1818.

The KING against The Inhabitants of

IDLE.

Ac

it should receive a liberal construction. I think,
therefore, that the certificate granted to the head of the
family protected not only him, but also all the members
of the family, and placed them in the same situation
in which he stood. If so, then they would not be
removeable till they became actually chargeable.
cording to the authority of the case of Rex v. Great
Yarmouth, this woman, under the circumstances stated
to us, was removeable; but although that was so,
still it may be very questionable, whether, in this
particular case, the parish officers were bound to re-
move the mother? There is an obvious distinction
between the effect of a certificate under the 33 G. 3.,
and that of one under 8 and 9 W. 3. For the former
of these two statutes enacts, "That every child born
a bastard in a parish during the mother's residence
therein under the authority of that act, shall have
the same settlement as the mother." The atten-
tion, therefore, of the parish officers would naturally
not be called to the situation of a woman residing
under a certificate granted under 33 G. 3., and I
think, therefore, that they were justified in not removing
in this case.
No inconvenience can arise to the other
parish from this; for if the mother had been actually
removed, the child would have been born in their parish,
and so would have been settled there. They, therefore,
are placed in no worse situation by our holding that the
child shall follow the mother's settlement, though she was
not removed. I think, therefore, that the parish officers
were not bound in this case to remove the mother, and
that the child being born in Idle, whilst the mother
was residing there under the authority of the 33 G. 3.

c. 54.,

c. 54., followed her settlement in Rawden, and that the order of sessions was therefore wrong.

BAYLEY J. I entertained at first great doubts in
this case, which the discussion it has undergone has
however entirely removed. I agree with my Lord C. J.
that the child in this case was settled in the parish to
which the mother belonged, and on the ground that
her residence there was protected by the 33 G. 3.
c. 54. Before that act passed, persons likely to become
chargeable were liable to be removed. That act,
however, provides, that a person having a certi-
ficate under it shall not be removed unless actually
chargeable. The first question is, whether that is re-
pealed by the 35 G. 3. c. 101, by which a general
provision is made, that no person shall be removed until
actually chargeable. But unless we see clearly that it
was the intention of the legislature to repeal the former
act, I think we ought not to come to that conclusion;
for that act gave to persons certificated under it a
special protection, subject to certain disabilities; and
I think that a party who chooses to avail himself of
that special protection, ought to be allowed to do so;
for it will materially facilitate his admission into a parish
on account of the disability he lies under of communi-
cating settlements. If he goes with that certificate, he
will be readily allowed to take a tenement, for he
confers no settlement on his hired servants or appren-
tices.
Although, therefore, the 35 G. 3. c. 101. did

introduce
a general provision, still, as it does not con-
tain any thing to shew that it was intended to repeal
the 33 G. 3. c. 54, I think that act was not repealed.
By the 17th section it appears that no member of a

friendly

1818.

The KING against The Inhabitants of

IDLE.

1818.

The KING against The Inhabitants of IDLE.

friendly society shall be removeable. He, therefore, obtains a residence not only for himself, but also for those who may be considered as parcel of himself, his wife, and family. If he is removed, they are removed with him; and the section which says that he shall not be removed, virtually prohibits also the removal of his family. The 25th section does not use the expression, "during the member's residence," but "during the mother's residence," under the authority of the act. I think, therefore, that in this case the mother was residing under the authority of this act when the child was born. The parish might perhaps have removed the mother as actually chargeable, under the 35 G. 3. c. 101. s. 6., but they were not bound so to do; for this section only meant to provide for the case of those unmarried women, whose residence, when they were pregnant, was not protected by any previous act. I think, therefore, that in this case the settlement of the child follows that of the mother.

HOLROYD J. I am also of opinion that the 33 G. 3. c. 54. is not repealed by the 35 G. 3. c. 101. It certainly is not expressly repealed, for there is no reference in the latter act to the 33 G. 3. By that act it appears that members of a friendly society are protected unless they become actually chargeable, or are found to ask relief for themselves and family; and in case any daughter shall become pregnant of a bastard, the 25th section enacts, that the child in that case should follow the settlement of the mother. Under this act, a daughter in this situation would not make the family removeable as actually chargeable, because, not being settled there herself, the birth of her child would bring no charge on the parish. Then came the 35 G. 3.

the object of which has been correctly stated to be, to prevent poor persons from being unnecessarily removed; and the sixth section enacts, that an unmarried woman with child shall be deemed and taken to be a person actually chargeable; but that clause goes on to state that such a person shall be deemed chargeable, not generally, but "within the true intent and meaning of that act." Then that clause applies to persons whose residence was not previously protected, but not to cases where under the friendly society act, the certificate would protect the parish, where the child was born, from the burden of its maintenance: and no mischief will follow from this construction of the act. I am therefore of opinion, that the 33 G. 3. is not repealed by the 35 G. 3., and that the settlement of the child in this case follows that of the mother.

Order of Sessions quashed, and order of Magistrates confirmed.

1818.

The KING against The Inhabitants of

IDLE.

The KING against The Inhabitants of the Parish Saturday,

of WALSALL.

PULLER, in last Easter term, had obtained a rule to shew cause why an order of appointment of four persons to be overseers of the parish of Walsall, in

Nov. 14th.

13 and 14 Car. 2., maintained their poor jointly, and at the time of the passing of the latter act agreed to separate in the maintenance of their poor, and that separate overseers should be appointed, upon condition that the rateable property in the parish, whether situated in the one or the other district, should be rated where the occupiers resided. In consequence of that agreement they had ever since uniformly maintained their own poor separately, and had had separate overseers, constables, &c.: Held that this clearly shewed that the parish, at the time of the agreement, could not reap the full benefit of the statute of Eliz., and that, therefore, the separation of the two districts was valid, and that an appointment of overseers for the whole parish was now bad.

Held also, that the agreement consisted of two distinct parts, and that the invalidity of the latter part, as to rating property not situate within the district rated, did not affect the question on the former part.

the

1818.

The KING against The Inhabit

ants of WALSALL.

the county of Stafford, should not be quashed for insufficiency. It appeared from the affidavits in support of the rule, that the parish of Walsall consisted of two districts, one called the township of the Borough, and the other the township of the Foreign, both of which, as far back as the 13 and 14 Car. 2. c. 12., had separately maintained their own poor; that they had had separate rates, accounts, and workhouses, and separate appointments of overseers, constable, and headborough; that there had been parish indentures, executed by the officers of the foreign, so far back as 1689; certificates of settlements, given by the borough to the foreign, as far back as 1700; and orders of removal from the borough to the foreign, and vice versâ, and appeals thereon, as far back as 1744, and as late as 1815. The affidavits on the other side stated, that prior to the statute of the 13 and 14 Car. 2. c. 12., the parish of Walsall received the benefit of the 43 Eliz. c. 2., and that the poor of the borough and foreign were maintained by a general rate over the whole parish; that on the passing of 13 and 14 Car. 2. c. 12., it was agreed, that the borough and foreign should separate in the maintenance of their poor, and that separate overseers should be appointed, upon condition that the rateable property in the parish, whether situate in the borough or the foreign, should be rated to the relief of the poor of that district, in which the occupier resided. They also stated, that both townships had been incorporated by the name of the Borough and Foreign of Walsall, and that the jurisdiction of the magistrates extended over the whole parish; that there was but one parish church for both, which was repaired by a joint rate; that a rate of 1s. in the pound, averages in the borough

14