defence of usury-第13节

按键盘上方向键 ← 或 → 可快速上下翻页，按键盘上的 Enter 键可回到本书目录页，按键盘上方向键 ↑ 可回到本页顶部！
————未阅读完？加入书签已便下次继续阅读！


；　what　the　error　is　in　the　sentiments　entertained；　not　who　it　is　that　entertains　them。　　　　　I　know　not　whether　the　observations　which　I　have　been　troubling　you　with；　will　be　thought　to　need；　or　whether　they　will　be　thought　to　receive；　any　additional　support　from　those　comfortable　positions；　of　which　you　have　made　such　good　and　such　frequent　use；　concerning　the　constant　tendency　of　mankind　to　get　forward　in　the　career　of　prosperity；　the　prevalence　of　prudence　over　imprudence；　in　the　sum　of　private　conduct　at　least；　and　the　superior　fitness　of　individuals　for　managing　their　own　pecuniary　concerns；　of　which　they　know　the　particulars　and　the　circumstances；　in　comparison　of　the　legislator；　who　can　have　no　such　knowledge。　I　will　make　the　experiment：　for；　so　long　as　I　have　the　mortification　to　see　you　on　the　opposite　side；　I　can　never　think　the　ground　I　have　taken　strong　enough；　while　any　thing　remains　that　appears　capable　of　rendering　it　still　stronger。　　　　　〃With　regard　to　misconduct；　the　number　of　prudent　and　successful　undertakings〃　（you　observe（28*））　〃is　every　where　much　greater　than　that　of　injudicious　and　unsuccessful　ones。　After　all　our　complaints　of　the　frequency　of　bankruptcies；　the　unhappy　men　who　fall　into　this　misfortune　make　but　a　very　small　part　of　the　whole　number　engaged　in　trade；　and　all　other　sorts　of　business；　not　much　more　perhaps　than　one　in　a　thousand。〃　　　　　'Tis　in　support　of　this　position　that　you　appeal　to　history　for　the　constant　and　uninterrupted　progress　of　mankind；　in　our　island　at　least；　in　the　career　of　prosperity：　calling　upon　any　one　who　should　entertain　a　doubt　of　the　fact；　to　divide　the　history　into　any　number　of　periods；　from　the　time　of　Caesar's　visit　down　to　the　present：　proposing　for　instance　the　respective　aeras　of　the　Restoration；　the　Accession　of　Elizabeth；　that　of　Henry　VII；　the　Norman　Conquest；　and　the　Heptarchy；　and　putting　it　to　the　sceptic　to　find　out；　if　he　can；　among　all　these　periods；　any　one　at　which　the　condition　of　the　country　was　not　more　prosperous　than　at　the　period　immediately　preceding　it；　spite　of　so　many　wars；　and　fires；　and　plagues；　and　all　other　public　calamities；　with　which　it　has　been　at　different　times　afflicted；　whether　by　the　hand　of　God；　or　by　the　misconduct　of　the　sovereign。　No　very　easy　task；　I　believe：　the　fact　is　too　manifest　for　the　most　jaundiced　eye　to　escape　seeing　it：　　But　what　and　whom　are　we　to　thank　for　it；　but　projects；　and　projectors？　　　　　〃No；〃　I　think　I　hear　you　saying；　〃I　will　not　thank　projectors　for　it；　I　will　rather　thank　the　laws；　which　by　fixing　the　rates　of　interest　have　been　exercising　their　vigilance　in　repressing　the　temerity　of　projectors；　and　preventing　their　imprudence　from　making　those　defalcations　from　the　sum　of　national　prosperity　which　it　would　not　have　failed　to　make；　had　it　been　left　free。　If；　during　all　these　periods；　that　adventurous　race　of　men　had　been　left　at　liberty　by　the　laws　to　give　full　scope　to　their　rash　enterprizes；　the　increase　of　national　prosperity　during　these　periods　might　have　afforded　some　ground　for　regarding　them　in　a　more　favourable　point　of　view。　But　the　fact　is；　that　their　activity　has　had　these　laws　to　check　it；　without　which　checks　you　must　give　me　leave　to　suppose；　that　the　current　of　prosperity；　if　not　totally　stopt；　or　turned　the　other　way；　would　at　any　rate　have　been　more　or　less　retarded。　Here　then〃　（you　conclude）　〃lies　the　difference　between　us：　what　you　look　upon　as　the　cause　of　the　increase　about　which　we　are　both　agreed；　I　look　upon　as　an　obstacle　to　it：　and　what　you　look　upon　as　the　obstacle；　I　look　upon　as　the　cause。〃　instead　of　starting　this　as　a　sort　of　plea　that　might　be　urged　by　you；　I　ought；　perhaps；　rather　to　have　mentioned　it　as　what　might　be　urged　by　some　people　in　your　place：　for　as　I　do　not　imagine　your　penetration　would　suffer　you　to　rest　satisfied　with　it；　still　less　can　I　suppose　that；　if　you　were　not；　your　candour　would　allow　you　to　make　use　of　it　as　if　you　were。　　　　　To　prevent　your　resting　satisfied　with　it；　the　following　considerations　would　I　think　be　sufficient。　　　　　In　the　first　place；　of　the　seven　periods　which　you　have　pitched　upon；　as　so　many　stages　for　the　eye　to　rest　at　in　viewing　the　progress　of　prosperity；　it　is　only　during　the　three　last；　that　the　country　has　had　the　benefit；　if　such　we　are　to　call　it；　of　these　laws：　for　it　is　to　the　reign　of　Henry　VIII　that　we　owe　the　first　of　them。　　　　　Here　a　multitude　of　questions　might　be　started：　Whether　the　curbing　of　projectors　formed　any　part　of　the　design　of　that　first　statute；　or　whether　the　views　of　it　were　not　wholly　confined　to　the　reducing　the　gains　of　that　obnoxious　and　envied　class　of　men；　the　moneylenders？　Whether　projectors　have　been　most　abundant　before　that　statute；　or　since　that　statute？　And　whether　the　nation　has　suffered；　as　you　might　say…benefited；　as　I　should　say；　most　by　them；　upon　the　whole；　during　the　former　period　or　the　latter？　All　these　discussions；　and　many　more　that　might　be　started；　I　decline　engaging　in；　as　more　likely　to　retard；　than　to　forward；　our　coming　to　any　agreement　conceiling　the　main　question。　　　　　In　the　next　place；　I　must　here　take　the　liberty　of　referring。　you　to　the　proof；　which　I　think　I　have　already　given；　of　the　proposition；　that　the　restraints　in　question　could　never　have　had　the　effect；　in　any　degree；　of　lessening　the　proportion　of　bad　projects　to　good　ones；　but　only　of　diminishing；　as　far　as　their　influence　may　have　extended；　the　total　number　of　projects；　good　and　bad　together。　Whatever　therefore　was　the　general　tendency　of　the　projecting　spirit　previously　to　the　first　of　these　laws；　such　it　must　have　remained　ever　since；　for　any　effect　which　they　could　have　had　in　purifying　and　correcting　it。　　　　　But　what　may　appear　more　satisfactory　perhaps　than　both　the　above　considerations；　and　may　afford　us　the　best　help　towards　extricating　ourselves　from　the　perplexity；　which　the　plea　I　have　been　combating　（and　which　I　thought　it　necessary　to　bring　to　view；　as　the　best　that　could　be　urged）　seems　much　better　calculated　to　plunge　us　into；　than　bring　us　out　of；　is；　the　consideration　of　the　small　effect　which　the　greatest　waste　that　can　be　conceived　to　have　been　made　within　any　compass　of　time；　by　injudicious　projects；　can　have　had　on　the　sum　of　prosperity；　even　in　the　estimation　of　those　whose　opinion　is　most　unfavourable　to　projectors；　in　comparison　of　the　effect　which　within　the　same　compass　of　time　must　have　been　produced　by　prodigality。　　　　　Of　the　two　causes；　and　only　two　causes；　which　you　mention；　as　contributing　to　retard　the　accumulation　of　national　wealth；　as　far　as　the　conduct　of　individuals　is　concerned；　projecting；　as　I　observed　before；　is　the　one；　and　prodigality　is　the　other：　but　the　detriment；　which　society　can　receive　even　from　the　concurrent　efficacy　of　both　these　causes；　you　represent；　on　several　occasions；　as　inconsiderable；　and；　if　I　do　not　misapprehend　you；　too　inconsiderable；　either　to　need；　or　to　warrant；　the　interposition　of　government　to　oppose　it。　Be　this　as　it　may　with　regard　to　projecting　and　prodigality　taken　together；　with　regard　to　prodigality　at　least；　I　am　certain　I　do　not　misapprehend　you。　On　this　subject　you　ride　triumphant；　and　chastise　the　〃impertinence　and　presumption　of　kings　and　ministers；〃　with　a　tone　of　authority；　which　it　required　a　courage　like　your's　to　venture　upon；　and　a　genius　like　your's　to　warrant　a　man　to　assume。（29*）　After　drawing　the　parallel　between　private　thrift　and　public　profusion；　〃It　is〃　（you　conclude）　〃the　highest　impertinence　and　presumption　therefore　in　kings　and　ministers　to　pretend　to　watch　over　the　economy　of　private　people；　and　to　restrain　their　expence；　either　by　sumptuary　laws；　or　by　prohibiting　the　importation　of　foreign　luxuries。　They　are　themselves　always；　and　without　exception；　the　greatest　spendthrifts　in　the　society。　let　them　look　well　after　their　own　expence；　and　they　may　safely　trust　private　people　with　theirs。　If　their　own　extravagance　does　not　ruin　the　state；　that　of　their　subjects　never　will。〃　　　　　That　the　employing　the　expedients　you　mention　for　restraining　prodigality；　is　indeed　generally；　perhaps　even　without　exception；　improper；　and　in　many　cases　even　ridiculous；　I　agree　with　you；　nor　will　I　here　step　aside　from　my　subject　to　defend　from　that　imputation　another　mode　suggested　in　a　former　part　of　these　papers。　But　however　presumptuous　and　impertinent　it　may　be　for　the　sovereign　to　attempt　in　any　way　to　check　by　legal　restraints　the　prodigality　of　individuals；　to　attempt　to　check　their　bad　management　by　such　restraints　seems　abundantly　more　so。　To　err　in　the　way　of　prodigality　is　the　lot；　though；　as　you　well　observe；　not　of　many　men；　in　comparison　of　the　whole　mass　of　mankind；　yet　at　least　of　any　man：　the　stuff　fit　to　make　a　prodigal　of　is　to　be　found　in　every　alehouse；　and　under　every　hedge。　But　even　to　err　in　the　way　of　projecting　is　the　lot　only　of　the　privileged　few。　Prodigality；　though　not　so　common　as　to　make　any　very　material　drain　from　the　general　mass　of　wealth；　is　however　too　common　to　be　regarded　as　a　mark　of　distinction　or　as　a　singularity。　But　the　stepping　aside　from　any　of　the　beaten　paths　of　traffic；　is　regarded　as　a　singularity；　as　serving　to　distinguish　a　man　from　other　men。　Even　where　it　requires　no　genius；　no　pec