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

View report page

Whitechapel 1868

[Report of the Medical Officer of Health for Whitechapel]

This page requires JavaScript

13
The labour, however, of inspecting the public dust-bins, might be
removed from the Inspectors, and be made the duty of the foremen of the
scavengers. This economical arrangement was suggested to me by
Mb. James and Mb. Coward, and it entirely meets with my approval.
I have not thought it desirable to burden this Eeport with any further
detail of the duties of the Inspectors, but there are many other duties of
a less important character, which occupy no inconsiderable portion of
their time. I have, however, probably said enough to show that I had
fully considered the question relating to the number of Inspectors who are
required to perform the sanitary work of the District, when I urged upon
the Board not to diminish the number of the staff, but rather to increase
the efficiency of it. If the Board agree with me in thinking that
the work should be done in the way I have pointed out, they must come
to the conclusion that not less than four active young men are required for
the purpose. If, on the other hand, they are of opinion that a less amount
of work will be sufficient for the exigencies of the District, then, of course,
a less number of Inspectors will suffice. I leave the matter, therefore,
in the hands of the Board, and will only add that, however small the staff
of Inspectors may be, I will do the best I can with it for furtherance of
the interest of the Board. Under any circumstances, it would be most
desirable to have a clerk, to do the greater part of the writing that now
devolves upon the Inspectors, and whose duty it should be to remain in
the office during office hours, to take cognizance of complaints, and record
the same in books kept for that purpose.
In conclusion, I wish to draw your attention to the statement made
by one of the Inspectors relating to the number of visits that he had made
to houses in the District. It was inferred from his statement that he had
made visits to 5 or 6 houses only, and had returned in his fortnightly diary
30. Now this is a mistake. The returns made are in every respect
correct, and no more visits to houses have been recorded than had actually
been made. The several places visited on each day contain upon an
average about 160 houses, but only 5 or 6 in each court or street mentioned
were inspected. The total visits making in the aggregate about 30
per day.
I am,
Gentlemen,
Your obedient Servant,
15, Great Alio Street. JOHN LIDDLE,