[ 176 ] 
not be fo conducive to health as in the open country. 
And confequently unlefs all great towns that are lels 
than London, and nearly in the fame latitude, are 
more healthy, there can no reafon be given why 
Breflau fhould be fo. It is true it cannot be demon- 
ftrated, that they are equally healthy, to perfons above 
14 or 20 years of age; but when we fee the tables 
that have been made from our bills, and obferve the 
inconhftency that appears in them, which is owing 
to the fluctuating Bate of our city ; we fee no reafon 
to think otherwife, and we rather feem to have fome 
preiumption that it is fo. Becaufe, if we look into 
Mr. Smart’s table, we find, that he has made the 
people more healthy between 12 and 18, and after 
70 years of age, than at Breflau ; and yet more un- 
healthy in the ages between thefe periods; which 
feems to be near to a contradiction : For why they 
fliould be more unhealthy in the intermediate years, is 
not poflible to be accounted for. One would rather 
think, that if in the extremities of life they were 
more healthy at London, they could not be lefs healthy 
in the middle, and ftronger part of it. Or, if we 
confult another form of this table ingenioully cor- 
rected, we fee, that people appear ftill more healthy 
after 70 than at Breflau ; which feems to be incon- 
fiBent with their being more unhealthy in younger 
life. For one would imagine, that the inclemency of 
any climate or place fliould affeCl people more with 
the infirmities of age, than thofe that are younger, 
and yet in their vigour. But if we account for this 
variation of the table, by fuppofing, that after the 
age of ^o, many retire from town, as I have men- 
tioned 
2 
