Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB

At the birth of a child the father decided whether he should bring it up (tollere) or expose it. But it did not always happen that exposed children lost their lives. It was common to expose them in public places, where there was a chance of their attracting the notice of the benevolent, who might be incited to undertake the task of bringing them up. The greater number of these unhappy creatures were not, however, so fortunate as to fall into the hands of persons of this sort. They were declared by law to be the slaves, or absolute property, of those by whom they were reared. And several were saved from death, not from humane motives, but that their foster-fathers might, by mutilating their persons, and exhibiting them in the streets, derive an infamous livelihood from the alms given them by the passengers. This detestable practice seems to have been carried on pretty extensively; and if any thing could, more strikingly than the practice itself, display the sanguinary manners of the Romans, it would be the fact, that there is in Seneca a lengthened discussion of the question, Whether the mutilation of exposed children can be deemed an offence against the state? which is conducted with the greatest imaginable coolness, and decided in the negative, upon the ground of their being slaves! "Gallio fecit illam questionem. An in expositis lædi possit respublica? Non potest, inquit. An lædi possit in aliquá suá parte? Hæc nulla reipublicæ pars est; non in censu illos invenies, non in testamentis."

[ocr errors]

The period when the practice of infanticide was prohibited at Rome is not well ascertained; but the more probable opinion seems to be, that it continued till the 374th year of the Christian era. The exposure of children was, however, practised long afterwards. Constantine made some ineffectual efforts to provide for these unfortunates; but their slavery continued till the year 530, when it was abolished by an edict of Justinian.

Infanticide has, most properly, been made a capital crime

1 "Senecæ Controvers," lib. v. cap. 33.

in all modern states; and to take away the motives to its perpetration, and at the same time to provide an asylum for such poor children as might be exposed through the inhumanity or poverty of their parents, foundling hospitals have been very generally established. But there are the best reasons for thinking that the influence of these establishments has been incomparably more pernicious than beneficial. That they have prevented a few cases of infanticide is, perhaps, true; but the facility for the disposal of children which they afford, weakens the principle of moral restraint, and increases the number of illegitimate unions and births, at the same time that it occasions a prodigious sacrifice of infant life. The mortality in foundling hospitals is quite excessive. They open wide their doors for the reception of deserted and illegitimate children, but there are pauca vestigia retrorsùm. In the Foundling Hospital at Dublin, of 12,786 children admitted during the six years ending with 1797, there were no fewer than 12,561 deaths! It appears, says M. de Chateauneuf, from the official reports, that the mortality amongst foundlings at Madrid, in 1817, was at the rate of 67 per cent; at Vienna, in 1811, it amounted to 92 per cent; at Brussels, at an average of the period from 1802 to 1817, it amounted to 79 per cent; but in consequence of improvements subsequently adopted, it had been reduced in 1824 to 56 per cent. M. de Chateauneuf adds, that in France, in 1824, about three-fifths, or 60 per cent, of the foundlings perished in the first year of their life! and the proportion is not now very materially different. In Moscow, of 37,607 children admitted in the course of twenty years, only 1,020 were sent out ! 2

Such is the appalling mortality in these establishments, the total suppression of which would be a signal benefit to society. It does not even appear that they lessen the practice of infanticide-a result which could not, indeed, be

1 "Considérations sur les Enfans Trouvés," p. 66.

2 Beck's "Medical Jurisprudence," p. 193. Lond. ed.

reasonably expected by any one who reflects upon their operation on the lower class of females. Beckmann mentions that, subsequently to the establishment of an hospital for foundlings at Cassel, hardly a year elapsed without some children being found murdered, either in that city or its vicinity.1

The establishment of a foundling hospital in London was recommended, no doubt from the most benevolent motives, by Addison, in the reign of Queen Anne. It was not, however, established till 1739. Experience was not long in developing its pernicious effects; and in 1760 a total change was effected in its constitution by authority of the legislature. It then ceased to be a receptacle for foundlings. No child whose mother does not personally appear, and who cannot satisfactorily answer the questions put to her, is received: if, however, the mother can show that she had previously borne a good character, and that, owing to the desertion of the father, she is unable to maintain the child, it is admitted, but not otherwise. As now conducted, there does not seem to be much reason for thinking that this establishment is productive of any but beneficial effects.

In London, during the five years ending with 1823, there were 151 children exposed; and the number of illegitimate children received into the different workhouses in various parts of the city, during the same period, amounted to 4,668, about a fifth part of whom were maintained by their parents. But in Paris, whose population does not amount to two-thirds of that of London, there were, in the five years now referred to, no fewer than 25,277 children carried to the foundling hospitals! And even this profligacy, and consequent waste of human life, is not greater, in proportion to the population, than is found to prevail at Madrid, Vienna, and other large cities where such establishments are permitted to exist.

1 Beckmann 66 on Inventions," vol. iv. p. 456. Eng. ed.

2 "Guardian," No. 105.

It is stated by M. Gouroff, that at Mentz, where there was no foundling hospital, 30 children were exposed in the interval between 1799 and 1811. Napoleon, who imagined that, by multiplying these establishments, he was increasing population, and providing for the future supply of his armies, ordered that one should be opened in Mentz, which was done accordingly in November 1811. It subsisted till the month of March 1815, when it was suppressed by the Grand Duke of Hesse-Darmstadt. During the three years and four months it had been open, it received 516 children. But as time had not been given for the complete formation of the vicious habits which such institutions are certain to engender, as soon as the hospital had been suppressed, the previous order of things was restored, only seven children. being exposed in the nine following years!1

It is plain, therefore, that these establishments utterly fail of accomplishing their object. They do not preserve, but destroy myriads of children. Instead of preventing crime, they scatter its seeds and spread its roots on all sides. There is, however, reason to think that more correct opinions are beginning to be entertained on the Continent with respect to their real operation. It is difficult, indeed, to suppose that they can be allowed to exist much longer. And, perhaps, no measure could be suggested that would do so much to improve the morals of those among whom they are established, and to lessen the frequency of crime and the destruction of infant life, as their abolition.

1 "Essai sur l'Histoire des Enfans Trouvés," p. 153.

CHAPTER IX.

Object of Insurance-Calculation of Chances-Advantages of Insurance -Amount of Property Insured-Life Insurance, Objections to, and Advantages of

It is the duty of government to assist, by every means in its power, the efforts of individuals to protect their property. Losses do not always arise from accidental circumstances, but are frequently occasioned by the crimes and misconduct of individuals; and there are no means so effectual for their prevention, when they arise from this source, as the establishment of a vigilant system of police, and of such an administration of the law as may afford those who are injured a ready and cheap method of obtaining every practicable redress; and, as far as possible, of insuring the punishment of culprits. But in despite of all that may be done by government, and of the utmost vigilance on the part of individuals, property is always exposed to a variety of casualties from fire, shipwreck, and other unforeseen disasters. And hence the importance of inquiring how such unavoidable losses, when they do occur, may be rendered least injurious.

The loss of a ship, or the conflagration of a cotton-mill, is a calamity that would press heavily even on the richest individual. But were it distributed among several individuals, each would feel it proportionally less; and provided the number of those among whom it was distributed were very considerable, it would hardly occasion any sensible inconvenience to any one in particular. Hence the advantage of combining to lessen the injury arising from the accidental destruction of property; and it is the diffusion of the risk of loss over a wide surface, and its valuation, that forms the employment of those engaged in insurance.

« AnteriorContinuar »