Lords Sitting of 8 March 1888

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS—Second Reading—Liability of Trustees (24); Trust Companies (7), negatived.
Report—Mortmain and Charitable Uses* (33).

ARMY—ROYAL BARRACKS, DUBLIN—INSANITARY CONDITION.

  QUESTION.
  EARL BEAUCHAMPasked the Under Secretary of State for War, whom he saw in his place, Whether he could give the House any information with respect to any knowledge which Her Majesty's Government might possess in reference to the condition of the barracks in Dublin other than the Royal Barracks; and whether any other Reports besides the Reports referred to the other day had been made with regard to those barracks?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE (Lord HARRIS), in reply, said, that he was not aware of any other Reports having been made upon the barracks in Dublin other than the Royal Barracks, besides the Report which was made in 1883, and also the Report which was made by his noble Friend his Predecessor in the War Office in 1886. In consequence of those Reports certain alterations had been carried out in the other barracks in Dublin. In the Pigeon House Fort Barracks, of which a report was made in 1886, a hut was built capable of accommodating 40 men. In the Ship Street Barracks £1,000 had been taken in the Estimates last year, and had been spent in improving the officers' quarters, and £500 had been taken in the Estimates this year as his noble Friend had reported bad drainage there. In Beggar's Bush Barracks no complaint had been received as to the drainage. In Island Bridge Barracks £5,000 had been taken in the Estimates last year for improving the officers' quarters, and £6,000 had been taken in the Estimates for this year to carry out certain alterations, the drainage having been made good in 1887. In the Richmond Barracks £1,000 had been taken in the Estimates for drainage last year, and £1,000 for improving the sergeants' quarters, and £1,000 had been taken in the Estimates for drainage this year, as well as £1,000 for the sergeants' quarters; £1,200 had been taken for improvements in the Royal Artillery Barracks, Phœnix Park. The general condition of Portobello Barracks was considered satisfactory.

LIABILITY OF TRUSTEES BILL.
(The Lord Herschell.)
LIABILITY OF TRUSTEES BILL.

  (NO. 24.) SECOND READING.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading, read.
  LORD HERSCHELL, in moving that the Bill be now read a second time, said, it was introduced at the instance of the Incorporated Law Society, who had devoted much attention to this subject. It was intended to relieve trustees from some of the liabilities to which they were now subject, and to remove disabilities under which they at present laboured. The measure was one of detail, and did not involve any general principle—each provision was to be

  535
  considered by itself. There could be no doubt that trustees had long suffered under burdens which most of them considered very grievous, and anything that could be justly and properly done to give them relief would have a sound and wholesome effect. In fact, the liability of trustees for acts perfectly innocent in themselves had been pushed to such a point that it was often difficult to get persons to act in that capacity at all. The first provision of this Bill was very simple. This Bill, proceeding on the lines of the Conveyancing Act of 1881, which did not apply to trustees, would enable a trustee to appoint a solicitor to be his agent to receive and give a receipt for money on behalf of the trustee. It often happened in cases when it was desired to effect a sale on satisfactory terms that it became necessary to insert certain restrictions in the conditions of sale, which were known as "depreciatory conditions." But as the law at present stood, trustees could not insert "depreciatory conditions," and an impediment was thus placed in the way of their obtaining as much as they otherwise would if they were ordinary vendors, and often, when it was sought to enforce a particular sale, a person was enabled to get out of his bargain by alleging that the trustees sold under conditions which a trustee could not insert. It had been held that a trustee was not justified in advancing trust money on house property to more than one-half of its value, while on landed property he could advance to the extent of two-thirds of its value. But there did not seem to be any substantial reason for thinking, in these days, that house property was more subject to fluctuation than landed property, and the present restriction placed a difficulty in the way of trustees securing good investments. This Bill proposed to place house property and other landed property on the same footing. At present a trustee could not buy or lend without obtaining a "full title." This Bill proposed to enable a trustee to dispense with a full title, where the title appeared perfectly sound and good without it. It was decided in a particular case that a trustee, in obtaining a valuation of the property upon which he intended lending, was bound to obtain the assistance of a surveyor carrying on his profession in the neigh-
  536
  bourhood of the property. That was a very inconvenient restriction, and the Bill provided that if a trustee employed a surveyor of skill that was sufficient. Another provision of this Bill enabled a trustee to employ an agent to perform certain work under the trust, even though it was work that the trustee was mentally and physically capable of performing. At present a trustee could not charge anything for his own services, and could not employ any one else for reward to do anything which he was himself capable of doing. The consequence was that he was often put to considerable expense and inconvenience. It did not seem unreasonable that he should be allowed in certain cases to employ an agent. The last provision in the Bill was the most important of all. It enabled a trustee to plead the Statutes of Limitation in certain cases. At present an ordinary defendant was entitled to meet any claim against him by setting up the Statutes of Limitation, unless where fraud was proved. But at present, however innocent the breach of trust on the part of the trustee might have been, no lapse of time barred the right of the cestui que trust. A trustee might have taken the opinion of the most eminent counsel, who might have advised that the trustee was entitled to do certain things; but it might turn out by a decision delivered 50 years after that the trustee was not entitled, and had committed a breach of trust. This Bill provided that a trustee should be entitled to the benefit of the Statutes of Limitation, save where he had been guilty of fraud, and where the money had actually come to his hands. It did not seem reasonable that trustees more than other persons should be liable to stale claims where they had been guilty of no fraud or misconduct. He begged to move the second reading of the Bill.
  Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2a"—(The Lord Herschell.)
  LORD FITZGERALDsaid, he thanked the noble and learned Lord, for introducing a Bill dealing with this important subject. Some of its provisions he entirely approved; but others, he thought, touched dangerous ground, and would require very careful consideration. He objected to valuers being substituted for trustees, and also to the clause alterating the law in regard to the

  537
  Statute of Limitations. He would suggest that the Bill should be referred to a Select Committee.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR (Lord HALSBURY)said, he admitted that there were many provisions of the law relating to trustees that might be improved, and there was no doubt that the law operated harshly in some cases; but it ought to be borne in mind that nobody was compelled to become a trustee, and that a trustee took upon himself the duty of protecting the interests of others. He thought it would be unwise to encourage trustees to think lightly of their position and to entitle them to put forward their own neglect of duty as a shield against liability. If a trustee neglected for a long period to perform the duties which he had voluntarily undertaken, surely he ought not to be permitted to plead his wrongful inaction in order to avoid liability. The Statutes of Limitations, he might point out, were passed not to protect people against the consequences of bygone transactions, but with a view to diminish litigation, and on account of the perishable nature of human evidence. It was thought undesirable that a man should be called on to prove that he had paid a debt six years ago. He did not wish that their Lordships should reject this Bill; but he agreed with the suggestion of the noble and learned Lord who had just spoken that it ought to be referred to a Select Committee, who would be able to examine it minutely and settle its phraseology.
  LORD HERSCHELLsaid, he could not agree that no man need be a trustee against his inclination. The statement was, no doubt, true in a certain sense; but it left out of sight the important consideration of moral necessity. He should not be unwilling to refer the Bill to a Select Committee if its main principles were accepted. He understood, however, that the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack opposed the important principle that there should be a limit of time, and he therefore thought that the opinion of the House ought to be expressed on the point.
  THE PRIME MINISTER AND SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (The Marquess of SALISBURY)said, that laymen did not regard this question precisely in the same way as lawyers. Some of the doctrines of the
  538
  Lord Chancellor sounded harsh in their ears. For his part, he thought it would be very desirable to have all the legal knowledge they could command upon a subject which so closely affected Members of that House, and that could only be properly obtained by sending the Bill to a Select Committee. The present state of the law as to trustees wrought real hardship. In his experience he had not been impressed with the truth of the Lord Chancellor's axiom that no one need be a trustee against his wish.
  Motion agreed to; Bill read 2a accordingly.

TRUST COMPANIES BILL.—(No. 7.)
(The Lord Hobhouse.)
TRUST COMPANIES BILL.—(No. 7.)

  SECOND READING.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading, read.
  LORD HOBHOUSE, in moving that the Bill be now read a second time, said, it was very similar to the measure which was read a second time in their Lordships' House towards the end of last Session. If the Bill were received with favour it would be easy to refer it to a Select Committee. The existing law as to trustees was such that there was discernible an ever increasing unwillingness to undertake a trustee's responsibilities. It was quite true that people might have recourse to their solicitors, but there was considerable objection to solicitors acting as trustees. Even if the trust should be properly constituted, trustees were liable to all the changes and chances of life. They became too busy to attend to the affairs of the trust, and disgusted at the importunities which were put upon them, they refused to act any longer; they went abroad; they fell ill; and they got old and died. These things often necessitated a change of trustee, and with every change there was the same trouble which occurred in the selection of the original trustee. Then there were the expenses attending the transfer of the trust funds, and he might say that a very large proportion of the disasters which happened to trust funds were brought about at the moment when they were passing from hand to hand. He did not pretend to say that the administration of trusts by Corporations was likely to be perfect; but he

  539
  thought that a great many of the disadvantages in the case of individuals which he had enumerated would be avoided, and that a large number of people would think it well worth their while to pay for the advantages which such a Corporation would offer. He referred to, but would not quote at length, the authorities on this subject which on a former occasion he quoted, but he wished to add the authority of Mr. Justice Kay. In giving judgment on a case which came before him, Mr. Justice Kay said he had long been of opinion that the present law relating to trustees required to be reformed, and he was glad to find that there were commercial gentlemen who were willing to come forward to undertake trusts for proper remuneration. He had the authority of Mr. Justice Kay to state that the Bill now before their Lordships would bring about a reform such as was required. Although quarrels had taken place between owners of trust funds and Trust Companies, and had come before the Judicial Committee, they had not heard it alleged malversation or failure to make good the whole of the trust fund had ever taken place. The principles of the Bill were practically carried out in the United States. Trust Companies had been very successful there, and were reckoned amongst their soundest institutions. It was impossible to have a change in the system of this country without a change in the law. For one thing, the law must be altered to enable trustees to receive pay without express instructions on the part of the founder of a trust, and also to enable Corporations to undertake a number of functions devolving on trustees. It was the object of this Bill to make the necessary changes. It was necessary that precautions should be taken that the persons who held themselves out to undertake trusts should be responsible persons, and that they should conduct their business with the requisite degree of control and of publicity. The Bill, therefore, provided that Corporations might fill the position of trustees, and might make charges for their services; and they also required a subscribed capital of £100,000, of which £50,000 should be invested in the Chancery Division of the High Court in the name of the Paymaster General, an annual audit of accounts, and the annual publication
  540
  of returns. Some objectors thought it would be better to have official trustees; but, for his part, he would be glad to see both an official and company systems at work. At all events, Companies might be allowed to try their hands; and if they succeeded their success would be a public boon. He moved that the Bill be read a second time.
  Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2a."—(The Lord Hobhouse.)
  LORD SUDELEYsaid, he had always taken a great interest in this subject, and as connected with a large Corporation which had undertaken the duty of trustee in the manner proposed under the Bill he wished to say a few words. The position of private trustee had undoubtedly of late years become more and more onerous, and the personal liability attached to it had become so great by recent decisions that no reasonable man in the present day would undertake a large trust without, to say the least, considerable hesitation and dread. Unfortunately, in this country the custom had grown up among friends of acting as unpaid trustees one for the other, and it was most difficult to refuse. In all new countries, where this feeling—of a somewhat sentimental character—existed only in a modified form, Trust Corporations had been formed and were doing the work of trustees in a most satisfactory manner. In the United States, where this method existed on a large scale, Trust Companies were looked upon as some of the soundest institutions; and this was also the case in the South African Colonies, in New Zealand, and in Victoria. In this country the proposal to perform the duties of trustees by means of Public Corporations was a great innovation; but the liabilities of private trustees had become so unbearable that he apprehended there could be no doubt a very strong feeling existed in the country that trusts must be administered by official and public bodies. Under the present system, when trustees died or changes were necessary, the expenses involved were considerable; whereas by means of a Corporation the trust never died. The noble and learned Lord who had introduced the Bill had done good service, for there could be no doubt if we were to have public bodies performing these duties it was of the most urgent importance that they should

  541
  be strong, thoroughly well-managed, and have such considerable reserves as to render them absolutely secure and properly able to fulfil the office of trustee. It was clearly the duty of the State to see that this matter was put on a sound footing, and to facilitate, as far as possible, the carrying out of this principle. The Bill, while it dealt with the matter generally in a fair and right spirit, was open, he thought, to very grave criticism in many of its clauses. Under the law as it was at present he understood there was no difficulty in new trusts being undertaken by Corporate bodies, and they could be appointed as executors to wills, provided that was done by means of officials for the time being connected with the Company. What was required by that Bill was to enable existing trusts to be taken over by Public Corporations, as that could not now be done unless they were allowed legally to bear the necessary expenses. It was also right under that Bill that stringent regulations should be made to insure that Corporations dealing with both future or existing trusts were sound and properly supervised by some Government Department. Under the Bill, in Clause 12, it was proposed that there should be a subscribed capital of at least £100,000, and that £50,000 of it should be invested in the Court of Chancery. He thought that clause was a very important one. No doubt they must oblige Trust Companies to be large and responsible, and he doubted whether a capital of £100,000 was anything like large enough for Corporations dealing with interests so large and important. As regarded the investing of £50,000 away entirely from the control of the Company for an indefinite period, however great their reserves might become, he thought that was open to criticism. As he understood the matter, in America the reserves at the disposal of the Companies were kept under their control, subject to sufficient Government supervision, as was done with our old insurance offices, and he thought there could be no harm in that; but he doubted whether they could lock up a large sum of money and place it entirely away from the control of the Company. All new insurance offices were obliged to deposit £20,000, pending the accumulation of a certain reserve, and that seemed a fair principle. That
  542
  was a question, at any rate, which eminently required to be threshed out in a Committee. Again, in Clause 13, power was given to the Board of Trade of far too wide a character. They must have stated times for inspection, and not enable any Department to be constantly prying and interfering in the business of the Corporation. In Clause 16 it was proposed to make it possible for the Company to work jointly with the co-trustee. He doubted whether that would be found practicable. In Clause 19 a provision was made which he ventured to say would make that Bill quite nugatory and unworkable, and crush on the head all enterprise in that direction. It was proposed to make directors and manager of the Company personally liable. The result of that certainly would be that it would be absolutely impossible to obtain any responsible people to connect themselves with those Trust Companies. Surely what they wanted to do was to encourage people of position and responsibility to help in the working of those Companies, and to make the Companies themselves as strong as possible by means of large uncalled capital, and the formation of considerable reserves; and the very worst thing they could do was to attach personal liabilities to the people connected with them. Clause 20 was, he apprehended, impossible to work. They could not, in a Trust Company, state their maximum charges, as the circumstances of trusts were so different that they must, if the business was to be conducted properly, have a scale capable of variation.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR (Lord HALSBURY)said, he cordially concurred with his noble and learned Friend who had introduced the Bill that there was an existing evil which ought to be remedied, and he thought they would all agree that there was an absolute necessity for providing in some way for the due performance of trusts. His noble and learned Friend, however, did not seem to be aware that there was a Bill in the other House, to constitute a State Trustee, and he was doubtless aware that it would shortly be his (the Lord Chancellor's) duty to ask their Lordships to assent to a Bill for the amendment of the law relating to Joint Stock Companies. Her

  543
  Majesty's Government had before their consideration at this moment the question whether it would not be their duty to suggest the appointment of Public Trustees, by which persons would take upon themselves, under a public guarantee, the performance of trusts. Therefore the most appropriate and convenient course would, he thought, be not that the present Bill but that the subject should be referred to a Select Committee, and that the debate on that Bill should be adjourned until that Committee had reported. Until the decision of that Committee had been arrived at, it would be very undesirable to affirm one way or the other what should be done in regard to that Bill. In the one event it might be their duty to oppose its further progress, in the other to support it. If the noble and learned Lord consented to the course he had suggested, and allowed the debate to be adjourned in the meantime, it would be his duty to move for a Select Committee on that subject, and on the advisability of appointing either a Public Trustee or of giving a certain number of Limited Companies the power of acting as trustees.
  LORD HERSCHELLsaid, he was sorry that his noble and learned Friend objected to the second reading of that Bill. The proposal to appoint an Official Trustee was one which he had himself long advocated; but he thought that the two subjects were essentially distinct. He wished to see an Official Trustee appointed, and he would also like to see those Companies enabled to act as trustees for those who desired them to do so. He himself should object to that Bill if it proposed to enable existing trustees at their pleasure to turn over to any persons they pleased the trust with which they had been invested. But it proposed nothing of that kind. It would provide that any person by his will might appoint a Company to be his executor. If a person wanted to do that, why should he not be permitted to do it? The main powers of that Bill were simply enabling. Supposing a testator preferred to go to a Company instead of to an Official Trustee, why should he not be at liberty to act on his preference? The clause of the Bill might be open to criticism; but the House was only asked to affirm the
  544
  principle of the measure on the second reading. In the United States many of these Trust Companies were very powerful Corporations, and they worked to the complete satisfaction of the public. If persons desired to use that machinery for giving effect to their wills or their settlements, he thought they should be permitted to do so. While he was in favour of the appointment of Official Trustees, he should be sorry to regard it as an alternative scheme to the one contained in the Bill. He did not see why both should not work together. He should be still more sorry to see that question mixed up with the reform of the law relating to Joint Stock Companies. He therefore hoped that his noble and learned Friend would not object to the second reading of the Bill.
  LORD FITZGERALDsaid, he thought no one could object to the principle of the Bill; but he would suggest that the Bill should be read a second time, and that his noble and learned Friend should consent not to proceed further with the measure until the Select Committee had reported.
  LORD HALSBURYobserved, that he would not oppose the second reading provided the noble and learned Lord would not proceed further with the Bill until the Select Committee had reported. It was possible that the Select Committee might be compelled to object to the Bill going any further, because they might prefer to have an Official Trustee appointed.
  LORD HOBHOUSEsaid, he declined to accept the suggested arrangement.
  LORD HALSBURYsaid, that under the circumstances he should think it his duty to move that the Bill be read a second time that day six months.
  THE PRIME MINISTER AND SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (The Marquess of SALISBURY)said, he thought the noble and learned Lord opposite would act more wisely if he would either consent to suspend proceeding with the Bill after the second reading, until the result of the Committee's deliberations was made known, or else agree to an adjournment of the debate.
  LORD HERSCHELLsuggested that the Bill, when it had been read a second time, might be referred to the Select Committee.
  Amendment moved, to leave out ("now,") and add at the end of the Motion (" this day six months.")—(The Lord Chancellor.)
  On Question, Whether (" now ") shall stand part of the Motion?
  Their Lordships divided:—Contents 31; Not-Contents 41: Majority 10.

  CONTENTS.

  Ripon, M.

  Hobhouse, L. [Teller.]

  Kinnaird, L.

  Dundonald, E.

  Lingen, L.

  Kimberley, E.

  Lyttelton, L.

  Northbrook, E.

  Meldrum, L. (M. Huntly.)

  Spencer, E.

  Stafford, E.

  Monkswell, L.

  Northbourne, L.

  Gordon, V. (E. Aberdeen.)

  Ponsonby, L. (E. Bess-borough.)

  Oxenbridge, V.

  Revelstoke, L.

  Rosebery, L. (E. Rosebery.)

  Brassey, L.

  Clifford of Chudleigh, L.

  Sandhurst, L

  Stratheden and Campbell, L.

  de Vesci, L. (V. de Vesci.)

  Sudeley, L. [Teller.]

  Dormer, L,

  Thring, L.

  Fitz Gerald, L.

  Thurlow, L.

  Herschell, L.

  Vernon, L.

  Hillingdon, L.

  NOT-CONTENTS.

  Halsbury, L. (L. Chancellor.)

  Sidmouth, V.

  Cranbrook, V. (L. President.)

  Armstrong, L.

  Balfour of Burley, L.

  Cadogan, E. (L. Privy Seal.)

  Basing, L.

  Brodrick, L. (V. Midleton.)

  Bedford, D.

  Clements, L. (E. Leitrim.)

  Richmond, D.

  Colchester, L.

  Abergavenny, M.

  de Ros, L.

  Bath, M.

  Elphinstone, L.

  Salisbury, M.

  Foxford, L. (E. Limerick.) [Teller.]

  Mount-Edgcumbe, E. (L. Steward.)

  Hylton, L.

  Kenry, L. (E. Bunraven and Mount-Earl.)

  Bathurst, E.

  Beauchamp, E.

  Brownlow, E.

  Kintore, L. (E. Kintore.) [Teller.]

  Doncaster, E. (D. Buccleuch and Queens-berry.)

  Knutsford, L.

  Lyveden, L.

  Gainsborough, E.

  Macnaghten, L.

  Harrowby, E.

  Norton, L.

  Milltown, E.

  Wemyss, L. (E. Wemyss.)

  Onslow, E.

  Rosslyn, E.

  Wigan, L. (E. Crawford and Balcarres.)

  Stanhope, E.

  Waldegrave, E.

  Zouche of Haryng-worth, L.

  Cross, V.
  Resolved in the negative.
  Bill to be read 2a on this day six months.

POOR LAW RELIEF.

  MOTION FOR AN ADDRESS.
  THE EARL OF ABERDEEN, in rising to call attention to the present system of Poor Law relief, especially with reference to the apparent inadequacy of those systems to cope effectually with the distress recurring from time to time among large numbers of unemployed persons in the Metropolis and other populous places, and to move that a Royal Commission or a Select Committee be appointed to inquire into the subject, said, that on seeing the Notice he had placed upon the Paper, perhaps the first reflection which suggested itself to the minds of noble Lords was that there had been several inquiries into kindred subjects of the Poor Law, and that reflection might be followed by a misgiving whether an inquiry at this moment would be of practical use. He hoped to show that at present there were certain aspects of the matter which were of a most serious character, and with regard to which some action ought to be taken. As to previous investigations, there had been none since 1878. He did not intend to enter into any explanation of the legislation on the subject. He would merely say that there had been various amending Acts of Parliament; but in the main the present law was based upon the legislation of 1834 and 1835. He had no desire to attack the administration of the Poor Law by the Local Government Board. On the contrary, so far as he had been able to observe, that Board displayed very considerable skill in conducting the course of their administration along the somewhat difficult path of exercising central supervision. Still, it was to be noticed that many powers and regulations which existed were allowed to remain inoperative in consequence of the diversity of administration in different Unions. In one Poor Law district certain regulations were carried out, while in another they remained a dead letter. There was, for instance, great variety in regard to outdoor relief. Probably their Lordships would agree that the extension of the system of outdoor relief was not to be encouraged, and that it led to many abuses. Cases of abuse were not now so frequently heard of as formerly; but not long ago an Inspector told him of a

  547
  Poor Law Guardian who, when it was pointed out to him that the giving of outdoor relief on the scale which his Union was adopting was calculated to have the effect of reducing wages, frankly answered that the rates were so heavy that he did not see why they should not get some of them back in the way of reduced wages. In the Metropolis there existed the utmost diversity in the giving of outdoor relief. In one district there were 952 persons receiving outdoor relief, while only 1,845 were in the workhouse. In another there were 1,612 persons in the workhouse and only 43 persons receiving outdoor relief; while in a third, with 2,537 persons in the workhouse, there were as many as 4,860 receiving outdoor relief. This difference was perfectly astonishing. Great diversity also existed in different districts as to the labour test and as to boarding out of children. No doubt the advantages of that system were very great. The effect on children of workhouse bringing up must be very injurious, He was well aware that boarding out required anxiety and the greatest care; and he believed in regard to a matter of this importance they should obtain useful information by means of a Royal Commission or Select Committee. There seemed, also, to be great uncertainty in the minds of the officers as to their actual powers, and the consequence was that there appeared to be as great a divergence between the practice of one relieving officer and another as if they were acting under different laws. That the present system was inadequate to meet the emergencies of depressed times, might be judged from what took place at the beginning of 1886 and from what happened in the present winter. We were now passing through a period of distress which brought the weak points of the machinery into prominence, and the experience so obtained ought to be utilized, and defects which became apparent should be remedied. At the beginning of 1886 there were considerable disturbances and complaints of want of work, and an earnest appeal issued from the Mansion House was successful in obtaining a vast quantity of money for the relief of the distress. The distribution of that money led, he thought, to a great deal of demoralization. Why did the public subscribe it? Because
  548
  they believed that the Poor Law administration was not adequate to meet the emergency. During the present winter there had been another agitation and outcry against the want of work, and though the meetings of the unemployed had been suppressed, it could scarcely be supposed that the distress had passed away. The Returns of the Poor Law Board, no doubt, showed a great diminution in the number of persons applying for relief as compared with former years; but that was to be accounted for otherwise than by a diminution of distress. Charity had been more organized, and a large and increasing number of people would not resort until the very last extremity to the poor-house. This fact was in some degree corroborated by the correspondence that had passed between Poor Law Guardians on the one hand and the Vestries on the other. The former said there was no abnormal distress, because the numbers in the poor-house were not abnormal; while the Vestries pointed out that hundreds of men were applying to them for work. There had been a great deal of incredulity as to whether the number of unemployed was so large as had been represented; but the number was undoubtedly very large. This was to some extent shown by the crowds of men who were ready to work for 1s. a-day in yards that had been opened by voluntary efforts to meet the distress; there were large bodies of men seeking work and unable to find it. The noble Marquess (the Marquess of Salisbury), in replying to a deputation a few days before the Session began, said—
  "I must express ray own confidence that any attempt on the part of the State to step into the place of the ordinary employer, and to establish, a relation between it and the working classes similar to that between the employer and the employed, would only result in the long run in producing far more frightful, widespread, and permanent misery than it was designed to remedy."
  Many of those who heard or read these words of the noble Marquess must have been reminded of the French droit au travail and the public workshops that were established at one time in France. He might remind their Lordships of the work done in Lancashire at the time of the Cotton Famine. Useful works were carried out upon the sole responsibility of the Local Authority; the drainage of

  549
  towns and villages was improved, new roads were laid out, and employment was provided in a variety of other ways which gained the approval of no less an authority than Sir Robert Rawlinson, who said—
  "In all cases local distress was relieved on works of a beneficial character upon the sole responsibility of the Local Authorities, who devised the works, employed the men, and superintended them; this being a guarantee that the works in each case were of a useful character. In the end, towns and villages were sewered, houses were drained, parks formed, cemeteries laid out, waterworks executed, and some 400 miles in length of streets and roads formed in the best manner, which were at the commencement tracts of mud. The sanitary condition of the district was raised, comfort secured, and life and health prolonged."
  Sir Hugh Owen, Secretary to the Local Government Board, had shown that in many districts in the Metropolis and in other towns the Local Authorities might execute works which would provide remunerative employment for those in need of it. One important point to which a Commission might advantageously give attention was how best to produce co-operation between the distributors of relief from the rates and charitable organizations. As to the urgent nature of the distress no doubt could be entertained by anyone who studied the Returns of the Local Government Board. In February, 1885, the total number of persons receiving relief in the Metropolis was 97,000; in 1887 the number was 104,000; and this year the number was 110,000. He was anxious to guard himself against the charge of a desire or hope of obtaining anything like State relief for the poor; but in face of the continuance of distress he wished to urge the need of some action in the matter. He earnestly hoped that the Government would grant an Inquiry. People would not abstain from indiscriminate alms-giving until there was an assurance that the Poor Law system provided effective relief for absolute suffering and destitution. The only persons who would regard with dissatisfaction any investigation would be the advocates of Socialistic doctrines, who were anxious to make capital out of distress, or any supposed unwillingness of those in power to endeavour to see what could be done in a proper manner to relieve that distress. In conclusion, he suggested that it would be well to improve the machinery of the Poor Law
  550
  so as to introduce greater uniformity in its adminstration. He begged to move the Resolution which stood in his name.
  Moved, "That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty praying Her Majesty to issue a Royal Commission to inquire into the present systems of poor law relief, especially with reference to the apparent inadequacy of those systems to cope effectually with the distress recurring from time to time amongst large numbers of unemployed persons in the Metropolis and other populous places; or that a Select Committee be appointed to inquire into the subject."—(The Earl of Aberdeen.)
  LORD THRINGsaid, he hoped that the request of the noble Earl would not be refused by the Government. By inquiry they might discover means of making the Poor Law appear less harsh to the class whom it chiefly concerned. There ought, in his opinion, to be cooperation between charities and Poor Law administrators.
  LORD BALFOURsaid, that the want of uniformity in the administration of the Poor Law was one of the great advantages of the system, because no cast-iron rule which could be devised could possibly meet the varying circumstances of different localities. The principle of the Poor Law was that it should be administered by the representatives of the ratepayers in each district—subject, of course, to certain general rules and regulations laid down by the Central Authority—the belief being that the people of a district must understand its circumstances better than anyone else. The practice of boarding out children, to which reference had been made, was encouraged as much as possible by the Local Government Board; but it was necessary to take care that children were not sent to unsuitable homes, and orphans could alone be dealt with in this way. Children who were taken into the workhouse by their parents could not be sent into the country, because the parents might claim their discharge at any moment. Local authorities had also been encouraged to permit children to leave the poor-house in order to attend schools outside. But there was difficulty and disadvantage in this except in workhouses where there was a large staff. In the workhouse of a small district, if the schoolmaster and schoolmistress were discharged, there would be no one left to look after the children, when not in school except the

  551
  adult paupers, and, as their Lordships knew, it was very undesirable to place children in their leisure hours under the control of paupers. In his Motion and in his speech the noble Earl had mixed up two very distinct things, the relief of distress and the duty of finding work for the unemployed; and with reference to the second point the noble Earl had alluded to Sir Robert Rawlinson's declarations at the time of the Cotton Famine in Lancashire. He believed that Sir Robert Rawlinson had distinctly said that the device which was resorted to in Lancashire was unsuitable to the Metropolis, because no such works as were carried out in Lancashire could be usefully carried out in London. As regarded the Motion itself, which seemed to imply that the Poor Law system was inadequate to meet any emergency which had arisen, he was obliged to join issue with the noble Lord. There was no evidence that that was the case, so far at least as the relief of destitution was concerned. The principle underlying the Poor Law was that no one was to receive relief from the poor rates unless he was destitute, and the Poor Law had nothing to do with poverty apart from destitution. The position he had laid down could be made good by figures. In England and Wales on the last week of January last the number of paupers, excluding lunatics and vagrants, was 778,000; in the corresponding week of January. 1880, the number was 795,000; and in 1870 it was 1,054,800, or 276,000 more than in January last. For the Metropolis the corresponding figures were—this year, 109,000; 1870, 166,000, or 57,000 more than at the present time. Therefore, there was no danger of the Poor Law system coping successfully with the present emergency, as it had successfully coped with more serious emergencies in the past. The real and first test to compare our position now with that at any former time, was to take the proportion of pauperism to population, and if this were done it would still further strengthen his contention. In January, 1870, for England and Wales the proportion was 47·5 paupers to every 1,000 of the population; in January last, it was only 27·5. In the Metropolis in January, 1870, it was 52·3; last January it was 25·9. If pauperism in England and Wales now bore the same proportion to the popula-
  552
  lation that it did in 1880 we should have 1,341,000 paupers instead of 775,000. He quite admitted that in the Metropolis there had been an increase since the 1st of January in the number of persons chargeable to the rates from 106,000 to 109,000, but that had been owing to the long-continued severity of the winter. Perhaps, as a noble and learned Lord opposite suggested, recent legislation had increased the proportion of indoor paupers in London and large towns, but the figures he had given included in-door and out-door paupers. They must all remember that those who administered relief were not distributing a charity, but they were distributing a fund to which all ratepayers contributed according to their means, and the distributors must cast aside sentiment, and he guided less by their hearts than by their heads. Belief was only given to able-bodied male persons when they were out of employment and destitute. The test of destitution was admission to the workhouse or the performance of task-work, and tests were necessary for the protection of many ratepayers, who had a struggle to maintain their independence. Undoubtedly there was a large amount of suffering in the country at the present time, but it was not larger than it had been formerly, and it had been met with a fortitude which excited our surprise and admiration. If relief out of the poor rates were too easily obtained, present evils would be intensified rather than minimized. On behalf of struggling ratepayers, he implored their Lordships to do nothing that would make the administration of relief more difficult or that would make it more easy for those who were unsuccessful in the battle of life to come upon the rates. The slightest addition to the rates was a serious matter to those who were struggling to preserve their independence and were just above the line of pauperism. There was great difficulty in separating the deserving from the undeserving, and the problem was not likely to be hastily solved. It was a more difficult one for those who administered a public fund than for those who administered a private charity. He claimed that, at the present time, there was no ground for saying that the public provision for the mitigation and relief of destitution was inadequate to any emergency that had arisen, and there was no ground to fear

  553
  a general breakdown of the system. The absence of uniformity between one Union and another did not necessarily involve any charge against the administration of the Poor Law. The noble Earl seemed to be referring to the case of Greenwich, where there was a large amount of outdoor relief compared with St. George's-in-the-East, where the amount was small; but the circumstances of the two Unions were not similar, and undoubtedly St. George's was one of the best administered Unions in the Metropolis. The case of Greenwich had been the subject of special inquiry at the instance of the President of the Local Government Board. There had been a large increase of house property of the smallest and poorest class simultaneously with the closing of local factories and works, and as there was a deficiency of workhouse accommodation a disproportionate amount of outdoor relief had necessarily been given. As to the question of distress in the Metropolis, he should like to say that London and other large centres of population had unfortunately been flooded for the past year or two by numbers of people who had come from the agricultural districts in the hope—delusive, no doubt—of obtaining work. One of the cause, but perhaps not the chief cause of this, had been the idea that large charitable funds were being distributed in the Metropolis and elsewhere. Very little sufficed to draw people artifically from one district to another. Their Lordships might have noticed that in the course of last autumn a number of people took to sleeping in the open in Trafalgar Square. As the weather became colder the attention of some philanthropic persons was directed to the miserable condition of these people, and it was thought that it would be a good thing to supply them with coffee and refreshments at night. The result was most unfortunate, because the news spread, and numbers of others in a like condition came to the Square in the hope of sharing in the distribution. Trafalgar Square was in the Strand Union, and that union did not possess a very large casual ward. The consequence was it soon became overcrowded, and the Guardians had each night to send 500 or 600 people to common lodging-houses in the district. The lodging-houses were obviously more attractive than the casual
  554
  wards, especially as they were near Covent Garden. So that the coffee in the Square, the lodging-houses, and the hope that work might be got in Covent, Garden in the morning induced a very-large number of people to visit the district. When the Guardians found promises in which to put these people under the casual wards' system, the influx ceased. The noble Earl said he thought that the present was an opportune time to inquire into the matter to which he had called attention. He was not quite certain of that. There were many persons just now who were more subject to kindness of heart than to hardness of head in this matter, and he hoped that so far as a Royal Commission was concerned their Lordships would not agree to the Motion of the noble Earl. The Royal Commission on Agricultural Depression and the Royal Commission on Depression in Trade had already dealt with the causes of distress, and nothing could be added to our knowledge on these points. There could exist no reason for the appointment of another Royal Commission on the same subject And under no circumstances could they accept the motion as it stood; but if there was a general feeling in the House that an inquiry by a Committee of their Lordships would be of service, he, or the President of the Local Government Board, would be prepared to confer with the noble Earl and endeavour to frame such a Reference as would be acceptable. At the same time, the Government were not without fear that even the limited inquiry which he had indicated would raise hopes which could not be satisfied, and would tend to intensify rather than diminish the evil which existed.
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEYsaid, he was glad to hear the concluding sentences of the speech of the noble Lord who had just sat down, because he thought that an inquiry by a Committee of their Lordships might prove very useful. At the same time, he quite admitted the danger of which the noble Lord had spoken, and thought they must balance that danger against another—namely, that if they refused an inquiry, misrepresentations and wrong impressions as to the administration of the Poor Law might be entertained. If an inquiry were held these misrepresentations and wrong impressions might be

  555
  removed, and many schemes proved to be impracticable. He concurred in a great deal which, the noble Lord who had spoken for the Government had said, and he was exceedingly glad to hear him bring forward the figures as to the amount of pauperism in the country. There was an extraordinary misconception on that subject. He thought that the last year with reference to which they had a Return showed only a very small increase over the lowest year in the previous period. Although there was great depression and more unemployed persons than usual, there were certain indications that the distress had not been so acute as persons represented it to be. Our system of Poor Law relief was based upon the principle that no person should be allowed to suffer seriously in health, still less to die, for want of food, shelter, and the ordinary necessaries of life. They could not go further than that. It was not a system of general charity, but one for saving life and preventing suffering, and whenever they passed from that sound principle they got into difficulties. As to uniformity, he knew that there were great differences between unions in different parts of the country. He knew of unions similarly circumstanced, where the administration of the law was carried out in a different way from what it was in the other. The noble Lord had stated that one of the causes of the recent distress was the migration of the agricultural labourers into the towns. That was said to be the case to a very large extent, but he should like to know to what extent. His own opinion was that the distress in the Metropolis was mainly due to the failure of the docks in the East of London, and to certain changes with regard to other industries, which were now left stranded. Then, again, there had been a singular increase of vagrancy in many parts of the country, and the cause of this was not very clearly known. As to the establishment of relief works, he would point out to his noble Friend that such a step meant that people would crowd into any locality in which they were started, besides which it would be a departure from the ordinary principles of the law. An important point was the co-ordination of private charity with the Poor Law. They ought not to extend the Poor Law
  556
  system so as to kill private charity, and on the other hand they wanted to encourage thrift among the working classes, and to lead them to take advantage of benefit clubs and of opportunities to lay by for times of sickness and old age. It was only by a strict administration of the Poor Law that they could induce those people to do that. While, however, he held that a strict administration of the Poor Law was of the highest importance, it was also of great importance that its general administration should have the confidence of the respectable labouring population. They required to have for that administration the moral support, not of the richer classes only, but of the whole body of the population, and therefore he did not think that inquiry would be misplaced.
  THE EARL OF WEMYSSsaid, he was glad to hear that the Government did not object to an inquiry. But he was anxious for an inquiry on different grounds from those contained in the Motion. The Motion of his noble Friend, in its introductory part, rather implied that it was based on the inadequacy of the present Poor Law to meet existing requirements. Now, he thought that inquiry would show two things—that there had been a gross exaggeration as to the amount of distress existing, and that the Poor Law properly administered was equal to the emergency. The distress in London in the winter of 1861, as shown by the statistics of pauperism, was very severe; and a Select Committee stated in their Report that there was strong evidence that such distress could have been relieved by the Poor Law Authorities, inasmuch as the machinery of administration was sufficient, and the Guardians possessed the requisite powers for raising the necessary funds, but that the charge would press hard on some parishes in the Metropolis. Since 1861 legislation had been passed in regard to the common Poor Law fund, which had improved the system. His noble Friend was anxious for co-operation between charity and the Poor Law. That cooperation had now being going on for a long period. They now had the Poor Law for giving general relief to the poor, the police to look after vagrancy, and the Charity Organization Society for dealing with other cases deserving help, and other societies all co-operating to-

  557
  gether. He believed that the result of the forthcoming inquiry would be to remove much dissatisfaction, and to clear away much misapprehension both as to the amount of distress existing and as to the means of relief.
  THE ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY (Dr. BENSON)said, he received only too much evidence of great misery existing, a vast number of people suffering, and many suffering without their misery being made known to the public. He was also made aware of the great and increasing feeling of doubt as to whether the Poor Law was competent, as at present administered, to deal with that distress. He much desired to see that doubt set at rest. He was thankful to the noble Lord behind him for the statistics he had laid before them; and he had little doubt that the result of inquiry would be very much what the noble Lord who had spoken last had predicted. Among much sad information that they had received during the last winter, some of the saddest was that there was no more than the normal amount of distress. If it was normal, it was far too great to be allowed to exist without larger attempts being made to remove it. It was said that there were but 2 per cent of the sufferers who were honest. If so, it was no matter for congratulation that the other 98 per cent were not honest. Whatever were the merits of the Poor Law itself, doubts arose as to its administration, and those doubts seemed certainly at first sight the more reasonable because of the great variety of that administration in parishes in the circumstances of which none but the Guardians themselves could see any difference. He would not for a moment advocate giving way to indolent and ignorant doubt; but doubt on this subject led to spasmodic and mischievous action under the influence of panic, and it was to be hoped that the contemplated inquiry would create confidence and silence many alarms. Reference had been made to the Charity Organization Society as supplementing the working of the Poor Law; but the excellent operations of that Society applied only to the Metropolis, and even only to parts of the Metropolis. So long as the doubts to which he had alluded existed, not only would relief subscriptions be started, perhaps injudiciously, but an undesirable ill-
  558
  feeling would exist towards the Guardians of the Poor. If that inquiry should make it clear that the Guardians were serving the poor in the best way, real advantage would be gained; but if it should turn out that the existing state of things was likely to be permanent, to continue "normal," or gradually to increase, they would probably require something more than the present Poor Law to meet the necessities of the situation. This was meant simply for the relief of the poor in their hard times, not for a cure of poverty. The present proportion of the worthless class to the rest of the poor might easily be made much larger by throwing into it, through ill-advised administration, many of the rather feeble poor who were still willing to do their best, and if the result of inquiry should be to check the increase of the worthless class by encouraging systems of thrift, inducing the people to resort to them, or to make themselves more skilful in their trades, this would do great national good, and we should cease to supply material for the agitator and the anarchist.
  EARL FORTESCUEsaid, that the fund out of which rates were taken was the fund which provided wages for the working population, and you could not encroach largely upon it without diminishing the amount of employment which could be given, adding to the number of unemployed and getting into a vicious circle. What was given in charity was one thing, what was exacted from the ratepayers was another. The effect of enormous rates in diminishing employment showed how dangerous it was to extend indefinitely the claims upon the wage-supplying fund by any undue laxity of Poor Law administration which tempted men to rely on relief out of public funds.
  THE EARL OF ABERDEENsaid, he would withdraw the Motion in its present shape, and confer with the noble Lord opposite as to the terms of one which might be open to fewer objections.
  Motion (by leave of the House) withdrawn.

  DEBATES AND PROCEEDINGS IN PARLIAMENT.
  Message from the House of Commons that they have appointed a Committee, to consist of Six Members, to join with a Committee of their Lordships to inquire and report as to the cost

  559
  and method of the publication of the Debates and Proceedings in Parliament; and to request that their Lordships will he pleased to appoint an equal number of Lords to be joined with the Members of that House; Ordered, that the said Message be taken into consideration Tomorrow.
  House adjourned at a quarter past Seven o'clock, till To-morrow, a quarter past Ten o'clock.