167 



buted to the diffusion of habits of extravagance. A sudden 

 increase of prosperity before a taste for rational modes of 

 enjoyment is developed, no doubt, gives rise to extravagant 

 unproductive expenditure in particular directions, as was the 

 case during the years of the cotton famine when the ryots, 

 especially in the Bombay Presidency, reaped enormous profits 

 which were spent on marriages and festivals with the result 

 that, when the profits ceased, the inevitable crash soon fol- 

 lowed. Then the ryots learnt a lesson which will not soon 

 be forgotten. I know that in the Tanjore district there has 

 been a wholesome change in recent years in this respect, less 

 being now spent on marriages and show on special occasions 

 and more on education and substantial comforts. The slow 

 rise in the standard of living, such as has been observable of 

 late years, cannot be the result of formation of habits of 

 extravagance, for large sections of society cannot continue 

 to live well, unless they have the means to do so. " An 

 interesting German writer," says Professor Cliffe Leslie, "has 

 reproduced one of the popular theories of Elizabeth's reign 

 — that luxury, ostentation, and expensive habits among all 

 classes are the causes of the modern dearness of living, and 

 not the abundance of money. There cannot, however, be 

 more money spent, if people have no more to spend than 

 before. A mere change in the ideas and desires of society 

 would add nothing to the number of pieces of money, and 

 could not affect the sum total of the pieces. If more money 

 were spent upon houses, furniture, and show, less would 

 remain, if pecuniary means were not increased, to be spent 

 upon labour and food, and the substantial necessaries of life ; 

 and if the former became dearer, the latter would at the 

 same time become cheaper. But, when people have really 

 more money than formerly to spend, they naturally spend 

 more than they formerly did, and their unaccustomed expend- 

 iture is considered excessive and extravagant. And, when 

 an increase in the pecuniary incomes of large classes arises 

 from, or accompanies, greater commercial activity and general 

 progress, there commonly is a general taste for a better or 

 more costly style of living than there was at a lower stage of 

 society. There is always, it is true, much folly and vanity 

 in human expenditure ; and masses of men do not become 

 philosophers of a sudden because they are making more 

 money. But their state is improving on the whole when 

 their trade is increasing, and the value of their produce rising 

 to a level, with that of the most forward communities, and 

 when the lowest classes are breaking the shackles of bar* 

 barous custom, and furnishing life with better accommoda- 



