View report page

47
(6) Mr. W. G. Bunn, Secretary of the Metropolitan Hospital Saturday Fund, and
(7) The Society of Medical Officers of Health (represented by the President of the Metropolitan
Branch, Dr. Roberts; the President of the Society, Dr. J. F. J. Sykes; the Hon.
Secretary, Dr. Priestley; the Editor of Public Health, the organ of the Society, Dr. F.
J. Allan, and Dr. T. Orme Dudfield).
A transcript of a shorthand note of the speeches made on the occasion, by the Council's
Medical Officer of Health, on behalf of the Society of Medical Officers of Health, the originators
of the movement, and by Sir William Broadbent, Sir Edmund Currie and Mr. W. G. Bunn, was
circulated by the Managers,* together with the sympathetic reply to the Deputation by Mr. A. C.
Scovell, J.P., the Chairman of the Board.
The Memorial was referred for consideration and report to the General Purposes Committee,
who forthwith took steps to ascertain the views of the local authorities concerned with Public
Health and Poor Law administration; and in October published an "abstract of observations"
received from "(a) City and Borough Councils, (b) Metropolitan Boards of Guardians . . .
upon the proposals contained in the Memorial."
The Council, and other Borough Councils had, previously, taken steps to elicit the views
of the local authorities. Summarising the views of these bodies thus ascertained, prior to April,
1905, and adding information supplied since October, 1905,—premising, moreover, that a few of
the authorities favourable to the principle that the Asylums Board should be the Sanatorium
Authority, express the opinion that the maintenance of sanatoria should be a charge on the
Imperial revenue, and not on the local rates—the result of the several inquiries may be stated as
follows:—
Of the 29 Public Health Authorities, the following have, at one time or another, since 1902,
expressed themselves favourable to the principle of the open-air treatment of consumption, and
the appointment of the Asylums Board as Sanatorium Authority; but with certain qualifications in
two or three instances, especially as to the incidence of chargeability:—Battersea, Bermondsey,
Bethnal Green, Chelsea, Deptford, Finsbury, Fulham, Greenwich, Hackney, Hampstead, Islington,
Kensington, Lambeth, Lewisham, City of London, St. Marylebone, St. Pancras, Poplar, Shoreditch,
Southwark, Stepney, Stoke Newington, Wandsworth, City of Westminster, and Woolwich. It
must be added that in more than one instance the same local authorities have at different times
expressed divergent views on the subject. In the Asylums Board Abstract, the Councils of Bermondsey
and Chelsea are stated to have " taken no action " upon the Managers' application for
their views—this, presumably, because they had already urged the Board to assume the position
of Sanatorium Authority, and had taken steps to obtain the support of the other authorities
for their representations to the Board and the Local Government Board. So far as I have been
able to ascertain, the Borough Councils of Camberwell and Paddington alone, appear to be unfavourable
to the principle; the Hammersmith Council express no opinion either way.
Of the Boards of Guardians, 31 in number, 16 have, at one time or another, expressed
views favourable to the principle of sanatorium treatment, and the appointment of the Asylums
Board as Sanatorium Authority; viz., those of Chelsea, Clapham, St. George, Hanover Square,
Hackney, Hammersmith, Holborn, Islington, Kensington, Lambeth, City of London, Paddington,
St. Pancras, Poplar, Southwark, Stepney, and Wandsworth. The Hampstead and St. Marylebone
Boards "offer no observations." The Fulham Guardians "have no data for forming an opinion";
those of Whitechapel are waiting for an expression of the views of the Local Government Board.
The following Boards appear to be not favourable to the principle: — Bermondsey, Bethnal
Green (on account of the cost), Camberwell, St. Giles and St. George, Greenwich, Lewisham,
Strand, Westminster, and Woolwich.
The less degree of unanimity amongst the Poor-law authorities is not difficult of explanation.
The General Purposes Committee had invited the observations of those bodies not
only on "the principle involved" in the prayer of the Memorial, but also with regard to the
provision they had made for treatment of consumptives—a matter dealt with in my sixth monthly
report, 1905, wherein it was shown that since the Poor Law Conference of October, 1900, a
* By the courtesy of the Board I was enabled to send a copy of the transcript to the Members of the Council. But in
No. 4 report (pages 53-67) I had already submitted a resume of the proceedings at the deputation.