which did not record the ages as well as the deaths of the people. In addition to the London bills, he gave one for a country parish in Hampshire; and in the later editions he added one for Tiverton, and another for Cranbrook. Charles II. recommended the Royal Society to elect him one of their members, charging the Fellows “that if they found any more such tradesmen, they should admit them all;” and immediately after the appearance of the work, Louis XIV. ordered the most exact register of births and deaths to be kept in France, that was then known in Europe. A few extracts from this rare and curious work will at once indicate its character, and show the simplicity of the existing information; but in their perusal the reader will do well to consider, that Graunt was the first who wrote on the subject; that he had but slight foundations for his calculations; and that with all these difficulties, he was very successful in his conclusions. He says:-- “There seems to be good reason why the magistrate should himself take notice of the number of burials and christenings: viz., to see whether the city increase or decrease in people, whether it increase proportionably with the rest of the nation, whether it be grown big enough. But,” he adds, “why the same should be known to the people, otherwise than to please them as with a curiosity, I see not. “Nor could I ever yet learn from the many I have asked, and those not of the least sagacity, to what purpose the distinction between males and females is inserted, or at all taken notice of; or why that of marriages was not equally given in. Nor is it obvious to every body why the account of casualties is made. The reason which seems most obvious for this latter is, that the state of health in the city may at all times appear.” In another page he writes that “7 out of every 100 live in England to the age of 70.” “It follows from hence that, if in any other country more than 7 of the 100 live beyond 70, such country is to be esteemed more healthy than this of our city.” It must be remembered, however, that this was very conjectural. “We shall,” he says, when leading to this conclusion, “come to the more absolute standard and correction of both, which is the proportion of the aged; viz. 15,757 to the total 229,250, that is, of about 1 to 15, or 7 per cent.; only the question is, what number of years the searchers call aged, which I conceive must be the same that David calls so, viz. 70. For no man can be said to die properly of age, who is much less.”