discovered the matter, and, having prepared himself for the inter view, waited upon the Judge, to whom he submitted the following problem: "Supposing I were to take it into my head to chastise a fellow who has certainly used me very ill, how much must I pay you to enjoy this satisfaction with impunity?" The price was settled, and not only paid, but the Judge gave him a memorandum under his hand. This being done, the applicant put it into his pocket, and immediately exclaiming "You are the man!" gave the Judge, in his turn, a most severe flogging.

On the Management of Workhouses.

To the EDITOR of THE PHILANTHROPIST.
SIR,

THE object of your interesting publication being to promote the

improvement in conduct, and enjoyment of mankind, especially of those of the lowest and most neglected classes, I am induced to offer my sentiments through this channel on a subject that has long engaged my attention. I shall not enter into the inquiry whether it is best to provide for the poor in workhouses, or to assist them in their own houses; though I fully believe the latter is most œconomical for the public, and beneficial to the individual. Whilst workhouses continue to be the established mode of supporting those that cannot maintain themselves, it is very essential to the happiness of that unfortunate class, that the internal management of such houses should be regulated on the principles of tenderness and sympathy, especially towards women and children; for workhouses are not to be considered as a place of punishment for the idle, but as asylums for the helpless and the aged, who have exhausted their strength in laborious exertions, without having been able to lay by sufficient for a support when they are no longer able to work; and consequently every provision should be made for their comfort and accommodation consistent with the strict œconomy that the nature of the institution requires. This principle being admitted, the farming system is entirely out of the question. The next general plan is that of consigning the poor in the workhouse to the care of a master and mistress, under the inspection of a committee who are mostly gentlemen or farmers in the neighbourhood: to these, I think, should be added two or three, at least, respectable female inhabitants, because it must be allowed that women only can be qua◄

Efied to judge of the minutiae of domestic regulations, and so to order them as to conduce, at the same time, to the greatest œconomy, health, and comfort, as far as relates to the attention due to the women and children. The superior judgement, tenderness, delicacy, and sympathy of the female sex are indisputable, and in every respect peculiarly adapted to the wants of the helpless states of infancy and declining age. In a point of view still more important, I believe the addition of female visitors would be eminently useful. I refer to the morals of the women and children: the education of the young is their peculiar province; and the numerous schools assiduously and successfully attended by ladies, are almost a proof that there would be no difficulty in persuading them to undertake the superintendance of this branch of the parish establishment,--There is another class of innates in a workhouse to whom the kind offices of judicious women are most proper, and particularly useful; the persons to whom I al-, lude are those unfortunate girls, who, either through ignorant thoughtlessness, want of early instruction in the principles of religion, or exposure to temptation, have been seduced from the path of virtue, and expiate their first transgression by the disgrace of retiring on this occasion into a workhouse, where it may justly be feared that they seldom improve their moral habits: but the admonitions and counsel of a matron of superior rank and intelligence, who interested herself in reclaiming such delinquents, might have the happiest effects, and prevent many from sinking into utter ruin. On the other hand it can hardly be doubted that these acts of mercy would redound to the advantage of those that perform thei: what a satisfaction would it be to reflect on time so well spent, and perhaps, we may say, gained from trifling occupations! In every light that I have viewed this subject, and the longer I consider it, the more I am convinced that the general adoption of female inspectors to superintend the internal management of workhouses, would be highly beneficial to the poor, to themselves, and to the community. P. W.

SIR,

Correspondence.

To the EDITOR of THE PHILANTHROPIST.

WILL you permit a friend to give you, I know not whether I ought to call it, adv ce or information? It refers to the mode in

VOL. III.

M

which you sometimes find fault with what is evil. I think it may be of use to you, and when I say you, I mean the great objects which you have in view, if I inform you plainly what some people say of you. I mix not a little with that description of persons who, I suppose, form the great class of your readers, and, by consequence, have an opportunity of hearing what few may tell to yourself.

With regard to the degree of talent displayed by your work, it is neither my intention to offer you any compliments, nor to make any complaints. That is not the feature of the work to which I am alluding.

Neither have I any objections, either my own or other people's, to offer upon the objects of your censure. I have not heard any body say that your censure has ever fallen upon a wrong place. But some persons say that you censure too strongly, and too frequently. This I tell you for your information. It is for you to make your own use of it. I have even known one or two persons give up the journal, because it too often brings forward subjects of blame, and speaks of them too harshly,

That you may think the better of my advice, I will go on to tell you what is my own opinion of the objections which I have now reported to you. I think them wrong; and I combat them wherever I meet with them. I endeavour strenuously to beat down their influence in the circle in which I move; and I strongly recommend the same course to all the stronger-minded among your readers throughout the country. If every man who is aware of the utility of strong representation to make an impression upon the apathy of ordinary humanity, would endeavour to make that utility apparent to the persons with whom he associates, we should soon be able to bear still stronger writing than yours. I will give you a specimen of the manner in which I deal with the class of objectors to whom I have been prompted to call your attention, which may serve, if you think proper to insert it, as an example and encouragement to others.

I ask them how evil is ever to be cured, except by making it known?

The object of THE PHILANTHROPIST being to promote the happiness of mankind, and particularly of our own countrymen, as far as by writing it is in its power to promote it, is there any way of doing this, except by endeavouring to remove the obstructions to it? The laws established by the benevolent Author of the universe have laid the foundation for human happiness; and it is sure to go on, upon the principle of those laws, when their action is not disturbed by human hindrances. These hindrances

are the only cause why human kind are not as happy as the con→ stitution of the universe permits. It is in strictness, therefore, the sole business of the philanthropist, of the man who takes the promotion of human happiness upon the great scale for his ob-. ject, to remove obstructions, to point out hindrances. But pointing out hindrances to good is finding fault, is censuring. Pointing them out clearly, and calling strongly upon nien to at. tend to them, is censuring severely. But this really does appear to be the most important service to humanity which the philan, thropist can perform. Debar the philanthropic writer from pointing out the obstructions to human happiness, and we put an end to his usefulness at one stroke. He cannot add to the laws of nature. He cannot open up any source of happiness which the Author of nature has not provided. All that can be done, is to remove the circumstances which prevent these laws from producing their proper effect. The business of the wise man is to find out these circumstances: the business of the philanthropic writer is to make them known; and to exert all the powers of.. persuasion of which he is master, to get as many of his fellow creatures as possible to join their endeavours for the removal of them! A dark ..

In removing the hindrances or the obstructions to human happiness, the philanthropist has to deal not merely with the class of things, but also with the class of persons. The hindrances or obstructions to human happiness, or at least one great class of them, are properly termed abuses. Now abuses are things of this nature, that they almost always are advantageous to some individuals. These individuals are therefore engaged by interest to protect them. It is also of the nature of interest to blind the understanding. Whence it happens that many of the persons for whose profit the abuses exist cannot be persuaded that they are abuses; and endeavour with all their might to convince as many more people as possible that they are not abuses. To these are added a class of far more culpable individuals, who, profiting by abuses, are fully aware that they are so; but who yet endeavour to protect such abuses. The chief mode of protection is by spreading delusion, and making the people as generally as possible believe that they are not abuses, or, if hindrances, such as are not capable of being removed. To these two classes of the protectors of abuses are to be added all those whom the beforementioned parties are able to persuade, and to make proselytes of, though they themselves have no share in the profits of the. abuses, and have no further any friendship for the abuses than as they are deceived.

These, then, are three grand classes of the protectors of

abuses, who, when joined together, form in almost all countries a very great body. In our own country they form a very great and powerful one.

Now among the means which this party employ for the protection of the abuses, one, and that not one of the least successful; is to decry all those who point them out. They ascribe to them all manner of bad motives and designs. To point out an abuse, is, according to them, to disturb the peace of the country. To exhort people to do what they can towards removing the things which obstruct the augmentation of human happiness, is to be an innovator, a perturbator, or any other name to which odium is attached, no matter whether applicable or not.

Among other things, it is a grand artifice of this body to raise dislike against all censure of existing institutions. A great part of existing institutions are things partly good, partly bad. Al attempts, however, to separate the good parts from the bad, to get rid of the one, and to preserve and augment the other, are represented as attacks upon the institutions themselves. This they are, no doubt, in the one sense of the word-to cut out a cancer is an attack upon the body-but they are the very reverse in the other. To cut out a cancer is an attack upon the body, not for its evil, but its good. Under this ambiguity, however, many people deceive themselves, and many are very successful in deceiving others. And hence that service which, beyond all others, is of most efficacy towards procuring the good of the institutions, is reprobated as what is calculated to put an end to the good of them.

It is then abundantly evident, that, to be of any use, the philanthropic writer must do two things:-He must endeavour to point out as clearly and satisfactorily as possible, the things which obstruct the progress of human happiness and create or continue misery. And he must lessen the authority of those persons who labour to preserve those causes of evil.

But if any man reflects but for a moment, he will perceive that both these parts of the task of philanthropy are at bottom nothing but censure; and are impossible to be performed without it. To find fault with censure, therefore, is in reality to find fault with the work of philanthropy.

It is only when things are wrong that the philanthropic writer can do any good by writing at all. When things are well,merely to praise them, is so much time employed to no purpose-unless where you praise them as an example to others. But in that case, you censure the things in contrast with which, and the persons to the shame of whom, you hold up the condemnatory example. In the very same proportion as you praise