Thanks for this and also to Vanessa and Jim for their thoughts. Gives me something definite to work on. Francis ----- Original Message ----- From: "A. Day" <ann.day@blueyonder.co.uk> To: <eng-hampshire@rootsweb.com> Sent: Sunday, August 24, 2008 6:25 AM Subject: Re: [ENG-HANTS] Removal Orders - same people twice ! > Probably crept back again .Mine had by the next census & managed to stay > Ann > > Francis Payne wrote: >> The Hants RO CALM database has these two removal orders. Any idea how >> someone could be removed twice ? Perhaps they successfully appealed the >> first one. >> >> Any thoughts welcome. >> >> Francis >> Auckland, NZ >> >> >> 56M83/PO27/47 Removal order to Milton: John Adams, wife Mary, 4 children >> 1753 from Hilton, Dorset >> >> 56M83/PO27/48 Removal order to Milton: John Adams, wife Mary, 5 children >> 1759 from Hilton, Dorset >> >> >> ............................................. >> 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 >> >> >> > > > ............................................. > 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

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 >