Attorney General v Merthyr Tydfil Union
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Date | 1900 |
| Court | Court of Appeal |
Poor Law - Guardians of the Poor - Persons entitled to Relief - “Sudden and urgent Necessity” - Able-bodied Men unwilling to Work - Strike of Workmen - “Idle and Disorderly Persons” - Prosecution by Guardians - Powers of Local Government Board - Jurisdiction of High Court - Injunction - Public Authority - Practice - Declaration of Right -
The classes of persons who are entitled to poor law relief are still (notwithstanding subsequent legislation) the same as those mentioned in s. 1 of the Act of 43 Eliz. c. 2.
Able-bodied men who can, if they choose, obtain work which will enable them to maintain themselves, their wives and families, but who, by reason of a strike or otherwise, refuse to accept that work, are not entitled to relief, except that, if they become physically incapable of working, the guardians may, to prevent their starving, give them temporary relief. But in that case the guardians ought to prosecute them under the Vagrancy Act, 1824, s. 3, as “idle and disorderly persons.”
The wives and children of such men, however, are entitled to relief, though they themselves are not.
Semble also, that men who are prevented from accepting work by fear of physical violence are entitled to relief.
A general strike of workmen does not of itself create a case of “sudden and urgent necessity” within the meaning of s. 54 of the Poor Law Amendment Act, 1834.
The High Court has jurisdiction to restrain guardians from applying the poor-rates improperly.
But this jurisdiction does not interfere with the power of the Local Government Board under s. 4 of the Poor Law Audit Act, 1848, to remit improper payments by guardians which have been disallowed by the auditor.
The plaintiffs claimed an injunction to restrain the defendants from applying the rates in the relief of able-bodied men who could have obtained work, but who refused to accept it, and also a declaration of the illegality of such an application of the rates. At the trial of the action the plaintiffs did not ask for an injunction:—
Held, that the Court had jurisdiction, and ought to make a declaration that any payment out of the rates for setting to work or for the relief of able-bodied men who could at the time obtain and perform work at wages sufficient to support themselves and their wives and families (if any) was unlawful and ought to be disallowed by the auditor of the guardians' accounts.
But the declaration was not to include relief given to or for the wives and children of such men, and was in no way to affect the power of the Local Government Board to remit such disallowed payments, although unlawfully made, under any statute enabling them to do so.
TRIAL OF ACTION.
The action was brought by the Attorney-General, at the relation of the Powell Duffryn Steam Coal Company, Limited, and by that company, on behalf of themselves and all other the ratepayers of the Merthyr Tydfil Union, against the guardians of the poor of that union.
The action was in the first instance brought by the Powell Duffryn Company as sole plaintiffs, and the Attorney-General was afterwards added as a co-plaintiff.
The facts of the case were thus summarised by Romer J. in his judgment:—
A strike of colliers occurred in 1898 in South Wales whereby many men who were not colliers were thrown out of employ. Many colliers and other workmen in the Merthyr Tydfil Union applied for poor law relief. The guardians established labour yards and relief works, and, partly by these yards and works, and partly by gifts of food or money, the necessitous workmen and their families were relieved. So far as the colliers were concerned, work was offered to them in neighbouring collieries, but they would not accept it, and of this the guardians were aware. The plaintiffs alleged that, at any rate so far as related to the colliers or other able-bodied persons who could obtain work, the guardians ought not to have relieved them. The plaintiffs contended that the payments made to the colliers or persons in the same position ought to be disallowed, and the guardians be ordered to refund the sums paid. The plaintiffs further asked for an injunction to restrain any further relief being given to such colliers or able-bodied persons. The guardians, to provide for relief in the union, had in the usual way issued to the overseers of the parishes comprised therein orders for contributions to the common fund of the union, and the overseers thereupon levied and collected a rate in their parishes. The plaintiffs alleged that this rate was higher than it otherwise would have been by reason of the guardians having improperly relieved workmen in the manner above stated. And, accordingly, they asked for an injunction to restrain the guardians from enforcing or receiving payments in respect of such orders. The plaintiffs also asked a declaration “that the establishment and maintenance by the defendants of labour yards or relief works for the purpose of providing outdoor relief for able-bodied persons, to the knowledge of the defendants otherwise able to maintain themselves and their families, and the expenditure by the defendants of parts of the common fund of the union for the purpose of relieving such able-bodied persons and their families, constituted a breach of the statutory duties of the defendants” as guardians. At the trial, the plaintiffs asked only for the declaration.
The relators were large ratepayers in the defendants' union, and they were also owners of one of the collieries in which the colliers had struck.
By their defence the defendants asserted that none of the acts of which the plaintiffs complained constituted a breach of the statutory powers or duties of the defendants or was in any respect illegal. And the defendants further said that if any of the relief granted by them was illegal it would be the duty of the district auditor to disallow the expenses incurred by the defendants in relation thereto and to surcharge the person or persons who authorized the payments, unless the Local Government Board should in pursuance of their statutory powers remit the disallowance and surcharge. And the defendants said that the proper remedy of the plaintiffs was to apply to the auditor, at the audit of the accounts relating to the alleged illegal expenses, to disallow and surcharge them.
Interrogatories were administered by the plaintiffs, and in answer to the fourth interrogatory the defendants' clerk said:—
4. “I believe that at the time when persons who had formerly been engaged in or about the plaintiff company's and other collieries were relieved at the labour yards they might have obtained and were offered work upon terms which they did not think proper to accept, and that notices containing the offer of such terms were posted at the said collieries. And I believe that the relieving officers and individual members of the defendant board of guardians were aware of the fact.”
The action came on for trial before Romer J. on February 21, 1899.
Neville, Q.C., Cripps, Q.C., and Micklem, for the plaintiffs, cited Grand Junction Waterworks Co. v. Hampton Urban CouncilF1; Barraclough v. BrownF2; Attorney-General v. ComptonF3; Newcastle Corporation v. Attorney-GeneralF4; Hosegood v. CampsF5; Attorney-General v. Dublin CorporationF6; Attorney-General v. West Hartlepool Improvement CommissionersF7; Attorney-General v. Southampton Union.F8
Cozens-Hardy, Q.C., Farwell Q.C., and Alexander Glen, for the defendants, referred to Pasmore v. Oswaldtwistle Urban CouncilF9; Reg. v. CurtisF10; Attorney-General v. Wigan CorporationF11; Frewin v. Lewis.F12
Neville, in reply, cited Rex v. North Riding of Yorkshire Justices.F13
1899. March 27. ROMER J. In the course of this case some general questions of considerable importance were raised, upon which I think it right to express my opinion. The main question is as to the right of guardians of the poor to relieve workmen on strike out of the poor rates fund. Now, a workman on strike is in no better or worse position than any other subject of Her Majesty who, for reasons which seem to him sufficient, will not work. A man, though he is able to work and has work offered to him which is within his capacity, and on terms which would keep him and his family, may refuse to work, so long as he does not call upon the guardians to support him. But when he applies for poor law relief, then different considerations arise. If he can get work which he is able to do, and by which he could earn sufficient to keep him and his family, then, speaking generally, the guardians ought not to support him out of the fund. But to this rule there is an exception. If he or his family be starving and might die or be seriously injured unless relief be immediately given, or any other case of sudden and urgent necessity arises, the guardians ought to grant out of the fund such relief as may under the circumstances of the case be immediately required, and this though the urgency of the case may have arisen even from the wilful refusal of the man to work; for the punishment of such wilful refusal ought not to be the death or serious injury of the man, still less of his family. But when the urgent pressure of the moment is relieved, then the guardians ought to require the man to work, and if he is able to get and to do work which would keep him, the guardians ought not then to support him in idleness out of the fund. In other words, in such a case the guardians, though giving urgent...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
The Estate of The Most Honsourable John Henry, Marquis of Ely, Owner and Petitioner
...to the payment of the charges and costs above mentioned. All these costs are to be taxed as costs in a Chancery action. w. c. s. (1) [1900] 1 Ch. 516. (2) Ibid. (3) [1899] 2 Ch. 705. (4) [1903] 2 Ch. 112. (1) [1902] 1 I. R. 114. (2) I. R. 6 C. L. 88. (1) 11 A. & E. 179. (2) [1897] 1 I. B. 1......
- Attorney-General v Bermondsey Guardians
-
O'Doherty v Attorney-General and O'Donnell
...A. C. 494, at p. 532. (3) 10 Wh. 152. (4) [1916] 1 A. C. 242, at p. 263. (5) [1919] A. C. 956, at p. 962. (6) [1918] 1 K. B. 33. (1) [1900] 1 Ch. 516. (2) [1921] 1 K. B. 187. (3) [1911] 1 K. B. 410, at p. 417. (1) [1932] I. R. (2) [1924] 1 K. B. 941, at p. 956. (3) [1937] I. R. 93, at p. 11......
-
Weir v Fermanagh County Council & Enniskillen Rural District Council
...and Lords Justices Holmes and Cherry. (2) [1903] 1 Ch. 759. (3) [1902] A. C. 165. (4) 2 Myl. & Cr. 613. (5) [1898] 1 I. R. 200. (6) [1900] 1 Ch. 516. (1) 29 Beav. 144. (2) 22 Times L. R. 245. (3) 3 T. L. R. 676. (4) 27 L. R. I. 179, at 247. (5) [1906] 1 Ch. 643. (6) [1899] A. C. 293. (1) 2 ......
-
THE DONOUGHMORE REPORT IN RETROSPECT
...use of rates to pay poor relief to able-bodied colliers on strike (Attorney-General v Guardians of the Poor of the Merthyr Tydfil Union, 1900, 1 Ch. 516), and this decision was echoed some thirty years later when it was held illegal to write off the balance of loans made to Tynemouth strike......