Εικόνες σελίδας
PDF
Ηλεκτρ. έκδοση

a state of nature) or swimming from some other island as I conceive either with intent to drive me from it, or to defraud me of the produce of my labour. Now even allowing that I had more than enough for myself, that part of my surplus produce was devoured by fowls or wild beasts, or that I threw it for sport into the sea, yet I should contend that I have a right, a strict right in one sense of the word, to take out a long pole, and push this unfair intruder from the shore, and try to sink his boat or himself in the water to get rid of him, and defend my own right. But suppose that instead of his coming to me, I go to him, and persuade him to return with me; and that when I have got him home, I want to set him to work to do either part or the whole of my business for me. In this case I should conceive that he is at liberty either to work or refuse working just as he thinks proper, to work on what terms he thinks proper, to receive only a small part, or the half, or more than half the produce as he pleases; or if I do not chuse to agree to his terms, I must do my work myself. What possible right have I over him? His right to his liberty is just as good as my right to my property. It is an excellent cheveux-de-fris, and if he is as idle as I am lazy, he will make his market of it, I say then that this original right continues in all stages of society, unless where it has been specifically given up; and acts as a counterpoise to the insolence of property. If indeed the poor will work for the rich at a certain rate, they are not bound to employ others who demand higher wages, or a greater number than they want but as it is plain that they must either work themselves, or get others to work for them,

over whom they have no right whatever, I contend that the mass of the labouring community have always a right to strike, to demand what wages they please; the least that they can demand is enough to support them and their families; and the real contest will be between the aversion of the rich to labour, and of the poor to famine. This seems to be the philosophy of the question. It is also the spirit of the laws of England, which have left a provision for the poor; wisely considering, no doubt, that they who received their all from the labour of others were bound to provide out of their superfluities for the necessities of such as were in want. If it be said that this principle will lead to extreme abuse in practice, I answer, No, for there is hardly any one, who will live in dependence, or on casualties, if he can help it. The check to the abuse is sufficiently provided in the miserable precariousness and disgusting nature of the remedy. But if from the extreme inequality of conditions, that is, from one part of the community having been able to engross all the advantages of society to themselves, so that they can trample on the others at pleasure, the poor are reduced so low in intellect and feeling as to be indifferent to every consideration of the kind, neither will they be restrained from following their inclinations by Mr. Malthus's grinding law of necessity, by the abolition of the poor laws, or by the prospect of seeing their children starving at the doors of the rich. It is not by their own fault alone that they have fallen into this degradation: those who have brought them into it ought to be answerable for

some of the consequences. The way to obviate those consequences is not by obstinately increasing the pressure, but by lessening it. It is not my business to inquire how a society formed upon the simple plan above-mentioned might be supposed to degenerate in consequence of the different passions, follies, vices, and circumstances of mankind, into a state of excessive inequality and wretchedness: it is sufficient for my purpose to have shewn, that such a change was not rendered necessary by the sole principle of population, or that it would not be absolutely impossible for a state of actual equality to last

thirty years" without producing the total overthrow and destruction of the society. Equality produces no such maddening effects on the principle of population, nor is it a thing, any approaches to which must be fatal to human happiness, and are universally to be dreaded. The connection therefore between that degree of inequality, which terminates in extreme vice and misery, and the necessary restraints on population, is not so obvious or indissoluble, as to give Mr. Malthus a right to "qualify" the luxuries of the rich, and the distresses of the poor as the inevitable consequences of the fundamental laws of nature, and as necessary to the very existence of society. I shall here take the liberty of quoting the two following passages from Mr. Malthus's Essay, which seem exactly to confirm my ideas on the subject, only better expressed, and stated in a much neater manner. "In most countries, among the "lower classes of people, there appears to be some"thing like a standard of wretchedness, a point be

66

66

"low which, they will not continue to marry and propagate their species. This standard is different "in different countries, and is formed by various concurring circumstances of soil, climate, govern"ment, degree of knowledge, and civilization, &c. "The principal circumstances which contribute to "raise it, are, liberty, security of property, the spread of knowledge, and a taste for the conveniences and the comforts of life. Those which con"tribute principally to lower it are despotism and

66

[ocr errors]

66

[ocr errors]

ignorance." For what purpose did Mr. Malthus "write his book? "In an attempt to better the "condition of the lower classes of society, our object should be to raise this standard as high as possible, by cultivating a spirit of independence, a "decent pride, and a taste for cleanliness and com"fort among the poor. These habits would be best "inculcated by a system of general education and, "when strongly fixed, would be the most powerful "means of preventing their marrying with the prospect " of being obliged to forfeit such advantages; and "would consequently raise them nearer to the middle "classes of society." Yet Mr. Malthus elsewhere attempts to prove that the pressure of population on the means of subsistence can only be kept back by a system of terror and famine, as the pressure of a crowd is only kept back by the soldiers' bayonets. I have thus endeavoured to answer the play of words, by which Mr. Malthus undertakes to prove that the rich have an absolute right to the disposal of the whole of the surplus produce of the labour of others. After this preparation, I shall venture to trust the

reader's imagination with the passages, in which ho tries to put down private charity, and to prove the right of the rich (whenever they conveniently can) to starve the poor. They are very pretty pas

sages.

"There is one right, which man has generally "been thought to possess, which I am confident he "neither does, nor can, possess, a right to subsis"tence when his labour will not fairly purchase it. "Our laws indeed say, that he has this right, and "bind the society to furnish employment and food "to those who cannot get them in the regular mar"ket; but in so doing, they attempt to reverse the "laws of nature; and it is, in consequence, to be "expected, not only that they should fail in their

66

object, but that the poor who were intended to be "benefited, should suffer most cruelly from this in"human deceit which is practised upon them.

"A man who is born into a world already possessed, if he cannot get subsistence from his pa"rents on whom he has a just demand, and if the

66

[ocr errors]

society do not want his labour, has no claim of right to the smallest portion of food, and, in fact, "has no business to be where he is. At nature's

mighty feast there is no vacant cover for him. "She tells him to be gone, and will quickly execute " her own orders, if he do not work upon the com"passion of some of her guests. If these guests get and make room for him, other intruders immediately appear demanding the same favour. The

up

[ocr errors]
« ΠροηγούμενηΣυνέχεια »