The Sun.
London, England, 1845-01-04 00:00:00

THE LAW OF SETTLEMENT.

TO THE SOCIETY OF Cl.l. lIKS OF THE
UNIONS OF THE NORTMALN DISTRIC
OF ENGLAND.

In complying with your request that I should furnish
in detail the plan of national poor-law relief suggested
by me at our meetings during the past year, in order
that its bearings might be considered with reference to
the suggested Bill, as introduced into the House of Com-
mons at the close of the last session by Sir James Grea
ham, intituled " A Bill to consolidate and amend the
Laws relating to Parochial Settlement, and to the Res
moval of the Poor;" I am fully aware of the great re-
sponsibility and difficulties attendant on the course of
any one attempting an alteration of existing laws, or
opposing settled opinions and fixed prejudices. I will
premise that it has now become a maxim of our coma-
tution that no poor person in England shall exist in
want for a longer period than his requireinents shall
become known to the proper authorities for the relief of
the poor.
To trace down the lees of settlement and relief from
Henry the Eighth to the present time, which I at first
contemplated (and which laws have made this maxim),
is rendered unnecessary by the able report which since
your request I have had placed in my hands from
Committee appointed by the town council of the borough
of Leicester. It were a work of supererogation again to
travel over ground so well occupied by that report; and
I proceed to the statement of facts •connected with (Air
union of Stockport, and to the plan suggested, which
has been' so favourably received by a body of gentlemen
connected as you are with a population of several mil-
lions, and with the principal manufacturina districts of
the north of England,
Under the laws so ably traced by the Leicester re-
port, the borough of Stockport has grown up from
small ville, and become a populous manufacturinc,dis
trict, containing 60,000 inhabitants.
For the purposes of the poor-laws it is divided into:
five districts or townships, each maintaining its own'
poor—namely, Stockport, Heaton Norris, Brinnington,
Cheadle Bulkeley, and Cheadle Moseley. Stockport.
being the township originally located, has become built'
up, and the population has extended into the adjacent,
townships of Heaton Norris, Brinnington, Cheadle
Bulkeley, and Cheadle Moseley.
Stockport township has the largest amount of poor,
and from its local position and from giving the name to
the district, it has also the disadvantage of paying for
all casual paupers ; its neighbouring townships receive
all the advantages of the tradeof Stockport, without any
of the disadvantages.
The' poor-laws have been intended as a national ar-
rangement, and have become part of our constitution ;
but the method devised n) our ancestors to carry these
laws into operation, was through the medium of arbi-
trary local divisions called parishes. These parishes
have in many cases been sub-divided into smaller arbi-
trary divisions called townships ;, andby the *Poor-law
Amendment Act these parishes and townships havebeen:
united into larger districts called unions ; but in these:
unions the relief of the poor of each township is kept,
strictly separate, and each township is exclusively
charged with the expenditure caused by the relief of its,
own particular paupers.
By thus localising the charges of maintaining the poor,:
whether in parishes or townships, much misery has been:
and still is caused. Boards of guardians will act on ,
different principles : some pauperise whole districts ;:
others depopulate them. Landowners cause the surplus
population to migrate. Manufacturers, in time of com-
mercial distress, .send back again this originally agri-
cultural surplus population. Local authorities, as it
were, shoulder the miserable wretch requiring relief out.
of their locality; and struggles in each district are con-I
tinually carried on through the medium of assistant
overseers, relieving officers, removal officers, magistrates
clerks; attorneys, and barristers-at-law, in reference to
pauper settlements; which struggles entail an enormous
expense on the parishioners; and all this to prevent the
necessity of a few shillings being given in time of need
to a pauper by one set of local authorities called Over-
seers, which according to law declared through all the
mazes of legal teehnicality, ought to be given by the,
overseers of another locality. And as the relief in dis-
puted cases is generally given unwillingly (it may be
said as a general rule, with great parsimony), miserable
is the wretch who awaits the decision of a parish law-
suit, to ascertain by what parish his necessary relief
must be given.
What is the real remedy? Is it. by destroying all
settlements but that of birth? or by changing the birth-
settlement by a settlement to be acquired from time to
time by a five years' residence in any other parish? This
would merely continue the evils of the present system;
nay, if possible, it would aggravate them. ' It would
cause the landowner to pull down every cottage on his
estate not absolutely required for his own labourer. It'
would be a premium for cruelty. It would `confer .
different settlements by the mere result of the -accident
of birth, on different members of the same family—(a
family of eight children might each have a
,different
birth-settlement); and lastly, by this legislative altera-
tion of existing settlements, in would cause one town-
ship to gain that which it would cause another townsbip
to lose; and this without any sufficient reason, without
compensation in any way.
The present law of settlement is well ascertained.
There are no difficulties ROW, save those as to the facts; -
and those which arise from technicalities. Remove the
technical objections as soon as pos ible. This may he
done; but the facts, in case of dispute, will always have
to be settled by evidence, and this therefore you cannot
settle by Act.of Parliament. Not one appeal in ten at
the present day is decided on the merits. But few set-
tlements are disputed on a difference of opinion as to
what the merits are; technical objections, and those
only, are tke questions decided by the courts. And I
hold it to be a disgrace to our Legislature, and to the
parties who expound the Acts of the Legislature, that
every advantage is given in our courts of law to tech-
nical objections. The rule of the courts of law is not,
Is the prisoner guilty ? or, Is the pauper really settled ?
but, Is the commitment technically worded, or the
examinations a perfect specimen of special pleading ?
If after hearing a long, learned, and elaborate address
from counsel, proving that according to law certain
words omitted ought to have been inserted in commits
ment or order of removal, the Court of Queen's Bench
or quarter sessions, agreeing in opinion with the advoa
cate, were to send the commitment or order back to the
magistrate for correction, or correct it by one of its
own officers, there would be no premium for technical
objections—justice would be done ; but much business
would be abolished, and criminals would not escape, nor
parishes be mulcted, as they do and are at present.
What, then, is the real remedy, the humane and
Christian-like remedy, for the evils of the present sys-
tem ? It is to make the relief of the poor purely na-
tional—to make every part of England where a poor '
man may reside really and truly his home—to prevent
removal officers by law separating him • from the place •
where his happiest days have been spent—to make the
relieving officer the real messenger of charity—to relieve
distress when and as soon as it arises—and to banish for
ever those insane struggles and legal tights to decide •
from which local purse the necessary relief must be •
abstracted.
And how is this to be done ? By abolishing the
poor's-rate altogether, and placing the relief' of the poor
upon the Consolidated Fund. The army and navy are
kept out of this fund, and why should not the poor ?
The poor are caused by distress, agricultural and corns
mercial. In times of distress the Legislature is always
appealed to, and professes to be able to give a remedy ;
and surely for the purposes of this letter we may take it
for granted, that the Legislature is more or less answer-
able for the continuance of distress. It will be granted
that no imlividual township can in itself hare any power
to cause, avert, or prevent national distress. Stockport
cannot cause or prevent distress as regards Heaton-
Norris, nor the converse. No one township, therefore,
ought to be detrimented by local distress. The law of
settlement was caused by a desire to prevent hordes of
beggars from rambling across the country. and maraud-
ing without warrant. The destruction of it in the pre-
sent day would prevent theta from rambling in the same
way with warrant, accompanied by official parties, at
•
immense expense to the parishes concerned.
To such a comprehensive plan as a general abolish-
ment of the poors'-rate, and with it the law of settle-
ment, I know there will be a horde of objectors. The
parish officer's occupation, who ferrets out settlements,
would be gone, and he is generally the clever man in
each union. His hostility would be roused against any .
such plan. The removal . officer, who journeys with,
paupers from Land's End to Scotland, would be dis-
pensed with; would his evidence be in favour of such a
plan ? The magistrate's clerk, who receives now very
large fees for the examinations and removal orders,
would find his fees diminished; and lie is a person of no
slight influence. The attorney-at-law, who conducts
the appeals and sessions business incident thereon, would
be minus his bill ; and I am not one to underrate the
influence which the attorneys have in this country. The
barrister-at-law, who only receives a fee after the case
is fairly launched in court, would have no appeal busi-
ness. And let any one attend the Yorkshire sessions for
ones appeal-day, and see the entry of settlement appeals
at Pontefract, and then ask if the barristers, as a class,
can be sufficiently patriotic to abandon settlement liti-.
gation? I do not mean to say all the before.mentionea. 'in-
dividuals will oppose a comprehensive measure beneficial
to their country. There are individuals at all times'
ready to come out from their class, and advocate views
detrimental to their class-interests. But in classes
class-interests will predominate; and it may fairly be
inferred that all those classes will oppose a general and
comprehensive view of the subject.
There are several ways of objecting to an alteration.
I will endeavour to deal with those which I can anti-
cipate.
Ist. It will be said, bow can you make it a national
charge, and at the seine time have a local distribution
of the relief ?
2d. At present, the comparative expense to some
townships is light, and N. by should they lose the present.
advantage ?
The first objection, which is in reality the only one,
is placed first and will first be replied to ; as, if that can„
be disposed of, none other nerd be feared.
That pauperism is a national evil, not a local one. few
will dispute. That nn local district, arbitrarily fanned
by a brook or accidental mere stone can have aTAy effect
in the prevention of pauperism or its causea, will be by
few denied. The propriety of a national charge there-
fore results; and now comes the question how a local •
administration of them can be free firm injustice.
It may be done by a staff of officers comprising about
one-half of the officers already employed. The Excise
and Customs are managed lit able and competent per-
sons. The army and navy are paid by properly ap-
pointed parties. Every department of Government has ,
its efficient management ; and there is no reason why
the administration of the vele-laws should not be a 'de-
partment of Government, and be equally well managed.
The unions remaining as at present, and changed' as
circumstances may require (u-efnlrtess alone being th
guide), the following others wvuld be requisite:—A pa' a .