a wrongful holding over upon an entry originally lawful, and, above all, the existence of the general principle, mentioned in the outset, that private rights are not to be asserted at the hazard of endangering public peace, together with the temper of the courts to give effect in every conjuncture to a rule so conducive to tranquillity, all these circumstances in co-operation, render it not improbable that such an indictment would, in the present day, be held sustainable.

When we recollect, however, that a tenant so dispossessed, could obtain, by indicting his landlord, no restitution of possession, and must be put to considerable expense, without any equivalent or compensation; and also, that the punishment inflicted upon the landlord (supposing the indictment to lie) would probably, unless in an outrageous case, be merely nominal; this part of the question will not appear very likely to be soon decided.

In conclusion, it may be useful to remark, that, if the landlord can obtain possession without violence, during the absence though only temporary of the tenant and his family, there would seem to be no pretence for calling the entry a forcible one. With respect to what will constitute a forcible entry, there must exist a close analogy between forcible entries under the statutes and forcible entries at common law ; and it has been held, with regard to the former, that if a man open the door with a key, or enter by an open window, or if the entry be without the semblance of force, as by coming in peaceably, enticing the owner out of possession, and afterwards excluding him by shutting the door, without other force - these will not be forcible entries. But for the various shades by which cases of this sort may be distinguished, we must refer our readers to the express treatises on the subject, in Burn's J. P., Hawkins's P. C., Comyn's Dig., and Bacon's Abr.

90

ON THE CUSTOM OF MAKING ALLOWANCES OUT OF THE POORRATE TO ABLE-BODIED LABOURERS IN INCREASE OF THEIR WAGES.

THERE are now depending in parliament several bills for the amendment and alteration of the poor laws. It is not our intention at present to give any detail of their various provisions, or of the different plans of improvement suggested by different members of the legislature. But there is one part of these laws to which we are anxious that the public attention should be more generally directed. It is well known that a system has grown up, in several of the southern counties, of paying a certain portion of the wages of agricultural labourers out of the poor rates. There are, it seems, about sixteen counties over which this practice has spread, and in these it is completely established. The quantum to be paid to each labourer by the parish is settled and well known both by the parish officer and the pauper, and in most parishes it is contingent on the number of children which the pauper has. The tendency of this abuse of the poor laws is self evident: in fact, those counties in which the abuse exists are separable from others in which it does not exist, by a line, on one side of which are high wages and low rates, on the other low wages and high rates. 1

This important branch of the poor law system was brought under the notice of the House of Commons by Mr. Slaney, on the 17th of April last. On that day he moved for leave to bring in a bill to declare and amend the existing laws relating to able-bodied paupers. His motion embraced other objects connected with the administration of the poor laws; but to those it is not our intention at present to advert. The one which we have mentioned above is the subject of the following remarks. We shall limit ourselves even more closely; for it is to one part only of that subject, to which we mean to confine ourselves. Remarkable as is that state of things to which we have just alluded, and important as

1 Mr. Slaney's speech in the House of Commons, 17th of April.

its consequences must be to the morals and independence of the poor, it forms no part of our present plan, either to examine the causes whence the system originated, or to trace out the consequences that may ultimately flow from it. It is sufficient for us to enquire into the legality of the practice such as we find it: we leave it to the legislature to decide on its expediency.

The question which we propose to discuss is the following: whether able-bodied persons in full work, but at wages insufficient for the maintenance of themselves and their families, are entitled to parochial relief.

Most of our readers will be aware that this question, or one precisely similar to it, came before the court of king's bench in Rex v. Collett, 2 Barn. & Cres. 324. The only difference was, that in the case just cited, pecuniary relief had been given to able-bodied workmen out of employment; in the case under discussion, relief is given to paupers in full work. The court of king's bench gave no opinion on the case submitted to them, but said that, before they determined whether the overseers were or were not justified in giving pecuniary relief to the unemployed poor, the case must go down to the sessions again, that the court might be informed whether any, and if any, what endeavours had been made to procure employment for them.

The question which we are now considering cannot be got rid of like the question in Rex v. Collett. The parish officers cannot be called upon to set to work paupers who are already fully employed. So that the simple question remains, whether the parish officers are authorized by the statute 43 Eliz. c. 2., or otherwise, to relieve paupers circumstanced as above described. We are of opinion that they are not; and for the following reasons:

Many provisions for the relief of the poor were made by the legislature before the passing of the 43 Eliz. c. 2. All of them are confined to the same objects; the relief of " impotent, &c. persons, being not able to work," and the punishment of sturdy beggars and others who refuse to work. The first legislative enactment for setting to work the able-bodied poor, is contained in the 14 Eliz. c. 5. s. 23. It provides that "three justices of the peace, whereof one shall be of the quorum,

with the surplusages of the said collections, &c. (the said poor and impotent people satisfied and provided for), shall by their discretions, in such convenient place and places within their shires as they shall think meet, place and settle to work the rogues and vagabonds that shall be disposed to work, born within their said counties, or there abiding for the most part within the said three years, there to be holden to work by the oversight of the said overseers to get their livings, and be sustained only upon their labour and travail.”

Next to this statute follows that of the 18 Eliz. c. 3., made to amend the former act. This statute makes further provision for setting to work such poor and needy persons as were able to do work, but stood in need of relief. The law remained in this state till the passing of 39 & 40 Eliz. c. 3. That act made further provision for the relief of the impotent, and the employment of the able-bodied poor. The 43 Eliz. c. 2. embodied all the provisions in the former acts, which the experience of their operation suggested as expedient. By that statute it is enacted, that the churchwardens and overseers of the poor, or the greater part of them, should take order from time to time, with the consent of two or more justices of the peace, for setting to work the children of all such whose parents should not by the said churchwardens and overseers, or the greater part of them, be thought able to keep and maintain their children, and also for setting to work all such persons married or unmarried, having no means to maintain them, and use no ordinary and daily trade of life to get their living by and also to raise weekly or otherwise by taxation of every inhabitant, &c. a convenient stock of flax, hemp, wool, thread, iron and other necessary ware, and stuff to set the poor on work, and also competent sums of money for and towards the necessary relief of the lame, impotent, old, blind, and such other among them being poor and not able to work; and also for the putting out of such children to be apprentices." There seems to be nothing in any of the enactments of this statute, or of those which preceded it, that can be so construed as to impower the overseers to give relief to ablebodied persons in any other manner than by setting them to work. In Rex v. Collett, the overseers had given pecuniary relief to able-bodied persons who were out of employment,

and it was argued in support of what they had done, that labourers out of employment, and who were unable to procure employment, came within the description of "impotent persons" whom the 43 Eliz. c. 2. directs the oversseers to relieve. An obiter dictum of Eyre J. in Waltham v. Sparkes, Skin. 556. Comb. 320, was cited in favour of this interpretation of the word "impotent," but it is an interpretation which can scarcely be forced upon that word, and which is inconsistent with the meaning that has been put upon that word in several decided cases.* But, be this as it may, it would be a clear misapplication of terms to describe as "impotent" able-bodied labourers in full work. It was contended by counsel, in the argument in Rex v. Collett, that the preamble to the 8th & 9th Will. III. c. 30. shewed that labourers out of employment were then considered by the legislature entitled to parochial relief on that ground. The preamble alluded to begins as follows: "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." The answer to the inference drawn from this preamble is obvious, and was given to it when that argument was used. It was not denied that persons might become chargeable “merely for want of work," but it was said that such relief only should be given as was pointed out by the 43 Eliz. c. 2.: that such persons were to be relieved by having work found for them, and in no other manner; that the legislature never contemplated any different mode of relief, whether the labour should be profitable or not that the second section of that act was a clear legislative recognition of this principle; for in that section, it was expressly stated, that the enactment therein contained, was made " to the end that the money raised only for the relief of such as were as well impotent as poor might not be

* See Rex v. Gulley, 1 Bott. 366. Rex v. Litton, ib. Anon. 5 Mod. 397. Kilbeck's case, 2 Keb. 37. pl. 79. It may also be remarked, that the 13 & 14 Car. II. c. 12. s. 3. speaking of labourers going out of their own parish to work in harvest, says, “if such persons shall not return when their work is finished, or shull fall sick or impotent whilst they are in the said work, it shall not be accounted a settlement." From the manner in which the word "impotent" is used in this statute, the legislature appears to have considered it as synonymous with "unable to work," not “unable to procure work."