_Failure of English as well as Foreign Sanitation._--This high French authority declares that notwithstanding the efforts for sanitary improvement in which England has set an example for fifty years, the relative mortality of England has not diminished. It is stated: ‘The subject of the mortality of England, although not touched upon in the Congress, was the subject of most private conversation. The real figures of English mortality show a singular coincidence with the mortality of other European countries. It is shown that in none of these countries has the mortality diminished during the last fourteen or fifteen years, except when the birth-rate has diminished, and only in an exact proportion to this birth-rate.’ England has no better record to show in this respect than her Continental neighbours, notwithstanding the increasing demands of her specialists for extended legislative powers. Our French critics remark that ‘English hygienists of to-day are demanding great administrative centralization; their sanitary laws are rigorous to a degree that other countries would consider excessive; local self-government as well as individual liberty is less and less respected, and, from the statements of specialists interested in the subject, there is reason to believe that at no distant date every branch of public hygiene will be entirely administered by the Central Government.’ ‘It is to be hoped’ (they remark) ‘that English good sense will learn how to avoid the abuse of centralization, for it is just as illogical to wait for the intervention of the Central Government in the sanitation of a parish or the prevention of a local epidemic as to refuse such intervention when public danger arises from negligence or stupidity.’ These observations of hygienists, coming from France, a country which we are accustomed to consider (and which in some respects really is) much more over-ridden by officialism than England, are extremely valuable. They serve to warn us of the grave danger of depending upon centralized legislation or arbitrary authority withdrawn from popular influence, and from that growth of individual enlightenment which arises through the sense of responsibility. Our friendly foreign critics justly ask: How is it that England, first in the field of sanitary science, with a rigorous system of compulsory legislation, with administration, laws, regulations, agents, and also a gradual development of private hygiene, has still to deplore the unhealthiness of such a large number of towns, quarters, and habitations, and sees no diminution in her annual rate of mortality? They advance towards the root of the matter when they observe in this same report that laws are one thing, their application quite another thing! ‘So true it is that public hygiene depends upon general education as well as on the education of specialists, that no laws or regulations will suffice when the habits of the people generally do not promote their application.’