WHAT WOULD THE REPEAL OF THE LAW OF SETTLEMENT DO?

Td ulvsereaL obx buoXoysiv Tivi alcrxpdv, AXAci anIcILacSeilefeiv epyw iiorxwv•

Thugd. Funeral Oration.

To confess poverty is no disgrace : far greater disgrace is it not to try and avoid It.

TO THE EDITOR OF THE SPECTATOR.

Srs—I wish in my present letter to draw your attention to the change which the repeal of the law of settlement would necessarily involve in our Poor-law system. That law, it is most true, is by many considered sacred; hallowed, as it were, by prescription, and interwoven in a thousand ways with the feelings of our rural population. Hence arise some of the difficulties in the way of its repeal. It is also one of those statutes which confer privileges, not one of those which are purely prohibitory. The latter kind of statute may, usually be repealed without hinderance. The abolition of a protective duty, or the removal of civil dis- abilities, leaves other things in statu quo. All goes on according to ancient usage. A freer circulation of commodities, or a greater activity of discussion and larger range of thought, (as the case may be,) is nearly all that occurs to remind the bulk of society of the great changes that are thus effected. But this is not the case with statutes winch form the basis of a permanent and operative code— which enact extensive and detailed laws—which construct a system, and confer important rights. In such cases, Nature seems to teach us how we ought to pro- ceed. The son has already passed the age of adolescence, ere the father is carried, at the term of his natural life, to the cold grave; and ere the last leaf eddies in the wintry blast, the germ which is about to put forth its budding honours in the spring has already been formed. In nature, construction and destruction ever go hand in hand. Before we sweep away the poor man's present rights, we ought at least to be prepared with a substitute. If we repeal. the law of settlement, it is pretty obvious, I think, that we must abandon the principle that each locality is bound to maintain its own poor: other- wise, you would inevitably subject the peaceful occupant of a small estate in any part of the kingdom to positive ruin by the influx of idle vagrants into his neigh- bourhood, over whom he would have no control. That to those who support the poor should be secured the produce of their industry, is a doctrine so clearly true, that any gross violation of it could only shock public opinion, and would run no chance of permanence. Such would be the case with a repeal of the law of settlement without a contemporaneous revision of our local taxation. But this is indeed a sweeping change, and leads to more consequences than are at first sight apparent. Let us note some of them. They appear to me, I own, to follow in necessary and logical order. The effects of the repeal of the law of settlement, then, would be—

L The abandonment of the principle that each locality is bound to maintain its own poor.

2. The conversion of the poor-rate into a general tax, payable upon a new prin- ciple—whether, as at present, confined to houses and lands, or extending to stock in trade and personalty.

3. The limitation of such tax, in the same way as other taxes are limited, by the annual vote of the House of Commons.

4. The abolition of the workhouse as a test of destitution.

5. A plenary discretion left with those who have the local administration of the poor-fund, to give relief or to refuse it. 6. The establishment of a central responsible authority to superintend the col- lection and distribution of the revenues of the poor. Great as the revolution is which the repeal of the settlement-laws would cause, I am not prepared to say that it leads to the violation of any just right on the part of the ...r, or to any fair subject of complaint on the part of the public. I think that c ges which are great should, as a general rale, be gradual, and that the poor-laws form no exception. If we have a new system to construct, we must, if possiblediel our way to it. Yet, admitting this, I think all my proposi- tions are sound.

1-2. In the various petitions presented to Parliament last session on the sub- ject of the settlement-laws, my first two propositions were usually confirmed: with regard to the last four, they were passed over in silence. I wish, therefore, Mr. Editor, before I close this letter, to say a few words, not so much in their defence, as in proof that they necessarily i rily follow from the first two. I took the liberty of as- serting that some of those who had signed these petitions were blind to their fall meaning; and I so infer from their silence upon the other four points.

3. You will have seen that I am no disciple of Dr. Chalmers; I mean, that I am no Anti-Poor-law roan. As in our duty to the Creator, so in our duty to the creature—to God as to our neighbour—I think the voluntary system, however de- sirable it might be could we secure its adequate operation, has as far as experience goes proved miserably insufficient: and ! could neverundeastand the inconsistency of the learned Doctor I have named, who at one time considered (I know not his present opinions) that our hearts are so chilled towards God as to need in the highest degree the supplemental aid (as he called it) of an establishment, but so warm towards our nesghbour as to render public assistance in this particular nu- necessary and prejudiciaL My object would be to liken, as far as possible, public to individual benevolence: public efforts should be the supplement to and not the substitute for private charity. It should be fully understood by every English- man, that the state cannot relieve him, if he has property, from the duties which it entails: if he has none, he should learn that the paternal provision of a nation's bounty is to be received with thankful gratitude rather than listless indifference. While I deplore most deeply the squalid misery of the agricultural labourer, I groan no less over the injustice to the public which every workhouse exhibits. It is a melancholy fact in my own union, that the greater portion of the able-bodied young .men who resort to the house for support, consists of boys who receive their education—and a very good one—in the workhouse school. Upon questioning these young men, I almost invariably find that their fathers and grandfathers had been paupers before them. If, then, the poor-rate be converted into ageneral tax, it must be limited by the annual vote of Parliament. Our poor-laws succeed so ill because they profess to do too much—to relieve all destitution—to cancel all poverty. This cannot be done. The poor man is entitled to support. Granted—but to support in such a manner given as shall tend to raise and not to deteriorate the society which =- rounds him. If by feeding one idle fellow I take the bread from two sober and industrious men, I shall scarcely gain credit for being a good political economist; whereas, if by the sharp corrective of refusing relief I show that 1 am in earnest, and stimulate, even by the pressure of want, an indolent man to remember his true mission here on earth—to earn his bread by the sweat of his brow—by a just though severe retribution upon him for his offences, I perform a truly charitable action.

The ingenious and able De Foe has touched with some point the defects of our national character, iu the clever though in many respects harsh treatise called "Giving Alms no Charity." "We are, says he, ' the most lazy diligent nation in the world: there is nothing more frequent than for an Englishman to work till he has got his pocket full of money, and then go and be idle, or perhaps drunk, till it is all gone, and perhaps in debt: and ask him in his cups what he Intends? he'll tell you honestly, he'll drink as long as it lasts, and then go to work for more I" De Foes corollary is simple—" From hence comes poverty, parish charges, and beggary." The refusal of charity to those who don't deserve it is the first and simplest check to pauperism. No misconduct on the part of the poor, as 1 have before said, can cancel their claim if they are really unable to work. But the poor are precisely not those who could if they were willing earn ad honest livelihood for themselves. As to the danger of starvation, I am prepared to say, I would run the risk. In a Christian country it ought never to occur.

Summing up, then: if the poor-rate be a general tax, there is no reason for exempting it tram that fair limitation to which all the other taxes are subject: a just view of the nation's resources and the state of the poor should decide its amount, in the same way as a private individual decides what amount he can devote to charitable objects.

4. With the repeal of the settlement-laws the workhouse test falls. That test is applied upon the understanding that a pauper has a right to relief only in one particular locality. Under the system which the repeal of the settlement-laws presupposes, the workhouses would be really asylums; none being sent there save those who would desire such a refuge from the cares of life, or resorted to the public schools there for the advantages of education—admission into them would be sought for as a desirable boon.

5. The resources of the state being limited, I can see no objection to discre-

tionary power being left with the local boards. It is a common thing under the present law to urge the necessity of relaxation in this respect, and the giving. larger discretion to the Guardians. I do not deny its usefulness. A nice dis- crimination of character—a tender administration of strict justice—a considera- tion for undeserved misfortune—that delicate touch which probes on the instant the depth of the sore without irritating its surface—all these are requisites in the giving of relief to the poor man. On the other hand, the discretion must be plenary—to give, and to refuse. It is inconsistent in the highest degree to grant individuals the privilege of opening the public purse on every occasion, unless you cast upon the same parties the responsibility of defending it: That responsibility can be only awakened if the fund out of which the poor are re- lieved is definite in amount and under strict supervision. But you will say, they will surely need some general rules—some advice, and assistance: they must have some principle to go upon—some "labour test," or other machinery to an- swer the same purpose. 6. I quite admit that they must have superintendence and advice: the amount of the funds, too, which they would have to administer, would be controlled by other authority. Hence, it appears to me, arises the necessity of a central power to superintend and control these great changes, or indeed any others we may make in our Poor- law system. The odium incurred by the Poor-law Commission is not on account of its being central, but on account of its being irresponsible. The head of the Poor-law Department ought to be a member of the House of Commons, and if possible of the Cabinet. The Home Secretary has enough to do with the admi- nistration of justice; the sword of mercy should be placed in other bands. An intimate acquaintance with the state of our great towns and of our rural districts, centered in one department of the Executive, might enable them by a thousand contrivances to afford each other mutual relief. " The price of labour," says Lord Karnes, "is like water, which always levels itself: if high in any one quarter, an influx of hands brings it down." Where hands are wanting, they should be supplied quamprimum, for the benefit of all parties. Instead, therefore of placing an embargo upon the facility of locomotion, which this age has introduced, we should do all to encourage it. The doctrines of Malthus are unquestionably true when applied to a very limited area; and it is obvious that only by such facilities as I have adverted to we can expect to maintain our present condition of prosperity. A Minister for the Poor in the House of Commons would promote discussion. The right would be forwarded by it. Under such an authority, we might indeed hope to see beneficial changes effected. The desultory and unsatisfactory tone which pervades the present debates upon the poor would rise into something more positive. We should at last address ourselves to "the Condition-of-England question" with more earnestness and zeal.

I have now sketched, without going into detail, the aspect which our Poor-law system would present were the law of settlement repealed. My next and last letter shall contain a few suggestions of practical amendment, which I think might with advantage be carried immediately into effect. The Poor-law Com- mission cannot continue in its present state much longer, stigmatized by a Com- mittee of the House of Commons; and denuded of all authority. Some change we must have: God grant that it may be in the right direction.

I conclude, Sir, with the words of the great Adam Smith, not upon a point of abstract economy, but upon the question of liberty and justice as involved in our present law of settlement—" To remove a man who has committed no misde- meanour from the parish where he chooses to reside, is an evident violation of natural liberty and justice; and an oppression to which the people of England, though jealous of their liberty, but, like the people of most other countries, never rightly considering in what it consists, have for more than a century together suffered themselves to be exposed without a remedy." A GUARDIAN.