The Sun.
London, England, 1869-10-29 00:00:00

ONCE MORE.

Amongst the hostilities embarked in by the St.
Pancras guardians is a little war with Dr. Lankester,
the Middlesex coroner. The guardians, true to their
conviction that all the world is conspiring to rob
them, informed Mr. Goschen that very many unneces-
sary inquests were held, intimating, with their accus-
tomed delicacy, that the coroner had a special
hankering after fees. It was rather natural that this
functionary, whilst holding an inquest on several
persons who had died in the St. Pancras Work-

house, should protest against such an intimation.
" The hostility which the guardians manifested to
inquests being held on persons dying in the work-
house looked very much as if they were afraid of
such inquiries." Whereupon a guardian who was pre-
at once did battle with Dr. Lankester, declaring
at unnecessary inquests were held. The coroner
ordered this gentleman to sit down, but an unex-
pected ally areze in the brother of a woman whose
death was being investigated. The new comer
harangued the jury, without payinc, the slightest
attention to the coroner, expressing his objection to
any meddling with the body of his sister, albeit the
clerk of the guardians hail stated that the death of
the woman had been accelerated by an injury.
After a somewhat lengthy row, in the course
of which the indignant brother was removed by
the police, the jury got to their verdict. It
is quite possible that unnecessary inquests may be
held ; but this is at all events an error on the right
side, especially in the case of a parish the guardians
of which refuse proper accommodation to the sick
poor-
PRISONERS V. PAUPERS.

These encounters with coroners, the Poor-law
Board, workhouse officials, and ex-guardians, are not
enough for the indefatigable folks of this wonderful
parish. The Middlesex magistrates are also amongst
the robbers of St. Pancras, and the parishioners
will not have it. The magistrates are about to
erect a nevt county prison, but the St. Pancras
ratepayers, with strict impartiality, denounce
all " luxurious provision" for paupers and
prisoners alike. At a meeting just held to protest
against the new prison scheme, one speaker admitted
that the prisoners were "most uncomfortable" in
their present lodgings. But a gaol was just the
place, he argued, that ought to be made " as uncom-
fortable as possible. This gentleman opportunely con-
trasted the diet given to the happy Middlesex pri-
soners and that on which paupers eked out a
miserable existence. The former had six ounces
and two-thirds of bread and a pint of cocoa
for breakfast ; for dinner, six and two-thirds
ounces of bread and four ounces of meat, and subse-
quently eight ounces of suet pudding. The Poor-law
Union diet for breakfast was eight ounces of bread
and half a pint of gruel; for dinner, eight ounces of
bread, two ounces of cheese, and a pint of broth.
Prisoners had meat four times a week, while
in the Union infirm men had but three ounces
of meat and women two ounces of meat only
twice a week. llere the speaker made a hard hit.
The London parishes tire all heavily taxed, and
though it is right that the Poor-law Board should
compel them to provide accommodation for the sick
poor, the propriety of paying such attention to the
comfort of felons is another question.