View report page

33
is in the proportion of one Inspector to from 2,382 to 3 076
inhabited houses. The latter is the proportion in St. Pancras.
This is not an ideal standard, though it should be noted that
St. Pancras has 9.2 inmates to each house, while Hackney has only
6.9, so if we adopted their proportion of one Inspector to about
3,000 houses, we should really be setting a higher and better
example.
In my opinion the District of Hackney should not have less
than one Inspeotor to 3.000 houses, and this is a minimum which
it may be necessary to alter in the future, should further duties
added to the existing duties of the Sanitary Inspectors. I am sure
the Board cannot hope to successfully fulfil its statutory obligations
in regard to the public health with a smaller number than the
above. I must remind the Members of the Board that by the
Public Health Act (London) 1891, they may re-appoint their
present Sanitary Inspectors under the Local Government Board,
and so obtain half their salary from "the London County Council,
out of the Exchequer Contribution Account, in accordance with
Section twenty-four of the Local Government Act, 1888." By so
doing the staff might be doubled without much additional local
expense.
I have ventured to bring this subject to the notice of the
Hackney Board of Works, because of its importance and urgency,
and also because in being silent I should have neglected an
important duty.
Connected with this subject is that of a redistribution and
localisation of the duties of the Sanitary Inspectors. But this
subject is so closely connected with that of the adequacy of the
staff, that a consideration of the latter would necessarily be
followed by that of the former.
I remain, Gentlemen,
Yours obediently,
J. KING WARRY, M.D., D.P.H.,
Acting Medical officer of Health, and Public Analyst for the Hackney District.