View report page

10
Water supply.—The parish is supplied in part by the Lambeth Company and in part by the
Southwark and Vauxhall Company. There is a "constant supply" in the greater part of the parish,
the only areas on intermittent supply being the neighbourhood of Tulse hill and the extreme southern
portion of the parish, both supplied by the Lambeth Company. At the time of my inspection a few
leakages in roadways or in courts were noted, suggesting that the damage done by the severe frost of
the preceding February had not been entirely remedied.
By-laws under the Public Health (London) Act.—The vestry has fulfilled the duty imposed upon
it under the Public Health (London) Act of making by-laws with regard to various nuisances, sec.
16 (1); with respect to the keeping of water-closets supplied with sufficient water for their effective
action, sec. 39 (2); and with respect to securing the cleanliness and freedom from pollution of tanks,
cisterns, &c., sec. 50. These by-laws were confirmed by the Local Government Board in Oct., 1894,
and it is therefore, perhaps, too early to express any opinion concerning their operation in the district.
It is the duty of the vestry, moreover, to enforce by-laws made by the Council with respect to the
removal of refuse, sec. 16 (2) ; and with respect to water-closets, earth-closets, privies, ash-pits,
cesspools, and receptacles for dung, sec. 39 (1) of the Public Health (London) Act. As regards the
former of these two, I found reason for believing the provision that offensive refuse should only be
removed during certain specified hours was not generally observed in the parish. As regards the latter,
reference has already been made to the improvement which has been effected in Lambeth cow-houses
by the action of the vestry in insisting upon the requirements as to receptacles for dung being complied
with.
The large number of tenement houses in the parish and the widespread existence in them of
conditions of dirt and dilapidation and overcrowding, emphasise the need for putting into force bylaws
dealing with houses let in lodgings. It appears that regulations made under the Act of 1866
dealing with this matter were adopted by the vestry in 1873, and eighty-eight houses have been
registered in the vestry book. At the present time, however, no action appears to be taken under the
old regulations, and the adoption and carrying into effect of by-laws under sec. 94 of the Public Health
(London) Act, 1891 (which reproduces sec. 35 of the Act of 1866, and sec. 47 of the Amending Act of
1874), are urgently required.
Sanitary Administration.
When I commenced an inspection of Lambeth in June last, the medical officer of health,
Dr. Verdon, had resigned, and the question of the appointment of his successor was under consideration.
The staff of sanitary inspectors consisted of a chief inspector, Mr. Baxter, six district inspectors, each
dealing with the complaints relating to, and the notified cases of infectious disease occurring in, his
own district, and an inspector performing duties under the Food and Drugs Acts and other special
duties.
Mr. Baxter's sudden death occurred early in July, and I was deprived of the opportunity of
learning from him any details as to the method of conducting the work of the sanitary department.
Mr. Baxter's connection with Lambeth had been a long one, and his knowledge of the parish and
experience of its needs must have been unique. It was impossible in inspecting the district not to be
impressed with the thoroughness with which such work as he had been able to carry out had been
executed, and with the large amount of use he had been able to make of the staff at his disposal.
Under these circumstances, I have not hitherto made any inquiry into the details of the
routine of the office work of the sanitary department of the vestry, and I think in the light of the
results of my inspection this is unnecessary. The magnitude of the evils existing in Lambeth, and the
entire want of proportion between the number of inspectors and the demands made on the sanitary
department, obviously call for a complete re-organisation of the sanitary staff.
The six inspectors' districts do not follow the divisions into registration sub-districts, and I am
not able to give the exact figures as to population. In No. 1 district, however, there are about
60,000 persons, and in No. 2 district about 50,000 persons. The average for the remaining
districts being about 43,000 persons.
The districts are all too large, and the number of defects found in them clearly demonstrates
that such is the case. The disproportion between the amount of work requiring to be done in the
northern part of Lambeth (corresponding to No. 1 district and part of No. 2 district), and the provision
made for doing it is, I believe, far greater than exists in any other part of London.
The inadequacy of the staff of sanitary inspectors has been brought to the notice of the Lambeth
Vestry by its late medical officer from time to time for a number of years past. In his annual report
for 1888, Dr. Verdon dealt at some length with the subject. He pointed out that the number of
inspectors in 1871 was four, and that in 1888 their number remained the same. He discussed the
growth of the parish in the interval, and the "alteration of public opinion upon questions relating to
health," and he selected Islington as being a district with which Lambeth may be compared, and pointed
out that in the former parish the sanitary staff was numerically more than twice as strong as in the
latter parish. In October, 1890, the number of inspectors in Lambeth was increased to eight, and for
a brief period the strength of the staff in Lambeth compared more favourably with that in other
districts of London. The change which has taken place since 1890 in London as a whole, in matters
relating to public health, has been a remarkable one, but while most of the other sanitary authorities
in the county have been strengthening their permanent staffs to meet increasing demands, Lambeth has
not done so.
In January, 1892, Dr. Verdon reported to the vestry upon the Public Health (London) Act,
1891, and pointed out that the new duties which would necessarily devolve on the sanitary staff were
numerous and important. " Perhaps the provision which requires the largest share of attention," he
said, " is that contained in sec. 1 of the Act." Dr. Verdon remarked that the legal interpretation of
this section had been held to impose on the sanitary authority the duty of instituting a system of