[ 65 ] 
fidered, or whatever elfe changed that author’s fenti- 
• ments, yet changed they were; for, in 1737, he 
accounted a life of 10 years beft, and equal to a term 
of 2.8 years, and no more; [Lee’s ESay, p. 231. 
253.] . and yet, fince, in (his Valuation of Annuities* 
2d edit. p. 9 6 .) 1754, he has computed the fame 
kind of life, as equal to a term of 35" years, not- 
withstanding all the allowances pleaded for in his 
Effay (29); in full conSderation of which, he was 
afraid of overdoing the matter. And yet, if he 
would have given us the true refult of the London 
bills, according to his own State, and reckoning with 
exadtnefs, which he calls to the extremity, a life of 
10 years would be found equal to a term of 34.94, 
years ; but one of 4 years old equal to a term of 3 8 .20 
years; above 3 years better than his beS: life. 
I fhould not have mentioned this, but to obferve, 
that it is natural enough, when the expected term of 
life is taken to the uttermoS:, to make fome allowance. 
And yet, if allowance is to be made, it Saould not be 
by an arbitrary and falfe reprefen tation of life through- 
out a whole table (30), but left to the difcretion of 
parties concerned, and to be made in proportion to 
(29) Page 231. 
(30) Mr. Lee rightly concluding, that the degree of mortality 
ought to increafe from the year of greateft expedition to the end 
of life, erroneoufly inferred from thence, that the deducend, or 
part of the term of life wafting in each decad, fhould be leaft at 
hrft, and greater afterwards; and fo apportioned it, as long as he 
could go on, contrary to all other tables, and even to the courfe 
at would anfe ftom his own table of the London bills. Lee’s 
•inlay, p.459. Table II. 
Vol. LIL 
K 
the' 
