View report page

12
from our overcrowding we are naturally exposed to
Typhus, I attribute our exemption from this disease
to the high wages earned by our artisan population,
which enable them to live more generously than the
poor of other parts of London, and also to the
active sanitary measures adopted when cases of this
disease have broken out. Nevertheless, we have not
escaped the imputation of being habitually exposed
to the devastating influence of Typhus Fever. In
a letter written to The Times Newspaper in September,
Dr. Jeaffreson spoke of the prevalence of
Typhus Fever in Little Windmill Street, Lambeth.
The Times in a leading article mistook the reference,
and accused Little Windmill Street, St. James's, as
being the habitual seat of Typhus Fever. As this
was likely to injure the trade of the inhabitants of
Little Windmill Street, I wrote the following letter
to The Times Newspaper:—
To the Editor of The Times.
Sir,—My attention has been called to a statement in a leading
article in your paper of the 9th of September, in which, remarking
on a letter by Dr. Jeaffreson on the prevalence of typhus in
the Metropolis, you say it is not so much that typhus exists in
St. James's, Westminster, as that it prevails in Little Windmill
Street. Now, Sir, if you will turn to Dr. Jeaffreson's letter, you
will see that he never once refers to St. James's, Westminster,
at all, but that after speaking of St. George's, Bermondsey, he
proceeds to speak of Lambeth, and here refers to Little Windmill
Street. In order to satisfy myself upon this point, I have written
to Dr. Jeaffreson, and he informs me that the Little Windmill
Street he referred to is situate in the parish of Lambeth, and
1