The Sun.
London, England, 1840-12-23 00:00:00

.4Q:;.Y.. 2
THE STATE CF THE LAW 'WITH REt ::
MOVAL OF ILLEGITIMATE CHILDA
FISHES IN WHICH THEY HAVE BE_
The following correspondence, upon 7.r a,'
has given rise to great difference of opinion amongst
lawyers and parish officers, took place recently between
the Poor-law Commissicners and Mr. Jopp, the relieving
officer of the City of London Union :
City of London Union, Noe, 28, 1840.
Sir,—Permit me "to address you upon a subject in
my opinion most important, as regarding the se;tlenaent
and removal of illegitimate children born since the :oast-
ieg of the New Poor-law Act, of Irish and Scotch
parents not having gained any legal settlement in Eng-
land and Wales. Prior to the passing of the above-
named Act, the legitimate, but not the illigi-
timate children were removable, with their parente, to
Ireland and Scotland (vide Rex v. Benet and Broulzh-
ton), but, since the passing of the Act, orders of Jose
tires are applied for, and invariably obtained by Vestry-
clerks at the Mansile-house fur the removal of iilegiti•
mate children with their parents, grounding theirlrac-
tice, I suppose, upon the enactment contained in the
7 lit clause of the said New Poor-law Act, "That every
chill e hich shall be born a bastard after the passing of
the Act, shall have and follow the settlement of the
the tnJther of such child." Allow me, Sir, in my elm•
city of Relieving-officer of the City of -.Lyndon Union,
but no lawyer, to say that my opinion of the legality of
such removal of illegitimate children is at variance with
the common and adopted practice of parish officers.
I think that the 71st clause clearly luis relation
only to the bastard children of women who have gained
settlements in England and Wales, and not to bastards
of Scotch and Irish women without a settlement,
the new Poor-law Amendment Act,according to Mr. Ju-
stice Patteson, being " partly and exclusively English."
My object, Sir, in writing is 'to request inforraa4n
how to proceed in the following- case,--which, altitoetih
a common case, I consider to be of importance, and
which bears upon the preceding part of my letter.
I am about to apply on Monday next at the Man-
sion-House, for an order of Justices to remove a bas-
tard child out of oat of the City parishes to a parish in
the country, it being born there, and its mother being
a Scoteliwoman, not having gained any settlement in
England or \Vales. The mother is unwilling to be
passed to Scotland with her child, but wishes the child
to be removed to its birth-place.
Now, Sir, as I stated before, the ge,ncral practice
here has been to remove such child with its parent di
Scotland or Ireland, but of the legality of such pro-
ceedings I hive my doubts ; and I intend, consequently,
to apply for an order to remove it to its place of birth,,
i:s settlement. But, before taking such a step, I have
presumed to ask your opinion upon the subject, corisi-
derieg it to be a matter of great importance ; and should
1 prove right in my opinion, so directly opposite to the
prevailing practice and opinion of most of the parish
officers, I flatter myself that such a general violation of
the law of removal in such cases deserves publicity, in,
order to ,ffect a more just admhistration of the law,
and a better understanding of the same.
I am, Sir, your respectful, obedient servant,
J. J 1) P, It. 0.
Ta Edwin Chadwick, Esq., Somerset-House.

REMOVAL OF BASTARD CHILDREN BORN OF SCOTCH OR

IRISH PARENTS.
Poor-law Commissioners' Office,
Somerset-Huuse.

Sir.—The Poor-law Commissioners acknoWledgp the
receipt of your letter of the 28th Navember, and have
had under their consideration your inquiry upon the
subject of the settlement and removal of illegitimate
children born since the passing of the Poor Law Amend-
ment Act of Irish or Scotch parents not having gained
any legal settlement in England or Wales,
Before the passing of the Poor-law Amendment Aet,
it was decided whe❑ Scotch and Irish women had gained
no settlement, their bastards born in England acquired
a settlement by birth where born', and were therefore
not removeab:e with their mothers to Ireland or Scot-

Lind.—(See It. v. Bennett and Broughton, cited by. Mr,
Justice Pattcso❑ in It. v. Mile End Old Town,

This still remains the law, unless the law be altered
by the 71st section of the Poor-law Amendment Act
(4th and 5:11 William 1 V., cap. 76), which enacts,
" That every child which shall be born a bastard after
the passing of the Act shall have end follow the settle•
inent.of the mother."

Where the mother has a settlement, or acquires one,
this settlement supersedes the settlement of bastards by
birth in a parish. But there is no repeal of the settle-
ment by birth in the class of eases in which the mother
has not, and does not acquire a settlement.
It appears to the Commissioners to be 'quite evident
that this settlement has effect only in cases where the
mother has, or acquires, a settlement, which the child
can ha% eor follow. \\There the mother has no settle-
ment, there is no settlement for the child to have or
follow under the provision.

The Commissioners arc of opinion that in the CaSII4
of unsettled Irish or Scotch mothers of bastard children,
the 71st section•of the Poor-law Amendment Act, hail
no operation ; and they ara further of opinion that sea
children are settled where born, os before the Poor-law
Amendment Act, and therefore are not remoreahle to
Ireland or Scotland with their mothers.
Signed, by order of the Hoard,
E. CHADWICK, Secretary,
Mr. Jams Jepp, Relieving Officer of the City
of London Union, 3,5, Cannon-street.