The Express.
London, England, 1866-04-20 00:00:00

This morning Mr. John Humphreys, Middlesex
coroner, held an ins at the Green Man Tavern, Hor-
ton, relative to the death from alleged neglect and star-
vation of an infant named Edward Griffiths.
The inquest was held in compliance with the request of
the child's father, who made a written application to the
coroner, stating hat he and by wife had been driven by
poverty to enter the Shoreditch workhouse and that
although his wife was in a state of extreme ex-
haustion from her recent confinement and absolute want
of food, she got no nourishment fit for her condition, not
evens cup of tea, until she fainted away and could nurse the
child no longer, and that after that occurrence the child
was so neglected that it died from that cause.
Edward Griffiths being sworn, said that he entered the
Shoreditch Workhouse on the 27th March. He was a
boilermaker's assistant by trade. For two or three days
before he and his wife underwent privation—his wife
had no food. The deceased child was only six weeks old
when it died. When witness's wife went into the house
she was in a very weak state from want and privation.
She suckled the child till about six or seven days after she
went into the house, when she fainted away from exhaus-
tion. She was taken sway then to the Infirmary. The -
child was left in the care of an inmate nurse. Witness
had frequent opportunities while working about the house, 81
Of seeing the child. When he saw it no care was being sa
taken of it. It was left lying down and quite cold. He 24
used to take its little cold hand in hie, and it seemed SI
to like the heat. The child was too weak to 844
make a noise, and it got very little attendance
in consequence. Him wife told the workhouse doctor
when she entered the house that she bad been suffering
from want of food. Her diet, however, was only 12
itr:tl ca.
sof c!teeitoat pint a Fru three :: ; suet pudoodidni
°twit_ twice
vegetables (potatoes).) She had no blies: or 'tea or sugar.
The cause of the child'. death was neglect on the part
of the doctor and the nurse. It was the matron's duty
to see the child daily, but he believed she never saw it.
If he had stopped out of the house he believed that
the child would be now alive. Witness had got a little
out-door relief-3a. and two quartern loaves In a fort-
night—but on the day he went into the house upon his
applying again for relief he was told that the board would
rve no more out-door ratkf, and be should come into the
o
we, which he did. Wither had never illtreated his
wife. He had another child, 4 years old. In the year 1857

he had enlisted in the army.
Ann Griffiths, a weakly-looking woman, said that she it
remembered her huabsnd going on the 27th March for si
some relief, and his coming back, saying that they would Si
give him nothing but an order to come into the house. lc
She continued to suckle the child, though very weak, 1(
until she one day fainted. The doctor said that it l,
" was an idle excuse," when she said that she could la
hardly suckle the child from weakness. She only had meat 24
once before she went into the sick ward, but now she I
had it every day. She had been in the house • week and St
a day before she went into the sick ward. The nourish- F,
ment she got was not sufficient for her. (With the exoep yt
-
tion of the allowance of meat three times • week, the wit- it
nese corroborated her husband's evidence as to the is
quantity of food she got.) The child was neglected in the St
feeding of it. Before going into the sick ward witness got St
neither milk, tea, nor sugar. She got gruel twice a day.
Her husband did not Muse witness before the child was ;
born. He did what he could fur her. st
By the Jury—Witness saw the matron once before she it
went into the sick ward and twice after. Witness saw It
her child three times in the sick ward. At the end of the St
first week it was still very well St
Elisabeth Grosvenor, a pauper nurse in the nursery, said al
that when Ann Griffiths came in there were 14 children st
and 11 women in the nursery. Some of the children had St
no mothers. Witness was the only nurse, but women were 81
sent to mind children during the day. The child, Edward St
Griffiths, was fed on bread and milk and arrowroot. The ',B,
master ordered it to be fed on bread and milk, kc. A 1,1
breakfast cup full of arrowroot was served out since st
yesterday week. Before that time the children were fed st
on break and milk and beef tea. The children so fed were it
10 months, 11 months, and two years old. Witness was SI
not paid anything, but she got ball a pint of beer, tea,
sugar, and meat daily, as extras. The dead child was not
neglected. It was placed on • bed, and covered with a
blanket when asleep. When it awoke witness nursed it. 8
Lest Friday the child fell ill, and the doctor saw it. The 1
arrowroot was given to it after it fell ill. The matron
visited Vie nursery daily. The child died on Monday last.
It received proper medical attendance.
Mr. S. Andrews, relieving officer, said that Griffiths
came to him on the 25th February, and witness visited the
case in Dorset-street, and gave relief, and a work order.
The man came twice drunk. On the 3rd of March the
woman was confined, and witness gave relief. The hus-
band had then left her some days. On the 27th of March
witness saw the man again drunk, and, finding the woman .
in a state of great neglect and want, he thought the beet
thing for her would be to take her into the workhouse. 14
The work order was for breaking atones, at which a man 1:
oould earn 2s. or 3s. a day, and would then get an extra It
quartern loaf gratis. 11
Mr. Jonathan Hutchinson, surgeon to the London Hos 11
-
pital and three other hospitals, said that he made a post- lt
mortem examination of the deceased. The body was some-
what
emaciated. The left eye was gone. The child was
healthy. There was no organic disease. Death resulted
from diarrhoea. The mother when suckling the child
should have had more nutritious diet than she hail. With
proper diet she might have suckled the child, and then the
diarrhoea might not have taken place.
Mr. J. Clarke, surgeon to Shoreditch workhouse, said
that he saw the woman on the 29th of March. He (lid not
order her extra nourishment, because it was necessary to
go on gradually, aa she had been suffering from want of
food. He treated the child, and did his best to save it.
The Master of the Workhouse said that the woman Grif-
fiths was wrong in stating that she got meat only once
during the first eight days she was in the house. The
regular allowance was meat three times a week.
The Coroner said that the charge of neglect of the child
rested entirely on the allegations of the father, and was
hardly borne out. But it certainly did seem strange that
the mother of the child, entering the house almost in a
state of starvation and suckling her child, should not
have got extra nourishment until she actually fainted
away while endeavouring to perform her duty as a mother.
The jury, after deliberating, returned a verdict, " That
the deceased child, being an infant of tender age, died in
Shoreditch Workhouse, from natural causes ; and the
jurors are of opinion that the diet ordered by the surgeon
to the mother of the deceased, on her admission to the
workhouse, was not sufficient for a woman in her condition.'