I cannot help asking whether the right hon. 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. I have no regrets for refusing to concur in or for opposing the policies which the right hon. 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. 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. Perhaps the right hon. The only favour I have ever asked the right hon. 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.
I am merely making this statement, and I hope it is a matter which is beyond the realms of controversy.
The hon. It depends upon who catches my eye. I am extremely sorry to have brought myself into conflict with you, Mr. 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. 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. On a point of Order, Mr. 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. 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. That is perhaps why it is so difficult for hon. Members with very independent views to speak. I have seldom asked the right hon. To express it I will use a famous phrase which was lately used on a very dramatic occasion by the right hon. 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.
Will the hon. Member allow me to say that the Prime Minister has no more loyal supporter in the country than I am? 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. I do not want to say too much about the various times on which the hon. 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.
I do not share the resentment of the hon. 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 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. May I express my pleasure on hearing, after a long interval, the hon. 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.
Unless I misunderstood the hon. I only said that he required support from this House for these policies. I did not say he inaugurated them. 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. I listened without interrupting the hon. 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 Member. I remember a Debate on the Adjournment which took place as long ago as —.
Member has to go a long way back. That was before the Nazis came into power in Germany. I am afraid that military training has caused the hon. I remember very well the Adjournment Debate in , 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. 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.
Member can rest assured that there is no foundation for that statement. I am very glad to know that; but, at least, he will admit making speeches in this House advocating a reduction of armaments.
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. 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. 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. 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. I think that might very well be diminished without any drawback to our Parliamentary institutions.
Would the right hon. Gentleman elaborate that? I do not quite follow him in my "influence in debate. I do not follow that argument at all. 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? 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.
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. 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.
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. We have not appointed the right hon. Gentleman as a Whip at all, but we have agreed to his appointment as 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. I think the House would be very well advised not to pursue the matter further. I think the hon. Whips are also largely responsible together with the Leader of the House in the Commons for arranging the business of Parliament. More about this person. To help us improve GOV. It will take only 2 minutes to fill in. Cookies on GOV. UK We use some essential cookies to make this website work.
Accept additional cookies Reject additional cookies View cookies. Hide this message. Contents Responsibilities Current role holder Previous holders. Responsibilities The Chief Whip is responsible for administering the whipping system that ensures that members of the party attend and vote in Parliament as the party leadership desires. Other whip duties Whips frequently act as tellers counting votes in divisions.
Is this page useful?
0コメント