To The Editor Of The Time...
blr,-in v'oar hlansion-loee repott of Saturday last, the Lord Mlayor is represeuted to have reflected upon the coniduct of the over- seers of St. iMary, rhitechapel, for their inhumanity tswards .Mlary facey and her four infant children. As I took an actite part in tfiat businicss, I amn idetid with it; and it being the subect of conversation in the lttle circle in which I move, my respect for the opinion of miy feUow-parishioners makes me unwilling such a state. ment sould go forth to the public unanswered; and I rely upon your liberality to insert my explanation. The family in question, accompanied by one of my Lord Mayor's officers, presented theni- selves at the poor-house on the 25th of March, with orders of ad- mission, (not of rermoval), dated 6th ot February-vesy l oOr evi.. dence, indeed, of ,he liability of the parish to provide for the pau- pers, who might, in the lapse of six weeks, have become chargeable to other par4lhes, and such a conjecture was probable front thie va. grant life they had led in the interim; in the absence, therefore, of cearer evidence, I refused to receive them, remoarking to the ofiicer l-" They are not refused on account of your not having a regular order: but because we have no proof that their settlement is with us: if we had, wre should receive them without an orler, as it is our practice to overlook forms in all plain cases. As to the assertion of tearing the orders. it is wvholly false. I anm incapable of such vul- garsty; nor will I yield to any man, in disposition and devoteduess to reieve the distresses of my poorer fellow-creatures; but feel it equally my duty to resist every illegal removal, come fronr whence t may. The parish cannot relieve all applicants; tbr (to use his Lordship's words) " really if we were to act in this manner, (out of. the city>, I do not know what would become of us." Your obedient servant, WAL. MONK, Overseer af St. Mlarv's. Uz1c-mstrect, V tiUteQapel, Mlarch 29, 1824, TO THF7 E'DITOR Ok' 7H YTIARES.