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

THE TREATMENT OF THE POOR IN

BETHNAL-GREEN,

OFFICIAL POOR-LAW INQUIRY.

Yesterday morning, at 10 o'clock, Mr. Farnall, Inspector
of the Poor-law 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 admit ted, 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 -law Beard to
guide him. His 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.
If the master were absent he would not appeal
,to the
matron, but would admit the case himself.
The Commissioner said that as he went through the evi-
dence he wished to point out any caws in which the officials
did not exactly fulfil the rules of the Poor 'law, He wished
to know where the regulations directed the porter to send
destitute cases to the relieving officers, instead of admitting
them.

Mr. Cardwell said that he was directed by the regulations
to apply to the master or the matron. In their absence he
went to the relieving officer:.
The Commissioner said that there b-gan 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
admission for my wife to the workhouse.' Witness read
the paper, and told him that it was a certificate from Dr.
Moore, and was a recommendation to the relieving-officers
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 cf 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 familp•
The Commissioner said that that was in direct contradic •
tion 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 next 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 March.
Aaron Anfield said to the witness—l brought the deceased
to the workhouse gate on the Monday before the `ti ednes-
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, he 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 be 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, Bto., what
would you say was the cause of death ?
Witness—lf I was certain
(which I am not, for I am ig-
norant 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. Convulsicns 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 Boz, 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. Winless, as a rule, asked his patients if they