charity, and what then? why, that wholesale charity,-charity that may be known and calculated upon as a regular source of revenue, is an evil, and not a good. We wish to see the peasant carry himself in perfect independence; but this can never be under a system of eleemosynary parochial allotments. What is done as a donation of private charity is another matter, and much, we admit, may be so done with advantage: and even parish allotments of land are better than paying money; for something at least of food is raised, though the labour is still comparatively unproductive; but the system, it is clear, can never pay its own expenses, and it is vitiated with all the evils attached to poor laws, which may be palliated for a time, but cannot be cured.

But may not cottage-allotments often be palliatives? Yes; undoubtedly : and so far we highly value, and would cordially recommend them; and the whole discrepancy which may appear in our statements, relates mainly to the distinction between what may be proper to be experimented upon as a matter of local arrangement, and what is to be viewed as a sound measure of national policy. It is because some of our philanthropists are urging home colonization, cottage-allotments, and, what is familiarly called the "pig-andcow system," as a panacea, and not as an occasional palliative, that we have felt it a duty to expose the fallacy. Why, it is asked, should any person be unemployed, or bread be scarce, when we have untilled land far more than enough to maintain them all in comfort? Now if our legislators were to trust to such a resource, they would trust to what would inevitably fail them. There is no getting over the broad fact that if these lands would pay for cultivation-that is, as a matter of business and not of mere charity-they would be cultivated; landlords would gladly lease, and farmers gladly rent them. Why then are they not under cultivation? The friends of home colonies never attempt to answer this argument; they never argue the matter on the large induction of political economy; they do not grapple with the arguments of a Chalmers: but they urge a few insulated facts; they appeal to the feelings, and ask whether it is right to let persons starve when there is plenty of productive land to support them, and nothing wanting but the spade and home colonization to elevate them into comfort? Certainly not; but this begs the question; and the reply is, that upon a large scale such a system will not increase the comforts of the poor, but the contrary. Men work most productively at their own business, and ought not without necessity to be made to work out of it. If farming will not occupy all our peasantry, a portion of them, or rather, of their children, must of necessity turn their industry into some other channel. If the restrictions on the importation of corn were abolished, greater numbers would find relief in manufactures; and if pauperism were abolished, many would migrate to places where agricultural labour is in demand ships, colonies, and commerce, would take off others; and wherever home colonization and spade husbandry were really profitable, these also, without any interference, would find their share of competitors. But not so while we tamper with legislation; while we tie a man to a spot where his labour is not in demand, by allowing him parochial aid which he could not get elsewhere. Even the well-meant cottageallotment may be a bribe to many a family to stay, when the whole course of affairs says, Depart. But is such an effect ultimately, and on a large scale, a benefit? We say decidedly, no: the allotment has in this case perpetuated local scarcity and misery; whereas, the voice of wisdom and experience, if left to itself, would have prompted the fathers and mothers to look out for more productive employment elsewhere for their children; just as the sons of the middle and higher classes are obliged to seek appointments in the colonies, or scattered posts all over their native land, so that few live

and die in their natal parish. This is often a hardship; but it is a hardship that arises from the existing order of things, and laws cannot mend it. The parish thus relieved by ships, colonies, and manufactures, would be far better off than if the bonus of poor's rates or allotments had kept the people from migrating. If indeed the allotments can really be made a productive bread manufacture, they are more eligible than other manufactures; but not if they are obliged to be eked out by charity, under the name of low rent; or if they can only be rendered productive in that most unproductive of all ways, by making the labourer work beyond the fair number of hours that upon the average of life is found the just maximum. Where there are more persons in a parish than the farmers' demand for labour will maintain in comfort, and upon the supposition that none are to leave it for employment elsewhere, cottage-allotments deserve all that is said in their favour, for a fragment of bread is better than starving; but if the superfluous part of the population are thus kept penned up instead of dispersing, the evil is only increased by a tantalizing remedy.

One of our correspondents intimates, that Dr. Chalmers is not acquainted with the habits of the English poor. We heed not whether he is or not; and we had almost said, that ignorance is better than knowledge; that is, than the partial knowledge of what are called practical men. Private charity must be regulated by details; but legislation must grasp principles ; and it is precisely because persons rely on their knowledge of what takes place in a particular instance, that they often impede the course of impartial and enlightened measures. If Dr. Chalmers had never practically seen the workings of the poor laws in England, (though it is well known that he has examined into them more accurately than probably any other man living;) yet if he knew the principles which regulate all human nature, he would be better able to legislate in this matter, than if he had been a mere observer of local details. Sir Isaac Newton had never measured a degree at the poles or the equator, and yet his fire-side philosophy told him that the earth was not a sphere. Practical navigators might have laughed at his conclusions, but facts proved the truth of his theory. We are no admirers of all Dr. Chalmers's views of political economy; some of them are, to our minds, quite fallacious: but his workings out from the principles of human nature as to what must necessarily be the evils of poor laws, under whatever name of pauperism, and whether by allotments of land or in money, are irrefragable; and clearly does he prove that there is but one way really to improve the condition of masses of human beings, namely, to elevate their character.

A pamphlet has been sent us, entitled, "Facts and Illustrations, demonstrating the important Benefits to be derived by Labourers from possessing small Portions of Land; published by the Labourer's Friend Society." We know nothing of such a society, nor are any names annexed to the paper; but as a specimen of the "facts and illustrations," we quote the following, which is adduced to shew "the value of land to the cottager." It is said that at Burnham, in Norfolk, "A man with six children hires two acres of poor land at about thirty shillings per acre, more than half a mile from his house; and after his day's labour is done for his master, he goes with his wife and little family to weed and till his land.” Of this family, and another somewhat similarly circumstanced, these friends of labourers' allotments add: "These two of the largest families we have in the parish, are honest independent parishioners, earning their fifteen shillings a week at labour; and with their cow, are the happiest two families in the parish." And so enamoured are these labourers' friends of the spectacle, that they exclaim: "It will be our duty to trace the source of evils, which, in driving Englishmen to despair, have been

sapping the foundation of our prosperity; and then point to the required remedy. In this melancholy catalogue of causes, besides the gross inadequacy of their wages, the progress of taxation upon the necessaries of life; the demolition of small farms; the discontinuance of yearly servants in husbandry; and, above all, the loss of the privilege of common, and of those small portions of land, which so eminently contributed to the labourer's resource, have been proved to be the most important. Taking therefore our stand amidst these ruins of humanity; surveying the deserted farm-house and desolated cottage, we exclaim, All this must be restored.' Yes! The labourer's habitation must re-appear! his overwhelmed prospects revive!"

We feel it impossible to reason with kind well-meaning people who write thus. The happiness of the above two "happiest families in the parish" springs from their own industrious, well-ordered, provident, and, we would hope, religious conduct; and if they work in the evening upon their grounds while many of their neighbours are at the beer-shops, we should say, Doubly happy are they; for much as we dread and deprecate the so much lauded system, but which appears to us cruel, degrading, and ultimately destructive to human life and mental and moral improvement, of labourers having to drag themselves, often wet, benumbed, and weary, a mile, spade in hand, after their daily toil, to begin anew their labours when they ought to be resting their limbs, and recruiting their strength and spirits in family intercourse and the various domestic businesses and duties of the cottage; we should yet infinitely prefer even this to the immorality and mental and bodily exhaustion of the ale-house or dramshop for the most severe bodily toil is not so destructive to health-to say nothing of morals-as the habits of a village pot-house. But in other respects the system is most baneful. The spectacle which so much delights these labourers' friends delights not us. In the case indeed of two picked families of peculiarly strong physical health and good habits, it may happen to present a superficially pleasing picture; and most delightful certainly it is to witness such instances of industry and high and honourable feeling among our too much degraded peasantry. But, as a system, it is as far as possible from being gratifying to a philanthropic mind. Farmer's work is calculated by experiment at the ordinary average of physical endurance; and extra toil must be, in the end, ruinous both to the body and the mind. These two worthy villagers may bear up for a time; and, for aught we know to the contrary, may even screw out a few hours for their children to attend the village school, and also themselves rest from bodily exertion on the Sunday: and if they do so, this will greatly miti gate the evil; but as a system, we repeat, and taking the average of human beings, nothing is more calculated to keep our peasantry in a state of utter barbarism. These two villagers, with such habits, if they were to settle on one of the locations in our colonies, would with half their present toil and care soon become substantial farmers, be able to afford their children a good education, and see them grow up healthy and happy; and in their old age would have a comfortable retreat, instead of going to the parish, as they now too probably must, when over work and anxiety have rendered them incapable of further toil. Or even without migrating, if these poor men, instead of seeking cottage allotments for their children, could, under a more equal free-trade system, find employment for several of them in other occupations, the agricultural labour market would be lightened; and if the same took place throughout the country, the labourer's wages would rise to a fair maintenance. But not so, if, instead of getting rid of the evil, we suffer ourselves to be blinded by charitable allotments of land and other palliatives, which, however specious or locally useful, must, on a large CHRIST. OBSERV. App.

5 R

scale, prove utterly deceptive. The two families above alluded to, be it remembered, rent their land (poor land at thirty shillings, the full value), and therefore are not examples, but the contrary, of the effect of charitable allotments. They may hold their head as high as any man in the parish ; but they know not that they are the victims of the poor laws, though they do not avail themselves of their benefits; and that, were these cruel laws abolished, and the restrictions on commerce removed, their wages would rise, and they would have no need to toil beyond the fair average of farming labour. All this is demonstrable; but labourers' friends, like other men's friends, often do not or cannot understand the whole of a question, and there. fore injure the parties they mean to serve. The writers of the tract before us take their stand on the system that prevailed a century ago, and wish its restoration. If, instead of uttering well-meant declamation, they would weigh facts, not a few insulated facts but the large statistics of a kingdom, they would see every one of their positions to be unfounded. Never was there so much food raised in England as of late years, and under the present system; never were there so many labourers employed; never was there the same amount of wages expended among them; never was there the same number of comfortable dwellings: but if the land has not stretched while the mouths have multiplied, there must of necessity be much privation; and had it not been for the reprobated modern improvements, the present amount of our population could not be sustained. If "all was restored ” to the system which prevailed a century ago, millions of our present population must starve. It was the demand for more food that suggested the improvements complained of; and if far more food, as is not denied, is produced by the system of large farms than of small farms and cottage allotments, then more human beings are fed, and there is more to expend in clothes and houses. These things are demonstrable; but some persons will not open their eyes to large facts and inductions; but upon the strength of a few popular notions, come to conclusions by which they would unconsciously starve thousands under the idea of bettering the condition of tens. They would bring us back as far as practicable to the barbarism of former ages, and, with the best intention possible, reduce the labourer to a serf, instead of elevating him to the rank of a man and a Christian. If, instead of making a forced demand for labour by going back to the spade instead of using the plough, we could get corn grown by a steam-engine without any labour at all, it would be so much the better; and the next generation would be far less worked and far better paid than the present; and there would be some hope of a larger share than at present of civilization, and mental and religious instruction. Labourers, and some who ought to know better, may be carried away with such declamation as the above; but theory and fact both speak the opposite language. It were well if all our clergy took the pains to look into the real bearings of these questions. They might do much to prevent injudicious interference.

It is sometimes objected to the preceding views, that we make religion every thing, as if Christianity were meat and drink and fuel and clothing. We believe that it is all these, and that it has the promise of the life which now is as well as of that which is to come. But this is not our argument; we would exclude no improvement, no relief, however partial, no palliation; we would urge manufactures, free trade, emigration, and every other lawful means of procuring a livelihood, not excluding spade husbandry and cottage allotments, so far as we believe them to be really advantageous; but what we mean is, that no implements merely economical can penetrate to the root of the evil; and that while we employ every lenitive, our great hope must be in improving the moral and religious character of the people, so as to render them more thoughtful, provident, and intelligent. This may be effected

in two ways; by diminishing the sources of evil, and by opening sources of good. The poor laws we believe to be one of the chief of the sources of evil; and all charity that resembles them in principle, that makes the poor man systematically look up to the rich for help, instead of helping himself, we consider to be correspondingly deleterious in its effects. If cottage allotments are conferred upon principles of honourable independence, they do not come under this objection; but if they are only a modified species of pauperism, and are held, not of right for value paid, but of the rich man's courtesy, they partake of the same degrading character; and it is the labourer's poverty, not his will, that makes him accept the boon. There are many other sources of evil also which require to be removed; and every thing is a source of evil that prevents any man earning an honest maintenance. Our restrictions upon the importation of food are in this view a fearful source of evil. "Why do you factory people work your infant labourers so cruelly?" "Because, sir, owing to the restrictions upon the importation of corn, we are obliged to make more cloth to purchase a loaf than we should need to do if we could get the loaf as cheaply as our foreign friends could supply it. I give that group of children equal to so many loaves for twelve hours' labour; but if Mr. Sadler will get the restrictions upon corn abolished, so that bread shall fall twenty-five per cent. I could give them the same quantity for nine hours." What could be replied to this, except that poor laws, restriction laws, and other interested* intermeddlings of legislation, have done injury upon a large scale which no counter intermeddlings upon a small scale can remedy. It is not cottage allotments, but large and wise measures of legislation, rather in the shape of undoing than doing, that are wanted.

Our correspondent admits that he would not recommend cottage allotments as a legislative measure, but only as a system of privilege. We here come to nearly the same conclusion; for it was as a legislative enactment, on a national scale, that we urged our objections. Private bounty did not come directly within our purview. Of this we only say that we wish to see our labourers above it; and that if their richer neighbours desire really to benefit them, they ought not to interfere with their independence, but teach them to govern themselves by principle. Many of the tracts written for the poor are actually insulting, and the poor feel them to be so. Nothing can be expected to influence them aright that addresses them in such a manner as to make them feel that they are patronized, or that diminishes their self-respect.

So much for drying up the sources of evil. But this would be little, without also opening sources of good. Of these, incomparably the most important is, the Christian ministry, and the pastoral exertions of a faithful and zealous clergyman. Large parishes must be divided into manageable masses; every parish must have a resident minister; the whole population must come under assiduous scriptural instruction, and must early learn the duties and the decencies of life; and unlearn the present degrading habit of looking to the hand of charity, instead of depending, under the blessing of Providence, upon their own exertions; and these exertions would not be so often in vain as they now are, if the causes which unsettle the population and throw masses of labourers out of work, were diminished by a judicious revision of our legislative and political regulations.

The poor laws were interested: they were first imposed, because lay impropriators and other peculators made a scramble for the lands by which the monasteries used to relieve the poor, so that the people complained of the Reformation. The Reformation was not in fault, but the harpies who robbed both the poor and the church. Our church rues it to this hour.