St. Mary the Virgin settlement case book.

“St. Mary the Virgin’s Settlement Case Book of 1802 provides a fascinating insight into the legal and social intricacies of early 19th-century Dover. The cases, ranging from parish disputes to individual plights, reflect the complexity of life in Dover at the time. This ledger records detailed accounts of people navigating the challenges of poverty, legal settlements, and societal norms. Each entry in the book is a snapshot of personal stories, legal interpretations, and the everyday struggles faced by the townspeople. This historical document offers a unique lens through which to view the social fabric and governance of Dover in a bygone era.”

The Plight of Jane Weymouth: A Question of Settlement

Jane Weymouth and her son George aged about 8 months, were removed from the parish of St. Peter the Apostle in the Isle of Thanet to the parish of St. Mary the Virgin Dover. Upon her examination she states that she was brought up in the parish workhouse of St. Peter the Apostle and about 5 years ago she hired herself to John Wood of Sandwich, mariner, as a quarterly servant hired there one year and quarter and there was delivered of a bastard child in the parish of St. Clement’s in Sandwich, and that she put the child out to nurse to a Mrs. Baperer in the parish of St. Mary in Sandwich and in order to enable her to pay for the maintenance, which was 1\6 per week which she paid hired herself with the sanction of the parish officers of St. Clement’s to Mr. Isaac Neale of the parish of St. Mary the Virgin in Dover at a druggist as a Wet Nurse at 3\6 per week, which was regularly paid and that capacity remained for about eleven months, then hired herself to the said James Neale as a menial servant by the quarter at the rate of £5 per annum and under such hiring lived with him about nine months then left him, then hired herself by the week to Mr. Henry Necrow of Dover, victualler, remained with him about 5 months then she went to Broadstairs hired herself by the quarter at £5 per annum to a Mr. Goodwin and in that place lived about six months, then was married to George Weymouth a mariner when she has heard say was born on the Island of Guernsey and that her said husband was put on shore from a man-of-war and placed in the hospital at Portsmouth where she supposes he died not having heard from him for a some time past
Your opinion is therefore requested whether the Pauper Settlement in St. Clement’s is altered by the hiring of herself to Mr. Neale in the capacity of wet nurse and having a child as before stated.

Answer.
I am of opinion that the pauper Jane Weymouth did not gain a settlement by the hiring service with Mr. Neale. I found my opinion on the authority of the cases of The King v Newton Terry in Easter term 1788, and the King and Bosham in Trinity Term 1788, in the former off these cases it was decided that a general hiring at weekly wages is not a hiring for a year unless there be something in the contract or the nature of the service shows a yearly hiring was intended. In the latter case the point was considered to be completely settled that it was not argued, I see nothing in this hiring service, which shows it was intended to be for a year, the subsequent conduct of the parties shews a contrary intent for at the end of eleven months the master servant make a new contract for her service in another capacity. It is stated that the second hiring was expressly by the quarter this I think the two services might be joined, yet service for a year will not as for a settlement unless part of it be under a hiring for a year. J. S. Harvey Middle Temple. 24th March 1802.

The Cinque Ports’ Legal Conundrum: Taxation and Jurisdiction

Dover is one of the Cinque Ports and the town of Margate in the parishes of Birchington St. Peters in Thanet, Ringwould near Deal, and Charlton are members of same and consequently subject to its jurisdiction.

The Cinque Ports have been exempted both by charters and status from several burdens which have been imposed upon Counties and monies raised by them under different denominations till they were incorporated by the Statute.
The inhabitants of Dover and it’s members never had any such burden imposed upon them until the year 1794 at a general sessions held in that year, this brethren by the statutes imposed a tax of one penny in the pound on the inhabitants of Dover and of a halfpenny on the inhabitants of the town of Margate, which rate was appealed to in the year 1795 by the inhabitants of the parish of St. Mary’s Dover, and the same quarter and another rate made of one penny in the pound on the fact inhabitants of Dover and it’s members, which rate was paid by the officers belonging to the parish of St. Mary’s but they have been since informed that there is a private agreement between the inhabitants of the town of Margate and the magistrates of the town of Dover that they shall pay only a certain sum on consideration that they claim only certain benefits from the rate.
There has not been any rate demanded of the church wardens and overseers of the parish of St. Mary by the constable as directed by the said statutes since the year 1796, not withstanding it is supported there has been a rate made every year and that the treasurer having received various sums paid by the guardians for soldiers wives and which he hath never yet accounted for, although he has the accounts frequently given him by the said officers.
Your opinion is therefore requested upon the following questions.

Can the magistrates levy a tax on the inhabitants by the Statutes of the 12th and 13th without publicity declaring in what proportions it is laid?

Can they impose said tax unequally upon the said town with members and then compel the inhabitants to pay the rates, which are behind and have not been demanded and exclude them the benefits of appealing? And when there is reason to believe that there is a misapplication of the money. Can the inhabitants who pay the rate inspect the accounts and how must they proceed to enforce it, and what is the remedy for misapplication?

Dover 28th January 1802.

1st By 12g, 2c, 29 ,S, The magistrates in sessions are to make one general rate for the County purposes instead of separate rate. Such rate is to be assessed upon each town in such proportions and such rates had been annually assed at £5 where particular place had not been exempt from particular county burdens the Justices are to make a proportionate deduction from the sums, such places are to pay, but there is nothing in the acts which compels the justice to declare publicly in what proportion they charge different places and upon what general principle they make the agreement I am therefore of opinion that the magistrates may levy the tax without publicly declaring in what proportion it is laid and that the only proper mode of canvassing the propriety of that proportion is by appeal.

2nd by 12 Geo. C 29, the Churchwardens and Overseers are to pay the assessment out of the poor rate within 20 day’s after demand which demand is to be made at such time as the sessions direct by S12 if the Churchwardens and Overseers think their parish overrated they may appeal to the next sessions. The next sessions must mean the 1st sessions after the Churchwardens and Overseers have the means of knowing what the rate is.
I am therefore of opinion that the Justices cannot impose the tax unequally then exclude the inhabitants from the benefits of appealing provided the Churchwardens and Overseers in whom also the power of appealing is vested think proper to appeal as soon as they have the means of knowing that the rate is imposed which I supply in general is not till the demand.
By s g. the treasurer is compelled to deliver in to the sessions upon oath if required have the exact account of all monies he received or pay the lay his vouchers before the sessions so that the justices have full power to see that the money is not misapplied but the legislature seems to have tested the whole to there because it has not given any power to individuals to call for the accounts and without it were given by the legislature I think it also that individuals have no such power
John Bailey.

Amy Knight Shoulder’s Dilemma: Seeking Settlement in Canterbury

Amy Knight Shoulder about six years since, hired herself as a nurse at the hospital at Canterbury, which is parochial and without the city but in the same county at the rate of seven guineas per annum gratuity money and under such hiring and service lived there upwards of four years and then left her place and lived at various places in Canterbury, but not to gain a settlement and is now removed by the parishes officers of Saint Peters in the city of Canterbury under a regular warrant to the parish of St. Mary the Virgin in Dover the place of her settlement prior to such hiring and services
Your opinion is requested whether the said Amy Knight Shoulder did gain a settlement in Canterbury by such hiring and service or not.

Dover June 30th 1804.

If the hospital at Canterbury is clearly extra parochial the service of the pauper there certainly did not gain a settlement and if she gained no subsequent settlement the order of the removal to the parish of St. Mary the Virgin Dover cannot be resisted.
Alt. Pitcavum Sergeants Snr. 2 July 1804.

Stroud Baker’s Altercation With An Officer.

Stroud. Baker of Dover in Kent, journeyman shipwright, between the hours of nine and ten o’clock in the evening was travelling to his dwelling house with a small box containing his children’s linen upon his back and was accosted by an officer belonging to the customs who demanded to be acquainted with its contents, when Baker replied what was that to him, when the officer immediately seized Baker by the collar of his coat, but upon Baker threatening to knock him down he let him go and told him he might follow him to his house if he chose, which he did although late in the evening, and entered the same without a warrant.

Information of Peace Officer for that purpose when Baker asked him to open the box but the officer said he dare not upon which, at the request of the said officer, Baker opened same and upon finding it contained children’s linen as before stated, the officer said he was satisfied, but Baker feeling himself hurt at being seized by the collar in the streets when the officer was about departing the house Baker struck him conceiving himself right in so doing, he having is unjustly and without special or any information entered his house as before advanced.

In consequence of such procedure, Baker has had an Information filed against him by His Majesty’s Attorney General in the Kings Bench for an assault, for obstructing the officer in the execution of his duty in Hilary Term last, and in consequence of his not being able to procure bail has remained in prison ever since.

9th May 1800. A petition was made to the commissioners of customs to take his case into consideration and to stay proceedings upon payment of costs, he having a large family consisting of a wife and ten children to maintain, which was granted him in about a month afterwards, but the costs amounting to nearly £25 exclusive of gaol fees, he is unable to pay the parish of Saint Mary have now thought proper to put up the business on behalf of their parishioner, Baker your opinion is therefore requested whether the officer was justified without having an Information Peace Officer or warrant to seize Baker at that time of night being dark and entering his dwelling house as before stated, Baker not being a smuggler nor a reputed smuggler and whether you would advise the present costs incurred to be paid or do you think it advisable that the parish should bail the man to proceed to trial with a view to obtain damages?

Dover 20th August 1800.
I am of opinion the officer could not justify his conduct in taking Baker by the collar and following him into his house, but however illegal the conduct of the officer might be I think it did not warrant Baker in striking him after he (Baker) had opened the box. The officer had said he was satisfied that blow as it seems to me was given in revenge and not in defence of his person or property. Therefore I think it is not advisable to Baker for the purpose of having the information tried because it is probable he would be found guilty at least of a common assault, upon which some punishment would follow if he should be called up to receive judgement, and some expense must be incurred in making the defence. L. Harvey Middle Temple 22nd August 1800.

The Folkestone Pass Dispute: Children in Legal Limbo

The 2 children by the names of Wheuatti were sent by a common pass signed by the Mayor of Folkestone \ and not a vagrant pass as stated in the case received from you this morning \ directed to all Mayors, bailiffs, constables and other peace officers and left in the town of Dover. When the children went with their pass to the Mayor of Dover who sent them to the guardians of Saint Mary ‘s parish but conceiving themselves not justified in obeying such pass refused to accept them upon which refusal the Mayor made an order for them to take the children into the workhouse and on account of the guardians continuing to refuse he was convicted in the penalty of £5 for not obeying the Mayor of Dover’s orders \ which is to be levied by distress. We have in our possession the order of sessions confirming the legal settlement of these children with their father and mother to be at Folkestone. The above proceedings we presume are intended to throw the children upon the parish of St. Mary as their father is dead and their mother’s not to be found we cannot obtain an examination to ground a warrant of removal being granted.
Your opinion is therefore requested whether the guardians are obliged to obey the Mayor of Folkestone’s pass and whether the Mayor of Dover ought to have received the children or can he proceed in levying the fine the same as if the children have been legally sent hither and if you should be of opinion that the guardians ought again to remove them how is the warrant to be made with the mother of the children not being found – what steps are they to take to send them to their settlement and what remedy (if any) have the visitor and guardians against the Mayor of Folkestone for intruding the children into this parish or against the Mayor of Dover for receiving and harbouring them into the manner before stated thro’ which a great expense is brought on this parish.
Dover 18th May 1800.
Answer. The pass under which the two children came from Folkestone to Dover not being a proper vagrant pass I think the justices of the town might have proceeded against them as vagrants according to the statue 17 Geo. 2 C 5 perhaps the age of the children or other circumstances induced the justices not to punish them as vagrants but consider them as casual poor, and as casual poor in the parish of Saint Mary they were entitled to relief from that parish. I do not see how the guardians can get rid of the children but by an order to remove them to the place of their last legal settlement which order may be made by two justices on seeing the order of sessions confirming the order of removal of the father and mother to Folkestone and proving them to be their children. The children themselves unless very young will be able to give some account they may be asked their ages, the names of their parents etc. but paupers and particularly young children may be frequently removed without being examined themselves if their settlement can be ascertained by other persons, the pass signed by the Mayor of Folkestone as stated in this case is an invalid instrument which neither the guardians nor any other person is bound to obey. The legislation has instructed Justices of the Peace with the directionally power of determine what objects are entitled to relief from the parish and as the guardians were ordered by the Justices to relieve these children I cannot point out any means of advocating the consequences of the concatenation which has been had for disobedience of that order but an appeal in pursuance of the 46 section of 22 Geo. 3c. 83 the appeal must be to the accessions at Dover and therefore the guardians may not be to make the appeal on the merit but if the proceeding’s have not been according to the said act and particularly section 35 which gives the penalty I think the conclusion cannot be supported. J. S Harvey Middle Temple 21st May 1800.

5th March 1802.