The Proceedings of the Old Bailey

 

919.   BARTHOLOMEW PETER DROUET was indicted for feloniously killing and slaying   James Andrews:—he was also charged upon the Coroner's Inquisition with the like offence.

MESSRS. CHAMBERS and CLARKSON conducted the Prosecution.

  WILLIAM ROBERTS JAMES . I am a solicitor and clerk to the guardians of the Holborn Union, and have been so since March, 1838. In consequence of the over-crowded state of the workhouse belonging to that union, in Oct., 1847, I entered into an arrangement with Mr. Drouet, to send the pauper children to his establishment at Tooting; that was by the direction of the guardians, and consent of the Poor-Law Commissioners—I have here the letter containing the approval of the Poor-Law Commissioners—I first had a personal interview with Mr. Drouet, that was in the beginning of Oct., 1847—I had received directions from the guardians to seek a place for the children, and knowing that Mr. Drouet farmed children, I requested that he would call upon me at the Union Workhouse the first time he came to town—I saw him, and then obtained from him the terms upon which he received children, what he did for them, the price, and all the particulars; and when he went away, I said, "Now, Mr. Drouet, I cannot undertake to state to the guardians everything that has passed between us to-day, when you get home be kind enough to commit it to writing, and let me have a letter"—and in consequence I received this letter—I know it to be his handwriting—(reads—" 16th Oct.

1847. To Mr. James. My dear sir, my establishment is for children only, and I have spared no expense to make it second to none; there are five schools conducted by competent teachers, and the Chaplain; various trades are taught by well-conducted masters, on a large scale, so that we are enabled to fit boys for all kinds of servitude—the girls being carefully instructed in needlework, laundry, washing, and the general household work. I can take the number you may require to place out at 4s. 6d. per head per week; this includes every charge, as also conveying them to and from the establishment."—I laid that letter before the board of guardians, and a resolution was come to by the Board, that the children should go—I have here a letter which I sent to Mr. Drouet embodying the resolution—(reads—"The important matter of the removal of our boys has been determined in the affirmative, and you are to have them; but it is still thought by some of your best wishers, that you cm afford to take them at 4s. per head per week; they are earning us, and will be earning you, very considerably. It is thought that the past ought not to be taken by you into consideration; it is not the same as asking you to lower your charges for children you have had during the hard times; we have hid them during those times. I am sure that in the whole you would be a greater gainer at 4s. per week, than you would at 4s. 6d., that is if you prefer a greater number. So strong is the impression of a great part of our Board; at present about ninety will be ready to be handed over to you at our workhouse, on Wednesday next, at two o'clock. I will take care that they shall be decently clad, and you will take care to be prepared to receive and carry them off our premises at that time. I will thank you just to drop me a line acknowledging the receipt of this communication, and saying you will be at the workhouse at the time I have named."—This was written on 4th Nov., and on 5th Nov. I received this letter from Mr. Drouet:—(reads—"Dear sir,—I will arrange for the children coming away as appointed, on Wednesday next. I feel confident of arranging the price to the satisfaction of the Board, after I find the children can render me any assistance, as I only want a fair return for my attendance, &c."—Eighty-one boys went on the Wednesday; the deceased boy was not one of them—we endeavoured to send none under six years of age—they were between six and twelve, thirteen, or fourteen, as far as we could ascertain their ages; but some children at fourteen are younger than others at eleven or twelve—abort thirty more boys were sent between that and the beginning of Dec.—I bare the returns here from week to week—perhaps six or eight had been discharged during the same period—it was a debtor and creditor account of children—at the time the first number of children were sent I understood from Mr. Drouet himself, that there were about 800 or 850 children in the establishment, and that he could well receive 1200—I had myself visited the establishment, and it was there that I received the information.

COURT. Q. Did you go over the wards? A. I did—in my capacity of clerk to the guardians, I have been in the habit of going occasionally to the workhouse, and seeing the accommodation there—from my inspection of Mr. Drouet's establishment, it appeared to be quite sufficient to contain 1200 children.

MR. CLARKSON. Q. Did you continue to send other children to the establishment between Nov. and a few weeks afterwards in 1847: up to Oct. in the last year? A. Up to Dec. last year, the deceased James Andrews was sent on 28th Oct., 1847—in Dec, 1847, we still found our workhouse very much crowded, and in the early part of Dec. it was determined that the girls should be sent to Mr. Drouet's—precisely the same arrangement was made with regard to them as to the boys—I wrote to Mr. Drouet to inform

him that we found it necessary to send our girls, and asking if he could receive them—I have his answer to that letter.

COURT. Q. Did not the guardians inquire what dietary these children, should have? A. Oh, yes; on 25th Oct., 1847, it was determined that the guardians should go down and inspect the place, and make all inquiries—the chairman, and six guardians, with myself, went to the establishment, and by direction of the deputation, this report was drawn up to the Board (read)—"The committee desire to report to the Board, that they, this day, visited Mr. Drouet's establishment at Tooting, and inspected every part thereof; they were present at the children's dinner, witnessed the mode of instruction adopted in the different schools, and also the industrial training of the children, and they desire to report their entire satisfaction at the whole of the arrangements. There are at this time about 850 children farmed at the establishment, and there was scarcely one so ill as to require medical aid. The soil is gravelly, and appears to be dry and healthy, and those members of the committee acquainted with the Norwood establishment"—that is, where some of the children formerly had been—"consider that the one at Tooting is, by no means, so bleak, or so exposed to cold and cutting winds as that is"—that is the report that was presented by this committee to the board of guardians, and upon which, in fact, it was determined to send the children—annexed to this report is the printed dietary of the establishment—it was given to me by Mr. Drouet at the time the guardians were there (read)—"Surrey-hall, Tooting. Dietary.—Breakfast:—The breakfast every day is the same, namely, pottage composed of flour, rice, and milk, with water and salt in sufficient proportions;—this is for the strong children—the infants, those newly-admitted, and the weakly, have boiled bread and milk—the allowance of bread to the healthy children is according to age, being 6, 5, and 4 ozs. to each.—Dinner:—There are three meat dinners in each week, viz., Sunday, Tuesday, and Friday—the quantity of meat, free from bone, to each child is regulated according to age, being 5, 4, and 3 ozs. each, with 3l. 4lb. potatoes; if with cabbage, unlimited: on Monday, Wednesday, and Saturday, soup, made from the liquor in which the meat had been boiled, assisted with legs and shins of beef, peas, and a proper quantity of vegetables, pepper, salt, &c., each child one pint, with bread; on these days the same quantity as at breakfast: on Thursday, suet-pudding, the quantity being 12,10, and 8ozs., according to age, &c., to each. Supper:—the suppers every evening are either bread and butter, or bread and cheese, sometimes treacle with milk and water; should milk be scarce, which sometimes may be the case, then the children have good broth. Little children are dieted in the best way I can, as no fixed diet can be adopted—some have meat and porter daily. In sickness, the diet is regulated by the doctor." There is something written on each aide of this, which was written at the time, "Licensed for 1200—In: 800 or 850, 4s. 6d. per head per week—clothes"—that was put there, because there was nothing said in the printed particulars with regard to clothes, and it was to put that out of doubt; the children went fairly clothed, and they were to be clothed by Mr. Drouet—for 4s. 6d. a week; they were to have lodging, food, raiment, and every thing.

MR. CLARKSON. Q. How many girls went? A. Sixty-one the first day, and then it was really a debtor and creditor account throughout the whole year—some weeks there might be five or six, or a dozen discharged—in other weeks there might be a dozen sent, and only five or six discharged; therefore, at the end of the year the balance would be much about the same as at the commencement—the boy James Andrews was sent on 28th Oct., 1848, and remained until 5th Jan., 1849—he was then brought from there to the Royal

Free Hospital, in Gray's-inn-road—by a resolution of the board it wag the practice for the guardians to pay monthly visits to Mr. Drouet's establishment, that they might have an opportunity of seeing the mode in which the children were treated there; and reports were made as the results of those visits.

COURT. Q. Was there any set day for those visits? A. No set day; it was to be once a month—Mr. Drouet could not be aware of the time when the guardians would come—they would come upon him on a sudden?

MR. CLARKSON. Q. On 4th Jan., 1848, after the monthly visit on the part of the guardians, did they make a report? A. The first was on 30th Nov., 1847 (reads—"Holborn Union, 30th Nov., 1847. The undersigned guardians of the Holborn Union, in company with Mr. White, one of the medical officers of the Union, this day, visited and inspected the establishment of Mr. Drouet, at Tooting—they find four children confined with an attack of measles, at present doing well—the general appearance of the other children is healthy and satisfactory, and those that were sent in a weakly state from previous disease much improved—they attended during dinner, and found the food wholesome and sufficient—they found the premises very clean and well ventilated, the bedding clean, and well arranged, and the establishment appeared to be conducted in a satisfactory manner"—that is signed by Stephen Peason, William Hunt, and Richard Hurst, three of the guardians; and by Edward White, one of the medical officers of the Holborn Union. The next is, "Jan. 4, 1848. Gentlemen,—We on the rota this week, having visited Mr. Drouet's establishment, beg to make our report to the Board—we found the children, generally speaking, in good health, cleanly in their persons, and their comforts well attended to—as regards the complaint of----Slight as to the insufficiency of food, we consider it to be ungrounded—Elizabeth Maile having complained that on a recent visit she found her children in a dirty state, her children had our particular attention, and we found that there was no just cause of complaint on her part"—that is signed by William Hunt, Richard Home, and Richard Goodrich, three of the guardians. The next was on 9th Feb—that is a report in the form of a letter to the board; some are in the shape of a formal report, and others in the shape of a letter—the gentlemen generally subscribe the reports, only it so happens that this one is subscribed by only one of the three, instead of by all.

COURT. Q. How came these gentlemen and the others to have gone down to the establishment more than any other of the guardians? A. They were on what we call the rota for visiting the workhouse and other places during the week; there was no particular resolution appointing them to go, only appointing the gentlemen on the rota, not naming them in particular; there was a general resolution come to in Dec, 1847, that the gentlemen who were on the rota should visit the establishment at Tooting during each particular month, and these were gentlemen who ought to have visited the establishment in that month.

MR. CLARKSON. Q. Was it the practice for the guardians, or such of them as made these monthly visits, to enter their reports in a visitor's book at Mr. Drouet's establishment.? A. They might or might not enter anything they pleased there—I do not know that all did so, but I know some of them did. (The book was here put in, and a variety of entries were read from it, from 4th Jan. to 9th Dec. 1848, signed by the visiting guardians, expressive of their satisfaction with regard to the appearance of the children, the food, and in general management of the establishment.)—On 4th Jan. 1849, there is the following report from Mr. Whitfield, one of our medical officers—(read—"The

undersigned have examined Mr. Drouet's establishment, and the sick children belonging to the Union of Holborn and the parish of Newington. We find that the cold cholera prevails very extensively amongst them in its severest form. We suggest the general use of flannel as an under garment, i. e., Welsh flannel shirt. We also recommend that each bed should have four blankets, three for a covering, and one to lie upon. We also recommend that fire places be introduced instead of the stoves, wherever they are in use. We also advise that instead of the suet-pudding, rice-pudding be substituted, and that the pease-soup be changed for Scotch barley-broth. We advise also that the children have meat four days in the week, beef and mutton alternately, and we would much prefer it roast. (Signed,) W. B. WHITFIELD & J. C. LEWIS.")—I do not know who Mr. Lewis is—I did not subscribe that report—that was not a visit of the guardians, but of the medical officer after it was reported that the cholera was there—there was a visit of the guardians on 9th May, 1848, of which no report was signed in Mr. Drouet's book—the visiting guardians on that occasion were Messrs. Winch, Rebbeck, and Mayes—this is the report which they made to the guardians after that visit—(read—"We beg to report to the Board our having, on Tuesday, the 9th of May, visited Mr. Drouet's establishment at Tooting, to ascertain the state of the children's health belonging to this Union. We were there at the time of dinner being supplied, and are of opinion that the meat provided was good, but the potatoes were very bad. We visited the school rooms, dormitories, and workshops; everything appeared clean and comfortable. Yet we are of opinion that the new sleeping-rooms for the infants on the ground-floor has a very unhealthy smell. The girls belonging to the Union looked particularly well. The boys appeared sickly, which induced us to question them as to whether they had any cause of complaint as to supply of food or otherwise. About forty of them held up their bands to intimate their dissatisfaction; upon which Mr. Drouet's conduct became violent. He called the boys liars, described some that had held up, as the worst boys in the school, and said if he had' done them justice, he should have followed out the suggestion of Mr. James, and well flogged them. We then began to question the boys individually, and some of them complained of not having sufficient bread for their breakfast. While pursuing the inquiry, Mr. Drouet's conduct became more violent. He said we were acting unfairly in the mode of inquiry; that we ought to be satisfied of his character without such proceedings, and that we had no right to pursue the inquiry in the way we were, and that he should be glad to get rid of the children. To avoid further altercation, we left, not having fully completed the object of our visit."—I was not in attendance with the guardians on that occasion—that report was presented to the board by Mr. Winch, through me, and was ordered to be taken into consideration that day week, which it was, and then a special deputation was directed to proceed to Tooting, to make more particular inquiries into the circumstances—no intimation was given to Mr. Drouet of the period when that special deputation was to attend, certainly not by me,' and I do not think by any one of the guardians—I cannot conceive that be knew anything about it—those gentlemen were desired to invite the three members of the committee, who had made the immediately preceding report to accompany them on this special visit, Mr. Winch, Mr. Mayes, and Mr. Rebbeck—they did so, and this is the report—(read)—" Holborn Union, Tuesday, May 30, 1848.—We, the undersigned, the committee specially appointed to visit Mr. Drouet's establishment at Tooting, to examine into the state., condition, and arrangements of the children belonging to the Holborn Union,

now at this institution, and to report to the Board thereon, do hereby certify and report that we this day, accompanied, by Mr. Winch, Mr. Mayes, and Mr. Rebbeck, the committee making the last month's report, attended accordingly, and examined into the state, appearance, and condition of the children, and feel great satisfaction in reporting most favourably of the same. We inspected the bread, meat, and potatoes, and desire to state that in quantity served out, and in quality, we were perfectly satisfied, and that with respect to the lodging and other domestic arrangements, we cannot speak of them bat in terms of commendation and satisfaction. We witnessed some scholastic examinations of the children, which were quite satisfactory; and, on the whole, we desire to report that we were well pleased with our visit. We desire specially to report that with respect to the particular circumstance stated in the last monthly report of the committee, Mr. Drouet expressed his regret that any exhibition of warmth of temper on his part should have occurred at that meeting, and the guardians then attending expressed themselves satisfied with this acknowledgment."—Signed by the vice-chairman Mr. Sou thee, Mr. Wrench, Mr. Winch, Mr. Rebbeck, Mr. Mayes, Mr. Hurst, and Mr. Sheppard, and countersigned by myself—I was in attendance on that occasion—no inquiry was made of the children in my presence whether they had received any punishment for having held up their hands—one or two of the guardians were in one part, and others were in other parts—I an not aware of any such inquiry being made—on Monday, 1st Jan., about one or two in the day, I received a communication from Robert Aldridge, the master of the Union-workhouse, as to the state of the children—in consequence of which, I, on the following day, 2nd, sent a person to Tooting to inquire into j the circumstances; and on the Wednesday I received a message from Mr. Drouet—the board met that evening; not in consequence of that message, because it was their regular time of meeting, but that was one of the matters of business at that board, and directions were given to Mr. Whitfield, one of the medical officers of the Union, to proceed to the establishment—the entry in Mr. Drouet's book of 4th Jan., which has been read, is the one which Mr. Whitfield and the other gentleman then made, but of that I know nothing—in consequence of the state in which the children were found to be by Mr. Whitfield they were removed to the Free Hospital—I should tell you that the other gentleman had nothing to do with our Holborn Union—I believe he was met on the spot by Mr. Whitfield, and being two medical gentlemen met together, they thought proper to unite in their report—I went down on 5th Jan., but not before—I did not then learn from Mr. Drouet how many of the children were ill, of what, or how long they had been ill, but Mr. Whitfield on the Thursday, Jan. 4th, attended a special meeting of the board, and in consequence of the report he then made, I was sent on 5th with the proper and necessary persons to remove the children—I certainly saw Mr. Drouet on that occasion, but I saw that he had about a dozen medical men round him, and guardians from a great number of the Unions having children there, and I had no opportunity of having any conversation with him—the medical officer contented himself with examining the children he intended to remove, and gave a list of those children to me in order that I might provide conveyances for them—Mr. Whitfield had examined them the day before, and found that a good many were bad—I should say of the Holborn Union children, I found about fifteen or sixteen attacked with cholera, perhaps twenty cannot tell—I cannot tell how many in the whole establishment were attacked with it—I brought away 155 of our children; four or five of them died before they got to the hospital—the boy James Andrews was one of those who

were then removed to the Free Hospital—those who were left were those Who were reported by the medical officer to be too ill to be removed—they consisted of about twenty-rive or thirty—when I went down I believe fifteen of our children were attacked by cholera—we had then 191 boys and girls in the establishment—James Andrews died on 6th Jan.—there was a report from Mr. Drouet to the guardians, dated 30th Dec, 1848, which in the usual course of the weekly return, ought to have reached me on 1st Jan., but it did not reach me till the 2nd—that delay was not accounted for to me by Mr. Drouet—excepting the general confusion of matters there, I had no specific account of that delay—this is the report—(reads—" Tooting, 80th Dec., '48. I beg to report John Cooper, Matilda Laurence, Ann Hodges, and James Doyle, have been very ill from severe bowel complaint. Those reported last week continue in the infirmary improving. I am, Sir, your obedient servant, B P. Drouet."—This is the report of the previous week—"Tooting, 23d Dec., '48. Gamble, Hutchinson, Kenneday, and M. A. Brown, continue under medical care, as before reported. I am, Sir, your obedient servant, B. P. Drouet. Last report, discharged 8, left 201"—that is the way in which the account was kept weekly—this is the previous report to that—"16th Dec, '48. Sir,—I beg to call your attention to the children's Christmas treat. AH my parishes have for years allowed me 6d. each: the charge is very small, and I trust it will be given. Gamble is better; James Hutchinson and Kennedy are very ill; M. A. Brown has severe bowel complaint; the others appear doing well. B. P. Drouet."

COURT. Q. Was there any medical book kept at the establishment, so that the guardians when they went there could refer to the notes made by the medical officer? A. There was a medical officer there who was generally spoken to, but I saw no medical book ordiary.

Cross-examined by SIR FREDERICK THESIGER. Q. Were the guardians in the habit of visiting the Infirmary? A. They visited every part of the establishment, everything was thrown open to them—the weekly reports which I have spoken of refer only to our own Union—there were children there belonging to thirteen parishes, we had nothing to do with any but those belonging to our own Union—I had not seen Mr. Drouet's establishment before I went there prior to the contract being entered into—I knew Mr. Drouet by sight, but I knew nothing whatever of his establishment before that time—I rather think that the dietary was submitted to our medical officer before the agreement was entered into, but I am not speaking with confidence—I never had anything to do with any workhouse but our own—in some respects I think this dietary is superior to that of our workhouse, and in other respects I think it is inferior—I have one of our own dietaries here—our dietary has not been altered lately; after the cholera broke out there was an alteration in it: more solid food was given; but I am comparing Mr. Drouet's dietary with our former one.

Q. Do you consider that this is a proper dietary, a proper quantity of food for the children sent to the establishment? A. I think it is; and I have shown it to the medical officers, and they have thought so—there are some things not quite defined as to quantity which is open to observation—I think from Oct. 1847 to Jan. 1849,1 went to Mr. Drouet's establishment about five times—the other parishes were also in the habit of visiting it at different times—I have repeatedly, wheu I have been there, seen the guardians from other places—there was no particular day fixed beforehand when we might be expected to be there—the gentlemen whose duty it was to go down settled it among themselves, and I myself did not know the day they were going.

Q. On these visits were very minute inquiries made; an inspection of the establishment, and an investigation as to the condition of the children? A. The gentlemen who went professed to do all that, and I believe did it-whenever I went I know that I attempted to the full extent of my power, to get all the information that would be serviceable to the guardians—when the guardians went, they had the opportunity of inquiring from the children apart from any control of Mr. Drouet, or anybody else, as to whether they were satisfied with their situation.

Q. Did you at any time, upon any visit which you made, ever see anything which you considered improper in Mr. Drouet's establishment? A. There was one little matter; as you put the question so, I must answer it; in the early part of the year, I think it was in Jan., 1848, Mr. Mayes, who it a builder, and who was as a builder looked to for anything about the premises, ventilation, or anything of that sort, on going along the play-ground observed that the range of new buildings were built very close to the ground; that is to say, they were not sufficiently elevated to have a draught underneath for ventilation, and he said, "You ought to have had air gratings in the skirting of the building"—Mr. Drouet looked, and said, Why, I ordered them, and I believe that they are here;" and on searching it was found that the sweeping of the path had entirely closed them up, and Mr. Mayes said, "Now this is a degree of carelesness that I should not have expected in this establishment; do get them cleared out"—I observed afterwards that they were cleared out—I did not myself know anything of the boy Andrews; I only knew that there were two brothers of that name, James and Joseph, and their father was in the workhouse at the same time—the children, who were removed when the cholera broke out, were those considered to be untouched by it—that was for the purpose of separating them from those who had been affected—they were taken to the Free Hospital, because we had not room for them in our workhouse, and we were glad to get them there—the book from which extracts have been read of the reports of the guardians of the Holborn Union, also contains reports from a great many other Unions.

MR. CHAMBERS. Q. That is a book kept at Mr. Drouet's establishment? A. Yes, as far as I am a judge I think if the dietary were adhered to in point of quality, that in quantity it is good—the quantity in some respects is uncertain—in looking at it with our own, it occurred to me that ours was superior in some respects, but I cannot tell in what, without again comparing them—it was principally in the dietary for the sick—ours was a very foil dietary, it had been prepared entirely by the medical officers.

COURT. Q. Then the inferiority of which you speak, applies only to the dietary for the sick? A. That is all.

SIR F. THESIGER. Q. But all that is said here is "In sickness the diet if regulated by the doctor?" A. Yes, and in ours a full scale is given.

MR. CHAMBERS. Q. Is not your dietary superior in quantity of bread, where the quantity is stated? A. Our dietary has a very full allowance of bread, whether it is better than this in that respect I cannot tell, it is a larger allowance than Mr. Drouet's.

COURT. Q. That is in sickness, is it? A. No, that is in general dietary—there is a larger allowance to the children at the workhouse—the reports to the board were generally drawn up by the gentlemen who visited, but when I attended I generally drew them up.

  WILLIAM WINCH . I am one of the guardians of the Holborn Union. On 9th May, I went down with Mr. Rebbeck and Mr. Mayes to Mr. Drouets establishment, at Tooting; when we got there the children were at dinner;

they were all standing up very crowded: there were no forms or benches, or any means of sitting down to their meals—I looked at the potatoes, and cut open from one to two hundred—I did not find one good one; they were watery and black diseased potatoes—I spoke to Mr. Drouet about them—he told me he gave 7l. per ton for them—I said, "Very possibly you might; the potatoes are very bad, I think you ought to change the diet"—he said if we paid him better, he could do it—I spoke to him when we were alone with him, not before the children—we then went over the establishment—we went over the whole of the dormitories, and over the new buildings on the left—the whole of them struck me as being badly constructed, but more particularly the lower ones; they smelt very unhealthy, and Mr. Drouet's attention was called to it by myself, and Mr. Mayes more particularly, who is a builder—there was no ventilation at the back, only windows in front, and they smelt very bad indeed—I mentioned it to Mr. Drouet—they were sleeping apartments I presume, but it was impossible to know, as there were no beds there—I was given to understand they were sleeping apartments for the younger children—I think the nurses told me so in Mr. Drouet's presence—Mr. Mayes remarked that it was a pity he had not built the rooms higher from the ground, and Mr. Drouet replied, that he should have enough to do if he paid attention to everybody—we went through the sleeping rooms that were in use: no particular fault struck me there—I did not go through the whole of the establishment, because I was aware from the nature of our own establishment, that it is not worth while to go through all the bed rooms—I afterwards saw the boys in the school-room; Mr. Drouet was there, his brother, the schoolmaster, and, I think, the drill-master,—when the boys were mustered, Mr. Rebbeck said, "Well, boys, do you all belong to the Holborn Union?"—they said, "Yes"—he said, "Well, have you anything to complain of, want of food or anything else; if you have, hold up your hand," and I think thirty or forty at least held up their hands in Mr. Drouet's presence—my attention was particularly directed to the look of the boys; I had seen them daily before they went from our workhouse to Mr. Drouet's, and their altered condition was very visible to me—they looked thin and pallid. (SIR F. THESIGER objected to the reception of this evidence, as it applied to a period anterior to the deceased being sent to the establishment MR. CHAMBERS urged its admissibility, as showing general criminal negligence on the part of Mr. Drouet. The COURT was of opinion that it was not admissible, it having no connexion with the state or condition of the deceased, or the time at which he was in the establishment).

  PATRICK SHEEN . I am a poor boy belonging to the Holborn Union. My mother was in the workhouse there—I have been three times at Mr. Drouet's—the last time I was there I remained till I was removed to the hospital in Gray's-inn-lane on 5th January—I slept three in a bed—(SIR F. THESIGER objected to evidence being given as to the treatment of this or other children, unless it could be proved that the deceased was treated in the same way. The COURT allowed the objection)—I do not know where Andrews slept.

  RICHARD WOODISON . I belong to the Holborn Union. I was there when James Andrews was—he came at the same time as I did—he did not sleep in the same room with me when I first went there—I went to Mr. Drouet's after some of the others, about three months before last Christmas, and after I had been there some time Andrews came—I did not sleep in the same room with Andrews when he first came; I did two or three days before he was taken away; that was up in the attic, over what is called the doctor's ward—James Andrews slept with his brother and Derbyshire—I slept with a boy named

James Power—there were about twelve beds in the room, and three bow slept in each bed—there was only one other boy with me—James Andrews was ill when he came to sleep in the attic—Mr. Kite, the surgeon, used to attend him—I came up to town in the van with him and other boys—I did not know him before he was ill—I was well when I went away—Andrews was ill in going up in the van, he had the head-ache, and felt sick in the van.

Cross-examined by SIR F. THESIGER. Q. That is, he told you so, I suppose? A. Yes, when he came out of the van—it was a very cold night, and there was snow—it was a shut van—I did not sleep in the same room with Andrews till two or three days before we went away; that was after the cholera had broken out.

  WILLIAM DERBYSHIRE . I was one of the poor boys at Mr. Drouet's. I knew Joseph and James Andrews—I slept in the same room, and in the same bed with them—I do not know how long that was before we went to the Free Hospital; it was a short time—I do not know bow many beds there were in the room—I do not know what room it was that we slept in; it was, not the attic—there were more than two beds in the room—I do not know whether there were six—I remember James Andrews being taken ill—he was then removed from the room where he slept with me—I do not know where he was taken to—he did not return to that room again—I do not know how long I slept in the same bed with him—I know the sick ward—I do not know whether he'was taken there—he did not return to sleep with me sad his brother—I remember his coming to London—I do not know how long before that it was that he was taken ill—I do not know where he slept the night before he was brought to London.

COURT. Q. Did you come to the Free Hospital with the other boys? A. Yes; there were a good many of us; we came in a van; it was full; Andrew was in the big boys' van; I do not know where he slept the night before he came away; I do not know how many times he slept in the same bed with me. WILLIAM M'DOUGAL. I am fourteen years old—I came with the other boys in the van to the Free Hospital—I had been at Mr. Drouet's before that between eight and nine months—James Andrews came up in the same van with me; he sat on my knee—he said he felt very ill and sick, and laid his head on my shoulder—I was at Mr. Drouet's all the time Andrews was there—I do not know whether he was treated in the same way that I was, because the little ones were not along with the big ones—I was in the boys' hall with the big ones, and he was one of the little ones—I never saw him in bed there—the little boys were dressed nearly the same as us—we had a jacket and trowsers, and pinafore, in the week-days—they were not our own clothes, they were taken off when we went in, and put by till we went away—my week-day clothes did not keep me warm—out of school hours the boys used to go out into the yard, the little boys did not always go out; sometimes the nurse used to take them over into her ward—it was the same yard for the big and little boys—we could not go in doors out of school hours—the little boys used to keep in till they had their supper, and then they used to go to bed; sometimes they used to be out of doors—they had their suppers about six o'clock, and went to bed after that—we all had our supper at one time—the little boys had their supper in a separate hall—we had different clothes on a Sunday, and they were warmer than the week-day ones—I never went into the room where the little boys slept—I was always there as a big boy.

Cross-examined by SIR F. THESIGER. When you got to the Free Hospital

did you have any supper? A. Yes; all of us had bread and cheese—little Andrews did not eat his supper—he was put to bed as soon as they could; he slept in the same room with me—no doctor saw him that night—his brother told me he did not eat his supper—I did not see that he did not eat it.

  JOSEPH ANDREWS . I am eight years old—I was with my brother' James at Mr. Drouet's—we slept in the same bed, in the attic—Derbyshire slept in the same bed with us—there were about a dozen beds in that room—in some of them there were only two boys—I cannot tell in how many there were three—we three slept in the same bed a good while—I do not remember the day my brother was taken ill, but he was not taken ill when he slept with me and Derbyshire in the attic—I cannot tell how many boys altogether slept in the attic; I cannot form any notion—I was among the little boys—I and my brother were treated like all the rest of the little boys—I did not have enough to eat, nor did my brother—sometimes my brother, used to ask me to give him a portion of what I had to eat; I used to give him some—I did not give him any sometimes, because I had not enough for myself, and I told him to—there was a ball where the little boys dined—sometimes we had rotten potatoes and meat for dinner—when we had potatoes we were not allowed bread, and when we had bread we were not allowed potatoes—the potatoes were not good; some of them were black—when they were bad we used to chuck them away—we put them on the table, and they would take them away and put them in the hog-stye—we sometimes put them on the table, and sometimes under—they were very often bad—I did not complain of them to Mr. Drouet, or any of the people at the place, because I did not like to—there were three meat days a week—we only had potatoes on meat days—I thought the potatoes were always bad: we were able to eat them sometimes—we did not have meat enough to eat on the meat days—at breakfast we had gruel and half a slice of bread—I never had more than half a slice—it was about as thick as that (pointing on his finger about half an inch) it was not near enough for me—we had the same at supper, half a slice—we were never allowed more—it was about half as thick as that book (the Testament)—it was the same thickness at supper as at breakfast—there was a round wooden tub in the sleeping-room for the boys when they wanted to do their occasions—it was used by all the boys—there was only one tub in the attic where I slept—they used to dirty and piddle in it—we did not use the tub in the day time, we went into the yard then—in the morning two of the big boys used to carry the tub down—there was a nurse to attend to the boys in the attic—she did not sleep in the same room; she had nothing to do with emptying the tub—the tub used to stand in the middle of the room, about as far from our bed as from you to me—sometimes of a night it used to smell disagreeably and when I awoke in the morning, the boys used to carry it down—when we got up in the morning, some of the little boys used to make the beds, and the big boys used to wash the rooms from the same tub we used of a night—they used to rinse it out, then put water in it, and then wash the rooms.

Cross-examined by SIR FREDERICK THESIGER. Q. Did you go to Mr. Drouet's with your brother? A. No; I was there about two months before him—I did not sleep with him from the time he came—I had been in the workhouse a fortnight, and my brother had been there before he came—a man named Johnny Kerr attended the little boys when they had their meals; he was the hall man, and used to mind the boys in the ball—we had meat three times a week, and I think soup twice a week—we had meat on Tuesday, Wednesday, and Sunday; soup on Monday, Friday, and Saturday', and suetpudding

on Thursday—we had gruel and half a round of bread for breakfast, and cheese and the same quantity of bread for. supper, and milk and water—I do not know whether my brother had meat and porter every day—he did not dine with me—he had his meals in the ward, a different place to us—when he first came he had his dinner in the hall with us for four or five days, and after that till we left he had his meals in the ward—he changed from the hall to the ward because he had bad eyes—there was a ward for those who had bad eyes—his eyes were not bad when he came; they got bad four or five days after—I was never in the ward where he was afterwards—they used to have the same food in that ward as the others did—they used to take it out of the ball—my brother went up to London when I went, but not in the same van—I saw him after he came up about eleven that night—I think we started from Tooting about eight o'clock—Mr. James and Mr. Whitfield, from the work-house, took us away—we had bread and milk for supper when we got to the hospital—my brother had bread and milk too—he seemed ill, but he did not complain—his eyes had got well—I do not know how long before he left Mr. Drouet's they got well; I think it was a month before—the doctor at the hospital did not see my brother till next morning—it was a very cold night when we came up, and there was snow.

MR. CLARKSON. Q. Did your brother eat his bread and milk at the hospital? A. No, he gave it away—after his eyes got well he did not have his meals in the hall; he had them in the ward—he never had them with me except the four or five days I have spoken of—the boys in the ward had the food sent to them from the hall—I never knew of any porter being sent to my brother from the hall—they never had porter except at Christmas—I never beard of his having any at any other time—his eyes were inflamed and red.

COURT. Q. You say you came up as late as eleven o'clock at night to the Free Hospital? A. Yes; I was not very tired—we rode up—my brother was not tired when supper was before him—he seemed sleepy and wanted to go to bed, and gave away his supper—I did not feel sick in coming up in the van.

  THOMAS DEIGHTON . I am sixteen years old. I was at Tooting fifteen months—I came with the other boys to the Free Hospital—while I was at Tooting, I used to scour the little boys' bed-rooms and make the beds, and I had to empty the slops—I know the attic where James Andrews slept—I used to make the beds there, and empty the slops, and scrub the room—I have been there early in the morning—there were thirty-three beds there—there is only one attic at the top of the house, that is where the little boys slept—they are kept separate from the bigger ones—there were two or three rooms where the little boys slept—I recollect one where there were twelve beds—I used to clean the other one, and I have been in that one—I knew James Andrews; he slept over at the other side—I knew him to sleep in the attic—there were fifteen or twenty beds in the attic where he slept—I do not know where he slept when he first came—he slept in the attic with the fifteen or twenty beds a good bit before he left—I cleaned that room once every morning—the beds were close together—they used to sleep two in some of the beds and three in others—I used to empty the tub every morning—we had to take it down two flights of stairs—there was a smell from it—when we had emptied it we took it up again and put it under the bed—we used to use that tub to put water in to scrub the floor—it smelt in the day time as well as when we took it out—the room was about as big as this Court, but not so wide—the windows looked out into the

yard—I have been into the hall once or twice when the little boys were eating—I have been there when James Andrews was at dinner three or four times—I have seen the food that was given to him and the other boys—he bad suet-pudding for his dinner, that was on a Thursday—there was not enough of it—I have been there when potatoes were part of the dinner; they were bad—I have seen James Andrews at dinner about twice when there were potatoes—they were watery and bad on both occasions—the boys did not eat them; they threw them away—the little boys never had any other vegetables than potatoes—when there were not potatoes they bad bread—James Andrews wore the washed clothes on a week day, the same as I had—they were cloth; they did not keep us warm—we used to have corduroy clothes on Sundays—they were warmer than the week day ones—James Andrews used to be in the yard in his week day clothes after the school hours, from one to two and from five to seven—we used to have supper at half-past six—the little boys had their supper at the same time—I have seen the bread served out from the pantry—a loaf used to be cut into about twenty pieces.

Cross-examined by SIR FREDERICK THESIGER. Q. Where were you before you went to Mr. Drouet's? A. At St. Andrew's, Holborn—I have counted the pieces of bread that the loaves were cut into—I saw it cat into twenty pieces two or three times a day while I was in the pantry—I was only there a week—that was when I first went, before Andrews came—there were eight big boys' rooms, and three little boys' rooms—the girls used to sleep in one of the four attics—I think there were fifteen or sixteen beds in one of the little boys' attics—the rooms were not numbered—you go from one attic into another—I think it was in the first that there were sixteen beds—one room leads into another—the sixteen beds were in the last room.

COURT. Q. Can you go into these different attics from the landing? A. Yes—there is not a door to each room; there is only one door—you go through that into the first attic, and then through another between the first and second into the second; another between the second and third, and another between the third and fourth—the last was the biggest—they were all the same size.

  SIR FREDERICK THESIGER . Q. Then what made you say that the last was the biggest? A. I did not understand—they were all four the same size—I will swear there were more than twelve beds in one of the rooms—there were three more in all of them—I mean three more than twelve—I understand the question—they were not very high rooms—Andrews was in one of the attics I have been speaking of; in the last one, the fourth—he remained there a good bit—he was removed to the sick-ward—that was a good long while afterwards—I am positive of that—I mean several weeks—I saw him in the attic morning after morning for several weeks after he came—I remember his having bad eyes—that was about a month or so after he came—he was not removed into another ward in consequence of that—he remained in the same ward till they got quite bad—I never saw him after he was removed—the dinner was at the same time for the big and little boys—I dined in the big boys' hall—I used sometimes to go into the little boys' hall during their dinner, and serve, and sometimes I carried the milk round—there were about fifty boys in the hall at dinner—the little boys used to be served first, and then the girls came in directly—we used to go in to dinner in order, one at a time—I know Mr. Winch—he has not been asking me questions about this—he has asked me questions about it several times; not several times, about once or twice—he has asked me about Andrews once or twice, and about Mr. drouet's establishment—he was writing while he was talking to me.

MR. CHAMBERS. Q. Do you know this gentleman (Mr. Duncombe

the Solicitor for the Prosecution)? A. Yes; he was with Mr. Winch when he asked me the questions, and he wrote down my answers—I cannot recollect what Mr. Winch said to me—I knew him before—I recollect his coming down at dinner-time in May—I used not to go to serve in the little boys' dining-room before young Andrews came—Mr. Drouet put me into the pantry, and I saw the bread cut up—all the four attics together were about as large as this Court.

COURT. Q. Did the attics go from one end of the building to the other? A. No, they were not very long, the first was about as long as from here to the bench; it was not so broad; it was not broad at all much—they were all four about the same size.

  SAMUEL JENIINSON . I am fifteen years old, and belonged to the big boys apartment at Mr. Drouet's—I used to assist in cleaning the big boys' rooms, not the little boys'—I never saw the little boys at their meals—I was never in their sleeping rooms—I cannot tell how the little boys were treated—they used to play in the yard with the big ones—I did not assist, in emptying any of the tubs from the little boys' room—the little boys used to be out in the yard an hour after school—school closed at half-past three.

COURT. Q. How many little boys were there, have you seen as many as hundred of them? A. Yes, more than that; the eldest were about eight years old, and quite old enough to tell all about themselves, and what they bad to eat.

  JAMES SELBY . I am fifteen years old—I was fifteen months at Mr. Drouet's—I did not see the dormitories where the little boys slept—I do not know how the boys were fed or clothed—I have never complained to Mr. Drouet about my food.

  JOHN WELCH . I am fourteen years old—I was at Mr. Drouet's about thirteen months—I do not recollect James Andrews—I used to sleep upstairs, that was with the big boys and the little ones too—I know the attic where the little boys slept—I used not to assist in emptying the slops—they slept about three in a bed I should say—I have seen them at their meals—they had a plate of gruel and a slice of bread for breakfast, and meat and a slice of bread for dinner—I saw the potatoes they had, some were good and some bad, they were generally good—when I have seen them bad they looked all like disease in the middle—the little boys were treated about the same after Nov. as they were before—they had the same food as the big boys—I recollect some complaints being made about the food when some gentleman came down—that was about three months I should say before Nov.—till gentleman asked us whether we had enough to eat, and told them that bad not to hold up their hands, and we held up our hands—Mr. Drouet was not present at that time, Mr. Harding the school-master was—I do not know that I should know the gentleman again—I saw Mr. Drouet the same day after that, he said, "Ah! I will let you know, you young scoundrel, to let the gentleman know you had not enough to eat"—he said that to me, Sutherland and Sheen—I was whacked after that by Mr. Brown, the school-master.

Cross-examined by MR. BALLANTINE. Q. When were you whacked? A. I think it was next day when we were in school—I have been whacked in school before—it was when we were reading lessons—Mr. Drouet was not in the room then—I think that is the gentleman that told us to hold up our hands (pointing to Mr. Winch)—I have seen him since very often—w has not talked to me much—he has just talked to me—he has examined me about three times I think, and taken down in writing what I said—I think here was another gentleman with him—he has read over to me what I was

to say—I think that was on the second day—it was after I was examined at the inquest—I do not know whether it was that I might remember what I was to say here to-day—one other gentleman was present then—I did not repeat it after him—I did not tell him I should remember all about it; nothing of the kind—I knew Andrews when be came up from Tooting, when he was at the hospital—I know the ward where the boys with bad eyes went—I was never there—how they were fed or treated I do not know—I think little Andrews was in there—I have plenty to eat now—I am At the Holborn Union, J never want more—I get on very well—we do not have any pudding, but I never want any more meat, and I have plenty of bread—I never want any more—I could not eat it if I were to have it—I do not know whether all the boys are as contented as I am.

MR. CHAMBERS. Q. Where were you before you went to Mr. Drouet's? A. In the Holborn Union—they fed me better there than they did at Mr. Drouet's—I had more bread at the Union, as much as I could eat—Mr. Winch is one of the guardians of the Holborn Union—I saw him at the hospital three times, about two weeks after we had returned from Tooting—what I said was taken down in writing twice I think—X think the other gentleman was Mr. Duncombe the attorney—he did not ask me whether it was correct or not—there were other boys examined—Mrs. Diamond, the nurse, was present—I was whacked by the school-master for holding up my band, I think; it was after I held up my band.

COURT. Q. How many times do you get meat now? A. Five times a week—we have seven ounces of bread and a basin of rice for breakfast now—before we went to Mr. Drouet's we had meat four times a week—I was very well when I came back, and I was well when I went down—I know the little boys had the same food as the big boys, because I used to see them in their ball, and saw what food they had—the biggest boys had five ounces of bread—they had the same sort of food, only more bread.

  HENRY HARTSHORN . I am fourteen years old—I was one of the poor boys of the Holborn Union, at Mr. Drouet's—I was with the big boys—I knew James Andrews, he was among the little boys—I did not have opportunities of seeing the mode in which the little boys were fed.

  PATRICK SHEEN re-examined. I am getting on for eleven years of age—I was at Mr. Drouet's about six months; I was there three several times—I was with the big boys—I did not see how the little boys were treated—I recollect the gentlemen coming down and asking the boys questions—they asked whether we bad enough to eat; we said, "No"—after that one of the boys was beat.

Q. You having been there so long, had you enough to eat? (MR. BALLANTINE submitted that an iquiry of this nature was not relevant to the issue, and did not bear upon the treatment of Andrews, whose death was now the subject of inquiry. MR. CHAMBERS contended that having established an identity of treatment, it was material to show that Mr. Drouet persisted in the same course after his attention had been called to the complaints made by the boys. The COURT was of opinion that evidence might be given of the mode of treatment adopted, if it was clearly shown to be identical with that which was pursued while the deceased James Andrews was there.)

Q. You were one of the boys that held up their hands? A. Yes—I had not enough to eat—the boys did not, as I know of, get more food after they held up their hands—I used to see them every day—they did not get more—I came up to the Free Hospital in Jan.—I do not know how much bread the big boys had—the potatoes were sometimes very bad, sometimes they were father good—when they were bad they were black; the boys could not eat

them—I never heard anything said to Mr. Drouet about the potatoes—I had good clothes when I went there—I had black potatoes sometimes—I cannot recollect what sort of potatoes we had in Nov. and Dec.—I do not knot whether they were better or worse.

COURT. Q. Can you tell whether within two months before you went away you had black potatoes? A. No.

  HENRY HARTSHORN re-examined. I was at Mr. Drouet's in May, 1848, when the gentlemen came down and inquired how we were fed—such as were dissatisfied were desired to hold up their bands, and said, they had not enough—Mr. Drouet was present—I held up my hand, and said that I had not enough to eat—Mr. Drouet did not say anything to me on that—Mr. William Drouet, his son, did in his presence, he was at the other end of the school—the gentlemen were not there—that was the same day I held up my hand—they did not do anything to me after the gentlemen were gone—I do not know whether Mr. Drouet heard what his son said to me—nothing happened to me next day, or at any other time after I held up my hand—I did not get any additional food in consequence.

Cross-examined by SIR F. THESIGER. Q. Where was the question put to the boys whether they had enough? A. In the Infant-school—I do not know how many boys were present; there was only our parish boys there—the boys and girls were both present—the girls were not told to hold up their hands; they were not in there—there were no girls there at the time, nothing but boys.

MR. CLARKSON. Q. Did the guardians come down on a second occasion after the boys had held up their hands? A. No; I do not remember the gentlemen putting that question more than once—they asked us whether we had enough to eat, and Mr. Drouet said it was not a fit question to put to the boys—that was the same occasion on which we held up our hands.

SIR F. THESIGER. Q. Who was the gentleman that put the question to you? A. I do not know the gentleman's name—I believe Mr. Winch was one—he was not the person that put the question to the boys—he asked us if we had enough to eat—he did not call out loudly—he said, "As many as have not enough to eat, or are not satisfied, hold up your hands"—about six boys held up their hands; there were about eighty boys present—the gentlemen did not ask in what respect they were dissatisfied—they did not ask any other questions.

COURT. Q. Did Mr. Drouet appear very angry when he spoke? A. Yes, he appeared offended; and said it was an improper question to pat to the boys—I did not hear him say anything about his character, or anything else.

MR. WINCH re-examined. When Mr. Rebbeck said to the boys, "If any of you are dissatisfied with your food, or have anything to complain of, hold up your hands," I should think between thirty and forty boys held up their hands, upon which Mr. Drouet became rather abusive, particularly to Mr. Mayes; he said it was a very unfair question, and he had a character to lose, we ought to be satisfied with his word—I was engaged in asking one or two boys particularly what they had to complain of, and Mr. Drouet's immediate complaint was not made to me—he pointed to one boy, and said, "That is the greatest liar I have in the school," or in the establishment; he then pointed to another, and said, "That is a scoundrel"—I questioned one or two of the boys, but particularly M'Dougal, who I have identified since he has been away—I cannot venture to swear whether Mr. Drouet could bear me or not; he might have heard me—he must have seen that I was questioning the boys—he became violent, and said, "It was very unfair treatment; "

and to save further altercation I and my brother guardians came away—they asked us to sign the visiting-book in going out, which we declined to do.

COURT. Q. Why did not you enter your complaint in the book at the time? A. I had not finished, I had not gone over the whole of the establishment; and I was but a young guardian, I had not been in office above three weeks; that was my first visit—I made a report to the board; I was perfectly unacquainted with the routine of business.

MR. CHAMBERS. Q. Did you go down on 30th May, with the special-committee, to visit the establishment? A. I did—we got there before dinner—I saw the potatoes; they were then of good quality—Mr. Drouet apologized to me, for having behaved rudely, and said he did not intend it, but he was out of temper; and I said, "Very well"—his brother then accompanied me into the kitchen, or culinary department, and the pantry—I was desirous of seeing the manner in which the establishment was conducted, and the quantity given to the children; and a loaf was taken down, and a boy was ordered to cut it up in the usual way—it was a 4lb.-loaf—he split it down the middle, and cut it into sixteen pieces, which I counted, and said, "Do you not weigh them?"—the answer was, "No"—Mr. Drouet had left at that time, I think—on that visit the visitors'-book was presented to us to sign—we wrote, and signed this, "We, the undersigned, vice-chairman and guardians of the Holborn Union, have great pleasure in recording the satisfaction we received at this our visit to Mr. Drouet's establishment, and the food and general arrangement of the same"—I suggested some alteration in the wording of it at the time, wishing to confine my approval to that day—there was afterwards a longer statement which I signed—I expect it was agreed to by my brother guardians when I entered the board-room; it was handed to me to sign, and believing it to be the same report that I had before signed, I signed it without reading it

COURT. Q. Is that the way you have usually done your business in the guardiaps'-room? A. Well, on that occasion it was; we do not usually have papers to sign—as far as regards the quality of the food stated in the dietary, it appeared very satisfactory, except the potatoes—this was on 9th May—I never found fault with any of the food, except the potatoes, that day.

Q. When you desired the boy to cut the loaf in the usual way, did you tell him whether it was for the young children, or the big boys? A. Mr. Drouet's brother told him to cut their bread up in the usual way, and when it was cut up, I said, "Is this the allowance the boys have?"—he answered, "Yes"—I said "Do you not weigh it?" because, as a guardian, I knew it was very unsatisfactory in our house if everything is not weighed out, and in nearly all establishments it is usual.

Cross-examined by MR. BALLANTINE. Q. You gave an opinion about some dormitories in the earlier part of your evidence, are you a carpenter or builder? A. I am not—I am now an ivory dealer—I have been a japanner—I have a shop—I carry on no other business—I have not acted as clerk-to-the attorney in this case; not in any way—I have not taken a word of the evidence of the children—I have studiously avoided making any remarks to any child of the establishment, or asking them a question—I have heard what he children have said; it is not true so far as I am concerned—I have no taken down a line of their examinations, neither have I examined any of them, or read over their evidence to them—I never read over any paper to them—I was present when they were examined by Mr. Duncombe, I should think on two occasions, and the nurse was present—I have not served subpoenas or anything of that kind—it was Mr. Rebbeck who asked the boys whether they

were satisfied, not me—he is an old guardian, and had been to the establishment previously—he knew the custom about signing the book; but he was offended.

COURT. Q. Was James Andrews one of the smaller children? A. I think he was; he was seven years old—I conclude the pieces of bread were about 4 ozs. each—I did not understand that allowance to be for the lesser children; it might be so; my impression was that it was for the larger boys.

  WILLIAM SHAW MAYES . I was one of the guardians who accompanied Mr. Winch to Mr. Drouet's—I was present when it was suggested that those boys who had not enough, or were not satisfied, should hold up their hands—between thirty and forty held up their hands—Mr. Drouet was present, and expressed himself very strongly, saying, the boys were of bad character, and if he did as he had been recommended by Mr. James, the clerk to the guardians, he should have flogged them well—several of the boys were asked questions after that—Mr. Drouet was close by, and heard the answers—they stated they had not enough bread to eat, and many other things, that they were dissatisfied with their food; and I went myself into the room where they were at dinner, and I saw some of the younger boys leaving their food, and covering it over with potato-parings—I drew some of the boys on one side, and went down to look at it, and I saw some of that which was so covered over, and instead of being meat the greater part of it was gristle—we only examined as to their food—there were only four or five boys examined—Mr. Drouet lost his temper, spoke very harshly, and stated we were not fit to examine the boys; that we did not know what we were about—he became very angry indeed—before we went in to examine the children in private, I had viewed the new building at the bottom part of the establishment, where the younger children slept, and I said to Mr. Drouet, privately, "This room smells very earthy, or very close; you require some better ventilation here, Mr. Drouet; this floor must be very Bear the earth"—he said it was—I said, "You might improve it by having some air-gratings put in, to make a draft under the floors"—he made rather an impertinent answer, and said, "If I was to attend to every one's suggestions I should have nothing else to do"—I was offended at that, and turned round, and said, "I shall have nothing more to say to you."

COURT. Q. Did you examine whether there were any gratings there or not? A. I did on the second view, and I did on the first, and I saw none—I went there again afterwards, and looked for the gratings, but I could not find any.

MR. CLARKSON. Q. Did anything else pass on the first occasion? A. Yes—I saw there were no windows on the contrary-side, so as to leave no ventilation, and I said, "You had better have some windows on the other side, to cause some better ventilation of this place; "and his observation was," I cannot get them there"—he was very much out of temper at that time, but he was more so at the examination of the children, and we left entirely because his conduct was so violent, as regarded his language towards us—we went down again within fourteen days—I went again into the lower rooms with anew to ascertain whether any of the air-gratings had been made, but they had not—I found the rooms in the same state as before—I fancied that the dietary seemed much better; there seemed to be more attention paid—this was a special visit; at the other we went in a more private manner; that may account for the difference—I saw a wide difference—that special visit was not, to my knowledge, made known to Mr. Drouet before we went-the private visit was also, I believe, unknown to him; it was a private appointment among our three selves.

COURT. Q. I suppose your object was to go suddenly, and see what was going on? A. Yes; I have been a governor and director for some time, and always thought it most prudent to fix a day among ourselves, that there might be no preparation.

Cross-examined by SIR F. THESIGER. Q. Then you were an old guardian? A. It was the first year of my being a guardian—I have been a governor and director some years—I did not enter any complaint in the book on our first visit, because Mr. Drouet's conduct was such that we would not stay to speak to him any longer—we were asked to make an entry in the book as we went out—the complaint was mentioned to Mr. Drouet personally—we did not want to stay any longer in the house; we did not even finish the visit—the visit was unsatisfactory—we made a report to the other guardians—it was a building on the left band, as you go down through the hall that was not properly ventilated—I was told those were additions made by Mr. Drouet to the establishment, but they had been used some time—it consisted of two or three rooms about fifty feet long—I saw no ventilating-holes in the wall opposite the window—to the best of my knowledge I saw none in the building—I made such an observation that I think if there had been any I must hare seen them—there were none; I swear that positively—I saw no ventilating holes at all—I swear positively that I saw none.

COURT. Q. Did you look for them? A. I did, and did not see them—there might have been a small air-brick, but that was not visible.

SIR F. THESIGKR. Q. Is it possible there could have been ventilating holes in that room without your observing them? A. I do not think it is possible—I am prepared to say there were none—I proposed certain air-gratings—Mr. James went down with us on the second occasion, the 30th May—I swear positively there were no gratings underneath the building for the underneath ventilation—I examined the building on the second occasion, outside and inside too—I looked at the outside to see if there were any gratings; I swear positively there were none—I was in and out the whole time at different parts of the building with Mr. James—there was no ground swept away, opening gratings to view in my presence—I saw no sweeping or removing of ground at all—Mr. James did not call my attention, or Mr. Drouet's, in my presence, to the gratings—Mr. Drouet's attention was called by me to the absence of ventilation on that second visit—I do not know that any other person was present at the time—they were gone round to other parts to see the children—I think Mr. Dronet and I were alone then—I was earnestly calling his attention to the gratings, and did not observe that any one was present—I was not there at all in Jan. 1848; I only paid those two visits.

COURT. Q. Did you measure the building, which you say was fifty feet long? A. Only by sight, it might be as much as a hundred feet long, I cannot tell exactly at this length of time—I think there were two buildings—the one Ast called my attention was where the youngest children slept—I looked at the other building as well, and saw it was in the same state of ventilation—I did not pay such particular attention to it as the other—it was Mr. Drouet's observation that that was a new building he had added; and I said, "Why not put this ventilation to that, you might have done it easily in building it?"

  DAVID KELLY . I am a porter. I had two boys, my grandchildren, at Mr. Drouet's—I went down there to see them on 31st Dec.—the eldest, Jeremiah, was eight years old, and the other, James Doyle, about four—I found James ill a bed, and a little child along with him in the sleeping-rooms

where the little boys were—the beds were very thick there indeed—there were only two in a bed that time—I went again next morning; there were no more that morning in a bed than there were the day before—I went again on Wednesday morning, and there were then three in a bed and all ill as far as I could tell—(SIR FREDERICK THESIGER objected to this evidence, as it applied to a period after the cholera had broken out, and the deceased been removed. THE COURT was of opinion that it did not apply to the present case, Janet Andrews being shown not to be in the room at the time.)

  KEZIAH DIAMOND . I am deputy-matron of the Holborn Union-workhouse; I used to attend to the children there—I was sent for on 5th Jan. to the Free Hospital to receive the children that were coming from Tooting—157 came that night—James Andrews was among them—I did not observe that night whether he was ill or well—they were put to bed—a woman named Harris put Andrews to bed—I did not remain there that night, but went again next morning about half-past nine or ten o'clock—Mr. Whitfield was just leaving the hospital then—I then learnt Andrews was ill—I saw him in bed, and attended to him while he lived—he was very ill; he was dying—he had been very sick—I did not see him sick—I was with him not quite an hour and a half before be died, and he died at half-past eleven—the same Saturday I examined the children who had come from Tooting; although I did not attend to the children before they went to Tooting I had opportunities of seeing them so as to notice their appearance and state of health—I examined them when they came back; they were in a very bad state, most of them had eruptions on their bodies, a great many had large wounds, and their feet were in a dreadful state.

COURT. Q. But had this child Andrews any eruptions upon his body? A. No—(SIR FREDERICK THESIOER again objected to any evidence respecting the condition of other children apart from the case of Andrews, being gone into. MR. CHAMBERS contended that unless he was at liberty to show the effect pro-duced by the treatment in numerous instances, he could not be in a condition to establish a case of criminal negligence. THE COURT considered that sons evidence of identity of treatment having been adduced, evidence of the effect of that treatment might be laid before the Jury).

MR. CHAMBERS. Q. Describe how you found the children on examining them? A. Some of them had eruptions and very sore feet, which I think must have been chilblains—they had wounds on different parts of their bodies—they looked very thin and pale—there was a great difference to what they were when they went—when they went they were stouter and looked more healthy—they have since been examined by Mr. Grainger and Dr. Fan—I have had them under my care in the hospital since, and I have twenty yet remaining not gone back to the Union—I have seen to the feeding and attended them in the hospital—most of them are very well now, and looking very healthy—there are a few delicate ones among them.

Cross-examined by SIR FREDERICK THESIOER. Q. Had you anything to do with the management of the children before they went to Mr. Drouet's? A. For some time I had—that was a long time before they went—I do not know the exact time—after that I was in the habit of seeing them almost every hour of the day in going into the wards—I was superintendent of the nurses—I had three children of my own at Mr. Drouet's, two boys and agin—they came away with the other children—they went when the first children went—I think they were there about fourteen months—I went at times to see them, and the eldest boy came home at times—I stopped at Mr. Drouet's one

night—I should say I was there a dozen times in the fourteen months—I believe Mr. Drouet paid attention to them—they said Mr. Drouet was very kind to them.

MR. CHAMBERS. Q. Was it your duty to go and visit the wards when you were superintendent? A. Yes; and to see that the children were properly taken care of.

COURT. Q. Your children formed a portion of the 157? A. Yes; the two boys came back with the first children on the 5th, but the girl was ill with the cholera, and did not come then—the boys looked very poorly—they had the cholera after they came up—they all three recovered—the eldest boy is twelve years old, the next eight, and the girl is six and a half—she was with the little girls at the establishment—when I went down there I went into the room while they were eating their food, my child was among them, she appeared to me to be treated like the rest of the children, there was no partiality shown to her—I have seen her at her meals perhaps four times when I have gone down—if I had seen insufficient food for a meal I should have spoken, and if it was improper and unfit to eat I should have spoken—I thought what I saw was very good and sufficient—it is very likely I went down in May, 1848. but I cannot remember—it was their supper that I saw them at—they had bread and treacle and milk and water—I never saw them at dinner—I never saw the boys at supper—I was once in the boys' sleeping ward—I think that wss in the new building—I believe it was where the big boys slept.

  MARY HARRIS . I was one of the nurses at the Free Hospital on 5th Jan., when the children came from Tooting—I saw James Andrews—he arrived about ten o'clock at night—he seemed very tired—he did not appear cold—I sat him by the fire, and gave him some bread and milk for supper—he held up his hand, and said, "Oh nurse, what a big piece of bread this is"—It was not a large piece—he drank the milk, and eat a very little bit of the bread off one corner—he seemed over-tired, and to wish to go to bed, but I did not see any alteration in him—I put him to bed—I have been in the habit of attending children—the boy seemed to be overcome with fatigue—the doctor did not see him that night—he did not complain of any pain—when I undressed him I found he was very thin indeed—he was nothing in the world else but a mere frame of bones—when I put him to bed he seemed to compose himself, and soon went to sleep—about half-past six o'clock in the morning he was taken with a vomiting and purging, and what came off his stomach was nothing in the world but the milk all curdled—the purging was more like dirty water than anything else; very dirty, a kind of slate-colour, and smelt very much indeed—I gave him some milk, and he brought it up just the same as he brought the other up—I sent for Mr. Whitfield, and he came—I cannot tell the exact time, but it was within an hour after the child bad been attacked—Mr. Whitfield applied hot flannels, and I gave charge of we child to Mrs. Diamond and Mr. Whitfield—I cannot say whether they remained with him till he died—I went to the Union as soon as Mr. Whitfield came—I think it was about half-past seven—there were four nurses at the hospital.

Cross-examined by SIR FREDERICK THESIGER. Q. How many children vent to the Free Hospital from the Holborn Union? A. I do not know—four nurses went to attend to them—I attended to the children at the Union before they went to Tooting—they went while I was there—I never saw Andrews before he was in the hospital—a person named Grace attended to him at the Union—he did not complain of headache, or sickness, or anything'

of the kind, when he came to the hospital—none of them said that Andrews had felt ill in the van.

COURT. Q. What sort of a night was it? A. It snowed—the children were snowed all over—none of them were sick but Andrews, nine of them were purged—Andrews was not convulsed; he drew up his legs, he did not put his hand to his bowels.

  WILLIAM BENSON WHITFIELD . I am one of the medical officers of the Holborn Union. On 4th Jan. I went to visit Mr. Drouet's establishment,—I found a great number of the children ill—I went to report upon the state of the children—I went over the part devoted to the sick, and also over some other parts—there were a number of rooms devoted to the cholera cases—I made some suggestions in Mr. Drouet's visiting-book that I wished him to adopt—those are the suggestions, which have been read—Mr. Lewis was with me—I was not in Court all day yesterday—I did not hear the description of the attics in which the children were—I went into the attics on a subsequent occasion—on the 4th my inspection was confined to the ward where the cholera cases were, with the exception of some of the halls in which the children took their meals—in consequence of that visit I made a report to the board on the 5th—it was in consequence of ray recommendation that the children were removed—I went down again on the 5th, and waited for the vans that went to fetch the children home—before the vans arrived I examined all the children of the Holborn Union, and I believe James Andrews among the number—I did not go into the part in which he was sleeping at that time—I went into the hall, and the children were brought there for the purpose of being examined—I think 156 were in a fit state to be removed-a great number of them at that time were under the influence of cholera.

COURT. Q. You think they were on that occasion? A. Yes; and I believed that many would be attacked, yet I thought they were fit to be removed.

MR. CHAMBERS. Q. Were you there when they went away in the vans? A. No—I saw the vans—they were covered—Mr. James saw them placed into the vans; the weather was cold, and it was snowing.

COURT. Q. Were the vans closed in altogether, like an omnibus? A. No—there was a covering at the top—the wind might have gone through in some of them to some extent—they were, in fact, in the open air, except the covering over their beads, a sort of umbrella.

MR. CHAMBERS. Q. I believe you did not see them when they arrived at the hospital? A. No; I was sent for next morning to see James Andrews, and arrived at the hospital between seven and eight o'clock—he was in a state of complete collapse, suffering from cholera, as if all the energies of life had ceased—I applied all the remedies I thought proper—I did not remain with him till he died, as my attention was called away to other patients in the ward—I formed a judgment on the case as soon as I examiued birn—I was certain he would die—I afterwards went through the whole of Mr. Drouet's establishment, so as to see the rooms, I think about a week afterwards; I saw Mr. Drouet, but he did not go round with me—I am not certain whether I acquainted him with the object of my visit—I said very little to him—some of the children that could not be removed were still there—I saw all the rooms.

  SIR FREDERICK THESIGER . Q. Are there not five separate and distinct buildings in which these children were kept? A. There are several distinct buildings—one part of the establishment is not a quarter of a mile from the other part—it is a few hundred yards—there is one part which is quite separate

from the rest—the others are connected in some way by buildings—it is a series or chain of buildings, without internal communications in some parts—it is like separate houses in a street which have separate street-doors.

MR. CHAMBERS. Q. Did you see the hall where the little children were fed? A. I saw all the halls—I did not ascertain from Mr. Drouet how many could be accommodated in the hall—I do not know the room James Andrews had been in—I think the centre building has attics—I do not recollect how many attics there were—I do not recollect going into any particular rooms—I examined the children to see their state of health before they were removed to town, and subsequently on their arrival, they were not in a good state of health—most of the younger children were very thin, and their abdomens were tumid or swelled—a great number were covered with the itch—the pulse of a great many was very weak—I examined them more closely after they arrived in town—I believe from their bellies being swelled, and their extremities thin, that they had not received quite enough food—I could not speak as to lodging—cholera would be more likely to be fatal in a weak subject than in a healthy one—where the constitution is impaired, the energy for resisting disease is less—many of their constitutions were impaired, so as to be less capable of resisting cholera, fever, or any disease that would require constitutional energy to cast it off—I saw James Andrews I—I cannot say what state his body was in as regards the power of resisting disease—I examined his body, but the disease produces such ravages in a short time that it is impossible to judge—I had not taken particular notice of him the day before I sent him away—the wasting is very sudden in cholera—it is an exaggerated statement to say that he was a frame of bones; he was not so.

Cross-examined by SIR F. THESIGER. Q. You have attended the children of Holbom Union for some time? A. Every three years—there are two other surgeons—one attends the men one year, the other the women, and the other the children, so that I attend the children every third year—in general the children in workhouses are not the best specimen of children to be found—there are always a few cases of itch in the workhouse—I do not remember Andrews—I know his brother—I do not remember his going to Tooting—I never went there before 4th January—it is an exaggerated statement to say that James Andrews was a frame of bones—the emaciated appearance of a subject is very rapid in cholera cases—the emaciation would not commence before the discharges—James Andrews died of Asiatic cholera—I believe the immediate cause of cholera to be a peculiar condition of the atmosphere; it arises from atmospheric influence—I consider it decidedly infectious, so that when the poisonous state of the atmosphere has communicated disease to one subject, another may take it from him by infection—when many persons infected with the disease are in one apartment, a person going into that apartment would be in great danger of catching that disorder—the atmosphere would be poisoned by the breath of the infected person—the infected person increases the poison of the atmosphere—the difference between cholera and itch would be one is communicated by touch, and the other by the air—one we call infectious, and the other contagious—I do not consider cholera to be contagious—I think you may safely lay your hand upon a cholera patient—in my opinion open ditches in the neighbourhood of a place would not generate cholera—in my judgment it would not be generated by marsh miasma, or by insufficient food—if cholera is prevailing, persons in a weak state of health are more likely to be affected by it than persons in a robust state—sometimes

cholera attacks one place, and spares another close by—I have heard of its attacking one side of a ship and not the other, and one side of a street and not the other—I have read of its ravaging apparently healthy and well ventilated places, and sparing those that are crowded and in a filthy condition—I do not know that that is the case—sometimes a regiment on its march will be attacked by cholera, and when the camp has been broken up, and they have removed a few miles, the cholera has disappeared entirely—I heard it the workhouse that the cholera broke out with violence at the same time at Wandsworth, which is the adjoining parish to Tooting—it commenced there before it did at Tooting, but it was prevailing at the same time—I do not know the Hackney Refuge, or Mr. Warburton's Asylum—I did not ascertain whether the treatment and improvement of diet which I directed on the 4th Jan. was attended to, because the children were removed the next day—I think cold is a great pre-disposing cause to cholera.

COURT. Q. I believe it is well known that rapid atmospheric changes or vicissitudes will predispose to cholera; rapid changes of the atmosphere, from dry to wet, and wet to dry? A. It appears in some instances it has had that effect, but it is not quite certain—I have read Mr. James Ansley's book; he shows that cholera sometimes follows rapid atmospheric changes, but he has not shown the necessary connection; he has not shown them to be predisposing causes, because I have known instances in which it has had no effect upon disorders—I did not attend the children, after they came back, at the Hospital or Union.

MR. CHAMBERS. Q. You have stated that insufficient food will not generate cholera, and you were about to add something? A. It might predispose to it; being warmly clothed one day, and insufficiently clothed the next, would be a predisposing cause, supposing the disease to be attacking the place at the time—if the children are closely crowded in a school-room, so as to become hot, and are turned out into a cold damp play-ground, and kept there late at night, that would be one cause of depressing the system.

COURT. Q. What extra clothing had these 150 children on when they were brought away? A. Caps and cloaks were sent down from the work-house to cover them—I believe they all had cloaks—when I examined them, to see whether they were fit to be removed, I thought some were under the influence of cholera—I did not observe whether James Andrews was one of them.

Q. Did you not think it necessary to look after those children that night, who you saw influenced by, or predisposed to, cholera? A. I was expressly precluded doing so that night; it was the condition on which they were admitted into the Free Hospital that no medical man should attend them that night; the medical men of the hospital should attend them, and I was not to go there—I am the officer of the Union—my office was superseded as soon as I got them there—I did not make a report to guide the officers who were to attend them; I had no time, I had other business to attend to; and I was certain that as soon as they were in the hospital they would be attended to by the medical men at once—that was the understanding, I took that for granted—I knew it was an evil for the children to travel in these vans at ten o'clock at night; but it was the lesser evil—it was no doubt injurious to remove them at that time—it might be a predisposing cause equally with the change of clothing—Mr. Ansley lays down in his book that parties living in marshy situations are more liable to cholera—he states it is by reason of the marsh miasma—in my opinion it does not; his opinion is otherwise—it is also considered that terrestrial exhalations, which

affect the purity of the air, or its electrical state even, will predispose to cholera—I believe it was indispensable to the preservation of their lives to bring them up that night.

  JOHN ROWLAND GIBSON . I am a surgeon. I examined the children that went from the Holborn Union on 28th Oct., 1848, to Tooting; I have no recollection of the fact, but that was my duty—if James Andrews was among the number I must have examined him—I did not, to my recollection, pass any children that were in an unhealthy state—I have no recollection of any individual case; but it was my duty not to do so—I have no recollection of James Andrews.

Cross-examined by SIR F. THESIGER. Q. I suppose if a boy was thin, but had no complaint on him, you would pass him? A. Yes; there were boys of all conditions among them.

  ALFRED BARING GARROD, ESQ ., M.D. I live in Harley-street, and am assistant physician to the University College Hospital. I made a post-mortem examination of the body of James Andrews—it was then at the bone-house in the Church-yard—I examined it 140 hours after death—it had been buried by mistake, and a wrong body was disintered, I believe, and afterwards the right one—the body I examined was taken out of the ground—it was shown me by the sexton; his wife, and one of the porters of the Free Hospital were also present

  STEPHEN PEARSON . I remember seeing a body in the vaults of Trinity Church, Gray's-inn-road—I cannot say when it was; I merely happened to be in the Church, went down into the vaults, and found some gentlemen dissecting's body—I did not know the body before—I had never seen it to my knowledge—I understood the wrong body had been buried.

Cross-examined by SIR F. THESIGER. Q. Are you acquainted with Mr. Drouet? A. I have seen him several timet when I have been to his establishment as a visiting guardian of St. Andrew's, Holborn—I am one of the gentlemen who attended from time to time with the reports that have been read—I have had an opportunity of observing the establishment; in my judgment it was perfectly well conducted—Mr. Drouet's character for kindness and humanity has been exceedingly good—I have heard it stated by numbers that his character was exceedingly good in the neighbourhood, and I have heard it in town as well.

  WILLIAM FILLBY . I am grave-digger to the poor in the parish. I knew James Andrews; I saw him in Oct, 1848, before he went to Tooting; he was in very good health—I saw him in the hospital when he came back—I fetched the doctor to him, and was in the room when he died—I saw him when he died, and afterwards buried him—I afterwards exhumed him by the direction of the authorities—I was present when his body was examined by Dr. Garrod.

DR. GARROD re-examined. Some man was present when I made the post mortem examination; I believe it was the last Witness—I came to the judgment that the boy died from malignant cholera, Asiatic cholera—the body had been buried 140 hours, but it was very fresh, and presented very slight appearances of decomposition; it had no disagreeable odour; it was cold weather—the body appeared to be that of a child who had been considerably emaciated before death, the head was large in comparison with the body, the development of the body appeared rather behind what we should expect at that age, and several of the second teeth had not appeared—the teeth were Hot so forward as I should expect in a boy of that age—most of the first

teeth had fallen out, and there was a slight lividity, which is the case with boys of infirm constitutions; it betokens weakness of constitution—the body was very slightly livid, and the akin on the hands and feet was slightly shrivelled in appearance, which you frequently find after death from cholera—on dissection it was found that the layer of fat was exceedingly spare—where there is usually considerable deposition of fat it was almost absent—most of the organs were healthy, with these exceptions, that the lungs were slightly congested; the bronchial glands were slightly enlarged—I noticed that OP account of their being frequently enlarged in scrofulous and ill-conditioned children, the mesenteric glands were much enlarged with slight deposition of tubercular matter—the external surface of the small intestines was rather pink, and of the large intestines grey; that is a contrast that has been noticed as frequent in cases of cholera—these were indications that death resulted from cholera—the internal or mucous membrane, both of the upper and lower intestines, was congested in patches, and contained some thickish matter, somewhat similar to boiled rice, a gruel-like matter, without any yellow appearance—this matter, carefully examined with a microscope, presented all the appearances which you find in the thick portion of the evacuations in cholera—the blood throughout the whole of the body was of a very dark colour, and of a tar-like consistency, yet not coagulated; that was contained chiefly in the large vessels of the body—the large vessels were generally filled with blood throughout the body, but the small vessels were in general empty, and the tissues of the body bad a dry appearance on dissection—the arterial blood was almost as dark as the venous blood—upon analysis it was found to be very peculiar in its composition; that is to say, it contained very much 1M water, and therefore a much larger quantity of solid matter than is contained in the blood of adults, and excessively so as compared with the ordinary blood of children dying of other diseases—these appearances altogether perfectly satisfied me that the child must have died of Asiatic cholera; I have no doubt about it—the dark appearance of the blood is universal, when a patient has died in a state of collapse, but not afterwards; for when they recover, and then die, that condition is sometimes considerably altered—the heart, liver, spleen, and kidneys, were all healthy—I have no doubt that part of the emaciation of the body would arise from cholera—I should think that that appearance of shrinking might be produced in forty-eight hours, but not the absence of fat; I cannot account for such a state of emaciation, by the progress of cholera only, within forty-eight hours, upon a healthy child—I consider that this must have been rather an unhealthy child; it might bare been hereditary, and it might hare been produced doubtless by being improperly brought up, fed, clothed, and lodged; the appearances were consistent with that—I do not know Mr. Drouet's premises.

Q. If a child had been lodged in a room over-crowded with children, and which had been insufficiently ventilated, and if its food had been indifferent and insufficient, would that, in your judgment, have accounted for any of the appearances you found on the body, independent of the action of the cholera? A. If the time which the child had been exposed to this influence had been long; say for several months, but it is impossible to say—I should think from Oct. to Jan. would not account for it; I would not be positive on that point—it is my opinion that there was a cholera influence somewhere at the time this child died—I do not say it was in the atmosphere—a child insufficiently fed and clothed, and lodging in a dormitory insufficiently ventilated and over-crowded, would doubtless be liable to be affected by influences which

would not affect a strong and healthy person, and among other influences that of cholera; it would certainly be the more predisposed to accept the influence of that complaint.

COURT. Q. Would a person of an impaired or weak constitution be naturally more disposed to receive the effects of this influence? A. I believe so; but especially those who are otherwise healthy, but are kept rather low; that is the case, at least as far as our experience of the present epidemic goes; those constitutions which are impaired by bad air, and insufficient food, are more liable.

MR. CLARKSON. Q. That is to say, a child of robust health and good constitution would resist an influence which would be the destruction of one of more feeble habit? A. Certainly.

Cross-examined by SIR F. THESIGER. Q. I think J understood you to say, from the appearance the body presented, that it might have arisen from an hereditary poor constitution, or from the mode in which the child had been brought up? A. Yes; it would require some months to bring a child into that state—I believe that cholera is an influence, either in the atmosphere, or somewhere, that travels from country to country, probably the atmosphere is the conveyance by which it travels—I think it cannot be generated in England—I think it is generally propagated, not by contagion or infection; in tome cases it may be—I speak uncertainly, because I have no evidence—what evidence we have, I think, seems to show that it is not propagated by contagion, but by atmospheric influence; still, in certain eases, it may be infectious, as we find a degree of infection in certain stages of other diseases—it generally selects prisons, workhouses, and establishments where the patients, perhaps, are not having their usual diet, or are kept rather low; that is when the choleraic influence is but slight—if selects such places first—when the influence is powerful it will attach itself to healthy situations, and to persons who are strong, as well as to those who are weak—it appears to be very capricious—it has been known to visit one bank of a river, and to leave the other untouched—to visit one side of a street, and not the other, and to pass over houses, leaving the intervening ones untouched—I have not known it to attack females and not males—I do not know Mr. Warburton's establishment.

MR. CLARKSON. Q. Would over-crowded rooms, insufficient ventilation, and insufficient or unsound food, on the part of a child of weakly or unhealthy constitution aggravate that state, and more entirely pre-dispose it to cholera influence? A. Certainly.

COURT. Q. Bad air, bad food, and bad lodging will contribute to that? A. Yes; I believe those three causes cannot produce the cholera, unless the influence is also present; a certain something is required over and above that—something is required to give the cholera, in order to make those different circumstances operate mischievously; I do not mean to say that the treatment in a prison, the want of generous food, proper clothing, or exercise, would generate cholera.

  WILLIAM JAMES KITE . I am a surgeon—I have been qualified more than two years, and have been in practice more than two years in the country—I was at Hatfield before I came to Mr. Drouet's. On 81st Oct., 1848, Mr. Drouet engaged me to go to his asylum, at a salary, to attend to the sick—were were about 1100 or 1200 children then there—I saw no medical book for the purpose of recording the state of health of the children—I kept one—I think nearly 200 children were added to that number about the end of Dec., from St. Pan eras' parish—I have memorandums of the number of tick children that I attended—Mr. Drouet never consulted me as to the extent

of accommodation afforded to the children in the establishment, or with regard to the ventilation of the rooms, or as to their being over-crowded and having too many beds in them, nor as as to the number of children in a room, nor as to their clothing—when I arrived there was a place called the Infirmary—it was a room in the building—there were healthy children in some parts of the same building where the infirmary was—there were a few patients in the infirmary when I went—three or four weeks after I arrived another sick ward was formed—some of the patients I found there bad been seriously ill—there were some cases of opthalmia—there were a few children not in the infirmary affected with the itch—I can give no precise number—there were several affected with cutaneous diseases of some kind or another—there were not many affected with pure itch—there was a separate ward for those who had cutaneous diseases, so as to prevent their contaminating the others—I tried to get rid of the disease, but I found it very difficult indeed—Mr. Drouet did not object to receiving children with the itch—they were received whether they had it or not.

COURT. Q. Did you ever hear of the cholera being produced by the itch? A. No.

MR. CHAMBERS. Q. When you went there were any of the children affected by dysentery? A. There were very few cases, they recovered, with one or two exceptions—the first case of distinct cholera came under my observation on Friday night, 29th Dec.—that was not a fatal case—the child had not been in the sick ward before—the next morning cholera attacked several other of the children—between that and 13th Jan. 139 died—that was the full time which the cholera raged—there were a great number of cases existing in the establishment previous to 5th Jan.—it was my duty to attend the wards where the cholera patients were, as well as the healthy children—when the children were attacked they were removed into the cholera ward at once, immediately I perceived any indication—I did not know James Andrews—I was in Court when the attic which he is represented to bare I slept in was described—the description was incorrect, but you can go from one I attic into all the rest, I think—I think there is a passage from one into the I other—I do not know whether you can go into any one you please without I going through another from the landing—I believe the children slept two in a bed—I was not there when James Andrews was—it was not my duty to go round I the sleeping-rooms every day, I did not do that; I have been into them—the beds in the attic were rather close to each other—the children in that attic I were not crowded—I have seen two in a bed, but not three—I went into this, I attic when the cholera broke out—it was after 29th Dec, I think the next I week; it was after 5th Jan.—I cannot give you any description of the site I of the attic—I cannot tell you how many beds there were—I had never been I in that range of attics previous to 5th Jan.—the cholera broke out on 29th I Dec., and on the 30th there were about a dozen cases, on 31st still more, sod I it gradually increased till the 5th, which was the climax—there were between I fifty and sixty fresh cases that day, and there must have been 200 altogether I—we then had several cholera wards—it gradually decreased from 5th Jan.—we had some new cases, but the number from 29th Dec. to 5th Jan. included, I was 200—I had an opportunity of seeing the bed-rooms when we were in a healthy state—there were certainly rather too many in the room that I west I into—I did not see them all—I went down one range—there were rather too I many children for a state of health—the numbers that were there might predispose them to take disease—I do not know the number that used to go into the day-rooms—I lived on the premises—all the children did not go into the I school-room—there were places were the infants, those below six or seven,

did not go—they were kept in their own wards, and there was an infant-school to which they went—I do not know how many infants there were in the establishment, there were a great number; very nearly half the children were infants—I saw the rooms to which the infants went; they did not appear over-crowded—I have been in them in the daytime, when the children were there, not in school-time—there are several rooms; they are called by the different nurses, wards—James Andrews was in one of the small boys' wards—there were four large day-rooms for the infants—I do not know bow many of the small boys were there—the predisposing causes to cholera are numerous—I consider that the congregating together of several individuals is a predisposing cause—I have not said that the establishment was over-crowded—I think the congregating together of individuals, not only in that establishment but in others, has been a predisposing cause to cholera—I do not allude to that establishment alone, but generally speaking to establishments where they are congregated together—I was there five weeks before the cholera broke out, and afterwards two—I did not form any opinion of the predisposing cause there except the congregating together of a large number—generally speaking, there was not over-crowding there—the over-crowding in those parts where there was over-crowding was a predisposing cause undoubtedly—the overcrowding was in the bigger boys' dormitories—I did not visit the little boys' dormitories—there was a little over-congregating together in the big boys' dormitories, and that is a predisposing cause—I saw Mr. Grainger when he came down there—he went over the establishment—he did not go into all the dormitories with me.

Cross-examined by SIR FREDERICK THESIGER. Q. You did not know James Andrews personally? A. No; I do not remember him, but I remember the name is the little boy's ward—he was in the sick ward a fortnight, and that is bow I recollect him—he went in on 8th Nov—he remained there, although he was not on the sick list—another sick ward was made, where the sick were placed, and that which was formerly the sick ward was kept for the little boys, and he was kept there—in the sick ward they had anything that I ordered them—I had power to order what I pleased—from 8th Nov. James Andrews would hare anything I chose to order for him, even porter, or any other support I thought fit—the establishment was generally healthy when I went there—there were very few ill in the boys' ward eight or ten; and in the girls and in the infants' ward there might have been an equal number—I cannot tell the exact number, but it was few compared with the number in the establishment—after I went there many children came with the itch upon them—I did my best to get rid of it—I cannot tell whether I succeeded, on account of the cholera breaking out, and the removal of the children—there were four rooms for the infants, boys and girls—the girls were separate from the boys, except the very little ones—they had the same room by day—the cholera broke out very suddenly indeed on 29th, without any preparation at all for it—I saw no premonitory symptoms—there bad been several cases of diarrhoea in Dec. as well as Nov—there are always some in the establishment—they had recovered from that before the cholera broke out—it then became ne-cessary to remove those who were attacked from the healthy ones—that necessarily created a confusion in the establishment—we had great difficulty in procuring nurses; they objected to come, after having agreed to do so—many failed to fulfil their promise—from 29th Dec. to 5th Jan. I did all in my power to arrest the progress of the disease—I was up night and day the whole time—Mr. Drouet was very axious to do all he could—it is plainly proved by experience this last winter, that congregating together is a predisposing

cause to receiving the cholera—it has raged principally in establishments—consulting the registrar-general's reports, it may be seen that it was so in no less than thirteen workhouses, lunatic asylums, prisons, ships, and so forth—up to the time the cholera attacked the establishment, the children appeared to be completely healthy—it is not to be expected that every child out of 1400 can be well—I never heard any complaint of coldness or of the diet from any of the children, or from the nurses—I never heard Mr. Drouet's character for kindness or humanity impeached—I nerer heard anything against him in the establishment, and I never heard anything one way or the other out of it—there were six adults in the establishment attacked with the cholera—three of them died—they were in good health before—the nurse of the ward where James Andrews was, in one who died.

MR. CHAMBERS. Q. What ward was James Andrews in? A. It was called Nurse Warren's ward—I only heard that Andrews slept in the attic—that was where some of the children from Nurse Warren's ward slept—that was the sick ward at the time he was taken ill, not the attic, the ward down stairs—I imagine that she attended those who slept in the attic—I saw her attend on Andrews in her own ward down stairs—that was long before be left the establishment, and then when he was ill he used to sleep in the tick ward, and she attended him there—he led there to sleep in the attic when the change was made, the last week in Nov., or first in Dec—that was when another sick ward was provided at the end of the building—I never west into the attic till after 5th Jan—James Andrews came on the sick list on 8th Nov., and was there about a fortnight—after that he mixed with the other children of the ward, and was no longer treated ass sick child—he had hit meals with them—the first time I had a medical man to assist me in attending to the children, to reside in the house, was 5th Jan., we had several daily visits—on the next day Messrs. Chapman, surgeons at Tooting, and surgeons to this establishment as well, were called in—they came in the day—I did not myself personally apply for nurses, I only heard it from those who went that none could be got—I believed it at the time—I have no memorandum of the number of cases of diarrhoea there were when I first went—there were forty-two during the month of Nov., and forty-five in Dec.—it is doubted whether diarrhoea is a premonitary symptom of cholera—some say it is, and some that it is not—I do not think it is in every case, not as a general rule—It was not at Tooting, because it did not exist—very few indeed of those who had had diarrhoea were attacked with cholera—I cannot give the exact number of the forty-five who were attacked with cholera.

COURT. Q. You say that in the first month forty-two cases arose, do you mean that they were different cases which occurred in that month, or that you had forty-two cases, the same cases throughout the whole month? A. Forty-two cases throughout the whole month—the majority of them were cured in the month—they generally lasted only a day or two, and then we had fresh cases, which filled up the number—in the next month we had forty-five; the majority of those were cured—a few of the forty-two were included in the forty-five—some had a repetition, and it was counted as a fresh case—perhaps fifty or sixty different children were attacked by diarrhoea in those two months—very few indeed of those were afterwards affected by cholerar—I could not find a dozen cases, therefore diarrhoea was no premonition of the cholera at all.

  HENRY WITHALL . I am the registrar of deaths for the parishes of Streatham and Tooting, and I have got the register-book from April, 1848, to

Jan., 1849—it contains the causes of death—there are no persons registered as having died of cholera in my district except at this establishment—my district comprehends the whole of the locality of Mr. Drouet's establishment

Cross-examined by SIR FREDERICK THESIGER Q. Does your district include Wandsworth? A. No portion of Wandsworth; the boundary of my district is about half a mile from a place called Somers' Town, where there bad been a few cases of cholera, but that did not lie within my district—there were several cases in Wandsworth parish, a portion of which abuts on my district, about half a mile, or not quite so much from this establishment

  RICHARD DUGARD GRAINGER, ESQ . I am a member of the College of Surgeons, and have been in the profession upwards of twenty-five years—I have been for some time lecturer at St. Thomas's Hospital, and am superintending medical-inspector under the Board of Health In consequence of holding that situation I was sent to Mr. Drouet's establishment on 5th. Jan—I saw Mr. Drouet there; I suppose I expressed to him that I was sent to make inquiry by the board of health; I said it doubtless to some one in the establishment, and I suppose to Mr. Drouet—I introduced myself, and the object of my visit—I went over some parts of the establishment on the Friday, not the whole—my attention was particularly confined to the cholera wards, where the cholera patients were—I also went into the school-rooms—after I had been round the wards, and seen the state of the cholera patients, I considered it my duty, as a public officer, to suggest what seemed to be desirable for the safety of the children—I believe I sent for Mr. Drouet, but I saw him, and stated that I thought there was not sufficient medical attendants, and recommended that he should have three additional qualified medical practitioners, and one physician of eminence, in whom the public would have confidence—I further suggested that there should be in every ward with more than twelve patients, four nurses, two for the day, and two for the night, and if there were less than twelve patients that there should be three nurses; and also that the wards should be less crowded, so that there should not be more than one patient in each bed.

COURT. Q. Did these recommendations result from the then state of the establishment being afflicted with cholera? A. They did—I did not see James Andrews at all.

MR. CHAMBERS. Q. Alter 5th Jan. I believe you visited the whole of the establishment? A. On the Saturday and Sunday, and again on the Wednesday—I saw both the healthy and unhealthy wards, the school rooms, and the dining rooms; that was quite with Mr. Drouet's consent, as I understood—I thought the dormitories were too crowded; I speak of the number of beds, not the number of children—I thought that there were too many beds, and that they were too close together—in my opinion that would be injurious—I thought the rooms were not properly ventilated, considering the number of inmates.

COURT. Q. Then the number of beds might have remained the same, if more ventilation had been given to the room? A. That is my impression; there were either too many beds for the ventilation, or not ventilation enough for the number of beds.

MR. CHAMBERS. Q. Was there the means of properly ventilating all the dormitories? A. In my impression there was not; there were nearly 1400 children there—I thought that the school rooms had not the proper means of ventilation, considering the number in the establishment—there were too many in the school-room—the school rooms were not sufficiently capacious—I formed an opinion as to the essential cause of the attack of cholera—my

opinion was, that the principal cause of the great mischief was the over. crowding of the establishment—I questioned several of the children believe that was with Mr. Drouet's permission—I made a great many inquiries—I cannot say whether he was present or not, but I think not—I afterwards saw the children belonging to St. Andrew's, Holborn, who had been taken from the establishment—I saw them by direction of the Board of Health, with Dr. Farr, at the Free Hospital, on 20th Jan.—the general appearance of the children was unhealthy—there were many exceptions-some were healthy children—a great many of them were wasted in the Iimbs, and had what is commonly called "pot-belly"—the great majority of them had marks of some sort or other on the skin, either from itch or chilblains—of fifty-five boys who were examined, forty-two had the itch; and of sixty-five girls, thirty-four had principally the itch, or some other disease of tie same kind, and six others were otherwise affected—we found that the pulse was weak, and that there were all the indications of a feeble state of system.

COURT. Q. The pulses of all were weak, were they? A. I do not know that we examined all, but there was a weak state generally—I cannot tell how many had a weak pulse; it was more than the ordinary weakness of childhood—as Dr. Farr examined the children in my presence, I marked down what was the matter with them—I cannot charge my memory at all as to the number of weak pulses.

MR. CHAMBERS. Q. From your examination could you at that time form a judgment whether they had been improperly or properly treated with respect to food? A. My impression was that they had been under-fed—tie pot-belly and wasted limbs are indications of that—the erruptions and sores are, I think, indications of neglect.

COURT. Q. Would itch result from not having enough to eat? A. No, not directly.

MR. CHAMBERS. Q. But from a low state of diet, and thinness of blood, would itch be likely to be engendered or caught? A. The fact is, it depends upon an insect, and feeding cannot create it—I have here notes which I made when I visited the establishment—my impression was, that the school rooms were not large enough for the children who were in them—I did not myself make measurements of them—I took no notice of the particular number of beds in the rooms, but I had measurements of the rooms sent me, with the number of beds.

  ARTHUR FARR, ESQ ., M.D. I have been in practice for several years—I am one of the medical professors of King's College—I accompanied Mr. Grainger to Mr. Drouet's on 25th Jan., at the request of the Board of Health, to examine into the condition of the remaining children—on 20th Jan. I examined the whole of the children of the Holborn Union that were at toe Free Hospital—I think 120 were presented to us for examination; their state was very various; the girls were in better health than the boys, which is almost always the case with children in workhouses—some had very tail limbs, and were pot-bellied—the complexion was pale, and the flesh soft; others, an appearance of health, such as I have generally seen in workhour I children, was observable—about two-thirds, or rather more, had some disease of the skin—the greater number of those being cases of itch, some in the wont or pustular form; some were suffering from broken chilblains, they decidedly differed from the usual appearance of workhouse children, that difference I consisted, in the first place, in the great prevalence of diseases of the axis comparing the condition of their skin with that of children in workhouses, a very remarkable contrast was observed—I never saw so large a number of

children affected with diseases of the skin, chiefly itch—I think I saw more itch in the eight days on which I examined these children than I have seen for three years past in the hospital to which I belong—forty-five per cent. was the entire number of cases of all the children examined that had either itch or some disease of the skin—that was the most striking feature with regard to their condition that I observed.

COURT. Q. Is it unusual to see thinness and pot-bellies in workhouse children? A. No; by no means unusual; it is a common appearance—the prevalence of itch in workhouses depends entirely on the mode of treatment to which children are subjected—I believe it is quite possible to prevent it in establishments for poor children—if a number of children are sent in with the itch, I should prevent others catching it, by keeping them in separate wards, and subjecting them to a treatment, which cures the disease generally in four or five days, but always in less than ten days, and not allowing them to go among the other children till they were perfectly well; I should, also, keep a strict watch upon them afterwards to detect the commencement of the disease, and to keep them perfectly clean.

MR. CLARKSON. Q. In your opinion, what was the cause of the appearance you observed about the generality of these children? A. In the first place, with regard to the prevalence of skin diseases, the neglect of those precautions to which I have alluded, and which ought to be taken in all establishments for poor children, because it would prevent not only itch, but other diseases common to children, which are not only communicated from the hands of one child to another, but also by the clothes; indeed, I believe it is more difficult to cure the clothes than it is to cure the disease—this disease being contagious if you once introduce a child into an establishment, it will spread from that child to a large number, perhaps, to the whole, therefore, the cause of this disease most be traced in the first instance to that introduction having taken place—I judge very much from the state of the skin of a child more than from any other part of the body, and the skin of these children certainly showed that they had not been well managed; they had not received that attention they required as to cleanliness—many of them were in a condition produced by a diet not suited to children, too much fluid and too little solid—a diet which is too fluid, where too much broth is allowed and too little meat, generally distends the belly and produces pot-belly—the usual allowance of meat to pauper children is three times a week, I think—a good deal will depend upon the management of children as to how often they require meat—if a child is much exposed to the air and takes a great deal of exercise it will require more meat than one who is kept in a sedentary position—a good deal will depend upon the mode of management; some require meat more than three times a week, with others it is sufficient—I think if these children had received a proper diet both in quantity and quality, they would not in so large a proportion as I observed have presented the pot-belly, the wasted limbs, and the flabby soft flesh—the flesh of a child should be firm, and the skin clear and healthy, and not rough as it was in many instances—I attribute this condition to insufficient diet as well as to a want of cleanliness—as far as the prevalence of the akin disease was concerned I attribute that in a very great degree to a want of cleanliness—I believe if they had been attended to, not one-fourth of the quantity of the diseases of the skin which I observed would have existed—I presumed from what I saw that the diet was not satisfactory, that it was unsuitable in point of quality and quantity—the skin of a child shows the nature of its feeding as well as the skin of an animal—you know by the skin of a horse whether it is well

fed, and you know by the skin of a child whether it is well-fed—I judge more by the skin than by any other part of the body how a child has been treated—with regard to the effect that ventilation, and those other matters which have been alluded to, would have on the state of the children, I offer no opinion—I think I ought to confine myself to the want of cleanliness and proper diet; my opinion is almost entirely confined to that—I think it possible that other circumstances may have been in operation to assist in producing the appearances, but I attribute them principally to the want of cleanliness and to unsuitable diet—the condition of the children improved as my visits became later—the state in which I first saw them would undoubtedly, in my opinion, have rendered them more subject to any virulent disease which might be prevalent—it would have predisposed them to cholera, typhus fever or any other disease that might be prevailing at the time—Mr. Grainger and I examined the children together—I did not go over Mr. Drouet's establishment with Mr. Grainger—I entirely confine my opinion with respect to the children to a want of cleanliness and allowance of food.

Cross-examined by SIR FREDERICK THESIGER. Q. When did you first examine the children of whom you have been speaking at the Free Hospital? A. Those belonging to the Holborn Union I saw on the 20th; I saw 120—I do not know what had become of the rest—I examined the whole of the 120—there were sixty-five girls—I think about twenty of the boys passed through my hands—thirty-four of the girls had the itch—they all had cutaneous disease, and in five cases out of six that disease was the itch; in others it was interigo—that is not allied to itch—almost all cases of itch may, under proper care, and with every facility for curing it, be cured in four or five days, and many in three—these children had been at the Free Hospital, I believe, nearly a fortnight when I saw them—I do not think many of them could have caught it in that fortnight from the form in which I saw it; because many of them had pustular itch, that is large collections of matter formed on the hand, which takes many days to form, and on other parts of the hand were the scan produced by the healing of those sore places, and many of them had evidently had the disease for a month or two—there would have been no difficulty in the doctors at the Free Hospital seeing those complaints in the form I am describing—it may be called itch in a chronic state, but we hardly apply that term.—we hardly draw a distinction between acute and chronic as applied to that disease; it is in one sense chronic—the advanced stage of that disease has no distinct appellation—pustules form and heal, and others form and heal, and so it spreads over the whole body, and may go on for months—I do not know how many doctors there are at the Free Hospital.

COURT. Q. Did you see anything on these children which might not hare been cured in a fortnight? A. The majority of them, I think might, with proper appliances, baths, and other means for cleansing the surface, separate rooms, and proper attendance, with those appliances, it might be cured in four or five days in the greater number of instances—I do not say that each patient should have a separate room, but a separate bed and separate linen.

  SIR FREDERICK THESIGER . Q. Who is the surgeon at the Free Hospatal, do you know? A. I do not; there are two—Mr. Wakley is one, and Mr. Jackson, I think, is the other—I mean young Mr. Wakley, not Mr. Wakley the Coroner, but his son.

COURT. Q. Did you ever know the disease called the itch, generate cholera? A. No, undoubtedly not, it is quite impossible—I never knew a short allowance of provisions generate cholera, but it greatly predisposes to cholera—I think it impossible that it could generate cholera—when I say it predisposes,

I mean that the constitution is enfeebled so that it is more liable to suffer from an attack by disease.

Q. So when you say that it predisposes to cholera, the same thing might he said of scarlet fever, putrid fever, or any fever by which the party might be attacked, either by infection or contagion? A. Yes; I think if a person has not sufficient food he will be more liable to take that disease which is prevalent at the time—if it be a cholera season he will be more likely to have cholera; if it be a typhoid season, he will be more likely to have typhus—if the constitution is prostrated it is more liable to suffer when attacked.

  THOMAS CARR JACKSON . I am house-surgeon at the Royal Free Hospital—I was there when the children were brought belonging to the Holborn Union—I examined them on 6th Jan.—I examined the boys more particularly—I have some memorandums which I made as to their appearance and state of health—they were examined on 6th, and re-examined again on 9th—a very large proportion of them, sixty-six I think in number, were passed in review, thirty-four of whom had eruptions, and six had sore feet—of those thirty-four having eruptions, the greater proportion were cases of scabies, others were doubtful, and others were what are termed cachetic eruptions, or cases dependent upon a low condition of the system—the larger proportion of them had pot-bellies and relaxed muscles—some were very healthy—they came under my care on 6th Jan.—they were not under my care especially—I saw them from time to time—I could not form any judgment at all whether previously to their coming to the hospital they had had an insufficiency of food—I should say from my observation of them that the quality of the food was not what it ought to have been; because taking them generally they were not in a good state of health—I can say nothing with, regard to lodging, because I know nothing of Surrey-ball, but they were certainly not sufficiently clothed when they were brought to the hospital—I am speaking more particularly now of the clothing of the boys—Dr. Farr and Mr. Grainger only saw 120 of the children, because some of the boys were ill in bed, and they did not see them—some of them also were in a part of the regular hospital, as we termed it, at that time, removed away, and I do not think they saw them—those they saw were able to walk—they were brought into the room to see them—they were medical cases—young Mr. Wakley had nothing to do with them.

Cross-examined by MR. BALLANTINE. Q. I suppose all the doctors and the surgeons likewise saw the patients? A. They might have seen them, but only the surgeons paid particular attention to them for treatment—on 6th Jan. I found out that several of the children had the itch—I took no method whatever of curing it at that time—I began to treat them after the confusion had subsided, and the urgency of the disease was relieved—I cannot exactly say when I began—I have no memorandum—I thought it important to cure them of the itch, but I thought they would be removed back to the workhouse immediately after the disease for which they were admitted had subsided.

Q. But what was there to prevent your beginning to work on the itch that very day? A. You must recollect that the great number of children brought into the hospital paralyzed us—they were brought into us at three hours' notice—the treatment of the itch is very simple; rubbing with sulphur ointment, cleanliness, and isolation of the patient, and attendants to rub the ointment in—you cannot depend on the children doing it themselves—in cases like that we depend upon the nurses—I do not know whether the clothes they came to the hospital in were the same in which they had gone to Mr. Drouet's—they kept those clothes on at the hospital until they got new ones—we have not at this moment, in a ward of twenty-eight persons,

fourteen with the itch—I examined a week ago, and found seven under treatment—I believe they are not cured yet.

MR. CHAMBERS. Q. Do you know how many of these children were actually affected with cholera when they first came in? A. Yes, there were attacked altogether eighty-seven, and out of those eighty-seven there were nine cases of collapse—it was impossible to treat them for the itch in the way that was necessary—the treatment for the itch is not consistent with tie treatment necessary for cholera.

COURT. Q. Did you see the children arrive? A. I saw them get out of the van, and gave orders about getting the rooms ready, the fires lighted, and so forth—the van seemed a proper thing to convey them in—it was perfectly closed in all round like an omnibus, from what I recollect.

MR. JAMES re-examined. There were three van—I was present when the children were put in—they were large open vans, such as are used for holiday-people, but covered entirely with large tarpaulins down to the wheels on each side, and with ample folds for the ends, so that they were entirely protected from the weather—I should think they could not have been cold in the vans—when they started it was very fine weather, and bad been a fine day, it was certainly a season when cold nights might be expected—I was acting under the direction of the medical officer—it did not begin to snow until we got to Clapham-common, which was half way—I was present when the children arrived at the Free Hospital, and there was nothing the matter with any of them, except some of the young ones were a little tired—I particularly inquired of the nurses as they were received how they were, and it was perfectly satisfactory—the girls had cloaks and bonnets, and there were likewise some blankets and things put into the other vans—they came in Mr. Drouet's clothes.

  SIR FREDERICK THESIGER , with MR. BALLANTINE, submitted that there was no case to go to the Jury; it being clear that the death being a consequent of the visitation of the cholera, and was not directly or immediately caused by any neglect of duty on the part of Mr. Drouet. MR. CHAMBERS contended that there was evidence for the Jury whether by the course of treatment pursued by Mr. Drouet he had so reduced and weakened the deceased as to render him less able to resist the attack of the cholera. MR. BARON PLATT, upon that question did not feel disposed to offer any opinion, but there was a part of the can which seemed to him to dispose of it altogether; the indictment charged that certain treatment was exhibited to the child, by reason of which its death was caused: now it certainly was necessary on the part of the prosecution to hut given some evidence to show that the child could probably have resisted this disease, if that treatment had not been exhibited. No evidence had beet adduced to show that the child might not have died of the cholera if that treatment had not been exhibited; and in the absence of such evidence, in his opinion, in point of lawt the prisoner ought to be acquitted.

NOT GUILTY .

(There were three indictments against the prisoner for killing and slaying three other children, upon which no evidence was offered.)