R v Inhabitants of Eastbourne
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Court | Court of the King's Bench |
| Judgment Date | 22 Jun 1803 |
English Reports Citation: 102 E.R. 769
IN THE COURT OF KING'S BENCH.
4 EAST, 103. THE KING V. EASTBOURNE 769 [103] the king against the inhabitants of eastbourne. Wednesday, June 22d, 1803. A foreigner may gain a settlement here by occupying a tenement of 101. a year for forty days. Two justices by an order removed Ann Borchert, and her four infant children by name, from the parish of Seaford to the parish of Eastbourne, both in the county of Sussex. The sessions, on appeal, confirmed the order, subject to the opinion of this Court on the following case, . ò Ann Borchert's, maiden settlement was in Eastbourne. About seven years ago she married one John Borchert, a German, by whom she had the children, mentioned in the order. The said John Borchert, with his said wife and children, was, at the time of the removal, resident in a house in Seaford of above the value of 101., which he had rented for two years, exercising therein the trade of a baker. His trade declined at Seaford, and he thought he could exercise it with more advantage at Eastbourne. The wife and children thereupon became chargeable, and were removed by the above order. The husband acquiesced in every thing which took place with regard to the removal, accompanied them to Eastbourne, and afterwards continued to reside there with them. Courthope, in support of the orders. Two questions arise, 1st, whether a foreigner can gain a settlement in this country 1 and if not, 2dly, whether the wife of a foreigner may not be removed to the place of her maiden settlement (a)11 1st, it does not appear that a foreigner, [104] though subject to the laws of this country while domiciled here, could have been within the view and intent of the Legislature in framing the system of the poor-laws; for the professed object of those laws was to make a permanent provision for the support of the poor of this kingdom in particular, and not of all foreigners who might choose to come here, for whom another system of laws has been framed, which entitles them to protection under certain regulations, but not to support. And therefore in the case of St. Giles v. St. Margaret (a)2, where the question was, whether an Englishwoman, the wife of a foreigner, continuing unremoveable in a parish with her husband for forty days, gained a settlement? Lord Holt held, not; and added, " that he did not know that a foreigner had a right to be maintained in any place to which he...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
ST (a child, by his Litigation Friend VW) & VW v Secretary of State for the Home Department
...so basic that it was not necessary to invoke the ECHR. He referred to the ‘law of humanity’ recognised in R v Inhabitants of Eastbourne (1803) 4 East 103, 107. He decided that the changes to the relevant regulations were ultra vires because ‘rights necessarily implicit’ in the statutory app......
-
R (oao (1) The Project for the Registration of Children as British Citizens, (2) O, a child, by her litigation friend, AO, and (3) A, a child, by her litigation friend, NJM) v Secretary of State for the Home Department
...of Human Rights to take note of their violation. Nearly 200 years ago Lord Ellenborough, C.J. in R v Inhabitants of Eastbourne (1803) 4 East 103 said this: “As to there being no obligation for maintaining poor foreigners before the statutes ascertaining the different methods of acquiring se......
-
R (Q) v Secretary of State for the Home Department
...on Human Rights to take note of their violation. Nearly 200 years ago Lord Ellenborough C.J in Reg v Inhabitants of Eastbourne (1803) 4 East 103, 107 said: 'As to there being no obligation for maintaining poor foreigners before the statutes ascertaining the different methods of acquiring se......
-
R v Wandsworth London Borough Council, ex parte O
...his own wrongdoing." 87He then turned to what he helpfully called "the law of humanity", and having referred to R v Inhabitants of Eastbourne (1803) 4 East 103, R v Secretary of State for Social Security, ex parte Joint Council for the Welfare of Immigrants [1996] 4 AllER 38......
-
Human Rights: Where Do We Go from Here?
...FulhamLBC,ex p M (1998) 30 HLR10; R.vWandsworthLBC,ex p O [2000] 4 All ER590, all drawing uponR (EastbourneInhabitants) (1803) 4 East103,102 ER 769, 770.This i s not the place to explore furtherthe complex question of whether and how the enactment of the Human Rights Act 1998, inHuman Right......
-
Sovereignty, Migration and the Rule of Law in Global Times
...family support. Impor-tantly, the receiving state itself would not be in breach of Article 3 (were it a97 RvInhabitantsof Eastbourne (1803) 4 East103,referred to at n 89 above,paragraph 23.98 ibid paragraph33.99 Castelli above, paragraph33.Castelli vCity ofWestminster[1996 ] EWJ 425 4 (CA);......