Rex v. Darlington, 4 T. R. 797. Sarah, widow of T. Milburn, and seven children, were removed from All Saints to Darlington. Order confirmed. Case: The grandfather of the pauper's husband came to All Saints, with a certificate from Darlington. During his residence there he had a son, Thomas, who lived with him as part of his family, except for one year, when he was a servant in All Saints; after which service he returned to his father, and married, when he had a child, the pauper's husband, who lived in All Saints till his death. The pauper's husband, at the age of fourteen, was hired and served for three years in All Saints. Some time before this service, the grandfather returned with his wife to Darlington, (leaving his son and son's family behind,) and died there.-Lord Kenyon, C. J. By 8 & 9 W. III. c. 30, the parish to which the certificate is granted, is obliged to receive the certificated person, together with his or her family. Now what is the fair legal import of the word family? It is true that in construing a will, and where it is the intention of the testator that it shall extend beyond the immediate children, it may have that operation: but that is not the sense in which it is used in this act. In common parlance, the family consists of those who live under the same roof with the pater-familias; those who form his fire-side. But when they branch out and become the heads of new establishments, they cease to be part of the father's family. I admit that a certificate extends to the son on account of the positive words of the act of parliament, he being part of the father's family; but when he himself becomes the head of a family, then the words of the statute, public policy, and the convenience of mankind, require that he should no longer be considered as part of his father's family, or be protected by the certificate granted to his father. Giving full effect to the certificate, as far as the words of the act and the intention of the legislature go, I think it meets with its boundary line, when it has protected the family of the certificated person; that is, all those who live with the pater-familias; and, consequently, that this grandchild, who was the son of the head of a distinct family, was not prevented gaining a settlement by hiring and service.-Grose, J. Grandchildren are not, properly speaking, of the family of the grandfather, but of his son; for when the son becomes the head of a new branch, and has children of his own, he ceases to be a part of his father's family, and his children then form a part of his own family. Orders quashed. [Same point in Rex v. Heath, 5 T. R. 583; and Rex v. Hampton, id. 266.]

Rex v. Testerton, 5 T. R. 258. Testerton gave Great Ryburgh a certificate for Thomas Wood, the father of the pauper, his wife, and seven children, by name, of which the pauper was one. The pauper lived with his father at Ryburgh till he was twenty; he then lived as a servant in Ryburgh for a year, and returned to his father. He then served two years more as a servant in Ryburgh, and afterwards returned to his father, and resided a year with him, and then married, and has lived in Ryburgh till this order was made, but never with his father since his marriage. His father has been dead about five years. Lord Kenyon said, This case was not contrary to Rex v. Darlington, for here the pauper is mentioned by name in the certificate itself, and he has never gained any settlement or lived out of the certificated parish since it was given. Order of removal to Testerton, confirmed.

Rex v. Batheaston, 8 T. R. 446. E. Gay, the grandfather of the pauper, went to Box with a certificate from Batheaston, certifying him, his wife, and "Edward and Thomas their children." Edward lived with his father till he married at Box, and had the pauper, who was hired and served as a servant in Bor. The order of removal of pauper to Batheaston was confirmed: and the Court of King's Bench held, That the distinction was taken in Rex v. Testerton, between those cases where the certificate is granted to a person and his family generally, and those where the son is mentioned by name in the certificate; that in the former, a grandson is not within the protection of the certificate; but that in the latter, where the son is named, his family, until they are emancipated, are within the protection of the certificate, not as the grandchildren of the principal person named, but as the family and

Eleventhly, of settlement by acknowledgment, &c.

9. What individuals, &c. Persons who

come into a pa

rish under a cer reside there under it, for the purpose of being within the operation of it, therefore

tificate must also

where a son of a

certificated person included as

one of the father's family, marries and lives separately from the father, his apprentice may gain a settlement in the certificated parish.

A parish certifi cate granted to T. C., and J., his wife, engaging

to receive them,

children of the person who is also named, and therefore Rex v. Testerton ought to govern this case.-Order confirmed. (a)

Rex v. Mortlake, 6 East, 397. Removal of Mary Dormer and children from Mortlake to Great Marlow, quashed. Case: John Dormer and Ann his wife, went with a certificate from Hambleton to Great Marlow, and during their residence at G. M. had a son, William. John and William died there. But William had left his father's family, married, and occupied a separate house at Great Marlow, and had a son named Thomas, who in 1760, several years after the death of John and Ann, was bound apprentice to his father for seven years, and served the same at Great Marlow. Thomas was afterwards married, and had a son named Thomas, now deceased, who was the husband of the pauper, and the father of the children removed. The question was, Whether under the apprenticeship of T. D., the elder, to his father W. D., and the 12 Anne, c. 18, T. D., the elder, had gained a settlement in G. M?-Lord Ellenborough, C. J. The question is, Whether William, the son of John, who was once covered by his father's certificate, ceased to be so when he married and lived separately from his father? for if he ceased to be covered by the certificate himself, there seems to be no reason why he might not communicate a settlement to another, as well as gain one himself in the certificated parish. This depends upon the meaning of the word "family" in 8 & 9 W. III. c. 30. The meaning of the word is not to be taken in its largest sense, and has been soundly restrained by the determinations in Rex v. Darlington, and Rex. v. Heath, to those who constitute part of the existing household and family of the certificated person, or, as Lord Kenyon expressed it in Rex v. Darlington, those who form his fire-side. That character cannot apply to William after he had married and left his father's house, and had become a new stirps, having a family of his own. Rex v. Hampton was decided upon the ground that the second wife continued after her husband's death to be the root and remains of the old family, and not a substantive distinct family, as here. She still continued as the representative of her deceased husband: but here the son had started for himself at the head of a new family by marrying, and taking a separate house for himself. He was then in a condition to gain a settlement for himself in the certificated parish. But the words of the statute of Anne are relied on, to shew that he is not such a person with whom an apprentice bound to him could gain a settlement there, and it is said that they are in the disjunctive, "come into or reside in:" but upon referring to the certificate act, the 8 & 9 W. III. c. 30, which speaks of persons who "shall come into any parish, there to be, inhabit, and reside," and the 9 & 10 W. III. c. 11, which speaks of doubts having arisen upon the former statute, by what acts any person coming to inhabit or reside within any parish by virtue of any such certificate, may procure a settlement, and which enacts that no person who shall come into any parish (without more) by any such certificate, shall gain any settlement there, except in certain ways mentioned; I say, upon comparing the words of the statute of Anne with the former provisions, I think those words must be read copulatively, and that they mean only to designate persons who may come into any parish for the purpose of residing, and actually reside there under a certificate. The other judges agreed.

Rex v. Thwaites, 1 M. & S. 669. Removal from Harrington to Thwaites, confirmed. Case: The pauper, Huddleston, was born in Thwaites, but was bound apprentice to R. Cass, in Brigham, and served his whole time in that township. T. Cass, the father of R. Cass, resided at Brigham, under a certificate from Sunderland, which had been delivered to the parish of Brigham, acknowledging T. Cass and his wife to be settled within their township, extends to a son, and they promised to receive them, their child or children, born or to be

their child or children born or to be born, only

(a) The principle of these cases seems to be confirmed by Rex v. Thwaites (supra); and the observations of Lord Ellenborough and Bayley, J., in Rer v. Leek Wootton (post, 678), if reconcile

able with these cases, must be understood in reference to derivative settlements only, and so they seem to have been construed by Mr. Nolan, vol. 2, 174.

born in their township, as persons legally settled. R. Cass was born at the time of the certificate so granted and delivered, and during the time of the pauper's serving him, was a married man, residing with his family in Brigham, apart from his father; but it did not appear that he had gained any settlement there. The question is, Whether the pauper gained a settlement in Brigham, by such service with R. Cass? Paley and Courtney, against the order, were stopped by the Court.-Lord Ellenborough, C. J., said, This appears very clearly to have been a service under an indenture of apprenticeship, to a person, who at the time was not protected by the certificate, and, consequently, such a service as, coupled with the residence, will entitle the pauper to a settlement in Brigham. The certificate engages" to receive the father and mother, their child or children born, or to be born." The parish officers, perhaps, did not know the name of the son, or probably they were ignorant of the fact that they had any son at the time; but it is clear that they meant only to comprehend the whole of the family with which the parents should migrate. The parents do migrate with their own son into another township, and there the son afterwards separates from them, and becomes himself the head of a distinct family, and so from that time was emancipated. This is a main feature that distinguishes this case from Rex v. Sowerby, where the party continued to reside with his mother, and brings it within Rex v. Mortlake; which is, also, an authority to shew that the pauper, by serving the son, under these circumstances, in the certified township, will thereby gain a settlement in that township.-Le Blanc, J. It seems to be admitted, that this case falls precisely within the determination of Rex v. Mortlake, unless it can be distinguished upon the terms of the certificate. The circumstance of distinction relied on, is this, that the certificate is, in its terms, an acknowledgment of "the child or children born or to be born," and this, it has been argued, is the same thing as if the child had been expressly named by its christian name in the certificate. If this were so, there would be an end of the question; for it has been determined, and that determination has never been shaken, that a child named in the certificate, stands precisely in the situation of the father, that is, as one of the principals mentioned in the certificate; and, therefore, if the son had been named in this case, it would follow that a service with him, as an apprentice, would not have conferred on him a settlement in the certified parish. No case, however, has been cited, to shew that any thing less than an express mention of the person by name, will have the same effect as naming him; or that describing him by the words "child born or to be born," has ever been held to be equivalent. The current of all the authorities seems to decide this, That if a person, who is not named in the certificate, but only comes within the scope of it, as being the child of a person named, abandon the roof of his parents and become himself the parent stock of another family, such person is not only capable of gaining a settlement himself, but also of being the means of others gaining a settlement by service with him; although his father remains protected by the certificate. I am, therefore, of opinion, that the decision of the sessions was wrong.-Bayley, J. The provisions of the certificate act seem to place this case in a clear point of view. The statute enacts, (a) “That if any person or persons that shall come into any parish or other place, there to inhabit and reside, shall deliver to the churchwardens or overseers a certificate under the hands and seals of the churchwardens and overseers of any other parish, township, or place, thereby acknowledging the person or persons mentioned in the said certificate, to be an inhabitant or inhabitants legally settled in that parish, township, or place, every such certificate shall oblige the said parish or place to receive and provide for the person mentioned in the said certificate, together with his or her family, whenever they shall happen to become chargeable to the parish, township, or place to which such certificate was given." Therefore, if a certificate be granted to a person by name, the parish is bound to provide for him and his

family; but if several members of a family be named in it, the parish must provide for each as distinct and separate members, unconnected with each other. Who, then, are the persons named in this certificate, whom the township acknowledge as their inhabitants legally settled? The father and mother only; for " their child or children born, or to be born," comprehends nothing more than their family; the children are to be received back as part of the family of the father, and not because they are acknowledged as settled inhabitants of the certifying township. In the cases relied upon, the certificate not only named the parents, but the children also. But where children come within the certificate, merely under the description of the family of the person named, Rex v. Darlington, Rex v. Heath, and Rex v. Mortlake, have decided, that they continue under the protection of the certificate so long only as they constitute a part of the family. That is the plain and broad line of distinction. Order of sessions quashed.

Rex v. Leek Wootton, 16 East, 118. Removal of Joseph Bromwich, &c., from Leek Wootton to Milverton, quashed. Case: Some time before and at the time of making the order of removal, Joseph Bromwich and his family resided in Coventry, within which the removing magistrates had no jurisdiction; but he had applied to the overseers of Leek Wootton for relief before the order was made. In April, 1790, Michael, the father of the pauper, went from Leek Wootton, with his family, of which the pauper was one, to reside with his (Michael's) father, Joseph Bromwich at Milverton, who rented a tenement there at a rent of 61. a year; but the same was of the yearly value of 101. He had no lease thereof, but was tenant from year to year. He made a will, and dying in May following, devised his interest in this tenement to his son Michael, and appointed him his executor. Michael continued in possession and remained in this tenement many years, and paid the last rent due from his father as his executor. In 1791, and while he was in possession of the tenement, Michael applied to Leek Wootton for, and the parish officers there granted, a certificate, by which they acknowledged him, his wife, Joseph (the pauper), and several other children by name, to be inhabitants, &c., of Wootton. Joseph was then about twelve years of age, and continued to reside at Milverton with his father on this tenement, five years after the death of Joseph Bromwich the elder, but never gained any settlement in his own right.-Reader and Morice argued, that, as the pauper was expressly named in the certificate, he resided under it suo jure, and not as part of his father's family: and this, they said, distinguished it from Rex v. Hampton, Rex v. Heath, and Rex v. Mortlake, in none of which was the pauper named in the certificate, except under the general description of the father's family.-They relied on Rex v. Testerton and Rex v. Bath Easton. -Park and Reynolds, on the other side, relied upon Rex v. Cold Ashton and Rex v. Deddington.—Lord Ellenborough, C. J. Where there are conflicting decisions upon the construction of a statute, the Court must refer to that which is, and ought to be, the source of all such decisions, that is, the words of the statute itself. Some cases have been cited upon this occasion which are certainly of great weight, but which are in contradiction to the prior cases of Cold Ashton and Deddington; and therefore the Court are obliged to refer to the fountain head of all, the statute, to see which of them most corresponds with the words of it, and upon the best consideration I think that Cold Ashton and Deddington range more strictly within the words of 8 & 9 W. III. c. 30, and 9 & 10 W. III. c. 11. The second of these statutes recites the former, which empowers the granting of such certificates to provide for the person mentioned in the certificate, with his or her family; and the legislature evidently meant, that the certificate should be entire to protect the pater-familias and his family, whether named or not; and the naming of any of the family is mere matter of convenience, in order the more easily to identify them, but is not directed to be done by the legislature, nor are any powers taken away from or given to such children on account of their being named, or not named, in the certificate. The 8 & 9 W. III. says, that when any person coming to inhabit and reside in any parish, shall, at the same time, bring and deliver a certificate to the parish officers, thereby owning the person or persons mentioned in the certificate to

settlement by acknowledg

ment, &c.

9. What indivi

be an inhabitant or inhabitants of the parish certifying; every such certifi- Eleventhly, Of cate shall oblige the parish to provide for the person mentioned in the certificate, together with his or her family, when chargeable. Now the person to be named in the certificate is the pater-familias, with his family, if he happen to have any; and then, and not before, it shall be lawful for any such person and his or her children, &c. to be removed. I am aware duals, &c. that the word such is not in the enacting part of the clause; but I think it must, to complete the sense, be incorporated there, being in the antecedent part of the statute. The scope and object of the act was to protect the residence of a father or mother coming with their family into another parish, without casting a burthen upon it, or enabling them to gain a settlement there except in the two ways mentioned. There is nothing in the act which requires the nomination of the constituent parts of their family, and it is mere artificial reasoning which makes the distinction between such of the children as are, and such as are not, named in the certificate; a distinction which the act itself does not make. Then as the child, though named, was still to be considered only as a constituent part of the family, it brings it to the question, Whether he was ousted of his derivative settlement from the father? Upon that point I think that the language of Lord Mansfield is founded in reason, and not opposed by the act, that the children of all parents must have the settlement of the father until they acquire another for themselves. I think, therefore, that the pauper in this case continuing part of his father's family at the time, derived the settlement from him, and was not repelled from it by the circumstance of being named in the certificate.-Grose, J. agreed.-Le Blanc, J. The sessions have sent this case for the opinion of the Court upon the question, Whether the pauper acquired a derivative settlement from his father? We must, therefore, take it that the son came into the certificated parish as part of his father's family, never having gained a settlement in his own right; though that was not stated in the case. Then coming into the parish as part of his father's family, under the certificate, with only a derivative settlement from his father, the question is, Whether while he continued part of his father's family, a settlement gained by his father there will not also be communicated to the son; whether the settlement of the son will not also shift with that of the father? The cases of Testerton and Bath Easton, have not decided that the son coming into a parish, and continuing as part of his father's family under a certificate, is not capable of having his derivative settlement shift with his father's settlement; they only decided that a child named in the certificate, stood in a different situation from that of a child who was not named; and that the settlement of a son so named, who had ceased to be part of the father's family, should not shift with that of his father. Now, here, the son had gained no settlement of his own at the time, but was living with the father as part of his family; and the cases of Cold Ashton and Deddington, have decided that the settlement of a son so circumstanced, though named in the certificate, shall vary with the subsequent settlement of the father; and that if he comes into the parish as part of the father's family, with a certificate, his being named in it does not prevent the shifting of his settlement with his father's. This case therefore is distinguishable from those of Testerton and Bath Easton. -Bayley, J. The true construction of the certificate act seems to be, that a pauper having an independent settlement of his own, and not merely a derivative settlement from the father, shall not, if named in the certificate, gain a settlement in the certificated parish, except in one or other of the ways permitted to the father himself; but if the child come into the parish under the certificate with his father, having only a derivative settlement from the father, what is there to prevent his settlement shifting with that of his father, as in other cases? The act does not say it shall not; and the cases say, that, though named in the certificate, he shall be treated as part of his father's family, and his settlement shift with his father's. It is said, indeed, that by the words of the act, the settlement of a certificated person can only be acquired in the certificated parish by two modes, and that this is not one of them. But I think the fallacy of the argument is this, that the children do not come into the parish under the certificate suo jure, but only