1867.] The Public Health 73 



impossible, we think, after the evidence produced, to come to any- 

 other conclusion than that the destruction of the 5,000 lives which 

 were sacrificed to Cholera and Diarrhoea in the East End of London, 

 during the months of July, August, September, and October, 1866, 

 must be attributed to the nature of the water-supply.* 



If the question be now asked whether there were any strongly 

 predisposing causes existing among the population of the East 

 End ? we answer that up to the present time no prevailing predis- 

 posing cause has been demonstrated. It was not poverty, for the 

 people of Bow and Poplar are wealthier than those of Bethnal 

 Green, and yet they suffered most. It was not over-crowding, for 

 the most over-crowded districts of Shoreditch escaped. It was not 

 drunkenness, for drunkards who did not drink the tainted water 

 escaped. It was not ignorance or vice, for the Medical Officer of 

 Health for Bow, Mr. Ansell, and the Clerk of the Vestry of the 

 same parish, Mr. Ceely, were both carried off at the commence- 

 ment of the epidemic. 



Seldom has the demonstration in the case of an epidemic been 

 more complete, and never has a warning more solemn been given 

 to local authorities of the duty they owe to their fellow-creatures. 

 Had attention been paid to the admonitions which have been given 

 in season and out of season by men of science, and Medical Officers 

 of Health, water would not have been supplied for drinking 

 purposes contaminated with the sewage of docks, canals, and 

 foul streams. Had the Local Boards of Health heeded the 

 warnings of those who saw the disease approaching their doors, 

 they might have arrested it before it attained the severity of an 

 unexampled plague. It is a still greater warning to our legislators. 

 They have no excuse for the ignorance they betray of the 

 advances of disease, and the causes of death in the community. 

 It is our legislature that has thrown around the water companies 

 of London the shield of protection. Whilst one of our water 

 companies can boast that its original one-hundred pound shares are 

 now worth twenty-three thousand pounds, our Parliament has 

 steadily refused to allow further supplies to be introduced into 

 London, and has opposed every attempt that has been made to procure 

 for London a more constant and improved supply. Looking at these 

 visitations of disease from the lowest point of view, their money 

 loss, they are reproaches upon the economy and prudence of the 



* Since the above was in type I have seen a report by Dr. Letheby, in which 

 he states as a reason for hesitating to accept the water supply as a cause of Cholera, 

 that in two workhouses, one of which was supplied with East London water, there 

 was no Cholera, and in another, which was not supplied with that water, there 

 were twenty-seven cases of Cholera. Such exceptional cases as these might, no 

 doubt, be explained by a careful investigation, and cannot be said under any cir- 

 cumstances to invalidate the overwhelming testimony of the connection of Cholera 

 of 1866 with the East End water supply. 



