lar, held forth that the ministers, the chancellors, the judges, and all other servants of the crown ;-that all public officers, civil, military, or naval;—that all bishops and ministers of the church, of all orders and degrees; I say, have they proposed, when the health of these fails, or they have advanced far in years, so as to be no longer fully capable of performing the duties of their several callings, that they should at once resign them, and give up their emoluments without any equivalent, half-pay, pension, superannuated allowance, or consideration whatsoever? Yet most of these have private fortunes, many of them ample ones; while the bounty of the country, in the mean time, enables them to put the saving plan into execution, without, in many instances, sacrificing an iota of their personal comforts. But, no: it is held quite proper that many of these should be continued in the enjoyment of their entire incomes till death, and that, under one denomination or another, nearly all the rest should have retiring allowances, amounting, on the whole, few as their numbers comparatively are, to millions. Da prætori; da deinde tribuno', as of old; but that the wretched should receive anything,-that the poor worn-out hind, who has had the misfortune to survive his strength, should have a morsel of the produce of those fields which he has tilled for half a century,―or that the cripple who has been maimed in some of the boasted manufactories of the country, should be allowed a few daily pence at the public cost; this is the grievance, according to our political economists! We are persuaded to use such - See Juvenal, sat. i. far worse than a heathen poet recommends that his countrymen should treat a worn-out beast of burden: "Hunc quoquè, ubi aut morbo gravis, aut jam segnior annis, Deficit, abde domo, nec turpi ignosce senectæ." I would here guard myself against misrepresentation; I would not have the public servants of the country deserted by a just and grateful people, and on this very ground I protest against the most essential, though the humblest of these, the poor worn-out labourer, being "Deserted in his utmost need By those his former labours fed!" And nothing in this day is more astonishing than the constantly repeated exhortations that we should do so, even considered with a view, simply, to their unfairness. Cunning, Lord Bacon somewhere says, is lefthanded wisdom; selfishness is, I think, generally found to be folly; it is always founded on injustice. Let us, then, consult a different guide; the subject is very ancient, and one of universal interest, and we are not likely to understand it the worse, if we take the lights of reason, religion, and experience in examining it. (6.) In defending a legal provision for the destitute poor, which I take to be the principle of the poor laws of England, I argue, first, that it is agreeable to the strictest justice, or, in other words,— First, The poor have a RIGHT to relief founded in. the nature of things. To prove this would, an age ago, have been deemed quite superfluous; the new school has, however, ventured to contradict this right, and in no very hesitating terms. Mr. Malthus, with whom I have chiefly to do, asserted long ago, that such have "no claim of right to the smallest portion of food;" and further, that "they have no business to be where they are1:" and, that he is consistent in his opinion, his late evidence fully shows. I shall argue the point with him in other words than my own, as the powerful reasons adduced will then have the weight of authorities which, on such a matter, it will require some little effrontery to contemn. Passing over heathen writers (many of whom have been very explicit upon this point) with this simple observation, that it seems strange that, in an argument in favour of the rights of humanity, a successful appeal might be made from the Christianity of the modern school to the Heathenism of the ancient one; I shall adduce the authority of those who have written expressly on this point, since the establishment of the present state of things,-confining myself to a very few, but those of an order to whom numbers could add no additional weight. Grotius, speaking of this right, thus expresses himself: "Let us now see whether men may not have a right to enjoy, in common, those things that are already become the properties of other persons; which question will, at first, seem strange, since property seems to have swallowed up that right, which one man may lay claim to in common with the rest. But this is a mistake; for we must examine into the designs and intentions of those who first introduced these particular properties, which we may imagine to be such as deviated the least from natural justice. For, if even written laws are always to be explained in that Malthus, Essay, p. 531. 66 sense which comes nearest to common equity, much more customs, then, which are unconfined, and not at all chained down to the letter of the law. From whence it follows, that, in a case of absolute necessity, that former right of using things, as if they still remained in common, must revive and be in full force'." He afterwards states, that "such a right is for the preservation of natural equity, against the rigour and severity of property and dominion;" but adds, that some precautions are to be regarded, lest this liberty should go too far," and points out the very mode our law prescribes. The same profound author goes on to say, that "this is a received opinion among divines" (he could not now so assert); and remarks, that, in the original of government, there were some exceptions in cases of the like nature. "For," says he, " if they, who were first concerned in that division of things we now see, could be asked their opinions in this matter, they would answer the same as we assert." Puffendorf, in his Rights of Nature and of Nations, takes a somewhat different view of the subject, but expresses himself in still stronger terms, and more at large; I must, however, content myself with merely referring to the sixth chapter of the second book of his work, "De jure et favore necessitatis;" where the reader will find the subject amply discussed2. I shall only quote another foreign writer on the subject; Montesquieu, "The state," says he, "owes to every citizen a certain subsistence, a proper nourishment, convenient clothing, and a kind of life not in 'Grotius, De Jure Bel. ac Pacis. 1. ii. c. ii. § 1, 2. Puffendorf, De Jure Nat. et Gent. 1. ii. c. vi. 4to. Scan. 1672. compatible with health." Whenever it happens, that, amongst the numerous persons engaged in different branches of trade, some suffer, and he observes it is impossible it should be otherwise, he does not pronounce that such have no claim to the smallest portion of food; but, on the contrary, "C'est pour lors que l'état a besoin d'apporter un prompt secours1." "that Mr. Malthus is very witty on l'Abbé Raynal, for talking of "le droit de subsister," saying, that a man has just as good a right to live a hundred years2. His wit will, however, appear rather ridiculous, when transferred to our next authority. Locke says, 'Reason tells us, that all men have a RIGHT to their subsistence; and, consequently, to meat and drink, and such other things as nature affords for their preservation. We "know," says he elsewhere, GOD has not left one man so to the mercy of another, that he may starve him if he please. GOD, the Lord and Father of all, has given no one of his children such a property in his peculiar portion of the things of this world, but that he has given his needy brother a RIGHT to the surplusage of his goods, so that it cannot justly be denied him when his pressing wants call for it" Mr. Malthus, it is well known, has put a case or two, and hideous ones they are, and hideously determined'; so does this great writer, but he disposes of them very differently. "What," says he, "is to be done in this case? I answer: the fundamental law of nature being, that all, as much as may be, should be 1 ' Montesquieu, De l'Esprit des Loix, l. xxiii. ch. 29. Malthus, Essay on Population, p. 532. 4 3 Locke on Gov., book i. ch. iv. § 42. Malthus, p. 540, &c. |