44 and 71. Captain MORRISON-BELLasked the President of the Local Government Board (1) whether he informed the relieving officer at Newton Abbot that he was not bound to carry out the lawful orders of the guardians; if so, whether he will explain why he treated in this way a body of men and women who are trying without fee or reward to do their duty to this board, to the ratepayers, and to the poor of the district; and (2) whether he is aware that the district auditor, at his audit of the accounts of the Newton Abbot Union, disallowed the sum of £5 4s. in respect of Jane Skerrett, a widow with two dependent children, which sum amounted to 4s. a week; that the Local Government Board gave as a reason for doing so that there were two sons living at home earning 15s. a week each; and that the woman, who had two small children to look after besides keeping house for the two sons, should have gone out to work, as she was only 53 years of age; will he say whether the Local Government Board informed the relieving officer that he was under no obligation to obey the orders of the guardians under Article 215 (No. 10) of the General Consolidated Order of the 24th July, 1847; and, if so, whether he will state in what respect the guardians exceeded their lawful rights?
§ Mr. HERBERT SAMUELThe answer to Question 44 is in the negative. The facts are generally as stated in the first two parts of Question 71. The third part of the question does not accurately represent the statement in the Board's letter. The district auditor made the disallowance on the grounds that there was no state of destitution requiring relief from the rates, the earnings of the family being sufficient for their support, and that the relieving officer had no authority in law to make the payment and charge it in his accounts. The Board, on appeal by the relieving 26 officer, confirmed the district auditor's decision. A board of guardians cannot lawfully order relief unless it is needed on account of destitution, and, on the view that the orders of the guardians for the relief in question were unlawful, the relieving officer was not bound by the regulations to give the relief ordered and could not legally charge for it in his accounts. The Board informed the relieving officer to this effect.