Philosophical transactions, Vol. L. Part I. For the year 1757. · Various
GENERAL PROPOSITION.
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.
'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.
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.
I am, 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.
Ideas discussed in this chapter
Text from Project Gutenberg, public domain in the United States.