Untitled

Nelson Evening Mail, Volume XLVIII, Issue XLVIII, 29 January 1913, Page 6

(To the Editor.) Sir, —The latest development of the controversy over the reduction of aid to a mother with five children bv £2 a month, because of alleged extravagance-, is Mr Baigent's attack on Mr "Lock ap paai'injr in last night's paper. It seems quite clear that no public body should object to publicity, and Mr Baigent is overlooking one of the greatest safe guards for t n "e people when he about this matter being discussed in the public press. If the Board is satisfied that it is right then it should court the opportunity to justify itself, if it is trying to cover up an arrant piece of bumbledom then the public have a right to know about it. This much is certain, that if the mother were a widow, the Widows' Pension Fund would provide her with £lB per year for herself and 5s per week for each child, equal in her case to over £6 per montTl. As she is only a woman with a missing husband th© "Charitable" Charitable Aid Board first allowed her £4 a month, and has now cut that down to £2 per month. So far as the need for aid is concerned it is the same in both cases. The fact that the woman's husband is alive is of no real benefit to her when the police cannot produce him, he contributes nothing to her upkeep. As a "grass" widow she receives £2, as a holus-bolus widow she wouH receive £6 per month—a striking comparison between local and national charity. It will be a monstrous task for