---
Title: Notebook “Social cases. 1869” (1869). IV: Cuttings, November 1869
Description: Newspaper cuttings collected by Marx, most of them of November 1869: relapsing (“famine”) fever in London, the inquests on the deaths in St. Pancras workhouse infirmary and the inquiry into the case of Mary Allen, the rural magistracy, the sentences for the Mold riot, a pauper fined for refusing to attend prayers, the relieving officer of Bradford charged with manslaughter, sickness and distress in East London, the plunder of the London charities, and the equalization of the poor rate.
Author: Karl Marx
Date: 1869
URL: https://marxismo.school/archivo/marx-engels/originales/1869%20Notebook%20%C2%ABSocial%20cases.%201869%C2%BB.%20IV.%20Cuttings%2C%20November%201869
---


*Newspaper cuttings collected by Karl Marx in the notebook “Social cases. 1869” (IISG, Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels Papers, P 3), as transcribed in MEGAdigital (MEGA² IV/19). The source of each cutting, as identified by the MEGA editors, is given in the notes; the handwritten dates added by Jenny Marx (daughter) are not reproduced.[^lic] [Traducción al español](https://marxismo.school/archivo/marx-engels/1869%20Cuaderno%20%C2%ABSocial%20cases.%201869%C2%BB.%20IV.%20Recortes%20de%20noviembre%20de%201869)*

#### “FAMINE FEVER” IN LONDON.[^f73]

We regret to learn that the number of cases of relapsing fever appears to be still on the increase in the metropolis, and we understand that, in view of meeting any exigency which may arise, a deputation from the managers of the Metropolitan Asylum Board waited upon the President of the Poor-law Board on Thursday, when it was arranged that negotiations should, if possible, be immediately concluded with the authorities of the Fever Hospital for the erection of a temporary building on the land belonging to the hospital, capable of containing sixty beds, that being the maximum addition for which there is room. It was also arranged that the managers should proceed immediately to enter into a provisional contract for the erection of another temporary building on one of the sites belonging to them, in case, as appears very probable, it should be found that further accommodation is afterwards required.

The re-appearance in this country of relapsing fever is a phenomenon which might have posited a moral if we had lately been indulging in boastfulness about our riches and prosperity. The wealthiest city in the world is threatened by a disease which implies chronic poverty, and is popularly known as “famine” fever. It is probably not indigenous in this island, but it certainly never makes way unless it finds conditions favourable to its progress. It searches out the weak and sickly in a population. Poland may be its birthplace; but the East-and of London would afford it no asylum if it did not find the same sort of grazing ground in Whitechapel as in the East of Europe. There is a moral as well as a physical element in it. It is not the bare want of food, but the hopelessness of earning food, which prepares the way for the fever’s ravages. Where body and mind are alike depressed, is its proper home. It is not easily dislodged, but it spreads over a wide extent of country. It ordinarily does not take away life, but it makes life seem not worth having, and it opens the door to mortal diseases.

#### THE TREATMENT OF THE POOR IN ST. PANCRAS.[^f74]

Yesterday, Dr. Lankester held two inquests at the College Arms, Crowndale-road, Camden-town, in cases bearing upon the administration of relief to the sick in St. Pancras workhouse. Several members of the new Board of Guardians were present, for the purpose of taking part in the proceedings should any evidence be given affecting them as a board. The first inquiry was on the body of Esther Wright, an infant, three weeks old, which was born in the workhouse, and whose mother prematurely left the house in consequence partly, as she alleged, of a neglect on the part of the workhouse authorities to supply the child with necessary nourishment. Sarah Wright, having been sworn, said she was confined in the workhouse. She was married. She left last Tuesday morning of her own accord. She was asked to stop longer on account of the child, but left because she thought it required more nourishment than she could get in the house. She told the doctor and Mrs. Sanson on Sunday last that she had no milk to give the child, but they did not give her any till Monday night. She only got it then because the child cried so. She asked for milk at six o’clock on Monday evening, but did not get it till ten. Coroner—That is a distinct charge against the workhouse authorities. Witness—When I went out I got the child milk and port wine. I went for Dr. Harding, but he did not order anything, because the child was too far gone. Mr. Thomas Marsey Harding, surgeon, said—I was called on Wednesday last. The child was dying when I saw it. It was a very feeble child, and much emaciated. There were no marks of violence. It was clean and properly attended to on the part of the mother. I opened the body. There was dense congestion of the brain and of the lungs. The right side of the heart was glutted. Both sides contained black blood. The stomach contained milk and port wine. There was no sign of poison. There was plenty of chyle in the stomach. The cause of death was congestion of the brain and lungs. Coroner—Is it your impression that there was any neglect on the part of the mother? Witness—No; it was a disease of debility, which might have come on naturally in a feeble child, even if it were properly attended to. By a Juror—Port wine would not have brought this passive kind of congestion on. Susan Sanson, resident midwife of the workhouse, swore, in opposition to the mother of deceased, that the child had milk given it twice last Monday. She also said it was a “miserable little thing from its birth,” and “she never expected it to live.” Sarah Wright, recalled, denied that the child had milk twice on Monday. Milk was asked for at six in the evening, and was not obtained till 10, Susan Sanson re-called, said the mothers in the lying-in ward could have milk for their children when they liked. Mary Ann Brant, who appeared at one time to have been a very intelligent woman, but who is now extremely feeble in mind and body, said she was the nurse who supplied the milk to Sarah Wright twice on Monday. The Coroner said Sarah Wright had not substantiated the charge of neglect against the authorities, and the only consideration was whether she had any hand in the death of the child by going out before she ought. She gave it some port wine, and it was a question whether she did not give it too much; but Mr. Harding could not say she had. (Mr. Harding: No.) It was rather an early age to begin giving a child alcohol, and the mother ought not to have done it without the advice of a medical man. The Foreman of the Jury to Mrs. Sanson—How many patients have you to look after? Mrs. Sanson—We are rather slack now. I have 12 mothers and their infants at the present moment. Foreman—Are there any others besides the woman Brant to assist you? Witness—Yes, there are three others. Juror—I think our parish should put a more able person to wait upon the poor creatures in the lying-in ward than this aged and decrepit woman (Brant). If they are all like her I should not wonder at patients being unattended to. Witness, by Mr. Watkins, a guardian.—This woman has no laborious work to perform. Juror—The mother swore she did not get the milk till 10 o’clock at night, although she asked for it at six; and it struck me that if this was the old woman who had attended on her it was very likely to be as she stated. Mr. Smith, a guardian, said the midwife could have any assistance she liked, and if she did not have enough it was her own fault. A verdict of “Death from natural causes” was returned.

The second case was that of George Edwards, an aged inmate of the insane ward. Margaret Edwards, a very aged and infirm woman, said she was the widow of deceased. They had been in the workhouse 12 months last June. Coroner—Did they separate you? Witness—Oh, yes sir. Coroner—Oh, yes! But there is a law which says you should not be separated; and it is a much higher law than guardians’ law. Witness proceeded to say she saw her husband once a week. He always knew her, and would not hurt her. Mr. Blake, the master of the house, was very kind to them. She saw her husband alive for the last time on Wednesday week last, Robert Hunter, a helper in the insane ward, very tersely described the sudden death as it took place on Monday last. He said: “All of a sudden he threw himself back, and went off.” Dr. Ellis said death was caused by the rupture of a large vessel in the chest. A verdict of “Death from natural causes” was returned.

#### MORE WORKHOUSE HORRORS.[^f75]

On Monday, Dr. Lankester held an inquest at the Bull’s Head Inn, Tottenham-court-road, on the body of Michael Murphy, aged thirty-two, who had died in the infirmary of St. Pancras workhouse.

The case in itself was of a simple character, but as it involved the whole question of the treatment of the sick poor in the infirmary of St. Pancras workhouse—whether that infirmary is or is not sufficient for the wants of the parish, and whether even the large number of inquests which have been lately held on persons dying therein have not been rendered necessary by the acceleration of death from overcrowding—the inquiry was one of the highest importance.

The Coroner briefly explained the circumstances under which the case had come to his knowledge by a letter from the clerk to the board of guardians. It appeared that Michael Murphy, a costermonger, had been suffering from pulmonary consumption, and had been under the treatment of Mr. Barnes, one of the out-door medical officers, for some four or five weeks. Finding he was in the last stage, and that the house in which he resided, in Little Pancras-street, Tottenham-court-road, contained nine rooms, inhabited by twenty-seven persons, and that typhus fever was in the house, he ordered his removal, on Tuesday, the 2nd instant, to the workhouse infirmary. He was admitted about four o’clock, and was seen by Dr. Ellis, who prescribed for him, and placed him in No. 11—the men’s medical ward. He appeared better next morning, when seen about eight o’clock; but about half-past nine, when the doctor went his rounds, he had so changed as to appear dying. His friends were then sent for, and he died about twelve o’clock.

Dr. Ellis was sworn, and after stating the history of the case, in answer to a question from the coroner, said: I think his death was accelerated by the foul state of the atmosphere of the ward of the infirmary in which he was placed from overcrowding. On the day and night he was in it there were twenty-eight beds in it, and nine sleeping on the floor on mattresses, making thirty-seven patients in the ward. I think the length of the ward is seventy-four feet, twenty-one feet wide, and twelve feet high, which would give about 250 cubic feet of air to each patient, which is not half the amount required by the Poor-law Board. When patients are sent to us we are obliged to take them in. As Mr. Solly and another independent medical gentleman can give evidence on this point I should prefer you to hear them.

The Coroner remarked that he had no power to call or pay any other medical witnesses; but if Mr. Solly volunteered any evidence as to the cause of death he would hear him.

Mr. Samuel Solly sworn: I am the president of the Royal College of Surgeons, senior surgeon of St. Thomas’s Hospital, and F R S. I visited the St. Pancras Infirmary on the 4th inst., at half-past nine in the evening. I went over the whole infirmary, and amongst others No. 11, or male medical ward. I have been over and through the foulest of wards in hospitals and other institutions, but I never, in the whole course of my professional experience, entered so foul a place. I never experienced a stench so beastly in all my life arising from foul atmosphere. I should say that this disgusting foulness of atmosphere arose mainly from the want of ventilation, as well as the large number of patients there were in the ward. There were twenty-eight beds, and nine sleeping on the floor.

Dr. Brudenell Carter, fellow of the Royal College of Surgeons, who accompanied Mr. Solly on his visit, corroborated the whole of his statements.

After considerable discussion the following special verdict was returned:—“That Michael Murphy died from consumption, accelerated by the unwholesome atmosphere of the ward in which he was placed in the workhouse. The jury also requested the guardians to direct their attention to the state of the receiving ward.”

* * *

##### THE FATAL ACCIDENT AT WELWYN JUNCTION.

PROBABLY there are not many persons out of the north of London, except those who are officially interested in Poor Law questions, to whom the inquiry into the conduct of some parochial authorities in St. Pancras has been of sufficient interest to induce them to follow it. The matter has, however, been one of great public importance, not merely as bearing on the administration of the Poor Law in one of the largest parishes in the kingdom, but as illustrating some of the evils incident to our Poor Law system. The inquiry originated in a parochial squabble, but the immediate cause which set the Poor Law Board in motion was a parochial tragedy. On the 25th of June, a poor woman named MARY ALLEN died in the Insane Ward of St. Pancras Workhouse. She had been transferred there from the Infirmary in the delirium of illness. She had entered the Infirmary on the 28th May with three of her children, having been suffering from scarlatina or scarlet fever, and being in a condition of considerable weakness. On the fourth of June she was discharged and sent home, but returned on the twentieth suffering from erysipelas. On the next day delirium came on, and she was sent to the Insane Ward, and four days afterwards she died. Her deceased created an uneasy feeling, and an inquest was held on the body, which resulted in a verdict that she died from natural causes, but the jury wished to declare in the verdict that her death was accelerated by her premature discharge from the Infirmary on the fourth of June. The Coroner told the jury that such a verdict was one of manslaughter against Mr. HARLEY, the House surgeon, and they therefore modified it to one of censure. Hence the inquiry which Mr. MONTAGUE BERE has conducted on behalf of the Poor-Law Board, which covered the whole treatment of the sick poor in the Infirmary, and which came to its close on Saturday.[^f76]

The question as to MARY ALLEN was a complicated one. There was first the inquiry into the justice of the verdict censuring Mr. HARLEY for discharging her uncured, and next the question of Mr. HARLEY’S motive for doing so; and this latter question involved a part of the Board of Guardians. As to MARY ALLEN’S premature discharge, there was a very considerable preponderance of evidence in favour of the verdict. There can be no doubt that the poor woman herself believed that her death was caused by leaving the Infirmary too early. Indeed it was her own complaints on returning which called attention to her case. Mr. HARLEY declared that he believed her to be well, though weak; and Mr. TIZLEY, the relieving officer, said she did not complain to him, though he saw her often. Mrs. HUSSEY, a fellow-lodger of MARY ALLEN’S, gave similar evidence, and attributed her decease to a cold she had caught in taking home some washing several days after her discharge. But two of the nurses, Mr. NEW, a surgeon who attended Mrs. ALLEN gratuitously, and some other persons, testified that she urgently begged to be allowed to stay longer, and protested against being turned out; and Dr. ELLIS, Mr. HARLEY’S successor, produced a written statement made by Mrs. ALLEN when she returned, declaring that she had been turned out before she was well. How far the poor woman’s impression on this point was correct is another matter. One of the nurses, Mrs. GRIFFITH, said that her opinion at the time was that the woman was not well enough to go out. Mrs. CANNON said she could see when the woman came to be discharged that she was very ill, and indeed she thought herself, she said, weaker than when she came in; and JANE HILL, a nurse, who took part of the responsibility of her discharge, said she was well enough to go into the workhouse but not into the street. As to the children, it was shown that they had not done peeling, and were therefore in the stage when scarlatina infection is most dangerous; and there was some conflict in the medical evidence as to whether the woman herself was discharged too early or not. The fact, however, is quite insuperable. The poor woman enters the Infirmary to recover from a lowering fever which leaves the skin in a most dangerously sensitive state, she remains in but seven days, is then sent out against her own earnest wish and protest, has to work as a washerwoman in that condition, catches a cold which brings on an attack of erysipelas, the erysipelas flies to her brain and she becomes delirious and dies. Is she another Poor Law martyr as so many persons believe, and as the Coroner’s Jury found by their verdict, or was her own impression that she was so one of the delusions of her delirium?

But when this question has been decided, another question arises. If MARY ALLEN was a martyr, to what was she sacrificed? If the doctor was in an indecent hurry to get her out of the Infirmary, what made him so? Are there any other cases which show the same haste? Public opinion has been inclined to answer these questions in the affirmative, and has had some justification for doing so. An officer lately employed in the receiving ward said that many had been discharged before they were well, and *primâ facie* evidence for the statement is supplied in the fact that it was the boast of some of the Guardians that in a single month Mr. HARLEY had reduced the number of cases from 145 to 100. Such a clearance at least shows zeal; did it show discretion? Either the place must have been very full of hangers-on, or Mr. HARLEY must have been very successful in rapid cures, or the poor patients must have been hurried out. A number of cases were inquired into which certainly were not those of old “infirmary birds,” which, to say the least, did not show any remarkable curative skill, and which ran parallel in some respects to the case of MARY ALLEN. In fact, that poor woman’s case was, it is to be feared, typical of other cases. We will not anticipate the points of Mr. BERE’S report to the Poor Law Board; but there is a certain suggestiveness in the occurrence of these events just at the present moment. The late Board of Guardians, in pursuance of Mr. HARDY’S Act, are building an Infirmary for the parish, where the sick poor can be properly attended to. At the last election of Guardians a large number of persons were returned pledged to stop this expenditure if possible, and it was their policy to prove it to be needless. They gave Mr. HARLEY the temporary appointment of Infirmary surgeon, and he, knowing their feelings, endeavoured to do his duty as they wished it to be done. Several of these gentlemen gave evidence in the inquiry, and said that they had given no instructions to clear the Infirmary, nor is it likely that they had. But Mr. JAMES WATKINS, one of these new Guardians, admitted that Mr. HARLEY, as his own medical attendant, knew his opinion that the Workhouse Infirmary was sufficient, and that patients were kept too long. Dr. EDMUNDS, another new Guardian, admitted that he had freely expressed his opinion that there were people in the Infirmary who ought to be out of it, though he thought Mr. HARLEY had been too zealous in clearing it. We will not anticipate the decision of the Commissioner on Mr. HARLEY’S conduct; but whatever that decision may be, Mr. HARLEY is not the only person to be affected by it. The new Guardians represented a policy of which, unhappily, a large number of the ratepayers approve, which necessarily leads to such scenes as these. Nominally Guardians of the Poor, these persons are really guardians of the ratepayers’ pockets. They were elected not to administer the affairs of the Union efficiently, but to do them cheaply. Their great idea is to knock a penny or two in the pound off the poor-rate. Of course the poor suffer, and, equally of course, the poor-rates are not effectually relieved. MARY ALLEN, goes to a pauper’s grave, and leaves three children to the parish; scandals arise; the ratepayers’ money, saved by grinding the faces of the poor, is squandered in litigation, and the last state of the parish is worse than the first. When will the ratepayers learn that the interests of the poor are identical with their own?

* * *

#### OUR RURAL MAGISTRACY.[^f77]

##### TO THE EDITOR OF REYNOLDS’S NEWSPAPER.

SIR,—Few persons see more thoroughly into the wretched system of caste pervading English society than those who are in frequent attendance upon the farces enacted by country justices. In the superior courts, and even in county courts, one expects to find a smattering of Mr. P. A. Taylor’s recently defined judicial requisites—to wit, “tact, temper, and discrimination”—but, in the case of country justices, the only essential qualifications laid down by the law of the land are the possession of either “blood” or soil. Brains are not wanted, else I should not so often hear the expression applied to the rural magistrate, “He is not all there.” Character can be of no account, else we should not see these men one hour signing the commitment of some poor “spinning-wheel” proprietor to the house of correction and the very next hour paying a visit to the nearest select gambling hell of our “noble aristocracy.” If a stripling is the son of a peer, he becomes a country justice as a matter of course, as soon as there is the slightest indication of anything akin to whiskers. As a representative of the great county families, he goes and lounges away an idle hour or two upon the bench, in the same spirit and style which sends him to the opera when in town. Perhaps of the two employments, the former is the most fascinating. For the time being, he feels himself a grand personage, surrounded by obsequious policemen, a subservient clerk, and a lowly and reverent populace. With covered head he sits in an easy chair, and his commands, like the mandates of other great potentates of the earth, are only uttered to be obeyed. He seldom smiles, and never reddens with passion until some well-known gamekeeper gets into the witness-box, and narrates some fearful onslaught on a rabbit-hole. If the representative of justice has become venerable, he will, at petty sessions, take a comfortable snooze during the examination of witness; but, if he is young, he will crack jokes with his associates, or book a bet upon the next St. Leger.

Your country magistrate enjoys a case under the poor laws. On all such occasions he comes from the board of guardians (where, as an *ex officio* member, he is a legislator on a small scale), ready primed with one side of the pending trial. For instance, a poor man is summoned to show cause why he should not contribute to the support of his parent, aged seventy-five, who had been a labourer all his life at 12s. a week, and not saved sufficient to purchase himself an annuity for his declining years. The relieving officer of the union is complaining witness, and makes a strong case against the offending son. The undutiful defendant has 13s. a week, a wife and only three young children, yet he is allowing his aged parent to luxuriate upon the public rates. “What have you to say to this charge?” says the representative of justice. “I am very sorry, your worship, but I can’t spare anything out of thirteen shillings a week; I wish I could.” The scene becomes impressive, as this creature, who never knew what hunger really was, exclaims, “All nonsense; you are an unnatural vagabond, and must pay the relieving officer half a crown a week. We are bound to protect the ratepayer from such pests as these, who would make the community keep the parents, who gave to them the privileges of English citizenship.” We take the man who has desired wife and family. He is brought into court manacled to a felon. Six weeks previously the prisoner at the bar could not get a job or work, and therefore as a last resource he went upon the tramp. From town to town he wandered, partaking of the voluptuous entertainment of the vagrant ward of “bumble dom” at night. He earns a penny or two by putting coal into a cellar, or perhaps even a shilling at a temporary job. Before his own belly has had one good fill, the man in blue is after him, and he gets a free ride to the lock up of his native town. He is a prisoner, and he has no money. In vain he protests that he can get no work; with a contemptuous sneer, he is told he will not want for work at the place to which a mockery of justice consigns him.

In game cases, none of the bench goes to sleep. If the prosecutor should not happen to be a magistrate, he will for the time being be allowed a seat alongside the dispensers of the game-laws. He goes through the formality of being sworn, but is not required to stand in the box appropriated to ordinary witnesses. Any little incident which might have escaped him during his examination is whispered to the ministers of justice, among whom he is received as an upholder of the British constitution. Sitting in that elevated position, he can watch his minions, the game-keepers, as they swear one against the other in angry competition to secure the heaviest penalty against their helpless victim. Often have I seen men convicted under these atrocious laws, for no other offence proved against them than wandering up some quiet lane, perchance in search of a primrose or a daisy. Residents in large towns have not the slightest conception of the intolerance which these game-laws sanction. Only a few weeks ago I was present when a respectable tradesman had, as the bench seemed to imagine, the audacity to summon a policeman for what impartial minds could not fail to designate as a most brutal assault. Upon the public highway he had been throttled, struck down, searched, with his clothes half torn off his back, and the justification was pleaded that the man’s pockets were bulky, and that, therefore, under the iniquitous poaching Prevention Act, the policeman had a right to search and misuse a man without warrant or any other instrument of legal authority. It was attempted to be made out that the man had unjustifiably resisted this interference with his personal liberty, and he was fined 5s. and costs, while the policeman became the pet of a game-preserving magistracy.

Among the other uses to which a rural bench is put, is that of deciding matters of contract between master and servant. A linen draper’s assistant, a housemaid, or a butler can “run away” without any chance of being hauled up before “the great unpaid.” That which in one class of the community amounts to a simple breach of contract, to be adjusted by a civil judge, renders a poor agricultural servant or bricklayer’s labour liable to be dragged up before a magistrate as a fugitive slave was wont to be into the olden time in any of the Southern States. These cases have always seemed to me to be pre-eminently relished by your country justice. Believers in feudalism, and holding to the creed that the bulk of mankind were born to be serfs, their sympathies flow exclusively in one direction. Though never having themselves done an hour’s honest hard work in their lives, they take care that those “beneath them” shall know who is master. In the case of agricultural servants, they resist the wholesome rule of a month’s wages or a month’s notice—a rule which prevails with all other grades of annual domestic hirelings. “Back to your master, or to prison,” is the rule. Surely it is time the working classes roused themselves in opposition to this abominable relic of an age of slavery.

At the sound of the words “trade unions,” your country justice holds up his hands with pious horror and indignation. A man connected with a strike had better compromise the most trivial assault, the most paltry indiscretion, than run his chance of getting justice before a bench of either town or country magistrates. There is scarcely a crime known to the law which is so heinous as that of working men combining to get a fair day’s wages for a fair days labour. Legislation may do something to help this progressive movement, but until there is a sweeping change in the method of administering rural justice in England, I see no hope for the life of the labourer being anything else than “endurance filched from death.”

#### A SERIOUS CRIME!—[^f78]

At the Bromley petty sessions on Monday last, Ellen Smith, a poor woman who gets her living by charing and washing, living at Orpington, was charged with the unlawful possession of a faggot of sticks. Police-constable 186 R, who produced a handful of sticks, said that he met the prisoner, whilst off duty, going home with a bundle of sticks. She told him she had gathered them in the wood of Mr. Berens, one of the county justices for the Bromley division. Mr. F. A. Lewin: What have you got to say to the charge? Prisoner: If you please, your worships, I had no money to buy coal, and as I was passing through Mr. Berens’ wood I gathered a few sticks to boil my kettle. There is a path through the wood, and I gathered the sticks by the side of the path. The bench fined her 2s. 6d. and 2s. 6d. costs, or seven days. As she was leaving the dock Mr. Edlmann expressed the hope that it would be a caution to her never to touch sticks in gentlemen’s woods again.

#### THE RIOTS AT MOLD.[^f79]

The Commission for the Flintshire Assizes was opened by Lord Chief Justice Bovill. The calendar contained the names of seven colliers who had been committed on a charge of riot and assault. The prisoners were brought from Flint under the escort of a detachment, of the 1st Dragon Guards, who remained on duty outside the hall. There was also a large number of the 4th King’s Own stationed in the town, and all the police were armed with swords.

In charging the grand jury (of which Sir Stephen R. Glynne was foreman), the Lord Chief Justice, after praising the general good character of the people of the Principality, said that, unfortunately, at this assize there were two serious cases in which several indictments would be presented. Under ordinary circumstances he should not have thought it necessary to do more than call their attention to the general nature of the charges contained in the indictment; but in this instance the charges seemed to have assumed so much importance, and was of such great interest to the public, to the whole of the inhabitants of the county of Flint, and especially to a large body of working men, that he thought it right to let no doubt rest on the mind of anybody as to what was the law with respect to riots. It was the first duty of the Crown, of magistrates, of sheriffs, of constables, and of all who were concerned in the administration of the law, to protect and preserve the public peace. In doing so they afforded the best protection, both to men’s persons from death and violence, and also to property and its secure enjoyment. As the law must be administered in the name of the Crown and by the instrumentality of others, all those who acted as ministers of the law had a special protection thrown around them in the execution of their duty; in all cases effectual protection was given by the law, and their authority must always be vindicated. In making these observations, he wished it to be understood that there was no class of the community so interested in the preservation of law and public peace and protection of property, as the working classes of this country. It was in their interest especially that the law must be supported; it was to the law that they must look for the protection of their rights and their property. After some further remarks, his lordship said he was aware that magistrates were often placed in positions of considerable difficulty, as were all those who had the command of power for the purpose of putting down disturbances. On the one band, they were bound to act; on the other, they were bound not to exceed their duty; and very often cases of great difficulty and nicety would arise, requiring the soundest judgment, the firmest head, and great discretion. If such persons exercised a sound judgment and discretion, the law would protect them. The main object in all such cases must be to prevent and suppress disturbances of the public peace, and to do so effectually. It was sometimes supposed to be necessary, in cases of riots and before active measures were taken, that the Riot Act should be read. It should be publicly known that where the violence of the mob was so great as to prevent or obstruct a magistrate in reading the proclamation, greater effect was given by the law to that act of obstruction than if the proclamation had been read. All those who were acting in concert together became amenable to the law, and, if death ensued, all would be guilty of murder. He had felt these observations to be necessary, looking at the feeling which had prevailed in this part of the country. There had been an amount of bloodshed which it was dreadful to contemplate, arising out of the unruly conduct of men who had in view so inadequate an object.

In the course of the afternoon the grand jury found a true bill against the six prisoners who have been in goal for the past two months on the charge of riot. They threw out the bill against the seventh man, who was admitted to bail.

Soon afterwards, when all the other business had been disposed of, the six prisoners were arraigned, and each pleaded “Not guilty.” Their names are Isaac Jones, 39; William Griffiths, 48; Bowland Jones, 26; Gower Jones, 18; Richard Jones, 35; and William Hughes, 23; and they were indicted for feloniously wounding two persons with intent to do them grievous bodily harm, and also with feloniously wounding them with intent to resist and prevent the lawful detainer of two prisoners.

Under another indictment they were charged with unlawfully committing a riot and assaulting the police in the execution of their duty.

Mr. M’Intyre appeared for the prosecution; Mr. Morgan Lloyd and Mr. I. Williams defended the prisoners.

The circumstances out of which this charge arose as described by the prosecuting counsel occurred on the 2nd of June, when two men, named Ishmael Jones and John Jones, were committed for a month’s imprisonment for assaulting the undertaker at the Leeswood Green Colliery. The prisoners were being removed from the cells to the railway under a guard of soldiers about seven o’clock, when stones were thrown. At first the police and the soldiers took no notice, but as they approached the station, stones—of which there were considerable quantities, owing to the works that were carried on close by—were thrown in increasing number. The greatest forbearance was shown by the soldiers, notwithstanding the provocation which they received. Some of them were forced by the stones to seek refuge in the small room used as a telegraph-office, where the prisoners were also taken. The crowd went up to the office, broke in the windows, and stoned the persons within. The officer who was in command (Captain Blake) seeing several of his men and others of the police severely wounded, some so seriously that they have not yet recovered, was ordered by Mr. Clough, a magistrate, to fire on the mob. One or two shots were fired from the telegraph-office and others from the platform of the railway station. The mob, finding that the soldiers were determined to retain their prisoners, fell back.

Mr. M’intyre, in his opening speech, submitted to the jury that it was not necessary to show that either of the prisoners threw a stone, but that all he had to do was to show that they were in a crowd which was acting in concert. He should, however, call witnesses to show that the prisoners were seen throwing stones and actively engaged in the attempt to rescue the prisoners.

Captain Blake and other witnesses were called.

Lord Chief Justice Bovill, in summing up, said his only surprise was that, with so numerous a body of soldiers and constables who went through the eventful fifteen or twenty minutes, all escaped with their lives. It was fortunate for them, but still more fortunate for the prisoners, because, had death followed, it would have been the duty of the prosecution to have preferred charges of wilful murder against them. He had ruled that the men who were, on the day of the riot, being taken to the railway station were in lawful custody, and there was no excuse for attacking and wounding the constables. It must be made out to the satisfaction of the jury that the wounds were inflicted with one or other or all of the intents mentioned in the indictments in order to find the prisoners guilty. It was scarcely possible, and not necessary, to prove which man threw the stone that wounded any particular individual. The jury must judge from the numbers and conduct of the mob. He asked for what purpose 1,500 people remained one hour and a half after the men were committed to prison? No answer had been suggested by the prisoners’ counsel. He had been unable to discover with what lawful object the mob threw stones. Captain Blake deserved the greatest commendation for the humanity with which he exercised the power entrusted to him; for when the soldiers were ordered to fire, they were not to do so ineffectually.

The summing up occupied more than three hours and a half. The jury consulted for a quarter of an hour. They “Acquitted” Richard Jones, but “Convicted” all the other prisoners on all the counts.

The Lord Chief Justice, in passing sentence, said it was a painful thing that the prisoners should be placed in so serious a position. They were responsible for the loss of life and for the bloodshed that had occurred, and had run the most serious risk. They had endeavoured by violence to break the law and to defy authority. They thought to overpower a small body of men and to escape detection. The wonder was that hundreds of them did not welter in their blood. If such things were permitted, there would be an end to all order. But the law was too powerful for such attacks. They might be successful for the moment, but the consequence must recoil on the heads of all who had recourse to violence. It was impossible to look lightly on such an offence; but he had power to mitigate the extreme sentence which the law allowed. It was necessary to prevent the recurrence of such attacks. He sentenced each of the prisoners to penal servitude for ten years.

The sentence produced much sensation in court.

#### RELIGIOUS LIBERTY IN WORKHOUSES.[^f80]

##### CURIOUS CHARGE OF INSUBORDINATION.

At the Hertford Borough Sessions, held yesterday, an elderly man named Bourchier, the son of a deceased Hertfordshire clergyman, but now an inmate of the Hertford Union Workhouse, was charged with insubordination in refusing to attend morning prayers. Bourchier had been taken before the board of guardians on Saturday, on the complaint of the master, and as he then stated that he should continue to refuse to attend prayers so long as they were read by the present master, the board directed that a summons should be taken out against him. Mr. Sworder, the clerk to the guardians, attended before the magistrates, and said that the prosecution was under the 124th, 17th, and 128th orders of the Poor Law Board. The 124th of the orders directed that prayers should be read before breakfast and after supper every day, and that all the inmates of the house should attend them except the sick, the infirm, persons of unsound mind, and young children, “provided that those paupers who may object to attend on account of their professing religious principles differing from those of the Established Church shall be exempt from such attendance.” The other orders applied generally to acts of wilful disobedience to the lawful orders of the master or other officers of the workhouse. In the present case the pauper, although by profession a Dissenter, had not objected to attending prayers on that ground, but had in fact regularly attended until Monday last. On that day, on the master entering the hall to read prayers, Bourchier got up and left; and on being afterwards spoken to about it, he said that the master was not a Christian and that he could not and would not attend prayers when they were read by such a man. On Tuesday and Thursday he repeated his refusal on the same grounds, and during the whole week he was absent from prayers. Under these circumstances Mr. Sworder submitted that there had been a violation of the 124th order, which required paupers to attend prayers, unless they objected on the ground that they were Dissenters; and of the other orders which relate to cases of wilful disobedience to lawful orders, the order being lawful in this case, since the only objection which could entitle the pauper to exemption was not raised. Mr. Wheeler, the master of the workhouse, having deposed to the facts stated by Mr. Sworder, Bourchier said in defense that on the 1st of August the gruel was burnt and spoilt by the burning of the bottom of the copper, and that, being unable to eat it, he asked the porter to get him some water. The master refused to allow this, and when he (Bourchier) attempted to go for it himself, the master stopped him. He considered this cruel, tyrannous, and unchristian conduct, and felt that he could no more attend at a religious service conducted by Mr. Wheeler. For some time after this occurrence, the master did not read prayers, and on his entering the hall on Monday for the purpose of doing so, he (Bourchier) felt compelled to leave. He did not object to the Church prayers, though he was a Dissenter, but he could not worship under the lead of the master and therefore now claimed exemption under the orders as a Baptist, which was the religious profession he made on entering the workhouse. The Mayor said there could be no doubt that the rules of the workhouse had been violated. Bourchier entered the house as a Dissenter, but he had never objected to attend prayers on that ground until the day in question, and could not therefore urge religious scruples in defence. If insubordination such as he had been guilty of were allowed, it would be impossible to maintain order in the workhouse. He must pay a fine of 2s. and 8s. costs or go to prison for seven days. A fortnight would be allowed for payment. Bourchier asked the bench whether he might not, as a Dissenter, be excused from attending prayers in a future. The Bench replied they would give him no advice in the matter.

#### DEATH BEFORE THE WORKHOUSE.—[^f81]

Last evening, Mr. Humphreys held an inquest at the Windsor Castle Tavern, Charles-street, Victoria-park, on the body of Ann Savage, aged 19 years. The deceased was the daughter of a widow, living at 3, Lusida-street, Victoria-park, and since the death of her father she had followed the occupation of a sewing machinist. The family, consisting of mother, the deceased, and another daughter, aged 17, who was subject to fits, were in the deepest poverty, and this fact preyed upon the mind of the deceased, and she often said, “I know it will all end in the workhouse, and I dread it, for there we shall be parted.” Her younger sister then said, “Sooner than go to the workhouse I would drown myself,” and on one occasion, after so saying, she ran from the house, and was absent for some hours. On her return she said to deceased, “Did you think I had drowned myself?” To which the reply was, “Those who threaten to commit suicide never do it.” On Sunday evening last deceased left the house, and shortly after was seen running in the direction of the Regent’s Canal, and on Monday, on its being dragged, her body was recovered. Her sister, who was by at the time as soon as she saw the body, endeavoured to jump into the water and was only prevented doing so by several men who were present. The jury returned a verdict that deceased committed suicide while in an unsound state of mind.

A CASE which has just occurred at Braford will forcibly remind parochial officers of their responsibility in dealing with the poor. A coroner’s jury, after a long and careful inquiry into a case of death by exposure and want, has returned a verdict of manslaughter against the relieving officer, and that officer has been committed for trial on the charge. The deceased man, MCKENNA, being ill and in want, made several applications for relief to Mr. BURNISTON, the relieving officer for the south district of the Bradford Union. Mr. BURNISTON did not believe in the good faith of the application, gave the man sixpence and three pounds of oatmeal, and told him to go and break stones. The next day the man was worse, and as the lodging-house keeper feared he would die in her house, she got rid of him and of his wife and sent them to the workhouse. There admission to the house was refused him. The man persisted in desiring admission, and some high words passed between him and the relieving officer, and as the officer had failed to find him at the address he gave, his previous bad opinion of MCKENNA was confirmed. MCKENNA pleaded hard, and declared he should die in the street, but Mr. BURNISTON, still believing him to be a bad character, refused. That night MCKENNA and his wife got a lodging given them, and the next day they appeared again with the surgeon’s certificate that he was sick and destitute, and required admission to the workhouse. They then went to the workhouse in a cab, gave the note to the porter’s wife, who handed it to Mr. BURNISTON. He said, “It is naught,” gave Mrs. MCKENNA the note back, and the porter, having no direction to take them in, turned them out. The poor woman went away crying, leaving her husband, who was found late in the afternoon, on the front step of the workhouse, and being lifted to his feet, walked painfully away. At ten that night MCKENNA was heard of at a public-house where some persons had treated him to drink, and where he stayed till closing time. The landlord had tried in vain to get the man some shelter for the nights and at closing time MCKENNA turned out into the street. Shortly afterwards the police found him sitting in York-street, insensible, and took him to the police-office to die. He died of inflammation of the lungs, which had been going on for ten days, and which exposure rendered rapidly fatal. These are the facts as we gather them from evidence given at the inquest, and it is on them that the jury based their verdict. Of course that verdict is given without any statement from Mr. BURNISTON, and we have yet to hear his version of the story.[^f82]

#### ST. PANCRAS WORKHOUSE INFIRMARY.[^f83]

##### MORE DEATHS AND SPECIAL VERDICTS.

Yesterday Dr. Lankester, coroner, empanelled a jury at the College Arms, Crowndale-road, on the bodies of eight deceased persons, six of whom had died in either the St. Pancras Workhouse or Infirmary. These cases are entirely distinct from those which were opened last week and stand adjourned till next Monday.

Prior to the jurors viewing the bodies the Coroner briefly addressed them, stating that although his ideas were objected to he still entertained an opinion that inquests ought to be held upon every pauper dying in a workhouse, as well as in prisons or lunatic asylums, and recent events had justified him in coming to that conclusion. As some of the cases the jury were about to investigate were on persons who had died in St. Pancras Infirmary or Workhouse, it would be for the jury to say upon the evidence produced whether the deaths had resulted from any circumstances which had taken place in connection with that institution.

The first infirmary case was on the body of Jane Harvey, aged 35.

Dr. James Ellis said—I am medical officer of St. Pancras Workhouse infirmary. Deceased, Jane Harvey, was admitted to the Infirmary suffering from pleurisy and inflammation of the lungs, and was placed in the small ward, known as 25 ward. There were four beds in that ward whilst deceased was there, but there are seven now. She was admitted on November 9, and died on November 11. The ward in which she was placed is about half the size of this room (a good sized parlour). The ventilation is by the windows, but the amount of atmospheric space is by no means sufficient for the patients, and there is in that ward always a foul atmosphere and stench. If the windows are opened it is exceedingly dangerous to the patients in the foggy weather, as the cold air rushes in upon them, and they prefer the warmth under any circumstances. Mr. Solly and Mr. Carter both examined this ward when they went over the infirmary.

The Coroner.—And both Mr. Solly and Mr. Carter declared the atmosphere of all the wards to be very foul.

Witness.—Yes, the stench from this ward like the others comes in a great degree from the water closet, and although for some time the water closet has been closed up it still continues. I have made a *post-mortem* examination. I found the brain much congested and the ventricles thickened and gorged with blood, and there was also congestion throughout the lungs, which were in the first stage of pneumonia, and the pleura on the right side was also in an extreme state of inflammation. The cause of death was from inflammation of the lungs and pleura, no doubt accelerated by the foul atmosphere, the stench, and want of ventilation.

Dr. Ellis wished to read a report he had made to the board of guardians, dated Saturday, 13th.

A Juror.—Is that the report ordered to lie on the table?

The Coroner said he did not think they ought, in that particular case, to go into the general question; therefore, unless the report bore upon the state of this particular ward he thought they had better not hear it.

Dr. Ellis said it did.

Several of the jury expressed a wish that the report should be read.

Dr. Ellis read his report, which was as follows:—“Copy of Medical Officer’s Report. Nov. 13, 1809.—I received instructions from the visiting committee to remove from the infirm to the temporary infirm wards those male patients who had been sleeping on the floor, and to place more bedsteads in the wards occupied by females, so as to do away with the necessity of patients sleeping upon the floors; these instructions were at once carried out, and no patients have since done so. The male patients remained one night in the temporary infirm ward, and on Friday additional accommodation was found by using the second-class officers’ dining room for male insane patients, and appropriating for the use of infirmary patients a comfortable room on the first floor, in the male insane wards, capable of holding, as a makeshift, twelve beds. The board will be glad to learn that the removal of those patients has not resulted in any serious aggravation of their disorders, and I have every reason to believe good results will follow. I feel it my duty to add that further accommodation is desirable. On Friday evening several gentlemen, amongst whom I recognized the vicar of St. Pancras, went round the wards, and I am told by the patients and night nurse that one of them went into 24 ward on tiptoe, and opened the ventilator about ten minutes before the others came up On Saturday night, between nine and ten, a good many persons visited the infirmary; and I am told by the patients that one ordered the nurse in charge to take the dressing off the sores of the patients legs, which was done. There were 33 patients in No. 24 ward, which gave only 587 cubic feet to each patient, and when I visited the ward at seven o’clock this morning (Sunday) the air was excessively foul, though the ventilators at the ends of the wards were open. The night nurse reports the unwholesome smell to have suddenly become intensified as soon as the rain came on in the early morning. On referring to my weekly report book I find that, on September 18, I reported the existence of bad smells, of a sewage-like nature, in No. 24 ward: but no steps have been taken to remedy the evil till this week. Reports were also made on the existence of bad smells and defects of the bad drainage on May 15, April 24 and several other occasions. In February of the present year erysipelas pervaded, which was believed to be owing to the crowded state of the wards, and the cause in one case was traced to defects in the closets. I also beg respectfully to remind the board that on June 19 I reported the beds as full, and asked for instruction; also on July 24 I was obliged to send patients to the house that were not well, having no room for the more urgent cases. Inquests have been held on four cases, and the jury returned verdicts that death was accelerated by the bad state of the atmosphere of the wards. Up to Wednesday there were 58 instances of sleeping on the floor.”

In answer to the Jury,

Dr. Ellis said that nothing had been done until last week to remedy it. Since then it had been as bad as ever.

Elizabeth Turner.—I am a patient in 25 ward, and have been there one month. The smells are very bad, and they come in puffs from the water closet. The effect it has is that the tongue becomes dry, and then I begin to vomit. No. 24 ward is worse than 25, because there are more patents there. There are six patients now in No. 25 ward. No. 24 was so bad that I begged to go into 25 only last nights; in 25 the patients had to remove from the fire because the stench that came up by the fireplace was so bad. We feel the stench more at night than in the day. When the windows are open the cold is so great that the patients cannot bear it, and when we shut them up we are suffocated by the smell. I have been in 24 ward for four months, and in 25 one month. The deceased in the night she came in complained very much of the smell and closeness of the ward.

Margaret Cain.—I am a paid nurse in 24 and 25 wards. I gave evidence as to 24 wards the other day. I have heard the patients complain of the bad smell and have noticed them myself; it comes from the closet. It has been closed up but that has had no effect. I have reported this to the doctor. The smell was very bad this morning; it is much worse at night than in the day. I do not think it can be got rid of by merely rinsing by a pail of water. The deceased when she came in did not look like a dying woman.

At the request of Dr. Ellis, who stated that imputation had been cast upon him that be had for a particular object ordered all the ventilators to be stopped up, thus causing the foul atmosphere of which these poor people had died, the night nurse was examined.

Ellen Pitt.—I am night nurse. I do not consider any of the infirmary wards are in the condition they ought to be. The smells in every ward are very bad, and nothing had been done to remedy the evil until last week; but in spite of what has been done the smells are as bad as ever. I have repeatedly reported No. 25 ward as being bad with regard to ventilation. On the night deceased, Jane Harvey, came in she complained of the closeness of the place, and said, “I shall be suffocated here”; and when the windows are open the cold is so great I cannot bear it. Dr. Ellis never ordered me to shut the window on any particular night.

The Coroner,—There is no ground whatever for the assertion, if any such has been made, that Dr. Ellis gave orders for the windows or ventilators to be closed on any particular night.

Mr. Watkins, a guardian, here called upon the coroner to allow him to cross-examine this witness, and, having had permission, he called upon the witness to state whether she had not, during the past week, told some one that Dr. Ellis had ordered her to close up all the ventilators of the wards on the occasion of Mr. Solly and Dr. Carter visiting the infirmary.

The Witness denied that she had made any such statement.

Mr. Watkins said he was prepared to prove that this statement was untrue, and tendered himself as a witness.

The Coroner said if Mr. Watkins was prepared to state that the atmosphere was not foul, and that all the evidence the jury had beard was perjury, he would hear him.

Several of the jury objected, and Mr. Watkins said he objected to the evidence of the nurse Pitt as being untrue.

Coroner,—Why we have the evidence of another paid nurse that the wards smell as badly this mornings as they ever did.

Mr. C. A. Lockart Robertson, M.R.C.S., and medical superintendent of the Sussex County Hospital, said he was well acquainted with wards of hospitals and public institutions, visited St. Pancras Workhouse a little before twelve on Sunday last. Found the whole of the wards frightfully overcrowded, with a most unpleasant smell, in spite of the large amount of window and door opening which existed—a proceeding he considered most improper, especially at this time of the year, on account of drafts. The smell, which was beastly to a degree, came mainly from the water-closets. There was no ventilation, he observed, except from the windows. The two long wards (11 and 24) were much overcrowded, recollected the small ward, No. 25, having a water-closet closet closed up. The atmosphere was very bad, worse than the other wards, although it was midday, and all the ventilators open and acting.

By the Coroner.—Should think it impossible to obtain medical success with patients in such wards. Examined some of the patients, and found two cases of continued fever. They were of the typhoid character, and he looked upon it as most dangerous to have them in such a place amongst so many others. Indeed, he looked upon it as absolutely consigning people to their graves thus to crowd them together. No doubt, the death of a person suffering from disease of the lungs would be accelerated by such atmosphere as he found. Should say that any attempt to improve such a place would neither be beneficial to the ratepayers nor the sick poor.

Ellen Hill, another nurse, was called, and, in answer to Dr. Ellis, denied that he had ever given her any special instructions to close up the ventilation. It had been left to her discretion.

Mr. Richardson, a guardian, wished some other nurse to be called, but the Jury considered they had heard enough; and after some discussion with the coroner as to the propriety of communicating with the Poor-law Board as to the antagonism between the guardians and the medical officers,

The Jury returned the following verdict:—“That the deceased, Jane Harvey, died from the mortal effects of inflammation of the side and lungs, accelerated by the want of sufficient sanitary precautions in the ward in which she died in St. Pancras Infirmary.”

The Foreman added that the jury wished to append the following:—“That in the face of the antagonistic feeling existing between the board of guardians and their medical officers, and their repeated inattention to their reports, that the coroner be requested to communicate with the Poor-law Board on the subject.”

The second inquest was on John Watts.

Dr. Ellis said deceased was admitted on Oct. 12, and placed in No. 6 ward, and was found dead in bed on the morning of the 8th instant. A *post-mortem* revealed the fact that deceased had died from congestive apoplexy, which had, no doubt, been accelerated by the impure atmosphere of the ward.

James Ryley, a patient, said there were 24 men in this ward, and the smells were still so bad that the previous night even, notwithstanding the fog, they were glad to have the windows open. The smells were much worse in the summer, but all the patients still complained of them. Never heard of Dr. Ellis giving a general order to close the windows.

By the Coroner.—This is the ground floor or rat ward (laughter). Had had them running over his bed, and used sometimes to sit up at night and have what was called a rat hunt (renewed laughter).

Verdict—“That John Watts died from effusion of serum on the brain, accelerated by the impure air of the ward in which he was placed in St. Pancras Infirmary.”

Elizabeth Ramsay, seven months old, was the third workhouse case, and was in the infant nursery with her mother. There were 23 children in the ward, and 10 women.

Dr. Hill, the workhouse surgeon, said the child was in good health till the 6th instant, when the drains were opened, and the soil left exposed in the basement. This made several of the children ill, and caused the deceased’s death. He had no doubt from examination of the body that it died from the effects of the inhalation of sulphuretted hydrogen, contained in the soil referred to.

The Jury returned a verdict “That Elizabeth Ramsay died from the poisonous effects of sulphuretted hydrogen proceeding from the drains of the nursery of St. Pancras Workhouse.”

In consequence of the great length of the sitting the coroner discharged the jury in two other cases, and postponed them.

#### SICKNESS AND DISTRESS IN LONDON.[^f84]

Nearly six weeks ago reference was made in the columns of this journal to the appearance of relapsing fever—otherwise known as “famine fever”—among the poor of the metropolis. Mention was made of the fact that 70 cases had been received at the London Fever Hospital between May 1 and October 1, out of which number as many as 30 cases were admitted in the last 15 days of the period. The number has continued to increase, so that a few days ago there were no less than 120 cases of this nature at the Fever Hospital, in addition to others treated at home. Every bed that can be spared for patients suffering from this disease being occupied, it has become necessary to provide against the probability of further demands. Accordingly it has been proposed that a temporary building should be erected on ground belonging to the authorities of the Fever Hospital, whereby 60 additional beds should be made available for patients of this class. This plan, it appears, will be carried out, with the co-operation of the managers of the Metropolitan Asylum Board, under the sanction of the Poor-law Board, the asylum managers also undertaking to provide temporary accommodation on their building site at Hampstead. The gravity of the crisis is increased by the fact that, in addition to the epidemic of relapsing fever, there is an enormous amount of scarlet fever in the metropolis, which, at the Registrar General states, “has fallen with all its violence on the East districts.” Hence the Poplar Board of Guardians, on the recommendation of Mr. Gray, one of the medical officers of the union, have applied to the Poor-law Board for permission to re-open their North-street Infirmary for the reception of fever patients. The sanitary condition of the district is also under careful consideration on the part of the Poplar District Board of Works. Mr. Ellison, the medical officer for the parish of All Saints, Poplar, has prepared statistics showing nearly 100 deaths from scarlet fever as occurring in that portion of the district since April last. In eight instances there are two deaths, in one there are three deaths, and in another instance there are as many as four deaths in one house. It has been decided to erect a mortuary and a disinfecting house for the parish of All Saints (which is simply and really Poplar, including the Isle of Dogs). For the purpose of collecting the clothes, bedding, &c., of fever patients, an iron truck will be used, with a tight-fitting lid. The infected articles will be conveyed in this truck from the dwelling to the disinfecting house, where the truck with its contents will be fumigated by means of burning sulphur, ignited in a sort of iron tray, which draws in and out underneath the truck, the bottom of the truck being perforated to allow of the entrance of the vapour, while a metal tube inserted in the lid of the truck carries off the fumes from the clothing into a chimney. Thus the clothes themselves receive no handling, and their transit through the street in the first instance is accompanied with no danger to the public. It is also contemplated to increase the sanitary staff of the board, and to commence a house-to-house visitation.

Relapsing fever is not a conspicuous ailment in poplar at the present time, though it exists to a certain extent. It has doubtless been kept down by what we may call the superior liberality of the Poplar Board of Guardians. It seems to predominate in St. Giles and Whitechapel. It is said that this disease has been imported from the Continent. That such was the case last year seems tolerably evident, according to the researches of Dr. Charles Murchison. The Polish Jews have an unenviable notoriety for this miserable complaint. But the visitation this year does not seem clearly traceable to that source, and there is too much reason to fear that it has a home origin. It naturally occurs to a population after a period of protracted privation. Where every sanitary precaution is taken this disease may yet arise, though it is aggravated and extended by the depressing and polluting influence of foul air, whether from bad drainage or overcrowding. Of itself, relapsing fever seldom kills, but it finds a ready ally in typhus, by which it is often followed. The victim of relapsing fever is sorely enfeebled, and the vigour of the constitution is seriously impaired. The citadel thus undermined soon falls, and the famine fever is perhaps most to be dreaded as preparing the way for another disease more fatal in its character. Relapsing fever thus conceals itself from view, so far as the statistics of the Registrar General are concerned, but is nevertheless, a very dangerous foe to the lives of the poor.

According to a paper just issued by Mr. Simon, the medical officer to the Privy Council, 73 cases of relapsing fever were admitted into the London. Fever Hospital in the first nine days of the present month, besides a few cases admitted into other hospitals. On the 10th inst. there were 138 cases in the Fever Hospital, and the wards were over flowing. From the beginning of the year to the evening of the 9th inst. 280 cases had been admitted into hospitals, and four attendants at hospital had caught the complaint. Out of the 284 cases only one had proved directly fatal. These are evidently not the full statistics of the disease, for it is stated that in the middle of October “not a few” suffers from relapsing fever were found remaining in private houses, in Whitechapel and St. Giles’s. Referring to the hospital cases, we find that these came from 156 houses, of which 48 were in Whitechapel, 24 in St. Giles’s, 9 in Bethnal-green, and 6 in St. Pancras, the remainder being scattered in various parts of the metropolis. Out of the 280 patients, Whitechapel has furnished 64, St. Giles’s 50, Bethnal-green 27, Camberwell 24 and St. Pancras 9. The number attributed to Camberwell is really fortuitous, the cases, with only one exception, having all been found in the casual wards of that parish. In other parts of London, also, the casual wards have been found to contribute patients of this class, and danger exists lest the tramps afflicted with this disorder should convey the infection to other parts of the kingdom. At present relapsing fever appears to be limited to the metropolis. Mr. Simon refers to the fact that the hospitals in London are now full, and no accommodation can be expected in these institutions which shall be adequate to the probable growth of the epidemic. It is consequently urged that those districts where the disease exists will be very seriously endangered, if special hospital accommodation be not at once provided. As an instance, we may mention that Mr. Liddle, the medical officer of health to the Board of Works for the Whitechapel district, in company with Mr. Vallance, the clerk to the guardians, waited on the authorities of the London Hospital on Monday, to learn whether any possible provision could be made for fever patients by that institution. The reply was in the negative, the hospital being completely full (to the extent of 502), of its ordinary patients.

The presence of scarlet fever in Whitechapel is shown by the following statistics, compiled from the books of the medical officers of the union:—In the three months ending October 2, there were 135 cases of scarlet fever, as against 17, in the corresponding quarter of last year. The deaths from this disease were 82 against 11. From October 2 up to the 6th of the present month, 60 fresh cases of scarlet fever have appeared, and 30 deaths have occurred. “Continued fever,” strange to say, including typhus, typhoid and relapsing fever, shows a decrease in the last quarter, as compared with the previous year; but relapsing fever, taken by itself, would palpably lead to a different issue. Moreover, since the completion of the quarter (October 2), there have been 60 cases of continued fever in Whitechapel in the space of five weeks, which is in Whitechapel in the space of five weeks, which are in a higher ratio than the December quarter of 1868. We must likewise observe that there were only 25 cases of scarlet fever in the December quarter of 1868, as against 60 in the first five weeks of the present quarter, the deaths from scarlet fever (30) in those five weeks being more numerous than the attacks in the whole December quarter of 1868, the deaths from scarlet fever in that quarter being but 19.

It is not only the present but the prospective condition of the eastern parishes which excites anxiety—we might perhaps say alarm. The existing hospitals are taxed to the full extent of their resources; but it is by no means clear that epidemic fever is at its height. Even if scarlet fever should decline, there is the ominous advance of the famine fever, in all probability to be followed by typhus. Viewing the contingencies which now beset the public health, particularly the enormous difficulty of battling with contagious disease in the crowded dwellings of the London poor, it is impossible not to feel the importance of prompt and united action on the part of the local authorities. Boards of guardians and boards of works ought to join hand in hand against the common foe. Happily this is already the case in some districts, though we fear it is not so in all. We have mentioned some of the precautions which are being taken in Poplar. In Whitechapel Mr. Liddle has recommended certain measures to the Board of Works, which is at the present time under consideration. These may be enumerated under the somewhat formidable number of six distinct heads. First, the erection of a mortuary; secondly, the establishment of a disinfecting house; thirdly, a carriage for the conveyance of infected persons; fourthly, a place in which dead bodies may be kept while undergoing *post-mortem* examination; fifthly, a house of refuge for the reception of persons living in a room where infectious or contagious disease exists; and sixthly, a house which might be used as a hospital for the reception and treatment of persons suffering from fever and other infectious disorders. The first, the third, and the fourth of these recommendations cannot be considered extraordinary; but the others are evidently belonging more immediately to a period of special danger, though evidently of use at all times. It is easy to find in Whitechapel masses of houses which seem only adapted to generate pauperism and fever. Whether such dens ought to exist for the benefit of landlords and the burden of ratepayers, is a practical question, the solution of which must come at some time or other. Fever in such places is like fire. The inhabitants pay rents and starve. Sickness seizes the people, and the public have to defray the cost. Finally, all these symptoms are aggravated in times of distress, such as those which now beset the working classes.

The condition of a very large proportion of the London poor is very much the same as if the metropolis were in a state of siege. Multitudes are unable to get sufficient and proper food. It may be said that bread is not dear at the present time. But cheapness is a relative term, and breads at a low price is yet dear to the man who lacks the money wherewith to purchase the “cheap loaf.” The benevolent contributions of the public have enabled Mrs. Kitto, of St. Matthias, Poplar, to furnish children’s dinners at a cost to the recipient of only a single penny. But when the ticket is obtained by the parent it is a hard matter sometimes to find the penny. A case recently transpired in which three-farthings had been raised for this purpose by the sale of some old rags; but the other farthing was not forthcoming, and the tempting dinner was actually foregone, though we need hardly say that it would not have been withheld under such circumstances. Notwithstanding the so-called cheapness of bread, a family, consisted of father, mother, and six children, have been known within a very recent period to live on potatoes for a week. In another instance a widow maintained herself and two children for a like period of time on a most singular article. Having some semolina given her, she obtained a pennyworth of yeast, and made the semolina into bread, and this was the sole sustenance of a little family for several days. It is too much to expect that people thus circumstanced shall continue healthy. Want of employment, followed by poverty, also leads to overcrowding. How can fever be stopped in a district where it is common for a whole family to live in one room? Hence the necessity for hospitals and infirmaries. Again, how is the convalescent to become thoroughly well and fit for work? Certainly not in their dwellings. Unless the labouring classes can get work they cannot get wages, and without wages they cannot live, let the price of food be what it may. We fall back on the poor law; but here we find the labour-test often supplanted by the house-test, and the latter alternative is a frightful thing to the more deserving class. Still, according to the returns for the fifth week of October, there are more than 100,000 persons in the metropolis in the receipt of out-door relief. The in-door poor at that date were over 35,000. It is palpable that London could not receive all her paupers into the existing workhouses. It is lamentable also to observe that the metropolis has nearly 2000 more paupers than it had in the corresponding week of the previous year, and nearly 13,000 more than in the corresponding week of 1867. Poplar, indeed, shows a decrease in the last twelvemonths, for which we are probably indebted to emigration as well as to migration. There are now, we are told, about 600 empty houses in the Isle of Dogs, some of which can be purchased almost literally for nothing.

In the parish of St. Jude’s, Whitechapel, small but crowded, there is a population of nearly 17,000, presenting scarcely one satisfactory element in their condition. In their character these people are somewhat varied; some are honest, others are not so, but all are wretched. Among the more respectable portion, both here and elsewhere in Whitechapel, the cry is for work. One reason why this is so scarce is to be found in the collapse of the large sugar bakeries of East London. This industry is virtually at an end in Whitechapel and St. George’s-in-the-East, and a vast amount of distress arises from that cause alone. Coopers, Carmen, and shopkeepers suffer more or less in common with the workpeople. As usual, where poverty is most prevalent the poor rates are at a maximum, St. Jude paying at the rate of 5s. 6d. in the pound “to the relief of the poor”—a phrase which might sometimes be rendered in a contrary sense. Here and in other parts we find the health condition of the people far from satisfactory. Notwithstanding all the efforts of the sanitary authorities—often extremely praiseworthy—the people exhibit a state of body almost equivalent to a form of blood poisoning. Boils break out, slight injuries are extremely difficult of cure, and in many cases there is an unhappy craving for stimulants. The poor Jews are said to satisfy themselves with strong coffee except during the Feast of Purim, when some of them esteem it a sort of duty to indulge excessively in a more exciting beverage. That beer-shops and public-houses are far too abundant in many of the poorer districts of the metropolis, is a fact not to be denied. But those who most deplore it are often, conscious of the depressing influence of a visit paid to the dwellings of the poor, and feel it a reasonable precaution to imbibe a stimulant after their exploration. The administration of charity is replete with difficulties; the poor law appears powerless to prevent pauperism; sickness of a serious kind seems now inevitable, and unless employment can be found for these starving multitudes, it is difficult to foresee what will be the ultimate consequence.

#### WHOLESALE PLUNDER OF THE POOR.[^f85]

##### TO THE EDITOR OF REYNOLDS’S NEWSPAPER.

SIR,—There is more downright rascality to be found in bank parlours, in private committee rooms, and in the board rooms of our public institutions, than in all the prisons of the metropolis, with Newgate at their head. Some of the so-called London charities may well, in truth, be also designated London rascalities. It is, indeed, the same in the provinces as in the metropolis. Moneys left by charitable persons for the purpose of clothing, educating, and relieving the poor in sickness and in want, have been diverted from their legitimate purposes, and scandalously misappropriated by those into whose hands their appropriation was confided. Like birds of prey over a carcase, well clad, sanctimonious, smug-faced church and chapel-going harpies have fastened themselves on the bodies of our national charities, and are sucking the life-blood out of them. It is a common saying, that nothing can be done without jobbery in this country; but it does appear a monstrous, a shameful, and a scandalous fact, that not even charities are exempt from this prevailing evil.

Jobbery, I fear, is sadly curtailing the utility of many of those noble and necessary institutions, the public hospitals; and, judging by some disclosures recently made in reference to the management of Bartholomew’s Hospital, there is reason to suspect that the poor reap but little benefit from the forty-eight thousand pounds income that charity enjoys. It is said that pretty well the whole and sole control of the hospital is vested in the hands of a very highly salaried functionary named Foster White, who is a sort of bashaw in the establishment, and monarch of all he surveys. Ugly rumours have oozed out lately as to the shabby treatment of the indoor patients at this magnificently endowed hospital; and, likewise, it has been shown, and proven, that the medical treatment of out-door patients is little better than a cruel, and, indeed, dangerous, farce.

One of the medical men connected with the hospital, more thin-skinned, perhaps, than some of his brethren, recently resigned because he would not be an accomplice to what appeared to him a gross and cruel deception. It seems that the doctors appointed to relieve the out-door patients are expected to “knock them off” with such rapidity, that only some twenty or twenty-five seconds can be devoted to each case! Never mind how serious or how trivial the ailment, the doctor on duty must make himself acquainted with every particular of the malady in the time mentioned, or he will fall into arrears with his patients, and into disgrace with the hospital authorities. The martyr to cancer must be disposed of in the same time as the sufferer by a catarrh. “Come and go” seems to be the order at Barthlomew’s, and, I fear, at most London hospitals. No time can be spared to inquire minutely as to the origin and nature of the out-door patient’s maladies, but he is dismissed after the most hurried and superficial examination, with the inevitable bolus or blister.

Indeed, it is doubtful whether more out-door patients are not killed than cured through their visits to some of the public hospitals. Of course, this hasty, unsatisfactory, and discreditable way of doing business might easily be remedied by enlarging the staff of the hospitals, and letting half a dozen, instead of two or three, doctors attend applicants for medical advice and aid. There are hundreds of fully qualified surgeons who would gladly undertake these duties; but the hospital authorities will not go out of the old grooves to which they have been so long accustomed, and they set their faces against all innovations, however needful and beneficial they may be. They like keeping all authority, all patronage, and all pickings to themselves, and refuse to alter the existing state of things, fearing that interlopers might interfere with the loaves and fishes.

It appears there is a brown jug ready at hand, from whence pretty well all patients are physicked alike. “A Clerkenwell Guardian” makes the following astounding statement in reference to a case, which, if true, reflects the utmost discredit upon the authorities of St. Bartholomew’s Hospital. He writes as follows:—

“Amongst the applicants to the Clerkenwell Relief Committee was William Clarke. His arm was in a sling, and his hand was swathed in hospital bandages. He evidently came from some remote village, and had the appearance of an agricultural labourer. He informed the committee that he had had one of his fingers amputated at St. Bartholomew’s Hospital a few days before, and that half an hour after the operation, he was sent out friendless, homeless, and penniless. The night was bitterly cold, and after wandering about for some time, a police-officer directed him to the Clerkenwell casual wards. He was at once admitted, and from thence, the next day, he was received into the workhouse. The committee ordered his detention in our infirmary, where he will receive the attention of the surgeon and have sick diet, notwithstanding his not belonging to the parish.”

And this accusation, brought against a hospital with 48,000*l.* per annum, with the Prince of Wales as patron, and with a treasurer and manager who receives a very large salary! I rejoice to say the scandals that have got abroad in reference to St. Bartholomew’s, have induced the authorities at last to order an investigation as to their truth.

And so it is thus that some of the noblest charities are cramped in the good work their founders meant them to execute. And thus it is that the poor are made to suffer, and to suffer severely, because they are comparatively helpless to protect themselves against those who fatten and flourish upon the proceeds of bequests intended for the behoof and benefit of others. Charities abroad are admirably administered compared with those at home. In most cases the administrators are honorary officers, and make that a work of love which the paid secretaries, treasurers, and the hundreds of other harpies that fasten and fatten upon English charities, regard purely in a mercenary point of view. The results are consequently most opposite. Out of a thousand pounds given to the poor in France, nine hundred and ninety is expended upon them; whilst here half the amount would be frittered away upon officials, functionaries, and a host of other leeches that must all have a nibble at the substance. Some of these cormorants are not contented with a nibble, but make a large bite into the bequests intended for the poor, and extract therefrom, under the designation of salary, five, six, eight hundred, and sometimes, fifteen hundred per annum.

At least a million is filched annually from the poor by those who have obtained control over charitable funds. The sums purloined by the public officers and public companies of the City of London in the aggregate make an enormous amount, but so powerful is the interest of these rogues in crimson, mazarine, and broadcloth, that they easily stifle all attempts to get at how they appropriate the funds entrusted for charitable purposes to their keeping. We all know they spend an enormous amount in guzzling; that they appoint each other to sinecure offices with large salaries attached thereto, and adopt other equally ingenious and disgraceful methods of spending on themselves funds intended for the poor.

#### THE ST. PANCRAS INFIRMARY.[^f86]

##### ADJOURNED INQUEST.

Yesterday morning, shortly after 10 o’clock, Dr. Lankester resumed, at the College Arms, Crowndale-road, St. Pancras, the inquiry into the causes of the death of several persons recently in the infirmary of St. Pancras Workhouse. The case of James Plant was, it may be remembered, partly heard on the 10th instant, when, in consequence of the remarkable evidence given by Mr. S. Solly, Surgeon and Lecturer of St. Thomas’s Hospital and Vice-President of the College of Surgeons, and of Mr. R. Brudenell Carter, F.R.C.S., an adjournment took place in order that the investigation might be made as complete as possible. At the first sitting verdicts were returned in the cases of two persons, viz., Jane Harrison and Julia Conder, who died in the infirmary, to the effect that death was accelerated by overcrowding and want of ventilation. The names of the deceased, whose cases had still to be investigated, were, besides James Plant, Jane Hayes, Mary Brown, Mary Smith, and John Fox.

Mr. Parker, jun., of 40, Bedford-row, appeared yesterday on behalf of the relatives of June Hayes and Mary Brown.

The Coroner, having reminded the jury of the nature of the evidence given at the previous sitting by Mr. Carter and Mr. Solly with regard to the impure atmosphere of the wards, referred to the charge made since the 10th inst. against Dr. Ellis, the surgeon of the infirmary, to the effect that he caused the ventilation to be stopped immediately before Mr. Solly’s visit, and observed that if that serious charge could be proved, Dr. Ellis must have been guilty of manslaughter, if not of murder. There had, it appeared, been some improvements in the wards since the deceased persons died, but of course that could not affect the verdict with regard to the cause of death. Since the last sitting, he had written to the President of the Poor Law Board, drawing his attention to the state of the infirmary, and asking him to allow the Poor Law inspectors who had visited it to give evidence. The reply was to the effect that the unsatisfactory state of the infirmary was well known to the board, whose best efforts had been directed to the removal of the evils complained of; and it was hoped that in a few weeks the new infirmary at Highgate would be ready for the reception of patients; and that as an official inquiry covering part of the question at issue was about to take place, the Board did not consider it desirable to comply with the request made. It was added that the inspectors might of course be summoned in the usual way.

Some of the jury having here expressed a wish to visit the infirmary they were conducted thither by the coroner’s officer. On their return, after the lapse of about twenty minutes, the case of Jane Hayes was, for special reasons connected with witnesses, first proceeded with.

Dr. Ellis deposed that deceased, who was 17 years of age, was admitted on the 24th of July into No. 24 ward, and died on the 2nd of November from phthisis. When she died there were, he said, 29 patients in the ward, and the quantity of cubic feet of air per patient was 600, or 250 feet below the minimum requirement of the Poor Law Board. On a post mortem examination, the brain was found to be congested, and he believed the cause of death was typhoid or gastric fever, connected with consumption, and that death was accelerated by the poisonous air of the ward. On the previous day he saw some water, obtained by the dispenser from the bottom of the air shaft of the infirmary, and found that it contained sewage contamination. That water ought not to have been there. It was not his duty to look after the air shafts, and he did not know whose duty it was.

The Coroner said it seemed very remarkable that, in the case of that workhouse there was no one to look after such matters. He wished to know what the witness meant to do with regard to this water.

The witness said he should report to the Board on the subject, as he had already reported from time to time. He reported the existence of bad smells in No. 24 ward as far back as September 18. Two new ventilators had been put into No. 24 ward since Jane Hayes died, but he did not perceive any improvement. There had been no reduction in the number of patients, but rather an increase. On June 30, and at other times, he reported to the Board that patients had been sleeping on the floor. Reporters as to bad smells were made before he entered upon office, which was in June last, by Drs. Harley and Gibson. He agreed with Dr. Edward Smith that the minimum number of patients in the wards should be 144. On July 1st, there were 168 beds, and within the last ten days there had been 203. More beds had been put in the wards since Mr. Solly and Mr. Carter gave their evidence.

The Coroner—Then you think the tendency to overcrowding and the acceleration of deaths has rather increased since the revelations of the 10th of November?

Witness—Yes, sir.

Examination continued—On the 6th of November there were 169 patients in the infirmary, and yesterday (Sunday) there were 190. The witness then put in his half-yearly report to the Board of Guardians, and also a reply from that Board requesting him to couch his reports in language more becoming a medical man and a gentleman.

Mr. Corbett, Poor Law Inspector, was then examined. He deposed that he had been acquainted with the St. Pancras Infirmary since October, 1866, and that from that period the Infirmary wards had always been more or less overcrowded. He had reported this to the Poor Law Board, and the reason why the order that there should be 850 cubic feet for each patient was not enforced, was—

Dr. Edmunds, one of the guardians, here interposed, and begged the Coroner to afford them facilities for aiding in the elicitation of the truth, especially by letting him have a chair to take notes, and prepare for an examination of the witness. The guardians had, he said, to contend against a conspiracy. Several gentlemen in the room, evidently connected with the vestry, loudly protested against this expression, and quite a scene occurred in the court. In the course of the uproar—for such it was—the foreman protested against a statement which he had seen, that the Coroner’s officer could easily pack a jury; but the Coroner assured him that he need not trouble himself about the matter, as he could defend his court against any imputation of that kind. Dr. Edmunds was then with some difficulty—the room being crowded—accommodated with a seat at the Coroner’s table.

Mr. Corbett’s examination continued—The order that there should be 850 cubic feet per patient was not enforced by the Poor Law Board, because it was thought that many patients whose cases were urgent might thus be excluded, and because better provision was being made for patients. He visited No. 24 ward between half-past four and five that (Monday) morning. The air was still offensive, but he did not think it was quite as offensive as it was on the night of the 14th instant, when there were two more patients in the ward. He believed that after Dr. Markham’s report as to bad smells the guardians conscientiously endeavoured to remove the cause of the evil. He could not tell whether the Poor Law Board had power to do anything beyond calling the attention of the guardians to the matter. The witness then deposed to the removal of one serious sewage nuisance in consequence of a complaint on the part of the Poor Law Board.

By the Foreman—In consequence of the crowded state of the infirmary wards some persons who were ill had been placed in the infirm wards.

By the Coroner—On the night of the 14th of Nov. there [were] 32 patients in No. 24 ward, whereas on the 15th of Oct. there were only 27. The position of the water-closets was not satisfactory, but he had never had occasion to complain of their condition. He thought the ventilation of the wards might be improved with a limited number of beds and proper care. That morning he found the patients in No. 11 ward nearly all coughing in a distressing manner, and he thought that was owing to the circumstances that the ventilators, which were about 3 feet above the heads of the patients, were open.

Dr. Edmunds, who said he had been a guardian only since April last, then examined the witness upon points of discipline in workhouse management. Referring to a resolution of the guardians, passed, he said, last Friday week, requiring that no more patients should be admitted to the wards than the number prescribed by the Poor Law Board, he asked whether the medical officer was not responsible for any excess.

The witness replied that the person responsible was he who gave the order for additional beds, adding that the responsibility in such cases devolved, as he thought, on the master.

By the Coroner—As a lawyer, he did not think the Board of Guardians could expose themselves to a verdict of manslaughter by allowing an excessive number of patients.

The Coroner said he was afraid there was no law on the subject. The public had trusted to gospel, and it had failed them.

Dr. Edmunds continued his examination of the witness at considerable length, for the purpose of showing that the Board of Guardians had done everything in their power to improve the ventilation.

Dr. John Henry Brydges, Acting-Inspector of the Poor Law Board, was next examined. He said he had visited the infirmary but once, namely, on the 14th instant. The size and construction of some of the wards he considered pretty good, but there was a bad smell from one of the sinks. There were too many patients in all the wards; and he thought that persons suffering from phthisis and disease of the lungs would be likely to have their deaths accelerated by the state of the wards. He made a report to the Poor Law Board of what he observed, and that was all he could do.

The Coroner—Don’t you think, Dr. Brydges, that the people of England, when they read the report of this inquiry, will be astonished to learn that you, representing the Government, found this state of things and were powerless to remedy it?

The witness repeated that he had only power to report.

In reply to Dr. Edmunds, the witness said he believed the Poor Law Board had power to make an order limiting the number of patients in the infirmary. There were hospitals in London where a patient suffering from lung disease would be much better off as regarded pure air than at his own home. He thought that an opening at the top and at the bottom in the St. Pancras Infirmary would be better than the present system of ventilation. He did not know any workhouse infirmary in which there was better structural ventilation than there was in that one.

It was here stated, in reply to inquiries from the coroner, that the infirmary was built about 1849.

The Coroner—Ventilating apparatus was not as effective then as it is now.

The Court then adjourned for half an hour.

When the Court had again met,

Mr. B. Carter was re-examined. He deposed to having visited that morning Nos. 16 and 24 female wards, and No. 11 male ward. Having visited them on the 4th of November, he found little improvement; the air being close and offensive; and he thought that, with precautions to prevent cold, the ventilation might have been improved. The condition of No. 24 wards, as he found it that morning, would accelerate the death of a patient suffering from phthisis. Did not know any hospital in London where there was as much overcrowding, or as great a want of ventilation as he had found in St. Pancras Infirmary. Would be sorry to spend 24 hours in the wards, and considered them quite unfit for human habitation.

Mr. J. W. Barnes, surgeon, was, at his own urgent request, here examined with regard to the deceased James Plant, whom he attended just before his admission into the infirmary. The gist of his evidence was that he found Plant in such a state that in his opinion he could not possibly live; but, in reply to the coroner, he admitted that he did not discover any organic disease. Knew the wards, and when he visited them found no want of ventilation. Did not believe their state had accelerated the death of anyone.

The witness was pressed very closely by the coroner and the foreman with questions on this point, but he adhered substantially to his statement. In reply to a question suggested by Mr. Parker, he said that he is elected one of the parish surgeons annually by the board of guardians.

Dr. Ellis, medical officer of the infirmary, was then cross-examined, it being a cross-examination only in form, by Mr. Parker. His evidence related chiefly to reports which he and some of his predecessors had made at different times to the board of guardians, with respect to the objectionable state of the wards, and he expressed his belief that, if his own suggestions had been carried out, considerable improvement would have resulted.

Mr. George Blake, master of the workhouse, who was there in that capacity for two years and left on the 1st inst., said that when he entered upon office the number of beds was 203, which number was gradually reduced. On the 27th of May last he reported to the board about an increase. When he quitted the house there were 169 beds—a number which exceeded that prescribed by the Poor Law Board. During his term of office there were many complaints of smells, and though a good deal had been done to remedy the evil, there were smells when he left. Had the new ventilators been supplied earlier, he would have used them. To meet the evils complained of, the old guardians sent twelve patients to King’s College Hospital, and they would have sent more had there been room for them. The workhouse was drained very well, but the infirmary very badly. Saw the new Infirmary at Highgate in October, and believed it was then dry enough to be occupied by patients. The ventilators were not generally used while he was in the house, being too close to the patients’ heads.

James Peel, medical dispenser of the workhouse, was then examined with regard to the water just found by him, as stated by Dr. Ellis, in the air-shaft of the infirmary, and deposed in effect that, having analyzed it, he found that it contained organic matter connected with the sewage. The witness gave the quantity of such matter, and said it far exceeded the organic matter in the ordinary water of the workhouse.

John Ward, engineer of the workhouse, was thereupon examined, and said he thought the water in question must have percolated through a main which was broken six or seven weeks ago, adding that the air shaft was used, not to let in air, but to draw it off, and therefore the patients could not have been injured by that cause. He had found that morning a stench arising from a cesspool outside the infirmary walls, on the ground of the Midland Railway Company, and he believed that smells in the wards arose from that source, knew of the existence of that cesspool before.

The Coroner asked the witness why he did not report the fact of its existence to the Medical Officer of Health?

The witness replied that it was not his duty to do so, and went on to say that the cesspool was not used now, and he was surprised that it had not been removed.

Ellen Petts, night nurse in the infirmary, deposed that on the night of Mr. Solly’s visit to the infirmary it was in its ordinary state, and she had no orders to close the ventilators. Great efforts had been made to improve the state of the wards during the last two or three weeks.

The Coroner then asked the jury if they felt themselves in a position to come to a conclusion on the case of Jane Hayes.

The jury having intimated that they did,

The Coroner addressed them. He observed that although 80 cubic feet of air was the prescribed quantity per patient it had not been enforced, and no one appeared to be legally responsible for a deficiency. He did not think the jury could find any one criminally guilty, although some persons had, no doubt, been negligent. Before the guardians were blamed by the jury it should be considered whether the Poor-law Board should not have exercised the authority vested in it. Dr. Ellis had, the Coroner remarked, been cleared from the charge of having purposely over-crowded the wards.

The room was then cleared for the jury to consult. After the lapse of about an hour they declared that the death of Jane Hayes was accelerated by the overcrowded condition of the ward in which she died; adding to this verdict the following expression of opinion:—“That the wards of St. Pancras Infirmary have been overcrowded for the last three years, and the jury desire to express their regret that the Poor Law Board have not enforced the sanitary measures which they have from time to time recommended to be carried out; and they also feel that the Board of Guardians have failed in their duty towards the parishioners of St. Pancras in not carrying into effect the recommendations of the Poor Law Board.”

The court adjourned at a quarter-past six for the hearing of the other cases until Monday, the 29th instant, at four o’clock.

* * *

#### THE BURDEN OF LONDON PAUPERISM.[^f87]

OUR recent strictures upon the conduct of the St. Pancras ratepayers in electing, and still more in supporting, the guardians whose conduct in office has been the objects of so much just condemnation do not seem to call for any sort of qualification. Still there is another aspect of the question which must be taken into account before drawing any practical conclusion. If the ratepayers had insisted on keeping the old infirmary in use simply for the purpose of killing sick paupers, or if the economy which really actuated them had been pursued for its own sake, and with no reference to the state of their own pockets, there would have been nothing for it but to resort to wholesale disfranchisement. Men who compel the sick whom the law consigns to their mercy to breathe sulphureted hydrogen, because it is a safe way of getting them off their hands, or whose desire to save sixpence in rates is compatible with lavish expenditure in other ways, can never, by any process short of miraculous conversion, be safely entrusted with a voice in the administration of poor relief. But in this case it is not necessary to take so extreme a view. There is no doubt that the small shopkeepers of Northern London do find the poor rate a very heavy burden. This fact supplies no excuse for the steps they have taken to lighten it, any more than infanticide is excused by the fact that the food and clothes of a child cost money. But it is nevertheless an element which should be kept in mind when we are considering how to put things on a better footing. The business of life must ordinarily be carried on by men who would keep pretty straight if they were not tempted into crooked ways; and if it is in our power to remove temptation from them without injustice to other people, it will probably be easier to do so than to find men of stronger principle to take their places. A poor ratepayer, who feels that humanity, at all events at the outset, is a very costly process, will commit acts of cruelty, of which, if the outlay demanded of him had been less, he would honestly have thought himself incapable. In dealing with persons of this class it is important, therefore, to determine whether the pressure laid upon them admits of being lightened—in other words, whether they get more than their just share of it. If it turns out that they have been hardly dealt with in this respect, our dislike of the means they have taken to help themselves ought not to hinder us from helping them in a more legitimate manner. By so doing we shall be really effecting two ends at once—the redress of a grievance which is not the less a grievance because it has been met in an improper spirit and by disgraceful acts, and the removal of one, at least, of the principal motives which have led to their abuse of their powers.

That the unequal distribution of rates in London constitutes a real hardship to the poorer districts will hardly be denied. The class which comes most often on the parish for relief naturally congregates in particular districts. In some parts of the town there is still a considerable social mixture, and the poor live in a nest of back streets with a facing of wealth all round them. But more often the proletariat of the capital dwells in a colony of its own, and men whose work may lie at the other end of London go home at night to Whitechapel or Bethnal-green. Consequently the neighbourhood which bears the cost of maintaining these men when they are out of work is rarely the neighbourhood which benefits by their work when they can get any. The theory on which the poor rate is supposed to be distributed—that the pauperism of each district is supported by the property of the district—is thus set at defiance, and the pauperized artisan apply for relief to a ratepayer with whom, except as a pauper, he has no relations whatever. Thus the wealthier class escapes the responsibilities which of right belong to it, and, as commonly happens, is none the better for escaping them; while the middle class comes in for responsibilities which it has only incurred accidentally, and by an equally common process is exasperated and hardened by the inequality.

The objection most frequently urged against the equalization of the poor rate over the whole of London is that it would tend to discourage economy. Under the present system, it is argued, relief is administered by the people who have to pay the cost of it, and whose interest it is to calculate it on the most limited scale, whereas on a system of equalized rates each parish would be administering a fund contributed by the entire metropolis, and the increased cost of careless or lavish expenditure would only be slightly felt by the particular district guilty of it. It is evident, however, that the consequences of the present system are very much more sweeping than they were designed to be, and that in our anxiety to ensure prudence we have ensured a degree of niggardliness which occasionally is not distinguishable from wanton cruelty, It becomes worthy of consideration, therefore, whether the attempt to maintain necessary economy by indirect means has not led us to overlook the possibility of maintaining it by direct means. Now that the burden of poor relief in London falls almost exclusively on a few parishes—and that the least able to sustain it—the most brutal expedients are, as we have seen, resorted to in order to lessen the pressure. The theory which underlies the existing relations between the central and the local authorities is that the latter are always well-meaning, but a little apt to be behind the age. This defect is supposed to be met by the appointment of inspectors, who test the practice of the guardians by the standard prescribed by the Commissioners, and report all defections and shortcomings; upon which the Board notifies to the guardians the points in which their administration is faulty, and the guardians gratefully adopt the wise counsels of their superior officers. It is needless to say that this pleasing picture is often quite imaginary. The guardians think they know their own business much better than anybody can tell it them, and they resent the suggestions of the Poor Law Board as so much wanton interference with their darling fetish of local self-government. Unless the public are prepared to have the abominations of St. Pancras repeated whenever the same conditions recur they must insist on giving the Poor Law Board authority to say, this must be done, and if you do not choose to do it we shall step in and do it for you. If a department of the Government, the head of which has always a seat in Parliament, and is frequently a member of the Cabinet, cannot be trusted with this amount of discretionary power, what is the use of keeping up a Central Board? Why not make each board of guardians an independent republic, and abandon the farce of subjecting them to a common authority? But when things have been carried thus far there will be nothing to prevent their being pushed a little farther. If Parliament can enable the Poor Law Board to say to a board of guardians, you shall do this, it can equally enable them to say, You shall not do that. The authority which is competent to enforce humanity must be competent to restrain extravagance. The lavish expenditure of other people’s money which is predicted by some alarmists as the result of an equitable distribution of the poor rate must take one of three forms—a too generous scale of relief, over-payment of officials, or a needless erection of new buildings. Certainly these are not the sins which the metropolitan guardians are at present most inclined to; but even conceding—which we are by no means disposed to do—that the fact of the poor rate being raised from the whole of London equally would work a complete revolution in all three respects, what is there to prevent any one of these kinds of outlay from being subjected to the control of a vigilant central office? The average cost of a pauper’s bare maintenance and the average salary of workhouse officials are known quantities in poor law calculations, and if any one board of guardians—or, to put a case of extreme improbability, if all the boards of guardians in London—chose to exceed these sums, the Commissioners would be able to forbid the excess being paid out of the rates and thus to leave the guardians responsible as for debts incurred of their own mere motion. To the erection of new buildings the consent of the Poor Law Board would still be an indispensable condition, and they would have as efficient methods of ascertaining when they are wanted. If it was still found that little items of extravagance slipped through the meshes of central supervision, it might be expedient to subject the metropolitan guardians to some special check in the shape of paid chairmen—appointed by and responsible to the Poor Law Board—whose consent should be requisite for all expenditure beyond a certain sum proportionate to the number of paupers.

#### THE ST. PANCRAS INFIRMARY.[^f88]

The adjourned inquest on the causes of certain deaths in the infirmary of St. Pancras Workhouse took place at four o’clock yesterday afternoon, at the College Arms, Crowndale-road.

The names of the deceased whose cases had still to be heard are Mary Brown, James Plant, Mary Smith, and John Fox.

Mr. Parker, jun., of No. 40. Bedford-row, appeared on behalf of the relatives of Mary Brown, whose case was taken first.

Dr. James Ellis, infirmary surgeon, said the deceased woman was suffered from ulceration of the nose, which was not necessarily a fatal disease, and she never seemed to improve. She complained that the ward (No. 16) was close, and her case was one in which an abundance of fresh air was especially desirable. She ought to have had more cubic space, and if he could have got it for her he would. On the night when she died there were 32 patients in the ward, each having 700 cubic feet of air, and the beds were all full. Deceased was found dead by the night nurse on the morning of the 6th. He afterwards found the brain and liver congested, and the cause of death was, he believed, congestive apoplexy.

Jane Mather, day nurse, deposed that on the evening of the 5th there were seven patients lying on the floor of the ward.

By Mr. Parker—Mr. Robertson, one of the guardians, once opened a ventilator on his own authority.

By the Coroner—Had been lately in the habit of opening and shutting windows at the request of guardians without consulting Dr. Ellis.

The Coroner remarked that under such a state of things patients might be almost blown in pieces one moment and almost suffocated the next.

Frances Blott, an assistant nurse, stated that one patient, a countryman, killed fourteen rats within five weeks.

Ellen Petts, general night nurse, who was examined at the last sitting, stated that on the following day she received a notice of dismissal. She commenced her duties last March, and no formal complaint had ever been made against her, though she had had words with Dr. Edmunds and Mr. Watkins. Could not tell why she was dismissed. Did not know that she was either stupid or negligent, as had been stated in a newspaper since she gave her evidence.

The Foreman expressed a desire to ascertain the cause of dismissal from the guardians’ minute books, but the Coroner deprecated any more time being occupied with a matter not directly bearing on the question before the jury, especially as they could all draw their own inferences.

Dr. Ellis, having been recalled, stated, in reply to Mr. Parker, that he unhesitatingly attributed the death of the deceased to the state of the ward.

William Richard Freethy, a clerk in the guardians’ offices, produced the minute-books of the guardians and their visiting committee and, at the request of Mr. Parker, read entries respecting complaints of Dr. Gibson, Dr. Harley, and Dr. Ellis, about the state of the infirmary.

From a statement of Mr. Blake, the late master of the workhouse, who was again present, and here examined on this question, it appeared that the complaints of the two first-named gentlemen were attended to.

The witness Freethy was examined minutely and closely by Mr. Parker, evidently with the view of fixing legal responsibility on guardians present at various meetings, on the ground that they had not, in accordance with the requests of Dr. Ellis, done what was necessary for the improvement of the infirmary. One of Dr. Ellis’s reports, placed before the guardians on the 8th instant, was, it appeared, simply ordered, on the motion of Mr. Watkins, to lie on the table. This report related to the excessive number of beds in some of the wards.

Mr. Joseph Smith, a member of the Board of guardians, and also of the visiting committee, was examined with regard to a meeting of the latter in July, in which a resolution was passed in reference to a report of Dr. Ellis, to the effect that no action should be taken upon it. He himself disapproved of that course. The other members present were Mr. Robertson and Mr. Borsley. As regarded the capacity of the infirmary, the witness said that until lately he never heard that the number of patients should be limited to 144, and if he had known that he would not have consented to any addition. He was not now aware that there had ever been more than 168.

In reply to the Coroner, Dr. Ellis here stated that there are at present 190 patients, whereupon Dr. Lankester expressed his surprise at such a want of knowledge on the part of a guardian.

The witness went on to state that the day after Dr. Solly gave his evidence he himself went to the infirmary, and arranged for additional accommodation, in the form of an extra ward, which Dr. Ellis accepted.

Dr. Edmunds, a guardian and doctor of medicine, was recalled, and examined on the same point. In defense of the guardians, he stated that up to last week an order of the Poor-law Board, dated November, 1868, required that as many as 212 patients should be received into the infirmary. Dr. Edmunds afterwards alluded very warmly to charges recently made against himself as a guardian, saying that he had been “shamefully libelled.”

The Coroner protested against the use of such language in that court, where, he said, the witness had met with the greatest indulgence.

The Coroner having briefly addressed the jury on the case of Mary Brown, the cases of John Fox and Mary Smith, which were workhouse, and not infirmary cases, were then inquired into, in order that all the remaining verdicts might be returned together. In both these cases, which were of an ordinary character, the verdict was, that death arose from natural causes, with the addition, in the last, that death was accelerated by the want of proper nursing and medical attendance prior to deceased’s admission to the house. The verdict in the cases of James plant and Mary Brown was, that the deaths were accelerated by the unsanitary condition of the wards in St. Pancras Infirmary in which they died, with the following addition:—“The jury wish to express their undiminished conviction that the death of the said deceased was traceable to the neglect of the Poor-law Board and the Board of Guardians to provide proper sanitary arrangements for the inmates of the wards of St. Pancras Infirmary.”

The inquiry did not terminate till about 9 o’clock.

---

[^f73]: Newspaper not identified (MEGAdigital).
[^f74]: Newspaper not identified (MEGAdigital).
[^f75]: *Reynolds’s Newspaper*, No. 1005, 14 November 1869, p. 6.
[^f76]: *The Daily News*, No. 7273, 23 August 1869, p. 4.
[^f77]: *Reynolds’s Newspaper*, No. 988, 18 July 1869, p. 2.
[^f78]: *Reynolds’s Newspaper*, No. 992, 15 August 1869, p. 7.
[^f79]: *Reynolds’s Newspaper*, No. 992, 15 August 1869, p. 7.
[^f80]: *The Daily News*, No. 7298, 21 September 1869, p. 2.
[^f81]: Newspaper not identified (MEGAdigital).
[^f82]: *The Daily News*, No. 7347, 17 November 1869, p. 5.
[^f83]: *The Standard*, 18 November 1869, p. 6.
[^f84]: *The Standard*, 17 November 1869, p. 6.
[^f85]: *Reynolds’s Newspaper*, No. 1006, 21 November 1869, p. 3.
[^f86]: *The Daily News*, No. 7352, 23 November 1869, p. 3.
[^f87]: *The Pall Mall Gazette*, No. 1494, 25 November 1869, pp. 1-2.
[^f88]: *The Daily News*, No. 7358, 30 November 1869, p. 2.
[^lic]: Text from MEGAdigital (Berlin-Brandenburgische Akademie der Wissenschaften), MEGA² IV/19, licence CC BY-SA 4.0 (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/); the editorial apparatus of the MEGA is not reproduced. Words in square brackets are missing or damaged in the cuttings and supplied by the MEGA editors.