, 1870-06-01

A careful examination Of the preceding table
.tisncs nc that the addition Of ouc-tcnth to the
acme ycars am satisfied that it IS too low. The
rrtGrda IN this office only commence fn JUNO. 1S37
and are exceedingly imperfect From 1913 70 this
time the statistics were CLEANED from the daily
ports the collection OF which necessarily involved
6as been made to ootain ss reliable informatlon IS
possible with regard to population, am satisfied
1ha1 in several Instances the number g1Fen is too
,aas @ diminishing s % II: death IL rate s' I fessea @
At one time thar the estimate for 1868 WAS too
high. but after obtained the number Of lmmi-
increase OF births, md other additions to our pop
ulat1on, became convinced that the estimate WAS
not TOO grea., The importance Of obtaining &C 6.
IS to be hoped more attention viii be paid to this
subject in future: What may seem gain. one
seaIxi certainly BE- oRs snohs5 Ths dssre 70
nut Rione obtain here, but III too many cities IN
this ountry,. Ne want nothing Of the Find here:
We want truth. In the
7wEs7r-sEvEs YEAHs
under consideration Chicago hiss risen from
email town 10 be one Of the most Important and
roruions cities in this country. During this time,
owing to local and climatic causes the nature
nave been changed: while at three different
periods scarlet fever has prevailed-Viz: IN 1s44-
tality by 8 disease which Is only Indirectly snnu-
exceed Ey dEais age. Small pox has prevailed more
frequently than scarlet fever, but not With the
@ g nn ana Se es s a1s poa ,wen
,y-scFen years under consideration, taEng late
account the increase Of populatlon. Il
sie M sro 1sss e 1s,s wv whts som is lsss
TO 1870 It was only 2a,91. In England 1t mas been
estimated that there are tWo persons eIck for
irg per annum in England and Wales for 81 years
% esta se!es @ ssss. q i ~ Il males sad ii
ernge Of q years, ending with 1853, there Is !
death IN ss living III 1855 1t was IN 46 In 1850,
In 1853 The mortality in the healthest districts
hralthiest, from 70 70 30 The nnnnal death 1ate is
less in Scotland than in England, being 81 per
1000. This is chieny due to ths sainh1ity OF the
Tural districts, ~ ne mortality Of Glasgow,
% Tas dean @ rate 1or Franco has been as .o,,ows:
Ness ess of of = 5es 1ss e eF IL Is
1n q OF u ZIP
II II 3s o. o. n n 4
Il fsis tie mortality from lis "a ,sas st vs. 4 ss
ct 1s@ Sss Z }1o ien psi SS 1s
n Prussia, 2s~ss rer 1885, Or ID $: Austria,
HooSs5, ~ ofi ls ~ 8 IS svsqsa
r., fsn.'s ls'?Bs poess e.
om Peaons 81 as2s Eaesna c IN annail9 MnlH9
.,1Sy.1. ~ Mnsre Eood drainage is supplied; but ID
wafer is impure, 30 more to he loo nie 1JEs
etb0o @ sSserai years ago, Ind a death Tate ner
!,O9p ol ~. Ihe Aver0Re London death rate Il Ss
and the most common ucath rate ID the cnnntry ~ ~
| Wales IS 20. ANe'Aou Eli
| Death rate per 1000 In Birmingham, aeus,tv or
population per ncft 46-1s65, Is; 1866, a4; 1851 Il
hull density 3g-l663, 81; 1866. n; 1861, *
| Br1stOl-e4, e. and q
| Edinburgh density 40}-2s, 81 and q,
Dublin density $50, % and p.
Pcltord density e2)-e9 for each year.
| Glaegow density s1)-s3, 30 and %
Manchester density 6t}-ss, Sc sud 81.
Leeds density 11l-31, 50 and 81.
Liverpool density 96}-36, 4e and 80.
| Shenleld density l0|-eS and e5.
NeHcasfle-oh Tyne-33 aud II.
London density 49}-e5, &c and o.
| The death rate In England, In 1855, was as- 1
! From the results OF drainage aud other sanitary
measures carried On In this city, 1t may be regard
| ca that the iud.cinns expenditure Of money tor
sanitary purposes IL sound maxim Of municipal