[Continued.

are going to dispose of the property; we do not care anything about it, and then you can settle it among yourselves afterwards." They might make things very difficult, might they not?-I think the consent of the Minister is an adequate safeguard. They could not do anything without the consent of the central authority. (Sir Frederick Liddell.) You have the power of disposal in Clause 163.

Lord Warrington.

198. The whole of the property is vested in the successors as defined by the Act of 1904 ?-Yes.

199. Then it would be right, would it not, to retain sub-clause (2) which gives the successors, in whom the property is vested, the power of disposing of it?Yes.

200. Because otherwise you may have conflicting claims to dispose of the property?-I do not think you could confer on persons other than the persons in whom the property is vested, the power to dispose of it.

201. That is what I mean?-Hopeless confusion would arise.

Mr. Neville.

202. Then are the original people divested of their property immediately on the appointment of successors?-On the dissolution of the Board the property becomes vested in the successors to the Board. They may or may not be the same persons as the persons on whom the powers are conferred by Section 3 of the Act of 1835.

203. They are functus officio, having nothing further to do. When once dissolution takes place, they have no power at all?-Except to dispose of the property.

204. And if they have that power still they might dispose of the property against the will of their successors?(Mr. Comyns.) The successors are the last acting members of the Board or the survivors of them. That is in the definition. But the Minister can add other people to them. It really means that, without sub-clause (2), you must rely on the power of adjustment under which all the parties can agree as to the disposal of property. That is, I think, the short point.

Lord Warrington.

205. And then only "for the purpose of disposing otherwise than in pursuance of an agreement or award of adjustment"?-Yes.

Chairman.] We had better come to a decision as to whether this clause as we have got it is to stand part of the Bill. We shall have to make a note on that subject, there is no doubt, but I think we might as well pass the clause. (Clause 26 is passed.)

On CLAUSE 27.

Chairman.

66

206. Now we come to Clause 27. There is a note on that? (Sir Frederick Liddell.) The only question here is as to inserting the words, or suffers any diminution of salary or emoluments." It occurs in one of the Acts, and one of the Acts only, which deal with compensation for loss of office, and in that case it is restricted to diminution of salary or emoluments consequential on that Act, which is the Act of 1876. The question is whether the Committee would be justified in generalising it.

SO

210. Then what did the Act of 1876 do which would specially diminish his profits? Was there any special reason for referring to the Act of 1876 particularly?—(Mr. Comyns.) I think the first few sections of the Act of 1876 enabled the Local Government Board, as it was then, to make alterations in divided parishes where detached parts of parishes were concerned. That is not an alteration of importance. There may be small alterations of area, and it was possible that a man would lose £15 or £20

[Continued.

222. Is that quite fair on the man? It seems to raise a rather large question, because supposing a man is unjustly dismissed, it entirely takes away any opportunity of him earning anything afterwards at the only business that he is capable of carrying on?-It only applies where a man is removed by an Order of the Minister of Health. I am not saying that that settles the matter of justice, but the Minister would probably have had a local inquiry and would have come to a conclusion.

Lord Monkswell.] It does not actually say that here, does it?

[Continued.

Lord Warrington.

223. Yes, it says: "The Minister may, by Order, and then, any person so removed or suspended shall not be competent.' That is, removed by Order of the Minister; that is the second subclause. It is only if removed by Order of the Minister, and it is only on certain grounds. (Sir Frederick Liddell.) If he is removed on the ground of incompetence he is incompetent to perform his duties for the Board of Guardians B as well as for the Board of Guardians A.

224. I suppose the power is very seldom used? (Mr. Comyns.) The point comes Once in five up very seldom indeed.

years, perhaps, we give our consent to a man being appointed to another union. I hesitate to say how often we exercise the power of removal, but I should not be surprised if there were four or five cases in each year of complaints.

229. The practice is, but not the law. It seems to me it is a big alteration of the law as regards the individual officer. -(Sir Frederick Liddell.) But is it? The Minister orders an officer to be dismissed on the ground of incompetence. Another Board of Guardians appoints him to be their officer. The Minister can immediately call upon them to dismiss him, because ex hypothesi the Minister can say he is incompetent.

230. He may be only incompetent for some reason peculiar to a particular Board of Guardians? If so, the Minister could allow him to be appointed.

Colonel Windsor-Clive.] If it had been the intention of this that it should only apply to that particular parish or union would not the wording have been " connected with the relief of the poor in that parish or union "?

Lord Warrington.] Or “in such parish or union." The words any such " may mean in any parish or union like that. Mr. Neville.] I suppose every other union resembles in some respect the union in which the man is dismissed.

Lord Warrington.] Yes, and logically if the man is dismissed for wilfully refusing to do his duty he ought not only to be disqualified in the locality where he has been serving but generally, unless the Minister consents to him being employed.

Chairman.] Does anyone move the insertion of the word "such" after the word any" in sub-clause 2? There must be a note about this.

(Clause 31 is passed.)

ON CLAUSES 32 AND 33. Chairman. There is nothing on Clause 32 or on Clause 33.

(Clauses 32 and 33 are passed.)
(Part I, as amended, is passed.)

Chairman.

231. We begin with Part II, I think?—

On Clause 9.

(Sir Frederick Liddell.) May I go back to the proposal to leave out Clause 12 about elections?

Chairman.

232. Did we discuss it the other day?— Yes. The Home Office wanted to leave it out and the Committee decided to keep it in. The next day I received a letter from the Home Office urging again that it should be left out. I have seen them since and they do not wish to press the point. They are perfectly content to abide by the decision of the Committee, but they would like one alteration in Clause 9, an alteration which is consequential on the Representation of the People Act, 1918. It runs as follows: "The electors of the Guardians of parish shall be persons registered as local government electors." They want to make it run persons registered and entitled to vote."

Lord Warrington.

a

233. There may be some personal objection attaching to it?—Yes.

Chairman.

234. Are the words in the old Act?No, this is the result of the Representation of the People Act, 1918. It is really

subsection (2) of Section 8 of the Representation of the People Act, which says: "A person registered as a local government elector for any local government electoral area shall while so registered (and in the case of a woman notwithstanding sex or marriage) be entitled to vote at a local government election for that area; but where, for the purposes of election, any such area is divided into more than one ward or electoral division, by whatever name called, a person shall not be entitled to vote for more than one such ward or electoral division." A person may be registered in two wards but he is only entitled to vote in one.

Lord Warrington.

235. Is not that provided for by the latter part of subclause (1): "The

electors of the Guardians for each ward shall be such of those persons as are registered in respect of qualifications arising within the ward."-He has qualifications in two wards.

236. Yes, I see. He is not entitled to vote in more than one ward.

Lord Monkswell.

237. Is the law carried out that a man may vote for one ward only even if he contrives to be registered in two?Certainly. At a bye-election in a ward you can vote in that ward whether you have a qualification for another ward or

not.

[Continued.

238. If you happen to be down for two wards you can have a vote for both of them so long as the election does not take place at the same time?—Yes. At a General Election, the annual election, there are elections for all the wards. 239. It requires a change of the law then ?-If a man has qualifications in two wards he has to elect which ward he will record his vote in. He cannot vote in two wards.

240. That involves a change of the law, does it not?-No, my Lord. This is a provision of the Act of 1918 to which we are giving effect.

249. If he wants no qualifications except registration, then he comes within the clause?—Yes.

Lord Warrington.] You must put in the same words in line 39, must you not?

Mr. Hudson.

250. On the day of the election I understand I am entitled to vote in either of two wards, but as soon as I have voted in one I am disentitled to vote in the other?--Yes.

Lord Warrington.

251. And then you would not be entitled to vote in the other. It comes to this: Supposing a man has qualifications in two wards, if he has voted in one then he would be entitled to vote in that, as he would be registered and entitled to vote, but having voted in one, though he is registered in the other, he would not be entitled to vote in the other?-That is

So.

252. In parliamentary Elections?-This does not affect them.

253. You may be qualified in one ward and vote in another for preference. You can if you want to, and, if the Returning Officer allows you, you may elect to vote in one ward though you are living in another ward?—It is only in different constituencies so far as Parliamentary Elections are concerned.

Mr. Neville.

254. Does not the Registrar ask whether you have already voted ?—Yes.

Mr. Hudson.

255. Say you live in one village which is a polling district, and you are entitled, if you can make out a case, to vote in another village, which is a different polling district, though you may have no qualification in the first polling district at all, if you have a notice made to that effect in the register you may vote in the first one in which you reside. Does that equally apply in the case of local government elections ?-I think not.

256. Supposing you had a vote in village B, though you lived in village A, and they are not in the same ward, can you, in the case of a by-election or local