§ Mr. B. SMITHasked the Minister of Health whether he is aware that in the case of Rex v. Baddeley, ex parte Moore (Poor Law Officers' Journal, vol. XV, page 404), a conviction of a casual pauper for refusing to perform a task of stone-pounding was quashed as being then illegal in that casual ward; what are the names of the unions in which stone-pounding has been approved after this case; what were the dates of the approvals; and will he cause a specimen of the stone-pounding machines used in casual wards to be placed near the House of Commons for the inspection of Members?
§ Sir K. WOODIn the case to which the hon. Member refers the conviction was quashed, not because stone-pounding is an illegal task, but because the previous approval of the Local Government Board had not been obtained. I am sending the hon. Member the names of the Unions in which stone-pounding has been approved since the date of this case and the dates of the approvals. As to the last part of the question, my right hon. Friend regrets that he cannot comply with the hon. Member's request, but perhaps he would apply to one of the boards of guardians named in the list which T am sending him.