§ The order of the day for the second reading of the Parish Settlement bill being read,
Colonel Stanleystated the object of this bill, which was to prevent any settlement being gained by renting any dwelling under the value of 20l. instead of 10l.; or by purchase, under the value of 100l. instead of 30l. The next object of the bill was to pass Irish and Scotch paupers to their respective parishes.
§ Mr. Curwenobjected to the whole bill, as oppressive and injurious in its operation, and tending to increase the burthens upon parishes, already too great. With respect to passing Irish and Scotch paupers to their respective parishes, he thought it would be an act of great cruelty and injustice. He considered the encouragement of Friendly Societies as the best mode of reducing the poors rates, and therefore recommended them to the consideration of government. He concluded by moving, that the bill be read a second time this day six months.
Mr. Lockhartthought, that as a measure for the regulation of the Poor Laws, the house might entertain this bill, although he had some objections to make to some of the clauses intended to be enacted by it. With respect to the clause empowering the removal of Irish and Scotch paupers, he thought the house could not entertain it for one moment; it would be too much to say, that a man, after a long, laborious, and industrious life, should be turned over from the parish which had been the scene of that life, to a place where no provision whatever was made for him.
§ Mr. Davies Giddywas of opinion, that the whole of the poor laws should be repealed, but that as the present bill might be attended with partially beneficial effects, it ought to be suffered to go to a committee.
§ Mr. Hornerstrongly objected to the bill, as completely and fundamentally altering the whole law of settlements; occupation or payment of rent was not required; it was enough that the pauper had a mere title to possession. He objected to the bill, not merely because it would introduce new litigation and expence, but as condemning as vagrants and criminals, persons who 424 might be legally entitled to a settlement, and placing them in a situation in which they could have no redress.
Sir S. Romillyconsidered the bill highly objectionable, as increasing the difficulty of procuring settlements, which on the contrary, in the opinion of Judge Black-stone, lord Mansfield, and all other wise and great men who had written on the subject, should be made as easy as possible. It was the interest of every parish to relieve itself of a small burthen, and put a large one upon another; for, when a man with his family was removed from one parish to another, it was not a mere temporary burthen, but ultimately a continual burthen upon such parish. The most beneficial effects, in his opinion, would arise by facilitating the power of acquiring a settlement; and he thought, were a six months residence to entitle a pauper, to a settlement, it would be attended with the most beneficial effects, not only in lessening the poors' rates, but relieving the subject from the greatest oppression. As to removing Irish and Scotch paupers, in most instances it would be sending them to a place where they were altogether strangers, and they would be burthensome paupers, when they otherwise might become useful members of society.
§ Mr. Grahamsupported the bill.
§ Mr. Whitbreadwas happy to find this measure objected to as it was, as he had troubled the house on a former occasion, and never heard any one support the law of settlement as it at present existed. He had laboured to carry into effect some measures of the kind, and the opinions he had heard this day would encourage him to further exertions. As to sending Irish and Scotch paupers to their parishes, he thought it highly objectionable, and if passed into a law, would be attended with the most grievous consequences: in Ireland, where there were no poor laws, the oppression would be excessive.—After a few further observations by general Mathew, Mr. Croker, and sir R. Peele, colonel Stanley declared, that he felt it his duty to take the sense of the house upon the bill. A division then took place, when there appeared; For the second reading 11; Against it 114. Majority against the bill 103.