§ The provisions of Sections four and five of this Act shall not apply to university constituencies, but the governing body of every university forming, or forming part of, a university constituency shall cause a register to 171 be kept in such form and made up, if desired, to such dates as they may direct, of persons entitled to vote in respect of a qualification at their university, and shall make the register available for the purpose of university elections for the constituency, and shall on the application of any person allow that person at all reasonable times to inspect and take extracts from the said register:
§ Provided that the governing body may direct that a person who before the passing of this Act has received a degree, but was not entitled to vote in respect thereof, shall have no right to be registered unless he makes a claim for the purpose.—[Mr. Peake.]
§ Brought up, and read the First time.
§ Lieut.-Colonel Elliot (Scottish Universities)
We come now to the question of the disfranchisement of certain ancient constituencies and the breaking of a pledge by His Majesty's Government. These are matters of some importance. They seem to require some further consideration to that which they had when we were dealing with this Bill on a previous occasion. There are two lines of argument. The first is that the abolition of the university seats is a breach of an honourable undertaking. The second is that the arguments which weighed with your Conference, Mr. Speaker, were good arguments and that, on merit, the decision of a number of persons drawn from all political parties should be upheld.
The argument that an honourable pledge was broken is founded on this basis. The conditions under which this House modifies its own constitution are such important and exceptional circumstances that they should be the result either of agreement or of submission to the people at a General Election. The case was argued at some length on a previous occasion and no one raised the point—I take it that the Lord President of the Council does not make it now—that these arguments were submitted to the people at the General Election. I think it was the Home Secretary who, when challenged about agreement, said that the Reform Act, 1832, was not the result of agreement. That may be so, but does he deny that it convulsed the whole political life of this country for a year, that it was the subject of a most acute political controversy, and that the proposals to modify the electorate came to this House with a great weight of the newly-elected Parliament 172 behind it? He does not deny that. Nobody suggests that on any occasion either the Lord President of the Council, the Home Secretary, or indeed the Secretary of State for Scotland, ever mentioned this matter at the General Election. Therefore, the argument that there is justification for this is not even advanced.
We then come to Bills passed without a previous General Election; more particularly, the Representation of the People Bill, 1918. That Bill, as the Home Secretary well knows, was the result of a Speaker's Conference, and the findings of that Conference were embodied in the Bill. The Home Secretary tried to ride out of it on the ground that other electoral Bills had been brought in which were neither the result of a General Election nor of a Speaker's Conference. He mentioned the lowering of the age for women; but that was a matter of agreement. This House can do anything by agreement, and Bills can be passed without any Second Reading Debate or even silently, with general agreement. The Home Secretary knows of many such cases. In the old days, when private Members' time had not been done away with, a private Member could get a Bill read a Second time by agreement throughout the House.
The Home Secretary then mentioned the Bill of 1867, although it was pointed out to him at the time that, after that Bill had gone through the House, it was stated that it had far more of Mr. Gladstone in it than of Mr. Disraeli. It was, in fact, an example of both sides of the House working together and passing an extension of the franchise by general consent. The Debates which we have had already and the Debate we are having tonight have proved that, whatever else we may say about this, there is no general consent.
Now we come to the question whether, in those circumstances, the Government have not broken an honourable pledge. The Home Secretary's defence of the complete abolition of the university seats, which has no backing from the electorate and no backing in consent, and the fundamental point on which his defence stands, is that that is a matter of unimportant detail. I will quote his own words. The right hon. Gentleman was challenged by my right hon. Friend the Member for North Leeds (Mr. Peake) as to why he 173 had not answered the point. My right hon. Friend said:I hope that in the five minutes remaining to him, the right hon. Gentleman will deal with the main point which I made against him personally. I asked the right hon. Gentleman why, in 1945, he stated on the Elections and Jurors Bill:… we regard ourselves as bound during the lifetime of the present Parliament to submit the necessary legislation to give effect to these recommendations.'—[OFFICIAL REPORT. 21st November, 1945; Vol. 416, c. 453.]Those were the recommendations of the Speaker's ConferenceThe Home Secretary said:My own view is that that phrase referred to the recommendations of the three bodies with which I should have to deal. They were the Speaker's Conference, the Carr Committee and the Committee which I was appointing about that time … but when one undertakes to implement the findings of a conference or a committee, one does not undertake to implement slavishly every detail in any one of the Reports with which one is dealing."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 16th March, 1948; Vol. 448, C. 2011/2.]That was the final defence of the Home Secretary before we went to the Division on this very important matter—that the abolition of 12 seats and a tradition of 300 years was a matter of unimportant detail which he could not be expected slavishly to maintain when bringing in this legislation. A more cynical piece of pretence has rarely been known in this House. The Home Secretary knows perfectly well that many arguments were put forward which were never disproved, that both he and the Lord President of the Council had repeatedly gone forward in amending legislation on the basis that the findings of the Speaker's Conference would be implemented, and, indeed, not merely in previous Parliaments, but in the present one, in another place, where the Lord Chancellor, making an official statement on policy, said:The provisions of the Bill will be found in the Reports of these Conferences.The Lord President and some of his followers have tried to ride out of it on the ground that Parliament cannot bind a successor. I am reminded of a South American Republic which, after we had come to an agreement with it on certain importations of wheat, broke the agreement and, when challenged on it, said "After all, it was only a gentleman's agreement." That was a very poor defence. The essence of politics is con- 174 tinuity as opposed to violence, and the Home Secretary and the Lord President of the Council have not explained the breaking of the pledges which they gave, on the ground that these only bound them for the election which was immediately to follow the Speaker's Conference. That contention has been exploded time and again. I cannot believe that either the Lord President of the Council or the Home Secretary will advance it again.
As there are many others who wish to speak, and I do not wish to detain the House at this time, I come to the second line of argument, which is that the facts which convinced the Speaker's Conference were cogent arguments. This was not the result of some corrupt bargain by which some votes were traded here for some seats there. This was an attempt by a round table conference, by the House acting as a Council of State, to come to a series of just agreements. It cannot be supposed that hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite lent themselves to a corrupt practice of trading off the university seats because they hoped that they would obtain some advantage in the municipal elections.
The arguments for the university seats, it seems to me, are as valid now as they were when they were argued at the Speaker's Conference. What is the first objection? It is that they are not big enough. I have had the unfortunate experience of both victory and defeat in electoral matters. I have fought for 25 years and over, in industrial constituencies, and I am perfectly willing to take the rough with the smooth; but at the last General Election I stood in a constituency with 46,000 electors. At the by-election I stood in a constituency with 64,000 electors. In the name of planning right hon. Gentlemen opposite propose to abolish the constituency with 64,000 electors and to leave untouched the constituency with 46,000 electors. They do not propose to add anything to the constituency with 46,000 electors.
§ Mr. H. Hynd (Hackney, Central)
Abolishing the second vote of the 64,000, leaving the one vote for the 46,000.
§ Lieut.-Colonel Elliot
No. The hon. Gentleman has not studied the provisions of this Measure. It is not intended to produce an arithmetical equality throughout. The Home Secretary is bringing in a new set of constituencies of 40,000 175 electors, although the conference stated that the unit ought to be 64,000. He has no intention whatever—nor could it be done in this country—of running elections on the basis of reshuffling the thing every time, and making the votes arithmetically equal. Is the contention of hon. Members opposite that the University vote is too heavily weighted?
§ Lieut.-Colonel Elliot
Oh, no. One man, one vote; one vote one value. No hon. Member opposite proposes to move for one vote, one value. In the later stage of the Bill the Home Secretary is deliberately moving against one vote, one value, and creating a new set of constituencies of 20,000 each below the unit constituencies which the Speaker's Conference recommended. That is not the only thing, as every Member from Scotland knows. Nobody proposes to reduce Scottish representation so that it is arithmetically equal to the representation in the rest of the country, nor to reduce Welsh representation in that way. Does anybody suggest that Welsh representation should thus be reduced, that every Welsh constituency below 60,000 should be abolished? Not at all. Hon. Members should adhere to the broad commonsense findings of the Speaker's Conference; an attempt to give equal arithmetical weighting to every vote in the country is out of question.
If that is the contention—that too heavy a weighting has been attached to a university vote—it would be perfectly easy to modify that. Nobody has suggested that it would not be possible to consider saying: "If you vote in the university constituency you shall not vote in the other." But that is not the contention of the Lord President of the Council or the Home Secretary or hon. Members opposite. A fancy franchise, the Lord President calls it, which ought to be swept away. That is something very different from saying that it is wrong because it is giving more weight to one than to another, because one could argue on that contention that if a man or a woman voted in the university constituency he or she should not vote in the other constituencies. But that is not the argument which right hon. Gentlemen opposite are advancing.
176 If we say that it is wrong for 64,000 electors to have more than one vote, very well, that could be reconsidered and reduced. It would be perfectly easy—if hon. Members will only listen—to advance a contention that one could vote in the university constituency, but should not vote in the other constituency. If that is the contention, let us hear it. But that is not the contention. The step is being taken simply, solemnly and deliberately because the Home Secretary and the Lord President of the Council think there is a chance of pinching 12 seats.
Let me point out that it is a very defeatist point of view. To suggest that no intelligent, no educated, person is ever going to vote for the Socialists is an undue humility on their part. It is not even justified by the past facts. More than once Members who are certainly not of the way of thinking of those of us on this side of the House, have been returned in the university seats, and no doubt more will be returned in the future, because we have not ended university representation—this is not the end of university representation. A temporary majority may do what it likes, but the very fact that a temporary majority has torn up the findings of the Speaker's Conference means that they can be put together again. They have opened the door to swing this way and that way on representation in this House, which might even be a very great disadvantage to them in the future, not from reasonable persons like ourselves, but from those of the Left Wing, as the Continent has shown, who are very anxious and willing when they get into power to call anything which votes against them, "a fancy franchise" and to make perfectly certain that no voice of any contrary opinion is going to come here. They are opening the door to that in their conduct on this Measure.
First of all, may I speak simply of my own constituency, a large and a growing constituency. We have an enormous number of young men and young women who are being sent up to the universities by the most democratic procedure possible, selected by the great local authorities, financed from the public purse. The suggestion that the universities are great preserves of the rich—never applicable, I may say, to the Scottish Universities—is no longer applicable to any of the universities in this 177 country. I hear the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bishop Auckland (Mr. Dalton) talk of "collecting," as he says, an odd stockbroker:One collects a number of ancient graduates scattered throughout the country—a professor here, a clergyman there, a stockbroker or a Member of Parliament"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 16th February, 1948; Vol. 447, c. 938.]10.30 p.m.
As always, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bishop Auckland is sadly out of date. To apply such language to teachers, doctors, men drawn from the people at Scottish Universities, is so fantastically silly that even—well, I will not denounce the Old Etonians as a class, but I will say that, amongst them, a certain day boy seems to be very much more out of touch than most of his comrades who lived in. First of all, it is a big constituency; secondly, it is a growing constituency; thirdly, it is a constituency which carries to the logical conclusion the contention which the right hon. Gentleman was making just now about the ordinary constituencies of this country. Anybody who has difficulty, he said, may have himself registered and vote by post. This is a constituency in which everyone votes by post. It cannot be the postal ballot to which the right hon. Gentleman objects, for he was making the case for the postal ballot only a few minutes ago on the Floor of this House.
It is a constituency, and a valuable constituency, in which on a reasoned argument, and on a reasoned argument alone, a Member may be returned. The Home Secretary was arguing against the lavish expenditure of money, against the use of motorcars—the use of the advantages of wealth against the poor. Here is the supremely democratic constituency in which wealth certainly does not count one iota. Anyone who can address an envelope can get his vote recorded. No outside adventitious advantage comes in at all. And this is the constituency which the Government, in the name of democracy, are trying to abolish.
I should say this is a constituency in which those who have come from outside this island, whether Europeans, West Africans or Indians, are all equal and can have a common franchise and a common voting roll. Any other country would give its eyes to have a constituency such as this, which, in addition to these immediate 178 advantages, has an old and honourable tradition. This is a measure to disfranchise anyone from West Africa, India and this island who has a vote under present conditions. A "fancy franchise" indeed! Why should it be a "fancy franchise" for a graduate of a Scottish University in medicine or engineering, who happens to be a member of the Yoruba tribe in West Africa, or from Sierra Leone or the Gold Coast, to be allowed to vote for a Member for the Parliament which controls his destiny—the Colonial Empire? Why should the right hon. Gentleman think that it is a democratic advance to sweep this away?
§ Lieut.-Colonel Elliot
The hon. Member suggests that because all the natives do not vote, that is an argument for disfranchising those who do.
§ Mr. Edward Evans
Would the right hon. and gallant Gentleman give a vote to a member of the Institute of Civil Engineers who happens to be a West African?
§ Lieut.-Colonel Elliot
If a member of the Institute of Civil Engineers is on this particular voters roll, of course, I would give him the vote.
§ Lieut.-Colonel Elliot
Hon. Members opposite now change their ground and say this is a good thing—[HON. MEMBERS: "No!"]—but because it cannot be given to everybody, it should not be given to anybody. That is the argument of the Socialists!
It it is such a good, thing applied to university graduates, would the right hon. and gallant Gentleman agree that it would be equally a good thing to apply it to members of the A.E.U., so that they also might have an engineering representative?
§ Lieut.-Colonel Elliot
If members of the A.E.U. have graduated, there is no reason why they should not. Hon. Members cannot have it both ways. If they think this is a good principle—
§ The Lord President of the Council (Mr. Herbert Morrison)
Go easy; go easy.
§ Lieut.-Colonel Elliot
The right hon. Gentleman says "beware"; he does not want hon. Members behind him to argue this case. He knows the danger of falling into the hands of his supporters. The right hon. Gentleman wants to do all the talking. He does not want his supporters to jump in on this. This is a "job," and the less light thrown upon a "job," the better.
§ Mr. Ungoed Thomas
The point we are making on this is the distinction between university and other voters. Will the right hon. and gallant Gentleman address himself to that?
§ Lieut.-Colonel Elliot
I can scarcely imagine that one could address oneself more closely to the point. I am saying that I am very much in favour, and we all were, of the postal vote being given to soldiers. I see no reason why, in modern conditions, the postal vote should not be given to those who happen to have left the country on some of the great Imperial tasks upon which this nation is engaged. I say that when we have a franchise, a constituency, and a voters' roll where that principle can be applied, it is the last thing one wishes to abolish, and that this is the last moment when it should be abolished. More and more we shall find persons from this country travelling abroad and living abroad, being engaged on great tasks abroad. The idea that they should be automatically disfranchised because the Government think that they will not vote according to the lines upon which the Government wish them to vote is surely the most reactionary, instead of the most progressive, step which can be considered.
There are, of course, Members of Parliament who would be returned on that franchise, I think, more easily than on others. I have fought for 25 years on Clydeside, and I am not asking for any quarter. I am willing to take the chance of the rough and tumble of politics under any franchise; but there are others to whom that does not so easily apply. Let us take, for instance, the case of Sir John Boyd Orr. He was returned, certainly not by Government support; he was returned against a Government candidate. He was a great ornament to this House. It is true that he had views differing very much from those of many of us either on this or on the other side of the House. 180 Let us not suppose that he is one of those mild, parlour Socialists who can be trusted to "make a House, keep a House, and cheer Ministers." That is not his point at all. Anyone who listened to his last broadcast, and heard the plea which he put up only this week for Russia, will see that there is a man who has a distinct point of view from those of the ordinary political parties. It will not be possible for him to be returned in the ordinary constituencies. But it is very desirable that independent Members, as well as party Members, should be returned to this House. It is desirable that different points of view should be represented here, and that constituencies which have made that possible in the past should be maintained, and not be extinguished.
We consider that the Home Secretary has still to justify the breaking of his pledge by some more cogent argument than merely that it was a matter of such small detail that it was unimportant. We consider that the supporters of the Government have still to justify the wisdom of their argument with something more than an argument which convinced them when they were in a minority, and which they must be expected to apply when they are in a majority. We say that the onus is upon those who seek to change the law, to justify the proposed change. This change has been totally unjustified, and I ask the House not to make the change and to support our proposal tonight.
§ Professor Savory (Queen's University of Belfast)
The Speaker's Conference of 1944, in order to make the University franchise more democratic, passed the following recommendation:Provided that every person who has received or receives, a degree or its equivalent shall be automatically registered, and that no fee shall be charged for registration expenses.Now, Queen's University, always deferring to the advice of Mr. Speaker and his Conference, immediately passed a resolution adopting this proposal, so that on the last register of Queen's University, that of October, 1947, every single graduate whose address could be found was on the register.
I would remind the House that on 2nd February, 1944, the House of Commons, after a two days' debate, agreed to a resolution welcoming the proposals of His Majesty's Government to set up a Con- 181 ference on Electoral Reform and the Redistribution of Seats, and to invite Mr. Speaker to preside. The conference was composed of 32 Members of Parliament appointed by Mr. Speaker in proportion to the strength of the parties. All recommendations of that very representative conference were passed nemine contradicente.
In January, 1948, we were amazed to see the Bill that was introduced and the method adopted for the abolition of the University franchise. The abolition was carried out simply by implication, as the Bill said that henceforth the only constituencies which would exist would be the counties and the boroughs. By implication solely university representation was to be abolished—surely a very curious procedure in the case of an historic franchise, created by Letters Patent under the Great Seal of his Majesty, repeatedly endorsed by Parliament, and sanctioned by three and a half centuries of devoted service to the nation.
Now, the Master of Trinity College, Cambridge, George Macaulay Trevelyan, son of a very distinguished father, and great-nephew of the Whig historian Lord Macaulay, in a letter to "The Times" on 10th February, 1948—and it is a very moderate statement—says:It seems a pity that for the purpose of abolishing the plural or alternative vote a valuable institution like university representation should disappear.But the Home Secretary, on 16th February, had declared himself a consistent opponent of university representation, and one of his strongest arguments was that notable burgesses representing the universities had been rejected by the universities themselves, and he quoted the example of the great Newton. He was confident in the impression that Newton, after having been elected for the University of Cambridge, was subsequently rejected. I would like to ask the Home Secretary to pursue a little further his historical researches, and then he will find that in the year 1705 the great Newton stated that he had "no wish to stand for a third time" because he said "other gentlemen may expect their turn."
Might I remind the Home Secretary for what reason the great Newton was elected? It was not, as the Home Secretary seemed to think, for his scientific 182 attainments. Speaking here as a representative of Ulster, I am glad to be able to recall that Newton's original election in 1688 was a gesture of appreciation of his noble action in resisting the encroachments of James the Second, and welcoming to this country King William the Third—the great King William of blessed memory—and on account of his political activities, Newton was brought before the notorious Judge Jeffreys. But the judge, on this occasion, showed a rather more lenient disposition than at the deplorable Exeter Assizes, because he said, simply, these words: "Go and sin no more lest a worst thing come unto thee."
I would appeal to the Home Secretary to take as a precedent in this matter the noble conduct of Mr. Gladstone. In 1884, a redistribution of seats and Reform Bill were under the consideration of the House of Commons. Her gracious Majesty, Queen Victoria, in order to avoid a conflict between the two Houses, appealed to Mr. Gladstone to summon a conference of Liberal and Conservative representatives, and this conference took place. A considerable time was devoted to the university franchise, and one evening, the Marquis of Salisbury came home and said to his wife—
§ Professor Savory
—he said to his wife, the Marchioness, "I am very much distressed because this conference is going to break down, I fear, on the question of the university franchise, and I do not know what to do." But the Marchioness was a lady of masterful and energetic disposition. She immediately summoned her coachman, drove round to No. 10, Downing Street, and demanded to have an interview with the Prime Minister, Mr. Gladstone. He, in his usual manner, accorded it with his never failing courtesy. She had a long conversation with him and said to him, "I appeal to your old Oxford memories; you were a burgess of Oxford University, and my husband who commands the majority in the Upper House will not give way on the question of the university franchise." Mr. Gladstone, coming into contact with this woman of great vigour, and being himself a married man, thought that under the circumstances it was very much wiser to give way. The consequence was that the Act of 1885 was passed through both Houses, and the university franchise 183 was preserved. A very brave and courageous Member of the Government side of the House, the hon. Member for Bedford—the only Member on the Government side to do so—supported the universities, and used these words:So far from university representation being a departure from principle, it was based on the broad application of those very principles which have made this House unique throughout the world.That Member had the courage of his opinions.
I have talked to my friends in the Labour Party, and at least three of them have said to me: "My dear Savory, if there were a free vote we are perfectly convinced that the House of Commons would refuse to abolish the university franchise. Give us a free vote such as we had on capital punishment, when the House of Commons defeated the Home Secretary himself, and we shall be able to vote according to our consciences; we shall not be herded into the Division Lobby, and we shall vote for the preservation of the university franchise." Even though I sympathise with the Home Secretary on account of the ill-effects of the previous free vote, when his advice was rejected, I would appeal to him on a constitutional question of this kind to let the House of Commons have a free vote and decide according to its conscience
§ Professor Savory
Let the right hon. Gentleman remember that a distinguished member of the Labour Party, a great Prime Minister, having brought in a Bill to abolish the university franchise, was himself defeated in the General Election of 1935, and took refuge, and was glad to take refuge, in a Scottish university seat. This Prime Minister shares with Pitt, Peel, Palmerston and Gladstone the honour of having been both Prime Minister and a university Member.
One reason above all others in these democratic days why the university franchise should not be abolished is that the university is one of the very few constituencies where a poor man without private means can sit in this House. That goes back to a very remote period. In 1710 an Act was passed, in the reign of Queen Anne, which enacted that the 184 necessary qualification for Members of the House of Commons if they were Knights of the Shire should be a landed estate of the annual value of £600
§ Professor Savory
I am not talking about the "forty-shilling freeholder." I am talking about the Members of Parliament who were required, if they were Knights of the Shire, to have landed property of the value of £600 per annum. If, on the other hand, they were Burgesses or Barons of the Cinque Ports, they were required to have an annual revenue from land of £300. The Act of Queen Anne deliberately exempted from this qualification the University representatives. They were not obliged to show any property qualification whatever, because in the reign of Queen Anne it was desired that poor men from the university should be able to sit in the House of Commons. That tradition has been observed down to our own times.
My distinguished predecessor, Sir William Whitla, the Member for the University of Belfast, came back to London after a great victory and joined in celebrating this Conservative triumph with members of his club. In responding to the toast of "The Unionist Victory" he said, "I have just come back from the University of Belfast, and I am very sorry to tell you, members of this club, that University elections are very expensive, and you will not object if I ask for a little help from you towards my election expenses." The chairman was rather embarrassed, for he had not expected any such request. Finally he got on to his feet and said to Sir William, "Will you tell us the amount so that we can put our hands into our pockets, and pass around the hat to do our best to help you in these difficult circum-stances?" Sir William replied, "My election expenses were one penny tram fare to the University, one penny tram fare to my home—twopence in all." I am afraid, from my own experience, that this story may give a wrong impression of what the election expenses of a university member really are.
A further point is this: University franchise has given an opportunity of putting to the test the principle of proportional representation, because, under the Act of 1918, wherever there is more 185 than one member—and the Universities of Oxford and Cambridge have two, and the Scottish Universities three—the system of the single transferable vote was introduced. Otherwise, had this system of proportional representation not been operating, that distinguished Member the Junior Burgess for Cambridge (Mr. Wilson Harris) would not have been elected. This is a test case, and everybody can observe its workings. It has, therefore, been of value to the House of Commons. I need only say, incidentally, that had it not been for proportional representation Mr. de Valera would still have been the Prime Minister of Eire.
In conclusion, might I be allowed to quote that great apostle of democracy, the greatest writer on Parliamentary representation, John Stuart Mill, who said that there was need in all democracies for the representation of an instructed minority. Mr. A. J. Balfour, as he then was, the distinguished Prime Minister, said:This House has been enriched by men of science, men of scholarship, men of special and peculiar gifts—quite alien to the ordinary politician—that the universities have sent here.I would also like to quote the words of a distinguished and learned graduate of the University of London, Mr. T. Lloyd Humberstone, to whose research I am delighted to pay tribute and to which I am greatly indebted, for he has done so much to bring to light the early history of university representation. He said:A study of the biographies of university members since the year 1603 reveals a golden thread of intellectual integrity, independence and love of liberty.All that remains for me, whose seat is about to disappear, is to use the words of the Roman gladiators going into the arena and saluting the Emperor—and I say therefore this—Imperator Chuter Ede, Morituri Te Salutamus!
§ 11.0 p.m.
§ Sir Arthur Salter (Oxford University)
I do not propose to follow the hon. Member who has just spoken into his historical researches. I cannot emulate either his recondite knowledge or his particular talent for amusing and entertaining the House. Nor, indeed, do I propose to argue tonight the intrinsic merits of the case for or against university representation. That case has often been argued. My own view is quite definitely 186 that the case for has been made out. It is enough now for me to remind the House that it was made and accepted at the Speaker's Conference in 1944. I do not propose to re-argue this case tonight, both for that reason and also because, whatever might be the case against university representation, my own very strong view is that the Ministers who have introduced this proposal for abolition had no right to introduce it. At this moment I am under no illusion that the Government will change their view or will be unable to carry their disciplined majority into the Lobby. I have therefore no reason to pull my punches or to refrain on tactical grounds from saying exactly what I feel.
I believe that the Ministers particularly involved in responsibility in relation to the Speaker's Conference have acted dishonourably in putting forward this proposal now. I am not prepared to argue the intrinsic merits of the case with them until some answer has been given to that allegation. If someone took £10 from my pocket without reason or justification, I should certainly not be content that the subsequent discussion should turn on the question of my original title to the £10. No answer has been given to the very strong and, I think, overwhelming allegation that has been made of a breach of faith in this matter.
I do not propose to go over the whole case which has been stated in this House before, but the House will remember the terms and composition of the Speaker's Conference. That Conference had as members the Minister of National Insurance, the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, the Secretary of State for Scotland and other members of the Labour Party who then, and now, held, or now hold, positions in the Government. At that time the present Prime Minister was Deputy Prime Minister and the present Leader of the House was Home Secretary. It is against those Ministers that I make this allegation—not against the bulk of the Labour Party or those members of the Labour Party who have spoken or voted against the university seats during the course of this Bill. I repeat that allegation against those Ministers, and, I repeat, no answer has been made. An answer has hardly ever been even attempted. The Secretary of State for Scotland made some attempt on Second Reading. I would ask Members on his own side, as well as on 187 this side, whether they recall the character of the argument then made by the Secretary of State for Scotland.
§ Mr. Woodburn
The argument was a perfectly simple one. All who were members of the Speaker's Conference and who were present there will remember that the argument used for the retention of the university franchise, to which we agreed, was that the university franchise was a franchise which returned people of academic distinction and of no particular party who put forward an independent point of view. I was prepared to accept that—and, indeed, in the cases of some hon. Members I still accept it—as being a possibility; but—and I am not making any reflection on hon. Members who have been returned by the universities—when the universities can be used to return purely party Members—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"]—without their having a specially independent character in this House, then I suggest that that is a breach of the arrangements we came to in the Speaker's Conference.
§ Sir A. Salter
I am very glad the Secretary of State has repeated the argument, of the unwisdom of which I should have thought his colleagues would have convinced him. He said, as I well remember, and as he has now repeated, not that there was no agreement, but that the present Government were not bound by it. This means, if it means anything, that the right hon. Gentleman thought that he and the other members of the Conference were not merely agreeing about some composition of constituencies, but were also agreeing that, when constituencies had been re-arranged, the electors should vote for people of a particular political complexion, or should refrain from voting for people of a particular complexion. On that occasion, he went on to say that the agreement had been broken because some Members—and he was good enough to refer to my right hon. Friend the Member for the Scottish Universities (Sir J. Anderson) and myself—having been elected as Independents, had subsequently voted and spoken more often than not against the present Government.—[HON. MEMBERS: "Always."]—Not always. Not more often than I voted against the Conservative Government at the time I was elected; and for the same reason. Whereas at the time of my first election the Government's pro- 188 posals brought before the House were in my view too much to the Right, and I therefore voted against them, so proposals now brought before the House by a Government of the Left go, in my opinion, too much to the Left. It is not that I am not an Independent, or that I have shifted my ground. The Secretary of State apparently meant that the agreement between the parties had been broken because members of the Conference had failed to ensure that elected Members of the House had not voted in a particular way.
Was there ever a more fantastic or monstrous argument brought before this House, or an argument so indefensible as the only basis for breaking an agreement and abolishing seats some of which have been in existence for over three centuries? At the time of that speech, I thought it was intellectually the most indefensible I had ever heard from either Front Bench in this House. I am told by those who heard the speech of the same right hon. Gentleman earlier today that if I had heard that one I should not have maintained that opinion. Not having heard it, I maintain it.
The only reasons in substance given for this astonishing action, this astonishing breach of the pledge which resulted from the Speaker's Conference—which was re-endorsed by the House in October, 1944, and reaffirmed in another place as recently as October last year—are, I think, two. One was that Parliament is not bound by it. Of course, Parliament is not bound. But this proposal was not made by Parliament. It was made by Ministers, and by the Ministers who were party to the agreement; and it was enforced on Members of their own party on Second Reading by a three-line whip. How can they, in these circumstances, say "Our excuse for breaking our engagement was that Parliament is not bound?" It is really a fantastic argument.
I am sorry that the Lord President of the Council is not here. He, speaking on the same occasion, added practically nothing to what the Secretary of State said. In a speech lasting 50 minutes, he left this question, the most important departure at that time from the Speaker's Conference, to the last five minutes or so, which he devoted to a personal attack on existing university Members. He began this attack at 9.58, when he knew the 189 Debate was going to end at 10, and he knew that no interruption was possible—a most discreditable performance; and incidentally I might remark that if it was not quite as rash, it was quite as improper, as a subsequent charge he has made on the absence from this House of a Member to whom he is politically opposed.
One other reason was given—that the engagement was only intended to extend to the lifetime of the Parliament existing at the time the Conference was held. Any Member who looks either at the contents or the wording of the Report knows that that is a quite untenable argument. A large part of the proposals of the Conference were capable of immediate enactment, and were so enacted. The other part could only be enacted after the intervening work of the Boundary Commissions—which were bound to take longer than the lifetime of that Parliament. The actual wording of the Report, moreover, shows clearly that the proposals as a whole were meant to be enacted partly in that Parliament and partly in this. I cannot imagine how any hon. Member can read the sequence of the recommendations and come to any other conclusions than that first there was an honourable obligation on the Ministers I have named to support the recommendations, to which they had agreed unanimously, for the period to which that agreement was intended to extend; and secondly, though of course that agreement could not extend forever, that it clearly was intended to extend into this Parliament—for the period of this Parliament, or until there should be another all-party conference.
In these circumstances, I say deliberately that the Ministers concerned—not the party as a whole—have acted dishonourably, whatever may be the intrinsic merits of the case for or against University representation, in introducing this proposal now, and attempting to defend it for the reasons they have given. I think the consequences of this are going to be very serious. I wonder whether there can be any future all-party conference. I wonder whether Mr. Speaker will consent again to be chairman of an all-party conference, after the contempt with which the recommendations of this one have been treated by the present Government. A serious blow has been struck at an important custom of the constitution and the traditions of 190 honourable conduct in British politics, at the whole idea of higher education, and lastly—and this might appeal to the Lord President of the Council—a wanton blow and insult directed against the professsional classes.
If I am asked for evidence of my last statement, I will ask hon. Members to look at opinions expressed by every responsible organ of the Press which is neither consistently a supporter nor an opponent of the Government. There is "The Times"—the friendly "Times," the discriminating "Economist," the "Manchester Guardian," the "Observer," "Time and Tide," and I could quote others—even the "News Chronicle." On this matter they have been absolutely unanimous. I could also mention individuals—Professor Trevelyan, Albert Mansbridge, and others.
There can be no question but that the professional classes will regard this as a wanton and quite unprovoked blow upon themselves. It will, I think, have very considerable consequences, for this reason. This class has suffered many blows during the last three years. This class, from whom the Government drew a very considerable number of supporters at the last election, have wondered, as they suffered one blow after the other, whether these blows were inevitable, whether they were—as, indeed, some of them were—only incidental to the general Socialist policy of the Government, or whether also, not generally, not universally—because they know very well that a large part of the present Government is drawn from the same classes—there was not sometimes, recurrently, now and then, malice from one section of the supporters of the Government which was sometimes allowed to prevail. With these suspicions, these mounting suspicions, they have had this wanton and unprovoked blow, certainly not proscribed in any mandate—on the contrary, prescribed by the obligations which I have cited—to underline and confirm their suspicions. It was because of the existence of those suspicions that that unwise and indiscreet phrase "a tinker's cuss," which otherwise would quickly have been forgotten as a passing indiscretion, had such a carry, and still has such a carry.
I can think of nothing which better illustrates the worse aspects of this 191 Government—which has its worse and better aspects, like other Governments—and which more clearly reveals and illuminates its worse qualities—than their action in this case. It is because I believe that this will be so regarded by the professional classes, which are part of the floating vote of this country that I think this action will have very considerable political consequences—not that a great number of people will change their votes simply because the university seats are abolished, but because they will be reminded of the qualities and defects which will in time, I believe, bring this party and this Government down and will bring them down in defeat and disgrace. I will therefore repeat, with a variation, the words of my right hon. Friend who preceded me and say, as my last words on this question, as I look at the Treasury Bench before me, Moriturus morituros saluto.
§ Mr. Proctor (Eccles)
Before the right hon. Member for Oxford University (Sir A. Salter) sits down, could he tell us—I followed his arguments both in the Sunday Press and in the House—if we are ever to be free of this pledge, or if this party and the people of this country are to maintain this university representation just as it is forever?
§ Sir A. Salter
I think I have already said that I do not for one moment suggest that this was intended to exist forever or that it should exist forever. I said it was intended to extend for the period which hon. Members agreed it should extend—and for the reasons I have given that period clearly extended into the present Parliament—it could obviously be terminated by another all-party conference—and until there had been time for the proposals put forward by the conference to be put into force. That time could not be in the lifetime of the last Parliament, but it obviously could be in the life-time of this Parliament. Obviously the agreement extended into this Parliament and into the time in which we are now debating this Bill.
§ Mr. Crossman (Coventry, East)
I did not intend to intervene in this Debate, but I feel that what has been said needs an answer from this side of the House. Perhaps I have some right to speak, as a member of the professional classes, a university graduate and an ex-university 192 don. I want to take up, first of all, the point about the pledge. Frankly, if the arguments for this proposal are based on those of the Secretary of State for Scotland, I do not believe they are arguments which I can support. I do not think many have been influenced by those arguments.
The right hon. Member for Oxford University (Sir A. Salter) miserably failed in making the point about the pledge at all clear. It may apply to particular Ministers; but, as he himself pointed out, the great majority on this side cannot possibly be bound by that pledge. I think he under-estimates what happened in 1945. No Conference can bind the country from taking a sudden and very big—bigger than the right hon. Member likes—step forward. This is, in that sense, a new Parliament. It would be outrageous if Ministers did not accept their high obligation, which is to represent the movement which sent them here and the vast movement of public opinion which has occurred since the Speaker's Conference. I think it would put them in an individual difficulty, which the last speaker has explained to the full, but as a party and a movement, we have the right to introduce what we have been pledged to and what we younger members of the party passionately believe in, which is exactly the opposite of what the senior Burgess said about the professional classes wanting special, privileged representation.
The claim is that the professional classes, for which he and I can equally speak, will be injured and insulted by this, and they will vote anti-Labour. If I may say so, it is a compliment to the professional classes to say that they do not need special reserved seats where their members can safely be put in without the jumble and turmoil of party politics. Since 1932, the professional classes have been overwhelmingly represented in this House. They are not the class which needs special consideration. They have every advantage, both as voters, for using their influence, and as Members, for being present.
Look at the history of the last hundred years. We are told that the poor professional classes are the people who are being left out of representation, who are being insulted and injured, if this antiquated, pleasant anachronism is finally done away with. Nobody who is as proud 193 of being a member of the professional classes as I am would wish to retain this special little quiet way in. Thank heaven it is going at last, so that the professional classes can be on equal terms with other classes, and especially on equal terms with the working class. They have never really been equal. They have greater advantages in education, in getting in, in having their way. Yet we are told that there should be ten seats reserved specially for them so that they may not feel insulted.
§ Sir A. Salter
I will say nothing about the last point, which is argumentative, and to answer it I would have to make another speech. The hon. Member asked the actual meaning of what I said on the pledge. On that, I want to say that, whatever may have been the obligation of the Ministers involved, surely they are not entitled to say they had to give way because Parliament is supreme, when they had assented to the recommendations of the Speaker's Conference, when the method they adopted was not to allow a free vote, but to introduce these proposals themselves and enforce them on Second Reading with a three-line whip.
§ Mr. Crossman
To begin with, the question of what the attitude of individual Ministers should have been, seems to me to be relatively unimportant compared with the great issue. We have the great issue that university seats be abolished set against the question of the failure of certain individuals in this House. Those individuals may or may not have been right; but the point is that we here, those hon. Members sitting below the Gangway, have to make up our minds upon the merits of the case. It is no good wasting time on the smaller issue. The issue is whether it is or is not right, in 1948, to do away with university seats. It is really a side issue, at this stage of the Bill's progress, to raise the precise behaviour of individual Ministers who were placed in an extremely difficult situation by the fact that they had made a pledge in certain conditions, and to say that when entirely different conditions came within a few months they should be made to stick to that pledge.
I think I have made it clear that, far from being a compliment to the professional classes, it is an insult to suggest that they need privileges. But there is 194 another point which a previous speaker made. We were told that university graduates, not the professional classes, but an even more refined class, need a special electoral process. We were told that they should even be given the alternative vote; that is, that they should be able to vote either for a university or for an ordinary constituency candidate. What sense is there in that? University graduates are becoming, not a separate section of the population but, thank heaven, ordinary members of the population coming from all classes. As we look ahead to university reform, we see that we are not going to have a separation of classes which says that the university graduate is someone separate from the rest of the population, who needs different treatment from anyone else.
We have been told that we want plenty of dons in the House, and that it is important to have not only university graduates but professors, so that we can have that peculiarly independent judgment which professors maintain. I have listened to, and enjoyed, the speeches of the hon. Member for the Queen's University of Belfast (Professor Savory) and the senior Burgess for Oxford University (Sir A. Salter), but I have' never found any peculiar independence about them. Professors are as prejudiced and as partisan as any other members of the population. I do not believe there is any special gift of statesmanship about professors. On the whole, I actually prefer a professor who goes through the usual rough and tumble of an election and behaves like an ordinary democrat, and gets elected to Parliament in the ordinary way, to the professor who says that he is a superior being who cannot go through the ordinary rough and tumble.
I think the professor who has just spoken would be a better man, and more useful to Parliament, if he had not been sitting on the fence and did not have to lean either to the Left or to the Right. If the job of a professor is to display indecision and spinelessness, if these are the qualities required of him, I do not think it is very edifying for him to say, "This Government is either too far to the Right or too far to the Left; I am independent. I contribute something very special—an inability ever to butt in." I prefer the university Tory Members. At least I know where they stand. But I prefer to see them coming to the House through the 195 ordinary way. So I divide the university Members into two sorts—the spineless ones and the open-party advocates. I want to see the open-party Members in this House; I do not want the spineless ones. Therefore, I want to abolish the university seats.
§ 11.30 p.m.
§ Mr. Eden (Warwick and Leamington)
Owing to illness, I was not able to be here to take part, as I would otherwise have done, in the earlier discussions on this subject. I do not want to detain the House long, but there are one or two observations which I want to make to the House. I want to see exactly where we are in regard to the position of the Government and the reasons for the attitude they have maintained about this university representation. A very short time ago in this House, when it was being stated that we held that Ministers were bound by certain undertakings of 1944 and the Speaker's Conference, the Secretary of State for Scotland rose and said that he would still have been bound if the representation of the university constituencies at the General Election had shown a true independence. I do not think I am misquoting him. Is that the Government's position? If so, will the Secretary of State expand their position a little further?
What do they mean by "true independence"? Do they mean that the representative should refuse the party whips? If so, how many must refuse before they collectively show a true independence—40 per cent., 60 per cent., 80 per cent., 90 per cent.? Perhaps the Secretary of State for Scotland will tell us what percentage, in his view, justifies him in maintaining his views, and what percentage will compel him to depart from them? Will he elucidate now? I see that he will not. I say frankly that, for a Minister of the Crown to produce arguments of that kind, is utterly unworthy of any Front Bench in the history of this Parliament. He says, in effect, that he agrees with university representation provided the kind of representation produced is agreeable to him. That is a kind of argument which a Minister of the Crown, professing belief in democracy, should not make.
I say that, as far as Ministers are concerned, we consider they are bound by the decision of 1944. The hon. Member 196 for East Coventry (Mr. Crossman) said that that cannot apply to the newly-elected back bencher. Of course, I agree that there is force in that argument, but as far as we are concerned, if that argument is to hold, we consider ourselves free to reverse any decision reached by this House tonight whenever the opportunity may occur.
I dare even to say something more, in which I hope to carry hon. Members. If those particular Ministers who each gave those particular undertakings in 1944 had in mind that they were going to ask for the abolition of university seats, I think it would have been a good thing for them to have told the electors so; but there was never any attempt to secure any such mandate from the electors, nor was there any reference to it in "Let Us Face the Future" or any of the electioneering speeches. The Labour Party were committed by the Secretary of State for Scotland at the Conference, and presumably he, at the time of the General Election, would have been in favour of retaining the university seats, for whatever else his qualities he is not a prophet and could not have told what the election results in those seats would be. It is not fair to blame him for not warning the electors he was going to do something different after the elections.
There are one or two considerations I want to put before the House. Ministers were pledged in one sense. There was no mandate at all from the country, and if a change was contemplated that mandate should have been sought and obtained. There are occasions when, despite the fact that no mandate has been got, the Government feel that there is a justification for making a change. It may well be so. It may be that there will be a change by inter-party agreement, a great constitutional change, as in the case of the extension of the women's franchise, as many hon. Members will remember. That is one case. Or, again, one may claim that there should be a change because there is overwhelming public support to such an extent that the Government feel justified in making a change. But in this case, can anyone, even the Secretary for Scotland, pretend that there is overwhelming support for this change in the university representation?
I would like to deal with the question of those voters who live abroad, and I 197 hope that the Government will meet this point in some form or another, because, if they happen to be university graduates, this is the only vote which these people can have. I know many such people; I knew many of them, during my time at the Foreign Office, who could not have any residence qualification at home. As hon. Members know, there are many people stationed abroad in the service of this country; and how about those many employees of, say, the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company? They cannot have a vote at home.
Hon. Members opposite reply by saying, "Why, then, should not an ordinary member of the A.E.U. have a vote if he happens to live abroad?". I agree; why should he not? If there is to be any extension of the number of Britishers who live abroad who may cast a vote, I shall not quarrel with that decision. But now we have the position that because some have not got it, others shall not be allowed to keep it. This is surely a development of the doctrine of equal misery equally shared. I urge upon the Home Secretary that, if he holds to his claim of "one vote, one value" and says that those who vote at a university cannot vote in another constituency, we are prepared to consider that policy. But here the Government are disfranchising a large number of people overseas without having prepared any scheme to replace the present position.
May I, finally, refer to the remarks which have been made about the quality of the university representatives? I regret having to do so, because this is an invidious matter; one does not like discussing the quality of these hon. Members, but I remember, as do other hon. Members who have been in this House as long as I, the remarkable qualities of some of these representatives. I recall Lord Quickswood, or Lord Hugh Cecil, as we knew him. He was, perhaps, one of the most brilliant debaters I have ever heard. One can recall, too, Miss Eleanor Rathbone, to whom reference has so often been made—an hon. Member who brought unquestionable qualities to this House. It is, as I have said, invidious to discuss the quality of these hon. Members, but I hope that we shall not be told—and I was horrified to hear the opinion expressed by the hon. Member for East Coventry (Mr. Crossman)—that there must be a uniformity, and that we must all fit into something. I should have 198 thought that there is rather too much uniformity today, and I never thought that I should hear the expression from the University of Oxford. The hon. Member has said that a university representative would do as well in the big party organisation as he would as an Independent, but whether that is so or not, one can still retain individuality. There is no need for uniformity.
§ Mr. Eden
I am glad, but the hon. Member will agree that many of the university representatives over the last twenty years have brought some special gift to this House, no more, perhaps, but in a different measure, and in a different form from others who have brought qualities to the House; and if they had not been university representatives, they might very well not have been here. As a last consideration, let me say that the whole of this representation amounts to only two per cent. of the numbers in this House.
The Home Secretary, who did so much with my right hon. Friend the Member for Saffron Walden (Mr. R. A. Butler) in bringing into being the Education Act, was acquainted with Professor Trevelyan's observations that this action would give discouragement to the universities at a time when great calls were being made upon them for greater effort, and when they would be faced with problems of finding accommodation for students, and so on. I cannot imagine a more unfortunate time at which to take this step. We are all agreed that, whatever the universities may have been in the past, they are today widely representative of the best talent, and the best young talent, of this country. What a time to take away that representation. Even though I know how late this stage is, I would ask the Home Secretary to reconsider this matter. If he rests on the same ground as the Secretary of State for Scotland, I am bound to say that the Government deserve the severest censure this House can give. If he does not rest on the same grounds, will he tell us why he insists upon taking this action? Will he not yet consider whether it would not be wiser to leave this matter over till the country has had an opportunity of expressing its view upon it at the next General Election?
§ Mr. Ede
The right hon. Gentleman wound up his speech with a reference to the Education Act, 1944, and seemed to suggest that for some reason—I am bound to say I cannot follow it—because that Act was passed, the life of the university representation ought to be continued. I do not believe myself that there is any connection between the two things at all.
The right hon. and gallant Member for the Scottish Universities (Lieut.-Colonel Elliot) said that any other country would give its eyes to have such a system as this. Then why is it that none of our great self-governing Dominions, who have established democratic systems of Government, and are certainly not less enthusiastic for popular education than this country, have ever embodied such a scheme in their proposals for representation? Nowhere else in the world, so far as I can find out, is a system of university representation retained in the popular legislative assembly. And so far from other countries giving their eyes for it, having seen the example of this country, they certainly have not thought fit to copy it.
I do not base my case, either one way or the other, on the quality of university representation. Only this evening we have had quite typical examples of the varying quality of university representation. I do not know whether it is the speech of the senior Burgess for Oxford University (Sir A. Salter) or the speech of the hon. Member for the Queen's University of Belfast (Professor Savory) which is of such outstanding quality that it proves the case for university representation; of the two I preferred the speech of the hon. Member for the Queen's University. It may be said of every kind of constituency that it has sent us some distinguished representatives. I would remind the right hon. Member for Warwick and Leamington (Mr. Eden)—although I am quite sure he does not really need to be reminded—that that was the argument adduced for the rotten boroughs—that they enabled young men who otherwise would not get into this House to get in through the system that was then in vogue; that Old Sarum, Bletchingley and Gatton, and other places, enabled people to come to this House who otherwise would not have been able to; that they provided an opportunity for talent to get in, which in the days of 200 the oligarchy, apparently, could only get in by such means.
It is not a question of whether this particular form of representation has sent us some distinguished people. The right hon. Gentleman mentioned the case of Lord Quickswood. After all, Lord Quickswood first came to this House as the Member for Greenwich, and he sat in this House for a number of years—until he quarrelled with the party opposite on a very important question—as an ordinary constituency Member. Hon. Members and right hon. Gentlemen whose names have been quoted tonight, who represented universities, when they fell foul of those universities on matters of public policy, were also rejected by their universities and had to return to this House as Members for popular constituencies. The argument with regard to that matter cuts both ways, and so far as I know, it cannot be said that the universities can guarantee to return to this House people of distinction in every case. There was a great friend of mine, whom I could have regarded as an ornament to this House, and who I think was the greatest orator I have ever heard. He was Dr. T. E. Page, who had every claim to sit as a representative for Cambridge University, but who polled a miserably small vote in the election for that University, which lost by not returning him. I would have felt there was considerably more strength in the argument that has been made if on some occasion like that, the universities had availed themselves of the opportunity that presented itself.
It seemed to me that the right hon. and gallant Member for the Scottish Universities (Lieut.-Colonel Elliot) was somewhat weak on the mathematical side of his speech. He said he once represented 46,000 electors at one time, and went to another constituency, his present one, which has 64,000 electors. But the constituency of 64,000 electors has three members, which destroys the line of argument which the right hon. Gentleman was pursuing.
§ Lieut.-Colonel Elliot
If it was said they were over-represented, the representation could be reduced as has been done in other over-represented constituencies. It is a different suggestion to sweep them away altogther.
§ Mr. Ede
That was not the line of argument as I followed it at the time the right hon. and gallant Gentleman was speaking. But we are driven back in the end to the point that was over-emphasised, I believe by the right hon. Gentleman the senior Burgess for Oxford University, that this franchise and these constituencies are the means by which a certain section of the community can be assured of representation in this House.
§ Sir A. Salter
With great respect, I did not make that point, which several of my hon. Friends did. The point I made was that present Ministers were honourably bound by decisions of the Speaker's conference.
§ Mr. Ede
I gathered that the great burden of the right hon. Gentleman's speech, where it ascended to serious argument—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"]—really, the professional classes are getting exceedingly touchy now—was that this was the means by which the professional classes secured representation and that the failure to continue university representation would be regarded by the professional classes as a blow distinctly aimed at them. I have the right hon. Gentleman's assent to the last part of what I said.
§ Sir A. Salter
I agree with the re-statement made by the Home Secretary of the latter part of my argument. I did not make the other point, and I repeat that the main burden of my speech was an allegation of a breach of faith, to which I hope the right hon. Gentleman will make a reply.
§ Mr. Ede
I propose to make my speech in my own order. We believe the franchise should be on the basis of citizenship, and that the best constituencies are those which have a wide variety of electors in them. On the basis of common citizenship, hon. Members are chosen who can represent the whole of that community, and to have certain constituencies which have, as the basis of their electorate, one particular class receiving one particular form of education is not a sound basis upon which a democracy should be built. So far from accepting the argument that was advanced by the right hon. Gentleman, I accept the line of approach to the subject adopted by the hon. Member for East Coventry (Mr. Crossman). I think that the more constituencies that can be arranged on the basis of a wide diversity 202 of electorate, the better both for Members of Parliament and for this House.
I now want to come to this question of the alleged breach of faith. Certainly I was not one of the Ministers who served on the Conference, and therefore I can view the action of those who did with, I hope, as much objectivity as the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Oxford University. It is true I was a junior member of the Government in whose time the Conference was called together, but I do not think that committed me one way or the other to accepting the decisions of the Conference. I cannot find out, as my hon. Friends cannot find out, at what stage the right hon. Gentleman felt that the decisions of the Conference would cease to be binding not merely on the Ministers but on the House, because, as I understand it, he objects to the House taking this view just as much as to Ministers taking the view. In fact, I think he said at an earlier stage of the Bill that if Members on this side of the House had pressed Ministers to include such a provision in the Bill, the duty of Ministers would have been to say, not only were they against it, but they would not allow the House to put a Clause into the Bill or in any way to interfere with university representation. All I can say to that is that I do not think he knows my hon. Friends if he thinks that that would have settled the matter.
§ Sir A. Salter
The right hon. Gentleman did say that I made a particular statement. I think he is mistaken; but that point does not arise in any event, because the Ministers who introduced this proposal enforced it on their supporters by a three-line whip. I specifically did not mention the right hon. Gentleman among the Ministers who, I said, were responsible.
§ Mr. Ede
I should hesitate to think that it needed a three-line whip to persuade my hon. Friends to vote on this particular matter. I have known occasions when they have found themselves very reluctant to accept the advice tendered by the Government, but I am certain it required no pressure on this occasion.
The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Warwick and Leamington said, "You can pass this tonight, but when the time 203 comes we shall reverse the decision." Now we understand that at least one part of the elusive Tory policy has at last been revealed. If the country votes for the Tory Party at the next election, it can rest assured now that it will be going back to an era of privilege, to an arrangement by which a limited section of the community is to have the right to representation in this House on a basis which will distinguish it from other sections of the community. The right hon. Gentleman says that by this franchise, people who live abroad are given the opportunity of having a vote for this House. If he had followed our deliberations in Committee a little more closely, he would have known that in the passage of the Bill through Committee the Government indicated their acceptance of ideas which are included in other Amendments on the Paper, whereby those people in every walk of life who, in the Government service, are abroad, will have the opportunity—
§ Mr. Ede
We accepted those proposals because we regard those people as being people who are likely to return to this country, and who are for the time being temporarily abroad, and who desire to maintain a close touch with citizenship here. However, the university franchise gives the vote to people abroad who have no intention of returning here. The right hon. and gallant Member for the Scottish Universities quoted certain classes of such people. I suggest that the way we propose to deal with the matter, although it
§ may not fully meet all the points the right hon. and gallant Gentleman had in mind, is an indication that we desire that the citizen of this country who lives abroad shall be given the opportunity, if he is likely to return to this country, of continuing to have his voice and influence in the affairs of the country.
§ Mr. Ede
Because that is what was asked for, among other things, by the right hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends. We, at any rate, are making a start in this matter in a way which hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite did not start in the past. I suggest that there we are doing something far more reasonable and far more practicable than continuing the university franchise, which gives the vote to people who are unlikely, in many cases, to return to citizenship of this country. The right hon. and gallant Member for the Scottish Universities objected because I have on previous occasions referred to the university franchise as a "fancy franchise." I repeat that description. I believe the only basis of representation should be on the basis of citizenship, and that people have no claim for additional representation or to special representation merely because they have been educated at certain seats of learning, no matter how ancient and how distinguished.
§ The Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Whiteley)
rose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put."
§ Question put, "That the Question be now put."
§ The House divided: Ayes, 216; Noes, 91.207
|Division No. 222.]||AYES.||[11.59 p.m.|
|Adams, W. T. (Hammersmith, South)||Beswick, F.||Bruce, Maj. D. W. T.|
|Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V.||Bing, G. H. C.||Callaghan, James|
|Allen, A. C. (Bosworth)||Blackburn, A. R.||Castle, Mrs. B. A.|
|Awbery, S. S.||Blenkinsop, A.||Chamberlain, R. A.|
|Ayles, W. H.||Blyton, W. R.||Champion, A. J.|
|Bacon, Miss A.||Boardman, H.||Coldrick, W.|
|Baird, J.||Bowless, F. G. (Nuneaton)||Collindridge, F.|
|Balfour, A.||Braddock, Mrs. E. M. (L'pl, Exch'ge)||Collins, V. J.|
|Barnes, Rt. Hon. A. J.||Braddock, T. (Mitcham)||Colman, Miss G. M.|
|Barton, C.||Bramall, E. A.||Comyns, Dr. L.|
|Bechervaise, A. E.||Brook, D. (Halifax)||Cooper, Wing-Comdr. G.|
|Bellenger, Rt. Hon. F. J.||Brooks, T. J. (Rothwell)||Corbet, Mrs. F. K. (Camb'well, N.W.)|
|Benson, G.||Brown, T. J. (Ince)||Cove, W. G.|
|Crawley, A.||Kenyon, C.||Reid, T. (Swindon)|
|Crossman, R. H. S.||King, E. M.||Robens, A.|
|Daggar, G.||Kinghorn, Sqn.-Ldr. E.||Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvonshire)|
|Dalton, Rt. Hon. H.||Kinley, J.||Ross, William (Kilmarnock)|
|Davies, Edward (Burslem)||Lang, G.||Royle, C.|
|Davies, Ernest (Enfield)||Lee, F. (Hulme)||Scollan, T.|
|Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)||Lee, Miss J. (Cannock)||Segal, Dr. S.|
|Deer, G.||Lever, N. H.||Shackleton, E. A. A.|
|de Freitas, Geoffrey||Levy, B. W.||Sharp, Granville|
|Delargy, H. J.||Lindgren, G. S.||Shawcross, C. N. (Widnes)|
|Diamond, J.||Longden, F.||Shawcross, Rt. Hn. Sir H. (St. Helens)|
|Dobbie, W.||Lyne, A. W.||Silverman, J. (Erdington)|
|Dodds, N. N.||McAllister, G.||Silverman, S. S. (Nelson)|
|Dumpleton, C. W.||McEntee, V. La T.||Simmons, C. J.|
|Dye, S.||Mack, J. D.||Skeffington, A. M.|
|Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.||Mackay, R. W. G. (Hull, N.W.)||Smith, C. (Colchester)|
|Evans, Albert (Islington, W.)||McLeavy, F.||Smith, H. N. (Nottingham, S.)|
|Evans, John (Ogmore)||Macpherson, T. (Romford)||Sorensen, R. W.|
|Evans, S. N. (Wednesbury)||Mainwaring, W. H.||Soskice, Sir Frank|
|Ewart, R.||Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)||Sparks, J. A.|
|Fairhurst, F.||Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield)||Steele, T.|
|Farthing, W. J.||Mann, Mrs. J.||Stubbs, A. E.|
|Fernyhough, E.||Manning, Mrs. L. (Epping)||Sylvester, G. O.|
|Field, Capt. W. J.||Mathers, Rt. Hon. George||Symonds, A. L.|
|Fletcher, E. G. M. (Islington, E.)||Mellish, R. J.||Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)|
|Follick, M.||Middleton, Mrs. L.||Taylor, Dr. S. (Barnet)|
|Foot, M. M.||Mikardo, Ian||Thomas, D. E. (Aberdare)|
|Fraser, T. (Hamilton)||Millington, Wing-Comdr. E. R.||Thomas, George (Cardiff)|
|Freeman, Peter (Newport)||Mitchison, G. R.||Thomas, I. O. (Wrekin)|
|Gibbins, J.||Monslow, W.||Thorneycroft, Harry (Clayton)|
|Gibson, C. W.||Moody, A. S.||Thurtle, Ernest|
|Glanville, J. E. (Consett)||Morgan, Dr. H. B.||Tomlinson, Rt. Hon. G.|
|Gordon-Walker, P. C.||Morris, Lt.-Col. H. (Sheffield, C.)||Ungoed-Thomas, L.|
|Greenwood, A. W. J. (Heywood)||Morris, P. (Swansea, W.)||Wallace, G. D. (Chislehurst)|
|Grey, C. F.||Mort, D. L.||Wallace, H. W. (Walthamstow, E.)|
|Griffiths, D. (Rother Valley)||Moyle, A.||Warbey, W. N.|
|Gunter, R. J.||Murray, J. D.||Watkins, T. E.|
|Guy, W. H.||Nally, W.||Weitzman, D.|
|Hale, Leslie||Neal, H. (Claycross)||Wells, P. L. (Faversham)|
|Hall, Rt. Hon. Glenvil||Noel-Baker, Capt. F. E. (Brentford)||Wells, W. T. (Walsall)|
|Hamilton, Lt.-Col. R.||Noel-Baker, Rt. Hon. P. J. (Derby)||White, C. F. (Derbyshire, W.)|
|Hannan, W. (Maryhill)||Oliver, G. H.||White, H. (Derbyshire, N.E.)|
|Hardy, E. A.||Orbach, M.||Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.|
|Hastings, Dr. Somerville||Paget, R. T.||Wigg, George|
|Haworth, J.||Palmer, A. M. F.||Wilcock, Group-Capt. C. A. B.|
|Henderson, Joseph (Ardwick)||Paton, Mrs. F. (Rushcliffe)||Wilkins, W. A.|
|Herbison, Miss M.||Paton, J. (Norwich)||Willey, F. T. (Sunderland)|
|Hewitson, Capt. M.||Peart, T. F.||Williams, D. J. (Neath)|
|Holman, P.||Perrins, W.||Williams, J. L. (Kelvingrove)|
|Hoy, J.||Poole, Cecil (Lichfield)||Williams, R. W. (Wigan)|
|Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)||Popplewell, E.||Williams, W. R. (Heston)|
|Hughes, H. D. (W'lverh'pton, W.)||Porter, E. (Warrington)||Wills, Mrs. E. A.|
|Hynd, H. (Hackney, C.)||Porter, G. (Leeds)||Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.|
|Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)||Price, M. Philips||Woods, G. S.|
|Jeger, G. (Winchester)||Pritt, D. N.||Wyatt, W.|
|Jenkins, R. H.||Proctor, W. T.||Yates, V. F.|
|Jones, D. T. (Hartlepool)||Pursey, Cmdr. H.||Younger, Hon. Kenneth|
|Jones, Elwyn (Plaistow)||Randall, H. E.|
|Jones, P. Asterley (Hitchin)||Ranger, J.||TELLERS FOR THE AYES:|
|Keenan, W.||Rees-Williams, D. R.||Mr. Pearson and|
|Mr. Richard Adams.|
|Agnew, Cmdr. P. G.||De la Bère, R.||Kendall, W. D.|
|Amory, D. Heathcoat||Digby, S. W.||Lambert, Hon. G.|
|Anderson, Rt. Hn. Sir J. (Scot Univ.)||Dodds-Parker, A. D.||Lancaster, Col. C. G.|
|Baldwin, A. E.||Drewe, C.||Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H.|
|Beamish, Maj. T. V. H.||Dugdale Maj. Sir T. (Richmond)||Lindsay, K. M. (Comb'd Eng. Univ.)|
|Birch, Nigel||Duthie, W. S.||Lloyd, Selwyn (Wirral)|
|Boles, Lt.-Col. D. C. (Wells)||Eden, Rt. Hon. A.||Low, A. R. W.|
|Bowen, R.||Elliot, Lieut.-Col. Rt. Hon. W.||Lucas, Major Sir J.|
|Boyd-Carpenter, J. A.||Fraser, H. C. P. (Stone)||Lucas-Tooth, Sir H.|
|Braithwaite, Lt.-Comdr. J. G.||Fyfe, Rt. Hon. Sir D. P. M.||McCorquodale, Rt. Hon. M. S.|
|Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.||Galbraith, Cmdr. T. D.||Macdonald, Sir P. (I. of Wight)|
|Butcher, H. W.||Grimston, R. V.||McKie, J. H. (Galloway)|
|Byers, Frank||Hannon, Sir P. (Moseley)||Maclay, Hon. J. S.|
|Carson, E.||Harris, F. W. (Croydon, N.)||Macmillan, Rt. Hon. Harold (Bromley)|
|Clarke, Col. R. S.||Harris, H. Wilson (Cambridge Univ.)||Manningham-Buller, R. E.|
|Conant, Maj. R. J. E.||Haughton, S. G.||Marshall, S. H. (Sutton)|
|Cooper-Key, E. M.||Hinchingbrooke, Viscount||Molson, A. H. E.|
|Corbett, Lieut.-Col. U. (Ludlow)||Hogg, Hon. Q.||Nicholson, G.|
|Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.||Hope, Lord J.||Noble, Comdr. A. H. P.|
|Crowder, Capt. John E.||Howard, Hon. A.||O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir H.|
|Cuthbert, W. N.||Jeffreys, General Sir G.||Osborne, C.|
|Darling, Sir W. Y.||Keeling, E. H.||Peake, Rt. Hon. O.|
|Peto, Brig. C. H. M.||Shepherd, W. S. (Bucklow)||Wakefield, Sir W. W.|
|Ramsay, Maj. S.||Smith, E. P. (Ashford)||Ward, Hon. G. R.|
|Reid, Rt. Hon. J. S. C. (Hillhead)||Spearman, A. C. M.||Wheatley, Colonel M. J. (Dorset, E.)|
|Roberts, Emrys (Merioneth)||Strauss, H. G. (English Universities)||Williams, C. (Torquay)|
|Roberts, W. (Cumberland, N.)||Taylor, C. S. (Eastbourne)||York, C.|
|Ropner, Col. L.||Thornton-Kemsley, C. N.|
|Ross, Sir R. D. (Londonderry)||Touche, G. C.||TELLERS FOR THE NOES:|
|Salter, Rt. Hon. Sir J. A.||Turton, R. H.||Mr. Studholme and|
|Sanderson, Sir F.||Vane, W. M. F.||Brigadier Mackeson.|
|Savory, Prof. D. L.||Wadsworth, G.|
§ Question put accordingly, "That the Clause be read a Second time."208
§ The House divided: Ayes, 88; Noes, 217.209
|Division No. 223.]||AYES.||[12.8 a.m.|
|Amory, D. Heathcoat||Grimston, R. V.||O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir H.|
|Anderson, Rt. Hn. Sir J. (Scot. Univ.)||Hannon, Sir P. (Moseley)||Osborne, C.|
|Baldwin, A. E.||Harris, F. W. (Croydon, N.)||Peake, Rt. Hon. O.|
|Beamish, Maj. T. V. H.||Harris, H. Wilson (Cambridge Univ.)||Peto, Brig. C. H. M.|
|Birch, Nigel||Haughton, S. G.||Ramsay, Maj. S.|
|Boles, Lt.-Col. D. C. (Wells)||Hinchingbrooke, Viscount||Reid, Rt. Hon. J. S. C. (Hillhead)|
|Bowen, R.||Hogg, Hon. Q.||Ropner, Col. L.|
|Boyd-Carpenter, J. A.||Hope, Lord J.||Ross, Sir R. D. (Londonderry)|
|Braithwaite, Lt.-Comdr. J. G.||Howard, Hon. A.||Salter, Rt. Hon. Sir J. A.|
|Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.||Hulbert, Wing-Cdr. N. J.||Sanderson, Sir F.|
|Butcher, H. W.||Jeffreys, General Sir G.||Savory, Prof. D. L.|
|Carson, E.||Keeling, E. H.||Shepherd, W. S. (Bucklow)|
|Clarke, Col. R. S.||Kendall, W. D.||Smith, E. P. (Ashford)|
|Cooper-Key, E. M.||Lambert, Hon. G.||Spearman, A. C. M.|
|Corbett, Lieut.-Col. U. (Ludlow)||Lancaster, Col. C. G.||Strauss, H. G. (English Universities)|
|Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.||Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H.||Studholme, H. G.|
|Crowder, Capt. John E.||Lindsay, K. M. (Comb'd Eng. Univ.)||Taylor, C. S. (Eastbourne)|
|Cuthbert, W. N.||Lloyd, Selwyn (Wirral)||Thornton-Kemsley, C. N.|
|Darling, Sir W. Y.||Low, A. R. W.||Touche, G. C.|
|De la Bère, R.||Lucas, Major Sir J.||Turton, R. H.|
|Digby, S. W.||Lucas-Tooth, Sir H.||Vane, W. M. F.|
|Dodds-Parker, A. D.||McCorquodale, Rt. Hon. M. S.||Wakefield, Sir W. W.|
|Drayson, G. B.||Mackeson, Brig. H. R.||Ward, Hon. G. R.|
|Drewe, C.||McKie, J. H. (Galloway)||Wheatley, Colonel M. J. (Dorset, E.)|
|Dugdale, Maj. Sir T. (Richmond)||Maclay, Hon. J. S.||Williams, C. (Torquay)|
|Duthie, W. S.||Macmillan, Rt. Hon. Harold (Bromley)||York, C.|
|Eden, Rt. Hon. A.||Manningham-Buller, R. E.|
|Elliot, Lieut.-Col Rt. Hon. W.||Marshall, S. H. (Sutton)||TELLERS FOR THE AYES:|
|Fraser, H. C. P. (Stone)||Molson, A. H. E.||Commander Agnew and|
|Fyfe, Rt. Hon. Sir D. P. M.||Nicholson, G.||Major Conant.|
|Galbraith, Cmdr. T. D.||Noble, Comdr. A. H. P.|
|Adams, W. T. (Hammersmith, South)||Collindridge, F.||Foot, M. M.|
|Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V.||Collins, V. J.||Fraser, T. (Hamilton)|
|Allen, A. C. (Bosworth)||Colman, Miss G. M.||Freeman, Peter (Newport)|
|Awbery, S. S.||Comyns, Dr. L.||Gibson, C. W.|
|Ayles, W. H.||Cooper, Wing-Comdr. G.||Glanville, J. E. (Consett)|
|Bacon, Miss A.||Corbet, Mrs. F. K. (Camb'well, N.W.)||Gordon-Walker, P. C.|
|Baird, J.||Cove, W. G.||Greenwood, A. W. J. (Heywood)|
|Balfour, A.||Crawley, A.||Grey, C. F.|
|Barnes, Rt. Hon. A. J.||Crossman, R. H. S.||Griffiths, D. (Rother Valley)|
|Barton, C.||Daggar, G.||Gunter, R. J.|
|Bechervaise, A. E.||Dalton, Rt. Hon. H.||Guy, W. H.|
|Bellenger, Rt. Hon. F. J.||Davies, Edward (Burslem)||Hale, Leslie|
|Benson, G.||Davies, Ernest (Enfield)||Hall, Rt. Hon. Glenvil|
|Beswick, F.||Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)||Hamilton, Lieut.-Col. R.|
|Bing, G. H. C.||Deer, G.||Hannan, W. (Maryhill)|
|Blackburn, A. R.||de Freitas, Geoffrey||Hardy, E. A.|
|Blenkinsop, A.||Delargy, H. J.||Hastings, Dr. Somerville|
|Blyton, W. R.||Diamond, J.||Haworth, J.|
|Boardman, H.||Dobbie, W.||Henderson, Joseph (Ardwick)|
|Bowles, F. G. (Nuneaton)||Dodds, N. N.||Herbison, Miss M.|
|Braddock, Mrs. E. M. (L'pl, Exch'ge)||Dumpleton, C. W.||Hewitson, Capt. M.|
|Braddock, T. (Mitcham)||Dye, S.||Holman, P.|
|Bramall, E. A.||Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.||Hoy, J.|
|Brook, D. (Halifax)||Evans, Albert (Islington, W.)||Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)|
|Brooks, T. J. (Rothwell)||Evans, John (Ogmore)||Hughes, H. D. (W'Iverh'pton, W.)|
|Brown, T. J. (Ince)||Evans, S. N. (Wednesbury)||Hynd, H. (Hackney, C.)|
|Bruce, Maj. D. W. T.||Ewart, R.||Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)|
|Byers, Frank||Fairhurst, F.||Jeger, G. (Winchester)|
|Callaghan, James||Farthing, W. J.||Jenkins, R. H.|
|Castle, Mrs. B. A.||Fernyhough, E.||Jones, D. T. (Hartlepool)|
|Chamberlain, R. A.||Field, Capt. W. J.||Jones, Elwyn (Plaistow)|
|Champion, A. J.||Fletcher, E. G. M. (Islington, E.)||Jones, P. Asterley (Hitchin)|
|Coldrick, W.||Follick, M.||Keenan, W.|
|Kenyon, C.||Paget, R. T.||Sylvester, G. O.|
|King, E. M.||Palmer, A. M. F.||Symonds, A. L.|
|Kinghorn, Sqn.-Ldr E.||Paton, Mrs. F. (Rushcliffe)||Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)|
|Kinley, J.||Paton, J. (Norwich)||Taylor, Dr. S. (Barnet)|
|Lang, G.||Peart, T. F.||Thomas, D. E. (Aberdare)|
|Lee, F. (Hulme)||Perrins, W.||Thomas, I. O. (Wrekin)|
|Lee, Miss J. (Cannock)||Poole, Cecil (Lichfield)||Thomas, George (Cardiff)|
|Lever, N. H.||Popplewell, E.||Thorneycroft, Harry (Clayton)|
|Levy, B. W.||Porter, E. (Warrington)||Thurtle, Ernest|
|Lindgren, G. S.||Porter, G. (Leeds)||Tomlinson, Rt. Hon. G.|
|Longden, F.||Price, M. Philips||Ungoed-Thomas, L.|
|Lyne, A. W.||Pritt, D. N.||Wadsworth, G.|
|McEntee, V. La T.||Proctor, W. T.||Wallace, G. D. (Chislehurst)|
|Mack, J. D.||Pursey, Cmdr. H.||Wallace, H. W. (Walthamstow, E.)|
|Mackay, R. W. G. (Hull, N.W.)||Randall, H. E.||Warbey, W. N.|
|McLeavy, F.||Ranger, J.||Watkins, T. E.|
|Macpherson, T. (Romford)||Rees-Williams, D. R.||Weitzman, D.|
|Mainwaring, W. H.||Reid, T. (Swindon)||Wells, P. L. (Faversham)|
|Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)||Robens, A.||Wells, W. T. (Walsall)|
|Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield)||Roberts, Emrys (Merioneth)||White, C. F. (Derbyshire, W.)|
|Mann, Mrs. J.||Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvonshire)||White, H. (Derbyshire, N.E.)|
|Manning, C. (Camberwell, N.)||Roberts, W. (Cumberland, N.)||Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.|
|Mathers, Rt. Hon. George||Ross, William (Kilmarnock)||Wigg, George|
|Mellish, R. J.||Royle, C.||Wilcock, Group-Capt. C. A. B.|
|Middleton, Mrs. L.||Scollan, T.||Wilkins, W. A.|
|Mikardo, Ian||Segal, Dr. S.||Willey, F. T. (Sunderland)|
|Millington, Wing-Comdr E. R.||Shackleton, E. A. A.||Williams, D. J. (Neath)|
|Mitchison, G. R.||Sharp, Granville||Williams, J. L. (Kelvingrove)|
|Monslow, W.||Shawcross, C. N. (Widnes)||Williams, R. W. (Wigan)|
|Moody, A. S.||Shawcross, Rt. Hn. Sir H. (St. Helens)||Williams, W. R. (Heston)|
|Morgan, Dr. H. B.||Silverman, J. (Erdington)||Wills, Mrs. E. A.|
|Morris, Lt.-Col. H. (Sheffield, C.)||Silverman, S. S. (Nelson)||Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.|
|Morris, P. (Swansea, W.)||Simmons, C. J.||Woods, G. S.|
|Moyle, A.||Skeffington, A. M.||Wyatt, W.|
|Murray, J. D.||Smith, C. (Colchester)||Yates, V. F.|
|Nally, W.||Smith, H. N. (Nottingham, S.)||Younger, Hon. Kenneth|
|Neal, H. (Claycross)||Sorensen, R. W.|
|Noel-Baker, Capt. F. E. (Brentford)||Soskice, Sir Frank||TELLERS FOR THE AYES:|
|Noel-Baker, Rt. Hon. P. J. (Derby)||Sparks, J. A.||Mr. Pearson and|
|Oliver, G. H.||Steele, T.||Mr. Richard Adams.|
|Orbach, M.||Stubbs, A. E.|
Question put, and agreed to.
§ Further consideration of the Bill, as amended, adjourned.—[Mr. Simmons.]
§ Bill, as amended (in Committee and on recommittal), to be further considered this day.