Report of the Joint Committee on State Medicine of the British Medical and Social Science Associations, on the report of the Royal Sanitary Commission.

  • Joint Committee on State Medicine of the British Medical and Social Science Associations.
Date:
[1871]
Catalogue details

Licence: Public Domain Mark

Credit: Report of the Joint Committee on State Medicine of the British Medical and Social Science Associations, on the report of the Royal Sanitary Commission. Source: Wellcome Collection.

Provider: This material has been provided by The Royal College of Surgeons of England. The original may be consulted at The Royal College of Surgeons of England.

    6/22 (page 6)
    admitting that, outside of the larger towns, the Poor-law Union or Registration District may possibly offer superior advantages for this object—there appears to us no good reason why all the districts and authorities included within that area should not be combined under a single board of management for sanitary administration. The great majority of town districts in England are included in registration dis- tricts of a somewhat larger area. It is extremely important that the two or more governing bodies within that larger area should be united at the very least intermediately, by representation, for the purposes of the proposed Act. All objects of 13. The Royal Sanitary Commission having advised that all objects shmild^eplaced of local government, including the care of the public health and the wefl^asU“niral” re^e^ °f Poor> should be supremely directed by a single central authorities. authority,—it follows, if the propriety of such consolidation be ad- mitted, that the same principle should be applied to all local autho- rities. But this appears not to be recommended by the Com- mission. For whereas, outside of “urban” districts, the management of the roads—unless the suggestion referred to in Resolution 12 be adopted—may continue under a different authority from that which is to administer the relief of the poor, the removal of nuisances, and the prevention of disease ; yet, inside of ‘ ‘ urban” limits, the relief of the poor might remain under a different authority from that which directs the management of the roads, the removal of nuisances, and the prevention of disease. 14. There might thus be two kinds of authority in urban districts, exercising different groups of functions from those exercised by the other two kinds of authority in rural districts. It cannot be doubted that this complication of authority and duty would lead to much admi- nistrative confusion, and hinder, as it has already hindered, the pro- gress of improvement in local government. Nor, if so-called “rural” authorities have to be constituted for all purposes, has any sufficient reason been shown why “urban” authorities should not act for the relief and prevention of destitution, as well as for the relief and preven- tion of sickness. It is very obvious, from their excellent remarks on “coincidence of areas of local government” (p. 53), that the Com- missioners are fully aware of the great advantages which would result from the universal comprehension of all the various subjects of adminis- tration within the same districts. Need of inter- 15. We infer, not only from the evidence taken in this inquiry, but mediate nuthori- . f ,, . . .. . . c ties”, consisting from well known facts, that ‘‘intermediate authorities , consisting oi