but they think that the way in which the English spirit duties are raised operates very unfavourably to their interests, and that, if concessions were made to them in this particular, they would be able to persuade their countrymen to make certain concessions which would be highly favourable to the English manufacturer. Mr. Faucher, a well-known economist and Free Trader, wrote a most elaborate paper upon this subject, which will be found in a volume published by the Cobden Club.

I am not going to express any opinion upon Mr. Faucher's views any more than I have done upon those of the Portuguese and Spanish complaints, but I think he has made out a case that calls for an enquiry before an impartial tribunal.

If the Portuguese and Spanish, and if Mr. Faucher and his friends can show that the arguments on their side of the case outweigh those which will be brought against them, and if it by any chance becomes clear that it will be largely for the interest of English commerce that the changes which they suggest should be made, good and well, we shall have an extension of the Commercial Treaty system, which I for one shall be, in the absence of overwhelming reasons of convenience to the contrary, extremely glad to see; but the pros and cons of these proposals are matters for future enquiry. The success of the existing network of commercial treaties is, however, no longer a matter for enquiry. It has been proved by the experience of the last ten years, and while I hereby call your attention to the Portuguese, Spanish, and German allegations, I wish to urge each one of you, who has at heart the cause of Free Exchange and the binding closer together of the nations, to remember the critical position of the Treaties, and to work for their support.

Address

BY

GEORGE WOODYATT HASTINGS, LL.M.,

PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL OF THE
THE ASSOCIATION.

IT

T has been my custom for some years past, as it was that of my illustrious predecessor in the office of President of the Council, Lord Brougham, to state to the Association at its annual Congress the salient points in the proceedings of the Council during the past year. In doing so I necessarily take only the leading features, and I do not confine myself to resolutions or reports passed by the Council, but I deal also with the proceedings of societies and other institutions which are in some way or other affiliated to us.

During the last few years there have been established in various parts of England Conferences of Poor Law Guardians, representative of the Boards of Guardians of a district, who have met together for the purpose of discussing questions relating to Poor Law administration. These Conferences were founded and have been energetically carried on by Mr. T. B. Ll. Baker, to whom the nation is indebted for much social improvement. Of late, on the suggestion of Mr. Baker, we have taken these Conferences, to a certain extent, under our wing, and we have held in the winter months a Central Conference, composed of delegates from the provincial Conferences, in order to re-discuss questions which during the year had been debated in different parts of the country. We have made it a regulation that in all cases one question previously settled shall be debated at every Conference that is affiliated to us. question which during the past year has thus been discussed by the representatives of Boards of Guardians throughout England has been that of the continuance or the abolition of the Law of Settlement, and I propose to say a few words to

The

you on that question. The recommendation of the different Conferences has been almost unanimous in favour of the total abolition of the existing law. This is one of the questions to which I alluded last night in this hall, when I said that one of the just requirements of the working classes throughout the country was that they should have a free circulation of labour. The Law of Settlement as it exists now still stands in the way, though not nearly to the extent that it did, of the free circulation of labour.

Let us consider what the real history of this social question is. For centuries there was in this country a desire on the part of the dominant class-that is, the class of landownersto tie down labourers to the soil. In the first instance the system of villenage effected that object with tolerable completeness; but as our municipalities grew in strength, and as the law of England began to exert its beneficent influence in favour of individual freedom, the villein was to a large extent emancipated from the control of his lord. Under the Plantagenets the effect of that emancipation upon agricultural labour began to be felt; and what was the result? Why, the Parliaments of the Plantagenets passed Act after Act, now known as the Statutes of Labourers, to endeavour to fix by an arbitrary rule the maximum amount of the labourer's wages, so as to tie him down to his own birth locality, and so prevent competition in the labour market. These attempts failed, as all political economists know they must fail, wherever or by whomsoever they are tried. In the reign of Elizabeth, with the Poor Law that was then enacted, came the final effort in the same direction, the Law of Settlement; this was the last attempt that was made to chain down the labourer to the particular portion of the country in which he had his birth and occupation. That system has endured for two centuries, though, partly by the action of the courts of law and subsequently by that of the Legislature, it has been largely modified. It produced an amount of litigation which I suppose could hardly be laid to the account of any other statute passed by any Parliament of this country. In 1834, when the new Poor Law came into operation, the effect of the Law of Settlement was largely diminished, and since that time, at three successive steps, the period which enables a labourer to obtain by residence a settlement other than his birth settlement was reduced to five years, to three years, and finally to what it is now, one year. Not long since a further step was taken by enlarging the area of chargeability from the parish to the union.

The question that now remains is whether, having gone so

far, we are to stop at that point, whether having so far aided in the emancipation of the labourer, we are not to go one step further, to carry out the principle to its logical conclusion and to reap all the advantages of a free interchange of labour between various parts of the country. That opinion, I am convinced, is the opinion of the great body of Poor Law Guardians throughout England to-day, and to-morrow it will be the opinion of Parliament. I am aware of the objections that are raised to such an enactment; they have been ably debated at the various Conferences to which I have alluded; and I think they may be described briefly as three. In the first place, it is said that the abolition altogether of the Law of Settlement, and allowing a labourer to become chargeable to any union in which for the time he finds himself, will inflict an unjust and excessive burden upon the urban districts. Into the towns, by a natural tendency, agricultural labour is constantly flowing, and it is said that it will cast upon the towns a burden which they will hardly be able to bear, if there be thrown upon them the pauperism, the vagrancy, and the sickness of the rural districts. The answer to that objection I will give in one of those ancient legal maxims which Sir Edward Creasy told us truly the other morning are at the foundation of all statesmanship as well as of all jurisprudence, Qui sentit commodum sentire debet et onus He who reaps the benefit must also bear the burden.' Our towns have grown enormously and are growing still in their wealth, their commercial activity, and their prosperity in every shape, by the continual migration of labour from rural districts into their boundaries. They take the strong and active and prosper by their labour. They cannot divide the stream; they must take with the strong and active the weak and the helpless, and provide also for them. It seems to me that in justice there is no such middle term possible as that of allowing a migration for the purpose of enriching a town and not allowing a total migration which will cast the burden on those who reap the benefit of the influx of population.

In the next place, it is objected that this change would cause a large increase of what is called vagrant pauperism, the idea being that there are a certain number of union workhouses which are made so comfortable that there would be a general wish on the part of paupers to remove to them. I will not inquire where such workhouses exist; I will not inquire how far it is probable or possible that such a class as that of our paupers would undertake long journeys from one portion of the kingdom to another; but granting that the facts are so, the remedy

is obvious. It lies in the hands of the general and local administrators of the Poor Law. It is in their power to take care that there shall be uniformity of treatment in our workhouse system. It is in their power to take care that there is no workhouse which, against the whole theory of the Poor Law and in defiance of the plainest principle of political economy, is made so comfortable that paupers are anxious to go to it. Moreover, at the bottom of that portion of the question lies the whole subject of vagrancy. Mendicancy, as it exists, is simply a disgrace to the civilisation of this country. It is in our power to put it down, and no argument in favour of the existing law, which in itself can be shown to be wrong and pernicious, can fairly be drawn from the fact that we allow vagrancy still to continue among us.

In the third place, it has been objected that the abolition of the Law of Settlement would lead to an increase in Poor Law expenditure, and in support of that objection it is urged that there has been a considerable increase in that expenditure since the area of chargeability was enlarged from the parish to the union. I will endeavour to show you, not by a large array of statistics drawn from all parts of the kingdom, though it would be easy to produce them, but taken from one county alone, that there is a fallacy in this view. It is true there has been an increase, during the period cited, in our Poor Law expenditure; but it is not true and I will show you from figures that it cannot be true-that it has been caused by the enlargement of the area of chargeability. The county I will take is that of Salop; and the figures I will read have been supplied to me by my friend Mr. Layton Lowndes, the Deputy-Chairman of Quarter Sessions. In the year 1865, which was the year before the change I have alluded to, the total Poor Law expenditure in the county of Salop was 70,2681; and in the year 1873 it was 73,3611. That, no doubt, shows an increase of 3,0931, and hence on a superficial view it would be an argument that the change in the area of chargeability was followed by that increase of expenditure. Let us look at the facts. If you take the same years you will find that the total amount of indoor relief and outdoor relief in 1865 was 44,957., and in 1873, 42,017.; showing a decrease of 2,940l. And, better still, on the 1st of January, 1865, there were in the county of Salop 10,069 paupers, and on the 1st of January, 1873, there were 8,389, showing a decrease of 1,680 in the numbers. The real truth is the increase which has arisen in Poor Law expenditure, notwithstanding a decrease in the number of paupers, is accounted for by the new duties which have been cast, and as