From these comparative tables it will be observed, that the high mortality of the population does not affect the entire City equally; that, in some of its portions, the rate of death approaches the _minimum_ standard much more nearly than in others; that in those districts where the general rate is best, the temporary aggravation from epidemic causes has likewise been least; and that our aggregate City rate, either for ordinary times or for a period of epidemic disease, is compounded from the joint result of several very different proportions. Reference to the Registrar-General’s tables will enable any one to see that the ordinary rate of mortality for the West London Union is a fourth higher than the rate for the City of London Union, while the rate for the East London Union bears a still higher proportion; and these very different rates are, as it were, merged in the one aggregate rate, struck for the whole City, as comprising the three unions referred to. It will be obvious, therefore, that many parts of the City are much healthier than this aggregate rate would signify, while others are much unhealthier. In regard of last year, for instance, the aggregate rate of mortality was (as I have stated) 30 per thousand of the general population of the City: but if this rate be analysed by examination of the sub-district mortality, it will be seen that in one sub-district the rate of death stood nearly as low as 20; that in another sub-district of the same union it rose to 36, and in a third sub-district (of another union) to within a small fraction of 40.[15] [15] On account of changes of population shown by the subsequent Census, these figures would require correction. The death-rates _per_ thousand in the several sub-districts were probably about as follows, viz.:-- ------------------+-------------+------------------------------ EAST LONDON UNION.|W. L. UNION. | CITY OF LONDON UNION. ---------+--------+------+------+-----+-----+------+-----+----- St. |Cripple-|North.|South.|S. W.|N. W.|South.|S. E.|N. E. Botolph. | gate. | | | | | | | ---------+--------+------+------+-----+-----+------+-----+----- 26½ | 32 | 34 | 41 | 38 | 22 | 24 | 21⅔ | 22 ---------+--------+------+------+-----+-----+------+-----+----- J. S., 1854. If it were possible to furnish you with statistics derived from a still smaller sub-division of each district, these points would be infinitely more manifest. In some limited localities of the City you would probably find an approximation to the average mortality of suburban districts; while in other spots, if they were isolated for your contemplation, you would see houses, courts, and streets where the habitual proportion of deaths is far beyond the heaviest pestilence-rate known for any metropolitan district aggregately--localities, indeed, where the habitual rate of death is more appalling than any which such averages can enable you to conceive.