It is not necessary to
read it on the question of having a withdrawal. This is what the right hon. gentleman said:
That is the position that has been taken in this house. Again, it is very interesting to observe the discipline with which hon. gentlemen who are not well informed, accept the brief that is tendered to them and then make a speech in the House of Commons. The leading member who spoke for the opposition is a distinguished lawyer; he did not desire to make that speech; he has made his statements jmd they are well known, but he was told to speak, so he took the brief and made the statement. From whom did he get his facts that he referred to as "ifs"? Who supplied' them to him? Who gave him his brief and what does it represent on the back of it? That is the question.
My right hon. friend knows perfectly well that that means only one thing, that there is a direct endorsement on the back of the brief to the effect that the person who receives it is entitled to receive a fee. I am surprised that my right hon. friend has not referred to that at all in the lame explanation which he made. He knows perfectly well what a brief is and he knows as a counsel that what is represented on the back of a brief is the amount of the fee. I say to my right hon.
friend that that is the imputation which was made immediately apparent to every lawyer in tnis house and throughout the country and I ask him to withdraw it.