From Francis Maseres
ALS: American Philosophical Society
Inner temple, June 17, 1772
Sir,
I am much obliged to you for the favour of your
letter and the remarks on my proposal, concerning which this is
what I have to say.
In page 46, I think it unnecessary, and rather
inconvenient, to limit the expence of these grants in the act of
parliament itself. I hope it will be as small as possible, and mean
that these grants should be printed with blanks in the manner you
propose, and for that reason I inserted the form of the grant.
In page 48; I believe it would be best to keep
the parish-book in the church, and suppose it will be kept there.
But think it unnecissary to prescribe it positively, as it may
happen in some parishes that they keep their registers in some
other place made on purpose, and still more convenient than the
church: so that this must be left to their discretion.
In page 51. I was inclined to make these
annuities unalienable, as you propose, and as the Chelsea pensions
to old soldiers are and for the reasons you assign. But some
gentlemen of the house of commons who met at Sir George Saville’s
house to consider this plan, were of a different opinion;
particularly Mr. Burke and Mr. Dowdeswell, who alledged that it
would be unjust to hinder a man from selling an annuity which he
had fairly bought for it’s full price, and that it would be a
strange thing that a man should go to jail for debt, as might be
the case, when he was possessed of an annuity of his own
purchasing, by the sale of which he might preserve his liberty. But
they directed that the method of assigning it should be pretty
formal, as you see, in order to hinder the poor men from selling
their annuities for a trifle in fit of drunkenness or folly. And
upon the whole I accede to this opinion. But whether I did or no,
the directions to me were positive to make it in this manner.
In page 56. The reason of the forfeiture is to
make people diligent in demanding and receiving their annuities,
whereby the knowledge of them will be continually kept up in the
parishes that pay the annuities, and it will be difficult for
strangers to personate them and claim the annuities in their stead
either during their (the annuitants) lives or after their deaths,
which might perhaps happen now and then if an annuitant was
permitted to claim the arrears of his annuity after a neglect of
demanding it for eight or ten years.
In page 59. The power of Attorney here
mentioned certainly does hazard in the hands of one person the
whole stock of the parish. But this is not of necessity. The
managers of the parish-fund may, if they please, give their power
of attorney to ten persons jointly, if they think proper. ’Tis not
therefore the law, but their own choice, that will ever hazard it
in the hands of one: and if they chuse to do so, we may suppose
that he will be some person worthy of that trust. In general, I
suppose, the person so impowered will be some Stock broker, or
brokers in partnership with each other, or some banker or bankers,
all of whom are every day trusted with more money than any parish
will ever probably be possessed of in consequence of these
contributions. In truth the main difficulty of the Scheme lies here
in getting proper people to manage the fund, which will require a
constant open account consisting of many and small articles, and
frequent purchases of Stock in the bank annuities with the small
sums contributed by the purchasers of life-annuities, and a sale of
some of the parish-stock in those annuities four times a year, to
make the quarterly payments to the annuitants. However I hope this
difficulty will be found to be not insuportable. And the poor men
who shall buy these annuities will in all events be sure of
receiving them, because of the collateral security given them upon
the poor rates of the parishes. Thus much for this proposal. As to
the Dutch scheme, I think it obviously useful. Indeed it seems to
be no more than what we see often in England by the name of
Alms-houses; but perhaps it is more Judiciously executed. However,
in general the poor of England are observed to hate confinement,
though they have ever so good food and lodging. They like rather to
live at large amongst their children and relations and friends. And
certainly those charitable institutions best deserve the name of
charitable, which gratify the objects of them in the manner they
best like. Therefore I approve most those proposals which leave the
poor at liberty to live where they please, and assist them by small
donations of a shilling or eighteen pence a week, or so much for
each Child in their family. I remain your most Obedient and humble
servant,
p.s. I desire your acceptance of the copy I
herewith send you of a draught of an act of parliament for settling
the Laws of Quebec. It has cost me a good deal of time and pains,
and has been prepared merely of my own accord, without directions
from any body to do so, in order to expedite the Settlement of that
province, concerning which the king’s advocate, attorney, and
Sollicitor-general, who were ordered this time last year by the
king in council to prepare a plan of laws criminal and civil for
the use of that province, have not yet made their report. I have no
reason to flatter myself that this draught of mine will be brought
into parliament nor do I know any thing to the contrary of it. But
every thing relating to that province seems to be in suspense: and
nobody knows what to expect. I have read with pleasure your letter
in the London packet signed A New-England man. I wish you would
publish it in the London Evening, or St. James’s Chronicle or the
public advertiser. 2d p.s. Upon looking
over your letter again, I perceive you dwell very much upon the
Dutch scheme, as what you would gladly see introduced here. I will
therefore say a word or two more about it. It is perfectly
consistent with my proposal, and therefore excites no Jealousy in
me from an attachment to my own scheme. But it would require a
large sum of money, perhaps £10,000, to build such a county
hospital as you describe. And how is this to be raised? would you
wait till the contributions of the purchasers of a provision in
this house should be sufficient to build it? this would be waiting
for ever, I believe: and no one would contribute till the house was
built, and compleatly fitted for the reception of its intended
inhabitants. But if the house is once built, whether by charitable
donations, or public money levied upon the county, I think it would
be a very useful institution to permit poor people to purchase a
right of living in it, and being supported by the revenue of it:
and in this case their contribution-money should be laid out in the
public fund (as well as in my scheme) in order to produce the
revenue whereby they should be supported in this house, and the
house itself kept in repair. However upon the whole i think my
annuity-scheme more practicable and better suited to the lower sort
of people, who are most likely to come upon the parish. But I think
the principle upon which both are founded, namely, that of
affording industrious people an opportunity of laying out the money
they can save in their youth in the purchase of a provision for
their old age, may be applied in many other instances; and I should
be glad to see it so applied. For example, each of the trading, or
handicraft companies in London such as the Skinners, the dyers, the
goldsmiths, and so on, (they being, as I take it, corporations)
might receive the money of their own separate members in the same
manner as the parishes do that of their inhabitants by my scheme,
and might grant them equivalent annuities for their lives, not
limited to £20 a year, but reaching as far as £100 a year, which
would be an encouragement to industry and frugality in a set of men
a degree higher than those that are the objects of my proposal. The
London clergy, who are likewise, I believe, a corporation, might do
the same by their members to the same amount of £100, or perhaps
£200 a year, and might provide for their widows in this manner. And
all other numerous bodies corporate and politic might do the same.
Further, as to clergymen’s widows, it has occurred to me that it
would be no ways unreasonable nor inconvenient to provide for them
by giving them dower of their husbands livings at the rate of one
half of the common law Dower, or one sixth part of the husband’s
living. This to take place only in livings of a certain value, as
for instance, £120 a year, or more. The wife to have dower only of
one living, though the husband died possessed of two or more. Only
two dowers to be allowed at a time upon one living; as thus.
Suppose a man A has a living of £300 a year, and dies leaving a
widow. She should have a dower out of this living of one sixth of
£300, that is, of £50, a year. Afterwards the living is given to B,
who dies leaving a widow. She shall have a dower of one sixth of
£250 a year or of £41, 13s. 4d. The living is then
given to C, who dies leaving a widow, and then to D, who dies
leaving a widow, the widows of A and B being still alive. These
widows of C and D should have no dower. And no living should ever
be reduced by dowers to less than £100 a year. I see no objection
to this scheme. The marriages of the clergy are in my opinion
greatly beneficial to the public. They in general have many
children, and healthy and handsome ones, and educate them better
than gentlemen or tradesmen of the same yearly incomes. Why should
they not then be encouraged as well as permitted by the State to
marry, by making a very moderate provision for the widows out of
the public stipends allowed to their husbands, (for in that light
only I consider the tythes) in such livings as can bear such a
defalcation, and with the precautions abovementioned not to load
them with too many dowers at a time. Yours once more,
Addressed: To Dr. Benjamin Franklyn / in Craven Street in
the Strand / London.
625953 = 019-182a.html