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

View report page

Islington 1872

[Report of the Medical Officer of Health for Islington, Metropolitan Borough of]

This page requires JavaScript

26
Why, then, it may be asked, should complaints ever be made
of Belle Isle ?
Unfortunately we have not to go far to obtain an answer; for
although the best available means may exist upon premises for the
carrying on of a noxious manufacture, with the least possible annoyance
to the public, yet the workmen may, from thoughtlessness,
and sometimes to save themselves trouble, neglect to use the costly
and efficient provision which has been made, and this, together
with certain conditions of the atmosphere which may exist, or the
direction of the wind, may create at any moment a general outcry
against Belle Isle, and of course against your Medical Officer of
Health and Inspectors; whereas the primary part of their duty has
already been thoroughly done, when they know from recent inspection
the places to be in the excellent condition in which I found
them.
An Inspector resident at each factory could not do more than
entirely prevent the kind of neglect among the workpeople, which
has just been referred to, although the unexpected visits of your
Inspector no doubt tend to keep it in check, as well as to secure
such reparations as ordinary wear and tear may render needful.
The other matters, I need scarcely add, are beyond control.
SUMMONSES.
During the year ending 25th March 1873, the Sanitary Committee
directed the issue of 35 summonses; of these two were for
carrying on the business of a dairyman, and keeping cows without
a licence, in one of which only a conviction was obtained, a
penalty of forty shillings being inflicted; in the other, the evidence
was defective, there being no proof that the milk had been actually
sold, the defendant alleging that he had given it away; but having
subsequently obtained a licence to keep cows upon his premises, he
can now sell the milk, as well as give it away, without fear of prosecution.
Three were for animals being so kept as to be a nuisance.
Two were on account of offensive accumulations, and three
in respect to defective drainage and the necessity for general
repairs. In all of these orders were duly made.