"in order that they may, as far as poffible, be supported that way; provided alfo, that they be indulged in no idlenefs nor "infolence." The advice or inftruction here given to magistrates, is fenfible; but falls fhort greatly of what may be termed a law, the execution of which can be enforc'd in a court of juftice.

In France, the precarious charity of monafteries proving ineffectual, a hospital was erected in the city of Paris anno 1656, having different apartments; one for the innocent poor, one for putting vagabonds to hard labour, one for foundlings, and one for the fick and maimed; with certain funds for defraying the expence of each, which produce annually much about the same fum. In imitation of Paris, hofpitals of the fame kind were erected in every great town of the kingdom.

The English began more early to think of their poor; and in a country without industry, the neceffity probably arofse more early. The first English ftatute bears date in the year 1496, directing, "That every beggar unable to work, fhall refort to the hun"dred where he laft dwelt or was born; and there fhall remain, upon pain of being fet in the stocks three days and three nights, with only bread and water, and then fhall be put out of town.' This was a law against vagrants, for the fake of order. There was little occafion, at that period, to provide for the innocent poor; their maintenance being a burden upon monafteries. But monafteries being put down by Henry VIII. there was a ftatute, 22d year of his reign, cap. 12. impowering the juftices of every county, to grant licences to poor aged and impotent perfons, to beg within a certain diftrict; thofe who beg without it, to be whipt, or fet in the ftocks. In the first year of Edward VI. cap. 3. a ftatute was made in favour of impotent, maimed, and aged perfons, that they fhall have convenient houfes provided for them, in the cities or towns where they were born, or where they refided for

three

three years, to be relieved by the willing and charitable difpofition of the parishioners. By 2d and 3d Philip and Mary, cap. 5. the - former ftatutes of Henry VIII. and Edward VI. were confirmed, of gathering weekly relief for the poor by charitable collections. "A man licenced to beg, fhall wear a badge on his breast and "back openly."

The first compulsory statute was 5° Elifab. cap. 3. empowering justices of peace to raise a weekly fum for the poor, by taxing fuch perfons as obftinately refuse to contribute, after repeated admonitions from the pulpit. In the next ftatute, 14° Elifab.. cap. 5. a bolder sftep was made, empowering justices to tax the inhabitants of every parish, in a weekly fum for their poor. And taxations for the poor being now in fome degree familiar, the remarkable statutes, 39° Elifab. cap. 3. and 43° Elifab. cap. 2. were enacted, which make the ground-work of all the subsequent ftatutes concerning the poor. By thefe ftatutes, certain houfeholders, named by the juftices, are, in conjunction with the church-wardens, appointed overfeers for the poor; and these overseers, with confent of two juftices, are empowered to tax the parish in what fums they think proper, for maintaining the poor.

Among a people fo tenacious of liberty as the English are, and fo impatient of oppreffion, is it not furprising, to find a law, that, without ceremony, subjects individuals to the arbitrary will of men, who feldom either by birth or education deserve that important truft; and without even providing any effectual check against embezzlement? At prefent, a British parliament would reject with fcorn fuch an absurd plan; and yet, being familiarized to it, they never seriously have attempted a repeal. We have been always on the watch to prevent the fovereign's encroachments, efpecially with regard to taxes: but as parish-officers are low perfons who inspire no dread, we fubmit to have our pockets pick'd by them, almost without repining. There is provided, it is true,

an

an appeal to the general feffions for redreffing inequalities in taxing the parishioners: but it is no effectual remedy; artful overfeers will not over-rate any man fo grofsly as to make it his interest to complain, confidering that these overseers have the poor's money to defend themfelves with. Nor will the general feffions readily liften to a complaint, that cannot be verified but with much time and trouble. If the appeal have any effect, it will make a ftill greater inequality, by relieving men of figure at the expence of their inferiors; who must fubmit, having little interest to obtain redrefs.

The English plan, befide being oppreffive, is grofsly unjust. If it should be reported of fome diftant nation, that the burden of maintaining the idle and profligate, is laid upon the frugal and industrious, who work hard for a maintenance to themfelves; what would one think of fuch a nation? Yet this is literally the cafe of England. I fay more: the plan is not only oppreffive and unjuft, but miserably defective in the checking of maladministration. In fact, great fums are levied beyond what the poor receive it requires briguing to be named a church-warden: the nomination, in London especially, gives him credit at once; and however meagre at the commencement of his office, he is round and plump before it ends. To wax fat and rich by robbing the poor! Let us turn our eyes from a fcene fo horrid *.

In the parish of St George, Hanover Square, a great reform was made fome years ago. Inhabitarts of figure, not excepting men of the highest rank, take it in turn to be church-wardens; which has reduced the poor-rates in that parith to a trifle. But people, after acquiring a name, foon tire of drudging for others. The drudgery will be left to low people as formerly, and the tax will again rif as high in that parifh as in others. The poor-rates, in Dr Davenant's time, were about L. 700,000 yearly: at prefent they amount to between two and three millions.

Inequality

Inequality in taxing, and embezzlement of the money levied, which are notorious, poifon the minds of the people; and imprefs them with a notion, that all taxes raised by public authority are ill managed,

Thefe evils are great, and yet are but flight compared with what follow. As the number of poor in England, as well as the expence of maintenance, are increafing daily, proprietors of land, in order to be relieved of a burden fo grievous, drive the poor out of the parish, and prevent all perfons from fettling in it who are likely to become a burden: cottages are demolished, and marriage obftructed. Influenced by the prefent evil, they look not forward to depopulation, nor to the downfall of husbandry and manufactures by scarcity of hands. Every parish is in a state of war with every other parifh, concerning pauper fettlements and removals.

The price of labour is generally the fame in the different fhires of Scotland, and in the different parishes. A few exceptions are occafioned by the neighbourhood of a great town, or by fome extenfive manufacture that requires many hands. In Scotland, the price of labour resembles water, which always levels itself if high in any one corner, an influx of hands brings it down. The price of labour varies in every parish of England. A labourer who has gain'd a fettlement in a parish, on which he depends for bread when he inclines to be idle, dares not remove to another parish where wages are higher, fearing to be cut out of a fettlement altogether. England is in the fame condition with refpect to labour, that France lately was with refpect to corn; which, however plentiful in one province, could not be exported to fupply the wants of another. The pernicious effects of the latter with refpect to food, are not more obvious, than of the former with refpect to manufactures.

Englith manufactures labour under a still greater hardship than inequality of wages. In a country where there is no fund for the

poor

poor but what nature provides, the labourer must be fatisfied with fuch wages as are cuftomary: he has no refource; for pity is not moved by idleness. In England, the labourers command the market: if not fatisfied with cuftomary wages, they have an excellent refource; which is, to abandon work altogether, and to put themselves on the parish. Labour is much cheaper in France than in England: I have heard feveral plaufible reafons; but in my opinion, the difference arifes from the poor-laws. In England, every man is entitled to be idle; and every idler is entitled to a maintenance. In France, the funds appropriated to the poor, yield the fame fum annually: that fum is always preoccupied; and France, with respect to all but those on the lift, approaches to the state of a nation that has no fund provided by law for the poor.

Depopulation, inequality in the price of labour, and extrava-; gant wages, are deplorable evils. But the English poor-laws are productive of evils ftill more deplorable: they are fubverfive both of morality and induftry. This is a heavy charge, but no less true than heavy. Fear of want is the only effectual motive to industry with the labouring poor: remove that fear, and they ceafe to be industrious. The ruling paffion of those who live by bodily labour, is to fave a pittance for their children, and for fupporting themselves in old age: ftimulated by defire of accomplishing these ends, they are frugal and induftrious; and the profpect of fuccefs is to them a continual feaft. Now what worfe can malice invent against fuch a man, under colour of friendship, than to fecure bread to him and his children whenever he takes a diflike to work; which effectually deadens his fole ambition, and with it his honeft industry? Relying on the certainty of a provifion againft want, he relaxes gradually till he fink into idlenes: idleness leads to profligacy: profligacy begets difcafes and the wretch becomes an object of public charity before he has run half his courfe. Such are the genuine effects of the English tax for the poor, unVOL. II.

F

der