Reverend Sir,
Your affectionate Brother,
and very humble Servant,
Richard Forster.
LVIII. _A Letter to the Right Honourable the Earl of_ Macclesfield,
_President of the_ Royal Society, _from the Rev._ William Brakenridge,
_D.D. F.R.S. containing an Answer to the Account of the Numbers and
Increase of the People of England, by the Rev. Mr._ Forster.
[Read Mar. 16, 1758.]
My Lord,
As I endeavoured, at a former meeting of the Society, to answer
ex-tempore some objections offered by a Gentleman in the country, to
what I have wrote concerning the number of people in England; I now
presume to send you what I said then in writing, with some farther
reflections. And this subject I never intended to have meddled with
any more; but as I seem to be called upon, to defend what I have
formerly wrote, I hope I shall be excused if I briefly attempt it.
Your Lordship, I know, and our illustrious Body only desire a fair
representation of facts, which is the ground of all philosophical
inquiries; and therefore I shall endeavour to do this, as far as I can,
without regarding any hypothesis.
My design, when I first entered on this subject, was to discover
whether our people were in an increasing or decreasing state, with
regard to their numbers; which I thought of great importance to be
known, because of its influence on the affairs of Government, in
determining our strength, in settling of taxes, and directing us in
the œconomy and imployment of our people. Now, in order to proceed in
this inquiry, it was evident to me, that if the number of houses were
exactly known, the number of people would be nearly ascertained. And
therefore I attended to this, to find out the number of houses, as
the only thing that could with any certainty help us to judge of this
matter. And accordingly, being resolved to depend only upon the most
sure, and general observations, I applied to a public office, where I
thought I might possibly get at their number. And I there found, that
from the last survey that was made, since the year 1750, there were
690,700 houses in England and Wales that paid the window-tax, and the
two-shilling duty on houses; besides cottages that paid nothing. By
cottages are understood those who neither pay to church or poor, and
are, by act of parliament in 1747, in consideration of the poverty
of the people, declared to be exempted both from the tax and the
two-shillings duty, and they only remain not accurately known, to
ascertain the whole number of houses. However, they are so far known,
that from all the accounts that are hitherto given in, they do not
appear to be so many as 300,000; and from what I myself have seen,
in the books of that office, I should think they were not much above
200,000; for in some places, that I was perfectly acquainted with, I
found many of the day labourers rated to the two-shillings duty, and
there did not appear to be one house in ten omitted. And therefore,
if there are not 300,000 cottages, as seems plain to me, there cannot
be a million of houses in the whole in England and Wales; and the
rated houses are to the cottages more than two to one; of both which,
according to the returns made, there is now about one in seventeen or
58,800 empty throughout the kingdom. But if we were to allow, that
there are a million of houses in the whole; which is more than the
Gentlemen in the above mentioned office believe, and then deduct those
that are empty, there could not be above 941,200 inhabited houses; and
consequently supposing six to a house, about 5,647,200 people, or near
about five millions and an half; which at the utmost, is what I insist
on to be the real number.
But now the Gentleman, who objects to my calculations, thinks, that I
have made the number of houses too few, and that in the whole there
are above 1,400,000 houses, of which he imagines there are more than
700,000 cottages; for he supposes them to be more than the rated
houses; and from thence he infers, that there are about seven millions
and an half of people, in England and Wales; which I wish, with all my
heart, was the true number: But I am so far from thinking that I have
under-rated them, that I suspect I have rather made them more than they
are. However, this controversy will soon be determined, there being now
orders given, as I am informed, to all the Officers concerned in the
window-tax, to make an exact return of all the cottages, as well as the
rated houses, in each of their several districts. In the mean time, the
Gentleman and I differ in this, that he supposes above 400,000 cottages
more than I can possibly imagine.
Let us now see upon what grounds, and by what method of reasoning he
determines his numbers. He makes a division of the 690,000 taxed houses
into three classes, placing 200,000 of them in the open country and
villages, and 200,000 in the market and inferior towns, and the next,
_viz._ 290,000, in the cities and great towns; for, which division he
has nothing to direct him; no proof, nor even probability. And as it is
a mere arbitrary supposition, all reasoning and calculations founded
upon it are nothing to the purpose, and the number of houses or people
comptued from thence must be false or uncertain. But yet, upon this
supposition, as if it was absolutely certain, he goes on to compute the
houses and people in each division.
As to the first, he says he has counted all the houses in nine
contiguous parishes in Berkshire, in which, he has found the whole
number to be 588, and those charged to the duty to be only 177; and
therefore the cottages are to the rated houses as 411 to 177, or
above, two to one. And from this he assumes, that the whole number of
houses thro’ the villages and open country in England will be to the
cottages nearly in the same proportion. But here I am surprised, that
he should reason in so loose and an inaccurate a manner. For, as there
may be 7000 parishes in the villages and open country, to infer from
the numbers in nine of them that are contiguous, and that all of them
together do not make a very large parish, many being much larger as to
the number of houses, and where there may be particular circumstances;
I say, to infer from them what the proportion will be in all parishes,
in the villages and open country, is the same way of reasoning as to
say, because the poor in one parish are in such a proportion, therefore
they are so in 1000 parishes, or thro’ four or five counties: whereas
it is plain, that the proportion differs almost in every parish, and
in every county; and the sum of all must be added together, before
we can know what the real proportion is. And nothing can be inferred
from the circumstances of a few parishes, or even of a County, what
the proportion will be in the whole. And yet, from such precarious and
vague reasoning he presumes to compute, that there are above 460,000
cottages in the villages and open country; having assumed, without any
hesitation, that there are 200,000 rated houses in that extent. Such
reasoning is unusual in philosophical inquiries.
In like manner the Gentleman reasons very inaccurately about his second
division, containing the lesser market and country towns, having
supposed in them 200,000 taxed houses: For from one instance of the
market town of Langborne, having found the whole number of houses to be
to the cottages as 445 to 229, or the rated homes to the cottages as
216 to 229, he supposes the like proportion in all the market towns.
That is, tho’ there be perhaps above 300 market towns in England, he
supposes each of them has the same proportion of the poor in it as the
single town of Langborne; which is unreasonable to imagine. For every
one of them may have a different proportion, according to the various
circumstances of their trade and situation. But yet from this strange
and uncertain way of reasoning, without any induction, and from one
instance among 300 cases at least, he concludes by proportion, that
there are 388,646 houses in the country market towns, of which there
are 188,646 cottages, besides those in the cities and great towns.
In the next place, as to his third class, the cities and great towns,
he allows, that my proportion may be among them, _viz._ that the rated
houses are to the cottages as 690,000 to 200,000, or 69 to 20: For he
thinks, that it cannot be any-where but in the most flourishing places.
And therefore, as he has arbitrarily placed 260,000 taxed houses in
them, he computes that they must contain 84,058 cottages. But he has
given no proof, that my proportion is only in the most flourishing
places, besides these few instances that he has produced; which are
nothing to form any general conclusion upon. For if we were to be
directed by a few cases, we might think that there were much fewer
cottages than I have allowed. There are some parishes, in which there
are none at all. In the great parishes of St. James’s and St George’s
Westminster, in which there are about 7000 houses, there are none:
in the country parish of Chiselherst in Kent, where there are above
100 houses, there are but three: and in many parishes there is not
one in 20. So that from particular instances, there is nothing to be
concluded. But in all Middlesex, London, Westminster, and Southwark
included, in which the poor are as numerous as in most places in
the kingdom, because of the numbers of labouring people that flock
hither for imployment, there is nearly the same proportion that I have
assigned. For from a late survey in that district, as I am informed,
there are 87,614 houses in the whole, and of these 19,324 cottages, and
4810 empty. Which indeed shews, that we are not so populous, in and
near the metropolis, as is commonly supposed, and much less than I had
calculated in my first letter: For from this account, if it be true,
there are not above 530,000 people in that compass; of which, within
the bills of mortality, there die about 25,000 yearly; that is, not
less than one in 20.
As to what the Gentleman mentions concerning the militia, he seems to
be much mistaken. For if the proportion be as he says, that one in
45 is levied, this directly proves the number of people in England
and Wales to be about five millions and an half, according to my
calculation; because the electors or balloters are the fencible men,
or those able to carry arms. And if the whole levy be 32,000, then 45
multiplied by 32,000 will give 1,440,000 for all the fencible men in
England. But Dr. Halley has clearly shewn, that the fencible men are
one quarter of the whole people, children included; and therefore, four
times 1,440,000, or 5,760,000, will be the whole number of the people;
which is nearly what I have made them.
And thus, having seen how he has established his numbers in opposition
to me, let us now, in the next place, consider what he has said with
regard to the increase of our people. He says, whether the kingdom
is really in a declining or increasing state, is a problem not to be
solved by calculation: And yet he himself can guess by appearances,
that it has greatly increased within these 40 years. But, by his good
leave I must tell him, that it is a problem in political arithmetic to
be solved from some _data_, as well as others. If the number of people
be nearly found, and the general proportion of births to burials, at
an average, thro’ the kingdom be known, with the annual losses of our
fencible men, at a moderate computation; from these _data_, I say,
any one, who understands numbers, will easily determine whether we
are increasing or decreasing. And accordingly, I have shewn, that the
annual increment of our fencible men is not much above 8000, which
number is consumed by our annual losses; and therefore we are not in
an increasing state. For the whole number of people must always be in
proportion to the fencible men; so that, if there is no increase of
them, there can be none upon the whole.
It is true, I am the first who ventured upon a solution of this
question; but when I consider what I have done, I cannot see but
that the principles upon which I reasoned are right. The _data_ are,
I think, exact enough to discover our state. And Dr. Halley’s rule
to compute the fencible men, where our losses are to be reckoned,
is undoubtedly true. So that if there is any difficulty, it is in
fixing the general proportion between births and burials, thro’ the
kingdom, _viz._ 112 to 100; which I have taken from Dr. Derham, who
had collected many observations; being a greater proportion than Sir
William Petty allowed. And which if it is thought too small, it is to
be considered, that within the bills of mortality the births are much
under the burials as 4 to 5; and in some of the great towns there are
fewer births than burials, and in others they are nearly equal; so that
these reduce the proportion that arises from the villages and open
country.
But if we were to make a calculation from the births and burials,
only in the villages and open country; which Dr. Derham has found to
be at an average as 117 to 100, or nearly as 7 to 6; and suppose this
to obtain all over Britain and Ireland, in the towns as well as the
country, which is surely more than the truth; we shall then find, that
the annual increment cannot be more than 9000 fencible men; which
corroborates my former estimate. For, to compute it by the principles
I have formerly endeavoured to establish; let the number of our people
in Britain and Ireland be eight millions and an half, that is, five and
an half in England and three millions in Scotland and Ireland; because
some Irish Gentlemen have assured me, from some facts, that there is
half a million more in their country than I formerly allowed; for I did
not pretend to calculate them; and then the annual number of the dead,
in Britain and Ireland, being one in 40, will be about 212,500; which
will be to the births as, 100 to 117: And therefore the births must be
248,625, and the increase 36,125; of which the fourth part is about
9000 for the fencible men, which I am persuaded is more than the real
number.
Now let any one compute our losses in the moderate way that I have
done, and he will easily see, that they cannot be less than this
number; and consequently we are far from increasing. And indeed it is
evident from the number of empty houses thro’ the kingdom, mentioned
above, _viz._ one in seventeen, or 58,000, and one in twelve of those
that are taxed within the bills of mortality. For it is impossible, if
we were increasing, that there could be so many empty; And therefore
the appearance of so much building is only the effect of our luxury,
requiring larger, more convenient, and more elegant houses, and not
caused by our increase.
However, the Gentleman objects to all this, and says, that he has
examined the Registers of some neighbouring parishes, and particularly
of three that are perfect; and he finds, that the burials are to the
baptisms as 83 to 149; which may possibly be the case, as I myself
have known it in one parish in the Isle of Wight, where the place is
healthy, and people generally marry. But does he imagine that this
proportion is general all over England? If so, we should increase in
a rapid manner indeed! for then we should double our people in 35
years, if it were not for our losses; which no reasonable man will
venture to say. He does not reflect, that in many country places, from
their bad situation, there is very little increase, and in some towns
none at all, and in others a decrease, continually supplied from the
neighbouring country. Within the bills of mortality there are annually
5000 burials more than the births; and consequently, to maintain our
numbers here, there must be a yearly supply of 5000; which destroys
the whole increase of six or seven counties. And Dr. Derham found,
from the accounts he had of country parishes, that in general among
them the proportion of births to burials was not greater than 117 to
100, as we mentioned above; so that nothing can be concluded from
particular healthy places. The question is, what is the result upon the
whole thro’ the kingdom? what is the general proportion of the births
to burials, from which the increase is to be estimated? and which Sir
William Petty says is 111 to 100, and Dr. Derham as 112 to 100. See if
he can disprove these numbers by putting together all the different
accounts from every corner, among the towns as well as the country;
and if he cannot, to argue only from a few instances is nothing to the
purpose; for where there is a multitude of different cases, they must
all be considered, to arrive at the general truth. But even in the
particulars he mentions, he has not completed his argument; for, to
make it conclusive, he should have shewn, that, within these last forty
years, the time, he thinks, of our great increase, in those parishes
the number of houses or people were increased, in proportion almost as
the births were above the burials, as 149 to 83: and if that cannot
be made to appear, it is plain, that, for all he has said, the annual
increase may be constantly consumed by our losses.
And now the worthy Gentleman having endeavoured to shew, from the case
of a few parishes in the country, that we are in an increasing state,
he proceeds to give me his serious advice in two particulars:
_First_, That I would reconsider a proposition advanced by me, That
all reasonable ways of increasing our people, even to the naturalizing
of foreigners, would be for the public welfare. In answer to which
kind admonition I must say, that I have often considered the thing,
as far as I can; and I think this may be easily shewn against any
political writer. That it is the interest of a government, when they
have powerful and dangerous neighbours, to increase their people by all
reasonable means, even to the inviting of foreigners, so far as the
natural produce of the country can sustain them; and that it is the
fault or weakness of an administration not to be able to employ them.
And in Britain, where they can have the assistance of the produce of
so many large and fruitful countries of their own in America, I will
venture to say, that it is an error in their policy, not to endeavour
to increase their people; by which they might be more formidable, and
perhaps stronger than their grand Enemy. The present King of Prussia
has shewn the utility of this within his dominions; by which he has
been enabled to make such a figure in Europe.
The _second_ thing he admonishes me to reconsider is, That I have
supposed our commerce to be one cause of the loss of our fencible men.
And who in the world doubts of it, but himself! Do shipwrecks, the
disasters and inclemency of the sea, the scurvy, _&c._ beget people?
But he will say, without these we could not have trade, which employs
great numbers of our people; and therefore, what we lose, we may gain
another way. And just so he may say of our wars, that occasion the
destruction of so many of our people, that they are no loss to us; for
we gain by them in their consequences, in securing of our liberties
and property, and by which our trade is preserved and promoted. But
notwithstanding this, can it be said, that war does not diminish our
fencible men! The truth is, trade increases riches, and gives more
of the conveniences of life, and brings luxury along with it; but it
does not necessarily breed people: For we see in those countries where
they have little trade, the people increase much faster than they do
with us, as appears from the Bills of mortality in Prussia; where the
general proportion of the births to the burials is greater than it is
here, _viz._ 4 to 3; and by which the people might double in 84 years,
if it were not for their losses. (_Vid. Phil. Trans. vol._ xxxvi.)
Which great increase, by the way, easily accounts for those vast swarms
of people that came from thence and the adjacent countries in former
ages, and over run all Europe. And therefore it is not so terrible a
paradox, as he imagines, that possibly where there is much less trade
the people may increase faster; for luxury and other vices, that come
with trade, do not promote an increase.
And now, as he has been so good as to give me his advice, I will return
the favour, and desire him to reconsider the method of reasoning by
induction; which may possibly help him to escape some paralogisms, in
arguing upon these subjects. And I would likewise recommend it to him
to inquire diligently, whether the number of our houses in England be
increased these last sixty years; which, according to his reasoning,
ought at least to be doubled: For if there is no increase of the
houses, there can be none of the people.
To conclude: He adds, that my doctrine, from beginning to end, to
say the best of it, is ill-timed, when we are contending with our
hereditary enemy, _pro aris & focis_. But here his zeal hurries him on,
that he does not look to the dates of my Letters. For the first three
were read before the Society, and ordered to be printed, long before
the war was proclaimed; and as for the last, it is only a supplement
to the rest; in which I have shewn, that France, by the bad œconomy
of her people, is not in an increasing state; which, I think, is a
comfortable hearing. But supposing they had been all printed during the
war: What then? Is a fact to be concealed that, if discovered, may be
useful to prevent errors in government, and rectify our notions of the
œconomy of our people? What advantage can our enemies make of such a
discovery? Will it encourage them to imagine that we shall be easier
subdued, when they know, by the most moderate computation, we have at
least two millions of fencible men in our British islands. Enough,
surely, to resist them in all their attempts! But I doubt we are not
so deficient in our numbers as in public virtue, without which the
greatest multitude may be easily overcome.
And thus, my Lord, I have endeavoured to answer what this Gentleman has
wrote in his second Letter; for I pass over the first, as it does not
seem to contain any more in opposition to me, than what I have here
considered. And upon the whole I cannot see, that he has said any thing
to invalidate what I have formerly advanced. If I could discover it,
I should be very ready to acknowlege my error. I am sensible I have
made this reply too long; but I trust your usual benevolence to all our
worthy Members will excuse me, who shall always esteem it an honour to
be,
My Lord,
Your Lordship’s
Most obedient
and faithful Servant,
Wm. Brakenridge.
Sion-College, March 16. 1758.
+END+ of +PART+ I. +VOL.+ L.