Thanks Jon Some good points which hadn't been raised before. I did wonder how a family of six could "creep in" without anyone noticing ! The employers, as usual, had it all their own way. However, as you say, my Adams may have been removed twice through no fault of their own. A lot of food for thought here. It's been a good discussion. We keep on learning. Francis ----- Original Message ----- From: "Jon Baker" <jon@vectisjon.com> To: <eng-hampshire@rootsweb.com> Sent: Sunday, August 24, 2008 10:52 PM Subject: Re: [ENG-HANTS] Removal Orders - same people twice ! > Francis > One thing not really highlighted in these discussions is the role of > Settlement Certificates. Although not impossible it was very unlikely that > anyone "crept back in" to a parish unnoticed. If they had they could be > removed within 40 days. After 1697 when someone came into a parish they > had > to give notice, they couldn't just "sneak in". Taking a chance on finding > employment just by showing up was a very risky business. Unless one had a > home to live in and was paying taxes to the parish, the only option open > to > the masses was to be sponsored by an employer. However, most employers > avoided burdening themselves or their home parish by hiring workers at > Hiring Fairs for less than a complete year. Unless the employee was > particularly good (and healthy) this was normal practice as settlement > would > only be granted after a full year had been completed. > > Settlement Certificates by the way were not issued lightly by the home > parish, especially for distant parishes, as it was the issuing parish that > was liable for the cost of carrying out a removal order, not the parish > that > issued the order. Obviously it didn't cost too much to have a parishioner > returned from a neighbouring parish, usually a very short cart ride, but > across many parishes the costs could be relatively considerable (due to > turnpike costs). > > I suspect if you have found someone with 2 removal orders they were due to > unfortunate circumstances. I would imagine that the head of the family was > considered a good employee, but perhaps due to circumstances beyond his > control such as his employer falling on hard times had to be removed. The > same employer may then have sponsored him again in better times only for > the > same thing to happen. A settlement certificate for a Milton parishioner to > settle in Hilton would have to have been considered very carefully by the > good folk of Milton. > > Hope this helps > > Jon Baker > > -----Original Message----- > > > Thanks for this and also to Vanessa and Jim for their thoughts. Gives me > something definite to work on. > > Francis > > > > ----- Original Message ----- >> Probably crept back again .Mine had by the next census & managed to stay >> Ann >> > > > ............................................. > Want to contact the local community? > Please visit Hampshire Parish Jottings > http://hants.parishjottings.org.uk > ............................................. > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > ENG-HAMPSHIRE-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the > quotes in the subject and the body of the message