Sources B and C mainly provide similar evidence for attitudes towards Public Health and the dangers of an outbreak of disease in 1849 because they both agree that public health in certain areas were much worse than those which were affected by the new Public Health Act. This is clear because Source B refers to, “We live in muck and filthe” and Source C refers to, “We also want sewers and an ample supply of water”.They also both agree that there are dangers of an outbreak of disease in 1849 for Source B refers to, “if the Cholera comes lord help us” and in Source C, the author claims that, “without which no efficient sanitary measures can be carried out”, which is referring to the anxiety of disease. Both Sources B and C offer similar evidence because they are both written for the same cause.
Sources B and C were both written by people who wanted the Public Health Act to affect their local community due to the poor conditions and danger of disease in their areas. They are also both written at very similar dates, Source B having been written in 1848 and Source C having been written in 1849. This is important because public health at this time was known to be dreadful and both give a good insight towards the dangers of an outbreak of disease in 1849.They also both have the same purpose, for they were written for the intention of having the Public Health Act applied to their local areas (both signed by other locals who wanted the Act enforced), meaning that similar evidence would be involved in inquiring for the act.
These similarities make Source C more valuable as evidence for attitudes towards Public Health and the dangers of an outbreak of disease in 1849 because the petition in Source C was signed by 164 people, whereas Source B was signed by 54 people.However, there are some differences between Sources B and C as evidence for attitudes towards Public Health and the dangers of an outbreak of disease in 1849. Firstly, both sources provide different evidence, for Source B gives a greater sense of desperation and fear, whereas Source C does not give as much of a sense of desperation. This can be seen when Source B refers to, “livin in a wilderness so far as the rest of London knows anything of us” whereas Source C only states that, “Unlike elsewhere there appears to be a very favourable feeling towards to its (the Public Health Act) adoption”.The sources are also written very differently. Source B is written with many spelling mistakes and bad grammar, whereas Source C is written in a more formal tone without any spelling mistakes or bad grammarThe main reason why the sources offer different evidence is because they are written by two people from very different backgrounds. Source B is written by someone who has clearly not been educated very well as the letter is written in poor English. This makes the source more valuable as evidence for the attitudes towards Public Health and the dangers of an outbreak of disease in 1849 because it comes from someone who sounds more desperate.
Whereas, Source C is written by an active local Poor Law Guardian a middle class man or above, and has been educated. Due to the tone being formal, desperation for the Public Health Act does not come through as clearly as Source B therefore it is not as valuable evidence for the attitudes towards Public Health and the dangers of an outbreak of disease in 1849.Source B offers more useful evidence the Source C because not only does it describe conditions of the public health problems and bring across the anxiety of an outbreak of disease in 1849, but also presents more of a sense of desperation due to the illiteracy of the author, for example, “The stenche of their gully hole is disgustin We all of us suffer and numbers are ill”. Source B is also reliable because it comes from someone who is clearly more desperate for better public health conditions due to the tone. Source C is just as reliable for a ‘Board’ was secured and he was assisted by Chadwick’s favoured engineer.Overall, Source B is more useful than Source C as evidence for attitudes towards Public Health and the dangers of an outbreak of disease in 1849 because it describes the public health conditions of his area in greater detail than Source C, and, his evidence is typical to the conditions described at the time.
However, together, they provide valuable evidence because both corroborate that public health at the time was appalling and that there were dangers of an outbreak of disease in 1849.