information. The report delivered to Mr. Locke is omitted on account of its gross deficiency; so is that lately published as the returns of 1748, 1749, and 1750, and for the same reason. The reports of the years 1776 and 1783 are amended on the authority of Mr. Gilbert, who moved for them, and who, on due examination, so corrected them. The succeeding sums are given as published by authority, though the earlier of these are still confessedly deficient. Connected with these sums, I have, in the next column, given the revenue of the corresponding years, or, in the earlier part of the table, where that was not practicable, of nearly the same period. But as revenue may not be thought a fair comparison on many accounts, I have added a column for the exports at the different dates; and likewise one for the national debt, as it has been pronounced so light in comparison with the nuisance of our poor-rates. Lastly, I have collected the accounts of the numbers of the poor at the different periods, accompanied by a statement of the population at such times, which completes the comparison I wish to institute. Another column or two, however, might well have been added, retorting on the antagonists of the poor-laws their favourite argument. Had the progress of the county and other public disbursements been given (not to mention more distressing national statistics), their "geometric ratio" of increase would have been indeed exhibited! In refraining to do so, I shall only remark, that to single out poverty whereon to ground these ominous calculations, manifests either an obliquity of intellect or principle truly astonishing.

The preceding facts require little comment. They show, in respect of the burden of sustaining the poor, that of all the national items, whether of income or expenditure, this is so far from having increased in a super-proportion, that it is the only one that has greatly lagged behind. Compared with the public revenue, one hundred and fifty years ago, the poorrate nearly amounted to one-half; whereas at the present period it amounts to little more than one-tenth. As to the interest of the national debt (which is said to be so slight an evil, compared with this),—whereas, at the former period, the expense of the poor was considerably more than twenty times that of the interest of the public incumbrance, at present the latter is more than five times as much as the former. But if these should be rejected as unfair criteria (though I know not why they should be so deemed), let us take the exports of the country during the same period. One hundred and forty years ago, these were only four times as much in amount as the then charge for maintaining the poor; at present the latter is little more than a twelfth of the former. Then, respecting the number of the paupers at each period, compared with the existing population, a decisive proof of the same gratifying fact presents itself. About the revolution, they amounted to one-fourth of the people; at present their relative number is diminished to one-twelfth. As to any great inaccuracy in regard to not including in the latter number the families of the relieved, a matter much dwelt upon by those who wish to represent England as a nation of paupers; we are enabled to correct the general method of multiplying the

number into families, in order to obtain the real proportion. In 1803, the children of the relieved, as well as the children relieved, were added to the number, which swells the total of that year to 1,039,716;. a very different addition to what such make; instead of five times the number, not forming near a third of it, including orphans, and the still more unhappy and numerous class, illegitimates. A useful little work, entitled "Statistical Illustrations," thus calculating by families, says, that forty-two out of every hundred were, in 1815, receiving parochial relief! The very sum the poor cost that year utterly disproves this,less than three farthings a day each, on such a calculation, not as the minimum but as the average of the relief afforded! Parochial officers, what say ye to this? But it should be observed, that, of the poor relieved in the workhouse, all the children are numbered; and frequently, on my own knowledge, those of the out-pensioners likewise; the illegitimate children constantly. A reference to the work of Sir F. M. Eden will prove this; and will have the further good effect of showing how few of these pensioners could by any possibility be deducted, consisting, as the great majo rity does, of the aged poor, and of widows and orphans. But a mistake, of a nature quite contrary to the one under examination, is always made in estimating the real number of paupers amongst us; and one, as I believe, hitherto entirely overlooked. Not only are those, regularly relieved, returned, but all those who have occasional assistance during the year are entered; and if they apply more than once, probably they are not unfrequently entered as often as they apply. Whatever may be the general practice as to the latter fact,

certainly very many of the casually relieved poor, who amount, it will be seen on reference to the reports, to nearly half the entire number, if they receive ever so few donations, or not more than one, and do not remain on the books for any considerable length of time; still, at the end of the year, though long off the list, they are returned. Military courtesy, once a captain and always a captain, is extended even to pauperism. Perhaps I shall be better understood by adducing an example. If we take up an infirmary report, and should judge of the actual inmates by the number of annual admissions, ar exceedingly erroneous idea would be entertained. The same mistake applies, though not to an equal extent, in judging of the numbers of the poor from annual reports. The annual amount must necessarily much exceed the co-existing number. Of one thing I feel fully confident; that the excess above the actual number of the relieved poor, at any one time, thus occasioned, will far more than compensate for the omission of the children of that particular class of paupers who have families. These remarks will not be deemed superfluous by those who wish to redeem the country from the character of pauperism, which some seem so anxious to fix upon it.

But to return to what the adversaries of our national charity mainly dwell upon,-the expense. Again adverting to the preceding table, made up on authorities which are given throughout, I think it may be asserted that the very reverse of what is alleged, in regard to the supposed super-proportionate increase of our poor-rates, is demonstrated. But even with these facts before my eyes, in contradicting the whole