66

fions, of labour, and of manufactures.

Fourth, That ground would be covered "with buildings inftead of corn, which

might hazard a fcarcity. Fifth, That "the country would be depopulated by "the defire that people have to refort to "the capital. And, laftly, That the dif

ficulty of governing fuch numbers, "would be an encouragement to robbery 46 and murder."

In these reasons, the limiting the extent of the city and the limiting the number of inhabitants are jumbled together, as if they were the fame. The only reafons that regard the former, are the fecond and fourth; and thefe, at beft, are trifling. The first reason urged against enlarging the city, is a folid reafon for enlarging it, fuppofing the numbers to be limited; for crouding is an infallible means to render the air unwholefome. Paris, with the fame number of inhabitants that were in the days of the fourth Henry, occupies thrice the space, much to the health as well as comfort of the inhabitants. Had the ordinances mentioned been made effectual, the houses in Paris must all have been built ftory above ftory, afcending to

the

the fky like the tower of Babel. Before

the great fire anno 1666, the plague was frequent in London; but by widening the streets and enlarging the houses, there has not fince been known in that great city, any contagious diftemper that deferves the name of a plague. The third, fifth, and laft reafons, conclude against permitting any addition to the number of inhabitants; but conclude nothing against enlarging the town. In a word, the meafure adopted in thefe ordinances has little or no tendency to correct the evils complained of; and infallibly would enflame the chief of them. The measure that ought to have been adopted, is to limit the number of inhabitants, not the extent of the town.

Queen Elifabeth of England, copying the French ordinances, iffued a proclamation anno 1602, prohibiting any new buildings within three miles of London. The preamble is in the following words: "That foreseeing the great and manifold "inconveniencies and mifchiefs which

daily grow, and are likely to increase, "in the city and fuburbs of London, by "confluence of people to inhabit the

“fame;

"fame; not only by reafon that fuch "multitudes can hardly be governed, to "ferve God and obey her Majesty, with

66

out conflituting an addition of new of

ficers, and enlarging their authority; "but also can hardly be provided of food "and other neceffaries at a reafonable

price; and finally, that as fuch multitudes of people, many of them poor "who must live by begging or worfe means, are heaped up together, and in a fort fmothered with many children " and fervants in one houfe or fmall te

nement; it must needs follow, if any plague or other univerfal fickness come amongst them, that it would prefently spread through the whole city and con"fines, and alfo into all parts of the realm."

There appears as little accuracy in this proclamation, as in the French ordinances. The fame error is obfervable in both, which is the limiting the extent of the city, inftead of limiting the number of inhabitants. True it is indeed, that the regulation would have a better effect in London than in Paris. As ftone is in plenty about Paris, houfes there may be carried to a very great height; and are

actually

actually fo carried in the old town: but there being no ftone about London, the houfes formerly were built of timber, now of brick; materials too frail for a lofty edifice.

Proceeding to particulars, the first objection, which is the expence of governing a great multitude, concludes against the number of inhabitants, not against the extent of the city. At the fame time, the objection is at best doubtful in point of fact. Tho' vices abound in a great city, requiring the ftrictest attention of the magiftrate; yet with a well-regulated police, it appears lefs expenfive to govern 600,000 in one city, than the fame number in ten different cities. The fecond objection, viz. the high price of provifions, strikes only against numbers, not extent. Beside, whatever might have been the cafe in the days of Elifabeth, when agriculture and internal commerce were in their infancy; there are at prefent not many towns in England, where a temperate man may live cheaper than in London. The hazard of contagious diftempers, which is the third objection, is an invincible argument againft limiting the extent of a great town.

It is mentioned above, that from the year 1666, when the streets were widened and the houses enlarged, London has never been once vifited by the plague. If the proclamation had taken effect, the houses must have been fo crouded upon each other, and the streets fo contracted, as to have occafioned plagues ftill more frequently than before the year 1666.

The Queen's immediate fucceffors were not more clear-fighted than fhe had been. In the year 1624, King James iffued a proclamation against building in London upon new foundations. Charles I. iffued two proclamations to the fame purpose; one in the year 1625, and one in the year 1630.

The progress of political knowledge has unfolded many bad effects of a great city, more weighty than any urged in thefe proclamations. The first I shall mention, is, that people born and bred in a great city are commonly weak and effeminate. Vegetius (a) obferving, that men bred to husbandry make the best foldiers, adds what follows. "Interdum tamen