sibilities; and furthermore, it has been contended that to do so would be to sacrifice the ratepayer, and put a premium on parental neglect.

It is unnecessary to discuss these contentions, because in passing the Industrial Schools (Ireland) Act, both of them have been practically given up. Among the many qualifications (if I may use the term) required for the admission of a child to an industrial school, is that it shall have been found begging. Now when a child, or its parent for it, knocks at the door of a workhouse seeking admission, what is it doing if it be not begging? It is a mere quibble to draw a line between begging of the State and begging of an individual. The essence of either petitions is an admission of inability to do without assistance. Under the Industrial Schools Act the State takes possession of the child, compels the parent, if possible, to contribute to its support, but allows no interference on the part of the parent. Some such powers are required if the industrial system is to be applied to children in workhouses. And it is required, not only in the interest of the individual child, but in the interest of orphans, or of children whose parents have neither the wish nor the power to remove them, because they are apt, under present circumstances, to be demoralized by the children of those who are constantly running in and out of the workhouses, bringing in with them the moral atmosphere and reek of

the streets.

Independently of any amelioration in the condition of the inmates of workhouses, which a system of classification would bring about, there is a slight change in the method of admissions, which, without any of the reforms this paper suggests, could be carried out now, and ought to be carried out.

The areas of relief have not been arranged as they ought to have been, with a view chiefly to the convenience of the poor. Local interests and influences have had too much to say to their delimitation. I have heard of a case where an applicant for relief must turn his back on a workhouse five miles off, to seek relief in another at a distance of fourteen miles! Such a case, and I apprehend a by no means uncommon one, is outrageous in its want of consideration for legitimate needs; and as its mere existence has not sufficed all those years to induce the Local Government Board to redistribute the areas, as it might have done, it is clear that some outside pressure is needed.

But even where the size and configuration of the areas of relief are in every respect satisfactory, the poor have in many cases to travel distances to get their cases inquired into, which would be trying to well-fed persons in full enjoyment of health. Nothing more is required for the purpose of remedying this wrong-for it is a wrong-than the application of a little humanity tempered by common sense. There are in Ireland 163 workhouses and 720 dispensary districts. Why cannot the cases of the poor be investigated in these dispensary centres? Let us suppose that in Ireland there are 6,500 Poor Law Guardians, being about 40 to each Union; then there would be an average of, say, 9 Guardians to each dispensary district-I speak of rural districts. Surely to such a number of Guardians could be conceded the giving of provisional orders of relief, either in-door or out-door; and those provisional orders could be revised once a month by the whole Board at the workhouse centre.

It will be objected that already Guardians find it a tax on their time to attend once a week. But if such a system as I advocate here was adopted, it would not be necessary for them to attend more than once a month. Once a week they would go the very much shorter distance to the dispensary district, and once a month attend the Union meeting. Meanwhile the general business of the Union could be left in the hands of a Committee elected by the Guardians. The work would be much better done, there would be a deeper sense of responsibility, the policy of the Board would gain in stability, and in all probability this change alone would bring the rates down two pence in the pound. On their side the poor would be saved threefourths of the distance of the journeys they now have to take, often to find themselves rejected. Meetings in the different dispensary districts could be held on different days, and a workhouse conveyance could attend at each to remove the infirm.

MORAL.

What is the moral of this paper? Is it not that in the interests of the poor there is a great work that ought to be done, and that can be done with but little addition to, probably with a diminution of, our present burdens; without dislocation of existing systems; without offending prejudices; without displacement of interests; and that all that is required, is to educate the ratepayer to see and

VOL. VI.

2 E

understand, what humanity and his own interests, rightly understood, require? Who can better take this great work of mercy, of enlightenment, of persuasion, into their hands than the clergy? If the ratepayer come to desire such reforms, who is there that can withstand him? C. R. CHICHESTER.

ON THE LAW OF CHARITABLE BEQUESTS IN
IRELAND.
III.

THE LEGAL DEFINITION OF CHARITY.-(Continued.)

"There is, perhaps, not one person in a thousand who knows what is the technical and the legal meaning of the term Charity."LORD CAIRNS.1

WE may now proceed to a closer inspection of the

various purposes, and classes of purposes, which have been recognised by the courts as "charitable."

At first sight, and when viewed without reference to the principles on which they rest, the judicial decisions which practically constitute the Common Law on this subject, may appear strangely, and indeed hopelessly, inconsistent with one another. Thus, we find it laid down, on the one hand, that a bequest for the supply of a town with spring water is "charitable," and, on the other, that a bequest to the (Protestant) Bishop of Durham, to be applied to such "objects of benevolence and liberality as he should most approve of, is not "charitable." bequest to Her Majesty's Government in exoneration of the national debt " is "charitable ;" a bequest to a friendly society in aid of its funds is not "charitable." A bequest to erect or to keep in repair a tomb or monument within a church or chapel is "charitable :" a bequest for erecting and keeping in repair a monument in a churchyard is not

66

1 Dolan v. MacDermot, Law Reports, 3 Chancery Appeals, 678.

2 Jones v. Williams, Ambler, 674.

8 Morice v. The Bishop of Durham, 9 Vesey, 399.

▲ Newland v. The Attorney-General, 3 Merivale, 684.

5 In re Clark's Trust, 1 Chancery Division, 497.

33

A

Hoare v. Osborne, Law Reports, 1 Equity, 585; Dawson v. Smali,

Law Reports, 18 Equity, 114.

"charitable." Again, a bequest for the purchase of meat and wine fit for the service of the Passover, a bequest for the recitation in the Synagogue of a Hebrew prayer called Candlish, on every anniversary of the testator's death, and even a bequest for the distribution of Johanna Southcote's works, have been judicially recognised as "charitable;" but a bequest "for adorning or dressing a figure of the Virgin Mary" is not "charitable."5 And it is essential to observe that this last mentioned decision in no way rests on any principle of hostility to the Catholic religion, as may be seen from the fact that in numerous instances the courts have recognised as charitable," bequests such as the following-"To the Roman Catholic Priest of N. and his successors;" "to His Holiness the Pope and his successor;" "to the poor and ignorant inhabitants of the parish of N. for the promotion. of the Roman Catholic religion among them."s

66

But without further multiplying instances that may tend to create the erroneous idea that the state of this branch of the law is as complicated and unsettled, as it is in reality both clearly and minutely defined, let us look rather to the principles which underlie these apparently conflicting decisions, and which determine for each class of bequests its place in a well-regulated system of law.

We have seen in a former Paper that the general outline of the limits of the class of "charitable" purposes, as distinct from those that are in the legal sense noncharitable, is traced by the enumeration of certain "charitable" purposes in the statutes, 43rd of Elizabeth, c. 4, and 10th of Charles I., sess. 3, c. 1, and that for a more detailed exposition of the distinction we must refer to the body of judicial decisions, based upon those statutes, and constituting the Common Law on the subject.

From the multiplicity of those decisions, and the vast range of the various charitable "uses" with which they deal, it is a matter of some importance in our exposition to proceed on the lines of some well-devised classification or

1 In re Rigley's Trusts, 15 Weekly Reporter, 190.

2 Straus v. Goldsmid, 8 Simons, 614.

3 In re Michel's Trust, 28 Beavan, 39.

+ Thornton v. Howe, 8 Jurist (New Series), 663.

5 See Heath v. Chapman, 2 Drewry, 425, 426.

• Thornber v. Wilson, 3 Drewry, 245; 4 Drewry, 350.

7 Donnellan v. O'Neill, Irish Reports, 5 Equity, 523.

* West v. Shuttleworth, 2 Mylne & Keen, 684.

grouping of them. In a standard treatise on an important branch of our general subject, the following classification is adopted of the headings under which all legally recognised charitable purposes may be grouped:1. Relief of the poor;

2. The advancement of learning;

3. The advancement of religion;

4. The advancement of cbjects of general public utility. It may be useful to subjoin a few examples in illustration of each branch of this division.

1. RELIEF OF THE POOR.-Under this heading, the following have been held to be technically "charitable"

purposes:

(a) Relief of the poor" generally. But in this case, as no sufficient allocation of the bequest was made by the testator, it was held that the Sovereign, as parens patriae, should have the allocation of the fund.*

(b) Relief of "the poor inhabitants of the parish of N." In the interpretation of a bequest of this form, an interesting distinction was made by the court. For it was held that it could not have been intended by the testator that "the poor inhabitants who were relieved by the parish" should have the benefit of the legacy, inasmuch as this in effect would be "giving to the rich and not to the poor." The court, then, declared that the distribution of the legacy was to be confined to "the poor inhabitants of that parish not receiving [parochial] alms;" and a scheme to regulate the distribution on this principle was directed to be drawn up for approval. It is in no way inconsistent with the decision thus given, that in another case, to be noticed in detail as we proceed, a bequest in favour of a certain parish, "in aid of the rate for the relief of the poor," should have been upheld as charitable.

(c) Other objects mentioned as charitable by writers of authority, or affirmed to be so by judgments of the courts, are: "poor housekeepers"; "the poor of a workhouse"; "the poor maintained in the N. hospital"; "the poor

1 Shelford's Practical Treatise on the Law of Mortmain (London, 1836), page 61. Attorney-General v. Peacock, Finch, 245; Attorney-General v. Mathews, 2 Levinz, 167. & Shelford, page 63. 4 See infra, pages 386, 387. 5 See Shelford, pages 63-68; 1 Jarman on Wills, pages 213, 214..