Lords Report of 6 May 1828

SCOTCH SETTLEMENT BILL.
The Earl of Roseberry, in moving the second reading of the Scotch Settlement Bill, wished briefly to state the grounds upon which he had been led to support a measure which tended rather to alleviate an existing evil than altogether to remove it. The influx of Irishmen into Scotland was known to be considerable; and that being the fact, it appeared necessary that parliament should adopt some measure for putting a stop to the evil which grew out of such a system; he alluded to the competition in labour, which gradually tended to introduce a degree of want and misery into the country, that had not before existed in it. Under this conviction, therefore, he felt that he should be guilty of a breach of duty, were he to refuse stepping forward; and if he had not the power of destroying the evil, at least to use his influence to alleviate it. The point to which he more particularly wished to draw their lordships' attention, was that part of the existing law which gave to all persons the power of claiming a settlement in Scotland, after a residence of three years; and he thought that the population would be better, as well as more useful, members of society, if the settlement was extended from three to seven years. He had already mentioned how the law stood at present, and he would now state that the consequence of such a measure was, that numbers of aged and infirm persons were continually migrating from Ireland, for the purpose alone of procuring a settlement after so short a period; end by that means of claiming that parochial relief, which they could not acquire in their own country. The object of the bill
1034
was merely to extend the period at which a claim could be made to a settlement, from three to seven years.
Lord Melvilleopposed the bill, because it was the first attempt to introduce a different species of legislation for different classes of his majesty's subjects. He contended that the natives of England and Ireland had a right to enter into Scotland. The bill would also be inoperative on account of the inaccuracy of keeping parish registers in Scotland, and the difficulty of ascertaining the claims of individuals. He opposed the bill on principle, and moved that it be read a second time that day three months.
The Earl of Limericksaid, he was surprised to hear the observations of the noble mover with regard to Ireland. The tenor of his speech could only be looked upon as a taint upon the character of the people of that country, and an indirect accusation of profligacy on their parts. The people of Ireland were armed with every principle of right, under the treaty of the Union: yet, since that treaty, the greatest inroads had been made upon their rights; and this was another attempt to inflict a further injury upon them. The cry now was, "Keep us from the Irish!" Some years back, the cry was, "For Heaven's sake keep us from the Scotch!" The great body of the people were, however, now looking forward for a day of conciliation, and not of recrimination. He objected to the bill as drawing a line of demarcation between the inhabitants of different parts of the same United empire. He did not wish to see such distinctions kept up, and looked forward to see all men made equal in the eye of the law.
The Earl of Roseberrysaid, he had no wish to shew the slightest unkindness towards the Irish. The bill placed the Irish and English on the same footing.
The Earl of Haddingtonsaid, that the proposed measure, under any circumstances, could not place the Irishman in a worse situation than he was at home; but after a residence of seven years, it would be found to place him in a far better condition: for he would then be entitled to that settlement which he could, never procure in his own country. The object of the bill was, not to discourage Irishmen from going over to Scotland, but to prevent them from obtaining so easy a settlement as the present system entitled them to. He would rather the bill should be in

1035
force against Scotchmen themselves, than 'thrown out altogether.
The Earl of Rosslynwould never give his vote for a bill which would exclude Englishmen and Irishmen from obtaining a settlement in Scotland upon the same footing as the natives of that country.
Lord Belhavenopposed the bill upon the same grounds.
The Earl of Darnleycould not vote for a bill which would exclude the natives of Ireland from the enjoyment of advantages in another country, which they were deprived of in their own.
The Earl of Roseberry, in consequence of the objections which had been made to the bill, was desirous of suggesting whether it would not be better to have the bill read a second time, and on being committed to make such alterations as might be deemed necessary.
Lord Melvillehad no objection to adopt the suggestion of the noble earl.
The bill was read a second time, and committed for the 11th instant.