ness, the will of the body to which he belongs will immediately debar him from pursuing it; for however men may declaim against the rule of numbers, they cannot wholly escape their sway; and even amongst those aristocratic bodies which most obstinately refuse to acknowledge the rights of the majority of the nation, a private majority is formed which governs the rest.[1]
In democratic countries, where money does not lead those who possess it to political power, but often removes them from it, the rich do not know how to spend their leisure. They are driven into active life by the inquietude and the greatness of their desires, by the extent of their resources, and by the taste for what is extraordinary, which is almost always felt by those who rise, by whatsoever means, above the crowd. Trade is the only road open to them. In demo-
- ↑ Some aristocracies, however, have devoted themselves eagerly to
commerce, and have cultivated manufactures with success. The history of the
world might furnish several conspicuous examples. But, generally speaking,
it may be affirmed that the aristocratic principle is not favourable to
the growth of trade and manufactures. Monied aristocracies are the only
exception to the rule. Amongst such aristocracies there are hardly any
desires which do not require wealth to satisfy them; the love of riches
becomes, so to speak, the high road of human passions, which is crossed by
or connected with all lesser tracks. The love of money and the thirst for
that distinction which attaches to power, are then so closely intermixed in
the same souls, that it becomes difficult to discover whether men grow
covetous from ambition, or whether they are ambitious from covetousness.
This is the case in England, where men seek to get rich in order to arrive
at distinction, and seek distinctions as a manifestation of their wealth. The
mind is then seized by both ends, and hurried into trade and manufactures,
which are the shortest roads that lead to opulence.
This, however, strikes me as an exceptional and transitory circumstance. When wealth is become the only symbol of aristocracy, it is very difficult for the wealthy to maintain sole possession of political power, to the exclusion of all other men. The aristocracy of birth and pure democracy are at the two extremes of the social and political state of nations: between them monied aristocracy finds its place. The latter approximates to the aristocracy of birth by conferring great privileges on a small number of persons; it so far belongs to the democratic element, that these privileges may be successively acquired by all. It frequently forms a natural transition between these two conditions of society, and it is difficult to say whether it closes the reign of aristocratic institutions, or whether it already opens the new æra of democracy.
