[Footnote 36: It is impossible not to censure so gross a blunder, if blunder that may be called, which is alike abhorrent to the truth of facts and to the validity of all good principle. The language indeed is so vague, as to admit something like a defence, under the shadow of a definition which shall restrict crimes to gross violations of public and private right; but even this would be faulty, as implying what is not the case, that the facility of indulgence, and of course the frequency, does not enhance the strength and efficacy of those passions and appetites, which, if not moderated, certainly lead to outrageous conduct. Habits of indulgence, it is no doubt certain, imply a softening down of the violence of character; and hence, in a _peculiar sense_, it may be said, that the ages of refinement and luxury are the most happy and virtuous, an assertion which Mr Hume has spent no small labour in maintaining: But, on the other hand, it is clear, that violence is more easily guarded against, in almost any state of society, than the artifices of dishonesty and the pollution of licentiousness; and, besides, it never will be found that any fecundity of nature can keep pace, with the accelerating increase of vicious desires and propensities, consequent on indulgence. Restraint from the operation of fear, and better still when practicable, the implantation and growth of moral principle and right feeling, are vastly better preservatives against crimes of every sort, than all the facilities of sensual gratification which Otaheite or any other country can afford.--E.]