(a.) That the people of Paris to those of London, being as about 6 to 7,
and the housing of the same as about 6 to 9, we infer that the people do
not live at London so close and crowded as at Paris, but can afford
themselves more room and liberty.
(b.) That at London the hospitals are better and more desirable than
those of Paris, for that in the best at Paris there die two out of
fifteen, whereas at London there die out of the worst scarce 2 out of 16,
and yet but a fiftieth part of the whole die out of the hospitals at
London, and two-fifths, or twenty times that proportion die out of the
Paris hospitals which are of the same kind; that is to say, the number of
those at London, who choose to lie sick in hospitals rather than in their
own houses, are to the like people of Paris as one to twenty; which shows
the greater poverty or want of means in the people of Paris than those of
London.
(c.) We infer from the premises, viz., the dying scarce two of sixteen
out of the London hospitals, and about two of fifteen in the best of
Paris, to say nothing of L’Hôtel Dieu, that either the physicians and
chirurgeons of London are better than those of Paris, or that the air of
London is more wholesome.
10. As for the other great cities of the world, if Paris were the
greatest we need say no more in behalf of London. As for Pekin in China,
we have no account fit to reason upon; nor is there anything in the
description of the two late voyages of the Chinese emperor from that city
into East and West Tartary, in the years 1682 and 1683, which can make us
recant what we have said concerning London. As for Delhi and Agra,
belonging to the Mogul, we find nothing against our position, but much to
show the vast numbers which attend that emperor in his business and
pleasures.
11. We shall conclude with Constantinople and Grand Cairo; as for
Constantinople it hath been said by one who endeavoured to show the
greatness of that city, and the greatness of the plague which raged in
it, that there died 1,500 per diem, without other circumstances; to which
we answer, that in the year 1665 there died in London 1,200 per diem, and
it hath been well proved that the Plague of London never carried away
above one-fifth of the people, whereas it is commonly believed that in
Constantinople, and other eastern cities, and even in Italy and Spain,
that the plague takes away two-fifths, one half, or more; wherefore where
1,200 is but one-fifth of the people it is probable that the number was
greater, than where 1,500 was two-fifths or one half, &c.
12. As for Grand Cairo it is reported, that 73,000 died in ten weeks, or
1,000 per diem, where note, that at Grand Cairo the plague comes and goes
away suddenly, and that the plague takes away two or three-fifths parts
of the people as aforesaid; so as 73,000 was probably the number of those
that died of the plague in one whole year at Grand Cairo, whereas at
London, A.D. 1665, 97,000 were brought to account to have died in that
year. Wherefore it is certain, that that city wherein 97,000 was but
one-fifth of the people, the number was greater than where 73,000 was
two-fifths or the half.
We therefore conclude, that London hath more people, housing, shipping,
and wealth, than Paris and Rouen put together; and for aught yet appears,
is more considerable than any other city in the universe, which was
propounded to be proved.