POOR REMOVAL.—QUESTION. (Hansard, 6 February 1863)

§ MR. HERBERT
rose to ask the President of the Poor Law Board the Question of which he had given notice, Whether any Circular has been addressed by the Board calling the attention of Boards of Guardians in England to the provisions of the Act 24 & 25 Vict., c. 76, relating to the removal of Irish Paupers 169 from England to Ireland; and, if so, whether he will have any objection to lay such Circular upon the table of the House? The subject was one of very great importance," both to this country and Ireland. It would be remembered that during the Session of 1861 two Acts passed—one altering the law of removability which was applicable to English and Irish paupers seeking relief, and the other regulating the mode of removal of poor persons from Ireland to England. In the English Poor Law Report presented last Session he found detailed at considerable length the particulars of the Acts passed relating to the change made in the law of irremovability; but there was no trace in the Report or Appendix of the President of the Poor Law Board having called the attention of boards of guardians to the Acts relating to removals from England to Ireland. He was the more astonished that no notice should have been taken of that Act because he could not suppose that his right hon. Friend who showed such a laudable anxiety for the passing of the Acts of last Session should have allowed them to have been totally inoperative. He presumed, therefore, there was some circular or notice taken of this Act by the President of the Poor Law Board, which he had not thought it necessary to embody in his Report. So far hack as the 30th of November, 1861, a correspondence took place between the Irish Government, the Home Office, and the Office of President of the Poor Law Board, in which the Irish Poor Law Commissioners said— It was not until some time after the passing of the recent Acts that any removal to Ireland took place under them. Removals are now, however, beginning to be frequent; and the Commissioners regret to say that among the 29 cases which have come under their notice, involving the removal of 67 persons to the present date, there are very few in which some irregularity or disregard of the lave is not apparent on the face of the proceedings, sometimes attended with injustice and loss to the unions in this country, and in other cases with hardship to the persons removed. Considering the great importance which, under existing circumstances, this system of pauper deportation may assume, the Commissioners think it their duty to present the cases referred to in detail, with copies of the several warrants of removal which have been received, in the hope that possibly some step may be taken in order to secure greater attention to the actual state of the law on the part of the removing authorities in England. He would only quote one case as an illustration of many—the case of Catherine 170 Griffin, removed from Leigh, in Lancashire. In the month of March she was placed on the deck of a steamer, which, at that season of the year, was contrary to law, and left drenched on the quay at Dublin, to find her way to the workhouse, where she and her children remained a burden on the North Dublin Union, the guardians having no redress, although, being a native of Ennis, she ought to have been removed to the union near Limerick. On the 29th January, 1862, the Poor Law Commissioners wrote to the Undersecretary of the Lord Lieutenant complaining on the subject and urging the necessity of some change. They said— The total number of cases now reported is 46, and the number of persons included 98, which, added to the number previously reported, makes 75 cases, including 165 persons. It will be observed that the more serious irregularities noticed occur in the cases of removal from parishes or unions in the London metropolitan district, inasmuch as those provisions of the recent Act which were intended to secure a proper custody and delivery of the pauper in Ireland, and to prevent women and children being sent by deck passage during the winter season, appear in that district to be almost uniformly neglected. His right hon. Friend (Mr. Villiers) asked whether that letter had been addressed to the Poor Law Board; and he replied it certainly was not, but it was referred to them; and had they been able to controvert any of the statements it contained? He held in his hand the reply of Mr. Fleming, the English Poor Law Secretary, dated "Poor Law Board, Whitehall, January 22, 1862," and it was in these words— I am directed by the Poor Law Board to acknowledge the receipt of your letter of the 21st ult., and the documents which you therewith forwarded to them by direction of Secretary Sir George Grey, relative to the operation of the recent statute, 24 &c 25 Vict., c. 76, with regard to the removal of poor persons from England to Ireland. The Board direct me to state that they have carefully perused the several documents which were forwarded with your letter, and that they regret to perceive that in many of the cases adverted to great irregularities have occurred in the proceedings of the justices and of the boards of guardians in England in regard to the removal of poor persons to Ireland. It would not be within the province of the Poor Law Board to express any opinion upon the conduct of the justices with regard to the irregularity of their proceedings in such cases; but as the guardians of the several unions in England have not yet become fully aware of the requirements of the new statute, the Board propose shortly to issue a circular letter to boards of guardians in which they will point out the new provisions of the law with regard to Irish removals and the course which ought to be adopted in effecting the removal of the Irish poor who have 171 not acquired settlements in England and are removable to Ireland, He could not but believe, therefore, that some circular letter to boards of guardians had been issued pointing out the provisions of the law with regard to Irish removals; and, if so, he hoped it would be produced. On a future occasion he should be able to show that the system complained of was still in full operation. The letter concluded thus— With regard to the violation of the provision in the 6th section of the 24 & 25 Vict., c. 76, the Board trust that such violations will be of unfrequent occurrence. If, however, contrary to the Board's expectations, they should become frequent, they think it would become necessary to consider whether an Act should not be passed imposing a penalty, recoverable on summary conviction, upon persons who may be proved guilty of infringing the statute. He would therefore beg to add to the Question of which he had given notice, Whether it was the intention of the President of the Poor Law Board to propose any such remedy as is here suggested to remedy the abuses complained of?

§ MR. C. P. VILLIERS
said, he regretted that his right hon. Friend had not given him notice of the cases of ill-treatment to which he had referred, because he should have felt it his duty to direct immediate inquiry to be made as to them. The Act in question was one of such great notoriety at the time of its passing that it was thought unnecessary to call attention to it. It was very simple, and, as he thought, not at all likely to be misunderstood; and the Poor Law Board, consequently, had thought it unnecessary to issue any special instructions as to the manner in which it was to be carried out. If the English guardians and justices did not comply with its provisions, it was no special duty' of the President of the Poor Law Board to notice it. The irregularity might be brought to the notice of the Poor Law Board, and inquiry would be immediately instituted; but the Board were not responsible for the neglect of duty on the part of persons whose business it was to apply the law. They were in the same position as any other persons who neglected to enforce an Act which it was their duty to apply. There had not been any cases brought under his notice of the description alluded to by his right hon. Friend. If the hon. Member would give him the dates of the cases to which he had referred, he would cause full inquiry to be made.

COLONEL DUNNE
was at a loss to know to whom an appeal was to be made in such cases if not to the Poor Law Board. He had opposed the Act from the first, knowing perfectly well that it could not be fairly carried out. The cruelty of these deportations was on the increase.

§ MR. W. WILLIAMS
said, the law respecting the removal of Irish poor was precisely the same as that which applied to the case of English and Scotch paupers. He believed that in every case of removal the greatest possible forbearance was manifested. Frequently Irish poor refused to tell the part of Ireland to which they belonged. In many instances, in a strong Irish dialect, they declared that they knew nothing whatever of Ireland. Consequently, several of them remained for months in a workhouse before the place that was chargeable with their relief was discovered. The parochial officer took great pains in such matters; he adopted various steps to ascertain the facts, and stated upon his oath before the magistrates his belief that the information he had obtained was correct. Frequently Irish paupers refused to be sworn when questions were about to be put to them as to their place of birth, &c. Irish paupers were a great burden upon English parishes.