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

View report page

London County Council 1896

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

This page requires JavaScript

The death rate of each district in 1896 and in the preceding ten years is shown in the following table—

Sanitary district.Deaths in 1896.Death rates per 1,000 living.Sanitary district.Deaths in 1896.Death rates per 1,000 living.
Fulham69.59St. George-in-the-East17.66.35
St. George, Hanover-16.33.20Mile-end Old-town83.75.73
Westminster25.55.46St. Saviour, Southwark19.67.74
St. James3.40.13St. George, Southwark55.89.90
Hampstead22.29.29St. Olave13.531.10
Stoke Newington16.53.47Lambeth140.60.47
St. Giles14.51.36Wandsworth158.82
St. Martin - in - the -5.39.38Camberwell196.62.76
St. Luke23.72.55Plumstead35.58
London, City of7.26.22London2,934.60.651

Typhus. During the year 1896 six cases of typhus were notified, and five deaths from this cause were registered in the administrative county of London. The death rates from this disease per 1,000 living in 1896 and preceding periods were as follows—

1871-80 .0551893 .0011
1881-90 .0081894 .0011
1891 .00211895 .0011
1892 .00311896 .0011

The death rate in each year since 1868 in relation to the mean death rate of the period
1869-96 is shown in diagram XV.
Inquiry has been made with regard to the cases notified as typhus in London during the year,
and the information obtained concerning these cases, and concerning certain other cases, which were
diagnosed as typhus at the hospitals of the Metropolitan Asylums Board, may be summarised as
March.—On the 8th March a male, aged 35, living in Holborn, was certified to be suffering
from typhus abdominalis. Dr. Bond writes, with reference to the case, "This is a
case of typhoid (notified from the German Hospital as typhus abdominalis)."
June.—During the last week of June and the first week of July three cases of typhus were
notified in Camberwell. The three patients were all removed from the same house,
and previous cases of illness had occurred in this house. Some of these previous
cases had been notified as cases of typhoid, and removed to the South-Eastern
Hospital. In all there were seven cases diagnosed at this hospital as cases of typhus.
Of these cases, six came from one house, and the seventh from a second house in the
same road as the first. On attempting to trace the origin of the disease it was found
that illness of an obscure type had affected persons living in the house, which
ultimately furnished six cases which were regarded as typhus, as early as the beginning
of April. The information in my possession with regard to the series of cases is as
On April 12th the first case of illness occurred in a little girl between 2 and 3
years of age, a member of a family named B. This child suffered from "an ill-defined
type of low fever," which the medical attendant " did not regard as enteric in one so
young." She made a good recovery.
S.B., aged 7, an elder brother of the above, was attacked in a similar way some
two or three weeks after the commencement of his sister's illness. He had, however,
some diarrhoea, and the case was notified as typhoid fever on April 29.
Another boy, belonging to the same family, sickened next, and suffered from
"catarrhal symptoms of the bronchiæ." This boy might, says the medical attendant,
have " been labelled as a case of influenza." He recovered.
On June 4th the father and mother of these children were removed to the
South-Eastern Hospital. They were certified to be suffering from typhoid fever, but
were found to be the subjects of typhus, and were later so notified.
1 See footnote (1), page 7.