Report on the mortality of cholera in England, 1848-49.

  • Farr, William, 1807-1883.
Date:
1852
Catalogue details

Licence: Public Domain Mark

Credit: Report on the mortality of cholera in England, 1848-49. Source: Wellcome Collection.

Provider: This material has been provided by Royal College of Physicians, London. The original may be consulted at Royal College of Physicians, London.

    45/506
    population of 1841 is the basis of the calculations; and where the rano-e of mortality is so -reat as it is in this case, the variation in the rates of increase of population will not materially affect the results. In the metropolitan districts of Surrey the mortality from cholera ranij-ed from Rotherhithe 253 (in 10000 inhabiiants is understood throughout) to Wandsworth 122 : out of London, the districts of Epsom, Guildford, Farnham, Dorking, Reigate, and Godstone lost only 4 to 6 (in 10000) ; Hambleton and Farnborough lost none; Croydon 34; Richmond 35, Kingston 13, and Chertsey 24, the three latter districts lying on the south bank of the Thames. In Middlesex, on the north side of the Tiiames, Brentford lost 50, Staines 31 ; Uxbridge 21, Hendon 9, Barnot 20, Edmonton 24. In Hertfortshire, the districts of Hertford and Hitchin suffered severely ; 57 in 10000 were destroyed. Hertford is on the River Lea and near the source of the New River; Hitchin is further north, iind is interspersed with hills; 24 deaths from cholera took place in the Hitchin Union workhouse. The first case at Hertford was in the Union workhouse ; many of the deaths took place in the county gaol, at Butcherley Green and at Old Cross. In the Watford district 25, Hemel Hempstead 18 (in 10000) died of cholera. In Bishop Storiford, Royston, Hat- field, St. Alban, and Berkhampstead the mortality was inconsiderable, ranging from 2 to 7 in 10000. The mortality was equally low in the districts of Buckinghamshire, except Eton, where 20, and Wycombe, where 31 in 10000 died (chiefly at Great Marlow and High Wycombe). The latter districts are on the Thames. Windsor lost 28, and, ascending the Thames, Abingdon 18, Headinglon 22, Oxford 22, Witney 14. At Wokingham, Bradfield, Wallingford, Woodstock, Faringdon, and Cirencester in Gloucestershire, near the source of the Thames, the mortality was inconsiderable, not exceeding 2 in 10000. The counties of Nortliampton and Huntingdon escaped with few deaths ; at Northampton 17, Hardingstone 28, Peterborough 19 in 10000 died, Hardingstone adjoins Northampton ; tlie first case occurred in a boatman ; 20 of 24 deaths frora| cholera in this district took place at Piddington. In Bedford 12, in Biggleswade 14 in 10000 died ; the rest of Bedfordshire lost less than 2 in 10000. In Essex, descending on the north side of the Thames, West Ham lost 50, Romford 67, Orsett 28, Rochford 66, Maldon, round the Hlackwater River on the east coast, 15, Tendring 27 in 10000. Tendriug includes Harwich, where nearly all the cases occurred, chiefly in the families of mariners, iishermen, and dredgermen. The population ot Harwich was 3829 in 1841, of whom 69 died of cholera; 25 in the week ending Sep- tember 8. The rest of the county of Essex—except Epping, where 13 in 10000 died— suffered inconsiderably. The same may be said of the whole of the counties of Suffolk and Norfolk. Some districts of Suilolk had no deaths; others had i or 2 in 10000; Ipswich lost only 7 in 10000 by cholera, but suffered severely from diarrhoea; Wang- ford 7, Mutford 16 in 10000. The deaths in the latter district were chiefly at Lowes- toft, which is included in the port of Yarmouth. In Yarmouth itself 36, Norwich 6, Milford 7 in 10000 died. Two parishes in Docking have already been referred to, p. xxi. Buxton, a parish in the Ayleshnm district, suffered from a similar circumscribed attack. Norwich and Kings Lynn and Yarmouth suffered a good deal from diarrhoea. In five districts of Norfolk no deaths were referred to cholera, in all the rest except those already named the mortality was inconsiderable. In Cambridgeshire, North Wilchford lost 58, Whittlesey 17, Wisbeach 44 in 10000: like Peterborough they are marsliy and urihealthy districts, lying about the embouchure of the Ouse and the Nene. The rest of the districts of Cambridgeshire suffered little. Gamlingay in Caxton was the seat of one of the circumscribed attacks, fatal to 12 persons. In Kent, the districts on the south bank of the Thames, and the coast down to the North Foreland, suffered from the epidemic; the deaths in 10000 were, in Dartford 46, North Aylesford (containing North- fleet) 50, Hoo 25, Medway (including Rochester and Chatham) 34, Milton 59, Sheppey (including Sheerness) 50, Faversharn 10, Blean 17, Thanel (including Margate and Ramsgate) 65. Of the districts on the coast from the Isle of Thanet to Dungeness, Dover alone was attacked with any severity. The attacks were often circumscribed : thus of 117 deaths in Dartford, 35 occurred in the parish of Crayford, 17 deaths in the Union work- house Dartford, and 20 at Waterside. At Dartford a labourer, his wife, and four children were cut off by the pestilence. At Gravesend i 96 deaths from cholera were registered ; 26 of persons who died on board vessels lying off Gravesend, 34 in the workhouse, 9 in