hibiting any new buildings within three miles of London. The preamble is in the following words: "That foreseeing the great and manifold incon"veniencies and mifchiefs which daily grow, and

are likely to increase, in the city and fuburbs " of London, by confluence of people to inhabit "the fame; not only by reafon that fuch mul"titudes can hardly be governed, to ferve God "and obey her Majefty, without conftituting an " addition of new officers, and enlarging their au"thority; but alfo can hardly be provided of food "and other neceffaries at a reasonable price; and "finally, that as fuch multitudes of people, many "of them poor, who must live by begging or worfe means, are heaped up together, and in a fort "fmothered with many children and fervants in "one houfe or fmall tenement; it must needs fol"low, if any plague or other univerfal fickness come amongst them, that it would prefently fpread through the whole city and confines, and "alfo into all parts of the realm."

There appears as little accuracy in this proclamation, as in the French ordinances. The fame error is obfervable in both, which is the limiting the extent of the city, 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 ftone is in plenty about Paris, houses there may be carried to a very great height; and are actually fo carried on 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 number of inhabitants, not against the extent of the city. At the fame time, the objection is at Beft-doubtful in point of fact. Though vices abound in a great

1

city, requiring the ftricteft attention of the magiftrate; yet with a well-regulated police, it appears 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 against numbers, not extent. Befide, whatever might have been the cafe in the days of Elifabeth, when agriculture and internal commerce were in their infancy; there are at prefent not many towns in England when 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 houfes enlarged, London has never been once vifited by the plague. If the proclamation had taken effect, the houfes must have been fo crouded upon each other, and the streets fo contracted, as to have occafioned plagues ftill more frequently than before the year 1666.

The Queen's immediate fucceffors were not more clear-fighted than fhe had been. In the year 1624, King James iffued a proclamation against building in London upon new foundations. Charles I. iffued two proclamations to the fame 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 first I 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 beft foldiers, adds what follows." Interdum tamen neceffitas exigit, Len

(a) De re militari, lib. 1. cap. 3.

ઃઃ

etiam

"etiam urbanos ad arma compelli: qui ubi nomen dedere militiæ, primum laborare, decurrere, portare pondus, et folem pulveremque "ferre, condifcant; parco victu utantur et rufti

co; interdum fub divo, interdum fub papilio"nibus, commorentur. Tunc demum ad ufum "erudiantur armorum: et fi longior expeditio e"mergit, in angariis plurimum detinendi funt pro"culque habendi a civitatis illecebris: ut eo ino"do, et corporibus eorum robur accedat, et ani"mis * "" The luxury of a great city descends from the highest to the loweft, infecting all ranks of men; and there is little opportunity in it for fuch exercise as to render the body vigorous and robuft.

The foregoing is a phyfical objection against a great city: the next regards morality. Virtue is exerted chiefly in reftraint: vice, in giving freedom to defire. Moderation and felf-command form a character the most fufceptible of virtue: fuperfluity of animal fpirits, and love of pleafure, form a cha racter the moft liable to vice. Low vices, pilfering for example, or lying, draw few or no imibut vices that indicate a foul above reftraint, produce many admirers. Where a man boldly struggles againft unlawful reftraint, he is justly applauded and imitated; and the vulgar are not apt to diftinguish nicely between lawful and unlawful reftraint: the boldness is vifible, and they pierce no deeper. It is the unruly boy, full of animal

tators;

* "But fometimes there is a neceffity for arming the town's-people, " and calling them out to service. When this is the cafe, it ought to be "the first care to enure them to labour, to march them up and down "the country, to make them carry heavy burdens, and to harden them a"gainst the weather. Their food fhould be coarse and fcanty, and they "fhould be habituated 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 distant one, they should be chiefly employed in the "stations 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."

animal fpirits, who at public fchool 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 increases more and more in proportion to the number of inhabitants. But it is fufficient here barely to mention that objection, because it has been formerly insisted 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 diftant provinces muft fink into idlenefs; for without ready money neither arts nor manufactures can flourifh. Thus we find lefs 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 fcarcity of money; and that city which the laft century contained 300,000 inhabitants, cannot now mufter above 90,000 It may be obferved befide, that as horfes in a great city must be provided with provender from a diftance, 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

If

Is not the following inference from these rremiffes well founded, that it would be a ruinous measure 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 monéy, its manufactures would be annihilated, and depopulation ensue. remitted in commodities, the public would be cheated, and little be added to the revenue. A lând-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.

tage to the farmer, than upon what is already highly improved, the depriving diftant parts of manure is a lofs to a nation 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 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 beft hands. And as they who refort to the capital 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 most 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 populous city is infected by multitudes crouded together; and people there feldom make out the ufual term of life. With respect 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 thou. fand yearly by the moft moderate computation, not under feven or eight thoufand. As London is far from being on the decline, that number must be supplied 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 war would be, fuppofing it even to be perpetual. What an enormous tax is Britain thus fubjected to for fupporting her capi

tal!