CHAP. IV.: Of sumptuary Laws in a Monarchy.

TACITUS says, De morib. German. ^†210
“That the Suiones, a German nation, have a particular respect for riches; for which reason they live under the government of one person.” This shews that luxury is extremely proper for monarchies, and that under this government there must be no sumptuary laws.

As riches, by the very constitution of monarchies, are unequally divided, there is an absolute necessity for luxury. Were the rich not to be lavish, the poor would starve. It is even necessary here that the expences of the opulent should be in proportion to the inequality of fortunes, and that luxury, as we have already observed, should increase in this proportion. The augmentation of private wealth is owing to its having deprived one part of the citizens of their necessary support; this must therefore be restored to them.

Hence it is, that, for the preservation of a monarchical state, luxury ought continually to increase, and to grow more extensive, as it rises from the labourer to the artificer, to the merchant, to the magistrate, to the nobility, to the great officers of state, up to the very prince; otherwise the nation will be undone.

In the reign of Augustus a proposal was made in the Roman senate, which was composed of grave magistrates, learned civilians, and of men whose heads were filled with the notion of the primitive times, to reform the manners and luxury of women. It is curious to see, in Dio, Dio Cassius, lib. 54. ^†211 with what art this prince eluded the importunate sollicitations of those

Under Tiberius, the ædiles proposed, in the senate, the re-establishment of the ancient sumptuary laws. Tacit. Annal. lib. 3. ^†212 This prince, who did not want sense, opposed it. “The state (said he) could not possibly subsist in the present situation of things. How could Rome, how could the provinces, live? We were frugal while we were only masters of one city: now we consume the riches of the whole globe, and employ both the masters and their slaves in our service.” He plainly saw that sumptuary laws would not suit the present form of government.

When a proposal was made, under the same emperor, to the senate, to prohibit the governors from carrying their wives with them into the provinces, because of the dissoluteness and irregularity which followed those ladies, the proposal was rejected. It was said, “that the examples of ancient austerity had been changed into a more agreeable method of living.” Multa duritiei veterum melius et lætius mutata. Tacit. Annal. lib. 3. ^†213 They found there was a necessity for different manners.

Luxury is therefore absolutely necessary in monarchies; as it is also in despotic states. In the former, it is the use of liberty; in the latter, it is the abuse of servitude. A slave, appointed by his master to tyrannize over other wretches of the same condition, uncertain of enjoying, to-morrow, the blessings of to-day, has no other felicity than that of glutting the pride, the passions, and voluptuousness, of the present moment.

Hence arises a very natural reflexion. Republics end with luxury; monarchies with poverty. Opulentia paritura mox egestatem. Florus, lib. 3. ^†214