their theories. The facts here stated are clear, decisive, and irrefragable; and it is astonishing how those enlightened men, who have so long and so zealously trumpeted forth the supposed unavoidable evils of this system, should be so blind to their force as not to seek some other cause to account for its oppressive results.
It is believed that the poor are supported in Scotland by voluntary subscriptions, and that assessments for the support of the poor, and mendicity, are unknown. Both assertions appear to be egregiously erroneous, as may be seen by the annexed extracts. But even were they literally correct, it does not thence follow that the same reasoning would apply in England. The Scotch are a peculiar people. They are brought up with more advantages than most other people in Europe; their education is better attended to; their habits are more orderly. But with all these advantages, which are immensely valuable, they are obliged to have recourse to assessments for the support of the poor; and are moreover plagued with the heavy curse of mendicity.
"If the case of the poor in Scotland and Ireland be produced as a proof, that leaving them to private charity would have a better effect than the rates of England, the answer is obvious—that in Scotland they are not left to private charity in their principal cities, but are admitted to a provision out of the funds of the general session of those cities."—Ruggles's History of the Poor, vol. ii. p. 78.
"Notwithstanding all the eulogiums which have been passed on the manner in which the poor of Scotland are maintained, we find, that even at this moment, vagrant mendicity is nearly universal in that country. Scotland possesses a series of very severe laws for the suppression of vagrancy; and resolutions have been recently entered into, by more than one county, to carry their provisions into effect."—Q. R. vol. xxxviii. p. 74.
"But these resolutions have hitherto proved unavailing, in consequence of the extreme humanity of parishioners, who cannot resist listening to the plea of apparent distress, and bestowing alms. It is indeed computed that the stranger poor carry away, in the shape of alms, from the parish, more in value each year than would support comfortably the whole poor on the parish-roll: and a general belief prevails, that the practice is attended with many most hurtful effects, both to the best interests of the public, and to the morals of the mendicant. They (i.e. the Committee of the Assembly) consider begging as a violation of the whole provision, purposes, and spirit of our poor-laws; as a heavy loss to the community, of productive labour, from the wandering and idle habits of beggary; as encouraging the vices of those who are professionally pilfering vagrants; and as habituating, generally, the pauper to duplicity, falsehood, improvidence, and dissipation."—Minutes and Report of the Committee of the General Assembly, 1818, p. 14.
But even if sufficient sums could be raised by voluntary contributions, there would be strong objections to this mode, as the burden would fall very unequally.
"By statutory provision the burden is equally laid upon persons of property, according to "their ability; while in voluntary contributions, the richest are not always found the most charitable."—Q. R. vol. xxviii. p. 354.
Philadelphia, July 16, 1833.
ESSAY XI.
It now remains to consider the case of those countries where there are no taxes raised for the support of the poor, whose support is extorted by mendicity, and how far the plan of tolerating that abominable nuisance as a substitute, recommended by the Edinburgh Review, would be preferable to a statutory provision. This comparison affords the best, indeed the only correct criterion of the merits of the respective modes of providing for the poor.
In a publication issued at Paris about the close of the last century, say 1795, the latest account I have been able to procure, it is stated that there were then in that country 300,000 able-bodied beggars, who occasioned a loss
