MONTGOMERY MARTIN'S STATISTICS.

WE were not aware that Mr. MONTGOMERY MARTIN had beencon- sidered worth the labour of a commentary, until we received from a respectable correspondent some half-dozen pages of fairly-written manuscript, containing an elaborate display ef " errors" in the first volume of the first edition of the History of the British Colo- nies. Our correspondent (perhaps as a penance for what he terms our " particular notice of the statistical tables") also calls upon us to inform him if the misstatements are corrected in the new edition. As the inquirer's minute references were almost useless, from the extensive alterations both in the matter and arrangement of the second edition, our endeavours to comply with his demand involved us in a task or no slight trouble, and which in one or two instances perhaps has been imperfectly fulfilled.

Our correspondent rarely offers any opinion as to the truth of Mr. MaaTIN's statistics; his "list of errors " is chiefly confined to discrepancies of Statement. Of these blunders some are trivial, some are gross ; a few are so egregious that it is difficult to con- ceive how they occurred. Subject to the qualification already made, the question put to us may be answered hy saying, that several statements remain as they were ; some have been changed, but not corrected; and some appear to have been removed alto- gether, lmt without any notice being taken of the discrepancies. A few extracts from our correspondent's paper will exhibit the na- ture of the mistakes, whilst our addilions from the new volume will show the kind of revision to o hich it has been subjected.

Page 131 (2.1 edition, page 257,) states, that the capital of the East India Company is divided among three thousand seven hundred and seventy-nine Proprietor;" viz. . Paorairrous. 1st Edit. 211 Edit.

54 53 Possessing 4 votes. 50 54— 370 :117 -- 2 1,502 1,454 — I — 221 221 No vote, but may debate, having only 500/. stock.

396 39i1 Can neither speak nor vote, not having 500/. stock.

182 220 Not held sufficient time.

— 2,775 2,745 Instead of 3,779 or 3,579, stated as the total.

At pages 132, 133 (Cl edition, pages 258, 259.) it is stated that the list of Directors or representatives of t he fi iregoing " body of Proprietors consists of tweletg-/our iiersons," ai'L.rwards classified as follows into thirty, according to length of service and profession— . Length of snsiee. Profession. 1st and 2d Edni,,n. Isty.dit. gd Edit.

15 under 10 Years standing it 10 Retired ei% il and law officers. 11 from 10 to CO „ 4 4 Military Officers.

2 front 20 to 30 ,, 5 4 — Maritime.

2 from 30 '7 4 :1 Private India Merchants.

8 9 London :Merchants.

ao 30 30 Instead of 2.1 The next strange blunder is unchanged in the new volume— Note, page 186 (11(1 etliion, page 3.13). " A Parliamentary thwument gives the amount of the land-tax per hcad in Bengal in 1627 at 22/ yearly, in Ma- dras, 52/, and in Bombay, 601 ; and per square mile, Bengal, 231, Madras, 17d., and Bombay, 19,f. : the population per square mile in each presidency being, for Bengal, 214, Madras, 74, aail Bombay, 73." This note contradicts itself, as it makes the tax per head greater than per square mile,—for instance, in Madras, in the proportion of 32 to 17 ; though the author afterwards allows Madras a population of 77 per square mile, which of course increases the error.

The follewing is yet grosser, because a conclusion is professed to be deduced. Like the preceding error, it stands unaltered in the second edition.

Page 341 (21 edition, pages 500, 5010 states as follows, to prove that labour i$ now better paid at Calcutta than it was ten years ago. " Ten years ago a labourer received two rupees per month, and paid halt a rupee for I maund of rice; now a labourer receives 4 to 5 rupees per month, and pays 2 rupees for 1 ruaund of rice : 10 years ago a cabinet-maker received 8 rupees per mouth, and paid half a rupee for 1 maund of rice; now a cabinet-maker receives 16 to 20 rupees per mouth, and paysC rupees for 1 martnid of rice,"—that is to say, he now pays four times as much as he did ten years ago for the necessaries of life, while his wages are only increased from 2 to 4 times as much : and this the author calls an improvement in the situation of the labourer.

It is but just to Mr. MARTIN to say that these are about the worst specimens in our correspondent's list ; and if his communica- tion contains the result of a microscopic examination of the whole volume, the number and extent of the errors would be pardonable did not their nature prove the thoughtless haste with which the work was compiled, and the heedless reliance that was placed upon any statements that its author could pick up. In our different notices of the successive volumes, we have freely ob- served upon these defects and others of a similar kind. As regards the praise that has been given to the statistics generally, we may repeat what has already been indicated more than once in our columns—that in noticing tabular facts our judgment is limited to the Manner of their arrangement, &c.; and that unless we happen to have some ready means of testing their accuracy, it must be assumed. In the particular case of Mr. MARTIN, how- ever, the reasons for the faith that was in us were given on the appearance of his first volume : we had followed him item b;,, item through his Taxation of the British Empire, and four', him accurate,—es we still believe him to be in transcrThing -fre.at others.

• Mee handrod in the 2ct sdition, But in future we must modify our confidence. "I will allow," said POPS, "a dictionary-maker to know the meaning of a single word, but not of two words put together :" so Mr. MARTIN, it heems, may be relied upon to copy facts, but not to compare them or estimate their value.