ABSTRACT
A CASE which lately came before the judges at the Bedford Assizes is a melancholy illustration, not only of the impolicy of a soldier marrying without leave, but of the stupidity with which our Poor-law is occasionally administered. It seems that four years ago a soldier quartered at Weedon married a poor young creature who was only sixteen. He was then ordered to Newcastle, and had to leave his wife, with three children and another expected, behind him. The man appears to have done his best to support his family, for he sent his wife three shillings and sixpence a week out of his pay. This is but a scanty sum to keep four people and a prospective fifth; and it is not surprising that the woman applied to the guardians for a supplementary allowance. This, however, was refused: the poor woman had a husband, who was bound to support her; if she had been only his paramour, the case would have been different! There is no contesting the logic of this reasoning; but its results would have been more satisfactory if, while the matter was pending, two of the children had not died of sheer starvation! It is only fair to say that the assistant-overseer helped the family at his own expense, and the after conduct of the parochial authorities showed that “the mischief was wrought” more "by want of thought” than by “want of heart.” But no official regret or censure of juries can restore the soldier’s children to their parents. As a contemporary remarks, what should be done with soldiers’ wives is no doubt a difficult question. But the fact that she is legally married seems an insufficient reason for allowing her children to starve!
