GROSIER'S ACCOUNT. 59 word for families being hoo, "doors," in distinction from kow, "mouths," which is the proper word for individuals. Again, the work to which he refers, though published in 1743, may refer to a census of the population at a previous date, and thus nearly synchronize with the census given in the year 1711, which we have seen by authentic records to have been 28,605,716. Grosier's own enumeration was taken from an estimate of the population in "the tribunal of lands" at Peking, which was made in the twenty-seventh year of Keen-lung, A. D. 1762, and was received in France in 1779. It was written both in Chinese and French, and was translated into the latter at Peking. By this estimate it appears that the population amounted to 198,214,553. Upon this we may remark, that Grosier himself does not appear to have consulted the work referred to, but only an extract from it, or a translation of it. It is possible, therefore, that there may be some mistake, either in the number, or the date. Still as the census is placed between the years 1753, when the population was 102,328,256, and 1792, when it was 307,467,200, the intermediate number of 198,214,553 is not an unlikely estimate. The account published by Dr. Morrison, in his view of China for philological purposes, exhibits the population as amounting to 143,125,225 in 1790. This estimate was taken from a new edition of the Ta-tsingyih-tung-che, or "a complete statistical account of the empire under the present dynasty," published about the close of the reign of Keen-lung, probably A. D. 1790; which is the identical work referred to by Amiot, only a later edition. The edition which Dr. Morrison consulted exhibits the original amount of the population, 60 MORRISON'S ACCOUNT. at the beginning of the present dynasty, and then the increase since that time. The first, says Dr. Morrison, was probably about A. D. 1644, and the last about 1790. In a note at the bottom of the page, Dr. Morrison observes, "that the work itself does not state what the time of the original census was; that it was at the beginning of the present dynasty rests on the verbal authority of the natives." Neither does it appear that the work states the precise time when the second census was made; we only know that it was taken prior to the publication of the book in 1790, but how long previous to that date we are not aware. The dates, therefore, of 1644, for the first, and 1790 for the second, are merely hypothetical; and, as much depends on the period when a given census was taken, we cannot, in estimating a population which is constantly and rapidly increasing, take a census without date, and oppose it to the authority of those the dates of which are clearly ascertained. The first census quoted by Dr. Morrison is 27,241,129; while the second amounts to 143,125,225. Now if we refer to the official returns, the dates of which are determined in a foregoing page, we shall find that about the year 1711, the population amounted to 28,605,716, which is not far from the first statement furnished by Dr. Morrison; neither does it differ very materially from the number of jin-ting, or men, quoted by Amiot, and which he has mistaken for families, and multiplied to 157,301,755. The probability therefore is, that as both Amiot and Morrison consulted the Yih-tung-che, only in two separate editions, the number quoted by the French missionary, and the first estimate produced by Dr. Morrison, refer to one and the same period; and that that period, MANDARIN'S STATEMENT. 61 instead of being 1644, as supposed by Dr. Morrison, or 1723, as Amiot imagined, was most likely the intermediate date of 1710, which would make it agree with the estimate given of the population for the following year in the Ta-tsing-hwuy-teen, quoted above. Dr. Morrison's second estimate of 143,125,225 need not be placed exactly in 1790, because the work in which it was found appeared about that time: it might as well be assigned to the middle as the close of Keen-lung's reign, and fall more about the year 1765, which would allow for the gradual increase of the people from 102,328,258 in 1753, to 143,125,225, twelve years afterwards. Besides the indefiniteness of the dates in the account furnished by Dr. Morrison, there are some inconsistencies hard to be reconciled with other returns, or with the state of the country, which will be noticed in a subsequent page; it is due to Dr. Morrison, however, to observe, that the statements above given were published in 1817; and that in a paper drawn up by him, and inserted in the Anglo-Chinese College Report, for 1829, he has given an estimate of the population as amounting to 307,467,200, in 1792. The account furnished to Sir G. Staunton, by the Chinese mandarin, Chow-ta-jin, has been frequently referred to, and not a little reprobated and called in question. Malte Brun thinks, that because the numbers, in each province, are given in round millions, and because, in two provinces, the number of millions is precisely the same, that, therefore, the whole document is a fabrication. But, how can these be considered as the marks of fabrication? The mandarin professed to derive his information from a particular friend at Peking, and merely gave it as a general estimate, 62 ITS GENERAL CORRECTNESS. without entering into particulars on the subject; and this is, by no means, an uncommon case with ourselves. The population of England, France, Germany, or Spain, is frequently given in round millions, without the specification of the units, except when a census is particularly demanded or published by government; and when a population is thus roundly stated, it does not throw discredit on the whole, to say, that two different regions, Austria and France, for instance, contain the same number of millions. With regard to Sir G. Staunton's informant, we may look upon his statement, as entitled to credit, as far as general estimates go; and while it does not profess to give a particular account of the population, we may take it as corroborating or explaining some cotemporaneous statement derived from more authentic sources. Now this account of the population was delivered to Sir G. Staunton, in 1792, and does not materially differ from an official return, published in the same year, which makes the population amount to 307,467,200; and, considering that the one was a rough guess, in round numbers, and the other, the result of a minute investigation, we need not be surprised at the discrepancy that appears in the aggregate. The two together are sufficient, however, to prove that the population of China, at that period, exceeded three hundred millions. We shall now present the reader with a comparative statement of the number of inhabitants in each province, according to the various accounts, accompanied by other statistical returns, calculated to throw light on the subject. |