The Attorney-General and others -v- The Mayor, aldermen & citizens of the city of Nottingham. Minutes of evidence (February 10 - February 15, 1904).
- Great Britain. High Court of Justice. Chancery Division.
- Date:
- [1904?]
Licence: In copyright
Credit: The Attorney-General and others -v- The Mayor, aldermen & citizens of the city of Nottingham. Minutes of evidence (February 10 - February 15, 1904). Source: Wellcome Collection.
Provider: This material has been provided by London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine Library & Archives Service. The original may be consulted at London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine Library & Archives Service.
232/284 (page 228)
![A. Newsholme, February 13, 1904 within the quarter-milo. There were two running grounds, I think, — at Lillie Bridge—a small running ground on two sides of it ?—Yes. , 2582. But just look at the ditierence. If you take the table on page o21 on the quarter-mile circle, taking together all the five periods was to get as good an average as you can, and eliminating A chance as much as you can, the incidence on every 100 houses is over 17, whereas on the three-quarters to a mile, it is 2|—2-5. That leaves an troimcus margin for any case that has crept in by chance. At all events, I think, you will agree with this, that the result of Dr. Power's investigati(ms in this volume, the ISt^O—81 B volume, ltd to the appointment of the lioyal Commission, and the report of the Koyal Commission ultimately led to these hospitals being swept out of London ?—T think there is no doubt of it. 2o83. And is it not also the fact that since the ho^-pitals had been swept out of London, this special rate in the particular C districts has disappeared?—That is an excellent instance of a logical fallacy. It has also disappeared in other parts of England in which there has been no ren oval of a hos]>ital, and where there has been no small-pox in the intervening years. It is an excellc^nt example of reasoning for limited data. D 2584. It is reasoning from all the data you have in London ?— I decline to reason from only the in data London. I say, in other large towns where there has been no removal of small-pox hospitals, there has been the same long interval of relative absence of small-pox. L 2585. Is it not the fact that since the removal of the small-pox hospitals from London, London has recovered the position that it had with regard to the ])rovinces. 11 m glad you menticmed that point. Is it not a fact that before the smail-p )x hospitals were established in London, there was less small-pox in London than in the provinces ? ^ I do not remember it. It may be so and I accept it. 2586. I will give you the reference to it, because T am speaking by the book. Is it not the fact that during the time of the existence of the small-pox hospitals in London that London was degraded in reference to the provinces and became a very much worse place in comparison to them ?—That may be so. limit it to the provinces as a whole--you must take each big city on its own merits. 2587. But is it not also the fact that after the removal of the small-pox hospitals, London recovered its position and is now better than the provinces, taking the provinces as a whole ?—You cannot 2588. But just now you objected to taking London on its merits, and you said you must take the whole country ?—No, I said you must compare London with other cities individually, and not collectively, and find out the points of difference. H I](https://iiif.wellcomecollection.org/image/b21358606_0232.jp2/full/800%2C/0/default.jpg)
