tended, can avail much for the improvement of the condition of the labouring classes."

All who take the pains of perusing the evidence obtained by the different poor law inspectors on this investigation, will probably agree in the conviction produced on the mind of each inspector, by what he saw and learnt. But in that evidence, as printed in the published Reports, are found opinions of guardians of the poor, the very men who are constantly employed in administering this law; and these opinions are deserving of special notice and attention. Such guardians, by formal resolutions at Board meetings, very generally declare that the law of settlement and removal ought to be abolished. They seem to have formed their judgment, not on the mere ground of the pecuniary relief to be expected by ratepayers from such abolition, but from a wider consideration of the various evils incident to the law. A few extracts from such resolutions of guardians, taken exclusively from a single county, Suffolk, will be sufficient as a specimen of them all.

The Stowmarket Union resolved, "That in the opinion of this Board, it is expedient the law of settlement should be abolished, and any person requiring relief should be provided for wherever he may require assistance."

The Bosmere and Claydon Union resolved, "That the law of settlement and removal operates injuriously for the poor, and that its abolition would be desirable; but that such an alteration would render necessary a more extensive and equitable distribution of the burden of maintaining the poor."

The Ipswich Union resolved, "That it is the opinion of this Board, that it is expedient to repeal the laws relating to the removal and settlement of the poor; and that the poor be relieved by a general rate made upon the entire property of the kingdom."

The Woodbridge Union resolved, "That it is desirable the law of settlement should be entirely abolished, and that every poor person born in England or Wales be relieved in the parish where he may reside, from the general funds of the Union in which such parish is situated."

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 57. 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

evils were denounced by Adam Smith nearly a century ago; they were apparent and appalling in 1833, but were then in part mistaken, by superficial observers, for evils supposed to be necessarily incident to every poor law; they have been greatly aggravated, so far as inequality and injustice of incidence on the ratepayer is concerned, by the legislation of 1846; and they were sufficiently exposed before the Select Committee of the Commons in 1847.

Again were they exposed and denounced, by the Official Reports addressed to the Poor Law Board, in 1848 and 1849; and at last a legislative remedy was promised, although the promise is as yet wholly unfulfilled. It may safely be averred, that the supineness of the Government will cease the very moment that the people of England once understand this question, and express an opinion "out of doors" upon it. Such an opinion. will prove a sure warrant for the removal of " "pauper settlements" from the region of Legislation into that of History, there to serve with "Wager of Battel," and "Benefit of Clergy," and other now abrogated absurdities of "Father Antic the Law," as memorable examples of the slow progress of reason and justice among the rulers of a just and reasonable people.

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.

Such removals must continue to take place, under the existing law of hereditary settlement, often to some distant parish, with which the only connexion of the pauper is the accident of a father or a grandfather, or some other ancestor, paternal or maternal, having been born in it, or having, fifty or sixty years ago, resided in it for forty days, on a tenement worth 10%. a year, or having, perhaps, slept in it, as long ago, on the last night of a year's service, or of an apprenticeship, or having, in any other way, acquired a settlement there.

Many of those employed in Parliament in making laws, and in courts of justice in administering them, have had their attention but little called to the sufferings which, during the last two centuries, the ill-contrived and unjust law of settlement and removal has constantly inflicted on the indigent poor.* Could the numerous body of assistant overseers and relieving officers of the present day, be jurors for deciding on the truth of the grave charges brought against the present law, I believe it would be impossible, out of the whole of that body, to pack a single jury, that would give a verdict in favour of the power of removal. The Law would be unanimously condemned by the very men who are employed in its administration; who well understand the whole practical working of its injustice and cruelty; and who can best appreciate how slight a mitigation it effects, of any temporary pressure on ratepayers, and how grievous the hardship which it frequently and necessarily inflicts on the poor.

Any change which should free the English name and nation from the reproach of treating its indigent poor as they

Since the whole of the present chapter, and most of those which follow it, were written, I have seen the cover and title-page of a "Report to the Poor Law Board on the Law of Settlement and Removal of the Poor, being a further Report, in addition to those printed in 1850," by George Coode, Esq. The pressure of professional and other engagements, has made it impossible for me, as yet, to peruse this Report; which I much regret, knowing well, as I do, from the contents of the Report on Local Taxation, published in 1843, Mr. Coode's great ability and learning. It may, however, be assumed, that Mr. Coode comes to much the same conclusion (namely, that the law of settlement ought to be wholly repealed) as was arrived at by Mr. Revans and the other poor law inspectors, whose Reports were published in 1850.