Disease Preventive Act. That committee appear to have been indefatigable in their inquiries and survey, and presented a Report, suggesting that a superintending Inspector, agreeably to the eighth section of the Public Health Bill, should be petitioned by the rate payers, to visit the town. The consideration of this proposal was submitted to a public meeting of the inhabitants, convened by the Mayor, in the Town Hall, and presided over by him, March 2. The resolution in favour of the proposal was met by an amendment that it was not expedient, moved by Mr. Hart, solicitor. Charles Ellis, Esq., one of the magistrates of the borough, supported the original motion in an address, which contains much general, as well as local, information, which cannot but be interesting to all who would promote and ensure the comforts, health, and well being of the community :

He would commence by expressing his great obligation to the TownCouncil for having directed public attention to this subject, for the valuable Report which they had circulated, and for having convened that meeting to take the question of the Public Health Act into consideration. The subject of the public health had recently occupied the attention of several Governments and several Parliaments. Ten years since, Government had appointed Commissioners to visit and inspect the large manufacturing and other towns, and to report on the state of public health within them. In 1845 Lord Lincoln, at the instance of the Peel Government, brought in a measure on the subject, which received considerable attention, and was ultimately withdrawn on the understanding that another Bill should be introduced. In 1847 the subject was alluded to in the speech from the throne, and a Bill was brought in, at the instance of Government, by Lord Morpeth, and received great attention; but in consequence of its being introduced at the fag end of the session, the question was shelved a second time, with the same understanding. The present measure having been brought in, and amply discussed in 1848, became law. He mentioned these facts to show that the law was no hasty or premature measure, but that it had received that attention from the Government and Parliament, which the importance of the subject deserved. Great inquiry had taken place before the measure had been introduced; it was discussed over and over again, and had passed in a way which on every account entitled it to the consideration of the country. It might be that Sanitary Reformers, would, in the first instance, meet with a similar reception as had greeted Reformers of every other description. Their motives might be misunderstood, and they might meet with great opprobrium and contumely. Such seemed to have been the course of Sanitary Reform in Maidstone. The first local act for the improvement of the town was obtained in 1791. Great was the opposition to that measure, from persons who feared that it might interfere with vested rights, and involve the rate-payers in overwhelming expenses. (A cry of "So it has; it has ruined us.") What, the act of 1791! He did not before know that the town was so near ruin, neither had he ever before heard our ruin attributed to such a cause. The principal pro

moters of the act of 1791 were Mr. James Smythe and Mr. George Burr, and after they had with great exertion obtained the Act, they brought it down to Maidstone, and what were their thanks? Why, they were burnt in effigy in the public streets (hear, hear, and "Sarve 'em right.") Now they had been told that the provisions of that act, and of those local acts, which had passed since, were sufficient for all present purposes. He did not wish for one moment to depreciate the value of these subsequent acts. He believed them to have been needed, and he would do every possible justice to those gentlemen who had carried out their provisions; but the opinion that the provisions which would suffice in 1791 were sufficient for the altered circumstances of 1849, was one in which he certainly could not confide. What was the state of Maidstone in 1791? The population was something like 7,000, whilst at present it was considered to be 20,000. To show the difference between the present state of things and those of 1791, he would mention that this Act had been framed so as to meet matters which would now be deemed extraordinary, such, for instance, as slaughtering cattle in the public streets, scalding dead pigs in the streets, and airing and exercising horses in the streets. This Act also prohibited the setting up of cocks for the purpose of "cock throwing," an amusement to which it would seem some of our immediate ancestors resorted. This Act, which was to be carried into operation by all inhabitants rated at £15, or possessing a freehold worth £10 annually, empowered them to raise the sum of £7,000 upon security of the rates, which were never to exceed 1s. 6d. in the pound. The objects of the Act were those of widening, improving, regulating, paving, and lighting the streets, removing and preventing encroachments, obstructions, nuisances, and annoyances, and for the better supplying the town with water, and repairing the highways; the general highway act still, however, remaining in force. Subsequent acts increased the amount to £14,000, with extended purposes. The Act of 1819 vested the powers in a committee of seven, to be chosen annually by the rest of the commissioners, and enable them to supply "surplus, or waste water," (a curious term) from the public conduits, to such persons as should be disposed to receive the benefit by private pipes, into their respective houses, at such sums as might be fixed and agreed upon. This power had never been acted on. It had remained a dead letter from the date of the enactment. It had never had vitality, and it never could. This Act also gave power to build a town wharf, which had been done; to put down a weigh bridge and take toll for the use of it. Some houses had also been purchased under this act for the widening of the streets. He had thus enumerated the various powers contained in their existing local acts, which he contended were altogether inadequate to the requirements of the present day. He certainly did expect that when Mr. Hart or any other gentleman came forward to oppose the introduction of the Public Health Act, he would have been prepared to show by statistics that Maidstone was a healthy town as compared with other towns. He contended that

the very slight information which Mr. Hart had given them on that point was altogether fallacious. All the information he had given them was that taking eighty-one districts, the mortality in sixty-one of them was higher than that of Maidstone. For this, however, Mr. Hart did not quote the authority. If Mr. Hart

meant this to apply to the returns of the Registrar General, he (Mr. E.) would mention that the districts were not confined to towns, but included large rural portions. Mr. Hart's remark, if applied to the town of Maidstone, was altogether fallacious, equally with the remarks which were recently made by some members of the Town-council, that Maidstone was really in a tolerably healthy state, and would bear comparison with any other town. If it should appear by statistics that Maidstone was in fact less healthy than other towns, the wisest course, was not to seek to conceal that fact, but to proclaim it publicly in the market-place, in order that the proper remedy should be applied. He had looked over the Reports of the Registrar General for information on this point. He found in the seventh annual Report of the Registrar General, that during the period of seven years from 1838 to 1844 inclusive, the deaths in all England averaged 1 in 46. It was difficult to get at the mortality of Maidstone from these Reports, because the Maidstone district comprised 13 rural parishes as well as the town; and to ascertain the true sanitary state of Maidstone, it was necessary to compare its mortality with that of the whole country and some of the neighbouring counties. He had made this comparison of counties, which, over the seven years he had named, was as follows:

These were in the South Eastern Division, and he had loked over the returns to ascertain if any part of the kingdom was much healthier, and had found that in the free and healthy districts of North Wales the mortality was 1 in 55, very little less than that of most of these counties. He had then compared it with the worst district. In Lancashire, including the crowded streets of Manchester and the cellars of Liverpool, of which they had heard so much, the deaths were 1 in 37, and in Cheshire 1 in 38. In the metropolitan districts (including part of Middlesex, part of Surrey and Greenwich,) the deaths were 1 in 39. So that the South Eastern district, with its range of mortality from 1 in 51 to 1 in 55, was an exceedingly healthy district. He had before stated that it was difficult to get at the exact returns of the mortality of Maidstone parish. He had, however, applied to Mr. Holmes, one of the registrars of the district, with whose pains-taken accuracy everybody was acquainted, who had obligingly furnished him, and procured for him, the returns of the mortality of Maidstone during the seven years from 1842 to 1848, which were as follows::

Giving an average of rather more than 466 deaths every year. He had already told them that the average of the South Eastern district was 1 in 523. The mortality of Maidstone was positively more than 1 in 42, the worst districts of the kingdom being 1 in 37 and 38. He confessed that he had been himself somewhat astonished at the result of this investigation. He had been disposed to believe, although he saw causes of disease, depression, and death at work around him, that the town was comparatively not an unhealthy town.

He cer

tainly did not think it was so bad as he had found it. The result of his inquiry, had however, determined him to attend that meeting, and hold up his hand in favour of the introduction of the Public Health Act, because he felt that it was absolutely needed. He had stumbled on one fact in the course of his investigation, which he ought to state, and which convinced him that an Inspector would be sent down to Maidstone, whatever might be their decision on that day. Parliament, in the exercise of its wisdom, had prescribed several cases which would warrant the General Board of Health in introducing it. In one case it might be introduced on petition from onetenth of the inhabitants. Again, it might be introduced wherever, by the Registrar General's returns of the last seven years, the rate of mortality exceeded 23 in every thousand of the inhabitants. The population of Maidstone, at the last census in 1841, was rather more than 18,000. Taking, however, the unreasonable supposition that the population exceeded an average of 20,000 during the last seven years, the mortality of Maidstone amounted to rather more than 23 in the thousand. Gentlemen might be pleased to "Pooh! pooh!" this, but it was an unquestionable fact notwithstanding. It was not necessary for him to reply to most of Mr. Hart's observations, because they were aimed at the Report of the Nuisance Committee, for which, not being a member of the Council, he was in no way responsible. Mr. Hart had, however, endeavoured to impress on the meeting that the expenses of this new Act would be enormous. If the Act were not applied to the town, not one farthing would be charged on it for the inquiry. If adopted, he did not believe the expense of the inquiry would exceed £200, and the repayment of this might be spread over five years. As to the expense of new sewers and water works, even suppose the sum borrowed were £24,000, no permanent works could be undertaken without the sanction of the General Board of Health, and as the repayment might be spread over thirty years, this would be no great burden on the town, considering the enormous advantages to be gained. He had been all his life an advocate of economy, but he considered this such an advantageous outlay, that he was quite willing to take his share of the responsibility of incurring it, even if they were to burn him in effigy afterwards.

Large sums, averaging £1,680 per annum, had been paid off out of the rates of Maidstone. If the Corporate property were sold, and the commissioners' debt spread over 30 years, the expense of laying down sewers and water works would very little, if at all, increase their burdens beyond those of the last four years. Mr. E. then defended that part of the Act which obliged persons to drain the refuse of their houses into the common sewer, and ridiculed Mr. Hart's fears of tyrannical interference, likening Mr. Hart and his cesspool to the Englishman and his house, who looked on it as his castle, and would brook no intrusion on it without his consent. Mr. Hart had spoken of the conduit at Rocky Hill, but he knew well that that stream would only yield about one-third of a gallon per day to each individual of the population. (A cry of “ Enough too.") I should like to know (said Mr. Ellis) how often that gentleman washes himself. After some further remarks on the effects of over-crowded burial grounds and other nuisances, he concluded by imploring the meeting to adopt this measure, which was so likely to promote the health, happiness, and prosperity of the town; and not to be deterred from doing so

by the cry which he had sometimes heard from constables in crowded places, but which was here utterly misplaced and uncalled for, namely, "Gentlemen, take care of your pockets."

The meeting is represented in the Maidstone Gazette, as having been tolerably numerously attended, "the working class probably comprising a large majority." We have retained in the report of this address notices of some of the strange interruptions by which the speaker was assailed. They show the disgraceful spirit which characterized the meeting. On the question being put, not above twenty. hands were held up in favour of the original motion, and three cheers were given for the defeat of Sanitary Reform.

THE PARABLES OF CHRIST.
LECTURE 1.

The New Cloth and the Old Garment.-MATT. IX. 16.-The New Wine and the Old Bottles.-MATT. IX. 17.

It cannot be said, that the parabolic mode of instruction was peculiar to Jesus Christ. It was adopted long before his time. We have a beautiful instance of it, in the parable of The Ewe Lamb, by the prophet Nathan, 2 Sam. xii. But there is a manner in our Lord's parables, which is peculiar to himself; and there is an energy, a spirit, a beauty, a sublimity pertaining to them, belonging to him alone.

The reason why he adopted this method, he informs his disciples: "Because it is given unto you to know the mys teries of the kingdom of heaven, but to them [the people] it is not given."-(Matt. xiii. 11.) That is, the disciples could understand his doctrines without the accompaniment of such illustrations; but, the people could not: they were not prepared to receive them in the plain and simple garb of truth; and, therefore, they were presented to them in the pleasing form of narratives, or parables.

Yet we have reason to suppose, that they were not premeditated, but delivered spontaneously, on the excitement of the moment, and were applicable, in the first instance, to occurrences which were then passing, or which had recently passed, before the eyes of the people; for they almost invariably appear to arise from events then taking place. This cannot but excite our wonder; and it is a clear proof that he who taught so ably, so beautifully, so heavenlily, and so spop