The Sun.
London, England, 1854-02-15 00:00:00

This is unquestionably a vast; amelioration, but
when we look to the arguments of Mr. BAINES,
and the evidences adduced by the Right Hon.
Gentleman in support of his proposition, we only
wonder that the power that was so grievously
abused, and which had been so long and so unequi-
vocally condemned by the highest authorities,
should not have been abrogated many years ago.
It was, indeed, a law of which it was difficult to
say whether it was most unjust, most oppressive,
or most impolitic. One which made the expense
of relief fall not upon the parish where the pauper
had applied his labour while he lad strength, and
could be regarded as a valuable element in the po-
pulation—a creator and producer of national wealth,
but upon that where he happened to be born, or
to have acquired a settlement by any recognised
means, which reduced him to the condition of a
" villein"--a serf--chained to the spot where he
first breathed, and which entitled the authorities,
on the first approach of poverty, to banish him from
the place where he had been accustomed to gain his
own livelihood, where all his associations and
connexions existed, and where lie had the best
prospect of earning an independent subsistence
—when some temporary difficulties were encoun-
tered, and the impediments overcome, to another
and a distant locality, where he was utterly un-
known, and where his onlyprospect was that of per-
petual pauperism.
But the political economist may say, What have
the sufferings or the feelings of the pauper to say
to the question ? They must be totally disre-
garded ; or, if it all thought of, it must be only to
the extent of applying them as a new and more
stringent " test of destitution." Industri-
ous, well-disposed " paupers" (if there be such
beings) cannot bear the removal. Tbey dread
the notion of being " passed" back to their origi-
nal parish, and therefore it may be almost as
valuable an instrument for preventing applica-
tions for relief as the separation of parents and
children, and the summary form of divorces
sanctioned by the Poor4aw Magnates. We cannot
deny the truth of this argument, which would be
unanswerable so far as the stony-hearted officials are
concerned. But though we cannot directly
" traverse" the assertion, we may " confess and
avoid." We may tssert without fear of contra-
diction, that it is us unwise as it is unjust ! as
impolitic as it is cruel ! It is certain that not
only the general expenditure for the relief of the
poor throughout the entire kingdom, is greatly in-
creased thereby, by all the costs of litigation and
of travelling, but that even the individual parishes
suffer, and each ratepayer has to contribute more.
What would be thought of the intellect of the
merchants of England and America if payment
for each transaction were to be made by bullion
transmitted across the Atlantic, with all the outlay
for freight and insurance ? How could business
be carried on among merchants of different king-
doms without the aid of bills of exchange, or
among the metropolitan bankers without the aid
aft)rded by the Clearing House, and yet the
" porochal " authorities did something even
more stupid. In place of balancing paupers, or
liquidating the actual cost of their support where
they were, they sent different batches crossing
each other at a heavy outlay, and they expended
far more in litigation than would have supported li
every pauper, whose chargeability was disputed,
not merely in comfort, but in luxury. So far as
to the mere £ s. d. view of the matter, but it
was also in the highest degree impolitic—for, as
Mr. BAINES declared, it frequently made a
farmer give employment to "an idle,
drunken, worthless labourer, and reject a
hard-working, temperate, and skilful man." It
compelled the workman to walk eight or ten miles
in addition to his daily toil, and thus deteriorated
his energies by so much, because, forsooth ! the
squire who required his services would not allow
him to take up his residence within the parish
where he worked, lest, when used up, he might
become chargeable—thus unfairly and dishonestly
shifting the responsibility to others less capable of
bearing it.
It surely, then, requires no argument to
show the folly and wickedness of such
a system—a system that will be regarded
by our children, and children's -children,
throughout all generations, as the most astounding
instance of national weakness and turpitude ever
recorded. Let us be thankful that, after nearly
two centuries' continuance, it is at length about
to be swept away, root and branch—to be totally
and finally abrogated. We enter not into the
other details of the measure at present—we are
satisfied with the great fact, that "from the pass-
ing of the Act it shall not be lawful to remove by
force any poor person upon the ground of settle-
ment from any parish in England or Wales 1"

NAVAL RECEIPT AND EXPENDITURE FOR THE YEAR.
—From a Parliamentary paper just issued, it appears
that the sums voted for the naval service for the year
ending the 31st March, 1853, were 6,705,7461. The
sum expended on the effective and non-effective services
was 6,527,8101. ss. 10d., leaving a balance on the votes
uurppropriated of—including 38,6001. for the naval re-
serve, which scheme was not carried-177,9351. 14s. 2d.