Solution Manual for Java Software Solutions 9th

by Lewis download

http://testbankbell.com/product/solution-manual-for-java-
software-solutions-9th-by-lewis/

Download more testbank from https://testbankbell.com

We believe these products will be a great fit for you. Click
the link to download now, or visit testbankbell.com
to discover even more!

Test Bank for Java Software Solutions, 9th Edition John

Lewis

https://testbankbell.com/product/test-bank-for-java-software-
solutions-9th-edition-john-lewis/

Test Bank for Java Software Solutions, 9th Edition John

Lewis William Loftus

https://testbankbell.com/product/test-bank-for-java-software-
solutions-9th-edition-john-lewis-william-loftus/

Test Bank for Java Software Solutions 7th Edition

(International Edition). John Lewis / William Loftus

https://testbankbell.com/product/test-bank-for-java-software-
solutions-7th-edition-international-edition-john-lewis-william-
loftus/

Solution manual for Java Software Solutions for AP

Computer Science A, 2/E 2nd Edition John Lewis, William
Loftus, Cara Cocking

https://testbankbell.com/product/solution-manual-for-java-
software-solutions-for-ap-computer-science-a-2-e-2nd-edition-
john-lewis-william-loftus-cara-cocking/
Test Bank for Java Software Solutions: Foundations of
Program Design, 7/E 7th Edition John Lewis, William
Loftus

https://testbankbell.com/product/test-bank-for-java-software-
solutions-foundations-of-program-design-7-e-7th-edition-john-
lewis-william-loftus/

Java Programming 9th Edition Joyce Farrell Solutions

Manual

https://testbankbell.com/product/java-programming-9th-edition-
joyce-farrell-solutions-manual/

Solution Manual for Java Programming 9th Edition

https://testbankbell.com/product/solution-manual-for-java-
programming-9th-edition/

Solution Manual for Java Foundations, 3/E – John Lewis,

Peter DePasquale & Joe Chase

https://testbankbell.com/product/solution-manual-for-java-
foundations-3-e-john-lewis-peter-depasquale-joe-chase/

Solution Manual for Software Engineering, 9/E 9th

Edition Ian Sommerville

https://testbankbell.com/product/solution-manual-for-software-
engineering-9-e-9th-edition-ian-sommerville/
Solution Manual for Java Software
Solutions 9th by Lewis

Full download chapter at: https://testbankbell.com/product/solution-

manual-for-java-software-solutions-9th-by-lewis/
Empowers students to write useful, object-oriented programs

Java Software Solutions establishes a strong foundation of

programming techniques to foster well-designed object-oriented
software. Heralded for its integration of small and large real-world
examples, the worldwide best-selling text emphasizes problem-
solving and design skills and introduces students to the process
of constructing high-quality software systems. The 9th
Edition features a sweeping overhaul of Graphics Track
coverage, to fully embrace the JavaFX API. This fresh approach
enriches programmers’ understandings of core object-oriented
principles. The text uses a natural progression of concepts,
focusing on the use of objects before teaching how to write
them—equipping students with the knowledge and skill they need
to design true object-oriented solutions.

Table of Contents

1. Introduction
o 1.1 Computer Processing
o 1.2 Hardware Components
o 1.3 Networks
o 1.4 The Java Programming Language
o 1.5 Programming Development
o 1.6 Object-Oriented Programming
2. Data and Expressions
o 2.1 Character Strings
o 2.2 Variables and Assignment
o 2.3 Primitive Data Types
o 2.4 Expressions
o 2.5 Data Conversion
o Software Failure: NASA Mars Climate Orbiter and Polar Lander
3. Using Classes and Objects
o 3.1 Creating Objects
o 3.2 The String Class
o 3.3 Packages
o 3.4 The Random Class
 o 3.5 The Math Class
o 3.6 Formatting Output
o 3.7 Enumerated Types
o 3.8 Wrapper Classes
o 3.9 Introduction to JavaFX
o 3.10 Basic Shapes
o 3.11 Representing Colors
4. Writing Classes
o 4.1 Classes and Objects Revisited
o 4.2 Anatomy of a Class
o 4.3 Encapsulation
o 4.4 Anatomy of a Method
o 4.5 Constructors Revisited
o 4.6 Arcs
o 4.7 Images
o 4.8 Graphical User Interfaces
o 4.9 Text Fields
o Software Failure: Denver Airport Baggage Handling System
5. Conditionals and Loops
o 5.1 Boolean Expressions
o 5.2 The If Statement
o 5.3 Comparing Data
o 5.4 The While Statement
o 5.5 Iterators
o 5.6 The ArrayList Class
o 5.7 Determining Event Sources
o 5.8 Managing Fonts
o 5.9 Checkboxes
o 5.10 Radio Buttons
o Software Failure: Therac-25
6. More Conditionals and Loops
o 6.1 The Switch Statement
o 6.2 The Conditional Operator
o 6.3 The Do Statement
o 6.4 The For Statement
o 6.5 Using Loops and Conditionals with Graphics
o 6.6 Graphic Transformations
7. Object-Oriented Design
o 7.1 Software Development Activities
o 7.2 Identifying Classes and Objects
 o 7.3. Static Class Members
o 7.4 Class Relationships
o 7.5 Interfaces
o 7.6 Enumerated Types Revisited
o 7.7 Method Design
o 7.8 Method Overloading
o 7.9 Testing
o 7.10 GUI Design
o 7.11 Key Events
o Software Failure: 2003 Northeast Blackout
8. Arrays
o 8.1 Array Elements
o 8.2 Declaring and Using Arrays
o 8.3 Arrays of Objects
o 8.4 Command-Line Arguments
o 8.5 Variable Length Parameter Lists
o 8.6 Two-Dimensional Arrays
o 8.7 Polygons and Polylines
o 8.8 An Array of Color Objects
o 8.9 Choice Boxes
o Software Failure: LA Air Traffic Control
9. Inheritance
o 9.1 Creating Subclasses
o 9.2 Overriding Methods
o 9.3 Class Hierarchies
o 9.4 Visibility
o 9.5 Designing for Inheritance
o 9.6 Inheritance in JavaFX
o 9.7 Color and Date Pickers
o 9.8 Dialog Boxes
o Software Failure: Ariane 5 Flight
10.Polymorphism
o 10.1 Late Binding
o 10.2 Polymorphism via Inheritance
o 10.3 Polymorphism vis Interfaces
o 10.4 Sorting
o 10.5 Searching
o 10.6 Designing for Polymorphism
o 10.7 Properties
o 10.8 Sliders
 o 10.9 Spinners
11.Exceptions
o 11.1 Exception Handling
o 11.2 Uncaught Exceptions
o 11.3 The Try-Catch Statement
o 11.4 Exception Propagation
o 11.5 The Exception Class Hierarchy
o 11.6 I/O Exceptions
o 11.7 Tool Tips and Disabling Controls
o 11.8 Scroll Panes
o 11.9 Split Panes and List Views
12.Recursion
o 12.1 Recursive Thinking
o 12.2 Recursive Programming
o 12.3 Using Recursion
o 12.4 Tiled Images
o 12.5 Fractals
13.Collections
o 13.1 Collections and Data Structures
o 13.2 Dynamic Representations
o 13.3 Linear Collections
o 13.4 Non-Linear Data Structures
o 13.5 The Java Collections API

Appendix A: Glossary
Appendix B: Number Systems
Appendix C: The Unicode Character Set
Appendix D: Java Operators
Appendix E: Java Modifiers
Appendix F: Java Coding Guidelines
Appendix G: JavaFX Layout Panes
Appendix H: JavaFX Scene Builder
Appendix I: Regular Expressions
Appendix J: Javadoc Documentation Generator
Appendix K: Java Syntax
Appendix L: Answers to Self-Review Questions
Index
 Another Random Document on
Scribd Without Any Related Topics
strangers had taken children off the highways, educated them, and
brought them up, their parents or their owners would demand their
return. It was a vital question of the day: to whom did these children
belong?
The Emperor Constantine had declared that those who received
them had a right to them and the Emperor Honorius had added the
restriction that the Church must know of the adoption. Many were
the arguments and the legal battles that ensued, during which time
people were little inclined to rescue the abandoned infants and many
perished as victims of the voracity of dogs, many as the victims of
hunger and cold.385
These conditions were presented to the Council, which ordered the
following measures:
“Whoever takes up an abandoned child shall bring him to the Church
where that fact will be certified. The following Sunday the priest will
announce that a new-born child has been found and ten days will be
allowed to the real parents to claim their infant. When these
formalities have been complied with, if any one then claims a child
or in any way calumniates those who have received it, he will be
punished according to the Church laws against homicide.”386
Ten years later the act of the Council of Vaison was sanctioned at
the Council of Arles and again in 505, by the Council of Agde.
It has been said that this was comparatively little when one thinks of
this great union of bishops representing not only the interests of
religion but “the moral needs of the epoch.” On the other hand, any
criticism would be unjust that did not take into consideration the fact
that it was great progress in the face of great poverty and greater
barbarity.387
Church and State united in the movement for the protection of the
child in the laws of Justinian, who, raised to the throne in 527,
published in 529, and with considerable changes in 534, a collection
of laws that have immortalized his name, in which the great lawyer
Tribonian remade the three other codes, the Gregorian,
Hermogenian, and the Theodosian.
Justinian proclaimed absolute liberty for foundling children, declaring
that they were not the property of either the parents who exposed
them or of those who received them.
One of these laws, promulgated in 553, punished severely those who
tried to hold as slaves, children who had been exposed. This law
stated expressly that all children left at churches or other places
were absolutely free. It also stated that the act of exposing a child
exceeded the cruelty of an ordinary murder, inasmuch as it struck at
the most feeble and the most pitiable.
The imperial edict of 553 invited the Archbishop of Thessalonica and
the prefect to give to the foundlings all the help possible and to
punish those who disobeyed the injunction with a fine of five livres
of gold. In addition, the Justinian Code contained a provision by
which a father whose poverty was extreme was allowed to sell his
son or his daughter at the moment of birth and to repurchase the
infant later. The Emperor also ordered that some organized
endeavour be made to take care of children for whom no other
provision had been made. Unchanged and little modified, with the
exception of those amendments made by the Emperor Leon, the
philosopher, these laws and these conditions governed the Eastern
Empire from now on until its fall before the arms of the Turks.
 CHAPTER XIX
CONDITIONS AMONG THE PEOPLES WHO CONQUERED THE ROMAN EMPIRE—
IRISH SACRIFICED FIRST BORN—THE WERGELD—THE SALIC LAW—CODE
OF THE VISIGOTHS ON EXPOSED CHILDREN—THEODORIC AND
CASSIODORUS.

W ITH Church and State united in defence of the child’s right to

live, we turn to the barbaric hordes that were then enfilading
the Roman civilization. For the first time in the history of man
the religious law was the same as the civil law, and for the first time
in the history of man both represented human law.
With Diocletian’s division of the Empire into four almost equal parts
under two Augusti and two Cæsars, there was frank
acknowledgment that the great Roman Empire was at an end. With
him, too, ended the fiction of a popular sovereignty. The Roman
Emperor became an Eastern despot. He was no longer a man of the
people easily to be seen and showing his democracy in frequent
unofficial parade.
 THE HOLY FAMILY

(AFTER RUBENS)
(REPRODUCED BY PERMISSION OF MUSEUM OF ART, NEW YORK)
He was now a secluded person wearing the dress of the Orientals,
surrounded by servile officials; and the Orientalism of the
government went further when Constantine, at the farthest limit of
Europe, built a new city, Constantinople, named after himself.
Nominally it was but to divide with Rome the honours of being the
capital; in reality it was to dim the even now fading lustre of the
Seven Hills.
From the frontiers of China to the Baltic there came pressing down
on the fast disintegrating Roman Empire armies of barbarians. Amid
all the disorder, the calamities without number, when civilization,
science, and the arts were all obscured, the Church gained strength,
its tenets held sway, its humanities were accepted as the conquerors
in their turn became the conquered. The Christian religion slowly
gripped them all as out of the convulsions of government there was
born the modern Europe.
To the Romans and their adopted allies it was a world of terror—to
the Christians it was a friendly world, for the barbarians were known
to the Church long before they were known to the soldiers who tried
to repulse them.
It has been the fashion to decry the value of the check that the
Church put on the barbarous tribes in the early part of the Christian
era.388 Up to the very door of the Church there was, it is true,
slaughter—there it stopped. Had it not been for the Church
upholding what it did of civilization and humanity, it is difficult to say
what would have been the outcome of the hordes of Ostrogoths,
Visigoths, Gephids, Longobards, Vandals, Burgundians, Franks, and
Saxons who, at one time or another, fell upon Rome.
But from the third century these invaders in their very triumph came
face to face with a moral force that checked them as no army could,
softened their manners, and uniting their rude strength with the last
remains of the glory of Rome, gave to the world the civilized nations
that now practically control both hemispheres.
Of the first missionary efforts little is known. Jesus himself had said,
“Go ye therefore and teach all nations.... Teach them to observe all
things whatsoever I have commanded you,”389 and was indeed
himself the first missionary of the new faith. Of his immediate
followers only three undertook missionary work.
After the death of Jesus, the Apostles scattered over the whole
world. “Thomas,” says Eusebius, “received Parthia as his alloted
region; Andrew received Scythia, and John, Asia.... Peter appears to
have preached through Pontus, Galatia, Bithynia, Cappadocia, and
Asia ... and Paul spread the Gospel from Jerusalem to Illyricum.”390
From another source we are told that Matthew went into Æthiopia,
but in the following century there is little light as to who were the
missionaries; but that they were everywhere successful is shown by
the reports of the Roman governors to the emperors. Undisputed
claims of Tertullian and Justin also show that the work of conversion,
despite the proscriptions, was going on rapidly enough. Ulfilas, “the
Apostle of the Goths,” translated the Bible into their language in 325;
Eusebius, Bishop of Vercelli in 370, made his cathedral the centre of
missionary work. Chrysostom trained people in the Gothic language
and in missionary work and sent them among the Goths according to
Theodoretius.391
It was harder work in the West but it was more lasting. From Berins,
an islet off the roadstead of Toulon where, in 410 a. d., a Roman
patrician, Honoratus, had founded a monastic home, there were sent
bishops to Arles, Avignon, Lyons, Troyes, Metz, and Nice, and many
other places in southern and western Gaul, all to become the centres
of missionary work.392
The proselyting spirit among these Frankish bishops gave rise to a
great movement in the north. The preaching of Patrick was followed
by what has been described as a marvellous burst of enthusiasm;
and Celtic enthusiasm was from now to be counted on. Columba, the
founder of Iona, was the missionary for the Northern Picts and the
Albanian Scots; Aidan for the Northumbrian Saxons; Columbanus for
the Burgundians of the Vosges; Callich or Gallus for north-eastern
Switzerland and Germany; Kilian for Thuringia; Virgilius for Carinthia;
Fridolin in Suabia and Alsace; Magnoald founded a monastery in
Fingen; Trudpert penetrated as far as the Black Forest, where he
was killed.
Among these people there had been a variety of conditions before
the coming of, first the Romans, and secondly the Christians. Before
the arrival of St. Patrick and the conversion of the natives there is
very little doubt that part of the pagan worship included human
sacrifice. On a plain in what is now the county of Leitrim which was
then called the Magh-Sleacth, or Field of Slaughter, these primeval
rites took place.
“There on the night of Samhin, the same dreadful tribute which the
Carthaginians are known to have paid to Saturn in sacrificing to him
their first-born, was by the Irish offered up to their chief idol, Crom-
Cruach.”393
Of the Gauls and the Germans we learn something from Cæsar and
Tacitus, but both are vague enough when it comes to the subject of
children. The two people, according to Strabo, were as much alike as
brothers.
“The two races have much in common,” said Martin, “in their social
organization.” In Gaul the power of the father was absolute—viri in
uxores sicut in liberos vitæ necisque habent potestatem, wrote
Cæsar, and Tacitus tells us in Germanicus that the husband had
assisted in the execution of his adulterous wife by her nearest
relatives—a condition that would lead one to believe that there was
high regard for the mother of the family, although it has been said
that Tacitus in painting the Germans as virtuous as he did394 was
following much along the lines of Fenimore Cooper in painting the
Indians a holy pink—he wished to improve the morals of his own
countrymen and sacrificed truth as a detaining cargo.
The Germans of the fourth century represented about the period of
culture that our American Indians did when the English first arrived
in this country. Unlike the Indians, they had the power to learn,
whereas the Indians seemed to be able to learn only the vices of
civilization. Their imagination stirred by the stories that came back to
them of the glory of Rome, they were for pressing forward. With the
growing population that made migration necessary, and with the
inimical forces pushing them from the rear, the “open road”
beckoned them on to Rome.
Before the close of the fourth century the Gospel had been carried
to them, especially to those near the Roman border.
We have seen the laws of old Rome become more humane—what
were the laws of this later Rome?
Among some of the German tribes, notably among the Frisians, we
learn that the father had the right to kill and expose his children
when he was unable to provide them with nourishment; but once
the child had taken of milk or eaten honey it could not be killed. The
Emperor Julian, who loved literature more than he loved religion and
has been decorated with the title Apostate, speaks of a custom of
some of the barbarians who lived on the banks of the Rhine, which
consisted of abandoning the new-born children on the waves of the
river, believing that adulterous children would drown and legitimate
children would survive.
The Church was here able “to concord the essentials of two bodies
of law by discarding the elements of formalism and egoism in the
Roman law and the hard and barbaric qualities of the German law;
and introduced as governing principles of social and communal life
the grave moral principles which Christ had proclaimed. The New
Testament was the great law, the legislative ideal for all the
Romano-Germanic peoples.”395
In the semi-barbarian laws that came out as the result of the
blending of their own customs with the Roman law, the combined
product being softened by the Christian teaching, there is evident
always the Germanic idea of the wergeld by which a man paid for a
crime, from the smallest to the greatest. And instead of the patria
potestas we find the mundium, this word (hand) being used to
describe all classes of protection.
Infanticide is not mentioned as frequently as is abortion. To the
belief that the infant had a soul was traceable this phase of semi-
barbarian legislation.
The Franks were not spoken of in history until 240 a. d. (Aurelianus)
and Salian Franks whose laws Montesquieu declared were much
quoted and seldom read were subdued by Julianus.396
According to the Salic law397 to “kill a child that did not as yet have
a name, that is to say one under eight days of age, was to be
subject to a fine or wergeld of 100 sous or 4000 deniers”398 xxiii., 4.
Si utero in ventre matris sui occisus fuerit, aut ante quod nomen
abait, malb anneando, sunt din. iiiM fac. sol. culp. iud.
To kill a boy under ten, according to the early manuscripts, meant a
fine of 24,000 deniers, while the later manuscripts raised the age to
twelve, as there was greater wergeld for killing one who was then
considered a man. Oghlou suggests that while it cost but 200 sous
to kill an ordinary free man, the price of an infant under twelve was
600 because “the cowardice of killing a child that had not arrived at
the twelfth year appealed to the barbarians.” Such an interpretation
would be crediting the Salians with a most humanitarian and
nineteenth-century point of view. As a matter of fact, the fine for the
murder of a child is the same as for the killing of a sagbaron
(Dicuntur quosi senatores).
The words puer crintus have been shown by Kern399 to refer not to
the fact that the boy was one of twelve years who had been allowed
to wear his hair long, but one who “by right of birth is allowed to
wear his hair long in contradistinction to slaves and serfs.”400
To cut the hair of a boy or girl by force—and apparently against their
will—meant a fine of forty-five sous. To kill a free girl before the age
of twelve cost 200 sous, after the age of twelve, here given as the
age of puberty, meant 600 sous. To kill a woman who was enceinte
meant a wergeld of 700 sous; to strike a woman who was enceinte
was 200 sous; if the child died, 600 sous, if the woman also died,
900 sous, and if the woman was in verbo regis, under the care of
the king, 1200 sous.
The Salic law, which was put together by four chosen seigneurs and
corrected by Clovis, Childbert, and Lothair, is also interesting in that
it put a penalty on murders in such a way as to show that even the
unborn child was given a value. A wergeld of 700 sous was declared
against one who killed a woman who was enceinte, and to kill an
unborn child entailed a wergeld of 200 sous.
The law of the Allemands, the people who have passed away but
who have left the name by which the French designate the
Germans, differed from the Salic law in an interesting way.
The tendency and underlying idea of the laws of the time is well
shown in the law of the Angles which punished the murder of a
noble girl non nubile with the same wergeld of 600 sous that it
punished the murder of a noble woman who was no longer able to
bear children. The murder of a woman who was capable of bearing
children was punishable by a wergeld three times the size of this.
But the fine for a young girl or non fecund woman of the plain
people was only 160 sous.
The Burgundians in their law had no regulation on either infanticide
or abortion. The Ripurian Francs declared strongly against both in a
law that imposed a fine of 100 sous on “any one who killed a new-
born child that had not been named.”
The code of the Visigoths which was arranged after the middle of
the fifth century is the severest of all in its penalties as to abortion
and those in any way responsible for it.
In the matter of exposed children the law went into details. Parents
could not sell children, it states, nor put them in pawn.
“Whoever nourished a child that had been exposed, gained the value
of a slave, which had to be paid by the parents of the exposed child
when it was reclaimed by its parents. If the parents did not present
themselves but they should be found out, they were forced to pay
and might be sent into exile. If they did not have the means to pay,
the one who had exposed the child became a slave in his place to
the rescuer.
“If a slave expose a child unknown to the master and the master
swear that he was ignorant of the act, the person who rescues and
brings up the child can recover only one fourth of its value; but if the
exposure has been with the master’s knowledge, the rescuer can
recover the full value of the child.”401
Those to whom a child had been given away to bring up received an
agreed price during the first ten years of the child. After that the law
declared that the service of the child was sufficient compensation for
its nurture—an interesting sidelight on the time when a child became
amenable to the “laws of industry.”
In these laws of the Visigoths it is easy to see the influence of Codex
Theodosianus.

EVENING RECREATION CENTRE FOR BOYS, NEW YORK CITY

 MEETING OF AN “EVENING CENTRE,” NEW YORK CITY
Among the Anglo-Saxons there was a law (domas) of Ina, King of
Wessex, which declared that the nourishment for a child exposed
and recovered should be fixed at six sous for the first year, twelve
sous for the second year, and thirty for the third. Another law of the
same peoples, ascribed to Alfred, made it necessary for the person
in charge of a foundling at the time of its death, to establish the fact
that the death had occurred in a perfectly natural way, a sage
precaution and one centuries ahead of the time.
Theodoric, or Dietrich as Charles Kingsley called him to the chagrin
of Max Müller and others, as King of the Ostrogoths made an
interesting ruling on the subject of the freedom of children in the
year 500. We learn of this through his secretary, Cassiodorus, for,
like other kings, the Ostrogoth was wise enough to have the
cleverest literary man of his day to write his letters and leave behind
his own approved account of his reign.
According to this law, when a father because of poverty was obliged
to sell his child, the child did not therefore lose his liberty.402
Showing how nimble was not only the literary talent but the spirit of
Cassiodorus, it is interesting to read in another part of the writings
of the same author a rescript sent in the name of King Athalaric, the
successor of Theodoric and his grandson, to Severus, the governor
of Lucania. As a picture of the times that we are accustomed to
think of as dark, as well as an example of the dexterous literary skill
of Cassiodorus, the letter is worth printing, for while it takes a most
reactionary stand on the matter of the sale of children it suggests
the epistle of Trajan to Pliny.
“King Athalaric to Severus, Vir Spectabilis.
“We hear that the rustics are indulging in disorderly practices, and
robbing the market-people who come down from all quarters to the
chief fair of Lucania on the day of St. Cyprian. This must by all
means be suppressed, and your Respectability should quietly collect
a sufficient number of the owners and tenants of the adjoining farms
to overpower these freebooters and bring them to justice. Any rustic
or other person found guilty of disturbing the fair should be at once
punished with the stick, and then exhibited with some mark of
infamy upon him.
“This fair, which according to the old superstition was named
Leucothea (after the nymph) from the extreme purity of the fountain
at which it is held, is the greatest fair in all the surrounding country.
Everything that industrious Campania, or opulent Bruittii, or cattle-
breeding Calabria, or strong Apulia produces, is there to be found
exposed for sale, on such reasonable terms that no buyer goes away
dissatisfied. It is a charming sight to see the broad plains filled with
suddenly reared houses formed of leafy branches intertwined: all the
beauty of the most leisurely built city, and yet not a wall to be seen.
There stand ready boys and girls; with the attractions which belong
to their respective sexes and ages, whom not captivity but freedom
sets a price upon. These are with good reason sold by their parents,
since they themselves gain by their servitude. For one cannot doubt
that they are benefited even as slaves (or servants?), by being
transferred from the toil of the fields to the service of the cities.
“What can I say of the bright and many coloured garments? what of
the sleek well-fed cattle offered at such a price as to tempt any
purchaser?
“The place itself is situated in a wide and pleasant plain, a suburb of
the ancient city of Cosilinum, and has received the name of
Marcilianum from the founder of these sacred springs.
“And this is in truth a marvellous fountain, full and fresh, and of such
transparent clearness that when you look through it you think you
are looking through air alone. Choice fishes swim about in the pool,
perfectly tame, because if anyone presumes to capture them he
soon feels the Divine vengeance. On the morning which precedes
the holy night (of St. Cyprian), as soon as the priest begins to utter
the baptismal prayer, the water begins to rise above its accustomed
height. Generally it covers but five steps of the well, but the brute
element, as if preparing itself for miracles, begins to swell, and at
last covers two steps more, never reached at any other time of the
year. Truly a stupendous miracle, that streams of water should thus
stand still or increase at the sound of the human voice, as if the
fountain itself desired to listen to the sermon.
“Thus hath Lucania a river Jordan of her own. Wherefore, both for
religion’s sake and for the profit of the people, it behoves that good
order should be kept among the frequenters of the fair, since in the
judgment of all, that man must be deemed a villain who would sully
the joys of such happy days.”403
 CHAPTER XX
GROWTH OF THE HUMANITARIAN MOVEMENT THROUGHOUT EUROPE—IN
THE DARK AGES—CHURCH TAKES UP THE HUMANITARIAN WORK IN THE
SEVENTH CENTURY—SALE OF CHILDREN COMMON—STORY OF SAINT
BATHILDE—CHILDREN SOLD FOR FATHER’S DEBTS—DATHEUS THE FIRST
TO OFFER CHILDREN A HOME—APPEAL OF POPE INNOCENT III.

I N the Eastern Empire it was always a fight with the Church on the
one hand and barbarian customs on the other for the
humanization of the rapidly developing peoples. We may now look
at the Dark Ages in a very different spirit from that which animated
our fathers. We now know that whatever may have been the faults
of the priests or the rulers, the world was making progress, and new
and inherently strong peoples were developing as fast as they could
assimilate a superior civilization.404
The Church, very early in the history of the Christian era, became
the avowed protector of the parentless children and it soon became
a custom to confide infants to the Church when mothers felt that
they were unable to raise their offspring. The gain made by the
Church by this step was immeasurable, for however much those
opposed to Christianity might argue, the onward march was
irresistible when religion rested itself on the mother instinct and,
without accusation or attempted retribution, willingly assumed the
ties that maternity was obliged to forego.
By the door of the churches it became the custom to have a marble
receptacle in which mothers placed the children that they were
forced to abandon. The newly born was received by the matricularii
or by the priest, who, following the form prescribed, asked those
who assisted at the adoption ceremonies if there was any known
person who would consent to take charge of the infant. These
formalities had to receive the sanction of the bishop. Not
infrequently the priest succeeded in finding among the parishioners
of his church someone who would adopt the infant, but if he did not,
the church always assumed the responsibility and took care of the
orphan. In some places the children that had been abandoned by
their mothers were, by the order of the bishop, shown at the door of
the church for ten days following their abandonment, and if any one
recognized and was able to declare who the parents were, he made
such a declaration to the ecclesiastical authorities—a dangerous
custom as many unfortunate though innocent people discovered.
In the case where some person not officially connected with the
church assumed the responsibility of bringing up the abandoned
child, such a person (nutricarii) received with the charge, a
document wherein the fact of adoption was set forth, the
circumstances under which the child was found, and the right of the
adoptive parent to hold the child henceforth as a slave. In this
connection it must be remembered that the Code of Justinian, which
had put an end to this custom in the East, had no force in the West.
The result was that in the European States which succeeded to the
Western Roman Empire it was an almost general custom that
abandoned children grew up in slavery. Indeed, so general was this
custom that even the Church placed the newly born as among its
assets, the church of Seville in Spain enumerating the number of
abandoned children taken in as among its revenues.
At the Council of Rouen, held in the seventh century, the priests of
each diocese were enjoined to inform their congregations that
women who were delivered in secret might leave their infants at the
door of the church. The church thereby attended to the immediate
care of the newly born, and while the fact that the children were
brought up in slavery was bad, it was a great improvement over the
conditions in Rome and Greece. At least, if brought up in slavery,
they were brought up with no criminal purpose and as far as the
ecclesiastical authorities were able to regulate their lives, they were
not condemned to lives of immorality.
So bad, however, were the conditions in the seventh century, and so
miserable and poor were the people, that despite the example and
the preachings of the Church, thousands of children were thrown on
the highways or left in deserted places to perish of starvation.
Among the Gauls, before the domination of the Franks, the heads of
families that lacked food, or the means to obtain it, took to the
market their children and sold them as they would the veriest
chattels.405 This traffic was not only common but it took place
publicly, and not only in ancient France but in Germany, in Flanders,
in Italy, and in England. Northern Europe was colder, more swampy,
and more desolate then than it is now and across the bleak and
uncultivated country, country such as one finds nowhere in Europe
today but on the professional and bleak battlefields of Bulgaria and
Servia, the half-starved peasants tramped, each with his group of
children to place on sale when the coasts of Italy or France were
reached.
It was in this way that Saint Bathilde, afterward the wife of King
Clovis II., became the slave of the mayor of the palace,
Archambault. Bought by the latter, she was working as a slave in his
household when the King saw her and fell in love with her.406
Moved by such great misery and such odious traffic, holy men went,
purse in hand, to the places where these infants were being sold
and purchased the unfortunates, giving them later their liberty. In
this manner, Saint Eunice was purchased by an Abbé du Berry and
Saint Thean by Saint Eloi.
The poverty led to even worse crimes than the selling of their own
children for when it was found by the shiftless and impoverished that
they could sell their own children and the foundlings that they picked
up, not infrequently they robbed more fortunate parents of children
that were being well taken care of.
Similar distress and want had led to similar conditions in the fifth
century. In 449 a. d., the times were so hard and the people were in
such a famished condition in Italy and Gaul that parents sold their
children to middlemen even though they knew the children were to
be resold to the Vandals in Africa. Two years later Valentinian broke
up this practice, declaring that the person who sold a free person for
the purpose of having that person sold to the barbarians would be
fined six ounces of gold.407
This traffic was carried to such an excess in the British Islands that it
became the principal object of an apostolic mission of Gregory who
became Pope in 590.
“Our Divine Redeemer,” he wrote, “has delivered us from all
servitude and has given unto us our original liberty. Let us imitate his
example by freeing from slavery those men who are free by the laws
of nature.”
The attitude toward children in England under the Anglo-Saxon
kings408 is shown by the fact that a boy’s accountability, his
capability of bearing arms and of the management of his property
began, according to the earlier laws, in his tenth, but according to
the laws of Æthelstan, in his twelfth year.409 “The accountability of
children was extended even to the infant in the cradle, whereby, in
the case of theft committed by the father, they, like those of mature
age, were consigned to slavery, but this cruel practice was by a law
of Cnut strictly forbidden.410 This premature majority of the Anglo-
Saxon youth accounts for the early accession to the throne of some
of the kings, as Edward the Martyr, who was crowned in his
thirteenth year. Majority at the age of ten is not mentioned in any
other Germanic laws, excepting in favour of the young testator, or
the son whose father could not or would not support him. The
beginning of the thirteenth year as that of majority is strictly and
universally Germanic.”411
“The doctrines of the Church,” say Terme and Monfalcon, “were
indeed admirable—they breathed the purest, the finest morality and
the most ardent love of humanity, but they were unable to prevail
against the ignorance of the people and the barbarity of their
morals.”
Coming to the first attempts at organized effort to save children by
the Church we find that Article 70 of the Council of Nicaea instructed
the bishop to establish in each city a place to which travellers, the
sick and the poor, might appeal for aid and shelter. The
Xenodocheion, as it was called, is to this day the word for “hotel” in
modern Greece, where the traveller in Europe will conclude there is
little evidence of improvement since the ecclesiastical foundation.
These places were also used as the asylums for children, a fact that
led them to be called Brephotrophia.412
In the West a similar movement sprang up, and in the life of Saint
Gour, contemporary of Childebert, it is said that at Trèves there was
something like a systematic endeavour to protect children. A great
obscurity hangs around this foundation, and it is equally difficult to
determine positively what is the exact character of the institution
ascribed to Saint Marmbœuf, who died in Angers in 654.
Of the efforts of Datheus, however, there are no doubts, though
interesting is the fact that no biographical encyclopædia contains
even his name. He was Archbishop of Milan, and the first institution
to take care of helpless children was founded by him in 787.
“An enervating and sensual life,” declared Datheus in founding the
asylum, “leads many astray. They commit adultery and do not dare
show the fruits in public and therefore put them to death. By
depriving the children of baptism they send them to hell. These
horrors would not take place if there existed an asylum where the
adulterer could hide her shame, but now they throw the infants in
the sewers or the rivers and many are the murders committed on
the new-born children as the result of this illicit intercourse.
“Therefore, I, Datheus, for the welfare of my soul and the souls of
my associates, do hereby establish in the house that I have bought
next to the church, a hospital for foundling children. My wish is that
as soon as a child is exposed at the door of a church that it will be
received in the hospital and confided to the care of those who will be
paid to look after them.... These infants will be taught a trade and
my wish is that when they arrive at the age of eight years they will
be free from the shackles of slavery and free to come or go
wherever they will.”413
In 1380 a similar institution was opened in Venice, and in Florence in
1421. There is no doubt that similar institutions were most frequent
in the fifteenth century. Pontanus, a writer of that age, speaks of
having seen nine hundred children in the one at Naples, and openly
expresses his admiration for the liberal education that they received
and the care bestowed on them by their teachers.414
The most purely religious institute appears to have been, according
to the able Gaillard, that of the Bourgognes415 in imitation of the
charity of St. Marthe in her house in Bethany. An order, that of the
chanoines réguliers du Saint Esprit, was founded, or at least
encouraged by Guy of Montpellier about the end of the twelfth
century for the express purpose of caring for poor and abandoned
children. The same institution is also said to have had for its founder,
Olivier de la Crau in 1010. In any case it was not until 1188, eight
years after the foundation of the order ascribed to Guy of
Montpellier, that the hospital of Marseilles was established.
The historians of Languedoc416 do not justify the assumption that
this same Guy was the son of the Count of Montpellier, and all that
we know is that “Brother Guy” or “Master Guy,” as he was differently
called,417 apparently founded an asylum for sick men and
abandoned children.
The success of this order was immediate. In 1197, Bernard de
Montlaur and his wife left a substantial donation to the Hospital of
Saint Esprit at Montpellier, and to Guy, its founder.418 Public approval
was followed by official approval, for the Senate of Marseilles, or the
Honourable Council, as it was called, held its meetings in the
hospital founded there by Guy in 1188 and began its deliberations
always with a discussion about the condition of the poor.419
Following the efforts of Guy of Montpellier, at Montpellier and at
Marseilles, the movement, under the auspices of the hospitaliers of
Saint Esprit, spread so rapidly that before the end of the century
there were institutions at Rome,420 one at Bergliac, and one at
Troyes, and others in different places.421 The order founded by Guy
was given the approval of the Holy See, and its founder was called
to Rome by Innocent III. and placed in charge of the house of Santa
Maria in Sassia, where the Pope wished the same spirit that had
marked Guy’s own institution at Montpellier. Guy died in Rome, 1208.

FILLING CHRISTMAS BASKETS FOR POOR CHILDREN—MOTHERS’

HELPING HAND CLUB, NEW YORK CITY
The house of Santa Maria in Sassia to which Guy was called was
attached to the church of that name which had been founded by
Gna, king of the later Saxons, in 715. It had undergone many
disastrous changes, but in 1198 Innocent III., at his own expense,
had it renovated and repaired for the sick and poor of Rome. In
1204, moved by the frequency with which the fishermen of the Tiber
found in their nets the bodies of children that had been thrown into
the river, the Pope dedicated part of the hospital to the care of
abandoned children, and it was to this institution that Guy of
Montpellier was called.
The humane movement spread rapidly, generally under at least the
nominal guidance of the Order of Saint Esprit. Many institutions,
however, were founded in the name of Saint Esprit where little
attention was paid to children.
The institution at Embeck422 founded in 1274 made a special work
of taking care of abandoned children in the name of Saint Esprit. We
come now to the name of Enrad Fleinz,423 that bourgeois of
Nuremberg, who in 1331 founded in his natal town the first hospital
where not only children might be left, but where women might go to
be delivered, without regard to whether the offspring were
legitimate or not. This, too, was in the name of Saint Esprit, and in
the year 1362, a similar asylum for orphans was founded in Paris.
It was indeed under the auspices of this order that the movement
which began with the imperial Brephotrophia in the sixth century
grew, until the various institutions of one sort or another intended to
prevent the outright murder of children or their abandonment in
deserted places were dependent, not on the humanity of any one
man or group of men, but on the new-born spirit that was then
spreading throughout Europe and that continued to spread even
when individualism and materialism as ruling forces had supplanted
religion and asceticism. The history of charity, which, as Lecky says,
is yet to be written, will doubtless reveal, when it comes to be
written, the various unappreciated factors that went to produce the
humane movement.
Some idea of how rapidly these institutions had multiplied may be
obtained from a bull of Nicholas IV., containing a long enumeration
of the various foundations, which includes places in Italy, Sicily,
Germany, England, France, and Spain.424
Besides those enumerated by the Pope, there were however other
institutions springing up where, either as an adjunct to hospital work
or as an independent work itself, children were being cared for. As
one of the original and most scholarly writers on this phase of the
subject has pointed out, it is difficult to make positive statements
about these foundations, for the men interested were intent on their
work rather than on leaving a record of it behind. Perhaps in this
connection, some future historian, in viewing the voluminous
charitable records of our day, will assume that “social” egotism has
been well saddled, and made to do more than the work of a timely
charitable impulse.
 SAINT VINCENT DE PAUL, FOUNDER OF THE FIRST PERMANENT
ASYLUM FOR CHILDREN IN FRANCE
The conditions that led to the crusade of Vincent of Paul antedated
that philanthropist by several hundred years. Where the religious
spirit had failed to arouse interest in the problem of the welfare of
parentless children, the large cities of Europe were themselves
forced to take some action. Milan, in 1168, on the prayer of the
Cardinal Galdinus, founded a hospital (which would indicate that the
institution founded by Datheus had either fallen into disuse or was
inadequate) and Venice in 1380 followed the example of Milan, while
the magnificent hospital for foundling children in Florence (Spidale
degl’ Innocenti) was founded, after a long deliberation in open
council, on October 25, 1421.
Included in these governmental or municipal movements is that of
St. Thomas of Villeneuve, Archbishop of Valence, who created an
asylum in his own palace at the beginning of the fifteenth century,
and gave orders that no children presented there should be turned
away.
The Hotel-Dieu de Notre Dame de Pitié of Lyons, which by letters
patent of 1720 was declared to be the oldest hospital of France,
commenced in 1523 the same work, and in that year is recorded as
having received nine children. On February 25, 1530, François the
First recognized the right of the institution to take in these children.
In 1596 the city of Amsterdam began to make provision for the
abandoned children.
The beginning of the movement in Paris, we learn, was the result of
the terrible conditions that followed the war in 1360, 1361, and
1362.425 Poverty and misery were everywhere, and a large number
of orphans practically lived and died in the streets, says Breuil in his
Antiquités de Paris. Various charitable people took in some of these
unfortunates, the Hotel-Dieu being overrun; but, as the conditions
were but little ameliorated, on February 7, 1362, a group of citizens
went to the “Reverend father in God, Messire Jean de Meulant, 88th
Bishop of Paris,” and discussed with him the frightful conditions of
the poor boys and girls of Paris. The evils attending the homeless
condition of the latter were especially considered. We are told that
the result of the conference was that the Bishop gave them
permission to institute and erect a hospital of Saint Esprit and
bestowed on each one of the conferees forty days’ indulgence.
The institution that arose as a result of this conference has been
criticized as being narrow in its purpose, inasmuch as the rules
declared that only legitimate children, born of parents in Paris, were
to be admitted; but the restriction, it must be understood, was
necessary, in view of the small funds in hand.
But humanitarian feeling was growing; and people were beginning to
be proud of being thoughtful and kind. It was no longer a mark of
superiority to be lustful of blood. Botterays, in a Latin poem on
Paris,426 spoke of the splendid way in which the orphan children of
Paris were brought up, referring to the Hospital of Saint Esprit and
the House of the Enfants-Dieu. After long years of nominal
acquiescence in its teachings, the barbarians of the North were
really beginning to accept the Christianity of Christ.
 CHAPTER XXI
CRUELTY TO CHILDREN IN THE SIXTEENTH AND SEVENTEENTH CENTURY—
ATTEMPT AT REGULATION—DEFORMING CHILDREN FOR MOUNTEBANK
PURPOSES—ANECDOTE OF VINCENT DE PAUL—HIS WORK AND HIS
SUCCESS.

F ROM Datheus to Vincent de Paul the general history of the child

in Europe moves as from one mountain peak to another with a
long valley of gloom in between. Datheus has received no credit;
Vincent de Paul has been justly recognized as a deserving
contemporary of that list of brilliant men who went to make up the
Golden Age of France. Golden Age that it was, with its highly
polished manners, there, under the reign of the elegant Mazarin and
the delicate Anne of Austria, it was no uncommon sight to see a
child lying dead on the pavements, while others died of misery and
hunger under the very eyes of the passers-by. Not a day passed, say
the chroniclers, when the men who had charge of the sewers or the
police did not draw out at least the body of one child.
At the beginning of the seventeenth century Europe, and France
especially, was war-ridden. During the sixteenth century, the
religious and charitable impulses had suffered, first through the
national war, then by the factional wars, and finally by religious
wars.
“The religious war,” said the historian of Languedoc,427 “almost
entirely destroyed the Hospital of Montpellier ... and even the order
of Saint Esprit was dying out throughout France.”
It was a curious and disjointed society, that of the France of that
day. Kingdoms there were within the royal domain; the laws of the
large city frequently clashing with those of the province within which
it was located; here and there provinces following their own laws
rather than the laws of the kingdom itself. In some provinces the
Church dominated; in others the nobles; elsewhere, the two classes
were beginning to melt into the body of the nation which
occasionally overrode both.428
At Aix, for instance, it was the custom to place the abandoned child
in a religious home where, as in the rest of Provence, the unknown
bastard was charged to the nearest hospital. Practically the same
law was observed in Bretagne.
At Poitiers, a decree on September 15, 1579, “condemning the
provision by which religious orders nourished infants found at their
door,” ordered that the monasteries and ecclesiastic chapters of the
place should be called on to regulate their contributions to the
support of the children.
But as a rule the great nobles were obliged to take care of the
foundlings abandoned within their jurisdiction. In the origin of the
fiefs, the bastards had been set down as épaves (waifs), and the
interpreters of the law (jurisconsults) had decided that the lord had
no right to refuse to take care of the épaves. The parliaments too
took the view that, inasmuch as the seigneur profited by all deaths
that occurred and succeeded to all titles in the case of disinheritance
within his domain, he should accept the liability for the care of the
unknown children found within their domain.
Of the many decrees which touch on this important point, the oldest
is that of the Parliament of Paris in the year 1547. Many other arrêts
followed, until on September 3, 1667, the following, in the interest of
the special hospitals, declared that:
“All the seigneurs (hauts justiciers) will be held responsible for the
expense and nourishment of all infants whose parents are unknown,
and who are found exposed on their lands and taken to hospitals.”
This regulation, as Ramcle says, failed in its purpose, for it was not
possible to force what was considered charity on the none too
generous nobles. The laws were evaded, and each community tried
to send to its neighbours the unfortunate infants it should have
guarded.
The mortality of infants increased, and as in Rome in the days of the
Empire, mothers threw their children into the sewers or left them on
the highways. Those less inhuman left them at the doors of the
hospitals, where, during the winter, in the morning, they were
frequently taken in more dead than alive.
Of course, the laws against these abandonments were promptly
enforced—the unfortunate women were easily punished. A girl who
killed her offspring was hung, and others who were caught leaving
children in solitary places were whipped and disgraced in the cities
and villages where they lived.
By an edict of Henry II., under penalty of punishment, a woman
enceinte was obliged to declare her condition; and to add to this
bungling legislative effort, she was obliged to tell who the guilty man
was, the maxim creditur virgini being accepted everywhere. The
attempts at curing the ills failed, for, while the intentions of the
legislators were undoubtedly honest, they only exposed shameless
conditions, made the unfortunate suffer even more, brought ruin to
many honest families, and gain to shameless women only. The
number of children abandoned and murdered in defiance of the
regulations increased instead of decreasing.
At this time there came an individual effort to better things, by a
woman whose name is not even known and whose efforts at a noble
work have, owing to the actions of her servants, been much
misinterpreted.
Living in a house in the Cité de Saint-Landry, Paris, with two
servants, she received every morning the infants that the soldiers (or
police) had collected during the night. So many were eventually
turned over to her, that she was unable to feed them, and many
died in her own house for lack of food. In the crowded conditions we
are also told a selection429 was made and some of the children were
exposed again, or at least they were turned over to some charitable
or interested person who would accept them. The care of the
children devolving finally on the two servants, many of them are said
to have perished from the drugs they were given to keep them
quiet. The availability of children as beggars led the servants to look
on them as a means of money making, and they were sold for
various cruel and evil purposes, a condition that eventually led to the
reform undertaken by Vincent de Paul.
The fact that they frequently fell into the hands of magicians,
mountebanks, and pedlars, who deformed them in order to make
them of assistance in earning a livelihood, is attested by the
biographer of Vincent.
“Returning from one of his missions,” says Maury, “Vincent de Paul,
whom I have dared to call almost the visible angel of God, found
under the walls of Paris one of these infants, in the hands of a
beggar, who was engaged in deforming the limbs of the child.
Although almost overcome with horror, he ran to the savage with
that intrepidity with which the virtuous man always attacks crime.
“‘Barbarian,’ he cried, ‘how you deceive me—from a distance I took
you for a man!’
“He snatched the victim from its persecutor, carried it in his arms
across Paris, gathered a crowd about him and called on them to
witness the brutality of the day and place in which they lived. A few
days later he had founded his first institution for children, and the
cause of children had enrolled one of its noblest champions.”
In order to thoroughly understand the situation, a number of
charitable women under the guidance of Madame Legas, niece of
the Lord Chancellor Marillac,430 went to the house in the Cité de
Saint-Landry and studied the question from the inside of the house.
Their horror at the things they saw led them to declare that the
children massacred by Herod were fortunate in comparison with the
condition of the orphans of Paris.431 As it was impossible to take
charge of all the children then in the Cité de Saint-Landry twelve
children were taken, and in 1638, under the care of Madame Legas
and some charitable women, a house was opened for them in the
Faubourg Saint-Victor. As they were able to enlarge the scope of
their institution, more and more children were taken care of; the
enthusiasm of these women ran so high under the glowing example
of Vincent, that even in the dead of night in the cold corners, they
would be found going about the streets of Paris, into the worst and
least lighted sections, doing police duty, gathering the unfortunate
victims, and carrying them to the house in the Faubourg Saint-
Victor.432
In the course of time, sufficient interest had developed in this work
so that enough money was forthcoming to enlarge the scope.
Vincent gathered together the pious women who had acted as his
assistants and addressed to them that touchante allocution,
sometimes quoted as a model of eloquence.433 The house in the
Faubourg Saint-Victor was soon found to be too small, and the
Château de Bicêtre was obtained from the king.
The place was not found suitable on account of the vivacité de l’air
and the children were transferred to the Faubourg Saint-Lazare, then
in 1672 to the Cité, near Notre Dame, where they remained up to
the Revolution. Then they were assigned the ancient abbaye of Port
Royal and the maison de l’Oratoire, located in the southern part of
Paris.
The success of the new undertaking was so great that even Louis
XIII. became interested and donated four thousand francs per year
to the charity. Inasmuch as in the long history of the child’s fight for
a place in the government, this was the first recognition by a
government since the Roman emperors, it is interesting to read
Louis’s own statement in the preamble of the letters patent relating
to this gift:
“Having been informed by persons of great piety, that the little
attention which has been given up to the present to the nourishing
and care of the parentless children exposed in the city and outskirts
of Paris has been the cause of death, and even has it been known
that they have been sold for evil purposes, and this having brought
many ladies to take care of these children, who have worked with so
much zeal and charitable affection that their zeal is spreading, and
wishing so much to do what is possible under the present
circumstances,434 we have,” etc.
The example of Louis was followed in 1641 by his widow, Anne of
Austria, who made an annual gift of 8000 francs. She had become
regent and, speaking in the name of the young King, said that
“imitating the piety and the charity of the late King, which are truly
royal virtues, he adds to this first gift, another annual gift of 8000
francs. Thanks to what has already been given and the charity of
individuals, the greater number of the infants rescued have been
raised, and there are now more than four hundred living.”
In June, 1670, Louis XIV. made the children’s hospital one of the
institutions of Paris, and authorized it to discharge the functions and
enjoy the privileges of such an institution.
“As there is no duty more natural,” he declared, “and none that
conforms more to the idea of Christian charity than to care for the
unfortunate children who are exposed—their feebleness and their
misfortune making them doubly worthy of our compassion ...
considering also that their protection and safeguarding is to our
advantage inasmuch as some of them may become soldiers, others
workmen, inhabitants of the colonies,” etc.435
The edict declared that while the expenses of the institution had
reached forty thousand francs a year, the royal donation could not
exceed twelve thousand francs, and the King exhorted the women of
charity who had done so much, to continue their notable work.
This royal recognition of the great institution at Paris was not
without evil effect in the provinces. The nobles and the civic
authorities of rural communities, wishing to get rid of the burden of
the infants deserted within their jurisdiction, had the unfortunates
taken to Paris.436 They were usually carried there by men who were
driving in on other business, and as many stops were made between
the starting point and the destination, and as the drivers were more
interested in other things than in the infant baggage, for which they
were paid in advance, the mortality greatly increased.
“There was hardly a town in the kingdom,” said Latyone,437 “where
abandoned children were admitted freely and without information
being requested. In the towns that were not too far from Paris, they
were carried thirty and forty leagues, at the risk of having them die
on the way; and the hospital at Paris was overcrowded and in debt.”
This condition of affairs led to a new law, after a report which
declared that of two thousand infants carried to Paris from the
provinces, in all sorts of weather, by public vehicles without care or
protection, three quarters had died within three months. The new
law decreed that any wagoner bringing an infant to Paris to expose
it would be fined one thousand livres. Inasmuch as the rule was
made in the interest of the children, it was also decreed that
abandoned children must be brought to the nearest hospital, and if
that hospital declared that it had not enough funds to support the
foundlings, the royal treasury might be drawn on.
 CHAPTER XXII
RISE OF FACTORY SYSTEM—THE CHILD A CHARGE ON THE STATE—CHILDREN
ACTUALLY SLAVES UNDER FACTORY SYSTEM—REFORM OF 1833—
OASTLER AGAINST THE CHILD SLAVERY—“JUVENILE LABOUR IN
FACTORIES IS A NATIONAL BLESSING”.

T HE cannibalistic stage has passed and the day of sacrifice has

passed—no longer is the child frankly a convenience nor is its
life, as a result of past economic stress, a lightly considered trifle
to be tossed into the cauldron of religious ceremony. Philosophy,
humanity, civilization, and religion have combined to make the life of
the child safe.
With what result?
The general belief that children were not regularly employed until
the middle of the last century, when the factory system arose, had
led to the equally erroneous belief that it was in the factory where
the industrial abuse of children was first practised. In France where
there was little industrial use for children in the large centres of
population, where in other words children did not pay, the problem
of modern humanity was to save infants from exposure and death.
In England where there was an industrial use for them from early
times, and where from the earliest times there are records of their
abuse, there was no necessity for measures to protect them from
infanticidal tendencies. But it is in England that we must study the
ill-treatment of children that was brought about by the desire to
make them useful.
The industrial records of the Middle Ages contain but few
references438 to children, for the adults were busy with their own
troubles. One of the first of these notices was an order issued by the
famous Richard Whittington, in 1398, and, although it is mixed with
other considerations, it shows the human spark. It reads:
“Ordinances of the Hurers.
 “22 Richard II., a. d. 1398. Letter-Book H., fol. cccxviii. (Norman
French).
“On the 20th day of August, in the 22d year, etc., the following
Articles of the trade of Hurers were by Richard Whityngtone, Mayor,
and the Aldermen, ordered to be entered.—
“In the first place,—that no one of the said trade shall scour a cappe
or hure, or anything pertaining to scouryng, belonging to the said
trade, in any open place: but they must do this in their own houses;
seeing that some persons in the said trade have of late sent their
apprentices and journeymen as well as children of tender age and
others, down to the water of Thames and other exposed places, and
amid horrible tempests, frosts, and snows, to the very great scandal,
as well of the good folks of the said trade, as of the City aforesaid.
And also, because of that divers persons, and pages belonging to
lords, when they take their horses down to the Thames, are often-
times wrangling with their said apprentices and journeymen; and
they are then on the point of killing one another, to the very great
peril that seems likely to ensue therefrom.”439
In the eleventh and twelfth centuries, when the peasants were the
villeins of the owners of the land and held their small farms in return
for the work done, the work of children was contracted for, “the lord
very frequently demanding the labour of the whole family, with the
exception of the housewife.”440
Nearly all the trades and manufactures in the Middle Ages were
under the control of the guilds, so that almost all of the children
working, excepting those on farms or in domestic service, came
under their supervision. The attitude of the guilds toward child
labour is shown in the regulations of the apprenticeships, but this
interest was mainly industrial, for in regulating the work of the
children they protected their members from cheap labour and at the
same time, by their supervision over the work of the rising
generation, saw that the guild’s reputation for the proper kind of
labour was kept up and prices therefore held to a desirable level.441
At the same time there was a religious side to the guilds, a strong
religious side, and while everything they did, such as the prohibition
of night work (not out of consideration of the health of the workers
but because it might lead to bad work),442 had a purely industrial
aspect, there is no doubt that this social and religious side developed
in the guilds and their members an outlook on the broader and more
humane aspects of their own place in society. The custom of not
permitting a man to employ other than his own wedded wife and his
own daughter was not humanitarian in its intention but its effect
could not be other than beneficial.
“No one of the said trade,” said the ordinances of the Braelers
(makers of braces) in 1355, “shall be so daring as to work at his
trade at night ... also, that no one of the said trade shall be so
daring as to set any woman to work in his trade, other than his
wedded wife, or his daughter.”443
In 1562 the Statute of Artificers was passed, regulating the system
of apprenticeship which had hitherto been a matter of regulation
only among the guilds themselves. The national sanction thereby
given to the apprentice system meant much and had a great
influence in the years to come. The chief features of the Act, binding
by indenture, registration of the agreement, and a minimum term of
seven years on the indoor system, led to the master’s entire control
of the boy and up to 1814 affected the relationships of the child
employed or otherwise under the control of an employer.
Coincident with the development of the interest in the child as an
industrial factor arose the interest in the child as a charge on the
State, a phase of the child question that in the ancient civilizations
had found its answer mainly in the toleration of infanticide. The
Common Council of London on September 27, 1556, passed an Act,
the following extract from which will go to show that there was then
an attempt to go back of the child problem and an endeavour to
regulate marriage.