never answer in a poor-houfe. The materials for work must be provided by mercenary officers; who must also be trufted with the difpofal of the made work, for behoof of the poor people. Thefe operations may go on fweetly a year or two, under the influence of novelty and zeal for improvement; but it would be chimerical to expect for ever ftrict fidelity in mercenary officers, whofe management cannot eafily be checked. Computing the expence of this operofe management, and giving allowance for endless frauds in purchafing and felling, I boldly affirm, that the plan would turn to no account. Confider next the

weekly fum given in charity people confined in a poor-house have no means for purchafing neceffaries but at a futlery, where they will certainly be impofed on, and their money go no length.

We are now ripe for a comparifon with refpect to œconomy. Many a houfeholder in Edinburgh makes a fhift to maintain a family with their gain of four fhillings per week, amounting to ten pounds eight fhillings yearly. Seldom are there fewer than four or five perfons in fuch a family; the husband, the wife, and two or three children. Thus four or five perfons can be maintained under eleven pounds yearly. But are they maintained fo cheap in the Edinburgh poor-house? Not a fingle perfon there but at an average cofts the public at least four-pounds yearly. Nor is this all. A great fum remains to be taken into the computation, the intereft of the fum for building, yearly reparations, expence of management, wages to fervants, male and female. proportion of this great fum must be laid upon each perfon, which fwells the expence of their maintenance. And when every particular is taken into the account, I have no hesitation to pronounce, that laying afide labour altogether, a

A

man

man can make a fhift to maintain himself privately at half of the expence that is neceffary in a poor

house.

So far we have travelled on folid ground; and what follows is equally folid. Among the induftrious, not many are reduced fo low, but that they can make fome fhift for themfelves. The quantity of labour that can be performed by thöfe who require aid, cannot be brought under any accurate eftimation. To pave the way to a conjecture, thofe who are reduced to poverty by diffolutenefs or fheer idlenefs, ought abfolutely to be rejected as unworthy of public charity. If fuch wretches can prevail on the tender-hearted to relieve them privately, fo far well: they ought not to be indulged with any other hope. Now laying thefe afide,, the quantity of labour may be fairly computed as half maintenance. Here then is another great article faved to the public. If a man can be maintained privately at half of what is neceffary in a poor-houfe, his work, reckoning it half of his maintenance, brings down the fum to the fourth part of what is neceffary in a poorhoufe.

h

t

Undiftinguifhed charity to the deferving and undeferving, has multiplied the poor; and will multiply them more and more without end. Let it be publicly known that the diffolute and idle have no chance to be put on a charity-roll; the poor, inftead of increafing, will gradually diminifh, till none be left but proper objects of charity, fuch as have been reduced to indigence by old age or innocent misfortune. And if that rule be ftrictly adhered to, the maintenance of the poor will not be a heavy burden. After all, a houfe for the poor may poffibly be a frugal scheme in England where the parifh-rates are high, in the town of Bedford for example. In Scotland, it is undoubtedly a very unfrugal scheme. Hitherto

F 2

2

Hitherto of a poor-houfe with refpect to economy. There is another point of ftill greater moment; which is to confider the influence it has on the manners of the inhabitants. A number of perfons, ftrangers to each other, and differing in temper and manners, can never live comfortably together will ever the fober and innocent make a tolerable fociety with the idle and profligate? In our poor-houfes accordingly, quarrels and complaints are endlefs. The family fociety and that of a nation under government, are prompted by the common nature of man; and none other. In monafteries and nunneries, envy, detraction and heart-burning, never cease. Sorry I am to obferve, that in feminaries of learning concord and good-will do not always prevail, even among the profeffors. What adds greatly to the disease in a poor-house, is that the people fhut up there, being fecure of maintenance, are reduced to a state of abfolute idleness, for it is in vain to think of making them work they have no care, nothing to keep the blood in motion. Attend to a state fo different from what is natural to us. Thofe who are innocent and harmless, will languifh, turn difpirited, and tire of life. Thofe of a bustling and reftlefs temper, will turn four and peevish for want of occupation: they will murmur against their fuperiors, pick quarrels with their neighbours, and fow difcord every where. The worst of all is, that a poor-houfe never fails to corrupt the morals of the inhabitants: nothing tends fo much to promote vice and immorality, as idlenefs among a number of low people collected in one place. Among no fet of people does profligacy more abound, than among the feamen in Greenwich hofpital.

A poor-houfe tends to corrupt the body no lefs than the mind. It is a nursery of diseases, fostered by dirtinefs and crouding.

To this fcene let us oppofe the condition of thofe who are fupported in their own houses. They are

2

laid

laid under the neceffity of working with as much affiduity as ever; and as the fum given them in charity is at their own difpofal, they are careful to lay it out in the most frugal manner. If by parfimony they can fave any fmall part, it is their own; and the hope of encreafing this little ftock, fupports their fpirits and redoubles their industry. They live innocently and comfortably, because they live industriously; and industry, as every one knows, is the chief pleasure of life to those who have acquired the habit of being conftantly employed.

A Great City confidered in Phyfical, Moral, and Political Views,

IN all ages an opinion has been prevalent, that

a great city is a great evil; and that a capital may be too great for the state, as a head may be for the body. Confidering however the very fhallow reafons that have been given for this opinion, it fhould feem to be but flightly founded. There are feveral ordinances limiting the extent of Paris, and prohibiting new buildings beyond the prefcribed bounds; the firft of which is by Henry II. ann, 1549. Thefe ordinances have been renewed from time to time, down to the 1672, in which year there is an edict of Louis XIV. to the fame purpose. The reafons affigned are,

Firft, That by enlarging the city, the air would "be rendered unwholefome. Second, That clean"ing the streets would prove a great additional "labour. Third, That adding to the number of "inhabitants would raise the price of provifions, "of labour, and of manufactures. Fourth, That

"ground

ground would be covered with buildings instead of corn, which might hazard a fcarcity. Fifth, That the country would be depopulated by the defire that people have to refort to the capital. "And, laftly, That the difficulty of governing fuch "numbers, would be an encouragement to rob"bery and murder."

In thefe reafons, the limiting the extent of the city, and the limiting the number of inhabitants are jumbled together, as if they were the fame. The only reafons that regard the former, are the fecond and fourth; and thefe, at beft, are trifling, The first reafon urged against enlarging the city, is a folid reafon for enlarging it, fuppofing the numbers to be limited; for crouding is an infal, lible means to render the air unwholesome. Paris with the fame number of inhabitants that were in the days of the fourth Henry occupies thrice the fpace, much to the health as well as comfort of the inhabitants. Had the ordinances mentioned been made effectual, the houses in Paris must all have been built ftory above ftory, afcending to the fky like the tower of Babel. Before the great fire anno 1666, the plague was frequent in London; but by widening the ftreets and enlarging the houses, there has not fince been known in that great city, any contagious diftemper that deferves the name of a plague. The third, fifth, and laft reafons, conclude againft permitting any addition to the number of the inhabitants; but conclude nothing against enlarging the town, In a word, the measure adopted in thefe ordinances has little or no tendency to correct the evils complained of; and infallibly would enflame the chief of them. The meafure that ought to have been adopted, is to limit the number of inhabitants, not the extent of the town.

Queen Elifabeth of England, copying the French ordinances, iffued a proclamation anno 1602, prohibiting

3