THE WEALTH OF NATIONS.

767

As in point of dignity, a monarch is more raised above hissubjects than the chief magistrate of any republic is ever sup-posed to be above his fellow-citizens; so a greater expense isnecessary for supporting that higher dignity. We naturallyexpect more splendour in the court of a king, than in themansion-house of a doge or a burgomaster.

CONCLUSION.

The expense of defending the society, and that of support-ing the dignity of the chief magistrate, are both laid out forthe general benefit of the whole society. It is reasonable,therefore, that they should be defrayed by the general con-tribution of the whole society, all the different members con-tributing, as nearly as possible, in proportion to their respec-tive abilities.

The expense of the administration of justice too, may, nodoubt, be considered as laid out for the benefit of the wholesociety. There is no impropriety, therefore, in its being de-frayed by the general contribution of the whole society. Thepersons, however, who gave occasion to this expense are thosewho, by their injustice in one way or another, make it neces-sary to seek redress or protection from the courts of justice.The persons again most immediately benefited by this ex-pense, are those whom the courts of justice either restore totheir rights, or maintain in their rights. The expense of theadministration of justice, therefore, may very properly be de-frayed by the particular contribution of one or other, or bothof those two different sets of persons, according as differentoccasions may require, that is, by the fees of court. It can-not be necessary to have recourse to the general contributionof the whole society, except for the conviction of those cri-minals who have not themselves any estate or fund sufficientfor paying those fees.

Those local or provincial expenses of which the benefit islocal or provincial (what is laid out, for example, upon thepolice of a particular town or district), ought to be defrayedby a local or provincial revenue, and ought to be no burdenupon the general revenue of the society. It is unjust thatthe whole society should contribute towards an expense ofwhich the benefit is confined to a part of the society.

The expense of maintaining good roads and communica-tions is, no doubt, beneficial to the whole society, and may,therefore, without any injustice, be defrayed by the general