Εικόνες σελίδας
PDF
Ηλεκτρ. έκδοση

lure of work, or the curtailment of wages, is inevitable want, and bitter suffering, and perhaps exposure to debasement and crime. Nor are these, let me say, al

ways, or peculiarly, the families of the rich. I have heard, indeed, very much said of retrenchment, and of economy, in rich families, where I could not trace any associations with the terms, in the minds of those who employed them, beyond the very circumstances and services, on which the poor depend for their daily bread! And I have earnestly wished that some of those, who are living in the midst of abundance, and are endeavouring to spare and save the few shillings, which have been paid to the washerwoman, or the laundress, or the seamstress, or the scourer, or the labourer of any description whom they once readily employed, and for whom they had been accustomed very easily to find something to do, would but go with me, while they are forming their plans of economy, into the families of those, who ask only to obtain any work, by which they may be saved from dependence and beggary. Economy, rightly understood, rises to the character of a Christian virtue. But what is economy? And what are its proper objects? I hold him to be an economist, in the highest sense of the term, who saves in those things in which he ought to save, that he may expend liberally in those in which he ought, according to his means, to be liberal. This is Christian econo

my. Let it be understood, and practised, and comparatively few of the poor will want employment. Or, whatever may be the number who would, but cannot earn the means of their subsistence, none will then suffer unheeded, or be tempted by their wants to degradation and sin.

To other means, then, of giving relief to the suffering poor, let us direct our attention. And we shall think more clearly, and justly on this subject, if we separate the poor into classes. It is not necessary, indeed, for our present purpose, to enter into all the particulars of an exact classification of them. A few large and general divisions are all that will be required to illustrate the principles, which I think have a very important bearing upon the question, of the best means of providing for the poor of cities ?

A word, however, in the first place, respecting these principles. They are:

1st, That it is God's will that all, as far as they have capacity for labour, should provide for their own support.

2dy, That it is equally God's will, if any cannot from physical disability, or other insuperable difficulties, provide for themselves, that they should be provided for by those whose means enable them to contribute to their relief.

And, 3dly, That while it is the duty of all, whom God has placed in more favoured conditions of life, to minister to the temporal wants of their suffering fellow creatures, it is yet never to be forgotten by any who can serve them, that the most effectual means by which we may improve their condition is, by improving their characters. In other words, we shall most effectually relieve, and comfort, and bless the poor, by the means by which we recover them from vice, or sin, and advance them in moral and religious principles; in the sentiments and habits of piety and virtue.

In view of these principles, I would divide the poor who ought not to be left at large, from those who ought

not to be sent either to a work-house, or to a house of public charity.

Of these two great divisions, the first comprehends four classes: 1st, the proper subjects of an alms-house; 2d, the proper subjects of a work-house; 3d, orphan children, who, however, are not vicious; 4th, vicious children, who cannot be controlled by parents or guardians.—I am fully aware of the difficulty of making the provision, which I feel persuaded should be made, for these classes of the poor. But we must first distinctly understand what should be done, and then calmly, but resolutely, seek its accomplishment. In proportion as we can separate those who belong to these classes, from the mass of society, we shall greatly facilitate the work of provision for those who will still remain, to a very considerable extent, dependent on private or on public bounty.

First, them, who are the proper subjects of an AlmsHouse?

It will be observed, that I speak of an alms-house, as a distinct institution from a work-house. And it should so far at least be made a distinct institution, that no one, and especially no man, who is capable of any labour, should be sent to an alms-house. I would have an alms-house to be, what its name imports that it should be, a refuge for those who cannot contribute to their own support. And although I would not send all of this class to such a house, I would have none sent to it, except those who belong to this class. The moral evil is very great, of forming one society, in a large establishment, of those who might be made to support themselves, and of those who are incapable of labour. If an alms-house pauper should regain the strength, with

which he may be enabled to work, and cannot be trusted abroad, he should be transferred to a work-house.

Even in the most prosperous circumstances of a large city, there are not a few in it, who, from age, from bodily debility, from disease, or mental imbecility, cannot provide for their own wants; and who have no friends peculiarly interested in them, who are able, or, if able, are disposed, to support them. Among them may be some, who are virtuous, and proper objects of a strong and affectionate interest. And they should be the objects of such an interest. But no private means that could be employed for their comfort would be so effectual, as well as so economical, as a well regulated alms-house.--To an alms-house, also, should be sent all those who are separated from their families and friends by their vices, and who are incapable of self-support, while yet they are not held by the laws to be criminals. And here, also, should be sent the young children, those, for example, under ten years of age,--of parents, who, by vagrancy or crime, are separated from their families; and orphan children of the poor, for whom no other provision can be made. Colquhoun, in his Police of London, says, that one-fifth of the gross number in a London work-house is composed of "Infant Poor," who, by extreme indigence, or the death of their parents, have been cast upon the public for support. In our House of Industry,* *there are now 184 such children. It would be

* Our "House of Industry" is designed to combine in one institution, an Alms-House, and a work-house. The average number of its inmates in summer is about 400; and in winter about 500. It now contains about 500: of these, 184 are children. The children regularly attend school, and, at a suitable age, are

impracticable to provide for so many, beside those who are in our asylums, (and especially for the number of such children who require some specific provision should be made for them,) by any efforts of private benevolence; I would therefore send them to an AlmsHouse. But in this house, they should be as entirely as possible separated from its adult inmates. The city to which they belong should become their parent, and, as far as possible, should discharge a parent's duty towards them.

Secondly. There is another class, who are the proper subjects of a work-house: who are they?

I wish to be explicit on this subject, not alone because I think that great pecuniary interests are concerned, but because I am persuaded, that very great moral benefits are in this way only to be secured to very many of the poor, and great evils to be averted

indented to farmers and mechanics in the country. The expenses of the institution, during the past year, with the exception of those incurred for permanent objects, was 13,903 dollars. Its income from the farm, from picking oakum, &c. was 4,432 dollars. The discipline is as good as it can be, under the embarrassment of the impracticability of a proper classification of its subjects. But, to my mind, the evil is most obvious, of a union of those who are, with those who are not, capable of labour. Far less work is in this case done by those, who are able to work, than might otherwise be obtained from them. Beside, public sentiment is not now what it should be, on the subject of sending able-bodied vagrants and beggars to a work-house; and what it would be, if we had a well-regulated work-house, in which this class of paupers could at once be made to support themselves, and in some measure, at least, recovered to virtue, by the very course adopted to save the public from the burden of supporting them.

« ΠροηγούμενηΣυνέχεια »