cretion may tax him. If it be the poffeffor who declines contributing, the tax must be laid upon him, referving relief against his land-lord.

In great towns, the poor, who ought to be prohibited from begging, are lefs known than in country parishes. And among a crowd of inhabitants, it is easier for an individual to escape the eye of the public, when he with-holds charity, than in country-parishes. Both defects will be remedied by the plan above propofed it will bring to light, in great cities, the poor who deferve charity; and it will bring to light every person who with-holds charity.

SKETCH XI.

A GREAT CITY confidered in Phyfical, Moral, and Political Views.

IN

too

N all ages an opinion feems to have been prevalent, that a great city is a great evil, and that a capital may be great for the ftate, as a head may be for the body. Confidering however the very fhallow reasons that have been given for this opinion, it fhould seem to be but lightly founded. There are feveral ordinances limiting. the extent of Paris, and prohibiting new building be yond 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 year 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 un"wholefome: Second, That cleaning 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 grourd would be covered with buildings inftead of corn, which might hazard a scarcity. "Fifth, That the country would be depopulated by "the defire that people have to refort to the capital. Ard, laftly, That the difficulty of governing fuch "numbers would be an encouragement to robbery and "murder."

46

66.

66

C 4

Thefe

These reafons for confining the city of Paris within certain bounds are wonderfully fhallow. The most important of them conclude juftly against permitting an increase of inhabitants: the fecond and fourth conlude only against enlarging the city; and these, at the best, are trifling. The first reafon urged against enlarging the city, is a folid reafon for enlarging it, fuppofing the numbers to be limited; for to prevent crouding is an excellent preventive of unwholesome air. Paris, with the fame number of inhabitants that were in the days of the fourth Henry, occupies trice the space, much to the health as well as comfort of the inhabitants. Had the ordinances mentioned been made effectual, the houses in Paris muft all have been built, like thofe in the old town, ftory above story, afcending to the sky like the tower of Babel. Before the great fire anno 1666, the plague was frequent in London; but by widening the streets, 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 reasons, conclude against permitting any addition to the number of inhabitants; but conclude nothing against enlarging the town. In a word, the meafure adopted in these ordinances has little or no tendency to correct the evils complained of; and infallibly would enflame the chief of them. The measure that ought to have been adopted, is to limit the number of inhabitants, not the extent of the town.

Queen Elizabeth of England, copying the French ordinances, iffued a proclamation anno 1602, prohibiting any new buildings within three miles of London. The preamble is in the following words: "That fore

feeing the great and manifold inconveniencies and "mifchiefs which daily grow, and are likely to in"crease, in the city and fuburbs of London, by con"fluence of people to inhabit the fame; not only by "reason that fuch multitudes can hardly be governed "to ferve God, and obey her Majefty, without confti"tuting an addition of new officers, and enlarging "their authority; but alfo can hardly be provided of "food and other neceffaries at a reafonable price; and

finally

finally, that as fuch multitudes of people, many of "them poor, who muft live by begging, or worfe means, are heaped up together, and in a fort fmo"thered, with many children and fervants, in one "house or small tenement; it must needs follow, if any plague or other univerfal fickness come amongst "them, that it would prefently spread through the "whole city and confines, and alfo into all parts of the realm.”

There appears no deeper penetration in this procla-mation, than in the French ordinances. The fame error is obfervable in both, which is the limiting the extent of the town, instead of limiting the number of inhabitants. True it is indeed, that the regulation would have a better effect in London than in Paris. As stone is in plenty about Paris, houses there may be carried to a very great height; and are actually fo carried in the old town. but there being no ftone about London, the houses formerly were built of timber, now of brick; materials too frail for a lofty edifice.

Proceeding to particulars, the first objection, which is the expence of governing a great multitude, concludes against the numbers, not against the extent of the city. At the fame time, the objection is at best doubtful in point of fact. Though vices abound in a great city, requiring the ftricteft attention of the magiftrate; yet, with a well-regulated police, it is much lefs expenfive to govern 600,000 in one city, than the fame number in ten different cities. The fecond objection, viz. the high price of provifions, ftrikes only againft numbers, not extent. Befides, whatever might have been the cafe in the days of Elizabeth, when agriculture and internal commerce were in their infancy; there are at prefent not many towns in England, where a temperate man may live cheaper than in London. The hazard of contagious diftempers, which is the third objection, is an invincible argument against limiting the extent of a great town. It is mentioned above, that from the year 1666, when the streets were widened, and the houses enlarged, London has never been once vifited by the plague. If the proclamation had taken effect, the houses must have been fo crouded upon each

C 5

other,

Book II. other, and the streets fo contracted, as to have occafioned plagues ftill more frequently than before the year 1666.

The miniftry of the Queen's immediate fucceffors were not more clear-fighted than fhe and her ministers were. In the year 1624, King James iffued a proclamation against building in London upon new foundations. Charles I. iffued two proclamations to the famẹ purpose; one in the year 1625, and one in the year 1630.

The progrefs of political knowledge has unfolded many bad effects of a great city, more weighty than any urged in thefe proclamations. The firft Í fhall mention is, that people born and bred in a great city are commonly weak and effeminate. Vegetius (a) obferving, that men bred to husbandry make the best foldiers, adds what follows. "Interdum tamen neceffi"tas exigit, etiam urbanos ad arma compelli: qui ubi nomen dedere militiæ, primum laborare, decurrere, portare pondus, et folem pulveremque ferre, condifcant; parco victu utantur et ruftico; interdum fub "divo, interdum fub papilionibus, commorentur. Tunc "demum ad ufum erudiantur armorum: et fi longior

66

46

66

expeditio emergit, in angariis plurimum detinendi "funt, proculque habendi a civitatis illecebris: ut eo ❝modo, et corporibus eorum robur accedat, et ani"mis*." The luxury of a great city defcends from the highest to the lowest, infecting all ranks of men; and there is little opportunity in it for fuch exercife as renders the body vigorous and robuft. This is a phy

fical

arming the townsWhen this is the

(4) De re militari, lib. 1. cap. 3. "But fometimes there is a neceffity for "people, and calling them out to service. "cafe, it ought to be the first care, to enure them to labour, 66 to march them up and down the country, to make them carry "heavy burdens, and to harden them against the weather. Their "foor fhould be courfe and fcanty, and they should be habituat"ed to fleep alternately in their tents, and in the open air. "Then is the time to inftruct them in the exercife of their ❝ arms. If the expedition is a diftant one, they fhould be chief❝ly employed in the ftations of pofts or expreffes, and removed " as much as poffible from the dangerous allurements that "abound in large cities; that thus they may be invigorated both " in mind and body."

fical objection against a great city: the next regards morality. Virtue is exerted chiefly in reftraint vice, in giving freedom a defire. Moderation and felf-command from a character the most fufceptible of virtue : fuperfluity of animal fpirits, and love of pleafure, from a character the moft liable to vice. Low vices, pilfer- ing for example, or lying, draw few or no imitators;; but vices that indicate a foul above restraint, fail not to produce admirers. Where a man boldly struggles. againft unlawful restraint, he is juftly applauded and imitated; and the vulgar are not apt to diftinguish nicely between lawful and unlawful restraint: the boldness is vifible, and they pierce no deeper. It is the unruly boy, full of animal fpirits, who at a public school is admired and imitated; not the virtuous and modeft. Vices accordingly that fhow fpirit, are extremely infectious; virtue very little. Hence the corruption of a great city, which increafes more and more in proportion to the number of inhabitants. But it is fufficient here barely to mention that objection; because it has been much infifted on in antecedent parts of this work.

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 accumulat-ed in the capital: and diftant provinces muft fink into idlenefs; for without ready money neither arts nor manufactures can flourish. Thus we find lefs and lefs activity, in proportion commonly to the distance from the capital, and an abfolute torpor in the extremities. It may be observed befide, that as horfes in a great city must be provided with provender from a distance, the country is robbed of its dung for the benefit of 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 diftant parts of manure is a lofs to the country in general. Nor is this all: The dung of an extenfive city, the bulk of it at least, is fo remote from the fields to which it must be carried, that the expence of carriage swallows up the profit.

Another bad effect of accumulating money in the capital is, to raise there the price of labour, and the

temptation