[Continued.

Lord Warrington.

369. Except as hereinbefore provided introduces into "?--The only offence under Sub-clause (1) is " ordering."

Chairman.] It is nonsense, but we must leave it as such, I think. I move that before the word "introduces " in Subclause (a) the words "except as hereinbefore provided" be inserted.

Lord Askwith.] I think it alters the law. It applies to selling, using, lending and giving away as well as to introducing.

Chairman.] The exception is only in regard to his wife who drinks.

Lord Askwith.] His wife and friends and the wife and friends of any officer in line 2.

Lord Warrington.] You might settle it by saying "introduces except for any of the purposes hereinbefore specified," and those purposes would be "the domestic use of himself or of any officer or their respective families or except by and under the written authority of the medical officer of the workhouse or of a justice visiting the workhouse or of the board of guardians," and so on.

Chairman.] What do you say to leaving this clause alone?

Sir Malcolm Macnaghten.] I would much prefer to do that.

Chairman.

370. Has any difficulty arisen under it in the Department?-(Mr. Comyns.) I think not. I have been looking through the regulations to see what rule or order

[Continued.

383. You have covered the omission in Clause 238? So far as a single parish union is concerned I think we have covered it by the clause itself. It is a poor law union consisting of two or more parishes. I have also said that it shall not apply to Local Act unions. On page 120 it says: "Section 73 of this Act shall not apply."

Lord Warrington.

384. You say "subject to the above exceptions the guardians of a Local Act union can administer outdoor relief in all respects in like manner and with like powers as a board of guardians formed under the Act of 1834." It does not apply to anything except under the Act of 1834, does it?—No, why I do not know.

Sir Henry Slesser.

385. I suppose this is never used, in fact?-(Mr. Comyns.) No.

386. According to the decision in the case of the King v. the Totnes Union the order has to proceed in the form of a rule, and apparently it is a very cumbrous affair. It assumes that the justices are concerned with the poor law and somebody has to move the justices to summons the guardians to show cause why they should not do it, but the modern justices do not perform these functions at all, do they? I should have thought that this was quite obsolete in practice? I think it is very rarely acted upon indeed, but I suggest that if the Committee left this clause out it would be said that this was a clause intended for the protection of the poor, and the omission of the clause would not be well received.

Lord Warrington.

387. What I do not quite understand is this. Why is Clause 73 confined to a place in which a poor law union consisting of two ог more parishes is situated? (Sir Frederick Liddell.) Section 27 of the Act of 1834 says: "in any union which may be formed under this Act."

Sir Henry Slesser.

388. You put in those words to carry out the intention?-Yes, they have been put in to carry out the effect of the Act of 1834.

Lord Warrington.

389. Is there any reason why the provisions of Clause 73 should not be applicable to poor law unions consisting of one parish under Clause 2 (2)?—No.

Lord Gorell.

390. It is what we have already done in Clause 36?—Yes.

Lord Warrington.

391. It is a very useful power for a court of summary jurisdiction to order that outside relief may be given in cases specified, that is to say, the case of an adult person who from .old age or infirmity of body is wholly unfit to work, without requiring him to go to the workhouse?—Yes.

392. Is there any reason why that should not apply to a union consisting of one parish only?-No. It certainly ought to, I think. It would not be going further than you have gone in the case of Clause 36.

393. And it would only make it work properly with Clause 2 (2) of the present Bill? Yes.

394. The section of the Act of 1834 as originally framed may have been in the original form confined to Poor Law unions consisting of two or more parishes? I do not know whether there is any special reason under the Act of 1834 for limiting that section to a union formed under this Act. It generally says "where any union is formed under this Act."

[Continued.

[Continued.

Lord Askwith.

405. Adoption is final at present, is it not? Now it is.

406. It is to maintain, by Act of Parliament, a continuance of inspection?— Yes.

Sir Henry Slesser.] I rather think the Clause ought to stand as drafted. I had a good deal to do with the Adoption of Children Bill when it was in the House of Commons and I got the impression that the intention was that there is nothing in the Act to exclude a de facto adoption, as existing before the Act.

Chairman.] And I had something to do with it.

Sir Henry Slesser.] Yes. Do not you agree!

Chairman.] Entirely.

Sir Henry Slesser.] Whatever rights there were in 1899 still exist.

Lord Gorell.

407. Then in that case you do not want the proviso?-Yes, because if you do have legal adoption this cannot apply, because the adoption is final.

Lord Askwith.

408. This is only for vested interests, the matters existing before 1926 ?-The Act of 1926 provides for that, enabling a de facto adoption to be turned into legal adoption.

409. But if this Clause stood as it stands it would only apply to adoption before 1926 ?-No.

Sir Henry Slesser.

410. Or to adoptions since the passing of the Act de facto, which do not for some reason or another constitute legal adoptions? Yes.

Lord Gorrell.

411. What is the meaning of the word "adopted" in Section (3) of the Act of 1899? That must mean adopted otherwise than legally adopted.

412. The meaning of the word has been rather changed by the passing of the Act this year?—Yes.

Lord Warrington.

413. I should think it would be better to leave in Sub-clause (7) with its pro