Page 124 - erewhon

ered as subverters of all morality whatever. The malcontents,
on the other hand, assert that illness is the inevitable result
of certain antecedent causes, which, in the great majority of
cases, were beyond the control of the individual, and that
therefore a man is only guilty for being in a consumption
in the same way as rotten fruit is guilty for having gone
rotten. True, the fruit must be thrown on one side as un-
fit for man’s use, and the man in a consumption must be
put in prison for the protection of his fellow-citizens; but
these radicals would not punish him further than by loss
of liberty and a strict surveillance. So long as he was pre-
vented from injuring society, they would allow him to make
himself useful by supplying whatever of society’s wants he
could supply. If he succeeded in thus earning money, they
would have him made as comfortable in prison as possible,
and would in no way interfere with his liberty more than
was necessary to prevent him from escaping, or from be-
coming more severely indisposed within the prison walls;
but they would deduct from his earnings the expenses of
his board, lodging, surveillance, and half those of his con-
viction. If he was too ill to do anything for his support in
prison, they would allow him nothing but bread and water,
and very little of that.
They say that society is foolish in refusing to allow it-
self to be benefited by a man merely because he has done
it harm hitherto, and that objection to the labour of the
diseased classes is only protection in another form. It is an
attempt to raise the natural price of a commodity by say-
ing that such and such persons, who are able and willing

1