This fact has been illustrated in Britain, where there exist more usual monuments of piety and benevolence, than in all the other countries of Europe put together. [Sidenote: ASYLUM FOR AGED AT CHAILLOT] In the course of my visits to Chaillot, Monsieur Duchaillot often expressed a wish that a similar establishment should be attempted in England. At first it appeared to me liable to some objections, but these he successfully removed. I thought that respect for aged parents being a quality inherent in the character of every Briton, that such an institution might have a tendency to look as if we meant to canonise ingratitude and place old age in the light of a burdensome load upon the community. Barbarous natives are accustomed to destroy the old in order that the young may live. But in civilised countries, where agriculture, arts and commerce flourish, and where a greater degree of population promises a greater degree of stock, such motives could never for a moment enter the breast of a human being. I am aware however that some eight years ago it was seriously proposed in the Jacobin Club, to knock all the old people on the head or starve them to death, lest they should consume what would be necessary for the support of soldiers and citizens. But even in that wild and guilty assembly there were some persons who had not utterly abandoned the feelings of men, and this abominable principle was not carried into execution. Monsieur Duchaillot combated my opposition to his scheme, by pointing out that it is the _object_ of the institution at Chaillot not to destroy but to give efficacy to domestic attachments. All persons who enter there can experience the attentions of their kinsmen by receiving their visits or visiting them. Secondly, the institution is only intended for those who cannot provide for themselves, and whose friends and relations cannot provide for them. Thirdly, more comforts and enjoyments, more attention can be procured under one establishment than when a number of persons are dispersed individually in private houses. Fourthly, it is not necessary that every one who becomes a member of this Society should be either a father or a mother. There are a multitude of unmarried persons of both sexes, to whom such an establishment offers a happy asylum. Fifthly, many fathers and mothers of families would prefer the society of persons of their own age and circumstances, and if they are discontented with the institution they can leave it when they choose. After hearing these arguments I became convinced that similar establishments would be thankfully received by every rational man in our country, who at all reflects on the uncertain chances of prosperity in life.