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

View report page

Islington 1895

[Report of the Medical Officer of Health for Islington, Parish of St. Mary ]

This page requires JavaScript

24
vaccination affords strong protection, as an epidemic of Typhus Fever,
and I therefore am of opinion that no precautions taken against it by the
prevention of overcrowding, and the enforcement of regulations as
regards cleanliness, can be considered too stringent. I feel certain that the
Salvation Army rulers themselves would feel awed if they once
experienced the dire effects of the disease, and would blame themselves,
when too late, for not having adopted measures to ensure sufficient air
space for their lodgers. Although I have no doubt that after their
experience in the Courts they will in future loyally assist in preventing
overcrowding, yet I consider, the matter being of such vital importance to
the public weal, that the control of such places should not be left to the
discretion of individuals, but that they should be governed by hard and
fast rules in a similar manner to common lodging houses, and that they
should be systematically supervised by the Sanitary Authorities.
DRAINAGE REGULATIONS.
The Drainage Regulations which govern the Parish having, since
the issue of the London County Council By-laws, come, in some measure,
into antagonism with the latter, it was decided by the Works Committee
to bring them into harmony with each other. It had become a constant
excuse with builders executing works under the Public Health Department,
but who had carried them out contrary to the Council's By-laws, to
urge that such works were in conformity with the Vestry's regulations,
and they pleaded they had been so executed, because they thought that
the Regulations overrode the By-laws wherever the two came into
conflict. This cannot occur again, for now the regulations have been
altered so as to read in a like manner to the By-laws.
In the old regulations the construction of intercepting traps
with inspection chambers was compulsory; now, however, while
the intercepting traps are still insisted on, the construction of the
chambers, although strongly recommended by the Vestry, has been left
to the option of the owners of the property.
I must say that I am not in favour of this change, for I think that
an intercepting trap, although it be fitted with a plunging eye, but without
a chamber, is very likely to become a source of great annoyance and
nuisance to the householders through becoming choked. Situated as such