1278

from an article which appears in the current number of thEJournal of State Medicine, the editor having courteous]3favoured us with an advance proof. This journal is the

official organ of the Royal Institute of Public Health, oi

which body Dr. Smith is also the President, so we may takeit that the. statements contained therein are authenticated

and they are borne out by quotations from the minutes of themeetings of the School Board. The facts are these. In

1890 Dr. Smith was appointed as medical officer on probationto the Board on the understanding that he was to be debarredfrom private practice and that he was not to be allowed tohold any appointment which interfered with the properperformance of his duty to the Board. In May, 1890., twomonths after the appointment, Dr. Smith wrote to the Boardintimating that if he was required to give his whole time"in a rigid sense to the Board his position would be untenable.On this letter the Board took no adverse action. In fact, onMay 15th, 1890, the Board decided that Dr. Smith mightcontinue to hold two offices outside the School Board-

namely those of medical officer of health of 1Yoolwich andthe professorship of State medicine at King’s College. In

1899 the General Purposes Committee of the School Boardoffered to increase Dr. Smith’s salary from .6600 to £800 perannum on condition that he gave up the medical officershipof health of Woolwich. In view of the impending changesto be brought about by the Act for the local government ofLondon this proposal was suspended, and eventually theSchool Board offered a salary of .E800 per annum on con-dition that all appointments were given up except the King’sCollege professorship. Dr. Smith declined to accept thisoffer and the School Board then passed the followingresolution :-

"That the resolution increasing the salary of the medicalofficer from .6600 to E800 be rescinded ; that Dr. Smith be’called upon to resign all his paid professional appointments,with the exception of his lectureship on medical jurisprn-dence in King’s College ; and that, failing his consent to

these conditions, six months’ notice be given to Dr. Smith forthe termination of his appointment.

"

This resolution was passed by the Board on July 25th. 1901.We consider that the School Board has acted in an

unfair manner. To begin with it never should haveallowed Dr. Smith to hold the appointment of medicalofficer to itself and other appointments too, especially suchan arduous one as that of medical o,’Hcer of health of

Woolwich. It is absolutely impossible for any man to hold- s3.tisfactorilytwo such appointments as that of medical officerof health of a district which had in 1899 a population of107,324 and that of medical officer to a body responsible forabout 500,000 children. In addition to his medical officership of health Dr. Smith was public analyst, and in addition to i

his professorship he is director of the King’s College labo- ratories of State medicine. But the Board having winked r.at what must have been a dereliction of duties had no i

right to go back on itself. The medical oflicei- to the

London School Board should be a competent man, he

.should have a salary of .S1000 per annum, he should be f

required to give his whole time to the duties of his post, I

and he should be responsible for signing certificates for t

non-attendance. He ought to keep an eve on the sanitary condition of the schools, the condition of the children, v

and the health of the teachers. It should also be im-

possible for him to be able to be dismissed by a body the C

composition of which changes every few years ancl the t

members of which are popularly elected. The persons in n

whose hands his dismissal should rest are the members of i:the Education Department. We do not for one moment a

consider that Dr. Smith should have been allowed to hold c

.such a number of posts that he could not possibly carry out s:the duties entailed thereby, neither do we think it fitting t]that panegyrics upon himself as a public servant should p

appear in the journal of the Committee of which he is amember—e.g., "We venture to assure Dr. Smith of our

sympathy with him and our respect for the dignified positionhe has taken "—but none the less the Board has acted in

a mean, reprehensible manner.

DEATH OF A CENTENARIAN.

MRS. ELIZABETH HANBURY, of Richmond, Surrey, died ouOct. 31st, aged 108 years and four months. She was the

youngest child of Mr. John Sanderson, who had a warehousein St. Mary Axe, and she was born in Castle-street, in ’the

parish of St. Alphege, London-wall, on June 9th, 1793. In

1826 she married Mr. Cornelius Hanbury and thenceforthlived for a long time at Stoke Newington in North London.Mrs. Hanburv was a member of the Society of Friends,spoke at the meetings, and was an acknowledged minister.Among the numerous philanthropic and charitable mOV6-ments which occupiecl much of her time and energythe visiting of prisoners in Newgate (in conjunction withMrs. Fry), the visiting of convict-ships, especially those forfemales, and the work of the Anti-Slavery Society held theforemost place. She was able to read and to write even whenover 100 and to go from one room to another of her housewhen over 107. Mrs. Hanbury has left a son, Mr. Cornelius

Hanbury, chairman of the firm of Allen and Hanburys,Limited, an old-established City firm of pharmaceuticalchemists. A notice of Mrs. Hanbury, together with a

portrait taken on her hundredth birthday, are contained ina recently published autobiography of her daughter, the

late Charlotte Hanbury, edited by Mrs. Reid. The funeraltook place on Nov. 5th in the Friends’ burial ground at

Wellington, Somerset. -

THE PRINCE OF WALES’S HOSPITAL FUND FORLONDON.

THERE is no need here to remind our readers of how much

this Fund has done and is doing for the sick poor of

London ; but, as in every other organisation for helpingothers, money is required. It was the hope of the RoyalFounder of the Fund-now His Majesty the King-that theresources of the London hospitals should be increased by.6100.000 a year. Although this hope has not been realised,yet it is hoped that £50,000 a year has been found, and thusanother £50,000 a year remains to be gathered in by somemeans. The organising committee of the fund, throughtheir chairman, Viscount Duncannon, have suggested thatthe freeing of the hospitals from debt would be a mostacceptable coronation gift to the King and have issued anappeal to this effect. The appeal is being sent to the press,o factories, and to offices. We have every satisfaction in

endorsing the appeal, for the London hospitals are kept,-oing by purely voluntary gifts whether in land or in money,while the senior members of the staff either give their

services for nothing or else for a few pounds per annumwhich are paid to them more for administrative reasons than’or any other. Of our two oldest hospitals that of St.3artholomew was founded by an ordinary citizen attachedo the Court and afterwards was supported and served by theAugustinian Brothers of the Priory of St. Bartholomew,vhile St. Thomas’s Hospital arose from the Priory ofit. Mary Overy, served by brothers of the same order.

Guy’s Hospital was originally the creation of one man, andbus our endowed hospitals owe nothing to the State or to

nmicipal rates for their funds. Our hospital system the people’s own ; it is kept up by private donationsnd subscriptions ; it reflects both the high regard theonntry has for the sacredness of human life and the

ympathy the people feel for its care. In such a city aszis, where life teems in restricted areas and throbs in com-licated activities, dangers are always threatening the healthy,