facts; but that which is as horrid as are the facts themselves, and even
more horrid than those facts, is the cool and _unresentful_ language and
manner in which the facts are usually spoken of. Those who write about the
misery and starvation in Lancashire and Yorkshire, never appear to think
_that any body is to blame_, even when the poor die with hunger. The
Ministers ascribe the calamity to "_over-trading_;" the cotton and cloth
and other master-manufacturers ascribe it to "_a want of paper-money_," or
to the _Corn-Bill_; others ascribe the calamity to the _taxes_. These last
are right; but what have these things to do with the treatment of the
poor? What have these things to do with the horrid facts relative to the
condition and starvation of English people? It is very true, that the
enormous taxes which we pay on account of loans made to carry on the late
unjust wars, on account of a great standing army in time of peace, on
account of pensions, sinecures and grants, and on account of _a Church_,
which, besides, swallows up so large a part of the produce of the land
and the labour; it is very true, that these enormous taxes, co-operating
with the paper-money and its innumerable monopolies; it is very true, that
_these enormous taxes_, thus associated, have produced the ruin in trade,
manufactures and commerce, and have, of course, produced the _low wages_
and the _want of employment_; this is very true; but it is not less true,
that, be wages or employment as they may, the poor are not to perish with
hunger, or with cold, while the rest of the community have food and
raiment more than the latter want for their own sustenance. The LAW OF
ENGLAND says, that there shall be no person to suffer from want of food
and raiment. It has placed _officers_ in every parish to see that no
person suffer from this sort of want; and lest these officers should not
do their duty, _it commands all the magistrates_ to hear the complaints of
the poor, and to compel the officers to do their duty. The LAW OF ENGLAND
has provided ample means of relief for the poor; for, it has authorized
the officers, or overseers, to get from the rich inhabitants of the parish
as much money as _is wanted_ for the purpose, without any limit as to
amount; and, in order that the overseers may have no excuse of inability
to make people pay, the law has armed them with powers of a nature the
most efficacious and the most efficient and most prompt in their
operation. In short, the language of the LAW, to the overseer, is this:
"Take care that no person suffer from hunger, or from cold; and that you
may be sure not to fail of the means of obeying this my command, I give
you, as far as shall be necessary for this purpose, full power over all
the lands, all the houses, all the goods, and all the cattle, in your
parish." To the Justices of the Peace the LAW says: "Lest the overseer
should neglect his duty; lest, in spite of my command to him, any one
should suffer from hunger or cold, I command you to be ready to hear the
complaint of every sufferer from such neglect; I command you to summon the
offending overseer, and to compel him to do his duty."
4. Such being the language of the LAW, is it not a monstrous state of
things, when we hear it commonly and coolly stated, that many thousands of
persons in England are _upon the point of starvation_; that _thousands
will die of hunger and cold next winter_; that many have _already died of
hunger_; and when we hear all this, unaccompanied with one word of
_complaint against any overseer_, or any _justice of the peace_! Is not
this state of things perfectly monstrous? A state of things in which it
appears to be taken for granted, that the LAW is nothing, when it is
intended to operate as a protection to the poor! Law is always law: if one
part of the law may be, with impunity, set at defiance, why not another
and every other part of the law? If the law which provides for the succour
of the poor, for the preservation of their lives, may be, with impunity,
set at defiance, why should there not be impunity for setting at defiance
the law which provides for the security of the property and the lives of
the rich? If you, in Lancashire, were to read, in an account of a meeting
in Hampshire, that, here, the farmers and gentlemen were constantly and
openly robbed; that the poor were daily breaking into their houses, and
knocking their brains out; and that it was expected that great part of
them would be killed very soon: if you, in Lancashire were to hear this
said of the state of Hampshire, what would you say? Say! Why, you would
say, to be sure, "Where is the LAW; where are the constables, the
justices, the juries, the judges, the sheriffs, and the hangmen? Where can
that _Hampshire_ be? It, surely, never can be in Old England. It must be
some savage country, where such enormities can be committed, and where
even those, who talk and who _lament_ the evils, never utter one word in
the way of _blame_ of the perpetrators." And if you were called upon to
pay taxes, or to make subscriptions in money, to furnish the means of
protection to the unfortunate rich people in Hampshire, would you not say,
and with good reason, "No: what should we do this for? The people of
Hampshire have the SAME LAW that we have; they are under the same
Government; _let them duly enforce that law_; and then they will stand in
no need of money from us to provide for their protection."
5. This is what common sense says would be _your_ language in such a case;
and does not common sense say, that the people of Hampshire, and of every
other part of England, will thus think, when they are told of the
sufferings, and the starvation, in Lancashire and Yorkshire! The report of
the Manchester ley-payers, which took place on the 17th of August, reached
me in a friend's house in this little village; and when another friend,
who was present, read, in the speeches of Mr. BAXTER and Mr. POTTER, that
tens of thousands of Lancashire people were _on the point of starvation_,
and that many had already _actually died from starvation_; and when he
perceived, that even those gentlemen uttered not a word of _complaint_
against either overseer or justices of the peace, he exclaimed: "What! are
there _no poor-laws_ in Lancashire? Where, amidst all this starvation, is
the overseer? Where is the justice of the peace? Surely that Lancashire
can never be _in England_?"
6. The observations of this gentleman are those which occur to every man
of sense; when he hears the horrid accounts of the sufferings in the
manufacturing districts; for, though we are all well aware, that the
burden of the poor-rates presses, at this time, with peculiar weight on
the land-owners and occupiers, and on owners and occupiers of other real
property, in those districts, we are equally well aware, that those owners
and occupiers _have derived great benefits_ from that vast population that
now presses upon them. There is _land_ in the parish in which I am now
writing, and belonging to the farm in the house of which I am, which land
would not let for 20_s._ a statute acre; while land, not so good, would
let, in any part of Lancashire, near to the manufactories, at 60_s._ or
80_s._ a statute acre. The same may be said with regard to _houses_. And,
pray, are the owners and occupiers, who have gained so largely by the
manufacturing works being near their lands and houses; are they, _now_, to
complain, if the vicinage of these same works causes a charge of rates
_there_, heavier than exists _here_? Are the owners and occupiers of
Lancashire to enjoy _an age of advantages_ from the labours of the
spinners and the weavers; and are they, when a reverse comes, _to bear
none of the disadvantages_? Are they to make no sacrifices, in order to
save from perishing those industrious and ever-toiling creatures, by the
labours of whom their land and houses have been augmented in value, three,
five, or perhaps tenfold? None but the most unjust of mankind can answer
these questions in the affirmative.
7. But as _greediness_ is never at a loss for excuses for the
hard-heartedness that it is always ready to practise, it is said, that
_the whole of the rents_ of the land and the houses would not suffice for
the purpose; that is to say, that if the poor rates were to be made so
high as to leave the tenant no means of paying rent, even then some of the
poor must go without a sufficiency of food. I have no doubt that, in
particular instances, this would be the case. But for cases like this the
LAW has amply provided; for, in every case of this sort, _adjoining
parishes_ may be made to _assist_ the hard pressed parish; and if the
pressure becomes severe on these adjoining parishes, those _next adjoining
them_ may be made to assist; and thus the call upon adjoining parishes
maybe extended till it reach _all over the county_. So good, so benignant,
so wise, so foreseeing, and so effectual, is this, the very best of all
our good old laws! This law or rather code of laws, distinguishes England
from all the other countries in the world, _except the United States of
America_, where, while hundreds of other English statutes have been
abolished, this law has always remained in full force, this great law of
mercy and humanity, which says, that _no human being that treads English
ground shall perish for want of food and raiment_. For such poor persons
as are _unable to work_, the law provides food and clothing; and it
commands that _work_ shall be provided for such as are able to work, and
_cannot otherwise get employment_. This law was passed more than _two
hundred years_ ago. Many attempts have been made to _chip it away_, and
some have been made to destroy it altogether; but it still exists, and
every man who does not wish to see general desolation take place, will do
his best to cause it to be duly and conscientiously executed.
8. Having now, my friends of Preston, stated what the law is, and also the
reasons for its honest enforcement in the particular case immediately
before us, I will next endeavour to show you that it is founded in the law
of nature, and that, were it not for the provisions of this law, people
would, according to the opinions of the greatest lawyers, have _a right_
to _take_ food and raiment sufficient to preserve them from perishing; and
that _such taking_ would be neither _felony_ nor _larceny_. This is a
matter of the greatest importance; it is a most momentous question; for if
it be settled in the affirmative--if it be settled that it is _not felony,
nor larceny,_ to take other men's goods without their assent, and even
against their will, when such taking is absolutely necessary to the
preservation of life, how great, how imperative, is the duty of affording,
if possible, _that relief which will prevent such necessity_! In other
words, how imperative it is on all overseers and justices to obey the law
with alacrity; and how weak are those persons who look to "_grants_" and
"_subscriptions_," to supply the place of the execution of this, the most
important of all the laws that constitute the basis of English society!
And if this question be settled in the affirmative; if we find the most
learned of lawyers and most wise of men, maintaining the affirmative of
this proposition; if we find them maintaining, that it is neither _felony_
nor _larceny_ to take food, in case of _extreme necessity_, though without
the assent, and even against the will of the owner, what are we to think
of those (and they are not few in number nor weak in power) who, animated
with the savage soul of the Scotch _feelosophers_, would wholly abolish
the poor-laws, or, at least, render them of little effect, and thereby
constantly keep thousands exposed to this dire necessity!
9. In order to do justice to this great subject; in order to treat it with
perfect fairness, and in a manner becoming of me and of you, I must take
the authorities _on both sides_. There are some great lawyers who have
contended that the starving man is still guilty of felony or larceny, if
he take food to satisfy his hunger; but there are a greater number of
other, and still greater, lawyers, who maintain the contrary. The general
doctrine of those who maintain the right to take, is founded on the law of
nature; and it is a saying as old as the hills, a saying in every language
in the world, that "_self-preservation_ is the _first law_ of nature." The
law of nature teaches every creature to prefer the preservation of its own
life to all other things. But, in order to have a fair view of the matter
before us, we ought to inquire how it came to pass, that the laws were
ever made to punish men as criminals, for taking the victuals, drink, or
clothing, that they might stand in need of. We must recollect, then, that
there was a time when no such laws existed; when men, like the wild
animals in the fields, took what they were able to take, if they wanted
it. In this state of things, all the land and all the produce belonged to
all the people _in common_. Thus were men situated, when they lived under
what is called the _law of nature_; when every one provided, as he could,
for his self-preservation.
10. At length this state of things became changed: men entered into
society; they made laws to restrain individuals from following, in certain
cases, the dictates of their own will; they protected the weak against the
strong; the laws secured men in possession of lands, houses, and goods,
that were called THEIRS; the words MINE and THINE, which mean _my own_ and
_thy own_, were invented to designate what we now call _a property_ in
things. The law necessarily made it criminal in one man to take away, or
to injure, the property of another man. It was, you will observe, even in
this state of nature, always _a crime_ to do certain things against our
neighbour. To kill him, to wound him, to slander him, to expose him to
suffer from the want of food or raiment, or shelter. These, and many
others, were crimes in the eye of the law of nature; but, to take share of
a man's victuals or clothing; to go and insist upon sharing a part of any
of the good things that he happened to have in his possession, could be
_no crime_, because there was _no property_ in anything, except in man's
body itself. Now, civil society was formed for the _benefit_ of the whole.
The whole gave up their natural rights, in order that every one might, for
the future, enjoy his life in greater security. This civil society was
intended to change the state of man _for the better_. Before this state of
civil society, the starving, the hungry, the naked man, had a right to go
and provide himself with necessaries wherever he could find them. There
would be sure to be some such necessitous persons in a state of civil
society. Therefore, when civil society was established, it is impossible
to believe that it _had not in view some provision for these destitute
persons_. It would be monstrous to suppose the contrary. The contrary
supposition would argue, that fraud was committed upon the mass of the
people in forming this civil society; for, as the sparks fly upwards, so
will there always be destitute persons to some extent or other, in _every
community_, and such there are to now a considerable extent, even in the
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA; therefore, the formation of the civil society
must have been fraudulent or tyrannical upon any other supposition than
that it made provision, in some way or other, for destitute persons; that
is to say, for persons unable, from some cause or other, to provide for
themselves the food and raiment sufficient to preserve them from
perishing. Indeed, a provision for the destitute seems _essential to the
lawfulness_ of civil society; and this appears to have been the opinion of
BLACKSTONE, when, in the first Book and first Chapter of his Commentaries
on the Laws of England, he says, "the law not only regards _life_ and
_member_, and protects every man in the enjoyment of them, but also
_furnishes him with every thing necessary for their support_. For there is
no man so indigent or wretched, but he may _demand_ a supply _sufficient
for all the necessaries of life_ from the more opulent part of the
community, by means of the several statutes enacted for the relief of the
poor; a humane provision _dictated_ by the _principles of society_."
11. No man will contend, that the main body of the people in any country
upon earth, and of course in England, would have consented to abandon the
rights of nature; to give up their right to enjoy all things in common; no
man will believe, that the main body of the people would ever have given
their assent to the establishing of a state of things which should make
all the lands, and all the trees, and all the goods and cattle of every
sort, private property; which should have shut out a large part of the
people from having such property, and which should, at the same time, not
have provided the means of preventing those of them, who might fall into
indigence, from being _actually starved to death_! It is impossible to
believe this. Men never gave their assent to enter into society on terms
like these. One part of the condition upon which men entered into society
was, that care should be taken that no human being should perish from
want. When they agreed to enter into that state of things, which would
necessarily cause some men to be rich and some men to be poor; when they
gave up that right, which God had given them, to live as well as they
could, and to take the means wherever they found them, the condition
clearly was, the "_principle of society_;" clearly was, as BLACKSTONE
defines it, that the indigent and wretched should have a right to
"_demand_ from the rich a supply _sufficient_ for all the _necessities_ of
life."
12. If the society did not take care to act upon this principle; if it
neglected to secure the legal means, of preserving the life of the
indigent and wretched; then the society itself, in so far as that
wretched person was concerned, ceased to have a legal existence. It had,
as far as related to him, forfeited its character of legality. It had no
longer any claim to his submission to its laws. His rights of nature
returned: as far as related to him, the law of Nature revived in all its
force: that state of things in which all men enjoyed all things _in
common_ was revived with regard to him; and he took, and he had a right to
take, food and raiment, or, as Blackstone expresses it, "a supply
sufficient for all the necessities of life." For, if it be true, as laid
down by this English lawyer, that the _principles_ of society; if it be
true, that the very principles, or _foundations_ of society dictate, that
the destitute person shall have a legal demand for a supply from the rich,
sufficient for all the necessities of life; if this be true, and true it
certainly is, it follows of course that the principles, that is, the base,
or _foundation_, of society, is subverted, is gone; and that society is,
in fact, no longer what it was intended to be, when the indigent, when the
person in a state of extreme necessity, cannot, at once, obtain from the
rich such sufficient supply: in short, we need go no further than this
passage of BLACKSTONE, to show, that civil society is subverted, and that
there is, in fact, nothing legitimate in it, when the destitute and
wretched have no certain and legal resource.
13. But this is so important a matter, and there have been such monstrous
doctrines and projects put forth by MALTHUS, by the EDINBURGH REVIEWERS,
by LAWYER SCARLETT, by LAWYER NOLAN, by STURGES BOURNE, and by an
innumerable swarm of persons who have been giving before the House of
Commons what they call "_evidence_:" there have been such monstrous
doctrines and projects put forward by these and other persons; and there
seems to be such a lurking desire to carry the hostility to the working
classes still further, that I think it necessary in order to show, that
these English poor-laws, which have been so much calumniated by so many
greedy proprietors of land; I think it necessary to show, that these
poor-laws are the things which men of property, above all others, _ought
to wish to see maintained_, seeing that, according to the opinions of the
greatest and the wisest of men, they must suffer most in consequence of
the abolition of those laws; because, by the abolition of those laws, the
right given by the laws of nature would revive, and the destitute would
_take_, where they now simply _demand_ (as BLACKSTONE expresses it) in the
name of the law. There has been some difference of opinion, as to the
question, whether it be _theft_ or _no theft_; or, rather, whether it be a
_criminal act_, or _not a criminal act_, for a person, in a case of
extreme necessity from want of food, to take food without the assent and
even against the will, of the owner. We have, amongst our great lawyers,
SIR MATTHEW HALE and SIR WILLIAM BLACKSTONE, who contend (though as we
shall see, with much feebleness, hesitation, and reservation,) that it _is
theft_, notwithstanding the extremity of the want; but there are many, and
much higher authorities, foreign as well as English, on the other side.
Before, however, I proceed to the hearing of these authorities, let me
take a short view of _the origin of the poor laws in England_; for that
view will convince us, that, though the present law was passed but a
little more than two hundred years ago, there had been something to effect
the same purpose ever since England had been called England.
14. According to the Common Law of England, as recorded in the MIRROUR OF
JUSTICES, a book which was written before the Norman Conquest; a book in
as high reputation, as a law-book, as any one in England; according to
this book, CHAPTER 1st, SECTION 3d, which treats of the "First
constitutions made by the antient kings;" According to this work,
provision was made for the sustenance of the poor. The words are these:
"It was ordained, that the poor should be sustained by _parsons_, by
_rectors_ of the church, and by the _parishioners_, so that _none of them
die for want of sustenance_." Several hundred years later, the canons of
the church show, that when the church had become rich, it took upon itself
the whole of the care and expense attending the relieving of the poor.
These canons, in setting forth the manner in which the tithes should be
disposed of, say, "Let the priests set apart the first share for the
building and ornaments of the church; let them distribute the _second to
the poor and strangers, with their own hands, in mercy and humility_; and
let them reserve the third part for themselves." This passage is taken
from the canons of ELFRIC, canon 24th. At a later period, when the tithes
had, in some places, been appropriated to convents, acts of Parliament
were passed, compelling the impropriators to leave, in the hands of their
vicar, a sufficiency for the maintenance of the poor. There were two or
three acts of this sort passed, one particularly in the twelfth year of
RICHARD the Second, chapter 7th. So that here we have the most ancient
book on the Common Law; we have the canons of the church at a later
period; we have acts of Parliament at a time when the power and glory of
England were at their very highest point; we have all these to tell us,
that in England, from the very time that the country took the name, _there
was always a legal and secure provision for the poor, so that no person,
however aged, infirm, unfortunate, or destitute, should suffer from want_.
15. But, my friends, a time came when the provision made by the Common
Law, by the Canons of the Church, and by the Acts of the Parliament coming
in aid of those canons; a time arrived, when all these were rendered null
by what is called the PROTESTANT REFORMATION. This "Reformation," As it is
called, sweeped away the convents, gave a large part of the tithes to
greedy courtiers, put parsons with wives and children into the livings,
and left the poor without any resource whatsoever. This terrible event,
which deprived England of the last of her possessions on the continent of
Europe, reduced the people of England to the most horrible misery; from
the happiest and best fed and best clad people in the world, it made them
the most miserable, the most wretched and ragged of creatures. At last it
was seen that, in spite of the most horrible tyranny that ever was
exercised in the world, in spite of the racks and the gibbets and the
martial law of QUEEN ELIZABETH, those who had amassed to themselves the
property out of which the poor had been formerly fed, were compelled to
_pass a law to raise money, by way of tax, for relieving the necessities
of the poor_. They had passed many acts before the FORTY-THIRD year of the
reign of this Queen Elizabeth; but these acts were all found to be
ineffectual, till, at last, in the forty-third year of the reign: of this
tyrannical Queen, and in the year of our Lord 1601, that famous act was
passed, which has been in force until this day; and which, as I said
before, is still in force, notwithstanding all the various attempts of
folly and cruelty to get rid of it.