voured to correct, and which were doubtless corrected partially and temporarily, soon revived and flourished.

Acts of parliament, one after another, were passed to remedy flagrant evils. A great effort was made in the reign. of George III, in the statute known as "Gilbert's Act," which proposed to transfer from one set of men called overseers to another set called guardians, of the same class however, the charge of relieving the poor. It was intended by the appointment of a superior officer called a visitor, whose powers were of a somewhat despotic character, to restrain the new body of guardians from nefarious practices and dereliction of duty. The statute, however, failed; first, because the adoption of it was made optional with the parishes, and secondly, because it was wretchedly inadequate in its provisions to meet the requirements of a rapidly increasing population. It was adopted to a very small extent, and for the most part things remained as they were until the flagrant peculations, perversions and abuses, fully exposed by the Commission of 1832, led to the passing of the "Poor Law Amendment Act,” in 1834.

No one who has not experience of, or had practical acquaintance with, the difficulty of getting an act of parliament to remedy acknowledged evils can conceive the obstacles which meet every step of the progress of effecting a cure by this means for social disorders. So great was the jealousy manifested of giving what was considered unconstitutional powers to bodies outside the House of Commons, that whilst the "Poor Law Amendment Act" was, in its main provisions, passed, the power of dealing with "Gilbert Unions," and bodies incorporated under local acts for the government of poor relief, was withheld. Hence we see that, whilst the poor-law commissioners gradually introduced the new order of things, in most parts of the country there still remain anomalies in the shape of peculiar local law and practice, often

either sheltering abuses, or hindering the introduction of improvement. The act itself was exceedingly well drawn, although experience has made various amendments requisite which subsequent legislation has either effected, or by bungling efforts attempted to effect and failed.

I have in this sketch just glanced only at the history of the poor law, which will be found more detailed (in common with much extraneous matter which might have been well omitted), in Sir George Nicholls's volumes. I will now proceed to discuss a few points upon which it is manifest that a change is either actually impending, or needs to be accomplished.

The first is the law of settlement. By this law, adapted to a ruder age when we had just emerged from that state of feudalism to which I have adverted, the labouring population which had been attached to the soil of the feudal lord, were still practically regarded as belonging to particular localities; and the circumstance of being born in a certain parish, having paid rent and taxes or been apprenticed to a trade in a place, was held to constitute a claim to relief there and not elsewhere. Theoretically the king's highway is regarded as open to all. Everybody may travel where he will, provided only he has money in his pocket to pay for a night's lodging. Without this, he is obnoxious to the operations of the Vagrant Act, and may be sent to gaol as a rogue and vagabond; but if he have resided in a place for a time, maintained himself creditably by his labour, by trade, or by his property, or discreditably by other means—let him fall into destitution, and his making a claim to relief by the overseers or guardians involves his removal by force, and often after immense law costs, to some distant place in which himself, his father, or his grandfather may have been born or apprenticed, or have rented a house. The law of settlement ought to be at once and for ever expunged from the statute book. To this issue

the five years' residence device, since reduced to three years, inevitably points. Ireland has been and is a difficulty; nevertheless the great amelioration of the condition of that country has almost removed it.

The next point to be considered is the constitution of Boards of Guardians.

It was intended in 1834-and the idea is probably still believed in as a fact by the outside world—that the case of every pauper relieved should come before the board at their meetings. Whatever was designed, and however strictly the law may in some primitive districts be carried out, it will astonish some to be informed that in one large union in this county, containing a population of more than 100,000, the board, or relief section of the board administering a large portion of the relief, consists of one guardian assisted by a pauper.

A priori, it might be presumed that two primary qualifications for a guardian would be-first, a disposition to benefit the poor by relieving and raising them, and, secondly, an aptitude for administration. Practically, the first qualification is the saving the rates of the parish by which he is returned -on the one hand by screwing down the relief given to the uttermost, and on the other by throwing that minimum charge, if possible, upon the common fund of the union; whilst the second has the same object in view, but by another means— namely, by keeping down the salaries of the really working men, the relieving officers and collectors. A few have sought and do seek to be guardians on philanthropic principles, and a few such are elected. But they are generally outnumbered by those who possess the special qualifications I have described and by others who make the board-room the road to notoriety and to the pecuniary advantage of their connexions and friends. But besides these elected members the board is said to comprise gentlemen who may be fairly expected to

be free from sordid motives and considerations—namely, the magistrates. Alas! from some cause not difficult to be divined, this superior element is rarely met with. Except upon some extraordinary occasions the ex officio guardians are not found at their posts. Their moral influence might possibly, at least occasionally, prevail; but I have known it unblushingly boasted by a country guardian, who was told that a good and benevolent object would be supported by the sound arguments of the more intelligent members of the board, "We shall beat them in voting."

There is no question that the tendency of boards of guardians, as also of town councils, is downwards in character and tone.

In addition to the care of the poor, of lunatics and, to some extent, of sanitary matters, recent legislation has given them in this county, to a large extent, the power to expend public money in public works. I do not hesitate to say that of the million and a half voted for these public works, whether distributed by guardians or by other local bodies, a very small portion will reach the class for which it was professedly designed, whilst the works themselves would be more economically and better done in another way. The Government do not admit that the persons to be benefited are paupers; and even if it were desirable that the money should be expended on such works for the benefit of unemployed cotton operatives, the guardians of the poor are not the persons to superintend them. Sanitary and useful objects may be accomplished thereby, but I predicted from the first that cotton operatives would not get the benefit; and I say so still.

I venture, after mature consideration, helped by the experience of many years active service in poor-law matters, to suggest that a monthly meeting of guardians should take the place of the weekly one; and that the relief of the poor should in the meantime be administered by a paid chairman—a man of

superior administrative talent; and I am sure that such a salary as would induce such a man to take the office would prove in the end a matter of decided economy. He should be, in fact, the head superintendent of the union and be prepared to lay before his board all that has been done in the intervals of their meetings. The idea of an office something like this is to be found in the "visitor" of Gilbert's act.

I

may, in concluding this branch of my subject, mention that because it was felt that boards of guardians had enough to do in caring for the poor, it was found expedient to create local boards for public works and sanitary operations. This good idea is now set at nought; and by the Nuisances Removal Acts and the Public Works Act these matters are to some extent thrown upon the guardians, who when they meddle with matters which are so wholly without their province, will assuredly muddle them.

In the town in which we are now engaged, the poor-relief arrangements present two features which, as far as they go, are vastly superior to those of some of our neighbours. The officers are placed under the direct control of a superior officer, styled head-superintendent; and Mr. Hagger, the gentleman who now holds this office, exemplifies the value and great importance of it. The administration of out-relief is ably superintended by another paid officer, to whom all the relieving officers are accountable.

In the large unions, which are constructed more strictly according to the Poor Law Amendment Act and the Commissioners' orders, the clerk has no authority, and, instead of devoting himself solely to the charge of the union and its officers, is so underpaid as to be obliged to eke out his living by other pursuits.

In a neighbouring union a most heterogenous state of things exists-the assistant-overseers and collectors being in some parishes appointed by vestry, in others by guardians.