Orders of Removal 1849

[PennyvdB1949]

Hi
I've come across a newspaper article on FindMyPast from 1849 regarding a George Clipsham (my 4th Great Grandfather - if its the same George Clipsham). The article says "Before the Mayor of Lincoln an order of removal was made re George Clipsham from St Michaels to Nettleham"   
On the 1841 census my 4th G Grandfather Age 61yrs was living alone in St Martins Parish. On the 1851 census he was living with his daughter and her family in St Michaels parish. Am I right in thinking that a removal order is made when someone who was born outside the parish they're living in and they can't support themselves then they are sent back to their "home" parish?
My George was born in Nettleham.  As he was "removed" in 1849 but back again in Lincoln on the 1851 census is it right to think that as he was living with his daughter and her family they would be responsible for his support and so he was allowed to return to Lincoln?
Thanks

[Jomot]

I'm no expert on the subject but the following link may help.  Interesting that the removal order was after the introduction of the new poor laws though.

http://www.genguide.co.uk/source/settlement-certificatesexaminations-and-removal-orders-parish-amp-poor-law/173/

[PennyvdB1949]

thanks Julie

[Geoff-E]

On the 1841 census my 4th G Grandfather Age 61yrs was living alone in St Martins Parish.

I don't think so. 

He appears to be the first of three lodgers(?) in the house of Ann CODD.

There is no // to signify that her household had ended nor a "1" next to his name which would have shown that he was in the next house.

[PennyvdB1949]

thanks for the input Geoff, the query was more what was a "removal" order. He was a widower by 1841 and none of the others at the address are family so presume he had no means of support if not any work available.

[a-l]

Hi Penny I had a similar situation in Beds and reached the same conclusion as yourself. 

[PennyvdB1949]

thanks a-l

[Geoff-E]

He was a widower by 1841 and none of the others at the address are family so presume he had no means of support if not any work available.

My, that is a presumption.    He says he's a bricky ... if he's a widower, why shouldn't he be in lodgings?.  I hardly think he'd have been unemployed from 1841 till the 1849 event.  He'd have been in the workhouse if that was the case.

Perhaps he was shacked up with the widow CODD.  Another presumption, but all possibilities must be considered.