[Read Jan. 19, 1758.]
MY letter to Mr. Webb, which is printed in the second part of the
xlixth volume of the Philosophical Transactions[209], was intended to
shew this Honourable Society, that Mr. Miller, in his reply to the
Abbé Mazeas’s letter, had brought no proofs to lessen the discovery,
which he tells us the Abbé Sauvages had made, in attempting to improve
the art of painting or staining linens and cottons of a fine durable
black colour, by making use of the juice of the Carolina pennated
Toxicodendron, instead of the common method of staining black with
gauls and a preparation of iron; which, he says, always turns to a
rusty colour when washed.
Mr. Miller, instead of producing the proper proofs, to shew that this
method of staining cottons and linens of a black colour was known
before, or quoteing the authors in which he says it is mentioned,
contents himself with telling the Society, that this American
Toxicodendron is the same plant with the true varnish-tree of Japan;
and that callicuts are painted with the juice of this shrub.
In my letter to Mr. Webb, I have endeavoured to shew, that
notwithstanding the authority of Dr. Dillenius, and the authors that
have followed him, it does not appear, from Dr. Kœmpfer’s description
of this Japan plant, that it can be the same with our American one.
The design, then, of this paper, is to lay before this Society some
further reasons, why these plants cannot be the same; and that even
if they were the same, Mr. Miller has produced no authority to shew,
that this juice was ever made use of for this purpose abroad; with some
remarks on his reply to my letter, in which he obliges me to be more
particular than I intended, in explaining some errors, which I find he
has run into.
In my letter to Mr. Webb, I have pointed out the exact description,
which Kœmpfer has given us of the leaves of this plant, shewing how
much they differ from our American one: but now I shall mention some
observations that escaped me before, and which, I think, will give us a
clearer proof of this matter.
Kœmpfer, then, informs us, that this Japan varnish-tree, or
_Sitz-dsju_, is a tree, not a shrub: and this author (it is well known)
is remarkably exact in the description of his Japan plants, making the
necessary distinctions between a shrub, an arborescent shrub, and a
tree. He then goes on to explain the manner of its growth; and tells
us, that it grows with long sappy shoots, very luxuriantly, to the
height of a sallow or willow-tree, which we may reasonably allow to be
from 20 to 30 feet: whereas this Carolina pennated Toxicodendron, as
Mr. Miller tells us in his Dictionary, 6th edit. in folio, is a shrub,
and seldom rises above five feet high with us: and many people, who
have been in North America, agree, that it is but a slow grower there,
and is one of the shrubby underwoods of that country: so that, allowing
it to grow even double the height it does here, it is still but a
shrub, in companion with the other.
Further, while Dr. Dillenius was warm with this supposed discovery, of
our having got the true Japan varnish-tree in America, attempts were
made there, by intelligent persons under his direction, to procure
this varnish after the manner of Kœmpfer; but without success, as I
am assured by persons of that country now here, with whom the Doctor
corresponded.
Let us now consult the growth of the Carolina and Virginia Sumachs,
or Rhus’s, in our nursery-gardens, and compare them with this little
shrubby Toxicodendron, and we shall find, that even in this cold
climate nature keeps her regular proportionable pace in the growth of
vegetables of the same country.
Let us observe the growth of some of these Rhus’s, and we shall find
that great luxuriancy of the shoots, which Kœmpfer so justly describes
in his varnish-tree. One of these American ones even seems to promise
the same height as the Japan Rhus; whereas this little shrubby
Toxicodendron still preserves the same dwarfish slow-growing habit,
that it has in its native country.
This leads me, in the next place, to shew, that these two plants must
be of different genus’s; the one a Rhus, and the other a Toxicodendron:
and if so, according to Mr. Miller, they ought to be properly
distinguished, and not ranked together, as Dr. Linnæus has done.
In order to prove this, let us then examine Kœmpfer’s description of
the parts of the flower, and see whether it does not answer exactly
to the genus of Rhus; and whether the flowers are not male and female
in themselves, that is, hermaphrodites, on the same tree. The original
of Kœmpfer is as follows, p. 791 of his _Amœnitates_: “Flosculos
continent pumilos, et citra coriandri seminis magnitudinem radiantes,
in luteum herbaceos, pentapetalos, petalis carnosis nonnihil oblongis
et repandis, staminibus ad petalorum interstitia singulis, apicatis,
brevissimis, stylo perbrevi tricipite, floris turbini insidente;
fructus flosculum excipit gibbosus utcunque in rhomboides figuram
compressus.” Whereas Dr. Dillenius, and the authors that have copied
after him, say, that his Toxicodendron has the male blossoms on one
plant, and the female on the other; from whence it must evidently be
another genus.
It appears, however, that Dr. Dillenius was not altogether ignorant
of this difference of genus in these two plants; but, rather than his
Toxicodendron, which he had made agree exactly in the leaves, should
not agree in the fructification, he makes the accurate Kœmpfer guilty
of an unpardonable oversight, in not taking notice of the difference
of the sexes of this varnish-tree in different plants: whereas we have
just now shewn, that nothing can be more minutely and judiciously
described, than he has done both the male and female parts of the
blossom, which change into the fruit on the same plant.
The original of Dr. Dillenius’s remarks on Dr. Kœmpfer’s specimen runs
thus: “Planta sicca, quæ in Japonia lecta, servatur in phytophylacio
Sherardino, nostræ huic specie examussim quadrat, id tantum sexus
nempe differentia prætervisa fuit auctori.” Hence we find how this
error came to spread, and this false synonym to be adopted by the
botanic writers, who copied after Dillenius.
This shews us what little dependance we can have upon the result
of that meeting, which Mr. Miller mentions he had with his botanic
friends; where, from the similitude of leaves only, without the parts
of fructification, they determined these two plants, so different in
their growth, to be one and the same plant.
Mr. Miller remarks very justly, that the leaves of the same tree often
vary much in shape, such as those of the poplar, sallow, _&c._
But in answer to this, we may reasonably suppose, that Dr. Kœmpfer, who
was on the spot, would not choose for his specimens leaves of the most
uncommon sorts that were on the tree, and neglect the most common. This
would be carrying the supposition farther than can be allowed, unless
we suppose this author had not the understanding even of a common
gardener; for otherwise, I am persuaded, Sir Hans Sloane would not have
thought his specimens worth purchasing.
For another synonym to the true Japan varnish-tree, as also to
Dillenius’s pennated Toxicodendron with rhomboidal fruit, Mr. Miller
brings in (in his answer to the Abbé Mazeas’s letter) the Bahama
Toxicodendron _foliis alatis fructu purpureo pyriformi sparso_ of
Catesby’s Nat. Hist. vol. i. p. 40. so that he would have all these
three different plants one and the same; and, in his reply to my
letter, he still insists on it, that these two Toxicodendrons are the
same. But here I must beg the favour of this Honourable Society,
when they come more attentively to consider this matter, to compare
his answer to the Abbé Mazeas’s letter, and his reply to me, in this
particular part.
I shall only at present take notice, that Catesby says, this
Toxicodendron, with the pear-shaped fruit, grows usually on rocks in
Providence, Ilathera, and other of the Bahama islands; and does not
mention, that he ever saw it in Carolina. I cannot find it described
by any author as growing in Carolina, or in any other part of the
continent of North America: nor do I believe that there is a plant
of it now growing in England, or that it is even the same genus with
Dillenius’s rhomboidal-fruited one, from the different structure both
of its leaves as well as fruit.
In looking over Dr. Linnæus’s _Hortus Cliffortianus_, I find he gives
this Bahama Toxicodendron of Catesby as a synonym to his _Elemifera
foliis pinnatis_, p. 486.
I now come to that part of Mr. Miller’s reply, relating to the China
varnish-tree, that was raised from seeds sent to the Royal Society by
Father D’Incarville; where he still insists on it, that this is the
same with the spurious varnish-tree of Kœmpfer. His reasons are, that
notwithstanding the indentation and roundness of the bottom of the
lobe-leaves of the China varnish-tree, and tho’ the lobe-leaves of the
spurious Japan varnish-tree come to a point at the base, and are no-way
indented, but quite even on the edges; yet he says, because they have
an equal number of _pinnæ_, or lobe-leaves, on the whole leaf of each
tree, they must be the same.
[Illustration: _Philos. Trans. Vol. L._ TAB. XVII. _p. 447_.
_Rhus sinense foliis alates foliolis oblongis
Acuminatis ad basin sultrotundis et dentatis._
_J. Mynde delin et sc._
_Ex Horto Betanice Philippe Carter. & Webb. Armig._]
In answer to this, I say their lobe-leaves are not equal; for I have
examined both the specimens and drawings of Dr. Kœmpfer’s spurious
varnish-tree, and I don’t find that the number of the _pinnæ_ exceed
seven on a side: whereas I have a small specimen of a leaf by me, that
was taken from the top of one of D’Incarville’s China varnish-trees,
which is above eight feet high, and stands in an open exposure; and
this leaf, tho’ but a foot long, has 12 lobe-leaves, on a side, and
each lobe indented at the base[210]. At the same time I observed, that
the leaves of the young shoots of another tree were a yard long, as
they were this summer at the garden of the British Museum. Another
thing is remarkable in the leaves of this China varnish-tree; and that
is, the lobes of the leaves, as they approach to the end, grow smaller
and smaller; whereas in the spurious Japan varnish-tree they are
rather, if there is any difference, larger towards the end.
I shall make this further remark, that tho’ these indentations on the
lobe-leaves may vary in number in this China varnish-tree; yet, as
I observed before, since they are continued on even in the smaller
leaves at the top of the branches of a tree eight feet high in the open
ground, it appears to me, that this specific character, besides the
form and insertion of the lobe-leaves, will ever distinguish it as a
different species from the _Fasi-no-ki_, or spurious varnish-tree of
Kœmpfer.
Mr. Miller now goes on to tell us, he is confirmed in his belief of
their being the same, by making some observations on the seeds of this
China varnish-tree; and therefore asserts, that they are the same. It
is natural to suppose he compared them with the accurate drawings of
the seeds of Kœmpfer’s _Fasi-no-ki_, p. 794. that being the only place
where the seeds of it are described.
In the very next paragraph Mr. Miller seems to forget, that from
his own observations on the seeds of the China varnish-tree, he has
asserted it to be the _Fasi-no-ki_ of Kœmpfer; but now he finds, in his
memorandums, that those seeds were wedge-shaped, and like the seeds of
the beech-tree; and that all the three seeds he received seemed to be
inclosed in one capsule: so that now he is at a loss what to call it;
and at the same time says I have been too hasty in calling it a Rhus.
Mr. Miller goes on, and allows this China varnish-tree changes to a
purple in the autumn; but not so deep as the true varnish-tree. I
suppose he means, by this true varnish-tree, the Carolina pennated
Toxicodendron; for Kœmpfer has not told us what colour the true
varnish-tree of Japan changes to in autumn.
But this is no certain proof on either side of the question, only a
corroborating circumstance of the species of a tree: nor should I have
mentioned it, but for the manner in which Kœmpfer, with an imagination
truly poetical, describes the autumnal beauty of his _Fasi-no-ki_, or
spurious varnish-tree. “Rubore suo autumnati quâ viridantes sylvas
suaviter interpolat, intuentium oculos e longinquo in se convertit.”
Even this description would make one suspect it is not the same with
the China varnish-tree, which, I am informed, did not turn purplish
in the garden of the British Museum till the first frost came on:
whereas it is well known, that some of the Rhus’s and Toxicodendrons,
particularly the Carolina pennated one, change to a fine scarlet colour
in the beginning of a dry autumn, even before any frost appears.
Mr. Miller seems surprised, how I should think, that the Carolina
pennated Toxicodendron, or poison-ash is like the _Fasi-no-ki_ of
Kœmpfer. I must here acknowledge, at this time, not having seen Doctor
Kœmpfer’s specimen, I imagined, from the shape of the lobe-leaves (as
he has described them) and from the remarkable scarlet colour of both
these trees in autumn, that Mr. Miller might be right in what he has
advanced; for it was from his authority I took it, depending on the
information he gives us in his Dictionary, fol. edit. 6. under the
article _Toxicodendron_, where he takes some pains to assure us, that
they are the very same plants.
In the next paragraph I find Mr. Miller has intirely mistaken the
meaning of one part of my letter to Mr. Webb; which I must recommend
to him to read again, and he will find it exactly agrees with his own
sentiments. There he will find my opinion is, that notwithstanding the
change of soil and situation, this _Sitz-dsju_, or true varnish-tree,
and the _Fasi-no-ki_, or spurious varnish-tree of Kœmpfer, are distinct
species of Rhus or Toxicodendron, and will ever remain so.
Mr. Miller now desires me, since I have seen Dr. Kœmpfer’s specimens in
the British Museum, to declare, whether I think I am mistaken.
In answer to this, and to satisfy Mr. Miller as well as myself, I have
been very lately at the Museum, and have looked very carefully over
Dr. Kœmpfer’s specimens, and do sincerely think, as did other judges at
the same time, that the _Sitz-dsju_ is not the same with the Carolina
pennated Toxicodendron, nor the _Fasi-no-ki_ the same with Father
D’Incarville’s China varnish-tree.
Mr. Miller informs us, that one of the best kinds of varnishes is
collected from the Anacardium in Japan.
In answer to this, I must beg leave to shew the Society, that Dr.
Kœmpfer does not so much as mention, that this Anacardium grows in
Japan; but that the varnish, which is collected from it, is brought
to them from Siam: and I believe it will appear plainly, from what
follows, that there is not a plant of this kind in the kingdom of
Japan; for Siam and Cambodia, especially the parts of those kingdoms,
where Kœmpfer informs us this Anacardium[211] grows, lie in the
latitudes of from 10 to 15 degrees north, which must be full as hot as
our West Indies: so that it is not probable, that it would bear the
cold of the winters in Japan; for Japan lies from the latitudes of 33
to above 40 degrees north, which is about the same parallel with our
North American colonies.
I shall now beg leave to lay before the Society that passage of Dr.
Kœmpfer, which relates to this dispute, together with my translation
of it, that it may be compared with Mr. Miller’s translation, which he
gives us in his reply to the Abbé Mazeas’s letter, Philosoph. Trans.
vol. xlix. p. 164. 2d paragraph. Dr. Kœmpfer, in his _Amœnitates_,
p. 793. speaking of the true varnish-tree, says, “Colitur frequens in
provinciis Tsi-kocko et Figo, in quibus inserti agris scapi radices
agunt et caudices edunt post triennium vernicem suppeditantes.
Optima regionis, quin totius mundi, vernix perhibetur circa urbem
Jassino colligi. Vernicem ceres Japonica largitur oppido nobilem
et pretiosissimam, sed admodum parcam; nec pro operibus, quæ regio
construit, sufficeret, nisi prius cum, _Nam Rak_, i. e. vernice
ignobiliore ex Siamo invecta, pro basi illinerentur. Siamensis vernix
promitur in provincia Corsama, et regno Cambodiæ ex arbore Anacardo,
incolis _Tong Rak_, i. e. _Arbor Rak_ dicta, cujus fructus officinis
nostris Anacardium dictus _Luk Rak_, liquor _Nam Rak_ appellatur.
Perforatus truncus immisso tubulo, tantâ copiâ fundit liquorem ut Sinæ,
Tunquino et Japoniæ pro deliniendis utensilibus sufficiat, quin jam
Bataviam et alia Indiæ loca vasis ligneis inclusa appellit.”
Which, translated into English, appears to me to be thus:
'This varnish-tree is often cultivated in the provinces of Tsi-kocko
and Figo: there they plant the cuttings or truncheons in the fields,
which take root, and send forth vigorous shoots, which in three years
time yield this varnish.
'The best varnish of the kingdom, nay, of the whole world, is said to
be collected about the city of Jassino. The produce in Japan of this
most noble and very precious varnish, is so very little, that there
would not be sufficient for the wares made in the kingdom, if they did
not first lay on a ground with an ordinary kind of varnish, which they
call _Nam Rak_, and is brought to them from Siam.
'This Siam varnish is collected in the province of Corsama, and in the
kingdom of Cambodia, from the tree Anacardus, called by the inhabitants
_Tong_ or _Tree-Rak_; the fruit of which is called in our shops
Anacardium, or _Luk Rak_, and the liquor is called _Nam Rak_.
'To collect this liquor, they bore a hole in the trunk, and put in a
tube. By this method they get as much of it as is sufficient not only
to varnish all the utensils of China, Tonquin, and Japan, but it is
even exported in close wooden vessels to Batavia, and other parts of
India.’
The original of Kœmpfer, p. 794. speaking of the true Japan varnish, is
as follows: “Prostat non sincera modo, sed et colorata, vel cinnabari
nativa Sinensi, vel terra rubra (quam Batavi antea, nunc Sineses
advehunt) vel atramenti popularis materiâ.”
Which I apprehend may be read thus in English:
'This varnish is not only sold quite pure, but likewise coloured, and
that with Chinese native cinnabar, and a kind of red earth, which the
Dutch formerly, but now the Chinese, bring them; and also with the
materials that they make their common (or Japan) ink of.’
Mr. Miller translates it thus (_See p._ 164. _vol._ xlix. _Phil.
Transact._): 'This varnish is used without mixture to stain black: but
the Chinese mix native cinnabar, or a red kind of earth, with it, to
make a different colour.’
Here we may observe, that Mr. Miller uses the words staining black;
which is not the sense of the author, who, by mentioning the materials
of Japan ink, shews, that even in varnishing black it was necessary to
use this black mixture.
Further, Mr. Miller says, that the Chinese mix these colouring
ingredients with this varnish: but the original plainly says, that the
Chinese import them, and the Japanese mix them with their varnish for
sale.
And in a former part of this letter, p. 162. vol. xlix. Phil. Trans. he
says, speaking of this true varnish-tree, that callicuts are painted
with the juice of this shrub. But this bare assertion of his, without
producing a proper authority, I am persuaded this Honourable Society
will never admit as a matter of proof to invalidate the discovery of
the Abbé Sauvages.
In looking over one of the numbers of Mr. Miller’s Dictionary, under
the title of Anacardium, I find he quotes a passage from Dr. Grew,
which Sir Hans Sloane has placed among his observations on the
Cashew-tree, _Hist. Jam. vol._ ii. _p._ 127. which is, that cottons
are stained with lime, and the oil, or mellaginous succus, called Mel
Anacardium (but for the account of this Mel Anacardium I shall refer to
Parkinson’s Theat. p. 1568); and Mr. Miller seems to think it difficult
to know which of the Anacardiums is here meant.
One would be apt think, from this passage, and another that follows
a little after in the same page of the Hist. of Jamaica, relating to
the black dye of the mellago of this nut, that Sir Hans, at the time
his history was published, thought them, as Caspar Bauhin did, of
the same genus, but different species; and therefore he has mixt the
observations on both together.
For, immediately after mentioning the staining of cottons with this
mellaginous succus, Sir Hans says, that the gum is, in faculties and
colour, like gum-arabic; and that it is given internally in female
obstructions; and that the juice stains linen, which will not wash out
suddenly: but he says it is false, that they remain till they flower
next year, as Du Tertre asserts.
Sir Hans further quotes, from an anonymous Brasilian author, that the
apples stain linen; and that the gum is good to paint and write; and
the bark dyes yarn and vessels serving for pots.
And in another place he quotes De Laet, who compiled a general history
of America, and who likewise takes his quotation from an old Brasilian
author, treating of the trees of Brasil, That the gum of the Acajou
is used by painters; the bark is used to dye cotton-yarn and earthen
ware. Here I must remark, tho’ foreign to our present purpose, that in
the original of Laet, what relates to the earthen ware runs thus: “Et
a faire de vaisseaux de terre.” So that I believe it will appear more
probable, that the bark of these trees was used rather to burn earthen
ware vessels, than to dye them, as we find these earthen vessels were
used to boil their victuals in.
These two quotations from Sir Hans Sloane confirm the former, with
regard to the use of the gum; that is, its being fit, like gum-arabic,
to be used for water-colours, and to make ink; and that it is the juice
of the apple that stains, but this we find is not durable.
Mr. Miller has now only the bark of the Cashew-tree left to support
his argument. This the above-mentioned Brasilian writers say, that
the native Indians of Brasil used to dye their cotton-yarn with; but
of what colour no mention is made. And whether this bark is used to
give strength to this yarn, as we dye and tan our fishing-nets with
oak-bark, or for ornament, is uncertain; for a great deal of this yarn
was used in the making their net-hammocks, as well as their coarse
garments.
Mr. Miller then introduces Sir Hans Sloane, in opposition to Dr.
Browne, whose History of Jamaica I had quoted, to prove that the juice
of the Acajou was of the same nature and properties with that of the
gum-arabic, and consequently not fit for varnish: whereas it plainly
appears from the foregoing quotations, taken from Sir Hans Sloane, that
Dr. Browne is right, and agrees exactly in opinion with him.
He then makes Sir Hans say, that the inhabitants of Jamaica stain
their cottons with the bark of the Cashew-nut tree. By this, one would
naturally conclude, that Mr. Miller has been endeavouring to prove, in
opposition to the Abbé Mazeas’s letter, that the art of painting or
staining cottons of a fine deep black colour, equal to that discovered
by the Abbé Sauvages, as described in his experiments on the Carolina
Toxicodendron, was practised by the English forty or fifty years ago in
Jamaica.
If this was the case, it is something surprising, that, notwithstanding
our great intercourse with that island, the callico-printers of England
never got intelligence of this valuable secret.
Further, if Mr. Miller will consult Piso and Margrave, writers of the
best authority on the Brasilian plants, he will find their accounts of
the Acajou exactly correspond with that delivered by Dr. Browne, in
his History of Jamaica, as well as Sir Hans Sloane’s: for they say,
that the juice of this tree is equal in virtue, and mechanical uses, to
the best gum-arabic. And if he still doubts, I shall lastly recommend
him to go to the British Museum, and there he may see a most elegant
specimen of the Cashew-gum, which will put this matter quite out of all
doubt.
I shall now leave the decision of this controversy, which Mr. Miller
has obliged me so fully to explain in my own vindication, to the
candour and impartiality of this Honourable Society.
_P.S._ Since the foregoing paper was read, Professor Sibthorp was
so kind to deliver me an exact drawing of the _Fasi-no-ki_ in the
Sherardian collection at Oxford, taken by the Rev. Mr. William
Borlase, F.R.S. the title and synonym of which are both in the
Hand-writing of Dr. Dillenius, as the Professor assures me. See TAB.
XVIII.
[Illustration: _Philos. Trans. Vol. L._ TAB. XVIII. _p._ 456.
_Fasi-noki_
_Foccicodendron foliis alatis fructu Rhomboide H. Elth. from Japan._
_In Horto situ Shorards Oxon._
_W. Borlase delin.
J.M.Sc._]
LVII. _A Letter to the Rev._ Thomas Birch, _D. D. Secr. R.S. concerning
the Number of the People of_ England; _by the Rev. Mr._ Richard
Forster, _Rector of_ Great Shefford _in_ Berkshire.
[Read Dec. 22, 1757.]
Shefford, Nov. 9. 1757.
Revᵈ Sir,
Since I did myself the honour of writing to you in July[212], my
bookseller has sent me part ii. of vol. xlix. of the Transactions; in
which[213] I find another medium advanced to determine the amount of
the people in England: and this is the number of houses, which pay the
window-tax, and which “amount to about 690,000, besides cottages, that
pay nothing.” To this is added, that “tho’ the number of cottages be
not accurately known, it appears from the accounts given in, that they
cannot amount to above 200,000.”
Here I cannot but express my concern, that this very ingenious
gentleman has not been a little more explicit, by informing us, what
these accounts are, upon which he builds so positive a conclusion. The
law requires no such accounts to be delivered in; and parish-officers
cannot be accused of works of supererogation: besides (which is more to
the purpose) I am very certain no such accounts have been given in from
this part of the world. On the other hand, in all parts of England,
which I have seen (and that is, I think, almost the whole) the number
of cottages greatly exceeds that of all other houses, except in the
middle of towns, and some villages about London.
This is agreeable to the general interpretation of that sentence
passed upon our original parent, that _he should eat bread by the sweat
of his brows_; which is, that the majority of his descendents should be
poor labouring people. This I do not mention with design to defend the
interpretation, but only to shew the general sense of mankind.
As my notion of the matter differs so widely from that of this worthy
gentleman, I did every thing in my power to check any mistake, which
might arise from a fondness of one’s own opinion; and which, I hope,
will vindicate me in the eye of every candid inquirer. In a word, I set
myself to count all the houses in several contiguous parishes; and then
examined how many of them paid the window-tax, or duty upon houses. And
here I must observe, that if there be any small mistake, it can hardly
be supposed to be in favour of my own scheme; because I had the whole
number of houses, by counting as I rode along; and some might possibly
be missed, tho’ of this I took the utmost care: whereas the number of
those, that pay the window-tax, I had from the collectors rolls.
The following table is the fruit of my labours:
Great Shefford 90 17
Little Shefford 12 3
Welford 162 62
Chaddleworth 62 20
Bright-Walton 72 21
Catmore 10 1
Farmborough 34 5
Fawley 47 7
East Garston 99 41
----------
588 177
Here we see, that out of 588 houses only 177 pay the window-tax. Now if
we say with the philopher _ex pede Herculem_, and suppose, that 200,000
taxable houses stand in the country, we shall have the following
proportion, 177: 588 ∷ 200,000: 664406, for the whole number of houses
that stand in the country, commonly so called.
Again, Lamborn parish, in which is a market-town, contains 445 houses,
of which 229 pay the window-tax. Now if we suppose, in like manner,
200,000 taxable houses to stand in country towns (I mean of the
middling and inferior classes), we must then say 229: 445 ∷ 200,000:
388646, the whole number of houses, that stand in country towns.
The remaining 290,000 houses must be placed in cities and flourishing
towns; and must have Dr. Brakenridge’s proportion assigned them; for
without all doubt he had some reason for pitching upon such numbers;
and as they could not be taken from country towns or villages, must be
assumed from the present state of some flourishing place. Upon this
supposition, we must say 690,000: 200,000:: 290,000 : 84,058. for the
number of cottages in great towns; which, if added to the houses that
pay, makes the whole number in large towns to be 374,058. These three
sums added together make the total amount of houses in the nation to be
664,406
388,646
374,058
----------
1,427,110
----------
The two former of these numbers should be multiplied by 5, and the
latter by 6. The reason of this difference is the great quantity of
servants kept in large towns.
1,053,052 × 5 = 5,265,260
374,058 × 6 = 2,244,348
-----------
7,509,608
-----------
By this way of proceeding it appears, that the whole number of people
now alive in England is somewhat more than seven millions and an half.
I would not be understood, as if I meant to recommend this as exact;
tho’ I am in hopes, that, upon trial, it will be found nearer the
truth, than any thing hitherto advanced. Neither will I lay any stress
upon its approaching so near to the numbers advanced in my former
letter; being sensible, that all the methods I have hitherto tried are
liable to very great objections. Where certainty may be arrived at by a
little industry, all hypothesis should be despised and rejected.
The militia act levies 32,000 men upon the whole kingdom; and in
the west riding of Yorkshire 1 in 45, if my intelligence is right,
completed their quota. Now if this proportion be applied to the whole
nation, 32,000 × 45 will give 1,440,000 for the number of ballotters;
and this multiplied by 5 (which, considering the number of persons
excepted, must be under the truth) will amount to 7,200,000 for
the total of our people. But I dare not build any thing upon this
computation, as many parts of the nation may have heavier quota’s laid
upon them than the west riding.
Whether the kingdom is really in a declining or increasing state,
is, in like manner, a problem not to be solved, I think, by mere
calculation. If there happens but a small mistake in the principles,
what is built thereupon will be extremely wide of the truth. If one
might take the liberty to guess by appearances, I should think we are
greatly increased within these forty years, or since the accession
of the present Royal Family. This conjecture I found upon the great
facility, with which the government raises men, compared to the violent
methods made use of in King William’s and Queen Anne’s time. Indeed I
am sensible, that when the great ease, with which the government raises
money, and the low interest it pays, have been urged in the House of
Commons, as evident proofs of a flourishing trade, and plenty of cash,
it has constantly been answered by a gentleman, who understands these
matters better than any body else, that they are rather proofs of a
want of trade, and that people do not know what to do with their money.
In the same manner it may be answered, that the great facility, with
which the government raises soldiers, is not owing so much to the great
plenty of men, as to the want of employment: which it is possible may
really be the case.
But where certainty may be had, it is trifling to talk of appearances
and conjectures. For a century now past, the English way of
philosophising (and all the rest of the world is come into it) is not
to sit down in one’s study, and form an hypothesis, and then strive
to wrest all nature to it; but to look abroad into the world, and see
how nature works; and then to build upon certain matter of fact. In
compliance with this noble method, I have done all in my power: I
have examined the registers of several neighbouring parishes, and send
you the substance of three of the most perfect ones. Indeed, I could
have added several others; but as they seem to have been now and then
neglected, I did not care to trust to them. However, this I can safely
deduce from them; _viz._ that what I have here sent will be a proper
standard for these parts: and if other gentlemen would take the like
pains (and it is next to nothing) in four or five parishes in each
county, and in every great town, we might perceive, by one cast of the
eye, whether our people are in an ebbing or flowing state. I have not
set down the burials, as that would but have embarrassed the table;
and the increase will appear very well without them. However, upon an
average of all the parishes I have examined, the proportion of the
burials to the baptisms is as 83 to 149,4.
Lambourn. Welford. Shefford. Total.
From 1614 to 1623 inclus. 327 67 69 463
1624 to 1633 ---- 401 62 64 527
1634 to 1643 ---- 391 119 86 596
1662 to 1671 ---- 441 146 93 680
1672 to 1681 ---- 380 132 108 620
1682 to 1691 ---- 451 201 112 764
1692 to 1701 ---- 366 134 88 588
1702 to 1711 ---- 387 137 84 608
1712 to 1721 ---- 422 171 97 690
1722 to 1731 ---- 483 156 106 745
1732 to 1741 ---- 578 205 128 911
1742 to 1751 ---- 566 253 137 956
1752 to 1756 ---- 349 120 64 533
This table stands in need of no remarks: it speaks loud enough of
itself, that our people increase in a very rapid manner. All I shall
take the liberty of observing from it is, that all the registers I have
looked over seem to resent the wretched policy of King Charles II. who
submitted himself and kingdom too much to a powerful neighbour: and
that our civil war had no effect upon our numbers, in comparison to our
foreign wars.
I trust, that the very ingenious author of the _politico-arithmetical_
letters, I have all along had my eye upon, will take no offence, if I
recommend an article or two advanced by him to be reconsidered; which,
if pursued, might perhaps induce some small errors in government.
The first is, That all ways to increase our people would be for the
public welfare, even the naturalizeing of foreigners: whereas, if I
remember right, all political writers lay it down as a maxim, that
numbers of people without employment are a burden and disease to the
body politic; and where there is full employment, there the people
multiply of course. So that we should not measure the happiness of
the nation by the number of mouths, but by the number of hands. Nay,
if we were to import a quantity of foreigners we must immediately
re-export them, as we actually did in the case of the Palatines and
Saltzburghers. Indeed, I cannot deny, but that if the new-comers were
to bring new trades with them, they would be welcome: tho’ I apprehend
it is not an easy matter to find out many new manufactures. I can at
present think of nothing but the cambrick business; and that, with
a little encouragement, might be established in either Scotland or
Ireland, without the importation of strangers.
The next thing I propose to be ruminated is the assertion, That our
commerce at sea is one cause of the decay of our fencible men: which
sounds in my ear like saying, that if we had less trade, we should have
more people. And if this is the purport of it, I am afraid it is a
paradox, literally so called.
That emigrations to our colonies do lessen our numbers in appearance,
is beyond dispute: but then it is only in appearance: for if employment
begets people, the filling our plantations must increase us beyond
imagination, it having been made out, if I misremember not, that every
man rightly occupied in America finds employment for three persons in
Old England. But then care should be taken, that the planters were
generally employed in raising rough materials; and that every thing
imported there were manufactured by ourselves; because, if we settle
colonies, and then supply them with East-India stuffs and foreign
linens, it is neither better nor worse than being at a vast expence to
maintain other people’s poor.
I cannot conclude without begging leave to observe, that this
gentleman’s doctrine is, from beginning to end, to say the best of
it, ill timed. We are contending with our hereditary enemy, the
most powerful prince in the world, not for superiority, but for
independence, _pro aris et focis_. And, at such a time as this, to be
told, that we are but little better than half peopled, and the few we
have dwindling away every day, is indeed very discourageing: whereas,
on the contrary, I do not balance one moment to declare it, as my fixt
persuasion, that we can spare 100,000 brisk young fellows, and still be
the most populous flourishing nation in Europe.