248
The parochial right of removal is a term unknown in Scottishjurisprudence: the oppression of poors’laws, has, happily, neverbeen so felt as to have suggested such legislative measures of selfdefence. Where a person falls into poverty in a parish where hehas not acquired a residence, that parish will assist him as theydo their own poor, charging their advance against the parish up-on which his claim lies 5 and in this way, the poor arc not pre-cluded from retiring to their relations or friends, where they mayreceive many gratuitous good offices, which must be paid for ifadministered by strangers, and the solace of that kind attentioowhich money cannot purchase.
From this practical statement of the Scots poor’s laws, as as-certained by decisions of the law courts, (which i have collectedfrom Hutchesords Justice of the Peace it appears, that, what* *
s ami remove the obstacles by which industry is prohibited from availing itself
* of its resources, the Scottish artisan or labourer may, at his own discredit« change his abode without challenge or control, if only he ovoid those icllewd‘ vicious habits which expose him as a rogue or vagabond to the cognizance of
* the -criminal magistrate. *
A strong instance of the embarrassing effects of tin? wretched system of tb£English poors’ laws, particularly as to the right of removal, is stated by Dr An-derson, (in his Essays relating to Agriculture and Rural Affairs, ?d edit, vobiii.p. 159.), by which it appears that the proprietors in a parish in which an ironmanufactory had been erected, had been seized with alarm, as to the eventual op-pression of the parish, from the paupers that might fall upon it from among themen collected, from all quarters v,ho were employed, if they should be allowed,from suifevnnee, to acquire right of residence. The proprietors would appearcither to have commenced, erto have threatened suits of removal. The owner-of the manufacture is stated to have applied by petition -to Parliament ; but thatParliament found it was not proper for them to interfere in this ease. The dualresult is not stated. No process of such a nature was ever heard of in Scotland ,nor could-be sustained as competent. In a debate last May, (1811 ),inthe Houseof Commons , it was stated, that, for the forty years of its existence, the greatCarron Ironwork in Stirlingshire, had not brought a single individual upon theparish funds.
* The above statement is applicable to country parishes, where the poormaintained in their ou-n hovses, exercising, Jor their men iwvejit, any little indus-try of ivhi-ch they are capable.
The Scots acts of Parliament enjoin the erection of work-hevses in every P n 'tlsh. Put though Scots Parliaments were everreadyto enact, whatever was pro-posed to them by their Lords of the Articles , it is as well known, that, wIieRtl*.Karons returned home to their own territories, they resumed their indepen*donee, and paid no more observance to their own parliamentary enactmentsthan what suited their own convenience. On this account, and from deficiencyof funds, no work-houses ever were erected in country parishes. The enact-ment was somewhat better observed in towns; hut though thirty-two *° vvBS »specially designed, are required to have work-houses, very few have accommo-dated themselves with that conveniency. These work-houses, (in the coupi* n £ wreally indigent poor and vagrants together in the parliamentary enactments,and in reality, it is difficult in practice to draw the line of discrimination)* ul ' rCdesigned for the confinement of vagabonds, and to compel the able to labou r -■\Vhere they exist, however, they have been appropriated to -the helpless p°or,find houses of correction, under other enactments, have been erected for vaga-bonds. Common messing, and saving of house rent, would seem to pron” 1 ^
cn © > .i v . t