1799-1] 
* What “ richt” Mr. Good had to pre- 
fume, that the number of our poor dimi- 
nifhed annually, it is above my humble 
capacity to comprehend. I fhould have 
entertained a prefumption direétly the re- 
verfe. ‘The circumftances of the times ; 
—the ftaenation of many branches of ma- 
nufaétures; the vaft number of families 
belonging to foldiers, militia-men, and 
failors, thrown upon their parifhes ;—in 
my poor judgment, would have led to the 
oppofite conclufion. IsMr. Goodto learn, 
that the amount of the poor’s rates have 
prodigioufly increafed? At Birmingham, 
the fum raifed for the fupport of the poor 
in 1787, was 11,132]. 16s. od. 33 in 
1794, 24,0501. 148. 1d.4. [I ftared in 
my laft, that the amount in £789 at Nor- 
wich, was 17.4861. 19s. r1d.—in 1797, 
25,5161. 78. 8¢.. Yet, with this fact fta- 
ring him in the face, Mr. Good fays, he 
had a right to prefume that their poor 
were diminifhed. It appears alfo from the 
printed Norwich accounts, that the num- 
ber of their poor in 1792, was 11413 'in 
1794, 1406: but here again Mr. Good 
conceives, that it was natural to expect 
the reverfe; and ftates fuch diminution to 
have taken place at Hamburgh —At 
Hambureh, where there is no legal provi- 
fion for the poor, and where the diminu- 
tion was naturally produced, by taking a 
hundred families per annum from beggary, 
and, by the admirable regulations of their 
benevolent eftablifhment, putting them in 
a way of fupporting themfelves. 
In all weil-regulated houfes of induftry, 
the refidents principally confit of invalids; 
the old poor; and children. Of thefe 
there is a’ continued fucceffion: and in 
thefe claffes Mr. Good will not fay, he has 
a ‘* right to expeét”” an annual diminution. 
‘The great utility of thefe eftablifhments 
confiits in their furnifhing a very comiort- 
able afylum for the aged, and difabled 
poor; a ufeful feminary for the young, 
where they are trained up to habits of in- 
Guftry and virtue; and the only effectual 
check againft the frauds and impolitions of 
the idle and profligate, who can no longer 
extort undeferved relief, by the pretence 
that they cannot procure employment. 
The vehement declaimers againft thefe in- 
ftitutions, who reprefent them as flaugh- 
ter-boufes, and expatiate upon the cruelty 
of compelling the poor indifcriminately to 
quit their own dwellings, and thus deftroy- 
ing all the tender fympathies of focial and 
domeftic life, and all the endearing affini- 
ties of parent and child, filter and bro- 
ther, have conjured up a phantom which 
exifts no where but in their own difturbed 
’ 
Mr. Wood in reply to Mr. Good on the Poor. 
2 
and bufy fancies, and ferves only to.mark 
how far men may be mifled by groundlefs 
prejudices, haftily adopted, and obftinately 
retained. Such praétices have no placein 
any well regulated houle of induftry 
throughout the kinedom. They are as 
incompatible with found policy and paro- 
chial economy, as they are abhorrent to 
every principle both of juftice and huma- 
nity. The ineftimable advantages derived 
from thefe inftitutions may be obtained, 
and at the fame time, the condition of the 
poor really ameliorated. The aged, who 
have relatives or friends difpofed to take 
proper care of then, may be relieved at 
thofe dwellings which long habit, and ten~ 
der connection have endeared to them: 
the fick and infirm, more. liberally affifted 
in feafons of temporary diftrefs, from the 
produce of that fund which is created by 
refifting the claims of the idle and profii- 
gate: the offspring of illicit amours; the 
orphan bereaved of its parent; and fuch 
others of the young poor whom the labour 
of their parents cannot maintain ; may be 
trained up in thefe parochial feminaries to 
virtuous difpofitions, and induftrious ha- 
bits; and, at the fame time, by allowing’ 
of mutual intercourfe, occafional vifits to 
their parents or friends, and fuch other 
prudent regulations, as a board of refpecta- 
ble directors will not fail to adopt, thofe 
objections which have been ftated by fpe- 
culative theorifts, ignorant of the pra¢tical 
management of thefe eftabl:ifhments, may 
be completely obviated, or at leaft all rea- 
fonable ground of obje&tion be removed. 
But, to fupport thefe aflertions, it would 
e neceflary to exceed thofe limits to which 
communications for your truly valuable 
mifcellany ought to be confined. I have 
fome thoughts of entering at large into 
this argument, by way of introduétion to 
a fifth edition of my little pamphlet which 
is now in the prefs. 
Mr. Good complains, that the publithed 
accounts of the Shrewfbury Houfe are im- 
perfect. YT admit the fact, and will tell 
him the true reafon. The prof{perity and 
flourifhing ftate of this eftablifhment for 
the firft feven years, excited in the then 
Board a very miftaken idea; that our fuc- 
cels was chiefly owing to the exertions of 
our domeftic officers, This produced a 
falfe confidence, and the management of 
the internal concerns of the houle was re- 
figned into their hands, The confequerce 
was (as it always will be), inereafed ex- 
pence, and growing neglect. Many inetf- 
feétual ftruggles to refume the reins enfued, 
So true is’thé obfervation of my excellent 
friend M, Voght, one of the kenevolent _ 
Aa founders. 
