r 5 r ] 
kind, but I cannot fay it is exaft. For by departing 
from his preliminary (9) difcourfe in the firft 6 years, 
and varying his table from the Hated proportions, at 
their refpedtive ages therein fet forth, it is certain the 
one does not agree with the other, till the years 57 
to 62, and in the fingle years 72 and 80. And it 
were much to be wifhed, that Dr. Newman’s papers' 
were made public, to difcover the origin and juflnefs 
of thofe proportional numbers, how they prove from 
year to year, and from what leading proportions they 
were deduced. 
However, if the confideration of the firft year 
was the only reafon for defiring them, it might be 
needlefs, there being another paflage in the fame 
differtation, which further confirms what I affert; 
where, fpeaking of thefe tables of Dr. Newman, 
about to be ranged in particular form by himfelf, he 
makes this obfervation (10). It appears hereby, that 
the one half of thofe that are born, die in 17 years 
time, 1238 [births] being, in that time, reduced to 
6 16 . For we cannot, by any means, apply thefe 
words to the number 1000 in his own table, which 
are not reduced to half, till near the 34th year; an 
affurance to all, that know any thing of thefe mat- 
ters, that 1000 births, and 1000 perfons, the one in 
the beginning of life, the other in the beginning of 
his table, mean very different things, and that any 
conclufions, truly drawn from the one, may be very 
falfe when transferred to the other. 
(9) A general ftate of thefe may be feen, p. 69. a yearly one 
Would take up too much room here, though I have it before me. 
(10) Lowthorp’s Abridgment, Vol. Ill, p. 677. 
H 2 If 
