“But can this amelioration be effected to any appreciable extent; or, if effected, could it be maintained for any length of time? We fear that little permanent amelioration could be effected without a legislative enactment; for though our philanthropists are very active in their charities during the prevalence of an epidemic, it no sooner subsides than they relapse into a comparative quiescence, and our working population into their former habits of filth and intemperance. And the evil will continue to assail us so long as our cities contain so many narrow and filthy lanes, so long as the houses situated there are little better than dens or hovels, so long as dunghills and other nuisances are allowed to accumulate in their vicinity, so long as these hovels are crowded with inmates, and so long as there is so much poverty and destitution. Why, then, should we not have a legislative enactment that would level these hovels to the ground—that would regulate the width of every street—that would regulate the ventilation of every dwelling-house—that would prevent the lodging-houses of the poor from being crowded with human beings, and that would provide for their destitution? It may be said that this would interfere too much with the liberty of the subject, and no doubt it would be vehemently opposed by many interested persons. In place, however, of being an infringement on the liberty of the subject, it might rather be designated an attempt to prevent the improper liberties of the subject; for what right, moral or constitutional, has any man to form streets, construct houses, and crowd them with human beings, so as to deteriorate health and shorten life, because he finds it profitable to do so? As well ought the law to tolerate the sale of unwholesome food because it might be profitable to the retailer of it.” But the professional experience and weight of professional testimony on this subject is not confined to this country. In a report prepared under the superintendence of a commission of the Royal Academy of Medicine at Paris,[16] appointed to investigate the epidemics prevalent in France, similar general conclusions are announced upon similar evidence adduced, of which we select the following instance:—