We also annex a list of those who entered their dissent, and have

Wednesday, May 26.—The Assembly took into consideration Mr. Kennedy's Bill respecting the Poor Laws in Scotland. After a good deal of discussion, in which the Rev. Dr. Duncan of Ruthwell, Dr.

Chalmers, Mr. N. Brown, Dr. Wilson, Dr. Inglis, and several others took a part, it was unanimously resolved to petition Parliament against the bill, as unnecessary and inexpedient.

*

added the name of Mr. John Archibald Murray, which was omitted by

mistake.

Dr. Duncan's speech we give entire, as being very excellent, and throwing much light on the subject.

Dr. Duncan, of Ruthwell, rose and said, The object of the measure against which my constituents have overtured this venerable Court is, entirely to put an end to the operations of the poor laws. The provisions of the bill, freed from technical language, are,-1st, That the ministers and elders shall have the uncontrolled power of administering the ordinary session funds, without the interference of the heritors or any judicatory, either by way of superintendence or otherwise. 2d, That, in parishes where no assessment is at present established, the poor shall have a right to receive aid from the ordinary session funds alone; but, that even for obtaining such aid, if refused, they shall have no right to prosecute the session before any court whatever, the deci sion of the ministers and elders being rendered exclusive of all other jurisdiction. 3d, That in parishes where assessments are at present levied, the poor inhabitants who now receive aid in this way shall con, tinue to be entitled so to receive it during their lives, according to their exigencies, the quarter sessions being invested with power to cause the heritors, along with the ministers, of such parishes, to meet and levy an assessment, but without any right to review their proceedings after they shall have met,

Such is a short but tolerably comprehensive sketch of the bill. Now, although I am by no means friendly to assessments, and think they can be safely regarded merely as a last expedient, to be resorted to only in cases of extreme necessity, yet I cannot but fear that, by this sweeping legislation, there would be the greatest danger of falling on Scylla in endeavouring to avoid Charybdis. With regard to the provision which would make the minister and elders the sole administrators of the session-funds, I do not object to the heritors being excluded from the

The Assembly then proceeded to the consideration of the petition and complaint of the Rev. Colin Fraser, minister of the

parish of Kiltarlity, against the Reverend James McPhail, James McLauchlan, Donald Fraser, and Alexander Clark, mi

power they at present possess, of voting along with the session in the distribution of these funds among the poor-a power which, indeed, they are wise or indolent enough seldom to exercise; but I do solemnly protest against committing the funds arising from accumulations or mortifications to their uncontrolled management. If there were to be no superintendence over them in the investment of such property, highly as I esteem their probity and disinterested benevolence, I am persuaded that they would in many instances go egregiously wrong. I do not entertain this opinion without good reason; for more than one instance of the maleadministration of the poor funds, even as the law now stands, has come under my own limited observation. In one parish, not far from my neighbourhood, the elders, taking advantage of the illness of their minister, which prevented him, for a number of years, from transacting business of any kind, thought proper to lend out the session-funds among themselves; by which transaction, a great part of the money belonging to the poor was lost. In another parish of Dumfries-shire, a still more glaring instance of mismanagement occurred. The minister being in want of money, persuaded the session to lend him £150 belonging to the poor. He died soon after insolvent, and the whole sum was found to be dissipated. Now, if such transactions, (and I fear they are not rare,) could take place when the heritors are constituent members of the court which manages the affairs of the poor, and have a direct interest in the proper investment of the funds, what wisdom would there be in removing the only check on the transactions of the session which the law recognizes, and in freeing that court from all control and all responsibility? The facts I have mentioned teach a practical lesson the very opposite of this; and I am convinced it would be well if the legislature, instead of removing, would render more efficient the power of the heritors over the permanent poor funds. The duty which, in my opinion, ought to belong to them is that of auditors of the session's accounts, and guarantees of all investments of their funds.

With regard to the provisions of the bill, by which the right of assessing the heritors would be entirely done away, ultimately in parishes where a poor rate is now established, and immediately in all other parishes, I have much to object to such a proposal. I do not deny that the law as it now stands might be improved. The power conferred on the poor themselves, of prosecuting the heritors and session for a maintenance, is certainly attended with many evils. It constitutes them to a certain extent, proprietors of the land, and by giving them a legal right to demand support, destroys the very idea of charity both in the giver and receiver. The one class are thus led to be clamorous, the other to be reluctant ; the one to complain of injustice, the other of ingratitude; and thus a breach is made between the rich and poor which cannot be healed; and, what is worse still, all those moral feelings-all those kindly affections— which are called forth on both sides, by the unconstrained beneficence of the rich towards the poor, are entirely destroyed. Nor does the evil end here. The reciprocal good offices between parent and child, arising from a consciousness of mutual dependence, on which rest many of the charities of domestic life among the lower orders, are most fearfully invaded by the right under consideration. When the law invites the poor to throw

misters and members of the Presbytery of Inverness. The parties were called in, when there appeared for the appellant, Patrick Robertson, Esq. advocate. The

four members of Presbytery appeared for themselves.

Mr. Fraser was proceeding to say, and to show that the cause had been irregularly

off the burden of supporting their relatives, it is scarcely to be expected that they will long retain virtue enough to resist the temptation:And then come all the vexations, and all the demoralizing influences of litigs. tion, urged on by pettifoggers of the law, and by radical agitators.

To remedy these evils Mr. Kennedy brings forward his bill, by which he proposes to level the whole fabric of the poor laws at one blow, and to leave the indigent without any provision, except such as may be found in charitable feeling and Christian benevolence. Now to this I greatly demur. It is true that my ingenious and excellent friend, Dr. Chalmers, has proved, in certain situations, the possibility-and, where it is possi ble, the propriety-of supporting the poor by private charity, although he has not yet shown, but time alone can do this-either how long the impulse his enthusiasm has given to the system will last, or how far that impulse is connected with the existence of the poor laws. But granting the permanent success of his plan in flourishing towns, and in the neighbourhood of opulent and benevolent families, who can be brought into contact with the poor by the influence of such a master mind, what is to become of the indigent in country parishes, where there are villages of the lower orders, and where the heritors are non-resident, or in towns where the poor bear a great proportion to the opulent? It is not pretended that the destruction of the poor laws will destroy poverty. Disease, and old age, and numerous families, whose only head is a widowed mother, or a bed-rid and helpless father, himself needing support, will still be found in as great abundance as ever. How then are these to be maintained? By casting them on the charity of their friends and neighbours? Yes, this is just as it should be, where friends and neighbours can be found rich enough and charitable enough to afford that maintenance. But highly as I admire the enlightened views which dictated the scheme, and the fervent mind which implicitly relies on the generosity of public feeling for its accomplishment, when I look over the face of the country I dare not hazard the same conclusion. I know something of the pressure of indigence as it exists in various parts of the country, even at present. where no poor rate indeed exists, but where the fear of assessment acts as a salutary stimulus to open reluctant purses,—and I really tremble to think what the consequences might be if that stimulus were removed.

Want, in order to excite the sympathetic feelings, and to call forth charitable exertions, must not only be known to exist as a general fact, but must be brought home to the heart by actual observation. Men do not commonly put their hands very deeply into their pockets for purposes of charity, unless they come in actual contact with objects of compassion. You will order your servant to drive the beggar from your gate on account of theory, and yet you will, in spite of all previous resolutions to the contrary, thrust half-a-crown into the hand of a tattered and starving wretch who crosses your path. Now, the rich are just in such a situation as yours, when the gate happens to be between you and the miserable mendicant. They seldom come in contact with objects of compassion. The poor are placed at too great a distance below them to approach their sphere of observation; and hence it happens that so little, comparatively, is done for the indigent by that

class of society, while so much is done for them by those who are themselves nearly in the same rank of life with the poor they relieve.

There can be no doubt, then, that to annul altogether the law rela❤ tive to assessment, would just be to throw the burden of supporting the needy from the shoulders of the rich upon those of the middle and lower classes. I know enough of the sentiments of the landed proprietors, and I speak of them with all deference and respect as an enlight ened and liberal class of men,—but as men actuated by the common feelings of our fallen nature, to be convinced that the relief which ma ny of them now give is extorted from them by the fear of assessment, and that if this fear were once removed, the parishes where there are no residing heritors would just be left to shift for themselves, with the burden of a more rapidly increasing, and, therefore, a more starving population. I say a more rapidly increasing population; for it must be remarked, that the poor inhabitants of the country are at present kept in check by the unwillingness which proprietors feel to build cottages, the inmates of which may, in their old age, or in sickness, be the means of bringing an assessment on the parish, or of swelling its amount where already established. Mr. Kennedy's bill would entirely remove this check, and the temptation of obtaining an additional rental might then induce these very men to give imprudent facilities to the increase of the poor population, by parcelling out their land, and erecting huts wherever they could find tenants. So that if at present the rage for pulling down cottages is severely felt by the poor as oppressive, the community would soon suffer under a contrary extreme; and the curse of Ireland would be realised in Scotland.

Here, then, is a dilemma; and if there were no middle course to be pursued, it might be a matter of serious consideration to which class of evils it would be most expedient to submit; whether to retain the poor laws, with all their demoralising tendencies, or by rejecting them at once, to leave the needy to be starved; or, at all events, to allow the country to be overrun with wretched vagrants and sorners. But there is a middle course, and I shall just mention it, as a scheme which well deserves the public attention, without stopping at present to discuss the subject. The plan I have in view is, to deprive the poor of all right to prosecute for a maintenance, leaving the kirk-session and heritors, at certain stated meetings, to judge of the aid their circumstances might require. But as, for obvious reasons, it would be quite inexpedient that the poor should be left entirely at the mercy of the majority of a court so constituted, I would propose, instead of the power of prosecuting, now vested in the poor themselves, to give to every individual member of the court, who should think that the poor were improperly dealt with, a right of complaint to a higher judicatory, say the Sheriff of the county, or the Lord Ordinary, or what perhaps would be better than either, to the Justiciary Court in its half-yearly circuit, whose decision should be final, and before whom both the complainer and his opponents should have a right to plead in forma pauperis, and to be heard summarily on mutual memorials. To prevent improper litigation, I would also propose, that it should not be competent to prosecute any complaint without a formal decreet of the Presbytery of the bounds in