that _any man_ ought to be deprived of this right, which he derives
directly from the law of Nature, and which springs, as I said before,
out of the same source with civil society itself? Am I told, that
_property_ ought to confer this right? Property sprang from _labour_,
and not labour from property; so that if there were to be a distinction
here, it ought to give the preference to labour. All men are equal by
nature; nobody denies that they all ought to be _equal in the eye of the
law_; but, how are they to be thus equal, if the law begin by suffering
_some_ to enjoy this right and refusing the enjoyment to _others_? It is
the duty of every man to defend his country against an enemy, a duty
imposed by the law of Nature as well as by that of civil society, and
without the recognition of this duty, there could exist no independent
nation and no civil society. Yet, how are you to maintain that this is
the duty of _every man_, if you deny to _some_ men the enjoyment of a
share in making the laws? Upon what principle are you to contend for
_equality_ here, while you deny its existence as to the right of sharing
in the making of the laws? The poor man has a body and a soul as well as
the rich man; like the latter, he has parents, wife and children; a
bullet or a sword is as deadly to him as to the rich man; there are
hearts to ache and tears to flow for him as well as for the squire or
the lord or the loan-monger: yet, notwithstanding this equality, he is
to risk all, and, if he escape, he is still to be denied an equality of
rights! If, in such a state of things, the artisan or labourer, when
called out to fight in defence of his country, were to answer: 'Why
should I risk my life? I have no possession but my _labour_; no enemy
will take that from me; you, the rich, possess all the land and all its
products; you make what laws you please without my participation or
assent; you punish me at your pleasure; you say that my want of property
excludes me from the right of having a share in the making of the laws;
you say that the property that I have in my labour _is nothing worth_;
on what ground, then, do you call on me to risk my life?' If, in such a
case, such questions were put, the answer is very difficult to be
imagined.
339. In cases of _civil commotion_ the matter comes still more home to
us. On what ground is the rich man to call the artisan from his shop or
the labourer from the field to join the sheriff's possé or the militia,
if he refuse to the labourer and artisan the right of sharing in the
making of the laws? Why are they to risk their lives here? To _uphold
the laws_, and to protect _property_. What! _laws_, in the making of, or
assenting to, which they have been allowed to have no share? _Property_,
of which they are said to possess none? What! compel men to come forth
and risk their lives for the _protection of property_; and then, in the
same breath, tell them, that they are not allowed to share in the making
of the laws, because, and ONLY BECAUSE, _they have no property_! Not
because they have committed any crime; not because they are idle or
profligate; not because they are vicious in any way; out solely because
they have _no property_; and yet, at the same time, compel them to come
forth and _risk their lives_ for the _protection of property_!
340. But, the PAUPERS? Ought _they_ to share in the making of the laws?
And why not? What is a _pauper_; what is one of the men to whom this
degrading appellation is applied? A _very poor_ man; a man who is, from
some cause or other, unable to supply himself with food and raiment
without aid from the parish-rates. And, is that circumstance alone to
deprive him of his right, a right of which he stands more in need than
any other man? Perhaps he has, for many years of his life, contributed
directly to those rates; and ten thousand to one he has, by his labour,
contributed to them indirectly. The aid which, under such circumstances,
he receives, _is his right_; he receives it not as _an alms_: he is no
mendicant; he begs not; he comes to receive that which _the law of the
country awards him_ in lieu of the _larger portion_ assigned him by the
_law of Nature_. Pray mark that, and let it be deeply engraven on your
memory. The audacious and merciless MALTHUS (a parson of the church
establishment) recommended, some years ago, the passing of a law to _put
an end to the giving of parish relief_, though he recommended no law to
put an end to the enormous taxes paid by poor people. In his book he
said, that the poor should be left to the _law of Nature_, which, in
case of their having nothing to buy food with, _doomed them to starve_.
They would ask nothing better than to be left to the _law of Nature_;
that law which knows nothing about _buying_ food or any thing else; that
law which bids the hungry and the naked _take_ food and raiment wherever
they find it best and nearest at hand; that law which awards all
possessions to the _strongest_; that law the operations of which would
clear out the London meat-markets and the drapers' and jewellers' shops
in about half an hour: to this law the parson wished the parliament to
leave the poorest of the working people; but, if the parliament had done
it, it would have been quickly seen, that this law was far from 'dooming
them to be starved.'
341. Trusting that it is unnecessary for me to express a hope, that
barbarous thoughts like those of Malthus and his tribe will never be
entertained by any young man who has read the previous Numbers of this
work, let me return to my _very, very poor man_, and ask, whether it be
consistent with justice, with humanity, with reason, to deprive a man of
the most precious of his political rights, because, and _only because_,
he has been, in a pecuniary way, _singularly unfortunate_? The Scripture
says, 'Despise not the poor, _because_ he is poor;' that is to say,
despise him not _on account of his poverty_. Why, then, deprive him of
his right; why put him out of the pale of the law, on account of his
poverty? There are _some_ men, to be sure, who are reduced to poverty by
their vices, by idleness, by gaming, by drinking, by squandering; but,
the far greater part by bodily ailments, by misfortunes to the effects
of which all men may, without any fault, and even without any folly, be
exposed: and, is there a man on earth so cruelly unjust as to wish to
add to the sufferings of such persons by stripping them of their
political rights? How many thousands of industrious and virtuous men
have, within these few years, been brought down from a state of
competence to that of pauperism! And, is it just to strip such men of
their rights, merely because they are thus brought down? When I was at
ELY, last spring, there were in that neighbourhood, _three paupers_
cracking stones on the roads, who had all three been, not only
rate-payers, but _overseers of the poor_, within seven years of the day
when I was there. Is there any man so barbarous as to say, that these
men ought, merely on account of their misfortunes, to be deprived of
their political rights? Their right to receive relief is as perfect as
any right of property; and, would you, merely because they claim _this
right_, strip them of _another right_? To say no more of the injustice
and the cruelty, is there reason, is there common sense in this? What!
if a farmer or tradesman be, by flood or by fire, so totally ruined as
to be compelled, surrounded by his family, to resort to the parish-book,
would you break the last heart-string of such a man by making him feel
the degrading loss of his political rights?
342. Here, young man of sense and of spirit; _here is the point_ on
which you are to take your stand. There are always men enough to plead
the cause of the rich; enough and enough to echo the woes of the fallen
great; but, be it your part to show compassion for those who labour, and
to maintain _their rights_. Poverty is not _a crime_, and, though it
sometimes arises from faults, it is not, even in that case, to be
visited by punishment beyond that which it brings with itself. Remember,
that poverty is decreed by the very nature of man. The Scripture says,
that 'the poor shall never cease from out of the land;' that is to say,
that there shall always be some very poor people. This is inevitable
from the very nature of things. It is necessary to the existence of
mankind, that a very large portion of every people should live by manual
labour; and, as such labour is _pain_, more or less, and as no living
creature likes pain, it must be, that the far greater part of labouring
people will endure only just as much of this pain as is absolutely
necessary to the supply of their _daily wants_. Experience says that
this has always been, and reason and nature tell us, that this must
always be. Therefore, when ailments, when losses, when untoward
circumstances of any sort, stop or diminish the daily supply, _want
comes_; and every just government will provide, from the general stock,
the means to satisfy this want.
343. Nor is the deepest poverty without its _useful effects_ in society.
To the practice of the virtues of abstinence, sobriety, care, frugality,
industry, and even honesty and amiable manners and acquirement of
talent, the two great motives are, to get upwards in riches or fame, and
_to avoid going downwards to poverty_, the last of which is the most
powerful of the two. It is, therefore, not with contempt, but with
compassion, that we should look on those, whose state is one of the
decrees of nature, from whose sad example we profit, and to whom, in
return, we ought to make compensation by every indulgent and kind act in
our power, and particularly by a defence of their rights. To those who
labour, we, who labour not with our hands, owe all that we eat, drink
and wear; all that shades us by day and that shelters us by night; all
the means of enjoying health and pleasure; and, therefore, if we possess
talent for the task, we are ungrateful or cowardly, or both, if we omit
any effort within our power to prevent them from being _slaves_; and,
disguise the matter how we may, _a slave_, a _real slave_, every man is,
who has no share in making the laws which he is compelled to obey.
344. _What is a slave_? For, let us not be amused by _a name_; but look
well into the matter. A slave is, in the first place, a man who has _no
property_; and property means something that he _has_, and that nobody
can take from him without his leave, or consent. Whatever man, no matter
what he may call himself or any body else may call him, can have his
money or his goods taken from him _by force_, by virtue of an order, or
ordinance, or law, which he has had no hand in making, and to which he
has not given his assent, has _no property_, and is merely a depositary
of the goods of his master. A slave has _no property in his labour_; and
any man who is compelled to give up the fruit of his labour to another,
at the arbitrary will of that other, has no property in his labour, and
is, therefore, a slave, whether the fruit of his labour be taken from
him directly or indirectly. If it be said, that he gives up this fruit
of his labour by his own will, and that it is _not forced from him_. I
answer, To be sure he _may_ avoid eating and drinking and may go naked;
but, then he must _die_; and on this condition, and this condition only,
can he refuse to give up the fruit of his labour; 'Die, wretch, or
surrender as much of your income, or the fruit of your labour as your
masters choose to take.' This is, in fact, the language of the rulers to
every man who is refused to have a share in the making of the laws to
which he is _forced_ to submit.
345. But, some one may say, slaves are _private property_, and may _be
bought and sold_, out and out, like cattle. And, what is it to the
slave, whether he be property of _one_ or of _many_; or, what matters it
to him, whether he pass from master to master by a sale for an
indefinite term, or be let to hire by the year, month, or week? It is,
in no case, the flesh and blood and bones that are sold, but the
_labour_; and, if you actually sell the labour of man, is not that man
_a slave_, though you sell it for only a short time at once? And, as to
the principle, so ostentatiously displayed in the case of the _black_
slave-trade, that '_man_ ought not to have _a property in man_,' it is
even an advantage to the slave to be private property, because the owner
has then a clear and powerful _interest_ in the preservation of his
life, health and strength, and will, therefore, furnish him amply with
the food and raiment necessary for these ends. Every one knows, that
public property is never so well taken care of as private property; and
this, too, on the maxim, that 'that which is every body's business is
nobody's business.' Every one knows that a _rented_ farm is not so well
kept in heart, as a farm in the hands of the _owner_. And as to
_punishments_ and _restraints_, what difference is there, whether these
be inflicted and imposed by a private owner, or his overseer, or by the
agents and overseers of a body of proprietors? In short, if you can
cause a man to be imprisoned or whipped if he do not work enough to
please you; if you can sell him by auction for a time limited; if you
can forcibly separate him from his wife to prevent their having
children; if you can shut him up in his dwelling place when you please,
and for as long a time as you please; if you can force him to draw a
cart or wagon like a beast of draught; if you can, when the humour
seizes you, and at the suggestion of your mere fears, or whim, cause him
to be shut up in a dungeon during your pleasure: if you can, at your
pleasure, do these things to him, is it not to be impudently
hypocritical to affect to call him _a free-man_? But, after all, these
may all be wanting, and yet the man be _a slave_, if he be allowed to
have _no property_; and, as I have shown, no property he can have, not
even in that _labour_, which is not only property, but the _basis_ of
all other property, unless he have a _share in making the laws_ to which
he is compelled to submit.
346. It is said, that he may have this share _virtually_ though not in
form and _name_; for that his _employers_ may have such share, and they
will, as a matter of course, _act for him_. This doctrine, pushed home,
would make the _chief_ of the nation the sole maker of the laws; for, if
the rich can thus _act for_ the poor, why should not the chief act for
the rich? This matter is very completely explained by the practice in
the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. There the maxim is, that _every free man_,
with the exception of men stained with crime and men insane, has a right
to have a voice in choosing those who make the laws. The number of
Representatives sent to the Congress is, in each State, proportioned to
the number of _free people_. But, as there are _slaves_ in _some_ of the
States, these States _have a certain portion of additional numbers on
account of those slaves_! Thus the slaves are _represented by their
owners_, and this is real, practical, open and undisguised _virtual
representation_! No doubt that white men may be represented in the same
way; for the colour of the skin is nothing; but let them be called
slaves, then; let it not be pretended that they are _free men_; let not
the word _liberty_ be polluted by being applied to their state; let it
be openly and honestly avowed, as in America, that they _are slaves_;
and then will come the question whether men ought to exist in such a
state, or whether they ought to do every thing in their power to rescue
themselves from it.
347. If the right to have a share in making the laws were merely a
feather; if it were a fanciful thing; if it were only a speculative
theory; if it were but an _abstract principle_; on any of these
suppositions, it might be considered as of little importance. But it is
none of these; it is a practical matter; the want of it not only _is_,
but must of necessity be, felt by every man who lives under that want.
If it were proposed to the shopkeepers in a town, that a rich man or
two, living in the neighbourhood, should have power to send, _whenever
they pleased_, and take away as much as they pleased of the money of the
shopkeepers, and apply it to what uses they please; what an outcry the
shopkeepers would make! And yet, what would this be _more_ than taxes
imposed on those who have no voice in choosing the persons who impose
them? Who lets another man put his hand into his purse when he pleases?
Who, that has the power to help himself, surrenders his goods or his
money to the will of another? Has it not always been, and must it not
always be, true, that, if your property be at the absolute disposal of
others, your ruin is certain? And if this be, of necessity, the case
amongst individuals and parts of the community, it must be the case with
regard to the whole community.
348. Aye, and experience shows us that it always has been the case. The
natural and inevitable consequences of a want of this right in the
people have, in all countries, been _taxes_ pressing the industrious and
laborious to the earth; _severe laws_ and _standing armies_ to compel
the people to submit to those taxes; wealth, luxury, and splendour,
amongst those who make the laws and receive the taxes; poverty, misery,
immorality and crime, amongst those who bear the burdens; and at last
commotion, revolt, revenge, and rivers of blood. Such have always been,
and such must always be, the consequences of a want of this right of all
men to share in the making of the laws, a right, as I have before shown,
derived immediately from the law of Nature, springing up out of the same
source with civil society, and cherished in the heart of man by reason
and by experience.
349. Well, then, this right being that, without the enjoyment of which
there is, in reality, no right at all, how manifestly is it _the first
duty_ of every man to do all in his power to _maintain_ this right where
it exists, and to _restore_ it where it has been lost? For observe, it
must, at one time, have existed in every _civil_ community, it being
impossible that it could ever be excluded by any _social compact_;
absolutely impossible, because it is contrary to the law of
self-preservation to believe, that men would agree to give up the rights
of nature without stipulating for some _benefit_. Before we can affect
to believe that this right was not reserved, in such compact, as
completely as the right to _live_ was reserved, we must affect to
believe, that millions of men, under no control but that of their own
passions and desires, and having all the earth and its products at the
command of their strength and skill, consented to be for ever, they and
their posterity, the _slaves of a few_.
350. We cannot believe this, and therefore, without going back into
_history_ and _precedents_, we must believe, that, in whatever civil
community this right does not exist, it has been lost, or rather,
_unjustly taken away_. And then, having seen the terrible evils which
always have arisen, and always must arise, from the want of it; being
convinced that, where lost or taken away by force or fraud, it is our
very first duty to do all in our power to _restore_ it, the next
consideration is, _how_ one ought to act in the discharge of this most
sacred duty; for sacred it is even as the duties of husband and father.
For, besides the baseness of the thought of quietly submitting to be a
slave _oneself_, we have here, besides our duty to the community, a duty
to perform towards our children and our children's children. We all
acknowledge that it is our bounden duty to provide, as far as our power
will go, for the competence, the health, and the good character of our
children; but, is this duty superior to that of which I am now speaking?
What is competence, what is health, if the possessor be _a slave_, and
hold his possessions at the will of another, or others; as he must do if
destitute of the right to a share in the making of the laws? What is
competence, what is health, if both can, at any moment, be snatched away
by the grasp or the dungeon of a master; and his master he is who makes
the laws without his participation or assent? And, as to _character_, as
to _fair fame_, when the white slave puts forward pretensions to those,
let him no longer affect to commiserate the state of his sleek and fat
brethren in Barbadoes and Jamaica; let him hasten to mix the hair with
the wool, to blend the white with the black, and to lose the memory of
his origin amidst a dingy generation.
351. Such, then, being the nature of the duty, _how_ are we to go to
work in the performance of it, and what are our _means_? With regard to
these, so various are the circumstances, so endless the differences in
the states of society, and so many are the cases when it would be
madness to attempt that which it would be prudence to attempt in others,
that no _general_ rule can be given beyond this; that, the right and the
duty being clear to our minds, the _means_ that are _surest_ and
_swiftest_ are the _best_. In every such case, however, the great and
predominant desire ought to be not to employ any means beyond those of
reason and persuasion, as long as the employment of these afford a
ground for rational expectation of success. Men are, in such a case,
labouring, not for the present day only, but for ages to come; and
therefore they should not slacken in their exertions, because the grave
may close upon them before the day of final triumph arrive. Amongst the
virtues of the good Citizen are those of fortitude and patience; and,
when he has to carry on his struggle against corruptions deep and
widely-rooted, he is not to expect the baleful tree to come down at a
single blow; he must patiently remove the earth that props and feeds it,
and sever the accursed roots one by one.
352. _Impatience_ here is a very bad sign. I do not like your
_patriots_, who, because the tree does not give way at once, fall to
_blaming_ all about them, accuse their fellow-sufferers of cowardice,
because they do not do that which they themselves dare not think of
doing. Such conduct argues _chagrin_ and _disappointment_; and these
argue a _selfish_ feeling: they argue, that there has been more of
private ambition and gain at work than of _public good_. Such blamers,
such general accusers, are always to be suspected. What does the _real_
patriot want more than to feel conscious that he has done his duty
towards his country; and that, if life should not allow him time to see
his endeavours crowned with success, his children will see it? The
impatient patriots are like the young men (mentioned in the beautiful
fable of LA FONTAINE) who ridiculed the man of fourscore, who was
planting an avenue of very small trees, which, they told him, that he
never could expect to see as high as his head. 'Well,' said he, 'and
what of that? If their shade afford me no pleasure, it may afford
pleasure to my children, and even to you; and, therefore, the planting
of them gives me pleasure.'
353. It is the want of the noble disinterestedness, so beautifully
expressed in this fable, that produces the _impatient_ patriots. They
wish very well to their country, because they want _some of the good for
themselves_. Very natural that all men should wish to see the good
arrive, and wish to share in it too; but, we must look on the dark side
of nature to find the disposition to cast blame on the whole community
because our wishes are not instantly accomplished, and especially to
cast blame on others for not doing that which we ourselves dare not
attempt. There is, however, a sort of _patriot_ a great deal worse than
this; he, who having failed himself, would see his country enslaved for
ever, rather than see its deliverance achieved by others. His failure
has, perhaps, arisen solely from his want of talent, or discretion; yet
his selfish heart would wish his country sunk in everlasting
degradation, lest his inefficiency for the task should be established by
the success of others. A very hateful character, certainly, but, I am
sorry to say, by no means rare. _Envy_, always associated with meanness
of soul, always detestable, is never so detestable as when it shows
itself here.