§ MR.DAVENPORTsaid, he wished to ask the President of the Poor Law Board, Whether he is aware that the opinion expressed by the Poor Law Board in their Letter to the Guardians of Birmingham last year, that the reduction of the numbers of medical officers from eight to five was injudicious, has not been acted upon, and that one medical officer has still to attend to the wants of a population 44,000 in number; and whether the Poor Law Board have taken or propose to take any steps to remedy this state of things; whether the population of the medical districts in Birmingham exceeds that prescribed by Article 159 of the General Consolidated Orders of the Poor Law Board; and, if so, to what extent, and what special reasons exist why the terms of that General Order have not been enforced; and, why the medical officers of Birmingham are elected annually, and not permanently, as recommended by the Select Committee of this House, appointed in 1854?
§ MR. GOSCHENreplied, that the circumstances to which the hon. Member alluded would be set out fully in the correspondence for which he had moved. Last year the Board of Guardians of the Birmingham Union had reconsidered their medical arrangements and reduced the number of medical officers from eight to six, inclusive of a public vacci- 1174 nator, but they had materially raised the salaries of those officers and made the medical relief districts coincide with the ordinary relief districts. The Poor Law Board was doubtful as to the expediency of such an arrangement; but it had been pointed out to them by the guardians that an average of previous years showed that the medical officers would not have more than sixteen cases a day to visit at the homes of the patients; and the result of the first half-year's trial showed that the daily visits amounted to sixteen and a-half. He had not vet learned the result for the whole year, and when he had he should be in a position to consider whether the arrangement should be continued. With regard to the General Consolidated Order, he must point out to the hon. Gentleman that this Order was not in force in Birmingham, and there were many other populous parishes where it was not in force. As regarded the annual election of medical officers, the case was much the same; but it appeared to him that the argument was in favour of extending to Birmingham the provision with respect to the permanent appointment of medical officers.