True, the facts I have thus briefly brought under notice may be explained—and they certainly need explanation; for as they baldly appear in the returns of mortality they would seem to indicate an indifference to life which is not only shocking, but may be in some degree the cause of that terrible infantile mortality which all thinking persons deplore. I will only add that it is notorious that medical men are constantly called in to see children sick beyond the hope of recovery, in order that no fuss may arise after death—the death certificate being all-sufficient. No doubt in many cases, where the diagnosis is quite clear, the certificate is given, although the practitioner may be conscious of the neglect of the parents in applying for assistance when “too late;” and, I dare say, that in some at least of the cases which come before the Coroner the inquest has been brought about by the judicious refusal of medical men to give certificates under such circumstances. I venture to think, however, that a certificate should not be given in any such case, and that not only should an inquest be held, but that the mere fact of the responsible person in charge of the infant having failed to obtain that medical advice and assistance which the poor may have for the asking, should be regarded as establishing a _prima facie_ charge of neglect, for which he or she should appear and answer at another tribunal in the absence of exculpatory evidence. DEATHS “NOT CERTIFIED.” The number of deaths “not certified,” that is, of persons who were attended in their last illness by non-qualified practitioners—generally professing to hold unregisterable foreign degrees, often obtained by purchase, _in absentia_, was 33. The numbers in the two previous years were 30 and 21. In my annual report for 1872 I mentioned that I had some time previously called the attention of the Registrar-General to the desirability of an addition to the form of certificate of death provided for the use of medical men, whereby it would be made clear whether the subscriber was or was not duly qualified, _i.e._, registered. The Registrar-General approved the suggestion, and his attention having, at my instance, been again directed to the subject by the Society of Medical Officers of Health last year, he has, in the new form of certificate brought into use at the commencement of the current year, added a line immediately below the place for signature on which the subscriber is required to enter his “registered qualification.” It is not probable that any unregistered practitioner would venture to use the certificate, should he inadvertently become possessed of it, as might happen through the almost unavoidable ignorance in which the sub-district registrars are left, from the want of an official list of registered practitioners. Not long ago I ventured to direct the attention of the Registrar-General and the Registrar to the General Medical Council to the importance of these