§ Nothing in this Act contained shall prevent a Parliamentary elector in the City of London from voting, or asking for a ballot or voting paper for the purpose of so voting, in. the City of London and in one other constituency.
§ New Clause brought up, and read a first time.
§ Sir F. BANBURYI beg to move, "That this Clause be read a second time."
I had originally intended to put this Clause down in a different form, providing that nothing in the Act should apply to the City of London, but, if I had done so, it might have been urged from the other side that it would have given the plural voter in the City of London with four or live votes an opportunity of voting in every constituency in which he had a vote, because he might go into a polling booth and when asked if he had voted, say, "I am a voter in the City of London; I have nothing to do with you people; I can do what I like." I hope that some concession may be made in the case of the City of London, and therefore I did not put my new Clause down in that form, because I thought that it might reasonably be argued that although the City of London was entitled to some special treatment, yet such wholly special treatment should not be accorded to any one constituency. Therefore, I put the Clause down in the form in which it now stands to give the elector in the City of London the opportunity of voting in that constituency and the right to vote in one other constituency. The special position of the City of London has before this been recognised in legislation dealing with electoral reform. Under the Redistribution of Seats Act, 1885, the City of London elects two Members, compared with one Member elected by each of the other Divi- 2358 sions of the Metropolitan constituencies. The Act of 1885, by confirming this, acknowledged the exceptional position of the City. The Act did not in any kind of way endeavour to alter the position which the City of London had always held in all Parliamentary electoral Acts. Besides being the commercial and financial centre of the Empire, the City of London to-day has a day population of over 360,000, a floating population exceeding 1,000,000, and a rateable value of £5,759,320. I think I have established the fact that the city itself is in a somewhat exceptional position. I have further established the fact that previous Acts of Parliament relating to election law have always recognised this.
Let me point out very shortly the reason why I think the historical position of the City of London should have somewhat exceptional treatment. It is the oldest city in the country. It dates from the occupation of the Romans. It has always held a very prominent position in business, in commerce and in politics. May I draw the attention of the Committee for one moment to a singular instance of the services the city has rendered to the House of Commons? Charles I., on one occasion, endeavoured to arrest five Members of this House. He came down to the House and asked Mr. Speaker Lenthal, who was then in the Chair, to point out to him the five Members. Mr. Speaker Lenthal made the historical answer that he had neither eyes to see nor tongue to speak, except that which he was directed by the House to see and speak. Meanwhile the five Members had taken the opportunity of this little incident to escape from the House, and had gone to the City of London. The Lord Mayor of that day and the citizens of the City of London closed the gates of the city in the face of the King's Messengers, and the House of Commons was so grateful to the City of London for so doing that they gave the Members for the City the privilege of sitting on the Treasury Bench for all time. That privilege it has been my honour to exercise on more than one occasion, and I hope that in the years to come those who succeed me in the representation of the City will also exercise the privilege. I have ventured to recount to the House that short story, which was told me by Mr. Speaker, because I thought that it was relevant to my new Clause, and because it showed that the House of Commons, so far back as the time of Charles I., did recognise that there were 2359 special privileges, privileges extended to the Members of no other constituencies but privileges which related to the City of London alone and which had been granted by the House.
The city, of course, the largest city in the Empire. It is the centre of the Empire, and it is the centre of all the commerce and trade not only of our great Empire, but I think it may fairly be said of all the world. Occupying as it does that unique position, I think it is reasonable that the citizens of this great city should have an opportunity of returning by their collective vote two Members to sit in this House. If my new Clause is not accepted there will arise in the city questions as to where the electors for the city shall vote, whether they shall vote in the city or in some other constituency, and in that way the hitherto representative character of the city will be taken away. I am not putting this forward in a controversial sense. I do not wish to say anything offensive to hon. Members opposite, but I would point out that, whether this new Clause is carried or not, Conservative Members will be returned by the city at the next election as certainly as that I am sitting here to-day. But the Members who are returned will not be returned by the collective vote of the inhabitants. The citizens will not be collectively represented in the House of Commons, for while there may be no change in the political nature of the representation, those who are returned will have been returned by electors who have no other vote than that which they possess in the city, added to those who have arranged with the agents of the respective constituencies in which they have votes as to where they shall exercise that privilege. I hope the remarks I have made have melted the hearts of the hon. Gentlemen opposite. I have endeavoured to show that their political position will not be in any way injured. I have endeavoured to show that there is a claim on the part of the City of London for exceptional treatment, and I have endeavoured to show that if my new Clause is not carried the City of London will not have that exceptional treatment which has hitherto been invariably accorded to it in all similar cases.
1.0 P.M.
I have endeavoured to keep within the ruling of the Chair. I have not entered at all on the question of the ownership vote or the occupation vote—very important questions, which, I think, have considerable 2360 bearing on this matter. I have dealt solely with this question from the point of view of the historical position of the City of London. I know the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill to a great extent agrees with me. I do not say that he agrees with my new Clause. I have not yet had an opportunity of hearing his views upon that matter. But I know that on the Franchise Bill he was kind enough to tell me, although, of course, he did not make any pledge or give any promise, that any deputation which came from the City of London would be received by him and by the Prime Minister with favourable consideration. Therefore, the case which I put is evidently a case which is in the mind of the right hon. Gentleman, and,. I hope, in the minds of hon Members behind him. I see the hon. Member the Under-Secretary for India is seated next the right hon. Gentleman. He and his family have long been connected with the City of London, and I feel sure I shall have his support on this matter. I hope that hon. Members will look upon this as a really serious question, and that they will not decide against my new Clause until they have given it weighty and careful consideration.
§ The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of EDUCATION (Mr. Pease)I do not desire, in anything I say, to depreciate the great position which is attached to the City of London. We ail recognise its great importance to the financial world—to the Money markets of the world—and we recognise, too, that it is held in the highest esteem and regard by all sections of our population. As the hon. Baronet has said, it has connected with it a large number of very important historical associations which we value and appreciate, but I do not think that on these grounds there is any reason why the City of London should be treated in any exceptional way in regard to the question of plurality of votes. The city, after all, is only one of many constituencies which go to form the United Kingdom, and if the city has, as I believe it has, enormous wealth, enormous power, and enormous influence, to many of us on this side that may be rather an argument why these electors do not require a plurality of votes rather than in favour of the multiplication of those votes. The hon. Baronet appeals to me that individuals connected with the city should be allowed the particular privilege of voting in the constituency in which they 2361 reside and yet, at the same time, have power to exercise one of their votes, whether as a liveryman or freeman, or as an owner or occupier, or in any other capacity, in the City of London. Last year I was in charge of the Franchise and Registration Bill, and the Committee will recollect that that Bill was introduced with an occupation qualification in addition to a residential qualification. Before the Bill proceeded very far the Government indicated that they were going to exclude the occupation franchise from the Bill. That intention excited a good deal of interest in the City of London, and I received deputations from the liverymen and deputations representing the City of London, from the Lord Mayor and one or two ex-Lord Mayors and other distinguished men closely connected with the civic life of the city. The point they urged upon me was not that the plurality of votes should be allowed to remain, but that the choice of a vote should still be continued to those who were qualified to vote in the City of London and elsewhere. They urged that so great was their esteem, regard, and respect for the City of London that they would much prefer to record their votes for that ancient city in which they happened to be electors than to vote in respect of any other of their qualifications.
The deputations accepted the principle of the abolition of the plural vote; all they urged upon me was that they should be permitted to retain a choice of votes. This Bill leaves to them exactly that privilege, which they then desired to exercise, of having a choice of votes. We, on this side of the Committee, recognise that the very fact that an individual has a choice of votes places him in a privileged position compared with the ordinary citizen with only one residence, with no means of purchasing one of the many qualifications, and who cannot expect to become a freeman of one of the large towns and boroughs of the United Kingdom. That being so, I do not think it would be possible for us as a Government to recognise that the City of London, in so far as voting power goes, should have any preferential position. We recognise the very old historical position of the city, and the fact that London has been a most interesting place from the time of the Romans up to the present time, but how many of our other towns may be described in the same way? I suppose that Chichester is probably much older than Londinium, while 2362 in the North we have a large number of other places—Eboracum and Newcastle, for instance—which are quite as old as London. [Hon. MEMBERS: "Winchester.")
§ Sir F. BANBURYThey have not attained to the same eminence as the City of London.
§ Mr. PEASEI recognise that there have been a great number of distinguished men returned for the city, and that in many ways the city is not comparable with other cities and towns in this country. I also recognise that the city, at the present time, returns to this House two Members who, in many respects, are not comparable with other Members. The Committee will realise that this proposal is really hostile to the principle of the Bill, and I am sorry not to be able to respond to the appeal so pleasantly made by the hon. Baronet.
§ Mr. PRETYMANThe right hon Gentleman began his speech with many compliments to the City of London, and with an admission that the circumstances of the City were exceptional, but he refused to recognise that it should have any exceptional treatment whatever in this Bill. I do not see how those two sentiments can be reconciled. The Government have an extraordinary desire for an absolute dead level in everything. I do not know that there is any dead level known to anybody but the bottom. Every inequality, every variation in an absolute dead surface, whether it be in voting, in position, or whatever it may be, is immediately stamped as a privilege to be immediately crushed out of existence. It is through these so-called anomalies and inequalities that the best results are often reached. It is of some value to the whole country that there should be such a community as the City of London, that has a history which, although it may not be so long in actual years as that of one or two other places now decayed, is yet almost coeval with the history of this country. I am glad to see that the senior Member for the City of London is now here. He will be able to make out the case for the City of London in a much more capable manner than any other Member, so I shall not detain the Committee long. I would urge that a community which has this ancient record and through the centuries has occupied a leading place in commerce and finance, not only in this country but throughout the civilised world, has a special claim. It 2363 is not derogatory to the dignity of this House, and it must be an advantage to its deliberations, that hon. Gentlemen should stand here, not only distinguished in themselves, but who are known inside the House and outside of it to represent such a community as the City of London. It requires some stronger reason than has been advanced by the right hon. Gentlemen to interfere with a representation of that kind. It has been respected by every previous Government which has introduced measures dealing with the franchise and the representation of the people. What is the representation of the City of London numerically? Two Members.
§ The CHAIRMANThe hon. Member a little mistakes the subject now before the Committee. It is not the abolition of the representation of the City of London. The discussion must be limited to the proposal that in the special case of the City of London, as differentiated from the rest of the United kingdom, an elector shall be allowed to vote as the new Clause proposes—that is, give a vote in the City of London and in one other constituency, instead of, like other people, being obliged to make a choice of one or the other. The hon. Baronet argued on that basis, and the discussion ought not to go beyond that.
§ Mr. PRETYMANI do not think that was out of my mind, but the particular effect of this proposal upon the City of London largely amounts to disfranchisement. What proportion of the voters of the City of London are plural voters as compared with the number in other constituencies? I am perfectly prepared to argue it on that ground. You are no longer, under the Bill, going to collect the whole of the voices of the community of London. The proposals of this Bill are entirely destructive of the representation of the community of the City of London as it always has been represented in this House, and it was from that point of view that I was arguing the case. I admit I should have stated that consideration before making any comparison between the City of London and other constituencies in the country. That is what we feel so strongly, that this ancient representation should be dealt with by the Government, who in this matter are political vandals of the worst description. What do they gain by it? Until the right 2364 hon. Gentleman made his speech, I did not quite see where the Government did gain because, on the face of it, all that they gain is the removal of two presumably Unionists Members. I do not know whether they often enough think of the moral effect of the over-balancing opinion of the great community of the City of London against the Government. I suppose, perhaps, they will gain that. After all it is a thing which the country can always see, and which must have political weight in the country, that there are two Members returned for this House by the unanimous voices of the whole community of the City of London, all having an equal right to vote under our existing franchise, and they return by an enormous majority Members whose voices are given against the measures of the present Government. All that the Government will apparently gain by this Bill is that these two Members who may still, for a time nominally, represent the City of London, will only represent that proportion of the voters of the City of London who are not plural voters. I suppose to that extent the representation will lose force. But when the right hon. Gentleman went on to tell us that he has received a deputation comprising the Lord Mayor and one or two ex-Lord Mayors, and that they had informed him that the citizens of London were so attached to the city that they would all vote in the city in preference to voting in other constituencies——
§ Mr. PRETYMANThe majority of them, let us say. Now we see where the Government comes in. A large number of Unionist voters who have hitherto been able to cast their votes in the constituencies where they live, will now, for the purpose of sentiment, be withdrawn from the City of London, and the Government will gain an undue electoral advantage in that particular direction.
§ Sir E. CORNWALLWhy the Government?
§ Mr. PRETYMANBecause the enormous majority of the electors of the City of London are against the policy of the Government. I was suggesting just now that the effect might have some moral weight in the country, but I am afraid I was over sanguine, because the hon. Gentleman opposite does not appear to know that. It is generally known that city opinion is 2365 almost unanimous against the policy of the Government, and, therefore, that thousands of voters, through their affection for the City of London, are going to exercise their one vote, which they will have under this Bill, there, instead of exercising it in the other constituencies, and that is going to give the Government a very great advantage in other places. I will not say the Government deny that they are going to get an electoral advantage out of the Bill, but I think there has been a certain amount of humbug about it. That is a word which is now fashionable, I believe, in political oratory, and I think there is a certain amount, if not a considerable amount, of humbug in the grounds on which this Bill is put forward. Really I must again protest against the suggestion which is constantly put forward by the right hon. Gentleman, that it is a great privilege to have a choice of votes and that plural voters who are disfranchised by this Bill are going to have a great advantage in having the choice where their votes may be exercised. That suggestion is trivial, because the disadvantages and the risks which are imposed by this Bill upon everybody in exercising that choice——
§ The CHAIRMANI think perhaps the hon. Gentleman did not hear what I said in calling this Clause, that it was allowed to be proposed as a new Clause purely on the exceptional position of the City of London as apart from any other constituency in the United Kingdom, and we certainly must not have a general Debate. The Debate was opened by the hon. Baronet rightly on these lines, and it ought not to extend beyond them.
§ Mr. PRETYMANI was directly answering a statement made from that bench by the right hon. Gentleman. Is it not the custom of the House that when a right hon. Gentleman in charge of a Bill uses an argument in its defence it is competent for those who are in the Opposition answering him to deal with the argument which he has actually advanced on the floor of the House?
§ The CHAIRMANIf that was all I was under a misapprehension. It appeared to me that the hon. Gentleman's argument was much more general.
§ Mr. PRETYMANI was directly answering the point made by the right hon. Gentleman that the retention of the choice of votes by the plural voters now 2366 existing under the provisions of this Bill was a great privilege and advantage.
§ The CHAIRMANThe right hon. Gentleman was applying it, of course, only to the case of the City of London.
§ Mr. PRETYMANI think my recollection is not quite in accord with that. It was part of the right hon. Gentleman's general argument at the end of his speech,. and, of course, my remarks may be applied equally only to the question of its effect upon the City of London, and I perfectly understand that my remarks should be confined to that particular aspect of the question. So far as the citizens of London are concerned I cannot see that they gain much, if anything, by the privilege, as the right hon. Gentleman calls it, which they retain under this Bill of having the right to vote in some constituency where they live and in the City of London as well. The trouble and risk which is imposed upon those voters in exercising that choice to my mind considerably outweighs the privilege which is conferred upon them. It will give them a great deal of trouble and a great deal of consideration. I think that, probably, if the right hon. Gentleman had been receiving deputations, not only from the City of London, but also from constituencies in other parts of the country where those gentlemen live, they would have told him that they felt sure that their affection for the constituencies in which they reside was at least as great as their affection for the City of London.
§ The CHAIRMANReally that is reviewing the Bill as a whole. I explained at the outset, on calling this new Clause, the reason why I called it, namely, that it was confined solely to the special case of the City of London, and did not extend to the case of other constituencies in the United' Kingdom. I hope the hon. Gentleman will observe that ruling.
§ Mr. PRETYMANI have tried to do so, but I do maintain that this is a somewhat important matter, and with all respect to you, Sir, I was directly answering and dealing with arguments used by the right hon. Gentleman opposite. The right hon. Gentleman stated that a deputation had come to him from the City of London and had pointed out that the affection of voters for that constituency would lead them to give their votes there rather than in the places where they reside. I was dealing directly with that argument, and I was attempting to answer it.
§ The CHAIRMANThe hon. Member was proceeding beyond that, and arguing that the same reasons applied to other constituencies. That argument was not pertinent to this Clause.
§ Mr. PRETYMANI bow to your ruling. Of course, there are many points in this Clause affecting the City of London which also affect other constituencies as well.
§ The CHAIRMANAs the Clause applies only to the City of London it would be my duty to rule out of order arguments with reference to other constituencies for the reason, which I think is a sound one, that the case of the City of London is different from the case of other constituencies. I trust that the hon. Gentleman will help me in keeping the Debate within the limit I have indicated.
§ Mr. PRETYMANI will do my best, and I will not pursue the point any further. There is only one other point upon which I wish to say a word. The right hon. Gentleman said that he was of opinion that because the City of London had more voters of wealth and position than any other constituency in the country possessed, that would be a reason for giving them less political representation rather than more. We are getting on. I quite understand the Government contending that no special privilege should be given to the City of London because it has wealth and position, though I must say that is going rather far in stating the case of that particular community with such a record as the City of London has acquired for wealth and position, which is recognised as commanding throughout the whole civilised world. But is that a reason for disfranchising them? Whether the right hon. Gentleman meant that, or whether it was a serious proposition as to the policy of the Government, he will perhaps explain to the Committee later on, but I would suggest that we are getting on. I desire very strongly to support the Amendment moved by the hon. Baronet, and I sincerely hope that before this Debate closes much stronger reasons will be given than have yet been advanced against the Amendment. I hope it will be possible for the Government to reconsider the matter. The Government treats all these matters very lightly and as mere incidents in regard to one Clause of the Bill. Call them privileges if you like, call them anomalies if you like, give them any name you like, but they are features in our 2368 Parliamentary life which have existed for centuries, and which have had no small part in building up the Constitution and the laws under which we live. These features are to be abolished by one House alone in this casual and light-hearted manner. I desire very strongly, and on every opportunity I possibly can, to protest against it.
§ Mr. JAMES MASONIt appears to me that in this particular case there is another reason, apart from the historical reason, why the City of London should not conic under the proposals in the Bill. I think it is safe to assume that in the case of plural voters who have residential or other qualifications in other parts of the country a very large proportion of them will be inclined to vote in the other constituencies and not in the City of London. If that should be the case the City of London will find itself in a very curious position owing to the very small number of residents there are in that constituency. The actual number of people who live in the City of London and are residential voters there, consisting as they do largely of caretakers, is undoubtedly very much smaller than in any other city in the country, and, therefore, it seems to me that the whole representation of the city is almost certain to be thrown into the hands of such people as caretakers, whereas in other cities the proportion of people actually in residence is very much larger. For that reason there is a material difference between the City of London and any other city in the country. Practically there are no residences in the City of London with the exception of the Mansion House, the Tower, the Mint, and a few houses, and consequently the representation of what has hitherto been regarded as one of the most enlightened constituencies in the country is likely to fall into the hands of people mostly consisting of caretakers, policemen, and the like, and instead of that constituency remaining one of the most enlightened, it is likely to become one of the least enlightened cities in the country.
§ Mr. HAYES FISHERWhen you, Sir, allowed the new Clause to be moved you stated that it was because of the exceptional position which the City of London occupies. It is because of its exceptional position that we are pleading for an exception being made on behalf of the city. I should like to remind the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill that we 2369 are not really asking for any privilege to be given to the city. We are merely asking that a privilege which the electors there now have in common -with many other constituencies should not be taken away from them, which is a very different thing. The right hon. Gentleman said that he did not desire in any way to depreciate the great historical and financial position of the city. If that is so, he ought to study very carefully the effect of the Bill on the future representation of the city. There are many of us who think that the position of the city entitles it to its separate representation, which must be highly imperilled by the Bill. The right hon. Gentleman stated that he learned from Mayors and ex-Mayors that they would very much prefer hereafter to exercise the franchise in the City to exercising it in any other part of the country where they reside. The right hon. Gentleman is an old Whip and an old wire-puller. Nobody knows better than he the pressure that can be brought to bear on voters to record their votes, if they have any in a particular constituency. Human nature being what it is, the right hon. Gentleman will agree with me when I say the vote will be given not according to preference or sentiment but largely according to the pressure brought to bear looking to the various electoral circumstances at the time, and it will come to this: That the city will in all probability lose its great solidarity and its great elective voice in financial matters as being most representative of those to whose influence to a large extent this representation is due. They will vote to a large extent not in the City of London but in some other constituency where they have a choice of votes. The representatives of the city will be returned, not by these great financial magnates whose names are household words, not only throughout England and the Empire, but throughout the world, but by a few thousand or possibly a few hundred clerks and caretakers and people of that description. If that be so, how long will the separate representation of the city be allowed to remain? When a Redistribution Bill is introduced I can well imagine some other Gentleman occupying the position of the right hon. Gentleman coming down to the House, and saying that the city is no longer entitled to separate representation, because those whose views formerly prevailed there now vote in other constituencies, and the city's views are expressed 2370 only by a certain number of clerks and others who have residential qualifications.
In the beginning of his speech the right hon. Gentleman was courteous and considerate towards the city, but towards the end of his speech he rather indicated that the City of London is only in the same position as towns like Chichester and Chester. These are most historic towns which we all recognise as occupying all important place in British history. But to compare the great City of London with Chester and Chichester is really to compare Chester or Chichester itself with some small hamlet in the county of Chester or Sussex. I was a little bit surprised that the right hon. Gentleman should use an argument of that kind. Quite apart from that, let me point out that neither Chester, Chichester, Newcastle, nor any of these great towns has the same relationship to the surrounding districts that the City of London has. There is no other town in the world which is occupied so entirely by men who go into the town for business purposes every day, and do not reside there and do not sleep there. They have no other qualification admittedly for the franchise, except that of occupation and of having enormous local concern in the place in which they carry on business. There is no other city in the world in which only 10 per cent of the total electorate are resident. It is because of its different position, of its great financial position, that the city for such a long time has been allowed separate representation in this House. The right hon. Gentleman to-day is moving into a half-way house, in which before long the city representation must be destroyed. This Bill imperils the whole representation of the city unless the new Clause moved by my hon. Friend is carried to-day. It is because we feel that the representation of the city is a real danger that we are asking the right hon. Gentleman to show his love and reverence for the city and for British history by allowing this Clause to be carried and at least giving some exceptional treatment to the city. I believe that though the electors in other great towns may regret the change made in their case, yet not one of them could honestly say that he is in the same position as the elector of the city. Therefore, I believe that they would acquiesce gladly in giving this particular privilege to the city, and if the right hon. Gentleman would extend this privilege to the city he would have 2371 no grumble or complaint from those in other districts who are not allowed the same choice of votes which hitherto has been allowed to all, and for the future will be allowed only to the city if the Clause of my hon. Friend is carried.
§ Sir HARRY SAMUELThere is no doubt whatever that your ruling has on the whole been very strictly maintained, and that we on this side of the House, at all events, are only pleading on account of the very exceptional position of London. The hon. Baronet who moved the Amendment dealt largely with the historic incidents relating to the old city, and also told you of some exceptional treatment that has been meted out to the City of London in legislation which has been passed by this House. May I draw the attention of the Committee to another exception which was made in the case of the City of London, and which may not be generally known to Members of this Assembly. It is a fact that anybody who has a vote in No. 1, Fleet Street, and lives seven miles outside it is unable to exercise the vote because he is disqualified, but if he is in occupation of No. 2, Fleet Street, then he is within the city, and in those circumstances he can reside twenty-five miles outside the city, and still come in and vote. In those circumstances the Committee will agree that here is another case of exceptional treatment having been dealt out to the City of London in which London is in an entirely separate position from any other of the cities of this country. There is no question about it that whenever you desire to have some largo financial opening, it is to the Lord Mayor and the ancient City of London that not only we on this side of the House have to look, but even hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite who are decrying by the action which they are taking at present the greatness of the city, go to him and ask him to initiate some fund which they think will be of incalculable benefit. Again, when a crowned head or the president of a great republic comes over to visit us, if the interests of that amity, which we all hope may continue to exist, are to be intensified, what is the thing which is always done? Invariably the Lord Mayor of the City throws open his hospitable mansion and the Guildhall of the ancient city, and there is cemented the amity between foreign countries and ourselves which goes so far to make for peace. In addition to that, there are crises in our history when a vote given 2372 by a qualified city like the City of London may have far-reaching effects.
I do not wish to make anything in the nature of a party speech, because this subject is of such importance as to transcend anything of the nature of party politics. Crises might arise in our history in which it would be of the greatest moment that the citizens of this country should see in what way the city criticised the action of Ministers who were guiding the destinies of the country. I think that the influence of this united body of the ancient city has undoubtedly a vast effect. It is proposed to take all that away, forsooth, because the people may be wealthy and may be powerful, and the Minister in charge of the Bill thinks that is a reason why the privileges held by this vast city, and which have been of such powerful effect on great occasions in our national history, should be entirely lost. I cannot help thinking that hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite must really in their heart of hearts, apart from political interests, feel that a case has been made out for the city. The very history of the ancient city, the part which it has played in our national life, the great and beneficent work which is done by its chief magistrate, are all considerations of great import, and justify our making the demand that the City of London shall be allowed, not exceptional treatment, but the retention of those privileges which it has held up to the present time.
§ The SOLICITOR-GENERAL (Sir J. Simon)I do not dispute the truth of much that has been said by the hon. Gentleman who has just spoken. There is nobody in the House who would ever think of disputing the greatness of the influence and character, from many points of view, of the great City of London. But, after all, the question which the Committee has to decide is whether, in order that these qualities may be duly recognised and expressed in our legislation, it is necessary that the persons who have the right to elect Members for the City of London should be at liberty to select them only as their second choice. I think anybody who makes that suggestion is making a suggestion unwarranted by the facts as we know them. It is, in fact, exerting a kind of undue influence on the House of Commons, because, if the argument is really seriously intended, it means that those voters who have the choice between voting in the City of London and voting elsewhere, if they are told they are only to have one choice, are 2373 likely to exercise their choice elsewhere, and the present representation of the City of London, the representation of a constituency of that great character and position, would be endangered. I am an elector of the City of London, and one effect of this proposal if adopted will be, amongst others, that a barrister in chambers in the Inner Temple would have two votes, while a barrister in chambers in Lincoln's Inn would have one vote. The effect of this proposal, if adopted, would be that the station-master at Cannon Street would have two votes and the station-master at London Bridge would have one vote. (An HON. MEMBER: "The station-master?"] Well, the principal resident official. Really, the suggestion that is made a little affects me, because I make the avowal most frankly and sincerely, if it is of any use to right hon. Gentlemen opposite, that if anybody could persuade me that his return to the House of Commons as a Member for the City depended on whether I exercised my choice of voting in the City or voting elsewhere, nobody need give me a second option. I am quite prepared to say that I would exercise my option to secure representation for the City.
§ Sir F. BANBURYI am sorry to interrupt the right hon. Gentleman, but may I count upon his vote?
§ Sir J. SIMONOn two conditions—first, that we drop a highly dishonouring proposal to the City that there should be a second choice; and secondly, if it is shown that there is any danger at all that the hon. Baronet would not be returned if I voted elsewhere. Indeed, there does nut appear very much danger, because I see on consulting the invaluable "Dod" that the City of London, as a Parliamentary constituency, certainly has a character in some respects unique. When I consult this useful work of reference, I find that the population of the City of London is put down at 19,657. Of course, the population means those who live and sleep there. But among the 19,000 there are those who are not of full age; there are women who have not got votes, and men who are not qualified to vote; yet the voters on the register bf electors of the City of London number 31,027. I think there is a large field from which it would be possible to make a selection, and to secure that the City of London shall receive adequate representation in 2374 the character and quality of the Members returned. The senior Member for the City of London (Mr. Balfour) made a speech in the small hours of yesterday morning on the subject of university representation, and he argued in favour of keeping two votes for graduates. No doubt there is an anomaly in the character of the representation of university constituencies quite different in kind from anything else in the United Kingdom. I know the right hon. Gentleman is not averse to anomalies, and may think that it shows a mechanical and unimaginative spirit to object to them.
However that may be, surely the degree of contrast between university representation and representation of other constituencies is far greater than the contrast which exists between the representation of the City of London and the representation of other areas. Granted that it is the most important place, granted that it is the richest place, still these, after all, are matters of degree. I do not know what Scottish Members would have to say if this privilege were granted to the City of London and no city in Scotland was entitled to have any special privilege at all. I do not invite them to say anything, al1 the more so, Sir, as you have indicated, that this particular Clause is only put down because of the peculiar character which attaches to the City of London in an overwhelming degree. It is known, of course, to the right hon. Gentleman who represents the City of London, and to those who have gone into the question of the qualifications there, that this is the problem: If you own property in the City of London apart from occupation, of course you do not vote in the city; you vote in the adjoining county. If I am not mistaken, there is a booth in the Guildhall where voters have the privilege of electing the Noble Lord the Member for the Hornsey Division of Middlesex. Does anybody think that is a fair principle? You are going to put a stop to that practice in respect of the owners of property in other towns, while it is to remain in the city. That is to be stopped in every other part of the United Kingdom, and it is to remain in the City of London, and to remain, not for the purpose of securing the return of those who represent the city, but the return of an hon. Member who is a most estimable Member of the House, but who has no right to ask that a special Clause should be inserted in the Bill to secure the votes of all the freeholders for the Hornsey Division.
§ Sir J. SIMONI thought so. My own understanding of the matter is this: At this moment if you have a man who occupies a freehold in the City of London, he has a vote in the City of London in respect of his occupation and——
§ The CHAIRMANThat is not pertinent to this Motion as it has been dealt with.
§ Sir J. SIMONI am sorry. Let it be assumed I made a mistake in this matter. For these reasons which I have mentioned, I suggest really the dangers which the last speaker thought might threaten the interests of the Empire, are not really involved in carrying the Bill as it stands. I do not think we shall find that those who have the right to vote in the City of London will value their right any the less because it is a right which they enjoy in the city without the additional right of voting elsewhere, and as an alternative to voting elsewhere. If it be true, as undoubtedly it is true, that from some points of view the case of the city is exceptional, and that those who vote there have exceptional opportunities and privileges, I cannot bring myself to believe that it is necessary to confer upon them as distinct from other citizens a second choice before you can be sure that they will use it to the best advantage.
Mr. BALFOURThe learned Gentleman (Sir J. Simon) made a very kindly reference to a slight passage of arms we had in the small hours of Thursday morning. We were then occupied in discussing the question of university seats, and I admit there are two distinctions between the Debate which then occurred and the Debate which is now going on as far as I individually am concerned. In the first place, I had no personal interest in the university question, whereas I undoubtedly have a personal interest in the question now before the House. In the second place, I am quite ready to concede to the learned Gentleman that there is a more fundamental and vital distinction between university representation and other representation than between the question of the City of London and let us say, the City of Manchester, or Liverpool, or Glasgow. That concession I make, but I think he will, on the other hand, perhaps be ready in return to make me a concession on the other side. I agree that you can conceive a series of places adjoining relatively small 2376 country towns in England or Scotland, and adjoining great manufacturing centres, huge cities like Liverpool and Glasgow, and then leading on from them to the case of the City of London. Yet, I think it would be a fallacy to say that on that account we cannot regard the City of London as differing, from the point of view of the statesman, in kind from all those other places. There are differences of degree which to a practical man amount, and ought to amount, to differences of kind, and I take it that the difference between the City of London and even the greatest of those great provincial metropolises, to which he and others have referred, though it may be quite correct to represent that difference as a difference only in degree, nevertheless, the difference is for all the purposes of sound, political argument, a difference which ought to be treated by this Committee as a difference essentially of kind.
2.0 P.M.
If that be granted, I think it ought to be further granted, as it must be granted, and I think has been granted, that the City of London ought to have representation in this House based, not upon its population in the technical or senseless meaning of that word, but based upon its real working population, and based not only on that, but based on the very central kind of work which that population is engaged in, and work whose ramifications extend not only over the whole of the Empire, but over the whole civilised world. If we take those things into account, I think we shall say that this House will be really well advised if it carries out. what is the precedent of our own legislation, the precedent of treating the City of London as a constituency, to be dealt with on entirely separate grounds because it occupies an entirely separate position. An anomaly in legislation which corresponds to an anomaly in fact is surely not a thing to be regretted. The thing to be regretted is treating in your legislation things as if they were the same that, in fact, are quite fundamentally and essentially different. I venture to suggest that is the danger which this Committee is now running if it rejects the Amendment which my colleague has placed upon the Paper and which he has so very ably proposed. What is the answer which I gather the Solicitor-General is prepared to give to the contention which perhaps in its broad outline he would not wholly dispute? He says every voter in the City 2377 of London so values his privilege as a voter in the city, and is so pleased with my hon. Friend who moved the Amendment, and as the City of London occupies a unique position in this country, that that, of course, is not the vote which he will sacrifice, but that he will sacrifice every other one of his plural votes. I was gratified to learn that the learned Gentleman himself, in what; I may call his private capacity as a voter, and not as a spokesman of the Government, nor as a Member of this House, but as a voter in the city to return Members to this House, is so convinced of the importance of it that were he to have the opportunity he would certainly throw over all his responsibilities to other candidates for the House, and would give his vote, I almost thought he said, in favour of the present Members for the City, or, at all events, in the constituency which they represent. If I really can count upon him, and if my hon. Friend in the representation of the city can count upon him as one of our out-and-out supporters, in fair weather and in foul, then this Debate, however barren it may he in actual legislative results, will have had consequences extremely gratifying to my hon. Friend and myself.
§ Sir J. SIMONOnly if you need it.
Mr. BALFOURInfoulweather—not in fair. I can assure the learned Gentleman that if the time of difficulty and crisis arises I shall not hesitate to appeal to this generous promise of assistance which he has been good enough to give us this afternoon. What is the exact value of this argument that the man with two votes, one in the city and one elsewhere, may always be counted upon to keep the city in its proper position? I do not think that that is a way of arranging your electoral system which, in the nature of the case, can keep the city in its proper position. Let me point out that there is no other constituency whose whole character simply and solely depends on the choice which the plural voter makes as to the constituency in which he will vote. If the plural voter in the City of London feels the local pressure of the place in which he resides to be so powerful that he is unable to resist it, what is the consequence? The consequence is that the City of London is wiped out of existence as a constituency representing the great financial interests of the country. It is quite true that if the plural voter takes the opposite position, the City 2378 of London remains very much where it is. But is it right that this House should pass an Act of Parliament which leaves it absolutely on the knees of the gods, a mere matter of chance, whether the City of London represents finance or whether it represents caretakers? That, in truth and verity, is exactly what this Bill does. Everyone may make his own prophecy as to what will actually happen. The learned Solicitor-General is quite clear that the second alternative is the one that will really happen. He does not doubt for a moment that the voters in the City of London will feel their responsibility to that constituency so great that it will never occur to them, with their divided responsibility, that they should give their vote elsewhere, broadly speaking, than in the city. That is his prophecy. I venture to say that we ought not to leave this as a question of prophecy to this bench or that, or to private individuals whose conjectures may be right or they may be wrong.
We desire in connection with this Amendment to leave the City of London, broadly speaking, in its present position. That, too, is the view of the Government, or, at any rate, of the Solicitor-General. I had not the good fortune to hear the speech of the Minister in charge of the Bill and I am not quite sure from the account given to me of his speech whether he took exactly the same line. But on listening to the Solicitor-General it was quite clear that in his view, at all events, it would be a misfortune—I do not know that he said that it would be a national misfortune, but, on the whole, he thought it would be a misfortune—if the City of London lost its electoral position. If that so, and if that is the view on both sides, I earnestly press the Committee to accept the Amendment. It is not consistent with our dignity to say that the City of London is a constituency the representation of which for various reasons, partly dependent upon a distant past, partly dependent upon the changes and the changing circumstances of a world in which finance is a most important question—an international question in one sense, and in another sense a question vitally affecting the very existence of the nation—the Committee think should be the same as at present, but are, at the same time, prepared to leave it to chance whether it shall be maintained or not. I do not think that that is the position which we ought to take up. If hon. Gentlemen opposite think—and I gather 2379 that many of them do—that the real City of London, the working City of London, the City of London which is the financial centre of the world, ought to be represented in this House in that character, they ought so to contrive their legislation that that end would be secured. By universal admission it is not secured by this Bill as it at present stands. It entirely turns on chance—how the plural voters under the Bill exercise their right of selection as to the constituency in which they will vote. It is a pure chance, which may result as the Government think it will, but it remains undoubtedly and undeniably a mere chance whether Members who come to this House returned nominally for the City of London shall be able to get up here and speak with the authority which comes from their being representatives of that great constituency, or whether they shall come here and have to admit that, although they were fortunate enough to obtain the votes of a majority of the night residents in the City of London, the employers of that night population, those whom the world at large identifies with the constituency, did not as a matter of fact exercise their right to vote in the city where they do their work but as a matter of fact do not reside. That is the argument to which no reply has been made—at any rate, I have not heard one. If the argument be as strong as I think it is, what harm would ensue to any human being if my hon. Friend's proposed Clause were agreed to? What harm would ensue from the point of view of legislative precedent? If this were the first time that the City of London had been treated exceptionally because it is an exceptional city, you would be starting a new precedent, and you might naturally be cautious in doing so. But as a matter of fact you are violating the old precedent which does treat the City of London exceptionally, and you yourselves are starting a new precedent which says that it is to be treated exactly the same as any other constituency. Will it injure any other constituency or any individual? Does really in any important sense affect the balance of parties in this House? Is it a course of action which those who maintain speculative democratic views need resent?
I understand that the Minister in charge of the Bill, earlier in the day, said that 2380 the electors in the City of London were such wealthy men that their influence, entirely irrespective of votes, was likely to be at least equal to their merits. Thai, at any rate, is the argument as given 10 me. I am not aware that the electors in the City of London consist of millionaires. I hope there are some millionaires amongst them, but if you take the great body of the actual people who carry on all the vast mass of business—banking, merchant, insurance—which centres in the City of London, they are not millionaires; they have not that colossal influence which the mere possession of huge fortunes gives. That is a complete and profound delusion. I will not detain the Committee another instant, except merely to summarise the main points which I have put before them, and which I wish them to keep in mind when they go into the Lobby. If it be common ground, as I think it is common ground, between the majority on both sides of the House, that it would be a loss to this House if London, financial London, working London, were not represented explicitly and formally in our debates, then I say you ought to frame your Bill to carry your object. You are not framing your Bill to carry out your object. You are leaving that object to be carried out by a chance decision of men who have votes in more than one constituency. I do not think it is good legislation when you can carry out your object with certainty and assurance and without hardship to anybody, to leave it to the swing of the pendulum and the movement of opinion in various outside constituencies; to the chances of local pressure and the chances of individual prejudice as to whether or not the City of London shall sink into one of the least important constituencies in the whole of the Kingdom, or whether it shall remain what it is at present, a constituency of great character and qualities, which is unique, and does not compare with any other constituency which returns Members to this House. On these grounds, I venture earnestly to suggest to the Committee to adopt my hon. Friend's Clause. If hon. Members opposite vote according to the broad lines of the policy which their own Government has laid down, there can be no doubt as to what the result will be.
§ Question put, "That the Question be now put."
2382§ The Committee divided: Ayes, 249; Noes, 138.
2383| Division No. 173.] | AYES. | [2.18 p.m. |
| Abraham, William (Dublin, Harbour) | Hancock, John George | Munro-Ferguson, Rt. Hon. R. C. |
| Adamson, William | Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose) | Murphy, Martin J. |
| Ainsworth, John Stirling | Harcourt, Rt. Hon. L. (Rossendale) | Nannetti, Joseph P. |
| Alden, Percy | Harmsworth, R. L. (Caithness-shire) | Nolan, Joseph |
| Allen, Arthur A. (Dumbarton) | Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, West) | Norman, Sir Henry |
| Allen, Rt. Hon. Charles P. (Stroud) | Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry | Norton, Captain Cecil W. |
| Arnold, Sydney | Hayden, John Patrick | Nugent, Sir Walter Richard |
| Baker, Harold T. (Accrington) | Hayward, Evan | Nuttall, Harry |
| Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.) | Hazleton, Richard | O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny) |
| Barnes, George N. | Helme, Sir Norval Watson | O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool) |
| Barran, Rowland Hurst (Leeds, N.) | Henderson, J. M. (Aberdeen, W.) | O'Doherty, Philip |
| Beale, Sir William Phipson | Henry, Sir Charles | O'Donnell, Thomas |
| Beck, Arthur Cecil | Herbert, General Sir Ivor (Mon., S.) | O'Dowd, John |
| Benn, W. W. (T. Hamlets, St. George | Higham, John Sharp | O'Kelly, Edward P. (Wicklow, W.) |
| Black, Arthur W. | Hinds, John | O'Malley, William |
| Boland, John Pius | Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H. | O'Neill, Dr. Charles (Armagh, S.) |
| Booth, Frederick Handel | Hodge, John | O'Shaughnessy, P. J. |
| Bowerman, Charles W. | Hogg, David C. | O'Shee, James John |
| Boyle, Daniel (Mayo, North) | Hogge, James Myles | O'Sullivan, Timothy |
| Brady, Patrick Joseph | Holmes, Daniel Turner | Outhwaite, R. L. |
| Brocklehurst, W. B. | Holt, Richard Durning | Palmer, Godfrey Mark |
| Brunner, John F. L. | Horne, C. Silvester (Ipswich) | Parker, James (Halifax) |
| Bryce, John Annan | Hughes, Spencer Leigh | Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek) |
| Buckmaster, Stanley O. | Isaacs, Rt. Hon. Sir Rufus | Pearce, William (Limehouse) |
| Burke, E. Haviland- | Jardine, Sir J. (Roxburgh) | Pease, Rt. Hon. Joseph A. (Rotherham) |
| Carr-Gomm, H. W. | Jones, Edgar (Merthyr Tydvil) | Philipps, Col. Ivor (Southampton) |
| Cawley, Sir Frederick (Prestwich) | Jones, J. Towyn (Carmarthen, East) | Phillips, John (Longford, S.) |
| Cawley, Harold T. (Heywood) | Jones, William (Carnarvonshire) | Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H. |
| Chancellor, Henry George | Jones, W. S. Glyn- (Stepney) | Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central) |
| Chapple, Dr. William Allen | Jowett, Frederick William | Priestley, Sir Arthur (Grantham) |
| Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S. | Joyce, Michael | Priestley, Sir W. E. B. (Bradford, E.) |
| Clancy, John Joseph | Keating, Matthew | Pringle, William M. R. |
| Clough, William | Kelly, Edward | Radford, George Heynes |
| Compton-Rickett, Rt. Hon. Sir J. | Kennedy, Vincent Paul | Raffan, Peter Wilson |
| Condon, Thomas Joseph | Kilbride, Denis | Reddy, Michael |
| Cornwall, Sir Edwin A. | King, Joseph | Redmond, John E. (Waterford) |
| Cotton, William Francis | Lambert, Rt. Hon. G. (Devon,S.Molton) | Redmond, William (Clare, E.) |
| Cowan, W. H. | Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade) | Redmond, William Archer (Tyrone, E.) |
| Crooks, William | Lardner, James C. R. | Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven) |
| Crumley, Patrick | Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, West) | Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln) |
| Cullinan, J. | Lawson, Sir W. (Cumb'rld, Cockerm'th) | Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs) |
| Dalziel, Rt. Hon. Sir J. H. (Kirkcaldy) | Levy, Sir Maurice | Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford) |
| Davies, E. William (Eiflon) | Lewis, Rt. Hon. John Herbert | Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside) |
| Davies, Timothy (Lincs, Louth) | Lough, Rt. Hon. Thomas | Robinson, Sidney |
| Davies, M. Vaughan- (Cardigan) | Lundon, Thomas | Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke) |
| Dawes, James Arthur | Lyell, Charles Henry | Roche, Augustine (Louth) |
| De Forest, Baron | Lynch, Arthur Alfred | Roe, Sir Thomas |
| Delany, William | Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester) | Rowlands, James |
| Denman, Hon. R. D. | Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs) | Russell, Rt. Hon. Thomas W. |
| Dillon, John | McGhee, Richard | Samuel, Rt. Hon. H. L. (Cleveland) |
| Donelan, Captain A. | Macnamara, Rt. Hon. Dr. T. J. | Scanlan, Thomas |
| Doris, William | Macpherson, James Ian | Schwann, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles E. |
| Duffy, William J. | MacVeagh, Jeremiah | Scott, A. MacCallum (Glas., Bridgeton) |
| Duncan, J. Hastings (Yorks, Otley) | M'Callum, Sir John M. | Seely, Col. Rt. Hon. J. E. B. |
| Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor) | M'Curdy, Charles Albert | Sheehy, David |
| Edwards, John Hugh (Glamorgan, Mid) | McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald | Sherwell, Arthur James |
| Esmonde, Dr. John (Tipperary, N.) | M'Laren, Hon. F.W.S. (Lincs., Spalding) | Shortt, Edward |
| Esmonde, Sir Thomas (Wexford, N.) | Markham, Sir Arthur Basil | Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John Allsebrook |
| Essex, Sir Richard Walter | Marshall, Arthur Harold | Smith, Albert (Lancs, Clitheroe) |
| Esslemont, George Birnie | Martin, Joseph | Smith, H. B. Lees (Northampton) |
| Falconer, James | Mason, David M. (Coventry) | Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.) |
| Ffrench, Peter | Masterman, Rt. Hon. C. F. G. | Soames, Arthur Wellesley |
| Field, William | Meagher, Michael | Stanley, Albert (Staffs, N.W.) |
| Fitzgibbon, John | Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.) | Strauss, Edward A. (Southwark, West) |
| Flavin, Michael Joseph | Meehan, Patrick J. (Queen's Co., Leix) | Sutherland, John E. |
| George, Rt. Hon. David Lloyd | Menzies, Sir Walter | Sutton, John E. |
| Ginnell, Laurence | Millar, James Duncan | Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe) |
| Gladstone, W. G. C. | Molloy, Michael | Tennant, Harold John |
| Glanville, Harold James | Molteno, Percy Alport | Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton) |
| Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford | Mond, Rt. Hon. Sir Alfred | Thorne, William (West Ham) |
| Goldstone, Frank | Money, L. G. Chlozza | Toulmin, Sir George |
| Greenwood, Granville G. (Peterborough) | Montagu, Hon. E. S. | Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander |
| Greenwood, Hamar (Sunderland) | Mooney, John J. | Verney, Sir Harry |
| Greig, Colonel James William | Morgan, George Hay | Wadsworth, John |
| Griffith, Ellis Jones | Worrell, Philip | Walsh, Stephen (Lancs., Ince) |
| Guest, Hon. Frederick E. (Dorset, E.) | Morison, Hector | Walton, Sir Joseph |
| Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway) | Muldoon, John | Wardle, George J. |
| Hackett, John | Munro, Robert | Waring, Walter |
| Warner, Sir Thomas Courtenay | White, Patrick (Meath, North) | Wood, Rt. Hon. T. McKinnon (Glas.) |
| Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan) | Whitehouse, John Howard | Young, William (Perth, East) |
| Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney) | Whyte, Alexander F. | Yoxall, Sir James Henry |
| Watt, Henry A. | Wilson, Hon. G. G. (Hull, W.) | |
| Webb, H. | Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton) | TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr. Illingworth and Mr. Gulland. |
| White, J. Dundas (Glasgow, Tradeston) | Wing, Thomas Edward | |
| NOES. | ||
| Agg-Gardner, James Tynte | Fitzroy, Hon. Edward A. | Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield). |
| Anson, Rt. Hon. Sir William R. | Fletcher, John Samuel | Orde-Powlett, Hon. W. G. A. |
| Archer-Shee, Major Martin | Forster, Henry William | Paget, Almeric Hugh |
| Ashley, Wilfrid W. | Gardner, Ernest | Parkes, Ebenezer |
| Astor, Waldorf | Gastrell, Major W. Houghton | Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington), |
| Baird, John Lawrence | Gilmour, Captain John | Peel, Lieut.-Colonel R. F. |
| Baker, Sir Randolf L. (Dorset, N.) | Glazebrook, Captain Philip K. | Perkins, Walter Frank |
| Balfour, Rt. Hon. A. J. (City, Lond.) | Gordon, Hon. John Edward (Brighton) | Peto, Basil Edward |
| Banbury, Sir Frederick George | Goulding, Edward Alfred | Pretyman, Ernest George |
| Barnston, Harry | Gretton, John | Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel |
| Beach, Hon. Michael Hugh Hicks | Guinness, Hon. W.E. (Bury S.Edmunds) | Rawson, Colonel Richard H. |
| Benn, Arthur Shirley (Plymouth) | Haddock, George Bahr | Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall) |
| Benn, Ion Hamilton (Greenwich) | Hardy, Rt. Hon. Laurence | Roileston, Sir John |
| Bennett-Goldney, Francis | Harris, Henry Percy | Ronatdshay, Earl of |
| Bentinck, Lord H. Cavendish- | Henderson, Major H. (Berks, Abingdon) | Rothschild, Lionel de |
| Bigland, Alfred | Hewins, William Albert Samuel | Samuel, Sir Harry (Norwood) |
| Blair, Reginald | Hill-Wood, Samuel | Sanders, Robert Arthur |
| Boscawen, Sir Arthur S. T. Griffith- | Hoare, Samuel John Gurney | Sandys, G. J. |
| Boyle, William (Norfolk, Mid) | Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield) | Spear, Sir John Ward |
| Bridgeman, William Clive | Hope, Major J. A. (Midlothian) | Stanier, Beville |
| Bull, Sir William James | Houston, Robert Paterson | Stanley, Hon. G. F. (Preston) |
| Burdett-Coutts, William | Hunt, Rowland | Steel-Maitland, A. D. |
| Burn, Colonel C. R. | Hunter, Sir Charles Rodk. | Stewart, Gershom |
| Campion, W. R. | Ingleby, Holcombe | Talbot, Lord Edmund |
| Carlile, Sir Edward Hildred | Jessel, Captain H. M. | Terrell, George (Wilts, N.W.) |
| Cassel, Felix | Kerry, Earl of | Thompson, Robert (Belfast, North) |
| Cator, John | Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement | Thomson, W. Mitchell- (Down, N.) |
| Cautley, Henry Strother | Knight, Captain Eric Ayshford | Tryon, Capt. George Clement |
| Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor) | Lane-Fox, G. R. | Valentia, Viscount |
| Chaloner, Col. R. G. W. | Law, Rt. Hon. A. Bonar (Bootle) | Walker, Col. William Hall |
| Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J. A. (Worc'r.) | Lee, Arthur Hamilton | Walrond, Hon. Lionel |
| Clay, Captain H. H. Spender | Lloyd, George Ambrose (Stafford, W.) | Ward, A. S. (Herts, Watford) |
| Clive, Captain Percy Archer | Lloyd, George Butler (Shrewsbury) | Warde, Col. C. E. (Kent, Mid) |
| Coates, Major Sir Edward Feetham | Locker-Lampson, G. (Salisbury) | Weigall, Capt. A. G. |
| Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S.) | Lockwood, Rt. Hon. Lt.-Col. A. R. | Weston, Colonel J. W. |
| Craig, Captain James (Down, E.) | Lowe, Sir e. W. (Birm., Edgbaston) | Wheler, Granville C. H. |
| Craik, Sir Henry | Lyttelton, Hon. J. C. (Droltwich) | Willoughby, Major Hon. Claud |
| Cripps, Sir Charles Alfred | M'Calmont, Major Robert C. A. | Wood, Hon. E. F. L. (Yorks, Ripon) |
| Croft, Henry Page | Magnus, Sir Philip | Wood, John (Stalybridge) |
| Dairymple, Viscount | Mason, James F. (Windsor) | Worthington-Evans, L. |
| Dalziel, Davison (Brixton) | Morrison-Bell, Major A. C. (Honlton) | Yate, Col. C. E. |
| Denison-Pender, J. C. | Morton, Alpheus Cleophas | Younger, Sir George |
| Denniss, E. R. B. | Mount, William Arthur | |
| Eyres-Monsell, B. M. | Newdegate, F. A. | TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr. Goldsmith and Mr. Joynson-Hicks. |
| Fell, Arthur | Newman, John R. P. | |
| Fisher, Rt. Hon. W. Hayes |
§ Question put accordingly, "That the Clause be read a second time."
2384§ The Committee divided: Ayes, 138; Noes, 252.
2387| Division No. 174.] | AYES. | [2.27 p.m. |
| Agg-Gardner, James Tynte | Campbell, Captain Duncan F. (Ayr, N.) | Duke, Henry Edward |
| Anson, Rt. Hon. Sir William R. | Campion, W. R. | Duncannon, Viscount |
| Archer-Shee, Major Martin | Carlile, Sir Edward Hildred | Eyres-Monsell, Bolton M. |
| Ashley, Wilfrid W. | Cassel, Felix | Fell, Arthur |
| Astor, Waldorf | Cator, John | Fisher, Rt. Hon. W. Hayes |
| Baird, John Lawrence | Cautley, Henry Strother | Fitzroy, Hon. Edward A. |
| Baker, Sir Randolf L. (Dorset, N.) | Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor) | Fletcher, John Samuel |
| Barnston, Harry | Chaloner, Col. R. G. W. | Forster, Henry William |
| Beach, Hon. Michael Hugh Hicks | Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J. A. (Worc'r.) | Gardner, Ernest |
| Benn, Arthur Shirley (Plymouth) | Clay, Captain H. H. Spender | Gastrell, Major W. Houghton |
| Benn, Ion Hamilton (Greenwich) | Clive, Captain Percy Archer | Gilmour, Captain John |
| Bennett-Goldney, Francis | Coates, Major Sir Edward Feetham | Glazebrook, Captain Philip K. |
| Bentinck, Lord Henry Cavendish- | Craig, Charles (Antrim, S.) | Goldsmith, Frank |
| Bigland, Alfred | Craig, Captain James (Down, E.) | Gordon, Hon. John Edward (Brighton) |
| Blair, Reginald | Craik, Sir Henry | Goulding, Edward Alfred |
| Boscawen, Sir Arthur S. T. Griffith- | Cripps, Sir Charles Alfred | Gretton, John |
| Boyle, William (Norfolk, Mid) | Croft, Henry Page | Guinness, Hon.W.E. (Bury S.Edmunds) |
| Bridgeman, William Clive | Dairymple, Viscount | Haddock, George Bahr |
| Bull, Sir William James | Dalziel, Davison (Brixton) | Hardy, Rt. Hon. Laurence |
| Burdett-Coutts, William | Denison-Pender, J. C. | Harris, Henry Percy |
| Burn, Colonel C. R. | Denniss, E. R. B. | Henderson, Major H. (Berks, Abingdon) |
| Hewins, William Albert Samuel | Mallaby-Deeley, Harry | Stanler, Beville |
| Hill-Wood, Samuel | Mason, James F. (Windsor) | Stanley, Hon. G. F. (Preston) |
| Hoare, Samuel John Gurney | Morrison-Bell, Major A. C. (Honlton) | Steel-Maitland, A. D. |
| Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield) | Morton, Alpheus Cleophas | Stewart, Gershom |
| Hope, Major J. A. (Midlothian) | Mount, William Arthur | Talbot, Lord Edmund |
| Houston, Robert Paterson | Newdegate, F. A. | Terrell, G. (Wilts, N.W.) |
| Hunt, Rowland | Newman, John R. P. | Thompson, Robert (Belfast, North) |
| Hunter, Sir Charles Rodk. | Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield) | Thomson, W. Mitchell- (Down, N.) |
| Ingleby, Holcombe | Orde-Powlett, Hon. W. G. A, | Tryon, Captain George Clement |
| Jessel, Captain Herbert M. | Paget, Almeric Hugh | Valentia, Viscount |
| Joynson-Hicks, William | Parkes, Ebenezer | Walker, Col. William Hall |
| Kerry, Earl of | Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington) | Walrond, Hon. Lionel |
| Kinioch-Cooke, Sir Clement | Peel, Lieut.-Colonel R. F. | Ward, A. S. (Herts, Watford). |
| Knight, Captain Eric Ayshford | Perkins, Walter Frank | Warde, Col. C. E. (Kent, Mid) |
| Lane-Fox, G. R. | Peto, Basil Edward | Welgall, Capt. A. G. |
| Law, Rt. Hon. A. Bonar (Bootle) | Pretyman, Ernest George | Weston, Colonel J. W. |
| Lawson, Hon. H. (T. H'mts, Mile End) | Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel | Wheler, Granville C. H. |
| Lee, Arthur Hamilton | Rawson, Colonel Richard | Willoughby, Major Hon. Claud |
| Lloyd, George Ambrose (Stafford, W.) | Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall) | Wood, Hon. E. F. L. (Yorks, Ripon) |
| Lloyd, George Butler (Shrewsbury) | Rolleston, Sir John | Wood, John (Stalybridge) |
| Locker-Lampson, G. (Salisbury) | Ranaldshay, Earl of | Worthington-Evans, L. |
| Lockwood, Rt. Hon. Lt.-Col. A. R. | Rothschild, Lionel de | Yate, Colonel C. E. |
| Lowe, Sir F. W. (Birm., Edgbaston) | Samuel, Sir Harry (Norwood) | Younger, Sir George |
| Lyttelton, Hon. J. C. (Droitwich) | Sanders, Robert Arthur | |
| M'Calmont, Major Robert C. A. | Sandys, G. J. | TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr. Balfour and Sir F. Banbury. |
| Magnus, Sir Philip | Spear, Sir John Ward | |
| NOES. | ||
| Abraham, William (Dublin, Harbour) | Doris, William | Jones, William (Carnarvonshire) |
| Adamson, William | Duffy, William J. | Jones, W. S. Glyn- (Stepney) |
| Ainsworth, John Stirling | Duncan, J. Hastings (Yorks, Otley) | Jowett, Frederick William |
| Alden, Percy | Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor) | Joyce, Michael |
| Allen, Arthur A. (Dumbarton) | Edwards, John Hugh (Glamorgan, Mid | Keating, Matthew |
| Allen, Rt. Hon. Charles P. (Stroud) | Esmonde, Dr. John (Tipperary, N.) | Kelly, Edward |
| Arnold, Sydney | Esmonde, Sir Thomas (Wexford, N.) | Kennedy, Vincent Paul |
| Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert Henry | Essex, Sir Richard Walter | Kilbride, Denis |
| Baker, Harold T. (Accrington) | Esslemont, George Birnie | King, Joseph |
| Baker, Joseph Allen (Finsbury, E.) | Falconer, James | Lambert, Rt. Hon. G. (Devon,S.Moiton). |
| Barnes, George N. | Ffrench, Peter | Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade) |
| Barran, Rowland Hurst (Leeds, N.) | Field, William | Lardner, James C. R. |
| Beale, Sir William Phipson | Fitzgibbon, John | Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, W.) |
| Beck, Arthur Cecil | Flavin, Michael Joseph | Lawson, Sir W. (Cumb'rld, Cockerm'th) |
| Benn, W. W. (T. Hamlets, St. George) | George, Rt. Hon. D. Lloyd | Levy, Sir Maurice |
| Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine | Ginnell, Laurence | Lewis, Rt. Hon. John Herbert |
| Black, Arthur W. | Giadstone, W. G. C. | Lough, Rt. Hon. Thomas |
| Boland, John Pius | Gianville, Harold James | Lundon, Thomas |
| Booth, Frederick Handel | Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford | Lyell, Charles Henry |
| Bowerman, Charles W. | Goldstone, Frank | Lynch, Arthur Alfred |
| Boyle, Daniel (Mayo, North) | Greenwood, Granville G. (Peterborough) | Macdonald, J. Ramsay (Leicester) |
| Brady, Patrick Joseph | Greenwood, Hamar (Sunderland) | Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs) |
| Brocklehurst, William B. | Greig, Colonel James William | McGhee, Richard |
| Brunner, John F. L. | Griffith, Ellis Jones | Macnamara, Rt. Hon. Dr. T. J. |
| Bryce, John Annan | Guest, Hon. Frederick E. (Dorset, E.) | Macpherson, James Ian |
| Buckmaster, Stanley O. | Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway) | MacVeagh, Jeremiah |
| Burke, E. Haviland- | Hackett, John | M'Callum, Sir John M. |
| Burns, Rt. Hon. John | Hancock, John George | M'Curdy, Charles Albert |
| Carr-Gomm, H. W. | Harcourt, Rt. Hon. L. (Rossendale) | McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald |
| Cawley, Sir Frederick (Prestwich) | Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose) | M'Laren, Hon. F.W.S. (Lincs., Spalding) |
| Cawley, Harold T. (Heywood) | Harmsworth, R. L. (Caithness-shire) | Markham, Sir Arthur Basil |
| Chancellor, Henry George | Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, West) | Marshall, Arthur Harold |
| Chapple, Dr. William Allen | Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry | Martin, Joseph |
| Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S. | Hayden, John Patrick | Mason, David M. (Coventry) |
| Clancy, John Joseph | Hayward, Evan | Masterman, Rt. Hon. C. F. G. |
| Clough, William | Hazleton, Richard | Meagher, Michael |
| Compton-Rickett, Rt. Hon. Sir J. | Helme, Sir Norval Watson | Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.) |
| Condon, Thomas Joseph | Henderson, J. M. (Aberdeen, W.) | Meehan, Patrick J. (Queen's Co., Leix) |
| Cornwall, Sir Edwin A. | Henry, Sir Charles | Menzies, Sir Walter |
| Cotton, William Francis | Herbert, General Sir Ivor (Mon., S.) | Millar, James Duncan |
| Cowan, William Henry | Higham, John Sharp | Molloy, Michael |
| Crooks, William | Hinds, John | Molteno, Percy Alport |
| Crumley, Patrick | Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H. | Mond, Rt. Hon. Sir Alfred |
| Cullinan, John | Hodge, John | Money, L. G. Chiozza |
| Dalziel, Rt. Hon. Sir J. H. (Kirkcaldy) | Hogg, David C. | Montagu, Hon. E. S. |
| Davies, Ellis William (Eifion) | Hogge, James Myles | Mooney, John J. |
| Davies, Timothy (Lines., Louth) | Holmes, Daniel Turner | Morgan, George Hay |
| Davies, M. Vaughan- (Cardigan) | Holt, Richard Durning | Morrell, Philip |
| Dawes, J. A. | Horne, C. Silvester (Ipswich) | Morison, Hector |
| De Forest, Baron | Hughes, Spencer Leigh | Muldoon, John |
| Delany, William | Isaacs, Rt. Hon. Sir Rufus | Munro, Robert |
| Denman, Hon. Richard Douglas | Jardine, Sir John (Roxburghshire) | Munro-Ferguson, Rt. Hon. R. C. |
| Dillon, John | Jones, Edgar R. (Merthyr Tydvil) | Murphy, Martin J. |
| Donelan, Captain A. | Jones, J. Towyn (Carmarthen, East) | Nannetti, Joseph P. |
| Nolan, Joseph | Reddy, Michael | Sutton, John E. |
| Norman, Sir Henry | Redmond, John E. (Waterford) | Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe) |
| Norton, Captain Cecil W. | Redmond, William (Clare, E.) | Tennant, Harold John |
| Nugent, Sir Walter Richard | Redmond, William Archer (Tyrone, E.) | Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton) |
| Nuttall, Harry | Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven) | Thorne, William (West Ham) |
| O'Brien, William (Cork) | Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln) | Toulmin, Sir George |
| O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool) | Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs) | Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander |
| O'Doherty, Philip | Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford) | Verney, Sir Harry |
| O'Donnell, Thomas | Robertson, John M. (Tyneside) | Wadsworth, John |
| O'Dowd, John | Robinson, Sidney | Walsh, Stephen (Lancs., Ince) |
| O'Kelly, Edward P. (Wicklow, W.) | Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke) | Walton, Sir Joseph |
| O'Malley, William | Roche, Augustine (Louth) | Wardle, G. J. |
| O'Neill, Dr. Charles (Armagh, S.) | Roe, Sir Thomas | Waring, Walter |
| O'Shaughnessy, P. J. | Rowlands, James | Warner, Sir Thomas Courtenay |
| O'Shee, James John | Russell, Rt. Hon. Thomas W. | Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney) |
| O'Sullivan, Timothy | Samuel, Rt. Hon. H. L. (Cleveland) | Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan) |
| Outhwaite, R. L. | Scanlan, Thomas | Watt, Henry A. |
| Palmer, Godfrey Mark | Schwann, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles E. | Webb, H. |
| Parker, James (Halifax) | Scott, A. MacCallum (Glas., Bridgeton) | White, J. Dundas (Glasgow, Tradeston) |
| Pearce, Robert (Staffs., Leek) | Seely, Col. Rt. Hon. J. E. B. | White, Patrick (Meath, North) |
| (Pearce, William (Limehouse) | Sheehy, David | Whitehouse, John Howard |
| Pease, Rt. Hon. Joseph A. (Rothcrham) | Sherwell, Arthur James | Whyte, Alexander F. (Perth) |
| Philipps, Col. Ivor (Southampton) | Shorn, Edward | Wilson, Hon. G. G. (Hull, W.) |
| Phillips, John (Longford, S.) | Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John Allsebrook | Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton) |
| Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H. | Smith, Albert (Lancs., Clitheroe) | Wing, Thomas Edward |
| Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central) | Smith, H. B. Lees (Northampton) | Wood, Rt. Hon. T. McKinnon (Glasgow) |
| Priestley, Sir Arthur Grantham | Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.) | Young, William (Perth, East) |
| Priestley, Sir W. E. B. (Bradford, E.) | Soames, Arthur Wellesley | Yoxall, Sir James Henry |
| Pringle, William M. R. | Stanley, Albert (Staffs., N.W.) | |
| Radford, G. H. | Strauss, Edward A. (Southwark, West) | TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr. Illingworth and Mr. Gulland. |
| Raffan, Peter Wilson | Sutherland, John E. |