The colored part of the population was chiefly native, 9,295 individuals having been born in the United States, and 578 in foreign countries. Of 33 the nativity was not returned.

The following table, prepared with much care by Edward W. Hinks, Esq., will exhibit the percentage of increase or decrease in every county throughout the Commonwealth, according to the State censuses of 1850 and 1855:

In the colonial and provincial days, Massachusetts exceeded, in the number of its inhabitants, each of the others. As early as the year 1701 it is supposed to have contained about 70,000 persons of both sexes; in 1749, about 220,000; and in 1775, about 352,000. If these figures are reliable, it will be perceived that the increase of forty-eight years, from 1701 to 1749, was at the rate of 214.29 per cent for the whole time, and of 4.46 per cent per annum. For the twenty-six years, from 1749 to 1775, the increase was 60 per cent, or 2.31 per cent per annum; and for the seventy-four years, from 1701 to 1775, 402.86 per cent, or 5.44 per cent per annum. At this last date Pennsylvania came next, with a population of 341,000; and Virginia with that of 300,000, Connecticut with 262,000, New York with 238,000, North Carolina with 181,000 and Maryland with 174,000. In 1775, Massachusetts and Pennsylvania were estimated to have been each a third larger than New York, which last was considerably smaller than Connecticut, and was not even half as large as its present enterprising emporium.

The aggregate population of the several Counties of the Commonwealth, according to the seven United States enumerations, and also by the State census of 1855, is given in the following columns. In making use of this valuable table, it must be born in mind that, until the 26th of March, 1793, the present county of Norfolk formed part of the county of Suffolk, and that the towns of Hingham and Hull, in Plymouth County, were also a part of the same county until the 18th of June, 1803. Franklin County was originally the north part of Hampshire County, from which it was separated on the 24th of June, 1811; and Hampden County was formed from the southern part of the county of Hampshire, on the 25th of February, 1812 :

POPULATION OF MASSACHUSETTS, BY COUNTIES, ACCORDING TO THE SEVEN UNITED STATES CENSUSES, AND THE LAST STATE CENSUS.

Franklin...

....

57,913 61,205 71,888

29,501 28,021 31,639 37,366 51,283 54,849 59,681 72,432 76,275 26,487 30,254 30,897 35,732 35,485 42,787 46,928 52,780 61,472 77,961 106,611 161,383 194,023 4,550 5,617 6,807 7,266 7,202 9,012 8,452 8,064 27.216 31,245 36,471 41,972 53,140 78,892 94,367 29,535 30,473 35,169 38,136 43,044 47,373 55,697 61,495 44,875 28,015 34,381 43,940 62,163 95,773 144,517 171,841 56,807 61,192 64,910 73,625 84,355 95,313 130,789 149,516

AGGREGATE POPULATION OF THE SEVEN UNITED STATES CENSUSES, AND THE STAT

74,655

82,859

94,987 131,300 151,018

29,268

28,812 30,870 31,652

Compared with the other States in point of population, Massachusetts stood, in 1790, the fourth; in 1800 and 1810, the fifth; in 1820, the seventh; in 1830 and 1840, the eighth; and in 1850, the sixth; and although it has not increased as rapidly as has some of the other States of the Union, nevertheless it exhibits a large gain in population when its small amount of territory, and the very considerable supply of pioneer settlers it has afforded to the new States and Territories of the Federal Republic, are considered.

The following will show the relative position which Massachusetts has held in the Union at the seven decennial periods when the census of the population was taken, together with the percentage of increase and the density in which it is settled :

Thus the Commonwealth appears to have increased very considerably, and in a fair ratio, when compared with the United States. Without any addition to its territory, it shows an increase in population of 34 81 per cent during the ten years from 1840 to 1850, while the United States, with its large acquisition of territory, has added but 36.28 per cent to the number of its inhabitants. The percentage of increase during the sixty years, from 1790 to 1850, has been 162.59.

MERCANTILE MISCELLANIES.

WHY HAVE WE NOT MORE MERCHANT STATESMEN ?

We contemplated some time ago the publication of a work in which we designed to give biographical sketches of merchants and business men who had distinguished themselves in the councils of the State or nation; but we have neither found the time nor material enough to accomplish the work; and we should not have alluded to the subject at this time had it not been suggested to our mind by the following remarks in a late number of Harper's Weekly:

OUR MERCHANTS.-Our merchants, perhaps, have little to learn commercially. They can turn a penny, no doubt, with as cunning a sleight of hand as any engaged in the jugglery of trade. Politically and socially, however, they by no means come up to the requirements the country and society demand of them. Repre senting, as our merc' ants do, the better part of our trading enterprise and wealth, how happens it that they are but golden calves, with no voice to utter when a word is to be spoken for the higher interests of the land?

The politician, with his suppleness of conscience, and the lawyer, with his fluency of prate, are allowed to do all the political work; and our country is accordingly done most effectually. The voice of the merchant is never heard beyond a low growl of complaint over his money bags, collapsing under the fingers of the political robber or public prodigal. National quarrels are begun, wars waged, and tariffs promulgated, involving the most serious interests of trade and commerce, without a word of warning or protest from either. The merchant or trader has hardly tongue enough to cry "Stop thief!"

With greater facility of political and social advancement in this country than in any other, how is it that the merchant counts less in the public importance and esteem? Why should we not have our Barings, Lafittes, Cobdens, and Brights to lift their heads among the magnates of the land, and to raise their voices in the councils of the nation?

We fully appreciate the truth of the saying, " The cobbler should stick to his last;" and in calling upon the merchant to take a part in the conduct of the affairs of a country so essentially commercial as our own, we claim the word of the proverb in our favor.

Our merchants are too exclusively merchants with us, and give up to trade what was meant for mankind. We believe, with all their short-comings on the score of general culture, that our merchants, with the practical experience picked up in the counting-house, would make more capable legislators, and certainly more honest ones, than nine-tenths of them whose only business is politics. Are not the industry, order, integrity, and economy of well-regulated trade a better preparation for public business than the loose jabber and looser habits, the low intrigue and corrupt jobbing of the demagogue's experience?

Our merchants, doubtless, claim their share of patriotism; but, practically considered, even aristocratic England puts them to the blush. Look at the new Parliament, now in session in London, and although professing to be a triumph of the aristocratic over the trading interests of the country, there are more merchants and tradesmen in the House of Commons at this time than ever sat in Congress. While Thorneley, a Liverpool merchant, moved the address to the Queen on the opening of Parliament, Nicholls, a Regent-street tailor, takes his place, among many others engaged in trade, in the active business of the State. Shall our merchants, in a country where they do so much by private enterprise, have no word to say in the management of the public business of the country?

We should be glad if some of our numerous correspondents, who have the leisure and the inclination, would answer the question we have placed at the head of this brief article.

THE CLOTHING TRADE.

It has been our custom from time to time to note the progress, and mark the increase in the various mercantile enterprises of our city, with a view to convey to our readers some idea of the rapid growth of these interests, controlling, as they undoubtedly do, the commerce of the Union.

There is not perhaps a more important business for our consideration than that of the ready-made clothing trade, which, from a merely local interest in 1840, has grown to an importance second to none. It is computed that between $30,000.000 and $40,000,000 annually flow into our city from the sales in this branch alone. It is well known that the New York manufacturers now supply the greater quantity of clothing used throughout the States, Canadas, South America, and the West Indies. A few years ago most of the cities and towns in the Union were supplied with goods made up in each locality. The dry goods houses were largely engaged in the sale of woolen and other stuffs for men's wear. Now the trade has entirely changed, and but few, if any, of our dry goods dealers invest to any amount in these materials. The clothing houses have gradually engaged in this branch, until it has grown to be an undisputed monopoly with them and the cloth importers.

As these houses spread their business, buyers from other cities turned their attention hitherward, where finding better and cheaper articles than they could manufacture or buy elsewhere, they finally concentrated their purchases. For some time country dealers who made their general assortments in Philadelphia, Boston, &c., came here to buy their clothing only, and being under the necessity of visiting New York, they at last made all their bills in that city. Thus has the clothing trade assisted kindred interests. The boldness, so to speak, displayed by our New York clothing houses, has formed one great element of success. No material has been deemed too fine-no price to much to pay for goods to be made up for sale. A doubt might have existed as to this policy in the outset, but success then, has made it a necessity now. No matter how expensive, or how superior the fabrics, a ready market is found for all.

We are permitted to mention the house of D. Devlin & Co., which is probably at the head of this branch of trade, as illustrating our statements.

One

It is unnecessary to mention their white marble building on the corner of Warren-street and Broadway, as our readers have all noticed it, further than to state that from that one house 2,500 operatives receive work enough to populate a considerable town. The wholesale customers of Messrs. Devlin & Co. come from every point. They supply the north, south, east, and west, cach with the peculiar kind of goods required by them, and in addition to this they enjoy a very large and important retail and custom trade, the largest, perhaps, in the world. reason why the goods of this firm are preferred by wholesale buyers is, that the same hands are employed in manufacturing both the articles for large sales and the one suit ordered, thus giving guaranty that all are made with equal excellence. A peculiarity introduced by this house, of great value to the country resident, is the facility afforded them in measuring themselves for a suit of cloths, and sending their orders.

This firm, among others, have justly deserved their success. Enterprise has carried them out in search of novelty, and wealth has rewared them; perseverance and untiring application have been given to their business, and none now occupy

a prouder position before the public. Fair dealing has marked their progress, and consequently great confidence has been attained. We can hardly estimate the advantages to the commerce of our city, from the well-directed enterprise and boldness of such houses as Devlin & Co. Their success and the popularity of their manufacture have contributed, as before stated, more than any other cause within our knowledge, to draw to New York vast numbers of customers from all parts of the Union to make their purchases of dry goods, hardware, &c., as well as clothing, exclusively in New York. This fact alone is sufficient to place the clothing trade of our city in the front rank in point of commercial importance, and we will take occasion from time to time to note its movements and its progress.

OF PAYING EXTRA INTEREST FOR MONEY.

A late number of the Boston Herald publishes editorially a sound and sensible article on the subject of paying a larger amount of interest than the rate which the law authorizes to be received, and we fully concur (although opposed to the usury laws in principle) with the writer in the Herald, that the paying of usurious rates has been the destruction of thousands of business firms, and will be the ruin of thousands more. We commend the remarks which follow to young merchants just entering the arena of mercantile life :

The young trader should resolve that he will always keep his business within the control of his permanent capital, and never suffer himself to become a prey of brokers. If the promissory notes which he takes in the course of his trade are good, he can generally realize from our banks all he ought to expect, espcially if his character be good for industry and integrity.

But many of our young men, from imprudence in giving credit, or from neglect in collecting what is due them, get temporarily embarrassed, and then they apply to brokers, and pay from one to two per cent a month for the money which their business demands for the time being. They doubtless think that their first application for loans upon usurious interest will be their last. There is no safety in such a conclusion-for whoever pays extra interest once, because he has failed to collect his bills, is apt to repeat the operation, and even to convert the bills of his slow-paying customers into promissory notes, extended far beyond the time of the original credit, with simple interest added, in order that he may have negotiable paper which the brokers will discount at some price.

We often hear it said that paying extra interest once or twice hurts nobody, provided the borrower can make on the merchandise he buys, two or three times the amount of the extra interest which he pays. This is arithmetically true, but practically it is not true. If one such usurious operation is undertaken with a certainty that it will pay a profit, the next is likely to be undertaken when the profit is hardly probable. Thus a habit of speculating beyond one's means is engendered, and the broker or his employee soon absorb all the profits which arise from the business.

As those who have contracted the habit of paying extra interest begin to incur losses in their operations, they become desperate and reckless. They will pledge such a stock as they may possess, borrow promissory notes of those to whom they lend their promissory notes in exchange, sell their merchandise at low prices to doubtful customers, and submit to continual shaves upon the street. At this point the business character of a merchant is ruined. He loses his discrimination as to his debtors, and is too much embarrassed as to his payments to collect his bills while they are collectable. His debtors fail, and he makes redoubled efforts to get paper which will go through the shaving mill. The directors of banks see his operations upon the street and refuse to discount any of his paper, however good it may be, and finally after months, perhaps years of pecuniary trouble, he lands in insolvency.