this example, it is not to popery that the laws object, but to popery as the mark of jacobitism; an equivocal indeed and fallacious mark, but the best, and perhaps the only one that can be devifed. But then it fhould be remembered, that as the connection between popery and jacobitism, which is the fole caufe of fufpicion, and the fole juftification of thofe fevere and jealous laws which have been enacted against the profeffors of that religion, was accidental in its origin, so probably it will be temporary in its duration; and that these restrictions ought not to continue one day longer, than fome vifible danger renders thein neceffary to the preservation of public tranquility.

After all, it may be afked, why should not the legiflator direct his teft against the political principles themselves which he wishes to exclude, rather than encounter them through the medium of religious tenets, the only crime and the only danger of which confift in their prefumed alliance with the former? Why, for example, should a man be required to renounce tranfubftantiation, before he be admitted to an office in the ftate, when it might feem to be fufficient that he abjure the pretender? There are but two answers that can be given to the objection which this question contains: first, that it is not opinions which the laws, fear, fo much as inclinations; and that political inclinations are not so easily detected by the affirmation or denial of any abstract propofition in politics, as by the difcovery of the religious creed with which they are wont to be united: fecondly, that when men renounce their religion, they commonly quit all connection with the members of the church which they have left; that church no longer expecting affiftance or friendship from them; whereas particular perfons might infinuate themselves into offices of truft and authority, by fubfcribing political affertions, and yet retain their predilection for the interests of the religious fect to which they continued to belong. By which means government would fometimes find, though it could not accufe the individual,

individual, whom it had received into its fervice, of difaffection to the civil eftablishment, yet that, through him, it had communicated the aid and influence of a powerful ftation to a party who were hoftile to the conftitution. Thefe anfwers, however, we propofe, rather than defend. The meafure certainly cannot be defended at all, except where the fufpected union between certain obnoxious principles in politics, and certain tenets in religion, is nearly univerfal: in which cafe it makes little dif ference to the subscriber, whether the teft be religious or political: and the ftate is fomewhat better fecured by the one than the other.

The refult of our examination of thofe general tendencies, by which every interference of civil government in matters of religion ought to be tried, is this: "That a comprehenfive national religion, "guarded by a few articles of peace and conform"ity, together with a legal provifion for the clergy "of that religion; and with a complete toleration of "all diffenters from the established church, without any other limitation or exception, than what arifes "from the conjunction of dangerous political dispo"fitions with certain religious tenets, appears to be,

66

..

not only the most just and liberal, but the wilest "and fafeft fyftem, which a state can adopt : inaf"much as it unites the feveral perfections which a "religious conftitution ought to aim at-liberty of "confcience, with means of inftruction; the pro

grefs of truth, with the peace of fociety; the "right of private judgment, with the care of the "public fafety."

CHAP. XI.

OF POPULATION AND PROVISION;
CULTURE AND COMMERCE, AS

THERETO.

AND OF AGRI

SUBSERVIENT

T

HE final view of all rational politics is to produce the greateft quantity of happiness in a given tract of country. The riches, ftrength, and glory of nations, the topics which history celebrates, and which alone almoft engage the praifes, and poffefs the admiration of mankind, have no value farther than as they contribute to this end. When they interfere with it, they are evils, and not the less real for the splendour that furrounds them.

Secondly, although we fpeak of communities as of fentient beings; although we afcribe to them happiness and mifery, defires, interefts and paffions, nothing really exifts or feels but individuals. The happiness of a people is made up of the happiness of fingle perfons; and the quantity of happiness can only be augmented by increafing the number of the percipients, or the pleasure of their perceptions.

Thirdly, notwithstanding that diverfity of condition, efpecially different degrees of plenty, freedom, and fecurity, greatly vary the quantity of happiness enjoyed by the fame number of individuals; and notwithstanding that extreme cafes may be found, of human beings fo galled by the rigours of flavery, that the increase of numbers is only the amplification of mifery; yet, within certain limits, and within those limits to which civil life is diverfified under the temperate governments that obtain in Europe, it may be affirmed, I think, with certainty, that the

quantity

quantity of happiness produced in any given district, fo far depends upon the number of inhabitants, that, in comparing adjoining periods in the fame country, the collective happiness will be nearly in the exact proportion of the numbers, that is, twice the number of inhabitants will produce double the quantity of happiness; in diftant periods, and different countries, under great changes or great diffimilitude of civil condition, although the proportion of enjoyment may fall much fhort of that of the numbers, yet ftill any confiderable excefs of numbers will ufually carry with it a preponderation of happiness ; that at least, it may, and ought to be affumed in all political deliberations, that a larger portion of happiness is enjoyed amongst ten perfons, poffeffing the means of healthy fubfiftence, than can be produced by five perfons, under every advantage of power, affluence, and luxury.

From these principles it follows, that the quantity of happiness in a given diftrict, although it is poffible it may be increased the number of inhabitants remaining the fame, is chiefly and most naturally affected by alteration of the numbers: that, confequently, the decay of population, is the greatest evil that a ftate can fuffer; and the improvement of it the object which ought, in all countries, to be aimed at, in preference to every other political purpofe what foever.

The importance of population, and the fuperiority of it to every other national advantage, are points neceffary to be inculcated, and to be understood; inafmuch as falfe estimates, or fantaftic notions of national grandeur, are perpetually drawing the attention of statesmen and legislators from the care of this, which is, at all times, the true and abfolute intereft of a country: for which reafon, we have ftated thefe points with unufual formality. We will confefs, however, that a competition can feldom arife between the advancement of population and any measure of fober utility; becaufe, in the ordinaIi 2

ry

ry progress of human affairs, whatever, in any way, contributes to make a people happier, tends to render them more numerous.

In the fecundity of the human, as of every other fpecies of animals, nature has provided for an inde finite multiplication. Mankind have increased to their prefent number from a fingle pair: the offfpring of early marriages, in the ordinary course of procreation, do more than replace the parents: in countries, and under circumftances very favourable to fubfiftence, the population has been doubled in the space of twenty years: the havock occafioned by wars, earthquakes, famine, or peftilence, is ufually repaired in a short time. Thefe indications fufficiently demonftrate the tendency of nature in the human fpecies to a continual increase of its numbers. It becomes therefore a queftion that may reasonably be propounded, what are the caufes which confine or check the natural progrefs of this multiplication? And the anfwer which firft prefents itself to the thought of the inquirer is, that the population of a country muft ftop, when the country can maintain no more, that is, when the inhabitants are already fo numerous as to exhauft all the provifion which the foil can be made to produce. This however, though an infuperable bar, will feldom be found to be that which actually checks the progrefs of population in any country of the world; because the number of of the people have feldom, in any country, arrived at this limit, or even approached to it. The fertility of the ground, in temperate regions, is capable of being improved by cultivation to an extent which is unknown: much, however, beyond the state of improvement in any country in Europe. In our own, which holds almoft the first place in the knowledge and encouragement of agriculture, let it only be fuppofed that every field in England of the fame original quality with thofe in the neighbourhood of the metropolis, and confequently capable of the fame fertility, were by a like management made to

yield