Chapter XV: Part 15

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.

_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.

_Fasi-noki_

_Foccicodendron foliis alatis fructu Rhomboide H. Elth. from Japan._

_In Horto situ Shorards Oxon._

_W. Borlase delin.
J.M.Sc._]

LVII. _A Letter to the Rev._ Thomas Birch, _D. D. Secr. R.S. concerning the Number of the People of_ England; _by the Rev. Mr._ Richard Forster, _Rector of_ Great Shefford _in_ Berkshire.

[Read Dec. 22, 1757.]

Shefford, Nov. 9. 1757.

Revᵈ Sir,

Since I did myself the honour of writing to you in July[212], my bookseller has sent me part ii. of vol. xlix. of the Transactions; in which[213] I find another medium advanced to determine the amount of the people in England: and this is the number of houses, which pay the window-tax, and which “amount to about 690,000, besides cottages, that pay nothing.” To this is added, that “tho’ the number of cottages be not accurately known, it appears from the accounts given in, that they cannot amount to above 200,000.”

Here I cannot but express my concern, that this very ingenious gentleman has not been a little more explicit, by informing us, what these accounts are, upon which he builds so positive a conclusion. The law requires no such accounts to be delivered in; and parish-officers cannot be accused of works of supererogation: besides (which is more to the purpose) I am very certain no such accounts have been given in from this part of the world. On the other hand, in all parts of England, which I have seen (and that is, I think, almost the whole) the number of cottages greatly exceeds that of all other houses, except in the middle of towns, and some villages about London.

This is agreeable to the general interpretation of that sentence passed upon our original parent, that _he should eat bread by the sweat of his brows_; which is, that the majority of his descendents should be poor labouring people. This I do not mention with design to defend the interpretation, but only to shew the general sense of mankind.

As my notion of the matter differs so widely from that of this worthy gentleman, I did every thing in my power to check any mistake, which might arise from a fondness of one’s own opinion; and which, I hope, will vindicate me in the eye of every candid inquirer. In a word, I set myself to count all the houses in several contiguous parishes; and then examined how many of them paid the window-tax, or duty upon houses. And here I must observe, that if there be any small mistake, it can hardly be supposed to be in favour of my own scheme; because I had the whole number of houses, by counting as I rode along; and some might possibly be missed, tho’ of this I took the utmost care: whereas the number of those, that pay the window-tax, I had from the collectors rolls.

The following table is the fruit of my labours:

Great Shefford 90 17
Little Shefford 12 3
Welford 162 62
Chaddleworth 62 20
Bright-Walton 72 21
Catmore 10 1
Farmborough 34 5
Fawley 47 7
East Garston 99 41
----------
588 177

Here we see, that out of 588 houses only 177 pay the window-tax. Now if we say with the philopher _ex pede Herculem_, and suppose, that 200,000 taxable houses stand in the country, we shall have the following proportion, 177: 588 ∷ 200,000: 664406, for the whole number of houses that stand in the country, commonly so called.

Again, Lamborn parish, in which is a market-town, contains 445 houses, of which 229 pay the window-tax. Now if we suppose, in like manner, 200,000 taxable houses to stand in country towns (I mean of the middling and inferior classes), we must then say 229: 445 ∷ 200,000: 388646, the whole number of houses, that stand in country towns.

The remaining 290,000 houses must be placed in cities and flourishing towns; and must have Dr. Brakenridge’s proportion assigned them; for without all doubt he had some reason for pitching upon such numbers; and as they could not be taken from country towns or villages, must be assumed from the present state of some flourishing place. Upon this supposition, we must say 690,000: 200,000:: 290,000 : 84,058. for the number of cottages in great towns; which, if added to the houses that pay, makes the whole number in large towns to be 374,058. These three sums added together make the total amount of houses in the nation to be

664,406
388,646
374,058
----------
1,427,110
----------

The two former of these numbers should be multiplied by 5, and the latter by 6. The reason of this difference is the great quantity of servants kept in large towns.

1,053,052 × 5 = 5,265,260
374,058 × 6 = 2,244,348
-----------
7,509,608
-----------

By this way of proceeding it appears, that the whole number of people now alive in England is somewhat more than seven millions and an half. I would not be understood, as if I meant to recommend this as exact; tho’ I am in hopes, that, upon trial, it will be found nearer the truth, than any thing hitherto advanced. Neither will I lay any stress upon its approaching so near to the numbers advanced in my former letter; being sensible, that all the methods I have hitherto tried are liable to very great objections. Where certainty may be arrived at by a little industry, all hypothesis should be despised and rejected.

The militia act levies 32,000 men upon the whole kingdom; and in the west riding of Yorkshire 1 in 45, if my intelligence is right, completed their quota. Now if this proportion be applied to the whole nation, 32,000 × 45 will give 1,440,000 for the number of ballotters; and this multiplied by 5 (which, considering the number of persons excepted, must be under the truth) will amount to 7,200,000 for the total of our people. But I dare not build any thing upon this computation, as many parts of the nation may have heavier quota’s laid upon them than the west riding.

Whether the kingdom is really in a declining or increasing state, is, in like manner, a problem not to be solved, I think, by mere calculation. If there happens but a small mistake in the principles, what is built thereupon will be extremely wide of the truth. If one might take the liberty to guess by appearances, I should think we are greatly increased within these forty years, or since the accession of the present Royal Family. This conjecture I found upon the great facility, with which the government raises men, compared to the violent methods made use of in King William’s and Queen Anne’s time. Indeed I am sensible, that when the great ease, with which the government raises money, and the low interest it pays, have been urged in the House of Commons, as evident proofs of a flourishing trade, and plenty of cash, it has constantly been answered by a gentleman, who understands these matters better than any body else, that they are rather proofs of a want of trade, and that people do not know what to do with their money. In the same manner it may be answered, that the great facility, with which the government raises soldiers, is not owing so much to the great plenty of men, as to the want of employment: which it is possible may really be the case.

But where certainty may be had, it is trifling to talk of appearances and conjectures. For a century now past, the English way of philosophising (and all the rest of the world is come into it) is not to sit down in one’s study, and form an hypothesis, and then strive to wrest all nature to it; but to look abroad into the world, and see how nature works; and then to build upon certain matter of fact. In compliance with this noble method, I have done all in my power: I have examined the registers of several neighbouring parishes, and send you the substance of three of the most perfect ones. Indeed, I could have added several others; but as they seem to have been now and then neglected, I did not care to trust to them. However, this I can safely deduce from them; _viz._ that what I have here sent will be a proper standard for these parts: and if other gentlemen would take the like pains (and it is next to nothing) in four or five parishes in each county, and in every great town, we might perceive, by one cast of the eye, whether our people are in an ebbing or flowing state. I have not set down the burials, as that would but have embarrassed the table; and the increase will appear very well without them. However, upon an average of all the parishes I have examined, the proportion of the burials to the baptisms is as 83 to 149,4.

Lambourn. Welford. Shefford. Total.
From 1614 to 1623 inclus. 327 67 69 463
1624 to 1633 ---- 401 62 64 527
1634 to 1643 ---- 391 119 86 596
1662 to 1671 ---- 441 146 93 680
1672 to 1681 ---- 380 132 108 620
1682 to 1691 ---- 451 201 112 764
1692 to 1701 ---- 366 134 88 588
1702 to 1711 ---- 387 137 84 608
1712 to 1721 ---- 422 171 97 690
1722 to 1731 ---- 483 156 106 745
1732 to 1741 ---- 578 205 128 911
1742 to 1751 ---- 566 253 137 956
1752 to 1756 ---- 349 120 64 533

This table stands in need of no remarks: it speaks loud enough of itself, that our people increase in a very rapid manner. All I shall take the liberty of observing from it is, that all the registers I have looked over seem to resent the wretched policy of King Charles II. who submitted himself and kingdom too much to a powerful neighbour: and that our civil war had no effect upon our numbers, in comparison to our foreign wars.

I trust, that the very ingenious author of the _politico-arithmetical_ letters, I have all along had my eye upon, will take no offence, if I recommend an article or two advanced by him to be reconsidered; which, if pursued, might perhaps induce some small errors in government.

The first is, That all ways to increase our people would be for the public welfare, even the naturalizeing of foreigners: whereas, if I remember right, all political writers lay it down as a maxim, that numbers of people without employment are a burden and disease to the body politic; and where there is full employment, there the people multiply of course. So that we should not measure the happiness of the nation by the number of mouths, but by the number of hands. Nay, if we were to import a quantity of foreigners we must immediately re-export them, as we actually did in the case of the Palatines and Saltzburghers. Indeed, I cannot deny, but that if the new-comers were to bring new trades with them, they would be welcome: tho’ I apprehend it is not an easy matter to find out many new manufactures. I can at present think of nothing but the cambrick business; and that, with a little encouragement, might be established in either Scotland or Ireland, without the importation of strangers.

The next thing I propose to be ruminated is the assertion, That our commerce at sea is one cause of the decay of our fencible men: which sounds in my ear like saying, that if we had less trade, we should have more people. And if this is the purport of it, I am afraid it is a paradox, literally so called.

That emigrations to our colonies do lessen our numbers in appearance, is beyond dispute: but then it is only in appearance: for if employment begets people, the filling our plantations must increase us beyond imagination, it having been made out, if I misremember not, that every man rightly occupied in America finds employment for three persons in Old England. But then care should be taken, that the planters were generally employed in raising rough materials; and that every thing imported there were manufactured by ourselves; because, if we settle colonies, and then supply them with East-India stuffs and foreign linens, it is neither better nor worse than being at a vast expence to maintain other people’s poor.

I cannot conclude without begging leave to observe, that this gentleman’s doctrine is, from beginning to end, to say the best of it, ill timed. We are contending with our hereditary enemy, the most powerful prince in the world, not for superiority, but for independence, _pro aris et focis_. And, at such a time as this, to be told, that we are but little better than half peopled, and the few we have dwindling away every day, is indeed very discourageing: whereas, on the contrary, I do not balance one moment to declare it, as my fixt persuasion, that we can spare 100,000 brisk young fellows, and still be the most populous flourishing nation in Europe.

I am,

Reverend Sir,
Your affectionate Brother,
and very humble Servant,
Richard Forster.

LVIII. _A Letter to the Right Honourable the Earl of_ Macclesfield, _President of the_ Royal Society, _from the Rev._ William Brakenridge, _D.D. F.R.S. containing an Answer to the Account of the Numbers and Increase of the People of England, by the Rev. Mr._ Forster.

[Read Mar. 16, 1758.]

My Lord,

As I endeavoured, at a former meeting of the Society, to answer ex-tempore some objections offered by a Gentleman in the country, to what I have wrote concerning the number of people in England; I now presume to send you what I said then in writing, with some farther reflections. And this subject I never intended to have meddled with any more; but as I seem to be called upon, to defend what I have formerly wrote, I hope I shall be excused if I briefly attempt it. Your Lordship, I know, and our illustrious Body only desire a fair representation of facts, which is the ground of all philosophical inquiries; and therefore I shall endeavour to do this, as far as I can, without regarding any hypothesis.

My design, when I first entered on this subject, was to discover whether our people were in an increasing or decreasing state, with regard to their numbers; which I thought of great importance to be known, because of its influence on the affairs of Government, in determining our strength, in settling of taxes, and directing us in the œconomy and imployment of our people. Now, in order to proceed in this inquiry, it was evident to me, that if the number of houses were exactly known, the number of people would be nearly ascertained. And therefore I attended to this, to find out the number of houses, as the only thing that could with any certainty help us to judge of this matter. And accordingly, being resolved to depend only upon the most sure, and general observations, I applied to a public office, where I thought I might possibly get at their number. And I there found, that from the last survey that was made, since the year 1750, there were 690,700 houses in England and Wales that paid the window-tax, and the two-shilling duty on houses; besides cottages that paid nothing. By cottages are understood those who neither pay to church or poor, and are, by act of parliament in 1747, in consideration of the poverty of the people, declared to be exempted both from the tax and the two-shillings duty, and they only remain not accurately known, to ascertain the whole number of houses. However, they are so far known, that from all the accounts that are hitherto given in, they do not appear to be so many as 300,000; and from what I myself have seen, in the books of that office, I should think they were not much above 200,000; for in some places, that I was perfectly acquainted with, I found many of the day labourers rated to the two-shillings duty, and there did not appear to be one house in ten omitted. And therefore, if there are not 300,000 cottages, as seems plain to me, there cannot be a million of houses in the whole in England and Wales; and the rated houses are to the cottages more than two to one; of both which, according to the returns made, there is now about one in seventeen or 58,800 empty throughout the kingdom. But if we were to allow, that there are a million of houses in the whole; which is more than the Gentlemen in the above mentioned office believe, and then deduct those that are empty, there could not be above 941,200 inhabited houses; and consequently supposing six to a house, about 5,647,200 people, or near about five millions and an half; which at the utmost, is what I insist on to be the real number.

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.