The Evening Star THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 3, 1876.

Evening Star, Issue 4037, 3 February 1876, Page 2

The Evening Star THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 3, 1876.

Ir we could bring ourselves to believe that the deputation who waited upon his Worship'the Mayor yesterday, were actuated solely by disinterested motives in pressing for the removal of the Fever Hospital, we should hold them entitled to the respect, but scarcely to the thanks of the citizens. Neither can the .assumption that they represented “the Citizens” be regarded other wise than with a smile, when it is remembered that at the meeting by which , they profess to have been appointed, only about twenty present, of whom several were dissentients. . Before, we proceed to comment upon the remarks made in support of the memorial, we think it imperative that the true state of the case should. be made clear, for by what,seems to us a singular perversion of judgment on the part of. the deputation, the proceedings of the Corporation, adopted for the express purpose of conferring upon the public the highest benefit preservation from infection—are treated as a breach of trust, equivalent to what they would have been guilty of had they alienated the few square feet of the Town Belt.in perpetuity or for a term to an individual or individuals. Let it be remembered that the Corporation are public servants entrusted by the inhabitants of the City to watch over their interests' and health.

That they have no personal interests to serve in the steps which they have adopted. That, individually and collectively, they are equally interested in preserving inviolate the Town Belt for public or recreative purposes as any and all the members of the deputation.

That the construction of the Fever Hospital on its present site was determine 0 n because, of its peculiar adaptability for the purpose; as it presents the best possible chance for the restoration of the sick to health, and the least possible probability of communicating disease through contagion. That the retention of the hospital in its present position is a public benefit, while the agitation for its removal is open to the suspicion of being mainly instigated for private purposes.

That even assuming the deputation to be actuated by public motives, their opinions as to the steps necessary for the prevention of the spread of contagious or infectious diseases, are based upon crude, and perhaps utterly mistaken private opinions, while the measures adopted by the Corporation were taken by advice of competent medical authority, supported by the Opinions of equally competent medical men. That in order to compel the Corporation to remove, or to promise to remove the Hospital, which has already been found so useful, the deputation threaten to put the City to the expense of litigation, and, if successful, to the heavy cost of, probably, purchasing a permanent site, and certainly of re-erecting a building that has already cost much to construct. And even if unsuccessful the expense of such litigation will form a cpnsi derable deduction from the revenue available for City improvements. That therefore the citizens will be compelled to pay a tax, or, what is equivalent to it, forego some much needed improvements, in order to defend the conduct of their representatives, in adopting measures for general health and safety. That the petitioners, by the threat of coercive measures, virtually seek to override and over-awe the Corporation elected by the citizens themselves, and thus to supersede their authority derived from the people. That the Corporation has not alienated any portion of the Belt, but still retains control over it and the hospital erected on it, so. that it can be at any-time removed should the necessity for its remaining no longer exist.

With a case of so questionable a character to support, it would have been wise lor every one of the • deputation to have laid the memorial before his Worship and said nothing. But each wanted the public to imagine he had no' other interest in view than that of the believe Cor :

poration have done exactly what is necessary. Actuated by this motive, Mr Langlands ventured upon supporting hia views by reference to cholera reminiscences of forty years ago. As his recollection varies very m^c h from our own, we will endeavor to refresh his memory by a few extracts from pubhc - ; memoranda,, tending to <jipW>how defective are based, updflc|bUch pres^^|s.. said It appeared to MMthat t&we had been vexmSaoh ' JdjE&bout this epidmttio. £“5“M 0 *ty-ycafs-ago to bninScofclana when the Asiatic cholera visited the old connray, and be could remember no such steps having been taken there. Steps were certainly taken to cleanse all places where nuisances were found to exist, ana to take all sanitary measures considered advisable by the municipal bodies, but the hospitals were neither enlarged nor added to, they being found quite sufflcient for the purpose.-.> What was the fact ? We will illustrate it by an example, which we may say represents what took place to a greater of lesser extent, m RRd city in the United. King

the first case of cholera occurred on tne 16th September, 1832, and terminated in a' few Hours, . .. . A cholera■ hospital had been provided. ‘ ,• • ibe patients' were conveyed thither in and litters borne on men's shoulders, i ne hospital was crowded, hut was not large enough to hold one-eighth part of the sick; and during the few dreadful days on which the disease raged with such uncontrolled fury, our. own medical praotitioners, although very numerous, were not sufficient for the emergency, so that the Board of Health was forced to call m assistance from Edinburgh. . . . rrade of every description was at a stand; and few shops remained open, except those of apothecaries, and of some bakers and grocers.

Another account of general measures says.

. were proposals, as of old, for looking: up infected houses, and dropping food at the door, which the inmates were to take in by machinery; and from the Privy Council down to the humblest parochial board the pervading spirit was that of isolation and repulsion. In Edinburgh, in 1832, Houses of Refuge were opened, house to house visitation was adopted, dispensaries for affording medical assistance were open night and day. And we may explain those Houses of Refuge were available /‘for the temporary reception of persons living in filthy and over-crowded rooms where-the disease was’prevailing, and who, though not yet attacked, were likely to be the next victims.” We. could multiply instances by reference to every district of England, but enough has been stated to show how very little reliance is to be placed on memory, and how dangerous it would be to act upon opinions based upon so treacherous a one as Mr Langlands’ owns. The citizens should be profoundly grateful to Mr R. Gillies for his offer to lend them a. few acres of land in which to place the hospital. We think hje r should have a testimonial on vellum in return, but as the City possesses a vast area of Belt, and can very well afford to lend a few score square yards to itself, the concluding clause should ■ be “declined with thanks.”