Page:Encyclopædia Britannica, Ninth Edition, v. 19.djvu/487

Rh &quot; 43 Eliz., extended the powers of the Act to townships and villages within these counties. Power was given to justices at quarter sessions, to trans port rogues, vagabonds, and sturdy beggars, in some cases with the approval of the privy council, or without such approval, if convicted and adjudged to be incorrigible, to any of the English plantations beyond the seas, &quot; there to be disposed in the usual way of servants for a term not exceeding seven years.&quot; This Act, which, except as to the corporate bodies before mentioned, was limited to three years duration, was con tinued by various Acts, and made perpetual in the reign of Anne. One of the Acts continuing the former provisions, and containing some minute provisions affecting settle ments, affords strong evidence of want of care of the funds, and even of the frauds practised by parochial officers. Many inconveniences arose &quot;by reason of the unlimited power of the churchwardens and overseers of the poor, who do frequently upon frivolous pretences (but chiefly for their own private ends) give relief to what persons and number they think fit; and such persons, being entered into the collection bill, do become after that a great charge to the parish, notwithstanding the occasion or pretence of their receiving collection oftentimes ceases, by which means the rates for the poor are daily increased.&quot; This grievance was sought to be remedied by means of a register with names and dates, to be examined by the vestry, and those only to be relieved who were allowed by a justice, except in certain urgent cases. The Act mentions more direct frauds. &quot; Many churchwardens and overseers of the poor, and other persons intrusted to receive collections for the poor and other public moneys relating to the churches and parishes whereunto they do belong, do often misspend the said moneys and take the same to their own use, to the great prejudice of such parishes, and the poor and other inhabitants thereof,&quot; owing to the law by which persons in any way interested in the funds, as parishioners, although the only persons who could prove the facts, could not give evidence on the trial of actions against the parish officers to recover the misspent money; and therefore parishioners, excepting almsmen, were rendered competent witnesses in such actions (3 Will. & Mary c. 11). The injurious effects of the restraint placed on the free removal of the labouring classes is evinced by a statute towards the close of the 17th century. To make this in telligible it is necessary to say that by the statute 1 James II. c. 17 (one of the Acts continuing the Act of Charles II.) it was enacted that, as poor persons &quot; at their first coming to a parish do .commonly conceal themselves,&quot; the forty days continuance in a parish intended by the Act of Charles to make a settlement were to be accounted from the time of the person s delivering a notice in writing of the house of abode and number of the family to the parish officer. Hence persons coming to work under a certificate, on its production, were removed back again, lest they gained a settlement at the end of forty days. The statute now to be noticed recited that, &quot; forasmuch as many poor persons chargeable to the parish, township, or place where they live, merely for want of work, would, in any other place where sufficient employment is to be had, maintain themselves and families without being burthensome to any parish, township, or place, but not being able to give such security as will or may be ex pected and required upon their coming to settle themselves in any other place, and the certificates that have been usually given in such cases having been oftentimes con strued into a notice in handwriting, they are for the most part confined to live in their own parishes, townships, or places, and not permitted to inhabit elsewhere, though 467 their labour is wanted in many other places, where the increase of manufactures would employ more hands.&quot; This mischievous result of previous legislation was sought to be avoided by a certificate of acknowledgment of settle ment, and then and not before, on becoming chargeable to another parish, the certificated person could be sent back to the parish whence it was brought (8 & 9 Will. III. c. 30). This provision led to additional legislation, com plicating the law of settlement. It was not until towards the close of the 18th century that an important inroad on the law relating to the removal of the poor was made by requiring actual chargeability before removal to their place of settlement (35 Geo. III. c. 101) ; and at the same-time justices were empowered to suspend removal in the case of sickness. By the statute of William III. (8 & 9 Will. III. c. 30), &quot; to the end that the money raised only for the relief of such as are as well impotent as poor may not be mis applied and consumed by the idle, sturdy, and disorderly beggars,&quot; persons receiving parochial relief and their wives and children were required (under the punishment for re fusal of imprisonment and whipping, or of having the reliefs abridged or withdrawn) to wear a badge on the shoulder of the right sleeve that is to say, a large &quot; P &quot; together with the first letter of the name of the parish or place, cut in red or blue cloth ; and a penalty was imposed on church wardens and overseers relieving poor persons not wearing such badge. The provision (a revival of a much earlier law) continued down to 1810, when it was abolished. In 1744 provision was made reviving rather than in- Passes, troducing a system of magisterial &quot;passes&quot; for passing persons apprehended as rogues and vagabonds to their place of settlement (17 Geo. II. c. 5). Great abuses in conveying persons by passes, attributed to the neglect of this Act, led to its amendment nearly half a century later. Although these statutes fell into disuse they were not finally repealed until after the introduction of the present poor-law system. In 1722 the system of farming the poor was introduced. Farming By 9 Geo. I. c. 7, &quot;for the greater ease of parishes in the the P or - relief of the poor,&quot; parish officers with the consent of the parishioners or inhabitants in vestry were authorized to purchase or hire houses, &quot; and to contract with any person or persons for the lodging, keeping, maintaining, and em ploying any or all such poor in their respective parishes, townships, or places, as shall desire to receive relief or collection from this same parish, and there to keep, main tain, and employ all such poor persons, and take the benefit of the work, labour, and service of any such poor person or persons who shall be kept or maintained in any such house or houses, for the better maintenance and relief of such poor persons who shall be there kept or maintained.&quot; Any poor persons refusing to be so lodged were not to be entitled to relief. Small parishes could unite or contract with another parish for the maintenance of the poor. A few years sufficed to develop the injurious effects of Gilbert s this mode of dealing with the poor, and the accumulated Act - evils of the working of the poor laws led, in 1783, to the passing of the statute 22 Geo. III. c. 83, known as &quot; Gilbert s Act, &quot; the principle of which was extensively adopted in subsequent legislation. The Act significantly recited that, notwithstanding the many laws now in being for the relief and employment of the poor, and the great sums of money raised for those persons, their sufferings and distresses are nevertheless very grievous, and by the incapacity, negligence, or misconduct of overseers, the money raised for the relief of the poor is frequently misapplied, and sometimes expended in defraying the charges of litigations about- settlements indiscreetly and inadvisably carried on, and also recited the provisions of