Andover Union : extracts from the Report of the Select Committee of the House of Commons and an epitome of the evidence on the cases of Mr. Parker and Mr. Day, late Assistant Poor Law Commissioners.

  • Great Britain. Parliament. House of Commons. Select Committee on Andover Union.
Date:
1847
Catalogue details

Licence: Public Domain Mark

Credit: Andover Union : extracts from the Report of the Select Committee of the House of Commons and an epitome of the evidence on the cases of Mr. Parker and Mr. Day, late Assistant Poor Law Commissioners. Source: Wellcome Collection.

    25/126 (page 19)
    44.) I do not say it might be possible for Mr. Parker to have closed each charge, or set of charges, as they came on, but the length of the inquiry would not have been so great if he had done so. {Head, 14370). Mr. Christie. On the 13th of September Mr. Parker wrote to you, “ The charges against the Master and Matron being dis¬ tinct in their character, it was arranged at the commencement of the inquiry that the evidence in support of, and in reply to, each charge should be completed before the next case was pro¬ ceeded with ?”—That was not done. “ It was obvious that the Master could not be prepared to rebut charges of so general a nature as those contained in Mr. Westlake’s letter of the 16th of August, and I therefore ex¬ pressed an opinion that the Master should be put in possession of such particulars as would be required in an information be¬ fore a justice of the peace. Mr. May, who appeared on Mr. Westlake’s behalf, undertook to furnish the Master’s solicitor with specific information of the charges contained in that letter, and I very naturally expected that he would not fail to keep his promise. Various excuses for not furnishing this information were daily given, and ultimately Mr. May denied that the Master had any f right, legally or morally,’ to receive such information as he had previously promised to supply. Under these circum¬ stances I felt it necessary to hear the evidence in support of each charge contained in the letter of the 16th of August, and when 1 found myself compelled to adopt this course, I intimated to the parties that when the evidence in support of all these charges had been received, I should adjourn the inquiry to enable the Master to prepare his defence.” So that Mr. Parker, in that, gave you an explanation of the reason why he had not persevered in the arrangement he made ?-—That arrangement was four days subsequently to the doubts. By that arrangement were those doubts dispelled or not ?—J cannot say they were entirely. Mr. Parker had been much pressed by Mr. Westlake’s counsel not to wait till the evidence in support of one charge was con¬ cluded before going to the evidence in support of another, and a distinct one ?—It is very possible. {Head, 14562-5). Mr. Parker took the cases separately, and adhered to that course. (May, 21150). Another objection that I had to the