View report page

23
occupied one room at a weekly rental of 5s. 9d. The income of the
family was given as " The Dole " 21s. and a grocery ticket from the
Guardians value 5s. The father was out of work. A second child
was born in November, 1923. In 1923 and 1924, twenty-two
grants were made of the value of £15 5s. 0d. A second and third
application were made in 1925. Another child was born in November,
1925.
6. The first application was made in October, 1922. The
family consisted of the parents, one of the mother's children by a
former marriage, one illegitimate child, and 5 of the father's children
by a former marriage. The ages of the 7 children ranged from 2 years
to 16 years. The father was employed at a railway at a weekly wage
of 58s. The mother had a "permanent" tracheotomy tube in her
throat. Many grants were made in 1922, 1923 and 1925. This
family later adopted another little girl aged 2 years, who had
apparently been abandoned by its mother, and a grant of milk was
subsequently applied for and granted in respect of this last child.
7. The first application was made in June, 1923. The family
consisted of the parents only, who received poor law relief. The
mother was expectant. The first child was born in November, 1923.
A second child was born in March, 1925. Grants were made almost
continuously in respect of these children at a cost of nearly £25. The
father was out of work nearly the whole of this period. They
occupied one room at a weekly rental of 4s. 8d.
8. The first application was made in February, 1922. The
family consisted of the parents and 6 children with ages ranging
from 5 weeks to 8 years. They occupied two rooms at a weekly
rental of 10s. The weekly income was stated to be 50s. Frequent
grants were made up to 1924. A seventh child was born in May,
1923, and an additional child in January, 1925. By this time the
father was out of work and in casual employment only. He was
said to have been dismissed for assaulting a fellow worker. He had
been taken back on account of his large family but was again dismissed
for bad time keeping due to an alleged fictitious illness. His
employers stated that "he does not intend to work as he is better off,
we understand, while unemployed, having a disability allowance,
drawing unemployment dole and also having an allowance from the
Guardians."