Obrázky stránek
PDF
ePub

for that he, being a person able wholly or in part to maintain himself by work or other means, did wilfully refuse or neglect so to do, by which refusal or neglect he became chargeable to the common fund of the Poplar Union.

The respondent was an able-bodied person of thirty-nine years of age, and on February 23, 1904, he was admitted to the Poplar workhouse. On April 13, 1904, he and ten other pauper inmates were taken by the labour master to the farm colony established by William Booth at Hadleigh in Essex for the reception and employment of destitute men. Under the terms of an agreement between the appellants and William Booth the respondent could have started work at the colony on probation, receiving as remuneration his food and lodging free and 6d. a week in the nature of pocket-money, and if the respondent had after two or three weeks been employed upon brickwork he could have earned 4d. a yard for digging clay, at which rate of pay it was possible for some men to earn 30s. a week. He was told to go to work in the brickfield at the colony. It was not possible to do more than guess at the remuneration which he might have earned later on. These terms were explained to the respondent, and he was asked to sign an undertaking to conform to the rules of the colony; but he refused to work upon the said terms or to sign the undertaking, and left the colony. On April 18, 1904, he returned to the Poplar workhouse, and again became chargeable on the rates.

It was contended on behalf of the appellants that the respondent had rendered himself liable to conviction as an idle and disorderly person under 5 Geo. 4, c. 83, s. 3. The learned magistrate decided against this contention, but stated a case for the opinion of the Court, which was remitted to him by the Court to inquire whether the respondent did actually refuse wilfully to maintain himself. (1)

(1) When the case was originally before the Divisional Court the conditions upon which work at the farm colony was offered by the Salvation Army were not part of the special case, nor had they been considered

by the learned magistrate in arriving
at his decision; apparently they had
not been brought to his notice. The
Divisional Court held that, in con-
sidering whether a refusal to accept
work was reasonable or not, regard

1905

POPLAR GUARDIANS

v.

MARTIN.

1905

POPLAR GUARDIANS

v.

MARTIN.

On July 28, 1904, the parties again appeared before the magistrate, when the evidence already set out was repeated, and it was further proved that on April 13, 1904, the respondent came to the colony, and that on the next day one Charles Durman handed to him a form of agreement to sign, and that the respondent refused to sign the agreement or to work upon the terms thereof. The respondent would not have been allowed to work at the colony except upon his agreeing to all the terms of the agreement. He assigned no reason for his refusal, except that the remuneration was insufficient. He stated that he was a member of the Church of England, and it was proved that there was a church of the Church of England which he could have attended.

The learned magistrate was of opinion that the conditions. contained in the agreement by which the colonist was required to undertake to discourage other colonists from entering premises where intoxicating liquors were sold and was to attend the Saturday night roll-call and other special meetings, which were explained to be a form of church parade, and was to attend some place of worship once on a Sunday, were not reasonable conditions to be attached to his employment, and that the respondent was justified in refusing to work on those conditions, and was therefore not guilty of the offence charged.

The question for the opinion of the Court was whether the conditions contained in the agreement and referred to in the case were reasonable or not.

The material portion of the agreement which every colonist was required to sign was in the following terms: "I agree to obey all the rules and regulations made for the good conduct and management of the colony, and to carry out all the instructions which may be given me by the officers and superintendents under whom I work. I promise to abstain from all intoxicating drink whilst resident on the colony; and I pledge myself not to enter any premises where intoxicating drink is sold, and to discourage others from doing so. I also promise to abstain

must be had to the conditions upon
which the work was offered, and the
case was accordingly remitted to the

magistrate for rehearing with a direction to that effect.

from the use of all profane or obscene language whilst on the colony. I promise to attend the Saturday night roll-call meetings in the Citadel, and any special meetings which may from time to time be arranged by the governor of the colony. I also promise to attend some place of worship once on a Sunday."

Colam, for the appellants, contended that there had been a wilful refusal to work on the part of the pauper, and that the conditions attached to the offer of employment were not unreasonable.

[LORD ALVERSTONE C.J. referred to Carpenter v. Stanley. (1)] The respondent did not appear.

LORD ALVERSTONE C.J. The question raised by this case is one of considerable difficulty. The question which we have to consider is whether the respondent, being able wholly or in part to maintain himself, or his family, by work or other means, wilfully refused or neglected to do so, by reason of which refusal or neglect he became chargeable to the parish. He was offered work in return for his food and lodging and 6d. a week pocket-money, and conditions in many respects most salutary and useful were attached to the offer; for instance, that the money made by his work was to go to a fund in which he had an interest, though what his exact interest was we are not informed; and it further appeared that if he stayed in the employment he might become qualified to earn a higher rate of wages in a short time. Taking these facts by themselves, and if there had been nothing else in the case, I should hesitate before coming to the conclusion that a man who was offered without restriction employment of that kind, and who declined it, had not wilfully refused to work. It is true that the respondent objected to the rate of pay as insufficient, and if under the circumstances it appeared that the pay, the food, or the lodging offered him were such as to shew that he was not getting a substantial remuneration for his work, there might be good ground for his refusal to work; but that is not the case here.

(1) (1868) 33 J. P. 37.

1905

POPLAR GUARDIANS

v.

MARTIN.

1905 POPLAR GUARDIANS

There were other conditions attached to the man's possible employment, and the learned magistrate has thought that the conditions were either unreasonable as a whole, or were such that the refusal to comply with them did not amount to a Lord Alverstone wilful refusal by the respondent to do work which would help him wholly or in part to maintain himself within the meaning of the section we are considering.

v.

MARTIN.

C.J.

I do not wish to be understood as expressing an opinion that the conditions in question are in themselves unreasonable; if a man goes to a colony of this kind I do not think it unreasonable that he should be asked to report himself or to attend meetings, or to put himself under certain restrictions as to intoxicating liquors, but, when we are dealing with a criminal offence, that is not the test which we ought to apply. It being necessary to draw the line at some point, I think that the conditions imposed should be conditions which affect the man's work; and if the terms on which he is offered work are reasonable with reference to the work which he is called on to do, we ought to hesitate before holding that he was justified in refusing to do work offered him on such conditions. Instances of reasonable conditions are easy to suggest; for instance, to come to his work at certain hours, to obey orders relating to his work, to observe the hours for meals, to conduct himself properly during working hours and in connection with his work. But I doubt whether, in considering a question arising under s. 3, we have a right to say that the Court may regard conditions which are imposed on a man and made obligatory on him, but which have no relation to his work at all. For example, attendance on Sunday at some place of worship is a thing which is proper in itself and should be encouraged, and I can see no objection whatever to the respondent's attending the meetings of the particular organization which offered him the work; and similarly anything that would promote the cause of temperance is an admirable thing in itself and one which a judge would be the last person in the world to consider unreasonable; on the other hand, I doubt whether any of these matters ought to enter into our consideration when we are dealing with a criminal charge of

1905

POPLAR GUARDIANS

v.

refusing to work. However beneficial such conditions are in themselves, they have no relation to the man's work or to the question whether the man is willing to work, and without going so far as the learned magistrate, who seems, from the MARTIN. statement in the case, to have thought these conditions unreason- Lord Alverstone able, they are not in my opinion such as can properly be taken into consideration where a man is charged under this section with wilfully refusing to work. The decision of the magistrate must therefore be upheld, and the appeal dismissed.

KENNEDY J. I am of the same opinion, and need add but little to the judgment of my Lord, in which I entirely concur, because I expressed the same view on the previous occasion when this case came before us. I need only say that while I have nothing but admiration for this particular scheme in this particular colony for encouraging men to work and at the same time keeping them under wholesome discipline and reasonable restraint, yet, when one approaches the present question, one must be careful to consider whether one can properly hold that the refusal of a man to enter the particular establishment and make himself subject to the particular rules and regulations is so unreasonable that one should treat as an offence against the law the result of his refusal, as amounting to a wilful refusal or neglect to wholly or partly maintain himself. It is no reflection upon the excellent work of the particular institution if we decline to treat a refusal to enter it as involving that which can be punished criminally. Speaking broadly, I see nothing to object to in any reasonable rules which would apply, not only to the kind of work and the hours of work, but also (for example) to the man's conduct during the working hours and in coming to and going from his work. But while in this particular case there may be nothing which most men would dispute to be reasonable, I do not think that it would be right to hold that the man must attend whatever religious meetings may be held; and, further, although it may be difficult to draw the line, I think that, while sobriety and abstinence from drink is a very reasonable thing for the man himself, it is not desirable that he should be made, at the discretion of his VOL. I. 1905.

3 D

2

C.J.

« PředchozíPokračovat »