View report page

73
Sanitary Condition of Districts.
Lambeth.—The Public Health Committee had under consideration during 1895 a return, which
I had presented to the Committee at the end of the preceding year, showing the number of sanitary
inspectors in the several districts in London. Communications were addressed to seven sanitary
authorities calling attention to the comparatively small number of sanitary inspectors employed by them.
Among the seven districts which thus engaged the attention of the Committee was the district of
Lambeth. The Vestry of Lambeth having replied that they were not aware of defects in sanitation
which were not duly attended to by the present inspectors, Dr. Hamer was instructed to make an
inspection of Lambeth and report on its sanitary condition and administration. Dr. Hamer found
much reason for regarding the staff of inspectors in Lambeth as insufficient, and reported in this sense.
A copy of his report was communicated to the Vestry of Lambeth, who in reply challenged his
statements and claimed they were based on insufficient inquiry. I presented to the Committee my
observations on the letter of the vestry, and these were communicated to the vestry and to the Local
Government Board. The vestry have since increased their staff of sanitary inspectors by the appointment
of four additional officers.
A copy of Dr. Hamer's report, the vestry's letter and my observations thereon, will be found in
the appendix (see Appendix III.).
Rotherhithe.—The Council had in February, 1893, after inspection by Dr. Young, made a
representation to the Local Government Board that the number of sanitary inspectors employed in
Rotherhithe was insufficient. In June of that year the Local Government Board informed the Council
that the vestry had appointed two assistant sanitary inspectors, and in July Dr. Theodore Thompson
inspected the district on behalf of the Board. In June, 1895, the Board gave particulars of the
sanitary staff which then existed; and expressed the opinion that the new arrangement should have a
trial for twelve months.
Fulham.—In his annual report for 1893 the medical officer of health of Fulham expressed the
opinion that the sanitary staff employed by the vestry was quite inadequate to properly perform the
duties devolving upon the vestry. After some correspondence with the vestry I was authorised by a
Committee of the Council to report upon the sanitary condition and administration of the district. An
inquiry was therefore made by Dr. Young, who as a result of such inquiiy was led to the conclusion
that the appointment of an additional inspector, making a total of five for the district, would probably
be sufficient for some time, though a further increase at no distant date might be necessary in the case
of a district with such a rapidly increasing population. He also considered that there was need for
additional clerical assistance, and that the vestry should, without further delay, provide a shelter for
the use of persons during the disinfection of their rooms.
The Council has been in correspondence with the vestry on this subject, and has since been
informed that an additional sanitary inspector has been appointed, but that the question of providing a
shelter had been deferred pending the decision of the vestry with regard to the erection of a " dust
destructor." A copy of Dr. Young's report will be found in the appendix. (See Appendix IV.)
Medical Officers of Health and Sanitary Inspectors.
The Public Health (London) Act, 1891, requires that the Council shall pay a moiety of the
salary of every medical officer of health and sanitary inspector appointed or re-appointed after the
passing of the Act. Up to the end of the year 1895, 39 medical officers of health and 153 sanitary
insnectors had been thus annointed or re-armointed.

* Appointment or re-appointment sanctioned by Local Government Board. A. moiety of the salary
appertaining to these appointments is payable by the London County Council.