View report page

94
The circumstances relating to the two houses in
which fumigation was had recourse to a second time may
be briefly stated:—No. 1. Man, wife, and 5 children ; 4
of the children were suffering at the same time, but in
different stages of the disease, together with a young
man, a member of another family. Two of the children
and the adult were sent to hospital on the 28tli July,
and the rooms were disinfected the next day. Two of
the children who were then approaching convalescence
remained at home, and after their recovery the whole
house was completely fumigated on September 5th. No
other attack amongst the remaining five persons occurred.
No. 2. Man, wife, and 4 children. Son was sent to
hospital on July 31st, and the room disinfected the next
day. The father subsequently went to the hospital to
see his son, who was dying; he attended his son's funeral,
and soon after sickened; and on the eruption of the
disease on August 24th, was sent to hospital. The house
was fumigated again the next day, and the remaining
members of the family were unaffected. Looking to
the results above recorded, the process of disinfection of
houses by means of fumes of burning sulphur must be
held to be a complete success. In addition to the proceedings
indicated in the table, all the slaughterhouses
and cowhouses wrere examined and duly reported on,
and, in consequence of their satisfactory condition, their
owners' licenses were wholly unopposed. There were
many other proceedings which formed the subjects of
special reports, as those relating to the " Waterside
houses," " Infected milk supply," " Reception by the
Wimbledon Local Board of Small-pox patients," " The
transmission of patients convalescent from Small-pox
directly to the convalescent hospitals," &c., which do
not admit of being tabulated. It is satisfactory to
find that they were all conducted without the necessity
of any application for the assistance of the law.