plan, namely, that in holding out to the people fair and reasonable conditions of escape from pauperism, we may more equitably and conscientiously take such methods of increasing the pressure and disgrace of that condition, as a sense of its consequent evils may urge us to pursue.

Upon this principle I would at once adopt Mr. B.'s suggestion for giving to the parish officers a power of refusing to make any allowance for a child, without requiring that such child should be separated from the parent, and placed in a workhouse or school of industry.

Against this suggestion it has been urged, especially by Mr. B., that the deprivation, if intended to operate as a punishment, would be severe and undeserved; if not operating as a punishment, it would be ineffectual for its acknowledged purpose: it would neither induce the labourer to use greater exertion in the support of his family (which however might be impossible) or deter him from marrying.

I own that I am inclined to support Mr. B.'s proposition, even as a single measure; the separation, I think, cannot be regarded as a punishment, but as an instance of that moderate pressure which must be felt in all numerous families, and which has an extensive operation, in this particular mode, among the middling classes.

But the facility which my suggestion would afford to the poor man, of avoiding this pressure, removes I think much of the harshness of the proposition, and I should therefore decidedly recommend its application to all those who, having the opportunity, omit to avail themselves of that facility.

Mr. B. has also urged, the difficulty of providing in all cases, ht places for the reception of the children; upon this point I would propose, that where no such place can be found, the magistrates should have a power of ordering pecuniary relief for the child, but to an extent only something below the lowest allow ance from the Friendly Society. In such case no relief should be given, where the number of children maintained by the pauper is under that, which, if he were a member of the Friendly Society, would entitle him to an allowance.

The amount of the allowance for children from the Friendly Society, would, of course, have no reference to the amount of the parent's earnings. As to the pauper, reference should be had to the earnings, so far only as to effect a diminution of the maximum allowance:--the payment in that case being justified by necessity only only, must be strictly limited according to its degree.

To a pauper, claiming relief either for himself or his family, it should be a sufficient answer for an overseer when before the

magistrate, to prove that the man had at any time within a limited period (perhaps a year) been in the habit of earning so much as to have enabled him to provide against his present want.

In aid of this proposition, I would give, according to the suggestion of Mr. M. and Mr. R. S., a power to the overseer to grant, and, in the last mentioned case, to the magistrate to order, an allowance with condition of future repayment, the disobedience of which order on the part of the man, should be punishable, as that of an order of maintenance; but I would not consider the receipt of this advance as pauperism. It may be said, that this provision would deter the man from exerting himself to earn, in summer, the high wages which would thus deprive him of relief in winter. But, (not to mention that he would thereby leave more work to be done by his neighbours,) this check must be taken in conjunction with all the others; and the effect of this wilful idleness would be, not that he would have in winter pecuniary relief, but that he would be set to labour, not of his own choice, and to which epen now some sense of degradation attaches, at very low wages.

In process of time, perhaps, we might go farther, and let the proof of wilful idleness, at a period in which work had been manifestly in demand, operate also in bar of the man's claim.

Upon the principle of limiting pecuniary relief to necessity only, I should certainly propose, whether the Friendly Societies be adopted or not, to take away the power very recently given to magistrates (by Act 55 Geo. III. c. 137. §. 4) to order relief to be paid for longer periods than one month.

I would not interfere with the present rule of law, which for bids any appeal from an order of relief, lest in the interval the pauper should starve;-but it occurs to me to suggest, that a parish might have a power of requiring any Justice by whom an order shall be made which the parish thinks objectionable, to state the case at the Quarter Sessions, for the opinion of the Court, by which, in future orders, the Justices would be governed.

Perhaps it might be useful in checking the levity with which relief is granted by Justices, were the concurrence of two Justices necessary for the renewal, after the first period of a month, of any order to which the overseers shall have at the time objected.

The orders to which I refer, are those which are made for the relief of the helpless, and especially of the children.

I have already stated my concurrente in the general proposition for making work the condition of relief with those who are able to perform it but I am not prepared to suggest any practical measure for the universal provision of work.

I should therefore be content with an enactment, that where an overseer shall satisfy the Justice, that he has offered the pauper rea

sonable labour, at a rate of wages, lower by not more than oneseventh than the current rate of ordinary labour in husbandry, no order of relief should be made..

The present laws, I apprehend, furnish most of the facilities necessary for enabling the overseers, in conjunction with the magistrates, to provide work; but, unless the principle of reliev→ ing through work be altogether condemned, it would certainly be desirable to extend those facilities to the utmost, and particularly, ̧ ̧. Sir, according to a suggestion to which I know you to be favourable, to create a power of establishing parochial farms.

A man relieved through work, should, I think, be a pauper, as it is certainly desirable to discountenance a reliance upon the parish even for that mode of relief; but, if through frugality he should have made himself, and continued to be, a member of the society, he should be exempt from that disgrace.

I think that I have shewn, that my Friendly Societies will be highly beneficial to the poor, as compared with the Poor Laws, with the proposed restraints on their administration; and although I am aware that the facility of obtaining relief from the rates, has in some degree brought the present societies into disrepute, I trust that even without the imposition of those restraints, we may impress upon the poor the superiority of that mode of providing for their wants.

But, in what way are the societies to be now formed upon the new principle?

I am not desirous of imposing the Friendly Societies authoritatively upon the whole country; I would leave to parishes the option of adopting or rejecting that mode of relieving their poor, and to individuals the alternative of securing themselves against pauperism, or abiding by its laws.

I am deterred by many considerations from proposing the general and compulsory adoption of the plan.

I do not think it possible for Parliament to frame any new system which would be applicable to the circumstances of all districts, and I am by no means so confident of the advantages of the plan proposed, as to expect that, in all parishes, it would be an improvement; I hope and believe that there are parishes in which, a better system prevails.

Wherever the purposes of my plan are already answered, or nearly answered, by a less artificial scheme, its introduction would be an evil as great as any which it professes to palliate. Where a Friendly Society, unconnected with the parish, or a Saving Bank, has the effect of diminishing and discrediting pauperism among the people, so as to confine parish relief to cases of impotency, or occasional need, and especially to avoid the mixture of parish pay with wages, that parish will not be improved by my scheme;

of

though some of my suggestions might probably be brought in aid of the present management. And I should deprecate any interference, not only with a Parish in which a comparatively sound system is already prevalent, but with any in which there appears at present a reasonable probability of material improvement.

Thus where a Saving Bank has been established, and the deposits from the labouring classes are regular and increasing, so as to give a fair prospect of a considerable diminution in the Rates, I should be most unwilling to prescribe any fanciful amendment.

Saving Banks aud 'Benefit Clubs, if effectual for the purposes which my scheme has in view, are highly and unquestionably preferable to it. It is suggested only by a conviction that those institutions cannot be generally efficacious.

Saving Banks cannot meet all contingencies, unless wages are much higher than it is probable or perhaps desirable that they should be, and labourers much more prudent than can possibly be expected.

Benefit Clubs are more calculated to meet contingencies, because they bring the earnings of the healthy in aid of the sick; but if the whole produce of labour be insufficient for all the purposes which our system proposes to effect, no management can make up the deficiency.

These clubs, I fear, are on the decline, partly owing to this original insufficiency, and partly because, the shame of pauperism being removed, the rates are found to be an easier and cheaper resource. Saving Banks are in some places said to be quite out of the question, because there are no savings.

All that I desire therefore is to empower parishes to adopt my schenie, and to treat as paupers all the individuals who shall refuse to enter into it. I fear that in most parishes it would be necessary to establish a Society anew; as well because the clubs are not in general parochial, as because it would be unfair to alter, unless with the full consent of the members, the nature and constitution of an existing club. The new Society, therefore, must be established, and the rate of payment and allowance regulated, by the vestries, with the consent of two justices; long as the funds for the relief of the door are local, neither the rules, nor the rates, must necessarily be similar in all different parishes.

as

The Society should take as much as possible the form of a voluntary club; its officers or accountants should be appointed or chosen from among the members, and paid from the fund. The orders for the grant of allowances must originate with the club or its officers, but must be countersigned by an Overseer, and in case of sickness must be accompanied by a certificate from the parish

apothecary, or a medical man of whom the Overseers have approved.

The treasurer should, if possible, be a member of the club, but his books must be open to the inspection of the parish officers, to whom he must make requisitions from time to time for the necessary advances. The intercourse of the poor man himself will be always with the club, and not with the parish.

I am apprehensive, that notwithstanding all the substantial be nefits to be derived from the new Societies, and all the pains that may be taken to reconcile the poor to them, they will not meet with early popularity. But I do convince myself, that they will either become gradually acceptable and effectual, or that in conjunction with the measures which have been suggested for narrowing parish relief, they will drive the poor into better habits.

As I would not compel a parish to adopt the Friendly Society, so neither would I compel a man to enter into it. The plan of Mr. C. and that of the bill printed at Birmingham in 1796, are in my mind objectionable not only as too systematic and general in their application, but as imposing a tax and interfering with income. It is a fundamental principle of my scheme, that the members of a society should be liable to no inquiry into their earnings ;-that no such inquiry should be authorized, except in a case in which a claimant for relief stands before you in the character of a delinquent, and you are avowedly desirous that he should feel the pressure, which he has neglected the means of avoiding.

It is thus, rather than by any certificates or badges, which have formed part of former schemes, that I would make and note the distinction between the innocent and the criminal poor.

It may be asked, how much of the harsher treatment which I have recommended for those who neglect the opportunity of belonging to a society, is to be applied to those, from whom, however willing they may be, their parish withholds that opportunity?

I am not prepared to propose that there should be, any where, a power of compelling a parish to adopt the plan; nor can I doubt but that on the one hand it will not be, wisely, rejected by some parishes, which are nevertheless desirous of having some further protection from the law and on the other, that parishes may be averse to it, whose system nevertheless is not so good as to entitle them to the protection against the power of magistrates, which my suggestions afford...

་

Should Mr. B.'s proposition concerning the children, be thought too harsh when unaccompanied by my alternative, it might be enacted, that no order for relief on account of children should depend on the price of provisions, or be greater in pecuniary^