It is to the deaths from disease that I would draw particular attention, the bare facts appearing to point to a large amount of neglect of the sick, which, without explanation, would seem to border on the criminal. Fatal visceral diseases, it need hardly be said, present symptoms which the most ignorant cannot altogether overlook—fever, pain, exhaustion, &c.; and each disease has a more or less prolonged course, varying with the importance of the organ affected, and with the amount of care bestowed on the sufferer. It is not credible that any medical man would be unable to diagnose the existence of such a disease, _e.g._ as pneumonia, or would refuse to certify the cause of death of a patient who had died under his care. We are driven to the conclusion, therefore, that, in a great number of cases of disease, many of the victims being infants, no effort is made to obtain medical advice for the sufferers, and hence, when death ensues, an inquest becomes necessary, as there is no medical certificate to show the cause of death. A post-mortem examination is made, and then it becomes known that death was caused by a disease that might have been cured, and that certainly must have had a well-defined and often a lengthened course. Passing over such maladies as apoplexy and heart disease, it is only necessary to mention, in support of this view, such diseases as pneumonia, &c. (30 deaths); brain diseases (15); convulsions—a symptom rather than a disease (8); scrofula (5); syphilis (2); diarrhœa, diphtheria, &c. The question then arises, in connection with such cases as these, whether it is sufficient to record the cause of death? whether, in fact, some one should not be made responsible for the neglect to provide medical advice for a child who ultimately dies “suddenly” or is “found dead” as a consequence of an attack of pneumonia, that may have extended over one, two, or three weeks, or even a longer time? Not many weeks before this present writing one of the “Peculiar People” was found guilty of manslaughter, having neglected to provide medical attendance for his child, who died of pneumonia, although it was admitted that every care, otherwise, had been bestowed on the patient; and, notwithstanding the well-known fact that with such care a very large proportion of the cases, especially if one lung only is affected, will recover. It need scarcely be added that the parents’ neglect had its origin in conscientious motives, however mistaken and absurd. Can such a plea be made in all or many of the cases to which I have here alluded: and should negligent parents escape without punishment—without censure even?