The excitement amongst ratepayers was, however, kept up by a question of the necessity of appointing a medical officer of health; and so strong was the current of public opinion against such an appointment, that the Council were compelled to abandon all thoughts of making it. Dr. Malden and Dr. Hastings both addressed letters to the Council, declaring that, in their opinion, a medical officer was needed for the proper carrying out of the act. The by-laws necessary under the Public Health Act for the regulation of slaughter houses, lodging houses, &c., were another fruitful source of squabbles during 1850. On the 5th of March a code was agreed to in the Council, by a majority of 15 to 7, which rendered it necessary that an “officer of health” should have the superintendence of such places, and to these the Secretary of State gave his assent. In July, however, the anti-sanitary party having increased in boldness, carried a new set of by-laws, by a majority of 18 to 16, in which the words “inspector of nuisances” was everywhere inserted instead of “officer of health.” They then begged the Home Secretary to endorse their inconsistent proceeding, but he refused to do so. The original by-laws are, therefore, now law in the city of Worcester; but as there is no “officer of health,” no use has been made of them—they remain a dead letter. On the 5th September, 1850, the anti-sanitary party had a public meeting in the Guildhall, at which Mr. Toulmin Smith attended and delivered an harangue against centralisation. The meeting actually came to a resolution “to resist the application of the act in that city and elsewhere; and, if possible, obtain its repeal.” At the municipal elections for 1850, parties were returned to the Council avowedly “to put a stop to the working of the act altogether;” but the dignity of the Council and its proceedings was not improved by this infusion of new blood. Up to the present time not a single step has been taken towards the practical application of the act in the city; but, instead of that, the Council have been engaged in a dispute with the surveyor, whom they refused properly to remunerate—and thus they have involved the city in great expense to no sort of purpose. The details of this affair it would be altogether undesirable to resuscitate, and the more so, as the Central Board have pronounced the Council to be entirely in the wrong; but there is reason to hope that wiser and more enlightened views, on a subject which involves the future prosperity of the city and the health and life of its inhabitants, will soon prevail. WORCESTER INFIRMARY.