Correspondence. All communications must bear the signature of the writer, not necessarily for publication. A NUISANCE IN CLERKENWELL. (To the Editor of the SANITARY RECORD.) SIR,-Under the above heading your correspondent, 'An Inhabitant of Clerkenwell,' in a communication which appeared in your issue of February 23, drew a very dark and gloomy picture of how, for years, one of the most horrible fever dens has been allowed to exist despite not only the well-paid sanitary inspector, but the whole of the members of the vestry, who, for months and weeks, had been divided over imposing a church rate which did not concern any intelligent ratepayer of the parish.' Although certain great reformers headed one party, they forgot all about the fever dens, which were carrying destruction among the inhabitants, so absorbed were they in their opposition to a rate which no intelligent ratepayer would pay. Your correspondent deserves great praise for arousing these reformers from their deep sleep, for at last public attention has been called, no doubt by the great influence of your valuable paper, to this fever den, and it is changed from its unhealthy condition. It is to be hoped that henceforth the vestry will not squabble over unimportant subjects, that the sanitary inspectors will not go to sleep, and that the letter of your correspondent will cause similar steps to be taken to remove the fever dens which exist in the streets leading from Wilderness Row to Compton Street. The courts and alleys near the 'Angel,' Islington, should likewise be seen to, and then health and happiness will be no longer facts erased from the memory of the inhabitants of Radical Clerkenwell and Tory Islington. ANOTHER INHABITANT OF CLERKENWELL. 'BANNER'S PATENT SANITATION.' (To the Editor of the SANITARY RECORD.) SIR,-What a good thing it is that patent laws did not exist in the days of him 'who first invented sleep,' though, according to Mr. Banner, it would not now be too late to secure a patent on beds if one could prove that he was the first who arrived at the intention of using them in connection with tired nature's sweet restorer.' Really, to an American, this would not be more absurd than is the claim actually set up. It has been a recognised principle with us from my boyhood that smoky chimneys could not be cured unless there were used, in conjunction with the air-withdrawing cowl,' some means for supplying from below the air to be withdrawn. In the ventilation of privy vaults by means of an airpipe, it has always been the practice with us to admit air from below to maintain a current. As soon as the ventilation of soil-pipes began to be discussed, or as soon as we got beyond the point of merely giving vent to pressure from within, the admission of air for giving a current through the drain was a recognised necessity. We have never given ourselves much trouble about the disconnection' of drains, believing-for years before we heard of Mr. Banner-that if we gave a good current of air through the soil-pipe we should escape all danger. In 1870, I ventilated my house-drain with a vertical pipe and cowl, providing a special inlet for air from below. I can point to other instances in this town, some of it done long before the date of Mr. Banner's patent, when there was not only an avowed intention that the cowl and the inlet should operate to produce a circulation of air, but where any expensive work had no other object. In the winter of 1874-5, I wrote (see Atlantic Monthly, No. 216, p. 431) in connection with the use of grease traps, If in addition to this there is an opening for fresh air in the cover of the grease trap, so that there shall ordinarily be an upward current through the ventilating pipe, the arrangement will be quite complete.' Again (p. 441) 'It is especially important that soil-pipe ventilators should be as nearly straight and vertical as possible; a crooked ventilator pipe will not "draw" any more than will a badly built chimney flue, nor even so well, as it lacks the heat of a fire to set up a current.' In the autumn of 1875, I wrote my Sanitary Drainage of Houses and Towns,' from which I quote (p. 197): If a free current of air passes constantly through such a pipe--taken in from an opening in the waste-pipe or catch-basin outside of the house, and discharged above the roof by a large pipe-the formation of corrosive gases will be much reduced.' All this was no invention of my own, but was stated as a long understood principle, recognised and practised in all ventilation from its earliest days. The use of an 'air-withdrawing cowl' assumes the admission of and the creation of a current. I have given some attention to the Banner Cowl, the 'Archimedean,' and other patent ventilating appliances. They are all good while the wind blows, but these two offer an obstruction to the current when the air is still, and are then worse than nothing. The old 'Emerson ventilator, on which the patent long ago expired-and which therefore lacks the impulse of advertising-is as good as any of them when the air is in motion (in any direction, and however baffling), and is as good as an open straight pipe in a calm. Not only does Banner's cowl offer the slight resistance of a bend, but in a baffling, wind or in very light shifting currents, which have not the force to swing it around, it is subject to 'set-backs' from wind blowing into its mouth. The only good soil-pipe cowl is one which is always good. We need no great amount of suction, but we need an absolutely constant upward current. GEO. E. WARING, Jun. Newport, U.S.A., Feb. 17, 1877. THE DEPUTATION OF MEDICAL OFFICERS OF HEALTH TO MR. SCLATER-BOOTH. (To the Editor of THE SANITARY Record.) SIR,-In a recent leading article you have assumed that the members of the deputation that recently waited upon Mr. Sclater-Booth contented themselves with pointing out the necessity for early information of infectious diseases, and did not refer also to the necessity for hospital accommodation for the reception of those who are suffering from infectious diseases. I am not surprised that this view has been adopted, as, for some reason or another, none of the remarks which I made on the necessity for, and the advantages to be derived from, isolation of the sick were not referred to by the reporters, except very briefly in the SANITARY RECORD (Feb. 3, p. 93.) As this has happened, I will very briefly recapitulate my statement on that occasion. I first pointed out that the death-rate from the seven chief zymotic diseases had increased in a greater ratio than population in all England and in London in each decennial period since 1841; that the death-rate in London from all causes had decreased during this period; that taking 100 as the standard of deaths in the healthy districts of England, it was found that the deaths from all causes and from these zymotic diseases occurred in the same ratio in the healthy districts in all England and in Liverpool; that is to say, to each 100 in the former districts there were 138 and 140 respectively in England, and 229 and 228 in Liverpool. That these statistics showed that the so-called preventable diseases are not more influenced by ordinary sanitary measures than diseases generally. I then pointed out that the death-rate from zymotic diseases had decreased in London since 1871 in a greater ratio than for all England, and that the only cause I could find for it was the establishment of hospitals for those who were sick with infectious diseases by the Metropolitan Asylums Board. JOHN W. TRIPE, M.D., Dietetic Novelty. COPEMAN'S PARISIAN COFFEE. WE have received from Messrs. Copeman and Co., of Norwich, samples of their Parisian coffee, a compound openly avowed by the manufacturers to be composed of coffee and chicory. Many persons prefer an admixture of chicory with their coffee, believing that its flavour is thereby improved, and as chicory is known to be a stomachic and tonic, as well as a mild aperient, the therapeutic properties of the coffee may also be increased when used with a proper proportion of it. Two well-known analysts have examined the coffee and chicory which constitute the 'Parisian Coffee,' and testify to their perfect purity and fine quality. When prepared according to the directions given, the infusion produced is of excellent flavour and proper strength. Notice of Meeting. SANITARY INSTITUTE OF GREAT BRITAIN. MODES OF TREATING TOWN SEWAGE. A PUBLIC meeting of the Sanitary Institute of Great Britain will be held at the rooms of the Society of Arts, John Street, Adelphi, on Wednesday, March 14, 1877, at 3 P.M., to consider the report recently issued by the committee appointed by the president of the Local Government Board upon the disposal of town sewage. The chair will be taken by the president of the Institute, His Grace the Duke of Northumberland, and the discussion will be opened by Sir Joseph William Bazalgette, C.B., engineer to the Metropolitan Board of Works, vice-president of the Institute. Mayors of boroughs, chairmen of local boards, medical officers of health, and sanitary authorities generally, are invited to join the Institute, and to take part in its proceedings. At the close of the discussion an adjourned public meeting will be held, to receive the report of the committee of the Sanitary Institute of Great Britain, and to order thereon. LORY MARSH, M.D., Secretary. 11, Spring Gardens, Charing Cross, S. W. APPOINTMENTS OF HEALTH OFFICERS, INSPECTORS OF NUISANCES, ETC. CAMPBELL, Mr. John Ross, has been appointed Inspector of Nuisances for the Plomesgate Rural Sanitary District, vice Dorling, resigned. DICKINSON, H. T. C., Esq., has been appointed Treasurer to the Dawley Local Board and Urban Sanitary Authority, Shropshire. LEWIS, Mr. John, has been appointed Inspector of Nuisances for the Mountain Ash Urban Sanitary District, vice Morris, whose appointment has expired. MASKALL, Mr. William, has been appointed Surveyor, Inspector of Nuisances, and Collector, to the Hay Local Board and Urban Sanitary Authority. STEVENSON, Mr. George, has been appointed Inspector of Nuisances for the Broseley, Dawley, and Much-Wenlock Urban, and Madeley Rural, Sanitary Districts, at 150/. per ann., until December 25 next. TAYLOR, John, Esq., has been appointed Treasurer to the Chapel-enle-Frith Guardians and Rural Sanitary Authority, vice Carrington, deceased. HAWORTH, VACANCIES. OAKWORTH, OXENHOPE, SILSDEN, AND SKIPTON URBAN, AND KEIGHLEY, SETTLE, AND SKIPTON RURAL SANITARY DISTRICTS, combined. Medical Officer of Health: 500l. per annum. IDLE URBAN SANITARY DISTRICT. Medical Officer of Health: 40%. per ann. Application, 10th instant, to N. Jowett, Clerk to the Authority. KEIGHLEY LOCAL BOARD AND URBAN SANITARY AUTHORITY, Yorkshire. Surveyor and Inspector of Nuisances. Application, 1oth instant, to W. and G. Burr, Law Clerks. POPLAR DISTRICT. Public Analyst: 100l. for one year. Applica tion, 13th instant, to William Henry Farnfield, Clerk to the Board of Works, 117, High Street, Poplar. RIPON, CITY OF, AND URBAN SANITARY AUTHORITY. Surveyor, Manager of Waterworks, and Inspector of Nuisances: 120/. per ann. Application, 12th instant, to R. W. Nicholson, Town Clerk. SALFORD, BOROUGH OF, AND URBAN SANITARY AUTHORITY. Deputy Engineer and Surveyor in Borough Engineer's Department: 250/. per ann. Application, 20th instant, to the Borough Engineer, Town Hall, Salford. WARWICK, BOROUGH OF, AND URBAN SANITARY AUTHORITY. Collector. Application, 12th instant, to George Cattell Greenway, Town Clerk. This consists of a combination of special apparatus and vessels, in which alimentary matters, such as meat, are submitted to action of cold, sulphurous and other gases, and to gases under pressure. Means of placing the food first in a vacuum are employed, and apparatus for the production of the necessary gases are described. 3594. Refrigerating. F. P. E. Carré and E. J. Tanner. This consists in improvements in ammoniacal refrigerating apparatus. A series of vessels are described for producing ice consisting mainly of cylinders enclosing smaller cylinders and coils of tubes, in which different uncongealable liquids are circulated. Different arrangements are described for making ice in vacuo, and all are to have the preservation of organic matters for their main object. Drawings would be necessary to describe the invention. NOTICE. THE SANITARY RECORD will in future be published every Friday morning, and may be ordered direct from the Publishers. Annual Subscription, 175. 4d.; free by post, 195. 6d. Reading Covers to hold 12 numbers of THE SANITARY RECORD have been prepared, and may be had direct from the Publishers or through any Bookseller, price 35. each. Original Papers. IMPROVED INDUSTRIAL DWELLINGS AND THEIR HEALTH STATISTICS. PART I. FEW venture to question the beneficial effect of improved and healthy dwellings on the sanitary, moral, and social condition of the working classes. Their economical effect upon the poor-rate by raising the self-respect and improving the health of the residents is also beyond dispute. Although these propositions are generally accepted, it would be undoubtedly useful to reduce them to actual figures, in order to measure the extent of this beneficial effect, of which all are convinced. The mortality statistics of a population housed in improved dwellings, if the numbers are sufficiently large to afford reliable results, should enable the student to estimate approximately the sanitary condition of the population; and the importance of accurate and trustworthy information on this point can scarcely be over-estimated, as bearing very directly upon the probable future development of operations under the Artisans' Dwellings Act of 1875. In February, 1875, a paper was read before the Statistical Society, 'On Improved Dwellings and their Beneficial Effect on Health and Morals,' by Mr. Charles Gatliff. This paper contained some very useful information on the subject, and showed that a population of more than 30,000 were at that time residing within London in improved dwellings provided by various companies and agencies. The three undertakings which have accomplished the largest amount of this valuable work, are the Metropolitan Association for Improved Dwellings of Industrious Classes, the Improved Industrial Dwellings Company, with which the name of Sir Sidney Waterlow has been especially identified; and the Peabody Trust. The Metropolitan Association was founded in 1841, and Mr. Gatliff, who has been intimately connected therewith since its foundation, devoted the greater part of his paper to the treatment of facts which were presumably within his own personal knowledge. The results at which Mr. Gatliff arrived were somewhat remarkable, and if they could be accepted as thoroughly reliable, should supply a powerful stimulus to the efforts of those who are deeply interested in the improvement of the dwellings of the working classes. Mr. Gatliff stated in his paper that the rate of mortality in the improved dwellings belonging to the Metropolitan Association averaged only 14 per 1,000 during the eight years ending 1874, whereas the rate of mortality in the metropolis during that period averaged 23.3 per 1,000. Bearing in mind that the age distribution of the residents of model dwellings is almost invariably such as to produce an excessive death-rate in consequence of the remarkable excess of young children (which far more than counterbalances the small proportion of elderly persons), this low death-rate, in a working-class population appeared fallacious. The paper in question stated that the deaths were returned each month by the superintendent of each block of buildings; and it omitted to state on what principle the population, which served as the basis of the calculated deathrate was estimated. It appeared possible that deaths might have occurred in these buildings without coming to the knowledge of the superintendents, and it was not stated that any attempt had been made to check the number of deaths with the number actually recorded in the local register. Although there was fair ground for suspicion, that in some way or other the death-rate in the population living within the dwellings belonging to the Metropolitan Association during the eight years 1867–74, had been understated by Mr. Gatliff, no means were available for instituting the investigation necessary to establish or to disprove his figures. A good cause is often injured by being overstated, and well might the value of death-rates as a test of sanitary condition be called in question when it was asserted that a working-class population, housed in some of the more unhealthy parts of London, with an average density of 1,140 persons per acre, showed during eight years an average mortality of only 14 per 1,000; a death-rate lower than that which prevails in the healthiest of our rural districts. Common sense pronounced the death-rate to be understated, but its disproval for the time was not possible. Early in this year the trustees of the Peabody Trust Fund issued their report for the year 1875, which contained some valuable items of information. It stated, among other things, that at the close of the year the average weekly earnings of the head of each family in residence was rather less than 245., and that the average rent of each tenement was rather more than 4s., and of each room a little less than 25., proving that the tenements averaged two rooms a piece. With regard to the health of the inhabitants of the Peabody Buildings during 1875, the following sentence appeared in the report: Notwithstanding an epidemic at the Chelsea buildings, which caused a large number of deaths among children, the death-rate for the year in the whole of the buildings taken together was 20.8 per 1,000.' This death-rate, although in excess of the reported rate in the buildings belonging to the Metropolitan Association by 7 per 1,000, was nearly 3 per 1,000 below the average death-rate in the whole of London during the same year which was calculated by the Registrar-General at 23.7 per 1,000. Whereas there appeared to be no sufficient reason why the deathrate in the Peabody Buildings should be half as high again as that in the dwellings of the Metropolitan Association, as calculated by Mr. Gatliff, it was almost as difficult to understand that the death-rate among the poorer of the working classes living in the Peabody Buildings could be lower than the average London rate. It appeared desirable, therefore, to attempt to calculate, independently, the death-rate during the year 1875 among the residents of the Peabody Buildings, in order to be able to apply some of those tests of sanitary condition which reliable facts as to population, births, and deaths render possible. The first desideratum was to ascertain the number of the inhabitants of the several blocks of buildings, and for this information we have to thank the courtesy of Sir Curtis Lampson, and of the secretary to the trustees, Mr. J. Crouch, who have from time to time afforded every possible assistance in the inquiry. At the close of the year the eight completed blocks of buildings at Spitalfields, Islington, Shadwell, Westminster, Chelsea, Blackfriars Road, and Stamford Street contained 5,628 residents. As, however, the Stamford Street buildings were only fully occupied during eight months, and the Bermondsey block during six months, the average number of residents throughout the year did not exceed 4,982, the number which has been used as the basis for the calculation of the death-rate in the whole of the Peabody Buildings in 1875. Of this population 651 persons resided in the two groups of buildings at Westminster and Chelsea, 737 in Islington, 1,108 in the two groups at Spitalfields and Shadwell, 178 in Bermondsey, and 2,308 in the two groups in Stamford Street and the Blackfriars Road. The above numbers are the average annual number of residents, and as regards the buildings in Bermondsey and Stamford Street, are considerably below the actual numbers of inhabitants at the end of the year. Since the beginning of this year, in consequence of the occupation of the new groups of buildings in Southwark Street and Pimlico, the number of persons housed in improved dwellings through the operation of the Peabody Trust Fund has considerably increased, and on October I amounted to 7,714 persons. Before proceeding to discuss the mortality in this average resident population of 4,982 persons during 1875, it will be well to consider the ages of the population, which showed very abnormal proportions. The trustees of the fund readily acceded to a request that a census of the population should be taken, showing the ages of the tenants in five groups. This information has been of great value, not only as a means for ascertaining how far the death-rate at all ages is influenced by the age distribution, but also in supplying the necessary data for calculating the mortality at each of these groups of ages. The results of the census taken on May 2 last, showed that each 1,000 of the residents of the Peabody Buildings contained 215 children under five years of age, whereas the average proportion in the whole of London is only 130, and in all England and Wales 135; aged between five and twenty years there were 330 per 1,000 living in the Peabody Buildings, whereas the proportion is 297 in London, and 322 in England and Wales. Of adults aged from twenty to forty years, 322 in each 1,000 were found in the Peabody Buildings, against 334 in London and 294 in England. Thus the resident population of these improved dwellings showed a very large excess of infants and children, and also a large proportion of young adults; it naturally showed as marked a deficiency of adults aged over forty years. The proportional number of persons aged between forty and sixty years in the Peabody Buildings is only 114 per 1,000, while it is 177 in London, and 174 in England. Lastly 1,000 of the population of the Peabody Buildings contains but 21 persons aged upwards of sixty years, whereas the proportion is 62 in London, and 75 in England and Wales. The main object of this information relating to the ages, was to ascertain how the age distribution of the population residing in the Peabody Buildings would affect the death-rate. Mr. N. A. Humphreys some time since read a paper before the Statistical Society in answer to the late Dr. Letheby's assertion that the birth-rate is the controlling element of the death-rate, and for the purpose of the paper calculated the normal deathrate for a large number of populations in which the birth-rate ranged from twenty-four to forty-five per 1,000. It should be explained that the normal deathrate signifies the number of deaths that would occur during a year in a thousand of a population, according to a standard, or life-table rate of mortality, after due allowance for the special age distribution of the population for which the normal rate is required. According to the English Life Table the annual death-rate among children under five years of age is 65.7 per 1,000, and among persons aged upwards of sixty years, it is 717 per 1,000; whereas among adults aged between twenty and sixty years, the rate of mortality, according to the same tables, is only 13.8 per 1,000. It must be evident, therefore, that the death-rate of a population is dependent, to a considerable extent, upon the varying proportion of persons living in that population respectively at those groups of ages when the rate of mortality is naturally high, and at those when it is as naturally low. It was conclusively proved in the paper to which we have referred that a high birth-rate in a population, although causing a large proportion of infants, also causes a large proportion of children between five and twenty years, and of adults at the ages when the rate of mortality is low. In populations showing high birth-rates, the proportion of elderly persons, among whom the rate of mortality is higher than among children under five years of age, is also invariably small. The result of these partly compensating influences is that the normal or lifetable death-rate among nearly all populations in which a high birth-rate prevails is lower than that in populations in which the birth-rate is low. For instance, in the population of Barrow-in-Furness, which has a birth-rate of 45 per 1,000, the normal death-rate is 21; whereas in Bath, where the birthrate is only 26 per 1,000, the normal death-rate is 23. This digression appeared necessary to explain the signification of the term normal death-rate, and also the use which may be made of it as a standard for the comparison of death-rates in populations differently constituted as to age distribution. This method lends itself with especial convenience to the present investigation, as we have seen that the age distribution of the population of the Peabody buildings is remarkable. The normal or life-table rate of mortality of the population living in the Peabody Buildings, calcu Îated in due accordance with its distribution at the five groups of ages before mentioned, is 233 per 1,000. The normal death-rate calculated in a similar manner for all England is 22'7, and in the whole of registration London 218. The exceptionally large proportion of children aged less than five years contained in the population of the Peabody Buildings, is only partially balanced by the exceptionally small proportion of persons aged upwards of sixty years, and by the excess of young persons aged between five and twenty years. It is evident that in comparing the death-rate in the Peabody Buildings with the death-rate in all London, a correction must be made for the difference in the age constitution of the two populations, which would naturally cause an excess of 1.5 deaths per 1,000 of the residents of the Peabody Buildings. Having thus ascertained what the death-rate among this exceptionally constituted population would be at life-table rates, without any allowance for sanitary or social condition, we may now proceed to consider what the actual recorded death-rate was during the year 1875. The average population of the Peabody Buildings exposed to risk throughout the year consisted, as has been stated, of 4,984 persons, among whom 121 deaths were registered in the year. These 121 deaths included 41 of infants under one year of age, and 46 of children aged between one and five, in all 87, and no less than 72 per cent. of infants and children under five years of age. Seven deaths occurred between the ages of five and twenty years, 16 among adults aged between twenty and sixty years, and 11 among elderly persons aged upwards of sixty years. The fact that 72 per cent. of the deaths registered in the Peabody Buildings during 1875 were of children under five years of age is somewhat startling, when it is noted that the proportion in all London did not exceed 43 per cent. It must be remembered, however, that 214 per cent. of the Peabody population are children at these ages, whereas the proportion in the general London population does not exceed 130 per cent. It will therefore be presently necessary to consider the calculated rate of mortality at the different groups of ages. The 121 deaths at all ages were equal to a rate of 24.3 per 1,000 of the population of the Peabody Buildings, the death-rate in the whole of London being 23.7 per 1,000. Compared with its normal or life-table death-rate as a standard, the Peabody death-rate at all ages in 1875 showed an excess of 43 per cent.; the death-rate in all London, however, exceeded its normal death-rate by 87 per cent. The Peabody death-rate, therefore, showed a smaller excess upon its normal or life-table death-rate than did the average rate in all London; and when it is considered that the population of the Peabody Buildings consists exclusively of the working classes, whose earnings do not average quite 245. a week, this fact speaks well for the sanitary condition of the population. In order to test the real effect of improved dwellings upon this class of population we ought to be able to compare the death-rate in these Peabody Buildings with the rate prevailing among a similar class living in ordinary tenement houses in other parts of London, and in the neighbourhoods immediately surrounding these improved dwellings. Such a comparison is, however, impossible, as vital statisticians have as yet done little in the way of determining really class mortality. To compare the mortality of these labourers and their families, whose average wages do not exceed 24s. per week, with the mortality of the general London population, does not fairly show the true effect of improved dwellings, but the comparison is useful notwithstanding. There is one point, on the other hand, which causes the comparison to be unduly favourable to the improved dwellings. During 1875, in the whole of London, 17 per cent. of the deaths registered occurred in the public institutions-that is, in workhouses, hospitals, or lunatic asylums. Now it is evident that a certain proportion of the residents of the Peabody Buildings must have found their way during this year to some of these institutions, but there is no available means for ascertaining what that proportion was. If the proportion was the same as in the rest of London, which is very improbable, 17 per cent. on 121 deaths would give 20 deaths in institutions, thus raising the death-rate in the Peabody Buildings to 28.3 per 1,000, which would probably be an over-statement of the rate. This is a point, however, which must not be lost sight of, and is one relating to which it would be desirable that the managers of all improved dwellings should endeavour to obtain reliable figures. The rate of mortality which averaged 243 per 1,000 in the aggregate population of the Peabody Buildings, varied very much in the different groups; it was only 17.5 in the Blackfriars Road, 204 in Islington, and 2019 in Shadwell, whereas it was 355 in the Westminster Buildings, and 746 among the 228 persons living at Chelsea. At Westminster the health of the 423 residents, judged by the death-rate, was unsatisfactory, and at Chelsea the death-rate from the principal zymotic diseases was remarkably excessive; the numbers, however, in these two groups of buildings are too small for the calculation of thoroughly trustworthy results. In the report of the trustees to the Peabody Fund, the death-rate among the inhabitants of the Peabody Buildings during 1875 was stated to be 20.8 per 1,000, whereas the true death-rate appears to have been 24.3 The main cause of this discrepancy was that the trustees had relied (as had Mr. Gatliff previously) upon the number of deaths reported to them by their superintendents, which was 109; whereas the number of deaths registered as occurring in the Peabody Buildings during the year was 121, or II per cent. in excess of the reported number. The population of the Stamford Street buildings in December last appears, moreover, to have been somewhat over estimated, which had the effect of further understating the death-rate. The trustees on the discovery of the source of error in their statistics, arising from so large a proportion of the deaths in their buildings not being reported to them by their superintendents, lost no time in arranging with the local registrars to furnish them with monthly returns of all deaths occurring in their buildings. In future, therefore, this source of error will not depreciate the value of the vital statistics published by the trustees of the fund. It has also been arranged that the population of the buildings shall be enumerated at the beginning of each quarter. It is not easy to over-estimate the value of the facts which will thus be accumulated, and be available for the construction of thoroughly trustworthy statistics of the population living in these improved dwellings, which is a purely working-class population. In a subsequent article it is proposed to discuss the rates of mortality which prevailed in the Peabody Buildings at different groups of ages, and from different classes of diseases, and one or two other features of the vital statistics relating to the popuiation residing in these buildings. SANITARY SUGGESTIONS FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE NEW WAR OFFICE. IN considering the sanitary precautions which ought to be taken to ensure the most complete health arrangements which modern science can suggest in the New War Office Buildings, it is necessary first of all to point out that it is impossible, or if possible, it has never been found practicable, to combine the duties of the architect with those of the sanitary engineer. In other words, before any improvement can be hoped for in the internal and sanitary arrangements of even the best constructed of public buildings, the Government and the public must first recognise the fact that an architect is not a sanitary engineer and vice versa. Each of these professions has its own legitimate field of labour, but the time has arrived when the old idea-often so disastrous in its consequences-that because a man is an architect, therefore he must be a thorough sanitarian, and that the more eminent the architect the more complete will be his knowledge of |