because every idler is entitled to a maintenance. In France, the funds allotted for the poor, yield the fame fum annually: that fum is always preoccupied; and France, with refpect to all but those on the lift, is a nation that has no fund 'provided by law for the poor.

Depopulation, inequality in the price of labour, and extravagant wages, are deplorable evils. But the English poor-laws are productive of evils ftill more deplorable they are fubverfive both of morality and industry. This is a heavy charge, but no lefs 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 themfelves in old age: ftimulated by defire of accomplishing thefe 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 effe Gually

I

effectually deadens his fole ambition, and with it his honeft industry? Relying on the certainty of a provifion against want, he relaxes gradually till he finks into idlenefs: idleness leads to profligacy: profligacy begets diseases: 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, under a mistaken notion of charity. There never was known in any country, a fcheme for the poor more contradictory to found policy. Might it not have been foreseen, that to a groveling creature, who has no fenfe of honour and scarce any of fhame, the certainty of maintenance would prove an irresistible temptation to idleness and debauchery? The poor-house at Lyons contained originally but forty beds, of which twenty only were occupied. The eight hundred beds it contains at prefent, are not fufficient for those who demand admittance. A premium is not more fuccessful in any cafe, than where given to promote idleness *

A houfe for the poor

was

* A London alderman named Harper, who was cotemporary with James I. or his fon Charles, be

VOL. III.

K

queathed

was erected in a French village, the reve→ nue of which by economy became confi

queathed ten or twelve acres of meadow ground in the parish of St Andrew's Holborn, London, for the benefit of the poor in the town of Bedford. This ground has been long covered with houses, which yield from L. 4000 to L. 5000 yearly. That fum is laid out upon charity-schools, upon defraying the expence of apprenticeships, and upon a ftock to young perfons when they marry; an encouragement that attracts to the town of Bedford great numbers of the lower claffes. So far well: but mark the confequence. That encouragement relaxes the induftry of many, and adds greatly to the number of the poor. Hence it is, that in few places of England does the poor's rate amount fo high as in the town of Bedford. An extenfive com. mon in the parish of Charley, Suffex, is the chief caufe of an extravagant affeffment for the poor, no lefs than nine fhillings in the pound of rack rent. Give a poor man accefs to a common for feeding two or three cows, you make him idle by a depend-> ence upon what he does not labour for. The town of Largo in Fife has a small hospital, erected many years ago by a gentleman of the name of Wood; and confined by him to the poor of his own name. That name being rare in the neighbourhood, accefs to the hofpital is eafy. One man in particular is entertained there, whofe father, grandfather, and great-grandfather, enjoy'd fucceffively the fame benefit; every one of whom probably would have been useful members of fociety, but for that temp

tation to idlenefs.

derable.

derable. Upon a representation by the curate of the parish that more beds were neceffary, the proprietor undertook the management. He fold the house, with the furniture; and to every proper object of charity, he ordered a moderate proportion of bread and beef. The poor and fick were more comfortably lodged at home, than formerly in the poor-house. And by that management, the parish-poor decreased, instead of increafing as at Lyons. How few English manufacturers labour the whole week, if the work of four or five days afford them maintenance? Is not this a demonstration, that the malady of idleness is widely fpread? In Bristol, the parish-poor twenty years ago did not exceed four thoufand: at prefent, they amount to more than ten thousand. But as a malady, when left to itself, commonly effectuates its own cure; fo it will be in this cafe: when, by prevailing idlenefs, every one without fhame claims parish-charity, the burden will become intolerable, and the poor will be left to their fhifts.

The immoral effects of public charity are not confined to those who depend on

it, but extend to their children.

The

conftant anxiety of a labouring man to provide for his iffue, endears them to him. Being relieved of that anxiety by the tax for the poor, his affection cools gradually, and he turns at last indifferent about them. Their independence, on the other hand, weans them from their duty to him. And thus, affection between parent and child, which is the corner-ftone of fociety, is in a great measure obliterated among the labouring poor. In a plan published by the Earl of Hilfborough, an article is propofed to oblige parents to maintain their indigent children, and children to maintain their indigent parents. Natural affection must be at a low ebb, where fuch a regulation is neceffary: but it is necessary, at least in London, where it is common to fee men in good business neglecting their aged and diseased parents, for no better reafon than that the parish is bound to find them bread: Proh tempora, prob mores!

The immoral effects of public charity fpread ftill wider. It fails not to extinguifh the virtue of charity among the rich; who never think of giving charity,

when