and the act contained this clause :-" And be it further enacted, by the authority aforesaid, that the said company of proprietors, their successors or assigns, or any of them, shall not be taxed or assessed for the same, (a) or the profits thereof, at any place or places except Sheffield or Doncaster aforesaid." The act also directed that books of accounts should be kept at Sheffield and Doncaster.(b) And it *contained power to the company to purchase

*553]

lands, &c.

By stat. 13 G. 2, c. 11, provision was made for extending the navigation to the eastward; and, under the powers given by that act, a cut was made, called the Stainforth Cut, 176 yards of which are in Barnby Dun.

By stat. 1 and 2 G. 4, c. xlvi. (local and personal, public), reciting that it would be advantageous to abandon the existing navigation in certain parts, and to make and maintain other cuts or canals in lieu thereof, the company are empowered to make certain cuts or canals with proper towing paths, and, among others, a cut or canal from the lower end of an existing cut at Barnby Dun to the upper end of Stainforth Cut. And it is therein enacted, that, in consideration of the expenses the company shall be at in making the said cuts or canals, alterations and improvements, it shall be lawful for the said company from time to time, and all times after the cuts or canals therein mentioned, or the lower of them, extending from Long Sandal, shall be complete, to demand and receive the several rates and duties therein-after mentioned over and besides all other rates and duties allowed to be taken by the former acts. And it is further enacted, "That the said intended cuts or canals, alterations and works shall be considered and taken as part of the navigation of the river Dun; and all and every the provisoes, directions, restrictions, penalties, and forfeitures in and by the said herein-before recited acts" (viz. the act above mentioned) "and every of them, respecting the boatmen employed on the said river, the owners, commanders, masters, or rulers of boats, keels, or vessels, or other persons employed *554] thereon, on passing the locks of the *said river, or making obstructions therein, or in any other respect relating thereto, or for the benefit or protection of the said navigation, and all other powers and authorities therein contained, shall extend and be applicable to the said cuts or canals, alterations and works, as fully in every respect as if the said cuts," &c. "had originally been part of the said river Dun navigation, and had been inserted in the said several and respective acts." Stat. 7 G. 4, c. xcvii. (local and personal, public) contains similar provisions for making new cuts in the navigation to the westward of Holmstile. (c)

The Navigation Company was assessed, in the rate appealed against, as follows:-"The River Dun Company, new cut or canal, land covered with water, basins, towing paths, locks and tolls, and other works." The navigation through the township of Barnby Dun was described in the case as consisting of "the old cut, 308 yards; the new cut, 3498 yards; part of Stainforth Cut, 176 yards." The bed of the river is not used as a navigation. The company bought land for making the new canal in Barnby Dun, and the expense of mak

(a) The preceding section (not set out in the case) was one imposing penalties for maliciously opening any lock, &c., and contained nothing to which the present clause could

refer.

(b) This was an earlier clause (not fully set out in the case), which directed "that books, in which all accounts relating to the said undertaking, shall be stated and settled, and all other matters relating to the said navigation, shall be deposited and kept in two chests or boxes, one at Sheffield, and the other at Doncaster."

(e) By the first section of this statute (not set out in the case) it was enacted, "That all the powers, exemptions, penalties, forfeitures, rules, remedies, directions, payments, provisions, matters, and things, contained in the said recited acts, or any of them (except such parts thereof as are varied, altered, or repealed), shall be as good valid and effectual, for carrying this act into execution, in as full ample and beneficial a manner, to all intents and purposes whatsoever, as if the same had been repeated and re-enacted in the body of this act."

ing it amounted to about 24,0007.; at the same time the cut called Stainforth Cut was widened. The shareholders of the company receive a yearly dividend per share, arising partly from tolls and dues, and partly from the rent [*555 warehouses and wharfs. The company is rated in Doncaster, *where it has no warehouses or wharfs; but not in Sheffield. It is also rated in Stainforth the case did not say in respect of what property.

The questions for the opinion of this Court, were, first, whether the company was liable to be rated at all in the township of Barnby Dun; and, secondly, if it were so liable, upon what sum the assessment should be

Sir F. Pollock, Attorney-General, and Sir J. Campbell and Milner, in sup port of the order of sessions. (a) The appellants are not liable to be rated at all in Barnby Dunn; and, if so, the second question becomes immaterial. As to the question of liability in the first place, the exemption in stat. 6 G. 2, c. 9, clearly extends to poor-rates: Rex v. The London Gas Light Company, 8 B. & C. 54. (This was admitted on the other side.) Then, if the original works of the company were not liable to be rated to the poor except at Sheffield or Doncaster, has anything occurred to make their new works rateable in other places? By stat. 1 & 2 G. 4, c. xlvi., the new cuts and canals to be made in lieu of the works abandoned by the company at the time when that act passed are to be considered and taken as part of the river Dun navigation; and the act extends to them all the "provisoes, directions, restrictions, penalties, and forfeitures" of the former acts, respecting boatmen and others using, or causing obstructions in the navigation, or in any other respect relating thereto, or for the benefit or protection of the said *navigation, and all other powers and authorities therein contained, as fully in every respect as if the said cuts [*556 and canals had originally been part of the said river Dun navigation, and had been inserted in the said several and repective acts. And stat. 7 G. 4, c. xcvii. adopts in as full a manner "all the powers, exemptions, penalties, forfeitures, rules, remedies, directions, payments, provisions, matters, and things," contained in the former acts. If there is any difference in language between this and the clause before cited, it cannot be supposed that there was a difference of intention, or that the works to be made under the last act were meant to be more amply protected than the previous ones. The navigation of the river itself would not have been liable to poor-rate: when the company abandoned that navigation, it is presumable that they would do so on the stipulation that the new cuts which were substituted for it should be placed on the same footing of exemption; and the language of the statutes corresponds with this presumption. Some question may arise as to the meaning of the words "shall not be taxed or assessed for the same, or the profits thereof," in the original clause of exemption in 6 G. 2, c. 9. "The same" evidently meant something more than "the profits." It would include the lands taken for making the cuts, sidecuts, lucks, and other works which the statute 12 & 13 G. 1, authorised the two original companies to make, and which were about to be made (and in particu lar, as the latter statute shews, in Barnby Dun,) when the acts passed. It is clear that such works must have been in existence when the stat. 6 G. 2, c. 9 was introduced; and they required the protection given by the exempting clause of that act. "The same," then, in that clause *extends to all the rate

able things which the act recites to have been formerly vested in the [*557

two companies, and which it divides into shares, to be held by the united company. All those things were exempted from poor-rate, except in Sheffield and Doncaster; and the subsequent acts carry on the exemption as to all similar property. Rex v. The Birmingham Canal Company(b) is in some respects like this case, but is no authority for the present rate. That decided only that the

(a) The Court, in the outset of the case, stopped the appellants' counsel, and called upon the other side; but, after having partly heard the latter, they desired that the argument for the appellants might be continued, and the case then proceeded in the usual course. (b) 2 B. & Ald. 570.

vested right of a parish to rate certain works was not affected by a statute passed merely for the purpose of regulating the management of the property, and referring, but in general terms, to two former acts, one of which modified the right of rating as to a distinct portion of that property. At all events, the present rate is bad, so far as it relates to the tolls. (The further question, as to the mode of rating, was rendered immaterial by the opinion of the Court on the first point.)

Sir W. W. Follett, Solicitor-General, and Dundas, cóntrà. It is not clear that the word "same," in the clause of 6 G. 2, c. 9, relied upon as giving an exemption both to lands and tolls, had the general effect contended for. It appears to have been intended, by that clause, to establish certain places of payment for the more easy ascertaining and collecting of what was to be paid, and not to exempt from payment at all places but those. The principle is the same as in Rex v. The Leeds and Liverpool Canal Company, 5 East, 325, where it was held, under the local acts, that the land used for cuts or other works was to *558] be rateable, as land, throughout; the tolls only at particular places. But supposing, in the present case, that the lands as well as tolls were exempted by the statute 6 G. 2, c. 9, the exemption does not extend to works made subsequently, and under other statutes. Primâ facie, the company were rateable for the lands occupied by them in each parish: the soil taken by them under the powers given them by the statutes was originally subject to rates, and would have continued so unless the legislature had interfered. The parishes, then, having a vested right in such rates, it is for the appellants to show clearly how the right is taken away. Even the clause of 6 G. 2, c. 9, does not abolish it, but only forbids taxing the company in other places than those named; certainly it does not extend to works made since the act. The subsequent statute (1 & 2 G. 4, c. xlvi.) enacts, that the then intended cuts or canals, alterations and works, shall be considered and taken as part of the navigation of the river Dun; but that provision of itself is not sufficient to exempt them from rates. It then extends to those cuts, canals, alterations, and works, some provisoes, directions, and penalties respecting boatmen and others, and for the benefit and protection of the navigation; "and all other powers and authorities" in the former acts contained: but none of these expressions import a freedom from poor-rates. "Powers and authorities" imply something to be done by the parties: the question here is of a liability. Where the legislature has intended to give any exemption, the word "exemptions" is used; as in stat. 7 G. 4, c. xcvii., which, however, does not extend to the works now in question: nor, if it did, is the word so unequivocal as to be conclusive against the power of rating *559] to the poor. Rex v. The Birmingham Canal Company, 2 B. & Ald. 570, is a case in some respects very like this, and the principles of construction there adopted by the Court are in favour of the present respondents. It is not to be presumed that the legislature has intended to carry on the exemption given to the company's works from time to time as they were executed; for the act 13 G. 2, c. 20, under which the Stainforth cut was made, gives no kind of exemption; and, therefore, that work at least continued unprotected for almost ninety years.

Lord DENMAN, C. J. I have had much doubt upon this case during the argument, from the unwillingness I feel to decide a question of this kind on general views. My anxiety has been to determine it according to the words used in the several statutes; and I think the words are sufficient to exempt the company from payment of this rate. The clause relied upon for that purpose in stat. 6 G. 2, c. 9, is certainly not framed in pertinent terms. It provides that the company" shall not be taxed or assessed for the same, or the profits thereof, at any place or places except Sheffield or Doncaster," the statute also directing that books of account shall be kept at those places; but I cannot connect the fact of rateability with the mere circumstance of making up the accounts. The words "taxed or assessed for the same, or the profits thereof," have none before them with

which "the same" can be connected; but I think the expression may reasonably be construed to mean such things as were capable of producing profits liable to rate; and, consequently, that the clause exempted *the then navigation so far

as any part of it was the subject of rate. Then the question is, whether [*560

that exemption is extended to the works now in question, by stat. 1 & 2 G. 4, c. xlvi. The object of that statute is, to enable the company to abandon some parts of the existing navigation, and to make new cuts and canals in lieu of them : as a compensation for the expense to be thus incurred, they are allowed, when the new cuts shall be complete, to take certain new tolls: and it is further enacted, "that the intended cuts or canals, alterations and works, shall be considered and taken as part of the navigation of the river Dun." Some words are then added with respect to the continuance of provisoes, directions, restrictions, and penalties, and of powers and authorities, the effect of which may be matter of considerable doubt; but the previous words, incorporating the new works with the navigation, are sufficient to extend to those works the rights which the company had with respect to the former navigation. The question then is, what privileges are conferred upon those works by their being incorporated with the navigation? That throws us back upon the clause of 6 G. 2, c. 9, which, however unhappily worded, has the effect of exempting the navigation from rates; and, consequently, these new works, as part of the navigation, are also exempt. It is said that there is some part of the navigation made since the statute of 6 G. 2, and before that of 1 & 2 G. 4, which is clearly not protected from rates; but as to that part we are not now called upon to give an opinion. The works now in question are within the latter statute, and they are substituted for, and put in the same situation with, the property exempted by the act of George the Second.

*LITTLEDALE, J. I am of the same opinion. The stat. 1 & 2 G. 4, [*561 c. xlvi., substitutes new works for others which were before exempted. The clause which has been referred to declares that the intended cuts, canals, alterations, and works shall be considered and taken as part of the navigation of the river Dun. It goes on to enact that the provisoes, directions, restrictions, penalties, and forfeitures of the former acts, respecting boatmen, masters of vessels, or others employed upon the said river, on passing the locks thereof, or making obstructions therein, or in any other respect relating thereto, or for the benefit or protection of the said navigation, and all other powers and authorities therein contained, shall extend to the said cuts or canals, alterations, and works, as fully in every respect as if they had originally been part of the said river Dun navigation. Then do these words give an exemption from rates? The question is, whether they do so in effect, though the word "exemption" is not introduced. It is true that a right of rating is not to be taken away except by direct provision; but it is not necessary that the very word "exemption" should be used. I think that, as the new works contemplated by this act are substituted by it for the old navigation, they are protected by the words of the former act which exempted that navigation from rates.

WILLIAMS, J. Undoubtedly the appellants, in a case like this, have to shew that they are exempted from rates by some express law. The question is, whe ther the two statutes, 6 G. 2, c. 9, and 1 & 2 G. 4, c. xlvi., together give such an exemption to the works here rated. It is true that "the same" in stat. 6 G. 2, c. 9, *has no immediate antecedent to which it can apply; but the

words of the clause are, "the same and the profits thereof," and there [*262

is nothing but the navigation to which the word "profits" can by any straining be referred. The works of the navigation, therefore, are the subject of exemption in that statute. Then does the subsequent act extend the exemption to these new cuts? If the question had turned merely on the general words, "all and every the provisoes, directions," &c., among which the word "exemptions" is not found, I should have had a difficulty in saying that the clause applied to any thing more than regulations as to the navigating of the river. But we find

also that the new cuts and other works, when made, become identically part of the navigation of the Dun. They become so in one respect, by being exempted from taxation except at Doncaster and Sheffield. This, therefore, appears to me a sufficient exemption, without considering what may be meant by the larger and more doubtful words. Order of sessions confirmed.

The KING against The Inhabitants of CARTMEL. Wednesday, January 21.

A parish was divided into several townships, each supporting its own poor, and having separate poor-rates and overseers; and there were no overseers or poor-rate for the whole parish. A district of waste land in the parish, bounded by the sea and some of the townships, but not shewn to be included in any of the townships, had been inclosed under an act of parliament and an award of commissioners founded thereon; and, under that act and award, it contributed in certain proportions to the several rates of all the townships. A pauper, who had gained a settlement in the district, was removed to the parish generally. On appeal by all the churchwardens and overseers of all the townships, describing themselves as the churchwardens and overseers of the parish: Held, that the order of removal was bad.

On appeal against an order of two justices for removing Robert Armer from the township of Burton in Westmoreland, to the parish of Cartmel, in Lanca*563] shire, the sessions confirmed the order, subject to the opinion of this Court upon the following case.

The settlement relied upon by the respondents was by hiring and service at East Plain, in 1822. East Plain was, before the act of parliament and award hereinafter mentioned, part of a salt marsh formed by the gradual retiring of the sea, but occasionally overflowed by the tide, which salt marsh was part of the waste lands within the parish of Cartmel, and is bounded on the one side by the sea, and on the other by the ancient inclosed lands of the townships of Lower Holker and Lower Allithwaite, both within the said parish of Cartmel : but whether East Plain was within or formed part of either of those townships, or was within or formed part of any of the other five townships hereinafter mentioned in the said parish, no other evidence was given than its local situation, as above set forth, and the act of parliament and award hereinafter mentioned. There are in the parish of Cartmel seven townships; viz. Upper and Lower Holker, Upper and Lower Allithwaite, Broughton, Stavely, and Cartmel. Each of them maintains its own poor separately, and has a separate poor rate, and separate overseers. All the lands in the parish (except it be the said salt marsh which East Plain is part of) are comprised within one or other of these townships. There are no overseers of the poor for the parish at large, nor have any ever been appointed; neither is there, or has there ever been, any poor-rate for the parish at large, or any parochial funds out of which the poor can be maintained. The notice of appeal against the order of removal was signed by all the churchwardens and all the overseers of the poor of all the said townships *564] respectively, wherein they *described themselves as the churchwardens and overseers of the poor of the parish of Cartmel: and the appeal was entered as that of the churchwardens and overseers of the poor of the parish of Cartmel. The pauper was delivered to the overseer of the township of Lower Holker, with whom he still remained.

By stat. 36 G. 3, c. 64 (private), "for improving, dividing, and inclosing the commons, waste grounds, and mosses, in the parish of Cartmel" (which act was made part of the case), it was enacted that the commissioners appointed by the said act should draw up an award which should specify and direct in what township or division within the said parish of Cartmel the several messuages, tenements, lands, mosses, and hereditaments, which should be exchanged, divided, or allotted, by virtue of that act, should lie or be parcel, and should be charged VOL. XXIX.-18