tions of old laws by means of improved laws. Such steps make the language spoken by the State more true. Yet in the case of States, much more than in the case of individuals, we must take account of the Conventions (394) by which words, phrases, and processes, acquire a meaning different from their obvious meaning. This is more necessary in the case of States, because it is impossible for States to accommodate their language to each case, as individuals may do. States must act by stated forms of procedure and language, in which forms a complex multitude of interests are implied; and any alteration of the forms, since it will require a consideration of all these interests, and an agreement upon the alteration by the legislating bodies, cannot take place frequently and lightly, nor ought it to do so. Legal fictions, and forced constructions of the language of old laws, cannot be altogether avoided. They have existed in all countries in which laws have long subsisted; and to attempt to avoid them entirely, would be to make the legislator instantly conform to all changes, however capricious, of language and practice. Law Language, and Law Forms, must have an antiquated cast, for this reason; that they must have in them a principle of steadiness and permanence beyond our daily speech and common manners.

1000. The State promotes and inculcates the Duty of Truth in individuals, by requiring from them a punctual and faithful performance of Contracts and other engagements. Yet here also, the considera. tion of other Duties comes in ; and limits, in some degree, the extent to which the State insists upon the performance of Engagements. We have seen that the Roman Law did not compel the performance of a nudum pactum, a mere promise made for no reasonable consideration; and that the English Law takes the same course. The Law will not, for instance, sanction or enforce an engagement to win and lose

money according to the events of a game of chance. To insist upon the performance of such engagements, would be to encourage a reckless spirit, which loves to depend upon casual superiority, or upon mere accident, rather than on rational foresight and selfguidance. The State, in such cases, teaches its citizens that Property is a Trust of more value than the Veracity of such rash and reckless promisers. The State, in doing this, does not slight the Duty of Truth; on the contrary, it sometimes condemns the whole proceeding, by making such Gambling a crime. Besides; such engagements are so frequently and so naturally connected with Fraud, as well as Folly, that Honesty, as well as the rational use of Property, would be damaged by the legal recognition of such Engagements.

1001. In another kind of Engagements, Promises of Marriage, the Law teaches the Duty of Truth, by punishing the violation of the Promise; and sometimes, even when it has not been made in express words, but only implied in the general course of the language used between the parties. And though, here also, there may be room for Mistake or Delusion; to punish the Levity or Duplicity which can trifle with so serious a matter, is a moral lesson which it becomes the State to give.

CHAPTER XII.

DUTIES OF THE STATE-HUMANITY.

1002. THE Duty of Justice on the part of the State is universally allowed that the State has a Duty of Humanity, is perhaps not so generally understood. But we have seen (508 and 514), in speak.

ing of Justice and of Humanity in general, how near the Duties belonging to the two approach each other, and how difficult it is to draw the boundary line. It is a Principle of Humanity, and, in an extended sense of Justice, a Principle of Justice also, that all men should possess the Natural Rights of man; namely (514), the Rights of Personal Security from violence; of Sustenance and Property so far as is requisite for moral agency; and of Marriage. Such Rights, in every State, are actually possessed by the citizens only so far as the Law allows them; but the question now before us is, what the Laws ought to to; what Civil Rights it is the State's Duty to give to its citizens.

1003. We have already seen (522) that the existence of Slavery is contrary to Morality. Such a condition of the community is a violation of the Duty of Humanity which belongs to the State; and wher ever it exists, Humanity requires that the State should take steps towards its abolition. But we have also said (530) that the abolition ought to proceed by legal and constitutional means; and must often be attained only by many steps, and by slow degrees. Still, it must be again repeated: delay in this course can be tolerated by the Moralist, only so far as it is inevitable. Every State which acquiesces in the existence of Slavery among its members, as a permanent and stable condition of things, neglects the great Duty of Humanity, which is incumbent upon States as upon individuals. A State cannot neglect such Duties, without divesting itself, to an extent shocking to all good men, of its moral character, and renouncing its hope of that moral progress which is its highest purpose.

1004. Slavery involves the denial of all Rights to the man, and especially of the Right of security from arbitrary personal violence, and the Right of Property. But even in States where these Rights

are allowed by the Law to all, it often happens that there are Classes of persons who do not practically enjoy them. With regard to the Right of Sustenance, and such Property as is requisite to make the man a moral agent, there are large bodies of the people, even in States conspicuous for their general freedom, who hold these necessary means of moral being very precariously, and occasionally lose them altogether. Men perish of hunger in opulent cities. Many are mendicants, who are supposed to have nothing of their own, and depend for sustenance upon the casual bounty of their fellow-citizens. Many, belonging to the industrious classes, are frequently destitute; though willing to work, they can find no one to hire them, and they have expended all their previous earnings. Does the Duty of Humanity in the State admit of its tolerating the existence of such things? To pass by the Right to sustenance, in cases of extremity, which, as we have seen, the Humanity of the old law of England allowed, is it possible for the State to put an end to Mendicaney and Destitution? and if this be possible, is this the Duty of the State?

1005. We find, in this case also, other Duties of the State which may interfere with the Duty of Humanity, and may limit or prevent its operation. It is the Duty of the State to leave room for the exer. cise of the Humanity of individuals; for this is an important part of their Moral Culture. If the Beggar obtains alms on which he can live; if the poor Labourer be supported through his seasons of destitution by the benevolence of his richer neighbours; the men so provided for are not degraded from the rank of moral beings; and the givers are probably morally improved by what they do. Such dependence of the poor upon the rich, has existed in all communities; and it is not necessarily contrary to the Duty of the State to tolerate such a condition of

things, which includes the means of a valuable Moral Culture of Benevolence. Moreover, it is the Duty of the State to teach Foresight and Thrift to the poor, as well as Benevolence to the rich. Beggary, destitution, and want of work, may arise from improvidence, carelessness, prodigality, idleness, and perverseness. By letting the consequences of these bad habits fall upon those who are guilty of them, the State teaches useful lessons. If the State were to maintain in comfort all who chose to beg, or all labourers who remained unhired, the produce of the labour of the industrious and provident would be given to the idle and improvident; and this might proceed to such an extent, as to destroy the rewards of labour and the value of property.

1006. But if it appear that the destitute are not provided for sufficiently by the benevolence of individuals, what then is the Duty of the State? If, when room is thus left for the Humanity of the rich to act, it appears that there is still a large class of starving poor, what is the course to be taken? If benevolent individuals do much, but still not enough to prevent the existence of extreme distress among numbers of men, is it the Duty of the State to do the rest? And if so, how is this Duty to be limited, so as not to interfere fatally with the other Duties of the State which we have mentioned? Ought there to be a State Provision for the poor? and if so, upon what Principles ?

1007. To the first of these questions the Moralists must needs reply, that taking the case as here supposed, the spontaneous bounty of the rich being insufficient to keep the poor from starvation, it is the Duty of the State to interpose, and to make, by taxation, or in some other way, a provision which shall save them from the extreme of want. This is a Duty of Humanity on the part of the State in any If the deficiency of private bounty arises

case.