In England, the number of inhabitants is about six times the number of those in Scotland; and, perhaps, it costs twice as much to maintain a poor person in the former as in the latter.  The sum necessary for the maintenance of the poor in England may then be reckoned at about twelve times as much as in Scotland, in order to preserve a just proportion between the two countries.  But the poor cost more than sixty times as much in England as in Scotland; that is, at least five times more than the true proportion that ought to be !!!

This, it may be said, is owing to the different manner of managing the business, and, in some degree, it no doubt is; {77} but, as the poor are only maintained in England, and as they are also maintained in Scotland, it would be wrong to allow so great a difference for that alone.

In order, however, to put the matter out of all doubt, let us compare England with itself, and we shall find that the poor’s rates, or the expense of maintaining the indigent, has increased more rapidly than the price of provisions, or the price of labour.  This ought not to be the case, as they would only have augmented in the same proportion, unless the number of poor was increased as well as the price of the provisions they eat, at the same time that the nation is growing more wealthy.

Of whom do the poor in every nation consist, but of the lame, the sick, the infirm, the aged, or children unprovided for?  Of those, the number, in proportion to the total number of inhabitants, will be pretty nearly the same at all times; for it is nature that produces this species of helpless poverty.  It would then appear that there is another species of poverty, not of nature’s creation, that comes in and destroys the proportion.  It would likewise appear, that that new species of poverty

—–­ {76} The Poor’s Rate, and regulations respecting that augmenting class of persons, are treated in a chapter by itself.

{77} For this see the chapter on the Poor, in which the subject is investigated at considerable length.  At present, it is only mentioned by way of illustrating the effect of wealth on the manners of the people; and to prove, that it is not confined to the capital alone, but is general all over the country of England. -=-

[end of page #88]

is occasioned by the general wealth, since it increases in proportion to it.

If we find, then, that the increase of wealth renders the descendants of a particular family helpless, and unable to maintain their place in society; if we find, also, that it gives those portions of a country, which are the least advanced, an advantage over those which are the most advanced; and, if we find that the number of indigent increase most where the wealth is greatest, we surely must allow, that there is a strong tendency to decay that accompanies the acquisition of wealth.  The same revolutions that arise amongst the rich and poor inhabitants of a country, who change places gradually, and without noise, must naturally take place between the inhabitants of rich and poor countries, upon a larger scale and in a more permanent manner. {78} Such changes are generally attended with, or, at least, productive of, violent commotions.  Nations are not subservient to laws like individuals, but make forcible use of the means of which they are possessed, to obtain the ends which they have in view.