Why, even in the days of the DRUIDS, such barbarity as that of putting men
to death, or of punishing them for taking to relieve their hunger, was
never thought of. In the year 1811, the REV. PETER ROBERTS, A. M.
published a book, entitled COLLECTANEA CAMBRICA. In the first volume of
that book, there is an account of the laws of the ANCIENT BRITONS. Hume,
and other Scotchmen, would make us believe, that the ancient inhabitants
of this country were a set of savages, clothed in skins and the like. The
laws of this people were collected and put into writing, in the year 694
_before Christ_. The following extract from these laws shows, that the
moment civil society began to exist, that moment the law _took care that
people should not be starved to death_. That moment it took care, that
provision should be made for the destitute, or that, in cases of extreme
necessity, men were to preserve themselves from death by taking from those
who had to spare. The words of these laws (as applicable to our case)
given by Mr. ROBERTS, are as follows:--"There are three distinct kinds of
personal individual property, which cannot be shared with another, or
surrendered in payment of fine; viz., a wife, a child, and argyfrew. By
the word _argyfrew_ is meant, clothes, arms, or the implements of a lawful
calling. For without these a man has not the means of support, and it
would be _unjust_ in the law to _unman_ a man, or to _uncall_ a man as to
his calling." TRIAD 53d.--"Three kinds of THIEVES are not to be punished
with DEATH. 1. A wife, who joins with her husband in theft. 2. A youth
under age. And 3. One who, after he has _asked, in vain_, for support, in
_three towns_, and at _nine houses_ in each town." TRIAD 137.
49. There were, then, _houses_ and _towns_, it seems; and the towns were
pretty thickly spread too; and, as to "_civilization_" and "_refinement_,"
let this law relative to a _youth under age_, be compared with the new
_orchard and garden law_, and with the tread-mill affair, and new trespass
law!
50. We have a law, called the VAGRANT ACT, to _punish men for begging_. We
have a law to punish men for _not working to keep their families_. Now,
with what show of justice can these laws be maintained? They are founded
upon this; the first, that begging is disgraceful to the country; that it
is degrading to the character of man, and, of course, to the character of
an Englishman; and, that there is no necessity for begging, _because the
law has made ample provision for every person in distress_. The law for
punishing men for not working to maintain their families is founded on
this, that they are _doing wrong to their neighbours_; their neighbours,
that is to say, the parish, being _bound to keep the family_, if they be
not kept by the man's labour; and, therefore, his not labouring is _a
wrong done to the parish_. The same may be said with regard to the
punishment for not maintaining bastard children. There is some reason for
these laws, as long as the poor-laws are duly executed; as long as the
poor are duly relieved, according to law; but, unless the poor-laws exist;
unless they be in full force; unless they be duly executed; unless
efficient and prompt relief be given to necessitous persons, these acts,
and many others approaching to a similar description, are acts of
barefaced and most abominable tyranny. I should say that they _would be_
acts of such tyranny; for generally speaking, the poor-laws are, as yet,
fairly executed, and efficient as to their object.
51. The law of this country is, that every man, able to carry arms, is
liable to be called on, to serve in the militia, or to serve as a soldier
in some way or other, _in order to defend the country_. What, then, the
man has _no land_; he has _no property_ beyond his mere body, and clothes,
and tools; he has nothing that an enemy can take away from him. What
_justice_ is there, then, in calling upon this man to take up arms and
_risk his life_ in the _defence of the land_: what is the land to him? I
_say_, that it is something to him; I _say_, that he ought to be called
forth to assist to defend the land; because, however poor he may be, _he
has a share in the land_, through the poor-rates; and if he be liable to
be called forth to defend the land, _the land is always liable to be taxed
for his support_. This is what _I say_: my opinions are consistent with
reason, with justice, and with the law of the land; but, how can MALTHUS
and his silly and _nasty_ disciples; how can those who want to abolish the
poor-rates or to prevent the poor from marrying; how can this at once
stupid and conceited tribe look the labouring man in the face, while they
call upon him to take up arms, to risk his life, in defence of the land?
Grant that the poor-laws are just; grant that every necessitous creature
has a right to demand relief from some parish or other; grant that the law
has most effectually provided that every man shall be protected against
the effects of hunger and of cold; grant these, and then the law which
compels the man without house or land to take up arms and risk his life in
defence of the country, is a perfectly just law; but, deny to the
necessitous that legal and certain relief of which I have been speaking;
abolish the poor laws; and then this military-service law becomes an act
of a character such as I defy any pen or tongue to describe.
52. To say another word upon the subject is certainly unnecessary; but we
live in days when "_stern necessity_" has so often been pleaded for most
flagrant departures from the law of the land, that one cannot help asking,
whether there were any greater necessity to justify ADDINGTON for his
deeds of 1817 than there would be to justify a starving man in taking a
loaf? ADDINGTON pleaded _necessity_, and he got a Bill of _Indemnity_.
And, shall a starving man be hanged, then, if he take a loaf to save
himself from dying? When SIX ACTS were before the Parliament, the
proposers and supporters of them never pretended that they did not
embrace a most dreadful departure from the ancient laws of the land. In
answer to LORD HOLLAND, who had dwelt forcibly on this departure from the
ancient law, the Lord Chancellor, unable to contradict LORD HOLLAND,
exclaimed, "_Salus populi suprema lex_," that is to say "_The salvation of
the people is the first law_." Well, then, if the salvation of the people
be the first law, the _salvation of life_ is really and bona fide the
salvation of the people; and, if the ordinary laws may be dispensed with,
in order to obviate a possible and speculative danger, surely they may be
dispensed with, in cases where to dispense with them is visibly,
demonstrably, notoriously, necessary to the salvation of _the lives_ of
the people: surely, bread is as necessary to the lips of the starving man,
as a new law could be necessary to prevent either house of parliament from
being brought into _contempt_; and surely, therefore, _Salus populi
suprema lex_ may come from the lips of the famishing people with as much
propriety as they came from those of the Lord Chancellor!
53. Again, however, I observe, and with this I conclude, that we have
nothing to do but to adhere to the poor-laws which we have; that the poor
have nothing to do, but to apply to the overseer, or to appeal from him to
the magistrate; that the magistrate has nothing to do but duly to enforce
the law; and that the government has nothing to do, in order to secure the
peace of the country, amidst all the difficulties that are approaching,
great and numerous as they are; that it has nothing to do, but to enjoin
on the magistrates to do their duty according to our excellent law; and,
at the same time, the government ought to discourage, by all the means in
their power, all projects for maintaining the poor _by any other than
legal means_; to discourage all begging-box affairs; all miserable
expedients; and also to discourage, and, where it is possible, fix its
mark of reprobation upon all those detestable projectors, who are hatching
schemes for what is called, in the blasphemous slang of the day,
"_checking the surplus population_" who are hatching schemes for
_preventing the labouring people from having children_: who are about
spreading their nasty beastly publications; who are hatching schemes of
_emigration_; and who, in short, seem to be doing every-thing in their
power to widen the fearful breach that has already been made between the
poor and the rich. The government has nothing to do but to cause the law
to be honestly enforced; and then we shall see no starvation, and none of
those dreadful conflicts which the fear of want, as well as actual want,
never fail to produce. The bare thought of _forced emigration_ to a
foreign state, including, as it must, a _transfer of all allegiance_,
which is contrary to the fundamental laws of England; or, exposing every
emigrating person to the danger of committing _high treason_; the very
thought of such a measure, _having become necessary in England_, is enough
to make an Englishman mad. But, of these projects, these scandalous nasty
beastly and shameless projects, we shall have time to speak hereafter; and
in the mean while, I take my leave of you, for the present, by expressing
my admiration of the sensible and spirited conduct of the people of
STOCKPORT, when an attempt was, on the 5th of September, made to cheat
them into an address, _applauding the conduct of the Ministers_! What! Had
the people of STOCKPORT so soon forgotten _16th of August_! Had they so
soon forgotten their townsman, JOSEPH SWAN! If they had, they would have
deserved to perish to all eternity. Oh, no! It was a proposition _very
premature_: it will be quite soon enough for the good and sensible and
spirited fellows of STOCKPORT; quite soon enough to address the Ministers,
when the Ministers shall have proposed a repeal of the several Jubilee
measures, called Ellenborough's law; the poacher-transporting law; the
sun-set and sun-rise transportation law; the tread-mill law; the
select-vestry law; the Sunday-toll laws; the new trespass law; the new
treason law; the seducing-soldier-hanging law; the new apple-felony law;
the SIX ACTS; and a great number of others, passed in the reign of
Jubilee. Quite soon enough to applaud, that is, for the sensible people of
STOCKPORT to applaud, the Ministers, when those Ministers have proposed to
repeal these laws, and, also, to repeal the _malt tax_, and _those other
taxes_, which take, even from the pauper, one half of what the parish
gives him to keep the breath warm in his body. Quite soon enough to
applaud the Ministers, when they have done these things; and when in
addition to all these, they shall have openly proposed _a radical reform
of the Commons House of Parliament_. Leaving them to do this as soon as
they like, and trusting, that you will never, on any account, applaud them
until they do it, I, expressing here my best thanks to Mr. BLACKSHAW, who
defeated the slavish scheme at Stockport, remain,
Your faithful friend,
and most obedient servant,
WM. COBBETT.
NUMBER III.
_Hurstbourne Tarrant (called Uphusband,)_
_Hants, 13th October, 1826._
MY EXCELLENT FRIENDS,
54. In the foregoing Numbers, I have shown, that men can never be so poor
as to have no rights at all: and that, in England, they have a legal, as
well as a natural, _right_ to be maintained, if they be destitute of other
means, out of the lands, or other property, of the rich. But, it is an
interesting question, HOW THERE CAME TO BE SO MUCH POVERTY AND MISERY IN
ENGLAND. This is a very interesting question; for, though it is the doom
of man, that he shall never be certain of any-thing, and that he shall
never be beyond the reach of calamity; though there always has been, and
always will be, poor people in every nation; though this circumstance of
poverty is inseparable from the means which uphold communities of men;
though, without poverty, there could be _no charity_, and none of those
feelings, those offices, those acts, and those relationships, which are
connected with charity, and which form a considerable portion of the
cement of civil society: yet, notwithstanding these things, there are
bounds beyond which the poverty of the people cannot go, without becoming
a thing to complain of, and to trace to the Government as a fault. Those
bounds have been passed, in England, long and long ago. England was always
famed for many things; but especially for its _good living_; that is to
say, for the _plenty_ in which the whole of the people lived; for the
abundance of good clothing and good food which they had. It was always,
ever since it _bore the name of England_, the richest and most powerful
and most admired country in Europe; but, its _good living_, its
superiority in this particular respect, was proverbial amongst all who
knew, or who had heard talk of, the English nation. Good God! How changed!
Now, the very worst fed and worst clad people upon the face of the earth,
those of Ireland only excepted. _How, then, did this horrible, this
disgraceful, this cruel poverty come upon this once happy nation?_ This,
my good friends of Preston, is, to us all, a most important question; and,
now let us endeavour to obtain a full and complete answer to it.