POLLING ARRANGEMENTS (PARLIAMENTARY BOROUGHS) BILL. (Hansard, 27 July 1908)

THE EARL OF DONOUGHMORE,
on behalf of Lord Avebury, moved an Amendment providing "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 in Common Council assembled." He very much regretted the noble Lord's absence, as this was a matter which concerned the City of London, and Lord Avebury was infinitely more able to speak with authority upon this question than himself. Hitherto the justices had made arrangements in connection with the matters under consideration in this Bill, but in future the Bill ordained that the London County Council should make those arrangements. One of the objects of the Bill seemed to be to set up the London County Council to deal with these matters in order to avoid difficulties arising from over-lapping, and he did not desire in any way to quarrel with that object. But the Hill as now drafted would set up the London County Council as the authority to carry out in the city all the arrangements that were dealt with in the Bill, and he thought the result could only be one of very great inconvenience to all parties. Overlapping had taken place and confusion had arisen in connection with various of the Parliamentary boroughs, but the position of the City was absolutely different, and none of the inconveniences feared could 730 possibly arise in the case of the City, in the metropolitan boroughs the justices who had dealt with these matters had had no connection whatever with the municipal body in the district, but in the City the justices who had hitherto had these matters in hand had been the aldermen of the Common Council. There had, therefore, been complete harmony in the making of these arrangements between the justices and the Common Council. Though not quite accurate, it was almost accurate to say that these arrangements had been carried out in the City by the Common Council itself; at any rate, that work had been done by gentlemen who were members of the Common Council. Therefore, if the Bill passed in its present form, the aldermen of the City would lose a jurisdiction which they had exorcised from time immemorial, and against which no complaint had ever been urged. The City was divided accurately and completely into two petty sessional districts, arid overlapping was impossible, owing to the fact that the whole of the City formed the Parliamentary borough. He, therefore, submitted that there was no reason whatever for disturbing the status quo. On the other hand, great inconvenience might result from bringing the county council into the City to exercise the powers with which this Bill was concerned. There were between 130 and 140 parishes in the City of London, therefore, the closest consideration and the closest local knowledge were required in order I to carry out such arrangements as these to the general convenience. He understood that the London County Council saw no objection whatever to the adoption of his Amendment, and for this reason he hoped the Committee would assent to it.

§ VISCOUNT MIDLETON
said that, so far as the London County Council were concerned, they had no objection what-ever to the Amendment. On the contrary, the authority of the corporation in the City of London with regard to many county matters was already recognised. 731 The City exercised the powers of a county authority in respect of such matters as pauper lunatics, explosives, coroners, weights and measures, and other matters of that kind; and the County Council were not in the least apprehensive that any conflict of jurisdiction would arise in regard to the City, having regard to the very special position which the corporation occupied. He, therefore, hoped the Amendment would commend itself to the Government.

§ EARL BEAUCHAMP
regretted that, on behalf of His Majesty's Government, he was unable to agree to the Amendment. It was quite true that at a later stage the London County Council in another place withdrew their opposition to the Amendment. But when it was brought before the Standing Committee it was there opposed by the representatives of the London County Council and withdrawn. It was after that—he thought on the Report stage—that the London County Council withdrew their opposition. He thought it only fair to remind their Lordships that this Bill would in no way take away a privilege from the Common Council, for, as the Earl had explained, this power rested with the aldermen, and not with the Common Council. After all, supposing the Bill were passed and the polling arrangements altered by the new authority, it was not unreasonable to say that it would be done in the interests of good administration, and he thought it was obviously desirable that the division of I districts for Parliamentary and county council elections should be the same, and should be in the hands of the same authority for both purposes. The Bill in its present form had been before their Lordships four times, and had passed through the House as often; as it had been introduced. Moreover, it passed in its present shape, and he thought that if the Bill proposed to give any very startling powers to the London County Council, an Amendment would have been suggested on one of the former occasions. In view of the fact that the present condition of affairs in another place made it unlikely that the Bill would receive favourable consideration if the Amendment were inserted, and also in view of the approval which their Lordships had given to the Bill as it 732 stood four times, he hoped the Amendment would not be inserted.

THE EARL OF DONOUGHMORE
said the present condition of business in another place was a matter with which none of their Lordships had anything to do, and he did not see why their Lordships House should suffer any disability in consequence of it. He was not acquainted with the reason why this Amendment had not been moved during the progress of the four previous Bills, but it might be that if those Bills were considered before the-last County Council election, the City felt there was not much likelihood of securing that agreement which they had since secured. This was a much more important point than the noble Earl opposite seemed to think, and he did not at present feel that he would be justified in not taking the sense of their Lordships-upon it.

§ THE EARL OF HALSBURY
My Lords, if it is to be the ordinary course to move that the Standing Committee be negatived, I think the Standing Committee stage had better be repealed altogether. The Standing Committee has, since it has been established, done really useful business. Now, however, the ordinary course of things is to move to negative this stage, and it is negatived accordingly. It seems to me that, if this is to become the usual practice, the proper course is to abolish this stage altogether.

*THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (The Earl of CREWE)
My Lords, I understand that the noble Earl, Lord Camperdown, was about to propose the abandonment of the Standing Committee stage. If and when he does so, I think we ought to take carefully into consideration the pros and cons for maintaining or abolishing it. I 733 do not propose to-day to enter into the various arguments on either side. Personally I quite concur with the noble and learned Lord who has just spoken that, in certain circumstances, the Standing Committee has been a very valuable stage in the past. I have seen excellent work done there, and I confess I am not in a position to state why it has now become the custom to move to negative this stage. I do not take any responsibility for it.

§ VISCOUNT MIDLETON
My Lords, I am, of course, entirely in the hands of the House. I am afraid I am hardly aware of the forms of your Lordships' House in this matter, and if I have erred it is because I was told that this was the proper Motion to move.