[from the Medical Aid and Poor Relief Commission Report - 1879]

APPENDIX IX. - Letter of Attorney-General to Lieutenant-Governor

Castletown, 8 January, 1879.

Sir - I received your Excellency's letter of the 30th November last, requesting me to state in a condensed form of the law of the Island with respect to vagrants, and as regards the liability of relations to support their pauper relatives I delayed my reply in order that I might have an opportunity of examining cases on the latter point in the Episcopal Registry.

(1.) The law as to vagrants is contained in the Statute Book. I give the following extracts from Mills' Statutes of the Island :-

Page 27: Amongst 'points' declared to the King as law [common law] by the Deemsters and Keys, in 1422, it is stated-"Alsoe, that no man bring beggars or vagabonds into the country upon pain of forfeiture of his boat."

Page 42: Amongst orders made in 1661 by Commissioners of the Lord is one, that Irish women loitering and not working be "commanded forth of the said Isle, with as much convenient speed as may be, and no boat hereafter to be "suffered to bring any of the said loitering persons into the said Isle ; but that he, upon paine of forfeiture of his boate and goods, after warning him given, take the said persons to him againe." It might be doubtful how far this order of itself could be considered as law. It does not professedly appear to be a declaration of tho common law, and it is not a statute. I look upon it, however, as setting forth what the common law was as to foreign vagrants generally, and it but shows the mode in which the law as declared in 1422 was applied - namely, that persons who conveyed vagrants to the Island were obliged to remove them away again, and if they did not do so their boats were liable to forfeiture. The order refers specially to Irish women: probably there had been at that time an unusual importation of them.

That masters of vessels bringing paupers to the Island are liable to take them back again, and, in default, that the vessels are liable to forfeiture, has been always, I believe, considered the law of the Island; but there would be considerable difficulty in enforcing the law in these days. I never remember a case to enforce a forfeiture ; but I have, in former years, frequently heard of masters of vessels taking back paupers brought here by them, rather than incur the risk of proceedings.

By sec. 6 of the "Act for the Extension of the Powers of the Justices of the Peace" passed in 1836, power was given to the justices and high-bailiffs to make bye-laws for the government of towns " and the putting in force the law respecting beggars and vagrants," subject to the approval of the Tynwald Court. In 1846, bye-laws were made under that section, and amongst others was one to have paupers brought to the Island and the master of the vessel in which they were conveyed, summoned before a justice or high-bailiff, when the master could be imprisoned until he gave security to maintain the paupers whilst in the Island and to convey them back; and, in case the master refused to give the security, the magistrate might order the paupers to be maintained, and provision was made for the recovery of the expenses out of the goods of the master, and, in default, out of the goods of the owners of the vessel. These bye-laws were repealed in 1870, when a new code of bye-laws was made; but, as it was considered that the bye-law of 1846 as to vagrants was in excess of the power given for making bye-laws, it was not repeated ; and no bye-law as to vagrants has since been made. It may may be observed that no bye-law has ever been made with respect to beggars belonging to the Island.

Page 127: An Act passed in 1665 refers to certain Acts and orders in the time of the usurped Government, and therefore invalid ; and amongst such orders there would appear to have been some to restrain the poor of this Isle from ranging and begging from parish to parish, but which were ineffectual, The Act enacts that the poor shall "not range or beg out of their own parish into any other parish." If they offend against this provision the Coroner or Lockman is, "for the first time, to warn and require such beggars each to their own parish, which if the neglect and refuse, then are they to be compelled and whipped to their said parish; and if they continue refractory, and be disobedient, then are they to be brought by any of the said officers into the next gaol, there to continue until they declare themselves comformable to this order."

This enactment is still the law; but I never heard of its enforcement in modern times.

The Act last referred to also enacts "that none be relieved as the poor of any parish but such as are blind, lame, maimed, or decrepit, in respect of age or other infirmity." This enactment would be applicable to charitable endowments and funds available for the poor generally, without specific directions as to the objects.

I believe the foregoing is the existing law with respect to vagrants and beggars, whether insular or foreign.

(2.) The law in relation to the liability of relatives to support their parents is I believe this:- That the statuteable next of kin of paupers who are unable to support themselves are bound to receive, keep, take care of, support, and mnaintain such paupers. I have frequently heard the law declared by the late Vicar-General Corlett - who has had a long experiance both as a practitioner in and a judge of the Ecclesiastical Court, which is the Court having jurisdiction in such cases - to be the the persons who would be entitled to the personal estate, if any) of the pauuper on his decease are liable to maintain him when living. With the courteous assistance of Mr Harris, Episcopal-Registrar, I have referred to a good many cases which support the Vicar-General's view, though there are instances where the Court has gone beyond the statuteable next of kin, In one case, in 1733, Corris Petition re Mary Moore the Court ordered the children of an illegitimate son of the pauper, alternately with the petitioner, who was married to a niece of the pauper, to maintain her. I do not consider that aueh an order could have been supported had it been appealed from. The orders generally made were that the several persone liable alternately for a fixed space of time take the pauper and provide the needful support In some cases- by consent I presume - they have been ordered to pay money to the person having charge of the pauper; but in one case during my own recollection (though I cannot remember the names of the parties) the Staff of Government held on appeal that the Ecclesiastical Court had no power, except by consent to order a money payment The Ecclesiastical Court exercises the same jurisdiction as to infants unprovided for and unable to earn their own livelihood.

I have heard it stated that at one of the meetings of the Commissioners who are inquiring into the provisions for the poor, &c., I was quoted as having said that the law as to persons being compelled to support their pauper relatives is obsolete If I ever said so, I certainly did not use the word "obsolete" in the sense that the law is onoperative and is virtually at an end. I may have used it in the sense that it is rarely enforced in these days; and such I believe to be the case. I think it is felt to be unsuited to the times; and it certainly does not tend to the Comfort of the pauper that he should be periodically removed from house to house, and frequently to the houses of those who are most unwilling to and who would not voluntarily receive him. As compared with the number of cases in former times, there as been a great falling off in such cases for many years past. Sometimes of late years the institution of such cases has led to family arrangements being made without obtaining orders of the Court.

I may mention that the husbands of wives who are the next of kin are under the liability to which their wives would have been subject if unmarried.

I have the honour to be, Sir,

Your obedient servant, J. Gell

Any comments, errors or omissions gratefully received The Editor HTML Transcription © F.Coakley , 2026