nies into his court, tending to inspire veneration for his person; an excellent policy in rude times, of however little significancy among nations en­lightened and rational. Veneration and humility were so much the tone of the court, that it was even thought indecent in the Mexican lords, to appear before the King in their richest habits. Vessels of gold and silver were appropriated to his table, and not permitted even to the princes of the blood. The table-cloths and napkins, made of the finest cotton, with the earthen ware, ne­ver made a second appearance at the Emperor's table, but were distributed among the servants.

In war, their offensive weapons were bows and arrows; and as iron was not known in America, their arrows were headed with bones sharpened at the point. They used also darts, and long wooden swords, in which were fixed sharp flints; and men of more than ordinary strength fought with clubs. They beside had slingers, who threw stones with great force and dexterity. Their defensive arms, used only by commanders and persons of distinction, were a coat of quilted cotton, a sort of breast-plate, and a shield of wood or tortoise-shell, adorned with plates of such metal as they could procure. The private men sought naked; their faces and bodies being deformed with paint, in order to terrify the ene­my. They had warlike instruments of music, such as sea-shells, flutes made of large canes, and a sort of drum made of the trunk of a tree hollowed. Their battalions consisted of great numbers crouded together, without even the ap­pearance of order. They attacked with fury, and terrible outcries, in order to intimidate the [Page 103] enemy; a practice prompted by nature, and for­merly used by many nations. It was not despised even by the Romans; for Cato the elder was wont to say, that he had obtained more victories by the throats of his soldiers, than by their swords; and Caesar applauds his own soldiers, above those of Pompey, for their warlike shouts. Eagerness to engage is vented in loud cries: and the effects are excellent: they redouble the ardor of those who attack, at the same time that they strike terror into the enemy.

Their armies were formed with ease: the prin­ces of the empire, with the cacics or governors of provinces, were obliged to repair to the general rendezvous, each with his quota of men.

Their fortifications were trunks of large trees, fixed in the ground like pallisades, leaving no in­tervals but what were barely sufficient for dis­charging their arrows upon the enemy.

Military orders were instituted, with peculiar habits, as marks of distinction and honour; and each cavalier bore the device of his order, paint­ed upon his robe, or fixed to it. Montezuma founded a new order of knighthood, into which princes only were admitted, or nobles descended from the royal stock; and as a token of its supe­riority, he became one of its members. The knights of that order had part of their hair bound with a red ribbon, to which a tassel was fixed hanging down to the shoulder. Every new ex­ploit was honoured with an additional tassel; which made the knights with ardor embrace eve­ry opportunity to signalize themselves. As no­thing can be better contrived than such a regula­tion for supporting a military spirit, the Mexi­cans would have been invincible had they under­stood the order of battle: for want of which that potent empire fell a prey to a handful of strangers. [Page 104] I differ from those who ascribe that event to the fire-arms of the Spaniards, and to their horses. These could not be more terrible to the Mexi­cans, than elephants were at first to the Romans: but familiarity with these unwieldy animals, re­stored to the Romans their wonted courage; and the Mexicans probably would have behaved like the Romans, had they equalled the Romans in the art of war.

When that illustrious people, by their own ge­nius, without borrowing from others, had made such proficiency in the arts of peace, as well as of war; is it not strange, that with respect to religion they were no better than savages? They not only practised human sacrifices, but dressed and eat the flesh of those that were sacrificed. Their great temple was contrived to raise horror: upon the walls were multiplied the figures of nox­ious serpents: the heads of persons sacrificed were stuck up in different places, and carefully renewed when wasted by time. There were eight temples in the city, nearly of the same ar­chitecture; 2000 of a smaller size, dedicated to different idols; scarce a street without a tutelar deity; nor a calamity that had not an altar, to which the distressed might have recourse for a re­medy. Unparallelled ignorance and stupidity, obliged every Emperor, at his coronation, to swear, that there should be no unseasonable rains, no overflowing of rivers, no fields affected with sterility, nor any man hurt with the bad influen­ces of the sun. In short, it was a slavish religi­on, built upon fear, not love. At the same time, they believed the immortality of the soul, and rewards and punishments in a future state; which made them bury with their dead, quanti­ties of gold and silver, for defraying the expence of their journey; and also made them put to [Page 105] death some of their servants to attend them. Women sometimes, actuated with the same be­lief, were authors of their own death, in order to accompany their husbands.

The author that we must chiefly rely on for an account of Peru is Garcilasso de la Vega: tho' he may be justly suspected of partiality; for being of the Inca race, he bestows on the Peruvian go­vernment, improvements of later times. The ar­ticles that appear the least suspicious are what fol­low.

The principle of the Peruvian constitution seems to have been an Agrarian law, of the strict­est kind. To the sovereign was first allotted a large proportion of land, for defraying the ex­pences of government; and the remainder was divided among his subjects in proportion to the number of each family. These portions were not alienable: the sovereign was held proprietor of the whole, as in the feudal system; and from time to time the distribution was varied according to the circumstances of families. This Agrarian law contributed undoubtedly to the populousness of the kingdom of Peru.

It is a sure sign of improved agriculture, that aqueducts were made by the Peruvians for wa­tering their land. Their plough was of wood, a yard long, flat before, round behind, and point­ed at the end for piercing the ground. Agricul­ture seems to have been carried on by united la­bour: lands appropriated for maintaining the poor were first ploughed; next the portion al­lotted to soldiers performing duty in the field: then every man separately ploughed his own field; after which he assisted his neighbour: they pro­ceeded to the portion of the curaca or lord: and lastly to the King's portion. In the month of [Page 106] March they reaped their maize, and celebrated the harvest with joy and feasting.

There being no artist nor manufacturer by profession, individuals were taught to do every thing for themselves. Every one knew how to plough and manure the land: every one was a carpenter, a mason, a shoemaker, a weaver, &c. and the women were the most ingenious and dili­gent of all. Blas Valera mentions a law, named the law of brotherhood, which, without the pro­spect of reward, obliged them to be mutually aid­ing and assisting in ploughing, sowing, and reap­ing, in building their houses, and in every sort of occupation.

As the art was unknown of melting down me­tals by means of bellows, long copper pipes were contrived, contracted at the further end, that the breath might act the more forcibly on the fire; and they used ten or twelve of these pipes toge­ther, when they wanted a very hot fire. Ha­ving no iron, their hatchets and pick-axes were of copper, and they had neither saw nor augre, nor any instrument of iron: ignorant of the use of nails, they tied their timber with cords of hemp. The tool they had for cutting stone, was a sharp flint; and with that tool they shaped the stone by continual rubbing, more than by cut­ting. Having no engines for raising stones, they did all by strength of arm. These defects not­withstanding, they erected great edifices; wit­ness the fortress of Cusco, a stupendous fabric. It passes all understanding, by what means the stones, or rather the great rocks, employed in that building, were brought from the quarry. One of these stones, measured by Acosta, was thirty feet in length, eighteen in breadth, and six in thickness.

[Page 107] Having neither scissars nor needles of metal, they used a certain long thorn for a needle. The mirrors used by ladies of quality were of burnish­ed copper: but such implements of dress were reckoned too effeminate for the men.

With respect to music, they had an instru­ment of hollow canes glewed together, the notes of which were like those of an organ. They had love-songs accompanied with a pipe; and war-songs, which were their festival entertain­ment. They composed and acted comedies and tragedies. The art of writing, properly so call­ed, was unknown: but silken threads, with knots cast upon them of divers colours, enabled them to keep exact accounts, and to sum them up with a readiness that would have rivaled an expert European arithmetician. They had also attained to as much geometry as to measure their fields.

In war, their offensive arms were the bow and arrow, lance, dart, club, and bill. Their de­fensive arms, were the helmet and target. The army was provided from the King's stores, and was no burden upon the people.

In philosophy, they had made no progress. An eclipse of the moon was attributed to her be­ing sick; and they fancied the milky way to be a ewe giving suck to a lamb. With regard to the setting sun, they said, that he was a good swim­mer, and that he pierced through the waves, to rise next morning in the east. But such igno­rance is not wonderful; for no branch of science can make a progress without writing.

The people were divided into small bodies of ten families each: every division had a head, and a register was kept of the whole; a branch of public police, that very much resembles the Eng­lish decennaries.

[Page 108] They made but two meals, one between eight and nine in the morning, the other before sun­set. Idleness was punished with infamy: even children were employed according to their capa­city. Public visitors or monitors were appointed, having access to every house, for inspecting the manners of the inhabitants; who were rewarded or punished according to their behaviour. Mo­deration and industry were so effectually enforced by this article of police, that few were reduced to indigence; and these got their food and cloth­ing out of the King's stores.

With respect to their laws and customs, chil­dren were bound to serve their parents until the age of twenty five; and marriage contracted before that time, without consent of parents, was null. Polygamy was prohibited, and persons were con­fined to marry within their own tribe. The tra­dition, that the Inca family were children of the sun, introduced incest among them; for it was a matter of religion to preserve their divine blood pure and unmixed.

It was the chief article of the Peruvian creed, upon which every other article of their religion depended, that the Inca family were children of their great god the sun, and sent by him to spread his worship and his laws among them. Nothing could have a greater influence upon an ignorant and credulous people, than such a doctrine. The sanctity of the Inca family was so deeply rooted in the hearts of the Peruvians, that no person of that family was thought capable of committing a crime. Such blind veneration for a family, makes it probable, that the government of Peru under the Incas had not subsisted many years; for a government founded upon deceit and superstition, cannot long continue its authority. However that be, such belief of the origin of the Incas, is [Page 109] evidence of great virtue and moderation in that family; for any gross act of tyranny or injustice, would have opened the eyes of the people to see their error. Moderation in the sovereign, and in the subjects obedience without reserve, cannot fail to produce a government mild and gentle; which was verified in that of Peru, so mild and gentle, that to manure and cultivate the lands of the Inca, and to say up the produce in store­houses, were the only burdens imposed upon the people, if it was not sometimes to make cloaths and weapons for the army. At the same time their kings were so revered, that these articles of labour were performed with great alacrity.

The government was equally gentle with regard to punishments. Indeed very few crimes were committed, being considered as a sort of rebellion against their great god the sun. The only crime that seems to have been punished with severity, is the marauding of soldiers; for death was inflicted, however inconsiderable the damage.

In this empire, there appears to have been the most perfect union between law and religion; which could not fail to produce obedience, order, and tranquility, among that people, though ex­tremely numerous. The Inca family was famed for moderation: they made conquests in order to civilize their neighbours; and as they seldom if ever transgressed the bounds of morality, no other art was necessary to preserve the government entire, but to keep the people ignorant of true religion. They had virgins dedicated to the sun, who, like the vestal virgins in Rome, were under a vow of perpetual chastity.

This subject shall be concluded with some slight observations on the two governments I have been describing. Comparing them together, the Mex­ican [Page 110] government seems to have been supported by arms; that of Peru by religion.

The kings of Peru were hereditary and abso­lute: those of Mexico elective. In contradiction however to political principles, the government of Peru was by far the milder. It is mentioned above, that the electors of the Mexican kings were hereditary princes; and the same electors composed the great council of state. Montesquieu therefore has been misinformed when he terms this a despotic monarchy ^a: a monarchy can never be despotic, where the sovereign is limited by a great council, the members of which are in­dependent of him. As little reason has he to term Peru despotic. An absolute monarchy it was, but the farthest in the world from being despotic: on the contrary, we find not in history any government so well contrived for the good of the people. An Agrarian law, firmly rooted, prevented that great inequality of rank and riches which lead to luxury, and dissolution of manners: a commonwealth was naturally the result of such a constitution; and probably would have taken place, had it not been for a government no less suitable, and still more mild, viz. a theocracy under a family sent from heaven to make them happy. This wild opinion, supported by igno­rance and superstition, proved an effectual bar against tyranny in the monarch; a most exempla­ry conduct on his part being necessary for sup­porting the opinion of his divinity. Upon the whole, comprehending king and subject, there perhaps never existed more virtue in any other [Page 111] government, whether monarchical or republi­can.

In Peru there are traces of some distinction of ranks, arising probably from office merely, which, as in France, were a bulwark to the monarch against the peasants. The great superiority of the Peruvian Incas, as demi-gods, did not admit a he­reditary nobility.

With respect to the progress of arts and manu­factures, the two nations differed widely: in Mexico, arts and manufactures were carried to a surprising height, considering the tools they had to work with: in Peru, they had made no progress, every man, as among mere savages, providing the necessaries of life for himself. As the world goes at present, such numbers are employed upon our multiplied wants, that not above one of a hund­red can be spared for war. In ancient times, when these wants were few, and not much en­larged beyond nature, it is computed that an eighth part could be spared for war: and hence the numerous armies we read of in the history of ancient nations. The Peruvians had it in their power to go still farther: it was possible to arm the whole males capable of service: leaving the women to supply the few necessaries that might be wanted during a short campaign; and ac­cordingly we find that the Incas were great con­querors.

The religion of the Peruvians, considered in a political light, was excellent. The veneration they paid their sovereign upon a false religious principle, was their only superstition; and that superstition contributed greatly to improve their morals and their manners: on the other hand, the religion of Mexico was abominable.

[Page 112] Upon the whole, there never was a country destitute of iron, where arts seem to have been carried higher than in Mexico; and, bating their religion, there never was a country destitute of writing, where government seems to have been more perfect. I except not the government of Peru, which, not being founded on political prin­ciples, but on superstition, might be more mild, but was far from being so solidly founded.

SKETCH I.
Principles and Progress of REASON.