poor is not yet discovered? or is it impracticable to make any legal establishment that is not fraught with corruption? I incline to the latter, for the following reafons, no lefs obvious than folid, That in a legal establishment for the poor, no distinction can be made between virtue and vice; and confequently that every such establishment must be a premium for idleness. And where is the neceffity, after all, of any public establishment? By what unhappy prejudice have people been led to think, that the Author of our nature, so beneficent to his favourite man in every other respect, has abandoned the indigent to famine and death, if municipal law interpofe not? We need but inspect the human heart to be convinced, that perfons in distress are his peculiar care. Not only has he made it our duty to afford them relief, but has fuperadded the paffion of pity to enforce the performance of that duty. This branch of our nature fulfils in perfection all the falutary purposes of charity, without admitting any one of the deplorable evils that a legal provision is fraught with. The contrivance, at the same time, is extremely fimple: it leaves to every man the objects as well as measure of his charity. No man efteems it a duty to relieve wretches reduced to poverty by idleness and profligacy: they move not our pity; nor do they expect any good from us. Wifely therefore is it ordered by Providence, that charity should in every refpect be voluntary, to prevent the idle and profligate from depending on it for support.

This plan is in many refpects excellent. The exercife of charity, when free from compulfion, is extremely pleasant. The pleafure, it is true, is fcarce felt where charity is rendered unneceffary by municipal law; but were that law laid afide, the gratification of pity would become one of our sweetest pleasures. Charity, like other affections, is envigorated by exercife, and no lefs enfeebled by difufe. Providence withal hath fcattered benevolence among the fons of men with a liberal hand: and notwith

ftanding

standing the obstruction of municipal law, feldom is there found one fo obdurate, as to refift the impulfe of compaffion, when a proper object is prefented. In a well regulated government, promoting industry and virtue, the perfons who need charity are not many; and fuch perfons may, with affurance, depend on the charity of their neighbours *.

It may, at the fame time, be boldly affirmed, that those who need charity, would be more comfortably provided for by the plan of Providence, than by any legal establishment. Creatures, loathsome by disease or nastiness, affect the air in a poor-house, and have little chance for life, without more care and kindliness, than can be hoped from fervants, rendered callous by continual fcenes of mifery. Confider, on the other hand, the confequences of voluntary charity, equally agreeable to the giver and receiver. The kindly connection it forms between them, grows ftronger and stronger by reiteration; and fquallid poverty, far from being an obstruction, excites a degree of pity, proportioned to the distress. It may happen for a wonder, that an indigent perfon is overlooked; but for one who will fuffer by fuch neglect, multitudes fuffer by compelled charity.

But what I insist on with peculiar fatisfaction is, that natural charity is an illuftrious fupport to virtue. Indigent virtue can never fail of relief, because it never fails to enflame compaffion. Indigent vice, on the contrary, raises indignation more than pity (a); and therefore can have little profpect of relief. What a

The Italians are not more remarkable for a charitable difpofition, than their neighbours. No fewer however than feventy thoufand mendicant friars live there upon voluntary charity; and I have not heard that any one of them ever died of

want.

(a) Elements of Criticism, chap. 2. part 7.

glorious

glorious encitement to industry and virtue, and how discouraging to idleness and vice! Lamentable it is, that fo beautiful a ftructure fhould be razed to the ground by municipal law, which, in providing for the poor, makes no diftinction between virtue and vice. The execution of the poor-laws would indeed be impracticable, were fuch a diftinction attempted by enquiring into the conduct and character of every pauper. Where are judges to be found who will patiently follow out fuch a dark and intricate expifcation? To accomplish the task, a man muft abandon every other concern.

In the first English ftatutes mentioned above, the legislature appear carefully to have avoided compulsory charity: every meafure for promoting voluntary charity was first try'd, before the fatal blow was struck, empowering parish-officers to impose a tax for the poor. The legislature certainly did not forefee the baneful confequences: but how came they not to fee that they were diftrusting Providence, declaring in effect, that the plan established by our Maker for the poor, is infufficient? Many are the municipal laws that enforce the laws of nature, by additional rewards and punishments; but it was fingularly bold to abolish the natural law of charity, by establishing a legal tax in its stead. Men will always be mending: what a confufed jumble do they make, when they attempt to mend the laws of Nature! Leave Nature to her own operations: fhe understands them the best.

Few regulations are more plaufible than what are political; and yet few are more deceitful. An ingenious writer makes the following obfervations upon the 43° Elif. establishing a maintenance for the poor. "Laws have been enacted in many other countries, which have punished the idle beggar, and exhorted "the rich to extend their charity to the poor: but it is peculiar to the humanity of England, to have made their support a mat

66

66

ter of obligation and neceffity on the more wealthy. The Eng"lish

"lish feem to be the first nation in Europe in fcience, arts, and

arms: they likewise are poffeffed of the freest and most perfect. "of conftitutions, and the bleffings confequential to that free"dom. If virtues in an individual are fometimes fuppofed to be "rewarded in this world, I do not think it too prefumptuous to "fuppofe, that national virtues may likewife meet with their re"ward. England hath, to its peculiar honour, not only made "their poor free, but hath provided a certain and folid establish

ment to prevent their neceffities and indigence, when they a"rife from what the law calls the act of God: and are not these "beneficent and humane attentions to the miseries of our fellow66 creatures, the first of those poor pleas which we are capable of offering, in behalf of our imperfections, to an all-wife and " merciful Creator!" To this writer, who fhows more zeal than knowledge, I oppose another, whose reflections are more rational. "In England, there is an act of the legislature, obliging every

parish to maintain its own poor. Scarce any man living, who "has not feen the effects of this law, but muft approve of it; and

yet fuch are its effects, that the streets of London are filled "with objects of mifery beyond what is feen in any other city. "The labouring poor, depending on this law to be provided in "fickness and old age, are little folicitous to fave, and become "habitually profufe. The principle of charity is established by "Providence in the human heart, for relieving thofe who are dif "abled to work for themfelves. And if the labouring poor had

no dependence but on the principle of charity, they would be more religious; and if they were influenced by religion, they "would be lefs abandoned in their behaviour. Thus this feeming-good act turns to a national evil: there is more distress among the poor in London than any where in Europe; and more drunkenness both in males and females (a)."

66

() Author of Angelon's letters.

I

I am aware, that during the reign of Elifabeth, fome compulfion might be neceffary to preferve the poor from ftarving. Henry VIII. had fequestered all the hofpitals, a hundred and ten in number, and fquandered their revenus; he had alfo demolished all the abbeys. By these means, the poor were reduced to a miferable condition; especially as private charity, for want of exercife, was at a low ebb. That critical juncture required indeed help from the legislature: and a temporary provifion for the poor would have been a proper measure; fo contrived as not to fuperfede voluntary charity, but rather to promote it. Unlucky it is for England, that such a measure was overlooked; but Queen Elifabeth and her parliaments had not the talent of foreseeing confequences without the aid of experience. A perpetual tax for the poor was impofed, the most pernicious tax that ever was imposed in any country.

With respect to the present times, the reason now given pleads against abolishing at once a legal provifion for the poor. It may be taken for granted, that charity is in England not more vigorous at present, than it was in the days of Elifabeth. Would our miniftry but lead the way, by fhowing fome zeal for a reformation, expedients would probably be invented, for fupporting the poor, without unhinging voluntary charity. The following expedient is proposed, merely as a specimen. Let a tax be imposed by parliament on every parifh for their poor, variable in proportion to the number; but not to exceed the half of what is neceffary; and directing the landholders to make up quarterly, a list of the names and condition of such persons as in their opinion need charity; with an estimate of what each ought to have weekly. The public tax makes the half, and the other half is to be raised by voluntary contribution. To prevent collufion, the roll of the poor, and their weekly appointment, with a subscription of gentlemen for their part of the fum, fhall be examined by the

juftices