But unfortunately the most worthy objects suffer most by this repeal,and the advantage to the public is little more thannegative.The quiet and the cleanly dread the noise and nastiness,even more than the confinement of a workhouse.Theypant for the pure and wholesome air,which they can never hope to breathe where numbers are confined within narrowlimits,and sigh for that serenity and peace,which they must despair to find where the most profligate of the human speciesare met together.By the fear of being sentenced to such society,many,who deserve a better fate,struggle with poverty tillthey sink under the burthen of their misery.Against county workhouses,improperly called houses of industry,theobjections are much stronger.The buildings,the furniture,the salaries,the waste,and the imposition,every thing is upon alarge and expensive scale,without its being possible to preserve,for any length of time,a system of economy.At first,indeed,there might be great exertion;but the novelty being over,few gentlemen would be found public spirited enough tocontinue their attendance and attention to a business in which,as individuals,they would be so little interested,and forwhich they must give up more important or more pleasant engagements and pursuits.By experience it is found,thatwithout reckoning interest upon the prime cost of either furniture or buildings,the poor in these extensive establishmentsare not maintained for less than I have stated.But whilst the experience is so enormous,are they happy?Far from happy,they are wretched.With all the discomforts of a parochial workhouse,they feel themselves in a hopeless state ofbanishment from their relations and connections.It is true,they eat,they drink,and they are miserable.This kind ofbanishment has the same effect in part as a repeal of the poor laws,because few are willing to be thus relieved.Thesehouses of industry cannot be vindicated,either in point of comfort or economy:if they have therefore any merit,it can beonly that kind of merit which I have stated;and if it be wise to have recourse to them,it would be much wiser directly torepeal the laws,against the depredations of which these houses are to protect your property.A county workhouse,at best,may be considered as a colony to which a few of the superabundant members of the community have'been transported tomake room for others;or it may be considered as a new manufacture,beneficial in its progress to employ the idle hands;beneficial,if it were possible to make a profit on their labour;yet like other manufactures,under the present system of ourlaws,increasing the number and the distresses of the poor.
That gentlemen of landed property should have taken the alarm,and that all who feel the burthen of the poor should wishto be relieved,is not to be wondered at.Yet surely we may be permitted to express astonishment,that when in the year1775the House of Commons were to provide a remedy for the growing evil,no expedient should present itself,but toerect county workhouses.
They resolved,1.That the laws relating to the poor are defective,and the good purposes intended by them in manyrespects prevented.
2.That the money raised for the relief of the poor is a grievous,and,if no new regulations are made,will be an increasingburthen upon the public.
They then recommended county workhouses,leaving the parishes at liberty to draw at discretion on the county stock,forthe relief of such as were not proper objects for a workhouse.
The counties,however,were not weak enough to accept an offer which must have entailed a tax of four shillings in thepound on their estates for ever,without procuring any benefit to the public,to the land-owner,to the farmer,or to thepoor,Another experiment,and the last which I shall mention,is the most abominable that ever was invented:it is to farm thepoor,In some parishes they are farmed at so much an head,but in others the contract is for a given sum.In one parish inGloucestershire a contractor had agreed to take all the expence of the poor upon himself for a very moderateconsideration.Taking the present numbers in confinement,he has only two shillings a week for each;yet out of this he is tobe at the charge of all litigations and removals,and to relieve all others who are not proper objects for a workhouse,andafter all to make a profit for himself.
All these expedients have the same tendency.They are adopted with a professed intention to lower the poor rates;and it isconfessed,that many are thereby deterred from making application for relief,who would otherwise be a burthen to thepublic.But then is not this a partial,impolitic,oppressive repeal of a bad law,without reducing the tax;for it continues toincrease,and without making a better provision for those among the poor who are most worthy of attention?
Having thus endeavoured to display the imperfections which are most obvious in our management of the poor,let us nowexamine the provision made for their relief by other nations.
In the early ages of the world there could be no great difficulty in this matter,as the quantity of food was more than couldbe consumed.In process of time,when property had got footing in the world,they,who had neither flocks nor herds,became slaves,and,selling themselves for bread,together with their children,constituted the principal treasure of the rich.
When the rich had so fir increased their stock,that their cattle had not sufficient room to feed,they quilted their ancienthabitations,and sought new settlements.Thus it is said,that Abraham was very rich in cattle,that he had sheep and oxen,and men servants and maid servants,and camels and asses,and silver and gold.The same nearly was the prosperity of Lot.
