§ Sir Egerton Brydges,in moving for leave to bring in a Bill to prevent the removal of chargeable paupers till a final adjudication of their respective settlements, observed, that it might at first view appear extraordinary that the law could ever have been otherwise than according to the proposal which he was now about to make. But in looking back to the times when magistrates were first authorized to remove, it would be found that the question of settlements did not then, as now, involve decisions on some of the most intricate and subtle points of the law. It was intended merely to give power to justices to remove those who had no fixed abode in a parish to the place of their last residence; or, if they had none such, of their birth. But the law of settlements had long become so complex and voluminous, that it seemed utterly grievous and intolerable to continue to delegate a power so vitally affecting the happiness, livelihood, and morals of paupers, and so expensive to parishes, to a hasty first decision of two magistrates founded on ex-parte evidence. A pauper might thus be dragged or carted from one end of the kingdom to the other; from the home where all his connexions were formed, and the spot which had hitherto furnished him with the means of an industrious livelihood, to some remote parish "where there was only a poor-house to re- 222 ceive him, and nothing but the parish dole for his support. And after all this cruelty had been committed, and cost incurred, a little more inquiry might show the order to be founded on erroneous or imperfect facts, or mistaken law; and the prosecution of an appeal might drag the pauper back again as a witness to the county from whence he came; and if the order should be confirmed, he might be sent a second time back to the place of his first removal; or, if quashed, perhaps to some other parish in the same neighbourhood. But all this he had dwelt so fully upon last year, that he would not debate it again. Sir Egerton said, it was his purpose to put an end to the sufferings and expenses of these intermediate and useless removals. But if such were the evils to be removed, were there any objections to counterbalance the good of the plan proposed? Really, of the only two of which he could hear, one seemed to him perfectly visionary, and the other founded on injustice and cruelty. The first was the supposed difficulty of contriving means to enforce re-imbursement of the relief granted by the parish where the pauper is resident from the first examination of his settlement, till a final confirmation of the adjudication of that settlement. Sir Egerton said, this was a difficulty perfectly imaginary: and the plan proposed perfectly effectual for the purpose. As to the second objection, that to take away the vexations and hardships of intermediate removals, would be to abolish a useful check to improper and unreasonable demand for relief; he hardly thought that so long as the Legislature entertained the principles of the poor laws, it would endure the inconsistency of defeating its own objects by cruel and contradictory provisions and conditions. As to the detail, that would be better explained by the Bill itself, if he was permitted to bring it in. He would only say, that after a final adjudication of a settlement filed at the Quarter Sessions, it would be at the option of either parish to demand the removal of the pauper, should he still continue chargeable, at its own expense, except under such circumstances as cause the suspension of removals by the existing law; this alteration of the law with regard to immediate removal, cannot, for obvious reasons, be applied to to cases of women pregnant of bastard children. The hon. baronet concluded with moving, "That leave, be given to 223 bring in a Bill to prevent the removal of chargeable paupers till a final adjudication of their respective settlements.?
After a short conversation between Mr. Atkins Wright, Lord Milton, Mr. Lock-hart, and sir C. Monck, leave was given to bring in the Bill.