THE GLOBE. WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 28, 1880.

Globe, Volume XXII, Issue 1851, 28 January 1880, Page 2

THE GLOBE. WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 28, 1880.

The report of Dr. Ned will furnished to the Local Board of Health contains much valuable information, and many equally valuable suggestions. Amongst other things, Dr. Nedwill has been struck with the neglect of householders to report infectious diseases; ho again urges the establishment of public abattoirs, and he calls attention to the fact that many parents are very careless about sending their children back to school when they know that infectious disease is amongst them. With regard to the first item, Dr. Nedwill suggests that the RegistrarGeneral should cause a weekly return of the deaths from zymotic diseases occurring within the district to be forwarded from the District Registrar’s offices, and he states his belief that it is absolutely necessary to gain the co-operation of the resident medical practitioners to prevent the neglect alluded to. In these suggestions the Board quite concurred, and passed resolutions asking the RegistrarGeneral to do as suggested, and inviting the members of the medical profession to co-operate with the Board with reference to the question of reporting infectious diseases. With regard to children suffering from infectious diseases being allowed to return to school, the Board resolved that the Board of Education be requested “to instruct the masters in their employment to inquire into the case of illness of any pupil, whether he be suffering from an infectious disease, and to report any case of infectious disease occurring amongst their pupils to the Local Board of Health, and to require a medical certificate that the child when convalescent could attend without danger to the other pupils before readmitting the child.” The necessity of the action taken by the Board will strike the most careless observer. A large number of householders and parents are extremely careless in matters where their own pockets are not concerned, and it is merely a matter of the safety of their neighbours. They will not go out of their way to report a case of infectious disease, nor will they reflect on the consequences of sending their children still suffering from such disease into a crowded school-room. They do not seem to recognise that carelessness is, as a writer has remarked, “ but a half-way house between accident and design.” They gain no absolute benefit by reporting the infectious disease, and they get their children out of the way by sending them to school, and so such selfish considerations are made to outweigh the chance of inflicting severe injury on their neighbors. Such a line of conduct can only be combated by the vigour of the local governing bodies, and Dr. Nedwill deserves the thanks of the Christchurch public for his valuable report.

The question of the management of domestic servants is without doubt surrounded with great difficulties. Ordinarily they are individuals who require exceedingly delicate handling. On the slightest thing ruffling their tempers they are off to fresh situations in the twinkling of an eye. Indeed many of them do not wait for an excuse to evaporate, but systematically change the field of their operations with, apparently, the sole view of getting as much change of air as possible. Like the gaudy butterfly they flutter in their fashionable costumes from one domestic flower to another, while the world wonders and the housewife despairs. No doubt much of this undesirable state of affairs is duo to the mistresses who employ them. In many cases if a little more consideration wore shown to female servants, or if, as ought to ho the case, mistresses were to take a real interest in the girls who are for the time being under their roofs, another story might have to he told. Faults there are no doubt on both sides. Ladies might well consider that the girls they employ are not more machines out of whom as much work as possible is to bo got, while servants might sometimes think over the great inconvenience their little freaks occasion. A Mrs. Coxhoad, living in a southern city, has her own decided views on the crisis. One of her servant girls on a certain morning did not got up when called, and shortly afterwards her irascible mistress returned, and boat her with the cane handle of a feather duster, the consequence of which was that an action was brought against Mrs. Coxhoad, and she was fined £3 and costs £1 10s, the Court remarking that the girl miglff have behaved badly, “ but in such cases masters and mistresses could only make the best of it; either discharge the servant or put up with her. It could not bo

permitted that mistresses should ho allowed to go into their servants’ bedrooms and cane them.” This attempt, therefore, of taking the bull by the horns, and solving once and for all the domestic servant question by the strong logic of the cane has signally failed. Mrs. Coxhead may have argued the subject in all its bearings before she put her ideas into a practical form; she may hare seen the futility of tho efforts of hor neighbors to crack the nut, and the argumentum ad haculum may have struck her as an inspiration. But her genius on this occasion at least played hor false. Wo all know what “ The British, warrior Queen Smarting from the Roman rods ” succeeded in doing, although she finally came to grief. Mrs. Coshead’s servantgirl, though less forcible, was luckier in the long run. She came triumphant from under the cane handle of tho feather duster and mulcted her mistress to tho tune of £4 10s. sterling.