View report page

60
indeed that, in the summer of 1884, when small-pox was rife in the
Metropolis, patients were admitted upon the application not only
of Medical Officers of Health and Sanitary Inspectors, but also
upon the application of private medical practitioners ; and this not
merely without a previous “ order” by a relieving officer, but
also, in many instances, without such order even following; the
admission of the cases being simply notified to the several Poor
Law Authorities by the Clerk to the Board. In October of the
same year (1884), however, the Managers—for whatever reason—
decided to exercise the powers of the Act, and placed themselves in
communication with the several Sanitary Authorities. The proposal
was that the Vestries, &c., should enter into contracts with
the Managers for the admission of “ non-pauper ” patients, upon
the “ order ” of Medical Officers of Health, and a form of agreement
was subsequently forwarded, the Local Government Board
having previously given its required sanction to the proposal.
In a report by the Committee for General Purposes, the
result of the negotiations with the several Vestries, &c., is set
out, shewing that 86 of them had replied; 14 were willing to
enter into tlis proposed agreement as suggested, while 15 declined
to enter into agreement for various reasons; 7 sent replies
which were of an ambiguous or argumentative character, and 4
gave no definite replies. The Managers thereupon adopted the
recommendation of the Committee to send a synopsis of the
replies to the Local Government Board, with an intimation that,
“ as it is optional with the Vestries, &c., whether they will avail
themselves of the powers conferred by section 15 of the Poor
Law Act, 1879, the Managers do not see how they can take any
further action in the matter unless and until the Local Government
Board shall see fit to obtain from Parliament such additional
powers as will render compulsory instead of optional the conditions
of the section in question.”
Your Vestry was one of those which declined to enter into
the proposed agreement. The reasons for refusal were set out, in
detail, in my Annual Report for 1884 (pp. 101—117 inclusive).
The grounds of your Vestry's action were communicated to