[ ] 
buildings round it, arc owing, in a great meafure,. 
to the increafe of luxury," and the inhabitants re- 
quiring more room to live upon^. 
It Ihould be remembered, that the number of inha- 
bitants in London is new fo much lefs as I have made 
it, than it was 40 years ago, on thefuppofition that the 
proportion of the omiliions in the births to thofe in the 
burials was the fame then that it is now. But it 
appears that this is not the fad.— — From 1728, the 
year when the ages of the dead was firft given in 
the billsy to 1742, near five-fjxths of thofe who 
were born died under i o, according to the bills. 
From 1742 to 1752 three quarters; and ever fince 
1752 this proportion has flood nearly as it is now, 
or at fomewhat more than two-thirds. The omif- 
lions in the birthsj therefore, compared with thofe 
in the burials were greater formerly j and this mull 
render the difference between the number of inhabit- 
ants now and formerly lefs confiderable than it 'may 
feem to, be from the face of the bills. One reafon 
why the proportion of the amounts of the births and 
burials in the bills comes now nearer than it did to 
^ The medium of annual burials in the 97 pariflies within the 
walls was, 
From 1655 to 1664, 3264 
From 1680 to 1690, 3^39 
From 1730 to 1740, ^ — ■’ 2316 
From 1758 to 1768, I&20 
This account proves, that though, fmee ^655, London has 
doubled its inhabitants, yet, within the wallsy they have de- 
creafed ; and fo rapidly for the laft 30 years as to be now re- 
duced to one half. The. like may be obferved of the 1-7 pa- 
rilhes immediately without the walls. Since 1730 thefe pa- 
xifhes have been decreaCng fo fail, that the annual burials in 
; ^ the 
