506 BIOGRAPHICAL NOTICE OF THE LATE REV. DR CHALMERS. 
of £175 not being required. This command of money in the hands of the kirk- 
session Dr CHALMERS considered to be a snare and a danger; accordingly, as he 
expressed it with considerable nazveté, he sought to provide “a safe and salutary 
absorbent” to take off this plethora of pecuniary oppression, and this he did by 
expending it all in the permanent endowment of a school. Thus the system 
worked, and the only disturbing force seems to have been the occasional indis- 
creet and injudicious introduction of charitable contributions from without : And 
certainly here is a marvellous result,—the poor of a parish absolutely managed 
with a success varying inversely as the pecuniary resources at the command of 
the managers. But neither the principal mover of this scheme, nor his colleagues 
in the work, seemed to consider it a mystery or a miracle; their solution of the 
problem was ; 1st, that former applicants who were conscious that they did not 
require or deserve support withdrew, and the idea of legal right ceasing, no cases 
but those of absolute necessity were left; but, 2d, and chiefly, that the sym- 
pathies of the poor themselves were thus called forth, and no one allowed his 
neighbour to starve so long as he could spare a morsel, and when he knew that 
neighbour was deprived of other resources on which he could depend. The 
poor, in short, helped each other through their difficulties when no one else would. 
The artificial channels of charity being closed, a more copious and more permanent 
supply flowed through the natural channels of relationship and vicinage. Such 
was the theory; the results were indisputable. The world was still sceptical, and 
two solutions were offered to account for the success of a scheme which would 
support poor people without poor-laws. It was said, in the first place, that the 
system was so hard upon the people that the poor were driven out of St John’s 
parish, and took refuge in other parishes, where more money was expended. It was 
said, in the second place, that the success was the consequence of Dr CHALMERS’ per- 
sonal influence and powers. That what he accomplished in St John’s, another man 
could not accomplish in St Luke’s; and that, with the man, the scheme would die 
out. To both of these objections an answer was ready. To the first objection it 
was declared, that the balance of migratory pauper population was fully in favour 
of St John’s; and, to come to greater exactness, it was stated that a correct ac- 
count was kept of poor leaving St John’s, and poor coming in to St John’s: the 
result was the imports exceeded the exports by fourteen souls. The exchange, in 
fact, was against them, and this they considered a conclusive answer to the charge 
of harsh treatment of paupers. To the second objection it was replied, that the 
system worked for many years after Dr Cuatmers’ departure from Glasgow, and 
succeeded also in other manufacturing parishes of Scotland where it was tried— 
the Gorbals of Glasgow and Langholm being cited as favourable examples. How 
it was that, in the face of an experiment apparently so successful, detailed by 
himself in evidence before a parliamentary Committee, a more stringent enactment 
of poor-laws for Scotland should have been made, and the system be adopted for 

