I AGREE entirely with Patrick Kelly’s assertion that if I believe “the House of Commons was filled with selfless individuals before the advent of political parties” it would indicate that my understanding of Parliamentary history is deficient (Letters, July 16).

But as I don’t, it doesn’t.

All I wished to imply was that under present conditions the individual expressions of dissent we all admire in the heroes of Parliamentary history are stifled to the point of extinction by “mass political organisations” with “party discipline”.

I will mention a few of the “dedicated members” I was thinking of who would fit uneasily into any present-day parliamentary party: Edward Coke, John Hampden, Harry Vane, Charles James Fox, William Cobbett, John Bright, and Charles Bradlaugh.

I do not accept that the alternative to “mass political organisations” is something worse. Political groupings in Parliament are inevitable and beneficial, but not when they exclude the individual conscience. Party discipline is simply coercion writ large.

The requirement of a deposit for candidature to Parliament is no problem for “mass political organisations”. It is a severe disincentive to the prospective independent candidate. Mandatory sponsorship by the electorate would put each on an equal footing.

William Dixon Smith, Welland Rise, Acomb, York.