tax-gatherers. Dr Price became, at length, disposed to admit, from the enumerations, which he had seen, that five persons, and a sixth, reside in every house. * Mr Howlet, from a still greater number of enumerations, insists † for five, and twofifths. It will, at last, be found, perhaps, ‡ that five and two-fifths are the smallest number, which, on an average of the whole kingdom, dwells in every house. It is, in fact, too small. The enumeration of 1801 at length shows, that the population of England averages 5.66, or 53ds to each house; that the population of Wales averages

* Reversionary Payments, v. ii. p. 288. + Examination of Price, p. 145.

In 1773, Dr Price insisted that there were not quite five in every house. [Observations on Reversionary Payments, 3d edition, p. 184.] In 1783, the Doctor seemed willing to allow, five one-sixth in every house: But he still contends, That, if you throw out of the calculation Liver. pool, Manchester, Birmingham, and other populous towns, the number, in every house, ought to be less than five. [Observations on Reversionary Payments, 4th edit. v. ii. p. 288-9.] The Rev. Mr New made a very accurate enumeration, of the parish of St Philip, and St Jacob, in the city of Bristol, during the year 1781, and found 1,529 inhabited houses, and therein 9,850 souls. These numbers prove, that more than six, one third, dwell in every house. And from this enumeration we may infer, That, in the full inhabited city of Bristol, six, at least, reside in every house. If, in the spirit of Dr Price, we throw out of the calculation all populous places, and studiously collect such decaying towns as Sandwich, the proportion, to every house, would be reduced to five,

somewhat more than five to each house; and that the population of England, and Wales, taken together, is 5.61, or more than 5ths to each house, which may be owing, however, to the change of circumstances: and those computations are exclusive of the army, and navy, which, if included, would raise the average rate of inhabitancy, in England, and Wales, to 5.91; or more than 5ths persons to each house. Such, then, is the demonstration, which evinces how completely Dr Price was mistaken, throughout his whole inquiry, with regard to the national populousness: The enumeration of 1811 evinces still the fallacy of his reasoning, which was always unscriptural, in supposing a continual decrease of people, instead of a constant increase, and multiplication.

Little doubt can surely now remain, of there having been, in England and Wales, 1,300,000 inhabited houses at the Revolution. Were we to multiply this number by five, it would demonstrate a population of six millions and a half: were we to multiply by five, and two fifths, or even by five, and one fifth, this operation would carry the number up, nearly, to seven millions: and seven millions were considered, by some of the most intelligent men of that day, as the whole amount of the people, of this kingdom, at the Revolution.

But, if we take the lowest number, of six millions and a half, and compare it with five millions, the highest number, probably, in 1588, this com

parison would evince an increase of a million and a half, in the subsequent century, and of more than four millions, from 1377. Yet, Dr Price considered the epoch of the Reformation (1517), as a period of greater population, than the era of the Revolution.

In giving an account of the reign of King Wil liam, Sir John Dalrymple remarks, "That three and twenty regiments were completed,in six weeks." This is, doubtless, an adequate proof, of the ardour of the times; but it is a very slight evidence, of an overflowing populousness. Want of employment, often sends recruits to an army, which, in more industrious years, would languish without hope of reinforcements. We may learn, indeed, from Sir Josiah Child, That it was a question agitated, during the reign of Charles II:-" If we have more "people now, than in former ages, how came it "to pass, that in the times of Henry IV. and V., "and even in prior times, we could raise such

66

great armies, and employ them in foreign wars, "and yet retain a sufficient number to defend the kingdom, and to cultivate our lands at home? "I answer, first,” says this judicious writer, "that 'bigness of armies is not a certain indication of "the numerousness of a nation, but sometimes of "the government, and distribution of the lands; "where the prince and lords are owners of the "whole territory: although the people be thin, "the armies, upon occasion, may be very great, "as in Fez, and Morocco. Secondly, princes'

ઃ

"armies, in Europe, are become more propor❝tionable to their purses, than to the numbers "of their people. "

Thus much it was thought proper to premise, with regard to the previous condition, and policy, of England, as well as its populousness, at different periods, anterior to The Revolution, when THIS ESTIMATE, properly, begins: In order that, as Shakespeare says;

"You may revolve what tales I told you,

"Of courts, of princes, of the tricks of war. "

CHAP. IV.

Opinions, as to the Strength of Nations.-Reflec tions.-The real Power of England during King William's Reign.-The State of the Nation.-The Losses of her Trade, from King William's Wars.-Her Commerce revives.Complaints of Decline, amidst her Prosperity.Reflections.

THEORISTS are not agreed, in respect to those circumstances, which form the strength of nations, either actual, or comparative. One considers the power of a people" to consist in their numbers and wealth. " Another insists, "that

the force of every community most essentially depends on the capacity, valour, and union, of the leading characters of the state." And a third, adopting partly the sentiments of both, contends, "that though numbers, and riches, are highly important, and the resources of war may decide a contest, where other advantages are equal; yet the resources of war, in hands, that cannot employ them, are of little avail; since manners are as essential, as either people, or wealth. "

It is not the purpose of this Estimate to amuse the fancy, with uninstructive definitions, or to bewilder the judgment, with verbal disputations,