THIRD EDITION, 
 
 WITH CONSIDERABLE ADDITIONS, NEW TABLES, &c. &c. 
 
 A PLAN 
 
 EQUALIZATION OE THE POOH RATES 
 
 THROUGHOUT THE UNITED KINGDOM; 
 
 ABOLISHING THE LAW OF SETTLEMENT, 
 
 AND THE REMOVAL OF PAUPERS. 
 
 SAVING ANNUALLY THOUSANDS OF POUNDS TO 
 THE RATE-PAYEES; 
 
 PREVENTING ALL rAROCIIIAL LITIGATION, AND GREATLY 
 BENEFITING THE CONDITION OF THE POOR. 
 
 BY G. L. HUTCHINSON. 
 
 “ The sufferings of He Poor are less known Hum their misdeeds; and, therefore, 
 we are less apt to pity them. They starve, and freeze, and rot among themselves; 
 hut they beg, and steal, and rob among their betters.” 
 
 Fielding. 
 
 SIMPKIN, MARSHALL, 
 
 CO., 
 
 1819. 
 
LONDON S 
 
 
 ^•e.VvCjV. 'Y'rv. ■>, 
 
 \AA V 'A 
 
NOTICES OE THE SECOND EDITION. 
 
 “And here I must do justice to the very valuable book issued by 
 Hr. Hutchinson. I had not the pleasure of knowing Mr. Hutchinson 
 before, but I was a subscriber to his book, thinking it would throw 
 some light on the subject; and I venture to say that a book more 
 comprehensive, uniting in a few short details the whole character and 
 history of the Poor-law, it 1ms not been my good fortune to meet with. 
 (Hear, hear.) Indeed, it seemed to me that that great orator, Mr. 
 D’Israeli, foun ded his brilliant oration in the House of Commons on 
 Thursday last, on the statistics of Mr. Hutchinson’s book. I do not 
 think this is any disparagement to Mr. Hutchinson, and certainly not 
 to Mr. D’lsracli.”— Speech of Mr. Alderman Sidney, M.P., March 12, 
 1849. 
 
 “ To this growing general feeling (Equalized Eate to support the 
 Poor) I am well aware that no one has more contributed (or so much) 
 than yourself, and I have to thank you personally for many previous 
 communications on the subject. In the greater part of your arguments 
 and opinions I cordially coincide, and should be most happy to co¬ 
 operate with yourself and others, in forwarding them public discussion 
 and legislative adoption. ***** 
 
 These alterations combined, I think, with a central control and 
 revision of the valuations would do all that is wanted, all that you aim 
 at in your ablevolume on the subject."—Letter of Mr. PoulctlScropc, M.P., 
 July 25, 1849. 
 
 “ Many thanks for your book on the Poor-laws. I was not ac¬ 
 quainted with the first edition. I have now read the work with great 
 interest, and recognise in it the successful labour with which you have 
 presented to the Public a mass of information, which must prove 
 eminently useful when Poor-law topics come under discussion.”— Letter 
 of Mr. C. Lushington, M.P., January 29, 1849. 
 
 “ Formerly I entertained myself with looking at these questions in 
 an antiquarian point of view. Mr. Hutchinson has written an excel¬ 
 lent book on the subject. He has analysed the Parliamentary returns, 
 which were almost buried in oblivion, but which we thank him for 
 bringing to light, as we might ourselves have been groping about in 
 the dark, unable to find them. These details are valuable from the 
 source whence they come; they are stamped with Parliamentary 
 authority, and are therefore true.”— Speech of Chas. Ilolt Bracebridge, 
 Esq., Magistrate, tOc., Athcrsion Hall, Warwick, March 12,1849. 
 
 “Your plan, of which I was long since informed, seems to have been 
 taken up with some modifications by Lord Nugent and Mr. D’lsraeli; 
 but the entire credit of originality rests with yourself."— Letter of 
 Hercules Ellis, Esq., Barrister at Law, Lisnaroe, Clones, Ireland. 
 
 Together with very many others, equally laudatory. 
 
OPINIONS OF THE PRESS. 
 
 “A second edition with new tables, and other additional matter of a 
 work, most useful as a reference, &c.”— Athcnwum. 
 
 “ Mr. Hutchinson in the useful work before us, does not attempt to 
 combat the abstract principle on which our existing laws of rating and 
 settlement have been founded; he has merely supplied a copious detail 
 of their manifold inconveniences and injustices. * * * The author 
 thus sums up the advantage of his system, which appears admirably 
 designed to aid in the great task of industrial legislation, that now 
 lies before Parliament.”—Atlas. 
 
 The author of this work, has devoted many years to the study of 
 the veiy important question treated in all its bearings in the work 
 before us. The republication of the hook in a greatly amended shape, 
 is most opportune, and must prove a great boon to those who have not 
 had time to study fully the subject. The tabular statements shewing 
 the inequality of separate parochial rating are very valuable, and 
 deserve the attention of all rate-payers, particularly of those who live 
 iu densely populated localities. Mr. Hutchinson has arranged his 
 book with great lucidity, and it is written in plain language, and in a 
 spirit of the most liberal philanthropy.— Bell’s Life. 
 
 The subject of the Equalization of the Poor’s-rate was first brought 
 into notice by Mr. Hutchinson, in his very well written work, &c.”— 
 Second Letter of Censoring in Weekly Dispatch, September 2,1849. 
 
 “Mr. Hutchinson is thoroughly acquainted with his subject.”— 
 Church and State Gazette. 
 
 “ In this work Mr. Hutchinson has proved by the unerring test of 
 figures, the existence of the unjust mode of rating, by which it appears 
 that the richer parishes, both metropolitan and rural, pay scarcely a 
 tithe in the pound in comparison with then- less -wealthy neighbours. 
 He has taken parliamentary returns for his data, and by contrasting 
 tables shown the monstrous inequality of the tax as it effects every 
 parish in the kingdom. These valuable tables must have been a work 
 of great labour, and the author deserves much praise for his industry 
 and perseverance on such dry, and to the superficial, such uninteresting 
 details; the value of his statistics however will he obvious to those 
 who look beyond the surface of things. The other merits of his work 
 consist in a plan for the prevention of the cruel removal of the 
 helpless poor, and the complete abolition of the absurd law of parochial 
 settlement with all its expensive and litigious machinery. There is an 
 honest earnestness of purpose to benefit all classes shown in the work 
 of Mr. Hutchinson, which should meet with grave attention and 
 public support .”—Douglas Jerrold's Weekly Newspaper. 
 
 “ Without giving our assent therefore to Mr. Hutchinson’s scheme 
 of reform, we must say that he has drawn up a formidable bill of 
 indictment against the present system; that lie has proved the present 
 law of settlement to be full of wasteful absurdities; the present system, 
 of rating to be unequal and unfair; that he has taken a great deal of 
 pains to investigate the working in detail of the present system, and 
 that his book should be read in conjunction with the debates in 
 Parliament, and the propositions there made for amending the law, by 
 those who wish to understand the subject. The present edition is 
 botli enlarged and improved.”— Economist. 
 
Hutchinson.’ The author depicts with graphic force the evils—we had 
 almost said the horrors—of the settlement and removal system, with 
 all its harshness, litigation, and expense. He exposes the practices 
 which have been resorted to, under this system, for casting oil' the 
 poor, and in a series of lucid and authentic tables exhibits the great 
 and unjust inequalities of rating which it has also induced. IVe shall 
 have occasion again to refer to this elaborate, valuable and opportune 
 work.”— Preston Guardian. 
 
 “ In this work, a second edition of which has just appeared, the 
 author (Mr. Hutchinson) at some length, and with much ability, recom¬ 
 mends an Equalization of the Poor Kates throughout the country, by 
 means of a general national assessment; which he maintains would put 
 an end to the present monstrous anomaly, that the poorest parishes 
 should be those most highly rated to the support of the poor. Tire 
 subject is at once interesting and important, and the author’s sugges¬ 
 tions appear to be worthy of attentive consideration.”— Salisbury and 
 Winchester Journal. 
 
 “ When we reviewed the first edition of this work, we predicted that 
 a second would shortly follow, and hero we find our anticipations 
 verified. The fact is, the book is an unanswerable argument against 
 a mighty social evil, and until that wrong be righted Mr. Hutchinson’s 
 treatise will have to be reprinted again and again, to keep attention 
 alive to its arguments. He is no theorist .endeavouring to thrust a 
 visionary scheme into notice, but he is a sound political economist, with 
 straightforward philanthropic and practical views on a question which has 
 clogged the wheels of every successive Government for the last half century. 
 Ho has discovered a disease, and hit upon its remedy; and if views 
 similar to his own be not adopted, the matter must remain for ever 
 unsettled. The work also contains a plan for the abolition of the 
 absurd law of parochial settlement, and its continual and contingent 
 expellees. Every sentence is worthy the attention of the community 
 at large.”— Sunday Times. 
 
 “ By the way, while on the subject of the Poor Law, I must recom¬ 
 mend 'to your notice a very interesting work on that subject, by a 
 Mr. G. L. Hutchinson. The author gives many details highly instruc¬ 
 tive as to the working of the Poor Law, aud adds in an Appendix most 
 important tables of statistical information. Ill fact, I have no hesitation 
 in recommending his volume to the notice of all who take any interest 
 in the establishment of a better system for the support of the poor than 
 that now existing.”— Correspondent of Tipperary Paper. 
 
 “ These particulars, and a vast deal of most convincing facts con¬ 
 nected with the subject will be found in Mr. G. L. Hutchinson’s book 
 entitled 1 A Plan for the Equalization of the Poor Bates throughout 
 the United Kingdom; ’ a work which we recommend very confidently 
 to all parties who feel an interest in this most important subject, which 
 
 J Herald. Sm “ mos conc “ sue mu conuncin O mannel • 
 
CONTENTS. 
 
 CHAPTER I. 
 
 Table of Annual Value of Real Property assessed to .the Poor- 
 rates.—Contrast of seven of the highest rated Counties with seven of 
 the lowest rated Counties, and the ability of each to bear the burden, 
 shown.- Unjust proportion of such burden demonstrated.—Parochial 
 divisions intended for ecclesiastical purposes only.—An equalized rate 
 proved to be in strict conformity with 43 Eliz. c. 2.—Decision of the 
 Judges to bo so, proved by many cited cases.—Mr. W. Farr’s opinion 
 of equalized rate as respects the Metropolis.—Table showing gross 
 inequalities of Rateal.—The wealthier parishes nearly exempt from 
 Poor-rates, the poorer ones paying highly. Iniquitous shirking by 
 wealthy corporations, &c. of the Poor-rates.— Extra-parochial places 
 not contributing any thing for the support of the poor, &c. pp. 1—33. 
 
 CHAPTER II. 
 
 Right of the poor to support from the rich, proved by scriptural 
 commands.—Writings of Grotius, Puffendorf, Vattel, Locke, Paley, 
 Montesquieu, &e.—An equalized rate of Is. 6cf. in the £. shown to be 
 amply sufficient for the support of the poor, and which would lower 
 the rales in forty-six Cormties of England and Wales.—Necessity for 
 re-valuation of parishes. Cases of inadequate valuation.—St. James’ 
 Westminster, &c.—Close parishes, then- unjust immunity from Poor- 
 rates shown.—The crowding of “ open parishes ” most injurious to 
 morals and health.—Evidence of Messrs. G. Coode, J. Wood, Coppock, 
 Matthias, Pigott, Casbome, Rous, Hall, &e. in confirmation of same.— 
 Mr. Buller’sBill to remedy such injustice of these immunities fromPoor- 
 rates.—Partial “proviso” in said Bill.—Universities of Oxford, Cam¬ 
 bridge, &c. and Inns of Court, to pay no Poor-rates.—Objections to 
 National Rate without parochial control.—Kindness of the poor to 
 each other. &c. pp. 34—80. 
 
CHAPTER III. 
 
 The expense and absurdity of the law of settlement.—Monstrous 
 waste of the rate-payer's money in parish litigation.—Many absurd 
 cases of dispute.—Sir J. Graham’s Bill of 1845.—Its folly shown.— 
 Messrs. Bright, Stanley, Brotherton, &c. on general rating and abo¬ 
 lition of the law of settlement.—Removal of Scotch and Irish paupers. 
 —Inutility of sec. 6, 9 & 10 Vic. c. G6.—The number and expense of 
 appeal cases.—Mr. Foote’s estimate.—Ridiculous cases of appeal.— 
 A pauper’s illegal marriage very costly to the rate-payers.—Interpre¬ 
 tation of “ proviso ” of 9 & 10 Vic. c. GG.—Norwich, Nottingham, 
 Exeter, and other petitions against said Bill.—Mr. Bodkin’s Bill, 
 &c. pp. 81—125. 
 
 CHAPTER IV. 
 
 Injury of the law of Settlement on the morals and habits of the 
 poor.—Inutility of removals proved by the return of one-fifth of 
 paupers removed at the expense of the rate-payers.—Waste of thou¬ 
 sands of pounds annually in removals.—Injury to the poor by forced 
 removals.—Deaths caused by such.—Mr. Day on the gross defects of 
 the present Poor Removal Bill, and the necessity for an equalized 
 rate.—Atrocious cases of Harriet Arundell, Eliza Palmer, the Halls, 
 Elizabeth Smith, &c. pp. 125—138. 
 
 CONCLUSION. 
 
 Proofs that an equalized rate of Is. 6 il in the £. even upon the 
 present defective Rateal, is amply sufficient for the maintenance of the 
 poor.—The gross inequalities of such burden shown in England and 
 Wales.—The very great increase in the wealth of the country since 
 the Peace, will justify any required increase of poor-rates. Necessity 
 for taxing personal property for such object.—Contrast between the 
 treatment of the poor and the criminal.—Premium for crime, &c. 
 
 pp. 139-151. 
 
 APPENDIX No. 1. 
 
 Tables of the average rate paid in the £. for every parish hi 
 England and Wales. 
 
 Table of 
 
 APPENDIX No. 2. 
 roval of paupers in England, 1842-3-4. 
 
PREFACE TO THE SECOND EDITION. 
 
 Although the writer had every reason to be 
 gratified at the flattering reception of his labours 
 by the public, in the sale of the first edition of this 
 work, yet he did not confine his endeavours to the 
 mere printing of his objections to an unjust and 
 ruinous system of pauper management. On the 
 8th of June, 1846, he petitioned for a second time 
 the House of Commons, by the hands of the Hon. 
 Member for Finsbury (Mr. Wakley) praying atten¬ 
 tion to the subject, but with no result. In June 
 1847 he also petitioned the House of Lords, through 
 His Grace the Duke of Richmond, to the same 
 effect, and that too was unnoticed. On the 1st of 
 July, 1847, the writer again petitioned the House 
 of Commons, praying for enquiry into his plan. 
 This petition the House was pleased to order to be 
 printed, and it will be found with the votes of that 
 session (p. 1368). Mr. Wakley on the following 
 day gave notice of a motion to bring the petition 
 under the consideration of the House, but before 
 the motion could be brought on, the Parliament 
 was dissolved. 
 
iv 
 
 In the mean time the work was subjected to the 
 usual ordeal of criticism, and the following are 
 some of the notices in the writer’s possession. 
 
 “ Looking to the matter of rates alone, the present system was 
 monstrous. It was notorious that, in some of the rich parishes 
 where the rents of houses were from £150. to £700. a year, the 
 rates did not exceed 8 d. in the pound, while in the poorer parishes 
 they varied from 2s. to 12s. in the pound. (Hear.) Now, he 
 would refer the House to the returns made for the district of 
 Paddington, where a new town, he might say, had sprung up 
 within a few years. In that district people laughed, and said they 
 had no poor, for their rates amounted to only 8 d. in the pound; 
 but if Honourable Members looked to the general returns for the 
 Poor-rates, &c., they would see that they varied in amount from 
 Sd. to 12s. in the pound. Now, according to an able and elabo¬ 
 rate calculation made by Mr. Hutchinson (who was formerly a 
 Clerk of that House, and who was specially employed to investi¬ 
 gate this subject), it would appear that if the Poor-rates were 
 levied equally on the whole community, the average charge, even 
 with the present establishment, would not amount to Is. 6 d. in the 
 pound! That was a most important fact in a financial point of 
 view. The present Law of Settlement, too, was a disgrace to the 
 Legislature.” (Hear, hear.)— Extract of Mr. Wakley's Speech in 
 the House of Commons, July 17, 1846. 
 
 “ An excellent work.”— Speech of same at Crown and Anchor , 
 June 8, 1847. 
 
 OPINIONS OF THE PRESS. 
 
 “ Too much praise cannot be awarded to Mr. Hutchinson for 
 the zeal and labour which he has brought to his dry and compli¬ 
 cated subject, and whatever may be thought of his conclusion, as 
 to the equalization of the Poor’s-rate, no one can turn over the 
 leaves of his book without finding the materials and elements of 
 many useful and valuable inquiries and calculations * * * * 
 He argues his subject with a generous zeal and brings some con¬ 
 clusive argument in its support. Upon the whole the work will 
 be found well worthy of a careful perusal by all who are con¬ 
 cerned in legislating for the poor, or who exercise any influence 
 on the public mind, as fiirnishing the materials for a greatly im¬ 
 proved system of Poor-rate and relief.” — Lloyd's Weekly Newspaper. 
 
 “ With a liberal ministry this work we expect will obtain 
 notice in influential quarters. In London the rich accumulate in 
 some districts, the poor in others; and it is incontestibly true that 
 the poorest pay the highest rates. Whitechapel pays £17,441; 
 
St. George’s, Hanover-square, £14,555. In Betlmal-green tlie 
 rate is 2s. 9d. in tlie pound; in St. George’s, Hanover-square, only 
 Gd.; in fact, the last named parish gives less by 2 cl in the pound 
 than any district in the metropolis! The system of pulling down 
 the dwellings of the poor in the neighbourhood of the squares, &c., 
 is a species of aristocratic money-craft. They send the out-door 
 paupers into other districts and relieve themselves of most of the 
 burthens arising from casualties. The remedy suggested by 
 Mr. Hutchinson is, that the rates shall be, fairly and impartially 
 borne at Is. Gd. in the pound over the length and breadth of the 
 land; that the G d. rate of St. George’s shall become Is. G d., and 
 that Bethnal-green be reduced from 2s. 9d. to the same rate. 
 The equity of this is obvious: that such a step would be opposed 
 by the wealthy there can be little doubt, and the silly and selfish 
 cry, “ we support our own poor,” would be again raised, as if the 
 deserving poor were not of the great family of man and entitled to 
 relief at all places. In a book of not quite 200 pages, Mr. Hutch¬ 
 inson has crowded an enormous number of facts, a vast deal of 
 sound argument, and introduced many excellent suggestions. The 
 case of the poor and the enormous sums uselessly expended in 
 doing what persons in office call “ carrying out the law,” must 
 meet the attention of the new ministry, and the book now before 
 us will shorten the road of those anxious to be well-informed upon 
 the subject. We very earnestly recommend it to our readers, it is 
 written in a very agreeable and popular style, and even as a work of 
 reference is invaluable.”—Sunday Times. 
 
 “ The inequality and consequent injustice of the tax (Poor’s- 
 rate) as it is now ievied, appears by a series of tables compiled by- 
 Mr. Hutchinson, in his very useful work on the “ Equalization of 
 the Poor-rates,” and he proves that there are in England 303 
 parishes paying less than Gd. in the pound upon the annual 
 value of their present assessed property; 1853 paving from G d. to 
 Is.; 2874 from Is. to Is. Gd.; 255S from Is. CId. to 2s.; 3235 
 from 2s. to 3s.; 127G from 3s. to 4s.; 491 from 4s. to 5s.; 188 
 from 5s. to Gs.; 73 from Gs. to 7s.; 34 from 7s. to 8s.; 15 from 
 Ss. to 9s.; G from 9s. to 10s.: and 51 above 10s.; what can be 
 more unjust than such a distribution of the burthen? And what 
 makes it still worse is the fact, that it is generally tlie poorest 
 parishes or counties which contribute the largest sum!’’— Letters of' 
 Ccnsorius. 
 
 “ A proposed plan for the equalization of the Poor-rates, by 
 G. L. Hutchinson, deserves grave attention, and is written in a 
 liberal spirit and with a generous aim.”— Weekly Dispatch. 
 
 ^ “ The author earnestly and ably treats the subject.'’— Morning 
 
vi 
 
 “ The Parliamentary Returns npon this subject (the Inequality 
 of Rating to the Poor) have been carefully and thoroughly dis¬ 
 sected by Mr. Hutchinson, whose work “ on the Equalization of 
 Poor-rates,” ought to be read by every Legislator, and every other 
 individual pretending to oiler an opinion upon the subject.”— 
 Letter of Mr. Day, Vestry Clerk of St. George, Southwark, in same. 
 
 “ That great evils are inflicted both upon the destitute poor and 
 the rate-payers by the existing Law of Settlement cannot be 
 denied. The pauper is separated from all his friends and connec¬ 
 tions and forced into the workhouse of a distant union, where he 
 is unknowing and unknown, or he is shuttlecockcd from union to 
 union at the caprice of the relieving officer and lawyers, for which 
 the rate-payers have to pay some thousands per annum in litiga¬ 
 tion, in consequence of the existence of this law. ***** 
 This work (Mr. Hutchinson’s) is one of immense labour, of great 
 accuracy; the statistical details are most valuable, containing as 
 they do a vast quantity of interesting information on the statistics 
 of pauperism, not to he found in any other ’publication. It is a work 
 to be studied by every philanthropist, statist and statesman.”— 
 The Sun. 
 
 “ H plan of immense utility, and if adopted, nothing coidd tend so 
 much to improve the condition of the labourer. Throwing parishes 
 into vast unions is to our minds a vast evil, but generalizing and 
 equalizing the whole kingdom would be an inestimable benefit. 
 The disproportions in rating even in adjoining parishes from pence 
 to many shillings in the pound seems to be most anomalous and 
 unfair. Could not the whole be equally, justly, and cheaply con¬ 
 tributed by a tax on property?”— Literary Gazette. 
 
 “ Mr. Hutchinson has here broached a systematic plan for 
 carrying out a principle which is undoubtedly making rapid pro¬ 
 gress in public estimation, and which at no distant time must be 
 adopted with more or less of modification, it is that of abolishing 
 altogether the complications, injustice, and costliness of the Law 
 of Settlement, to raise a National Poor-rate by au equal assess¬ 
 ment of all property, and to distribute the funds by local boards 
 under the supervision of a central authority. The details are 
 illustrated by abundance of statistics got up with vast labour, and 
 which will be found extremely useful when the subject of Poor 
 Law Reform comes on for discussion and decision.”— Critic. 
 
 “ Taking up this able work accidentally, we were so much 
 pleased with the style of its introductory explanation and the ideas 
 which it shadowed forth, that we could not resist giving the whole 
 an attentive perusal. The author says that he shall feel himself 
 sufficiently rewarded if he succeeds in interesting the wise and 
 obtaining the approbation of the good. Without presuming to 
 
vii 
 
 place ourselves in either of those categories, we can at least assure 
 him that his labours have both excited our attention and secured 
 our co-operation, as we shall take more than one opportunity of 
 showing him. The object of the author (Mr. Hutchinson) is to 
 economise the administration of poor relief by simplifying, or 
 rather by generalizing it, and to humanize it by divesting our¬ 
 selves individually of all self-interest in either granting or with¬ 
 holding it, and lie shows, to our complete conviction, that an 
 equalization of the Poor-rates would elfect both of these great 
 desiderata. It is not, however, by mere assertion or appeals to 
 our feelings that he endeavours to lead us to his views. lie has 
 with great industry collected, and with great tact, arranged a 
 mass of statistical information on the subject, which establishes 
 conclusions from which neither the friends of the Old or the New 
 Poor Law can escape, for he shows that in the principle of separate 
 administration of relief, whether on the parochial or the mis-called 
 union system, there is an original and radical error. * * * * The 
 word “equalizing,” moreover, too frequently startles the unre¬ 
 flecting, as if it must necessarily be fraught with some innovating 
 principle like ‘ levelling.’ But in this case it implies no innovation 
 at all, for as regards levying contributions for the relief of the 
 poor, equalizing the burden and making every one pay according 
 to his visible means, is the very essence of the 43rd of Elizabeth— 
 that Magna Charta of the poor which in our day has been so 
 unwisely tampered with, instead of being judiciously modified to 
 the altered circumstances of the times. * * * Having followed 
 our author thus far we must pause, for the subject is not one for 
 the journalist to dispose of off-handed, or for the reader to digest 
 at once .”—London Mercantile Journal. 
 
 “ The Author advocates an equalization of the Poor-rates 
 throughout the country, by means of a general national assess¬ 
 ment, which he justly enough maintains would put an end to the 
 monstrous anomaly that the poorest parishes as at present should 
 be those most highly rated to the support of the poor! His argu¬ 
 ments are supported by various tables such as those of the annual 
 value of real property in England and Wales in 1841, the assess¬ 
 ment to the Property-tax in 1842, and derived from official 
 sources which he has introduced into his pages, together with 
 others of an original kind, the preparation of which has evidently 
 cost much labour. Amongst the latter is one showing the rate 
 per pound for the relief of the poor in the parishes of each sepa¬ 
 rate county, also one demonstrating that a reduction of the whole 
 throughout the kingdom to an average rate of Is. 0f7. in the 
 pound WOULD DIMINISH TIIE RATES IN 8752 PARISHES, WHILE IT RAISED 
 THEM IN ONLY 53G4 PARISHES, AND THESE THE MOST WEALTHY. 
 Much of the book is argumentative, and especially on the operation 
 of the Law of Settlement. We have carefully looked over the 
 
work, and are convinced that Mr. Hutchinson has executed his 
 task with ability, and in a manner deserving of credit.”— Wor¬ 
 cestershire Chronicle. 
 
 “ This is a work demanding the most serious attention, not 
 only on the part of the Government itself, but the community at 
 large. Its writer has handled one of the most difficult subjects 
 with a master hand, and produced a multitude of facts uudeuiably 
 in support of bis views, which are, in every respect, practicable, 
 and if adopted will be the means of saving much litigation, trouble 
 and expense to our various parishes.”— Farmer’s Journal. 
 
 “ We have thus given a brief outline of Mr. Hutchinson’s plan, 
 
 We cannot conclude'without saying, that this is the most elabo¬ 
 rate work of the kind we have ever perused, and we feel sure that 
 the efforts now made to overthrow' a system fraught with injustice 
 to a large portion of our industrious classes, will eventually be 
 successful.”— The Merchant. 
 
 “ The inequality of taxation (for the poor) is most ably dwelt 
 upon in an excellent work from the pen of Mr. G. L. Hutchinson.” 
 —Letters from Norfolk. 
 
 The writer has also received the most gratifying 
 testimonials from very many Clerks of Guardians 
 and Overseers of the Poor of the practical utility of 
 his labours. 
 
 In the performance of his task, the writer has 
 taken only Parliamentary Returns and other re¬ 
 cognized authorities for his data. He has rather 
 sought to convince the understanding by facts 
 alone, than to excite the feelings by appeals, how¬ 
 ever pathetic. His aim has been at a higher quarry 
 than the mere pleasing of the fancy. In the un¬ 
 adorned language of truth he has attempted to 
 describe the injuries and the sorrows of the poor; 
 he casts no blame on individuals, but condemns 
 only a false system which produces both injustice 
 
ix 
 
 to the rate-payers and inhumanity to the recipients 
 of relief; and if he succeeds in lessening the bur¬ 
 dens of the one and improving the condition of the 
 other, his "content” will be most absolute. 
 
 January 1849. 
 
 The writer begs to apologize to his very nu¬ 
 merous subscribers for the non-publication of the 
 list of their names, &c. However flattering it may 
 have been to his feelings to have recorded hundreds 
 of the elite of all classes of society, whether dis¬ 
 tinguished by the nobility of talent, or that of birth, 
 yet as he could only have done so, at the expense 
 of space which he has found it obligatory to devote 
 to more “germane” matter, he hopes to stand 
 excused in this particular. 
 
AN EQUALIZED POOR RATE. 
 
 CHAPTER I. 
 
 To do justice to the community, it appeared to the 
 writer of these pages not merely proper that there 
 should be, hut really practicable that there could be, 
 an equalization of the Poor-rates throughout the 
 kingdom; and that if such equalization of rate were 
 once established, it would be the means of remedying 
 most, if not all, of the evils arising from the existing 
 difficulties of making a fitting law of settlement, 
 and remove much, if not all, of that hard-hearted 
 cruelty which arises from the pecuniary selfishness 
 of parishes anxious to throw the burdens of a fel¬ 
 low-creature’s miseries, as well as the expenses of 
 supporting such relief of miseries, upon any other 
 person or persons’ shoulders than their own. It 
 must be evident how much we should be improved 
 in our social happiness as a nation if we could re¬ 
 move from us this hard-hearted cruelty, so foreign 
 to all the true charity which should care for our 
 fellow-creatures, as if they -were endowed with 
 those natural feelings and susceptibilities of pain, 
 hunger and grief which we each know to be com¬ 
 mon to our human nature, and which we ought to 
 rejoice in as the light of a Divine Intelligence, 
 
2 
 
 which calls forth the finest and noblest feelings of 
 the sympathies of our Christian humanity. 
 
 The greatest difficulty in his labours which the 
 writer has had to contend with, has been the want 
 of systematic and authorized returns upon which 
 to found his data. He has more than once inserted 
 advertisements in the newspapers addressed to 
 overseers, and has applied personally to clerks of 
 guardians soliciting such returns—with some few 
 polite exceptions, he has been unsuccessful. His 
 hopes revived, however, by finding that Mr. Charles 
 Villiers, the Honourable Member for Wolverhamp¬ 
 ton, had moved (25 April 1S43) for a return of 
 Poor-rates levied for the period of five years ending 
 1842. The writer waited with no little anxiety 
 for the compliance with the Order of the House of 
 Commons that such return should be printed. This 
 return was published late in the year 1844, as con¬ 
 tained in the Blue Book, No. 316, Session 1844. 
 Now, in the extreme simplicity of his understanding, 
 the writer has hitherto believed that the title-page, 
 &c. of a book indicated the contents of that book. 
 Well, the “Order” for the return quoted, after 
 reciting that such Blue Book contained Property- 
 tax returns—quota of Land-tax—total value of Tithe 
 assessed—goes on to state thus:—“ Also, the Rate 
 “ in the Pound on the rateable valuation of Real 
 “ Property at which the Poor-rate has been assessed 
 “ in each parish on the average of five years ending 
 “ 1842.” As this was the very thing which the 
 writer desired to obtain, he eagerly purchased the 
 Blue Book, No. 316; when, lo! to his extreme 
 surprise, “ the return ” stopped short at page 244, 
 without giving one word about the Poor-rates at all! 
 
 The writer subsequently had reason to believe 
 that the authorities from whom such return should 
 have emanated were of opinion that the information 
 he desired, and which the Order of Parliament re- 
 
3 
 
 quired, was of no practical use, and, therefore, the 
 Order of the House of Commons in this particular 
 was not complied with. Notwithstanding this, he 
 ventured to differ with those learned functionaries; 
 and in the belief that such information would be of 
 very great practical use in exposing a most unjust 
 system of taxation, and although it was a dry and 
 very disagreeable labour to calculate the average 
 rate in the pound paid by every parish, &c., in En¬ 
 gland and Wales for the four years, 1839-42, yet 
 he has accomplished the self-imposed task, and now 
 presents it to the public in a tabular form for more 
 easy reference (for which, see Appendix, No. 1.) 
 
 A confidence has accrued from these calculations, 
 both of the powers and advantages of establishing 
 an equal rate throughout England and Wales for 
 the relief and the maintenance of the poor. 
 
 Preparatory, however, to viewing such results, it 
 will be advantageous, for the more readily appre¬ 
 ciating their important bearings, to fix the mind on 
 a few preliminary data and observations. 
 
 In order to the better understanding of the capa¬ 
 bility of each county to bear its present or any 
 increased taxation for the support and maintenance 
 of the poor, it will be necessary to quote the fol¬ 
 lowing (Pari. Paper, No. 235, of 1842), being a 
 Copy of Extracts from a “ Return to an Order of 
 the Honourable the House of Commons, dated 
 3 May 1S42, for Abstract of Returns showing the 
 Annual Value of Real Property in each County 
 in England and Wales assessed to the Poor-rates, 
 for the year ended Lady-day 1841; distinaruishing 
 Landed Property, Dwelling-houses, and all other 
 kinds of Property; also, the Total Amount levied 
 for Poor-rates in that year, and the Rate in the 
 Pound of such Levy, on the Annual Value of Real 
 Property; and also, the Population of each County, 
 according to the Census of 1841.” 
 
 b 2 
 
5 
 
 It will thus be seen that the richer and more 
 populous counties pay less in proportion than their 
 poorer neighbours. The selection of a few examples 
 taken from the antecedent return, and placed in 
 juxtaposition, will prove this to be the fact. 
 
 
 Animal Value 
 
 Rate in the Pound 
 
 
 Property 
 Assessed iu 1841. 
 
 Annual Value. 
 
 
 f. 
 
 S. a. 
 
 Bucks - - - 
 
 674,334 
 
 2 9 
 
 Dorset - 
 
 735,234 
 
 2 8 
 
 Essex 
 
 1,585,719 
 
 2 8 
 
 Oxford - 
 
 695,752 
 
 2 6 
 
 Southampton 
 
 1,362,026 
 
 2 8 
 
 Sussex - 
 
 1,169,230 
 
 2 11 
 
 Wilts 
 
 1,175,616 
 
 3 - 
 
 Producing from these seven counties this result— 
 an average rate paid of 2s. 9 d. in the pound upon a 
 total annual value of property assessed, amounting 
 to £ 7,397,911. 
 
 Turn we now to the other side of the account. 
 
 
 Annual Value 
 
 Rato in tlie Pound 
 
 
 Assessed in^l 841. 
 
 Annual Value. 
 
 
 £. 
 
 s. a. 
 
 Chester - 
 
 1,423,835 
 
 1 6 
 
 Lancaster - 
 
 5,266,606 
 
 1 8 
 
 Lincoln - 
 
 2,127,307 
 
 1 4 
 
 Middlesex - 
 
 7,293,369 
 
 1 10 
 
 Northumberland 
 
 1,326,414 
 
 1 3 
 
 Stafford - 
 
 2,006,760 
 
 1 3 
 
 York (3 Ridings) 
 
 5,448,494 
 
 f 1 7 
 f(average) 
 
 The result upon these seven counties is shown 
 
6 
 
 as an average rate paid of Is. Gd. in the pound 
 upon a total annual value of property assessed of 
 £24,892,785* 
 
 Can it be necessary to ask, “ Is this a fair or just 
 “ system of rating for a necessary burthen—that of 
 “the support and maintenance of the poor?” and 
 “ Should it be allowed to continue ? ” But, perhaps, 
 it may be urged that this is not a fair test of real 
 value; that the agricultural counties are valued too 
 lorn, and the mining and manufacturing counties are 
 valued too high. Presuming, only for argument’s 
 sake, this objection to be tenable (which we deny), 
 the Return of the Annual Value of Real Property 
 in each County in England and Wales Assessed to 
 the Property and Income-tax for the year 1843, 
 will fully bear out the accuracy of this statement, 
 for it is indisputable that few men, whatever may 
 be their position in society, pay more than they are 
 obliged, particularly to the Property-tax. 
 
 - In further confirmation of these gross inequalities see also 
 12th Report of Poor Law Commission, p. 2, and the evidence of 
 Mr. Goode before the Lords' Committee on Burdens on Land, 
 
 p. 216. 
 
7 
 
 Extract from this return in reference to the seven counties bear¬ 
 ing the burthen of the highest rates in the pound for the ex¬ 
 penses of the national poor:— 
 
 Oxford 
 
 Southampton 
 
 Sussex 
 
 Wilts 
 
 £. s. d. 
 827,890 1 9 
 917,077 2 9 
 1,935,610 3 9 
 1,025,420 10 3 
 1,661,447 - 5 
 1,676,999 5 - 
 1,424,558 6 1 
 
 In reference also to the seven counties relieved from the bur¬ 
 thens of the national poor, by having to pay the lowest rates in 
 the pound for the sustenance of the poor:— 
 
 Chester 
 
 Middlesex - 
 Northumberland - 
 Stafford 
 
 York (3 Hidings) 
 
 £. s. d. 
 1,889,937 7 3 
 7,756,228 9 6j 
 2,868,338 19 5 
 11,345,850 18 5 
 1,542,433 13 7 
 2,441,553 5 5 
 7,495,028 12 31 
 
 f. s. d. 
 
 35,339,371 5 lOf 
 
 Thus it appears that the seven highest taxed counties, in 
 reference to the Poor-rates, according to the column of totals 
 in the foregoing extracts, have Assessed property amounting to 
 £ 9,469,002. 10s., and the seven loicest taxed counties Assessed 
 property amounting to the enormous sum of £35,339,371. as. 10fd. 
 being nearly four times the amount of the former, and yet they 
 (the latter) pay to the Poor-rates in the proportion of Is. 6 d. in 
 the pound, whilst their less populous and poorer neighbours pay an 
 average of 2s. 9d. 
 
 Such are the relative positions of the counties quoted, in their 
 present state of ability to contribute to the Poor-rates. Let us 
 now be permitted to retrograde a little, and inquire in how much 
 each class has benefited in wealth and population since 1821—a 
 fair time, subsequent to the general peace, to form a judgment of 
 peace prosperity. 
 
 The immediately following particulars, placed in a tabular 
 statement, and taken and compiled from Parliamentary documents, 
 will, in relation to the 14 contrasted counties, show their progres¬ 
 sive degrees of prosperity. 
 
9 
 
 “ It will be found,” says the Census Report of 
 1841, “that the number of inhabited houses has 
 “ increased in a greater ratio than the population 
 “ both in England and Wales, a circumstance which 
 “ would appear to show an increase of comfort and 
 “ of those habits of separate and independent resi- 
 “ dence which are so characteristic of our country- 
 “ men. In England and Wales the proportion per 
 “ cent, of inhabited houses to population in 1831 
 “ was 17-85, or 2,481,544 houses to a population of 
 “ 13,897,187, or in other words, 5-6 persons to each 
 “ house; in 1841 the proportion of houses to every 
 “100 of the population was 18-50, or only 5-4 
 “ persons to every house. Such is the result for 
 “ England and Wales, showing that the number of 
 “ inhabited houses has increased at the rate of 18-6 
 “ per cent, in the last 10 years, although the increase 
 “ of population has been only 14 - 5 per cent, in the 
 “period ending 1841 against 16 per cent, in the 
 “period ending 1831.” Although the increase of 
 houses upon the entirety of the kingdom shows 
 increasing prosperity, yet it will be seen that the 
 Metropolitan county has not enjoyed proportion¬ 
 ately with its increasing population, as the seat of 
 the ministration of Government, its proportion of 
 this increase of its means of comforts and this 
 national prosperity: thus the Census Commissioners 
 afterwards observe, “ It will be seen that in the 
 “ Metropolis the proportion of houses to inhabitants 
 “ is slightly diminished, while in Middlesex it has 
 “ remained stationary.” 
 
 “ In Lancashire the average number to each 
 “house is very little above, and in Yorkshire it is 
 “ slightly below, that of all England; and in both 
 “ counties house accommodation has increased in a 
 “ greater proportion than the population.” 
 
 And as more immediately affects the object of 
 this work, viz., the equal rating of the whole of 
 
10 
 
 England, in proportion to the ability to bear taxa¬ 
 tion for the support of the indigent, the Poor Law 
 Commissioners (see 11th Report, page 3) say that 
 “ The diminution in the expenditure for the paro- 
 “ chial year 1844, as compared with 1843, is clistii- 
 “ buted with tolerable equality over all the counties. 
 “ The highest rates of redaction are in Lancashire, 
 “ Cheshire and the West Riding of Yorkshire, owing 
 “ to the improvement in manufactures which took 
 “place in the latter year.” Again, in the same 
 Report, pages 10 and 11, the Commissioners say, 
 “ There is no doubt that the yearly produce of the 
 “rateable property of England has undergone a 
 “very great increase since 1813, and that its an¬ 
 nual progress is now rapid. The total annual 
 “value of Real Property assessed to the Pro¬ 
 perty-tax in 1815 in England and Wales was 
 “£.51,898,423, whereas the amount in 1S43 was 
 “£.83,901,957. 11s. 5d. It is further to be ob- 
 “ served, that the increase in the annual value of 
 “rateable property arises, not only from the im- 
 “ proved cultivation of the land and its consequently 
 “increased productiveness, but also, to a great 
 “ extent, from the large number of new houses and 
 “ other buildings (such as manufactories and ware- 
 “ houses), as well as railways, canals, wharfs, &c., 
 “ which are constructed from year to year.” 
 
 A single glance at the last Table must convince 
 the most superficial observer which of the two 
 classes of counties quoted has benefited most by 
 this “ improvement of the times.” 
 
 Referring the reader to the County Tables in the 
 Appendix (No. 1) for the more minute items of the 
 abuses which are here but glanced at, it is sufficient 
 in this place merely to call his attention to the 
 general summary of the whole of the parishes, &c., 
 of England and Wales, premising only that we set 
 up the standard of a general rate of Is. 6<7. in the 
 
11 
 
 pound upon the present rateable property of the 
 country (and which we shall afterwards prove is 
 amply sufficient for all the legitimate expenses of 
 the poor) as the data from which we draw our con¬ 
 clusions. It. will be found, therefore, that of 14,116 
 parishes and other places supporting their own 
 poor, there were 5,364 which during the four years, 
 1839 to 1842, paid less than Is. 6d. in the pound 
 upon their annual value of property assessed, and 
 that there were 8,752 other parishes and places 
 which paid during the same period more than Is. 6d. 
 in the pound upon their annual value of property 
 assessed for the support of the poor. 
 
 The great numerical difference between the 
 former class and the latter presents the irresistible 
 self-evidence of the gross injustice of the present 
 system of rating, which is regulated in all cases, 
 first, by parochial limits, and secondly, by the num¬ 
 ber and claims of the poor which chance, or par¬ 
 ticular circumstances, have located there; but in 
 no case regulated or apportioned by the wealth and 
 ability of the rate-payers to support a just and 
 necessary burthen.* And why, let us ask, in this 
 United Kingdom should there be such tenacious 
 partiality for imposing peculiar national burthens 
 by the separative influence of favouring parochial 
 distinctions ? Is there any particular charm in the 
 
 * “ With regard to the Poor-rates we had a circumstance occur 
 that was very remarkable, about ten miles below me in the wealds 
 of Surrey and Sussex. During the low prices of which we were 
 speaking just now, the Poor-rate in one parish rose to 17s. 6 d. in 
 the £. while the rent of the whole parish was only 15s. 
 
 Q. 218. In what year was that ? 
 
 A. lam not prepared to state positively the year, but as far as 
 my memory serves me it must have been in 1835, and at that 
 time there were several instances of the Poor-rate in those parishes 
 being much higher than the rent.”—Evidence of T. Weall, Esq. 
 Burdens on Land,p. 20. 
 
12 
 
 word “ Parish” that, in the levying of a national 
 burthen, every other division must be subservient 
 to it? 
 
 In the first place, it is matter of history that the 
 parochial division was made solely for ecclesiastical 
 purposes, and the function of the administration of 
 relief to the destitute, as a continuation of the prac¬ 
 tice of alms-giving, was assigned to the parishes as 
 an incident to the ecclesiastical government; and 
 next, from the lapse of time, the vast changes of 
 commercial enterprise and numerous other moving 
 causes, while they have swelled and exalted small 
 and inconsiderable villages into large manufacturing 
 towns with thousands of busy inhabitants, the same 
 causes have depopulated places which in the olden 
 time were, comparatively with the then population, 
 thickly inhabited.* Can there be, therefore, any 
 real utility in adhering so closely to such division ? 
 (at least for civil purposes, in the imposition of 
 exclusive taxes). The writer is convinced that no 
 well-founded reason can be urged for its continuance. 
 So much, then, for parochial divisions as respects 
 the pecuniary obligations of the rate-payers. 
 
 Now, as regards the equal rating in proportion to 
 wealth (assessable property), are we attempting to 
 argue in favour of a principle which is new-fangled, 
 or in opposition to the statute law? Certainly not. 
 Of its justice, we think that there cannot be a 
 second opinion; and we are prepared to prove 
 that, if any respect is to be paid to the dicta of high 
 legal authorities, it is in strict conformity with the 
 
 * We have made a hasty calculation, and find this result:—In 
 England and Wales there are 236 parishes with a population 
 under 50 inhabitants; 501 from 50 to 100 inhabitants; 702 from 
 100 to 150 inhabitants; and 715 from 150 to 200—in all, 2,154 
 parishes, besides very many others which are barely numerically 
 superior .—Vide Census Eeport, 1841. 
 
13 
 
 spirit of the 43 Eliz. c. 2, if not to the letter of that 
 Act. 
 
 By that statute it was ordained, that certain rates 
 for the support of the poor should be raised in each 
 parish. They were to be a burthen upon all who, 
 within the provisions of that Act, were held rate¬ 
 able ; but it was not enjoined that the amount or 
 mode of raising a rate in one parish should conform 
 with that raised in another. By that statute the 
 overseers of a parish are required “ to raise weekly, 
 “ or otherwise (by taxation of every inhabitant, 
 “ parson, vicar and other, and of every occupier of 
 “ lands, houses, tithes impropriate, propriations of 
 “ tithes, coal-mines or saleable underw'oods in the 
 “ parish, in such competent sum or sums of money 
 “ as they shall think fit), a convenient stock, &c., 
 “ to be gathered out of the parish according to the 
 “ ability of the same parish.” 
 
 It was early settled by the courts of law, indeed 
 shortly after the Act had passed, that property, 
 both personal and real, was rateable, and all the 
 inhabitants w'ere to be rated in equal proportion to 
 the property by reason of which they were rated. 
 No inequality of rate arising from a difference of the 
 species of property rated is to be found in any of 
 the reports. In Sir A. Earley’s case, 2 Bulstrode, 
 354, it was held by Justices Hutton and Cooke, that 
 amounts for the relief of the poor were to be made 
 in an equal manner upon the inhabitants, accordin'* 
 to their visible estates which they had and enjoyed) 
 real and personal; and whenever personal property 
 was rated, an equal mode w'as adopted. 
 
 In these early times there was not a great abun¬ 
 dance of personal property, and the inhabitants of 
 parishes found it most convenient to exempt all of 
 which the value could not be easily ascertained; 
 in short, by general consent, this was considered 
 unrateable property. 
 
14 
 
 The principle of equal rating was not at all affected 
 by this exemption.* 
 
 In the case of Rex v. Thomas Mast, 6 Term 
 Reports, 156, which involved a question of relative 
 rateability. Lord Kenyon held, “ That the assess- 
 “ ment for the relief of the poor ought to be so 
 “ contrived that each inhabitant should contribute 
 “ in proportion to his ability, which is to be ascer- 
 “ tained by his possessions in the parish. Every 
 “ inhabitant ought to be rated according to the 
 “ present value of his estate, whether it continue 
 “ of the same value as when he purchased it, or 
 “ whether the estate be rendered more valuable by 
 “ the improvements which he has made upon it. 
 “ If a person choose to keep his property in money, 
 “ and the fact of his possessing it be clearly proved, 
 “ he is rateable for that; but if he prefer using it 
 “ in the melioration of an estate or other property, 
 “ he is rateable for the same in another shape.” 
 So in Rex v. Shingle, 7 T. R. 549, on an appeal 
 against a Poor-rate, because certain lands were 
 undei-rated, it was held, that the rate should be 
 made upon the improved value. 
 
 So also in another case. Justice Parke held, that 
 “ the great point to be aimed at in every rate is 
 “ equality, and whatever is the proportion at which, 
 “ according to its true rateable value, any property 
 “ is rated, is the proportion in which every other 
 “ property ought to be rated.” 
 
 “ The first thing upon every rate, therefore, is to 
 “ ascertain the true rateable value of every property 
 
 * The principle of rating personal as well as real property is 
 tacitly recognised by the passing of the Annual Exemption of the 
 Stock in Trade Bill (vide Appendix). And Lord Brougham held 
 that the Poor Law of Elizabeth laid down the principle that all 
 property should contribute equally towards the support of the 
 poor Debate on the Irish Poor Law, May 0, 1847. 
 
15 
 
 “ upon which the rate is to be imposed ;* and the 
 “ next, to see upon wliat proportion of that value 
 “ a rate is in fact imposed.” The principle of equal 
 rating is here adopted as intended by the Act of 
 Elizabeth.f 
 
 The writer of these pages presumes not to the 
 possession of legal acquirements, much less to com¬ 
 pete in opinion with those “who are learned in the 
 law; ” but taking only a common sense view of, a 
 statute (the wisdom of which has never been dis¬ 
 puted), lie ventures to think that that statute was 
 framed with the most enlarged and benevolent 
 views for the relief of the poor, intending that all, 
 according to their known means, should contribute 
 to the comfort and maintenance of their less for¬ 
 tunate fellow-countrymen, and that such wise and 
 humane intentions should not be restricted in their 
 exercise to any locality, whether parish or pre¬ 
 cinct, but that charity, which is the duty of all, 
 should have no invidious boundary of exception, 
 but should extend to the whole country, each man 
 paying according to his ability, irrespective of the 
 adventitious circumstances of his residence, or the 
 number and state of need of the local claimants 
 upon his bounty. 
 
 The writer, confining his views more immediately 
 to the Metropolis, it is with no ordinary gratification 
 that he finds himself in consonancy of opinion with 
 a gentleman, whose great intellectual acquirements 
 and extensive official sources of information must 
 command the highest respect and attention. That 
 gentleman (Mr. William Farr), in his Annual Letter 
 to the Registrar-general,]; says, “ For many purposes 
 
 * See St. George’s, Ilanover-square, St. James’s, ‘Westminster, 
 St. Pancras, &c. t &c., in subsequent pages. 
 
 t There are numerous other cases “ in the books" of equal if 
 not superior authority, but our space forbids further quotation, 
 f See 5th Annual Report of the Registrar-general, pp. 430-2 
 
in which the health of the poor is more directly 
 concerned, the Metropolis should be treated like 
 other aggregated masses of people—as one com¬ 
 munity. The injustice and inconvenience of a 
 different course is shown by a reference to the 
 Returns of Poor-rate in subsequent Tables, from 
 which I shall extract a few facts that have not 
 obtained all the attention they deserve. 
 
 ,“ The amount of money expended upon the 
 relief of the poor (assuming the benevolence and 
 kindly feeling to be the same in all districts) 
 will depend upon two circumstances: first, the 
 number and wants of the poor; second, the 
 wealth and number of the rate-payers. If all the 
 inhabitants were affluent, there would be no Poo: 
 rate, because there would be no poor; if all wei 
 destitute, no Poor-rate could be levied. The Poor 
 rate will be found to be the reciprocal of the ratio 
 of the property and poverty, the givers and r< 
 ceivers—highest in the parishes where half ai 
 wealthy, half paupers; lowest where the grer 
 majority are poor or rich. 
 
 “ In the Metropolis, subdivided into a grea 
 number of parishes, the rich are accumulated i 
 some districts, the poor in others; and the con 
 sequence is, that whereas in provincial towns 
 comprising a single parish or union, the rate 
 payers contribute in some proportion to their 
 assessable property and means, the reverse is th 
 case here —the poorest rate-payers pay the highest 
 rates in the Metropolis. 
 
 “ The City of London comprises a great number 
 of parishes; but I take the three unions into which] 
 it is at present divided for an illustration. The dis 
 crepancies in the several parishes would be stil 
 greater. The wealthier portion of the City of Lon 
 don is within the Walls, and constitutes the City o 
 London Union. A considerable part of its labourin; 
 population is in the City of London without tin 
 
17 
 
 Walls—the East and West London Unions, which, 
 by our parochial system, support their own poor; 
 who, relatively to the population, are perhaps two 
 or three times as numerous as the Poor of the City 
 of London within the Walls. The consequence is, 
 that the citizens within the Walls, with assessed 
 property of the annual value of £613,883, give 
 by the rate, £47,292 to the poor; while the 
 citizens without the Walls, with a rated property 
 of £211,150, give, in the same manner, £29,395 
 a year to the poor. The rate in the poor districts 
 was 2s. 10(7., in the rich districts. Is. 7(7. in the 
 pound. 
 
 “ The amount given by the rate-payers and re¬ 
 ceived by the poor was equal to 18s. 10(7. per head 
 on the population of the City within the Walls; 
 8s. 6(7. per head on the population without the 
 Walls. The poor without the Walls, therefore, re¬ 
 ceive less relief, and the rate-payers pay much more 
 in proportion to their property. 
 
 Uxioxs or Parishes. 
 
 Population 
 
 1841. 
 
 Annual 
 Value 
 of Property 
 Assessed 
 
 Poor-rate. 
 
 Kate in the 
 Pound 
 
 the Relief of 
 the Poor. 
 
 expended 
 in the 
 Relief of the 
 Poor.* 
 
 
 
 
 £. d. 
 
 £. 
 
 
 
 211,150 
 
 - 2 10 
 
 
 City of London . 
 
 55,920 
 
 613,8S3 
 
 
 47,292 
 
 Compare four other districts 
 
 Whitechapel .i 71755 1 197 52° 1 19 ' 
 
 Rrti!™ eS ' S ’ " re5tnll “ stcr •[ 37 ' 398 1 250*160 1 - - 10 ] 
 
 I 17,441 
 
 I 10,631 
 
 1 I3,037f 
 
 | I4,455f 
 
 St, George's, iranovcr-sqr. 
 
 66^53 
 
 604,105 
 
 
 * The facts in the two last columns are ascertained from the 
 Poor-rate Return for the year ending 25 March 1841. 
 t In Bethnal-green, the portion of the rate expended on the 
 
18 
 
 “Similar inequalities will be observed in other 
 districts.* An equal Poor-rate on the property of 
 the Metropolis would meet the case; but I am aware 
 that many objections to this might be raised, and I 
 
 poor is 2s. 9 cl. in the pound; in St. George’s, Ilanovcr-square, 
 only G d. in the pound. A person in the possession of assessed 
 property in Bethnal-green, of the value of £100. a year, gives 
 £13. 12s. a year in the shape of rate to the poor. A person with 
 the same property in St. George’s, Ilanover-square, pays but 
 £2. 8s. a year towards the relief of the poor. Call the Poor- 
 rate a tax, and its inequality in the Metropolis is evident; call it 
 the regulated alms-giving of Christian charity, and it leaves the 
 inhabitants of wealthy districts a large arrear to be made up by 
 voluntary gifts. 
 
 * Amount of Belief given in Poor-rate to £ 1. of Hated 
 
 Property.f | 
 
 Disthicts. 
 
 
 Distp.iots. ! 
 
 Bermondsey 
 
 s. d. 
 
 St. Luke’s - - 1 7 
 
 East and West London 
 
 2 10 
 
 City of London - 1 7 
 
 Bethnal-green - 
 
 2 9 
 
 Hackney - - 1 5 
 
 St.George’s, Southwark 
 
 2 8 
 
 Strand - - -15. 
 
 Shoreditch 
 
 2 4 
 
 Clerkcnwell - - 1 1 
 
 Greenwich 
 
 2 4 
 
 Poplar - - - 1 3 
 
 Newington 
 
 2 3 
 
 St. Giles's - - 1 3 
 
 Stepney - 
 
 2 - 
 
 Kensington - - 1 1 
 
 Kotherhithe 
 
 1 11 ; 
 
 St. Pancras - - 1 1 ; 
 
 Lambeth 
 
 i ii 
 
 Westminster - - - 11 1 
 
 St. George-in-the-East 
 St. Saviour’s and St. 
 
 1 11 i 
 
 Marylebone - - - 11 j 
 
 St.Martin-in-the-Eields - 11 : 
 
 Olave’s 
 
 1 10 ' 
 
 St.James’s,Westminster - 10 ; 
 
 Whitechapel - 
 
 1 9 
 
 Islington - - - - 8 j 
 
 Camberwell 
 
 1 8 
 
 St. George’s, Hanover- [ 
 
 Holborn - 
 
 1 8 
 
 square- - - - G 1 
 
 j The facts in this Table were obtained by dividing the money 
 expended on the relief of the poor in the year ending March 1811, 
 by the assessed value of property. The County-rate, &c. is there¬ 
 fore excluded. 
 
19 
 
 only adduce the example to show that the inhabi¬ 
 tants of the rich districts would have no right to 
 complain if, in carrying out any important sanatory 
 measures for the diminution of the sickness and 
 mortality of all classes, particularly the poor, the 
 Metropolis were regarded as one city, and the rates 
 for the particular purpose were levied equally on 
 the whole assessable property, to be applied princi¬ 
 pally to the improvement of the worst and poorest 
 districts—it would be some compensation for the 
 inequality of the Poor-rate." 
 
 No view more just or more truly benevolent could 
 be taken than that of Mr. Farr, and, if practised, 
 would meet all the intentions of the framers of the 
 Act of Elizabeth, and embrace all the duties of the 
 rich to provide for the exigencies of the poor. Un¬ 
 fortunately, however, the system at present adopted 
 is in direct opposition to such just principles and 
 such kind feelings. 
 
 The first demonstration of the miter is, that the 
 wealthier parishes pay much less in proportion to 
 their means than their poorer neighbours: let us in¬ 
 quire if this is borne out, as respects the Metropolis, 
 at least that portion of it which is situate in the 
 county of Middlesex. By the return quoted in 
 page 4, the county is returned as having an annual 
 value of property assessed to the poor of £7,293,369. 
 Now, taking this immense annual value to be cor¬ 
 rect, and assuming that the average of Is. 10 d. in 
 the pound upon it has been paid for the support of 
 its poor (which by the by does not appear very clearly 
 m the returns), do we find that every parish pays 
 according to that standard, as respects its rateable 
 property? Referring to the four great divisions 
 seruitm, we find that in the county part (so to speak) 
 there were eight parishes with an annual value of 
 property assessed of £439,976, which paid from 
 
20 
 
 1839-42 but Is. 3d. and a fraction in the pound;* 
 while eight other parishes, with an annual value of 
 £ 142,234, paid for the same period, 4s. 2 d. in the 
 pound. This is bad enough, but “ worse remains 
 behind.” London City within the Walls has two 
 very gross cases—the parish of St. Christopher-le- 
 Stock (the only rate-payers of which are the wealthy 
 corporations of the Bank of England and the Gres¬ 
 ham Committee), and the ever-memorable St. Ste¬ 
 phen’s, Walbrook: the first-mentioned parish has 
 an annual value of property the amount of which, 
 we are informed by the return before quoted, 
 " cannot be stated; ” and it is said to have levied 
 in 1839, £179; none in 1840; in 1841, £120; 
 and in 1842, £120: the question which suggests 
 itself to the mind is . to whom these sums were paid, 
 —there being no poor! 
 
 This case exhibits such gross injustice to rate¬ 
 payers generally, that we cannot refrain from 
 quoting at length all the circumstances belonging 
 to it. In the Pari. Return, No. 635, Session 1814, 
 of Parochial and Borough-rates, it is stated in 
 
 * St. Pancras is not included in this estimate, because, accord¬ 
 ing to the return, it appears to have paid at the rate of 2s. (%(. in 
 the pound for the four years, 1839-42, upon a rateal of £488,501. 
 There is manifestly some error in the statement of this return, 
 for we have before us, while writing, Poor-rate receipts of this 
 parish with these items:— 
 
 Poor (in the 
 
 Excess of Police ai 
 
 Poor (in I 
 
 c £.).... 
 
 Highways .. 
 Excess of P. 
 Couuty-ra 
 
 Two rates each year. This shows an extraordinary discrepancy 
 in the Returns, to say the least of it. 
 
21 
 
 p. 175, under the head of St. Christopher-le-Stock 
 Parish, that “no assessment of the annual value of 
 property in the parish is made or required" And 
 also, “By the 2nd and 3rd Victoria, c. 107, the 
 poor-rates of this parish are directed to be borne 
 and paid in the following proportions, viz. for every 
 ,£ 200 . 
 
 The Bank of England to bear - - £ 153 13 4 
 
 The Gresham Committee to bear - 46 6 8 
 
 There are no other Rate-payers. 
 
 (Signed) ABRAHAM WOOD, Dep. Overseer." 
 
 Now supposing that there are any poor in this 
 parish to support (which, by the way, there are not 
 —the only inhabitants in 1841 being 15—the Cor¬ 
 poration servants), £200. would be but a very 
 small sum to he paid by two such wealthy Cor¬ 
 porations as the Bank of England and the Gresham 
 Committee. The affairs of the latter are so mixed 
 up with the City of London Corporation Accounts, 
 that we have no very accurate means of ascertaining 
 their yearly income ;* but of the former, the truth 
 occasionally peeps out at their quarterly meetings. 
 They are said to pay £30,000. per annum for 
 Income-tax, and it may be presumed also that they 
 pay a very good dividend on their capital, since 
 Bank Stock was last quoted at 189f; yet the Bank 
 pays no Poor-rate! and only £38. quota to the 
 Land-tax. Now by way of contrast, let the reader 
 ponder over the following cases, taken indiscrimi¬ 
 nately from very many others in the writer’s pos¬ 
 session, and then ask himself “ is this even-handed 
 justice.” 
 
 “ Bungay, Oot. 18.—Robert Kemp, an agricultural labourer, 
 appeared before the Rev. C. Brace and Sir. J. L. Bedingfie'ld, 
 
 * In the Sun newspaper (a most respectable authority^, July 1, 
 IMG, it is stated that the receipts were, in 1845, £19,503. 0s. bd. 
 Taxes paid, all kinds (Site of Royal Exchange), £192. Is..lid! 
 
22 
 
 magistrates of the Bungay division, upon a summons for non¬ 
 payment of 2s. 9(1. poor-rate, claimed by the overseers of the parish 
 of St. Andrew. 
 
 Service of the summons having been proved, 
 
 Mr. Bruce said the bench would like to know what were the 
 man's circumstances? 
 
 The defendant pleaded that he was unable to pay the rate. 
 
 Mr. Bruce. —What family have you? 
 
 Defendant.—I have seven children, your worship, all of whom 
 are at home, and my wife is near her confinement. I get 10s. 
 a-week wages when I am in full work, but I caunot earn that in 
 bad weather. 
 
 Mr. Bruce. —Do your children earn anything? 
 
 Defendant.—My eldest boy, who is 13, sometimes gets a week’s 
 work at 'id. a-day; another boy gets 2 d. a-day now and then. 
 My wife can do hut little with her young family. I pay £3.1 Os. 
 for the rent of my cottage, and the landlord makes some allowance 
 for rates. In wet weather a poor man must get behind in his 
 payments, there being no work. 
 
 The police-constable who served the summons informed the 
 bench that the defendant’s house bore evidence of great poverty, 
 though the children were clean and neat. The defendant bore the 
 reputation of a sober, hard-working man. 
 
 Mr. Bruce asked the overseer (Sir. Green) if the defendants 
 representation was correct? 
 
 Mr. Green had nothing to say tn contradiction to the mans 
 statement. 
 
 Sir. Bruce. —Then, under such circumstances, do you consider 
 that the parish is justified in enforcing payment of the rate? 
 
 . Sir. Green said, he thought the defendant was able to pay if he 
 
 Sir. Bruce.— Then you think that a man having a family of 
 nine persons to support upon at most 12s. or 13s. per week, is in 
 a condition to pay poor-rates? 
 
 Sir. Green thought he could; other men in the same situation 
 were compelled to do so. 
 
 Sir. Biiuce.— I am sorry to hear it, and I only tell you, that 
 both my brother magistrate and myself think it quite impossible. 
 It is very great cruelty on the part of the parish officers to enforce 
 payment iu such cases. It is also exceedingly impolitic to assess 
 the cottages of poor labourers, whose wages are far too little for 
 the niaintainance of their families without making them charge¬ 
 able to the rates. The obvious tendency of this unfeeling prac¬ 
 tice is to drive the labourer into the workhouse, and the public 
 are then compelled to keep the whole family. Unfortunately, the 
 law left the magistrates without any jurisdiction. If the parish 
 pressed for payment of the rate, they were bound to make an order 
 on the defendant, but they had a discretion with respect to grant- 
 
23 
 
 ing costs. If the overseer persisted in his claim for the rate, the 
 bench was resolved not to grant the costs of the application. 
 
 The defendant assured the bench that he had no means of pay¬ 
 ing the money; the parish must seize his goods. 
 
 A gentleman immediately tendered the amount claimed. 
 
 Mr. Green declined taking the rate unless the bench granted the 
 costs, to which the parish was legally entitled. If not, he should 
 come again next week. 
 
 Mr. Bruce. —Then you will come in vain. The bench will not 
 give costs under such circumstances. 
 
 The summons was then dismissed, to the great gratification of 
 all present, the parish officers excepted.” 
 
 “ Bradford. —About GO poor people were summoned to the 
 Court-house, Keighley, for arrears of Poor-rates. Amongst them 
 were old men rendered almost helpless by labour, age, and infir¬ 
 mity, disconsolate widows, and young men out of work, &c. Many 
 urged their utter inability to pay, whatever time might be allowed 
 for the purpose; others appeared anxious that the parish should 
 seize their tittle all, for they could not be worse off. One man 
 with a large family, who was out of work, appeared to be disap¬ 
 pointed when the magistrates allowed 14 days of grace; he wished 
 them to issue a distress warrant against his goods at once that he 
 might see the worst of it. In some of the cases the magistrates 
 were evidently at a loss how to act; their judgment appeared sus¬ 
 pended between the promptings of humanity and the claims of the 
 collector.” 
 
 “ In the following parishes of the Metropolis, summonses were 
 issued for arrears of Poor-rates, viz— Chelsea, 1500; Clerkenwell, 
 800; St. Clements Danes, 500; St. Ann’s, Westminster, 500; 
 and numerous others!” 
 
 Now let us remind our readers of the assertion 
 made in the first paragraph of this chapter, of “ that 
 hard-hearted cruelty which arises from the pecu¬ 
 niary selfishness of parishes (and persons) anxious 
 to throw the burdens of a fellow-creature’s miseries, 
 as well as the expenses of supporting such relief of 
 miseries, upon any person or person’s shoulders than 
 their own," and then see if some of the “ reported 
 cases” bear out the accuracy of such assumption. 
 
 By the Act 6 and 7 Victoria, cap. 36, certain 
 Institutions are exempt from the payment of Poor- 
 rates, "in respect to buildings or parts of buildings 
 belonging to societies instituted for purposes of 
 science, literature, or the fine artshut it provides. 
 
24 
 
 “ 1st. That the society be supported wholly or in 
 part by voluntary subscriptions; 2nd. That it make 
 no gift, bonus, or dividend among the members; 
 3rd. And provided also that the society shall obtain 
 the certificate of the barrister (Mr. Tidd Pratt) as 
 thereinafter mentioned.” 
 
 In April 1846, there came before the Court of 
 Queen's Bench an Appeal Case upon a claim to be 
 relieved from liability to assessment for Poor-rates. 
 That case was Regina v. Jones, the appellant being 
 the Secretary of the Religious Tract Society. After 
 several arguments, the Court (by its Chief, Lord 
 Denman) decided that the intention of the Act 
 (above recited) w r as to exempt “literary societies” 
 from being subject to the rate in consideration of 
 their being devoted .to objects of literature. This 
 society, whose objects were even of a higher kind 
 than those of any literary society, was still in strict¬ 
 ness neither a literary society strictly devoted to 
 the purposes of art or of science. The exemption 
 from rating under the Act was only intended to 
 reach, and was passed in favour of, societies strictly 
 literary. The Court therefore held the claim to be 
 good. We shall say nothing about the moral pro¬ 
 priety of the Religious Tract Society seeking to 
 shirk the payment of Poor-rates for their mer¬ 
 cantile palace in Paternoster Row, but merely call 
 attention to the fact that the claim was for a few 
 pounds, and that their annual subscriptions are 
 announced as being more than fifty thousand pounds! 
 
 At the Kingston Session, March 1846, in re Dunn 
 v. Weston and others, a similar attempt was made, 
 and with like result, to avoid the payment of a trifle 
 for Poor-rates, by the British and Foreign School 
 Society, whose annual income is more than £ 16,000. 
 exclusive of £750. government grant! 
 
 London Sessions, 1846.—Rating of Blackfriars 
 Pier.—This was an Appeal by the Mayor and Cor¬ 
 poration of the City against’ a rate made by the 
 
25 
 
 parish of St. Anne’s, Blackfriars, on the new pier 
 near Blackfriars Bridge. The pier was rated at 
 9d. in the pound, and assessed at £500. The 
 objections made to the rate were, 1st. That the pier 
 was not in the parish of St. Anne’s, Blackfriars; 
 2nd. That there was no beneficial occupation by 
 the Corporation; 3rd. That the pier was not by 
 law liable to be rated; 4th. That the pier was 
 assessed at too high a value, and 5 th. That the 
 rate was unjust and excessive! T. Woodthorpe, 
 Esq., Town Clerk, proved the receipts of toll 
 accruing from the pier, from October to 15th June, 
 was £716. 16s. 6d., ■ and that there was still due 
 from the proprietors of steam boats, £665. 6s. 6d., 
 and that the expenses were £602. The Corpo¬ 
 ration supplied money for the erection of the pier, 
 which cost £3000. Witnesses were called, who 
 perambulated the bounds of the parish, and stated 
 that they claimed and whipped the water along side 
 the parish. The Recorder said it had been proved 
 that the parish officers on beating the bounds 
 claimed something beyond the margin of the river 
 as part of their parish, and the law implied that 
 the parish were entitled to half the river fronting 
 the parish, and therefore, he would hold the pier to 
 be within the parish of St. Anne’s, and with respect 
 to the beneficial occupation, he, the learned judge, 
 thought that had been made out, and he would con¬ 
 firm the rate made by the parish on the pier, viz. 
 £18.15*.* 
 
 With regard to St. Stephen’s, Walbrook, the 
 return states that the parish has an annual value 
 of property assessed of £5,510, and that it paid in 
 1841 only £67, which gives just 2\d. in the pound. 
 
 * Had the pier been in Rotherhithe parish, the rate to be paid 
 would have been £ 79. Is. 3d. at 3s. 3|d. in the pound! 
 
26 
 
 In this division of the City there are eighteen 
 parishes with assessed property of £ 129,789., 
 paying 11 d. in the pound; and fifteen others of 
 assessed property of £ 60,506., paying an average 
 rate of 2s. 8 d., some of which pay as high as 
 4s. 10 d. in the pound, and none less than 2s. 2d. 
 
 Pursuing the matter, as more particularly respects 
 the City of London, we find the return before quoted 
 says, in p. 173, that “ We beg to call attention to 
 the enormous inequality of the Poor-rates in the 
 different parishes in the City of London. Some 
 parishes are paying Is. in the pound, while others 
 are paying only 3d. or 4 d., and those paying the 
 less sum are the wealthiest parishes. We trust 
 some measure will be proposed to equalize the rates.'’ 
 
 (Signed) J. JAS. WEIGIITMAN', l Overseers of St. Barthh- 
 JNO. DANIEL, J mew-tlie-Great Parish. 
 
 Again, of St. Mary Mount Haw Parish, p. 181 of 
 the same return, there is this observation: “A very 
 poor parish, only one house which is not let out 
 in lodgings.” 
 
 (Signed) WILLIAM FITCH, 1 Overseers 
 JNO. SKITIOJL, J ULerM, '‘’ 
 
 The first of these parishes was paying, when the 
 return was made, 3s. 6d. in the pound, upon a 
 rateal of £ 1,507. 11s. 3d., and the last was paying 
 4s. in the pound upon a rateal of £ 1074. 12s. 9 d. 
 
 It must be observed also that there are SI City 
 Companies, of which 40 have halls; many of these 
 are very wealthy, particularly the 12, or, as they 
 are called, “the great Companies,” from which the 
 Lord Mayor must be elected. Yet, notwithstanding 
 that wealth, they only pay Poor-rates for their 
 “halls” on the lowest possible estimate of their 
 value! We should very much like to knowhow 
 much is paid for the Mansion House, Guildhall, 
 
27 
 
 East India and South Sea Houses, &c. towards the 
 maintenance of the poor. Of the management of 
 some of the City property, the following extract 
 from Mr. Wm. Carpenter’s able work, entitled 
 The Corporation of London as it is and as it should 
 he, will doubtless interest the reader. 
 
 “ I have no means of knowing,” says he, “ in what manner the 
 trust estates of the Corporation of London are managed at the 
 present time; but there is no room to doubt as to the gross mis¬ 
 management of them at no remote period. It was stated by 
 Mr. Williams, the present member for Coventry, in his evidence 
 before the Commission of Inquiry, in 1834, that the City estates 
 consisted of upwards of GOOD tenements; that of these there were 
 GOO in Maddox-street, JIanover-square, and that neighbourhood, 
 the rent of which was not much above £3000 a-year, averaging 
 less than £G. each. They were let on leases renewable for ever, 
 at periods of fourteen years, on the payment of renewal fines, not 
 exceeding seven years’ rent; and some of them were again let at 
 £300. or £400. To the lettings in the City the same remark, he 
 said, would apply. They were all much below their real value. 
 And in a letter addressed by the same gentleman to the editor of the 
 Morning Chronicle, Jan. lGth, he says, speaking of himself, as one 
 of the City auditors, ‘ In order to avoid reading all the leases, 
 which could not be done before Midsummer-day, when the audi¬ 
 tors were obliged to make their report, they endeavoured to obtain 
 this information from the City officers in attendance upon them. 
 They were told that the number was about 7000. They were 
 asked if they were sure there were 6000 ? There answer was 
 undoubtedly. By the same process of inquiry, the auditors ascer¬ 
 tained the number of those houses situated within the City to be 
 about 2000, which were lot for £33,3G5. 4s. 5 d., averaging less 
 than £17. each per annum! The report then states the mode of 
 letting many of these houses, which are, to a great extent, in the 
 principal streets, and are worth, in most instances, from £ 100 to 
 £ 250. a-year.’ ” 
 
 It must not be forgotten that Maddox Street is 
 situate m the wealthy parish of St. George’s, Han¬ 
 over Square, where the Poor-rate is but 6 <7. in the 
 pound, upon a rateal of £ 604,105. 
 
 Mr. Carpenter states also, that the Corporation 
 income for the year 1845 was £408,340. exclusive 
 of the Funds of Chartered Companies, City Royal 
 
28 
 
 Hospitals, Parochial Charities, and Poor’s-rates, 
 and he calculates that the rateable property of 25 
 wards, containing 16,466 houses, as being to the 
 amount of £855,724. 
 
 Of London without the Walls, there are two 
 parishes, viz., St. Botolph’s, Aldersgate, and St. 
 Dunstan's in the West, with assessed property of 
 £24,575. and £27,531., paying Is. 6d. and Is. Ad. 
 in the pound respectively, while St. Sepulchre’s, 
 Newgate, and Trinity in the Minories, are paying 
 6s. and 3s. 9d. in the pound upon assessed property 
 of £ 11,324. and £2,519. respectively. 
 
 The eight parishes of the City of Westminster, 
 with an annual value of property assessed to the 
 poor of more than one million and a half, pay an 
 average rate of Is. 9d. in the pound. There are 
 two parishes, however, in this district winch must 
 not be passed without special notice; viz., St. 
 George’s, Hanover-square,® and St. James’s, West¬ 
 minster,* the first of which, whose rateable property 
 to the poor is returned at £604,105., and appears 
 to average 1,?. 2d. in the pound, paid Property-tax 
 upon £909,572. lls. 3d., and the latter is returned 
 as having assessed property of £250,160., and 
 appears also to average Is. 7d. in the pound as paid 
 for the poor, while it paid Property-tax upon 
 £ 416,843.19a. 11 d .! Let us now contrast this, the 
 wealthy and fashionable part of the Metropolis, with 
 the eastern part, and lastly, with the suburbs;— 
 
 * Mr. Farr estimates these parishes as paying 6 d. and 104. in 
 the pound, while our calculations from the Poor Law Return, 1811, 
 p. 294, make them 7^4. and Is. respectively for one year. 
 
 By the Fourteenth Report of Poor Law Commission in p. 80, 
 it appears that the first parish had increased its rateable property 
 in 1847 to £661,582, and paid 7f4 in the pound, and the second 
 upon £296,949. paid Is. in the pound. 
 
29 
 
 (Extracted from Mr. Farr's Table, pp. 436-7 .—Note on the 
 designation by the common decimal notationThe pound sterling 
 is taken for unity-one pound is £1,008.; ten shillings is -500; 
 five shillings is -50; half-a-erown, T25; two shillings, TOO- one 
 shilhng, -050; sixpence, -025; a penny, -004, nearly; a farthing, 
 001, nearly. This notation is much more convenient for all the 
 purposes of calculation than the system in use.) 
 
 The unjust disproportion of the burthen to the 
 back is manifested by every calculation which it is 
 possible to make. 
 
30 
 
 We come now to consider the state of a few of 
 the districts, &c., in the eastern and northern parts 
 of the Metropolis, and we find this result:— 
 
 Hackney. 
 
 St. Lukes .. 
 Shoreditch .. 
 
 
 41,350 
 
 90,687 
 
 31,122 
 
 20.430 
 
 19,383 
 
 14,244 
 
 “ Look on this picture!—and now—on this! ’ 
 
 66,453 I 604 
 
 Thus, the former paid £114,398. upon annual 
 value of property of £ 1,220,375., and the latter, 
 £125,779. upon £2,826,082! 
 
 And with respect to that part of the Metropolis 
 which is situate in Surrey, the same unequal ami 
 unjust rating exists:— 
 
 102,919 
 
 131,974 
 
 382,548 
 
 n-’s—St. Olave’s, 
 i’s Southwark."], 
 
So that Lambeth, with an annual value of pro¬ 
 perty of three-fifths in value, paid nearly double the 
 amount of St. George’s, Hanover-square; and Ber¬ 
 mondsey, with less than one-third in value, paid 
 nearly one-half more to the poor in one year than 
 St. James’s, Westminster. 
 
 The Inns of Court and Chancery (excepting only 
 Barnard’s Inn and Clement’s Inn, which form part 
 of St. Andrew’s, Holborn, and St. Clement Danes), 
 with a population of more than 1,500, are stated 
 as being “extra-parochial,” and assessed to the 
 Property-tax at £ 107,572., yet the writer cannot 
 find any return of their contribution to Poor-rates* 
 
 With these precious specimens of unjust rating, 
 “open as day—glaring—palpable,” is there need of 
 further argument to prove the immediate necessity 
 for the abolition of such a system ? Why do the 
 poor resort to, and why are tlie rates higher in the 
 eastern parishes and the suburbs of the Metropolis ? 
 —simply because the class of houses which the 
 poor can alone inhabit, by reason of their poverty, 
 are to be found in those localities only. Compare 
 the number and description of inhabited houses in 
 Lambeth, Newington, Bethnal-green and Bermond¬ 
 sey, with St. George’s, Hanover-square, St. James’s, 
 Westminster, St. Margaret’s and Islington, the 
 former being the highest and the latter the lowest 
 rated parishes, and it will be found, that in the 
 former there are 17,791, 9,370, 11,782, 5,674, and 
 in the latter, 7,629, 3,590, 3,332, 8,508, respec¬ 
 tively .f We need not ask which class of houses 
 pay the higher rent and are the more valuable. 
 
 * A paragraph appeared lately in “ The Times,” slating that, 
 by an accidental omission in its local Act, Lincoln's Inn had been 
 compelled to pay something to the poor of the parish in which it 
 is situate. For a fuller exposure of these “ extra-parochial” places, 
 &c., see next Chapter. 
 
32 
 
 No one can look with move pleasure upon, or be 
 more satisfied of the value of, the many improve¬ 
 ments now being carried on in this vast Metropolis 
 than the writer of these pages; but while he re¬ 
 joices in the daily increasing elegance and salubrity 
 of the great city, he cannot shut his eyes to the 
 fact, that by such means you are driving the poor to 
 certain already densely-populated localities, trench¬ 
 ing upon their few small comforts, and greatly en¬ 
 dangering the public health. It may be all very 
 well and pleasant in theory to talk about getting 
 rid of “rookeries,” opening confined courts and 
 other cals de sac, and the delight of seeing first and 
 second-rate houses with large and elegant shops in 
 place of small tenements and poor tenants; but the 
 poor must live somewhere—they will cohabit and 
 multiply—and they continue to live as long as their 
 hard fare and few comforts will let them. Well, 
 here they are—you cannot with all your affected 
 gentility overcome that fatal fact. If they are 
 grievous to the “purse-proud citizen,” or to the 
 nobility and gentry of St. James’s and St. George's, 
 Hanover-square, still they fthe poor) must vegitate 
 somewhere; and, by not allowing small houses to 
 be built, you drive the needy to the eastern and 
 suburban parishes, where only there is accom¬ 
 modation for them. Now, by such forced migra¬ 
 tion, those offences to ears and eyes polite are 
 removed—you have finer houses and better air; 
 but surely these advantages ought to be paid for- 
 increased pay for increased comfort is but reason¬ 
 able. If by the means which we have described 
 you compel the poor to reside in particular places, 
 
 Middlesex—in-door, 21,478; out-door, 47,101; proportion per 
 cent, to population (841,402), 8-2. 
 
 Surrey—in-door, 10,582 ; out-door, 30,588 ; proportion per 
 cent, to population (512,580), 8'0. 
 
 (See Table in Poor Law Report, 1844, p. 1G1.) 
 
33 
 
 of course the wealthy parishes which are thus 
 benefited pay more in proportion to their wealth 
 (assessed property) than those upon whom they 
 saddle the poor? In common justice this should 
 be the result—but is it so?—no—quite the con¬ 
 trary. In getting rid of the presence of the poor, 
 the wealthy parishes lessen their own burthens for 
 the support of the pauper, and their poorer neigh¬ 
 bours are mulcted, that they (the rich) may have 
 better vicinage, and enjoy purer air! No one can 
 be bold enough to assert that this is a state of 
 tilings which should be allowed to exist. 
 
34 
 
 CHAPTER II. 
 
 “ The relief of the poor is an interest and a duty 
 “ of the community at large. It may delegate that 
 “ duty, and of course does so, with reference to local 
 " powers and responsibilities; but still it is a func- 
 “ tion of the State.” “ It ought, therefore, to be 
 “ rescued as much as possible from countervailing 
 “ local interests , from the similar cupidity of indi- 
 “ viduals or combinations of men.” So writes an 
 able correspondent of a daily paper,* and in the 
 opinion so expressed, the writer of this most cordially 
 joins. It has indeed been said, that “the right of 
 “ the poor to receive support is one of those ques- 
 “ tions which it would be prudent to moot as seldom 
 “ as possible. It can answer little useful purpose 
 “ to set the interests, or the fancied interests, of 
 “ the lower classes in opposition to those of the 
 “ rich.” Undoubtedly it may be very unpleasant 
 to those who are enjoying all the good things of 
 this life, who are constantly tasking their ingenuity 
 to create novel indulgences, and to practise “ the 
 “ oldest sins the newest land of ways; ” it may, we 
 repeat, be particularly unpleasant for such beings 
 to hear of the rights or wants of the poor; but as 
 we are old-fashioned enough to prefer truth to flat¬ 
 tery—we are compelled to say that a careful ex¬ 
 amination of all the circumstances connected with 
 the government of the poor has convinced us that 
 the principal, the all-absorbing desire of guardians, 
 overseers, and all others upon whom devolve the 
 legal care of the helpless and the needy, is to get 
 rid of their paupers by some means, leaving it to 
 
 ■* The Times, 25th Sept. 1844. 
 
chance upon whom the burthen may fall, so that 
 they (the rate-payers) escape it. Saving the pockets 
 of the rate-payers is with them of the first consi¬ 
 deration—humanity and kindness to the poor being 
 a thing scarcely thought of, or at best but a remote 
 contingency. 
 
 I In every country the poor may be divided into 
 \ three great classes: first, those who are unable to 
 work or to perform any services for themselves; ’/j 
 
 secondly, those who are able to work, but who enrliri*^- 
 cannotprocure employment, from imprudent con- /ywt~ 
 duct or from bad character; thirdly, those who are 
 meritorious, but who cannot procure employment 
 from the stagnation of the demand for manual 
 i labour or human employment. 
 
 In the first class there may be several species; 
 those incapable of labour from acute and temporary 
 disease, from the weakness of infancy, from the 
 natural decrepitude of age, or from deformity or 
 bodily infirmity of any kind. In regard to these 
 there is little difference of opinion, and there seems 
 a general willingness to give support to all epi¬ 
 demic diseases which cannot be foreseen, and if 
 suffered to exist and spread amongst the lower 
 classes, the community in general would suffer; the 
 wealthier classes, therefore , for their own sales, are 
 called upon to interfere and to bear the expense of 
 hospitals and such institutions to receive the poorer 
 classes whenever afflicted with severe disease. In 
 regard to those who are permanently disabled, or 
 who labour under repulsive infirmities, it is to be 
 feared that private sympathy would soon be ex¬ 
 hausted. 
 
 The second class, or those who are guilty of mis¬ 
 conduct, may be quickly disposed o f. It certainly 
 never could be intended, in any well-governed 
 State, to allow the sturdy vagrant or the vicious 
 and improvident to feed upon the earnings of the 
 n 2 
 
 2 
 
36 
 
 industrious classes. It is, no doubt, a difficult 
 object to deal with those persons according to their 
 deserts, but, so far as the present object is concerned, 
 it may be unequivocally decided that they have no 
 abstract right to receive support, unless it be that 
 which compasseth the punishment of their crime 
 for its removal, which is provided for in the criminal 
 jurisdiction of the country. The question, then, is 
 reduced to a narrow compass, and we have only to 
 consider whether or not the able-bodied poor, r dm 
 are not, bknncable for any actual misconduct, should 
 receive gratuitous assistance. As a matter of right, 
 if all the circumstances be fairly and impartially 
 weighed, it would seem that the answer must be 
 given in the affirmative—they should either have 
 employment or gratuitous pecuniary assistance 
 given them. The various regulations, the changes 
 of commercial law, the alterations of duties, and 
 the channels of commerce, which from time to time 
 take place in legislation, are quite out of the control 
 of the working classes. If distress arise, they them¬ 
 selves are hardly to blame; they cannot control 
 the revolutions of trade, the devastations of Avar- 
 natural calamities—or the improvidence of govern¬ 
 ments, which are, at times no less extensively 
 destructive. As passive instruments, they are 
 always obliged to follow—and their destiny, whe¬ 
 ther for good or evil, is scarcely in their own 
 keeping—it must depend upon accident and the 
 diversified motives which may please to actuate the 
 higher classes of society. It is quite possible, there¬ 
 fore, for extreme distress to prevail, Avithout the 
 smallest impeachment of the prudence or foresight 
 of the working classes made helplessly destitute. 
 In this case, it would be rigid and unjust to punish 
 them for the acts of others. It would, indeed, he 
 worse; it would be adding ingratitude to injustice. 
 At pleasure, aud when it suits the purpose of the 
 
37 
 
 State, it uses these persons at its will, and violates 
 their personal liberty. It forces them, by ballot, 
 to serve in the militia and fight the public battles; 
 it compels them to man the national fleets; it 
 levies taxes upon them in their prosperity; and, 
 when the hour of adversity arrives, surely, after 
 having used them forcibly and unconsulted at the 
 public volition, it would not be just to abandon 
 them to utter destitution. 
 
 “ So long as a man is willing and ready to offer 
 “ his services, and to say, I am desirous to work 
 “ and to perform to the utmost of my ability, the 
 “ other branches of the community are called upon 
 " to support him. He offers, in exchange, the only 
 “ thing he can give—his labour; and the State, 
 “ having established artificial regulations for the 
 
 purpose of supporting the gradations of rank, 
 “ should grant, in exchange, a fair equivalent for 
 “ that labour, not probably equal to what it would 
 “ produce if left to its own accord in an ordinary 
 “ state of commerce, but certainly sufficient for 
 “ existence.”* 
 
 Many too are the commands in the Scriptures 
 to succour the poor and the needy—and blessings 
 are promised only on such condition. “ Blessed is 
 he,” says the Psalmist, “ that considereth the poor 
 and the. needy; the Lord will deliver him in the 
 time of trouble.’’ The law of the Jews did not 
 leave the relief of the poor to private charity alone. 
 The poor man’s tithe stored for the purpose every 
 third year, the remnant of the crops and Meauiii°-s 
 of the field and vineyard and oliveyard every year 
 the spontaneous fruits of the earth every seventh’ 
 year of rest, the release of debtors and bond servants 
 every seventh year, and the restoration of land 
 every fiftieth year formed a legal provision for the 
 poor, of which the late Mr. Sadler remarked that 
 
 * Principles of Population. London, Duncan, 183? 
 
38 
 
 it never yet had been equalled in any other country 
 in the world.* 
 
 Christian revelation has increased the obligation 
 of charity, extending its operation, regulating its 
 practice, exalting its principle, and promising bless¬ 
 ings, temporal and eternal, as its reward. “To do 
 “ good and to distribute, forget not: for with sucli 
 “ sacrifices God is well pleased.” “ Charge them 
 “ who are rich in this world,” writes Timothy vi. 
 17-19, “ that they be ready to distribute, willing to 
 “ communicate, laying up in store for themselves 
 “ a good foundation against the time to come, that 
 “ they may attain eternal life.” Hence the Christian 
 fathers called alms deeds, “the wing of prayer,” 
 and wrote via cosli pauper est. 
 
 llaynal (Hist, des Indes, p. 322) says, “ Avant 
 “ toutes les loix sociales l’homme avait le droit. 
 “ de subsister and the old jurists, Grotius, Puf- 
 fendorf, and others, indirectly admit the right of 
 subsistence in allowing that extreme necessity may 
 even excuse or justify theft. Locke, Paley, and 
 Bishop Woodward also, acknowledge this inchoate 
 right of the poor. Vattel says that the State ought 
 to encourage industry, which is its first duty, and 
 “ faire ensorte que chacun trouve a vivre de son 
 “ travail.” 
 
 And lastly, Montesquieu writes thus, “ The alms 
 “ which are given to the naked in the streets do 
 “ not fulfil the obligations of the State, which owes 
 “ to all her citizens a certain subsistance, nourisli- 
 “ ment, suitable clothing, and condition of life con- 
 “ sistent with health.” De l’Esprit des Loix xxiii. 
 c. 29. 
 
 With this indefeasible right of the poor for sup¬ 
 port from the State, is it not monstrous tyranny, 
 therefore, that local custom or fiscal arrangement 
 should be allowed to check its universal application, 
 
 Palmer's Lectures, p. 1. 
 
39 
 
 and confine its exercise to particular places—de¬ 
 pendent not upon the meretorious claim of the 
 applicant, but governed solely by the accident of 
 birth or parish regulation.* The law of England 
 makes men the very adstricti glebce; it sets a con¬ 
 fined boundary to their industry, and then punishes 
 them if they presume to become poor. 
 
 “ There is no wrong without a remedy,” boast- 
 ingly writes the oft-quoted British jurist in his beau 
 ideal of our constitution. Alas ! we fear that the 
 wrongs of the poor have been so protracted by 
 legislative patchwork and tinkering, that the re¬ 
 medy will come only when the disease has placed 
 them in a position to lose half of its benefit. 
 
 Presuming that, in the preceding chapter, we 
 have proved the unequal and, by consequence, the 
 unjust rating under the present, system of poor law 
 taxation, and its injurious effects upon the pockets 
 of the rate-payers—a part, says Byron, the most 
 sensitive of British feelings—having traced the 
 error to its source, we proceed to the more agree¬ 
 able part of our task, viz., the remedy. But, in this 
 place, we shall confine ourselves exclusively to 
 the pecuniary part of the question, reserving the 
 consideration of the morale to future pages. And 
 first, let us inquire what have been the expenses 
 of the poor since the passing of the Amendment 
 Act in 1S34, taking for our authority a return 
 moved for by Sir James Graham, and showing “ the 
 “ total amount of money levied for Poor-rate in Eng- 
 “ lalul and Wales, and the amount expended there- 
 “ out for the relief and maintenance of the poor, for 
 the years ended 1834 to 1844, both inclusive.” 
 
 * A similar principle to that which the writer advocates was 
 recommended by a Committee of the House of Commons itself 
 in 1819, page 10 ; they said that the condition of the poor 
 would be greatly benefited “ by removing any restraint on the 
 „ free clrculatl on of labour, and giving every facility and en- 
 u c ° u ™gemcnt to seek employment in any part, of the Kings 
 
Well, then, from this it appears that the average 
 legitimate expenses of the support and maintenance 
 of the poor was for the 11 years at the rate of 
 <£4,870,552. annually. This, be it observed, is ex¬ 
 clusive of law charges,* which averaged during the 
 same period, £119,359. 5s. medical relief, and 
 what is called, “all other purposes,” which averaged 
 £654,941.3s.f annually. “ This sum of £4,870,552. 
 “ includes,” say the Commissioners, “ in-door and 
 “ out-door relief, establishment charges, and build- 
 “ ing and emigration loans repaid, and interest on 
 “ money borrowed under Poor Law Amendment 
 “ Act.” Now, as we contend that these last-men¬ 
 tioned enormous charges are produced principally 
 by the adherence to a wrong and unjust system, so 
 it follows that the whole, or at least the greater 
 part of such expenses will be entirely saved by the 
 adoption of a more wholesome one. Hence, then, 
 we conclude that the legitimate cost of supporting 
 the poor may be reckoned (in round numbers) at 
 £5,000,000. annually. 
 
 Proceed we now to detail our plan to accomplish 
 the desirable objects of increasing the comforts of 
 the poor, and lessening (or at least equalizing) the 
 burthen of the rate-payer. The return quoted in 
 the last chapter shows that the total annual value 
 of real property assessed to the Poor-rates for the 
 year ending Lady-day 1841 (the last general esti¬ 
 mate) amounted for England and Wales to the sum 
 of £ 62,540,030, and that this sum, great as it is, 
 was, as we have proved, distributed in most un¬ 
 equal proportions over the length and breadth of 
 of the land—counties the most populous and 
 
41 
 
 wealthy contributing not in fair proportion to that 
 population and that wealth, but according to the 
 accidental claims of local pauperism. But even 
 this rateal, inadequate and unjust as it is, and we 
 show that it is both the one and the other, has not 
 been fairly borne. Yet if fairly and impartially 
 borne at the rate (viz. Is. 6d. in the pound) which 
 the writer proposes, it would produce the sum of 
 £ 4,690,502. 0s. annually : and to substantiate this 
 assertion, he has calculated that each county in 
 England and Wales would contribute in the follow¬ 
 ing manner:— 
 
 Pjioduce of Proposed Kate of Is. Gd. in the Pound for England, 
 showing also the Increase and Decrease of Kate it would cause 
 in each county. 
 
 Perks 
 
 Bucks 
 
 * There are two errors in the Pari. Ket. No. 235, Sess. 1812, 
 quoted in p. 4,—viz. Chester, which is underrated £2,180. 12s. Gd. 
 and East York, which is underrated £ 3G7. 10s. Gc7. If these sums 
 are added, both will be found as paying under Is. Gd. in the pound 
 on their rateal. 
 
42 
 
 Produce of Proposed Bate of Is. 6 cl. in tlie pound for Wales, 
 showing also the Increase and Decrease of Bate it would cause 
 in each county. 
 
 
 
 
 Asse.-aimiiit of IS 11. 
 
 
 £. s. d. 
 
 +* s ,1 
 
 * 0 ,7 
 
 Anglesea - 
 
 14,370 19 6 
 
 
 5,493 0 0 
 
 
 18,199 14 6 
 
 
 1.028 5 6 
 
 Cardigan 
 
 12.533 6 6 
 
 
 10.687 13 G 
 
 Carmarthen - 
 
 25,380 4 6 
 
 
 
 Carnarvon - 
 
 13,737 9 0 
 
 
 14.965 11 0 
 
 Denbigh - 
 
 25,165 8 6 
 
 
 16,547 11 G 
 
 Flint - 
 
 16,055 6 6 
 
 
 8,128 13 G 
 
 Glamorgan - 
 
 28,236 3 0 
 
 
 14,011 IT 0 
 
 Merioneth - 
 
 8,734 17 6 
 
 
 8,072 2 G 
 
 Montgomery 
 
 21,175 10 0 
 
 
 20.868 10 0 
 
 Pembroke - 
 
 20,708 8 0 
 
 
 9.049 12 0 
 
 Badnor 
 
 9,798 19 6 
 
 
 3,804 0 G 
 
 £214,096 7 0 
 
 
 128,167 13 0 
 
 Total for England 4,476,405 18 0 
 
 
 
 „ Wales 
 
 214,09G 7 0 
 
 
 
 Grand Total ') 
 
 
 83,386 12 0 j 
 
 
 
 
 
 and Wales ) 
 
 1 
 
 
 1,744,712 7 0 
 
43 
 
 It is demonstrable therefore, that, if our plan 
 were adopted, while 46 counties and parts of coun¬ 
 ties would be benefited by decrease of their rates, 
 only 8 of the same in England would be injured (if 
 any injury can arise from an equable assessment) 
 by the increase of their rates. 
 
 But as this would leave a deficiency of reve¬ 
 nue, even after the expensive machinery created 
 by the present law of settlement and removals— 
 fertile as they are in useless and wasteful expen¬ 
 diture—was abolished; it then becomes a question. 
 By what means is that deficiency to be supplied ? 
 Would you increase the general rate of 1 s. 6d. in 
 the pound ?—Certainly not. While the simple re¬ 
 medy of a re-assessment is practicable, what need 
 is there of any other ? 
 
 And that this can be effected with little trouble 
 and expense the following evidence will prove:— 
 
 “ The re-valuation of assessable property from time to time by 
 competent and impartial officers upon the basis of the full im¬ 
 proved rental, is the best remedy for insuring a fair distribution 
 of this heavy charge, by bringing newly-created property into 
 assessment. It will also have the effect of protecting the property 
 which is most tangible and visible from that undue excess of 
 burden to which it must continue exposed, so long as valuations 
 below the improved value continue to be resorted to. The neces¬ 
 sity of re-valuation has already been urged in respect to the 
 county rate. 
 
 “ This necessity becomes still more apparent in considering the 
 question of parochial taxation. ‘Whether there shall be more 
 deduction in a parish for houses or for land will depend usually 
 upon which is the strongest part, the householder or landholders.’ 
 
 ‘ I believe there is no parish in England in which the law is con¬ 
 stantly carried out with any high degree of accuracy.’ 
 
 “ I hear complaints on all sides of the assessments being noto¬ 
 riously false. Mr. Coode gives an example of the mischief of this, 
 which is the more striking, as it refers to the Isle of Wight, and 
 not to a manufacturing district. < The Isle of Wight,’ he says, is 
 one example. _ The burdens were fixed at a time when the town 
 of Eyde, for instance, was a small fishing village. It is now one 
 of the most populous places in the island; but retaining its amount 
 of liability fixed about the year 1760, the disparity has become 
 enormous, and most unsatisfactory to all the rest of the island. 
 
44 
 
 “ Mr. Poulett Scrape’s Act,* whicli was intended to meet this 
 evil, does not seem to have been effectual. Whether this arises 
 from interested or from other motives, or whether it is traceable 
 to an ambiguous expression in the Bill, is not stated. But the 
 consequences are equally mischievous. Mr. Coode therefore seems 
 justified in observing, it is important to prevent that practice, 
 which still prevails largely, of under-rating themselves and so 
 castiug an unfair burden on other districts. There is nothing 
 but a compulsory valuation iu some form or other that will remove 
 the present evil .”—Vide lord Monteagle's lleport, p. 25. 
 
 Again:— 
 
 “ During the last 12 or 15 years,” observes Mr. C'oodn, “ the 
 taxes, the Poor's-rate for instance, have not increased in the like 
 proportion with the property, but have in fact diminished during 
 a portion of that time; so that iu fact, the property whicli has 
 increased in value has borne a burden of taxation proportionally 
 diminished in two ways:—first, by the increase of the ability to 
 bear the tax, supposing the buiden to remain the same, and next, 
 by the diminution of_the burden during the latter portion of the 
 
 The testimony of other competent witnesses is 
 equally clear on the errors of the present system, 
 and they complain thus of its abuses:— 
 
 “ Is it your opinion that the statement made by the Poor Law 
 Commissioners in the Report for 1843, that landed and house pro¬ 
 perty is assessed at less than half its legal rateable value is correct 
 or nearly so?—I think it is correct, or nearly so; I do not think 
 they state half; I think they state 44 per cent.; I think the state¬ 
 ment in the Report is correct. 
 
 “Is it also correct that in 11,000 parishes no valuation has 
 taken place under the Parochial Assessment Act?—I take the 
 word of the Commissioners for that; they state it in their Report. 
 
 “ In the 4444 places where, according to the Report of the 
 Commissioners, some valuation has been attempted since the 
 passing of the Parochial Assessment Act, is not a very great pro¬ 
 portion of them very incorrect?—Clearly; I know that for a i'act? 
 
 “ Even when professional surveys have been made, is it true that 
 they have in many instances been set aside by the Overseers ?—I 
 can, in answer to that, state two facts. It is stated in that Report 
 of the Poor Law Commissioners, and I take that Report for my 
 authority, for I do not know it of my own knowledge, but it is 
 stated in that Report that the surveyors themselves have confessed 
 
 * 6 and 7 Wm. IV, c, 96. 
 
45 
 
 that in order to pacify the people when they have made a valu¬ 
 ation, they have taken off from 16 per cent, downwards to satisfy 
 the people; that they had not overdone them; that they themselves 
 having made a professional valuation, on their oaths, have after¬ 
 wards deliberately taken off from 16 percent, downwards in order 
 to satisfy the people .”—Evidence of the Rev. E. Jones, Burdens on 
 Land, pp. 
 
 J. Wood, Esq., Chairman of the Board of Ex¬ 
 cise, and late of Stamps and Taxes, states also in 
 relation to the amount of Real Property assessed 
 to the Poor-rates in 1841, for England and Wales, 
 that“ It is difficult to say how much this is be¬ 
 low the actual value; probably it may be from 15 
 to 20 per cent., or possibly even a little more.”— 
 Ibid, p. 137. 
 
 It may have been, that many counties are de¬ 
 terred from re-valuations by the fear of a very 
 heavy expense attending them; this apprehension, 
 however, is proved to be groundless. The valuation 
 of the whole rental of £2,228,000. in the AVest 
 Riding of York, did not amount to £1,000., and 
 that of the County of Bedford cost but £240. Nor 
 have the difficulties been very great. Against the 
 valuation of Mr. Elsley there was not a single ap¬ 
 peal ; and he states, that so far from there being 
 manifested any indisposition to his proceedings on 
 the part of the great towns wdiose rates he was 
 about to increase, the public officers on the con¬ 
 trary gave him every aid, brought out their local 
 rate-books, and that there was no wish for conceal¬ 
 ment.-— Mr. Coode’s Evidence, Ibid, 
 
 The author of this work can bear personal evi¬ 
 dence of the great advantage of parochial supervi¬ 
 sion. The parish in which he resides (St. Margaret’s 
 and St. John’s, Westminster) at the Vestry Meet¬ 
 ing in June 1848, increased its rateal for the poor 
 more than £18,000., by the public spirited conduct 
 of some of the rate-payers in attending diem per 
 diem at the vestry room for a fortnight, and perso- 
 
46 
 
 nally revising the rate-books upon the basis of the 
 Property-tax. There was little or no expense in 
 this, the appeals were very few indeed, and the 
 Poor-rate was thus reduced 9d. in the pound. 
 
 It is quite clear then, that individual exertion 
 may, if energetically directed, accomplish all the 
 objects of a compulsory Act of Parliament for a re¬ 
 valuation. Mr. Cafe, the respectable auctioneer of 
 Great Marlborough-street, has been indefatigable 
 in his exertions to do this in his own parish, (St. 
 James’s, Westminster,) where the poor-rates are 
 not only very low, (Is. in the £. upon a rateal of 
 ,£250,160.) but even that light burden is most un¬ 
 equally borne. Mr. Cafe shows, by his tables, that 
 378 houses are rated at £43,194., when the rent or 
 real value is £73,082.! But the following Reports 
 will speak for themselves. 
 
 “ Pakish or St. James, August 12.—A Petty Sessions was yes¬ 
 terday summoned to be holden in the Vestry-room of the parish 
 of St. James, for the purpose of bringing before the Bench the 
 whole question of the inequality of parochial assessment which 
 exists in this parish, and which has for some time been the source 
 of considerable complaint. The question was to he brought foncurd 
 in the shape of an appeal, tinder the Parochial Assessment Act, 
 against the poor rate of the parish. The Act in question under 
 which the rate is made and levied, requires the assessment to be 
 made on the rent for which houses might be expected to let, 
 free from tenants’ taxes and insurance. The rate proposed to be 
 appealed against was made on a valuation that took place about 
 15 years ago; since which period the value of Regent Street hud 
 risen about £100,000. per annum, the whole rental of the parish, as 
 shown by the poor rate, being about £ 250,000., and yet no alteration 
 has been made either in the amount or mode of rating. The sub¬ 
 ject has engaged the attention of a number of influential gentlemen 
 in the parish for some time past, and as they were unable to get 
 any satisfactory reason from the parish authorities why the exist¬ 
 ing inequality of rating should continue, it was determined to 
 bring the matter to an issue, by mooting the whole question at 
 petty sessions. 
 
 Five magistrates were summoned, but at one o’clock only one, 
 the Hon Mr. Byng, was in attendance, and as it was necessary to 
 have more than one magistrate present in order to constitute a 
 
47 
 
 petty sessions, of course it was not competent for Mr. Byng to go 
 into the matter. 
 
 Mr. Cafe, of Cireat Marlborough Street, who has taken a very 
 active share in the proceedings on the side of the rate-payers, said 
 he was fully prepared to go into the question, and the gentlemen 
 by whom he was accompanied were also ready to support his view 
 of the case. 
 
 Mr. Byng expressed his regret at being unable te assist the 
 parties in the object they wanted to attain. He tvas quite ready 
 to hear the case, but he was not legally authorized to take any 
 step without the assistance of a second magistrate. He had -waited 
 an hour in order to give the parties a fair chance, but as it was 
 now hopeless to expect the attendance of another magistrate, he 
 had no other course left than to declare there was no court. 
 
 Mr. Cooper conceived the rate-payers were very much obliged 
 to Mr. Byng for the attention he gave to parish business, exhibit¬ 
 ing thereby a very strong contrast to other county magistrates, who 
 accepted an important public trust, seemingly with a predetermi¬ 
 nation to neglect their public duties. 
 
 Mr. Buzzard, the vestry clerk, and also the Magistrates’ clerk, 
 said the parish authorities had no intention to get rid of the ques¬ 
 tion this way. They were anxious to have it settled on its merits, 
 and he could answer for it that efforts had been made to obtain a 
 sufficient attendance of county magistrates, but these efforts had 
 proved unsuccessful. 
 
 Mi - . Cafe said he had been for three years engaged in this 
 matter. He had at length got his evidence in a state of complete¬ 
 ness, and he was satisfied of a successful result provided he could 
 bring the subject before the proper tribunal. The land-tax was 
 formerly m the same situation. He had taken up the subject, and 
 after constderable time and trouble he had procured an equiliza- 
 
 Mr. Cooper hoped the present proceedings would be considered 
 as occurring without prejudice. It would, however, be necessary 
 to renew their efforts, and to take the same steps over ao-ain in 
 order to arrive at a decision. ° 
 
 The parties then withdrew. 
 
 To show the inequality of the assessment the following extracts 
 are taken from a printed table. In Oxford Street, three houses, the 
 rental oj each being £ 110. are rated at £41., £54. and £89 In 
 Urgent Street, two houses, rent £200. each, one rated at £84. the 
 other at £102.; three houses at £ 250., £ 255. and £250— the 
 first rated at £ 71., the second at £ 191. and the last at £ 96.; five 
 
 = £ i°° - reHt ’ mted at £ 17G ’’ £120 '> £ 123., £ 130., and 
 zzco. os Gd. 
 
 “Inequality of Assessment.— At the Petty Sessions holden 
 
48 
 
 Tuesday, the 26th inst., at the Vestry-room of St. James’s parish, 
 before the Hon. Mr. Byng, Mr. Freshfield, and other magistrates, 
 the appeal of Mr. Cafe, of Great Marlborough Street, against the 
 inequality of the poor-rates of the parish, which had been adjourned 
 from the last petty sessions, came on for judgment. Mr. Buzzard, 
 the vestry clerk, stated, that in pursuance of the pledge given at 
 the last sessions, the parish had deputed Mr. Mayhew to make a 
 new valuation of the parish, at a cost of £500., upon the prin¬ 
 ciples of the Parochial Assessment Acts, making the usual deduc¬ 
 tions, a report to he made before Easter; he therefore thought the 
 appeal had better be adjourned. Mr. Cooper of Old Cavendish 
 Street, who appeared for Mr, Cafe, reminded the court that the 
 magistrates at the last session determined that the returns to the 
 income-tax were the most ready, if not the best, means of ascer¬ 
 taining the rateable value, viz., “ the rent at which each premises 
 might reasonably be let for by the year.” Mr. Freshfield said no 
 rule could be better than the income-tax return; the vestry must 
 not consider the county and police -rate—they could appeal if they 
 were overrated; in the present case, equality of rating was the 
 question. Mr. Byng remarked, that nothing could be more ridi¬ 
 culous than the mode of valuing stated by the surveyor at the 
 last hearing, viz., the frontage and quantity of brickwork. A house 
 might have both ingredients, and yet be less valuable to the tenant. 
 After some conversation about the costs of the appeal, which Mr. 
 Cafe said he would discharge, as he came forward on public 
 grounds, the case was again adjourned.” 
 
 This case, we believe, remains still undecided. 
 
 A little retributive justice, however, has been 
 meted out to this aristocratic parish, by the Justices 
 in Session, Oct. 11, 1847, increasing the amount of 
 its rateal to the County Rate (under 8 & 9 Vic. c. 3) 
 from £240,956. to £421,948., being an increase of 
 £ 180,992. The whole County of Middlesex has 
 been increased from £6,367,466. to £7,754,330. 
 The result of this increase will be that whilst the 
 previous County Rate—that is, the rate made upon 
 the returns of the parish officers of 1846—was 3jd. 
 in the pound, it will be now ‘2~d. or a saving to the 
 mass of the rate-payers of ~d. in the pound so far 
 as the County-rate is affected. 
 
 But leaving these local abuses, as being of minor 
 
consideration, let us enquire how this gross ine¬ 
 quality of valuation affects the country generally. 
 Referring again to the evidence of Mr. Coode 
 before the Lords’ Committee, that gentleman is 
 asked in what consists the difference between valu¬ 
 ations made for the Property-tax and the Poor- 
 rates. He replies thus: “ The Property-tax is 
 “ imposed and the valuation made according to the 
 “ direct injunctions of the Statute. The valuation 
 “ of property to the Poor-rate may be said to be 
 “ made according to the common-law interpretation 
 “ of the terms of the statute of Elizabeth. That 
 “ statute directs that the tax shall be made accord- 
 “ ing to the ability of the persons liable. The mode 
 “ of valuation now adopted has been formed under 
 “ the control of the Common Courts of Common 
 “ Law, as a means of arriving at the ability derived 
 “ by the occupier of the land or other rateable 
 “ property, from such property. Recently the mode 
 “ of valuation has received a statutory* sanction, 
 “ being adopted, though perhaps not with perfect 
 “ accordance with the rules laid down by the Courts 
 “ in the Parochial Assessments Act, 6 & 7 Wm. IV. 
 “ c. 96, s. 1. 
 
 “ Ifc seems beyond question that the process 
 “ adopted for valuing farm buildings is the most 
 “ convenient, the most efficient, and most useful 
 " J a Y of valuing the property, so as to be in accor- 
 ‘‘ dance with the terms of the statute, which requires 
 ‘‘ you to get at the ability derived from the subject 
 of occupation, but as there are no express provi- 
 “ sionf b either in the statute of Elizabeth or in the 
 " Parochial Assessments Act, describing the way in 
 “ which the valuation of different kinds of property 
 " Ileid in conjunction, and mutually improving the 
 “ vaIue t,le °ne of the other, shall take place? the 
 “ persons practically engaged in valuing have been 
 obliged, to adopt such processes as appear to- be 
 
50 
 
 “ on the whole the best calculated to attain the 
 “ apparent objects of the Poor-law statutes. 
 
 “ And that has been different from the course 
 “ adopted by the Property-tax statute ? 
 
 “ It has certainly. Under the Property-tax Act 
 “ the mode of valuing such properties is expressly 
 “ provided for, and nothing is in this respect left 
 “ to the discretion of the valuer. 
 
 ' “ Upon what principle are large country houses 
 “ valued to the poor-rates ? 
 
 “ The practice differs very much. The true 
 “ principle has been enunciated in Mr. Poulett 
 “ Scrope’s Act, the Parochial Assessments Act, 
 “ which requires that every property be valued at 
 “ the amount of the rent which it might reasonably 
 “be expected to let for. The Act directs that 
 “ every rate for the relief of the poor shall be made 
 “ upon an estimate of the net annual value of the 
 “ several hereditaments rated thereto, that is to 
 “ say, upon an estimate of the rent at which the 
 “ same might reasonably be expected to let from 
 “ year to year, free of all usual tenant’s rates and 
 “ taxes, and tithe commutation rent charge, if any, 
 “ and deducting therefrom the probable annual cost 
 “ of the repau-s, insurance, and other expenses (if 
 “ any) necessary to maintain them in a state to 
 “ command such rent.”— Report , Burdens on Land, 
 pp. 230-1. 
 
 Mr. Coppock, clerk to the Stockport Union, (a 
 gentleman of great practical experience) when ex¬ 
 amined before the Commons’ Committee on Settle¬ 
 ment and Poor Removal, 29th April, 1847, takes 
 this view of equal rating to the poor:— 
 
 “ If all parties were paying an equal rate of tax- 
 “ ation for the relief of the poor, would it not be 
 “ required that the relief should be administered 
 “ with the same equality ?—I have no doubt it 
 “ would come to that, and without the slightest 
 “ disadvantage. 
 
51 
 
 « You contemplate no pauper removals between 
 England or Scotland, or England and Ireland ? 
 Certainly not. 
 
 “ Do you contemplate that the rates for the relief 
 of the poor should be raised upon the basis of the 
 present Property-tax?—Yes; I take that as the 
 basis. 
 
 “ At present the Poor-rate is raised from poor 
 persons, as well as from rich, throughout the 
 whole scale of society ?—Yes. 
 
 “ Do not you think that the rate being levied 
 upon small proprietors operates as a great induce¬ 
 ment to them to see that that rate is not squan¬ 
 dered or misapplied ?—I never found it so to act. 
 “ Do you think if the rate for the poor were to 
 be removed entirely from the lower and poorer 
 classes, that it would not be likely to raise de¬ 
 mands of the poor upon that fund ?—I do not see 
 why it would: I do not anticipate that. 
 
 “ At all events there would not be the same inte- 
 ' rest in those classes in keeping down the Poor- 
 rate that there is at present ?—I do not see that 
 ' that acts at present at all, and therefore I do not 
 ' see any difference that it would make. 
 
 “ Though you say, that you do not see that that 
 : acts, still at present the rate is levied from those 
 : classes ?—Yes: but as regards the proportion 
 r from the lower assessments of the rate levied and 
 : collected, the deficiency is very great, and each 
 ; poor-rate payer is trying, not to see how much is 
 ' spent, but how little he can pay towards it; 
 r therefore he is not likely to be inquisitive as to 
 1 the spending. 
 
 “ Supposing he cannot get quit of the payment, 
 : his object is to see that it is not inordinately in- 
 c creased ?—I never found it act in that way, and I 
 r do not believe it does act in that way. 
 
 “ Have your answers generally been confined to 
 e 2 
 
52 
 
 “ the administration of relief in large towns, or are 
 “ you conversant with the way in which relief is 
 “ administered and rates are raised in purely agri- 
 “ cultural districts ?—I am not conversant with 
 “ those matters in purely agricultural districts: I 
 “ cannot see that any difference would arise in the 
 “ one case or the other: the test might be different 
 “ in agricultural districts. 
 
 “ In purely agricultural districts the condition 
 “ and circumstances of all applicants for relief are 
 “ better known than they are in great towns and 
 " large communities ?—I think they would he. 
 
 Another of the great evils which prevails under 
 the present system of Poor-rate taxation, and which 
 creates and maintains the most unequal and unjust 
 distribution of its burden, is the existence of what 
 are called “ close parishes,” which Mr. E. Denison, 
 member for North Yorkshire, (Debate June 6,1840) 
 told the House that “ What was meant by a close 
 “ parish was, where one owner alone held the pro- 
 “ perty. In Yorkshire, in six districts only, there 
 “were 137 of these close parishes to 169 open 
 “ parishes.” Of these parishes the Rev. 0. Matthias, 
 Incumbent of St. Faith’s and Horsford, Norfolk, 
 is asked by the Poor Removal Committee: 
 
 “ Is there any difference between the system 
 “ adopted in close parishes and what is called good 
 “ management in open parishes, both having the 
 “ same object of keeping down the rates and 
 “ diminishing pauperism?—The answer to that de- 
 “ pends upon what is meant by good management 
 “ in the question. Every proprietor of a close 
 “ parish says, he has kept down pauperism by good 
 “ management; he means by that, that he has 
 “ allowed no settlement to be obtained in his parish, 
 “ so that when a labourer in a time of sickness, or 
 “ in old age, requires relief, he is not liable to bear 
 “ the burthen of it. 
 
53 
 
 “ Good management, in fact, is shifting the bur- 
 
 den from one parish to another?—Yes. 
 
 “ You think that the desire is common to all, to 
 “ reduce the charge in the parish to which they are 
 “ assessed to the lowest amount practicable, and to 
 “ transfer it as much as possible to the neighbour- 
 “ ing parishes ?—That has been the system. 
 
 " Is that a defect which you regard as inherent 
 “ in the system of parochial settlement ?—It is, 
 
 “ To considerable extent would not the same 
 “ desire operate with respect to Unions ?—Not to 
 “ so great an extent. 
 
 “ Your confidence in the principle would lead 
 “ you to abolish settlement altogether ?—I am of 
 “ that opinion. 
 
 “ The only objection that could be urged against 
 “ it, you think, would be cases of exception, such 
 “ as the danger of an influx of Irish and Scotch 
 “ paupers, Ireland and Scotland not being under 
 “ the operation of a similar law ? Exactly.* 
 
 “ Suppose that Union settlement and Union 
 “ rating were adopted, would not that at once, in 
 “ many close parishes, remove altogether the possi- 
 “ bility of any longer keeping them close?—Under 
 “ a Union system it would. 
 
 “ Suppose the case of a parish in the middle of 
 “ a Union; would it not be impossible for the land- 
 “ lord, by pulling down cottages, to relieve himself 
 “ of the pauperism created on his estate, inasmuch 
 “ as he would drive the labourers not merely out 
 “ of his own parish, but out of the whole Union ?— 
 “ Exactly so. 
 
 “ Besides which also, if the charge were upon 
 “ the whole expenditure of a Union, must it not be 
 “ much less the interest of the individual who lived 
 
 * At the time this evidence was given, the act 
 Victoria, c. 84 was not passed. 
 
 10 and 11 
 
54 
 
 “ even upon the confines of a Union, to drive la- 
 " bourers out of the parish, because he would 
 “ thereby deliver himself from a comparatively 
 "small portion of the burden only?—Yes; but 
 " you must have an equal rating, or the parish will 
 " remain as close as it is now; if you fix the Poor- 
 “ rate according to the present averages, and renew 
 " those averages every three or four years, it will 
 “ still be an object with those parishes to keep close. 
 
 " You would have one rate for all such property 
 “ as the Legislature should fix upon as assessable 
 "to the Poor-rate?—Yes; upon the principle of 
 " Property-tax or the County-rate. 
 
 “ Do the Committee understand you to say, that 
 “ more labour would be employed if settlement 
 “ were altogether abolished?—I am of that opinion. 
 
 “ Do you consider that rates are a heavy tax 
 “ upon capital ?—They are unquestionably a tax 
 " upon capital. 
 
 “ Then, if the rates were diminished, capital 
 “ would be increased, which is the fund for the 
 “ employment of labour ?—Certainly. 
 
 " In your opinion, the result of doing away with 
 “ the law of settlement would be, that there would 
 “ be more means to employ labourers on the part 
 “ of the farmer ?—Yes. 
 
 “ And there would be fewer paupers ?—Yes. 
 
 “ Referring to the interests of the labourers, as 
 “ the primary object of legislation upon this subject, 
 
 “ do you think their interests would be consulted 
 “ by such a change in the law as you have referred 
 " to ?—Decidedly. 
 
 “ Quite as much as those of the rate-payers and 
 " the landlords?—Quite so: I look to the interests of 
 " the labourers in the first place, and I am decidedly 
 " of that opinion, 
 
 “ As a clergyman, standing between the two 
 “ classes, and exercising a sober judgment as to the 
 
55 
 
 “ interests of both, you feel satisfied that the inte- 
 “ rests of the labourer would be as much consulted 
 “ by the change, as the interests of the rate-payers ? 
 " Even more so, I think; because it would tend to 
 “ elevate his moral character. 
 
 “ You think that, in addition to his physical im- 
 “ provement that it would lead to, his moral con- 
 “ dition would be also as much improved ?—I think 
 “ so; and he would then naturally attain to higher 
 “ wages, as a man of good character. 
 
 “ The best men would then fare best in point of 
 “ wages ?—Yes. 
 
 “ Character would become of great value ?—Yes. 
 
 “Now character does not weigh with the em- 
 “ ployer in comparison with the chance of charge- 
 “ ability ?—I am sorry to say it does not.”—pp. 46, 
 47, 48. 
 
 In the evidence of Grenville Pigott, Esq., Assis¬ 
 tant Poor-law Commissioner and Magistrate for 
 twenty-five years in the County of Buckingham, we 
 find this testimony;— 
 
 “ Are there many close parishes in your dis¬ 
 trict?—There are a great number of large estates 
 and small parishes, so that there are many close 
 parishes. 
 
 " There is, you think, a general tendency among 
 the proprietors of close parishes, to drive labourers 
 out of the parish, and make them find settlements 
 elsewhere ?—I think so; I think there can be very 
 little doubt about it; and I think that that tendency 
 is very much increased by the irremovability created 
 by the recent Act. 
 
 “ Of course, as you regard this system as so 
 prejudicial to the improvement of the land, it is 
 prejudicial not only to the labourer and to the 
 farmer, but also to the owner of the land ?—It is 
 prejudicial to every class. 
 
 “ The Poor-rates and the poor are differently 
 
56 
 
 managed in some parishes and in others, are they 
 not ?—In some parishes there are more enlightened 
 occupiers, and persons with more capital, and no 
 doubt the labourers are more fully employed; and 
 the proprietors themselves often occupy large farms, 
 which is always an advantage. With respect to the 
 legal mode of carrying on the management of the 
 poor, there can be no difference under the present 
 law. 
 
 “ Under the old law, before the Poor-law Amend¬ 
 ment Act, was there not a great difference between 
 the economy and honesty with which the Poor-law 
 was administered in some parishes and in others ?— 
 The greatest possible difference. 
 
 “ By the legitimate use of what may be called 
 good management, the rates of one parish were 
 made considerably less than the rates of another?— 
 Yes; I knew a parish before the passing of the 
 Poor-law Amendment Act, in which, in the course 
 of about four years, the rates were reduced from 
 14s. in the pound to 7 s. 
 
 “ That was done by legitimate means ?—Yes; by 
 the application of the intelligence of right-minded 
 persons under the old law.” 
 
 The Rev. W. J. Spring Casborne, Rector of 
 Pakenham, Suffolk, gives evidence thus:— 
 
 “ Do you think the law of settlement inflicts any 
 hardship upon the poor with respect to their resi¬ 
 dences?—Yes, particularly in parishes where the 
 property is not divided into small proprietorships. 
 
 “ Are there many f close parishes’ in Suffolk?— 
 Yes. 
 
 “In the case where a close parish adjoins an 
 open one what is the hardship that exists 1 The 
 proprietor of a close parish, if he does not pull 
 down the cottages, which I think he often does, 
 certainly prevents any suitable residences for the 
 labouring poor from being built; he pt\ tfers (hut his 
 
57 
 
 labouring poor shall reside in the adjoining parish 
 and not become chargeable to his. 
 
 “ In fact he forces them to reside in the neigh- 
 houring villages, by pulling down cottages in his 
 own parish and not rebuilding them ?—Yes. 
 
 " Is not the consequence of that, that the poor 
 are driven into large villages and towns at a distance 
 from their work?—Yes, it is. 
 
 “ Is that the case particularly with the town of 
 Bury?—With the town of Bury, very much so. 
 It is the receptacle of a great many agricultural 
 families, who have their settlements in the adjoining 
 villages. 
 
 “ And who labour in the adjoining parishes ?— 
 Yes, who labour in the adjoining villages. 
 
 “ Do you think it a serious evil to those poor 
 persons that they have to go a great way to their 
 work every day ?—I think it must be a great in¬ 
 convenience and a great trial for a man’s strength 
 walking three or four miles to his work of a 
 morning. 
 
 “ And back from it in the evening?—Yes. 
 
 “ In addition to his day’s work?—Yes, in addition 
 to his day’s work. 
 
 “ Does it often occur that those people in Bury 
 have to go three or four miles to their work?—Yes. 
 
 “Are there many labourers in Bury who have 
 to go more or less such a distance as that?—A 
 good many. 
 
 “ Is not that exceedingly prejudicial to the em¬ 
 ployers of labour?—Yes, exceedingly. If I was 
 an occupier I should strenuously object to such a 
 thing. 
 
 “Do you think from what you have observed 
 that that must be a serious mil to them ?—I think 
 from what I have observed that it must be a serious 
 evil to them, and from talking with the poor men 
 themselves, I am convinced that it is a serious evil. 
 
58 
 
 and that they feel it, and they feel that they cannot 
 do their duty to their master in a way that they 
 could do, had they the power of dzvellmg near to their 
 work. 
 
 “ Is that detrimental to their health ?—Yes. 
 
 “ You find they complain of that as a hardship? 
 —Yes.” 
 
 Of the den or pigstie erected by a cottage jobber 
 to lodge the poor (the consequence of this c close 
 parish’injustice): this gentleman says, “Among our 
 population there is one sort of den or cabin divided 
 into little square yard rooms, I think 56 human 
 beings, men, women and children, are there located. 
 
 “ In a cottage of what size ?—In a cottage upon 
 an extremely small portion of land, and at the same 
 time a piece of land in a healthy part of our village 
 would not he procurable for money. Now they had 
 fixed this abode upon almost a morass and there 
 it is. 
 
 “ Those 56 people are all huddled together in 
 those little cabins ?—Yes. 
 
 “ Does a whole family sleep in one room?—Some 
 of them do. 
 
 “Is there a ‘close parish’ near that?—Yes, a 
 very close parish. 
 
 “Are the labourers of that parish driven into 
 your parish?—I think we have twelve or fifteen 
 families driven into our parish from that close 
 parish. 
 
 “ Do not the rate-payers in Pakenham complain 
 very much of the unfairness of this burden being 
 thrown upon them ?—Of course they do. 
 
 “The Poor Removal Act by giving a man a 
 non-removability and shifting the charge of him 
 from the parish of his settlement to the parish in 
 which he had resided five years, has aggravated the 
 evil upon the rate-payers?—Exactly, it established 
 the evil.”—pp. 108, 9. 
 
59 
 
 The Rev. George Rous confirms these state¬ 
 ments, and says in answer to the question, “ Are 
 there some parishes in which the owners of pro¬ 
 perty have, by letting cottages fall down or by 
 pulling them down, succeeded in driving their own 
 labourers into adjoining parishes?—Yes, I think 
 there are; I am satisfied there are. 
 
 “Do you think this evil of refusing cottage 
 accommodation in parishes is on the increase, or 
 that there are any causes that tend to counteract 
 it 1 —I think it is on the increase lately. 
 
 “ It is a bad thing driving them into a town is it 
 not?—Yes. 
 
 “Bad for their morals?—Yes, very bad, I can 
 hardly believe that any owner of landed property 
 who has turned his mind to the point, could pull 
 down the cottages and drive his labourers out of 
 the parish.”—pp. 218-231. 
 
 Richard Hall, Esq., Assistant Poor Law Com¬ 
 missioner, said in reply to certain questions on the 
 subject of “close parishes,” that “Littleton,* in the 
 Staines Union, all belongs to Col. Wood I believe, 
 and Lullingston,* in the Dartford Union, belongs to 
 Sir Percival Dyke, and there are no doubt parishes 
 of that kind scattered up and down in my district. 
 I hear of them at Boards of Guardians and obser¬ 
 vations are made of this sort; one will say, ‘ It is 
 well for you to hold this or that opinion, you have 
 no paupers, all your paupers come to us,’ and so 
 on. Many things are said to satisfy one that such 
 things exist, but, at the same time, I am not pre¬ 
 pared to give names and places. 
 
 “ You are aware that the evil exists generally?— 
 Yes, I have no doubt of its existence.” 
 
 *Iu tlie Pari. Return, No. 63, from which our County Tables 
 are calculated, there is no mention of any Poor-rates being paid at 
 all in these two parishes. 
 
60 
 
 Again, Mr. T. S. Simkiss, Auditor of the Counties 
 of Stafford, Worcester, Salop, and Warwick, is 
 asked, “ In which part of the district that you are 
 acquainted with is the evil of 'close parishes’ felt 
 most extensively ?—In Shropshire and Worcester¬ 
 shire. 
 
 “ Are the parishes there large or small ?—Small 
 generally. 
 
 “ How did those parishes become close ?—The 
 property generally belongs to one or two individuals, 
 and I see some instances where no rate at all is 
 made for the parish, but a sort of subscription is 
 made between the landlord and his tenant every 
 year for the amount of expenses that they account 
 to me for as a rate. 
 
 “ How is that an evil ?—A very great evil it is to 
 us in manufacturing parishes, for when we remove a 
 pauper according to law that is chargeable there, 
 that pauper has some monei/ given to him from a 
 private rate to bring him back again.” —p. 311. 
 
 The double injury inflicted on society by the 
 continuance of this “close parish” abuse is con¬ 
 firmed by the evidence of numerous witnesses from 
 all parts of the country—the moral effects (to say 
 nothing of the pecuniary injustice to the rate-payers 
 in towns and other large places) of the system are 
 frightful. Injurious to the public health by over¬ 
 crowding particular localities, and most demoralizing 
 by the admixture of the old with the young, the 
 depraved with the innocent, and the consequent 
 abandonment of all those restraints which the most 
 ordinary delicacy renders imperative—for “inter¬ 
 course doth pall the shame of guilt.” But our laws 
 seem to regard the poor always as an incumbrance 
 to the land, and to consider them in every respect 
 
 -like figs in a jar, 
 
 The closer you pack them, tlie better they are. 
 
 It needs “no ghost to come from the grave” to 
 
61 
 
 tell us that the interests of the rich and the poor 
 are identical. " The poor,” says Scripture, “ shall 
 never cease from the land.” Inequality of con¬ 
 ditions has ever been since human society was 
 formed, and seems to be an essential condition of 
 its existence. But though the division of mankind 
 into classes is strongly marked, the ranks are not 
 so separated as to prevent the interchange of sym¬ 
 pathy; each is necessary to the other—labour is 
 required to render capital productive, capital is 
 wanting to maintain a steady demand for labour. 
 Each class is therefore interested in the prosperity 
 of the other, and experience has especially shown, 
 that whatever tends to elevate the physical and 
 moral condition of the poor, tends in a still greater 
 degree to render the enjoyments of wealth more 
 extensive and more secure. “ The evil of poverty,” 
 says an eloquent writer,* “ is not in the suffering 
 with which it wrings the heart, but in the poison 
 which it too often mingles with the affections. 
 Bread steeped in tears it is difficult to eat in 
 thankfulness, and there is no blessing in the prayer 
 in which there is no present hope. When earth 
 stops its bounty we despair of help from heaven, 
 * and the piety which worshipped God by the warm 
 hearth, faints over the dead embers.” 
 
 The lines of demarkation between the rich and 
 the poor are very, very wide, and w r e fear there is 
 little or no sympathy between fine linen with rich 
 attire, and kettle smocks, corderoys and highlows. 
 The usual haughty behaviour of the wealthy classes 
 towards the poor is little calculated to command 
 respect, and much less to create affection—the hat 
 may be raised, the bow r may be made, and the gate 
 may be held open, but it is more from custom than 
 love; and the pride and the power of the wealthy 
 
 * The Author of Miles Atherton. 
 
are feared, or remembered only in conjunction with 
 the accursed Game Laws and the grudging mercies 
 of the New Poor Law Bill, while ancient feelings 
 of respect are fast wearing away, and their places 
 being supplied with discontent, and in very many 
 cases, hatred. Would to heaven that circumstances 
 like the following were of frequent occurrence! 
 Well may the amiable judge be proud to name it 
 from the judgment seat. 
 
 “ Baron Alderson, a few days since, addressed the following 
 remarks to the grand jury of the county of Suffolk:—‘ In a neigh¬ 
 bouring county which I passed through on the circuit this time, I 
 had what I am afraid I shall not have here—a day of rest; and I 
 went out into the country, and had the pleasure of seeing a match 
 of cricket, in which a noble earl, the Lord-Lieutenant of his county, 
 was playing with the tradesmen, the labourers, and all around 
 him, and I believe he lost no respect from that course—they loved 
 him better, but they did not respect him less. I believe that if 
 they themselves associated more with the lower classes of society, 
 the kingdom of England would be in a far safer, and society in a 
 far sounder condition. I wish I could put it to the minds of all to 
 think so, because I think it is true.’ ’’ 
 
 The third great abuse of the present system, (and 
 would it were the last,) is one rather of omission 
 than of commission, and yet it is productive of the 
 most gross injustice. We allude to the exemption 
 from the payment of Poor-rates by hundreds of 1 
 places called “ extra parochial.” We will first of all 
 give irrefutable evidence of their existence, and then 
 enter a little into detail of their character and his¬ 
 tory. We will take the testimony of Mr. Coode, 
 late assistant secretary to the Poor Law Board, 
 before the Lords’ Committee (Burdens on Land, see 
 p. 500). 
 
 "Are there any extra-parochial places in England 
 now that do not maintain their own poor?—The 
 total number of extra-parochial places in England, 
 as ascertained in the year 1843, was 536, a great 
 number of which, I believe, do not maintain their 
 poor under the statute of Elizabeth. If they main- 
 
63 
 
 tain them at all, they maintain them by voluntary 
 arrangement, not being bound to maintain them. 
 
 “ You have no means of compelling them to do 
 it, where there is no public officer appointed ?—No. 
 They are -under no obligation to receive, or maintain 
 the poor.” 
 
 This is a precious immunity from taxation, while 
 as many as 370 parishes are paying more than 5s. 
 in the pound for Poor-rates! And now for their 
 history. In page 12 we have said that the paro¬ 
 chial divisions of England were made for Ecclesias¬ 
 tical rather than Civil purposes. This view is con¬ 
 firmed by Mr. Rickman’s statement ( Preface to Po¬ 
 pulation, Vol. 1831):— 
 
 “ The country parishes of England (in the modern sense of the 
 word parish) seem originally to have been of the same extent and 
 limits as the several manors; nor could it well be otherwise, 
 because when it became settled during the 9th and 10th centuries, 
 that tithe was generally due to the Church, every lord of an inde¬ 
 pendent manor would of course appoiut a chaplain or clergyman 
 of his own, in default of which the tithe would have become due 
 to the nearest Mother Church. Hence the Parochial Division of 
 England appears to have been nearly the same as now established 
 in the Taxatio Ecclesiastica , which was compiled in the rein-n of 
 lung Edward the First (A.D. 1288-1292). 
 
 “ In the towns, indeed, there is considerable variation, personal 
 tithes having been much more productive before the reformation of 
 religion than afterwards, and consequently a greater number of 
 clergymen maintained in populous places. Thus the City of 
 London (within and without the Walls, but not wchidino- the 
 Borough of Southwark), which now reckons 108 parishes, form¬ 
 ing no more than 72 Ecclesiastical Benefices, had at that time 
 140. Norwich, in like manner, is reduced from 70 parishes to 37, 
 and other ancient cities in proportion—a sufficient indication that 
 the number of parishes in towns was formerly suffered to increase 
 in proportion to the population; and (besides that personal tithes 
 and dues must always have been in a great degree involuntary) it 
 appears from the Taxatio Ecclesiastica, that the profits accruing 
 from one and the same parish were not confined to one spiritual 
 person, nor even to one .religious house or community. Under 
 these circumstances, it is not likely that town parishes were strictly 
 limited, either in number or extent; but the conflicting rights of 
 
64 
 
 tithe-owners, and the perambulations ordained by the Canon Law, 
 must have established the boundaries of country parishes much 
 earlier. 
 
 “ In later times the boundary of every parish has been gradu¬ 
 ally settled with precision, and indeed rendered immutable by any 
 authority short of a special legislative enactment. This exactness 
 has been produced by the laws for the maintenance and relief of 
 the poor, whose claims on a parish being regulated by their legal 
 settlement in it, and the Assessment or Poor’s-rate "which takes 
 place in consequence being levied according to the properly of the 
 other inhabitants , a double motive for ascertaining the boundary of 
 a parish continually subsists, and -has been frequently a subject of 
 litigation since the Poor Lazos became burthensome.” 
 
 “ Besides parishes and their tithings or townships, there are 
 many places not contained within the limits of any parish, and 
 thence called Extra-parochial. They are found usually to have 
 been royal palaces, or the site of religious houses, or of ancient 
 castles, the owners of which were unwilling to permit any inter¬ 
 ference with their authority within their own property, and in rude 
 times the existence of such exemptions obtained from the Crown by 
 pecuniary purchase or favour is not surprising. At present the 
 case is widely different, and there seems to be no good reason for 
 permitting extra-parochial places still to avoid sharing the burthens 
 borne by the rest of the community. Tor an extra-parochial place 
 enjoys a virtual exemption from maintaining the poor, because 
 there is no overseer on whom a magistrate’s order may be served; 
 from the militia laws, because, there is no constable to make 
 returns; from repairing the highways, because there is no sur¬ 
 veyor; besides all which, the inhabitants have a chance of escaping 
 from direct taxation of every kind. For in the language of the 
 ancient law of England, such places were not 1 Geldable nor Shire- 
 ground,’ non sub districtione curce Vicecomitis; and as the Sheriff 
 was the receiver-general in his county till about the time of the 
 Revolution, extra-parochial places were neither taxable nor within 
 the ordinary pale of civil jurisdiction,* and the inhabitants are 
 still virtually exempt from many civil duties and offices served, 
 not without inconvenience, by others, for the benefit of the com¬ 
 munity at large. The number of such places is not inconsider¬ 
 able, though difficult to be discovered. The present volumes 
 exhibit above 200 of them, and the subject is the more worthy of 
 attention, inasmuch as the acquisition of new land, whether by 
 
 * See Remarks on the Inns of Court and Chancery in a note 
 
65 
 
 reclaiming forests, drainage of fens or embankment from the sea, 
 fiu'nishes frequent occasion for endeavouring even now to establish 
 extra-parochial immunities,” 
 
 In the Census Return of 1841 there are 480 
 extra-parochial places set forth in England, and 17 
 in Wales. Among which are to be found all the 
 palaces, the cathedral precincts, the colleges of 
 Oxford, Cambridge, Eton, Ely, Durham, Winches¬ 
 ter, &c.; all the inns of Court and Chancery (ex¬ 
 cept two) in London ; some of the nobility’s seats 
 and other privileged places, many of which latter 
 have considerable population, and in none of which 
 can the writer find any return of Poor-rates paid! 
 
 According to Dugdale, also (Vol. 3, p. 124), Ho- 
 norius. Archbishop of Canterbury, was the first who 
 instituted the division of ecclesiastical districts into 
 parishes. He died in 654. And that Theodore, 
 the seventh archbishop, encouraged the great land¬ 
 holders to erect parish churches by declaring them 
 and their successors perpetual patrons. 
 
 Such is the history of these favoured places, re¬ 
 garding some of which our London readers will 
 easily recognise the truth of the following:— 
 
 “ This being Ascension Day, or Holy Thursday, the usual 
 parochial ceremonies observed in the Metropolitan parishes in in¬ 
 specting and ‘beating’ their respective boundaries will be gone 
 through by the parish authorities, attended by the usual band 
 of parochial school-boys, furnished with willow wands. The 
 thoroughfares through the Inns of Court will he stopped , and the 
 entrances thereto (guarded within and without with the usual acute 
 watchfulness, that any adjoining parish may not on bound-beating 
 day plant its foot on non-parochial ground .”— Times, June 1st. 
 
 The majority of the Metropolitan parishes, how¬ 
 ever, make their boundary visits triennially. 
 
 And now let us see how the late amiable Presi¬ 
 dent of the Poor Law Board proposed to cure this 
 crying evil. Our deep regret, however, for his 
 early death stops the tongue of censure, and we 
 allude to it now " more in sorrow than in anger.” 
 
66 
 
 Reader, con over, for the sake of your breeches 
 pocket, the following:— 
 
 (Proposed) BILL to alter the Provisions relating to the Charges 
 for the Belief of the Poor in Unions, and the Mode of Payment 
 thereof, and to provide for the Belief of the Poor in Extra- 
 parochial Places. 
 
 (Prepared and brought in by the late Mr. Boller and Viscount 
 Ebrington. —Ordered by the House of Commons to be 
 Printed, 22nd June, 1848.) 
 
 Whereas by an Act passed in the fifth year of the reign of King 
 William the Fourth, intituled, “ An Act for the Amendment and 
 better Administration of the Laws relating to the Poor in England 
 and Wales,” provision is made for the formation of Unions for the 
 relief of the poor, and for the charge for the relief of the poor 
 belonging to the several Parishes comprised therein; and it is ex¬ 
 pedient to alter the mode in which the relief of certain poor 
 persons is now chargeable; Be it therefore Exacted, by The 
 QUEEN’S most Excellent Majesty, by and with the Advice and 
 Consent of the Lords Spiritual and Temporal, and Commons, in 
 this present Parliament assembled, and by the authority of the 
 same, THAT the cost of the relief hereafter to be given to any poor 
 person chargeable in any union formed or to be formed under the 
 provisions of the said Act, being a destitute wayfarer or wanderer, 
 or person not having at the time of the commencement of such 
 chargeability any fixed place of abode in any place in such union, 
 as well as the cost of the burial of the body of any such person 
 dying within such union, shall be chargeable generally to all the 
 parishes comprised therein. 
 
 And be it Enacted, That where any poor person having a fixed 
 place of abode in a parish in any such union, shall hereafter, by 
 reason of accident or sudden bodily casualty occurring to him while 
 in some other parish, require relief, the cost of all the relief given by 
 lawful authority in that behalf, as well medical and surgical as 
 otherwise, shall, if the poor person bo at the time in receipt of 
 relief, be paid in like manner and by the same party as any other 
 relief shall be then payable; but if he bo not then in receipt of 
 relief, it shall be paid or reimbursed, as the case may require, by 
 the parish in which such poor person shall then have his place of 
 abode, unless by reason of any provision of the law he would, if 
 otherwise chargeable, have been chargeable to the several parishes 
 of such union generally, in which case the payment or reimburse¬ 
 ment shall be made by the Guardians of the union comprising 
 such parish, and shall be charged to the several parishes thereiu 
 generally; and it shall be lawful for the Guardians of any union, 
 if they think proper, to pay for any medical or other assistance 
 
67 
 
 which shall be rendered to any poor person on the happening of 
 such accident or casualty, although no order shall have been given 
 for the same by them or any of their officers, or by the Overseers, 
 and to charge the same to some one parish in the union, or to all 
 the parishes of the union generally, according as such parish or 
 parishes would have been liable for the ordinary relief of such poor 
 person; provided that nothing herein contained shall exempt the 
 Guardians of the union or parish, or their officers, or the Over¬ 
 seers of the parish in which such poor person shall require relief 
 by reason of such accident or casualty, from their liability to 
 supply the requisite relief to such poor person whilst in such union 
 
 And be it Enacted, That after the Thirtieth day of September 
 next, all the costs incurred in the relief, as well medical as other¬ 
 wise, of any poor person, who, not being settled in the parish where 
 he resides, shall, by reason of some provision of the Act passed in 
 the tenth year of the reign of Her Majesty, intituled, “ An Act to 
 amend the Laws relating to the Removal of the Poor,” ho or be¬ 
 come exempted from the liability to be removed from the parish 
 where he resides, shall, where the said parish shall he comprised 
 in any such union as aforesaid, he charged to the several parishes 
 of such union, so long as such person ■shall continue to be so 
 exempted; and the expenses of the burial of any such person so 
 exempted at the time of his death, shall, if legally payable by the 
 Guardians of the union, likewise be charged to the said several 
 parishes. 
 
 And be it Enacted, That where in any such union a question 
 shall arise with reference to the charging of the cost of his relief, 
 as to whether any pauper be so exempted as aforesaid, the Guar¬ 
 dians thereof, or the Overseers of any parish therein, may submit 
 such question to the Commissioners for administering the Laws 
 for the relief of the Poor in England, who may thereupon, if they 
 think proper, entertain such question, and by an order under their 
 seal determine the same; but no such order shall he liable to he 
 removed by writ of certiorari or otherwise, into the, Court of 
 Queen’s Bench, after the expiration of the term next ensuing the 
 time when the copy thereof shall have been sent to the Guardians, 
 nor shall the same be quashed for any defect of form therein; and 
 every such order not rescinded or quashed shall be, in all courts 
 and for all purposes, final and conclusive between the Guardians 
 and every parish in the Union interested in the matter. 
 
 And he it Declared and Enacted, That the provisions of the said 
 recited Act of the tenth year of the reign of Ilcr Majesty shall he 
 deemed to apply to poor persons horn in Scotland, Ireland, the 
 Islands of Man, Scilly, Jersey or Guernsey, or any other of Her 
 Majesty’s Dominions, equally as to persons bom in England. 
 
 AND whereas it is also expedient to alter the mode in which 
 F 2 
 
68 
 
 fee contributions of parishes to fee common fund of fee union in 
 which they are comprised me now calculated, according to the 
 provisions of the said first-recited Act, and to provide for the pro¬ 
 portions in which the relief herein rendered chargeable generally 
 on fee parishes therein shall be charged; BE it therefore Enacted, 
 That after the Twenty-fifth day of March next, fee several parishes 
 comprised in any Union already formed or hereafter to be formed 
 under the provisions of the first-recited Act, shall contribute to the 
 common fund thereof, and to the charge of the relief herein made 
 chargeable on such parishes generally, in proportion to the annual 
 rateable value of the lands, tenements and hereditaments in such 
 parishes respectively assessable by fee laws in force for fee time 
 being to the relief of the poor, and in no other manner, whether 
 the lands, tenements and hereditaments shall be actually rated or 
 not, and whether the rate levied shall be collected in full or upon 
 any composition : Provided always, That nothing herein contained 
 shall alter or affect the liability of any parish comprised in any 
 such union in regard to any charge lawfully created in the said 
 union, and secured upon the poor-rates of all or any of the parishes 
 comprised therein, which shall have been created at any time pre¬ 
 vious to the said Twenty-fifth day of March; but the same shall 
 continue to be charged and payable in like manner as it would by 
 law have been charged and payable if this Act had not been 
 passed; Provided also, That nothing herein contained shall apply 
 to any contribution which shall be in arrear from any parish in 
 such union on the said Twenty fifth day of March, but the same 
 shall be recoverable and shall be applicable in the same manner as 
 if this Act had not been passed. 
 
 And it be Enacted, That the Guardians of every such Union 
 shall take the annual rateable value of such property from the last 
 assessment to the relief of the poor made in every parish therein 
 next preceding the Twenty-fifth day of March in the year One 
 thousand eight hundred and forty-eight, and shall make the calcu¬ 
 lation of the contributions in proportion thereto, until they shall 
 ascertain feat the same is erroneous; and the said Guardians are 
 hereby empowered to order the Overseers, Vestry Officers or other 
 persons having the custody of the last or any rate or rate-books 
 of every parish in the said union, to deliver or cause to be de¬ 
 livered such rate or rate-books to the said Guardians for their 
 inspection, for the purpose of ascertaining such annual value; and 
 every such order shall be deemed to be a legal order of the said 
 Guardians within the meaning of the said herein first-recited Act, 
 and shall be enforceable with the like consequences upon dis¬ 
 obedience as legal and reasonable orders of the Guardians under 
 the same shall from time to time be enforceable; and in case the 
 rate or rate-books shall not be produced to the Guardians, or no 
 Poor-rate shall have been levied in any' parish for the space of 
 
Three Years before the date of this Act, the Guardians shall 
 ascertain the said annual value in such manner as they shall find 
 most practicable. 
 
 And be it Enacted, That the Guardians of any union, where the 
 correctness of the valuation of any parish or parishes within it is 
 taken from any such rate or rate-books, or otherwise ascertained 
 as aforesaid, shall appear to them to be doubtful, may at any time 
 and from time to time adopt and use the valuation of such parish 
 which shall have been made and used for the purpose of the county 
 or borough rate of the county or borough wherein such parish 
 shall be situated; or may direct a valuation of the said parish or 
 parishes to be made by one or more competent valuer or valuers, 
 who shall for such purpose have all the powers, privileges, in¬ 
 demnities and protections granted by any statute for providing or 
 facihtatma' the making of valuations of parishes for parochial 
 purposes; and while such valuations shall he in course of being 
 made, the Guardians shall make their calls for contributions upon 
 the said parish upon the valuation so obtained by the Guardians 
 as aforesaid. 
 
 And be it Enacted, That the said Guardians may pay the cost 
 of such valuation at once, or may borrow a sum of money sufficient 
 to enable them to do so, to be repaid by annual instalments not 
 exceeding Five; and shall charge the cost thereof, or the repayment 
 of the loan, as the case may be, to the several parishes in the 
 union, according to the proportions to be ascertained in the manner 
 hereinbefore provided, in every case where a valuation of the said 
 parish so valued shall have been previously made by a surveyor 
 or valuer under the authority of an order of the Poor Law Com¬ 
 missioners or the Commissioners for administering the Laws for 
 relief of the Poor in England, and shall have been acted upon by 
 the Overseers of such parish; and in every other case shall charge 
 the cost and expense thereof upon the parish so valued, and shall 
 make orders upon the Overseers of such parish to reimburse the 
 said Guardians the amount of the cost to bo incurred therein, so 
 as to require the whole cost to be paid at once, or where the amount 
 has been borrowed by equal annual instalments not exceeding Five, 
 which orders shall be discharged by the Overseers out of the poor- 
 rate of the said parish, and shall be enforceable by the Guardians 
 against the said Overseers, in like manner and with the like reme¬ 
 dies as contributions to union funds are now by law enforceable. 
 
 And be it Enacted, That the Guardians of any union may, with 
 the consent of the said last-mentioned Commissioners, on the 
 application of the major part of the Overseers of any parish com¬ 
 prised in it, or of any person assessed to the Poor-rate in any such 
 parish, or without any such application, on their own motion, 
 cause a valuation to be made at any time of any property alleged 
 
70 
 
 rateable property of such parish in manner aforesaid, and may- 
 charge the expenses of such valuation to the Overseers of such 
 parish, or to such person so applying as aforesaid, or to the several 
 parishes of the union in general, in manner herein set forth, as 
 they shall think fit, subject in this last alternative to the same 
 provision as above prescribed in regard to the entire valuation of 
 
 And be it Enacted, That if the major part of the Overseers of 
 any parish in the union, being of opinion that the valuation of the 
 parish used or adopted by the said Guardians for the purposes of 
 this Act is incorrect in itself, or with reference to all or any other 
 of the parishes in the said union, shall require the said Guardians 
 to cause the valuation of the parish to be' corrected accordingly, 
 and if such Guardians refuse or neglect to do so, the said Overseers 
 may appeal to the Quarter Sessions of the Peace held for the 
 county, riding or division iu which such parish shall be situated 
 against the valuation of the parish so used or adopted by the said 
 Guardians; and the Justices at the said sessions shall hear such 
 appeal, and make such order thereon, by altering the valuation of 
 the same or any other parish or parishes in the said union as they 
 shall find to be requisite, or by confirming the valuation, or may 
 refer the subject matter of such appeal to some competent party to 
 report upon the same to them, and shall, upon the receipt of such 
 report at the same or any subsequent sessions, determine the said 
 appeal in such manner as to the said court shall seem fit. 
 
 And bo it Enacted, That One Month before the trial of any such 
 appeal the said Overseers shall give notice, in wTiling, to the 
 Guardians of the said union, which may be served upon the chair¬ 
 man or clerk, of the intention of the said Overseers so to appeal; 
 and in such notice shall be set forth the grounds of the appeal, and 
 the name of the other parish, if any, whose valuation shall be ob¬ 
 jected to by such Overseers, and no objection shall be heard 
 at the trial of the said appeal which shall not be set forth in such 
 notice. 
 
 And be it Enacted, That on the trial of such appeal the Over¬ 
 seers of such other parish as shall be mentioned in the said notice 
 may appear, and shall, if the said Guardians decline to defend 
 their valuation, he heard by the said Court against the said appeal; 
 and the Court shall, upon the adjudication of the appeal, give such 
 order as to costs of the several parties thereto, and of such parish 
 so appearing to defend the valuation, as to the Court shall appear 
 just and equitable; and the Guardians shall charge the costs pro¬ 
 perly incurred by or adjudged against them to the several parishes 
 in the union, according to the proportions herein prescribed for 
 the purposes of this Act; and in case the appeal shall have been 
 brought with the consent of the inhabitants in vestry assembled, 
 but not otherwise, the costs properly incurred by or awarded 
 
71 
 
 against the Overseers in any such appeal, shall be charged to the 
 Poor-rate of the said parish, and paid from the same forthwith 
 after the said appeal shall be determined, althongh the Overseers 
 who commenced the same shall not be in office: Provided never¬ 
 theless, That no order of the said Quarter Sessions shall be re¬ 
 movable into the Court of Queen’s Bench, except where the said 
 Sessions shall think fit to submit any matter of law for the opinion 
 of that Court; and ponding any such appeal the said parish shall 
 be bound to contribute to the charges herein referred to, according 
 to the valuation used by the said Guardians. 
 
 And it be Enacted, That until the said Twenty-fifth day of March 
 next; the cost of all the relief which under the provisions of this 
 Act shall be chargeable to the several parishes of any union, shall 
 be charged to the common or general fand of such union, in the 
 same manner as union expenses are directed to be charged by the 
 herein first-recited Act. 
 
 AND whereas there are certain places which are reputed to be 
 extra-parochial, and by reason of the want of a poor-rate and 
 Overseers of the poor therein, no mode exists by which the poor 
 therein requiring relief can be lawfully relieved, and it is expedient 
 that means should be provided for ensuring the relief of the poor 
 therein; BE it therefore Enacted, That every place reputed to be 
 extra-parochial, in which no Overseers of the poor have been 
 hitherto appointed, may be divided by the said Commissioners, li 
 they think it advisable, into Two or more parts, for the purpose 
 hereafter mentioned, with such name as they shall give to each of 
 such parts, and with such boundaries as they shall declare; and 
 after such division, or without it, as they shall determine, they 
 may, by an order under their seal, to be addressed to Two or more 
 inhabitant householders of the extra-parochial place mentioned in 
 such order, and to the Clerk to the Justices of the Petty Sessions 
 held for the division, city or borough in which such place shall he 
 situated, direct that Overseers of the Poor shall be forthwith ap¬ 
 pointed for the place mentioned in such order; and thereupon such 
 proceedings shall be forthwith taken for the appointment of Over¬ 
 seers for such place as are now required by law for the appoint¬ 
 ment of Overseers in any township which separately maintains its 
 own poor; and the said place so mentioned in such order shall 
 from the issue thereof be taken to be for all the purposes of the 
 relief of the poor, and the levying and raising of a Poor-rate, a 
 parish within the meaning of this Act, and of the herein first- 
 recited Act, and shall be liable to be dealt with in all respects as 
 any such parish, and shall also be deemed to be a parish for the 
 purpose of the levying assessment and collection of the county and 
 county police rates. 
 
 And be it Enacted, That if, upon the receipt of such order, the 
 major part of the inhabitants of such place, assembled at a meet- 
 
ing to be culled upon notice, agree to apply to the said Commis¬ 
 sioners to annex such place to some adjoining parish, instead of 
 requiring them to nominate Overseers, the said Commissioners 
 may, when such application shall be so made, if they see fit, by 
 an order under their seal, annex such place to such adjoining 
 parish; and thereupon such extra-parochial place shall, for the 
 purposes of the relief of the poor, and the liability to be assessed 
 to the relief of the poor, and all charges by law chargeable on the 
 Poor-rate, and not specially otherwise provided for, become part 
 of such next adjoining parish to the same extent, and with the 
 like consequences in regard to all the purposes aforesaid, as if it 
 had been from time immemorial part of such parish. 
 
 Provided nevertheless, and he it Enacted, That nothing herein con¬ 
 tained shall apply to the Universities of Oxford and Cambridge, and 
 the colleges therein, nor to any inn of court, nor render any building 
 which, by reason of the nature and object of its use and occupation, 
 is noiv exempt from being assessed to the Poor-rate, liable to the same. 
 
 And be it Enacted, That the Guardians of any union shall be 
 entitled to obtain orders of maintenance upon the relations liable 
 under any statute now in force to maintain any poor person whose 
 relief would be chargeable to the parishes of the union generally, in 
 like manner as the Churchwardens and Overseers of any parish can 
 now obtain the same; and all relief to be granted by the Guardians 
 to any pauper upon loan, and which shall be chargeable to the 
 parishes of the union generally, may be recoverable in the County 
 Court for the district wherein the union or the major part thereof 
 shall be comprised, on the plaint of the said Guardians, who may 
 apply and be heard in such Court by any officer appointed by 
 them for such purpose, in manner prescribed by the statutes en¬ 
 abling them to appoint officers to act for them: Provided never¬ 
 theless, That the remedy already provided by law for the recovery 
 of the relief granted on loan shall be enforced, and applicable to 
 the relief so chargeable to the parishes generally as aforesaid. 
 
 And be it Enacted, That the several words used in this Act 
 shall be construed in the manner prescribed by the said first herein- 
 recited Act, and the Statutes explaining and extending it. 
 
 And be it Enacted, That this Act may be amended or repealed 
 by any Act to be passed in this Session of Parliament. 
 
 Assuming that the reader has digested the clauses 
 of this Bill, particularly the 15th one, let him ob¬ 
 serve with very great care the proviso (clause 17), 
 and mark its tender treatment of the Universities 
 of Oxford and Cambridge, and the Inns of Court! 
 Really, this is very much like the old story, of giv- 
 
73 
 
 ing a good pail of milk and then kicking it down 
 again. Why should the Universities and the Inns 
 of Court be exempt from the payment of Poor- 
 rates ? Is it by reason of their poverty ? Let us see 
 if that is the cause. By the Pari. Return, No. 316, 
 Session 1841, we find in p. 55, that the University 
 of Oxford paid Property and Income-tax, in 1843, 
 upon nearly £61,000. while it only paid £111.17s. 2d. 
 quota to the Land-tax, and no Poor-rates at all. 
 The University of Cambridge paid at the same time 
 Property-tax upon £145,234., quota to Land-tax 
 £100., and no Poor-rates whatever. 
 
 And lastly, the Inns of Court, which are also to 
 be exempted by this “ Proviso,” paid Property-tax 
 upon £ 103,054. and little, if anything, to the Poor- 
 rates ! 
 
 Ah! we very much fear, that the late worthy 
 President of the Poor Law Board, was imposed 
 upon by some wily lawyer, whose yearnings for 
 his Alma Mater were too potent for resistance, 
 which, together with certain jovial recollections of 
 “ eating his terms,” had more to do with the framing 
 of this Act of Parliament than equal justice to the 
 rate-payers. Certain we are, however, that the 
 Legislature can never pass the Bill in its present 
 form, at least we shall hold it to be our duty to call 
 the attention of both Houses to its partial and 
 unjust character. 
 
 Surely, then, these facts show the necessity of an 
 immediate general re-assessment of annual value of 
 property, in order to fairly apportion the burthen of 
 the Poor-rate; and if such re-assessment were made, 
 one may reasonably expect that it would reach 
 £70,000,000. of annual value of property to be 
 assessed to the poor; and this expectation is fully 
 borne out when we refer to the Property-tax return 
 before quoted. If, then, a general re-assessment 
 realize this increased amount, an equal rate of Is. 6<7. 
 
74 
 
 in the pound will produce £ 5,250,000 annually—a 
 sum more than is necessary to support and maintain 
 the poor of England and Wales. And this is assuming 
 that the new assessment should be confined to the 
 species of property at present only rated. But why 
 confine it to that description of property? Why 
 • should not funded and personal property contribute 
 to the rate for the poor as well as landed, &c.? 
 For our own part, we can see no solid objection to 
 it. So far from there being any tenable ground that 
 such property should be exempt, either in law or 
 otherwise, it is not only consistent with the Act of 
 Elizabeth, but is expressly enjoined by it, that such 
 property should be taxed: and it has been ruled 
 many times by all the judges of England, that both 
 real and personal property is liable to assessment for 
 the support of the poor. Then, why continue in a 
 system which is false in law as well as in equity ? 
 Why should the fundholder escape when you tax 
 the householder ? But it may be said, that if you 
 tax the fundholder merely as the public creditor,— 
 as the holder of stock, you will tax him doubly, be¬ 
 cause he may be, and is doubtless, in many cases, a 
 rate-payer in his character of householder. Cer¬ 
 tainly it would be most unjust to tax him twice for 
 the same object—the maintenance of the poor. 
 Let the fundholder be taxed according to his ability, 
 in conformity with the Act of Elizabeth, to help in 
 the support of the poor, upon the pecuniary benefit 
 he derives from the Government funds as well as 
 in his character of householder, and no one will 
 have cause of complaint. 
 
 But how many hundreds are there, not to go fur¬ 
 ther, who derive incomes from the funds, or have 
 pensions, and reside abroad or live in lodgings here, 
 and never pay one farthing for the Poor-rate ? It may 
 indeed be said that, as respects “ lodgers,” they con¬ 
 tribute indirectly, in increased rent, to the Poor- 
 
75 
 
 rates. This in many cases is extremely doubtful; 
 but if true to the extent urged, we contend that 
 the taxation for the support and maintenance of 
 the poor should be a direct cmd specific impost, and 
 in no way dependent upon any chance or casualty. 
 The rateal for the Property and Income-tax is 
 nearly eighty-six millions, and we are all aware of 
 its productiveness. May we not, then, reasonably 
 expect that if all descriptions of property, which by 
 every principle of equity should be taxed, and is by 
 law strictly within the intent and meaning of the 
 43rd of Elizabeth, was rated in an equal and just 
 proportion as a general and equalized fund, that the 
 amount would exceed seventy millions, and the 
 produce be fully equal to the legitimate wants and 
 support of the poor ? To this general rate it may 
 be objected, that there would be no check to im¬ 
 providence in the distribution of the fund. As this 
 objection is rather one of detail, and after all but 
 supposititious, it c'an be no adverse argument to the 
 introduction of a just principle. We are all aware 
 of the crying abuses of the present imperfect system 
 of providing for the support and maintenance of the 
 poor—of that, there can be no doubt; we shall 
 presently show the enormous and wasteful expense 
 of the complicated machinery by which it is carried 
 on. Can any change inflict upon us worse evils ? 
 —(always barring a return to the old system of 
 parochial misgovernment)—and are there no means 
 of checking lavish expenditure by which a tolerable 
 share of moral honesty might be maintained ? 
 Surely, the most partial stickler for “ things as 
 they are” must admit such effectual check to be 
 practicable; for ourselves, we think it not only 
 barely practicable, but of easy accomplishment. 
 But shall we forego the adoption of a just and good 
 principle because its being carried into effect might 
 
76 
 
 be environed with some difficulties in the execu¬ 
 tion ? We are not to be turned aside from the per¬ 
 formance of a great good, when this good sought 
 to be obtained is a nation’s return to the true per¬ 
 formance of humanity and justice to its needy and 
 therefore helpless poor. 
 
 “ Take physic, pomp, 
 
 Expose thyself to feel what wretches feel, 
 
 That thou mayst shake the superflux to them, 
 
 And slioiv the heavens more just.” 
 
 An exceedingly sensible proposition has been 
 made public by a clever practical man* recom¬ 
 mending the abolition of the Poor-rate altogether, 
 and placing the relief of the poor upon the Conso¬ 
 lidated Fund. 
 
 Now we are not so fond of our own bantling as 
 to be blind to the beauty of other people’s children, 
 and while, holding the opinion of a practical man 
 like Mr. Coppock in the highest respect, still we 
 must take the freedom to say, that there are objec¬ 
 tions to his plan, not insuperable, perhaps, but 
 nevertheless very great ones, and such as, we are 
 sure, would be very unpalatable to the rate-payers. 
 It is not to be denied that paying all the expenses 
 of the relief of the poor from the Consolidated Fund 
 would certainly save the cost of collection and other 
 charges, but it must be remembered at the same 
 time, that it would throw 7 immense patronage into 
 the hands of Government, leaving only to the rate¬ 
 payer the pleasure of paying to a fund over which 
 lie had no control: this would be violating a great 
 principle, without, as we think, producing corre- 
 
 * Mr. Coppock, clerk to the Stockport Union: vide Sun News¬ 
 paper, January 28, 1845. 
 
77 
 
 spending advantages. Undoubtedly a great good \ 
 would be accomplished in generalizing the rate, and \ 
 abolishing the absurd distinctions of parish locality \ 
 —litigation in regard to settlements and waste in \ 
 the matter of removals; but still the plague-spot 
 would be there, and such a plan would present all 
 the worst features of centralization.—To such a 
 plan we give a decided negative, because our object 
 is to equalize the rates—enlarge the sphere for the 
 exercise of honest industry—increase in a tenfold 
 degree, if possible, the condition and the comforts , 
 of the deserving poor—but to keep the hand of / 
 Government out of the pockets of the rate-payers; / 
 and let every man who contributes to the relief of ■ 
 his less fortunate neighbour have at least a voice in ! 
 its distribution, and some little control over his own ; 
 money. Let the poor, as they form part of the : 
 national family, be treated as unfortunate, but not 
 always erring children; and, as they contribute by 
 their labour (their only wealth) to the common 1 
 stock, let them be paid from that general fund = 
 which their industry lias helped to create—not nig¬ 
 gardly and grudgingly, like extorted alms, but in 
 the kind spirit of a god-like charity, which blesseth 
 both giver and receiver. 
 
 But now from the cradle to the grave you put 
 the badge of poverty upon the pauper; you make 
 him the very serf of the soil where accident has 
 given him birth; you reduce to the most confined 
 limits the sphere of his usefulness; you treat him 
 worse than a dog; and then you wonder that, 
 like your spaniel, he does not lick the hand that 
 scourges him—nay, in the very grave, “ where the 
 weary are at rest, and the wicked cease from trou¬ 
 bling,” even there the reflection of the badge of 
 poverty haunts him—the “paupers’ ground” is 
 a marked, a tainted spot, where the last sad rites 
 are hurried over with indecent haste, and his place 
 
78 
 
 of sepulture is left in a state the most loathsome 
 and repulsive.* And more indecent still, it is said 
 that paupers are sometimes buried without any 
 funeral service at all !—Vide Morning Advertiser, 
 Nov. 18, 1848. 
 
 Would it not be policy, for the mere novelty of 
 the thing—not to speak of a solemnly enjoined duty 
 ' —to alter the system altogether ? and by such means 
 to soften, as far as may be, the bitterness of poverty. 
 “ What then,” it is asked, “ is the real remedy, the 
 human and christian-like remedy, for the evils of 
 the present system?” It is to make the relief of 
 the poor purely national; to make every part of 
 England where a poor man may reside really and 
 truly his home; to prevent removal officers sepa¬ 
 rating 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 fights which are con¬ 
 tinually arising to decide from which local purse 
 the necessary relief must be abstracted, and thus to 
 embarrass the kindlier feelings of charity. Think 
 you that the poor will be ungrateful for your exer¬ 
 tions to meliorate their condition, and smooth in 
 degree their passage to the grave ? No, hardly as 
 they are treated,—bitter as their portion is, they 
 are never ungrateful for kindness, nor deaf to ad¬ 
 vice, if it assumes not the tone of command. “ I 
 know the British poor well,” said a late kind-hearted 
 baronet,f whose opportunities of forming a correct 
 
 * Sec Newspaper account of the Look burial-ground, in the 
 parish of St. George the Martyr, Southwark. 
 
 “ A blessed prospect— 
 
 To slave whilst there is strength, in age the workhouse, 
 
 A parish shell at last, and the little bell 
 Toll’d hastily for a pauper’s funeral!” 
 t Sir George Crewe, late Member of Parliament for the southern 
 division of tho county of Derby. 
 
79 
 
 judgment were most extensive; “ they are a most 
 industrious, quiet race, sensible to kindness, open 
 to advice; they want friends in power who really 
 know the merits of their case. God grant they 
 may now find such friends in the British Senate— 
 may the grace of God influence the minds of that 
 august body to deal justly with their brethren, to 
 look upon them as such, to treat them as such, and 
 in the exercise of that paternal office which the 
 ruling power of a nation occupies for the benefit 
 of the people, to remove those stumbling-blocks to 
 peace, amity and harmony, which I am persuaded 
 that the law has, as it now stands, created, not 
 intentionally, as I believe, but through mistake or 
 ill-advice. So may the Poor Law be what it ought 
 to be, a blessing to the poor, and a credit to the high 
 character of the Christian profession—may it bear 
 the impress of Him whose name we thus use; and 
 may the blot of sordid selfishness and unjust cruelty 
 be obliterated for ever, is my most earnest, my most 
 fervent prayer.” 
 
 And we venture to express our most ardent 
 aspiration, that “ it may please Thee to endue the 
 Lords of the Council, and all the nobility, with 
 grace, wisdom and understanding,” and that “ they 
 may set it forth and show it accordingly.” 
 
 The kindness of the poor to each other in dis¬ 
 tress, is only known to those who have seen their 
 hapless condition, and witnessed their patient en¬ 
 durance of severe trials. The following affecting 
 incident is by no means a rare example of their 
 natural goodness of heart, and its general application 
 in the hour of need. 
 
 “ Once on walking clown the lane in which a fish market is held, 
 between Honndsditch and Whitechapel, amidst the most degraded 
 population in the Metropolis, a man walked hurriedly past, shaking 
 a box; no one stopped, or scarcely looked, but pence or halfpence 
 dropped in on all sides. Upon enquiring what this meant, the 
 Registrar, who accompanied me, said, ‘ That is the charity-box, 
 
to which these people all contribute, and thus raise a fund for the 
 relief of the sick, and old amongst them; they are very charitable 
 to each other, and will do any thing or give any thing rather than 
 see their friends sent to the workhouse.’ It was a ray of light in 
 the darkest place. Here were the people who, to a superficial 
 observation, appeared to have lost the vestiges of humanity, not 
 only with self-dependence, but social affection and charity in their 
 hearts, ready to divide their few pence with the sick and afflicted 
 : —with those a little more miserable than themselves—as freely as 
 if they were fathers, sisters or brothers. God had left them 
 charity, and if circumstances had obscured, they had neither 
 paralyzed the intellect nor the heart. Who will venture then to 
 despair—to pronounce these most miserable men inaccessible to 
 the influence of enlightenment and humanity ? If you talk to them 
 of their interest they can understand you, if you approach them to 
 save their families from sickness and death, with a kind and gene¬ 
 rous liberality, bringing into their wretched courts and habitations 
 what they may not now purchase—the necessaries and blessings 
 of health—they can be grateful, for they also have succoured their 
 fellows.”— Mr. Farr's Letter in 5th Report of Registrar-General 
 p. 434. 
 
31 
 
 CHAPTER III. 
 
 If the ingenuity of man had been tasked to make 
 a plain principle obscure, or the subtlety of the 
 lawyer exerted to entangle with technical difficul¬ 
 ties the most simple proposition—none could have 
 proved more successful or more fertile in producing 
 the most wretched and miserable quibbling than the 
 law of Parochial Settlement and its adjunct Removal 
 of Paupers. 
 
 From the resolution of the judges in 1663, down 
 to the period at which we write, all has been “ con¬ 
 fusion worse confounded.” Acts of Parliament have 
 been passed to define what a legal settlement was— 
 then it was found that such Acts could be evaded, 
 and amended ones were necessary—they, in their 
 turn, were proved to be as defective as their prede¬ 
 cessors, until it was difficult to discover which was 
 the more absurd of the two—the original or the 
 amended one. Innumerable have been the altera¬ 
 tions made in the Law of Settlement; but in 1834, 
 the Poor Law Amendment Act cleared away a small 
 portion of the rubbish by reducing the number of 
 modes of acquiring a legal settlement from nine to 
 seven—viz., by abolishing those by hiring, and 
 service and office. All was expected now to be 
 straight-forward and regular—short-lived, however, 
 was this state of parochial bliss—the parish “ Sir 
 Peter’s” soon found themselves “ the most miserable 
 men alive before their friends had done wishing 
 them joy.” 
 
 “Previously to the passing of the Poor Law 
 Amendment Act,” says an able authority,* “ great 
 
 * Report of the Leicester Town Council upon Sir James Gra¬ 
 ham’s Parochial Settlement Bill, 1844. 
 
82 
 
 complaints had been made on account of the ex¬ 
 pense attending the investigation of settlements 
 and the trial of appeals; the amount expended in 
 law-charges for the year 1834 (the last year before 
 this Act) having been <£258,604; and as it was 
 considered that these expenses were in a great 
 measure occasioned by the mode in which orders 
 ' for removal were obtained, and from each parish, 
 from the then state of the law, being under the 
 necessity of proceeding to trial in ignorance of the 
 settlement intended to be relied on, and of the 
 grounds of appeal, it was provided by the Poor Law 
 Amendment Act, that a copy of the examination 
 on which orders of removal were made should be 
 sent with the orders 21 days before the pauper was 
 actually removed; and that in case of appeal, 
 notice of the grounds of appeal shotdd be given to 
 the removing parish, and that neither parish should 
 be allowed to give evidence of any other grounds 
 of settlement or appeal than those set forth in the 
 examination or notice. The end proposed to be 
 attained by these provisions has been in a great 
 measure defeated by the decisions of the Court of 
 Queen’s Bench, respecting the evidence necessary 
 to support an order of removal, and the precision 
 and particularity with which it must be set forth in 
 the examination: the least defect or omission—in 
 one case the omission of the word £ the’ (Reg. v. 
 Leeds, 13 L. J., M.C., 88)—in another, the descrip¬ 
 tion of a person as c single and unmarried,’ without 
 adding that he had no child (Reg. v. Wymondham, 
 12 L. J., M. C. 74)—and in a third, the statement 
 that a person f was actually chargeable,’ instead of 
 that he was receiving relief, notwithstanding that 
 the word f chargeable’ is the identical phrase used 
 in the form given in the Act of 3 & 4 Will. 4, c. 40, 
 for the removal of the Scotch and Irish poor (Reg. 
 v. Leeds, 13 L. J., M. C. 88)—having been severally 
 
83 
 
 held fatal to the validity of orders. Indeed it may 
 be asserted that the result of trials in cases of settle¬ 
 ment has become a complete lottery ; while the ex¬ 
 pense of obtaining orders in consequence of parishes 
 being required to produce before the magistrates 
 strict legal evidence of the pauper’s settlement, has 
 been so much enhanced as in some cases to have 
 amounted to upwards of £ 20. and in others to have 
 rendered it a matter of policy to support the poor 
 belonging to other parishes, in preference to incur¬ 
 ring the necessary expense in taking out orders of 
 removal, with the chance of their being quashed on 
 some ground entirely independent of the real merits 
 of the question. Although the amount expended 
 in law-charges has been diminished since the pass¬ 
 ing of this Act (as appears by the last report of the 
 Commissioners, in which it is stated to have been 
 <£81,750. for the year ending Lady-day 1843),* it 
 must be borne in mind that this decrease in the 
 expenditure is not to be attributed entirely to an im¬ 
 provement in the law, but that it may in part be 
 accounted for by the difficulties experienced in ob¬ 
 taining orders of removal.” 
 
 The celebrated case, Reg. v. Birmingham, Nov. 
 11, 1843 (which occasioned so much controversy 
 both in and out of Parliament), is reported thus:— 
 There came before the Court of Queen’s Bench an 
 
 * In 1844 the “avowed" law-charges was £105,304; we say 
 “ tlle aTO " red law-charges,” because it must not be forgotten that 
 there is another item of £359,106. under the unspecified term of 
 “ Mone y expended for all other purposesof which, says the 
 Eleventh Report, p. 1, “ The money returned to us as expended 
 1 for other purposes,’ not comprised in the preceding heads, 
 amounts to £359,106. We believe that the payments included 
 in this unspecified item were principally made for the following 
 purposes; viz, 1 . Removal of paupers and travelling expenses of 
 overseers; 2. Constables’ expenses; 3. Expenses of proceedings 
 hejore magistrates; 4. Expenses on account of parish property; 
 5. Printing lists of voters, and making out lists of juries.” 
 
 G 2 
 
84 
 
 appeal against an order of justices for the removal 
 of two children. 
 
 By virtue of the law of settlement they belonged 
 to one parish, namely, their father’s, while the mo¬ 
 ther belonged to another, namely, her second hus¬ 
 band’s. The mother and two children became 
 chargeable in her parish; whereupon the two chil¬ 
 dren, with the consent of the mother, were, by an 
 order of magistrates, removed to their own parish, 
 and thus separated from their mother. The ques¬ 
 tion was, whether the law was so imperative as to 
 make it compulsory on the parish officers to cause 
 the children within the age of nurture to be thus 
 separated from their mother, although with her con¬ 
 sent ? Now here it must he particularly observed, 
 that the question before the court was, whether 
 there were any rules of law that in this case modi¬ 
 fied the Act of Parliament, which clearly directed 
 the removal of the children to their own parish l 
 After the case had been argued, and various deci¬ 
 sions adduced. Lord Denman gave his judgment 
 thus: “ There are some cases in which it is neces¬ 
 sary to break in upon an Act of Parliament, and 
 upon that which may have existed from all time. 
 It is the mother who is the proper party to have the 
 custody of all her children under seven years of 
 age, and that is not for the benefit of the mother, 
 hut for the protection of the children. I think we 
 ought to crush the first attempt to depart from that 
 principle, and it is of the highest importance that it 
 should be considered the undoubted law of the 
 land.” 
 
 Mr. Justice Coleridge said, among other things, 
 “ Nothing could be so shocking as for a child of a 
 week old (for that was within the principle) to be 
 removed to a distant part of the country because 
 the mother gave her consent.” 
 
 The other judges concurred, and the order was 
 
85 
 
 quashed. No one, whose heart beats rightly, can 
 question the justice and humanity of this decision; 
 but what shall be said of an Act of the Legislature 
 which could even hint at such an unnatural sever¬ 
 ance—hint, do we say ?—why it was in accordance 
 with the letter and spirit of the Act; and the Chief 
 Justice of England nobly asserted and maintained 
 the supremacy of constitutional law over such vile 
 Acts of Parliament, &c. Here, then, was a Chris¬ 
 tian court of judicature gravely engaged upon de¬ 
 ciding whether an unnatural hag of a mother should 
 be permitted to consent that her own offspring, in 
 extreme infancy, should be nurtured by strangers, 
 and altogether removed from her. The veriest 
 brute “ that wants discourse of reason" shows love 
 to its young, and perils life in their defence ; and 
 yet, as regards paupers, the law allows and gives 
 encouragement to deeds alien alike to nature and 
 humanity! 
 
 But even putting aside such considerations, let us 
 inquire what were the objects sought to be ob¬ 
 tained by the magistrate’s order for removal of the 
 children to their own parish, i. e. the parish of their 
 own father ? They must be supported somewhere, 
 that is quite clear. Ay, but it was the interest of 
 parish A., where the children were accidentally lo¬ 
 cated to shift the burthen of their support from 
 themselves, irrespective of every consideration of 
 feeling and parental duty—the cunning guardians 
 or overseers of that parish prevail upon a profligate 
 woman to part with her offspring, the magistrate’s 
 order sanctions the unnatural act, and the inhu¬ 
 manity is not consummated because parish B., to 
 which the children legally belong (so says the Act), 
 has the right of appeal. Now comes the trial of 
 skill among gentlemen " learned in the law.” A 
 great quantity of legal rubbish is conned over, but 
 
86 
 
 is at last extinguished by the judges of the Court 
 of Queen’s Bench acting like men and Christians. 
 Certainly a great and just principle was established 
 in opposition to an absurd and cruel Act of Parlia¬ 
 ment ; but it must never be forgotten that a posi¬ 
 tive expense was incurred which has been paid by 
 the rate-payers —a needless* a wasteful expenditure* 
 because* whichever way the question was decided, 
 whether in favour of humanity or adverse to it, the 
 cost of the litigation, great or little, was so much 
 money absolutely wasted and thrown away. We 
 are really at a loss to discover which is the greater* 
 the injustice or the absurdity of such a system; 
 every rule of reason and common sense is in favour 
 of its abolition, quickly and entirely. 
 
 Such was the splendid state of the law of paro¬ 
 chial settlement, when, in August 1844, Sir James 
 Graham moved for leave to bring in a Bill for its 
 amendment. There was much promised in its an¬ 
 nouncement ; first, it was to repeal by “ one fell 
 swoop” no less than from 30 to 40 Acts of Parlia¬ 
 ment-only think, reader, 30 Acts of the Legislature, 
 to determine whether pauper Jones and his family 
 were to be relieved in their distress by the parish 
 of Stoke Poges or Bloatly-cum-Stumpy ! We have 
 frequently laughed over Swift’s idea of bringing a 
 forty-two pounder to batter down a pigsty; but we 
 never could expect to see it realized in the existence 
 of 40 Acts to provide for a pauper. In relation to 
 the “ amendment” or removal of this absurdity, let 
 the Plome Secretary speak for himself:—“He 
 wished to bring in a Bill for the Amendment of 
 the Law of Settlement in England. In the last 
 year , there had been 19,000 orders of removal ex¬ 
 ecuted, affecting about 25,000 persons. That word 
 ‘ removal’ involved a great amount of human suffer¬ 
 ing from the breaking up of old abodes , habits and 
 
87 
 
 connexions. He proposed to repeal all the statutes 
 relative to this matter, which were between 30 and 
 40, and to legislate de novo.” 
 
 Now, supposing for a moment that a necessity 
 existed for the continuance of an absurd and cruel 
 law—the Law of Settlement—this Bill advanced a 
 little in the right path, if no other good was to be 
 accomplished—the repeal of 30 or 40 cumbrous 
 Acts of Parliament was something gained; the con¬ 
 fining, also, of settlements to birth-title was another 
 step; and the clause respecting the removal of 
 Scotch and Irish paupers was at least dictated by 
 humanity. 
 
 The Secretary for the Home Department courted 
 inquiry and examination during the recess, and had 
 his wishes gratified to the utmost. Not only inquiry 
 was instituted and examination made, but censures 
 were bestowed thick and threefold. But as this Bill 
 was materially altered in the ensuing Session, all 
 further reference to it is needless. 
 
 We have now to deal with the Bill introduced 
 by Sir James Graham in February 1845. He began 
 by admitting the melancholy fact, “ That no less 
 than one-tenth of the whole population of England 
 and Wales receive relief from the Poor-rate in the 
 course of the year: a multitude no less than 
 1,500,000 persons in this country receive relief 
 from the Poor-rate.” He next took credit for the 
 generosity of the Government in listening to sug¬ 
 gestions during the recess, and particularly referred 
 to the memorial of the Thetford Union, Norfolk, 
 which said, “ That they beg to express their una¬ 
 nimous dissent from the proposed alteration in the 
 law of settlement, more especially those clauses 
 which relate to settlements by birth and irre¬ 
 movability of persons after five years’ residence. 
 That, with regard to settlement by birth, they are 
 of opinion that it would be a great inducement to 
 
S8 
 
 the owners of the entire or the principal part oi' 
 parishes to clear them as much as possible of the 
 population by purchasing or building cottages in 
 adjoining towns, or more open parishes, where the 
 poor would be compelled to reside, and where, of 
 course, their children would be bom, thus relieving 
 their own parishes at the expense of others.* 
 
 “ That, with respect to the irremovability of resi¬ 
 dents of five years, your memorialists consider the 
 same objection applicable, as care would be taken 
 to remove them before the five years’ residence was 
 completed; and that it would operate very much 
 against the poor, by forcing them from the rural 
 parishes, where cottage-rents are comparatively low, 
 and gardens easily obtained, to towns and more 
 populous parishes, where rents are much higher. 
 That it would also remove many from the spot 
 where their labour is required, and thus add a long 
 walk to their day’s work.” From this and other 
 objections, he begged, with permission of the House, 
 to propose that the birth settlement should not have 
 a retroactive effect, but a prospective one—(and away 
 went that clause). 
 
 “ Adam Smith doubts, and I think with much 
 reason,” continued Sir James, “ whether any poor 
 man ever reaches the age of 40 without experiencing 
 hardship and injustice from the law of settlement. 
 He thinks, and so do I, that it is monstrous for a 
 poor man to he confined as to his residence, his 
 labour, or his rights, within the narrow limits of a 
 parish or a township. It is upon this principle that 
 I found the new and important provision which it 
 is my intention to introduce to the notice of the 
 
 * Is it not done so now, but by different means ?—by building 
 only first-class houses which the poor cannot inhabit, you drive 
 the poor away, and thus reduce the rates .—See St. George's, 
 Ilanover-sijuare, close parishes, See. &o. ante. 
 
89 
 
 House. But, before 1 proceed further, I beg to 
 call the attention of honourable gentlemen to this 
 material fact—that there are in England and Wales 
 as many as 14,500 parishes and townships. It 
 requires no observations from me to show how 
 narrow the limits are which so minute a subdivision 
 necessarily creates, and within those Emits does 
 the existing state of the Poor Law confine and 
 restrain the labour of the poor man. I think, and I 
 hope the House will likewise think so, that it would 
 be an immense advantage to the poor man, and no 
 disadvantage to the wealthier classes, at once to 
 remove that restriction—(hear)—by reducing the 
 number of places within which settlements may be 
 acquired. I expect to be able to give a more free 
 circulation than ever to the labour of the poor. 
 I do not propose that the whole of the 14,500 
 places should be rated in a mass; on the contrary, 
 I think that a national Poor-rate mould be most ob¬ 
 jectionable;* but I am sure that no valid objection 
 can be urged to substituting 620 divisions for 
 14,500. There are in England 620 unions. Now, 
 if I should be so fortunate as to induce the House 
 to substitute settlement by union for parochial set¬ 
 tlement; if I can reduce the number of districts 
 conferring the right of settlement from 14,500 to 
 620, I shall consider myself as having effected a 
 great change for the better, and as having bestowed 
 an immense advantage upon the rate-payers and upon 
 those who may become the recipients of those rates.” 
 
 Proceeding, Sir James made other quotations in 
 favour of his plan, and, first, that of the Board of 
 Guardians of the Blything Union, who resolved,— 
 
 * Assuredly it would, if tlie rating was to be in a mass; but 
 most beneficial if every rate-payer was assessed according to hit- 
 means, in Ibe Spirit of Eliz. 43, c. 2. 
 
“ 1. That it is the opinion of this Board that all 
 parochial settlements are bad in principle, and tend 
 to oppress the labouring man unjustly. 2. That, 
 in order to provide a remedy for this evil, it is 
 absolutely necessary that the system of parochial 
 settlement be entirely abolished, and, in lieu thereof, 
 that districts be formed of whole unions for the 
 purposes of settlement and general management of 
 the poor.” * * * 
 
 “ I shall now, with leave of the House,” said 
 Sir James, “read an extract from the report of 
 Mr. Hall, one of the Assistant Poor Law Commis¬ 
 sioners, who had charge of the metropolitan dis¬ 
 trict, and who also instituted very strict and minute 
 inquiries, for the purpose of enabling himself to 
 make cqrrect and useful reports :—‘ Much of the 
 difficulty that I expected would follow the adminis¬ 
 tration of the law of settlement, according to the 
 provisions of this Bill, would be done away with, if 
 the settlement were not a parochial accident, but 
 were made to relate to unions or other larger terri¬ 
 torial divisions, as, for instance, the City of London, 
 the City of Westminster, and the several metro¬ 
 politan parliamentary boroughs. There is a growing 
 opinion that rating, as well as settlement, ought to 
 be more widely and so more equally spread —that is, 
 over districts instead of parishes.’” 
 
 Mr. Bright, in the course of the debate, related 
 a case, which is so strictly indicative of the present 
 state of the law, that we cannot refrain from quoting 
 it:—“ In the township in which he resided, it lately 
 became the duty of the parish officers to remove 
 a pauper and his family to the place of the pauper’s 
 settlement, in an union near Richmond, in York¬ 
 shire. This man, soon after he had got notice that 
 he would be removed, received a letter from the 
 clerk of the guardians of the Yorkshire Union, en¬ 
 closing a post-office order for 206'., which was paid 
 
91 
 
 him, on condition that he removed over the border 
 of the township in which he then was into the 
 adjoining parish, so as to avoid becoming charge¬ 
 able to the Yorkshire Union. However, this man 
 and his family were removed by the relieving officer 
 of the township in which he (Mr. Bright) lived, 
 that was to say, from Rochdale to the union near 
 Richmond, where the Board of Guardians were 
 sitting at the union workhouse, when the pauper 
 and his family arrived under charge of the relieving 
 officer. The relieving officer returned the same 
 afternoon on his way back; however, he had not 
 gone above a mile or two before he overtook this 
 very pauper and his family returning to Rochdale; 
 for the fact was, that this Board of Guardians had 
 not had the pauper in their possession, if he might 
 so speak, three hours before they began to bargain 
 with the man as to how much he would take to go 
 back again to Rochdale.” * 
 
 Mr. Henley (Oxford) objected to the Bill, and 
 pertinently asked what they (the ministers) were 
 going to do with the poor man? Their object ought 
 to be to let him go wherever he could get a better 
 market for his labour. This system of unions would 
 not effect that; it would not enable him to go from 
 
 * As a fitting corollary to this, we give another specimen of 
 this precious system “ allowed by law.” “ The operation of the 
 recent Act for the removal of Irish paupers,” says the editor of 
 the Hull Packet, March 1844, “ is not only harsh, but would seem 
 also to be unavailing; for we understand that those sent to their 
 country by the parochial authorities of this town last-mentioned, 
 were almost immediately on their landing in Dublin supplied with 
 the means of returning to England, and of which it appears several, 
 if not all of them, availed themselves. Eleven are said to have 
 returned in the same packet with Mr. Colton, master of the vagrant 
 ofiice, who had them in charge; and one old man, named Connor, 
 actually reached Hull before him, the latter having been unavoid¬ 
 ably detained.” 
 
92 
 
 Hampshire to Cornwall if he liked; but that was 
 what he wanted to be able to do. For some time 
 the Legislature had been making it impossible for 
 the poor man to get away from the spot where his 
 father and he were born; the Bill went certainly to 
 enlarge these little spaces, but the remedy was too 
 small; for what the poor man wanted was to go all 
 ' over England with his labour to sell. 
 
 Mr. Brotherton said, that the measure was a great 
 improvement on the Bill of last Session, particularly 
 as to the settlement within unions. The removals 
 from one parish to another within the same unions 
 were, at present, a source of difficulties and hard¬ 
 ships which it was desirable to avoid. lie had 
 always been of opinion that there should be an equi¬ 
 table rate for the support of the poor, but he was 
 aware of the difficulty of accomplishing that object 
 in all cases. In the district where he resided, no 
 cottage under the value of <£35. a year was allowed 
 to be erected; * while in a neighbouring township 
 the case was very different, and the consequence 
 was, a proportionate burthen on the rate-payers. It 
 had been remarked that there were some townships 
 containing very few inhabitants which, in a few 
 years, might become very populous, while others 
 would not increase much. But if the rate was to 
 be founded on the data furnished by the seven years 
 preceding the years 1844 or 1845, and the rate made 
 thereon was to remain for ever, he thought it would 
 not be an equitable rate. He should therefore hope 
 that there would be a periodical revision of the 
 rate, say every seven years, so as to make it equi¬ 
 table. 
 
 Although the above sketch will give the reader a 
 general idea of the contemplated Bill, yet we shall 
 
 See the defects of close parishes, ante. 
 
refer more immediately to one of its clauses in tins 
 place. 
 
 In clause 40 it was enacted, “That the said 
 Commissioners (the Poor Law) shall, before de¬ 
 claring any such union for the purposes of settle¬ 
 ment, ascertain the amount of Poor-rate levied 
 in each parish in such union for the seven years 
 ending 25th March 1845, and, after deducting from 
 such amount all sums actually paid for county, 
 borough or police rate, or for contribution in the 
 nature of county, borough or police rate, they shall, 
 by an order under their hands and seal, fix and 
 declare the said average amount of rates levied for 
 each parish in such union.” 
 
 Why, this clause would have perpetuated the 
 most gross injustice. As we have shown in pre¬ 
 ceding pages, that unequal rating has taken place 
 in hundreds of parishes in England and Wales, 
 some paying (and those the poorer ones) 5s. to 12s. 
 in the pound upon their property assessed, while 
 others (the wealthier ones) were scarcely paying any 
 thing, or at most 6d. in the pound; and if this 
 monstrous injustice were to continue, in spite of 
 every alteration of time and circumstances, flourish¬ 
 ing towns or villages now might become, from ad¬ 
 ventitious circumstances, almost depopulated—no 
 matter, they must pay their quota, the seven years’ 
 average. Small and inconsiderable places now 
 might, by the establishment of a successful manu¬ 
 factory, the opening of a mine, or the erection of 
 a cotton-mill, become populous and wealthy—no 
 matter, they would only have to pay their fixed 
 quota, the seven years’ average. A metropolitan 
 parish, by its great improvements in building large 
 houses, and substituting fine squares and streets for 
 confined alleys and poor hovels, might lessen its 
 poor by one-half, and double its wealth—no matter, 
 the seven years’ average is the immutable test, and 
 by that only is it to be assessed to the support of 
 
94 
 
 the poor! Need we go further into this piece of 
 patchwork legislation?—and yet such a proposal 
 for an Act of Parliament was received with applause 
 by a large majority of the British Senate, and, but 
 for the stern opposition of the Press and many 
 provincial parishes, would have been passed into 
 law. 
 
 The result of this opposition was, however, the 
 withdrawal of the contemplated Bill, and this act 
 of grace was performed by the Right Honourable 
 the Secretary for the Home Department on the 
 24th June 1845. 
 
 A short Bill was afterwards brought into the 
 Commons to correct the crying abuses in the removal 
 of Scotch and Irish paupers; and as the evils of the 
 old system were so glaringly bad, and the remedy 
 proposed so apparently apposite, it was passed with 
 scarcely a dissentient. 
 
 By the 4th clause of this Act (8 and 9 Victoria, 
 cap. 117), it is made obligatory on the Justices of 
 the Peace, at the General or Quarter Session of 
 the Peace, &c. to make Regulations for the more 
 effectually carrying out the Provisions of this Act, 
 and the following are the Regulations made by the 
 Justices of the Peace of the County of Middlesex, 
 at the General Quarter Session of the Peace holden 
 by Adjournment in and for such County on the 
 21st day of October, 1845, for carrying into execu¬ 
 tion the Provisions of the Act made in the Session 
 of Parliament held in the 8th and 9th years of the 
 reign of Queen Victoria, intituled “An Act to 
 Amend the Laws relating to the Removal of Poor 
 Persons bom in Scotland, Ireland, the Islands of 
 Man, Scilly, Jersey or Guernsey, and chargeable in 
 England,” more effectually than in the said Act is 
 provided:— 
 
 1st. AHPaupers who (being in a fit state of health) shall be ordered 
 to be removed from the County of Middlesex under the above men¬ 
 tioned Act, on and after the 19th day of November, 1845, shall be 
 
95 
 
 conveyed by the person or persons to whom the warrants for their 
 removal shall be delivered to Mr. Richard George Baker at a 
 Depot to be from time to time provided by him (and of which he 
 shall give Notice to the Guardians of the several Parishes or 
 Unions, or the Overseers of the Parishes) and be there delivered 
 between the hours of 10 in the Forenoon, and 4 in the Afternoon 
 throughout the Year. 
 
 2ndly. All such Paupers when delivered to Mr. Baker, shall be 
 respectively detained and held in safe custody by him or by any 
 person authorized by him, and to whom the Warrant of Removal 
 shall be delivered for the purpose of being carried into execution 
 both at the Depot and on their route by land and on board the 
 Ships or Vessels in which they shall be delivered for removal to 
 their respective Countries, until they shall have arrived at the 
 places to which they shall have been ordered to be removed. 
 
 3rdly. At the time of delivering such Paupers to Mr. Baker, the 
 persons to whom the Orders of Removal shall be delivered for the 
 purpose of being earned into execution, shall also deliver to him 
 Duplicates of the Warrants for their removal, and shall pay him 
 on account of such removals the several sums following, that is to 
 say, the sum of £1. 10s. for every Scotch Pauper of the age of 
 10 years and upwards, and the sum of 18s. for every Scotch 
 Pauper under 10 years of age ordered to be removed to Edinburgh, 
 Dundee or Aberdeen; the sum of £4. for every Scotch Pauper of 
 the age of 10 years and upwards, and the sum of £2. 10s. for 
 every Scotch Pauper under 10 years of age ordered to be removed 
 to Glasgow, Greenock, Dumfries, or Ayr; the sum of £5. for 
 every Scotch Pauper of the age of 10 years and upwards, and the 
 sum of £3. for every Scotch Pauper under 10 years of age ordered 
 to be removed to Inverness or Oban; the sum of £ 2. 2s. for every 
 Irish Pauper of the age of 10 years and upwards, and the sum of 
 £1. 4s. for every Irish Pauper under 10 years of age ordered to 
 be removed to Dublin; the sum of £2. for every Irish Pauper of 
 the age of 10 years and upwards, and the sum of £1. 2s. for every 
 Irish Pauper under 10 years of age ordered to be removed to Cork; 
 the sum of £3. for every Irish Pauper of the age of 10 years and 
 upwards, and the sum of £1. 12s. for every Irish Pauper under 
 10 years of age ordered to be removed to Limerick; the sum of 
 £4. for every Irish Pauper of the age of 10 years and upwards, 
 and the sum of £2. 4s. for every Irish Pauper under 10 years of 
 age ordered to be removed to Belfast, Wexford, Dundalk, Water¬ 
 ford, or Derry; the sum of £4. 10s. for every Pauper of the age 
 of 10 years and upwards, and the sum of £2. 12s. 6 d. for every 
 Pauper under 10 years of age ordered to be removed to the Isle of 
 Man; the sum of £4. for every Pauper of the age of 10 years and 
 upwards, and the sum of £2.10s. for every Pauper under 10 years 
 of age ordered to be removed to the Isle of Scilly; the sum of £3. 
 for every Pauper of the age of 10 years and upwards, and the sum 
 
96 
 
 of £ 1.15s. for every Pauper under 10 years of age ordered to be 
 removed to either of the islands of Jersey or Guernsey; lie, 
 Mr. Baker, giving a receipt for each Pauper containing an under¬ 
 taking to refund the amount received by him for every Pauper 
 whom he shall not deliver or cause to be delivered according to 
 the Warrant of Removal (unless prevented by death, accident, or 
 dangers of the sea, or by reason of their having been re-delivered 
 to the Guardians of the Poor or Overseers of the complaining 
 . Parishes or Union under the 4th Regulation hereinafter set forth), 
 and the Guardians of the Poor of the complaining Parish or Uuion, 
 or the Overseers of the Poor of the complaining Parish as the case 
 may be, shall furnish the person to whom the Warrant of Removal 
 shall be delivered for the purpose of being carried into execution 
 with the Warrant of Removal in duplicate, and with the sum to 
 be paid with each Pauper at the time of his taking him or her to 
 Mr. Baker at his Depot as hereinbefore directed. 
 
 4thly. In case any Pauper at the time of his or her being de¬ 
 livered to Mr. Baker at the Depot shall be in an unfit state of 
 health to be removed, or shall become so after delivery at such 
 Depot, and before he or she is shipped or sent off, Mr. Baker shall 
 be at liberty to re-deliver such Pauper to the Guardians of the 
 Poor or Overseers of the Poor of the complaining Parish or Union, 
 as the case may be, and at their expense. Provided always that 
 in such case Mr. Baker shall return to the said Guardians of the 
 Poor or Overseers, one half of the money which he has received 
 with the Pauper. 
 
 5thly. The personal allowance to be made by the Guardians or 
 Overseers, as the case may be, to the person delivering the Pauper 
 to Mr. Baker, shall be for each journey, not exceeding 5 miles, 
 3s. Gd.; for each journey not exceeding 10 miles, 5s.; and for 
 each journey exceeding 10 miles, 7s. 6d.; and the allowance to he 
 made him for the expense of Conveyance of each of such Paupers 
 to the Depot (except infants at the breast, for whom no allowance 
 shall be made), shall be at the rate of 4d. per mile. 
 
 6thly. Every Examination shall be taken, and every Warrant 
 of Removal shall be executed in duplicate, and shall contain the 
 names and ages of each and every Pauper intended to be removed, 
 and his or her consent (where given) to be sent to any other 
 port or place in Scotland or Ireland, than the port or place nearest 
 to the place of their birth or residence, according to the Schedule 
 marked A to the said Act annexed. 
 
 By the Court, 
 
 HEAT ON ELLIS, 
 
 Clerk of the Peace. 
 
 I approve of the foregoing Regulations as temporary and pro- 
 visional. 
 
 JAS. Gr. GRAHAM. 
 
 Whitehall , Nov. 19, 1845. 
 
97 
 
 Considering that there were in 1841 no less than 
 284,128 Irish and 102,065 Scotch in the several 
 counties of England, besides those included in the 
 107,291 persons whose birth-place is “ not specified," 
 we may expect that no small expense will be in¬ 
 curred in the removal of Scotch and Irish paupers 
 from England. Whether any reasonable probabi¬ 
 lity exists of the paupers stopping in the places to 
 which they may be removed, we shall see when we 
 come to speak of removals in subsequent pages. 
 
 The cases of fraudulent and collusive returns of 
 paupers to the places from which they had been 
 removed at the expense of the rate-payers, were so 
 numerous and so bare-faced, that it was deemed 
 imperative to introduce the following clause into 
 the Act 9 and 10 Victoria, c. 66, “ If any officer of 
 any parish or union do, contrary to law, with in¬ 
 tent to cause any poor person to become chargeable 
 to any parish to which such person was not then 
 chargeable, convey any poor person out of the 
 parish for which such officer acts, or cause or pro¬ 
 cure any poor person to be so conveyed, or give di¬ 
 rectly or indirectly any money, relief or assistance, or 
 afford or procure to be afforded any facility for such 
 conveyance, or make any offer or promise, or use 
 any threat to induce any poor person to depart 
 from such parish ; and if in consequence of such 
 conveyance or departure any poor person become 
 chargeable to any parish to which he was not then 
 chargeable, such officer, on conviction thereof be¬ 
 fore any two Justices, shall forfeit and pay, for 
 every such offence, any sum not exceeding five 
 pounds, nor less than forty shillings.” 
 
 One would suppose that this clause was suffi¬ 
 ciently stringent to cure the evil, but what has been 
 the result 1 Why simply, that in very many cases 
 it has been evaded, nay, purposely set at nought. 
 So much so, indeed, that even the late Poor Law 
 
98 
 
 Commissioners have been compelled to allow that 
 the abuse exists, and to say very complacently, that 
 “We regret to be obliged to state, that from se¬ 
 veral instances which have come to our knowledge, 
 the penal clause of that Act (9 and 10 Victoria, c. 66, 
 sec. 6) is not sufficient for the prevention of illegal 
 removals. There is difficulty in procuring convic¬ 
 tions, in consequence of the necessity of proving an 
 intention to impose a charge on a specific parish, 
 which frequently does not exist, and where it does, 
 can seldom be proved. We have strongly im¬ 
 pressed upon Boards of Guardians, in several cases, 
 the great impropriety of the adoption of any means, 
 other than those provided by the law, for the 
 removal of paupers from one parish or union to 
 another.”—14 th Report of Poor Law Commissioners, 
 p. 5. 
 
 The Commissioners here, state distinctly, that 
 several instances of this gross evasion of the Act of 
 Parliament have come to their knowledge. How 
 did they come to this knowledge? Of course, 
 officially. Then why did they not attempt to 
 punish the offenders, or at the least publish the 
 names of the parishes where these officers are 
 located. Penal clauses of an Act of Parliament are 
 thus allowed to be violated with impunity, and the 
 most monstrous injustice, and really robbery al¬ 
 lowed to be committed without the slightest attempt 
 being made to check them, or the offenders pu¬ 
 nished for their delinquency. 
 
 It is very true that, as affects the pauper himself, 
 he is liable to punishment as a rogue and vagabond, 
 under 7 and 8 Viet., c. 101, clause 55, but we 
 should like to know how many convictions have 
 taken place under this clause, and what was the 
 average amount of punishment awarded? 
 
 In order to form some little idea of the probable 
 expense of these Scotch and Irish removals, we have 
 
'99 
 
 been favoured with the following from a most intel¬ 
 ligent practical officer:— 
 
 Number of Irish and Scotch Paupers removed in 
 the following years:— 
 
 1831 - - ill 1810 - - 619 
 
 1835 - - 115 1811 - - 1,231 
 
 1836 - - 128 1812 - - 2,360 
 
 1837 - - 206 1813 - - 2,056 
 
 1838 - - 135 1811 - - 1,321 
 
 1839 - - 238 
 
 The average expense I calculate at 22s. per head. 
 
 Henry Gill, 
 
 Pass-master for the City of London. 
 
 Thus, then, it appears that 8,559 paupers have 
 been removed in 11 years, at an expense (loss) of 
 .£9,414. 18s. in the unions of the City of London 
 only! The expense of Scotch and Irish pauper 
 removals for Middlesex and all England will be 
 found in the Appendix. 
 
 If the reader takes the trouble to read clause 6 of 
 the Act 8 and 9 Viet., c. 117, he will find that it 
 allows within six months after removal the power 
 of appeal to the Irish or Scotch parishes, if they 
 show to the satisfaction of the English Poor Law 
 Commissioners just cause for reversal of a warrant 
 obtained ex parte; and giving good security in 
 England to the said Commissioners for the payment 
 of all costs, &c. such Commissioners, if satisfied 
 that it will be expedient so to do, may appeal, 
 i. e., have leave to open the flood gates of litigation, 
 and question the legality of that which was done 
 six months before. Why, really, to any one but a 
 legislator this is very like shutting the stable door 
 after the steed is stolen. Now, what cannot a 
 canny Scotchman or a sharp-witted Irishman effect 
 with an ignorant pauper in six months—we do not 
 mean to impute bad motives to any one—but, after 
 h 2 
 
100 
 
 knowing what has been done in the cases before 
 referred to, and the evasions of the Act admitted 
 by the late Poor Law Commissioners, what security 
 is there against such wilful dishonesty. We have, 
 moreover, very high respect for the Poor Law Com¬ 
 missioners, but we do not think that they are the 
 most fitting judges of what is a legal settlement, 
 nor that they should be constituted the legal ad¬ 
 visers of discontented heritors or irritated overseers, 
 not to speak of the solemn nonsense of giving secu¬ 
 rity in England, &c.: and what is the utility, after 
 all, of this ceremony, which is, 
 
 “ upon the whole, 
 
 What the learned aptly call—the rigmarole.” 
 
 Parish A. in Ireland or Scotland finds that 
 Spriggins, his wife and three children, have been 
 palmed upon it illegally; they have given the re¬ 
 quired security, appealed, and beaten parish B. in 
 England. Well, back comes Spriggins and his lot 
 to the place from which they were sent six months 
 before—but even paupers cannot travel without 
 some cost; besides, somebody must come with 
 them. Well, parish functionaries, great or small, 
 will, and do, enjoy themselves on the journey—the 
 paupers are duly delivered “ as per order” to the 
 recusant parish, and back goes Mr. Overseer’s de¬ 
 puty to the place from whence he came. And now 
 (except the payment of the costs of removal, lawyer, 
 counsel, journey, 8rc., which must be liquidated, 
 “ according to the statute in that case made and 
 provided,” within seven days after notice) “the 
 charm’s made up.” 
 
 Really, if these gross absurdities did not seriously 
 affect the pockets of the rate-payers of the offending 
 parish, no other feeling would be excited but un¬ 
 controllable laughter. But in plain sober sadness. 
 
Jet us ask, What has been gained by all this wasteful 
 expenditure ? Has any great principle been main¬ 
 tained to excuse such cost? Is the condition of the 
 pauper improved by being sent to Ireland or Scot¬ 
 land, and brought back again ? Is he less poor, or 
 made a more useful member of society ? Certainly 
 not; but it must be self-evident that if the money 
 thus wasted had been devoted to its legitimate object, 
 it would have maintained the pauper and his family 
 for months. Thus thousands are yearly wasted 
 because law-makers will not be governed by that 
 most ordinary common sense which influences other 
 men. Abolish the Law of Settlement ; let the coun¬ 
 try at large be every paper's parish; equalize the 
 rates; and you will cure the evil at once. And whence 
 arises the extreme partiality for this said Law of 
 Settlement that it must be kept up at all cost, and 
 notwithstanding its injustice and absurdity ? Will 
 it be believed that the Law of Settlement extends 
 only to England and Wales ? In Ireland and Scot¬ 
 land it is unknown. 
 
 But Sir James Graham expressed his opinion 
 upon introducing his Bill for facilitating the remo¬ 
 val of Irish and Scotch paupers, that the more 
 technical difficulty there was thrown over the 
 proof of settlement and the means of appeal, so 
 would parish litigation be in equal degree ob¬ 
 structed, and that overseers, finding the path of 
 legal quibbling environed with difficulties, would 
 hesitate before they attempted to go to law. Now, 
 if history be something more than an old almanack, 
 let us inquire what has been the result of this pre¬ 
 sent glorious parish privilege—the right to appeal. 
 
 Upon the motion of Mr. Tatton Egerton, mem¬ 
 ber for North Cheshire, a return of such appeals was 
 presented to the House of Commons, and ordered 
 to be printed, 7th February, 1845. 
 
302 
 
 That return states that there were in 1843— 
 
 Orders confirmed - - - 104 
 
 Quashed on the merits - - 583 
 
 „ on points of form - - 403 
 
 By consent 95 
 
 1185 
 
 Appeals not proceeded with - 662 
 
 1847 
 
 “If an appeal,” says Mr. Foote, in his clever 
 pamphlet, p. 29,* “ were decided upon merits, the 
 cost to each parish would not, upon an average, be 
 less than £ 10. which, upon 583 orders, would give 
 
 the sum of.£11,660 
 
 498 decided on points of form, or by 
 consent, the cost would have to be 
 calculated on an average of £ 6. per 
 
 order. 2988 
 
 104 orders confirmed might be taken 
 
 at the same. 624 
 
 662 other appeals not proceeded with 
 might be calculated at 40s. - - 1324 
 
 The removal orders at 23,582 
 
 £40,178 
 
 Probably even the above sum is far below the 
 correct amount, the very small number of 95 ap¬ 
 peals, quashed by consent, proves either the unwil¬ 
 lingness or inability of parish officers to refrain from 
 litigating the question of settlement; but a great 
 number of appeals are never entered with the Clerk 
 of the Peace, but if found defective are superseded 
 by the Justices in Petty Sessions, who made the 
 
 Suggestions for Seducing the Poor’s-rate. London, Crockford. 
 
103 
 
 order of removal; at the same time, many appeals 
 against orders are merely entered with the Clerks 
 of the Peace to secure the costs upon the abandon¬ 
 ment of an order, and many arrangements con¬ 
 nected with appeals and orders of removal are 
 entered into between overseers.” 
 
 This return speaks volumes for the beautiful 
 working of a system which is to be continued as a 
 rod in terrorem for litigious guardians or overseers. 
 
 But surely these expenses are incurred by parishes 
 to protect some great interest, or to preserve in¬ 
 tact some great national principle. Well, let us see 
 the proofs of this ?—we take the cases at random. 
 
 London Sessions (April 25, 1846), before the 
 Recorder.—The Court sat to-day to hear appeals. 
 
 In re St. Clement's Danes v. St. Giles’s, Cripple- 
 gate. —In this case the pauper had been the subject 
 of appeal for nearly 21 years, and it was now pro¬ 
 posed that the matter should be referred to a bar¬ 
 rister to decide on the settlement. The Recorder 
 said, if it stood over for three months, reflection 
 might bring both sides to their common sense, and 
 the appeal to years of discretion ( Laughter ). The 
 pauper was made a perfect shuttlecock.* 
 
 In re St. Leonard's, Shoreditch v. St. Giles’s, 
 Cripplegate —The pauper in this appeal was a lu¬ 
 natic, and had been confined in a private lunatic 
 asylum. The order for confinement did not set 
 forth that there was no lunatic asylum for the City 
 of London. The Recorder said that the City was 
 a county of itself. The City could build an asylum, 
 or, under the Act of Parliament, could have one 
 in any adjoining county. The fact ought to have 
 been stated that there was no such asylum in the 
 City. The appeal, therefore, could not be heard. 
 
 How do you like the game, Messrs, the rate-payers ? 
 
104 
 
 It appeared that both parishes had made them¬ 
 selves liable to indictment, but the matter was 
 arranged. 
 
 A very lengthened argument took place in several 
 cases as to the time required for giving notice. By 
 the new Poor Law Amendment Act 35 days were 
 allowed, but it was contended that that was only 
 admitting a different mode of relief by appeal, but 
 did not alter the Act. The Court decided that it 
 ■was peremptory that the notice must be given within 
 21 days after the order was served, and notice of 
 the ground of appeal within 14 days further. The 
 Court also decided that an appeal could not be 
 entered and respited; but that notice of the inten¬ 
 tion to apply must be given at the first Session as a 
 matter of course, although it was strenuously urged 
 that it had long been the practice of this and the 
 Middlesex Session. The Recorder said that no 
 practice could be maintained contrary to an Act of 
 Parliament. These decisions were considered of 
 great importance. 
 
 These and the before cited cases are ridiculous 
 enough in all conscience, but the acme of absur¬ 
 dity is to be found in the following one :— 
 
 Reg. v. the Inhabitants of St. Giles’s-in-the-Fields .—“ This case 
 involved the question of the validity of a marriage with a deceased 
 wife’s sister. 
 
 “ Mr. Thomas Henry, one of the police magistrates of the 
 metropolis, sitting at the Lambeth police-court, in Surrey, and 
 within the metropolitan police district, had made an order the 
 24th of November, 1845, for the removal of Mary Barrin , widow 
 of William Burrin, deceased, and Emily, her child, from the parish 
 of St. Mary, Lambeth, in Surrey, to the parish of St. Giles-iu-the- 
 Fields, in Middlesex. The Churchwardens and Overseers of the 
 parish of St. Giles had appealed against that order to the General 
 Quarter Sessions of the Peace for Surrey, held on the 7th of 
 April, 1846. The Court of Quarter Sessions confirmed the order, 
 subject to the opinion of the Court of Queen’s Bench upon a case 
 
 “ In the case then before the Court, the question was as to the 
 
105 
 
 validity of a marriage with a deceased wife’s sister, the former 
 wife being the illegitimate offspring of the same parents. The 
 learned counsel then read the case as follows:— 
 
 “ ‘ The pauper, Mary, was born in 1804, and is the illegitimate 
 child of Mary Harris, then a spinster. The said Mary Harris 
 cohabited before marriage with John Gilloe, and the said pauper, 
 Mary, is the illegitimate daughter of the said Mary Harris, born 
 during such cohabitation. The said pauper, Mary, was married 
 (in all respects legally, except as to the question now submitted to 
 the consideration of this Court) to the said William Burrin on the 
 19th day of November, 1837. Of this marriage the pauper Emily 
 (born the 21st of November, 1843) is the issue. 
 
 “ 1 The said John Gilloe and Mary Harris (after the birth of 
 the said pauper, Mary—viz., in the month of April, 1811) inter¬ 
 married, and had issue a legitimate daughter (Hannah Gilloe), 
 born after the marriage—viz., in October, 1811, which Hannah 
 on the lGth of January, 1831, intermarried with the said William 
 Burrin, and departed this life before his said marriage with the 
 said pauper, Mary—viz., on the 29th day of May, 1837. 
 
 “ ‘ The said William Burrin died on the 5th day of November, 
 1844, and his last legal settlement was in the appellant parish. 
 The question for the opinion of the Court is— 
 
 “ ‘ Whether the said alleged marriage of the said William 
 Burrin with the said pauper, Mary, was celebrated between 
 persons within the prohibited degrees of affinity, and is not null 
 and void? 
 
 “ 1 If this Court should be of opinion that such alleged marriage 
 is null and void, the order of the said Court of Quarter Sessions 
 and the order of removal are to be quashed, and the appeal allowed. 
 
 “ ‘ If this Court shall be of opinion that such alleged marriage 
 is valid, the order of the said Court of Quarter bessions is to be 
 affirmed.’ 
 
 “ The question arose upon the construction of the statute a and 
 G William IV, c. 54, entitled, 1 an act to render certain marriages 
 valid, and to alter the law with respect to voidable marriages.’ ”— 
 (August, 1845). 
 
 Here, then, was a Court of Judicature gravely 
 engaged for two days, at enormous costs to the rate¬ 
 payers, and to the great injury of other suitors, in 
 hearing the “ learned arguments” whether a pauper’s 
 marriage was within the prohibited degrees of con¬ 
 sanguinity. If the inheritance to property had 
 been the question before the Court, the case would 
 have been a very proper one for argument and de- 
 
106 
 
 cision. But really in a legal point of view as 
 regards tlie parishes or the pauper, what did it sig¬ 
 nify, if the latter had married his own grandmother! 
 If a lawyer-vestry-clerk thinks proper to raise such 
 questions, let him do it at his own expense; we 
 do not complain of his taste, but we do complain 
 and object strongly to the waste of the parochial 
 funds, and the consequent pecuniary injury to the 
 rate-payers, by such speculative legal hunting, and 
 let us add, cui bono ? 
 
 Again, almost every term there is to be found in 
 the newspapers paragraphs like the following:— 
 Queen’s Bench.—The Court was occupied the 
 greater part of the day with appeals from Quarter 
 Sessions, with respect to pauper settlements, which 
 possessed not the slightest interest to the general 
 reader.— Sun, April 29, 1848. 
 
 Ah ! little does “ the general reader” fancy how 
 deeply his breeches pocket is affected in these ap¬ 
 peals ; and little does he know or reflect that such 
 neatly turned periods in the journals are of the 
 utmost importance to him. 
 
 That valuable parochial functionary, the vestry 
 clerk, at the very moment that the good easy soul 
 is enjoying his tea, toast, and newspaper, may be 
 playing ducks and drakes with the parish funds to 
 try some theoretic opinion of those beautiful speci¬ 
 mens of legislative wisdom, called the Poor Laws. 
 
 And behold the pleasant and very profitable 
 results—to the lawyers. The cases of parish law, 
 and involving decisions on the new Poor Law Act, 
 have increased ten-fold since the days of East. 
 The Term Reports of that day ( i . e. 1800 to 1812) 
 used to amount to about 550 pages ; now, in the 
 days of Adolphus and Ellis, they amount to the as¬ 
 tounding number of 1080 or 1105 pages.— Herald. 
 
 But this legal piling of "Pelion upon Ossa” 
 would be all very well if it is was not somewhat 
 
107 
 
 costly to those least interested in the accumulative 
 pleasure —ex pede Hercitlem ! “We have several 
 cases,” writes Mr. Field, Clerk to the Guardians of 
 the Wandsworth and Clapham Union, “which 
 formerly would not have required five shillings, 
 but which now, upon a moderate computation to 
 obtain an order, would require an expenditure of 
 from ,£20. to £40. in witnesses alone, and I be¬ 
 lieve that the parishes of this Union will, in one 
 way or other of these ways, be subjected to an 
 additional charge of several hundreds a year.” 
 
 Of a verity this is paying very “ dear for your 
 ■whistle,” particularly too, as you have not even the 
 pleasure of blowing it yourself. 
 
 And these are the absurd matters which the legal 
 tribunals of the country are called upon every 
 Session, and every Term, to discuss and to decide. 
 Nor are these foolish and expensive contests confined 
 to the cases of the living, the last tenement of mor¬ 
 tality is even begrudged the pauper, and six feet of 
 poor earth is made the subject of unseemly disputes! 
 A few weeks back a female casual pauper, whose 
 husband had previously died in St. Giles’s Work- 
 house, was sent with others to King’s College Hos¬ 
 pital, Portugal Street, Lincoln’s Inn Fields, where 
 she died on Saturday week, upon which Mr. Lyons, 
 the Secretary,* communicated the circumstance to 
 the parish authorities, at the same time requesting 
 that the body should be removed for interment. 
 The application was met by a refusal on the part 
 of the parish authorities, on the ground that as the 
 Hospital was in a different parish, they would not 
 be called upon to bear any portion of the expenses 
 consequent on the removal or interment of the 
 deceased. The question led to a lengthened in¬ 
 vestigation before the magistrates, when it was 
 
 * Mr. Lyons stated, on a subsequent occasion, that this hospital 
 had been put to £15. expense in one month by these disputes be¬ 
 tween parishes. 
 
108 
 
 arranged that the whole matter should be brought 
 before the St. Giles’s Board, and in the meantime 
 the body was removed by the parish authorities 
 from the Hospital for interment. 
 
 Yesterday a letter was received from the Chair¬ 
 man of the St. Giles’s Board, informing the magis¬ 
 trates that the matter would be entertained on the 
 next Board day, with a view to submit the question 
 to the consideration of the Poor Law Commissioners. 
 
 We are not yet in possession of the fact, whether 
 the parishes are still at war, respecting the costs of 
 the pauper’s funeral, and the “ maimed rites,” but 
 we doubt not it will appear in some future appeal 
 case, or not improbably occupy the grave attention 
 of the Court of Queen’s Bench sitting in Banco. 
 
 Truly may the Poor Law Commissioners, in their 
 elaborate notice on the law of settlement and re¬ 
 moval,* say, that “In the present state of the law 
 it is evident, that in a legal point of view the most 
 advantageous thing for a pauper born in England 
 is to have no settlement. If destitute, he has a right 
 to relief without the consequent liability of removal 
 wherever he may be, simply because there is no 
 place to which he can be removed. A settlement 
 confers on him no right to relief, for that he has at 
 any rate ; but it imposes the liability to removal at 
 the will of others, if he becomes destitute in a parish 
 in which he is not settled.” 
 
 “ We have already shown that the cost of remo¬ 
 vals and of litigation to the former was mitigated by 
 the Poor Law Amendment Act; but is supposed to 
 have been, temporarily at least, increased by the 
 late decisions of the Court of Queen’s Bench. The 
 cost, no doubt, is yet large ; for the process of re¬ 
 moval is difficult, and open to great fraud and vexa¬ 
 tion, owing principally to the nature of the Acts 
 which may still be alleged as the foundations of a 
 
 Ninth Annual Report, page 40. 
 
109 
 
 settlement, ancl the vague character of the evidence 
 on which these Acts must often be established. 
 Witnesses must be sought at a great distance, and 
 brought at a great expense, often fruitlessly, when 
 the subject to be litigated, too, is in itself utterly 
 unworthy of the sum expended on it. Evert/ thing 
 so spent is simple loss to the commumtij. On the 
 poor themselves the law of settlement still inflicts 
 unavoidable hardship, although such hardship is as 
 nothing compared to the tyranny which could be 
 exercised under the original statute of Charles II., 
 and which remained in force until the 35th 
 George III. Up to that time a man could be 
 removed who was likely to become chargeable. 
 At present there must be application for relief, and 
 its acceptance on his part or that of his family, 
 before his personal liberty can be infringed by a 
 forcible conveyance from one part of the kingdom to 
 another. Stiil considerable hardship is occasionally 
 suffered, and we may be allowed to quote the pre¬ 
 amble of a Bill,* introduced into the House of 
 Commons in the Session 1819, by Mr. Sturges 
 Bourne and Lord Castlereagh, as shortly stating 
 the evils of both kinds alluded to above : ‘ Whereas 
 many poor and industrious persons are, when no 
 longer able to maintain themselves, liable to be 
 removed from the parishes in which they have 
 resided and laboured many years, to other and dis¬ 
 tant places of legal settlement, derived from their 
 parents, or as being the places of their birth, or of 
 their transitory residence in the early part of their 
 lives, and where they are forgotten and unknown, 
 and great sums are yearly expended in the litiga¬ 
 tion of the numerous and complicated questions of 
 law and of fact which arise in regard to such settle- 
 
 * Founded on the recommendation of the Committee before 
 referred to: see note ante, page 39. 
 
110 
 
 ments; and it is expedient that a more reasonable, 
 simple and uniform mode of acquiring legal settle¬ 
 ments by residence should be established.’ 
 
 “ We repeat, therefore, the most advantageous 
 position for a pauper born in England is clearly the 
 recognition of his right to relief without the liability 
 to removal; and it is equally clear that this position 
 is that of a person having no place to which he can 
 be legally removed; that is, having no settlement.” 
 
 “ If, therefore, settlements and removals were 
 abolished, the pauper would gain rather than lose, 
 so far as facility for obtaining relief is concerned.” 
 
 “ As regards the rate-payers, there is more show 
 of reason in favour of non-interference; but it 
 must be remembered that the number of settle¬ 
 ments which may have been gained in a given 
 parish, or which may hereafter be claimed, is in 
 general something so very uncertain and so utterly 
 unknown as to be little capable of estimation in the 
 sale or purchase of property there; and the rate¬ 
 payers, as a class, will gain largely by any thing 
 which tends to diminish the cost of litigation, and to 
 make procedure in cases of removal less expensive.” 
 
 “ We have already stated, that since the decisions 
 of the Court of Queen’s Bench in the cases of Reg. 
 v. Ecclesall Bierlow, and of R. v. Lydierd St. Law¬ 
 rence, the difficulty of removals and the chance of 
 litigation are much increased, whilst the nominal 
 grounds for such removals remain as numerous as 
 before. The strictness required in the examination, 
 and the necessity which exists for all the evidence 
 produced before the justices in petty sessions being 
 such as is consistent with the rules of the superior 
 courts, have been the subject of repeated com¬ 
 plaints to us; yet it is difficult to see for what 
 reason the evidence admitted in a judicial proceed¬ 
 ing of this nature should be regulated on principles 
 of greater laxity than other evidence. The real 
 
Ill 
 
 grievance is in the nature of the facts to be proved, 
 the remote residence, and the necessary ignorance 
 and forgetfulness (to say nothing of occasional 
 parish partisanship) of many of the witnesses.” 
 
 Can a reasonable mind arrive at any other con* 
 elusion than that the Law of Settlement still con¬ 
 tains anomalies and absurdities which greatly 
 impede the prosperity of the poor, without pro¬ 
 ducing the slightest advantage to the rate-payer, 
 but tending only to keep a surplus population in a 
 locality where it is useless, unprofitable, and in 
 many cases highly injurious, instead of encouraging 
 the industrious to seek employment in those places 
 where they may be useful and prosperous. That 
 this is the effect of such law there cannot be a 
 doubt; in rural parishes in particular it creates 
 feelings of dissatisfaction, nay, hatred in the em¬ 
 ployed (or rather, the too frequently unemployed) 
 towards the employer. Tied by the Law of Settle¬ 
 ment, says an able writer,* to the place of their 
 birth, the population, without adequate means of 
 employment, still remain. In some parishes, La- 
 venham in Suffolk, for instance, the population 
 comprises far more than can obtain employment; 
 whilst other neighbouring parishes have scarcely 
 enough hands to cultivate the land. This works 
 mischief in every way. Farmers of capital will 
 not choose farms in such a parish, because the 
 Poor-rates are so high; and farmers of small and 
 insufficient capital, anxious to get land any where, 
 are left to take the farms in such parishes. They 
 cannot afford to improve the land; they cannot 
 afford to employ sufficient labour to cultivate their 
 farms properly whilst labour is superabundant; 
 pauperism in such parishes, therefore, abounds. 
 Adjoining parishes, to avoid this evil, will not per- 
 
 Times Reporter in Norfolk, July C. 
 
112 
 
 mit cottages to be built to accommodate the poor, 
 lest they should gain settlements. This leads to 
 insufficient accommodation and to the crowding 
 of the poor in such cottages as there are. By the 
 present law (the 66th section of 4 and 5 Will. 4, 
 c. 76) a settlement is gained only by occupation of 
 a tenement, and being assessed to and paying the 
 Poor-rate for one year, or by birth; a labourer is, 
 therefore, as it were, tied by the leg to his parish. 
 The farmers of an adjoining parish will not willingly 
 give him work, because they have paupers of their 
 own to support. If he is enterprising and goes to 
 a distance where work is to be found, if out of em¬ 
 ployment for a week or two, he gets passed back 
 again to the parish and union from which he started. 
 A magistrate of experience writes to me on this 
 subject as follows:— 
 
 “ The Law of Settlement produces much ill feel¬ 
 ing: the master is obliged to take a servant whom 
 he dislikes, and the servant is compelled to serve, 
 merely because he belongs to or has a right (as it 
 were) to be employed in the parish in which they 
 mutually live. They do not come together of their 
 own free choice on either side, and their position 
 of master and servant is forced and unnatural. I 
 see the ill effects of this system frequently. All 
 the best farming servants are those who live with 
 masters in parishes where they have no settlement. 
 I know that by the 33d section of the New Poor 
 Law Act, all the parishes of an union may unite 
 and be constituted into one parish for the purposes 
 of settlement; but this is.voluntary, and seldom 
 carried into effect.* To be efficient, the remedy 
 ought to be compulsory; and an union is too small 
 a district to afford an efficient remedy. A division 
 
 * Mr. Coode said that he hnew of hut, one case in which this had 
 been adopted.— Evidence, Burdens on Land, p. 495. 
 
113 
 
 of counties would be much more efficient; each 
 union in a county paying its proportion of a rate to 
 be applied in the relief of the poor of a county 
 wherever they may happen to be, and require 
 relief; or any arrangement which would tend to 
 spread and equalize the poor, and afford relief to a 
 pauper requiring it, no matter where in England his 
 enterprise has led him to, without sending him 
 back again to his parish, would, I am convinced, 
 be followed by most salutary results—in relieving 
 over-populated districts, in supplying labour where 
 it is wanted, and in giving an impulse to individual 
 enterprise.” 
 
 And these and equally beneficial results must 
 follow from the abolition of the Law of Settlement, 
 and all its costly and absurd machinery of removals, 
 appeals, &c., but which abolition would be most 
 unjust, unless an uniform and equal rate was levied 
 upon every person in the United Kingdom, and 
 those drawing their support from it, though they 
 be resident abroad, according to their respective 
 means, whether arising from real or personal pro¬ 
 perty, &c. 
 
 At the commencement of this chapter we re¬ 
 marked upon the blunders of Poor Law legislators 
 in the olden time. The moderns do not appear to 
 be a wit wiser than their predecessors, but have 
 floundered about in similar dirty water. Nor is this 
 wonderful; he who toucheth pitch must be defiled. 
 The tinkerers of the law of Elizabeth verily have 
 their reward, and we should only laugh at their 
 dilemmas if their puerile efforts did not work mis¬ 
 chief to the rate-payers and sorrow to the poor. 
 
 Since our first edition appeared, that precious 
 specimen of legislative wisdom, 9 and 10 Victoria, 
 c. 66, has cumbered the Statute book, and Heaven 
 knows that was unnecessary, there being nuisances 
 enough already in our legis scriptce. 
 
114 
 
 Let the reader mark the beautiful complexity of 
 this Act. 
 
 “ The object of this Act,” say the Poor Law 
 Commissioners, “ was without altering the grounds 
 of acquiring a settlement, to diminish the frequency 
 of removals, by rendering the poor irremoveable 
 from a parish under certain defined circumstances. 
 The principal classes of poor thus rendered irre¬ 
 moveable may be described in general terms as 
 follows:— 
 
 1. Persons who have been resident in a parish 
 for five years. 
 
 2. Widows for twelve calendar months after the 
 death of the husband. 
 
 3. Persons receiving relief on account of tempo¬ 
 rary sickness or accident.” 
 
 Well, this upon a superficial view appeared to be 
 plain sailing enough, but there -were rocks a-head 
 little dreamt of. There was that splendid addition 
 to an Act of Parliament called “ a proviso.” 
 
 By this proviso it was declared (amongst other 
 things) that the time during which a person is in 
 the receipt of relief shall not reckon as a portion of 
 the five years rendering him irremoveable: it was 
 certain that this provision applied to a residence 
 subsequent to the passing of the Act, but there was 
 a doubt whether it applied to a residence anterior to 
 the passing of the Act. The Attorney and Solici¬ 
 tor-General were of opinion that the proviso did 
 not apply to a residence anterior to the passing of 
 the Act. 
 
 And it is alleged in excuse for those learned 
 personages that the Act was altered in its progress 
 through Parliament. This fact does not very clearly 
 appear, but however let that pass. 
 
 During the debate upon this Bill, July 17, 1S46, 
 Sir G. Grey, its legislative sponsor, said, that the Bill 
 before them was a mere temporary suspension of the 
 
law of settlement. It might be as well if he were 
 here to observe, that the term “ residence” ran 
 through every part of the Bill. Nevertheless, it 
 was scarcely necessary that any attempt should be 
 made to define that term—it ran through all Bills 
 of the same description, and it might be no easy 
 matter to supply in words a definition that would 
 give entire satisfaction; but there was, generally 
 speaking, a very good practical definition in use in 
 Westminster Hall, ard that would, perhaps, super¬ 
 sede the necessity of introducing any definition into 
 the Bill itself. Mr. Vernon Smith said that the 
 Bill was a very ill-drawn one, and his right honour¬ 
 able friend had better withdraw it altogether. The 
 mover had told them that “residence” was very 
 well known in Westminster Hall; it was so because 
 it was more litigated than any other hind of settle¬ 
 ment. What was meant by residence in the Bill ? 
 Was it industrious or simple residence ? They 
 wished to avoid something like the clearances of 
 Ireland, that existed in England in close parishes, 
 but this Bill did not affect it. On the contrary, 
 the measure being, of course, retrospective, the mo¬ 
 ment it passed, persons likely to become chargeable 
 would be removed more strictly than ever. He 
 urged the right honourable Baronet earnestly not 
 to proceed with the Bill; but if he did, he should 
 not oppose it further than to insert a few words, 
 defining the residence to be an industrial residence. 
 The Attorney-General said that he would not 
 attempt to give any definition of the term “ resi¬ 
 dence.” By endeavouring to explain the term 
 residence, the difficulty would be greatly increased. 
 The term was well known to the law at present, 
 and applying the principle of common sense, as 
 remarked by the honourable member for Finsbury 
 (Mr. Wakley), he trusted no real difficulty would 
 be felt in ascertaining the application of the term. 
 
116 
 
 Well, the Act passed both branches of the Legisla¬ 
 ture, and became the law of the land 26th August, 
 1846. 
 
 Within a month, “ a little month,” however, this 
 very intelligent Act, which was to receive its true 
 and legal interpretation in “ Westminster Hall” 
 (a pleasant prospect this for the rate-payers!) was 
 found to be so loosely drawn, that no one could 
 understand its intent and meaning. Even the Poor 
 Law Commissioners themselves seem to have had 
 some considerable misgivings on the subject, for 
 they deemed it necessary to issue an instructional 
 letter on the subject, dated as early as the 17th 
 September, 1846. 
 
 The complaints of its indefinite nature, and un¬ 
 just and partial operation, particularly as it affected 
 large towns and other populous places, were soon 
 loud and deep. The City of Norwich, we believe, 
 took the initiative. They soon felt where the shoe 
 pinched, for their rates, already large, were soon 
 increased, by the operation of this bungling Act, 
 more than £2000 ! The Governor and Board of 
 Guardians petitioned Parliament in the following 
 terms:— 
 
 “ That the laws now in existence relating to the settlement and 
 removal of the poor in England and Wales, operate most oppres¬ 
 sively upon the destitute poor, are unjust towards the rate-payers, 
 and tend to prevent the poor from carrying their labour, the source 
 of all property, to the best market. 
 
 “ That the Poor Kemoval Bill passed in the last session of Par¬ 
 liament has increased to an alarming extent the evils it was 
 intended to remedy, and will have the effect of creating unfriendly 
 feelings between neighbouring unions and parishes, and must 
 multiply to an enormous extent the litigation and expense con¬ 
 sequent on the removal of paupers, already more than sufficiently 
 burdensome. 
 
 “ That the present mode of assessing the rates for the relief of 
 the poor is alike unequal and unjust. In many agricultural 
 parishes of large extent, where the number of poor is small, and 
 in many opulent parishes in the metropolis, the Poor-rates are 
 nearly nominal, whilst in many manufacturing towns and populous 
 
117 
 
 agricultural villages, where the poor are numerous, the rates are 
 high in proportion, and will be rendered by the recent law a most 
 intolerable burden. The rates in Norwich are already increased 
 to a fourth of the rack rental. 
 
 “ That it would be highly desirable, and for the reasons above 
 stated has become of imperative necessity, in order to equalize the 
 liabilities of the rate-payers, and to improve the condition and 
 well-being of the poor, that every destitute person should be en¬ 
 titled to claim relief wherever such destitution may occur. 
 
 “ That to accomplish these important objects, and to give free 
 scope to the labour of the people, it is necessary that the laws now 
 in force relating to parochial settlement and rating should be abo¬ 
 lished, and that a general national rate be substituted.”* 
 
 Nottingham and Exeter soon followed the ex¬ 
 ample—the former said in its petition :— 
 
 “ That the town of Nottingham comprises three parishes formed 
 into one union for the maintenance of the poor. 
 
 “ That, although the rates of the two parishes of St. Nicholas 
 and St. Peter for the present year do not exceed two shillings and 
 sixpence in the pound, they amount in the parish of St. Mary to 
 five shillings and ten pence. 
 
 “ Your Petitioners desire to call the attention of your honour¬ 
 able House to the fact, that immediately adjoining the town there 
 are one hundred and thirty acres of extra-parochial land, now 
 marked out for building purposes, upon which two hundred houses 
 have already been erected of the average annual rental of sixty 
 pounds, principally occupied by persons of wealth, who are thus 
 exempt from a burthen which consequently presses more heavily 
 on those less able to bear it. 
 
 “ That your Petitioners, whilst stating the above local facts, 
 regret to learn that similar evils exist in many other parts of this 
 country. 
 
 “ That your Petitioners, in the discharge of their duties as 
 guardians of the Nottingham Union, have frequently seen the evils 
 arising out of the present law of settlement and removal of the 
 poor,—a measure which, upon manufacturing and open parishes, 
 inflicts a disproportionate amount of taxation for the maintenance 
 of the poor, and increases the facilities of the agricultural districts 
 to reduce the number of poor inhabitants in their several parishes. 
 
 “ That your Petitioners believe that there is no remedy for 
 
 * Mr. G. Gedge, of this city, was the first, we believe, to 
 agitate in the matter, and we are very glad to learn that his 
 ever-active spirit is again at work, and forming, with every 
 prospect of success, a National Anti-Poor Law League. We say, 
 heartily, God speed it. 
 
118 
 
 these evils short of an entire change in the system of assessing 
 and levying Poor-rates, by the substitution of a general or national 
 rate, making all descriptions of property, whether extra-parochial 
 or otherwise, liable to be equally assessed to the relief of the poor." 
 
 And the latter went further, and called the atten¬ 
 tion of the Legislature to another, and not less 
 crying evil, caused by this Act. Their petition 
 stated among other things:— 
 
 “ That at the time of the passing of the Act of Parliament of 
 the 9th and 10th Viet., c. 66, intituled ‘ x\.n Act to amend the 
 Laws relating to the Eemoval of the Poor,’ agreements existed 
 between your Petitioners and the overseers of many neighbouring 
 parishes, that the poor belonging to those parishes, but residing in 
 Exeter, should not be removed, but be relieved by your Petitioners, 
 and reimbursed by such overseers; that this agreement had been 
 long acted upon; but on the passing of the said Act of Parliament 
 most of the overseers of those parishes availed themselves of its 
 provisions, repudiated their agreement with your Petitioners, and 
 refused to contribute towards the maintenance of the unsettled 
 poor belonging to their several parishes and places, and left them 
 a burthen on and to be maintained by your Petitioners, because 
 such unsettled poor had been, by such agreement, permitted to 
 reside five years previously in Exeter. 
 
 11 That the provisions of the said Act of Parliament press most 
 heavily, unfairly, and unjustly on the City of Exeter, inasmuch as 
 the total average expenditure during five years previously to the 
 passing of the said Act amounted to about seven thousand and 
 eight hundred pounds; and the rate-payers are now compelled to 
 contribute towards the maintenance of a large number of poor 
 persons not belonging to Exeter, but to other parishes and places, 
 the enormous additional annual sum of two thousand pounds. 
 
 “ That your Petitioners humbly submit that the existing poor 
 laws are not and cannot be fairly, impartially, and equitably 
 administered; that the Poor Law Acts ought to be repealed, and 
 the poor of England he relieved hj a national assessment on all des¬ 
 criptions of propcrtij. 
 
 “ Your Petitioners therefore humbly pray your Honourable 
 House to take the operation of the present oppressive, vexatious, and 
 expensive law of settlement into your serious consideration, to repeal 
 the existing Poor Law Acts, and to adopt such measures by legis¬ 
 lative enactments as will secure equal rating, by a national or some 
 other assessment, and so that all persons possessing landed, funded, 
 or any other description of property, may be compelled and com¬ 
 pellable to contribute towards the Poor-rates of England and the 
 maintenance ot the poor.” 
 
319 
 
 The City of London Union, the Parishes of St. 
 Marylebone, St. George’s, and many others, both 
 metropolitan and provincial, protested against the 
 principle, and complained of the operation of the 
 Act. That indefatigable friend of the poor, Rev. 
 S. G. Osborne, nibbed his pen, and in his own ad¬ 
 mirable style of bitter irony, exposed the absurdities 
 of the measure. 
 
 The legal opinions, as usual, were thick and 
 threefold. At the risk of trespassing upon the 
 reader’s patience, we shall quote a few, by way of 
 showing the agreeable diversity in such documents, 
 and to prove their very great utility to the rate¬ 
 payers. 
 
 One learned gentleman has started a difficulty 
 from the wording of the section in question, on 
 which he thinks a decision of the Court of Queen’s 
 Bench should be at once taken. A pauper, before any 
 attempt to remove him from the parish in which he 
 is resident can be made, must become chargeable— 
 i.e. must receive bona fide relief from the said parish. 
 Now, it appears from the Act, that to be non-remo¬ 
 vable, he must have resided five years next before 
 the application for the warrant of removal; but then, 
 the clause afterwards states, that the time during 
 which such person shall receive relief from any 
 parish “ shall for all purposes be excluded in the 
 computation of the time hereinbefore mentioned”— 
 i. e. of course, the five years. Now, as the time in 
 which the pauper is relieved by parish A to make 
 him chargeable must come next before the time of 
 application for a warrant to remove him to parish B, 
 it must for all purposes be excluded from computa¬ 
 tion ; it follows, then, that the said pauper’s resi¬ 
 dence of five years next before the attempt to remove 
 him is thus rendered void by this relief. If this 
 interpretation be sound, the Bill is a pure farce. But 
 now come to our aid the opinions of the Attorney 
 
120 
 
 and Solicitor Generals, which just quietly lay down 
 that the proviso as to exceptions, in the computation 
 of the five years, is not retrospective in its operation 
 so as to apply to cases where the jive years' residence 
 was complete before the statute !—that no one of the 
 “ exceptions” in the said proviso, intervening be¬ 
 tween the completion of the residence and the ap¬ 
 plication for the warrant of removal, will prevent 
 the operation of the statute in restraining the remo¬ 
 val of the pauper. 
 
 Mr. Bodkin, M.P., the celebrated barrister, had 
 a case put to him, and here it is, coupled with his 
 opinion:— 
 
 Case. —“ A. B. lias resided for some years in tlie parish of 
 St. George, Hanover-square. About six months ago she became 
 chargeable to that parish, and was removed by an order of justices 
 to the parish of St. Marylebone, as the place of her settlement. 
 The latter place admitted her settlement to be with them, and, 
 having agreed to make her a weekly allowance towards her 
 support, she returned to her former residence in St. George’s, 
 Hanover-square, where she now is, and has been upwards of five 
 
 “ Upon the passing of the recent statute the parish of St. Mary¬ 
 lebone discontinued the weekly allowance, considering the pauper 
 irremovable, and the magistrates doubt whether a fresh order can 
 now be made. 
 
 “ Your opinion is requested—"Whether, under the circumstances 
 above stated, the pauper can now be removed to the parish of 
 St. George, Hanover-square, contending that the former order and 
 removal interrupted the residence, and that the pauper is not now 
 within the protection of the statute ? ” 
 
 Opinion. —“ If the pauper, upon her removal to St. Marylebone, 
 immediately returned to the parish of St. George, Hanover-square, 
 and continued to reside there as before, I am of opinion that the 
 fact of her removal does not, per se, operate as an interruption of 
 her residence, so as to make it necessary that the five years con¬ 
 templated by the recent statute should commence, de novo , from 
 the period of her return. In the case of the King and Barham. 
 8 Barnewell and Cresswell, p. 99, a pauper was removed by an 
 order of justices from a parish in which he was renting and 
 occupying a tenement. He, like the present pauper, immediately 
 returned to that parish, and continued to reside upon that tene¬ 
 ment as before. At the time of his removal he had not occupied 
 
121 
 
 the tenement for a year, but after his return he completed that 
 period. Under these circumstances, it was contended that the 
 removal was in interruption of the occupation, and that no settle¬ 
 ment was gained thereby; but the Court held otherwise, and I 
 think it impossible, in principle, to distinguish that case from the 
 present. 
 
 “ There is, however, another point to be considered, which pre¬ 
 sents a distinct and perhaps a more serious difficulty. The section 
 of the statute which creates the irremovability, makes it a con¬ 
 dition that the pauper shall have resided for five years ‘nest 
 before’ the application for the order of removal; and it then pro¬ 
 vides that the time during which the pauper shall receive relief 
 from any parish shall, ‘ for all purposes, be excluded in the com¬ 
 putation of time before mentioned.’ Now, before this pauper 
 could have been removed to St. Marylebone, as before stated, she 
 must have received relief from the parish of St. George, and if the 
 time during which she received that relief (being deducted from 
 her residence there), reduced the whole period below five years, it 
 is clear that she would be liable to be removed; but as it appears 
 that since her return she has regularly received weekly relief (for 
 six months) from the parish of St. Marylebone, the question is 
 whether, although deducting those six months five years may 
 remain, it can be said to be five years ‘next before’ the present 
 application? In other words, the parish of St. George may say, 
 We admit that the pauper has resided in our parish for five years 
 and upwards, but inasmuch as she has been in receipt of relief 
 from St. Marylebone for the last six months, which six months 
 the statute provides shall be excluded from the computation, we 
 contend that she has not resided for the five years ‘next before’ 
 the application we now make for an order for her removal. This 
 is obviously a question of great and general importance; for, inas¬ 
 much as no person can be removed from a parish without first 
 receiving relief, the objection suggested would render the humane 
 provision of the recent statute altogether inoperative. But I am 
 of opinion the objection is not valid. A period of relief occurring 
 in the middle of the five years would in strictness prevent these 
 years from being ‘ next before,’ although it cannot be contended 
 that such a construction could be supported. I think that, without 
 doing any violence to the language, the intention of the statute 
 may be secured, and, that as the period of relief is to be excluded 
 ‘ for all purposes,’ it ought to be considered as if it had never 
 occurred. 
 
 “ Upon the whole, therefore, I am of opinion that the pauper 
 cannot be removed from the parish of St. George’s, Hanover-square, 
 though I think it a case upon which the decision of the Court of 
 Queen’s Bench ought as speedily as possible to be obtained.” 
 
 W. H. BODKIN. 
 
122 
 
 The first legal decision in Court, upon the construc¬ 
 tion of this Act was given at the Cambridge Quar¬ 
 ter-Sessions, by Mr. Recorder Storks, in a case of 
 appeal in re St. Andrew-the-Less Parish, in that 
 city, v. Ashwell Parish, Herts. The pauper, whose 
 case gave rise to the appeal, had been residing in 
 the former parish for about ten years up to 1846, 
 during the whole of which period he had received 
 relief of the Cambridge Union, at the request and 
 by the direction of Royston Union (of which Union 
 Ashwell parish is a part), which relief Royston 
 Union repaid at the expiration of each quarter of 
 the year. The Poor Removal Bill enacts, “ that 
 from and after the passing of this Act, no person 
 shall be removed from any parish in which such 
 person shall have resided for five years next before 
 the application for the warrant.” Then came seve¬ 
 ral provisoes, one of which is, “ during which any 
 such person shall receive relief from any parish, 
 shall, for all purposes, be excluded in the computa¬ 
 tion of time hereinbefore mentioned.” The Attorney 
 and Solicitor Generals gave an opinion, which, we 
 believe, they afterwards saw reason to alter, but 
 which was in effect that the words of the Act as to 
 the proviso, were prospective only. The parish 
 officers of St. Andrew-the-Less, like most other 
 men of plain understanding, were of opinion, they 
 were retrospective , and that, consequently, as Ash 
 well parish had admitted the pauper to be settled 
 in their parish, by repayment of the relief to the 
 Cambridge Union, there would be no dispute about 
 it. An order of removal was therefore obtained, 
 against which the Ashwell officers appeal, the main 
 point in dispute being the legal construction of the 
 w'ords we have referred to, and Mr. Storks has 
 (contrary to Mr. Attorney-General’s opinion) de¬ 
 cided that the words, “ during which any person 
 
123 
 
 shall receive relief,” are retrospective, and conse¬ 
 quently confirmed the order of removal. Numerous 
 motions of entry and respite of appeals against 
 other orders obtained by St. Andrew-the-Less were 
 made at the Sessions, mainly, we understand, upon 
 the same grounds as those above stated, but which 
 we presume will now be abandoned, although, in 
 all probability, the question will be taken to the 
 Court of Queen’s Bench for final decision. 
 
 So various were the interpretations still put upon 
 the Act, that the Poor Law Commission issued 
 another instructional letter, setting forth the follow¬ 
 ing explanation:— 
 
 1. —“ That the Proviso to the 1st Section of the 9 and 10 Viet., 
 
 c. 60, which sets forth the exceptions to the principal 
 enactments that are to be excluded in the computation of 
 time, is not retrospective in its operation, so as to apply to 
 cases where the five years residence was complete before 
 the statute. 
 
 2. —“ That an interval between the completion of the five years 
 
 residence and the application for the warrant of removal 
 filled up by one of the exceptions contained in the Proviso, 
 will not prevent the operation of the statute in restraining 
 the removal of the pauper who had resided for the specified 
 
 3. —“ That orders of removal obtained previous to the passing of 
 
 the Act, but not then executed by the removal of the pau¬ 
 pers, cannot now be executed in cases where the 1st or 2nd 
 Section would have prevented them from being granted 
 if the applications were made subsequently to the passing 
 of the Act. 
 
 4. —“ That the 2nd Section does not apply to the cases of Widows 
 
 whose Husbands died before the passing of the Act. 
 
 5. —“ That the 4th Section does apply to persons who became 
 
 chargeable before the passing of the Act, and continued to 
 do so till the application for the warrant. 
 
 6. —“ That the Statute applies equally to the removal of persons 
 
 born in Scotland, Ireland, or the Channel Islands, as to 
 persons having settlements in England, so as to override 
 pro Tanto the provisions of the 8 and 9 Viet., c. 117.” 
 
 Was there ever such blundering stupidity seen, 
 and it would only excite our ridicule, but that 
 
124 
 
 thousands of rate-payers suffer in their pockets, 
 and the poor in their rights and their feelings. 
 Well might Lord Brougham say, “With respect 
 to the slovenly way in which Bills were often 
 drawn, it was quite disgraceful. In many of them 
 you would find something ‘as aforesaid’ referred 
 to, when there was nothing of the kind aforesaid; 
 and certain other things, ‘ as hereinafter provided,’ 
 when there was nothing hereinafter provided.” 
 
 The ultimate result has been that the 10 and 11 
 Victoria c. 110 (known as Mr. Bodkin’s Act), was 
 obliged to be passed to explain some of the absur¬ 
 dities and no meanings of its predecessor, and be¬ 
 cause “the effect of the former enactment has 
 been to increase unduly the amount of expendi¬ 
 ture for the relief of the poor in particular parishes.” 
 Of course it did, and who expected otherwise, ex¬ 
 cept its blundering framers. 
 
 And another Act, 11 and 12 Victoria, c. Ill, 
 was also passed to repeal the precious “ Proviso ” 
 before alluded to. That there may be no mistake, 
 we will quote the exact words of this last-named 
 Act:— 
 
 “ And whereas by reason of the generality of 
 the expressions used in the last Proviso, doubts 
 are entertained as to the meaning thereof, and it is 
 desirable to remove sucb doubts: Be it therefore 
 enacted, &c. That the said last Proviso be repealed, 
 and that instead thereof the following be enacted : 
 Provided always, that whenever any person should 
 have a wife, or children having no other settlement 
 than his or her own, such wife and children should 
 be removeable from any parish or place from which 
 he or she would be removeable, notwithstanding 
 any provisions of the said recited Act, and should 
 not be removeable from any parish or place from 
 which he or she would not be removeable by 
 reason of any provision in the said recited Act.” 
 
125 
 
 Let the rate-payers never forget, that however 
 amusing they may be to lawyers, all these blunder- 
 ings, and their attempted amendments, throw diffi¬ 
 culties about the interpretations of the Poor Law, 
 which are only to be made in “Westminster Hall,” 
 and that they (the rate-payers) have the pleasure of 
 always paying for them. Certes, this is an ad¬ 
 vantage which cannot be too generally known, nor 
 too greatly appreciated! 
 
120 
 
 CHAPTER IV. 
 
 The facts in the preceding chapter must have 
 convinced the most ordinary reader that the Law 
 of Settlement, with all its legal difficulties and its 
 expensive machinery, is a very costly law to the 
 rate-payers; it now becomes our duty to inquire in 
 what manner it affects the habits and condition of 
 the poor. We know that a forced breaking-up of 
 long-cherished associations, the removal of a man 
 from the place where he has worked, where pro¬ 
 bably he is surrounded by his family or his children, 
 or those in whose daily society he has laboured for 
 subsistence, is abstractedly tyrannous. We repeat, 
 that to compel a man to leave such scenes merely 
 because, from adventitious circumstances, he has 
 become poor, or, from age or disease, he is no 
 longer capable of labour, and force him back to the 
 place where probably all his old friends are dead, 
 and a new generation sprung up to whom he is a 
 stranger—to do such is contrary to all justice and 
 humanity, and should he contrary to law —that is, 
 if the rules of law are in any way founded upon 
 and influenced by reason. The giving of relief to 
 the pauper depends, as the principle of the rule is 
 now established by law, in nowise upon his worth 
 or his claims upon the parish where he is living*— 
 the claims of ceaseless toil, of honest industry are 
 as nothing in the balance. No, it depends, as the 
 Minister of the Crown explained, “ upon the settle¬ 
 ment of the individual the first day he claims relief 
 —what shall be the locality in which he receives it 
 
 * We shall see, presently, how the “ five years’ residence” xict 
 (9 and 10 Viet., c. 66) has controlled this evil. 
 
127 
 
 —and if he happens not to be ' settled/ in the place 
 where destitution arises. The next question is, 
 shall he be relieved—shall he be removed? Now, 
 what must be the effect upon the habits, the feelings 
 and all the associations of the individual who ap¬ 
 plies for relief when, in addition to destitution and 
 poverty, these two questions arise—shall he be per¬ 
 mitted to receive relief in the place where he has 
 resided, the residence he has freely chosen, or shall 
 he be removed from that place with which his asso¬ 
 ciations and habits are bound up, to some far dis¬ 
 tant locality in which all those ties have ceased to 
 exist? (Hear, hear.) Painful it must be to tell 
 him that he cannot receive relief in the place where 
 he has resided. (Hear.) ” Painful indeed, and most 
 unjust, too, withal. 
 
 Sir James Graham further said, “ From the return 
 which he held in his hand, it appeared that during 
 the last year there had been 12,000 orders for 
 removal executed in England, and that no less 
 than 30,000 people had been affected thereby. 
 This was independent of the removals to Scotland 
 and Ireland, amounting together to 7,000 orders 
 for removal, and affecting 18,000 persons. The 
 House would then see that during the last year 
 (1844) there were in this country 19,000 orders 
 for removals, and 45,000 persons whose fortunes 
 were influenced thereby. The word 'removal’ 
 implied a great flow of human suffering and sorrow, 
 and in its operation it was, no doubt, very painful 
 to the poor upon whom it was inflicted. At the 
 same time, however, it was a necessary law, and 
 must be upheld, fyc." Then came the notable scheme 
 of repealing 30 to 40 Acts of Parliament, legislating 
 de novo, and enlarging settlements to unions, &c., 
 which scheme was abandoned, as we have described 
 in preceding pages. 
 
 First placing before the reader all the facts upon 
 
128 
 
 which we found our deductions, we shall then pro¬ 
 ceed to inquire wherein consists the necessity], for 
 the Law of Settlement, and its attendant injustice 
 —Removal. 
 
 The Parliamentary returns made by the overseers 
 for the year ending March 25,1834, state* the sums 
 expended in England and Wales in suits of law, 
 removal of paupers, &c., as £258,604. In the 
 year 1838 this sum had decreased to £93,982, 
 being a diminution of 64 per cent. “ The com¬ 
 parison with the subsequent years cannot be made 
 with the same accuracy, because the cost of removals 
 and the travelling expenses of overseers have, since 
 that date, been separated from the sum paid for liti¬ 
 gation, and classed with the miscellaneous expenses f 
 
 “ In the course of last year,” says the Report, 
 “ we deemed it expedient to endeavour to obtain 
 some accurate account of the number of orders of 
 removals actually obtained and executed through¬ 
 out England and Wales. 
 
 “ These returns were sent to our office, in what 
 professed to be a complete state, from no less than 
 485 unions, comprising a population of 11,350,356 
 out of 15,906,829 persons.” 
 
 The Commissioners in this return state the num¬ 
 ber of persons, English or Irish, known to have 
 returned to the parish where they were removed from, 
 as 6669, such as were actually returned by 485 
 unions, and 9316 as being the estimated totals for 
 England and Wales! And they continue their 
 Report thus:— 
 
 “We are bound, however, to state that, for many 
 reasons, these returns are probably far from complete 
 or accurate in every respect, and we have some diffi- 
 
 * Ninth Annual Beport of the Poor Law Commissioners, 
 page 34. 
 
 t Of course they are, and for the sake of concealment. 
 
129 
 
 culty in reconciling the alleged cost of litigation and 
 removals as given in the Table just referred to, 
 with the same items as stated in the Return for 
 1842. 
 
 “ The section of the Poor Law Amendment Act 
 which requires a notice of 21 days to be given previous 
 to any removal, has worked a great change in the 
 previous state of things. It is only to be regretted 
 that the principle was not carried further in the 
 same statute, and an appellant parish bound to give 
 notice of appeal within a similar period.* That set 
 of returns which shows the largest number is sure to 
 be nearest the truth. 
 
 “ There was one thing in the Table material, ill 
 enabling us to estimate the actual inconvenience to 
 the pauper caused by the orders of removal. This 
 inconvenience may be partially measured by the 
 inclination to return after removal, especially if 
 we bear in mind that the number of cases in 
 which the means of so returning are possessed by 
 a pauper is limited, though sometimes, no doubt, 
 supplied, improperly by parish or union authorities 
 elsewhere .f Subsequent chargeability, too, in the 
 same place exposes the party to a penal proceeding 
 under the Vagrant Act. 
 
 “ Of the 46,598 persons, English and Irish, sup¬ 
 posed to be affected by the 19,082 orders executed 
 on behalf of parishes in England and Wales, it 
 may be estimated, on the data supplied by the 
 returns, that less than 9,316, or one-fifth, returned 
 again after removal, probably having either extorted 
 relief from a distant parish by this cumbrous and 
 expensive process, or having made up their minds 
 
 * See also 11 and 12 Victoria, c. 31, for further notice of 14 
 | See Kingston-upon-Hull case, note supra. 
 
130 
 
 to do without relief on the spot whence they had 
 been removed at the public expense! This calcu¬ 
 lation is made on the number stated as known to 
 have so returned.”—Ninth Annual Report, p. 44. 
 
 And yet, notwithstanding these results, Sir James 
 Graham stated that it (the Law of Settlement) “ is 
 a necessary law.” Can we read aright?—Is it a 
 necessary law that must be upheld, under which 
 one-fifth of the paupers, being removed at the 
 public expense, are known to return to the place 
 from which they were removed, and of course the 
 cost of such removals was just so much money 
 thrown away ? Necessary—for whom ?—not to the 
 rate-payers, certainly; for just one-fifth of the rates 
 paid for removals has been appropriated to an 
 useless object, nor have the paupers benefited in 
 the slightest degree by their removal. That word 
 “ removal,” which, according to the very just obser¬ 
 vations of Sir James Graham, "involves a great 
 amount of human suffering,” from the breaking up 
 of old abodes, habits and connexions, so that 
 wanton cruelty and injustice were committed only 
 to recoil upon the doers—the paupers were re¬ 
 moved according to this “necessary” law, and as 
 many as 9,316, or one-fifth, came back in defiance 
 of the terrors of the Vagrant Act. 
 
 And with regard to the removal of Irish and 
 Scotch paupers, which, as we have seen, has become 
 a subject for special legislation. Sir J. Graham said, 
 “ There were 7,000 orders for removal, affecting 
 18,000 persons in one year, viz., 1843,” but, as 
 we wish to show a contrast, we will confine ourselves 
 to 1841. The Irish Commissioners for the Census 
 say in their report, page 26, “ It is computed that 
 in the summer of 1841, 57,651 persons migrated 
 from Ireland only; and assuming that 40,000 re¬ 
 turned there, and each to bring back £5., which 
 
131 
 
 is the lowest estimate, &c.”* Now, what says the 
 return quoted in this chapter?—why, that 14,859 
 Irish, &c., were removed by orders to their places 
 of settlement, and that some portion of them re¬ 
 turned to the places from whence they were 
 removed. It is reasonable, therefore, to conclude, 
 that very many of those who did return to the re¬ 
 moving parish were included in the 40,000 who 
 had money sufficient to pay their journeying, par¬ 
 ticularly too as it is notorious that after harvest 
 time hundreds of Irish reapers, &c. are passed back 
 to their own country at the expense of the rate¬ 
 payers. God forbid that we should breathe a wish 
 to narrow the market of labour, or throw any, the 
 most remote, impediment in the way of the freest 
 exercise of honest industry. You cannot (nor 
 would we have you if you could) stop such annual 
 migration; but we do contend that it should not 
 be done at the public cost. This is a positive 
 injustice to the rate-payers, and in very many in¬ 
 stances induces the pauper to practise imposition, 
 if not absolute perjury.f 
 
 Considering that we have shown enough to prove 
 that for this said-to-be “ necessary” law there is not 
 only no necessity at all, but that it is of positive 
 injury to the rate-payers, we shall proceed to prove 
 its inhuman operation as regards the deserving 
 poor. It should never be forgotten that the pri¬ 
 mary object of all parishes is to shift the burthen 
 of the paupers’ support, and by such means to lessen 
 
 * It will be remembered that this was before the failure of'the 
 potatoe crop in Ireland, and the passing of the Irish Vagrant Act. 
 
 f We are informed by a competent authority, that the common 
 practice is for the supposed pauper applicant to obtain a Post- 
 office order, hand it over to a companion, and thus “ making a 
 clean breast of it,” as the phrase is, they believe themselves qua¬ 
 lified to make the necessary application for a pass—See also List 
 of such Paupers removed at the puplic expense in 1842 to 1S44, 
 Appendix No. 2. 
 
 K 2 
 
132 
 
 the rates,—this is always the end and aim of parish 
 officers. And now for a few specimens of the man¬ 
 ner in which these removals are carried on—in very 
 truth they do “ involve a great amount of human 
 suffering,” besides “ the breaking up of old abodes, 
 habits and connexions.” 
 
 Innumerable are the cases (undoubted ones) 
 upon record of hardship and cruelty to the poor 
 under the inhuman system of pauper removals. 
 Our space forbids more than a mere glance at their 
 atrocious features. The first is Regina v. Overseers 
 of Storwood. This was an application for a crimi¬ 
 nal information against Paxton and Jennings, over¬ 
 seers, for very gross cruelty in removing a pauper 
 named Allinson, and his family, and preventing, by 
 their influence in the parish, any body letting the 
 paupers lodgings, &c. Although the case was a 
 very scandalous one, yet the Court felt itself bound 
 to refuse the application, because an indictment 
 would lie, &c. 
 
 The second was that of John Bowden , a pauper 
 lunatic, who was removed in mid-winter from Fal¬ 
 mouth to Bodmin, in an open cart, with scarcely 
 any covering to protect him from the weather. 
 Arriving at the asylum he was refused admission 
 because the authorities of the Union had neglected to 
 furnish the necessary documents. The poor crea¬ 
 ture died in consequence of this treatment, and 
 there the case ended. 
 
 But perhaps it will be said that these things 
 could be done only under the old law, and that the 
 stringent clause, No. 6, of 9 and 10 Victoria, c. 66, 
 has completely put an end to these abominable 
 acts. Let the reader turn to p. 98, and having read 
 the pathetic lament of the late Poor Law Commis¬ 
 sioners, let him refer to the reported case of Regina 
 v. Guardians of the Sheppy Union , for a satisfactory 
 reply. The case was a very similar one to that of 
 
Stonvood, and referred to two female paupers named 
 Nightingale and Ingram. They were bribed by the 
 relieving officer to go to distant parishes, and both 
 the poor creatures suffered dreadfully on the way to 
 their so called settlement. The Court in this latter 
 case granted a rule Nisi for a criminal information. 
 
 If this illegal bandying about of the wretched 
 paupers was confined to the misery inflicted by 
 the breaking up of their humble associations, and 
 trenching upon their few, small comforts, it would 
 be cruel enough; but alas! these are only the 
 minor evils of this inhuman law. The following is 
 by no means a case of rare occurrence :— 
 
 “ Inquests. — Removal of the Pooh. —Before Mr. W. Baker, 
 coroner, at the Queen’s Head, High-street, Poplar, respecting the 
 death of an infant, named Louisa Burner. Mary Ann Burner, the 
 grandmother of the deceased, stated that the child had been care¬ 
 fully attended to by the mother. The mother and child were 
 passed under an order of removal from St. Martin’s to Chatham 
 workhouse: They remained at Chatham a short time, and were 
 sent back to St. Martin’s, where they remained for two months. 
 Another order of removal was obtained, and the mother and child 
 were again sent back to Chatham workhouse, where they remained 
 until Saturday last, when the mother was directed to proceed to 
 London for the purpose of appearing at the court in Westminster, 
 to give evidence concerning the settlement. The Coroner: Then, 
 I suppose, there was a dispute between the two parishes concerning 
 your daughter’s settlement?—The witness said there was, and 
 proceeded to state that the mother came to London by the steam¬ 
 boat from Gravesend, on Saturday last, and on her arrival at 
 Blackwall, she found the child was dead. She understood the 
 dispute between the parishes was still pending. Edward Lloyd, of 
 No. 50, Jewin-street, City, surgeon, said that he saw the deceased 
 child and its mother on board the steam-vessel, at Blackwall. The 
 infant was much emaciated, and evidently labouring under disease, 
 but he could not at present state what was the cause of death. 
 The jury made some remarks as to the manner in which the poor 
 woman had been passed between the two parishes, Westminster 
 and Chatham, and, after some conversation, adjourned the inquiry 
 
134 
 
 But it may be urged, that these cases occurred 
 by the acts of ignorant provincial overseers. Be it 
 so ; let us see if the poor are better treated nearer 
 home. 
 
 The sad case of Harriet Arundell, in which the 
 parishes of St. George’s, Hanover-square, and St. 
 Marylebone, figured so disreputably, must be fresh 
 in the recollection of the reader. It was, as usual, 
 a dispute about the interpretation of the “resi¬ 
 dence” clause of 9 and 10 Victoria, c. 66, and was, 
 as usual, also referred to “ Westminster Hall” for 
 solution. 
 
 The Poor-rates paid by the parish of St. George’s, 
 Hanover-square, for the year 1846-7, was 7 %d. in 
 the pound, upon a rateal of ,£661,582. and for the 
 same period, St. Marylebone paid Is. 1\d. in the 
 pound, upon a rateal of £840,216! Take another 
 case:— 
 
 Eliza Palmer, 18, applied to St. Pancras for 
 relief. She had been a servant with a good cha¬ 
 racter in London. Her friends lived at High Ongar, 
 Essex. She left her place through no fault of her 
 own, pledged her little all, became deplorably des¬ 
 titute, and wanted to be passed to her home, but 
 was refused, except that she would walk 23 miles, 
 with scarcely any shoes to her feet. 
 
 A more brutal case than this, even in the fearful 
 annals of the poor, was never exhibited before a 
 magistrate. Here is a poor forlorn girl, of unble¬ 
 mished character, reduced to destitution from no 
 fault of her own, is refused an asylum in the work- 
 house of one of the wealthiest parishes in London, 
 insulted by its bloated functionary, and coolly told 
 to find her way to her legal home how she can, in 
 order to save that parish a few shillings of contri¬ 
 bution for her support. Had she been a prostitute 
 or a thief, she would have been sent to a gaol, 
 where her state would have been twenty times 
 
135 
 
 better than that bestowed on irreproachable po¬ 
 verty. The parish in which the poor girl had a 
 “legal settlement” is paying Is. 11 d. in the pound 
 to the poor, upon an annual value of property of 
 £6320.; while St. Pancras is contributing but 
 Is. 0 \d. in the pound, upon an annual value of pro¬ 
 perty of £625,491.! 
 
 Mr. Day, the able and indefatigable vestry clerk 
 of St. George, Southwark, in a very excellent letter 
 to the Morning Advertiser, Nov. 7, 1848, refers to 
 the case of two paupers named Hall; the settle¬ 
 ment of this poor couple was disputed between the 
 parishes of Newington and St. George’s. They 
 were shuttlecocked according to custom, each pa¬ 
 rish trying to shift the burthen, &c. 
 
 Mr. Day, after describing at length the shameful 
 circumstances, says truly that— 
 
 “ The above ease is one amongst many showing the operation 
 of the recent “ Poor Removal Act,” which, although no doubt it 
 was intended by the Legislature to assist the destitute poor, by 
 simplifying their claims, places still greater impediments in their 
 way in obtaining the relief which the law professes to provide, 
 when it is really required. 
 
 “ Its operation is directly to increase the number of claims on 
 the poorer districts, where the poor of necessity reside, for the very 
 plain reason that these are the only places where they can find 
 accommodation at the price they can afford to pay, and so because 
 they find a residence, they must be there relieved if in want. This 
 will be, indeed, a good and a just principle when the rate shall be 
 equally levied, but till then it makes matters worse than before. 
 Then the law of settlement could be abolished—then the really 
 destitute could at once be relieved without any sort of shuffling, 
 quibbling, or delay (this they are legally entitled to); whilst very 
 great facilities would be afforded for the detection and punishment 
 of impostors—then all appeals, and the litigation arising out of the 
 same, would be dispensed tvith, and all removals prevented, and 
 the enormous costs and expenses attending the same would be 
 saved. These are facts which should be borne in mind by the 
 selfish, and such as would object to an equalization of Poor-rates, 
 for fear their own charges might be increased.” 
 
 We could cite, “ till the crack of doom,” cases of 
 
136 
 
 unparalleled cruelty to the poor and the needy, 
 practised in this the wealthiest metropolis in the 
 world; but we must confine ourselves to the two 
 following:— 
 
 An application was lately made to the magis¬ 
 trates of Whitechapel, by the master of a parish 
 apprentice named Elizabeth Smith, a native of Bir¬ 
 mingham. It was stated that the poor girl had 
 been seduced, and become pregnant. The girl 
 was an orphan, and the master, unwilling to keep 
 her in his house in that state, applied to the officers 
 of Shoreditch parish for her admission into the work- 
 house. The relieving overseer, however, refused 
 to have any thing to do with her, and abused the 
 applicant in the most violent language for bringing 
 her to him. The girl was at the very time of the 
 application to the magistrate sitting on the steps at 
 the workhouse door in a very dangerous state, and 
 momentarily expecting her confinement. The magis¬ 
 trate issued immediately an order upon the over¬ 
 seer for the girl’s admission. On the return of the 
 officer who had to execute the warrant, he told the 
 magistrate that the girl had been seized with the 
 pains of labour while at the workhouse door, and she 
 had therefore been taken in. One of the trustees of 
 the parish had come forward, and after speaking of 
 the magistrate in the most contemptuous manner, 
 in reference to the course he had taken, loaded the 
 officer with abuse for his share in the transaction. 
 
 There cannot be two opinions upon the atrocity 
 of this case; here is a poor friendless orphan girl, 
 in the hapless hour of childbirth,—" the great 
 martyrdom of maternity,” as George Sand calls it— 
 refused admission into a workhouse, because she 
 belongs to another parish ; and it is only at the last 
 moment of nature’s throes, and when the fear of a 
 searching coroner’s inquest (should any fatal effects 
 result from his brutality) is before the eyes of the 
 
137 
 
 relieving officer, that he admits her. But sup¬ 
 posing that he had still refused, and Providence 
 had taken special care of the poor unfortunate one, 
 what would have been the punishment to the 
 heartless overseer ?—just £5 .—about as much as 
 a fashionable roue would have paid for wrenching 
 off sundry door-knockers! Who after this can 
 doubt that our laws are the perfection of wisdom, 
 or always just! 
 
 We shall intrude one more upon our readers, 
 and then conclude. 
 
 “ Lambeth-stkeet. —A poor woman, with a fine boy of three 
 years of age, entreated interference of the magistrate with the 
 officers of Whitechapel to do something for her. The applicant 
 stated, that years ago she left Cork and came to London. Shortly 
 after her arrival she obtained a situation in service at Whitechapel. 
 She bad been married, and her boy was born in that parish, and 
 now that she was poor and destituie, all the oflicers would do for 
 her was to send her to Ireland at the expense of the county. She 
 said, that during the illness of her husband, who died last January 
 twelve months, the parish had done something for her, but after 
 his death she had abstained from troubling it. On making appli¬ 
 cation now, she was told she must be passed to Ireland; but she 
 had not a single friend in that country if sent there—had not an in¬ 
 dividual acquaintance there from whom she could expect the slightest 
 assistance; and she thought it hard to be transported, as it were, 
 to a strange country. The applicant said her late husband was 
 certainly the son of an Irishman; but his father had been a soldier, 
 and she always understood from her husband that he had been 
 born at sea. Mr. Norton asked if any offer had been made to 
 take her into the workhouse? The appplicant replied that there 
 had; 1 but,’ added she, 1 1 was told that if I went into the house, 
 my child would be taken from me, and I would rather die than be 
 separated from my dear boy, my only child.’ The poor creature 
 here wept bitterly. The poor woman said, that she had tried 
 needlework, but the emolument was so small, that she could not 
 make an existence out of it. She thought, however, that with a 
 trifle to purchase a stock of fruit with, she might be able to sup¬ 
 port herself and child. A trifle was given to her from the poor- 
 box.” 
 
 This is a faff case to test the operation of the 
 new Act for the removal of Irish paupers. By the 
 scale of fees inserted in page 95, the following costs 
 
138 
 
 would be incurred:—Order and duplicate, officer’s 
 conduct fee and mileage, 4s. 6cl .; fee in advance to 
 Mr. R. G. Baker, to send paupers to Cork—woman, 
 £2.; child, ,£1. 2s. Here, then, is a positive ex¬ 
 pense of from £3. to £4. in limine to send the 
 pauper and her child to a doubtful settlement, not 
 to speak of the cruelty of forcing her to go to a 
 place where she is wholly unknown. Well, but 
 suppose that the Irish union should not like this 
 forced incumbrance, and should set about inquiring 
 of its legality. The case is sent within the pre¬ 
 scribed period of six months; receives “ the privi¬ 
 lege ” from the Poor Law Commission to appeal; 
 the required security is found; and then comes the 
 tug of legal warfare, the fees to lawyers, counsel, &c.: 
 the award is in favour of the Irish union, and the 
 paupers are sent back again to the parish of White¬ 
 chapel. Now we know that an immense expense 
 has been incurred, and what benefit has followed ? 
 Are the paupers less poor than when they were sent 
 to Cork ? Is the Irish union the better for this legal 
 contest? Whitechapel has had no reason to rejoice, 
 we are sure, because they must pay the piper 
 “ within seven days,” so that that parish is “ not 
 content.” Then it follows that no one has benefited 
 but the lawyers; and the money spent is just so 
 much wasted in proving whether Whitechapel or 
 Ballincollig is bound to support the O’Flahertys, 
 mother and son.—Why, the woman and her child 
 would have lived in affluence for a twelvemonth 
 upon half the amount thus thrown away— certes, 
 the very word “removal” involves other and not 
 less unpleasant things “ than a great amount of hu¬ 
 man suffering ircrn the breaking up of old abodes, 
 habits and connexions.” Ask the rate-payers, par¬ 
 ticularly those referred to in pages 91-5. 
 
 Such, then, is the cruelty, the abominable injus¬ 
 tice practised under the name of law, but in gross 
 
violation of all reason and humanity. The Law of 
 Settlement, and its attendant. Removal, are plague- 
 spots on the fair fame of Britain, and the country 
 which suffers them to continue can have but few 
 claims to boast of its civilization, and much less of 
 its Christianity. But it may be asked, are not the 
 cases quoted in this chapter rare in their occurrence, 
 and the worst of their kind ?—alas! no. The writer 
 could produce many such, if respect for his readers’ 
 feelings and patience did not prevent it. But should 
 one such case remain an hour unredressed? Should 
 a law which tolerates—nay, enjoins—such brutality, 
 disgrace the statute book of England any longer ? 
 Every day—nay, every hour—which such national 
 reproach is suffered to continue, is so much lost to 
 the sum of our common humanity, and perils even 
 our hope—for how dare we “ hope for mercy, if we 
 render none! ” 
 
 CONCLUSION. 
 
 The writer, at the commencement of his labours, 
 and in full reliance upon his data, made three as¬ 
 sumptions—(whether they are postulates only, the 
 reader must determine)—first, that the just and 
 necessary burthen of the support of the poor was 
 not equally borne, and that the wealthier parishes 
 paid the least to the Poor-rate, and the poorer 
 parishes the most, in proportion to the means of 
 each; secondly, that if such inequality was shown 
 to exist, that it should not be suffered to continue, 
 because it was contrary to the equity of suiting the 
 burthen to the back; thirdly, that a national gene¬ 
 ral Poor-rate throughout the United Kingdom of 
 b. 6d, in the pound upon a just and improved rateal 
 
140 
 
 would be amply sufficient for the support of the 
 poor. Hence it followed that if these propositions 
 could be borne out by facts and reason, all neces¬ 
 sity to continue the present or any other law of 
 settlement would cease, and with it the hardship of 
 forced and cruel pauper removals; because then, 
 the poor would be considered as belonging to the 
 country, and not to any parish or other locality 
 where chance had placed them, and that their 
 relief would be administered wherever their dis¬ 
 tress displayed itself. The proof of the first pro¬ 
 position will be found in the summary of the County 
 Tables, from which it appears that, as respects 
 England, the returns are perfect for 13,109 parishes 
 and other divisions supporting their own poor. Of 
 these there are 303 paying less than 6 cl. in the 
 pound upon the- annual value of their present 
 assessed property; 1,853 paying from 6d. to Is.; 
 151 paying exactly Is., and 2,874 paying from Is. 
 to Is. 6d. in the pound. Thus, there are 5,181 
 parishes out of 13,109 paying a less amount in the 
 pound than that which we have assumed to be the 
 just standard of taxation for the poor. We have 
 begun at M., although there are several parishes 
 paying but 1 d., 2 d. and 3d. in the pound upon large 
 assessed property, and several others which "con¬ 
 tribute nothing towards the rate, because they have 
 no poor residing in them. In Wales the account 
 stands thus: there are perfect returns from 1,007 
 parishes and other places supporting their own 
 poor; of these there are 14 paying less than 6<7. in 
 the pound upon the annual value of their present 
 assessed property; 38 paying from 6d. to Is.; 5 
 paying exactly Is., and 126 paying from Is. to 
 Is. 6d. in the pound, making in all 183 parishes, 
 &c., which pay less than the assumed equitable 
 standard of contribution for the support of the 
 poor. 
 
141 
 
 On the contra side in England, there are 7,928 
 parishes, &c., paying more than, the Is. 6d. in the 
 pound, and they may be taken in classes thus:— 
 2,558 paying from Is. 6d, to 2s.; 3,235 paying 
 from 2s. to 3s.; 1,276 paying from 3s. to 4s.; 491 
 paying from 4 s. to 5s.; 188 paying from 5s. to 6s.; 
 73 paying from 6s. to 7s.; 32 paying from 7s. to 
 8s.; 15 paying from 8s. to 9s.; 6 paying from 9s. 
 to 1 Os.; and as many as 54 paying above 10s. in the 
 pound upon their assessed property. And with 
 respect to Wales, there are 824 parishes &c., which 
 pay more than Is. 6c?. in the pound, and may be 
 classed thus:—183 paying from Is. 6c/. to 2s.; 344 
 paying from 2s. to 3s.; 159 paying from 3s. to 4s.; 
 78 paying from 4s. to 5s.; 25 paying from 5s. to 
 6s.; 12 paying from 6s. to 7s.; 8 paying from 
 7s. to 8s., and 15 paying 8s. and upwards in the 
 pound upon the annual value of their assessed pro¬ 
 perty ! 
 
 After these undoubted facts, can it be necessary 
 to repeat the question,—does this state of things 
 show a just and proper distribution of the burthen 
 of the Poor-rates, and if not, should it be suffered 
 to continue ? 
 
 Our premises being proved (as we vainly imagine), 
 we proceed to inquire if the country is in a situation 
 to bear a revision of its assessable property 1 In a 
 former chapter w r e contrasted seven of the highest 
 taxed counties with an equal number of the lowest 
 taxed; and we showed how much greater the latter 
 had improved in wealth than the former.. As re¬ 
 spects the country generally, we have shown its 
 prosperity by the great increase of the Property-tax 
 between 1817 and 1844, and for the year ending 
 5th January, 1848, it was <£5,450,800. Is. Id. The 
 debt of the country having been reduced in the 
 mean time. On 1st January, 1842, the capital of 
 the debt, funded and unfunded, was £792,309,000.; 
 
142 
 
 at the same date in 1846 it was £785,116,000.; 
 at the former period the whole charge for the pub¬ 
 lic debt was £29,597,000.; on the 1st January, 
 1848, it was £28,141,531. 14s. Id. 
 
 A sign of the times, good or bad, is always to be 
 found in the market price of the public stocks—we 
 quote the following therefore as another of the 
 indices of increased prosperity:— 
 
 An Account “ showing the Highest and the Lowest, and the Mean Price of 
 Three per Cent. Consols, during the Years 1823 and 1846 .”—Extract of 
 Pari. Return, iVo. 3, Session 1847. 
 
 
 n 6 Apr. 1822 
 5 Apr. 1823 
 n 6 Apr. 1846 
 5 Apr. 1847 
 
 1822, Oct. 26 83 
 1846, May 28 97 
 
 11823, Mar. 
 0J1847, Mar. 
 
 17 692 11 3 
 
 The number of depositors in the savings’ banks 
 of the United Kingdom was, in 1840, 798,055, and 
 amount of deposits, including interest, £24,474,689. 
 In 1846 there were 1,108,025 depositors, and 
 £31,743,250, deposits. 
 
 Savings, it is alleged too, do not come from the 
 working classes, they are smaller modes of invest¬ 
 ment for the diminished capital of tradesmen and 
 others; besides, they are more fashionable as an 
 investment for the petty cash of the children of 
 easy circumstanced persons. 
 
 The amount of capital upon which the several 
 rates of legacy duty have been paid in Great Britain 
 in 1847, was £43,611,642. 12*. Id., and this, it 
 must be remembered, is property at present liable 
 to such tax, landed property, being entirely (and 
 unjustly) exempt. 
 
 But let us now apply other tests to ascertain the 
 improved condition of the country (in a pecuniary 
 
143 
 
 point of view) since 1821, and first of the greatly 
 advanced progress of our commerce since that pe¬ 
 riod. 
 
 A Return of the Number and Tonnage of British Ships entered In¬ 
 wards from and cleared Outwards to Ports of Asia, not being 
 British Possessions, in the years 1821 and 1846 .—Extract of Pari. 
 Return, No. 719, Session 1847. 
 
 A Return of the Number and Tonnage of British Ships entered In¬ 
 wards from and cleared Outwards to Ports in Europe, not being 
 British Possessions, in the years 1821 and 1846. 
 
 Ships. | Tonnage. 
 
 A Return of the Number and Tonnage of British Ships entered In¬ 
 wards from and cleared Outwards to Ports of Africa, not being 
 British Possessions, in the years 1821 and 1846. 
 
144 
 
 Of the Official and Declared Value of the Imports and Exports of the 
 United Kingdom in the Years 1821 and 1846—Extract of Pari. 
 Return, No. 38, Session 1847. 
 
 TEAKS. 
 
 
 T.aoe ?if£2ss. c,a,:uta,<!d 
 
 §§§ 
 
 
 United Ki'ngdom. 
 
 Merchandize. 
 
 Total Exports. 
 
 illti 
 
 ssj 
 
 30,837,712 
 
 75,953,875 
 
 40,832,499 
 
 132,288,345 
 
 10,629,695 
 
 16,296,162 
 
 51,462,194 i 
 148,584,507 
 
 
 From a paper presented by J. Fletcher, Esq. to 
 the Statistical Society we learn, that whilst in 1820 
 “no steam packets were employed in the trade 
 with the Port of London,” now there are 1,311 of 
 353,335 tonnage in the coasting trade, and 833 of 
 210,232 tonnage in the foreign trade. 
 
 Thus our imports have increased, since 1821, 
 more than 45 per cent., our exports more than 
 97 per cent., and the population nearly 50 per cent., 
 while the number of the poor supported out of the 
 rates was in 1814 in England and Wales 1,426,065, 
 and in 1847, 1,721,350, being an increase only 
 of 295,285. 
 
 Lord Monteagle, in a very luminous report pre¬ 
 pared by him for, but not adopted by, the Lords' 
 Committee appointed to inquire into “ the Burdens 
 on Land,” gives the following table, which shows 
 how great has been the increase of the property of 
 the country since the peace. 
 
 — 
 
 
 IS 
 
 
 
 
 
 !S!J ) 
 SS > ! 
 
 
 £. 
 
 38.396,143 
 
 43,145,786 
 
 £. 
 
 27,577,439 
 
 :::: 
 
 10,-195,410 
 
 l79,l7(i,G0u 
 
 210,374,069 
 
 Increase in ") 
 latter years J 
 
 Decrease in 
 latter years J 
 
 34,680,269 
 
 4,749,613 
 
 
 28,458,396 
 
 
 61,197,469 
 
 
 
 3,5.44,086 | 
 
 
 3,146,753 
 
 
145 
 
 “ Thus we find,” says the same Report, “ that in 
 a period of 28 years, without including Ireland, 
 (and much property, colonial and foreign, being 
 necessarily omitted) the income of the country has 
 augmented by no less a sum than =661,197,469., 
 the real property of the owners under schedule (A.) 
 has augmented in annual value by =634,680,269., 
 and the assessed incomes of the occupiers by 
 £4,794,643., the only schedules exhibiting dimi¬ 
 nution being those which comprehend the charge 
 of the public debt, the expenses of the civil govern¬ 
 ment, and of the naval and military services. 
 
 “ In the earlier part of this report it has been 
 shown how enormous is the increase of property 
 assessed to the Income-tax since the peace. The 
 whole amount assessed on the average of 1842-3, is 
 £240,374,069. It should, however, be observed, 
 that from any direct contribution to the local bur¬ 
 dens now under consideration, the property under 
 schedules C. D. and E. is exempted, and the whole 
 of this taxation, so far as it is paid directly, falls on 
 the owners and occupiers of real property, whose 
 assessment to the Property-tax may be taken at 
 seven-twelfths of the whole—neither the funds, 
 profits, nor salaries by the state being rated.”— 
 Report, pp. 3-14. 
 
 Mr. W. Ray Smee estimates the annual income 
 of Great Britain at £488,000,000., of which amount 
 only £185,000,000. or rather more than one-third 
 is charged with Income-tax. 
 
 With regard to Real Property in particular, 
 Mr. N. W. Senior, the Master in Chancery, for¬ 
 merly an eminent Conveyancer, and a gentleman 
 of very great experience, said in answer to the 
 question, “Do you think that Real Property in¬ 
 creases in value more rapidly than population 
 increases ?—I think that in the course of the last 
 
146 
 
 century the population has probably quadrupled; but 
 that the property of the country is probably ten 
 times as much as it was. I am convinced that the 
 capital of the country increases more rapidly than the 
 population.”' — Lords’ Report, p. 468. 
 
 And Mr. R. D. Grainger calculated that the 
 wealth of the country had increased 136 per cent, 
 in 30 years, while human life had undergone a 
 similar alteration, but in a reverse ratio. The value 
 of life in some of our large manufacturing towns 
 had decreased from 50 to 15 years. 
 
 With all these indubitable proofs of the enormous 
 advances of our national prosperity, is it not mon¬ 
 strous ingratitude to that Providence which has 
 blessed with such unparalleled success all our 
 exertions, to complain of the burden of the poor, and 
 to begrudge them even the very means of existence; 
 treating them worse than the most criminal and 
 depraved of society. Compare the dietary tables 
 and the kind treatment of the hardened criminal 
 with those of the virtuous and hapless pauper, and 
 what do we find ? The former is allowed a gene¬ 
 rous diet, while the latter is kept at the least 
 possible expense, and just above starvation point. 
 Thus, while a Mr. W. Small was discharged from 
 his office of surgeon to the poor of Radford and 
 Lenton, Nottingham, for too great liberality in 
 ordering heef tea to a sick pauper, the Home Office 
 commands the surgeon of the Convict Hulks to 
 give the ailing criminal wine, custards, fish, flesh 
 and fowl, in order to rally the constitution. Dr. 
 Bossey, surgeon of the Hulks, Woolwich, swore on 
 a Coroner’s Inquest that he had the power to order, 
 without the least restriction, any luxury or indulgence 
 during sickness to the convicts! The cost of the 
 support of an in-door pauper is, according to 
 Mr. Tufnell, 2s. M. per week, or £ 6. 18s. 8 d, per 
 
147 
 
 annum, while Mr. McCulloch reckons the ave¬ 
 raged expense of the London criminal prisoners 
 at <£8. Os. 6d. each per annum. Well may the 
 Hon. Member for Finsbury (Mr. Waldey) say, that 
 “ Prisoners are much better treated than paupers,” 
 and exclaim indignantly, “What a premium for 
 crime!” 
 
 The poor are always treated thus; their cherished 
 affections are violated with impunity, their miserable 
 lot rendered doubly miserable by official tyranny, 
 and roguery is too often suspected to be com¬ 
 panioned with rags—so true it is that— 
 
 “ Through tatter’d clothes small vices do appear, 
 
 Eobes and furr’d gowns hide all. 
 
 Plate sin with gold, and the strong lance 
 Of justice hurtless breaks—clothe it in rags 
 A pigmy’s thrust will pierce it!” 
 
 And what is this mighty grievance (the Poor’s- 
 rate) after all, against which so much outcry is 
 raised, and the fear of which acts like vitriol upon 
 us, changing our very natures ? 
 
 In the preceding pages we have seen how the 
 Poor’s-rate affects our national resources, let us see 
 now in what degree it influences the monied in¬ 
 terests of the individual. 
 
 The sum levied as Poor’s-rate in 1844 is less 
 than the sum levied as Poor’s-rate in any year from 
 1813 to 1834, except the year 1824, when the 
 amount was slightly inferior. This fact becomes 
 the more important when the great increase of 
 population, since 1813, is taken into the account. 
 The following table shows the population, the 
 amount levied as Poor’s-rate, and the ratio which 
 this amount bore to the population, in each of the 
 five years, 1813, 1824, 1834, 1844 and 1847. 
 
148 
 
 If, therefore, the pressure of the sum levied as 
 Poor’s-rate is measured by the ratio of its amount 
 to the population, its burden in 1844 would be half 
 its burden in 1813, and only two-thirds of its burden 
 in 1834. 
 
 If it should be objected that the pressure of this 
 tax ought to be estimated by its ratio to property 
 and not to population, this comparison leads to an 
 equally satisfactory result. There is no doubt that 
 the yearly produce of the rateable property of Eng¬ 
 land has undergone a very great increase since 1813; 
 and that its annual progress is now rapid. 
 
 Thus, then, at the same time that every descrip¬ 
 tion of property in the country has increased im¬ 
 mensely in value, and the population is nearly 
 70 per cent, greater than it was in 1813, the cost 
 of the support of the poor has decreased by no less 
 a sum than £ 1,377,318. a year, and the individual 
 burthen has been reduced from 16s. 5 d. to 6s. 10 jr/. 
 per head on the entire population. With all these 
 facts before us, whence arises then the still grievous 
 injury of the Poor-rates? It is because the bur¬ 
 then is not equally and equitably apportioned—the 
 
 * In 1847 the annual value of property assessed to the Poor-rate 
 was, in England and Wales, £67,291,171.; Ireland, £13,187,421.; 
 Scotland, £9,320,784.; the costs of paupers, per head, £3. Is. Gfd., 
 £1. 14s. ljrf., and £2. 19s. 3 \cl. respectively; and proportion 
 per cent, to population, 10‘8, 4*0, 5'5, respectively .—Vide Pari 
 Return, 681, Session 1848. 
 
149 
 
 poor are, by the present system, made to support 
 the poor, while the rich are nearly exempt from 
 the impost. By every means in their power they 
 contrive to shift the support of the poor from them¬ 
 selves, and to fasten it upon those least able to bear 
 it, protecting their own purses by the keeping up 
 of close parishes, extra-parochial places, and the 
 driving of the paupers from their own localities by 
 the erection of first and second class houses, which 
 can only be inhabited by people of wealth and (in 
 common parlance) respectability. 
 
 By every principle of justice and equity this 
 ought not to be, and especially too when the 
 remedy is so easy. 
 
 In the return of property which is assessed to 
 the Poor-rate, it will be seen that the amount was, 
 in 1847, for England and Wales, <£67,291,171. 
 
 Now this, be it noticed, is real property only. 
 Compare this with the sum assessed to the Property 
 and Income-tax, which for England and Wales was, 
 in 1842, <£85,802,735. 8s. 6r/., this shows a dif¬ 
 ference of more than 18 millions, and may be said 
 to represent the rateable portion of the personal 
 property of the country; and yet these 18 millions 
 are in nowise taxed for the support of the poor! 
 Why should that exemption exist ? Why not tax 
 the mortgagee of the land, who may be said to be a 
 joint owner with the landlord—and it is alleged that 
 one-half of the rental of the United Kingdom finds 
 its way into his pocket, yet he pays nothing to the 
 Poor-rate in such character. Why not tax the fund- 
 holder, unless he is in a situation to prove that he 
 pays, in his character of householder, to the Poor- 
 rate according to Ms means, from whatever source 
 derived ? The absentee and pensioner who riot in 
 foreign luxuries, why too are they exempt ? Make 
 the possessors of every kind of property rate-payers 
 to the poor, and there will be no want of funds; for 
 
150 
 
 the burthen will then be borne by all, according to 
 their ability, which is the very letter and spirit of 
 the Act of Elizabeth. But now the system is to 
 shift that burthen by every avoidance and chicanery, 
 and by any means which the loose state of the law 
 too frequently permits. Let the reader contrast the 
 attempt of the Hampton Court Palace pensioners, 
 male and female, to avoid paying the Poor-rates, with 
 the hard case of Thomas Lakin and Ann Ward, who 
 were twice committed to prison for non-payment of 
 a few shillings Poor-rate which they were unable to 
 pay, and the man sentenced to hard labour for not 
 paying the costs of the summons! Is it necessary 
 to ask, should such inconsistent and unjust pecu¬ 
 liarities be tolerated in a Christian country ? 
 
 Surely, then, policy, not to say justice and right 
 feeling to all, demands an immediate recourse to 
 an altered and much amended system; and what is 
 that amended system to be ? Need we reply?—revise 
 the Poor-rate; levy it upon all descriptions of pro¬ 
 perty, real and personal; this will lay under con¬ 
 tribution at least £70,000,000. of rateable property 
 in England and Wales, which, by a general and 
 uniform rate of Is. Qd. in the pound, will produce 
 £5,250,000. per annum—a sum more than suffi¬ 
 cient to support the poor. The rate-payers will be 
 satisfied, because all will contribute their quota in 
 proportion to an uniform and just assessment; the 
 pauper will be relieved wherever his distress reveals 
 itself; the whole country being his parish, he may 
 carry his industry to the best and most profitable 
 market, without any fear of a forced removal when 
 incapacitated for future labour; all litigation between 
 parishes will cease, because then there will be no 
 motive to shirk the burthen of the support of the 
 pauper; the greater portion of the annual £ 105,304. 
 “ law charges, parochial and union,” as well as the 
 “ great indefinite ” of £ 359,106., “ money expended 
 
151 
 
 for all other purposes,”* will be saved; for as there 
 will be no more “removals,” so there will be no 
 more travelling overseers at the public cost; and the 
 unjust, the cruel expatriation of the poor will no 
 longer be a stain and a reproach to a country calling 
 itself civilized. That there will be a host of ob¬ 
 jectors and cavillers to his plan, the writer is pre¬ 
 pared to expect; first, because those who profit by 
 the existence of a bad system will, of course, stoutly 
 maintain the necessity of its continuance; and 
 secondly, the alteration suggested may seem too 
 extensive, too sweeping for those who are wedded 
 to old customs, more from respect to their antiquity 
 than a conviction of their value and their usefulness. 
 The writer is not so fond of this bantling of his 
 brain as to believe in its perfectibility, but he may 
 be permitted to lay claim to an honest conviction of 
 the practicability of the plan, if submitted to a proper 
 test. I And if his zealous though feeble advocacy of 
 a great and just principle but rouse to action some 
 master-spirit to carry out such obvious good to all, 
 he will have his reward in knowing that he has been 
 the humble instrument in opening the path of justice 
 and humanity. 
 
 * See lltli Keport of Poor Law Commissioners, page 2 and 
 note supra. 
 
 f The principle of making rich parishes contribute to the de¬ 
 ficiency of poor ones, within the same county, is clearly laid down 
 by the Act of Elizabeth; Mr. Buller’s trial Bill of equal Union- 
 rating will but “ scotch the snake” and “ not kill it.” 
 
APPENDICES. 
 
 Appendix, No. 1. 
 
 TABLES of tlie Average Bate iu the Pound of the Poor-rates 
 paid during the Years 1839, 1840, 1841, and 1842, compiled 
 from the Return, No. 63, Sess. 1844, and ordered by the House 
 of Commons to be printed, entitled, “ A Return showing the 
 Total Value of Property assessed to the Poor-rates for the Year 
 ended Lady-day 1841; with the Amount of Money levied for 
 Poor-rates for the Years ending Lady-day 1839 to 1842, on 
 each Parish in England and Wales.” 
 
 The following Notes by the late Poor Law Commissioners are 
 appended to this Return. The accuracy of the Returns of the 
 Annual Value of Real Property assessed to the Poor-rates (which 
 were obtained from the Overseers ) appears in some cases to be 
 doubtful. No Return of Annual Value of Real Property having 
 been made from the places mated thus * the amount in each case 
 has been estimated. 
 
APPENDIX No. 1. 
 
APPENDIX No. 1. 
 
APPENDIX No. 1. 
 
APPENDIX No. 1. 
 
 SUMMARY (continued) of the Advantages which will accrue from 
 the adoption of an equable Kate of Is. 6 d. in the Pound. 
 
 
 Number of 
 
 Number of 
 
 WELSH COUNTIES. 
 
 
 
 
 the £. 
 
 Is. 6rf. in the £. 
 
 Anglesea . 
 
 15 
 
 58 
 
 Brecon . 
 
 20 
 
 68 
 
 Cardigan . 
 
 
 87 
 
 Carmarthen . 
 
 
 71 
 
 Carnarvon. 
 
 5 
 
 69 
 
 Denbigh . 
 
 27 
 
 63 
 
 Flint .... 
 
 9 
 
 30 
 
 Glamorgan. 
 
 29 
 
 129 
 
 Merioneth. 
 
 4 
 
 30 
 
 Montgomery. 
 
 8 
 
 59 
 
 Pcmbroko . 
 
 39 
 
 112 
 
 Radnor . 
 
 a 
 
 48 
 
 Number of Parishes whoso Bates) 
 
 183 
 
 
 would ho INCREASED .J 
 
 
 
 Number of Parishes whoso Rates) 
 
 
 824 
 
 would be DECREASED.) 
 
 
 
 
 Number of Parishes, 
 
 Number of Parishes, 
 
 Increase of Rates: 
 
 
 
 England .'.. 
 
 5,181 
 
 
 Wales . 
 
 183 
 
 
 Decreaso of Bates: . 
 
 
 
 England . 
 
 i 
 
 7,928 
 
 Wah 
 
 ... 
 
 824 
 
 
 
 8,752 
 
Appendix, No. 2. 
 
 REMOVAL OF PAUPERS. 
 
 1845, for “A Return of the Sums paid by Counties, Cities, Boroughs, Towns'cor- 
 porate. Divisions or liberties, for the Removal of Poor Persons born in Scotland 
 3 and 4 Will. 4, c. 40, for Three Years, endtog the 3lst day of December, S ]S44 1 j C ( hs!