HC Deb 15 June 1948 vol 452 cc259-73

3.42 p.m.

Sir Andrew Duncan (City of London)

I beg to move, in page 1, line 15, after "in," to insert:

  1. "(a) the City of London constituency shall be those resident there or who possess, in accordance with Part II of this Act, a nonresident qualification there; and
  2. (b)."
In moving this Amendment I will not delay the House for long, but I make no apology for asking the Home Secretary and the House to reconsider the position of the City of London. It has been represented as a separate constituency from the birth of Parliament, and I think it is common ground in the House that throughout its long record the City has consistently championed the causes of Parliamentary freedom and municipal development. Nor do I think there will be any dispute that the City has played a part of supreme importance in the history of Britain and the Commonwealth, and that it has held, and still holds, a unique place as our Empire capital, and the centre of world trade. It is neither unimportant nor irrelevant that I should remind the House of the rôle played by the ancient Guildhall and Mansion House as an appropriate setting for great national and international occasions and purposes.

In view of all these facts and circumstances I imagine most hon. Members will view with regret the breaking of a continuity of Parliamentary status so prolonged as that which the City has enjoyed, even if that break did not have the effect of doing injury to the prestige and the position of the City or did not reflect upon the part which the City must still play in the rebuilding of our economic life. I suggest that the proposals in the Bill do injury in both these respects.

The constituency method is, I think, rightly regarded in this country as the best means of eliciting public opinion from time to time as to the Government to whom responsibility of office is to be entrusted. For the proper functioning of that democratic principle it may well be argued that there should be constituencies as equal in size as is practicable and that no person should have more than one vote. In the process of redistribution and reform, however, we cannot wipe the slate entirely clean. We cannot proceed as if we were starting afresh with a new set of people and no historic background whatever.

So far as the City of London is concerned the fact remains that the place is really more important than numbers. That fact was recognised in 1931 and again in 1944. The respective Home Secretaries—first, the Right Hon. J. R. Clynes, and, secondly, the right hon. Gentleman the Lord President of the Council, both maintained the view that, in the light of all the circumstances surrounding the City, it should not lose either its political identity or its political entity. London is exceptional among our cities by reason of the fact that the working population is overwhelmingly large and the resident population is triflingly small. In order, therefore, to enable the City of London to be represented, it is still necessary, as it was in 1931, when Mr. Clynes was dealing with the matter, to preserve the business qualification. When the more battered parts of the City are restored and the very numerous business premises now under Government requisition are derequisitioned, there would be a great increase in the numbers of persons qualified to vote.

3.45 p.m.

By this Amendment we are not asking for more than one Member—I have no personal interest in that—nor are we asking that anyone should have more than one vote. We are asking that the City of London, exceptionally, should have retained to it the business qualification, on the basis that a voter may elect to use his non-residential vote in the City instead of using his residential qualification elsewhere. The City of London has such historic associations with Parliament that its claim for this special consideration is fully justified. The views of the Lord President of the Council are on record as recently as 1944 and, although I think there was a slight recantation in the House recently, I hope he will still feel animated by the same respect for the historic and sentimental circumstances to which he confessed in 1944. When we add also the economic considerations, the case becomes overwhelming.

On the economic side the City of London is the largest exporting centre in this country. With its raw material markets, banking and finance, ship owning and chartering, insurance and underwriting, and all the other services that swell the invisible exports, the contribution which the City of London makes to the country's economy is enormous. I suggest, therefore, that its separate Parliamentary status should be retained as a symbol of our faith in the recovery of our commercial as well as our industrial life, and of our belief that the City of London, in spite of the changes involved by the war, will retain its prestige as a main centre in world trade.

The City has a background and a concentration of experience which will be found nowhere else in the world, an experience which gives it a clear claim for consideration irrespective of numbers. We must think of the City not only as it is regarded by ourselves, but as it is regarded and esteemed by people abroad. We cannot over-estimate what it means to the Commonwealth or to those many countries who, in the past, have been aided in their development by the activities of the City, or, indeed, in the eyes of the world generally. I was interested recently in an article in an important American journal which referred to the City of London as something that continues to live and to function—and, indeed, to exercise leadership—in spite of the difficulties through which we have passed or are still passing.

The prestige of our capital City will still be held in the world, but there are in certain quarters of the world today envious eyes being cast upon it, particularly in the present monetary conditions, envious eyes on its institutions and its influence. It would be wrong to give the impression, or to run the risk of giving the impression, that this House no longer regards the City as possessing that unique importance which has been hitherto recognised by the peculiar position it has held in our Parliamentary, political and economic life. Parliament should positively sustain and confirm the City's great traditions and its world prestige by preserving its Parliamentary independence free from merger, either with this neighbour or that.

Mr. Bramall (Bexley)

I think I am speaking for hon. Members on this side of the House when I say how much we appreciate the very moderate manner in which the right hon. Member for the City of London (Sir A. Duncan) has moved the Amendment, which is in striking contrast to many other speeches made from the other side of the House during this Debate. But we should not allow that fact to blind us to the falsity of the grounds on which the Amendment is based. We all agree with the right hon. Member in venerating the part which the City of London has played in the history of this country, and in particular of Parliamentary institutions, but we must recognise that we are looking at the matter with the eyes of 1948, and that the City of London which played that part has nothing in common with the London of today, except for the bricks and mortar of some of its remaining buildings.

The City of London which played that great part in the story of Wilkes and the many conflicts concerned with Parliamentary institutions was the greatest residential centre in this country, the largest conglomeration of population in this country, and the largest city in which people lived. In that capacity it played its great part. It was also a great business centre, because it was the place where the greatest number of people lived together in this country. That has all gone. Today we have a City of London in which only 4,000 people live.

There are many other great centres and towns which have played an historic and noble part in our history. Their populations have declined and, as a result, their Parliamentary representations have been lost. Instances have been given of other constituencies in London which have a very long history and which are losing their position as separate constituencies. Other instances can be given outside London and I can think of some small towns in Kent and Cornwall which were important ports in their day, but whose day has gone and who have had to cede their place as separate entities for Parliamentary representation.

Another argument adduced by the right hon. Gentleman was that this House should demonstrate its confidence in the City of London as the leader of our economic life. I do not want to go into the totally irrelevant question whether or not we consider the part played by the City of London in our economic life as having been beneficial. That would be quite irrelevant to the Amendment, although I am sure my hon. Friends and I could say something on that point. The way in which this House, or this Government, or the people can demonstrate their confidence in the business leaders of their country and the leaders of their economic life, is not by saying that this or that particular area of the country should have a vote in Parliament. Is there anyone who can say what are the voting arrangements in the business centre of Paris, or New York? I cannot, and I am sure very few hon. Members could do so.

Is there any of us who, when considering whether the economy of this or that country is on a sound foundation, and whether this or that country will revive or decline, brings into calculation whether or not the business centre of a particular city is accorded separate representation in the Parliament of that country? Surely that is totally irrelevant. The manner in which we can demonstrate our faith in economic institutions, if we consider it necessary to demonstrate our faith in the City of London as a leading economic institution, will be entirely different. The granting of separate political representation has no relevance whatever to the problem. It is not going to have any effect on people outside this country, who, I am quite sure, are unaware, as to the great majority, of what are our arrangements in this regard, and they will not notice any change once this Measure has been passed.

It is clear that there is no ground of logic which can overcome the point put in a previous Debate by the Home Secretary, that here is a concentration of population of only 4,000 electors, yet we have had to deprive many historical constituencies with electorates of 14,000, 15,000, 20,000, or 25,000. They have had to lose separate representation in spite of the long history behind them, many of them because it is inequitable that small areas should continue to return a Member when larger areas have their votes pooled to return a Member for a larger constituency. The 500,000 or so who work in the City of London will not have a vote there, either under this Amendment or any other, although they have an interest in the workings of the City. The only people who will have a vote will be the 4,000 who live there, and even if the right hon. Gentleman's proposal of an alternative business premises vote should be allowed as an alternative to residential qualification, only 11,000 or 12,000 would qualify. I cannot see any ground of justice whatever on which we could possibly accept an arrangement by which that purely accidental collection of people should enjoy that advantage when many other constituencies throughout the country are having their separate representation removed, merely because their population has sunk below a certain level.

Mr. Beverley Baxter (Wood Green)

Some foreign observer, studying the character of the English people, said: When the English think, they are always wrong. When they feel, they are always right. We have had a speech by the hon. Member for Bexley (Mr. Bramall) which is typical of so much of the thought which is coming from the party opposite these days. It is a speech which exemplifies the sort of creeping common sense which is paralysing and making dull this country. This creeping common sense, this grey averageness which the party opposite is creating, is typical of those whom my noble Friend the Member for South Dorset (Viscount Hinchingbrooke) described the other day as "dim clerkly people." This grey tog grows thicker and thicker under the manipulation of the party opposite.

4.0 p.m.

What is my right hon. Friend asking in this Amendment? That a tradition which has existed for hundreds of years shall have nothing more than a symbolic survival of one Member. Unlike the university seats, which represent a solid bloc at the present time against the Government, this is only one vote. I should have thought that even the Lord President might have considered taking the risk of one vote. Logic and the common sense of the panty opposite are both on their side, but there is something in this greater than logic; there is tradition. [An HON. MEMBER: "Privilege."] No. Let the party opposite only keep their common sense under control for a moment longer and try to feel what those in the outer Empire feel about this country, a feeling in regard to which the party opposite have become vandals and destroyers.

Who is the Lord Mayor of London? Why not say that he is merely the head of a local council? That is not true, or if it is true it is not the whole truth. He is a symbolic figure throughout the world. It was from the City of London that there went out an expression which was quoted everywhere, a phrase which one never hears now unfortunately, "Safe as the Bank of England." That was an expression in other languages because of the dealings in the City of London. Foreigners would accept contracts on the word of an Englishman. I do not hear these phrases now when I travel abroad, but they once existed.

There is another aspect of the matter. The City of London, with its guilds and its city companies, once supplied a refuge for five Members of this House who had had the courage to vote against the King. What a splendid thing it was that there should be that refuge. I look upon the progress of politics in this country and I think there may come a time when some of us will also have to go down the river and hide from the wrath to come. All these things are happening, and to say that this miserable two and two makes four—[Laughter.] would ask the hon. Member for Bexley what do two moons and two lemons make? Four what? That is the cheap elementary arithmetical mind of hon. Members opposite—to destroy a cathedral and build a factory. There is the real spirit of the Socialist Party, to destroy anything which has roots in the past, to build a world upon our little second-rate selves. That is what the Socialist Party is doing in this country.

I say to the Home Secretary, a man whom I admire and very much like, that I believe that he does not take any pleasure in rejecting this Amendment. I believe if it were left to him, he would realise how reasonable this is, because it goes so deep in our history as a people. I ask, Must the Home Secretary listen to the crack of the whip, must the Lord President give him his orders? There are many signs that the Lord President gives many orders. I say, following the acts of vandalism towards the university seats, the stupidity of yesterday's Debate, the deliberate attempt of the party opposite to stop people from voting, a thing I never thought I should see in the British Commons—that is what they are doing—and because of his completely reasonable and friendly approach to this subject, I hope that the Home Secretary will accept this Amendment.

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Ede)

I begin to feel very uncomfortable in the Debate on this Bill, I have received so many eulogies from the party opposite. I am bound to tell them that I do not deserve any of them with regard to this matter. I am quite sure that the senior Member for the City of London (Sir A. Duncan), with his Scottish ancestry, shares my respect for common sense, and its denunciation by the hon. Member for Wood Green (Mr. Baxter) must have been a pain to him. I never reject any Amendment with pleasure; but in order that it may not be thought that the Lord President has exercised any undue influence over me I would point out that I voted against the retention of the City of London on the special franchise in the Parliament of 1929–31. This is no new position for me to adopt.

I suggest to the hon. Member for Wood Green that we really must have some basis upon which we can justify the representation of constituencies in this House. I know of no justification, at a time when the average size of a constituency is about 55,000 to 56,000, for enfranchising a constituency which at the best under this Amendment would have just under 13,000 voters. I cannot conceive any ground upon which that can be supported, and I do not share the hon. Member's view that this is an act of vandalism. The 5,000 resident electors should, we proposed, vote in a certain constituency. I understand that although these 5,000 resident electors have not been consulted, some of the people who might be included in the 13,000 and some who will never have votes in the City under any business or residential qualification, have decided they would prefer to vote elsewhere. We shall come to that point later.

We do not despise the great part which the City of London has played in the history of this House and of Parliamentary Government, but there are other constituencies the names of which are just as much entitled to be held in honour. What of the people who returned Eliot and Hampden? Would any one suggest that because these great names were connected with such boroughs as St. Germans in Cornwall and Wendover those two boroughs should continue to be represented in this House? After all, we have to deal, as each generation of Parliamentarians has to deal, with the facts of our time. I hope that the time will come when there will be a substantial increase in the residential vote in the City of London. The provisions of this Bill ensure that when that time comes that shall be taken into account at the periodical review and the boundaries of the constituencies shall be altered.

I cannot see any reason for treating the City of London differently from any other constituency in this matter, but I am bound to say that I think there has been some wisdom—again we shall come to the point later—in the selection which the City has made in a way which will ensure that at probably the earliest date of all, its claims will come up for reconsideration. I cannot get over the fact that there are fewer than 5,000 resident electors in the City, and I can see no ground for providing a special arrangement for business premises votes for Parliamentary Elections confined to the City of London. Therefore, with regret—I say with regret because I think that the right hon. Gentleman put his case today with a moderation and cogency which was sadly lacking from the presentation of the case when we dealt with this matter during the Committee stage of the Bill—I cannot accept the Amendment, because of the inexorable facts of the numbers concerned.

Mr. Osbert Peake (Leeds, North)

I cannot let the Home Secretary get away with all that he has just stated on this Amendment. My right hon. Friend the senior Member for the City of London (Sir A. Duncan) addressed himself, in his very moderate and well reasoned speech, purely to the question of the merits of the continued representation of the City. But that Question was examined much more fully and much more exhaustively than this House is able to do, either in Committee or on Report, by the Speaker's Conference, which sat under your chairmanship, Mr. Speaker, in 1944. No change has taken place, so far as the City is concerned, since 1944 which would justify a departure from the agreed recommendations of that conference. We all knew in 1944 that the City had been heavily injured by war damage. The great fire had taken place and the City had been heavily blitzed. Representatives of all parties at that Conference knew well that for many years to come the population in the City, both residential and business, must continue to be small. Yet that Conference agreed, without dissent, without even a vote being taken—

Mr. Parker (Dagenham)


Mr. Peake

May I be allowed to finish my sentence—that the City of London should continue to be represented in this House. The only matter upon which a division was taken in the Conference was the question of whether the City should continue to be represented by one Member or by two. I think the hon. Gentleman wished to interrupt me.

Mr. Parker

That was the point I wished to make, regarding representation.

Mr. Peake

There was unanimous agreement in the Conference that the City of London should continue to be represented, at any rate, by one Member. That agreement was defended in this House by the Secretary of State for Scotland. It was defended also by the Lord President of the Council. It was defended by the hon. Member for Dagenham (Mr. Parker) who has just interrupted me, and by several other Socialist representatives in the House of Commons. There was no change of status which would justify Ministers, who were a party to that agreement, in recommending any other course to the House of Commons except the continued representation of the City by one Member.

The only change that has taken place is that the Socialist Party was returned with a majority at the General Election. Right hon. Gentlemen opposite should have implemented the agreed recommendation of the Conference of 1944. Of course, they might well have been voted down in a Division in the House by their own supporters, but, at any rate, had they taken that course, they would have fulfilled the honourable obligation into which they entered in 1944. It is, therefore, more in sorrow than in anger that once more we feel that we must record our protest against a departure from what we consider to be an honourable obligation.

4.15 p.m.

Mr. Charles Williams (Torquay)

I should like to point out one curious thing. I do not believe that in the list of constituencies the name "London" appears at all. In other words, the greatest bond in the Empire is not mentioned so far as I can see. Leeds, Birmingham and other places, are extensively mentioned, but all the London constituencies seem to become absorbed under various other names, and what we are doing is to take away the name of London. I am open to correction but I can see nothing that conveys to the ordinary person the name of London in the same way that other places are represented.

Mr. Pritt (Hammersmith, North)

Would the hon. Member look at page 97, line 35?

Mr. Bramall

And page 98.

Mr. Williams

Yes, but it does not say "London." As I read it we shall not mention the representative as "the hon. Member for Battersea, North, Borough of London." We shall say, "Battersea, North," or "Battersea." As regards Leeds, for example, there is a heading—

Mr. Ede

May I help the hon. Member? If he will look at page 98, line 11, he will see that the "City of London" is there mentioned.

Mr. Williams

Yes, I see that. I am sorry. At any rate, it took a considerable while for the right hon. Gentleman

to discover that, and he should know his own Bill better than I do. I saw a lot of running about before that came to him. I am still capable of noticing that. The fact remains that we are not keeping it in the same position as it had before. I was not in the least surprised at what the right hon. Gentleman said today. For a long time I had not taken a tremendously dissimilar position to that of the hon. Gentleman opposite who spoke earlier about the City of London. I was not interested one way or the other, but I became completely converted by one of the greatest and most interesting speeches I have ever heard in this House in favour of keeping the City of London. It was made in 1944 by the Lord President. He made out a case that we in this House should not be ruled entirely by figures, or by the sort of argument that the Home Secretary brought forward, of little minute things, or the counting of heads but that we should try to preserve in this great institution of Parliament some of the bigger things representing the past.

It is no use the Home Secretary referring to St. Germans, because it happens to have had a particularly eminent and very valuable Member of Parliament. "St. Germans" would convey nothing abroad. That speech by the Lord President is complete and absolute evidence that the Government today are doing a wanton thing. They are incapable of being severed in any way from the extremely small-minded attitude which the Home Secretary has adopted.

Question put, "That those words be there inserted in the Bill."

The House divided: Ayes, 111; Noes, 269.

Division No. 225.] AYES. [4.20 p.m.
Agnew, Cmdr. P. G. Crowder, Capt. John E. Gomme-Duncan, Col. A.
Amory, D. Heathcoat Cuthbert, W. N. Grant, Lady
Astor, Hon. M. Darling, Sir W. Y. Grimston, R. V.
Baldwin, A. E. Davies, Rt. Hn. Clement (Montgomery) Harris, H. Wilson (Cambridge Univ.)
Barlow, Sir J. Dodds-Parker, A. D. Head, Brig. A. H.
Baxter, A. B. Dower, E. L. G. (Caithness) Henderson, John (Cathcart)
Beechman, N. A. Drayson, G. B. Hinchingbrooke, Viscount
Birch, Nigel Drewe, C. Hogg, Hon. Q.
Boothby, R. Dugdale, Maj. Sir T. (Richmond) Hollis, M. C.
Bowen, R. Duncan, Rt. Hn. Sir A. (City of Lord) Hudson, Rt. Hon. R. S. (Southport)
Boyd-Carpenter, J. A. Duthie, W. S. Hulbert, Wing-Cdr. N. J.
Braithwaite, Lt.-Comdr. J. G. Eccles, D. M. Hutchison, Lt.-Cm. Clark (E'b'rgh, W.)
Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T. Eden, Rt. Hon. A. Hutchison, Col. J. R. (Glasgow, C.)
Bullock, Capt. M. Elliot, Lieut.-Col. Rt. Hon. W. Jeffreys, General Sir G.
Butcher, H. W. Fletcher, W. (Bury) Keeling, E. H.
Challen, C. Fraser, H. C. P. (Stone) Kerr, Sir J. Graham
Clarke, Col. R. S. Galbraith, Cmdr. T. D. Lambert, Hon. G.
Cooper-Key, E. M. Gammans, L. D. Lancaster, Col. C. G.
Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E. Glyn, Sir R. Lennox-Boyd, A. T.
Lucas-Tooth, Sir H. O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir H. Spearman, A. C. M.
MacAndrew, Col. Sir C. Osborne, C. Stanley, Rt. Hon. O.
McCallum, Maj. D. Peaks, Rt. Hon. O. Stoddart-Scott, Col. M.
McCorquodale, Rt. Hon. M. S. Pickthorn, K. Studholme, H. G.
Macdonald, Sir P. (I of Wight) Pitman, I. J. Taylor, C. S. (Eastbourne)
McFarlane, C. S. Poole, O. B. S. (Oswestry) Taylor, Vine-Adm. E. A. (P'dd't'n. S.)
Maclay, Hon. J. S. Price-White, Lt-. Col. D. Teeling, William
Maclean, F. H. R. (Lancaster) Raikes, H. V. Thornton-Kemsley, C. N.
Macmillan, Rt. Hon. Harold (Bromley) Ramsay, Maj. S. Touche, G. C.
Macpherson, N. (Dumfries) Reid, Rt. Hon. J. S. C. (Hillhead) Turton, R. H.
Manningham-Buller, R. E. Roberts, H. (Handsworth) Vane, W. M. F.
Mellor, Sir J. Roberts, P. G. (Ecclesall) Wakefield, Sir W. W.
Molson, A. H. E. Ropner, Col. L. Wheatley, Colonel M. J. (Dorset, E.)
Moore, Lt.-Col. Sir T. Ross, Sir R. D. (Londonderry) Williams, C. (Torquay)
Morris, Hopkin (Carmarthen) Savory, Prof. D. L. Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl
Morrison, Rt. Hon. W. S. (Cirencester) Scott, Lord W. Young, Sir A. S. L. (Partick)
Neven-Spence, Sir B. Smiles, Lt.-Col. Sir W.
Noble, Comdr A. H. P. Smith, E. P. (Ashford) TELLERS FOR THE AYES:
Odey, G. W. Snadden, W. M. Major Conant and
Brigadier Mackeson.
Acland, Sir Richard Dobbie, W. King, E. M.
Adams, W. T. (Hammersmith, South) Dodds, N. N. Kinley, J.
Allen, A. C. (Bosworth) Driberg, T. E. N. Kirby, B. V.
Alpass, J. H. Dugdale, J. (W. Bromwich) Lang, G.
Anderson, A. (Motherwell) Dumpleton, C. W. Lawson, Rt. Hon. J. J.
Anderson, F. (Whitehaven) Durbin, E. F. M. Lee, F. (Hulme)
Attewell, H. C. Dye, S. Lee, Miss J. (Cannock)
Awbery, S. S. Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C. Leonard, W.
Ayles, W. H. Edelman, M. Leslie, J. R.
Ayrton Gould, Mrs. B. Edwards, Rt. Hon. Sir C. (Bedwellty) Lever, N. H.
Bacon, Miss A. Edwards, N. (Caerphilly) Levy, B. W.
Balfour, A. Edwards, W. J. (Whitechapel) Lewis, T. (Southampton)
Barstow, P. G. Evans, John (Ogmore) Lipson D. L.
Barton, C. Evans, S. N. (Wednesbury) Lipton, Lt.-Col. M.
Battley, J. R. Ewart, R. Logan, D. G.
Bechervaise, A. E. Fairhurst, F. Longden, F.
Benson, G. Farthing, W. J. Lyne, A. W.
Beswick, F. Fernyhough, E. McAdam, W.
Bing, G. H. C. Field, Capt. W. J. McAllister, G.
Binns, J. Fellick, M. McEntee, V. La T.
Blackburn, A. R. Foot, M. M. McGovern, J.
Blenkinsop, A. Forman, J. C. Mack, J. D.
Blyton, W. R. Fraser, T. (Hamilton) McKay, J. (Wallsend)
Boardman, H. Freeman, Peter (Newport) Mackay, R. W. G. (Hull, N.W.)
Bowles, F. G. (Nuneaton) Gallacher, W. McKinlay, A. S.
Braddock, Mrs. E. M. (L'pl. Exch'ge) Ganley, Mrs. C. S. Maclean, N. (Govan)
Braddock, T. (Mitcham) George, Lady M. Lloyd (Anglesey) McLeavy, F.
Bramall, E. A. Gibbins J. Macpherson, T. (Romford)
Brook, D. (Halifax) Gilzean, A. Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)
Brooks, T. J. (Rothwell) Glanville, J. E. (Consett) Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield)
Brown, T. J. (Ince) Greenwood, A. W. J. (Heywood) Mann, Mrs. J.
Bruce, Maj. D. W. T. Grenfell, D. R. Manning, Mrs. L. (Epping)
Buchanan, Rt. Hon. G. Grey, C. F. Marquand, H. A.
Burden, T. W. Griffiths, D. (Rother Valley) Marshall, F. (Brightside)
Burke, W. A. Griffiths, W. D. (Moss Side) Mathers, Rt. Hon. George
Butler, H. W. (Hackney, S.) Gruffydd, Prof. W. J. Mellish, R. J.
Byers, Frank Gunter, R. J. Middleton, Mrs. L.
Callaghan, James Hale, Leslie Monslow, W.
Castle, Mrs. B. A. Hall, Rt. Hon. Glenvil Moody, A. S.
Chamberlain, R. A. Hamilton, Lieut.-Col. R. Morgan, Dr. H. B.
Champion, A. J. Hannan, W. (Maryhill) Morris, Lt.-Col. H. (Sheffield, C.)
Chater, D. Hardy, E. A. Morris, P. (Swansea, W.)
Chetwynd, G. R. Haworth, J. Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Lewisham, E.)
Cluse, W. S. Henderson, Rt. Hn. A. (Kingswinford) Mort, D. L.
Coldrick, W. Henderson, Joseph (Ardwick) Moyle, A.
Collindridge, F. Herbison, Miss M. Murray, J. D.
Collins, V. J. Hicks, G. Nally, W.
Comyns, Dr. L. Horabin, T. L. Naylor, T. E.
Cooper, Wing-Comdr. G. Hoy, J. Neal, H. (Claycross)
Crawley, A. Hubbard, T. Noel-Baker, Capt. F. E. (Brentford)
Crossman, R. H. S. Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayr) Noel-Buxton, Lady
Daggar, G. Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.) Oldfield, W. H.
Daines, P. Hughes, H. D. (W'lverh'pton, W.) Oliver, G. H.
Davies, Edward (Burslem) Hynd, H. (Hackney, C.) Orbach, M.
Davies, Ernest (Enfield) Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe) Paget, R. T.
Davies, Harold (Leek) Janner, B. Palmer, A. M. F.
Davies, Haydn (St. Pancras, S. W.) Jeger, G. (Winchester) Parker, J.
Davies, R. J. (Westhoughton) Jeger, Dr. S. W. (St. Pancras, S.E.) Parkin, B. T.
Davies, S. O. (Merthyr) Jenkins, R. H. Paton, Mrs. F. (Rushcliffe)
de Freitas, Geoffrey Jones, D. T. (Hartlepool) Paton, J. (Norwich)
Delargy, H. J. Jones, P. Asterley (Hitchin) Pearson, A.
Diamond, J. Kenyon, C. Peart, T. F.
Perrins, W. Smith, H. N. (Nottingham, S.) Warbey, W. N.
Piratin, P. Snow, J. W. Watkins, T. E.
Poole, Cecil (Lichfield) Solley, L. J. Watson, W. M.
Porter, E. (Warrington) Sorensen, R. W. Welts, P. L. (Faversham)
Porter, G. (Leeds) Soskice, Sir Frank Wells, W. T. (Walsall)
Pritt, D. N. Sparks, J. A. Westwood, Rt. Hon. J.
Proctor, W. T. Stross, Dr. B. Wheatlay, Rt. Hn. J. T. (Edinb'gh, E.)
Pryde, D. J. Stubbs, A. E. White, C. F. (Derbyshire, W.)
Randall, H. E. Sylvester, G. O. White, H. (Derbyshire, N.E.)
Ranger, J. Symonds, A. L. Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.
Reeves, J. Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth) Wilkins, W. A.
Reid, T. (Swindon) Taylor, Dr. S. (Barnet) Willey, O. G. (Cleveland)
Richards, R. Thomas, D. E. (Aberdare) Williams, D. J. (Neath)
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvonshire) Thomas, I. O. (Wrekin) Williams, J. L. (Kelvingrove)
Roberts, W. (Cumberland, N.) Thomas, George (Cardiff) Williams, Rt. Hon. T. (Don Valley)
Robertson, J. J. (Berwick) Thorneycroft, Harry (Clayton) Williams, W. R. (Heston)
Ross, William (Kilmarnock) Thurtle, Ernest Wills, Mrs. E. A.
Royle, C. Tiffany, S. Wise, Major F. J.
Scollan, T. Timmons, J. Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.
Segal, Dr. S. Titterington, M. F. Woods, G. S.
Shackleton, E. A. A. Tolley, L. Wyatt, W.
Sharp, Granville Tomlinson, Rt. Hon. G. Yates, V. F.
Shawcross, Rt. Hn. Sir H. (St. Helens) Usborne, Henry Young, Sir R. (Newton)
Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E. Vernon, Maj. W. F. Younger, Hon. Kenneth
Silverman, J. (Erdington) Viant, S. P. Zilliacus, K.
Silverman, S. S. (Nelson) Wadsworth, G.
Simmons, C. J. Walker, G. H. TELLERS FOR THE NOES:
Skinnard, F. W. Wallace, G. D. (Chislehurst) Mr. Popplewell and
Smith, Ellis (Stoke) Wallace, H. W. (Walthamstow, E.) Mr. Richard Adams.