General Proposition.
Supposing an homogeneous sphere OABCD ([Fig. 1.]) revolving uniformly about its centre, to be acted on at the extremity A of the radius OA, in a direction AL perpendicular to the plane of the equator ABCD, and parallel to the axis of rotation Pp, by a given force, tending to generate a new motion of rotation at right angles to the former; It is proposed to determine the change, that will arise in the direction of the rotation in consequence of the said force.
Let F denote the given force, whereby the motion about the axis Pp is disturbed, supposing f to represent the centrifugal force of a small particle of matter in the circumference of the equator, arising from the sphere's rotation; and let the whole number of such particles, or the content of the sphere, be denoted by c: let also the momentum of rotation of the whole sphere, or of all the particles, be supposed, in proportion to the momentum of an equal number of particles, revolving at the distance OA of the remotest point A, as n is to unity.
It is well known, that the centripetal force, whereby any body is made to revolve in the circumference of a circle, is such, as is sufficient to generate all the motion in the body, in a time equal to that, wherein the body describes an arch of the circumference, equal in length to the radius. Therefore, if we here take the arch AR = OA, and assume m to express the time, in which that arch would be uniformly described by the point A, the motion of a particle of matter at A (whose central force is represented by f) will be equal to that, which might be uniformly generated by the force f, in the time m; and the motion of as many particles (revolving, all, at the same distance) as are expressed by cn (which, by hypothesis, is equal to the momentum of the whole body), will, consequently, be equal to the momentum, that might be generated by the force f × cn, in the same time m. Whence it appears, that the momentum of the whole body about its axe Pp is in proportion to the momentum generated in a given particle of time m', by the given force F in the direction AL, as ncf × m is to F × m', or, as unity to F/ncf × m'/m (because the quantities of motion produced by unequal forces, in unequal times, are in the ratio of the forces and of the times, conjunctly). Let, therefore, AL be taken in proportion to AM, as F/ncf × m'/m is to unity (supposing AM to be a tangent to the circle ABCD in A), and let the parallelogram AMNL be compleated; drawing also the diagonal AN; then, by the composition of forces, the angle NAM (whose tangent, to the radius OA, is expressed by OA × F/ncf × m'/m) will be the change of the direction of the rotation, at the end of the aforesaid time (m'). But, this angle being exceeding small, the tangent may be taken to represent the measure of the angle itself; and, if Z be assumed to represent the arch described by A, in the same time (m') about the center O, we shall also have m'/m = Z/AR = Z/AO, and consequently OA × F/ncf × m/m' = Z × F/ncf. From whence it appears, that the angle expressing the change of the direction of the rotation, during any small particle of time, will be in proportion to the angle described about the axe of rotation in the same time, as F/ncf is to unity. Q.E.I.
Altho', in the preceding proposition, the body is supposed to be a perfect sphere, the solution, nevertheless, holds equally true in every other species of figures, as is manifest from the investigation. It is true, indeed, that the value of n will not be the same in these cases, even supposing those of c, f and F to remain unchanged; except in the spheroid only, where, as well as in the sphere, n will be = ⅖; the momentum of any spheroid about its axis being 2-5ths of the momentum of an equal quantity of matter placed in the circumference of the equator, as is very easy to demonstrate.
But to shew now the use and application of the general proportion here derived, in determining the regress of the equinoctial points of the terrestrial spheroid, let AEaF ([Fig. 2.]) be the equator, and Pp the axis of the spheroid: also let HECF represent the plane of the ecliptic, S the place of the sun, and HAPNH the plane of the sun's declination, making right-angles with the plane of the equator AEaF: then, if AK be supposed parallel, and OKM perpendicular, to OS, and there be assumed T and t to express the respective times of the annual and diurnal revolutions of the earth, it will appear (from the Principia, B. III. prop. xxv.) that the force, with which a particle of matter at A tends to recede from the line OM in consequence of the sun's attraction, will be expressed by 3tt/TT × AK/OA × f; f denoting the centrifugal force of the same particle, arising from the diurnal rotation. Hence, by the resolution of forces, 3tt/TT × AK/OA × OK/OA × f will be the effect of that particle, in a direction perpendicular to OA, to turn the earth about its center O.
But it is demonstrated by Sir Isaac Newton, and by other authors, that the force of all the particles, or of all the matter in the whole spheroid AP ap, to turn it about its center, is equal to ⅕th of the force of a quantity of matter, placed at A, equal to the excess of the matter in the whole spheroid above that in the inscribed sphere, whose axis is Pp. Now this excess (assuming the ratio of π to 1, to express that of the area of a circle to the square of the radius) will be truly represented by 4π/3 × OP × (OA² - OP²); and, consequently, the force of all the matter in the whole earth, by 3tt/TT × AK/OA × OK/OA × 4π/15 × OP × (OA²- OP²). Let, therefore, this quantity be now substituted for F, in the general formula F/ncf, writing, at the same time, 4π/3 × OA² × OP, and ⅖, in the place of their equals c and n; by which means we have (here) F/ncf = 3tt/2TT × OA² - OP²/OA² × AK × OK/OA². Put the given quantity 3tt/2TT × OA² - OP²/OA² = k; and let the angle EAe represent the horary alteration of the position of the terrestrial equator, arising from the force F (here determined), and let the arch Ee be the regress of the equinoctial point E, corresponding thereto: then, in the triangle EAe (considered as spherical) it will be sin. e∶ sin. AE (∷ sin. EAe∶ sin. Ee) ∷ EAe ∶ Ee (= sin. AE x EAe/sin. E) = k × sin. AE/sin. E × AK × OK/OA² = k × sin. AE × cos. AH × sin. AH/sin. E. But in the triangle EHA, right-angled at A (where HA is supposed to represent the sun's declination, AE his right ascension, and HE his distance from the equinoctial point E[207]) we have (per spherics)
| sin. AE | ∶ | 1 (rad.) | ∷ | co-t. E | ∶ | co-t. AH, |
| (sin. AH)² | ∶ | (sin. EH)² | ∷ | (sin. E)² | ∶ | 1² (rad.²) |
From whence we get, sin. AE × co-t. AH × (sin. AH)² = (sin. EH)² × co-t. E × (sin. E)². But co-t. AH × sin. AH = co-s. AH × 1 (rad.), and co-t. E × sin. E = co-s. E × 1 (rad.): therefore sin. AE × co-s. AH × sin. AH = (sin. EH)² × co-s. E × sin. E; and, consequently, k × sin. AE × co-s. AH × sin. AH/sin. E = k × co-s. E × sin. EH² (= Ee).
Let, now, the sun's longitude EH be denoted by Z (considered as a flowing quantity); then, (sin. Z)² being = ½-½ co-s. 2 Z, we shall have k × co-s. E × (sin. EH)² = ½k × co-s. E × (1-co-s. 2 Z). But the angle described about the axe of rotation Pp, in the time that the sun's longitude is augmented by the particle Ż, will be = T/t × Ż. Therefore (by the general proposition) we have, as 1∶ ½k × co-s. E × (1-co-s. 2 Z) ∷ T/t × Ż∶ ½k × T/t × co-s. E × Ż-Ż co-s. 2 Z, the true regress of the equinoctial point E, during that time: whose fluent, ½k × T/t × co-s. E × (Z- ½ sin. 2 Z), will consequently be the total regress of the point E, in the time that the sun, by his apparent motion, describes the arch HE or Z; which, on the sun's arrival at the solstice, becomes barely = ½k × T/t × co-s. E × an arch of 90°∶ the quadruple whereof, or ½k × T/t × co-s. E × 360° (= 3t/4T × OA²-OP²/OA² × co-s. E × 360°) is therefore the whole annual precession of the equinox caused by the sun. This, in numbers (taking OP/OA = 229/230 ) comes out 3/4 × 366¼ × 2/230½ × 0.917176 × 360° = 21´´ 6´´´.
The very ingenious M. Silvabelle, in his essay on this subject, inserted in the 48th volume of the Philosophical Transactions, makes the quantity of the annual precession of the equinox, caused by the sun, to be the half, only, of what is here determined. But this gentleman appears to have fallen into a twofold mistake. First, in finding the momenta of rotation of the terrestrial spheroid, and of a very slender ring, at the equator thereof; which momenta he refers to an axis perpendicular to the plane of the sun's declination, instead of the proper axe of rotation, standing at right angles to the plane of the equator. The difference, indeed, arising from thence, with respect to the spheroid (by reason of its near approach to a sphere) will be inconsiderable; but, in the ring, the case will be quite otherwise; the equinoctial points thereof being made to recede just twice as fast as they ought to do. This may seem the more strange, if regard be had to the conclusions, relating to the nodes of a satellite, derived from this very assumption. But, that these conclusions are true, is owing to a second, or subsequent mistake, at Art. 27; where the measure of the sun's force is taken the half, only, of the true value; by means whereof the motion of the equinoctial points of the ring is reduced to its proper quantity, and the motion of the equinoctial points of the terrestrial spheroid, to the half of what it ought to be.
That expert geometrician M. Cha. Walmsley, in his Essay on the Precession of the Equinox, printed in the last volume of the Philosophical Transactions, has judiciously avoided all mistakes of this last kind, respecting the sun's force, by pursuing the method, pointed out by Sir Isaac Newton; but, in determining the effect of that force, has fallen into others, not less considerable than those above adverted to.
In his third Lemma, the momentum of the whole Earth, about its diameter, is computed on a supposition, that the momentum or force of each particle is proportional to its distance from the axis of motion, or barely as the quantity of motion in such particle, considered abstractedly. No regard is, therefore, had to the lengths of the unequal levers, whereby the particles are supposed to receive and communicate their motion: which, without doubt, ought to have been included in the consideration.
In his first proposition, he determines, in a very ingenious and concise manner, the true annual motion of the nodes of a ring (or of a single satellite) at the earth's equator, revolving with the earth itself, about its center, in the time of one siderial day. This motion he finds to be = 3co-s. 23° 29´/4 rad. × 1/366¼ × 360°. Then, in order to infer from thence, the motion of the equinoctial points of the earth itself, he, first, diminishes that quantity, in the ratio of 2 to 5: Because (as is demonstrated by Sir Isaac Newton in his 2d Lemma) the whole force of all the particles situated without the surface of a sphere, inscribed in the spheroid, to turn the body about its center, will be only 2-5ths of the force of an equal number of particles uniformly disposed round the whole circumference of the equator, in the fashion of a ring. The quantity (3co-s. 23° 29´/4 rad. × ⅖ × 1/366¼ × 360°) thus arising, will, therefore, express the true motion of the equinoctial points of a ring, equal in quantity of matter to the excess of the whole earth above the inscribed sphere, when the force whereby the ring tends to turn about its diameter is supposed equal to the force whereby the earth itself tends to turn about the same diameter, in consequence of the sun's attraction. Thus far our author agrees with Sir Isaac Newton; but, in deriving from hence the motion of the equinoctial points of the earth itself, he differs from him; and, in the corollary to his third Lemma, assigns the reasons, why he thinks Sir Isaac Newton, in this particular, has wandered a little from the truth. Instead of diminishing the quantity above exhibited (as Sir Isaac has done) in the ratio of all the motion in the ring to the motion in the whole earth, he diminishes it in the ratio of the motion of all the matter above the surface of the inscribed sphere to the motion of the whole earth: which matter, tho' equal to that of the ring, has nevertheless a different momentum, arising from the different situation of the particles in respect to the axis of motion.
But since the aforesaid quantity, from whence the motion of the earth's equinox is derived, as well by this gentleman, as by Sir Isaac Newton, expresses truly the annual regress of the equinoctial points of the ring (and not of the hollow figure formed by the said matter, which is greater, in the ratio of 5 to 4) it seems, at least, as reasonable to suppose, that the said quantity, to obtain from thence the true regress of the equinoctial points of the earth, ought to be diminished in the former of the two ratios above specified, as that it should be diminished in the latter. But, indeed, both these ways are defective, even supposing the momenta to have been truly computed; the ratio, that ought to be used here, being that of the momenta of the ring and earth about the proper axe of rotation of the two figures, standing at right-angles to the plane of the ring and of the equator. Now this ratio, by a very easy computation, is found to be as 230²-229² to ⅖ of 230²; whence the quantity sought comes out = 3co-s. 23° 29´/4 rad. × 1/366¼ × 230²-229²/230² × 360° = 21´´ 6´´´: which is the same that we before found it to be, and the double of what this author makes it.
What has been said hitherto, relates to that part of the motion only, arising from the force of the sun. It will be but justice to observe here, that the effect of the moon, and the inequalities depending on the position of her nodes, are truly assigned by both the gentlemen above-named; the ratio of the diameters of the earth, and the density of the moon being so assumed, as to give the maxima of those inequalities, such as the observations require: in consequence whereof, and from the law of the increase and decrease (which is rightly determined by theory, tho' the absolute quantity is not) a true solution, in every other circumstance, is obtained.
The freedom, with which I have expressed myself, and the liberty I have here taken, to animadvert on the works of men, who, in many places, have given incontestible proofs of skill and genius, may, I fear, stand in need of some apology. 'Tis possible I may be thought too peremptory. Indeed, I might have delivered my sentiments with more caution and address: but, had not I imagined myself quite clear in what has been advanced, from a multitude of concurrent reasons, I should have thought it too great a presumption to have said any thing at all here, on this subject. The great regard I have for this Society, of which I have the honour to be a member, will, I hope, be considered as the motive for my having attempted to rectify some oversights, that have occurred in the works of this learned body.
LIV. Remarks upon the Heat of the Air in July 1757. in an Extract of a Letter from John Huxham, M.D. F.R.S. to William Watson, M.D. F.R.S. dated at Plymouth 19th of that Month. With additional Remarks by Dr. Watson.
Read Dec. 22, 1757.
“FROM the beginning of June last we have had a very dry season, generally very warm, and sometimes excessively hot. From the 7th to the 14th of this month the heat was violent; greater, indeed, than has been known here in the memory of man. I have talked with several persons, who have lived a considerable time in Jamaica, Gibraltar, and Minorca; and they severally assert, that they never felt such intense heat in any of those places. Upon the 11th, 12th, and 13th of this month, Fahrenheit's thermometer, in the shade, about three o'clock in the afternoon, was at 87; nay, upon the 12th it was even above 88.
Abundance of people have suffered very severely from these excessive heats: putrid, bilious, petechial, nervous fevers, are exceedingly common every-where. Dysenteries, hæmorrhages, most profuse sweats, affect not only those in fevers, but a vast many others. The days and nights were so intolerably hot, that little or no sleep was to be gotten day or night. The wind we had, like the Campsin, actually blew hot, tho' strong.
Upon the 15th, about seven at night, at Falmouth, Penryn, Truro, and thereabouts, a pretty smart shock of an earthquake was felt, attended with a hollow rumbling noise, throwing down pewter, china-ware, and such-like. The tinners felt it eighty fathom under ground. No great damage however was done. The day before we had, about eleven o'clock before noon, a most violent hurricane, which lasted five or six minutes, attended with a heavy shower.”
Thus far Dr. Huxham.
The heat of the air at London, during the period above-mentioned, was much greater than has been usually observed in these high latitudes; tho' it was never quite so severe here as at Plymouth. The following table exhibits the degrees of the heat, taken here upon the respective days, about four o'clock in the afternoon, by a Fahrenheit's thermometer. The instrument was placed in the shade; and the accuracy of the observer, who favoured me with his minutes, is not to be questioned.
| 1757. July | 5 | — — | 75 |
| 6 | — — | 78 | |
| 7 | — — | 75½ | |
| 8 | — — | 78 | |
| 10 | — — | 80¼ | |
| 11 | — — | 83¼ | |
| 12 | — — | 80¼ | |
| 13 | — — | 80 | |
| 14 | — — | 85 | |
| 15 | — — | 81 | |
| 16 | — — | 73 |
From hence it appears, that the air at London was, upon several days, hotter than it had been observed at Madeira for ten years together: for, by Dr. Thomas Heberden's observations, mentioned in the Philosophical Transactions, the heat of the air at Madeira, during that period, was never but once at 80.
William Watson.
LV. Remarks upon the Letter of Mr. John Ellis, F.R.S. to Philip Carteret Webb, Esq; F.R.S. printed in the Philosophical Transactions, Vol. xlix. Part ii. p. 806. By Mr. Philip Miller, F.R.S.
Read Dec. 15, 1757.
THE paper of mine, which was read before the Royal Society on the 8th of May 1755, and afterward printed in the xlixth volume of the Philosophical Transactions[208], was written at the request of Mr. Watson; who informed me, that a letter from the Abbé Mazeas to the reverend Dr. Hales had been communicated to the Royal Society, in which it was mentioned, that the Abbé Sauvages had made a discovery of the juice of the Carolina Toxicodendron staining linen of a permanent black. But Mr. Watson said, that the letter, he thought, required a careful perusal before it was printed; and he wished I would confirm it. I told him, if the letter was put into my hands, I would look it over, and deliver my opinion of it.
Accordingly Dr. Birch delivered the letter to me; and, upon reading it, I found, that tho' this might be a discovery to those two gentlemen; yet, as it had been mentioned in several printed books long before, I thought it might not be for the reputation of the Royal Society to have it printed as such in their Transactions.
This was my motive for writing that paper: in which I have not endeavoured to depreciate the discovery of the Abbé Sauvages, but have only mentioned what had occurred to me in those books of botany, where that shrub is taken notice of. And as the knowlege of it, and the method of collecting the varnish, might be of service to the inhabitants of the British colonies in America, I took the liberty of adding the account given of it by Dr. Kœmpfer.
Mr. Ellis, in his letter to Mr. Webb, asserts, that the American Toxicodendron is not the same with Kœmpfer's Arbor vernicifera legitima. This assertion of his makes it necessary to lay before the Society the authorities, upon which I have grounded my belief, that they are the same. But it may not be amiss first to take notice, that the shrub mentioned by the Abbé Sauvages is the same with that, which the gardeners about London call the Poison-ash. The title of it, mentioned by the Abbé Sauvages, was given by myself to that shrub, in a catalogue of trees and shrubs, which was printed in the year 1730; before which it had no generical title applied to it. And about the same time I sent several of the plants to Paris and Holland with that title, which I had raised a few years before from seeds, which were sent by Mr. Catesby from Carolina.
And altho' this shrub had not been reduced to any genus before, yet it had been some years growing in the gardens of the Bishop of London at Fulham, at Mr. Reynardson's at Hillenden, Mr. Darby's at Hoxton, and in the Chelsea garden, which were raised from seeds sent by Mr. Banister from Virginia; two of which were growing at Chelsea in the year 1722, when the care of that Garden was intrusted to me.
The first intimation I had of the American shrub being the same with Dr. Kœmpfer's true varnish-tree, was from the late Dr. William Sherard, in the year 1726, when that gentleman desired me to bring him a specimen of the American Toxicodendron from the Chelsea garden; which I accordingly did: and then the Doctor, and Dr. Dillenius, compared it with a dried specimen in the collection of the former, which was gathered in Japan, and which, if I remember right, he told me he received from Dr. Kœmpfer some years before. It appeared to those two gentlemen, that they were the same; and their skill in the science of botany was never doubted.
About a year after this, I carried a specimen of the American Toxicodendron to an annual meeting of some botanists at Sir Hans Sloane's in Bloomsbury; where there were present Mr. Dale of Braintree, Mr. Joseph Miller, Mr. Rand, and some others; which was then compared with Dr. Kœmpfer's specimen, whose collection Sir Hans Sloane had purchased: and it was the opinion of every one present, that they were the same. Nor has any one doubted of their being so, who has compared the American shrub with Kœmpfer's figure and description of his true varnish-tree, but Mr. Ellis.
And now give me leave to examine his reasons for differing in opinion from every late botanist, who has mentioned this shrub.
He says, that the midrib, which supports the lobe leaves, is quite smooth in the poison-ash, as is also the under side of the leaves; whereas Dr. Kœmpfer, in his description of the midrib of the true varnish-tree, calls it læviter lanuginoso; and in his description of the lobes or pinnæ he says, they are basi inequaliter rotunda; whereas those of the poison-ash come to a point at their footstalks nearly equal to that at the top. These characters, Mr. Ellis thinks, are sufficient to prove, that they are different plants: and he blames Dr. Dillenius for having omitted these necessary characters in his description of it; and supposes this must have misled the accurate Linnæus, who quotes his synonyma.
But as Dr. Linnæus is possessed of Kœmpfer's book, he would little have deserved the appellation of accurate in this particular, had he not consulted the original, but trusted to a copy. But this I know he has done, and is as well assured, that the plants in question are the same, as Mr. Ellis can be of the contrary.
But here I must observe, that the branch, from which Dr. Kœmpfer's figure is taken, is produced from the lower part of a stem, which seems to have been cut down, and not from a flowering branch; and it is not improbable, that his description may have been taken from the same branch: and if this be the case, it is easy to account for the minute differences mentioned by Mr. Ellis; for it would not be difficult to produce instances of hundreds of different trees and shrubs, whose lower and upper branches differ much more in the particulars mentioned by Mr. Ellis, than the figure and description given by Kœmpfer do from the American Toxicodendron. I will only mention two of the most obvious: the first is the white poplar, whose shoots from the lower part of the stem, and the suckers from the root, are garnished with leaves very different in form and size from those on the upper branches, and are covered on both sides in the spring with a woolly down. The next is the willow with smooth leaves, which, if a standard, and the head lopped off, as is usual, the young shoots are garnished with leaves much broader, and of different forms from those on the older branches; and these have frequently a hairy down on their under surface, which does not appear on those of the older. So that a person unacquainted with these differences in the same tree would suppose they were different. And the American Toxicodendron has varied in these particulars much more, in different seasons, than what Mr. Ellis has mentioned.
Mr. Ellis next says, that the Toxicodendron mentioned by Mr. Catesby, in his Natural History of Carolina, is not the same with that, which is now called by the gardeners poison-ash: but I am very positive of the contrary; for most of the plants in the nursery-gardens about London were first raised from the seeds, which were sent by Mr. Catesby from Carolina; part of which were sent to the late Dr. Sherard, as is mentioned by him in the Philosophical Transactions, Nº. 367; and another part came to my hands, from which I raised a great many of the plants, which were distributed, and some of them are now growing in the Chelsea garden.
And that this shrub grows naturally in Carolina, I can have no doubt, having received the seeds of it two or three times from the late Dr. Dale, who gathered them in the woods of that country.
In my paper above-mentioned I likewise observed, that the seeds, which were sent to the Royal Society by Father D'Incarville, for those of the true varnish-tree, did not prove to be so; but the plants, which were raised from them, were taken to be referred to the spurious varnish-tree of Kœmpfer; which I believed to be the same, and own, that it is yet my opinion, notwithstanding what Mr. Ellis has said to the contrary: for the number of lobes or pinnæ on each leaf, with their manner of arrangement on the midrib, are the same. And here we must observe, that the figure of this given by Kœmpfer is from a flowering branch; and every gardener or botanist must know, that the leaves, which are situated immediately below the flowers of most winged-leaved plants, have fewer lobes or pinnæ, than those on the lower branches: therefore I must suppose it to be the case in this plant; and from thence, with some other observations which I made on the seeds, I have asserted it to be the wild or spurious varnish-tree of Kœmpfer. But Mr. Ellis is of a contrary opinion, because the base of the lobes of those plants, which were raised from Father D'Incarville's seeds, are rounded and indented like two ears. In Dr. Kœmpfer's figure and description of the fasi-no-ki, the leaves are intire, and come to a point at their base.
Here I think Mr. Ellis is a little too hasty in giving his opinion, as he has not seen this plant in the state, that the branch was, from which Kœmpfer's figure was taken. For as there are often such apparent differences between the leaves on the lower branches of trees, and those which are at their extremities, as that in the descriptive titles of the species Dr. Linnæus frequently uses them to distinguish one from another; so in making the same allowance for the plant in question, I cannot help thinking that I am in the right, and must abide by my opinion, till the plants, which have been raised from Father D'Incarville's seeds, have flowered, to convince me of the contrary.
However, I cannot help observing, that Mr. Ellis has given a title to this shrub before he had seen any of the characters, which are necessary to determine the genus. And I have pretty good reason to believe it should not be joined to the Rhus; for the three seeds, which I received from the Royal Society, were shaped like a wedge, being thicker on one edge than the other, and not unlike those of the beech-tree, as I noted in my catalogue when I sowed them; and, by their structure, seemed as if the three seeds had been inclosed in the same capsule.
If it proves so, this will by no means agree with the characters of Rhus; especially if the male flowers should grow upon different plants from the fruit, which is what I suspect. Nor can I agree with Dr. Linnæus in this particular of joining all the species of Toxicodendron to the genus of Rhus, many of which have their male flowers growing upon different plants from the fruit; and therefore would more properly come into his twenty-second class of Dioecia, than his fifth of Pentandria, into which he ranges the Rhus. At the bottom of the characters of that genus he has added a note, to shew the varnish-tree is so.
But as there are several other species which agree in this essential character of distinction; so, according to the Linnæan system, they should be separated from the Rhus, with another generical title.
Mr. Ellis observes, upon the poetical description, which he lays Kœmpfer has given of the leaves of the wild varnish-tree turning red in the autumn, that he had not found it to be the case of the tree growing in the stove at Busbridge. How it appeared in that situation, I know not; but the leaves of all those, which are growing in the Chelsea garden, and stand in the open air, do constantly change to a purple colour in the autumn, before they fall off from the shrub: but those of the true varnish-tree are much more remarkable for the deepness of their colour.
Mr. Ellis says, he had received a letter from Dr. Sibthorp, professor of botany at Oxford, in which the Doctor informs him, that there is no specimen of the true varnish-tree in the Sherardian collection at Oxford; but that there is one of fasi-no-ki, or spurious varnish-tree of Kœmpfer. How the Doctor could write so, I cannot conceive; for I am very sure there was no specimen of the latter in that collection while it remained in London, having myself often viewed that part of it: and sure I am, Dr. Dillenius never added that synonym to the former: and I do believe the latter was no other way known in Europe, than by Kœmpfer's figure and description of it, excepting that specimen of Kœmpfer's now in the British Museum.
But, to confirm what I have before said, of Dr. Sherard's having a specimen of the true varnish-tree, I beg leave to quote what Dr. Dillenius has written in the Hortus Elthamensis; where, after having described the American Toxicodendron, he says, Ceterum historiam verniciferæ arboris Japoniæ, diligenter et accurate more suo exsequutus est laudatus Kœmpferius, cujus et descriptio et figura, quin et planta sicca, quæ in Japonia lecta servatur in phytophylacio Sherardino, nostræ huic speciei examussim quadrat: id tantum, sexus nempe differentia, prætervisa fuit auctori: quoniam autem ille liber non in omnium his in locis, multo minus in America, manibus versatur, non alienum videtur, si qui, quorum interest, hæc legerint, ut norint, quæ ille de collectione & preparatione vernicis illius habet, hoc loco transcribere. Then he goes on transcribing from Kœmpfer the manner, in which it is collected.
After this, I find Mr. Ellis is inclinable to think, that the poison-ash, as it is called by the gardeners, is the same with the fasi-no-ki, or spurious varnish-tree of Kœmpfer. The difference between these shrubs does not consist in small and minute particulars, but the most obvious striking marks of distinction appear at first sight; for the poison-ash has rarely more than three or four pair of lobes to each leaf, terminated by an odd one: in which particular it agrees with the true varnish-tree of Kœmpfer; whereas in the figure, which Kœmpfer has given of the spurious varnish-tree, the leaves have seven or eight pair of lobes terminated by an odd one: and this figure, as I before observed, is drawn from a flowering branch. Every one, who is the least acquainted with these things, knows, that the leaves immediately below the flowers are considerably less than those on the lower part of the branches: therefore this is a more essential note of distinction than those mentioned by Mr. Ellis.
I must also observe, that Mr. Ellis would suggest, that I supposed these two shrubs were only varieties of each other produced by culture: whereas it must appear to every one, who reads my paper, that my intention in mentioning the spurious varnish-tree was to shew it was different from Kœmpfer's true varnish-tree, altho' Kœmpfer supposes otherwise.
For the satisfaction of the curious, I have added a leaf of each shrub, which are now growing in the Chelsea garden, that if any person has the curiosity, they may compare them with Kœmpfer's.
In my paper I took notice, that one of the best kinds of varnish was collected from the Anacardium in Japan; and recommended it to the inhabitants of the British islands in America, to make trial of the occidental Anacardium, or Cashew-nut tree, which abounds in those islands. This has occasioned Mr. Ellis to take great pains to shew, that the eastern and western Anacardium were different trees: a fact, which was well known to every botanist before; and of which I could not be ignorant, having been possessed of both sorts near thirty years. But as I was assured, from many repeated experiments, that the milky juice, with which every part of the Cashew-tree abounds, would stain linen with as permanent a black as that of the oriental Anacardium; so I just hinted, that it was worth the trial. Nor was my hint grounded on those experiments only, but on the informations I had received from persons of the best credit, who had resided long in the American islands, that people are very careful to keep their linen at a distance from those trees, well knowing, that if a drop of the juice fell upon it, they could never wash out the stain.
But Mr. Ellis, in order to prove that this tree has no such quality of staining, says, he has made some experiments on the caustic oil, with which the shell or cover of the Cashew-nut abounds; and that he found it was not endued with any staining quality. But surely those experiments cannot be mentioned to prove, that the milky juice of the tree has not this property: and Sir Hans Sloane, in his History of Jamaica, says, that the inhabitants of Jamaica stain their cottons with the bark of the Cashew-tree.
I shall not intrude farther on the patience of the gentlemen, who may be present when this paper is read; but humbly crave their pardon for detaining them so long: nor should I have given them this trouble, had not I thought my reputation concerned on the occasion.
LVI. An Answer to the preceding Remarks. By Mr. John Ellis, F.R.S.
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.
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.]
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.
Shefford, Nov. 9. 1757.
Revd Sir,
Read Dec. 22, 1757.
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.
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.
My Lord,
Read Mar. 16, 1758.
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.