§ LORD EDMUND TALBOT (Sussex, Chichester)I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board, with reference to the case of Arthur Blow and the Sculcoates Guardians, whether the attention of the Local Government Board was called to this case in January 1896, and why they did not reply till June of the same year, when they said the district auditor must first deal with the case; also why the district auditor did not deal with it till February 1891; will he also state why, although the district auditor surcharged the relief granted because the orders of the Local Government Board had not been carried out, the Local Government Board have now remitted the amount surcharged; and why, as this boy came under the Boarding-out Orders of 1889, did not the Local Government Board insist on the Guardians carrying out those orders when the case was first brought to their notice?
§ THE SECRETARY TO THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. T. W. RUSSELL, Tyrone, S.)When the attention of the Local Government Board was drawn by Mr. King to the case referred to, in January 1896, the Board made inquiry of the Guardians as to the facts, and several communications passed between the Board and the Guardians on the subject. After this correspondence the Board were advised that they were 1225 not empowered to remove the child from the care of the person with whom he had been placed by his mother, but that the question of the legality of the payment by the Guardians for the child could be determined if the sum paid were disallowed by the district auditor. The Board accordingly informed Mr. King, in June 1896, that it was open to him to attend before the auditor and to object to any payment that might have been made by the Guardians in the case. The auditor, in February 1897, which, as I understand was the first audit at which objection was taken to the payment, disallowed the sum charged in the accounts of the relieving officer in respect of the relief. On an appeal to the Board, they held that the payment was illegal, but they considered that the circumstances were such that the relieving officer should not be held personally liable, and having regard to the fact that the officer had only recently been appointed, that he had acted under the instructions of the Guardians in the matter, and that he was not aware that the relief was illegal, the Board, in the exercise of their equitable jurisdiction, remitted the disallowance. As to the third Question, the Board, as I have stated, were advised that they were not empowered to comply with the request for the removal of the child, and that the course which should be adopted was that which was suggested to Mr. king.