View report page

6-t
instances the persons selling the food were prosecuted and convicted. Thus food seizures were made in
Kensington, Fulham, Chelsea, St. Marylebone, St. Pancras, Islington, Hackney, St. Giles, Strand,
Holborn, St. Luke, Shoreditch, Whitechapel, St. George-in-tlie-East, Limehouse, Poplar, St. Saviour,
Southwark, St. George-the-Martyr, Southwark, St. Olave, Bermondsey, Rotherhithe, Battersea,
Wandsworth, Greenwich, Woolwich and Plumstead. The food seized usually consisted of meat, fish,
vegetables or fruit. In St. Olave 2,501 tins of meat were seized, and each tin opened, with the result
that only 17 were found fit for consumption. In many instances the vendors brought to the sanitary
officers the fish which they had purchased in the market and which on subsequent examination was
found to be unfit for food. In those cases certificates to this effect were given to them.
The report of the medical officer of health of Camberwell contains the history of an outbreak of
illness in that district due to the consumption of unwholesome food. This report is of especial interest,
inasmuch as it gives account of the infection of a child who had not actually partaken of the suspected
article of food, but who, Dr. Bristowe is of opinion, had been infected by its parents, who were themselves
sufferers, and with whom it had slept. Dr. Bristowe's report is as follows—
In May, 1893, there was an outbreak of illness in the parish, which had all the characteristics of
poisoning by some irritant matter. None of the patients had anything in common beyond their symptoms,
and the fact that they had all partaken of pork pies bought at one particular place. The total number
of persons attacked was forty, including one of your inspectors. The symptoms of the illness were severe
diarrhoea, sickness, headache, and weakness, which last seemed out of all proportion to the severity of
the other symptoms. In some cases there was an interval of as much as twenty-four hours between
partaking of the pies and the onset of the illness; and, in other cases, the patients were attacked early,
got better, and then suffered a relapse which was more serious in character than the initial illness. Two
of those who were attacked died ; one was a little child who had eaten no pie, but who occupied the same
bed as its parents, who had both eaten largely and were suffering severely. It is presumed that the
child was infected by the parents' discharges being in some way conveyed into its system. The other case
was that of an old lady of seventy-nine.
In order to still further elucidate the outbreak, a circular letter was sent to many of the doctors in
the parish, asking them if they had had any cases under their care of diarrhoea and sickness accompanied
by extreme prostration. In answer to these enquiries we received information which enabled us
to discover fresh cases, thus making up the total to forty. At the instance of the Home Office, portions
of the pies which were supposed to have been the cause of the fatal termination in the two cases, were
examined by Dr. Stevenson of Guy's Hospital, both chemically and bacteriologically. No trace, however,
of any poison was found in them. Bacteriologically the result was practically negative. The true cause
of the outbreak is consequently difficult to trace. The shop where the pies were bought is, as regards
cleanliness and well-being, beyond reproach, and speaking generally, this remark also applies to the
establishment in the country (which was visited by Dr. Stevens) where the pies were made, and from
whence they were sent to the shop in this parish.
There is, nevertheless, no doubt that the poisoning was due to the pies ; and there are grounds for
suspecting that it was due to the poisonous influence of some as yet undiscovered living organism which
had accidentally infected them. As indicative of the virulence of the poison, it is interesting to note that
two persons suffered who had not actually eaten of the pies; one, the child already referred to, who
slept with its parents; the other a lady who used, in eating her own dinner, a knife and fork which had
also been employed in cutting up a pork pie, of which other members of the family, who were poisoned,
partook.
A return was in 1894 presented to the House of Commons, " showing in respect of the year
ended the 25th day of March, 1893, the number of carcases seized by medical officers of health and
inspectors of nuisances in England and Wales under section 116 of the Public Health Act, 1875, and
section 47 of the Public Health (London) Act, 1891, and of the number of such carcases condemned by
justices under sections 117 and 47 of these Acts, distinguishing as far as practicable the number so
condemned in consequence of the animal having suffered from tuberculosis."
The return shows that the officers of the district board of Holborn seized 342 carcases, of which
46 were condemned by the justices, and 10 of these carcases were condemned on account of the animal
having suffered from tuberculosis. The officers of the Islington Vestry seized 2 carcases, 2 were
condemned by the justices, 1 on account of tuberculosis. The officers of the Commissioners of Sewers
of the City of London seized 38 carcases, 38 were condemned, 12 on account of tuberculosis. The
return also shows that officers of the Vestry of Bethnal-green seized 10 pieces of meat which were
condemned and that the meat was believed to be tuberculous, but it was not possible to prove it. The
officers of the Holborn District Board also seized a large quantity of tuberculous offal, i.e., lungs,
livers, kidneys.
Water Supply.
In obedience to an instruction of the Water Committee of the Council, I submitted a report
on the report of the Royal Commission on Metropolitan Water Supply. This report is reproduced in
the appendix (V.) and I propose, therefore, only to refer briefly to the subject here.
The opinion of the Royal Commission on the quality of the water supplied to London is thus
stated—
We are strongly of opinion that the water, as supplied to the consumers in London, is of a very
high standard of excellence and of purity, and that it is suitable in quality for all household purposes.
We are well aware that a certain prejudice exists against the use of drinking water derived from the Thames
and Lea, because these rivers are liable to pollution, however perfect the subsequent purification, either
by natural or artificial means, may be; but, having regard to the experience of London during the last
30 years, and to the evidence given to us on the subject, we do not believe that any danger exists of the
spread of disease by the use of this water, provided that there is adequate storage, and that the water is
efficiently filtered before delivery to the consumers.
The favourable opinion expressed in the report of the Royal Commission is admittedly founded
on the experience of London during the last 30 years. In the memorandum referred to I have expressed
the opinion that the risk to the consumer of water from the Thames and Lea is small, and certainly
intermittent, but that risk, such as it is, exists. Although, with the exception of the cholera outbreak
of 1866 which is not now nnder consideration, there is no evidence that the water supplied to London