does not prove that the population is excessive as compared with the food, which is, or might be, raised for the whole people: now, whatever may be thought of the policy of encouraging the cultivation of the large tracts of land which still remain uncultivated, I think that their existence takes away our right to adopt the possibility of emigration, as a reason for withholding support from the people. It may be true, that in the earlier ages, the people of the world spread themselves, from time to time, here and there, over the surface of the earth, as they found it possible or easy to obtain subsistence; but in the state of society in which we live, and now that national divisions are marked by strong local barriers, that continual separation would be quite inconsistent with our character as an individual state. We may fairly give encouragement to emigration, but we cannot justly prescribe it, until the surface of our country shall have become demonstrably incapable of supporting the people, who are willing for that purpose to bestow their labour upon it.*

* See some pertinent remarks upon this subject, in a letter from the Rev. George Glover to Mr. Coke, of Norfolk, p. 8–9.

SECTION VIII.

Of the relief of the Sick, Aged, and Impotent.

If the Poor Laws were altogether abolished, it is probable that cases of distress arising from sickness, great age, or natural infirmity, would be effectually relieved by private benevolence, and in some degree, by the relations of the distressed person. Nevertheless, as these are cases which naturally excite compassion, it is not surprising that persons very desirous of cutting off other branches of the system are willing and anxious to preserve this one. The truth is, that in this head of relief, there are several peculiarities, very distinguishable, and justifying various modes of treatment.

The general principle upon which Poor Laws are condemned, if pushed to the fullest extent, would militate against the systematic undertaking to alleviate any of the sufferings incident to human nature; first, because those sufferings are among the means by which the excessive population is checked; and, secondly, because it is deemed unjust to tax property for the supply of necessities, which ought either to have been provided against by the sufferer, or to be relieved by his natural relations; and thirdly, perhaps, because of the tendency of all systematic assistance to discourage foresight and industry. It is, however, not probable that any proposition will be made for acting to the extremity of these principles; or that any thing will be attempted at present beyond the prevention of abuse.

The casual and temporary sickness of an able-bodied man is in fact an essentially different case from that of a temporary deprivation of work. The distress is, on the one hand, more pitiable, inasmuch as it cannot be removed by any possible exertion, not even by the emigration of the sufferer; but on the other hand, it less necessarily calls for relief, because it is much more susceptible of previous provision.

The loss of usual earnings, however, is not the only consequence of sickness; medical assistance and medicines, which would otherwise bring a heavy charge upon the labourer, may certainly be supplied without any ill effect. With respect to these, it is not very important whether we make any new provision or not; as long as any Poor Laws continue, this application of them cannot be productive of evil; on the other hand, no part of them is more likely to be fully and even advantageously replaced by private charity.

Generally speaking, the illness of the wife or child would not deprive the family of any part of its income; where, however, there have been habitual earnings by the wife, a pecuniary allowance would be equally proper in her case as in that of the husband. A sick child, of whatever age, dependent upon the parent, might assuredly have medical aid, the question of its maintenance would depend upon the decision adopted as to the maintenance of children generally.

Some distinction however may be made in favor of children, afflicted from birth or infancy, with any lasting infirmity. Adults permanently disabled by any accident or severe illness, have a no less forcible claim upon our compassion; and though something might possibly be said in point of principle against taking the burden of such persons from their natural re

lations, it will probably be thought inexpedient to make any alteration in the existing law with respect to them, of which indeed, the ill consequence cannot be material.

Mr. Davison, though unfriendly to the Poor Laws in general, and unwilling to admit of systematic relief in occasional illness, regards a regular allowance to the aged as grounded in "a spirit of Christian kindness,' and as a "record of charity by law, which, he trusts, "will be preserved as a fragment of English history "wherever the succession of our constitution or reli

66

gion shall go."* Perhaps the opinion is as highly wrought as the passage ;-a worn out labourer is unquestionably an object of laudable compassion; but if, in reforming the Poor Laws, we wish to inculcate a lesson of prudence, and to confine their operation to cases of distress, too contingent or extensive to have been prevented by the individual, or alleviated by private benevolence, we shall probably not find this case among them. Of all the cases which fall under the Poor Laws, it is that which is most easily averted by the providence of the sufferer. Participating therefore in many of Mr. Davison's feelings upon this subject, I cannot concur in the commendation which he has bestowed upon this part of the code, at the expence of others, which are in my opinion equally directed to the relief of misfortunes, "extreme and

guiltless." Indeed if it be our object to discourage, and ultimately to frustrate, reliance upon parochial relief, it seems unadvisable to make it the object of expectation to every man who looks forward to a good old age.

Widows, with young children, have claims at least

* P. 95.

equal to those of old men. They are in many cases nearly as helpless, and the provision for them out of previous earnings, besides being, from its greater uncertainty, rather more difficult, must have been made, not by them, but by those upon whom they were dependant. Those, however, who think that an improvident marriage ought to be severely visited upon its victims, may hold, that the widow, not being entirely faultless, is even more equitably exposed to the visitation than the children.

It is, however, impossible to separate the case of the widow from that of her children; they will necessarily be treated according to the decision which may be formed upon the cases of children in general; if the mother have strength or skill sufficient to maintain her by any kind of work, she will come under the provisions which may be made with respect to work; if helpless, she may safely be relieved as long as any part of the Poor Laws remain.

Of orphans, deprived in early age of both parents, it may surely be said, that, until we shall have found it advisable and possible to abandon systematic relief in every shape, we may continue to maintain them at the public expence. It is true, that in this case also, great reliance might be placed upon individual benevolence, operating through the medium of voluntary public institutions; but if we were to act, throughout, upon that conviction, we should necessarily commence our denial of assistance, in those instances precisely in which it is most natural and least dangerous to grant it. High moral considerations induce us to commence our retrenchments with those who are least deserving of our bounty, although a greater saving might appear to be effected, by first abandoning those whom others are likely to compassionate. Upon these grounds, I presume, no alte