ABSTRACT
The previous chapter proposes that the voices of the poor should be heard and believed for they speak of well-established legal rights. This chapter adopts a doctrinal legal technique in order to reconstruct a further dimension of the pervasiveness of settlement law; namely the manner in which precise details of each pauper’s life have consequences for his or her settlement entitlement. It underlines how settlement is contingent upon the life story of each individual, that it is truly a personal legal right. In order to do so this chapter puts on the robes of a nineteenth century attorney and, as near as is possible in hindsight, reconstructs the settlement entitlement of two individuals. Sir John Baker, taking a doctrinal approach, argues that this is impossible and only a contemporary practitioner could truly understand: ‘what was the law’.1
This chapter represents a challenge to Baker’s pessimistic assertion by taking an innovative approach. It explores those settlement implications contained within the life stories of Amy Dorrit and Arthur Clennam, lead protagonists in Dickens’ novel Little Dorrit. Perhaps over-extended as a metaphor, this constitutes as much a literary conceit as doctrinal legal analysis, however it permits this fictional couple to serve as a trope of contemporary life and a base upon which the application of this repealed law may be mapped. Although this methodology has counter-factual elements, in form it echoes a classical teaching technique, that of the student case study; long established within the discipline of law from the earliest apprentice training at the Inns of Court to modern university law schools. Traditionally, common law teachers tell a story, a fiction of people and events that students are required to deconstruct. Those students must identify the legal issues and discuss them fully, not to produce a ‘right’ answer or one solution, but to note all ambiguities and difficulties. As academics, we ensure that such case studies do not provide sufficient factual detail to allow an easy solution; rather we omit and even mislead to test the legal skills of the student. This case-study method forms part of the rationale for this choice of
methodology, as does the nature, content and purposes of those hundreds of thousands surviving first-instance poor law legal records. At first glance, these appear a valuable resource as most are concerned, directly or indirectly,
with the settlement and possible removal of an individual pauper (and their family). In addition, they contain biographical details of age, occupations, residence patterns and life circumstances. However, this depth is illusory. These records are taken at a specific moment in time and such biographical details are brief. It is also extremely difficult to obtain further family histories of such poor individuals. In consequence, they would not be appropriate as a teaching tool, neither do they provide the rich tapestry of fact and obscurity found within the chosen literary source, Little Dorrit. Indeed, one could set the novel as a legal assignment on a course in poor law. Furthermore, the novels of Charles Dickens are still widely read and celebrated for expressing concern for the poor; they contain full biographies of contemporary fictional individuals who either potentially or within the novels ‘experience’ poverty. Additionally, although Little Dorrit was written in the mid-nineteenth century the narrative falls within the time scales of both the old and the new poor law. This permits a reconstruction of the law of settlement and removal in action at a time of significant legal transition and illuminates how little that law changed. Reading Little Dorrit through the lens of law offers a methodology that
illuminates legal doctrine, it is not a literary critique aiming to produce fresh insight into the novel. It is conceded that Little Dorrit is not an obvious choice, for other novels such as Oliver Twist deal more graphically with poverty. However, for a lawyer, the circumstances of the lives of Arthur and Amy, the twists and turns from destitution to riches and back again, provide examples of a rich variety of possible/potential settlement problems. Furthermore, despite a lack of detailed poor law narrative, Little Dorrit does express concern for the plight of the poor. It is noteworthy, for example, that the first part of the novel is titled ‘Poverty’. For our present purpose, the novel contains detailed biographies of Arthur Clennam and Amy (Little) Dorrit, who marry at its conclusion. Between them their stories illustrate many of the issues relevant to those poor law officials who needed to decide if a pauper possesses a settlement in their parish and is therefore legally entitled to poor relief. Dickens provides the reader with sufficient clues to deduce some of the poor law solutions and leaves enough gaps in the narrative to present a lawyer with the sort of problems contemporaries would face. In addition, the book is well known and this permits readers to follow the legal arguments without requiring too many biographical explanations.2
