Appendix III: Practical Exemplification of the Working of the Deaconship Even in a Large Town

One of the deacons of St John’s, Glasgow, of well known intelligence, happening to be a friend, I submitted to him the following queries, and received from him the accompanying answers. Though this parish was upon a peculiar system, and in cases where it is known that there is a fixed legal provision for the poor, deacons have not the same motives for strict investigation of cases, still the information is valuable, and so far applicable to all parishes, whether under legal or voluntary management. I am sure the reader will thank me for the statement. It shews what might be done in more favourable circumstances. The length of time over which the testimony extends renders it the more valuable:

Q. 1. How long were you a deacon of St John’s?

A. Eighteen years,—from 1819 to 1837.

Q. 2. What was the size of your district; how many families?

A. At my first survey the district contained 99 families of 476 individuals. Next year several additional deacons were appointed, and my proportion was reduced to 56 families of nearly 300 members. In 1831 some new houses were built, increasing the families to 81–359 members, and so on from year to year, till the population amounted to 117 families of 570 members.

Q. 3. What time did the charge occupy; did you easily over-take the management?

A. With 56 families, in ordinary circumstances, very little of my time was occupied, and my office was by no means irksome; but when the families increased to 80, 100, and upwards, I found it more difficult to keep up my acquaintance in the district, so that I had less comfort in going amongst them; and whilst my visits were in reality more requisite, they became less frequent. It is easy to keep up a pleasant familiar knowledge of a small number of families, which creates such interest as to carry one readily back to the district.

Q. 4. What were the general principles on which you acted in the management of the poor?

A. My first aim was to become acquainted with all the families, and when any person applied for relief, I visited and made a strict investigation, then gave in a report of the case at our first monthly meeting. If it was considered that further inquiry was requisite, or to relieve me of the odium of a refusal, if such was thought proper, another deacon was appointed to visit along with me.

Q. 5. What was the mode in which you sought to carry your principles into effect?

A. If the applicant was out of work, or had children able for work, we used such means as were within our reach to get employment for them; or if they had any friends or relatives able to assist them, or were members of any dissenting congregation, we were required to apply to any or all of the quarters before granting any allowance.

Q. 6. How often were you in the habit of visiting your district?

A. The year 1819–20 was one of great depression and great hardship, and my visits were of course very frequent and very trying, as the operatives were almost in a state of rebellion, and many of them scowled upon me in defiance; but by steady perseverance I was enabled to overcome that feeling, and gained a knowledge of the people at that time, which made frequent visits less needful for years to come.

Q. 7. What topics did you find for conversation?

A. Education, week-day and Sabbath schools, were fruitful topics on my part, and poverty and distress never-failing ones on the part of the people.

Q. 8. Were you well received?

A. Yes, with few exceptions; and in many cases most cordially welcomed, and much pressed to repeat my visit soon.

Q. 9. Had you any difficulty in ascertaining the exact truth? What means did you employ to reach it?

A. Where the people thought they had any interest in concealing it, or if they did not understand the object of my inquiries, I found it very difficult to get at the exact truth, and frequently have come away with a wrong impression; however, this helped to sharpen my ingenuity, though often baffled after all.

Q. 10. Do you remember particular cases of good being done, and of the expression of gratitude for your services?

A. I can recollect but a very few cases in which the relief afforded called forth any expression of gratitude, and that same from industrious well-doing folks, who were anxious to help themselves, and who had received from me some little acts of kindness besides the parish aid. Of course much real good was done.

Q. 11. Did you use means to prevent poverty; such as by encouraging education, church attendance, the savings’ bank, circulating Bibles, finding employment for those out of work?

A. The means stated in this query were used on various occasions, but none of them except the last when a person applied for parish aid; the others would not have gone well down with a starving family. The deacons were often very useful in finding work for the people.

Q. 12. In what would you say that the mainspring of your management consisted?

A. Kindness, prompt attention to every application, whether deserving or not; never administering help in ignorance to save myself the trouble of a visit; rigid investigation, &c. See answer to query 4th.

Q. 13. When the people got accustomed to the St John’s management, did they like it as well as that of other sessions?

A. For some years at first there was a strong prejudice against St John’s management,—alleging that they were deprived of the town’s hospital: and this was strengthened by parties from other parishes that ought to have known better; but, latterly, I had no complaints on that score, and our imports from other parishes in town were always greater than our exports.

Q. 14. Was it as liberal in cases of real distress?

A. We were furnished with a list of the allowances made by the town’s hospital for cases beyond the sessional, and we were regulated by it; but, in some cases, such as palsy, &c., we were constrained to give a very liberal aliment.

Q. 15. Did you live near the district, or do you attach any importance to this?

A. I did not live in my district, but (though many of my brethren held a different opinion) I think it of very great importance that the deacon should do so, as it tends to save much of his time, and give him greater facilities in acquiring a knowledge of his district, as well as a benefit to the applicants themselves.

Q. 16. Are there any suggestions which occur to you as important in connexion with the management, such as regular attendance on the court of deacons, &c.?

A. I consider regular attendance at the deacons’ meetings of the utmost importance; it keeps up his interest, adds to his knowledge and experience, and strengthens the hands of his fellow-labourers. During my 18 years I declined all engagements which would interfere with those meetings, and was absent on only six or eight occasions, owing either to sickness or being necessarily from home. I think, also, the minister of the parish should be as often present as possible, and ought to make himself well acquainted with the working of the system, as his opinion will naturally have much weight with inexperienced hands.

Illustrative of what may be done in the spirit, though not the form of the deaconship, I subjoin a recent testimony from New York:

The Poor of New York

(From the New York Tribune, December 1860.)

All the natural impulses to help the poor that are always with us are quickened into a glow of sympathy by the sharp blasts of winter which the last few days have brought from the North. It is not the least of the glories of this proud city that it is richly endowed with those agencies through which individual charity can most surely and effectively reach its objects. We have the seventeenth annual report of one of the most thorough and hitherto most successful of these organizations—the New York Association for Improving the Condition of the Poor. Its operations, since its active life began in 1844, have been extended until they now embrace an area of the whole of Manhattan Island, and in influence every class of want and suffering. The excellent system of the association removes those obstacles to practical benevolence which the penurious spirit sometimes raises. It has discrimination for its cornerstone, and moderation and even-handed justice are its pillars. It offers no premium for poverty. Its alms are only the encouragement to labour and industry. In the concise expression of the report itself:

Its primary and direct action, therefore, has ever been to discountenance indiscriminate alms-giving; to visit the poor at their dwellings; to give them counsel; to aid them, when practicable, in obtaining employment; to inspire them with self-reliance and self-respect; to inculcate habits of industry, economy, cleanliness, and temperance; to care for the instruction of their children; and, whenever necessary, to provide such relief as may be suited to their wants.

Embracing the whole of the City, the scheme divides the field into twenty-two districts, corresponding with the wards. An advisory committee, of five persons, is appointed over each, to whom the labours of the separate spheres are intrusted. These districts are subdivided into three hundred and eighty-two sections, with a gratuitous visitor for each, to whom all applications for aid may be sent through a directory and tickets.

A longer season of prosperity shews that the good plan of the association has been faithfully carried out. The number of the dependent was reduced from 13,812 families in 1857, to 9281 families in 1858, and to 8031 families in 1859–60. The population of the City in 1845 was 311,223. The unprecedented increase since that period has raised it to 900,000, or more than 142 per cent. It is evident, therefore, if the indigence had increased in the ratio of the increase of the inhabitants, instead of relieving 8031 families the past year, there would have been more than 19,000 families to be assisted, and a proportionate increase of expenditure. In other words, there has been an absolute gain on the indigence of the city in the past seventeen years, compared with the population, of not less than 142 per cent.

The association holds near its heart the children of the poor. It tries to give them mental and moral culture through secular and Sabbath schools. Thousands of children have been brought under means of instruction. The report presents several weighty reasons, based on substantial experience, why the law “for idle, truant children” should be enforced. As (1.) more than three-fourths of the children needing remedial and, perhaps, preventive agencies are still unreached. Their number is not less than 40,000. This frightful list is yearly increasing above the ratio of this proportion. (2.) It is a good thing to rescue the debased, but infinitely better to save them from debasement. (3.) All the testimony favours the operations of the law in other places. Philadelphia, New Orleans, and other cities, are comparatively free from vagrants. In Brooklyn the law has been signally beneficial. The report strongly urges the adoption of the plan proposed for the working of the law in this city.