The Annual Report on the Health of the Parish of St. Mary Abbotts, Kensington, during the year 1874

by T. Orme Dudfield

VACCINATION.

I am indebted to Mr. Shattock, the energetic Vaccination Officer, for the interesting particulars contained in Table IX, (Appendix), on the important subject of Vaccination. From it we learn that during the year 4,357 births were returned to him by the sub-district registrars, and that the successful vaccinations numbered 3,588. Twenty-three infants were certified as insusceptible of successful vaccination; in 74 cases the postponement of vaccination was sanctioned by medical certificate on account of the state of health, &c.; 27 children were removed to other districts, the vaccination officer of each district being duly apprized of such removal; 9 cases were still under proceedings (at the date of the report), by summons or otherwise; while 464 children died unvaccinated. The cases unaccounted for—either through the removal of the children to places unknown, or which cannot be reached, and cases not having been found—amounted in all to only 172, or a fraction below 4 per cent. of the total births—a result that must be considered very satisfactory, highly creditable to the vaccination officer, and, I would add, to the Board of Guardians; while I can hardly believe it has been surpassed in any other district of the Metropolis.

The Guardians have lately (August, 1875) prosecuted successfully a non-qualified practitioner for signing Vaccination Certificates. A penalty of Ten pounds was inflicted; the offence with which the defendant was charged being that of “falsely pretending to be registered” under the Medical Act, none but registered practitioners being qualified to sign Vaccination Certificates.

SANITARY WORK.

Table 6 (Appendix) contains a summary of the principal items of sanitary work accomplished during the Vestry year ended 25th March, 1875. The number of complaints received and entered in the complaint book was 1,482; viz., 820 in the North, and 662 in the South Sanitary District. Seven thousand two hundred and eighty-six houses were inspected—viz., 3,229 in the North, and 4,057 in the South district, besides mews, of which there are about 140 in the parish. The number of sanitary notices served for the amendment of houses, premises, &c., was 1,438, viz., 756 in the North and 682 in the South: 1,477 houses and premises were cleansed, &c.: 68 were disinfected after infectious diseases. The drains of 442 houses were cleansed and repaired; and trapped and ventilated in 341 other cases: 463 privies and water-closets were repaired and supplied with water; and 6 new water-closets were provided: 31 new dust-bins were erected, and 41 old ones covered, repaired, &c.: 8 water-cisterns were constructed, and 75 cleansed, covered and repaired—a very inadequate number it would seem, so far as regards cleansing, only that in a great number of cases this operation—so commonly neglected—was directed and carried out without formal notice: 115 accumulations of dung, stagnant water, animal and other refuse were removed, and in 58 cases animals improperly kept, or kept in unfit localities (swine especially), were removed.

The number of inspections in each district, and in each period of four weeks, covered by my monthly reports, may be seen, in Table 6A. Legal proceedings were had recourse to in 100 cases, viz., 82 in the North, and 18 in the South district, and generally with a successful result. A few of the cases deserve special notice.

And first I will mention the subject of boiling food for pigs. A greater nuisance than this is, it would be difficult to imagine in a parish like Kensington. The effluvia given off from the boiling of a quantity of animal and vegetable refuse, collected from the wash-tubs, and often in a semi-putrid state before cooking, is sickening and offensive to the last degree. It constitutes by far the greater part of the nuisance arising from the keeping of swine in an improper locality; and the efforts persistently made during the last four years to improve the condition of the Potteries have been sadly marred by the continuance of the process of food collection and preparation, which still goes on to some extent, although nearly all the swine have been removed. As no means were ever adopted to prevent the escape into the air of the noxious effluvia resulting from the cooking, we resolved to attack the nuisance under the 27th section of the Nuisances Removal Act, which enacts, in effect, that

“If any building, or place for boiling offal . . . or used for any trade, business, &c., causing effluvia, be at any time certified to the local authority by any Medical Officer to be a nuisance or injurious to the health of the inhabitants of the neighbourhood, and that the person carrying on such business shall not have used the best practicable means for abating such nuisance, or preventing or counteracting such effluvia, the person so offending shall, upon a summary conviction for such offence, forfeit and pay a sum of not more than Five Pounds nor less than Forty Shillings, and upon a second conviction for such offence the sum of Ten Pounds, and for each subsequent conviction a sum double the amount of the penalty imposed for the last preceding conviction, but the highest amount of such penalty shall not in any case exceed the sum of Two Hundred Pounds.”

Several prosecutions were undertaken successfully—fines varying from Forty Shillings to Five Pounds (including costs) being inflicted. The steps already taken will, it is hoped, prove sufficient, and render unnecessary any further appeal to the law, especially as a notice of your Vestry’s intention to proceed against offenders in every case has been widely distributed in the Potteries.

Twenty-four convictions were obtained against old offenders for keeping swine in an improper locality, and Mr. Bridge, one of the magistrates at the Hammersmith police-court, announced his intention of throwing on the defendants in any future cases that might be brought before him, the onus of proving that the pigs were not on the premises on days intervening between the days for which the defendants might be summoned for the offence of keeping pigs in a place under the ban of a “prohibitory order,” the penalty for this offence being Ten Shillings a day. Hitherto we have been required to prove the presence of swine on each day, so that, for example, to obtain in one week penalties to the amount of three pounds, it was necessary to visit the prohibited premises every day in the week. But if Mr. Bridge should feel justified in carrying out his views, it would only be necessary to visit the premises on Monday and Saturday to obtain the same amount of penalties which would be imposed, unless the defendant should be able to prove that the pigs were not on the premises on the intervening days, viz., Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday, and Friday.

The proprietor of a licensed slaughter-house in the Potteries, Notting-hill, was fined in the sum of Ten pounds and costs for having on the premises the carcase of a cow, diseased and unfit for human food. The cow had been brought dead from another place, and after seizure it was stated that the carcase was not intended for food. But it was dressed in the usual way, and the meat having been condemned by Mr. Ingham, proceedings were taken before Mr. Bridge, with the result above stated, the magistrate ruling that the fact of the carcase being in the slaughterhouse was sufficient evidence of the intention to pass it off as food for man. The cow, it may be added, having died, or been killed, at a licensed cow-shed in the same locality, I pointed out to the licensee the great impropriety of his proceedings, and the risk he would run of losing his license, to say nothing of other consequences, on a repetition of his indiscretion. Subsequently, I received notice from the proprietor of a licensed slaughter-house that the carcase of another cow that had been killed in the last stage of the “lung disease” (pleuro-pneumonia) was awaiting my opinion of the fitness, or otherwise, of the meat for human food. I condemned the meat, which was removed to a knacker’s yard. No proceedings were taken in this case, but I cautioned the licensee not to admit diseased animals—living or dead—on his premises at any future time. Some time after the occurrence of this case I learnt, to my great surprise, that the instructions issued by the Metropolitan Board of Works, to the district veterinary cattle inspectors under the provisions of the Contagious Diseases (Animals) Act authorised the removal of diseased cows from cowsheds to a licensed slaughter-house for the purpose of being killed; or if killed at the shed, of being dressed, there to await the fiat of the inspector as to the fitness, or otherwise, of the meat for human food. This instruction seems to be at variance with the slaughter-house bye-laws, to say nothing on the question of the propriety of using for food the flesh of diseased animals. In the provinces it is the practice, I believe, to destroy and bury animals affected with pleuro-pneumonia; and I am under the impression that heavy fines have been inflicted on persons for selling or exposing for sale the flesh of such animals. In London cowkeepers are required, under a penalty for neglect, to give notice to the Metropolitan Board of Works of the occurrence of cases of pleuro-pneumonia; and they are entitled to compensation from the Board to the extent of a moiety of the value of any animals that may be killed with a view of “stamping out” the disease. It follows that the larger the amount realized by the sale of the carcase, for whatever purpose, whether for the food of man or of cats, the less is the amount payable to the owner in the way of compensation.

The proprietor of the slaughter-house in the Potteries first referred to above, was fined Five pounds and costs for allowing a large accumulation of putrid blood, &c., to remain on the premises after his attention had been repeatedly called to the necessity of properly storing and regularly removing all such matters before they became offensive.

A seizure of meat unfit for human food was made at Norfolk Terrace—at a mis-called “co-operative” store—and the defendant was fined Twenty pounds and costs.

A person who had formerly kept a licensed cow-shed was fined Forty shillings and costs for keeping cows for dairy purposes without a license.

A somewhat serious nuisance having been complained of, arising at an iron foundry at Notting Hill, from the escape of noxious fumes and grit from the low but capacious chimney above the melting furnaces, I gave a certificate to the effect necessary to found legal proceedings, which, however, were not had recourse to, the proprietors of the foundry having expressed their willingness to adopt any measures I might advise, with a view to remove the cause of complaint. They have done this by carrying up the shaft some 20 feet, and by the interposition of diaphragms to intercept the fine grit carried up by the draught; and I hope that in the result these measures will be found adequate for the purpose.