VISCOUNT DUNCANrose to put a question to the Secretary for the Home Department relative to the Castlebar union. The newspapers of that morning stated that the Lord Lieutenant and twelve other magistrates of Mayo had been dismissed by the Government from their offices of guardians of the Castlebar union. He wished to know whether that statement was correct? He further desired to know what steps had been taken to supply the vacancies caused by the dismissal of the guardians; whether any instructions had been issued with respect to the collection of 1,079l., the amount of poor-rate said to be due in the union; or with respect to levying a fresh rate?
§ SIR G. GREYstated, that the board of guardians of the Castlebar union had been dissolved, not by the Government, but by the Poor Law Commissioners, under the power vested in them by the Irish Poor Law Act. The Poor Law Commissioners had likewise taken the stop prescribed by law in consequence of that dissolution—they had directed that other guardians should be elected. The election of the guardians would take place in the usual manner, provided for by the Act of Parliament. As the new board of guardians had not yet had an opportunity of discharging their duty, the Poor Law Commissioners would not, of course, be warranted in proceeding to do what they were resolved to do in the event of a second failure in the 1354 execution of their duty by the Castlebar board of guardians, namely, to appoint paid guardians. If the noble Lord had given notice of his intention to put the question, he (Sir G. Grey) would have brought down to the House the letter on the subject which he had received from the Poor Law Commissioners; but that document would be printed with other papers, and would be in possession of hon. Members in the course of a few days.
§ MR. P. SCROPEwished to know whether, in consequence of what had occurred in the Castlebar union, the Government had it in contemplation to institute a prosecution of the guardians, who, during the last three months, had been suspending relief to able-bodied paupers, and shutting the workhouse door in their faces, in consequence of which a large number of persons had died from starvation within the limits of the union, as was recorded by coroners' inquests in upwards of 100 cases. He wished to know whether the Government intended to prosecute those guardians for their heinous neglect of duty?
§ SIR G. GREYsaid, that he was not in possession of any information which authorized him to state that such a prosecution as that to which the hon. Member had alluded had been instituted, or was contemplated. When the papers should be laid upon the Table, the hon. Member would know all the circumstances of the case.
§ MR. P. SCROPEwished to know whether the right hon. Gentleman thought that the Government had it in their power to institute a prosecution against the dismissed guardians? Were the guardians legally responsible for their conduct?
§ SIR G. GREYsaid, that he could not answer the question.
§ MR. F. FRENCHcondemned the practice of making attacks upon individuals under cover of questions proposed to a Minister of the Crown. If the hon. Member had any charge to prefer against the late board of guardians, let him bring it forward in the shape of a Motion, which would afford their friends an opportunity of defending them.
§ MR. P. SCROPEsaid, that he had not the slightest intention of bringing any charge against the Castlebar guardians. He merely wished to know whether the right to out-door relief existed in Ireland; because, if it did not, he would endeavour to persuade the Government and the House to establish it by the Bill which he had given notice of his intention to introduce.