the insane rich man to support from his own property.*

not ascertained."

fully admit them,

* I cannot here discuss the question, of the rights of the poor. But I would invite attention to it. There is often great vagueness, and not unfrequently great injustice, in the sentiments of men upon this subject. "A poor man," says Paley, (Philosophy, pp. 82, 83,) "has a right to relief. Yet, if it be refused him, he must not extort it. - He has a right to relief from the rich. But the mode, the season, the quantum of relief, and who shall contribute it, are Let these qualifications be admitted, - and I and what do they imply? Imperfection either in the right of the poor, or in the corresponding obligations of the rich? No. They do, however, imply a right in the rich to judge for themselves respecting the mode, the season, the quantum of relief, and how much each one is bound himself to contribute. But the obligation thus to judge, and to judge justly in the case, and to act in conformity to this judgment is a perfect obligation. Let this obligation be felt, and acted upon, and the rights of the poor will be better understood, and better secured, than they could be by any legal definitions, or legal enactments. By the poor, as well as by the rich, rights may be forfeited. But how are rights forfeited except by wrong doing? And, in any case in which they are forfeited, the question is of great importance, to what extent? A criminal, who has forfeited his life to the laws, is not considered to have forfeited his right to food, clothing and shelter, while the laws shall permit him to live. Who, indeed, would not cry out against the injustice, as well as against the inhumanity, of refusing food to a hungry criminal? And why, but because his necessity, and his inability to provide for his wants, give him a right to food from the common stock of others? Has not an innocently poor person, then, in proportion to his inability, a right to a comfortable support from others, which is quite as absolute as is the right by which any property is held in society? I would bring these inquiries to the test of the original principles of the social compact, and to the generally acknowledged principles of civil justice; and I am willing, as far as legislation is concerned, here to leave decisions respecting the rights of the poor. Let legislators, and the community, in view of these principles, "render to all their due," and there will be a vast

2d. In this class are to be placed those who are born idiots, or who, from causes beyond theircontrol, have fallen into idiocy, and whose immediate relatives are unable to provide for their support. Their right also to a provision by others, either public or private, which shall be adequate to a suitable care of them, and to their comfortable maintenance, is as perfect as the right by which any of us hold any one of our possessions. Is it not? And if not, why?

Again. Here are to be placed those, who, though not idiots, are yet either naturally, or through accident, or disease, obviously so deficient in capacity for selfdirection, and even for any useful service, that they cannot profitably be employed by others; and, neither possessing the means by which they may be supported, nor connected with near relatives who are able to support them, must be provided for by charity. They are made irremediably poor by this irremediable deficiency of intellectual power; and they are innocent in respect to their poverty, or dependence, because they are innocent in respect to the cause of it. The poverty of some who are

diminution of human suffering, and sin. It is the doctrine of Malthus on this subject, that "we are bound in honor and justice for mally to disclaim the right of the poor to support; " that they have "no claim of right on society for the smallest portion of food, beyond that which their own labor would fairly purchase;" and that, "if this system were pursued, we need be under no apprehensions that the number of persons in extreme want would be beyond the power and will of the benevolent to supply." If Mr Malthus, or any of his descendants should ever be poor, God grant that their claims may never be left for decision with the receivers of his system of Political Economy! - Malthus' Essay, Vol. iii. pp. 179, and 181, 182.

intellectually very deficient, may, indeed, be but partial, because, under the direction of others, they may be made in some degree to contribute to their own subsistence; and, as far as any may be found who can thus compensate society, or their friends for their maintenance, they are remediably poor, and are to be placed in the second class. In regard to these, society has a right to claim, and to appropriate, whatever capacity they may have of contributing to their own maintenance. But in proportion to the intellectual deficiency which has thrown any upon the charity of others, their claims to the interest and support of others are perfect. They may not be innocently disregarded.

Again. There are those of this class who are born cripples, or who are so far maimed, or are so much diseased, or are otherwise so much enfeebled and broken, and without any fault of their own, that they are incapable of providing for their own necessities. They may have quite a sufficiency of intellectual capacity, and the best disposition to keep themselves from all unnecessary dependence on charity. It may even be, and I have known it to be, that this disposition has led to efforts for self-support, which have produced a greatly aggravated and protracted suffering, from the very infirmity which has disabled them. Here, then, likewise, are rightful claims. These claims will indeed generally be asserted with modesty, in proportion to the innocence of the sufferer who may adduce them. But shall we therefore be justified in failing to recognise and to answer them?

Again. There are those, who, having supported themselves by honest labor, but having been unable to make any considerable provision for the future, are gradually

brought to dependence by the increasing infirmities of old age. There are aged men, and aged women of this description, who are worthy of high respect, and of a generous sympathy with their sufferings and wants. They have done what they could do, and they can now do no more. They must be poor till they die. But as they are not blamable for their poverty, they must not be punished for it. In other words, they should not be treated as if they were vicious, by refusing any other provision for them than one which will class, and connect them, with the notoriously vicious.

There are indeed those of each of these descriptions of our fellow beings, who are to be found in the affluent, and in the middling classes of society. But whatever may be the dependence of such individuals upon their friends, who are able to provide for them, they are not to be classed among the poor. Their place is with those of the family, or circle, of which they are a part; and no obligation of life is generally, in the abstract at least, felt to be stronger, than that of near relatives, when they are able to do it, willingly and adequately to provide for those, who, by the act of God, are thus disqualified to provide for themselves. And is the obligation less perfect, where a competent provision for individuals such as these cannot be made by their relatives, that it should be made for them by others? The question is a very important one, where, in these cases, lies the responsibility? This question, however, I leave for the present.

The second of the classes I have named consists of those, who, like those of the first class, are innocently poor; but whose poverty, unlike theirs, to a great ex

tent at least may be remedied, and for all practical purposes is in every case to be considered as remediable. This is also a class of the poor whose claims upon our charity are unequivocal; for, like those of the first class, they, also, are poor "by the act of God." In any measure, therefore, or provision for them, their innocence should be distinctly recognised.

In the first division of this class I would place the deaf and dumb. A few years only have passed, since it would have been necessary to have placed this very interesting portion of our fellow beings in the first class which I have named of the poor. But the new language of signs, which is now taught in asylums for the deaf and dumb, has brought them into a new connexion with the speaking part of our race. In these asylums, also, they are taught the arts, and trades, by which they may provide amply, and honorably, for their own subsistence. These institutions, which are worthy of universal patronage, have most deservedly obtained the fostering care of more than one of the governments of our States; for they are direct and efficient means, not only of saving their inmates from pauperism, and thus from a greatly prolonged dependence on public provision for their support, but of a very great advancement of human virtue and happi

ness.

In the second division of this class we may place the blind. It is not a very long while since we should have been compelled to have classed these also among the ir

According to the last census, the number of deaf and dumb persons in the United States was, 5,363; and of the blind, 5,444. Boston Daily Advertiser, September 4th, 1832.