There is, indeed, something so paradoxical in the notion, that wars are essential to that civil boldness and moral vigour which promote national greatness, that it is surprising to hear it so often maintained. Is it not proverbial that the military spirit is adverse to political freedom? As to manners, I should incur derision were I to discuss gravely, whether the habits of soldiers were friendly to morals and temperance. In time of peace, the idleness of the profession leads young men who have never known service, into frivolity and epicurism. It is with great difficulty that such as have better tastes can pursue any study, amidst the interruptions and opposition they meet with. It cannot be urged against this comment, that it is unfair to adduce as the effects of war, the defective qualities of those who have never seen it; or to represent, as the character of the army, the follies. or vices that proceed from the mere ignorance and presumption of youth. But the character given is not represented as that of the army, but as that which its circumstances, in peace, tend very much to impose on the young, and which, from the force of early impressions, must remain with many. It is given but as one proof among others, that there is no necessary connexion between the military spirit, and the qualities that preserve national greatness. The effects of the military spirit in time of peace, must be considered in treating of the influence of war, for a standing army is part of the system; if we have the one, we must have the other. The influence of everything must be judged of by all its parts and consequences in conjunction. It would be most

unjust to deny, that the eventful life of a soldier, especially if he have been high in command, calls forth mental and moral qualities of the finest temper, and rarely brought into combination by any other course of life. It is impossible not to look with peculiar respect on the man, whose courage has been always undaunted in the midst of dangers, whose judgment has never been confused by the suddenness of events, and whose sacred regard to the rights of humanity, has never been shaken by the frequent necessity of stern duties, or the provocations arising from the baseness of others. Those who have always resisted the defects incidental to their circumstances, acquire peculiar excellence. But while acknowledging the effects of service in producing many such men, we may not refuse to turn our eyes to the other, and more common aspect of the military profession.

While communities are so small that every individual is at one time or other in the field, or so exposed to the chance that it is always present to his mind, we may understand the apprehension, that a long peace may dissolve their spirit. But why should this idea suggest itself where the soldiery are not a hundredth part of the population? How should the valour of one man in the field, some hundred miles off, give courage to another at his loom? New levies in a martial country are as completely unused to war as if they were taken from the groves of Arcadia; and nations who have rarely known war, supply as good troops as others. Military science might be wanting, (that is a different

consideration,) but not spirit. The Americans produced soldiers as quickly as we did, and what is more remarkable, the Italian troops in Napoleon's service, who might have been supposed less calculated for hard service than others, were said to be amongst the best he had.

It appears, therefore, that every corruption attributed to luxury, is rather fostered than checked by the iron influence of war; that the fierce passions are no corrective to the effeminate; nor is rudeness any preservative against their introduction, but quite the reverse. For the evils that flow from luxury are the natural fruits of an influx of wealth on coarse minds, who know not how to dispose of leisure, and have few tastes except for the gratification of pride or appetite.

But as wealth is only a compendious expression for the command of enjoyments, and that every enjoyment, considered abstractedly, is a good, we are led to inquire what are those common qualities, which, under all the phases society presents in its progress from rudeness to refinement, contribute so often to pervert wealth to a source of corruption. Since the abundance and variety of productions are positive and great benefits, what is the nature or measure of those gratifications, which, not being direct vices in themselves, are condemned because they lead to vice in the end? Is there any standard, by which the influence of things so multifarious as those denominated luxuries can be tried, except some vague notion of excess, impossible to define, and measured rather by some fanciful comparison with the sim

plicity of our predecessors, than by a clear perception of its actual effects?

If we can agree, as to why, when, and how, things good in themselves produce evil, we shall know what to control, but not otherwise.

SECTION IV.

How to try the Influence of Luxuries.

In the first section of this chapter, it was observed, that the word luxury applied equally to a high state of art and production, and to self-indulgent habits of life. When historians talk of the progress of luxury, they usually mean the first; but when the term is employed to convey censure, it is chiefly to our manners and habits of life that it is applied. Of course, there is a mutual influence between the two. Manners and habits of life, must regulate the arts and productions of a country very much; but new productions will also in many cases introduce new tastes.

Nevertheless, luxury in art and production, and luxurious manners, are by no means always commensurate; and in treating of the moral effects of luxury, it is essential to consider them separately. I have endeavoured to show that a profusion of the necessaries and conveniences of life, accompanied by a high state of art, was in itself favourable to national manners and morals. But it cannot be denied that among arts and productions, it is possible to produce things, which society would be better without. The necessary consequence

of a high state of art and production, is also to create a variety of classes, professions, trades, and other peculiar conditions, the effects of which on the happiness and character of the individuals engaged in them, are sometimes unfavourable. These must not be overlooked, if we desire to form a just estimate of the effects of luxury. They form one of the most essential branches of the inquiry. Some reflections on these and other direct consequences of the progress of wealth and art will be given under a head, which (for want of a more precise term) shall be called the economical.

Of luxury in habits and manners, it will be expedient, for many reasons, to treat first. It may be distinguished from the other branch, as the more peculiarly moral division of the subject. The reader is requested to recollect the vagueness with which the term luxury is used in common conversation, and that it must not be understood here, as synonymous with vice. The present question is, whether there be any rule or principle by which to limit excess; or to judge what habits and practices, (not being acts of vice in themselves,) have in the end a debasing effect on the character. As enjoyment of any kind, that has no ill consequences either to ourselves or others is pure good, I cannot imagine an objection to any lawful indulgence, except for one of the following reasons.

1st. It may impair moral energy. In the progress of luxury, whatever tends to weaken the power of self-command, may without hesitation be condemned. The want of that essential power, renders

VOL. II.

D