The Sun.
London, England, 1846-05-04 00:00:00

NEW LAW OF SETTLEMENT.

The following are the principal provisions of the new
Bill introduced into Parliament to consolidate and amend
the laws relating to the removal of the poor :
The Bill commences by repealing existing Acts on the
subject. The second clause declares that, until removed,
destitute persons are to be relieved at the expense of the
parish in which they are residing ; except (3) in cases
wheie doubt exists as to the settlement. Boards of
guardians may then direct their clerk to charge the relief
to the parish in which they believe the person's settle-
ment to be, informing the overseers of the fact. The
overseers may, if they think themselves aggrieved,
apply within fourteen days for an order of adjudica-
tion ; and if this course be not adopted, the case may,
within six months be submitted to the Poor-law Com-
missioners, whose decision can only be appealed against
within six months. By the sth clause, the Commis-
sioners, with the consent of a majority of the board of
guardians, may make the relief of occasional poor a
union charge. The 6th clause provides that any person
chargeable to any union shall be liable to removal,
except in certain eases specified in the five succeeding
clauses. Persons (7j are not to be removed from one
parish to another in the same union ; but their settle-
ment may be ascertained, and the amount expended
charged accordingly. The 891 clause is the most im•
portant to the Bill, as it makes five years' industrial
labour a bar to removal ; we give it verbatim :—" That
no person who has resided for the five years last pro-
ceeding in any parish shall be removed from that
parish ; and no residence as a prisoner in a prison, as a
soldier, mariner or sailor in active service, as an insane
peron in a lunatic asylum, or house licensad for the re•
ception of insane persons, or as a patient in an hospital,
and no time whilst any person is receiving relief from
any parish, or whilst he is wholly or in part maintained
by any private rate or subscription, not being a bona, fide
charitable gift raised in a parish in which he does not
reside, shall be reckoned either as part or as an interrup-
tion of the five years, or as an interval after the comple-
tion of such five years ; and the justices, to whom any
application is made for a warrant of removal, are
hereby empowered to decide whether any allowance
made to any person in money or otherwise, was, or was
not, bona fide a charitable gift " By the 9th clause no
widow shall be removable for a year after her hus-
band's death. No child under sixteen (10). residing
with his father or mother, shall be removable unless his
parent is also removable. No warrant (11) shall be
granted for the removal of any person in whose case re-
lief is made by accident of or by illness of himself or
any men.iber of his family, unless the justices state in
the warrant that they are satisfied that the illness is in-
curable, or that the accident will produce permanent
disability."
We now come to the clauses regulating the procedure
in removals. If two or es,are overseers (13) sign a paper
admitting a person's settlement, in the presence of a
magistrate, no further warrant tor" his removal shall be
necessary. A board of guardians (1.:9 may examine
into a person's settlement, and give the overseer of
the parish to which they deem him to belong notice
of application for a warrant of removal, and if no op-
position be made within seven days, may apply for a
warrant of removal. But if any statement of dissent
be made to the removal the guardians can proceed no
further in the matter, but it must be left to the overseers.
The Poor-law Commissioners may authorise boards
of guardians to appoint officers to conduct removals,
and may make regulations with respect to them. Per-
sons (16) shall not be removed under the warrant of
any justices until after forty day's notice to the over-
seers of the parish to which they belong, nor during the
prosecution of any appeal. The 17th clause imposes a
penalty of not more than 41., nor less than 21., on any
parish officer, who by threats or otherwise shall obtain
the removal of a pauper without the warrant of two
justices. In case of the illness of a pauper (20) two
justices may suspend the warrant of removal ; and if
notice be given within seven days, the overseers of the
parish in which the pauper's settlement shall be liable for
all expenses of maintenance, except medical relief.
When such charges (21) exceed 10/., there shall be a
right of appeal against them, if thought excessive,
to the next quarter sessions. Overseers (22) may
abandon a warrant of removal, on paying the
other party's costs. A duplicate (23) of any war-
rant of removal, together with the original deposi-
tions, shall, within three days, be transmitted to the
clerk of the peace, who shall preserve the same, and (24)
furnish copies, if required, at certain charges.
Overseers (25) of the parish aggrieved by the
warrant of removal, may appeal to the next quarter
sessions, and that appeal shall only be respited on
oagAovpofeepnrtteehsle(le3aei
appellant's
consent,:isowonbist.tuthhateotrleutntmthhoteathnsnheete.oasrpedNpte
appeal
forth
rlot (
209 f the n o
affidavit of special circumstances. No appeal (26) shall
justices)
bbr eeo saep r nod t
groundsenodrfeeugandnrtu
respondent's
under
rodati
tnbhandenei
ss
order dine
rt
courtsi lof
of quarter sessions, shall be removed into any of her
Majesty's courts of record, by certiorari or otherwise.
The New Poor-law Act (36) , and all Acts passed to
amend it, and_the
_present Act, shall be construed as one
Act. This Act (39)shall extend only to England.

THE CAUSE OF REMARKABLY
MILD WINTERS IN ENGLAND.

An interesting communication on the subject, y
Colonel Sabine, appears in the Philosophical Magazine
for the present month. The unusual character of the
winter which we have just experienced, in which the
mean temperature in December, January, and February,
exceeded the mean temperature of the same months of
1844-5 by an average of 8 deg., has given rise to the
inquiry. The winter which, within Colonel Sabine's
recollection, most nearly resembled the present, was
that of 1821-1822; and undoubtedly the resemblance is
in many respects very striking. The extension of the
Gulf-stream in that year to the coast of Europe, instead
of its terminating, as it usually does, about the meridian
of the Azores, has been assigned as a cause adequate,
Colonel Sabine believes, to account for all the phenomena
of that winter. " The warm water of the Gulf-stream
spread itself beyond its usual bounds, over a space of
,oouogoh roughly
longitude, estimated as
carrying exceeding
wit
h6oil
miles
sn
in which
water several degrees higher than the temperature of
latitude
and be
the sea in ordinary years in the same parallels."
The similarity of the two winters 1821-1822 and
1844-1845 having been shown, and their agreement in
those features in which they differ from ordinary winters,
Colonel Sabine says, "It will naturally be asked, what
evidence we have to prove or disprove an extension of
the Gulf-stream in the present year, similar to that
which took place in 1821. To this it must be replied,
that strange as it may appear, this remarkable pheno-
menon may take place in any year without our having
other knowledge of it than by its effects, although it
occurs at so short a distance from our ports, from whence
so many hundred vessels are continually crossing and
recrossing the part of the ocean where a few simple ob-
servations with a thermometer would serve to make it
known.edpuorree
rsseeonnce t
occur,
euxw:Vt,hreeit
cohmhae,l-w affectye
hnm whether
lohdmre grawatiientnri
winter,
eacd erlioymrc
aabenneadnnnos
fotoot
rf ftahaieilearningccwoanhusesinedeaeovnrfeartobhcli t
ee-
length of time the climate of an extensive district of the
globe, including our own islands. History has recorded
two instances in which the extension of the Gulf stream
is known to have taken place and in both we owe our
knowledge of it to the casual observations of an acci•
dental voyager."
And in a note he says : " It is much to be wished
that a society existed in England which should charge
itself with the many interesting and important consider-
ations belonging to physical geography. Did the object
and scope of the Royal Geographical Society embrace
physical atsh
awt e Isle
iaesn
edescriptive gpenobglri
ea p
whyo',u
lidt
beat cannot
t bl
y
amCidolostnethleSavbeirniest,yinnefoiniciel
benefited."
iudseionnts, dboeswnhoiteshupnpuorseer‘iinntha
atet
is affected, there may not be
others which may be
influential in the production of winters of unusual
mildness in an equal, or even inagreateurdueal
de-
gree than the extension of the Gulf-stream ; or
that whenever the stream reaches the coasts of
Europe, its influence on our climate must neces-
sarily occasion winters like that of 1,821-1822, or 1845-
1846. It is reasonable to believe that there may be de
is usual an -.
grees of initial velocity between that which d
that which is extreme. There may also be counteracting
or qualifying causes with which we are as yet wholly
unacquainted. The object of this communication is
rather to recall to recollection, on the occasion of the
present remarkable winter, the coincidence that was dis-
covered between the similar winter in IS2I-1822, and
the extension of the stream ; and to promote the
' le means as may supply additional
adoption of such wrap
evidence, whereby we may discern between coincidence
eta ed on a single occasion, and connexion which may
bo established by the observation of repeated coin-
cidence."
In the hope of furthering those views, we submit this
abstract to our readers.—Literary Gazette.

ANOTIIER VICTIM.—Miss Bridges, eldest daughter of
Matthew Bridges, Esq., of Aldershot Manor, Surrey, was received
during Lent Into the Romanist Churck at Prior Park.—Church and
stat 4 gazette.

LAW INTELLIGENCE,
COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, May 1.
(Sittings in Banco.)
SPECIAL PAPXR.--GIBBS FLIGHT AND OTHERS.
This was a special case arising out of an action of troves*,
brought to recover the parish books of St. Stephen's, Val
brook, and the case came on to-day for argument. The
plaintiff is Mr. Alderman Gibbs, and the defendants are cer-
tain parishioners of St. Stephen's, Walbrook, between whom
and Mr. Alderman Gibbs there has been a long parish war-
fare, respecting the right of the latter to retain and fill con-
tinuously the office of churchwarden for the parish, and by
reason of that office, and his being a member ex officio of the
select vestry, to retain the custody of the parish books.
Sir Thomas Wilde, Mr. Sergeant Channel, and Mr. Cow-
ling, appeared for the plaintiff; and Mr. Sergeant Tallourd
and Mr. Atkinson for the defendants.
Sir T. WILDE, in opening the case, said the parish cf St.
Stephen's, Walbrook, had been under the management of a
select vestry from the earliest period that the history of the
parish could be traced to ; and the plaintiff alleged that
there was evidence that it had been immemorially governed
by a select vestry. There was no trace of en open
vestry having ever acted in its government. It appeared
that the vestry had consisted, at different times, of various
numbers of vestrymen, from sixteen down to three ; and
that the qualification for a select veetryman was his
having previously filled the office of churchwarden, The
parish consisted of 67 houses, of which a proportion was let
out in counting-houses, and would not therefore furnish in-
habitants capable of filling the character of vestrymen.
After the fire of London the number of vestrymen was se-
duced (by reason of all the houses in the parish being nearly
destroyed) to four, who were qualie4 to act; and at that
time a faculty was obtained from the Bishop of London, which
proposed tceadd fourteen persons to the vestry, of which eight
should be a quorum. It also appeared that for a great numbet
of years the select vestry had every year elected a church-
warden out of the general body of the parishioners, who
'first served the office of junior churchwarden, and the follow-
ing year was elected to the office of senior churchwarden,
and became then entitled to act as a select vestrymen. This
was the invariable course from 1648 to 1734, with the excels.
tion of four times. There was a gap in the books from 166 f
to 1675, owing to the fire of London, and they were then re-
sumed again ; and since that period to 1824 there heel hoer
other four instances when this course bad not been pursued
The election of the plaintiff took place in 1844, when there
were four vestrymen present. and certain overseers, who
began to attend the vestry in 1835. The defendants in-
tended to object to the title of the plaintiff, first, on the
ground that the custom of the parish, if any, was that the
vestry should be constituted of persons who had either been
elected as churchwardens or had fined for not acting; that
there should be eight (at least) vestrymen present at the
election of a churchwarden; that the junior churchwarden
should be elected from the parishioners at large, and in the
following year be elected the senior churchwarden. The next
objection was, that the plaintiff having served as setae
churchwarden prior to the year in which he claimed to be
elected, he was not therefore eligible to be elected in 1841.
To this it was objected, that as in the year 1672, the date 01
the faculty, and at the date of the plaintiff's election, the
number of the vestry was below the number of eight, that
therefore the custom was destroyed ; that the custom was
uncertain, and had not been settled, but was a sub.ect
of dispute. The Learned Sergeant then proceeded to con-
tend that the attempt of a bishop to control a select
vestry by faculty was void. He referred to the case of
" Golding and others v. Fenn," reported in 7 Barnewall
and Cresswell, p. 765, to show that there must be a reason.
able number of vestrymen, and that that reasonableness
must be decided with reference to long-established usage
and the population of the parish. This was a very small
parish. The smallest number attending a vestry prior to
the date of the faculty was six. From 1648 to 1672 there
were 102 vestries held. The number of vestrymen attending
these meetings were, in three instances, 6 ; in ten instances,
8; and the remainder exceeding that number. From 167 k.
to 1843, the number of vestrymen attending had varied tren'
3to 11, and during the whole period from 3to 16. There
were entries of some adjouruments, because only seven yes
trymen were present, but he argued that these were not con-
clusive. Sturges liourne's Act, the 59th George 111., c. 12, s
1, provided that no select vestry should consist of more than
20, nor of less than 5 members; and looking at the vast
number of parishes, some of large extent, under the pur-
view of that Act, where five vestrymen were thought rea-
sonable and sufficient to fulfil the duties imposed on them he
contended that in this small parish of St. Stephen's four veetry
men were a reasonable number—and the adjournments ter a
deficiency of vestrymen were subsequent to the date of the
faculty requiring eight to be present, and that instrument.he
contended, was void. He submitted, that whenever the
wants of the parish rendered it necessary to increase the
number of the select vestry, it would be sufficient and com-
petent for them to do so, but it was not a necessary pal t of
the custom. He contended, also, that the custom was gone.
from the number having, in 1762 as well as in 1844, been
reduced below eight. Neither was the number definite, and
therefore this was not a good custom. There was nothing
in point of law to render it unreasonable that three should be
the number of the vestry.
Mr. Sergeant TALFOURD, for the defendants, said the claim,
on the part of the plaintiff, was, that a select vestry, composed
of those who had served the office of churchwardens, being
the persons on whom devolved the election of hurch-
wardens for all time to come, should be at liberty to elect
themselves as churchwardens without limit or restriction.
from time to time—that the select vestry should be able to
prey upon itself until it sunk down to three in number, in
eluding the two subsisting churchwardens. If this ptin
ciple were asserted, he did not know why' the number 01
three were to be maintained, or why they should not, like a
tontine, sink down to the survivor, and go on till the custom
was lost in the skies, when the survivor should depart this
life. In truth, this was a claim in a body to take the whole
responsibility of a parish into their own hands. For nearly
200 years, down to 1824, there were only eight instances in
which the select vestry had not been annually renewed by
a perpetual selection of junior churchwardens from the
body of the parishioners. In 1811 Mr. Alderman Gibbs
was elected junior churchwarden, and subsequently senior
churchwarden; and again, in 1824. he was elected junior
churchwarden, and senior churchwarden in 1825, and had
continued to be re-elected down to 1844, the select
vestry every year growing less and less, until the senior
and junior churchwardens had almost acquired a fee-simple
in their office. In 1844 there were only four persons, in-
cluding the plaintiff, at the election. The defendants con-
tended that it was quite impossible that such a custom as
this could ever have had a legal origin. It was monstrous to
suppose a custom which could thus reduce the select vestry
to a point ; it would, in fact, be a suicidal custom. Without
depending on the faculty, the namber of eight named in it
was good evidence that that number of vestrymen was
thought reasonable as a minimum, and it agreed with the
usual fact. He submitted that the custom set up was one
which their Lordships would not sanction because of its
unreasonableness. It was clear that Lord Tenterden, in
the case of " Golding v. Fenn," when he suggested that
"the love of ease among men would usually counter-
balance the love of power," never contemplated a case
like the present. The effect of the custom contended foi
by the plaintiff was to make the churchwardens an irre-
sponsible body ; as churchwardens
,liable to account to the
select vestry, and, as the select vestry, accounting to them•
selves. It might be that everything had been done which
the parishioners could desire; but this case must not be de-
cided according to the character of individuals. It might
be rare to find a gentleman of the undoubted abilities anti
business habits of Mr. Alderman Gibbs thus placed. It
might be with regard to Mr. Alderman Gibbs, as was raid
by the Emperor Alexander to Madame de Steel, in mime'
to her question, " How can despotism be so centered in
you?" "Ah, madame," replied he, "I am only a happy ac.
cident." It might be "a happy accident" that a gentleman
so qualified as the plaintiff was placed in such a position,
Ever. since 1835 the overseers had voted with the vestry ; but
they were not legally members of the vestry, and had no
more right to vote than persons called out of the street&
He cited the case of "Tyson v. Smith," in 6 Ad. and lit.
645, and 9 Ad. and EL, 406, to show that, in order to its
validity, a custom must be certain and reasonable in itself
commencing from time immemorial, and continuing with•
out interruption ; and whether the custom is reasonable
or not depends on the decision of the judges. Thus a custom
reported in Lord Raymend's Reports, p. 1558, alleged by the
vicar of Wakefield of a due of 10d. for the churching of
women, from every householder having a child born in the
parish, at'the usual time when the mother should be churched
was held to be invalid, on the ground that the time was
certain and unreasonable, as the husband might be called or.
to pay though his wife was not churched at all. He would
not, however, trouble their Lordships with referring to many
of these cases (some of which were very curious), they were
so wide of the present question. H. concluded with arguing
that as the custom contended for by the plaintiff tended to
irresponsible power, it was unreasonable and bad.
Sir T. WILDE replied at some length, and the Court re-
served its decision.
The case occupied the whole day.
0 •