Deaths from the seven principal Zymotic Diseases.

Town. Brompton. Total. Per 1,000 deaths.
Small Pox 0 0 0 0
Measles 115 6 121 45
Scarlet Fever 28 4 32 11.8
Diptheria 24 2 26 9.6
Whooping Cough 36 9 45 16.7
Fever 39 13 52 19.3
Diarrhœa 90 22 112 41.6
Total 332 56 388 144.0

It will be observed that there was no fatal cases of small-pox during the year: the first time during the decade of such immunity. But, on the other hand, the year was marked by an epidemic of measles of extraordinary severity, and confined entirely to the Town sub-district. During the year 1873 the deaths from this affection were 38, of which 31 occurred during the months of November and December, the commencement of the epidemic. Of these 38 deaths, 28 belong to the Town sub-district. The mortality in Brompton was 10 during the whole of 1873 but fell to 6 last year; while the deaths in the Town Sub-district rose to 115. Of the total of 121 deaths, 119 occurred under the age of 5 years. The highest total in the previous 10 years was noted in 1864, when 100 children died of this complaint (vide Table 5 Appendix). The total mortality during the last epidemic was 148, viz., 16 in November and 15 in December 1873, and 107 during the first five months of 1874, viz., January, 25; February, 31; March, 25; April, 16; and May, 10. Measles is always more fatal when it occurs as an epidemic, and especially during the winter months, the immediate cause of death being, in the majority of cases, some intercurrent complication affecting the lungs. The brunt of the epidemic fell on the poorer classes in the northern parts of the parish.

Scarlet Fever was fatal in 32 cases—an increase of 22 over the mortality of the previous year. 28 of the deaths took place in the Town sub-district, and 4 in Brompton—21 of the victims being under 5 years of age. The disease was, to a certain extent, epidemic in the Autumn, and, fears being entertained that it might spread, through the agency of the Board Schools, precautions were taken by the London School Board, acting on the suggestions I laid before your Vestry, to prevent children attending school from infected houses. The evil blew over as the winter advanced; but, in accordance with the usual course of epidemic scarlet fever, a more severe outbreak may be looked for during the current year, the signs of which are not wanting at the present writing.

I have already referred (p. 10, ante) to a curious outbreak of scarlet fever following on a dinner-party at South Kensington, and it may be here mentioned that a report of the occurrence having found its way, with more or less inaccuracy, into some of the papers, a good deal of alarm was created, and an impression got abroad that the disease was very prevalent in Kensington, his impression was not confined to the immediate locality, and the effect of it was to cause a considerable exodus of the wealthier classes at a prematurely early period of the “season,” as well as more or less consequent injury to trade. Some suspicions connected with the state of the Knightsbridge Barracks and the health of the soldiers’ families, including those that lived outside, added fuel to the fire, if indeed they did not kindle it. I had no reason, myself, to suspect any extensive prevalence of scarlet fever, for I knew that the deaths though rather above the average were still few in the aggregate, and I was aware, after repeated enquiry, that the cases under treatment at the three charitable dispensaries and by the five district Poor Law Medical Officers were astonishingly few. In fact, on several occasions when enquiry was made, it turned out that only one or two, or at the most three cases, were under the care of the Medical Officers, although they have many thousand cases of sickness among the poorest classes under their care during the year. I also ascertained from many medical men that they had very few cases under their care, most of them none at all. I stated these facts in my June report, but as the alarm was really great I thought it well to address a circular letter to the two hundred and fifty medical men whose names appear in the Medical Directory as residents in Kensington, asking for information and stating all I knew as to the actual dimensions of the epidemic, if it could be so called, and the comparative abeyance of scarlet fever in dispensary and parochial practice. To this letter I had fewer than fifty replies, including those that were viva voce. As I had asked for positive information only, it is probable that many of those who did not favor me with any reply were silent for the best of reasons, viz., that they had nothing to communicate. Of those gentlemen to whose courtesy I am indebted for their replies only six had any cases under treatment. The testimony of all my correspondents excepting two was unanimous in this—that the disease generally assumed a mild form, and the correctness of this view was supported by the fact that although adults formed a large proportion of the cases, the few deaths that occurred were those of young children. The exceptions referred to went to prove the rule. The first-named was a group of seven cases in one house of a person in good circumstances, in which it was subsequently discovered that the cistern was not only in untrapped connection with the drains but was also in a disgusting condition of filthiness, to which cause my informant attributed the outbreak. This fact, however, may perhaps with greater probability be the explanation of the severity of the disease, and the sharp sequelœ in all the cases. There were no deaths. In the second group of cases, eleven in number, occurring in three families of 21 persons occupying rooms in two small houses in a street at Notting Hill, there were five deaths, but, as I stated in my July report the causes of the severity and the fatality of the outbreak were to be found in the circumstances of the people and in their dwellings, “The fatality of the disease,” I remarked, “has been great in proportion to the number of cases . . . and this I attribute to the want of proper accommodation, etc., for the sick, the spread of the disease being the direct and necessary result of the retention for home treatment of first cases. It is practically impossible to isolate the patients in the crowded houses of the poor, and the parents are generally unwilling to allow their children to be removed to the hospital, the prejudice against which, however rarely survives actual experience.” In the same report I alluded to the concealment of cases, and to the fact that the registration of a death is oftentimes the first clue to the existence of the disease, and the information then comes too late for practical, i.e., preventive purposes. It is obvious, also, after repeated experience that some of the poor who can ill afford to pay a doctor, employ the services of private medical men for fear that if they applied for Parish relief the sick child, or children, will be sent to the hospital. Private practice, is, under such circumstances, conducted under great disadvantages, for the payment of the small fees with which the medical man is content in such cases, deprives the poor of the means of purchasing those comforts, not to say necessaries, of the sick chamber, on which, inter alia, recovery so largely depends. It is heart-breaking to see the wan faces of little sick children in their miserable rooms, especially when the contrast is mentally made between the condition prevailing “at home,” and the well-ordered hospital, with its staff of doctors and nurses, and all requisites for every stage of illness and convalescence. Another case that came under my notice in the course of the enquiry may be mentioned. The child was attended by a non-qualified practitioner; the parents, however, believing him to be a duly qualified medical man, for how should a poor ignorant Irish labourer know the difference between “Doctors”?

“The child died at the end of the second week, and the existence of scarlet fever in the house became known to us only on the registration of the death: too late, in fact, for the mischief was done. The two rooms occupied by this family contained seven persons, viz., the parents and five children. Successively the father and two more children fell sick, and were removed to the hospital, where they are all doing well. The rooms and clothing were disinfected, and the mother and two remaining children were reluctantly compelled to leave the house; but no sooner had they done so than the elder child fell sick, and was sent to the hospital. The mother and her infant are at present well. The day following the burial of the deceased child another family of nine persons left the house. They have been traced, and two children found to be ill. They are tolerably well isolated, however, and seem likely to do well. I am trying, nevertheless, for the sake of the rest of the family, to have them removed. The lessons taught by this story are too obvious to need recapitulation; I will only observe, therefore, what the facts have strongly suggested to my own mind, viz., that among the many requirements in sanitary legislation, none is more needed than power to provide quarantine for the apparently healthy members of poor families in which infectious disease has broken out.”

The other cases that have occurred up to the present time are too few, and otherwise offer nothing to call for special notice. All the fatal cases occurred in streets wholly occupied by the poorer classes. But, as I observed in my report,—

“A principal source of danger in the future lies in the carelessness or ignorance which leads to the premature exposure of convalescents, to which cause several cases have been referred by my correspondents. A case of this kind occurred a short time ago. I ascertained that a boy, who had been ill only a few days and whose skin was actively peeling, had not only, by inadvertence, attended at the waiting room of a public dispensary, but had also been to one of the largest and most crowded of our parochial schools, while other members of the same family, and out of the same room, had been in the other departments of the same school, which moreover I found on inspection to be in a very unsanitary condition. I am doing what I can to prevent the recurrence of such a case by putting the teachers of schools on their guard; and, mindful of the steps which the School Board for London took, on our suggestion last year, with a view to prevent the spread of the malady through the medium of Board Schools, I addressed the Clerk to the Board lately, stating the facts as they are known in this parish, and urging a repetition of the precautions adopted last year; and I have had the satisfaction of receiving a communication from that gentleman to the effect that ‘the notices on the subject of scarlet fever, issued to the respective teachers in the autumn of last year, will be re-issued to the teachers by the time the various schools commence their work, after the summer holidays.’”

Before concluding my remarks on this subject, I may mention that I availed myself of the opportunity afforded by sending the circular letter to medical men to place in their hands the “Suggestions for preventing the spread of infectious diseases,” and other sanitary notices, pointing out that copies were always available for the use of their patients; asking their co-operation in aid of the efforts which it is at all times my duty to make, with a view to arrest the spread of infectious diseases, urging the importance of isolation of the sick, and the propriety of sending patients to the hospital when the home accommodation does not allow of isolation; offering the services of your sanitary staff in all such cases, and explaining the arrangements made for the disinfection of clothing, etc., in the absence of a public disinfecting chamber. It, of course, remains to be seen to what extent the epidemic will grow, and judging by past experience the disease may during this year and the next be expected to prove fatal above the average, but come what may I have the satisfaction of knowing that no means have been spared, or will be, which it is in the power of your Vestry to adopt with a view to arrest its progress.

Diphtheria.—This disease was the cause of 26 deaths (Town, 24; Brompton, 2), an increase of 15 over 1873—entirely in the Town sub-district. The deaths under five years were 14.