The Sun.
London, England, 1866-05-02 00:00:00

RAILWAY BILLS.

In the House of Commons' Committee yesterday,
Group 1, the Edgware, Highgate, and London Bill
was further proceeded with and adjourned. The
following bills were further adjourned :—The Great
Northern (Potter's-bar, Barnet, and Hendon) ; the
Barnet, Hendon, and Midland Junction ; the East
London Eastern Extension ; the Hounslow and
Metropolitan ; and the North Metropolitan. In
Group 5, the clauses of the Bristol and North
Somerset were settled ; the Bridport, Lyme, and
South Coast being unopposed, was referred to the
General Committee. Iu Group 7, the preamble of
the Teme Valley was proved, and the clatises were
settled. In Group 10, London and North Western
(New Works, &c.) was proceeded with and again
adjourned. In Group 15, the Great Yarmouth
Haven, Port, and Rivers was proceeded with and
adjourned. In Group 16, the Great Western was
proceeded with and adjourned.

The Recent Charge of "Laying Out" in St.

Pancras.

Yesterday, at the usual weekly meeting of the
St. Pancras board of guardians, Mr. Churchwarden
Lawford in the chair, the following official commu-
nication from the Poor Law Board, with reference
to the recent charge of " laying out" a live child for
dead in the St. Pancras workhouse, was read :--
"Poor-law Board, Whitehall, 26th April, 1866.
" Sir,—l am directed by the Poor Law Board to inform
the directors of the poor of the parish of St. Pancras, that
they have received from their inspector, Mr. Farnall, a re-
port of the investigation which he instituted into the com-
plaint made by Mr. Hillocks, viz., that on his visiting the
workhouse of the parish on the 15th ult., he found a child
named Elizabeth Thomas Green, or Adams, 'laid out,' the
child being supposed to be dead, but being really still alive.
This complaint had reference solely to the circumstances
which occurred as to the death of the child, but the inquiry
has extended to its previous treatment in the workhouse.
The board having carefully considered the report,together
with the evidence taken at the inquiry, are of opinion
that the medical officer of the workhouse is censurable for
not having seen the child from Monday, the 12th March,
on which day his attention was drawn to it, until its death
on the following Thursday. He ought, according to his in-
structions, to have duly visited the nursery on Wednesday.
It appears, however, that on that day he did not go into
the nursery, but directed that the infants who required his
aid should be brought to him in an adjoining room, and
that this child was not brought to him with the others.
The board think that this is not a sufficient excuse for
his omission duly to attend to a case for which he had
prescribed on his previous visit, and they consider
that the duty of the medical officer was not on this
occasion discharged in a satisfactory manner. The board
are further of opinion that the resident midwife who had
the general charge of the nursery is seriously to blame
for not having, under the circumstances, either sent for the
medical office; subsequently to his seeing the child, or
taken care that his attention was called to it on the 14th
March. They further think that even if medical aid could
not then have been of any avail, it would have been a pro-
per precaution on her part to have procured the attendance
of the medical officer when the case was brought to her
notice by Mr. Hillocks. The act chiefly complained of—
namely, that the child's face was bandaged while it was
still breathing, was the act of the pauper nurse, and shows
her to be unfit for the duties entrusted to her. It is alleged,
however, that the child had been lying in an apparently
cold and insensible state for some hours, and was thought
by the other women in the room, who were watching, to
be dead, and that the nurse loosened the bandage as soon
as she perceived a slight motion in the child's lips. It
should also be observed that the child was lying in its or-
dinary clothes, and was not laid out' for burial. Although
the medical officer did not give a written order for the
allowance of wine for the child, the board see no reason to
doubt that the wine was given, and it had not only milk
allowed for it, but it was placed in the care of the mother
of another child in order that she might suckle it together
with her own child. The board request that their opinion
as to the conduct of the officers referred to may be com-
municated to them by the directors. They consider it
necessary that a paid and trustworthy nurse should at
once be appointed to the nursery, and that she sheuld be
made responsible for the supplying of the nutriment or
of any stimulants ordered by the medical officer for the
children. Also that the medical officer should be required
to keep the medical relief-book (form C) according to
the order of the board of the 21st August, 1856. There
will then be a record of his visits, and a written direc-
tion given by him for any extra nourishment which he
may consider necessary in any case. The board further
desire to draw attention to article 89, No. 16, of the same
order, which requires the master of the workhouse to give
immediate information of the death of any pauper in the
tert.hatTthheeybomarad3 ebnecplolasecetdwino
workhouse.—I am, sir, your
~obedientriFLEs3efir:Gtan
cwooprikeshoouf stehotoorthdeerm, aenddieraelqoiffitese
Secretary."
the hands of the medical officer and of the master of the

Mr. Churchwarden ROBSON said the guardians
had already, before receiving any communication on
the subject, carried out everything now suggested
by the Poor-law Board. He could not see anything
to complain of in the report j-ust read, as it was -in