§ MR. M'CARTHY DOWNING(for Mr. R. POWER) asked the President of the Local Government Board, Whether his attention has been called to the case of Mary Devlin, who was removed from the Strand Union to Waterford under a warrant dated 17th July last, and whether she was only three years of age when she was brought to London; whether she was not fifty years a resident therein without receiving relief from the Poor's Rate; whether she did not live for more than ten years in Drury Lane previously to her seeking relief, save for three months; and, if Drury Lane is not in the Strand Union; and, whether, therefore, the removal was not illegal, and, under all the circumstances, harsh?
§ MR. SCLATER-BOOTHMy attention has been drawn to this case by the Question of the hon. Member for Water-ford, and I have made such inquiry as was possible in the limited time at my disposal. It appears by the examination of Mary Devlin that she is aged 68 years, and that she has been in England 50 years. She must, therefore, have been 18 instead of 3 years of age when she was brought to London. She was not 50 years a resident in the Strand Union without receiving relief, because I find that she was relieved in the workhouse of that Union in 1873. I am unable to say how long she had resided in Drury Lane, which is in the Strand Union; but on her last application for relief she had only resided in the Union 14 days, having come from Southampton. Having broken her residence in the Union, she was not irremovable, and she had no settlement in this country, either under the Act of the last Session or otherwise. Her removal was, therefore, not illegal. As to the alleged harshness of the proceeding, I could not express an opinion on the limited information before me, but she was in good health at the time when the magistrates made the order of removal, and when interrogated she made no objection then nor 466 during her journey to being sent back to her native place.
§ MR. M'CARTHY DOWNINGasked the President of the Local Government Board, Whether it is his intention, during the next Session of Parliament, to introduce a Bill to repeal the present Laws in Great Britain as to the removal of Paupers, and the Law of Settlement generally, or to amend those statutes?
§ MR. SCLATER-BOOTHThe hon. Gentleman will remember that I introduced clauses into the Poor Law Amendment Bill of last Session which would have dealt specially with the Irish grievances arising out of the law of settlement and removal. Had the House accepted the proposal in that shape, I should have felt bound to follow it up by a general measure on the subject. But both sides of the House, including Members from Ireland, insisted on converting this clause, which I proposed for a particular purpose, into a general one applicable to the whole Kingdom. In these circumstances I consider myself absolved from any obligation except one to which I have frequently adverted—namely, that of endeavouring to consolidate and amend our numerous Poor Law Acts, including the law of settlement and removal, as soon as opportunity offers. I cannot say that the experience of the present Session has been favourable to such an attempt, nor can I undertake to give any pledge as to what measures it may be my duty to submit to Parliament next year.