13. But this is so important a matter, and there have been such monstrous doctrines and projects put forth by MALTHUS, by the EDINBURGH REVIEWERS, by LAWYER SCARLETT, by LAWYER NOLAN, by STURGES BOURNE, and by an innumerable swarm of persons who have been giving before the House of Commons what they call "_evidence_:" there have been such monstrous doctrines and projects put forward by these and other persons; and there seems to be such a lurking desire to carry the hostility to the working classes still further, that I think it necessary in order to show, that these English poor-laws, which have been so much calumniated by so many greedy proprietors of land; I think it necessary to show, that these poor-laws are the things which men of property, above all others, _ought to wish to see maintained_, seeing that, according to the opinions of the greatest and the wisest of men, they must suffer most in consequence of the abolition of those laws; because, by the abolition of those laws, the right given by the laws of nature would revive, and the destitute would _take_, where they now simply _demand_ (as BLACKSTONE expresses it) in the name of the law. There has been some difference of opinion, as to the question, whether it be _theft_ or _no theft_; or, rather, whether it be a _criminal act_, or _not a criminal act_, for a person, in a case of extreme necessity from want of food, to take food without the assent and even against the will, of the owner. We have, amongst our great lawyers, SIR MATTHEW HALE and SIR WILLIAM BLACKSTONE, who contend (though as we shall see, with much feebleness, hesitation, and reservation,) that it _is theft_, notwithstanding the extremity of the want; but there are many, and much higher authorities, foreign as well as English, on the other side. Before, however, I proceed to the hearing of these authorities, let me take a short view of _the origin of the poor laws in England_; for that view will convince us, that, though the present law was passed but a little more than two hundred years ago, there had been something to effect the same purpose ever since England had been called England.

14. According to the Common Law of England, as recorded in the MIRROUR OF JUSTICES, a book which was written before the Norman Conquest; a book in as high reputation, as a law-book, as any one in England; according to this book, CHAPTER 1st, SECTION 3d, which treats of the "First constitutions made by the antient kings;" According to this work, provision was made for the sustenance of the poor. The words are these: "It was ordained, that the poor should be sustained by _parsons_, by _rectors_ of the church, and by the _parishioners_, so that _none of them die for want of sustenance_." Several hundred years later, the canons of the church show, that when the church had become rich, it took upon itself the whole of the care and expense attending the relieving of the poor. These canons, in setting forth the manner in which the tithes should be disposed of, say, "Let the priests set apart the first share for the building and ornaments of the church; let them distribute the _second to the poor and strangers, with their own hands, in mercy and humility_; and let them reserve the third part for themselves." This passage is taken from the canons of ELFRIC, canon 24th. At a later period, when the tithes had, in some places, been appropriated to convents, acts of Parliament were passed, compelling the impropriators to leave, in the hands of their vicar, a sufficiency for the maintenance of the poor. There were two or three acts of this sort passed, one particularly in the twelfth year of RICHARD the Second, chapter 7th. So that here we have the most ancient book on the Common Law; we have the canons of the church at a later period; we have acts of Parliament at a time when the power and glory of England were at their very highest point; we have all these to tell us, that in England, from the very time that the country took the name, _there was always a legal and secure provision for the poor, so that no person, however aged, infirm, unfortunate, or destitute, should suffer from want_.

Cottage Economy — Part 113