The Express. — 1867-12-17 (London, England)

LONDON, TUESDAY, DECEMBER 17.  A etatiors question in the practical philosophy of life is being debated in some of our East-end parishes. Every day some broken man or other is called to determine on his own responsibility which of three courses he will adopt : whether he shall shut himself up, and starve in proud solitude; or make sure of food and fire by perpetrating a misdemeanour ; or, lastly, put a sudden end to his troubles by committing suicide. The alternative before these wretched people is simple—death or crime, and whichever they embrace, they are sure to offend some delicate minds. A fortnight ago we were startled by the case of Pcircuasn, a man who had at one time been worth three thousand pounds, but who fell into extreme distress, and being utterly without resources, secluded himself and died, literally for want of food. Very severe judgments have been passed upon this man for not making his case known. Austere moralists of the press have decided that the pride which, in such circumstances, will not condescend to accept parish relief is not only foolish, brit positively sinful. To listen to these censors, PRITCHARD had only his own obstinacy to thank for his fate ; if he could only have overcome the false shame which too often besets the man who has seen better days, he might have come at once into contact with our admirable system of Poorlaw relief, under which, thank Gon, no one need die in this Christian land. Misanthrope that he was, to prefer death to accepting the helping-band of his fellow-man And yet, perhaps, PRITCHARD, blameable as he was, knew the facts bettor than his self-constituted judges. Perhaps in those long hours in which he mentally resolved his woes he had acquainted himself with the methods and incidents of what is called Poor-law relief, and had observed that it was a grim mockery, not preventing death, but undoubtedly embittering it. If he had not, it was not for want of opportunity.  On Saturday Mr. HUMPHREYS held an inquest , upon the body of a man named CHARLES Haysma, who had committed suicide by hanging. HAYNES had lived all his lire in one parish, that of St. Luke's, and had brought up a family on his earnbags as a whip maker, but had recently fallen into destitution. Three years ago he broke his thigh, and was compelled to ask parish relief, but, with that exception, he had not been chargeable. Last week, however, he was again under the necessity of applying to the relieving officers, hoping to get assistance to enable him to keep on the room where his paralysed wife and two children lived with him. He appears to , have had a great fear of losing his "things," for which probably no dealer would have been willing to give him five shillings, but which constituted the furniture of his " home." On Wednesday HAYNES applied to the relieving officer of St. Luke's, stating that ho could get no employment, and representing his wants. He was asked whether he was able to work, and replying that he was, was sent into the workhouse yard to pick oakum. At the end of the day he received Itoripclice. That sum was the relief given to a man who had to support himself, his wife, and two children. The next day he again applied at the workhouse, and the officer gave him another order, conferring the privilege of earning another twopence in tho same manner. He did not, however, use it ; his thoughts were already turning to another officer, and a different mode of relief. On Wednesday night, when ho took the twopence home, ho said to his wife that he should " do something," meaning that he should commit some breach of the law, "for it would be better for " him to be in prison than leading such a life." After receiving the order on Thursday morning, however, he appears to have abandoned this thought for another indicating a deeper despair. The reflections and anticipations of that forenoon fixed his resolution, and a little later in the day his wife came into the room and found him hanging by his neck from a hook in the wall, quite dead. The jury before whom these facts were proved in evidence found that HAYNES had been driven out of his mind by want, through not being supplied with necessary relief.  How long is this reproach to lie at the door of our boasted civilisation ? HAYNES is but tho latest known victim of the repressive system by which it is hoped to extinguish pauperism, or, as we would rather say, of its blind and undiscriminating application. When the relieving officer of St. Luke's was asked by the coroner if he had visited this family and 'nada himself acquainted with its wants, ho said that he had not done so, as he had nut time to visit all cases ; and everybody knows that it would be impossible for the relieving officers of our large London parishes to snake a minute personal inquiry into tho circumstances of every applicant. The consequence is that the officers follow one hard, unbending, mechanical rule, which probably does its work very effectually in preventing fraud, but leaves men to die either of starvation or by their own hands, when life has become insupportable and reason reels in its seat. The plan is to receive every applicant as a designing impostor, who only wants to quarter himself upon the ratepayers, and to treat him accordingly. In this way you teach him independence and self