The Statesman.
London, England, 1822-06-01 00:00:00

STATESMAN

believed that cause to be dependant upon another,
namely, the increasing, or certainly not diminishing
state of the foreign Slave Trade. From information
which hehad lately received, he believed that many re-
spectable merchants of otir own were making themselves
subservient to the carrying on of this infamous traffic.
The means by which they did it conduced to lessen the
demand for their own produce. The African market was
unfortunately very limited, but there was the legal trade
in ivory, gold, and some other articles. This part of the
trade was made subservient to the traffic in slaves, and
it was dune in this war • our vessels, lades with such
produce, met off the African coast with the Spanish,
Portuguese, and French ships, who now carried on the
traffic to so infamous an extent. Here they changed
cargoes, taking a little palm oil, or something of that
kind, to cover their rral object, and the produce they
took out went to the purchase of slaves, which were
shipped to Cahoot the Brazils. Ile had looked carefully
into the Abolition Acts, and be was not sure that the
proceedings did not come within the 47th of the late
king. At all events, he trusted that the persons en-
gaged in them were not aware how nearly they approach-
ed to a breach of the laws. He bad stated this because
be wished to give them warning, and because he
thought it his duty to communicate the information to
the bons..
Mr. HUME thought the Chancellor of the Exchequer
would do well to bring down the duties on West India
Sugar to 17 or 20 shillings.
The petition was ordered to be printed.
Mr. CA NININO said, be held in his hand a petition
from another class of merchants in the same place, con-
taining a contrary prayer. It prayed that the Bills be-
fore the bone upon this subject, should not be passed
into laws. He also had to present a similar petition
from the city of Loudon. As future opportunities for
discussing those questions would come regularly before
them, be thought it best to abstain from any observa-
tions for the present.
The two petitions were ordered to be printed;
Mr. C. ELLICE presented a Petition from the Agents
of the West India Colonies, praying that the regulation
of the Act of last year fur imposing protecting duties on
their produce, might in the course of the present Ses-
sion be rendered permanent.
The Petition was read and ordered to be printed.
Mr. HEATHCOTE presented a Petition from Oak-
bans against the Poor Removal Bill. Ordered to be
printed.

INFLUENCE or Tel CROWN.
Mr. BROCOHAM "ave notice that on Wednesday, the
19th ofJune, he should bring forwaed a motion relative
to the increase of the influence of the Crown.
Mr. WILBERFORCE, is a low tone of voice, gave
notice of a motion for Thursday, the 13th of June,
which we understood to be up n the subject of the infor-
mation given to the House by Mr. Brougham relative to
the Slave Trade.
POOR REMOVAL RILL.
Mr. SCARLETT observed, that lie was not surprized
by the number of petitions, which were presented against
the Bill, the second reading of which was fixed for to-
night. Ile was indeed prepared for a good deal of re•
sistance to the measure lie had undertaken. But many
persons, who conceived the Bill to have an injurious
effect, would not be of that opinion if they were aware
of his intention to follow it up by other measures. He
wonld now confine himself to the single measure before
the House. The object of this Bill, he avowe4, was to
prevent the removal of the poor. He hoped die House
would indulge him with a few moments' attention, whilst
be gave a sketch of the history. of this branch of the Poor
Laws.—The House was acquainted with the present state
of the poor—that they formed a ninth part of the popu-
lation—that they were, emphatically, without Repre-
sentatives, and that they were is a lower state than the
poorest p t io any other country. If a poor man
apply for relief in a parish, supposing him not entitled
to a settlement there, no matter what was the cause of
his poverty, he was liable to be sent to a parish, perhaps
the most distant, where he had no friends, relations, or
acquaintance, and where he had but little chance of
obtaining work. This state of things, be wonld show,
was not necessary to the interests of any. party. The
Statnte of Elizabeth, the 43d, put the poor into that con-
dition that Blackstone laments they had not since been
left. The purport of that Statute was to make those
who were able to work, and those who were not were to
be supplied from &general fund. This Statute remained
in force a considerable time; and from its passing until
the time of Charles IL, only two Acts wets made about
the poor; but neither of them had any reference to the
increase of the Poor Rates, or the number of the peor.
• One of those Acts, made in James's time, was enacted
to provide against the running away of fathers of fa-
milies; and the other for the punishing of fathers of il-
legitimate children. The unhappy reign of Charles L
changed the state of the lower orders—armies were raised
—the population was driven from one part of the king-
dom to the other—the state of the country was such as to
call for the attention of the Legislature, in order to re-
press the growth of idle and diiorderly persons; and in
Cromwell's time the evil became so oppressive, that an
Ordinance was issued, which clearly recorded the fact of
the increase of the number of low, disorderly persons.—
In the ISth of Charles 11. being the second year after
his accession to the throne, a Statute was passed, enact-
ing the compulsory removal of the poor. The effect of
that Statute was this, that if any person was likely to be-
come chargeable to a parish, and was not entitled to a
settlement there, he slionli be removed to the parish
where be was last a resident for a certain time. The,
result sax important. The Legislature was compelled
to interfere to check the operation of this Act, and
passed several laws, making exceptions against its pro-
visions. At the same time the Courts of Justice, feeling
the cruelty of the law in many instances, and preferring
the milder spirit of the Common Law, relaxed the ri-
gour of the former by a variety of decisions. In the
reign of William 111. a remarkable instaaceof the effect
of the law oft:harks I L occurred. In 1696 the House 01
Commons had its attention drawn to the state of the law
resperting the poor, and a reference was made to the
Board of Eraile. at the head of which was the celebrated
Mr. Locke. The report, which was known to have been
drawn up by Mr. Locke, set forth that the increase of the
por.r. ana ii,r i x frreraary to support them, were blitl-
jeCia of miss general complaint, that they were not so he
. dotilt•ed of; that the evil was one of many years growth ;
that it was telt in the two last reiens, and that it resulted
not from the scarcity of provisions, but from the corny-
Hon of lie lower el ,fk.c. This report was fallowed
up by an Act of Parliament, the Bth and Nth of William,
by which persons were allowed to come in on certificate.
The Courts of Law assisted by their decisions, in a great
measure, to confirm the effect of this law, namely—to do
away with the Act of Charles 11. Coming down to n
darn times, he could not avoid noticing, with the sleep.
est feeling of satisfaction, the Act of the 36th of the late
reigu, which by preventing the removal of any persons
until they became actually chargeable, elfected inure
good than any since the days of Elizabeth. And here
he must observe, that when that Bill, introduced by Sir
E. Hyde East, had been before the House, numberless
petitions were sent in against it. The opposition, in-
deed, was so great, that the respected individual just
mentioned, was compelled to allow a clause in the fiill,
by which women pregnant of bastard children,
were deemed chugeable and liable to a e removed.—
The effect of the law of removal, was first to produce a
great increase in the charges of supporting the poor.—
'lids he could demonstrate. It bad been said by Dr.
Burn, the most comprehensive, learned, and practical
writer oa this subject, that this law produced more liti-

gation than could be believed by these ail oninsintoft
with the fact on undoubted teatimes.. Yet be alluded
but to the decisions of the Kiag's Bench on the law.
and numerous as they were, they were nothiag com-
pared to the number of appeals to Quarter Sessions.
whirl, took place four times a year in many districts
throughout the country. Th enrage expenses of
three years beginning in they 1815, for removals
and litigation throughout the kingdom, amounted to
327 thousand pounds a year. Now, even if this son
was saved, it would be rendering no small service to the
country. But there were farther expenses than those,
for those were but the law expenses—the labour bestow-
eton the removals—the expenses of inquiries, fa. But
the greatest evil of the law was this, that if a poor man
askeil the smallest sum—say a shilling, from the parish,
to Kelp him to support any of his family. the appliel.
tion became a pretext fur removing him to his parish,
be it ever so remote. What was the consermenee? The
man able to work—able to support himself and the whole
of his family, with the exception of oseor two, must be
sent off to a parish, where probably he gets no work at
all, and where necessarily the whole family become a
burden upon it. Ile believed the experience of most
persons would establish the truth of the statement,
that in the majority of the cases of removal,the pauper
removed was not able to find work in the parish to
Which he was sent. It was obvious then that one effect
of the system was, that the poor man was driven from a
place where he could obtain work, to a place where be
amid not obtain it. Supposing a man were to propose
that a commodity produced in a particular parish sboold
sot be sent out of it, would be not be looked on as ab-
oard. Has not the poor man the greatest possible la-
Wrest in his labour—has lie not a right to have it car-
ried to market? Why confine him to the place of his
birth where there may be no 'parka at all ? if in
a country the price of a particular commodity was
,unequal in different places, would it not be said
that the administration of the Government was badly
conducted. lie would now show the unequal state of
wages in different parts of the country: la Sussex,
wages were from 7s. to 9s. per week; in Lancashire
from 15s. to 18s. lo Surrey wages were higher than
lo Sussex; and very often • great variance was seen
to almost neighbouring parishes.— (Hear, bear, hear.)
This disparity showed that there was not a free circu-
lation of labour. In Sussex the average sum for three
years levied for the poor amounted to 275 7621. per an-
nnm. The population for that county, In 1811, was
IWO. I o Lancashire the average sum, for the same
tinn raised for the support of the poor, was, 261,7301.
per annum, being 14,0001. per annum less than the sum
raised in the county of Sussex. The population in Lan
cashire in 1811 was 828,390. Let them, then, see the
state of property in each of those counties. The amount
of property assessable to Poors' Rates in the county of
Sussex was 915,3481. per annum. In Lancashire it
amounted to 3,0237,7841. In addition to this it would
be found that, in counties where there were large towns
end manufactures extensively carried on, the amount of
the Poors' Rates was lower in comparison to the popula-
tion and property than it was in the agricultural districts.
Now, what was the cause of all this disparity ? It had
been the policy of the great Act of Elizabeth, that each
should contribute to the support of the poor according
to his ability; and the burden was equalized, and would
continue to be so, but for the Statute of Removal. He
would first consider that Act in principle, and then in
detail. It was the right of a poor man to go where he
pleased—where he could Und the best market for his la-
bour. Bet if a man was prevented from seeking
out a market for his labour, the consequence was that
he must become a burden to the parish in which he lived
if he could not find work there. Not long since, be had
heard that, in a certain parish in Sussex, there were 25
able-bodied men who could not find Work. They could
not go abroad for work, unless they could get it imme-
diately. In the parish where they were settled, there
was no work to be bad. One of the evils of the system
was, that be poor bad imbibed the notion of absolute
right to support ; and this was but a natural effect.—
The poor man converted the oppression of the law into
a ground of right, and made reprisals for its exclusive
and binding force on the property of individuals whom
accident had rendered subject to Isis claim.—(Hear.)—
Alarms were felt that the poor should be left to wander
about. lie would deal frankly with the House; he
would say that the poor man had not facilities enough
in going from place to place. There was another objec-
tion which arose out of the system, to which he would
apply himself. Gentlemen said that the effect of the
repeal would be, that the cottages would be pulled
down, and the poor sent into large towns. But how
was the fact?—Before the .law of Removal was ever
enacted—nay, even in Elizabeth's time—so general was
the disposition to build cottages, that a Statute was enact-
ed in her reign prohibiting the building of cottages, ex-
cept such as should have four acres of groundattacbsd to
them. The lion. and Learned Gentleman read a long
extract from Dr. Burn's work on the Poor Laws, in
which he h umou rou sly descri bed the duties *fan overseer.
The House would observe, that Dr. Burn was of opinion
that the pulling down cottages was the result of the law
of Removal. Ile (3lr. S.) did not mean to enter into
the controversy, but it was too much for any one to as-
sume that this would decidedly be the result of the abo-
lition of the law, as proved since there was an authority
of such high value against them. Another of the evil
results of the law was, that it gave the overseers of pa-
rishes the power of making a distinction between the
two classes of those likely to become chargeable, the
settled poor of their own parish and those that were not
settled. They always took care of their own poor,
watched their habits, and always saw that they were pro-
vided with work. He hail lately received aletter from
an overseer in Cumberland, who had acted as overseer,
at different periods, for twenty.three years. He stated,
that in his parish, the parishioners paid the greatest at-
tention to theyoung women of their own parish,but those
that were oot settled were not so treated—were, in fact,
considered as fair prey, because if they were got with
child they could be sent hack to their own parishes. Ile
did not vouch for the truth of this statement, he merely
stated what was communicated to Lim by one whom
he thought to be • wraith), honest man. But to come
to the ohj action. It was said that if the removal was
aledi.iled, you take away the restraint which now ope.
rated on those Who were not settled, from becoming a
burden on the parish. If a man was settled in a parish
he could claim relief—if not, there was a restraint ope-
rating on him and be took more care. The argument
was that the law of removal was a penal law to restrain
vice and idleness. If the principle of the law was good,
it ought to go farther. TheJusticesought to be enabled
to send a person applying for relief to a distance of
some hundred and fifty miles. But it wanted one princi-
ple of a penal law—its justice. lie would admit that a
moral restraint, operating on a person likely to become
chargeable on a parish, was of great benefit. But this I
was nut the restraint which ought to be pot in
practice. The best ought to be used, but this was the
worst. If indeed the poor mail was to get nothing but
bread and water in the parish where he was removed tu,
the arrangement would be right and the argument coo
sistent; L.--t at present you did no more than send idle-
ness and vice from one place to flourish more pro-
teemed in another. The law, as a penal law, operated
unequally; social ties---.habits of i otercourse --the
lore of old associations were more likely to ope-
rate in the good and amiable than the idle and
and wicked; but as poverty was likely to overtake
the one as the other, so did the law place the two cha-
racters on an equality—to the one the removal was no
punishment—to the other it was a visitation the most

severe. He denied, therefore, that the law in this sense
even was most law. What was then die right mode of
punishing r It was the ascertainiumet of the merit and
necessity of each individual applying for relief, and the
skilful apportioning to him of relief. There was an-
other branch of the subject—that of bastardy, which
called loudly for reform. According to the present state
of the law, the overseer was employed in finding out
pregnant unmarried mime women, to drag them out.
before the world, and fix the 'tangs of shame upon them.
lint there was no obligation on parishes to support these
persons. Let the law he assimilated to that of Scotland
—leave it to herself to complain if she will, and in case
she did, let an order of maintenance be made on the fa
Cher, but let no one meddle with her unless she com-
plains. The general effect of the measure would be to
promote every where a g disposition to examine
into the moral habits of the poor. It would afford ineans
of rewarding industry by discriminating between those
whim poverty was a consequence of vicious courses, and
those who became distressed from accidental misfortunes.
It would tend to make parishes wore attentive to their
religious education. It would not increase the Poor
Rates bat would rather diminish them. The relative
burdens with regard to the agriculturists would be the
same, but the inanufacturing districts would not be in a
worse situation than In fairness they ought to he. For
it was not reasonable that a manufacturing town, after
baring bad the benefit of a roaa's labour for the best part
of his life, should send him in his old age a pauper to be
supported by his parish. One other effect, too, it would
hare; it would encourage the format ion of fends among the
working classes themselves, to which they might have re-
course in causer need wi th au tcoming upon their parishes.
In Salford, ha Lancashire, there Wasa feud upon Reis
principle, whistle deserved to be imitated. One thousand,
persons there subscribed a penny a week, which aticnion-
hoed till the fund reached two hundred a year; but it
was suffered to exceed that sum. For twenty years
this fund had not been touched. When it became ne-
cessary to apply it, the sum wanted was taken, and its
place was then supplied by the subscribers. The mem-
bers were cheerful and happy. It was to be wished that
such associations were more general. Something in the
way of a legislative encouragement to theta might be
embodied in the present measure. The poi of it wonld
be incalculable. Fur all these reasons, then, he brought
the Bill forward. He had taken the abolition of the.
Law of Removal as a first step to a more equitable sys-
tem of Poor Laws. Common justice to the poor, who
were so grievously oppressed by this law, called loudly
for its repeal. The system would at least be simplified
Ciereby. That tissue of contrivances to get rid of the
poor, and all that mass of ingenuity which was at pre-
sent used to find them employment, would be dispensed
with. The whole of the present artificial system would
be got rid of. With regard to himself, be wished to say
that be was no otherwise interested in the measure than
as be those ht it would conduce to the public good. He
was entirely is the hands oldie hone. If they were in-
disposed to adopt the measure, of course be would not
press it; but if, on the other band, they thought the
Bill should pass into a law, he would stick by it, not-
withstanding its unpopularity, and the ridicule which
was attempted to be thrown upon it. He was also wil-
ling to admit of such usoditications as gentlemen would
suggest; or, if the house thought proper to send the
Bill to a Committee, he would entirely concur with them
in such changes as to them would seem fit. The Hon.
Member concluded by moving the second reading of the
Bill. _ _ _

On the question for the second rending being put,
Mr. MANSFIELD opposed the motion ; but the noise
in the house was so great, that we could not distinctly
hear him. We understood him to object principally to
the penal clauses in the Bill, which went to iudict pu-
nishment, instead of affording relief. He moved, as an
amendment, " That the Bill be read a second time this
day six months."
Mr. lIIONCK seconded the amendment. The evili
in the present system of the Poor Laws had not been met
by a proper remedy. The present Bill, would, if passed,
make it the interest of large towns to encourage the vo-
luntary removal of idlers. They would be bribed away.
The Hon. Member here referred to the several statutes,
authorising removal, and contended that all authority
was in its favour. It had been described as oppressive;
but in fact, it was a security to the person who was the
ohjeceof it. The large manufacturers injured the towns
in which they were situated, for they obtained the la-
bour of many of their workmen at the expence of the
parish. The deficiency in the wages was made up
in poor rates. The towns in fact would be extremely
glad to get rid of their manufacturers altogether. If the
Bill passed, it would, he believed, cause a greater revolu-
den in property than any which had ever been brought
by any legislative proceeding, except indeed the Bill of
the Right Hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Secretary
Peel.)—He thought his Hon. and Learned Friend, with
the best intentions, had really not paid sufficient atten-
tion to the subject.
Mr. COURTENAY opposed the Bill, though be
would support any measure for giving a settlement upon
a short residence. The present Bill went, in his opinion,
to alter the whole Law of Settlement, and to this he could
not consent. He thought, too, that some of the clauses
could not be carried into effect.
Mr. SCA RLETT said the present question was upon
the principle of the Bill. He had refrained from enter-
ing into the Clauses, as be knew they could be more ad-
vantageously discussed in a Committee.
Sir JOHN SHELLEY said, his Hon. and Learned
Friend received little encouragement to proceed with the
measure. He (Sir J.) trusted, therefore, that Govern-
ment would take it upon themselves. Unless something
effectual were to he done, the land would not be able to
support the poor, and rent and taxes would be entirely
out of the question.
Capt. MABEKLEY referred to some comparative
statements respecting the Population and Poor Kates of
Lancaster and Sussex; but he spoke io so low a tone of
voice that we could notdistioctly hear kim.—tie opposed
the Bill. _ .

Sir M. W. RIDLEY trusted that his Hnnonrable and
L .1 Friend would not press the Bill against the
general fee.ing of the House. He thought, however,
something like a remedy might be suggested for the
present evils. Paupers, in general, would rather labour
than be removed ; but any alteration of the law should
be gradual.
Mr. NOLAN said, that as it had been insinuated that
the pour of the country were not represented in the
House, he would take it upon himself to say, that there
tvas.no part of the country for whose interests and whose
fre;attes the House thought with more consideration.
Llis Hun. and learned Friend (Mr. Scarlett) deserved
much credit for the liberal and candid manner in which
be had brought farward the question. It was no light
hut one of great and arduous didical:y. Ile felt
that it was an, though he could sot agreealtogether whit
the Hun. Member. There was one advantage to be de-
rived front the present discussion—that of setting the
public mind at rest ui-en the subject. He agreed in
..pinion with others, that it was one which should 'nut
he left to his Majesty's Mioisters alone to take op ; but
it was a question which, as it belonged to the people,
could be taken up and brought before the House by any
of their representativep. His opinion was much affected
by the number of petitions presented from people of
practical experience, which were all against the Bill—
not ohe its favour of it. He paid more attention to those
declarations than to theoretical • opinions. He was
afraid that one of the consequences of the proposed
measure, would be to make the poor consider the Poor's
lt-.tes theirs as a touter of right, and that tvheroves