Imatges de pàgina
PDF
EPUB

errors, than to subscribe to opinions of of Commons. It may be right, or it the justice of which I am not convinced. may be wrong, that the chargeable To destroy a trespasser with such ma-poor should be removed; but why inchines, I think would be murder; to troduce such a controverted point into set such uncontrollable machines for a bill framed for a much more impor the purpose of committing this murder, tant object, and of itself calculated to I think would be indictable; and I am produce so much difference of opinion? therefore of opinion, that he who suffers Mr. Scarlett appears to us to have been from such machines has a fair ground not only indiscreet in the introduction of action, in spite of any notice; for it of such heterogeneous matter, but very is not in the power of notice to make much mistaken in the enactments which them lawful." that matter contains.

SCARLETT'S POOR BILL.

(E. REVIEW, 1821.)

1. Letter to James Scarlett, Esq., M.P., on
his Bill relating to Poor-Laws. By a
Surrey Magistrate. London. 1821.
2. An Address to the Imperial Parliament,
upon the Practical Means of gradually
abolishing the Poor-Laws, and Educating
the Poor Systematically. Illustrated by
an Account of the Colonies of Fredericks-
Oord in Holland, and of the Common
Mountain in the South of Ireland. With
General Observations. Third Edition.
By William Herbert Saunders, Esq.

London. 1821.

"And be it further enacted, that from and after the passing of this Act, it shall not be lawful for any Justice of Peace or other person to remove, or cause to be removed, any poor person or persons from any parish, township or place, to any other, by reason of such person or persons being chargeable to such parish, township or place, or being unable to maintain him or themselves, or under colour of such person or persons being settled in any other parish, township or place, any law or statute to the contrary notwithstanding: Provided always, that nothing in this Act shall in anywise be deemed to alter any law now in force for the punishment of vagrants, or for removing poor persons to Scotland, Ire land, or the Isles of Guernsey, Jersey, and Man. And be it further enacted, that in all cases where any poor person, at the time of the passing this Act, shall be resi dent in any parish, township or place, where he is not legally settled, and shall be receiving relief from the Overseers, Guardians,

3. On Pauperism and the Poor-Laws. With a Supplement. London, 1821. WE are friendly to the main principle of Mr. Scarlett's bill; but are rather surprised at the unworkmanlike man-or Directors of the Poor of the place of his ner in which he has set about it.

To fix a maximum for the Poor-rates, we should conceive to be an operation of sufficient difficulty and novelty for any one bill. There was no need to provoke more prejudice, to rouse more hostility, and create more alarm, than such a bill would naturally do. But Mr. Scarlett is a very strong man; and before he works his battering ram, he chooses to have the wall made of a thickness worthy of his blow-capable of evincing, by the enormity of its ruins, the superfluity of his vigour, and the certainty of his aim. Accordingly he has introduced into his bill a number of provisions, which have no necessary, and indeed no near connection with his great and main object; but which are sure to draw upon his back all the Sir John's and Sir Thomas's in the House

legal settlement, the said Overseers, Guar dians, or Directors are hereby required to continue such relief, in the same manner,

and by the same means, as the same is now administered, until one of His Majesty's Justices of the Peace, in or near the place of residence of such poor person, shall, upon application to him, either by such poor person, or any other person, on his behalf, for the continuance thereof, or by the said Overseers, Guardians, or Directors of the thereof, certify that the same is no longer Poor, paying such relief, for the discharge necessary."-(Bill, pp. 3, 4.)

Now, here is a gentleman, so thoroughly and so justly sensible of the evils of the Poor-laws, that he introduces into the House of Commons a very plain, and very bold measure to restrain them; and yet, in the very same bill, he abrogates the few impediments that remain to universal men

dicity. The present law says, "Before | crowds of houseless villagers, driven you can turn beggar in the place of from their cottages by landlords renyour residence, you must have been dered merciless by the bill. In the born there, or you must have rented a mud-all in the mud (for such cases farm there, or served an office;" but made and provided) would they have Mr. Scarlett says, "You may beg any-rolled this most excellent counsellor. where where you happen to be. I will Instigated by the devil and their own have no obstacles to your turning beg-malicious purposes, his wig they would gar; I will give every facility and have polluted, and tossed to a thousand every allurement to the destruction of winds the parchment bickerings of your independence." We are quite Doe and Roe. Mr. Scarlett's bill is so confident that the direct tendency of powerful a motive to proprietors for Mr. Scarlett's enactments is to produce the depopulation of a village-for prethese effects. Labourers living in one venting the poor from living where place and settled in another, are uni- they wish to live,-that nothing but formly the best and most independent the conviction that such a bill would characters in the place. Alarmed at never be suffered to pass, has prevented the idea of being removed from the those effects from already taking place. situation of their choice, and knowing Landlords would, in the contemplation they have nothing to depend upon but of such a bill, pull down all the cotthemselves, they are alone exempted tages of persons not belonging to the from the degrading influence of the parish, and eject the tenants; the most Poor-laws, and frequently arrive at vigorous measures would be taken to independence by their exclusion from prevent any one from remaining or that baneful privilege which is offered coming who was not absolutely necesto them by the inconsistent benevo-sary to the lord of the soil. At prelence of this bill. If some are removed, sent, cottages are let to anybody; after long residence in parishes where because, if they are burthensome to the they are not settled, these examples parish, the tenants can be removed. only insure the beneficial eflects of But the impossibility of doing this which we have been speaking. Others would cause the immediate demolition see them, dread the same fate, quit the of cottages; prevent the erection of mug, and grasp the flail. Our policy, fresh ones where they are really wanted; as we have explained in a previous and chain a poor man for ever to the article, is directly the reverse of that place of his birth, without the possibiof Mr. Scarlett. Considering that a lity of moving. If everybody who poor man, since Mr. East's bill, if he passed over Mr. Scarlett's threshold ask no charity, has a right to live were to gain a settlement for life in his where he pleases, and that a settlement house, he would take good care never is now nothing more than a beggar's to be at home. We all boldly let our ticket, we would gradually abolish all friends in, because we know we can means of gaining a settlement, but easily get them out. So it is with the those of birth, parentage, or marriage; residence of the poor. Their present and this method would destroy litiga-power of living where they please, and tion as effectually as the method pro-going where they please, entirely deposed by Mr. Scarlett.*

Mr. Scarlett's plan, too, we are firmly persuaded, would completely defeat his own intentions; and would inthet a greater injury upon the poor than this very bill, intended to prevent their capricious removal. If his bill had passed, he could not have passed. His post-chaise on the Northern Circuit would have been impeded by the

This has since been done.

pends upon the possibility of their removal when they become chargeable. If any mistaken friend were to take from them this protection, the whole power and jealousy of property would be turned against their locomotive liberty; they would become adscripti gleba, no more capable of going out of the parish than a tree is of proceeding, with its roots and branches, to a neighbouring wood.

thrown upon their Rates by the causes alleged."- (Bill, pp. 4, 5.)

The remedy here proposed for these has been improperly or unnecessarily er evils is really one of the most extraor-pended by the Overseers of the poor praying dinary we ever remember to have been for such order; and that a separate aud distinct account has been kept by them of introduced into any Act of Parliament. the additional burden which has been "And whereas it may happen, that in several parishes or townships now burdened with the maintenance of the Poor settled and residing therein, the owners of lands or inhabitants may, in order to remove the residence of the labouring Poor from such parishes or places, destroy the cottages and habitations therein now occupied by the labourers and their families: And whereas also it may happen, that certain towns and villages, maintaining their own poor, may, by the residence therein of labourers employed and working in other parishes or townships lying near the said towns and villages, be charged with the burden of maintaining those who do not work, and before the passing of this Act were not settled therein; For remedy thereof, be it enacted by the authority afore

said, that in either of the above cases, it
shall be lawful for the Justices, at any
Quarter-sessions of the peace held for the
county in which such places shall be, upon
the complain of the Overseers of the poor
of any parisn, town, or place, that by reason
of either of the causes aforesaid, the Rates
for the relief of the poor of such parish,

town, or place, have been materially in-
creased, whilst those of other parish or
any
place have been diminished, to hear and
fully inquire into the matter of such com-
plaint; and in case they shall be satisfied
of the truth thereof, then to make an order
upon the Overseers of the Poor of the parish
or township, whose Rates have been dimin-

Now this clause, we cannot help saying, appears to us to be a receipt for universal and interminable litigation all over England—a perfect law-hurricane-a conversion of all flesh into plaintiffs and defendants. The parish A. has pulled down houses, and burthened the parish B.; B. has demolished to the misery of C.; which has again misbehaved itself in the same manner to the oppression of other letters of the alphabet. All run into parchment, and pant for revenge and exoneration. Though the fact may be certain enough. the causes which gave rise to it may

be very uncertain; and assuredly will not be admitted to have been those against which the statute has denounced these penalties. It will be alleged, therefore, that the houses were not pulled down to get rid of the poor, but because they were not worth repair

because they obstructed the squire's view-because rent was not paid. All these motives must go before the sessions, the last resource of legis lators,-the unhappy Quarter-sessions, pushed to the extremity of their wit by the plump contradictions of parish perjury.

Another of the many sources of litigation in this clause is as follows:A certain number of workmen live in a parish, M., not being settled in it, and not working in it before the passing of this Act. After the passing of this Act they become chargeable to M., whose Poor-rates are increased. M. is

ished by the causes aforesaid, to pay to the complainants such sum or sums, from time to time, as the said Justices shall adjudge reasonable, not exceeding, in any case, together with the existing Rates, the amount limited by this Act, as a contribution towards the relief of the poor of the parish, town, or place whose Rates have been increased by the causes aforesaid; which order shall continue in force until the same shall be discharged by some future order of sessions, upon the application of the Over- to find out the parishes relieved from seers paying the same, and proof that the the burthen of these men, and to prooccasion for it no longer exists: Provided secute at the Quarter-sessions for relief. always, that no such order shall be made But suppose the burthened parish to without proof of notice in writing of such in- be in Yorkshire, and the relieved tended application, and of the grounds there- parish in Cornwall, are the Quarterof, having been served upon the Overseers sessions in Yorkshire to make an order of the poor of the parish or place, upon of annual payment upon a parish in whom such order is prayed, fourteen days

at least before the first day of the Quarter- Cornwall? and Cornwall, in turn, sessions, nor unless the Justices making upon Yorkshire? How is the money such order shall be satisfied that no money to be transmitted?

What is the easy

and cheap remedy, if neglected to be paid? And if all this could be effected, what is it, after all, but the present system of removal rendered ten times more intricate, confused, and expensive? Perhaps Mr. Scarlett means, that the parishes where these men worked, and which may happen to be within the jurisdiction of the Justices, are to be taxed in aid of the parish M., in proportion to the benefit they have received from the labour of men whose distresses they do not relieve. We must have, then, a detailed account of how much a certain carpenter worked in one parish, how much in another and enter into a species of evidence absolutely interminable. We hope Mr. Scarlett will not be angry with us: we entertain for his abilities and character the highest possible respect; but great lawyers have not leisure for these trifling details. It is very fortunate that a clause so erroneous in its view should be so inaccurate in its construction. If it were easy to comprehend it, and possible to execute it, it would be necessary to repeal it.

;

imum is very wisely and bravely enacted, and in the following clause, is immediately repealed.

"Provided also, and be it further enacted, that if by reason of any unusual scarcity of provisions, epidemic disease, or any other cause of a temporary or local nature, it shall be deemed expedient by the Overseers of the poor, or other persons having,

by virtue of any local Act of Parliament, the authority of Overseers of the poor of any parish, township, or place, to make any addition to the sum assessed for the relief of the poor, beyond the amount limited by this Act, it shall be lawful for the said Overseers, or such other persons, to give public notice in the several churches, parish, township, or place, and if there be and other places of worship, within the same no church or chapel within such place, then in the parish church or chapel next adjoining the same, of the place and time of a general meeting to be held by the inhabitants paying to the relief of the poor within such parish, township, or place, for the purpose of considering the occasion and the amount of the proposed addition; and if it shall appear to the majority of the persons assembled at such meeting, that such addition shall be necessary, then

it shall be lawful to the Overseers, or other

The shortest way, however, of mend-persons having power to make assessments, ing all this will be entirely to omit this to increase the assessment by the addi part of the bill. We earnestly, but tional sum proposed and allowed at such with very little hope of success, exhort meeting, and for the Justices by whom such rate is to be allowed, upon due proof upon Mr. Scarlett not to endanger the really oath to be made before them, of the resoimportant part of his project, by the lution of such meeting, and that the same introduction of a measure which has was held after sufficient public notice, to little to do with it, and which any allow such rate with the proposed addition, Quarter-session country squire can do specifying the exact amount thereof, with as well, or better, than himself. The the reasons for allowing the same, upon (Bill, p. 3.) real question introduced by his bill is, the face of the rate.” — whether or not a limit shall be put to the Poor-laws; and not only this, but whether their amount shall be gradually diminished. To this better and higher part of the law we shall now address ourselves.

In this, however, as well as in the former part of his bill, Mr. Scarlett becomes frightened at his own enactments, and repeals himself. Parishes are first to relieve every person actually resident within them. This is no sooner enacted, than a provision is introduced to relieve them from this expense, tenfold more burthensome and expensive than the present system of removal. In the same manner, a max

It would really seem, from these and other qualifying provisions, as if Mr. Scarlett had never reflected upon the consequences of his leading enactments till he had penned them; and that he then set about finding how he could prevent himself from doing what he meant to do. To what purpose enact a maximum, if that maximum may at any time be repcaled by the majority of the parishioners? How will the compassion and charity which the Poor-laws have set to sleep be awakened, when such a remedy is at hand as the repeal of the maximum by a vote of the parish? Will ardent and amiable men form themselves into

manity required that the fullest notice possible should be given; and the law of England will not sanction what is inconsistent with humanity.' I have taken the first opportunity of saying this, because I think it of importance to the public that such a misrepresentation of the opinion of one of the Judges should not be circulated without some notice."

We subjoin the report of Messrs. Barnewall and Alderson, here alluded to, and allowed by Mr. Justice Best to

be correct.

[ocr errors]

to be protected, at a distance from the residence of the owner, in the night, and in the absence of his servants? It has. been said, that the law has provided remedies for any injuries to such things by action. But the offender must be detected before he can be subjected to an action; and the expense of continual watching for this purpose would often exceed the value of the property to be protected. If we look at the subject in this point of view, we vented from paying their rents by the plunmay find, amongst poor tenants, whoane preder of their crops, men who are more objects of our compassion than the wanton trespasser, who brings on himself the injury which he suffers. If an owner of a close cannot set spring guns, he cannot put glass bottles or spikes on the top of a wall, or even have a savage dog, to prevent persons from entering his yard. It has been said, in argument, that you may see the glass bottles or spikes; and it is admitted, that if the exact spot where these guns are set was pointed out to the trespasser, he could not maintain any action for the injury he received from one of them. As to seeing the glass bottles or spikes, that must depend on the circumstance whether it be light or dark at the time of the trespass. But what difference does it make, whether the trespasser be told the gun is set in such a spot, or that there are guns in different parts of such a field, if he has no right to go on any part of that field? It is absurd to say you may set the guns, provided you tell the trespasser exactly where they are set, because then the setting them could answer no purpose. My brother Bayley has illustrated this case, by the question which he asked, namely, Can you indict a man for putting spring guns in his enclosed field? I think the question put by Lord C. J. Gibbs, in the case in the Common Pleas, a still better illustration, viz. Can you justify entering into enclosed lands, to take away guns so set? If both these questions must be an

'Best, J. The act of the plaintiff could only occasion mere nominal damage to the wood of the defendant. The injury that the plaintiff's trespass has brought upon himself is extremely severe. In such a case, one cannot, without pain, decide against the action. But we must not allow our feelings to induce us to lose sight of the principles which are essential to the rights of property. The prevention of intrusion upon property is one of these rights; and every proprietor is allowed to use the force that is absolutely necessary to vindicate it. | If he uses more force than is absolutely necessary, he renders himself responsible for all the consequences of the excess. Thus, if a man comes on my land, I cannot lay hands on him to remove him, until I have desired him to go off. If he will not depart on request, I cannot proceed immediately to beat him, but must endeavour to push him off. If he is too powerful for me, I cannot use a dangerous weapon, but must first call in aid other assistance. I am speaking of out-door property, and of cases in which no felony is to be apprehended. It is evident also, that this doctrine is only applicable to trespasses committed in the presence of the owner of the property trespassed on. When the owner and the servants are absent at the time of the trespass, it can only be repelled by the terror of spring guns, or other instruments of the same kind. There is, in such cases, no possi-swered in the negative, it cannot be unbility of proportioning the resisting force to the obstinacy and violence of the trespasser, as the owner of the close may and is required to do where he is present. There is no distinction between the mode of defence of one species of out-door property and another (except in cases where the taking or breaking into the property amounts to felony). If the owner of woods cannot set spring guns in his woods, the owner of an orchard, or of a field with potatoes or turnips or any other crop usually the object of plunder, cannot set them in such field. How, then, are these kinds of property

lawful to set spring guns in an enclosed field, at a distance from any road, giving such notice that they are set, as to render it in the highest degree probable that all persons in the neighbourhood must know that they are so set. Humanity requires that the fullest notice possible should be given; and the law of England will not sanction what is inconsistent with humanity. It has been said in argument, that it is a principle of law, that you cannot do indirectly what you are not permitted to do directly. This principle is not applicable to the case. You cannot shoot a

« AnteriorContinua »