Migration and Exclusion in an 18th-century London Parish
maps
interactive
LL
poor
An interactive map of St Clement Danes pauper removal orders, 1752-1793
Author
Sharon Howard
Published
7 March 2026
Historical Background
The data mapped on this page is based primarily on the Register of Paupers Removed from the Parish of St Clement Danes in London Lives. From 1752 to 1793 the parish maintained a register of poor people formally removed from St Clement Danes to another parish where it was determined they had a legal settlement, to avoid paying the costs of poor relief for them.
The 1662 Act of Settlement ensured that everyone had a home parish where they were eligible for poor relief in need, but at the same time placed restrictions on migration and mobility for the poor. Settlement was acquired in the first instance by place of birth or otherwise derived from parents’ settlement, but it could be (and often was) changed subsequently, for example by serving an apprenticeship, marriage (for women), renting a house or land over a certain value, or paying parish taxes.
Nonetheless, it was possible for poor people to move to and live in a parish for some time without acquiring a legal settlement there, going unnoticed by authorities as long as they could support themselves. If they seemed likely to become a “burden” on the parish, however, that could quickly change.
The vast majority of removals were to other London parishes, but the map shows that poor people migrated to London from across Britain and Ireland. Their statements in examinations are often brief outlines of origins. But some show how they had settled and made their lives in St Clement Danes for many years until factors beyond their control - ill health, ageing, abandonment or the death of a spouse, the birth of a child - exposed them to the bureaucratic machinery of the Old Poor Law.
The Process of Exclusion
The first step in the process of removal was an examination taken by magistrates. About 95% of the removal orders can be linked to examinations in the parish records.
Quite often, cases for which no examination can be found are those in which the individual was deemed to be a vagrant, a criminal offence which could lead to punishment as well as enforced removal. In all, about 14% of the removed were labelled as vagrants, for reasons that are often unclear from the documents alone. But parishes had a financial incentive to do so, since the costs would then be borne by the county rather than the parish. A small number of orders have also been linked to the Middlesex Vagrant Lives dataset.
Sometimes the parishes to which paupers were sent appealed against the order; petitions related to the orders have been identified in London Lives Sessions Papers in about 40 cases, almost all from London/Middlesex parishes.
Despite the possibility of punishment, some removed paupers returned to St Clement Danes and were removed again: at least 10% of orders can be linked to other orders. A small number of defiant individuals returned more than once; Mary Jenkins was removed to St Olave Southwark five times between 1758 and 1767, more than any other. Other notable returners included Ann Brown, who was removed to Oxford three times in the 1750s and described on one occasion as an “incorrigible rogue”. But perhaps she simply thought of London as her home.
the data linkage is unlikely to be perfect (in terms of both erroneous links and missed links)
there may be some errors in geocoding due to ambiguities or spelling variations etc in the original; about 30 unlocatable destinations have been excluded from the map
transcriptions are taken directly from London Lives and often contain errors
there are many more pauper examinations in the St Clement Danes records during the same period that do not have an associated removal order (so presumably the examined person could establish a settlement in the parish, or provide a certificate from their own parish), but those have not yet been mapped. That’s a future project!
Code
mapFilters = {// This handles the changes // In normal HTML environment, this would be inside the slider event handling function.// /* form: filtersRV["isVagrant"].includes(l.feature.properties.vagrant) && filtersRV["hasExam"].includes(l.feature.properties.has_exam) && filtersRV["hasOrders"].includes(l.feature.properties.has_orders) && filtersRV["hasPetition"].includes(l.feature.properties.has_llpp) && filtersRV["hasMV"].includes(l.feature.properties.has_mv) separate: isVagrant.includes(l.feature.properties.vagrant) && hasExam.includes(l.feature.properties.has_exam) && hasOrders.includes(l.feature.properties.has_orders) && hasPetition.includes(l.feature.properties.has_llpp) && hasMV.includes(l.feature.properties.has_mv)*/ mapVariables[1].eachLayer(l => {if(//l.feature.properties.year >= rangeYears[0] && l.feature.properties.year <= rangeYears[1] filtersRV["isVagrant"].includes(l.feature.properties.vagrant)&& filtersRV["hasExam"].includes(l.feature.properties.has_exam)&& filtersRV["hasOrders"].includes(l.feature.properties.has_orders)&& filtersRV["hasPetition"].includes(l.feature.properties.has_llpp) && filtersRV["hasMV"].includes(l.feature.properties.has_mv) ) { l.addTo(mapVariables[0]); } else { l.removeFrom(mapVariables[0]); } })return'howdy';// do i need this return line at all? probably not...}