[ i°4 ] 
indivicffuls 36,169, which gives nearly 5 to a houfe. 
Another method which Dr. Brakenridge 
took to determine the number of inhabitants in Lon- 
don was from the annual number of burials, adding 
2000 to the bills for omiilions, and fuppofing a 30th 
part to die every year. In order to prove this to be a 
moderate fuppofition he obferves that, according to 
Dr. Halley’s Obfervations, a 34th part die every year 
at Breflaw. But this obfervation was made too inad- 
vertently. The number of annual burials there, ac- 
cording to Dr. Halley’s account, was 1174, and the 
number of inhabitants, as deduced by him from his 
Table, w'as 34,000, and therefore a 29th part died 
every year. Befides; any one may find, that in 
reality the Table is conftrudted on the fuppofition, 
that the whole number born, or 1238, die every 
year j from whence it will follow that a 28th part 
died every* year. * Dr. Brakenridge, therefore, had 
he attended to this, would have dated a 24th part as 
the proportion that dies in London every year, and 
this would have taken ofF 150,000 from the number 
he has given. But even this mud be lefs than 
the jud proportion. For let three fourths of all 
who either die in London or migrate from it, be 
•fuch as have been born in London ; and let 
the red be perfons who have removed to Lon- 
don from the country or from foreign nations. 
* Care fhoiilii be taken, in confidering Dr. Halley’s Table, not 
fo take the firfl number in it, or lOCO, for fo ma:iy juft born. 
1238, he tells us, was the annual medium of births, and lOCO is 
the number he fuppol'es all living at one year and under. It was 
inattention to this that led Dr. Brakenridge to his miftake. 
The 
