, in moving for leave to bring in a bill to regulate the Settlement of the Poor, observed, that it might be necessary, in order to render the subject perfectly intelligible, that he should treat it somewhat historically; the first statute establishing a compulsory assessment for the poor was the 14th Eliz., which was farther regulated by the 43rd, Eliz., and the law remained unaltered until the 13th and 14th Car. 2nd, which was in truth the foundation of the superstructure which had spread so wide, and excited so much dissatisfaction. It was required, among other things, by this last statute, that before a settlement could be gained by a pauper, by a residence of forty days, he must give notice in the church of his coming to reside. This enactment imposed heavy fetters upon the free circulation of labour, and by an act of William 3rd certificates from parish officers were substituted. As these certificates were granted or refused, at the option of the overseers, the evil was only partially removed, and, down to a very late date, and through what were called the best times, it had continued in the power of parish-officers to remove any labourer or family, without cause assigned, from one end of the kingdom to the other. This immense power was, however, partly restrained by Mr. Rose's bill for the encouragement of friendly societies, in 1793, and farther limited by Mr. East's act of 1795, which, although making a most important change, and doing more for the benefit of the lower classes than had been accomplished since the Revolution, had passed sub silentio, without any expression of national gratitude. The great reduction in the wages of the poor within the last few years had, however, had the effect of reducing things to nearly the same condition as before 1795; and the intricacies in which settlements were involved were all restored. The evils attending the present system were threefold:— 1. The enormous expenses incurred by parishes, in prosecuting or defending appeals, and in removing paupers; 2. The injustice under which parishes laboured, to which old paupers were sent back, after they had spent their youth and strength elsewhere; 3. The hardship upon the paupers who, having resided many years, and formed connexions at a distance, were sent home to their parishes, and separated from all their friends and consolations to die in a remote poor-house. This last was by far the greatest evil, though alt three required removal. Some maintained that the better mode would be to do away with settlements entirely, and to make the maintenance depend upon the national funds; whilst others contended, that the settlement ought in all cases to be reduced to the place of birth. The first of these proposals would be open to innumerable and insurmountable objections, and the last would at least not remedy two of the three evils he had pointed out. What he proposed was, that as settlement was now gained by residence combined with other circumstances, in future it should be acquired by residence only, and the difficulty was to fix what period of residence should conform a settlement. In the bill he should introduce, he should propose that three years residence in a parish should gain a settlement to a pauper; but as a blank would be left in the bill, it might be filled op with five years or otherwise, as might be deemed most expedient in the committee. This new regulation would simplify greatly the whole subject, without interfering with what were known by the name of derivative settlements. A separation of an aged pauper from his friends and neighbours would then be avoided; provided, within a certain period, he went before a magistrate and made oath to his residence. In case of dispute, he proposed that an appeal should lie, not to the quarter sessions, but to two magistrates, by which much expensive litigation would be spared. Another point to be settled would be, what period of absence should defeat the settlement: he thought 60 days too short, and should suggest that the blank should be filled up with 90 days. This was the general outline of the measure which he had to submit to the House. The adoption of it would only be resorting to a principle already established in Scot-land, and one that was recommended by Dr. Burn, as other distinguished individuals. He should now conclude by moving "for leave to bring in a bill to regulate Settlement of the Poor."

Wright feared that the principle of allowing parties to gain a settlement for themselves by residence, would be attended with many mischievous consequences.

said, that the general outline of the measure corresponded with his own ideas of what might be beneficially done upon this branch of the subject To him it appeared equally cruel and unjust to refuse a settlement to those whom long service or residence in a particular place had inspired with a desire of obtaining it. If the bill which had already passed that House should become a law, he did not see how they could withhold their sanction from the present. He feared, however, that a good deal of opposition might be expected from the large towns, in which it was not uncommon to see the poor, the better part of whose lives had been worn out in them, sent back to their native parishes. The bill would likewise tend greatly, in his opinion, to diminish litigation.

was decidedly in favour of the principle of the bill, its objects being, as he understood, to facilitate to the labourer, the means of carrying his industry to the most advantageous market, and to prevent his being torn from the place where he found it his interest or his happiness to reside. So far the measure had his approbation—it would render the inquiry before the magistrate simple and easy of determination, and must necessarily put an end to a great deal of the existing system of litigation. At the same time, he was not prepared to say, that it would not open other sources of litigation, and give rise to fresh difficulties in practice. He knew no satisfactory reason why the poor should not be permitted, without the forfeiture of any legal benefit, to repair from one place to another, according to the demand for their labour. This, it might be urged, would be incompatible with the system of affording parochial relief; but he still looked forward with hope to some radical improvement of that system. It was a system most injurious to the poor themselves, and rendered the wages which they received, even with the addition of the poor-rates, a much more inadequate reward than they would otherwise obtain. Many suggestions had been thrown out, and amongst others, one proposed, that the rate should be limited to its present amount, and that no farther assessment should be made. The effect of such an enactment would be, to prevent all that competition between different parishes, which had long been productive of so many evils. But to the poor themselves it would be an inestimable advantage to find a free market open to their labour, the price of which was now depressed, and in fact placed in the hands of the magistrate. Its value must always depend on the general prosperity of the country, and every interference to regulate it always ended in doing mischief to those whose cause was intended to be espoused. If it were now proposed to regulate the price of provisions, the proposition would be regarded as insane, for it was known that all former attempts to accomplish such an object had uniformly served to enhance the price. The same principle was equally applicable to labour, and he most earnestly desired to see the same freedom of circulation restored to it.

next moved for leave to bring in a bill to prevent the Misapplication of the Poor Rates.—A similar bill had, he said, been under the consideration of the last parliament, but there had not been sufficient time for correcting and modifying its objectionable clauses. This he hoped would be now found to have been done, and that it was not ill calculated to produce its end, which was to prevent a very considerable misapplication of the poor rates. The House must be well aware, that one of the greatest evils arising out of the present system, was the payment of the wages of labour out of those rates. A man with, perhaps, a family of six children, represented to the parish officers that he was not able to maintain more than two. By the acts of Elizabeth and of George 1st, there was a case in which the children above the number of two, ought to be set to work in the parish workhouse; but, under all the circumstances, it was not surprising that this practice should not be resorted to. The bill was intended to provide for placing these children to work and sustaining them, instead of giving to their parents a relief which was often squandered and not applied to the benefit of the children. This conduct of parents was not, indeed, of new occurrence; it had been remarked in the reign of William 3rd by Mr. Locke, who had recommended the regulation adopted in the present measure. The experiment had been made in some parishes, and the applications for relief had become less numerous. One advantage would certainly be gained in the due application of the funds, and a third and more material one would be realized in those parishes where charitable institutions existed, by placing the children in schools where industry might be com- bined with education. He thought it must be an overstrained humanity which would urge that there was any thing harsh in separating children from parents who could not feed, much less educate them. It must be recollected, that persons in a higher sphere of life placed their offspring at some distance from their home for the purpose of instruction, and not unfrequently sent them out of the realm. The bill would also provide, that no relief should, for the future, be given to any able-bodied labourer in employment—a provision which, he hoped, would point out the necessity of granting him more adequate wages.

highly approved of the proposed measure. It was the practice in many parishes to allow two shillings a-week for every child above two. The consequence was, that where such an allowance was made, the parents seldom exerted themselves to procure work. In the parish in which he resided, there was no such allowance, and the consequence was, that there was no distress.

was convinced that the principle of prohibiting any allowance to employed labourers in parishes where the children of the poor were maintained and educated, would be impracticable in the district with which he was most acquainted; and in which the wages of labour were very scanty and insufficient. He was a member of a committee above stairs, in which a certain class of workmen had proved, that although fully employed, it was impossible for the best hands, even when labouring for seventeen hours in the day, to earn more then six or seven shillings a week. Now, if there was an act of parliament prohibiting magistrates from granting such individuals relief from the poor rates, what would become of them?

thought, that the two great evils for which it was desirable to provide a remedy, were, the tendency towards a redundant population, and the inadequacy of the wages to the support of the labouring crasses; and he apprehended, that the measure now proposed would not afford any security against the continuance of these evils. On the contrary, he thought that, if a provision were made for all the children of the poor, it would only increase the evil; for if parents felt assured that an asylum would be provided for their children, in which they would be treated with humanity and ten- derness, there would then be no check to that increase of population which was so apt to take place among the labouring classes. With regard to the other evil, the inadequacy of the wages, it ought to be remembered, that if this measure should have the effect of raising them, they would still be no more than the wages of a single man, and would never rise so high as to afford a provision for a man with a family.

, in rising to move for leave to bring in a bill for the further encouragement and protection of Friendly Societies, combated the arguments of those who had expressed opinions hostile to the principle on which those societies were formed. Of late years it had been said by high authority, by Mr. Malthus, Mr. Davison, and lastly by one of whom he was bound to speak with peculiar respect, Mr. Copleston, that to encourage poor people to lay by their earnings under an ensurance of this nature, was a bad thing; and that those whose property was very small should not enter into a mutual guarantee. He thought, that the smaller the property, the greater was the necessity of insuring; he would illustrate his opinion by what was familiar to him officially. The East India Company did not ensure, because the amount of the ensurance upon their great concerns, would be equal to the whole loss that could in any probability fall upon them; but he who had ventured his on a single brig, would be very unwise if he did not ensure it lest, as Mr. Davison had said, he might, if his voyage proved favourable, find that he had subscribed to the repair of another's fortune! In like manner, a rich landlord had no need to ensure against the expenses of sickness; but a labourer, although if he enjoyed uninterrupted health, might have made a bad speculation in subscribing his savings to a Friendly Society, would, on the other hand, if he should be disabled by sickness, lose, without this precaution, his whole means of subsistence at once. All though he was confident that Friendly Societies Were of the greatest use to the community, it was, nevertheless, well known that they were open to many abuses. In the first place, some of those societies had been Founded on erroneous calculation the result either of the want of accurate tables, or of the sanguineness or ignorance, or it might be in some cases the design of those by whom they were established. The remedy he proposed was, that the formation of those societies should be under the more vigilant and attentive superintendance of the magistrates at the quarter sessions, entertaining, as he did, no doubt that at every quarter sessions, two or three magistrates would be found who would be induced to give their attention to the subject. As to the calculations on which such societies were founded, he intended to propose, that two or three of the principal actuaries in London should be employed in framing them, and that without their previous opinion, the magistrates should interfere to prevent the formation of any new society. There were many persons who objected to the meeting of these societies at public houses. The superintendance of the magistrates at the quarter sessions might perhaps be exercised in abolishing this practice. But he owned that he could not see the necessity of prohibiting the poorer class from having those little convivial assemblies, without which, in this metropolis, no Lying-in-hospital or other public institution could be supported. It had been asserted, that these societies were frequently made the pretext for meetings, the purpose of which was the combination of workmen for illegal purposes. If such was really the fact, the measures which he proposed would at least make such abuses more difficult. These combinations could not be prevented, although Friendly Societies, innocent in their purposes, were to lose the protection of the law. He wished the House to understand, that all he contended for was, to allow those who chose to secure their earnings in this manner, as others did in savings banks. It was a great satisfaction for him to know, that he who was entitled to the greatest praise from his country for his exertions in the establishment of savings banks, and who had published a book on the subject, had declared his opinion of the total in-competency of savings banks alone; but had proposed to him, before the committee on the poor-laws, that they should be united to friendly societies. He alluded to Mr. Duncan, who had been called the father of savings banks. It might be convenient, that he should say a few words with respect to the other bill—for the establishment of Parochial Benefit societies—which he was about to ask leave to bring in. Many persons thought this mode of providing for the wants of the poor so desirables that its operation ought not to be left to the voluntary acts of individuals, but that the poor should be compelled to resort to it. It had been proposed to establish this compulsion by inviting persons to enter into such societies, and then by refusing parochial relief to those who had not done so. He had brought in a bill on the subject last year. He hoped to be permitted to do the same now. He would fairly say, however, that he saw so many difficulties in the way of framing an unexceptionable measure, that he would not anticipate that in the progress of the bill through the House it would be so rendered. After some farther details of the objects and provisions of this bill, the hon. gentleman moved for leave to bring in his first bill, that which related to the further encouragement of friendly societies.

stated several inconveniences that arose in parishes in which friendly societies were established; and especially directed the notice of the hon. gentleman to this evil, namely, that in some parishes where there were these societies, parochial aid was frequently refused to a sick man if he belonged to them.

thought, that according to the only principle upon which the poor laws could be defended, relief ought to be withholden from any man to whom, from whatever cause, it was otherwise than absolutely necessary for his maintenance.