that country, as this officious and uncalled for act of legislation, which, by rendering these deeds of duty and of charity unneces sary, has, in fact, dissolved one of the main ties which an all-wise Providence appointed to be the means of keeping the family together? Shall we wonder if, under such untoward circumstances, unnatural feelings and conduct in the members of households towards each other should be too generally observed to be the melancholy result? Again, if society in the lower walks of life were to be left to itself, and man forbore to legislate when the legislation of heaven were sufficient, how would the mutual necessities of the labouring classes, ever met, as they would be, (and actually are in our own country, where no poor laws exist), by the ready help which it appears they are able to afford one another, and which every one's own experience teaches them to be willing, in their turn, to afford, as they are able, how would this continual reciprocity of kind offices, unchecked by unnecessary, and therefore absurd laws, tend to bind (as God intended it when he ordained that the poor should never cease) house to house, and man to man; and to unite the whole thus together with the cement of at least a common feeling of humanity, arising out of the recollection of good offices done and received of perpetual and daily, or almost hourly recurrence? But, alas! how is this stream of active and ever-flowing sympathy arrested in its wholesome progress, and society among the poor left to corrupt in the stagnant and feculent pond of selfishness, which this artificial attempt to baffle and defeat the wise designs of Providence, has absurdly formed around them!

Lastly, if the rich and the poor were allowed by politicians to remain, with relation to each other, as the Lord, who is the Maker of them both, has ordained, how are the circumstances in which they stand one toward the other, of need of assistance on the one hand beyond the power of equals to relieve, and on the other of ability to meet that need, combined, as it will be in Christians, with a ready mind, calculated not only to conciliate the poor toward the rich, and the rich toward the poor, but to lead each to see, and acknowledge, and adore that Divine wisdom, which has so constituted the component parts of human society together, as but to promote the welfare, and harmony, and beauty of the whole. As in the constitution of the world we inhabit, the inequality of surface, the lofty mountain, the humble valley, the hill, and the dale, all contribute to the attractive loveliness of the scenery, and to the general productiveness of the soil, and the benefit and enjoyment of its inhabitants; whereas the flat and extended plains are not unfrequently horrid deserts, which no man would visit for his pleasure, and no man may inhabit.

But under the baneful influence of poor laws, the beneficial result of this constitution and happy temperament, which heaven has appointed, of high and low, rich and poor together in society, is in a great degree defeated and neutralized; and instead of their being regarded by each other with kindly feelings, the one as heaven's almoners, and the other as 'angels" who may be "entertained unawares," this human desire of compulsory as

66

sessment for the purpose of doing the proper work of heavenborn charity, blessing alike the giver and the receiver, has, to be sure, taken the materiel of charity out of the pockets of the rich, and deposited it in the hands of the poor; but if it has, the rude hand that takes it, as a matter of necessity and of legal right, grudgingly conceded from the one, and doles it out, like the reluctant payment of an ill-earned debt, to the other; which is sure to be received by them as unthankfully as a feeling of a right imperfectly recognized can inspire. This conveyancer, I say, of the materiel of parochial charity can carry with him nothing at all of its morale. Nay, the effect of his interference between parties, who should have been left, as far as law was conconcerned, to their own spontaneous conduct in this matter, so far from bringing them closer together in any way desirable by the philanthropist or the Christian, only tends painfully to set them in hostile array the one against the other-the poor regarding with a scowl the rich as merciless and hard hearted, which they are not, if let alone; who contribute nothing but as they are compelled by law, toward their relief: and the rich, again, returning back their scowl upon the poor, for being—not what, left to themselves, they would be, but-what the law has made them-shameless, clamorous, unsatisfied, and insatiable, and equally unthankful devourers of their property. So fatally, as I apprehend, does expérience, and the induction, not of a few "particular facts," but of facts generally, shew the system of poor laws in England, (and, as far as they have been in operation, also in Scotland) to have tended to that loosening of the bands which hold society together, which forms one of the most alarming signs of the times in which we live. And shall we then, professing to be disciples of the true philosophy of the school of Bacon, desire to see the experiment made of what good this system, which has well nigh dissolved the social bond in the sister island, can do amongst us, disorganized and divided from one another as we are sufficiently already? Is an Act of Parliament establishing poor laws and pauperism in Ireland, in the face of the evidence of its operation elsewhere wheresoever it has been tried, to be looked upon as the grand panacea for Ireland's evils, like the hope which still remained at the bottom of Pandora's box? Or rather, would not the adoption of such a measure for Ireland be to see a consummation of our evils?

The writer of the article in your March Number seems to ground his argument in favour of the introduction of poor rates into Ireland upon this position-that it would create a forced employment for the poor. To be sure he speaks of this employment as reproduction; but is forced employment what is apt to be reproductive? Or, in other words, does the produce of labour require to be forced into market-or, rather, should it be left, without force, to find there its own level, by the simple operation of demand? If the latter (as Adam Smith and some others have thought), might it not then be rather a hardship to force the rich, to their own loss, and eventual ruin, if the system were persisted in, to the adoption of the alternative of either employing the poor

in a way which would fail of being in the end reproductive, or of maintaining them by parochial assessment in idleness? And has Ireland so many Atlasses to bear this burthen, under which even England is reeling? Is there an amount of capital in Ireland which would make it physically possible, or practicable for the legislature, even were it willing, to place her upon the horns of this dilemma? Were I even a well-wisher to poor laws generally, I should express my fears that we were here too poor, at least at present, for their adoption. But if the theory which I have already stated respecting them be sound, and what has been established upon the sure basis of experiment, then I must anxiously deprecate, and, as far as my humble ability will go, endeavour to prevent by argument any impression being made upon the public mind in their favour. And here I am sure that I should have the thanks of your two Correspondents, to whom I give full credit. for being sincere well-wishers to their country, who, if they have adopted a mistaken view in this instance, as I feel persuaded they have, will not be unwilling to see, and when they have seen to confess, their mistake. Let me ask them to look at the 2d and 3d volumes of Dr. Chalmers's Civic Economy, before they write upon this subject again.

Your Correspondent in the March Number adverts to the rapid increase of population, both in this country and in England, within the last few years; but states, that that increase is taking place much more rapidly in Ireland, where there are no poor laws, than in England, where there are. Now, admitting that this is so, on his statement, whom I suppose to be much better acquainted with statistics than I am, and indeed being disposed not at all to question it, (for I believe it to be the fact,) what is the conclusion which we are to draw from this circumstance? What is the conclusion which he seems disposed to draw from it? Why this, that introduce poor rates into Ireland, and in this respect assimilate it to England, and then population will no longer here increase as rapidly as it has done! Now, in chemistry it may be sometimes true that two causes, each independently tending to the same result, when combined may produce exactly the opposite-as heat is sometimes elicited from the juxta position of two cold bodies. But I see no reason why we should adopt such a paradoxical analogy in the present instance: I should rather think that we would argue more soundly and safely from the obvious analogy in physics, that if two forces operate upon the same body in the same direction, each will produce its full effect, which will be manifested by the proportionally accelerated movement of that body in that direction. If, therefore, the Irish paupers are multiplying too fast, as they are, and without the additional encouragement of laws favoring pauperism, it would seem, at least to an ordinary mind like mine, that with that encouragement, we should have paupers multiplying here, not simply as they were-still less in a reduced ratio-but rather, in the compound proportion of the rate at which they have been multiplying in England and Ireland independently put together. How astounding then will be the announcement of the millions of

Spalpeens ready to cut our throats, from having nothing better to do, of which we shall hear from the mouths of our rhetorical artificers, and from the press, their speaking trumpet!

The same argument may be applied with equal force to the rate of the wages of labour. The English labourer, under the poor rate system, does not at present receive adequate wages to support him in honest independence; and the Irish labourer, without the operation of poor rates, receives what is still less adequate for his comfortable support. Therefore, I say, assimilate Ireland to England by introducing poor rates, and the Irish labourer will then be obliged to take a still lower wages even than the pittance he obtains at present. I am aware that your last Correspondent says, that the poor laws would operate as a check upon landed proprietors sub-letting and dividing their farms, as they have done hitherto, in that way which seems so injuriously to have increased our population beyond the resources of the country, in its present state, to give them employment. I may admit that such might be the tendency of the operation of poor laws upon the minds of the upper orders; and it might be a matter of deep regret to them, when our overwhelming population of paupers were all to be supported, that a system of sub-letting and sub-dividing of land had been before so long and so generally pursued through the country, which had at length burthened the land with a tax which the land was unable to bear; but let it be recollected, that the evil is already done—the land is sub-let and sub-divided from Carrickfergus to Cape Clear; and it will require many years to come, before, even if landlords wished it, or otherwise found it practicable, (of which in the present low state of capital amongst our farmers I have my doubts,) they would have it in their power to re-let their farms in larger denominations, and to a superior and more improving description of tenantry. And the meanwhile, were poor rates to be introduced into the country in its present state, their operation upon the lower orders would be purely, as in England and elsewhere, to increase population beyond the natural exigence of society, and to depress still more and more the value of labour; and thus to enhance an hundred fold the evils which they were applied to palliate. I must then avow my belief, that if ever this expedient of relieving want by compulsory assessments could, in any one respect, be supposed to be capable of benefiting Ireland, that time has gone by. Supposing that it might have prevented the sub-letting system, or have stifled it in its beginnings, now that it has actually become the prevailing system, the enaction of poor laws for Ireland might prove a medicine too powerful for the body politic to bear-it might unluckily kill ere it had effected the proposed cure; and this were an Irish way of giving physic, with a vengeance!!!

To the observations made by your correspondent on the poor laws, in the last place, with reference to education, I feel myself, I must confess, also, unable to subscribe: at the same time that I agree with him that to talk of "education alone" "as a panacea for the disorders of Ireland" were extravagant and objection

able language. But who talks at this rate? Is it they who are most anxious, and actively zealous to communicate to the Irish people the blessing (for so I must call it) of education? Are they not also forward, generally speaking, according to their means, to give the poor employment, and to promote their temporal comfort in every practical way? I believe that they will be found so. Nay, are they not adventurous experimentalists, and often to their own loss, in devising schemes for putting the poor, both male and female, into a condition of earning for themselves, and thus get support with decency and comfort? It is notorious that they are. And here I would beg leave respectfully to ask the writer of that article, whether it has never come to his knowledge, that this is the fact; and that not only individuals not a few, but associations of individuals also, connected with the important object of national education, are actually, and actively, at present, engaged in stimulating, and giving a useful direction to the industrious energies of the people? Their efforts may have partially failed perhaps, (for it is a difficult thing to force the demand for labour at all above the level which it would naturally find for itself in any given state of society) but these efforts, though they even were ineffectual, have yet been sincerely made, and under a conviction of duty; which, I think, ought to have protected the friends of education, who believe it to be the very beginning of all real or useful improvement, from the unkind insinuation which seems to be conveyed by your correspondent, although, perhaps, he did not fully intend it, that they were a class of enthusiasts, who would do nothing, or have nothing done, but educate the people.

But even were it so, I do not agree with the writer of that article, that they would probably do more harm than good-that they would, by creating a new "want" only make the poor "still poorer" or that they would "fling a deadly drug into the bitter cup of indigence," and "give a sharpened weapon to the enemies of social order." These, Sir, are grave and solemn charges preferred by your correspondent against the advocates for educating the people by all means, even though no more were done but that alone and if just and true, well may the politician, and the friend of social order, look with a jealous eye upon the intentions and labours of the instructor.

:

But are those charges of consequences, upon the promoters of education, even though it be alone, true and just? By education, Sir, 1, (in common with the bulk of those who, in this country, are really interested about it) intend that education which comprehends instruction in the Holy Scriptures. And who, but moderately acquainted, themselves, with that blessed book, could maintain, that by teaching the very poorest out of it, that though poor in this world" they may become "rich in faith;" that "unto the poor the Gospel is preached" that "the Lord careth for the poor"-that he commands those whom he has blest with riches to be kind and merciful to them-that, at all events, contentment with their lot, and patience under provocations and hardships, is both the duty and privilege of Christians, and "they

66