§ Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."
§ Captain Strickland
On a point of Order. Is it in Order that the Debate should go on after the Question has been put?
§ Mr. Petherick
On a point of Order. I understood, Major Milner, that you put the Question to the Committee that the Clause stand part. Is it in Order to continue this Debate?
§ The Chairman
The hon. and learned Gentleman was quite in Order, but it might be for the convenience of hon. Members in all parts of the House to bear in mind that it is not necessary to put down an Amendment in terms such as—"Leave out Clause so and so." It is the duty of the Chair, on every Clause, to put the Question "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."
§ Mr. Petherick
Is not the operative moment, after the Question has been put and when it has been declared that the "Ayes" or the "Noes" have it? Is not the Question then finished and should we not go on to the next Question? I am not in the least anxious to start a discussion but I want guidance.
§ Mr. Ivor Thomas (Keighley)
As you have given a decision on that point, Major Milner, is it in Order for the hon. Member to question the Ruling of the Chair?
§ The Chairman
I was collecting the voices and was awaiting the hon. Member whose name was on the Order Paper. I had not declared the result.
§ Mr. Austin Hopkinson (Mossley)
Both myself and others, sitting as we were near to the Chair, were in a particularly good position to hear you, Major Milner, and we were under the impression that you said the words "The Ayes have it."
§ Mr. Woodburn
I quite distinctly heard you say, Major Milner, "I think the Ayes have it," but you did not definitely declare that the Ayes had it.
§ Mr. Pritt
Perhaps I can now return to my speech. The question of the university franchise is very different from a city franchise, in that it is normally defended on the ground that it brings distinguished persons into the House of Commons who would not otherwise be there. I do not think anybody has ever said that in favour of the City of London. There is something to be said for the fact that the university franchise does sometimes bring us distinguished Members. When I heard the hon. Member for South Croydon (Sir H. Williams) yesterday at one and the same time fulminating against Proportional Representation, and defending the university Members as most excellent Members, I wondered whether he remembered that a good many of them were elected by Proportional Representation. Something very much stronger is required than the mere hope of getting, and frequently getting, Members of some distinction. They are a numerically tiny section of the Membership and without exception they have already one vote elsewhere. It is rather a reflection on the electorate and on the House of Commons if we can get distinguished Members only by a special representation.
It is curious to look up the record and discover how many university Members there are who have sat for non-university seats and how many Members there are sitting for non-university seats who have, at any rate, tried to get into Parliament for the universities. If there is any real distinction between those of us who represent universities and the others, it should be that university representatives are naturally distinguished persons of such great culture and fragility that they could hardly hope to survive the ordinary rough and tumble of a General Election or a by-election, while the rest of us are distinguished by no sort or kind of learning or culture, but simply by the capacity to sustain the turmoil of a three-weeks' election—unless we are, like the City of London representatives, elected without contests.
The essence of the matter can be put quite shortly. This should be a demo- 2021 cratic House of Commons and the more democratic it is, the more faithfully, without portraying it with mathematical accuracy, it will represent the country, so much the better for the House and for the country. To import a number of privileged persons or so, standing, so to speak, in a privileged category but exercising votes like everybody else, is something in the way of an insult to democracy. If it should be seriously thought that you can only get a really intelligent and cultured person if he sits for a university seat, then hon. Members who think that should never have the temerity to stand for Parliament again, because they will know that they are unintelligent and uncultured.
As regards the principle, why should such privileges be confined only to people who have university education? Why not privileges for people who have other claims to culture and other advantages? Why not special representation in this House for poets? Why not special representation for the Trades Union Congress, which is a very important body and very specialised? Why not special representation for scientists or doctors, or—perhaps for once the hon. Member for Oxford (Mr. Hogg) and I can find ourselves in momentary agreement—for that very distinguished and very learned body called lawyers?
§ Mr. Pritt
Perhaps I shall find myself in agreement with my hon. Friend once again. We have a number of cultured and intelligent persons in the House already. Why suggest a special provision for extra ones? It does not admit of much argument and is a complete anomaly. If we did not have university Members, and anyone were to propose that we should have, it would be very difficult to find any argument in favour of it. For those reasons I ask the Committee to reject the Clause.
§ Petty Officer Alan Herbert (Oxford University)
I do not know whether it is seemly for one of the intended victims to do so, but I should like to thank the cannibal king for the comparatively moderate way in which he has prepared the pot. I am rather surprised by the quarter from which this proposal comes. 2022 The hon. and learned Member for North Hammersmith (Mr. Pritt), although the fact is not mentioned in Dodd, was at school with me, a scholar at Winchester College, and he is entitled, if he wishes, to wear the same old school tie; and so might have been expected to welcome the representation of the citadels of what he called culture. I was also surprised that he seemed to fall into the same error which he attributed to the hon. Member for South Croydon (Sir H. Williams). He, like myself, believes in the single transferable vote, but by this Amendment he proposes to abolish the only constituencies in which the single transferable vote is operative and in which therefore, according to us, the voting is bound to be fair, free and satisfactory.
Perhaps I may say a few words about the methods of election in these queer places. They are in a way, I think, the most civilised form of election we have got. There are no speeches, no spellbinding, no canvassing, hardly any expenses. I do not know what the expenses of my hon. and learned Friend were at the last Election, but I think mine were under £100. I quite agree with him that I would like to see this principle extended. I do not know whether I would be in Order in saying this: I agree with him that this arrangement might be extended, though not in the way he mentioned, because we do claim to represent the artists, scholars, poets, and men of science. We talk about young men coming here after the war, the men who fought the Battle of Britain and so on, I am afraid that will be impracticable for many of them, because they will have to earn a living; so I should like to see constituencies like these returning, say, two young men from the Army, two from the Navy and two from the Air Force, so that they could give us the views of youth without having to bear the full labour of a geographical Member. [An HON. MEMBER: "And the Co-operative Society."]They can get in already.
The objection, I gather, to the university representation is based on a somewhat arid devotion to an arithmetical formula of "One man, one vote." It is suggested, I gather, that this is now part of the Constitution. If so, I do not know where to find it. "One man, one vote" is, after all, only a very recent experiment: and it has yet to be established as 2023 altogether satisfactory. Even in that enlightened and progressive country, Russia, I doubt whether "One man, one vote" is in very active operation; and, if the claim is made, we all know who the One Man is.
When my hon. and learned Friend talked about an "insult to democracy" and constitutional formulae and principles I could hardly believe my ears. I should have thought it was a fairly well established convention, at least, that Members who have notoriously lost the confidence of their constituents and have been invited by responsible bodies of their constituents to retire from their seats—
§ The Chairman
The hon. and learned Member is not entitled to stand up or remain standing or to intervene unless the hon. and gallant Member gives way.
§ The Chairman
Frequently the hon. and learned Member is inclined to remain standing when an hon. Member who is addressing the House has not given way. He must not remain standing. He must resume his seat.
§ Petty Officer Herbert
I will certainly give way in a minute, but as a lover of language, I have a prejudice in favour of finishing my sentences. I do not remember making a direct attack on anybody, but if the cap fits we shall no doubt see it taken off in a moment. I was going to say that the phrase "insult to democracy" might reasonably apply to one who, having been invited by his constituents to retire and permit them to choose another Member, declines and remains here lecturing us on who is entitled to represent whom.
§ Mr. Pritt
The hon and gallant Member will forgive me telling him that that is a 2024 complete and absolute misrepresentation of fact. So far from my constituents asking me to retire, all that ever happened was that a body of seven of them, meeting without previous notice to me, and without stating on their notice convening their meeting what they wanted to discuss, then passed a previously prepared written document asking me to resign. I thereupon held a number of meetings in my constituency, as I had done before, to ascertain the views of my constituents. I found unanimous support, and since then two delegate conferences, one of which sat yesterday, comprising large numbers of trade unions in the constituency, have voted their unanimous support of me.
§ Petty Officer Herbert
If those are the facts I freely and gladly withdraw. I had not heard the more recent facts. There are three aspects to the university constituency. One is the voter, one is the Member sent here, and one is the institution. I suppose this franchise dates from the day when it was considered advisable to have some test before a man was allowed to exercise, not the right, but the duty of voting. In some cases it was the laborious acquisition and retention of property, which is not a bad test. In the case of my constituents, they have to pass an examination before they are allowed to exercise the vote. For three years they have to subject themselves to the discipline and teaching of a great university—[Interruption.] It may be only a third class degree, I know, but when people ask, "Is there any reason why these persons should have an extra vote?" one answer that might be made—I do not press it too far—is that they are the only voters who have to pass an intelligence test before they vote. It is a principle which might well be extended, even possibly to North Hammersmith. I think the hon. and learned Member is quite wrong, constitutionally and practically and in every way, when he talks about the vote as a privilege. I do not regard it—
§ Petty Officer Herbert
The privilege of having a university vote. I do not think it is a privilege at all. It is a duty. When the hon. and learned Member says, 2025 "Why do they have this vote?" the answer is that they represent, and we represent, the British universities. The British universities are unique institutions, and it is not surprising that they have unique treatment. They are small cities on their own, governing physically the lives of thousands of young men, and through their teaching the minds of generations; they have great possessions, huge responsibilities, including the spending of public money. I think that Parliament would be foolish if it did not compel the universities to send a few representatives here to render an account from time to time of what the universities are doing, and to defend, if necessary, the great purposes for which they exist. I do not really agree with the hon. and learned Member when he says that we should not think of starting such a thing if it did not exist. I think we should. I think that so far from the principle being a retrograde and an antiquated remnant, it is a sign of great modernity and enlightenment. I was in France the other day speaking to some Frenchmen. I was introduced as "Un Député Anglais." That did not excite them much. But then one Frenchman asked me what part of England I represented. I said proudly "The University of Oxford." They pricked up their ears. They said "Oxford is represented in your Parliament?" That tickled them to death. They thought it was a most modern idea. This is what they said: "But yes, that is part of the reconstruction?"
Of course if the universities did not do their duty, if it could be shown that they sent to this House a procession of deplorable Members, I should be the first to sing a different tune. It is not for me at present to say whether they are doing so. Let me say how I think that a trickle of university Members to this House does help the State. The Committee may have noticed that university Members tend to bring up subjects rather out of the way of the main stream of politics—it may be coinage or camouflage, divorce in England or distress in Europe; and the hon. and gallant Lady, one of the Members for the Combined English Universities (Miss Rathbone) has a whole bagful of noble causes. They are not election winners; they are causes with which my hon. Friends here, although they may 2026 be interested and sympathetic, cannot have time to deal, and which they certainly would not dream of putting into an election address. My own election address was full of such oddments. There was a burglar at my house some time before the war. I am glad to say that he did not get much—he left in a hurry—but he pulled out my political file and spread the contents on the floor. I have always imagined that when he saw the extraordinary themes tumble before him—"divorce," "drink," "insanity," "adultery," "betting," "libel and slander," and so forth, he must have said, "Heavens, where am I?" and rushed away. It does seem to me a good thing that there should be a few Members who by the circumstances of their election, and in some cases, perhaps, their special aptitudes, are inclined and able to bring forward sometimes, not too often, these intricate questions, which are not really politics but are important parts of life on the fringes of politics, and, therefore, are useful subjects for discussion in this House. It is not a thing that everybody agrees about and I wish to make no personal boast, but I am perfectly sure that if I had not been an independent university Member, the Matrimonial Causes Act, 1937, would not be on the Statute Book to-day. Hon. Members know how difficult that sort of subject is for ordinary Members, and it is well to have one or two Members who need not be afraid.
If this is indeed my swan-song, I must say I have been very proud to have been an hon. Member here. I have a great admiration for this House, and for the hard, self-sacrificing work of the geographical Members. We 12 Members for the universities all humbly recognise how comparatively little are the labours which suffice to bring us here and to retain us here. We do not have to go on the long week-end journeys; we do not have to hold great meetings and plunge into the turbulent troubles of pensions, housing, war damage and so on. I do not think we get so much correspondence as other Members do—although we get quite enough. But there is a corollary. Some people are kind enough to say that if university representation is abolished, we can easily stand and be elected for other places. It is not for me to say whether that is so or not; but the point is that not everybody has 2027 the time, although he may wish to serve the State, which my hon. colleagues so gallantly give. Therefore—this is not a threat, or a promise—assuming that this Amendment is carried, I bid the House a fond but proud farewell.
§ Professor Savory (Queen's University of Belfast)
If this Clause is omitted, Northern Ireland will be deprived of one of its Members. I should like to point out that, by the Act of 1920, the representation of Northern Ireland was reduced from 30 to 13. The 13 Members were very much less than Northern Ireland was entitled to from a numerical point of view; and if this Amendment is now passed, that 13 will be reduced to 12. That would be a breach of the Agreement of 1920, between Great Britain and Northern Ireland.
I should like to pass to various other arguments which have been brought forward. I have here HANSARD of 1931. I find that the Labour Government brought forward a Bill, one of the Clauses of which was to deprive the universities of all representation in this House. But I see that on this Bill, brought forward by the Labour Government of that day, the Motion that this particular Clause stand part of the Bill was defeated, the Ayes being 242, and the Noes being 246. Even when a Labour Government was in power, this proposal was defeated by four votes. The Prime Minister who brought forward that Bill was subsequently defeated by the hon. Member for Seaham (Mr. Shinwell); and what did he do? He who had wanted to destroy university representation took refuge in a university seat. The Scottish Universities sent this very distinguished gentleman back to the House of Commons. Mr. Ramsay MacDonald took refuge in a Scottish Universities' seat; and the Scottish Universities were highly honoured in sending him back here. To-day, those same Scottish Universities have sent here the Chancellor of the Exchequer. What should we do without the guardian of our finances? I maintain that these universities bring in an element that this House likes to have. I read in "The Times" the other day the annual report of the Liberal Party. They said that, whereas formerly they had been opposed to university representation, now they were fully reconciled to it, because it brought into this House an 2028 element which otherwise would not be represented.
It I may, I will refer to my two very distinguished predecessors. My immediate predecessor was Colonel Sinclair, the professor of surgery in the University of Belfast, who was certainly the most distinguished surgeon in the whole of Ireland, to put it at the lowest. I know for a fact that many ladies and gentlemen who desired to have certain operations performed undertook the trying journey over the sea to Belfast, to come under this very celebrated surgeon. May I also remind the Committee that this eminent surgeon was placed by the War Office in charge of all the hospitals in France during the last war. When I said to him, after his return, "I am sure you must have performed some very wonderful operations in France," he said, "No, Savory, my glory is not in the operations I performed, but in the operations that I prevented from being performed," The predecessor of Colonel Sinclair was Sir William Whitla, and his "Dictionary of Treatment," I understand, forms part of the library of every doctor in this country. His "Dictionary of Treatment" and other books have been translated into innumerable languages, including Chinese.
§ The Chairman (Major Milner)
I do not think that is material to the hon. Member's point. Will he please confine himself to the Question before the Committee?
§ Professor Savory
I should also like to add that the dictionary was translated into American, and that it contains all the prescriptions in English for the benefit of those people whose Latin has become rather rusty. I should just like to say this—that a university constituency is the most democratic constituency in the world, because it enables a poor man to get into this House. My distinguished predecessor, Sir William Whitla, attended a banquet to celebrate a Conservative victory—
§ The Chairman
These matters are interesting, but not very vital. Will the hon. Member be good enough to confine his remarks to the Question?
§ Mr. Gallacher
On a point of Order. The hon. Member who is describing how his predecessor attended a banquet is using it as an illustration, and, in view of the fact that some of us have never been to a banquet, I ask you, Major 2029 Milner, to allow him to give such an illustration.
§ Professor Savory
May I finish the story? This has a direct concern with democracy and is important in that connection. Sir William got up to propose the chief toast, and he said this: "I have just come back from the University of Belfast, and you know how terribly expensive these university elections are. As I am a strong supporter of this club, I should be very grateful if you would be so kind as to help me with my expenses." The chairman looked rather askance, but he turned round and said, "After all, Sir William, what were your expenses?" and Sir William Whitla held up two fingers and said "Twopence—one penny tram to take me to the university and one penny tram to take me back home."
§ 3.45 p.m.
I am very glad the hon. and gallant Member for Oxford University (Petty Officer Herbert) withdrew the remarks he made about the hon. and learned Member for North Hammersmith (Mr. Pritt), because, if not, it would have put upon me the responsibility, which I would have been ready to accept. of going to Oxford and getting a group there to demand his recall. I am prepared to go to Cambridge also and get a group to recall the Senior Burgess. It is easy to get a small group of that particular character in any constituency. The hon. Member gave a fine exhibition, not even surpassed by the Home Secretary, of how to dodge an issue. The hon. Member went so far as to say that he agreed with a couple of representatives for the Army and Navy and so forth. There is not an argument for the university because of special knowledge, but applies as an argument for every industry on the ground of the special knowledge they have. If there is to be an argument put up for special qualities, one might be put up for the theatres or the music hall profession, but I do not think the hon. and gallant Member for Oxford University would care to touch on that, because he would be in a very difficult position in having to endure the competition of Tommy Trinder and Vic Oliver.
To come to the main thing we have to face in considering this question of special representation for the universities, I would like to say that I go to a good 2030 number of them and talk to the students and do all the harm I can as far as the Conservative Party is concerned. I run about the universities quite a lot. Everything should be done to encourage students and train them into an understanding of the life of the masses of the people, but there is no justification of any kind for certain individuals utilising the universities in order to get a seat in this House. The hon. Member for Belfast University (Professor Savory) gave us a classic case of what can happen when you get someone who is so discredited that no constituency anywhere will have him, but who can be adopted for a university and can come to this House.
§ Mr. Gallacher
It does not matter who it might be. It should not be possible to have such a situation. There can be no justification for such a thing. When the hon. and learned Member for North Hammersmith talked about the professions, the hon. Member for Oxford University said there were too many lawyers here already. There may be, but quite a number of these hon. Members have come here through Oxford or Cambridge or some other university, so that, if you take it from that point of view, there are too many representatives coming from universities, without an extra dozen being thrown in.
The important thing, I say, is that we are now facing a new situation arising out of the war and all the changes which are bound to take place in connection with the war. Here is something that has always been a subject of objection, so far as the masses of the people are concerned. It was because it was the subject of objection that it was raised by the Labour Government. The Liberal Party had a very big percentage addition to its ranks by the coming into this House of the hon. Member for the Welsh University (Professor Gruffydd). The hon. Member is a very big strengthening of the Liberal force in this House, numerically and intellectually, and therefore we can understand the Liberal Party changing its attitude on this question, but not on the basis of any principle. In the light of the past discussions of this question and the situation that now confronts us, with all these lads out at the fighting front and all the men and women toiling 2031 in the factories, nobody can justify the anomaly of the universities having separate and independent representatives. With all due respect to the hon. and gallant Member for Oxford University, if it was a question of one man one vote for the universities, I would not have any difficulty in choosing the one man. I think he would get very favourable consideration. But apart from all that sort of thing, there is no basis of justice and no principle that can be brought forward to justify such an anomaly. I ask Members, and particularly those who have made so many protestations, to face up to the declarations they have made and, on this question of changing the electoral arrangements, to go into the Lobby in support of the Amendment.
§ Mr. Quintin Hogg
After the eloquent and friendly appeal by the hon. Member for West Fife (Mr. Gallacher) I feel almost reluctant to disappoint him. But Oxford must stand four square. Town and gown have had their differences in the past and no doubt they will have their differences in the future, but as far as I can see, speaking as the representative of a borough where a great university has its physical abode, although its spiritual abode is spread right across the terrestrial globe, we should not deny Parliamentary existence to our younger sister who has been lodging for so many years in our house. I cannot claim the eloquence or the wit of my hon. and gallant Friend the Senior Burgess of Oxford University (Petty Officer Herbert) but there are one or two home-spun arguments which might appeal to the unsophisticated and illiterate Members from the boroughs. It did rejoice my heart when the Speaker's Conference, after careful consideration, came to a unanimous recommendation on this matter. It said a good deal for the spirit of give-and-take which had animated the discussions and it will be a pity if we disregard that unanimous recommendation. Other issues we have had, of course, in which the Speaker's Conference differed and divisions have been heard, but this was a unanimous recommendation and it would be a pity if we disregarded it.
There is a second point. It struck me, as I heard the hon. Member for West Fife talking about the van of progress, that the real truth of this matter was that he 2032 was living in the past. There has been a time when there was quite legitimate complaint as to the use of which the university constituencies were made. They were used, as hon. Members who have studied the history of these seats will no doubt know, to return followers of the most embittered, narrow, crusted ecclesiasticism and Toryism of that time. There was a time when that was so and a legitimate complaint was made in the past. I need only refer to the history of Mr. Gladstone. How deplorable was the effect upon his state, a state of mind where for years he was struggling with his conscience as to which privilege of the Church of England he would give up next, and how many were the difficulties with his constituents he had to face. But these times are past. It is not a party question and it is not a class question.
The modern University of Oxford represents the cream of the young intellect of the country coming up, and would to God we had more of them. The working class have every bit as much right to go to the universities as anybody else. They are welcomed when they get there, and they already represent, even from the humblest homes, very nearly half of the undergraduate population. When they graduate they get votes and I myself rejoice that they should have that extra vote. The representatives they are beginning to send to Parliament are not the entrenched representatives of the Church of England and Toryism as they were in the past. We are beginning to see the dawn of a new era already. One only has to contrast the type of representative we are getting from the universities now with what we had 25 years ago to see plainly written the shape of things to come. There is no reason for any member of any political complexion to doubt that their own particular point of view will have ample representation in universities in time to come, and I hope that it will be so. We in this country—and by this country I mean England rather than Scotland—
§ Mr. Gallacher
The hon. Member says that when they graduate they rightly have the vote. Would he apply that principle to a factory where a man has a son serving his time as an engineer, and has another son going through the university for a particular degree? When the one graduates at the university, he gets a vote, and when the other graduates as a skilled engineer should not he also get one?
§ Mr. Hogg
He certainly should get a vote. I do not think that that is in question but I give the hon. Gentleman the credit of asking whether he should get an extra vote. I will endeavour to argue that point separately, but let me complete the point I was making. The hon. and learned Member for North Hammersmith (Mr. Pritt) said that this university representation was an insult to democracy. That is not the way I see it at all. The way I see it is that it is a compliment to the things of the mind paid by democracy—a compliment which democracy can well afford to pay—a compliment which should come willingly from every political party which believes in the development of the mind. I make no bones about asking for privilege for things of this kind because it is not based on class, money or party. It is based on the one form of aristocracy which can be justified—the aristocracy of the intellect—and I should deplore a departure from the tradition of this House which has allowed universities to be separately represented.
It is not a question of whether you are cultured or not. Of course there are plenty of cultured people in this House who can stand for a democratic electorate, but it is not a bad thing that universities should be separately represented in order to represent their interests, which are all too little considered sometimes in our modern affairs. It is not at all a bad thing that those who cannot ordinarily face a democratic electorate, but who still have some appeal to this House, should have a way in, a way which is democratic, because it is provided by an election on democratic lines but nevertheless election through people who can appreciate, for instance, the value of a man behind perhaps a slight impediment in his speech; a man perhaps who cannot command a noisy crowd—not always the worst kind of speaker in this House. We 2034 welcome, I think, a method which enables us to welcome men like that.
The hon. Gentleman the Member for West Fife asked, Did I suggest that the person who graduated in a factory should have a second vote too? Of course, that in the ordinary course would make nonsense of the whole eloctoral system. I do not believe in all this talk about graduation in the school of life. It is a school which most of us have been in, but we want for our children—those of us who believe in education—something better than that rough school. We want education to be represented in our highest counsels. There is, as a matter of fact, a very good practical answer to what the hon. Gentleman the Member for West Fife was saying. This is not an Amendment which proposes to do away with the second vote for the business qualification. If this Amendment were carried, all that would happen would be that the business men would get two votes and the man with a university qualification only one. I should have thought that, if anything were certain, the man with the university qualification should have two votes long before-the purely business qualification.
§ Mr. Hogg
If we are going to deal with these questions of dual qualification, we ought to deal with them as a whole at a stage when the whole matter can be gone into.
I want to make only one more point. It seems to me that there is a difference in the philosophy of those who put this Amendment forward and that which I myself hold, and the key is to be found in the word which recurs again and again in their speeches, the word "anomaly." I believe that if a system is working well and doing good, manifest good, in its operations, you do not have to look too closely as to the intellectual basis on which it originally rose; you have to consider whether it is doing good or evil. In my submission to the Committee this university qualification is doing good in this House of Commons. I do not believe in absolute uniformity in human life. I do not believe that society is a mechanical construct which you can make conform to a rigid, intellectual plan. I believe it is more in the nature of a living organism 2035 with its own peculiar characteristics. Universities, with their qualification and their representation in this House, have a long and honourable history in the intellectual life of this country. They are doing good by returning the kind of Member they are returning at the present time. They have shown themselves capable of changing with the times and moving with the times, and I cannot but think that a House of Commons which did not have amongst its representatives the very largely independent Members whom I now see around me, would be a poorer House of Commons, and therefore less worthy to represent the great democracy of this country, which looks in the future to pay more attention to the things of the mind and to education than it has been able to do in the past.
§ Mr. Ivor Thomas
If the universities were to be judged by the Members they have sent to this House up to the present Parliament, I think we should sweep away university representation at once. It is of little use for theoretical arguments of such cogency as we have heard to be put forward when we consider what kind of Members the universities have, in fact, returned until the present Parliament. My hon. Friend the Member for Oxford (Mr. Hogg) has mentioned the connection of Mr. Gladstone with that "God-fearing and God-sustaining university" of which we are both members. By forgetfulness or deliberation he did not mention that the University of Oxford rejected Mr. Gladstone at the polls, as it had previously rejected his great mentor, Sir Robert Peel. In fact, at every epoch of our public life the universities hitherto have been below the general level of the political consciousness of this country. The Labour Party has been in existence for 44 years, and yet the universities have not returned a single member of the Labour Party to Parliament.
§ Mr. E. Harvey
In the 1923–24 Parliament, the representative of the University of Wales was a member of the Labour Party.
§ Mr. Thomas
I stand corrected. I am very glad to hear it; obviously it had not made a great impression on my mind. At any rate, in that long period of time, nearly half a century, the universities have returned practically no Labour 2036 Members of Parliament. That may appear to my hon. Friend the Member for Oxford as an argument for university representation but it can hardly be expected to commend itself to the party on these benches; and I would say to my hon. Friend the Member for the Queen's University of Belfast (Professor Savory), who made such an interesting and far-ranging speech, that he is hardly likely to obtain our support by pointing out that the Scottish universities were used as a place of refuge for Mr. Ramsay MacDonald.
§ Mr. Thomas
Of course, I am not suggesting that. I was saying that the argument is not likely to commend itself to those of us on these benches on whom it falls now to decide whether university representation shall continue or not. I say very strongly that if the universities were to be judged, not by the theoretical arguments that can be put forward so cogently but by their results, then we should sweep away university representation at once. However, I think, and many of my hon. Friends think with me, that this is a matter on which we should suspend judgment, for the universities are beginning to send a better type of man to this House. The Senior Burgess for Oxford University (Petty Officer A. Herbert) has had my vote in the past in default of Labour candidates and, if his behaviour remains good, he may get it in the future. In the case of Oxford, at any rate, there is a growing opinion that no Member with a party label ought to be elected and, in future, if Conservatives are elected for the University of Oxford, they will probably call themselves Independents. At any rate the universities are beginning now to send better men to the House of Commons. I do not want to make any invidious comparisons but I would like to single out such a man as the Junior Burgess for the University of Cambridge (Professor Hill).
§ Mr. Pickthorn (Cambridge University)
I would like to ask the hon. Gentleman whether he really thinks that I am an improvement on Francis Bacon and Isaac Newton?
§ Mr. Thomas
Sir Isaac Newton was probably the greatest mathematician that the world has ever seen, and Francis Bacon a great philosopher, but I am yet to be convinced that they were very valuable Members of this House.
§ Mr. Thomas
I would prefer not to make any comments which must be invidious on the hon. Gentleman who has just intervened, though I was caught in the process of paying a tribute to his Junior colleague. That, I say, is the position, that the universities are beginning now to justify their representation, and it is as a result of the process to which the hon. Gentleman the Member for Oxford has drawn attention that the universities are now becoming more truly representative of the country as a whole, with the single exception of the House of which he is himself a Member, which retains all its old aristocratic characteristics.
§ Mr. Thomas
Be that as it may, there is a case, I think, for suspending judgment, but I hope it will be clear to university electors that they are definitely on trial, and will be judged in future, at least by the Labour Party, by the kind of representatives they send here. There may be a strong case for continuing the representation of the universities, but what is surely repugnant to every democratic mind is that a university graduate should have two votes. Let every university graduate choose whether he wants a residential vote or a university vote. At any rate, he should not be allowed to have two.
§ Sir Ernest Graham-Little (London University)
This is the third time in 20 years that this matter has been before the House. May I suggest to the hon. and learned Member for North Hammersmith (Mr. Pritt) that he is premature in moving abolition of university franchise today, because he has done more than anyone else to bring about the change 2038 in the political representation of the universities now evident everywhere. There is a very vigorous and influential body, the University Labour Federation. For many years the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wakefield (Mr. Greenwood) was its president, and now the president is the hon. and learned Member for North Hammersmith. The hon. Member for East Stirling (Mr. Woodburn) made a strong and important point when he said that the underlying reason for wishing to abolish the university franchise was the fact that the universities had never sent a Socialist Member to this House. If that is the sole criterion of worthiness for Membership, that point may be justified, but I would like to emphasise that this position is now definitely changing.
Let me give an illustration. During the Debate about a year ago on the release of Sir Oswald Mosley I was the target, as no doubt were other Members, of a series of deputations from a number of very excited young people. Representatives of six colleges of the London University—which has a larger number of colleges than any other university—came to see me and all told the same story. It was an extremely silly story, because they based their objections to the release of Mosley on medical grounds, of which they were entirely ignorant, but all confessed they were delegates from the University Labour Federation. This Federation has established societies—I believe the proper word is "cells"—in nearly every school and university in the country.
§ 4.15 p.m.
§ Sir E. Graham-Little
They are undergraduates. There is a strong view that political qualification should not be considered for a Member for a university. I followed that rule myself. Twenty years ago there was a crisis in the University of London, which united a large number of electors on my side. What was in question was the destruction of the democratic side of that university; it is my proud boast that that university is the poor man's university, because it has what is known as the external side. In that connection because I supported that side I received 2039 votes from every part in the university, very largely from the Liberal section, and quite largely from the Labour section, and consequently I won the election. It was a university vote, and not a political vote. I put in the front of my election address the plea that a university vote should not be regarded as an opportunity for casting a second vote for a political party, and that standpoint has been adopted very largely in subsequent years.
I was the first Independent university Member to win election, and now there are seven Independent Members out of the 12 university Members we have in this House. Of those seven, there are probably three who have very definite Left Wing orientations. There are only three who are official Conservatives. I submit that that composition does away at once with the charge that the university Members are a restricted political group. It has been suggested by no less a person than one of the leaders of the Labour Party, Professor Harold Laski, that the future function of Parliament and of Members of Parliament would not be to effect legislation by Acts of Parliament but by Order in Council. He was kind enough to suggest that there was one function still left to Members which he regarded as being nearly as important as legislation, and that was the function of Members of Parliament to draw attention to abuses and correct injustices. I submit that that function is performed by the university Members in a very generous and abundant fashion, and that it ought to be one of their principal duties.
I want to make reference to the suggestion made by the hon. Member for Keighley (Mr. Thomas), that no eminent persons have been elected by the universities until this Parliament. May I quote a few? In the time I have been a Member, here are some of the persons I would select as refuting that contention. I would place Mr. Ramsay MacDonald in the very top rank. He was the most distinguished leader the Labour Party has ever produced. Another Member was Mr. John Buchan, who, as the House knows, performed a very important mission for this country in Canada. Then we had that very celebrated debater, Lord Hugh Cecil. We know how exceptional he was in his intellect and in his debating power and personality. Could 2040 there have been a more worthy Member for a university? My own predecessor was Sir Philip Magnus, who sat here for 17 years and made a very strong impression upon the educational world during his Membership. I do not want to consider in detail present Members—that would be invidious—but I should like to mention two or three of these. We have the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who would inevitably be a pillar of any Government of which he formed part. We have the Junior Member for Oxford University (Sir A. Salter), who has done a most important piece of work during the war. The last Member that I will mention is the Junior Burgess for Cambridge (Professor A. V. Hill), who has just returned from an important mission for the Government in his visit to India. He is moreover a link between the most famous scientific society in the world, the Royal Society, and this House.
§ Mr. Beverley Baxter (Wood Green)
I hope the hon. Gentleman will remember also the Senior Member for Oxford University (Petty Officer Herbert), who did a fine job in making our divorce laws more reasonable and humane.
§ Sir E. Graham-Little
I was selecting those who have done important missions far the Government. The Senior Member for Oxford University requires no bouquets from me. Then comes another question. It has been mentioned more than once that university Members in the House now would not be in the House if they had to undergo the ordinary conditions of election, especially in the matter of expense. Very few university Members are rich men. Another reason is the time that would have to be spent in the performance of their duty. So there is not really an alternative avenue for their approach to Parliament and if the Committee agrees that their removal would be unfortunate, I hope that the vote for retention of university Members will be decisive in its overwhelming volume.
§ Mr. H. Lawson
We have heard to-day quite a lot of speeches on the question of whether universities should or should not return Members to the House. I hope I shall be forgiven if I make my remarks pertinent to the Clause that we are discussing. We are asking that it should be struck out The Clause says that the 2041 Boundary Commission shall have nothing to do with university constituencies. The effect of the rejection of the Clause is that the Boundary Commission shall have power to examine and deal with university constituencies. So it is not a question of saying we want to abolish university constituencies. Why is it necessary that the Boundary Commission should have to make adjustments of the present university constituencies? The first reason is that the representation between one university and another is grossly unfair. May I read approximate figures of the quota required to elect a university Member for each university, the quota being the total electorate divided by the number of Members returned, and these are the 1935 figures—Oxford 11,000, electorate per Member, Cambridge, 17,000, London, 17,000, Combined English Universities, 13,000, 7,000 for the University of Wales, 17,000 for the Scottish Universities and 3,800 for Queen's University, Belfast. There is a difference between one university and another of four to one and I do not think, if I protest against that, that I can be said to be niggling about an exact mathematical equality. After all, 400 per rent. is a big error. So, if one is going to accept the idea of special university representation, there is a case for a review to get fair representation between one university and another.
The second reason why I think the Boundary Commission should have to review the position is that the average quota for a university representative is very much less than that for the whole country. The universities together return 12 Members, with an electorate of about 164,000. In other words, the average quota is about 14,000. The quota for the rest of the country is somewhere between 50,000 and 70,000, so that a vote cast in a university election has four or five times as much representation in this House as the vote in any other kind of election excluding the City of London. So here again I am not niggling about small percentages. What, therefore, would the Boundary Commission do if they applied themselves to this problem? I believe you could make out a case that there should be three, or possibly four, Members for all the universities, and probably the best thing to do would be to have a system of Proportional Representation for all the universities with three or four Members. But I do not want to 2042 dogmatise on that. You might give Oxford and Cambridge one Member and two Members for the rest. But I think I have made out a case that there should be a review of the matter.
So much has been said about the case for having university representation that I think I may be allowed to refer to it. The case is that it is necessary that graduates should have a say in the counsels of the nation. I agree, but is anyone suggesting that there are not in the House at present a very large number of university graduates? There is a much larger number than in proportion to the total adult population. I am glad it is so and I take it that it will always inevitably be so. If university education is what it should be, it should fit people for coming to the House. The Senior Member for Oxford University (Petty Officer Herbert) made out the case that, because of the special corporate life of the university, there should be representation. His case was one for representation of the university as a corporate body, which is in the main representation by undergraduates, but that is not what you get to-day. You get people receiving the vote when they have left the university and they are no longer taking any part in its corporate life. They are spread over the country, indeed over the world.
§ 4.30 p.m.
§ Professor Gruffydd (University of Wales)
A university is not made up of undergraduates; it is made up of the undergraduates and graduates, and the proportion of graduates to undergraduates is very large.
§ Mr. Lawson
I agree, but the point that was made was that the corporate body of a university, the people living and studying together should have special representation in Parliament. I agree that this corporate body consists not only of undergraduates, but also graduates, tutors, fellows and so on. The main part of the corporate body however is for all practical purposes composed of undergraduates, and when they leave the university their links with it are very slight. A lot has been said about the quality of those who come to this House to represent the universities. I do not wish to go into that because I think, from the speeches that we have heard this afternoon, that those Members who are returned by the university voters are a 2043 cross-section and represent many of the shades of opinion that we get in this House. I do not think that these arguments have very much to do with the proposal to leave out this Clause. I ask hon. Members to study what we are trying to do. It is to give the Boundary Commission the opportunity of reviewing the position of the university constituencies. We are not under this Clause even trying to remove plural voting. Suppose that the Boundary Commission does adjust the quota, there will still be plural voting, and a person will be able to vote in his residential constituency and also in his university. I support the proposal that a university voter should only be able to use one vote but should be able to choose whether he will vote in the university constituency or in his residential constituency.
§ Mr. Lawson
May I, then, conclude by reinforcing the appeal I made, to set aside the arguments which have been brought forward for the abolition of the university vote or for keeping the vote as it is. All I am asking is that the university vote, with all the other problems concerning the distribution of seats, ought to be submitted to the Boundary Commission.
In one matter I find myself in agreement with the hon. Member for Skipton (Mr. H. Lawson). That is as to the effect of this Amendment if it is taken literally. This Clause does not settle the question, certainly not in so many words, of the retention of the university seats. It does not settle the other question whether, if there are to be university electorates, they should be based on a system of plural voting. The hon. Member went on to point out that the Amendment does not in so many words abolish university representation. That, of course, is technically correct, but I do not think the Committee has strayed from the point in regarding the Amendment as intended to destroy the university electorate altogether. It is to that ques- 2044 tion that I propose to devote my remarks. This question of the universities has for some time in the past divided Members, largely on party lines. The members of the Speaker's Conference were composed of nearly all the parties in the House, and naturally they brought with them, I will not say the prejudices, but the preconceived opinions, of their respective parties. Under the co-ordinating influence of Mr. Speaker, representing, I am confident, the general view of the House, they sought to use the opportunity of the Conference not to assert and defend their views, but to reach some solution of this and other problems which, while not providing them with all that they wanted, could be regarded as a reasonable compromise.
This was so in particular in this matter of the university electorate. It is true, of course, that in times gone by the Universities were largely, if not exclusively, preserves of the party opposite. This was mainly due to the fact that only those had votes who had not only taken degrees but had paid special fees. In my university there was a substantial fee before a roan could take the degree of M.A., which at that time was requisite, and, in addition, he had to pay a registration fee for his name to be kept on the books, which was necessary in order for him to vote. That money qualification has already been partly swept away, and, therefore, the position as we find it is not precisely what it was some years back. In spite of that, there is a fee attached in many cases, though not in all the universities, and the class position of the university voter, though not in its original form, has been to some extent retained. Faced with these facts we members of the Speaker's Conference desired to reach a compromise solution.
On a point of Order. I understand that it had been ruled earlier that we were not allowed to discuss what took place within the Speaker's Conference, except in so far as it has been published in the Speaker's letter to the Prime Minister.
§ The Deputy-Chairman
As far as I understood the right hon. Gentleman, he was discussing the effect of the Speaker's Conference on the individuals who composed it in making their recommendations, and he was not going into details as to how it worked.
§ Mr. Pethick-Lawrence
Thank you, Mr. Williams, for putting into other words precisely the answer that I should have given to the hon. and learned Member. I am not proposing to disclose in any particular the debates or discussions which took place in the Conference, but I am giving the point of view of those who came to the Conference with a desire to arrive, under the guidance of Mr. Speaker, at agreed solutions. I am going to give the findings of the Conference, which are already published, in illustration and as a direct application of the agreement which we reached. As I say, we sought to reach an agreed conclusion which was neither, on the one hand, complete satisfaction of the claim that the university electorates should be swept away, nor, on the other, that there should be a retention of the university electorates in the precise form in which they were before. What we did, therefore, was to propose that the university electorates should be retained but that all registration fees should be abolished, and that the franchise should be thrown open to all graduates, not only those that will graduate hereafter but those who are graduates of any university at the present time, without any further fee on their part.
In view of the tendency, which has already been illustrated by other hon. Members, of universities taking a less party view of their representation than used to be the case in the past, and in view of the greater entry of members of all classes into the universities which is going on at the present time, I think, as one who was at the Speaker's Conference, that we have not only reached a compromise solution which is reasonable as a compromise between parties but that it is one which can quite legitimately be defended on its own merits.
The Bill, as far as it goes in the matter of settling the university electorate question at ail, is, at best, one half of that compromise. I shall support it, and shall ask my hon. Friends to take the same line. Equally, when another Bill comes forward with the other half of our agreed solution, I shall look to hon. Members who have taken a different view from ourselves, Members of other parties, to support that half of the compromise, and I have every confidence that they will take that course. The agreements were satisfactory as agreements, and in my view 2046 they met the situation by arriving at a solution which we thought would survive. We look to their being embodied in legislation and supported by Members of all parties in this House. Therefore, I commend the proposals in the Clause, and I trust that if the Amendment is taken to a Division, that the Committee will vote against it.
§ 4.45 p.m.
§ Mr. Peake
We have had a fairly long discussion on the Amendment, and I think the Committee is probably nearly ready to come to a decision. I am one of those who think that mere length of speech from this Box has no special merits, and I shall therefore express the views of the Government on this Amendment hi two or three sentences. We base our views towards this Amendment on the report from the Speaker's Conference. That Conference consisted of 32 persons, practically all of them Members of this House with an unrivalled experience of Parliament and of the working of Parliament. That Conference came unanimously to the decision that the representation of the universities should continue.
§ Mr. Peake
My hon. and learned Friend says "not unanimously," but all that persons who were not members of the Conference have to go upon is the official report of the Conference, contained in Mr. Speaker's letter to the Prime Minister, on 20th July. There it is recorded that this matter was not the subject of a Division and that no vote was taken. It appears to everybody who reads this document that the decision on this matter was unanimous.
§ Mr. Pethick-Lawrence
Perhaps I may explain. I have not the document here, but if the Minister looks at it I think he will see that in another part of it it says that it must not necessarily be taken that a decision was unanimous when it is recorded that there was no Division and no vote was taken.
§ Mr. Peake
I am much obliged to my right hon. Friend. That at any rate exculpates the hon. and learned Member for North Hammersmith (Mr. Pritt) from the charge of inconsistency. I gather that he did not support this apparently unanimous resolution of the Conference, when the Conference was in session. So far as 2047 the Government are concerned, this decision of the Conference was unchallenged at the time, and therefore we should be acting in defiance of an enormous weight of Parliamentary experience and of feeling if we were to reject the finding of the Conference on this issue. Therefore, we shall resist the Amendment.
§ Mr. Sloan (Ayrshire, South)
Before the vote is taken I want to express my support of the Amendment, because it embodies what has been the policy of my party ever since I can remember. Indeed, I believe it was the policy of the Liberal Party at one time. University representation is one of our outworn relics, and ought to be abolished, now that we have the opportunity. There might have been a case for it in the days when education was not general, but we have travelled a long way since those days. Now we have a system of universal education, and attempts have taken place in this House to raise the standard still further in that respect. It cannot be argued that university graduates show any definite intellectual superiority. There are outstanding examples, it is true, but that is the case in all walks of life, and not in the case of universities alone. We have outstanding examples in every walk of life. As a matter of fact we have many of them in this House. One has only to look at the Front Bench. We must judge the position as we actually find it, and university representation in Scotland—and I know something about Scotland—only means that there has been an addition to the representation in this House of the opponents of the Labour Party, and that is all it will mean if we continue that representation. That may be considered by hon. Members opposite a very good reason for the continuance of university representation, but I do not see how it can appeal to hon. Members on this side of the Committee.
I do not see how we can so clearly depart from the old slogan: "One man, one vote, and one vote, one ballot." It is just as necessary as it was years ago. What is a university? It is a school for vocational training, nothing more. It has developed into that. When we begin to discriminate between different vocations it will inevitably lead us into trouble. The university graduate has no more right to a, plural vote, or to be allowed to send a representative from his workshop or his 2048 school, than any other class of people who have had vocational training. We have here a very sharp contrast. Universities have ceased, as is very well known, merely to train people in the intellectual sphere. They are now largely devoted to training technical people, and if I may be permitted to return to Glasgow, we have in that city a very fine technical college, probably the very best of its type in the whole world—the Royal Technical College. From that institution we sent technicians all over the world; we send from it probably the best-trained engineers the world can produce. We have two types graduating from the same college. We have the lad who goes in with what is known in Scotland as his leaving certificate, which entitles him to take a degree course. He takes the course at the technical college, and sits for his examination at the university. He is then a university graduate and is entitled for all time to take part in university elections. Alongside him may be a lad who has gone into the technical college with a lower entrance certificate, and who is not allowed to sit for his degree examination, though he takes the same course and graduates from the technical college a trained engineer with the diploma of the Royal Technical College. [Interruption.] He may be better than the other fellow, it is all in the balance, but it is perfectly well known that the engineer—the civil engineer, the mechanical engineer, the electrical engineer—coming from the Royal Technical College with the mark of the R.T.C., can find a place in any part of the world. Yet one can take part in university elections and the other cannot. That is a very sharp distinction, a discrimination we are up against immediately, and it is only because of this system of university elections that such a thing is allowed to exist.
§ Major Sir Derrick Gunston (Thorn-bury)
Is not the hon. Gentleman's argument really that Glasgow University should alter the arrangements by which people sit for degrees? If examination degrees at Glasgow University were altered it would get over the difficulty.
§ Mr. Sloan
If that were done it would exclude some of the very best brains in the world. I am not concerned really about this high intellectual aspect. Representatives of universities do not come here because of their attachment to a university but because it is for many of 2049 them a safe way of getting in. The case of the late Mr. Ramsay MacDonald has been mentioned in the course of the Debate. Mr. Ramsay MacDonald did not come to this House in 1931 because he was intellectual; he came because he had had a good sound beating at Seaham, and a safe seat was found for him. There is no safer seat to find for a Tory than a university.
§ Miss Rathbone (Combined English Universities)
Will the hon. Member go through the list of the present university Members and ask how many of them are sound Tories? I doubt whether there are more than two.
§ Mr. Sloan
It is not how many of them are sound Tories but how many of them are Tories. I suppose I would be called to book if I said the Chancellor of the Exchequer was a Tory. After all, it is not the type of people who come here about whom we are concerned—many of them would find their way here in any case; it is the suggestion that because someone has been educated at a university he is entitled to have a second chance of sending someone to this House.
§ Let me go back again to Scotland. We turn out graduates by the hundred every year, like turning them out of a sausage machine. It is only a question of sticking it, of having the finance to wait three or four years, whichever course one takes, and securing one's degree. Where do these graduates go? About 1,200 of them go to the teaching profession. I have a very high respect for the members of the teaching profession in Scotland, I know very many of them, but if I were to be asked whether these teachers who have graduated after a three year's course and training, and have gone into the teaching profession, are any more qualified to exercise a second vote than anyone else, I would say decidedly "No." It is because of this tremendous discrimination that I think this Amendment ought to be accepted, and if we do that we shall at least have done one good thing in regard to this redistribution of seats.
§ Question put, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."
§ The Committee divided: Ayes, 152; Noes, 16.2051
|Division No. 37.]||AYES.||[5.4 p.m.|
|Adamson, Mrs. Jennie L. (Dartford)||Elliot, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. W. E.||Magnay, T.|
|Adamson, W. M. (Cannock)||Elliston, Captain Sir G. S.||Maitland, Sir A.|
|Agnew, Comdr. P. G.||Erskine-Hill, A. G.||Makins, Brig.-Gen. Sir E.|
|Albery, Sir Irving||Evans, Col. Sir A. (Cardiff, S.)||Manningham-Buller, R. E.|
|Balfour, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. H.||Galbraith, Comdr. T. D.||Mathers, G.|
|Baxter, A. Beverley||Gibbons, Lt.-Col. W. E.||Mayhew, Lt.-Col. J.|
|Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P.||Green, W. H. (Deptford)||Mellor, Sir J. S. P.|
|Beaumont, Hubert (Batley)||Greenwell, Colonel T. G.||Mills, Colonel J. D. (New Forest)|
|Beaumont, Maj. Hn. R. E. B. (P'tsm'th)||Gridley, Sir A. B.||Molson A. H. E.|
|Beech, Major F. W.||Griffiths, J. (Llanelly)||Morgan, R. H. (Stourbridge)|
|Beechman, N. A.||Gruffydd, Professor W. J.||Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Hackney, S.)|
|Blair, Sir R.||Gunston, Major Sir D. W.||Morrison, Rt. Hon. W. S. (Cirencester)|
|Boles, Lt.-Col. D. C.||Hacking, Rt. Hon. Sir D. H.||Mott-Radclyffe, Capt. C. E.|
|Bower, Norman (Harrow)||Hannon, Sir P. J. H.||Nicholson, G. (Farnham)|
|Boyce, Sir H. Leslie||Harvey, T. E.||Nicolson, Hon. H. G. (Leicester, W.)|
|Brabner, Comdr. R. A.||Henderson, J. (Ardwick)||O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir H.|
|Brass, Capt. Sir W.||Henderson, J. J. Craik (Leeds, N.E.)||Paling, Rt. Hon. W.|
|Brocklebank, Sir C. E. R.||Hepburn, Major P. G. T. Buchan-||Peake, Rt. Hon. O.|
|Brooke, H. (Lewisham)||Herbert, Petty Officer A. P. (Oxford U.)||Petherick, M.|
|Brown, T. J. (Ince)||Hinchingbrooke, Viscount||Pethick-Lawrence, Rt. Hon. F. W.|
|Bull, B. B.||Hogg, Hon. Q. McG.||Peto, Major B. A. J.|
|Bullock, Capt. M.||Hopkinson, A.||Pickthorn, K. W. M.|
|Butcher, H. W.||Hore-Belisha, Rt. Hon. L.||Ponsonby, Col. C. E.|
|Campbell, Dermot (Antrim)||Hutchison, Lt.-Com. G. I. C. (E'burgh)||Prescott, Capt. W. R. S.|
|Cary, R. A.||Jarvis, Sir J. J.||Price, M. P.|
|Clarke, Colonel R. S.||Jeffreys, General Sir G. D.||Quibell, D. J. K.|
|Cobb, Captain E. C.||Jenkins, A. (Pontypool)||Rathbone, Eleanor|
|Colegate, W. A.||Jennings, R.||Reed, Sir H. S. (Aylesbury)|
|Conant, Major R. J. E.||John, W.||Reid, Rt. Hon. J. S. C. (Hillhead)|
|Cooke, J. D. (Hammersmith, S.)||Jones, Sir G. W. H. (S'K Newington)||Robertson, Rt. Hon. Sir M. A. (M'ham)|
|Critchley, A.||Joynson-Hicks, Lt.-Comdr. Hon. L. W.||Russell, Sir A. (Tynemouth)|
|Davies, Major Sir G. F. (Yeovil)||Keeling, E. H.||Sanderson, Sir F. B.|
|Debbie, W.||Kerr, Sir John Graham (Scottish U's)||Sandys, E. D.|
|Donner, Squadron-Leader P. W.||Lancaster, Lieut.-Col. C. G.||Savory, Professor D. L.|
|Drewe, C.||Lewis, O.||Scott, Donald (Wansbeck)|
|Duckworth, Arthur (Shrewsbury)||Liddall, W. S.||Scott, Lord William (Ro'b'h & Selk'k)|
|Duckworth, W. R. (Moss Side)||Lipson, D. L.||Silkin, L.|
|Duncan, Capt. J. A. L. (Kens'gt'n, N.)||Little, Sir E. Graham (London Univ.)||Somervell, Rt. Hon. Sir D. B.|
|Dunn, E.||Loftus, P. C.||Stewart, J. Henderson (Fife, E.)|
|Eccles, D. M.||Longhurst, Captain H. C.||Stourton, Hon. J. J.|
|Edmondson, Major Sir J.||Macdonald, Captain Peter (I. of W.)||Strauss, H. G. (Norwich)|
|Strickland, Capt. W. F.||Thomas, I. (Keighley)||Williams, Sir H. G. (Croydon, S.)|
|Stuart, Rt. Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)||Thomas, Dr. W. S. Russell (S'th'm'tn)||Windsor, W.|
|Studholme, Major H. C.||Thorneycroft, Maj. G. E. P. (Stafford)||Windsor-Clive, Lt.-Col. G.|
|Suirdale, Viscount||Touche, G. C.||Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl|
|Summers, G. S.||Ward, Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)||Womersley, Rt. Hon. Sir W.|
|Sutcliffe, H.||Ward, Irene M. B. (Wallsend)||Woodburn, A.|
|Sykes, Maj.-Gen. Rt. Hon. Sir F. H.||Webbe, Sir W. Harold||Young, A. S. L. (Partick)|
|Tate, Mrs. Mavis C.||Westwood, Rt. Hon. J.|
|Taylor, Major C. S. (Eastbourne)||Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W. (Blaydon)||TELLERS FOR THE AYES:—|
|Taylor, Vice-Adm. E. A. (P'd'ton, S.)||Wickham, Lt.-Col. E. T. R.||Captain McEwen and|
|Teeling, Flight-Lieut. W.||Wilkinson, Ellen||Mr. Pym.|
|Bowles, F. G.||McEntee, V. La T.||Strauss, G. R. (Lambeth, N.)|
|Buchanan, G.||McGovern, J.||Tinker, J. J.|
|Cove, W. G.||Naylor, T. E.|
|Driberg, T. E. N.||Reakes, G. L. (Wallasey)||TELLERS FOR THE NOES:—|
|Gallacher, W.||Shinwell, E.||Mr. Hugh Lawson and|
|Kirby, B. V.||Sloan, A.||Mr. Pritt.|
|Loverseed, J. E.||Stephen, C.|
§ Clauses 7 and 8 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
§ First Schedule agreed to.