But it is fufficient here barely to mention that objection, because it has been formerly infifted on. The following bad effects are more of a political nature. A great town is a profeffed enemy to the free circulation of money. The current coin is accumulated in the capital and distant provinces must fink into idlenefs; for without ready money neither arts nor manufactures can flourish. Thus we find less and lefs activity, in proportion commonly to the distance from the capital; and an abfolute torpor in the extremities. The city of Milan affords a good proof of this obfervation. The money that the Emperor of Germany draws from it in taxes is carried to Vienna; not a farthing left but what is barely fufficient to defray the expence of government. Manufactures and commerce have gradually declined in proportion to the scarcity of money; and that city which the last century contained 300,000 inhabitants, cannot now mufter above 90,000*. It may be observed befide, that as Is not the following inference from these premiffes well founded, that it would be a ruinous measure as horses in a great city must be provided with provender from a distance, the country is robbed of its dung, which goes to the rich fields round the city. But as manure laid upon poor land, is of more advantage to the farmer, than upon what is already highly improved, the depriving distant parts of manure is a lofs to the nation in general. Nor is this all: The dung of an extenfive city, the bulk of it at leaft, is fo remote from the fields to which it must be carried, that the expence of carriage fwallows up the profit. Another bad effect of accumulating money in the capital is, that it raifes the price of labour. The temptation of high wages in the capital, robs the country of its best hands. And as they who refort to the ca meafure to add Bengal to the British dominions? In what manner would the territorial revenues and other taxes be remitted to London? If in hard coin, that country would in time be drained of money, its manufactures would be annihilated, and depopulation enfue. If remitted in commodities, the public would be cheated, and little be added to the revenue. A land-tax laid on as in Britain would be preferable in every refpect; for it would be paid by the Eaft-India Company as proprietors of Bengal without deduction of a farthing. pital pital are commonly young people, who remove as foon as they are fit for work, diftant provinces are burdened with their maintenance, without reaping any benefit by their labour. But of all, the moft deplorable effect of a great city, is the preventing of population, by fhortening the lives of its inhabitants. Does a capital fwell in proportion to the numbers that are drained from the country? Far from it. The air of a po pulous city is infected by multitudes crouded together; and people there feldom make out the ufual time of life. With refpect to London in particular, the fact cannot be diffembled. The burials in that immenfe city greatly exceed the births: the difference fome affirm to be no lefs than ten thoufand yearly: by the most moderate computation, not under seven or eight thousand. As London is far from being on the decline, that number must be fupplied by the country; and the annual fupply amounts probably to a greater number, than were needed annually for recruiting our armies and navies in the late war with France. If fo, London is a greater enemy to population, than a bloody bloody war would be, fuppofing it even to be perpetual. What an enormous tax is Britain thus fubjected to for fupporting her capital! The rearing and educating yearly for London 7 or Sooo perfons, require an immense fum. on, In Paris, if the bills of mortality can be relied the births and burials are nearly equal, being each of them about 19,000 yearly; and according to that computation, Paris fhould need no recruits from the country. But in that city, the bills of mortality cannot be depended on for burials. It is there univerfally the practice of high and low, to have their infants nurfed in the country, till they be three years of age; and confequently those who die before that age, are not inlifted. What proportion these bear to the whole is uncertain. But a guefs may be made from fuch as die in London before the age of three, which are computed to be one half of the whole that die (a). Now giving the utmost allowance for the healthinefs of the country above that of a town, children from Paris that die in the country. (a) See Dr Price, p. 363. before before the age of three, cannot be brought fo low as a third of thofe who die. On the other hand, the London bills of mortality are less to be depended on for births than for burials. None are inlifted but infants baptifed by clergymen of the Englifh church; and the numerous children. of Papifts, Diffenters, and other fectaries, are left out of the account. Upon the whole, the difference between the births and burials in Paris and in London, is much lefs than it appears to be on comparing the bills of mortality of these two cities. At the fame time, giving full allowance for children who are not brought into the London bills of mortality, there is the highest probability that a greater number of children are born in Paris than in London; and confequently that the former requires fewer recruits from the country than the latter. In Paris, domeftic fervants are encouraged to marry: they are obferved to be more fettled than when bachelors, and more attentive to their duty. In London, fuch marriages are difcouraged, as rendering a fervant more attentive to his own family than to that of his maAer. But a fervant attentive to his own family, |
