The Labour Government and the House of Commons

• Author: Dell G. Hitchner
• DOI: 10.1177/106591295200500306
• Date: 01 September 1952
• Published date: 01 September 1952
• Subject Matter: Articles

THE LABOUR GOVERNMENT
AND THE HOUSE OF COMMONS
DELL G. HITCHNER
University of Washington
URING
THE YEARS 1945-51, the British Labour party was for the
first time in power as well as in office. The new House of Commons
’**~
elected in 1945 replaced that of a ten-year-old Parliament, and
though its new Labour majority had sought no mandate to reshape the
House of Commons, given the reformist inclinations and promises of the
Labour party, the electorate’s importunate demand for greater govern-
mental efficiency and responsiveness, the huge legislative tasks imposed by
the reconstruction program, and even, indeed, the wartime physical de-
struction of the House of Commons’ meeting place, it was inevitable that
in the following six years when so many British institutions faced altera-
tion the House of Commons would also undergo change. To be sure, there
were fears in some quarters for the future of parliamentary government
under Labour domination; many Conservatives were disposed to argue
that the Labour victory would put the Government in the hands of a
party executive entirely beyond the control of the House. When the
Parliament assembled at the opening of the 1945 session, however, Mr.
Churchill was moved to pay graceful tribute to the House and the Labour
majority now opposed to him, saying, in part:
I am very much impressed with this new House of Commons, with the pin-drop
silence in which they listen to all speeches from all parties, and from all parts of the
House, and with the earnestness and gravity with which large numbers of new Members
here are evidently determined to approach the serious and important tasks with which
they are charged.’
It was this body, more than half of whose members had no previous ex-
perience in it, which would refashion the postwar House of Commons,
changing aspects of its constitution, procedure, status, and function, to
an extent that deserves assessment.
I.
CONSTITUTION
The most important constitutional measure adopted during this period
affecting the organization of the House of Commons was the Representa-
tion of the People Act, 1948.2 One in the series of major democratizing
steps begun by the Great Reform Act of 1832, it undertook a complete
redistribution of seats, redefined the basis of the franchise, and recodified
1413 H.C. Deb. 5th ser., 994-95.
2 11 and 12 Geo. 6, c. 65.
417

---

418
the law relating to the conduct and administration of elections. The act
was not, of course, a Labour party measure as such, but had been planned
in discussions of the wartime cabinet and prepared on the basis of the
reports of several different bodies. After a two-day debate in February,
1944,3 the House agreed to the creation of a Conference on Electoral Re-
form and Redistribution of Seats, composed of thirty-two members under
the chairmanship of the Speaker, and constituted roughly in proportion to
party strength in the House, including three peers. In November, the
House created a select committee to consider such special subjects as cor-
rupt and illegal practices and the conduct of the poll. The conclusions
of these conferences, which, the Speaker reported, &dquo;undoubtedly repre-
sent for all a subordination of personal opinions sincerely held,&dquo; were
contained in three reports.4 Following the recommendations of the first of
these, the House of Commons (Redistribution of Seats) Act, 1944,~ was
adopted, establishing four separate boundary commissions, one each for
England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, to undertake the laying
out of constituency boundaries and the apportionment of seats according
to the principles of redistribution established by the Speaker’s Conference.’
The reports of these commissions provided the redistribution schemes
embodied in the 1948 bill.7
The Representation of the People Act, 1948, set the number of parlia-
mentary seats - to be filled henceforward solely from single-member con-
stituencies - at 625, an increase from the figure of 615 established in 1922
when the Irish Free State was constituted, but a reduction from the pro-
visional number of 640 adopted to deal with the abnormal circumstances
of the 1945 election.8
The qualification for voting was rested solely on residence in the
constituency, an alteration that abolished plural voting entirely. Both the
business premises and the university vote were eliminated, and, along
with the latter, the twelve seats previously apportioned to the seven
university constituencies in the Commons.’
The allowable expenses for the conduct of election campaigns were
substantially reduced, with the cost to each candidate limited to £450
3
396 H.C. Deb. 5th ser., 1154-1237, 1288-1369.
4 Conference on Electoral Reform and Redistribution of Seats (Cmd. 6534), 1944 and (Cmd. 6543), 1944;
Final Report of the Committee on Electoral Law Reform (Cmd. 7286), 1947.
5
7 and 8 Geo. 6, c. 41.
6
This arrangement was made permanent by the House of Commons (Redistribution of Seats) Act, 1949,
12, 13 and 14 Geo. 6, c. 66, with the commissions authorized to review representation at frequent
intervals.
7 Initial Report of the Boundary Commission for Northern Ireland (Cmd. 7231), 1947; Initial Report of
the Boundary Commission for England (Cmd. 7260), 1947; Initial Report of the Boundary Com-
mission for Scotland (Cmd. 7270), 1947; and Initial Report of the Boundary Commission for Wales
(Cmd. 7274), 1947.
8 The seats were distributed, 506 to England, 71 to Scotland, 36 to Wales, and 12 to Northern Ireland,
by a reapportionment so extensive as to leave only 80 constituencies in the entire United Kingdom
unchanged. The constituencies are described in the First Schedule to the Act.
9
A brief history is T. L. Humberstone, University Representation (London: Hutchinson, 1951).

---

419
plus 2d. per elector in county constituencies and 11/zd. per elector in bor-
ough constituencies. The use of automobiles to transport voters to the
polls was also sharply restricted, permitting each candidate to use one for
every 1,500 electors in a county and one for every 2,500 in a borough. For
the administration of elections, minor changes were made in existing laws
governing the compilation of the electoral register, postal and proxy vot-
ing, and the functions of returning officers.
If the bill could not be labeled a party measure, it was, nevertheless,
a highly controversial one. The Conservative Opposition, while agreeing
with the bill’s main principles, vigorously criticized what they alleged was
the Labour Government’s attempt to profit by what suited them in the
agreed conclusions of the Speaker’s Conference of 1944, but to repudiate
what was to their disadvantage.lo
Four features of the bill drew most of the Conservatives’ fire. They
charged that not only was the elimination of university representation a
violation of the Conference agreement,&dquo; but that it was a breach of consti-
tutional custom to alter the structure of the Commons without all-party
agreement, actuated for the sake of a fleeting electioneering advantage.
They also insisted that they would not accept the abolition of the univer-
sity franchise as a permanent settlement of the matter. 12 The Government
stood firmly, however, in its determination to eliminate the university vote.
Its spokesmen argued that as against that anachronistic practice, the fran-
chise should be based on ordinary citizenship under the principle of &dquo;one
man, one vote&dquo;; that the relatively small university electorate, enjoying a
second privileged vote, was not entitled to return twelve members - a
completely disproportionate number even if the principle were defensible;
and that university votes were being used to send Conservative candidates
defeated in the general elections back to the House. 13
The abolition of the business premises vote was also challenged as a
violation of the Speaker’s Conference agreement, though the Conserva-
tives chose not to advocate its retention, but instead rallied to the defense
of the City of London, which, because of the decline of its residential
population to 4,600, was to be deprived of its two members of Parliament,
and be merged with (worse still - said the Conservatives -
submerged
by) the working class boroughs of Shoreditch and Finsbury. To leave
10
447 H.C. Deb. 5th ser., 864.
11
Mr. Churchill intimated that one of the bargains struck was a Labour agreement to leave university
representation untouched in return for a Conservative agreement to assimilate the parliamentary
and local government franchise, thus giving the vote in municipal elections to some seven million
non-ratepaying electors. Mr. Attlee denied any such "bargain" was reached. Ibid., 861, 866.
12

Ibid
.,
870. The Conservative party election manifesto of 1950 stated that "we shall restore, as we have
already declared in Parliament, the university constituencies, holding elections immediately after
the necessary legislation has been passed." The manifesto for 1951 also promised such restoration,
though the wisdom of such an act was already being questioned within the party before the 1951
election. After the election, however, Mr. Churchill announced that the university seats would
not be reconstituted until the end of the present Parliament.
13

Ibid
.,
856-57, 865; 452 H.C. Deb. 5th ser., 171-204.

---

420
nothing of this ancient constituency but its name was not only to insult the
City, they said, but to disregard the clear recommendation of the Speaker’s
Conference that the City of London should continue to return two
members. On a...