The Sun.
London, England, 1835-02-14 00:00:00

G UILDHALL.

Mr. Miller, the assistant overseer of St. Sepulchre's, a
tended to answer the complaint of a cab-driver, named
Mortimer, who had lately married a widow of the name of
Scott, who had three children chargeable to the above pa-
rish. The facts came before Sir C. MARSHALL and Mr.
Alderman LUCAS, a few days since, the parish insisting on
enforcing the new Poor Act, as to making a man, who mar-
ries a widow, chargeable with the maintenance of her first
husband's children, and the Magistrates resisting the ap-
plication, as contrary to policy and humanity,
Sir C. MARSHALL, on seeing the parties again, remem-
bered the whole matter. The parish had taken the widow's
eldest boy into the poor-house, and allowed her 2s. a week
to support the other two ; but upon her marrying, the pa-
rish stopped her allowance, and sent home the eldest child.
The stepfather refused to take the latter, and urged that he
was of an age to be apprenticed, above fourteen years old,
and that the parish ought to apprentice him. The parish
wished to remove him to the stepfather's settlement under
the new Act, but the Magittrates put it to the discretion
and good sense of the overseers whether, upon closing their
accounts with this pauper, they could not afford a 5/. fee
to learn this boy a trade. He might be passed to another
parish, but as this was liable to maintain him only till he was
sixteen, when he would return to St. Sepulchre's, had they
not sufficient interest to apprentice him ? It was for the
benefit of the inhabitants of St. Sepulchre, as well as of
the boy and of his stepfather, that the parish should ap-
prentice him.
The clerk observed, that if St. Sepulchre's apprenticed
the boy they would give him a settlement elsewhere. If
they did not apprentice him he might not learn a trade. St.
Sepulchre's would be liable to support him after a few
months, and, perhaps, in fifteen years, he might bring a wife
and children to be supported by St. Sepulchre's for the rest
of their lives.
Mr. Miller replied, the clerk was supposing a case which
might not happen. The boy might not live, or the " De-
structivesn might get the upper hand, and alter the law of
settlement again, or the boy might be able to support him-
self and children too. By the new law, framed according
to the highest authority, by gentlemen who had the most
profound knowledge of everything, this boy was not now
chargeable to St. Sepulchre's, and possibly might never be
• chargeable again. Why, then, should St. Sepulchre's ex-
pend Si. or 101. in learning him a trade ? He. wished to
show deference to the Bench, but having a better know-
ledge of the applicants than the Magistrates, he could not
accede to their recommendation. The man was determined
to conceal what parish he belonged to, so that if he should
desert her, which was not improbable, St. Sepulchre's would
have to support his wife and family, though they clearly
belonged to some other parish, and it was only by accident,
such as this application about the boy, that the knowledge
of the husband's parish would be attained. It was very
material for St. Sepuichre's that this fact should be ascer-
tained, and he, therefore, refused to give any apprentice-
fee, but he was ready to pass the first husband's children
to the second husband's parish, if he was unable to sup-
port them.
Sir C. MARSHALL knew St. Sepulchre's were not
bound to apprentice the boy, but he believed it to be ex-
pedient that they should do so, and he thought they should
temper the law with humanity and discretion. As a work-
ing man, the new husband had a hard bargain in taking two
children with the widow.

Some questions were then put to the husband, who
persevered in refusing to tell what parish be belonged to,
and intimated that he should expect the allowance of two
shillings a week to be renewed, in addition to apprenticing
the boy.
This somewhat changed Sir Chapman's desire to relieve
him, but did not alter his opinion of the expediency for the
parish to adopt the recommendation he had before given.
Mr. Miller asked whether he could not punish the hus-
band for threatening to leave his family ?
The clerk said that the law had been repealed.
Mr. Miller still refusing to bind the boy the husband and
wife quitted the room, declaring that they would run away
together and leave the three children to the parish of- St.
Sepulchre.
Mr. Fish, of Lisle-street, Leicester-square, complained
of the indifference with which he had been treated at the
General Post-office upon complaining of a letter, containing
a sovereign and country notes to the amount of 731., having
been stolen. He said his son was travelling for him, and
paid 2s. for the postage of the letter, as a money letter, at
Winchester, on the 11th of January. It did not come to
band, and on complaining at the Post-office, he was told the
Postmaster should be written to. The next time he called
he was told the Postmaster had no recollection of the letter,
and had not put such a one on his way bill, as he should
have done in due course with any money letters. The Post-
master was written to a second time, but no farther intelli-
gence was obtained, and he had called four or five times
since, and had been treated with great indifference and peel-
ness, and was told he might call again, Having written to
Lord *m7llol.ollop i thl3 aphlect, his Lordship had an-
swered ihat he 1144 inquired into the eireurnstanees,that no
blame attached to the Post-ofoe, and that ho could not do
anything in it, Now, in his (Mr. Fish's) opinion his Lord-
ship should not have come to any conclusion till he per-
sonally confronted the Winchester Postmaster with his son.
Mr. Fish said he wished to know what steps he should take
to do himself justice.

Vv
Sir CHAPMAN MmtsHAT,I, said 4 Ival ;0 1 Lis I:,,oviv
to assist Mr. Fish—lN 40 better take the advice of
.o• •
qpl49lOF.
Mr. Pig' said 4 lawyer would be sure to advise him to go

to law, and that would probably end in increasing the loss.
—(A laugh.)
Sir CHAPMAN said that still they were much obliged to
the lawyers for their assistance at times. He could not give
him better advice.
In answer to a question, Mr. Fish admitted he had re-
ceived safely 50,000/. in remittances through the Post-
office.