Page:PettyWilliam1899EconomicWritingsVol2.djvu/223

The Medium of the Paris Burials was not denied[1] by Monsr. Auzout to be 19887, nor that[2] there died 3506 unnecessarily out of L'Hotel-Dieu; where- fore deducting the said last Number out of the former, the neat[3] standard for Burials at Paris, will be 16381, so as the number of People there, allowing but one to die out of 30 (which is more advantageous to Paris than Monsr. Auzout's opinion of one to die out of 25) the number of People at Paris will be 491,430, |5| more than by Monsr. Auzout's own last mentioned Account.	$\scriptstyle {\left.{\begin{matrix}\ \\\\\ \\\ \\\ \\\ \\\ \\\ \\\ \\\ \\\ \\\ \ \end{matrix}}\right\}\,}$	491,430
And the Medium of the said 2 Paris accts is	$\scriptstyle {\left.{\begin{matrix}\ \end{matrix}}\right\}\,}$	488,055[4]
The Medium of the London Burials is really[5] 23212, which multiplied by 30 (as hath been done for Paris) the number of the People there will be |9|	$\scriptstyle {\left.{\begin{matrix}\ \\\\\ \\\ \ \end{matrix}}\right\}\,}$	696,360
The number of Houses at London appears by the Register to be 105,315, whereunto adding 1⁄10 part of the same, or 10331[6], as the least number of double Families that can be supposed in London, the total of Families will be 115,840[7]; and allowing 6 heads for each Family as was done for Paris, the total of the People at London will be	$\scriptstyle {\left.{\begin{matrix}\ \\\\\ \\\ \\\ \\\ \\\ \ \end{matrix}}\right\}\,}$	695,076
The Medium of the two last London Accounts is |10|	$\scriptstyle {\left.{\begin{matrix}\ \\\ \end{matrix}}\right\}\,}$	695,718

1. 1686, 'was allowed by.'
2. 1686, 'and that.'
3. 1686, 'Number, the neat.'
4. 488,055 should be 489,555; this mistake, continued through the subsequent calculations, gives rise to errors that are mentioned in the notes. But accepting Petty's mistaken "medium of the said two Paris accounts," his calculations are correct.
5. "Really" apparently refers to Petty's previous use (p. 506) of 22,337 as the medium of London burials. He gets this new and higher medium by taking the years 1684 and 1685 only, instead of 1683—85, as in the Two Essays.
6. 1686, 'part or 10531.' The '10,331' of the 1687 edition is a misprint for 10,531.
7. 115,840 is a misprint for 115,846.