-ments in common alfo; fo that all difference between them would vanish; and, therefore, they would not be two distinct lines, but must be one and the fame. Just so, say we, two Beings cannot be unoriginated, and have neceffity as the common mode of their existence; for in that cafe they must have their whole natures, and all the circumstances which neceffarily attend their existence, in common alfo; and therefore they would not be diftinct Beings, but one and the fame Being*.

Thus we find it impoffible even to form an idea of a second unoriginated Being, or to make it in any refpect different from the idea we muft neceffarily have of the firft; to which we cannot add any thing, neither can we diminish aught from it. Hence it follows that all Beings in the universe, except one, are derived Beings, and muft owe their existence, in fome manner or other, to one underived Being; who is, therefore, the ultimate and original fountain of existence, and the first cause of all things.'

We are perfuaded, that if the author had excluded from the above demonftration, the equivocal word fame, which fometimes means individually one, as it generally does in the expreffion of one and the fame thing; at others, alike, exactly, precifely, or perfectly alike; and had adopted this latter term, with any one of these three emphatical adjuncts, he would not have come to his prefent conclufion without more hesitation, if he had done it at all. The ufe of the word fame, as it occurs more than once in this argument, amounts to little less than a suppofition of what ought to be proved: when, in fhort, it is here taken in any other fenfe than alike, it clearly begs the queftion, and fo far weakens the argument. The two Beings fuppofed are perfectly alike; but that it must neceffarily follow that they are individually one and the fame is, we believe, more than can logically be inferred. If so, we fear the author's reasoning on this important article, its main force depending on the point we have objected to, is lefs conclusive than he apprehends.

With refpect to the dean's demonftrations of his other propofitions, we recommend them to our learned readers, as well worth their confideration, and as calculated, dpon the whole, to give fatisfaction to candid and liberal minds. His clofe

* If it fhould be faid, that as thefe are intelligent Beings they may ftill be fuppofed to have diftinct confcionfneffes and wills, and therefore may be diftinct fubftances: I answer, this is only repeating the firft fuppofition; viz. that these are two diftinct substances, and, therefore, have diftinct wills; and I fay, that unless it can be fhewn that the second supposed Being may poffibly be a different and diftinct fubftance from the firit, we have no right to fuppofe it may have a consciousness or a will, distinct from that of the firft.'

and

and concife manner cannot be too much imitated by metaphyfical writers; we mean fuch as fhall purfue the fynthetic method of reasoning, the analytic naturally demanding more compafs.

A Differtation on the Poor Laws. By a Well-wisher to Mankind. Small 8vo. 15. 6d. Dilly.

MUCH has been written within these few years on the tendency of the poor laws in this country, and it seems to be generally admitted, that inftead of anfwering the charitable purpose of their inftitution, they are a fource of great public evil, oppreffive to the induftrious part of the nation, and pernicious to the morals of the indigent. It appears to be a fact clearly established, that fince the Reformation, about which time they were first enacted in England, the number of poor has increased in an amazing proportion. An effect fo repugnant to the confequences which might naturally be expected from the advancement of agriculture, manufactures, and commerce, affords ftrong reafon to fufpect that the misfortune, far from being diminished, is really aggravated by fome unforefeen operation of the laws which were intended to restrain it. Conformably to fuch an opinion, the author of the Differtation before us obferves, that wherever most money has been expended for the fupport of the poor, there objects of distress are most frequent; while in other districts, where the least provifion has been made for them, they are found to be far Jefs numerous.

In respect to fome of the inconveniencies arifing from the prefent ftate of the poor-laws, the author of the Differtation makes the following remarks, which we know to be well founded.

In every parish, as the law now ftands, they who have legal fettlements, have the monopoly of labour, because the labouring poor are confined to their refpective parishes. This provifion is perfectly confiftent with the whole system of our poor laws, and was defigned not only to prevent the evils which naturally arife from vagrancy, and which might be equally prevented by more wholefome laws; but to protect each parish from intruders, who might become chargeable either for themfelves or for their children. This provifion is productive of confiderable evils, which the legislature has never yet been able to remove for not only have the induftrious poor been reftrained from feeking employment where they would otherwife have been received with joy, and confined to their own parishes, in which they were regarded with an evil eye; but

for

for want of competition the price of labour to the manufacturer has been much enhanced. With a certificate, indeed, the poor are permitted to refide in any parish where work is to be had, but then a certificate is not easily obtained. Now it is evident that by raising the price of labour you must directly check the progrefs of the manufactures; and by experience it is found, that the fame effect arifes indirectly to a more confiderable extent; for in proportion as you advance the wages of the poor, you diminish the quantity of their work. Alt manufacturers complain of this, and univerfally agree, that the poor are feldom diligent, except when labour is cheap, and corn is dear.'

Our author farther remarks, that the poor laws, to a certain degree, difcourage improvements in agriculture: for that, when the poor's rate amounts to ten fhillings, or even to four fhillings in the pound, no gentleman, with the view of profit, will be at the expence of clearing, fencing, breaking up, manuring, and cropping the waste and barren parts of an estate.

After difplaying the pernicious effects of the poor laws in a variety of circumstances, the author takes a view of the different means which have been employed by the legislature for remedying those evils. He obferves that the expedient most often tried, has been to compel both the pauper and his family to wear the Roman P in scarlet cloth upon their shoulders; but this, he thinks, was facrificing the interefts of the modest and ingenuous to those who were loft to fhame. The next most common refuge has been to parochial and provincial workhouses, where it was imagined that the poor would do more work, and be fed much cheaper, than when difperfed in their feveral cottages. Experience, however, he obferves, has never confirmed this expectation; and the contrivance has proved worse than abortive.

The terror of being fent to a workhoufe, fays he, acts like an abolition of the poor's tax on all who dread the lofs of liberty. It is in effect a virtual repeal, as far as it extends, of thofe laws, which fhould long fince have given place to better regulations. But unfortunately the moft worthy objects fuffer moft by this repeal, and the advantage to the public is little more than negative. The quiet and the cleanly dread the noife and naftinefs, even more than the confinement of a workhoufe. They pant for the pure and wholefome air, which they can never hope to breathe where numbers are confined within narrow limits, and figh for that ferenity and peace, which they must defpair to find where the most profligate of the human fpecies are met together. By the fear of being fentenced to fuch fociety, many, who deferve a better fate,

ftruggle

ftruggle with poverty till they fink under the burthen of their mifery. Againft county workhoufes, improperly called houfes of induftry, the objections are much stronger. The buildings, the furniture, the salaries, the wafte, and the impofition, every thing is upon a large and expenfive fcale, without its being poffible to preserve, for any length of time, a system of œconomy. At first, indeed, there might be great exertion; but the novelty being over, few gentlemen would be found public fpirited enough to continue their attendance and attention to a business in which, as individuals, they would be fo little interested, and for which they muft give up more important or more pleafant engagements and purfuits.'

Another expedient put in practice is that of farming the poor, which the author condemns with the epithet of being the most abominable that ever was invented.

In fome parishes, fays he, they are farmed at fo much an head, but in others the contract is for a given fum. In one parish in Gloucestershire a contracter has agreed to take all the expence of the poor upon himself for a very moderate confideration. Taking the prefent numbers in confinement, he has only two fhillings a week for each; yet out of this he is to be at the charge of all litigations and removals, and to relieve all others who are not proper objects for a workhouse, and after all, to make a profit for himself.

All thefe expedients have the fame tendency. They are adopted with a profeffed intention to lower the poor rates; and it is confeffed, that many are thereby deterred from making application for relief, who would otherwise be a burthen to the public. But then is not this a partial, impolitic, oppreffive repeal of a bad law, without reducing the tax for it continues to increase, and without making a better provision for those among the poor who are moft worthy of attention?'

The author afterwards enquires into the provifion made for the poor by other nations; obferving particularly, that in Holland, where their chief dependence is on voluntary contribution, there is more industry, and fewer criminals, than any other country in Europe of the fame extent.

in

In the last part of the Differtation, the author proceeds to deliver his fentiments concerning the propereft means of remedying the evil arifing from the defect of the poor laws; and he begins with eftablishing the principles on which a plan of this kind ought to be conducted. He obferves, in the firft place, that it ought to encourage induftry, economy, and subordination; and, in the fecond place, regulate population by the demand for labour. To promote induftry and economy,

he

he thinks it neceffary that the relief which is given to the poor fhould be limited and precarious; and he accedes to the opinion, that if even the whole fyftem of compulfive charity were abolished, it would be better for the ftate. Friendly focieties, likewife, under good regulations, and established by law, he confiders as a refource which would be productive of great advantage to the community. The remainder of the plan which he proposes is contained in the following extract.

As long as it should be found expedient to retain a given proportion of the prefent poor tax, the disposal of this should be wholly at the difcretion of the minifter, churchwardens, and overfeers, or the majority of them, fubject only to the orders of a vestry. By this provifion the subordination of the poor would be more effectually fecured, and the civil ma giftrate would be at liberty to bend his whole attention to the prefervation of the peace, and to the good governmentof the people.

This plan would be aided and affifted much by laying a fufficient tax upon the ale-houses to reduce their number, thefe being the principal nurferies for drunkennefs, idlenefs, and

vice.

Should things be left thus to flow in their proper channels, the confequence would be, that, as far as it is poffible according to the prefent conftitution of the world, our popu lation would be no longer unnatural and forced, but would regulate itfelf by the demand for labour.

There remains one thing more for the legislature to do, which is to increase the quantity of food. This may be done with eafe, by laying a tax upon all horfes ufed in husbandry, gradually increafing this tax till the farmers have returned to the ufe of oxen. This change would enable England not only to maintain her prefent population, but greatly to increase it. The land which now fupports one horfe, in proper working order, would bear two oxen for draft and for the fhambles, if not also one cow for the pail; or any two of thefe, with a man, his wife, and his three children. If we confider the number of horses at prefent used for husbandry in this island, fhould only half that number give place to oxen, it would not be easy to calculate, or even to conceive, all the benefits and advantages which the public would derive from this vaft increase of food. In many parishes where they have no manufactures, but the cultivation of the foil, the horses confume the produce of more land than the inhabitants themselves require. Suppose a parish to confift of four thousand acres of arable and pasture land; let this be cultivated by one hundred

and