JOINT PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY. (Hansard, 12 November 1940)

§ Captain Vyvyan Adams (Leeds, West)
I am grateful for the kindness of whoever was responsible for not pressing that Motion just now. I fully understand that the incident may have been due to some misunderstanding and not merely to a Parliamentary trick. What happened after Questions to-day in this House commanded complete unanimity. With every word that fell from the four right hon. Gentleman who spoke about Mr. Neville Chamberlain every Member in this House agreed, but, as the Prime Minister said then, at the lych-gate we may all pass our own conduct under searching review, and I am asking, on this Adjournment Debate, a right hon. and gallant Gentleman whom I see opposite to look at his own works. What I am going to say will not, I know, command complete unity in this House. But my apology for raising this matter to-day is that this is my only opportunity; however unfavourable the psychological atmosphere may be, I feel quite unable to be silenced any longer by circumstance or official persuasion. As most of my time, or at any rate much of my time, is now consurned by other duties which seem to me as important as Parliamentary duties it may be that I can take a more objective view. I should like to say at this stage that I have found that the discipline which prevails in the Army has some reason underlying it, unlike the rigid Parliamentary discipline which has threatened for the last nine years, from time to time, to sterilise democracy. With your leave, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, I am raising the question of the salary and position of somebody who has been regarded for too long as a kind of sacrosanct and inviolable figure—the right hon. and gallant Gentleman who is variously known in this House as the Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury, the Chief Whip, the right hon. and gallant Member for Rugby (Captain Marges- 1662 son), the Patronage Secretary, and most commonly, of course, as "the usual channel."
The last is a complete misnomer. In the House of Commons for years now to the ordinary Member who has tried to do his duty to Parliament, his country and his constituents he has been a block and a dam. In fact he has on many occasions succeeded in muzzling our Parliamentary freedom. I am one of those who believe now and have believed for a long time that stronger policies and wiser statesmanship applied years ago would have avoided this war and at the same time would have preserved freedom for Europe. Peace might have been preserved if the present Prime Minister had entered the Government as recently as April of last year. That is my opinion; but, in any event, unless we surrender to fatalism we must credit the policies which we formulate in this House or which the Government founds upon Parliamentary consent with some effect on events.
But year after year—I would like the right hon. and gallant Gentleman's attention; he need not try to sneer me into silence, although I suppose that he would say that he was physiologically incapable of sneering—for no less than nine years the Chief Whip has in two Parliaments driven huge majorities to support policies which have culminated in this catastrophe. It is a catastrophe from which we must emerge victorious or perish. We have to-day—and no thanks to the Chief Whip—a Prime Minister whose leadership electrifies the Empire. He is a guarantee of our perseverance and the symbol—the earnest of our coming victory. Yet the Chief Whip did all he could—and did it successfully—to exclude him from the Government until the war came, which the Prime Minister prophesied and which he might have prevented. He did all he could to preserve in high office—I wish the right hon. and gallant Gentleman would pay a little attention—

§ The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury (Captain Margesson)
I am listening to every word.

§ Captain Adams
Well, perhaps the right hon. and gallant Gentleman will not appear to be speaking to the Lord Privy Seal. As I was saying, the right hon. 1663 and gallant Gentleman did all he could to preserve in high office others whose strength was failing and whose leadership was hesitant. Those of us who worked for years for a Churchill Government he chose to treat as a bad smell. In May the facade which the right hon. and gallant Gentleman thought so safe suddenly collapsed, and some of us who were serving far from Westminster sighed with relief. At last, we felt, this evil, unhappy tyranny was over. No longer would the criterion of great decisions be the convenience of the Chief Whip and his little knot of friends. Until last week I had not been in the House since July; I had been in a place where the London newspaper is unknown. Often we do not appreciate the value of something until we are deprived of it, and I assure my hon. Friends that that release was something of a mixed blessing. But I did expect to hear by post, or perhaps on the wireless, that the Chief Whip who had at last been exposed after nine long years as a huge political sham, had gone either to the Suez Canal or to the House of Lords.
I came back last week to find acres of the East End of London in ruins, as well as tracts of devastation in other parts of the Metropolis—magnificent memorials, we shall all agree, to the methods by which the Chief Whip and his friends have run our affairs for the last nine years. [Interruption]. I take the view that by wiser statemanship this war could have been avoided. Here we have the most powerful individual who has held continuous office over the last nine years, and I hope he is pleased to-day with St. James's, Piccadilly, St. Clement Danes and the Halls of the Inner and Middle Temple.

§ Mr. George Griffiths (Hemsworth)
And the Carlton Club.

§ Captain Adams
Yes, but I, too, have an interest in that institution. Most unfortunately, the right hon. and gallant Gentleman is still there, whispering his counsels in the ear of the Prime Minister, and I suppose that he is still, as he has been over the last nine years, the fountain of honours. If anyone over the last nine years desired a title, it was necessary to approach the right hon. and gallant Gentleman on all fours. As I have been, 1664 fortunately, not interested in these matters, I have been able to preserve a vertical posture, but I am bound to say that the presence still of the right hon. and gallant Gentleman at the centre of power seems to me to be a fact of cardinal constitutional indecency. As far as I know, he still draws £3,000 a year, and so does another better-loved functionary. I am not aware of any respect in which his duties lately have become so onerous that he needs anyone to help him. My summons to attend the House is still inscribed with the sinister words, "David Margesson."
When I see somebody requiring support for a Government whose coming into being he did his best to prevent, I rub my eyes. I cannot help asking whether the right hon. and gallant Gentlemen is immune from every semblance of decency. Can he never, I wonder, blush with shame? There is in this circumstance one consolation. It is that every revolt that I and others have made against him and his friends, every criticism and every protest we have uttered, are now shown to have been justified to the hilt. A man who can remain in high political office in these circumstances can only be described as a political hireling. He is shown to have had no right to utter a single rebuke against those of us who, from time to time, have caused him some trifling inconvenience. His vain expression is clearly shown to have had nothing behind it except expediency. Least of all should he have dared to compliment himself, as I have heard him do, upon the "leniency" with which he has treated rebellions.
It is an incredible thing that a man should acquire such a powerful position in this House that he seems to arrogate to himself the right to treat with "indulgence" or "leniency" the exercise of a Member's private right of judgment. This kind of sentiment, this kind of belief, this principle, is enough to make Edmund Burke turn in his grave. The right hon. and gallant Gentleman—many people say this privately, and I do not see why one should snarl in a corner and not say it publicly, for our whole principle of government is founded upon the freedom of expression of ordinary Members' opinions—the right hon. and gallant Gentleman has tried to convert this, the first assembly of the world, to which our constituents elect us to use 1665 our own judgment, into a school with himself as the chief usher. I have no regrets for refusing to concur in or for opposing the policies which the right hon. and gallant Gentleman has tried to order the House to support. I will enumerate some of them, and many hon. Members will agree—perhaps not with complete unanimity—that those policies are now exposed as catastrophic failures and mistakes. The acquiescence in the building of a German Navy, which we were not even allowed to debate, although we asked for a debate across the Floor of the House; the Hoare-Laval proposals, Spain, the pitiable attempts to neutralise Italy, slack rearmament, the appeasement of the Nazis, Austria, and finally—something which I dare to say in spite of what has been said to-day—the crowning dishonour of Munich. If the right hon. and gallant Gentleman can be identified, as I have no doubt he thinks he can be, with Toryism, he has come near to making it identical with myopia and with cowardice. Never has the country or a great party suffered such injury from a single individual so powerful. And the power for evil is still there, sitting just by the Mace. Who can be certain that this prince of appeasement is bent on absolute victory? The only favour—I wish the right hon. and gallant Gentleman would heed my penultimate remarks—

§ Captain Margesson
I am listening to every word the hon. Member is saying.

§ Captain Adams
Perhaps the right hon. and gallant Gentleman will hold his peace until I have finished speaking. [Interruption.] If I have transgressed the canons of ordinary manners and proceeded beyond the rules of Parliamentary invective, I apologise, and withdraw. The only favour I have ever asked the right hon. and gallant Gentleman—and he will bear me out in this—is that I should be allowed to speak, a favour which he has not always been able to grant me. [Interruption.] Mr. Speaker, clearly I do not wish to suggest any impugning of your authority, but it is certainly not to be denied that the right hon. and gallant Gentleman has assisted you from time to time by placing in your hands a list of Government speakers. I am merely making this statement, and I hope it is a matter which is beyond the realms of controversy.

§ Mr. Speaker
The hon. and gallant Member must remember that who speaks is a matter which rests with my judgment. It depends upon who catches my eye.

§ Captain Adams
I am extremely sorry to have brought myself into conflict with you, Mr. Speaker. It is the last thing I intended to do, but I have yet to learn that you are absolutely beyond taking any guidance from important Members of the House. That is the only suggestion I made.

§ Mr. Speaker
Hon. Members know quite well that they themselves often come to me and inform me that they wish to speak. Beyond that I take no guidance from anybody.

§ Mr. A. Bevan (Ebbw Vale)
On a point of Order, Mr. Speaker. Do we understand that the Whips never put in lists of speakers to the Chair? If that is so, every Member of the House would he astonished.

§ Mr. Speaker
I did not mean to suggest anything of the kind. Those who represent different parties in the House often come to me and say that So-and-so wishes to speak. I am very glad to have that advice, but I do not by any means always abide by it.

§ Captain Adams
That is perhaps why it is so difficult for hon. Members with very independent views to speak. I have seldom asked the right hon. and gallant Gentleman for any kind of favour, but I ask him one to-day. To express it I will use a famous phrase which was lately used on a very dramatic occasion by the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for India, "In the name of God, go."

§ Mr. Quintin Hogg (Oxford City)
As one who has not always been in favour with the Patronage Secretary, I should like to protest against what I regard as a very unjust and improper attack upon him. Although the hon. Member for West Leeds (Captain Adams) will no doubt deny the impeachment, it is really a deliberate and vicious attack upon the Prime Minister, who is responsible for the appointment.

§ Captain Adams
Will the hon. Member allow me to say that the Prime Minister has no more loyal supporter in the country than I am?

§ Mr. Hogg
As I understand it, if the Prime Minister wanted a different Patronage Secretary, he would advise the Crown accordingly. If he did so, as his follower I should be very glad to accept any change. Until he does so, I do not see how any loyal supporter of the Prime Minister is entitled to make an attack of this kind. It seems to me that much of what the hon. and gallant Gentleman has said against the Patronage Secretary is wholly unjust. I do not want to say too much about the various times on which the hon. and gallant Member has satisfied himself that he was right and the majority of the House was wrong. All I want to say is that it is quite plain now that, about the foreign policy of the months preceding the war, three propositions can truly be made. The first is that those who thought that foreign policy was wrong still think it is wrong. Secondly, those who thought it was right still think it is right. Thirdly, if we are going to quarrel about whether it is right or wrong, we are not getting on with the winning of the war. The Prime Minister's continued reliance upon the Patronage Secretary is due to the fact that he recognises the last proposition as clearly as anybody else, and that he desires to prevent vicious internecine strife of the kind which the hon. and gallant Member has given rise to on the present occasion.
I do not share the resentment of the hon. and gallant Gentleman at being "whipped." Obviously, some party discipline is necessary to Parliamentary government. Obviously, it must be necessary to prevent hon. Members who are possibly more interested in their own views than in those of other people, or possibly only eccentric, from indulging in completely disorderly behaviour. For that purpose it seems to me that the existence of Whips is a very good thing. I have often been in trouble with the Whips. I do not in the least resent that. It is an excellent thing that people should have to go through a little persecution if they want to show independence of mind. It keeps them fresh. It is most unfortunate that an attack should he made against somebody who is essentially in the position of a lieutenant and not of a leader, a person whose business it is to put into effect the disciplinary machinery of Parliament and not to initiate policy. It seems to me that the Patronage Secretary has the friendship of most of us and 1668 the respect of most of us, and personally, as one who is not at all a regular or respectable servant of the Whips, I very much resent that my right hon. and gallant Friend should have been made the victim of a personal attack.

§ Lieut.-Commander Gurney Braithwaite (Holderness)
May I express my pleasure on hearing, after a long interval, the hon. and gallant Member for West Leeds (Captain V. Adams)? It is some time since he and I attended a Debate together, and I welcome the fact that apparently Saul has not only taken the road to Damascus, but has donned the King's uniform in the process. The hon. and gallant Member takes the rather extraordinary view that not only has the Patronage Secretary been responsible for exercising discipline—whether it has been too severe or not is a matter of opinion—but also that he has been responsible for formulating high policy, particularly in regard to the conduct of foreign affairs. Unless I misunderstood the hon. and gallant Member, the Patronage Secretary was responsible for the Hoare-Laval negotiations.

§ Captain Adams
I only said that he required support from this House for these policies. I did not say he inaugurated them.

§ Lieut.-Commander Braithwaite
As Chief Whip of the Government he was responsible for the agreement in endeavouring to persuade Government supporters to vote for the Government which they were elected to support. I do not think that justifies his exile to the Suez Canal or any other place.

§ Captain Adams
rose—

§ Lieut.-Commander Braithwaite
I listened without interrupting the hon. and gallant Member, and under some provocation. As I promised to detain the House for only some three minutes, I wonder if he would be good enough to allow me to address myself to one particular section of the speech he has just made. He said that he hoped the Patronage Secretary was pleased with the devastation of the capital in the East End and in other places. But is that quite fair for one who for years has pleaded on the Floor of this House for disarmament and who has opposed the present Prime Minister when he sat below the Gangway as an independent private 1669 Member. I remember a Debate on the Adjournment which took place as long ago as 1932—

§ Captain Adams
The hon. Member has to go a long way back. That was before the Nazis came into power in Germany.

§ Lieut.-Commander Braithwaite
I am afraid that military training has caused the hon. and gallant Member to think that the parade ground allows only one voice to be heard; but the hon. and gallant Member has not been long enough in the Army to appreciate discipline himself. I remember very well the Adjournment Debate in 1932, when the present Prime Minister gave voice to some extremely sceptical remarks regarding the probable successful outcome of the Disarmament Conference then sitting under the chairmanship of Mr. Arthur Henderson. I remember the hon. and gallant Member getting up in the greatest indignation at the suggestion of a modest programme of naval replace-merits being carried out. I believe it is on record that once in his own constituency he was responsible for the statement that there would be no prospect of peace until the Royal Navy had been towed out into the Atlantic and sunk.

§ Captain Adams
The hon. Member can rest assured that there is no foundation for that statement.

§ Lieut.-Commander Braithwaite
I am very glad to know that; but, at least, he will admit making speeches in this House advocating a reduction of armaments.

§ Captain Adams
Certainly, provided it was general.

§ Lieut.-Commander Braithwaite
It may have been an error into which all of us have fallen; I certainly did not. I took the line in that Debate, and in other Debates, in support of the present Prime Minister for a programme of naval reconstruction. It ill becomes one who adopted pacifism during those years to accuse a right hon. Gentleman or any other Member in this House of responsibility for that devastation. I hope the hon. and gallant Member will have the decency when he has read his speech to realise that that is an unfair attack on every Member of this House who from whatever angle sought to preserve peace and avoid this conflict.
1670 The Patronage Secretary has had cause before now to see my name in Division lists in opposition to the late Government. There was one long and prolonged controversy, which is dead now, over betting and lotteries, when some of us kept the House up all night on more than one occasion, believing the Bill to be a bad one. The right hon and gallant Gentleman may have been pained by the action I took, but I have never had one word of rebuke, never a single threat, and I have never been subjected to political tyranny of any kind in consequence. Finally, I would say that the right hon. and gallant Gentleman sits in his present position with the full confidence of the great national leader, our present Prime Minister, who has placed him in that position, under whom we all intend to march to victory, whatever may befall.

§ Mr. Wedgwood (Newcastle-under-Lyme)
The House of Commons never shows itself to worse advantage than when it indulges in personal recriminations. I do not think that this is a question that should have been brought before the House. My feeling is that all Chief Whips are bad. I think that the discipline they apply is unnecessary and undesirable and should be reduced. The present Chief Whip has been a more efficient Chief Whip than those in the past. That, I think, is unfortunate. In the past, most Chief Whips have remained in their office, but the right hon. and gallant Gentleman has spent his time on the Front Bench, and everyone knows that he is there; they see him there and fear him. I think it is a disadvantage when a Chief Whip takes such an active interest in the conduct of Debates. It is inevitable that he should use some disciplinary action against people who vote against the party. I have suffered from that on my side. Normally the method is to get the Member into your office and complain to him, and tell him that he will have trouble from his constituency. That is the proper pressure that should be applied. What has become new with the right hon. and gallant Gentleman is his influence in debate itself. I think that might very well be diminished without any drawback to our Parliamentary institutions.

§ Captain Margesson
Would the right hon. Gentleman elaborate that? I do not quite follow him in my "influence in 1671 debate." How do I influence the course of debates? I do not follow that argument at all.

§ Mr. Wedgwood
It applies to the names of speakers. It has the effect of arousing suspicion in the minds of Members, and it is inevitable that that suspicion should be there. I am quite willing to believe that the Chief Whip, in giving in his list, does not seek to make it exclusive but that he simply puts in the names of those who have approached him. If that is so, people who are not in his good books feel that they cannot go to him to have their names put in.
That makes it extremely difficult for a rebel, who can be disciplined in other ways, to get an opportunity to speak. That seems to me to be a slightly new thing in the last 10 years. I would ask the Chief Whip, for whom I have the highest respect, whether it is not desirable that we should have a freer method of being able to speak, whether the names put before the Speaker might not be either everyone who applies for permission to speak or else none?

§ Mr. Bevan
On a point of Order. Though it was perhaps desirable that things should be said in public which had been whispered so much, nevertheless I should like to ask in what capacity we are discussing the right hon. and gallant Gentleman. We are entitled to discuss him as Parliamentary Secretary, but I am not quite certain to what extent we are entitled to discuss him as a Whip. The matter is raised upon the Adjournment because the right hon. and gallant Gentleman's salary is paid by the House. Are we entitled to discuss his conduct as a Whip? In my submission, if they want to discuss his conduct as a Whip, hon. Members opposite should adjourn to the Carlton Club and have a real row. It seems to me rather unseemly to be discussing the right hon. and gallant Gentleman's conduct as Whip, which is a private party position and is not necessarily a part of the Parliamentary Secretary's work.

§ Mr. Speaker
It seems to me that the only way we can discuss a Chief Whip is as a Whip. We cannot discuss him as anything else.

§ Mr. Bevan
We have not appointed the right hon. Gentleman as a Whip at all, but we have agreed to his appointment as 1672 Parliamentary Secretary. The functions of a Whip are duties allotted to him outside the purview of the House, and it is not a matter for which we ought to be held responsible. It really alarms me that I am to be responsible for his misconduct for all these years. I thought his conduct as a Whip was a matter for the Conservative party and not for the House. It is putting a gross disability on the House and shouldering on us his years of misconduct.

§ The Lord Privy Seal (Mr. Attlee)
I think the House would be very well advised not to pursue the matter further. I think the hon. and gallant Member's speech was intemperate, and it dealt with matters of the past, and with matters of controversy, which it is inadvisable to raise again at the present time. I speak in a detached way with regard to the past. I was constantly in contact with my right hon. Friend as Chief Whip of the Conservative party when I was Leader of the Opposition, and I should like to put it on record that I had unfailing courtesy from him, and in the manner in which he performed his functions during those years, when there was only a very small Opposition and the Parliamentary system was really in danger, showed a very great respect for our Constitution. The hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Bevan), I think, put a very good point, because he recognises, as we all do, that any Chief Whip has dual functions. He is at once a Government functionary, and he is also a Chief Whip in regard to a particular political party. But I think the hon. Member was right. This is not the place to raise it.
The question between the hon. and gallant Member who raised the matter and the Chief Whip is one which, in my view, should be thrashed out at a party meeting. The Government are responsible for policy. Whips are responsible for carrying out that policy, and whatever charges are made with regard to policy should be made against those who have to take that responsibility and not against anyone who is carrying it out. On the other hand, our Constitution is a difficult one, and there are, and should be, occasions on which in political parties those who are considered to have been exceeding their powers can be brought to book, but it would be very ill-advised on my part to 1673 enter into considerations of the domestic affairs of another party. I think it is profoundly right, as has been said, that it is not a very good thing to have these personal quarrels fought out on the Floor of the House, and particularly at this time, when they are raising issues which are past and when we should be bending our minds to the future. It has been suggested that, because to-day the chief parties in the House are supporting the Government, therefore the Government have a more absolute power over the House of Commons. That is not my experience. In my experience the most absolute power of Whips is when there is a close struggle in the House. When the ordinary party strife is absent it is far more difficult to bring pressure to bear on the members of a particular party. I have noticed, and welcomed, a growing independence in the House ever since this Government was formed, and free criticism from all sides. The fact is that, if the Government want to get anything through, they have to be very careful on all sides to carry the House with them. That is all to the good, and I hope it will continue.

§ Mr. Leach (Bradford, Central)
We have listened to a highly interesting account from the hon. and gallant Member for West Leeds (Captain V. Adams) of a grievance that he feels, but his speech was rather lacking in evidence as to the sine of the right hon. Gentleman whom he attacks. Nevertheless, we have seen a picture of the Chief Whip which seems to have surprised most of those present. It certainly very much surprised me. I gathered, in the first instance, that he is greater than the Prime Minister because he imposes his will on successive Prime Ministers without let or hindrance. I gather that he is even greater than the Cabinet because the same thing applies there; whatever the Chief Whip desires, shall be done as the Cabinet is his faithful servant. If this is a true picture of the Chief Whip, we have a very marvellous gentleman in this House. I am not at all sure that the capacity which the hon. and gallant Member for West Leeds attributes to the Chief Whip does not fit him par excellence to be Chief Whip still.

§ Mr. Magnay (Gateshead)
I want to recall the House to a sense of dignity. On such a day as this and on such an occasion as we have had to-day we ought not to 1674 have had this ill-advised intervention on what ought to be the business of the Conservative party and not of the House of Commons at all. If there is any dirty linen to be washed, let it be done in the proper place. We of the Liberal National party and the other Liberal party have nothing to do with this matter. We might copy the example shown on more than one occasion by the Socialist party, who, when they have had to bring members to book, have met in private and ejected them with bell, book and candle. What will the country and the Dominions think when they know that we have discussed a matter like this? Tragedy should purge even the divisions of party strife, and we ought to have a sense of decorum and decency. I do not say that the Chief Whip has done everything he should do. I have never met a man who has, and I do not expect to see angels just yet. Why my hon. and gallant Friend should choose such a day as this to raise such a matter is beyond me. The country will regret exceedingly that we have had no more sense of dignity at such a time than to rake up a thing which has happened for nine years. That should be discussed on another occasion and not in these tragic times, when we have something better to do. I appeal to the House to treat the matter with the disdain that it deserves.

§ Captain Adams
May I, on a point of personal explanation, say that, unlike the hon. Gentleman, I cannot sit continuously in this House? I said that I regretted raising this matter, because this was the only opportunity I had.

§ Mr. Bellenger (Bassetlaw)
The hon. Member for Gateshead (Mr. Magnay) has asked the House to dismiss this matter and to have a sense of dignity. I prefer to have a sense of reality, and I would say to the House and to my right hon. Friend, whose advice I am prepared to accept, that this smouldering discontent which has been voiced to-day has also been in existence in the Labour party, but, fortunately, we are not prepared to absolve members of the Tory party as a body from actions which they have taken in the past and placed on the shoulders of the Patronage Secretary. My hon. Friends and my right hon. Friend himself will agree with many of the things that the hon. Member has said about the past. I would only say in 1675 that respect that if we had held our tongues when we were dissatisfied in the past, my right hon. Friend would not be sitting in the seats of the Government to-day. With regard to the calling of speakers, I have never approached my party whip to put my name in front of the Chair. I have gone direct to the Chair, and as an individual Member of the House and as one who has some sense of dignity about my own independence in this House, although I am a member of a party, I have always had fair treatment from the Chair. So has the hon. and gallant Member for West Leeds (Captain V. Adams) judging from the number of occasions on which he has spoken.
The matter which I view with disquiet is not the discipline of any Chief Whip, because any hon. Member, if he has independence, can deal with his Chief Whip, but the interference by the party machine with hon. Members in their own constituencies if they do not voice the point of view which happens to be that of the party caucus. I would not tolerate that, and I hope that the hon. and gallant Member for West Leeds would not. I have a high regard for his independent point of view, with which I have agreed on many occasions when he spoke for disarmament, but for a long time I did not support him because I was a realist. I can accept my right hon. Friend's advice to-day, because I am a realist, but let him understand as I think he does, that there must always be independence among hon. Members, particularly in 1676 relation to their own constituencies. If there is any complaint against the Chief Whip to-day it is that he interferes in the constituencies when hon. Members have not always spoken in the same language as he has.

§ Mr. Charles Williams (Torquay)
With regard to the last remark of the hon. Member for Bassetlaw (Mr. Bellenger), I would say that if you want to be certain as a Conservative Member to keep your seat, let the Chief Whip interfere in your constituency. You can then get a life-long seat. In the Press and among people of ill will, they are always saying that the Chief Whip has interfered in a constituency. I have known it only on one or two occasions, but whenever it has happened the Member gets back in an infinitely stronger position than before.

§ Mr. Attlee
I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Motion.