CIVIL LIST

HC Deb 09 July 1952 vol 503 cc1364-452

Again considered in Committee.

Question again proposed.

6.13 p.m.

Mr. Crookshank

Perhaps I had better put a full stop to the sentence in which I was interrupted. I should first like to make the comment that it is a strange coincidence that on a day when we have had so much talk of ceremonial and circumstance, we should ourselves have been involved in our own traditional pageantry during the very debate. We should, therefore, be the last to complain of pageantry elsewhere.

I was concluding by saying, having heard the arguments of the hon. Lady and my hon. Friend, and having taken the matter further into consideration, that at the appropriate moment an Amendment will be moved by either my right hon. Friend or myself raising the maximum from £2,500 to £5,000 a year. I trust that will meet the wishes of the whole Committee.

Sir E. Keeling

Might I just thank my right hon. Friend—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Might I just say—

Hon. Members

No.

The Deputy-Chairman

We have not yet reached the Amendment.

Sir E. Keeling

No, Mr. Hopkin Morris, but I shall not be here then.

The Deputy-Chairman

Mr. Benson.

Mr. George Benson (Chesterfield) rose—

Sir E. Keeling

On a point of order, Mr. Hopkin Morris. Might I just—

Hon. Members

No.

Mr. Hugh Gaitskell (Leeds, South)

On a point of order. I also rose, but you called my hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benson), and, of course, I gave way.

The Deputy-Chairman

I am sorry. I did not see the right hon. Gentleman, and I called the hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benson).

6.15 p.m.

Mr. Benson

Perhaps I might thank the Lord Privy Seal on behalf of the hon. Member for Twickenham (Sir E. Keeling). Speaking for one Member of the Select Committee, I am very pleased indeed that the Government have agreed to do something which the Select Committee itself might have done had it thought about it.

This debate must be the quietest debate on a Civil List which has ever taken place. Even my hon. Friend the Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes) gave the impression of lethargy. A debate in which there is very little difference between the two sides always tends to flag. I propose to confine my remarks to a very narrow point, to speak to the Amendment in my name and the names of right hon. and hon. Friends of mine, to leave out lines 31 and 32 of the Motion.

The purpose of the Amendment is to make no provision whatsoever for the present Duke of Cornwall until he arrives at the age of 18. The Opposition have shown that they are prepared to make provision, and to make it generously, where public duties are concerned and where the costs of those public duties fall upon the Royal Family, but it is quite inconceivable that costly public duties will fall upon the Duke of Cornwall until he reaches the age of 18, and thus it seems to me that no provision should be made in the Civil List, certainly not during his childhood.

It is a normal thing that during childhood a person is maintained by his parents. That is only natural and proper. We have already made provision upon a generous scale for the parents of the Duke of Cornwall, and I see no reason why we should make double provision. This, however, embodies a principle which was raised by the right hon. Member for Blackburn, West (Mr. Assheton) in relation to Crown Lands. He said that the revenue of Crown Lands was Royal property and was surrendered in each reign and that the same principle of ownership applied to the revenues of Lancaster and Cornwall. It is true that, constitutionally, the revenues of those three estates, Cornwall, Lancaster, and the Crown Lands, inhere either to the Crown in the case of Crown Lands and Lancaster or to the Heir to the Throne in the case of the Duchy of Cornwall.

However, I suggest that the position of these great estates and these great revenues is quite different from that of ordinary property. Constitutionally they inhere to these individuals, the Crown or the Heir to the Throne, if a male, but really they inhere not to the individuals themselves but rather to office holders. In the case of Crown Lands that is very clearly so, because although the revenue from Crown Lands may be the property of the Sovereign it was until surrender a revenue charged with certain very grave liabilities.

It is interesting to note that Crown Lands go back as far as Edward the Confessor. Moreover, the estates comprising Crown Lands are very largely the actual estates which were held by Edward the Confessor and by successive Sovereigns ever since. They were the estates from which the monarch got the revenue for the purpose of the government of the whole country, and it was only in times of warfare or extravagance on the part of the monarch that he came to Parliament to ask it to assist him by the provision of taxes. Normally he was supposed to run the country out of the Crown Lands.

When William IV at the beginning of the last century surrendered the Crown Lands, the revenue provided the salary of Mr. Speaker and also the salaries of a large number of officials, so that it cannot be argued, as was done by the right hon. Member for Blackburn, West that these revenues are private property.

Mr. Assheton

That was not the argument which I put to the Committee. The argument I was putting was that a considerable amount of the revenue is derived from the Crown Lands, which more than offsets the amount that is being granted in the Civil List and that, therefore, no charge, in fact, falls on the taxpayer.

Mr. Benson

The right hon. Gentleman is quite wrong. I have been pointing out that the revenue of the Crown Lands was the revenue for the purpose of running the country as a whole, and what has happened is this, that the Crown has surrendered approximately £1 million a year and the country bears £4,000 million for the Crown. I think the Crown has got a good bargain.

Mr. Alport

The hon. Member is, of course, perfectly correct in his statement about the relationship of the Crown Lands and the revenue during feudal times. I doubt whether he is accurate for the period between the middle of the 18th Century and the time when they were surrendered by the Crown. Of course, there was no intention or possibility of providing for the expenses of the State from them, and they were used primarily for the Civil List or its equivalent in those days.

Mr. Benson

As I pointed out a moment ago, in the reign of William IV, which was in the 19th Century, revenue from the Crown Lands was used to pay the salary of Mr. Speaker and the salaries of other officials as well as certain expenses. But even in the 13th Century it will be found that the revenue from the Crown Lands was inadequate, except in most favourable circumstances, to enable the Crown to pay the administrative expenses of the country.

The Crown Lands themselves were always regarded as the property of the country, because whenever the King was extravagant or whenever, through a favourite, he alienated the Crown Lands, as in the case of Edward II, to such an extent that it interfered with the revenues of the country, the nobles immediately rose, beheaded the favourite and returned the Crown Lands to the common stock. They established by drastic precedent that the Crown Lands were public and not private property.

I must now turn to the Duchy of Cornwall with which our Amendment specifically deals. It may be true constitutionally in theory that the revenues belong to the Duke, but actually, when one looks at the line of inheritance from the time of the original settlement, one finds it so broken by murder and civil war that it has little normal descent. It was Parliament that decided the inheritance by deciding who should ascend the Throne.

In the last two reigns the public nature of the revenues of the Duchy of Cornwall has, I think, been clearly demonstrated. There was no Duke of Cornwall in the last reign, and in those circumstances constitutionally the revenues would go to the Crown. Actually, they were put to the fortification of the revenues of the country and the cost of the Civil List was reduced by the revenues from the Duchy of Cornwall, subject to certain prior charges. Here again, during the minority of the present Duke very con- siderable sums are paid to the fortification of the revenue.

The principle has been established clearly and beyond the peradventure of a doubt that the revenues of these three great estates, Crown Lands, Lancashire, and Cornwall are public property, and in the proposal we are merely carrying a little further the deductions from the revenues of Cornwall in order to fortify the public revenue, and we are doing it on the grounds that we think we have already provided adequately for the Royal Family and for the minority of the Duke of Cornwall. It is for those reasons that we have put down this Amendment.

6.28 p.m.

Captain Christopher Soames (Bedford)

I am glad to be able to follow the hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benson). I was interested in the argument he put forward to show that the Crown Lands in Lancashire and the Duchy of Cornwall were public property. Nevertheless, it must be remembered that it is necessary for the reigning monarch formally to hand over the revenues from these Duchies and from the Crown Lands to the State at the beginning of each new reign. The hon. Member for Chesterfield thinks he has established without any doubt that they are, in fact, public property, but if they are, why is it necessary for each reigning monarch at the beginning of his reign officially to hand over the revenues from these estates to the State?

Mr. Benson

May I give the answer to that by putting another question? Why is it that the House asks permission from the Sovereign to spend or raise money?

Captain Soames

I do not think that that has anything to do with the Duchy of Lancashire.

Mr. Benson

Certainly it has. Let me put it another way.

Captain Soames

No, because it does not interfere with my argument. The revenues from the Duchy of Lancashire and the Duchy of Cornwall and from the Crown Lands exceed the amount of the Civil List. That is a point which has not been sufficiently stressed in the country, and it has not been sufficiently stressed by the Government. It is up to them to put it clearly so that the people of this country will realise that the Crown, in fact, hands over to the State more money every year than is voted on the Civil List, so that it does not cost the taxpayer one penny. The money in the Civil List does not come from the taxpayers' pockets The hon. Lady the Member for Flint, East (Mrs. White) mentioned the fact that these estates are not subject to Death Duties. I agree that if they were those duties would go to the State, but at the moment the State gets more in revenue from these lands than, in fact, it provides in the Civil List.

The hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes) spoke with his customary candour and told us, without pulling any punches, that he was a republican. How many hon. Gentlemen on the benches opposite share his views I do not know, but many of them, and certainly the hon. Member for Dagenham (Mr. Parker,) are guilty of wanting to have the best of both worlds. I would draw a comparison. Many hon. Members pay lip-service to collective security. They are in favour of speeches being made at the United Nations organisation in favour of it, but when it comes to fighting to back up collective security they do not like it. Many of them pay lip-service to the monarchy because they feel that it would be unpopular not to do so, but when it comes to paying for the monarchy they find all sorts of reasons and quibbles against it.

I am convinced that their sentiments do not express the feelings of the overwhelming majority of the people of this country, who like the monarchy, with its pomp and ceremony. They like the pomp and ceremony. They need it, it is part of their lives. They would not have it done away with for anything in the world—and it does not cost the taxpayer one single penny.

6.32 p.m.

Mr. Cahir Healy (Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

Unlike the hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes), my colleague from Mid-Ulster and I both represent a constituency which has given us a republican mandate. Probably we are the only two people who have been elected on the republican issue, and therefore I have a special right to answer the challenge of the hon. and gallant Member for Bedford (Captain Soames).

Every time this subject is discussed in the House an assurance is given that there is no extravagance and that the opportunities for extravagance have been cut to the bone. Nevertheless, the amounts remain very considerable, after all these years. My constituents think that the amounts in the estimate are extravagant and that the Amendments indicate far more clearly the relative value of the services of the Sovereign.

Mention has been made of the cost of the services which the Sovereign renders to the Commonwealth. I have always understood that on ceremonial occasions the cost is borne on the local exchequer. From time to time I see estimates of the Northern Ireland Government showing very large sums arising out of attendances for specific purposes of members of the Royal Family. I take it for granted that that is also the position when the Sovereign or some member of the Royal Family makes a ceremonial visit in England, Scotland or Wales.

Our view is that there is too much ceremony, that there are too many people surrounding the Sovereign and that they cost far too much. It is notable that the more primitive people are, the greater their desire for ceremonial. The very progressive and intellectual people aim rather at simplicity.

I was rather amused to notice the extent of the relationship to the monarchy which it is considered should be provided with a pension or with a large income for the discharge of public duties. I do not see why these young people should not adopt professions or go into business. There are ways of making a living which are just as honourable as the drawing of a public dole without a means test.

An hon. Gentleman on the other side spoke of the generosity of the Sovereign in regard to the Crown Lands, but some of those lands were stolen from the Church at the time of the Reformation. It is rather late in the day—but better late than never—to make restitution. Why should we pass a vote of thanks to people whose ancestors despoiled a community and who now give back that which was then stolen? These lands did not fall like manna from Heaven. There must have been some legal or military process involved. I suggest that in passing this money over to the Exchequer and making restitution, the Crown is doing nothing more than wipe out an injustice which was committed a good many years ago.

Though I am a republican, I do not want to dictate to the British people how they should govern themselves. I would appeal to the British people to extend to us in Ireland the same liberty. The majority of the people in Ireland are republican. Why should the British not withdraw their Army and allow the majority of the people to do what they want to do? I know that in the north-east corner of Ireland there are people who have different views, but they are a small minority in the nation.

This £475,000 seems a tremendous sum to people who are only in the habit of dealing with £5 or £6 per week. The curious part is that the recipient of that great sum of money is not in a position to provide for her dependants and her children. The Duke of Edinburgh gets £40,000, but his family have to be provided for. The same is true of Princess Margaret. When she marries she is to have £13,000. Her husband need not undertake the responsibility of an ordinary man upon marriage. He will not have the responsibility of providing a home.

The scale of these allowances is too great. Although they would not amount to much if spread over millions of people, yet it would be a gesture of co-operation if Her Majesty and all the members of Her Court showed some sympathy with those whose social services are being reduced, whose hospital services have been cut, and who are suffering hardship in other respects. It would appeal very much to the man-in-the-street. Not only does my colleague the hon. Member for Mid-Ulster (Mr. O'Neill) hold the same view as myself, but also the people in Fermanagh and Tyrone and parts of Derry and Armagh, more than half of Northern Ireland, feel the same. We ought to look at this realistically. The kings and queens are departing from the capitals of the world and a wholly new set of circumstances has arisen. They were a very expensive adornment and apparently were not indispensable.

The average family in my constituency has a net income of £150 a year. Indeed, many of them are excused from being insured under the National Insurance Act on the ground that they have not £104. Imagine the feelings of such people when they read that some other lady or gentleman somewhere or other has as much a minute as they have a year—they who toil in the heat and the cold, who are up at the break of day and work until dark at night. After all, we are all human beings.

I know that the majority of the people in this country are very monarchist and I am not quarrelling with them in that respect. They are entitled to be. But I object to the people who claim to be monarchical in one island claiming to dictate to the next island—[An HON. MEMBER: "No."] You do, indeed. Take your Army away and we shall soon see what will happen.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer has a great opportunity here to show that he believes in what he says. Not long since I read his appeal to the workers to forgo any further demands for wage increases. I think the workers would take that plea seriously if the right hon. Gentleman could persuade them that the people at the top were setting them a good example.

6.44 p.m.

Lieut.-Colonel Sir Walter Smiles (Down, North)

When I met the hon. Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone (Mr. Healy) on the plane last Monday coming over here I thought he was up to some mischief. Perhaps it would be more Parliamentary to say that he had a well-considered Parliamentary proposition which he intended to put forward to this Committee. I know that the hon. Gentleman is a republican but I am a monarchist and so are the people who return me and the other Ulster Unionist Members here. The song I was brought up on when I was a boy was about the first Queen Elizabeth, who was at a great review— 'Up' said the Queen And she waved her lily hand. The South Down militia Are the terror of the land. Then there was another song about the time of Queen Victoria when gentlemen like the Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone were seeing the Queen go by. I remember this line: And I cheered, God forbid me, I cheered with the rest. The Ulster Unionist Members were brought up in quite a different tradition and atmosphere from the hon. Gentleman apparently.

We respect the hon. Member's opinions and I am quite sure that he holds them as conscientiously as I do mine. He said that it was the most primitive people who liked ceremony. I must come from the neolithic age, because I like pageantry. The hon. Gentleman spoke about the Army, the Navy and the Air Force and its ceremony. I like all that. I like to see the Army marching about.

The hon. Gentleman said, "Take the British Army away and see what will happen." Well, we need not go back into the past. We all know what happened at the time of Carson and the Ulster Division. I think we can forget the time we call "The Troubles" and think about 1952. There are a lot of things in the history of Ireland that could well be forgotten. [An HON. MEMBER: "The Black and Tans, also."]

The hon. Gentleman said that the King took the land away from the churches. Who gave the land to the churches originally? According to my history book the King gave it to them. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman knows that next Saturday all over the Six Counties of Northern Ireland and many other places in the English-speaking world there will be meetings of thousands or hundreds of thousands of men and women, all meeting to declare their allegiance to the Queen, and also to pass a resolution in detestation of Communism. I suggest that the hon. Gentleman comes with me to Bangor to see the people there. I do not know whether or not he would come on to the platform with me.

It is only a Sunday or two ago that we had the Princess Royal in my constituency. I try to be hard boiled. I try to prevent things affecting me too much. But when I saw that parade of boys and girls and Red Cross nurses before the Princess Royal, it brought a lump to my throat. It always does. It may not affect other hon. Gentlemen on both sides of this Committee. No one is trying to turn them out of the British Empire, but we in Northern Ireland have our enemies who are all the time trying to turn us from allegiance to the Royal Family and to prevent us from living under the Union Jack. It affects us in quite a different way from any other hon. Gentleman or hon. Lady in this Committee.

Mr. Healy

The hon. and gallant Gentleman uses the Union Jack for political purposes. I see it at the bottom of every 12th July Bill.

Sir W. Smiles

I can assure the hon. Gentleman that when I and my friends and brothers join the British Army and serve the King under the Union Jack, we look upon it as an honour and are not thinking about political matters at all. So far as we in Northern Ireland are concerned, we are glad to pay our share of the emoluments that will be given to the Royal Family and we wish the Queen a long life and happiness.

6.49 p.m.

Mr. James Carmichael (Glasgow, Bridgeton)

I hope the Committee will not expect me to enter into a controversy with the people of Northern Ireland, because I think I should come off second best.

My concern tonight is to justify some of the Amendments tabled in the names of my hon. Friends and myself. We are of the opinion that there is undue extravagance in the figures in this Motion. When I look back over a number of past debates on the Civil List I am fortified by the fact that, while I do not stick rigidly to tradition, some of the speeches made in earlier debates justify the attitude I adopt this afternoon.

I shall not argue that I am a republican. An old friend of mine who was an eminent Member of this House, John Wheatley, once said he would never raise one finger to destroy a capitalist monarchy in order to replace it by a capitalistic republic. I accept that. As a matter of fact, reading the speeches of 1937, I gather the leader of the then Opposition accepted that dictum in his approach to this problem when dealing with the Civil List.

I do not accept the idea that we can abolish pageantry, but I think that it is exaggerated. Even the Leader of the Opposition in 1937 argued against its extension. We must not exaggerate it, because the most popular member of the Royal Family at one time abdicated and slipped out in the middle of the night. He was the most popular member of the Royal Family when he was Prince of Wales, and be was made popular because of the attitude of the Press during the period of pageantry. But in less than 48 hours, notwithstanding all the nice things that were said in earlier years about him, he was regarded as quite incompetent to be associated with the decent men and women of the country. [An HON. MEMBER: "That is grossly inaccurate."] What I am saying is perfectly true.

I do not want to elaborate it. I am simply giving an instance of the undue worship of individuals. I have no ill will or personal animosity against any member of the Royal Family. I think the members of the Royal Family, in their ordinary dealings with human beings, will be as decent and kindly as other people and will have all the virtues and vices of ordinary men and women.

In the last 10 years, however, there has been an extension of the pageantry and bunting, and already the trimmings are being prepared for the Coronation as if it were one of the most important things ever to have taken place in this country. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] I am not surprised that hon. Members on the other side of the Committee cheer. If I had had to be directed in my philosophy in life by the attitude of mind of people on the other side, there would not be a Member on this side to make any protest today against the amount of money that is to be spent. Every move that was made by this side through the generations was made under protest from the other side. I remember the speech Keir Hardie made when the Duke of Windsor was born. I remember the abuse he got. Had we succumbed to that, there would have been no Members of any kind on this side.

Let me deal with the pageantry aspect. Our first Amendment—in line 4, leave out "£475,000," and insert "£250,000"—would reduce the Civil List to £250,000. I may be asked how we arrive at that figure. I am not an accountant or an arithmetical expert, but I am entitled to argue I have a stronger case for putting forward that figure than some of the other figures added for some of the other members of the Royal Family.

Why is it that when the Select Committee have already agreed that certain members of the Household can have their expenses charged against the Ministry of Works, we cannot have a quite clear distinction between the Royal Family and their other responsibilities? Every time we try to get the actual figure associated with the Royal Family, we are told that it accounts for all the servants and all the paraphernalia which is associated with the Royal Household.

It is the House of Commons which makes the laws, and surely we are entitled to get a clear distinction as to the salaries required by the Queen and the other members of the Royal Family without adding all the trimmings. But we never get that. Therefore, surely it is time for a complete inquiry into the entire ramifications of the Royal Family and the various costs. We do not get this even in the Report, which gives only a certain amount of information. It is true that the members of the Select Committee had all kinds of papers laid before them. It would be most interesting to know whether they could state quite clearly that they are competent now to examine the entire ramifications of the finances of the Royal Household in detail. I do not think they could do it.

To save time later, I will deal with some of the other Amendments. There is one in line 12, to leave out "£40,000," and to insert "£10,000." It has been suggested that £40,000 should be the income of the Duke of Edinburgh. How was that figure arrived at? I regard the Prime Minister—this, also, was argued by the Leader of the Opposition in 1937—as the most responsible man in our public life. [HON. MEMBERS: "Irresponsible."] I am not talking personally. I am bound to concede that the Prime Minister has a long and distinguished record of public service. If it is necessary that the Duke of Edinburgh should have a salary, it should not be any higher than the £10,000 for the Prime Minister.

Having made that suggestion, the Select Committee have gone to the ridiculous length of providing for the family. I remember the fights we have had in the House about family allowances. It may be said that I am making an extravagant exaggeration of the position, but we are dealing with human beings, and while I do not accept the idea that all these responsibilities can be merged into one, I think there should be some thought of getting rid of the class State which is being perpetuated today. Again, I have in mind what the Leader of the Opposition said in 1937.

Princess Margaret has an income at present of £6,000. If she gets married, we are to add another £9,000. How is that figure arrived at? Who is she likely to marry? Surely, that is a very pertinent question. If any hon. or right hon. Member had a daughter who was getting married, one of the first questions he would ask is, "Who is the person you are going to marry? What are his financial resources?" I am not suggesting that the time may not arrive when, if Princess Margaret is doing public duties, her income may not require to be increased. But we are a little premature in deciding to give an increase of £9,000 when she is married when we have no idea whether she will ever be married. I know, of course, that she is eligible.

To go to the other extreme, the Duke of Cornwall is to have a scale slightly above the family allowances. But then, he is only three years of age. No doubt, he is a very nice, healthy child, whose mother will be delighted, as are all mothers of children of that age, to see him grow up. When he gets to a certain age, there is to be a very big increase in his annual income. Although he is only three years of age, the Committee have also decided that, in the event of his marrying and then dying and leaving a widow, we have to set aside an income for his widow. If he is still the Duke of Cornwall, it will be £30,000. Surely that is carrying the authority of the House of Commons of 1952 a bit too far.

In all probability, with the best will in the world we can argue that it will take at least another 20 years before the young man thinks of marriage. In the event of his dying around the age of 50—which I should not like to happen—this means that we in this House of Commons in 1952 are determining the pension for the year 2000. If that is not abusing the democratic rights of the future, I do not know what it is.

We are protesting against this; we are protesting against the amount of ritual which is going on. It should be reduced. If ever the common people of the area I represent get near to Buckingham Palace, it will be to look through the gates. We want a lot of this expenditure reduced and it could be done. We have a very nice palace in Edinburgh, Holyrood Palace. One of the great problems in Edinburgh, as is common in many big cities, is lack of housing. That palace is empty for the greater part of the year, but it would make a nice place for the decanting people from the slums. I know this suggestion will be regarded as an outrage in certain quarters, but every forward move in the democratic principles has been challenged by the people who have had privilege. I say, therefore, that it is not unsound to use a palace which is empty during the greater part of the year to house the people so that building construction can take place in the evacuated areas.

Yes, the time has arrived when there should be some curtailment of all this ritual and a re-examination of the income which it is proposed to give to the Duke of Edinburgh. There should be some re-examination of the stupid recommendation in regard to the Duke of Cornwall. I hope that tonight we shall have an opportunity of recording our opposition to it. But for the fact that it would be regarded as an act of plagiarism, I could have made the speech which the Leader of the Opposition made in 1937 and would need to add nothing to what he said then. I am convinced the Leader of the Opposition in 1952 will not object to the speech of the Leader of the Opposition in 1937.

7.4 p.m.

Captain J. A. L. Duncan (South Angus)

The hon. Member for Bridgeton (Mr. Carmichael) has introduced a rather jarring note into this debate. At the beginning of his speech, the hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benson) said how quiet this debate was in comparison with debates in previous Parliaments. The hon. Member for Bridgeton asked various questions in discussing the Amendments and I hope that he will do me the honour of listening because I want to try to answer some of the points he raised.

The hon. Member wants to reduce the total of £475,000 to £250,000. I would like to know in greater detail how he proposes to reduce it. He said that none of us who sat on the Select Committee could put our hands on our hearts and say that we knew all the ins and outs of the finance of this business. I am not prepared to say that I know everything about it, but in the course of a number of meetings I think we all found out a great deal and we were given all the information for which he asked. I think, for instance, that the statement on pages 14 and 15 of the Select Committee's Report gives a fairly clear picture of the ramifications of the expenses involved in the court.

The hon. Member referred to the Duke of Edinburgh's £40,000 and asked how we arrived at that figure. The answer is simply that it is the same sum as was allotted to the Consort in the last reign.

Mr. Carmichael

Surely the hon. and gallant Member has a better explanation for giving a sum of money in 1952 than that it is the same as was given to the Consort in 1900.

Captain Duncan

No, in 1937—the Consort in the last reign. I think it is the same figure and, having regard to the difference in the cost of living, it shows in fact that there has been a reduction.

The hon. Member referred to the classless State at which he and some of his hon. Friends were aiming. Here, I must disagree with him. I believe that, inevitably in this country, there will always be classes. What we on this side of the Committee wish to aim at is equality of opportunity for all classes. We are not in favour of a classless State because we do not believe that over any period of history it would last having regard to the virility and enterprise of our people. What we want to see in our philosophy is the greatest opportunity for everyone, wherever he is born, to make the best of his own ability.

The hon. Member referred to Princess Margaret and suggested that she should not get £15,000 on marriage. I think he has already been answered by the hon. Lady the Member for Flint, East (Mrs. White), who approved the recommendation of the Select Committee, basing her approval on the argument that it would give freedom of choice of a husband. That is what the hon. Lady said, not what I say.

Mr. E. Fernyhough (Jarrow)

The hon. and gallant Member said that it answered the point.

Captain Duncan

I think it does; she has gained freedom of choice.

The hon. Member for Bridgeton asked, "Who is she to marry?"; and what the finances of the husband would be. He made play with that sort of thing. This proposal will relieve the Princess of those embarrassing inquiries. She will be able to have a certain freedom of choice. I should like to point this out to the hon. Member, because I think he has in mind that she is bound to, marry a rich man. When she marries she has to set up her own establishment. She cannot live with her sister, the Queen—

Mr. Carmichael

Is that unique?

Captain Duncan

—she will have to leave Buckingham Palace. If she got no more than she is getting now and married a rich man I think these figures are rather interesting as showing what rich men get in these days. I am taking fairly extreme cases. If hon. Members look at the tax tables, submitted at the time of the Budget in the Financial Statement for 1952, they will find that a man whose total income from investments is £15,000 gross—I am taking that as the type of person she is likely to marry—by the time the tax collector has been busy the husband will pay taxes and the net amount left will be £3,500. If he has an invested income of £30,000, after the tax collector has finished with him his total income is £3,900. So that we can say that the difference of £15,000 in gross income is a net increase in income of only £400 and in fact he is still getting less than £4,000 a year.

As we say in the Report, in these days it is impossible for Princess Margaret to marry a man sufficiently rich that after taxes have been paid it would leave her sufficient to live on. I suggest, therefore, that the point of view of the hon. Member for Flint, East, and the facts I have given, justify that under present conditions this £15,000 should be given to Her Royal Highness when she marries.

Regarding the Duke of Cornwall, the hon. Member for Chesterfield tried to suggest that the money from the Duchy of Cornwall was Government money. But the argument breaks down, because everyone is agreed that at the age of 21 the Duke comes into the whole of the money whatever it may be; and the idea that it is Government money until he is 21 and private money afterwards does not seem to support the argument of the hon. Member for Chesterfield.

The hon. Member for Bridgeton talked about the £30,000 for the Duke's widow. At present, that is a very unlikely happening and I hope that that money will never be used. I hope that the circumstances will never arise to make that payment necessary, especially 50 years ahead. But the whole basis of this Report is that the recommendations are based on a long view. I do not want to go into that part of the argument again, because it has been advanced already. We have to look forward to various possibilities, and I think that the Committee was right to consider the unlikely possibiliy of there being a widow of the Duke of Cornwall.

Some hon. Gentlemen opposite seem to think that this is extravagance, but I would call attention to part of paragraph 12 of the Report, bearing in mind the enormous increase in the cost of everything today. We see that the Civil List of King Edward VII, and the Civil List of King George V at the beginning of the last reign were £470,000. We are advocating only £475,000. I admit there has been some change by passing some of the Civil List expenditure to other Votes, the details of which are given lower down in the paragraph. But when we bear in mind the enormous increase in costs, surely it is a reasonable sum to give to Her Majesty in order to support what the majority of the people of this country believe is worth while.

Before I represented South Angus I was the Member for Kensington, North. There was not much difference from the point of view of population between that constituency and the constituencies represented by the hon. Member for Gorbals (Mrs. Cullen) and the hon. Member for Bridgeton. It had the highest slum population when I went there in 1931. I say this because I have sympathy with the point of view of those people and I believe that I understand what those people think. My impression is entirely different from that of hon. Members opposite.

I remember leaving this Palace of Westminster almost immediately after the last Coronation. I was in North Kensington at about 3 o'clock in the afternoon, and I think I visited half a dozen Coronation tea parties. There was real loyalty among them. It was not just as an excuse for a party that the streets were all decorated. It was a real fundamental loyalty that I found among the people of the slum districts on that occasion. I believe that, on the whole, the poor people of this country are more loyal to the Crown than many other people.

I believe that the hon. Member for Bridgeton in putting forward his ideas today is misinterpreting the real, fundamental feeling of his own constituents I hope that he will change his mind about pressing these Amendments. I do not believe they represent the views of his constituents, and certainly they do not represent the views of the people of Scotland.

7.15 p.m.

Mr. Robert Richards (Wrexham)

I am not competent to follow the hon. and gallant Member for Angus, South (Captain Duncan) in the point of view which he has annunciated. I would like with some diffidence to recall the Committee to the fact that what we are discussing after all is not merely these figures. We are really discussing the life of a human family, a family which has great responsibilities. We are particularly anxious that in return for the great responsibilities which they have shouldered the Committee should deal in a generous way with the Royal Family.

The essence of the whole position lies in the conditions under which the Royal Family is asked to exist. After all, that is the strong point of the monarchy, in my opinion. It is not the fact that they live in a Palace, or anything of that kind. They owe very little to all the trappings which are occasionally associated with them. But they do owe everything to the kind of life they are able to lead, and I think our first duty is to secure for all of them the opportunity of leading a full and a rich life.

I can well understand that the man in the street does not understand these figures in the least. I do not think anybady really appreciates them, except some of the minions at the Treasury. They are accustomed to deal with and speak in millions, and, consequently, they find no great difficulty about appreciating what is meant by an income of £475,000. But to the man in the street, or the woman in the home, it is an absolutely fabulous sum. I am particularly sorry that the man in the street or the woman in the home will never read the document which we have had prepared for us.

I think the Select Committee has made a very good job indeed of elucidating some of the more difficult problems which are connected with it. But the one thing that the man in the street and the woman in the home will remember is the grand total at the end of it all. I am afraid that this will have a great psychological effect. People will argue in all kinds of ways. They will forget the details. They will not really understand them. They will not have the opportunity of studying them. The only thing which will remain in the minds of most people is the grand total which we are asked to vote tonight.

There is also another difficulty under which the Royal Family have to live. I never quite understand why we should expect them to live in a white elephant of a place like Buckingham Palace. I think that it is a great injustice. An examination of the figures shows that a great deal of the £450,000 is spent upon Buckingham Palace in keeping it in order, and so on.

I should like to make a simple suggestion. It is that this Palace, just like the Palace we are now in, should be transferred completely to the Lord Great Chamberlain. It should be his concern to see that the Palace is kept in order for ceremonial purposes, as I believe that it is his duty now to a certain extent. The Royal Family should live somewhere else, perhaps at Clarence House, or a more appropriate place if possible, and they should visit Buckingham Palace only on State occasion. They should not be burdened, as they are now, with the cost of keeping that place.

This is a straight-forward suggestion. I do not know whether it carries any weight. I have not consulted anybody. I am merely saying that Buckingham Palace, along with the Palace of Westminster, should be the sole concern of the Lord Great Chamberlain. The Minister of Works, who I am glad to see in his place, should be answerable to the House of Commons for the upkeep of that building, and its cost.

I make that suggestion with a view to simplification. There is a lot of feeling on this side of the Committee that greater simplification of the life of Royalty is necessary. We see from the examples of other countries that the one result of the simplication of the life of Royalty is to bring them into closer contact with the people of the country which they govern. If the Royal Family were able to throw over this octopus, this incubus under which they are living at present, they could live their own little lives in seclusion in a chosen spot in London. They could—and all of us could—as the occasion arose, make use of Buckingham Palace as a centre for State occasions. The Palace should not be left entirely as a burden for the Royal Family to share.

7.24 p.m.

Mr. E. H. C. Leather (Somerset, North)

I confess frankly that I feel myself at a real disadvantage. I hope that I am not committing a breach of Privilege, but I must say that I have found a lot of the discussion we have had not only distasteful but embarrassing. I use those words advisedly.

The hon. Member for Dagenham (Mr. Parker) apparently wanted to know every time the Queen had a bathroom painted, why it was painted and how much it cost. To take a ridiculous analogy, if my employer wanted to know that about me I should use rather rude language in reply.

Mr. William Keenan (Liverpool, Kirkdale)

He does not paint the hon. Gentleman's bathroom for him.

Mr. Leather

The fact is that he pays my salary. I would say that hon. Members opposite are very fortunate that Royalty do not manage to get themselves organised into a trade union. No trade union would put up for one minute with the interference into the private lives of its members which many hon. Gentlemen opposite appear to want. I say that such talk is embarrassing and distasteful and ungrateful.

Mr. George Craddock (Bradford, South)

The hon. Gentleman is talking nonsense.

Mr. Leather

The hon. Gentleman may think so. My disadvantage may be that I come from another part of the Commonwealth. We do not look, either there or in my constituency in Somerset, at the Royal Family as a public institution, in the same way that some Gentlemen opposite seem to do.

I agree with my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Angus, South (Captain Duncan). I do not find the reaction among the coal miners in my constituency to be bitter, envious and jealous, or that they question every penny, as the hon. Member for Bridgeton (Mr. Carmichael) would have us believe. That is a new experience to me.

I once fought a constituency in Bristol which was made up largely of dock workers. I still go there and I know many of them well. I do not remember any of them ever making the kind of criticisms which so many hon. Gentlemen opposite seem to make. I fully support my hon. and gallant Friend. I do not think that these views are representative of the people.

There are two points I wish to make. The hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes) used a phrase which was very dramatic and striking. I can imagine it making wonderful headlines in certain newspapers tomorrow. I think that most of his arguments have been answered, but this one has not been directly. He said that the Chancellor was coming forward here with the greatest wage claim for years—I have forgotten whether he said that it was the greatest for years, for centuries or in history.

That point has been answered by the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition who said if I understood him correctly, that if the expenditure had not been scaled down very considerably this appropriation today would not be £475,000 but over £800,000. To say that that represents a colossal wage claim is scandalously unfair to the Royal Family.

Mr. Emrys Hughes

Can the hon. Gentleman tell me of a bigger one?

Mr. Leather

I can tell the hon. Gentleman a bigger one by mentioning any of the various claims put forward in the last few weeks. But this is not an increase at all: this represents a substantial cut.

Many hon. Gentlemen opposite have said that we must have economy and efficiency. The hon. Member for Flint, East (Mrs. White) rather suggested that the House of Commons should constitute itself into an efficiency committee to look through the Queen's account book and to see that she had not wasted 6d. here or 6d. there. I regard that as not only rather impracticable, but—[HON MEMBERS: "She did not say that."] I am sorry that the hon. Lady is not here. She referred specifically to efficiency and economy. She used the argument in support of her plea for a review every 10 years.

Mr. Ivor Owen Thomas (The Wrekin)

Surely the hon. Gentleman can put forward his argument without caricaturing the observations of other hon. Members. Will he answer this question? Why is it wrong to suggest that in the affairs of the Royal establishments there should be economy, but right to suggest that in every other field of national life?

Mr. Leather

I am simply pointing out that not only does the Report say that there has been every economy but that apparently members on both sides who were on the Select Committee are agreed on that point. When one compares this figure with what it would have been at today's money values, had not drastic economies been made, one can appreciate the truth of the statement that economies have been made. It is ungracious to suggest that very drastic economies can be made when, in fact, there has been virtually a cut of 50 per cent. already.

I listened with great interest and entire agreement to the speech of the hon. Member for Edge Hill (Mr. Irvine). He referred particularly to the position of the Queen as the head of the Commonwealth. Speaking as one who comes from the Commonwealth, I would say that that means a lot to those millions of people who live outside this particular realm of Her Majesty. This expenditure, in my view, is not only reasonable and right, but surely we cannot be too generous in making it possible for Her Majesty and the members of the Royal Family to travel in the various parts of their realm.

Great opportunities were lost before the war because the members of the Royal Family who were then available did not travel as fully as might have been desired throughout the Commonwealth. I do not know whether the contingencies in this Civil List provide for trips and visits of the members of the Royal Family to the Commonwealth, but I hope that that is a point which the Government will keep in mind and that when visits are projected they will make the most generous provision, because the presence of members of the Royal Family in the Commonwealth has a tremendous significance and great importance.

That may not be very materialistic— it may not even be "realistic"—but the Royal Family touches the hearts of ordinary people, be they rich or poor. This appropriation is, I believe, no more than barely adequate for the incomparable service they render to the Commonwealth.

7.32 p.m.

Mr. Victor Yates (Birmingham, Ladywood)

The hon. Member for Somerset, North (Mr. Leather) has displayed complete ignorance of the main line of inspiration which has prompted hon. Members on this side of the House in their criticism of huge expenditure of this kind.

Mr. Leather

To be perfectly frank, I do not understand it.

Mr. Yates

I listened to my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgeton (Mr. Carmichael), and I do not think that in one sentence did he refer to hatred and bitterness. Surely one can examine a question of this kind objectively without that kind of accusation. When the hon. Member for Somerset, North said that he was very sorry that the Royal Family had not a trade union to which to turn I would say this to him: if the members of every trade union in this land could be assured of such generous treatment, there would be no need for any trade unions.

Mr. Leather

I am not conscious of having used the words "hatred" or "bitterness," and I have asked three of my hon. Friends whether I did so. I may have said that I found no bitterness. I did not say that I was sorry that the Royal Family had not a trade union. I suggested what might happen if they had, but I am not sorry about it in the least.

Mr. Yates

I distinctly heard the words "hatred and bitterness," as though hon. Members on this side were inspired by evil motives.

What surprises me in a debate of this kind is when, for instance, the right hon. Member for Blackburn, West (Mr. Assheton), a financial expert, objects to the House examining expenditure in connection with the Royal Family as we would examine expenditure in connection with every other Department of State. I have sat on the House of Commons Select Committee on Expenditure for the last four or five years and I have never known an occasion when we examined expenditure in detail and were not able to find some examples of the need for economy and for the application of new ideas.

The object of this Select Committee was to examine £500,000 worth of expenditure, and less than 10 days were devoted to a matter of such vital importance. I am associated with my hon. Friend the Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes) in moving drastically to reduce this expenditure, and I am not doing so on the ground that the Monarchy is wrong or that a republic is right. I believe that we are expected in these times to examine very carefully expenditure of this nature, and I think that many thousands of pounds can be saved by reducing some of the conventions that require so much money.

I was very interested to read the report of the debate on the last Civil List, particularly the contribution of my right hon. Friend the leader of the Opposition. I should like to quote one or two of his statements, because they fit in with my attitude today. My right hon. Friend said on 24th May, 1937: I do not think it is right that he"— that is, the King— and his family should be always, so to speak, in the public eye. Of late years I think there has been far too much boosting of Royalty in the Press and on the wireless. I do not think it is fair to the Monarchy, and I am sure it is unhealthy for the community. I do not think there has been any diminution of that kind of the publicity. One only has to look back to the funeral of the late King; I think the tendency is rather to exaggerate rather than diminish this form of convention which requires the expenditure of a great deal of money.

My right hon. Friend also referred on that occasion to what he called … the vulgar snobbery of a large section of the Press, perpetually holding up the King and the Royal Family and giving the utmost vulgar kind of publicity that they would give if they were selling some of their own goods."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 24th May, 1937; Vol. 324, cc. 42 and 43.] The time has come when we should reduce considerably the expenditure which adds to the display and pageantry—I am not against pageantry; a certain amount of it is quite good—and which will establish a considerable gulf between the Monarch and the people.

On the last occasion when this matter was discussed my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition did not suggest a large reduction such as proposed by my hon. Friend the Member for South Ayrshire. My right hon. Friend said that the Civil List was opposed as a whole and in its details. I do not oppose it as a whole, but I am certain that the masses of the people in this country from time to time question individual items of expenditure.

I would say to the hon. and gallant Member for Angus, South (Captain Duncan), who said that hon. Members opposite wanted equality of opportunity, that I think that many people in my constituency—especially those who have brought up their families in the 6,000 unhealthy back-to-back houses—will ask whether or not the arrangements which we are now making will render it possible for the average child of the working man to have equality of opportunity with Prince Charles or Princess Anne.

When we were considering it before the war, we were inspired by the idea of a classless State, but one hon. Member opposite has said, "You do not believe in a classless State." Let hon. Members opposite remember that there is a very great danger, in permitting expenditure in this direction, to cause people to have a false conception of what is right and true. There are people in this country who hold fast to the Christian ideal, people who believe that it is possible to achieve a system of God upon earth. I think there is some force in that argument, and I have always thought so, but I do not see how we can move towards such a conception of world citizenship if, in fact, we permit this kind of distinction.

I think that all the trimmings, all the paraphernalia that surrounds the Throne—the glitter which I would say is not gold—should be reduced, so that the people could feel that the Monarch and his family were placed in a position closer to the ordinary people of the land. I think it could be done, and I think that one of my hon. Friends made a very good suggestion earlier about the use of Buckingham Palace.

It is an extraordinary thing that so important a matter as this occupied only nine meetings of the Select Committee, and, as one who has had the opportunity over the last four or five years of examining Estimates in detail, I cannot think how it is possible for a Committee in that short time to have a complete understanding of the whole of the ramifications which these expenses involve. Therefore, I associate myself with the attempt drastically to reduce this expenditure, because I think it is wrong at the present time, when we have asked the people of the country to bear so many burdens, that we should make it so obvious that we have this great distinction in our country.

It may be true that the majority of the people find the monarchy very popular. I think that is true, but I cannot understand why hon. Members opposite should object to the matter being brought forward more frequently before this House of Commons. I should have thought they would have agreed that we might discuss the matter more often. I should have thought that they would not have objected to the matter being raised time and again in this House. I think it was Keir Hardie, who, in the debate on the Civil List in 1910, made this statement: … and if the Crown be so popular, surely the more frequently the nation and the House of Commons have opportunities for showing that popularity the better for all concerned."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 22nd July, 1910; Vol. 19, c. 1675.] I should have thought that this would have been a good opportunity.

Mr. Colegate

Weekly debates? Monthly debates?

Mr. Yates

I would not suggest either a weekly or a monthly debate, but I should have thought that there was no cause whatever for saying that we will not permit any discussion except at the end of the reign, which may be very many years ahead, or for resisting the most reasonable Amendment which my hon. and right hon. Friends have put down for an examination every 10 years.

I would conclude by reminding the Committee of a statement which my right hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield (Mr. Arthur Greenwood) made in a previous debate on the Civil List, because it sums up what I feel today. My right hon. Friend said: In my view it is an offence to the Monarchy, an offence to the idea of kingship, to assume that its dignity can only be maintained by excessive expenditure, excessive splendour and excessive display. … Excessive display, elaborate ceremonial, dressing up on occasions, are barriers to that free play of opinion between the Crown and the cottage, between the palace and the homes of the people."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 27th May, 1937; Vol. 324, c. 458–9.] It is on these grounds, in particular, that I oppose this Motion. On a number of occasions in my own constituency I have had questions put to me as to whether it was right and just for the child of Royalty to be treated in so vastly superior a way to anything that was meted out to the child of ordinary people. I protest at the lack of consideration for this matter. [Laughter.] The hon. Member may laugh, but, if he comes from Birmingham, he will know that there will be many questions asked about this.

It is not a question whether we have Royalty or not, but a question whether we really believe in equal rights of the people when we are removing from the control of the House of Commons the oversight of expenditure of this kind and preventing this matter coming within the purview of the House of Commons in the same way as the expenditure of every other Government Department — the Prime Minister and everybody else—has to do.

I protest that we are perpetuating a class of people who are removed from the masses. It is wrong in principle, but, in time, there will be a change, and I hope and believe that this debate will help to forward public opinion in that connection.

7.48 p.m.

Mr. Ronald Bell (Bucks, South)

The hon. Member for Ladywood (Mr. Yates) referred to the debate on the Civil List in 1937, and, in substance but not in fact, he reminded me of a speech made by Lord Brougham in opposing the Civil List in 1837, when he advanced precisely the same reasons as the hon. Gentleman has put before the Committee today; namely, that the Bill which was put forward had had inadequate consideration, and that Parliament was not retaining full and detailed control of expenditure by the Royal establishment. Those arguments did not commend themselves to the House in those days, and I do not think they will commend themselves to the Committee now.

It is indeed desirable that the House of Commons should retain a general control of the amount of expenditure upon the monarchy, but I think it would be quite unsuitable that either this House or a Select Committee of the House should attempt to lay down in any detail the lines which it thought that expenditure should take. Why, after all, do we vote these sums to the Crown? Do we not assume that there is a reasonable Royal discretion as to the way in which the money should be expended? Is this House really the best judge of the precise manner of spending and the precise estimation of how much of the total sum should be devoted to each particular purpose? Why should the House of Commons be the most suitable or even the best judge of matters of detail of that kind?

Might it not appropriately be remembered that the sum which we are proposing to vote—the total sum—for the Civil List, as a charge upon the Consolidated Fund, is substantially less than half the amount of the surrendered hereditary revenues which are, of course, surrendered upon the condition that this House of Commons makes other provision for the sustenance of the Royal honour and dignity?

I suggest that the hon. Gentleman's approach to this whole matter is misconceived, and that he in no way interprets the general attitude of the country towards it. He based himself primarily, I think, upon the general argument that there should be equality, and that poor people should not have before them the spectacle of an elevated style of living surrounding the monarchy. There again I venture to differ from him on fundamental principle. If he considers the significance of his argument he will realise that it would follow from it that we should never build cathedrals until we had raised the standard of all cottages; that in no department of human activity would we spend money upon what might be called luxuries until we had raised the level of necessities.

That is a doctrine which would have deprived the human race of its greatest works of art, of the highest expression in solid form of the human spirit, until some mythical last generation came ino being; because the understanding of what is necessary, and what is a reasonable standard of life, is a constantly shifting conception which goes up with each generation. That doctrine is one which has never been accepted by the human race in any society at any time. Always we have been willing to put aside a certain amount of money for expenditure upon matters which might be considered luxuries, even though we realised that side by side with them there existed in the world want and poverty.

I suggest to the hon. Gentleman, who supports certain Amendments which have been put down, that he would be performing a disservice, both to his constituents, to the country and to the causes for which he so sincerely stands, if he suggested that the splendour and dignity of the monarchy should be reduced in order to gratify what he believes, wrongly I am sure, to be the feelings upon this matter of the poorer sections of the community.

7.53 p.m.

Mr. S. P. Viant (Willesden, West)

As a Member of the Select Committee which bears some responsibility for the Civil List I should have been exceedingly sorry had I not been given the opportunity of speaking in this debate. I should have probably felt that I had been cowardly, more especially in view of the criticisms which have been levelled at our proposals, had I not been prepared to stand up in this Committee and express at least my own point of view.

Since I have been a Member of this House this is the third occasion upon which a Civil List has been introduced, and on every occasion keen controversy has been aroused. I want to direct the attention of the Committee to what might be called our terms of reference. We were requested to prepare a Civil List, and to prepare a report for the House of Commons, making proposals whereby the Royal Household might be maintained.

I start with this fact in my mind, that the monarchy as an institution is accepted by this country. There is no gainsaying that. Indeed, I think that the monarchy is more firmly entrenched in the minds of the people today than it has been at any time during my lifetime. I think that was contributed to very largely by the manner in which the late King was able to enter into the homes of the people as a result of his broadcasts.

The monarchy being an accepted institution, as it is today, the Select Committee was entrusted with the responsibility of preparing ways and means for its continuation. I say quite candidly to my hon. Friends who have been critical, that in the time at our disposal we made all the investigation we possibly could. We had before us the authorities responsible for expenditure, we questioned them, and they went back and brought further information. The Chancellor of the Exchequer provided us, through his agency, with innumerable facts and information in order to assist us.

Mr. Emrys Hughes

Did the Committee have power to call witnesses?

Mr. Viant

The Committee were in a position to, and did, call all the witnesses they desired.

Mr. Hughes

Did they have the power?

Mr. Viant

Power? Certainly we had the power, and we had the witnesses before us. If the hon. Gentleman reads our Report he will see the names of the witnesses we had before us. We questioned them as much as we desired to question them. I will not say that had we had further time we would not have been able to proceed very much further than we did, but at least we were satisfied that considerable economies had already been effected by the late King. He called in expert advisers on the Palace, acted upon their advice, and economies were effected as a result. Therefore, I, personally, make no apology for the work of that Select Committee.

We were not charged in our terms of reference with the responsibility of eliminating any form of ceremony. I am prepared to agree with many of my colleagues that a great deal of this ostentatious display could be dispensed with. But that was not our business. If that kind of thing is to be disposed of, we should have a special committee for the purpose to make recommendations about what kind of ceremonies should be retained and what kind should be dispensed with. We were charged with the responsibility of making a report on how to maintain the monarchy as an accepted institution, and nothing further. If anything further is to be done in that regard there will have to be a special committee for the purpose.

Speaking candidly for myself, I agree with much that has been said about the desire for simplicity, and if any words of mine carry any weight I would make an appeal here and now to the Royal Household that, in view of the manner in which they are regarded by our people, the respect that is shown to them would gain in weight and influence by the Household itself adopting a measure of greater simplicity. Further than that we cannot and could not go because it was not within our terms of reference.

It is true that the sum proposed may appear to be an enormous sum to the average man in the street, but if it is to be reduced it will not be by the methods suggested by my hon. Friend the Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes). He has simply thought of a sum and put it down in his Amendment. He has charged us with not bringing forward a figure of precision. If he brings that charge against us as a Select Committee he is equally imprecise. If he seeks to back his figure he must produce the evidence to show that the present institution can be maintained on that sum of money.

Mr. Emrys Hughes

When I put forward a figure of £250,000 I am suggesting a ceiling of expenditure. There is a precedent for that in other expenditure for which we fix a ceiling. If I were appointed to a committee I should certainly be able to make constructive suggestions as to how a family could exist on £250,000.

Mr. Viant

It is rather a pity that we did not have my hon. Friend on the Committee. We realise now what we missed. It was one of his suggestions that his hon. Friend the Member for Gorbals (Mrs. Cullen) should be appointed to the Select Committee, and I can assure him that she did her best. I regret that you did not accept that responsibility. We should have given you a welcome there.

The Deputy-Chairman (Mr. Hopkin Morris)

I have no responsibility.

Mr. Viant

I beg your pardon, Mr. Hopkin Morris.

None the less it is no use the hon. Member for South Ayrshire putting down a figure unless he is prepared to show why that should be the figure and to show that it is at least a figure adequate to maintain the institution as we know it at present. If it is sought to go further it can only be done by setting up a Select Committee for the purpose of devising ways and means of cutting out a good deal of ceremonial.

There is on the Order Paper an Amendment, to which I have put my name, for the purpose of postponing the occasion when an amount shall be fixed in the event of a daughter or daughters of the Queen getting married. I and many of my hon. Friends on the Select Committee considered—and we moved an Amendment to that effect in that Committee—that that should be a matter for Parliament in the future and that we should not decide it now. To say that a salary of £6,000 should be increased to £15,000 on marriage without knowing the circumstances at that time is entirely wrong.

The same applies to many of the other proposals. We did our best on the Select Committee to put our point of view, but, unfortunately, we were in the minority in many instances. But our Amendments are on the Order Paper and I hope that those of my hon. Friends who have been so critical of the proposals now before this Committee will be able to support us in the Lobby when our Amendments are moved later.

I am pleased to have had the opportunity of stating my point of view as a member of the Select Committee. I have emphasised the restricted terms of reference on which we had to work; and I have indicated what might be done in the future if it is desired to cut out a great deal of the ceremonial, as I hope will be done.

8.4 p.m.

Mr. Raymond Gower (Barry)

I am very glad to be able to make some contribution to the debate, as two hon. Members from the Principality have already delivered balanced and loyal addresses on the subject. It seems that in the Principality there is not the same controversy on the subject as there is in Scotland and in Northern Ireland. It has been said in this debate that the modern tendency is for the kings and queens of the world to depart. I suggest that if that is even partially true, where they have departed some most peculiar and dangerous monsters have appeared in their places during recent years.

We have found that the respect and affection with which the monarchy is regarded—which has been described by the hon. Member for Willesden, West (Mr. Viant)—has been due to circumstances not only here but in other countries where there are monarchies. We have seen how by sheer experience many hon. Members who possibly entered the House of Commons years ago as ardent republicans have slowly come to the conviction that the monarchy has a peculiar virtue in a Commonwealth of the kind of which we are a part.

We realise, too, that a monarchy as an institution is something more than the convenient form which was suggested by the hon. Member for Dagenham (Mr. Parker). He regarded it as merely the most convenient form of carrying out part of our system of government. To most of us, not merely on this side of the Committee but on all sides, the monarchy is more than a convenient form; it is something alive.

We all well remember how during the war there were occasions when the late King visited bombed sites. In those visits there was something more real and possibly more affecting to the people who were concerned in injuries and damage from bombing than there would have been if they had been visits made by a mere politician. A politician might have had some other reason for paying a visit, such as merely having his photograph appear in the newspapers. The visit of the monarch was something wonderful for those people.

The monarchy is, in the first place, a living symbol. We also know that it is an important part of our own constitution; and it has been truly described as the corner-stone of the Commonwealth. No other institution could fulfil its functions so well. I suggest that something so wonderful and unique cannot be obtained at a cut price. It is something that we must not expect to have easily. It has been pointed out already in this debate that, contrary to the general tendency today, there has been a very real practice of economy in the Royal Household. If I may say so, we have as a part of our constitution and a vital part of our Commonwealth something which is obtained for a very reasonable charge indeed.

I am most grateful to the Leader of the House for signifying that in principle he is accepting the Amendment in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham (Sir E. Keeling) and other hon. Friends, to which I have put my name, to delete the provision that the aggregate of the pensions granted in a financial year shall not exceed £2,500 a year. It is true that my right hon. Friend has accepted it in terms slightly different from the terms used on the Order Paper, but I am sure that I am not speaking only for myself in saying that we are grateful for that acceptance.

I believe there is a general feeling that the Committee should accept the figures which have been put before us. I think the term of 10 years is a reasonable one, because while we should be generous in our conception of the proposals, the proposals should be generous in time as well as in scope. We should not regard the monarch in the way that the hon. Member for Dagenham suggested, as an employee or Minister, and provision for the monarch should be made for a longer term than for a Minister. In these few words I have great pleasure in supporting the proposals made for the Civil List.

8.10 p.m.

Mr. E. Fernyhough (Jarrow)

The difficulty in taking part in a debate of this kind is that if one stresses what is not a too popular point of view, one is always accused of being violently anti-Royalty and of making attacks on people who cannot come to the House of Commons and defend themselves.

Several hon. Members opposite have seemed during the course of this debate to resent that in this House, where men are free to speak their minds, one word of criticism should be uttered about the Civil List. They have said that, of course, we do not represent the vast majority of the people in the country. If that be so, if the point of view we express is so unpopular, I say that all the more credit is due to us for having the courage to express it. It is becoming a very difficult task, even in democratic countries, to express a minority point of view in certain places.

Therefore, I hope that hon. Members who have taken that line will understand that those of us who are critical of this Civil List proposal are in no way envious of the Royal Family, have no animosity and no hatred towards them. I do not in my heart feel hatred for any man, not even for the worst Members on the Opposition benches — [Laughter.] — I mean on the opposite benches, and I have certainly more reason to detest them than I have to detest the Royal Family.

Let us consider what is taking place in this country. We hear plea after plea by the Chancellor to remember that we are living in perilous times, that we are engaged in a terrible "battle of the gap," that unless workers are restrained in their wage claims, unless everybody tightens his belt and makes sacrifices—unless all these things are done, the country will go bankrupt and that will be the end. That is so real a danger that we know that within the party opposite there is now a great struggle going on between those who support the Chancellor and those who support the Prime Minister about whether economic solvency or military security shall have priority.

That is the position which faces the country. That being so, what is the psychological effect upon the man in the mine, the man in the engineering factory, the man on the farm, when he sees grants of this magnitude being paid to certain members of the Royal Family? It is the engineers, the miners, the men in the fields and factories, who will pull this country through this crisis if it is to get through the crisis. These are the men to whom we should at all times be looking. These are the men whom we can least afford to upset. Whatever people may say about the vast majority of the working-class people being in favour of this Civil List, I do not believe that we should be able to collect it so easily if we had to collect it from them individually. As a matter of fact, I know we should not.

It has been said that we must have this expenditure because of the pageantry which the British people love—as though there would not be any pageantry if we did not have this Civil List. If hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite want to see a real pageant—

Squadron Leader A. E. Cooper (Ilford, South)

We are looking at one now.

Mr. Fernyhough

I am delighted that I am so pleasing to the hon. and gallant Member, and if that is so I will continue for longer than I had intended, and occupy a little longer time than hon. Members may like.

I say that if they want to see a real pageant let them come to Durham on the 26th of this month. Let them see the Durham miners' gala if they want pageantry, if they want to see the streets so thickly lined that all traffic has to be stopped. Of course, nobody believes that there would be no pageantry and colour in the lives of the people if we had to cut down this proposed provision, because people will at all times make their own pageantry.

To an overwhelming extent this pageantry is enjoyed only by a very small part of the country. [An HON. MEMBER: "Not with television."] Durham people have to pay for this pageantry, which they are not able to see. An hon. Member interjects "Television." In that respect, the North-East has been terribly neglected. As a matter of fact, I should be delighted if the Chancellor would accept the argument which the hon. Member is advancing and say that what would be saved by my hon. Friend's Amendment will be devoted to establishing television resources for the North-East.

Mr. R. A. Butler

Will the hon. Member allow it to be sponsored or not?

The Deputy-Chairman

I hope that neither side of the Committee will go far into the question of television.

Mr. Fernyhough

It is a weakness of mine, Mr. Hopkin Morris, that I am led away by hon. and right hon. Gentlemen who ought to know better.

Let us see where there can be a cutting down. Does anybody really think it necessary, in order that the Royal Family may lead useful and dignified lives, for them to have Buckingham Palace, Balmoral, Sandringham, Holyrood, Windsor and so on. Is it really necessary to have these places manned and serviced all the time, as they are. [Interruption.] Presumably somebody is there. If the place is shut up and there are no gardeners and caretakers there—

An Hon. Member

Who said that there were not?

Mr. A. Woodburn (Clackmannan and East Stirlingshire)

All I can say, so far as Balmoral is concerned, is that it is a national monument. It is used at certain times but it is open at other times to the general public, who visit it.

Mr. Fernyhough

But presumably there have to be all these servants. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Do they help themselves? Are there no servants when they have these parties? Is there a cafeteria? I should like to know.

Let me put it this way. I do not believe that the average man in the street thinks it necessary for there to be all these Royal Palaces. I am quite sure—and hon. Members opposite were so critical about housing when we were in power—that many people felt it was undesirable for the Royal Family to have all these establishments to which they could go at a time when thousands of people had not a roof of their own over their heads.

It would have been very useful, after all the destruction that took place during the war, when factories, schools and hospitals were bombed, had a recommendation been made so that these places could have been turned into residential colleges or hospitals—and there would still have been no housing problem for the Royal Family.

Let us look at something else. The Royal Family is supposed to represent the whole nation. Is it necessary for them to have to go through the circus performance through which they have to go every year at Ascot? How many miners and engineers are there at Ascot? Why is Ascot the place where the Royal Family should be on parade, as it were, every year? The same applies to the garden parties. If there is any necessity for the garden parties—

Mr. Ellis Smith (Stoke-on-Trent, South)

It is not only Conservative Members of Parliament who attend.

Mr. Fernyhough

It can never be said that I have attended; I am free from reproach in that respect. Most of the people who go to the Royal garden parties and functions are drawn from a very limited section of the community.

Mr. Dudley Williams (Exeter)

The hon. Member for Sparkbrook (Mr. Shurmer) is going to tomorrow's party.

Mr. Fernyhough

I am not disputing that. But I wonder how many miners, engineers, road sweepers and farm labourers will be there tomorrow. The hon. Member must remember that there are far more of them than there are Members for Sparkbrook. It was said that we had to grant these amounts in order to ensure a decent education for Prince Charles and to see that the Princess was sufficiently provided for when she married. Is not that rather insulting? I acknowledge that the State has always said that if people get married they are entitled to more. In 1948 we fixed unemployment benefits at 26s. and we said that if a man got married it should be increased to 42s.

The Deputy-Chairman

The hon. Member is travelling a good deal wider than the Motion on the Order Paper.

Mr. Fernyhough

Surely I am entitled to draw an analogy?

Mr. M. Turner-Samuels (Gloucester)

On a point of order. Is it really fair to mention just one hon. Member when, for instance, I and quite a number of hon. Members on this side of the Committee are not only going to the garden party but are pleased and honoured to be able to do so?

Mr. Fernyhough

If my hon. Friend is upset about it, I am sorry. What I am saying is that we introduced a principle so far as the general body of the people was concerned. We established a National Insurance scheme and under that scheme we provided that an unemployed man should get 26s. a week and, if he got married, that amount would be increased to 42s. The same principle applied to anyone who was sick.

What I cannot understand is that if we accept that on a percentage basis, why should there be this great difference between the allowances which members of the Royal Family receive when they are single and when they get married. If I were going to be the husband of a Princess I should be ashamed if I could not keep her. [An HON. MEMBER: "You have no hope."] If hon. Members were to see my wife they would know that she is the finest lady in the land, not excluding Princesses.

There is one other point which I hope the Chancellor will try to deal with, because it is important. An hon. Member opposite said that a man with an income of £15,000 from investments receives only £3,500 today, and if he has an income of £30,000 he receives only £3,900. What is the tax allowance on these Royal incomes? Are they subject to ordinary tax or are special allowances made to such an extent that no tax is paid? I am told that they are taxable. I am glad to receive that information.

It has been said that the monarchy has departed from many countries but is more firmly established here than ever before, I agree with that. I want it to continue; but I believe that the monarchy would be more firmly cemented if the lives of members of the Royal Family accorded more with those of the majority of the people. The more they represent the vast majority of the people the more they understand the way the people live, the way they feel and what they do, the more secure the monarchy will become.

For that reason, I think that what my hon. Friend is trying to do is to protect the monarchy from those who, due to lack of understanding or failure to appreciate history, might eventually bring our own monarchy into the same disrepute among the majority of the people as that into which it has fallen in many other countries. It is because it has fallen into disrepute that it has had to be abolished.

I am sure that nobody in this Committee or many people in the country would want that to happen. I believe that if the ideas that I have tried to express—probably inarticulately and not very clearly—were embodied in the Civil List, and the lives of the Royal Family were brought more into accord with those of the majority of the people over whom they reign, it would be a far better thing. But I have never taken the line that they need all this money in order to lead dignified lives, because some of the most dignified people I know are poor people. As a matter of fact, if anybody ever talked to me about dignity and money being synonymous, I should tell him that it was nonsense, because the most dignified person in this world, in my opinion, is my own mother—and she was never more than one week's rent removed from the workhouse.

I do not accept the argument that it is necessary, if the Royal Family is to be respected, loved, admired and cherished, for it to live high up in the clouds and far removed from the people. The more it develops a kinship with the people the closer it gets to the people the more its members live the lives of the people, the more secure its future is.

8.27 p.m.

Mr. William Keenan (Liverpool, Kirkdale)

I wish to make only one or two short points, because what has been said has been well said. One point has already been fairly well ventilated, but I think it needs some emphasis. I do not think it is a reasonable thing to make provision as far ahead, as has been done here.

Some of the criticism that we have had today has been about something that was done a long time ago. A future Parliament may feel that what we are doing today is wrong, and it may not have an opportunity to alter it. To make provision in the way we have done for the Heir Apparent is something that ought not to be done by any Parliament. I hope it will be a long time before the child has the opportunity of becoming the Monarch.

I did not want to see the least change in our monarchy. I met the late King on several occasions and I was very sorry when he passed away. I do not want to see any change in our system, republican though I have always been; I would not change what we have for any of the other republics in the world. However, in this matter we should not make provision so far ahead. We make provision for the wife of this boy when he becomes a man, and that is much too far ahead for us to do anything usefully and properly.

A good deal has been said about the amount in the Civil List being very great. It is nearly £500,000. But I would remind the Committee that this is only the Queen's Civil List and that it does not contain the amounts paid to the other members of the Royal Family. We must remember that we have two Queen Mothers who get £70,000 a year each. There are all the other members of the Royal Family who are not contained in the List. I do not think that this Civil List contains the amount for the Prince Consort. We should not forget that the total amount involved is not the small amount imagined by some hon. Members who have given the Civil List their full support.

I thought the Chancellor of the Exchequer was out of stride when he talked about the cost of living being reflected in figures like these in the Civil List. That was stretching things too much. We cannot talk about difficulties of the cost of living in regard to the Civil List. I could understand it in regard to somebody's basic wage rate, but not in regard to these amounts. I do not think that the Chancellor had any justification for talking about the cost of living, for I do not think it has any real application.

I share the view that we should be simpler in our approach to these matters. There is no necessity, nowadays at any rate, to perpetuate the old system of keeping the Royal House so far removed from the rest of the community.

8.33 p.m.

Mr. Ivor Owen Thomas (The Wrekin)

I had no intention originally of taking part in the debate, but I have been prompted to do so by the tone of some contributions by hon. Members opposite. It is clear to me that there is a tendency for certain hon. Members opposite to deal with a problem of this kind in an entirely different manner from that in which they deal with comparable problems concerning other people, such as those affected by the Government's Pensions (Increase) Bill.

I am a member of Standing Committee A which is considering the Bill. To draw attention to the different values that the Government and their supporters have in matters of this kind, I would merely refer hon. Members to the Second Schedule to the Bill, which lays down the proposed increases in the pensions of people previously in Government and other public services. The figures do not run into thousands or hundreds of thousands; they hardly reach tens. The table reads:

Time of beginning of pension	Annual rate where pensioner is married or has at least one dependant	Annual rate where pensioner is unmarried and has no dependants
	£	£
Before 1st April, 1948	26	20

That is the top rate in the table of increases, and during the year ended 31st March that amount goes down to the fabulous sum of £6 per year where the pensioner is married or has at least one dependant, and £4 a year where the pensioner is unmarried and has no dependant. If that is not thinking and acting in two separate, water-tight compartments, I do not know what is.

I drew that comparison to underline the fact that here we are dealing with a set of circumstances entirely removed from the ordinary facts of life with which generally we deal in Parliament. Our Amendment, which is a modest and reasonable one, suggests that there should be a review of the Civil List every 10 years. Is that not reasonable? We say that we should not finally and completely leave the Civil List for a period which might go on for 20, 30, 40 or 50 years without review. That is not the usual way in which Governments conduct their business. On all ordinary expenditure there is an annual review and an opportunity is given to consider the whole field of Government expenditure. A responsibility is laid upon Government and Parliament as to how the revenue is spent during any year.

There are features of these proposals now before the Committee which demand serious and careful examination. In the first place, there are cobwebs attached to these arrangements which could be swept away. We are still carrying on practices which have arisen over the past two centuries. The Duchy of Cornwall is a case in point. In fact, the whole basis of the Civil List—in this case the Queen's Civil List—should be considered with a view to altering fundamentally the remuneration, support and sustenance of the Royal Household.

Some of the Members supporting the Government in today's debate have taken objection to the comparisons made between the incomes of ordinary people and the huge amounts proposed in the Civil List to extend over an unlimited period. That only emphasises the point that I made earlier, that hon. Members seem to think in two separate water-tight compartments when they deal with a matter of this kind.

The financing of the Civil List needs serious overhaul. I make no apology for the last Government, although the occasion for making this provision in the Civil List did not occur in the lifetime of the two Labour Governments. This is the first occurrence since the Accession of His late Majesty. On that occasion, no suggestion was made, so far as I can gather, of a radical review or alteration of the whole basis of payment and sustenance of the Royal Household.

Why have not the Members of the House of Commons considered seriously altering the payment and the support of the Royal Establishments to the basis common to every other Government service? Instead of making this all-in provision in the Civil List, providing thousands of pounds for every member of the Royal Family and hundreds of thousands in support of a vast Household service, we should place it under the direct control of the House of Commons from year to year, and it should be provided for in the Budget like every other public expenditure.

I suppose it is too late for anything like that to be done now, so I only throw out the suggestion. I see no reason why, in the years that lie ahead, the Government of the day should not examine the whole basis of this system and seek to put it upon a much more healthy and sound financial basis.

Another aspect of the matter has occurred to me while I have been listening to the greater part of the debate. I offer these comments especially to hon. Members on the Government side of the Chamber who repeatedly refer to the fact that the monarchy pertains not only to this country but to the Commonwealth and Empire. That fact should not only be stated but fully realised and acted upon by the Government of this country and by the Governments of the other countries in the Commonwealth and Empire. Would not all those other countries welcome the opportunity of sharing the expenditure of the Royal Household and making it in fact as well as in name the monarchy of the Commonwealth and Empire? I am sure that Canada, Australia and New Zealand would welcome that opportunity.

It would be possible on such a basis for a greater integration to take place in the functioning of the separate parts of the Commonwealth and Empire, each paying its part, as well as playing its part, in the general life and activity of this huge community, this family of nations, which is spread right around the world. If that were done, all the bickerings, all the acrid and arid criticisms often made on occasions of this kind would be eliminated. There would be co-operation which would probably be unequalled throughout the world, and it would make the monarchy far more a monarchy of a world Commonwealth and Empire than it is at the present time.

We find it difficult in this country and in this Parliament to learn new habits of thought and new ways of life. There is some virtue in sticking to old things, provided, of course, that those old things are good things. But some old things are bad things and the sooner we get rid of them, the better for ourselves and for everyone else concerned. I suggest there is about this paraphernalia of the financing of our monarchy a mass of cobwebs and of meaningless tradition which ought to be swept away. In other words, we want some speedy rationalisation as much in this field of Government administration as in any other field.

I will content myself for the remainder of my remarks with drawing attention to one important feature of the provisions. I mentioned earlier that I have been upstairs with my colleagues of Standing Committee A dealing with increases of pensions. I suggest that the lavish provisions made in the Government's proposals in respect of the Duke of Cornwall are entirely out of place. After all, is there not enough revenue going into the Royal Household without making special provision for the Duke of Cornwall to the extent of the ninth part of the total revenues per annum of the Duchy of Cornwall? The Duke of Cornwall—

Mr. Ellis Smith

Who is the Duke of Cornwall?

Mr. Thomas

We hope ultimately that he will be the Prince of Wales. That financial provision is for a junior now aged, I think, three and a half. What I am pointing out is that the special provision made by the Government in this particular case means that by the time the person for whom the provision is made reaches 18 years of age, he will have been allocated a sum of money in the neighbourhood of £117,000. At the age of 18, his annual income will be no less than £30,000 a year. Therefore, by the time he is 21, he will already have received many times the amount that a Prime Minister would receive by continuing in office for 20 or 30 years. Is there any real comparison of rewards for services rendered in such figures? I suggest that they make comparison altogether ridiculous.

I therefore contend, and I think it is a feeling that is fairly widely held, not only on this side, but fundamentally by Members on the opposite side—

Hon. Members

No.

Mr. Frederic Harris (Croydon, North)

Keep to your own side.

Mr. Thomas

We are to assume, then, that all Members on the other side agree that it is appropriate for one person, because he happens to be a member of the Royal Family, to receive in annual sums some hundreds of thousands of pounds by the time he attains the age of 21, and for the last three years before attaining his majority to receive £30,000 per annum.

Every Member of the House gets £1,000 a year. I suggest, without exaggeration or any claim that we are exceptional people, that we perform a decent job of work for the money that we receive. We get the rate for the job. Is it not absurd to suggest that for this particular individual—[Interruption.]—although, as one of my hon. Friends says, he is a lovely little boy—the reward for services should attain such ridiculous, astronomical proportions?

I am confident that if any Members of the Opposition went to any industrial town or village and talked about payments of this kind and asked the people, who have grown up from childhood in the last 25 years in those previously depressed areas, whether there was any justice in the action of the Government in proposing a payment of this kind, they would be laughed out of court.

By comparison, the Government deal with the mass of the people, on whom we depend for our livelihood and our national revenue—the people who do the work of the world—entirely differently, in a state of parsimonious saving that is a discredit to Members opposite and to those who supported previous Tory Governments between the wars.

I say to the Committee finally—[Interruption.]—I apologise for nothing that I have said, because I think that some of these things need saying in order to give some indication that some of us, at least, have some real sense of values in this country. I ask supporters of the Government, who gladly support proposals of the kind to which I have drawn particular attention, how they justify their means test career during the years between the two wars, when they had power, and when the characteristics of most of our industrial areas were the queue outside the employment exchange, and the hunger marchers toiling miles and miles from all the industrial areas to London to call attention to their terrible plight. What did they have—generosity, fair treatment, fair play, £30,000 a year? No, they were driven back and had to stay there. It is a tragic thought, but a real fact, that a war had to come before some of them had a chance of a decent job.

Mr. Dudley Williams

Is not this rather irrelevant to the matter under discussion?

The Chairman

The hon. Member for The Wrekin (Mr. I. O. Thomas) said, "finally" and I am hoping that this is his peroration.

Mr. Thomas

I shall not trouble hon. Members on the Government benches very much longer. I know that I have rather riled them and made them think, I hope a little more deeply than they are inclined to think sometimes about many of these things. These comparisons which I have sought to make bring out in bold relief the utter hypocrisy, in many aspects, of many supporters of the Government relating to their attitude to things as they affect the masses of the people and things as they affect a comparatively small number of people. In one case they deny bare justice; in the other case they are lavish and they pour it out. There is absolutely no limit to their generosity in that case.

I call attention to that underlying contradiction in the whole philosophy of our opponents and I hope that when the time comes, which I trust will not be very much delayed, the electors of this country will show without any hesitation or doubt that they have had enough of their present rulers and seriously and definitely want a change.

8.59 p.m.

Mr. William Hamilton (Fife, West)

I agree with a great deal of what my hon. Friend the Member for The Wrekin (Mr. I. O. Thomas) has said. An hon. Member coming from an industrial area geographically remote from London does not feel the same—nor, indeed, can feel the same—towards the Royal Family as one born and bred in London who, in the main, has enjoyed the wealth created by the industrial north.

I believe that there is a fundamental difference between the attitude of the people coming from the north and from Scotland towards the Royal Family and the attitude of people living in the south, in England, who, because of physical and geographical reasons, are in much closer contact with the Royal Family. I can say that with a fair measure of accuracy, because I was born and bred in Durham and I am now living in the south. I can see and feel the difference in the attitude, the difference in the regard for the Royal Family, between the north and the south.

I believe that in the main it is a physical barrier which is created between the people in the north and the Royal Family. But my immediate criticism of this Civil List is that in addition to that physical barrier there is created, or intensified, an economic barrier. I believe that anything which increases the barrier between the Royal Family and the masses of the people, in a country which pretends to be democratic, is fundamentally wrong. Indeed, in these times I believe it is a psychological blunder to increase the Civil List at all, by however small an amount.

After all, we naturally cast our minds back to the General Election, when one of the great promises was that the Conservatives, when they got back into power, would cut State extravagance. I believe they have done that rather well. Anyway, they have cut State expenditure, I would not call it extravagance. But here we have a case where there was a splendid opportunity of creating an atmosphere, of giving a lead to the workers of the country and giving them some encouragement to follow the advice of the Chancellor in the application of a wage freeze.

I wish to say, frankly, in answer to the hon. Member for Somerset, North (Mr. Leather), who said that he had found no evidence of bitterness or hatred among the miners he had met, that I share that experience. There is no hatred or bitterness among the miners in West Fife. But they are very puzzled. We are told that we are on the verge of bankruptcy, and yet we have given to an old lady—a dignified old lady, I agree—£70,000 a year—old Queen Mary, and I have the greatest respect for the old lady.

But where is the defence? Where is the defence for giving an old lady £70,000 a year on the one hand, and telling old age pensioners that, because of the economic circumstances of the country, we can only give them 2s. or 3s.? There is no logic in that position at all. I shall go back to West Fife and tell them that I cannot, and I will not, support a Civil List of this character.

9.4 p.m.

Mr. Hugh Gaitskell (Leeds, South)

Although disagreements have been expressed, I think we can at least agree on two things, and I do not think that anybody who has spoken from either side of the Committee has said anything to the contrary. Those two things are that we in this Committee believe in a constitutional monarchy as an institution, and secondly, that we are profoundly aware of the personal popularity of the present Royal Family. I think that is common ground, and I would like to add just two things about these points of agreement.

It is enormously important that the ceremonial, the colour, the pageantry, and so on, which has been referred to this evening on a number of occasions, should be associated not with those who hold the political power for the time being but with the head of the State who is above the political battle. We have seen what can happen in other countries when ceremonial and pageantry is associated with those who hold political power. Since people like pageantry—and there is not really very much disagreement on that; some of my hon. Friends perhaps take a different view—it is most important that the liking for it should be indulged in in this sort of way rather than in the other sort of way.

It is not necessary for me to emphasise the popularity of the Royal Family. We are all aware of the tremendously heavy burdens that they carry in the way of attending functions of one kind and another all over the country. I think also we could agree that their popularity, as one of my hon. Friends said, is probably greater than it has ever been before, what is in no small part due to the work they have done in that way during the past 15 years.

Let us not under-estimate this popularity abroad as well as at home. We have only to consider what an appalling loss it would be to our country if we did not have a popular monarchy as we have it at the moment to realise that the Royal Family are in a true sense a great national asset. When I use the word "abroad" I mean, of course, the Commonwealth, but I do not limit this to the Commonwealth. We have seen how extraordinarily well received were the late King and the Queen Mother, and Her Majesty and the Duke of Edinburgh on their travels in France and America.

In saying that, I should like to disagree with something said by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Blackburn, West (Mr. Assheton) and one or two other hon. Gentlemen opposite. I do not think that one should approach this problem on the basis of a kind of barter between the Monarch on the one side and Parliament on the other. I do not agree with the argument that because at one time the King gave up revenues derived from Crown Lands, amounting in all at present to more than the Civil List, we can therefore say that we have done a good bargain.

I do not think that one can deny that the revenues not only of the Crown Lands but also of the Duchy of Cornwall, for instance, are really public revenues. I am fairly sure that the Royal Family would not wish to contest that argument. I should have thought that it was far better to approach the problem not on the basis of some kind of bargain but simply by saying, "We believe in the monarchy; we hold that they perform important and valuable functions. How can we assist this monarchy? How much does it require?" We should not say that in any niggling sense, but from the point of view of looking into an expenditure, as I think that we are entitled to look.

It is a question of looking at the case on its merits. As a member of the Select Committee, with my colleagues I was obliged to consider the problem as it faced us: what sort of sum was required? The first point to emphasise—it has been mentioned by others, but I must underline it again as it seems to have been overlooked by some of my hon. Friends —is that if we compare the proposed Civil List with the Civil List at the beginning of the last reign and, of course, still more with the Civil List at the beginning of the reign of King George V, we see that there has been an enormous reduction in real expenditure.

As my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition said, in opening the debate from this side of the Committee, if we were to maintain the same Civil List in real terms today, it would certainly have to be of the order of £800,000. Therefore, there has been a substantial reduction, and I cannot agree with the suggestion of my hon. Friend the Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes) that the Sovereign has been very successful in advancing a wage claim, in the light of what has happened to prices in the meanwhile. Certainly, the Sovereign and the Civil List generally have fallen a long way behind the rise in prices.

I think my hon. Friend the Member for The Wrekin (Mr. I. O. Thomas) suggested that it was all irrelevant, and that one did not have to consider the cost of living in this connection. We really cannot take that view. We do have to consider the higher wages that have to be paid to the various people working in the Royal Household, the higher cost of food and the higher cost of repairs, household equipment, and so on.

Mr. I. O. Thomas

I think my right hon. Friend is seeking to draw a false conclusion from the point I was trying to make. I was not suggesting that there has not been an increase in costs and increased prices even in the case of the upkeep of the Royal Household. What I was suggesting was that the total previously going into the Royal Household was excessive in any case, whatever the prices might be, either now or before.

Mr. Gaitskell

I am sorry if I misunderstood my hon. Friend. I am simply making the point that, whether or not the amount was excessive before, it is certainly far less now in real terms than it was then, and that anyone who looks at the facts of the situation will realise that.

The hon. Member for South Ayrshire mentioned figures for Holland, but I was not very impressed with those figures. They amounted, in all, to £200,000 for the Dutch monarchy We are a very much larger country than Holland, we have a substantially larger population, and we should expect that the British monarchy, the centre of the British Commonwealth, would cost a little more than the Dutch monarchy. It seems to me that £200,000 for the monarchy of a fairly small country is not particularly small in relation to what we are spending.

I should like to draw the attention of the Committee to the fact that, for the most part, the discussion has centred on the sum in general—the sum of £475,000. Let us break it down a little. Of that £475,000, £95,000 is for the contingencies margin. Part of that, it is true—up to £25,000, if the proposals of the Select Committee are accepted—will be at the disposal of the Sovereign for assisting members of the Royal Family who receive no grant from Parliament. The rest of it—the other £70,000—is simply a margin. and, therefore, the true figure, if we are thinking of immediate expenditure is £405,000, and not £475,000 Of that sum, all but £60,000 is either committed on pensions or goes in Classes II and III for what, in effect, is the maintenance of the Royal Palaces and the Royal Family living there. They are, in a sense, the expenses of the business of having a monarchy.

In some ways—and this is one of the reasons why we desire to see further transfers to ordinary Votes—this is really expenditure which should be treated like other types of expenditure by the Ministry of Works in connection with the upkeep of premises and the provision of all sorts of things concerning ceremonial of different kinds.

It really is up to those who criticise these figures to show what they would dispense with—though not in any detail, for I think that would be unreasonable. If we are proposing to cut down by £200,000 the total amount of the Civil List, I think we have to face the fact that anything like that must involve closing down some of the Palaces. My hon. Friend the Member for Jarrow (Mr. Fernyhough) was perfectly honest about this, and I think he was the only one who was. He said that he believed that it would be a good thing to shut down some of these Palaces altogether.

I have no hesitation in saying that the people of the country generally would look with dismay upon any proposition which involved the closing of one of the homes of the Royal Family—Windsor Castle, Buckingham Palace, Holyrood House—though they are very seldom there—or Balmoral. Bat if that is what is thought, then it is logical that they should be closed. If, however, that opinion is not held, then something like Classes II and III of the Civil List will be necessary.

Mr. Emrys Hughes

Would not my right hon. Friend agree that there would be a substantial public opinion in London for making the huge Buckingham Palace into flats for the homeless population?

Mr. Gaitskell

Personally, I do not agree with that. My hon. Friend may know some people who would like that, but I think there are many more who would be absolutely horrified at the prospect. One has only to see the people standing outside Buckingham Palace continuously—

Mr. A. C. Manuel (Central Ayrshire)

There would be no shortage of tenants.

Mr. Gaitskell

There would be no shortage of tenants, but there would be many who would not get flats and who would be very annoyed about it. But there it is we can agree to differ on that. I only wish to show the implications of the proposal to make the substantial reductions. It really will not do for people to say, "Yes, I belive in ceremony, in pageantry, in colour, and all these things. I like Windsor Castle and Buckingham Palace. Nevertheless, we must make a slashing reduction," because I do not think it could be done on the basis of the present arrangements.

But that does not mean that we on this side of the Committee are entirely satisfied with the proposals of the Select Committee, and we have put down some Amendments to which I should like briefly to refer. I do not think it is necessary for me to add anything to the Amendment relating to the proposed payments to the Duke of Cornwall. My hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benson) dealt with that very thoroughly, and some other of my hon. Friends have explained our position, which is simply this. We do not see why a minor below the age of 18 should receive £150,000 during the course of the next 15 years; that is to say, from the ages of three to 18. We do not see that there is any case for that at all. Of course, there will be some expenses for his education, but they will not be of a very high or expensive order, and we think that that is something which his parents could, in the normal way, readily afford to meet themselves. We are, therefore, opposed to that payment.

There is another Amendment to which I wish to refer, because it was discussed in the Select Committee and it is referred to in the Appendix. That is the proposed provision to be made for the daughters of the Sovereign and of Princess Margaret on marriage. Some of us feel that that also is an unnecessary provision, and that it would be very much better to leave to Parliament at the time the question of what payment should be made on marriage.

There is nothing revolutionary about such a proposal, because it always used to be the custom, when one of the children of the Sovereign married, for the matter to go to Parliament. That was the normal thing, I think I am right in saying, throughout the 19th century. I do not want to go into it in great detail, but I do suggest that there is a case for waiting until we see the circumstances; whether, for instance, the marriage were to somebody here so that we should have the Princess in this country living as one of our Royal Family, or whether perhaps she married somebody abroad. We do not know.

I do not offer any comment on whether the figure is adequate or inadequate. There might be circumstances in which it would be inadequate. On the other hand, many people feel that at the moment it is an adequate amount. That is a matter which some of us think should have been dealt with in the way we have suggested, but I do not propose to say any more about it now.

I come now to our main Amendment, which takes the form of limiting the proposals to a period of 10 years. The case for this is, I think, very strong, and I put it to the Committee quite seriously on the following grounds. First of all, we all know—and this is common ground, both in the Select Committee and here as well—that there may be substantial changes in the value of money during this reign.

If, as we all hope, it lasts a long time, perhaps for 50 years, there may be very substantial changes indeed. And I do not think that even those who support particularly the proposal for the contingencies margin, which is intended to deal with this problem, feel entirely satisfied that it is an adequate way of dealing with it. It is true that it provides and will provide, one hopes, a fund which will accumulate at first and out of which deficiencies can be met later if there were to be a fall in the value of money. But we must frankly admit that the amount we have selected to put in the contingencies margin—one-fifth of the Civil List total—is, and must be, a purely arbitrary figure. We do not know whether it will be enough or not.

Secondly, I do not think that the suggestion mentioned in paragraph 6 of the Report—that Her Majesty, after all, can ask Parliament to reconsider the matter at any time—is entirely satisfactory. I should not have thought that we wished to put Her Majesty into the position of having to come back and ask for more. I do not think that is a very appropriate proposal. My hon. Friend the Member for Flint. East (Mrs. White), in her admirable speech, pointed out the rather absurd position that here we are providing quite a substantial income for the widow of a child who is not yet four years old. That, of course, is a circumstance which one cannot very well avoid if one decides to have a Civil List and one tries to make it last for the whole of the reign.

There are two other reasons why we think the 10-year provision would be a wise one. Somebody referred to the fact that the Select Committee only met nine times. We did, and we had to make a Report quickly for reasons which the Chancellor has explained. We had to get the Civil List settled within six months of the death of the late King. I do not think that on our side of the Committee we felt that we had really had time to go into two matters. The first matter was the possibility and desirability of transferring to ordinary Votes some part of the expenditure hitherto covered by the Civil List.

There are two or three reasons why that would be a good thing to do, if it were possible. They are, first, that, as my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition pointed out, there is a great deal of misunderstanding about the sums allocated for the Civil List. As he quite rightly forecast on an earlier occasion, as soon as the Report was published there was a newspaper headline, "£475,000 for the Queen."

I have just explained that the greater part of that is either a contingency margin or is associated with the upkeep and maintenance as living quarters of the various Palaces. The more that we can transfer to ordinary Departmental Votes the less misunderstanding there will be in the minds of the public about this whole situation.

Secondly, of course, to the extent that we can transfer to the Ministry of Works, or possibly to some other Department, expenditure hitherto covered by the Civil List we avoid the whole problem of rising costs and prices, because if those items were parts of ordinary Estimates they could be examined every year. In passing, I am bound to say that if we did have the Civil List considered year by year then it is very likely that by now it would be at a higher level than it is. There would be a great deal of pressure to increase it. I admit that straight away. But if, for example, we could transfer the upkeep of the Royal mews to the Ministry of Works to that extent we could adjust expenditure on it year by year, and the problem we face in trying to handle this matter in various ways would disappear.

It is sometimes objected that we do not want to have detailed Departmental control over the expenditure of the Royal Household. That is really a question of degree. Nobody would, I think, suggest that it would be desirable to transfer to Votes expenditure which was closely related to the personal and intimate lives of the Royal Family; of course not. But there is a great deal of expenditure in Classes II and III which cannot be so described.

We have, of course, gone some way in the process. We have taken out, I think, the industrial employees at Windsor and one or two other places. During our period of office we transferred the cost of fuel and power to the Votes. We say we believe that there is room for further transference. We should have liked to have more time to examine this. We think it should be looked into, and the best way to look into it is to have another Select Committee to see what can be done.

I do not think that there is anything in any way wrong about making changes of this kind when they are related to what one might call official expenses, any more than there is anything wrong about expenditure incurred, shall we say, by the Prime Minister or the Chancellor of the Exchequer on a voyage which either of them might have to undertake on behalf of the State being borne, as it must be, out of public funds.

The third reason why we think it would be a good thing to have a 10-year rule is this. Many of my hon. Friends have spoken in this debate with feeling and sincerity about the desirability of having a simple way of life for the monarchy and the Court. We feel that that is a desirable end. It is quite obvious that it has become very much simpler over the last 30, 40 or 50 years. We are all aware of that. We are not, however, entirely satisfied that it would not be possible at one and the same time both to ease the burdens on the monarchy—something about which I think we are all concerned—and at the same time introduce this rather simpler, less formal type of existence.

I say at once that so far as I am concerned I would not interfere with pageantry and colour, which is enjoyed and appreciated and indeed loved by the great mass of the people. I am not in favour of interfering with that type of ceremony, but I think it would be found that certain other aspects of the life of the Royal Family might perhaps yield some easing of burden. We might find it possible to relieve the Queen of some of her very heavy tasks which she has to sustain. For example, at the moment—I think I am right in saying that the Committee Report refers to it—there is virtually never any period, even when the Queen is on holiday, when she will not be bothered with official papers of one kind or another.

I am not sure that that is necessary. I should have thought it possible to come to a definite understanding that there is a period of the year—three or four weeks, a month—when she can get right away and keep completely free of any interference, any formality or any ceremonial. It might be possible to make arrangements for somebody else—if we want the head of the State to continue to be available—to examine the papers. It might not be necessary to bother anybody with them. That is one example. A careful scrutiny would reveal a good many more.

What are the arguments against this? Members opposite have said that that is the kind of thing which should be left to the Royal Family themselves. I readily agree, and I am sure we all agree on this, that over the last 20 or 30 years the monarchy has, if I may use the term, moved with the times. There has certainly been a marked difference. But it is not clear to me that it is always very easy for the Sovereign to take the initiative in this very matter. There may well be occasions when she herself would feel that it would be desirable to reduce the ceremonial, to have less formality, to get rid of some of the more tiresome and less rewarding functions, but she might not think it quite proper to make that suggestion. I do not see why the House of Commons should not help in the matter.

If the plan of the Government and the majority of the Select Committee is carried out this is the only opportunity we have, throughout the whole reign, of considering this matter and making suggestions of this kind. Therefore, we propose that the same committee which looks into this question of the transfer to Departmental Votes should give some consideration to the other problem of reducing the burden on the monarchy and introducing less formality and more simplification. I must say at once, to my hon. Friends who proposed to move big reductions that I do not think this would make a very substantial saving. There would probably be some saving, but I do not think there would be a substantial saving on Classes II and III unless we are prepared to close altogether some of the Royal Palaces. I am not at all in favour of that.

The second argument which has been used is that it is a bad thing to discuss the affairs of the monarchy and the amount of provision to be made for them as often as every 10 years. I find it very difficult to accept that argument. I should not have thought that anybody would feel that today's debate had been embarrassing—as was suggested by the hon. Member for Somerset, North (Mr. Leather). I know that he objected to one speech which was made by an hon. Member on this side of the Committee; he may be unduly sensitive.

But do we want to get into the sort of atmosphere where we are not free to talk about members of the Royal Family, how they live and what they spend? Is not there something fundamentally unhealthy about that outlook? I should have thought that there was everything to be said for an occasional discussion. Every 10 years is not very often. Indeed, one hon. Member opposite thought that it was just about the right period. He probably thought that it was a Government Amendment. I did not bother to interrupt him, because he was just coming to the end of his speech.

I should have thought that precisely because of the changed character of the monarchy and precisely because they are much more in touch with the people generally than they have ever been before, there was a good deal to be said for an occasional open discussion of this whole question in Parliament. After all, we should be able to do one thing in such a discussion—as I hope we have done today—and that is, to clear up a lot of misunderstanding about the whole question of the provision for the monarchy. I do not know whether hon. Members opposite feel that the debate has been a waste of time from that point of view. I do not: I think it has done good—as I think the Report of the Select Committee has done good—and in 10 years' time what has been said today will long since have been forgotten.

It is for all those reasons that I think the proposal for a review on these lines is thoroughly desirable and although after the discussion we had in the Committee, I do not expect that there will be a change, I hope very much that in due course we shall have an opportunity of returning to this subject.

9.34 p.m.

Mr. R. A. Butler

I think we have had a very useful debate. Nobody would disagree with the words which fell from the right hon. Gentleman opposite in the opening part of his remarks, namely, that there has been a general feeling in support of our beloved constitutional monarchy and a general feeling that a degree of pageantry is valuable to us all in the drab lives we have to lead.

It will be my duty to reply as shortly as I can to a great many questions which were raised in a debate which was almost a record one—considering the number of speakers who have been fitted in since a quarter to four this afternoon. I will do my best to divide up the replies into four different compartments.

The first will be to answer the right hon. Gentleman about the request of himself and his hon. and right hon. Friends for a review; the second to discuss again this question of the transfer of part of the Civil List to Votes; the third to do my best to answer some very embarrassing personal questions which I am not really in a position to answer, and the fourth to deal with the hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benson) whose attitude on the subject of the Duchy of Cornwall has been supported by many other hon. Members.

Before I come to those four heads, I should like to say that I will attempt to deal with the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition. I should also like to say that I thought the speech of the hon. Member for Edge Hill (Mr. Irvine) was particularly helpful, although I did not agree with all its contents. I should also like to thank my right hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn, West (Mr. Assheton) for his contribution.

I am inclined to agree, from the historical angle, with the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Leeds, South (Mr. Gaitskell) that there is no actual bargain with the hereditary revenues. It should be clear to the Committee that the hereditary revenues were originally the moneys that ran the country and there was, in fact, no actual bargain. I cannot actually agree with the right hon. Gentleman that the lands of the Duchy of Cornwall, for example, are necessarily on an exact par, as I shall show later, with the hereditary revenues, although I do not deny the power of Parliament to take action if it so desires.

I will not join in the controversy between the hon. Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone (Mr. Healy), whom we so seldom have the opportunity of hearing, and my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Down, North (Sir W. Smiles). I think we had better leave them to continue the fight on it. I would only say that where we have had republican speeches we have listened to them and their obvious sincerity. I feel certain that the words of the right hon. Gentleman are correct, and that if we take this debate, as we have all tried to take it, in the right spirit, it can do nothing but good. I would ask people outside not to exaggerate any differences of opinion that they may have heard and not to think that because hon. Members expressed themselves on these matters there is any taint or streak of disloyalty in any of our observations.

The hon. Member for The Wrekin (Mr. I. O. Thomas), I am afraid, deserves a special mention from me. First, he was the hon. Member who spoke by far the longest in the debate, which is a distinction in itself. Secondly, I must honestly say, on behalf of my right hon. and hon. Friends, that it is most unfair and unsuitable in a debate of this sort to attempt to make capital against the Tories because they have made certain proposals, when I deliberately moved this Motion attempting to adhere to the findings of a Select Committee of the House. I am not aware that the right hon. Gentleman or his hon. Friends in general have taken exception to the findings of the Committee, although we have paid attention to the Amendments which they have put on the Order Paper. I think that we on this side can afford to ignore the observations of the hon. Member for The Wrekin.

Mr. I. O. Thomas

I ought to make it perfectly clear—I thought I had done so before—that my observations were directed not against the findings of the Select Committee as such, but against the general attitude of some hon. Members on the Government side who have made contributions to the debate.

Mr. Butler

We must leave it to students of politics to decide which arguments prevail when the debate is studied at a later date.

I come now to the arguments used by the right hon. Gentleman for having a review in 10 years. This matter was, of course, fairly fully canvassed in the course of our discussions in the Select Committee, and the Committee came to this conclusion, which from the point of view of the right hon. Gentleman is modified by his Amendment: Your Committee have come to the conclusion that the usual procedure of fixing the amount of the Civil List at the beginning of the reign should be followed on this occasion. I should like to remind the Committee that that has been the invariable practice and tradition in the past. It has been the practice and tradition for a very good reason, that one great point about a constitutional monarchy is that it should be above politics. While occasions like this when the Sovereign comes to the House or to the Committee, as has been done today, for Supply for a period must be accepted, it really would be contrary to the best interests of our own relationship with that constitutional monarchy if we were to demand too frequent reviews, especially in matters of money.

I think it is very much healthier for us all, whatever our views are, to attempt to settle these matters by loking ahead so that we can get on with our own work and, as one hon. Member said, with our own quarrels, and, as the hon. Member for Edge Hill said, with an extreme view or an extreme policy under the shelter of the constitutional monarchy without causing that monarchy to come too frequently to Parliament for money. That has been the practice in the past and that has been our tradition. Like a good many things connected with traditions, I think it is probably wise and sensible.

I am the first to realise that there are some difficulties. We have to look very far ahead, as I said in my opening remarks, about the widow of a Duke who is only three years old. That is one of the more extreme examples of the method which otherwise has all the values of tradition behind it and all the soundness of practice to recommend it.

The right hon. Gentleman referred to the contingencies margin. It was precisely because we had a contingencies margin provided for in the Select Committee's Report that we thought it possible—I do not want to use profane words on this occasion—to face the future with equanimity. I believe this contingencies margin, which is in the terms of a supplementary provision, will, under the trustee arrangements which we have made, operate successfully over a long number of years to come. It has to be remembered that, while this margin will he used to fill any deficit, it may well be that it will accumulate, and there are elaborate provisions set out in the Report for its accumulation and for its treatment at the end of the reign. When the Bill is published, I shall be indicating to the House the nature of the exact provisions for the fund, and I hope we shall then debate it and find that it is a tolerable method of dealing with the future.

My hon. Friend the Member for Wycombe (Mr. W. W. Astor) raised one question arising out of this contingencies margin. He mentioned in particular one member of the Royal Family, the Duchess of Kent. We are all aware of the very great service rendered by the Duchess since her tragic bereavement, and even before. We are all aware of the circumstances in which she has unfortunately been placed. I do not want to go into any personal cases further tonight. I simply want to say this, that the £25,000, which is referred to in this document, is at the disposal of Her Majesty for the purpose of dealing with cases of those who most need that attention. I think we had better leave the inquiry of my hon. Friend the Member for Wycombe like that, and he and the rest of us can be assured that cases needing attention will receive that attention.

The hon. Member for Willesden, West (Mr. Viant) dealt with this aspect of this contingency fund as a member of the Committee. I should like to thank him for his speech and to say that I think he answered some of the criticisms that were made about this provision far better than I could do. One or two Members, particularly the Member for Bridgeton (Mr. Carmichael) referred to the problem of ceremonial, which was referred to in more decorous terms by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Leeds, South. Even though the terms of the right hon. Gentleman were more decorous, I must say that, radically as I disagreed with the speech of the hon. Member for Bridgeton, I could not but acknowledge it was a good speech and his arguments were so forcefully put that he deserves a certain degree of answer.

The hon. Lady the Member for Flint, East (Mrs. White) also raised this question of ceremonial. We on this side of the Committee take a very definite view about the manner in which we consider that the future ceremonial of the Court shall be organised and managed. We consider that this matter should be left absolutely within the discretion of Her Majesty the Queen and of the Royal Family. I cannot speak for them, nor can I speak for Her Majesty. It would not be my business to do so, but I feel absolutely certain, as has been said in the course of this debate, that our monarchy has moved with the times, and that that will be typical of their procedure in the future in this matter.

The hon. Member for Flint, East raised the question of presentations at Court. If I may say so, that is entirely a matter of opinion. Some people are bored by these presentations and others appear to like them, but when we make remarks about the ceremonial of the Court let us remember that there are some aspects of it, particularly the Investitures, if I may give one example, which go very deep into the hearts and feelings of our people.

I raise the question of Investiture to show the Committee that, in considering this matter in the last months and weeks, I have investigated, both for myself and by questions to other people, the future use of Buckingham Palace, which the hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes) suggested might be turned into flats. That idea would not be acceptable to a great majority of the citizens of London, to the great majority of the people of this country and, particularly, to the great majority of the people in the Commonwealth and overseas countries.

Mr. Emrys Hughes

Does not the right hon. Gentleman think that it might appeal to newly-married couples?

Mr. Butler

I am not sure that it would be quite as comfortable as one of the new houses which the present Government are building.

It has not escaped me, or my Ministerial colleagues, or my hon. Friends on this side of the Committee, that if, with a new reign and a young Queen, some economy could be made in buildings, for example in Buckingham Palace, which is not a particularly elegant structure, there might be a great saving of money. It appears on examination that this would not be a move which would commend itself to the public and it would make impossible many of the more valuable forms of ceremonial which, as I have said, go deep into the hearts and feelings of our people.

This leads me to the next heading, which was: Could not some of this expense be transferred to the Votes? If the Committee will turn to page 13 of the Report, they will see that some £50,000, under previous Administrations, has already been transferred to the Votes. They will see further, in our Report, that some £25,000 of expenses for what are known as "the industrial staff," that is, the upkeep staff more or less, is also being transferred to Votes. We had to consider, both as Members of the Government side and as Members of the Select Committee, whether we could honourably and practically recommend further transfers to Votes.

There is a limit to which we can carry this process. The hon. Member for Dagenham (Mr. Parker) referred, in a rather damp and liquid expression, to "a pool of horses." I suppose he meant that the invaluable Windsor Greys are in some sense to be liquidated or lent out to brewers and others. We examined the whole position of the horses. We were assured that there has been a reduction from 86 to 35 horses, and that the remaining horses are essential if the ceremonial which some of us so much like is to go on. I am acquainted with the working of a pool of motor cars in my official capacity, but I strongly recommend the Committee not to follow the idea of a pool of horses. I would further say that the working of these horses is quite economical. They are used for other work in other towns when they are not being used for ceremonials. This leads me to make a remark which goes to the heart of the matter. If we go on transferring very much more to Votes, we shall take the heart out of what is, in our British monarchy, a personal household. That personal household runs in a certain way. There are personal loyalties within that household. I do not believe it would be valuable, even in the case of the mews which, as the right hon. Gentleman has just said quite rightly, is the easiest example of transfer, to make any further transfers at the present time.

There is another objection, namely, that if further items were transferred to the Votes we would get into the most embarrassing situation both for the Ministers responsible—who would feel that they were not as wholly responsible for that item of expenditure as for the rest of their Votes—and for the accounting officer. Further, the Committee must think of this last argument: that if, say, Windsor Castle were transferred to Votes and turned into a museum, I am assured, on the investigation I have made, that there would not necessarily be a saving of Government money.

It would simply be taking it out of one pocket instead of taking it out of the other, because we should simply have the money on Votes instead of in the Civil List. From the investigation I have made I am satisfied that the administration of Windsor Castle and its gardens, being, as it is, the most ancient home of a Royal Family in the world, is better left as it is and not transferred to Votes at the present time.

Now I come to some of the difficult personal questions which I have been asked. One hon. Member has asked whom Princess Margaret is to marry? Quite honestly, I cannot say. It has been put to me: should we make an allowance for Princess Margaret on marriage? We have been asked to consider whether she will go abroad or stay at home. I do not know the answer to that either. What I do know is that this Committee should make adequate provision for her on marriage, in which case I think that she will not only have a happier but a more dignified future.

Then I have been asked some questions about the Duke of Edinburgh. I am unable to answer the constitutional points raised by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bassetlaw (Mr. Bellenger) since I have not got the answer in my head. But what I can say is that the Duke, from all public appearances, is carrying out his difficult and responsible task with extreme dignity, that he is in need of a special staff to conduct his business, and that he is in need of a special fund for the very considerable expenses which are really nothing to do with his private occupations but are connected with his public duties.

Mr. Bellenger

I quite understand that the right hon. Gentleman has not got the answer to this question in his head, but does he recognise its constitutional importance? It is a question that will have to be solved, whether it arises on the Civil List now or at a later date.

Mr. Butler

I quite agree, but it took a great deal of time to develop the constitutional position of the previous Prince Consort. In this case, where we have not exactly an analogous position, I recommend the Committee and the right hon. Gentleman to follow me in awaiting evolution rather than expecting the matter to be settled by a Parliamentary answer tonight. I fully understand the reason for the right hon. Gentleman putting the question and I am only sorry that I cannot give him any further answer.

The only other personal questions put were two. One was why members of the Royal Family could not indulge in commercial activities. Well, as has been pointed out, after two generations there is an understanding within the Royal Family that they can. However, I think that the present rule, which we must leave to the Royal Family and not try to settle ourselves here, is thoroughly sensible. It would not only be unfair to themselves, but it would also be unfair to others if they were to enter the world of advertising, commerce or any other of our modern business affairs. I really think it would be undignified and unusual.

When one thinks of the comparatively small numbers of the Royal Family now—there are not the great number of brothers or others who can take on the work as there have been in the past, I think we should feel thankful that other members of the Royal Family are now coming along to take part in those public duties which are of such great value to our country and also to our reputation overseas, as the right hon. Gentleman so wisely said.

I was asked by the hon. Member for Jarrow (Mr. Fernyhough) a question about tax allowances. We had better leave those details until we come to the Bill. The Sovereign naturally, except when her or his private landed estates are governed by the Act of 1862, is free from tax, but other members of the Royal Family work under a system of allowance for expenses which is defined under the Income Tax law as recently consolidated. I shall certainly be glad to make further reference to the details of that matter, if it is wanted, in the course of the discussion on the Bill next week.

Having attempted to answer the personal questions, I come, last, to the rather important issue of the Duchy of Cornwall. This was dealt with at the time when Mr. Neville Chamberlain was Chancellor of the Exchequer and in the settlement of 1936–37. In dealing with this important matter, the Committee should understand broadly the constitutional position. The original arrangements under which the Duchy went to the Duke of Cornwall were by a Charter of Edward III, and to that extent the Duchy can be said to belong to the Heir to the Throne.

That point, of course, is arguable, because we must as Parliamentarians reserve our constitutional position so as to regulate these affairs as we think best, and I would not attempt to make any revocation from that position. But we should also pay some attention to tradition and realise that during all these centuries it has been the normal traditional practice for the revenue of the Duchy in one way or another to go to the Heir to the Throne.

In 1936–37, a considerable invasion was made of this general principle and an allowance of some £24,000 a year was made to the Duke of the time during his minority. What has been suggested by the Select Committee this time? It has been suggested that an allowance of £10,000 a year should be made to the Duke during his minority, rising to a figure of £30,000 at the age of 18, which for members of the Royal Family, and particularly for the Heir to the Throne, means practically the majority from the point of view of work and responsibility; and probably he wants a household, and so forth.

I do not think it reasonable for the Committee to think that the Duke, when he gets £240,000 from the revenues of the Duchy of Cornwall, which traditionally belongs to the Heir to the Throne, should be getting too much when Parliament—that is, the Exchequer—is getting £1,380,000 during this period. I am almost ashamed that the Exchequer has made so good a bargain.

Mr. Gaitskell

If the right hon. Gentleman rests his case simply on tradition, how does he justify taking all that money away from the Duchy of Cornwall?

Mr. Butler

I was quite aware in considering the debating powers of the right hon. Gentleman that this dialectical dagger would be pointed at my heart, and I have already prepared for this argument. I answer it by saying that in modern times it has been a tradition for the Exchequer to take a greater degree of the revenues than before, and being a good. Chancellor of the Exchequer, I thought it my duty to take a little more than before, but not to take the whole amount. I think that what we have left to the Duke in his minority is fair when we understand—

Mr. J. Hudson

Has the right hon. Gentleman ever considered the tenants of the Duchy of Cornwall in these consultations?

Mr. Butler

I am very glad that the hon. Member has raised the point of the tenants of the Duchy of Cornwall, because that enables me to say this. As the young Duke grows up, it will be of special value to him to understand the administration of the Duchy of Cornwall, to make himself familiar with the personalities, including the tenants, in the Duchy and the workpeople who work on his farms, and so to understand administration in the best sense from the bottom, which will train him all the better for his work when he succeeds to the Throne. Therefore, we have deliberately considered the interests of the tenants in not attempting to cut off the Duke of Cornwall altogether from the administration of his estates. That is one of our most priceless traditions and one which we should maintain.

Mr. Hudson

I happen to be one of the tenants.

Mr. Butler

If the hon. Member is one of the tenants of the Duke, I feel quite happy about the Duke's future education, except in one respect.

I have done my best to answer the many points raised in the debate. I do not think that we have been wrong to have had an occasional smile. I do not think hon. Members have been wrong, nearly every hon. Member to whom I have listened, in showing their humanity towards the Royal Family, including the critics—they have perhaps been the most humane in their observations.

The hon. Member for South Ayrshire, referring to the young mother, and other hon. Members have not been wrong to show humanity or humour in dealing with this matter. But I think we should end on a note of dignity and tradition. I therefore remind the Committee of words which were used in the 1936–37 discussions. On a Motion moved by hon. and right hon. Members opposite, these words were used in an Amendment to indicate the feelings of my hon. and right hon. Friends: That whereas the liberties of the people and the integrity of the Empire are deeply rooted in the Constitutional Monarchy, and whereas the ancient usages, ceremonies and

traditions centring upon the Crown, have become, even more than in former times, a bulwark against dictatorship, and the symbol of the union of all members of the British Commonwealth of Nations, we hereby affirm that we do not desire any changes in the style and establishment of the Sovereign and his Family, other than those which His Majesty may himself"—

now we say "Her Majesty"— see fit to make from time to time.

Amendment proposed: In line 2. after Crown," insert: for a period not exceeding ten years."—[Mr. Gaitskell.]

Question put. "That those words be there inserted."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 211; Noes. 239.

Division No. 199.]	AYES	[10.1 p.m.
Acland, Sir Richard	Edwards, John (Brighouse)	Lee, Frederick (Newton)
Adams, Richard	Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly)	Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)
Allen, Arthur (Bosworth)	Edwards, W. J. (Stepney)	Lever, Leslie (Ardwick)
Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)	Evans, Albert (Islington, S. W.)	Lindgren, G. S.
Anderson, Alexander (Motherwell)	Evans, Stanley (Wednesbury)	Lipton, Lt.-Col. M.
Anderson, Frank (Whitehaven)	Ewart, R.	Logan, D. G.
Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R	Fernyhough, E.	MacColl, J. E.
Awbery, S. S.	Fletcher, Eric (Islington, E.)	McInnes, J.
Bacon, Miss Alice	Foot, M. M.	McLeavy, F.
Baird, J.	Forman, J. C.	MacMillan, M. K. (Western Isles)
Barnes, Rt. Hon. A. J.	Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)	MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)
Bartley, P.	Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. H. T. N.	Mainwaring, W. H.
Bellenger, Rt. Hon. F. J	Gibson, C. W.	Mann, Mrs. Jean
Bence, C. R.	Glanville, James	Manuel, A. C.
Benn, Wedgwood	Gooch, E. G.	Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A.
Benson, G.	Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.	Mellish, R. J.
Bevan, Rt. Hon. A, (Ebbw Vale)	Greenwood, Anthony (Rossendale)	Mitchison, G. R
Bing, G. H. C.	Greenwood, Rt. Hn. Arthur (Wakefield)	Morley, R.
Blackburn, F.	Grey, C. F.	Morris, Percy (Swansea, W.)
Blenkinsop, A.	Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)	Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Lewisham, S.)
Blyton, W. R.	Griffiths, William (Exchange)	Mort, D. L.
Boardman, H.	Grimond, J.	Moyle, A.
Bottomley, Rt. Hon. A. G.	Hale, Leslie (Oldham, W.)	Nally, W.
Bowles, F. G.	Hall, John (Gateshead, W.)	Neal, Harold (Bolsover)
Braddock, Mrs. Elizabeth	Hamilton, W. W.	Noel-Baker, Rt. Hon. P. J.
Brockway, A. F.	Hannan, W.	Oliver, G. H.
Brook, Dryden (Halifax)	Hargreaves, A.	Orbach, M.
Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.	Hastings, S.	Oswald, T.
Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper)	Hayman, F. H.	Padley, W. E.
Brown, Thomas (Ince)	Healy, Cahir (Fermanagh)	Paling, Rt. Hon. W. (Dearne Valley)
Burke, W. A.	Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Rowley Regis)	Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury)
Burton, Miss F. E.	Herbison, Miss M.	Pannell, Charles
Butler, Herbert (Hackney, S.)	Holman, P.	Pargiter, G. A.
Callaghan, L. J.	Holmes, Horace (Hemsworth)	Parker, J.
Carmichael, J.	Houghton, Douglas	Paton, J.
Castle, Mrs. B. A.	Hoy, J. H.	Pearson, A.
Chapman, W. D	Hubbard, T. F.	Peart, T. F.
Chetwynd, G. R	Hudson, James (Ealing, N.)	Plummer, Sir Leslie
Clunie, J.	Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)	Poole, C. C.
Cocks, F. S.	Hughes, Rector (Aberdeen, N.)	Porter, G.
Coldrick, W.	Hynd, H. (Accrington)	Price, Joseph T. (Westhoughton)
Collick, P. H.	Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)	Price, Phillips (Gloucestershire, W.)
Cove, W. G.	Irving, W. J. (Wood Green)	Proctor, W. T.
Craddock, George (Bradford, S)	Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A.	Pryde, D. J.
Cullen, Mrs. A.	Janner, B.	Rankin, John
Daines, P.	Jay, Rt. Hon. D. P. T.	Reid, Thomas (Swindon)
Davies, A. Edward (Stoke, N.)	Jeger, Dr. Santo (St. Pancras, S.)	Reid, William (Camlachie)
Davies, Ernest (Enfield, E.)	Jenkins, R. H. (Stechford)	Rhodes, H.
Davies, Harold (Leek)	Jones, Jack (Rotherham)	Richards, R.
Davies, Stephen (Merthyr)	Jones, T. W. (Marioneth)	Robans, Rt. Hon. A.
de Freitas, Geoffrey	Keenan, W.	Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvonshire)
Delargy, H. J.	Kenyon, C.	Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)
Driberg, T. E. N.	Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.	Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)
Dugdale, Rt. Hon. John (W. Bromwich)	King, Dr. H. M.	Ross, William
Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.	Kinley, J.	Royle, C.
Schofield, S. (Barnsley)	Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)	Wigg, George
Shackleton, E. A. A.	Taylor, John (West Lothian)	Wilkins, W. A.
Silverman, Julius (Erdington)	Taylor, Rt. Hon. Robert (Morpeth)	Willey, Frederick (Sunderland, N.)
Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)	Thomas, David (Aberdare)	Williams, David (Neath)
Slater, J.	Thomas, George (Cardiff)	Williams, Rev. Llywelyn (Abertillery)
Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)	Thomas Iorwerth (Rhondda, W.)	Williams Ronald (Wigan)
	Thomas, Ivor Owen (Wrekin)	Williams, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Don V'll'y)
Smith, Norman (Nottingham, S.)	Timmons J.	Williams, W. R. (Droylsden)
Snow, J. W.	Turner-Samuels, M.	Winterbottom, Richard (Brightside)
Sorensen, R. W.	Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn	Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.
Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank	Viant, S. P.	Wyatt, W. L.
Sparks, J. A.	Wells, Percy (Faversham)	Yates, V. F.
Steele, T.	West, D. G.	Younger, Rt. Hon. K.
Stewart, Michael (Fulham, E.)	Wheatley, Rt. Hon. John
Stokes, Rt. Hon. R. R.	White, Mrs. Eirene (E, Flint)	TELLERS FOR THE AYES:
Strauss, Rt. Hon. George (Vauxhall)	White, Henry (Derbyshire, N. E.)	Mr. Popplewell and Mr. Wallace.
Stross, Dr. Barnett	Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.
NOES
Alport, C. J. M.	Galbraith, Cmdr, T. D. (Pollok)	McKibbin, A. J.
Amery, Julian (Preston, N.)	Galbraith, T. G D. (Hillhead)	McKie, J. H. (Galloway)
Anstruther-Gray, Major W. J.	George, Rt. Hon. Maj. G. Lloyd	Maclay, Rt. Hon. John
Ashton, H. (Chelmsford)	Glyn, Sir Ralph	Maclean, Fitzroy
Assheton, Rt. Hon. R. (Blackburn, W.)	Gomme-Duncan, Col. A.	Macleod, Rt. Hon. Iain (Enfield, W.)
Astor, Hon. J. J. (Plymouth, Sutton)	Gough, C. F. H.	MacLeod, John (Ross and Cromarty)
Astor, Hon. W. W. (Bucks, Wycombe)	Gower, H. R.	Macpherson, Maj. Niall (Dumfries)
Baldwin, A. E.	Graham, Sir Fergus	Maitland, Comdr. J. F. W. (Horncastle)
Banks, Col. C.	Gridley, Sir Arnold	Maitland, Patrick (Lanark)
Barlow, Sir John	Grimston, Hon. John (St. Albans)	Markham, Major S. F.
Baxter, A. B.	Grimston, Sir Robert (Westbury)	Marples, A. E.
Beach, Maj. Hicks	Hare, Hon. J. H.	Marshall, Doug as (Bodmin)
Bell, Philip (Bolton, E.)	Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.)	Marshall, Sir Sidney (Sutton)
Bell, Ronald (Bucks, S.)	Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye)	Maude, Angus
Bennett, F. M. (Reading, N.)	Harvie-Watt, Sir George	Maudling, R.
Bevins, J, R. (Toxteth)	Hay, John	Maydon, Lt.-Comdr. S. L. C.
Black, C. W.	Heath, Edward	Medlicott, Brig. F.
Bossom, A. C.	Henderson, John (Cathcart)	Mellor, Sir John
Bowen, E. R.	Hill, Dr. Charles (Luton)	Monckton, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter
Boyd-Carpenter, J. A.	Hill, Mrs. E. (Wythenshawe)	Moore, Lt.-Col. Sir Thomas
Boyle, Sir Edward	Hinchingbrooke, Viscount	Morrison, John (Salisbury)
Braithwaite, Lt.-Cdr. G. (Bristol, N. W.)	Hirst, Geoffrey	Mott-Radclyffe, C. E.
Brooke, Henry (Hampstead)	Holland-Martin, C. J.	Nabarro, G. D. N.
Brooman-White, R. C.	Holmes, Sir Stanley (Harwich)	Nicholls, Harmar
Browne, Jack (Govan)	Holt, A. F.	Nicholson, Godfrey (Farnham)
Buchan-Hepburn, Rt. Hon. P. G. T.	Horsbrugh, Rt. Hon. Florence	Nicolson, Nigel (Bournemouth, E.)
Bullard, D. G.	Howard, Greville (St. Ives)	Nield, Basil (Chester)
Bullock, Capt. M.	Hudson, Sir Austin (Lewisham, N.)	Noble, Cmdr. A. H. P.
Bullus, Wing Commander E. E.	Hudson, W. R. A. (Hull, N.)	Nugent, G. R. H.
Burden, F. F. A.	Hulbert, Whig Cmdr. N. J.	Nutting, Anthony
Butcher, H. W.	Hurd, A. R.	Oakshott, H. D.
Butler, Rt. Hon. R A. (Saffron Walden)	Hutchinson, Sir Geoffrey (Ilford, N.)	O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir H. (Antrim, N.)
Carr, Robert (Mitcham)	Hutchison, Lt.-Com. Clark (E'b'rgh W.)	Ormsby-Gore, Hon. W. D.
Carson, Hon. E.	Hutchison, James (Scotstoun)	Orr-Ewing, Charles Ian (Hendon, N.)
Cary, Sir Robert	Hyde, Lt.-Col. H. M.	Orr-Ewing, Ian L. (Weston-super-Mare)
Channon, H.	Hylton-Foster, H. B. H.	Osborne, C.
Clarke, Col. Ralph (East Grinstead)	Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)	Partridge, E.
Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmouth, W.)	Jennings, R.	Peake, Rt. Hon. O.
Cole, Norman	Johnson, Eric (Blackley)	Perkins, W. R. D.
Colegate, W. A.	Johnson, Howard (Kemptown)	Peto, Brig. C. H. M.
Conant, Maj. R. J. E.	Jones, A. (Hall Green)	Peyton, J. W. W.
Cooper, Sqn. Ldr. Albert	Joynson-Hicks, Hon. L. W.	Pickthorn, K. W. M.
Cooper-Key, E. M.	Keeling, Sir Edward	Pitman, I. J.
Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne)	Kerr, H. W. (Cambridge)	Powell, J. Enoch
Cranborne, Viscount	Lambton, Viscount	Price, Henry (Lewisham, W.)
Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. F. C	Lancaster, Col. C. G.	Prior-Palmer, Brig. O. L.
Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.	Law, Rt. Hon. R. K.	Profumo, J. D.
Crowder, Sir John (Finchley)	Leather, E. H. C.	Raikes, H. V.
Deedes, W. F.	Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H.	Rayner, Brig. R
Digby, S. Wingfield	Legh, P. R. (Petersfield)	Redmayne, M.
Dodds-Parker, A. D.	Lennox-Boyd, Rt. Hon. A. T.	Remnant, Hon. P.
Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. McA.	Lindsay, Martin	Roberts, Peter (Heeley)
Dormer, P. W.	Linstead, H. N.	Robinson, Roland (Blackpool, S.)
Dugdale, Maj. Rt. Hn. Sir T. (Richmond)	Lloyd, Maj. Guy (Renfrew, E.)	Robson-Brown, W.
Duncan, Capt. J. A. L.	Lloyd, Rt. Hon. Selwyn (Wirral)	Roper, Sir Harold
Eccles, Rt. Hon. D. M.	Lockwood, Lt.-Col. J. C.	Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard
Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E.	Longden, Gilbert (Herts, S. W.)	Russell, R. S.
Erroll, F. J.	Lucas, Sir Jocelyn (Portsmouth, S.)	Ryder, Capt. R. E. D.
Finlay, Graeme	Lucas, P. B. (Brentford)	Salter, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur
Fisher, Nigel	Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh	Sandys, Rt. Hon. D.
Fletcher Cooke, C.	McAdden, S. J.	Schofield, Lt.-Col. W. (Rochdale)
Fort, R.	McCorquodale, Rt. Hon. M. S.	Scott, R. Donald
Fraser, Sir Ian (Morecambe & Lonsdale)	Macdonald, Sir Peter (I. of Wight)	Scott-Miller, Cmdr. R.
Gage, C. H.	Mackeson, Brig. H. R.	Shepherd, William

Simon, J. E. S. (Middlesbrough, W.)	Summers, G. S.	Walker-Smith, D. C.
Smiles, Lt.-Col. Sir Walter	Sutoliffe, H.	Ward, Hon. George (Worcester)
Smithers, Peter (Winchester)	Taylor, Charles (Eastbourne)	Ward, Miss I. (Tynemouth)
Smyth, Brig. J. G. (Norwood)	Taylor, William (Bradford, N.)	Waterhouse, Capt. Rt. Hon. C.
Snadden, W. McN.	Thompson, Lt.-Cdr. R. (Croydon, W.)	Watkinson, H. A.
Soames, Capt. C.	Thornton-Kemsley, Col. C. N.	Webbe, Sir H. (London & Westminster)
Spearman, A. C. M.	Tilney, John	Wellwood, W.
Speir, R. M.	Touche, Sir Gordon	White, Baker (Canterbury)
Spence, H. R. (Aberdeenshire, W.)	Turner, H. E. L.	Williams, Rt. Hon. Charles (Torquay)
Stanley, Capt. Hon. Richard	Turton, R. H.	Williams, Gerald (Tonbridge)
Stevens, G. P.	Tweedsmuir, Lady	Williams, Sir Herbert (Croydon, E.)
Stewart, Henderson (Fife, E.)	Vane, W. M. F.	Williams, R. Dudley (Exeter)
Stoddart-Scott, Col. M.	Vaughan-Morgan, J. K.	Wills, G.
Strauss, Henry (Norwich, S.)	Vosper, D. F.	Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)
Stuart, Rt. Hon. James (Moray)	Wade, D. W.
Studholme, H. G.	Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)	TELLERS FOR THE NOES:
		Mr. Drew? and Mr. Kaberry.

Amendment proposed: In line 4, leave out "£475,000," and insert "£250,000."—[Mr. Carmichael]

Question put, "That £475,000' stand part of the Question."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 344; Noes. 25.

Division No. 200.]	AYES	[10.11 p.m.
Allen, Arthur (Bosworth)	Colegate, W. A.	Hannan, W.
Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)	Conant, Maj. R. J. E.	Hare, Hon. J. H.
Alport, C. J. M.	Cooper, Sqn. Ldr. Albert	Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.)
Amery, Julian (Preston, N.)	Cooper-Key, E. M.	Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye)
Anderson, Alexander (Motherwell)	Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne)	Harvie-Watt, Sir George
Anstruther-Gray, Major W. J.	Cranborne, Viscount	Hay, John
Athton, H. (Chelmsford)	Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. F. C.	Hayman, F. H.
Assheton, Rt. Hon. R. (Blackburn, W.)	Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.	Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Rowley Regis)
Aster, Hon. J. J. (Plymouth, Sutton)	Crowder, Sir John (Finchley)	Henderson, John (Cathcart)
Astor, Hon. W. W. (Bucks, Wycombe)	Cullen, Mrs. A.	Herbison, Miss M.
Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R.	Daines, P.	Hill, Dr. Charles (Luton)
Awbery, S. S.	Davies, A. Edward (Stoke, N.)	Hill, Mrs. E. (Wythenshawe)
Bacon, Miss Alice	de Freitas, Geoffrey	Hinchingbrocke, Viscount
Baldwin, A. E.	Deedes, W. F.	Hirst, Geoffrey
Banks, Col. C.	Digby, S. Wingfield	Holland-Martin, C. J.
Barlow, Sir John	Dodds-Parker, A. D.	Holmes, Horace (Hemsworth)
Barnes, Rt. Hon. A. J.	Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. McA.	Holmes, Sir Stanley (Harwich)
Baxter, A. B.	Dormer, P. W.	Holt, A. F.
Beach, Maj. Hicks	Drewe, C.	Horsbrugh, Rt. Hon. Florence
Bell, Philip (Bolton, E.)	Driberg, T. E. N.	Houghton, Douglas
Bell, Ronald (Bucks, S.)	Dugdale, Rt. Hn. John (W. Bromwich)	Howard, Greville (St. Ives)
Bettenger, Rt. Hon. F. J.	Dugdale, Rt. Hn. Sir T. (Richmond)	Hoy, J. H.
Bennett, F. M. (Reading, N.)	Duncan, Capt. J. A. L	Hudson, Sir Austin (Lewisham, N.)
Benson, G.	Eccles, Rt. Hon. D. M.	Hudson, W. R. A. (Hull, N.)
Bevan, Rt. Hon. A. (Ebbw Vale)	Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.	Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Black, C. W.	Edwards, John (Brighouse)	Hulbert, Wing Cmdr. N. J.
Blackburn, F.	Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E.	Hurd, A. R.
Blenkinsop, A.	Erroll, F. J.	Hutchinson, Sir Geoffrey (Ilford, N.)
Blyton, W. R.	Evans, Stanley (Wednesbury)	Hutchison, Lt.-Com. Clarke(E'b'rgh W.)
Bossom, A. C.	Ewart, R.	Hutchison, James (Scotstoun)
Bottomley, Rt. Hon. A. G.	Finlay, Graeme	Hyde, Lt.-Col. H. M.
Bowen, E. R.	Fisher, Nigel	Hylton-Foster, H. B. H.
Bowles, F. G.	Fletcher, Eric (Islington, E.)	Hynd, H. (Accrington)
Boyd-Carpenter, J. A.	Fletcher-Cooke, C.	Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)
Boyle, Sir Edward	Foot, M. M.	Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A.
Braithwaite, Lt.-Cdr. G. (Bristol, N. W.)	Fort, R.	Janner, B.
Brook, Dryden (Halifax)	Fraser, Sir Ian (Morecambe & Lonsdale)	Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)
Brooke, Henry (Hampstead)	Gage, C. H.	Johnson, Eric (Blackley)
Brooman-White, R. C.	Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. H. T. N.	Johnson, Howard (Kemptown)
Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper)	Galbraith, Cmdr. T. D. (Pollok)	Jones, A. (Hall Green)
Brown, Thomas (Ince)	Galbraith, T. G. D. (Hillhead)	Jones, Jack (Rotherham)
Browne, Jack (Govan)	George, Rt. Hon. Maj. G. Lloyd	Joynson-Hicks, Hon. L. W.
Buchan-Hepburn, Rt. Hon. P. G. T.	Glyn, Sir Ralph	Kaberry, D.
Bullard, D. G.	Gomme-Duncan, Col. A.	Keenan, W.
Bullock, Capt. M.	Gooch, E. G.	Kenyon, C.
Bullus, Wing Commander E. E.	Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.	Kerr, H. W. (Cambridge)
Burden, F. F. A.	Cough, C. F. H.	Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.
Burton, Miss F. E.	Gower, H. R.	King, Dr. H. M.
Butcher, H. W.	Graham, Sir Fergus	Lambton, Viscount
Butler, Rt. Hon. R. A. (Saffron Walden)	Greenwood, Anthony (Rossendale)	Lancaster, Col. C. G.
Carr, Robert (Mitcham)	Grey, C. F.	Law, Rt. Hon. R. K.
Cary, Sir Robert	Gridley, Sir Arnold	Leather, E. H. C.
Channon, H.	Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)	Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H.
Chapman, W. D.	Grimond, J.	Legh, P. R. (Petersfield)
Chetwynd, G. R.	Grimston, Hon. John (St. Albans)	Lennox-Boyd, Rt. Hon. A. T.
Clarke, Col. Ralph (East Grinstead)	Grimston, Sir Robert (Westbury)	Lindsay, Martin
Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmouth, W.)	Hale, Leslie (Oldham, W.)	Linstead, H. N.
Cole, Norman	Hall, John (Gateshead, W.)	Lloyd, Maj. Guy (Renfrew, E.)
Lloyd, Rt. Hon. Selwyn (Wirral)	Orr-Ewing, Ian L. (Weston-super-Mare)	Stewart, Michael (Fulham, E.)
Logan, D. G.	Osborne, C.	Stoddart-Scott, Col. M.
Longden, Gilbert (Herts, S. W.)	Oswald, T.	Stokes, Rt. Hon. R. R.
Lucas, Sir Jocelyn (Portsmouth, S.)	Pannell, Charles	Strauss, Rt. Hon. George (Vauxhall)
Lucas, P. B. (Brentford)	Partridge, E.	Strauss, Henry (Norwich, S.)
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh	Peake, Rt. Hon. O.	Stross, Dr. Barnett
McAdden, S. J.	Pearson, A	Stuart, Rt. Hon. James (Moray)
McCorquodale, Rt. Hon. M. S.	Perkins, W. R. D.	Studholme, H. G.
Macdonald, Sir Peter (I. of Wight)	Peto, Brig. C. H M.	Summers, G. S.
Mackeson, Brig. H. R.	Peyton, J. W. W.	Sutcliffe, H.
McKibbin, A. J.	Pickthorn, K. W. M	Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)
McKie, J. H. (Galloway)	Pitman, I. J.	Taylor, Charles (Eastbourne)
Maclay, Rt. Hon. John	Porter, G.	Taylor, John (West Lothian)
Maclean, Fitzray	Powell, J. Enoch	Taylor, Rt. Hon. Robert (Morpeth)
McLeavy, F.	Price, Henry (Lewisham, W.)	Taylor, William (Bradford, N.)
Macleod, Rt. Hon. Iain (Enfield, W.)	Price, Philips (Gloucestershire, W)	Thomas, George (Cardiff)
MacLeod, John (Ross and Cromarty)	Prior-Palmer, Brig. O. L.	Thompson, Ll.-Cdr R (Croydon, W)
MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)	Profumo, J. D.	Thornton-Kemsley, Col. C N.
Macpherson, Maj. Niall (Dumfries)	Raikes, H. V.	Tilney, John
Maitland, Comdr. J. F. W. (Horncastle)	Rayner, Brig. R	Touche, Sir Gordon
Maitland, Patrick (Lanark)	Redmayne, M.	Turner, H. F. L
Mann, Mrs. Jean	Reid, Thomas (Swindon)	Turner-Samuels, M.
Markham, Major S. F.	Remnant, Hon. P	Turton, R. H.
Marples, A. E.	Rhodes, H	Tweedsmuir, Lady
Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A.	Richards, R.	Vane, W. M F.
Marshall, Douglas (Bodmin)	Roberts, Peter (Heeley)	Vaughan-Morgan. J K
Marshall, Sir Sidney (Sutton)	Robinson, Roland (Blackpool, S.)	Viant, S. P
Maude, Angus	Robson-Brown, W.	Wade, D. W.
Maudling, R.	Roper, Sir Harold	Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)
Maydon, Lt.-Comdr S. L. C.	Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard	Walker-Smith, D. C.
Medlicott, Brig. F.	Ross, William	Ward, Hon George (Worcester)
Mellish, R. J.	Russell, R S.	Ward, Miss I. (Tynemouth)
Mellor, Sir John	Ryder, Capt. R. E. D.	Waterhouse, Capt. Rt. Hon. C.
Monckton, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter	Salter, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur	Watkinson, H. A
Moore, Lt.-Col. Sir Thomas	Sandys, Rt. Hon. D	Webbe, Sir H (London & Westminster)
Morley, R.	Schofield, Lt.-Col. W. (Rochdale)	Wellwood, W
Morris, Percy (Swansea, W.)	Scott, R. Donald	West, D. G.
Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Lewisham, S.)	Scott-Miller, Cmdr. R	Wheatley, Rt. Hon. John
Morrison, John (Salisbury)	Shepherd, William	White, Baker (Canterbury)
Mott-Radclyffe, C. E.	Simon, J. E S (Middlesbrough, w.)	White, Mrs. Eirene (E. Flint)
Moyle, A.	Slater, J.	White, Henry (Derbyshire, N. E.)
Nabarro, G. D. N.	Smiles, Lt.-Col. Sir Walter	Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W
Nally, W.	Smith, Norman (Nottingham, S.)	Willey, Frederick (Sunderland, N.)
Neal, Harold (Bolsover)	Smithers, Peter (Winchester)	Williams, Rt. Hon. Charles (Torquay)
Nicholls, Harmar	Smyth, Brig. J. G. (Norwood)	Williams, Gerald (Tonbridge)
Nicholson, Godfrey (Farnham)	Snadden, W. McN.	Williams, Sir Herbert (Croydon, E.)
Nicolson, Nigel (Bournemouth, E.)	Snow, J. W.	Williams, Rev. Llywelyn (Abertillery)
Nield, Basil (Chester)	Soames, Capt. C	Williams, R. Dudley (Exeter)
Noble, Cmdr. A. H. P.	Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank	Williams, W. R. (Droyisden)
Noel-Baker, Rt. Hon. P J	Sparks, J. A.	Wills, G.
Nugent, G. R. H.	Spearman, A. C. M.	Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)
Nutting, Anthony	Speir, R. M.	Winterbottom, Richard (Brightside)
Oakshott, H. D.	Spence, H. R. (Aberdeenshire, W)	Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A
Oliver, G. H	Stanley, Capt. Hon. Richard	Wyatt, W. L
O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir H. (Antrim, N.)	Steele, T.	Younger, Rt. Hon K
Ormsby-Gore, Hon. W. D.	Stevens, G. P.	TELLERS FOR THE AYES:
Orr-Ewing, Charles Ian (Hendon, N)	Stewart, Henderson (Fife, E.)	Mr. Heath and Mr. Vosper.
NOES
Brockway, A. F. Burke, W. A.	Holman, P.	Reid, William (Camlachie)
Burke, W. A.	Hubbard, T. F.	Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvonshire)
Clunie, J.	Hudson, James (Ealing, N.)	Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)
Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)	MacMillan, M. K. (Western Isles)	Williams, David (Neath)
Davies, Stephen (Merthyr)	Manuel, A. C.	Yates, V. F.
Fernyhough, E.	Padley, W. E.
For man, J. C.	Parker, J.	TELLERS FOR THE NOES:
Glanville, James	Paton, J.	Mr. Carmichael and
Hamilton, W. W.	Pryde, D. J.	Mr. Emrys Hughes.
Healy, Cahir (Fermanagh)	Rankin, John

Amendment proposed: In line 11, leave out "£2,500," and insert "£5,000."—[Mr. Crookshank.]

Sir E. Keeling

This doubling of the maximum amount provided for Civil List pensions was announced by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House early in the evening, after the discussion of my Amendment, the purpose of which it fulfils. Therefore, I should like to thank the Government for this Amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendment proposed: In line 12, leave out "£40,000," and insert "£10,000."—[Mr. Emrys Hughes.]

Question put, "That '£40,000,' stand part of the Question."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 313; Noes, 56.

Division No. 201.]	AYES	[10.25 p.m.
Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)	Fisher, Nigel	Linstead, H N.
Alport, C. J. M.	Fletcher, Eric (Islington, E.)	Lloyd, Maj Guy (Renfrew, E.)
Amery, Julian (Preston, N.)	Fletcher-Cooke, C.	Lloyd, Rt. Hon Selwyn (Wirral)
Anstruther-Gray, Major W. J	Foot, M. M.	Logan, D. G.
Ashton, H. (Cheimsford)	Fort, R.	Longden, Gilbert (Herts, S. W.)
Assheton, Rt. Hon. R. (Blackburn, W.)	Fraser, Sir Ian (Morecambe & Lonsdale)	Lucas, Sir Jocelyn (Portsmouth, S.)
Astor, Hon. J. J. (Plymouth, Sutton)	Gage, C. H.	Lucas, P. B. (Brentford)
Astor, Hon. W. W. (Bucks, Wycombe)	Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. H. T. N.	Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R.	Galbraith, Cmdr. T. D. (Pollok)	McAdden, S. J.
Awbery, S. S.	Galbraith, T. G. D. (Hillhead)	McCorquodale, Rt. Hon. M. S.
Bacon, Miss Alice	George, Rt. Hon. Maj. G. Lloyd	Macdonald, Sir Peter (I. of Wight)
Baldwin, A. E.	Glyn, Sir Ralph	Mackeson, Brig H. R
Banks, Col. C.	Gomme-Duncan, Col. A	McKibbin, A. J.
Barlow, Sir John	Gooch, E. G.	McKie, J. H. (Galloway)
Barnes, Rt. Hon. A. J.	Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.	Maclay, Rt. Hon. John
Baxter, A. B.	Gough, C. F. H.	Maclean, Fitzroy
Beach, Maj. Hicks	Gower, H. R.	McLeavy, F.
Bell, Philip (Bolton, E.)	Graham, Sir Fergus	Macleod, Rt. Hon. Iain (Enfield, W.)
Bell, Ronald (Bucks, S.)	Grey, C. F.	MacLeod, John (Ross and Cromarty)
Bellenger, Rt. Hon. F. J.	Gridley, Sir Arnold	MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)
Bennett, F. M. (Reading, N.)	Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)	Macpherson, Maj. Niall (Dumfries)
Benson, G.	Grimond, J.	Maitland, Cmdr. J. F. W. (Horncastle)
Bevan, Rt. Hon. A (Ebbw Vale)	Grimston, Hon. John (St. Albans)	Maitland, Patrick (Lanark)
Black, C. W.	Grimston, Sir Robert (Westbury)	Markham, Major S. F.
Blackburn, F.	Hale, Leslie (Oldham, W.)	Marples, A. E.
Bossom, A. C.	Hall, John (Gateshead, W.)	Marshall, Douglas (Bodmin)
Bowen, E. R.	Hare, Hon. J. H.	Marshall, Sir Sidney (Sutton)
Boyd-Carpenter, J. A.	Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.)	Maude, Angus
Boyle, Sir Edward	Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye)	Maudling, R.
Braithwaite, Lt.-Cdr. G. (Bristol, N.W.)	Harvie-Watt, Sir George	Maydon, Lt -Comdr. S L C
Brook, Dryden (Halifax)	Hay, John	Medlicott, Brig. F.
Brooke, Henry (Hampstead)	Hayman, F. H.	Mellish, R. J.
Brooman-White, R. C.	Heath, Edward	Mellor, Sir John
Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper)	Henderson, John (Cathcart)	Monckton, Rt. Hon Sir Walter
Browne, Jack (Govan)	Hill, Dr. Charles (Luton)	Moore, Lt.-Col. Sir Thomas
Buchan-Hepburn, Rt. Hon. P. G. T.	Hill, Mrs. E. (Wythenshawe)	Morris, Percy (Swansea, W.)
Bullard, D. G.	Hinchingbrooke, Viscount	Morrison, Rt. Hon. H, (Lewisham, S)
Bullock, Capt. M.	Hirst, Geoffrey	Morrison, John (Salisbury)
Bullus, Wing Commander E. E.	Holland-Martin, C. J.	Mott-Radclyffe, C. E
Burden, F. F. A.	Holmes, Sir Stanley (Harwich)	Moyle, A
Burton, Miss F. E.	Holt, A. F.	Nabarro, G. D. N.
Butcher, H. W.	Horsbrugh, Rt. Hon. Florence	Nally, W.
Butler, Rt. Hon R. A. (Saffron Walden)	Houghton, Douglas	Neal, Harold (Bolsover)
Carr, Robert (Mitcham)	Howard, Greville (St. Ives)	Nicholls, Harmar
Cary, Sir Robert	Hudson, Sir Austin (Lewisham, N)	Nicholson, Godfrey (Farnham)
Channon, H.	Hudson, W. R. A. (Hull, N.)	Nicolson, Nigel (Bournemouth, E.)
Chapman, W. D.	Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)	Nield, Basil (Chester)
Clarke, Col. Ralph (East Grinstead)	Hulbert, Wing Cmdr. N. J.	Noble, Cmdr. A. H P
Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmouth, W.)	Hurd, A. R.	Noei-Baker, Rt. Hon P. J.
Cole, Norman	Hutchinson, Sir Geoffrey (Ilford, N.)	Nugent, G. R. H.
Colegate, W. A.	Hutchison, Lt.-Com. Clarke(E'b'rgh W.)	Nutting, Anthony
Cooper, Sqn. Ldr. Albert	Hutchison, James (Scotstoun)	Oakshott, H. D.
Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne)	Hyde, Lt.-Col. H. M.	Oliver, G. H.
Cranborne, Viscount	Hylton-Foster, H. B. H.	O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir H. (Antrim, N)
Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. F. C	Hynd, H. (Accrington)	Ormsby-Gore, Hon, W. D
Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.	Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)	Orr-Ewing, Charles Ian (Hendon, N.)
Crowder, Sir John (Finchley)	Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A.	Orr-Ewing, Ian L. (Weston-super-Mare)
Cullen, Mrs. A.	Janner, B.	Osborne, C.
Davies, A. Edward (Stoke, N.)	Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)	Oswald, T.
de Freitas, Geoffrey	Johnson, Eric (Blackley)	Partridge, E.
Deedes, W. F.	Johnson, Howard (Kemptown)	Peake, Rt. Hon. O.
Digby, S. Wingfield	Jones, A. (Hall Green)	Pearson, A.
Dodds-Parker, A. D.	Jones, Jack (Rotherham)	Perkins, W. R. D.
Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. McA.	Joynson-Hicks, Hon. L. W.	Peto, Brig. C, H. M
Donner, P. W.	Kaberry, D.	Peyton, J. W. W.
Drewe, G.	Keeling, Sir Edward	Pickthorn, K. W. M
Driberg, T. E. N.	Kenyon, C.	Pitman, I. J
Dugdale, Rt. Hon. John (W. Bromwich)	Kerr, H. W. (Cambridge)	Powell, J Enoch
Dugdale, Maj. Rt. Hn. Sir T.(Richmond)	Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.	Price, Henry (Lewisham, W.)
Duncan, Capt. J. A. L.	Lambton, Viscount	Price, Philips (Gloucestershire, W.)
Eccles, Rt. Hon. D. M.	Lancaster, Col. C. G.	Prior-Palmer, Brig. O. L
Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.	Law, Rt. Hon. R. K.	Profumo, J. D.
Edwards, John (Brighouse)	Leather, E. H. C.	Raikes, H. V.
Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E.	Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H.	Rayner, Brig. R.
Erroll, F. J.	Legh, P. R. (Petersfield)	Reid, Thomas (Swindon)
Evans, Stanley (Wednesbury)	Lennox-Boyd, Rt. Hon. A. T.	Rhodes, H.
Ewart, R.	Lever, Leslie (Ardwick)	Roberts, Peter (Heeley)
Finlay, Graeme	Lindsay, Martin	Robinson, Roland (Blackpool S.)
Robson-Brown, W.	Stoddart-Scott, Col. M.	Walker-Smith, D. C.
Roper, Sir Harold	Stokes, Rt. Hon R R	Ward, Hon. George (Worcester)
Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard	Strauss, Rt. Hon George (Vauxhall)	Ward, Miss I. (Tynemouth)
Russell, R. S.	Strauss, Henry (Norwich, S.)	Waterhouse, Capt Rt. Hon. C.
Ryder, Capt. R. E. D.	Stress, Dr. Barnett	Watkinson, H. A.
Salter, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur	Stuart, Rt. Hon. James (Moray)	Webbe, Sir H. (London & Westminster)
Sandys, Rt. Hon. D.	Studholme, H. G.	Wellwood, W.
Schofield, Lt.-Col. W. (Rochdale)	Summers, G. S.	West, D. G
Scott, R. Donald	Sutcliffe, H.	White, Baker (Canterbury)
Scott-Miller, Cmdr. R	Taylor, Charles (Eastbourne)	White, Mrs. Eirene (E. Flint)
Shepherd, William	Taylor, Rt. Hon. Robert (Morpeth)	White, Henry (Derbyshire, N.E)
Simon, J. E. S. (Middlesbrough, W)	Taylor, William (Bradford, N.)	Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W
Slater, J.	Thomas, George (Cardiff)	Willey, Frederick (Sunderland, N)
Smiles, Lt -Col. Sir Walter	Thompson, Lt.-Cdr. R. (Croydon, W.)	Williams, Rt. Hon. Charles (Torquay)
Smithers, Peter (Winchester)	Thornton-Kemsley, Col. C. N.	Williams, Gerald (Tonbridge)
Smyth, Brig. J. G. (Norwood)	Tilney, John	Williams, Sir Herbert (Croydon, E.)
Snadden, W. McN	Touche, Sir Gordon	Williams, Rev. Llywelyn (Abertillery)
Soames, Capt. C.	Turner, H. F. L.	Williams, R. Dudley (Exeter)
Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank	Turner-Samuels, M.	Williams, W R. (Droylsden)
Sparks, J. A.	Turton, R. H.	Wills, G
Spearman, A. C. M	Tweedsmuir, Lady	Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)
Speir, R. M.	Vane, W. M. F.	Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A
Spence, H. R. (Aberdeenshire, W.)	Vaughan-Morgan, J. K	Wyatt, W. L.
Stanley, Capt. Hon. Richard	Viant, S. P.	Younger, Rt. Hon. K
Stevens, G. P.	Vosper, D. F.
Stewart, Henderson (Fife, E.)	Wade, D. W.	TELLERS FOR THE AYES:
Stewart, Michael (Fulham, E.)	Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)	Major Conant and Mr. Redmayne
NOES
Anderson, Alexander (Motherwell)	Healy, Cahir (Fermanagh)	Price, Joseph T. (Westhoughton)
Bence, C. R.	Holman, P.	Proctor, W. T.
Benn, Wedgwood	Hoy, J. H.	Pryde, D. J
Blenkinsop, A.	Hubbard, T. F.	Rankin, John
Boardman, H.	Hudson, James (Ealing, N.)	Reid, William (Camlachie)
Brockway, A. F.	Jenkins, R. H. (Stechford)	Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvonshire)
Brown, Thomas (Ince)	King, Dr. H. M.	Ross, William
Burke, W. A.	Lindgren, G. S.	Silverman, Julius (Erdington)
Chelwynd, G. R	McInnes, J.	Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)
Clunie, J.	MacMillan, M. K (Western Isles)	Sorensen, R. W
Cove, W. G.	Manual, A. C.	Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)
Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)	Morley, R.	Taylor, John (West Lothian)
Daines, P	Crbach, M.	Timmons, J.
Davies, Harold (Leek)	Padley, W. E.	Wilkins, W. A.
Davies, Stephen (Merthyr)	Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury)	Williams, David (Neath)
Fernyhough, E	Pannell, Charles	Yates, V. F.
Forman, J. C.	Parker, J.
Glanville, James	Paton, J.	TELLERS FOR THE NOES:
Hamilton, W. W	Plummer, Sir Leslie	Mr. Carmichael and
Hannan, W.	Porter, G.	Mr. Emrys Hugbes

Amendment proposed: Leave out lines 20 and 21.—[Mr. Emrys Hughes.]

Mr. Michael Foot (Plymouth, Devonport)

On a point of order, Sir Charles. Can you inform the Committee whether it was your intention to call the Amendment in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Gorbals (Mrs. Cullen)—in line 19, leave out from "£6,000," to the end of line, and insert 'The provision to be made on marriage of a daughter or daughters shall be decided by Parliament.

It raises a point on which there was a division of opinion in the Select Committee and on which, it seems, the Committee should have an opportunity of coming to a decision.

The Chairman

That Amendment has not been selected.

Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 258; Noes, 112.

Bullock, Capt. M.	Hyde, Lt.-Col. H. M.	Pitman, I. J.
Bullus, Wing Commander E. E.	Hylton-Foster, H. B. H.	Powell, J. Enoch
Burden, F. F. A.	Hynd, H. (Accrington)	Price, Henry (Lewisham, W.)
Burton, Miss F. E.	Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)	Prior-Palmer, Brig. O. L.
Butler, Rt. Hon. R. A. (Saffron Walden)	Jay, Rt. Hon. D. P. T.	Profumo, J. O.
Carr, Robert (Mitcham)	Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)	Raikes, H. V.
Cary, Sir Robert	Johnson, Eric (Blackley)	Rayner, Brig. R.
Channon, H.	Jones, A. (Hall Green)	Redmayne, M.
Clarke, Col. Ralph (East Grinstead)	Joynson-Hicks, Hon. L. W.	Roberts, Peter (Heeley)
Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmouth, W.)	Kaberry, D.	Robinson, Roland (Blackpool, S.)
Cole, Norman	Keeling, Sir Edward	Robson-Brown, W.
Colegate, W. A.	Kerr, H. W. (Cambridge)	Roper, Sir Harold
Conant, Maj. R. J. E.	Lambton, Viscount	Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard
Cooper, Sqn. Ldr. Albert	Lancaster, Col. C. G.	Russell, R. S.
Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne)	Law, Rt. Hon. R. K.	Ryder, Capt. R. E. D.
Cranborne, Viscount	Leather, E. H. C.	Salter, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur
Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. F. C.	Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H.	Sandys, Rt. Hon. D.
Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.	Legh, P. R. (Petersfield)	Schofield, Lt.-Col. W. (Rochdale)
Crowder, Sir John (Finchley)	Lennox-Boyd, Rt. Hon. A. T.	Scott, R. Donald
Deedes, W. F.	Lindsay, Martin	Scott-Miller, Cmdr. R.
Digby, S. Wingfield	Linstead, H. N.	Shepherd, William
Dodds-Parker, A. D.	Lloyd, Maj. Guy (Renfrew, E.)	Simon, J. E. S. (Middlesbrough, W.)
Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. McA.	Lloyd, Rt. Hon. Selwyn (Wirral)	Smiles, Lt.-Col. Sir Walter
Donner, P. w.	Longden, Gilbert (Herts, S.W.)	Smith, Norman (Nottingham, S.)
Drewe, G.	Lucas, Sir Jocelyn (Portsmouth, S.)	Smithers, Peter (Winchester)
Driberg, T. E. N.	Lucas, P. B. (Brentford)	Smyth, Brig. J. G. (Norwood)
Dugdale, Rt. Hon. John (W. Bromwich)	Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh	Snaddon, W. McN.
Dugdale, Rt. Hon. Sir T. (Richmond)	McAdden, S. J.	Soames, Capt. C.
Duncan, Capt. J. A. L.	MacColl, J. E.	Spearman, A. C. M.
Eccles, Rt. Hon. D. M.	McCorquodale, Rt. Hon. M. S.	Speir, R. M.
Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.	Macdonald, Sir Peter (I. of Wight)	Spence, H. R. (Aberdeenshire, W.)
Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E.	Mackeson, Brig. H. R.	Stanley, Capt. Hon. Richard
Erroll, F. J.	McKibbin, A. J.	Stevens, G. P.
Finlay, Graeme	McKie, J. H. (Galloway)	Stewart, Henderson (Fife, E.)
Fisher, Nigel	Maclay, Rt. Hon. John	Stewart, Michael (Fulham, E.)
Fletcher-Cooke, C.	Maclean, Fitzroy	Stoddart-Scott, Col. M.
Fort, R.	Macleod, Rt. Hon. Iain (Enfield, W.)	Stokes, Rt. Hon. R. R.
Fraser, Sir Ian (Morecambe & Lonsdale)	MacLeod, John (Ross and Cromarty)	Strauss, Henry (Norwich, S.)
Gage, C. H.	Macpherson, Maj. Niall (Dumfries)	Stuart, Rt. Hon. James (Moray)
Galbraith, Cmdr. T. D. (Pollok)	Maitland, Comdr. J. F. W. (Horncastle)	Studholme, H. G.
Galbraith, T. G. D (Hillhead)	Maitland, Patrick (Lanark)	Summers, G. S.
George, Rt. Hon. Maj. G. Lloyd	Markham, Major S. F.	Sutcliffe, H.
Glyn, Sir Ralph	Marples, A. E.	Taylor, Charles (Eastbourne)
Gomme-Duncan, Col. A.	Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A.	Taylor, William (Bradford, N.)
Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C	Marshall, Douglas (Bodmin)	Thompson, Lt.-Cdr. R. (Croydon, W.)
Gough, C. F. H.	Marshall, Sir Sidney (Sutton)	Thornton-Kemsley, Col. C. N.
Gower, H. R.	Maude, Angus	Tilney, John
Graham, Sir Fergus	Maudling, R.	Touche, Sir Gordon
Grey, C. F.	Maydon, Lt.-Comdr. S. L. C.	Turner, H. F. L.
Gridley, Sir Arnold	Medlicott, Brig. F.	Turner-Samuels, M.
Grimond, J.	Mellish, R. J.	Turton, R. H.
Grimston, Hon. John (St. Albans)	Mellor, Sir John	Tweedsmuir, Lady
Grimston, Sir Robert (Westbury)	Monckton, Rt. Hon. Sir Waller	Vane, W. M. F.
Hale, Leslie (Oldham, W.)	Moore, Lt.-Col. Sir Thomas	Vaughan-Morgan, J.K.
Hare, Hon. J. H.	Morrison, John (Salisbury)	Vosper, D. F.
Harris, Frederic (Croydon. N.)	Mott-Radclyffe, C. E.	Wade, D. W.
Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye)	Moyle, A.	Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)
Harvie-Watt, Sir George	Nabarro, G. D. N.	Walker-Smith, D. C.
Hay, John	Nicholls, Harmar	Ward, Hon. George (Worcester)
Heath, Edward	Nicholson, Godfrey (Farnham)	Ward, Miss I. (Tynemouth)
Henderson, John (Cathcart)	Nicolson, Nigel (Bournemouth. E.)	Waterhouse, Capt. Rt. Hon. C.
Hill, Or. Charles (Luton)	Nield, Basil (Chester)	Watkinson, H. A.
Hill, Mrs. E. (Wythenshawe)	Noble, Cmdr. A. H. P.	Webbe, Sir H. (London & Westminster)
Hinchingbrooke, Viscount	Noel-Baker, Rt. Hon, P. J.	Wellwood, W.
Hirst, Geoffrey	Nugent, G. R. H.	White, Baker (Canterbury)
Holland-Martin, C. J.	Nutting, Anthony	White, Mrs. Eirene (E. Flint)
Holmes, Sir Stanley (Harwich)	O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir H. (Antrim, N.)	Williams, Rt. Hon. Charles (Torquay)
Holt, A. F.	Ormsby-Gore, Hon. W. D.	Williams, Gerald (Tonbridge)
Horsbrugh, Rt. Hon. Florence	Orr-Ewing, Charles Ian (Hendon, N.)	Williams, Sir Herbert (Croydon, E.)
Howard, Greville (St. Ives)	Orr-Ewing, Ian L. (Weston-super-Mare)	Williams, R. Dudley (Exeter)
Hudson, Sir Austin (Lewisham, N.)	Osborne, C.	Wills, G.
Hudson, W. R. A. (Hull, N.)	Partridge, E.	Wilson Geoffrey (Truro)
Hulbert, Wing Cmdr. N. J.	Peaks, Rt. Hon. O.	Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.
Hurd, A. R.	Perkins, W. R. D.
Hutchinson, Sir Geoffrey (Ilford, N.)	Peto, Brig. C. H. M.	TELLERS FOR THE AYES:
Hutchison, Lt.-Com. Clark (E'b'rgh W.)	Peyton, J. W. W.	Mr. Butcher and Mr. Oakshott.
Hutchison, James (Scotstoun)	Pickthorn, K. W. M.

NOES
Acland, Sir Richard	Awbery, S. S.	Bing, G. H. C.
Allen, Arthur (Bosworth)	Bacon, Miss Alice	Blackburn, F.
Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)	Bence, C. R.	Blyton, W. R.
Anderson, Alexander (Motherwell)	Bonn, Wedgwood	Boardman, H.
Anderson, Frank (Whitehaven)	Bevan, Rt. Hon. A. (Ebbw Vale)	Bowles, F. G.

Amendment proposed: Leave out lines 31 and 32. —[Mr. Attlee.]

Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 231; Noes, 197.

Division No. 202.]	AYES	[10.37 p.m.
Alport, C. J. M.	Barlow, Sir John	Bowen, E. R.
Amery, Julian (Preston, N.)	Baxter, A. B.	Boyd-Carpenter, J. A.
Anstruther-Gray, Major W. J.	Beach, Maj. Hicks	Boyle, Sir Edward
Ashton, H. (Chelmsford)	Bell, Philip (Bolton, E.)	Braithwaite, Lt.-Cdr. G. (Bristol, N. W.)
Assheton, Rt. Hon. R. (Blackburn, W.)	Bell, Ronald (Bucks, S.)	Brooke, Henry (Hampstead)
Astor, Hon. J. J. (Plymouth, Sutton)	Bellenger, Rt. Hon. F. J.	Brooman-White, R. C.
Astor, Hon. W. W. (Bucks, Wycombe)	Bennett, F. M. (Reading, N.)	Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper)
Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R.	Black, C. W.	Browne, Jack (Govan)
Baldwin, A. E.	Blenkinsop, A.	Buchan-Hepburn, Rt. Hon. P. G. T.
Banks, Col. C.	Bossom, A. C.	Bullard, D. G.
Bullock, Capt. M.	Hyde, Lt.-Col. H. M.	Pitman, I. J.
Bullus, Wing Commander E. E.	Hylton-Foster, H. B. H.	Powell, J. Enoch
Burden, F. F. A.	Hynd, H. (Accrington)	Price, Henry (Lewisham, W.)
Burton, Miss F. E.	Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)	Prior-Palmer, Brig. O. L.
Butler, Rt. Hon. R. A. (Saffron Walden)	Jay, Rt. Hon. D. P. T.	Profumo, J. O.
Carr, Robert (Mitcham)	Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)	Raikes, H. V.
Cary, Sir Robert	Johnson, Eric (Blackley)	Rayner, Brig. R.
Channon, H.	Jones, A. (Hall Green)	Redmayne, M.
Clarke, Col. Ralph (East Grinstead)	Joynson-Hicks, Hon. L. W.	Roberts, Peter (Heeley)
Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmouth, W.)	Kaberry, D.	Robinson, Roland (Blackpool, S.)
Cole, Norman	Keeling, Sir Edward	Robson-Brown, W.
Colegate, W. A.	Kerr, H. W. (Cambridge)	Roper, Sir Harold
Conant, Maj. R. J. E.	Lambton, Viscount	Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard
Cooper, Sqn. Ldr. Albert	Lancaster, Col. C. G.	Russell, R. S.
Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne)	Law, Rt. Hon. R. K.	Ryder, Capt. R. E. D.
Cranborne, Viscount	Leather, E. H. C.	Salter, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur
Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. F. C.	Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H.	Sandys, Rt. Hon. D.
Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.	Legh, P. R. (Petersfield)	Schofield, Lt.-Col. W. (Rochdale)
Crowder, Sir John (Finchley)	Lennox-Boyd, Rt. Hon. A. T.	Scott, R. Donald
Deedes, W. F.	Lindsay, Martin	Scott-Miller, Cmdr. R.
Digby, S. Wingfield	Linstead, H. N.	Shepherd, William
Dodds-Parker, A. D.	Lloyd, Maj. Guy (Renfrew, E.)	Simon, J. E. S. (Middlesbrough, W.)
Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. McA.	Lloyd, Rt. Hon. Selwyn (Wirral)	Smiles, Lt.-Col. Sir Walter
Donner, P. w.	Longden, Gilbert (Herts, S.W.)	Smith, Norman (Nottingham, S.)
Drewe, G.	Lucas, Sir Jocelyn (Portsmouth, S.)	Smithers, Peter (Winchester)
Driberg, T. E. N.	Lucas, P. B. (Brentford)	Smyth, Brig. J. G. (Norwood)
Dugdale, Rt. Hon. John (W. Bromwich)	Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh	Snaddon, W. McN.
Dugdale, Rt. Hon. Sir T. (Richmond)	McAdden, S. J.	Soames, Capt. C.
Duncan, Capt. J. A. L.	MacColl, J. E.	Spearman, A. C. M.
Eccles, Rt. Hon. D. M.	McCorquodale, Rt. Hon. M. S.	Speir, R. M.
Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.	Macdonald, Sir Peter (I. of Wight)	Spence, H. R. (Aberdeenshire, W.)
Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E.	Mackeson, Brig. H. R.	Stanley, Capt. Hon. Richard
Erroll, F. J.	McKibbin, A. J.	Stevens, G. P.
Finlay, Graeme	McKie, J. H. (Galloway)	Stewart, Henderson (Fife, E.)
Fisher, Nigel	Maclay, Rt. Hon. John	Stewart, Michael (Fulham, E.)
Fletcher-Cooke, C.	Maclean, Fitzroy	Stoddart-Scott, Col. M.
Fort, R.	Macleod, Rt. Hon. Iain (Enfield, W.)	Stokes, Rt. Hon. R. R.
Fraser, Sir Ian (Morecambe & Lonsdale)	MacLeod, John (Ross and Cromarty)	Strauss, Henry (Norwich, S.)
Gage, C. H.	Macpherson, Maj. Niall (Dumfries)	Stuart, Rt. Hon. James (Moray)
Galbraith, Cmdr. T. D. (Pollok)	Maitland, Comdr. J. F. W. (Horncastle)	Studholme, H. G.
Galbraith, T. G. D (Hillhead)	Maitland, Patrick (Lanark)	Summers, G. S.
George, Rt. Hon. Maj. G. Lloyd	Markham, Major S. F.	Sutcliffe, H.
Glyn, Sir Ralph	Marples, A. E.	Taylor, Charles (Eastbourne)
Gomme-Duncan, Col. A.	Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A.	Taylor, William (Bradford, N.)
Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C	Marshall, Douglas (Bodmin)	Thompson, Lt.-Cdr. R. (Croydon, W.)
Gough, C. F. H.	Marshall, Sir Sidney (Sutton)	Thornton-Kemsley, Col. C. N.
Gower, H. R.	Maude, Angus	Tilney, John
Graham, Sir Fergus	Maudling, R.	Touche, Sir Gordon
Grey, C. F.	Maydon, Lt.-Comdr. S. L. C.	Turner, H. F. L.
Gridley, Sir Arnold	Medlicott, Brig. F.	Turner-Samuels, M.
Grimond, J.	Mellish, R. J.	Turton, R. H.
Grimston, Hon. John (St. Albans)	Mellor, Sir John	Tweedsmuir, Lady
Grimston, Sir Robert (Westbury)	Monckton, Rt. Hon. Sir Waller	Vane, W. M. F.
Hale, Leslie (Oldham, W.)	Moore, Lt.-Col. Sir Thomas	Vaughan-Morgan, J.K.
Hare, Hon. J. H.	Morrison, John (Salisbury)	Vosper, D. F.
Harris, Frederic (Croydon. N.)	Mott-Radclyffe, C. E.	Wade, D. W.
Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye)	Moyle, A.	Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)
Harvie-Watt, Sir George	Nabarro, G. D. N.	Walker-Smith, D. C.
Hay, John	Nicholls, Harmar	Ward, Hon. George (Worcester)
Heath, Edward	Nicholson, Godfrey (Farnham)	Ward, Miss I. (Tynemouth)
Henderson, John (Cathcart)	Nicolson, Nigel (Bournemouth. E.)	Waterhouse, Capt. Rt. Hon. C.
Hill, Or. Charles (Luton)	Nield, Basil (Chester)	Watkinson, H. A.
Hill, Mrs. E. (Wythenshawe)	Noble, Cmdr. A. H. P.	Webbe, Sir H. (London & Westminster)
Hinchingbrooke, Viscount	Noel-Baker, Rt. Hon, P. J.	Wellwood, W.
Hirst, Geoffrey	Nugent, G. R. H.	White, Baker (Canterbury)
Holland-Martin, C. J.	Nutting, Anthony	White, Mrs. Eirene (E. Flint)
Holmes, Sir Stanley (Harwich)	O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir H. (Antrim, N.)	Williams, Rt. Hon. Charles (Torquay)
Holt, A. F.	Ormsby-Gore, Hon. W. D.	Williams, Gerald (Tonbridge)
Horsbrugh, Rt. Hon. Florence	Orr-Ewing, Charles Ian (Hendon, N.)	Williams, Sir Herbert (Croydon, E.)
Howard, Greville (St. Ives)	Orr-Ewing, Ian L. (Weston-super-Mare)	Williams, R. Dudley (Exeter)
Hudson, Sir Austin (Lewisham, N.)	Osborne, C.	Wills, G.
Hudson, W. R. A. (Hull, N.)	Partridge, E.	Wilson Geoffrey (Truro)
Hulbert, Wing Cmdr. N. J.	Peaks, Rt. Hon. O.	Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.
Hurd, A. R.	Perkins, W. R. D.
Hutchinson, Sir Geoffrey (Ilford, N.)	Peto, Brig. C. H. M.	TELLERS FOR THE AYES:
Hutchison, Lt.-Com. Clark (E'b'rgh W.)	Peyton, J. W. W.	Mr. Butcher and Mr. Oakshott.
Hutchison, James (Scotstoun)	Pickthorn, K. W. M.
NOES
Acland, Sir Richard	Awbery, S. S.	Bing, G. H. C.
Allen, Arthur (Bosworth)	Bacon, Miss Alice	Blackburn, F.
Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)	Bence, C. R.	Blyton, W. R.
Anderson, Alexander (Motherwell)	Bonn, Wedgwood	Boardman, H.
Anderson, Frank (Whitehaven)	Bevan, Rt. Hon. A. (Ebbw Vale)	Bowles, F. G.
Brockway, A. F.	Hayman, F. H.	Plummer, Sir Leslie
Brook, Dryden (Halifax)	Herbison, Miss M.	Poole, C. C.
Brown, Thomas (Ince)	Holman, P.	Porter, G.
Burke, W. A.	Holmes, Horace (Hemsworth)	Price, Joseph T. (Westhoughton)
Butler, Herbert (Hackney, S.)	Hoy, J. H.	Pryde, D. J.
Carmichael, J.	Hubbard, T. F.	Rankin, John
Castle, Mrs. B. A.	Hudson, James (Ealing, N.)	Reid, William (Camlachie)
Chetwynd, G. R.	Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)	Rhodes, H.
Clunie, J.	Jeger, Dr. Santo (St. Pancras, S.)	Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvonshire)
Collick, P. H.	Jenkins, R. H. (Stechford)	Ross, William
Cove, W. G.	Jones, Jack (Rotherham)	Royle, C.
Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)	Keenan, W.	Silverman, Julius (Erdington)
Cullen, Mrs. A.	Kenyon, C.	Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)
Dairies, P.	Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.	Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)
Davies, A. Edward (Stoke, N.)	King, Dr. H. M.	Sorensen, R. W.
Davies, Harold (Leek)	Lee, Frederick (Newton)	Sparks, J. A.
Davies, Stephen (Merthyr)	Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)	Steele, T.
de Freitas, Geoffrey	Lever, Leslie (Ardwick)	Strauss, Rt. Hon. George (Vauxhall)
Delargy, H. J.	Lindgren, G. S.	Stross, Dr. Barnett
Edwards, John (Brighouse)	McInnes, J.	Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)
Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W.)	MacMillan, M. K. (Western Isles)	Taylor, John (West Lothian)
Ewart, R.	MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)	Thomas, George (Cardiff)
Fernyhough, E.	Mann, Mrs. Jean	Timmons, J.
Foot, M. M.	Manuel, A. C.	Viant, S. P.
For man, J. C.	Morley, R.	Wilkins, W. A.
Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)	Nally, W.	Willey, Frederick (Sunderland, N.)
Gibson, C. W.	Orbach, M.	Williams, David (Neath)
Glanville, James	Oswald, T.	Williams, Rev. Llywelyn (Abertillery)
Gooch, E. G.	Padley, W. E.	Williams, Ronald (Wigan)
Greenwood, Anthony (Rossendale)	Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury)	Williams, W. R. (Droylsden)
Griffiths, William (Exchange)	Panned, Charles	Winterbottom, Richard (Brightside)
Hamilton, W. W.	Parker, J.
Hannan, W.	Paton, J.
		TELLERS FOR THE NOES:
		Mr. Emrys Hughes and Mr. Yates.

Division No. 203.]	AYES	[10.48 pm.
Alport, C. J. M.	Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. F. C.	Hinchingbrooke, Viscount
Amery, Julian (Preston, N.)	Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.	Hirst, Geoffrey
Anstruther-Gray, Major W. J.	Crowder, Sir John (Finchley)	Holland-Martin, C. J.
Ashton, H. (Chelmsford)	Deedes, W. F.	Holmes, Sir Stanley (Harwich)
Assheton, Rt. Hon. R. (Blackburn, W.)	Digby, S. Wingfield	Holt, A. F.
Astor, Hon. J. J. (Plymouth, Sutton)	Dodds-Parker, A. D.	Horsbrugh, Rt. Hon. Florence
Astor, Hon. W. W. (Bucks, Wycombe)	Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. McA.	Howard, Greville (St. Ives)
Baldwin, A. E.	Donner, P. W.	Hudson, Sir Austin (Lewisham, N.)
Banks, Col. C.	Drewe, C.	Hudson, W. R. A. (Hull, N.)
Barlow, Sir John	Dugdale, Rt. Hon. Sir T. (Richmond)	Hulbert, Wing Cmdr. N. J.
Baxter, A. B.	Duncan, Capt. J. A. L.	Hurd, A. R.
Beach, Maj. Hicks	Eccles, Rt. Hon. D. M.	Hutchinson, Sir Geoffrey (Ilford, N.)
Bell, Philip (Bolton, E.)	Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E.	Hutchison, Lt.-Com. Clark (E'b'rgh W.)
Bell, Ronald (Bucks, S.)	Erroll, F. J.	Hutchison, James (Scotstoun)
Bennett, F. M. (Reading, N.)	Finlay, Graeme	Hyde, Lt.-Col. H. M.
Black, C. W.	Fisher, Nigel	Hylton-Foster, H. B. H.
Bossom, A. C.	Fletcher-Cooke, C.	Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)
Bowen, E. R.	Fort, R.	Johnson, Eric (Blackley)
Boyd-Carpenter, J. A.	Fraser, Sir Ian (Morecambe & Lonsdale)	Jones, A. (Hall Green)
Boyle, Sir Edward	Gage, C. H.	Joynson-Hicks, Hon. L. W.
Braithwaite, Lt.-Cdr. G. (Bristol, N.W.)	Galbraith, Cmdr. T. D. (Pollok)	Kaberry, D.
Brooke, Henry (Hampstead)	Galbraith, T. G. D. (Hillhead)	Keeling, Sir Edward
Brooman-White, R. C.	George, Rt. Hon. Maj. G. Lloyd	Kerr, H. W. (Cambridge)
Browne, Jack (Govan)	Glyn, Sir Ralph	Lambton, Viscount
Bullard, D. G.	Gomme-Duncan, Col. A.	Lancaster, Col. C. G.
Bullock, Capt. M.	Gough, C. F. H.	Law, Rt. Hon. R. K.
Bullus, Wing Commander E. E.	Gower, H. R.	Leather, E. H. C.
Burden, F. F. A.	Graham, Sir Fergus	Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H.
Butler, Rt. Hon. R. A. (Saffron Walden)	Gridley, Sir Arnold	Legh, P. R. (Petersfield)
Carr, Robert (Mitcham)	Grimston, Hon. John (St. Albans)	Lennox-Boyd, Rt. Hon. A. T.
Cary, Sir Robert	Grimston, Sir Robert (Westbury)	Lindsay, Martin
Channon, H.	Hare, Hon. J. H.	Linstead, H. N.
Clarke, Col. Ralph (East Grinstead)	Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.)	Lloyd, Maj. Guy (Renfrew, E.)
Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmouth, W.)	Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye)	Lloyd, Rt. Hon. Selwyn (Wirral)
Cole, Norman	Harvie-Watt, Sir George	Longden, Gilbert (Herts, S. W.)
Colegate, W. A.	Hay, John	Lucas, Sir Jocelyn (Portsmouth, S.)
Conant, Maj. R. J. E.	Heath, Edward	Lucas, P. B. (Brentford)
Cooper, Sqn. Ldr. Albert	Henderson, John (Cathcart)	Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne)	Hill, Dr. Charles (Luton)	McAdden, S. J.
Cranborne, Viscount	Hill, Mrs. E. (Wythenshawe)	McCorquodale, Rt. Hon. M. S.
Macdonald, Sir Peter (I. of Wight)	Partridge, E.	Stoddart-Scott, Col. M.
Mackeson, Brig. H. R.	Peake, Rt. Hon. O	Strauss, Henry (Norwich, S.)
McKibbin, A. J.	Peto, Brig. C. H. M.	Stuart, Rt. Hon. James (Moray)
McKie, J. H. (Galloway)	Peyton, J. W. W.	Studholme, H. G.
Maclay, Rt. Hon. John	Pickthorn, K. W. M.	Summers, G. S.
Maclean, Fitzroy	Pitman, I. J.	Sutcliffe, H.
Macleod, Rt. Hon. Iain (Enfield, W.)	Powell, J. Enoch	Taylor, Charles (Eastbourne)
MacLeod, John (Ross and Cromarty)	Price, Henry (Lewisham, W.)	Taylor, William (Bradford, N.)
Macpherson, Maj. Niall (Dumfries)	Prior-Palmer, Brig. O. L.	Thompson, Lt.-Cdr. R. (Croydon, W.)
Maitland, Comdr. J. F. W. (Horncastle)	Profumo, J. D.	Thornton-Kemsley, Col. C. N.
Maitland, Patrick (Lanark)	Raikes, H. V.	Tilney, John
Markham, Major S. F.	Rayner, Brig. R.	Touche, Sir Gerald
Marplot, A. E.	Redmayne, M.	Turner, H. F. L.
Marshall, Douglas (Bodmin)	Roberts, Peter (Heeley)	Turton, R. H.
Marshall, Sir Sidney (Sutton)	Robinson, Roland (Blackpool, S.)	Tweedsmuir, Lady
Maude, Angus	Robson-Brown, W.	Vane, W. M. F.
Maudling, R.	Roper, Sir Harold	Vaughan-Morgan, J. K
Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr. S. L. C.	Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard	Vosper, D. F.
Medlicott, Brig. F.	Russell, R. S.	Wade, D. W.
Mellor, Sir John	Ryder, Capt. R. E. D.	Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)
Monckton, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter	Salter, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur	Walker-Smith, D. C.
Moore, Lt.-Col. Sir Thomas	Sandys, Rt. Hon. D.	Ward, Hon. George (Worcester)
Morrison, John (Salisbury)	Schofield, Lt.-Col. W. (Rochdale)	Ward, Miss I. (Tynemouth)
Mott-Radclyffe, C. E.	Scott, R. Donald	Waterhouse, Capt. Rt. Hon. C.
Nabarro, G. D. N.	Scott-Miller, Cmdr. R.	Watkinson, H. A.
Nicholls, Harmar	Shepherd, William	Webbe, Sir H. (London & Westminster)
Nicholson, Godfrey (Farnham)	Simon, J. E. S. (Middlesbrough, W.)	Wellwood, W.
Nicolson, Nigel (Bournemouth. E.)	Smiles, Lt.-Col. Sir Waller	White, Baker (Canterbury)
Nield, Basil (Chester)	Smithers, Peter (Winchester)	Williams, Rt. Hon. Charles (Torquay)
Noble, Cmdr. A. H. P.	Smyth, Brig. J. G. (Norwood)	Williams, Gerald (Tonbridge)
Nugent, G. R. H.	Snadden, W. McN.	Williams, Sir Herbert (Croydon, E.)
Nutting, Anthony	Soames, Capt. C.	Williams, R. Dudley (Exeter)
Oakshott, H. D.	Spearman, A. C. M.	Wills, G.
O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir H. (Antrim, N.)	Speir, R. M.	Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)
Ormsby-Gore, Hon. W. D.	Spence, H. R. (Aberdeenshire, W.)
Orr-Ewing, Chares Ian (Hendon, N.)	Stanley, Capt. Hon. Richard	TELLERS FOR THE AYES:
Orr-Ewing, Ian L. (Weston-super-Mare)	Stevens, G. P.	Mr. Buchan-Hepburn and
Osborne, C.	Stewart, Henderson (Fife, E.)	Mr. Butcher.
NOES
Acland, Sir Richard	Davies, Harold (Leek)	Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Adams, Richard	Davies, Stephen (Merthyr)	Hynd, H. (Accrington)
Allen, Arthur (Bosworth)	de Freitas, Geoffrey	Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)
Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)	Delargy, H. J.	Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A.
Anderson, Alexander (Motherwell)	Driberg, T. E. N.	Janner, B.
Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R	Dugdale, Rt. Hon. John (W. Bromwich)	Jay, Rt. Hon. D. P. T.
Awbery, S. S.	Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.	Jeger, Dr. Santo (St. Pancras, S.)
Bacon, Miss Alice	Edwards, John (Brighouse)	Jenkins, R. H. (Stechford)
Bellenger, Rt. Hon F. J.	Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly)	Jones, Jack (Rotherham)
Bence, C. R.	Edwards, W. J. (Stepney)	Keenan, W.
Benn, Wedgwood	Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W.)	Kenyon, C.
Benson, G.	Evans, Stanley (Wednesbury)	Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.
Bevan, Rt. Hon. A. (Ebbw Vale)	Ewart, R.	King, Dr. H. M.
Bing, G. H. C.	Fernyhough, E.	Lee, Frederick (Newton)
Blackburn, F.	Fletcher, Eric (Islington, E.)	Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)
Blenkinsop, A.	Foot, M. M.	Lever, Leslie (Ardwick)
Blyton, W. R.	Forman, J. C.	Lindgren, G. S.
Boardman, H.	Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)	Logan, D. G.
Bottomley, Rt. Hon. A. G.	Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. H. T. N.	MacColl, J. E.
Bowles, F. G.	Gibson, C. W.	McInnes, J.
Braddock, Mrs. Elizabeth	Glanville, James	McLeavy, F.
Brockway, A. F.	Gooch, E. G.	MacMillan, M. K. (Western Isles)
Brook, Dryden (Halifax)	Gordon-Walker, Rt. Hon P. C.	MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)
Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.	Greenwood, Anthony (Rossendal)	Mainwaring, W. H.
Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper)	Grey, C. F.	Mann, Mrs. Jean
Brown, Thomas (Ince)	Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)	Manuel, A. C.
Burke, W. A.	Griffiths, William (Exchange)	Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A.
Burton, Miss F. E.	Grimond, J.	Mellish, R. J.
Butler, Herbert (Hackney, S.)	Hale, Leslie (Oldham, W.)	Mitchison, G. R
Callaghan, L. J.	Hall, John (Gateshead, W.)	Morley, R.
Carmichael, J.	Hamilton, W. W.	Morris, Percy (Swansea, W.)
Castle, Mrs. B. A.	Hannan, W.	Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Lewisham, S.)
Chetwynd, G. R.	Hastings, S.	Mort, D. L.
Clunie, J.	Hayman, F. H.	Moyle, A.
Cooks, F. S.	Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Rowley Regis)	Nally, W.
Coldrick, W.	Herbison, Miss M.	Neal, Harold (Bolsover)
Collick, P. H.	Holman, P.	Noel-Baker, Rt. Hon. P. J.
Cove, W. G.	Holmes, Horace (Hemsworth)	Oliver, G. H.
Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)	Houghton, Douglas	Orbach, M.
Cullen, Mrs. A.	Hoy, J. H.	Oswald, T.
Daines, P.	Hubbard, T. F.	Padley, W. E.
Davies, A. Edward (Stoke, N.)	Hudson, James (Ealing, N.)	Paling, Rt. Hon. W. (Dearne Valley)
Davies, Ernest (Enfield, E.)	Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)	Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury)
Pannell, Charles	Schofield, S. (Barnsley)	Turner-Samuels, M.
Pargiter, G. A.	Shackieton, E. A. A.	Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn
Parker, J.	Silverman, Julius (Erdington)	Viant, S. P.
Paton, J.	Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)	Wallace, H. W.
Pearson, A.	Slater, J.	West, D. G.
Peart, T. F.	Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)	Wheatley, Rt. Hon. John
Plummer, Sir Leslie	Smith, Norman (Nottingham, S.)	White, Mrs. Eirene (E. Flint)
Poole, C. C.	Snow, J. W.	White, Henry (Derbyshire, N.E.)
Popplewell, E.	Sorensen, R. w.	Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W
Porter, G.	Soskice, fit. Hon. Sir Frank	Wigg, George
Price, Joseph T. (Westhoughton)	Sparks, J. A.	Willey, Frederick (Sunderland, N.)
Price, Philips (Gloucestershire, W.)	Steele, T.	Williams, David (Neath)
Proctor, W. T.	Stewart, Michael (Fulham, E.)	Williams, Rev. Llywelyn (Abertillery)
Pryde, D. J.	Stokes, Rt. Hon. R. R.	Williams, Ronald (Wigan)
Rankin, John	Strauss, Rt. Hon. George (Vauxhall)	Williams, W. R. (Droylsden)
Reid, Thomas (Swindon)	Stross, Dr. Barnett	Winterbottom, Richard (Brightside)
Reid, William (Camlachie)	Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)	Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.
Rhodes, H.	Taylor, John (West Lothian)	Wyatt, W. L.
Richards, R.	Taylor, Rt. Hon. Robert (Morpeth)	Yates, V. F.
Robens, Rt. Hon. A.	Thomas, David (Aberdare)	Younger, Rt. Hon. K.
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvonshire)	Thomas, George (Cardiff)
Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)	Thomas, Iorwerth (Rhondda, W.)	TELLERS FOR THE NOES:
Ross, William	Thomas, Ivor Owen (Wrekin)	Mr. Wilkins and
Royle, C.	Timmons, J.	Mr. Kenneth Robinson

Question put accordingly, and agreed to.

Resolved, That there be charged on the Consolidated Fund as from the last demise of the Crown the following annual sums (subject to adjustment in respect of parts of a year): For the Queen's Civil List: £475,000; For retired allowances: such sums as may be required for the payment of retired allowances granted by Her Majesty or by His late Majesty to or in respect of persons who have been members of the Royal Household; For Civil List pensions: such sums as may be required for the payment in each year of Civil List pensions already granted and Civil List pensions hereafter to be granted, so, however, that the aggregate of the pensions granted in any financial year shall not exceed £5,000 a year; For His Royal Highness the Duke of Edinburgh: £40,000, in substitution for any sum payable to him under the Princess Elizabeth's and Duke of Edinburgh's Annuities Act, 1948; For the benefit of the children of Her Majesty, other than the Duke of Cornwall for the time being: in respect of each son who attains the age of twenty-one years or marries, £10,000, and in the case of a son who marries a further £15,000; and in respect of each daughter who attains the age of twenty-one years or marries, £6,000, and in case of a daughter who marries a further £9,000; For Her Royal Highness the Princess Margaret: £9,000 in the event of her marriage, in addition to any sum payable to her under section six of the Civil List Act, 1937; In the event of the death during the present reign of the Duke of Cornwall for the time being leaving a widow, for his widow, £30,000; and that provision be made for continuing for a period of six months after the close of the present reign certain payments charged as aforesaid upon the Consolidated Fund which would otherwise then be determined: Provided that—

1. (i) as respects any period during which the Duke of Cornwall for the time being is a minor, the sum of £475,000 for the Queen's Civil List shall be subject to a reduction of an amount equal to the net revenues of the Duchy for the year, less—
1. (a) for each year whilst he is under the age of eighteen years, one ninth of those revenues,
2. (b) for each of the last three years of his minority, £30,000;
2. (ii) as respects any period during which the Duchy of Cornwall is vested in Her Majesty, the said sum of £475,000 shall be subject to a reduction of an amount equal to the net revenues of the Duchy for the year.

Resolved, That it is expedient to repeal section five of the Civil List Act. 1937, and to make other amendments in the law relating to the Civil List, the hereditary revenues, the Duchy of Cornwall, and Grants for the Royal Family.—[Mr. R. A. Butler.]

Resolutions to be reported To-morrow.