The Express.
London, England, 1865-02-24 00:00:00

POOR REMOVAL.

Mr. MAGUIRE asked the Prsoidsat of the Poor-law
Board whether his attention had bean drawn to the acts of
illegality brought home to the paid officers of the Green-
wich Union, ia cownezioa with the cases of Mary Moriarty,
Jolla Ilasaosi, and others ; and if so, whether any and what
official cognizance had been taken by the Poor-law Board of
the oonduct of the officarsooncernal ; and whether the oir-

cometances reasected with them at;cl similar ream of re-
moval to Ireland did not call for an amendment of the law;
sod if so, whether the government ware prepared to propose
sucharnieArnetwithout delay.
. . . .

11r. VILLIERS observed that the boo. member had
moved for papers relating to this. two cases, sad they
would ahortly be laid on the table of the house. Certainly
the attest/es of the Poor-law Board had been drawn to
those eases, and it appeared that the cruelty and neglect
that bad been shown resulted from violation of the law, sad
net from any defeat in the law. The boo. member was
aware that the legisla•ure bad on various mamas of late
years made attempts to mitigate the hardship attending
these removals to Ireland. The state of the law a few
years ago was that the officers of any parish might deport
Irish autism to the shores of Ireland without doing any-
thing further, but that wee amended in 1862, when amebas
were compelled to convey them to the unionhonse of the
district nearest their destination, and to be answerable to
the union for the expense of sending them on. In 1863 it
war directed that times poor people should be conducted to
their destination by a anon from the English union, and
there was • provision by which neglect of this enactment
made the offender liable to • penalty of 10/, or six months'
imprisonment. The cues mentioned by the hon. member
arose in consequence of the parochial anthoritire having
neglected to comply with this last instruction, haviog
merely removed them to the Irish ooset. It we also pro-
perly provided that women and children should sot be
deck passages in the whiter time rod here again the law
bad bum departed from. Early in December one of these
women, with a child, wee taken to Coek, though her &el-
ation was Killarney, and the officer who placed them on
board paid a very inedequate am for their conveyance.
The authorities at Cork finding on her arrival that her dee-
tame= was Killareey, sent the woman back again to
England, sad took proceedings against the officers of the
perish from which she was sent over. It was found, how-
ever, that the man who had been guilty of the violation of
the act was merely a man of straw, and the amidentiodge
mid it would be absurd either to fine him 10/. or seed him
to prime. Is peeing sentence, however, the amistant-judge
reproached in tbesevereet language all the authorities who
wore concerned in the removal, pointed out their dime.
paid of law, and said they were utterly unfit for their office.
That having been done, the guardians seem to have been
conscious of the neglect of their officer, and determined to
take back the woman, and gave an usuranoe that the
same thiag would never occur again. Re believed it bad
ant occurred, and hoped the hon. gentleman would be m.
tidied that when such things occurred they would be no-
tified in that house. and that every effort would be made
to panel them. The other Gan was precisely similar, but
as the depositions bad not yet comae from Dublin, ke was
unable to go into the matter.