SECOND READING. (Hansard, 11 July 1859)

MR. GILPIN
, in moving the second reading of the Bill, said the Bill had been introduced to correct a difficulty which had been introduced to correct a difficulty which had arisen in consequence of a decision by the Court of Exchequer Chamber, and to enable the Board of Guardians of the City of London Union to clear themselves from debts which they had properly and rightfully incurred.

§ MR. WALTER
said, that although that portion of the Bill which required the settlement of debts by Boards of Guardians within twelve months might be unobjectionable, the second clause was of a differ- 1019 ent character, as it had a purely retrospective action and enabled the guardians to pay any debts incurred within six years previously. The House would recollect that in the month of March a similar Bill was introduced in order to enable the Board of Guardians of the City of London Union to collect rates for the payment of accumulated arrears of six years throughout that union. The House came to a right conclusion, and rejected the Bill by a considerable majority. He considered this was an attempt to smuggle through the House the very objectionable project which was defeated upon that occasion. It was almost too late an hour to enter into a discussion, but unless the Government were prepared to withdraw the second clause he should be obliged to move the rejection of the Bill and take a division upon it. The House would recollect that about two years ago two persons, one the clerk to the Board of Guardians of the City of London Union, and the other the collector of nine parishes in that union, disappeared with very large sums of which they had defrauded the union. Those persons had held their respective offices for a long period of years, and during that time, owing to the neglect in a great measure of the Board, and of the Poor Law Auditors, had contrived to swindle the parishes of sums amounting to £23,000. Among the creditors, the bankers, Messrs. Smith, Payne, and Co., figured, he believed, to the extent of £4,000. Large sums were also owing to butchers, bakers, and others who had contracted to supply the union, and who were left unpaid for the goods they had supplied. The question for the House to consider was whether the ratepayers having been legally assessed prospectively, according to the spirit of the law, having paid their rates, and having obtained regular receipts, could be called upon again to make good what these swindlers had obtained, by an ex post facto law. He believed such a thing was unprecedented. There had been a Motion before the Court of Queen's Bench to compel payment, and the decision of that Court, which was in favour of the Board, was appealed from to the Exchequer Chamber. The Exchequer Chamber reversed the decision of the Queen's Bench, and this Bill was brought in to upset the decision of the Exchequer Chamber, and to do by enactment what the Court had refused as contrary to the existing law. The first clause, which was to prevent similar scan- 1020 dal in future, provided that all debts should in future be paid in twelve months, with power to the Poor Law Board to further extend the period six months. But the second clause provided for the retrospective payment of all debts which might have been incurred by Boards of Guardians within six years, being a clause to set aside the judgment of the Exchequer Chamber, and to reverse the policy of the law which required the collection of poor-rates to be prospective and not retrospective. He would not trouble the House by going into a discussion, but he believed the 3econd clause so improper that he should vote against it. He would move that the Bill be read a second time that day three months.

§ MR. SOTHERON ESTCOURT
said, he assumed to himself whatever faults there were in the Bill, as he believed it was identical with one which he introduced when President of the Poor Law Board. Notwithstanding the hard words of the hon. Gentleman, he believed he should be able to show that the Bill was founded on equity. The ordinary understanding with regard to Boards of Guardians had always been that current expenses should be met by current rates. Boards of Guardians were trusted by their tradesmen like private gentlemen. There had never been a question until two years ago but that expenses fairly incurred by Boards of Guardians might be met by their raising rates for the purpose. About a year and a half ago the question was first raised, and the Court of Queen's Bench were of opinion that the law would permit Boards of Guardians to pay retrospective accounts. Appeal was made to the Court of Exchequer Chamber, and the Exchequer Chamber reversed the decisions of the Queen's Bench, and determined that it was not competent for Boards of Guardians to pay any expenses by means of rates which were levied after the debts had been incurred. They laid it down so strictly, he believed, that if a debt were incurred on Christmas Day it was not competent for the Board of Guardians to pay it by means of a rate made on the 4th of January. It was therefore illegal for them to pay by any other mode than ready money, and he believed the 1021 whole of the Boards of Guardians in the kingdom had been acting at variance with that decision. That being the state of the case, it was proposed to fix a reasonable limit; and by the first clause, to which he understood the hon. Member for Berkshire did not object, twelve months was fixed as such reasonable time; with the addition of six months to be allowed by the Poor Law Board in such exceptional cases, as the death of the tradesman or creditor and the inability of his representatives sooner to send in the account. An hon. Friend of his would propose to reduce the ordinary term to six months, and if the power of the Poor Law Board were extended so as to allow twelve months in addition, he saw no objection to that alteration. The second clause was that to which the hon. Member took objection. The Court of Exchequer Chamber refused to allow Boards of Gardians the power of paying retrospectively, and, of course, therefore refused to the City of London Board power to pay debts incurred under the circumstances to which the hon. Member had referred. The guardians came to him and said, "We are unanimously of opinion that our just debts ought to be paid; but it is contended that those parishes only ought to be mulcted in whose behalf the particular collector had been employed." He found, however, that no such distinction could be drawn, for, though the collector had been appointed by a few, he had been accepted by the whole body of parishes; but he told the guardians that they must carry the case to the House of Lords. They refused, however, in consequence of the expense, and brought in a private Bill, which was rejected by the House of Commons. In his opinion, it was fair and just that the constituents of the Board of Guardians should be called upon now by means of a rate collected through the whole of the parishes to repay the sum which was justly due from the Board. It might be said that the second clause proposed to accomplish by a public Bill that which the House had refused to do by a private Bill. There was really, however, a considerable distinction between the two cases; for the private Bill introduced a particular mode of raising this money, which was not to be levied from all the parishes equally, but by a special local arrangement.

§ MR. AYRTON
said, it would be necessary for the Poor Law Board to consider the manner in which this Bill was drawn. 1022 The measure must be entirely remodelled if it was to receive the assent of the House.

SIR GEORGE LEWIS
said, that considering the advanced period of the Session, he should have thought it more convenient to accede to the second reading now, and then to discuss the clauses in Committee. The Bill consisted of two parts, which had grown out of one decision. Various frauds were committed in the City of London Union, the effect of which was that the creditors of that and other unions were defrauded of their just debts, In consequence of that defalcation, orders were made by the Board of Guardians for the payment of rates to supply the deficiency. The legality of these orders was contested, but the Queen's Bench decided in their favour. The matter was then brought before the Exchequer Chamber, where a decision was given virtually establishing the principle that Boards of Guardians could not take a single day's credit. This was a principle which had never hitherto been acted upon by the Poor Law authorities of this country, either before or since the passing of the Poor Law Amendment Act. Tradesmen who had dealt with these Boards had always given credit. The main object of the Bill, therefore, was to legalize what had always been the practice in such cases. He did not wish now to discuss whether a year was too long or too short a period, but he could not help thinking that the first clause of the Bill conferred upon Boards of Guardians not only a reasonable but a necessary power, or otherwise a principle would be established in their case which existed with respect to no other municipal body. For the reasons which he had stated, he thought there could be no doubt that it was necessary the first clause of the Bill should, in substance, be passed into a law. The second clause related mainly to the City of London, in whose case it was evident loss must be incurred by some one; and, as it was mainly through the neglect of the guardians that the frauds in question had been committed, it was, he thought, but fair to ask by whom those guardians had been elected. There was no doubt that they were elected by the ratepayers; and it therefore seemed to him that the loss which had been occasioned would fall more equitably on those ratepayers than on the tradesmen, who trusted the guardians in accordance with a practice which was at the time when the credit was given almost univer- 1023 sal. It might be, he admitted, a hardship to make the operation of the clause extend back over a period of six years, but then he did not mean to contend that it was not in that respect susceptible of amendment. Paying regard to the principle of the Bill, however, he thought the House ought at once to assent to its being read a second time.

§ MR. JOHN LOCKE
would support the Motion for the Adjournment. He thought the arguments of the Home Secretary were the most extraordinary he had ever heard. The right hon. Gentleman advocated the Bill for the purpose of upsetting the decision of the Court of Exchequer Chamber, although that decision only recognized what had been the universal practice and settled law. All Boards of Guardians were bound at the beginning of each year to make a rate to meet all their probable expenses, and had no right to take credit. The hardship on the tradesmen in this case was not so great, as they must have known the risk which they incurred when they intrusted the Board of Guardians beyond their term of office. They had not, besides, sent in their bills in proper time, and therefore they had not been subjected to that hardship which might at the first blush appear to have been the case. He, therefore, saw no reason why an alteration in the law should be introduced, or why a decision which had been come to by the Court of Exchequer Chamber, after due deliberation, should be upset.

MR. HENLEY
would not again move the Adjournment if the right hon. Gentleman would undertake to bring on the discussion on going into Committee at a reasonable hour.

SIR GEORGE LEWIS
would do his best, but he must remind the House that as every Government night would be devoted to Supply, he would have some difficulty unless a morning sitting were appointed.