§ MR. SOTHERON ESTCOURT moved that a Select Committee be appointed "to consider the operation of the Act 9 & 10 Vict., c. 66, which enacts that no poor person shall be removeable who shall have resided five years in any parish; and of the Act 10 & 11 Vict., c. 110, and 11 & 12 Vict., c. 110, which enacts that the 202 relief given to such irremovable persons shall be charged upon the common fund of the Union." In accordance with the usage of the House he had placed that notice on the table; but the Motion was, in reality, one for the appointment of a Committee such as that which was appointed last year, and one reason for the urgency of such Committee arose from the circumstance that the last-named Act was to expire towards the conclusion of the present Session of Parliament. It appeared to him that, after nine years of experiments and temporary Acts, the time had arrived when the House might make up its mind on the question what should constitute irremovability, and in what manner the charge of relieving the irremovable poor should be defrayed. That would be the subject of the inquiries of this Committee. In a very few words he would lay before the House the present position of the matter. In the year 1834 the New Poor Law Act passed, and by that statute all means of acquiring a settlement were taken away, except birth alone. In ten or twelve years it was found that this operated harshly on the poor man. Under the former law he had the means of acquiring a settlement wherever his industry called him; but this had been taken from him. With a view of meeting the case, Parliament, in 1846, passed an Act which declared that any poor person having resided five years in any parish should be irremovable from that parish, and this was one of the statutes which he desired to bring under the consideration of the Committee. No sooner had that statute passed than it was felt that it involved a great additional expense on different parishes on whom the five years' residence operated. In the following year, therefore, another Act passed, which cast the expense of these irremovable poor on the whole of the Union in which their parish happened to be situated. A Select Committee, of which the present Speaker was a Member, sat in 1847 for the purpose of determining the great questions of settlement and removability. They examined many witnesses, they brought much ability to the discussion of the questions, and after laborious investigation they determined on several resolutions, any one of which would have effected an important alteration, but the result was that when the question was put that the resolutions be reported to the House, to the astonishment of many the question passed in the negative, and the 203 whole of the proceedings became useless. Time passed on and nothing was done, but from year to year these temporary Acts were continued. In 1855 a Committee was appointed to consider one branch of the subject, the removal of Irish and Scotch poor persons; but that Committee found itself compelled to consider the main question, and passed a resolution recommending that the term of five years should be reduced to three, and that the area of irremovability should be extended from the parish to the Union. In the following year the right hon. Member for Leeds (Mr. Baines), then the President of the Poor Law Board, introduced a Bill to carry those recommendations into effect, bat that Bill was withdrawn, and now the question was as far from being settled as it was in 1846; indeed at the end of thirteen years from the passing of the first Act they were in a rather less satisfactory position than in 1834. The two Acts which he desired to submit to the consideration of a Select Committee stood on the threshold of the whole question. It was time for the Legislature to determine whether the propositions of those Acts should be maintained, and if so, on what conditions? And if they were to be swept away, then it would be for the Legislature to find a substitute. It would not become him to anticipate what would be the determination of the Committee, but he hoped to be able to induce those hon. Gentlemen who served on the Committee last year to serve again, and when they should have reported on this branch, he did not despair of their directing their Chairman to move the House to give them further instructions to consider the other branches of this great question. At the same time, if the House obtained no more than the solution of the legitimate and direct subject indicated in the order of reference, the Committee would not have been uselessly reappointed. He did not know of any objections to the Motion, or of any desire that he should go more fully into the question. He begged to move the appointment of the Committee in the terms of his notice.
§ MR. HENRY HERBERTsaid, he thought it would be impossible to discuss one question, without others forcing themselves under consideration; and he hoped that, although the tenor of the Motion referred to England only, some Irish members would be placed on the Committee, as the interests of the Irish poor were deeply involved in the question.
§ MR. SOTHERON ESTCOURTI propose the same names as last year, and the hon. Member will see that I have taken care that the sister country is properly represented.
§ MR. AYRTONsaid, he rose not to oppose the Motion, but to express his regret that it was limited to an inquiry into two statutes only. The right hon. Gentleman had made it apparent that it was quite impossible to consider two isolated statutes for any useful purpose, without at the same time examining into their relation to the whole system of Poor Law relief; but he had shown also that though, in some respects, the administration of the Poor Laws had continued many years—nay, centuries—yet, in point of fact, the system of Poor Law relief had been entirely changed in character and effect. Any inquiry before a Select Committee should embrace the whole scope of the administration of the Poor Laws in every department, and not only in England, but in Ireland. If the Motion had been deferred, he might have been tempted to move an Amendment to enlarge the scope of inquiry; but perhaps it might be as well that they should commence with the particular relief which was embraced in the present Motion, and while this was proceeding he might bring the general subject before the House. The area must be settled. They could not have a system of settlement depending on casual employment, if the area of relief, of rating, and of management were confined within very narrow limits. Formerly, the system of poor relief depended on the parochial relations, and these again depended on the accident of birth in the recipients; and men were supposed to have a right to relief in the locality in which they were born. They were not even allowed to go out of that locality, except with a certificate, which would compel them to return to obtain relief in it whenever they might want it. But all this had been changed. It might be rational to say, that the master ought to support his labourer if he became poor; that he who had reaped the advantage of the man's work, should support him when he could not labour. That was at least a consistent system. But the master roust then have a right to command the labour of the servant, and this was therefore the system adopted in slave states. The moment we departed from this, there was no reason why one set of persons rather than another should bear the burden of relieving 205 the poor when out of employ. In conclusion, he might say that he should probably take the opportunity of bringing the whole subject before the House on an early day.
§ Motion agreed to. Select Committee appointed.