48. Talk of barbarians, indeed; Talk of "_the dark_ and _barbarous ages_." 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.