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

View report page

London County Council 1895

[Report of the Medical Officer of Health for London County Council]

This page requires JavaScript

5
From the above table it is clear that the four inner sub-districts of Lambeth compare very
unfavourably with the four outer sub-districts as regards death rates, just as has been shown to be
the case in respect of "overcrowding."The figures as to mortality and "overcrowding" suggest that in
these four inner sub-districts there will be found conditions making large demands upon a sanitary staff,
indeed it would appear that the circumstances can only be compared with those obtaining in a very
limited number of the other sanitary districts of London.
Sanitary circumstances.
Results of Inspection.—I have inspected upwards of 1,000 different sets of premises in Lambeth,
796 of these being dwelling houses occupied for the the most part by persons belonging to the working
class. I found defects of one kind or another in 519 of the 796 houses referred to, that is in 65 per
cent. As a result of similar inspections made in the districts of Whitechapel and Mile End Old Town,
rather more than a year ago, the percentage of houses in which defects were noted was found to be, in
the case of Whitechapel 58 per cent., and in that of Mile End Old Town 32 per cent. Defective
conditions in the houses inspected were thus found to be of rather more frequent occurrence in
Lambeth than in Whitechapel, and to be more than twice as frequent in Lambeth as in Mile End Old
Town.
With regard to the nature of the defects noted in Lambeth the following statement may be made.
Dampness of walls of rooms was noted in 71 instances; dirty condition of rooms in 126
instances; conditions of dilapidation in 108 instances; defective yard paving in 62 instances; defective
roofs in 31 instances; defective traps in yards or cellars in 26 instances; defective sink waste pipes in
9 instances; defective rain-water pipes in 15 instances; eaves guttering absent or defective in 3
instances.
With regard to water-closets, the following defects were noted. Ten water-closets were found
in a blocked condition ; in 13 instances water-closet pans were found broken ; in 2 instances there was
no apparatus for the supply of water to closets; in 82 instances the apparatus provided was out of
order; 14 water-closet pans were found to be in a foul condition; in 15 instances the flush of water
provided was inadequate; and in 5 cases the seat of the closet was broken. In the majority of cases
water-closet pans were found to be of the "long hopper" pattern, improved types of apparatus being
met with only in a small number of instances.
Further defects to be referred to are the absence of a proper receptacle for dust or a broken
condition of such receptacle, 106 instances; an accumulation of dust on the premises, 44 instances;
stopped drains, 3 instances.
Conditions of overcrowdinsr* were found in no less than 210 instances.

A comparison of the results with those obtained last year in the two East End districts already referred to is instructive. The following table has been prepared to exhibit the number of defects of certain different kinds found per 100 houses visited in Lambeth and in Whitechapel and Mile End Old Town-

Total number of houses visited.Percentage of houses in which defects were found to exist.Number of instances per 100 houses visited in which defective roofs, yard paving, water closets, traps or rain water pipes were found.Number of instances per 100 houses visited in which there was no receptacle or a broken receptacle for dust, or in which an undue accumulation of dust was found to exist on the premises.Number of instances per 100 houses visited in which dirty conditions or dilapidated conditions, other than those already specified, were found.Number of instances of overcrowding per 100 houses visited.
Lambeth7966536192926
Whitechapel49758615349
Mile End Old Town50732245102

This table shows how very unfavourably Lambeth compares, in all the respects referred to, with
Mile End Old Town, while in some respects it compares favourably, in others unfavourably, with Whitechapel.
The result of comparison between Lambeth and Whitechapel in regard to overcrowding is to
show that this condition is found nearly three times as frequently in the tenements of the former as in those
of the latter district. This result is rendered the more remarkable by the fact that Whitechapel is one
of the most thickly-populated districts in London, and one in which the overcrowding difficulty is
particularly felt.
Lambeth is seen to compare very unfavourably with both the other districts in regard to the
removal of house refuse.
If the Lambeth figures are analysed so as to separately show the extent to which defects have
been met with in the four northern sub-districts and the four southern sub-districts, it transpires that
the percentage of houses found defective in each group of districts is almost precisely the same. In
the northern sub-districts defects in connection with dust removal are comparatively rare. Overcrowding
is much less frequent in the southern than in the northern sub-districts, and this fact
renders the extent of the overcrowding noted in the northern part of Lambeth the more remarkable.
At the time of the 1891 census, the returns relating to tenements of one to four rooms, to which
reference has already been made, showed that in the northern part of Lambeth the amount of " overcrowding
" (using the term in the sense of the Registrar-General) was a little less than it was in White-
* This term is here used to include cases in which there was found to be less than 300 cubic feet per
person in rooms used exclusively as sleeping rooms, and less than 400 cubic feet per person in rooms not used
exclusively as sleeping rooms. Two children under twelve are reckoned as one adult.