View report page

14
discussion.
F. S. POWELL, Esq., in the chair.
Among those present were the following: Mr. R. T. Arnold, Dr. Bateson,
Mr. J. J. .Brown, Mr. Sneade Brown, Mr. It. Calvert, Dr. Carpenter,
Mr. W. J. Cooper, Dr. Thomas Dudfield, Professor Gamgee, Mr. C. V.
Game, Mr. P. C. Greatorex, Mr. C. J. Greece, Dr. Hardwicke, Mr. E. L.
Jacob, Mr. D. Jarvis, Mr. II. N. Mozley, Mr. C. A Radcliffe, Dr. George
Ross, Dr. Sarvis, Mr. G. W. Shaw, Mr. Joseph Shrout, Mr. J. Simont,
jun., Mr. Thomas Webber.
Dr. Sarvis (Medical Officer of Health for Bethnal Green), while agreeing in the main
with the writer of the paper, thought there were some points mentioned in it which were
hardly capable of being carried out in practice. It was all very well to say that in the
public abattoirs you could see to the quality of the meat during life, but, judging from
the way the regulations of the present markets are carried out, it would, he thought, be
difficult to secure this. It is supposed that all the meat which comes to the markets is
seen by the inspectors, but, as a matter of fact, a large portion is never seen at all by
them ; and besides this, a great quantity that is sold never reaches the markets. lie was
doubtfnl whether the measure proposed would have much influence in the direction
intended. In the hot summer weather, he thought, there was an advantage in having
slaughter houses in the vicinity of the place where the meat was to be sold. Nothing, at
this season, was so injurious to meat as exposing it to transit. It was impossible to
remove it then safely to a great distance. It was, therefore, necessary to give our veto
against the total abolition of slaughter houses. Those which were badly drained and
ventilated we might cease to license; but it would be better, he thought, rather than
entirely abolish them, to feel our way gradually to the desired end, keeping the best, and
providing that no other should be licensed except such as had the best appliances. With
regard to the noxious trades, he was entirely of opinion that they should all be carried
out of London.
Professor Gamgee was much astonished to hear a medical officer of health advocate
the continuance for one day of a single private slaughter house in any city of the world.
It was also astonishing to him to find how hard it was for the public interest to be protected
in opposition to that of a trade, which always would have advocates looking out
for, and seeking in every possible way, to add to its pecuniary advantages, and counting
as nothing the sanitary well-being of the public at large. He was stating a fact, when
he said that private slaughter houses rendered it impossible to inspect animals, and prevent
tho sale of diseased meat. He was sorry to have to acknowledge the fact that even
the government virtually sanctioned the trade in diseased animals, which was attended
with such bad consequences. In 1869 he had had occasion specially to notice the tendency
there was to consider it a venial offence to sell the carcases of animals so tainted, and he
had been favoured with evidence intended to show that it was impossible to put a stop to
the trade in diseased meat. He, however, confidently affirmed, that wherever this was
sanctioned, the production of animal food was curtailed. Since 1842, when the freetrade
in cattle disease, rather than free-trade in meat, had been established, the country
had been drained of its cows, and the reproduction of these animals had been diminished,