§ Not amended by (the Standing Committee), considered.
§ SIR F. BANBURY moved in Clause 1, after "thereof," to add: "Provided that the local authority, within the meaning of the same section in the City of London, shall be the mayor, aldermen, and commons of the City of London in Common Council assembled." He said that in London and other boroughs the polling districts had generally been arranged by the justices of the peace, but the county council was the authority promoted by this Bill. The position in the City differed materially from that in all the metropolitan boroughs. The justices in the City were practically the same authority as the municipality, and the Bill therefore proposed to deprive the City of one of its ancient rights. The City being a place of business, with a large number of banks in it, it was very 1091 necessary to have an intimate knowledge of it in order that its business arrangements might not be disturbed on polling days. No useful object could be served by altering the arrangements in the City which up to the present had worked extremely well. The London County Council could not know anything about these matters, and it would be a great mistake to alter an arrangement which had gone on for the last 300 or 400 years in order to substitute a body which had not the interest or the knowledge to carry out such work.
§ MR. MORTON (Sutherland)seconded. Personally he could not see why this business should not be left to the City. It had been well managed by them in the past, and he did not know any reason why the House should do anything in the direction of destroying self-government in the City. He hoped the House would agree to allow the City of London to manage its own affairs in its own way.
§
Amendment proposed to the Bill—
In page 1, line 13, after the word 'thereof' to insert the words 'provided that the local authority, within the meaning of the same section in the City of London, shall be the Mayor, Aldermen, and Commons of the City of London in Common Council assembled.'"— (Sir Frederick Banbury.)
§ Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted in the Bill."
§ MR. A. ALLENsaid that this question was raised in the Standing Committee, a good deal of opposition was offered to the proposal, and the Amendment was eventually withdrawn. Since that time the London County Council, in deference to the views of a deputation from the City of London, had decided not to offer any opposition to the Amendment. In these circumstances he could not oppose it.
§ MR. DICKINSON (St. Pancras, N.)said the circumstances of this question were rather peculiar. When the Bill was read a second time there was no question raised about any differentiation of the position of the City of London. On the Committee this proposal was made but rejected. Now the Bill came before the House of Commons and the proposal was again made. For years no progress had been made with this measure 1092 in this House until this year, but it had passed through the House of Lords on three different occasions, and speaking subject to correction he believed the proposal to exclude the City was not inserted. Now at the last moment this proposal to exclude the City was again brought forward.
§ SIR F. BANBURYsaid the Committee which rejected the Amendment was not a Select Committee, but a small Standing Committee consisting of only a few members.
§ MR. DICKINSONsaid the same proposal was brought forward before the Standing Committee and withdrawn. The proposal was that the City of London should be left out of a general scheme for the division of London boroughs into polling districts. He did not think the House had yet been made fully aware of the actual proposals which the Bill contained. Under the Registration Acts the duty of dividing the polling districts was given to the magistrates, in Petty Sessions in those cases where the Petty Sessional Divisions were absolutely coterminous with the Parliamentary borough whilst in all other cases it was relegated to Quarter Sessions. By the Local Government Act, 1888, the functions of Quarter Sessions were transferred to the county council. Hence it came about that when the London County Council set to work they found that some of the London boroughs were coterminous with the Petty Sessional Divisions and there the magistrates at Petty Sessions had to carry out the duty of dividing their area into polling districts. Where the boroughs were not coterminous that duty was with the London County Council. Consequently, the London County Council exercised jurisdiction over certain parts of London and the magistrates over other parts. The matter was further complicated by the fact that the Local Government Act of 1888 placed the duty of dividing the whole of London, including the City, into polling districts for the election of the members of the London County Council in the hands of the County Council alone. Now, the electoral divisions for the election of the members of the London County Council were defined by the Act of 1888 as being the same as the divisions for the 1093 Parliamentary elections. When the London County Council were settling the polling districts for all London for the purposes of their own election, including the City, they found that for the purposes of Parliamentary elections they had not got the power to settle the polling districts in certain of the Metropolitan boroughs. That being found very unsatisfactory the present proposals before the House were made years ago and had ever since been awaiting solution. He did not wish to argue the question of the expediency of the Bill, because it was clear that it must be to the public advantage that these particular duties should be performed by one authority and not by two. That being granted the question arose why should a special exception be made for the City. The hon. Baronet had argued that the City contained a good many important business houses. His reply to that argument was that there were a great many important businesses in other parts of London. If the City of London was excluded it was perfectly clear that the other boroughs which had hitherto been divided into polling districts by the justices of petty sessions ought also to be excluded. According to this Amendment the right solution was that each division should not be in the hands of the London County Council at all, but in the hands of the Metropolitan borough councils. That was a proposition for which there was a good deal to be said although he did not think it was so expedient as the proposals in the Bill, but if the City was to be excluded the same principle ought to be applied to all the other London boroughs which were in the same position. The change proposed by the Amendment went a great deal further than the House appreciated, Not only would it exclude the City of London from the general scheme, but it would change the system in the City itself, since it would transfer a power from the magistrates of the City to the Common Council. He hoped the House would not make the very considerable change proposed in the Amendment. He felt certain that had it been known that a proposal which was rejected by the Committee was going to be accepted by the promoters of the Bill, who had themselves 1094 urged forcible arguments against it when in Committee, those who were opposed to it would have come to the House prepared to resist the Amendment. He asked the House to agree with its own Committee and not be subject to an agreement come to between the London County Council and the City Corporation outside the House, and since the Bill was before that Committee.
§ MR. GUINNESS (Bury St. Edmunds)hoped the House would accept the Amendment. He opposed the proposal in Committee, but since then the City Corporation had met the London County Council and the matter had been thoroughly gone into. It was felt that it was not advisable that two authorities of such importance should quarrel over a small point like this. There was apparently a strong feeling in the City about the matter. The hon. Member had said that if they made an exception in the case of the City, it would have to be done also in the case of the boroughs. He did not agree with that. The City Corporation at present exercised functions which were generally carried out by county councils. The City Council had authority over pauper lunatics, explosives, coroners, and weights and measures. When they were giving this new duty to the County Council, it was advisable in the interest of the smooth working of local government to give these powers to the City also. There was a very strong argument against the suggestion of the hon. Member to transfer to the City Corporation the powers which were at present in the hands of petty sessions. For one thing, all the magistrates in the City were members of the City Corporation, and in addition to that it was extremely doubtful what the law in the City was at present. There was very great doubt who was the proper authority to divide the City for the purpose of Parliamentary elections, and therefore, it was undesirable that the law should be left in its present rather obscure state. In this matter there was no question of any trouble between the County Council and the City Corporation. As long as the County Council were informed of any change in the polling arrangements made by the City no trouble could possibly arise.
§ THE UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL,) York shire, Clevelandsaid that as the law now stood the London County Council was the authority for dividing a borough into polling districts only when the borough was situated in more than one petty sessional division. Where a borough was wholly situated in one petty sessional division the justices were the authority. This obviously was an anomalous survival of an ancient system. This Bill, promoted by the County Council, proposed that the County Council should be the authority throughout London for dividing the boroughs into polling districts for Parliamentary purposes as for London County Council elections. The hon. Baronet opposite now proposed that a special exception should be made in the case of the City, and that this power should be placed in the hands of the City Corporation. The hon. Baronet said that that should be done in order not to deprive the City of an ancient right. This was not one of the ancient rights of the City Corporation. There were some people who thought that the City Corporation possessed powers which might with advantage be curtailed, but this Bill did not raise that question at all. It was not a question of the Corporation v. the County Council, because the aldermen of the City of London did not act in this matter as the Corporation, but because they were justices of the City, just as the justices in other London boroughs acted on behalf of those boroughs. There was no power in the hands of the Corporation qua Corporation to deal with the matter. The power which the hon. Baronet proposed to confer was a completely new power never yet in the hands of the City Corporation. It seemed to him that if they passed the Amendment, they would perpetuate an anomaly for no good reason. If they gave to the City Corporation these exceptional powers, either the polling districts would be the same for Parliamentary and County Council elections or they would not. If they were the same, why should the City Corporation object to the London County Council fixing the polling districts for both? If they were not the same, it was obvious that confusion would arise 1096 and people would not know where to vote. The hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds took that view in Committee, and on behalf of the Government he himself had had no hesitation in supporting him. The Amendment now before the House was the only one moved in Committee. It was moved by the hon. Member for Aston Manor, and after discussion, the Committee were unanimously against it, and the Amendment was withdrawn. Now the hon. Member came to the House to-day and asked them to reverse the decision of the Committee. The hon. Member gave two reasons. One was that it was a bad thing for two local authorities in London to quarrel. In other words, the County Council had surrendered to the City. The second reason was that the City had power to deal with pauper lunatics, explosives, coroners, and weights and measures. He was at a loss to know why that should empower the City Corporation to divide its area for Parliamentary polling purposes differently from the way in which it was divided by the County Council for County Council elections. In view of the facts that there were no ancient rights of the Corporation here involved, and that good administration and good legislation required that only one authority should divide this area for local and Parliamentary elections, he would vote against the Amendment if it went to a division.
§ MR. RAWLINSON (Cambridge University)said that when a private Bill was brought forward the promoters might be supposed to know their own business. In Committee the promoters would not agree to the Amendment now before the House, but now they came forward and said they were willing to accept it.
§ MR. A. ALLENsaid that in the absence of the hon. Gentleman in charge, of the Bill he merely stated that the London County Council would not oppose the Amendment. His personal views were directly opposed to the Amendment.
§ MR. RAWLINSONsaid that if the hon. Member supported an Amendment to-which he was opposed, that was entirely a matter for his own conscience. He had often been surprised at hon. Members 1097 taking that course, but he did not intend to say anything further on that. When one accepted an Amendment which he had formerly opposed, it was no doubt because, on a balance of considerations, he had reasons for changing his mind, but surely the House ought to be told what the reasons were.
§ MR. A. ALLENsaid he simply stated in the regrettable absence of the hon. Member in charge of the Bill that the County Council offered no opposition to the Amendment. He deliberately abstained from explaining his own views. He thought it would have been unfair to do so in the absence of the hon. Gentleman.
§ MR. RAWLINSONsaid he did not mean to say anything to offend the hon. Gentleman. Whatever his own private views were, he now came forward and on behalf of the promoters of the Bill accepted an Amendment which they opposed in Committee. When the promoters of a private Bill came forward and accepted an Amendment, surely the House ought to accept it or reject the Bill, as the case might be. But then the Government stepped in and said practically that the Amendment was one which the House ought to reject. He thought that in dealing with a private Member's Bill, the Government should not bring pressure on its supporters to vote one way or the other, but should leave it to the judgment of the House. He was not in a position to speak on behalf of the City of London, but he had had the privilege of residing in it for over a quarter of a century. As an inhabitant, he should support the Amendment, because he believed that the internal affairs of the City were exceedingly well managed from the point of view of people who lived within its boundaries. No doubt there were some districts, such as the Temple, where the arrangements were difficult to deal with, but these had been exceedingly well carried out, and the other administration of the City had been of the highest kind. For these reasons he hoped the House would agree to the Amendment.
§ MR. HART-DAVIES (Hackney, N.)said that as a London Member he should support what had fallen from the hon. 1098 Member for St. Pancras. A drawback to London administration had been the want of uniformity, and anything which tended to accentuate separate authorities ought to be deprecated. The County Council had already the power to control their own elections in the City, and there was no reason why they should not also control the Parliamentary elections. With reference to what had fallen from the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds, although this and other Bills had been promoted by independent parties in the County Council, both sides had agreed to it. The particular Amendment moved by the hon. Baronet had by no means been accepted by the County Council. A minority strongly objected to it, because they wanted the procedure throughout London to be uniform. The Bill as it stood was passed unanimously by the Committee upstairs, and it was a pity that this disturbing element should have been introduced at the last moment. He hoped the Amendment would be rejected.
§ SIR F. BANBURYsaid that the Under-Secretary for the Home Office had stated that the Amendment proposed to confer a new power upon the City Corporation qua City Corporation, but he would point out that the power was now vested in the aldermen acting as justices, and that the form of his Amendment was adopted at the request of the Government draftsman. He thought it was a little hard that a form of words which had been adopted to suit the requirements of the Government draftsman should be denounced by the representative of the Government. The County Council was the existing authority in such Metropolitan boroughs as were situated in more than one petty sessional division. That was evidently because of the overlapping of two different authorities, and was a reasonable course to adopt. But there was no overlapping in the City, and there was no reason why the aldermen of the City should not have this privilege which they had had for a considerable number of years. The fact that the County Council had the power to arrange the whole of the polling districts for their own election had nothing to do with the polling districts in the City for Parliamentary elections.
§ MR. GUINNESSsaid that the Undersecretary for the Home Office must admit that the City occupied a unique position, and as there was a strong feeling in the City in regard to this matter, he thought it was hardly worth while to oppose the suggestion made in the Amendment. He had made inquiries and found that no inconvenience had been caused in the past by the powers existing at present in the Corporation as to the arrangement of the polling districts, and that the fullest
§ Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be read the third time."
1100§ information in regard thereto had been given by the City Corporation to the London County Council. He thought that in view of the ancient privileges of the City and the sentimental feeling regarding them, the House might accept the Amendment proposed by the hon. Baronet.
§ Question put.
§ The House divided:—Ayes, 26; Noes, 93. (Division List No. 162.)
1099| AYES. | ||
| Acland-Hood, Rt Hn Sir Alex. F. | Lane-Fox, G. R. | Stanier, Beville |
| Arkwright, John Stanhope | Lockwood, Rt. Hn. Lt. -Col. A. R. | Starkey, John R. |
| Balcarres, Lord | Mason, James F. (Windsor) | Staveley-Hill, Henry (Staff'sh.) |
| Barrie, T. H. (Londonderry, N.) | Morpeth, Viscount | Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester) |
| Bignold, Sir Arthur | Morton, Alpheus Cleophas | Williams, Col. R. (Dorset, W.) |
| Bowles, G. Stewart | Nicholson, Wm. G. (Petersfield | Younger, George |
| Coates, Major E. F. (Lewisham | Randles, Sir John Scurrah | |
| Gretton, John | Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel | TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Sir |
| Hill, Sir Clement | Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall | Frederick Banbury and Mr. |
| Kennaway, Rt. Hn. Sir John H. | Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East) | Guinness. |
| NOES. | ||
| Allen, Charles P. (Stroud) | Herbert, T. Arnold (Wycombe) | Roberts, G. H. (Norwich) |
| Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight) | Higham, John Sharp | Roberts, Sir John H. (Denbighs |
| Barlow, Percy (Bedford) | Hogan, Michael | Roe, Sir Thomas |
| Beale, W. P. | Holland, Sir William Henry | Rogers. F. E. Newman |
| Benn, W, (T'w'r Hamlets, S. Geo | Howard, Hon. Geoffrey | Rowlands J. |
| Boulton, A. C. F. | Hudson, Walter | Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford) |
| Brigg, John | Button, Alfred Eddison | Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland) |
| Brunner, J. F. L. (Lanes., Leigh); | Jones, Leif (Appleby) | Scott, A. H. (Ashton under Lyne |
| Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn | Jowett, F. W. | Sears, J. E. |
| Cameron, Robert | Lewis, John Herbert | Sheehy, David |
| Cawley, Sir Frederick | Lundon, W. | Strauss, E. A. (Abingdon) |
| Chance, Frederick William | Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester) | Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton |
| Cheetham, John Frederick | Maclean, Donald | Tomkinson, James |
| Cleland, J. W. | MacVeigh, Charles (Donegal, E.) | Verney, F. W. |
| Collins, Sir Wm. J. (S. Pancras, W | M'Callum, John M. | Villiers, Ernest Amherst |
| Condon, Thomas Joseph | Mallet, Charles E. | Walsh, Stephen |
| Corbett. C H (Sssex, E.Grinst'd) | Marnham, F. J. | Warner, Thomas Courtenay T. |
| Crean, Eugene | Massie, J. | Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney) |
| Cullinan, J. | Meagher, Michael | White, Sir George (Norfolk) |
| Elibank, Master of | Mooney, J. J. | White, J. D. (Dumbartonshire |
| Esslemont, George Birnie | Morrell, Philip | White, Luke (York, E. R.) |
| Evans, Sir Samuel T. | Murnaghan, George | White, Patrick (Meath, North) |
| Everett, R. Lacey | Murphy, John (Kerry, East) | Whitley, John Henry (Halifax |
| Ferguson, R. C. Munro | Myer, Horatio | Williams, J. (Glamorgan) |
| Ffrench, Peter | Nannetti, Joseph P, | Williams, Osmond (Merioneth) |
| Findlay, Alexander | O'Doherty, Philip | Wilson, Henry J. (York, W. R.) |
| Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford | O'Donnell, John (Mayo, S.) | Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton) |
| Halpin, J. | O'Dowd, John | |
| Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose) | O'Malley, William | TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr. |
| Hardie, J.Keir (Merthyr Tydvil) | Parker, James (Halifax) | Dickinson, and Mr. Hart- |
| Harrington, Timothy | Pease, J. A. (Saffron Walden) | Davies. |
| Haworth, Arthur A. | Phillips, John (Longford, S.) | |
| Hazleton, Richard | Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln) |
§ SIR F. BANBURYsaid that before the Third Reading was taken he would 1101 like to point out that the House was in a very unusual position. This was a private Bill in regard to which the promoters agreed to a certain arrangement. The form of that arrangement was modified to suit the Government draftsman, and then a member of the Government came down to the House and objected to the form in which it had been put by the Government draftsman and advised the House not to accept it. The result was that the Members who were not in the House and knew nothing of the matter, came to the door of the House when the division was called and asked which way they were to vote, and because a member of the Government, not speaking with the voice of the Government, came down and said he objected to this form, they voted against it. It showed the utter absurdity of legislating on a Friday afternoon. Here was a point upon which the City Corporation and the London County Council were agreed, yet neither of those important bodies were allowed to have its way, because a member of the Government chose to form a private opinion and influenced a sufficient number of his Party against the arrangement. It would be useless for him to oppose the Third Reading, but he trusted that in another place, where logic prevailed and agreements were respected, the Amendment would be inserted.
§ Question put, and agreed to.
§ Bill read the third time, and passed.