§ MR. BENNETT (Oxfordshire, Woodstock)To ask the President of the Local Government Board whether he is aware that a Local Government Board auditor recently surcharged a relieving officer of the guardians of Stow Union in respect of relief given by order of the Stow Board to a widow with two children, aged ten and eight, dependent on her; will he say what was the total income of the widow and children, and what 1636 was the amount of relief per week given for each child; whether the ground of the auditor's decision was that there were three sons of the widow living in the house who, in the auditor's opinion, could afford to keep the children; what were the earnings of the sons, and were they always in work; whether the sons were liable by statute to maintain their brothers, and, if not, whether the Local Government Board had made any order altering or extending 43 Eliz. so as to make persons of sufficient ability liable to keep their brothers and sisters; whether the Local Government Board considered that the three elder brothers had a living wage left after keeping their younger brothers as well as their mother; and what sum did the auditor reckon as sufficient for food and clothing of each child.
(Answered by Mr. John Burns.) I am aware of the case referred to. The woman is stated to have been housekeeper for her sons, five of whom lived at home. They earned £2 10s. a week and contributed 26s. a week towards the household expenses, besides paying the rent of the house. Three of them also assisted in providing clothing for the mother and two of the younger sons. The amount of the relief given was 3s. a week. The auditor stated as his reasons for his decision: (1) That there was no evidence of destitution laid before the guardians at the time the said relief was ordered to be given, and, as a fact, the said pauper was not in a destitute condition at that time or during the currency of the order and was not therefore a proper subject for the receipt of outdoor relief; (2) that there is no authority in law for administering the said relief or charging the amount of the same in the accounts of the relieving officer. The earnings of the three elder of the sons living at home amounted to 41s. a week when they were in full employ, but it is stated that their work is not constant; they lose on wet and short days. The sons were not liable to maintain their brothers, and no order of the Local Government Board has been made of the kind referred to in the Question. The auditor did not express any opinion as to what sum was sufficient for the food and clothing of each 1637 child. He came to the conclusion that the case was not one of destitution requiring relief out of the poor rate, and the Board concurred in this view.