View report page

23
1878. Oct. 16th—page 82, et seq.), which had been reprinted by order
of your Vestry for the use of the delegates, and in which I had mentioned
a case bearing on the hospital treatment of infectious diseases,
that had cropped up in the Tower Hamlets Registration Court.
It appeared that—
"Sometime in March the child of a householder contracted
small-pox, and that 'the sanitary authority of the district insisted
on her being removed to Homerton Hospital,' which is legally a
pauper establishment. On this ground one of the political
parties—it boots not which, for the question is above party—
objected to the man's vote. It was contended on the one side
that the 'relief' afforded to the man by the maintenance of his
child in a hospital supported by the poor rate was 'parochial'
relief; while on the other side it was contended that the fact of
the removal of the child having been compulsory rendered the
objection null. The opposing party, however, argued that poor
relief, whether voluntary or compulsory, was still poor relief,
and was, legally, fatal to the claim. The Revising Barrister at
first held that there was a great distinction to be drawn between
a man who of his own free will sought parish relief and one who
had it forced on him against his will, as appeared to be the case
here; but ultimately he decided that such relief was to all intents
and purposes parochial relief, notwithstanding that it was afforded
against the will of the recipient. But in order to disqualify the
voter for the franchise, the Revising Barrister said it must be
shown that parish relief had been afforded to a child under
sixteen years of age, and evidence on this point was not before
the court. He further held that the payment of the cost of the
child's maintenance from the district rate would not have been
sufficient to disqualify the claimant, hut that clear proof must be
given that it came from the poor rate. He decided to retain the
name of the claimant on the list."*
It was generally felt by the delegates that the occurrence of the
above case could not fail to have a good effect in furthering the object
* It appeared subsequently that the child was eight years of age only, and that
the expense of her maintenance was borne by the Guardians out of the poor rate. The
householder therefore saved his vote, not on the merits of the case, but simply
owing to the failure on the part of the objector to produce the evidence which was
necessary in order to his disqualification.