"the hands of overfeers, and put under the ma"nagement of perfons wifer and more difinterested; "and until they be fet to work on a national or at "least a provincial fund, to arife from benefactions, "and the labour of the poor, as far as thefe will go; and what more is wanting, to be levied by an "equal (perhaps univerfal) tax."

66

Thefe remarks contain a defect, of exceedingly common kind, in the complaints of well-meaning perfons refpecting acknowledged grievances; namely, an affumption that the fubject of complaint has been overlooked or difregarded by thofe, whofe duty it was to provide a remedy. This warfare of parishes is certainly a melancholy fact, and wifer perfons might be named in most parishes than the perfons appointed to be overfeers. But it is the interest of the wealthy part of all parishioners, that the most fit men amongst them fhould be appointed: they may themselves legally promote fuch appointment. They may themfelves engage in the office. If they are too indolent to undertake fuch duty, or to attend the vestry, can they justly complain ?

Mr. Colquhoun remarks, "Many eminent writers "of the two laft centuries violently declaim against "the conduct of parochial officers appointed to exe. "cute the poor laws, and impute the whole blame to "a clafs of men, who, however well qualified at "the beginning, are now, from their rank in fociety, "and often deficient education, unequal to details "of fuch extreme difficulty, &c."

Fielding writes, in 1753, "Every man who hath any property, muft feel the weight of this tax; and every man who hath any underftanding, must see how "abfurdly it is applied." Fielding perhaps erred even in his time, when groffer manners prevailed, and justice of all kinds, especially in its lower departments,

appears to have been much worfe administered, than at prefent; he attributes, universally, to this fource, the misconduct which he noticed in the overpeopled, corrupt, and tumultuous parishes of London. He, however, most energetically calls on the wealthy and enlightened to attend to their duties and their interefts united, on behalf of the poor. "So wretched

66

"is the difpofition of this heavy tax, (fays he,) that "it is a question, whether the poor or the rich are "actually more diffatisfied, or have indeed greater "reason to be fo; fince the plunder of one ferves fo "little for the real advantage of the other. The "fufferings of the poor are indeed lefs known "than their misdeeds, and therefore we are lefs apt "to pity them. They starve, and freeze, and rot, among themselves; but they beg, and fteal, and "rob, among their betters." All this is true, in a limited degree. Habit, however, not only reconciles the poor to many privations which the rich might regard with terror, but makes them delight in objects and conditions affociated with the abodes of their youth, and in articles of food, and perhaps in odours, from which their wealthier neighbours would turn away with nausea and difguft. Their fufferings, nevertheless, continually demand the humane attention of their wealthy neighbours; and the poor-rate, however, profufely diftibuted, can never fuperfede the duty of charity, for the exercise of which grief and fickness will ever provide copious occafion.

It appears, that in 1776, the net expenfes folely applied to relief of the poor were 1,529,780l; the medium of the years 1783-4 and 5, 2,167,749. in 1803, the amount was about 4,200,000l.: but it will be found that the price of labour, and of most of the neceffaries and comforts of life, had advanced in an equal proportion; that, in fact, the circulating

medium bore a reduced value in proportion to all articles for which it was employed in payment; and that with reference to the returns of the revenue, and the advancement of all prices, 4,000,000l. in 1800, must have been nearly equivalent to 2,000,000l., in 1780. See Enquiry into the Policy and Humanity of the Poor Laws, p. 304.

The question refpecting the good or evil resulting from our fyftem of poor-law has of late been fo powerfully agitated by two difputants of eminent fagacity, that I fhall content myfelf with producing a characteristic specimen from each, to fhew that the views of both accord with the principle for which alone I am defirous to contend; namely, that whether the poor-law system be maintained or abolished, it is equally the duty and the interests of the rich to be the patrons, protectors, guardians, friends of the poor; to cultivate their respect, their gratitude, their affection; to guide them, to fuftain them, to cheer them, as officers their men by the endearing term of fellow foldiers, equalizing to the ear, but not deceptive, not deftructive of fubordination; to regard them as a charge, for whofe fecurity they are responsible to an unerring Commander, from whose almighty fiat they hold their facred commiffion. But I am far from intending to affirm that this duty is well performed by large rates or almsgiving; may be as confcientiously executed by thofe who fully accede to the theory of Mr. Malthus, as by those who adopt the fyftem of his adversary.

Much blame is thrown on overseers, who, as Mr. Colquhoun fays, "are from their rank in fociety, "and deficient education, unequal to details of fuch "difficulty." But why are fuch men alone chofen to fill fuch powerful and highly refponfible offices? An important reply to this queftion is given by a

a gentleman, who, that he might be a master of the fubject, acted for a long time in the office of overfeer, and has published the refults of his experience. "Obfervations on the Prefent State and Influence of "the Poor Laws, founded on experience, and a "Plan for Improvement, &c. by Robert Saunders, "efq; of Lewifham. 1799.

"The whole bufinefs of the poor hinges on the "duties of the overfeers, and the manner in which "they are executed; for (except the right of appeal, "on the part of the pauper, to the bench of juftices) "there is hardly any check on their conduct; and "the powers with which they are invested are im"menfe, which I confider as the foundation of all "the evils that attend the fyftem. It is a medley of "confidence, and of menial duty, which has done "the mischief. The overfeers, in the first place, "have the purfe of the parish fo completely put "into their hands, that the Statute authorises their calling weekly, if they fee proper, for a rate, and "without the leaft limitation with refpect to its quantum; and in this refpect, the concurrence of "the inhabitants in making a rate is not neceffary. "Two of his Majefty's juftices of peace must confirm "the rate, by figning the fame. I fay muft, for this

66

66

is fo perfectly a minifterial duty on their part, that "if they refufe, the Court of King's Bench would grant "a mandamus to compel them. Here is unbounded con"fidence on the part of the legiflature. We might expect, that when the legislature placed fuch powers in "the hands of individuals, care would have been taken "that those invested with fuch powers were, from fitu"ation and refpectability, above the temptation of mifapplying them; but we fhall foon fee that the "duties imposed on overfeers, in a manner, exclude "every person of refpectability and independence from

66

M

་

66

"executing the office. The overfeer, in the first place, "is to be his own tax gatherer or collector; he is "the person who must fummons defaulters, and he "muft in person fue for a warrant, and act the part "of a fheriff's officer, by giving his perfonal atten"dance, in levying by distress, &c. The bufinefs "of collecting has been affigned by the overseers (as " in my own cafe) to another; but the veftry could "6 not exonerate the overfeer from the risk and refponfibility of appointing another to collect; and "when a fummons or warrant was to be executed, none but the overfeer could do it. If a pauper is "to be removed to a diftant part of the kingdom, " he must be conveyed by an overseer; and without "actual delivery by his own hands, there is no ob"ligation on the part of the parish to which he is " removed to receive him. In fhort, as the law now ftands, there is not a duty, be it ever fo menial "and degrading, which relates to the poor, that is "not to be performed perfonally by the overseer. "I have, therefore, no hesitation in saying, that the "office of overseer is so constituted, that no perfon "of refpectability and independence can accept it, "to execute literally all that the law directs him to "do; and that it is, on the other hand, fo confti"tuted, as to make it highly hazardous both for "the good of fociety, and the moral habits of indi "viduals, to place fo much confidence and property in the hands of people, whofe occupation or "connection expofe them to the temptation of abufing a fund appointed to the relief of the "indigent; the proper and honourable management "of which is fo peculiarly facred a duty, and on "which the general habits and difpofitions of the "lower clafs of people in this country fo entirely "depend. To complete the description of this

66