[ 102 ] 
mun:, probably, be nearefl to the true number of inha- 
bitants. However, fhould any one, after all, think 
that it is not improbable that only 5 of 16 fliould 
live in London to be 10 years of age, or that above 
two thirds die under this age, the confequence of ad- 
mitting this will ftill be, that the foregoing calcula- 
tion has been carried too high. For it will from 
hence follow, that the expediation of a child juft 
born in London cannot be fo much as I have taken 
it. This expediation is 20, on the fuppofition that 
half -die under 3 years of age, and that 5 of 
16 live to be 29 years of age, agreeably to Mr. Simp- 
fon’s Table. But if it is indeed true, that half 
under 2 years of age, and 5 of 16 under 10, 
agreeably to the bills^ this expedlation muft be lefs 
than 20, and all the numbers before given will be 
confiderably reduced. 
Upon the whole : I am forced to conclude from 
thefe obfervations, that the fecond number I have gi- 
ven, or 651,580, though fhort of the number of in- 
habitants commonly fuppofed in London, is, very 
probably, greater , but cannot be much lefs, than the 
true number. Indeed, it is in general evident, that 
in cafes of this kind numbers are very much over- 
rated. The ingenious Dr. Brakenridge 14 years 
ago, when the bills were lower than they are 
now, from the number of houfes, and allowing 
fix to a houfe, made the number of inhabitants 
751,800. But his method of determining the num- 
ings, prefcrving the burials the fame, the proportion of the 
born, according to the bills, who have reached ten for the laft fix- 
teen years, will be very nearly one third inftead of five fifteenths. 
* Vid. Phil. Tranfadh vol. XLVIll. 
her 
