Likewise in St. Giles's v. St. Margaret's, Mic. 3 Geo. 2.--A woman and her daughter, aged 5 years, were removed to the place of her last legal settlement, before her marriage with an Irishman who had no settlement; and the order was confirmed. Foley, 287.

And the mother's settlement shall not only be the settlement of her own children, but of her grandchildren also, if their re. spective fathers have no settlement-This was determined in the K. v. St. Mathew's, Bethnal Green, Mic. 33 Geo. 2. A woman settled in the precinct of St. Katharine's, married a man whose settlement was unknown, and who died many years ago; she afterwards married a Frenchman, who never gained a settlement; by whom she had a son, born in Bethnal Green, which son afterwards married a woman settled in the parish of St. Leonard, Shoreditch, and had several children by her. It was contended, that an acquired settlement is to be preferred to a derivative one, and that therefore these children ought to follow the acquired settlement of their mother; and not their father's, which was only a derivative one from their grandmother. But the distinction was not allowed, for the court said, there is no difference between an acquired and derivative settlement. And the rule laid down was this, that the child's settlement follows that of its father, if the father's can be found; and that no recourse shall be had to the mother's settlement till that of the father can be traced no farther; and these children were adjudged to be settled at St. Katharine's. Burrow's Set. Cas. 482.

Also if the mother after her husband's death acquire a new settlement in her own right; such new settlement is communicated to such of her children as have not before gained a settlement for themselves: this was settled in the case of St. George's v. Katharine's, Ea. 1 Geo. 1. John Cloyd left a widow and six children (four of which were more than seven years of age); he was legally settled at St. Katharine's at the time of his death; shortly after which his widow and six chil dren went to dwell in the parish of St. George's, Southwark; none of the children had then gained a settlement distinct from the settlement of their father; the widow took a house in St. George's of the rent of twelve pounds a year, lived in it four months with her children; the question was, Whether the children should be settled where their father was last settled, or have a settlement with the mother in St. George's? -By THE COURT. There is no distinction between the settlement of children with the father or mother, for they are as much ber's as the father's, and nature obliges her as much as the father to provide for them; so does the law; and every argument that holds from their settlement with the father, holds as to their settlement with the mother. The reason why children shall not gain a settlement where the wife gains a settlement only by intermarriage is, because it is not her family, but her husband's, and she cannot give the chil. dren any sustenance without the husband's leave. She is

equally punishable with her husband for deserting her children, and therefore could not leave them behind her; these children certainly gained a settlement with their mother. 2 Ld. Raym 1474.

So in the K. v. Wooden, Hil. 13 Geo. 1.-A man was set tled at Wooden, and died; his widow then removed with he only child (the pauper), fourteen years of age, to Paul pury, on an estate which was her own for life. The paupe lived with her mother there two years. It was contended that the widow having gained a new settlement after her hus • band's death, their daughter gained a settlement also a 'part of her family.' And it was insisted, that there is no differ ence between the effect of a settlement gained by the fathe or the mother in such a case as this; the mother being oblige to provide for the children in the same manner as the fath was when living. That she could not leave her daughter, no could her daughter be removed from her: and to this purpo the last mentioned case of St. George's v. St. Katharine's w cited. The court therefore determined the daughter to be se tled at Paulpury. 2 Ld. Raym. 1473.

Mother Laving

e settlement

S also in the case of the K. v. Barton Turfe, Tr. 8 & Geo. 2. A man hired a farm of the yearly value of an hu dred pounds in Barton Turfe, where, after serving the office overseer, he died. After his death, his widow removed fro thence to Happisburgh, and dwelt there in a house and p mises given to her by the will of her father: and Deborah daughter, being then of the age of thirteen years, went 2 lived there with her mother as part of her family, for about year and a half. The Court determined that the daug ter gained a new [settlement in liappisburgh by living w her mother there, as part of her family, upon the r ther's own estate; for per Page J. Where then other goe an estate of her own, from which she is irremovable, a ch may, after the father's death, gain a settlement under THE THER as well as it could under THE FATHER. Burr Sett. Cas. 49.

So also in the K. v. Oulton, Mic, 9 Geo. 2. It appe that the father was settled at Oulton, and that the mother a his death had removed with her children to another place, continued there for three months and upwards, on ao tate of her own. The court said it had been often he that a child after the death of the father, may gain a settler under the mother, as well as it might before under the fa Burrow's Sett. Cas. 64.

But a mother, during the life of her husband, cannot municate a settlement to her children, different from that v during the life they derive from their father by parentage; for in Berk of the husband, steud v. St. Mary North Church, La. 8 Geo. 2. the fathe

away, and the mother resided on an estate devised to her. justices made an order to remove the children to the f settlement; and the question was, Whether as this

cas

eircumstanced, the children were not settled with the mother? -By Hardwick, Ch. J. As this case is stated, the mother cannot gain a settlement for her children; the father whilst alive, is the head of the family; and the children must derive their settlements through him. As to the case of foreigners or Scotchmen who have no settlement, they are singular cases; and the wife gains a settlement through necessity: but there never was an instance where the wife was held to acquire one during the life of her husband. The husband, in right of his wife, has a title to live on his wife's estate, but he can gain no settlement there without a residence for forty days. There must be, in all cases, an inhabitancy: the wife's inhabitancy with her children is not the inhabitancy of her husband. A feme covert cannot by residence gain a settlement for her husband.-Page, Probyn, and Lee, Justices, agreed; but the matter was afterwards referred to the judges of assize. 2 Bott, Const's ed. 36. 2 Seis, Cus. 182.

It is agreed, that children shall continue with their parents At what age as nurse children and part of their family, until seven years of children may age, and that during that time, they of necessity must follow become eman the settlement of the parent, and cannot gain a settlement their parents, cipated from in their own right; bat after they have attained to seven years and gain settles of age they may gain a settlement by their own act*; aud ments for therefore when children are removed in consequence of their themselves. father's settlement, either the ages of the children must be set out to shew they are of such tender years as not to have gained a settlement for themselves, or there must be an express adjudication of their having gained no other settlement. 2 Salkeld, 470. Cas. Sett. & Rem. 17. 2 Bott, Const's ed. 25, pl. 50.

A child who on the removal of his father into another parish What shall be is left behind, and continues to work for himself, is divided deemed an from his father's family, and cannot derive a new settlement emancipation from any that his father may subsequently acquire. Eastwoodhey v. Westwoodhey, Tr. 7 Geo.1. upon appeal from an order of two justices for the removal of a man and his wife, and their son under seven years, from the parish of Westwoodhey to the parish of Eastwoodhey, the sessions state the facts specially for the opinion of the court:-That,forty years since, the father of this man was settled at Hampstead Marshal, where he had a son, the present pauper, then eight years old: thaths then removed with all his family to Checely,and afterwards, having purchased a copyhold estate of 111. per ann. infl'estwoodhey, he removed thither with his son, and servants, and served churchwarden and other parish-offices, and paid taxes, till he purchased a cottage of 17. 12s. 6d. per ann. in Eastwoodhey, when he went and lived upon it till his death; but they state it specially, that the sou, the present 'pauper, staid behind in Westwoodhey, where he married a

As by being bound out an apprentice, and residing and lodging in a parish for forty days, under the indenture; or by any other means by which an independent settlement may be acquired.

wife and has worked ever since on his own account, and that he is thirty years old.' Upon the whole, the sessions con. firmed the order of the two justices for his settlement at Eastwoodhey.It was moved to quash the order of sessions, for that the settlement of the son is either at Hampstead Marshal, where he was born, and where he lived till eight years old; or if it should be carried so far as that he gained a new settlement with the father, by removing with him as part of his family, yet that can carry him no farther than Westwoodhey, which is the last place to which he accompanied his father; but let the settlement be in either, it is not material now, the only question being, Whether here is any settlement in Eastwoodhey? for which there is no colour.--On the other side it was insisted, that, let the son be of what age he will, he shall follow the settlement of the father, till he gains one by his own acquisition : and it appearing he had never done any thing to gain a settlement by any act of his own, either in Hampstead Marshal, Chevely, or Westwoodhey, then he must follow the settlement of the father as well in Eastwoodhey, as in any of the rest. Pratt, Ch. J. The question is not where this man and his father are settled, but whether there appears a settlement of him in Eastwoodhey. If he had gone thither with his father as part of the family, possibly it might have been a settlement of him there; but by staying behind he was divided from his father, andtherefore there is no colour to make it a settlement in Eastwoodhey. I think his settlement is in Westwoodhey, which was the last place where he lived as part of the father's family. The other judges agreed, and the order was quashed. 1 Strange, 438.

So a son, who, when 19 years of age, leaves his father's fa mily and goes into another parish, where he marries and ha children, is emancipated, and cannot derive a new settlemen from any that may be subsequently acquired by his parent.-S Michael in Norwich v. St. Matthew, Ipswich, Ea. 2 Geo. 2, tw justices made an order to remove a man with his wife and thre children,from St. Michael in Norwich to St. Matthew in Ipswich and upon appeal, the sessions stated the following case: TH father of the present pauper, the father of the said children, wa settled at Shepton Mallet, and on his removing from thence Bruton had a writing given him from Shepton Mallet, acknov ledging that he was legally settled there. He continued und this certificate for more than twenty years in Bruton, where t present pauper, the father of these children, was born, and co tinued to live with, and as part of his father's family, followi his father's business of a wool-comber, until he was ninete years of age; at which period he left his father's house, a went to reside in the city of Norwich, where he successive married two wives, and had the children now removed. Sub quent to the birth of these children, the grandfather gained a n settlement in St. Matthew, Ipswich: but the pauper his so the father of these children, hath never lived with him at 1

wich, or any where else, since he lived with him at Bruton.' The sessions adjudged, that the person removed had not gained a settlement in St. Matthew, Ipswich, and therefore discharged the order of the two justices. These orders being removed into the court of King's Bench by certiorari, it was moved to quash the order of sessions, and the question was, Whether the father with his wife and three children, should follow the settlement of the grandfather at Ipswich, or, Whether they should be considered as emancipated from the grandfather's family? By Reynolds J. The question now is, Whether a man who has ceased to be part of his father's family can gain a settlement by the subsequent settlement of the father? and I do not see how it is possible for a father to gain a settlement for a son nineteen years after the son has left him.-Raymond, Ch. J. I think it odd, that an old man of sixty years of age, who has left his father for forty years, shall follow the settlement of the father as often as he removes. In the case of young children, you cannot sever them from their parents, because of nurture; but after they have attained to seven years of age, they may gain a settlement by their own act. It is almost a contradiction in terms to say, that a man who has left his father forty years shall follow the settlement of the father. 2 Bott, Const's ed. 41. 2 Sess. Cas. 129. 2 Strange, 831.

So if a son after he is one and twenty years of age, marry and live separate with his wife and family from his father, though in the same parish, yet he is so far emancipated, that the father cannot communicate to him any new settlement that he may subsequently acquire.—Bugden v. Ampthill, Hil. 21 Geo. 2.-Two justices made an order for the removal of a man, his wife, and five children, from Ampthill to Bugden; and upon appeal the sessions confirm the order, and state the following case:-The father of the pauper came by CERTIFICATE from Royston to Ampthill. They remained at Ampthill till the pauper came of age; and then the pauper, who till that time had continued with his father, married in 'Ampthill, left his father's house, and lived there with his wife ⚫ and children distinct from his father.' Three years after such marriage, the father removed from Ampthill to Bugden, and there gained a settlement; but neither the pauper, nor his wife, nor any of his children ever lived there;' nor had he from his birth gained any settlement in his own right.-Lee Ch. J. When a son marries and leaves his father's family and lives by himself, and after this the father gains a new settlement in a third parish, the son shall not follow the father in this new settlement.-Wright J. The son by virtue of his marriage becomes the head of his own family, which is an independent family; and it is a constant rule to set forth the ages of children, to shew whether they are capable of gaining a settlement independent of their father.-Dennison J. "This subsequent settlement gained by the father cannot be ⚫ communicated to the son, who never resided in Bugden with