View report page

54 mortality among young children.
11,106 persons, comprising 5,647 males, and 5,459 females.* The mortality rates obtained by
the use of these numbers are given below, all the rates for 1910 being a little lower, and comparing
more favourably with the mean rates than did those already quoted.
Males. Females. Persons.
1910 17.17 13.00 15.12
1905-09 15.44 14.28 14.12
The rates recorded last vear at each of the four ages show a decline from 39.33 per 1,000
persons aged 1—2 years to 6.48 among persons aged 4—5 years. In 1910, the year from which
the foregoing rates are taken, there was not a steady decrease with each age, the rate for the
fifth year of life exceeding that for the fourth, but when an average is taken over a series of
years (as below), the change is a uniform one. The fluctuations in mortality from diseases
such as measles and whooping cough, are sufficient to produce wide irregularities in the rates
for anv individual year. This is shown clearly if the rates be taken out for each sex at each
age (as below).
Ages 1— 2— 3— 4—5
Sex M. F. P. M. F. P. M. F. P. M. F. P.
1910 44.5 33.9 39.33 13.9 7.6 10.80 4.3 4.4 4.38 6.3 6.6 6.48
1905-09 33.9 30.5 30.66 13.8 12.0 12.19 8.4 8.4 7.99 5.0 5.8 5.12
The rates recorded in the Wards of the Borough at these ages are given in Table 38,
such rates being derived from the corrected numbers of births, and not the births registered in
the Borough as were the rates already given. The irregularities in the rates already referred
to, are verv evident in the records for the Wards. In Table 39 the mortality from each of the
principal causes of death are given for the Borough, distinguishing the two sexes. The
mortality from measles in the second vear of life (age 1—2) was exceptionally heavy, and
that from whooping cough not much less. Nevertheless, the mortality from the respiratory
diseases was not much above the mean. Measles was responsible for the increase in the
mortality among males in the third year.

* The two estimates are in fairly close agreement, but the difference would have been accentuated had the
survivors been calculated to the middle of 1910 instead of to the end of 1909. To that extent, therefore, the
figures are not strictly comparable. Even as given, they lend some support to the expectation that the forthcoming
census will not disclose a very great error in the estimated population.