The Public Health Crisis in Wallasey, 1851

On 16th June, 1851, a number of Wallasey ratepayers petitioned the General Board of Health to request a local inquiry. The letter of petition was as follows :

The number of ratepayers signing the letter (120) was well above the minimum of 30, or one tenth of the total ratepayers, required by the 1844 Act, and may be taken as signifying the strength of local feeling. Moreover, the 120 signatures included several of the 21 Wallasey Commissioners, who had been appointed following the 1845 Wallasey Improvement Act with a brief which included relieving exactly the problems outlined in their letter to the General Board of Health. The document also demonstrates considerable health concerns particularly in relation to the "highly offensive" stench (or miasma) from the polluted Seacombe shore. There is also more than a hint of political fall-out with the neighbouring town of Birkenhead in relation to their dockland developments affecting the tidal flow of the Seacombe flow. The Seacombe petition led to a visit by Robert Rawlinson. a superintending inspector of the General Board of Health, and his subsequent report to the Board in October 1851. Before looking in detail at Rawlinson's findings and the aftermath of his report, it is worth tracing the antecedent events in Wallasey in relation to public health, to uncover what had led to this crisis in confidence.

Wallasey - An Ancient and Isolated Community

Wallasey lies on the north-east corner of the Wirral Peninsula, one of the most remote parts of Cheshire - the county to which belonged until the reorganisation of 1974, when it became part of the new county of Merseyside. The township lies on relatively high ground, bordering the Irish Sea to the North and River Mersey to the east. To the west the land fell to a marshy low-lying area of central north Wirral, which until costal defence's were built was frequently tidally flooded. The area, known as the North-Wirral flats is essentially alluvial flood plain. To the south, Wallasey was bounded by a natural inlet of the River Mersey called the Wallasey Pool, into which a number of rivers drained, most notably the River Birkett. The Wallasey Pool was tidal, and this meant that at high tide (the River has one of the highest tidal flows in the country - about 30 feet from low to high tide), water would flow over the North Wirral flats towards the rising Wallasey Pool, and would meet at an area known as Bidston Moss.

John Carey's Map of 1807 of The Wirral Peninsula

These geographical considerations are important, as it can now be seen that Wallasey, at times depending on the tide, was almost an island, and even at low tide was an isolated and difficult place to approach. This explains its name, which is derived from "Walea" (as it is mentioned in the Domesday Book) meaning the "island of strangers". It was almost certainly settled in as a refuge from invading Saxons, it's virtual island status providing a safe haven for the early settlers. The island name was probably given by the Saxons, who left the settlement along having taken the rest of the Wirral.

Walker's Map of Cheshire, 1835

Four separate villages arose in Wallasey - Liscard, Wallasey (later known as Wallasey Village), Poulton and Seacombe (together often referred to as Poulton-cum-Seacombe). These were separated by heath and farmland, until urban developments of the 19th century. A local rhyme reflects Wallasey's old rural status, as well as its more regrettable associations with smuggling and wrecking -

Wallasey for wreckers,
Liscard for trees,
Poulton for honest men,
and Seacombe for thieves

Hunter's Map of Wirral (1798) showed the Wallasey Pool and the rivers draining into it, as well as the 4 main villages of Wallasey - Poulton, Seacombe, Liscard and Wallasey

The population of Wallasey was only 35 at the time of the Domesday Survey in 1086, and even by the 16th Century was less than 500. Growth had been negligible at the first census of 1801 when still only 663 lived in the parish, but throughout the nineteenth century the population rose steadily and considerably. This was due to urbanisation related to the growth of the Wallasey and Birkenhead Docks, and also Wallasey's growing "dormitory" status for workers in Liverpool, greatly aided by the Mersey ferry services.

By the 1840's Wallasey thus had a population of over 6000 - significant by contemporary standards. Yet it appears to have been an unpoliced, dangerous and isolated area: famous (or infamous) only for wrecking and smuggling activities of its inhabitants - including apparently the local clergy! Sanitary and health status at this time cannot be determined from official government sources, as Wallasey did not appear in any until Rawlinson's enquiry. In Chadwick's survey of 1842 for example he gave Cheshire in general small consideration, and did not even mention Wallasey, or indeed anywhere on the Wirral Peninsula. There are however other sources we can use to investigate health and sanitation, and in particular the impact of cholera on the community.

Health Care in Wallasey - The 1832 Cholera and Beyond

The provision of health care in Wallasey was poor throughout most of the 19th Century. The earliest medical service was the Wallasey Dispensary, which was a charitable outpatient service for the poor, started in 1831, and sited in Demesne Street in Seacombe. The Seacombe Dispensary for Children was started in 1867 by a single benefactor, Mr E. G. Hammond of Egremont. It was in Fell Street, Seacombe (very close to Demesne Street), and was no more than a cottage. In 1871 it moved into new premises in Demesne Street where is combined with the Seacombe Cottage Hospital which had been opened (as part of the Wallasey Dispensary) in 1869. All three institutions were now combined (known as the "Wallasey and Seacombe Cottage Hospitals and Wallasey Dispensary") and remained so until 1900 when they were all replaced by the Victoria Central Hospital (opened in 1901) in the more centrally situated Liscard. This comprehensive hospital also took over the work of the Infectious Diseases Hospital (opened in 1885 on the same site).

It can be seen that the Wallasey Dispensary was the only medical service available (apart from private doctors for those who could afford them) for much of the century. and for all the 4 cholera epidemics. Also a Medical Officer of Health was not appointed until 1873, (well after the 1866 epidemic) though the question had been discussed since 1865 by the Local Board of Health. The position was filled my Dr. Isaac Byerley, who was also Poor Law Medical Officer, and combined the two jobs. A full-time Sanitary Inspector was not appointed until 1888 the work having been previously done on a part-time basis by the surveyor of the Works and Health Committee who acted also as Inspector of Nuisances.

The Wallasey Dispensary was opened in 1831 just before the first cholera epidemic. The president of the charity was John Penkett, the chairman of the organising committee the Rev. E. T. Alder, and the appointed medical practitioner Mr. John Barrow (who received 4 shillings per patient seen). The quarterly meetings of the committee was held at the nearby hotel of Mr. Thomas Parry (one of the committee members). The project was funded from local donations to provide medicines and consultations (including home visits) to the poor, and there was also a subscription system whereby local labourers and tradesmen could obtain medical care for themselves and their families on payments of 6 shillings a year.This health care system had been described as "possibly the first of its kind in the country".

The Dispensary Committee produced annual reports each July, and in 1832 it was resolved that, "as prompt medical attendance is of greatest consequence in cases of malignant cholera, the committee be authorised to apply a part of the funds of the charity to the payment of medical practitioners called to attend patients who are unable to pay for advice, and that the committee be desired to request the prompt attendance of the medical gentlemen resident in the parish in all such cases". In July 1833 it was recorded that 208 patients were seen during the year "of which number several were cholera cases", and the accounts record £10 5.0 being paid for such cases to three doctors, Mr. Barrow, Mr. William, and Mr. Stone. The rate was now 5 shillings per patient, equating to 41 patients. Deaths during the year were not recorded in the 1833 report, but it was recorded "with blessing of the Almighty, that the prompt assistance afforded in such cases (ie cholera), has proved the means of checking the progress of that fatal disorder amongst the working classes and the poor of this Parish". The accounts are the only indication of cholera numbers - list of attendances with diagnosis do not appear to have been kept. Attendances at the Dispensary were certainly higher during the cholera epidemic (eg 50 patients in the first quarter of 1832, compared with 72 in the last quarter). Thus passed the 1832 epidemic in Wallasey - relatively quietly by comparison with Liverpool, only a mile away across the River Mersey, where numbers of cases and mortality was high, and "cholera riots" widespread. Wallasey's caseload was by comparison small, and though it had no real infirmary, it made admirable charitable provision for the affected poor (indeed a collection at Wallasey Church on the 5th August 1832 raised £16 7.0 specifically for cholera care).

Sanitary Improvements, 1845-1848

The first Wallasey Improvement Act was in 1845, lagging behind other neighbouring towns, such as Liverpool, Birkenhead and Chester. In detail, it was somewhat inconsequential, including for example a requirement that dogs were not to be used for drawing carts and much about the Leasowe Sandhills and their status as a sea defence. The Act did however contain two requirements of future importance. Firstly courtyard cellars were no longer to be used for dwelling purposes, and secondly a group of local commissioners (21 in number) were to be appointed to administrate the Act. They were to work chiefly through a "Wallasey Improvement Committee". which was to deal in particular with health, water supply, drainage and sewers.

The Wallasey Improvement Committee first met on 29th June 1845 at Parry's Hotel, Seacombe. Present were Mr. Peers, Mr. Charles Holland, Mr. Henry Winch and Mr. Parry (presumably the hotel manager). Mr. Winch was elected as chairman. The membership grew over the next few months, and Mr. William Mann was elected deputy chairman. After the first meeting, subsequent monthly meetings were held at the Queen's Hotel in Liscard. It was agreed on 9th August 1845 that two appointments should be made - a Surveyor and a Collector, both at a salary of £125 each. Both officers were to live within the Wallasey Parish boundaries, and it was "resolved that the clerk be instructed to cause an advertisement to be inserted in the Liverpool and Chester papers that the Commissioners are ready to receive applications". This again emphasise's that at the time neither Wallasey nor Birkenhead had their own local newspapers. There were subsequently 24 applications for the post of Surveyor, and 41 for that of Collector. At the Improvement Committee's meeting on 3rd September 1845, Mr. James West was appointed for the post of Surveyor "to attend constantly to the state of the roads and sewers; also to prepare plans of sewers and of proposed alterations".

A close view of the Seacombe area of Wallasey, from Bennison's Liverpool Map (1835). The relations of Seacombe to the Wallasey Pool, and Birkenhead beyond can be seen.

The work of the Improvement Committee was largely related to road improvements, and the investigation of nuisances - for example "annoyance caused by ...public worship...in the neighbourhood of Seacombe" (6th September, 1845), and Mrs Peers complaining of "...a pigsty adjoining her premises" (3rd October 1845). Discussions over several meetings also concerned objections to a proposed increase in charge (currently 19 shillings and 6 pence) for hiring the room at the Queen's Arms for committee meetings. In early 1846, meetings became weekly and business was increasingly concerned with road building and repairs, particularly in the Poulton and Seacombe area. The first major problem related to sewage and drainage was introduced by Mr. Parry on 30th January 1846. Mr. Parry "stated that the persons engaged in constructing the works under the Birkenhead Docks Commissioners had stopped up the main sewer from Seacombe". The clerk was instructed to write to the Birkenhead Docks Commissioners complaining of the problem. The letter clearly had no effect, as on 27th February, the minutes stated :-

Nothing appears to have happened subsequently until November 1846, when meetings were held with the Birkenhead Docks Commissioners to discuss the alterations to the Wallasey Pool in general; and in particular the construction of a wall across the north of the Pool, and excavations to increase its depth. The Wallasey Law Clerk attended these meetings representing the Wallasey Improvement Committee. The Dock Commissioners were looking to raise £463,900 to fund the project, hopefully from investments by landowners on both the Birkenhead and Wallasey sides of the Pool. Negotiations floundered, but in January 1847 the Wallasey Surveyor met with the Engineer of the Birkenhead Docks to try to resolve the problem of the Seacombe sewers. At a meeting of the Improvement Committee on 8th January 1847 Richard Parry was asked to act with the Surveyor to push the matter forward.

This was by no means the only sewerage problem in Wallasey, though probably the most serious. Surface water drainage was a problem in Liscard and Seacombe (heavy rains in the summer of 1846 caused many residences to flood). Blockage of the few existing sewers occurred in the Parish, and occasional new sewers took lengthy planning and often protracted wrangling's over cost (eg Hope Street to Church Street sewer, recorded in the minutes of 9th April and 24th April 1846). In December 1847 the Improvement Committee considered "the defective state of sewage in and around the village of Liscard". A proposed sewer between Liscard and Seacombe took almost a year of discussion, surveying and costing before being approved on 1st December 1848. Meanwhile the negotiations with the Commissioners of the Birkenhead Docks remained unproductive, though one sewer at the east end of the Pool, on the Wallasey side was re-opened in mid-1848.

A watercolour by S Massie (dated 1820) of the mouth of the Wallasey Pool looking towards Liverpool. The view is from Bidston and Seacombe foreshore can be seen across the Pool on the left.

The critical effect of dock development in the Wallasey Pool

The story of the development of efficient sewage and drainage in Wallasey is continually interrupted by the particular sewage problems in Seacombe and Poulton on the north shores of the Pool, and the difficulties in their correction by dock developments. The background to this problem goes back to the 1830's when William Laird, a Liverpool shipbuilder, realised the potential of the Wallasey Pool and bought land on the Birkenhead side for the purpose of dock and shipbuilding yard construction. The idea was attractive because such docks would escape the heavy duties of Liverpool. Indeed, a plan was made at this time to construct a ship canal to extend from the Pool in a westward direction across >>>

the Wirral to enter the mouth of the River Dee north of West Kirby. The proposed Wallasey Pool docks would then be entered from the Dee, which was a much cheaper river authority than the Mersey. Additionally the approach to this canal from Liverpool Bay would be easier and more sheltered than the difficult route into the River Mersey. Detailed plans for the project were produced by none other than Thomas Telford, and were made public in 1828. Though this ambitious plan received considerable support, it was too expensive (over £1.4 million) and was eventually disbanded in 1832. much to Telford's disgust.

Development of the docks in the Wallasey Pool was not however forgotten, and Laird continued with land purchase and to aid his dock plans. Liverpool Corporation however, had also been buying land around the Pool, and there seemed little doubt that they were concerned greatly by Telford's projected development of a potential rival port across the Mersey. Laird could not proceed without support from Liverpool, and an impasse was reached until 1843, when Liverpool (at the time in need of ready money) agreed to sell land in Birkenhead. This was duly done (bought by Laird and others), and in 1843 the Birkenhead Commissioners applied to parliament for a Dock Bill. The bill was passed the next year and work began almost immediately - the foundation stone being laid on 23rd October 1844. Sadly however, the project faltered financially and ended in ruin four years later. The costs were greatly underestimated and though there had been enthusiastic financial support early on, this was not continued. Liverpool also did all it could to oppose this scheme - extending their own docks and lowering dock rates, to reduce the attractiveness of the Pool development project.

Amongst the items of construction where costs had been underestimated was drainage of the adjacent lands into the Pool - especially the marshes of Bidston Moss and the areas of Poulton and Seacombe - described in evidence to the House of Commons as "a very troublesome job ...and a source of some expense". This was the first mention of the Wallasey drainage problems which were later to be blamed for cholera in the town in 1849, and to instigate sewerage reforms in Wallasey.

The financial situation of the Birkenhead Dock Commissioners worsened, and by August 1847 they were eventually bankrupt, with only two small and isolated docks completed. Despite the cessation of work, the Dock Commissioners continued to meet and Laird became their chairman. A parliamentary bill (the Birkenhead Docks Completion Bill) was proposed in 1848 to provide financial aid - interestingly specifically naming the formation of the sea wall around the North Reserve at Seacombe - land actually owned by the crown (indeed sometimes referred to as the "Seacombe Crown Reserve"). Eventually, late in 1848 a bill was passed (the Change of Trust Act) which altered the regulatory body to a trust of 13 members (including 3 Wallasey Commissioners - Henry Winch, Joseph Ewart, and John Mawdsley). The commissioners of Wallasey were elected from the Wallasey Improvement Committee, and their presence was designed more to represent the crown (who still owned considerable land on the Wallasey side of the Pool) rather than the interests of Wallasey.

More to restore confidence than anything else, Parliament allowed the trust to raise £50,000 to construct a temporary dam across the mouth of the Pool. The money was not easily raised (perhaps not surprising in view of the dubious financial dealings of the Birkenhead Dock Commissioners), and work was not commenced until March 1849 and not completed until 1850. It was this construction - essentially at the time quite unnecessary - which led to the sewage accumulation on the Seacombe shore and the eventual petition to the General Board of Health in 1851 by the Wallasey ratepayers.

Rendell's Map (1850) of the Birkenhead Dock developments. The "Temporary Dam" across the east side of the Great Float can be seen. It was this which led to sewage accumulation on the Seacombe shore, and was widely blamed for the 1849 cholera outbreak in Poulton and Seacombe.

The 1849 Cholera Outbreak in Wallasey

The 1848-49 cholera epidemic, reached Lancashire and Cheshire in early 1849. Strangely, this was not discussed by the Wallasey Improvement Committee until 27th June 1849, and then at the request of local doctors, two of whom (Dr. Dunlevy and Dr. Parr) attended the meeting. The minutes read that they

...stated that there had been several cases of Asiatic Cholera within the Parish particularly at Seacombe, several of which had terminated fatally and that the inhabitants of many of the poor at Seacombe and Egremont were in a very filthy and unwholesome condition and that many of the back streets required to be cleansed.

The response of the Improvement Committee was to instruct the Law Clerk to prepare a notice to be signed by the Head Constable requiring that the "occupier of such cottages ...white-wash, cleanse and purify the same and that in default of their so going proceedings should be taken against them to compel same" (the use of whitewashing is interesting as it probably originated from Dr. Duncan, the Medical Officer of Health of Liverpool, who introduced it across the Mersey in late 1848). The Wallasey Surveyor was also instructed to "remove all filth and noxious matter which may be found deposited or accumulated in any of the public highways or private streets and places within the limits of the Act and that he be prepared to remove them all with all justifiable expedition". The whole of this meeting on the 27th June 1849 had been devoted to cholera, and it is perhaps disappointing that the next 2 meetings of the committee in early August were cancelled because of poor attendance. However, sewage was increasingly debated by the committee over the next few months and in September it was resolved to build a new main sewer in Demesne Street - a major thoroughfare north of Seacombe Ferry and Parry's Hotel, and in which was the Seacombe Cottage Hospital.

At this time, public health issues became the province of the Health and Watch Committee of Wallasey, as well as the Improvement Committee, and the former first met on 10th August 1849. An argument over the necessity of the Demesne Street sewer became one of their first items, but this was eventually resolved by both committees and in November a tender of £50 was accepted for the work. The main Seacombe sewer and the Birkenhead Dock problem was resurrected however and brought to the attention of the Health and Watch Committee on 31st August 1949 by Richard Parry. The previous alterations by the Birkenhead Dock Trustees had apparently "not proved effective from removing the nuisance before claimed of".

From the minute books of both of these committees, it is clear that cholera in Wallasey in early and mid-1849 had greatly increased public concern on sanitation and sewage. There was a strong complaint to both committees from residents of Church Street in Egremont on their "defective state of sewerage" making the houses "damp and unwholesome". In September 1849 meeting of the Health and Watch Committee, the Law Clerk reported on 16 "notices of the existence of nuisance" in the last month, and at the next meeting on the 26th October. 12 more were reported. At their next meeting on 30th November however it was reported that "there was a very great improvement in the sanitary state of the Parish, both cholera and fever having entirely disappeared. The law Law Clerk was also able to report no notices of nuisance.

The self-congratulation was perhaps a little premature and inappropriate. The epidemic was ebbing all over the country, and Wallasey’s response by whitewashing walls and surveillance of nuisances almost certainly had little or no effect on the retreat of the epidemic locally. It is surprising also that neither the Improvement nor the Health and Watch Committees seemed concerned with the actual numbers affected by cholera, or how this compared with neighbouring areas. This information seems only obtainable from central sources.

The Cholera Committee of the Royal College Physicians recorded from local enquiries all cholera deaths (not total cases) in England for the 1848-49 epidemic and the situation in the north-west is shown in one of the maps of the report. Liscard and Poulton are both recorded as having 10-20 deaths per 10,000 population – the same range as Birkenhead and Chester, but much less that for Liverpool at 80-120/10,000. Wallasey’s population at the time was about 8,000 (6,261 in 1841; and 8,348 in 1851), and this would equate to 8-16 deaths each in Liscard and Poulton. The Royal College report stated that the main outbreak occurred in June. 1849.

This information broadly agrees with William Farr’s statistics in the Registrar General’s report on cholera 1848-1849. The entry for Wallasey is as follows :-

It should be noted that the numbers refer to deaths again, rather than cases. The total deaths were 30; 4 at Wallasey, 13 at Liscard and 13 at Poulton-cum-Seacombe. The population given was from the 1841 census and for a rapidly growing township such as Wallasey, it was clearly an understatement. However, such census figures were understandably used throughout Farr’s report, and they can at least be used for comparison of local mortality rates.

Because of upward population drift (mentioned previously) the figures for Liverpool, Birkenhead and Wallasey shown in this table are a little exaggerated, compared with the more stable rural Wirral areas of Woodchurch, Eastham etc. Nevertheless, the comparison is useful - Wallasey faired considerably better than Birkenhead and especially Liverpool, but worse than the rural central and southern areas of the peninsula.

The passing of the cholera in Wallasey must have been greeted with considerable relief; but it left its mark on the population, and especially the ratepayers and the members of the Improvement, and the Health and Watch Committee. The latter was increasingly becoming involved with administration of the growing local police force, and by early 1851 had virtually ceased considering health matters. The Improvement Committee found itself impotent on health reform, and the Seacombe sewage problem (seen as a major instigator of the 1849 cholera) was possibly and inextricably entwined with the Birkenhead Dock Committee. It was at this time (mid-1851) and in this air of frustration, fear and desperation; that the petition to the General Board of Health was made by the 120 Wallasey ratepayers, including several who were Wallasey Commissioners and.or members of the Improvement Committee.

The Rawlinson Reports, 1851-52

In response to the Wallasey ratepayer's petition of 16th June 1851, the General Board of Health sent Robert Rawlinson to conduct local enquiries, which took place at Parry's Hotel in Seacombe on 31st July 1851. Rawlinson was a senior inspector of the General Board, and an engineer and builder by training and trade. His report was laid before the General Board in October - an impressively rapid four months since the original petition. The document was a 49 page report appended by several maps; and contained great detail - including history, geography, geology and meteorology of the environment; as well as a full report of the enquiry and a summary of the evidence and findings. Rawlinson visited Wallasey the next year, producing a supplementary enquiry in May 1852. It is worth noting that no other Wirral towns petitioned the General Board in this way, and only 5 others did so in the rest of Cheshire.

The inquiry got off to a slightly stormy start. Some of the Wallasey Commissioners who had not signed the petition were clearly against such external interference, and raised technical objections including lack of notice (though in fact, such notice had appeared in no less than 5 Liverpool newspapers). An objection by Charles Hill, a local solicitor and a Wallasey Commissioner, was made on the grounds of potential rate increases.

Rawlinson also face difficulties with those who had actively petitioned for his inquiry, many of whom were disappointed at his limited powers. He wrote :-

Rawlinson emphasised the profound disappointment felt by many of the petitioners as the inquiry proceeded, essentially over the permissive nature of the legislation. He also made it clear that this problem occurred regularly in the inquiries he had conducted in other parts of the country. Somewhat ruefully, he remarked that " ...if compulsory powers existed ...this nuisance at Seacombe might be removed at once ...it must now remain months, and may continue for years". Despite these political meanderings, the key complaint was eventually aired. Richard Parry, Deputy Chairman of the Commissioners (who had been most closely involved with the Birkenhead Docks Issue on the Improvement Committee) said :-

Thomas Hassell, clerk to the commissioners, supported Parry, and also pointed out that they (the Wallasey Commissioners) were legally powerless to correct the sewage problems at Seacombe - they were caused by the Birkenhead dock developments under an Act of Parliament, yet "at present the Dock Commissioners have no money to complete even their works" (let alone the sewage problems their work had caused!) Moreover, even if the Wallasey Commissioners were to finance the sewage corrections, they could not without parliamentary permission, as the main affected area was the North Reserve, which was crown property.

Rawlinson personally inspected the area and was clearly impressed, writing :-

Rawlinson accepted that the Birkenhead Dock Development had led to lack of tidal flow at Seacombe, as claimed in the original petition. "Tidal action intimately concerns the residents on the Seacombe shore", he wrote and then with some literary flourish, "the great laws of nature may not be subverted by any forethought of man". It was however, not just the tides that Rawlinson held responsible for the Wallasey situation - he did not accept that the Wallasey Commissioners were as legislatively impotent as they claimed, suggesting that if they "had put in force the powers of their Act (the Wallasey Improvement of 1845) as it now exists to their fullest extent, many nuisances complained of would have been abated". Indeed, Rawlinson listed the clauses of this Act, appending when he felt relevant, critical addition :-

Rawlinson's conclusions were predictable and were a harsh indictment to what he clearly felt was slack local administration compounded by the tidal dock problem. They began as follows :-

The conclusion continues by mentioning inefficient cesspools, poorly constructed streets, yards and pavements, and a "deficiency of local power to grapple with all the evils which exist". it was with no surprise that Rawlinson recommended the election of a Local Board of Health.

The second Rawlinson Report of May 1852 was as a result of a further visit to Wallasey in March of that year. The purpose was to extend the remit of the proposed Local Board to cover other parts of the parish - notably Liscard and Wallasey, and also to establish the representation and powers of the Board. Before this could be done however, local objections to the whole process again had to be heard, including the attempted presentation of a dubiously genuine petition of "323 persons of the highest respectability" protesting against the establishment of the Local Board. The objections failed however, and the representation was established (15 members, 6 from Liscard, 3 from Wallasey and 6 from Poulton-cum-Seacombe); and the powers and responsibilities were enumerated in detail.

The most interesting part of this report (which was largely a rubber-stamping exercise to the first report), however is contained in 16 pages of appendices. Two letters to Rawlinson from local residents in the Seacombe area (both in January 1852) described attacks of diarrhoeal disease which the correspondents related to poisoning from the "effluvia coming from this place". Rawlinson sent both letters to the General Board of Health, with a covering letter of his own, supporting their complaints and asking the Board to help force the Birkenhead Dock Company into remedial action.

Appendix C to Rawlinson's second report was a long letter from Charles Holland, Chairman of the Wallasey Commissioners, to the General Board of Health (dated 22nd January 1852). The letter was a detailed rebuttal of Rawlinson's criticism of them in his 1851 report. Holland pointed out again their powerlessness to act over the issues of crown poverty and the Birkenhead Dock Commissioners. Additionally, many of the defective houses, courtyards and pavements had been built prior to the Wallasey Improvement Act of 1845. With some justification, Holland also protested that that active policy of nuisance removal had been in operation by the Improvement Committee since its inception. (Rawlinson conceded ground here - "I had no intention to accuse the Wallasey Commissioners of wilful or of criminal negligence in carrying out the existing Act ...deficiency of power was most complained of"). The Commissioners however, clearly did not have full local support - Appendix D records a letter to the General Board from Mr. W.H Nevill and a group of residents, fully supporting Rawlinson's report and his criticisms of the Wallasey Commissioners - "your immoralists humbly submit that the report is confirmatory of the views expressed by Mr, Rawlinson". A further local group - the Special Committee of the Wallasey Ratepayers was also in operation. They too sent a report to Rawlinson again critical of the commissioners, particularly for their pursuance of a further local Act, rather than their wholehearted support of the formation of a Local Board.

Finally, and not of most interest with regard to the cholera issue, Rawlinson also included a report entitled "The Health of Seacombe" by by Mr. W. Nisbet of Egremont, dated 27th March 1852. This concerned Rawlinson's entry in his 1851 report from the evidence of Dr. Halliday with regard to the severity of the cholera outbreak in 1849. Nisbet wrote :-

Nisbet correctly pointed out that the cholera deaths in Seacombe in particular and Wallasey in general were greatly less than in Liverpool (not just in total, but as a proportion of population); and also that cholera was documented by no less than Dr. William Duncan to have appeared in Liverpool in December 1848, whereas the first death in Seacombe did not occur until 1849. With justification, Nisbet suggested that if Halliday's evidence to Rawlinson had been correct (ie that the Seacombe cholera mortality was worse than in Liverpool), then "the population would become annihilated ...and the place would have become virtually a pesthouse, and the worst malaria of Africa comparatively desirable!"

Rawlinson's assimilation of the evidence was thus not always critical, and his judgments perhaps sometimes sweeping. Nevertheless, his reports give a fascinating view of the divisions in local opinion over the adoption of the Public Health Act, and the exaggerated misconceptions and clear untruths being perpetrated by professionals and politicians for this own ends.