/ 
804 LUX 
•feals, four perpuffes, and460 tarts. At this feaft the earl of 
'Warwick was lleward, the earl of Bedford treafurer, and 
lord Haftings comptroller, with many more noble officers; 
1000 fervitors, 62 cooks,and 535 menial apparitors in the 
kitchen. But fuch was the fortune of the man, that, af¬ 
ter his extreme prodigality, he died in the molt abjeH but 
unpitied poverty. 
And as to dre/s, luxury in that article feems to have at¬ 
tained a great height long before Holinfhed’s time. For 
in the reign of Edward III. we find no fewer than feven 
iumptuary laws paffed in one feffion of parliament to re¬ 
train it. It was enafted, that men-fervants of lords, as 
alfo of tradefmen and artifans, fhall be content with one 
meal of fifli or fleffi every day ; and the other meals, daily, 
fhall be of milk, cheefe, butter, and the like. Neither 
fhall they ufe any ornaments of gold, filk, or embroidery; 
nor their wives and daughters any veils above the price 
of twelvepence. Artifans and yeomen fhall not wear cloth 
above 40s. the whole piece (the fined then being about 61 . 
per piece), nor the ornaments before named ; nor the wo¬ 
men any veils of filk, but only thofe of thread made in 
England. Gentlemen under the degree of knights, not 
having 100I. yearly in land, fhall not wear any cloth above 
45 marks the whole piece. Neither fhall they or their fe¬ 
males ufe cloth of gold, filver, or embroidery, &c. But 
elquires having 200I. per annum or upwards of rent, may 
■wear cloths of five marks the whole piece of cloth; and 
they and their females may alfo wear ituff of filk, filver, 
ribbons, girdles, or furs. Merchants, citizens, burghers, 
and artificers or tradefmen, as well of London as elfe- 
where, who have goods and chattels of the clear value of 
■500I. and their females, may wear as is allowed to gen¬ 
tlemen and efquiresof rool. per annum. And merchants, 
citizens, and burgeffes, worth above ioool. in goods and 
chattels, may (and their females) wear the fame as gen¬ 
tlemen of 200I. per annum. Knights of 200 marks yearly 
may wear cloth of fix marks the cloth, but no higher; 
but no cloth of gold, nor furred with ermine; but all 
knights and ladies having above 400 marks yearly, up to 
roool. per annum, may wear as they pleafe, ermine ex¬ 
cepted ; and they may wear ornaments of pearl and pre¬ 
cious (tones for their heads only. Clerks having degrees 
in cathedrals, colleges, &c. may wear as knights and 
efquires of the fame income. Ploughmen, carters, fliep- 
herds, and fuch like, not having 40s. value in goods or 
chattels, (hall wear no (ort of cloth but blanket and ruffet 
lawn of i2d. and fhall wear girdles and belts; and they 
fhall only eat and drink fuitable to their ffations. And 
whofoever ufes other apparel than is prefcribed by the 
above laws fhall forfeit the fame. 
Concerning the general utility of luxury to a ftate, there 
is much controverfy among the political writers. Baron 
Montefquieu lays it down, that luxury is neceffary in 
monarchies, as in France ; but ruinous to democracies, as 
in Holland. With regard therefore to Britain, whofe go¬ 
vernment is compounded of both fpecies, it is held to be 
a dubious queltion, how far private luxury is a public 
evil; and, as fuch, cognizable by public laws. And in¬ 
deed our legiflators have feveral times changed their fen- 
timents as to this point; for formerly there was a num¬ 
ber of penal laws exifting to re ft rain excefs in apparel, 
chiefly made in the reigns of Edward III. IV. and Hen-, 
ry VIII. a fpecimen of which we have inferted above; and, 
as to eating, fee the article London, p. 77. But mod of 
them it appeared expedient to repeal at an after-period. 
In faff, although luxury will of neceffitv increafe accord¬ 
ing to the influx of wealth, and it may not be for the ge¬ 
neral benefit of commerce to impole, as in the above-cited 
laws, an abfolute prohibition of every degree of it; yet, for 
the good of the public, it may be neceffary that fuch as go 
beyond proper bounds in eating, drinking, and wearing 
what by no means is fuitable to their ftation, (hould be 
taxed accordingly, could it be done without including 
thofe who have a better title to fuch indulgence. This is 
certainly, however, a point vrhich fliould be maturely 
u nr. 
weighed before executed ; and, in mercantile countries at 
lead, fuch redraints maybe found prejudicial,mod likely 
impracticable, efpecially where true liberty is edablifned. 
Sir William Temple obferves, Tpeaking of the trade and 
riches, and at the fame time of the frugality, of the Hol¬ 
landers, “ That fome of our maxims are not fo certain as 
current in politics'; as, that encouragement of excefs and 
luxury, if employed in the confumption of native commo¬ 
dities, is of advantage to. trade. It may be fo to that 
which impoveriflies, but not to that which enriches, a 
country. It is indeed lefs prejudicial, if it lies in native 
than in foreign wares : but the humour of luxury and ex¬ 
penfe cannot (top at certain bounds; what begins in na¬ 
tive will proceed to foreign commodities; and, though -the 
example arife among idle perfons, yet the imitation will 
run into all degrees, even of thofe men by whofe indudry 
the nation fubfids. And befides, the more oi our osun we 
fpend, the lefs (hall we have to fend abroad ; and fo it 
will come to pafs, that, while we drive a vad trade, yet, 
by buying much more than we fell, we (hall come to be 
poor at lad.” 
Luxury, fays Mr. Hume, (Effays, vol. i.) is a word 
of an uncertain fignification, and may be taken in a. 
good as well as a bad fenfe. In general, it means great 
refinement in the gratification of the fenfes ; and any de¬ 
gree of it may be innocent or blameable, according to the 
age, or country, or condition, of the perfon. The bounds 
between the virtue and the vice cannot here be exactly 
fixed, more than in other moral fubjeds. To imagine, 
that the gratifying of any fenfe, or the indulging of any 
delicacy in meat, drink, or apparel, is of itfclf a vice, can 
never enter into a head that is not difordered by the fren¬ 
zies of enthufiafm. “ I have, indeed,” fays our author. 
“ heard of a monk abroad, who, becaufe the windows of 
his cell opened upon a noble profpeCi, made a covenant 
with his eyes never to turn that way, or receive fo fenfual 
a gratification.” Such is the crime of drinking Cham¬ 
pagne or Burgundy, preferably to fmall beer or porter. 
Thefe indulgences are only vices, when they are purfued 
at the expenfe of fome virtue, as liberality or charity ; in 
like manner as they are follies, w hen for them a man ruins 
his fortune, and reduces himfelf to want and beggary. 
When they intrench upon no virtue; but leave & ample 
fubjeft whence to provide for friends, family, and every 
proper objeft of generality or compaffion; they are entirely 
innocent, and have in every age been acknowledged fuch 
by almoft all moralifts. To be entirely occupied with the 
luxury of the table, for inftance, without any relifh for 
the pleafuresof ambition, ftudy,orconverfation, is a mark 
of ftupidity, and is incompatible with any vigour of tem¬ 
per or genius. To confine one’s expenfe entirely to fuch 
a gratification, without regard to friends or family, is an 
indication of an heart deftitute of humanity or benevolence • 
but, if a man referve time fufficient for all laudable pur- 
pofes, and money fufficient for all generous purpofes, he 
is free from every (hadow of blame or reproach. Since 
luxury may be confidered either as innocent or blameable, 
one may be furprifed at thofe prepofterous opinions which 
have been entertained concerning it; while men of liber¬ 
tine principles beftow praifes even on vicious luxury, and 
reprefent it as highly advantageous to fociety ; and, on 
the other hand, men of pure morals blame even the molt 
innocent luxury, and reprefent it as the fource of all the 
corruption, diforders,and faftions, incident to civil govern¬ 
ment. Our author endeavours to correct both thefe ex¬ 
tremes, by proving, firlt, that the ages of refinement are 
both the happieft and the molt virtuous; and, jdly, that, 
wherever luxury ceales to be innoqent, it alfo ceafes to be 
beneficial; and, when carried a degree too far, is a qua¬ 
lity pernicious, though perhaps not the moft pernicious, 
to political fociety. Indultry, knowledge, and humanity, 
(fays he,) are linked together by an indiffoluble chain ; 
and are found, from experience as well as reafon, to be 
peculiar to the more polilhed, and what are commonly 
denominated the more luxurious, ages. He adds, that 
theft 
