[Continued.

government election, reverse your decision and go back and vote in village A?

Mr. Neville.

257. If you are registered in both, you can?--Yes.

Mr. Hudson.

258. But you cannot at a general election?-No.

Mr. Neville.] You have a place near a station were they put the voters down so that the people can come from far

On CLAUSE 34. Chairman.

distances and vote and be off-I am not talking of Parliamentary elections. Chairman.] Would you like to have it reconsidered?

Mr. Hudson.] If Sir Frederick will look at the point.

Chairman.] We will put in the words at present. I do not think they can possibly do any harm.

Question put: That the words "and entitled to vote" be inserted after the word "registered " in lines 34 and 39. The Ayes have it.

Clause 9 is passed, as amended. Chairman.] We adhere to our decision on Clause 12.

259. We now go to Clause 34.-I do not think there is anything to be said about Clause 34. We have kept the sanctified language of the Act of 1601. 260. It is in the same words?-Practically the same words.

261. I have looked up the old Act. Are the words in sub-clause (2) in the old Act? They are not in the Act of 1601; they come from the Act of 1834. Clause 34 is passed.

On CLAUSE 35.

Chairman.] I think, Lord Gorell, you told me you had a point on this clause?

Lord Gorell.] I was discussing it with Sir Frederick Liddell before we began our business. I understand that the proviso at the top of page 19 is really what has been the law for 80 years, and I suggest that, if that is so, we adopt in place of sub-clause (1) the wording of the General Consolidated Order of 1847, which, instead of saying, "in cases of sudden and urgent necessity shall give such temporary relief as each case may require in articles of absolute necessity," simply says, "in every case of sudden or urgent necessity to afford such relief to the destitute person as may be requisite." One point is that I suggest the words "sudden and" should "sudden or," and the second point is that, under the clause as at present worded, it is limited to cases of absolute necessity.-The language of the

Order is," in every case of sudden or urgent necessity to afford such relief to the destitute person as may be requisite either by giving such person an order for admission into the workhouse and conveying him thereto if necessary or by affording him relief out of the workhouse provided that the same be not given in money whether such destitute person be settled in any parish comprised in the union or not."

262. The present sub-clause (1) is very much more limited ?—Yes, but that reproduces the Act, not the Order, but the clause expressly preserves the power of making an Order. It says: "but save as provided by this section or by any rules orders or regulations made by the Minister under this Act it shall not be lawful," and SO on. Therefore, the clause preserves the power to the Minister to confer powers on the relieving officer.

Lord Gorell.] But if, in fact, the Order has been in existence for 80 years, it would seem that that is almost better than leaving it vague again.

Lord Warrington.

8° Decembris, 1926.]

[Continued.

would be repeated. The relief may consist of admission to a workhouse. Would not it be correct to give such temporary relief as the case might require, not in money, leaving out the words" in articles of absolute necessity,' because his power does go beyond articles of absolute necessity? The clause follows exactly the language of the Statute, and, of course, the Statute applied to overseers, not to the relieving officer at all. On the abolition of overseers from the 1st April next-there is an Order before the House now proposing to transfer the powers of the overseers in this respect to the relieving officer-the two powers will be amalgamated in one officer.

264. This contemplates that the relieving officer will be substituted for the overseer?-Yes.

265. But still is not the point a good one, that the words "in articles of absolute necessity" should be struck out because of the rules and regulations which would authorise the relieving officer to act and go beyond articles of absolute necessity? It would include admission to a workhouse?" Sudden and urgent necessity"; if you have one you must have the other.

266. Must you, because sudden and urgent necessity provides the condition in which alone the relieving officer can exercise any powers at all?-You will see what it says under the Order: I will bring up an amendment assimilating the language of Clause 35 to the language of the Order.

Chairman.] Very well.

Sir Malcolm Macnaghten.] Is that in our competence, to alter the law?

Chairman.

267. Where there is a long established practice in a Government office we have gone so far as to make that statutory ?You are not altering the law; you are making law which is at present alterable, unalterable.

Lord Warrington.

268. Putting in the Statute what by the joint operation of a preceding Statute and the Order is the law?-Yes. The Order is alterable, and if you put it in here it will not be alterable.

Is

273. There is one other point I want to call attention to arising out of the Notes with reference to London. London excluded by the Bill?-No. 274. Then ought not we to repeat in the Bill the special provisions relating to London?-The whole Bill applies to London, except so far as it is specially modified by Part VI. If you alter it as proposed then you will be reproducing the law as in London, because the Consolidated Order applies to London as well as the rest of the country.

275. Under the London Government Act of 1889 Borough Councils are made overseers?—Yes.

276. Will the Borough Councils become relieving officers ?-No, they will not become relieving officers. The duties of the Borough Council qua overseer would be exercised by such officers as they appoint for the purpose.

[Continued.

277. Would that officer be the relieving officer within the early part of Clause 35 ?-No.

278. Then who could exercise the urgent necessity powers?-In London they are always exercised by the relieving officer under the Consolidated Poor Law Order and not under the Act at all. The Borough Council does not exercise any of the Poor Law powers of the

overseers.

279. The relieving officer in Clause 35 is the person who will take the place, under the new legislation, of the overseer? Yes.

280. In London will the overseers be abolished too?-At present in the country there is a duty of overseers in cases of sudden and urgent necessity to give such temporary relief as the case may require in articles of absolute necessity. There is also, under the Consolidated Poor Law Order, an obligation on the relieving officer, not the overseers but the relieving officer, in cases of sudden or urgent necessity, to afford such relief to destitute persons as may be requisite. You have a double duty, and when the two offices coalesce, those of the overseer and the relieving officer, the statutory powers will be absorbed in the powers under the Order.

Lord Gorell.

281. That is a still stronger argument for amendment?-Yes. In London the powers under the Order are still exercisable by the relieving officer, and the powers of the overseers are really gone.

Lord Warrington.

282. There are relieving officers in London? Yes.

Lord Warrington.] Would you mind considering that when framing the new clause? I was a little puzzled about the paragraph of the Notes on page 22.

Chairman.

283. Yes. "It is believed that in London no occasion ever arises for an exercise of the powers of the Council."— Because the relieving officer does it all.

Lord Warrington.

284. That is what you meant, that the relieving officer does it and not the Council?-Yes.

Chairman.

285. You will bring up a clause?—Yes, my Lord.

(Clause 35 is postponed.)

ON CLAUSE 36.

Sir Frederick Liddell.] The question is whether this clause ought to be extended to all guardians or confined to guardians of a Poor Law Union constituted under the Act of 1834.

Lord Warrington.

286. For the purposes of this Bill, is not the difficulty removed by Sub-clause (1) of Clause 2, which says, "The law relating to the relief of the poor shall be administered locally by boards of guardians, and a guardian shall not (save as otherwise expressly provided by this Act and any rules, orders or regulations of the Minister made thereunder) be capable of acting by virtue of his office except as a member of a board of guardians and at a meeting of the board." Single parishes may be made Poor Law unions within the technical meaning of them?—Yes.

287. In Clause 36 the words "Poor Law union" will cover single parishes? -Yes.

288. And it will also cover a local Act Union-Yes. The question is whether the Committee are justified in extending it to anything except a union of several parishes formed under the Act of 1834.

289. It would be very inconvenient if we did not? Yes, and perfectly ridiculous.

290. The very object of consolidation is, as far as possible, to make the law fit every case that might arise.-I do not know whether Lord Muir Mackenzie will assent to that.

Chairman.

291. We have had in several instances, here and in other Consolidation Bills, to reconcile absolutely contradictory things. --I would suggest that it is justifiable to treat this as applying to a single parish union where the board of guardians has been constituted under the Act of 1834. It is more difficult to justify the extension to a local Act union.

[Continued.

Sir Malcolm Macnaghten.

292. Lincoln's Inn?-That is outside of unions altogether.

Chairman.

293. We deal with Lincoln's Inn somewhere further on in the Bill?-Yes.

Lord Warrington.

294. It would be very difficult to exclude local Act unions from this, would it not?-Very difficult.

295. The section would hardly work?— There are only eight of them.

Lord Gorell.

296. We cannot logically exclude them? -No.

Lord Warrington.

297. With regard to parishes it would be an absurdity if we did?-Yes, quite.

298. And poor law unions for the purposes of this Bill have a technical meaning which would include a single parish which is declared by the Minister to be a union?—Yes. I believe this section is very little used, as a matter of fact. The Ministry of Health would like it used more, that is to say, if a man meets with an accident in a union where he is not living he should be taken to the infirmary of that union, and not carted back to the place where he lives.

Lord Warrington.] I should have thought that the Clause would be safe as it is with the expression poor law union," whatever that may import.

Chairman.

299. Shall we pass the Clause and see what sort of a note you can make to it? -Yes.

Clause 36 is passed.
Clauses 37 and 38 are passed.

On CLAUSE 39.

Sir Frederick Liddell.] There is only one question on the Clause, and that is whether the last few words of the Clause ought to be in: "and any such person may be proceeded against as an idle and disorderly person at any time

during which he continues to receive relief." Those words come from an Act of 1876, which applied to an offence created under the Act of 1871. That Act has been superseded by the Act of 1882 so far as that offence is concerned, and it is not clear that the Act of 1876 applies to an offence under the Act of 1882.

Lord Warrington.

300. The Clause is Section 5 of the Act of 1882 ?-Down to "1824" in the last line on page 20 it is taken direct from the Act of 1882, and then the succeeding words "and any such person may be proceeded against as an idle and disorderly person at any time during which he continues to receive relief" come from the Act of 1876.

Lord Gorell.

301. You suggest that those words should be left out?-They apply to the Act of 1871 and not to the Act of 1882.

Chairman.

302. You say the whole law is contained in the Act of 1882?-The suggestion is that the Act of 1882 is the only effective Act at the present moment.

Lord Warrington.

303. He is to be deemed an idle and disorderly person within Section 3 of the Vagrancy Act, 1824, and therefore could be proceeded against as such ?-Yes. This says: "proceeded against as an idle and disorderly person at any time." It is simply as to the time at which proceedings may be taken.

304. And is limited to the time when he is continuing to receive the relief?Yes. I do not think it is of any value at all.

Chairman.] I think we may as well take those words out from "1824 " to the end. I move that we delete those words. Question put: That these words stand part of the Bill. The Noes have it. Clause 39 is passed as amended.

On CLAUSE 40.

Chairman.

305. There is a little alteration in the sub-clauses from the order in which they

[Continued.

Sir Frederick Liddell.] With regard to the second paragraph of the Notes, the Ministry of Health got a letter from the Clerk to the Kingston-on-Thames Board of Guardians to say that he has tried to put this Section 1 of the Act of 1718, which we have left out and repealed, into operation. The question is whether it would not be better to leave it unrepealed for what it is worth. If you embody it in the Bill you will definitely decide that the powers have gone from overseers to guardians.

lutely dead. There is considerable doubt as to whether the powers have gone over to the guardians at all. There was no case known of its having been put into operation for a very long time.

311. What view do they take now that they have had a case?-(Mr. Comyns.) The case is not concluded. The Clerk, in his letter says, that he had a case of a wife deserter who deserted his wife and children about two years ago, and the wife and children have been in receipt of relief ever since. Lately, under the will of the man's grandfather, he is entitled to one-eighth share of his estate, and the Clerk hopes to use this section. The letter does not go beyond that, but he hopes the section will not be repealed.

Lord Warrington.

312. The sum is recoverable as a debt. Cannot they get the same result by issuing execution in the Court in which they recover it?—I should have thought they could.

313. Sub-clause (1) says: 66 Where any person in receipt of relief has in his possession or belonging to him any money or valuable security for money, the Board of Guardians of the Poor Law Union to which he is chargeable may take and appropriate, or recover as a debt, so much of such money or the produce of such security as will reimburse the board."-(Sir Frederick Liddell.) That only applies to the person in receipt of relief. This is the grandfather of the person in receipt of relief.

Lord Gorell.

314. It does not meet the case of desertion ?-No. Clause 45 (1) would do it if the relief had been declared to be by way of loan. Something like that is really wanted. This is the Act of 1718, which perhaps Lord Warrington may like to see. (Copy of Act handed to Lord Warrington.)

Lord Warrington.

315. "To take and seize so much of the goods and chattels and to receive so much of the annual rents and profits of the lands." That only applies to goods and chattels and lands; it is very imperfect. The first sub-section gives the Board of Guardians an alternative