HC Deb 14 August 1882 vol 273 cc1674-5
MR. DALY

asked the Lord Advocate, Whether it is true that, by warrant of date of 8th of July, the Poor Law Authorities of Glasgow transmitted to Cork on 15th July a pauper named John Donnachie; whether it is true that John Donnachie had been resident in Glasgow for fourteen years; whether it is true that, previous to his admission to Glasgow "Workhouse Hospital, Donnachir had lived for three years and three months in Hyde Park Street, Glasgow, and had previously lived for one year and three months in McAlpine Street, and previous to that had lived one year in Forth Street, all three residences being in the same parish; whether it is true that, having spent two weeks in Glasgow Workhouse Hospital for medical treatment, and having claimed his discharge, employment being ready for him, he was detained in the workhouse for three days and brought before a magistrate, was then placed in the workhouse van and sent to the Railway station, placed on board a steamer at Greenock, and forwarded to Londonderry; and, whether the Poor Law Authorities of Glasgow acted legally in transmitting John Donnachie?

THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. B. BALFOUR)

Sir, on inquiry, I find that the Poor Law authorities of the Barony Parish of Glasgow, by warrant, dated 8th July, transmitted to Cork a pauper named John Donnachie. He was removed from Glasgow on 13th July, and arrived at Cork on the 15th. It is substantially true that Donnachie had been resident in Glasgow for 14 years. It is not the case, however, as appears both from the Inspector's report and from a written statement signed by Donnachie himself, that he was resident for more than one year and nine months previous to his chargeability in the same parish—namely, the parish of Barony. M'Al-pine Street is not in that parish, but in the City parish. It is true that on 11th July, after the warrant for his removal had been granted, Donnachie intimated his desire to leave the poorhouse rather than be removed to Ireland, and that, notwithstanding, his removal was proceeded with. The parochial authorities do not know whether there was employment ready for him or not. Donnachie had been previously chargeable to the parish in 1881. I am of opinion that if the parochial authorities had reason to believe that Donnachie's proposal to leave the poorhouse was not for the bonâ fide purpose of procuring his living by industry, and that he would immediately become chargeable again, they were justified in proceeding with his removal.