Part 4 (1/2)

powerful nation that ever existed, yet a single battalion of our present troops, well supported with artillery, would have probably destroyed the finest army they ever sent into the field. A single s.h.i.+p of the line would certainly have sunk, taken, or put to flight, all the fleets that Rome and Carthage ever sent to sea. The feeblest and least powerful of civilized nations, with the present means of fighting, and the knowledge of the present day, would defeat an ancient army of the most powerful description. Power then is entirely relative; and what is feebleness now, would, at a certain time, have been force or power.

It is not altogether so with wealth, which consists in the abundance of what men desire. The Egyptians, Greeks, and Romans, had wealth; and this, though, perhaps, not consisting in the same objects, was, perhaps, not inferior to ours at the present time; but as wealth, purely and simply, no comparison between different nations was necessary, farther than that men's desires are augmented, by seeing the abundance possessed by others; and therefore they become comparative, as to wealth. Without, however, entering into a long examination respecting the various possible combinations of wealth and power, which are something similarly connected in states, as health and strength are in the animal body, {11} let both be considered only in a comparative way; the comparison either being made with other nations at the same time, or with the same nation at different times. Thus, for example, in comparing the wealth and power of Britain now, with what they were at the latter end of Queen Elizabeth's reign, we find that the merchants of Liverpool, during the first three years of last =sic= war, fitted out a force of privateers equal to the Spanish armada; and consequently superior to the whole naval force of England at that time; there can be no doubt, then, that both the wealth and power of the nation are increased. Again, if we find that our s.h.i.+ps block up the

{11} A man may be very feeble, yet in very good health for his whole life-time. He may also have great strength, though he may not enjoy a very good state of health; yet nevertheless, health and strength are very intimately connected, and never can be completely separated.

[end of page #8]

ports of Holland, and prevent their navy from venturing to sea, we must conclude, that the relative power of the two nations is altered, since the time that the Dutch fleet rode triumphant in the river Thames. But, if we want to make a comparison between the naval power of England and that of France and Spain, we must not compare it with the strength of their navies in the year 1780, when they bid us defiance at Plymouth, but take things actually as they are at this present time.

When a nation is upon an equality with others, for wealth, it may be considered as neither deserving the name of a rich or a poor nation, whatever its real wealth or poverty may be. The same thing holds with power. When a nation is merely able to protect itself, but fully equal to that, though unable to make conquests, or aggrandize itself, against the will of other nations, it may be said to be neither weak nor strong.

Thus, for example, Denmark as a nation is upon a par with others; and neither to be called wealthy and powerful, nor weak and poor, though it certainly has both more actual wealth and power than it had in the eighth century, when the Danes burnt London, Paris, and Cologne.

Thus, then, with respect to my reasoning, the whole is to be considered as applying to other nations at the same time; and the degree they are above or below par, is the measure of wealth and power, poverty and weakness. {12}

But, with respect to a nation itself, wealth is comparative in the progression of time. In speaking of power, we compare nations at the same period, and, in speaking of wealth, we may either compare a nation with itself at different periods, or with others at the same time.

We shall not find any example of a nation's becoming less wealthy whilst it increased in power; but we shall find many instances of nations becoming wealthy whilst they were losing their power, though,

{12} According to this definition, if all the nations on earth were to increase in wealth and power equally, they would be considered as stationary; their relative situations would remain the same; like those of the fixed stars, or those of soldiers who march in a regiment with perfect regularity, and retain their relative portion in the same manner as if they stood still. But this case, among nations, is only an imaginary one; therefore, the definition given answers the true purpose of investigation.

[end of page #9]

together with the power, the wealth always, a little sooner or a little later, vanishes away.

Sometimes nations owe their wealth and greatness to accidental causes, that, from their nature, must vanish away; and sometimes to causes which, depending upon the nations themselves, may be prolonged. In general, both the two sorts of causes have united to render every nation great that has been distinguished amongst others for riches or power.

The causes, then, divide themselves into two of distinct kinds;--those which are independent of the nation itself, and those over which it has some degree of influence and controul.

In early ages, when knowledge was but little advanced, and when the small stock that had been acc.u.mulated was confined nearly to a single spot, the first description of causes were the princ.i.p.al ones.--Local situation, priority in discovery, or in establishment, gave to one nation a superiority over others, and occasioned the acc.u.mulation of wealth, and the acquisition of power and territory. {13} As in the early stages of human life, a few years more or less occasion a greater difference, both in physical powers and mental faculties, than any difference of innate genius, or advent.i.tious circ.u.mstances; so, in the early days of the world, when it was young in knowledge, and scanty in population, priority of settlement gave a great advantage to one nation over others, and, of consequence, enabled them to rule over others; thus the a.s.syrian and Egyptian empires were great, powerful, and extensive, while the nations that were beyond their reach were divided into small states or kingdoms, on the most contemptible scale.

Time, however, did away the advantages resulting from priority of establishment.

Local situation was another cause of superiority, of a more permanent nature; but this, also, new discovery has transferred from one na-

{13} It is not meant, by any means, to enter into an inquiry, much less controversy, respecting the antiquity of mankind; but it is very clear that the knowledge of arts and sciences can be traced to an infant state about two thousand years before the Christian aera.

[end of page #10]

tion to another. Qualities of the soil and climate are counteracted by the nature and habits of the inhabitants, which frequently, in the end, give the superiority where there was at first an inferiority.

If ever the nations of the world come to a state of permanence, (which in all probability will never be the case,) it must be when population is nearly proportioned to the means of subsistence in different parts; when knowledge is nearly equally distributed and when no great discoveries remain to be made either in arts, science, or geography.

While the causes from which wealth and power rise in a superior degree, are liable to change from one nation to another, wealth and power must be liable to the same alterations and changes of place; so long any equal balance among nations must be artificial. But when circ.u.mstances become similar, and when the pressure becomes equal on all sides, then nations, like the particles of a fluid, though free to move, having lost their impulse, will remain at rest.