yet more pernicious. exercise your best judgment, to make the most careful inquiries, that so you may be enabled to guard against, and correct, the abuses which admit of remedy; but let not your love wax cold, because iniquity shall abound; let not your ear be closed against the cry of the poor destitute, even though the voice of the sluggard or the profligate may sometimes be joined with his; refuse not to deal your bread to the hungry, and clothe the naked, though sometimes the hand of the dishonest idler may be ready to snatch away the pittance'. Remember that good, great, and substantial good, may not only be attempted, but accomplished, in the midst of grievous and perplexing evil : and that, whilst the evil is clamorous, the good is oftentimes holding on its way in unobtrusive silence. Withhold it not then from those to whom it is due, whilst "it is in the power of your hand to do it." Suffer not the impulses

You are bound, indeed, to

1 'In our criminal jurisprudence there is a maxim deservedly eulogized, that it is better that ten guilty persons should escape, than that one innocent man should suffer; so also might it be maintained with regard to the Poor Laws, that it is better for the interests of humanity among the people at large, that ten undeserving should partake of the funds provided than that one morally good man, through want of relief, should either have his principles corrupted, or his energies destroyed; than that such a one should either be driven to do wrong, or be cast to the earth in utter hopelessness."-Postscript to Wordsworth's Poems, p. 332; before referred to, p. 10.

2 Prov. iii. 27.

of the heart to be deadened, and the sanctions of the Gospel to be weakened, by theories of utilitarian expediency; nor the doctrines of political economists to supersede the broad, unalterable principles of Christian Truth. For, if the various institutions for the relief of human suffering, which date their origin from Christianity, which are to be found in every part of Christendom, and which, in this country, and this city, are invested with a grand and peculiar pre-eminence; if these, I say, are to be done away with, or their operations to be impeded, simply because, in some instances, they have been found to tempt the poor man to forget the necessity of his own exertion, then, with what show of justice can I urge the support of those which, on the present occasion, are presented to your notice? And yet I do ask it, and ask it confidently, because I know that reason and Scripture are on my side. Nay, I ask it the more confidently from the circumstances to which I have just referred, and from the peculiar character of the times in which we live. For, if the abuses which disgraced the former administration of the Poor Laws, are now in the course of being rectified by the recent enactments of our legislature,--if the effort is now being made to return, as speedily as possible, to the letter and spirit of the Act passed in the 43d year of Elizabeth, then it is manifestly the duty of all good citizens to unite in making that alteration as salu

15

tary and as merciful, as they can. We must cause no violent disruption of those habits, which have grown with the growth, and strengthened with the strength of our poorer brethren. We must not clog their prudence, by tempting them to despondency, nor relax the springs of industry within them, by disappointing their reasonable hopes'. We should rather stand, and rejoice to stand, between the rigour of the naked statute, and the countless miseries of the necessitous. The written law is not clothed with sympathies; statutes can neither feel nor compassionate the distresses which they profess to obviate; but they who are concerned in their administration, must do so; they must step in with hearts of gentleness, and show, by their acts, that the law was not made to oppress, but to relieve. And whence can the means of doing this be so effectually supplied as by institutions such as these which we are now met together to uphold?

None, therefore, which have the objects of legitimate relief in view, should be allowed to sink; they should rather be raised up, and sustained in the full exercise of their proper functions'. Let us remem

1 See Wordsworth, ut suprà, p. 331.

2

Feeling, as I do, the most perfect conviction of the truth of the above opinions, it is with no small concern that I notice an opposite course, which has been taken in the populous and increasing town of Cheltenham, where the Benevolent and Provident Society, which had been in operation for some years, has been dissolved, on the alleged ground that the relief which it was

B

ber, that, in the words of Dr. Chalmers, (and whatever difference of opinion may exist, as to other doctrines

the means of giving to the poor, (about 700l. a year) is contrary, both to the letter and spirit of the Poor Laws Amendment Bill; and that it would be unfair, therefore, to the government of the country, and detrimental to the permanent interests of the poor to continue it. This intelligence is given in the Cheltenham Journal, November 17, 1834. It is true that a Loan fund is adopted in its stead; but why should the former Society have been abolished? Why not have grafted the one upon the other and so extend the usefulness of both? It is acknowledged that

6

it had hitherto been the means of conferring great good upon all classes of the poor.' Why stop it then so suddenly? Because abuses had been practised upon it? Let the vigilance of the visitors guard against their repetition; and if they properly discharge the duty imposed upon them, there cannot be devised a more efficacious protection against imposture. But it is urged, that the amount of relief will not be withdrawn; that the mode of its contribution and application only would be changed;' for 'the same, if not a greater amount, would, no doubt, be distributed in private charity.' Why, if this were true, and the reason for dissolving the Society a good one, these dispensers of private charity ought themselves to be restrained, as acting unfairly towards the government of the country. But I do not believe that such aid, if given at all, can effect the same good as before. Private charity is a very vague matter: it may or may not be supplied. A vast proportion of the community would certainly never dream of lending their support. At all events, it may safely be affirmed, that private charity is more likely to be incautious, indiscriminate, partial, and misled, than the operations of a vigilant and well-regulated Society. To abolish such a Society, therefore, upon such grounds, I cannot but feel to be a rash and perilous experiment; and that instead of giving the 'new government plan a fair chance of working,' (which it professes to do) it will only hamper it, by throwing more stumbling-blocks in the path of the poor man.

It is a proceeding, moreover, which, whilst it manifests a great desire to conform to the letter of the New Poor Law Bill, is not

connected with political economy, advanced by that great and good man,-yet who would not sub

in accordance with the spirit in which its Commissioners desire to administer it. For upon turning to the circular issued by them last year, dated the 8th of November, it will be seen that the overseers are distinctly informed by Mr. Chadwick, that they may 'furnish relief in any of the different ways in which, by law, they might have furnished it before the passing of the Poor Laws Amendment Act; that this Act was passed, not for the purpose of abolishing the necessary relief to the indigent, but for preventing various illegal and injurious practices, which had by degrees grown up in the administration of such relief; and that, with respect to the paupers (if any) belonging to their parish, but resident elsewhere, who have been accustomed to receive from their parish weekly or other payments,-such payments, especially as regards aged and infirm persons, should not be hastily withdrawn.' All this shows that the Commissioners by no means think it a part of their duty to make any sudden, or violent, or forced return to those principles which they recommend. And, surely, whilst they are so anxious to mitigate the severities of a measure which in the end they believe will be salutary, it is not for others to increase them, by the abrupt termination of a system which they allow has hitherto conferred great good upon all classes of the poor.

I throw out these remarks, not from any desire to impugn the motives of those who made the decision above referred to, but from an apprehension that the example, which has been set in so influential a quarter, may be followed in other places; and that, if it become the fashion to act according to the same rule,-if, because the provisions of the Poor Law Bill exclude the system of out-door relief, because parish officers are exonerated from the necessity of offering help to paupers who shall refuse to go into the workhouse, therefore all other members of the community must follow the same rigid course, and, instead of joining together to bear one another's burdens, calmly stand aside, and say to each wretched applicant, you must look to private charity, or go to the workhouse,-then I fear that the line of demarcation which already too widely separates the rich from the needy, will be