"A people may be too rich, because it is the tendency of the commercial, and more especially of the manufacturing system, to collect wealth rather than to diffuse it.Where wealth is necessarily employed in any of the speculations of trade, its increase is in proportion to its amount.Great capitalists become like pikes in a fish-pond who devour the weaker fish; and it is but too certain, that the poverty of one part of the people seems to increase in the same ratio as the riches of another.There are examples of this in history.In Portugal, when the high tide of wealth flowed in from the conquests in Africa and the East, the effect of that great influx was not more visible in the augmented splendour of the court, and the luxury of the higher ranks, than in the distress of the people."Mr.Southey's instance is not a very fortunate one.The wealth which did so little for the Portuguese was not the fruit either of manufactures or of commerce carried on by private individuals.
It was the wealth, not of the people, but of the Government and its creatures, of those who, as Mr.Southey thinks, can never be too rich.The fact is, that Mr.Southey's proposition is opposed to all history, and to the phaenomena which surround us on every side.England is the richest country in Europe, the most commercial country, and the country in which manufactures flourish most.Russia and Poland are the poorest countries in Europe.They have scarcely any trade, and none but the rudest manufactures.Is wealth more diffused in Russia and Poland than in England? There are individuals in Russia and Poland whose incomes are probably equal to those of our richest countrymen.It may be doubted whether there are not, in those countries, as many fortunes of eighty thousand a year as here.But are there as many fortunes of two thousand a year, or of one thousand a year? There are parishes in England which contain more people of between three hundred and three thousand pounds a year than could be found in all the dominions of the Emperor Nicholas.The neat and commodious houses which have been built in London and its vicinity, for people of this class, within the last thirty years, would of themselves form a city larger than the capitals of some European kingdoms.And this is the state of society in which the great proprietors have devoured a smaller!
The cure which Mr.Southey thinks that he has discovered is worthy of the sagacity which he has shown in detecting the evil.
The calamities arising from the collection of wealth in the hands of a few capitalists are to be remedied by collecting it in the hands of one great capitalist, who has no conceivable motive to use it better than other capitalists, the all-devouring State.
It is not strange that, differing so widely from Mr.Southey as to the past progress of society, we should differ from him also as to its probable destiny.He thinks, that to all outward appearance, the country is hastening to destruction; but he relies firmly on the goodness of God.We do not see either the piety or the rationality of thus confidently expecting that the Supreme Being will interfere to disturb the common succession of causes and effects.We, too, rely on his goodness, on his goodness as manifested, not in extraordinary interpositions, but in those general laws which it has pleased him to establish in the physical and in the moral world.We rely on the natural tendency of the human intellect to truth, and on the natural tendency of society to improvement.We know no well-authenticated instance of a people which has decidedly retrograded in civilisation and prosperity, except from the influence of violent and terrible calamities, such as those which laid the Roman Empire in ruins, or those which, about the beginning of the sixteenth century, desolated Italy.We know of no country which, at the end of fifty years of peace and tolerably good government, has been less prosperous than at the beginning of that period.
The political importance of a state may decline, as the balance of power is disturbed by the introduction of new forces.Thus the influence of Holland and of Spain is much diminished.But are Holland and Spain poorer than formerly? We doubt it.Other countries have outrun them.But we suspect that they have been positively, though not relatively, advancing.We suspect that Holland is richer than when she sent her navies up the Thames, that Spain is richer than when a French king was brought captive to the footstool of Charles the Fifth.
History is full of the signs of this natural progress of society.
We see in almost every part of the annals of mankind how the industry of individuals, struggling up against wars, taxes, famines, conflagrations, mischievous prohibitions, and more mischievous protections, creates faster than governments can squander, and repairs whatever invaders can destroy.We see the wealth of nations increasing, and all the arts of life approaching nearer and nearer to perfection, in spite of the grossest corruption and the wildest profusion on the part of rulers.
