C S3 ] 
in the London (12) accounts (for instance, in the 
30 years, 1728 to 1757 inclufive) 2979 living at 90, 
242 living at 100, 10 living at 1 10, and one living 
to 138? Are thefe to be wholly omitted by thole, 
who pretend to give a true ftate of human life, the 
firft number near thrice as many as the ufual tables 
begin with ? Or, could they be overlooked, if the 
computation began with 100,000, or a million ? 
Further, lhould the value of annuities link fo pre- 
cipitately, and clofe fo foon, will they be granted to 
perfons aged py for nothing, as the table of Mr. de 
Parcieux has it, in the fupplement to Chambers’s 
Dictionary ? One would imagine thence, that thofe 
aged 100, or more, fhould have a premium to ac- 
cept of them. And yet, what would be the con- 
fequence, if the ftate granted an annuity to 100,000 
perfons, and the furvivors of them, to fubfift intire 
to the death of the longeft liver, and have it to pay 
20 or 30 years beyond the utmoft expectation re- 
prefented in fuch tables ? It may here be obferved, 
in refpeCt to London more particularly, that the 
induction from this refiduary part of life is well 
fupported, fince at 90, or later, few think of re- 
moving from town. Or, if it be infilled upon, that 
feme do remove after that age, it will be allowed, 
that the burials of the fubfequent years would have 
been higher, if they had all ftaid and died there. 
It may feem quite impertinent to mention this to 
(12) Mr. Stonehoufe forms his account on 529,623, of which 
181 lived to 100 years, and upwards; yet, beginning with 1000, 
clofes his table at 95. It is needlefs to name many others in a 
general fault, to which the eafy management of fmall numbers is 
a temptation. 
you. 
