Lords Sitting of 2 March 1871

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILL—Committee—Report—Pauper Inmates Discharge and Regulation (16).
PAUPER INMATES DISCHARGE AND REGULATION BILL.—(No. 16.)
(The Earl of Kimberley.)
PAUPER INMATES DISCHARGE AND REGULATION BILL.—(No. 16.)

  COMMITTEE.
  House in Committee (according to Order).
  Clauses 1 to 3, inclusive, agreed to.
  Clause 4 (Certain paupers may be detained in the workhouse for limited periods).
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEYsaid, that at present a pauper could discharge himself from the workhouse on giving reasonable notice. It had been found desirable to give Poor Law Guardians larger and more definite powers over inmates who were in the habit of leaving the workhouse in the morning and returning at night. Such powers would, no doubt, require to be exercised with due discretion.
  Clause agreed to.
  Clause 5 (Discharge and detention of casual paupers).
  THE DUKE OF CLEVELANDsaid, that there were cases in which vagrants entered the workhouse for the night, but did not ask for or require food.

  1159
  This clause seemed to prevent such persons leaving the house at an early hour of the morning.
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEYsaid, that vagrants who entered the workhouse under such circumstances would have no right to demand their discharge; but it would be in the discretion of the guardians to permit them to leave without performing any task.
  THE DUKE OF RICHMONDsaid, he regarded the clause as one of the most useful in the Bill.
  Clause agreed to.
  Clauses 6 to 8, inclusive, agreed to.
  Clause 9 (Guardians to provide proper casual wards, and failing to do so not to be entitled to repayment from Parliamentary grants).
  THE EARL OF CARNARVONsaid, that by this clause the Poor Law Board would have power to require the erection of separate cells for vagrants. Now, he agreed in the desirability of giving the Board power to insist on suitable wards and furniture, and in large towns separate cells might be desirable; but it would be preposterous to cast on rural Unions so enormous an expense as would be involved in the erection of them.
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEYexplained that the clause gave general powers, and that the Poor Law Board, as far as he understood, had no intention of requiring in all cases the erection of separate cells. It was desirable in many cases to have distinct rooms, so that the honest wayfarer might be separated from the worst class of tramps; and he thought there was no fear of this general power being abused.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYregarded this as a question of giving the central authority power of increasing the rates ad libitum. In the case of large towns there was no fear of injustice, for these could always make themselves heard, and would certainly make any Minister who imposed any oppressive burden repent of his imprudence; but rural Unions might suffer a great deal of injustice. Moreover, the President or Secretary of the Poor Law Board did not take the trouble to look into insignificant cases, leaving them to the Inspectors; and to give Inspectors powers of imposing heavy taxation was to give them a considerable power of oppres-
  1160
  sion. He should support his noble Friend if he divided against the clause.
  THE DUKE OF RICHMONDhoped his noble Friend (the Earl of Carnarvon) would not divide the House, for he could not conceive that the Board, would ever oblige rural Unions to erect a cell for every separate vagrant. As he understood the clause, its object was simply to enable the Board to insist on proper wards being provided for vagrants.
  THE EARL OF CARNARVONconsented to reserve the point till a future stage. In the interim, he would consider whether words might not be introduced into the clause to meet the object he had in view.
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEYreminded the noble Earl that it would be impossible to make a distinction between rural and urban Unions, as the former in some cases were visited by a large number of tramps. The object of the Bill was not to increase the expense of vagrancy, but to diminish it, for which purpose it was essential to give the Poor Law Board the power of insuring uniform treatment throughout the country.
  Clause agreed to.
  Remaining clauses agreed to.
  Bill reported, without Amendment; and to be read 3a on Tuesday next.

EAST INDIA FINANCE.—QUESTION.
LORD LYVEDENasked the noble Duke the Secretary of State for India, If he intended to move for a Select Committee on East Indian Finance? The noble Lord said that in putting the Question he desired to make a few observations on the subject. Last Session, as President of the East India Association, a body composed of gentlemen who had been in India or were in some way connected with it, and had continued to circulate information upon it, he was asked to move for the appointment of a Committee of their Lordships on the subject; but he replied that he did not think that the best mode of dealing with the subject. He thought that a Commission on India would be better; but that such a step might appear an affront to the Governor General, and Lord Mayo, as far as he had been able to observe, had fulfilled his duties with great ability and public advantage. More recently there had been a rumour that if a Committee were moved for in the House

1161
of Commons the Government would not object, and there was afterwards a proposal from the Government for a Joint Committee of both Houses. This proposition, however, had been abandoned, on the ground that their Lordships were not entitled to inquire into the subject of Indian finance. If not, what were their Lordships to inquire into? He had never heard of a more extraordinary objection. Their Lordships were often reproached with idleness; but this enforced idleness arose from a want of business whereon to exercise industry. Surely there was no question which they were better fitted for dealing with than Indian finance? Indian finance stood upon an entirely different footing from English finance. The objection to their altering Money Bills—namely, that taxes should only be imposed by the representatives of the people — did not apply to Indian finance, which was not regulated by the Imperial Parliament at all. If, moreover, India was indirectly represented in Parliament, it was in this House rather than in the other. The noble Duke (the Duke of Argyll) had on two occasions submitted to their Lordships, with great ability and usefulness, the Indian Budget — a step which obviously was no less open to objection than the consideration of the subject by a Committee. In the House of Commons there was at present a great dearth of Indian authorities—Sir Stafford Northcote being absent, and there being very few Gentlemen Members of that House who had been at the India Office or who had applied themselves to Indian affairs; whereas in this House there were on the opposite side two noble Lords who had been Secretaries of State for India, the Earl of Derby and the Marquess of Salisbury, as well as two on the Ministerial side, Viscount Halifax and the noble Duke himself (the Duke of Argyll). Above all, there was Lord Lawrence, than whom no man could be better fitted to deal with such a subject; yet he was to be excluded on account of the fanciful notion that it would infringe the privileges of the House of Commons. That a man could be as useful as a witness as a member of the Committee he denied, for there was a great difference between the presence on the Committee of a well-informed man, who could examine the witnesses, and the examination of that
1162
man as a witness by Gentlemen not conversant with the subject. It cast a ridicule on our institutions that so desirable a measure as the appointment of a Joint Committee should be set aside through political pedantry, on the ground that their Lordships were not to interfere with the finances of any part of the Empire. Considering the number of noble Lords who might usefully apply themselves to a subject of so much difficulty—which even a statesman of such grasp of mind as Lord Ellen borough had confessed his inability to master—he would ask the noble Duke, whether it was not advisable to appoint a separate Committee in this House, a step which need not be regarded as at all antagonistic to the Commons' Committee?
THE DUKE OF ARGYLL, in reply, said the suggestion of a Committee had not emanated from Her Majesty's Government, for they saw nothing special in the state of Indian finance to call for inquiry; but during last Session, in a discussion on the subject, the Government intimated that if any considerable section of the House desired an inquiry, they would not stand in the way of it. This Session a considerable number of Members, not entirely satisfied by an early day being given to the Indian Financial Statement, still wished for a Committee, and the Government had accordingly to consider how the inquiry could be best carried on. A Joint Committee of both Houses was suggested not by himself, but by the other Members of the Government. He entirely approved it — for it was a mistake to suppose that there was any jealousy on the part of the India Office on the subject—and communicated personally with several Members of both Houses. He was glad to find that the idea met with general approval, and that some of the most distinguished Members of this House acquainted with Indian finance were willing to serve on the Committee. Such a step, however, required the general consent of all parties; and, on the matter being discussed in the House of Commons, it did not appear to meet with general acquiescence. The proposal of a Joint Committee had, consequently, been withdrawn. He did not think an inquiry was very urgent, and thought the appointment of a Committee of their

1163
Lordships, contemporaneously with the Commons' Committee, would have an appearance of jealousy and antagonism. He entirely concurred with his noble Friend that it was a total mistake to regard this House as being in the same position with regard to Indian as to Home finance. The House of Commons represented the taxpayers of this country, but not the taxpayers of India, and their Lordships were as much entitled as the House of Commons to deal, if necessary, with Indian finance. Should any suggestion emanate from the Commons' Committee, of which the Government or their Lordships might doubt the propriety, it would be their Lordships' duty to institute a full inquiry before passing any measure founded upon it.

DULWICH COLLEGE.—COMMISSIONERS OF ENDOWED SCHOOLS.—QUESTION.
THE EARL OF HARROWBYinquired, with regard to Dulwich College and the Commissioners of Endowed Schools, 1st, Whether the Governors of Dulwich College gave notice to the Endowed Schools Commissioners of their intention to propose a scheme under the powers reserved to them for that purpose, and whether they have not failed hitherto to bring forward any such scheme; 2dly, Whether the Endowed Schools Commissioners are themselves preparing a scheme, and, if so, when it is likely to be made public?
LORD LYTTELTON, as President of the Commission, replied that Dulwich College was one of those foundations, the Governors of which, under the Endowed Schools Act, were allowed a certain period—in this case 12 months—within which they might prepare a scheme for the government of the school, the powers of the Commissioners being meanwhile suspended. If that privilege was acted upon, and a scheme drawn up and submitted to the Commissioners, from which they dissented, the Commissioners would prepare another, and both would be submitted to the Education Department of the Privy Council. Notice had to be given of such an intention within two months of the passing of the Act—namely, 2nd of August, 1869. The Governors of Dulwich College gave the notice with regard to the lower school, but they had not prepared a scheme. This did not imply any blame, as it was
1164
common for Governing Bodies to give notice in order to secure their position, that they might act upon it if they thought it desirable. It was a matter, moreover, of little importance, as both the Commissioners and the Education Department were bound to give due consideration to all schemes or suggestions from whatever quarter they proceeded. It now devolved on the Commissioners to prepare a scheme; but a dozen Commissions would have found plenty of work, and there being only one it was obliged to proceed by districts. Its duration was limited to three or four years, but a much longer period would be necessary to complete the work, and the renewal of the Commission would rest with Parliament. Dulwich College, as one of the very largest endowments, did not come under the rule of the Commissioners to deal with particular districts in turn, and he admitted the desirableness of its being dealt with as early as possible. He trusted that the Commissioners would very soon be able to do so.
House adjourned at Six o'clock, till To-morrow, half-past Ten o'olock.