ship, it is not without express words of enactment, to be considered with regard to settlements and removals, as if it had formerly been a parish or township, but only as becoming so from the time of its creation under the act, and as if it had formerly been uninhabited. For, among other inconveniences, the new power of removal would not be likely to afford a relief commensurate to the new burden; and the former want of the power of removal might have the effect of charging this new township with the maintenance of persons under circumstances, in which, if the district had been previously a township, the inhabitants might have taken care to prevent the burden from falling upon them, as by the removal of unmarried pregnant women, or of persons coming to settle on tenements under 10l. a year, especially before the statute 35 Geo. III. c. 101. (1)

So, also, it has been decided, that where, from local cir- Township decumstances and changes, the last place of settlement has stroyed. ceased to exist as a township and to maintain its poor, persons previously settled there become casual poor, and cannot be removed to the parish or township in which they had been before settled.

The pauper, J. G., being a settled inhabitant of the township of S. about twenty years ago, acquired a subsequent settlement in the parish of G., in the parish of St. Mary, &c. in Chester, in which parish there are several townships, each separately maintaining its own poor. At the time the pauper obtained a settlement in G., it was a township, having overseers, and maintaining its own poor, which continued to be the case until about ten years ago, when all the houses in the township were taken down for

(1) Rex v. Oakmere, 5 B. & A. 775. The case arose upon the local act 53 Geo. III. for enclosing the forest of Delamere; and the immediate question was, whether an illegitimate pauper born in part of it, called Oakmere, thereby created a township, but before it was so made, was removable thither, as to his birth settlement, which he would have been if O. had been immemorially a vill, although overseers had never been appointed for it until after he was born.

4th, Persons without settlement.

the purpose of enlarging Chester Castle. There are now
no buildings in the township of G., except part of the
courts of the county, and some barracks and other build-
ings belonging to the barrack board. No overseers have
been appointed for the township of G. for the last ten years;
and there is no place within the township inhabited by per-
sons capable of being appointed overseers.
The pauper
was removed to S., the place of his antecedent settlement;
but after argument, Abbott C. J. said, The authority of
magistrates to remove paupers, exists only and is derived
from the express provisions of an act of parliament (1); and
in a new case, the best mode for the court is to form their
judgment on the very words of the act. There may be
many cases, where a pauper having no settlement in the
place where he may happen to be, may still not be remov-
able from it; either because he has no settlement at all, or
because the parish officers are not enabled to discover the
place of his settlement. The words of the act are, that
any two justices of the peace, may, by their warrant, re-
move and convey persons likely to be chargeable to the
parish where he or they were last legally settled.
It is,
therefore, enough for the court, in deciding this case, to say,
that Saighton is not the parish where the pauper was legally
settled, inasmuch as he appears to have acquired a settle-
ment in G., by which the former settlement was extin-
guished. The justices, therefore, in this case, had no
authority to remove the pauper; and the sessions have done
wrong in confirming their order. (2)

4th. This rule seems, upon the same principle, to apply to the case of persons born out of England or Wales, and not having gained a legal settlement there (3), as well as to all other casual poor.

(1) Quære tamen. See ante, Vol. I. chap. xv. and post.
(2) Rex v. Saighton on the Hill. 2 B. & A. 162.

(3) See Conrad's case, Comb. 287. Poor's Sett. 287. called Cowred's case, 2 Bott, 21. Pl. 57. But an exception has been made with respect to the Irish and Scotch poor, by 59 Geo. III. c. 12. As to which, see post.

A day-labourer settled in I. was employed to drive a load of hay from thence to B., and return with a load of muck; in loading the muck, he fell, and broke his leg, and it was held, "that an order for removing him was ill; for no person is removeable from the parish where he is, but by positive statute. The 13 & 14 Car. II. c. 12. (the statute which confers the power of removing,) after reciting, that poor people endeavour to settle themselves in those parishes where there is the best stock, &c.; and when they have consumed it, then to another parish, &c. says, that it shall be lawful, on complaint of the parish officers, within forty days after any such person coming so to settle as aforesaid, in any tenement under the yearly value of 10., for any two justices of the peace of the division where any person likely to be chargeable to the parish shall come to inhabit, by their warrant to remove him to the place of his last legal settlement. The expression "coming to settle" denotes that the party comes animo morandi or manendi: it may be for a temporary purpose, but still it must be understood that he comes to settle there. How can it be said that the pauper went into this parish animo morandi at all? He went into the town with a cart of hay, which he was to dispose of, and return with a load of muck. How then can it be said that he went there to settle? (1)

The court were likewise of opinion that the power of 35 G.III. removal was not in anywise enlarged, so as to extend to c.101. this case, by 35 Geo. III. c. 101.; for that act meant to provide, that persons who by law were before removeable if likely to become chargeable, should not be removed till actually so; and to make provision for suspending the order of removal when made, in case of sickness and infirmity; and that the expences incurred in the care and maintenance of the persons between the order to remove

(1) Per Lord Ellenborough C. J. Rex v. St. James, in Bury St. Edmunds, 10 East, 25.

Casual poor from accident.

Pauper remov

and the actual removal of them, should be defrayed by the parish to which they should be found to belong. (1)

The pauper was sent with his master's team for coals, and on the road was thrown down by the horses in the parish of B., and his thigh fractured. A person passing by took him to an inn in the parish of L., where he was taken care of for fourteen weeks, until cured. Immediately after he was taken to L., the overseers of that parish obtained an order for removing him to the place of his settlement, which was suspended at the same time, and seven months after, an order for the charges incurred by L. was afterwards made under 35 Geo.III. c.101. But the sessions and the Court of King's Bench were of opinion, that the pauper was under circumstances irremovable, and quashed the justices' order. For per Abbott C. J. The case is not materially distinguishable from Rex v. St. James's, Bury St. Edmunds (2), and Rex v. Birmingham (3) is not at variance with that authority. But if it was necessary to decide between them as conflicting authorities, I should adhere to the opinion of the court in Rex v. St. James's, in Bury St. Edmunds; for the statute 13 & 14 C.II. c.12. only gave a power of removal of those paupers who were coming to settle. But it cannot be said that this pauper was coming to settle in the parish of L. Nor does 35 Geo.III. c.101. make any difference; for previous to that act a pauper under these circumstances could not have been removed; and that act only regulated the powers of removal, already existing, but did not give any new power to the magistrates for removing paupers who were irremovable before. (4)

pauper renting a house and residing at I., from which

(1) Per Lord Ellenborough C. J. Rex v. St. James, in Bury St. Edmund's, 10 East, 25. and see post. sect. 8. and chap. 34. sect. 1, 2. and 4. The same point was ruled, in Rex v. Thatcham, M. 49 Geo. III. in a case nearly alike in circumstances. 10 East's note, Index, title Poor, Removal. (2) Ante, 161. (1.)

(3) Ibid.

(4) Rex v. St. Lawrence, Ludlow, 4 B. & A. 660.

B. for occa

parish she occasionally received relief, upon applying as ing from A. to usual for relief, was refused, and desired by the officers to sional relief, go into F., in which parish some of her husband's relations removable. had resided; and upon doing so she was, by the officers of F., refused relief, and sent back to I., when it was again denied her, and she was desired to apply once more to F., but expressing her unwillingness to do so, one of the overseers took her to F. without any order of removal, the officers of which latter parish relieved her, and threatened to send her to prison if she returned to I. The pauper was desirous of returning to her house at I., but owing to the threats of the officers of F., she remained there eight or ten days, when she was removed from thence to B. It was contended that the pauper was not a proper subject of the laws of removal because she did not go into F. to settle or inhabit, but was compelled to be there by a species of duress of the parish officers themselves. But the court were of opinion that this temporary relief being necessary to prevent her from starving, she was liable to be removed from either F. or I. to her proper parish. (1)

PART II. SECT. I.

Of the Statutes respecting Certificates.

c.12. s.3.

THE statutes upon which the law of certificates depend Statutes 13 & are, 1st, 13& 14 Car.II. c.12. s.3. which relate principally 14 Car. II. to certificates given to poor and able-bodied persons removing occasionally from their places of inhabiting, to procure work; and is granted by the minister of the parish, one churchwarden, and one overseer. 2d, 8 & 9 W. III. c.30. 9 & 10W.III. c.11. 12 Anne, c.18. s.2. and 3 Geo.II. c.29. s.8,9. (2)

The object of 8&9Will.III. c.30. was to enable the Object of 8 & poor to remove with facility from their places of settle- 9 W.III.c.30. ment, and become inhabitants of other parishes, that they

(1) Rex v. Birmingham, Trin. 51 Geo. III. 14 East, 251.

(2) For these statutes, see Vol. III.