Another chief centre of cholera in 1849 was the port of Hull. Including the district of Sculcoates, it had the following enormous mortalities from cholera in four weeks of September: 398, 507, 524 and 171, the whole epidemic from July to the 18th of October producing 2534 deaths[1557]. Its neglect of scavenging became a classical instance of the favouring conditions of cholera. An open space at Witham called the “muckgarths,” from the refuse deposited upon it, was one of the worst centres, just as the town moor of Sunderland, used for the same purpose, had been in 1831[1558]. In the other ports, Liverpool, with West Derby, Bristol with Clifton, and Plymouth with East Stonehouse and Devonport, the infection was most severe (see Table), and was observed to choose the poorest streets, lanes and houses, where there had been most typhus for a year or two before[1559]. On the Tyne, the greatest centre on this occasion was not Newcastle, but Tynemouth. The city of Durham, which escaped the cholera of 1832, had a severe visitation. The chief inland centres, besides the mining districts of Staffordshire and Glamorgan, were Manchester and the cloth-making towns of Airedale,—Leeds, Hunslet, Bradford, Dewsbury, and some others in the West Riding. Most of the Lancashire towns occupied with the cotton industry again escaped with little cholera—Preston, Clitheroe, Oldham, Bury, Rochdale, Bolton, Blackburn, Ashton and Chorley. Wigan had nearly twenty times as many deaths as in 1832; on the other hand Sheffield had only a quarter of its former cholera mortality, while Nottingham and Norwich had this time very little. Birmingham, Leicester, Cheltenham, Hereford, Stafford, Ipswich, Cambridge and Colchester were again almost or altogether free from infection. The agricultural counties, notably the Eastern counties, escaped once more with few centres of infection, and these unimportant. Cumberland as a whole had fewer deaths than in 1832, while Cockermouth had more. Exeter, which was severely visited on the former occasion, escaped almost wholly, while Totnes and Tavistock, with the surrounding Dartmoor country and other towns in Devon, had epidemics of the first degree for their size. In England as a whole the cholera of 1849 was more severe relatively to the numbers living than that of 1832, its great centres having been the same, or of the same kind, on both occasions[1560].

The cholera of 1849 reproduced very closely the former characteristics. The attacks were often in the night, especially in persons who had supped heartily on the coarser kinds of savoury meat. With the same undoubted preference for the poorer and more filthy quarters of towns, the infection showed also a certain apparent caprice in fixing on some places and avoiding others.

In London, the least elevated parishes on both sides of the Thames were again its chief seats. Dr Farr, the superintendent of statistics, deduced the law that the death-rate from cholera in London was inversely as the altitude of the parish, and he showed, by a somewhat rough grouping of the cholera deaths, that the law applied to all England[1561]. An empirical generality such as that may have some value; but it is the exceptions to it that show the inward meaning of the fact.

The determining thing appears to have been not so much the elevation as the configuration of the ground; any basin, or cup, or shelving terrace, any natural collecting-ground of moisture and organic refuse in the soil, may become a seat of cholera, whether it be at the sea-level or several hundred feet above it, provided it have a sufficient number of human occupants and a mode of drainage inadequate to its peculiar needs. Such was the situation of Merthyr Tydvil, of Neath, of Newcastle-under-Lyme, of Tavistock, of some colliery villages, and of certain localities in towns such as Dundee. Such, of course, was also the situation of the London parishes next the river on the south and east, of Hull, of Plymouth, of Liverpool, and of other seaports on estuaries. Neither altitude nor configuration means anything for cholera unless the ground itself be full of rotting filth. In all England and Scotland the cholera chose, as if by an unerring instinct, those not very extensive mining parts of the counties of Stafford, Glamorgan, Durham, Lanark and Ayr, which had as many hundreds of inhabitants to the square mile, and as little provision for the safe disposal of their excrements, as those village communities of Lower Bengal in which the infection had become established since 1817 as if it were an annual product of the soil.

The Report of the Board of Health brought to light many instances in which it seemed probable that cholera had been favoured, if not induced, by the water of wells contaminated with organic filth soaking through the ground or entering with the surface water. This was especially the case at Merthyr Tydvil. It was during the next cholera, that of 1854, that the question of contaminated water came into great prominence, in connexion both with wells and with the vast volumes of water supplied through the mains of water companies.

The Cholera of 1853 at Newcastle and Gateshead.

The third visitation of Great Britain and Ireland by Asiatic Cholera was in 1853-54. There had been none of it in any part of the kingdom since 1850; but it is not so clear that all other European countries, especially Poland, were equally free from it. Whether due to a new approach from Asia, or to a rekindling of smouldering fires, cholera appeared in the Baltic ports in the summer of 1853, and soon after reached the Tyne. For the third time a severe but localized epidemic was the prelude—this time at Newcastle and Gateshead, just as in 1848 at Edinburgh, Glasgow and the south of Scotland, and in 1831 at Sunderland and Newcastle.

In the cholera of 1849, which was the most general and the most severe visitation that England has had, Newcastle escaped with a light visitation and Gateshead with a moderate or average one, while Tynemouth (with North Shields) had about twice as many deaths as Newcastle and Gateshead together (12·9 deaths per 1000 inhabitants). In 1853 it was the turn of Newcastle—for no better reason, perhaps, than its escape last time. The very thorough and masterly inquiry by Messrs Simon, Bateman and Hume did, indeed, reveal a most unwholesome state of things; but the town was no worse or only a little worse than in 1849, when the cholera had dealt lightly with it, and it was probably an average sample of the insanitary condition of the greater English industrial towns in the time of their rapid growth and before the period of well-ordered local government had arrived. In some parts, such as Sandgate, the dwellings of the labouring class were “not fit to live in”; in the newer mean suburbs, it was found, as in Glasgow twenty years before, that cellars had become the dwelling-places of a class who in former times lived above ground. Those who had been dispossessed by the railways and other public structures had not been provided for elsewhere; so that, with more trade and better wages, the working class were worse housed than before. Overcrowding, for which the ports on the Tyne and Wear are still pre-eminent, was then most excessive. Only the better-class houses had the water laid on. Excremental offences to sight and smell were everywhere. There was a system of main sewers, passably good; but house-drainage or connexions with the main drains were quite casual. The scavenging of the town was greatly neglected. Piggeries, slaughter-houses and other such nuisances, were uncontrolled. The burial-grounds were over-full. With all this the death-rate of Newcastle could be low enough in a good year, such as 1844, when it was 20·9 per 1000; in the year of the Irish fever, 1847, it rose to 32·8; and in other years it fluctuated between those extremes, according to the nature of the seasons[1564].

The cholera of 1853 was a sudden explosion in the heavy stagnant atmosphere of the month of September. No one knew where the infection came from; there were, of course, ships arriving from the Baltic, but no particular source was ever traced. On the 30th or 31st of August, a case occurred of the rapidly fatal kind; before a week there were about a hundred attacks daily all over the town. From the 13th of September the deaths in Newcastle mounted up rapidly as follows:

In the thirty days of September there were 1371 deaths, and some one or two hundreds more in the first part of October, when the infection ceased almost abruptly, the total of deaths to the 4th of November having been 1533. During the same time Gateshead with a population of 26,000, had 433 deaths, or in a ratio nearly equal to that of Newcastle. On the other hand Tynemouth, with a population of 30,000, had only twelve deaths, several of them in vagrants or other arrivals from Newcastle, the rest in a cluster of pitmen’s cottages on the outskirts of North Shields.

The Cholera of 1854 in England.

The great epidemic at Newcastle and Gateshead was over by November, 1853, those towns having no share in the general epidemic in England in 1854, although it visited their near neighbour Tynemouth. The interest of the cholera of 1854 centres chiefly in London[1565]. Few of the great foci of infection in 1849 were visited severely. Liverpool, which never escaped, had a moderate epidemic, Merthyr Tydvil also had about a fourth part of its 1849 mortality, Dudley had the disease somewhat severely, while some towns, such as Norwich, Wisbech and Sheffield, had more than usual. But Plymouth, Hull, Bristol, Manchester, Leeds, the towns of the Black Country and nearly all the populous places that had suffered heavily either in 1832 or in 1849, or on both occasions, escaped in 1854 with little cholera or none[1566]. The table shows the incidence of the epidemic (as well as that of 1866) according to counties.

Cholera Mortality in England and Wales in 1854 and 1866.

The London cholera of 1854, like that of 1832 and of 1849, fell most upon the southern (Southwark etc.), eastern and southeastern parishes (Table, p. 858). But it fell somewhat unequally upon these; and for Southwark and Lambeth the water supply was seized upon as the thing that made the difference. There were two water companies in South London, the Lambeth company and the Southwark and Vauxhall company. The parish of Christ Church, Lambeth, chiefly supplied by the Lambeth company, had a death-rate from cholera in 1854 of only 0·43 per 1000 inhabitants; whereas the parish of St Saviour, supplied by the Southwark and Vauxhall company, had a death-rate of 2·27 per 1000. In 1849 there had been no such disparity between them, the death-rate of Christ Church being if anything the higher of the two. Now it happened that in the interval of the two epidemics of cholera the Lambeth company had removed their intake works from opposite Hungerford Market to Thames Ditton, whilst the Southwark and Vauxhall company still continued to draw their supply from the Thames near Vauxhall. Here was a fine instance of the logical method of difference. Farther, within the parish of Christ Church itself, it was sought to show that the cholera followed the lines of old water supplies, and did not follow the mains from Thames Ditton. After 1854 the Southwark and Vauxhall company also made their intake at Thames Ditton. According to the water-hypothesis of cholera, it is not surprising, as we shall duly find, that the whole of the South London parishes, which had been the chief seats of the cholera in 1832, 1849, and 1854, escaped in 1866 with a very slight visitation. Newcastle was another chosen instance of cholera distributed by the water mains; but, as we have seen, that was improbable. Another instance was Exeter: its water supply in 1832, when part of it had a disastrous epidemic of cholera, was taken from the Exe, and was impure; in 1849, when it had only a tenth part of its last cholera mortality, its water supply had been greatly improved; in 1854 it had 10 deaths; but in 1866, Exeter with the registration district of St Thomas had 247 deaths, and Totnes had 146,—for their size about the most severely visited towns in England.

In the London cholera of 1854 a very sudden and simultaneous explosion in the district of Soho attracted much notice[1569]. The district stands high, which did not save it from being the scene of the first outbreak in the great plague of 1665. In the subdistricts of St Anne, Golden Square and Berwick Street, with a population of 42,000, many of them well-to-do families, there were 537 deaths from cholera, a rate of 12·8 per 1000, contrasting with the rate of 6 per 1000 for all London. The attacks and fatalities were remarkably numerous for one or two days, falling at once thereafter to about a half. There was a pump in Broad Street, in the centre of this district, which was supposed to have dispersed cholera broadcast in its contaminated water; a death had occurred in Swain’s Lane, at the foot of Highgate Hill, of a person who had drank the water of the Broad Street pump. The whole incident was seized upon and worked up by Dr Snow, who had written a speculative essay in 1849 upon the probability of cholera being conveyed by water, according to the similar theory of Parkin in 1832[1570]. The Board of Health, having very full data before them of the Soho outbreak in all its aspects (including a whole biological treatise upon the organisms found in water), did not adopt Snow’s conclusion, although he had enthusiastic followers at the time, and has probably more now[1571]:

The Cholera of 1853-54 in Scotland and Ireland.

The cholera of 1853-54 in Scotland has not been so fully recorded as either of the two preceding epidemics. It is said to have caused about six thousand deaths, of which 3892 were in Glasgow alone, and a considerable part of the remainder in Edinburgh and Dundee. The infection began to appear in the end of September, having been derived probably from the dreadful explosion at Newcastle. A few early cases occurred at Dunse, in Berwickshire. On the 16th September, 1853, the old Cholera Hospital at Edinburgh, in Surgeons’ Square, was opened, but received only 45 cases until the beginning of June, 1854, when it was closed. In the autumn of 1854 the real epidemic began, the hospital being re-opened on 24th August, from which date until the 30th November the admissions were 198. These hospital figures indicate for Edinburgh a milder epidemic than that of the winter of 1848, which was itself milder than that of 1832. The cases came mostly from the very same localities of the old town as in 1848. There were 145 females to 97 males; the deaths were 117 in 243 cases admitted[1572].

The epidemic at Dundee was a late autumnal or winter one, in the end of 1853, and of great severity, the mortality having probably exceeded 500. The Glasgow epidemic had a course very nearly parallel to that of 1832, and quite unlike the extraordinary winter explosion of 1848-9. It began, indeed, in winter—about the 15th of December, 1853, and had caused 849 deaths to the 27th of February; there was a sharp rise of the mortality from the 13th to the 24th of March, the total deaths to that date being 1306. As in 1832, the infection appeared to die out in the late spring and early summer; but in June it revived and increased in virulence until August, after which it subsided gradually until November, the whole mortality having been 3892, or ·98 per cent. of the population, nearly the same ratio as in 1848-9, (1·06) and a lower ratio than in 1832 (1·4). The first part of the epidemic fell chiefly on the north and east of the city, the second part, in summer and autumn, was all over the city, as in 1832, and among all classes, as in the winter of 1848-49, but perhaps less disastrously in the best quarters of the city than the last had been. The cholera hospital received a comparatively small part of all the cases—600 of cholera, 253 of diarrhoea, the deaths being 306, or less than a tenth part of the whole mortality[1573].

It is probable that the mortalities in Scotland on this occasion, besides those in Glasgow, Edinburgh and Dundee, were neither so general nor so great as in 1832. One remarkable outbreak happened at the village of Symington, in Ayrshire: in a population of 240 there were 110 attacks and 30 deaths; nearly all the cases were in houses on one side of the village street, which got their water from a public well; the houses on the other side, having private wells (and differing, doubtless, in other respects), were notably free from the infection[1574].

The cholera of 1854 was unimportant in Ireland. Cases appeared among emigrants on board ships in Belfast Lough and at Queenstown in the end of 1853, but no diffusion took place until 1854, and then only to a moderate extent. It is supposed that some 1706 persons died of it in Ireland in that year, according to the retrospective figures of the census of 1861; but a good many deaths from “cholera” were returned for every year of the decennium, so that it is improbable that the whole 1706 in 1854 were of the true Asiatic type. Ulster had 895 of these, Leinster 453, Munster 324, and the whole of Connaught only 34[1575].

The Cholera of 1865-66.

Asiatic cholera reached Europe by a new route in 1865—by the way of Egypt with the pilgrims returning from the Hâj at Mecca. In the course of the autumn it appeared at Southampton and caused 35 deaths from 24 September to 4 November. A strange extension from Southampton (or from Weymouth) took place to the village of Theydon Bois in Epping Forest, where nine deaths were traced to one house from 28 September to 31 October, unhappily including the death of a most estimable medical gentleman who tasted the water of a well into which the evacuations of the sick had probably percolated.

The cholera having become established on the continent of Europe in the end of 1865, was brought into England by emigrants passing from Hull and Grimsby to Liverpool on their way to America. On board one of the emigrant steamships, the ‘England,’ a very severe epidemic arose in mid-Atlantic in April. Liverpool had once more a severe epidemic (2122 deaths); but the only other important centres in England, besides London, were Swansea, Neath, Llanelly and Merthyr Tydvil, Chester and Northwich, a group of towns on the Exe in Devonshire, and Portsmouth with other places in Hampshire. Still, the deaths in all England made the large total of 14,378, no county excepting Rutland being absolutely free. That means that the infection, although widely diffused, now wanted the conditions favourable to its development and effectiveness; and that, again, seems to mean that a vast improvement had been made in the sewering of towns, in scavenging, and in all other matters of municipal police by which the soil of inhabited spots is preserved from saturation with excremental and other filth.

The interest of the cholera of 1866 centres in London, and chiefly in the fact that three-fourths of the deaths, to the number of 3696, took place in the eastern parishes, Whitechapel, Bethnal Green, Poplar, Stepney, Mile End, St George’s in the East, and Greenwich. These had in former epidemics a fair share; but hitherto they had been surpassed by the Southwark parishes and others on the south of the Thames from Battersea to Rotherhithe, and nearly equalled by Shoreditch and the Liberties of the City. The comparative table of the four great choleras of London shows how remarkably the infection in 1866 had left its old principal seats, remaining, as if a residue, only in the East End, with death-rates comparable to those of 1849.

Comparative view of the Four Epidemics of Cholera in the several parishes of London[1576].

There was one significant thing associated with the peculiar incidence of the cholera of 1866 upon the East End. The main drainage of London, consisting of a high level and a low level sewer on each side of the Thames, was commenced in 1859, and was formally opened on 4 April, 1865. The two levels on each side of the river made together a length of eighty-two miles; the cost, with pumping station, was £4,200,000. When the cholera of 1866 broke out, only one part of the system was incomplete and not yet in working, namely, the low level main drainage on the northern side, which served the whole of the cholera-stricken parishes from Aldgate to Bow. However, the official mind in this country has somehow become prejudiced against the well-known and usually accepted generalities of von Pettenkofer, which make more of a foul soil in the causation of miasmatic infections, than of contaminated surface water or contaminated water from reservoirs. Accordingly, the somewhat remarkable fact that the East End of London alone retained its old proclivity for choleraic infection was not joined to the fact of its being the only great division of the capital still unsewered, but to the fact that it was supplied by water taken in from the river Lea in Hertfordshire and (it was alleged) insufficiently filtered or otherwise purified at the Old Ford waterworks[1577].

The extension to Scotland in 1866 was late in the season and insignificant compared with former epidemics. It was heard of about the end of summer in Fraserburgh and one or two other ports or fishing places on the East Coast, but it was not until October and November that it attracted notice in the eight principal towns, the whole mortality from it in Glasgow being 53, in Edinburgh 154, in Dundee 105, in Aberdeen 62, in Paisley 2, in Greenock 14, in Leith 95, and in Perth 15. Besides these deaths there were 435 more in smaller towns or villages. The year was a very healthy one, the death-rates of Glasgow, Greenock and Perth having been below the mean of the previous ten years.

In Ireland the cholera of 1866 was even slighter than in Scotland, the only considerable epidemic having been at Belfast.

Cholera has never obtained a footing in London since the epidemic of 1866. In 1873, while the disease was unusually active in some parts of Europe, a few cases occurred in Wapping among Scandinavian emigrants on their way to America, who had been landed for a few days. But the infection did not spread. In 1884, when cholera came from Cochin China to Toulon and Marseilles, two or three cases occurred on board steamships arriving at Cardiff and Liverpool. In 1893, when the disease raged in Hamburg, a number of choleraic cases occurred at Grimsby in August, which were considered certainly Asiatic owing to their high degree of fatality. In August-October, the deaths from cholera, whether cholera nostras or the Asiatic type, or both together, were about thirty in Grimsby, eighteen in Hull, and about fifty more in various other places, chiefly in the south of Yorkshire. The autumn of that year was favourable to bowel-complaints and to enteric fever.