View report page

37
EXHUMATION AND RE-INTERMENT OF BODIES AT THE
CITY OF LONDON CEMETERY.
During the year the bodies of twelve persons buried at the City of London
Cemetery at Ilford have been exhumed. All of these were re-interred in other
parts of the same Cemetery.
In accordance with the terms of the Licences issued by the Home Secretary in
respect of these cases the work of removal and re-interment was carried out in the
early morning under the supervision of the Medical Officer of Health.
HYGIENE OF HAIRDRESSERS' AND BARBERS' SHOPS.
The Registered Hairdressers' establishments throughout the City remain
under the supervision of your officers, and there are now ten proprietors of these
places who hold certificates and have undertaken to comply with the Regulations
of the Corporation for the conduct of their business.
During the war in conformity with the desire of the Sanitary Committee
certificates were not renewed to hairdressers who employed enemy aliens. Enquiries
by the City Police Authorities established the fact that no such persons
were employed in the saloons where renewals were granted. In the present circumstances
with the sanction of the Committee the enquiries as to the nationality
of those engaged in the business will be discontinued.
The following is a list of those proprietors at present on the Register:—
The Exors. of the late Mr. Smellie, trading as the Army and Navy Toilet Club, 35, Bucklersbury.
Frank Steele, trading as Fore's Paragon Toilet Club, 60, Fore Street.
Kingstone & Hubbard, 8 & 10, Ludgate Arcade.
Chas. Lehman, 8 & 9, Aldermanbury Postern.
Martin Longman, 75, Mark Lane.
Thos. W. Monk, 5, Angel Court.
Marsh & Prince, 36, Coleman Street.
Pierre Pozzi, 16, Lawrence Lane.
Harry G. Wicks, trading as Arthur & Co., 42a, Old Broad Street.
Frederick George, 8, Mason's Avenue.
RAG FLOCK ACT, 1911.
On the 26th May, 1919, the Local Government Board addressed a circular
letter to Local Authorities directing attention to complaints that had been made
to them with regard to the lack of uniformity displayed in the administration of
the Rag Flock Act, 1911, which Act and the Regulations made thereunder prohibit
the sale and use for the purpose of the manufacture of any article of upholstery,
cushions, or bedding, flock manufactured from rags unless the flock conforms
to a certain standard of cleanliness, i.e., where the amount of soluble chlorine,
in the form of chlorides removed through washing with distilled water at a temperature
not exceeding 25 degrees centigrade from not less than 40 grammes of a wellmixed
sample of flock, does not exceed 30 parts of chlorine in 100,000 parts of flock.
The powers conferred by this Act are of little moment in the City of London
where the use of rag flock is rarely, if ever, used by upholsterers.
Such firms as deal in bedding and bedding materials, do so mainly by
description or samples.
As regards the re-making of bedding and upholstered furniture, when orders
for such are received by City houses, the articles are almost invariably sent
elsewhere for manipulation. In the few cases when such repairs are undertaken
on the premises, materials other than rag flock are used.
In May last I received a complaint with regard to the sale of rag flock alleged
to contravene the provisions of the Rag Flock Act.
It was stated that some 20 tons of rag flock were being offered for sale which,
upon analysis, had been found to contain 57.4 parts of chlorine per 100,000 parts
of flock. The place of sale was unknown. I caused enquiries to be made and
found that samples only of rag flock were being brought into the City, the bulk
being deposited elsewhere. It was apparently the intention of the merchants
to obtain orders on their samples on view in the City, and arrange for deliveries
to be made direct from the manufacturers outside the City. A specimen of the