§ 3.54 p.m.
§ Mr. Dingle Foot (Ipswich)
I beg to move,That leave be given to bring in a Bill to constitute a special commission to inquire into the origin, inception and conduct of the operations by British forces directed at Suez and elsewhere in Egypt in the year one thousand nine hundred and fifty-six.This is the third occasion upon which we on this side of the House have called for an inquiry in one form or another into the Suez operations. The first was in December, 1956, and the second was at the end of 1958, after the publication of Mr. Randolph Churchill's articles in the Press. Mr. Churchill, as hon. Members will recall, examined the question of collusion between the British, French and Israeli Governments, and arrived at this verdict. He said:The proof that there was collusion is massive and conclusive.The Foreign Office stated that Mr. Churchill's conclusions were wrong though, for reasons best known to itself, it always declined to enter into any particulars. Now, fifteen months later, we have the publication of Sir Anthony's Eden's memoirs. The remarkable thing about those memoirs is that nearly all the vital questions on the Suez operations are left unanswered. But everything that he says—and, perhaps more important, everything that he does not say—underlines and strengthens the suspicion that there was collusion or, as I would prefer to say, connivance at what the Israelis were about to do at the end of October.
I should like to cite just one passage. In dealing with the meeting with French Ministers in Paris on 16th October, Sir Anthony speaks of the dilemma that would have arisen if Israel attacked Jordan. He says:If there were to be a breakout it was better from our point of view that it should be against Egypt … we discussed these matters in all their political and military aspects. In common prudence we had to consider what our actions should be, for our two countries were, as we knew, the only powers to have effective military forces in command in the area.Sir Anthony goes on to say how, on 25th October, the British Cabinet discussed the specific possibility of conflict between Israel and Egypt, and decided 1151 in principle how they would react if this occurred. From his own memoirs it appears that it was not until 30th October, after the Israeli attack, that any intimation of our intentions was given to our American allies.
Mr. Speaker, here is an issue that will always be a matter of acute controversy. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carshalton (Mr. Head), in this House, and Sir Anthony Eden, who has access to official documents that are denied to the general public, can, of course, give their own versions of these events, but the Government persist in their refusal to hold an inquiry. I submit to the House that, in so doing, they are acting in flagrant breach of the traditions of Parliament.
In the past, whenever there has been a considerable military reverse, or when it has been suggested that Ministers have misled the House in a matter of great consequence, this House has almost invariably demanded an inquiry, and that demand has been acceded to, generally without demur, by the Government of the day.
Just over a century ago there was an inquiry into the conduct of the war in the Crimea. The precedents were reviewed on that occasion by Lord John Russell, who said:Inquiry is the proper duty and function of the House of Commons. When the British arms have suffered a reverse this duty has always been performed. Thus, when Minorca was lost in 1757, Mr. Fox consented to an inquiry. Thus, when General Burgoyne capitulated in 1777, the House of Commons inquired into the causes of the disaster. Thus, when the Walcheren Expedition failed in obtaining the chief objects of the enterprise, the House of Commons inquired. Inquiry is, indeed, at the root of the powers of the House of Commons Upon the result of the inquiry must depend the due exercise of those powers. If from vicious organisation the public offices are ill-administered, the remedy is better organisation If from delay and confusion in the execution of orders inquiry has arisen, the subordinate officers should be removed. If from negligence, incompetency or corruption, the Ministers are themselves to blame for the failure which has been incurred, the Ministers may, according to the nature and degree of their fault, be censured or removed or punished.On this occasion, we do not accuse Ministers of corruption—unless it be corrupt to give misleading and tendentious Answers in the House of Commons 1152 —but we do accuse them of negligence and gross incompetency.
This Motion refers to the origin, inception and conduct of the Suez operations. It follows precisely the words of the Special Commissions (Dardanelles and Mesopotamia) Act, 1916. Forty-four years ago, in this House, Sir Edward Carson moved for a special commission to inquire into the unsuccessful operations at the Dardanelles and Gallipoli. His original Motion referred only to the conduct of those operations. It was the Ministers and ex-Ministers who were themselves closely concerned who insisted upon the widening of the terms of reference. The right hon. Member for Woodford (Sir W. Churchill), as First Lord, had been the principal architect of the Dardanelles expedition, and he himself moved an Amendment to insert these words:The circumstances in which, and the authority upon which, the naval and military expeditions to the Dardanelles and Gallipoli were undertaken.Mr. Asquith, as Prime Minister, preferred another Amendment, which was eventually adopted as being the widest possible Amendment that he could find. Thereafter, all the Cabinet Ministers and heads of Services who had been involved gave evidence before the Commission. How very different were the standards of ministerial conduct in those days!
I take one other example later in the First World War. In 1918, as hon. Members will recall, it was suggested by General Sir Frederick Maurice that the then Prime Minister, Mr. Lloyd George, had given misleading information to Parliament. Again, there was a demand for an inquiry, and on 7th May, 1918, Mr. Bonar Law, then Chancellor of the Exchequer, and also the Leader of the Conservative Party, gave this reply to Mr. Asquith:… in as much as these allegations affect the honour of Ministers, the Government proposes to invite two of His Majesty's Judges to act as a Court of Honour, to inquire into the charge of mis-statements alleged to have been made by Ministers, and to report as quickly as possible."—[OFFICIAL REPORT. 7th May. 1918; Vol. 105, c. 1982.]The only reason why that inquiry did not take place was because Mr. Asquith and his friends insisted instead on a Select Committee. The Government thought that that was an inappropriate tribunal, which would take far too long, 1153 but if Mr. Asquith had accepted the original proposal an inquiry by two judges there certainly would have been. Here again, we have allegations which affect the honour of Ministers, but what a very different reaction we get.
My last example is taken from the Second World War. In a former debate on this subject, my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg) read a passage from the memoirs of the right hon. Member for Woodford—his memoirs of the last war—in which he said:I judged it impossible to hold an inquiry by Royal Commission into the circumstances of the fall of Singapore while the war was raging. We could not spare the men, the time or the energy. Parliament accepted this view; but I certainly thought that, in justice to the officers and men concerned, there should be an inquiry into all the circumstances as soon as the fighting stopped.If time permitted, I could give a great many other examples. But I hope I have given sufficient to show that this persistent refusal by the Government to hold an inquiry into the Suez operations represents a new, and, as I believe, a wholly lamentable, departure from our Parliamentary tradition.
Finally, I would like to put one question. Why is it that Ministers on the Treasury Bench are so willing to grant an inquiry into the conduct of others, but never into their own? If somebody raises a question as to the behaviour of the police, whether in Caithness or Blantyre, an inquiry is almost immediately held. If it is suggested that African Nationalist leaders have engaged together in a massacre plot, then again we have an inquiry, however reluctant the Government may afterwards be to accept its findings. But when it is Ministers themselves whose conduct is impugned, then darkness falls. Without a rational explanation, we are told again and again that these events must not be subject to any inquiry whatever, in any form and at any time.
We on this side of the House believe that this is a very serious matter—not a party matter. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] We regard it, and I have tried to present it, as a House of Commons matter. I have suggested that earlier Parliaments would certainly have insisted on an inquiry into these events. I believe that by refusing an inquiry, the Government are setting a new and ominous precedent 1154 for the future, and that is why some of my hon. Friends and I have put down this Motion.
§ 4.6 p.m.
§ Mr. Bernard Braine (Essex, South-East)
I rise to oppose the Motion, and I do so for two reasons. The first is that the effect of what the hon. and learned Member for Ipswich (Mr. Foot) has proposed to the House could very easily damage international relations— [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."]—as I hope to be allowed to show, and so imperil peace. The second reason is that even if such an inquiry were held, the subject is of such a nature that no positive conclusion could be reached and no useful purpose would be served.
§ Hon. Members: Why?
§ Mr. Braine
I would have thought that, as to the first, it must be apparent to all that the Middle East is still an area of great sensitivity and potential danger. Its peoples are all too ready to react—[Interruption.] I thought that peace was a matter of some concern to hon. Members opposite. Its peoples are all too ready to react to ill-considered words, and reminders of past conflicts and present grievances.
Recent events on the Syrian border have shown how quickly tension can be brought to breaking point, and how swiftly animosity can burst into flame. Surely, against this background, it should be the aim of all of us in this House so to conduct ourselves and so to weigh our words that we reduce the tension, if we can—not add to it.
Surely, too, it should be our purpose— [Interruption.] I have a great deal of time in which to develop my argument. I wish to be brief, but if hon. Gentlemen opposite do not attach importance to the matter, I must tell them that we on this side do. It should surely be our purpose to make a start towards solving the vexed problems of the Middle East, not to exploit lingering bitterness and distrust. We all know, if we are honest with ourselves, just how deep divisions run in the Middle East, how great the obstacles are to settlement, and how manifold are the dangers.
Can anyone in his senses conceive of a better way of embittering those feelings, of heightening the tension and of increasing the danger, than by the kind 1155 of inquiry which the hon. and learned Gentleman suggests?
Consider the likely effects of what the hon. and learned Gentleman proposes. It would be naive in the extreme to assume that any commission of ours would have the last word. The other interested parties—the Egyptians, the Israelis, the French, the Russians and the Americans—all would be led by our actions, and probably forced, into publishing versions of their own, and only a fool would imagine that the various versions could be reconciled. That would start a war of words. It would solve nothing. It would merely add to the controversy in a situation in which there is no hope whatsoever of reconciling the various views.
But we could be absolutely certain of one thing, as certain as night follows day. Whether the other participants produced their own versions or not, our own, however carefully balanced it might be, would inevitably revive the Anglo-Egyptian quarrel, a quarrel with a country with which we have been labouring during the past year to rebuild our relations.
I submit that, if the hon. and learned Gentleman had really given serious thought to his ill-considered proposal, he would have realised that any inquiry into Suez, however conducted, must entail a close scrutiny of the policy, attitude and activities of Egypt in the period prior to the Suez intervention. That story is not a pleasant one. It is bound to involve an account of the events leading up to the seizure of an international waterway. It is bound to include reference to the Fedayeen raids across the borders of Israel. Inevitably, whatever the rights or wrongs—I am not at the moment concerned with the rights or wrongs—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] It is quite clear from these interruptions which side of the House has the most to conceal. Otherwise, hon. Members opposite would listen to the argument.
As I say, whatever the rights or wrongs of the issue—I am weighing my words very carefully—the Egyptians would be bound to reply in self-defence. We should once again be plunged into a welter of recrimination and counter-recrimination with an important country of the Middle East with which we wish 1156 to rebuild our relations. Surely the House recognises the progress which was made last year, the financial settlement and the resumption of diplomatic contacts. Are not these good things? Are not the bridges being repaired? The hon. and learned Gentleman is seeking this afternoon to demolish them.
Nor does the matter end there. An inquiry would have to take into account consideration of whether, and if so how far, the Soviet Union made a contribution to events leading to the crisis. Is this really the moment, when we are on the eve of Summit talks, when all our hopes are directed—[An HON. MEMBER: "Write a book about it."] It is very strange that hon. Members opposite should listen with such rapt attention to an account of what happened in the Seven Years' War and what happened in the Crimean War. I am dealing with the realities of today. Apparently, these matters did not enter the thoughts of the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Ipswich.
Is this the moment, when all our hopes are pinned to the possibility of achieving better understanding beween East and West, to start a public wrangle which must inevitably involve not only our French and American allies, but the Russians as well?
Consider now the futility of what is proposed. The Suez intervention undoubtedly struck a deep division in our country. There are many of us who thought that it was right. There were some who thought that it was wrong. There were some who thought that it was right, but that it was wrong not to see it through to the end. Whatever the rights or wrongs of the matter, am I not right in saying that the subject was debated in the House and the country ad nauseam? The inquest was held, and, at the end of it, the nation gave its verdict in no uncertain terms. Indeed, since the publication of Sir Anthony Eden's book, and since the General Election, there have been two by-elections in which the electors have again expressed their view.
Quite sincerely, I apreciate that, until the end of his days, the hon. and learned Gentleman will persist in his view that Sir Anthony Eden was wrong. For my part—and with much greater humility, may I say—I believe that he was right. 1157 What useful purpose could be served by making over the ashes of this controversy now? Is this proposal made to serve the cause of objective truth? Or is it to serve a dubious political manoeuvre? I refuse to believe the right hon. and hon. Members opposite, in their heart of hearts, really want to go all over these things again. I do not believe so. But if they do the nation will assuredly draw the conclusion that, afraid to face the problems of today and tomorrow because of their internal dissensions, the Opposition are forced, in order to gain some political advantage, to try to make capital out of yesterday's difficulties.
Let us assume for a moment that the House accedes to the request for an inquiry. Where would the inquiry begin and where would it end? Who would be called to give evidence? Last week, the hon. Member for Pembroke (Mr. Donnelly), for whom I have great regard, suggested, rather unwisely I thought, that the inquiry should begin with the consultations between Governments just before the intervention. The matter goes back much farther than that. It goes back at least to the point where our American friends and allies failed to recognise that survival and stability in the Middle East depended upon joint Anglo-American action. This was what Sir Anthony Eden tried in vain to impress upon President Eisenhower in February, 1956, months before the Canal was seized.
Where would the inquiry end? Not where it would suit the convenience of
§ the hon. and learned Gentleman, at the cease-fire, at the point of seeming failure, but, rather, at the point where the lesson was learned and applied in the Anglo-American intervention in Jordan and the Lebanon, where joint action stabilised a rapidly deteriorating situation, and did so without bloodshed.
§ Who would speak at the inquiry? Let us remember that our actions at the time of Suez were bound to have been influenced by neighbours of Egypt who were fearful of our inaction and who were well aware of the dangers involved —friends of ours who cannot speak now because they do not live.
I put it to the House that on no grounds of logic, sense, usefulness or truth can the Motion be justified. I shall not descend to the level of the hon. and learned Member in his strictures upon the honour of Ministers because, in a matter of this kind, I am reminded of something which he evidently has forgotten, the wise advice of Edmund Burke:
Magnanimity in politics is not seldom the truest wisdom.
§ I ask the House to reject the Motion.
§ Question put, pursuant to Standing Order No. 12 (Motions for leave to bring in Bills and nomination of Select Committees at commencement of Public Business): —
§ The House divided: Ayes 171, Noes 248.1161
|Division No. 67.]||AYES||[4.18 p.m.|
|Ainsley, William||Collick, Percy||Grey, Charles|
|Albu, Austen||Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)||Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)|
|Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)||Cronin, John||Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)|
|Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)||Cullen, Mrs. Alice||Grimond, J.|
|Awbery, Stan||Davies, Harold (Leek)||Hall, Rt. Hon. Glenvil (Coine Valley)|
|Bacon, Mist Alice||Davies, Ifor (Gower)||Hamilton, William (West Fife)|
|Baxter, William (Stirlingshire, W.)||Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)||Hannan, William|
|Beaney, Alan||Deer, George||Hart, Mrs. Judith|
|Bellenger, Rt. Hon. F. J.||Dempsey, James||Hayman, F. H.|
|Bence, Cyril (Dunbartonshire, E.)||Diamond, John||Healey, Denis|
|Berm,Hn.A.Wedgwood(Brist'l, S.E.)||Dodds, Norman||Henderson Rt.Hn.Arthur(RwlyRegis)|
|Blackburn, F.||Donnelly, Desmond||Herbison, Miss Margaret|
|Blyton, William||Driberg, Tom||Hill, J. (Midlothian)|
|Bowden, Herbert W. (Leics, S. W.)||Ede, Rt. Hon. Chuter||Hilton, A. V.|
|Bowles, Frank||Edwards. Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly)||Holman, Percy|
|Braddock, E. M.||Edwards, Robert (Bilston)||Holt, Arthur|
|Brockway, A. Fenner||Evans, Albert||Houghton, Douglas|
|Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.||Finch, Harold||Howell, Charles A.|
|Brown, Alan (Tottenham)||Fletcher, Eric||Hoy, James H.|
|Brown, Thomas (Ince)||Forman, J. C.||Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)|
|Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)||Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)||Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)|
|Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)||Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. Hugh||Hunter, A. E.|
|Castle, Mrs. Barbara||Ginsburg, David||Hynd, H. (Accrington)|
|Chetwynd, George||Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.||Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)|
|Cliffe, Michael||Gourlay, Harry||Jay, Rt. Hon. Douglas|
|Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)||Noel-Baker, Rt. Hn. Philip (Derby, S.)||Spriggs, Leslie|
|Johnston, Douglas (Paisley)||Oliver, G. H.||Steele, Thomas|
|Jones, Rt. Hn. A. Creech (Wakefield)||Oram, A. E.||Stewart, Michael (Fulham)|
|Jones, Dan (Burnley)||Owen, Will||Stonehouse, John|
|Jones, Elwyn (West Ham, S.)||Padley, W. E.||Stones, William|
|Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)||Pannell, Charles (Leeds, W.)||Stross, Dr. Barnett (Stoke-on-Trent, C.)|
|Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)||Parker, John (Dagenham)||Swingler, Stephen|
|Kelley, Richard||Pavitt, Laurence||Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)|
|Kenyon, Clifford||Peart, Frederick||Taylor, John (West Lothian)|
|Key, Bt. Hon. C. W.||Pentland, Norman||Thompson, Dr. Alan (Dunfermline)|
|Lawson, George||Plummer, Sir Leslie||Thornton, Ernest|
|Lee, Frederick (Newton)||Popplewell, Ernest||Thorpe, Jeremy|
|Lipton, Marcus||Prentice, R. E.||Wade, Donald|
|Loughlin, Charles||Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)||Wainwright, Edwin|
|McCann, John||Proctor, W. T.||Warbey, William|
|Mclnnes, James||Randall, Harry||Wells, Percy (Faversham)|
|McKay, John (Wallsend)||Rankin, John||Wheeldon, W. E.|
|Mackie, John||Redhead, E. C.||White, Mrs. Eirene|
|MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)||Reid, William||Whitlock, William|
|Mahon, Simon||Reynolds, G. W.||Wigg George|
|Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)||Robens, Rt. Hon. Alfred||Wilkins, W. A.|
|Mallalieu, J.P.W.(Huddersfield,E.)||Roberts, Albert (Normanton)||Williams, D. J. (Neath)|
|Manuel, A. C.||Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)||Williams, W. R. (Openshaw)|
|Mapp, Charles||Rogers, G. H. R. (Kensington, N.)||Willis, E. G. (Edinburgh, E.)|
|Marquand, Rt. Hon, H. A.||Ross, William||Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton)|
|Marsh, Richard||Short, Edward||Winterbottom, R. E.|
|Mason, Roy||Silverman, Julius (Aston)||Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.|
|Mellish, R. J.||Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)||Woof, Robert|
|Mendelson, J. J.||Skeffington, Arthur||Yates, Victor (Ladywood)|
|Millan, Bruce||Slater, Mrs. Harriet (Stoke, N.)|
|Mitchison, G. R.||Small, William||TELLERS FOR THE AYES:|
|Monslow, Walter||Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)||Mr. Emrys Hughes and|
|Neal, Harold||Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank||Mr. Dingle Foot.|
|Agnew, Sir Peter||Curran, Charles||Henderson, John (Cathcart)|
|Allason, James||Dance, James||Hendry, Forbes|
|Alport, C. J. M.||d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry||Hicks Beach, Maj. W.|
|Arbuthnot, John||de Ferranti, Basil||Hill, J. E. B. (S. Norfolk)|
|Atkins, Humphrey||Digby, Simon Wingfield||Hirst, Geoffrey|
|Balniel, Lord||Donaldson, Cmdr. G. E. M.||Hobson, John|
|Barber, Anthony||Doughty, Charles||Hocking, Philip N.|
|Barlow, Sir John||Drayson, G. B.||Holland, Philip|
|Barter, John||Duncan, Sir James||Hollingworth, John|
|Batsford, Brian||Duthie, Sir William||Hope, Rt. Hon. Lord John|
|Baxter, Sir Beverley (Southgate)||Eccles, Rt. Hon. Sir David||Hopkins, Alan|
|Bell, Ronald (S. Bucks.)||Eden, John||Howard, Gerald (Cambridgeshire)|
|Bennett, F. M. (Torquay)||Elliott, R. W.||Howard, Hon. G. R. (St. lves)|
|Berkeley, Humphry||Emery, Peter||Howard, John (Southampton, Test)|
|Biggs-Davison, John||Emmet, Hon. Mrs. Evelyn||Hughes Hallett, Vice-Admiral John|
|Bingham, R. M.||Farey-Jones, F. W.||Hughes-Young, Michael|
|Birch, Rt. Hon. Nigel||Farr, John||Hulbert, Sir Norman|
|Bishop, F. P.||Finlay, Graeme||Hurd, Sir Anthony|
|Bossom, Clive||Fisher, Nigel||Hutchison, Michael Clark|
|Bourne-Arton, A.||Fletcher-Cooke, Charles||Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)|
|Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hon. John||Forrest, George||Jackson, John|
|Boyle, Sir Edward||Fraser, Hn. Hugh (Stafford & Stone)||James, David|
|Fraser, lan (Plymouth, Sutton)||Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)|
|Brewis, John||Freeth, Denzil||Jennings, J. C.|
|Brooke, Rt. Hon, Henry|
|Brooman-White, R.||Gammans, Lady||Johnson, Dr. Donald (Carlisle)|
|Browne, Percy (Torrington)||Gardner, Edward||Johnson. Eric (Blackley)|
|Bryan, Paul||George, J.C. (Pollock)||Johnn smith, Geoffrey|
|Butler, Rt. Hn. R.A. (Saffron Walden)||Gibson-Watt, David||Kaberry, Sir Donald|
|Campbell, Sir David (Belfast, S.)||Glover, Sir Douglas||Kerans, Cdr. J. S.|
|Carr, Compton (Barons Court)||Glyn, Col. Richard H. (Dorset, N.)||Kerby, Capt. Henry|
|Carr, Robert (Mitcham)||Goodhew, Victor||Kerr, Sir Hamilton|
|Cary, Sir Robert||Gough, Frederick||Kershaw, Anthony|
|Channon, H.P.G.||Gower, Raymond||Kimball, Marcus|
|Chataway, christopher||Grant, Rt. Hon. William (Woodside)||Kitson, Timothy|
|Chochester-Clark, R.||Grant-Ferris, Wg. Cdr. R.(Nantwich)||Lancaster, |Col. C. G.|
|Clark, Henry (Antrim, N.)||Green, Alan||Leburn, Gilmour|
|Clark, William (Nottingham, S.)||Gresham Cooke, R.||Legge-Bourke, Maj. H.|
|Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsrnth, W.)||Grimston, Sir Robert||Legh, Hon. Peter (Petersfield)|
|Cleaver, Leonard||Grosvenor, Lt.-Col. R. G.||Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)|
|Cooke, Robert||Hall, John (Wycombe)||Lilley, F.J.P.|
|Cooper, A. E.||Hamilton, Michael (Weillngborough)||Litchffield, Capt. John|
|Cordle, John||Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.W.)||Lloyd, Rt. Hon. Selwyn (Wirral)|
|Corfield, F. V.||Harris, Reader (Heston)||Loveys, Walter H.|
|Costain, A.P.||Harrison, Col. J.H. (Eye)||Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh|
|Courtney, Cdr. Anthony||Harvey, John (Walthamstow, E.)||McAdden, Stephen|
|Craddock, Beresford (Speithorne)||Harvie, Anderson, Miss||MacArthur, lan|
|Crowder, F. P.||Hay, John||McLaren, Martin|
|Cunningham, Knox||Heath. Rt. Hon. Edward||Maclay, Rt. Hon. John|
|Maclean, SirFitzroy (Bute&N.Ayrs.)||Pilkington, Capt. Richard||Teeling, William|
|McMaster, Stanley R.||Pitt, Miss Edith||Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret|
|Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries)||Pott, Percivall||Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)|
|Maddan, Martin||Powell, J. Enoch||Thomas, Peter (Conway)|
|Maginnis, John E.||Price, H. A. (Lewisham, W.)||Thornton-Kemsley, Sir Colin|
|Maitland, Cdr. J. W.||Prior, J. M. L.||Tiley, Arthur (Bradford, W.)|
|Manningham-Buller, Rt. Hn. Sir R.||Profumo, Rt. Hon. John||Tilney, John (Wavertree)|
|Markham, Major Sir Frank||Proudfoot, Wilfred||Turner, Colin|
|Marshall, Douglas||Ramsden, James||Turton, Rt. Hon. R. H.|
|Marten, Neil||Redmayne, Rt. Hon. Martin||Tweedsmuir, Lady|
|Matthews, Gordon (Meriden)||Rees, Hugh||van Straubenzee, W. R.|
|Maudling, Rt. Hon. Reginald||Rees-Davies, W. R.||Vane, W. M. F.|
|Mawby, Ray||Renton, David||Vaughan-Morgan, Sir John|
|Maydon, Lt. Cmdr. S. L C.||Ridley, Hon. Nicholas||Vickers, Miss Joan|
|Milligan, Rt. Hon. W. R.||Rippon, Geoffrey||Vosper, Rt. Hon. Dennis|
|Mills, Stratton||Roots, William||Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)|
|Montgomery, Fergus||Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard||Ward, Rt. Hon. George (Worcester)|
|Morrison, John||Russell, Ronald||Ward, Dame Irene (Tyemouth)|
|Nabarro, Gerald||Scott-Hopkins, James||Watts, James|
|Neave, Airey||Seymour, Lesile||Webster, David|
|Nicholls Harmar||Shaw, M.|
|Nicholson, Sir Godfrey||Wells, John (Maidstone)|
|Noble, Micheal||Skeet, T. H. H.||Whitelaw, William|
|Nugent, Sir Richard||Smith, Dudley (Br'ntf'rd & Chiswick)||Williams,Dudley (Exeter)|
|Oakshott, Sir Hendrie||Smyth, Brig. Sir John (Norwood)||Williams, Paul (Sunderland, S.)|
|Orr, Capt. L. P. S.||Soames, Rt. Hon. Christopher||Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)|
|Orr-Ewing, C. Ian||Spearman, Sir Alexander||Wise, Alfred|
|Page, Graham||Speir, Rupert||Woodhouse, C. M.|
|Pannell, Norman (Kirkdale)||Stanley, Hon. Richard||Woodnutt, Mark|
|Page, A. J. (Harrow West)||Stevens, Geoffrey||Woollam, John|
|Partridge, E.||Steward, Harold (Stockport, S.)||Worsley, Marcus|
|Pearson, Frank (Clitheroe)||Stodart, J. A.|
|Peel, John||Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir Malcolm||TELLERS FOR THE NOES:|
|Peyton, John||Storey, Sir Samuel||Sir Gerald Wills and|
|Pickthorn, Sir Kenneth||Summers, Sir Spencer (Aylesbury)||Sir Henry Srudholme.|
|Pike, Miss Mervyn||Tapsell, Peter|