If the direct burden were placed on the wealthier class, or if the direct means were present in other public property (rich hospitals, endowments, monasteries) to maintain the mass moving toward poverty at its accustomed standard of living, then the subsistence of the needy would be secured without being mediated by labour — which would be contrary to the principle of civil society, and to the feeling, among its individuals, of their own self-subsistence and honour; or, [if] it were mediated by labour (through opportunity for it), then the quantity of products would be increased, and it is precisely in this surplus, and in the lack of proportionate, and themselves productive, consumers, that the evil consists which, in either way, is only increased. It becomes evident, here, that, in the face of the excess of wealth, civil society is not wealthy enough — that is, does not possess enough, of its own peculiar resources, to check the excess of poverty and the production of the rabble.

These phenomena can be studied on a grand scale in the example of England, as well as, more closely, the results that the poor rate, immeasurable endowments, and equally unlimited private charity have had — above all, along with these, the abolition of the corporations. As the most direct means, there (chiefly in Scotland), against poverty, and, in particular, against the casting off of shame and honour, the subjective bases of society, and against the idleness and extravagance, and so on, from which the rabble arises, this has proved itself: to leave the poor to their fate, and to direct them to public begging.