swearing persons of the Jewish persuasion, he (Mr. Middix) had not been properly sworn, and he must go through that ceremony again, and repeat his complaint afresh.

Mr. Middix then put on his hat, and was resworn on the Hebrew Bible.

ah

TO THE EDITOR OF "THE REPUBLICAN."

SIR,

As it is possible that the subject of burying the dead in large towns, and in crowded neighbourhoods, will be brought before the Parliament in the ensuing Session, allow me to add a few facts in corroboration of what your correspondent R. H. has before stated.

The town to which I allude is Sheffield, the parish church of which is in the centre of the town. The population is about 42,000. In the churchyard, there is, an average of four burials a day. I have seen graves dug for eight or nine in one day. For the last thirty years, the bodies have been accumulating so fast, that there is scarcely room left to inter a corpse. Before a grave is dug, the Sexton has to bore with an iron skewer, about seven feet long, to ascertain whether he is likely to fall in with a fresh buried coffin. I have seen graves dug there not more than two feet deep. I have seen a grave dug in which the Sexton has cut through five, six, and seven coffins. I have seen coffins, opened in which there has been a perfeet skeleton: the teeth good, and the hair on the scalp; the coffins, in more than one instance, have been half full of corruptible matter, which the grave-digger has scooped out with a bowl. The bones have then been put into a basket, and taken into the church; the coffin has been served in the same manner, for what purpose I know not; and the stench during this time has been intolerable! I have seen bodies taken out of the graves early in the morning, and laid by the side of them, covered over with a little loose earth all the day, and then re-interred in the evening after a funeral. And I have seen, in that churchyard in a morning, indications of the resurrection-men having been at work during the night. This I did not consider an evil; but the reverse. I still adhere to a resolution made three years ago to leave my body for dissection, in preference to letting the maggots and worms dissect it. My favourite plan would be to resolve the bodies into their constituent gases by fire; and I think this may be done for a considerably less expense than the present method of disposing of them; or even taking them out of the towns for interment.

Should any persons think I have exaggerated in my statements, I would refer them to the Sheffield papers during the last six months, in which they will find repeated complaints of this nature, and plans proposed for a remedy similar to those of R. H. There is a large plot of ground attached to the new church in Sheffield for the purpose of burials, but the Bishop has refused to consecrate it because it is not enclosed! Some persons in Sheffield have seen parts of corpses dug up where the grave-digger has had to chop with his spade the flesh and earth together, to prevent people discovering what he threw out of the graves: for the churchyard is a public thoroughfare. These are real evils, and they call loudly for a remedy; which I should hope the growing intelligence of the people will effect ere long, should the legislature decline it. Every person is able to do something in this case, and one example is worth a hundred precepts. I am, &c.

W. V. HOLMES.

October 11, 1826.

A DIALOGUE BETWEEN A PHILANTHROPIST AND A

LABOURER.

(Written for the Republican.)

P. WELL, William, how does the world move with you hope your prospects are mended since I saw you last.

now!

L. My prospects are mended, Sir, but still they are disheartening. I have obtained employment, but wages are so low that I can barely make a life of it. I fear that all my exertions will not keep me from the parish; and I cannot bear the thought of that; I would sooner die than go to ask for the parish allowance.

P. I trust, William, that you will never be compelled to adopt this last resource to prolong existence. By such a step you would not only feel degraded, but you would lose what little property you now possess, your cottage and garden.

L. Ah! Sir, I am sure I could not outlive such a loss as that! This cottage was built by my father, and though the walls are made with mud, I value them as much as if they were built of marble; and I dare say they are just as warm and keep out as much wet.

P. It is natural that you should feel an attachment for the spot you have been bred on; and cold indeed must be the heart

of him who could calmly look on and see you deprived of it. But provided you get constant employment, even at your present low wages, do you not think that you may, by good management, avoid the misfortune of being forced upon the parish? Your father's wages were never high; farm labour has not been well paid for the last fifty years; but he managed to appear as respectable as any farmer in the neighbourhood.

L. That is true, Sir, but I have greater difficulties to contend with than my father had, and I fear that they will be still greater. My father did not marry till he was near forty years of age, and previous to that time he had saved enough in guineas to pay for what he could not do himself to this cottage. I am the only child he ever had; and my mother was a strong, healthy woman, who went to work as constantly as my father did. I have not been married three years, and yet have two children, and my wife in the family way again. This, Sir, makes a wide difference. My wife has been out at work only a few weeks during harvest since our marriage; and it has been a great task for me to scrape together sufficient to pay the doctor and nurse. It vexed me to see the coarse food she was forced to live on during her illness, especially the last, while for a short time I was out of employ. As my wife and I are both young, myself not twenty-three, my wife not so old, it is likely that we shall have a long family; and if such should be the case, and wages remain so low, I have no notion how we shall be able to live.

P. There are so many examples around of the ill effects of large families that you cannot do less than dread being burthened with one. But your family is yet but small, and if you choose you may confine it to its present limits.

L. Oh! Sir, I should be a new man could I be assured that my family would not increase beyond two or three. We should then do without the doctor and nurse, and my wife may obtain strength to do the work of the house if she could not work in the field. But I fear we shall never have resolution not to have any more children. During my wife's last lying-in she made me promise never more to sleep with her. She dreaded the thought of having again to undergo such sufferings, and of having more ehildren to support out of our scanty means. I was as ready to make the promise as she was to ask it; but keeping it was another matter. We broke our promise by mutual consent; and so I think we should if we had sworn to keep it. I fear, Sir, there is no hope for us in this matter.

P. If the restricting of your family depended on your avoiding the marriage bed, or the pleasures of sexual union, I should also say there was no hope for you. The human race has ever sought those pleasures and enjoyed them in spite of the evil consequences they are oftentimes calculated to produce. But it is not neces

sary that you should forego those pleasures to restrict your family.

L. My wife says that she will suckle her next child till it is two years old, to try whether that will prevent her having more children, as many persons say it will.

P. It is not an effectual preventative, and is besides attended with much mischief. Conception often takes place while the mother is giving suck; and after she has ceased to suckle, she is as likely to conceive as if she had not suckled beyond the ordinary time. Besides, it is often very injurious to the female constitution, and so weakens it that she scarcely regains her wonted strength afterwards. I should think you must have seen instances of this; for I know the custom is common hereabout.

L. Yes, Sir, I think I have. Our neighbour Nelly Thompson suckled her fourth child for nearly three years, and she was at last so weakly that she could scarcely leave the house; and when she appeared in the field at harvest, it was painful to look at her. She has had three children since, but all weakly: two died shortly after their birth.

P. You would certainly not like to see your wife injured in the same manner. You would rather, I should think, that she produced you a long family.

L. Sometimes women do not have children after they have suckled a child a long time; and having many children makes a woman as weakly as long suckling. The evil is the same in one case as in the other; and as I thought there was a chance with it, I agreed that my wife should suckle her next child as long as she may choose to do it. But I should be very glad to know, Sir, if there be any means by which to prevent our having more children, without risking my wife's health, as you just now hinted.

P. You can read, and I will leave you directions that will answer your purpose perfectly, if you choose to follow them. The means this little pamphlet proposes, are simple, almost devoid of expense, and effectual as a preventative; they can in no way injure health, and require but a very small portion of attention.

L. Oh! Sir, such directions will be a prize indeed! What labouring man would be burthened with a long family if he could possibly avoid it! If it cost me a tenth of my earnings and a tenth of my time, I should consider them well expended to obtain such an object! I should think, Sir, that copies of these pamphlets would be universally acceptable.

P. However useful they may be, they are not so well received as you imagine. The interest of princes, whose thrones are founded on the degradation of the people, has led them to teach the poor cottagers that they ought to give birth to all the children they can. Giving birth to children has by them been held as the first of moral duties. This high authority has had great effect on

the mass of mankind, and they are prejudiced against the adoption of means that belie the soundness of the Kingly morality. The privileged classes of society know well that it is a redundant population that enables them to live in splendour without labour, to maintain their privileges, and to tyrannize over their fellowmen. Who would join the standard of princes, if good wages awaited every one in his native land? Who would risk his life in the field of battle, if the cottage were the abode of comfort, cheerfulness, and peace? Too well do tyrants know their strong hold: they know that excess of people is the cause of distress, of ignorance, and of brutality; and they know well, too, that from a poor, ignorant, and brutal people they can alone draw forth men to support their caprices in the field of battle.'

L. I have often been told that it was a great duty to rear children; but I know that it would be injurious to myself, and I cannot see how it would do good to any others. I am fond of my children, but how could I bear to see them naked and starving! I may be able to support two or three in such a way that it will do my heart good to look at them; but a few more added to them would bring us all to poverty. The dread that such may happen has hitherto been my continual torment; to look on my dear little ones, and to think that they might be reduced still lower than our present low state-even to the parish pittance or the workhouse-has often unman'd me, and I have almost wished that I had never met with a woman to my mind-that I had never become a father! No kingly morality shall prevent me from doing all I can to avoid starvation.

26

"P. Self-preservation is the grand law of nature. As members of society, we have minor laws that claim our attention. They may be simply classed and defined thus :-To seek our own happiness so as not to injure the happiness of others-which is morality and, To assist others in their search for happiness, even when it does not immediately benefit ourselves-which is virtue. It is very evident, that by restricting our families to the number we can comfortably support, we violate neither of those laws, but are acting in accordance with all. We have an eye to self-preservation, to our own happiness, and to the happiness of others, we do not assist to burthen society with a number of beings who cannot find employment we do not assist in the general degradation of our species.

L. I see now, Sir, that there would be more advantages resulting from labourers restricting their families, than what they would directly receive themselves. We should get higher wages, because there would not be so many offering to work for a mere trifle.

P. Nothing can be more evident than that when wages are low, there are too many labourers. Yet this fact, evident as it is, is by some denied. On what ground it is denied, I never could