John Clish

[Fairmeadow2]

A point I should perhaps have made is that if John CLISH the gunner-driver in the RHA had been born illegitimate (as the Newburn baptism implies), then under the Old Poor Law his father's settlement would not have been material to his own settlement.

Mind you, not all settlement examinees' information checks out, and at least one of the Ringmer examinees whose record survives was clearly having a laugh at the parish officers' expense.

[Rol]

Greetings FM -- and thank you very much indeed for taking the trouble to have a look at JC's settlement examination and then fill us in about its contents.  A nice surprise!   I do hope that you were able to piggyback the lookup onto a visit to the RO that you were making anyway.  We are lucky that you seem to keep an eye open for Ringmer-flavoured topics on unexpected pages.

I am already overdue a session with the proverbial cold towel wrapped round my head to ingest the new data that Gnu put up a couple of days back,  and it is great to have that info from JC's examination to inject into the mix.

I am a bit rusty on the details of settlement law as then applicable.  Presumably JC and family would have been hoping to be accorded the right to claim on the ratepayers of Ringmer and stay where they were,  while the guardians would have been seeking to avoid them becoming a burden on the parish.  Does the document (perhaps by way of an indorsement) suggest what actually resulted?  Are there indications that the matter went to Quarter Sessions,  and/or was litigated with the guardians of Newburn or Washington?

If JC was still a private in the RHA,  there would presumably have been no room to contest his employment status.  There were probably special rules dealing with the obligations of ratepayers in parishes with a large and continuing military presence.   But the words "John CLISH was a private in the Artillery Drivers now at Ringmer" do raise new doubts in my mind about his service record.

On the Q of illegitimacy -- if JC was trying for a settlement down south,  are you saying that it would have been to his advantage to claim that,  as a filius nullius,  he had no paternal settlement by virtue of place of birth -- or the contrary?  In other words,  faced with a dispute about his settlement status,  would he have had an incentive to massage his evidence in one direction or the other?  (Of course he may well have been entirely ignorant of the principles involved;  but in such situations people can be surprisingly canny,  esp. if they have time to "ask around" a bit for a few tips.)

Much appreciate your help with this.


Rol

[Fairmeadow2]

Sorry - wasn't very clear. John CLISH was serving as a private with the RHA when examined. Ringmer is a largish village with a population then about 1,000, so the 150 soldiers in the RHA gunner-driver troop (think R.A.S.C. in 20th century terms) plus their followers made quite an impact on the village population.

The usual reason for an examination was that the soldier concerned was about to be posted abroad in the next draft. To deport the family back to where they belonged, the parish officers had to know not only that they were not Ringmer's responsibility, but also which other parish they did belong to. If they could not establish where they did belong, they were at risk of having to provide for them. More than once they deported a family back to where the soldier said he belonged, only to be faced by blank incomprehension by the receiving parish, who would deny the soldier's story. By that time the soldier was in the Peninsula or the West Indies, and there was not a lot the parish could do. No question of John CLISH having or seeking a Ringmer settlement, and no later record.

The sworn examination was the best evidence the parish could collect, though of course they had to pay for it.
If the soldier was illegitimate, his father's settlement was irrelevant, so would not be recorded. Otherwise a man started with his father's settlement until he established his own. John CLISH's family should have been sent to Washington, county Durham......

[Gadget]

The usual reason for an examination was that the soldier concerned was about to be posted abroad in the next draft. To deport the family back to where they belonged, the parish officers had to know not only that they were not Ringmer's responsibility, but also which other parish they did belong to.

This is very interesting as at least two of the RA JC's children appear in the Co. Durham censuses.

Would there be any records of their move/deportation?

[Fairmeadow2]

None kept in the Ringmer parish chest. Do such records survive for Washington?

If both parishes agreed, in the light of the examination, what the situation was, there would be no need for a formal removal order (which of course involved legal fees to obtain). The actual removal orders are just the tip of the iceberg. Ringmer has a good collection, but the records of other neighbouring parishes that had frequent interactions with Ringmer show copies kept of many individual events where the Ringmer copy that there must once have been has been lost.

[terryau]

Hello all,
well my request for information re John Clish has certainly been answered. Many thanks to all. I will endeavour to put some kind of narrative together for my site on my return from holidays. many thanks again
Terry