THE passing of the Public Health Act in the session of 1848 was an epoch
of our civilisation. It was the recognition of a great social want, and
an attempt to remedy a great social evil, which had silently grown up
with the increase of our large towns, and threatened to turn our
prosperity and blessings into a curse. The principle of the act received
the cordial and unanimous assent of all the great parties in the state;
and though numerous alterations were made in the measure during its
progress through the Lower House of Parliament, these were entirely
improvements amicably suggested and cordially adopted by the ministry who
introduced it. Those who determinedly opposed some of its details were
always left, upon a division, in very small minorities.
The chief objection which has been raised against the measure, by those
who have conscientiously or interestedly resisted its operation, has been
to the constitution of a General Board of Health in London, having some
check over the doings of those local bodies to whom the working out of
the act has been intrusted. This is denounced by the word
“centralisation,” but the Poor Law Board daily exercises, without remark,
a much more stringent authority over Boards of Guardians, who are just as
much representative bodies as Town Councils, than any which is vested in
the Board of Health. In many places where the act has been applied, the
need of such a supervision as that of the Central Board has been so
strikingly evinced that Parliament will, probably, soon be induced to
place yet greater powers of control in the hands of the Board, and make
the provisions of the act entirely compulsory instead of optional. It
might seem wise and well to leave the unerring laws of health and disease
to work out their own results, in punishing those who neglect the
necessary conditions by which alone health can be maintained where men
congregate together; but as the epidemics engendered by such neglect
cannot be confined to those who are their responsible producers, the
legislature, on behalf of society at large, has the right to interfere.
The application of the act to Worcester has been productive of immediate
results that are sufficiently curious; but its importance, as regards the
future welfare of the city, cannot be overrated, and on that account,
much more than for any present turmoil, which, in “the whirligig of
time,” will subside and be forgotten, the subject claims a special notice
here.
Worcester, more than most English towns, needed the application of such a
measure to its internal economy. Its fair exterior, and the outward
cleanliness of its principal streets, are but the deceitful masks of
hidden insalubrities. Surrounded by hills, which attract the moisture
and screen it from the healthful breezes that would drive away miasma,
its atmosphere is too constantly damp and relaxing in summer, and in
winter the fogs, rising from the stream and the undrained soil, lie long
upon its dwellings. The river, which flows through it, fortunately keeps
up a constant current of air, but epidemics always follow the course of
rivers. Though apparently well situated for drainage, the greater part
of the city is ill-circumstanced in this respect, for the southern and
western half, at least, is built on a cold marl, which retains the
soakings of the surface as a sponge. These are natural reasons which, it
might be supposed, would have suggested to the inhabitants the most
careful attention to drainage and cleanliness; yet it is a fact, that
scarcely a street in the whole city is supplied with a sufficient drain,
and that it contains more open cesspits, prolific of noisome smells and
active disease, than any town of equal size in the kingdom.
The merit of having drawn public attention, in this city, to the
paramount importance of Parliamentary interference to enforce sanitary
improvements belongs to Sir Charles Hastings, M.D.
At the city election in 1846, when Sir Denis Le Marchant suddenly
appeared as a candidate, Dr. Hastings, upon the hustings, addressed the
citizens, who were then gathered together, and said he was anxious Sir
Denis should have their opinion on a matter of the greatest importance to
every individual amongst them. “Amidst the great party struggles,”
continued the Doctor, “in the legislature, the social improvement of the
people had been too much overlooked, and it was certain that the sanitary
condition of the great mass of the inhabitants of this kingdom was such
as reflected no credit upon its Government. He wished, therefore, the
citizens of Worcester to impress upon Sir Denis Le Marchant the propriety
of giving his best attention to this great question, and of using his
best endeavours to get it promoted by the Government. He hoped that the
measures which had been under the attention of the legislature for the
last six or seven years would, at last, receive the consideration they
merited. All alike would be benefitted by the passing of laws necessary
for the protection of the public health, and which would have also a
great effect on public morals. (Applause.) He trusted that was their
opinion, and if it was so he prayed them to hold up their hands.”
The assembly unanimously responded to the Doctor’s appeal; and Sir Denis
declared himself the warm advocate of sanitary measures.
Dr. Hastings afterwards addressed a letter to the Town Council on the
subject; and in seconding Mr. Ricardo’s nomination, in 1847, he again
mentioned the matter, amidst the cheers of the assembly, and pressed it
upon the attention of each of the candidates.
Mr. Austin, the secretary to the Health of Towns Association, came down
in the autumn of 1846 to make an inspection of the city, and report upon
the works and alterations necessary to be undertaken for the purpose of
securing the greatest possible amount of health and comfort to the
inhabitants. Mr. Austin presented his report to the City Commissioners
in December, 1846, and so able and informative was it deemed that it was
ordered, on the motion of Mr. Pierpoint, to be printed for general
circulation; and a sum of £20 was afterwards voted him by the same body.
Mr. Austin estimated the gross cost of drainage for the entire city,
proper water supply to every house, baths and washhouses, conversion of
soil for agricultural purposes, at £74,000; he believed a revenue of
£19,000 per annum might be derived from such works when carried into full
efficiency; the interest and expenses of management he set down at
£11,650. Some parties, unconnected with either of the two governing
bodies in the city, this year gave notice of their intention to apply to
Parliament for a “City Improvement Act,” in which powers would be taken
to carry out all those alterations which were felt to be so necessary for
the good ordering of the town; but this project was soon abandoned, and
the City Commissioners declared that, if Parliament did not that year
introduce a general act, they would themselves apply for an extension of
powers to enable them to carry out needful sanitary improvements.
At a dinner given to Captain Candler, in February, 1847, Lord Lyttelton
strongly pressed upon the Mayor, and citizens of Worcester generally, the
desirability of at once carrying out the suggestions of Mr. Austin’s
report in their integrity.
The Government having introduced the Public Health Act into Parliament,
in the spring of 1847, petitions in its favour were forwarded from
Worcester, one of which was signed by 700 of the working classes. The
principal difference between the measure as introduced by the Whig and
Conservative Governments was, that the one proposed by the latter placed
the “centralising” power in the hands of the Home Secretary, instead of
the Central Board, and would have constituted new local bodies for
working out the act, instead of placing it in the hands of the Town
Councils, which the Whigs did on principle.
The first public meeting held in Worcester was one convened by the Mayor,
Mr. Elgie, on the 19th of April, 1847, to consider the measure proposed
by Government. But the Commissioners met in the morning, and determined
on opposing the Government bill, doubtless because it would altogether
extinguish them; and as a good deal of alarm had already been created in
the town by the large figures in Mr. Austin’s report, there was a
considerable opposition raised at the meeting. Dr. Hastings and Mr.
Orwin moved a resolution, declaring the necessity which existed for
sanitary measures; and this was carried. Mr. Arrowsmith and Mr. J. W.
Isaac moved a second, approving of the Government measure; but Mr. R. M.
Mence and Mr. Francis Hooper moved an amendment, to the effect that the
Health of Towns Bill contained many unnecessary and mischievous
provisions. The cost and the centralisation were the topics chiefly
dwelt upon by the opponents of the measure. Mr. Orwin spoke in favour of
the bill, and Mr. Thomas Lucy and Mr. Pierpoint against it; the latter
producing a toy whose joints were moved by a string, to illustrate what
the Town Council would be in the hands of the Central Board. The
proceedings were spun out to such an inordinate length, that the meeting
had almost dissolved itself, before the resolution and amendment were
put. The division was very close, but the Mayor decided that the
resolution in favour of the Government bill was carried. A petition to
Parliament in its favour was afterwards proposed, but that was lost, and
the resultless meeting then broke up.
The same week the Council adopted a petition in favour of the measure, by
a majority of 18 to 8.
In May, a petition was presented from Worcester in favour of the Public
Health Act, signed by the Very Rev. the Dean, and most of the Canons and
parochial clergy. The medical men of the city also, without a single
exception, petitioned that it might pass.
The bill was committed in June, by a majority of 191 to 50; the only
Worcestershire members who voted in the minority being General Lygon and
Mr. P. Borthwick. The bill was, however, after all, with a multitude of
others, in the annual “slaughter of the innocents;” and then came the
general election.
In seconding Mr. Ricardo’s nomination as a candidate for Worcester, Dr.
Hastings again mentioned sanitary matters, and declared, amidst the
cheers of the assembly, that he would not give his vote for any man who
would not pledge himself to support a bill for the improvement of the
public health.
In January, 1848, Mr. Thomas Beggs lectured in the Town Hall, Worcester,
on sanitary improvements; and on the following day a public meeting was
held, over which the Mayor, Mr. Edward Webb, presided. The Rev. John
Davis then moved a petition to the legislature in favour of sanitary
measures, which was carried without dissent; and Mr. Ricardo, who was
present, expressed the pleasure he should feel in presenting it, and in
supporting Government in any measure they might propose for the
advancement of the sanitary condition of the people.
In April, a town’s meeting was called to consider the Government measure,
on a hostile requisition; and the Mayor being indisposed, the friends of
sanitary improvements took no part. Mr. Summerfield was called to the
chair; and on the motion of Mr. Mence and Mr. Hooper, a petition was
adopted in opposition to the Health of Towns Bill, and ordered to be
forwarded to Mr. Urquahart, for presentation.
In May, the Town Council, with only one dissentient, petitioned in favour
of the measure; and a petition of similar import was also very generally
signed by the inhabitants of the city.
The bill passed the House of Commons on the 20th of June—the opposition,
in their strongest division, having only mustered fifty-four votes. It
met in the House of Lords with entire approbation; and every one of the
amendments made in committee there, were with a view to make its
provisions more stringent and “centralising.”
On the 3rd of October, 1848, the Worcester Town Council, on the motion of
Mr. Alderman Elgie, came to a resolution, “That it is desirable forthwith
to bring into operation within the city the provisions of the Public
Health Act.” In a numerous meeting there was only one dissentient to
this resolution. A committee of fifteen members was then appointed to
carry out the resolution. They communicated the resolution of the
Council to the Central Board, and requested that an inspector might be
sent down to inquire into the propriety of applying the act to Worcester.
Mr. George T. Clark, Government Inspector, accordingly gave notice in
November, both by advertisement and handbills posted in all parts of the
city, that he should make the necessary inquiries as to the sanitary
condition of the city, and invited all parties to give evidence before
him. Mr. Clark sat for the first time at the Guildhall, on the 4th of
December, and was very cordially received by the Mayor, Mr. Padmore, and
a considerable number of leading citizens and tradesmen, some of whom
have since taken a very active share of the opposition to the working of
the measure; but not one word of objection to the application of the act
to Worcester was ever uttered in Mr. Clark’s presence.
Mr. Clark’s report appeared in April, 1849, and the conclusions to which
the inspector arrived were, that the public nuisances in Worcester were
many and great—constantly creating sickness, and increasing the mortality
of the place; that what was principally wanted was a proper water supply,
surface paving and drainage; and that remedies for the evils complained
of might be applied for a rate of not more than one penny a week per
house. The cost of the necessary drainage he estimated at £20,315, and
of the water supply at £21,750, while he set down the annual income
derivable from the water works at £4,238.
Acting upon this report, the Central Board made a provisional order for
the application of the Public Health Act to Worcester; being competent to
do this, as to any place where the mortality ranged above 23.0 in 1,000
per annum—and, according to the Registrar General’s report, the average
mortality in Worcester, for the seven years previous to the passing of
the Public Health Act, was 25.05 in 1,000. A bill to confirm this
provisional order was introduced into Parliament in July, 1849; and,
passing without opposition, received the royal assent in August.
Immediately after the application of the act to this city, all sorts of
absurd rumours were put into circulation as to the expense it would
occasion to the ratepayers; and the ignorance and misinformation that
appeared to prevail upon the subject, would scarcely be credited if
related. Ward meetings were very generally held, at which memorials to
the Council were adopted, praying them not to carry out the act, or to
postpone its operation. And thus commenced an agitation, which, being
fostered by persons who had their own or party ends to serve, long
continued to disturb the peace of the city.
At the meeting of the Council on the 7th of August, Alderman Elgie moved
that the Public Health Committee should report to the next meeting as to
what offices were necessary to be appointed, and other steps requisite to
be taken under the Health of Towns Act. This was carried by a majority
of 19 to 11.
At a subsequent meeting, the committee reported that the officers
required would be a clerk, treasurer, surveyor, and medical officer of
health. An amendment for delay was rejected by 22 to 12, and the clerk
and treasurer were at once appointed.
In consequence of the determination thus evinced by the Council to
proceed vigorously with the practical application of the measure, a
public meeting was called by the parties hostile to it. This was held on
the 25th of September, 1849, and presided over by the Mayor, Mr. Padmore.
Mr. Summerfield moved the adoption of a memorial to the Central Board,
praying that the act might not be applied to Worcester, because it was
denied that the mortality of the city exceeded 23 in 1,000; and because a
majority of the inhabitants were said to be unfavourable to the
introduction of the Public Health Act. Alderman Thompson seconded the
memorial. Alderman Edward Webb proposed, as an amendment, “That inasmuch
as the act is at present applied to the city, and considering the
unsatisfactory state of the dwellings of the poor, the insufficient
drainage, and bad supply of water, the memorial is unnecessary.”
Alderman Elgie and Mr. Waters addressed the meeting at great length on
the general question, and pointed out the absurdity of supposing that any
memorial to a board in London could stop the operation of an Act of
Parliament. Excepting Mr. James Wall, who made a few observations, no
one attempted to speak on the other side; but the amendment was lost, and
the memorial carried by a large majority.
The presentation of the memorial was intrusted to the Rev. R. Sargeant
and Mr. Lucy, but the Board declined to receive them as a deputation in
the absence of Mr. Clark. The Rev. R. Sargeant, therefore, forwarded it
with a letter, and the Board of course returned for answer, that they had
no power to stop proceedings under an Act of Parliament; and further,
that the act had been legally applied to Worcester—as the Registrar
General had certified to them, under his own hand, that the mortality was
25.05 in 1,000.
The appointment of surveyor was postponed by the Council till after the
municipal elections for 1849; but at the meeting of November 16, further
delay was resisted, and an amendment to that effect was defeated by 26
votes to 12. Mr. Edward Leader Williams was then chosen surveyor under
the Public Health Act, by 23 votes to 8 given for the opposing candidate,
Mr. Samuel Purchas. The question of salary was postponed.
For some months Mr. Williams went on, under the directions of the health
committee, preparing his plans for the improved drainage and water supply
of the city. His report on the drainage question was issued and printed
in June, 1850, and met with very general approval. Having been called
before the Council, at their meeting in August, and given explanations
upon some points, the Council in full meeting adopted the report with
only two dissentient voices. The report estimated the cost for the
entire drainage of the city at £17,345.
The excitement amongst ratepayers was, however, kept up by a question of
the necessity of appointing a medical officer of health; and so strong
was the current of public opinion against such an appointment, that the
Council were compelled to abandon all thoughts of making it. Dr. Malden
and Dr. Hastings both addressed letters to the Council, declaring that,
in their opinion, a medical officer was needed for the proper carrying
out of the act.
The by-laws necessary under the Public Health Act for the regulation of
slaughter houses, lodging houses, &c., were another fruitful source of
squabbles during 1850. On the 5th of March a code was agreed to in the
Council, by a majority of 15 to 7, which rendered it necessary that an
“officer of health” should have the superintendence of such places, and
to these the Secretary of State gave his assent. In July, however, the
anti-sanitary party having increased in boldness, carried a new set of
by-laws, by a majority of 18 to 16, in which the words “inspector of
nuisances” was everywhere inserted instead of “officer of health.” They
then begged the Home Secretary to endorse their inconsistent proceeding,
but he refused to do so. The original by-laws are, therefore, now law in
the city of Worcester; but as there is no “officer of health,” no use has
been made of them—they remain a dead letter.
On the 5th September, 1850, the anti-sanitary party had a public meeting
in the Guildhall, at which Mr. Toulmin Smith attended and delivered an
harangue against centralisation. The meeting actually came to a
resolution “to resist the application of the act in that city and
elsewhere; and, if possible, obtain its repeal.”
At the municipal elections for 1850, parties were returned to the Council
avowedly “to put a stop to the working of the act altogether;” but the
dignity of the Council and its proceedings was not improved by this
infusion of new blood. Up to the present time not a single step has been
taken towards the practical application of the act in the city; but,
instead of that, the Council have been engaged in a dispute with the
surveyor, whom they refused properly to remunerate—and thus they have
involved the city in great expense to no sort of purpose. The details of
this affair it would be altogether undesirable to resuscitate, and the
more so, as the Central Board have pronounced the Council to be entirely
in the wrong; but there is reason to hope that wiser and more enlightened
views, on a subject which involves the future prosperity of the city and
the health and life of its inhabitants, will soon prevail.