[ 6 4 ] 
I have not feen Mr. Smart’s traft on the London 
bills, (when and how was it published ?) nor the col- 
ledions of Mr. Dupre, published by Mr. BufFon, 
lave only through the medium of Mr. Kerfeboom’s 
proportions (24), beginning with 1000, not births, 
but children of 6 months old, or upwards (25); 
which makes a conliderable difference in refped to 
age given, and yearly deaths, through the whole 
table 5 and I almoffc envy thole, who have the de- 
firable ufe of choice originals. The accounts of Dr. 
Newman are, I fuppofe, preferved by your fociety ; 
and there is a hate of the exchequer annuitants (26) 
often mentioned, but not published, by Mr. Lee. 
Neverthelefs, thefe lafl being of divers ages (if the 
particular age of each perfon at entry and death be 
not known, though the grofs numbers yearly dying 
may), as it was too great a prefumption to affert, 
that they began all at the belt lfage (27) of life, and 
‘were fo nicely chofen (28), that the duration of 
35 years was a thing extraordinary; fo it would be a 
blameable credulity to admit thefe points for truths, 
when we continually fee how many are refolved to 
chufe their own lives, or thofe of their children or 
favourites, even when they are receded 10 or 20 years 
from that part of life, which had the largeft ex- 
pectation. Whether it was this matter better con- 
(24) Phil. Tranf. 1753- p- 239. 
(25) This was done, to compare it rightly with Dr. Halley’s, 
which Mr. K. therefore knew was not from 1000 births. 
(26) Lee’s EfTay, 252, 253. “ This,” he fays, “ is the 
beft guide of all.” Lee’s Val. Annuit. p. 47. 51. 
(27) EfTay 252. 
(28) EfTay 253. 
fidercd, 
