Sivut kuvina

order is a bar, notwithstanding, to all subsequent orders, which do not show that the persons to be removed have acquired a subsequent settlement. (1)

The principle of these decisions, therefore, seems to Or where rerequire, that a subsequent settlement must be stated in all moving parish,

concluded by cases where the parish removing is concluded by the original order. first order as to the party's settlement, whether against the world, or the particular parish to which the removal is made; but where it is at liberty to controvert the settlement, notwithstanding the order, it is unnecessary to aver a new one. (2)


Of executing an Order of Removal.

When an order has been thus made and signed (3), Order how

executed. it is the duty of the parish officers, who are directed to remove the paupers, to have them safely conveyed, at the expence of their parish (4), to the place thereby required to receive and provide for them. If the paupers refuse to remove in obedience to the order, it seems to contain sufficient powers to enable the persons to whom it is directed to convey them by force; but at all events the parish may obtain a warrant, under the hand and seals of the magistrates, to enforce it by compulsory means. The person, to whom the duty of removal is entrusted, should safely deliver the poor, together with the order, to one of the parish officers of the parish directed to receive them. Or if only one original is made, he should give a

(1) Munger Hunger v. Warden, Sett. & Rem. 160. 2 Const. 702. Pl. 817.

(2) See ante, 234. n. (2).

(3) It is usual for the justices to make and sign duplicates, that one may be delivered to the parish officers, directed to receive the pauper, and the other retained by the removing parish, or the magistrates.

(4) Per Lee C. J., Rex v. Stansfield, Burr. S. C. 205. post, 239. (1).

copy, and shew the original. But if the original is delivered, and a copy kept, that is sufficient. (1) It seems also to be enough to produce the justice's warrant to convey the pauper, inasmuch as the magistrates may retain the original order. (2)

By whom conveyed.

It was formerly considered as necessary that the pauper should be conveyed by the overseer to whom the order was directed.

54 Geo.III. c.170. s. 10.

But now by 54 Geo. III. c.170. s.10. it is enacted, That churchwardens, overseers, or others, having the control, ordering, or management of the poor of any district, parish, township or hamlet, may employ any proper person or persons whomsoever, to carry, remove, and deliver any pauper or paupers, ordered to be removed by any of his majesty's justices of the peace competent to make such order; and that a delivery by such person or persons of any pauper or paupers so ordered to be removed, shall be as good, valid, and effectual, to all purposes whatsoever, as if the same was or were delivered by any churchwarden or overseer whatsoever.

Punishment If the parish officers refuse to execute or obey an order when officers

of this kind, they may be punished by indictment (3); refuse to obey.

for the only means by which a parish, thus required to receive a pauper, can get rid of the order, is by appeal to the quarter sessions. (4)

The duplicate original order should be carried by one of the justices who signed it, to the next general or quarter

(1) See Rex v. Kirkby Stephen, 2 Bott, 675. Pl. 736., a copy made by the pauper admitted in evidence after notice to produce the original served on the parish removed to.

(2) See the opinion of Holt C. J., ante, 147.

(3) See 13&14 Car.II. c.12. s.3. As to the punishment of parish officers for neglect of duty, see post, title, Remedies against Parish Officers, &c. (4) See post, title, Appeal.

sessions, and retained in the hands of the clerk of the peace, as a conclusive l'ecord of the settlement, where the receiving parish neglects to appeal. (1)

Sect. V.

Of the Removal of the Poor by Pass-Warrants.

As this species of removal is not strictly a part of the law respecting the settlement and maintenance of the poor, it does not require a minute examination in the present work.

It depends upon 17 Geo.II. c.5. s.7. s.8. s.10., 32 Geo.III. Statutes regu

lating removals c.45. s.1. s.3. s.4. s.5. s.6. s.7. (2), which preserve the an- by pass, cient distinction already observed upon, between the vagrant and impotent poor. (3)

These laws only respect persons who are in a state of Respect only actual vagrancy, such as they describe. No other persons State of va

in a can be sent by a pass, even at their own request (4); grancy. No but they must be regularly removed to their place of others removsettlement, by an order of two justices, under 13&14 Car.II.

The 32 Geo.III. c.45. s.1. recites, that great abuses 35 Geo.III. are committed in conveying, from one place to another, by passes, persons who were not rogues and vagabonds, and enacts, by way of remedy, that all rogues, or vagabonds, when ordered to be passed, shall be either publicly whipped, or imprisoned in the house of correction till

c.44, s.l.

(1) See ante, 147. The proper officer is the custos rotulorum. Per Holt C. J., Skin. 528, 529., the clerk of the peace being his deputy to this purpose. See 37 Hen. VIII. 1. 1W.& M. c.21. s. 5. Harcourt v.Fox, Show. 429. 506. 516. 536. Show. Par. Ca. 163. 4 Mod. 167.

(2) See Vol. III.
(3) Ante, Vol.I. 268.
(4) Rex v. Welcham, 2 Bott, 658. Pl. 721.

the next sessions, or for a shorter period, at the justice's discretion, but not for less than seven days. (1)

Must be a con- By the express words of this statute, the party must not viction to war

only have committed an act of vagrancy, but be convicted rant a pass.

thereof, before he is removed under a pass. (2)

Distinction be- The distinction between passes and orders of removal tween passes is thus clearly explained by Lord C. J. Lee. “We removal. have considered the question, whether, by the late act of

13 Geo.II. c.24. a pass, unappealed from, be as conclusive as an order of two justices unappealed from ? and we are of opinion, that this act of parliament is not to receive such construction, or be considered in such manner, as to put a pass upon the foot of an order of two justices, in this respect. In case of an order of two justices, two other justices cannot make a different order, because the authority of each two would be equal; and therefore it

would be a clashing of the same authority. But that does Object of

not seem to be the present case at all. This act of par13 Geo.II. to liament of 13 Geo.II. was made only in order to secure operate only on vagabonds. vagabonds, and to send them to their former place of set

tlement or birth, if to be found; if not, then to the places

from whence they came; and it operates upon such as are Act 13 & 14 actually vagabonds. But the act of 13&14 Car. II. c.12. Car.II. to pre- was made with a view to prevent vagabonds, and therefore vent them.

it gave power to fix them in their last place of settlement. Difference be- But, the authorities given by these two acts are very diftween powers ferent. On that act of 19&14 Car.II. c.12., though comgiven under these acts.

plaint may be made to one justice, yet one justice cannot As to number act singly; here, one single justice may act. So there is of justices.

a difference too as to the manner of sending them. Upon Manner of sending.

that act, the removal is to be at the expense of the parish; here, of the county. Another thing that makes one believe the parliament did not intend to put this pass-warrant, signed by a single justice, upon the foot of an order, made

(1) But as to removal of Irish and Scotch poor, &c. see 59 Geo.lll. c.11. s.32. post, 247.

(2) Sect. 1. This point was unsettled prior to this act. See Rexe, Elere Cole, 2 Bott, 670. Pl. 729.

by two justices, is, that though the reason would be the same, yet the same care is not taken as to the provision on appeal; for, upon an appeal from an order of two justices, As to appeal. there is a provision for costs, but none on this act. Here are no costs given on appeal; yet that provision would be as reasonable as in the case of an order of two justices, if it had been intended to be put upon the same footing in all other respects; but upon appeals from orders of two justices, As to costs. costs are payable. Now, it would be something extraordinary, and cannot well be conceived to have been the sense of the legislature, that a person, being sent by one justice of peace, shall have the same effect as if sent by two, and yet that there should not be the same remedy upon appeal. Therefore, we are of opinion, that the act made in relation to vagrants, and the manner of passing them, was in a different view from that which was calculated for the fixing of settlements; and, that the act is only calculated to convey them to their settlement, if it can be found; or (in cases where their settlement is not found), only to remove them to the place of their birth, or the abode of their parents, or where last found begging, &c. there to be provided for according to law; and that provision is, “ to keep them till their last legal settlement can be discovered, but no longer.” And then they will be subject to a removal, by virtue of the former act, to their place of last legal settlement; on which removal an appeal will lie, subject to costs.” (1)


It has been determined therefore, not only that a removal Want of apunder a vagrant-pass is not conclusive against the parish to peal against vawhich the removal is made, by not being appealed from (2), not conclusive, but that no appeal lies to the quarter sessions against it. (3) a general For the 17 Geo.II. c.5. did not mean to give an appeal not lie against

appeal does against a vagrant-pass, which is inconsistent with the it. eleventh section of it. If the sessions should, upon such

(1) Rex v. Stansfield, Burr. S.C. 205. 2 Bott, 658. Pl. 722.
(2) Rex v. Stansfield, supra, (1). Rex v. Upmerden, Burr. S.C.214.

(3) Rex v. Ringwould, Burr, S. C. 840. Rex v. St. Lawrence Jewry, Cald, 18.

« EdellinenJatka »