( 11 )
fore cannot intermarry together without retiring from high life, and submitting to relinquish thoſe pleaſures of the town to which their appetites have long been raiſed; they therefore acquieſe in celibacy; each ſex compenſating itself as it can by other diverſions. Persons also of inferior ſituation in London have their taſte for pleaſures inflamed, and avoid with caution the marriage state with their equals.… But above all the present increasing diminution of the christenings in London beneath the burials with many other evils is particularly to be attributed to the enormous uſe of ſpirituous liquors. For it is beyond all diſpute that ſuch liquors are become the common drink, and even the food too if it may be ſo termed of these people."
Some interesting information concerning the Bills of Mortality is given by William Maitland in the "History and Survey of London," 1760. When searching for the earlier records he found that "the Register belonging to the Company of Parish Clerks commencing only in the year 1664, the first Part thereof being lost, the Company are of Opinion that the same was lent to Mr. Graunt to enable him to write his Natural and Political Observations but by some Accident never return'd." Maitland points out that many important burial-grounds, such as those of St. Paul's Cathedral, Westminster Abbey, the Temple Church, the Rolls and Lincoln's Inn Chapels, the Charterhouse, and various hospitals, though belonging to the Church of England, are not included in the Bills "whereby the Number of Persons that die within this City and Suburbs is greatly diminished to the no small lessening the grandeur of London in the Eyes of the World in respect to the Number of its Inhabitants!" Everywhere mortality was regarded as an index of population, and a low death-rate derogated from the dignity of the city. A series of elaborate calculations gave Maitland the figure 725,903 as the number of inhabitants of the City of London.
In 1771, Dr. Richard Price published his "Observations on Reversionary Payments," and this and subsequent papers were of great value in calling attention to the inadequate data upon which several recently-formed benefit and insurance companies were relying. It is curious to notice that when the Equitable Society of London,
