§ Mr. DIXONsaid, he would beg to ask the President of the Poor Law Board. Whether his attention has been called to the following facts—namely, that on the 16th instant, the Chairman and four other members of the Birmingham Board of Guardians were summoned by the District Poor Law Auditor for a surcharge of £8, and ordered to pay the amount, that sum being the cost of conveying Sarah Simpson and her eight children to Liverpool, in order that they might be shipped thence to the United States, the husband, who was living there, having paid the passage money; that the Board of Guardians passed a resolution requesting their Chairman not to pay the surcharge, and that the Poor Law Board was appealed to, but declined to sanction the payment of the £8 by the Board; and, whether, if the alleged facts are true, the President of the Poor Law Board will state the grounds on which the appeal was refused, and a surcharge ordered to be made?
§ MR. GOSCHEN, in reply, said, his attention had been called to the facts mentioned in the hon. Gentleman's Question through the usual channels of information, as well as by the hon. Member himself and his right hon. Colleague in the representation of Birmingham. The facts in themselves were correctly stated, although being placed not in a proper order they were calculated to give an erroneous impression of the transactions referred to. No appeal had been made to the Poor Law Board since the summons had been issued, and there had been no correspondence on the matter since January, beyond a letter written to the district auditor, asking whether the sum referred to had been paid. The case, he might add, was not a new one, for the £8 had been spent as far back as August, 1867. There was, also, one fact which was not mentioned in the enumeration of facts contained in the Question, and which was most material. The fact to which he alluded was that the guardians asked, in the first instance, whether the Poor Law Board would sanction the payment. The Board replied that it would be contrary to the regulations to do so, but the guardians, nevertheless, after that information, chose to incur the responsibility. He would presently state why it was that the Poor Law Board had refused their sanction in the matter; but he should first say that the Order refusing the surcharge was issued on the 14th of December, two days before he took charge of the Department. A letter had since been received from the guardians asking for re-consideration. The opinion of counsel had been taken on a previous occasion, upon the question whether such Orders could be rescinded, and that opinion was in the negative. They were in the nature of judicial decisions. The matter, therefore, had been finally closed when he came into Office. He had been asked on what grounds the Poor Law Board refused to remit the surcharge. The grounds were that the United States had expressed dissatisfaction at having paupers sent there, as he had once before stated to the House. There were remonstrances on the subject, and the Poor Law Board were, therefore, obliged to establish the regulation which had given such offence to the guardians. It was not the policy of the Board to oppose emigration in the least, but they 1903 had found it necessary to make the regulation in question. He himself was most anxious to modify it if it could be done. The Guardians, he hoped, would not continue their protest against the Order, which he trusted, after this explanation, they would feel to be unnecessary.