View report page

11
fever in the last week of the year. Investigation of the cases led
to no particular result—to no discovery of any common origin
or connecting link between the cases to account for so unusual a
mortality—most of the deaths, moreover, taking place in well-to-do
families. The excessive mortality proved to be of an exceptional
character, for in the first quarter of 1876, no death from diphtheria
was registered, only three from scarlet fever, and a very few
from measles. About this time, however, a circumstance came to
my knowledge which is worth mentioning as an illustration of
one of the many unsuspected ways in which infection may be
spread. Two cases of scarlet fever had occurred in a house in the
Brompton district. Neither the rooms nor their contents had
been disinfected, when the head of the family fell into difficulties,
and the broker was put in possession. The day and hour appointed
for the sale of the infected property had been fixed
when I received the first intimation of the state of affairs, for which
I was indebted to a member of your Vestry. I lost no time in
acquainting the sheriffs officer and the auctioneer with the provisions
of the Sanitary Act, 1866, with reference to the sale and removal
of infected things without previous disinfection; and the sale
was, not without some difficulty, prevented. It would have been a satisfaction
to be able to believe that the process of the law had been
carried out by the sheriffs officers in ignorance of the facts of the
case, but there was little room for such belief. I am assured that the
man in possession was duly informed of the nature of the illness at the
beginning of his residence in the house, and that the auctioneer's
clerk, who took the inventory for the catalogue, and who had ascertained
the contents of the sick room by cautiously peering in at the
open door, requested permission to smoke, as a protection against
infection. I need not comment on this case; but I think it
will be considered a not unreasonable inference from the facts that
what would have been done in this instance, but for my interference,
may have been done in similar cases already, and may be
done again, unless some means are taken to call the attention of the
proper authorities to the subject. I am told the law of execution
is strict, and that the officers are bound to time in fulfilling
their duties. It is clear, however, that the sanitary law is strong
enough to override any difficulties that may arise, provided the
facts become known to the proper officer; and with reference to the
case now under consideration, I venture to add, that had the sale
gone on, I should have felt it my duty to inform intending purchasers
of the risk they were incurring. Subsequently, I may add,
and not long afterwards, a child died in the same house of scarlet
fever.
The deaths from "fever," a term which, in the use made of
it by the registrar-general, embraces the three distinct diseases—
typhus, enteric, and simple continued "fever," were only 29, the
corrected decennial average being 60. The deaths from these diseases
were 2, 21, and 6 respectively. Both the cases of typhus
were in the Town registration sub-district. Nine of the 21