§ 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.