The Sun.
London, England, 1864-05-06 00:00:00

THE TREATMENT OF THE POOR IN

BETIINAL-GREEN.

OFFICIAL POOR-LAW INQUIRY,

Yesterday morning, at 10 o'clock, Mr. Farnall, Inspector I
of the Poor dew Board, opened an official investigation into
the circumstances connected with the death of Mary Ann
Anfield, the wife of a quill winder. At an inquest recently
held upon the body of the deceased by the coroner for the
county of Middlesex it was deposed that when she was
brought to the workhouse infirmary, on April 29, she was
refused admission, and was kept outside the gates in the rain
until she became so ill that she exclaimed she should die in
the street if she was not taken back. On a subsequent day
she was admitted, and while in the workhouse she com-
plained of the food she got, and said it was unfit to eat.
Mr. Cardwell, gate porter of the Bethnal-green Work-
house, said he had the regulations of the Poor daw Board to
guide him. Ills wife was also a paid servant, and resided
with him. Sometimes persons came to the gate stating that
they were destitute, and required admission to the work-
house. Witness would refer such people to the relieving
officers, who had an office in the workhouse; but if the re-
lieving officers were absent he would refer to the master.
It the master were absent he would not appeal to the
matron, but would admit the case himself.
The Commissioner said that as ho went through the evi-
dence he wished to point out any cases in which the officials
did not exactly fulfil the tales of the Poor 'law, lle wished
to know where the regulations directed the porter to send
destitute cases to the relieving officers, instead of admitting
them.

Mr. Cardwell said let he was directed by the regulations
to apply to the master or the matron. In their absence he
went to the relieving officers.
The Commissioner said that there loq;an the alteration
in the rules, He was distinctly told that the master and
not the relieving officers had to do with such cases. The
Commissioner also said that it was productive of mischief
for the Board of Guardians to make by •laws of their own for
the purpose of supplementing or making clearer the regula-
tions of the Poor Law Board.

Mr Cardwell said that he believed the master had directed
him to send urgent cases to the relieving-officers,
the Commissioner said he wished witness to distinctly
understand that he was never to do so again.
Mr Cardwell then said that he remembered that on Wed-
nesday, the 2d of March, Mary Ann Anfield came in a cab
to the workhouse gate at about 5 o'clock. Her husband was
with her, and he gave Witness a paper, saying, " I have an
the paper, and told him that it was a certificate from Dr.
Moore, and was a recommendation to the relieving-officers
admission for my wife to the workhouse," Witness read
for her admission. Witness recommended him to leave his
wife in the cab until he could see the relieving-officer, and
told him to apply at the proper door. 'Witness did not re •
collect whether he did so. Witness did not report to the
master, as he had not time. About 30 minutes after the
arrival of Mrs Anfield he admitted her on the order of Mr
Christy, relieving officer, and he put her into the receiving
ward, into which she walked. Witness had not heard that
she applied on a prior day. He had not seen her. An inmate
of the workhouse had attended in his place. Witness had
been directed by the relieving officer not to admit ono per-
son upon an order for the admission of the whole family.
The Commissioner said that that was in direct contradic •
Lion to the regulations and the law.

The witness said that when Mary Ann Anfield was taken
to the receiving ward his wife saw to her, and the doctor
saw her the same night and again at 8 in the morning. She
was removed into the house at 9 o'clock the nest morning.
Witness all that time did not report to the master, but took
it upon himself to send for the medical officer.
The Commissioner said that witness had no such power.
The master was the proper person to send for the doctor,
and he was responsible.

Witness said that the guardians had not given him these
directions. After the woman entered the house witness
heard nothing of her until she died, on the 27th of Marsh.
Aaron An field said to the witness—l brought the deceased
to the workhouse gate on the Monday before the Wednes-
day, the 2d of March, and you spoke to us.
Witness—l distinctly swear that I never saw you—at all
events to my knowledge. I was all day at the gate on the
Monday alluded to. My wife was there also; that was on
the 29th February. I forget who the inmate was that as-
sisted me at the gate on that day.
Mr. F. J. Gant, F.R.C.S., surgeon and pathological ana-
tomist to the Royal Free Hospital, said that, by the direc-
tion of the coroner, ho made a post mortem examination of
the deceased woman, Witness said that having heard the
evidence given before the coroner, he believed that death
had resulted from congestion of the lungs and from exposure
and want of nourishing food and stimulants. If ho had not
heard the evidence, there was still sufficient attenuation to
show that in the absence of chronic disease she had been
subjected to privations.
The Commissioner—Suppose you knew that for four
weeks before death she had been in the workhouse and had
been thoroughly well supplied with stimulants, &s., what
would you say was the cause of death
Witness—lf I was certain (which lam not, for lam ig..
nerant of the fact) that she had been well fed and taken care
of in the house for four weeks before death, I would not
venture to say the congestion of the lungs was caused by
privation. Convulsions a few hours before death would
increase the appearance of congestion. Congestion was
sometimes a consequent on fever.
Mr James Smart, F.R.C.S.,
said that he had been medical
officer of the workhouse for 13 years. The deceased came
under his care on the 2d of March. The entry in his book
on March 3 was continued back. She was then in the in-
firmary. Witness examined her; and she said she had fallen
out of bed a few days previously. She complained of no after
illness and there was none at that time. Witness ordered
her to be confined to bed for a few days. Witness asked her
what she could eat. She said she could eat nothing, and
he put her on No. 3 diet, which entitled her to have for
breakfast soz. buttered bread and a pint of tea, with milk
and sugar; for dinner soz. cooked meat and Soz. potatoes
or bread ; and for supper the same as for breakfast. Wit-
ness saw her daily. She slept in a room containing three
beds, and there was an anteroom to it containing a fireplace.
The bed, bedding, and furniture were complete in these
rooms. There were two blankets and sheets and a counter.
pane allowed. Witness, as a rule, asked his patients if they

would desire a change, and he gave what they wished. The
dietary was not a cost to witness, it was wholly paid for out
of the rates. The medicines he provided. He did not know
whether the guardians paid for cod-liver oil. Witnes wan
not in the least restricted in giving wine, brandy, gin, or
porter, nor had he ever received any intimation from the
guardians that his mode of treating the sick poor was too
expensive. On the Saturday previous to the death of the
deceased there was nothing alarming in her illness, but she
got typhoid fever. He bad not given her stimulants, for it
was not a case for such. He believed there had been a case
of fever in the ward before. On the following Sunday, when
he visited the ward, he was told she died that Morning in
convulsions. He considered that the congestion of the lungs
arose from typhoid fever and the convulsions.
William Smith deposed that ho was 68 years of age, and
had been an inmate of Bethnal• green Workhouse for three
years. He attended regularly at the lobby gate of the
workhouse leading to the relieving officer's office. He re-
membered Mrs Anfield coming to the workhouse on the
Monday before the Wednesday on which she was admitted.
She came in a cab with her husband. They got out of the
cab and they wanted witness to allow Mrs Anfield to eh
down in the lobby. He did not allow her because he was
not permitted to do so. It was a dry evening in the begin-
ning of March. Deceased stood leaning against the work-
house wall, and others were about her. Mr Anfield came
out, and said he could not get an order, and they should get
a cab and take her back. Witness did not report the affair
to Mr :Myrick or Mr Cardwell.
The Commissioner said that the witness saw the woman
in dreadful misery and sickness. But he (the Commissioner)
did not blame the witness. The guardians could not expect
anything better from a man to whom they paid no salary,
and over whom they had no particular control.
Aaron Anfield said the witness had made a mistake as to
the day that was not rainy, The Monday deceased was
outside the gates was a very wet day. He came to the
workhouse on the Monday to get his wife into the infirmary.
Witness first stopped at Mr. Cardwell's gate, saw him, and
showed an order. Mr. Cardwell said, " That is an order to
see the Board." Witness had been given an order by Mr.
Christy to see the guardians at 2 o'clock, but witness had
not gone. Witness was now aware he ought to have gone.
Both Mr. Cardwell and the other man told him she mid
not he admitted without an order.

The Commissioner said it was the bounden duty of the
porter, etc., to report a case of urgent necessity instantly to
the master, who should admit instanter, without an order.
Mr. Card well said he never saw the man that day at all.

The witness said that on the Tuesday he asked Dr. Moore
for an order for nourishment, and carried it to Mr. Christy.
The latter said, " I will give no nourishment." He also said
there was an order for them both to come into the workhouse
and in they should come. Witness said it was very hard
the parish should be encumbered with two, when only one
wanted to come in. Witness was refused nourishment, and
was leaving when a man was sent after him to say he might
come in. Witness did not, however, get an order, but he
was told his wife would be let in next day or that night.
On the Wednesday witness had some trouble to get her in,
as Mr. Cardwell said it was more than his place was worth
to admit her without an order ; but at last he said he re-
membered the case, and he let her in. Witness saw her
twice in the workhouse. The first time she did not, com-
plain, and she said she had nothing to fret at. The next
time she complained that the meat was so hard and some-
times so raw that she could not eat it. She had no porter

or wine, &c.
Mary Ann Anfield, daughter of the last witness, identified

Mr. Cardwell as the person whom they first spoke to at the
workhouse gates on the Monday. Witness saw deceased in
the workhouse infirmary a fortnight afterwards. The de-
ceased complained much of the food, and said that if wit-
ness had not got her food she should have had nothing.
She complained of having no nourishment. She asked to
be taken home. Witness took her some tea and sugar and
some biscuits. The nurse was present when she complained.
She had meat given to her, but she could not eat it, it was
so hard. No one searched witness, cr asked her what she
brought in.
Aaron Anfield said that he and deceased and his daugh-

ters earned altogether about 20s a week.
Mr. Cardwell, recalled, said that he had heard the evi-
dence of both the Anfields, and he still adhered to his depo-
sition that he had never seen them at all on Monday. He
would not say that he might not be mistaken, but on Board
days between 100 and 200 applicants came with tickets, and
the Anfields might havo been among them.
At this sage the proceedings were adj ,urned.