Chapter 133 Volume 4, Chapter 23, Vote of No Confidence

The strength of the Coalition Government A long list of military defeats and routs A convenient no-confidence motion on June 25 A proposal to withdraw the motion was rejected Sir Cripps' report July 1, first day of debate John ‧ Wardlow｜Sir Milne's moving speechA bungled sidekickSir Roger Case as a seconderA paradoxical situationLord Winterton's attackHall｜Mr Belisha's attackI close the debateUnfettered freedom in ParliamentWe discuss Unexpected disaster Tobruk's unexpected fall America's misrepresentation of British conditions Lack of tanks and pre-war roots Auchinleck and Leech I call for a vote I defend my defense secretary Only twenty-five votes A reassuring coincidence of history for my American friends.

The discourse and criticism in the press, full of sharp articles and harsh voices, was echoed by twenty or thirty MPs in the House of Commons, while the vast majority of us took a rather gloomy and pessimistic attitude.At this moment, a one-party government would, without a single vote, be overthrown in a flurry of debate, as in May 1940, when Mr. Chamberlain was forced to hand over power.But the national coalition government, strengthened by the February reshuffle, is cohesive and overwhelming.All the principal ministers rallied around me, without the slightest thought of disloyalty or infirmity.I seem to have gained the trust of all those who are well informed and concerned about the evolution of the situation and who share the responsibility.

Not a single person wavered, and there were no whispers of conspiracy.We have become a strong and unbreakable group, able to resist any political attack from outside, to withstand every setback, and to persevere for the common cause. We have had a long list of defeats and routs in Malaya, Singapore, and Burma; the defeat of Auchinleck in the desert; the unexplained and inexplicable Battle of Tobruk; The loss of all occupied territory in Cyrenaica and Libya; the retreat of four hundred miles to the Egyptian frontier; the casualties and captures of more than 50,000 men.We lost a great deal of artillery, ammunition, vehicles and stores of all kinds.We went back to Matruh, back to the old position two years ago;

However, this time Rommel and his German army took advantage of the victory, sitting in our cars, using the gasoline supplied by us, firing our ammunition most of the time, and advancing towards us.A little more progress, a few more victories, and Mussolini and Rommel would join hands in Cairo or its ruins.At this critical juncture, after our astonishing setbacks, and with the unknowns at play, who can predict how this situation will develop? The situation in parliament needs to be clarified immediately.However, having had a vote of confidence shortly before the fall of Singapore, it would be difficult to ask for another vote of confidence in the House of Commons.However, it is very convenient when disgruntled MPs decide on their own to provide for a vote of no confidence on the agenda.

On the twenty-fifth of June, a motion was on the agenda with the following wording: While the House of Commons respected the heroism and fortitude of the Royal Army under very difficult circumstances, it had little confidence in the central command of the war. Named was John Wadlow Milne, a powerful Conservative MP.He is the chairman of the powerful all-party finance committee.The reports of this committee on cases of administrative waste and ineffectiveness have been closely followed and studied by me.This committee has a great deal of information at its disposal; moreover, it has a great deal of contact with the outskirts of our war apparatus.When it was announced that Admiral Sir Roger Case had seconded the motion, and that the former Secretary of State for War, Mr. Hall-Belisha, had sponsored it, it was at once evident that a serious challenge had begun.In fact, in certain newspapers, in the corridors of the Parliament, there was already talk of an impending decisive political crisis, etc.

I said immediately that we had decided to give a full opportunity for public debate and set a meeting for July 1st.I think an announcement has to be made. Prime Minister to General Auchinleck June 29, 1942 When I spoke in the no-confidence vote debate at around 4pm on Thursday afternoon, I thought it important to announce that you had replaced Lee as Command from 25 June. The war crisis in Egypt was getting worse, and it was widely believed that Cairo and Alexandria would soon fall to Rommel's sword.Mussolini was indeed preparing to fly to Rommel's headquarters, intending to participate in the triumphal entry of either or both cities.It looks like we're going to reach the pinnacle of difficulty at the same time, both on the council and on the desert front.When our detractors learned that they were about to face our united coalition government, some enthusiasm faded, and the proposer of the motion suggested that if the serious situation in Egypt made public discussion inappropriate, motion to dismiss.However, we do not intend to make it easy for them to back off.Considering that for almost three weeks the whole world, friend and foe, had been anxiously watching the heightened political and military tensions, and it was impossible not to get to the bottom of things.

Sir Churchill to John Wadlow | Sir Milne June 30, 1942 I delivered your letter of June 30th to the War Cabinet this morning, and they asked me to inform you that, in view of the fact that this challenge to the power and authority of the Government has spread throughout the world for several days, it is necessary Discuss the matter and draw conclusions immediately, for which various arrangements have been made. Before the debate began, Lieutenant Colonel King Hall stood up and asked Sir John Wardlow Milne to postpone his motion until the end of the fighting that was raging in Libya.Sir John replied that if the government wished to postpone it in the national interest, he would immediately and reluctantly agree, but no such suggestion was made on the part of the government.I then make the following statement:

I have considered this issue carefully and have no hesitation, but if an appeal is made because of the urgency and seriousness of the situation, perhaps the debate can be postponed.However, this vote of no-confidence proposal has been on the agenda for quite some time after all, and it has spread around the world very quickly.When I was in the United States, I saw firsthand the intense emotion that this issue created when it first arose, and while we at home would have some idea of ​​the stability of our system and the strength of our government today, yet , Our domestic public opinion is by no means what can be shared and felt in other countries.Now that things have reached the point where, and for over a week now, the matter has been on the agenda in every corner of the world, it seems to me that postponing a decision would be more harmful than bringing it up for discussion.

As I have reserved my remarks until the end of the debate, I have had the opportunity to consider Sir Stafford Cripps' report, which sets out some of the points on which he believes I will be criticized. 【１】 [1] I got this document when I started my speech on July 2nd. Sir Stafford Cripps to Prime Minister July 2, 1942 There is no doubt a very mixed opinion both in the House of Commons and across the country, but we also understand that a vote of no confidence is in no way indicative of a general national reaction to news coverage.At the same time, in the Moulton by-election, government candidates only received 6,226 votes out of a total of 20,000 votes. This extremely important result was undoubtedly affected by the war in Libya and also showed that Deep unease and lack of trust among voters.I do not think that the sentiment of the electors is in any sense a personal sentiment against the Prime Minister, but rather a general discontent at something wrong, demanding that it be corrected without delay.As far as I can speculate, the mood of blame has centered on the following six main issues:

(1) Overly optimistic news reports from Cairo. It is true that these communications were by no means official, but they were necessarily influenced by information supplied to the newspapers by the military authorities; Optimistic reporting, and the Official Gazette has done little to correct these overly optimistic sentiments.The general impression is that the military authorities do not appreciate the seriousness of the situation, and that military intelligence is inaccurate, often leading our commanders in the field to miscalculate.The general direction of this reporting undoubtedly caused great shock at the news of the fall of Tobruk and the retreat to Matruh.

(2) The ability to command There is a very common view that with better commanding ability Rommel might have been defeated, especially at a time when Rommel, according to General Auchinleck, was exhausted Exhausted, at an extremely critical time.The advisable view is that there is a lack of good command, and that the whole campaign is too much considered on the basis of defensive warfare, but at a critical moment, there is not the necessary courage to counterattack. This censure raises doubts as to whether the commander-in-chief or army commander really has the strategy and tactics of modern mechanized warfare; staff. (3) Supreme Command The reproaches stated in (2) above reflect widespread doubts about the highest military command authorities, whether they are also out of date, unable to grasp the correct method of fighting Rommel and his army.In connection with this, Air Force-Army cooperation has not been as efficient as possible and, on the part of the High Command, also requires joint efforts and joint planning. (4) Weapons Perhaps the strongest censure is that after almost three years of war we are still at a disadvantage in vital weapons such as tanks and anti-tank guns; (5) Research and Invention There are still quite a few people who feel that while we have some very talented scientific researchers, scientists, and inventors in this country, we have always underutilized them in terms of an effective equipment race and, in order to derive the greatest advantage from this important branch of the war, there was room for improvement in the methods of organization. (6) Air Force People don't know how to justify their claim to General Auchinleck that we have good morale in the air force but cannot stop the enemy's advance.This led to doubts about the usefulness of various sophisticated air weapons, etc., and again the whole doubt about the dive bomber and other questions about the type of aircraft.In this respect we are very disturbed that our rigid view of aircraft types prevents us from fighting the air as effectively as the enemy, even though we have air superiority. Given our weak naval presence in the Mediterranean, could we have made better use of long-range aircraft?Here again arises the question of how to prevent the enemy from getting reinforcements in Libya. The above points, I think, summarize some of the main issues that are deeply disturbing in the minds of a more serious section of the general population. John Wadlow | Sir Milne made a moving speech, raised the main questions, and opened up the debate.The motion was not to attack the officers in the field, but explicitly to the central institutions in London; and, I wish to point out, the chief cause of our failure was on the side of London, and never in Libya or elsewhere.The first great mistake we made in this great war was to make the prime minister the secretary of state for defence.He details the enormous responsibilities that center on those in charge of these two functions.We must have a strong professional as chairman of the chiefs of staff committee.I ask a man who is bold and independent from any side to appoint generals, generals, etc.I require in charge of the Royal Army a man strong enough to demand all the weapons indispensable to victory, and to dare to let the generals of the sea, army and air force work according to their own schemes without undue interference from superiors.Most importantly, I ask a person to retire if he cannot achieve what he wants to achieve.We have suffered both from the lack of close scrutiny of domestic affairs by the Prime Minister, and from the lack of due direction from the Secretary of State for Defense or other officers in charge of the armed forces, whatever their title.It is clear to any civilian that the series of catastrophes of the past few months, and indeed of the past two years, have been caused by fundamental weaknesses in the backbone of our wartime administration. Sir John Wardlow｜Sir Milne's words are very pertinent, but he went on to say that if His Majesty the King and His Royal Highness the Duke of Gloucester agree, appoint His Royal Highness the Duke of Gloucester as Commander-in-Chief of the British Army without any other duties. Administrative duties, this would be a rather desirable motion.This motion was prejudicial to his motion, for it was thought to be a proposal which would involve the Crown in a responsibility which caused serious disputes.In addition, the appointment of the supreme military commander, who enjoys almost unlimited powers, is associated with the royal duke, which seems somewhat authoritarian.From this moment on, this lengthy and detailed indictment seemed to lose some of its force.Sir John finally said: The House of Commons should make it clear that we need someone who will devote all his time to winning the war and who will be fully responsible for the various armed forces of the royal family; if we have such a person, the House of Commons should give him authority to use He has the right to perform tasks independently. Sir Roger Case seconded the motion.The admiral was deeply displeased at being relieved of his command of joint operations, and still more displeased at the fact that, while he was in office, I often disregarded his advice; bound by.His censure was focused on my expert advisers, of course the Chief of Staff of the Armed Forces.Three times during his tenure as Prime Minister he carried out strategic attacks at Gallipoli, in Norway, and in the Mediterranean that would have changed the overall situation of the two major campaigns, each time because his statutory naval advisers were afraid of taking risks. It was intolerable for Ken to be frustrated with sharing responsibility with him.It is noted that this argument is inconsistent with that of the original sponsor.Mr. Stephen, a member of the Independent Labor Party, interrupted to point out that the original proposer had proposed a vote of no confidence on the grounds that the Prime Minister had improperly interfered with the military command; command.The House of Commons clearly sees this. Admiral Keith said: "We hope that the Prime Minister will get his domestic affairs in order and once again unite the people of the country to accomplish this difficult task.At this time, another MP from the Labor Party appropriately interjected: the motion is aimed at the command and dispatch of the war by the central government.If this motion is realized, the Prime Minister must resign; but this noble and chivalrous MP is appealing to us to let the Prime Minister stay in office.Sir Roger said: It would be a sad disaster if the Prime Minister had to resign.So the debate fell out from the start. Still, the debate rages on, with detractors increasingly scrambling to speak first.The new Minister of Production, Colonel Oliver Littleton, made a stormy speech in discussing the complaints about our equipment, which fully and concretely illustrates the situation in this respect.The Conservatives have voiced strong support for the Government from their backbenches, especially Mr Boothby, who made a powerful and informative speech.Lord Winterton, Senator of the House of Commons, resumed his attack, and concentrated on me.Who was the government minister who actually presided over the Battle of Narvik?That is the current prime minister, then the navy secretary.No one dares to blame the Prime Minister, because that must be done in accordance with the provisions of the Constitution.Ask us no matter when we have a disaster, and we always get the same answer, which is that, whatever happens, we must not blame the Chancellor; we are approaching the state of mind and morality of the Germans: the Fuehrer is always right.Never in my thirty-seven years in the House of Commons have I seen such an attempt to absolve the Prime Minister of responsibility.In the last great war we never had a chain of disasters to compare with the present.Now, look at what the government uses to absolve itself of responsibility because the Führer is always right.We all agree that the Prime Minister was our commander of courage and determination in 1940.However, since 1940, many things have happened again.If this series of catastrophes continues, this honorable gentleman should perform the greatest act of self-denial that any man can do, and step among his fellows. The Prime Minister also suggested that one of them should come out and form a government, and that the honorable gentleman himself would serve under him.Perhaps he can serve as foreign minister because he is right in our relations with Russia and with the United States. These lively debate speeches went on almost till three o'clock in the morning, but I could not hear more than half of them.Naturally I was preparing my defense for the next day; but my thoughts were concentrated on what seemed to be the battle for Egypt's survival. The debate, which lasted until the early hours of the next day, resumed vigorously on July 2.Of course, there is no denial of free speech, and there is no lack of free speech.One MP even said: There are five or six other Czech, Polish and French generals in our country who have been trained in the use of these German weapons and in the use of German tactics.I know it's insulting to our dignity, but can't some of them be temporarily transferred to command operations until we can train our own men?Is there anything wrong with sending out these people who have the same military rank as General Li Qi?Why don't we put them in charge of our army?They know how to conduct this war, our men do not; and I think it would be better for the rest of the United Nations to win and save the lives of British soldiers than to be lost by our own incompetent officers.The prime minister must understand that there is a mocking colloquialism in the country that if Rommel was in the British army, he was at best a sergeant. 【１】Is that so?This kind of joke is common in the army.Now, there's a man in the British Army that shows how we're using our trained people called Michael Dunbar, who sent 150,000 people across the Ebro River in Spain.He is currently a sergeant in an armored brigade in the country.He was chief of staff in Spain; had fought victoriously at the Ebro, and was now a sergeant in the British army.The truth of the matter is that the British Army was dominated by class prejudice.You have to change it, you have to change it.If the House of Commons does not have the courage to get the government to change it, events will change it.While the House of Commons may not take my words to heart today, next week, you will.Be sure to remember my words on Monday and Tuesday next week.What criticizes the government is what is happening right now.What we're doing now is making them a voice, maybe not quite rightly, but we're trying to make it out. [1] This of course shows complete ignorance of Rommel's long and prominent professional career in both World Wars. Former Army Secretary Mr Hall Berisha summed up the motion against the government.He concluded: We may lose Egypt, we may not, God forbid, we don't want to lose Egypt but when the Prime Minister said, we will hold Singapore, we will hold Crete, we have defeated the German army in Libya.When I read all that he said, and said that we shall hold Egypt, my anxiety was still greater.How can one trust a man who repeatedly misjudges?That is the decision the House of Commons must make.Think about what the greatest danger is.In a hundred days we have lost our Far East Empire.What will happen in the next hundred days?Let every MP vote according to his conscience. Following this powerful statement, I proceed to conclude the debate.The House of Commons was packed.Of course, I said everything that came to my mind. This lengthy debate has reached its final stage.What a remarkable example of the unfettered freedom of action of our parliamentary system during war!Every instance that could be thought of, or could be gathered, was used to weaken confidence in the government, to prove the incompetence of the ministers, and to weaken the confidence of the army in the support they received from the government. , make the workers lose confidence in the weapons they have worked so hard to make, describe the government as a group of useless people headed by the Prime Minister, and then hurt his heart, and if possible, hurt him in front of the whole people .All this has been telegraphed and broadcasted to all parts of the world, to the sorrow of all our friends and the comfort of all our enemies!I am for liberties that no other nation would, and dare not, use in a time of crisis like the one we are living through.But the matter should not stop there; and I now appeal to the House of Commons to certainly not stop there. The military defeats of the past two weeks in Cyrenaica and Egypt have changed not only the situation on that battlefield, but the entire Mediterranean situation as well.We lost more than 50,000 people, most of them prisoners; we also lost a great deal of material, and, in spite of carefully planned destruction, many material stocks fell into the hands of the enemy.Rommel had advanced some four hundred miles across the desert and was now approaching the fertile Nile Delta.The dire effects of these events in Turkey, Spain, France, and French North Africa cannot now be estimated.What we are facing at this moment is a situation of lost hope and prospects in the Middle East and the Mediterranean region. This is the most unfavorable moment since the fall of France.If anyone who wants to profit off the catastrophe thinks the situation can be painted in a darker light, they are certainly free to do so. What is harrowing about this bleak picture is its suddenness.It was extremely unexpected that Tobruk, with its 25,000 defenders, fell in a single day.Not only the House of Commons and the general public, but also the War Cabinet, the Chiefs of Staff of the Armed Forces, and the General Staff of the Army.Neither did General Auchinleck and the High Command in the Middle East theater.On the eve of the capture of Tobruk we received a telegram from Auchinleck stating that he had mobilized the garrison he thought most suitable, that the defenses were in good order, and that the army had sufficient supplies for ninety days.We hope to be able to hold this very strong frontier position.This is a position built by the Germans and improved by ourselves from Sallum to Halfaya, from Capuzzo to Fort Maddalena.Our new railroads ran back from this position at right angles; and, as noted, we were no longer flanked by the sea, as we were in the early stages of the new Libyan campaign.General Auchinleck wishes to hold these positions, awaiting the arrival of our strong reinforcements on the way, some of which have already arrived; thus it will be possible for him, to gain the initiative, to launch a counterattack. When I went to the President's office on Sunday morning, the 21st, I was utterly shocked by reports that Tobruk had fallen.I found the news incredible, but a few minutes later my own telegram from London arrived.I hope the House of Commons will understand how painful it is to me! To make matters worse, I am on a mission to a great ally of ours.It is easy for some to assume that, because the government maintains a calm and unflappable spirit in its defeats, its members feel less distressed about the public misfortunes than independent commentators.On the contrary, I doubt that anyone can be more sad and miserable than those who are in charge of the affairs of the center.In the days that followed, my grief was intensified as I read distorted reports of the mood in Britain and the House of Commons.The House of Commons could not imagine how its proceedings were published across the ocean.The question is raised (here) that comments made by individual MPs or independent MPs who do not represent organized political forces are often telegraphed verbatim and are often taken seriously as the opinion of the House of Commons.The gossip in the corridors of Parliament, the reverberation in the smoking-rooms, the gossip of Fleet Street, all make up serious treatises that seem to say that the whole foundation of British political life is crumbling.Anticipation and speculation abound.So, I read banner headlines like this: The House of Commons requires Churchill to return to China to face criticism, Churchill will face a serious political crisis when he returns to China, and so on.Such an atmosphere was, of course, detrimental to a British representative who was engaged in negotiations on matters of state which determined the general outcome of the war.The reason why these rumors from England have failed to damage my work is mainly because our American friends are not friends who share good times but not bad ones.It never occurred to them that the Great War would be short and easy to deal with, or that its course would not be filled with tragic misfortunes.On the contrary, I confess that I think that in this particular case the bonds of friendship among all the upper classes are more solidified. However, I still have to say that I don't believe that any public official of his own country who has an important mission will be ridiculed by the people of his home country as much as I was when I visited the United States during his absence. I can believe that this is not intentional. ; and only my unshakable faith in the people of Great Britain sustained me through those difficult days.Of course I explained to my master that those who babble in Parliament are in no way representative of the House of Commons, just as the handful of journalists who spread the harmful gossip of Anglo-American relations with Anglo-Australian relations As a profession, such people are in no way representative of respectable journalism professionals.I also explained that all this would be borne out by a responsible, proper and prudent opinion expressed by the whole House of Commons when I returned.And that's what I'm asking for today. Hall | Mr Belisha speaks of the defeat of the British tanks and the inferiority of our armor.Due to the records in the Ministry of War before the war, he could not speak with confidence, but I was able to treat him with his own way. The tank design was an idea of ​​the British.According to the writings of General de Gaulle, the use of armored forces as they are now was primarily a French invention.Later, the Germans changed these assumptions to suit their needs.In the three or four years before the war, they went all out as usual, busy designing and building tanks, and studying and practicing armored warfare.One would think that even if the Minister of War at that time had no funds to manufacture tanks on a large scale, he could have made various solid models anyway, and tried every means to experiment, select factories, supply various jigs and gauges, so that at the beginning of the Great War , he will be able to mass-produce tanks and anti-tank weapons. By the end of what I might call the Belisha period we had only two hundred and fifty armored vehicles, few of which could even carry a two-pounder.Most of these vehicles were captured or destroyed by German forces in France. I am willing to accept, and must accept, what the noble lord (Lord of Winterton) has said is a constitutional duty to every event that has occurred; There was no intervention in the affairs of military operations.However, before the battle began, I repeatedly urged General Auchinleck to take command personally, because I am convinced that in the next month or two, there will be no more important battles in the vast Middle East than the present western desert battle. and, moreover, I think he is a man fit for the office.He gave me every good reason why it was unnecessary; and the campaign was left to General Leech.As I told the House of Commons on Tuesday, General Auchinleck took command of General Leech on June 25th.We immediately approved his decision, but I must confess that, so far as the officers were replaced, this matter was not the cause on which I based my final judgment.I can't just take the events that happened in this battle to make a judgment.I love our commanders, land, sea and air force, and feel that the government is like a strong neutral between them and all those who blame us.They deserve a fair chance, and more than one chance.People inevitably make mistakes and learn from them.People may have bad luck, however, luck changes.However, in any case you should not risk your generals unless they feel that they have a strong government behind them.Unless they feel safe about what is going on at home, unless they feel able to focus their attention on the enemy, they will never take the risk.I might add that you can't risk the government unless the officials feel that they have a loyal and united majority behind them.Look at what we are being asked to do now, and imagine what they will do to us if we try and fail!In times of war, if you will serve, you must be loyal. I would like to say a few words of great loyalty and respect as they say in diplomatic documents and I hope I too will be given the fullest freedom of debate.This Parliament has a special responsibility.It presided over affairs when every kind of evil began to appear in the world.I have been greatly helped by the House of Commons, and I hope that the House of Commons may triumphantly see the disappearance of every crime. This object can be attained only if the House of Commons, during the long period which must pass through, provides a firm basis for a responsible government of its own choosing.The House of Commons must be a constant factor of stability in the country, and not an instrument through which disaffected sections of the press seek to foment one crisis after another.If democracy and parliamentarism are to be victorious in this war, it is absolutely necessary that a government according to democracy and parliamentarism do something, and dare to do it, and that the servants of the royal family are free from fault-finding denunciations and We will not be embarrassed by the bluster of the raccoon, nor will the propaganda of our enemies be fueled by us, nor will our reputation be belittled and damaged in the world.On the contrary, at important moments, the will of all members of the House of Commons should be clearly expressed.It is important that not only those who speak, but also those who observe, listen and judge should be considered a factor in world affairs.In short, we are fighting for our survival, fighting for a cause more precious than life itself.We have no right to suppose that we will be able to win; victory is only certain if we do our duty.There is great merit in serious and constructive criticism, or in secret meeting; but it is the duty of the House of Commons to support the government, or to change it.If the House of Commons cannot change the government, it should support it.In wartime, there are no intermediate solutions to implement.The two-day debate in May has had a detrimental effect abroad.The mere fact that hostile speeches are carried abroad makes great use of them by our enemies. Often a debate on a question of war is followed by a vote, or an opportunity for a vote; So it shall be; and those less powerful brethren, if I may call them so, will not allow usurp or monopolize the privileges and noble authority of the House of Commons. A majority in the House of Commons must do its job.All I'm asking is a decision one way or another. There is now a seditious talk in the papers, which has found resonance in some hostile speeches in Parliament, that I should be removed from the general command and control of the war.I do not want to go into the details of the defense today, as it has been amply discussed in recent debates.Under the present arrangement, the chiefs of staff of the armed forces meet almost continuously, and they are assisted not only by the various agencies that serve them, but also by the Joint Chiefs of Staff Committee in making effective decisions directly under the command of the armed forces, air, sea and air. Day after day, the war is pushed forward.As Prime Minister or Defense Secretary, I oversee their activities.I myself worked under the supervision and control of the War Cabinet, consulting it on all important questions and taking all important decisions through it.幾乎我所有的工作都留有記錄，我所發出的一切命令，我所擬議的一切調查報告，我所起草的一切電文等等均有記錄可查。通過這些記錄對我作出判斷，我將完全覺得滿意。 我不要求對我和陛下政府予以寬恕。我是在帝國生命繫於千鈞一髮之際，在我竭盡全力為我的前任進行辯護之後，出任首相和國防大臣的。我是你們的公僕，你們在願意時有權來解除我的職務。你們沒有權力做的是，要求我負起各種責任而又不給我有效行動的權力，要求我擔負起首相的責任，卻又如同那位尊敬的議員所說的，在各方面受到權威人士的鉗制。假如今天，或是任何未來的時刻，下議院執行了它的真實無疑的權力，我可以問心無愧地並感到我已依據給予我的權力盡了我的責任，而走出下議院。在那種情況下，我只要求你們做一件事，就是把那些你們不願給我的適當的權力給我的繼任人。 但是，還有一個比個人問題更大的問題。不信任投票的動議人提議，我應當解除我所負的各種有關國防的責任，以便某一軍界人物或某個未被指名的人物擔當全面指揮戰事的責任，他應全部控制皇家的軍隊，他應成為參謀長委員會的主席，他有權任免三軍將領，而且，如果他得不到他所要求的一切那就是說，要和他的政界同僚較量一下，如果可以認為是同僚的話他就隨時準備辭職；或者在他下面任命一個王室公爵作為陸軍總司令。因此，最後，我可以假定，雖然這一點未曾提及，這位未經指名的人物將把首相作為附屬品，當事情不妙時為他向議會作必要的解釋，求得原諒和道歉，正如他們過去常常這樣搞，將來也會這樣做一樣。怎麼說這也是一種政策。它是和我們目前採用的議會制度迥然不同的一種制度。它很容易地與獨裁制度相同，或者轉變為獨裁制度。我願意明確宣佈，就我而論，我絕不參與這種制度。 約翰‧J‧沃德洛｜米爾恩爵士此時插話道：我希望我非常尊敬的朋友沒有忘記原來的句子，那就是受制於戰時內閣！ 我繼續說道： 受制於戰時內閣的意義是，這位有著一切權力的權威者如果不能行其所是，他應在任何時機決然自行引退。這是一個方案，但不是我個人有興趣要參加的一種方案，而且，我也不認為是一種應當向下議院推薦的方案。 所有政黨的議員們拒絕這次不信任投票是一樁相當大的事件。我請求你們，不要讓下議院低估了已發生事情的嚴重性。我們遭受責難的情況已傳遍了全世界，而且，每一個國家，不論是敵人還是朋友，都在等待著下議院真正的決斷和信心的揭曉，因此事情必須進行到底。我可以證明，在全世界，在美國各地，在俄國，在遙遠的中國，在每一個遭受敵人踐踏的國家，我們所有的朋友都在等待著，看看在英國是否有一個堅強團結的政府，英國的國家領導是否會遭到反對。 每一張票都說明問題。如果那些攻擊我們的人減少到微不足道的比數，而他們對聯合政府所投的不信任票轉變成對這一動議的製造者們的不信任票，毫無疑問，英國的每一個朋友和我們事業的每一個忠誠的公僕都會為之歡呼，而我們正在力圖推翻的暴君的耳邊將響起失望的喪鐘。 下議院舉行了表決。約翰‧沃德洛｜米爾恩爵士的不信任動議以四百七十五票對二十五票而被擊敗。 我的美國朋友懷著真正焦急的心情等待著揭曉。他們對結果感到欣慰。我醒來接到他們的賀電。 President to Prime Minister 一九四二年七月二日 向你祝賀！ 哈里‧霍普金斯致首相 一九四二年七月二日 今日下議院的投票使我感到快慰。這些日子真是不好的日子。今後無疑還會有這樣的日子。那些膽小怕事的人，每遇任何挫折總力圖逃避，這種人對打贏這一仗是不沾邊的。你的力量、堅忍不拔的精神和永不消失的勇氣將會使你看到英國度過難關，而且，你知道總統是不會離開你的。我了解，你是百折不撓的，對於你們和我們的軍事失利以及我們必然來臨的勝利，我們是共患難共歡樂的。希望你獲得更多的權力。 I answer: Prime Minister to Mr Harry Hopkins 一九四二年七月三日 我的朋友，對你感激之至。我知道你和總統對我這次在國內的勝利感到欣慰。我希望總有一天，我將以更切實的情況告你。 沃爾特‧埃利奧特先生在辯論中說到一個奇妙的歷史事實，他回想到麥考利記述關於皮特的執政情況：皮特正當國家從事生死存亡鬥爭之時擔任國家首腦。但是，事實是經過八年戰爭之後，在喪失了大量生命和財富之後，皮特所領導下的英國軍隊成為全歐洲的笑柄。他們簡直沒有一點輝煌的戰果可以誇耀。在大陸上，它毫無戰績，只是被打敗、被追趕、被迫重行登船逃回。不過，麥考利接著敘述皮特始終得到下議院的支持。這樣，在一段長久而苦難的時期中，他在議會院牆以外所遇到的每一災難，總是以在議會內的勝利而告結束。最後，他再也遇不到一個反對黨了，而在一七九九年這一多事之秋，所能糾集的反對政府最大多數只有二十五人。埃利奧特先生說：歷史竟會在某些方面重演，真是奇怪。他在表決之前不知道結果竟絲毫不差。我自己也很驚異，二十五這個數字也恰好是我在托卜魯克陷落那一天在白宮對總統和霍普金斯所說的數字。