View report page

5
The immunity of the second class of persons in the later period as compared with the earlier is
striking, and is no doubt connected with the greatly diminished extent of manipulation of dry hides in
Bermondsey tanneries in recent years, which will be noted later.
As regards the particular kind of raw material supposed to be concerned in conveying infection,
the following statement may be given—
No. of cases.
Hides—
China hides 26
East India hides 12
Other specified kinds 9
Kind unspecified 34
Skins 9
In this connection the chief point of interest is the special prominence assumed by China
hides in the above list. The general impression in the trade is that hides from China are particularly
dangerous, and it is possible that in several of the 34 instances in which the kind of hide is not specified
China hides may really have been at fault. On the other hand, all the cases in which infection has
been definitely attributed to China hides occurred during the years 1881-2-3 and 4, and the large
majority of these cases occurred in connection with the particular consignment of hides which was the
special subject of Mr. Spear's inquiry.
In almost all cases the hides incriminated have been dry hides; in two instances, however,
mention is made of wet hides, the apparent source of infection being stated as "hides chiefly wet
Russian" in one case, and as "handling wet hides from the East Indies "in the other. Of course, it is
quite possible that in both these instances the actual infection was conveyed by dry hides, as men
working with wet hides are likely to have been in contact with dry hides also. It might be
urged on the other hand that it was possible the infection had been conveyed by wet hides in
instances where dry hides are mentioned. It is none the less remarkable that the mention of wet
hides should be so uncommon, and that there should be no conclusive evidence incriminating wet
hides such as exists in the case of dry hides. These facts accord with what is known of the life history
of the anthrax organism. In the dry hide, the resistant spores would be preserved for long periods of
time, in the presence of moisture the spores would germinate and assume the bacillar form in which
they would be much more likely to succumb to hostile influences.
As regards the seven cases which have been noted among persons engaged in the manipulation of
horsehair* or the manufacture of brushes, it will be seen that two occurred in 1888, one in 1891 and
four in 1893. There is therefore no record of an outbreak in London as extensive as that observed by
Dr. Russell in Glasgow. It has not been found possible to trace the four cases of last year to a common
origin, though it is quite likely that a particular consignment of hair was responsible for all of them.
In three of the seven instances the workers themselves had suspected China bristles or hair, and
not Russian horsehair, as being the source of the disease. I was informed by a large manufacturer,
who had been in the trade 25 years and who employs some 400 hands, that only three cases of anthrax
had come to his knowledge among his workpeople. He explained that he never dealt in " raw Russian
manes," and regarded this particular commodity as specially fraught with danger. Although only
seven attacks of anthrax have been recorded among horsehair workers, five other cases of illness have
been heard of to which considerable suspicion attaches but of which full details are not available.
The rarity of cases of "internal anthrax" in London is remarkable. Mr. Davies-Colley, in his
paper written in 1882, anticipated that as a result of the inquiries relating to internal anthrax at
Bradford the attention of the profession in London would be directed to the subject, and that they
would find that some of their "cases of severe inflammation of the lungs or intestines with septicaemic
symptoms" were due to internal infection. Mr. Spear devoted considerable attention to this matter,
and believed that he came across records of two or three such cases (one of these is included in his table).
In 1881, an undoubted example of the internal form of the disease was met with at Guy's Hospital.
Since that time, however, no record of a similar case has come to hand.
C.—Alterations in the Bermondsey hide and skin trade as affecting liability to anthrax infection.
Mr. Spear, in his report gives a full account of the hide and skin trade as carried on in London,
and discusses the varieties of raw material, the sources of supply, the curing process, and the methods
of dealing with raw material in this country. For the most part, Mr. Spear's account is as true now
as when it was written, but two points merit attention; first, changes in the character of the raw
material dealt with in London tanyards, and secondly, a few words must be devoted to the curing
process.
Mr. Spear, in an appendix to his report, gives tables showing the imports of hides and skins into
the United Kingdom, and into its principal ports during 1882. A comparison of these figures with the
figures for 1892 is instructive.

* An account of the processes incidental to the manipulation of horsehair is given by Dr. Ballard in the
eighth report of the medical officer of the Local Government Board.