rated." Is this case within that exception? It seems to me to be plain that the room in question is not "a part of the factory used solely for the manufacture of goods made entirely of some other material than those enumerated," within the contemplation of the Act. And upon that short ground I am of opinion that the general provision in the enacting part must prevail, and consequently that the conviction was right.

The rest of the Court concurring,

Appeal dismissed, with costs.

DAW, Clerk of the Commissioners of Sewers of the City of LONDON, v. THE METROPOLITAN BOARD OF WORKS. April 28.

Where two statutes give authority to two public bodies to exercise powers which cannot consistently with the object of the legislature co-exist, the earlier must necessarily be repealed by the later statute.

The 145th section of the City of London Sewers Act, 1848 (11 & 12 Vict. c. clxiii.),† as to the naming of streets and numbering of houses in the city of London, is repealed by the general provision for that purpose contained in the Metropolis Local Management Act, 1855 (18 & 19 Vict. c. 120), s. 141.

THIS was an action brought by the plaintiff, as clerk of the Commissioners of Sewers of the city of London, against the defendants, the Metropolitan Board of Works, for the recovery of 40s. damages, for the defendants' having defaced the numbers of the houses in *Fann Street, Aldersgate; and by consent, and under a Judge's *162] order, the following case was stated, without pleadings, under the 42d section of the Common Law Procedure Act, 1852, for the opinion of this Court:

Fann Street, Aldersgate, is within the city of London, and within the district within and over which the sole power of ordering, designing, making, enlarging, widening, deepening, raising, altering, remov. ing, repairing, cleansing, and scouring of all common sewers, drains, and vaults, and of paving, cleansing, lighting, and improving the several streets, was by the City of London Sewers Act, 1848 (11 & 12 Vict. c. clxiii.), declared to be vested in the mayor and commonalty of the city of London, to be executed by Commissioners to be called Commissioners of Sewers for the City of London.

The said Commissioners, acting or assuming to act under the powers conferred by s. 145 of the City of London Sewers Act, 1848, have since the 1st of January, 1856, caused the houses in the said streets to be marked and numbered in the manner which they thought most proper for distinguishing the same, and have caused the said marks. and numbers to be affixed to each house and building in the said

street.

The Metropolitan Board of Works, assuming to act under s. 141 of the 18 & 19 Vict. c. 120, "An Act for the better local management of the Metropolis," directed that the said houses should be marked with numbers in another manner, and that the numbers affixed by the said Commissioners should be defaced and obliterated, and the numbers directed by their own board should be affixed to the said houses.

The numbers affixed by the Commissioners are consecutive numbers. The board directed that the houses should be distinguished by the odd numbers only being on one side of the street and the even numbers only on the other side. Acting under their said direction, the said board have wilfully caused the numbers *of the said Com

missioners so affixed by them to the said houses to be defaced [*163

and obliterated, and the substituted numbers directed by them to be marked to the said houses in the place thereof.

The questions for the opinion of the Court were,

1. Whether the Commissioners of Sewers of the City of London have now authority to number the houses and buildings in the streets in the city under s. 145 of the City of London Sewers Act, 1848?

2. Whether the Metropolitan Board of Works have authority under s. 141 of the 18 & 19 Vict. c. 120, to name streets and number houses in the said city?

3. Whether the orders of the said board as to numbering houses in the said city override the order of the said Commissioners in the same matter?

If the Court should be of opinion in the affirmative on the first question and in the negative on the second and third, judgment was to be entered for the plaintiff for 40s. and costs of suit. If in the affirmative on the first and second, and negative on the third, the like judgment was to be entered. If in the negative on the first, and affirmative on the second and third, judgment was to be entered for the defendants, with costs.

Hannen, for the plaintiff (a)-Prior to the year 1855, *the [*164 city of London was with regard to a sanatory state under the management of the City of London Sewers Act, 1848, 11 & 12 Vict. c. clxiii. It was an Act for the general local management of the city in respect of paving, lighting, cleansing, &c. By s. 145, the Commissioners were empowered "from time to time to cause to be painted or affixed on a conspicuous part of some house or building at or near each end, corner, or entrance of every street, the name by which such street is to be known, and from time to time to alter the name of any street, with consent of the major part of the owners of houses or buildings therein, and to call it by any other name which they the Commissioners may see fit, and also to cause every house or building in each of the streets to be marked or numbered in such manner as they shall judge most proper for distinguishing the same, which mark or number shall alone be allowed to be affixed to such house or building; and, if any person shall wilfully or maliciously destroy, pull down, obliterate, or deface any such name or number, or any part thereof, or shall affix or paint or set up any name or number different from the name or number directed by the Commissioners, he shall for every such offence forfeit and pay a sum not exceeding 40s.; and it

(a) The points marked for argument on the part of the plaintiff were as follows:"1. That the Commmissioners of Sewers of the City of London have still authority to number the houses in the streets in the city, under s. 145 of the City Sewers Act, 1848, that section not being repealed:

2. That the Metropolitan Board of Works have not authority, under s. 141 of the Metropolis Local Management Act, 1855, 18 & 19 Vict. c. 120, to number houses in the said city:

3. That the orders of the board do not override the orders of the Commissioners as to the numbering of houses in the said city."

shall be lawful for the Commissioners to obliterate and destroy such name or number so painted or affixed contrary to their order." The Metropolis Local Management Act, 18 & 19 Vict. c. 120, which passed in 1855, was intended to provide for the better sewerage, drainage, &c., of the whole Metropolis, by s. 141 makes a general provision as to naming streets and numbering houses. That section enacts that "it shall be lawful for the Metropolitan Board of Works from time to time to cause to be painted or affixed on a conspicuous part of some house or building at or near each end, corner, or entrance of every street in the Metropolis the name of such street, and the

*165] board may, where more than one street in the Metropolis is

called by the same name, alter the name of any or all such streets except one, to any other name which to such board may seem fit, and which may be approved by the Commissioners of Her Majesty's works and public buildings; and, before any name is given to any new street, notice of the intended name shall be given to the said board, and, if there be any street in the Metropolis called or about to be called by the same name, the said board may, by notice in writing, stating that there is already a street in the Metropolis called or about to be called by the same name, and describing the locality thereof, given to the person by whom notice of such intended name was given to them, at any time within fourteen days after receipt of such lastmentioned notice, object to such intended name; and it shall not be lawful to set up any name to any new street in the Metropolis until the expiration of fourteen days after notice thereof has been given as aforesaid to the said board, or to set up any name objected to aforesaid; and the owners or occupiers of houses and buildings in the several streets in the Metropolis shall mark such houses or buildings with such numbers or names, for the purpose of distinguishing the same, as the said board may direct or approve, and shall renew the numbers or names of such houses or buildings as often as they are obliterated or defaced; and, if any occupier of any such house or building neglect, for one week after notice from the said board, to mark such house or building with such number or name as the said board may direct or approve, or to renew the number or name thereof as aforesaid, he shall be liable to a penalty not exceeding 40s., and the said board may cause such number or name to be so marked or renewed, and recover the expense thereof from the owner of *166] such house or building in manner hereinafter provided; and, if any person wilfully or maliciously destroy, pull down, obliterate, or deface the name of any street in the Metropolis, or the name or number of any house or building in any such street, or paint, affix, or set up any name to any street, or any name or number of any house or building, contrary to this enactment, he shall for every such offence forfeit a sum not exceeding 40s.; and it shall be lawful for the said board to cause such name or number so painted, affixed, or set up contrary to their directions to be obliterated or destroyed." The contention on the part of the defendants will be that this section by implication repeals the 145th section of the City of London Sewers Act. The whole question turns upon the interpretation clause, s. 250, which enacts, that, "in the construction of this Act, 'the Metropolis' shall be deemed to include the City of London and the parishes and

places mentioned in the schedules A., B., and C. to this Act:" and it goes on "The City of London' shall be deemed to include all parts now within the jurisdiction of the Commissioners of Sewers for the City of London." [BYLES, J.-It defines the comprehending word, and then defines the comprehended word.] The Court will not hold that affirmative language in a subsequent Act repeals affirmative language in a prior Act, unless they can see clearly that it was so intended.(a) There are many parts of the Act where the word "Metropolis" is used in a sense which necessarily includes the city of London. The preamble states that "it is expedient that provisions should be made for the better local management of the Metropolis in respect of the sewerage and drainage, and the paving, cleansing, lighting, and improvements thereof:" but there is no provision in the *Act for the paving, lighting, &c., of the city of London; that [*167 is still left to be regulated by the City of London Sewers Act, 1848. The first thirty sections of the Act are devoted to the creation. of local corporate bodies, viz. vestries. Sections 31 to 41 create another set of corporations, viz. district boards. These two bodies are separately incorporated by s. 42. Section 43 constitutes a third body, to be called "The Metropolitan Board of Works," of which, by s. 41, three members of the corporation of London are to form part. By s. 68, all sewers, except main sewers, are vested in the vestries and district boards; the main sewers being by s. 135 vested in the Metropolitan Board of Works. There, the word "Metropolis," evidently includes the city of London. The following sections, down to s. 140, deal with the duties of the Metropolitan Board of Works, to be performed extra the city of London. The 143d and following sections apply to general subjects which do not affect the city of London. [WILLES, J.-The 141st section contemplates a general naming and numbering of the streets and houses. The intention of the legislature may have been to give the general control to one public body, in order to insure the avoidance of the inconvenience of having several streets of the same name, or several houses in the same street or place bearing the same number.] The 143d section, which regulates the line of buildings, necessarily excludes the city. Section 242, which saves the powers of the city Commissioners of Sewers, enacts that "nothing in this Act shall divest the Commissioners of Sewers of the city of London of any powers or property vested in them in relation to such parts of any of the parishes mentioned in schedule B. to the Act as are within the city of London, nor shall such parts be subject to be rated or assessed by any district board, but shall be subject to all the powers of the *Metropolitan Board of Works as other places in the city of London." [WILLES J.-You would say [*168

that under that section the Commissioners of Sewers for the city of London must have at least equal powers as to parishes which are wholly within the city, as is given to them in respect of parishes which are partly within and partly without the city.] Exactly so. In the clauses which deal with the subject of repealing local Acts, ss. 247, 248, no allusion whatever is made to the city of London. The former enacts, that "all Acts of Parliament in force in any parish or place to (a) See Parry v. The Croydon Commercial Gas and Coke Company, 11 C. B. N. S. 579 (E. C. L. R. vol. 103).

which this Act extends, or in any part of such parish or place, shall, so far as the same are inconsistent with the provisions of this Act, be repealed as regards such parish or place, or such part thereof, notwithstanding any provisions of this Act continuing and transferring respectively to vestries of parishes, and transferring to district boards any duties, powers, or authorities now vested in vestries, commission. ers, or other bodies." And the 248th section, which is a remarkable one, enacts, that, "upon the petition of the Metropolitan Board of Works, or of any district board or vestry, representing to her Majesty in Council, that, by reason of the provisions of any local Act of Parliament relating to any district or parish, or any part thereof respectively, difficulties have arisen in the execution of this Act and of such local Act, or either of them, and praying for a suspension or alteration of all or any of the provisions of such local Act, or for the establishment of other provisions in lieu thereof under this enactment, it shall be lawful for her Majesty, by order in council, to suspend or alter all or any of the provisions of such local Act, and to make other provisions in relation to the matters thereof, as her Majesty, with the advice of her Privy Council, may think necessary under the circumstances *169] of the case: and every such order in council shall be *laid before both houses of Parliament within one month after the making thereof, if Parliament be then sitting, or, if Parliament be not sitting, then within one month after the next meeting of Parliament, and shall be published in the London Gazette: Provided always, that no such order in council shall remain in force beyond the term of one year from the making thereof." When the legislature is dealing with the subject of repealing former Acts, it omits all mention of the city of London. [ERLE, C. J.-If the City of London Sewers Act, 1848, is repealed, it must be by s. 250.] In The London and Blackwall Railway Company v. The Board of Works for the Limehouse District, 26 Law J., Ch. 164, 166, Vice-Chancellor Wood says: "I think it is quite plain, upon the construction of an Act of Parliament of this special character, (a) that, whenever the legislature has enacted that certain powers of a special character shall be vested in a corporate body, or any body of commissioners, for the express purpose of carrying out a special object which the legislature has in view, no subsequent Act giving in merely general terms powers which by their generality apply to the powers of the special character given by the first Act, will override the special powers so delegated to the particular body of commissioners or corporation. That principle seems to be clearly laid down in the cases which were referred to by Lord Justice Turner in deciding the case of The Trustees of the Birkenhead Docks v. The Birkenhead Dock Company (or Laird), 23 Law J., Ch. 457, 4 De Gex, M'N. & G. 732, and it seems to be a very ancient and settled principle of law. His Lordship says,-23 Law J. 459,-That appears to be the rule as laid down by the learned Judge Jenkins in Sir Foulk Grevil's Case, reported in his work called *Eight Centuries of Reports, the Third Century, case 41, p. 120, *170] where, speaking of the statute 14 Edw. 3, which ordains that every merchant who ships goods to be exported over sea shall be compelled to find sureties to import two marks in bullion upon his (a) A railway Act.