I have for years combated the oft-repeated statements as to the 'healthiness' of London, not because I expect that London will alter its way, but because rural places and the Colonies should not blindly follow the lead of London, in the belief that they are following a good sanitary model, and that disastrous consequences will not inevitably follow upon a reckless overcrowding of houses. The prime object of overcrowding was for safety. Cities were originally walled fortresses, and people crowded into them for protection, and were killed by epidemics instead of by their enemies. Modern sanitation favours overcrowding, and this it is which makes it so popular, for overcrowding favours money-getting. When sewer pipes and water pipes are laid throughout a district it becomes possible (but not till then) to build houses without curtilage, except a 10-foot back yard. If, therefore, rural places are reckless enough to perpetrate a 'sewage scheme,' it becomes very necessary to check the overcrowding of houses. 'MODEL' (!) BY-LAWS I am sorry to say that the Local Government Board does not appear to be sensible of this necessity. My reason for this statement is (to quote an example within my own knowledge) that the Local Government Board a little more than a year ago sanctioned the adoption of 'model' (!) by-laws by the borough of Andover, and on examining these by-laws, which cover 69 closely printed large octavo pages, and comprise hundreds of sections and sub-sections, the bulk of which must be quite incomprehensible to the Town Council, I find that as regards buildings many of the clauses are practically identical with those of the London Building Act. The Local Government Board does not seem to recognise that circumstances alter cases, and that the regulations which may be beneficial in the crowded and filthy slums of a great city, may he mischievous in a village or country town. Andover is an exceedingly healthy little town, as the table on p. 99 will show, and in it there must be very few, if any, houses more than 50 feet high, and the great majority of the houses and cottages have large yards or gardens. And yet the Local Government Board sanctions regulations for this town which permit the erection of dwelling houses a _hundred feet high_! _with a backyard 25 feet deep_!! and it further allows the adoption of the minimum of 150 square feet of back yard for dwelling houses. In illustration of this, reference may be made to figs. 32, 33, 34, which are borrowed from Knight's 'Model By-laws,' published under the authority of the Local Government Board. Fig. 32 shows the 'model' open space for a cottage, fig. 33 for a house up to 25 feet high, and fig. 34 the maximum which is necessary, even though the house be 100 feet high or more.