sputed
questions of the case.

_First_, That, in spite of the assurances from economists, no progress
whatever had been made by England or by any state which lent any
sanction to the hope of ever eradicating poverty from society.

_Secondly_, That, in absolute contradiction of the whole hypothesis
relied on by M---- and his brethren, in its most fundamental doctrine, a
legal provision for poverty did _not_ act as a bounty on marriage. The
experience of England, where the trial had been made on the largest
scale, was decisive on this point; and the opposite experience of
Ireland, under the opposite circumstances, was equally decisive. And
this result had made itself so clear by 1820, that even M---- (as we have
already noticed by anticipation) was compelled to publish a recantation
as to this particular error, which in effect was a recantation of his
entire theory.

_Thirdly_, That, according to the concurring experience of all the most
enlightened states of Christendom, the public suffered least, (not
merely in molestation but in money,) pauperism benefited most, and the
growth of pauperism was retarded most, precisely as the provision for
the poor had been legalized as to its obligation, and fixed as to its
amount. Left to individual discretion the burden was found to press most
unequally; and, on the other hand, the evil itself of pauperism, whilst
much less effectually relieved, nevertheless through the irregular
action of this relief was much more powerfully stimulated.

Such is the abstract of our latest public warfare on this great question
through a period of nearly fifty years. And the issue is this--starting
from the contemptuous defiance of the scriptural doctrine upon the
necessity of making provision for poverty as an indispensable element in
civil communities, the economy of the age has lowered its tone by
graduated descents, in each one successively of the four last
_decennia_. The philosophy of the day as to this point at least is at
length in coincidence with Scripture. And thus the very extensive
researches of this nineteenth century, as to pauperism, have re-acted
with the effect of a full justification upon Constantine's attempt to
connect the foundation of his empire with that new theory of
Christianity upon the imperishableness of poverty, and upon the duties
corresponding to it.

Meantime Mr Finlay denies that Christianity had been raised by
Constantine into the religion of the state; and oth