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

View report page

Clerkenwell 1885

[Report of the Medical Officer of Health for Clerkenwell, St. James and St. John]

This page requires JavaScript

124
during the last three visitations. It happened that at the first
visitation in Clerkenwell the rate was 10 per 10,000; at the
second visitation it was 7 per 10,000, and in the last visitation
it was only 6 per 10,000. I humbly submit that if
any argument or inference is to be drawn from that, we may
fairly claim that Clerkenwell has gone on improving from years
gone by.
11,595. (The Chairman). May I ask you whether at the same
time you looked at the total number of deaths in London in
each of those visitations ?— I have not got it, but I mean to
get it.
17,596. Was it not the case that the first visitation was much
more severe than the second, and the second far more severe
than the third?— But it was so much per 10,000.
17,597. But through the whole of London the epidemic of
1866 was nothing like so violent as that of 1848, was it?—
Taken altogether, I am told that the report is very favourable
to Clerkenwell.
17,598. I have not seen the report, and therefore I am not
able to cross-examine you upon it; but there is the notorious
fact that the epidemic of 1866 was less violent than the epidemic
of 1848; and I believe that the epidemic of 1848 was less
violent than the first visitation; and if so, it would only show
that Clerkenwell was as lucky, perhaps, as the rest of London ?
—It is said that this return shows Clerkenwell in a very favourable
position as compared with other metropolitan parishes.
17,599. (Mr. Broadhurst.) But this return is not yet published
and therefore it is not evidence?— No, I am not putting this in
as evidence, but only making a passing observation.
17,600. (The Chairman.) Amongst those of whom we spoke
just now is Mr. Martin; do you know Mr. Martin's houses in
Queen Street?— Yes, I know he has some there, but I could not
tell you what number there are.
17,601. Do you know Brunswick Place?— Yes.
17,602. That is a very queer place, is it not, containing very
doubtful property?— I cannot say that it is doubtful property,
except in the sense that all small property is doubtful.
17,603. You do not think it is specially bad ?— I do not think
so.
17,604. Has it not been mentioned at your vestry as being
very bad ?I cannot say that it has to my recollection They
are small cottages, but they are very tidy cottages if they are
well kept.