HC Deb 11 February 1845 vol 77 cc313-34
Sir J. Graham

, in rising to move for leave to bring in a Bill to consolidate and amend the laws relating to parochial settlement, and to the removal of the poor, said—I do assure the House that I am at all times most unwilling to occupy unnecessarily any part of their time, yet when I consider the magnitude and importance of the subject which I venture on the present occasion to bring under your consideration—when I am about to explain the course which I think should be taken on this important subject, I am afraid I must claim some portion of your indulgence, for I cannot do justice to myself with reference to the extent of the changes I am about to propose, without explaining to the House the reasons which have led me to recommend those changes. When I last addressed the House on the subject I ventured to remind them of its immense importance. It is only necessary to state two or three facts to bring that importance prominently to your recollection. It is a melancholy fact, but still a fact, that no less than one-tenth of the whole population of England and Wales receive relief from the poor-rate in the course of the year. A multitude no less than 1,500,000 persons in this country receive relief from the poor-rate. The magnitude of the sum also thus paid is very great. I can bring this fact to the recollection of the House in various ways. I may state it thus: it is no exaggeration that since the termination of the war in 1815, notwithstanding all that has been said of the neglect of the interests of the poor—notwithstanding all that has been said of the inhumanity of the law, of the culpable negligence with which the wants of the poor are regarded by the rich, independently of all private charity, and of the benefactions of our charitable institutions—since the termination of the war no less a sum has been levied from the ratepayers of this country than 200,000,000l., a sum amounting to more than one-fourth of the capital of the national debt. Think, then, of the magnitude of the sum—think again of the number of the recipients—all these considerations are intimately connected with the subject which I now venture to bring under your notice. It depends on the settlement of the individual the first day he claims relief what shall be the locality in which he shall receive it; and if he happens not to be "settled" in the place where destitution arises, the next question is, shall he be relieved—shall he be removed? Now, what must be the effect upon the habits, the feelings, and all the associations of the individual who applies for relief, when, in addition to destitution and poverty, these two questions arise—shall he be relieved? and shall he be permitted to receive relief in the place where he has resided, the residence he has freely chosen, or shall he be removed from that place with which his associations and habits are bound up, to some far distant locality, in which all those ties shall cease to exist? Painful it must be to tell him that he cannot receive relief in the place where he has resided. Pardon me for thus introducing a subject so intimately connected with the interests and feelings of so large a portion of the community. Its magnitude deserves consideration, and its difficulty and importance make me diffident in proposing any legislative change. Yet I am satisfied—I am conscientiously satisfied, that important changes and modifications of the existing Law of Settlement, with reference both to the interests and the feelings of the poor, are indispensable. Actuated by that strong impression, I venture to bring under your notice the Bill which I laid on the Table of the House towards the close of last Session. And those Gentlemen who were present, and who did me the honour of attending to the remarks I made on the occasion of introducing it, will recollect that I seized with anxiety the opportunity of the approaching recess to lay the Bill before the public, in the hope that during the recess it would undergo free discussion, and that I might receive aid from that discussion, and profit by the hints which might be thrown out. In that expectation I have not been disappointed. From various, I may say almost innumerable quarters, I have received valuable suggestions. And it is now my duty to lay before the House the result of the best consideration I have been enabled to give to those suggestions and comments. In the Bill, as I introduced it last Session, there were four subjects prominently treated. First, there was the Law of Settlement. On that branch of the subject I proposed great alterations; namely, that all other heads of settlement should forthwith, not only prospectively, but retrospectively, be repealed, and that a birth settlement should be substituted. As to the second branch, relating to removal, I need not detail the seven checks on summary removal proposed to be introduced. For the present I will only refer to one, which was the suggestion, that five years' continued residence in any locality should not give to the party so residing an absolute settlement, such as would convey the right to his descendants, but should place him in a novel situation, without a settlement, but with the privilege of irremovability. The strongest objections made to the Bill I laid on the Table last Session were, first, to the substitution of birth settlement, both prospectively and retrospectively; and, secondly, to the proposition that parties not having a settlement, but residing for five years, should be irremovable. The objections taken to the first two heads, namely, birth settlement and irremovability after a five years' residence, are very nearly of the same character and almost identical. Various objections have been taken to these propositions. It was urged that, looking to the fact that so large a number of persons as one-tenth of the whole population are, as I have mentioned, in receipt of parochial relief, a sudden and retroactive change in the nature and ground of their settlement, coupled with the prospective alteration of five years' industrial residence conferring the right of irremovability, would bring about such a dislocation of the whole system of law bearing on the interests of the poor as would, if brought into immediate operation, lead to consequences which must be deplored. It would produce litigation in innumerable instances, and, on the whole, it would cause too great a shock to the established system. In cases where the property was in the hands of one or of a small number of individuals, such a change would be a strong inducement to pull down cottages, and, to use a terrible word, better understood in the sister country than in England, to "clear" estates. This would have the effect of driving the rural population from their peaceful hamlets, their small gardens, and little possessions, into the towns and more congregated masses of the labouring community. I cannot state the objections more clearly and forcibly than by reading to the House one of the memorials I have received. I might select many of the statements which have been made against this first part of the measure laid on the Table last Session, but I may be permitted, for the sake of brevity and clearness, to read a Memorial from Thetford Union, in the county of Norfolk. It is as follows:— The Memorial of the Board of Guardians of the Thetford Union, in the counties of Norfolk and Suffolk, showeth—That your memorialists beg most respectfully to express their unanimous dissent from the proposed alteration in the Law of Settlement, more especially those clauses which relate to settlement by birth, and irremovability of persons after five years' residence. That with regard to settlement by birth, your memorialists are of opinion it would be a great inducement to the owners of the entire or the principal part of parishes, to clear them as much as possible of the population, by purchasing or building cottages in adjoining towns and more open parishes, where the poor would be compelled to reside, and where, of course, their children would be born, thus relieving their own parishes at the expense of others. That with respect to the irremovability of residents of five years, your memorialists consider the same objection applicable, as care would be taken to remove them before the five years' residence was completed, and that it would operate very much against the poor by forcing them from the rural parishes, where cottage rents are comparatively low and gardens easily obtained, to towns and more populous parishes, where rents are much higher. That it would also remove many from the spot where their labour is required, and thus add a long walk to their day's work. I am bound to state that these objections are clearly laid before us, and they appear to me well worthy of being taken into consideration. It is my wish to meet these objections, after having given them the best attention in my power. I am not therefore prepared any longer to propose that a retroactive effect should be given to birth settlement. What I now propose, with the permission of the House, is, that birth should only have a prospective effect. I see very great advantages in limiting the proposition as regards birth settlement to a prospective operation. We have introduced lately a great statistical improvement. Our mode of registering births, as recently enacted, was a very great improvement upon the former law; in the first enactment the place of birth was not inserted on the register—that was a great defect, but it has now been supplied. Every birth is now registered, and the place of birth is also recorded. This complete system of registration will, from the present time, give immense facilities for proving the places of birth, which will prove very advantageous in carrying into effect the measure I am explaining to the House. Although it is quite clear that in the aggregate the interests of town and country are, in our state of society, identical, yet it cannot be too much impressed upon the House that the interests of town and country districts with reference to rates do not always run in the same direction. It is quite clear that birth settlement is in favour of the towns at the expense of the rural districts. The towns are the great marts of industry—the great centres of capital, and they attract labour from the rural districts. Thus the town population occasionally becomes redundant on account of the supply of labour from those districts. On the other hand, irremovability after five years residence, would be a measure favourable to the rural districts, but would not confer benefit on the towns. Parties are attracted to the towns, the marts of industry, by the greater demand for labour; thus, it is clear, that conferring a settlement by five years industrial residence, would cause a great burden to the towns, and confer great advantages on the rural districts. But I am bound to hold the balance evenly; I am bound not to impose upon the towns the extra burden of irremovability, unless countervailed by a contract in birth settlement. Thus, I am disposed to forego these two portions of the measure, namely, no longer to insist on birth settlement being obtained retrospectively, and to withdraw the proposition that five years industrial residence should confer the advantage of irremovability. Although this proposition as to irremovability is withdrawn, I hope the House will pardon me if I draw their attention to the great advantages which the other limitations bearing on removability will confer on the poorer classes. My object is to impose restrictions upon removal. I propose that parties should not be removable in these cases—first, in that of a man who had ordinarily resided and worked at or near the parish for five years, and who had not been convicted of felony or misdemeanour. This provision will be applicable to natives of Scotland and Ireland, as well as to the people of this country. First, I propose that no woman residing with her husband at the time of his death in the parish of his settlement shall be removable to her own parish after his death. Secondly, I propose that no widow, whether living in her husband's parish or elsewhere, shall be removable for twelve months after his death. Thirdly, I propose that no child under sixteen years of age shall be removable from its father. Fourthly, that no legitimate or illegitimate child under sixteen years of age shall be removable from its mother. And, fifthly, that no one becoming chargeable by sickness or accident, shall be placed under order of removal till he or she has received relief for forty days consecutively. I now come to that which I consider, and that which probably the House will regard, as the most important provision of the measure which I intend to submit to the consideration of Parliament. The provision which I now mean to lay before you is one of such great importance as to induce me very much to wish that some time should elapse before it becomes necessary for me again to press it upon the attention of the Legislature; for I earnestly desire that it should receive the fullest attention, and undergo the most searching investigation. When I last addressed myself to this subject, I referred to the authority of a celebrated political economist in support of the views which I took of this part of the great question now before the House; and I may again refer to opinions of Dr. Adam Smith, without any fear of weakening the position which I have taken up, and for which I feel it my duty strenuously to contend. Adam Smith doubts, and I think with much reason, whether any poor man ever reaches the age of forty, without experiencing hardship and injustice from the Law of Settlement. He thinks, and so do I, that it is monstrous for a poor man to be confined as to his residence, his labour, or his rights, within the narrow limits of a parish or a township. It is upon this principle that I found the new and important provision which it is my intention to introduce to the notice of the House. But before I proceed further, I beg to call the attention of hon. Gentlemen to this material fact,—that there are in England and Wales as many as 14,500 parishes and townships. It requires no observations from me to show how narrow the limits are which so minute a subdivision necessarily creates; and within those limits does the existing state of the Poor Law confine and restrain the labour of the poor man. I think, and I hope the House will likewise think so, that it would be an immense advantage to the poor man, and no disadvantage to the wealthier classes, at once to remove that restriction. By reducing the number of places within which settlements may be acquired, I expect to be able to give a more free circulation to the labours of the poor. I do not propose that the whole of the 14,500 places should be rated in a mass; on the contrary, I think that a national poor-rate would be most objectionable; but I am sure that no valid objection can be urged to substituting 620 divisions for 14,500. There are in England 620 Unions. Now, if I should be so fortunate as to induce the House to substitute settlement by Unions for parochial settlement—if I can reduce the number of districts conferring the right of settlement from 14,500 to 620, I shall consider myself as having effected a great change for the better, and as having bestowed an immense advantage upon the ratepayers, and upon those who may become the recipients of those rates. The House, I am sure, will not overlook the fact, that in what I now propose there is nothing new—certainly nothing new in principle, because from the time the Act of Elizabeth was passed, down to the reign of Charles II., the law of parochial settlement was unknown. When a general amendment of the Poor Laws took place in the reign of King William IV. a great change was made, and in that change I for one concurred; and I was one of those who most especially desired to see the principle of settlement according to Unions fully established and recognised. With the leave of the House I propose now to read the thirty-third section of the Act by which this important alteration was effected:— And be it further enacted, that in any Union already formed, or which may hereafter be formed, in pursuance of or under the provisions of this Act, it shall and may be lawful for the Guardians elected by the parishes forming such Union, by any writing under the hands of all such Guardians, to agree, subject to the approbation of the said Commissioners, for or on behalf of the respective parishes forming such Union, that for the purposes of settlement such parishes shall be considered as one parish. That Clause, as the House will see, was not a binding or a compulsory enactment, but on the contrary, was a permissive Clause, and we who were the promoters of the measure indulged a hope that that provision would voluntarily be carried into general operation; but it unfortunately happened, that to carry the intention of this Clause into full effect, it was necessary that in all cases the consent of all the Guardians must be previously obtained, and thus was this Clause rendered nugatory. It will be seen that Parliament adopted that principle; but, if the principle be a good one, it should be adopted universally and simultaneously; and if this principle be adopted, I am prepared to state the mode by which I propose that it should be carried into effect; but before I state that mode I wish to sustain the position which I have taken up by authorities from various quarters—authorities both from towns and from rural districts, all of which plainly suggest the course that I am now resolved to recommend to the House. They all agree that the change which I now propose will be of immense advantage to all parts of the country, and to every class of the community. I am, aware, however, that I should weary the House if I went through the whole of the authorities with which I have thought it well to arm myself. In order, therefore, not to exhaust the attention and the patience of hon. Members, I propose to confine myself to four authorities on this important subject—four authorities selected from a far greater number which have been supplied to me. The first to which I wish to direct the consideration of the House are Resolutions passed by the Board of Guardians of the Blything Union, on the 27th of January last, and they are in these words:—

  1. "1. That it is the opinion of this Board that all parochial settlements are bad in principle, and tend to oppress the labouring man unjustly.
  2. "2. That, in order to provide a remedy for this evil, it is absolutely necessary that the system of parochial settlement be entirely abolished; and, in lieu thereof, that districts be formed of whole Unions, for the 321 purposes of settlement and the general management of the poor."
Those Resolutions, I think, will be viewed as evidence of a very strong kind; but the next authority which I have to produce will not, I expect, prove to be less weighty; it consists of observations made on the Bill by Mr. Francis Cooper, assistant-overseer, and Mr. William Royston, relieving officers of the Manchester Union, men of great practical experience in this matter, and these are the terms in which they pronounce their opinion:— Whatever course, however, the Legislature may deem most fit to take in reference to these important matters, we would most strenuously urge upon those in authority, if they wished to make the present or future Unions more beneficial, the absolute necessity of making all the townships in a union as one for the purpose of settlement and assessment. As the law now stands, one part of a Union can remove paupers to another, and enter into litigation, as if they had no connexion. It destroys that feeling of mutual interest and identification which should exist; and each Guardian gives his attention (more or less) exclusively to the cases and interests of his own particular township. I shall now, with the leave of the House, read an extract from the Report of Mr. Hall, one of the Assistant Poor Law Commissioners, who had the charge of the metropolitan district, and also instituted very strict and minute inquiries for the purpose of enabling himself to make a correct and useful Report. Mr. Hall gives his Report in this form:— Much of the difficulty that I expected would follow the administration of the Law of Settlement, according to the provisions of this Bill, would be done away with, if settlement were not a parochial accident, but were made to relate to unions or rather larger territorial divisions—as, for instance, the City of London, the City of Westminster, and the several metropolitan Parliamentary boroughs. There is a growing opinion that rating as well as settlement ought to be more widely and so more equally spread, that is, over districts, instead of parishes. I beg leave now to trouble the House with one more extract; it is from the able Report furnished by the Society of Clerks of Unions in the northern district of England. They set forth the district to which their Report refers, and with which they are officially connected, and they conclude by an expression of their opinion on the subject now before the House. The places named in the Report are as follows:— Altrincham, Bolton, Bury, Bakewell Burnley, Chorlton-upon-Medlock, Chorley Congleton, Chapel-en-le-Frith, Huddersfield, Hayfield, Kendal, Leek, Manchester, Macclesfield, Northwich, Nantwich, Prescot, Stockport, Stoke-upon-Trent, Wigan, Warrington, West Derby, and Wolstanton, and Burslem. They then proceed to say:— That for the purposes of relief and settlement, the distinction of parishes and townships should no longer exist, and that each Union should become liable for, and chargeable with the relief and maintenance of its poor. I am quite aware that the House cannot by a single measure remedy all the evils, or even the anomalies of the Poor Laws; but I know not of any single proposition calculated to produce so many and such great advantages as that which I now bring forward for the adoption of the House. There is none by which unjust restriction can be more effectually removed—none by which labour can be made more beneficially to circulate. As to the particular mode in which these objects are to be effected, I propose that in all cases where dispute, or the probability of litigation may arise, proceedings shall be carried on by the Guardians of Union, and not by the parochial authorities. I propose at the same time, to retain all the other provisions of the Bill which I brought in during the last Session of Parliament, and I propose also to retain the principle of amicable arrangement in cases of doubtful settlement; to allow of its being adopted in every case where it was admissible under the former Bill. To this I may add, that I propose to remove the discretionary power from the local or parochial authority to the the General Board of Guardians. From this I expect that the poor of all classes will derive great advantage. I quite admit that all anomalies cannot be remedied by the plan which I propose, but I think and hope it will go much further towards effecting that object than any single suggestion which has yet been made. And now with regard to the distribution of the burden,—that which I mean to suggest is, that in every Union an average of the rates should be taken during the seven years antecedent to the month of March, 1844, and that this average should regulate the relative proportions payable by each component part of every union; and this, as I said before, it to be computed upon an average of the seven years preceding Lady-day, 1844. I do not deny that the fluctuations of trade have in many cases rendered unequal the burdens borne in different parts of the country; manufactures ebb and flow: they have been transferred from Wiltshire into Yorkshire; and in one place there may exist manufacturing prosperity with undiminished means of support, while in another those means may have altogether vanished: but my plan will benefit the poor without doing injustice to the rich. I feel that I should weary the House if on the present occasion I were to set forth all the advantages which I anticipate from the proposed scheme; but, entertaining the opinions which I do, I submit this plan to the consideration of the House with perfect confidence. I wish it to be understood that I have no intention of pressing this measure to a second reading till there is time to collect the opinions of persons best informed upon these subjects, and I commit the plan to this examination with entire confidence as to the merits of the measure. I commit it to the favourable consideration of all men of humanity who have hitherto laboured sedulously to promote the well-being of the poor; and especially I commit it to the protection of those whose sense of justice would lead them equally and fairly to distribute a burden intended to sustain sinking humanity, and which ought to be levied on the rich for the defence of the poor; finally, I commit the measure to the consideration of hon. Members now present, in the full confidence that it will be found not altogether unworthy of the adoption of the House.

Colonel Wood

said, he would take the earliest opportunity of expressing his regret at having heard his right hon. Friend propose the last article of his measure. He would give his right hon. Friend credit for the attention which he had paid to this important question; but he had no doubt that the substitution of Union for parish settlements, instead of being a benefit to the poor man would prove the greatest injury that could be inflicted on him, for then there would be no disposition among those well to do in a parish to take care of their poorer neighbours, and to set them to work, as those who could not get employment would be thrown on the Union; and whenever a time of difficulty should arise, they would find vast numbers of persons thrown on the rates because they were Union and not parochial rates. He was surprised to hear his right hon. Friend say that there had been no parochial settlement till the 13th and 14th Charles II. c. 18, as the fact was that even in the early part of the reign of Elizabeth there was a parochial settlement gained by three years' residence; and by the 30th Elisabeth, c. 21, a poor man was directed to be sent back to where he had been one year settled. He regretted that his right hon. Friend had given up that part of the Bill which conferred a right of settlement after five years' residence. In 1833 he had made an attempt at legislation on this subject, which was supported by the present Lord Spencer and the late Lord Abinger. What he proposed then was to make every man who had been resident for a year in a parish entitled to parochial relief. If this Bill should proceed, what he would propose would be that every man who had been resident in a parish for a year should be relieved as one of the parochial poor. The effect of this would be to set at liberty all those who were now tied down to their respective parishes through fear of being removed. The proposal of his right hon. Friend that birth should give a right of settlement, would not remove the complaint of the poor man, that, after passing the best years of his life in industrious labour in one part of the country, he might at the end of his life be thrown back on a parish where he was then a total stranger, merely because he had been born there. [Sir J. Graham: But you forget the restrictions on removal.] Some of them were in existence already. Under the present law a woman was not liable to be removed from her husband. There was one clause in this Bill to which there could be no objection—that under which a widow could not be removed from the parish where she had been resident with her husband for a year. He considered that letting every person who had been resident in a parish for a year be relieved as a casual pauper would remove much of the difficulty and hardship existing under the present Law of Settlement. There was another point to which he would advert. Formerly every man who paid a poor rate obtained a settlement; but this was afterwards limited to persons rated at 10l. a year. The consequence was that now the poorest persons in a parish were obliged to contribute to the rates as well as others, and those who acted as justices of the peace found the greatest difficulty in saying who should be compelled to pay the rates. To do away with all parochial assessments and substituting for them Union assessments, making the poor belong to Unions and not to parishes, would have the effect of entirely destroying all the care that parishes had hitherto exercised over their own poor. The complaint would be, as it was now of half the parishes, against the charges of these Unions. The parishes which really took care of their poor, which managed their poor kindly and set them all to work, and upon which they were a very small charge, would become a Union, and would have none of the inducements to continue that care; and he was satisfied when this proposition came to be known, that it would meet with great objections from very many parts of the country. He conceived that he should not be performing his duty if he had not stated this. He should wish that residence, and residence alone, should entitle a man to a settlement; and if the Bill proceeded further, he should feel it to be his duty to propose a clause by which every person who was resident for one year in a parish should be relieved as casual poor, and not be passed out of such parish. If that were done he was convinced they would very much ameliorate the present Law of Settlement, do away with a great many grievances under which the poor now laboured, and prevent the still further complication of an already complicated enactment.

Mr. Bright

was quite of opinion with the hon. Member for Brecon, that when this proposition of the Government became known throughout the country, there would be a very strong opposition manifested to it. Still he was inclined to hope that there would be a disposition to co-operate with the Government in endeavouring to arrive at some better settlement of the question than that which now existed. Though he looked upon this new measure with some fear, and he might perhaps say with some little suspicion, yet he confessed he had seen in the county in which he lived, cases of hardship so terrible that he should be very glad indeed to co-operate with any party in arriving at some settlement which might remove what he could not help regarding as a disgrace to the country in which we live. He was not surprised that the hon. Member should remark on the Government withdrawing the clause by which removal was prevented after a residence of five years in a pariah. He could assure the hon. Member that that clause would have met with the most strenuous opposition from all the towns in the kingdom; and he believed there would have been no good in the Bill which would be deemed a sufficient compensation for the evils such a clause would have created It might not be known to the hon. Member that it had been the practice for a long time for landed proprietors in almost every part of the country, to be very anxious that there should not be residing upon their estates and in their parishes a larger number of labourers than their tenants could easily employ. That number had been very small in many districts, owing to the extremely bad cultivation of the soil; and all kinds of tricks and manœuvres had been practised in the country parishes to prevail on the labourers to settle in towns. Now he lived in a township which had a very light poor-rate—not more, probably, than from 9d. to 1s. in the pound in the year. Some time ago it became the duty of the relieving officers of that township to send a labourer and his family back to the township or Union of Reith, near Richmond in Yorkshire. As soon as the order had been made and the preparations completed for removing the man and his family, he received from the clerk to the Guardians of the Union to which he belonged a Post Office order for 20s., which was paid him on condition that he removed from the township which was about to remove him, over the border to the next township, that he might escape the legal proceedings which were taken to obtain his removal to his own parish. The Post Office order was inclosed in a letter which was as follows:— "Reith, near Richmond, Yorkshire, 10th October, 1842. Anthony Pratt,—I send you this sovereign on the conditions you state in your letter—namely, to remove to another township. On receipt inform me. Yours truly, JOHN ALDERSON. There was the letter, and there the Post Office stamp upon it! But there was another fact, this man was removed by the relieving officer of the township he lived in, and at a a great expense he was taken from Rochdale to the Richmond Union, to some station on the railway between York and Darlington, and thence by some conveyance to the Union house, where the Board of Guardians was sitting. When the pauper and his family arrived, they were delivered into the care of the Guardians, and the Rochdale relieving officer returned the same afternoon; but he had scarcely gone one mile on his journey home before he overtook this family of paupers on their way back to Rochdale. Thus the Guardian to Richmond had not had the pauper in their possession for more probably than three hours before they began to bargain with the man as to the sum it would be necessary to pay him in order to get him to return to Rochdale. They accordingly paid him a certain sum, and prevailed on him to go back: he went back, and was seen in Rochdale some two or three days afterwards. He stated this for the purpose of showing that with the enormous pauperism at present existing in the country, it was an extremely difficult matter to settle the pauper at all; but it would be an exceedingly unjust thing that means should be given to the landed proprietors to expel the labourers from their estates and parishes, and settle them in towns, after the lapse of a very short period. He had no objection to it, provided these towns were fairly treated, and not subjected periodically to fluctuations in trade, which compelled them in self-defence to throw back on the parishes, in the most cruel manner he confessed, a considerable number of those who in prosperous times were employed by them. The right hon. Baronet, in the latter part of his speech, described the mode in which he intended to fix the rates in the Unions for the future. He understood the right hon. Baronet to say that each township or parish in a Union should in future pay a proportion of the rate equal to the proportion which it had paid for the seven years before the passing of the Act. There seemed to be fairness in that, if all parts of the country were as stagnant as many parts were; for instance, in the county the right hon. Baronet was politically connected with, where he dared say there were townships in which the population remained pretty nearly the same from generation to generation; but let him inquire of any person acquainted with the manufacturing districts, and he would find that that state of things would be absurd and unjust in the course of a few years. For example, a township at this moment might have almost no rates and no population, and in ten years time it might possess three or four large manufacturing establishments, or coal pits might be opened, and thus in either case draw a very considerable population. This might require great changes; but, if he understood the right hon. Baronet, in this new township, with its great population, and large amount of rateable property, the rates would not increase in proportion to the increased necessities of the place; and he was therefore inclined to think that that part of the Bill would be found to work with very great difficulty, or possibly not at all. He was not disposed to find fault with the Bill: he admitted the gigantic nature of the evil which Government proposed to remedy, and he certainly would give the subject the utmost consideration, hoping that it would be treated calmly and without irritation.

Mr. Henley

said, that if the view he took of what had fallen from the right hon. Gentleman were correct, this was the first step to break up the parochial system of England. The country had for several years past seen the parochial system strongly contrasted with the Union system, and in many parts of the country the parochial system appeared in a very favourable point of view, when so contrasted. To this measure, then, as the first attempt at breaking up that system, he could not give an unqualified assent. How far were they to go, in breaking up the parochial system in this country? For ecclesiastical as well as pauper purposes, the same arguments might be used in order to destroy the parochial system; it was somewhat strange, he thought, that the Government should apply what he must consider a small remedy to a great evil. What were they going to do with the poor man? Their object ought to be to let him go wherever he could get a better market for his labour. This system of Unions would not effect that; it would not enable him to go from Hampshire to Cornwall if he liked; but that was what he wanted to be able to do. For some time the Legislature had been making it impossible for the poor man to get away from the spot where his father and he were born; the Bill went certainly to enlarge these little spaces, but the remedy was too small, for what the poor man wanted was to be able to go all over England with his labour to sell. He must enter his protest against the commencement of the destruction of the parochial system of England.

Mr. Brotherton

did not wish to consider this measure with regard to the manufacturing districts exclusively; on the whole he was sure it was conceived on a principle which was very much in favour of the poor man. The measure was a great improvement on the Bill of last Session, particularly as to the settlement within Unions. The removals from one parish to another within the same Unions were at present a source of difficulties and hardships which it was desirable to avoid. He had always been of opinion that there should be an equitable rate for the support of the poor, but he was aware of the difficulty of accomplishing that object in all cases. In the district where he resided, no cottage under a certain value was allowed to be erected, while in a neighbouring township the case was very different, and the consequence was a proportionate burden on the rate-payers. It was from that quarter that the gentry, who resided elsewhere, obtained their servants. For this reason he thought it was equitable that the rate should be made for the whole Union. He could see the reason why the right hon. Baronet adopted the plan he had proposed. It had been remarked that there were some townships containing very few inhabitants, which in a few years might become very populous, while others would not increase much. But if the rate was to be founded on the data furnished by the seven years preceding the year 1844 or 1845, and the rate made thereon was to remain for ever, he thought it would not be an equitable rate. He should therefore hope that there would be a periodical revision of the rate, say every seven years, so as to make it equitable. He was disposed to think this a measure which would give satisfaction, and be beneficial to the country, and therefore he would throw no obstacle in the way of its passing.

Viscount Ebrington

was reminded by what fell from the gallant Member of a subject which he wished to press upon the attention of the right hon. Baronet. These small tenants generally got exempted from the payment of the rates; and thus the share which their landlords properly ought to bear, was thrown upon that of the neighbours. The general outline of the measure, he must say, he heartily approved of; the right hon. Baronet had, in fact, proposed to grant really a great boon to the working population of this country. He wished here to correct an error which some hon. Gentlemen had fallen into, in supposing that it was no boon to the labourer to allow him to change his place of abode, in order to seek for work within the Union, because there were some districts in which, within a short distance, there was a great disparity of wages. He rejoiced that the right hon. Baronet, with the apparent assent of the House, had thought fit to give some credit to a much maligned class of persons—the political economists. He hoped the same charity would be extended to the Poor Law Commissioners and to their Secretary, Mr. Chadwick, who was doing all in his power to advance the sanatory and moral condition of the poor. There was another thing he wished to suggest to the right hon. Baronet. A difficulty was likely to arise in the Union with which he was connected. The furthest point now allowed in combining Unions together for the establishment of district schools was fifteen miles. That rule formed a complete barrier to the plan. He was sure he need not urge on the House the propriety of sparing no expense for the proper education of the rising generation, upon whose character must depend the future welfare of the Empire. The means of giving education within the walls of a small Union-house were necessarily very defective, while to do it effectually required an expense and apparatus which would suffice for a larger number of children. He trusted the right hon. Baronet would take this subject into consideration, and see if he could not in some cases extend the limits within each district in which schools might be established. He thanked the right hon. Baronet for his measure, and would give it his support.

Mr. E. B. Denison

thought that the country must feel under great obligations to the right hon. Baronet for his attempt to deal with the present Law of Settlement; for no law could be more absurd in its provisions, or more cruel in its operation.—What, for instance, could be more absurd or cruel towards a man, who had been born and brought up in a town, than that he, upon his unfortunately becoming chargeable, should be liable to be removed, along with his wife and children, to some distant parish, the name of which he perhaps never heard of, because neither he nor his father, nor his grandfather, had ever gained a settlement in the parish in which he lived.—Nothing was more certain, than that a man removed from a parish, where his habits had been formed, and his employment of a settled character, to another parish where no similar employment could be found, remained along with his family a burden upon the parish for life. The present Bill of the right hon. Baronet met this case half-way—but not more than that; for, although it did not refer back to the birth-place of the father or grandfather, it did to that of the man himself; and he, therefore, along with his young family, would be liable to be removed to the place of his birth, on becoming chargeable, although he might have lived and worked several years in another parish.—The Bill circulated during autumn contained a clause to the effect, that if a man resided for five years in a parish, he should not be liable to be removed therefrom, although he had not been born there; this was a reasonable and humane provision. He (Mr. Denison) should have preferred three years to five, or one to three. But this clause was now struck out, and the pauper would have to depend solely upon his birth settlement. It was most desirable that the birth-place should be the general place of settlement; but still he thought that a working man had a fair right to ask for support in that parish in which he had worked as an industrious, honest man for three years; and that he should not be liable to be sent back along with a young family to the parish which he might have left as a boy; but that he should be entitled to relief in that parish where his chidren were born—provided he had resided there for three or at most five years. Although he very much preferred the Bill of last autumn, he thought the present one a great improvement upon the existing system, and he should therefore give it generally his cordial support.

Sir J. Graham

, in reply, thanked the House for the favourable reception they had given to his Bill. He must say, that when he made the proposition he was almost alarmed at the great extent of it, and certainly he was astonished at the observations which had fallen from two hon. Gentlemen, whose objection was, that the measure was still insufficient. The hon. Member for Oxfordshire had said that the change, to be effective, should impose no check upon the Hampshire labourer wishing to go to Liverpool, or on the Norfolk labourer wishing to go to Manchester. Why, if that principle were adopted, it would amount to a total repeal of the Law of Settlement. Then, the hon. Member for Yorkshire had urged, that wherever a party resided, for however short a period, he should there have a settlement. That, again would be the total abolition of the Law of Settlement. Such extensive propositions could not be entertained; and, with respect to what had been said by the hon. Member for Brecon, he would answer that by referring to the Act of 13 and 14 Charles II., sec. 12. What were the words of the Act?— Whereas the necessity, number, and continual increase of the poor, not only within the cities of London and Westminster, with the liberties of each of them, but also through the whole kingdom of England and dominion of Wales, is very great and exceeding burdensome, being occasioned by reason of some defects of the law concerning the settling of the poor, and for want of a due provision of the regulations of relief and employment in such parishes or places where they are legally settled, which doth enforce many to turn incorrigible rogues, and others to perish for want, together with the neglect of the faithful execution of such laws and statutes as have formerly been made for the apprehending of rogues and vagabonds, and for the good of the poor: for remedy whereof, and for the preventing the perishing of any of the poor, whether young or old, for want of such supplies as are necessary, may it please your most excellent Majesty, that it may be enacted—and be it enacted by the King's Most Excellent Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Lords Spiritual and Temporal, and the Commons in this present Parliament assembled, and by the authority of the same, that whereas, by reason of some defects in the law, poor people are not restrained from going from one parish to another, and, therefore, do endeavour to settle themselves in those parishes where there is the best stock, the largest commons or wastes to build cottages, and the most woods for them to burn and destroy, and when they have consumed it then to another parish, and at last become rogues and vagabonds, to the great discouragement of parishes to provide stocks where it is liable to be devoured by strangers: be it therefore enacted, by the authority aforesaid, that it shall and may be lawful, upon complaint made by the churchwardens or overseers of the poor of any parish to any justice of the peace, within forty days after any such person or persons coming so to settle as aforesaid, by their warrant to remove and convey such person or persons to such parish, where he or they were last legally settled, either as native, householder, apprentice or servant, for the space of forty days at the least,.

[Colonel Wood

"Hear!" Forty days' residence previous to that Act!] From the time of Elizabeth down to that Act the Law of Settlement was unknown. Parties wandered from parish to parish, attracted by woods and commons and other advantages, of which, as rogues and vagabonds, they made themselves masters; and the justices were directed to send them to the parishes whence they came. Until the passing of the Poor Law Amendment Act the administration of the fund for the relief of the poor was strictly parochial. The parochial administration thus ceased, the union administration then began. Therefore there was nothing new in the principle of the Bill. It was a mere extension of the details. He would only detain the House to notice the two observations of the noble Lord the Member for Plymouth (Viscount Ebrington). First, with regard to the district schools—this question was much discussed when the enactment passed last year; he had purposely so framed the distances in that measure that it was only applicable to large towns and to populous places. He believed that as yet there had hardly been a district school formed under the Act, and it was desirable to have some experience of its working before the principle was extended further. Then, with respect to the rating of small tenements, he did not wish to encumber the question of the Law of Settlement, in itself a very difficult subject, with the additional difficulty of the question whether in rating small tenements the burden should fall on the landlord or on his tenant. That subject would properly come under discussion when the not less important, and certainly not less difficult, question of rating should be considered; and he hoped the noble Lord would think he had acted with prudence by not involving one difficult question with another.

Mr. Wakley

had only one word to say, in Consequence of the right hon. Baronet having alluded to the favourable manner in which the Bill had been received. In offering no opposition to the introduction of the Bill, he did not wish it to be inferred that he was favourable to its provisions. It was a tremendous measure: it was a measure of enormous importance, and it was an attempt to break up the parochial system in this country, which, if carried into effect, would, he believed, operate in a very extraordinary manner on the social condition and feelings of the people of this country. The hon. Member behind the right hon. Baronet had feared that it would lead to something else, and in another direction. What he feared was, that it would have a direct tendency towards perpetuating the power of the Poor Law Commissioners [Mr. Roebuck: Hear, hear], and render permanent an Act of Parliament which he would like to see expunged from the Statute Book to-morrow—he meant, the Act of the 4th and 5th William IV., commonly called the Poor Law Amendment Act. He understood the cheer, the taunting cheer, of the hon. and learned Member for Bath: it was one of that learned Member's peculiarities; he understood the cheer well, and he did not choose to be subject to misrepresentation, nor would he have paltry and contemptible motives attributed to him. He had very lately alluded to evils which existed under a Poor Law Union, and he had been told that the only way in which they would be able to remove those evils was by an increase of the power of the Poor Law Commissioners, on which he had declared that he was prepared in forty-eight hours to give such a power for such a purpose, and so he was. The right hon. Baronet the Secretary of State for the Home Department had cheered, and had ardently cheered, his reference to the oppressive and occasionally cruel conduct of the Boards of Guardians; and in his subsequent introductian of this Bill the right hon. Gentleman had appealed to the greater humanity which would mark the conduct of persons in authority when the removing-officer was selected, not from the parochial officers, but from the Union. Now, it was universally known in the country that the tyranny, the oppression, and the cruelty, which had especially marked the mal-administration of the Poor Law, wherever such mal-administration had been observed, was found to be produced by the Board of Guardians. They acted as a corporation, their responsibility was extended over the mass, they never came to a decision in the presence of the poor, the rate-payers were not admitted to their meetings, the press was not allowed to enter, their meetings and acts were entirely private. He thought it dangerous to bestow more power on a body so constituted. He had just given a specimen of what he believed existed under the Boards of Guardians, and the right hon. Gentleman had expressed in earnest terms his regret that there should be such practices; and regretted that more power was not given to the Poor Law Commissioners to prevent them. Seeing, however, the conduct of the Boards of Guardians, and seeing that they acted without individual responsibility, he feared that this measure, although it might contain many desirable provisions, would operate on the whole disastrously for the country, and especially on the condition of the poor.

Leave given.