orcouldgivesecurityforthedischargeoftheparishtothemagistrates’
　　satisfaction，hewasexemptfromthisprovision。
　　AsthisActcarriedwithittheconsequencethatfortydays’residence
　　withoutcomplaintfromtheparishofficersgainedthenew-comerasettlement，
　　itwasaninevitabletemptationtoParishAtosmuggleitspoorintoParish
　　B，wherefortydays’residencewithouttheknowledgeoftheparishofficers
　　wouldgainthemasettlement。Fiercequarrelsbrokeoutbetweentheparishes
　　inconsequence。Tocomposetheseitwasenacted1JamesII。c。17that
　　thefortydays’residenceweretobereckonedonlyafterawrittennotice
　　hadbeengiventoaparishofficer。EventhiswasnotenoughtoprotectParish
　　B，andby3WilliamandMary，c。111691itwasprovidedthatthisnotice
　　mustbereadinchurch，immediatelyafterdivineservice，andthenregistered
　　inthebookkeptforpoor’saccounts。Suchaconditionmadeitpractically
　　impossibleforanypoormantogainasettlementbyfortydays’residence，
　　unlesshistenementwereofthevalueof£；10ayear，buttheActallowed
　　animmigranttoobtainasettlementinanyoneoffourways；1bypaying
　　theparishtaxes；2byexecutingapublicannualofficeintheparish；
　　3byservinganapprenticeshipintheparish；4bybeinghiredfora
　　year’sserviceintheparish。This，however，onlyappliedtotheunmarried。
　　In16978and9WilliamIII。e。30afurtherimportantmodificationof
　　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*1Bastards，
　　withsomeexceptions，acquiredasettlementbybirth；19*2legitimate
　　childrenalsoacquiredasettlementbybirthiftheirfather’s，orfailing
　　that，theirmother’slegalsettlementwasnotknown；3womengainedasettlement
　　bymarriage；4personswithanestateoftheirownwereirremovable，if
　　residingonit，howeversmallitmightbe。
　　VeryfewimportantmodificationshadbeenmadeinthelawsofSettlement
　　duringthecenturyafter1697。In17229GeorgeI。c。7itwasprovided
　　thatnopersonwastoobtainasettlementinanyparishbythepurchaseof
　　anyestateorinterestoflessvaluethan£；30，tobe’bonafidepaid，’
　　aprovisionwhichsuggeststhatparisheshadconnivedatgiftsofmoneyfor
　　thepurchaseofestatesinordertodiscardtheirpaupers：bythesameAct
　　thepaymentofthescavengerorhighwayratewasdeclarednottoconfera
　　settlement。In178424GeorgeIII。c。6soldiers，sailorsandtheirfamilies
　　wereallowedtoexercisetradeswheretheyliked，andwerenottoberemovable
　　tilltheybecameactuallychargeable；andin179333GeorgeIII。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。ThereisasignificantpassageintheAnnalsofAgriculture30*
　　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
　　WilfordinSuffolk32*veryexplicitdirectionsaregivenaboutthegranting
　　ofcertificates。Inthefirstplace，beforeanycertificateisgrantedthe
　　applicantmustproduceanexaminationtakenbeforeaJusticeofthePeace，
　　showingthathebelongstooneoftheparisheswithinthehundred。Granted
　　thathehascompliedwiththiscondition，then，1ifhebealaboureror
　　husbandmannocertificatewillbegrantedhimoutofthehundredsunless
　　hebelongstotheparishofKenton，andeveninthatcaseitis’nottoexceed
　　thedistanceofthreemiles；’2ifhebeatradesman，artificer，ormanufacturer
　　acertificatemaybegrantedtohimoutofthehundreds，butinnocaseis
　　ittoexceedthedistanceoftwentymilesfromtheparishtowhichhebelongs。
　　Theextentofthehundredswasroughlyfourteenmilesbyfiveandahalf。
　　Eden，describingtheneighbourhoodofCoventry，says：’Inacountryparish
　　ononesidethecity，chieflyconsistingofcottagesinhabitedbyribbon-weavers，
　　theRatesareashighasinCoventry；whilst，inanotherparish，ontheopposite
　　side，theydonotexceedone-thirdoftheCityRate：thisisascribedto
　　thecarethatistakentopreventmanufacturersfromsettlingintheparish。’33*