¢ 
4.i2 
expence of provifions, but no ftatement of 
the zumber of poor who were fupported 
by them; and for the intermediate years 
we have no ftatement for the one or the 
other. I hada right to prefume, how- 
ever, that in the year 1794 the number 
of peor was diminifhed below what they 
amounted to in 1790, and, indeed, that 
they were diminifhing annually. Mr. 
Wood had himielf {pecified them to have 
diminifhed at leaft ten from 1789 to 
1790; being in the former year 350, in 
the latter 340. It is natural to fuppofe, 
I obferved, that the prudent. regulations 
adopted by the direftors at Shrewfbury, 
will occafion, every year, a diminution 
in the number of dependant paupers, in 
the fame manner that fimilar regulations 
have been attended with fimilar benéficial 
effects at Norwich, and at Hamburgh. 
Ait the latter place, this diminution has, 
for the laf feven years, amounted, upon 
the average, to an hundred families per 
annum; and, at the former, from 1789 
to 1792, to more than an hundred perfons 
annually.” This mode of reafoning, in- 
@eed, Mr. Wood now chufes to brand 
with the appellation. of ‘* uwxfounded pre- 
fumption” ; but whether it be prefumption 
in him thus to term it, or in me thus to 
reafon, I leave with the public to decide 
for us. ‘¢ It fo happened, indeed, fays Mr. 
Wood, that at Norwich there were 300 
fewer in 1792 than in 1789 :”” it ‘certain- 
fy did fo happen; and it happened like- 
wife, that the number of paupers at Ner- 
wich had been regularly diminifhing every 
year for the five years preceding 1792. 
<¢ Allowing, however, I continued, the 
number of poor at Shrewfbury to have 
been precifely the fame this year as four 
years before, viz. 340; and that this an- 
hual expence of provifions amounted to 
the fum actually fpecified of 17821. 8s od. 
even on this calculation, the weekly ex- 
pence of provifions arifes to upwards of 
zs. per head.”?” I am now, however, in- 
formed by Mr. Wood’s letter inferted 
in your laft Magazine, that, owing to 
fome accidental caufe, the number of 
poor in the year 1794, inftead of dimi- 
nifhing or even remaining the fame, had 
sncreafed from 340 to 364: and. Mr. 
_ Wocd exults at the mifconception into 
‘which his profound filence upon this fub- 
jet had very naturally led me; and now 
attempts once more to ftate the certainty 
with which the poor are maintained at 
the weekly rate of 1s. 6d3 foreach. But 
Mr. Wood's error, though not fo enor- 
mous, is now rendered more palpable, 
and confpicuous than before. For as the 
table in his pamphlet ftates that there 
_was actually expended in proyifions this 
Mr. Good in reply to Mr. Wood of Shrew/foury. 
‘{[Dec. 
year for thofe 364 -paupers no lefs a fum 
than ‘17821. 8s. gd. a little numerical 
calculation will demonftrate incontefibly - 
hat each pauper muft have coft in round 
numbers 1s. 103d per week inflead of 
1s. 63d., independant of milk, cheefe, 
and grocery, which dre not included in the 
cfiimate. ‘This difference calculated for 
individuals, and ter the week only, may, 
at fir fight, appear trifling, but when 
multiplied »by large numbers of* indivi- 
duals’ refident together, and extended 
through the year inftead of being ccn- 
fined to the week, the fum total will be- 
come an object of very ferious concern: 
and, if there be any truth. in numerical 
arithmetic, the error I at firft fufpeéted, 
is now-confirmed beyend all poffibility of 
denial. And yet Mr. Wood ftill main- 
tains in his letter, that *¢ the fad re{pect- 
ing “provifions was corredily fiated from 
aciual experiment made by very intelligent 
genilemen in the direction.” 
*But I have before obferved that Mr. 
Wocd has not only endeavoured to juftify 
his own ftatement, but has retaliated by 
charging me alfo with having fallen into 
an equal error mylelf, in confequence of 
having averaged, in my pamphlet, the 
maintenance of the poor at Norwich at 
2s. 10d. per head weekly. It is true I 
have thus averaged them; not, however, 
from any perfonal knowledge I have pre- 
tended to, but from the authority of a 
very valuable tract written by-Mr. Van- 
couver, to which, in this very place, I 
have given a full reference. Whether, 
therefore, this account be true or falfe, 
Tam in no refpect implicated in it myfelf: I 
have candidly advanced my authority, and 
am neither intitled to praife for accuracy, 
nor ceniure for miftake. I have not at 
prefent this pamphlet of Mr. Vancouver’s 
at hand; but it is not improbable, how- 
ever, that in the average {um of 2s. rod. 
for weekly mazztenance, thould be included 
the expence of clothing as well as of pravi- 
fons; and I am obliged to Mr. Wood 
for this opportunity of explaining a 
charge which muft otherwife appear ex- 
travagant ; as Tam alfo for the compli- 
ments with which he has honoured my- 
little traé&t in the courfe of his letter. 
Bas yoy ys Teuxpy TamoTe). ayysrAouats 
Ocoy tor’ En Opos WV, TOTOVO Eyes @sAos* 
Kee Eup.Wovery, paca} jenosy EAAELITELY OGOY 
Xpn Tors apirrose cevdpeeary orovety Crores. 
Caroline-place, J. M. Goon: 
Guildford-ftreet, Dec, 14. 
P.S. Tbeg leave to avail myfelf of the 
Oppertunity. afforded by your Magazine, of 
publicly contradiéting the report which has 
{tated me to be the authorof the fatirical poeng 
gatitied the §* Purfuits of Literature.® 
