too, it is convenient to give in the briefest terms some particulars with regard to the words 'parish' and 'union,' in reference to Poor Law relief. 'Union.' By the Poor Law Act of Queen Elizabeth,* the relief and charge- 'Parish, and ability of the poor were limited to the area of the parish. In the reign of Charles II. a law was passed by which parishes, often of an unwieldy size, might be subdivided. This law was unfairly applied, in order to create what were called 'close' parishes, sections of parishes in which there were few paupers, and hence low rates, while hard by were parishes with many paupers and high rates. The Poor Law Commissioners (1834) introduced the system of unions, by which, while each parish supported its own poor, the workhouse was maintained by the parishes in union; each giving its quota towards its cost. It was subsequently enacted, in 1848 and the years following,† that persons who acquired the status of irremovability, should be relieved from the ' common fund of the Union,' and with some other classes of paupers, such as destitute wayfarers, &c., they became 'union paupers.' And the basis upon which the common fund was assessed was altered. It had been based on the average expense incurred by each parish in the relief of its own poor, during the three years previous. It was now, and has since been based, on the annual value of the rateable property of each parish. In 1865 another great change was made. The relief of all paupers was thrown on the common fund of the union.‡ Concurrently with these changes, changes were made in regard to the position of the parish in questions of removability. It had been necessary, that, to obtain irremovability by residence, the poor person should not reside outside the parish. Afterwards residence in any one or more parishes, in a single union, was computed to make up the period of residence that conferred irremovability.§ Removability, therefore, depends on residence in a union. In the enactments with regard to settlement, the words defining the local area are the information given would hardly be found even suggestive. The almoner is likely to pass by many important provisions altogether, unless they are brought to his notice, in the first instance, in some compendious form. But if once the suggestion is made to him, and his work shows him its practical bearing, he can, by reference to the proper authorities or to books, ascertain any further particulars that may be necessary, or what the requirements of the law more exactly are. It has been desired to make this Introduction' suggestive, and so far as the limits of space allow, detailed and accurate. To make it exhaustive would be impossible, and it must thus also be, in a measure, incorrect. A list of Books of Reference will be found on pp. 231, 232, and in the notes numerous references are given. * 43 Eliz., c. 2. † Irremovable Poor Act, 1861 (24 & 25 Vict., c. 55), s. 8. Union Chargeability Act, 1865 (28 & 29 Vict., c. 79), s. 2. The case of a deserted wife is an exception. She must continue to reside in the same parish as that in which she lived when deserted, to gain exemption from removal. See p. xxxv. (6), and pp. xl., xlix., and lxi. с Settlement and Removal. 'parish,' ' parish or place,' ' parish or township'; and no change has been made in the law, similar to that with regard to removability, by which the union is substituted for the parish as the area of settlement. Yet the distinction between parish and union has in a great measure lapsed. Many parishes, of course, were not considered too small, or otherwise unsuitable for administrative purposes. They remained parishes, such as Kensington, Islington, and others. Many, again, were made parts of unions; e.g. St. Luke's, Clerkenwell, and Holborn, which have been formed into the Holborn Union.* Parliament, in the reign of Charles II., appear to have been apprehensive of the undue growth of large towns, and of the diseases incident to a crowded population; and they were desirous of checking vagrancy, and of regulating, and as a result, of checking also, the circulation of labour.† They therefore made a law enabling justices, under certain conditions, to send back to their homes-to the place of their last settlement-persons who were likely to become chargeable to the parish. A procedure which had been previously introduced for dealing with vagrants only, was thus extended to the ordinary poor. By a later statute this power of the justices was limited to persons who became actually chargeable. Since then many modifications have been made (see below) by which a right of irremovability is secured to persons who are residing in and become chargeable to a parish or union,† in which they have not a settlement. The result of the law of Charles II. has thus been that two series of questions have to be asked by the Guardians, in the case of every pauper; can we remove him, or must we pay for him here? and, if we can remove him, where is the place of his last settlement? Further, by successive enactments it has come about that, while residence, under certain conditions, confers irremovability, the same residence does not confer settlement. If, therefore, the Guardians have to pay for the relief of a pauper, because he is irremovable, they are no less interested in securing that, if he leaves their union, he should leave it without having contracted there a right of settlement; for in the event of his requiring relief, before he has acquired any new right of irremovability in the union to whicч he goes, he will be sent back, not to them, but to the place of his last settlement, the place to which, on his becoming chargeable, they would themselves have removed him if the law had allowed them to do so. The question of removal and settlement is, it is obvious, intricate, whether for purposes of administration or to the student. * See the Poor Removal and Chargeability Acts, by W. G. Lumley. Knight & Co., Fleet Street, 1865. A short paper, Poor Removal within the Metropolis,' by Mr. Robert W. Monro, a guardian at Paddington, will be found of interest, in regard to the present state of this question in London. † 14 Charles II., c. 12. See History of the English Poor Law, by Sir George Nicholls, vol. I. p. 293. 35 Geo. III., c. 101. s. 1. One set of conditions govern 'irremovability,' and another 'settlement.' A person who is settled in the union in which he becomes chargeable, is, of course, irremovable from it; but many that are irremovable from the union in which they become chargeable, are not settled in it. Under what circumstances, then, is a person who becomes Removal. chargeable to a parish, not to be removed; when is he 'irremovable'? (1) He cannot be removed, if he is legally settled where he is (see below.) bility by (2) If he has resided in the union without interruption for one Irremovayear next before the application for a warrant of removal, he cannot residence. be removed.* under 16. (3) A child under 16, left an orphan, while residing with its Orphans surviving parent, cannot be removed, if the parent at the time of death was exempt from removal by reason of length of residence.† (4) No child under 16, whether legitimate or illegitimate, resi- Children ding in any parish with father or mother, stepfather or stepmother, or reputed father, can be removed, unless the parent can also be lawfully removed.‡ A child cannot be removed from its parent if it be under the age of seven years, which is called the age of nurture; and if it become chargeable and have a different settlement from its parent, still it must be allowed to remain with the parent until it attain the age of seven years, or if the parent be removed, it must be removed also, to the same parish.§ under 16. children. (5) If a wife becomes chargeable in the absence of her husband Wife and she may be removed to his last legal settlement, if he has one, or if not, then to the place of her maiden settlement. Children and wife are only removable with the father and husband. wife. (6) If a deserted wife continues to reside for one year in the Deserted same parish in such a manner as would, if she were a widow (see next clause), render her exempt from removal, she is not liable to removal unless her husband returns to live with her.¶ (7) A widow residing in any parish with her husband at the Widows. time of his death, cannot be removed for twelve calendar months after, if she so long remains a widow.** Also non-resident relief' may (7 & 8 Vict., c. 101, s. 26) be given by the Guardians of the union of her settlement to a widow who continues on her husband's death to reside in the union where he died. The widow, in such a case, must have a legitimate child dependent on her for support, * 28 & 29 Vict., c. 79, s. 8. See as to the definition and conditions of residence, Glen's Poor Law Statutes, vol. II. p. 845, 1873; see also W. G. Lumley's Poor Removal and Union Chargeability Acts. † 24 & 25 Vict., c. 55, s. 2. § Glen's Archbold, p. 571. 29 & 30 Vict., c. 113, s. 17. 9 & 10 Vict., c. 66, s. 3. ** 9 & 10 Vict., c. 66, s. 2, and Glen's Archbold, p. 594. Sick persons. Settlement. Wife. Children under 16. Illegitimate child. Settlement by residence. Ву оссираtion. and no illegitimate child born after the commencement of widowhood. (8) Persons who become chargeable for relief received owing to sickness or accident are not removable, unless they are likely, in the opinion of the justices, to become permanently disabled.* they are cured they become chargeable to their own union. It should be noted that persons exempted from removal do not by reason of such exemption acquire any settlement.† Also in computing the length of residence there must be excluded-among other exceptions-the time during which a person is in prison, in an asylum, or hospital.‡ The Guardians, if satisfied as to the facts of settlement, arrange for the removal or reception of paupers to or from other unions. But in cases of dispute a removal order is made by two justices on the complaint of the Guardians. If a pauper, removed by a removal order, returns and becomes chargeable within twelve months he is liable to be convicted and punished as idle and disorderly' (see p. xlv).§ If, then, a person be removed, the next question is where he may be removed to ? Where is the place of his last settlement? What constitutes settlement? Settlements are said to be of two kinds-original, when the person has acquired it himself; derivative, when he has acquired it indirectly, e.g. as a child by parentage, a wife by marriage. The only derivative settlements now recognised are as follows :|| (1) A wife acquires on marriage the settlement of her husband, if he have one. She cannot while married acquire any separate settlement of her own. (2) A child under the age of 16 takes the settlement of its father or widowed mother, which it retains until it acquires another settlement. (3) An illegitimate child retains the settlement of its mother until it acquires another settlement. Of original settlements there are the following amongst others: (4) Residence for three years 'in any parish in such manner and under such circumstances as would, in according with statutes in that behalf, render a person irremovable,' gives settlement, ¶ until settlement in some other parish may be acquired. (5) The occupation for one year of a tenement, being a separate and distinct dwelling-house of a not less annual value than £10, for which the occupant has been assessed, and has paid poorrate for one year, gives settlement.** * 9 & 10 Vict., c. 66, s. 4; 24 & 25 Vict., c. 5, s. 55. † Ibid., s. 5; and 28 & 29 Vict., c. 79, s. 13. Ibid., s. 1. § 28 & 29 Vict., 79, s. 7. Poor Law Amendment Act, 1876 (39 & 40 Vict., c. 61), s. 35. 39 & 40 Vict., c. 61, s. 34. by E. Lumley, 1876. See Poor Law Amendment Act, 1876, with notes, ** See Glen's Archbold, pp. 498 and C15. (6) The owner of an estate in land, however small in value, by By estate. a residence of forty days in the parish in which it is situated, acquires a settlement.* Questions of settlement are often of practical interest to the almoner. Thus a charitable institution attracts from other unions incurable or other inmates, who by residence become irremovable in an alien union, to the displeasure of the Guardians. This has often been a matter of complaint. Again, if assistance is wanted from the Guardians for a deaf, dumb, or blind child, whose mother, a widow, has removed to another union in which she has not settled,' the Guardians may refuse to assist her child. She may return, they may say, to her proper union.† The decision as to whether the child should be assisted, and the cost of relief, will then fall upon the Guardians of the union of her settlement. XVII. THE LEGAL RESPONSIBILITIES OF RELATIONS. Any relief which removes a natural obligation is in its results of very doubtful benefit. The law according to its letter at least fully recognises this. Charity often forgets it. The issue is fairly raised in such a case as that mentioned on p. lxxx. Interest of questions of charity in settlement and removal. obligations of relations should be enforced. Money given in such an instance is only spent in drink; and Why the the removal of the child sets the parent free to indulge himself without fear of consequences. It may be urged that the child should be saved; and the plea is a strong one. But the effect on the class will be bad: existing ties and responsibilities are none too numerous to keep men to their duty. What a man sees done for his neighbour, he thinks he is entitled to himself, and he yields to vice, well aware that there is charity in the background and in the last resort the Poor Law. There is abundant evidence in proof of this. Whenever it is possible therefore, the relations should be required to do their part. The disgrace of leaving the fulfilment of their duty to strangers should be insisted on, a definite scheme of help should be submitted to them, with a request for assistance of a definite kind or to a definite amount. No trouble is too great to reassert the family bond. The law deals with the question very precisely; a knowledge of it may enable the almoner to push relations to the alternativs which they often dread, of letting those for whom they are legally or morally liable 'go on the rates,' or assisting them. The moral and pecuniary result of the enforcement of the law against relations, is shown in a return kindly furnished by the Clerk of the * Glen's Archbold, p. 499, &c. + Residence in a charitable institution does not confer settlement, but such residence is ho bar to contracting irremovability. There was in 1882 before the House a Settlement of Removal Law Amendment Bill' brought in by the Government. It was proposed to reduce settlement by residence from three years to one, and irremovability by residence from one year to three months. |