i 
Parifh. of 
Extent and population ? 
_ Number of houfes that pay the 
- houfe or window tax, diftinguifh- 
ing donble tenements ? 
Number of houfes exempted ? 
Occupations of parifhioners, and 
whether in agriculture, commerce, 
or manufactures ? 
What manufactures ? 
Price of provifions? 
Wages of labour? 
Rent of land, and land-tax on 
the net rental ? 
What feét of religion? 
Tithes, how taken? 
Number of inns, or alehoufes? 
Farms large or fmall? What is 
the moft ufeful tenure? Principal 
articles of cultivation ? 
‘Commons and wafte lands? 
Number of acres inclofed (if ea- 
fily obtainable) in any of the laft 
40 years ? 
How are the poor maintained ? 
by farming them? in houfes of in- 
‘duftry? or otherwife ? 
Houfes of induftry (if any) their 
ftate, numbers therein, annual mor- 
tality, diet, expences and profit 
Mince their eftablifhment? baptifms, 
burials, and marriages (diftinguith- 
ing the fex) and of the poor’s. rates 
(diftinguifhing the net fum expend- 
ed.on the pobdr fince the year 1680) 
from the parifh books ? 
Number and ftate of friendly fo- 
cicties ? 
How many of them have had 
their rules confirmed by magif- 
trates ? 
Ufual diet of labourers ?. 
Earnings and expences of a [a- 
tourer’s family for a year; diftin- 
.guifhing the number and ages of 
the family, and the price and quan- 
tity of their articles of Saat tiny: 
tion? 
482 ANNUAL REGISTER, 149. 
Mifcellaneous obfervations. 
Sir F. Eden, after giving at fome 
length his reafons for propofing the 
preceding queries,makes the follow- 
ing apology for not enlarging their 
number. 
“It may poflibly yet be afked, why 
the queries have been fo few? and 
why they did not alfo comprehend 
other parochial concerns, no lefs 
interefting than births, burials, and 
poor’s rates? Had the author un- 
dertaken the hiftory of a fingle pa- 
rifh, omiflions refpeéting its natural’ 
hiftory, its antiquities, orits agri- 
-ctlture, would have been inexcuf-' 
able: but when it is confidered 
that the objcét of this work was to 
trace the progrefs of the poor laws, 
and to examine the condition of 
thofe principally concerned in 
them, it will be obvious that a mi- 
nute attention to particular places, 
purfued with more time, more la~- 
bour, and more expence, muft 
have incapacitated him from exhi- 
biting a general view of the fub- 
ject. The reader will, therefore, 
have the candour to confider each 
part in the proportion, only, which 
it bears to the whole; nor will he 
expect that the outlines of a gene- 
ral map of the country can admit 
of the colouring of a miniature pic- 
ture. Much, no doubt, may have 
been omitted, that bears on the 
prefent fubje&; but in literature, 
as well asin manufaétures (and the 
author might have added inagricul- 
ture) divifion of labour is to be at- 
tended to. He who wifhes eithet 
to acquire. or to communicate 
ufeful knowledge, will only culti- 
vate acorner of the field.” 
It is obvious that anfwers to 
queftions on the various branches 
of political ceconomy, inveftigated 
ia this work, will naturally lead to 
many 
