only 579 were actually executed. Unless so much mercy as this was shewn, it was well understood that juries would not convict, preferring to violate their oaths rather than thus to purvey victims by wholesale to the shambles of the law. A few years previous, matters were still worse. In 1785, no less than twenty persons were executed at once, before Newgate, and not one of them for any offence which is now capital. In 1789, One Hundred and Eighteen prisoners lay under sentence of death together. They were brought to the bar of the Old Bailey by ten at a time, and individually offered the king's pardon on condition of being transported to Botany Bay for life. The contrast between such a state of things and the present is still more marked by the following circumstance. The horrors of transportation were then so well understood, that several of these unhappy men refused to receive the proffered boon. Instead of the Thank you, my lord,' with which the prisoner now receives his sentence of penal servitude, eight of these criminals chose rather to die than to be transported. The recorder addressed himself to each, exhorting them not to treat the benignity of their sovereign with contempt, and so to add, by a refusal of his mercy, the crime of self-murder to those for which their lives had become forfeited.' But all was useless; they were remanded to Newgate, and placed in the condemned cells. On the same day, however, the chaplain persuaded five out of the eight to think better of their strange determination. The adjournment of the court was then delayed, in hopes of the giving in of the recalcitrant three, but in vain. The warrant for their execution was made out, upon which two out of the three accepted the offered terms. The third refused to do so until the scaffold had been erected, and the sheriff was actually escorting him to his doom. As a general rule, it was not the mere hanging that the criminals of old objected to, but the being dissected-teased,' as they called it-afterwards. I have killed the best wife in the world,' observed Vincent Davis, upon his apprehension for that awful act, and I am certain of being hanged; but, for God's sake, don't let me be anatomised.' They had an equal horror of being hung in chains. Jackson, who was a principal actor in the most diabolical murder in the annals of British crime-that of the two unfortunate excisemen in Sussex-was so struck with terror at being measured for his irons, that he expired upon the spot. The ignorance which is the characteristic of most of the criminals of to-day, was, in the case of their prototypes, stupendous. The thought that most engrossed the mind of the condemned was, to remember to kick off his shoes when he reached the scaffold, in order to defeat the prophecy (often uttered against him, probably, in his misspent youth) that he would die in them. They quite believed in the virtue of their own dead hands applied to warts and wens, and as soon as they were turned off, it was a perquisite of the executioner's to admit persons upon John the scaffold to be touched' for those defects. Young, condemned for forgery in 1748, in Edinburgh, having heard that the crown law of Scotland enacted that condemned prisoners should be executed between two and four o'clock, persuaded himself that if he could procrastinate his fate beyond that time, his life would be preserved. Thereupon he actually secured the iron door of his room in such a manner that when the hour of death arrived, his jailer could not get at him. A number of smiths and masons were sent for, but no admittance could be obtained, while they were all of opinion that an aperture could not be made in the wall without endangering the whole fabric. In these strange circumstances, the lord provost and other magistrates assembled together, and debated as to what should be done, when it was determined to enter the room by breaking through the floor of that immediately above it. Six soldiers descended in this manner, and after a sharp conflict, the unhappy man was secured, and carried to execution. This instance is remarkable as contrasting with the accurate understanding displayed now a days, even by the most boorish criminals, of the state of the law and of all things that affect their individual offence. Prisoners of a higher class sometimes adopted scarcely less curious methods for the preservation of their lives. Gahagan and Conner, condemned 'for diminishing the current coin of the realm,' about the same time as Young, composed poetical addresses, the one, To the Duchess of Queensberry, and the other, To His Royal Highness Prince George (afterwards King George III.), eldest son to Frederick, Prince of Wales, on his acting the part of Cato at Leicester House. Hail, little Cato, taught to tread the stage When in the boy such manly power appears. If ever flattery was excusable, it certainly was The captive Muse forbids the lays, And thrice the painful gyves restrained his flight. The same author also, while in jail, translated Pope's Messiah into Latin verse, and dedicated it to the then prime minister, the Duke of Newcastle. But neither Ancient nor Modern muse availed him. The only merciful Institution of those good old times was the Jail Fever. These things are sad to read of, albeit the comparison of Now with Then should fill us with cheerful joy-and all but the morbid are glad to escape from them. It will be the aim of the present writer to confine his future chapters, as much as possible, to the more curious Leaves of these dark Annals; to narrations of mystery, of humour, and of pathos, leaving the triple tree' and its sad fruit untouched. No chronological order will be preserved in the narrations; but in order to start with dignity, I propose to commence with a couple of historical inquiries in one chapter-Who killed Charles I.? And was his royal body hung in chains at Tyburn?'* STARVING THE EARTH. EVERY seven years, we are told, the human body is renewed; every particle of which it was composed at the beginning of that period will have disappeared before the end of it, and fresh matter will have been drawn from earth, air, and water to supply the void. So with the sea; it is continually ascending to the clouds in vapour, and descending in rain. The earth itself is subject to the same conditions, is constantly decaying, and must constantly be repaired. Like the pelican of the classic legend, it has to feed its offspring with its own body-vegetation of all kinds is perpetually preying on its vitals, and robbing it of its most material essences. But when vegetation takes its natural course, it returns to the soil, in its decay, *The site of the famous 'Tree' is now occupied by a house in Connaught Square. as much as it withdrew when it sprung into existence, and thus a new crop is able to find sustenance in the ashes of the old one. The agriculture of man, however, as pursued in these latter days, is of a pernicious character, for it takes away, while it does not replace; it stimulates the rapidity with which the earth can bring forth fruit only at the expense of its powers of endurance. In short, it is the story over again of the goose and the golden eggs, of the peau de chagrin, which conferred on the possessor present prosperity at the cost of so many years deducted from existence by every wish fulfilled. We get immense harvests now a days, but a high authority has just announced that the vegetable mould, upon which the permanent fertility of the land depends, is rapidly being used up. We are exacting too much from the earth, and starving it at the same time, for we deny it a proper amount of that pabulum which results from the growth of plants that take a lengthened possession of the soil, and that bequeath it a good legacy of refuse matter. Already, we are told, in the eastern states of North America, from the state of Maine to Florida, in Lower Germany, west of the Vistula, and in many parts of Spain and France, the vegetable mould is much exhausted, and no means are taken to prevent ultimate sterility. Moreover, in Northern Africa, and in many parts of Western and Central Asia, where man, in former times, destroyed the forest cover, and wasted the natural mould, the country has become arid desert, and animal and vegetable life have been extinguished. To make matters still worse, this deterioration of the soil has produced an evil effect on the atmosphere, from which there is no longer vegetation to draw down moisture; thus the mists vanish, the dew ceases, the rain fails, and the rivers are dried up. All this is, of course, very dreadful. The only question is, whether it is true? There is, it is certain, too much reason to fear that our farmers have been indulging rather too freely in the use of artificial manures. Ever since the end of the last century, immense quantities of bones have been imported into Great Britain. To furnish this supply, the battle-fields of Leipsic, Waterloo, and the Crimea, have been raked up, and the catacombs of Sicily cleared of the bones of many generations. About 4,000,000 tons of phosphates, in the form of bones, linseed cakes, rapeseed, &c., and nearly 300,000 tons of guano, are annually imported into England, in order to be applied to the soil. Now, these manures quicken the fertility of the soil, and produce luxuriant crops; but every rich harvest thus raised involves so many years of subsequent sterility. It has been said, that he who makes two blades of grain grow where only one grew before, is a public benefactor; but the case is clearly changed when the consequence of producing two blades in one season is to incapacitate the soil from yielding even a single blade a few years afterwards. It is a delusion to suppose that a dose of artificial manure permanently strengthens the soil. As it has been well said, one might as well expect to grow strong on brandy and malt liquor, as to give real substance to the earth by a mere chemical dram. Or, to take a closer illustration: what the farmers have been doing in regard to the soil, is as absurd as trying to nourish a man on chemical preparations instead of ordinary food. It is quite true, that we eat flesh for the sake of the iron, and bread for the sake of the lime, which it contains; but it would be madness to forswear steaks and loaves, and swallow the iron and the lime in the shape of drugs. This is what the agriculturists have done to the earth; they have dosed it with phosphates, when it wanted natural manure -the sewage of towns, the refuse of the byre and the fold, and above all, the remains of its own crops. Wherever vegetation maintains a permanent footing, it leaves in the annual fall and decay of parts a certain amount of matter which adds increased powers of production. Thus the earth gets back a large proportion of what it gave, with the addition of certain valuable elements extracted by the vegetation from the atmosphere. This is its proper food, 'cooked by nature in the most digestible manner possible,' and no amount of chemical stimulants will supply the want of it. Hence our farmers must not be too exacting in their demands on the earth; they must be content with a less rapid succession of crops, and must more frequently return to the soil a portion of its produce. Pasturage is one of the best means of renovating the energies of the land. By the growth of clover and turnips, and their consumption by sheep on the land, the vegetable mould may be not only increased, but improved. It should never be forgotten, that although the laboratory of the chemist may do much for the sick, the laboratory of nature is best for the sound. A recent writer, in calling attention to the recklessness with which man has overtasked the earth, has expressed a doubt whether any effectual remedy can be found short of the 'repairing agency of nature,' by which regions may be consigned back to the beech and pine, continents submerged for fresh deposits of oceanic sediment, and volcanoes called into operation by land and under the sea. This, however, is rather too gloomy a view of matters. Our agriculturists have apparently, in their eagerness for a short-cut, been misled into a dangerous road, but they have not yet gone too far to return to the safe old highway. If they will only give the earth a little less physic, and a little more food, all may yet be well. THE MILLER'S MEADOW. THE swan loves the brook in the Ten-acre Meadow, Sailing so lordly, so wanton and lordly, Where the green dragon-fly, jewelled so gaily, Flits round the mill in the Ten-acre Meadow. The swallows race by in the Ten-acre Meadow, Their shadows pursuing, in circles renewing, Flying as swift as though hawks were pursuing, Round the broad reach of the Ten-acre Meadow. The pike loves the dam in the Ten-acre Meadow, I love the walk in the Ten-acre Meadow, So golden with spring-flowers, with spring-flowers so golden, For there I meet Katy, the miller's own darling, REVISED CODE OF EDUCATION. Now Ready of CHAMBERS'S NARRATIVE SERIES OF STANDARD READING BOOKS 10d. Infant School Primer, 14d. | Standard III., 6d. Standard IV., 1s. 4d. Standard I., 8d. Standard V., 1s. 6d. Standard II., Standard VI. (the last) in active preparation. The above reading books have already been extensively adopted in Schools. The publishers will have much pleasure in forwarding, free, a prospectus, the Primer, and Standard I. to Schoolmasters and other teachers on application. Printed and Published by W. & R. CHAMBERS, 47 Paternoster Row, LONDON, and 339 High Street, EDINBURGH. Also sold by all Booksellers. SETTLING A PAUPER: A 'CURIOSITY' OF THE LAWS OF ENGLAND. ONE of the most remarkable cases that have fallen under my notice since I joined my Circuit, arose out of a dispute respecting what is technically called the 'settlement' of a pauper. This dispute, in its different stages, gave rise to several suits, in which the litigant parties were, on the one side, the parish of Bedminster, or rather that part of it which lies in the city of Bristol; and on the other, the three parishes of St Martin, Prendergast, and St Thomas, in the town of Haverfordwest, in Pembrokeshireeach parish being represented by its churchwardens and overseers. I shall relate the circumstances as they were to be gathered from the proceedings on both sides. Many a parallel chapter might doubtless be found in those unwritten annals which we are accustomed to call 'short and simple;' and yet these passages in the lives of the poor are so seldom heard of beyond their own class, and so imperfectly understood from what is published respecting them, that to many of my readers the story disclosed by this record will probably seem not a little strange. I may as well premise, for the information of those who have only a vague notion of what is meant by the 'settlement' of a pauper, that, although a system of parochial relief to the destitute poor was established by parliament in the reign of Henry VIII., it was not until 1662, in the reign of Charles II., that the legislature laid the foundation of what is now known as the law of settlement,' or, in plainer words, the law which determines the parish a pauper belongs to, and to what place therefore (in order to give effect to the law as between different parishes) a pauper, who has become an actual recipient of parochial relief elsewhere, may be removed. This is what is meant by the settlement' of a pauper, and the removal of a pauper to his place of settlement.' 6 If we turn to the statute-book for that year, we shall find that there then existed in this country an indigent class of persons, who travelled about, endeavouring to settle themselves in those places where there were the best stock,' and 'the largest commons and wastes on which they might build cottages,' and 'the most woods for them to burn and destroy,' roaming about in this manner from place to place, till, as the parliament-roll expresses it, ' at last PRICE 14d. they become rogues and vagabonds, to the great discouragement of parishes to provide stocks where they are liable to be devoured by strangers!' It was for the purpose of obviating these evils that an act was passed which enabled justices of the peace to remove strangers of this class that were likely to become chargeable to the parish. By the terms of the statute, upon complaint made by the overseers of the poor within forty days after a person coming so to settle in any tenement under the yearly value of ten pounds, the justices might issue their warrant for the removal of such person to the parish where he was last legally settled, either as a native, householder, sojourner, apprentice, or servant for the space of forty days at the least. Although the law relating to the rights of paupers has been greatly modified since the time of Charles II., this particular enactment is still to be observed with regard to the several heads of settlement it enumerates, and the limits of the authority it conferred. In this country, wherever a man's parents may have come from, the parish in which he was born is deemed prima facie his place of settlement. As an old case expresses it, 'where the parent is a vagabond, the birth of a legitimate child gains for it a settlement, otherwise it would be born a vagrant.' But if a man should acquire a settlement in his own right-by estate, or by renting a tenement, for example-he thereby relinquishes and loses his birth-settlement, and thereby also any settlement he may have derived from his parents is superseded. By a like process, a pauper's birth-settlement is superseded by proof of his father's birth-settlement, or any settlement derived or acquired by his father while the pauper was an unemancipated member of his family; or if the pauper's father have no settlement, and the mother's maidensettlement be proved, then the place of the mother's settlement, and not the pauper's own birthplace, would be deemed his place of settlement. Bearing these primary rules in mind, the reader will be enabled to follow without difficulty our account of the process of 'settling' the pauper in the particular case before us. In the autumn of 1856, Robert Ellis, formerly a sergeant in the 94th Regiment, took up his abode in Bishop Street, Bedminster, bringing with him his wife, named Albina, and her two children by a former marriage. He died there in the following March, leaving his widow, whose little savings had been exhausted during his last illness, with barely sufficient means to pay for his funeral. Unlike a great many soldiers' wives, Mrs Ellis was industrious and orderly in her habits, and being an excellent needlewoman, she managed to maintain herself and her two children for nearly a year after her husband's death, without any assistance from the parish. But difficulties accumulated upon her, work fell short, and in the winter of 1857-1858 she was driven to apply to the overseers of the poor for relief. There was no pretence for saying that she was settled in the parish of Bedminster, and as it was more than probable that she would continue to require relief, it became the duty of those officers to ascertain to what other parish she belonged. She informed them that she was married to Sergeant Ellis at St Martin's Church, Haverfordwest, in October 1854; that she did not know where he was born, although she had heard that he came from Killaloo, in the county of Clare, Ireland; and that at the time of her marriage with Sergeant Ellis, she was the widow of Henry Taylor, formerly a sergeant in the 37th Regiment, to whom she was married at Carmarthen, in 1845. That after her marriage with Taylor, his regiment being ordered to the island of Ceylon, she had accompanied him thither, and that they had there had three children, two of whom were still living and residing with her—namely, Harriet Louisa Taylor, about nine years old, and Charles Allsop Taylor, about seven years old. She could give no information whatsoever as to the birthplace of her first husband, or where any of his relations were to be found; and she was not aware of either of her deceased husbands having been settled in any particular place. She also said that her maiden name was Albina Griffiths, and that she was the daughter of John Griffiths and Elizabeth his wife, both of whom were dead; and that she was born in the town of Haverfordwest, where, to the best of her belief, her parents had resided all their lives. Upon making inquiries there, it was ascertained that this statement, so far as it related to herself, was correct. She was born in the parish of St Thomas, Haverfordwest, and her father, the said John Griffiths, was born in the parish of St Martin, in the same town. If the overseers had succeeded in discovering Robert Ellis's place of settlement, it would have been their duty to have applied to the magistrates for an order for her removal thither, together with her two children; for that would have been her last place of settlement. Failing to discover that, they had next to inquire where her first husband, Henry Taylor, was settled; but upon both these points they were without any information; and it is possible that Mrs Ellis was not disposed to assist in the inquiry, even if she could have done so, preferring rather to be sent to the place of her own birth. The overseers of Bedminster were consequently obliged to fall back upon her maiden settlement; and the foregoing facts having been deposed to before the magistrates of Bristol, who had jurisdiction in the matter, an order was made-ex parte, as is the practice in these casesfor her removal with her two children to the parish of St Martin, Haverfordwest-the birthplace of her father. Then began a legal strife between Bedminster and Haverfordwest for the non-possession of this poor woman and her children, which lasted, with short intermissions, for upwards of two years. Upon being served with the order to receive the paupers, the overseers of St Martin's proceeded to scrutinise the grounds upon which it was made, and perhaps also, I may say, to exercise their ingenuity to evade it; and in this, be it observed, they simply discharged their duty to their own rate-payers; for it was not to be assumed, without investigation on their part, either that the facts or the legal conclusion therefrom, upon which the order rested, were well founded; and if they should appear to be otherwise, the law gave time to appeal against it. That John Griffiths was born in their parish, could not be disputed; but then Albina the pauper would derive no settlement from him unless she was his legitimate daughter. Had John Griffiths been lawfully married to her mother before her birth? This was the first point for inquiry. It was ascertained that Albina's mother had been previously married to a sailor, named George Callaghan. This man had suddenly disappeared from Haverfordwest about two years before her marriage with Griffiths; and it was supposed that he had intentionally deserted his wife, and that he was still living at the time of that marriage, which took place on the 17th November 1820. The conduct of the parties certainly tended to confirm this suspicion. Her first marriage was solemnised in the parish in Haverfordwest, where she was then residing; but her marriage with Griffiths; although both of them were then living in the same town, took place at Steynton, a village about seven miles distant, and under her maiden name of Elizabeth Evans. A nice question might arise, under the requisitions of the Marriage Act then in force, as to whether there had been a due publication of the bans of this second marriage. Moreover, some of her relations who were still living remembered to have seen several letters written by Callaghan after he had quitted Haverfordwest, and they particularly spoke of one letter from him which Mrs Callaghan,' as they continued to call her, had received shortly after her marriage with Griffiths. He had heard of that marriage, and threatened to 'have the law against her' in consequence. All the information that could be obtained pointed to the conclusion that Callaghan had in fact survived his wife's marriage with Griffiths-but were the legal proofs forthcoming? It must be borne in mind that the law always presumes against the commission of crimes, and that therefore it would be for St Martin's to satisfy the court that the first husband was alive at the time of the second marriage, and not for Bedminster to prove that he was dead. The evidence fell short of what would be required for this purpose. But if this objection to the order of removal failed, there might still be others of which the proof, notwithstanding the lapse of time, would be less difficult. Had the pauper's father himself derived a settlement from his parents in some other parish? or had he acquired a settlement in his own right elsewhere, which his daughter would follow? Here the inquiries of the overseers of St Martin's were attended with a better prospect of success. Persons were found who remembered John Griffiths in 1816 and 1817, when he was living as footman in the service of Lieutenant Edwards, a naval officer residing in Prendergast, a distinct parish in Haverfordwest. It appeared that he had lived with that gentleman there for more than a year; and as he was then unmarried and without children, this continuous service, from which a yearly hiring was to be presumed, would according to the law, as it then stood-gain for him a settlement in that parish. Such were the facts brought to light; and with the evidence before them of this settlement superseding the one in their own parish, the overseers of St Martin's determined to appeal to the sessions. They did so, and the appeal was tried at Bristol on the 20th of October 1858. It resulted in the 'quashing' of the order for conveying the paupers to that parish, the court holding that the settlement by hiring and service' in Prendergast was proved. In gaining that, John Griffiths lost his birth-settlement in St Martin's. It might be supposed that there would now be no longer any obstacle to the removal of Albina Ellis and her children to the place where it had been adjudged that her father had acquired a settlement, to which she, as his daughter, was entitled. But the rights and liabilities of distinct parishes with regard to the destitute poor, are not so easily determined. The decision of the Court of Quarter-sessions was binding only upon the parties to the suit. As between Bedminster and Prendergast, or any other parish except St Martin's, Haverfordwest, the question was still an open one. As against Prendergast, however, it will be seen there was a clear prima facie case; for the same evidence of the settlement there might be given by the overseers of Bedminster, as had been held sufficient when adduced on behalf of their late opponents; and in the event of an appeal, the question would have to be tried before the same tribunal. But there was another question behind this settlement-the one which it had been unnecessary for St Martin's to raise, but which to Prendergast might be all-important-namely, the legitimacy of Albina. Although the overseers of Prendergast might be willing to admit John Griffiths's settlement to have been in their parish, it was not to be expected that they would leave unquestioned the legitimacy of the daughter, which would entitle her and her children also thereto, and which, to say the least, was extremely doubtful. Indeed, it would seem that the overseers of Bedminster, where Mrs Ellis continued to receive relief, had themselves grave misgivings on this point; for, notwithstanding their previous contention that she was the legitimate daughter of John Griffiths, and notwithstanding also the result of the late appeal, which was arrived at on that assumption, they now prepared to act as if the marriage of her parents was invalid. Proceeding, then, upon the ground that, being illegitimate-and the settlement of neither of her husbands being known-she would be deemed to be settled in the place of her birth, they obtained an order from the magistrates for conveying her, with her two children, to St Thomas's, Haverfordwest. But that parish, in its turn, refused to receive them, and immediately prepared for an appeal. It will be observed that, so far as related to the marriage, the tables had now been turned. The burden of shewing that it was invalid would now rest upon Bedminster; for while both St Martin's and Prendergast had an interest in questioning the validity of the marriage, the present appellants had an equal interest in asserting it; inasmuch as, if Mrs Ellis were legitimate, the present order might easily be avoided by proving either the birth-settlement of her father in the one parish, or his acquired settlement in the other. Courts of law can only take judicial cognizance of that which is proved in the particular case before them; and therefore such might have been the course of proceeding on the trial of this appeal, that the proof of that same settlement, which, on the late trial, the court had held to have been lost, would now have obliged it to 'quash' the order. But the parish of Bedminster formally withdrew from the suit, and the threatened removal of Mrs Ellis and her children was a second time averted. The truce was of a short duration. Bedminster had retreated, but only for the purpose of a surer advance upon Haverfordwest. Let Prendergast now prepare to receive its own. The case against this parish might be said to have already undergone a strict legal investigation. The order came. How could it now be met? First of all, for the reasons stated, there would be insuperable difficulties in impeaching the marriage of Albina's parents. What had become of Callaghan, where he had gone to, where he had died, or where he was to be found, if living, no one could tell. The question must therefore be dealt with as if the marriage was valid; and then, how could the removal to Prendergast be resisted? John Griffiths's settlement there was acquired when he was scarcely out of his teens. Was it his 'last' place of settlement? Where had he been living since? And where had he gone to reside after his marriage with Elizabeth Callaghan? And where was she living at that time? Was she merely a lodger in the house of another person, or was she occupying a separate dwelling-house? Unimportant as these inquiries appear at first sight, so peculiar is the law on this subject, they might very likely lead to a knowledge of facts that would relieve Prendergast from the obligation sought to be imposed upon it. They did, in fact, lead to the discovery of another settlement of the pauper Albina's parents. It appeared that, at the time of her second marriage, Mrs Griffiths was living in the parish of St Thomas, Haverfordwest. She was the tenant of a cottage there from year to year, and as she was then in the occupation of it in her own right for an unexpired term, her husband, upon his marriage, became possessed of an interest, or, as the law calls it, an estate, in that cottage. The acquisition of this estate would carry with it a settlement, if he should have afterwards resided upon it, or even elsewhere in the same parish, for forty days. Here we are presented with one of those curious anomalies in the law which startle persons who are unacquainted with its rules, and cannot trace its reasons. The right conferred upon the husband, and, through him, upon the wife, under the circumstances here stated, is indeed not a little remarkable; for although the estate should be such that the woman, if unmarried, could not gain a settlement in respect of it, yet, if she marry, her husband will gain a settlement by residing for a certain time in the parish where it is situated, and the wife will derive that settlement from him; so that, by marrying, a woman may confer upon her husband that which she did not herself possess, and which, through him, becomes forthwith also her own! Such had been the right accruing to Mr and Mrs Griffiths in the present instance, and which descended to their daughter. Of course, there was an end now to the settlement in Prendergast upon which Bedminster was relying, and which had done good service to St Martin's on the late trial. John Griffiths had resided with his wife in this very cottage for many years after their marriage. The facts and the conclusion of law therefrom were equally plain. The settlement which he had previously gained in Prendergast, and which had superseded the one in his birthplace, was itself superseded when he acquired this settlement in a different parish. Fortune, by the exercise of what may be called the correlative force of fact and law, continued to declare in favour of Haverfordwest. Nevertheless, in again withdrawing from the position they had taken up, it was, of course, open to the officers of Bedminster to use this last settlement as ground for shifting the obnoxious burden to St Thomas's. The progress of the case thus far will have sufficed to shew the reader how nice and difficult may be the questions arising upon the issue, whether a pauper belongs to this or that parish. Not only have all the facts relating to age, birth, pedigree, marriage, occupation, residence, time, &c., to be carefully collated |