436 Of the Checks to Population Bk. ii. 



The progress of the population, according to 

 this latter table, appears much more natural and 

 probable than according to the former. 



It is in no respect likely that, in the interval 

 between 1780 and 1785, the increase of the po- 

 pulation should only have been 63,000, and in the 

 next period 659,000 ; or that, in the interval be- 

 tween 1795 and 1800, it should have been only 

 113,000, and in the next period 660,000. But it 

 is not necessary to dwell on probabilities; the 

 most distinct proofs may be brought to shew that, 

 whether the new table be right or not, the old 

 table must be wrong. Without any allowances 

 being made for omissions in the registers, the ex- 

 cess of the births above the deaths, in the period 

 from 1780 to 1785, shews an increase of 193,000, 

 instead of 63,000. And, on the other hand, no 

 allowances for omissions in the registers, that 

 could with the slightest degree of probability be 

 supposed, would make the excess of births above 

 the deaths in the period from 1785 to 1790 equal 

 to 659,000. Making no allowance for omissions, 

 this excess only amounts to 317,306; and if we 

 were to suppose the omissions in the births one- 

 4th, instead of one-6th, and that there were no 

 omissions in the registers of burials, and that no 

 one died abroad, the excess would still fall short 

 of the number stated by many thousands. 



The same results would follow, if we were to 

 estimate the progress of population during these 

 periods by the proportion of births to deaths, and 

 the rate of mortality. In the first period the in- 



