aristocratical　tyranny。
  The　lower　house　is　the　support　of　our　popular　government；　and
  all　the　world　acknowledges；　that　it　owed　its　chief　influence　and
  consideration　to　the　encrease　of　commerce；　which　threw　such　a
  balance　of　property　into　the　hands　of　the　commons。　How
  inconsistent　then　is　it　to　blame　so　violently　a　refinement　in　the
  arts；　and　to　represent　it　as　the　bane　of　liberty　and　public
  spirit！
  To　declaim　against　present　times；　and　magnify　the　virtue　of
  remote　ancestors；　is　a　propensity　almost　inherent　in　human
  nature：　And　as　the　sentiments　and　opinions　of　civilized　ages
  alone　are　transmitted　to　posterity；　hence　it　is　that　we　meet　with
  so　many　severe　judgments　pronounced　against　luxury；　and　even
  science；　and　hence　it　is　that　at　present　we　give　so　ready　an
  assent　to　them。　But　the　fallacy　is　easily　perceived；　by　comparing
  different　nations　that　are　contemporaries；　where　we　both　judge
  more　impartially；　and　can　better　set　in　opposition　those　manners；
  with　which　we　are　sufficiently　acquainted。　Treachery　and　cruelty；
  the　most　pernicious　and　most　odious　of　all　vices；　seem　peculiar
  to　uncivilized　ages；　and　by　the　refined　GREEKS　and　ROMANS　were
  ascribed　to　all　the　barbarous　nations；　which　surrounded　them。
  They　might　justly；　therefore；　have　presumed；　that　their　own
  ancestors；　so　highly　celebrated；　possessed　no　greater　virtue；　and
  were　as　much　inferior　to　their　posterity　in　honour　and　humanity；
  as　in　taste　and　science。　An　ancient　FRANK　or　SAXON　may　be　highly
  extolled：　But　I　believe　every　man　would　think　his　life　or　fortune
  much　less　secure　in　the　hands　of　a　MOOR　or　TARTAR；　than　in　those
  of　a　FRENCH　or　ENGLISH　gentleman；　the　rank　of　men　the　most
  civilized　in　the　most　civilized　nations。
  We　come　now　to　the　second　position　which　we　proposed　to
  illustrate；　to　wit；　that；　as　innocent　luxury；　or　a　refinement　in
  the　arts　and　conveniencies　of　life；　is　advantageous　to　the
  public；　so　wherever　luxury　ceases　to　be　innocent；　it　also　ceases
  to　be　beneficial；　and　when　carried　a　degree　farther；　begins　to　be
  a　quality　pernicious；　though；　perhaps；　not　the　most　pernicious；
  to　political　society。
  Let　us　consider　what　we　call　vicious　luxury。　No
  gratification；　however　sensual；　can　of　itself　be　esteemed
  vicious。　A　gratification　is　only　vicious；　when　it　engrosses　all　a
  man's　expence；　and　leaves　no　ability　for　such　acts　of　duty　and
  generosity　as　are　required　by　his　situation　and　fortune。　Suppose；
  that　he　correct　the　vice；　and　employ　part　of　his　expence　in　the
  education　of　his　children；　in　the　support　of　his　friends；　and　in
  relieving　the　poor；　would　any　prejudice　result　to　society？　On　the
  contrary；　the　same　consumption　would　arise；　and　that　labour；
  which；　at　present；　is　employed　only　in　producing　a　slender
  gratification　to　one　man；　would　relieve　the　necessitous；　and
  bestow　satisfaction　on　hundreds。　The　same　care　and　toil　that
  raise　a　dish　of　peas　at　CHRISTMAS；　would　give　bread　to　a　whole
  family　during　six　months。　To　say；　that；　without　a　vicious　luxury；
  the　labour　would　not　have　been　employed　at　all；　is　only　to　say；
  that　there　is　some　other　defect　in　human　nature；　such　as
  indolence；　selfishness；　inattention　to　others；　for　which　luxury；
  in　some　measure；　provides　a　remedy；　as　one　poison　may　be　an
  antidote　to　another。　But　virtue；　like　wholesome　food；　is　better
  than　poisons；　however　corrected。
  Suppose　the　same　number　of　men；　that　are　at　present　in　GREAT
  BRITAIN；　with　the　same　soil　and　climate；　I　ask；　is　it　not
  possible　for　them　to　be　happier；　by　the　most　perfect　way　of　life
  that　can　be　imagined；　and　by　the　greatest　reformation　that
  Omnipotence　itself　could　work　in　their　temper　and　disposition？　To
  assert；　that　they　cannot；　appears　evidently　ridiculous。　As　the
  land　is　able　to　maintain　more　than　all　its　present　inhabitants；
  they　could　never；　in　such　a　UTOPIAN　state；　feel　any　other　ills
  than　those　which　arise　from　bodily　sickness；　and　these　are　not
  the　half　of　human　miseries。　All　other　ills　spring　from　some　vice；
  either　in　ourselves　or　others；　and　even　many　of　our　diseases
  proceed　from　the　same　origin。　Remove　the　vices；　and　the　ills
  follow。　You　must　only　take　care　to　remove　all　the　vices。　If　you
  remove　part；　you　may　render　the　matter　worse。　By　banishing
  vicious　luxury；　without　curing　sloth　and　an　indifference　to
  others；　you　only　diminish　industry　in　the　state；　and　add　nothing
  to　men's　charity　or　their　generosity。　Let　us；　therefore；　rest
  contented　with　asserting；　that　two　opposite　vices　in　a　state　may
  be　more　advantageous　than　either　of　them　alone；　but　let　us　never
  pronounce　vice　in　itself　advantageous。　Is　it　not　very
  inconsistent　for　an　author　to　assert　in　one　page；　that　moral
  distinctions　are　inventions　of　politicians　for　public　interest；
  and　in　the　next　page　maintain；　that　vice　is　advantageous　to　the
  public？　And　indeed　it　seems　upon　any　system　of　morality；　little
  less　than　a　contradiction　in　terms；　to　talk　of　a　vice；　which　is
  in　general　beneficial　to　society。
  I　thought　this　reasoning　necessary；　in　order　to　give　some
  light　to　a　philosophical　question；　which　has　been　much　disputed
  in　ENGLAND。　I　call　it　a　philosophical　question；　not　a　political
  one。　For　whatever　may　be　the　consequence　of　such　a　miraculous
  transformation　of　mankind；　as　would　endow　them　with　every　species
  of　virtue；　and　free　them　from　every　species　of　vice；　this
  concerns　not　the　magistrate；　who　aims　only　at　possibilities。　He
  cannot　cure　every　vice　by　substituting　a　virtue　in　its　place。
  Very　often　he　can　only　cure　one　vice　by　another；　and　in　that
  case；　he　ought　to　prefer　what　is　least　pernicious　to　society。
  Luxury；　when　excessive；　is　the　source　of　many　ills；　but　is　in
  general　preferable　to　sloth　and　idleness；　which　would　commonly
  succeed　in　its　place；　and　are　more　hurtful　both　to　private
  persons　and　to　the　public。　When　sloth　reigns；　a　mean　uncultivated
  way　of　life　prevails　amongst　individuals；　without　society；
  without　enjoyment。　And　if　the　sovereign；　in　such　a　situation；
  demands　the　service　of　his　subjects；　the　labour　of　the　state
  suffices　only　to　furnish　the　necessaries　of　life　to　the
  labourers；　and　can　afford　nothing　to　those　who　are　employed　in
  the　public　service。
  The　End