two paupers. Can any thing afford a more incontestable proof of the destructive effects arising out of a state of dependence from the poor looking to any means of support besides those arising from their own industry, prudence and forethought? I might rest the whole argument on the propriety of destroying the poor laws, on this singular instance of the baneful effects of the laboring poor transferring the care of providing for themselves to others. So destructive is the principle that it operates an entire change in the national character.
I beg to call to the recollection of the House a petition which I had the honor of presenting from the rope-makers at Chatham, complaining that the superannuation pension of from 15 to 20 pounds per annum was inadequate to their support, and did not prevent their often becoming chargeable to the parish. This is a further proof of the consequences of transferring to others the care of our own concerns. Reliance on these funds destroys that prudent forethought that can alone keep the lower orders from a state of dependence.
To the fostering care and attention of a right honorable gentleman (I mean Mr. Rose) in the establishment of Friendly Societies much praise is due. I am sensible they have been of great national service. At the same time it must be admitted that the system is liable to great objections. In the first place the relief they afford is in very many cases inadequate to the necessities of the party, and compels a recourse to parochial assistance, which is destructive of the first and most important principle. The loss of time and consequent expence attending these establishments are serious objections: where the payment of every member is alike, it is in vain they can be expected to consent the allowances should be proportioned to the individual wants of the party. The present moment outweighs all considerations for the future. I have often attempted the application of the
