of feven, nor above that of twelve under feven, they are too tender for an hofpital; above twelve their relations can find employment for them. Befide the being taught to read and write, they are carefully inftructed in fome art, that may afford them comfortable, fubfiftence.

No man ever called in queftion the utility of the marine fociety; which will reflect honour on the members as long as we have a navy to pro tect us they deserve a rank above that of gartered knights. That inftitution is the moft judicious exertion of charity and patriotifm, that ever exifted in any country.

A fort of hofpital for fervants who for twenty years have faithfully adhered to the fame mafter, would be much my tafte; with a few adjoining acres for a kitchen-garden. The fund for purchafing, building, and maintenance, must be raifed by contribution; and none but the contributors fhould be entitled to offer fervants to the house. By fuch encouragement, a malady would be reme, died, that of wandering from mafter to mafter for better wages, or easier fervice; which feldom fail to corrupt fervants. They ought to be comfortably provided for, adding to the allowance of the house what pot-herbs are raised by their own labour. A number of virtuous men thus affociated, would end their days in comfort; and the profpect of attaining a fettlement fo agreeable, would form excellent fervants. How advantageous would fuch a hofpital prove to hufbandry in particular! But I confine this hofpital to fervants who are fingle. Men who have a family will be better provided feparately.

Of all the mifchiefs that have been engendered by over-anxiety about the poor, none have proved more fatal than a foundling-hofpital, They tend to cool affection for children, ftill more effectually than the English parifh-charity. At every occafional

E 2

·B. II. occafional pinch for food, away goes a child to the hospital; and parental affection among the lower fort turns fo languid, that many who are in no pinch, relieve themfelves of trouble by the fame means. It is affirmed, that of the children born annually in Paris, about a third part are fent to the foundling-hofpital. The Paris almanack for the year 1768, mentions, that there were baptized 18,576 infants, of whom the foundling-hofpital received 6025. The fame almanack for the year 1773 bears, that of 18518 children born and baptized, 5989 were fent to the foundling-hofpital. The proportion originally was much lefs; but vice advances with a fwift pace. How enormous must be the degeneracy of the Parifian populace, and their want of parental affection!

Let us next turn to infants fhut up in this hofpital. Of all animals, infants of the human race are the weakeft: they require a mother's affection to guard them againft numberlefs difeafes and accidents; a wife appointment of Providence to connect parents and children in the ftrictest union. In a foundling-hofpital, there is no fond mother to watch over her tender babe; and the hireling nurfe has no fondnefs but for her own little profit. Need we any other caufe for the deftruction of infants in a foundling-hofpital, much greater in proportion than of those tunder the care of a mother? And yet there is another caufe equally potent, which is corrupted air. What Mr. Hanway obferves upon parish work-houfes, is equally applicable to a foundlinghofpital. "To attempt," fays he, "to nourish "an infant in a work-houfe, where a number "of nurfes are congregated into one room, and

confequently the air become putrid, I will pronounce, from intimate knowledge of the fub

ject,

<6

ject, to be but a small remove from flaughter; for the child muft die." It is computed, that of the children in the London foundling-hofpital, the half do not live a year. It appears by an account given in to parliament, that the money bestowed on that hofpital from its commencement till December 1757 amounted to L., 166,000; and yet during that period, 105 perfons only were put out to do for themfelves. Down then with foundling-hofpitals, more noxious than peftilence or famine. An infant expofed at the door of a dwelling-houfe, must be taken up: but in that cafe, which feldom happens, the infant has a better chance for life with a hired nurse than in a hofpital; and a chance perhaps little worfe, bad as it is, than with an unnatural mother. I approve not indeed of a quarterly payment to fuch a nurfe: would it not do better to furnish her bare maintenance for three years; and if the child be alive at the end of that time, to give her a handfome addition?

A houfe of correction is neceffary for good order; but belongs not to the prefent effay, which concerns maintenance of the poor, not punishment of vagrants. I fhall only by the way borrow a thought from Fielding, that fafting is the proper punishment of profligacy, not any punishment that is attended with fhame. Punishment, he obferves, that deprives a man of all fenfe of honour, never will contribute to make him vir

tuous.

Charity-fchools may have been proper, when few could read, and fewer write; but thefe arts are now fo common, that in moft families children may be taught to read at home, and to write in a private fchool at little expence. Charity-fchools at prefent are more hurtful than beneficial young perfons who continue there fo long

as

as to read and write fluently, become too delicate for hard labour, and too proud for ordinary labour. Knowledge is a dangerous acquifition to the labouring poor: the more of it that is poffelfed by a thepherd, a ploughman, or any drudge, the lefs fatisfaction he will have in labour. The only plaufible argument for a charity-fchool, is, "That children of the labouring poor are taught "there the principles of religion and of morali"ty, which they cannot acquire at home." The argument would be invincible, if without regular education we could have no knowledge of these principles. But Providence has not left man in a ftate fo imperfect: religion and morality are stamped on his heart; and none can be ignorant of them, who attend to their own perceptions. Education is indeed of ufe to ripen fuch perceptions; and it is of fingular ufe to those who have time for reading and thinking: but education in a charity-fchool is fo flight, as to render it doubtful, whether it be not more hurtful by foftering lazinefs, than advantageous by conveying inftruction. The natural impreffions of religion and morality, if not obfcured by vicious habits, are fufficient for good conduct: preserve a man from vice by conftant labour, and he will not be deficient in his duty either to God or to man. Hefiod, an ancient and ref pectable poet, fays, that God hath placed labour as a guard to virtue. More integrity accordingly will be found among a number of induftrious poor, taken at random, than among the fame number in any other clafs.

I heartily approve every regulation that tends to prevent idleness. Chief Juftice Hale fays, "That "prevention of poverty and idlenefs would do "more good than all the gibbets, whipping"pofts, and gaols in the kingdom." In that

view, gaming-houfes ought to be heavily taxed, as well as horfe-racing, cock-fighting, and all meetings that encourage idlenefs. The admitting low people to vote for members of parliament, is a fource of idleness, corruption and poverty. The fame privilege is ruinous to every fmall parliament borough. Nor have I any difficulty to pronounce, that the admitting the populace to vote in the election of a parith-minifter, a frequent practice in Scotland, is productive of the fame pernicious effects.

What then is to be the refult of the foregoing enquiry? Is it from defect of invention that a good legal establishment for poor is not yet difcovered? or is it impracticable to make any legal establishment that is not fraught with corruption? I incline to the latter, for the following reafon, no lefs obvious than folid, That in a legal establishment for the poor, no diftinction can be made between virtue, and and vice; and confequently that every fuch establishment must be a premium for idleness. And where is the neceffity, after all, of any public establishment? By what unhappy prejudice have people been led to think, that the Author of our nature, fo beneficent to his favourite man in every other refpect, has abandoned the indigent to famine and death, if municipal law interpofe not? We need but infpect the human heart to be convinced, that perfons in diftrefs are his peculiar care. Not only has he made it our duty to afford them relief, but has fuperadded the paffion of pity to enforce the performance of that duty. This branch of our nature fulfils in perfection all the falutary purposes of charity, without admitting any one of the evils that a legal provifion is fraught with. The contrivance, at the fame time, is extremely fimple: it leaves to every man the objects as well as measure of his charity. No man efteems it a duty