122 
With refpect to the former, which relates 
to the comparative mortality, or rather 
the fuperiority of life enjoyed by infants 
at the Shrewfbury Houle of Induftry, 
during their farft month, beyond what 
occurs in every other part of the world, 
and in violation of the accuftomed laws 
of nature, Mr. Woop declares, in the 
letter before us, that the fecretary was 
«© inaccurate, and negligent in his ae- 
counts,” and believes it pofible that he 
did not keep a correct ragifter of the 
deaths_of infants within this period. I 
have now, therefore, no farther contention 
With him on this point; and can readily 
excufe the tendernels which he ftill ma- 
nifefts for his former opinion, by affert- 
ing that “ the mortality of their children 
has, neverthelefs, been remarkably fmall, 
and much lefs than in the old work- 
houfes, or among the poor of the town in 
their own houfes.”’ For all this I can 
give him full credit ; and have no doubt 
but much of the falubrity of the Houfe 
of Induftry proceeds from his own very 
laudable and unremitted attention. It 
would have been more fatisfactory, how- 
ever, ftill, if he had complied with a re- 
queft I expreffed in my laft letter, and 
favoured ws with a correét ftatement of 
the proportionate mortality of infants of 
the above age fince the regifter has been 
wore accurately attended to. A fingle 
fact, or a fingle figure, is worth a volume 
of obfervations that prove nothing. 
As to the average expence of the poor 
maintained within the houle, Mr. Woop 
appears ftill tenacious of his former 
aflertion, and continues to ftate it at 
xs. 62d. for each weekly. He allows, 
however, that this is not the price at 
which they are fupported at prefent, nor 
have been for many years. But that fo 
far back as 1791 this was the precife 
average of the expence then fuftained, and 
which has fince been confiderably in- 
creafed. Mr. Woop’s pamphlet (its 
taft edition at leaft) does certainly in- 
tlude a range of time from December 1782, 
the period of the inftitution of the efta- — 
blifhment, to the termination of 1794. 
But no notice is taken in any one page 
of any charge that has occurred in the 
arrangement of the diet, or its additional 
expence ; the oly average ftatement we 
meet with being the above of 1s. 63d. 
weekly for each. Nor does he now afford 
ws an opportunity of calculating for our- 
felves, and thus corroborating the truth 
wf fo extraordinary 2 pofition by an ad- 
duction of the annual grofs amoynt for 
Mr. Good in Reply to Mr. Woed. 
(F eb. 
provifions, and of the average number at 
that time fupported. From the inac- 
curacy, indeed, with which the accounts 
were, at this period, kept by an unfaith- 
ful fecretary, I do not apprehend Mr. 
Woop knows correétly, or has any of 
the above data by which to determine, 
what was the weekly expence precifely 
incurred. The average number of paupers 
for the year 1790, we colle&t from his 
pamphlet, p. 78, was 340. But wecan - 
no where collect what was either the 
average number for the year 1791, or 
the ageregate annual expence for their 
fupport. If he be in pofieffion of thefe 
data, why has he not fubftantiated his 
dflertion by producing them? ‘This, in- 
deed, was truly neceflary ; not only as it 
would have terminated the difpute at a 
moment; but becaufe, without fuch col- 
lateral evidence, it is ftill impofhible to 
believe but that he muft be egregioufly 
miltaken: for it is a price totally un- 
known in any other part of the kingdom 
where a diet equally liberal is permitted ; 
and very confiderably lower, as I have al- 
ready obferved, than what has occurred 
in the Shrewfbury Houfe of Induftry it- 
felf at every other period whatfoever of 
which we have any account. Its prefent 
expence, he tells us, is 1s.9d. for each 
inhabitant weekly : and, in the year 1794, 
the only period befides upon which we are 
able to calculate, and when, according to 
his Jaf? ttatement, the average number of 
paupers fupported was 364, and the an- 
nual fum expended in their provifions 
17821, 8s. 9d.—the weekly expence of each 
could not have been lefs than 1s. 10$d.— 
I repeat it ‘* according to his /af ftate- 
ment:”’ for the ftatement advanced by 
Mr. Woop in the fourth edition of his 
pamphlet, p. 29, differs materially from 
that of his firit letter inferted in your 
Mifcellany for November. In the former 
he tells us, dating this edition January 1, 
1795, that ‘* the average number of the 
poor in the houfe zs 350:°> while, in the 
above letter, he aflerts them to have brer 
at this time 3643; a difference, indeed, 
which it 1s not eafy to reconcile. 
The actual truth of the matter, and 
probably the only caufe of our prefent - 
controverfy, is, that the accounts which 
have hitherto been printed of this very 
laudable inftitution are, unfortunately, 
very incorrect. This gentlemian, indeed, 
frecly allows it. ** Mr. Goon,” fays 
he, in the letter before me, ‘€ complains 
that the publithed accounts of the Shrews- 
bury Houfe are imperfect; I admit the 
faét, 
