The administration of parochial property has not been properly audited by any parochial authorities: frequently and for many years it has remained in the hands of the same family; those to whom it has been intrusted have received little or no salary: a capricious and dishonest management were the obvious and almost the inevitable consequences. The mere nature of the transaction led to mal-administration. The poor who had a right to bourgeoisie had a right to relief. How could their conduct or their wants be ascertained, if they dwelt in other parishes, with whose authorities their own parish had no relation? Was it not almost inevitable that relief would be demanded with insolence and spent in idleness and debauchery? In some places in the mountains (such as Sieventhal and Grindelwald), the relief was given in kind; but with the increased circulation of money, money-relief has become general, and is exclusively afforded to out-parishioners. The facility with which such relief is mis-applied has favoured mis-management, and may be said to engender pauperism. _These fatal results have become more strongly felt as the number of the poor has augmented. In many places the growing embarrassment occasioned great and praiseworthy remedial efforts. The administration was made more regular, and inspectors and other officers appointed. Some country parishes erected alms-houses at an expense apparently beyond their means. But many of these fine institutions disappointed the hopes of their founders: we shall presently see why. These new measures and institutions were each the private affair of each parish; they failed because they were isolated. The beneficial measures of one parish were not supported by its neighbours. They followed their old routine, and opposed improvement by obstacles and dislike. Superintendence, which is essential to the administration of poor laws, was ineffectual, because it was applied only to the parishioners of the single commune which enforced it._