of the human mind, with
continual allusions to his own force of character. He added, 'That the
woman who could write such a letter as I had sent him, could never be in
want of resources, were she to look into herself, and exert her powers;
misery was the consequence of indolence, and, as to my being shut out
from society, it was the lot of man to submit to certain privations.'

"How often have I heard," said Jemima, interrupting her narrative, "in
conversation, and read in books, that every person willing to work may
find employment? It is the vague assertion, I believe, of insensible
indolence, when it relates to men; but, with respect to women, I am sure
of its fallacy, unless they will submit to the most menial bodily labour;
and even to be employed at hard labour is out of the reach of many, whose
reputation misfortune or folly has tainted.

"How writers, professing to be friends to freedom, and the improvement of
morals, can assert that poverty is no evil, I cannot imagine."

"No more can I," interrupted Maria, "yet they even expatiate on the
peculiar happiness of indigence, though in what it can consist, excepting
in brutal rest, when a man can barely earn a subsistence, I cannot
imagine. The mind is necessarily imprisoned in its own little tenement;
and, fully occupied by keeping it in repair, has not time to rove abroad
for improvement. The book of knowledge is closely clasped, against those
who must fulfil their daily task of severe manual labour or die; and
curiosity, rarely excited by thought or information, seldom moves on the
stagnate lake of ignorance."

"As far as I have been able to observe," replied Jemima, "prejudices,
caught up by chance, are obstinately maintained by the poor, to the
exclusion of improvement; they have not time to reason or reflect to any
extent, or minds sufficiently exercised to adopt the principles of
action, which form perhaps the only basis of contentment in every
station[114-A]."

* * * * *

"And independence," said Darnford, "they are necessarily strangers to,
even the independence of despising their persecutors. If the poor are
happy, or can be happy, _things are very well as they are_. And I cannot
conceive on what principle those writers contend for a change of system,
who support this opinion. The authors on the other side of the question
are much more consistent, who grant the fact; yet, insisting that it is
the lot of the majority to