[Continued.

any other Act. Yes, that looks as if it would supersede the Act of 1842. Sir Henry Slesser.] If you say so, I

am content.

Lord Warrington.

136. The clause has been drawn on that footing, has it not, Sir Frederick?—Yes, the clause has been drawn on that footing.

137. The rule, of course, is not embodied in this?-No. I will hand the rule to the Committee; I have marked the passage.

(The Rule is handed in to the Committee.) 138. What happens if a retiring guardian refuses to act? (Mr. Comyns.) I think he has power to decline to accept office. (Sir Frederick Liddell.) This is only may continue."

local Act does make provision for the appointment of a chairman, that that provision shall have effect and not this provision. The local Act is to prevail if there are special provisions in the local Act.

144. On what clause do you say that? -It is Clause 238, I think, right at the end.

(Clause 16 is passed.)

ON CLAUSE 17.

Chairman.

145. There is no note on Clause 17?No.

(Clause 17 is passed.)

ON CLAUSE 18. Chairman.

146. There is a note on Clause 18. What is the point of your note?-Only that we have not reproduced Section 12 of the Act of 1842; it is really covered by the provisions which are reproduced in the Schedule. They depend on a later Act.

(Clause 18 is passed.)

Mr. Hudson.

147. Reverting to Clause 18, you have not put in the Schedule "not being less than three," have you?-No, because the quorum is one-third.

148. Of the full number, meaning the number actually elected regularly, or the number that should have been elected ?-The number that should have been elected. It is one-third of the full number of the members.

149. That means, that should have been elected? Yes.

Chairman.] Do you want to raise a point on Clause 18, Mr. Hudson?

Mr. Hudson.] Sir Frederick has ex plained the point now.

Chairman.] Because we had already passed Clause 18.

[Continued.

[Continued.

165. I did not mention it from that point of view at all. I simply meant that here was an Act dealing with this matter which was not in the codification. That is all. It ought to be in, only I was frightened of jeopardising the chance of this Bill getting through on the ground that it did contain this contentious legislation. It is perfectly easy to put it in.

Mr. Neville.

166. That case is an exception, and this is the general rule?—It is part of the permanent law.

Sir Henry Slesser.] That is the point -that it is part of the permanent law. I do not know how far it goes, my Lord, when you certify that the codification contains nothing but the existing law. That is not necessarily to say that there is not some existing law which is not codified. It will not be complete. If it comes in here it would come in Section 22 or thereabouts. This is power to dissolve unions. The new Act gives power to place guardians in substitution for the existing elected guardians. I was only drawing attention to the fact that, whether it be expedient or not, that Act is not codified at all in this legislation.

Mr. Hudson.] Would it not be better to call attention to the fact?

Chairman.] I think that would be the best way-not to put it in but that we should in our note say that it is not in.

Mr. Hudson.] The effect of that will be equally to jeopardise the passing of the Bill because those who are in favour of that Act will say, Why should it not have been included?

Chairman.] I do not wish to give a very bad reason, but the fact is that I do not think our report is very much read.

Lord Warrington.

167. Could we not make a note that the provisions of the Act of 1834 have been practically obsolete for a considerable time and are never acted upon because that is what I understand is the fact that since the Act of 1876 that Act has always been acted upon?-This is dissolution; the Act of 1926 is not dissolution but would leave the union existing. The Minister of Health puts people in to act instead of the guardians.

168. I was not thinking of that at all; I was only thinking of the question whether we should keep in in this Bill, contrary to what you have done in the draft, the provisions of the Act of 1834; that is all I was thinking of. I was suggesting it would be enough if we make a note that those provisions have been omitted, they having become practically obsolete for many years, ever since the Act of 1876?—Yes.

Chairman.] That may be a very proper subject for a note, but we were discussing the question about the West Ham Actwas it West Ham?

Sir Henry Slesser.] West Ham was one of the occasions. I rather felt that as it is part of the permanent law and not a temporary Act some notice, either by way of note or by way of draft, ought to appear, and that one should not merely give it the go-by.

Chairman.] I quite agree. I thought Mr. Hudson recommended that we should put a note but that we should not put it into the Bill.

Mr. Hudson.

169. I personally should prefer to see it put in the Bill, but if it is going to jeopardise the passage of the Bill, to meet Sir Frederick's objection I suggest you might get over it by calling attention to it. I think we may take our courage in both hands and put it in?--It would be very difficult to put a note in your report to justify that.

Mr. Neville.] Does it stultify the whole of our work if we omit it? That is the point.

Sir Henry Slesser.] It would be incomplete; that is all.

Mr. Hudson.] We might as well leave out any other Act.

Sir Henry Slesser.

170. Personally I think it ought to be in. I do not see what our feelings, as to whether the Act is wise or unwise, have to do with the question of codification ?— I did not suggest that; but the mere fact that this, what is regarded as an obnoxious Act by a great number of people, being in this Bill would cause them to put obstruction in the way of this Bill passing because it contained this obnoxious Act.

[Continued.

Mr. Hudson.

171. But this is going to be a Government Bill and the Government have to find time for it?-They will not.

Mr. Hudson.] The Minister of Health will if he wants to get it through. It seems to me an unsound objection.

Lord Gorell.] I should have thought there was a good deal of obnoxious matter existing in the law, but we are not concerned with that, but only what is the law now.

Mr. Neville.

172. You mean that they would simply block it at 11 o'clock every night?-Because it contained what is to many an obnoxious provision.

Colonel Windsor-Clive.] Surely we are hardly doing our work if we leave it out, and if it is part of the general law of the land dealing with this subject it ought to be included.

Lord Gorell.

173. It is not our function to decide what is obnoxious and what is not, but only what is the law as it at present stands? I could bring up a clause at the next meeting and you could consider the question then.

Mr. Hudson.

174. Leave Clause 22 in suspense?No; Clause 22 is not affected by it. It is not a question of dissolution. It confers powers to put in managers.

Chairman.] Shall we pass this clause and ask Sir Frederick at our next meeting to bring up a clause for reconsideration ?

(Clause 22 is passed.)

On CLAUSES 23 and 24.

Chairman.] I think nothing arises on Clauses 23 and 24.

(Clauses 23 and 24 are passed.)

On CLAUSE 25. Chairman.

175. There is a note on Clause 25?-1 do not think anything arises on Clause 25.

176. You have a note there?—Yes, it is just explaining that the Act of 1903 has superseded these old Acts.

177. The clause is right with the Schedule ?-Yes.

(Clause 25 is passed.)

On CLAUSE 26.

Chairman.

178. You have a note on Clause 26?— Really the only question which arises on Clause 26 is whether the powers of disposing of property which were conferred by the Act of 1835 on the persons who were the guardians or trustees of a dissolved union at the time of its dissolution, are now exercisable by what are called the successors of the Board, in whom the property of a dissolved union is, by the Act of 1904, vested. If you look at subclause (4) of Clause 26, successors of the Board consist of the persons, or the survivors of the persons, acting as members of the Board at the time of the dissolution, and any persons who may be added to or substituted for those persons by an Order of the Minister. They are not quite the same persons as the persons on whom the powers were conferred by the Act of 1835, and in a recent case the Mile End Guardians were advised that they could not exercise the powers under the Act of 1835. It is really a question whether subclause (2) ought to stand or not.

179. It is certainly rather difficult to see? It is a convenient power for them to have and it would be rather strong not to reproduce section 3 of the Act of 1835 in any form; there it is on the Statute Book.

180. Can you get an amendment put in an amending Bill?-If there is an amending Bill, it will be immaterial, there will be no dissolutions of unions at all, it will be the County Councils.

181. Then that comes back to the same thing? Yes.

Chairman.] Have you about this, Mr. Neville?

Mr. Neville.

any opinion

182. Is this operative under the West Ham Act? There is no question of West Ham at all.

183. But the West Ham people could use this if they want to. Does it apply to the successors who were appointed for

[Continued.

instance to the guardians of West Ham? -No; that Union has not been dissolved and the present point is entirely distinct from that; there is no question of its dissolution.

Mr. Hudson.

184. But this will be used as a precedent, I take it, by those who are concerned in bringing in an amending clause, because all the Unions will be dissolved and the County Council will take over their powers?-They will take over their property.

185. But Section 2 will still be required, will it not? - The new Bill will provide for taking over the existing property.

186. I take it that that follows?-The Act of 1888, Section 62, will apply. It is the same law; there is a very little overlapping between Union boundaries and the County boundaries, they are nearly all self-contained.

Mr. Neville.

187. The point then is to give the successors the powers they had under the 1835 Act?-Yes.

188. I suppose they ought to have them, ought they not?-The question is whether they do have them. By the Act of 1904 the whole of the property of the dissolved Union is vested in a somewhat different body; it is a question whether that different body has the powers declared by Section 3 of the Act of 1835.

189. Nobody can say, can they? It is rather doubtful?-It is rather doubtful. 190. If it is doubtful, we cannot make the law now, can we ?-No; but if you leave it out, you make the law the other

193. That is taken from the Act of 1904? The definition of successors, yes.

194. That is right, is it not?-Yes, that is right. The only question is whether the powers proposed to be conferred by sub-clause 2 are exerciseable by the successors of the Board as defined in the Act of 1904, they having been originally conferred merely on the surviving guardians.

Mr. Hudson.

195. I think we have done our duty if we incorporate in this what we think is right law and call attention to it in a note, and leave our respective Houses to consider whether or not they wish to override our considered opinion on the best advice we can get ?-(Mr. Comyns.) May I say just a few words on the practical aspect of it? These adjustments of property often take a year or two to effect; they are difficult and the parties all have to agree to them, and when two boards are dissolved, while still waiting for the adjustment to be made, some rather urgent question may come up. In the Mile End case, to which Sir Frederick referred, there was a question of disposing of a plot of land for housing, and it would have been very convenient if the Mile End Guardians could have conveyed that land to the Borough Council in consideration of a price agreed upon, but the Mile End Guardians were advised that they could not do so and that the transfer must be made by the adjustment, that is to say, all the dissolved Boards of Guardians must be parties to the instrument and must concur; and the matter was held up because of that and has only just recently been disposed of. It is obviously rather convenient that where the Board is dissolved they should be allowed, in the interval between the dissolution and the adjustment, to dispose of property. Of course they receive the price, and then the consideration is brought into the adjustment as cash instead of land.

Mr. Neville.

196. It does not give them a power of wrongly disposing of the property?—No. I should mention that this power of disposal is subject to the approval of the Minister, so there is a safeguard there.

197. On the other hand, they might make themselves very unpleasant if they were recalcitrant and simply said: "W.