London's Pulse: Medical Officer of Health reports 1848-1972

View report page

Kensington 1906

Annual report of the Medical Officer of Health 1906

This page requires JavaScript

115
(b) The body of a person who has died of any dangerous infectious disease is retained,
without the sanction of the medical officer of health, or any legally qualified
medical practitioner, for more than 48 hours, elsewhere than in a room not used
at the time as a dwelling place, sleeping place, or workroom; or
(c) Any dead body is retained in any house or room so as to endanger the health of
the inmates thereof, or of any adjoining or neighbouring house or building;
a justice may, on a certificate signed by a medical officer of health, or other legally
qualified medical practitioner, direct that the body be removed, at the cost of the sanitary
authority, to any available mortuary, and be buried within the time limited by the
justice."
Many of the cases of improper deposit of dead bodies in living rooms, occur in connection
with removals for private burial from the borough infirmary.
CHAPEL OF REST FOR THE DEAD.
With a view to correct the evil dealt with in the preceding paragraph, I recommended (No.
3 report, 29th March, 1902), the provision of a mortuary chapel at North Kensington. The grounds
for this recommendation were fully set out in the annual report for 1902, page 124. The Council,
upon the advice of the Public Health Committee, adopted the recommendation; and also my
further proposal to place the building at the south-east corner of Avondale Park, adjacent to the
park-keeper's residence. The building, completed at a cost of about £1,300, comprises a mortuary
chapel, two waiting rooms for mourners, suitably furnished, sanitary conveniences, etc. During
the year 59 bodies were admitted. The regulations framed for the management of the chapel,
which is under the charge of the park-keeper, were printed in the annual report for 1904, page 92.
THE METROPOLITAN WATER BOARD: THEIR CUTTING-OFF POWERS
AND PRACTICE.
A communication was addressed to the Sanitary Authorities, in November, by the Council of
the Metropolitan Borough of Islington, based on a report of their Medical Officer of Health, alleging
that "the Metropolitan Water Board are continuing the practice of the New River Company, by
cutting off the water supply in any inhabited house, in respect of which the water rate has not been
paid, and subsequently giving notice to the Borough Council that the water has been disconnected
from the premises, in order that legal proceedings may be taken by the Council to compel the rate
defaulter to reinstate it." The Public Health Committee of the Islington Borough Council
recommended, and it was resolved—
(a) That the Council's representative upon the Metropolitan Water Board be asked to
urge the Board to discontinue the practice of cutting off the water supply from premises in
respect of which the water rate has not been paid, and to substitute legal proceedings for the
recovery of such rate, where necessary.
(6) That the several Metropolitan Borough Councils be urged to ask their representatives
upon the Metropolitan Water Board to take similar action.
The Council did as requested, not only because the matter was of interest from the public
health point of view, but also as being one in regard to which the Kensington Sanitary Authority
took action, on similar lines, so far back as 1882. The subject was dealt with in my annual report
for that year, wherein (at page 117) I stated that it was—
"By no means uncommon to find houses without water, the supply having been cut off
by the Companies as a coercive measure to obtain payment of the rate."
It was further observed that—
"A question arises whether this power should be left in the hands of the Companies, or
whether they should not rather be left to their remedy, for the recovery of a debt, like
other traders. At first sight (I said) it seemed not unreasonable to allow a Company to discontinue
the supply when a customer failed to pay; but water is a prime necessary of life,
and the absence of a proper supply to an inhabited house, constituted a serious nuisance:
. . . . the sanitary inspector had no option, but must take measures to secure restoration
of supply when the water had been cut off; but it was not satisfactory that the powers
conferred on the Sanitary Authority should have to be put in motion, practically, for the
benefit of the Companies, whose officers, indeed, were not seldom our informants."