The Mildenhall Union resolved, "That the law of settlement as at present existing is extremely oppressive to the poorer classes, by frequently compelling their removal in old age to a distance from their families and connections, to spend their few remaining years among strangers.

"That the said law has always been found prejudicial to the interest of the ratepayers, from the great amount of litigation it has involved, and the heavy expenses necessarily incurred thereby.

"That for the above and other reasons the Board of Guardians are of opinion that the law of settlement should be totally and absolutely abolished.

"That in lieu thereof some means should be devised for equalising the tax for the relief of the poor, by an improved and uniform system of rating through every Union, combined with an Act rendering compulsory the relief of destitution wherever it may exist, without reference to any local circumstances of previous residence or otherwise of the applicant for relief."

An immense progress of public opinion on this subject, of the law of settlement and removal, is certainly manifested by such resolutions of Boards of Guardians. Still that dread of change which “ perplexes monarchs," which has always been a powerful obstacle to just improvement in the laws of this country, and which has generally made the legislature follow slowly, and at a great distance, the progress of opinion out of doors, will doubtless have some influence in Parliament, whenever it shall be proposed totally to repeal the unjust and injurious law. The late Lord Eldon would probably have wept over any proposal to abolish it, and have spoken of its preservation as equally essential with penal laws in matters of religion, and with the punishment of death in cases of stealing to the value of 5l. in a dwelling-house, to the security of the rights of property, and the stability of all the most valued institutions of our Church and State of England.

It may, however, be affirmed with confidence, that the law of settlement and removal is finally doomed, that its days are numbered, and that it must soon be abolished for ever. Its

ever, would be much promoted by a law which would fix on a parish every labourer who should have been allowed to reside there for any given period, unless the period were so long, as to render the law almost inoperative.'

Upon the whole, it may fairly be said that the statute 9 & 10 Vict. c. 66., although a beneficial mitigation of the previous law, so far as it tended to strike off from the poor man the fetters of his settlement, has inconveniently increased some of the evils which were previously endured by both paupers and ratepayers, and now furnishes an additional ground for repealing the law of settlement altogether, and for modifying the gross injustice found in the present distribution of the burden of relieving the poor.

* Report of the Commissioners for Inquiring, &c. p. 194. folio ed.

SOME benevolent reformers have been sufficiently struck with the more palpable evils of the present law of removal, and especially with its cruel operation on the poor in the day of their distress, to propose that all removals should cease. They would not, however, in any respect, change the law of settlement, but would merely substitute, for the present order of removal, under the statute of Charles II., an order of justices, granted at the instance of the parish of the pauper's residence, and requiring payment, by the parish of settlement, of all necessary relief to be given to the pauper. No doubt such a change in the law may easily be made. The question of parochial charge, in the event of an appeal against such an order, would thus be determined between the contending parishes, as is now done in the case of lunatic paupers, without, in any case, inflicting on the pauper the hardship, or on the parish the expense, of an actual removal.

Certainly it would be a good thing to prevent parish officers from daily traversing the country, with paupers in their custody, under warrants of removal. The unfortunate paupers are often dragged, on the occasion of merely temporary want of their usual work, from the only home they have ever known; from the scene of their youth, and the residence of all their relations and friends; and, what is still more important to ratepayers, often from a manufacturing to an agricultural, or from an agricultural to a manufacturing, district; from the place where their industry is usually able to maintain them, to a place where they will prove a permanent parochial burden.

Many intelligent and enlightened landowners are well aware of the paramount necessity of a great change in the condition of the agricultural labourer, with respect to his dwelling; and do all they can to amend that condition. Some of them, greatly to their own honour, have endeavoured to impress on the understanding of the legislature the necessity of providing the labourer with a dwelling near his work, and above all, giving him better cottage accommodation.*

The law of settlement and removal has tended, during the whole period of its existence, to deter the owners of close parishes from building cottages, and has thus deprived the poor, in numberless agricultural parishes, of the possibility of residing near the place in which their labour is employed. Landowners are found who forget, or have not learned, that the ownership of land imposes moral duties, co-extensive with the legal rights which it sanctions. Throughout extensive districts not a union can be found in which the agricultural labourer is not put to great straits, for want of a residence near his work. A journey of two, three, four, or five miles, has to be performed early and late, morning and night, at every season of the year, and in all weathers, that the unhappy biped may aid in tilling the land, to which he performs his daily pilgrimage, while it is only his more fortunate quadruped companions that are housed there.

The interference of the law of settlement, with the proper supply of cottage accommodation for agricultural labourers, is so manifest, and the resulting evils are so great, that some boards of guardians have been led to rest their condemnation of the existing law of settlement mainly on the ground of that interference, and those evils.

In the Ongar Union, the guardians recently came to a unanimous resolution, "that the abolition of the law of settlement and removal would be very beneficial to the deserving labourers, by encouraging the owners of property to build

* Such was the language of Mr. J. E. Denison, himself an owner of close parishes, in the excellent speech which he made on 5th June, 1846, in moving an instruction to a committee of the House of Commons, to provide for the establishment of union settlements. This speech is referred above, p. 286, note †.

U

have been treated, for nearly two centuries, by this power of removal, under the statute of Charles II., would justly be considered as a national gain.

It may, no doubt, be objected, by some, that the abolition of the power of removing the poor to some place or other of "settlement," would increase the amount of parochial rates; and that the guardians of any union, in bestowing relief, would do so more liberally if acting as mere agents for the ratepayers of a distant parish of settlement, than if they were paying away their own funds. But some grounds exist for thinking that the boards of guardians, who would pay for their own. paupers residing in other unions just as they received for other paupers residing with them, may be trusted in such a matter as this, and would do neither more nor less than their duty.

Every board of guardians already acts in this character of agent to other boards, in numerous cases of giving relief. The yearly amount of money paid to resident non-settled poor, by the guardians of every union, as mere agents for the guardians of some other union in which such poor are settled, is many times greater than the amount of relief actually distributed yearly, by the same union, to those whom it provides for, under the coercion of orders of removal. In such cases, therefore, the sense of justice and convenience, pervading the breasts of those who have to administer relief to the poor, silently repeals the law of removal; and serves to suggest that a similar mode of proceeding ought to be established in all cases, if any law of parochial or union settlement be retained.

It must, however, be conceded, that the due performance of the duty to the distant parish of settlement would be far better secured, if the relieving parish had some direct and substantial interest in the payments made to relieve its resident destitution. Such an interest may easily be created. The law may so apportion the burden of relief, in all cases of its bestowal by one parish on "non-settled" poor, when another parish is looked to for reimbursement, as to ensure fidelity in the discharge of the duty of relieving. For instance, the liability to pay one-third of the money due