[ 100 ] 
than thofe in the burials. Now it Teems evident 
that this is really the cafe ; and, as it Is a fadt not at- 
tended to, I will here endeavour to explain diftindly 
the reafon which proves it. 
The proportion of the number of births in Lon- 
don, to the number who live to be lo years of age, 
is, by the bills, i6 to 5, Any one may find this to 
be true, by fubtrading the annual medium of thofe 
who have died under 10, for foine years pall:, from 
the annual medium of births for the fame number of 
years. Now, tho’, without doubt, London is very 
fatal to children, yet it is incredible that it fliould be To 
fatal as this implies. The/ 5 ///j, therefore, very proba- 
bly, give the number of thofe who die under 10 too 
great in proportion to the number of births ; and 
there can be no other caufe of this, than a greater 
deficiency in the births than in the buriah. Were 
the deficiencies in both equal, that is, were the bit' 
rialsy in proportion to their number, jufl as deficient 
as the births are in proportion to their number, the 
proportion of thofe who reach 1 o years of age to the 
number born would be right in the billsy let the defi- 
ciencies themfelves be ever fo confiderable. On the 
contrary, were the deficiencies in the burials greater 
than in the bhthsy this proportion would be given too 
great; audit is only when the former are leafl: that 
this proportion can be given too little. Thus ; let 
the number of annual burials be 23,000 ; of births 
15,700; and the number dying annually under 10, 
10,800. Then 4,900 will reach 10 of 15,700 born 
annually; that is, 5 out of 16. Were there no 
deficiencies in the burials^ and were it faeft that only 
halj die under io, it would follow, that there was an 
annual 
