View report page

103
Increase of Population.
19. The continual decrease in the birth rate in recent years
suggests that the population doe3 not increase so rapidly as it
did. And assuming that there are now, as in 1891, only 6 people
to a house, the population in the middle of last year would only
be 55,608, instead of 58,093, as estimated on the assumption tnat
the increase continued uniform. But it is more than probable
that the number of persons to a house is now a little more than
it was, say 625. I believe most of the houses built during the
last few years are intended for two families at least, which means
an average of 10 people. Further, the wish to live near the
Arsenal is likely to cause an increase of persons in houses within
a moderate distance.
20. On the whole I suspect that the estimate of 58,093 is a
little over the mark but not enough to seriously affect the rates
calculated from it.
21. Tables VIII and IX however are based on a population
of only 57073, as estimated by the Registrar General.
Comparison with other Sanitary Areas of London.
22. From Table IX we see that only five other areas had a
lower death rate than Plumstead, viz.: Lee, Lewisbam, Wandsworth.
Hampstead and St. George, Hanover Square. Six other
areas had a lower infantile death rate, viz.: Lee, Lewisham,
London City, St. Giles, Hampstead aud St. George, Hanover
Square. Diphtheria was more prevalent in Plumstead than in
any other areas with three or four exceptions. Scarlet Fever
and Measles were also higher than the average for London.