PROPOSED ALTERATION 
 
 SCOTTISH PWilfS 
 
 THE ADMINISTRATION THEREOF, 
 
 AS 
 
 STATED BY DR. ALISON, IN HIS U OBSERVATIONS ON THE MANAGEMENT 
 OF THE POOR IN SCOTLAND,” 
 
 CONSIDERED AND COMMENTED ON. 
 
 BY 
 
 DAVID MONYPENNY, Esq. 
 
 OF PIT MI LL Y, 
 
 FORMERLY ONE OF THE SENATORS OF THE COLLEGE OF JUSTICE. 
 
 EDINBURGH: 
 
 WILLIAM WHYTE AND CO. 
 
 BOOKSELLERS TO THE QUEEN DOWAGER, 
 
 W. COLLINS, GLASGOW ; J. DEWAR, PERTH ; A. BROWN & CO., AND 
 P. GRAY, ABERDEEN ; HAMILTON, ADAMS, & CO., LONDON. 
 
 MDCCCXL. 
 
ADVERTISEMENT. 
 
 It is proper to state, that the following pages were printed, and the 
 proof-sheets revised, before I had an opportunity of reading in the news¬ 
 papers the proceedings and resolutions of 4 a Meeting of Noblemen and 
 4 Gentlemen connected with different Districts and Counties of Scotland/ 
 held at Edinburgh, on the 20th April current, of which the Earl of 
 Lauderdale was preses. These Resolutions detail the means 4 for ob- 
 4 taining an official inquiry into the Pauperism of Scotland/ proposed by 
 the Association lately formed in the metropolis; and the object the 
 Association has in view, of 4 petitioning Government to appoint able, 
 
 * trustworthy, and responsible persons to carry forward and complete 
 4 the investigation/ The Resolutions of the meeting on the 20th de¬ 
 clare it to be the sense of the meeting, 4 that the means of inquiry al- 
 ‘ ready existing in Scotland are sufficient/ and clearly express the grounds 
 on which an application to Government is objected to. It being now 
 too late to notice this subject in the Treatise, I adopt this method of 
 expressing my entire concurrence in the resolutions of the meeting of 
 the 20th current. Government has itself repeatedly, and particularly on 
 a very recent occasion, set an example of the method which ought to 
 be adopted, for obtaining information of the description wanted. By 
 means of an application to the General Assembly, a Report 4 on the 
 4 Management of the Poor in Scotland/ was obtained in May 1839, as 
 the result of the answers to queries, 4 transmitted to the Ministers of 
 4 the several Parishes in Scotland, and the chief Magistrates of the prin- 
 < cipal Burghs/ This Report, I may venture to say, (although I was 
 an humble Member of the Committee by which it was drawn up), 
 contains a faithful and impartial statement, on the correctness of which 
 the country will place reliance; thus is the proper course pointed out 
 of procuring any additional information on this important subject that 
 may seem necessary. 
 
 It is also proper to mention, that I have not, as yet, had an oppor- i 
 tunity of seeing the new and enlarged edition of Dr. Alison’s 4 Obser- 
 4 vations/ 
 
 Pitmilly, April 2 * 2 , 1840 . 
 
PROPOSED A L T E R A T I 0 N, 
 
 &C. 
 
 V II V l ! fi 
 I tO O ' K t 1 /. 11' i 
 
 INTRODUCTORY OBSERVATIONS. 
 
 Opinions have, of late, been expressed, both publicly and in private, with regard to 
 the management of the Poor in Scotland, which, if allowed to spread unanswered 
 and without contradiction, threaten to overthrow our long cherished and generally 
 valued system of Poor Laws. 
 
 In former timqp, and until a ve^y recent period, the danger incurred by our 
 institutions and usages for the maintenance of the Poor, was of a totally different 
 description from that with which they are now menaced. The excellence of the 
 system was generally, and almost universally, acknowledged. But, in particular 
 parishes, the population and the number of paupers in which, had greatly increased, 
 and in parishes situated in the vicinity of the English border, where a compulsory 
 assessment is established, a difficulty was experienced, in obtaining, by means of 
 voluntary contributions, the requisite funds. This difficulty was, in many instances, 
 long and successfully struggled against, but in other cases it was too easily yielded 
 to, and the tempting remedy of assessment was, with too much frequency, applied. 
 Hence arose the risk which the system run of being gradually and almost imper¬ 
 ceptibly worn out, by a regular but slow decay, while its superior advantages? were, 
 all the time, undisputed and candidly acknowledged. It was against such insidious 
 attacks as these—against the prevalence of bad example, and a yielding to tempta¬ 
 tion, that the friends of our institutions for the relief of the Poor armed them¬ 
 selves, and warned the public. 
 
 This tendency to assessment, however, as ought to be particularly remarked, did 
 not interfere, in the smallest degree, with the other important and distinguishing 4 
 features of the Scottish system. No legal and statutory provision for able-bodied 
 labourers was proposed. No increase of the usual allowances for the Poor, to be 
 adjusted on principles differing from those on which they have heretofore been 
 fixed, was contemplated. No purpose was manifested of dispensing with, or of be¬ 
 coming independent of, the valuable and gratuitous services of our kirk-sessions, by 
 employing hired agents, in managing these affairs. 
 
 But now the case is entirely altered. Without perhaps venturing to dispute the 
 advantages of our usages in some particulars, it is positively denied by many, that 
 in other important points these usages are founded on just principles. And it is 
 further contended, that the system is ill suited for the present times, and ought to 
 be entirely discontinued. It is seriously proposed that an uniform assessment be 
 imposed in all the parishes throughout the country without exceptionthat able- 
 bodied labourers, when out of employment, shall have a right to relief established 
 by law;—that work-houses shall be erected in the towns, and in certain country 
 districts ;—that the amount of allowances shall be largely increased, and put on a 
 different footing from that on which, they at present stand ;—and that these impor¬ 
 tant affairs shall be placed under the management of paid inspectors and agents. 
 
 The mere enunciation of these projected innovations, will sufficiently point out 
 the necessity of the public being cautious and wary in listening to the notions thus 
 afloat, on a subject so important to the peace and welfare of the nation. Much 
 and serious deliberation will not be misapplied or thrown away, when the object of 
 it is a plan for the instant destruction of institutions, under the influence of which, 
 for ages, the country has flourished, and the wisdom of which has been proclaimed 
 by writers and others, of the greatest knowledge and experience. 
 
 It is under these circumstances that I would venture to sound the alarm, and to 
 warnAny readers of the impending danger** In 1834 I published a Treatise, entitled, 
 
 * Remarks on the Poor Laws, and on the method of.providing for the Poor in 
 ‘ Scotland,’ the object of which was to invite attention to the superior advantages 
 
of our system, and to guard against the tendency to assessment, then observed to 
 prevail in certain parishes particular!)' circumstanced. After this Essay had been 
 printed, the ‘ Report from his Majesty’s Commissioners for inquiring into the Ad mi- 
 ‘ nistration and Practical Operation of the Poor Laws’ in England was ‘ published 
 ‘ by authority ;’ and as this Report was found to confirm my statements and 
 arguments in a remarkable degree, I put forth a second edition, containing many 
 additions and alterations, in several new chapters. I bad afterwards the satisfaction 
 of learning, that my endeavours to elucidate and support the Scottish system, were 
 approved of by t^e General Assembly of the Church of Scotland, who were pleased, 
 in May 1839, by their moderator, to convey to me their thanks for my ‘ work on 
 
 * the Poor Laws,’ and to express an opinion that ‘ it cannot fail to he highly bene- 
 
 * ficial in the instruction it is calculated to afford to the parochial courts entrusted 
 ‘ with the management of the poor.’ 1 
 
 My motives for mentioning these circumstances, on this occasion, cannot be mis¬ 
 understood. First , It affords me an opportunity of thus publicly making my 
 grateful acknowledgments, for the favourable reception which my labours have met 
 with, from the venerable Assembly. Secondly , It unfolds the real inducement for 
 my interference, which, without this explanation, might appear to be officious, at a 
 time when a prospect has opened of the whole subject being carefully examined by 
 a most respectable and learned association in the metropolis. And, thirdly. It 
 serves, at the same time, to point out the limits within which the present Essay is 
 to be confined. Having formerly ventured on the wide field which embraces the 
 explanation and discussion of the Poor Law's of Scotland, and of the administration 
 of these laws, I shall avoid as much as possible a repetition of any thing w hich has 
 been already brought forward by me, on these topics; and contenting myself with 
 a reference to what has been stated elsewhere and at large, l shall limit this 
 investigation to the precise and particular subject of inquiry, viz. an examination 
 of the merits or demerits of the new plan now under consideration. One main 
 object formerly was, to furnish arguments against a prevailing leaning to compulsory 
 assessment in the management of the poor. The present purpose is to contribute 
 my mite to an attempt to rescue the whole of the institution from impending 
 destruction. 
 
 DIFFICULTY WHICH OCCURS IN THE OUTSET. 
 
 In the commencement of this inquiry, a most formidable difficulty arises, from an 
 incidental circumstance, which does not necessarily, or, as i venture to think, 
 naturally belong to it. Very great and appalling distress, accompanied by malignant 
 and contagious fe\ r er, prevails, and it appears, has long prevailed in Edinburgh and 
 in Glasgow'. Dr. Alison, in an Essay equally distinguished for its lucid exposition 
 of facts, the truly philanthropic spirit w hich pervades it, and the powerful and 
 resistless arguments with which a cure for so serious an evil is enforced, has con¬ 
 nected this subject with a proposal to subvert the system established by law, in 
 Scotland, for the maintenance of the poor, and to introduce in its place, institutions 
 founded on totally different principles. So plainly is this object declared in his 
 treatise, so fairly spoken out, that his ‘ Observations’ may be used as the text, 
 which embraces and comprehends the whole scheme in view. 
 
 Now it will not for an instant he imagined, that when seriously and most 
 anxiously remonstrating against the abolition of our own system of poor laws, and 
 the substitution of that of England in its place, J purpose either to dispute the facts 
 asserted on authority entitled to implicit credit, or to deny that these facts demand 
 the most serious attention of the public. It will not be doubted that i entirely 
 and cordially go along with the generous and benevolent feelings, which have 
 already actuated the public of the metropolis, to institute an inquiry into this most 
 interesting subject, and to establish a Committee of Management, with the view of 
 providing a remedy for the evil complained of. It is natural, on occasion of a local, 
 and, it is trusted, temporary pressure, to call to mind the measures which, at diffe¬ 
 rent periods, w hen the poor were reduced to extremities, were adopted, particularly 
 in Glasgow, iu order to afford relief. On only one of these junctures, was applica- 
 
 1 Manuscript Letter from the very Reverend Dr. Henry Duncan, moderator, 27th 
 May 1839. 
 
3 
 
 tion made to Parliament to tax the inhabitants; and this plan was so vehemently 
 opposed, that the Magistrates withdrew the bill. The crisis, on all the other occa¬ 
 sions, was got over without the necessity of legislative interference, even of a tem¬ 
 porary nature. 1 it is reasonable also to pay attention to the particular circum¬ 
 stances attending the City of Edinburgh, at present, as detailed by Dr. Alison, 2 
 which have for the time diminished the amount of funds provided in the metropolis 
 for the ordinary poor, and which distinguish the case under consideration, as being 
 one marked by special circumstances, and demanding a peculiar remedy. And this 
 view of the matter is strongly confirmed, when it is attended to, that the present 
 complaint of our system has been made, with reference to places in which an assess¬ 
 ment already prevails, and in which alone, in all Scotland, with one single excep¬ 
 tion, work houses are to be found. Further, it is asserted bv Dr. Alison, 4 that the 
 4 higher ranks in Scotland do much less (and what they do, less systematically, and 
 4 therefore less effectually) for the relief of poverty and sufferings resulting from 
 * it, than those of any other country of Europe which is really well regulated; and 
 4 much less than experience shews to be necessary in any long inhabited and fully 
 6 peopled country, in order that the lower ranks may be maintained in tolerable 
 4 comfort, and a proper foundation laid for their religious and moral improvement.’ 3 
 Already has he seen that he has no ground for apprehension, that he can suffer in 
 the estimation of his countrymen, 4 on account of having pointed out this truth.’ 
 On the contrary, all feel under deep obligations to him in this respect; and there 
 cannot be a doubt, that his appeal to the quarter now alluded to, will pil^ve perfectly 
 adequate for the accomplishment of the object immediately in view. I trust, 
 indeed, that there is not so much a want of charity among the wealthy, as a diffi¬ 
 culty in knowing how to go 4 systematically and effectually’ about it. It is be¬ 
 lieved, that there is a great disposition to be charitable to the poor among the higher 
 classes, but often much difficulty in selecting the proper objects of benevolence. If 
 this is the case, it becomes of vast importance to give this charity a proper aim and 
 direction. Now this is just what, on the present occasion, vyill doubtless be accom¬ 
 plished by the Association or Committee of Management in Edinburgh recently 
 formed. Measures will be taken, both for alleviating the existing distress, and for 
 preventing, as far as possible, the recurrence of it; and it is only feared that 1 may 
 have said too much on this topic, more particularly as it w ill be necessary, briefly 
 to advert to it, again, in the sequel. 
 
 Admitting, then, to the fullest extent, the existence of the evil as pointed out by 
 Dr. Alison, and the absolute necessity of a remedy for this local and temporary 
 malady being provided, yet, in perfect consistency with these admissions, the fitness 
 of the particular remedy which has been suggested, may be denied. And, as this 
 part of the case turns more upon legal tSan medical questions, I trust it will not he 
 deemed presumptuous in a lawyer, to venture to dispute with the physician, his 
 prescription as to the cure of the disease. 
 
 NATURE AND DETAILS OF PROPOSED ALTERATIONS. 
 
 That Dr. Alison goes the full length of recommending the total annihilation of 
 the Scottish system of administering relief to the poor, and the introduction in 
 its place of rules founded on the principles of those which prevail in England, 
 will be easily established by a reference to a few of the passages contained in his 
 Dissertation. 
 
 As to Assessments, he concludes his argument thus: 4 I have, therefore, no diffi- 
 * culty in expressing my opinion, that assessments should be imposed uniformly 
 4 throughout the country.’ 4 
 
 With regard to the amount of the assessment, and the rate of the allowances, his 
 opinion is expressed in these words: 4 1 think the assessment which is imposed 
 4 should be everywhere very considerably more than it now is, and that the allovv- 
 4 ances to widows and orphans, aged, disabled, and impotent persons, should be 
 4 much raised. If we were to act in the same wav as the Unions formed in Eng- 
 4 land, under the present administration of the poor laws, we should expend in Scot- 
 4 land nearly L.800,000, instead of L.140,000. Of course it would not be advisable 
 
 1 Remarks on the Poor Laws, &c. p. 235$ and App. p. 381. 
 
 2 Observations, &c. by Dr. Alison, p. 5. s Ibid, preface, p. viii. 4 Ibid. p. 175. 
 
4 
 
 4 to make so great a change suddenly, but this sum may be regarded as a limit, to 
 
 * which, judging from the experience of England,'I have not the smallest doubt 
 
 * that we might gradually approach, with great benefit, not only immediately, but 
 4 permanently, to the poor, and no real injury to any class of the community.’ 1 
 Afterwards it is said : 4 The pensions to the disabled poor, and widows, and or- 
 4 yhans, should be at least doubled.’ 
 
 workhouses also are proposed. 4 1 think that the workhouse system ought 
 4 undoubtedly to be introduced into every considerable town in Scotland, and even 
 4 that unions of parishes, where there are no large towns, should be formed, as in 
 
 * England, to support workhouses for the permanent reception, at least of aged, 
 4 disabled, or incurable persons, and of orphans who have no relations with whom 
 4 they can be comfortably settled ; for the reception of women and children left or 
 4 deserted by their husbands or fathers; and also for the reception and confinement 
 4 of all destitute persons entitled to legal relief, who are judged to be improper ob- 
 4 jects for out door relief on account of intemperance or immorality.’ 2 These 
 workhouses are spoken of by his correspondents referred to by him, 4 as a test of 
 4 destitution,’ 3 
 
 It is also asserted that the able-bodied poor out of employment should be entitled 
 by law to relief, as a matter of right. 4 Although it has not yet been the practice 
 4 in Scotland to give any parochial relief to able-bodied poor, yet I am equally con- 
 4 fident that in justice to the poor themselves, with a view to the maintenance of a 
 4 desirable standard of comfort in them> with a view to the tranquillity, and more 
 4 especially with a view to the health, of the community, such relief ought to be 
 4 regularly given to those of the poor who are proved to be destitute from want of 
 4 employment; and that this should be given, as it now is in England, unless in 
 4 very peculiar circumstances, in the workhouses only.’ 4 And again, when speak¬ 
 ing of Glasgow, he says, 4 Trusting to experience, 1 would say that the proper re- 
 4 medies here are, first, to erect workhouses, into which able-bodied men and 
 4 women out of employment, and as many as possible of the most profligate, even 
 4 of the widows and disabled poor, should be received. Judging by the examples 
 4 of London or Paris, we should say that accommodation for nearly 4000 people in 
 4 these workhouses would be required.’ 5 
 
 And finally, it is remarked, 4 The legal system of relief is the only one w hich 
 4 may always be expected (under such regulations as may easily be enforced) to 
 4 act uniformly in proportion to the wants, and in adaptation to the character of 
 4 the sufferers. It is only by giving the poor the right to claim relief, and then 
 4 employing paid inspectors (checked by higher authorities) to investigate their 
 4 cases, that these objects can be accomplished. The irregularity, as w ell as general 
 4 deficiency, of voluntary relief, must always render it both degrading and demo- 
 4 ralizing to the poor themselves, and less beneficial to the public.’ 6 
 
 It is indeed acknowledged not to be absolutely necessary, 4 that the English law 
 4 should be introduced hereand it is added, (though some explanation should 
 have been given to convey the exact meaning of the w ords), that 4 probably the 
 4 law of Scotland, if administered in the same spirit , would answer the same pur- 
 4 poses.’ 7 
 
 According then to these suggestions, every part of the Scottish rules with regard 
 to the poor, every trace of the administration of our system, is, one after another, 
 to be swept away and abandoned, until not a vestige of its peculiar features shall 
 remain; and this in order to make place for an introduction of rules and principles 
 similar to those which have been adopted in England. 
 
 PROCEEDINGS IN PARLIAMENT ON THIS SUBJECT IN 1834. 
 
 Before proceeding to examine the details of a proposal which is to operate so 
 radical a change in our institutions, and cannot fail to be attended w ith consequences 
 the most important, either for good or for evil, to all ranks of the community, we 
 shall do well to attend to the bearing and effect on this plan, of the proceedings in 
 Parliament, at the passing of the recent Poor-Law Amendment Act for England. 
 This will be the more incumbent, if it shall be deemed necessary, as the extent and 
 
 1 Observations, &e. by Dr. Alison, p. 177. 
 ; 4 Ibid. p. 180. 5 Jbid. p. 185. 
 
 2 Ibid. p. 178. 
 6 Ibid. p. 133. 
 
 3 Ibid. p. 179. 
 7 Ibid. p. 44. 
 
5 
 
 magnitude of the projected alterations would appear to indicate, to apply for a 
 legislative enactment to carry tfie vvished-for measure into execution. 
 
 The nature and essential qualities of the system established by law in Scotland 
 for maintaining* the poor, underwent a very minute and searching investigation, at 
 no remote period of time, before a Committee of the House of Commons, and 
 before Commissioners appointed by royal authority, for the purpose of considering 
 the poor-laws of England, with a view to the introduction, in that country, of a 
 legislative measure on the subject. Not only were witnesses well acquainted with 
 our rules and management carefully examined by these public bodies, but English 
 commissioners visited Scotland for the purpose, and reported on the spot. 1 
 
 The particular circumstances which led to this inquiry into the Scotch practice 
 are deserving of our primary attention. It was observed by the Committee, that 
 the English and the Scottish poor-laws were contemporaneous, and that the prin¬ 
 ciples on which these laws are founded, except in one point to be immediately 
 adverted to, are the same. Hence it appeared impossible to account for the great 
 difference in the effects of the two institutions, in any other way than by ascribing 
 it to a difference in the administration of the laws. Accordingly, the Report of the 
 Committee bears, that ‘ the provisions of the law in England and Scotland were 
 1 almost coeval with each other, and in principle near the same; but the results 
 4 are so different that they must be ascribed chiefly to the different mode in which 
 4 relief, from whatever fund it may have been provided, has been administered.’ 2 
 Thus the English and Scotch poor laws are placed in direct contrast to each other. 
 They were found to have originated at the same period of time, and to have been 
 set agoing on the same principles; but a striking dissimilarity in the results was 
 remarked, and in this way, the comparison was instituted and carefully followed cut 
 between the administration of the one set of rules and that of the other. 
 
 But before tracing this comparison of the management in the one case, with that 
 in the other, it is proper to notice the discrepancy also w'hich exists between the 
 rules themselves, of England and of Scotland, regarding the poor. In the former 
 country, the 43d of Elizabeth, directed the overseer 4 to take order for setting the 
 4 poor to w ork.’ No provision of this description was allowed to enter into the 
 act 1579; any such enactment appears to have been carefully excluded from the 
 statute, which is the foundation of our poor laws; and hence the select committee 
 which investigated the subject with reference to Ireland, put this question, 4 the 
 4 Scotch act of 1579, appearing to be founded on the English statute of the 15th 
 4 (14th) of Elizabeth, with the omission of the clause which directs the procuring of 
 4 work to the able-bodied vagrants , is there any historical explanation of that mate- 
 4 rial variation P* 3 This omission had been previously remarked by the Committee 
 on the English poor laws, and thus they were led to compare directly with each 
 other, both the laws themselves of the two countries, and the administration of 
 these laws.. The point of comparison betw een the laws was, that in the one, able- 
 bodied labourers, out of employment, have a right to relief: in the other, no such 
 legal right exists, but the industrious poor, in consequence of discretionary power 
 to this effect lodged in the kirk-sessions, are assisted in their parishes, out of the 
 funds obtained by voluntary contribution. The points of comparison between the 
 modes of administering the laws are, that in the one, the funds are uniformly ob¬ 
 tained by compulsory assessment; in the other, they are generally procured by 
 voluntary contribution, assessment being, when practicable, avoided : in the one, 
 the allowances to paupers are full and ample; in the other, supplemental only to 
 other resources; and in the one, the management is conducted by paid agents; in 
 the other, by the kirk-sessions and others, w ho act gratuitously. 
 
 Now the result of the investigation of these several matters, by the Select Com¬ 
 mittee of the House of Commons, was to yield and to declare a decided preference 
 to the Scottish system,—both to the law itself, in so far as it differs from the English 
 
 1 Two Reports from Mr. Tufnell, from different parts of Scotland, are recorded, and 
 Mr. Johnston w r as also employed on the same mission See Report of Commissioners, 
 1834, p. 2; Administration and Operation of Poor Law’s, p. 406 ; and in Appendix to 
 these pages, see Mr. Tufnell’s Report in 1833, as to Glasgow. 
 
 2 Report from Select Committee on the (English) Poor Laws, 1817, p. 21. 
 
 5 Report of the Select Committee of the Report of the State of the Poor in Ireland, 
 
 Q. 3349. 
 
G 
 
 poor law, and to the administration of the law,—-both the Scotch system when it 
 is viewed as a whole, and to the several parts of it, separately considered. 
 
 The evidence in support of this assertion, with regard to the separate points, 
 shall be cited or referred to when we come to treat of the particular points to 
 which this evidence relates. At present, it is proper to bring’ forward the proof 
 of the general approbation of the Scotch system, and of the decided preference be¬ 
 stowed on it. The Report of the English commissioners, in one part of it, charac¬ 
 terises the Scotch system, ‘ as the admirable practice of Scotland P 1 in another 
 paragraph, in recommending-a change in the law of settlement, one of the reasons 
 assigned for the alteration is thus expressed, ‘ because it is still the existing law in 
 ‘ that part of the United Kingdom, Scotland, where the local management and 
 i maintenance of the poor has been best conducted ,’ 2 These are not merely specula¬ 
 tive opinions, having little or no practical influence on those who entertain and express 
 them. So far was this from being the case, that the sentiments with regard to the 
 Scottish poor laws now referred to, were acted upon, in the formation of the 
 amendment on the law of England. They constituted the very ground-work of 
 this amendment, and furnished the principles on which it was framed. 
 
 Accordingly, the Lord Chancellor, (Brougham) in moving the second reading of 
 the bill to amend the poor laws of England, condemned, in strong terms, both the 
 then existing laws, and the administration thereof. His Lordship observed, e that 
 
 * it is the evil of bad laws , worse administered , that we must continue to bear them 
 ‘ on account of the danger of their sudden repeal.' 3 And in a subsequent part of 
 his speech, he stated the object of the bill to be ‘ to leave the law, generally speak- 
 ‘ ing, as it stands at present , but to tread back our steps as far as we can, towards 
 
 * a due administration of it , and having once brought things nearer to their posi- 
 ‘ tion in some particular parishes, where the experiment has been tried, and salti- 
 ‘ tary improvements effected, and to their state generally in Scotland, then to 
 4 take such steps in reference to the law itself, as shall prevent a recurrence of the 
 ‘ same abuses.’ 4 
 
 From these passages, and from many others, which may be found both in the 
 speech of the Lord Chancellor, and in the Report of the Select Committee, we 
 learn these three important propositions, 1st, That the English poor law is acknow¬ 
 ledged by the Legislature to be founded on erroneous principles—that in itself, and 
 independently of the administration of it, it is bad, and requires alteration, although 
 this cannot he immediately, and all at once effected; 2dly, That the administration 
 of the law is said to have been still more faulty ; and, 3dly, That, in both respects, 
 the Scotch system is declared to be preferable, and that which ought to be imitated, 
 and by degrees adopted in England. 
 
 Under the circumstances which have now been detailed, it was surely to be ex¬ 
 pected, that the inhabitants of this end of the island, would continue to place a just 
 value on their own institutions, with regard to the management of the poor, which 
 were so highly esteemed and commended by their neighbours. It was to be ex¬ 
 pected, that we would make every necessary exertion to secure the possession, and 
 to render permanent the enjoyment of these advantages. In particular, it was to 
 he expected, that when the population of any of our parishes increased consider¬ 
 ably, and thereby the church collections were either diminished, in proportion to 
 the number of poor, or a considerable part of this fund was necessarily appropriated 
 to the support of the Church Establishment, effectual means would he sought after 
 and resorted to, for removing this, the almost single difficulty attending the manage¬ 
 ment. 
 
 Such, accordingly, it is fondly hoped, are the sentiments entertained by the great 
 bulk of the people. Such, assuredly, are the sentiments which all who paid due 
 attention to the proceedings in Parliament, on the passing of the English amend¬ 
 ment act, must have imbibed. After these proceedings had taken place, the only 
 apprehensions which were entertained, arose, as has been already remarked, from 
 the difficulties in which large and populous parishes, whether in towns or in the 
 country, were placed, and from the increasing tendency to assessment which 
 this circumstance, especially in the parishes bordering on England, occasion¬ 
 ed. Still no fear was countenanced, that any’ attempt to alter the character of our 
 
 1 Report from Select Committee on (English) Poor Laws, 1817. 2 Ibid. 
 
 3 Corrected speech of the Lord Chancellor in the House of Lords, on July 21, 1834, 
 p. 34. 4 Ibid. p. 39. 
 
7 
 
 revered institutions would be thought of-—that a compulsory assessment would 
 cease to be .considered as the exception, and would become the uniform or univer¬ 
 sal rule—or that the regulations, with regard to the amount of relief to paupers, or 
 the law relating to the description of poor to be relieved, would be changed or af¬ 
 fected. 
 
 It now, however, appears that there are some who view this matter in a differ¬ 
 ent light, and who, so far from being inclined to struggle with the local and tem¬ 
 porary difficulties with which our institutions have, in particular situations, to con¬ 
 tend, (and what human institution of so complicated a description is perfect and 
 free from drawbacks?) would propose a total and radical alteration. Impatient of 
 the obstacles to be encountered in providing for the poor, they would innovate the 
 whole system, and give it up in despair. 
 
 But more than this—the love of change would carry them so far, that they 
 would not only alter entirely the system of Scotland, but would at once embrace 
 the English system ; forgetting surely that their rules have been pronounced by 
 the English themselves, to be not only comparatively inferior to our own institu¬ 
 tions, but positively and on principle erroneous and faulty. 
 
 Now, if the subject were entirely new to Parliament—if the amendment of the 
 English poor law had been adopted without reference to the Scotch law and prac¬ 
 tice, the plan under consideration would have appeared in a very different light, 
 and might have been argued on different grounds from those which must now be 
 contended for. The advocates of the scheme, before they reach the argument on 
 the intrinsic merits of their project, have to contend with the already declared opi¬ 
 nion of Parliament concerning it: and this not a merely theoretical opinion, but 
 an actual adjudication of the case, in so far as England is concerned, after full and 
 deliberate enquiry. The question cannot be said to be an open one. It is already 
 determined by the highest competent tribunal. This, too, has taken place so recent¬ 
 ly as in the year 1834-, so that no change of circumstances can plausibly even be 
 alleged. 
 
 We need not then enquire,—for we have already been informed in the most 
 authentic manner,—what Parliament would think of the suggestion now' made for 
 an alteration of the poor law's of Scotland. Let it be supposed that, w ith a view to 
 this projected change, a bill were brought in for declaring that able-bodied labour¬ 
 ers, w hen out of employment, should be set to work, or should be entitled to paro¬ 
 chial relief as a matter of right , and that workhouses should be erected forthwith 
 in many specilied places, or that the mode of fixing the rate of assessment should 
 be altered, in order to enlarge the rates and to increase the allowances to paupers, 
 —it w'ould no doubt excite surprise, that w r e should be taking measures for adopting 
 the English rules by the aid and co-operation of the Legislature, w hen Parliament 
 had just made a law for England, w ith the explicitly declared purpose of gradually 
 approximating the English administration of poor laws, to the institutions of Scot¬ 
 land. It is evident that the Legislature could not encourage or countenance the 
 proposal, thus to alter the laws, and usages with regard to the management of the 
 poor in this end of the island, without giving the most flat and direct contradiction 
 to the principles which have been avowed and acted upon in amending the English 
 poor law. The system in England is at present in a state of transition. The rules 
 which have been recently adopted, are not held up as the best that can in process 
 of time be established. They are resorted to in order to pave the way for a better 
 administration of the law, and, if possible, for an alteration of the law itself, so as 
 to avoid a recurrence of the evils w hich it engendered. We learn from the ac¬ 
 counts w'e receive of passing events, that this final settlement in England, of the 
 law, and its administration, if it shall be ultimately accomplished, will not he 
 brought about without a severe struggle. Already we mark, in the progress of the 
 amended law', evidence of the soundness of Lord Brougham’s observation as to the 
 evils which attend ‘ bad laws , worse administered .’ And yet we are invited to 
 quit the position which our neighbours are endeavouring, through dangers and 
 difficulties, to reach, in order to take possession of a station similar to that insecure 
 and unsettled one which they at present occupy temporarily, and as a step to the 
 attainment of the very system of administration from w hich we are to depart! 
 
 We cannot peruse the deliberate opinions pronounced by select committees, and 
 by Parliament itself, with regard both to the positive and to the comparative merits 
 of the Scotch and of the English poor laws, and after doing so, coincide with Dr. 
 Alison in attributing the prcterence shewn in this country to the Scottish system, 
 
8 
 
 to the prejudice of Scotchmen in favour of the institutions of their own land. It 
 is impossible to concur in the justness of these remarks made by him; 1 l am aware 
 4 that almost every Scotsman who has “ made up his faggot of opinions,” has in- 
 
 * eluded in it a general belief, (in many instances, I believe, perfectly well founded,) 
 4 that the civil institutions of his own country are superior to those of England, 
 4 and on that account will be unwilling to relinquish the idea, that the Scotch prin- 
 ‘ ciple is the right system of national charity, and the English the wrong one.’ 1 
 It is equally impossible to acquiesce in the following sentiment. 4 1 am farther of 
 ‘ opinion, that the principles on which the relief of the poor is now administered in 
 4 England, gre infinitely preferable to those which are generally followed in Scot- 
 
 * land.’ 2 This has never been the opinion of the writers on the management of 
 the poor, whose experience in kirk-sessions has been the most extensive. It is 
 pointedly contradicted by the opinions of the English themselves, and of the Legis¬ 
 lature, as announced on the most important occasions. They have instructed us by 
 an express statute, that so far from our law requiring to be 4 administered in the 
 same spirit’ with that of England, their law is gradually to be 4 administered in the 
 4 same spirit’ as ours. If this determination be the result of delusion and prejudice, 
 it is not by representing this error as being of Scotch origin, that it will be over¬ 
 come. The alleged delusion and prejudice of Scotchmen has become the firm con¬ 
 viction of Englishmen,.and has been adopted by them on a careful review of full 
 circumstantial evidence. 
 
 EFFECTS OF PROPOSED ALTERATION IN OUR POOR LAWS, 
 CONSIDERED UNDER FOUR HEADS. 
 
 The objections which have been stated to the existing system of poor laws m 
 Scotland, and the reasons urged in favour of an adoptiou of the English rules, may 
 be most distinctly treated of under four heads, into which the subject has been 
 divided in the late Report of the General Assembly. 
 
 These divisions are thus stated in the Report: 
 
 4 First , That part of the system which has for its object to raise the funds that 
 4 are required for the aliment of paupers.’ Assessment or voluntary contribution. 
 
 4 Secondly , The class of poor entitled to relief.’ Able-bodied labourers unem¬ 
 ployed, or only impotent poor. 
 
 4 Thirdly , The amount and nature of the relief to be bestowed.’ Full allowan¬ 
 ces, or in aid of other means. 
 
 ‘ Fourthly , The description of persons to whose charge is committed the collec- 
 4 tion and administration of the funds.’ Kirk-sessions acting gratuitously, or paid 
 agents. 
 
 (1.) Assessment . 
 
 The first thing to be attended to is the proposal of a compulsory assessment in 
 every parish throughout the country. 4 This plan of relieving the sufferings of 
 4 poverty,’ says Dr. Alison, 4 possesses manifest advantages over all others, and 
 4 which ought to be quite sufficient to reconcile the people of Scotland to an uni - 
 * form system of assessment ,’ 3 At present, therefore, our attention shall, in the 
 first instance, be strictly confined to a consideration of the grounds on which the 
 preference is thus shewn to assessment over the system of voluntary contribution, 
 in all circumstances and situations, as the more eligible means of making provision 
 for the wants of the poor. 
 
 I cannot help thinking, that those who w ish to establish a compulsory assessment, 
 at once and indiscriminately in all the parishes of Scotland, have not paid sufficient 
 attention to the nature and character which this institution has borne in the law 
 and in the practice of Scotland, ever since its introduction into the statute-book at 
 the early period of 1579, and to the advantages which have resulted from our usages 
 in this particular. From the very commencement of its existence, at this remote 
 era, and onwards to the present day, it has invariably been held that assessment 
 was not to be applied as the uniform system in all cases, but only that it might be 
 resorted to, either temporarily or as a measure to be renewed from time to time, in 
 
 Observations, &c. by Dr. Alison, p. 42. 
 
 2 P. 43. 
 
 s P. 129. 
 
0 
 
 any particular parish in which the accustomed means of maintaining* the poor by 
 voluntary contributions, had proved inadeqate. Even the renewal in the statute- 
 book, by proclamations of the Privy Council, confirmed by Act of Parliament, of 
 this method of providing for the wants of the impotent poor, at the distance of up¬ 
 wards of a century after the act 1579, 1 brought along with it no change in the 
 views and sentiments entertained among all descriptions of persons, as to the legal 
 and essential nature and character of the measure of assessment, which was recog¬ 
 nized in the jurisprudence of Scotland. The writers on our municipal law, as 
 well as the clergymen and other administrators of the affairs of the poor, with¬ 
 out, it is believed, one single exception, have constantly treated this mode of re¬ 
 lief, as a mere and convenient substitute for the general system of voluntary con¬ 
 tribution, and have held that this expedient might be resorted to in cases of emer¬ 
 gency, or in any particular parish in which the ordinary funds have proved defi¬ 
 cient, but by no means that it should be considered the uniform and invariable rule, 
 as now contended for. 
 
 Hence it is, that upwards of a century elapsed from the date of the act 1579, c. 
 74, authorising assessment, before a single parish in Scotland was assessed for the 
 maintenance of the poor. We are assured on undoubted authority, that prior to 
 the year 1700, only three parishes were assessed in the whole country. 2 Nor is it 
 possible to account in any other way for the fact, that when at length, assessment 
 came to be resorted to, it was not employed as a general measure, imperative in alL 
 cases, but only adopted as an expedient in a particular parish at a time, the state ol 
 whose funds required it. There is not probably a single instance to be met vvithf 
 in which the administrators of parish funds have imposed assessment without re¬ 
 luctance, aud a struggle to avoid it, and after considerable delay, and frequent re¬ 
 monstrances, addressed to all who were interested in the good of the parish. No¬ 
 where has it figured either as a right or wise measure in itself, when a sufficiency 
 of funds might be obtained without it, or as indispensably required by law in the 
 general case, and without reference to the amount of funds otherwise provided for 
 the maintenance of the poor. 
 
 Even in our large cities, where it may be supposed the greatest difficulty in pro¬ 
 curing a sufficiency of funds for the numerous poor would be experienced, strenuous 
 endeavours were made to avoid assessment. In Glasgow, for instance, no regular 
 assessment took place prior to the year 1735. 3 In the course of certain recent pro¬ 
 ceedings in the Court of Session, it was proved that at the date of these proceed¬ 
 ings, out of the sixty-six royal burghs, with Paisley and Leith, there were fifty- 
 two who never had an assessment for their poor. 4 5 
 
 In Aberdeen, no regular assessment was imposed till so late a period as 1838. 
 An interesting account of the various and arduous exertions to escape from this 
 evil, is given in the Statistical Account of the city of Aberdeen, very recently pub¬ 
 lished.* The writer of the article referred to, concludes his statement with the 
 following observations:— f It is unnecessary to dwell here on the evils consequent 
 * on a legal assessment, which at once puts an end to the Scottish system of paro- 
 6 chial relief, and gives the pauper, however undeserving, a legal right, not to “ a 
 “ help,” but to a maintenance.” 
 
 It seems proper also to notice the extreme reluctance with which this measure of 
 assessment was had recourse to, in some of our largest and most populous parishes. 
 ‘ The poor of the great suburban parish of Barony, w ere, till of late years, main- 
 ‘ tained w ithout assessment. The parish of Gorbals, with a population of 22,000 
 ‘ inhabitants, w'as the boasted example held up to view by Dr. Chalmers, in his 
 4 Christian and Civic Economy of Large Cities, of a great parish supporting its 
 ‘ poor by means of church collections, and has only since the date of that w ork, 
 ‘ yielded to the engrossing evil that prevailed all around it.” 4 And in the parish 
 of Old Machar, in Aberdeenshire, the population of w'hich amounted, at that time, 
 to 14,000 souls, the clergyman,in 1817, by means of an address to his heritors, in which 
 he pointed out to them the evil consequences of assessment, succeeded in postponing 
 
 1 Remarks, &c. p. 13. 
 
 2 An Address to the Inhabitants of Aberdeen, &c., by Dr. Robert Hamilton, LL.IL, 
 Professor of Mathematics in Marischal College, p. 27. 
 
 3 Report by Committee of General Assembly 1839, p. 69. 
 
 4 Remarks, &c. p. 279. 
 
 5 New Statistical Account of Scotland, No. xxv. p. 49. 6 Remarks, &c. p. 280. 
 
 B 
 
10 
 
 the measure for many years. 1 These delays could not, in such circumstances, have 
 been permitted to take place, had not the fixed and rooted opinion prevailed, that a 
 compulsory assessment for the poor was only to be imposed in individual parishes, 
 on the failure of voluntary contributions, and that recourse to every exertion, in 
 order to avoid the use of this substitute, was consistent equally with the rules of 
 law, as with sound policy. 
 
 On the same principles, it has happened not unfrequently, that in particular pa¬ 
 rishes, in which, on account of some temporary pressure and difficulty, a legal 
 assessment has been imposed, this measure has afterwards been abandoned, and the 
 old mode of relief has been again employed. 2 
 
 A few instances of this use of assessment, as a temporary resource from difficulties, 
 and of the abandonment of the measure afterwards, as soon as the poor could be 
 maintained without it, may be given, and the consequences of these changes, on the 
 church collections of the parishes in which they took place, shall be noted. 
 
 The first of these cases is that of Dirlton, an agricultural parish of East Lothian, 
 the circumstances of which appeared so instructive, that they were reported by one 
 of the sub-commissioners to the English Board. It appears from this Report, that 
 the rate of assessment, during the years of its continuance, increased from L.20 
 annually to L.105, and that soon after the assessment was abolished, the number of 
 paupers was diminished considerably, while the collections were enlarged from L 21 
 to L.106. ‘ But,’ adds the reporter, an Englishman, ‘ the excellence of the non- 
 
 ‘ assessing system must not be judged of from this test,’ (comparative expense.) 
 ‘ It is not to save the pockets of the rich, but the principles and morals of the 
 ‘ poor, that this system is introduced. Its invariable effect is to diminish the poor 
 ‘ rates; but this is of infinitely minor importance in comparison with the moral change 
 ‘ it produces in the habits of the poorer classes . This change has begun, and is in 
 ‘ progress in Dirlton; and though the expenses were even increased by the new 
 ‘ management, the inhabitants would think it a cheap purchase, when the return is 
 
 * the increased industry and morality of the labourers’ 3 
 
 The next case to be referred to, of a parish being reclaimed from the assessed to 
 the unassessed system, is thus stated in the late Report by the Committee of the 
 General Assembly. ‘ In the parish of Kinnoul an assessment was for the first time 
 ‘ imposed in 1824. The average of the collections for the three years immediately 
 ‘ preceding, was L.47, 17s. 2jd. For the three years immediately following, the 
 
 * average was L 29, 9s. 8d. The system of assessment was abandoned in 1830, and 
 ‘ the average of the collections for the three years 1835, 6, 7, is L.119, 16s. 8^d.’ 4 
 
 Other instances have been mentioned of parishes adopting for a time the system 
 of legal assessment, and after trial of its effects for some years, gladly returning to 
 the old practice of maintaining their poor by means of voluntary contribution. Five 
 such cases have occurred in the county of Fife, between the date of the Report of 
 the General Assembly in 1820, and their late Report in 1839. 5 No public record, 
 easily accessible, having been kept of all such cases, it is difficult or impracticable 
 to ascertain the exact number of them, but the more minute and diligent the en¬ 
 quiries are after such information, the more reason there appears to be satisfied of 
 the correctness of the assertion contained in the first Report of the General Assem¬ 
 bly, (subscribed by Sir Henry Moncreiff,) ‘that in a great proportion of the coun - 
 ‘ try parishes in which legal assessments have been introduced, they have been 
 afterwards abandoned.’ 6 
 
 But by far the most remarkable instance of any which has occurred, is to be met 
 with in the case of a town parish, containing 8000 inhabitants, situated in the heart 
 of a city in which a compulsory assessment prevails, reclaimed from this system, 
 and not only maintaining its poor for a period of eighteen years by means of the 
 church collections, but also defraying other expenses out of this fund, and all this, 
 while the population increased from eight to upwards of twelve thousand persons. 
 It is impossible to suppose that any one who has studied the subject of the man¬ 
 agement of the poor, and who has reflected on the differences between the English 
 and the Scottish systems, can have failed to make himself acquainted with the cir¬ 
 cumstances attending the transition of the parish of St.John’s of Glasgow, and the 
 
 1 Remarks, &c. p. 286. 2 Report by the General Assembly of June 1817. 
 
 3 Administration and Operation of the Boor Laws, published by authority, p. 406, &c. 
 
 4 Report by a Committee of the General Assembly, 1839, p. 20. 
 
 6 Ibid. p. 16. 6 See “ Remarks,” &c. Appendix, note A. 
 
11 
 
 plan followed and so successfully carried through by its celebrated author, as deve¬ 
 loped in his different writings, and speeches, and evidence given by him before a 
 Committee of the House of Commons, on this subject. He who reads these docu¬ 
 ments with the attention which they merit, as unfolding principles of the deepest 
 importance with regard to the poor, will probably be surprised to discover, lhat 
 when looking for the solution of an apparently wonderful phenomenon, the merit 
 (and it is transcendent,) lay in the conception of the plan, not in its execution. 
 He will be satisfied that Dr. Chalmers, having founded his scheme on principles 
 from which there is no deviation in nature, was in perfect safety to commit the 
 working of it to the ordinary agents within his reach, careful only to select those 
 whose zeal and industry he could depend on, and who acted under an assurance of 
 success. It will be necessary to return in the sequel to the consideration of the 
 case of the parish of St.John’s of Glasgow, when examining other branches of the 
 Scottish system. At present, enough has been said concerning this case, as the 
 immediate object is to adduce evidence of its being equally the law and the practice 
 to hold the legal assessment for the poor established in Scotland, as merely a re¬ 
 source to be used on the failure of a sufficiency of funds arising from voluntary 
 contribution, and that hence, it has been delayed in each instance, when not indis¬ 
 pensably called for, or, when adopted from necessity, has been abandoned, as soon 
 as circumstances would permit. 
 
 Nay, so strong is the antipathy to legal assessment for the poor, that in many 
 parishes in which the state of the parochial funds, and the number and wants of the 
 poor, impose upon the landowners the necessity of an annual contribution, in sup¬ 
 plement of the church collections, the object is attained by means of voluntary 
 agreement . This matter is thus explained in the recent Report of the Committee 
 of the General Assembly. ‘Besides the collections at the church doors, other 
 ‘ voluntary contributions are in use to be made for the support of the poor, which, 
 ‘ for the years embraced by the present returns, amounted yearly, on an average, 
 4 to L. 18,976, 10s. 2d. These consist in part of gifts and bequests occasionally 
 4 made by benevolent individuals; but a large proportion is statedly contributed by 
 4 the heritors of particular parishes, in a certain rateable proportion to the rental or 
 4 valuation of their estates. When the collections at the church doors, and the 
 4 sessional funds applicable to the support of the poor, begin to prove inadequate, 
 4 it frequently happens that the heritors, instead of resorting to a legal assessment 
 4 on the general body of the parishioners who are liable thereto, resolve to make 
 4 up the deficiency by a voluntary rateable contribution among themselves. This 
 4 contribution retains the character of voluntary alms, and avoids the effects pro- 
 4 duced on the minds and feelings of the poor by the introduction of a legal assess- 
 4 ment, which makes them consider themselves the claimants of a right of mainte- 
 4 nance, rather than the objects of a charitable benevolence. If the whole body of 
 4 the heritors cordially concur in this measure, it may stimulate the parishioners 
 4 generally to augment their contributions at the church doors, (and from the re- 
 4 turns it would appear that it has this effect, though not in any material degree,) 
 4 while it avoids the expense always attendant on a legal assessment, and the addi- 
 4 tional charge for maintenance, which, as will afterwards be shown, uniformly 
 4 forms the introduction of a legal assessment. On the other band, if any of the 
 4 heritors refuse to contribute a due share, this measure is likely to prove only 
 4 preliminary to a legal assessment; and accordingly, in some of the returns the 
 4 parishes in which this system has been adopted, are said to be in a “transition ” 
 4 state. The kind of contribution above mentioned is generally termed a 44 volun- 
 4 tary assessment,*’ and the parishes in which it prevails, are said to be 44 voluntarily 
 4 assessed.” These expressions are not correct, hut as they have been adopted in 
 4 practice, and are convenient from their brevity, they have been retained in the 
 tables subjoined. It must be kept in view, however, that such parishes are truly 
 not assessed.’ 1 
 
 When we consider attentively the facts which have now been detailed, we must 
 at once perceive, that to impose one uniform assessment over Scotland for the 
 maintenance of the poor, w'ould be to alter entirely the character and nature w hich 
 this institution has long held in the law and in the practice of the country, and 
 thus to lay the foundation of, and indeed to render unavoidable, still more essential 
 and radical changes. The purpose of assessment for the poor in Scotland is, and 
 
 1 Report of the Committee of the General Assembly, 1839, pp. 14, 15. 
 
always has been, to provide for emergencies. It never was intended to form the 
 regular and uniform rule. So far from endeavouring to make it so, and thus to 
 alter its nature, every exertion ought to be made to reclaim from a legal assess¬ 
 ment, parishes that can do without it, to retain in the old system all of those which 
 have not deviated from it, and thus to preserve the essence and foundation of our 
 salutary rules. When assessment is only resorted to in pressing cases, it may be 
 used with powerful effect. A complaint has been made, that on occasion of the 
 late distress in the metropolis, when a contagious fever raged, and was attended 
 with so fatal effects, the Magistrates of Edinburgh and the managers of St. Cuth- 
 bert’s refused to increase the rate of assessment. Now, if no regular assessment had 
 prevailed before this crisis, it cannot be doubted, that for so urgent a temporary 
 purpose, an adequate fund would, with common consent, have been raised, by these 
 means; while there is little reason to be surprised, that under a regular assessment 
 of six per cent, and lately augmented, the Magistrates should have thought it neces¬ 
 sary to decline the proposal, and to trust to the necessary means being supplied from 
 other sources. 
 
 This is a point of fundamental importance, and we are entitled to treat of it with 
 some degree of confidence, when we find that the doctrine now maintained is ex¬ 
 pressly sanctioned in the Report of the Select Committee of the House of Com¬ 
 mons, and by the authority of those who, on a review of the evidence, introduced 
 into Parliament the act for amending the law of England. 
 
 In the Report now, and so frequently alluded to, it is first observed, in general, 
 on this point, that * a compulsory contribution for the indigent, from the funds ori- 
 
 * ginally accumulated from the labour and industry of others, could not fail, in pro- 
 4 cess of time, with the increase of population which it was calculated to foster, to 
 4 produce the unfortunate effect of abating those exertions on the part of the la- 
 4 Louring classes, on which, according to the nature of things, the happiness and 
 
 * welfare of mankind has been made to rest.’ After having made this general 
 remark, it is said in the Report, with regard to this country, that ‘in Scotland, 
 4 where a law similar in principle was about the same period enacted, the intelli- 
 4 gent persons to whom the management of it has been entrusted, appear to have 
 
 * possessed so much judgment and foresight as to its effects, that they have very 
 
 * generally and successfully endeavoured to avoid having recourse to its provisions 
 4 for a compulsory assessment/ 1 
 
 This is sufficiently express, but it is not all: in moving the second reading of 
 the bill, the Lord Chancellor, in the speech already referred to, delivered his opin¬ 
 ion on this topic in these terms. ‘ The good effects of a rigid abstinence in ad- 
 ‘ ministering relief, has been strongly exemplified in Scotland, and yet that experi- 
 ‘ ence has been quite thrown away upon England. In Scotland, down to a recent 
 ‘ period, doubts were entertained by lawyers, as to whether or not there existed 
 4 any right of compulsory assessment for the poor. It is now agreed that the right 
 4 exists; and the English and Scotch law’s are admitted to rest generally upon the 
 4 same foundation. The administration of them, however, has been widely differ- 
 4 ent in the two countries. The Scotch-—a careful and provident people—always 
 4 watchful and careful of consequences, kept an exceedingly close hand upon the 
 4 managers of the poor funds, and did every thing in their power to ward off the 
 4 necessity of assessment—reserving so perilous a resort for times of emergency , 
 4 as in the extraordinary scarcity of the year 1795 and 1800. I'his was the most 
 4 rational plan that could be pur sued , for it prevented the introduction of regular 
 4 and habitual relief, and the setting apart of a constant fund for maintaining the 
 4 poor. In some instances it has been acted upon in England, but in very few 
 4 comparatively ; for there has been no unity of action—no general control; and 
 4 the neighbourhood of Scotland, and the success of the right practice there, has 
 4 produced no considerable amendment of our vicious system.’ 2 
 
 Such was the sanction given on a very important occasion, by the highest autho¬ 
 rity, to the legality of the administration of the poor law's in Scotland, in the par¬ 
 ticular now under consideration : such the approbation bestowed on the wisdom 
 and sound policy of this part of our administration : such the opinion as to one 
 distinguishing characteristic of the Scottish rules, expressed by the framers of the 
 
 J Report from Select Committee, 1817, p. 4. 
 
 2 Corrected Report of Lord Chancellor Brougham’s Speech in the House of Lords, 
 of 21st July 1834. P. 35—6. 
 
13 
 
 English poor law amendment act,—very shortly before it is seriously (may I not 
 add, rashly) proposed by Scotsmen to obliterate this remarkable feature of our 
 institutions, in order to substitute for it a uniform assessment, condemned as this 
 measure is by those from whom we are to borrow it ! 
 
 The effects which have been found in practice to proceed from the method of 
 providing funds for the maintenance of the poor, from assessment on the one hand, 
 or from voluntary contribution on the other, as well as the consequence which the 
 former mode has of diminishing the funds arising from the latter, have been noticed 
 in some of the Reports and other documents already quoted. These views are con¬ 
 firmed by a late and very accurate 4 Report on the Progress and Present State of 
 4 Pauperism in Berwickshire,’ 1 to the Commissioners of Supply of that county, by 
 George Turnbull, Esq., and ordered by them to be circulated. It relates to an 
 assessed district, and contains these remarks— 4 No sooner was an assessment resort- 
 4 ed to in 1725, than new demands arose for parochial aid. * * * * At this 
 
 4 period, however, as the parochial registers testify, the poor were managed w ith 
 4 great prudence; but all the vigilance that could be exercised was of little avail in 
 4 averting the consequences of having provided a legal fund for their relief.’ 2 
 
 The Report referred to proceeds to observe, that 4 the first important fact which 
 4 the returns establish is, that the numbers of the parochial poor have been increas- 
 4 ed, by a constant progression, since assessments w ere first introduced till the pre- 
 4 sent time. This fact is true, whether w e regard a particular parish, or the county 
 4 at large.’ 3 The details are then given, and it is added, 4 It thus appears, that in 
 4 the ten years prior to 1784, or in the medium year 1779, there was only one 
 4 pauper in every seventy-eight of the population: whereas, in 1837, there was 
 4 one in every tw enty-six, being an increase of exactly three to one in fifty-eight 
 4 years.’ 4 
 
 The Report proceeds, 4 Not only has the number of paupers been increased, but 
 4 the amount of aliment given to them individually, has been gradually augmented 
 4 also for the greater part of a century past.’ The details follow'. 4 From the 
 4 increase in the numbers of the poor, and in the amount of their allowances, it 
 4 follows, that the sums levied in name of poors’ rates must have been augmented 
 4 iji a higher proportion than either. This, accordingly, is the fact.’ 5 The proof 
 is subjoined. 
 
 Then it is said, 4 The church collections, which form the legitimate fund for the 
 4 relief of the poor, present no such progressions as those w hich we have now been 
 4 considering. * * * * The reason why the Sabbath collections have 
 
 4 not kept pace, in point of amount, w r ith the progressive wealth of the country, 
 4 is to be found in the fact, that compulsory assessments have impeded the ordinary 
 4 current of charity, the inhabitants considering voluntary alms as unnecessary, 
 4 when funds are taken from them by law for the relief of the poor.’ 6 
 
 In addition to this authority, as to the effect of a legal assessment on the collec¬ 
 tions made at the churches, we may refer to the following paragraph, in the works 
 of an author, whose experience and knowledge are extensive and unquestioned. 
 
 4 It is undeniable,’ says Dr. Burns of Paisley, 4 that wherever assessments have 
 4 been introduced, they have had one uniform effect in diminishing or destroying 
 4 the weekly collections. * * * * In the parishes towards the borders, the 
 4 collections are uniformly small ; and this is undoubtedly owing to the almost 
 4 universal prevalence of poors’ rates.’ 7 
 
 In some of Mr. Turnbull’s important statements above recited, he is com¬ 
 pletely borne out by the late Report of the Committee of the General Assem¬ 
 bly. The Report bears, that 4 in the Border Synod of Merse and Teviotdale, 
 
 4 where assessments have, for a long period, generally prevailed, in wdiich every 
 4 parish is assessed, and where the influence of the system established in the neigh- 
 4 bouring country of England is sensibly felt, the rate of relief is above the average.’ 
 * * * * 4 In the Border Synod of Merse and Teviotdale, the average 
 
 4 rate of relief to the poor on the permanent roll is L.4, Is. 3d. per annum, instead 
 4 of L.l, 18s. 6|d. the general average charge on each individual for the whole of 
 4 Scotland.’ 8 
 
 Although it is difficult, out of a great mass of concurring testimonies to the same 
 
 1 Report on Berwickshire, p. 9. 2 Ibid. 3 Ibid. p. 13. 4 Ibid. p. 14. 
 
 * Ibid. p. 15. 6 Ibid. p. 17. 7 Historical Dissertations on Poor Laws, p. 119. 
 
 8 Report of Committee of General Assembly, 1839, pp. 12, 13. 
 
14 
 
 effect, to select those which may be quoted, without overloading the argument, yet 
 1 must not omit to refer to one who united in him the character of a distinguished 
 philosopher and of an active administrator of the poor laws in the city of his resi¬ 
 dence. Dr. Hamilton, professor of Mathematics in Marischal College of Aberdeen, 
 in an address to the inhabitants on this subject, expressed himself thus: ‘ The ob- 
 ‘ jeetions against assessment are very strong. So long as the alms conferred on 
 
 * the poor is considered as a voluntary donation, it is received with gratitude, and 
 ‘ they are generally contented with a little ; and the bestower feels the satisfaction 
 ‘ which arises from the discharge of a Christian duty, and the relieving of a dis- 
 ‘ tressed fellow-creature. But when it comes to be considered as a matter of right, 
 
 * all these sentiments are reversed. It is paid with reluctance, and received without 
 ‘ thankfulness; and instead of that kindly intercourse which ought to subsist be- 
 ‘ tween the rich and the poor, and which has a pow erful effect on the morals of the 
 
 * latter, they are placed in a state of enmity towards each other.’ 1 
 
 In support of his opinion, Dr. Hamilton refers to the Report of the General 
 Assembly in 1817, in which it is stated, ‘ that in almost every parish w here a 
 ‘ regular assessment has been established, the w r ants of the poor and the extent of 
 
 * the assessment have gradually and progressively increased from their commence- 
 ‘ ment; and that it does appear to be a matter of very serious interest to the 
 ‘ community at large, to prevent , as far as possible, this practice from being gene- 
 ‘ rally adopted; to limit the assessments as much as thej' can be limited, where the 
 
 * circumstances of parishes render them unavoidable, and, whenever it is practicable , 
 ‘ to abandon them.’ Such was the opinion, in 1817, of a Committee of the 
 General Assembly, as conveyed in their Report subscribed by Sir Henry Moncreiff. 2 3 
 
 Ail these opinions, and many others to the same effect which might be cited, so 
 recently and so deliberately formed after an examination of full evidence, by 
 individuals both in England and Scotland, the best fitted of any for judging of this 
 important matter, and for guiding the public mind concerning it, are now said to be 
 erroneous, and altogether mistaken. In particular, it is alleged that the poor do 
 not distinguish between w r hat is received by them from voluntary contribu¬ 
 tions, and what is the fruit of the legal assessment, but confound the two to¬ 
 gether. ‘ I should like to understand distinctly,’ says Dr. Alison, 4 how the 
 ‘ money given in the one of these modes should be fatal to the spirit of indepen- 
 ‘ dence in the poor, and in the other not,-—the poor themselves having no percep- 
 
 * tion of any difference betw een the two.’ 3 This is at least not universally the 
 case. Dr. Alison’s doubt may be resolved in the w'ords of one who speaks from ex¬ 
 perience. Dr. Burns informs us, that w hen parochial funds are distributed, ‘ the 
 ‘ question has not unfrequently been asked, Does the money arise out of the provi- 
 
 * sion made by the heritors according to the law, or does it come from the chari ty- 
 ‘ box of the parish ? In the former case, it has been found that the pittance w as 
 ‘ readily, though perhaps ungratefully, accepted; w hile in the latter, it w r as man- 
 
 * fully and steadily refused. The reason is clear. In the one case, the money was 
 ‘ taken, not with the feeling of gratitude as from a generous benefactor, but as a 
 4 right w hich the rich dare not refuse, how ever desirous they may be to do so. In 
 ‘ the other case, the feeling of manly independence w as cherished, and the degradation 
 ‘ which pauperism carries along with it, could not be put away from the heart.’ 4 
 
 The idea that a legal assessment diminishes private charity, is treated as if it 
 were an absolute chimera. One of the authorities chiefly relied on by Dr. Alison, 
 after adverting to this notion as the ‘ grand argument of the advocates of the 
 
 1 Address, &c. by Robert Hamilton, LL.D., Professor of Mathematics in Marischal 
 College, 1822. 
 
 2 It would be a vain attempt to enumerate all the parishes, or even any considerable 
 number of them, in w 7 hich, from the time when a compulsory assessment was first imposed, 
 the amount of it has gradually and progressively increased, and in which, of consequence, 
 the administrators of the funds have evinced the greatest anxiety to rid the assessed 
 parishes of this evil. But I readily embrace this opportunity of directing attention to a 
 very instructive “ Report w ith regard to the state of Pauperism in the parish of Liberton,” 
 which contains useful information on this interesting subject. The Report alluded to is 
 drawn up with great care and apparent accuracy, by the Rev. James Regg, minister of the 
 parish, and was printed and circulated so lately as 1839. 
 
 3 Observations, &c., by Dr. Alison, p. 110. 
 
 4 Historical Dissertation on the Poor Laws, p. Ill* 
 
* voluntary system,’ writes—* How they arrive at this conclusion I am at a loss to 
 « conceive. 1 have heard the assertion usque ad nauseam , but I have never heard 
 « the grounds on which it is based.’ 1 
 
 | n answer to this question, although not very courteously put, by the author 
 whom Dr. Alison quotes, it may be proper to explain the matter, in so far as the 
 remark, the soundness of which is disputed, bears reference to the Scottish system. 
 That all kinds and descriptions of charity in a country, are diminished, or at all 
 affected, by the existence of a legal assessment for the poor, no person, it is believed, 
 ever asserted or imagined. It is beyond the reach of statistics to ascertain the 
 workings of a virtue, as to which the command is given to the donor, ‘ when thou. 
 
 « doest alms, let not thy left hand know w hat thy right hand doeth.’ But there is no 
 difficulty in ascertaining to a fraction, the funds which are destined for the mainten¬ 
 ance of the ordinary poor by the accustomed channels, whether these funds are 
 obtained by voluntary contributions or by legal assessment; and the assertion 
 under consideration is, that when the money distributed by the administrators for 
 the poor, is supplied by the latter of these means, this process tends to diminish 
 and nearly to extinguish the income arising from the former. 
 
 The truth, as well as the importance of this proposition, will, it is believed, be 
 acknowledged, when, in addition to the authorities already cited it) support gene¬ 
 rally of the averment, that a legal assessment always diminishes the amount of 
 voluntary offerings, we briefly consider the situation of the different classes w ho are 
 contributors to the funds supplied by the latter of these means. 
 
 As to the land-owners and richer classes, both in the country and in towns, it 
 may indeed be doubtful, how far the existence of assessment for the poor, affects 
 the amount of their voluntary contribution. With many of them it is too probable 
 that it has this effect, and that they do not give spontaneously, and in addition, 
 towards the support of an object for w hich they are taxed. But it is admitted, 
 that with others, such considerations are not attended by the same consequences; 
 and this is readily conceded, when it is attended to, that to most of them the change 
 from voluntary contribution to assessment would operate a saving of expense, if 
 the former were totally discontinued, and also w hen it is recollected that in certain 
 parishes the church collections, after an assessment has been imposed, have not very 
 considerably decreased. 
 
 But the case is far otherwise with the middle classes, on whom a large share of a 
 legal assessment must fall. By them this burden is felt as a very heavy incum¬ 
 brance, and if the total annual amount to be raised by assessment were to approach 
 to near the sum that has been calculated and fairly announced, of L.800,000, it 
 cannot admit of dispute, that the tax would not only diminish, but would entirely 
 extinguish their voluntary contributions for the poor, and would reduce many of 
 themselves to penury and want. No regulation that could be adopted, for securing 
 the prudent management of the fund, could prevent these certain and inevitable 
 consequences of the exaction. 
 
 And with regard to the still poorer class, wffio from their w^ages and savings, 
 spare every Sabbath their mite to the poor, and the number and frequency of whose 
 little offerings, in the course of the year, or of any given time, sw'ell the amount to 
 a considerable and most efficient fund, it is plain that this source of revenue, this 
 spring of charity, would at once be almost entirely dried up. Few of this class, 
 indeed, are rate-payers,—but seeing the institution put on the footing of a legal 
 assessment,—learning that the duty of maintaining the poor is devolved by law on 
 the rich,—observing that the amount is varied from time to time, according as the 
 numbers and wants of the poor increase,—they quickly cease to give, and soon 
 learn most mischievously and most erroneously to believe, that to support the poor 
 is not an act of charity, obligatory on all in proportion to their ability, but a legal 
 burden incumbent solely on the rich. The effect of such opinions, on the discharge 
 of their private duty to their indigent relations and neighbours, is equally felt as its 
 consequences on the church collections. One cannot make inquiries on this subject 
 in assessed districts, or even in the neighbourhood of such, without being assured 
 that these sentiments are entertained, and extensively acted upon. One cannot 
 read a single number of the New Statistical Account of Scotland, without finding 
 abundant proof of these melancholy truths. 
 
 When 1 assert that this is a most important view of the subject, I do not fear 
 
 1 Observations, ike., by Dr. Alison, p. 103. 
 
16 
 
 being included by our author among the number of those who, he alleges, 4 consider 
 4 this question as merely one of pounds, shillings, and pence.’ 1 The morality and 
 religion of the lower orders are deeply involved in it. 4 it is nearly the universal 
 4 practice of the peasantry in Scotland,’ says Dr. Chalmers, 4 to contribute a little 
 4 to the collections on Sundays ; the consequence of which is, that they are insen- 
 4 sibly formed to the habit, and they feel themselves insensibly raised to the condi- 
 4 tion of givers.’ 2 Nothing can be more interesting than the sight of a congregation 
 of Christians joining in public worship, while even the poorest among them do not 
 forget the wants of their still more indigent brethren. May we not venture to hope, 
 that of many of such an assembly it may be said, as of the centurion, 4 Thy prayers 
 4 and thine alms are come up for a memorial before God.’ It is also of the utmost 
 consequence that their idea of their private duties should not be slackened or im¬ 
 paired. 4 1 may mention,’ says the authority last referred to, 4 that there is not a 
 4 more familiar spectacle in our cottages, than the grandfather harboured for life 
 4 by his own married children, and remaining with them for years the honoured 
 4 inmate of the family, in fact, l have no recollection of a single instance, and l 
 4 am sure it would have been branded as the most monstrous and most unnatural 
 4 of all things, of the desertion of relatives by relatives.’ 3 It is a compulsory 
 assessment which has introduced this vice. Only let this measure be extended to 
 all the parishes in the country, and the rates be augmented, and the duty of rela¬ 
 tives to the poor with whom they are connected is extinguished for ever. How 
 important is it, then, not to tamper with, or counteract these innate feelings of 
 mankind, which both constitute an essential part of the Christian character, and 
 exert a very powerful influence in promoting the welfare and happiness of the 
 poorer classes of society. 
 
 (2.) Case of" Industrious ” or 44 Occasional ” Poor. 
 
 The next point to be considered is the proposal that able-bodied labourers out of 
 employment, should be put upon the same footing with the impotent poor, in hav¬ 
 ing a right to relief from their parishes declared by law ; and that this relief should 
 be given, except in very peculiar circumstances, in workhouses, provided for this 
 and other classes of poor, in the several districts and large towns. 
 
 The proposition which has now been discussed of a uniform assessment over the 
 whole country, involves an alteration only, (although a very material one,) of the 
 administration of the poor laws: for as a compulsory assessment for the poor 
 was allowed by the act 1579, and by the later enactment of William and Mary, it 
 was in the power of the administrators in the different parishes, either to resort to 
 this measure simultaneously, or to maintain the poor as long as they could, 
 without it, and only to adopt the assessment in each parish separately as circum¬ 
 stances in particular places seemed to require it. It was the practice then, and not 
 the statutes , which impressed on the system the character which it assumed in the 
 particular now explained. 
 
 But the plan of yielding parochial relief, as a matter of legal right , to labourers 
 out of employment, in order to its being earned into execution, appears to require 
 an alteration, not in the administration only of the poor laws, but in the laws 
 themselves, as lixed by statutes. We have seen that any provision of even finding 
 work for unemployed labourers was, ill the old act of 1579, most cautiously and 
 studiously avoided. In this important particular, the contemporaneous act of 
 Elizabeth was not followed, but was departed from in a very striking and remark¬ 
 able manner. The practice, then, on this point must not be ascribed to a difference 
 between the two countries in the administration of their poor laws, but to an 
 essential difference in their several statutes, and therefore to bring about, as is now 
 proposed, a coincidence and uniformity of system between them in the point to the 
 consideration of which we now proceed, would seem to require legislative interfer¬ 
 ence. 4 This remark is made with deference to the decision pronounced by the 
 Court of Session in 1804, in Pollok v. Darling,—a single judgment, dissented from 
 
 1 Observations, &c., by Dr. Alison, p. 60. 
 
 9 Dr. Chalmers’ Works, vol. xvi-, p. 307. 3 Ibid. p. 304. 
 
 4 At all events, legislation would be necessary to alter the mode of assessment, so as to 
 procure the increased rates that would be required. 
 
17 
 
 by the Lord President at the time, and other judges, and which has not been since 
 followed in practice. 
 
 In my former treatise on the poor laws of Scotland, 1 endeavoured to mark the 
 broad distinction, in point of legal right and civil obligation, which, antecedently 
 to any statute on the subject, exists between the claim of the imp tent poor and 
 the claim of that class who are called in our law the industrious or occasional poor, 
 to relief from the wealthier part of the community. I attempted to show, that in 
 the case of the former, the law recognises, as the foundation of statutory regulation 
 concerning them, an existing civil obligation; but that with regard to the latter, 
 the law r only acknowledges what is termed an imperfect obligation, the duty of be¬ 
 nevolence; that this distinction has been attended to and acted on in the law r and 
 practice of Scotland; and that in conformity to it, the statute law has conferred on 
 the impotent poor, a legal right of relief, w hile the occasional poor have a claim 
 only on the charity of their parishes, which, although not created, is, to a certain 
 extent, confirmed by Acts of Parliament. The impolicy, also, of conceding to able- 
 bodied labourers out of employment, a right by law to relief from their parishes— 
 the evils attending this system, both to the rate payers and to the workmen them¬ 
 selves, were fully explained and illustrated, by reference to the evidence of the con¬ 
 sequences which have attended the English practice* And the preference univer¬ 
 sally, till of late, bestowed on the Scottish rules and usages, which do not confer 
 a legal right to relief on able-bodied men w'hen suffering from want of employment, 
 but to set apart a moiety of the parochial funds of each parish, which may be con¬ 
 verted to this use, at the discretion of the minister and kirk-session, was justified 
 by an appeal to facts, and to the concurring testimony of the best informed w it¬ 
 nesses and authors, many of w'hom have been active administrators of the system. 
 On these several points, which have been already so fully discussed, I shall not 
 again enter, but shall content myself with a reference to what has been elsew here 
 written concerning them. 1 
 
 One might be led to imagine, from what is said on this subject in the treatise 
 under consideration, that no provision w hatever is made by the law of Scotland, 
 for the relief of able-bodied labourers out of employment, and that the whole of 
 this class, many of w'hom are for a time, and until they can find work, reduced to 
 destitute circumstances, is left to depend entirely on private and precarious charity. 
 But this is far from being the case. From the earliest period, the kirk-session in 
 every parish was accustomed to bestow a part of the church collections and other 
 funds of which they are the guardians, in affording temporary relief to the descrip¬ 
 tion of poor of whom w^e now speak. The proclamation of the Privy Council of 
 29th August 1693, sanctioned this usage, and fixed the amount of the church col¬ 
 lections which may be so employed, at one half of the w'hole funds obtained. This 
 and the other proclamations of the Privy Council regardingthe poor were confirmed 
 by different statutes, and have been acted upon to the full extent. The manage¬ 
 ment of the kirk-sessions in this particular is seldom, if ever, enquired into by the 
 land-owners. It appears that in some parts of the country, 1 the average distri- 
 * bution to the “ occasional poor,” exceeds in amount that to the paupers on the 
 c permanent roll,’ 2 We are informed that in certain districts even the assessed funds 
 have also, and indiscriminately with the collections, been turned to this use occa¬ 
 sionally. 3 The amount of the funds thus left under the management of the kirk- 
 sessions for relief of the * occasional poor,’ is very considerable. The late Report 
 of the Committee of the General Assembly shews that the average of the church 
 collections, other voluntary contributions, and sessional funds, for the three years 
 1835-6-7, over all Scotland, came to L.77,880, 4 —that the average sum during these 
 years which was distributed among the ‘ occasional poor,’ was L. 14,983, and that 
 of this money, no smaller a proportion than L.9103 went among the assessed pa¬ 
 rishes, w hile only L.4203 were allotted to the non-assessed, and L.1676 to those 
 which are distinguished as * voluntarily assessed.' 5 
 
 But the point now' to be enquired into does not relate to the amount of the sum 
 allotted by law for distribution among the 4 occasional’ or ‘ industrious poor,’ but 
 to the principle or grounds on which the relief is given. The amount of the fund 
 
 1 Remarks, &c. cb. x. xi. xii, second edition. 
 
 2 Report of Committee of General Assembly, 1839, p. 13. 
 
 3 Report on Berwickshire, p.25. 
 
 4 Report of Committee of General Assembly, p. 17. 5 Ibid. p. 134. 
 
 c 
 
18 
 
 shall be spoken of in the sequel, and it shall he considered whether, if it be inade¬ 
 quate, means for increasing it, without departing from the rules which the law has 
 applied to it, may not he resorted to. At present, however, the only and the very 
 important question to be resolved, is this general one, whether it is more fitting 
 that the ‘ occasional poor/ (for so we may continue to denominate able-bodied la¬ 
 bourers out of employment,) should be entitled to demand parochial relief as a mat¬ 
 ter of legal right, as in England, or should remain dependent on the kirk-sessions 
 of their several parishes, as according to the law of Scotland, both for the measure 
 of relief to be afforded them, and for the time of its continuance. 
 
 On this great question I have already discoursed largely in my former Essay; but 
 it appears proper to call to recollection the sentiments concerning it, expressed by 
 those who are best entitled, by their experience and knowledge, to dictate to the 
 public on the subject. 
 
 In the former Report of the General Assembly, (subscribed by Sir Henry Mon- 
 creiff,) the following paragraph appears:—‘ The distinction made in a great pro- 
 ‘ portion of the returns between the poor in the regular parish roll, and the indus - 
 ‘ trioiis poor who receive only occasional supply, is of equal importance to the 
 ‘ morals and the best interests of the country. Those of the first class receive a 
 ‘ constant supply from the parish funds; those of the second are only assisted when 
 ‘ they are laid aside from work by sickness, or accidental causes; and especially 
 ‘ during that season of the year which chiefly affects their health, or suspends their 
 ‘ usual labour. They receive at that time such assistance as their immediate ne- 
 e cessities demand, for the limited period when they are in this situation; but when 
 ‘ the cause which occasioned their demand ceases to operate, the parish assistance 
 ‘ is withdrawn, and they return to their labour, under a conviction which they 
 
 * never relinquish, that both their subsistence and their comfort must ultimately 
 
 * depend on their personal industry/ 1 
 
 On this subject, the Rev. Dr. Burns of Paisley, expresses himself as follow s :— 
 
 * In every parish and congregation of Scotland, an important distinction is recog- 
 ‘ nised between regular and occasional poor, the former holding the place of per- 
 ‘ manent pensionaries on the roil, and, as such, receiving weekly, monthly, or quar- 
 ‘ terly, a stated aliment, the latter obtaining partial relief from time to time, as their 
 ‘ circumstances render it necessary. As the distinction is one of the highest iro- 
 ‘ portance, it ought in no case to be overlooked.’ 2 
 
 The expediency of this practice of assisting the industrious poor by occasional 
 and well-timed relief as a matter of charity, not as a civil right, is well pointed out 
 by Mr. Hutchison in the following passage: —* As the best remedy against a nume- 
 ‘ rous list of permanent poor, it has always been the practice to assist persons, 
 
 * who, by misfortune or disease, or other circumstances, are disabled for a time 
 ‘ from maintaining their families. And even where the necessary relief is not of 
 ‘ such extent, or for such a period of time as makes it worth while to place the 
 
 * distressed individual on the roll, still it is usual in practice to afford such supplies 
 
 * as the exigency requires. By means of these seasonable supplies, many who 
 ‘ would have been irretrievably ruined, or prematurely cut off, leaving their fami- 
 ‘ lies a permanent burden on the public, are restored to the exercise of their law- 
 ‘ fill industry; and afterwards, instead of needing further aid, sometimes thank- 
 ‘ fully repay the money so seasonably advanced to them.’ 3 
 
 Lord Kames gives the following account of this matter. ‘ It is very true that 
 ‘ the half of the weekly collections are left in the hands of the kirk-session, and 
 ‘ not appropriated as part of the constant fund for maintaining the enlisted poor. 
 ‘ And that this is a wise regulation, must be apparent, from the following considera- 
 ‘ tion, that besides providing for the enlisted poor, there must be a good deal of 
 ‘ occasional charity in every parish, for which there should be a fund. * * * Upon 
 c some occasions it may be proper to assist a decent family out of the poors’ box, 
 ‘ w ho would not choose to be put upon the poors’ roll. For these occasions, and 
 ‘ such like, the half of the w eekly collections are left unappropriated in the hands 
 f of the kirk-session.’ 4 
 
 But it is needless to multiply authorities on a subject as to w hich no contrariety 
 
 1 Appendix to Report of Select Committee on the Poor Laws, p. 145, 
 
 2 Historical Dissertation on the Poor Laws, p. 21. 
 
 3 Hutchison’s Justice of Peace, vol. ii. p. 53. 
 
 4 Remarkable Decisions, p. 253.. 
 
19 
 
 of opinion is to be met with, till all of a sodden a new light has darted forth. Ifc 
 is, however, of the utmost importance to attend to the sentiments entertained by 
 those in England whose opinions are entitled to the highest respect, with regard to 
 those institutions in that country, which it is now proposed that we adopt and imi¬ 
 tate. We shall find that even the 43d of Elizabeth is not held as standing on an 
 impregnable foundation, in that part of its enactment which provides that work 
 shall be found for the poor—that this clause of the statute is considered to have 
 been the origin, the natural and necessar}^ source, of all the evils which followed, 
 in the administration of their poor laws*—and that although a repeal of this pro¬ 
 vision, after it has existed for ages, and has taken root in the habits of the people, 
 is not contemplated, yet it most assuredly would not now be enacted for the first 
 time, had it not already been established: hence we may infer the recommendation 
 that would be given to Scotland, who is free and untrammelled in this particular, 
 and has the example of England, as a warning set before her. 
 
 In the speech delivered in the House of Lords, already referred to, on proposing 
 the second reading of the poor law amendment bill, Lord Brougham argued thus. 
 
 4 Most certain it is that anything more mischievous, anything more fatal to the 
 4 country, anything more calculated to multiply indefinitely the numbers of the poor, 
 
 4 cannot be conceived, than the applying to them any regular and fixed provision, 
 4 be it tithe or be it tax, which they can claim at the hands of the rich, except it be 
 ‘ by that duty of imperfect obligation—-private charity, which is imposed upon all 
 4 men. Every permanent fund set apart for their support, from whomsoever pro- 
 4 ceeding, and by whomsoever administered, must needs multiply the evils it is 
 4 destined to remedy. This right to share in a fixed fund, is the grand mischief of 
 4 the poor laws, with the seeds of which they were originally pregnant, though 
 4 certainly many years elapsed after the principal statute,—that of the 43d of Eliza- 
 4 beth,—was made, before any great amount of positive evil can be said to have 
 4 rendered itself perceptible in the community at large. As long as it was supposed 
 4 that the law attached only to the impotent, to those who came within the descrip- 
 4 tion of old age, worn out faculties, in body and mind, or persons disabled by any 
 4 accidental cause, and not to able-bodied persons ,—so long it must, be admitted, 
 4 that if the law was not an advantage, at all events it proved to be no detriment 
 4 whatever. But by the construction not unnaturally put upon these unfortunate 
 4 zvords in the act, requiring the overseer 44 to take order for setting the poor to 
 44 work,” a construction which at the same time conveyed to the pauper the right of 
 4 calling into action this power, in other words, of compelling the parish “ to find 
 44 work for the pauper, and, if work could not be found, to feed him,” all self- 
 4 reliance, all provident habits, all independent feelings, were at an end; and conse- 
 4 quences the most pernicious speedily followed to the community, as well as to the 
 4 poor themselves—consequences more pernicious, 1 will venture to say, than ever 
 4 flowed from the enactment, or from the construction of any human law.’ And at 
 another place,— 4 I shall for the present assume that the statute of Elizabeth cannot 
 4 now be dealt with. I shall take it to be fixed irrevocably as the law of the land, 
 4 and 1 will proceed upon the supposition that it is impossible now to reduce things 
 4 again to the state in which they were previous—1 will not say to the 43d, but to 
 4 the 5th of Elizabeth. Desirable as it may be to place the system on a better 
 4 footing, and difficult as it is not to wish for some radical change , which may pre- 
 4 vent a recurrence of the calamities we are suffering under, l yet feel that this is 
 4 most difficult to effect.’ 
 
 In the same speech it is remarked as having been argued, 4 that the system kept 
 4 up the character of the labourers, prevented their becoming the mere beggars of 
 4 alms, and enabled them to receive their allowance with the erect port and manly 
 4 aspect of those who felt they were claiming their due under the law. Never, 
 4 surely, was there a greater delusion. The system has ended in the destruction of 
 4 all independent character in the English peasant. It is true that he comes to 
 4 demand his allowance with an erect port, but it is not the bearing of inde- 
 4 pendence ; his habits, his feelings, the w hole bent of his mind, the w'hole current 
 4 of his thoughts are changed. It was deemed aforetime, a shame, such as no man 
 4 could bear, to be dependent upon parochial aid—the name of “ pauper” coming 
 4 next in the estimation of the peasant, to that of 44 felon.” It is so no longer—no 
 4 longer is it thought a scandal upon the labourer to claim relief from the parish— 
 4 no longer does it inflict a pang upon his mind to darken the overseer’s door. No 
 4 doubt he comes with a firm gait—with a manly air \ but rather let us say, he 
 
20 
 
 4 comes with a sturdy gait, and with a masterful air * * * * Such a system 
 4 deadens all sense of shame; all sense of real dignity; erases from the mind 
 4 every feeling of honourable independence , and Jits its victims only for acts of 
 4 outrage \ or of fraud.' 1 
 
 It does appear to me very extraordinary, that in the face of the reasoning of the 
 late Lord Chancellor, made use of on such an occasion, and in spite of the example 
 of England, and of the evils brought upon her, so loudly complained of, so severely 
 felt, vve should be advised to give a right of relief by law to the industrious poor, 
 and thus to plunge at once into the depths of the lamented and acknowledged errors 
 of the English system. 
 
 It is true that vve are not asked to encounter these difficulties without being pro¬ 
 vided with a certain species of defence. Workhouses for the poor are to be erect¬ 
 ed, in which only, unless in very peculiar circumstances, relief to unemployed 
 labourers is to be afforded. This opens up a new field of inquiry and of astonish¬ 
 ment. 
 
 In my former Essay on the Poor Laws, I have traced the progress of the work- 
 house system in Scotland, and have shewn that, notwithstanding the many and 
 reiterated attempts to establish and enforce it, no footing could be found for it in 
 the country,—-that in one or two instances in which it was tried, the experiment 
 speedily failed,—and, in short, that the antipathy of the people to the scheme was 
 determined and inveterate. 2 
 
 But it is said that workhouses are wanted as 4 a test of destitution.’ And doubt¬ 
 less they are a most powerful and a most useful test. One of the Reports of the 
 Poor Law Commissioners (26th December 1836) bears this declaration regarding 
 them. 4 The main reliance for the discouragement of pauperism, and for the esta- 
 4 blishment of independent habits among the labouring classes, is founded on the 
 4 workhouse system; and although there is no doubt of the correctness and efficacy 
 4 of the principle, still the greatest care is required in the application of its details/ 
 &<*. Even in the experience of Scotland, limited as that experience is, the value 
 of the workhouse system in an assessed district is clearly established. The Report 
 as to Berwickshire, before referred to, bears, that 4 in Edinburgh the advantage of 
 4 a poorhouse is found to be incalculable. In consequence of an institution of this 
 4 kind, the number of paupers in the parish of St. Cuthbert’s is only one in every 
 4 fifty of the population ; whereas in Dunse, it is one in twenty-four, and in Coid- 
 4 stream, one to twenty-two.’ 3 
 
 It thus appears that workhouses are of indispensable necessity as the cure of the 
 disease of pauperism, when it has reached such a degree of malignity, in assessed 
 parishes, that without the application of a strong and almost desperate remedy, it 
 cannot be conquered. But is it prudent to create the disease, in order that the 
 remedy may be administered? Is it prudent to impose an uniform assessment, and 
 to give a legal right to relief to the 4 occasional poor/ trusting to correct, by means 
 of workhouses the evils which spring from such a system, but which do not and 
 cannot occur without it? Are not workhouses in themselves an evil, the general 
 establishment of which would be abhorrent to the feelings and dispositions of the 
 people? Necessary they are in England, where assessment is universal, and la¬ 
 bourers out of employment have a legal right to parochial assistance. But the very 
 necessity of instituting such a check, furnishes a strong additional reason against 
 the introduction of a principle in our law and in our practice, which, wherever 
 introduced, must be accompanied by this controlling power, so unwelcome and 
 hateful to the nation. 
 
 (3.) Amount of' Relief. 
 
 The third matter to be investigated relates to the principle uniformly adopted by 
 the administrators of the poor laws in Scotland, with regard to the amount of the 
 relief bestowed. They endeavour to ascertain the actual wants of the individual 
 poor, and proportion the relief to these wants. To one who is entirely destitute, 
 and has no visible means of support, either from his own labour or from the assist¬ 
 ance of relatives or neighbours, a larger pension is statedly given ; on one who is 
 
 1 Corrected speech of Lord Chancellor, p. 19. * Remarks, &e. p. 228, and 247, &c. 
 
 3 Report as to Poor of Berwickshire p. 37. 
 
able to work a little, or has near relations to help him, a smaller sum is bestowed. 
 This rule is equally applied to the industrious or occasional , as to the impotent or 
 regular poor, although, in the case of the former, it is applicable, chiefly and gene¬ 
 rally, to the length of time during w hich relief is granted to them. 
 
 It is evident that the point now stated, relates entirely to the administration of 
 the poor laws, and has no bearing, like the last matter considered, on these laws 
 themselves. The question truly is, w hether it be better to assist the poor from the 
 parochial funds, in supplement merely of their separate means, and thus to call into 
 activity their own exertions, and the sympathy of relations and friends; or to be¬ 
 stow larger allowances, thereby rendering unnecessary these exertions and sym¬ 
 pathy, and gradually impairing them, till at length the compassionate feelings of 
 others, and the industrious habits of the poor themselves, are totally extinguished. 
 
 To animadvert on the excessive smallness of the aliment bestowed, without 
 taking any other matter into consideration, is to attempt to withdraw attention 
 from the true point of inquiry. The question depends on the soundness and cor¬ 
 rectness of the principle ; and if in this respect the rule of Scotch practice be cor¬ 
 rect, the result, in many cases, must be, that the relief afforded will amount to a 
 pittance, when compared with the sum which, acting on a different principle, w ould 
 be bestowed. 
 
 In arguing the point now under discussion, Dr. Alison recites the following pas¬ 
 sage in my former publication on the poor laws. 4 When attention is paid to the 
 4 high and increasing rates in England, and to the circumstances which have kept 
 ‘ down the allowances to paupers in this country, it will at once appear, that from 
 4 the smallness of the sums paid in Scotland , results the great, superiority of the 
 4 system. The cause of poor rates being high and constantly increasing in any 
 4 country, is the idleness and improvidence of the poorer classes of society. This 
 * is followed by the extinction of mutual kindness and benevolence among them ; 
 4 and when the parish lends its aid, the assistance bestowed by it is received with 
 4 discontent.’ It is averred that in this short sentence there are 4 three assump- 
 4 tions implied, if not actually asserted, relative to the English poor as compared 
 4 with the Scotch, which are quite gratuitous' 1 These three points our author con¬ 
 siders seriatim . It is necessary to follow him in this discussion. 
 
 4 First,’ (as he maintains) 4 it is assumed that the rates for their support are not 
 4 only high, (which is true,) but that these are continually increasing; which, 
 4 from the statements already made, appears distinctly to be the reverse of the 
 4 truth , whether we compare their amount with the wealth or population of the 
 4 country.’ 
 
 Now what are the averments as to the increasing nature of the English poor 
 rates, thus characterised as gratuitous and the reverse of true. They begin by 
 stating that, 4 The ultimate consequences to be dreaded from the operation of the 
 4 English poor laws, before the late alteration of them, to that class of society on 
 4 w hom the burden was imposed, were forcibly predicted in the follow ing passage 
 4 of the Report to the House of Commons of a Select Committee on this subject in 
 4 1817. 44 Your committee feel it their imperious duty to state to the House their 
 
 44 opinion, that unless some efficacious check be interposed, there is every reason to 
 44 think, that the amount of the assessment will continue, as it has done , to increase, 
 u till at a period more or less remote, according to the progress the evil has already 
 4 ‘ made in different places, it shall have absorbed the profits of the property on 
 44 which the rate may have been assessed, producing thereby the neglect and ruin of 
 44 the land, and the waste and removal of other property, to the utter subversion of 
 44 that happy order of society so long upheld in these kingdoms.”’ In proof of the 
 gradual and great, increase, it w as stated on the authority of the same Report, that 
 the sum raised in 1770, was L 1,556,804—on the average of the years 1783, 4, and 
 5, L.2,004,238—in 1803, L.4,267,965,—in 1815, L.5,072,028, and that in subsequent 
 years it was constantly aud regularly increasing. 2 It was also remarked that the 
 Commissioners had adopted the statement of the Rev. Joseph Townsend, with 
 reference to the cultivator of a small farm, that 4 he rises early, and it is late before 
 4 he cau retire to rest; he works hard and fares hard; yet with all his labour and 
 4 his care, he can scarcely provide subsistence for his numerous family.’ His diffi¬ 
 culties are ascribed to the poor rates. And the Report was also appealed to as 
 asserting, that an entire parish had been throw n out of cultivation from this cause, and 
 
 1 Observations, &c., by Dr. Alison, p. 111. 
 
 2 Remarks, p. 214, 
 
that the rent of many farms had been reduced, * to half, or to less than half, 
 ‘ of what it would have been if the land had been situated in an unpauperised 
 ‘ district.’ 
 
 It surely was not gratuitous, or the reverse of the truth, to say that in times past 
 at least, but still recent, the poor rates in England bad been constantly increasing- in 
 an alarming- degree. And with regard to the effect of the late changes in the law, 
 the following was the account given by me. ‘ The surprising and almost install- 
 ‘ taneous diminution of the number of able bodied workmen who require relief 
 ‘ brought about by the withdrawal of any legal claim, on their part, may be learned 
 ‘ by consulting the Report of the po?>r law commissioners. It is completely esta- 
 ‘ blished by the evidence contained in the Report, that whenever the parochial 
 ‘ allowances have been withdrawn and discontinued, or even when a workhouse 
 
 * under w holesome rules has beeu set on foot, the workmen to w'hom these allow'- 
 ‘ ances were in use to be made, have found employment for themselves, and no 
 ‘ complaints have been uttered/ 1 The fact now mentioned by Dr. Alison, that 
 since the poor law act came into force, the sum of L.2,300,000 has been withdrawn 
 from the funds annually raised for support of the poor in England, was not, and 
 could not have been alluded to in my former publication, because at its date, this 
 fact, it is believed, had not taken place, or at least had not been publicly announced. 
 Had it been known to me, I would undoubtedly have stated it,—as confirming my 
 argument: for the inference which arises from this incident, is, not that the amended 
 law is perfect, but that the old law was even worse than it could have been imagined 
 to be, before this extraordinary circumstance was ascertained. Who can doubt of 
 the ruin with which the consequences of the law threatened the nation, when 
 apprised that this change at once saved the country L.2,300,000 per annum ; or, in 
 other words, that w r ith this golden bait, the law had made paupers of multitudes of 
 industrious labourers, for whom the country could readily provide employment and 
 law ful w'ages ? Who can hesitate to expect, that w hen other alterations are accom¬ 
 plished, and the English make progress in the scheme of assimilating their system 
 to the Scotch one, greater savings and more advantages still, will accrue ? 
 
 The second and third * gratuitous assumptions,’ with which I am charged, are the 
 assertions that the English poor are idle and improvident in comparison with the 
 Scotch, and that parochial assistance is received by them with discontent. 
 
 Now, in support of both of these averments, I referred to the evidence contained 
 in the printed Reports, of w'hich reference, how'ever, no notice is taken by Dr. 
 Alison. 2 The passages, indeed, to this purpose are so numerous, that a selection, 
 on the one hand, would have proved next to impracticable, or an overloading of the 
 statement on the other, unavoidable. And full justice w r as done to the amended 
 act, as promising speedily to cure these defects of the former system. After men¬ 
 tioning, in the sentence above quoted, the reduction wrought by it in the number of 
 paupers, it is added, c Other beneficial effects have also resulted invariably from 
 
 * what is called in the Report, the dispauperising of a district. Thus, early impro- 
 ‘ vident marriages have become less frequent, and thereby an undue increase of 
 ‘ population has been immediately prevented. (Report, 1834, p. 240.) The poor 
 ‘ labourers have shewm themselves more contented and happy than they were wont 
 ‘ to be. (Report, 1834, p. 242, 247.) The wages of labour have improved. 
 
 ‘ (Report, 1834, p 237, 8,9, 240.) Some of the best workmen whose wages were 
 ‘ the highest, and who were in the practice, under the “ allowance system,” of 
 ‘ spending their money in dissipation, in the prospect of claiming aid from the 
 
 * parish w hen the day of need should arrive, have soon learned to deposit in the 
 ‘ savings’ banks their surplus w ages, beyond the sum required for the sustenance of 
 ‘ their families.’ (Report, 1834, p. 237, 234, &c.) If Dr. Alison had noticed the 
 passages which have now been partly quoted and partly referred to, he would not, 
 it is readily believed, have accused the author of having made ‘ gratuitous assump- 
 ‘ tions,’ and, in one instance, of having assumed that which ‘ appears distinctly to 
 ‘ be the reverse of the truth.’ It is evident that all the facts alluded to, afford 
 very important confirmations of my argument. They complete the evidence, that 
 the invariable consequence of conferring on the industrious poor a legal right of 
 relief, and of bestowing on them large parochial allowances, must be to reduce 
 multitudes of them to pauperism, who, by the Scottish system and regulations, 
 would by their own labour, and with the assistance voluntarily given them, as the 
 
 Remarks, &c. p. 231. 
 
 2 Ibid. p. 4d. 
 
23 
 
 reward of their industry, maintain themselves and their families in respectable inde¬ 
 pendence. 
 
 The necessity of stating a defence against this charge, has led us for a time from 
 the proper object of enquiry at present, viz., the wisdom of the Scottish system in 
 limiting the amount of relief bestowed on paupers, upon the principles which have 
 already been alluded to. 
 
 These principles are unfolded in the following terms, in the first report of the 
 General Assembly to the Select Committee of the House of Commons, which bears 
 the signature of Sir Henry MoncreifF.—‘ The Committee remark that the Scotch 
 ‘ have uniformly proceeded on the principle, that every individual ii> liound to pro- 
 ‘ vide for himself by his ow n labour, as long as he tq 4<> W V arnfi fhat his 
 
 ‘ parish is only bound to make up that portion of the necessaries of life which he 
 ‘ cannot earn or obtain by other lawful means. That even in ia^eS olf (extreme 
 ‘ poverty, the relations and neighbours of the pauper have a pride in providing for 
 ‘ their necessities, either in whole or in part. That this circumstance will account 
 ‘ for the small number of paupers in some very populous parishes, and serves at 
 
 * the same time to explain a fact, which is obvious in so many returns in the 
 ‘ country districts, that the sums given to paupers appear to be so disproportioned 
 
 * to what their real necessities require. A small sum given to aid their other 
 ‘ resources , affords them the relief w hich is necessary, and it W'ould be both against 
 ‘ the true interests and the moral habits of the people, if a more ample provision 
 ‘ w ere made for them from their parishes.’ 1 
 
 The principles thus clearly developed, cannot fail to command the assent and 
 admiration of every one w ho candidly examines them. It is most natural and most 
 expedient, that not only a strict enquiry, (an inquisition , as the old term emphati¬ 
 cally terms it,) be instituted in each individual case, and be conducted in a kindly 
 manner; but also, that in fixing the amount of the relief to be allowed, account be 
 taken, both of what it may be reasonably expected the pauper may do for his own 
 support, and of what others, who are either naturally and legally bound, or charit¬ 
 ably disposed, to assist him, may contribute for this purpose. 
 
 But it must be obvious at the first glance, that the full advantages which may be 
 expected to flow from the observance of the regulation now explained, can only 
 accrue in parishes not assessed, and that assessment, with full allowances to ail 
 who are in want, must quickly destroy the elements on which the rule depends. 
 This rule calculates on the personal industry and exertions of the poor. It calcu¬ 
 lates on their relations and neighbours being disposed to assist them, and having 
 ‘ a pride ’ in so doing. It aims at draw ing these virtues into vigorous exercise, at 
 the very time that relief is administered to the poor, and by the very measure of 
 that relief. But under the bane of assessment and of full allowances, such virtues 
 soon cease to exist. Relations and neighbours stand aloof. They withdraw from 
 under the weight of an inconvenient burden, when the liberality of the public is 
 excessive, and supplies, to the full, the wants of their relatives. The poor them¬ 
 selves are w ithout a necessary spur to their industry, and thus the benefits w hich 
 might flow horn conforming to, and following the rule, are greatly diminished or 
 entirely lost. How unjust then, to cast blame on the rule under review, when it is 
 obvious, that its failure, in any case, must arise, not from defects inherent in the 
 regulation, but from the intervention of a vicious system which weakens and over¬ 
 powers it! 
 
 We ought not to omit to notice, that the practice of giving to the poor, relief in 
 aid only of other resources, and, in particular, the practice of requiring them to do 
 something for themselves, is in strict conformity w ith our oldest law. Even in the 
 case of ‘ impotent’ poor, the act 1579 provides, ‘ That if the aged and impotent 
 ‘ persons not being so diseased, lame, or impotent, but that they may work in some 
 ‘ manner of work, shall be by the overseers in any borough or parochin, appointed 
 
 to w ork, and yet refuses the same,’ they shall be punished as vagabonds.’ It would 
 have been contrary to principle, to legislate with regard to the duty of relations, 2 
 
 1 See Remarks, &c. p. 38, &c. 
 
 * The following sentence in Lord Brougham’s Speech, when commenting on the statute 
 of Elizabeth, merits particular notice :—‘ Foreseeing that (he consequence would be to es~ 
 
 * trange the natural feelings of the parent for his child, and of the child for his parent,— 
 
 for the first time in human legislation, it was deemed necessary to declare, by a positive 
 
 ‘ enactment, that a child should be compelled, by the statute, in such case made and pro- 
 
but the administrators of our poor laws acted most wisely in adopting a practice 
 which encouraged and called forth these virtues into activity, by clearly pointing 
 out the great benefits which result from their exercise. 
 
 it thus appears, that in all the cases in which the amount of parochial relief to 
 the poor is fixed at alow rate, on the principle established in the administration of 
 our system, of trusting to, and calling into action, the ascertained private resources 
 of the pauper, there is no just cause to complain of the smallness of the allowances. 
 In this sense, (and it was in this sense only that the words were used,) it is perfectly 
 true, that ‘ from the smallness of the sums paid in Scotland, results the great supe- 
 4 riority of the system.’ It is only when these expressions are separated from the 
 context, that they become obnoxious to the criticism which has been unjustly put 
 upon them. Taken along with the parts of the argument which precede and fol¬ 
 low them, they hold up to view a wise regulation in the management of the poor, 
 from which benefits the most important to the 4 true interests’ and 4 moral habits 
 of the people’ result. 
 
 There are, no doubt, other cases, few however in number, in which a low rate of 
 allowances to the poor has been occasioned by a want of sufficient funds. This 
 evil is most prevalent in large towns, and it is not disputed, that a remedy ought to 
 be provided for it. The mischief complained of, generally arises from the effects of 
 a compulsory assessment for the poor, which does not of itself supply means ade¬ 
 quate to satisfy wants, to the large increase of which, the institution itself has con¬ 
 tributed, while it weakens and gradually dries up ail other sources of revenue. The 
 evil is also magnified by the circumstances which naturally occasion an influx of 
 unconnected and unassisted paupers to a populous city. 
 
 But what, it will be asked, is to be done in this dilemma? Are we to trust to the 
 Church collections, already impaired as they have been by the blight of an assess¬ 
 ment? 1 preface my answer to this question by putting another. Are we, by rais¬ 
 ing annually, in all time coming, a considerably larger sum by means of assessment, 
 to take shelter under the protection of the very institution from which the evil 
 complained of has sprung, and from an enlargement of which, as long as human 
 nature remains unaltered, this mischief must be rendered still more formidable? 
 Rather let us, while in the meantime we bend to the necessity of the case, and find 
 an expedient for temporarily increasing the allowances to the poor, strike at the 
 root of the mischief, whenever and w herever it is possible to do so. Let ns rely 
 on the charity of the public; explain to them fairly and without reserve that the 
 supplies for the poor depend on them; join w ith Dr. Alison in declaring that hither¬ 
 to too little has been done in the w'ay of voluntary contribution; exert the ener¬ 
 gies of the kirk-sessions and other gratuitous labourers more warmly than hereto¬ 
 fore in this work: and in place of depreciating our own institutions, place a true 
 value on their advantages; confide in them, and concur heartily in doing them jus¬ 
 tice. We shall find additional convincing evidence in the sequel, that by distrusting 
 our own resources, instead of appealing to them with confidence, and putting them 
 on a right footing, we weaken, and may gradually destroy them. 
 
 Having now r explained the principle according to which the allowances to pau¬ 
 pers in Scotland are generally fixed at a low rate, in aid only of other knowm re¬ 
 sources, it is necessary to attend briefly to the grounds on w hich it has been propos¬ 
 ed, that this principle should in future he contemned and entirely disregarded,—that 
 the rate of relief should be very greatly enlarged,—and that reasons altogether dif¬ 
 ferent from those wdiich have, in times past, entered into the consideration of the 
 administrators of our poor laws, should for the future influence their conduct in 
 determining this matter. Generally speaking, it seems to be held that nothing but 
 the poverty of the applicant ought to he enquired into, and that the great object 
 should be to relieve his destitution, aud to administer such assistance as will tend 
 to the comfort of the pauper, and may conduce to the health and happiness of him¬ 
 self and family. If there be auy vagueness and want of precision in this descrip¬ 
 tion, the uncertainty arises from the fact, that no more pointed or definite account 
 of the object in view has as yet been stated. 
 
 Now', it is apprehended, that no branch of the subject requires to be approached 
 
 4 vided, to obey the dictates of the most powerful feelings of nature,—to follow the com- 
 4 mands of the law implanted in every breast by the hand of God, and to support his aged 
 4 and infirm parent!’— Corrected Speech of Lord Chancellor , p. 30. 
 
25 
 
 with more caution and circumspection, than that which relates to the amount of 
 relief to be bestowed on paupers. In regulating this matter, it is impossible to con¬ 
 fine our attention to the state of the poor only, and to consider merely what is 
 necessary for their support, without reference to the condition and situation of any 
 other vlass in society. On the contrary, the state of all the other classes, is, or may 
 be, materially affected by the arrangements made with regard to the provision al¬ 
 lotted to the poor. In particular, the condition of independent labourers of the 
 lowest class, the great bulk of operatives, is so directly implicated in these concerns, 
 that the administrators for the poor will act most unjustly, as well as unwisely, if 
 they fail to pay as scrupulous attention to the state of the class now alluded to, 
 as to that of the poor themselves, in fixing the rate of allowances for paupers. 
 
 Let us attend for an instant to the fundamental and radical rule on this subject, 
 laid down in their report, by the English poor law commissioners. 4 The first and 
 
 * most essential of all conditions,’ says the reporters, 4 a principle which we find 
 
 * universally admitted, even by those whose practice is at variance with it, is, that 
 4 his (the pauper’s) situation on the whole shall not be made really or apparently 
 4 so eligible as the situation of the independent labourer of the lowest class. 
 
 4 Throughout the evidence, it is shewn, that in proportion as the condition of any 
 
 * pauper class is elevated above the condition of independent labourers, the condition 
 4 of the independent class is depressed; their industry is impaired, their employment 
 4 becomes unsteady, and its remuneration in wages is diminished. Such persons, 
 
 4 therefore, are under the strongest inducements to quit the less eligible class of la- 
 
 * bourers, and enter the more eligible class of paupers. The converse is the effect 
 4 when the pauper class is placed in its proper position, below the condition of the 
 4 independent labourer. Every penny bestowed that tends to render the condition 
 4 of the pauper more eligible than that of the independent labourer, is a bounty on 
 4 indolence and vice.’ 1 Even the workhouse, which is to be made use of as a test 
 of pauperism, if not skilfully employed, instead of a terror and preventative, will 
 become an allurement and attraction. One of the reports of the poor law com¬ 
 missioners, asserts, in a passage already quoted, that 4 the main reliance for the dis- 
 4 couragement of pauperism is founded on the workhouse system.’ But it is 
 added, 4 The labouring classes in the pauperized districts are at present inclined 
 4 to struggle earnestly to get their own livelihood, rather than seek maintenance 
 4 within the walls of a workhouse; but it is evident that the inducement to do so 
 4 would cease, if ever the residence within a workhouse should be made as desirable 
 4 as that in a cottage.’ It is only by its horrors that the workhouse becomes an 
 efficient engine for good: when stripped of these attributes, it is a direct incentive 
 to pauperism. 
 
 The fact is universally acknowledged, that the line of separation between paupers 
 and 4 independent labourers of the lowest class,’ is very slight, and perpetually 
 passed over by the latter. When this is kept in remembrance, the wisdom of the 
 maxims above quoted must appear incontestible. And if these rules are thus es¬ 
 tablished, it is impossible to deny that it is no easy or safe matter, to deal out to the 
 poor, the rates or amount of relief, which are said by Dr. Aiison to be necessary 
 for their comfort, and conducive to their health. By doing so, a door will be opened 
 wide, by which able-bodied labourers will be invited and encouraged to enter into 
 the haunts of pauperism, there to exchange their poor but independent station, for 
 one in which they are degraded and demoralized, but are reconciled to the change, 
 by finding themselves better fed and clothed, and the indolence of their nature in¬ 
 dulged. 
 
 Let it be granted that, to raise the condition of the lowest class of labourers, 
 would be extremely desirable. Let it be assumed, that to do so, would promote the 
 health of themselves and their families. Alas! we are told,that by the measures 
 alluded to, the condition of this important class is not raised, but so immensely de¬ 
 pressed, that they are driven into a state of pauperism, in order to escape from the 
 distress in which they have been involved. We further see, that no scheme, by 
 means of which the condition of this class of society is to be directly improved, 
 and their state bettered, is practicable or contemplated. No tampering with the 
 wages of labour is projected. The remedial measures proposed can but indirectly 
 affect the condition of independent labourers; for these measures are entirely con- 
 „ fined to an alteration of the poor laws, and restricted to the class of persons on 
 
 1 Report, 1834, p. 228. 
 
 D 
 
26 
 
 whom a right of relief, as paupers, is to be bestowed. How limited, then, are the 
 means of such relief, if the amount is to be kept below the income of ‘ indepen- 
 ‘ dent labourers of the lowest class !’ How dangerous, and opposed to principle, and 
 to the general good of society, if the allowances given are to exceed these rates! 
 
 Is it not undeniable, that a large, and sudden, and general increase of allowances 
 to the poor over the country, or in certain particular places and districts, would at 
 once become the most obvious and attractive inlet to pauperism, by which, more 
 than by any other, the number of paupers would be greatly multiplied > Can it 
 admit of a question, that a little indulgence of this kind bestowed on the poor, 
 must sink many independent labourers, until by degrees they would be found swell¬ 
 ing the class of paupers ? The humanity which would grant such indulgences is 
 short-sighted. In the act of relieving the poor, it would lower and reduce to pau¬ 
 perism many a labourer who, were not this course followed, would remain, as be¬ 
 fore, contented, industrious, and justly proud of his independence. 
 
 This doctrine cannot fail to be unpalatable, but it is so important, that we must 
 not, on account of its want of popularity, blink the subject. It is doubtless painful 
 to impose any restraints on those feelings of humanity which prompt to the making 
 of large allowances to the poor. But the necessity of the case, a regard for the 
 situation of independent labourers, requires this abstinence and self-controul, and 
 prudence ought to reconcile us to its exercise. 
 
 These considerations are of the greater importance, that the main and ultimate 
 object of the proposal now brought forward to alter our poor-laws, appears to be 
 to secure a higher rate of allowances to paupers. It is on this account, that an 
 uniform assessment over the country is suggested, a right of relief to independent 
 labourers proposed, the vexation of workhouses is to be encountered, an oppressive 
 and ruinous expense in collecting and distributing the rates to be submitted to, and 
 the number of paupers to be greatly increased. All these inconveniences are to be 
 borne, in order to provide an augmentation of the rate of relief to the poor. 
 
 It cannot have escaped the observation of those who have bestowed due attention 
 on this interesting subject, that since the date of the English Poor-law amendment 
 act, the greatest danger, perhaps, which their reformed s} 7 stem incurs, arises from 
 the consequences of measures, similar to those into which it is proposed that this 
 country should be precipitated. Some of the best-informed among our neighbours 
 express an apprehension, that in many instances e the guardians will do too much 
 ‘ for the poor, and thereby endanger the independent labourer continuing such.* 
 
 If the result of the argument now submitted to the consideration of the reader, 
 turns out to be, that the allowances to paupers ought to be kept at lower rates, 
 than, on a first view of the case, may appear to him desirable, he may derive con¬ 
 solation from the following remark of a magistrate, recorded in Mr. Chadwick’s 
 Report: ‘Nothing is more difficult than for a gentleman to form a correct estimate 
 ‘ of the means of living of a labouring man. Let any scheme for his maintenance 
 ‘ be devised by a gentleman, and you will always find that the labouring man will 
 ‘ live at a cheaper rate than that estimated.’ 1 It is satisfactory to know, that it is 
 not mere reasoning, which might be accused of being cold and phlegmatic, but un¬ 
 erring practical experience, which, in the particular now discussed, corrects, in 
 some degree, the impressions of sensibility and excited feeling. 
 
 ( 4 .) Administrators. 
 
 The last characteristic of the Scottish system which demands separate attention, 
 relates to the administrators or managers of the fund appointed for the maintenance 
 of the poor. In the unassessed country parishes, these affairs are entrusted to the 
 kirk-session, who act gratuitously, and even in the parishes which are assessed, 
 although collectors, surveyors, overseers, and other paid agents are required, yet 
 the kirk-session also affords much assistance, without fee or reward. In the towns, 
 the jurisdiction in these matters belongs to the magistrates; but generally, if not 
 uniformly, they devolve the management on the kirk-sessions within their bounds. 
 
 This is a brauch of the subject on which Dr. Alison is almost entirely silent. 
 On several occasions, in the course of his argument, it w ould appear that the kirk- 
 sessions, and their important services, are either overlooked, or altogether forgotten. 
 
 1 Administration and Operation of the Poor Laws, p. 234. 
 
Thus it is said that, ‘ when the relief of the destitute, in large towns, is trusted 
 ‘ chiefly to the voluntary system, it always happens, and on a fair estimate of 
 
 * human virtue, and of the time which persons of the higher ranks either can or 
 f will bestow on the affairs of the poor , we must expect it always will happen, that 
 ‘ there is a great deal of unrelieved suffering.’ 1 If it were left altogether to private 
 enquiries to seek out objects of charity, it might no doubt be the case, in some de¬ 
 gree, that many of the higher ranks would neglect this Christian duty, although 
 even, in that event, the wants of the poor, unless expectations from the rich were 
 too much trusted to, would generally be relieved by others; but when it is recol¬ 
 lected, that in every parish and in every church, there is a kirk-session, the mem¬ 
 bers of whicfy are ready, either collectively or individually, to become the almoners 
 of their brethren, and to receive either small sums or larger donations and bequests 
 for the parish, saving the donors from all further trouble, the above-quoted remark 
 loses all force and power. 
 
 Much important and minute information on this branch of our enquiries, (great 
 part of which is new,) may be found in the late Report of the Committee of the 
 General Assembly. To this 1 must beg leave to refer, and shall only extract the 
 few following particulars. 
 
 In the unassessed parishes, (as already mentioned,) no other agency than that of 
 the kirk-session is required. The adoption, however, in several places, of what 
 has, for distinction’s sake, been called 4 voluntary assessment,’ has introduced paid 
 collectors in some of these, although they are in reality not assessed parishes. 
 The Report bears that ‘ in about one-half of the cases in which voluntary assess - 
 ‘ ment has been resorted to, it has led to the appointment of a collector to receive 
 ‘ the heritors’ contributions; and when a legal assessment is imposed, the appoint- 
 ‘ ment of such an officer almost uniformly follows. As the population, the num- 
 
 * her of paupers, and the amount of assessment increase, the number of hired agents 
 ‘ augment; a general collector, sub-collector, surveyors to value the property of 
 
 * the inhabitants and allocate the assessment, overseers to attend to the poor and 
 ‘ distribute the funds—all become necessary. In the constant superintendence of 
 ‘ these affairs, and generally for conducting the affairs of the poor, in the more 
 ‘ populous parishes, the aid of a committee of heritors to act with the session, in 
 ‘ the ordinary practical administration, is given in landward parishes; while in 
 ‘ cities and burghs of a large population, a board, variously constituted by repre- 
 ‘ sentatives from the several sessions, and various public bodies, is in general 
 
 * formed by arrangement or agreement on the part of those having a voice in the 
 ‘ administration; the acts of legal authority, such as imposing the assessment, or 
 
 * the like, being performed by those in whom, by law, the power is properly 
 4 vested.’ 2 
 
 After having given this general description, the Report bears, that ‘ the total 
 
 * number of persons giving their gratuitous services in the active and ordinary 
 ‘ management of the poor, over all Scotland, is seven thousand, five hundred and 
 ‘ forty-two ; of whom are members of kirk-sessions, 6035 ; and other persons, 
 ‘ chiefly heritors or rate-payers, 1507.’ 
 
 e The total number of hired agents is 532, of whom 330 are employed in levying 
 ‘ the funds, and 202 in the management of the poor.’ 3 
 
 The number of hired agents in the non-assessed parishes (owing to the 4 volun- 
 ‘ tary assessment ’ in some of them,) is 137—in the assessed, 395. The number 
 o igratuitous agents in the non-assessed parishes is 4456—in the assessed, 3086. 4 
 
 The expense of management in the non-assessed parishes is L.581,2s. 3d.—in the 
 assessed, L.6506, 3s. The expense of litigation in the former is L.84, 18s. 8d—in 
 the latter, L.835, 17s. 2d. 5 
 
 In passing, we may contrast the expense of litigation, as above stated, with the 
 expense of litigation and removals of paupers in England, as given in the Report of 
 the Select Committee on the poor laws in 1817, (p. 26.) ‘ These sums,’ (the Re¬ 
 
 port bears,) ‘amounted, in 1776, to L.35,072; in 1786, to L.35,791 ; in 1803, 
 ‘ L. 190,072 ; in 1815, L.287,000 ; and it appears that the appeals against orders of 
 ‘ removal, entered at the four last quarter-sessions, amount to about 4700.’ 
 
 But it is not only the comparative saving of expense in the part of our system 
 
 1 Observations, &c., by Dr. Alison, p. 142. 
 
 2 Report of Committee of General Assembly, 1839, p. 17. 
 
 * Ibid. 4 Ibid. p. 20. ? Ibid. p. 21. 
 
28 
 
 now under consideration, that forms its recommendation* The friendly int-efconfttf 
 which it occasions between the poor and their more wealthy neighbours, is of 
 vastly greater importance. This matter is well explained in the following senten¬ 
 ces, borrowed from the Report of one of the English poor law commissioners, of a 
 visit made by him to Glasgow. ‘ The personal attention of the rich to the poor, seems 
 4 to be one of the most efficient modes of preventing pauperism. It is a subject 
 ‘ of perpetual complaint, that the poor do not receive the charities of the rich with 
 ‘ gratitude. The reason of this appears to be, that the donation of a few shillings 
 4 from a rich man to a poor one, is no subtraction from the giver’s comforts, and 
 4 consequently is no proof of his interest in the other’s welfare ; it seems natural 
 4 and reasonable that there should be some proportion preserved between the 
 
 * gratitude felt for a favour conferred, and the difficulty or inconvenience that the 
 ‘ doer of it is put to in conferring it* If the rich give their time to the poor in- 
 ‘ stead of their money, they part with a commodity which the poor see is valuable 
 
 * to the givers, and consequently esteem the attention the more, as it implies an 
 ‘ interest in their prosperity; and a feeling seems to be engendered in their minds 
 ‘ of an unwillingness to press on the kindness of those who thus prove themselves 
 ‘ ready to sympathize with them in distress, and to do their utmost to relieve it* 
 ‘ This feeling acts as a spur to the exertions of the poor; their efforts to depend 
 ‘ on their ow n resources are greater, and consequently the chance of their becoming 
 
 * dependent on the bounty of others less.’ 1 
 
 Possessed of such a powerful machinery for the management of the poor as has 
 now been explained-—the members of it acting' gratuitously—consisting of the 
 ministers of the different parishes, and of many of the most respectable inhabitants, 
 who are well acquainted with the people, and anxious to relieve their wants— 
 aided by the landholders in the agricultural, and by a board such as has been de¬ 
 scribed, in the city parishes,—is it to be credited that we will consent to deprive 
 ourselves of such signal advantages, and proceed to employ paid inspectors and 
 other hired agents ? It is very possible that defects may be found in the constitu¬ 
 tion and management of some of the kirk-sessions. Were this the proper occasion 
 for such a discussion, it would be an easy matter to shew, that the faults alluded 
 to admit of a simple cure, and that it would not be difficult to infuse fresh vigour 
 into these public bodies. This, it is fondly hoped, w ill be the object at w hich we 
 will aim. We ought to endeavour to renovate and improve, and cautiously avoid 
 to impair the usefulness of, far more to destroy an institution, from which the 
 country has for ages derived the most important benefits, and w hich is as well fitted 
 as ever, to carry into effect the great object of providing for the poor. 
 
 GENERAL REFLECTIONS. 
 
 In the consideration of the four different characteristics of the management of the 
 poor in Scotland, now concluded, 1 have endeavoured to confine myself to the dis¬ 
 cussion of matter properly belonging to the particular object of inquiry, in which 
 we w ere at the time engaged. But there occur certain general reflections , applica¬ 
 ble to the whole subject of the Scottish system of poor law s, and administration of 
 the poor, which it is necessary now r briefly to offer. 
 
 I. —Argument, that our Laws are not suited to the present 
 times, Considered. 
 
 It has been alleged that our poor laws are not fitted for 4 an advanced and com* 
 4 plex state of society and it is added, that 4 in many small country parishes in 
 4 Scotland, where all the higher orders w ho are to give, and all the lower orders 
 ‘ w ho are to receive, are aware of their duties, and are known to one another, and 
 ‘ where the proprietors are resident, of charitable disposition, and attentive to 
 ‘ their duties, the burden may be sufficiently equalized among the former, and the 
 4 benefits sufficiently secured to the latter, without the intervention of the law.’ 2 
 
 1 Report of E. C. Tuffnell, Esq. See Appendix. 
 
 2 Observations, &c., by Dr. Alison, p. 10i. 
 
This admission, then, at all events, shews, that over a large proportion of the 
 country, the system may work perfectly well. Nay, more—it establishes the wis¬ 
 dom and justice of these rules, and of that administration of them, which, instead of 
 imposing one uniform assessmentover the land, leaves it to the managers in eachparish, 
 to judge according to the circumstances of their own territory, and rather expects 
 of them that they will abstain from assessment, if their poor can be maintained with¬ 
 out it. In this point of view, therefore, the admission made, and which could not 
 indeed in fairness have been withheld, is important; it is truly decisive of the 
 sound policy of the administration of our poor laws, in having rejected a compul¬ 
 sory assessment, as the uniform and undeviating rule. There can be no justice in 
 assessing one parish, the poor belonging to which may be maintained without hav¬ 
 ing recourse to these compulsory means, because an assessment is indispensable in 
 a neighbouring parish. 
 
 But this is not all. There is evidently a great mistake committed, when it is 
 supposed that the Scottish rules are ill adapted for a complex and advanced state of 
 society. As each parish is left to follow out the plan for itself, without being in¬ 
 fluenced by the practice elsewhere, it is impossible that the utility of the system 
 can be affected by the circumstances now alluded to. If a parish becomes populous, 
 to a degree which renders the management of the poor in it cumbrous and incon¬ 
 venient, all that is necessary is to divide it into two or more parishes, or at least to 
 make separate districts, each having its ow n place of worship, and its own adminis¬ 
 trators for the poor. The system being equally suited for all districts of a certain 
 population, it is only requisite to regulate the size of the parish accordingly. The 
 scheme itself, when the extent of territory is suited to it, and an adequate number 
 of managers appointed, must be fitted for the care of the poor in all states of society, 
 the most complex as well as the simplest, and for all situations. 
 
 Any doubt, in particular, that might be entertained of the sufficiency of the col¬ 
 lections made at the churches, to bear, throughout Scotland, the share of expense 
 of maintaining the poor, w hich the system necessarily puts upon them, may be dis¬ 
 sipated by considering the treatment w hich this fund meets with, and the returns 
 which may confidently be expected from it, if anything like justice shall be done to 
 it. It is a historical fact, that this source of revenue proved perfectly adequate, 
 till its amount was greatly diminished by the prevalence of dissent. Since that 
 period, it has been discouraged and checked by the introduction of compulsory 
 assessment. And what is its fate, at present, in other particulars ? Population has 
 increased by rapid strides, while multitudes are kept from the Established Church, 
 and, of course, from contributing to the church collections, by want of accommoda¬ 
 tion in these places of worship; and much of the collections received from those 
 who have found church room, is necessarily appropriated to the support of the 
 Church Establishment. When these drawbacks to the collections shall be removed, 
 and they shall be made to bear the character which the law intends for them, of 
 being the channel, in every parish, by w hich the alms of the public to the parochial 
 poor is to flow, and to which all the inhabitants, above the rank of paupers, are to 
 be tributary, it cannot admit of doubt, that this, and the other voluntary contribu¬ 
 tions, will answer well the purposes for which they are destined. 
 
 These views of, and these expectations from, the system of voluntary offWings 
 for the maintenance of the poor, will hold good in the case of city as w ell as of 
 country parishes. The principle must be universally applicable. The want of a 
 sufficient number of churches, and of ministers and kirk-sessions in very populous 
 towns, and the other circumstances to which allusion has been made, impede at 
 present the working of the system. But it is from these circumstances, and not 
 from a defect in the system itself, that the evils complained of spring. Multiply the 
 churches, and ministers, and kirk-sessions, in proportion to the increased popula¬ 
 tion,—appropriate the church collections entirely or chiefly to the support of the 
 parochial poor,—abandon, wherever it is possible so to do, a compulsory assess¬ 
 ment,—and the present system will soon be found equal to supply the wants of the 
 poor. 
 
 The example of the parish of St. John’s of Glasgow has established the truth of 
 this proposition, in circumstances the most unfavourable for the experiment that 
 can be imagined. The adequacy of the church collections for the maintenance of 
 the poor in a parish so situated,—the facility with which the elders and deacons 
 accomplished their tasks, and many other points most interesting in the examina¬ 
 tion of the Scottish rules and usages, are most beautifully and satisfactorily brought 
 
30 
 
 out, in the history of that parish. Formerly, when treating of it, I referred to two 
 publications by Dr. Chalmers, one of these a * Statement from Eight Years’ Ex- 
 ‘ perience,’ published in 1823, and the other the * Substance of a Speech,’ delivered 
 by him in May 1822. 1 To these he has since added a most important Tract, en¬ 
 titled, 4 Reflections of 1839 on the now protracted experience of Pauperism in 
 4 Glasgow, an experience of more than twenty years, w hich began in 1815, and 
 
 * terminated in 1837 ’ 2 It is surely not too much to expect, that they who speak 
 of the abolition of the Scottish system of poor laws, as an expedient measure, 
 should pause to read attentively, and ponder deeply on the Tract now’ referred to. 3 
 
 I shall not venture any remarks of my own on this important document, but it 
 would be unpardonable to omit noticing the marked approbation which the ma¬ 
 nagement of the poor in the parish of St. John’s, met with from an English poor 
 law commissioner, who visited Glasgow, in order to inquire into the administration 
 of the poor-funds in that city, and w ho reported upon it in 1833. The whole of 
 Mr. Tufnell’s report, although too long to be here inserted, well merits an attentive 
 perusal.* 
 
 Mr. Tufnell remarks, that * the chief virtue of the new system,’ (speaking of St. 
 John’s parish), 4 seems to consist in the closer investigation which each new case 
 ‘ of pauperism receives, by which the parish is prevented from being imposed on; 
 
 4 and as it is well known by the poor that this severe scrutiny is never omitted, 
 
 4 attempts at imposition are less frequently practised.’ This, (and not the work- 
 house), is the only proper test of pauperism. The speedy and certain effect of this 
 test in St. John’s parish, reminds us of the saving of L.2,300,000 obtained in Eng¬ 
 land, by the passing of the amendment act. It shews that human nature is every¬ 
 where the same, and of consequence that the same are the effects, in all situations, 
 of strict inquiry into the state of those who apply for parochial relief. 
 
 But one, unwilling to acknowledge the success of the administration of the poor 
 funds in the parish of St. John’s, may perhaps insinuate that the stricter inquiry 
 into the history of the poor in that parish, drove many of them to shift their quar¬ 
 ters, and to dwell in other parishes in Glasgow. Mr. Tufnell has spoken to this 
 point, in the following words:— 4 It has been said, that, since the parishes of Glas- 
 ‘ gow are not protected against each others’ poor, by the law of settlement, the 
 4 small number of the 8t. John’s paupers is ou ing to their poor being mostly drawn 
 
 * out of the parish by the harsh treatment they receive. Before the system was 
 ‘ commenced, so confident was the founder of it that the reverse would take place,— 
 ‘ that the poor would prefer, instead of avoiding his parish, on account of the dif- 
 ‘ ferent mode of treating them, that he actually stipulated in a Letter to one of the 
 ‘ Magistrates, published at the time, that the law of settlement should take effect 
 ‘ betwixt his parish and the other parishes; in other w r ords, that he should be pro- 
 4 tected from the influx of paupers from other parishes, w hich, in return, w'ere to 
 4 be similarly protected against his own. And so correct was his anticipation, (the 
 1 stipulation not having been agreed to), that, in the first three years of the exist- 
 4 ence of the reformed plan, twdce as many paupers came in as went out: and one 
 4 of the managers assures me, that a constant preference is given by the poor to St. 
 4 John’s above other parishes, on account of the different way ol treating them; at 
 4 any rate, there is no disinclination to dwell in it.’ 5 
 
 Want of room prevents me from citing the reports on this management, made 
 by the different deacons, which will be found in Dr. Chalmers’s 4 Statement of 
 4 Eight Years’ Experience;’ but the following answer by one of them, to inquiries 
 so recently made as July 1839, may be quoted: 4 I have never ceased to say, that 
 4 if an agency was organized in each parish, even in Glasgow, for the effectual ma- 
 4 nagement and oversight of the poor, both for education and ordinary pauperism, 
 4 that in a very short time, there w ould be no necessity for a poors’-house or an as- 
 4 sessment, as collections would be made at church doors quite adequate to all the 
 4 wants of the deserving poor.' 6 
 
 1 Remarks, &c. p. 104. 
 
 See Dr. Chalmers’s Works, vol. xvi. Appendix, p. 422. 
 
 * This tract is, with the kind permission of its author, published in an Appendix to 
 these remarks. 
 
 1 This Report will be found in the Appendix, No. III. 
 
 5 See Appendix No. III. And s< j e Dr. Chalmers’s Works, vol. xv. p. 71. 
 
 6 Letter from Win. Buchanan, Esq. Appendix, No. II. 
 
31 
 
 After reading these testimonies, the case of St. John’s must appear sufficient to 
 convince the most sceptical on the subject, of the adequacy of our system, in every 
 state of society, and in the most trying circumstances. And it cannot admit of a 
 reasonable doubt, that similar arrangements in the metropolis, to those which were 
 attended with results so satisfactory in Glasgow, would inevitably be accompanied 
 by the same effects. 1 
 
 Indeed, the idea that measures are not fitting for the present times, which were 
 approved of as perfectly suitable by Parliament, so lately as July 1834, and which 
 w ere then recommended as the model for England at that period, and in all time 
 coming, cannot readily be listened to, or make a serious impression. 
 
 The observations offered w ith regard to the management of the poor in the cities 
 of Glasgow' and Edinburgh, suggest considerations, the bearing of w hich, on the 
 whole plan of altering the Scotch poor laws, merits the deepest attention. The 
 complaint of a defect in the law has been, in a great degree, limited to the state of 
 the poor in the Highlands, and in the large towns. As to the Highlands, the w r ant 
 lately experienced, arose not from any defect in the poor law s, but from scarcity and 
 dearth, occasioned by a deficient crop, which no state of the law, with regard to the 
 poor, could have altered or affected. And if, in a few of the parishes, an adequate 
 fund, by means of voluntary contribution, cannot always be obtained, recourse ought 
 to be had, in time of need, to assessment. This measure, as administered in Scot¬ 
 land, is well calculated to meet such occasional and temporary difficulties, and no 
 change whatever, of the established law, on this account, is called for. 
 
 With regard to the state of the poor in large cities, as to which, great complaints 
 have been made, it must not be forgotten, that in these localities, the administration 
 of the law' is placed in other hands from those to w hom it is committed in country 
 parishes. The parochial system, at least in its purity and uncontrolled, does not 
 there prevail. It is subjected to many checks and interferences which tend to 
 diminish its efficiency. True it is, that the number of poor, and also their wants, 
 must be expected to undergo a considerable proportional increase in towns, when 
 compared with their number and w ants in agricultural districts. But it is only the 
 more necessary, in order to counteract this tendency, that the management of these 
 concerns should be placed on that footing, which experience has proved to be the 
 best, and the freest from imperfections. 
 
 It is with the views now explained, that the lesson taught in Glasgow, in 
 the instance of the parish of St. John’s, is of great value, and ought, as it is appre¬ 
 hended, to be followed up in that city, and adapted also to other places. No such 
 experiment has yet been made in the metropolis, although a plan was formed and 
 submitted to consideration, some years since, by the intelligent members of the 
 kirk-session of St. Mary’s, to whose report, on the management of the poor, re¬ 
 ference has been made. It surely merits serious consideration, whether it be not 
 in the quarter now r pointed out, that a remedy for the evil so justly complained of 
 ought to be sought, and whether this local malady may not be removed, without 
 demolishing the w hole fabric of our poor laws, and rushing into a system which, 
 wherever adopted, will be found to be invariably attended with innumerable ills, to 
 all classes of the people. To hint these views is at present sufficient. To prose¬ 
 cute the subject more minutely, would be inconsistent with the aim and purposes 
 of this enquiry. 
 
 II. Expense of Proposed Alteration Considered. 
 
 One very serious objection to the adoption in Scotland, of the English scheme 
 of management of the poor, must, long since, have occurred to the reader, viz., the 
 heavy and ruinous expense attending it. Not only is a uniform compulsory assess¬ 
 ment established over the face of the country, with all the weighty charges for 
 overseers, inspectors, assessors, and other paid agents, w ho are to take the place of 
 our ministers, elders, and deacons, acting gratuitously : not only are the expenses 
 of litigation to be greatly increased : not only are the allow ances to all descriptions 
 
 1 In 1834, a Committee of the kirk-session of St. Mary’s parish of Edinburgh, printed 
 and circulated a “ Report” relative to the management of the poor of Edinburgh, which 
 contains much useful information, and merits serious attention. 
 
32 
 
 of poor to be vastly enlarged, or rather to be settled on principles so entirely dif¬ 
 ferent from those which our system professes, that the claims of the poor are to be 
 placed on a footing altogether new to us: but further, a great class of persons, whom 
 we at present view as industrious labourers, and whom we assist gratuitously, when 
 occasionally reduced to difficulties, in the hope of helping them soon to return to 
 their laborious employments, are to be sunk to the rank of paupers, having a right to 
 relief\ which they may enforce by a legal process. And to test their claims, and to 
 secure against imposition, workhouses, against which the nation strove so long and 
 so successfully, are to spring up in all parts of the country. We are fairly warned, 
 that instead of an expenditure on the poor, as at present, of L. 140,000, we must 
 calculate on an outlay of L.800,000; and we must perceive, that in all probability, 
 even that sum would gradually be exceeded, when a system, the expense of which 
 is proved by experience to be naturally and irresistibly progressive, to an amount 
 indefinite and unlimited, should be put in full and active operation. 
 
 It cannot with fairness be objected to the views now suggested, that we are 
 considering the question ‘ as a matter of pounds, shillings, and pence.’ This is one 
 view of the question, although it has already been shewn that it is not the most 
 important one. But truly the expense of a projected measure becomes a primary 
 question, when the cost is evidently so large as to render the scheme impracticable, 
 or at least ruinous to the country. And such must appear to be the nature of the 
 project under consideration, when viewed in all its magnitude, and with the pros¬ 
 pect of all its consequences. It is not, indeed, to be doubted, that with the experi¬ 
 ence of England before her eyes, Scotland would avoid some of the glaring errors, 
 into which the administrators of the system, in that country, fell. But we are 
 assured by her legislators of the present day, that these errors were naturally 
 incident to the system—that it is radically and essentially vicious, and that the 
 rules and plan of administration which our forefathers adopted in preference to 
 those of England, are those which are rested on right principles, and on a secure 
 foundation. 
 
 III. Argument from Practice of other States answered. 
 
 With regard to the recommendation of a change of system, which is founded on 
 the usages of other states, (detailed in the Quarterly Review, No. 109,) this view 
 of the subject was noticed in my former publication, and the following remarks 
 were then offered. ‘ The lately discovered prevalence of assessment in many of 
 ‘ the European nations, as well as among the United States of America, (Quarterly 
 
 * Review, No. 109,) can form no sufficient reason for the adoption of this measure, 
 
 * by a people whose own experience, during many ages, has established the preference 
 
 * due, in their case, to voluntary contributions, as the means of relieving the 
 
 * ordinary poor.’ 1 If we had no experience of our own, or if we had been taught 
 by it, that our institutions are faulty, it might be wise to follow the usages of other 
 states. But when the wisdom of our practice has been established, both in our 
 own opinion, and in that of our neighbours, after an experience of upwards of a 
 century and a half’s duration, we cannot be expected to be moved by the practice 
 of other nations, of which we know little. We have learned that the neighbouring 
 country, with whose law and usages we are best acquainted, prefers our system, 
 not only to their own, but to the compulsory assessment in practice, as it appears, 
 in other nations. We have learned, too, that the English, when about to amend 
 their own law, enquired minutely as to the institutions in Scotland, but we do not 
 hear of their having been swayed by a consideration of the laws and usages of the 
 other countries now referred to. 
 
 IV. Effect of Assessment, and Legal Right, on Population. 
 
 As to the effect, on population, of a general assessment, accompanied with increas¬ 
 ed allowances to the poor of all descriptions, and a legal right of relief conferred on 
 able-bodied labourers out of employment, it is necessary to offer a few remarks. 
 Much argument has been brought forward to establish the proposition, that reck- 
 
 1 Remarks, &c, p. 267. 
 
33 
 
 lessness and degradation lead to improvident marriages, and to an increase of popu¬ 
 lation, and in support of this proposition, evidence of the state of the poor in 
 Ireland has been adduced. This view of the matter was suggested to Dr. Chalmers, 
 when under examination before the Committee of’the House of Commons on the 
 state of the poor of Ireland. His answer merits attention. ‘ I am inclined to 
 ‘ think, (says he,) that recklesness and degradation are more the causes than the 
 ‘ consequences of poverty, and that the restoration of the prudential check is more 
 4 directly arrived at by the operation of a moral influence, than by any economical 
 4 arrangement.’ 1 
 
 But admitting it to be proved, that the wretchedness and destitution of the poor 
 in Ireland, frequently leads them to marry out of mere recklessness, and from a 
 feeling that their situation cannot be rendered worse than it already is, it does not 
 surei}' follow, that people of this rank will refrain from taking this step, if their 
 condition is made less uncomfortable, and if they are provided by their parishes, 
 with some of those necessaries, the possession of which may enable them to main¬ 
 tain a family. Recklessness and degradation may be one occasion of marriage, but 
 they are not the only occasion of it. We need scarcely stop to observe, that it 
 would have been more satisfactory, if the argument had been conducted with direct 
 reference to the habits of the poor in Scotland, than by such constant allusion to 
 the poor in Ireland, and then by drawing the inference from the case of the one 
 to that of the other. There exists a great dissimilarity between them. But taking 
 either of them as an example, it will be difficult to persuade us that large allow¬ 
 ances, and a considerable degree of comfort, will strengthen the moral restraint 
 against marriage. Let us attend to what Lord Brougham says on this subject, in 
 the speech so often referred to. He notices the argument employed by some 
 persons, 4 that whilst there is no possibility of preventing by law improvident 
 4 marriages among the poor, (and 1 admit there is none,) the poor laws furnish a 
 4 preventive check. But (his Lordship adds) are those respectable persons really 
 4 so short-sighted as not to perceive, that whatever little check the poor laws may 
 4 in one view interpose, is immeasurably counterbalanced by their affording the 
 4 greatest stimulus to population which the wit of man could devise—the most wil- 
 4 ful and direct encouragement that possibly could have been discovered to impro- 
 4 vident marriages ? I verily believe, that the history of human errors can produce 
 4 no parallel to the mistake into which these learned and ingenious persons have 
 4 fallen. If you had to seek out the most efficacious means of removing every 
 * prudential check to population—nay, if you wish to accelerate its march by a 
 4 wilful, 1 might almost say, a wicked, encouragement to heedless and imprudent 
 4 marriages, and by a premium for numbers of children—you could not devise any 
 4 more perfect, than are afforded by the poor laws, as administered in this country.’ 2 
 It is true, that the former law' held out encouragements, which, under the amended 
 law, do not exist, but it cannot be admitted, that under any modification of the law, 
 the preventive check to improvident marriages will be created or strengthened, by 
 a compulsory provision for able-bodied labourers, when destitute of employment. 
 
 It has been remarked, that the fact of the English population not having been 
 rendered redundant, by the existence of poor laws in the country for 250 years, is 
 proved by the circumstance of L.2,300,000 having been suddenly withdrawn from 
 the poor, after the amendment act, without material suffering on their part. 3 But 
 all that the fact now' alluded to proves with certainty, is, that in consequence of the 
 vicious system of the poor laws, multitudes of the people had become paupers, 
 who had no just claim to parochial relief, and who w'ere forced, and were able, to 
 support themselves and their families by their own labour, immediately on the 
 amendment act being passed. It does not follow from this, and would, indeed, be 
 in the face of the clearest evidence, and of Lord Broughams declaration above 
 quoted, that the law', as it stood, did not operate as an encouragement to marriage, 
 and thus greatly increase the population, although the resources of the country 
 have proved sufficient to sustain the increase. 
 
 In truth, it is impossible to devise any check of the description now treated of, 
 to improvident marriages among the poor; and the sentiments of Dr. Chalmers on 
 this topic, above quoted, are amply confirmed by experience. If, on the one hand, 
 
 1 Dr. Chalmers’s Works, vol. xvi., p. 386. 
 
 2 Corrected Report of the Speech of the Lord Chancellor, p. 21. 
 
 3 Observations, &c., by Dr. Alison, p. 77. 
 
 I E 
 
34 
 
 the poor are left destitute, they contract marriage from recklessness and in despair, 
 as in Ireland. If, on the other hand, considerable parochial allowances are afford¬ 
 ed them, and their comfort provided for, in future exigencies, by law, a direct en¬ 
 couragement to marry is held out. 4 Moral influence/ more than any 4 economical 
 4 arrangement/ furnishes the ‘prudential check/ which may be relied on. It is true, 
 that those who are in a state of destitution will not readily listen to such considera¬ 
 tions ; but still they are the only considerations that reach the case, and cure the 
 evil. 
 
 But enough has now been said on the influence of the poor-laws on population ; 
 and it is fair to admit, that, reviewing the evidence on this subject, Mr. Malthus, 
 in his latest edition, appears to have considered the objection as not distinctly made 
 out, to a precise and definite extent. 
 
 CONCLUSION. 
 
 The careful examination of this important subject, with reference to both the 
 English and the Scotch Poor Laws, by a Committee of the House of Commons, as 
 well as by a Commission, and in Parliament, while the Amendment Act for 
 England was framing, and at the time of its enactment,—the evidence then brought 
 forward as to the effects which the different systems have produced in the two 
 countries,—the deep attention which was bestowed on the subject, by the most 
 competent judges, at this period,—and the reasoning and reflections to which 
 inquiry, thus conducted and thus instructed, gave birth,—have brought to light 
 the only true principles on which the structure of Poor Laws can be founded 
 with safety, but which, before this era in the history of these institutions, appear 
 to have been little attended to, if not (in the practice of England at least) entirely 
 overlooked. 
 
 The great axiom undoubtedly is, that no certain and fixed fund ought to be set 
 aside for the poor, and declared by legal right to belong to them ; more especially 
 if the allowances are to be ample, as is proposed, and such as to secure the comfort 
 of the class of the community for which they are destined. Such a provision, 
 created by law, however strict and guarded may be the rules for the application of 
 it, cannot fail, as human nature is constituted, to weaken the most powerful 
 motives to exertion, and, at the same time, to subvert the foundation on which pro¬ 
 perty rests. 
 
 The knowledge and experience acquired by our legislators and statesmen have 
 led them to lay it down as a maxim, that 4 this right to share in a fixed fund is 
 4 the grand mischief of the poor laws, with the seeds of which they were originally 
 4 pregnant/ I have elsewhere endeavoured to shew, that, in point of legal right , 
 there exists a distinction between the obligation to relieve the 4 impotent/ and 
 the obligation to relieve the ‘industrious’ poor. And it has been owned, that 
 in England, 4 as long as it was supposed that the law attached only to the impo- 
 4 tent, to those who came within the description of old age, worn out faculties in 
 4 body and mind, or persons disabled by any accidental cause, and not to able- 
 4 bodied persons,—-so long, it must be admitted, that if the law was not an advan- 
 4 tage, at all events it proved to be no detriment whatever .’ 1 But I speak not at 
 present of the legal right. In order to make way for a consideration of the moral 
 effects of a fixed provision established by law for the poor, the power to impose 
 this tax on the more opulent classes, as it is imposed in England, must be assum¬ 
 ed. Then it is that we arrive at the Lord Chancellor’s conclusion, that to create 
 such a right, and to hold out the prospect of a legal provision, is to sow the seeds 
 of all the mischief of which the English poor laws have produced so abundant and 
 destructive a crop. The evidence has proved, and the opinions formed on a review 
 of that evidence, by the highest authorities in the state, have confirmed the proposi¬ 
 tion, that such a provision, created by law for the poor, gradually changes the 
 character and the relative conduct, to each other, of the different classes of society. 
 The absolute necessity of workhouses to controul the operation of this system, 
 establishes beyond dispute the truth, in so far as the lower orders are concerned, 
 
 1 Corrected Speech of Lord Chancellor, p. 8. 
 
35 
 
 of the maxim now contended for. Wherefore this indispensable test of the just* 
 ness of individual claims to relief, if the existence of the right did not give birth to* 
 and blow into full maturity, these dispositions and propensities in the poorer 
 classes, which wiser regulations and institutions would smother and suppress ? 
 And with regard to the richer classes, the doctrine is proved, by the falling off of 
 the church collections in every parish in which an assessment is imposed, and the 
 decay of that kindness and support from the relations and neighbours of the poor, 
 which has uniformly marked the progress of this institution. 
 
 Now, the Scottish poor laws themselves, (according to my construction of 
 them,) or the administration of these laws, as others will contend, (and it signifies 
 not to the present argument which of these two views is correct) have shunned 
 those evils which the poor laws of England have produced, and have left in the 
 position which Providence intended them to occupy, the relative duties of the dif¬ 
 ferent classes of society to each other. 
 
 We have also seen, in the course of our enquiry, that there is another axiom, 
 which is reckoned likewise of primary importance, in the administration of poor 
 laws, but the recognition of which casts the greatest doubt on the chief object of 
 the proposal under consideration,—a large augmentation of the allowances to the 
 poor. The rule alluded to is, that the situation of the pauper ‘shall not be made so 
 ‘ eligible as the situation of independent labourers of the lowest class.’ This, we 
 have been assured, is ‘ the first and most essential of all conditions' We have 
 been told, that there are ‘ those whose practice is at variance with it,’ but that even 
 by them, ‘ the principle is universally admitted.’ 
 
 Whether the advocates for largely increased allowances in this country, would 
 assent to the maxim thus laid down by the English Poor Law Commissioners, but 
 would, at the same time, suffer the practice to be at variance with the admitted 
 principle, does not appear from any thing that has, as yet, been stated by them. 
 But it will evidently be difficult to reconcile the practice recommended, with the 
 condition and principle declared to be indispensable. There are even peculiarities 
 connected with the situation of the poor, and of the working classes, in Scotland, 
 which would enhance these difficulties considerably, and must not therefore be 
 overlooked. It is believed, that all over the west of Scotland, at present, the 
 maintenance of natives of Ireland is already felt as a heavy burden. This evil, unless 
 counteracted, will gradually extend over the country, lowering, as it spreads, the 
 moral and physical condition of the people. In these circumstances, a large addi¬ 
 tional provison for the poor, would operate as a heavy tax on Scotch industry, and 
 as a premium for Irish destitution. And, indeed, without any such influx of desti¬ 
 tute strangers, very greatly increased allowances to the poor, would infallibly compel 
 many independent labourers of the lowest class, and would, from a love of idleness, 
 induce many more of them, to descend into the rank of paupers. 
 
 Thus may this measure, however strongly recommended by pity for the deserv¬ 
 ing poor, exert a prejudicial and powerful influence, in depressing independent 
 labourers, and in multiplying the number of paupers. The increased allowances 
 evidently require to be bestowed with the most scrupulous attention to the circum¬ 
 stances of each particular case in which relief is to be afforded—with patient and 
 careful discrimination—with an observance of the salutary rules according to 
 which parochial assistance has always been administered in Scotland—and with 
 that kindness, yet strict enquiry, which is only to be expected from the members 
 of our kirk-sessions, acquainted as they are with the poor of their districts, resid¬ 
 ing among them, and charitably disposed to bestow their time gratuitously in assist¬ 
 ing and relieving them. 
 
 The other points of distinction between the Scotch and English systems, in the 
 administration of each, as w ell as the general principles on which they are severally 
 founded, and on account of which the preference has been given by the English 
 themselves to the Scottish institutions, need not be here particularised, because 
 they have been already fully stated, and because they all flow directly, and w'ith 
 certainty, from the same source. It must only be kept in mind, that, at the pass¬ 
 ing of the poor law amendment act for England, not only, on the one hand, w'ere 
 the Scotch institutions preferred as a whole, and declared to be worthy of imitation, 
 but the preference w r as giv’en to each particular part in its order, separately con¬ 
 sidered; and, on the other hand, the English system was acknowledged to have 
 been founded originally on erroneous principles; and particularly those very parts 
 of it which it is now proposed to introduce into this country, were admitted to 
 
have originated in error, which long practice has, in England, unhappily rendered 
 nearly irremediable. 
 
 While such are the defects of the English system, the only serious objection to 
 the Scotch institutions that has ever been urged, arises from the difficulty of pro- 
 curing, by means of voluntary contributions, a sufficiency of funds. But this ob¬ 
 stacle to the success of the scheme, is chiefly occasioned by the growing tendency 
 to assessment, and just furnishes an additional and weighty objection to this method 
 of obtaining funds for the poor„ An English poor law Commissioner, whose Report 
 has been already referred to, has noticed the largeness of the church collections in 
 the parish of 8t. John’s of Glasgow, in comparison with those of the other city 
 churches, and has accounted for the fact in this manner. 4 This, 1 have little doubt, 
 
 * is owing to the knowledge which the church-goers have, th^t the sole dependence 
 
 * of the poor is on the church collections. This is the case so uniformly in every 
 4 parish I have visited, that it might be know'll whether the poor in any place in 
 4 Scotland w'ere supported by assessment, simply by an inspection of the amount of 
 4 offerings at the church door.’ 1 Let us take the hint from this stranger. Put an 
 end, wherever funds can possibly be obtained without it, to compulsory assessment. 
 Assure the people that the church collections are the chief funds for the relief of 
 the poor. Appoint deacons w here necessary. Encourage and cherish this system, 
 and the practice of private charity, instead of choking both, and destroying the 
 means of both, by the chilling influence of an assessment. 
 
 Finally, l would earnestly impress on my countrymen, the duty of not hastily 
 relinquishing the advantages which the wisdom of ages has matured for us, and 
 which the most experienced of our practical men have highly valued. Rather let 
 us use every exertion to overcome those difficulties under which the system labours, 
 in consequence of the increase of population in the country. And let us hold fast 
 the principles on which, as a safe and secure foundation, our institutions for the 
 management of the poor are rested. In 1834, w hen the English were bringing for¬ 
 ward their great scheme for the amendment of their poor law's, the Committees w'ho 
 prepared, and the legal authorities and statesmen who introduced the measure, all 
 held up prominently to view, the Scottish system and administration, as a model 
 which they admired, and purposed gradually to imitate. It was not to have been 
 expected that within six short years, Scotchmen w ould have seriously proposed to 
 return the compliment to England, instead of taking it in earnest, as it w as really 
 and with sincerity bestowed. This singular and extraordinary fact should warn us 
 to be cautious and circumspect. It ought to teach us to be slow of believing that 
 the cherished opinions of our ancestors are mere prejudices and delusions, unfitted 
 for the present times, and such as it is unworthy of us to entertain. It should lead 
 us patiently and carefully to reconsider the matter. Those who do so will, I am 
 persuaded, become impressed with the conviction, that among our civil institutions, 
 (for many of w hich, it is acknowledged, that our favour is not unreasonable), those 
 w hich relate to the management of the poor, are entitled to high rank for their w is- 
 dom and sound policy. 
 
 1 Report of E. C. Tuffhell, Esq., Appendix, No, III. 
 
APPENDIX 
 
 No. I. 
 
 REFLECTIONS OF 1839, ON THE NOW PROTRACTED EXPERIENCE OF PAUPERISM 
 
 IN GLASGOW-AN EXPERIENCE OF MORE THAN TWENTY YEARS, WHICH BEGAN 
 
 IN 1815, AND TERMINATED IN 1837. 
 
 (Extracted from Dr. Chalmers' Works, \ ol. xvi. p. 422.) 
 
 After having left Glasgow in 1823, I ceased by correspondence, or otherwise, to exert 
 any influence on the management of the pauperism of St. John’s pal ish. There had been 
 a constant disposition on the part of observers, to construe the result of our enterprise into 
 a special skill and energy on my part—and that too when, all the time, I felt I had nothing 
 to do, and did nothing, in the matter. The applications for relief never reached me, and 
 were all of them met by the gentlemen who had been appointed as deacons in the various 
 districts of the parish—and that too at a trouble and time to themselves, which cost them, 
 according to their own testimony, only from two to three hours in the month. After this, 
 to e talk of some marvellous or preternatural energy being concerned in this process, is really 
 to disguise the true secret of our prosperity—to cast an obscuration over the true principle 
 and philosophy of the whole subject. Even while the minister of St. John’s, I never med¬ 
 dled with the details of its pauperism, and there was no reason that I should interfere after 
 my official connexion had terminated, and I had removed to a distant part of the country. 
 There was every reason for the contrary ; and the greatest reason of all was, if possible, to 
 dissipate the misconception to which I have just adverted, and to convince the public, that 
 it required but an invincible affection for the cause to ensure its success, even though with 
 but every-day instruments operating upon every-day materials. 
 
 We recommend to the special attention of the reader, the testimonies of Drs. Macfarlane 
 and Brown, as detailed in the evidence given by me to the House of Commons’ Committee 
 on Irish Pauperism. 1 They demonstrate the inherent soundness of the principles on which 
 our system of management was founded, and amply confirm, or rather greatly exceed, all 
 our predictions of its success—seeing that, from the very outset of our undertaking, every 
 anticipation that we ventured to utter of its final success, presupposed certain conditions 
 which we held to be indispensable—but which, unfortunately, have not been conceded to 
 us. It now only remains to explain the circumstances under which the parochial system 
 of St. John’s parish, commenced in September 1819, and persevered in for eighteen years, 
 was at length discontinued in 1837. 
 
 It will be observed from my letter to the Lord Provost, 2 that, while willing to er;:er 
 immediately on the separate and indep<ndent management of the pauperism of St.John’s, 
 I specify ceitain conditions, as desirable and perhaps essential, to be granted me afterwards, 
 in order to secure the final and permanent success of the enterprise. I did not insist, on 
 these at the time, because I did not choose to multiply obstacles, and so add to the hazards 
 of a refusal in the way of my commencement; and also felt that a certain measure of suc¬ 
 cess behoved to be realized ere I could require any further concession at the hands of the 
 Magistrates and Council, who are the heritors of each of the city parishes. One of these 
 conditions, it will be seen, was a law of mutual protection, between the parish of St. John’s 
 and the other parishes of Glasgow. That such a law would have been for the advantage of 
 our own parish, speaks volumes for the mildness—and so, whenever it has been experienced, 
 for the popularity of our system. The paupers who came in, greatly exceeded the paupers 
 who left us. We had many more imports than exports ; or, in other words, the balance 
 was against the parish of St. John’s. I should have desiderated a formal application, from 
 the Session of St. John’s to the Magistrates, for the establishment of a rule of mutual pro¬ 
 tection between the parish of St. John’s and the other parishes of the city. The want of 
 
 1 See No. 140th Question and Answer of my Evidence, and also No. 144. 2 See No. f>8 of my Evidence. 
 
38 
 
 it subjected our own parish to a very heavy disadvantage, which must have proved discotz- 
 raging to the administrators of its pauperism—who, however cheerfully they might have 
 submitted to the burden of all that pauperism which was formed by themselves, might feel 
 no longer responsible for the success of their own peculiar method, when, over and above, 
 they were exposed to the addition of a pauperism formed by others without the limit of 
 their own territory. 
 
 But this was far from the principal discouragement which stood in the way of our pecu¬ 
 liar administration. There was still another, under the pressure of which, the continuance 
 of the system wus scarcely to be looked for. We had succeeded, within a very short time, 
 in relieving the fund raised by assessment from all demands upon it for the poor of St. 
 John’s. More than one tenth of the city of Glasgow, and that the poorest of all its de¬ 
 partments, ceased to be a burden on the Town Hospital. We drew no supplies from that 
 institution for the behoof of our own parish—yet continued to be drawn upon as heretofore, 
 up to our full share of the general assessment, for the poor of all the other parishes. We 
 perhaps could not have obtained any secure exemption from this levy, but by an act of Par¬ 
 liament; and, accordingly, in my little work on “ Eight Years’ Experience, &c.” I state 
 prospectively, or as far back as 1823, that it seemed indispensable for the continuance of our 
 system, to obtain such an act—one of the provisions of which should be, that the poorer 
 parishes, after they had made good the maintenance of their own poor by their own col¬ 
 lections, should be wholly exonerated from the assessment for the poor of the city at large. 1 
 It would have proved a mighty encouragement to the administrators of the poor-money in 
 St. John’s, had the success of their enterprise been rewarded, by the exemption of all con¬ 
 nected, either by residence or property in that parish, from a burden which continued to 
 weigh on the residenters and proprietors in all the other parishes. It was an immunity 
 which they had earned, and to which they were well entitled by the service which they had 
 performed. I claimed it from them in 1823; and, after being disappointed of this most 
 legitimate expectation—instead of wondering that in 1837, they should at length have given 
 way—I cannot but express both my gratitude and my surprise, that they should have per¬ 
 severed for fourteen years beyond this period, iri their thankless and unrequitted task. When 
 examined by a Committee of the House of Commons in 1830, 2 I expressed my apprehen¬ 
 sion for the continuance of the system, from the want of all public sympathy and acknow¬ 
 ledgment in its favour ; and more especially from this—that after the parish had ceased to 
 be a burden upon the rate, the rate-payers of the parish were still burdened as before with 
 the pauperism of other parishes than their own. I have again to thank the deacons of St. 
 John’s, that, for seven years after the utterance of this prediction, they still held together, 
 notwithstanding the continuance of that heavy discouragement, which had long been the 
 subject both of my complaints and of my fears. 
 
 As regards the result in the parish, our expectations were greatly overpassed ; arid here 
 there was no disappointment. But we confess our disappointment, in regard to its effect 
 upon the public. So long as our system was held forth only in argument, it was no more 
 than natural that it should have been treated as a mere theory. But we did expect a differ¬ 
 ent entertainment of it, after it was held forth in the demonstration of a living and practi¬ 
 cal experience. We did not lay our account with resistance to it in the one form, being 
 succeeded by the listlessness and apathy of a downright indifference to it in the other. We 
 fondly imagined, that, on passing from a dogma into a spectacle, it would have been fol¬ 
 lowed up by many a resolute and well sustained imitation. And nothing wouid more cer¬ 
 tainly have led to such imitation, than to have liberated that parish from an assessment, or 
 from the expense of a compulsory pauperism, which had prev.ously liberated itself from all 
 dependence upon the supplies of a compulsory pauperism. But in the absence of such 
 countenance, and of any reward, or rather of just recompence from without—however 
 bitterly we may regret, we cannot resent, and far less remonstrate against the determina¬ 
 tion of the agents in this very peculiar administration, at length to give up their unho¬ 
 noured and unrequitted agency It is true that theirs was such an agency, as, if maintained 
 by all, and never departed from in any single application for relief, would on the whole have 
 kept theirs an easier task, than that of the office-bearers of pauperism in the other parishes 
 of Glasgow. But if their labour through the year was lighter, in virtue of the much fewer 
 calls to which they were exposed—this was an immunity which could only be upheld, 
 at the expense of greater labour and vigilance and resolution, in the disposal of each indi¬ 
 vidual call that was actually made to them. In every separate case, it were easier to give 
 than to investigate ; and let this temptation be only yielded to in a few instances—or let 
 but two or three administrators, out of the more than twenty concerned in the management 
 of a large and populous parish, relax, and that by very little, the style of procedure in their 
 own districts; and it is quite in their power to overbear that general fund, which can only 
 stand its ground, and be adequate for the expense of the whole parish, by a careful and 
 
 i See foot note towards the end of that, pamphlet. 
 
 2 See No. 144 and No. 150 of my Evidence. 
 
39 
 
 strenuous administration thereof in each distinct section of it. We therefore wonder not 
 at the dissolution of a system, which, in the midst of that discountenance and adverse ex¬ 
 ample by which it was surrounded, would have required for its continuance a unanimous 
 agency, all alive to the importance of their joint undertaking; but who could scarcely be 
 expected so to feel, when the lesson they had been giving forth for years was bereft of al¬ 
 most all its importance—not from any want of inherent soundness or worth on its own 
 part, but from the want of interest, from not being listened to and not appreciated, on the 
 part of those who could alone have carried it forward to general adoption. The deacons 
 of St. John’s bad cleared their own territory of all its compulsory pauperism, but they did 
 not succeed in breaking that phalanx of resistance by which it was surrounded. They have 
 finished their testimony—not willing to repeat it any more from year to year, now that 
 they have found it so long to be like the voice of one crying in the wilderness. We are 
 ambitious and sanguine enough to hope, that success in one parish might have led to a suc¬ 
 cessful imitation in other parishes ; and that thus in time the moral pestilence might have 
 been altogether banished from Glasgow and its neighbourhood. But, failing this, we never 
 conceived it possible, that one emancipated parish could long be upheld a singularity and a 
 wonder, like an oasis in the desert; but that at length abandoned by the hands which had 
 reclaimed it, it would soon be covered over again by the same noxious weeds, and be in¬ 
 volved in the same noxious atmosphere by which it was surrounded. 
 
 And we have no doubt that this unfortunate crisis of our system was hastened by an 
 event, for which the system itself is in no way responsible. About four years after its 
 commencement, there was a chapel of ease erected for the east part of St.John’s; and 
 nearly half of the territory of the parish was assigned to it. The collections of that place 
 of worship were originally destined for the pauperism of its own district; and we have no 
 doubt, that, whether great or small, these may anywhere, by the power of the management, 
 be made commensurate to all the general indigence of a place—if only the cases of institu¬ 
 tional disease could be otherwise provided for. Now, it is well known that this chapel, as 
 an ecclesiastical institute, was extremely unprosperous. Its revenue, proceeding from seat- 
 rents, turned out to be miserably beneath the outlay for stipend and the other charges of 
 the concern. It was in these circumstances a great temptation, so to arrange the matter 
 with the proper authorities, that the Sabbath offerings might be applied, as in many others 
 of our unendowed churches, to the ecclesiastical expenses of the establishment. But by 
 this time the expenses of the pauperism were fully equal to the sum received by collection, 
 and the transference of any part of this sum to another object, left so much of that pauper¬ 
 ism without any other resource, than the general fund by which the excess is met and pro¬ 
 vided for in all the other parishes of Glasgow. And thus, after a separate and independent 
 management of eighteen years, the parish of St. John’s has again lapsed into the general 
 system of Glasgow. 
 
 Yet we do hope that by this temporary evolution, permanent truth has been manifested. 
 A lesson has been given, and given we think conclusively, on this great question. The 
 experience earned in the actual field of this administration, that is, in the parish, can never 
 be overborne by any change of inclination in the minds of the administrators—a very few of 
 whom, by even a slight and almost insensible relaxation within their own spheres of ma¬ 
 nagement, could so easily break up the whole combination, and so encroach on the fund, 
 as to make the continuance of the system impracticable. We again appeal to the recorded 
 findings of the deacons in their respective districts—where, in contact with the human na¬ 
 ture of the question throughout their several populations, the real and proper difficulties of 
 the subject, when fully and fearlessly encountered, were all with such facility disposed of. 
 That such a system should have lasted for eighteen years, that is, for two or three of the 
 short-lived generations of Scottish pauperism, and in the midst too, of failures and discou¬ 
 ragements on every side of it, is a phenomenon charged with principle, and which ought 
 not to be forgotten. They who have patience for the study of it, may read therein the 
 whole philosophy of the subject. But let me, in particular, solicit their attention to the 
 treasurer's account of the whole operation, subjoined to these reflections. It will be seen, 
 that the difficulties which terminated our system did not arise from a deficiency in the pro¬ 
 per receipts of our pauperism beneath its proper expenditure ; but from the alienation in 
 part of these receipts to other objects. In the first place, the ordinary collections for 
 eighteen years, and these for behoof of a population the poorest in Glasgow, and which in¬ 
 creased during this period from 8000 to upwards of 12,000, amount to L. 7,752, 1 Is. 4 Ad., 
 as will be found by adding the two first sums in the column of totals. In the second place, 
 the expenditure for these years, in the relief of indigence, amounts to L.6,595, 18s. lO^d., 
 as will be found by adding the first to the fifth disbursement in the column of totals. In 
 other words, the revenue exceeded the expenditure by more than a thousand pounds—this 
 surplus having been spent, and more than spent, not on pauperism, but for educational and 
 ecclesiastical objects. Those difficulties under the urgent feeling of which our system was 
 at length terminated, would not have been experienced, had not the affairs of the deacon- 
 
40 
 
 ship been complicated with other affairs, for which the pauperism is not responsible. For 
 no less than eighteen years, did the produce of the collections at the church doors 
 meet the pauperism of that large population, and leave the surplus of more than a 
 thousand pounds for other objects, connected with the scholarship and moral interests 
 of the parish. It would have been a still fairer experiment, and with a more prosperous 
 result, had the expense of the lunatics and other cases of institutional disease, been 
 provided for out of the assessment—as, on principles which we have repeatedly ex¬ 
 pounded, there i^ no objection, but the contrary, to the application of a legal fund for the 
 relief of such objects as these. But seeing that so much was done, and for such a length 
 of time, we do hope that the lesson will not be lost; and that, as in the progress of Church 
 Extension the subdivision of charges is carried forward, there will from our experience an 
 argumenturn a fortiori be drawn, for the introduction of the system into the then smaller pa¬ 
 rishes. 1 If in the parish of St.John’s, with a growing population of from eight to twelve 
 thousand, the average expenditure for eighteen years was less than L.400 annually, and 
 would certainly have not been more than L.300, had the cases of institutional disease been 
 otherwise provided for—what an irresistible practical argument does this afford for the 
 practicability of the system, in those new parishes which are formed under the Church 
 Extension Scheme—whenever, in return for an endowment from the State, we shall be 
 enabled to give up the collections for the support of the poor. Even the largest expendi¬ 
 ture in St. John’s, for any single year, did not reach L.50 for each thousand of the popu¬ 
 lation. And we ask our inveterate opponents—whether does this furnish argument for 
 the necessity of a compulsory provision, or does it prove how completely independent we 
 should be of all such aid, were parishes enough subdivided, and churches enough multiplied? 
 We never desire to see a larger parish than of 2000 inhabitants. In the proportion of the 
 maximum expenditure of St.John’s, for the worst year of the whole eighteen pending the 
 currency of our experiment, the pauperism of such a parish would cost a hundred pounds a- 
 year. So surely in the progress of Church Extension, might the assessment be altogether 
 superseded by the collections at the church doors ; and as we plant our successive churches, 
 might the sore evil of a compulsory pauperism be banished piecemeal from the successive 
 territories—till, with the completion of our scheme, it would at length be made to disap¬ 
 pear from the whole of Scotland. 
 
 So long as recurrence to the fund by assessment is possible, a temptation still lies on 
 both parties in this administration—first, on the people to relax their providential habits, 
 and keep up the same urgency of application for relief as heretofore ; and, secondly, on the 
 agents to relax the style and strenuousness of their management. It is only when a reso¬ 
 lute will on the part of the latter, makes the interdict on the compulsory provision as firm 
 and sure as necessity itself would make it—it is only then that we have the opportunity of 
 verifying what the state of a parish would be, should the compulsory provision ever come to 
 be legally and conclusively abolished. The question does not hinge upon this,—whether 
 the managers did or did not adhere to this resolution, but upon this,—whether, so long as 
 the resolution was adhered to, the comfort and habits of the people were improved or dete¬ 
 riorated ! The number of failures in the resolution of the managers goes for nothing—if 
 it can be proved, that so long as there was no failure with them, there was no sensible fall¬ 
 ing off in the state of the people under their care; but that both the system worked as 
 easily and well (we believe more so), and that the families were under as sound and as 
 good (we think better) an economy as before. The managers for the poor of Sf. John’s 
 are in the best possible circumstances for observation on these points. Some of them will 
 recollect the state of matters anterior to 1819 ; and they will not have forgotten their ex¬ 
 perience during the currency of the undertaking from 1819 to 1837. But, last of all, they 
 have now entered on the reverse experience of the old system again in operation ; and they 
 can tell what the blessings are which have flowed in its train—or whether, in their con¬ 
 sciences, they can say, that they witness any amelioration therefrom in the peace and con¬ 
 tentment of the parish, or in the substantial well-being of its families. For ourselves we 
 cannot but look on the period from 1819 to 1837, as a precious interval of light; and though 
 the lesson then given forth was unheeded at the time, and is now withdrawn from the ob¬ 
 servation of men refusing to be schooled by it—yet the truth it told is stable and everlast¬ 
 ing, at least as abiding as is the constitution of humanity, or as are the laws of that nature 
 which God hath given to us. It remains an article in our creed, proclaimed to successive 
 students, for their guidance in their future parishes—that for the relief of general indigence, 
 tiie charity of law ought in every instance to be displaced, to make room for the charity of 
 principle and of spontaneous kindness. 
 
 i At the conclusion of our treatises on the Establishment and Extension of National Churches, we mean to 
 offer our views on the extension of the church, as connected with the extinction of pauperism. 
 
41 
 
 ABSTRACT of the Treasurer's Account of Receipts and Disbursements of the Funds of St, 
 John's Parish, Glasgow as applicable to the Maintenance of the Poor , Educational Pur¬ 
 poses , Sfc.,from 2 6th Sept. 1819, till 30 th Sept. 1837. 
 
 RECEIPTS. 
 
 To Collections at Church and Chapel Doors... £7350 18 10 
 
 „ Do. at Church Doors from Evening Congregation. & 401 12 64 
 
 „ Seat Rents from Evening Congregation. 469 8 4 
 
 ,, Legacies and Donations. 241 6 11^ 
 
 „ Town’s Hospital, for the support of Poor found in the Hospital 
 
 in September 1819. 461 17 10 
 
 ,, Collections for Religious and Charitable Purposes, not Parochial 1994 11 44 
 
 „ Interest on Bank Account, and from City of Glasgow. 357 2 14 
 
 ,, Rent of Mortcloth. 60 9 9 
 
 „ General Session Fund for Education. 389 6 6 
 
 „ Collections for St. John’s Chapel Funds. 400 7 0 
 
 „ Do. for St. John’s Parochial Schools... 632 1 9 
 
 „ Stirling Session, on account of a Lunatic Pauper. 251 10 1 
 
 „ Lockhart’s Mortification for Sabbath Schools. 40 12 0 
 
 „ Collection for forming New Road through College Ground. 10 0 0 
 
 „ Share of Dr. Bell’s Legacy. 39 0 0 
 
 „ Collections for Sabbath Evening Schools. 77 12 8£ 
 
 „ Pensioners, Allowance to their Families. 287 5 10 
 
 „ Balance due to the Treasurer. 229 8 04 
 
 £13,694 11 8 
 
 DISBURSEMENTS. . - 
 
 By Paupers, Lunatics, Orphans, Foundlings, Coffins, &c. £6551 17 74 
 
 „ Religious and Charitable Purposes, not Parochial. 1994 11 44 
 
 „ Cost of Mortcloth. 82 8 6 
 
 „ Precentor and Beadle for Evening Congregation, Door-keepers, 
 
 Lighting, &c. 634 11 3| 
 
 „ Soup Kitchen and Coals for Poor. 44 1 3 
 
 „ Prizes for Parochial Schools, Stationery, &c. 183 10 1 
 
 „ Salary to the Rev. Mr. Irving, as Assistant. 400 0 0 
 
 „ Sacramental Elements for St. John’s Chapel and Evening Con¬ 
 gregation.. 245 4 4 
 
 „ Teachers’ Salaries, Education of Poor, Insurance, and Repairs 
 
 on Schools.... 1902 19 10 
 
 „ Lent to City of Glasgow for Endowment of one Parochial 
 
 School. 500 0 0 
 
 „ St. John’s Chapel Funds. 401 10 04 
 
 „ Support of a Stirling Lunatic Pauper. 263 5 1 
 
 „ Sabbath Evening Schools from Lockhart’s Mortification. 40 12 0 
 
 „ Making New Road through College Ground. 10 0 0 
 
 „ Interest. 10 15 64 
 
 „ Alterations on School for Dr. Bell’s System. 68 17 2 
 
 „ St. John’s Sabbath Evening Schools.... 77 12 84 
 
 „ Families of Pensioners from allowance. 282 14 10 
 
 £13,694 11 8 
 
 No. II. 
 
 (Extracted from Dr. Chalmers'Works, vol. xvi. p. 436.) 
 
 Since writing the above reflections, I have received the following letter from William 
 Buchanan, Esq., in reply to Queries sent to him some weeks ago. The views given in 
 this communication are strikingly corroborative of the opinion which I have ventured to 
 express, and to which I may again recur in a subsequent argument, on the connexion which 
 might be established between the Extension of the Church, and the Extinction of Pauper¬ 
 ism in Scotland. 
 
 F 
 
42 
 
 Glasgow, 2 Hth July 1839. 
 
 Reverend and dear Sir,— When your much esteemed letter of the 11th inst. reached 
 this, I was from home, and therefore could not answer it so soon as I could have wished. 
 
 I now send an answer to your several queries. 
 
 Query Is/. Did the parochial system of the pauperism of St. John’s cease at the end of 
 the year 1837?—The parochial system ceased at the 30th September 1837, as you will 
 perceive by the statement which accompanies this. 
 
 Query 2d. What expense, on the whole, was incurred for lunatics, illegitimates, families 
 of runaway parents, &c., by extracting which from the whole expenses of the deacons’ cases, 
 I will arrive at the nett expense on the whole for ordinary indigence?—The expense for 
 the whole period for foundlings, illegitimates, and families of runaway parents, was 
 L.702, 6s. 9|d. ; for lunatics, L.351, Is. 4d. 
 
 Query 3d. When were the collections for St. John’s chapel (now St. Thomas’s church) 
 applied to the new purpose of providing for the ecclesiastical expenses ? And did not this 
 change operate in determining the session of St.John’s to give up their separate manage¬ 
 ment for the poor?—The first collection which was applied to the ecclesiastical purposes 
 of St. Thomas’s, was on the 12th June 1837, and they have been applied so ever since. 
 No doubt this change did operate to a very great extent in bringing the session of St. 
 John’s to the determination of giving up their separate management of the poor. 
 
 Query 4th. Was the proposal ever made to the authorities that you should have a law 
 of protection from the paupers of the other parishes in Glasgow ; and more important, for 
 the exemption of the parish of St. John’s from the general assessment ?—The proposal was 
 never made, as, from the feeling which was known to prevail, it was considered perfectly 
 hopeless to obtain the concurrence of the authorities. 
 
 Query 5th. At all events, were not the deacons discouraged from persevering, by the 
 want of public countenance, and by the slow progress, or none at all, of their system 
 throughout the other parishes of Glasgow ?—There is not the least doubt, that, as the 
 scheme did not receive the countenance which we all thought it well deserved, both from 
 the authorities and the Sessions generally, we were discouraged and did give it up. At 
 the same time, we were all satisfied that it was a scheme quite practicable even in St. 
 John’s, increased as it was in population from 8000 to 12,000, and had proved this to a de¬ 
 monstration after eighteen years’ experience. 
 
 Query 6th. Let me know what your experience was of your own limited proportion, and 
 
 whether you would not have found a continuance of our system quite practicable there ?_ 
 
 I think I have answered this above. I have never ceased to say, that if an agency was or¬ 
 ganized in each parish, even in Glasgow, for the effectual management and oversight of 
 the poor, both for education and ordinary pauperism, that in a very short time there would 
 be no necessity for a poors’ house or an assessment, as collections would be made at church 
 doors quite adequate to all the wants of the deserving poor. And while I live, it will af¬ 
 ford me a pleasant reflection, that I have been permitted to take a share in a work such as 
 we carried on in St. John’s for eighteen years, at once so very practicable and philan¬ 
 thropic. 
 
 No. III. 
 
 (Extracted from Dr. Chalmers" Works , vol. xvi. p. 437.) 
 
 We hold it a proper sequel to these remarks, that we now present our readers with the 
 latest testimony which has come to our notice, in regard to the workings of our system in 
 St.John’s—that of E. C. Tufnell, Esq., an English Poor-Law Commissioner, who visited 
 Glasgow at the end of the year 1833. 
 
 GLASGOW. 
 
 The city of Glasgow, though legally one parish, is divided, for the sake of convenience, 
 into ten distinct parishes, each with its separate church, minister, and kirk-session. The 
 law of settlement, however, does not apply to protect one of those districts from the influx 
 of poor out of another, as a pauper, who has a settlement in one of the ten parishes, has a 
 right, on removing into another, to demand immediate relief from its kirk-session, in the 
 same way as if he had always resided within its jurisdiction. It is of importance, with re¬ 
 spect to what follows, to note this, as it has the effect of equalizing the mode of treating 
 the poor by the several parochial authorities, since, if any parish is harsher or kinder towards 
 the applicants for relief than its neighbours, it is quickly remonstrated with as throwing off 
 the burden of supporting its poor on other parishes, or is itself overwhelmed with paupers. 
 
43 
 
 The poor are supported from two sources,—the church collections and the assessments ; 
 which latter is levied from all the inhabitants who are supposed to be worth L 300 and up¬ 
 wards, according to their means and substance. 
 
 Every parish is divided into a certain number of parts, over each of which an elder pre¬ 
 sides, and to him any person in his district requiring relief applies; upon this the elder 
 closely investigates the applicant’s condition, ascertains whether he can do any, and what 
 work, whether he receives any pension or support from any society or charity, in short, 
 every thing relating to his claims and resources ; and if he is satisfied that there are grounds 
 for giving relief, he reports the case to the kirk session to which he belongs, which, if they 
 see tit, order such a sum to be given as the case may require. The sum is always extremely 
 moderate, never exceeding five shillings a-month ; and if the pauper is unable to maintain 
 himself with this assistance, he is handed over to the Town Hospital, by which institution 
 he is henceforth supported, and his allowance from the kirk-session instantly ceases, as a 
 pauper is never permitted to be paid from these two sources at once. 
 
 The Town Hospital is to all intents and purposes a poor-house, and would be so term¬ 
 ed in England. 
 
 With the exception of L.450 per annum from corporate bodies, the interest of L.3511 
 of stock, and some other small casual sources of income, it is entirely supported by the as¬ 
 sessment, the whole amount of which is paid over, in the first instance, to the directors of 
 the Hospital. No persons are allowed to remain within it, but such as from their age and 
 infirmities are totally incapacitated from supporting themselves ; also, those lunatics and 
 idiots who are not sent to the asylum, are kept within its walls. Besides the inmates, 
 there are large numbers of out-door poor supported by it, who are paid partly in meal and 
 partly in money, and who, in the year ending August 1831, amounted to 475 families and 
 individuals. 
 
 The funds of the kirk-sessions arise from offerings at their respective churches, but 
 these are seldom sufficient for the demands made on them, though they have only to pay 
 those whose necessities are not supposed to require above five shillings a-month ; they are 
 consequently allowed to draw for the deficiency on the funds of the Town Hospital, that 
 is, the assessment. Hence the first stage in the history of a pauper is an application, 
 through an elder, to the kirk-session of his parish, bv whom he receives a certain amount 
 of relief, which is raised according to his wants till it gets to five shillings a-month he is 
 then, should he be unable to subsist on this, sent to the Hospital, by which he is main¬ 
 tained perhaps as an out-door pauper on a greater allowance, till, becoming friendless or 
 decrepid, he is taken into the house. 
 
 Such was the state of things when Dr. Chalmers began his reform, except in one par¬ 
 ticular. The whole of the collections from all the city churches used to be paid into the 
 hands of the general session, a body consisting of a union of all the ten kirk-sessions, and 
 which w T as in the habit of distributing these collections among the several kirk-sessions, 
 according to the applications which they respectively made on behalf of their poor. Thus, 
 whatever the collection may have been in any parish, the poor of it were neither benefited 
 by its size, nor injured by its smallness, as whatever sum it applied for was drawn through 
 the general session, and paid without observation, whether the sum demanded was greater 
 or less than its collection brought into the general fund. Hence there was no stimulus in 
 the congregation of any church to increase their offerings on any increase of their poor, 
 since nine other parishes would equally share in the benefit of any addition collected, and, 
 similarly, a falling off in their donations would comparatively little affect them. 
 
 Dr. Chalmers, previously to commencing his reforms in the management of the poor, 
 took the whole of his church collections out of the general fund, so that his kirk-session 
 might have the sole disposal of them. 
 
 When, however, this change was made in St. John’s parish, it drew nothing from the 
 assessment directly, as its sessional poor, that is, its poor who did not receive above five 
 shillings a-month, only cost L.225 annually, while its collections amounted to L.400 ; 
 consequently, by the new arrangement, L. 175 was withdrawn from the general support of 
 the poor of the city. In return for this advantage, Dr. Chalmers promised to send no 
 more poor to the hospital, but to provide for all his parochial poor within his own parish, 
 supporting them solely by his church collections. Thus, the St. John’s poor that were 
 already in the hospital would gradually die away, and not being replenished, so far as this 
 parish was concerned, the assessment would be entirely useless, and laid on for no pur¬ 
 pose whatever, except to support the poor of the other nine parishes. 
 
 This system has been attended with the most triumphant success for thirteen years ; it 
 is now in perfect operation, and not a doubt is expressed by its managers of its continuing 
 to remain so. The poor which St. John’s had in the hospital have diminished by deaths 
 to four, and even the expense of maintaining these is paid for by the parish out of its col¬ 
 lections, consequently it has to undergo the hardship of being assessed for the support of 
 
44 
 
 the poor, without receiving a farthing’s benefit from the money so raised, as not a single 
 pauper belonging to it is maintained by the assessment. 
 
 The chief virtue of the new system seems to consist in the closer investigation which 
 each new case of pauperism receives, by which means the parish is prevented from being 
 imposed on; and as it is well known by the poor that this severe scrutiny is never 
 omitted, attempts at imposition are less frequently practised. The laxity of the old man¬ 
 agement, and utility of this investigation, may be exemplified by what occurred when it 
 was first put in practice. As all the St. John’s sessional poor were closely examined, it 
 was thought unfair not to bring their out-door hospital poor, which the old system had 
 left, to the same scrutiny; when it was discovered that many persons were receiving relief 
 who had no claim to it, and who were consequently instantly struck off the roll: one man 
 was found in the receipt of a weekly allowance who had eight w orkmen under him. It 
 may safely be averred, that under the present management such an instance could not 
 possibly occur. It is right, however, to mention, that in the other Glasgow parishes a 
 much closer attention is bestowed on each case of pauperism than formerly. 
 
 In spite, however, of this success, the lovers of the old system still oppose the new as 
 keenly as ever; and there seems to be as much difference of opinion in Glasgow at pre¬ 
 sent respecting its merits as when it was first established. Amidst these conflicting 
 statements, it would be presumptuous in a stranger to give an opinion, except so far as it 
 is drawn from facts, and these, it seems, are all in favour of it. In proof of this, I must 
 request the attention of the Commission to the annexed table. The three first columns 
 are extracted from Dr. Cleland’s work on the statistics of Glasgow and Lanarkshire ; the 
 three last are from documents prepared at my request by the parochial officers of the re¬ 
 spective parishes. The date to which these last columns have been made up is the year 
 ending the last day of August 1832. 
 
 
 1 . 
 
 2. 
 
 3. 
 
 4. 
 
 5. 
 
 6. 
 
 Names of Parishes 
 in the 
 
 City of Glasgow 
 
 Population 
 in 1831. 
 
 Number of 
 Servants. 
 
 i 
 
 Number of 
 Irish. 
 
 1 
 
 Money drawn 
 from the 
 Assessments. 
 
 Church 
 
 Collections. 
 
 Number of 
 Sessional Poor. 
 
 
 
 
 
 £ 
 
 £ 
 
 
 St. George’s. 
 
 15,242 
 
 1,109 
 
 1,212 
 
 125 
 
 294 
 
 123 
 
 St. John’s..... 
 
 11,746 
 
 203 
 
 2,311 
 
 none 
 
 482 
 
 72 
 
 St. Mungo’s. 
 
 10,295 
 
 311 
 
 865 
 
 330 
 
 56 
 
 169 
 
 Outer High. 
 
 9,137 
 
 , 389 
 
 781 
 
 287 
 
 138 
 
 171 
 
 St. James’s. 
 
 8,217 
 
 453 
 
 1,835 
 
 85 
 
 180 
 
 121 
 
 St. Enoch’s. 
 
 7,921 
 
 567 
 
 1,057 
 
 none 
 
 351 
 
 130 
 
 Blackfriar’s. . 
 
 7 5^9 
 
 179 
 
 1,017 
 
 424 
 
 61 
 
 219 
 
 St. Mary’s. 
 
 7,529 
 
 299 
 
 2,177 
 
 324 
 
 112 
 
 185 
 
 j St. David’s. 
 
 6,268 
 
 630 
 
 176 
 
 none 
 
 158 
 
 79 
 
 jSt. Andrew’s. 
 
 5,923 
 
 302 
 
 1,123 
 
 146 
 
 89 
 
 80 
 
 The first column contains the parishes, placed in the order of their population ; the se¬ 
 cond and third are given as a test of their respective wealth and likelihood of poverty, the 
 former of which is not inaccurately shown by the number of servants in each parish, and 
 the latter by the number of Irish, which here, as everywhere else in this part of Scotland, 
 form the bulk of the poorer classes. The fourth column gives the sums which each parish 
 draws from the ^sessment, to make up the deficiency left by its church collection in main¬ 
 taining its sessional poor. 
 
 It will be perceived that St. John’s is the second in population, but that it contains 
 fewer servants than any other parish except Blackfriar’s, which falls far below it in point 
 of numbers. Hence it is by much the poorest parish in Glasgow. 
 
 Again, the Irish are in greater numbers here than in any other parish. Hence it has 
 its full share of the elements of pauperism. 
 
 Proceeding to the fourth and fifth column, we find that it takes nothing from the as¬ 
 sessment, and collects more than any other parish. 
 
 By the last column we come to the extraordinary fact, that, in spite of its population, 
 its poverty, and its Irish, it actually has fewer paupers than any other parish in Glasgow ; 
 
45 
 
 and the only one that approaches it in this respect is St. David s, which contains little 
 more than half the population of St. John’s. 
 
 This, however, is not all: every other parish has a considerable portion of its paupers 
 maintained by the Hospital; St. John’s has only four within the walls of this institution, 
 and these it pays for out of its collections. It is impossible to tell from the Hospital ac¬ 
 counts to what parishes those persons it supports belong. Last year this institution main¬ 
 tained under its roof 420 persons, and of out-door poor 475 families and individuals ; these 
 895 recipients of charity are referable to all the parishes except St. John’s, and should be 
 distributed according to their parishes along the sixth column of the table, assigning only 
 four to St. John’s, in order to show the true amount of the pauperism of each parish. 
 
 The Hospital entails on the city a considerable annual expense, which amounted last 
 year to L.7614, raised chiefly by assessment. This assessment is levied on St. John’s 
 in the same way as on the other parishes, and it is naturally felt as a great hardship by 
 its inhabitants, that they should be compelled to support an Hospital from which they re¬ 
 ceive no benefit; that though their parish is the poorest in the city, they should be obliged 
 to maintain not only their own paupers, but also to contribute to the support of those be¬ 
 longing to other and far richer parishes. 
 
 When this system was begun, it was declared by its opponents that it could not last, 
 but it has lasted for thirteen years; that it could only exist under Dr. Chalmers, but it has 
 existed equally well under his two successors, Dr. Macfarlane and Dr. Brown; that in 
 no other church so large offerings could be collected, as an undue proportion of rich attend¬ 
 ed St. John’s church. This, I am assured by the residents, is incorrect, and that the con¬ 
 gregation is not richer than an average one. During Dr. Chalmers’ incumbency, the large 
 amount of the collections was doubtless partly owing to his popularity, as they have since 
 declined on the average; but by an inspection of the fifth column of the table, it will be 
 seen that they at present far exceed what is given in any other parish. This, I have little 
 doubt, is owing to the knowledge which the church-goers have, that the sole dependence 
 of the poor is on the collections. This is the case so uniformly in every parish I have 
 visited, that it might be known, whether the poor of any place in Scotland were supported 
 by assessment, simply by an inspection of the amount of offerings at the church door. 
 
 It has been said, that since the parishes of Glasgow are not protected against each other’s 
 poor by the law of settlement, the small number of the St. John’s paupers is owing to 
 their poor being mostly driven out of the parish by the harsh treatment they receive. Be¬ 
 fore this system was commenced, so confident was the founder of it, that the reverse would 
 take place, that the poor would prefer instead of avoiding his parish on account of the dif¬ 
 ferent mode of treating them, that he actually stipulated, in a letter to one of the magis¬ 
 trates, published at the time, that the law of settlement should take effect between his 
 parish and the other parishes; in other words, that he should be protected from the influx 
 of paupers from other parishes, which in return were to be similarly protected against his 
 own. And so correct were his anticipations (the stipulation not having been agreed to), 
 that in the first three years of the existence of the reformed plan, twice as many paupers 
 came in as went out; and one of the managers assures me, that a constant preference seems 
 given by the poor to St. John’s above other parishes, on account of the different way of 
 treating them ; at any rate there is no disinclination to dwell in it. 
 
 The essence of the St. John’s management consists in the superior system of inspection 
 which it establishes ; this is brought about by causing the applicants for aid to address 
 themselves, in the first instance, to persons of station and character, whose sole parochial 
 duty consists in examining into their condition, and who are always ready personally to 
 pay a kind attention to their complaints. 
 
 This personal attention of the rich to the poor seems to be one of the most efficient 
 modes of preventing pauperism. It is a subject of perpetual complaint that the poor do 
 not receive the charities of the rich with gratitude. The reason of this appears to be, that 
 the donation of a few shillings from a rich man to a poor one is no subtraction from the 
 giver’s comforts, and consequently is no proof of his interest in the other’s welfare ; it 
 seems natural and reasonable that there should be some proportion pres^ved between the 
 gratitude felt for a favour conferred, and the difficulty or inconvenience that the doer of it 
 is put to in conferring it. If the rich give their time to the poor instead of their money, 
 they part with a commodity which the poor see is valuable v to the givers, and consequent¬ 
 ly esteem the attention the more, as it implies an interest in their prosperity; and a feel¬ 
 ing seems to be engendered in their minds of unwillingness to press on the kindness of 
 those who thus prove themselves ready to sympathize with them in distress, and to do 
 their utmost to relieve it. This feeling acts as a spur to the exertions of the poor ; their 
 efforts to depend on their own resources are greater, and consequently the chance of their 
 becoming dependent on the bounty of others less. 
 
 In St. John’s parish this personal attendance on the poor is carried to the greatest pos¬ 
 sible extent; every application for assistance is sure to be met with patient attention,, as 
 
far removed as possible from magisterial haughtiness, and instead of the continued bicker¬ 
 ings between the overseer and the objects of relief, which frequently characterise the ad¬ 
 ministration of an English parish, a friendly intercourse between rich and poor ensures to 
 the latter a ready relief and a just appreciation of their distresses, to the former, that 
 their bounty will not be abused, or their attentions be undervalued or unacknowledged. 
 
 The southern suburb of Glasgow, the whole of which usually passes under the name of 
 the Gorbals, contains a population exceeding 40,000 inhabitants. Till very lately the old 
 Scottish system of non-assessment prevailed in this district, and its good effects were dis¬ 
 played in a manner perhaps more remarkable than in any other part of Scotland. In 
 1818, a distinguished writer, after mentioning some instances in support of the position, 
 that the real wants of the destitute may safely be left to the spontaneous efforts of private 
 charity for their relief, speaks of this suburb in the following terms : — 
 
 “ But all these minor cases of illustration are lost and forgotten in the princely example 
 of Scottish independence held out by the Gorbals of Glasgow, a parish of which we are 
 substantially correct as to the argument, when we say, that it extends not by a single inch 
 beyond the masonry of its works and its dwelling-houses; a parish of which we believe 
 that it claims not a single acre of ground beyond the site that it is built upon ; a parish, at; 
 all events, which has not one fraction of territorial revenue or importance attached to it,r 
 but which includes within the little sweep of its boundary, a busy and industrious popu¬ 
 lation of nearly 20,000 individuals. Had it stood by itself, we confess we should not have 
 looked on the history as in any way miraculous : but standing as it does within the walk 
 of one minute from a great pestiferous vomitory, that sends a withering influence on every- 
 side of it upon all that is delicate or noble in the character of our Scottish population, it) 
 would be a most violent suppression of the gratitude and estimation which are felt by us] 
 did we refuse to acknowledge that though we had travelled for evidence, over the whole] 
 length and breadth of our land, we could not have met a more wondrous or substantial 
 testimony than the one which this parish affords. And when it is told that the average oij 
 its regular annual expenditure is a gratuitous sum of L.350, and that the whole sum re ? 
 quired for the extraordinary wants of last year was L.835, which was also raised by vof 
 luntary subscription, and that among the administrators for the poor, who does-not feel ?| 
 desire that this stately monument of the truth may ever remain unimpaired ; that, standi 
 ing on the brink of a great moral contagion, it may serve as a protecting vanguard of re| 
 sistance to the country in its rear, and be our proudest bulwark of defence against such ail 
 invasion as England has long been threatening, and in which, if she succeed, she will d| 
 more to destroy and to desolate our land, than she ever has done or ever could do by thj 
 invasion of her arms.” 
 
 The desire of the writer has not been granted; and this “ stately monument of tl I 
 truth” is now in process of rapid decay. Great part of the district was assessed, for thj 
 first time, in 1824,and the remainder in 1827, and already the evil of the change has bet 
 come apparent. This year the assessment amounted to L. 1900, which, with the colletl 
 tions, proclamations, and funeral donations, make the total of the poor’s funds L.218(1] 
 r l he population, since 1818, has not quite doubled; and since, at that time, as above stadg 
 ed, the average annual expenditure for the poor did not exceed L.350, the present cost f<I 
 their relief shows an increase of more than six fold. All the evidence that I have beej| 
 able to collect from ti e residents goes to prove the fact, which is corroborated by so manji 
 other examples, respecting the baneful influence of assessments on the morals and nun® 
 bers of the poor. The reluctance to apply for parochial charity has greatly diminished:]! 
 pride and independence of spirit is fast vanishing; and the general morality perceptib||j 
 on the decline. Since, in the short time that has elapsed subsequently to the first layirj jj 
 on of the assessment, the poor expenditure has increased with the extraordinary rapidifijj 
 as above stated, it may be predicted, that if a change is not quickly made in the method < | 
 management, containing, as it does, in the vast numbers of its bumble inhabitants, all ti J 
 elements fitted to provoke the evil, it will become one of the worst-conditioned parish^ $ 
 in this part of the kingdom ; and this “ princely example of Scottish independence” li 
 turned into a receptacle of pauperism, misery, and vice. 
 
 Edinburgh: Print.d by Balfour and Jack, Niddry Street.