I am now come to the most arduous part of my undertaking.Some remedy must be found for the growing evil,and thosewhich have been hitherto proposed have been found inadequate.In laying down a plan,I shall begin with establishing thegeneral principles on which we must proceed.
It is evident then,that no system can be good which does not,in the first place,encourage industry,economy,andsubordination;and,in the second place,regulate population by the demand for labour.
To promote industry and economy,it is necessary that the relief which is given to the poor should be limited andprecarious."Languescet industria,intendetur socordia,si nullus ex se metus aut spes;et securi omnes aliena subsidiaexpectabunt,sibi ignavi,nobis graves."No man will be an economist of water,if he can go to the well or to the brook asoften as he please;nor will he watch with solicitous attention to keep the balance even between his income andexpenditure,if he is sure to be relieved in the time of need.The labouring poor at present are greatly defective,both inrespect to industry and economy.Considering the numbers to be maintained,they work too little,they spend too much,and what they spend is seldom laid out to the best advantage.When they return from threshing or from plough,they mightcard,they might spin,or they might knit.We are told,that one thousand pair of Shetland stockings are annually importedinto Leith,of which the price is from five to seven pence a pair:yet labour at Learwick,the small capital of Shetlandislands,is ten pence a day.These stockings are made at leisure hours.In these islands they have no dependance but upontheir industry and frugality.They consume neither tea,nor sugar,nor spices,because they cannot afford to purchase theseuseless articles;neither do they wear stockings or shoes,till by their diligence they have acquired such affluence as to bearthis expence.How different is theirs from the dress and diet of our common people,who have lost all ideas of economy.*If by their industry they could procure these articles of luxury,or if their linen,their cotton,and their silk,were spun,andwove,and knit in their own houses,and at leisure hours,their desire to obtain these things would be advantageous to thestate:but surely,if in the colder regions of the North these are not essential to their existence,or even to their happiness,they should be considered in the South only as the rewards of industry,and should never,from the common fund,be givenpromiscuously to all,as they will inevitably be,unless that fund shall have some other limits besides the wants andexpectations of the poor.Unless the degree of pressure be increased,the labouring poor will never acquire habits ofdiligent application,and of severe frugality.To increase this pressure,the poor's tax must be gradually reduced in certainproportions annually,the sum to be raised in each parish being fixed and certain,not boundless,and obliged to answerunlimited demands.This enormous tax might easily in the space of nine years be reduced nine-tenths;and the remainderbeing reserved as a permanent supply,the poor might safely be left to the free bounty of the rich,without the interpositionof any other law.But if the whole system of compulsive charity were abolished,it would be still better for the state.I amnot singular in this opinion.Baron Montesquieu has given his opinion,"Que des secours passages vaudroient mieux quedes éstabissemens perpetuels;"(24)and our own countryman,who had been long conversant with this business,has told us,"I am persuaded that to provide for the poor,who are unable to work,might be safely left to voluntary charity,unenforcedby any compulsive law."(25)
To assist the industrious poor,who have neither tools nor materials,but more especially to train up the children of thedissolute in useful labour,there might be in each parish one or more work-shops,where they might be certain ofemployment,and of daily pay for the work performed.In these shops they should neither be lodged nor fed,being taughtto depend each for himself on his own diligence and patient application to his business.The building,the tools,and thematerials,would be all that required assistance from the public fund.
The grand resource however should be from the labouring poor themselves,previous to their being incumbered withfamilies.They have throughout the kingdom a number of friendly societies established,which have been productive ofgood effects,and in some places have reduced the rates.But these societies have more than one defect.All their memberscontribute equally to the public fund,without respect to their ability,to the proportion of their gains,or to the number oftheir children.By this regulation some pay too little,others pay too much.The sum,which they deposit weekly,isinsignificant and trifling when compared with what it ought to be.But the greatest misfortune is,that they are altogetherleft to their own option to join these societies or not;in consequence of which liberty,many of these associations formutual assistance are going to decay.If this be indeed a good expedient,it should be pushed as far as it will go:it shouldbe firmly established,made universal,and subjected to wholesome regulations.The unmarried man should pay one quarterof his wages weekly,and the father of four young children not more than one thirtieth of his income,which is nearly thesum which all contribute to their present clubs.To drive them into these societies,no man should be intitled to relief fromthe parochial fund who did not belong to one of these.Thus would sobriety,industry,and economy,take place ofdrunkenness,idleness,and prodigality,and due subordination would be again restored.
