The Sun.
London, England, 1865-02-04 00:00:00

Four ran.
lIUNTERS' STAKES.

Rivet
Miss Joyce
Dubious

1

Eight ran.
OPEN STEEPLECHASE.

Ibex
Ladbrooke Lass
Pigeon .

Eleven ran.

Health of Cardinal Wiseman.

On making inquiries this evening, the answer
was that His Eminence was still in the same con-
dition.

A supplement to the Gazette was published this
evening, containing a list of the Sheriffs appointed by her
Majesty in Council, for the year 1865, in England and
Wales.
POOR LAW INQUlRY.—Yesterday the Board of
Guardians of the Strand Union received a commu-
nication from the Poor Law Board stating the result of the
investigation which has been made by Mr. Farnall, the
Poor Law Inspector, into the case of Mary Gibbs. It
appeared from the evidence adduced that Mary Gibbs,
residing in the parish of St. Anne, Soho, within the ambit
of the Strand Union, was deserted by her husband, a jour-
neyman baker, who was alleged to have gone away in
s3arch of work, whereupon the landlord seized her goods
and turned her out of the house. Having neither home
nor food she applied at the offices of the Strand Union,
Bow-street, for relief. She was there told that Mr. Lock-

hart, the relieving-officer, was absent, and she had better
apply at the workhouse in the evening. It could not be
ascertained who told her this, but it being past 12 o'clock
Mr. Lockhart would have been absent at the time. On ap-
plying at the workhouse in Cleveland-street she alleged she
was told that as she had no order she could not be admitted,
but that as:she then stood in St. Pancras parish (the work-
house of the Strand Union being locally in St. Pancras)
she must apply at the St. Pancras Workhouse. On going
to St. Pancras Workhouse she was admitted into the casual

ward. The next morning, on inquiries being made, she was
told that as she had resided in the Strand Union she must
apply there for relief. On making application at the Strand
Union offices, Bow-street, sho was told that as she had
slept in St. Pancras she must apply to St. Pancras for relief,
L and she had to return to St. Pancras Workhouse, where she
is now staying, there being difficulties in the way of re-
moving her to her husband's parish. These circumstances
having been brought under the notice of the Poor-law
Board, Mr.Farnall was directed to investigate tho matter, and
the following letter of the Poor Law Board to Mr. Milner,
clerk to the Board of Guardians, Strand Union, states the
result :—" Poor Law Board, Whitehall, Jan. 31.—Sir,—I am
directed by the Poor Law Board to inform the guardians of the
Strand Union that they have received from their inspector,
Mr. Fanaall, a report on the inquiry which he held into the
case of Mary Gibbs, together with a copy of the evidence
taken by him. The Board have carefully considered
cthke
evidence given in the case by Mary Gibbs and by
Lock-
hart, and other officers of the Strand Union, and o theyofficers
as
of opinion that no blame is attributable to these
application
regards their proceedings on Mary Gibbs's first
hergoirPto have
for relief, as they do not appear to have seen
As, however'
been informed of her application on that
5 for relief had
Mary Gibbs up to the time of her applicationiaving Mr. Loare
been deserted
been living in the Strand Union, ai
i to have received relief
destitute, it is clear that she ought
f her failure to obtain it is
from that Union. The cause of
She alleges that she
goes out to visit the poor ;
by her husband and turned out of and, having
was undeniably
not distinctly shown by the
Bow-street after the hour (12.'
o and was told by some persons that
that she asked for him
he
one there to attend to e ease, and that she
there was no
o'clock)a p l applied atat thewh
ich relieff 0.. iLce cskihnarßt
must apply in the evening at the workhouse. It is,
however,stated by Mr. Lockhart that when he goes out at
o'clockl2
there is an assistant relieving officer on the
premises whose duty it is to receive applications for
relief in his absence, and if he is out of the way there is
another relieving officer on the premises who would take the
duty. If in the absence of Mr. Lockhart Mary Gibbs had
Her
have
made her application to one of the other two officers there
seems no reason why it might not have been then duly at-
lbi cae
etni application
madefor
in reliefth e at the
eveningw oarbkchatotu7s.enis,
stated
d b
yt o
h.er t a
and it is proved by the late porter that he was there in attend-
ance at the gate, but that though the bell of the workhouse
was rung repeatedly (as entered on his book), about the
time at which Mary Gibbs says she rung it, he did not
see her, nor did she make application to him for admission
into the workhouse: From whatever‘eireumstances the
failure of Mary Gibbs to obtain relief may be attributable,
this result must be considered unsatisfactory, and every care

should be taken to prevent such an occurrence again. For
this purpose the Board would suggest that the relieving
officer should be enjoined strictly to observe the regulations
as to the attendance at the office in Bow-street, which have
been properly laid down by the Guardians, and that all per-
sons at the office should be instructed to refer any applicants
for relief to any one of the officers who may be in attend-
ance, and in the event of the accidental absence of all of
these that the applicant should remain until their return, iu
order that the applications might be properly dealt with. The
Guardians should also give positive orders that not only the
porter, but any other persons temporarily in charge of the
gate of the workhouse should not send awayanypersonsap
plying for admission without informing the master, and .
re-
ceiving his directions as to the mode in which the ci!se is to
bedisposed of.—l am, ch., CHAS. GLLPIN, Secretary.