APPLICATION OF THE PUBLIC HEALTH ACT TO WORCESTER.

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.