« PreviousContinue »
valid unless the contractor reside
shall be main
Contract must be
Fourthly, Mode overseers in many places having found out a method of contracting with of relief, &c. some obnoxious person, of savage disposition, for the maintenance of the
poor ; not with any intention of the poor being better provided for, but to hang over them in terrorem, if they will not be satisfied with the pittance which the overseers think fit to allow them. And one such task-master oftentimes undertakes for the poor of several parishes or townships. But the justices have power, by withholding their assent, to prevent any bad use being made of this kind of traffic; and such power cannot be exercised with
too much vigilance. No contract to be By 45 Geo. III. c.54, it is enacted, that no contract to be entered into and
made by the church wardens and overseers of the poor of any parish with any in the parish in person for the lodging, keeping, maintaining, or employing of the poor of which the poor
such parish or parishes where two or more are united, and for taking the tained, &c.
benefit of their work, labour, and service, for their better maintenance and relief, by virtue of 9 Geo. I. c. 7, or of any other law, shall be valid, unless the persons contracted with shall, and during the continuance of the contract, be resident within the parish contracting, or the particular parish within which such poor shall be lodged or maintained; or who, in the case where parishes are united, shall be so resident in one of such parishes, or in the parish in which such poor shall be lodged and maintained, and unless one or more responsible householders resident in such particular parish, or in one of the parishes, and to be approved of by the church wardens or overseers of the poor of such parish or united parishes, as the case may be, shall, at or before the time of signing such contract, by their joint and several bond, with a penalty in not less than the amount of one half of the assessment to the poor's rates of such parish or united parishes, for the year nest but one preceding the year in which such contract shall be entered into, give security to the said churchwardens and overseers, as the case may be, for the
true and faithful observance of such contract on the part and behalf of the approved, and person so to be contracted with as aforesaid : nor unless such contract shall signed by two
be approved of and signed by two justices acting for such county, &c., where ustices.
such parish or united parishes, or one of them, shall be.” Contracts entered Sect. 2. “ That all such contracts as aforesaid, which shall be entered into into otherwise,
otherwise than according to the regulations and restrictions herein before contained, shall be absolutely null and void to all intents and purposes; and every such contract which shall be entered into conformably to the directions of this act, by any churchwardens and overseers of the poor of any parish, with any person or persons who shall remove from and cease to reside in the particular parish, or in one of the united parishes wherein such por shall be lodged and maintained, before the expiration of the whole term or time for which such contract shall be intended to have continuance, shall
also from the time of such removal cease and determine : provided always, cate the security.
that the removal of such person or persons as aforesaid, shall not vacate the security entered into by any householder or householders as aforesaid, for the true observance and performance of the contract of such person or persons so having contracted and removing, but that the same shall continue in full force for the indemnification of the church wardens and overseers of such parish or united parishes against any loss or expence incurred in consequence of such non-performance of such contract and of such removal : provided always, that nothing in this act contained shall extend or be construed to extend to any parish, township, or place where the poor are maintained under any special act of parliament: provided also, that nothing in this set contained shall extend or be construed to extend to make void any contract that shall have been entered into before the passing of this act, with any person or persons for the lodging, keeping, maintaining, or employing of the poor of any parish, by virtue of or in pursuance of the said act of the 9 Geo. I. aforesaid ; any thing herein contained to the contrary notwith
standing." Contractors for 50 Geo. III. c. 50, s. 2.“ Persons contracting for the maintenance of providing for the the poor of any parish or place shall, with respect to all such things as they Ject to the juris) shall contract to perform and provide for the poor, be subject to the juris. diction of the jus.. diction and orders of justices of the peace in like manner in all respects as
Removal of con. tractor not to va
tices as overseers
overseers of the poor are subject thereto ; and that every order of any such Fourthly, Mode justice to or upon any person so contracting, may be enforced and carried of relief, &c. into execution by such means as the same might have been enforced and carried into execution against any overseer of the poor; and that every per- of the poor. son so contracting for the maintenance of the poor, who shall refuse or neglect to obey any such order, shall be punishable by the like forfeitures and penalties, to be levied in the same manner as in cases of disobedience or neglect of the orders of justices by overseers of the poor.”
By 55 Geo. III. c. 137, s. 7, it is further enacted on this subject, “ that Notice of con. from and after the passing of this act, when and so often as any con
tracts for sopply.
ing work houses tract or contracts shall be made or entered into for the providing, furnishing, to be given. or supplying any articles, materials, or things for the use of the poor in the workhouse or workhouses of or belonging to any parish or parishes, township or townships, hamlet or hamlets, place or places, or for the erecting of any building of buildings, the expence whereof is to be defrayed out of any rate or rates, or other monies applicable to the relief of the poor, the churchwardens and overseers of the poor, or other person or persons having the management, control, or direction of the poor in such parish or parishes, township or townships, hamlet or hamlets, place or places, shall cause notice of their intention to enter into such contract or contracts, and of the time and place, when and where they shall assemble and meet for such purpose, and of the security which will be required for the performance of such contract or contracts, to be affixed in a conspicuous manner on the outer door of the church or respective churches to which such parish or parishes, township or townships, hamlet or hamlets, place or places, shall belong, or to be inserted in one or more of the public newspapers most generally circulated in the neighbourhood, seven days at the least previous to such meeting, in order and to the intent that any person or persons willing to undertake the supplying or furnishing the same, may make proposals for that purpose to such churchwardens and overseers, or other person or persons as aforesaid, at the time and place mentioned in such notice.”
The Churchuardens and Overseers.] In Rex v. Beeston, 3 T. R. 592; 1 A contract made Bott, 473; 2 Nol. P. L. 376. On a rule to shew cause why a mandamus by a majority of should not issue against one of the overseers of the poor of the parish of ens and overDrayton in Hales, for refusing to pay his proportion of parish money in his seers will bind the hands to the person who had contracted to maintain the poor : the question was, Whether it was necessary that all the church wardens and overseers should concur in making the contract, or the majority of them would bind the rest? It appeared that the churchwardens and overseers, with the consent of the major part of the parishioners or inhabitants in vestry assembled, in pursuance of public notice for that purpose given, had contracted for the keeping, maintaining, and employing the poor, with one Atherton, but that three church wardens and two overseers only agreed to the contract, and one overseer refused to join. But the Court ordered the rule to be made absolute, to compel that overseer to pay his proportion to Atherton.
It will be observed that by the latter part of 9 Geo. I. c. 7, s. 4, (ante, 185) if a pauper refuses to go into the workhouse, he shall not be entitled tó relief. See the following cases on this subject.
Rer v. Carlisle, (cited in Rex v. Haigh, 3 T. R. 637); 2 Nol. P. L. 357. Paupers wanting The defendant was indicted for disobeying an order of sessions. The relief, and refuscase was :-Jane Carr, the pauper, having been delivered of two bastard parish workchildren, was taken into the poorhouse of the parish of St. Mary's in Car- house, the parish lisle, which had been there established according to the 9 Geo. I. c. 7.
giving weekly There she and her children were maintained for a year and a half. Then allowance. the parish officers agreed to allow her ls. a week towards the maintenance of herself and children. After six months they refused to continue the payment, but offered to take her and her children again into the poorhouse. She prayed them to take one child, and said she would take care of the other That being refused, she offered to take 6d. a week. But the parish officers persisted in giving her no relief, unless she would come again into the poorhouse. Whereupon she applied to the general quarter sessions for
officer may refuse
Fourthly, Mode the county of Cumberland, who made an order on the churchwardens and of relief, &c. overseers to pay her ls. a week towards the maintenance of herself and her
two bastard children, until further order. She served the defendant, being one of the overseers, with the order, and demanded payment, which he refused, but at the same time offered (as he had done several times before the obtaining the said order) to take her and her children into the poorhouse. The question reserved at the assizes for the opinion of the judges was, Whether, under these circumstances, the defendant was by law empowered to refuse payment of such weekly allowance ? And the case being laid before the judges, they were all of opinion, upon considering the words of the statute, that, under the circumstances of this case, the defendant was by law
empowered to refuse payment of such weekly allowance. Whether parishes Rex v. Winship and Grunwell, Overseers of the Poor of the Tounship of are obliged to relieve persons
Corbridge, in the County of Northumberland, 5 Burr. 2677 ; Cald. 72; who refuse to go 1 Bott, 466 ; 2 Nol. P. L. 368. A regular poor house had been erected at into the work Corbridge three years before the order stated in the indictment; and the house?
several persons who received allowances from the said township had one month's notice given them “to go into the said poorhouse,” to be maintained and provided for therein; and that from the expiration of the said month, the allowance to the said several persons from the said township should be no longer payable. Margaret Richlieu refused to go into the poorhouse, and the overseers refused to pay her the allowance. She applied to the sessions, but it did not appear she had made oath before the sessions, pursuant to 9 Geo. I. c. 7, s. 4. Afterwards, at a general quarter sessions of the peace holden in and for the said county, an order was made in the words following; that is to say, “ Margaret Richlieu having an allowance of 2s. a week payable to her out of the township of Čorbridge
, of which the sum of 61. 4s. is now in artear, it is ordered, that the same be immediately paid to her: and it is also ordered, that the said allowance of 2s. a week be continued to be paid by the said township of Corbridge to the said Margaret Richlieu ; the said township appearing, and not showing sufficient cause to the contrary.” The overseers refused to pay the allowance, insisting that she should go into the poorhouse according to the order of suspension. Whereupon they were indicted; and a verdict was given against them, subject to the opinion of the Court of K. B. Upon hearing the cause, the Court thought the general question of vast consequence, but gave no opinion upon the merits; holding the sessions' order to be bad and illegal upon the face of it: “ the sessions cannot make such an original order.” Judgment for the defendants. It is said, however, in a note to the next case as reported by Mr. Caldecott, that certainly the Court made no such determination as that expressed in the words marked by inverted
commas. (See Cald, 71 n.; and Mr. Douglas's observations cited in next Quere, Whether Rex v. North Shields, Doug. 331 ; Cald. 68; 1 Bott, 468; 2 Nol. P.L. a mother asking 357. By order of a justice of the peace the churchwardens and overseers
of North Shields were directed to pay to Ann Irwin of that township, wife of pellable to go Thomas Irwin, the sum of 2s. 6d. weekly, until such time as they should be poorhouse? See otherwise ordered, for the support of her three children by her said busR. v. Haigh and band; one aged six years, one three, and one fourteen months. The parish another, post, p. officers appealed to the quarter sessions, where the order was confirmed,
and a special case stated to the following effect :-There was, at the time of making the order, within the township, a poorhouse, established according to the 9 Geo. I. c. 7, into which the parish officers were willing to receive the pauper, with her three children, and offered so to do; but she refused to go into the house with her said three children, who were of the ages above-mentioned. She had another child of eight years of age, for whom she did not seek relief ; neither did she seek relief for herself, nor was there any order for her. Her husband was a mariner, and prisoner in France, and the order stated her inability to provide for the said three children. The case concluded, that these children, being nurse-children, the opinion of the Court was, that they ought not to be separated from their mother, and that the mother, not seeking relief herself, was not compellable to go into the workhouse. Upon a certiorari,
relief for her children be com.
with them to the
and a rule to show cause why both the orders should not be quashed, it was Fourthly, Mode argued, in support of the rule for quashing them, that the object of the 9 Geo. of relief, &c. I. c. 7, s. 4, was to prevent idleness and to secure to parishes a benefit from the labour of persons asking relief. If parents receive assistance for the support of their children, that in truth is a relief to them. The case, therefore, states improperly, that the wife had not asked relief for herself: she did virtually, by asking it for her children, whom she, if able, was bound to maintain. And the case of Rex v. Carlisle was relied on as in point. On the other side it was contended, that as the mother had not asked relief for herself, and the order was only for the support of her children, she was willing to let them go into the workhouse; and although nurse-children cannot be separated by any compulsory order from their mother, she may by her consent permit the separation if she think it for their advantage. In the case of Rex v. Carlisle, the relief asked, and granted by the order, was partly personal, and therefore it was distinguishable from this case, and within the statute.-Lord Mansfield was not present during this part of the argument.-- Willes, J., said, this was a humane order, and he wished to support it. He did not think the words of the act in the way, and inclined to adopt the distinction made by the counsel between this case and that of Rer v. Carlisle.- Ashurst, J., thought the act extended to the present case : that maintenance for the children was relief to the mother. There might he great inconvenience if the Court were to adopt the other construction. One object of the statute was to encourage industry, by holding out the disgrace of going into a workhouse; and if parents could obtain a maintenance for their children without being compellable to go to the workhouse, idleness would be thereby promoted among artificers and manufacturers.Ballet, J., on the contrary, thought the distinction between this case and that of Rex v. Carlisle to be clear. The act was meant in ease of parishes ; but the effect would be quite the reverse, if, when one of a numerous family wants relief, the whole must go to the parish workhouse ; and, on the other hand, that the parish is not entitled to the labour of a whole family, because one of them might want relief.—The case stood over for further argument, Willes, J., expressing a wish that it might be compromised.—And now he delivered the judgment of the Court: We think it unnecessary to give an opinion on the question which has been argued in this case, because I and my two brothers are satisfied that no appeal lies from an order of mainte- No appeal lica nance. The 3 W. III. c. 11, s. 11, gives a concurrent jurisdiction, in the from an order of
maintenance. making orders for the relief of the poor, in or out of sessions, and doth not authorise an appeal. The 9 Geo. I. c. 7, makes no alteration in this respect. The reason for not giving an appeal is, that the pauper might starve while the canse was in suspense. We have spoken to several gentlemen very conversant in sessions' law, and none of them ever heard of such an appeal. And the order of sessions was quashed, because they had no jurisdiction, and the original order affirmed. (See Rex v. Haigh, post, 193.)
It has been observed by Mr. Douglas, (Dougl. 333), that the words of 3 W. Observations on III. c. 11, are, “ by authority under the hand of one justice residing within the the above cases. parish, or (if none be there dwelling) in the parts near or next adjoining, or by order of the justice in sessions.” This, he says, it should seem, must mean by order of the court of quarter sessions, not of justices as individuals, when they happen to meet at the quarter sessions. Therefore he makes a query concerning the case of Rex v. Winship and Grunwell, (ante, 188), where the Court is stated to have held, that the sessions could not make an original order of maintenance. (See 36 Geo. III. c. 23, post, 194.)
Unto which it may be added, with respect to this last case of North Shields, that the great fundamental statute of 43 Eliz. c. 2, s. 6, enacts, that “if any person shall find himself aggrieved by any thing done by the churchwardens and overseers, or by the justices, in relation to the relief of the poor, he may appeal to the general quarter sessions, whose order therein shall be final.” Which, by the rule that acts in pari materiâ are to be taken together and considered as one entire act, may seem to include this case concerning the order of maintenance. The Carlisle case above-mentioned was upon an original order at sessions, in which the jurisdiction was not
But now settled
Fourthly, Mode objected to, but the cause was determined on the real merits. The case of of relief, 8c. Rex v. Winship and Grunwell, also was upon an original order of sessions,
which order the report says was quashed, because the Court was of opinion that the sessions had no power to make such order. This present case of North Shields was an appeal against an order of a justice out of sessions, and in this case of appeal likewise the Court was of opinion that the sessions had no jurisdiction. From which two last cases it seems to follow that an order of maintenance by a private justice out of sessions is absolutely conclusive; which imports a power in this respect not usual in other like cases; especially as such justice is required by the statute to be an inhabitant of the parish, if any such be there residing, and consequently in all probability essentially interested in the poor rate. As to the matter of practice, it is certain, that nothing is more common at the sessions, than applications for the maintenance of poor persons as well by original motion as by way of appeal from the order of private justices. In some places this makes up almost half the business of the sessions, even to a degree of ridicule among the unthinking part of mankind; as if magistrates could be better employed than in relieving the miseries of the distressed. The reason that has been sometimes alleged against removing the poor rate into the courts at Westminster, lest the poor might starve before the cause should be determined, does not hold with regard to appeals against orders of maintenance. The justices' order takes effect immediately, and continues in force till altered by other legal authority. The usual way is, for the justices to order the overseer to pay to the pauper so much weekly or otherwise, until he shall be otherwise ordered according to law to forbear the said allowance, or, more generally, till further order. And this, if not acquiesced in, brings on an appeal to the sessions; where the court enlarges, mitigates, or takes off the charge, as they shall see cause. See 21st edit. of Burn, Vol. IV. p. 117.
But in Rex v. Justices of Devon, 4 M. f. S. 421, it was held, that an that an appeal
appeal does not lie to the quarter sessions against an order for relief, but the
overseers must go back to the sessions where the order was made, and point sions against an
out that the paupers resided in another parish, and obtain a fresh order. but the overseer Gifford moved for a rule nisi for a mandamus to the justices, to enter con
tinuances at their next quarter sessions, upon an appeal against an order for order of removal the relief of a pauper, which appeal the justices had dismissed at the last
sessions, conceiving that they had not any jurisdiction in the matter. He parish.
referred to Burn's Justice, Vol. IV. p. 117, 21st edit. for the author's opinion that, notwithstanding the determination in Rex v. North Shields, Doug. 331, an appeal lies against an order for relief; for Burn says, that the great fundamental statute of 43 Eliz. c. 2, s. 6, gives an appeal for any thing done by the justices in relation to the relief of the poor; which, by the rule that acts in pari materiâ are to be taken together and considered as one entire act, may seem to include this case concerning the order of mainte
He also speaks of such appeals as of a practice than which nothing was more common at the sessions; and Rex v. Woodsterton, Barnard. 207, 247, is one instance of it. The reason assigned in Rex v. North Shields for not giving the appeal, lest while the matter is in suspense the poor should starve, does not hold, because the order continues in force until altered by legal authority. And the 43 Eliz. does not seem to have been adverted to in that case.
Here, if there be no appeal, there is no remedy; for the objection to the order is, that it is to a wrong parish ; yet if the overseers acting upon this were indicted for disobeying the order, the Court would not, upon such a proceeding, try a question of boundary.- Per Curiam. If, in every case of an order for relief, an appeal will lie, this will divert the funds of the poor into other channels
. This order is not in perpetuum, it is to pay until further order; and why cannot the overseers go back to the quarter where it was made, and point out that the pauper's residence is in another parish, and obtain a fresh order?—Rule refused.
59 Geo. III. c. 12, s. 8, enacts, “ that in any parish not having a workenlarge work
house for the poor thereof, or where the workhouse shall be found insufficient or inconvenient, it shall be lawful for the chnrchwardens and overseers of the poor, by the direction of the inhabitants in vestry assembled, to erect
does not lie to the quarter ses.
must, if he can, obtain a fresh
into the proper
Power to build or