§ MR. POULETT SCROPEsaid, that it would be in the recollection of the House that, on the recent debate on the Irish Poor Law, a statement was made, that under the operation of it a great number of houses, with several hundreds of inhabitants, had been pulled down without any previous legal notice of ejectment, and great distress and misery had resulted from these proceedings; but doubts were expressed as to the accuracy of this statement. He had, however, on that morning received a letter which confirmed the statements previously made, and which stated that in many parts houses had been pulled down, and the poor persons ejected had been left to perish in the ditches, or to wander about the country in a state of the most abject destitution. In addition to this, in the papers respecting the Irish Poor Law delivered yesterday, he found ample evidence of this. In a letter of Mr. Horsley, the poor-law inspector of the Milford union, he found a passage which clearly showed the destruction of houses. It stated that—
Destitution is frightfully on the increase. There is no employment for the ablebodied poor; and I fear it will be necessary for the Commissioners to authorise very shortly outdoor relief to that class. Numbers of them have given up their small holdings to the landlords, and their houses have, in very many instances, been thrown down. Indeed the classes eligible to outdoor relief, under the 1st section of the Act, cannot be turned out of the house to make room for the ablebodied, as they have no place to go to for shelter from the winds of heaven. Within the last three months almost every landlord or occupier has, on the admission of such parties to the workhouse, instantly levelled their wretched hovels with the ground, thus making permanent paupers of those classes. It would not be affirming too much to say there has been a rate to get these classes into 857 the workhouse for the purpose of clearing the parcular lands of them.He would read another extract from a letter of the poor-law inspector of the Milford union. ["Order, order!"] He only intended to read some extracts from the poor-law papers issued yesterday.
§ MR. SPEAKERconsidered the hon. Member was not in order. The hon. Member had given notice of his intention to put a question, and in doing so he had no right to make a statement beyond what was absolutely necessary to explain the question. The hon. Member was not justified in going into circumstances which would give rise to discussion.
§ MR. POULETT SCROPE, under these circumstances, would at once go to the statement of Major M'Kie, who had been requested by the Poor Law Commissioners to make inquiries as to the ejectments which had taken place. It was dated February 19, 1848, and was page 466 of the blue book. It was as follows:—
It would appear from the evidence recorded, that these forcible ejectments were illegal; that notices had not been served; that they were perpetrated under circumstances of great cruelty; the time chosen for the greater part nightfall, the eve of the new year—
§ SIR ARTHUR BROOKErose to order. He appealed to the Chair whether the hon. Gentleman was justified in getting up in that House and making attacks on the landed proprietors of Ireland in such a way that they would have no opportunity of replying?
§ MR. SPEAKERmust declare that the hon. Gentleman had exceeded the limits necessary for putting a question. If hon. Gentlemen made statements longer than was necessary to make their questions clear and intelligible, it would seriously embarrass the business of the House.
§ MR. POULETT SCROPEsaid, that he could have obviated the difficulty by bringing the subject forward on reading the Order of the Day. He would, however, then simply put the question of which he had given notice. He wished to ask the right hon. Baronet the Secretary of State for the Home Department, "whether any steps are being taken or contemplated by Government for the prosecution of the parties concerned in the illegal destruction of several houses, and the forcible ejectment of their inmates, which took place in the union of Galway on or about New Year's day last, and which occasioned the deaths of several of the unfortunate beings so ill- 858 treated; as appears by the evidence taken on oath before Major M'Kie, poor-law inspector for that union, at the request of the Commissioners, printed in page 467 of the fifth series of papers, relating to the relief of distress and state of the unions in Ireland?"
§ SIR G. GREYhad read with great pain and regret a statement in the volume of correspondence lately laid before the House, relating to the destruction of houses in Galway, just referred to by the hon. Gentleman. At the same time, he could not undertake to say that the hon. Gentleman had quite fairly stated the case, for he did not think it was to be inferred from that correspondence, that the destruction of those houses did occasion the deaths of the individuals referred to. The question was, "whether Government had taken any steps for the prosecution of the parties concerned in the illegal destruction of several houses, and the forcible ejection of their inmates? "Major M'Kie, who took evidence on oath on the authority of the Poor Law Commissioners, had stated that in several cases previous notice of ejectment had not been served; but he was sorry that the learned Attorney General was not in his place to speak to this point, as any opinion of his own on the legal question must necessarily have little weight with the House. He was not aware that the parties had rendered themselves liable, by the destruction of these houses, to any prosecution that could be instituted against them by the Poor Law Commissioners. He apprehended that, if a landlord did destroy a house, without complying with the previous requisites that the law required, he would lay himself open to a civil action; but he was not sure that a criminal action would lie against him for such an act; and he believed that no proceedings of the nature adverted to by his hon. Friend could be legally taken by the Poor Law Commissioners.