1862. The QUEEN V. Overseers of On all these grounds I am of opinion that the return is bad. BLACKBURN J. I also am of opinion that, on the return to this mandamus, our judgment ought to be for the Crown. The original statute, 15 & 16 Vict. c. 85., was passed with reference solely to the metropolis, and appears to have been drawn with consideration; for there has been no litigation on it, and it seems to work satisfactorily. The Legislature chose to extend these laws concerning the burial of the dead beyond the limits of the metropolis; and, instead of passing a new statute applicable to the exigencies of parishes throughout the country, they merely enacted, by stat. 16 & 17 Vict. c. 134. s. 7., that certain provisions of the metropolitan Act should extend and be applicable to and in respect of any parish not in the metropolis. This was soon found not to work well. And, as difficulties occurred, the Legislature, instead of introducing a new and complete statute, have from time to time passed amending statutes; and the consequence is that there are, I believe, six statutes, applying to this subject-matter, to be read together, and reconciled, if possible. It is, therefore, no wonder that difficulties should arise in construing the different sections of these statutes. But, in the present case, on the point actually in question there is no difficulty. The writ recites that a Burial Board had been constituted for the parish of Walcot, and, primâ facie, Walcot is a parish in every sense of the word so as to be entitled to appoint a Burial Board. The return is confined to this: That before the Burial Board was appointed the parish of Walcot had been divided into three sub-parishes, for ecclesiastical purposes, under stat. 58 G. 3. c. 45. These latter are, for some purposes, parishes; and, if the power of appointing a Burial Board had been given to any "parish," without defining that word, it might have been a question whether the whole ancient parish, or each of the ecclesiastical parishes or districts, were a "parish" within the meaning of that statute; but the interpretation clause, sect. 52, puts an end to all doubt, by defining parish" to mean a place "having separate overseers of the poor, and separately maintaining its own poor." The original parish of Walcot remains a parish in that sense: although divided ecclesiastically, it still supports its own poor, and has officers for the whole parish for that purpose. Then, has any subsequent legislation taken away from this parish its power to appoint a Burial Board? Mr. Smith contended that it was a separate parish for the purposes of burial, and pointed out the 24th and 27th sections of stat. 58 G. 3. c. 45., under which a parish is divided into Districts for ecclesiastical purposes. Those sections contemplate that each District may have a separate burial ground; not that it must have such, nor that a District cannot be divided for ecclesiastical purposes without having such. If either of the Districts had acquired a separate burial ground, and this case was subsequent to the passing of stat. 23 & 24 Vict. c. 64., it seems that a point might have been raised that the case would have come within the 4th section of the last mentioned statute, and therefore a Burial Board could not have been appointed for the entire parish without the sanction of the Secretary of State. But, in order to raise that question, the return must have shewn that the ecclesiastical parishes or districts, or one of them, had a separate burial ground, and that the Burial Board for the entire parish had been appointed 1862. The QUEEN V. since the passing of stat. 23 & 24 Vict. c. 64., and that the approval of the Secretary of State had not been Overseers of given :—whereas the return rests simply on this; that, after a parish has been divided into ecclesiastical parishes or districts, it is impossible that there should be a Burial Board for the entire parish. WALCOT. Also, under stat. 20 & 21 Vict. c. 81. s. 5., either of these ecclesiastical parishes or districts, though not separately maintaining its own poor, and not having a separate burial ground, may appoint a Burial Board and acquire a burial ground; and whenever such an appointment has been made, a question of some difficulty will arise as to the effect of the proviso in that section, that all the powers of any other vestry and Burial Board, if any, shall cease and determine, so far as relates to such parish or district. As at present advised, I should agree with the Lord Chief Justice and my brother Crompton. But, in order to raise that question, the return ought to have alleged, as a matter of fact, that such an appointment had been made. It is sufficient, in order to give judgment in the present case, to say that a parish, having separate overseers of the poor, and separately maintaining its own poor, is a "parish" competent, under stats. 15 & 16 Vict. c. 85. and 16 & 17 Vict. c. 134., to appoint a Burial Board; and no subsequent legislation takes this power away from such a parish upon its division into separate parishes for ecclesiastical purposes. MELLOR J. ccncurred. Judgment for the Crown (a). (a) See the next case. 1862. May 7th. The QUEEN, on the prosecution of the Burial Wednesday, Stat. 20 & 21 Vict. c. 81. s. 5. enacts that the vestry of any parish, MANDAMUS to the overseers of the poor of the parish of Walcot St. Swithin, in the city of Bath. The writ recited that by an Order in Council, dated the 5th March, A. D. 1840, made upon a representation of the Commissioners for building new churches, the parish of Walcot St. Swithin was divided for all ecclesiastical purposes whatsoever into three distinct and separate parishes, under and by virtue of stat. 58 G. 3. c. 45., intituled "An Act for building and promoting the building of additional churches in populous parishes," and VOL. II. 2 P B. & S. 20 & 21 Vict. c. 81. 8. 5. Burial Board. District parish for ecclesiastical purposes. 1862. Overseers of ST. SWITHIN. the three parishes were respectively named Walcot St. The QUEEN Swithin, St. Saviour and Trinity: that the parish of St. Saviour did not separately maintain its own poor, and had not theretofore had any separate burial ground: that since the division the inhabitants of each of the three ecclesiastical parishes had been accustomed to meet in separate and distinct vestries for ecclesiastical purposes, and to elect separate churchwardens: that it appearing that the place of burial in the parish of St. Saviour was insufficient, the churchwardens of that parish, under and by virtue of and according to the statutes concerning the burial of the dead, to wit, on the 27th January, A. D. 1859, convened a meeting of the vestry of the parish of St. Saviour for the special purpose of determining whether a burial ground should be provided for the parish of St. Saviour pursuant to the said statutes; and that public notice of such vestry meeting, and of the place and hour of holding the same, and of the special purpose thereof, was given in the usual manner in which notices of the meetings of the vestry were given seven days before holding such vestry meeting; and by which vestry it was resolved that a burial ground should be provided under the said statutes for the parish of St. Saviour; and a copy of such resolution, extracted from the minutes of the vestry, and signed by the chairman, was afterwards sent to one of the principal Secretaries of State pursuant to the said statutes: that after such resolution the vestry appointed certain persons, being not less than three nor more than nine, being ratepayers of the parish of St. Saviour, to be, and the same became and were, the Burial Board of the parish pursuant to the said statutes: that at a meeting of the vestry of the parish of St. Saviour, duly convened and held, and of |