Underwood, Junior Israel Underwood to Depart out of Town (as they came in without leave) and Trespass no more in said Town. Given under our hands this 29th day of August 1769. In Henniker all persons coming into town were warned to depart within a specified time. It is said, however, that but little attention was paid to the warning, and in most cases it was hoped there would be no attention paid to it. Occasionally, however, persons took the matter seriously and left the town.* In Peterboro warning out was practised against all new-comers. The town record shows that December 23, 1763, a warning was issued and served, as follows:PROVINCE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE December ye 23d 1763 To James Templeton Constable of this town of Peterborough in His Majesty's name, we command you forthwith warn Jean Culberson now in this place forthwith to Depart out of this town, hereof fail not as you will answer the Contrary At yr Perill. Thomas Cunningham Alexr Robbe Hugh Gregg Selectmen, etc. December ye 24th 1763, according to the within request, I have Warned Jean Culberson forthwith to depart out of this town etc. James Templeton, Constable for the Town of Peterborough.† In Rindge warning out was practised as early as January, 1769, the warrant of warning being issued before the Revolution in his Majesty's name and served and recorded upon the town books. On June 12, 1776, the town records show that £2 13s. 4d. were paid to a constable of the town "for warning forty persons out of the town," and that in October of the same year 10s. 8d. was paid for warning eight persons out of the town. In 1772 and 1773 fifty-nine persons were warned out by Constable Jonathan Parker, Jr. The learned historian of the town, Ezra S. Stearns, says that many of the persons who were warned to depart became prosperous in business, honored as townsmen, and their descendants have been useful and esteemed citizens.* In Antrim, beginning in 1783, warning out was practised generally, a warrant from the selectmen directed to the persons ordered to depart being served by constable and returned and recorded upon the town records. The historian of the town alludes to this custom as a curiosity at the present time, and says that notwithstanding the warning the parties might remain, and generally were desired to remain, only, in case they became a public charge, the town where they had resided was held for their support. And then he adds, "Happily this law has long since passed away."t In Exeter it was ordered in 1665 that all persons who should hire any servant should be chargeable for his support "if it happened that he should be lamed or any way unserviceable made in work during the time for which he was hired, so the town may be free from such charges." In August, 1671, it was ordered That no man shall receive any person or persons into town without the consent of the Selectmen, or security to free the town from any charge that may ensue thereby, upon twenty shillings a month forfeiture; and that no man shall come to inhabit, by purchase or otherwise, without the consent of the Selectmen upon the same penalty.‡ * Stearns, History of Rindge, p. 88 et seq. † Cochrane, History of Antrim, N.H., p. 68. Bell, History of Exeter, p. 54. In Walpole, in 1772, the town voted That the constable warn out of town every person that comes in that has no estate in town. And this was made one of the duties of the constable for many years thereafter.* The same practice was followed in Alstead and many other towns, especially after the Revolutionary War, when many persons came to dwell in the new towns in the Connecticut Valley and in the northern part of the State. * Aldrich, History of Walpole, p. 43. CHAPTER VI. RHODE ISLAND COLONY AND STATE LAWS AS TO INHABITANCY, RELIEF OF THE POOR, TOWN SETTLEMENT, ETC.-MAINE AND VERMONT STATE LAWS AS TO WARNING OUT, INHABITANCY, SETTLEMENT, RELIEF OF THE POOR, ETC. The early settlers in Rhode Island asserted the same right to exclude new-comers. When Roger Williams in 1638 conveyed to twelve of his companions the land which had been conveyed to him by the Indian chiefs Cononicus and Miontinomi, on the Pawtuxet River, the grant was to share with him “and such others as the major part of us shall admit into the same fellowship of vote with us." The subsequent compact for the establishment of the town of Providence was upon the same principle. It was as follows: We whose names are hereunder, desirous to inhabit in the town of Providence, do promise to subject ourselves in active or passive obedience to all such orders or agreements as shall be made for public good of the body, in an orderly way by the major assent of the present inhabitants, masters of families, incorporated together into a town fellowship, and such others as they shall admit unto them, only in civil things.* The same method was followed in the settlement of Aquidneck, Rhode Island, in 1638. In the town compact made in 1640 five men were appointed to dispose of the town lands, but they were required first to notify the inhabitants lest any objection should exist to the new-comer, and any inhabitant could object and require the question of admitting the stranger to be determined by a town meeting. Conveyances were made in simple form without the * Arnold, History of Rhode Island, Vol. I, pp. 100, 103. voluminous provisions of recitals and covenants, etc., in modern deeds of land, and were read in an open town meeting, and were valid only when approved by vote of the meeting.* It was agreed in the form of government at Providence the 27th of the 5th mo. in the yeare (so called) 1640 (1637) in the second statement as follows: We have with one consent agreed that for the disposeing, of those lands that shall be disposed belonging to this towne of Providence to be in the whole Inhabitants by the choise of five men for generall disposeall, to be betrusted with disposeall of lands and also of the townes Stocke, and all Generall things and not to receive in any six dayes as townesmen, but first to give the Inhabitants notice to consider if any have just cause to shew against the receiving of him as you can apprehend, and to receive none but such as subscribe to this our determination. Also, we agree that if any of our neighbours doe apprehend himselfe wronged by these or any of these 5 disposers, that at the Generall towne meeting he may have a tryall.† 66 At a generall meeting of the town of Portsmouth upon publicke notice on the 3d month, 13 day, 1638,” it was Ordered, that none shall be received as inhabitants or Freemen, to build or plant upon the Island but such as shall be received in by the consent of the Bodye, and do submitt to the Government that is or shall be established, according to the word of God.‡ At the Generall Court assembled at Newport on the 19th of September, 1642, it was Ordered, that no person or persons shall make any sale of his lands (in or belonging to our Jurisdiction) to any other Jurisdiction, or person therein, vnless that that Jurisdiction or person shall be subject to the Government here established, vpon paine of forfeiture of the said lands so proffered.§ * Arnold, History of Rhode Island, Vol. I, pp. 9, 121, 127. ‡ Ibid., p. 53. § Ibid., |