to go and reside wherever he pleases. And the true princis 'ple is to extend this protection to the utmost latitude.” · There should be no clog, no restraint. But then the act didnot compel the granting of them. The want of workhouses was however soon felt as an inconvenience. They were not long after introduced by the legislature; and, if well regulated, a most desirable mode of relief they are. They supply com fort and accommodation for those who cannot work, and em. ployment for those who can. In many instances they have. reduced the annual amount of the poor rates one half. But this benefit could not within itself be received by every sepa. rate district; for, where parishes were small, the expence of the necessary buildings was too heavy for them. This obstacle was for seen by the legislature, and provided against accordingly. Though single parishes could only contract for thest buildings within their own limits, yet, where two unite, no restrictions were imposed; the power is general. It is ob. vioss, that the workhouse of a single parish must be most con. veniently situated in that parish. Upon a similar principle, where many parishes were jointly concerned, the legislature did not require that the building should be raised in either of the confederate parishes; because, in such a case, a spot might be found in some other parish more centrical, and better ac. commodated to their general convenience, than any part of their united district. The act therefore authorises the pur. chase any where: and when once the joint purchase is made, wherever it be, it becomes a part of the local system of each contracting parish; and if the poor will not go there, they are not intitled to relief. The same narrow spirit that has impeded the progress of this beneficial plan, now starts up again to limit this power, and almost to overthrow the act itself; which was calculated ultimately to reduce expeuce, as well as pro mote industry and encourage manufactures, by employing all the poor under the eye of one master. But the objection iss not warranted by the certificate act. • Whatever might be. the leading motive in passing that act, that statute authorises the whole body of the poor, of whatever denomination and with whatever object, to leave their own and remove in.. to any other parish, provided they can obtain the protection of a certificate.' Contrary to the spirit and policy of the act, and not obliged by the letter, the Court will not make an exception of a case which the act itself has not excepted. The u true policy is certainly to enlarge and not to narrow the district within which the poor are to be maintained. As to the objec tion of its being an injury to property; the introduction of numerous inhabitancy, by increasing the consumption of provisions, must unavoidably add to the value of that land, ther produce of which is by such a demand consumed. As to the possibility of a few illegitimate children acquiring by birth a settlement in, the, parish within which the workhouse stands it is impossible to foresee every inconvenience; and all that, bas

i

can be said is that de minimis non curat lex.... Buller J. As to the last difficuity rasat, I doubt whether the poor house, so occupied and become in this manner the perpetual property of the united parishes. is not to this purpose rather to be considered as part of those parishes to which it so belongs, than of the parish in which it is locally situated; upon the same princi pleas that of many resolutions in the case of such children born in gauls.Willes J. and Ashhurst J. concurred, Cald. Cas. 216.2

III. Order of removal,

The justices by virtue of their general authority, in relation The authority to poor persons, have power to make other removals, besides of the justices, those to the last places of settlement.

Thes they have power to remove persons brought illegally into a parish. As in the case of the K. v. Banbury, Tr. 8 Will. 3, a constable without warrant brought a child from Broughton to Banbury Two justices of Banbury made an order of removal in which they recited the fact, and returned the child to the parish of Broughton, there to be provided for according to law. THE COURT held the order good for returning the child to the wrong-doers, and therefore that part was afrihed. But it ought not to be said to be there provided for ; but they are to be left to take their course according to law; therefore that part was quashed. Comber 372.

The

It was in

So the justices may send a servant to the master-Thus in the E. v. Gravesend, Ea. 13 Will. 3, two justices send Jane Goodberry from the parish of Gravesend to her master, with whom she lived a hired servant in the parish of Chadwell in Esser, concluding the order, until she shall be discharged. justices of Ester send her back to Gravesend, sisted, that the second order was ill, being made before the time for appealing against the first order had expired.-But not allowed by the Court; for the first order was to send her to her master, from which order no appeal lies, and not to send her to the parish of Chadwell as to the place of her settlement. Comyns's Rep. 97.

Angle justice may receive the complaint, but the order of removal must be by two. Thus in the K. v. Westwood, Hil.Geo.-1, in an order of removal the complaint was recited to be before one justice only but the ordering part is by two justices and this was held good. Strange, 73.

And the two justices who make the order must be both present at the time: for making an 'order of removal is a judicial act, wherein they are to exercise a discretion; and in order thereto they ought to confer together, and form a joint opinion

And upon the same principle children may be sent to their parents and wires to their husbands...

at the same time. Salk. 478. 488. 1 Lord Raym. 55. 2 Black. Rep. 1017. Burrow's Sett. Cas. 136. 3 Term Rep.

38. 308.

But though the order of removal be signed by two justices separately, it is only voidable, and not absolutely void. Thus in the K. v. Stotfold, Ea. 32 Geo. 3, the pauper and his family were removed by an order of removal in the usual form from Sandon to Stotfold, by which parish they were received, aud against that order there was no appeal. Afterwards the pauper was removed from Stotfold to Chilves, and on appeal it was proved on the part of the respondents (the admission of which evidence was objected to by the appellants), that the ⚫ order of removal from Sandon to Stotfold, and the exami nation on which that order was founded, were in fact signed and taken by the two justices separately, and not in the presence of each other; and that one of the two justices, though 'a magistrate for the county, took the examination and signed the order at his own house situate out of the county.'-THE COURT were clearly of opinion, that the first order was only voidable by a legal course of proceeding, not absolutely void; and therefore that it was necessary for the parish who wished to avoid it, to have appealed against it in the regular course of proceedings. That it would be extremely inconvenient to perit a parish to set aside an order of removal at any distance of time, which had been acquiesced under for years without any dispute. And that a distinction had always prevailed be tween void and voidable instruments. 4 Term Rep. 596.

And the justices must remove the pauper to the place of his last legal settlement. Thus in Clypton v. Ravistock, the order adjudging the paupers last settled at Clypton, ordered the churchwardens of Clypton to repair to the parish of Ravistock, and to relieve them, they being so sick that they could not be removed.'-But by the Court. The justices have, no anthority to send for officers out of another parish, but are bound to maintain the poor as long as they continue with them. Persons settled in a parish cannot be relieved until they are removed to their parish.-Order quashed. Cas. $ett. and Rem. 49.

And the justices cannot make a temporary order of removal.Thus in Braitar v. Usley, Hil. 12 Ann, two justices made an order of removal to continue until the next sessions; and then the sessions made a further order for the settlement of the pauper.-THE COURT quashed both the orders; for the two justices have no authority to make an order till the next sessions; nor have the sessions authority to make au original order in this respect. Cas. Sett. and Rem. 53.

But the justices, if they make an order improvidently, may issue a supersedeas --Thus in Pancras v. Rumbold, Tr. 2 Geo.1, two justices made an order for the removal of a poor person from the parish of Pancras to Rumbold. Within three days the justices, reciting that they were surprised, supersede it, and com

mand the church wardens to return the former order to be cancelled.—And by THE COURT. The supersededs is well sent by the justices, and to prevent the charge of an appeal; last order confirmed. 1 Strange, 6.

And it seems that the two justices cannot remove more than one family by the same order.-For in Chewton v. Compton, Mic. 8 Geo. 1, two justices made an order for the removal of two different families, and the sessions upon appeal quashed the order for insufficiency. It was moved to quash the order of sessions, but Eure and Fortescue, Justices, were of opinion that the original order was ill. The Chief Justice said, he had not fully considered it; but his two brothers being clear that the order of the two justices was ill, and the counsel for maintenance of that order refusing to refer the whole matter to the judge of assize, he pronounced the rule, That the order of Sessions should be confirmed. 1 Strange, 471.

Neither can the justices send a pauper to an extraparochial place. Thus in Bridewell v. Clerkenwell, Hil. 4 Will. 3, the justices sent the pauper to Bridewell as his last legal settlement by an order which set forth Bridewell to be an extraparocial place. By Holt C. J. If a place is extraparochial, and has not the face of a parish the justices have no authority to send any man thither. Salkeld, 486.

So in the K. v.Tamworth, Tr. 17 Geo. 3, the pauper being settled in the hamlet of Boelhall and Giascote, was-hired for a year, and served that year at Sirescote; which is a hamlet consisting of one house only, and between three and four hundred acres of land; the said hamlet of Sirescote has never contribu'ted towards the relief of the poor of the parish of Tamworth 'aforesaid;' nor has ever been assessed thereto; but has always been assessed, and has always paid to the support of the parishchurch of Tamworth aforesaid: 'no overseers of the poor have ever been appointed for the said hamlet of Sirescote; and the said 'hamlet lies without the limits and jurisdiction of the borough ' of Tamworth, but it is within the parish of Tamworth:' the pauper and his family were under the order of two justices delivered to the churchwarden of the parish of Tamworth. It was contended that this was a distinct vill, independent of the parish of Tamworth, and to which no pauper could be sent until it had officers duly appointed. That the justices had sta ted this to be a hamlet, and adjudged that the pauper had therein gained a settlement. That overseers ought to have been

But although a place be extra-parochial, yet if it is a hamlet or vill, within the meaning of 13 & 14 Car. 2+, the justices may first appoint overseers, and then remove the pau per there.

+ See title Poor, head Overseers of the Poor, sec. 1.

a

*

first appointed for this place, and then the pauper removed there, and not to the parish at large. But by lord Mansfield, There is no doubt at all, the place is averred to be within the parish where the hiring and service were had and performed; and it is no township or vill within the stat. of Car. 2, where officers are appointed; and therefore the justices could not remove the pauper there.' The state of places as to the num. ber of houses may have been different in different cases; but here are no overseers, no separate economy. The adjudication is to Sirescote, as part of the parish of. Tamworth. The other judges concurred. Cold. Cas. 28.

So in the K. v. Swalcliffe, Hil. 23 Geo. 3, the paupers wereremoved from Swalcliffe to Ascott, which is a large and popu. › tous district, part of the parish of Witchford, and maintains its own poor in common with Witchford, and not by any separate establishment of its own. By the Court. The justices bare no authority to remove to such a place as Ascott; it is no removal at all; it is a mere nullity. The justices might as well make orders of removal to a man's house. Cald. Cas. 248.

Neither can the justices remove a pauper from an extra-pa. rochial place. Thus in the case of the Forest of Dean v. the parish of Linton, Tr. 12 Will. 3, I. lived ten years in the forest of Deun, and then died, and left several children; two justices made an order to remove them to Linton in Herefordshire. By Holt Ch. J. If a place be a reputable parish, and bave churchwarde leus. aud overseers of the poor, it is within 43: Eliz. c. 2, though in truth it be no parish, but if it be merely extraparochial, as the justices cannot send to such a place, so they cannot send from it; as it is exempt from receiving, so it shall not have the benefit of removing, for they have not proper persons to complain. Persons in extra parochial places must subsist on private charity, as a all persons did at common law before 43 Eliz. 2 Salk, 487. Foley, 97.

ཝཱསཾ

But if a parish lies within two counties, the officers thereof though they may be appointed by the justices of one county only, are to be considered as the officers of the whole parish; and therefore the removal of a pauper to such parish will be good, notwithstanding the settlement may have been acquired in that part of the parish for which no officers are particularly appointed. Thus in the K. v. Merevall, Hil. 10 Geo. 3, the pauper who had gained a settlement in that part of the parish of Merevall, which is within the county of Leicester, was remo red by an order of two justices from Birmingham in Warwick shire, to the parish of Merevall in Leicester. The parish of Merevall lies part in the county of Warwick and part in the county of Leicester. There was an appointment of an over seer of the poor of Merevall by two justices of the county of t

7

• For the doctrine on this subject, see title Poor, head Overacer's of the poor, sec. 1.