90. Remarks on the Returns of tlie Population of Great Britain. [Sept. 15 - 
with little fuccefs, to invalidate the ac- 
count of 1690, which, upon examination, 
and a confideration of the circumfarces 
attending it, willappear highly probable 
to have been, at leaft, as correct as the 
prefent account is likely to be. 
not from the number cf houfes having 
been over-rated in the account of 1690, 
but from the great omiffions in the fuble- 
quent returns of houfes not paying the tax, 
that the opinion of depopulation arole. 
Upon comparing the number of houfes, 
according to the account of 1690, with 
Tt was- 
the total of the returns that have been 
made under the late a&t, there appears 
(even in the prefent defeétive ftate of the 
returns) an increafe of more than 60,000 
houfes, and therefore probably of at leaft 
330,coo, inhabitants ; that the increafe zs 
very confiderably greater than this number 
is certain, as there are four Englifh and 
fix Welch countics wanting, and above 
630 returns deficient in thofe included; 
but bor much greater the number will ap- 
pear, when the aceoant is complete, mutt 
at prefent be mere conjecture. 
The following are the Counties from which the Returzs are complete; with the Number 
of Houfes annexed, as they appeared in the Account of 1690. 
Inhabited | 
; meee 
No. of Proportion of | - Total 
Houfes in | Houfes in | Uninba- uninhabited of toa 
1690 ¥801 bited Hou fes Per fons ges 
‘Durham with Nor- | 
thumberland - 275447 1,175 Im 24 161,666 6 
Weftmoreland - 3,014 354 3 25 4.25387 5z 
Lancafter - 101,723 3,135 34 | 588,711 5% 
Nottingham = - 25-256 529 49. "hig, 727 oN Re 
Derby - - 21,822 1,369 24. | 161,147 Ge 
Stafford ‘e 46,002 2,010 24. | 244,851 5i 
Warwick - 40,2581 2,916 1S? ORG Dene 
Rutland - 3266 37 39 16,300 5 
Huntingdon 6,854 135 51 37,449 5k 
yEffex - - 38,407 1,027 38 226,638 6 
Mertford == 17,538] 49% 37. | 96,770} 55 
Bedford - 11,388 185 65 635395 fem 
DEVOn ir ose 572955 | 39235 19 | 3425987 6 
That there has been a decreafe of inha- quently not yet habitable.” Wherever 
bitants in fome of the counties; is evident : 
this has happened chiefly in Huntingdon, 
Cambridge, Norfolk, Suffolk, Effex, and 
Somerfet ; and has been much more than 
counterbalanced by agreat increafe in other 
parts, particularly in Lancafhire, York-— 
fhire, Nottingham, Derby, Chefter, War- 
wick, Stafford, &c. 
Althcugh there has been.a decreafe - 
houfes fince the commencement of the laft 
century, in Suffolk, Cambridge, and Hun- 
tingdon, it does-not appear that the popu- 
Jation of thofe counties is declining at 
prefent, for they contain fewer uninhabited 
houfes in proportion to their whole num- 
ber, than any other counties except Bed- 
ford. , 
In a note to the account laid before par- 
liament, it is remarked,that ‘ of the houfes 
returned ‘¢ uninhabited”’ many are ruinous 
apd uninhabitable ; and in many counties 
the uninhabited houfes are faid to be 
sip houfes now building, and confe- 
* 
thofe of the former defcription are numer 
ous, it ftrongly fhews, that the population 
has been declining for fome years paft ; 
while, on the other hand, a confiderable 
number of new houfes (if not merely 
built in the place of old ones) is a pretty 
certain indication of an increafing popula- 
tion. There is, however, much reafon to 
believe, that a great majority of the 
houfes returned as uninhabited are really 
habitable houfes unoccupied, as in moft 
parts, where they appear particularly nu- 
merous, there are obvious caules to which 
it may be afcribed ; thus in Warwick, 
where the proportion ig greater tian in 
any other county, being more than one 
out of fifteen, there can be little doubt 
that it arifes, in a great meature,, from 
the diftreffed fate of the trade of Birmi ne. 
ham, and its neighbourhood ; and im De 
vonfhire, where they amount to lomew! 
more than one out Of ninetecn, if ma 
reacily accounted for from the 
Gert: 
