1. For what places Overseers may be.

Anciently, the maintenance of the poor was chiefly an ecclesiastical concern. A fourth part of the tithes in every parish was set apart for that purpose. The minister, under the bishop, had the principal direction in the disposal thereof, assisted by the churchwardens and other principal inhabitants. Hence naturally became established the parochial settlement. Afterwards, when the tithes of many of the parishes became appropriated to the monasteries, those societies had some share likewise (by reason of the said tithes, and other donations for that purpose) in the relief of the poor; and the rest was made up by voluntary contributions. But, though the relief of the poor was in a great degree an ecclesiastical concern, it is not true (as some people have imagined) that the common law of England made no provision for the poor; the Mirror shews the contrary; how it was done, indeed, does not appear. (1 Burr. 450.)· By the statute of 27 H. 8. c. 25. the 27 H. 8. c. 25., the churchwardens or two other of every parish were to make collections for the poor on Sundays.— - By the 5 & 6 Ed. 6. c. 2., the minister and churchwardens were annually to appoint two able persons or more to be gatherers and collectors of alms for the poor. By the 5 Eliz. c. 3., the parishioners were to choose the said collectors and gatherers for the poor. By the 14 Eliz. c. 5., the justices were to appoint collectors for the poor within every parish; and were also to appoint the Dverseer of the poor, whose office was nearly the same as it is at present, except only for collecting the money, which was done by the aforesaid gatherers or collectors. By the 18th Eliz. c. 3., the justices were to appoint collectors and Governors of the poor. By the 39 El. c. 3., the churchwardens of every parish, and four substantial householders there, being subsidy men, or, for want of subsidy men, four other substantial householders, to be nominated yearly in Easter week by two justices, (1 Q.) were to be called overseers of the poor of the same parish. And so it continues with some small variation, by the statute of the 43 Eliz. c. 2. (a) which is the great constitution of the system of law concerning the poor, and is as follows:

5 & 6. Ed. 6. c. 2.

5 El. c. 3.

14 El. c. 5.

18 El. c. 3.

39 El. c. 3.

43 El. c. 2. See R. v. Loxdale, post.

43 El. c. 2.

Statutes con

pointment of

overseers.

The churchwardens of every parish, and four, three or two substantial householders there, as shall be thought meet, having respect cerning the ap- to the proportion and greatness of the same parish and parishes to be nominated yearly in Easter week, or within one month after Easter [but now by stat. 54 Geo. 3. c. 91. on the 25th of March, or within fourteen days next after,] under the hand and seal of two or more justices of the peace in the same county, whereof one to be of the quorum, dwelling in or near the same parish or division where the same parish doth lie, shall be called overseers of the poor of the same parish.

Their number in parishes.

(a) The reader who may be desirous of informing himself more particularly as to the provision for the poor antecedently to the 43 El. will do well to consult Mr. Nolan's Treatise on the Poor Laws, ch. 1.

townships.

By this stat. a parish was the only district bound or entitled to the separate maintenance of its poor, but townships and villages, whether parochial or extra-parochial, are now brought within the same system, by the construction put upon the statute 13 & 14. C. 2. 13 & 14 C. 2. § 21. by which, after reciting that, whereas the inhabitants of the C. 12. counties of Lancashire, Cheshire, Derbyshire, Yorkshire, Nor- In villages and thumberland, the bishopric of Durham, Cumberland and Westmorland, and many other counties in England and Wales, by reason of the largeness of the parishes within the same, have not nor cannot reap the benefit of the act of the 43 Eliz. it is enacted, that all and every the poor, needy, impotent and lame person and persons, within every township or village within the several counties aforesaid, shall from and after the passing of this act be maintained, kept, provided for and set on work, within the several and respective township and village, wherein he, she, or they shall inhabit, or wherein, he, she, and they, was or were last lawfully settled, according to the intent and meaning of this act; and that there shall be yearly chosen and appointed, two or more overseers, within every of the said townships or villages, in manner as is by the said act of Eliz. directed, and liable to the same duties, and pains, and penalties for non-performance thereof.

43 El. c. 2. § 8. Officers of corporate towns rity of justices of peace.

have the autho

Stat. 43 Eliz. c. 2. § 8. enacts that the mayors, bailiffs, or other head officers of every town and place corporate, and city within this realm, being justice or justices of peace, shall have the same authority by virtue of this act, within the limits and precincts of their jurisdictions, as well out of sessions, as at their sessions, if they hold any, as is herein limited, prescribed and appointed to justices of the peace of the county, or any two or more of them, or to the justices of peace in their quarter sessions, to do and execute for all the uses and purposes in this act prescribed, and no other justice or justices of peace to enter or meddle there: (2) and that every alderman of the city of London within his ward Aldermen of shall and may do and execute in every respect so much as is ap- London. pointed and allowed by this act to be done and executed by one or two justices of peace of any county within this realm.

And by 9. If a parish extend into more counties than one, and a part be within the liberties of a corporate place and part without, the justices of every county, and the head officers of such place corporate, shall intermeddle only within their liberties, and not any further: and every of them respectively, within their several jurisdictions, shall execute the ordinances before-mentioned, concerning the nomination of overseers, &c. and the said churchwardens and overseers, or the most part of them, of the said parishes that do extend into such several limits and jurisdictions, shall, without dividing themselves, duly execute their office in all places within the said parish, in all things to them belonging; and shall duly exhibit and make one account before the said head officer of the town or place corporate, and one other before the said justices of peace, or any such two of them, as is aforesaid.

No district can possess a right of separately providing for the poor unless it be either a parish within the 43 Eliz. (which it may be, though anciently but parcel of another parish) or a township, or village within the 13 & 14 C. 2.; and no district, not already possessing that right, can claim it, unless such district be not only within some of the descriptions, but likewise, if a township or

A parish extending into two counties, or

into two liberties.

Must be either

a parish or a township.

Every churchwarden is also an overseer.

vill, unable to reap the benefit of 43 Eliz. without a separate establishment. Hilton v. Pawle. Cro. Car. 92. 1 Bott. 32. cholas v. Walker. Cro. Car. 394. 1 Bott. 33.

Ni

The churchwardens.] These were overseers of the poor long before this statute of the 43 Eliz. And hereby they need no formal appointment to the office of overseer, but the statute declares them to be such, and requires others to be added to them by the nomination of the justices.

Of every parish.] A parish, in strictness, seems to be, "that circuit of ground which is committed to the charge of one parson, or viear, or other minister having cure of souls therein." 1 Blac. Com. 111.

But the 43 Eliz. is deemed to be satisfied although the district be not, in this precise sense, a parish; so that it were at the time of passing that act, and have been ever since a parish by reputation. Nicholas v. Walker. Cro. Car. 394. 1 Bott. 33. It is indispensable that this reputation shall not have commenced subsequently to that time, the statute relating only to parishes Dean v. Linton, then in esse. Hilton v. Pawle, Cro. Car. 92. 1 Bott. 32. 2 Salk. 487.

Et vide per
Holt C. J.

The appointment of overseers must be

for a parish, township or vill, not for a precinct.

But a precinct which is a parish or vill by reput ation may be good.

It has been ruled, that making separate rates, and having in times before the statute had a chapel, will not, without all other parochial rights, make a parish of a place which was not so reputed before the statute. Rudd v. Foster, 4 Mod. 157. 1 Bott. 34.

In Rex v. Severn and Arnold, T. 29 & 30 Geo. 2., 1 Bott. 4. two justices appointed Severn and Arnold, substantial householders in the precinct of the tower within, otherwise called the parish of St. Peter ad vincula, to be overseers of the poor of the said precinct. It was objected, that this appointment is not warranted by the statute, which requires that the churchwardens of every parish, and four, three, or two substantial householders there, shall be appointed overseers of the poor of the same parish. Denison J. We are of opinion, and the late Chief Justice (a) did concur in this opinion, that this is not a good appointment under the 43 Eliz. c. 2. which requires them to be appointed within a parish; neither is it good within the statute of 13 & 14 C. 2. c. 12. which says, that there shall be yearly appointed two or more overseers within every township and village respectively. Precinct is a word of ambiguous signification; it is not a boundary of any parish or vill; it may be more than a parish, or may be less. If it were a parish or vill by reputation, it might have been good (Cro. Car. 92.394.); but the Court cannot intend this precint to be a vill, and the words of the statute ought to be pursued. Neither will the words otherwise called the parish of St. Peter ad vincula aid the want of this in the appointment: for in all constructions of alias dict. the words that go before the alias dict. must be presumed to be true: as in an indictment, the addition of the party not coming till after the alias dict., will vitiate the indictment, for what precedes the alias dict. is the true and proper appellation (3 Bulst. 296.) If in this case the alias dict. had come after the parish of St. Peter, it would have done. And the appointment was quashed. Say. 278. S. C.

(a) Ld. C. J. Ryder (grandfather of the present earl of Harrowby) died on the 25th May 1756. Lord Mansfield took his place in the court of K. B. as Lord Chief Justice, on the 11th of November, 1756. 30 G. 2. Vide 1 Burr. 2

Rex v. Inh. of Rufford, E. 8. Geo. 1. 1 Str. 512. 1 Bott. 36. But the town1 Nol. P. L. 10. A mandamus was directed to the justices of the ship or vill peace of the county of Nottingham, reciting, that within the vill may be extraof Rufford, in the forest of Sherwood, there were divers substantial parochial. freeholders, able to contribute to the maintenance of the poor, and that there were no churchwardens or overseers to make a rate, and that there were poor unprovided for; therefore it commanded them to appoint overseers. They return that the vill of Rufford is part of no parish, but time out of mind has been extra-parochial, without church, chapel, or parochial rights, and that there never have been any overseers of the poor; and for that cause they cannot appoint. After argument and consideration of all the statutes relating to the poor, the Court were of opinion, that the powers given by the 43 Eliz. to be executed in parishes, were by the 13 & 14 C. 2. extended to all townships and villages, whether parochial or extra-parochial: that although most of the forests in England are extra-parochial, yet notwithstanding they ought to maintain their own poor, and consequently overseers might be appointed; for which purpose, in this case a peremptory mandamus was awarded.

For the statute (13 & 14 C. 2.) directeth overseers to be appointed within the several townships and villages within the several counties without saying, within the several parishes in the said counties; so that if it be a township or village, and such township or village is within the county, it seemeth not to be material whether it be within any parish or not.

But a township or village it must be. In Rex v. Denham, E. 8. But the place G. 2. 1 Bott. 37. 1 Nol. P. L. 13. The question was, whether must be a townSouthwould park, being an extra-parochial place, and consisting ship or village. of two houses, and about 300 acres of land, was such a place as was liable to maintain its own poor? By the Court; it is now a settled point that the justices may appoint overseers in extra-parochial places, but such place must come under the notion of a town or village.

So in Rex v. Welbeck, M. 14 Geo. 2. 2 Str. 1143. 1 Bott. 38. 1 Nol. P. L. 10. 14. The return to a mandamus was, that Welbeck was an extra-parochial place, that it was not nor ever had been a township or vill, nor had ever been reputed to be a township or vill: And it was held that the Court could only send a writ of mandamus, commanding the appointment of overseers to a township or village, or a place reputed as such; and if a mandamus be sent to an extra-parochial place not being either, it is sufficient to return that it is not a vill; and the fact of there being substantial householders is immaterial, if it appear not to be a vill.

Cald. 167. The place must

So also a place in a parish must be a township or vill in order to have its own overseers distinct from those of the parish. Rex v. Showler and Atter, T.3. Geo. 3. 3 Burr. 1391. i Bott. 41. And in Rex v. J. of Bedfordshire, E. 22 Geo. 3. 1 Bott. 48. 1 Nol. P. L. 10. 15. It was holden that in order to either be a vill obtain a mandamus to compel justices to appoint overseers of the or a reputed vill poor, it must be expressly sworn that the place in question either is or is reputed to be a vill.

And if a place be found by the sessions to be a vill, the appointment of separate overseers is of course. Rex v. Ranton Abbey. 2 T. R. 207. 1 Bott. 56. 1 Nol. P. L. 13. 14. 16. 35.

2. What is a township or vill.

Vill, village and township, are considered as synonymous, and a place so called may be such, either in strictness or by reputation. In one of these two modes, it must have been a vill, at least as early as the stat. 13 & 14 C. 2. which, as the stat. 43 Eliz. c. 2. has been decided to embrace only parishes in esse in the forty-third year of that reign, must be taken to embrace only such vills as had an existence in the year 1662, which was the 13 & 14 of the reign of Charles 2. vide Jacob's Law Dictionary" Parish." 1 Blac. Com. 114. 1 Nol. P. L. c. 1.

In Rex v. Denham, Burr. S. C. 37. Ld. Hardwicke C. J. observes, that it is very hard to define exactly what is a township or a village; and, that it must be left to the judgment of the Court, upon the 1 Inst. 115. b. circumstances of the case stated. Lord Coke says "Villa est ex pluribus mansionibus vicinata, et collata ex pluribus vicinis.”

What is not a

In Rex v. Denham, E. 8. Geo. 2. 1 Bott. 37. 1 Nol. P. L. 13. township or vill. It was held that a single house or two houses cannot amount to the notion of a town or village, and that if it had been formerly a town or village, if the houses were in fact decayed and gone, it would cease to be a town or village.

Lee J. observed that the notion of a village, according to the ancient law, is a tithing consisting of ten families; that, according to the modern notion, it is a place that has a constable; that it ought to have at least the reputation of a town or vill: and that a vill must at least mean more than two houses.

The like was said to have been adjudged in Rex v. Belvoir Castle, M.2 Geo. 2.

Wherever there is a constable there is a township. Rex v. Sir Watts Horton, 1 Bott. 54. Per Buller J.

In Rex v. Grafton, E. 10 Geo. 2. Burr. S. C. 101. 2 Str. 1071. 1 Bott. 37. 1 Nol. P. L. 14. The manor of Grafton, an extraparochial place, once consisting of a capital messuage and three keepers' lodges in the park now disparked, and consisting of five dwelling-houses and farms, occupied by five several tenants, but never having had any overseers of the poor or other officers, till the overseer now appointed for the purpose of the present removal, was adjudged by the justices to be a township or village within the statute unto which a removal might be made. It was moved to quash the orders of the justices, and a rule was made to shew cause; and afterwards the rule was made absolute, without defence.

By the case of Rex v. Welbeck, 1 Bott. 38. the fact of there being substantial householders is immaterial if it appear not to be a vill.

So in Rex v. Showler and Atter, T. 3 Geo. 3. 3 Burr. 1891. 1 Bott. 41. 1 Nol. P. L. 15. Two justices appoint Thomas Showler and John Atter overseers of the poor of the township or village of Haugh. The sessions, upon appeal, adjudge Haugh to be a village or township, and confirm the appointment, and state specially, that it appears to them, that the said place called Haugh, consists of a capital messuage, in which Thomas Showler in the said appointment named, with all his family, dwells; and of two small ancient cottages; and of one other small cottage lately