102 Relief the Poor.— The late War. 



See, have, in a particular measure, ihe 



[Sept. 1, 



oversight of the poor. 



The two great objects, tlie statute of 

 Elizabeth (which first appoiuted over- 

 seers of tlie poor,) had in view, seem to 

 have been, Ist. To relieve Ihe impotnit 

 poor, and tliem only ; and "indly. To 

 find employment for such as ar.e able to 

 work, and "principally (as a late judicious 

 author has observed in treating on the 

 snbiect), by jffoviding stocks of raw ma- 

 terials to be worked up at their separate 

 homes, instead of accumulating all the 

 poor ill one common workhouse; a prac- 

 tice which puts the sober and diligent 

 Mpon H level (in jioint of earnings) with 

 those w!io arc dissolute and idle, dc[)res- 

 ses the laudable emulation of domestic 

 kidnstry and neatness, and destroys all 

 endearing family connections, the only 

 felicity of the indigent. Whereas, if 

 Hone were relieved but tliose who are 

 incnpable to get their living, and that in 

 proportion to their incapacity; if no chil- 

 dren were removed from tlieir parents 

 but such as are brought up in rags and 

 iilleness ; and, if every poor man and his 

 family were regularly ftnnished with em- 

 ployment, and allowed the whole profits 

 ef their labour ; a spirit of busy cheerful- 

 ness vvoidd soon diiluse itself through 

 €very cottage ; work would become easy 

 andha!)itnal, whnn absolutely necessary 

 for daily subsistence; and the peasant 

 would go through his work without a 

 Biiumur, if assured that he and his cliil- 

 «\ren (when incapable of work through 

 infancy, age, or infirmity,) would then, 

 jind then only, be entitled to support 

 from his opulent neighhours. 



I was pleased to observe in the Pro- 

 vincial Occurrences of a late number of 

 \our valuable Miscellany (under the 

 head of Leicestershire,) that a society 

 hart been formed, carrying into eflect 

 (though by diifcrent means) the object of 

 this communication. It is observed, 

 that the opulent part of the inhabitants 

 of the town of Hinckley had agreed to 

 advance a sum of money, for the pur- 

 pose of buying materials, to be worked 

 up by each person out ol employment; 

 the goods, when manufactured, to be dis- 

 posed of at prime cost ; the parish gua- 

 ranteeing the subscribers against all 

 loss. 



Might not such a jilan as this be, with- 

 out dilficulty. carried into execution by 

 tJie parishes themselves? "Why, instead 

 of affording the distressed pauper an oc- 

 casional pecuniary relief, or throwing 

 him with the common vagrant into one 

 common workhoHsc, might not a stock 

 •f raw materials be fiu"uish»d to each ? 



the loss sustained by the parish, after '«■ 

 manufacturing which, must (if any) fall. s 

 far short of the expencc incurred by 

 the present system of relieving the poor. 

 I cannot but think, that, if such a plan • 

 were followed, it would tend to remove, in 

 a great degree, the misery of the labour- 

 ing classes, without increasing the bur- \ 

 thens of those to whose share it now 

 falls to relieve the poor and impotent. ^ 



Evesham; July 15. L. W. 



To the Editor of the Moiithly Magazine. 



SIR, 



f BELIEVE you are, with all your 

 warn)tli in politics, sufficiently to- 

 lerant to admit articles into your Ma- 

 gazine, though they may bo altogether 

 at variance with your own opinions. 

 It remains for me to see whether that 

 principle is suflRciently extensive t* 

 allow of the insertion in it of an article, 

 which not only diflcrs fiom your views, 

 but in some degree blames them. You. 

 and I are not very wide a-part in the 

 great outline of onr opinions on these' ^ 

 subjects ; we differ chiefly in the colour- 

 ing and effect. 



You caiuiot hate war more than I do ; 

 you cannot deplore its effects more siu- 

 ccrely, or feel them, (in the commisera- 

 tion of others,) more severely than 1 do. 

 But your error on tiie subject is, that, 

 in the great tragedy of the war, you 

 look too much to the whole, and blame 

 the last acts for the faults of the first. „ 

 I firmly believe, that the ferocity of the ■ 

 French revolution proceeded from the' ,^ 

 opposition of the European sovereigns, 

 and from the wars they made to over- 

 throw it, and re-establish the ancient 

 government. Here was the original 

 sin. I admit, tiiat the opposition was 

 folly, nay worse, it was villany, and it 

 was bad policy. Its efiect was to drive 

 all the rrench to arms, to turn all their 

 energies to war, and to throw tlie go- 

 vernment and all the power and influ- 

 ence into the hands of the military, and 

 ultimately so to militarize all Trance, as 

 to make war its only trade, and the 

 chief support of its inhabitants: — hence 



PERPETUAL WAR. 



Well, I agree with you, that all this 

 was the effect of the combination of 

 tlie sovereigns against the French revo- 

 lution: but, bad as this policy was, and 

 highly blameable, nay cursable as they 

 were for it, yet, when tlieir folly and 

 villany had once given rise to such a 

 state of things in France, it became, in 

 my opinion, good policy to attempt to 

 overthrow a system which must have 

 rendered war perpetual. These are the 



twq 



