orcouldgivesecurityforthedischargeoftheparishtothemagistrates’
satisfaction，hewasexemptfromthisprovision。
AsthisActcarriedwithittheconsequencethatfortydays’residence
withoutcomplaintfromtheparishofficersgainedthenew-comerasettlement，
itwasaninevitabletemptationtoParishAtosmuggleitspoorintoParish
B，wherefortydays’residencewithouttheknowledgeoftheparishofficers
wouldgainthemasettlement。Fiercequarrelsbrokeoutbetweentheparishes
inconsequence。Tocomposetheseitwasenacted(1JamesII。c。17)that
thefortydays’residenceweretobereckonedonlyafterawrittennotice
hadbeengiventoaparishofficer。EventhiswasnotenoughtoprotectParish
B，andby3WilliamandMary，c。11(1691)itwasprovidedthatthisnotice
mustbereadinchurch，immediatelyafterdivineservice，andthenregistered
inthebookkeptforpoor’saccounts。Suchaconditionmadeitpractically
impossibleforanypoormantogainasettlementbyfortydays’residence，
unlesshistenementwereofthevalueof£；10ayear，buttheActallowed
animmigranttoobtainasettlementinanyoneoffourways；(1)bypaying
theparishtaxes；(2)byexecutingapublicannualofficeintheparish；
(3)byservinganapprenticeshipintheparish；(4)bybeinghiredfora
year’sserviceintheparish。(This，however，onlyappliedtotheunmarried。)
In1697(8and9WilliamIII。e。30)afurtherimportantmodificationof
thesettlementlawswasmade。Topreventthearbitraryejectionofnew-comers
byparishofficers，whofearedthatthefresharrivalorhischildrenmight
somehoworothergainasettlement，itwasenactedthatifthenew-comer
broughtwithhimtoParishBacertificatefromtheparishofficersofParish
Atakingresponsibilityforhim，thenhecouldnotberemovedtillbebecame
actuallychargeable。ItwasfurtherdecidedbythisandsubsequentActsand
bylegaldecisions，thatthegrantingofacertificatewastobeleftto
thediscretionoftheparishofficersandmagistrates，thatthecostofremoval
fellonthecertificatingparish，andthatacertificateholdercouldonly
gainasettlementinanewparishbyrentingatenementof£；10annual
value，orbyexecutingaparishoffice，andthathisapprenticeorhired
servantcouldnotgainasettlement。
Inadditiontothesemethodsofgainingasettlementtherewerefourother
ways，’throughwhich，’accordingtoEden，’itisprobablethatbyfarthe
greaterpartofthelabouringPoor……areactuallysettled。’(18*)(1)Bastards，
withsomeexceptions，acquiredasettlementbybirth；(19*)(2)legitimate
childrenalsoacquiredasettlementbybirthiftheirfather’s，orfailing
that，theirmother’slegalsettlementwasnotknown；(3)womengainedasettlement
bymarriage；(4)personswithanestateoftheirownwereirremovable，if
residingonit，howeversmallitmightbe。
VeryfewimportantmodificationshadbeenmadeinthelawsofSettlement
duringthecenturyafter1697。In1722(9GeorgeI。c。7)itwasprovided
thatnopersonwastoobtainasettlementinanyparishbythepurchaseof
anyestateorinterestoflessvaluethan£；30，tobe’bonafidepaid，’
aprovisionwhichsuggeststhatparisheshadconnivedatgiftsofmoneyfor
thepurchaseofestatesinordertodiscardtheirpaupers：bythesameAct
thepaymentofthescavengerorhighwayratewasdeclarednottoconfera
settlement。In1784(24GeorgeIII。c。6)soldiers，sailorsandtheirfamilies
wereallowedtoexercisetradeswheretheyliked，andwerenottoberemovable
tilltheybecameactuallychargeable；andin1793(33GeorgeIII。c。54)
thislatterconcessionwasextendedtomembersofFriendlySocieties。None
oftheseconcessionsaffectedthenormallabourer，anddownto1795alabourer
couldonlymakehiswaytoanewvillageifhisownvillagewouldgivehim
acertificate，oriftheothervillageinvitedhim。Hislibertywasentirely
controlledbytheparishofficers。
HowfardidtheSettlementActsoperate？Howfardidthisbodyoflaw
reallyaffectthecomfortandlibertyofthepoor？Thefiercestcriticism
comesfromAdamSmith，whosefundamentalinstinctsrebelledagainstsocrude
andbrutalaninterferencewithhumanfreedom。’Toremoveamanwhohascommitted
nomisdemeanour，fromaparishwherehechusestoreside，isanevidentviolation
ofnaturallibertyandjustice。ThecommonpeopleofEngland，however，so
jealousoftheirliberty，but，likethecommonpeopleofmostothercountries，
neverrightlyunderstandingwhereinitconsists，havenow，formorethan
acenturytogether，sufferedthemselvestobeexposedtothisoppression
withoutaremedy。Thoughmenofreflexion，too，havesometimescomplained
ofthelawofsettlementsasapublicgrievance；yetithasneverbeenthe
objectofanygeneralpopularclamour，suchasthatagainstgeneralwarrants，
anabusivepracticeundoubtedly，butsuchaoneaswasnotlikelytooccasion
anygeneraloppression。ThereisscarceapoormaninEngland，offortyyears
ofage，Iwillventuretosay，whohasnot，insomepartofhislife，felt
himselfmostcruellyoppressedbythisill-contrivedlawofsettlements。’(20*)
AdamSmith’sviewissupportedbytwocontemporarywritersonthePoor
Law，Dr。BurnandMr。Hay。Dr。Burn，whopublishedahistoryofthePoor
Lawin1764，givesthispictureoftheoverseer：’TheofficeofanOverseer
ofthePoorseemstobeunderstoodtobethis，tokeepanextraordinarylook-out
topreventpersonscomingtoinhabitwithoutcertificates，andtoflyto
theJusticestoremovethem：andifamanbringsacertificate，thentocaution
theinhabitantsnottolethimafarmof£；10ayear，andtotakecare
tokeephimoutofallparishoffices。’(21*)Hefurthersaysthattheparish
officerswillassistapoormanintakingafarminaneighboringparish，
andgivehim£；10fortherent。Mr。Hay，M。P。，protestedinhisremarks
onthePoorLawsagainstthehardshipsinflictedonthepoorbytheLaws
ofSettlement。’Itleavesitinthebreastoftheparishofficerswhether
theywillgrantapoorpersonacertificateorno。’(22*)Eden，ontheother
hand，thoughtAdamSmith’spictureoverdrawn，andhecontendedthatthough
therewerenodoubtcasesofvexatiousremoval，theLawsofSettlementwere
notadministeredinthiswayeverywhere。Howlettalsoconsideredtheoperation
oftheLawsofSettlementtobe’trifling，’andinstancedthegrowthofSheffield，
Birmingham，andManchesterasproofthattherewaslittleinterferencewith
themobilityoflabour。
Acarefulstudyoftheevidenceseemstoleadtotheconclusionthatthe
LawsofSettlementwereinpractice，astheywereonpaper，aviolationof
naturalliberty；thattheydidnotstoptheflowoflabour，butthatthey
relateditintheinterestoftheemployingclass。TheanswertoHowlett
isgivenbyRugglesintheAnnalsofAgriculture。(23*)Hebeginsby
sayingthattheLawofSettlementhasmadeapoorfamily’ofnecessitystationary；
andobligedthemtorestsatisfiedwiththosewagestheycanobtainwhere
theirlegalsettlementhappenstobe；arestraintonthemwhichoughtto
insuretothemwagesintheparishwheretheymustremain，moreadequate
totheirnecessities，becauseitprecludestheminamannerfrombringing
theirlabour，theonlymarketableproducetheypossess，tothebestmarket；
itisthisrestraintwhichhas，inallmanufacturingtowns，beenonecause
ofreducingthepoortosuchastateofmiserablepoverty；for，amongthe
manufacturers，theyhavetoofrequentlyfoundmasterswhohavetaken，and
continuetotakeeveryadvantage，whichstrictlawwillgive；ofconsequence，
thepricesoflabourhavebeen，inmanufacturingtowns，inaninverseratio
ofthenumberofpoorsettledintheplace；andthesamecausehasincreased
thatnumber，byinvitingforeigners，intimeswhenlargeordersrequired
manyworkmen；themastersthemselvesbeingtheoverseers，whosedutyasparish
officershasbeenopposedbytheirinterestinsupplyingthedemand。’In
otherwords，whenitsuitedanemployertoletfreshworkersin，hewould，
quaoverseer，encouragethemtocomewithorwithoutcertificates；butwhen
theywereonceinand’settled’hewouldrefusethemcertificatestoenable
themtogoandtrytheirfortuneselsewhere，inparisheswhereacertificate
wasdemandedwitheachpoornew-comer。(24*)Thusitisnotsurprisingto
find，fromEden’sReports，thatcertificatesarenevergrantedat
LeedsandSkipton；seldomgrantedatSheffield；notwillinglygrantedat
Nottingham，andthatatHalifaxcertificatesarenotgrantedatpresent，
andonlythreehavebeengrantedinthelasteighteenyears。
Ithasbeenarguedthatthefiguresaboutremovalsindifferentparishes
givenbyEdeninhissecondandthirdvolumesshowthattheLawofSettlement
was’notsoblackasithasbeenpainted。’(25*)Butinconsideringthesmall
numberofremovals，wemustalsoconsiderthelargenumberofplaceswhere
thereisthisentry，’certificatesarenevergranted。’Itneededconsiderable
couragetogotoanewparishwithoutacertificateandruntheriskofan
ignominiousexpulsion，andthoughalloverseerswerenotsostrictasthe
onedescribedbyDr。Burn，yetthefameofonevexatiousremovalwouldhave
afar-reachingeffectincheckingmigration。Itisclearthatthelawmust
haveoperatedinthiswayindistrictswhereenclosurestookawayemployment
withintheparish。SupposeHodgetohavelivedatKibworth-BeauchampinLeicestershire。
About1780，3600acreswereenclosedandturnedfromarabletopasture；before
enclosurethefields’weresolelyappliedtotheproductionofcorn，’and
’thePoorhadthenplentyofemploymentinweeding，reaping，threshing，etc。，
andcouldalsocollectagreatdealofcornbygleaning。’(26*)Afterthe
change，asEdenadmits，athirdorperhapsafourthofthenumberofhands
wouldbesufficienttodoallthefarmingworkrequired。Letussaythat
Hodgewasoneofthesuperfluoustwo-thirds，andthattheparishauthorities
refusedhimacertificate。Whatdidhedo？Heappliedtotheoverseer，who
senthimoutasaroundsman。(27*)Hewouldprefertobeartheillsheknew
ratherthanfacetheunknownintheshapeofanewparishofficer，whomight
demandacertificate，andsendhimbackwithignominyifhefailedtoproduce
one。Ifhetookhiswifeandfamilywithhimtherewasevenlesschanceof
thedemandforacertificatebeingwaived。(28*)SoatKibworth-Beauchamp
Hodgeandhiscompanionsremained，inastateofchronicdiscontent。’The
Poorcomplainofhardtreatmentfromtheoverseers，andtheoverseersaccuse
thePoorofbeingsaucy。’(29*)
Now，atfirstsight，itseemsobviousthatitwouldbetotheinterest
ofaparishtogiveapoormanacertificate，iftherewerenomarketfor
hislabourathome，inordertoenablehimtogoelsewhereandmakeanindependent
living。Thisseemsthereasonableview，butitisincorrect。Inthesame
way，itwouldseemobviousthataparishwouldgiveslightrelieftoaperson
whoseclaimwasindoubtratherthanspendtentimestheamountincontesting
thatclaimatlaw。Inpointoffact，inneithercasedowefindwhatseems
thereasonablecourseadopted。Parishesspentfortunesinlawsuits。Andto
theparishauthoritiesitwouldseemthattheyriskedmoreingivingHodge
acertificatethaninobliginghimtostayathome，evenifhecouldnot
makealivinginhisnativeplace；forhemight，withhiscertificate，wander
alongwayoff，andthenfallintodifficulties，andhavetobefetchedback
atgreatexpense，andthecostofremovinghimwouldfallonthecertificating
parish。ThereisasignificantpassageintheAnnalsofAgriculture(30*)
aboutthewooltradein1788。’Wehavelatelyhadsomehand-billsscattered
aboutBocking，Iamtold，promisingfullemploytocombersandweavers，that
wouldmigratetoNottingham。Eveniftheychosetotrythisoffer；asprobably
aparishcertificateforsuchadistancewouldberefused；itcannotbeattempted。’
Whereparishessawanimmediateprospectofgettingridoftheirsuperfluous
poorintoaneighboringparishwithopenfieldsoracommon，theywereindeed
notcharyofgrantingcertificates。AtHothfieldinKent，forexample，’full
halfofthelabouringpoorarecertificatedpersonsfromotherparishes：
theabove-mentionedcommon，whichaffordsthemthemeansofkeepingacow，
orpoultry，issupposedtodrawmanyPoorintotheparish；certificatedpersons
areallowedtodigpeat。’(31*)
IntheRulesforthegovernmentofthePoorinthehundredsofLoesand
WilfordinSuffolk(32*)veryexplicitdirectionsaregivenaboutthegranting
ofcertificates。Inthefirstplace，beforeanycertificateisgrantedthe
applicantmustproduceanexaminationtakenbeforeaJusticeofthePeace，
showingthathebelongstooneoftheparisheswithinthehundred。Granted
thathehascompliedwiththiscondition，then，(1)ifhebealaboureror
husbandmannocertificatewillbegrantedhimoutofthehundredsunless
hebelongstotheparishofKenton，andeveninthatcaseitis’nottoexceed
thedistanceofthreemiles；’(2)ifhebeatradesman，artificer，ormanufacturer
acertificatemaybegrantedtohimoutofthehundreds，butinnocaseis
ittoexceedthedistanceoftwentymilesfromtheparishtowhichhebelongs。
Theextentofthehundredswasroughlyfourteenmilesbyfiveandahalf。
Eden，describingtheneighbourhoodofCoventry，says：’Inacountryparish
ononesidethecity，chieflyconsistingofcottagesinhabitedbyribbon-weavers，
theRatesareashighasinCoventry；whilst，inanotherparish，ontheopposite
side，theydonotexceedone-thirdoftheCityRate：thisisascribedto
thecarethatistakentopreventmanufacturersfromsettlingintheparish。’(33*)
