poor are comprehended in the two first of these divisions. The two last comprehend those who have a competency, and the rich. This classification, however, is too general. Fielding* divides the poor into "three classes. First, those who are unable to work. Second, those who are able and willing. And, third, those who are able and not willing." Of the last of these classes it is very clear, that society has a right to oblige them to do as much work, as will give a fair compensation for their support. The right is quite as perfect to authorize a justice of the peace, or a civil court, to send one who is living, and who shows a determination to live upon charity, while he can, are perhaps excited to industry by no circumstance more strongly, than by a dread of being ranked with the poor, by falling into a state of dependence on charity. Let such persons be considered, and treated, as if they belong to the great division of the poor, and you will chill this spirit of industry. You will unnerve the arm which was strong for toil, and open for charity the hand which has been clenched against it. I am glad of this opportunity, and I will not let it pass, to pay the tribute of my very high respect to the memory of Colquhoun, who, while he was exceeded by no one in his fidelity as a magistrate, appears, in the discharge of his official duties, never to have lost his sympathy with human weakness and want, and his deep interest in the moral recovery of the vicious. The police of cities has suffered from nothing so much, as from the want of this sympathy and this interest in its officers. The wisest civil regulations that I can be devised will avail but little for the advancement of society, if the magistrates who execute them look not beyond the letter of their commission, and fail to communicate what they learn of the causes, the remedy, and the prevention of crime; and if the agents whom they employ as their ministers of justice, are scarcely, in moral character, raised above the culprits who are brought before them. * See "Causes of the Increase of Robbers &c." Fielding's Works, Vol. x. p. 388. but will not work, to a House of Employment, as to send a drunkard to a House of Correction. And well would it be for our community, and for every community, and well also for the obdurately indolent poor themselves, if this right were not only legalized, but if its exercise were demanded by public opinion. Surely, a broad distinction should be made between those who will, uncompelled, do nothing for their own support, and those who are poor while they are actually availing themselves of every means which they have, and of every opportunity, for self-subsistence. In respect to those who are poor, and cannot work, there is, and can be in fair minds, no doubt of our duty. It may indeed be a question difficult of solution, "how may we most wisely provide for them?" But, provide for them we must, or we are guilty before God. But these divisions of Fielding are also too general. They overlook, or come short of, some of the most important distinctions in regard to poverty, and the poor. They give no light on some of the most important questions which arise upon these subjects. I would divide the poor, then, into four classes. In the first class I would place those who are irremediably and innocently poor; who have been made poor by causes beyond their own control. The second class comprehends those whose poverty is remediable, and who, like those of the first class, are innocently poor. The third class includes those who are remediably poor, but poor by their own fault. The fourth class consists of those whose poverty is irremediable, and is to be ascribed to their own misconduct. I do not offer these as a substitute for all other classifications of the poor. Far otherwise. But I think that they will do something to aid us in conceiving more justly of the condition and character of the poor; of the character of their claims, and of our specific duties in regard to them. And it is not a small good that is obtained, if the obscurity of our views of these great subjects is even so far diminished, that we are encouraged more earnestly and perseveringly to endeavor to comprehend them. Here let me add a word of explanation, before I adduce examples of those who are to be placed in these several divisions. In speaking of those who are innocently poor, and of those who are poor by their own fault, or their own misconduct, I would be understood to refer only to the immediate, or personal causes of the poverty of the individuals, who become objects either of private, or of public bounty. Many are made poor by the heedlessness, the recklessness, or the guilt of others, who are yet themselves, as far as their poverty is concerned, entirely inno cent. This is a consideration not to be lost sight of; for it would manifestly be most unjust to treat the innocent as if they were guilty; and it would be equally injurious to themselves, and to society, to treat the guilty as if they were innocent. Secondly, I would remark, that innocence, and guilt, as I here use them, are relative, and comparative terms. Not only may an individual be very far from innocence, in view of his general character, while yet he may be innocent with respect to the circumstances which have brought him to poverty; but it is important also to understand, that there are very different degrees of moral evil in the circumstances, to which the poverty of individuals is immediately to be as cribed. To act justly, therefore, in regard to the individual, and wisely in respect to society, we must maintain a perpetual reference to this diversity of circumstance, and of character. I must observe also, that some qualification is to be made of the terms remediable, and irremediable. There is, indeed, a poverty which is absolutely irremediable, and which no foresight, and skill, and provision can prevent, because its causes are wholly beyond human control. Examples of this poverty will be found in the first of the classes into which I shall divide the poor. But there is also a poverty, which is irremediable with respect to the individuals suffering under it, while yet much may be done to prevent the action of its causes upon others. Examples of this kind may be. found in the second of the following classes. And there is also a great extent of poverty in the classes, in which I consider it to be remediable, in which, as in many diseases, it is remediable in very different degrees; in some cases. entirely, and in others very partially. There is also a poverty, from which the individuals suffering under it cannot, unaided, recover themselves, while yet they may be recovered from it by others, or be brought by others into a condition in which they may provide amply for a comfortable subsistence. With these preliminary observations in view, I proceed to illustrate the classifications which I have suggested of the poor, with respect to the kinds of poverty, and to its moral character. The first of the classes to which I have referred, consists of those who are irremediably, and innocently poor; who have been made poor by causes beyond their own control; or who are poor, in the phrase of law," by the act of God." Who are they? I answer, 1st, those who are incurably insane, either from a constitutional tendency to mental derangement, or simply from disease, or from a bodily injury which has befallen them, or who are made insane by adversity, or by some other great affliction, or by any cause for which the individual is not himself culpable, and who, by their insanity, are brought to a permanent dependence on charity for the means of their subsistence. Irremediable poverty is indeed a necessary consequence of incurable insanity with every one, who, while sane, could only make provision for the passing day, or week; or, who was even then occasionally, and partially dependent for support upon the hand of charity. There are poor of this class in families, in insane hospitals, and even in prisons. The richest of the incurably insane will, indeed, in one sense, be as dependent for life on charity, as the poorest of his fellow beings who is suffering under the same dreadful malady. But the cost to be incurred for the charge of one in this condition who is rich, is paid from his own resources. Though wholly incapable, therefore, of appropriating these resources for his own support, he is not poor. But he to whom no such resources are left in a case of incurable insanity, must be permanently provided for either by public, or by private bounty. And if he have not brought this insanity upon himself by folly, or by vice, he has a legal right to a comfortable provision for his maintenance, on the principle, that "the act of God injures no man.” His right to support from the care and kindness of others is as perfect, as is the right of |