190 the arts by which they preserve the balance of population in that country is, that the keeper of the king's menagerie is authorized to let loose the elephants into the gardens of all those within a given distance of the capital, who do not pay him a large fine yearly to be excused from this intrusion. Yet according to our Essayist, human institutions have a very slight influence on the happiness of a people, because they cannot alter the necessary ratios of the increase of food and population. It is probable, however, that some of the cases here cited, which seem to bear rather hard on Mr. Malthus's rule, might have led those hasty writers, whom he censures for their want of a due insight into the subject, to conceive an unjust prejudice against human institutions; and perhaps some of my readers may also be led to suspect, from not comprehending fully the scope and connec tion of his arguments, that bad governments are not quite such innocent things, as Mr. Malthus would sometimes represent them. Is it necessary to press this subject any farther? I do not pretend to be very deep-read in history, in the constitution of states, the principles of legislation, the progress of manners, or the immediate causes of the revolutions that have taken place in different countries. All that I can presume to bring to this question is a little stub. born common sense, an earnestness of feeling, and a certain familiarity with abstruse subjects, that is not willingly or easily made the dupe of flimsy distinctions. But without much learning in one's self, it is easy to take advantage of the learning of others. By the help of a common-place book, which is all that is wanted in these cases (and I am fortunate enough to have such a one by me in the collections of " that honest chronicler," James Burgh) I might soon swell the size of these letters to a bulk, which the bookseller would not like, by a number of striking illustrations from the most celebrated authors. I might make myself a splendid livery of the wisdom of others. But I have no taste for this pompous drudgery. However, to satisfy those readers who are unable to discern the truth without the spectacles of facts, it will not be amiss to refer to the opinions of a few of the writers, who seem with sufficient clearness to have traced the causes of the rise and fall of particular states to principles quite independent on, which were neither firstset in motion nor afterwards regulated by the principle of population, and the effects of which were utterly disproportionate to the actual operation of that principle. After all, it is impossible to answer a paradox satisfactorily. The real answer consists of the feelings and oh. servations of our whole lives; and of course, it must be impossible to embody these in any sine gle statement. All that can be done in these cases is to set the imagination once more in its old track. "Hear," says my authority, "the excellent "Montague on the prevalence of luxury among "the Romans." 'If we connect the various strokes interspersed ' through what we have remaining of the writ'ings of Sallust, which were levelled at the 'vices of his countrymen, we shall be able to ' form a just idea of the manners of the Romans ' in his time. From this picture, we must be con'vinced, that not only those shocking calami'ties, which the republic suffered during the con' test between Marius and Sylla, but those subse'quent and more fatal evils, which brought on ' the utter extinction of the Roman liberty and 'constitution, were the natural effects of that 'foreign luxury, which first introduced venality and corruption.' (Now by luxury we may understand a very great superabundance of the good things of this life, either in the community at large or in certain classes of it, but it cannot by any construction be made to signify the general and absolute want of them. Luxury in some classes may produce want in others, but poverty is in this case the effect of the unequal distribution of the produce of the earth, not of its real deficiency. Or if by luxury we understand only certain exterior decorations or artificial indulgences, which have nothing to do with the real support of life, such as dress, furniture, buildings, pictures, gold and silver, rarities, delicacies of all kinds, every thing connected with shew and expence, (though all these things among the Romans being the ef fects not merely of leisure or of supernumerary hands, but of power, and foreign dominion, must imply a command over the more substantial necessaries of life) yet even in this sense the passion for luxury or for those indulgences (which is here said to have been one great instrument in the overthrow of the state) is certainly a very different thing from the passion of hunger, or want of food, Mr. Malthus's key to the solution of all problems of a political nature] Though the introduction of luxury 6 6 6 from Asia preceded the ruin of Carthage in point of time, yet as Sallust informs us, 'the dread of that dangerous rival restrained 'the Romans within the bounds of decency ' and order. But as soon as ever that obstacle was removed, they gave a full scope to their ungoverned passions. The change in their ' manners was not gradual, and by little and 'little as before, but rapid and instantaneous. 6 Religion, justice, modesty, decency, all re'gard for divine or human laws, were swept away at once by the irresistible torrent of corruption. The nobility strained their pri'vileges, and the people their liberty, alike 'into the most unbounded licentiousness. 'Every one made the dictate of his own will, his only rule of action. Public virtue, and ' the love of their country, which had raised 'the Romans to the empire of the universe, ' were extinct. Money, which alone could ' enable them to gratify their darling luxury, 'was substituted in its place. Power, do ' minion, honours, and universal respect were 'annexed to the possession of money. Con 6 tempt, and whatever was the most reproachful ' was the bitter portion of poverty; and to be poor, grew to be the greatest of all crimes, in ' the estimation of the Romans. Thus wealth ' and poverty contributed alike to the ruin of 'the republic. The rich employed their wealth ' in the acquisition of power, and their power ' in every kind of oppression and rapine for the acquisition of more wealth. The poor, now * dissolute and desperate, were ready to engage ' in every seditious insurrection, which pro' mised them the plunder of the rich, and set up both their liberty and country to sale, to "the best bidder. The republic, which was the |