so perfect an example, and to the performance of which He has supplied us with motives so lofty and constraining, the question which immediately presents itself to our notice, is to ascertain the mode, in which we shall the best carry out its operations, ensuring the consistent and impartial administration of relief to those who are really necessitous, and guarding against the abuses of imposture and indolence. Individual exertions towards the attainment of this object must needs be abortive, for individual knowledge is partial. There must be an union of strength to meet the united wants of so many brethren in affliction; and if the callous heart of the selfish, the indifference of the careless, or the pride of the ambitious man, should tempt them to draw back from this work, to neglect this duty which they owe to their country and their God,— then must the legislature compel them to give their aid to the interests of the commonweal, and meet the necessities of those by whose industry they subsist1. For this cause, a legalized system of pro

day, when a fifth preacher recapitulated the arguments of the four former sermons.'-Ibid. pp. 6-8.

1 'Is it not indisputable, that the claim of the State to the allegiance, involves the protection of the subject? And, as all rights in one party, impose a correlative duty upon another, it follows, that the right of the State to require the services of its members, even to the jeoparding of their lives in the common defence, establishes a right in the people (not to be gainsaid by utilitarians and economists) to public support when, from any cause,

vision for the poor was established in this kingdom in former days; for this cause, the amendment and more effectual operation of that system has become the subject of legislation in our own day. It is impossible to deny the fact that an amendment of the system was imperiously demanded; that its abuses and corruptions had spread to every corner of the land, and scenes of frightful misrule were made their consequence; that an augmented population through the mischievous tendency of its provisions, is fast multiplying around us, whilst at the same time, and in the same degree, the ability to meet the wants of this increased demand is necessarily diminished. And not only has this increased burden fettered the powers, and exhausted the resources of those who are doomed to bear it, but the moral influence, which it was ordained to have, is lost. For in all ordinary cases of charitable exertion, the moral influence is compassion on the one side, and gratitude on the other; but under the administration of that system of which I now speak, both compassion and gratitude have been alike unknown 1. Nay more, instead of being like that Divine attribute of mercy, whose spirit it should breathe, instead of dropping

they may be unable to support themselves.'-Postscript to Yarrow Revisited, and other Poems, by William Wordsworth; 1835. p. 326.

1 See the Report of the Poor Law Commissioners, passim ; and Chalmers's Political Economy, p. 407.

as the gentle rain from heaven, upon the place beneath,' blessing both him that gives, and him that takes,' it has been a curse both to the giver and to the receiver. By the one, it has been demanded; from the other, it has been extorted. And thus, the very joints and bands of the social community have been loosened, the mutual interchange of generous affections excluded, and suspicion and hatred forced into the hearts of those, who ought rather to "bear one another's burdens, and so fulfil the law of Christ." A moral leprosy, in fact, has been found festering and spreading over the whole frame of the body politic, poisoning the very life-blood of our strength, and wasting the first sources of health and energy.

Now, in saying this, you must be aware that I am drawing no picture of ideal misery, but simply referring to an evil of most oppressive magnitude; the evidences of which are accessible to all; and to the ruinous results of which, the personal experience of many who now hear me, must bear too painful testimony.

And wherefore do I mention them to you now? Simply because I am anxious to guard against a feeling which, I believe, is beginning to manifest itself in the present day, against many institutions for the benefit of the poor, on the alleged ground, that they partake of the evil character of that system which has been found so mischievous in the

working of our poor-laws,-that they supersede the exertions which might and ought to be made by the poor themselves, and thus increase the very evil which they profess to mitigate. Now, that the operation of our poor-laws has had a manifest tendency to increase pauperism, there is no doubt; that the well-meant but injudicious efforts of private individuals and societies has oftentimes produced the same effect, is no less certain ;-nay, that 'poverty is thus not only collected, but created, in the very neighbourhood whence the benevolent founders have manifestly expected to make it disappear,' is a fact, I am ready to admit, established by indisputable proof1. But yet, that the admission of such facts should lead us either to do away with a legalized provision for the poor altogether, or to doubt its necessity, or to withdraw our support from those institutions, whose object it is to promote the comforts or relieve the real necessities of the poor, would be a conclusion, as little warranted by reason

1 See p. 361 of the Report of the Poor Law Commissioners. The evidences of this fact in the Report which they received of the administration and operation of the Poor Laws, are numerous and incontrovertible; but perhaps there is none more remarkable than that given by the Rev. William Stone, the Rector of Spitalfields, and which is contained in Mr. Chadwick's Report, pp. 283-304. It shows the glaring evils produced by that misdirected zeal, and indiscriminating benevolence, which is so frequently and falsely termed charity.

as by Scripture. And yet this is a conclusion, urged by some who may be allowed to possess no small influence, in directing the public opinion upon such subjects'. I entreat you, therefore, not to be hasty in adopting an opinion which shall tempt you to doubt the necessity, or restrain your desire to bear one another's burdens. Suffer not your anxiety to avoid one extreme, to betray you into another

1

6

66

It is scarcely necessary to remind the reader of the doctrines laid down by Miss Martineau, in the story entitled Cousin Marshall," of the quiet manner in which she describes Mr. Burke as saying, that a wise clergyman, who discerns times and seasons, will not suppose, because charity once meant almsgiving, that it means it still' (p. 34.);—that a casualty hospital is the only charity that should be allowed to stand, though even that 'kind of relief, he hopes, will be dispensed with in a future age.' (p. 42.) Similar opinions are given in the Lord Chancellor Brougham's Speech delivered in the House of Lords, on July 21, 1834. (p. 16.) His lordship would sweep away all charitable institutions except hospitals for accidents and violent diseases. Next to this (he says) perhaps a dispensary is the safest; but I pause upon this, if I regard the rigour of the principle, because a dispensary may be liable to abuse,' &c. If liability to abuse be a sufficient reason, what human institution is there upon which his lordship would not pause? Hospitals for the support of old men and old women (his lordship says) may, strictly speaking, be regarded as injurious in their effects upon the community. Nevertheless, their evil tendency may be counterbalanced by the good they do.' (p. 17.) Would that this last sentiment were more constantly present to the minds of human legislators !—that they would take a more enlarged and impartial view of the working of society, with all its imperfections and anomalies, before they fastened upon it their own theories, which are scarcely less imperfect and anomalous; which abstract acknowledged good, and leave, for the removal of acknowledged evil, an untried and uncertain substitute !