OVERPRESSURE IN SCHOOLS.
[To THE EDITOR OF THE "SPECTATOR.'']
Sur,—Your review to-day of Dr. Hertel's work on "Overpressure in High Schools in Denmark" and of my introduction thereto, contains, amongst much that is obliquely misleading, one state- ment that is directly untrue, and that I must trust to your fair- ness to permit me to contradict. The review refers to my Report on Overpressure and that of Dr. Hertel as " Reports ' prepared on the personal responsibility of private physicians without initiative, help, check, or verification of any public authority." Now on turning to Hansard, Vol. 284, p. 1,331, you will find that Mr. Mundella, then Vice-President of the Council, speaking in the House of Commons on February 19th, 1884, used these words,—" I have invited Dr. Crichton-Browne to visit some of the public elementary schools in London in company with one of her Majesty's Inspectors, and to favour me with his opinion of their work from a sanitary point of view. I am glad to say he has agreed to do so." And on turning to my report itself you will find that there was published along with it, by order of Mr. Mundella, an elaborate and now much- lamented " Memorandum " or criticism by the Inspector of Schools who accompanied me on some of my visitations. It thus appears that my report, instead of having been prepared " with- out initiative, help, check, or verification of any public authority," was initiated by the Education Department and was checked by that high public authority, Mr. Joshua Girling Fitch. All this must have been well known to your reviewer, who quotes from a document•_in which the true facts are set forth.
Your reviewer is as far wrong with regard to the initiation of Dr. Hertel's inquiry as he is with regard to mine. In attempt- ing to cast discredit on Dr. Hertel's conclusions, he curiously omits to mention the all-important fact that these have been fully confirmed by a Government Commission. I have no more earnest wish than that my own conclusions should be submitted [As to the "initiative," we were mistaken. As to the "check," we certainly were not. Mr. Fitch's able report, which we at least do not lament at all, was not in any way allowed to affect Dr. Crichton-Browne's very wild one. Of course, in criticising Dr. Crichton-Browne's methods, we were not speaking of Mr. Fitch's commentary. If Dr. Crichton-Browne had allowed Mr. Fitch's criticisms to influence his conclusions, then there would have been check and verification, which, in the report which he issued, practically did not exist.—ED. Spectator.]
Previous page
