United Kingdom Encyclopedia of Law     Wiki Legal Encyclopedia (BETA)
What do you need to know about law? Search in more than 1.500.000 entries

Emigration in United Kingdom

Table of Contents

Emigration and the 1834 Report

In this issue about emigration, the book “English Poor Law Policy” [1] reads as follows: Without laying much stress upon emigration, the Report recommends that any vestry should be empowered to pay for it out of the poor rate, in the case of persons (apparently whether paupers or not) having settlements in the parish and willing to emigrate.

Emigration, the Act of 1834 and its Amendments

In this issue about emigration, the book “English Poor Law Policy” [1] reads as follows: The Act carried out the proposal of the Report, by enabling the ratepayers (including rated owners) to emigrate, at the expense of the poor rates, with the approval of the Central Authority, “poor persons” having settlements in the parish whether paupers or not.

Emigration and the Poor Law Board

In this issue about emigration, the book “English Poor Law Policy” [1] reads as follows: Emigration was not made the subject, during this period, of statute, order, or circular. At first we find the Central Authority continuing the favour to it which had been expressed in the 1834 Report and in the documents and action of the Poor Law Commissioners. In 1849 the Central Authority got a Bill through Parliament increasing the powers of promoting and assisting emigration, in support of which the Manchester Board of Guardians petitioned in characteristic phraseology. In the same year the Central Authority even approved the sending out of a convict’s family to join him; “the transportation of the convict is not a voluntary desertion of the family, and when the Government promotes the sending out of the family … the expenditure of the poor rate in furtherance of that object may properly be sanctioned.” By 1852 the number of persons emigrated at the expense of the poor rate had risen to 3271 in a single year, four-fifths going to the Australian Colonies. By this time the total number of persons assisted to emigrate at the expense of the poor rates, between 1834 and 1853, had mounted up to nearly 24,000. The policy then changes. The number of persons emigrated at the expense of the poor rate suddenly declines, falling from 3271 in 1852 to 488 in 1853. In 1854 it is recorded that the Central Authority had “declined during the past year to sanction any expenditure from the poor rate in aid of emigration to the Australian Colonies (except in … special circumstances), on the ground that the condition of those colonies to be such as of itself to attract largely voluntary and independent emigration”-a reason, we may observe, which does not seem relevant to a discussion of the advantage or disadvantage of emigration as a means of reducing pauperism at home. It does not appear that the change of policy was due, as it might have been, to a conviction that a colony in a period of excitement over “gold rushes” was not a suitable place to which to send a young person in whose welfare one took a personal interest. It may be that the real reason was a political one, viz. objections expressed by the Australian colonies themselves. Whatever the motive, however, rate-aided emigration remained in disfavour. “We must consider,” said the Poor Law Board in 1860, “that at present emigration cannot be considered as any practical remedial measure for the repression of pauperism.” In 1863, Mr. Villiers, speaking as President of the Poor Law Board, gave a new reason for the disfavour into which emigration had fallen. “I do not mean to say,” he protested, on a discussion about the distress caused by the Lancashire Cotton Famine, “that the Government should discourage emigration…. when we know the large amount of capital in the country, and the great increase of it, and are also cognisant of the demand for labour a few years since, I do not think it would be wise of the Government to expend public money in the promotion of emigration.” For the next seven years emigration at the expense of the poor rate practically ceases, the number of persons so assisted falling in 1866-7 to eighteen. In the following year, 277 persons were sent from Poplar, then exceptionally distressed, but there was no general resumption of the policy, so far as adults were concerned. In 1869 the Central Authority, whilst disavowing any intention of reviving the policy, tried to simplify the procedure with regard to emigration, but found the representatives of the colonies adverse. In 1870 there was, however, a slight revival, accompanied by the new feature of the emigration to Canada of orphan or deserted children (Miss Rye’s scheme), destined to become thenceforth a constant feature, though not in any one year attaining any considerable magnitude. The total number of persons emigrated at the expense of the poor rate in the seventeen years between 1853 and 1870 was between three and four thousand, as contrasted with nearly 24,000 in the preceding nineteen years.

Emigration and the Local Government Board

In this issue about emigration, the book “English Poor Law Policy” [1] reads as follows: For many years after 1871 there is no change, either of policy or of practice, to record as to emigration, beyond the continuance and slow growth of a tiny trickle of child emigration to Canada. Down to recent years, at any rate, the Colonies expressed a decided objection to any Poor Law emigration of adults, being, as the Central Authority explained, “unwilling to run the risk of thus receiving persons of bad character, or those who, from weak health or other causes, might become burdensome to them,” and “in consequence of representations which have been made by the Government of the United States” the Central Authority feels itself “precluded from sanctioning any expenditure from the poor rates in connection with the emigration to that country.” Nevertheless, the Act of 1849 had not been repealed and the guardians were not debarred from emigrating, not paupers only, but any poor persons settled in their unions, whether in receipt of relief or not. The number so emigrated (apart from orphan or deserted children) continued, however, to be small. In 1905 the Central Authority, under Mr. Long’s presidency, in connection first with the relief of the unemployed by the guardians, and then under the Unemployed Workmen Act, revived the old policy of 1835-53 and expressly encouraged the emigration, at the public expense, of suitable persons, whether or not otherwise in receipt of aid from the rates.

Meanwhile, the emigration of Poor Law children to Canada continued, special applications for the sanction of the Central Authority having to be made in each case.The question of the superior position in which such children were thus placed, compared with those of the lowest grade of independent labourer, does not appear to have been raised. The emigration and special supervision in Canada were the subject of repeated circulars and correspondence. The numbers of orphan and deserted children thus removed to superior conditions rose, from 100 or 200 annually, to 398 in 1903 and 491 in 1905.

Resources

Notes and References

  1. Sidney Webb and Beatrice Webb, “English Poor Law Policy” (1913), Longmans, Green and Co., London, New York, Bombay and Calcuta.

See Also

Resources

Notes and References

  1. Sidney Webb and Beatrice Webb, “English Poor Law Policy” (1913), Longmans, Green and Co., London, New York, Bombay and Calcuta.

See Also

Emigration and the Local Government Board

In this issue about emigration, the book “English Poor Law Policy” [1] reads as follows: For many years after 1871 there is no change, either of policy or of practice, to record as to emigration, beyond the continuance and slow growth of a tiny trickle of child emigration to Canada. Down to recent years, at any rate, the Colonies expressed a decided objection to any Poor Law emigration of adults, being, as the Central Authority explained, “unwilling to run the risk of thus receiving persons of bad character, or those who, from weak health or other causes, might become burdensome to them,” and “in consequence of representations which have been made by the Government of the United States” the Central Authority feels itself “precluded from sanctioning any expenditure from the poor rates in connection with the emigration to that country.” Nevertheless, the Act of 1849 had not been repealed and the guardians were not debarred from emigrating, not paupers only, but any poor persons settled in their unions, whether in receipt of relief or not. The number so emigrated (apart from orphan or deserted children) continued, however, to be small. In 1905 the Central Authority, under Mr. Long’s presidency, in connection first with the relief of the unemployed by the guardians, and then under the Unemployed Workmen Act, revived the old policy of 1835-53 and expressly encouraged the emigration, at the public expense, of suitable persons, whether or not otherwise in receipt of aid from the rates.

Meanwhile, the emigration of Poor Law children to Canada continued, special applications for the sanction of the Central Authority having to be made in each case.The question of the superior position in which such children were thus placed, compared with those of the lowest grade of independent labourer, does not appear to have been raised. The emigration and special supervision in Canada were the subject of repeated circulars and correspondence. The numbers of orphan and deserted children thus removed to superior conditions rose, from 100 or 200 annually, to 398 in 1903 and 491 in 1905.

Resources

Notes and References

  1. Sidney Webb and Beatrice Webb, “English Poor Law Policy” (1913), Longmans, Green and Co., London, New York, Bombay and Calcuta.

See Also

Resources

Notes and References

  1. Sidney Webb and Beatrice Webb, “English Poor Law Policy” (1913), Longmans, Green and Co., London, New York, Bombay and Calcuta.

See Also

Emigration and the Poor Law Board

In this issue about emigration, the book “English Poor Law Policy” [1] reads as follows: Emigration was not made the subject, during this period, of statute, order, or circular. At first we find the Central Authority continuing the favour to it which had been expressed in the 1834 Report and in the documents and action of the Poor Law Commissioners. In 1849 the Central Authority got a Bill through Parliament increasing the powers of promoting and assisting emigration, in support of which the Manchester Board of Guardians petitioned in characteristic phraseology. In the same year the Central Authority even approved the sending out of a convict’s family to join him; “the transportation of the convict is not a voluntary desertion of the family, and when the Government promotes the sending out of the family … the expenditure of the poor rate in furtherance of that object may properly be sanctioned.” By 1852 the number of persons emigrated at the expense of the poor rate had risen to 3271 in a single year, four-fifths going to the Australian Colonies. By this time the total number of persons assisted to emigrate at the expense of the poor rates, between 1834 and 1853, had mounted up to nearly 24,000. The policy then changes. The number of persons emigrated at the expense of the poor rate suddenly declines, falling from 3271 in 1852 to 488 in 1853. In 1854 it is recorded that the Central Authority had “declined during the past year to sanction any expenditure from the poor rate in aid of emigration to the Australian Colonies (except in … special circumstances), on the ground that the condition of those colonies to be such as of itself to attract largely voluntary and independent emigration”-a reason, we may observe, which does not seem relevant to a discussion of the advantage or disadvantage of emigration as a means of reducing pauperism at home. It does not appear that the change of policy was due, as it might have been, to a conviction that a colony in a period of excitement over “gold rushes” was not a suitable place to which to send a young person in whose welfare one took a personal interest. It may be that the real reason was a political one, viz. objections expressed by the Australian colonies themselves. Whatever the motive, however, rate-aided emigration remained in disfavour. “We must consider,” said the Poor Law Board in 1860, “that at present emigration cannot be considered as any practical remedial measure for the repression of pauperism.” In 1863, Mr. Villiers, speaking as President of the Poor Law Board, gave a new reason for the disfavour into which emigration had fallen. “I do not mean to say,” he protested, on a discussion about the distress caused by the Lancashire Cotton Famine, “that the Government should discourage emigration…. when we know the large amount of capital in the country, and the great increase of it, and are also cognisant of the demand for labour a few years since, I do not think it would be wise of the Government to expend public money in the promotion of emigration.” For the next seven years emigration at the expense of the poor rate practically ceases, the number of persons so assisted falling in 1866-7 to eighteen. In the following year, 277 persons were sent from Poplar, then exceptionally distressed, but there was no general resumption of the policy, so far as adults were concerned. In 1869 the Central Authority, whilst disavowing any intention of reviving the policy, tried to simplify the procedure with regard to emigration, but found the representatives of the colonies adverse. In 1870 there was, however, a slight revival, accompanied by the new feature of the emigration to Canada of orphan or deserted children (Miss Rye’s scheme), destined to become thenceforth a constant feature, though not in any one year attaining any considerable magnitude. The total number of persons emigrated at the expense of the poor rate in the seventeen years between 1853 and 1870 was between three and four thousand, as contrasted with nearly 24,000 in the preceding nineteen years.

Emigration and the Local Government Board

In this issue about emigration, the book “English Poor Law Policy” [1] reads as follows: For many years after 1871 there is no change, either of policy or of practice, to record as to emigration, beyond the continuance and slow growth of a tiny trickle of child emigration to Canada. Down to recent years, at any rate, the Colonies expressed a decided objection to any Poor Law emigration of adults, being, as the Central Authority explained, “unwilling to run the risk of thus receiving persons of bad character, or those who, from weak health or other causes, might become burdensome to them,” and “in consequence of representations which have been made by the Government of the United States” the Central Authority feels itself “precluded from sanctioning any expenditure from the poor rates in connection with the emigration to that country.” Nevertheless, the Act of 1849 had not been repealed and the guardians were not debarred from emigrating, not paupers only, but any poor persons settled in their unions, whether in receipt of relief or not. The number so emigrated (apart from orphan or deserted children) continued, however, to be small. In 1905 the Central Authority, under Mr. Long’s presidency, in connection first with the relief of the unemployed by the guardians, and then under the Unemployed Workmen Act, revived the old policy of 1835-53 and expressly encouraged the emigration, at the public expense, of suitable persons, whether or not otherwise in receipt of aid from the rates.

Meanwhile, the emigration of Poor Law children to Canada continued, special applications for the sanction of the Central Authority having to be made in each case.The question of the superior position in which such children were thus placed, compared with those of the lowest grade of independent labourer, does not appear to have been raised. The emigration and special supervision in Canada were the subject of repeated circulars and correspondence. The numbers of orphan and deserted children thus removed to superior conditions rose, from 100 or 200 annually, to 398 in 1903 and 491 in 1905.

Resources

Notes and References

  1. Sidney Webb and Beatrice Webb, “English Poor Law Policy” (1913), Longmans, Green and Co., London, New York, Bombay and Calcuta.

See Also

Resources

Notes and References

  1. Sidney Webb and Beatrice Webb, “English Poor Law Policy” (1913), Longmans, Green and Co., London, New York, Bombay and Calcuta.

See Also

Emigration and the Local Government Board

In this issue about emigration, the book “English Poor Law Policy” [1] reads as follows: For many years after 1871 there is no change, either of policy or of practice, to record as to emigration, beyond the continuance and slow growth of a tiny trickle of child emigration to Canada. Down to recent years, at any rate, the Colonies expressed a decided objection to any Poor Law emigration of adults, being, as the Central Authority explained, “unwilling to run the risk of thus receiving persons of bad character, or those who, from weak health or other causes, might become burdensome to them,” and “in consequence of representations which have been made by the Government of the United States” the Central Authority feels itself “precluded from sanctioning any expenditure from the poor rates in connection with the emigration to that country.” Nevertheless, the Act of 1849 had not been repealed and the guardians were not debarred from emigrating, not paupers only, but any poor persons settled in their unions, whether in receipt of relief or not. The number so emigrated (apart from orphan or deserted children) continued, however, to be small. In 1905 the Central Authority, under Mr. Long’s presidency, in connection first with the relief of the unemployed by the guardians, and then under the Unemployed Workmen Act, revived the old policy of 1835-53 and expressly encouraged the emigration, at the public expense, of suitable persons, whether or not otherwise in receipt of aid from the rates.

Meanwhile, the emigration of Poor Law children to Canada continued, special applications for the sanction of the Central Authority having to be made in each case.The question of the superior position in which such children were thus placed, compared with those of the lowest grade of independent labourer, does not appear to have been raised. The emigration and special supervision in Canada were the subject of repeated circulars and correspondence. The numbers of orphan and deserted children thus removed to superior conditions rose, from 100 or 200 annually, to 398 in 1903 and 491 in 1905.

Resources

Notes and References

  1. Sidney Webb and Beatrice Webb, “English Poor Law Policy” (1913), Longmans, Green and Co., London, New York, Bombay and Calcuta.

See Also

Resources

Notes and References

  1. Sidney Webb and Beatrice Webb, “English Poor Law Policy” (1913), Longmans, Green and Co., London, New York, Bombay and Calcuta.

See Also



Law is our Passion


This entry about Emigration has been published under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 (CC BY 3.0) licence, which permits unrestricted use and reproduction, provided the author or authors of the Emigration entry and the Encyclopedia of Law are in each case credited as the source of the Emigration entry. Please note this CC BY licence applies to some textual content of Emigration, and that some images and other textual or non-textual elements may be covered by special copyright arrangements. For guidance on citing Emigration (giving attribution as required by the CC BY licence), please see below our recommendation of "Cite this Entry".

Cite this entry

Legal Citations Generator

(2017, 04). Emigration lawi.org.uk Retrieved 06, 2021, from https://lawi.org.uk/emigration/

04 2017. 06 2021 <https://lawi.org.uk/emigration/>

"Emigration" lawi.org.uk. lawi.org.uk, 04 2017. Web. 06 2021. <https://lawi.org.uk/emigration/>

"Emigration" lawi.org.uk. 04, 2017. Accesed 06 2021. https://lawi.org.uk/emigration/

J. G. Collier, 'Emigration' (lawi.org.uk 2017) <https://lawi.org.uk/emigration/> accesed 2021 June 19

Usage Metrics

371 Views. 293 Visitors.

Google Scholar: Search for Emigration Related Content

 

Schema Summary

  • Article Name: Emigration
  • Author: J. G. Collier
  • Description: Emigration and the 1834 Report In this issue about emigration, the book English Poor Law Policy [1] reads as follows: [...]

This entry was last updated: April 21, 2017

EM


Long Read


Poor Law Board

Recent Comments