in England. ing to Davenant, the number of houses in 1690 was 1,319,215, and there is no reason to think that this calculation erred on the side of excess. Allowing only 5 to a house instead of 53 which is supposed to be the proportion at present, this would give a population of about six millions and a half, and it is perfectly incredible that from this time to the year 1710, the population should have diminished nearly a million and a half. It is far more probable that the omissions in the births should have been much greater than at present, and greater than in the deaths; and this is further confirmed by the observation before alluded to, that in the first half of the century the increase of population, as calculated from the births, is much greater than is warranted by the proportion of births to deaths. In every point of view there. fore the calculations from the births are little to be depended on. It must indeed have appeared to the reader in the course of this work, that registers of births or deaths, excluding any suspicion of deficiencies, must at all times afford very uncertain data for an estimate of population. On account of the varying circumstances of every country, they are both precarious guides. From the greater apparent regularity of the births, political calculators have/ Of the checks to population generally adopted them as the ground of their estimates in preference to the deaths. Necker, in estimating the population of France, observes that an epidemic disease, or an emigration, may occasion temporary differences in the deaths, and that therefore the number of births is the most certain criterion.' But the very circumstance of the apparent regularity of the births in the registers will now and then lead into great errors. If in any country we can obtain registers of burials for two or three years together a plague or mortal epidemic will always show itself, from the very sudden increase of the deaths during its operation, and the still greater diminution of them afterwards. From these appearances, we should of course be directed, not to include the whole of a great mortality in any very short term of years. But there would be nothing of this kind to guide us in the registers of births; and after a country had lost an eighth part of its population by a plague, an average of the five or six subsequent years might show an increase in the number of births, and our calculations would give the population the highest at the very time that it was the lowest. This appears 1 De l'Administration des Finances, tom. i. c. ix. p. 252. 12mo. 1785. in England. very strikingly in many of Sussmilch's tables, and most particularly in a table for Prussia and Lithuania, which I shall insert in a following chapter, where, in the year subsequent to the loss of one third of the population, the births were considerably increased, and in an average of five years but very little diminished; and this at a time when, of course, the country could have made but a very small progress towards recovering its former population. We do not know indeed of any extraordinary mortality which has occurred in England since 1700; and there are reasons for supposing that the proportions of the births and deaths to the population during the last century, have not experienced such great variations as in many countries on the continent; at the same time it is certain, that the sickly seasons which are known to have occurred would, in proportion to the degree of their fatality, produce similar effects; and the change which has been observed in the mortality of late years should dispose us to believe, that similar changes might formerly have taken place respecting the births, and should instruct us to be extremely cautious in applying the proportions which are observed to be true at present, to past of future periods. ii 3 CHAPTER VIII. Of the Checks to Population in Scotland and Ireland. AN examination, in detail, of the statistical account of Scotland would furnish numerous illustrations of the principle of population; but I have already extended this part of the work so much that I am fearful of tiring the patience of my readers; and shall therefore confine my remarks in the present instance to a few circumstances which have happened to strike me. On account of the acknowledged omissions in the registers of births, deaths, and marriages, in most of the parishes of Scotland, few just inferences can be drawn from them. Many give extraordinary results. In the parish of Crossmichael1 in Kircudbright, the mortality appears to be only 1 in 98, and the yearly marriages 1 in 192. These proportions would imply the most unheard of healthiness, and the most extraordinary operation of 'Statistical Account of Scotland, vol. i. p. 167. Of the checks to population, &c. the preventive check; but there can be little doubt that they are principally occasioned by omissions in the registry of burials, and the celebration of a part of the marriages in other parishes. In general, however, it appears from registers that are supposed to be accurate, that in the country parishes the mortality is small; and that the proportions of 1 in 45, 1 in 50, and 1 in 55, are not uncommon. According to a table of the probabilities of life, calculated from the bills of mortality in the parish of Kettle by Mr. Wilkie, the expectation of an infant's life is 46.6, which is very high, and the proportion which dies in the first year is only. Mr. Wilkie further adds, that from 36 parish accounts, published in the first volume, the expectation of an infant's life appears to be 40.3. But in a table which he has produced in the last volume, calculated for the whole of Scotland from Dr. Webster's survey, the expectation at birth appears to be only 31 years." This, however, he thinks, must be too low, as it exceeds but little the calculations for the town of Edinburgh. Statistical Account of Scotland, vol. ii. p. 407. * Id. vol. xxi. p. 393. |