1797.] 
then every poor family had a home of their 
own, why remove them to 2 large houfe of 
induftry, rather than allow them fome-’. 
thiog, in a time of ficknefs or old age, at 
home; andif any have nor a home, why 
not oblige them to fix their refidence fome- 
where, and then work for their living? 
and why fhould thofe who havé a home be: 
torn from it to refide with vagabonds ? 
It may be afked, what are orphans to do 
who have no parents to take the care of 
them ? Tothis I reply, I think they, of all 
others, are the peculiar care of the public, 
and, inftead of thrufting thofe helplefs 
innocents into a workhoufe, they ought 
to be put under the care of fome decent - 
perfon, wha would, fora moderate falary, 
take.the care ef them, bring them up 
tenderly and foberly, and, -when old 
enough to be put out, proper ‘places fhould 
be provided for them, where they fhould 
learn fome bufinefs, whereby they might 
get their living and be ufeful to foctety. 
If this plan cannot-be adopted at once, 
fome fteps ought to be taken to remedy 
thé evils of the prefent plan, and, inftead 
of having houfes of induftry upon a larger 
{cale, they ought to be leffened. Whoever 
looks into‘one of them, will find perfons of 
all ages and both fexes, and no imal! por- 
tion of them ; young fellows and girls in 
the prime of life, who are brought there 
difeafed, the effeéts of profligacy and de- 
bauchery. The confeguence af fuch a pro- 
mifcucus group, affembled and dwelling 
under the {ame roof, and reftrained by no 
principle of virtue, may be eafier gueffed 
than defcribed; if, therefore, receptacles 
are to be provided for fuch, they ought to 
be feparate and, far from each other. 
Old peopie ovght to be by themfelves, 
children by themfelves, young men by 
themfeives, and young women by them- 
felves; the treatment alfo.of old people 
and children, who are, perhaps, real ob- 
jects of charity, ought to be very different 
from that of a fet of vagabonds,who, in the 
prime of life, might have employmeat 
would they atrend to it, and wio, there- 
fore, ought to be kept upon the cvarfett, 
food on which human creatures can fub- 
fift, while the others ought to be made as 
comfortable as their fituation will admit ; - 
for furely, nothing is more abfurd and uo- 
jot, than ‘treating perfons of fo diferent 
charaéters in the fame manner—I am 
happy to fay thefe obfervations are coh- 
firmed by the concurrent leap of a 
refpeétable gentleman of the faculty, who 
has frequently attended the fick in one of 
thefe large houfes of induftry, and who 
informed me that the {ceaes of filth and 
Laws refpecting.G leaning. 
“Mannine. E. 
JSiualed ; 
433 | 
debauchery praétifed there, are fuch as he 
could not have believed had he not wit- 
neffed them. fain, fir, 
Your humble fervant, 
| J. K 
ore 
To the Editor of the Monthly Magazine. 
STR, 
A QUE STION is put * whether there 
be any punifhment for GLEANING 
in a field reaped and fhocked. 
Tam obliged, as an anfwer, to refer 
you to two CASES; both of which came 
from the pariih of TINWORTH, near 
Bury, in the county of SUFFOLK. 
The fir’ was— WooLLEDGE vw. 
26'G. 2..C. B&B. anno 
1786. 
This was an’ naétion of TRESPASS, for 
breaking and entering the plaiatifft’s clofe, 
&c. and taking corn. 
The defendant juftified—that the faid 
clofes had been fown with wheat, barley, 
&c. and that he entered after the crop 
was carried, to gather the ftraw, con- 
talsing ears of an remaining difperied 
about the feld, being the GLEANINGS of 
the faid crop, for the neceffary fupport of 
him, the defendant. 
To this juftification there was a gene- 
ral demurrer, and joinder of demurrer 5 
by which the fa&ts, being admitted, fo 
far as they were (afficiently pleaded, the’ 
legal refult upon thofe faéts was fubmit- 
ted to the determination of the court. 
Judgment was for the plaiaizff. 
Yhe queftion was again tried, on an 
action likewife of TRESPASS—-STEEL Ve 
HovuGuTon + © Us. Tr. 37& 28G.3. 
C. B. anno 1787-8. . And, in the former 
cafe, it having been objeéted ayainft the 
claim, that it had been afferted in a latin. 
tude which would defeat itfelf ; for, that 
if it exifted, it muft be. limited to the 
poor of the par:/h in which the freld was 
the defendants, pleading as be- 
fore, added to the juftification in this cafe, 
the fact that they were /ett/ed parifhioners, 
and :xbabitants of Tinworth. 
The firtt cale had been argwed, by Mr. 
Serjeant. Wilner, for the defendants. 
The fecond was argued in Bafter term, 
1787, by Mr Serjeant le Blanc. for the. 
pla ntiffs,and Lawrence for the defendants, . 
‘Aid, in Trinity, term, 1787, by fer- 
jeant Bolton, for the plaintifi, and Rookey, 
for the defendants. 

And, in Ti inity: term, 1788, the Indgey 
' nf f } 
* Pp 279. 
4H. Blackftone’s T. Rep, C. ‘P. Vol. I. 
Pp. 51-63. 
75,2 of 
