Thefe objects he has diftinguished under five general heads, viz. 1. The polishing the manners of the people; 2. the inftituting wholesome laws; 3. the execution of thofe laws by a well regulated Police; 4. the riches and profperity of the State; and lastly, its fecurity and comparative greatness, refpecting other Powers.

In chapter the fourth, he enters on a particular difcuffion and illustration of the first of these objects; obferving, by the way, how abfurdly it has been maintained by many Writers, affecting a fingularity of opinion, that the political state of a rude, uncivilized, people, fuch as the Ruffians before the time of Peter the Great, is preferable to that of nations polifhed in their manners, as those of France and England. We might as reasonably, fays he, maintain, that to labour under a quartan ague is as eligible as to enjoy a perfect state of health. The Maintainers of this paradox, it is true, have not failed to defend it by the fpecious arguments of pretended philofophy: but we need only make the flightest comparison between the political advantages arifing from the mildness of modern manners, and the inconveniences which must neceffarily attend the untractable and barbarous difpofitions of uncultivated minds, to be fenfible, that however plaufible and feductive fuch arguments may prove, they must be ultimately false.

The firft rule of Government, therefore, continues our Author, fhould be to enlighten the minds, and foften the hearts of the people. He would have this care extended, in fome degree, even to the loweft claffes of mankind. It has been, fays he, a queftion much canvaffed among Legislators and Politicians, both ancient and modern, whether the inftruction of the lower order of people, fuch as Husbandmen, Manufacturers, and common Soldiers, were advantages to a State; or whether it would not be better they were left in ignorance? Those who maintain the latter, allege, that Society having more occafion for the labour than ingenuity of fuch members, they ought not to be regarded as any thing more in a political view, than machines; that knowlege would ferve to no other end, than to fill their heads with idle fpeculations, tending to divert them from their neceffary employments, and to the frequent difturbance of the State.

Our Author combats this opinion, and reprefents a conduct founded on fuch principles, as unjuft and impolitic. He admits, nevertheless, that it would be abfurd to think of inftructing the Labourer in the Belles Lettres, or the fublimer

fciences.

fciences. Every individual of civil fociety, however, he conceives, has a right to be inftructed in the moral and œconomical duties, as well as in those mechanical arts which are neceffary to make him useful to fociety, and happy in himself.

Our Author obferves, there is a wide difference between the measures neceffary to be taken in order to civilize an uncultivated, and, as yet, barbarous people, and thofe which are most expedient to the reformation, or improvement, of nations already arrived at fome degree of politeness. In the chapter immediately under our confideration, he points out the former; which, he remarks, fhould be, in general, more refolutely taken, and more coercive in themselves than the latter. He recurs to the example of the Czar Peter, who made fuch extraordinary efforts to subdue the native barbarity of the Ruffians, that he was, obliged even to use abfolute force with his fubjects, to prevail on them to part with their beards, or apply themfelves to the mechanical arts. A conduct politic in him, confidering what a people he had to do with, but to be used with caution in a more civilized nation, whose prejudices can be removed only by milder methods.

Chapter the fifth contains a detail of the regulations neceffary to maintain the good order of Society, and improve the manners of a people already civilized under this head he takes occafion to cenfure many of the cuftoms and manners of this country, as contrary to the maxims of found Polity.

It is furprizing, fays he, that the English nation should have fo long maintained its fplendour, while its Government tolerates abufes, which to me appear diametrically oppofite to that decency of manners and good order which are of the utmoft confequence to fociety. Such are the contefts of Ruffians, who give themselves up to the exercife of the backfword, cudgelling, boxing, wrestling, &c. the antagonists engaging publicly in a circle, or a theatre, under the protection and fanction of the laws *. Combats of this nature are not only injurious to religion and morals, but ferve to excite a kind of ferocity in the minds of a people very different from a fpirit of true courage. In a well governed State every public entertainment of a fanguinary, cruel, or licentious nature, fhould be ftrictly prohibited: fuch exhibitions tending only to feduce the bufy from their useful labour, attract the idle from laudable or innocent purfuits, and to corrupt the hearts

Our Author might have known, that this is not altogether the cafe at prefent.

of

of both. I can no lefs difapprove of the frequent Horfcraces, bull-baitings, cock-fightings, and other barbarous or frivolous amufements, which divert youthful minds from an application to the fciences and fine arts, and give them a deftructive inclination for play.

The custom of curfing, fwearing, and ufing obfcene language in the open ftreets, which is tolerated among the lower clafs of people in England, is alfo of more destructive confequence to the morals of youth than is generally imagined: nor is that of fighting publicly with their fifts, to revenge real or imaginary infults, lefs fcandalous or reprehenfible.

The connivance of the Government in that pernicious cuftom of exceffive drinking, which the English fo readily give into, is alfo highly impolitic. In fact, nothing can be more contrary to the fundamental rules of civil Polity; nothing can affect the peace of fociety, or tend more to a general corruption of manners, than the permitting fuch abuses. I am not to learn, continues he, that no nation is without its vices. I am fenfible, that of many neceffary evils it is prudent to chufe the leaft: hence, in many States courtezans are publicly tolerated, and received under the protection of the Magiftrate. There is a wide difference, however, between fuch a toleration, granted on political reafons, and the conniving at the moft licentious of illegal abuses; as in England, where every place of refort is, fo to fpeak, fown with abandoned women, and the ftreets planted with brothels.

We agree with our Author, in the main, as to the justice of his cenfure; and could wifh to fee the laws in being properly enforced, to fupprefs that public appearance of inhumanity, irreligion, and debauchery, that certainly reflects scandal enough on our nation: but we are too apprehenfive of the danger of establishing iniquity by law, to wish to see any fpecies of immorality licenced by authority.

Chapter the fixth treats of the Laws and the Legiflature; beginning with a definition of political Liberty, and explaining the neceffity, fource, and nature of Laws in general; extending to the ufe of Jurifprudence, in laying down particular inftitutions, and to the manner in which Juftice fhould be diftributed.

There cannot be a more fevere fatire on the executive part of our Government, than this fuppofition of foreigners, that abuses of this kind are tolerated by our laws.

In the feventh, eighth, and ninth chapters are confidered. the nature of, and manner of inftituting, a well regulated Police; in which the Writer defcends to the minuteft particulars, in any degree neceffary to that important branch of domeftic Polity.

Among the various objects that fall under the cognizance of this part of Government, our Author mentions the Liberty of the Prefs; which, he thinks, both the intereft of the State, and that of individuals, requires fhould be limitted. In England and Holland, fays he, abuses of the Prefs are too flagrant and frequent in France, indeed, it lies under too great a reftraint, and in Spain the Government is ridiculously fcrupulous in this particular; the Inquifition intimidating Writers of genius from almost every exertion of their talents, left they fhould fall under the lafh of that horrid tribunal.

We conceive some distinction might have been made, however, between books tending to foment diforder, or to the encouragement of vice and immorality, by addreffing the paffions of mankind, and those which appeal to their reafon, or relate to speculative opinions. If works of the latter kind were liable to prohibition, it might prove of the worst consequence to the cause of Truth and Liberty: every tract differing from received opinions in religion, might be deemed impious; and every political pamphlet, however juftly exploding bad men or measures, be conftrued into a libel against the Government. There are, indeed, a fet of men, whofe abilities being prostituted to the vileft of purposes, no obligations can bind; who treat the most facred institutions with contempt; load with indiscriminate abuse the best, as the worst of men, and exclaim with equal virulence against the moft prudent as the most impolitic of measures: and to the works of fuch men as thefe, the Prefs might undoubtedly be with fafety prohibited.

In his tenth chapter, our Author treats of the Opulence of States; laying it down as a maxim, that without wealth no nation can be politically happy. The notion of keeping a people poor, in order to fecure its happiness, says he, is a mere chimera. What was that of the Spartans under the inftitutions of Lycurgus, when riches and luxury were totally banished, and the Citizens were obliged to dine, like Monks, in one common refectory, on black broth, and fuch wretched meffes? Is it the way to make men happy, to rob them of all the pleasures of fenfe, and fubjecting them, as it were, to one continual ftate of mortification, under pretence of inuring them to hardships, and fitting them for military service?

7

Are

Are mankind defigned by Nature or Providence to wage perpetual war, and tear each other to pieces like wild beasts? Surely not! A military power may be necessary for the fecurity of particular Societies and States; but war is not the less an evil, that never can directly tend to promote the happiness of mankind. For certain it is, that fhould there be a people fo fuccefsful as to make a conqueft of the whole world, the benefit accruing to individuals thereby, would ftand in no comparison with the mifery attending the attempt. The Romans themselves were oppreffed with debts, and perifhing for want, at a time when their arms were signally victorious. But to what did thefe victories tend? To the imaginary glory of having their actions tranfmitted to pofterity in hiftory; to their continuing a barbarous, uncomfortable way of life; to a fhameful decline of their power, and in the end their total ruin, as a State. Such was the tragi-comical end of their high-boafted magnanimity and military virtue !

It would not be difficult to prove, continues our Author, that the politeness and decency of manners of a people, the wisdom of their Legislature, and the justice of their laws, their progrefs in arts and fciences, the fuccefs of their negociations, and, above all, their military force by land and fea, all depend entirely on their opulence; which is alfo the fource of thofe advantages to which a nation that is poor cannot attain.

We must take the liberty to obferve on this occafion, how ever, that our Author feems to take thofe for the effects of national opulence, which are rather the causes of it, or, at leaft, are concomitant effects in fome degree reciprocally the caufes of each other. Thus, the opulence of a people is no lefs owing to the wisdom of their Legislature, their progrefs in arts and sciences, their military force, &c. than thofe circumstances are owing to their opulence; even as the means of acquiring wealth by industry, which exift only in opulent countries, are as much the cause of industry, as that induftry is the cause of wealth.

Many are the Writers who, affecting to enhance the political value of that martial fpirit which obtained in most of the ancient fyftems of Government, fuppofe the wealth of modern States deftructive to the courage of their people, and the cause of an effeminacy of manners, inconfiftent with national fecurity. Our Author gives entirely into the opposite opinion, and maintains, that the poverty of States does not neceffarily render the people brave, nor their wealth, on the other APP. June, 1760.

Pp

hand