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-tëen, 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 Këen-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
