_4thly._ _Of Settlement._—“Parochial settlement, as established in England, is almost universally admitted to have been productive of great mischief. It has led to much litigation and expense; and by fixing the peasantry to the narrow limits of their parish, beyond which the world was to them almost a blank, it has done more to injure their character, to destroy its elasticity, and to banish self-reliance and resource, than any other portion of the old Poor Law system. It will not, therefore, I presume, be considered right to establish parochial settlement in Ireland. The habits of the Irish are migratory, their movements depending upon their own volition. To establish a law of settlement, would be to fix them to one locality. No such law has yet been established there; and it is therefore open to the legislature to prescribe the limits, if a settlement shall be deemed advisable; or else to dispense with settlement altogether. “Without a law of settlement, it is true, vagrants from other districts may congregate in particular unions, and may claim relief, or be sent to the workhouse; but if the workhouses are all regulated upon the same scale of diet and discipline, there would be no inducement for the vagrant classes to prefer one union to another, and they would probably remain scattered throughout the country, in much the same proportion as at present. If such a preference was in any instance shown by them, it might be taken as a proof of inefficient management or lax discipline on the part of the favoured union, and would be a signal for the central authority to interfere. Thus, if there should be no law of settlement, the number of inmates in the several workhouses would serve as a kind of index to the management of each; and the local authorities would be compelled in self-defence to keep their unions in good order, to prevent their being overrun with paupers. Such a competition, if well regulated, might go far to ensure the general efficiency of the unions.