Thus minds grow dull beneath monarchal pow'r ;
And languish daily through each tedious hour.
Thus want of labor makes a part unblest ;
While too much (150) labor weakens all the rest.
Thus man descends from his primeval state
To mental weakness, and unjust debate.
But freedom feeds the senses souls employ;
And gives the spirits which produce their joy;

Or gives that health through which our pleasures rise,
Makes all things good, because each sense is wise.

It gives the taste: repairs the sight to view

The scenes of nature in a richer hue.

APPENDIX.

NOTE 1.

Every man in society is generally bound to perform certain duties; and these duties may be divided into public and private. By public duties I mean that share of attention, which every one may, and ought to, devote to the affairs of the nation of which he is a member: and that share of assistance which he may, and ought to, give to prevent injustice or slavery. By private duties I mean those which relate to individuals only, and not to mankind in general. Now, if it is wrong to disregard the welfare of any one, it must be infinitely more culpable to disregard the happiness of all: and therefore if we owe any duty to others, or if it is not just for each individual to think of himself only, our first duty to man, is that which we owe to the public. Men who neglect this duty, if they have acquired the name of good husbands, good parents, and good neighbours, are commonly supposed to be just and upright men: but a man, may have supported this character, and may, nevertheless, be a very despicable villain. For a good private character alone, is no proof of goodness. From the motives of interest, pride, or vanity, a man may be solicitous to preserve a good name among his neighbours, at the same time that he feels no concern for their happiness: and he may obtain a good name by

flattery, affability, and address in private intercouse. Hence, though a man is esteemed for his private character, if he shew no anxiety for the welfare or liberty of his country; if he refuse to spend an hour or cent in its service; we must necessarily conclude that he is not a just man; that his character is fallacious and deceitful; and that, whatever his professions and private conduct may have been, he has no real magnanimity, philanthrophy, or benificence. It is easy to profess a great regard for the people of our neighbourhood; but it is inconsistent with nature, to feel any disinterested concern for them, and none for all the rest of mankind : and, it is no less incompatible with reason, to be solicitous about their private interests, while we neglect the preservation of their liberty, the security on which those interests must depend.

Private character, to say the least of it, is extremely delusive, and probably deceives more people, than any other criterion. Thus, for instance, a man who is wealthy, if he give more than one who is not so, is generally called a generous man, though perhaps he is really stingy and parsimonious: for the receiver seldom thinks of comparing the gift with the estate of the giver. But he who gives the most is not always the most generous : the most generous man, is he who gives the most in proportion to his estate or circumstance. Hence, the man who gives but one dollar, may be more liberal than he who gives a thousand; and yet he would not generally be considered so. But if he who possesses an hundred cents, give twenty, he is certainly more liberal than he

1

who possesses two hundred and gives thirty; because he gives more in preportion to his wealth and even if he gave the same proportion, still he would have but half as much left. Indeed, if we always cóndsidered donatives in relation to the estate of the doner, we should find that the opulent are seldom as generous as those who possess less. Even, when a man really ap pears to be generous, it is very difficult to discover whether he is actuated by pride or generosity; for one is often mistaken for the other. Other features in private character, are no less ambiguous. Men who are the most covetous, are generally supposed to be the most industrious; or to have the least aversion to labour. They are indifatigable in the pursuit of wealth; and toil incessantly to gratify their averice by the accumulation of it. He who spends an hour for his country, or looks over a news-paper, they reproach with idleness. But, though they frequently boast of their industry, and declaim against the indolence of others; yet, if they were not so sordidly covetous, they would labour less than those they reproach. One of these egotists, was one day boasting of his industry; and railing against his neighbour for his indolence. A person who was present, asked him, who received the profit of his industry. He answered, himself. Then, said the other, who' thanks you for your industry, as long as you are only industrious for yourself? If I was needy or in distress, you would not do half as much to relieve me, as the man whom you slander; hence he is a much better man, and less idle, than you are. Unless you were paid

N

for it, you would not give a day to save your country from ruin; but he gives many to save both it, and you.. This just and unexpected reproof, quite nonplused the niggardly blockhead; and he had no more to say. We too often meet with persons of this discription. Indeed it is generally true, that men who speak, with so much asperity, against their honest neighbours, would scarcely turn their hands to serve another; unless it were in expectation of some favour in return. But, if they will not do as much gratis, as those whom they call lazy, are they not more lazy than those whom they call so? They certainly are; because they will not work for as small a reward. The degree of labour bestowed in charity, or for the benefit of others, is the true test of industry. By this test, we should frequently find, that they who boast the most of their labor, and are the most censorious, would do the least without the hope of reward; and are really in their nature the most indolent They may toil more, perhaps, although they have a greater aversion to toil, than one who toils less: for the love of riches may predominate over their indolence; and this is the reason that arverice is mistaken for industry.

I have mentioned these cases to shew, that private character is often the cause of very erronious judgments; and that, from that, men are frequently supposed to be better than they really are.

If a man be truly benevolent, his benevolence would not be confined to a few; but would extend, as far as practicable, to mankind in general. Therefore, though