The Sun.
London, England, 1866-09-19 00:00:00

little thing died next morning, having in all human
probability forfeited his chance of life by the delay
and exposure. Under the circumstances the jury
could hardly have done otherwise than return a ver-
dict to the effect "that the child died from the mortal
effects of cholera, and that his death was accele-
rated by the detention of the deceased in the work-
house gateway, and by his removal to the German
Hospital, through an error in judgment of
the Master of the Hackney Workhouse."
" Errors in judgment" seem to be growing com-
mon, and are allowed to plead in extenuation of a
good many disasters. The public, however, would
be more inclined to excuse an error in judgment
with which personal feeling and petty irritation had
less to do. Mr. DrascoLL, the master, confessed
that he was " confirmed in the determination which
the other circumstances led him to form by the
offensive manner of Mr. OXLEY to the matron."
What had that to do with the question at issue,
which was surely the best means to adopt
to relieve the sick child ? The evidence of
the head nurse and the porter corroborated
the statement of the matron's refusal to
admit the child, and also the account of the
doctor's remonstrances being effectual. The nurse
said to the matron that the child was very bad, and
ought to be removed into the iron ward. Accord-
ing to the woman's statement, Mrs. DRISCOLL said,
" I am the matron, and I know what I am about."
Mr. OXLEY said, " Then you are not going to take
him into the iron house ?" and Mrs. DRISCOLL re-
plied, " Certainly not ;" upon which Mr. OXLEY
went for Dr. SUMMERS. Dr. SUMMERS came, and
asked for pen and ink, and wrote an order for the
child's immediate admission. The matron took it and
placed it on the form, saying she would give it to the
master, who would do as he pleased, but that " he had
always been master, and would continue to be so."
After this we cannot see that Mr. HUMPHREYS'
objection to the employment of Mr. OXLEY as as-
sistant, on account of his youth, has much weight,
since when the elder Doctor wrote an order, and
said the child was very ill, his remonstrances were
totally disregarded. " The medical arrangements,"
said the Coroner, " were alarmingly defective. No
medical man resided in the house even during
cholera times." Very true ; and this is not the
grievance under discussion. If there had been a
dozen physicians in the house they would not have
done much good to the sick child so long as it was
kept outside. Why was it not admitted ? The
Master's excuse was his fear of admitting cholera
within the walls ; but there is ample ground for
believing that petty jealousy and desire for autho-
rity had a good deal to do with it, especially
as it appeared that there were already
some cases of cholera under treatment in the iron
house. With the differences between the master
and the doctors, between the matron and the nurse,
between the porter and the gatesman, we have
nothing to do ; but the neglect of a child dying of
a terrible disease is too startling to be passed over
with impunity. The jury might very well have
attached to their verdict some reproof to the
matron, who appears to have been much
more concerned in keeping up her own and
her husband's dignity than in attending to
the common dictates of humanity. "It was a
grievous thing," said the nurse, "to see the child
suffer ;" but the matron does not appear to have been
at all impressed. We have good right to doubt
whether such a very unimpressible lady is a fit per-
son to superintend " 600 or 700 persons, nearly all
old persons and children." We cannot believe that
the Poor-Law Board will allow the matter to rest
here, but that they will prove that they exercise
something more than a nominal supervision over
the administration of our Poor-law, by calling upon
the guardians to entrust the superintendence of
their establishment to persons less liable to " errors
in judgment," and more remarkable for their com-
mon humanity.