Sitting of 1 November 1956

Preamble
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS
  EDUCATION

    School Building Programme
    Mr. Swinglerasked the Minister of Education how many new primary and secondary schools have been started in the current building year; and how many, and what proportion, of these schools were included in the 1956–57 building programme.
    The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Education (Mr. Dennis Vosper): Two hundred and forty-three major primary and secondary school projects were started between 1st April and 31st August last, of which 50 were included in the original 1956–57 building programme.
    Mr. Swingler: Will the Parliamentary Secretary say whether or not it is a fact that the building programme is running well behind schedule, owing to the fact that a third of the minimum programme for last year was not achieved? Will he state what urgent steps are now being taken by his Ministry, particularly in view of the increasing overcrowding in the classes, to speed up this programme?
    Mr. Vosper: I have no evidence that the starts in the period which I have mentioned are in any way less than the starts for a similar period last year. There are now only 137 projects of last year's programme still to be started.
    Mr. M. Stewart: Would not the Minister agree that at present more than half of our secondary school children are being taught in classes that are above what is supposed to be the proper maximum size; and, at the present rate of building, does he see any sign of improvement in the next five years?
    Mr. Vosper: I would not disagree with the first part of the hon. Member's question, but a large majority of the schools in the current building programme are for secondary school children. But I cannot promise that that will reduce the size of the classes.
    Mr. Swinglerasked the Minister of Education how many, and which, school projects which were included in the Staffordshire school building programme for 1955–56 have not yet been started.
    Mr. Vosper: Two. They are the Quicksands Secondary Modern School in Aldridge and Warslow Secondary Modern School.
    Mr. Swingler: As we are nearly halfway through this year's building programme, even two schools in arrear in the building programme is a serious position in Staffordshire. Is the hon. Gentleman aware that one of the problems in recruiting additional teachers in Staffordshire is the shortage of modern school buildings? Will he, therefore, give further assistance to the Staffordshire local authority to enable it to get up to date in its building programme?
    Mr. Vosper: I think that if the hon. Gentleman will inquire of this authority he will find that my Department, has not been responsible for this delay. Both these schools will be started shortly. If the hon. Gentleman will put down a Question again in, say, January, I am sure that the answer will be "None."

    Industrial Radiography (Courses)
    Mr. Neaveasked the Minister of Education what plans he is making for the training of radiographers for industry under his programme for technical education.
    Mr. Vosper: The City and Guilds of London Institute have recently established an examination for industrial radiography and courses leading to it have been provided at the Northampton Polytechnic in London and at Wednesbury Technical College. This summer the Ministry ran a short course on this subject at the Harwell Isotope School for teachers for technical colleges. Further courses for teachers and students will be arranged as the demand from industry develops.
    Mr. Neave: Is it the intention of my hon. Friend's Department to extend training in radiography to the technical college programme as a whole?
    Mr. Vosper: That depends on the demand from industry; I hope that this Question, and the reply to it, may stimulate that demand. If that is the case, we shall certainly give further consideration to establishing even more courses.

    Advanced Colleges of Technology (Teaching Staff)
    Mr. Callaghanasked the Minister of Education to what extent the eight advanced colleges of technology have been able to secure adequate teaching staff to cope with students who have registered for the new Diploma of Technology.
    Mr. Vosper: No courses have yet been approved for the new Diploma and as far as I am aware the colleges referred to are getting the staff they require.
    Mr. Callaghan: Will the hon. Gentleman make inquiries into this matter, because I am sure that he realises its supreme importance? Is he not aware—and if he is not aware, will he please find out—that there are difficulties about recruiting staff of the right calibre, and in sufficient numbers, at the salaries being offered?
    Mr. Vosper: I have made inquiries particularly about Cardiff. In answer to the second part of the Question, I would say that only a month ago the salaries for these grades of staff were considerably raised. There is a Committee giving urgent attention to recruitment at the present time.
    Mr. Callaghan: May I ask why the Parliamentary Secretary thinks that I am referring only to Cardiff?
    Mr. Vosper: I did not think so, but I thought that the Cardiff college was a particularly important one.

    Grammar and Technical School Places, Staffordshire
    Mr. Simmonsasked the Minister of Education (1) if he will give an assurance that the needs of the children of overspill families in respect of scholarships to grammar and technical
    1588
    schools are adequately provided for in south Staffordshire;
    (2) what percentage of the children in Wombourn, Staffordshire, can gain scholarships to grammar and technical schools;
    (3) if children of families overspilled from Wolverhampton to Wombourn, Staffordshire, can be given a proportion of the scholarship places in Wolverhampton grammar and technical schools.
    Mr. Vosper: In south Staffordshire about 14 per cent. of the children are admitted each year to grammar and technical schools, and all children in the area, including those who have moved from Wolverhampton, have the same chance of gaining places in these schools. Fourteen per cent. is on the low side, and five grammar or grammar-technical schools are under construction or planned for the next two years' programmes. The two local education authorities should consider how many grammar or technical school places for Staffordshire children there should be in Wolverhampton.
    Mr. Simmons: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that I get more complaints about lack of accommodation in technical and secondary schools in south Staffordshire than about any other subject? Is he also aware that the population of Wombourn has trebled because of overspill and that I am told that only 3 per cent. of the overspill children get places in these schools? Has Wolverhampton no responsibility to its citizens who have gone to Wombourn but who still pay rates to Wolverhampton?
    Mr. Vosper: In fact, 86 Staffordshire children were admitted to Wolverhampton grammar and technical schools, but as the child population of Wolverhampton expands that number will decrease. For that reason Staffordshire is building further schools itself. I am aware of the difficulty in this area and that the percentage is on the low side, but five new schools are either under construction or planned.

    University Awards, West Riding
    Mr. Chapmanasked the Minister of Education whether the West Riding of Yorkshire local education authority has accepted his recommendation that students gaining two advanced passes in

    1589
    the General Certificate of Education examination should be considered for university scholarship awards.
    Mr. Vosper: Yes, Sir.
    Mr. Chapman: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that since I raised with his Department a very shocking case which was brought to my notice, parents have been writing to me from all over the West Riding complaining that their children have attained better results than the minimum which the Minister has laid down and yet are still being refused scholarships, although they are awarded in neighbouring areas?
    Mr. Vosper: That may be so, but my right hon. Friend's recommendations were that all those with two G.C.E. passes at the A level should be considered but should not automatically be given an award. That is the policy which the West Riding has been following.
    Mr. Chapmanasked the Minister of Education the number of university awards per 10,000 of the population made by the Yorkshire West Riding County Council; and how this figure compares with the figures for Barnsley, Doncaster, Sheffield, and for other neighbouring authorities.
    Mr. Vosper: As the Answer contains a number of figures I will, with permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Mr. Chapman: Do the figures show the West Riding in a relatively favourable or unfavourable light compared with its neighbours?
    Mr. Vosper: The table which I will circulate contains the names of eight authorities, one of which is the West Riding. Five are more favourable from the hon. Member's point of view, and two are less favourable.
    Following is the Answer:
    1. Number of awards taken up at the beginning of the academic year 1955–56 per thousand of the population aged 13 to 15:

    West Riding

    17

    Barnsley

    22

    Doncaster

    15

    Sheffield

    20

    North Riding

    13

    East Riding

    20

    Derbyshire

    24

    Lancashire

    29

    School Meals Service (Nutritional Standards)
    Mr. Hastingsasked the Minister of Education what steps he is taking to make certain that his inspectors of schools who supervise the meals service make sure that balanced meals containing a sufficiency of uncooked vegetable foods are served.
    Mr. Vosper: Although my right hon. Friend prescribes in general terms the nutritional standards for the school meals service, the administration and supervision is the responsibility of the local education authorities. Her Majesty's Inspectors do, however, give advice, and I am sure that they would draw attention to any deficiencies.
    Mr. Hastings: How does the Minister know that Her Majesty's inspectors have a sufficient interest in and knowledge of dietary for their inspection to be of any use at all? They are educationists. May I suggest that it might be useful if the Minister sent round some inspectors who had a special interest in and knowledge of dietary?
    Mr. Vosper: That is done. Some of Her Majesty's inspectors have specialised knowledge of dietetics in the school meals service. In addition, in many cases local authorities have their own nutritional experts. I am sure that this Question will come to the notice of those concerned.

    School Uniforms
    Lieut.-Colonel Liptonasked the Minister of Education when he last urged local authorities not to require unreasonably expensive school uniforms.
    Mr. Vosper: In January, 1952, local education authorities were asked to eliminate any unnecessary expense either to themselves or to parents in the provision of school uniform.
    Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: Is the hon. Gentleman aware of what has happened since 1952? Does he consider it reasonable that working-class parents should be expected to find £20 or more to equip 12-year-old school children for admission to the local secondary school? Is he not

    1591
    aware that that imposes great hardship on many parents, and although they have the right to ask for financial aid in cases of hardship, they do not like to do it?
    Mr. Vosper: I have visited many schools since the hon. and gallant Gentleman last asked this question, and I have not found any cases where an unreasonable requirement is made of the parents. If the hon. and gallant Gentleman knows of any particular local authority where that is the case I hope that he will bring it to my notice.

  COMMONWEALTH RELATIONS

    Central African Federation (Talks)
    Mr. Fenner Brockwayasked the Under-Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations what conclusions have been reached in the discussions with the Prime Minister of the Central African Federation regarding the future of the Federation.
    The Under-Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations (Commander Allan Noble): Lord Malvern, as the then Prime Minister of the Federation of Rhodesia and Nyasaland, when in London in June and July, had some talks with my noble friend on the possibility of improving the status of the Federation without altering the relationship beween the Federal Government and the territorial Governments. These talks were purely exploratory, and no agreement was reached.
    Mr. Brockway: In view of the threat made by Lord Malvern about a "Boston tea party" and the extreme statements made by the present Prime Minister of the Central African Federation, will the Under-Secretary confirm the statement made by Lord Chandos on behalf of Her Majesty's Government during the discussion of the federal proposals that there will be no full self-government in that area without the consent of the majority of the population?
    Commander Noble: Her Majesty's Government are well aware of the provisions of the 1953 Constitution and the proviso that it remains in force until at
    1592
    least 1960. Perhaps I might take this opportunity of sending our good wishes to Lord Malvern on his honourable retirement, which began yesterday after so many years as Prime Minister.
    Mr. Brockway: With those remarks may I express personal agreement?
    Mr. F. M. Bennett: While agreeing with the Minister's reservation on the constitutional position, may I ask whether he would agree that any expression of distrust in this House or elsewhere in the country about our kinsmen in the Federation can only have the effect of encouraging extremism rather than moderation?
    Commander Noble: Yes, I think that would be most unfortunate.

    Bechuanaland
    Mr. Tilneyasked the Under-Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations what schemes there are for the economic development of Bechuanaland.
    Commander Noble: An account of the plans for economic development in the Bechuanaland Protectorate was given in Command Paper No. 9580 of October. 1955. Those plans have since been expanded. It is now further proposed to spend, before 1960, the sum of £132,000 on the development of agriculture, £263,000 on the reconstruction of all arterial roads and some important bridges, and £260,000 on improving veterinary services.
    Mr. Tilneyasked the Under-Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations what schemes there are for the organisation of local councils in Bechuanaland.
    Mr. Bennasked the Under-Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations what constitutional changes are proposed in Bechuanaland; and to what extent these include elected district councils for the different tribes as a prelude to the establishment of an elected legislative council.
    Commander Noble: After consultation with a committee of the African Advisory Council and with individual African Authorities, Advisory Councils are being established in the Bechuanaland Protectorate to assist the African Authorities

    1593
    and Subordinate African Authorities in the conduct of their duties. The African Authorities and Subordinate African Authorities will be ex officio Chairmen of these Councils.
    Members of the Councils will be partly nominated by the African Authorities and Subordinate African Authorities, and partly elected by traditional kgotla procedure. The Councils will be concerned with all aspects of tribal administration, including tribal development plans, primary education, the conservation of natural resources, population movements, tribal liquor laws and similar matters of importance to the tribes.
    As regards a Legislative Council, I would refer the hon. Member for Bristol, South-East (Mr. Benn) to my reply to this Question on 25th October.
    Mr. Tilney: Is my hon. and gallant Friend aware that this decision will be very welcome in Bechuanaland?
    Mr. Benn: Would the hon. and gallant Gentleman not give some indication to the House of when the transition from advisory to legislative functions is contemplated by the Government?
    Commander Noble: No, Sir. I think I made that quite clear last week.
    Mr. Bennasked the Under-Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations how he proposes to deal with the application for mineral concessions in Bechuanaland, in view of the need for these concessions to be granted by a member of the Khama family.
    Commander Noble: In accordance with the Mines and Minerals Proclamation, 1932, any mineral concessions in the Bamangwato Reserve will be granted, in the absence of a Chief, by the African Authority of the Bamangwato Tribe. They will be subject to my noble Friend's approval. As I said in the debate on 1st August, if the tribe wish a member of the Khama family to be associated in any such concession, the Administration will consider how this can best be done.
    Mr. Benn: Will the hon. and gallant Gentleman handle this matter very carefully, as it is possible that any inappropriate signature, so far as this tribe is
    1594
    concerned, on these mineral concessions would prejudice the future of the Protectorate?
    Commander Noble: I can assure the hon. Gentleman that we will consider this most carefully and that we attach the greatest importance to it.

  TRADE AND COMMERCE

    Czechoslovakia (Trade Agreement)
    Mr. Swinglerasked the President of the Board of Trade what progress has been made in the negotiations for a British-Czechoslovak trade agreement.
    The President of the Board of Trade (Mr. Peter Thorneycroft): I would refer the hon. Member to the reply which my right hon. Friend the Minister of State gave to the right hon. Member for Rochester and Chatham (Mr. Bottomley) on Tuesday.
    Mr. Swingler: I thank the Minister for that reply and the fact that an agreement has been concluded after these protracted negotiations, but would he not agree that it is for a very limited amount of trade indeed, and that the potentiality of exchange between this country and Czechoslovakia must be very much greater? Would he, therefore, make efforts towards trying to expand this during the coming months?
    Mr. Thorneycroft: That is more in the nature of a comment on the agreement, but it is my interest to expand trade in all directions.
    Mr. Bottomley: I welcome the agreement, but can the Minister say why a settlement was reached by which we press for the repayment of private debts and postpone the repayment of debts due to Her Majesty's Government?
    Mr. Thorneycroft: That question should be addressed to the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

    Monopolies Commission
    Mr. Wadeasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he will now refer to the Monopolies Commission the subject of exclusive dealing in the distribution of petrol and garage accessories.
    Mr. P. Thorneycroft: No, Sir.
    Mr. Wade: Can the Minister give any indication as to when a decision will be reached on the reference of this subject to the Monopolies Commission?
    Mr. Thorneycroft: Not at this moment. There are quite a lot of oil problems on our hands.
    Mr. Royle: Can the Minister say when we are going to start rationing petrol?
    Mr. Thorneycroft: That is a question for my right hon. Friend the Minister of Fuel and Power.
    Mr. Wadeasked the President of the Board of Trade what steps he proposes to take to implement the recommendations contained in the Report by the Monopolies Commission on the supply of linoleum.
    Mr. P. Thorneycroft: The principal restrictive arrangements of the Linoleum Manufacturers' Association, as described in the Report, appear to come within the provisions of the Restrictive Trade Practices Act, 1956, for registration and examination by the Restrictive Practices Court, and accordingly it is not for me to take action on the Commission's recommendations.
    Mr. Wade: Can the Minister give an assurance that reports on specific industries recently made by the Monopolies Commission, or about to be made, will not all be pigeon-holed merely because the Restrictive Trade Practices Act has been placed on the Statute Book?
    Mr. Thorneycroft: I hope that that Act, which we all joined together in putting on the Statue Book, will provide a more expeditious and effective way of dealing with these matters.
    Mr. Jay: Are not both those answers further examples of the interminable delays which characterise the Government's attitude on this whole business?
    Mr. Thorneycroft: I feel that they are an example of the calm determination with which the Board of Trade has tackled these matters during my tenure of office.

    Cotton Imports
    Mr. Allaunasked the President of the Board of Trade the volume of cotton imports into the United Kingdom from India and Hong Kong for each of the years 1950 to 1955 and for the first six months of 1956; and if he will take steps to prevent the closing of further Lancashire mills by setting up an import board to restrict cotton imports to their present level.
    Mr. P. Thorneycroft: I assume that the hon. Member's Question refers to imports of cotton cloth. With permission, I will circulate in the OFFICIAL REPORT the figures asked for in the first part of the Question. The Answer to the second part is "No, Sir."
    Mr. Allaun: Is the President of the Board of Trade aware that the cotton unions and the T.U.C. on the one hand, and the cotton employers and the F.B.I. on the other, are all now seeking some form of cotton import control, and will he tell the House the outcome of his meeting with a T.U.C. deputation on Tuesday?
    Mr. Thorneycroft: I am aware of the views of all these organisations and have had an opportunity of discussing this matter with them. We have exchanged views, and I have called their attention to the fact that talks are planned between the industry in this country and the industry in India. I think that it is common ground that those talks should proceed.
    Mr. Fletcher-Cooke: Will my right hon. Friend, if he is going to expose the cotton trade to a good deal of competition from Europe in future, for which there is a good deal to be said, please realise that he cannot expect the cotton industry also to continue to face Oriental competition, for which there is very little to be said?
    Mr. Thorneycroft: These are among the factors which have been called from time to time to my attention.
    Mr. S. Silverman: Are not these matters, which the President says form part of what the Government are considering, matters which the Government have been considering at least since 1951, and can he tell us when the Government

    1597
    will be ready to make some announcement about some kind of policy for the cotton industry and for Lancashire; or have the Government now reached a situation when they do not care for the opinions of anybody, either in this country or any other country?
    Mr. Thorneycroft: I think that on behalf of Her Majesty's Government I have made very clear statements on this subject from time to time, although they may not all have been acceptable to the hon. Gentleman. At this stage, I think that it is probably common ground that the talks which have been arranged between the cotton industry in the United Kingdom and the cotton industry in India should be allowed to go forward without too much comment.
    Mr. H. Wilson: Since the right hon. Gentleman first received strong representations from the Cotton Board in July, 1954, and in this House on 9th March last year he said that he was waiting to meet the Cotton Board to hear their views, and as he has had repeated representations from them since, is he now trying to tell us that he has still no policy for this industry and is still hanging on and waiting for the result of other conversations?
    Mr. Thorneycroft: I have made it quite plain that we have not altered our policy and do not intend to introduce restrictions and quotas on the imports of cotton

    IMPORTS OF COTTON CLOTH INTO THE UNITED KINGDOM

    Million square yards

    —

    1950

    1951

    1952

    1953

    1954

    1955

    1956 Jan.-June

    From INDIA:

    Woven cotton fabrics of standard type

    …

    …

    76·1

    108·4

    10·6

    16·64

    132·7

    136·5

    75·5

    of which:— grey, unbleached

    …

    …

    71·0

    105·6

    10·1

    15·9

    127·8

    130·6

    72·8

    From HONG KONG:

    Woven cotton fabrics of standard type

    …

    …

    4·8

    17·0

    2·3

    2·0

    19·9

    51·4

    27·3

    of which:— grey, unbleached

    …

    …

    3·2

    12·4

    1·6

    0·7

    18·1

    48·8

    26·2

    goods, as the right hon. Gentleman has proposed. It would do great damage at this stage to do anything of the kind in our trade with India. I think that the proper course is for the talks to take place between the industries in the two countries.
    Mr. Wilson: Since this is apparently the first intimation that the right hon. Gentleman has turned down the latest representations of the Cotton Board, will he at least refrain from misrepresenting our attitude on this question, since on 9th March last year we said that we would only support the imposition of quotas by the Government with the utmost reluctance? Does he not realise that this question does not call for quotas but for the policy which we outlined on 9th March, 1955?
    Mr. Thorneycroft: I am very glad to hear the right hon. Gentleman say that he would not impose restrictions on imports from India.
    Mr. Wilson: On a point of order. Mr. Speaker. I think that it is very important that the right hon. Gentleman should not be allowed to misrepresent anything said by any hon. Member. Since the statement I referred to did involve the imposition of restrictions, it is quite wrong for the President to say that we would now not impose any restrictions.
    Following are the figures:

    Exported Motor Cars (Servicing)
    Mr. Callaghanasked the President of the Board of Trade if he will call together British motor car manufacturers to discuss what improvements can be made in their after-sales servicing in foreign countries.
    Mr. P. Thorneycroft: No, Sir; there is frequent discussion of this subject between my Department and the manufacturers. In addition, the National Advisory Council for the Motor Manufacturing Industry, on which both sides of the industry are represented, provides appropriate machinery for discussing this problem as well as others which confront the industry. This matter was discussed at yesterday's meeting of the Council.
    Mr. Callaghan: I am glad to hear that, but what we want is some action. Is the President aware that there is a weight of opinion among those who import British motor cars into other countries that what is needed is a far bigger after-sales servicing, which requires much more capital than British motor car manufacturers are able or willing to put into it? How can we sell our cars abroad unless we get a satisfactory service of this sort, which we have not got yet?
    Mr. Thorneycroft: I have heard an interesting discussion between both sides of the industry on this matter, but it is not part of the functions of the Board of Trade to provide after-sales service.
    Mr. Callaghan: Then the right hon. Gentleman will not sell any cars.

    Exports (Shipping Space)
    Mr. Callaghanasked the President of the Board of Trade to what extent shortage of shipping space is slowing down British exports.
    Mr. P. Thorneycroft: Requisitioning and diversion of ships due to the Suez dispute appears to have had some small effect on exports. Otherwise, I have no evidence that our exports are being slowed down by shortage of shipping space.
    Mr. Callaghan: Will the President ask the Minister of Transport, who has immobilised in British ports fifty ships, costing the taxpayer £400,000 a week in
    1600
    rent, how we can possibly expect to get exports going as long as the Government pursue a stupid policy like this?
    Mr. Thorneycroft: That supplementary question seems to be raising rather wider issues.

    Closed Cinemas
    Mr. Hunterasked the President of the Board of Trade how many cinemas have closed in Great Britain this year, at the latest convenient date.
    Mr. P. Thorneycroft: One hundred and forty-two cinemas have been closed this year up to 31st October.
    Mr. Hunter: Is the Minister aware that reports have been published that the Rank Organisation is closing down a further 79 cinemas, Associated British Cinemas are closing down 30, and the independents nearly a hundred? Will he, at an early date, make a statement on Government policy towards the cinema industry.
    Mr. Thorneycroft: I have recently made a statement on Government policy in regard to the cinema industry.

  NATIONAL FINANCE

    Trinidad Petroleum Development Corporation
    Mr. Doddsasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what approach has been made for permission to dispose of the Trinidad Petroleum Development Corporation to United States interests; and what decision has been given.
    The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Sir Edward Boyle): Approval under the Exchange Control Act was sought for the acquisition of Trinidad Petroleum Development ordinary shares by the Colorado Oil and Gas Corporation in return for shares of the latter. It would have been contrary to current practice to approve a transaction in this form, and permission was therefore withheld.
    Mr. Dodds: Will the hon. Gentleman explain how a few months ago there was not the same opposition given when the Trinidad Oil Company surrendered its interests to America; why could not something effective have been done then?
    Sir E. Boyle: I can assure the hon. Gentleman that Exchange Control permission has never been given to a transaction strictly comparable to the Colorado Oil and Gas Corporation offer, and there is therefore no question of any discrimination against this company.
    Mr. H. Wilson: Since the whole of the Trinidad Oil dollars had to go for payment of about six weeks' run on our gold and dollar reserves, will not the hon. Gentleman now agree, in the light of all that has happened in the world today, that it was a most disastrous decision for the Government to take?
    Sir E. Boyle: No, I would not. Questions about our gold and dollar reserves are a different matter.

    Decimal Currency
    Mr. R. Harrisasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will give further consideration to the introduction of a decimal currency system in this country as a necessary prerequisite to Great Britain's successful participation in a European common market.
    Sir E. Boyle: No, Sir. My right hon. Friend does not consider that a decimal currency system is in any way necessary for the successful participation of this country in a European common market.
    Mr. Harris: Nevertheless, would it not be of tremendous advantage in many other respects to the nation, and would it not help many people in other countries to do their trade with this country?
    Sir E, Boyle: No; I disagree with my hon. Friend. I think there is much more to be said for a duo-decimal system of accounting.

    Rating Assessments (Appeals)
    Mr. Doddsasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer in how many cases notice has been given to valuation officers of appeals against the new rating assessments up to the latest convenient date.
    The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Henry Brooke): Up to the end of September, about 650,000.
    Mr. Dodds: Does the right hon. Gentleman not think that this matter is getting into a hopeless mess, and has he not got sufficient evidence now to prove
    1602
    that many small shopkeepers are having a desperate time; and when, therefore, does he hope that the 650,000 are going to be dealt with—during the life of the present Government?
    Mr. Brooke: The 650,000 represent only about 4 per cent. of the total number of rating assessments; and the hon. Gentleman will be glad to hear that of that number no fewer than 150,000 have already been withdrawn or settled by agreement.

    Pensions (Increase) Act, 1956 (Payments)
    Dame Irene Wardasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer which Government Departments have not yet made the appropriate payments under the Pensions (Increase) Act, 1956; and the dates on which the appropriate increases will be paid to the beneficiaries.
    Mr. H. Brooke: About 220,000 pensions paid by Government Departments are eligible for increases under the Act. Of these, 185,000 have been paid in full, and nearly 20,000 more were the subject of advance payments in May. It is estimated that another 14,000 will be settled within the next fortnight. A residue of about 1,000 exceptionally difficult cases, spread over all pension-paying Departments, may take some time longer, but I can assure my hon. Friend that every effort is being made to settle them as rapidly as possible.
    Dame Irene Ward: In view of the figures which my right hon. Friend has given, may I ask whether it is not true that the notice circulated by the General Post Office, of which I have seen a copy, that the pensions increases cannot be paid until December does not accurately reflect the situation, and that the G.P.O. will pay—except possibly in the case of some of the thousand cases, which I appreciate—quite quickly and before Christmas?
    Mr. Brooke: If my hon. Friend has a Question relating exclusively to the Post Office, perhaps she would be good enough to put it to the Postmaster-General. Speaking generally, I think that the Departments have done a remarkably good job of work in taking on this tremendous extra load in addition to all their ordinary pensions work.

    Housing Subsidies, England and Wales
    The following Questions stood upon the Order Paper:
    36. DAME IRENE WARD,—To as. Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in view of his recent inquiry which indicates an inadequate provision of housing for elderly people, he will provide a special subsidy for local authorities who build specifically to meet the deficiency.
    56. MRS. EMMET,—To ask the Minister of Housing and Local Government whether he is satisfied in the inquiries he has made into the housing of the elderly that the local authorities have in fact a balanced programme which includes suitable housing for the single worker who contributes substantially through taxation to the housing subsidies; and if he will bear this in mind in considering schemes for the clearance and rebuilding of slum areas.
    The Minister of Housing and Local Government (Mr. Duncan Sandys): I have been asked to reply to Question No. 36, and, with permission, I will answer it and Question No. 56 together. I would ask my hon. Friends to await the statement I am going to make at the end of Questions.

  MINISTRY OF HEALTH

    Prescription Charges
    The following Questions stood upon the Order Paper:
    31. DAME IRENE WARD,—To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will state the basis and machinery on which the new charges for prescriptions will be reimbursed to those who cannot meet the charges without hardship and who, though outside the National Assistance scales, have a personal budget which on a small fixed income cannot meet further charges without hardship.
    52. Mr. J. HYND,—To ask the Minister of Health what directions have been issued regarding the assessment of entitlement to the refund of National Health prescription charges to persons not in receipt of National Assistance.
    Mr. Speaker: Dame Irene Ward. Question No. 31.
    Mr. J. Hynd: On a point of order. Mr. Speaker. I put down Question No. 52 to the Chancellor of the Exchequer last week, and it was transferred to the Minister of Health. I find now that Question No. 31 has the same purport as the Question which I originally put down for the Chancellor of the Exchequer. May I be told why the Chancellor can answer one and not the other?
    The Minister of Health (Mr. R. H. Turton): I have been asked to reply—
    Dame Irene Ward: May I ask my Question, please?
    Mr. Speaker: Order. The Minister of Health appears to be about to answer the hon. Lady's Question, if she will let him.
    Dame Irene Ward: On a point of order. I was just about to ask it. Question No. 31, Sir.
    Mr. Turton: I have been asked to reply to Question No. 31, and I will, with permission, answer it and Question No. 52 together.
    Repayment will be made on the same basis as at present to any person who can show that his resources are insufficient by National Assistance standards to meet the charge. The machinery for claiming, and making, repayment will be on similar lines to that which is already well established and has proved satisfactory, but I am reviewing it in consultation with the National Assistance Board and other bodies concerned in order to see if it can be improved at any point.
    Dame Irene Ward: While thanking my right hon. Friend for the assurance—[HON. MEMBERS: "What assurance has he given?"] While thanking my right hon. Friend for his assurance—[Interruption.]. Mr. Speaker, on a point of order. As you called me to ask a supplementary question, am I not entitled to put it? Otherwise, it will take me a couple of hours to finish.
    Mr. Speaker: I do not understand what all the noise is about. Dame Irene Ward.
    Dame Irene Ward: While thanking my right hon. Friend for his assurance that he will re-examine the position, will he bear in mind that unless he does find some way of meeting the position of those living on small fixed incomes who are

    1605
    outside the National Assistance scale, I will certainly not favour the new arrangements which he intends to introduce? Will he also bear in mind that this is another imposition on those living on small fixed incomes, which I bitterly resent?
    Mr. Turton: I have noted the hon. Lady's questions.
    Dr. Summerskill: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the statement which he has just made cannot be reconciled with the statement made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer a day or two ago when he made a statement on prescription charges? In answer to a question of mine, he said specifically that those people in the country who were unable to afford these new charges could have them refunded. Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there are hundreds of thousands outside the comparative few who qualify for National Assistance who will not be able to have this sum refunded, and will he therefore tell us how he can reconcile what he has said with the Chancellor's statement?
    Mr. Turton: I have before me my right hon. Friend's statement. What he said was that
    "all persons in receipt of National Assistance and all old-age pensioners and others who cannot meet the charges without hardship"
    are entitled to be reimbursed. That is exactly what I have said today. He said on that occasion also, in answer to the hon. Lady the Member for Lanarkshire, North (Miss Herbison), that the present reimbursement arrangements
    "will continue, and I think that at the moment they are satisfactory."—[OFFFCFAL REPORT, 25th October, 1956; Vol. 558, c. 834–5.]
    That is exactly the substance of my Answer today.
    Dr. Summerskill: Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will repeat his statement. Did he not say specifically that those who will be reimbursed are those who are in the category who will qualify for National Assistance, which is entirely different from the Chancellor's statement?
    Mr. Turton: It is quite clear; there will be two categories, as now—those who are already on National Assistance and those for whom hardship is created which brings them on to the National Assistance standard; and at the present time that is
    1606
    working well. Last year, there were 9 million applications altogether in respect of prescription charges. Out of those, 30,000 were from persons not in receipt of National Assistance and in 95 per cent. of those cases the claim was refunded.
    Mr. Hynd: Will the Minister explain what exactly is meant by this? Is he aware that hon. Members have been regularly informed by National Assistance officers up to now that only those persons entitled to National Assistance will be given the refund of their prescription charge? Does the Minister mean that the only extension which he is announcing is that people who are entitled to National Assistance but are not getting it will get the refund, and if so, what precisely does he mean, because they will surely then get National Assistance as well?
    Mr. Turton: What I had hoped to make clear was that the machinery at present operating will be continued. There is one test of hardship that is at present being operated by the National Assistance Board, and as far as all my information goes that system is working very satisfactorily at the present time.
    Mr. E. Johnson: Is my right hon. Friend aware that, whatever may be happening in Sheffield, in Manchester, at any rate, officials of the National Assistance Board have told me that they will look very carefully at applications from any who feel that they are meeting undue hardship from these charges, including visits to them in their own homes, if necessary?
    Mr. Turton: I am very glad to hear that. I have every confidence in the National Assistance Board, the officers of which exercise their discretion in this matter very wisely.
    Mr. H. Wilson: Quite apart from the obviously unsatisfactory methods which the Minister has in mind for dealing with hardship cases, has not the Minister now received enough evidence, as we all have, in the last week, of the utter unfairness of the new proposals, and will he not, therefore, deal with all these questions, and the wider problems, by dropping the Chancellor's proposal?
    Mr. Turton: That is a matter which will be debated on another occasion.
    Mr. Ripponasked the Minister of Health whether he will provide for those on National Assistance and others for whom payment for drugs and appliances would constitute hardship, to have their prescriptions written on a special coloured form which would exempt them from payment and thus would enable them to avoid the inconvenient process of seeking reimbursement.
    Mr. Turton: No, Sir. I have carefully considered my hon. Friend's suggestion, but regret that it would be administratively impracticable.
    Mr. Rippon: Is my right hon. Friend aware that, while there is widespread agreement that people who can pay more for these prescriptions should pay more, there is also general concern that those people to whom my Question refers—pensioners, people on National Assistance, people who require multiple prescriptions—should be dealt with with the utmost sympathy, and should not be put to the inconvenience of having to seek reimbursement if it can possibly be avoided?
    Mr. Turton: The difficulty about my hon. Friend's suggestion is that it would mean asking doctors and chemists to exercise a test of means which they could not possibly carry out.
    Dr. Summerskill: Would not the right hon. Gentleman agree that the answer of the Chancellor to my supplementary question the other day, when he said that all those who are unable to afford this amount could have the sum refunded, still cannot be reconciled with his latest statement?
    Mr. Turton: I do not think there was anything about coloured forms in the questions last Thursday. Nor was the right hon. Lady quoting accurately the reply of my right hon. Friend, which I quoted to her earlier today, quoting it from HANSARD.
    Dr. Summerskill: This question by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Norwich, South (Mr. Rippon) is only incidental to the principle for which he asks, that these people should have their money refunded.
    Mr. Speaker: Mrs. Braddock. [Interruption.]
    Mrs. Braddock: On a point of order. Mr. Speaker. You called me to ask a supplementary question, but amid the noise greeting the Prime Minister's arrival the Minister of Health has left his place, and I have now no opportunity of asking my supplementary question. Will you bring him back again?
    As the Minister has now returned, may I ask him whether a person has to pay for the whole of the prescription before he or she can make any application at all to the Assistance Board, as it is absolutely impossible at the moment for an aged person, in receipt of pension only, to pay 4s. or 5s. before making an application to the Assistance Board for refund?
    Mr. Turton: That is the very kind of point of machinery which I am at present looking at and discussing with the National Assistance Board.

  AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

    Grain Drying and Storage
    Sir L. Plummerasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will now make arrangements to keep open the recommissioned mills in view of the considerable assistance they afforded farmers during the 1956 harvest.
    The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. G. R. H. Nugent): In view of the need for economy we cannot extend the operation of a grain drying and storage service at public expense beyond the needs of the present harvest. We will consider in the light of this year's experience, and our own storage requirements, whether it will be possible to lease further silos for next year's harvest.
    Sir L. Plummer: When the Minister is considering this matter, will he at the same time consider that it might be worth while asking the farmers concerned to pay a levy of, say, 6d. an acre on their arable acreage towards the cost of running this very necessary service, which has been a great insurance during the present year's horrible harvest conditions? Secondly, in view of the fact that we may soon be rather short of food as a result of the Government's policy, ought we not to have these recommissioned mills open and ready for storage?
    Mr. Nugent: The answer to the first part of the hon. Member's supplementary question is that farmers are themselves now installing their own drying and storage equipment widely and we could not justify reopening these storage facilities to give a contract service to them The answer to the second part of the question is that this storage and drying plant will be used to the best national advantage.
    Mr. Willey: Does the hon. Gentleman recollect that many of us raised this problem with the Minister during the summer and the Minister then gave the same sort of reply, but later was proved disastrously wrong and reversed his policy. It would be far better if the Parliamentary Secretary gave my hon. Friend an assurance that the matter will be seriously treated before the Minister again runs into trouble.
    Mr. Nugent: It is being seriously treated, but we are satisfied that the rate at which private conditioning and storage plant is being installed should enable farmers to deal with the harvest next year.
    Major Legge-Bourke: Will my hon. Friend bear in mind that if these recommissioned mills are handed over to those who are solely responsible for imports and holding stockpiles, the result may be damaging to local farmers? Will he ensure that those who will be responsible for administering them next season will bear in mind this aspect concerning the local farmers?
    Mr. Nugent: I will certainly bear my hon. and gallant Friend's comment in mind.

    Meat Supplies
    Mr. Hurdasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what revised estimate he has made of the total meat supplies for 1956 and 1957; to what extent the extra beef is coming from home sources and Argentina; and how these supplies compare with pre-war levels.
    Mr. Nugent: Total supplies of carcase meat in 1956 are now estimated at about 2·2 million tons as compared with 20 million tons before the war. It is impossible to forecast future supplies precisely, but we expect in 1957 a further increase in home production which is now about 25 per cent. above pre-war and we
    1610
    think there may be some increase in imports of beef from Argentina, which are now about 30 per cent. below pre-war.
    Mr. Hurd: In thanking my hon. Friend for that reply, which, I am sure, will be reassuring to the public at large, may I ask whether he could explore the possibility of getting shippers to this country to give advance information of quantities that they are likely to send here, even if they do so only two or three months ahead, so that we do not run into the kind of difficulties that were encountered this summer with extra shipments of Argentine beef, which came on to the market unexpectedly to the Government and to farmers?
    Mr. Nugent: We are in touch with importing shippers as far as possible.

  EMPLOYMENT

    Araldite (Skin Affections)
    Mr. Hastingsasked the Minister of Labour how many cases of affections of the skin or lungs have been reported by his factory inspectors among persons working with araldite; and what precautions are being taken to prevent such misfortunes.
    The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour and National Service (Mr. Robert Carr): I am advised that the kind of products to which the hon. Member refers may give rise to irritation of the skin and of other tissues when they come into contact with them, but there is no evidence that they have caused specific damage to the lungs. I have no figures of the number of persons who have been affected.
    Factory inspectors have full information about the risk and appropriate preventive measures and are taking the necesary action. The precautions include adequate ventilation and other arrangements to minimise contact together with proper cleansing of the skin after work.
    Factory inspectors have also been asked to inform the Chief Inspector of all processes known to them in which these substances are in current use in industry.
    Mr. Hastings: Does not the very fact that adequate ventilation has to be provided suggest that affections of the lung may be caused by this substance? Is

    1611
    the Parliamentary Secretary aware that at least those who are working with it believe that not only does it produce a form of dermatitis, but that the lung function is affected as well? Will the hon. Gentleman make special inquiries about the matter and give attention to it?
    Mr. Carr: It so happens that I must have been among some of the earlier people who worked with this material on a laboratory scale in this country. I assure the hon. Member that I am well aware of the problem, and I hope that my main Answer showed him that we are keeping it under very close review.

  HOME DEPARTMENT

    Prisoners (Employment)
    Mr. Collinsasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will appoint a committee, representative of both sides of industry, to inquire into the possibility of providing increased and more varied employment for prisoners and ensuring that the sale of prison-made goods does not occasion unfair competition.
    The Joint Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. W. F. Deedes): It is certainly of the first importance that prisoners should have sufficient and suitable employment, and much is being done at present to find new sources of work. But my right hon. and gallant Friend does not consider that at this stage a committee would be helpful. He has no reason to think that the sale of prison-made goods occasions any unfair competition, or is likely to do so. It is on a comparatively small scale.
    Mr. Collins: While welcoming the Minister's statement that employment of this kind is most important, may I ask the hon. Gentleman, if it is not proposed to appoint a committee to consider bringing about an improvement of the present situation, which is unsatisfactory, what are his Department's plans for bringing about an improvement?
    Mr. Deedes: Perhaps I might mention three steps which we have taken in this direction. The first is to try to get more contracts through our normal channels. The second is to start, in co-operation with the Ministry of Labour, the Continental system of setting up in the prisons
    1612
    out-factories for the use of local employers, and several have been started. The third step is to approach the trade unions on a national level with a view to getting their sympathetic co-operation for extra-mural labour in the prisons.
    Mr. Hyde: Is it not rather regrettable that sixty years after the first Departmental Committee under the late Lord Gladstone reported on this subject and made recommendations for improvements, prisoners are still largely employed on stitching mailbags? Although I know there are difficulties, will my hon. Friend do everything he possibly can to bear in mind the objective of bringing the gospel of full employment to Her Majesty's Prisons?
    Mr. Deedes: The answer is that there has been a substantial reduction in the requirement of mailbags. That is one of the reasons why we have taken the steps which I have outlined.
    Mr. Younger: Would the hon. Gentleman not agree that, from the viewpoint of his Department, the real difficulty lies precisely in the fact that the sales of prisoners' products are kept on this very low scale to avoid competition? Can he not tell us that some progress has been made? I am grateful to him for saying that he is consulting people—that is what we and other previous Governments said—but is he making any progress?
    Mr. Deedes: When we have concluded our talks with the trade unions, I hope to be able to give the right hon. Gentleman another report.

    Young Persons (Remand Centres)
    Mr. Royleasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what progress is being made in the provision of remand centres as provided for by the Criminal Justice Act, 1948.
    Mr. Deedes: I would refer the hon. Member to the reply given on 25th October to the hon. Member for Eton and Slough (Mr. Fenner Brockway).
    Mr. Royle: May I in return refer the hon. Gentleman to the supplementary question on that day asked by my right hon. Friend the Member for Grimsby (Mr. Younger) in which he said that 3,000 young persons were remanded to prison in 1953 who ultimately were not

    1613
    sent to prison on conviction? Will not the hon. Gentleman make some provision in the next Session to meet this very urgent problem?
    Mr. Deedes: My right hon. and gallant Friend's reply on that occasion answered very fully that question and others on this subject, and the hon. Member will know that my right hon. and gallant Friend is very anxious to do something.
    Miss Herbison: Is it not the case that approved schools have been and are being closed? Would it not be better to use those approved schools rather than send young people to prison?
    Mr. Deedes: I think that that raises a rather wider and different question.

    Road Traffic Offences (Penalties)
    Mr. Royleasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will cause an inquiry to be made into the differing penalties imposed by various benches of magistrates in road traffic offences.
    Mr. Deedes: No, Sir. My right hon. and gallant Friend does not think that any useful purpose would be served by such an inquiry, which would involve the expenditure of an inordinate amount of time and money.
    Mr. Royle: Does the hon. Gentleman think, in view of the very wide differences in the penalties being imposed in different parts of the country, that, all other things being equal, it merits some broad hint from the Home Department?
    Mr. Deedes: It is not in dispute that penalties do vary, and vary widely, but I would point out that the Home Office circular on the new Road Traffic Act drew magistrates' attention to the Lord Chancellor's suggestion that they might be well advised to review the scale of penalties which they impose in motoring cases.

    Indictable Offences (Magistrates' Courts)
    Mr. Royleasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will introduce legislation to enable magistrates' courts to try cases of minor house breaking.
    Mr. Deedes: The present list of indictable offences triable summarily is based
    1614
    on the recommendations of a Departmental Committee, and before any alteration was made it would be desirable to have a similar review of the whole question: housebreaking might not be the only candidate for inclusion in the list. My right hon. and gallant Friend is afraid, however, that he cannot undertake to initiate such a review at present.
    Mr. Royle: Would not the hon. Gentleman agree that such a proposal would save the rigmarole of depositions in cases of this kind? Is it not a fact that magistrates' courts try very many cases which are more serious than the ones which I have in mind? Is the hon. Gentleman aware that his noble Friend the Joint Under-Secretary of State has intimated in a public speech that this is desirable?
    Mr. Deedes: I think the hon. Member must be aware that this would be a very controversial change and might have the effect of being taken to indicate that housebreaking offences were no longer so seriously regarded by the community, and that that would not be wise at the moment, when the number of such cases is increasing.

    Plays (Censorship)
    Mr. Keeganasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether, in view of the recent performance of unlicensed plays in certain theatres, he will now abolish or modify the present system of censorship of plays.
    Mr. Deedes: No, Sir.
    Mr. Keegan: Does my hon. Friend not think that a system of censorship so capable of evasion as this is today, and a system which permits vulgarity to be displayed while banning serious works, is wholly unjustified?
    Mr. Deedes: The production of unlicensed plays by theatre clubs is not a new development.
    Mr. G. R. Strauss: In view of the fact that the present standards on which play censorship works are so obviously out of date as to lead to many anomalies, cannot some steps be taken to bring this whole matter more into conformity with enlightened public opinion?
    Mr. Deedes: I do not accept the premise on which the right hon. Gentleman bases that question.

    Identification Parade
    Mr. Collinsasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department for what reason Mr. J. P. Harrigan, 13, Rosemary House, Shoreditch, N.1, was compelled by the Metropolitan Police to take part in an identification parade; and what sum he proposes to pa. Mr. Harrigan in compensation for the wrongful imprisonment he has suffered and the costs incurred in establishing his innocence.
    Mr. Deedes: My right hon. and gallant Friend understands from preliminary inquiries which have been made that this case was investigated by the City of London Police and that the Metropolitan Police were not concerned in it in any way. When he has received a fuller report on the case my right hon. and gallant Friend will communicate with the hon. Member, but I should make it clear that it is not the practice, save in the most exceptional circumstances, to make any payment from public funds to a person merely because his conviction has been quashed on appeal. The Court of Criminal Appeal has power under the Costs in Criminal Cases Act, 1952, to order the payment to a successful appellant of such sums as appear to the court to be reasonably sufficient to compensate him for the- expenses properly incurred in prosecuting his appeal or carrying on his defence.
    Mr. Collins: Would the hon. Gentleman ask his right hon. and gallant Friend to bear in mind, when he is considering this matter, that this man was put up for identification without the slightest reason for connecting him with the crime, and that he served five months in prison, and that his wife had to sell her jewellery and even the kitchen furniture to get funds to pay for the appeal? Will he press this matter upon his right hon. and gallant Friend in order that some substantial sum may be given in redress for this gross injustice?
    Mr. Deedes: My right hon. and gallant Friend is going to look into this and send a report to the hon. Gentleman.
    Mr. S. Silverman: But is the hon. Gentleman not aware that there have been
    1616
    repeated assurances that men are not put up for identification in connection with particular crimes unless and until there is already some reasonable and probable cause to connect them with the offences, and that there is among those who are associated with the administration of the criminal law a mounting uneasiness about the continued cases of mistaken identity arising out of identification parades of this kind? Is it not time that the Home Department took the whole matter much more seriously?
    Mr. Deedes: I cannot comment on what the hon. Member has said without referring to this particular case, and I prefer to await the report which my right hon. and gallant Friend is producing.

  U.S.S.R.
  Mr. Parkinasked the Prime Minister if he will initiate with Premier Bulganin discussions aimed at restating in terms acceptable today and capable of being implemented in present-day conditions the guarantees against fresh aggression which the Allies attempted to formulate with Stalin at Yalta.
  The Lord Privy Seal (Mr. R. A. Butler): I have been asked to reply.
  My right hon. Friend interprets the hon. Member's Question as wishing him to assure the Premier of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics that Her Majesty's Government have in no way the intention of exploiting events in Eastern Europe to undermine the security of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. My right hon. Friend can give that assurance. He does not think, however, that a special approach to Mr. Bulganin is called for in this context.
  Mr. Parkin: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that I am a little disappointed that that Answer is not a little more positive, and that when I put it down there was a golden opportunity for the British Prime Minister to make a positive approach to the Soviet leaders and to say something like this: "The policy which you initiated in your visits to this country and to Belgrade and at your party congress offers the best hope of easing tension since the war. If you have any purely military reservations about giving

  1617
  that full rein and encouragement we are prepared to go back to those war-time drumhead negotiations, where nobody thinks of anything except armies of occupation and military bases, and re-negotiate security on the basis of pacts and disarmament"?
  Mr. Butler: I hope the hon. Member's sentiments will be conveyed to the quarter which he desires shall listen to them.

HOUSING SUBSIDIES, ENGLAND AND WALES
The Minister of Housing and Local Government (Mr. Duncan Sandys): With permission, Sir, I will make a statement about housing subsidies in England and Wales.
In October of last year, I informed the House that the Government had come to the conclusion that the housing subsidy for general needs should be abolished, but that, in order not to make the transition too abrupt, a reduced subsidy would be paid for a year or so.
We have recently reviewed the position, and have decided that the time has now come to bring this interim arrangement to an end. [An HON. MEMBER: "Paying for Suez."] Accordingly, I have today laid a draft Order to abolish the remainder of the general needs subsidy for future houses and flats.
I am, however, making an exception of one-bedroomed dwellings, the subsidies for which will be maintained as at the present level.
In doing so, I have particularly in mind the needs of elderly people and the desirability of facilitating movement from underoccupied houses. This does, I think, go some way towards meeting the points raised in Questions Nos. 36 and 56 by my hon. Friends the Members for Tyne-mouth (Dame Irene Ward) and East Grinstead (Mrs. Emmet).
The existing housing subsidies for slum clearance, overspill, expensive sites and other special purposes, will remain unchanged.
Mr. Mitchison: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this will speed the sharp fall that has been going on in council building, that it will make it quite impossible for many councils to carry out their duty of rehousing those who still
1618
stand in sore need of houses, and will be one more step in the Tory policy of substituting wealth for need as a test of whether a man gets a house?
Mr. Sandys: As the hon. and learned Gentleman knows full well, there has, of course, been a considerable switch from house building for general needs to house building for slum clearance, and that was one of the main objectives which the House had in mind when it passed the Housing Subsidies Act earlier this Session. As for the decline to which the hon. and learned Member refers, there is as yet no evidence of any sharp decline in the overall house-building programme of local authorities.
Mr. Mitchison rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. I hope that we can leave this debate until we get the Order. We have a lot of very important business to do.
Dame Irene Ward: In view of the fact that the Minister's statement was made on my Question. Mr. Speaker, would I not be in order in asking my right hon. Friend to accept my appreciation of what he has done?
Mr. Mitchison: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware—
Dame Irene Ward: On a point of order.
Mr. Speaker: Apparently the hon. Lady the Member for Tynemouth (Dame Irene Ward) is still wanting to say something.
Dame Irene Ward: On a point of order. Is it not usual for hon. Members who put a Question on the Order Paper in the normal course to have the opportunity of asking the first supplementary question? Why should the Front Bench opposite bounce my position?
Mr. Speaker: I hope that the hon. and learned Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison) will take that reproof to heart.
Mr. Mitchison: Is the Minister aware that the total number of houses built for all purposes by local authorities has been falling sharply year by year and that it is now over 50,000 a year fewer than it

1619
was a couple of years ago? Is not that the result of Tory policy in relation to housing and local authorities?
Mr. Sandys: We were referring to the reduction of the housing subsidies. All I can say is that from the returns so far received—and they are not yet complete —there is no evidence that the number of tenders—[HON. MEMBERS: "Ah."] Well, tenders mean future intentions—
Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: It might be for one house.
Mr. Sandys: If the House is prepared to deal with the figures of houses actually built, then I can say that in the present year the total number of houses built in Great Britain will be once again, as near as does not matter, 300,000.
Mrs. L. Jeger rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. An Order has been laid and it will be debated in due course.

EGYPT (MILITARY SITUATION)
The Minister of Defence (Mr. Antony Head): With permission, Sir, I will make a statement about the military situation in Egypt, based on the most recent information available to me.
Last night bombing attacks were made by British aircraft on four Egyptian air fields, Almaza and Inchass, Abu Sueir and Kabrit. [HON. MEMBERS: "Shame!"] First reports show that bombing results were accurate. There was some heavy and light flak, but no damage to our aircraft. One aircraft was intercepted by a night fighter, but no damage resulted.
Ground attack aircraft, shore and carrier-based, carried out attacks on a total of nine Egyptian airfields early this morning.
H.M.S. "Newfoundland" sank the Egyptian frigate "Domiat" approximately 80 miles south of Suez.
We have no direct information about Israeli-Egyptian operations. Reports indicate that the Israeli attack is on two axes. In the south paratroops are holding high ground about 20 miles east of Suez, supported by a brigade. A second brigade is reported further to the east.
1620
In the north the Israelis claim to have over-run the Egyptian position at Qasseina with an armoured brigade.
Reports indicate that Egyptian armoured units, deployed west of Cairo, began to move eastwards on 31st October. This force includes one armoured brigade of up to two armoured regiments equipped with both light and heavy anti-aircraft units, and infantry in armoured personnel carriers. It was moving eastwards along the Cairo-Suez and Cairo-Ismailia roads.
Mr. Gaitskell: Is the Minister aware that millions of British people are profoundly shocked and ashamed—[An HON. MEMBER: "Fascists."]—that British aircraft should be bombing Egypt, not in self-defence, not in collective defence, but in clear defiance of the United Nations Charter? Is the Minister further aware that the General Assembly of the United Nations is meeting today? Will he give an assurance, first, that any decisions reached by a two-thirds majority of the United Nations Assembly will be accepted instantly by Her Majesty's Government, and secondly, that, pending any such decision, no further military action will be taken by Her Majesty's Government?
Mr. Head: The object of the operations so far carried out is aimed solely at one purpose, to induce the Egyptian Government to accede to the requirements put forward. These operations have been restricted entirely to military targets and the original requirement made to the Egyptian Government remains open at any time.
An Hon. Member: What about U.N.O.?
Mr. Shinwell rose—
Mr. S. Silverman: On a point of order. Mr. Speaker. I would respectfully ask for your assistance and guidance to the House in what appears to be a completely unprecedented situation. The Minister of Defence has just made an announcement about the use of bombers and ships, the sinking of ships, the dropping of bombs, the destruction of property—[An HON. MEMBER: "And life."]—and the destruction of life in a country with whom apparently we are in friendly relations.

1621
There has been no declaration of war, there has been no breaking off of diplomatic relations. It looks as though the Minister has been telling the House of Commons that he has been using his authority to compel British subjects to commit illegal acts resulting in the loss of life. Is there anything that the House of Commons can do at this moment to make certain that those who have taken an oath of allegiance to Her Majesty are not required by that oath to commit murder all over the world?
Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman). has addressed his question to me, but it is really a question for the House to decide. There stands on the Order Paper a Motion of censure against the Government because of their conduct of these affairs. My answer to the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne is that the House should get on with that Motion of censure as quickly as possible.
Mr. Gaitskell: May I ask the Minister of Defence to answer my important questions, Sir?
Mr. Head: The right hon. Gentleman asked me, I think, to give an undertaking concerning whatever ruling came from the Assembly. The question of future policy in this matter does not rest with me, and it is not for me to give any undertaking in that respect.
Hon. Members: Answer.
Mr. Shinwell: Mr. Speaker, whatever may be thought about the Government's policy, at any rate they are wise in furnishing whatever information is available to the House. [Interruption.] I understood that hon. Members wanted it. What I want to know is this: will the right hon. Gentleman tell the House what is the precise purpose of the attack on the Egyptian airfields? Is it to occupy those airfields, or is it merely to prevent the Egyptian authorities from using aircraft against a further attack? The intentions of the Government appear to be very hazy. Since some information has been furnished to the House, could we know what the precise intentions of the Government are? Is it the intention to land troops following the attacks on the airfields?
Mr. Head: In the original requirement, which was made to both the Israeli and Egyptian Governments, Her Majesty's Government stated that they held themselves free to take such military action as they thought necessary to ensure stopping the fighting and their troops being withdrawn from the Canal. This particular action is employing the sanction which we stated if our requirement was not met. This is a part of that sanction. So far as any future action is concerned, the House will not expect me to give any indication of what is intended.
Mr. Benn: On a point of order. Following on what my hon. Friend the Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman) said, Sir, may I appeal to you, as Speaker of this House, to clarify the constitutional position? As I understand, the matter of peace and war is a matter of the Royal Prerogative, and in that respect Her Majesty's Ministers are responsible for advising Her Majesty and they are also responsible to this House.
Now. Mr. Speaker, traditionally in the past you have been the spokesman for the Members of the House of Commons in order to ascertain the intention of the Executive and even of the Crown, and to see that the Crown is responsible to this House. On one famous occasion your predecessor rebuked the Sovereign who came to this House. Therefore, Sir, I ask you now, as Speaker of the House of Commons, to ascertain the legal position so that we may be informed about it.
Mr. Speaker: I am willing, so far as my limited powers and abilities extend, to discharge any duty which the House lays upon me. It is my duty to do so. If the House were to pass a resolution, I would act upon it if I could, but I am not the authority on constitutional law. I do my best, within the restricted sphere of the rules of order of this House, to interpret the law of Parliament but these wider matters are surely for Ministers and the House as a whole, and not for me.
Mr. Callaghan: Further to that point of order, Sir. May I ask a question—
Mr. Speaker: Mr. Sydney Silverman.
Mr. S. Silverman: Further to that point of order. Mr. Speaker, may I draw your attention to the fact that there is one very important practical question involved in this? Some of our men may some day be taken prisoner by the Egyptians. What is their position? If they are carrying on activities of this kind on Egyptian territory in a state of war, that is one thing, and they have their rights, but if they are not, what is their position? Unless that question can be cleared up, there arises a most important constitutional difficulty.
Mr. Speaker: I really must refuse to extend the sphere in which I have to operate. I find my task quite arduous enough without giving opinions on these abstruse questions, many of them hypothetical, of constitutional law.
Mr. Gaitskell: Further to that point of order. Mr. Speaker, as I understand, you feel yourself unable to answer my hon. Friend's question. Therefore, with your permission, I would like to ask the Government whether a declaration of war on Egypt has been made?
Hon. Members: Answer.
Mr. Speaker: Order, order.
Hon. Members: Answer.
Mrs. L. Jeger rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order, order. I said just now that I was unwilling to extend my powers over an area over which I was not responsible, but I am responsible, as far as I can be, for securing that this House conducts its debates properly—[Interruption.] Order. Also, I am jealous for the reputation of the House. [Interruption.] It would be a very bad thing if we were to enter upon the very serious debate which lies in front of us in an atmosphere of noisy interruption. I do hope that we can conduct ourselves, as this House always does on grave matters, with a proper sense of what is due to Parliament and to the House of Commons.
Hon. Members: Let the Government answer.
Mr. Gaitskell: We all appreciate. Mr. Speaker, the difficult position in which you find yourself. It is out of no disrespect to you that we must, and are determined to, press this matter. I put it
1624
to the Government that the issue raised is an extremely serious one, affecting the position of our Armed Forces. It really is essential that the Government should give us a reply on this vital issue of whether or not a declaration of war has been made, or is to be made in the very near future. I appeal to the Prime Minister, if he has any control over the situation left at all, to make a statement.
The Prime Minister (Sir Anthony Eden): The right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues have put down a Motion of censure—
Hon. Members: Answer the question.
The Prime Minister: —which they are perfectly entitled to do, and the Government speakers will deal with all aspects of the situation in reply to what they say.
Mr. Bevan: That is not an answer to the question put to the right hon. Gentleman. The question put to the right hon. Gentleman simply amounts to this. Under the orders of the Government, British airmen, soldiers and sailors have been sent into action. If they are captured and no declaration of war has been made, what protection have they under international law?
Hon. Members: Answer.
The Prime Minister: The action which has been taken has been, as I explained yesterday, in accordance with the statement we made. [Interruption.] No further declaration has been made going beyond that.
Mr. Bevan: In my respectful submission, that is not the answer to the question which was put. The question which was put was an extremely serious one. We on this side of the House are desirous that the Government should have all the instruments of authority that a Government should have, and that nothing should be said here or elsewhere that would deny the Government the exercise of those instruments. However, they can only be exercised if the Government act in accord with the sentiments and aspirations of the British people—[An HON. MEMBER: "With existing law."]—with existing law. As we understand, at present British soldiers, sailors and airmen have been sent into action without the normal protection available to them. We want to know what protection they

1625
have should they fall into the hands of those against whom they are conducting hostile actions. Can we have an answer to that question, which has nothing—
Captain Pilkington rose—
Mr. Bevan: I am on a point of order.
Mr. Speaker: Order, order. I cannot have two hon. Members on their feet at the same time. Would it not be possible for all these matters to be brought out in the course of the debate?
Hon. Members: No.
Mr. Speaker: As I read the Motion, it is in the widest possible terms. All these matters could be raised.
Hon. Members: No.
Mr. Bevan: They do not come within the Motion at all.
Mr. Speaker: I think that the Motion—
Hon. Members: No.
Mr. Gaitskell rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. The Motion is a general one.
Hon. Members: No.
Mr. Speaker: If the House will not listen to me—
Hon. Members: No.
Mr. Speaker: —I will suspend the Sitting. [Interruption.]
I have to inform the House that if it will not listen to me, I shall suspend the Sitting. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] That appears to some hon. Members to be a desirable course. I am certainly not going to have the Chair put in the position of not being heard in this House of Commons. The Sitting is suspended for half an hour.
Grave Disorder having arisen in the House, Mr. SPEAKER, pursuant to Standing Order No. 24 (Power of Mr. Speaker to adjourn House or suspend sitting), suspended the Sitting of the House for half an hour.
4.27 p.m.
Mr. Speaker: Order. I would just like to say a word to the House. I understand and sympathise with the fact that on the issue which is about to be
1626
discussed opinions in the House are sharply divided and that hon. Members on both sides of the House feel a considerable degree of tension and excitement. With all that I sympathise. I am too old a Member of this House not to have endured the same feelings myself, but, at the same time, I am now by your leave elected to a position in which I have certain duties to discharge, and I hope that the remainder of this debate will proceed in a manner which is creditable to the House. That is my concern.
I would say—and I am the judge of what is relevant—that a large amount at least of what has been asked hitherto would be relevant to the debate, and I should certainly never rule it out of order on the ground of irrelevancy. I understand that there are points of elucidation still in the Minister's statement which it is desired to elucidate and that I certainly would allow; but I have to say to the House quite frankly that my sense of my responsibility is so great that if disorder of this kind persists—I am sure that it will not now—I shall have no option but to adjourn the House.
Mr. Gaitskell: As you say. Mr. Speaker, there are a number of questions arising out of the statement of the Minister of Defence which we wish to elucidate. When you suspended the Sitting we were endeavouring to obtain from the Government a clarification of the vital question of whether or not we are in a state of war with Egypt. I should, therefore, like to ask the Prime Minister two questions: first, is it the opinion of the Government that we are at war with Egypt or not; secondly, if it is the view of the Government that we are not at war with Egypt, what protection have any members of our Armed Forces who happen to fall into the hands of the Egyptians?
The Prime Minister: I hope it is not unreasonable if I say that these questions do involve certain definitions. I am quite confident that I can give a satisfactory and reassuring answer to the House, but I would much rather do it—if the House will allow me—in the speech which I am shortly to make—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."]—because I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that there are legal matters involved in this. I will give the House an account which I am sure will reassure the House on the points which the right hon. Gentleman has raised, but

1627
I would prefer to do it like that rather than by question and answer.
I ask the House to believe that I am not in the least attempting to dodge these questions, but I would prefer to put them in their context, in which I think that the House itself will much more readily understand them.
Mr. Gaitskell: I am surprised and disappointed at the Prime Minister's statement. This is an extremely important issue, and an important issue now; and I cannot understand why, if the Prime Minister is shortly to say something about it in his speech, he should not do so in advance of the debate. It is really far more convenient for the House if there is an opportunity—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."]—to put supplementary questions to the right hon. Gentleman, an opportunity which is far more easy to carry through if we have these statements made before the debate actually takes place.
I would ask the right hon. Gentleman once again, in the interests of the House and of the country, now to make plain exactly what the position is and to answer the two clear questions which I put to him.
The Prime Minister: So far as supplementary questions go, I think that the right hon. Gentleman will agree that in a matter of this complexity and gravity it is not unreasonable that I should be allowed to make a statement in the course of the speech I shall be making in, I suppose, half-an-hour's time or a little more. I am absolutely convinced that I shall persuade the House that the position is a satisfactory one, but I do not want to do it by answering "Yes," or "No" to this or that particular point, because there is a complicated legal position in connection with the Geneva Convention.
In view of the fact that we have a debate, and that there was no notice that this question was to be asked—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."]—and that there are legal complexities which it is necessary for me to answer, I am sure that right hon. and hon. Members will get a better answer if they will allow me to develop this, which I will gladly do at the outset of my speech, to meet the feelings of the House.
Mr. Gaitskell: One further question. Will the Prime Minister give an assurance
1628
that he will give way to questions on this statement, if we wish to put them, in the course of his speech?
The Prime Minister: I think that the right hon. Gentleman knows my general attitude to giving way. Of course I would give way to the Leader of the Opposition, or anybody else who wishes to ask a question on these matters. I hope that I shall also have an opportunity to develop the rest of my speech.
Mr. Gaitskell: In that case, I think we can proceed to the rest of the matters in the statement which we wish to have elucidated.
Mr. Callaghan: Arising out of the statement of the Minister of Defence in relation to the naval action, may I ask him whether he can give us a little more information? In view of the great disparity in fire power between our cruiser and the Egyptian frigate, was an order given to the frigate to surrender? Was any action taken by the Egyptian frigate, was an opportunity given to the frigate to surrender without loss of life such as took place?
May I ask the Minister of Defence whether, in any of these naval operations and other operations, no more force will be used than is necessary to compel surrender, and that we shall not indulge in actions involving the needless loss of life? Is he aware—although his report says it was sunk 80 miles south of Suez—that there is a report that the frigate has been sunk in a channel and blocks the Canal? Is this so?
Mr. Head: The hon. Gentleman has asked me a number of questions. As yet I have no details of this action. If he likes to ask me in the future, I will, of course, give the House a much more detailed account. I have no report whatever concerning casualties or details of the action. What I do know—but it is not checked, and I would like the House to treat it as advance information—is that about 69 survivors were picked up. Of the details regarding casualties, I know nothing.
I am absolutely certain that it is in the minds of all our forces that this is a particular action in which the destruction of life, be it on military targets or especially be it civilian, should be reduced to the minimum consistent with effective action

1629
and the task they have been told to carry out. So far as the hon. Gentleman's question about the Canal is concerned, I have no information whatever regarding the point he mentioned.
Mr. Callaghan: Is not the Minister of Defence aware that these matters were reported in the newspapers this morning? Is not the Admiralty wireless station in Whitehall in constant communication with H.M.S. "Newfoundland" and other ships by direct message, and, if so, could not information be obtained within the matter of an hour about an issue of this sort? Why has not the Minister of Defence come to the House with information?
Mr. Head: I am quite certain that the hon. Gentleman was long enough with the Navy to know that there are times when communications are very quick and other times when there is wireless silence. I have given the House every single bit of information available to me, and I checked it at three o'clock, before I came to the House. Directly I hear more, I will, of course, inform the House, but I have no more information at present.
Mr. Strachey: We are told that the whole purpose of this operation is the protection of lives and property in the Canal Zone. Can the right hon. Gentleman tell us what arrangements have been made about the numerous civilian staffs which have taken over the Army base and base camps in the Suez Canal Zone, and the number—I should imagine it amounts to some hundreds—whose position may be precarious in the extreme?
Mr. Head: Some considerable time ago, when the crisis over the Suez Canal first arose, all except those essential to the running of the base were evacuated. Subsequently to that, when the situation recently deteriorated very much, a special warning was given, special arrangements were put in hand. Special communications were sent to those in the Canal base regarding the precise situation at the present time. We have had no information since this started.
Mr. Jay: If there has been no actual declaration of war, and in view of the decision already taken by the Security Council, do not these operations amount to an act of organised murder by the British Government?
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. I think that these questions have had a good run. I cannot compel answers from Ministers. It is not my place to do so. I am concerned only with the House. I will ask Mr. James Griffiths to move the Opposition Motion.
Mrs. Braddock: On a point of order. Mr. Speaker. Tonight, when this debate has finished, there will be a vote. It is known that there are hon. Members of this House whose firms are supplying stuff to Egypt at present. In view of the difficult situation that will be created, can we have an assurance from you that there will be a declaration from every one of those hon. Members that they are concerned in supplying materials to Egypt, before the vote tonight?
Mr. Speaker: Any objection against the vote of an hon. Member ought to be made immediately after the Division. I cannot answer for every hon. Member of the House.
Mrs. Braddock: Is it not part of the procedure of this House that if anybody is interested in any matter, particularly financially, he should make a statement about his personal interest?
Mr. Speaker: That is the usual custom. Mr. James Griffiths.
Mr. Chapman: On a point of order. May I ask you this. Mr. Speaker? I tried to get your permission to ask a Question, by Private Notice, about the civilians, not those in the Canal Zone but the 1,500 British civilians, who are now in Cairo. The information I hoped to elicit would have been of great interest to people in this country who are involved in this matter, because they have relatives there. Would you consider my putting this Private Notice Question down again for tomorrow, in view of the fact that it has not been answered now?
Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member was too late to give me notice of his Private Notice Question. I hope that we shall get the earliest possible information about the position of British citizens in Cairo. That is what the hon. Gentleman is asking for?
Mr. Chapman: Yes, Sir.

EGYPT AND ISRAEL
4.41 p.m.
Mr. James Griffiths: I beg to move,
That this House deplores the action of Her Majesty's Government in resorting to armed force against Egypt in clear violation of the United Nations Charter, thereby affronting the convictions of a large section of the British people, dividing the Commonwealth, straining the Atlantic Alliance, and gravely damaging the foundations of international order.
This has been for our country a black and tragic week. The Government, by plunging the country into an unjustifiable and wicked war against, we believe, the will of the majority of our citizens, have deeply outraged millions of our people. The Prime Minister this afternoon knows that his action has divided this nation more deeply and more bitterly than I remember in my lifetime. Today, and in the days that are coming, we shall find an increasing number of our constituents saying that they are deeply humiliated and shamed at the action that has been taken by Her Majesty's Government.
Look at the events of this week. First, we have dealt, it may well be, a mortal blow at the unity of the Commonwealth. We have strained to the utmost the alliance with our friends, perhaps beyond repair. We have violated our solemn pledges and undertakings under the United Nations Charter, and this evening, while this debate is taking place in this House, we shall be arraigned before the General Assembly of the United Nations. Whatever the result of our vote at ten o'clock here, it may be that a two-thirds majority of the nations of the world will have branded our Government, and, far more important, our country, as an aggressor—in 1956.
I was priveleged to be here, not on these premises but in the old House of Commons, at the time which the right hon. Member for Woodford (Sir W. Churchill) described as "Britain's finest hour". I speak quite seriously, as one who takes second place to none in love for my country or in service to my country, when I say that I feel a deep humiliation in being present at Britain's worst hour. My right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition, in two successive and masterly speeches in this House, deployed
1632
our case. He argued, in a case which has not been answered, and which, in my view, is unanswerable, that the action of Her Majesty's Government is in violation of our pledges to the United Nations.
I speak for my right hon. and hon. Friends, but there is cumulative evidence from the country during the course of these debates that the answers which Government spokesmen have so far given to our case have left the House and the country still in doubt, and unconvinced that any answer can be given by the Government to the case which my right hon. Friend has made, that we have entered into this action in violation of our solemn pledges.
During the course of this week we have seen the Government as the first British Government—I do not know whether the Prime Minister feels any pride about this—to use the veto in the United Nations. Times without number, when we have discussed international affairs in this House, Ministers have pointed to the wickedness of the Soviet Union in using the veto. [An HON. MEMBER: "Last Monday."] What is our answer now? We have used it, and used it in circumstances which, it is clear from all the reports we get in the Press, have outraged world opinion as well as the members of the United Nations.
I have listened to the attempts by Government spokesmen to answer the case put by my right hon. Friend and other hon. Members on the crucial question whether the action taken by Her Majesty's Government is or is not in violation of the Charter of the United Nations. I listened, in particular, to the two speeches made by the Foreign Secretary, one at the close of the debate on Tuesday and the other at the close of the debate yesterday evening. We have become familiar in these debates, since we have had a Middle East crisis, to Ministers speaking from one day to another with conflicting views which leave the House and the country in confusion. Let me recall the Foreign Secretary's own defence of the Government's position.
On Tuesday, in reply to the charge by my right hon. Friend that we were in breach of the United Nations Charter, the Foreign Secretary did not seek to prove that we were within the United Nations Charter. Indeed, on Tuesday his main theme was that we could not

1633
wait, that the situation was urgent, that there was danger, that we had to act at once and that, therefore, the Government could not wait for the United Nations to pronounce upon the matter. Let me quote his own words. He said:
"The Security Council is … frustrated by the veto … it cannot act immediately … the policeman "—
this was on Tuesday evening in this House, at about ten o'clock—
"has his hands tied behind his back."—[OFFICIAI. REPORT, 30th October, 1956; Vol. 558, c. 1381.]
While the Foreign Secretary was making that speech in this House the British representative on the Security Council of the United Nations, acting on the instructions of the same right hon. and learned Gentleman, was frustrating the United Nations by using the veto and was actually at that moment engaged in tying the policeman's hands behind his back. That, indeed, is a shameful thing.
I ask the Foreign Secretary or the Prime Minister, whichever of them is to reply, whether, when either or both of them spoke on Tuesday, they had already given the instructions to their representative on the United Nations Security Council to take that action. If the instructions had been given—the time-table seems to indicate that they must have been given—why was not this House told about them on Tuesday evening? Not only did we use this veto for the first time, and frustrate the United Nations by the use of it, but we did it in New York, and speaking in this House at about the same time the Foreign Secretary, who gave the instructions, was silent. He said not a word about it.
Yesterday evening the Foreign Secretary changed his ground. He then claimed—and I listened to every word of his speech and have read it since—that our action was in conformity with the Charter of the United Nations. Let me quote his words:
"One of the accusations of the Leader of the Opposition was that the action we have taken is a flagrant violation of the United Nations Charter. No doubt he believes that."
Yes, we believe that. So does world opinion, so does British opinion. The Foreign Secretary continued:
"I believe with equal sincerity that that is not so.…"—[OFFICIAL REPORT. 31st October, 1956; Vol. 558, c. 1569.]
1634
I put this to the Prime Minister: if the Government believe, as the Foreign Secretary told us last night, that the action which they have taken is in conformity with the United Nations Charter, justifying this on the basis of Article 51, by what is a long and tortuous argument—if the Government are convinced that their action is in conformity with the United Nations Charter—why did not they put their proposed action before the Security Council and ask for their judgment?
Who is to decide whether any action is within the Charter or not? Is each country to make that its own unilateral decision? I ask the Government why they did not put that question. Do they propose to instruct their representative in the General Assembly this evening to argue that the action which we have taken is in conformity with the Charter of the United Nations? Let me read to hon. Members Article 51, upon which this argument is based. We have heard it before, but I think I should read it again because it is vitally important; the honour and fair name of our country are at stake. It reads:
"Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defence if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations, until the Security Council has taken the measures necessary to maintain international peace and security. Measures taken by Members in the exercise of this right of self-defence shall be immediately reported to the Security Council and shall not in any way affect the authority and responsibility of the Security Council under the present Charter to take at any time such action as it deems necessary in order to maintain or restore international peace and security."
he Government claim that their action was in conformity with the United Nations Charter and they base that claim on Article 51, but Article 51 lays it down quite clearly that if any such action is taken it must be immediately reported to the Security Council. [An HON. MEMBER: "And it was."] So it was, but did the Government ask the Security Council to pronounce upon it? When the United Nations were considering this situation, including the Government's action, the Government used the veto and made us a guilty country in the eyes of the world.
I therefore say that the case made out in this Motion and by the Opposition this week has been abundantly proved and that none of the speeches which we have

1635
heard from the Government has gone anywhere near attempting to answer the charge made. We repeat that in moving this Motion of censure we do so basically and fundamentally because the Government have acted in violation of the United Nations Charter, to which all of us, including them, are pledged in this country.
When the Election of 1955 was fought the Conservative Party told the country that its foreign policy was based on certain principles and that one of those principles was adherence throughout— "throughout" was the word used—to the United Nations Charter. Every hon. Member opposite who votes for the Government this evening is betraying the pledges which he gave to his constituents in the Election. If hon. Members doubt it, let us go to the country and find out.
I turn to the Tripartite Declaration. I should like to begin by saying a few words about Israel. Like many hon. Members, I have had the privilege of visiting Israel and I have come back, as we must all have come back, deeply impressed by the magnificent way in which they are building a home for their tortured people and, while building a home for their people, creating a new, democratic society which in so many ways is a pattern to the world. I have come back deeply conscious, too, of the fact that they have been carrying on this magnificent work under great strain and tension, with a spade in one hand and a gun in the other. Like all of us, I am anxious that we should do all that we can to ensure the future well-being and prosperity of Israel.
I have said this before and I say it now as a friend of Israel: I still believe that the greatest safeguard for the security of Israel in this period was embodied in the Tripartite Declaration of 1950. Indeed, the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary know that we went to see the Government as representatives of the Executive of the Labour Party at a time when the Government had concluded some new agreements with some of Israel's Arab neighbours. We then urged that so that we might keep the balance, which is the implicit cardinal principle in the declaration of 1950, Her Majesty's Government should enter into agreement with Israel comparable with
1636
the agreement we had already arrived at with some of her Arab neighbours.
We put that proposal before the House. We put it in two deputations to two Foreign Secretaries—the present Chancellor of the Exchequer and the present Foreign Secretary. They refused—and for the moment I make no complaint about that. Why did they refuse? They refused because they said that the best safeguard for Israel was complete compliance with and adherence to the Tripartite Declaration.
When the Prime Minister was Foreign Secretary, he spoke in a debate in the House on 2nd November, 1954, and dealt with this very point. I want to call attention to the words which he then used and relate them to the circumstances which we now face after the Government's action this week. He spoke of the "three Governments", and I particularly call attention to these words:
"The three Governments--and it is, of course, of cardinal importance that it is the three Governments—all declare …".—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 2nd November, 1954; Vol. 532, c. 326.]
He then went on to use words from the Declaration which I need not repeat. The major point which the Prime Minister made was not only that the Tripartite Declaration of 1950 was Israel's best safeguard, but that the cardinal point of the Tripartite Declaration was that three countries had committed themselves to it.
What happens now? The Tripartite Declaration was designed to meet the kind of situation which has occurred between Israel and her Arab neighbours in the last few weeks and days. We know perfectly well that Her Majesty's Government took this action, when they were already committed under the Tripartite Declaration with the United States, without consulting or even informing the United States Government, a partner to this Declaration. I therefore ask the Prime Minister to reply to this question: does the Declaration still stand? Have we not now real grounds to fear that the action which the Government have taken has undermined the Tripartite Declaration of 1950, may have destroyed it and may have torn it up? And—and I say this as a friend of Israel—with all their pretext of sympathy for that country that is the worst thing that the Government have done for it.

1637
We say in our Motion that the action which the Government have taken has divided the Commonwealth. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Woodford, in one of his wartime speeches, much quoted, for and against, said that he had not become Prime Minister of Britain to preside over the liquidation of the British Empire. This Empire is being transformed into a great Commonwealth, the greatest multi-racial community the world has ever known, and the present Prime Minister, the successor of the right hon. Member for Woodford, has dealt such a mortal blow to the Commonwealth that he may be responsible for its liquidation.
First, we are members of this great Commonwealth which has made, and has still to make, such a wonderful contribution to the peace and well-being of the world, and to show the world that people of different colours, religions and creeds can live on equal terms of human dignity together. I ask hon. Members to realise how this action of the Government appears to the countless millions of fellow-citizens in our Commonwealth. There are the millions of Moslems in the Commonwealth and in the Colonies. I tell hon. Members how this action will appear to them—and this, in my view, is one of the greatest indictments of the present action of the Government.
For the people in the Commonwealth and the Colonies—and in the uncommitted world—this will be an attack by a powerful white country on a weak country of coloured people. When one reads the pronouncements in the Press of the Commonwealth and Colonies it becomes increasingly clear that, by the action taken this week, we may very well have destroyed this great venture, this Commonwealth, towards which we have been working. And it is a Conservative Government, it is the party which regarded the Empire almost as a branch of the Conservative Party, whose members talk about it as if it belonged to them—they are the Government who are breaking up the Commonwealth at this time.
Those are our charges: that we have violated the Charter of the United Nations; that we have torn up the Tripartite Declaration; that we have divided ourselves from our friends, and that we
1638
have outraged public opinion in the world.
I now want to say a word to the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister has for many years been looked upon by many people in this country, and of more than one party, as the champion of the United Nations. [An HON. MEMBER: "He still is."] In 1945, the present Prime Minister was one of those privileged to be present at the foundation of the United Nations. He made a speech at that Foundation Conference from which I want to quote. I want to remind the House of what he said—and we shall remind the country.
At the Foundation Conference, in San Francisco, in 1945—and I expect that hon. Members have made this same quotation in Election speeches to their constituents; I wonder whether they will make it after this week?—the Prime Minister said:
"At intervals in history mankind has sought by the creation of international machinery to solve disputes between nations by agreement and not by force. Yet no one here doubts that despite these earlier failures a further attempt must be made … Great Powers"—
and I presume that he included us among the great Powers; I presume that he included the Government which he now heads:
"can make a two-fold contribution: (1) by the support of this organisation; (2) by setting themselves certain standards of international conduct and by observing them scrupulously in all their dealings with other countries. The greater the power any State commands, the heavier its responsibility to wield that power with consideration for others and with restraint upon its own selfish impulses."
I say to the Prime Minister that he has forfeited the trust of millions of our people. He has failed to keep the faith, and now, at the end of this tragic, humiliating week for our country, I say to the Prime Minister, and, I believe, to the country that, not for the first time in the history of this House, it has been left for the Leader of the Opposition to speak for Britain. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] I am proud of the lead which my right hon. Friend has given today. This evening, when we go into the Lobby to vote for this Motion—[HON. MEMBERS: "Nasser."]—we shall carry with us—[HON. MEMBERS: "Nasser."]—the good wishes—[Interruption.] I remember hearing, in 1937 and 1938, talk of "Franco's friends", "Members of the Ring", "Men of Munich", and I ask,

1639
Who are you to talk to us about Nasser?"
In voting for this Motion this evening we are speaking for the best in Britain. We say to the Government, "Get out, and make way for others."
5.9 p.m
The Prime Minister (Sir Anthony Eden): I beg to move, to leave out from "House" to the end of the Question and to add instead thereof:
"approves of the prompt action taken by Her Majesty's Government designed to bring hostilities between Israel and Egypt to an end and to safeguard vital international and national interests, and pledges its full support for all steps necessary to secure these ends."
I undertook a few moments ago that when I opened this debate I would deal at once with the question of the status of prisoners of war and the questions which the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition asked. Therefore, having moved the Amendment which stands in the names of my right hon. Friends and myself, I will answer the right hon. Gentleman's questions.
There has been, of course, as the House knows, no declaration of war by us. [An HON. MEMBER: "Shame."] Shame? Hon. Members opposite must really clear their minds a little bit. There was also no declaration of war at any time in the Korean conflict, but the Geneva Convention does apply to any state of armed conflict.
We have received a formal inquiry—I think the House would like to know this—from the President of the International Red Cross asking us whether we will ratify the 1949 Conventions which we have already signed. The 1949 one is a later edition of the Conventions. We are replying that, although certain legislation is required before we can ratify these Conventions, Her Majesty's Government accept the Conventions and have every intention of applying their conditions should the occasion arise. The Egyptian and Israeli Governments have both signed and ratified the Conventions and we shall, therefore, consider ourselves also entitled to receive from them the treatment provided by these Conventions.
I should add that we are applying the provisions of the 1949 Conventions to the survivors from the Egyptian frigate
1640
"Domiat." I repeat that the Geneva Convention applied in Korea although there was no declaration of war. It was never admitted that there was a state of war, and Korea was never a war in any technical or legal sense, nor are we at war with Egypt now.
Mr. Sydney Silverman: First, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman a question with regard to Korea? In the case of Korea, the hostilities were against North Korea. North Korea was not recognised by the United Nations, by us or by any nation on our side of that controversy as a State at all. Therefore, no question of a declaration of war in that case could possibly have arisen. There is no parallel between that case and the case of Egypt which is a fellow member with us in the United Nations.
The point that the right hon. Gentleman has not dealt with is not whether the Geneva Convention applies. He said in the last words before he sat down that we are not at war with Egypt. What are we at with Egypt then—at peace? The point I want to put to the right hon. Gentleman is perfectly plain and simple. We have delivered an ultimatum. That ultimatum contained conditions as to time and as to other things. The time expired. The conditions were not accepted. It is clear in international law that in those circumstances the country which delivers the ultimatum is not entitled to carry on hostilities without a declaration of war. Since that is so, what legal justification have our hostilities at all?
The Prime Minister: That is not the question that I was originally asked. The question that I was originally asked was whether there had been a declaration of war by us. The answer is that there has not been a declaration of war by us.
Mr. Silverman rose—
The Prime Minister rose—
Mr. Silverman: On a point of order—
Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Sir Charles MacAndrew): I do not see how a point of order can possibly arise.
Mr. Silverman: The point of order is this. The question originally arose

1641
on a point of order which I addressed to Mr. Speaker. That point of order related to a Ruling as to how the House of Commons could secure from the Government some explanation of under what legal authority we are carrying on any hostilities at all. That was the original question raised. Mr. Speaker's Ruling was that it could be dealt with in the debate.
Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I think I have heard enough to answer the hon. Gentleman now. It is not a point of order.
Mr. Silverman: Further to the point of order. The Prime Minister has just said that that question is not the question which he was asked, and therefore, he is refusing to answer it.
Mr. Deputy-Speaker: That is not a point of order.
The Prime Minister: I wish to allay the anxiety of the House on the two points which I was asked. On the first, I repeat that there has been no declaration of war by us. On the second, the Geneva Convention applies to any state of armed conflict. Therefore, it applies in the present conditions just as it applied in Korea. That is the position of the International Red Cross in the matter. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman) keeps interrupting me. I am answering the questions that I was asked.
Mr. Silverman: The right hon. Gentleman is not.
The Prime Minister: I repeat that there has been no declaration of war by us, and that the Geneva Convention applies.
Mr. Hugh Gaitskell: The Prime Minister has made it perfectly plain that there has been no declaration of war, but the question I put to him was whether we were in a state of war. I am still not quite clear whether we are or not. He said that we are in a state of armed conflict. Exactly what is the difference between war and armed conflict?
The Prime Minister: We are in an armed conflict; that is the phrase I have used. There has been no declaration of war.
The important point which I think the House wanted to have met, and which I
1642
have met, is whether the Geneva Conventions apply to the present situation. After all, the whole indignation was "What about our soldiers, sailors and airmen?" I have replied quite clearly that the Conventions do apply to the present situation. Therefore, I have met the point made at Question Time to me.
Mr. Gaitskell: The Prime Minister agreed to give way on these points. First, I should like to ask him whether he realises that we do not in the least accept the analogy of the Korean war, firstly because in that case, as my hon. Friend has pointed out, there was an armed attack from North Korea upon South Korea, and secondly because the defensive action taken was action taken on the unanimous decision of the Security Council of the United Nations. May I ask the right hon. Gentleman to bear in mind that the treatment of prisoners in North Korea is not something which is exactly going to commend it to ourselves now.
I must press the right hon. Gentleman on this point. Is he able to give an assurance to the House that when he speaks about the status of the present situation—that we are in a position of armed conflict—in fact any prisoners whom the Egyptians may capture would be treated by them as though we were in a state of war?
The Prime Minister: Once again let me explain that the provisions of the Geneva Convention apply so far as prisoners of war are concerned to the present situation. We are so treating the prisoners. They are bound by the Geneva Convention too, and the International Red Cross is in communication with them as with us. We are all of us bound by the provisions of the Geneva Convention—Israel, Egypt and ourselves.
Sir Lynn Ungoed-Thomas: May we get this matter clear, because it is rather abstruse and it is important to get it clear. I understand from what the Prime Minister says that Egypt has signed the Geneva Conventions. We have not, but we are now accepting them. Is it perfectly clear that Egypt is accepting these Conventions vis-à-vis ourselves so that our boys becoming prisoners of war will have all the advantages of the Prisoners of War Convention at the hands of Egypt?
The Prime Minister: We signed, of course, an earlier Convention than the present one. We signed both Conventions, but we are governed by the earlier one previous to the ratification of the new one. I have said that although we have not ratified the new one, Her Majesty's Government consider themselves bound by it. They are so replying to the International Red Cross who are also approaching the other two Governments. They have both signed and ratified the International Convention. I repeat yet once again that this applies in present conditions without any declaration of war. That is the position. I say that on the best legal advice, and I have not the slightest doubt that it is correct.
Sir L. Ungoed-Thomas: Does not that apply between States merely when there is a state of war between States? Is not the whole question here whether Egypt accepts that we are at a state of war with her at all? Will not the Prime Minister make the position perfectly clear for the protection of our men that we are at war with Egypt, if such is his intention to make war with Egypt, by making a declaration of war in the way that is conventionally accepted?
The Prime Minister: No, Sir. I repeat once again that the Geneva Convention applies to any state of armed conflict whether there has been a declaration of war or not. I do not think that I can make the position clearer than that.
Mr. F. Beswick: We have been told by the Prime Minister that there has been no declaration of war and we are not in a state of war, but we have also been told that there have been air operations against certain points in Egypt, including Almaza airport. I understand that there have been certain anti-aircraft measures taken in some civil airports in this country. In what state are we if any action is taken by Egypt or an ally of Egypt to bomb positions in this country?
The Prime Minister: What I said was perfectly clear on that point. We are in a state of armed conflict. The whole basis of the request as put to me is: What would be our position and rights under the Geneva Convention? I have said quite clearly to the House that the rights apply completely here as they did in Korea—even more so as everyone has signed or ratified the Convention.
Mr. William Warbey rose—
Mr. Deputy-Speaker: If the Prime Minister does not give way hon. Gentlemen must resume their seats.
Mr. Wedgwood Benn rose—
Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I was under the impression that the Prime Minister sat down because I stood up.
Mr. Charles Pannell: On a point of order. Mr. Deputy-Speaker. It is within the recollection of the House that Mr. Speaker this afternoon was compelled to suspend the Sitting and when he came back here there was an interchange to calm the affairs of the House in which the Prime Minister gave an undertaking that, at the beginning of his speech, he would adequately answer questions put to him. It therefore seems a trifle unfair if the Chair is now going to rule against an undertaking honourably given and honourably accepted.
Mr. Deputy-Speaker: That is not a point of order. It is a well-known custom in this House that if the Member who is addressing the House does not give way other hon. Gentlemen should sit down. It is quite simple. The Prime Minister did not sit down and, therefore, he must continue. [Interruption.] Order.
Mr. Benn: I am concerned in putting a different point from the one put by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Leicester, North-East (Sir L. Ungoed-Thomas). I am not concerned with the position of British troops who may be captured by the Egyptian authorities. I am concerned in my question with the legality of Her Majesty's Forces ordering men to commit acts of war against a country with which Her Majesty is in friendly relations. I want to ask the Prime Minister whether he will deal with this very real difficulty. It arises in the constituencies of all hon. Members of this House as to whether the Commander-in-Chief of the British Forces is entitled to give orders to constituents of ours to commit acts of war against a country with which Her Majesty is in friendly relations.
The Prime Minister: That is a point that either my right hon. Friend or I will

1645
deal with in the course of our remarks. I think that I must proceed to make some observation on the last two days' debate.
Mr. Warbey rose—
Mr. Deputy-Speaker: There are more than fifty Members who wish to make speeches. If we go on like this we shall never get through.
Mr. Warbey: With great respect. Mr. Deputy-Speaker, I understood that the Prime Minister gave way when I was on my feet.
Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The Prime Minister gave way because I stood up. He told me so. I asked him.
The Prime Minister: I should like to make my own observations now, as the right hon. Gentleman did in his concluding remarks, upon the debates which have been taking place in the last few days. I should like to tell the House some reflections which I want to put before hon. Members in reply to the charges which have been made, to the invective sometimes deployed against the Government's action, action which I repeat to the House we intend to be aimed at bringing hostilities to an end and restoring the security of the Canal.
In all this invective to which we have listened there has been one notable omission. Indeed, in listening to some of the speeches, including that of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Llanelly (Mr. J. Griffiths) who has just addressed the House, one might think that the Middle Eastern area had been securely at peace and that we and the French Government where injecting by old-fashioned imperialist methods—[Interruption.]—Yes; there it is—the danger of war in an area of tranquillity. That ignores the whole history of the last ten years and ignores the policies pursued by the present Government and by the Socialist Government before us in trying to carry out responsibilities in the changed post-war conditions in an area vital to our interests and also to the Commonwealth and to Europe.
Therefore, the connection must be made with what went before. Every phase of this struggle to maintain stability in the Middle East is relevant to the situation to which the House has now to apply its mind.
1646
First and foremost, I must recall, because it is most relevant, the circumstances of the creation of the State of Israel. Mr. Bevin declared the British Mandate in Palestine to be unworkable. I am not criticising this or arguing it; I am merely stating the position. He had turned the problem over to the United Nations. That was at the beginning of 1947. There followed the United Nations partition plan, favourably received by the Jews and unfavourably by the Arabs.
Mr. R. R. Stokes: It was a swindle.
The Prime Minister: Everybody has his views. It was done by the Government which the right hon. Gentleman often supports.
It is all too easy to forget how the end of the Mandate resulted in full-scale conflict between Israel and the Arabs, which did not cease until the uneasy Armistice of 1949. Since then, there has been no period when there has not been a constant sense of danger and strain, punctuated by repeated frontier incidents. Egypt and others have insisted ever since that a state of war continues. That has been her justification, of course, for denying passage to Israeli ships through the Canal, despite repeated United Nations condemnation of such action.
The United Nations has made repeated efforts to secure respect for the Armistice and to bring the war to an end, and we have helped all through the years to the fullest extent that we could. All these efforts have failed, and constant forays have continued on both sides, despite General Burns, the observers, and every thing that could be done. Moreover, the Egyptian Government has put the world on notice that they intend to encompass the destruction of Israel. For this purpose, armaments are being accumulated—
Lieut.-Colonel Marcus Lipton: British arms.
The Prime Minister: —and military conventions between Egypt and other States are being concluded.
I must recall that there was immediate reaction in Egypt—and this is how the main part of the trouble arose—at the time of the events in Abadan. Immediately after the Abadan events, there came the immediate reaction of Egypt,

1647
the repudiation of the Anglo-Egyptian Treaty, and later the massacres in Cairo of which we have such grim recollection. At that time, before we took office, the Socialist Government sent large reinforcements to the Middle East, and they were quite right to do so. But I think we have the right to ask them to consider the reasons for which we are sending forces there today to try to limit or stop hostilities
The Socialist Government worked then for a new system of joint Middle East defence. We followed them in that effort. The Egyptians turned it down, and that did not prevent us seeking agreement with Egypt over the Sudan and later over the evacuation of the Suez Canal. If there was ever the smallest justification for suspicion of British colonialism, it surely falls to the ground in the light of these actions. What would be the fairer charge, I think, would be to say that the policy of conciliation was taken to dangerous limits. But we believe we were right to risk much to try to establish friendship and confidence and thereby build a wider area of peace.
What then, the right hon. Gentleman may rightly say, has precipitated the situation in which we consider we have been forced to intervene?—an increasing tension in which nobody can deny that Egypt has played a leading part by acts and, perhaps more serious still, by propaganda in every area of the Middle East? I am not going to discuss the Canal negotiations today, but this comment in relation to the Middle East as a whole I may make. An allied resolution was put before the Security Council embodying the 18-Power proposals, which we had made much effort to get agreed. If they could have been accepted—and they would have been but for one Power—then the Canal problem itself and much of this situation would, I have no doubt, have been resolved.
I have been personally accused of living in the past and being too much obsessed with the events of the 'thirties.
Mr. Aneurin Bevan: Would the right hon. Gentleman be kind enough to elucidate that last statement, that if the Security Council had accepted the 18-Power proposals about the Suez Canal much of this situation would not have arisen?
The Prime Minister: Might not have arisen.
Mr. Bevan: How does the right hon. Gentleman connect the two things?
The Prime Minister: Because if there had been immediate progress on that issue, I have no doubt it would have brought about a comparable relaxation in other areas of tension. [Interruption.] Of course, certainly. If the right hon. Gentleman thinks that agreement over Suez would have made no contribution to the situation, I will not continue to argue the matter with him.
Mr. Philip Noel-Baker: The Prime Minister has referred to the endorsement by nine members of the Security Council of the principles approved by the eighteen members of the London Conference. Did not the members of the Security Council who voted for that vote for it because it said that those principles would be suitable for a solution of the Canal problem by peaceful means?
The Prime Minister: All I have said was simply that if there could have been carried that Resolution, it would without doubt have improved the Middle Eastern situation. I should have thought that was a glimpse of the obvious to anyone.
Now may I go back to the personal accusation made yesterday, that I myself was too much obsessed by the events of the 'thirties and, in consequence, old-fashioned? However that may be, is, there not one lesson of that period which cannot be ignored? It is that we best avoid great wars by taking even physical action to stop small ones. Everybody knows that the United Nations is not in a position to do that. We and the French have the forces available. We must face the fact that the United Nations is not yet the international equivalent of our own legal system and the rule of law.
I admit that Her Majesty's Government and the French Government have taken a very great step, and it is important that the House and the country and the world should know the objective we seek. We do not want to stay, and we do not intend to stay, one moment longer than is necessary. But effective action to re-establish peace will make easier an international solution of the many problems which exist in that area. Of course, we do not delegate to ourselves any special position in

1649
that respect. On the contrary, we would welcome and look for the participation of many other nations in bringing about a settlement and in upholding it. We do not seek to impose by force a solution on the Israel-Egypt dispute, or the Suez Canal dispute, or any other dispute in the area. We do not seek to negotiate by ourselves alone on any one of these disputes. The whole purpose of the Anglo-French intervention is to stop hostilities, prevent a resumption of them, and safeguard traffic through the Canal.
Israel and Egypt are locked in conflict in that area. The first and urgent task is to separate these combatants and to stabilise the position. That is our purpose. If the United Nations were then willing to take over the physical task of maintaining peace in that area, no one would be better pleased than we. But police action there must be to separate the belligerents and to prevent a resumption of hostilities.
Much has been said in the course of this debate about the position—
Mr. Denis Healey rose—
Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Order. I have said already that if a Member who has the Floor does not give way, any other Member must sit down. The Prime Minister.
The Prime Minister: Much has been said in the course of this debate, and by the right hon. Member for Llanelly, about the effect of our actions on the unity of the Commonwealth, and, particularly yesterday, Australia was many times mentioned. I therefore propose to quote to the House a passage from a speech delivered by the Prime Minister of Australia—[Interruption.]—who certainly did more than anyone else to try to bring success to the 18-Power proposals and is for that deserving of the support and approval, I should have thought, of every hon. Member of the House. At any rate, in view of the charges which have been made, I propose to read what the Prime Minister of Australia said.
On the question of whether the United Kingdom was at fault in not having consulted other British countries in advance, he said that the answer to this question seemed to him to be that she was not at fault at all. The circumstances were those of great emergency. Hostile armed forces
1650
were approaching each other and extensive combat was imminent, and in that combat vital interests in passage of the Canal were quite likely to suffer most serious damage. The Canal was an international waterway with guaranteed freedom of passage for ships of all nations, but that guarantee would cease to have much value if the Canal itself became part of a theatre of active war.
He said that there was literally no time to be lost if any action was to be taken to keep the combatants out of the Canal area and afford it proper protection. In the Australian Government's opinion, Great Britain, whose interests were so vast, was correct in proceeding upon her own judgment and accepting her own responsibility. We were not living in an academic world. The Government of Australia believed that the action taken by the United Kingdom and France was proper. It was quite clear that normal processes of the Security Council were such that even assuming that some resolution could be carried, the Canal would have been involved in war long before any United Nations action could have been effective. Finally, the Australian Government saw nothing sinister in all this. On the contrary, it seemed to them realistic and to pay due regard to the moving facts of life.
The Prime Minister of New Zealand has also spoken in a similar sense of support. I have a note of what he said. He said that while admitting that several features of the situation were disturbing—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."]—I thought hon. Members opposite would cheer that—he had full confidence in Britain's intentions. He added that the views put forward by the right hon. Gentleman opposite, the Leader of the Opposition, were not the views of the New Zealand Government.
We have a duty, as we see it, which we shall carry out, to restore peace and to do it as quickly as possible. We have attempted to do it in the only way in which it could possibly have been done. There is nothing in any suggestion that has been made throughout this debate which would be likely to bring an early end to the hostilities except the action that the Government have taken. There was nothing either in the Abadan dispute or at other times when hon. Members opposite were in power that succeeded in achieving a settlement.

1651
Of course, we want to go with the United Nations so far as we can and we shall put our case to the Assembly today and tomorrow.
Mr. Alfred Robens: What about the decision?
The Prime Minister: I think we are entitled to judge that when we know what the decision is.
Mr. Kenneth Younger: Does the Prime Minister's last remark imply that if it happens to be a decision of which he does not approve, he does not propose to accede to it?
The Prime Minister: I did not say that. We are entitled to know what we are being asked to accept before I say whether we accept it or not.
I may add, in relation to what the right hon. Gentleman told us just now about the 1950 Declaration—
Mr. Robens: The previous decision of the Security Council was to ask the Israelis to withdraw their troops to the frontier. It is quite likely that the decision of the Assembly will be to ask the British and French to withdraw their troops. Does the Prime Minister say that if such a decision is arrived at by the Assembly he will refuse to withdraw troops?
The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman does not know, and nor do I, what the result of the deliberations of the Assembly may be. I am certainly not prepared to answer a hypothetical question without knowing. The reason why we could not accept the Security Council's decision, as I have repeated innumerable times, is because anyone who reads that Resolution, including the preamble, must realise that it was in fact a censure on the Israeli Government. We did not feel, and I do not now feel, that the facts justified that censure.
Let me take the question of our attitude to the 1950 Declaration. The right hon. Gentleman asked me just now about it and our position so far as Egypt was concerned. The argument that I have put to the House, and the only argument, in connection with the 1950 Declaration was that we did not feel that Egypt was in a position to call for the fulfilment of the 1950 Declaration on her behalf when
1652
she herself had so often denounced or renounced the Tripartite Declaration and made it so apparent that she did not want it to apply for Egypt. That is the sole comment I have made. In no other way have we gone back on our 1950 Declaration.
I should like to remind the House of this. In the first debate we had in these matters, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Lewisham, South (Mr. H. Morrison), in a most courageous and impartial speech—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."]—he has more experience of foreign affairs than have some of those who are jeering at his name now—in relation to the recent Suez Canal dispute, said:
"By all means consider all the pros and cons, but I ask the Government not to be too nervous, because if they are too nervous we shall begin to evolve a situation in which countries can set themselves up against international practice, international morals and international interests, and, in that case, we are not helping the peace of the world; we are helping anarchy, conflict and bad conduct among the nations."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 2nd August, 1956; Vol. 557, c. 1668–9.]
How, then, do we envisage the future of the Middle East? Before we can answer that question we must have pacification. That is the first step. That is an essential step, yet, important as it is, it should be only the condition for a better life in that area. The great need of the peoples of the Middle East, all of them, is some form of economic improvement. It is an area which suffers from poverty as severe as any in the world. A state of war has existed in the Middle East for the last ten years. It has prevented the economic problems from being tackled in most areas, except, perhaps, Iraq, which has made remarkable strides forward.
Two conditions for this are essential. One is that the States of that area should cease to need or to feel they need great armaments to protect themselves against one another, and the second is that the area should be sufficiently stable to encourage investment other than in the oil industry. That will not be achieved as long as the state of war exists. We are convinced that if we had not taken this action the state of war would inevitably have spread over an infinitely wider area.

1653
We fully recognise the risks of the action we have taken, but in our full responsibility, with our full information, we believe it was the only action available to our two Governments. We stand by it, and we will carry it through.
5.52 p.m.
Mr. Harold Davies: We have been present at an historic occasion here today. I believe that it is an unprecedented occasion. Fifty million British people who want to support the Government in the use of democratic processes wanted to know exactly the position we are in vis-à-vis Egypt, but the Prime Minister's speech was written on political litmus paper.
At the lime when the Anglo-American Palestinian inquiry was taking place in 1946 and 1947 the Middle East Section of the British Foreign Office sent to some members of the commission seventeen secret documents, and that at the time when the party opposite was pretending to be the protagonist of world Jewry and that it was hoping to build a home for the Jewish people, who, through the centuries, had led such battered lives. At that time in the crucial history of the Middle East the Conservative Party and sections of the Foreign Office were playing power politics with the lives of that people. It is well known, and documents exist to prove it, that negotiations were going on behind the backs of the Jewish people, and at the end one of the leaders of the Foreign Office said that it was to be expected that ultimately an Arab State would be established in Palestine.
The Jewish people are being dragged into this war. I am convinced that the speech of M. Pineau in France had something to do with the political manœuvres that have been taking place since the beginning of the Suez crisis. M. Pineau said that he had other political cards up his sleeve.
The party opposite has been playing political brag with the lives of the British people, too, in the days of the hydrogen bomb. That great party opposite, which says to the British people that it will double the standard of life in Britain in the next twenty-five years, is the party which today jeopardises for a generation the oil supplies of Western Europe. That party is playing power politics, has broken the N.A.T.O. alliance, has broken the Anglo-American understanding, and
1654
has prepared the possibility of a rapprochement between the United States of America and the Union of Socialist Soviet Republics.
We on this side of the House believe that for a constructive policy the Israelis should have been offered an Anglo-Israeli treaty to help to safeguard Israel in its transition period. We believe that even now, if the world would do a little rethinking, we could put teeth into the United Nations, and station on those frontiers an international force to stabilise the political and power position in the Middle East for a generation or so.
I believe that a tragic error was made at the time when Nasser was applying for economic aid and help in building the Aswan Dam. We have been paying £10 million a year to an Arab State. We were asked to find £25 million, and only £6 million immediately, towards the cost of the Aswan Dam, and if we had paid it we could have had a sane economic approach to the Arabs. I see hon. Members opposite nodding their heads. One of the great truths of human history is that where there is poverty and where there is hunger there cannot be any settled state of life. We could have had a sane approach if we had had the courage to go ahead with building the Aswan Dam and if we had not played the double-cross, as we did—for the Egyptian Ambassador in Washington, only two days before the world knew that the Aswan Dam loan was not going through, said in an interview on the air that everything was ready for the negotiation of the loan.
Now there is fighting without a declaration of war. I still want to know whether our boys will be regarded as francs-tireurs. Nobody in the House has answered that question yet, and with all the skilled legal knowledge available to him the Prime Minister should have answered that question by now in this House. I also want to know why it was that the Aswan Dam loan fell away.
I believe that we could and should have a constructive policy right now, and if the Government had courage they would have the courage to evolve and pursue one. They would say that this undeclared war should cease, that this military activity should cease; and they would go to the United Nations and say

1655
that, in view of the difficulty of the situation, there should be an international force placed for an interim stage on the frontiers of Israel. There should be an Anglo-Israeli treaty, if necessary, clearly guaranteeing the frontiers in the transition period.
Mr. Leslie Hale: Will my hon. Friend pursue that point for a moment? The Minister of Defence has said in the House that a soldier who was given illegal orders was under obligation to refuse to carry them out and could be prosecuted and convicted for murder if he shot someone in pursuance of an order contrary to the law. It is not we here but the lads themselves who will want to know what risks they run in this illegal folly, this international conspiracy, and this crime against human relations.
Mr. Davies: I sincerely hope that my hon. Friend, with his legal knowledge, and others like him, will have the opportunity of speaking, because this is something which the British people should know. I should not like to follow that argument further. I believe that I have made my point clear that the House of Commons is entitled, with the legal knowledge at the disposal of the Prime Minister, to know the exact legal position of our troops in the strange, unprecedented circumstances with which we have been faced in the House today.
Mr. Warbey: Can I help my hon. Friend? Surely the position is that no British soldier, sailor or airman at the moment has any right to kill an Egyptian except in necessary self-defence. Is not that the position?
Mr. Davies: If we have that point cleared towards the end of the debate I shall be quite satisfied. I am not asking for an immediate answer. I am not qualified to give a correct answer, but I know that the House should have an answer.
There are two other points which I sincerely wish to make. Despite what the Western world may think, the tragedy is that ordinary Jews and Arabs have lived side by side for centuries without any pogroms against the Jews. That is more than can be said of the Christian world. I believe that outside the shadow of high power politics the ordinary Arab and Jew
1656
can still do that. It is well known that within the State of Israel the ordinary Arab who is living and working in the villages has a standard of life which is gradually getting higher and higher. Here at this juncture, in a difficult period, we have injected into the situation high power politics partly to satisfy French ambitions in North Africa.
A White Paper should have been presented to the House giving as many particulars as possible of the talks with the French Foreign Secretary and the French Prime Minister. [An HON. MEMBER: "A Socialist."] I am not concerned whether the Prime Minister of France is a Socialist or not, but with the needs of the situation, and I think that within my own party the situation needs criticism. I think that for once the Quai D'Orsay has caught the British Foreign Office napping and has led it up the garden path of French foreign policy. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Well, history is full of strange incidents behind closed doors.
If I am not correct, British troops will not be drawn into spheres of activity in Algeria and into Mediterranean activity in and around the centres of French fighting today. The cream of the French Army, nearly 500,000 men, are fighting in North Africa, and a section of the French Army was destroyed in Indo-China. France, because she did not have the wisdom to follow in North Africa the policy followed by British Socialists in India, is draining the life-blood of her country. Are we to be allies in that? [An HON. MEMBER: "A Socialist Government."] If the hon. Member thinks that there is a completely Socialist Government in France he has no knowledge of French politics.
I accuse Her Majesty's Government of having destroyed the basis of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation and of having destroyed also the possibility of securing in the Middle East an economic development that would have provided hydro-electric power and afforded opportunities for developing oil resources and distributing oil royalties on a completely different basis.
Now, what is left to us? Whether the House likes it or not, I believe that Soviet Russia and the United States will have to be brought into that area ultimately as part of a troop formation to be the teeth in the United Nations organisation. I

1657
am convinced that two years from now the only way in which we shall be able to stabilise the Middle East will be by a rapprochement between the United States and Soviet Russia who would come into the area with troops. If that can be secured, there will be a transition period during which economic progress can be made and the standard of life of Israel can progress.
This week boys will die. The party opposite announced in the General Election that they stood by the Charter of the United Nations. [An HON. MEMBER: "Not warmongers at all."] Some of us did not use that expression. Some of us would not use that expression about the party opposite, because we believe that it would be wrong to think of any one man in the modern world or any candidate for Parliament being a warmonger. What some of us did say was that the consequence of the policy which the party opposite was pursuing would be such that we should have war.
Whether hon. and right hon. Members opposite are blind or not I do not know, but here we are, whatever the Prime Minister may say, confronted with a war. As Bismarck said, one can start a war but one does not know where it will finish. We do not know where this will finish. The Prime Minister thinks that it will be short and sharp and that he will be able to face the world with a fait accompli and the reoccupation of the Suez Canal. It will be neither short nor sharp. The right hon. Gentleman has reunited the Arab world as never before.
6.10 p.m.
Captain Charles Waterhouse: I do not intend to follow the remarks which the hon. Member for Leek (Mr. Harold Davies) made in the earlier part of his speech, but what I will say deals very definitely with the latter part of his speech, when he spoke of the main issues which are now facing us.
In his opening speech, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Llanelly (Mr. J. Griffiths) referred to two masterly speeches recently made by the Leader of the Opposition. I would remind the House of a third speech which the right hon. Gentleman made and which I think was the best speech he has ever made in his life. It was made on 2nd August. It was made in a different context from
1658
this, but there was one passage which applies equally well to the present context. It is not long and I will read it to the House. The right hon. Gentleman said:
"Colonel Nasser has certainly made a number of inflammatory speeches against us and his Government have continually attempted subversion in Jordan and other Arab States; he has persistently threatened the State of Israel and made it plain from time to time that it is his purpose and intention to destroy Israel if he possibly can."
The right hon. Gentleman concluded this passage by saying:
"That, if ever there was one, is a clear enough notice of aggression to come."
Mr. Warbey: As my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, South (Mr. Gaitskell) is not here to defend himself, will the right hon. and gallant Gentleman now read the concluding passage of my right hon. Friend's speech on 2nd August, in which he said that the Government must not use force except in accordance with the United Nations Charter, and will he now apply that part of his speech to the present context?
Captain Waterhouse: I will not read either the whole or other parts of that speech. I have read this part of it because it bears directly on the argument whether or not Israel is to blame in her present action.
Mr. Anthony Greenwood: In view of what the right hon. and gallant Gentleman has said about my right hon. Friend, surely he does not deny that my right hon. Friend finished that speech by saying that nothing which Colonel Nasser had done up to that point justified the use of force and, indeed, nothing he has done during the last few days would justify force if it were not justified at that time.
Captain Waterhouse: The right hon. Gentleman was speaking on 2nd August, not in the last few days. But my point has nothing to do with that. What I am trying to point out is that the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition at that time said that in his view—
Mr. Benn: Force was not justified.
Captain Waterhouse: No, the right hon. Gentleman said:
"That, if ever there was one, is a clear enough notice of aggression to come."
An Hon. Member: Now read on.
Captain Waterhouse: I will read the whole speech if the hon. Gentleman wishes. It is a good one. It continued:
"The fact is that this episode must be recognised as part of the struggle for the mastery of the Middle East."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 2nd August, 1956; Vol. 365, c. 1620.]
Hon. Members: Now read on.
Captain Waterhouse: We have had a lot of play with the exact wording of the Charter and whether what we have done comes precisely within Article 51. I am not greatly concerned with the exact wording of the Charter. What concerns the House and the country and the world is the spirit which underlies the Charter.
In his speech just now my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister spoke about the time which it has taken to develop the laws of England. Generations and centuries have passed while our laws have been made and modified. Today we have a Charter which is a good legal text to interpret an idea, but it is the idea underlying it, much more than the wording of the Charter, which concerns us today.
I think it would be fair to summarise the underlying idea of the Charter in this way, that force shall no longer be used for aggressive purposes and that if aggression does take place the profit should be taken out of it. If that is a fair summary, and I think it is, we can apply it to the present situation, and we have also the remark of the Leader of the Opposition that in his view there was a definite threat of agression by Egypt on the Israelis.
Mr. Hale: I want to put a fair point. I agree that we should try to read the spirit of the Charter. Surely the spirit of the Charter is that a nation should not act as a judge in its own cause, and that one nation which has merely a commercial interest should not take an action contrary to the opinion of the great majority of the nations of the earth who are members of the United Nations?
Captain Waterhouse: The hon. Gentleman is not quite fair. No question of acting as judge arises in the Security Council or in the General Assembly. The Assembly and the Security Council are there to give political views. They are not there to give a justiciable decision. If that is wanted one must go to the International Court at The Hague.
Since that declaration of the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition
1660
was made Egypt has done nothing to lessen the fear which existed that she intended aggression. Her threats to Israel have continued. She has interfered with the Jordan elections and last, and most important, she has arranged a unified command between the forces of Syria, Jordan and Egypt.
No one can say that the Daily Mirror is a paper which favours those of us on this side of the House, but hon. Members may have noticed its cartoon yesterday showing the Middle Eastern Command loaded up with all the troubles which we all know so well in the Middle East. It is entitled "The Last Straw." The last straw is the unified command of Egypt, Syria and Jordan. It is that last straw which preceded the action of the Israelis in advancing into Egypt.
What do hon. Gentleman opposite think that Israel should have done? She had applied to the United Nations about her shipping in 1951. She had got a decision from the United Nations—[An HON. MEMBER: "The Government have had it five years."]—and nothing happened. I do not want to make a party point of this. If I did want to do so I would remind hon. Gentlemen opposite that it was the Labour Party which was in power in September, 1951. I admit that we, too, are to blame, but the fact remains—[An HON. MEMBER: "This Government have had five years."] That is precisely what I am saying, that after five years Israel found that the decision of the United Nations had been disregarded, and therefore she said, with common sense, "I will take the law into my own hands and I will defend myself as well as I can."
Israel decided to forestall what she believed, and I believed, and the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition believed, to be the certain eventual attack of Egypt upon her. I am not prepared to blame Israel for that. I never have been a Zionist but I have never been a Jew hater, and I believe that there is an element of Jew hatred which is being stirred up, inadvertently perhaps, but stirred up definitely by the attitude of hon. Gentlemen opposite. [Interruption.] I think it is a very cruel thing that the Israelis, in this hour of their tribulation, in this hour when every hand is turned against them, should find that many of the voices to which they have been used

1661
to listen have been silent, or that those same voices have been heard in condemnation of their own country. Is the explanation that those hon. Members hate Her Majesty's Government even more than they love their own country?
In view of this background, we have to consider whether Britain and France were or were not justified in taking the action which they have taken. I believe that they are justified for several reasons. The first is that they have a tremendous interest in the oil in the Middle East. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] Do hon. Members opposite deny it? It is a fact. We could not maintain our standard of life if we had not that oil. Do hon. Members opposite deny the importance of that? Do they not care about the standard of life in this country? Of course they do. They are not prepared to go on to the platforms in their constituencies this week-end and say that the oil does not matter.
There is—[Interruption.]—a great body of British and French nationals living in the Middle East—
Sir Ian Horobin: On a point of order. Is an hon. Member opposite entitled to call the right hon. and gallant Gentleman who is speaking "a buffoon"?
Mr. Speaker: I did not hear the expression used. I am not for the moment sure whether it is on what I call the index of bad words, but hon. Members should observe courtesy towards each other.
Captain Waterhouse: I do not mind what I am called. At the proper time I could say quite a lot of things about hon. Members opposite. I am trying at the moment to put some sensible and important points and if these points seem to an hon. Member to be buffoonery, the hon. Member who made that remark may himself be in a very good position to judge what buffoonery means.
I have said that oil is vital to France and Britain as to no other two countries. I have said that no other two countries have as many nationals in the Middle East as have Britain and France. I say that no other two countries have as great an investment in the Middle East and that no other two countries have anything like so much shipping passing through
1662
the Canal as have France and Britain. More than one-third of the total tonnage of shipping passing through the Canal passes under the British or the French flag.
There may now be some danger that a war will break out in earnest, but I am absolutely convinced that if this action had not been taken by the Government there would have been certainty of a war. In this matter the Prime Minister has been under heavy personal attack.
Mr. E. Fernyhough: The right hon. and gallant Gentleman attacked him.
Captain Waterhouse: I will mention that in a moment.
Of all the statesmen in the world, no one has such a record of steady work for international co-operation, first in the League of Nations and then the United Nations, as has the Prime Minister. It is perfectly true that I have disagreed with him, but the mere fact that he stood out against what I then thought ought to be done proves all the more conclusively how determined he was to avoid the use of force. I said in the House in the early days of the dispute, and I do not repent now, that gunboats ought to have been sent to Port Said. The Prime Minister treated my suggestion rather roughly. He had every right to do so. It proves that in his whole attitude he was not prepared to use force for a primarily national interest but that he is prepared to use force in the interests of wider international considerations.
Much play has been made of the comdemnation which we are getting throughout the world. Everybody, it is said, says that we are at fault. I wonder whether hon. Members have read the broadcast which President Eisenhower made last night and, if they have done so, whether they remember these words:
"The United States was not consulted in any way about any phases of these actions. Nor were we informed of them in advance. As it is the manifest right of way of these nations to take such decisions and actions, it is likewise our right, if our judgment so dictates, to dissent."
The President thus made it absolutely clear that the action can properly be taken.
Mr. Benn rose—
Captain Waterhouse: I have taken that paragraph from the President's speech and I am not misquoting him in any way. He said quite clearly that, although he disagreed with what we had done, we had the right to do it.
Mr. Benn: Would the right hon. and gallant Gentleman also refer to that section of President Eisenhower's speech in which he confirmed what we have long suspected, that the Prime Minister wanted to use force in August?
Captain Waterhouse: I dare say that when he gets the opportunity the hon. Member can quote other parts of President Eisenhower's speech or other speeches which bear out his point of view. But the President of the United States makes very careful statements, and he definitely stated that in his view we had the right to do what we have done.
I do not want to keep the House very much longer, but I want to make the point that the United States themselves must shoulder their full share of the blame in these matters. For the last four or five years in the Middle East they have been trouble-makers rather than trouble-abaters. They have given no modicum of help to us in any of the contests which we have had or any of the difficulties which have arisen. When we were in very difficult negotiations with Egypt, they encouraged Egypt. They condoned Persia over Abadan. They cold-shouldered the Bagdad Pact. Now we have the last series of actions of Secretary of State Dulles. I do not know whether his eye was on more profit from oil in the Middle East or more votes in the Middle West, but whether it was oil or whether it was votes, the result has been that we have had no support at all from the United States in these critical times in our history.
Certain sections in Britain are criticising us and certain sections in the United States are criticising their Government. I could read a quotation, although I will not trouble the House with it, in which it is plainly stated that in the view of the writers in some United States newspapers Dulles's policy has been bad in the Middle East and has left us in the very greatest of difficulties.
I will say no more. Britain has stood alone in the past and if necessary she can stand alone today—and stand alone
1664
in spite of attacks in this country and in spite of the jealous attacks from nationals elsewhere. We were first accused of having no support within the Commonwealth. Already two great Commonwealth nations are standing firmly by our side. We on this side of the House think that Her Majesty's Government have taken the necessary action to avoid a major war, and we pray that hostilities may be brought to a successful and an early conclusion.
6.30 p.m.
Mr. John Dugdale: The Prime Minister is a very busy man, but I am sorry that he did not find time to sit and listen to his master's voice, as he might have done had he remained here. The most cynical reference in the speech of the right hon. and gallant Member for Leicester, South-East (Captain Waterhouse) was his reference to the Jews. He said that we on this side had thrown them over. When has he defended them before? When has he spoken in their favour?
Captain Waterhouse: I have never defended the Jews and I have never set up as being a Zionist. I have told the House that I am not a Zionist and that, if anything, my sympathies lay with the Arabs; but I blame hon. Members opposite who, throughout, have supported the Jews and who have now deserted them.
Mr. Dugdale: When the right hon. and gallant Gentleman says that, does he remember that all the time the Jews were building up their country, when they were peacefully working for the building of their country, they got not a word of support from him or from any hon. Member opposite—at least not from most of them?
It is only when the Jews are guilty of attacking—I agree under great provocation—that the right hon. and gallant Gentleman speaks of going to their defence. On this side of the House we very much regret that they have been provoked. Of course, we realise the provocation and we are friendly to the Jews, as we have been in the past, but that is not to be an excuse for plunging into an imperialist war, as this country has now made it.
Mr. Walter Elliot: The right hon. Member has made a very serious statement. He said

1665
that the Israelis never had a word of support from anybody on this side of the House. I do not think that he should say that, even in regard to myself alone and many others on this side who have given support in the past, both by voice and vote, to the Israelis in a difficult time.
Mr. Dugdale: It is true that there has been some support, but very many hon. Members, and the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Leicester, South-East in particular—[HON. MEMBERS: "Withdraw."] I am concerned with the right hon. and gallant Gentleman, who himself said that in the past he had not been a great supporter of the Jews. He has made that clear and it is perfectly fair to say so.
I should like to pass from the speech of the right hon. and gallant Gentleman to that of the Prime Minister. It was the most cynical speech to which we have listened from any Prime Minister for many years. He talked of a little war; he talked of a police operation. It is indeed a little war, because it is a war against a little country and not a war of which anybody can be proud. There were large headlines in the Daily Express today which said:
"British Navy Sinks Egyptian Frigate."
Do hon. Members opposite, who remember the days of Trafalgar and of Jutland and those other days when we have had glorious British naval victories, feel that this is indeed another glorious victory, the sinking by the Navy of one frigate belonging to the Egyptian Navy? I think that in their heart of hearts they do not, and I am sure that the Navy, for whom I have as deep an admiration as anyone else, must have hated having to perform this operation.
The Prime Minister made it clear in advance that he would not accept the decision of the United Nations if that decision went against us. That was a very startling thing to have said. It will interest President Eisenhower very much. It will interest the Americans very much. This Prime Minister is the man who, until now, has stood for the rule of law and order.
The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Douglas Dodds-Parker): My right hon. Friend did not say that. He said that he could not be
1666
expected to accept the resolution of the United Nations until he knew what it was.
Mr. Dugdale: He certainly implied it very clearly.
Mr. Dodds-Parker indicated dissent.
Mr. Dugdale: Will the hon. Member now say that if the Assembly of the United Nations asks us to withdraw our forces, we will at once do so?
Hon. Members: Answer.
Mr. Dugdale: I will give way if the hon. Member will answer that.
Does that not prove what I have said, that the Prime Minister has made it clear that if the Assembly asks us to withdraw our forces, we shall do nothing of the kind? That is what he said by his speech, and it is not denied by the hon. Member.
Mr. Dodds-Parker: I hope I made clear what the Prime Minister said. Anyone who looks at the OFFICIAL REPORT tomorrow will see it.
Mr. Dugdale: I will leave it to the judgment of the House and to anyone who reads HANSARD tomorrow.
I have referred to the Navy. What is our Air Force doing? Many hon. Members may have read the Daily Mirror this morning—[Laughter.] Hon. Members laugh at the Daily Mirror, but I am speaking of an interview by a correspondent of the Daily Mirror with a man who had just come back from a raid on Egypt. This is what he said:
"There was no fighter resistance, but there was some light flak up to 8,000 ft. It was very wild shooting.
We saw the lights of Cairo in the distance. The airfield we attacked was beautifully lit up.
There were many planes on it. We came in high, dropped our bombs and watched them explode.
They did a lot of damage, and I felt that our effort was very successful.
As soon as our bombs struck lights began to go out, but we had taken them completely by surprise and the damage was done."
The raid was obviously very successful.
Viscount Hinchingbrooke: Will the right hon. Gentleman say, here and now, that he wanted the operation to be unsuccessful and our bombers shot down?
Mr. Dugdale: Of course I did not want it to be unsuccessful. All I say is that it is not difficult to be successful when the enemy has no defence against one and when one takes him by surprise without a declaration of war. It is difficult not to succeed in those conditions. These men are the successors of those who fought the Battle of Britain, the men who defended Britain against attack under great odds when they had very few defences. The task of these men today is to bomb undefended people without a declaration of war. I hope that the Government are proud of that.
Why did the Government do this? I believe that they have a pathological love for Disraeli's Suez Canal. They must do everything they can to defend this Canal, this great creation of Disraeli, their leader, Of course the Canal is important We all realise that, but is it important enough to break international law and to risk British lives? What is expected to happen to the Canal afterwards? Do the Government expect that the position on the Canal will immediately revert to what it was?
Does the Prime Minister intend that Britain should hold the Canal? Does he intend to ask the 18 nations to restart their organisation to run the Canal? Most of the 18 nations have already condemned this country? Does he believe that they will join with us in building up the ruins of the Canal. They are taking a very grave risk. There may be a bomb on the Canal. It has already been reported in the Press that a frigate has been sunk somewhere near the approaches to the Canal. I do not know whether that is true, but it is something which could easily happen.
Supposing it does not happen, supposing no damage is done by the war during the course of this operation; will anyone suggest that the ordinary work of keeping up the Canal, as it has to be kept up, will continue? Of course it will not. The Canal will become silted up and otherwise damaged. That is one of the prices we have to pay for this war, but it is not all.
This war, as hon. Members have said before, has done more to unite the Arab world than anything else could have done. Fortunately, the Arab world was not as united as it could have been. There were many people in the Arab world who dislike Nasser, many who did not want to see
1668
Nasser the dictator of the whole Arab world. What has happened today? We have every Arab country supporting him.
I read in the Press this evening that Cario Radio has appealed to all Arab nations to halt the flow of oil to Britain and France, even if it means hurting themselves, even if it means blowing up the pipelines in the Arab world. That is what they are being asked to do, and we must remember that the Arabs are very excitable people and that it is quite likely that they will carry out those instructions. Is that what the Prime Minister wants? [Laughter.] What is so funny about that? It will not be funny when it happens. Hon. Members opposite had better wait until they find what damage has been done before they laugh.
Hon. Members opposite are living in the past. The one great thing about Nasser is that he has had the sense to realise that in these days it is not ordinary warfare which wins; it is propaganda. It is the kind of work that he has done by building up his wireless and propaganda organisation throughout the Middle East that wins. What happened when many hon. Members on both sides of the House asked the Government to increase our propaganda against him? We were told that it would cost too much money to have another broadcasting station, or to speed up our propaganda so that it could compete with the extremely efficient propaganda that has done so much for Nasser in the Middle East.
It was said that it would cost too much, yet the Government are now prepared to have a war. What will be the cost of that? Will they be able to afford it? When the Foreign Secretary replies to the debate I should like him to tell us whether he has consulted the Chancellor of the Exchequer and ascertained what he thinks will be the effect of this war. Does he realise that we are starting this war—
Mr. Frederick Lee: Will the Foreign Secretary remember that if he talks to the Chancellor the answer he will get will be, "There ain't gonna be no war"?
Mr. Dugdale: I wish the Chancellor had as much power as that. Unfortunately, the Chancellor—who, I am sure, does not want a war himself—has been

1669
over-ruled by the Prime Minister and the right hon. and gallant Member for Leicester, South-East. We now have this war, and it will cost us a large sum of money. I want to know whether the Chancellor feels that it is right to start a war with our reserves at a low ebb and with great pressure upon the £ sterling.
We must remember that when we have got into financial difficulties in the past we have depended upon the United States of America to get us out. Time and time again we have had United States help, by way of Lend-Lease, Marshall Aid, offshore purchases, and one thing after another. These have helped us out of our financial difficulties. But do we expect that the United States will help us out of our financial difficulties today? She will do nothing of the kind. Why should she? We have already embarrassed Mr. Eisenhower and put him into a position of extreme difficulty. He will not do anything to help us, nor will his successor if there is a change of President. We shall have to get out of our own financial difficulties.
Mr. Charles A. Howell: Another 1s, on Income Tax.
Mr. John Biggs-Davison: Does not the right hon. Gentleman think that it is about time we tried to do without foreign subsidies?
Mr. Dugdale: I am very glad to hear the hon. Member say that. All I am saying is that it is not the best thing to do without foreign subsidies and then to engage in such heavy expenditure that we find ourselves in a position where we need them. That seems to be a very bad thing to do. I think it is highly probable that there will soon have to be another Budget, when we shall be asked to suffer further cuts and pay further taxes.
The British people are willing to pay taxes in a good cause. They paid them before, in the cause of a just war. But this is a very different thing. They are willing to pay taxes and to suffer and even to die in a good cause, but they will not be willing to suffer and die for a group of little men who, to bolster up their pride and morale, can think of nothing better than to go to war with a little country in the name of freedom.
6.44 p.m.
Sir Thomas Moore: I do not propose—
Mr. Maurice Orbach: Another friend of the Jews. Up the Blackshirts.
Sir T. Moore: I do not propose to follow the right hon. Member for West Bromwich (Mr. Dugdale) in his somewhat heated and often inaccurate speech, because there is so much to be said on this subject that we should all try to restrain our output to the minimum. The tragedy of this business is that it has developed into a party issue instead of remaining a national one, as it was on 2nd August and as it should be.
Unlike some of my colleagues, I do not entirely blame the Opposition. I have always believed that they have as good, honest and patriotic Members on their side—
Mr. R. J. Mellish: Jolly decent of the hon. Member.
Sir T. Moore: —as we have on ours. When they make a mistaken decision I always try to find a reasonable excuse or justification for it, but I am quite satisfied—as most hon. Members on this side of the House are—that the decision reached and announced by the Leader of the Opposition yesterday was wrong. I can only come to the conclusion, therefore, that that decision was based upon incomplete facts and information about the whole subject, and also, possibly, to a somewhat jaundiced view of any action taken by this Government.
With much diffidence, I should like to give the House such knowledge as I have and such information as I have acquired. I might perhaps say here that for nearly fifty years I have been an intimate friend of Egypt, and have a considerable knowledge of and regard for her people. I feel, therefore, that I can give a little background to this tragic affair which will enable hon. Members to understand it better. In his speech today the Prime Minister said that it was essential to go over some of the incidents which led up to the present dispute so that we might appreciate more clearly the actions which had to be taken. That is what I should like to do in the few minutes for which I shall speak.

1671
I shall start with Colonel Nasser. I have reason to believe that he is a nice, pleasant and even kindly man in private life. I believe that he is a good and a brave soldier, and also a patriotic Egyptian. But in public life he is a ruthless dictator, an ambitious politician, and an adept at diplomatic poker, as we have discovered. [Interruption.] I am not giving way. No fewer than thirty or forty Members rose to speak when I did, and I am not going to have my speech spoiled by interruptions, or made to take so long that some other hon. Members are prevented from speaking.
When the revolution in Egypt had taken place and the reluctant Neguib was made dictator he very soon became too popular for Nasser, who, as we know, was the real instigator of the revolution. Neguib was, therefore, deposed. But during his temporary elevation to power he gave the people some comforting assurances about the formation of a truly democratic constitution. When Nasser came to power he also felt compelled to pay a certain amount of lip-service to this idea of parliamentary democracy and, therefore, free elections. He said that that reform would take place as soon as the work of the Revolutionary Council was completed. That reform has not yet taken place—for one good reason, namely, that he knows that if there were free elections tomorrow he would be out of a job.
I know that it is unnecessary to remind the House that the population of Egypt numbers about 23 million, of which number about 12 million to 14 million are composed of the fellaheen, the peasants and the workers who were, and still are, members of the Wafd party, that is, the Labour or Socialist Party of Egypt, and who were, and I believe still are, our friends. When Colonel Nasser put himself into the vacant chair, he was practically unknown. He had no political support and no political party to give it. He only held power—I think this should be borne in mind—by the good will of the Revolutionary Council and, I admit, a section of the army, but by no means the whole army, as some people believe.
That being so, Nasser had to do something dramatic to capture the admiration and the good will of the crowd, something
1672
that could be linked up with the people's well-being and meagre standard of life. The Aswan Dam seemed to him to fulfil those requirements perfectly. Therefore, one can judge the angry frustration with which he greeted the decision of the United States not to implement its promises. I hope that the Americans will keep in mind how this thing all started. That being refused to the Egyptians, something more dramatic and something to appeal to the nationalistic emotions of the Egyptian people had to be devised. Hence the seizure of the Canal.
We all know how these disputes and discussions have dragged painfully on and at times, perhaps, have been held up by the not unexpected fluctuations of American support. Meanwhile Israel, seeing the growth of her surrounding danger, got busy, and one must admit that she timed her action with undoubted skill. Had she any justification? I think so. Israel has long been convinced, and I believe rightly convinced, that the one unifying link among the Arab States was her destruction. The latest pact between Egypt, Syria and Jordan has, of course, confirmed her view on that point. But if we take the attitude of the Arab States in their desire to destroy Israel, that also is capable of being understood.
We must remember that for long the Egyptian army has been suffering a bitter blow to its pride owing to its defeat by the Israeli Army in 1948. It has wanted to restore faith in itself and to retrieve its reputation. Therefore, there is every incentive for it to desire to get even again with Israel.
The other Arab States surrounding Israel have been justifiably embittered by seeing the million-odd homeless, hopeless Arabs, wandering about Jordan and elsewhere, people who were torn from their farms and homes in Palestine, as it then was, in order to make room for the Jews who were fleeing from their hideous persecution in Europe. Therefore, everyone seemed to have a real reason for hurting or destroying Israel. Israel knew that, and has been facing that problem and danger for the last ten years.
It is an insoluble problem. Ever since the Balfour Declaration of 1917 it has been a problem which baffled first the old League of Nations and then the United

1673
Nations. I do not know the answer to it, but I think that the only answer to it is this, though I hesitate to put it forward. I believe that Israel will have to take back those homeless fugitives, those exiles from their own country, and fit them into the Israeli community. When she has done that, I believe that the right course will be for her to apply for admission to the Arab League and to settle down as one of the components of the Arab States comprising the Middle East. That has been agreed by some Jews as the right course to adopt.
The present position, so far as I can make out from listening to the various speeches which have been made, is that hon. Members opposite have based and are basing their opposition to the Government's action on the failure of the Government to get authority from the United Nations for the action which they have considered necessary, that is, the action to stop further hostilities, to preserve free passage along the Canal and to protect the lives of British nationals.
I am not going into all the arguments which have been used by the Opposition to explain or confirm their views, or into, to my mind, the strong, convincing defence that has been advanced by the Government. I will deal with one issue only, the Charter itself. There is one thing which we must remember, and this, I think, was referred to by the hon. Member for Leek (Mr. Harold Davies), which is that the Security Council has no definite physical force at its disposal and neither is it in a position to create swiftly enough the necessary force to carry out its decisions without delay and when an urgent emergency has arisen. It can only recommend.
That has always been the weakness of the Security Council. Many debates have taken place in this House, outside it and in other Parliaments regarding the necessity for having an international police force. I believe that something of that sort has already proved to be inevitable. Indeed, the events of the last few months have shown how, in fact, France and ourselves have actually had to step in to fill the gap.
In those circumstances, and as the United States is so preoccupied with its Presidential election, is it not very appropriate that a Conservative British Government and a French Socialist Government
1674
should undertake this very unenviable and unwelcome task of maintaining the peace and preventing further excursions into war and so try to protect the whole situation in the Middle East? I am sure that the people of Egypt, especially those in the Wafd, are in agreement with our attitude. I have been assured of that within the last few days. I believe that when the Wafd realise that this intervention on the part of this country and France is the only thing that is going to save Egypt from possible ultimate destruction, they will support us. Indeed, they are already doing so. They have already started some form of private broadcasting service adjacent to Egypt which is determined to keep the Egyptian people informed of this conflict and the issues involved.
A few weeks ago, the Prime Minister said that our quarrel was not with the Egyptian people, but with Colonel Nasser. He was right. The Egyptians are a kindly, friendly, simple, though emotional people and once they realise this man Nasser is a menace to their peaceful existence and to their future happy relations with the Western nations, they will turn on him and throw him out. I believe that when that happy event takes place and peace has been restored, as it will be, the world, the Arab States, Israel and, indeed. Egypt herself will thank God for Britain and her Prime Minister.
7.0 p.m.
Mr. Ede: The right hon. and gallant Member for Leicester, South-East (Captain Waterhouse) and I were once Parliamentary Secretaries in the same Government and we were sworn of His Majesty's Privy Council at the same time. Since then our paths have diverged and I hope that it will not be thought fulsome of me if I congratulate the right hon. and gallant Gentleman on the exceeding modesty of the speech which he made this evening. After all, he has succeeded in doing something which I have never succeeded in doing. He has impressed his will on his own Front Bench. Tonight, he is entitled to view the stricken field with the feeling that no matter who goes down, he has won. I think it is the worse for the country and the world that he should have done so. My congratulations to him do not extend to the tremendous victory

1675
that, with great persistence, he has succeeded in achieving.
I know that there are a large number of right hon. and hon. Gentlemen who wish to address the House and I shall detain the House for only three minutes. My excuse for doing so is that six months ago I accepted an invitation to be in the United States of America on 3rd November of this year to address a series of meetings connected with a religious organisation of which I am president. Imagine my surprise when, a month ago, I received a cablegram from the law forum of one of the greatest of the American universities—in my view, the greatest of the American universities—asking me if I would appear before them in about a week from now and debate the Suez question with the Egyptian Ambassador.
The cablegram requested me to answer, "Yes," or "No." If I had had to pay by the letters for the cablegram I sent back, I chose the cheaper of the two words. I gave that answer then because I did not understand what was the British policy with regard to Suez. If I had to repeat my answer tonight, I should send the same reply with greater fervour, because I now know what is the British policy with regard to Suez.
I know what my Government, the Government of which I was a member, suffered because of the speeches made by right hon. Gentlemen opposite, when they were in opposition, during their visits to America. I wish to assure Her Majesty's Government that I shall make no speech in America on this issue; but if I am asked a question I shall give a truthful answer in as few words as I can. I do not think one can do less than that for any audience willing to listen to one's words.
I endorse and accept every word of the two speeches made yesterday and the day before by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition and the speech made this afternoon by my right hon. Friend the Member for Llanelly (Mr. J. Griffiths). I should like to add just this—
Mr. Ellis Smith: The three minutes are not up yet.
Mr. Ede: I thank my hon. Friend for reminding me, but he should not take ten seconds of it.
Unfortunately, I am old enough to recollect the South African War, and I would say this to my right hon. and hon. Friends. We have taken our stand unitedly on the question of principle. Do not let us be deceived as to the nature of the attack that will come from the other side of the House. I saw this afternoon, and I have seen this week, the Tory Party acting with the same imperial arrogance that brought us into the South African War. I have no doubt that they will employ the same tactics against us as were employed by Mr. Joseph Chamberlain against the Liberal Party, or those members of it who had the courage to stand for principle in those days.
7.3 p.m.
Mr. Anthony Fell: I will not attempt to follow what the right hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) has said. So often during the few times which I have spoken in this House I have been uncertain of my feelings about a matter. I have been filled with admiration on many occasions for the way in which hon. Members on both sides of the House appear to be able to have the completest conviction on almost any subject. The great tragedy of this debate is that there is no one in this House who does not feel deeply and seriously concerned about the great problem that is facing the nation.
It would be the greatest insult to pay to any hon. Member to doubt—even, if I may say so, to the extent that the right hon. Gentleman cast doubt on the future actions of Her Majesty's Government—his sincerity in this time of struggle for the nation. It therefore makes it all the more difficult, when, as has been so evident during this debate, hon. Members on either side conscientiously hold views which are so divergent and which are yet apparently so genuinely and so strongly maintained.
I have tried to ask myself on this issue: are Her Majesty's Government right in the action they have taken, are taking and promise to take? I am myself in this dilemma, that I feel just so strongly on this issue in support of Her Majesty's Government as many hon. Members opposite—unfortunately, nearly

1677
all hon. Members opposite—conscientiously feel in their opposition to the policy of Her Majesty's Government. I do not believe that it will do the future of this nation any great service to dwell upon those points in which there is latent fire, such as whether the Israelis were or were not the aggressors.
A few moments ago, as some of my colleagues in the Chamber will have heard, I was called anti-Jew. I was called a Fascist. I do not like these accusations being bandied about the Chamber by people who know nothing of the matter. I do not like being called anti-Jew. I hope that I am a reasonable Christian, and, being a reasonable Christian, I can not be anti-Jew. My greatest friend was a Jew—I say "was" because he died a few months ago—and I have often spoken in support of this great adventure which was Israel—
Mrs. Lena leger: Is.
Mr. Fell: Is, was, and, I hope, will be.
I have no doubt at all that on the pure issue of who was the aggressor there can be no doubt whatsoever. A few minutes ago I was saying how certain some hon. Members could be about matters and that I am not always so certain. On this issue I have no doubt that the provocation was such that had anybody been living in Israel he could not reasonably have said that the provocation was not sufficient to justify the Israelis going out and getting rid of the threat which would lead to their extinction.
Mr. R. T. Paget: I quite agree with what the hon. Gentleman has said, but how does he explain that on no less than six occasions, when the Israelis had done exactly the same thing in self-defence, the hon. Gentleman's Government voted against them?
Mr. Fell: I am trying to make my speech, and I hope that the hon. and learned Gentleman will do me the courtesy of listening. If I sound passionate it is because I believe passionately in what I am saying. I will not attempt—[Interruption.] I know that the Opposition Front Bench is a little upset when back benchers speak, but if it finds itself too upset perhaps right hon. Gentlemen would interrupt me.
Mr. Younger: I was only telling one of my colleagues who the hon. Gentleman is, because he is unknown on this side of the House.
Mr. Fell: That is exactly the sort of quip I would expect from the right hon. Gentleman. But I do not want to raise any heat in this House, so I shall not call it arrogance.
I shall not go into the history of what hon. Members have said on these matters, and into quotations from the speeches of various people. If I were to start that I would certainly raise the heat in this Chamber. I want to come to what appears to be the main issue dividing the House, the things in which hon. Members genuinely believe. We credit hon. Members opposite with sincerity when they say that such matters as we are now debating should never be acted upon until they have gone through United Nations procedure and we have waited for a United Nations decision.
International law has been built up over many centuries. The British Commonwealth has played no small part in building up the law of nations. I wonder whether the failure of the League of Nations was due to our trying to put too much upon it too quickly, and whether we have not fallen into the same trap with the United Nations and the Security Council. Perhaps we are trying to put upon this organisation a burden which it is physically incapable of bearing. How can an unarmed organisation, unable to carry out a verdict accepted in almost complete agreement by all its members, maintain law and order in the world?
If we can get to the stage, which I believe is still a long way distant, of having an international organisation with some sort of police force at its disposal, and it is possible to maintain the peace of the world for all time, those of us who have scruples must be willing to forgo much in order to bring that result about. I would forgo many things in which I believe in the interests of such an organisation for world peace. Let us remember, however, that even our own police force is regionalised and that local authorities have some control over local police forces.
We have built up an organisation which is not yet competent to deal effectively with emergencies that need police

1679
action, or capable of looking after the law of nations. How can the Opposition say, "We must not go outside it"? I cannot see that that makes sense.
Let me go back to the beginning. Most people would agree that our failure to be strong at Abadan, and quickly strong, led to a deterioration of our reputation in the Middle East, and that that led to an agreement with Egypt which was not in every way the sort of agreement to which those who had respect and love for the Sudan were entirely favourable. That agreement eventually led to the withdrawal of our troops from the Suez Canal. Who can say that Nasser would ever have grabbed the Canal if British forces had not been withdrawn?
On the question of the actual grabbing of the Suez Canal, may I ask how we apprehend somebody who steals? I understand that in common law it is the duty of any citizen who sees another committing a felony to stop him doing it—I hope that no hon. and learned Member will pull me up on technical details. I understand that that is one of the responsibilities of citizenship. It is not the citizen's duty to leave the person who is committing a felony and run off and get help from an unarmed police force, and then to hold meetings before the police can even send someone to apprehend the felon.
Surely the analogy with the present Suez Canal situation is not inexact. If we find that two groups of boys are throwing stones across a path along which women and children are walking we do not try to find the police, but try to stop the boys throwing. It is our bounden duty to do so. That is the law we have worked out as our common law. Is that not the way in which the law has to be observed internationally? How else is international law to be kept?
Mr. Christopher Boyd: Surely the citizen would first try to persuade the boys not to throw stones across the footpath. Then, rather than resort to force, would he not call in the police?
Mr. Fell: If I had to run a long way to fetch a policeman, leaving the battle to get worse, with the risk of women and children being knocked down on the path, my first job would be to try to apprehend
1680
the boys who were causing the disturbance. One of my hon. Friends suggests that the magistrate would blame me for running away.
The Government have taken action which, in my view, it was the bounden duty of this Government to take. I have looked at the criticism which has been mentioned by hon. Members opposite. It has been said that the world is against us. Who is the world? Krishna Menon? He is reported to have called what we have done wanton brutality and to have said that
"the whole world must record its protest against this action directed against a nation and people who have committed no crime apart from their insistence on their national sovereignty."
That is Krishna Menon. Is he a friend of Britain? [HON. MEMBERS: "Yes.". Mr. Nehru has criticised us. I will not try to be controversial by asking whether he is a friend of Britain.
President Eisenhower and Mr. Dulles, without, it seems to me, stopping to think, have said that the Israelis were the aggressors. They were quoted as saying that.
Mr. Younger: By the Prime Minister.
Mr. Fell: Are they the friends of Britain in this emergency? They are being troubled by the immediate difficulties of an election within the next few days.
Next, Mr. Bandaranaike. Is he a friend of Britain? It is perhaps as well to speak plainly on these matters. At least what I have been saying is, I hope, upholding the policy of Her Majesty's Government when they are undertaking operations of a kind which are of the greatest importance not only to this nation but also to the whole of the Commonwealth and to the world.
It seems to me that if we listen rather to Mr. Menzies and to the views of New Zealand we hear the true voices of our friends. Some of the speakers from the back benches opposite have tried to be reasonable. Some hon. Members opposite have supported us. But my complaint about the speeches from the Opposition Front Bench is that I have not heard any attempt by any right hon. Gentleman opposite to see whether he and his Front Bench colleagues can lead their back benchers, and what they claim to

1681
be half England, to support the Government in this action. Throughout the week they have been destructive and at no time constructive.
In this matter, which is one of the greatest concern to every Briton and every member of the Commonwealth, I am clear that the action taken by Her Majesty's Government was not only the right action upon every principle but, as the Prime Minister said this afternoon, the only action we could have taken in upholding our many and manifold responsibilities. I support that action whatever the consequences may be.
7.25 p.m.
Mr. S. N. Evans: I am sure that the Prime Minister will be glad to know that he has the support of the hon. Member for Yarmouth (Mr. Fell). When asking the Prime Minister a question yesterday, I said that the Middle East situation was both confused and confusing. I do not think the hon. Member did a great deal to clarify it.
The hon. Member rightly pointed to the fact that a good deal of the anxiety expressed on this side of the House has centred around our relationship with the United Nations and our responsibilities under that organisation, and I shall have something to say about that in a minute or two. I must confess from the start, however, that I find great difficulty in arguing this matter in strictly legalistic terms. My mind keeps coming back to the politics of the situation in that part of the world.
This Middle East situation is a diamond of many facets. There are, of course, the unbounded ambitions of Nasser and his declared intention of driving the Israelis into the sea. There is the fact that for the past two years he has been the unrelenting enemy of British interests in the Middle East and that throughout his life he has been an unrelenting enemy of every liberation principle for which my party stands. It is an irony of the present situation that we are unwittingly and unintentionally, and for reasons which I understand, in the position of getting lined up with this Egyptian dictator and in opposition to our sorely-pressed Socialist colleagues in Israel. It is a pretty dreadful situation for many of us. I understand how it has come about, because of the contradictions in that area.
1682
It is very important that we should understand that there are several poisons at work in that area. There is, of course, Nasser's declared intention of becoming both Pope and Caesar of the entire Arab world. There is the Arab-Israel conflict, with the fate of the 900,000 refugees, about whom I have not heard a word in this debate, and, of course, there is the future of the Sudan. I would say that the most impressive thing over the three months of crisis has been, first, the rock-like calm of the British and, secondly, the silence of the Sudanese. The silence of the Sudanese has been deafening. They know what is going to happen to them if this Egyptian dictator emerges as a Napoleon of the entire Middle East.
Let me say at once that I understand the misgivings of those of my colleagues who are concerned about our position in the United Nations. I understand their misgivings thoroughly, but I must ask them and ask the House whether the United Nations is, in fact, in a position to act as an impartial arbiter in international disputes.
One of the prime causes of the present situation in the Middle East is Anglo-American oil rivalry in that part of the world. The Republican Party is the instrument of certain forces in the United States, not least of whom are the Texas oil millionaires and oil companies. It is the political representative of people who talk in such terms as, "What is good for General Motors is good for America." It is only a slight extension of the same philosophy to say, "What is good for America is good for the world." The plain fact of the matter is that Mr. Dulles has never been in a position to give us his support on any matter where American and British interests were in conflict in the Middle East.
Therefore it is unrealistic to expect that in any reference to the United Nations where British interests are concerned we shall get justice and fair play from the United States representative there. It is unrealistic to believe it. The United States has spent ten years, many dollars, and much duplicity undermining our position throughout that area. It would be wishful thinking of an unusually naïve character to believe that, having done that, the United States would, when a matter of this kind came before U.N.O., do anything which would have the effect

1683
of restoring British influence, prestige and authority in that part of the world.
It is no use our countrymen looking to U.N.O. for justice when these Anglo-American rivalries are up for consideration at U.N.O. This is the reality of power, and without a firm grasp of the simple essentials of power and how it works we shall consistently go wrong. Let me give one example. When the British Labour Government sold 2 million tons of oil to the Argentine as part of the Andes Agreement, and, through the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company, invaded what was traditionally an American market, we sentenced ourselves to death at Abadan. We frightened the life out of them. They have never recovered, and in their minds all the time is the thought that some future Labour Government may do a deal of that kind again. That has been the animating influence at U.N.O., and let us have no illusions about it.
Before I leave this aspect of the matter, I will mention this further consideration, that the world price of oil today is based upon American costs. Middle East oil costs at least a third less. If British oil production in the Middle East mounts until such time as we are able to say that we will offer British produced oil at prices based on British Middle East costs, where will the American oil producers stand then? These are the kind of considerations which have been at work at U.N.O., and we should make no mistake about that.
In a matter of international justice, U.N.O. today is at best a political eunuch and at worst a fraud, a snare and a delusion. I will say to the Government that it would be as well if we considered where the balance of advantage lies, whether we are in U.N.O. or out. I will say this too, that I understand some of the difficulties of the Government; I know and I understand some of the insincerities of public life. For myself, I would much rather be straight and clear and honest and say that in the Middle East and its future the interests of Israel and Britain are identical, that this is the basis of our relationship, and what we are engaged in doing is to protect our joint interests. I think that would be much better.
Mr. W. Griffiths: My hon. Friend knows that I appreciate a good deal of what he is saying and I understand it; but I should like to put this question to him. If he is saying that the struggle in the Middle East for Middle East oil is between Britain and America and, on the basis of defending British interests, the action of the Government is justified, how would he feel if the Americans took the commercial struggle to the point of a military invasion of the Middle East to look after their oil?
Mr. Evans: My own view is that, in present circumstances, they would be very glad if there were no Middle East oil at all. What the position will be 10, 15 or 20 years from now, I do not know.
I personally do not find it improper or immoral to defend British interests. Oddly enough, I am not one of those who think that it is all right to defend Jewish interests or Arab interests but all wrong to defend British interests. The real question, as I said, is whether U.N.O. in present circumstances is an instrument adequate to the responsibilities which devolve upon it. I personally feel that the "Big Two"—there are really only two—go along to U.N.O. not concerned with justice for small countries, but that the first question asked is, "Who are the protagonists? How do their interests line up with ours? Is there a clash or are they compatible?" Then they go on to ask, "What do they want? What have they got to offer?" That is how it works, and it is unrealistic to think that U.N.O. works in any other way.
I have said to my own Wednesbury Divisional Labour Party, and I have said it twice in another part of this building, that I have grave doubts about the utility of the United Nations in this day and age. Certainly, it does not possess the authority, having arrived at a decision, to impose it. That is still reserved for the sovereign States.
A new phase is opening in diplomacy. Before the advent of the hydrogen bomb, there were alliances; but the advent of the hydrogen bomb means that the major war is ruled out. Both the "Big Two" have decided that the cost of such a war would be extinction, or something next to it, and so it is ruled out. They are accordingly no longer so much worried as they were

1685
about the fidelity of their allies. That, of course, is what accounts for America's complete failure to observe the reciprocities which are customary between partners. She is contemptuous of British interests, and has been for a long time, because, having satisfied herself through this new factor in international affairs, the hydrogen bomb, that there is not going to be any war, she does not bother any more.
I said to my Wednesbury Divisional Management Committee on 8th September, reported in Reynolds News on the 9th, that in my view the Middle East situation was such that Britain would not be able to act solely in accord with her own peaceful principles but only in accord with what her experience of dictators had taught her. I have to stand by that.
The issues here are very great indeed and they cannot be segregated. Tied up with this question of Suez is the future of Israel. Is there anybody who does not realise that if this man Nasser emerges from this present conflict, which has gone on for three months, with enhanced status, that is the end of Israel?
Of course, there is the other consideration of oil which weighs with me. Do not forget that oil today is the main cement holding together the sterling area. The world is no longer on the gold standard. Oil has taken its place. Advanced industrial nations, such as our own, can at a push do without gold, but to be without oil is to see our industries grind to a standstill and starvation overtake the people.
Hon. Members: Hear, hear.
Mr. J. Griffiths: I am interested to note that hon. Members opposite cheer my hon. Friend when he says that. It is important. They were silent the other day when they sold our Commonwealth oil for dollars.
Mr. Evans: I recall that I had something to say at the time of the Trinidad oil debate.
This is a sombre occasion because the issues are fraught with consequences to our country—what our attitude should be and whether we should accept U.N.O. rule, no matter what its effect on the happiness, security and living standards of the British people. This is a question
1686
which cannot be dismissed lightly. For myself and people like me, I have to say that in all these weighty matters we have to keep faith with the dead as well as the living. Every time I think of this Egyptian dictator, I think of the tens of thousands of my generation who gave their all on the Somme and at Passchendaele. They did not do it so that England could end up a hostage to this third-rate Egyptian Hitler. Neither did those who fell in the Battle of Britain and at El Alamein, Arnhem, Cassino and on the beaches of Normandy.
I say again that we have to keep faith with the dead as well as the living. If we remember these things, we shall not go wrong. For myself, I know of no better, more honourable or safer guide.
7.43 p.m.
Vice-Admiral John Hughes Hallett: The House has listened to a most moving and courageous speech from the hon. Member for Wednesbury (Mr. S. N. Evans). I listened with particular interest to his observations about the United Nations, and I should like to say a few words of my own on that subject.
I speak as one who came out of the First World War with a passionate belief that the League of Nations and its system of collective security was the one thing which we had got in exchange for our dead. In the years between the wars, I watched the League slowly being killed—killed not only by the malice of its enemies, but by the folly of some of its friends.
When I listened to some of the hard and bitter things that have been said by hon. Members opposite during this debate about my party and our attitude to the United Nations, I had an uneasy feeling that in that respect history may be repeating itself. [An HON. MEMBER: "We do not want to kill it."] I am sure that the hon. Member does not want to kill it, but there is some risk of the United Nations being irrevocably damaged by its own friends, and especially some of those who have intervened in these debates from the Opposition benches.
As I see it, it is quite wrong to regard the United Nations simply as a collective instrument for the maintenance of peace—peace without suffix and without prefix. It is nothing of the kind, and it

1687
was never intended to be that. It is intended as an instrument to maintain peace with justice, which is a very different matter and a much more difficult matter, because people and nations are not always agreed about what justice should be. In fact, the United Nations is attempting to achieve something which has eluded mankind for two thousand years, and it is hardly reasonable to expect it to achieve that in ten years. I beg hon. and right hon. Members opposite not to be quite so impatient because problems are put to the United Nations which it is beyond its capacity to solve. Nothing is more liable to damage it.
Hard things have been said by hon. Members, on both sides, over many years about the veto, and especially about the Russian use of the veto. I would be the first to agree that the continual use of the veto would bring, and has brought, the whole machinery to a standstill. Yet as has been pointed out by more than one speaker in these debates it is quite wrong to condemn the use of the veto altogether because had there been no veto there would be no United Nations today.
I should like to turn for a moment to look at the position as it was in the Levant the morning before yesterday. It seems a long time ago, but it is only just over forty-eight hours ago. As I see it, after intolerable provocation, the Israeli armies were sweeping forward into Egypt and were within a matter of miles of the Canal.
In describing what might have been done had the matter been left to the Security Council, I am bound to say how much I agree with my right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary when he remarked, in winding up the debate last night, that the observations of the right hon. Member for Derby, South (Mr. P. Noel-Baker) were divorced from reality. I would like to remind the House what the right hon. Gentleman said. He said:
"The Council would first have unanimously called upon the Israelis to withdraw."
I do not dispute that. He then went on to say:
"If they had not, what would have been the next step under the Charter? It is all laid down. We should have withdrawn our ambassadors."
1688
That, again, I do not dispute. But then he said:
"If that had not made them stop, we could, under the Charter, have cut all sea, rail, air, postal and telegraphic communications. If that had not brought results we could have imposed a blockade."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 31st October, 1956; Vol. 558, c. 1565.]
After that, the right hon. Gentleman went on to talk of the final step of a naval demonstration. But how long would all that have taken?
I concede that Israel is singularly susceptible to a blockade, but even in the case of Israel it would have been a matter, surely, of four or five weeks. As I see it, the time scale in which we have to think is not of weeks, but of days. Hon. Members should use their imagination and consider the measureless catastrophe which might have resulted had we not intervened, had we not checked the headlong advance of the Israeli armies which, I am convinced, our intervention has checked already, and had they swept forward. Let us make no mistake about one thing. Having taken the tremendous risk of going to war at all they would, I believe, have stopped at nothing short of the complete destruction of Egypt's military power.
It was not just a question of the Canal, though that in itself is perhaps more serious than hon. Members have considered, because the installations and the ships and so forth of the Canal are no longer entitled to immunity. Until recently, when we had the international company in charge, I think it probable that both sides would have done their best to have avoided the Canal's specialised vessels, barges and so forth, but those considerations do not apply now, and I have little doubt myself that were the Canal area to become a great battlefield for the Israeli armies and the Egyptian armies, the Canal would be out of action not just for months but possibly for two or three years.
There could have been even wider consequences, because anybody who understands the implacable hatreds of that part of the world must surely concede that the great cities of Suez, Port Said, Ismailia and Cairo would have gone up in smoke and flames, and that there would have been massacres and horrors and misery of every kind. What were we to do while all this was happening? I say "we" because it was we and the

1689
French, to a lesser extent, who alone had the power to intervene effectively and quickly.
It has been suggested by the Opposition that we were to stand by and await action by the Security Council. All I can say is that the American resolution before the Council which I believe to have been quite properly vetoed, would simply have led to the sort of action which, I am afraid, is not disagreeable to some of the hon. Gentlemen opposite, because what it would have amounted to would simply have been, that amidst all that carnage and horror we should have raised sanctimonious hands to heaven and passed by on the other side.
Mr. Warbey: I am trying to follow the hon. and gallant Member's argument, and I gather that what he is saying is that the aim of the Israeli attack was to invade Egypt, and that the Government's action has stopped that. In that case, if he thinks that the Israeli object was a full-scale attack on Egypt, which would have set Egyptian towns in flames and have destroyed thousands of Egyptian lives, has he objection to Israel being named as the aggressor?
Vice-Admiral Hughes Hallett: I recognise that as a fair question, but I would not myself add to what has been said on this issue by the Foreign Secretary. I have never myself been a Zionist: I have never spoken strongly on behalf of Israel. However, I recognise, and I think we should all recognise, the terrible strain under which the Israelis have been living, not only in their own country, but, in many cases, before they went there. Their action may be wrong, but, none the less, can one altogether blame them if, despairing of another solution to the problem, they decide to attack the central point of the alliance against them with the object of destroying it before it gets too strong? I am not necessarily defending it. I merely say I certainly would not condemn it out of hand.
I certainly would not agree that the Israelis were the aggressors from the beginning. I would not accept that for a moment. I am equally certain that had their advance continued the Egyptians would not have stood against it, and I very much doubt whether Israel, with the best will in the world, could have kept
1690
the situation in hand, so that a terrible catastrophe would have occurred, which I sincerely believe it was the object of our Government to prevent, and which I have every reason to hope has in fact been prevented.
However, in my own mind, one of the most serious aspects of the situation is the fact that the crisis has revealed what, perhaps, has long since been suspected, a very sharp conflict of view between ourselves and our American friends, and that, I submit, is potentially—only potentially—a more serious thing than the present issue in the Levant, although, perhaps, it is a good thing to have had it brought out into the open. In passing, I recognise, of course, that it is very unfair to take too literally anything that is said in the heat of an election in America.
Even so, I think it is fair to compare the action which the American Government have sought fit to take at the present moment with our own actions both under the Labour Administration and under the Conservative Administration on numerous occasions when we have not ourselves entirely agreed with the Americans' point of view in areas where none the less we accept that they have greater interests. I should say that in general we have never hesitated to express disagreement but at the same time have refrained from actually opposing them.
The peace of the world as a whole rests upon twin foundations, upon loyalty to N.A.T.O. and upon our ability to meet a major attack with nuclear retaliation, and both parties have played some part in the laying of those foundations. Both parties can claim some credit for the results which have been achieved. It is relevant to the present situation to see it in proportion, and to recognise that in the main that policy has been successful. It has been successful because for several years now the boundless ambitions of the Soviet rulers, backed by their vast armies, have been contained and held in check.
In so far as it may be true that the present difficulties have been fomented by the Soviet, surely that is a sign of the success of our main policy; surely it is a symptom of the great strains which have been generated behind the Iron Curtain by the strength and solidarity of the Anglo-American position. Even more, surely, the resurgence of the spirit of

1691
independence which we have been witnessing in Eastern Europe is also a symptom and result of our main policy since the war, because had it not been for the unity and strength of the West, countries like Poland and Hungary today would be half forgotten memories, submerged in the depths of a Russian empire stretching from remotest Asia to the shores of the Atlantic Ocean. It is for these reasons that we should at all costs strive to preserve Western unity.
There are some occasions, and I believe this to be one, when it is wise to be very frank when speaking of one's friends, and I believe we are entitled to remind America that the part we play in N.A.T.O. involves great financial strains and immense risks. After all, the establishment of the American atomic bases in this country, under a policy started by the party opposite—I am not criticising hon. and right hon. Members opposite—means that in certain circumstances our crowded little island may be the target of the first priority for these terrible weapons. We have loyally accepted both the cost and the risk. But how shall we be able to continue to play our proper part in the Atlantic treaty if America is to oppose us in those areas on which we depend absolutely for our economic strength?
Mr. Ellis Smith: That is what she is doing.
Vice-Admiral Hughes Hallett: And that is why I am venturing to make these observations today.
Meanwhile, it is a very distressing and saddening thing that so many nations appear to have their opinions ranged against us. Let us remember that in the long history of this country it is by no means the first time that Britain has stood alone. I am confident that in the fulness of time the world will recognise that on this occasion we have been right.
8.1 p.m.
Mr. Roderic Bowen: I do not propose to follow the hon. and gallant Member for Croydon, North-East (Vice-Admiral Hughes Hallett) in his remarks, but I should like to make one or two observations on the speech made by the hon. Member for Wednesbury (Mr. S. N. Evans), who reached a degree of cynicism
1692
which was most disturbing. It was matched only by the sentiments expressed by the right hon. and gallant Member for Leicester, South-East (Captain Water-house). That attitude of mind towards our membership of the family of nations and towards our obligations under the United Nations Charter is something which, I believe, is alien to the overwhelming majority of the people of this country.
If the conclusions of the hon. Member for Wednesbury are right, it would be far more honourable for us to seek to disband the United Nations immediately and to tear up the Charter. Does he really believe that the vote at the Security Council on Wednesday went against us because of Anglo-American rivalries, or because of a struggle for oil? I do not believe it. I believe that the reason we were alone at the Security Council was because we had acted in a way which undermined the very authority of the United Nations itself.
There are many in the country whose final judgment upon the Government's conduct will depend upon the results of the military operations in which we are now engaged.
Mr. Ellis Smith: Speaking for myself, I accepted the economic analysis of my hon. Friend the Member for Wednesbury (Mr. S. N. Evans) except that I thought that he did not carry it far enough. But the political consequences of that was to support whole-heartedly the Motion of censure which the Labour Party is moving.
Mr. Bowen: The hon. Member for Wednesbury used the phrase "keeping faith with the dead." I cannot reconcile that sentiment with his attitude towards international obligations and international bodies.
As I was saying, there are many in the country whose final judgment on these events will depend upon the success or otherwise of the military operations in which we are now engaged, and, whatever our views as to the Tightness or wrongness of the Government's conduct, we all hope that the effect will be to bring about as quickly as possible a cessation of hostilities in that area. Whatever happens in that area, the fact remains that our action, particularly at the Security Council, has been a denial of our belief in

1693
the basis of the United Nations. It is a strain on Anglo-American friendship and a disturbance of the good fellowship within the Commonwealth itself.
A number of hon. Members have referred to this action by the Government in Suez as a police action. The fact remains that the votes of the countries at the Security Council made it quite clear that world opinion was directly opposed to unilateral action in that sphere. One hon. Member has said that we are trying to put too much of a burden on the United Nations. The fact is that in this instance we were not prepared to allow any burden to be placed upon the Security Council.
There was no reason at all why we should not have supported instead of vetoing both resolutions of the Security Council. Certainly, we could have fully supported the request to both parties to cease fire and to Israel to withdraw to her own borders. In exercising the veto in these circumstances we have done a great disservice to international organisation and to the development of effective international machinery. We have put ourselves in the position where it is very difficult indeed for us to find fault any more with the exercise of a veto by Russia. We have weakened our case against any future forceful intervention by another Power in foreign territory. By acting independently of America we have endangered the whole conception of the Tripartite Declaration.
When the Government's proposals were put before the House last Tuesday, we were given no idea that there was any measure of disagreement in the Commonwealth. The phrase used was "close consultation". We were given no clue that there was bitter hostility to our point of view in the United States. It is quite true that right at the tail-end of his speech the Foreign Secretary made it quite clear that there was no question of agreement from the United States, but nothing was said to indicate that the United States was violently opposed to the action which we proposed. It is quite clear that it is. The right hon. Member for Llanelly (Mr. J. Griffiths) said that no clue was given, throughout either the Prime Minister's statement or the Foreign Secretary's speech, that our behaviour at the Security Council would be on the lines that it turned out to be.
1694
What can be done in the present circumstances? I believe that the position could be retrieved if our action had been right and proper before the Security Council. It is quite clear that intervention in this area is needed. It is quite clear that military intervention may be needed, but the fact is that the Government, by their action at the Security Council, made it quite impossible for any collective action to be taken.
Someone may ask, cynically: what would they have done? The fact is that we deprived them of any opportunity of making up their minds on that issue. I believe that we should go back to the Security Council and indicate our preparedness to accept intervention, indeed, advocate intervention, by the United Nations in this matter.
I should like also to express my fears about the statement of the Prime Minister in connection with the General Assembly. The interpretation which I placed upon the words of the right hon. Gentleman was that if the findings of the General Assembly were suitable and convenient to us we would accept them, which simply means that if judgment is in our favour we accept the judgment; if it is not, we do what we choose.
I do not believe that it is too late, even now, for the Government to say, in the General Assembly, that what is called for in Egypt is action under the ægis of the United Nations, and that Her Majesty's Government would welcome the United Nations taking effective action in that area to try to secure a cessation of hostilities and the return of the Israelis to their own border and the establishment of peace in Egypt itself.
8.12 p.m.
Brigadier Sir John Smyth: I felt that the remarks of the hon. and learned Member for Cardigan (Mr. Bowen) about a United Nations security force intervening at this time were rather unreal in view of the situation actually facing us in the Suez Canal area at present. However, I want to develop briefly a slightly different line of argument, because almost every point of view on this situation has been put from both sides of the House.
I feel that at this time our thoughts should be with the British Service men in our Army, Navy and Air Force who

1695
have either been in action in the Suez Canal area or are held in readiness for any such action as they may be ordered to undertake. I feel sure that some of them will be remembering the times when they operated on the Canal or in the desert during the last war, or were boxed up during that very unpleasant period for British troops in the Suez Canal area.
Neither of those occasions provided pleasant memories, and I often remember what the British soldier thought of Egypt and the Egyptians. But even in a debate which has been as heated as this one has on certain occasions, it would be unparliamentary of me to repeat what they said. I am certain, however, that all British troops will be glad to have had the assurance of the Prime Minister that the action which they are being asked to undertake at the moment in the Suez Canal area is of a temporary nature. Also I am satisfied that the Prime Minister meant what he said, and I am sure that the troops place complete reliance on that.
Policing action, as the Prime Minister called this, is always unpleasant for any troops. It is much easier for troops to attack or to defend than it is to be in the middle and try to keep the peace. However, in my experience the British soldier is the best military policeman in the world, and if anyone can do this work, he certainly will.
We have not had much measure of agreement between both sides of the House during this debate, and ever since the Suez Canal question came to be debated we have been on the verge of a Motion of censure, or the House has been directly divided on party political lines. I think that that is always the greatest pity in an international situation of this kind, and should be avoided if possible. However, here are one or two points on which both sides of the House are in agreement, so let us keep to those.
Mr. Ellis Smith: Tell us what they are.
Sir J. Smyth: We all deplore the Egyptian provocation against Israel which has been going on for so long. On the other hand, we also all deplore the fact that eventually the Israeli Government took the law into their own hands and invaded
1696
Egyptian territory. I shall not try to decide which side will in the long run be adjudged the aggressor, but I am sure that we all deplore the fact that those two things have happened and that, as a result of them, a very grave and anxious situation was created, and still exists, in the Suez Canal area.
In my opinion that situation could easily have led to a head-on collision between Israeli and Egyptian forces, and a warlike situation which would have spread throughout all the Middle East. It might also have led to a very dangerous situation for us and other nations on the Suez Canal. I believe that if we have done anything to prevent the situation developing on those serious lines—and time alone can tell if that is right, we cannot tell today—if we have taken that action to prevent what was, to start with, a minor conflagration becoming a major war, then we shall have really done something.
Mr. Hector Hughes: Does the hon. and gallant Gentleman not realise that it is the function of the United Nations, and not the function of any one nation, to intervene or interfere between combatants? That is the difference between his side of the House and ours: we want submission to the United Nations and the Government wish to take the law into their own hands and use force.
Sir J. Smyth: I appreciate the point of view of the hon. and learned Gentleman, but I look at it from this point of view. If two people fall into the water and are drowning, I do not look up my book of rules to see if I am trespassing or not; I try to jump in—[An HON. MEMBER: "And shoot them."]—and pull them out. Time alone will tell whether we have done right, but I think we have done a good thing.
There is all the difference in the world in taking military action to fight a war and taking military action to prevent one from starting. We all have different points of view but I believe that if our Armed Forces, particularly since the end of the last war, are to function in a worthwhile way, at must be in the second direction, to stop a war starting rather than to intervene in one which has already started.

1697
Apart from the global war with nuclear weapons, which does not come into the question that we are considering today, the whole essence of what has been called "the fire brigade operation"—the operation to prevent a war—is speed. The smallest conflagration can be put out—it has been done—if it is dealt with rapidly, whereas after a few weeks' delay it is very difficult indeed to deal with it. We saw that in Korea. We were very fortunate in the case of Korea, in that the Russians were not taking part in the Security Council proceedings at that time and the American forces could take action with the least possible delay.
In the case which we are considering, we knew perfectly well that if it had gone through the normal channels of the Security Council—to which we did refer it—there was no doubt about it that the Israeli and the Egyptian forces would come into headlong collision and a major war might well start. Consequently, I maintain that the action taken by the British Government was entirely within the spirit of the United Nations Charter. I firmly maintain that it was in the spirit of the United Nations Charter to prevent war and bloodshed if we could possibly do so.
We all realise that the Suez Canal is not entirely an Egyptian area. It is a great international waterway and very much a British concern. I do not propose to reiterate the arguments put forward by the opening speakers in the debate. I think that the Prime Minister's speech will be quoted all over the world tomorrow. It was a quite magnificent one.
The sympathy of the House at the moment should go to our Service men in the Middle East who are carrying out a formidable and very depressing operation. It is depressing and difficult from two points of view. First, it is depressing and difficult by reason of its nature. A policing operation is always difficult and unpleasant for troops to carry out. I have done a lot of such operations myself.
As to the second reason, I do not suppose that any hon. Member opposite will agree with this point, but I say from my experience that it is very depressing indeed for British troops to have to carry out difficult operations when they know that at the seat of Government there is
1698
bitter opposition to what they are doing and when they know that the Opposition have said in no uncertain terms that they are going to do everything they possibly can to stop the operations. Nothing can be more depressing than that to troops carrying out difficult operations.
It may well be that at the present time Egyptian propaganda radio is blaring out to our troops in Egypt or to the Arabs extracts from the speech which the Leader of the Opposition made yesterday. The Egyptians may even drop that speech in pamphlet form upon our troops. I should certainly do so if I were in the position that the Egyptians are in today. That is a very great pity, and I wish very much that such a situation had not been brought about. I cannot think of anything more lowering to the morale of our troops in Egypt than to know that the House of Commons is completely divided in this matter.
I have previously said that I considered the Motion of censure moved by the Labour Party about the Suez question was the very greatest encouragement to Nasser at that time, and I believe that the speech which the Leader of the Opposition made yesterday was the greatest encouragement to all those who want to foment a situation of lawlessness and disorder in the Middle East at the present moment.
As I have said, time alone will tell. We cannot see how the problem will work out, but I believe that it will work out very much more in favour of the Prime Minister than any hon. Member opposite believes.
I hope that, whatever our differences may be about the rights and wrongs of what has been decided, we can send from this House to our troops in the Middle East, who are having an unpleasant time, a message to the effect that we wish them all success in their great endeavours to keep the peace—and a speedy return home once the job is done.
8.27 p.m.
Mr. Wedgwood Benn: I have listened with the very closest attention to the speech delivered by the hon. and extremely gallant Gentleman the Member for Norwood (Brigadier Sir J. Smyth). Nobody can speak with more intimate knowledge of the problems of soldiering than he can. He bears

1699
the highest award for gallantry that can be given to anyone in this country. I served with the Armed Forces only in a junior capacity. However, I think that we might both agree that the one thing that our troops need, which they have not had, is an argument as to why they should be engaged in these operations.
The reason our troops are in this critical difficulty tonight is that from nobody, neither from the Government Front Bench nor from the back benches opposite, have we had a coherent argument to encourage our troops which will stand up even to today's test, let alone the test of time. It is because my right hon. and hon. Friends and I feel that to put troops in any illegal war of aggression is a crime against those troops that we have moved our Motion of censure in the House tonight. These are bitter words. I make no apology for them. I merely ask the hon. and gallant Member for Norwood to believe that they come from me with as deep a sincerity as did his words from him.
We are considering the explosion of the Middle East. Like many other hon. Members, I had the opportunity of being in the Middle East as a soldier during the war, and I have more recently been in Israel and elsewhere in the Middle East. The problem of the Middle East is not one problem. It is a complex of problems. It is the problem of bitterness between Jew and Arab. It is the problem of the ex-dependent peoples becoming independent. It is no good people, my hon. Friends included, saying that there is no anti-colonial issue in the Middle East, because that just is not true. Whether they are right or wrong, the Algerian nationalist leaders believe that they are fighting the cause at one with the rebels in Budapest, with the revolutionaries in the American Colonies and with all the fighters for liberty throughout history. They feel that they are at one with that struggle and that, because they believe it, is an element in the situation.
I want to say a word about British relations with Egypt; and let no one begin to accuse anyone here of being pro or anti any particular personality in Egypt. I say sincerely that no country has committed as many crimes against Egypt as this country has and I say quite sincerely
1700
—and I hope that my words go out to Cairo, because unless some of us say what is in our hearts, we shall have no friends in Egypt in the future—that I am ashamed that within three months of evacuating Egypt, following seventy or eighty years' occupation, British troops should be going in again, provoked into it by the fact that Egypt was herself the subject of an attack.
That is a very serious situation. Although Colonel Nasser is not a democrat—he was not elected by the majority of the people of Egypt—let it be remembered that for many years we imposed the Government of Egypt upon the people of Egypt. What speeches were ever made by hon. Members opposite protesting when a British ambassador sent tanks to the palace, as happened during the war, when Lord Killearn sent tanks to compel a change of Government? Who, from the benches opposite, said that the Government of Egypt was not representative of the people?
We did not care, because it was our Government of Egypt and was doing what we wanted. That has been the basis of Anglo-Egyptian relations since. Mr. Gladstone moved troops in temporarily—I repeat, temporarily—in 1882. That is the basis for the hatred of this country in Egypt. I bitterly regret it, but it is a factor in the Middle East which the House has to take into consideration.
There is another element in the Middle East struggle which everyone in the House should at least try to understand. That is the element of internal revolution which, naturally, comes from the development and the distribution of oil resources. After all, in Saudi Arabia there is a primitive feudal community where slavery is still allowed. All hon. Members know that and I am not revealing anything. Slavery is still legal in Saudi Arabia. Saudi Arabia is running with oil and running with dollars and Saudi Arabia will one day explode, because one cannot maintain a primitive community when the wealth of the modern world is being distributed to the ordinary people.
So we are faced with the internal revolution in the Middle East and with the struggle between Arab and Arab, between the Bagdad Pact Powers and Nasser, between the Hashemites and the rest, between the Saudis and the rest, and so on and

1701
so on. I do not speak with any pretence of being a scholar or even someone with a great knowledge of the Arab world, but what has bedevilled a solution of all these difficulties has been one thing. It is that each of the great Powers, Britain, France, Russia and America, was so concerned to pursue its selfish interests that not one was willing to give the basic co-operation needed to tackle these other difficulties of which I have been speaking.
There has been bitter anti-American feeling on both sides of the House and one of my hon. Friends has referred to it. I recall that I was recently in the United States, talking about the position in China. I was in the Middle West, the centre of American isolationism, and I was explaining that British policy to China was based on the belief that China should be in the United Nations. I got from the people to whom I spoke the cynical sneer that it was all because of our businessmen in Hong Kong.
Of course there are oil interests in America, but do not let us ignore the many people in the United States today who regret our action for reasons quite unconnected with the folio of shares which they may have in Wall Street, the common working people in America who see our action in Egypt as an act of aggression.
Every country in the Middle East has fought for its own interests. The French interest in the area is to root out what the French regard as the centre of the Algerian revolution. That is why the French want to be there. The British want to be there to maintain our dominating position in Egypt, which the right hon. Member for Woodford (Sir W. Churchill) had to abandon two years ago. The Americans want to be there because of their oil and other interests. To buy themselves in, the Russians have taken a lesson from the British Foreign Office.
They have gone round and said, "Here we are, boys; we will give you arms if you will give us just an edge into your affairs." Just as this policy worked for the Foreign Office with the Bagdad Pact and the Jordanian Treaty, so it has worked for the Russians. But they did not ask for any alliance in return, whereas British support has always been tied up with military and political strings. That is the situation in the Middle East, and it has boiled up and exploded.
1702
What should we have done about it? Hon. Members opposite are quite right to ask us constantly what we should do. The answer I shall now give is really no sort of answer, because the events have altered the situation in 36 hours. I mention only what we should have done, so that I may claim truthfully that this situation need never have arisen. The first thing we should have done was to see to it that the security of Israel went without any possibility of doubt. That is the one thing that the Government would never do for Israel in the days before she attacked.
I have been in the House week after week when my hon. Friends have asked for assurances of arms for Israel. There was nothing doing. I have been in the House when my hon. Friends have asked for an alliance with Israel; nothing doing. I have been in the House when my hon. Friends have sought a clear assurance about the Tripartite Declaration—when we had in our minds the Prime Minister's speech at the Guildhall, when he talked about a "compromise" in connection with the frontiers; nothing doing. If we are to excuse Israel—and I am not attempting to do so tonight—on the grounds that she was given a feeling of insecurity and was insupportably tempted and tortured by her enemies, the charge lies against the Government Front Bench. They never gave Israel the security which would enable her to resist the temptation to attack.
The odious hypocrisy of the new friends of Israel is an imposition not only upon the good sense but upon the intelligence of the House; the fact that we should suddenly be told that Anglo-French-Israeli interests have been united. The sad fact is that Israel, tortured and tempted as she has been, has made a tragic blunder which, for all I know, may cost her her existence. The slaughter of the Jews in Israel may be far worse than anything we saw in Europe at the end of the war. I hope to heaven that that is not true. If Israel is to survive in the Middle East she must survive along with her Arab neighbours. Anything we do which worsens the tension which already exists between Jew and Arab is a fatal blow at Israel's chance of survival. That is the truth of the matter, and I say that without any desire to make party points. This is the real difficulty that we have to

1703
face if we are to have peace in the Middle East. What about Colonel Nasser? I shall not say much about him, except that one of the things which he has done this year is to ask for means to carry out the Aswan Dam project. Everybody knows that Egypt has only two sources of wealth, and they are both water—her river and her Canal. They represent the only wealth she has and the only chance of raising her standard of living. I have never met Colonel Nasser, but anyone who has talked to him will agree that he was possessed with a belief in the Aswan Dam project.
By means of a cynical policy trick, with which the Middle East has become only too familiar in Western politics in the years since the war, we withdrew our support for the project, with a view to deflating Nasser. By doing so, not only did we turn the common people of Egypt against us; we turned Nasser's mind towards the nationalisation of the Canal. Moreover, we drew him even more towards a belief in the need for an attack upon Israel to restore his prestige. I say that the main responsibility for the situation which confronts us today rests firmly with the Western Powers, and particularly with the Prime Minister.
I now come to the situation itself. Israel has attacked. I do not know whether she did so with the connivance of the British and French Governments, but she has been tempted enough to justify her doing it, and she was none the worse whether she did it with our connivance or on her own. She atacked, and a situation then developed which was quite extraordinary.
My hon. Friend the Member for Wednesbury (Mr. S. N. Evans) said that the United Nations was no good. He said that we should get out, and get on with the job of doing what we ought to do. That is an old-fashioned idea, but I respect him for putting it forward. He has had the courage to say it outright, but every hon. Member opposite has pretended that this action is something to do with the Charter of the United Nations. The one thing I hate is humbug and hypocrisy. I do not mind piracy or banditry, or anything else, but let us, please, not have the United Nations flag
1704
waved over every right hon. and hon. Member opposite.
Why is this an act of aggression? It is an act of aggression for many reasons, but the first reason is Article 51. Hon. Members have spoken about Article 51, the right to self-defence. We have always applied it only to ourselves. What about Egypt? She was attacked, and under Article 51 she has the undoubted right to defend herself. What do the British Government do? They send Egypt an ultimatum, telling her to desist from the right of self-defence which the Article guarantees.
That was a clear breach of the Charter and of many other things as well. It was a breach of the Bagdad Pact, because Article 1 of that Pact reaffirms our loyalty to the United Nations Charter. It was a violation of the N.A.T.O. Agreements because, after all, one of the N.A.T.O. Agreements reaffirms our faith in the Charter. It was a violation of the Tripartite Declaration, because we solemnly pledged ourselves to uphold that Declaration.
I will not weary the House with them, but I have looked up, as others must have done, the solemn pledges given by the Prime Minister, at least three times this year, to uphold the Declaration. But when it comes to an attack on Egypt, the Prime Minister said last night, "I thought it was a common view that the Declaration did not apply to an Israeli attack on Egypt." That is complete humbug. It is also a violation of the 1888 Convention, which prohibits warlike acts on the Canal. Israeli troops have not yet reached the Canal, and let us remember that the only bombs falling on the Canal tonight are British bombs.
Mr. William Yates: The plan was that Israel would not reach the Canal in any case. She was to be entitled to all the territory of Sinai.
Mr. Benn: I respect the hon. Gentleand I do not want to make his position any more difficult, as I am sure he does not want to make mine. Good luck to those who have the courage to speak their thoughts. Do not let the hon. Gentleman be more embarrassed by what we say from these benches than my hon. Friend the Member for Wednesbury has been embarrassed by what has been said from the other side.

1705
The fact is that by this act of aggression we have violated every solemn pledge we have given to the Middle East. Let us be honest and say that we have done it to safeguard our security. Do not let us dress it up as a defence of the Charter, because that is the last straw and more than I and my hon. Friends can stand.
May I finish with one word about what one might call the moral element in all this? I am a relatively young man, at any rate just old enough to have been in the last war and one who may look for ward to the old-age pension about (he year 2,000. The thing that has depressed me about this debate has been the number of rounds of cheers given in this House for the cynics, for my hon. Friend the Member for Cheetham (Mr. H. Lever) when he said, "We all know what the world is like. We all get what we want and do what we like." Everyone laughed and cheered and it was thought to be a brilliant—
Mr. Harold Lever: I do not wish to interrupt my hon. Friend's brilliant speech, a good deal of which is much to the point, but I must point out that I did not say a single cynical thing in the whole of my speech such as he attributes to me. I am sure that when my hon. Friend compares the words he has just used, when recorded in HANSARD, with the words I used when so recorded, he will not be proud of the distortion he has just perpetrated.
Mr. Benn: I say sincerely to my hon. Friend that if I find that I have done him an injustice I shall seek an opportunity to correct it. I can only say that my impression of the speech he made, and of the speech that my hon. Friend the Member for Wednesbury made, was that they were of such a character as to suggest that one could not hope for anything in the world unless there was a coalition of the crudest national interests.
I say that to urge that point of view today in the world in which we live is to damage the one hope there is of peace. Why do I say that? Because I am an idealist, and because I face a situation which makes idealism the only excuse for going on living. We live in a world of much bigger Powers than we are. When I see the Prime Minister strutting across the world stage and bullying a little country, I know, and I hope that he
1706
knows, that Russia and America could snuff him out in two minutes if they chose to do so. The hydrogen bomb, delivered from Moscow, could obliterate this country if Mr. Bulganin chose to present us with an ultimatum—[HON. MEMBERS: "And vice versa."] So could an American ultimatum; and it may be that in the saturation of destruction we could do grave damage to them. The fact is that in the world in which we live there is only one hope for Britain and the world, and that is the rule of law.
The rule of law means hoping and working for a situation in which the nations will act, not only according to their own selfish interests, but also according to the dictates of their conscience. If we destroyed—[Laughter.] The hon. and gallant Member for Poole (Captain Pilkington) really should not laugh. Has the hon. and gallant Gentleman read President Eisenhower's speech, in which he announced this morning that the Prime Minister urged the use of force in August, thereby giving the lie to the protestations of peace that we have had?
Captain Richard Pilkington: I appreciate the hon. Gentleman's closely reasoned argument, with which I do not agree, but he has so far given no explanation at all of the basic reason why this country took the action it did, and that was to stop a war that had broken out
Mr. Benn: The hon. and gallant Gentleman will be doing this House an injustice if he compels me to retrace my argument far enough back to answer him.
May I deal with just one point? Over the last three debates the Prime Minister said time and again that force was the last resort, and we believe him. Today, we have the statement of President Eisenhower that the British Government wished to use force at the end of July. Whom do we believe, President Eisenhower or the Prime Minister? [HON. MEMBERS: "The Prime Minister."] All right. I pick President Eisenhower for one reason—because what he said was confirmed by M. Pineau in the French Assembly, when he told the French Assembly that we would have used force in July but for technical reasons. When a leak from Paris and a protest from Washington combine to prove the Prime Minister to have spoken words that were not altogether true, I think that the evidence is overwhelming.

1707
I do not want to finish on a party note, except to say that my own feeling on this is that there is no course of action the Government can now take which could save the situation. I do not believe that the credit of the Prime Minister in the world is such that he could recommend or lead this country into any action which would be taken sincerely by the rest of the world. Therefore, I join with my right hon. and hon. Friends in saying that he must go. He can only go by those within his own party who do not share his view having the courage to abstain from voting tonight and showing that the Prime Minister does not command the support of his own party.
It is not an easy course to recommend, although I know, and hon. Gentlemen opposite know, that there are members of their own party who take this view. That is between their consciences and themselves, and it is not for me to tell them what to do. I only say that in the discharge of our solemn obligations and our duty the Opposition will fight this action in the country—everywhere—because it is wrong and because we have faith in the instinctive sense of decency and fair play of the British people. We shall hound the Government down, and then we shall have the terrible task of trying to rebuild the credit of this country which the Government have so wantonly thrown away.
8.50 p.m.
Mr. Aneurin Bevan: In more years than I care to remember, even during the days of the war, I do not recollect feeling running so high as it has done today, nor that there has ever been such general uneasiness in the House as exists today or as much private anxiety on both sides. In these debates we necessarily voice our party allegiances and back up our spokesmen in the characteristic fashion of Members of the House of Commons; nevertheless, it would be a mistake for anyone to deduce from the events of today that there is any sense of satisfaction with the existing position. There is certainly no sense of satisfaction on this side of the House. We would much prefer that we did not have this case against the Government. We would much prefer that this situation had never arisen.
1708
We have traversed so much of this argument in the last few days that it is familiar to all of us. There is not very much new that anyone can say at this stage of the debate, but I would suggest to hon. and right hon. Gentlemen that perhaps it is just as well for us to glance for a moment at the background of this debate. I find it hard to believe that Ministers of the experience of members of the Government could have done what they have done or could have defended it so badly unless they were in almost a distraught, state of mind. I believe, and we on this side of the House should remember it too, that the members of the Government are in very great difficulties and have been in them for a long time.
I say at once that their difficulties are the difficulties also of other Governments. I do not believe that Her Majesty's Government are alone in their embarrassment. It would be a very great mistake for us, even on this side of the House, to indict the existing Government as though they bore the exclusive responsibility for the existing state of affairs.
The fact of the matter is that mankind is faced with an entirely novel situation. There has never been anything like it in the history of nations. Two major events have completely cancelled—if I may be allowed to use the term—all the finesse and the sophistications of conventional diplomacy. There is nothing in the White House, in London, in the Quai d'Orsay or in the Kremlin that furnishes statesmen with lessons from history to enable them to judge what to do in the existing circumstances.
The advent of the hydrogen bomb has stalemated power among the great Powers. The use of the threat of war, which formerly helped to solve many international difficulties—and when the threat could not do it war tried to do it—is no longer available to statesmen. The great Powers are stalemated by their own power. This fact has created a vacuum in diplomatic thinking. In the last four or five years the tragedy of the world has been that the statesmen of the world have not adjusted themselves to that reality. I know it is an obvious thing to say, but we do not leave a thing behind merely because it is obvious. There is an old German saying that to understand is not necessarily to leave behind.

1709
To state that the hydrogen bomb has introduced an entirely novel relationship between nations does not mean that we should then forget it and imagine that we can go on as we were before. The fact is that, there being no way of settling disputes between major nations by the resort to major war, the statesmen of the world have not got together to attempt to solve those problems which formerly were attempted to be solved by war. The Middle East is a characteristic example.
There is another novel situation. I have ventured to mention it on several occasions before. It is an extremely novel situation, and it has stolen upon us in so stealthy a fashion that we have scarcely recognised its arrival. It is that not only does the use of force become utterly inadmissible in determining quarrels between nations without running the risk of universal destruction, but the use of force in domestic affairs is now demonstrably failing. The most extraordinary and the most optimistic of all the news that we have had in the last few months is the fact that the Soviet Union itself is recognising that it cannot hold down whole populations merely by terror and by police action. For myself, I find that an infinitely encouraging fact.
I would venture to point out, if I may be allowed to do so without immodesty, that in 1951, in speaking from the other side of the House on the defence programme of the Labour Government, I pointed out that one of the most encouraging things that we could expect was that with the increasing industrialisation of the Soviet Union, and with the increasing use of industrial techniques in the satellite countries and in Russia, we could look forward before very long to an increased democratisation of the régime. Because I profoundly believe—and this is an article of faith with me, as I think it should be with almost every Member of the House -that there is only one form of Government which is consistent with the modern industrial community, and that is political democracy.
Those are two very important events that lie at the background of what we are discussing this evening. The tragedy has been that in the meantime, although those facts have been there, they have not inspired statesmen to intelligent action. Indeed, there are commentators in the
1710
United States, like Mr. Lippmann, who, speaking of President Eisenhower the other day, said that the difficulty about the President was that he did not act for peace but merely reacted against trouble.
I am not one, therefore, who is going to say that the British Government are themselves reacting with complete guilt towards this situation, because I think it is one which is shared by everybody, and every public man ought to have a sense of humility in face of these intractable problems. I therefore think that it would be a profound blunder if any party in this State tried to mislead the people of the country into imagining that there is any simple or quick solution to these problems before us.
But having said that. I am bound to say that I have not seen from the Prime Minister in the course of the last four or five months, or even longer, any evidence of that sagacity and skill that he should have acquired in so many years in the Foreign Office. Indeed, I have been astonished at the amateurishness of his performance. There is something the matter with him. I have often listened to bad cases in this House but rarely have I listened to them so badly put as I have heard them in the last few days. The Prime Minister has made several speeches in which he has repeated himself over and over again, but each speech becomes more tawdry and barren than the last.
He made a speech today. It was perfectly obvious from what he said that he had not thought out at all the implications of the actions of the Government. He had no answer to some of the inquiries which were put concerning the legal position of the combatants. We are told that we are not at a state of war with Egypt. We are told that we are in fact in a state of armed conflict.
I have been looking up some of the precedents about this. I thought that I recognised some of the language which the Prime Minister used in justifying himself. He said the other day:
"In the meantime, as a result of consultations held in London today, the United Kingdom and French Governments have now addressed urgent communications to the Governments of Egypt and Israel. In these we have called upon both sides to stop all warlike action by land, sea and air forthwith and to withdraw their military forces to a distance of 10 miles.…"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 30th October, 1956; Vol. 558. c. 1279.]

1711
Then he went on to justify it by saying that he did this "in order to defend British lives and British property." That was an ultimatum delivered to the Egyptian Government. I have here another ultimatum delivered to Belgium on 2nd August, 1914:
"The German Government cannot but fear … that Belgium will be unable, without assistance, to repel so considerable a French invasion with sufficient prospect of success to afford an adequate guarantee against danger to Germany … the measures of Germany's opponents force Germany, for her own protection, to enter Belgian territory."
Will the Prime Minister tell me what single difference there is between that language and the language used by him?
There is another example. The argument advanced by the Prime Minister to this House was that we have in fact taken this action in Egypt in order to safeguard British ships going through the Canal and to safeguard British interests and, of course, stop the war—but, yes, that is what Germany said. Every country that attempts to justify itself uses language of this sort.
Indeed, I could quote almost all the ultimatums given by Hitler to countries that he invaded where he used exactly the same kind of language as the Prime Minister used the other day. The same language was used to Norway:
"The Reich Government therefore has today begun certain military operations, which will lead to the occupation of strategically important points on Norwegian territory. … The Reich Government therefore expects that the Royal Norwegian Government and the Norwegian people will respond with understanding to the German action and offer no resistance to it. Any resistance would have to be and would be broken by all possible means by the German Forces employed. …"
We have only to substitute Egypt for Norway, because what did the right hon. Gentleman say? He said that he expected the Egyptian Government to peacefully permit the re-occupation of bases on the Canal by the British Forces, and if they resisted they would be overcome with all necessary force. That is exactly what he said. Quite honestly, this is the language of the bully. There is no semblance of legal justification behind it.
The right hon. Gentleman was today asked the question whether he would accept the decision of the Assembly of the United Nations. What was his reply? He replied that he wanted to know what
1712
that decision was before he would give his reply. That is a funny answer for a member of a club to give. We have understood that right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite have attempted to justify their action on the ground that it is consistent with the Charter of the United Nations. But if the United Nations itself says it is not consistent with the Charter, do the Government put their interpretation against that of the United Nations? Will the right hon. Gentleman answer? Are hon. Members opposite going to go to the country to argue that their interpretation of the Charter takes precedence over the interpretation put upon it by the Assembly of the United Nations itself? That is the only conclusion one can reach from what the right hon. Gentleman said. It is, in fact, Great Britain insisting on being judge in her own cause.
Our view is this. It has been stated, and I repeat it, that we believe it is highly consistent with the welfare and security of Great Britain that we should not ourselves attempt to impose our will by force upon any nation, and that only by the maintenance of that position can we ever give to the people of Great Britain the hope that they will not be exterminated by war.
Right hon. and hon. Members have said that the United Nations is too weak and it cannot be relied upon. Every gang that wanted to lynch some poor prisoner always pleaded that the court might not be effective. It is the way in which lynchers have always justified themselves. We are perfectly prepared to admit that the institutions of the United Nations are not by any means as effective as we should like them to be. But what we say is that it is our duty to build them up to a strength at which they can be relied upon. It is not enough to say they are weak, and therefore we destroy them. If we destroy them, where does the hope lie? Is the appeal to be to anarchy, for it is anarchy we are being asked to support? It is the action of the bully.
There are some people who are hoping that the conditions in Egypt will soon resolve themselves, and we shall soon have a military success, and that therefore everything will be all right. Will it? We are told by spokesmen in the United States, by Senator George for example,

1713
that the Anglo-French action spells the death knell of N.A.T.O. That is a statement by a responsible American statesman. What does the dismantling of N.A.T.O., and the destruction of the United Nations mean? What screen after that stands between Britain and the possibility of destruction? It may be said that the existing screen is too fragile. But it can be strengthened, it can be built up, and it can be buttressed. If that screen, fragile though it is, be destroyed, what is to be put in its place?
Have we had from the Government any answer to that at all except the use of British force? But dare we appeal to force? We had from the right hon. Member for Woodford (Sir W. Churchill), speaking in the gravest possible accents not long ago, a warning to the nation and to the world of what might happen if international anarchy results in the loosing of hydrogen bombs upon the world; but what can the right hon. Gentleman give us except what we have been trying to do by our example and by our efforts—that is, to build up a system of international law upon which we can depend?
It is not enough to say that other nations have not been loyal to the same conception; that will not help us. It will not help us if we join in their anarchistic behaviour. The Prime Minister the other day attempted to defend his veto at the Security Council by saying that he could not himself accept the condemnation of Israeli aggression. The fact of the matter, however, is that the spokesman of the British Government at the Security Council himself condemned the action of the Israelis as being aggression. He himself said the following day that he thought it was a violation of the armistice conditions and that Israel should retire behind its frontiers. Which line do the Government take—what the Prime Minister said in the House of Commons, or what the Government spokesman said in the Security Council? Which position do they take—or do they have both? The fact is that in this matter the defence of the Government is confused because they have reached decisions which are fundamentally indefensible.
I do not blame the Government for not telling the Commonwealth and the United States their plans beforehand, because they were plans that could not be disclosed. What was wrong was not that
1714
the Government did not disclose the plans. What was wrong was the sort of plans that they had. Of course, it was not possible to tell Washington that we intended to invade Egypt within twelve hours—it might have leaked out. It was not possible to tell the Commonwealth that we were going to invade within twelve hours—it might have leaked out. One cannot stab a man effectively if he is given too long notice beforehand. Therefore, the fault with the Government is that they had formed plans which in their very nature were a violation of the confidence existing between ourselves and members of the Commonwealth.
For my part, I do not even accuse the Government of taking action independent of the United States. It would be a foolish thing for me to say, as I have been advocating independent action for some time, but rather more intelligent action. I do not blame them one little bit for taking this independent action. I blame them for the action itself. It was the action that was wrong, not the independence of the action. Therefore, what we want from the Government is a more coherent defence of what they have done than we have had so far.
The next thing we want to know from the Government is, what are their intentions? What do they expect now to happen? Have they formed any idea of what will occur, even if they are militarily successful and if they overcome Egyptian resistance? Are they able to form it? Can they tell us how it can happen that the defence of these three centres will be more practicable than was the defence of the Canal Zone? If those centres are surrounded by a hostile, marauding, pilfering population, as was the case before, will they have a peaceful, pacific and contented population now? Will they? Do they really imagine that if they over-run Egypt that is the end of the story? Are they going to bleed Britain to death in Egypt as France is bleeding herself to death in Algeria?
This is not a carefully considered action. It is the action of a number of frustrated statesmen who have not thought through to the consequences of their own conduct. Furthermore, we on this side of the House regard it as one that stains the reputation of this country irremediably. How can we hold our heads up in the councils of the world after this?

1715
It is all very well for hon. Members to rejoice over the triumph of British arms. Everybody knows that the British soldier is brave enough. He does not have to prove that again, does he? How often must he prove it? Is it necessary for us to prove that we can stand up against great odds? We have done it before. Is it necessary for hon. Members of the party opposite to go to the country and say, "We know that we have most of the world against us"? But it has been against us before. When we had almost all the world against us before we had honour on our side. In this matter we are dishonoured.
We here in this House gave—I do not wish to distribute the prizes—but we gave in the case of India, in the case of Ceylon, examples to the world of how great empires can dispose of their strength and of their power peacefully. Progressively we did that, and we were able to hold our heads up because of it. [Interruption.] An hon. Member opposite says something about the number of people who lost their lives. That is true, but it is also true that fewer lives might have been lost if we had been bigger earlier.
What are we to say at the United Nations, or whenever we go abroad and meet the spokesmen of other people? We say that Great Britain has always stood for civilised principles, and for humanity and justice. How do we answer now, when we drop bombs on helpless people? [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] Yes, when we drop bombs. How do we answer now at whatever judgment seat any hon. Member likes to mention? A nation more powerful than us may drop even worse bombs on British cities. How answer that? With bombs? Bombs with bombs? That is the bankruptcy of statesmanship. The world has travelled that way in my own lifetime twice. We dare not travel that way again, because this time there will be no return.
We say to the Government, not in any spirit of partisanship—I say so, anyhow, and no one can accuse me of lack of partisanship—not in the spirit of partisanship but with a deep sense of sorrow, that I attack the Government tonight for this policy. I believe that they are not supported by the vast majority of the people of Great Britain. They are certainly not
1716
supported by the vast majority of the people right throughout the world.
I do beg and pray of them to retrace their steps even now. It would be evidence of increased stature—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."]—yes, if the Government were now able to do that. Having found that their best friends do not sustain them in this action, that their allies are themselves dismayed by it, that the world is shocked, it would be an act of statesmanship for the Government now to say, "We halt at this point. We are not going to lead mankind over this road any further." Unless the Government are able to say that, in the name of mankind let them, for God's sake, get out.
Mr. Speaker: Mr. Butler.
Mr. W. Yates: On a point of order. I am a young Member of the House and I desire to have your advice. Mr. Speaker. I have been to France and I have come to the conclusion that Her Majesty's Government have been involved in an international conspiracy—
Mr. Speaker: That is not a point of order.
Hon. Members: Let him speak.
Mr. Yates rose—
Mr. Gaitskell: The hon. Member for The Wrekin (Mr. W. Yates) evidently has an extremely important communication to make to the House and I would appeal to the Lord Privy Seal to allow his hon. Friend to finish what he was going to say.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member for The Wrekin (Mr. W. Yates) rose on a point of order. It may be, as the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition says, that the hon. Member has a very important communication, but all important communications are not points of order. Mr. Butler.
Mr. Yates: Mr. Speaker, I desire your advice. Would it be right, if I disagreed with what the Government have done in the present situation—[HON. MEMBERS: "Not a point of order."] The point is that we must have your advice on this matter. [HON. MEMBERS: "Who are 'we'?"] The Government have taken this action and I want to know whether it would be considered right and patriotic

1717
for a person deliberately to try to bring down Her Majesty's Government in those circumstances?
Mr. SpeakerI still do not see that that is a point of order. If my information is right, there are quite a number of hon. Members in the House who are engaged in that enterprise, and they are quite entitled to do so. Mr. Butler.
9.21 p.m.
The Lord Privy Seal (Mr. R. A. Butler): We always enjoy the right hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Bevan) when he is in one of his philosophic moods, and he certainly did not in any way derogate from the dignity of the debate by the contribution he made tonight—not from the beginning of his speech, when he referred to some of the international incidents which have altered not only the attitude of statesmen to the world, but also the course of the world itself. Nor, although we disagree with many of the points that the right hon. Gentleman made, can we be unduly upset by the tone of his intervention earlier today.
The position, as we see it, is that there is a sincere difference of opinion between both sides of the House, and it is my business to put. as the right hon. Gentleman requested, the Government's case to the best of my ability in concluding the debate. The business of a "distraught mind "and" frustrated statesmen ", to which the right hon. Gentleman referred in his Celtic eloquence, seemed to me to ill-coincide with his description of the cunning of Her Majesty's Government and the Prime Minister himself. It seems to me that the Prime Minister has himself today made an intervention in the debate which was of the highest possible quality, and which has rather belied the description of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Ebbw Vale of my right hon. Friend as being a bully and endeavouring to cheat other nations.
Mr. Ian Mikardo: "The best Prime Minister we have got."
Mr. Butler: That observation remains eternally true, and it will be even more so at the end of my intervention.
The debate has been a remarkable one because it has included several very distinguished and some emotional
1718
speeches. I think we were all particularly impressed by the speech of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Wednesbury (Mr. S. N. Evans). [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] I notice that the applause is not confined to one side of the House, which shows that when an hon. Member speaks not only from the heart but also with a sense of reality, he makes a universal appeal to this Chamber.
Mr. Warbey: What about the hon. Member for The Wrekin (Mr. W. Yates)?
Mr. Butler: This debate has been opened against a background of human considerations. I shall not indulge in criticism of the Leader of the Opposition tonight, because I do not want in anything I say to raise the temperature, or to take away from the sane consideration of the extremely grim subjects which we are discussing this evening, but I do want to say that I found in the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby, South (Mr. P. Noel-Baker), who spoke yesterday, more humanity than I did in the speech of the Leader of the Opposition.
The human considerations of our troops, which were referred to by the right hon. Gentleman, should be foremost in our minds tonight. [An HON. MEMBER: "Bring them home."] In considering the issues which we have to consider, and in casting the vote which we shall shortly cast by an overwhelming majority in favour of the Government this evening, we must remember when we examine this problem, the background of human consideration which affects us all in one way or another.
That is why I open my speech by a reference to the legal background against which our troops are now operating. [HON. MEMBERS: "Where"?] I have been asked to do it, and I have been asked under what authority Her Majesty's Government have ordered the troops abroad, what authority they are acting under and, as it has been put rather dramatically in the debate, are they committing murder or are they engaged in legitimate war? I have put it like that because that is how it was put earlier in the debate.
It is right that an answer should be given immediately and responsibly on behalf of Her Majesty's Government on

1719
this matter. [HON. MEMBERS: "Let us have it, then."] Since hon. Gentlemen have asked me this question, perhaps they will be good enough to wait for the answer? History affords many examples of wars that have started without a declaration of war, but they have been wars none the less, and all the normal rights and duties of war have attached to them. I would say, after consulting the best legal experts I have been able to consult this afternoon, that the laws of war apply to the situation in Egypt at the present time.
To make the situation clear—[An HON. MEMBER: "Are we at war?"]—I must remind the House—[An HON. MEMBER: "Study Nuremburg."]—that the situation is that governed by the Third Hague Convention of 1907, which says that hostilities should not be commenced without a previous unequivocal warning either in the form of a declaration of war or, to use the words, "in the form of an ultimatum."
I have asked for an interpretation of this, and I have found it in Oppenheim, in the seventh edition, in volume II, page 292—I think it important to set this out—where it specifically states that failure to observe this provision does not render the war illegal. [An HON. MEMBER: "Is there a war?"] Neither does it take away, from the hostilities thus commenced, the character of war.
The position of Her Majesty's Government in face of this situation is this. Her Majesty's Government do not regard their present action as constituting a war. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] It corresponds broadly to the situation in Korea. Nevertheless, they consider that we have complied fully with the spirit of Article 1 of the Third Hague Convention, to which I referred, in warning Egypt by means of a statement of our requirements, accompanied by a conditional intimation that certain points in Egyptian territory would be occupied if that requirement was not complied with. That, therefore, is the legal position in regard to the background against which we have begun this action in the last few days.
Hon. Members: Is there a war?
Mr. Butler: There is not a state of war, but there is a state of conflict.
Mr. Elwyn Jones rose—
Mr. S. Silverman rose—
Mr. Speaker: Mr. Elwyn Jones appears to be the hon. Member to whom way has been given.
Mr. Elwyn Jones: Is the Leader of the House aware that the failure of the German Government to make declarations of war was one of the counts in the indictment at Nuremberg and one which the judgment of that court took note of and condemned?
Mr. Butler: I am equally aware that in the case of Korea the situation was, as far as I am informed—
Hon. Members: Answer.
Mr. Butler: —very little different from the situation we are facing here. I do not know why hon. and learned Gentlemen opposite should desire always to denigrate the actions of their own country. [Interruption.]
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order, order. The right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the House has not given way. Mr. Butler.
Mr. Butler rose—
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order, order.
Mr. Elwyn Jones: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Is it in order for a right hon. Gentleman to make an imputation against my loyalty, or the loyalty of any hon. Member, by suggesting that my only interest is in denigrating my country when at the Nuremberg trials this country associated itself with the judgment of the Court? [Interruption.]
Mr. Speaker: Order. I could not read anything like that into it.
Hon. Members: Oh.
Mr. Speaker: Order. Mr. Butler.
Mr. Butler rose—
Hon. Members: Withdraw.
Mr. Butler: That was the—
Mr. Hale: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. This afternoon you were present in the Chair when the Prime Minister was

1721
asked a number of questions and he asked for the leave of the House to defer the answers until he spoke later. He said that he would give way and allow these questions to be put. Those questions have never been answered. We still do not know whether British soldiers are being called upon to commit murder, or whether they are being called upon to carry out lawful orders.
Mr. Speaker: Order. I see no point of order in that. It is a matter of debate. Mr. Butler.
Mr. Butler rose—
Hon. Members: Withdraw.
Mr. Butler: That was the—
Sir L. Ungoed-Thomas rose—
Mr. Butler: If that was the reason for the rising of the hon. and learned Member for West Ham, South (Mr. Elwyn Jones), I have no wish to impute any wrong motives to him.
What I did say, having myself for a short period studied international law, but not being an expert or a lawyer, was that I am aware that there are many other cases in international law, including the bulging pages of Oppenheim, which I had to study when I was young, which indicate that there are many other cases in international law, apart from the case of Germany, which could have been cited. It was rather partial to cite the case of Germany against the Government when there are many other cases which could have been cited, but I certainly do not impugn the motives of the hon. and learned Member.
Sir L. Ungoed-Thomas: The right hon, Gentleman has quoted Oppenheim. I want to quote to him just one passage from it—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] Yes, certainly, the right hon. Gentleman has given way. I want to put one passage to him from it and have him tell the House how he distinguishes it. The passage, from page 296 of the seventh edition of Oppenheim, is this:
"If a state has sent a simple ultimatum to another or a qualified ultimatum threatening a measure other than war"—
which, we understand from the Prime Minister, is the situation in this case—
"it is not, in case of non-compliance, justified in commencing hostilities at once without a previous declaration of war."
1722
How does the right hon. Gentleman distinguish that?
Mr. Butler: I rely on the statement I read from Oppenheim, the seventh edition, volume II and the page I mentioned, and also in its relation to the Third Hague Convention, Article I, and I am perfectly satisfied that a state of war exists and that the situation is as I have described.
I should like to add in answer to questions—because it is my duty to attempt to answer questions put in the debate—that the orders given to troops are governed, as the House of Commons knows, by the Army Act and particularly Section 76 and Section 190 of the Army Act before it has been recodified in its new form as coming in on 1st January. Those are the basis of the orders given by Her Majesty's Government to the troops and the legal basis on which we are acting.
When we look at the main issue, I should like to follow upon the thoughtful remarks of the right hon. Member for Ebbw Vale by looking back for a moment on what I think we can all describe as the tragedy of the Middle East over these decades. I think that we can do it with the humility which the right hon. Gentleman requested. It is a situation started by the Balfour Declaration; and some hon. Members may remember Lord Balfour's words when he started this experiment, that it would be an "interesting experiment".
It certainly has been. That has been a great understatement. Throughout all these years, attempts have been made by statesmen of all nations to solve the problem in the Middle East, which has never yet been solved. I should like to remind the House that points arising from the Arab-Israeli dispute have been seven times before the Security Council since 1948. No one can say, quite apart from the matter going to the Security Council outside the control of Her Majesty's Government, that Her Majesty's Government have not acted with the utmost moderation and conciliation in this problem over the years. I refer to the particular efforts of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and my right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary.
We come immediately to the recent situation which rapidly deteriorated largely owing to the Egyptian arms deal with Russia and the military joint staff

1723
arrangements among Jordan, Syria and Egypt. As a result of developments of this sort, there is no doubt that the Israeli nation felt itself ringed around and, while neither the House nor Her Majesty's Government should do anything to condone Israeli action, we have to treat the Israeli advance as a fact with which the Government had to deal.
In his speech yesterday the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition used a simple expression. He said, "What is it all about?" The answer, in simple English, is that Her Majesty's Government and the French Government, together, have had to deal with an immediate situation of the most extreme gravity. That is what it is all about. Hostilities were spreading in such a way as to prejudice—in the terms of the Government Amendment to the Motion which has been moved—both national and international interests and the foundation of international law and order itself. That, simply, is the position with which we had to deal.
We had to deal with a position in which the Israeli attack upon Egypt could have been intended either to seize the east bank of the Suez Canal or to carry them across the Canal itself. Either of those circumstances could have prevented the free transit of goods and ships upon which this country depends. I think it is wise to listen to the hon. Member for Wednesbury, who realised that it is the working population of this country which will suffer unless we have a fair solution of this international problem. And it is not only the working population in the factories which will suffer; it is those who drive our tractors on the farms—leaving aside any question of personal satisfaction in motoring. The industry and agriculture of this country depends upon the free transit of ships through the Canal.
The Government therefore felt that they had no option but to act immediately. This burden was not of our choosing. In my opinion, it was not one which could be shirked if we were going to do our duty not only in our own country's interests but through the need to preserve international order and security in the future. Quite simply, the position as I see it is that a hard decision now—which we knew perfectly well would be unpopular—will be proved in history to have
1724
prevented an even harder decision at a later stage.
When we look at the physical facts as seen by Her Majesty's Government—and our most intimate Ministers have been connected with this—we see that the only possible place for intervention is the Canal. If Israel crossed the Canal the chance of successful intervention would, in our opinion, have gone. If fighting took place on the Canal the prospect of successful intervention would have been seriously diminished. At the same time, if other Arab countries had started fighting—the distinct possibility of which was envisaged by the right hon. Member in his speech of 2nd August—the prospect of stopping hostilities immediately would have been nil. Indeed, it may well have been impossible for anyone, including the United Nations, to stop the conflagration quickly, it at all.
These are the circumstances of reality and fact with which some of us were faced when we had to make this very serious and difficult decision. Hence the statement of our immediate requirements, which we made to both side—Israel and Egypt. Action had to be taken, or the opportunity for action would have been lost. Fortunately, the action taken was partly successful, in that Israel accepted our terms. The tragedy—and it is a tragedy because it would have been quite possible for Egypt to have accepted—was that Egypt flatly refused the terms, and did not put forward any alternative terms offering a cessation of hostilities. She did not say, for example, "We refuse to move back, but if Israel agrees to stop fighting we will stop."
Consequently, the position arose that if fighting was to be stopped Egypt's power to carry on hostilities had to be neutralised.
Mr. Benn: Are we at war with Israel?
Mr. Butler: It is arising from that situation that our military action, of which the House was given information by the Minister of Defence, has itself taken place. It is in that spirit that, following upon the advice given by the Prime Minister in his speech, that we shall continue to conduct operations and reach the objectives which I shall define before I sit down.
Mr. Healey: I am much obliged to the right hon. Gentleman for giving way. In making this point this afternoon, the Prime Minister said that his aim was to separate the combatants. How can he separate combatants by landing miles in the rear of one of them?
Mr. Butler: I am coming to the statements of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and of our objectives and will endeavour to deal with the hon. Member's point. [HON. MEMBERS: "Answer."] I think it is quite reasonable to answer points in the course of the general sketch of one's own speech.
I have attempted to give the House a description of why we had to take this decision, and I implore hon. Members not to underestimate the soluble character of the Middle East at the present time and the importance of our stepping in at the right moment.
Now as to our motives. Our motives will always be impugned, as they have been in this House, by our enemies and by those who seek to gain party advantage out of our country's difficulties. In this connection, I want to say something about a meeting which took place today, I believe, of the National Council of Labour. The right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition has already announced his intention to oppose the Government's action by every constitutional means at his disposal. In our democratic way of life that is a course which he has every right to follow, and the more he follows it the less support he will get in the country. Much as we regret our lack of unity in this situation we are a sufficiently virile Government and a sufficiently active Government to stand up to any criticism by the right hon. Gentleman.
I understand—and this is important for the House and the country to note—that the National Council of Labour, representing the Labour Party, the Trades Union Council and the Co-operative movement resolved that normal, constitutional, Parliamentary methods should be followed and urged that—which I think the House should note with satisfaction—workers should "refrain from taking industrial action as a means of influencing national policy in the present crisis."
I mention this on purpose. There is nothing in the present crisis which concerns
1726
the relations between workers and their employers, and I am sure the Government are well satisfied that it is the attitude of the National Council of Labour, the Trades Union Council and the Co-operative movement to adopt this attitude in our present difficulty.
Leaving that statement, which I think should be registered in the House and in the country, I want to come back to the statement made by the hon. Member for Islington, North (Mr. Fienburgh) who very often, thanks to his journalistic activity, is somewhat controversial in debate. In the course of his speech yesterday, he accused the Government of using the Israeli border incidents to provide a certain cloak of moral sanctity to enable them to follow up the plans which they have been cultivating and preparing for since the incident was first launched.
We do not accept that interpretation of our action. We had, before this incident occurred, attempted to achieve a peaceful solution under the Charter of the United Nations. We took specific steps with the 18 nations and were bitterly disappointed when Egypt flatly refused to accept that solution. We tried to follow up the Canal Users' Association idea and make it work. We have had disappointments, but we had, up to this last incident, made some progress. Then came this emergency situation and, as I have said, we hope still to pull a solution out of the nettle, disaster, which will be under the umbrella of the United Nations.
I wish to reaffirm the statements made by the Prime Minister earlier this afternoon—this is in answer to the hon. Member for Islington, North—that we do not seek to impose by force a solution of the Israeli Egyptian dispute, or of the Suez Canal dispute or any other dispute in the area. We do not seek to negotiate by ourselves alone on any of those disputes. The sole object of the Anglo-French intervention is to stop the hostilities, to prevent a resumption of them, and to safeguard traffic through the Canal itself.
Mr. Bevan: How does the right hon Gentleman answer the statement by President Eisenhower? This is from Washington, dated 31st October:
"There were some among our allies who urged an immediate reaction to this event by use of force."

1727
The action is Nasser's nationalisation of the Canal. "Some among our allies"—was the British Government among the allies?
Mr. Butler: I really cannot interpret a speech by the President of the United States. All I can do in reply to the right hon. Gentleman is to interpret the policy with which Her Majesty's Government have been intimately associated over these months. And the interpretation of British policy is as I have given it, that we have been working up to this emergency—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."]—
Mr. Mikardo: You gave the game away there, Rab.
Mr. Butler: I said that we have been working up to this emergency to obtain a peaceful settlement of the dispute; and now that we are faced with the fact of this emergency we have deliberately taken action which is controversial, yet highly courageous—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."]—in order to restore the respect for international law and order.
I should like to remind the House of the statement of the Prime Minister that if, when we have achieved our purpose of restoring law and order, the United Nations are willing to take over the physical task of maintaining peace in the area, nobody would be better pleased than ourselves. Therefore, I regard the police action we have taken as a possible preliminary to a restoration of law and order under the aegis of the United Nations.
I am absolutely convinced that had we waited and hoped that the United Nations would act, with all the problems of the Russian veto as we know them, we should not have been able to achieve peace or a lasting settlement. I am certain that those who follow us tonight, and those who follow us in the country, will find that they are following the right course for the preservation of law and order, and that those who oppose us will find that they have missed a chance—a courageous chance—of saving law and order for the world. Our objective, then, is to enable the spirit and intention which underlies the Charter to be carried into effect. If delay had occurred, the prospect of successful intervention to stop
1728
hostilities would have gone, or would have been seriously jeopardised.
There is no doubt that our action is in accord with what is described as "customary international law" and that Article 51 of the Charter does not impair that right. That is the view expressed by the Foreign Secretary in his speech yesterday. The right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition drew an analogy between Anglo-French action in Egypt and possible Chinese action in Hong Kong and Malaya We think that that sort of extension of conflict and that sort of example is a very bad thing at the present time We do not think that there is any valid parallel between action designed to check the conflict between two countries fighting in an area of vital international interest, which is our object in this matter, and a hypothetical intervention by China in Hong Kong or elsewhere.
I will conclude by referring to the speed of our action. Our action had to be speedy because the situation with which we were dealing was an immediate one, which we had to answer with an immediate step. That accounts for the difficulty of consultation with the Commonwealth Governments and with the United States of America. There were, however, consultations, or conversations, with the United States of America, as is known, and, as has been said by the Prime Minister, there have been very strong speeches in support of what we are doing by the Prime Minister of Australia and indications of support by the Prime Minister of New Zealand. The idea of the right hon. Member for Derby, South that we are smashing the Commonwealth into smithereens is a gross exaggeration.
I also believe that the relations between ourselves and the United States of America, while, naturally, having had considerable difficulty over this episode, which we acknowledge, will not be strained to the extent perhaps that some speeches have made out. There is a great identity of interest between us and the United States of America which it is imperative, in the interests of the peace of the world, to maintain. I am convinced that the relations of our two countries will come through this difficult period and that the Americans will understand, as well as this country will shortly do, the motives that have inspired us.

1729
Our Amendment says that we shall safeguard international and national interests. The Opposition feel that we were misguided in our motives. There can be legitimate differences of opinion, but I cannot really believe that it is the wish of the Opposition that this country and her Armed Forces should fail at the present time. I make an appeal to them to look at the merits of our policy and to back us in the difficulties which we are facing. I am convinced that the
majority of our country, when they hear the case as it has been put, will realise that we are those who, by our resolute action, have decided to defend law and order, and that our actions will be justified.
Question put, That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question:—
The House divided: Ayes 255, Noes 324.

Division No. 296.]

AYES

[10.0 p.m.

Ainsley, J. W.

Edwards, W. J. (Stepney)

Lever, Leslie (Ardwick)

Albu, A. H.

Evans, Albert (Islington, S. W.)

Lewis, Arthur

Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)

Evans, Edward (Lowestoft)

Lindgren, G. S.

Allen, Arthur (Bosworth)

Fernyhough, E.

Lipton, Lt.-Col. M.

Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)

Fienburgh, W.

Logan, D. G.

Anderson, Frank

Finch, H. J.

Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson

Awbery, S. S.

Fletcher, Eric

MacColl, J. E.

Bacon, Miss Alice

Forman, J. C.

McGhee, H. G.

Baird, J.

Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)

McInnes, J.

Bellenger, Rt Hon. F. J.

Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. H. T. N.

McLeavy, Frank

Bence, C. R. (Dunbartonshire, E.)

Gibson, C. W.

MacMillan, M. K. (Western Isles)

Benn, Hn. Wedgwood (Bristol, S. E.)

Gooch, E. G.

MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)

Benson, G.

Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C

Mahon, Simon

Beswick, F.

Greenwood, Anthony

Mainwaring, W. H.

Bevan, Rt. Hon. A. (Ebbw Vale)

Grenfell, Rt. Hon. D. R.

Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfd, E.)

Blackburn, F.

Grey, C. F.

Mann, Mrs. Jean

Boardman, H,

Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)

Mason, Roy

Bottomley, Rt. Hon. A. G.

Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)

Mayhew, C. P.

Bowen, E. R. (Cardigan)

Griffiths, William (Exchange)

Mellish, R. J.

Bowles, F. G.

Hale, Leslie

Messer, Sir F.

Boyd, T. C.

Hall, Rt. Hn. Glenvil (Colne Valley)

Mikardo, Ian

Braddock, Mrs. Elizabeth

Hamilton, W. W.

Mitchison, G. R.

Brockway, A. F.

Hannan, W.

Monslow, W.

Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.

Harrison, J. (Nottingham, N.)

Moody, A. S.

Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper)

Hastings, S.

Morris, Percy (Swansea, W.)

Brown, Thomas (Ince)

Hayman, F. H.

Mort, D. L.

Burke, W. A.

Healey, Denis

Moss, R.

Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)

Henderson, Rt. Hn. A. (Rwly Regis)

Moyle, A.

Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)

Herbison, Miss M.

Mulley, F. W.

Callaghan, L. J.

Hewitson, Capt. M.

Neal, Harold (Bolsover)

Carmichael, J.

Hobson, C. R.

Noel-Baker, Francis (Swindon)

Castle, Mrs. B. A.

Holman, P.

Noel-Baker, Rt. Hon. P. (Derby, S.)

Champion, A. J.

Holmes, Horace

O'Brien, Sir Thomas

Chapman, W. D.

Houghton, Douglas

Oliver, G. H.

Chetwynd, G. R.

Howell, Charles (Perry Barr)

Oram, A. E.

Clunie, J.

Howell, Denis (All Saints)

Orbach, M.

Coldrick, W.

Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)

Oswald, T.

Collick, P, H. (Birkenhead)

Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)

Owen, W. J.

Collins, V. J. (Shoreditch & Finsbury)

Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)

Padley, W. E.

Corbet, Mrs. Freda

Hunter, A. E.

Paget, R. T.

Cove, W. G.

Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)

Paling, Rt. Hon. W. (Dearne Valley)

Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)

Irvine, A. J. (Eage Hill)

Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury)

Cronin, J. D.

Irving, S. (Dartford)

Palmer, A. M. F.

Crossman, R. H. S.

Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A.

Pannell, Charles (Leeds, W.)

Cullen, Mrs. A.

Janner, B.

Pargiter, G. A.

Daines, P.

Jay, Rt. Hon. D. P. T.

Parker, J.

Dalton, Rt. Hon. H.

Jeger, George (Goole)

Parkin, B. T.

Darling, George (Hillsborough)

Jeger, Mrs. Lena (Holbn & St. pncs, S.)

Peart, T. F.

Davies, Rt. Hon. Clement (Montgomery)

Jenkins, Roy (Stechford)

Pentland, N.

Davies, Ernest (Enfield, E.)

Johnson, James (Rugby)

Plummer, Sir Leslie

Davies, Harold (Leek)

Johnston, Douglas (Paisley)

Popplewell, E.

Davies, Stephen (Merthyr)

Jones, David (The Hartlepools)

Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)

Deer, G.

Jones, Elwyn (W. Ham, S.)

Price, Philips (Gloucestershire, W.)

de Freitas, Geoffrey

Jones, Jack (Rotherham)

Probert, A. R.

Delargy, H. J.

Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)

Proctor, W. T.

Dodds, N. N.

Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)

Pursey, Cmdr. H.

Donnelly, D. L.

Kenyon, C.

Randall, H. E.

Dugdale, Rt. Hn. John (W. Brmwch)

Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.

Rankin, John

Dye, S.

King, Dr. H. M.

Redhead, E. C.

Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.

Lawson, G. M.

Reeves, J.

Edelman, M,

Ledger, R. J.

Reid, William

Edwards, Rt. Hon. John (Brighouse)

Lee, Frederick (Newton)

Rhodes, H.

Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly)

Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)

Robens, Rt. Hon. A.

Edwards, Robert (Bilston)

Lever, Harold (Cheetham)

Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)

Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)

Strauss, Rt. Hon. George (Vauxhall)

West, D. G.

Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)

Stross, Dr. Barnett (Stoke-on-Trent, C.)

Wheeldon, W. E.

Ross, William

Summerskill, Rt. Hon. E.

White, Mrs. Eirene (E. Flint)

Royle, C.

Swingler, S. T.

White, Henry (Derbyshire, N. E.)

Shawcross, Rt. Hon. Sir Hartley

Sylvester, G. O.

Wiloock, Group Capt, C. A. B.

Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E.

Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)

Wilkins, W. A.

Shurmer, P. L. E.

Taylor, John (West Lothian)

Willey, Frederick

Silverman, Julius (Aston)

Thomas, lorwerth (Rhondda, W.)

Williams, David (Neath)

Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)

Thomson, George (Dundee, E.)

Williams, Rev. Llywelyn (Ab'tillery)

Simmons, C. J. (Brierley Hill)

Thornton, E.

Williams, Ronald (Wigan)

Skeffington, A. M.

Timmons, J.

Williams, Rt. Hon. T. (Don Valley)

Slater, Mrs. H. (Stoke, N.)

Tomney, F.

Williams, W. R. (Openshaw)

Slater, J. (Sedgefield)

Turner-Samuels, M.

Williams, W. T. (Barons Court)

Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)

Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn

Willis, Eustace (Edinburgh, E.)

Snow, J. W,

Usborne, H. C.

Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton)

Sorensen, R. W.

Viant, S. P.

Winterbottom, Richard

Sparks, J. A.

Wade, O. W.

Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.

Steele, T.

Warbey, W. N.

Yates, V. (Ladywood)

Stewart, Michael (Fulham)

Watkins, T. E.

Younger, Rt. Hon. K.

Stokes, Rt. Hon. R. R. (Ipswich)

Weitzman, D.

Stones, W. (Consett)

Wells, Percy (Faversham)

TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

Strachey, Rt. Hon. J.

Wells, William (Walsall, N.)

Mr. Bowden and Mr. Pearson.

NOES

Aitken, W. T.

Crowder, Sir John (Finchley)

Harvie-Watt, Sir George

Allan, R. A. (Paddington, S.)

Crowder, Petre (Ruislip—Northwood)

Hay, John

Alport, C. J. M.

Cunningham, Knox

Head, Rt. Hon. A. H.

Amery, Julian (Preston, N.)

Currie, G. B. H.

Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel

Amory, Rt. Hn. Heathcoat (Tiverton)

Dance, J. C. G.

Henderson, John (Cathcart)

Anstruther-Gray, Major Sir William

Davidson, viscountess

Hesketh, R. F.

Arbuthnot, John

D'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry

Hicks-Beach, Maj. W. W.

Armstrong, C. W.

Deedes, W. F.

Hill, Rt. Hon. Charles (Luton)

Ashton, H.

Digby, Simon Wlngfield

Hill, Mrs. E. (Wythenshawe)

Astor, Hon. J. J.

Dodds-Parker, A. D.

Hill, John (S. Norfolk)

Atkins, H. E.

Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. McA.

Hinchingbrooke, Viscount

Baldock, Lt.-Cmdr. J. M.

Doughty, C. J. A.

Hirst, Geoffrey

Baldwin, A. E.

Drayson, G. B.

Holland-Martin, C. J.

Balniel, Lord

du Cann, E. D. L.

Hope, Lord John

Barber, Anthony

Dugdale, Rt. Hn. Sir T. (Richmond)

Hornby, R. P.

Barlow, Sir John

Duncan, Capt. J. A. L.

Hornsby-Smith, Miss M. P.

Barter, John

Duthie, W. S.

Horobin, Sir Ian

Baxter, Sir Beverley

Eccles, Rt. Hon. Sir David

Horsbrugh, Rt. Hon. Dame Florence

Beamish, Maj. Tufton

Eden, Rt. Hn. Sir A. (Warwick & L'm'tn)

Howard, Gerald (Cambridgeshire)

Bell, Philip (Bolton, E.)

Eden, J. B. (Bournemouth, West)

Howard, Hon. Greville (St. Ives)

Bell, Ronald (Bucks, S.)

Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E.

Howard, John (Test)

Bennett, F. M. (Torquay)

Emmet, Hon. Mrs. Evelyn

Hudson, W. R. A. (Hull, N.)

Bennett, Dr. Reginald

Errington, Sir Eric

Hughes Hallett, Vice-Admiral g.

Bevins, J. R. (Toxteth)

Erroll, F. J.

Hughes-Young, M. H. C.

Bidgood, J. C.

Farey-Jones, F. W.

Hulbert, Sir Norman

Biggs-Davison, J. A.

Fell, A.

Hurd, A. R.

Birch, Rt. Hon. Nigel

Finlay, Graeme

Hutchison, Sir Ian Clark (E'b'gh, W.)

Bishop, F. P.

Fisher, Nigel

Hutchison, Sir James (Scotstoun)

Black, C. W.

Fletcher-Cooke, C.

Hyde, Montgomery

Body, R. F.

Fort, R.

Hylton-Foster, Sir H. B. H.

Boothby. Sir Robert

Foster, John

Iremonger, T. L.

Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hon. J. A.

Fraser, Hon. Hugh (Stone)

Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)

Boyle, Sir Edward

Fraser, Sir Ian (M'cmbe & Lonsdale)

Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)

Braine, B. R.

Freeth, D. K.

Jennings, J. C. (Burton)

Braithwaite, Sir Albert (Harrow, W.)

Garner-Evans, E. H.

Jennings, Sir Roland (Hallam)

Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W. H.

George, J. C. (Pollok)

Johnson, Dr. Donald (Carlisle)

Brooke, Rt. Hon. Henry

Gibson-Watt, D.

Johnson, Eric (Blackley)

Browne, J. Nixon (Craigton)

Glover, D.

Johnson, Howard (Kemptown)

Bryan, P.

Gomme-Duncan, Col. Sir Alan

Jones, Rt. Hon. Aubrey (Hall Green)

Buchan-Hepburn, Rt. Hon. P. G. T.

Gough, C. F. H.

Joseph, Sir Keith

Bullus, Wing Commander E. E.

Gower, H. R.

Joynson-Hicks, Hon. Sir Lancelot

Butcher, Sir Herbert

Graham, Sir Fergus

Keegan, D.

Butler, Rt. Hn. R. A. (Saffron Walden)

Grant, W. (Woodside)

Kerby, Capt. H. B.

Campbell, Sir David

Grant-Ferris, Wg. Cdr. R. (Nantwich)

Kershaw, J. A.

Carr, Robert

Green, A.

Kimball, M.

Cary, Sir Robert

Gresham Cooke, R.

Kirk, P. M.

Channon, H.

Grimston, Hon. John (St. Albans)

Lagden, G. W.

Chichester-Clark, R.

Grimston, Sir Robert (Westbury)

Lambert, Hon. G.

Churchill, Rt. Hon. Sir Winston

Grosvenor, Lt.-Col. R. C.

Lambton, Viscount

Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmth, W.)

Gurden, Harold

Lancaster, Col. C. G.

Cole, Norman

Hall, John (Wycombe)

Langford-Holt, J. A.

Conant, Maj. Sir Roger

Hare, Rt. Hon. J. H.

Leather, E. H. C.

Cooper, A. E.

Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N. W.)

Leavey, J. A.

Cooper-Key, E. M.

Harris, Reader (Heston)

Leburn, W. G.

Cordeaux, Lt.-Col. J. K.

Harrison, A. B. C. (Maldon)

Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H.

Corfield, Capt. F. V.

Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye)

Legh, Hon. Peter (Petersfteld)

Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne)

Harvey, Air Cdre. A. V. (Macolesfd)

Lennox-Boyd, Rt. Hon. A, T.

Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.

Harvey, Ian (Harrow, E.)

Lindsay, Hon. James (Devon, N.)

Crouch, R. F.

Harvey, John (Walthamstow, E.)

Lindsay, Martin (Solihull)

1732

1733

Llewellyn, D. T.

Noble, Comdr. A. H. p.

Speir, R. M.

Lloyd, Rt. Hon. G. (Sutton Coldfield)

Nugent, G. R. H.

Spence, H. R. (Aberdeen, W.)

Lloyd, Maj. Sir Guy (Renfrew, E.)

Oakshott, H. D.

Spence, Rt. Hn. Sir P. (Kens'gt'n, S.)

Lloyd, Rt. Hon. Selwyn (Wirral)

O'Neill, Hn. Phelim (Co. Antrim, N.)

Stanley, Capt. Hon. Richard

Lloyd-George, Maj. Rt. Hon. G.

Ormsby-Core, Hon. W. D.

Stevens, Geoffrey

Longden, Gilbert

Orr, Capt. L. P. S.

Steward, Harold (Stockport, S.)

Low, Rt. Hon. A. R. W.

Orr-Ewing, Charles Ian (Hendon, N.)

Stewart, Henderson (Fife, E.)

Lucas, Sir Jocelyn (Portsmouth, S.)

Orr-Ewing, Sir Ian (Weston-S-Mare)

Stuart, Rt. Hon. James (Moray)

Lucas, P. B. (Brentford & Chiswick)

Osborne, C.

Studholme, Sir Henry

Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh

Page, R. G.

Summers, Sir Spencer

McAdden, S. J.

Pannell, N. A. (Kirkdale)

Sumner, W. D. M. (Orpington)

McCallum, Major Sir Duncan

Partridge, E.

Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)

Macdonald, Sir Peter

Peyton, J. W. W.

Taylor, William (Bradford, N.)

Mackeson, Brig. Sir Harry

Pickthorn, K. W. M.

Teeling, W.

McKibbin, A. J.

Pilkington, Capt. R. A.

Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)

Mackie, J. H. (Galloway)

Pitman, I. J.

Thomas, P. J. M. (Conway)

McLaughlin, Mrs. P.

Pitt, Miss E. M.

Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)

Maclay, Rt. Hon. John

Pott, H. P.

Thompson, Lt.-Cdr-R. (Croydon, S.)

Maclean, Fitzroy (Lancaster)

Powell, J. Enoch

Thorneycroft, Rt. Hon. P.

McLean, Neil (Inverness)

Price, David (Eastleigh)

Thornton-Kemsley, C. N.

Macleod, Rt. Hon. Iain (Enfield, W.)

Price, Henry (Lewisham, W.)

Tiley, A. (Bradford, W.)

MacLeod, John (Ross & Cromarty)

Prior-Palmer, Brig. O. L.

Tilney, John (Wavertree)

Macmillan, Rt. Hn. Harold (Bromley)

Profumo, J. D.

Touche, Sir Gordon

Macmillan, Maurice (Halifax)

Raikes, Sir Victor

Turner, H. F. L.

Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries)

Ramsden, J. E.

Turton, Rt. Hon. R. H.

Maddan, Martin

Rawlinson, Peter

Tweedsmuir, Lady

Maitland, Cdr. J. F. W. (Horncastle)

Redmayne, M.

Vane, W. M. F.

Maitland, Hon. Patrick (Lanark)

Rees-Davies, W. R.

vaughan-Morgan, J. K.

Manningham-Buller, Rt. Hn. Sir R.

Remnant, Hon. P.

Vickers, Miss J. H.

Markham, Major Sir Frank

Renton, D. L. M.

Vosper, D. F.

Marlowe, A. A. H.

Ridsdale, J. E.

Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)

Marples, A. E.

Rippon, A. G. F.

Wakefield, Sir Wavell (St. M'lebone)

Marshall, Douglas

Roberts, Sir Peter (Heeley)

Walker-Smith, D. C.

Maude, Angus

Robertson, Sir David

Wall, Major Patrick

Maudlins, Rt. Hon. R.

Robinson, Sir Roland (Blackpool, S.)

Ward, Hon. George (Worcester)

Mawby, R. L.

Robson-Brown, W.

Ward, Dame Irene (Tynemouth)

Maydon, Lt.-Comdr, S. L. C.

Rodgers, John (Sevenoaks)

Waterhouse, Capt. Rt. Hon. C.

Medlicott, Sir Frank

Roper, Sir Harold

Watkinson, Rt. Hon. Harold

Milligan, Rt. Hon. W. R.

Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard

Webbe, Sir H.

Molson, Rt. Hon. Hugh

Russell, R. S.

Whitelaw, W. S. I. (Penrith & Border)

Monckton, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter

Sandys, Rt. Hon. D.

Williams, Paul (Sunderland, S.)

Moore, Sir Thomas

Sohofield, Lt.-Col. W.

Williams, R. Dudley (Exeter)

Morrison, John (Salisbury)

Scott-Miller, Cmdr. R.

Wills, G. (Bridgwater)

Mott-Radclyffe, C. F.

Sharples, R. C.

Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)

Nabarro, G. D. N.

Shepherd, William

Wood, Hon. R.

Nairn, D. L. S.

Simon, J. E. S. (Middlesbrough, W.)

Woollam, John Victor

Neave, Airey

Smithers, Peter (Winchester)

Yates, William (The Wrekin)

Nicholls, Harmar

Smyth, Brig. Sir John (Norwood)

Nicholson, Godfrey (Famham)

Soames, Capt. C.

TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

Nicolson, N. (B'n'm'th, E. & Chr'ch)

Spearman, Sir Alexander

Mr. Heath and

Mr. T. G. D. Galbraith.

Question put, That the proposed words be there added:—
The House divided: Ayes 323, Noes 255.

Division No. 297.]

AYES

[10.12 p.m.

Aitken, W. T.

Bishop, F. P.

Cordeaux, Lt.-Col. J. K,

Allan, R. A. (Paddington, S.)

Black, C. W.

Corfield, Capt. F. V.

Alport, C. J. M.

Body, R. F.

Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne)

Amery, Julian (Preston, N.)

Boothby, Sir Robert

Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.

Amory, Rt. Hn. Heathcoat (Tiverton)

Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hon. J. A.

Crouch, R. F.

Anstruther-Gray, Major Sir William

Boyle, Sir Edward

Crowder, Sir John (Finchley)

Arbuthnot, John

Braine, B. R.

Crowder, Petre (Ruislip—Northwood)

Armstrong, C. W,

Braithwaite, Sir Albert (Harrow, w.)

Cunningham, Knox

Ashton, H.

Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W. H.

Currie, G. B. H.

Astor, Hon. J. J.

Brooke, Rt. Hon. Henry

Dance, J. C. G.

Atkins, H. E.

Browne, J. Nixon (Craigton)

Davidson, Viscountess

Baldock, Lt.-Crrdr. J. M.

Bryan, P.

D'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry

Baldwin, A. E.

Buchan-Hepburn, Rt. Hon. P. G. T.

Deedes, W. F.

Balniel, Lord

Bullus, Wing Commander E. E.

Digby, Simon Wingfield

Barber, Anthony

Butcher, Sir Herbert

Dodds-Parker, A. D.

Barlow, sir John

Butler, Rt. Hn. R. A. (Saffron Waiden)

Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. McA.

Barter, John

Campbell, Sir David

Doughty, C. J. A.

Baxter, Sir Beverley

Carr, Robert

Drayson, G. B.

Beamish, Maj. Tufton

Cary, sir Robert

du Cann, E. D. L.

Bell, Philip (Bolton, E.)

Channon, H.

Dugdale, Rt. Hn. Sir T. (Richmond)

Bell, Ronald (Bucks, S.)

Chichester-Clark, R.

Duncan, Capt. J. A. L.

Bennett, F. M. (Torquay)

Churchill, Rt. Hon. Sir Winston

Duthie, W. S.

Bennett, Dr. Reginald

Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmth, W.)

Eccles, Rt. Hon. Sir David

Beyins, J. R. (Toxteth)

Cole, Norman

Eden, Rt. Hn. Sir A. (Warwick&L'm'tn)

Bidgood, J. C.

Conant, Mai. Sir Roger

Eden, J. B. (Bournemouth, West)

Biggs-Davison, J, A.

Cooper, A. E.

Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E.

Birch, Rt. Hon. Nigel

Cooper-Key, E. M.

Emmet, Hon. Mrs. Evelyn

Errington, Sir Eric

Kirk, P. M.

Powell, J. Enoch

Erroll, F. J.

Lagden, G. w.

Price, David (Eastleigh)

Farey-J ones, F. W.

Lambert, Hon. G.

Price, Henry (Lewisham, W.)

Fell, A.

Lambton, Viscount

Prior-Palmer, Brig. O. L.

Finlay, Graeme

Lancaster, Col. C. G.

Profumo, J. D.

Fisher, Nigel

Langford-Holt, J. A.

Raikes, Sir Victor

Fletcher-Cooke, C.

Leather, E. H. C.

Ramsden, J. E.

Fort, R.

Leavey, J. A.

Rawlinson, Peter

Foster, John

Leburn, W. G.

Redmayne, M.

Fraser, Hon. Hugh (Stone)

Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H.

Rees-Davies, W. R.

Fraser, Sir lan (M'cmbe & Lonsdale)

Legh, Hon. Peter (Petersfleld)

Remnant, Hon. P.

Freeth, D. K.

Lennox-Boyd, Rt. Hon. A. T.

Renton, D. L. M.

Garner-Evans, E. H.

Lindsay, Hon. James (Devon, N.)

Ridsdale, J. E.

George, J. C. (Pollok)

Lindsay, Martin (Solihull)

Rippon, A. G. F.

Gibson-Watt, D.

Llewellyn, D. T.

Roberts, Sir Peter (Heeley)

Glover, D.

Lloyd, Rt. Hon. G. (Sutton Coldfield)

Robertson, Sir David

Gomme-Duncan, Col. Sir Alan

Lloyd, Maj. Sir Guy (Renfrew, E.)

Robinson, Sir Roland (Blackpool, S.)

Gough, C. F. H.

Lloyd, Rt. Hon. Selwyn (Wirral)

Robson-Brown, W.

Gower, H. R.

Lloyd-George, Maj. Rt. Hon. G.

Rodgers, John (Sevenoaks)

Graham, Sir Fergus

Longden, Gilbert

Roper, Sir Harold

Grant, W. (Woodside)

Low, Rt. Hon. A. R. W.

Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard

Grant-Ferris, Wg Cdr. R.(Nantwich)

Lucas, Sir Jocelyn (Portsmouth, S.)

Russell, R. S.

Green, A.

Lucas, P. B. (Brentford & Chiswick)

Sandys, Rt. Hon. D.

Gresham Cooke, R.

Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh

Schofield, Lt.-Col. W.

Grimston, Hon. John (St. Albans)

McAdden, S. J.

Scott-Miller, Cmdr. R.

Grimston, Sir Robert (Westbury)

McCallum, Major Sir Duncan

Sharples, R. C.

Grosvenor, Lt.-Col. R. G.

Macdonald, Sir Peter

Shepherd, William

Gurden, Harold

Mackeson, Brig. Sir Harry

Simon, J. E. S. (Middlesbrough, W.)

Hall, John (Wycombe)

McKibbin, A. J.

Smithers, Peter (Winchester)

Hare, Rt. Hon. J. H.

Mackie, J. H. (Galloway)

Smyth, Brig. Sir John (Norwood)

Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N. W.)

McLaughlin, Mrs. P.

Soames, Capt. C.

Harris, Reader (Heston)

Maclay, Rt. Hon. John

Spearman, Sir Alexander

Harrison, A. B. C. (Maldon)

Maclean, Fitzroy (Lancaster)

Speir, R. M.

Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye)

McLean, Neil (Inverness)

Spence, H. R. (Aberdeen, W.)

Harvey, Air Cdre. A. V. (Macclesfd)

Macleod, Rt. Hon. Iain (Enfield, W.)

Spens, Rt. Hn. Sir P. (Kens'gt'n, S.)

Harvey, Ian (Harrow, E.)

MacLeod, John (Ross & Cromarty)

Stanley, Capt. Hon. Richard

Harvey, John (Walthamstow, E.)

Macmillan. Rt. Hn. Harold (Bromley)

Stevens, Geoffrey

Harvie-Watt, Sir George

Macmillan, Maurice (Halifax)

Steward, Harold (Stockport, S.)

Hay, John

Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries)

Stewart, Henderson (Fife, E.)

Head, Rt. Hon. A. H.

Maddan, Martin

Stuart, Rt. Hon. James (Moray)

Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel

Maitland, Cdr. J. F. W. (Horncastle)

Studholme, Sir Henry

Henderson, John (Cathcart)

Maitland, Hon. Patrick (Lanark)

Summers, Sir Spencer

Hesketh, R. F.

Manningham-Buller Rt. Hn. Sir R.

Sumner, W. D. M. (Orpington)

Hicks-Beach, Maj. W. W.

Markham, Major Sir Frank

Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)

Hill, Rt. Hon. Charles (Luton)

Marlowe, A. A. H.

Taylor, William (Bradford, N.)

Hill, Mrs. E. (Wythenshawe)

Marples, A. E.

Teeling, W.

Hill, John (S. Norfolk)

Marshall, Douglas

Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)

Hinchingbrooke, Viscount

Maude, Angus

Thomas, P. J. M. (Conway)

Hirst, Geoffrey

Maudling, Rt. Hon. R.

Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)

Holland-Martin, C. J.

Mawby, R. L.

Thompson, Lt.-Cdr. R.(Croydon, S.)

Hope, Lord John

Maydon, Lt.-Comdr. S. L. C.

Thorneycroft, Rt. Hon. P.

Hornby, R. P.

Medlicott, Sir Frank

Thornton-Kemsley, C. N.

Hornsby-Smith, Miss M. P.

Milligan, Rt. Hon. W. R.

Tiley, A. (Bradford, W.)

Horobin, Sir Ian

Molson, Rt. Hon. Hugh

Tilney, John (Wavertree)

Horsbrugh, Rt. Hon. Dame Florence

Monckton, R. Hon. Sir Walter

Touche, Sir Gordon

Howard, Gerald (Cambridgeshire)

Moore, Sir Thomas

Turner, H. F. L.

Howard, Hon. Greville (St. Ives)

Morrison, John (Salisbury)

Turton, Rt. Hon. R. H.

Howard, John (Test)

Mott-Radclyffe, C. E.

Tweedsmuir, Lady

Hudson, W. R. A. (Hull, N.)

Nabarro, G. D. N.

Vane, W. M. F.

Hughes Hallett, Vice-Admiral J.

Nairn, D. L. S.

Vaughan-Morgan, J. K.

Hughes-Young, M. H. C.

Neave, Airey

Vickers, Miss J. H.

Hulbert, Sir Norman

Nicholls, Harmar

Vosper, D. F.

Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)

Nicholson, Godfrey (Farnham)

Wakefield, Sir Wavell (St. M'lebone)

Hurd, A. R.

Nicolson, N. (B'n'm'th & Chr'ch)

Walker-Smith, D. C.

Hutchison, Sir Ian Clark (E'b'gh, W.)

Noble, Comdr. A. H. P.

Wall, Major Patrick

Hutchison, Sir James (Scotstoun)

Nugent, G. R. H.

Ward, Hon. George (Worcester)

Hyde, Montgomery

Oakshott, H. D.

Ward, Dame Irene (Tynemouth)

Hylton-Foster, Sir H. B. H.

O'Neill, Hn. Phelim (Co. Antrim, N.)

Waterhouse, Capt. Rt. Hon. C.

Iremonger, T. L.

Ormsby-Gore, Hon. W. D.

Watkinson, Rt. Hon. Harold

Irvine, Bryant Gotlman (Rye)

Orr, Capt. L. P. S.

Webbe, Sir H.

Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)

Orr-Ewing, Charles Ian (Hendon, N.)

Whitelaw, W. S. I. (Penrith & Border)

Jennings, J. C. (Burton)

Orr-Ewing, Sir Ian (Weston-S-Mare)

Williams, Paul (Sunderland, S.)

Jennings, Sir Roland (Hallam)

Osborne, C.

Williams, R. Dudley (Exeter)

Johnson, Dr. Donald (Carlisle)

Page, R. G.

Wills, G. (Bridgwater)

Johnson, Eric (Blackley)

Panned, N. A. (Kirkdale)

Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)

Johnson, Howard (Kemptown)

Partridge, E.

Wood, Hon. R.

Jones, Rt. Hon. Aubrey (Hall Green)

Peyton, J. W. W.

Woollam, John Victor

Joseph, Sir Keith

Pickthorn, K. W. M.

Joynson-Hicks, Hon. Sir Lancelot

Pilkington, Capt. R. A.

Keegan, D.

Pitman, I. J,

TELLERS FOR THE AYES

Kerby, Capt. H. B.

Pitt, Miss E. M.

Mr. Heath and

Kershaw, J. A.

Pott, H. P.

Mr. T. G. D. Galbraith

Kimball, M.

1736

1737

NOES

Ainsley, J. W.

Griffiths, William (Exchange)

Oswald, T.

Albu, A. H.

Hale, Leslie

Owen, W. J.

Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)

Hall, Rt. Hn. Glenvil (Colne Valley)

Padley, W. E.

Allen, Arthur (Bosworth)

Hamilton, W. W.

Paget, R. T.

Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)

Hannan, W.

Paling, Rt. Hon. W.(Dearne Valley)

Anderson, Frank

Harrison, J. (Nottingham, N.)

Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury)

Awbery, S. S.

Hastings, S.

Palmer, A. M. F.

Bacon, Miss Alice

Hayman, F. H.

Pannen, Charles (Leeds, W.)

Baird, J.

Healey, Denis

Pargiter, G. A.

Bellenger, Rt. Hon. F. J.

Henderson, Rt. Hn. A. (Rwly Regis)

Parker, J.

Bence, C. R. (Dunbartonshire, E.)

Herbison, Miss M.

Parkin, B. T.

Benn, Hn. Wedgwood (Bristol, S. E.)

Hewitson, Capt. M.

Peart, T. F.

Benson, G.

Hobson, C. R.

Pentland, N.

Beswick, F.

Holman, P.

Plummer, Sir Leslie

Bevan, Rt. Hon. A. (Ebbw Vale)

Holmes, Horace

Popplewell, E.

Blaokburn, F.

Houghton, Douglas

Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)

Boardman, H.

Howell, Charles (Perry Barr)

Price, Philips (Gloucestershire, W.)

Bottomley, Rt. Hon. A. G.

Howell, Denis (All Saints)

Probert, A. R.

Bowen, E. R. (Cardigan)

Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)

Proctor, W. T.

Bowles, F. G.

Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)

Pursey, Cmdr. H.

Boyd, T. C.

Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)

Randall, H. E.

Braddook, Mrs. Elizabeth

Hunter, A, E.

Rankin, John

Brockway, A. F.

Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)

Redhead, E. C.

Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.

Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)

Reeves, J.

Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper)

Irving, S. (Dartford)

Reid, William

Brown, Thomas (Ince)

Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A.

Rhodes, H.

Burke, W. A.

Janner, B.

Robens, Rt. Hon. A.

Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)

Jay, Rt. Hon. D. P. T.

Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)

Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)

Jeger, George (Goole)

Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)

Callaghan, L. J.

Jeger, Mrs. Lena (Holbn & St. Pncs, S.)

Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)

Carmichael, J.

Jenkins, Roy (Stechford)

Ross, William

Castle, Mrs. B. A.

Johnson, James (Rugby)

Royle, C.

Champion, A. J.

Johnston, Douglas (Paisley)

Shawcross, Rt. Hon. Sir Hartley

Chapman, W. D.

Jones, David (The Hartlepools)

Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E.

Chetwynd, G. R.

Jones, Elwyn (W. Ham, S.)

Shurmer, P. L. E.

Clunie, J.

Jones, Jack (Rotherham)

Silverman, Julius (Aston)

Coldrick, W.

Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)

Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)

Collick, P. H. (Birkenhead)

Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)

Simmons, C. J. (Brierley Hill)

Collins, V. J.(Shoreditch & Finsbury)

Kenyon, C.

Skeffington, A. M.

Corbet, Mrs. Freda

Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.

Slater, Mrs. H. (Stoke, N.)

Cove, W. G.

King, Dr. H. M.

Slater, J. (Sedgefield)

Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)

Lawson, G. M.

Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)

Cronin, J. D.

Ledger, R. J.

Snow, J. W.

Crossman, R. H. S.

Lee, Frederick (Newton)

Sorensen, R. W.

Cullen, Mrs. A.

Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)

Sparks, J. A.

Daines, P.

Lever, Harold (Cheetham)

Steele, T.

Dalton, Rt. Hon. H.

Lever, Leslie (Ardwick)

Stewart, Michael (Fulham)

Darling, George (Hillsborough)

Lewis, Arthur

Stokes, Rt. Hon. R. R. (Ipswich)

Davies, Rt. Hon. Clement (Montgomery)

Lindgren, G. S.

Stones, W. (Consett)

Davies, Ernest (Enfield, E.)

Lipton, Lt.-Col. M.

Strachcy, Rt. Hon. J.

Davies, Harold (Leek)

Logan, D. G.

Strauss, Rt. Hon. George (Vauxhall)

Davies, Stephen (Merthyr)

Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson

Stross, Dr. Barnett (Stoke-on-Trent, C.)

Deer, G.

MacColl, J. E.

Summerskill, Rt. Hon. E.

de Freitas, Geoffrey

McGhee, H. G.

Swingler, S. T.

Delargy, H. J.

McInnes, J.

Sylvester, G. O.

Dodds, N. N.

McLeavy, Frank

Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)

Donnelly, D. L.

MacMillan, M. K. (Western Isles)

Taylor, John (West Lothian)

Dugdale, Rt. Hn, John (W. Brmwch)

MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)

Thomas, lorwerth (Rhondda, W.)

Dye, S.

Mahon, Simon

Thomson, George (Dundee, E.)

Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.

Mainwaring, W. H.

Thornton, E.

Edelman, M.

Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfd, E.)

Timmons, J.

Edwards, Rt. Hon. John (Brighouse)

Mann, Mrs. Jean

Tomney, F.

Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly)

Mason, Roy

Turner-Samuels, M.

Edwards, Robert (Bilston)

Mayhew, C. P.

Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn

Edwards, W. J. (Stepney)

Mellish, R. J.

Usborne, H. C.

Evans, Albert (Islington, S. W.)

Messer, Sir F.

Viant, S. P.

Evans, Edward (Lowestoft)

Mikardo, Ian

Wade, D. W.

Fernyhough, E.

Mitchison, G. R.

Warbey, W. N.

Fienburgh, W.

Monslow, W.

Watkins, T. E.

Finch, H. J.

Moody, A. S.

Weitzman, D.

Fletcher, Eric

Morris, Percy (Swansea, W.)

Wells, Percy (Faversham)

Forman, J. C.

Mort, D. L.

Wells, William (Walsall, N.)

Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)

Moss, R.

West, D. G.

Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. H. T. N.

Moyle, A.

Wheeldon, W. E.

Gibson, C. W.

Mulley, F. W.

White, Mrs. Eirene (E. Flint)

Gooch, E. G.

Neal, Harold (Bolsover)

White, Henry (Derbyshire, N. E.)

Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.

Noel-Baker, Francis (Swindon)

Wilcock, Group Capt. C. A. B.

Greenwood, Anthony

Noel-Baker, Rt. Hon. P. (Derby, S.)

Wilkins, W. A.

Grenfell, Rt. Hon. D. R.

O'Brien, Sir Thomas

Willey, Frederick

Grey, C. F.

Oliver, G. H.

Williams, David (Neath)

Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)

Oram, A. E.

Williams, Rev. Llywelyn (Ab'tillery)

Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)

Orbach, M.

Williams, Ronald (Wigan)

1738

1739

Williams, Rt. Hon. T. (Don Valley)

Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton)

Younger, Rt. Hon. K.

Williams, W. R. (Openshaw)

Winterbottom, Richard

Williams, W. T. (Barons Court)

Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.

TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

Willis, Eustace (Edinburgh, E.)

Yates, V. (Ladywood)

Mr. Bowden and Mr. Pearson

Main Question, as amended, put:—
The House divided: Ayes 320, Noes 253.

Division No. 298.]

AYES

[10.24 p.m.

Aitken, W. T.

Eccles, Rt. Hon. Sir David

Jennings, J. C. (Burton)

Allan, R. A. (Paddington, S.)

Eden, Rt. Hn. SirA. (Warwick&L'm'tn)

Jennings, Sir Roland (Hallam)

Alport, C. J. M.

Eden, J. B. (Bournemouth, West)

Johnson, Dr. Donald (Carlisle)

Amery, Julian (Preston, N.)

Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E.

Johnson, Eric (Blackley)

Amory, Rt. Hn. Heathcoat (Tiverton)

Emmet, Hon. Mrs. Evelyn

Johnson, Howard (Kemptown)

Arbuthnot, John

Errington, Sir Eric

Jones, Rt. Hon. Aubrey (Hall Green)

Armstrong, C. W.

Erroll, F. J.

Joseph, Sir Keith

Ashton, H.

Farey-Jones, F. W.

Joynson-Hicks, Hon. Sir Lancelot

Astor, Hon. J. J.

Fell, A.

Keegan, D.

Atkins, H. E.

Finlay, Graeme

Kerby, Capt. H. B.

Baldock, Lt.-Cmdr. J. M.

Fisher, Nigel

Kershaw, J. A.

Baldwin, A. E.

Fletcher-Cooke, C.

Kimball, M.

Balniel, Lord

Fort, R.

Kirk, P. M.

Barber, Anthony

Foster, John

Lagden, G. W.

Barlow, Sir John

Fraser, Hon. Hugh (Stone)

Lambert, Hon. G.

Barter, John

Fraser, Sir Ian (M'cmbe & Lonsdale)

Lambton, Viscount

Baxter, Sir Beverley

Freeth, D. K.

Lancaster, Col. C. G.

Beamish, Maj. Tufton

Garner-Evans, E. H.

Langford-Holt, J. A.

Bell, Philip (Bolton, E.)

George, J. C. (Pollok)

Leather, E. H. C.

Bell, Ronald (Bucks, S.)

Gibson-Watt, D.

Leavey, J. A.

Bennett, F. M. (Torquay)

Glover, D.

Leburn, W. G.

Bennett, Dr. Reginald

Gough, C. F. H.

Legge-Bourke, Maj E. A. H.

Bevins, J. R. (Toxteth)

Gower, H. R.

Legh, Hon. Peter (Petersfield)

Bidgood, J. C.

Graham, Sir Fergus

Lennox-Boyd, Rt. Hon. A. T.

Biggs-Davison, J. A.

Grant, W. (Woodside)

Lindsay, Hon. James (Devon, N.)

Birch, Rt. Hon. Nigel

Grant-Ferris, Wg Cdr. R. (Nantwich)

Lindsay, Martin (Solihull)

Bishop, F. P.

Green, A.

Llewellyn, D. T.

Black, C. W.

Gresham Cooke, R.

Lloyd, Rt. Hon. G. (Sutton Coldfield)

Body, R. F..

Grimston, Hon. John (St. Albans)

Lloyd, Maj. Sir Guy (Renfrew, E.)

Boothby, Sir Robert

Grimston, Sir Robert (Westbury)

Lloyd, Rt. Hon. Selwyn (Wirral)

Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hon. J. A.

Grosvenor, Lt.-Col. R. G.

Lloyd-George, Maj. Rt. Hon. G.

Boyle, Sir Edward

Gurden, Harold

Longden, Gilbert

Braine, B. R.

Hall, John (Wyoombe)

Low, Rt. Hon. A. R. W.

Braithwaite, Sir Albert (Harrow, W.)

Hare, Rt. Hon. J. H.

Lucas, Sir Jocelyn (Portsmouth, S.)

Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W. H.

Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N. W.)

Lucas, P. B. (Brentford & Chiswick)

Brooke, Rt. Hon. Henry

Harris, Reader (Heston)

Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh

Browne, J. Nixon (Cralgton)

Harrison, A. B. C. (Maldon)

McAdden, S. J.

Bryan, P.

Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye)

McCallum, Major Sir Duncan

Buchan-Hepburn, Rt. Hon. P. G. T.

Harvey, Air Cdre. A. V. (Macclesfd)

Macdonald, Sir Peter

Bullus, Wing Commander E. E.

Harvey, Ian (Harrow, E.)

Mackeson, Brig. Sir Harry

Butcher, Sir Herbert

Harvey, John (Walthamstow, E.)

McKibbin, A. J.

Butler, Rt. Hn. R. A. (Saffron Walden)

Harvie-Watt, Sir George

Mackie, J. H. (Galloway)

Campbell, Sir David

Hay, John

McLaughlin, Mrs. P.

Carr, Robert

Head, Rt. Hon. A. H.

Maclay, Rt. Hon. John

Cary, Sir Robert

Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel

Maclean, Fitzroy (Lancaster)

Channon, H.

Henderson, John (Cathcart)

McLean, Neil (Inverness)

Chichester-Clark, R.

Hesketh, R. F.

Macleod, Rt. Hon. Ialn (Enfield, W.)

Churchill, Rt. Hon. Sir Winston

Hicks-Beach, Maj. W. W.

MacLeod, John (Ross & Cromarty)

Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmth, W.)

Hill, Rt. Hon. Charles (Luton)

Macmillan, Rt. Hn. Harold (Bromley)

Cole, Norman

Hill, Mrs. E. (Wythenshawe)

Macmillan, Maurice (Halifax)

Conant, Maj. Sir Roger

Hill, John (S. Norfolk)

Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries)

Cooper, A. E.

Hinchingbrooke, Viscount

Maddan, Martin

Cooper-Key, E. M.

Hirst, Geoffrey

Maitland, Cdr. J. F. W. (Horncastle)

Cordeaux, Lt.-Col. J. K.

Holland-Martin, C. J.

Maitland, Hon. Patrick (Lanark)

Corfield, Capt. F. V.

Hope, Lord John

Manningham-Buller, Rt. Hn. Sir R.

Craddock, Beresford (Spethorne)

Hornby, R. P.

Markham, Major Sir Frank

Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.

Hornsby-Smith, Miss M. P.

Marlowe, A. A. H.

Crouch, R. F.

Horobin, Sir Ian

Marples, A. E.

Crowder, Sir John (Finchley)

Horsbrugh, Rt. Hon. Dame Florence

Marshall, Douglas

Crowder, Petre (Ruislip—Northwood)

Howard, Gerald (Cambridgeshire)

Maude, Angus

Cunningham, Knox

Howard, Hon. Greville (St. Ives)

Maudling, Rt. Hon. R.

Currie, G. B. H.

Howard, John (Test)

Mawby, R. L.

Dance, J. C. G.

Hudson, W. R. A. (Hull, N.)

Maydon, Lt.-Comdr, S. L. C.

Davidson, Viscountess

Hughes Hallett, Vice-Admiral J.

Medlicott, Sir Frank

D'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry

Hughes-Young, M. H. C.

Milligan, Rt. Hon. W. R.

Deedes, W. F.

Hulbert, Sir Norman

Molson, Rt. Hon. Hugh

Digby, Simon Wingfield

Hurd, A. R.

Monckton, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter

Dodds-Parker, A. D.

Hutchison, Sir Ian Clark (E'b'gh, W.)

Moore, Sir Thomas

Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. McA.

Hutchison, Sir James (Scotstoun)

Morrison, John (Salisbury)

Doughty, C. J. A.

Hyde, Montgomery

Mott-Radclyffe, C. E.

Drayson, G. B.

Hylton-Foster, Sir H. B. H.

Nabarro, G. D. N.

du Cann, E. D. L.

Iremonger, T. L

Nairn, D. L. S.

Dugdale, Rt. Hn. Sir T. (Richmond)

Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)

Neave, Airey

Duthie, W. S.

Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)

Nicholls, Harmar

Nicholson, Godfrey (Farnham)

Roberts, Sir Peter (Heeley)

Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)

Micolson, N. (B'n'm'th, E. & Chr'ch)

Robertson, Sir David

Thompson, Lt.-Cdr. R. (Croydon, S.)

Noble, Comdr. A. H. P.

Robinson, Sir Roland (Blackpool, S.)

Thorneyoroft, Rt. Hon. P.

Nugent, G. R. H.

Robson-Brown, W.

Thornton-Kemsley, C. N.

Oakshott, H. D.

Rodgers, John (Sevenoaks)

Tiley, A. (Bradford, W.)

O'Neill, Hn. Phelim (Co. Antrim, N.)

Roper, Sir Harold

Tilney, John (Wavertree)

Ormsby-Gore, Hon. W. D.

Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard

Touche, Sir Gordon

Orr, Capt. L. P. S.

Russell, R. S.

Turner, H. F. L.

Orr-Ewing, Charles Ian (Hendon, N.)

Sandys, Rt. Hon. D.

Turton, Rt. Hon. R. H.

Orr-Ewing, Sir Ian (Weston-S-Mare)

Schofield, Lt.-Col. W.

Tweedsmuir, Lady

Osborne, C.

Scott-Miller, Cmdr. R.

Vane, W. M. F.

Page, R. G.

Sharples, R. C.

Vaughan-Morgan, J. K.

Pannell, N. A. (Kirkdale)

Shepherd, William

Vickers, Miss J. H.

Partridge, E.

Simon, J. E. S. (Middlesbrough, W.)

Vosper, D. F.

Peyton, J. W. W.

Smithers, Peter (Winchester)

Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)

Pickthorn, K. W. M.

Smyth, Brig. Sir John (Norwood)

Wakefield, Sir Wavell (St. M'lebone)

Pilkington, Capt. R. A

Soames, Capt. C.

Walker-Smith, D. C.

Pitman, I. J.

Spearman, Sir Alexander

Wall, Major Patrick

Pitt, Miss E. M.

Speir, R. M.

Ward, Hon. George (Worcester)

Pott, H. P.

Spence, H. R. (Aberdeen, W.)

Ward, Dame Irene (Tynemouth)

Powell, J. Enoch

Spens, Rt. Hn. Sir P. (Kens'gt'n, S.)

Waterhouse, Capt. Rt. Hon. C.

Price, David (Eastleigh)

Stanley, Capt. Hon. Richard

Watkinson, Rt. Hon. Harold

Price, Henry (Lewisham, W.)

Stevens, Geoffrey

Whitelaw, W. S. I. (Penrith & Border)

Prior-Palmer, Brig. O. L.

Steward, Harold (Stockport, S.)

Williams, Paul (Sunderland, S.)

Profumo, J. D.

Stewart, Henderson (Fife, E.)

Williams, R. Dudley (Exeter)

Raikes, Sir Victor

Stuart, Rt. Hon. James (Moray)

Wills, G. (Bridgwater)

Ramsden, J. E.

Studholme, Sir Henry

Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)

Rawlinson, Peter

Summers, Sir Spencer

Wood, Hon. R.

Redmayne, M.

Sumner, W. D. M. (Orpington)

Woollam, John Victor

Rees-Davies, W. R.

Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)

Yates, William (The Wrekin)

Remnant, Hon. P.

Taylor, William (Bradford, N.)

Renton, D. L. M.

Teeling, W.

TELLERS FOR THE AYES

Ridsdale, J. E.

Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)

Mr. Heath and

Rippon, A. G. F.

Thomas, P. J. M. (Conway)

Mr. T. G. D. Galbraith

NOES

Ainsley, J. W.

Davies, Ht. Hon. Clement (Montgomery)

Holmes, Horace

Albu, A. H.

Davies, Ernest (Enfield, E.)

Houghton, Douglas

Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)

Davies, Harold (Leek)

Howell, Charles (Perry Barr)

Allen, Arthur (Bosworth)

Davies, Stephen (Merthyr)

Howell, Denis (All Saints)

Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)

Deer, G.

Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)

Anderson, Frank

de Freitas, Geoffrey

Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)

Awbery, S. S.

Delargy, H. J.

Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)

Bacon, Miss Alice

Dodds, N. N.

Hunter, A. E.

Baird, J.

Donnelly, D. L.

Hynd, J. B. (Atterclifle)

Bellenger, Rt. Hon. F, J.

Dugdale, Rt. Hn. John (W. Brmwch)

Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)

Bence, C. R. (Dunbartonshire, E.)

Dye, S.

Irving, S. (Dartford)

Benn, Hn. Wedgwood (Bristol, S. E.)

Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.

Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A.

Benson, G.

Edelman, M.

Janner, B.

Beswick, F.

Edwards, Rt. Hon. John (Brighouse)

Jay, Rt. Hon. D. P. T.

Bevan, Rt. Hon. A. (Ebbw vale)

Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly)

Jeger, George (Goole)

Blackburn, F.

Edwards, Robert (Bilston)

Jeger, Mrs. Lena (Holbn & St. Pncs, S.)

Boardman, H.

Edwards, W. J, (Stepney)

Jenkins, Roy (Stechford)

Bottomley, Rt. Hon. A. G.

Evans, Albert (Islington, S. W.)

Johnson, James (Rugoy)

Bowen, E. R. (Cardigan)

Evans, Edward (Lowestoft)

Johnston, Douglas (Paisley)

Bowles, F. G.

Fernyhough, E.

Jones, David (The Hartlepools)

Boyd, T. C.

Fienburgh, W.

Jones, Elwyn (W. Ham, S.)

Braddock, Mrs. Elizabeth

Finch, H. J.

Jones, Jack (Rotherham)

Brockway, A. F.

Fletcher, Eric

Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)

Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.

Forman, J. C.

Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)

Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper)

Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)

Kenyon, C.

Brown, Thomas (Ince)

Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. H. T. N.

Key, Rt. Hon. C. W

Burke, W. A.

Gibson, C. W.

King, Dr. H. M.

Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)

Gooch, E. G.

Lawson, G. M.

Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)

Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.

Ledger, R. J.

Callaghan, L. J.

Greenwood, Anthony

Lee, Frederick (Newton)

Carmichael, J.

Grenfell, Rt. Hon. D. R.

Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)

Castle, Mrs. B. A.

Grey, C. F.

Lever, Harold (Cheetham)

Champion, A. J.

Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)

Lever, Leslie (Ardwick)

Chapman, W, D.

Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)

Lewis, Arthur

Chetwynd, G. R.

Griffiths, William (Exchange)

Lindgren, G. S.

Clunie, J.

Hale, Leslie

Lipton, Lt.-Col. M.

Coldrick, W.

Hall, Rt. Hn. Glenvil (Colne Valley)

Logan, D. G.

Collick, P. H. (Birkenhead)

Hamilton, W. W.

Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson

Collins, V. J.(Shoreditch & Finsbury)

Hannan, W.

MacColl, J. E.

Corbet, Mrs. Freda

Harrison, J. (Nottingham, N.)

McGhee, H. G.

Cove, W. G.

Hastings, S.

McInnes, J.

Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)

Hayman, F. H.

McLeavy, Frank

Cronin, J. D.

Healey, Denis

MacMillan, M. K. (Western Isles)

Grossman, R. H. S.

Henderson, Rt. Hn. A, (Rwly Regis)

MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)

Cullen, Mrs. A.

Herbison, Miss M.

Manon, Simon

Daines, P.

Hewitson, Capt. M.

Mainwaring, W. H.

Dalton, Rt. Hon. H.

Hobson, C. R.

Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfd, E.)

Darling, George (Hillsborough)

Holman, P.

Mann, Mrs. Jean

1742

1743

Mason, Roy

Proctor, W. T.

Thomas, lorwerth (Rhondda, W.)

Mayhew, C. P.

Pursey, Cmdr. H.

Thomson, George (Dundee, E.)

Mellish, R. J.

Randall, H. E.

Thornton, E.

Messer, Sir F.

Rankin, John

Timmons, J.

Mikardo, Ian

Redhead, E. C.

Tomney, F.

Mitchison, G. R.

Reeves, J.

Turner-Samuels, M.

Monslow, W.

Reid, William

Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn

Moody, A. S.

Rhodes, H.

Usborne, H. C.

Morris, Percy (Swansea, W.)

Robens, Rt. Hon. A.

Viant, S. P.

Mort, D. L.

Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)

Wade, D. W.

Moss, R.

Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)

Warbey, W. N.

Moyle, A.

Rogers, George (Kentington, N.)

Watkins, T. E.

Mulley, F. W.

Ross, William

Weitzman, D.

Neal, Harold (Bolsover)

Royle, C.

Wells, Percy (Faversham)

Noel-Baker, Francis (Swindon)

Shawcross, Rt. Hon. Sir Hartley

Wells, William (Walsall, N.)

Noel-Baker, Rt. Hon. P. (Derby, S.)

Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E.

West, D. G.

O'Brien, Sir Thomas

Shurmer, P. L. E.

Wheeldon, W. E.

Oliver, G. H.

Silverman, Julius (Aston)

White, Mrs. Eirene (E. Flint)

Oram, A. E.

Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)

White, Henry (Derbyshire, N. E.)

Orbach, M.

Simmons, C. J. (Brierley Hill)

Wilcock, Group Capt. C. A. B

Oswald, T.

Skeffington, A. M.

Wilkins, W. A.

Owen, W. J.

Slater, Mrs. H. (Stoke, N.)

Willey, Frederick

Padley, W. E.

Slater, J. (Sedgefield)

Williams, David (Neath)

Paget, R. T.

Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)

Williams, Rev. Llywelyn (Ab'tillery)

Paling, Rt. Hon. W. (Dearne Valley)

Snow, J. W.

Williams, Ronald (Wigan)

Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury)

Sorensen, R. W.

Williams, Rt. Hon. T. (Don Valley)

Palmer, A. M. F.

Sparks, J. A.

Williams, W. R. (Openshaw)

Panned, Charles (Leeds, W.)

Stewart, Michael (Fulham)

Williams, W. T. (Barons Court)

Pargiter, G. A.

Stokes, Rt. Hon. R. R. (Ipswich)

Willis, Eustace (Edinburgh, E.)

Parker, J.

Stones, W. (Consett)

Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton)

Parkin, B. T.

Strachey, Rt. Hon. J.

Winterbottom, Richard

Peart, T. F.

Strauss, Rt. Hon. George (Vauxhall)

Yates, V. (Ladywood)

Pentland, N.

Stross, Dr. Barnett (Stoke-on-Trent, C.)

Younger, Rt. Hon. K.

Plummer, Sir Leslie

Summerskill, Rt. Hon. E.

Popplewell, E.

Swingler, S. T.

TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)

Sylvester, G. O.

Mr. Bowden and

Price, Philips (Gloucestershire, W.)

Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)

Mr. Pearson.

Probert, A. R.

Taylor, John (West Lothian)

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,
That this House approves of the prompt action taken by Her Majesty's Government designed to bring hostilities between Israel and Egypt to an end and to safeguard vital international and national interests, and pledges its full support for all steps necessary to secure these ends.
While the Division was in progress—
Mr. George Craddock: Mr. Speaker, I want to raise with you a matter of urgent importance, and I am seeking your guidance. I understand that the mounted police are charging into the people outside. I have interviewed just now two people in the Central Lobby who were beaten up. A young lady was nearly crushed by a horse, and when a young man went to her rescue he was thrown over the wall and beaten up by several policemen. I am asking you what action we can take now to deal with this situation.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member cannot take any action in the middle of a Division. It is not a point of order. This is an entirely new topic and has nothing to do with the rules of order. I do not know what other action the hon. Member can take. He must consult his friends to see whether there is any action he can take.

DEMONSTRATORS (POLICE ACTION)
Motion made, and Question proposed. That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. R. Thompson.]
10.34 p.m.
Mr. George Craddock: I wish to raise a matter on the Adjournment. I am interested to know whether the Commissioner of Police has had any special instructions this evening.
I understand that quite a few people have been in the vicinity of the House. I have here a card which is punctured "10 p.m.", and I have seen the two people named on it. A girl was nearly crushed by a police horse on the pavement. A young man who went to her rescue, to pull her away from the horse, has been thrown over the wall and beaten up by the police.
Having regard to the seriousness of today's debate and also to the fact that it may have attracted a large number of people to this House—and I understand that a large number have also been kept out of the House—it appears to me to be a most serious position when constituents are treated in this manner. I am therefore asking that something be

1745
done immediately in order to correct the position, which I understand has become so bad that people have been driven off the pavements and other public places.
It is not in the interests of this House for the people of this country, who are here on an occasion when we have vital national interests at stake, to be treated in this fashion. I should like to know what we are prepared to do about it.
10.36 p.m.
Mr. E. H. C. Leather: Further to that point of order—
Mr. Speaker: It is not a point of order. The hon. Member was speaking on the Motion for the adjournment. Mr. Leather.
Mr. Leather: I have just been outside and have seen the incident to which the hon. Member has referred. I was there, until the Divisions began, for nearly half an hour, paying some attention to what went on. I did not see a group of anxious and earnest constituents desperately trying to get into this House to present their views to their Members; I saw a large number of young people out to demonstrate and make as much noise and trouble as they could. In every incident I saw the police were exercising the most extraordinary restraint in view of the very great provocation of a large number of people, who were nearly all very youthful and who were clearly, both by the banners they carried and the things they said, organised Communist groups who were there to make trouble.
10.37 p.m.
Mrs. E. M. Braddock: I heard of this incident, and I want to say that at a time when people on the other side of the House are voting away the lives of the ordinary working-class people, every one of them here can be branded as a murderer of every working-class boy who dies. When that sort of thing is happening here—[Interruption]. I say that they are murderers, every one of them.
Mr. Speaker: Order. This matter seems to have extended itself somewhat from the matter raised by the hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr.
1746
(George Craddock), on the Motion for the Adjournment. I would remind the hon. Lady that the word "murderer" is forbidden in this House.
Hon. Members: Withdraw.
Mrs. Braddock: I will withdraw the word "murderers" and say "slayers." That is not out of order.
Brigadier Terence Clarke: Is the hon. Lady entitled to call me a slayer? She has already called me a murderer.
Mr. Speaker: I do not know quite what it means. It may run from anything as harmless as an insecticide to anything else. Has the hon. Lady finished what she has to say?
Mrs. Braddock: Will you tell hon. Members opposite to be quiet. Mr. Speaker? I cannot hear what you are saying.
Mr. Speaker: Has the hon. Lady finished?
Mrs. Braddock: No, I have not. I was saying that the younger people in this country who will have to bear the burden of what has been decided tonight by old people who will not be asked to go to Egypt—[Interruption]. Hon. Members opposite should be ashamed of themselves. They are a lot of slayers and murderers.
Mr. Speaker: It is out of order to continue the main business of the day on the Motion for the Adjournment. The hon. Member for Bradford, South raised a matter about police action, and that is what we have before us at the moment.
Mrs. BraddockThat is what I was referring to.
Mr. Douglas Glover: On a point of order. You have just ruled. Mr. Speaker, that the word "murderer" shall not be used in this House by the hon. Lady the Member for Liverpool, Exchange (Mrs. Braddock). The hon. Lady has again repeated the same expression about hon. Members on this side of the House.
Mr. Speaker: I heard the hon. Lady withdraw it.
10.40 p.m.
Mr. Michael Stewart: I should like to say a few words in comment on the remarks made by the hon. Member for Somerset, North (Mr. Leather). He told us that he had been out of the House for some half-hour before the Division. He had evidently decided not to listen to the Lord Privy Seal, though none of us who did listen to the right hon. Gentleman would blame him for that decision.
I particularly wish to comment on the hon. Gentleman's reference to the fact—I do not know whether it was correct; I was not there myself—that most of the people outside were youthful. I have no wish to transgress the Ruling you have just given. Mr. Speaker, but, since the hon. Gentleman has referred to that fact, I think we ought to consider that this House, from time to time, has to take decisions which affect very seriously the lives of young people who are not yet qualified to vote. Whatever the facts of the matter may be, I think it is unfortunate that there should have been the suggestion in the hon. Gentleman's speech that because these people were youthful it did not matter how they were treated. [HON. MEMBERS: "NO."] If that was not the implication, then there was no point in the hon. Gentleman referring to their age at all.
Most of us who were not there do not know what the actual facts are, but I would draw the attention of the House and that of the Home Secretary to the fact that my hon. Friend who raised this matter had interviewed two of the people Who had suffered in these disturbances, and that they were respectable, decent people. It is not a sufficient answer for the hon. Member for Somerset, North to say first that they were young and then to make an assumption about their political opinions for which he has no evidence at all.
Mr. Leather: The hon. Gentleman has made two points, the first regarding youth. There was certainly no question—
Mr. David Jones: Is it in order. Mr. Speaker, for the hon. Member for Somerset, North (Mr. Leather) to make a second speech?
Mr. Speaker: I am not quite sure whether the hon. Member for Fulham (Mr. M. Stewart) has finished his speech. If he has given way, the hon. Member for Somerset, North (Mr. Leather) is in order.
Mr. Leather: I was certainly under the impression that the hon. Gentleman, having attacked me, had given way to allow me to make an explanation, which is a matter of common courtesy in this House.
As far as the political views of these people are concerned, the posters and the slogans being shouted, and the fact that there were people selling the Daily Worker, certainly left one in no doubt as to what their political views were. So far as the question of their youth is concerned, I would remind the hon. Gentleman that there are many of us on this side of the House who are still young enough to be on the Reserve.
Mrs. Braddock: The sooner such hon. Members opposite are called up the better.
Mr. Stewart: If the hon. Gentleman imagines that membership of the Reserve is confined to people on his side of the House, it is time he thought again.
The hon. Gentleman is apparently making the assumption that because some of the people he saw outside the House may have been Communists, therefore all of them were. One might as well assume that because he was there all were Conservatives. The fact is that by a stupid and tendentious speech the hon. Gentleman has tried to obscure a specific matter raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, South (Mr. George Craddock) of the maltreatment of two people who appeared to him to be decent and respectable citizens. We trust that the Home Secretary will have something to say about it.
10.45 p.m.
Mr. Wedgwood Benn: Surely this is more than an ordinary Adjournment debate, because the situation which has been reported by my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, South (Mr. George Craddock)—I have no knowledge at all of the facts—raises two

1749
quite separate issues. One is a matter about which we should expect the Home Secretary to make some remarks. The other is a matter which surely concerns you. Mr. Speaker, because it is governed by the Sessional Order of the House, in which the House orders the Commismissioner of Police to keep open the streets of the Metropolis leading to Westminster for the purpose of maintaining the privileges of Parliament.
As I understand, the reason the roads to the Palace of Westminster are to be kept open is not only so that hon. Members may come to the House, but also that their constituents may come to the House. I do not make any distinction in this matter between Communists and non-Communists. The only point which has not been raised is that Communists have as much right to come to the House to see their Members of Parliament as non-Communists. Moreover, one of the best ways to convert Communists and persuade them to give up Communism is to show that the machinery of Parliamentary democracy provides a privilege which they cannot have under their own system.
I hope, Mr. Speaker, that you will not be content simply to let the Home Secretary reply, but that you will lay down a ruling stating what must be done by the Commissioner of Police in carrying out the Sessional Order.
Mr. Speaker: I would point out to the hon. Member that I did not lay down the Sessional Order. The House does that and not I.
10.47 p.m.
Mr. James Simmons: In 1931, I raised a matter in this House similar to that which has now been raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, South (Mr. George Craddock). On that occasion there were crowds outside this House attempting to create political agitation, and on that occasion undue force was used to suppress those crowds. It is rather a commentary on the present political situation that history appears to be repeating itself, and that the people are so enraged at the actions of the Government that they have to demonstrate.
1750
The point I wish to raise with the Home Secretary is whether the free British people have the right to demonstrate, whether they have the right to congregate in order to express their dissatisfaction with the Government's policy so far as Egypt is concerned. Are we to take it from the remarks of the hon. Member for Somerset, North (Mr. Leather) that they could not have been allowed to come to the House because they were shouting slogans, that because they were shouting slogans they must be Communists and that because they were Communists it was right and proper for them to be ill-treated by the police?
Whatever their political convictions, they are citizens of this country, and, as such, have a right of access to this House. We should have a reassurance from the Home Secretary. This situation is likely to continue so long as this Government are in power. People are likely to be agitating as long as British boys and men are to be sacrificed for the interests of British capitalism. We should have an assurance from the Home Secretary that he will not use unduly the force of the police to prevent young people, who are likely to be killed in Egypt in a few weeks, from coming to see their Member of Parliament before they die.
Mr. James Griffiths: Perhaps we might now, as a matter of courtesy to the House, hear from the Home Secretary whether he will make inquiries into the statements that have been made.
10.51 p.m.
The Secretary of State for the Home Department and Minister for Welsh Affairs (Major Gwilym Lloyd-George): As a matter of fact, I saw this demonstration myself. I watched it for 20 minutes. There were, I should say, about 200 people. If they were constituents they must have been extraordinarily well-rehearsed, because they had two slogans the whole time, "We want peace", which is quite unexceptionable, and "Eden must go" to which I object very strongly.
Mr. R. E. Winterbottom: That is only a sign of intelligence.
Major Lloyd-George: Perhaps I should have disclosed my interest before I said that I had watched the thing.
Of course, as I always do, I will look into these complaints. No traffic was stopped during the whole of these proceedings. If the constituents had wanted to come to the House by bus they could have dropped off as near to the House as they wanted, because no bus or cab was stopped. These people were moved very quietly away, as it is the duty of the police to do. I watched the mounted police. If something happened which I did not see I shall be only too glad, as I always am, to look into it. The last
1752
time I heard this kind of complaint I found that the only two casualties were two police officers.
Mr. Griffiths: We thank the right hon. and gallant Gentleman for his answer. I am sure that my hon. Friend can follow the matter up by Question in the House, when the Home Secretary has had time to make inquiries. We are much obliged to the right hon. and gallant Gentleman.
Adjourned accordingly at eight minutes to Eleven o'clock.

EDUCATION
  Expenditure, Surrey
  Expenditure, Surrey
NATIONAL FINANCE
  Estate Duty
  Estate Duty
  National Debt
  National Debt
  Shipping Industry
  Shipping Industry
  Superannuation Schemes (Tax Relief)
  Superannuation Schemes (Tax Relief)
  Income Tax
  Income Tax
AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD
  Harvest, Lincolnshire
  Harvest, Lincolnshire
  Sugar Board (Composition)
  Sugar Board (Composition)
  Live Cattle Exports
  Live Cattle Exports
  POLAND AND HUNGARY
  POLAND AND HUNGARY
  ANGLO-JORDAN TREATY
  ANGLO-JORDAN TREATY
  SLAVE TRADE (SUPPRESSION)
  SLAVE TRADE (SUPPRESSION)
MINISTRY OF HEALTH
  Horsham Hospital
  Horsham Hospital
  Motor Tricycle Repairs (Cost)
  Motor Tricycle Repairs (Cost)
  World Health Assembly (Smallpox)
  World Health Assembly (Smallpox)
LOCAL GOVERNMENT
  Requisitioned Flat, Paddington (Rent)
  Requisitioned Flat, Paddington (Rent)
TRANSPORT
  Traffic Congestion, Horsham
  Traffic Congestion, Horsham
  Road Traffic Convention
  Road Traffic Convention
  Shipping (Overloading)
  Shipping (Overloading)
  LEGAL ADVICE SCHEME
  LEGAL ADVICE SCHEME
NORTHERN RHODESIA
  Railway Strike
  Railway Strike
  Crown Lands, Kawama Namalonga
  Crown Lands, Kawama Namalonga
ZANZIBAR
  Legislative Council (Representative Members)
  Legislative Council (Representative Members)
GIBRALTAR
  Airport Traffic Facilities (Passengers)
  Airport Traffic Facilities (Passengers)
CYPRUS
  Police Security Expenditure
  Police Security Expenditure
BRITISH ARMY
  Reservists (Pay)
  Reservists (Pay)
COAL
  Opencast Mining (Compensation Payments)
  Opencast Mining (Compensation Payments)
HOME DEPARTMENT
  Accused Persons, Birmingham, Liverpool and Manchester
  Accused Persons, Birmingham, Liverpool and Manchester
  Mental Deficiency Act (Section 56 Prosecutions)
  Mental Deficiency Act (Section 56 Prosecutions)
  Standing Joint Committees
  Standing Joint Committees
  Cruelty to Animals (Prosecutions)
  Cruelty to Animals (Prosecutions)
  Vice, London
  Vice, London
SCOTLAND
  Road Accidente, Lanark (Cartland Bridge)
  Road Accidente, Lanark (Cartland Bridge)
  Potato Harvest (School Children)
  Potato Harvest (School Children)
  Forth Road Crossing
  Forth Road Crossing
TRADE AND COMMERCE
  Netherlands (Trade Figures)
  Netherlands (Trade Figures)
  Imports (Control)
  Imports (Control)
  Commonwealth Imports (Duty)
  Commonwealth Imports (Duty)
MINISTRY OF WORKS
  Big Ben
  Big Ben
Preamble
The House met at twelve noon, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers

  EDUCATION (SCOTLAND) BILL [H.L.]
  12.5 p.m.
  Order of the Day for the consideration of Commons Amendments read.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE DUCHY OF LANCASTER (THE EARL OF SELKIRK): My Lords, I beg to move that the Commons Amendments be now considered.
  Moved, That the Commons Amendments be now considered.—(The Earl of Selkirk.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  COMMONS AMENDMENTS
  [The references are to Bill No. 95 as first printed for the House of Commons.]
  Clause 1, page 2, line 3, leave out from (" on ") to end of line 5 and insert (" any road, the authority shall—

  (a) if it is a public road, obtain the consent of the authority responsible for the maintenance of such road;

  (b) if it is a private road, consult the authority responsible for the maintenance of public roads in the area in which that private road is situated".)

  THE EARL OF SELKIRK: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in this Amendment. The purpose of it is to ensure that in private roads the local authority are consulted before crush barriers are put up, so that they may approve the general way in which it is done.
  Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(The Earl of Selkirk.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  COMMONS AMENDMENT
  Clause 1, page 2, line 8, leave out (" Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation ") and insert (" Secretary of State ").
  THE EARL OF SELKIRK: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in this Amendment. It is due to the transfer of functions from the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation to the Secretary of State
  1242
  for Scotland, which took place after this Bill had left your Lordships' House.
  Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(The Earl of Selkirk.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  COMMONS AMENDMENT
  Clause 4, page 3, line 41, leave out ("may") and insert ("shall")
  THE EARL OF SELKIRK: My Lords, there is a printing error in this Amendment as it appears on the Paper: the word should be "may" and not "way". I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in this Amendment. It is to ensure that in making the regulations the Secretary of State shall include in those regulations maintenance for dependants.
  Moved. That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(The Earl of Selkirk.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  COMMONS A MENDMFNT
  Clause 5, page 4. line 25, after (" under ") insert (" paragraph (a) of ")
  THE EARL OF SELKIRK: My Lords, this is a drafting Amendment. I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in the Amendment.
  Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(The Earl of Selkirk.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR (VISCOUNT KILMUIR): My Lords, have any noble Lords any points to raise on the Schedules? If not, if the House approves, the noble Earl might move the Amendments to the Schedules en bloc.

  COMMONS AMENDMENTS
  First Schedule, page 11, line 19, after ("thirty-six'') insert ("in subsection (6) after the words 'was made' there shall be inserted the words 'or amended', and")
  line 49, at end insert ("In section one hundred and eight, in subsection (1) the definition of 'Service' shall be omitted.")
  page 12, line 29, after ("(1)") insert (" for the definition of 'Central Institution' there shall be substituted the following definition—
  ' Central Institution' means an educational establishment for the provision of further education recognised as a central institution by regulations made by the Secretary of State; and")
  line 32, leave out lines 32 to 39.
  Second Schedule, page 13, line 12, column 3, at end insert ("The Sixth Schedule")
  line 22, at end insert—

  ("4 & 5 Eliz. 2 c. 53.

  The Teachers (Superannuation) Act,1956.

  In section thirty two, paragraph (2).")

  THE EARL OF SELKIRKMy Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in Amendments Nos. 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 and 10.
  Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendments.—(The Earl of Selkirk.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  EGYPT
  12.10 p.m.
  LORD HENDERSON LORD HENDERSON rose to call attention to the Government's Statement on the Egypt-Israeli situation; and to move for Papers. The noble Lord said: My Lords, I rise to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper. This debate is taking place in very unusual and grave circumstances. British and French air forces are engaged in operations over Egyptian territory. It may also be that both British and French military forces have been put into their assigned positions on the Suez. Neither side has declared war, and war may not be declared. We have had no news, so far, of any fighting between the ground forces of the two sides, but it will be a miracle if fighting does not soon take place. Perhaps in the course of his speech the Acting Leader of the House may be able to tell us something more about the movement operations which began yesterday morning, and about what has happened since.
  Our debate is taking place on a Motion "to call attention to the Government's statement on the Egypt-Israeli situation." That statement was, in fact, a statement of Government intentions. It was made, as noble Lords will recall, in both Houses of Parliament on Tuesday, following what must have been hours of anxious deliberation between, on the one hand, the British Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary and, on the other, the French Prime Minister and Foreign Minister. These consultations took place because of the news that during Monday night Israeli armed forces, obviously in strength, had crossed the frontier into
  1244
  Egypt and had penetrated deep into Egyptian territory in the Sinai Peninsula.
  The statement told us that these forces had reached close to the banks of the Suez Canal; that the British and French representatives at the United Nations had been instructed to seek an immediate meeting of the Security Council; that the Governments of Israel and Egypt had been called upon to stop all war-like action forthwith and to withdraw their military forces to a distance of ten miles from the Canal; and, further, that in order to separate the belligerents, and to ensure freedom of transit through the Canal by ships of all nations, the Egyptian Government had been asked to agree that Anglo-French Forces should move temporarily into key positions at Port Said, Ismailia and Suez. The two Governments were given twelve hours in which to answer, and they were told that if, at the expiration of that time, one or both had not undertaken to comply with this requirement, British and French forces would intervene in whatever strength might be necessary to secure compliance. I think that is a fair summary of the statement.
  My Lords, a potentially dangerous situation has existed in the Middle East for several years. The reason for it, as we all know, has been the implacable hostility towards the State of Israel of all the States gathered together in the Arab League. I doubt whether any State in modern times has been so subjected to provocation, hostility, threats and anxieties about its very existence as has the State of Israel. These anxieties were greatly accentuated by the political intervention of Russia in the Middle East, and by the supply of immense quantities of modern armaments to Egypt from Communist sources. Many appeals were made from these Benches for counterbalancing arms to be provided to Israel from this country, but with little result. More recently, as the Government Statement itself points out, the establishment of a joint military command between Egypt, Jordan and Syria, culminating in the incursion of Egyptian commandos on Sunday night, had all produced a very dangerous situation.
  I do not think that any reasonable person can withhold sympathy from Israel in the predicament in which she has found herself for a long time. Her

  1245
  deep and growing anxieties and dangers must have been clear to all who knew the facts, but little or nothing was done to deal with the causes, and Israel saw the ring growing tighter and stronger. So the Israeli Government decided, so we understand, to clean up the bases from which these Fedayeen raids in Sinai were made. We on this side have pointed out, in some of your Lordships' discussions, the standing danger to peace of raids and counter-raids, of reprisals and counter-reprisals, and the difficulty that would arise one day, when a large-scale operation took place, in deciding where the true responsibility for aggression really lay. But whatever the purpose of the Israeli action, I do not think it can be regarded as other than a breach of the Charter and an act of aggression; and I feel compelled to add that the Israeli Government were most unwise in entering upon a course which has helped to produce the extremely grave situation that confronts us all today.
  When the Acting Leader of the House was making his statement on Tuesday, and told us that the British and French Governments had instructed their representatives at the United Nations to seek an immediate meeting of the Security Council, I thought for a moment that we were going to take a lead in having the growing threat to peace firmly and positively dealt with. How wrong I was in my expectation was made clear when the remainder of the statement was read. The policy of Her Majesty's Government and of the French Government was not positive peace action by the United Nations, but direct military action by Britain and France. The last two paragraphs of the statement were the really operative parts. There was, first, the call for a cease-fire —and with that I agree. Then there was the call for both the Israelis and the Egyptians to withdraw their military forces to a distance of ten miles from the Canal. What did that mean? It meant that the Egyptian forces would have to go ten miles to the West of the Canal while the Israeli forces would be held ten miles to the East of the Canal.
  There are two reasonable assumptions. The first is that the Israelis world be prepared to stop at the position indicated to them, because it would leave them seventy or eighty or more miles inside Egyptian territory. The second is that the Nasser Government would not
  1246
  dare to accept the position indicated for their forces, because it would mean national humiliation and perhaps the end of the Nasser regime. It is not surprising, therefore, that the Israeli Government accepted this requirement while the Egyptian Government rejected it. Nor could there have been any expectation hat Egypt would agree to the occupation of the three key positions on the Suez Canal. The agreed return of British forces apart from Treaty rights does not belong to the realm of practical politics; and all of us, including Her Majesty's Government, know that to be so. What therefore had the appearance of being an ultimatum to both Israel and Egypt was, in reality, an ultimatum to Egypt alone, and the answer could he predicted with certainty. The result was the rejection of the ultimatum by Egypt and the immediate undertaking by Britain and France of the military operation upon which they had decided.
  Both in the First and the Second World Wars. Britain went forward on the basis of broad national unity. In the present case of the military reoccupation of the Suez Canal, the full significance, implications and consequences of which have yet to be unfolded, there is not national unity. There is a clear-cut division between Her Majesty's Government and Her Majesty's Opposition. The division goes far wider than that in this country. The nation is divided. The Opposition are criticised and abused for his division just as they were two months ago when they opposed the use of force on the Canal issue. If am going squarely to face up to that charge. Since the end the war, there has been a fairly broad and consistent measure of unity on foreign policy. On most issues there has been what has been called a "bipartisan" foreign policy. I myself, as I think noble Lords opposite will agree, have been a firm supporter of such policy. It was possible to have such a policy because both sides of the House proclaimed loyalty to the Charter of the United Nations as the cornerstone of British foreign policy. Both sides espoused the cause of the integrity and free co-operation of the Commonwealth and Empire. Both regarded Anglo-American friendship and unity as the indispensable guarantee of the security of the free world. Each of these principles of policy

  1247
  has been violated by the present action of Her Majesty's Government.
  There is no authority residing in any Article of the United Nations Charter, or in any treaty, for the forcible entry of British and French armed forces into Egyptian territory. By taking this action Her Majesty's Government have flouted their obligations under the Charter and violated its principles. While Parliament was discussing the Government's statement of intentions, the Security Council was actually in session; but instead of using all their influence and authority at the Security Council to further collective effort to get a cease-fire between Israel and Egypt, Britain and France took the course about which they have so often and so rightly complained when it was followed by the Soviet Union —they exercised the Veto.
  This country, under all its post-war Governments, has been a powerful supporter of the rule of law, the peaceful settlement of disputes and the recognition of sovereign rights and independence. It has a fine record throughout the eleven years' existence of the United Nations; but within a few hours of telling Parliament that they were seeking an immediate meeting of the Security Council, the British and French Governments had isolated themselves in that meeting. They twice exercised the Veto They found themselves separated from the United States, with the United States and the Soviet Union on the same side. While Her Majesty's Government were complaining in this House about the past frustrations of the United Nations, they were engaged in frustrating the United Nations by their own use of the Veto. I am sure that very many people in this country felt a sense of shock and shame when they read the news of what had happened at the Security Council. I know that I did, and I cannot but believe that there are noble Lords opposite who were disquieted by the action of Her Majesty's Government.
  The shock was felt far beyond our own country. I believe that the United Nations has suffered a serious blow and that the reputation of Britain among the enlightened peace forces of the world has been greatly damaged. But the policy of Her Majesty's Government has also divided the Commonwealth.The
  1248
  Commonwealth is a great force for peace and human progress. It is a great partnership of independent nations working together in equality and unity. There is no unity, however, on the present action of Her Majesty's Government. Australia did not side with us in the Security Council. Canada regrets that Her Majesty's Government had found it necessary to deliver an ultimatum backed by force, and it regards the split in the Security Council between Britain and France and the United States as "most deplorable". The Government of India consider the Anglo-French "invasion of Egyptian territory" as "a flagrant violation of the United Nations Charter." We may be sure that both Pakistan and Ceylon will take a similar stand.
  Thirdly, not only has there been the deplorable split in the Security Council between Britain and the United States, but there has also been a deplorable split between Britain and United States outside the Security Council. There was no prior consultation with the United States, the third partner of the Tripartite Declaration, which is designed to ensure peace in the Middle East and which has now been discarded by Britain and France. Appeals by President Eisenhower for Britain and France to stay their hand in Egypt have been ignored. There has been an unhappy lack of frankness with the United States Government on the part of the British and French Governments, and suspicions have been created that we have been engaged in collusive action with the Israeli Government.
  Thus, my Lords, it is clear that the "go-it-alone action by the British and French Governments has produced disunity at home, disunity at the Security Council, disunity within the Commonwealth and disunity with the United States. It is no use for either Ministers or Government supporters to charge the Opposition with breaking national unity. There is one cause, and it is easily recognisable, of all this division and disunity, and that is the disastrous policy of force adopted by the Government in defiance of the United Nations Charter, without the sanction of any treaty right and in disregard of International Law.
  The reason advanced by Her Majesty's Government in justification for the course they have set out on is to protect British shipping and British citizens passing

  1249
  through the Canal and "vital international rights." These are important duties whenever they arise, but the way in which we seek to discharge those duties is also important. I do not know of anything in the United Nations Charter which authorises the action taken by the British and French Governments. There was an admirable leading article in the Manchester Guardian yesterday which dealt with this particular point. It asserted that "nothing in the Charter, or in acknowledged International Law, permits armed intervention in such case."
  I have again studied with care the weighty and impressive speech made in the debate on September 12 by the noble and learned Lord, Lord McNair, whose views to-day we should all have welcomed had he been speaking, and I can find nothing in it that would lend legal justification to the Anglo-French military intervention in Egypt. So far as I can understand the matter, it is an illegal operation. And as for keeping the Canal open to world shipping, it would seem that the military action taken is defeating the very object it was designed to achieve. It would appear from shipping reports that more and more British ships are being diverted to the longer alternative route.
  What is clear is that Britain and France have achieved a position of almost complete isolation in the world by their resort to force. To-night the whole matter is to be considered by the United Nations Assembly, where the Veto does not apply. In the light of the discussions at the Security Council, it seems probable that the Assembly will be asked to call upon all members to refrain from the use of force or the threat of force in Egypt, and it may also be asked to condemn the military action of Britain. France and Israel. If a resolution on these or similar lines is submitted, we may be sure it will be carried by an overwhelming majority. That is the unhappy prospect to which Her Majesty's Government's policy has brought us. I would only add that I never thought I should live to see the day when this country would be virtually arraigned by the United Nations for what is perhaps the gravest violation of the Charter.
  My Lords, I am sure that all of us must devoutly wish for a speedy end to
  1250
  all hostilities and the withdrawal of the forces which forcibly entered Egyptian territory. In seeking to bring this about, the United Nations are working to restore international respect for and loyalty to the principles of the Charter. But the moral and political influence of the United Nations must be exerted on all nations alike. To end hostilities will still leave acute problems to be solved. Egypt has been guilty of grave provocations to other nations. She has defied United Nations resolutions regarding Israel's right to free passage through the Canal and she has been the leading spirit in ringing Israel with hostile States and in threatening her existence. An end must be put to all that. It will be the imperative duty of the United Nations to act with as much energy for a speedy and just settlement of the problems in the Middle East, including that of a fair international system for running the Canal, as it has shown in dealing with the resort: to force by Britain, France and Israel. 'The causes which led to this unhappy development have to be removed and real peace in the area has to be achieved. That is one of the most urgent lessons the world has been taught by what has been happening in Egypt since the beginning of this week. I beg to move for Papers.
  12.37 p.m.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR COMMONWEALTH RELATIONS (THE EARL OF HOME): My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Henderson, has, as he always does, stated his case with studied moderation. He has not disguised from us that there is in this matter a complete cleavage between the point of view of the Government and that of Her Majesty's Opposition. I do not deny that that is true so far. What I am entitled, I think, to doubt is whether the complete division between Her Majesty's Government and the Opposition reflects an equal division of opinion in the country and that view I shall hope to sustain during the course of my remarks.
  During this crisis the House has been kept informed by statements which I have made in this House, and the noble Lord himself gave an accurate summary of the events until, I think, to-day. The position to-day is this: the military operation which was foreshadowed if either side refused the United Kingdom's request to

  1251
  stop hostilities has begun. Our object is to employ the minimum amount of force on purely military targets, and certain military airfields last night were engaged by the Royal Air Force. The military operation will proceed until the present conflict between Israel and Egypt is stopped. That is our sole aim, and the sooner Egypt follows Israel's example and accepts our request the less destruction there will be. Neither Cairo nor Alexandria nor any other town in Egypt has been bombed. The people of this country should know that all these spectacular statements put out from Egypt today are false. They are gross and barefaced lies. And, in a different context, we have had to suffer and endure that distorted propaganda over many months.
  THE EARL OF LUCAN: Would the noble Lord say whether it is true that Almaza airfield has been engaged by the Royal Air Force?
  THE EARL. OF HOME: The military airfields have been engaged. So far as the details are concerned, if noble Lords opposite would not mind waiting until the Lord Chancellor speaks he will then be in a position to give them a clear picture of the exact airfields which have been engaged. Almaza was one. I believe.
  THE EARL OF LUCAN: Almaza is in Cairo.
  THE EARL OF HOME: The Lord Chancellor will be able to tell the House. No targets involving the civilian population have been selected. The airfields selected have been airfields with military aircraft on them.
  When I spoke in the debate on Foreign Affairs in your Lordships' House on March 27 this year, I remember saying to your Lordships that there had surely never been an action more reckless of the peace than the offer of Soviet arms to Egypt and their acceptance by Egypt. Until then the balance of strength between Israel and Egypt had been—albeit precariously—preserved, and, though it was never a satisfactory state, there was a truce in this war between Israel and Egypt which had never officially ceased. After the arms deal, tension throughout the Middle East became taut. When Egypt seized the Suez Canal Company, that tension became stretched to the limit. And now it has
  1252
  snapped. Her Majesty's Government have long foreseen that a situation like this was likely to develop, and indeed that it was almost inevitable; and it was precisely because we foresaw the inevitability of something like this that, in face of all critics (let me remind your Lordships), we mobilised strength in the Eastern Mediterranean sufficient to fulfil the basic duties of any Government—that is, to protect their citizens, to ensure the safety of their property, to uphold international rights and to maintain the sanctity of treaties, because the sanctity of treaties is the only foundation for civilised community living.
  The House is familiar already with the background of the Suez Canal dispute. Now when we are charged with breaking the peace, perhaps I might remind noble Lords opposite and critics outside of this fact: that throughout the two months, the long two months, from the end of July to the end of September, and indeed until now, of the Suez Canal dispute, the United Kingdom has scrupulously conformed to the requirements and the procedure of the United Nations. And during all that time we were in continuous touch and consultation with the United States of America. Indeed, I do not believe there can ever have been a time when one country has shown more consideration for the views and wishes of a partner. Time and again. we went out of our way to take into account the American point of view and to seek to meet it, and we sought to reconcile the needs of Egyptian sovereignty with the needs of many nations. Noble Lords opposite cannot have it both ways. At that time, I remember, they said we were clinging to America's coat tails. They must sometimes allow us to have a policy of our own.
  I will not retrace these months of exchange of view and of negotiations, but I would remind your Lordships that even when eighteen nations, the chief users of the Canal, and no doubt many others, were agreed that the solution to the Canal dispute was international control, neither the intervention of the United States of America nor that of the Security Council was able to induce Colonel Nasser to accept that solution. I reject the charge that we have given way to impatience. In this matter of the Suez Canal our life is at stake. We carried patience to the

  1253
  limit; and when the Israeli attack broke we were still engaged in trying to find a solution which would at once reconcile Egyptian sovereignty with the needs of the world for the free passage of this vital waterway.
  In the early days of the dispute with Egypt, Mr. Gaitskell reminded us of Colonel Nasser's ambition. I will not take up the time of the House beyond reading one quotation [OFFICIAL REPORT, Commons. Vol. 557 (No. 205) col. 1620]:
  "We cannot forget that Colonel Nasser has repeatedly boasted of his intention to create an Arab empire from the Atlantic to the Persian Gulf."
  The French Prime Minister, M. Mollet, the other day quoted a speech of Colonel Nasser which he rightly said could remind us only of one thing—the speeches of Hitler before the war. For many months now the sort of thing with which in the old days we were only too familiar has been going on; the appeal to the mop, the propaganda and the hate, accompanied by the boasts of power. And delay in the matter of a settlement of the Suez Canal dispute has apparently confirmed Colonel Nasser in his possession until he has felt free to indulge in further reckless ambitions.
  Like the noble Lord, Lord Henderson. I am not here to defend, on behalf of Her Majesty's Government or anyone else, the Israeli action. But Colonel Nasser has, during these last few months, taken every opportunity to taunt Israel with the fate which awaits her at his hands. Israel—and I think this has been too often forgotten in recent hours—accused Egypt of aggression before she attacked. The United Kingdom has been careful not to condone Israel's attack, but we were not prepared, on the present evidence, to dub her an aggressor. Egypt has never ceased publicly to proclaim that she is at war with Israel and always will be. She has never ceased to boast that she is organising Israel's destruction. An Israeli ship, as the noble Lord said, is forcibly held at the mouth of the Suez Canal and she is forbidden to use this means of communication.
  The latest link in the encirclement—and the noble Lord was perfectly right, I believe, in selecting this as the real cause of Israel's outburst—was the appointment by Colonel Nasser of an Egyptian Commander-in-Chief for
  1254
  the Egyptian, Syrian and Jordanian Armies. That was the immediate cause of Israel's break for freedom. In these circumstances Her Majesty's Government cannot, on present evidence, put all the blame on Israel. The Prime Minister has explained the Government's reaction and the objectives of their action: first that hostilities should cease; secondly, that both combatant.; should withdraw from the Canal Zone.
  VISCOUNT ASTOR: May I ask the noble Earl one question? When he says that, does he mean that the Egyptian Army should all withdraw to the west of the Canal Zone?
  THE EARL OF HOME: Ten miles either to the east or to the west of the Canal, so that there shall be a sufficient area in which hostilities cannot take place anti damage the Canal physically. And we have requested that the war should be stopped. Therefore, our action is a policing action pending a final settlement.
  The Opposition and the noble Lord, Lord Henderson, have raised three main criticisms. The noble Lord says that the United Kingdom should have held up action pending judgment by the United Nations. He rightly said that the United Nations Organisation has been the cornerstone of the policy, not only of Her Majesty's Government but also of the Opposition. In that way we have a bipartisan foreign policy. I hope that that still holds. We did refer the flatter to the United Nations. The criticism is that we did not wait. But is it any use to disguise from ourselves that the United Nations machinery has fatal defects in the case of an emergency like this? Time and again it has proved itself deliberate, slow and inconclusive, and time and again the Soviet Veto has frustrated a decision. If the Communist nations, or their friends, decide to prevent the machinery of settlement from working, is there no collective redress for a member of the free world? If a dictator, seeking to dominate another country, does everything short of physical aggression to bring that country to its knees, are we merely to wait until it is strangled?
  Further restraint and tolerance, a desire for peace and the willingness to make concessions, have merely fed the appetite of the greedy. I think that if there is

  1255
  any lesson that this country and the free nations have learned as a result of two world wars in this twentieth century, it is the ways of dictators. Eighteen years ago, in 1938, almost to a month, I stepped out of an aeroplane with Mr. Chamberlain on our way back from Munich. The Prime Minister of Great Britain in those days had gone to the limits, honourably. to try to find a peaceful solution of a dispute. Standing here, as I do to-day, I cannot help but remember and learn the lesson of those times.
  When it became clear that war was to be fought across the Canal, the United Kingdom at once thought that it was its duty to stop the fighting. On what legal foundation does the United Kingdom's action rest, the noble Lord, Lord Henderson, asks. I am not an international lawyer and my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor is to follow later in the debate. But I should have thought that there was nothing. either in the Charter of the United Nations or in the Tripartite Declaration. which absolves the Government from the duty of protecting their own people and their own property and of upholding international treaties. If we had failed to take the necessary steps to do any of those things, then indeed we should be worthy of censure.
  Then the noble Lord says that we have not consulted the United States. I have partly dealt with that by saying that during. all these months our consultations could not have been closer. Nor is it for the Opposition to chide. But the truth is that until now—perhaps these events will change it—there has been a different emphasis in the foreign policies of our two countries in relation to the Middle East. The Middle East, in general, is economically essential to the United Kingdom; it is not economically essential to the United States of America. In particular, the Suez Canal is the lifeline of the United Kingdom: the United States is independent of it. We have accepted those differences and we have tried to minimise them, and it is fortunate that this is one of the very few areas of common concern where we do not see eye to eye with the United States and cannot always wait for the concurrence of the United States before we act. Perhaps now that a country like
  1256
  the United Kingdom, which I think can claim is respected by world opinion as a country pursuing liberal policies, has been driven to force to preserve our life and to stop fighting in an area which is vital to us, the United States will better understand our concern with this area.
  In regard to the Commonwealth, I can truthfully say, because I have been responsible for our relations with the Commonwealth countries, that up to the time of the Israel accusation and attack upon Egypt there had been a continuous flow of information and consultation between the Commonwealth countries and Her Majesty's Government. It is too early to say what the final reaction of the Commonwealth countries will be. Of course, they are shocked by the use of force. That is not surprising—so are we all.
  THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: My Lords. as the noble Earl has dealt with the consultation with Commonwealth countries, for which as a Minister he is responsible, may I ask him whether any of the Commonwealth countries were consulted, and whether any were informed before the decision was taken to send an ultimatum to Egypt?
  THE EARL OF HOME: My Lord, I can easily answer that question. I was about to do so. I was saying that until the point of the Israel accusation and attack, there was a continuous flow of information between Her Majesty's Government and the Commonwealth countries, as there always is; but when the attack developed there was simply no time for consultation, although the Commonwealth countries were informed before the Prime Minister's statement of what the British Government had in mind.
  LORD TEVIOT: My Lords, may I interrupt to say that it came up "on the tape just before I entered the House that Mr. Menzies had made a statement to the House in Australia that Britain was perfectly right in doing what she has done. So we have a genuine opinion there.
  THE EARL OF HOME: My noble friend has taken the words I was about to read out of my mouth. Mr. Menzies has just told me that I can read this to your Lordships. This is a report of what he said:
  "On the question whether the United Kingdom was at fault in not having consulted

  1257
  other British countries in advance, he said that the answer to this question seemed to him to be that she was not at fault at all. The circumstances were those of great emergency. Hostile armed forces were approaching each other and extensive combat was imminent. In that combat vital interests in the passage of the Canal were quite likely to suffer most serious damage. The Canal was an international waterway with guaranteed freedom of passage for ships of all nations, but that guarantee would cease to have much value if the Canal itself became part of a theatre of active war. There was literally no time to be lost if any action was to be taken to keep combatants out of the Canal area and afford it proper protection. Effective consultation (and he said 'effective' because a mere form of consultation would have been quite useless) would plainly have occupied considerable time, and the position might have fallen into irretrievable disaster."
  There remains the last accusation with which I should like to deal: that force, and particularly the use of force in the hands of the British Government, is a shocking instrument. That is the accusation which is levelled at us by noble Lords and by the Socialist Party. It is a shocking instrument. But an occasion may arise when there is no alternative. It cannot he wrong to use force in the defence of law and justice, because without justice there is no life left for the free. The noble Lord says that our prestige and our reputation have been damaged in the world. Where would our reputation be if we failed to stand on the side of justice? In the Middle East there has been a vacuum; for eight years there has been a condition of suspended war. The action of Her Majesty's Government is what Mr. Menzies describes in his speech as a police action; an action of holding the pass; of keeping the peace pending a permanent settlement, which everybody hopes can be underwritten by a United Nations Organisation equipped in future to guarantee that justice shall rule the world, particularly in this area, which has been one of turmoil and turbulence for so long. It is on the defence of justice, and the need to keep the peace of the world, that Her Majesty's Government, with all the risks attendant, have intervened, because we believe that by doing so we avert much greater disaster.
  1.3 p.m.
  LORD SILKIN: My Lords, the noble Earl, Lord Home, in opening his speech, referred to the speech of my noble friend Lord Henderson as a speech of studied moderation. I feel that we on this side
  1258
  of the House can return the compliment and say that, with all the difficulties which confronted the noble Earl, he, too, has stated his case with moderation. We always listen with great respect and attention to what he has to say, and although we cannot, on this occasion, agree with him, we can assure him that we disagree with regret.
  This debate is in no sense a debate on whether we should support Israel or Egypt. The noble Earl, to a considerable extent, based his case on the iniquities of Egypt, and particularly of Nasser. If we had to judge between the two, then, on emotional grounds and on grounds of justice, I should have no hesitation in saying where I stand; and I believe that many noble Lords in all parts of the Rouse would take the same view. We have to recognise that Israel has acted after very great provocation which has existed over many years. There has been the refusal on the part of the Arab States even to recognise her existence. There has been the constant assertion that they are still in a state of war. There have been continual raids, latterly almost nightly, resulting in loss of life and property. There have been the hostile alliances; the increase in the armed strength of the Arab States, with the Soviet Union using these States as pawns in their diplomacy; and there has been interference with Israeli shipping through the Suez Canal.
  Throughout this period I think we must recognise that Israel has acted with a considerable degree of restraint. But there does come a time in this imperfect world—and we have to face it—when people can exercise restraint no longer: and though we ought not to condone the invasion of Egypt by Israel, we can understand the circumstances which have brought it about. Therefore, in my view —and to this extent I have great sympathy with the view of the noble Earl opposite—the use of the term "aggression" to describe Israel's conduct, though it may be technically correct, is one which should be used with considerable circumspection. Nevertheless, I must express my own regret that Israel should have placed herself in a position where such an allegation can be made against her by so many countries in the world.
  But where do Her Majesty's Government stand in all this? How does it

  1259
  come about that they have suddenly become the champions of all this injustice against Israel? They have never raised any protest against any of the provocations which have taken place in recent years, or taken any step which even appeared to recognise that such provocations were taking place. Until the nationalisation of the Suez Canal, they never once referred to Egypt's defiance of the United Nations in refusing to permit Israeli shipping through the Canal: they merely accepted and tolerated the situation. We have now used it as part of our case against Egypt; it is a convenient stick with which to beat them, and a justifiable one. The same applies to France: it was not until the occasion arose that the question ever came to the forefront.
  Therefore, I would say to Israel, in all friendliness, that if Codlin happens to be the friend of the present, and not Short, it is simply that for the time being it happens to suit the supposed interests of Britain and France. But it is not long since it appeared to Israel that we were prepared to sacrifice them and their territory in favour of our policy to support the Arab States. Hitherto, we have gone a long way in siding with the Arab States ostensibly against Israel; and the Prime Minister suggested that, for the purpose of peace, Israel might well sacrifice part of her territory. Moreover, at the time when the peril to which the noble Earl, Lord Home, referred. when the Arab countries began to be armed by the Soviet Union and by Czechoslovakia, we refused the request of Israel for further arms. Therefore for us to come forward at this moment as the champions of justice, seeking to protect the weak against the strong, and the innocent against the guilty, sounds, to my mind, a little far-fetched. So I am sure that Israel will not build too much on the apparent temporary identity of interests between ourselves and France, on the one hand, and themselves, on the other.
  It is for all these reasons that, unlike my noble friend Lord Henderson. I do not accept the possibility of there being any collusion between England and France on the one hand, and Israel on the other.
  LORD HENDERSON: if my noble friend will allow me to intervene, I did not say that that was my view. I said that this was a suspicion which had been created—a very big distinction.
  LORD SILKIN: I beg my noble friend's pardon. I do not associate myself even with that suspicion. While deploring what has happened, this debate is for the purpose of discussing the action of Her Majesty's Government. As I have said, we listened to the noble Earl with great respect and attention. but I remain convinced that the action taken by Her Majesty's Government is wrong in principle; is contrary to International Law, and contrary to the best interests of this country and to the cause of international peace. I want to be perfectly candid with the House—I say this with the deepest personal regret, for reasons which will be obvious to the House. But I do not believe it is even in the best interests of Israel that we should put ourselves in the wrong in this way. Therefore, I feel it necessary to associate myself with my noble friend in condemning the action of the Government under a number of heads.
  First, as to the use of force. This is undoubtedly a violation of the Charter. The extraordinary thing is that we took the matter to the Security Council—and the Government are to be complimented on having done so with the greatest urgency. But what is the use of taking an issue to a tribunal for its decision and, at the same time, without even waiting for that decision, taking matters into our own hands? At the time when we issued the ultimatum to Israel and Egypt we had not even heard the decision of the Security Council. It does appear that we had no serious intention of abiding by the decision; that, although we have all along determined that we would, as an act of pacification, bring the matter before the Security Council, we have all along decided to act in the way in which we wanted, whatever the Security Council may decide.
  We have also acted in violation of the Kellogg Pact. The noble and learned Lord. Lord McNair, who made such an impressive speech on the occasion of the debate on the Suez Canal, pointed out, think, in unanswerable terms—and I do not think the noble and learned Viscount

  1261
  the Lord Chancellor attempted to disagree with, him—that we were bound by the terms of the Kellogg Pact, under which we had abandoned the use of force as an instrument of policy. If that be so, then I fail to understand how we can feel ourselves justified on this occasion in using force as an instrument of our policy. My noble friend Lord Henderson referred to the fact that there had been no consultation with the United States of America or with the Dominions. My noble friend Lord Ogmore is going to deal with the question of the Dominions, but I should like to say a word about the Unites: States of America.
  The noble Earl, Lord Home, I think a little unfairly, twitted us with saying, on the one hand, in connection with the Suez debate, that we were not bound always to agree with the United States of America, and on this occasion complaining that we had acted in conflict with their views. But that is not our complaint. We take the view, of course, that we are entitled to disagree with the United States of America, but as partners in this particular question, and as co-members of the Tripartite Declaration, we surely ought to have consulted them and obtained their views. At least we ought to have informed them of what we were proposing to do. But we did neither. We neither informed them nor consulted them, and it is not surprising that President Eisenhower, in his broadcast last night, and the American people feel rather sore at the way in which they have been treated. I should be the last to deny that on occasions the American treatment of this country has not been all that we might have wished for. Their vacillations over the Suez Canal have been notorious, and have given rise to considerable embarrassment to this country, but that is no excuse for failing either to notify them or to consult with them as to what: we were proposing to do. I would say that if, at the end of the day, after consultation, they had disagreed with us, then we should have been perfectly entitled to take such action as we thought right, always having regard, of course, to the propriety of the action we were proposing to take.
  In addition to failure to consult with our friends, we have set practically the whole world against us, so far as I can judge. The noble Earl has referred to
  1262
  Australia—and I am glad indeed that we have one friend. But I cannot find any nations which agree with the course that we have taken, not one. I should be most grateful if the noble and learned Viscount would tell us whether any other nation supports the action that we have taken. We find ourselves virtually isolated on the Security Council with, ironically, the United States and the Soviet Union on the same side. It may be that that may be the best outcome of what has happened: that we have brought international peace closer by getting an understanding between these two great Powers. But it has also put us in the invidious position of having had to exercise the Veto for the first time since the creation of the United Nations. Now the meeting of the Assembly has been summoned and, as my noble friend Lord Henderson has said, the probabilities are that we shall be treated as having committed an act of aggression—a matter which must be a source of humiliation to this country.
  Finally, we charge the Government, one of the main pillars of the United Nations organisation, with having inflicted irreparable damage to the structure of that organisation in which we and the world have placed so much hope. My noble friend also referred to opinion in this country, and the noble Earl rather doubted whether the opinion as evidenced in Parliament was reflected in the country. He gave no reasons for his doubt. I do not know whether he has any evidence to indicate that the country is behind the Government rather than behind the Opposition. If he counts the numbers of newspapers, no doubt he may be right, but unless there is evidence to the contrary, my own view, from such information as I have, is that the country is very strongly united, and not behind the Government. I am not prepared to say it is evenly divided—but I do not think the point matters. The fact remains that this country is embarking on something which may well result in a minor war, and possibly a major war. The Government ought to have the whole country absolutely behind them. Even the noble Earl would not suggest that that is the case.
  What justification is given for the Government action? Here I would say that I should be the last to suggest that

  1263
  the Government have acted entirely without any justification whatsoever. Of course the Government have acted in good faith and with the desire to do the best they can. It is no part of my case, at any rate, to impute motives of any kind. I do suggest, however, that they are profoundly wrong and misguided in what they have done, but certainly not in their objective. They have talked about urgency and the slowness of the Security Council. I must recognise that the Security Council is not the most fast moving instrument that I have heard of, nor is it in a position to enforce its decisions where there is strong resistance to those decisions. We must recognise that. But is that a justification for taking the law into our own hands? That makes it all the more necessary that some action should be taken that so far we have not shown ourselves very enthusiastic in doing: in strengthening the Security Council, in modifying the Charter and in ensuring that decisions of the Security Council are capable of being enforced. But I see no justification in this urgency for acting on our own responsibility.
  The noble Earl made the case that British lives and British property were endangered. Assuming that that were so, is not that the case with the subjects of all other countries whose ships are passing through the Canal? Would not that give equal justification for the owners of every ship whose nationals are passing through the Canal to take similar action? If there were a Russian ship. a Polish ship or a ship of any other nationality, would not those nations equally be entitled to come down and land on the Canal to protect their nationals? Is that the kind of law which the noble Earl is suggesting is correct in these circumstances? I would submit that, even if that were accepted, our action is not calculated really to protect the lives and the property of our nationals. With all the need for urgency, it is quite impossible to act instantaneously. In fact, as my noble friend has said, we have diverted our shipping, and the only danger was to ships that happened to be in the Canal at the particular moment when the trouble arose. By the time we were in a position to act, those ships could easily have moved into safety. By diversion, there would be no other ships
  1264
  in the Canal. So I really fail to understand the exact purpose of our action.
  If, in fact, we were afraid that bombing would take place and that the lives of our nationals would be in danger, then we were already too late. The ultimatum gave "twelve hours". There was some time before our aircraft were actually on the spot and we were already too late. In fact, there was not really all that urgency, because the Israelis had not reached the Canal, and I do not know whether they have even reached the Canal so far. So I cannot think that that in itself affords a justification. Then the noble Earl referred to the desirability and the importance of bringing hostilities to an end.
  THE EARL OF HOME: That was the real purpose.
  LORD SILKIN: That was the real purpose. That must be judged by whether it could possibly be regarded as likely to be successful. Did the noble Earl and Her Majesty's Government really believe that Egypt would accept an ultimatum? It seems to me unthinkable to imagine that they would. The only effect of giving them an ultimatum, it seems to me, is to exacerbate the position and make it more difficult. Far from bringing hostilities to an end, in my view it has had the very opposite effect, not only of making hostilities more likely but of bringing us and France into them as well.
  The noble Earl told us that there was legal justification for what the Government have done, but he did not actually say what it was. He referred it to the noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor. Unfortunately, the noble and learned Viscount is making the last speech and, if we should, as is quite unlikely, wish to disagree with him on a question of law, it would be difficult for us to do so. So it is a great pity that we were not informed in the course of the debate what the legal justification might be. We are in this difficulty. Speaking for Her Majesty's Opposition, I should like to say that while we propose to oppose the policy of the Government in every constitutional way open to us, it is not going to be, and cannot be, our business to frustrate the course on which they have embarked. One can only ask that the Government. having taken a wrong step, should withdraw

  1265
  from that step at the earliest possible moment. But I feel that this crisis may have beneficial results in the long term. As I have said earlier, it once more illustrates the urgent need for devising an international instrument which will work and be effective, which can work quickly and whose decisions can be quickly implemented. If only we can apply our minds to creating such an instrument, then perhaps this crisis will not have been in vain.
  Then we have really to reorient our Middle East policy. Up to now, it has, in my view, been based upon appeasement of the Arabs. We have tried to appease them to an almost humiliating extent. It certainly seemed to me humiliating when we were claiming that the Anglo-Jordanian Treaty was still in force at the time when the Jordanians had actualy rejected that Treaty in their election. We have to think again as to what is to be our policy to the Arab States in the Middle East. There must be an end of appeasement. Finally, we have to see to it that this trouble, this running sore in the Middle East, is ended by a comprehensive settlement. I know the difficulties. I know that the Arab States have refused to recognise Israel or to sit at the same table with them. It makes it exceedingly difficult to arrive at a settlement. Nevertheless, I think that if the world had taken this position in hand much earlier and had acted more promptly and energetically, we should not have arrived at the decision that we have.
  We feel that. in all the circumstances, we must show our opposition to the Government by dividing on the Motion, and we propose to ask the House to do so. Nevertheless, we hope that out of all this turmoil and disruption good may come in the end, and that we may in due course arrive at a peaceful settlement and a peaceful state of affairs in the Middle East.
  1.31 p.m.
  LORD REA: My Lords, those of your Lordships who. after consideration, have found that they cannot agree with the recent policy of Her Majesty's Government must have done so with heavy hearts and a sense of heavy responsibility that they find it necessary, in face of the obvious perils of disunity at such a stage in the national position which is
  1266
  so grave, so delicate and fraught with such danger.
  When we last debated this matter in your Lordships' House, some of us who were inclined to oppose the Government were most anxious not to do so if we could possibly avoid it; and your Lordships may remember that it was at the very last lap of that debate that the noble Marquess, Lord Reading, supported by a rather apt intervention by the most reverend Primate, the Lord Archbishop of Canterbury, made it possible for many of us to support the Government as we wished to do, because even then the crisis was not far off. In the last war, in cur darkest days, it was probably the unity called forth by Mr. Winston Churchill (as he then was) that really kept us going and saw us through. Unity is an invaluable quality which one hesitates to touch upon when the country is in a time of crisis. One does not want to rock the boat, but there are times when the boat has been given such a list to one side or the other that a certain amount of rocking which might put it back on an even keel seems to he a moral responsibility.
  My Lords, the question of aggression in the part of the world which we are discussing has been touched upon by several sneakers, and will be again. In principle, I should like to leave that particular point to my noble friend Lord Samuel, who has such experience and wisdom of affairs, particularly in that part of the world. But I would just say this. It seems to me that there is a certain amount of contradiction in the position as expressed both by the noble Lord. Lord Henderson, and by the noble Earl the Acting Leader of the House, when they talk about "no declaration of war on either side." The noble Earl mentioned that a truce was existing, but later said that there had never ceased to be a condition of war between the two States. I think it is recognised and accepted that Egypt has made it perfectly clear that she considers herself at war with Israel, and has been for a very long time, with the object of liquidating Israel. In that case, it seems to me that, in the course of a war, if one side attacks another side it can hardly be called aggression. I should not like to take any decision at this stage about aggression. That seems to me to

  1267
  be in the nature of a matter of secondary importance, so I will leave it for the present.
  The point is: did we do right, from the point of view of expediency, in what we have done in the last two days? I am inclined to think that, on the whole, from the point of view of expediency, Her Majesty's Government did right. But, as things have turned out, and with the knowledge that has come to us since then, I cannot help feeling that, on the contrary, there was a moral wrong in taking the action and continuing the action which is now afoot.
  A lot of new information has been forthcoming since Tuesday, information which I think must influence the opinions of many of us as to the correct and incorrect attitude of the Government. Views which we took two days ago do not altogether hold good to-day. One thing that hurt me personally, as a politician, as a Member of your Lordships' House and as a citizen of this country was that this country, which has taken such a paramount role in international thought and collective security in conceiving the League of Nations (though it failed), and in supporting the United Nations, being the leading civilized, oldest supporter of this great conception, has now fallen so low—I put it in that way deliberately—that to a great extent it has sabotaged the great value and great idealism of that organisation. However one looks at it, it seems to me that we have invaded a foreign country without justification, and without any known precedent, and have followed the course which we have condemned so completely in other dictators, other countries and other war-like people when they have taken similar action. We claim that we had a Tripartite Treaty which entitled us—indeed, obliged us—to take this action. But when there is a Tripartite Treaty and only two of those who subscribe to it take action, I fail to understand what the word "tripartite" means.
  We took the extraordinary decision, as it seems to me, of putting this important matter before the United Nations, which met, your Lordships may remember, at four o'clock on Tuesday, and at the same time—with the other hand, so to speak —we issued an ultimatum, at about five or five-thirty, saying that we must have a
  1268
  reply within twelve hours. That seems to me to show not merely that we have lost faith in the rapidity of action of the United Nations—that is a well-known factor—but that we took a cynical view that it would either not act at all or, if it did, would give a judgment against us. I cannot see the point of view, the attitude of mind, which, having put a grievance to a court of justice and asking it to decide, then takes unilateral action behind the back of the judge. It seems to me that that is what we have done. But what is almost more important—
  THE EARL OF HOME: We certainly did not take any action behind the back of the United Nations, because we referred the matter to the United Nations and notified them of what action we were going to take.
  LORD REA: I accept that from the noble Earl. There was no action in the military sense, but apparently we decided to do something which would result in a further decision, irrespective of the judgment of the United Nations. But now, as noble Lords have said, we have done the worst thing of all. We have sacrificed throughout the world a great deal of the confidence which we held, in spite of various actions taken by various Governments at various times which may have interrupted it slightly. To me this seems the biggest blot on our national status for many years past.
  The noble Lord. Lord Silkin, pointed out—and I agree with him—that we should ignore the suggestion that there is some form of collusion between Her Majesty's Government's action and Israeli interests. I think we should all support that and should try to clear our minds of that sort of insinuation, which probably has no basis at all. I believe it is thought —and this should be said—that the Socialist Party are possibly making Party capital out of a national crisis in order to come into power. I hope that we can agree that that probably is an equally unworthy motive, at least among the vast majority of the Socialist Party. Much as I disagree with the action of Her Majesty's Government. I should be sorry to see a Socialist Party in power. At the same time, I am very sorry to sec a Conservative Party in power. It seems to me that the Government deserve censure, and therefore must accept censure by those who consider that they are genuinely in the wrong. I

  1269
  am not speaking in any partisan way. It would have been my dear wish to support Her Majesty's Government in such a vital matter as this; but as things are, and as it has been put by the noble Lord. Lord Henderson in particular, I feel that the only thing I can do is to support him in his Motion to-day.
  1.40 p.m.
  LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: My Lords, I rise to intervene for a very brief moment in this debate. I speak emphatically as a supporter of Her Majesty's Government. Her Majesty's Government have made perfectly plain what are their two short-term objectives. They are, first, to stop the fighting and, secondly, to safeguard the Canal and ships passing through it. I describe those objectives as "short-term", particularly with reference to the words used by the noble Earl who is leading the House about the long-term objectives, which include, of course, the preservation of the sanctity of treaties. I do not desire to offer any observations on the speeches of the three noble Lords who have spoken from the other side of the House except to say that I am profoundly thankful that none of those three noble Lords associated himself with the imputation of unworthy motives to Her Majesty's Government. While I am grateful to those noble Lords for that, perhaps I may say, without disrespect, that I could wish some of their colleagues in another place had been equally restrained.
  The only object of my few remarks is to try to make a constructive suggestion. It seems to me that, above all things, this is a moment when constructive suggestions are needed. We must all be very conscious of the prospect of the meeting of the United Nations Assembly this very afternoon. What I am deeply concerned about is: what is the United Nations Assembly to do? I feel that discussion on merits at this particular moment, when conclusive evidence is insufficient on all sides, will be both futile and fruitless. I believe that such a discussion, if embarked upon now, would do nothing but emphasise the divisions which exist between us, and not only between us and neutrals but between us and some of our clearest friends. I believe those divisions to be fundamentally far more apparent than real, and that that applies to the division between us and the United States just as mach as to the division between us and the Commonwealth, our own family.
  1270
  One good instance of how these misunderstandings will be cleared up has already been given by the noble Earl in his quotation from the speech which has come from Australia. Fundamentally, civilised people all want what we want—that is, to slop the fighting and get a permanent settlement in this difficult part of the world; and I am confident that when the motives of Her Majesty's Government are properly appreciated their actions will then be appreciated too. More especially, I believe that will be the case when the effectiveness of those actions has become apparent, and that is a thing which we all earnestly wish will shortly come about.
  What the the objectives of the United Nations? They are precisely the objectives of Her Majesty's Government, and I believe that there is something which the Assembly could do about which they would be unanimous. I believe there are two things: first, the Assembly might well call on both of the combatants, Israel and Egypt, to disengage themselves. Such a demand would not involve any question whatever of Egypt retiring to the west of the Canal. Secondly, the Assembly might call on Britain and France similarly to withdraw the moment that disengagement has been accomplished; and I believe that to be entirely in accordance with the policy of Her Majesty's Government. I am perfectly certain that that is what the Government intend. Once the safety of the Canal is secured, once the combatants are disengaged and war has been stopped, the police measures will have been successful and can be given up. That is what I should dearly like to see the Assembly do. I believe it would be wise and it would give the best chance of success, both in the immediate crisis in which we are engaged and in the permanent settlement of that difficult area of the world.
  1.46 p.m.
  VISCOUNT BRIDGEMAN: My Lords, when we debated Suez during the Recess ventured to say a word about the strategic situation as I saw it, and to say that the precautionary movements of troops then being made might well have been made with an eye to future developments. As my noble friend the Acting Leader of the House said just now, those developments have occurred, and perhaps

  1271
  in the context of what has happened such matters as the recall of reservists may now be seen in a rather different light from that in which they appeared to some people at that time. I intend today again to confine myself to the strategic aspect. I will not touch on other aspects but will leave those to other noble Lords who will be following in this debate and who are more qualified than I am to discuss them. After all, the problem of the free international use of the Suez Canal in the whole context of Middle Eastern affairs can now be seen even mere clearly than it could have been a fortnight ago.
  The facts are that now the use of the Canal is endangered. not only by the action of Egypt, which we debated on a previous occasion, but by the actual threat that the use of the Canal will be, and indeed is being, impeded by a shooting war taking place on the spot. This shooting war is not only dangerous to the Canal, for if someone does not act at once, it will set alight a conflagration which, I have no doubt at all, will spread to the whole of the Middle East. So once again the time factor is the paramount one, and this is the point where my views, for what they are worth, principally diverge from those which have been expressed by noble Lords on the two sets of Benches opposite. This question of the time factor is the main argument against those who think that no action should have been taken without the sanction of the United Nations or without the support of the whole of the Dominions or the approval of the United States.
  I want to stress that point, because I feel certain that many of us on these Benches, and certainly I myself, would at once have agreed that, if time had been available, it would have been right to do all those things. But, by now, the situation itself and our recent experience of these negotiations both point the moral that time is not available; and I believe that those who think otherwise will come to that conclusion if they attempt, as I do, to try to work out the actual time which it takes to intervene in any way and with any prospects of success in a matter of this kind. There comes to my mind a rhyme about a man who was defending his right of way and was killed in doing so. The rhyme ends:
  1272
  "He was right, dead right, as he walked along
  But he's just as dead if he'd been wrong.
  That would be our position if we followed some of the advice which has been tendered to us from noble Lords opposite. We are dealing with a situation in which the shooting has actually begun. I do not want to follow those people who would try to decide whether or not the Israelis were at fault in making their recent move. On that matter I agree entirely with what was said just now by the noble Lord, Lord Rea; and, in fact, if we were to attempt to make a considered decision on this point we should have to go back and grope about in the twilight of all that border fighting in the Egyptian-Israeli quarter which has been going on for many months past. It is no good doing that to-day. because it does not affect the position that the fight is on, and that only a matter of hours—not days, but only hours—were available to Her Majesty's Government to intervene in order to hold this fight in check.
  From the practical point of view, that is to say, from the point of view of what measures were available to stop the fighting in a matter of hours, there was. I think, only one way to do it; and that way was that the air over the theatre of fighting should be controlled by somebody whose concern it was that the fighting should stop. I am glad, my Lords, that Her Majesty's Government have decided to make their first effort in the air. It does not seem as though any ground forces have landed yet, and I devoutly hope they do not do that. After all, to use our power is to apply the doctrine that we must all apply in situations of this sort—namely, the doctrine of minimum force. But here, in practice. the only two Governments who were in a position to apply air power, which. as I say, I am sure is the right thing to apply, were the British and French Governments. No-one else could have done it in time. It is possible, as the noble Lord. Lord Silkin, said, that other people might have wanted to do it, and it might have been to other people's advantage to do it. But they were not there and could not do it.
  So, my Lords, I feel that this action was the right one, to circumscribe the area of fighting and then to stop it; and I that anyone who says that our action

  1273
  was not in conformity with our subscribing to the Kellogg Pact and all the other things is interpreting the matter in a very narrow sense indeed. We think that this responsibility belongs alone to the two Governments concerned, because in the time it could not have been carried out by anyone else and could not have been carried out in any other way than the one the two Governments have chosen. They alone had the information necessary to judge what should be done in a situation which, as we all know, was very obscure and was changing from day to day, and even from hour to hour.
  Now, my Lords, let us try to look ahead for one moment, and to look ahead on the lines of what was said just now by my noble friend Lord Balfour of Burleigh. If, as we hope and as I venture to think, our action has the effect of deterring both Israel and Egypt from further hostility, then the way will be open for all the peaceful means of realising a settlement which will be available once fighting has stopped, but which certainly will not be available while hostilities are continuing. We can go back to them—and the sooner the better. And if our action, our rescue operation, is successful, then the Prime Ministers of Britain and France, I am sure, will have earned the thanks, and not the blame, of all the free world. in any case, that is our hope to-day, and that is our prayer.
  I would say only three things more. The first is that now, once the die is cast, it is absolutely vital that the plans which Her Majesty's Government have made should be resolutely taken through. Secondly, as my noble friend the Acting Leader said just now, however the matter may appear on editorial desks or in legal chambers, I believe—as I know that other people do, on the opposite side of the House—that the Prime Minister's action will be approved and that, when the fog lifts and the true factors are known, many more of the ordinary people will be found to support the Prime Minister than some people believe at the moment. Lastly, let us never forget who is the real enemy in this matter. He is not to be found in this country, or in France; he is to be found only in Egypt and amongst those people who are responsible for the policies which it is Her Majesty's Government's duty to combat.
  1.55 p.m.
  LORD OGMORE: My Lords, as my noble Leader, Lord Silkin, has intimated, I propose to deal mainly with the probable effect on Commonwealth countries of the Government's actions. May I say first that the noble Earl, Lord Home, who is Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations, has asked me to tell the House that he is sorry he cannot be here to hear my speech, which is dealing with the subject with which he is particularly concerned, because he has a very important meeting, I think at Downing Street, at 2 o'clock, and is therefore unable to be present. Of course, in the circumstances, none of us would expect the noble Earl to be here.
  The Government's case rests on these facts: first, that their action is designed to bring hostilities between Egypt and Israel to an end: and secondly, to safeguard vital international and national interests. The Opposition's view is that this action is in clear violation of the United Nations Charter; that it affronts the convictions of a large section of the British people; that it divides the Commonwealth that it strains the Atlantic alliance and that it gravely damages the foundations of international order. It is on the division of the Commonwealth, as I said, I want to speak in particular.
  The action of Her Majesty's Government has been sudden, and there is no doubt that it has confused public opinion both here and in the Commonwealth overseas. That may be seen from the Press reports that are coming through and the various statements made by leading men, and by the comments upon those statements in the Press of the various Commonwealth countries. As my noble Leader said, we know Her Majesty's Ministers to be honourable men, and we know the Prime Minister in particular to be a man of great experience. The noble Earl, Lord Home, has himself told us today that he was concerned in important events leading up to Munich before the Second World War. Therefore, they are people whom one would expect to be concerned with the probable results of their actions.
  It is very hard—I find it very hard, and I am sure other noble Lords find it very hard—for us to appreciate quite why they have taken this action in the way

  1275
  they have. Although the noble Earl, Lord Home said that he was convinced and he had reason to believe that the opinion in this country was in favour of the Government's action, he failed to produce any evidence whatsoever for that belief. Although these are only conjectures, it is my belief that most people in this country, and still more most people in Commonwealth countries, feel as I do. That is to say: why have these men, who are honourable men, men of great experience, taken this extraordinary action? Nothing we have heard from the noble Earl, Lord Home, this morning has in any way made clear to us their real reasons, the important reasons which have led them to the course of action they have taken.
  I accept right away, and I am sure many people in the Commonwealth also accept right away, the duty of Her Majesty's Government to protect the lives of our nationals wherever they may he. I also accept the right and the duty of Her Majesty's Government to protect vital international and national interests; and for these purposes, I agree, they have the right to make the necessary consequential movements of their Armed Forces. We all know—and we have said it on this side of the House—that great provocation has been given by Colonel Nasser to us and to other nations using the Canal, and that even greater provocation over the last few years has been given to Israel.
  In these circumstances, I do not expect the United Kingdom Government to cling to the coat tails of the United States. I think that the United States has behaved abominably for years past in respect of the Middle East. Indeed, I would say that much of the trouble in the Middle East could be put firmly on the plate of the United States. I do not need to elaborate my various reasons for that; they arc well known to your Lordships. One of the last occasions on which the United States acted badly was when, at almost a moment's notice, they cut off the economic aid to Colonel Nasser for the Aswan Dam. That was bound to have a most devastating effect in Egypt and they ought to have known it. As I have said, I accept all these propositions. But the question, to my mind, is not whether the British Government should have taken action—of course they should—but
  1276
  whether the action they have taken is the right action. That, I think, is the first proposition we have to examine.
  The effect on the Commonwealth of this action—which has been roundly and, in my view, properly condemned by my noble friends, and into which I do not propose to go at any length for that reason—has been confusing and disturbing.. It has been the object of all nations in the Commonwealth and of all Parties in this country to support the United Nations and to act in conformity with other Commonwealth nations. But, as the noble Marquess, Lord Reading, knows only too well, the Security Council of the United Nations is not a World Government and the Assembly is not a World Parliament. I think a good deal of confusion has been engendered upon that point, and some people have been inclined to think that both these bodies are what they are not. But the United Nations does have a great moral effect, and therein lies the importance of taking issues to it. It is not that one can hope for any action as a result. All one can hope for is the influence on world opinion and for moral persuasion of the mass of the nations which are represented there to bring them to one side.
  With regard to previous conflicts, we have had experience since the Second World War with Korea. The United States on that occasion were able to obtain the support of the United Nations. largely, of course, by accident. It so happened, as your Lordships will remember, that when they brought this matter before the Security Council, Mr. Malik had walked out. They were able to rush a Resolution through the Security Council and to act upon it. They never afterwards managed to do anything of that kind because Mr. Malik had walked in. And they tried to use the Assembly of the United Nations in a way in which I assume Powers are now trying to use it—namely as a substitute for the Security Council, because there is no Veto in the Assembly. I was a delegate to the United Nations at the time of which I have just been speaking and I remember that there were grave doubts whether what was done was in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations. But these are developing institutions and it was thought that as there was a complete breakdown in machinery

  1277
  and the war had been started, the armed forces could not be held in suspense, and therefore some other arrangements would have to he made. The precedent of that time, the precedent of Korea, is now obviously being used by the nations.
  My position—I hope I may be excused for referring to it, but I think it has a slight bearing on this matter—was that of a delegate from the United Kingdom to the Assembly in 1950 when these matters were discussed. I was specially charged with liaison with other Commonwealth countries. I had a good deal to do with the efforts which took place at that time, in particular, to get all the Commonwealth countries to act, as it were, in unison. it was not always easy to do that, but we did, in fact, obtain substantial unity, and for the first time in history a Commonwealth Division was formed, and it was sent to Korea. That was a tremendous step forward. For the first time, Canada sent men who formed a part of the Commonwealth Division. India—a country which at the start was very dubious about the desirability of these matters—sent ambulances. As I say, chat was a great step for her.
  At that time I used to see almost daily Sir Zafrullah Khan. Sir Benegal Rao, Mr. Lester Pearson, Sir Percy Spender, Dr. Donges and their colleagues and officials, and discuss with them the various matters that were arising and the attitude that we and the various other Commonwealth countries should take on those important subjects concerning Korea and Formosa. We frequently had meetings at which Mr. Bevin would preside, and after he left Mr. Kenneth Younger would preside. We were in almost hourly contact with these delegates and we knew exactly what was in their minds, and finally a more or less common policy was threshed out. Almost daily it shifted in emphasis. but nevertheless it was threshed out in discussion. We would never move without taking the other members of the Commonwealth with us. We would not go forward unless they were by our side.
  Going back further to 1914 and 1939, in both those wars the Commonwealth countries—they were originally Dominions, of course—were at our side when we went to war. They were there with us, shoulder to shoulder, and they fought with us to the end. What is she position now? Noble Lords have men-
  1278
  tioned it and I will not stress it again. In the Security Council we find Australia abstaining and Britain and France using the Veto. Australia and Belgium both abstained. Australia is one of the most loyal friends, we have. Belgium is the country for whom we went to war in 1914, and she has been an Ally of ours before and since.
  LORD TEVIOT: My Lords, will the noble Lord forgive me for interrupting? I only wish to remind him that Australia has now come out completely on the Government side. That is the position at the moment. No doubt others will change their minds in a few days.
  LORD OGMORE: My Lords, I listened with great interest to the noble Lord. it was a very valuable, intervention. In fact, this is a point which I am going to make, and on this question of Australia he reinforces; what I have to say. Australia in the Security Council abstained, and yesterday, according to The Times, Dr. Evatt questioned Mr. Menzies in the Australian Parliament on this matter. Mr. Menzies said that the present situation had arisen suddenly and reports were confusing. According to The Times, he said that the situation was very fluid and dangerous anti he made no further comment. But we have been enlightened by the noble Ertel. Lord Home. this morning. The noble Earl has told us in a forceful and, I thought, a very able speech, thas the Commonwealth was shocked—hat was the word he used: "shocked".
  The noble Earl also told us that the other Commonwealth countries were informed, but were not consulted, after Israel's action. He said that there was no time for consultation. Obviously Australia had not been consulted, as we know from what Mr. Menzies said in the House in Australia. Why was there not time? Are there no High Commissioners left in London and in the capitals of the various Commonwealth countries? Is the cable service no longer in operation? it takes a very short time to inform and consult with these countries. I had a year at the Commonwealth Relations Office and I know very well that consultation takes only a short time. And even if it did mean a little delay, they could have been consulted in spite of the delay. I think it is of the utmost importance, when we take any action which is bound to affect the Commonwealth, as this does,

  1279
  that we must give them full information and have full consultation with them; otherwise the Commonwealth idea, to which we are all pledged, means nothing and is a danger instead of what we all want it to be, a safety belt.
  What were the reactions in other Commonwealth countries—first, in India, a vitally important country at this stage in world affairs, with great moral influence throughout the world, especially in the East? They have issued a statement condemning both Israel's attack and the ultimatum of the United Kingdom and France as flagrant violations of the United Nations' Charter, likely to lead to war on an extended scale. The Times, in its report this morning, says that Commonwealth circles in New Delhi are gravely concerned at the threat imposed by the new developments to India's relations with the West and were embarrassed, not for the first time in recent months, by an almost complete lack of official guidance. Canada, as your Lordships have heard from my noble friend this morning, did snot know that action had been taken. Pakistan, it is said, has been sounding out other Baghdad Pact members and some Opposition papers have suggested that Britain and France were behind Israel's attack. In Colombo, Opposition circles and leaders of the Moslem minority condemn the Anglo-French moves. As yet we have not heard much from South Africa, except that the South African Government knew nothing about it, as we have heard from the noble Earl this morning; and they have made no statement.
  It is only fair to say, and I am sure that the noble Earl would like me to say, that it is too early to say whether the Commonwealth countries are going to support us or not. But for the case I am making I do not think that that particularly matters, because the point I am making is that no action should have been taken until the Commonwealth countries had been informed and consulted and, if possible, their approval obtained. Whether they approve or not later on is of secondary importance for the case I am now making. Whether they finally come to support us or not, the Government are much to be condemned for not having take the Commonwealth countries with them in this important matter.
  1280
  What the effect on the Colonies will be I do not know. I think that it will be potentially dangerous. for this reason: that most of the countries which are approaching independence are content, for a time, even with the fullest self-government, to leave their foreign affairs and defence in the hands of the United Kingdom Government. That is so in the case of Malaya and the Gold Coast and possibly that will be so in the case of Nigeria—we shall not know until after the Nigerian Conference, but I think that the minds of the Nigerian Ministers are moving that way at the moment. And why is this so? It is because up to now they have felt confident that the United Kingdom Government have great experience in these matters, are wise in international affairs and would act only in accordance with the obligations of the Charter and in conformity with the decisions of the United Nations. But will they do so in future? All of them have been fascinated by the idea of the Commonwealth as a group of States of equal status one with another, acting in harmony one with another, under the Headship of the Queen. Can they think so any longer? He would be a bold man who would forecast exactly what impression this is going to have upon the colonial territories which are approaching self-government and, at a later stage, independence within the Commonwealth.
  It is easy enough to say that we know that the Government should not have taken the action that they have taken; but what do we do now? I find that that is an extraordinarily difficult question to answer—first of all, because we have very few facts. This morning the noble Earl the Secretary of State said that the details of the movements of troops and the attacks that have been made on Egyptian positions would be given by the noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor in this debate. We are always delighted and eager to hear anything that falls from the lips of the noble and learned Viscount, but we suffer under the disadvantage that the noble and learned Viscount speaks last and leaves those of us who are intervening before him in a difficult position, because we do not know whether this is a probe in force, a police action, or the first stage of a full-scale war; whether there has been great resistance on the part of the Egyptians, or anything else,

  1281
  In the past it has been said that it has been difficult to achieve security. I must say that in the present circumstances the Government have shown themselves extraordinarily security-minded, to such an extent as to make it difficult for your Lordships to carry on a real debate upon what they have done, because we are left so much in the dark.
  Where do we go from here? Undoubtedly we shall be condemned as aggressors by the Security Council or, rather, by the United Nations Assembly. I presume that some such resolution will be tendered there. We shall have a disturbed and divided country. We shall be unsupported by some of the Commonwealth countries, although there may be some exceptions, and all of them will be ruffled at the way they have been handled. We shall be unsupported by our other Allies except France. We shall he engaged in a confused and maybe long-drawn-out war and the Middle East may well go up in flames. I think that these are extraordinarily dangerous and difficult matters with which to deal. This is probably the most dangerous situation in which we have found ourselves since 1943. I wish I knew how we could get out of these difficulties: I confess I do not know. Noble Lords on this side of the House. and I am sure noble Lords on the other side, feel profoundly disturbed at these events, in which we on this side have had no part. I only trust that, by God's guidance, a way will be found out of these difficulties, a way which we can all approve.
  2.20 p.m.
  EARL DE LA WARR: My Lords, I hope that the noble Lord who has just sat down will forgive me if I do not follow him in his rather gloomy prognostications. However. I should like to endorse the comments of the noble Earl, Lord Home, and the noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Burleigh, who said that the spirit of the speeches from the Opposition, and the moderation with which they have stated their case to-day, at least give one great hope that, although apparently the two sides are in disagreement on a fundamental point, there is hope that at some time we may be able to get closer together. I might add that, good and helpful as sonic of those speeches have been. I cannot help a feeling that they would have been even more
  1282
  helpful if only one member of the Opposition had been able to tell us something of what they would have done in this situation. As life goes on, one tends increasingly—or I do—to divide one's political friends into two classes: what I may call the "responsibles" and the "critics." By the "responsibles," I mean those who would be prepared to have their proposals put into practice, and be prepared also to stand by them. By the "critics," I mean those who think they have the right to sit on the sidewalk and criticise what other people do, merely putting up what I might call "bright ideas."
  As I listened to the noble Earl, Lord Home, I could not help being impressed at the extent to which he and his colleagues have had to face the really hard facts of the situation. One need not stress those facts at length; we debated at least some of them in your Lordships' House only a short time ago, and I suppose that almost daily we discuss them amongst ourselves. The noble Earl stressed the effect which the taking over of the Suez Canal by Colonel Nasser must have on our standard of life, on our economic survival, and on our political survival. too. He spoke of the effect of the invasion into which Israel has been provoked. I do not think any of us could have listened to the statement made yesterday by the noble Earl, Lord Home, about the movement of troops, without realising how close we were—arid, it may be, still are, or, at any rate, certainly would be if British and French troops were not available to prevent it—to having the area of the Suez Canal as an active battleground. Her Majesty's Government have had to face the wider danger of general hostilities breaking out in the Middle East. That is a danger that is certainly not decreased by Colonel Nasser's professed and widely published ambitions, as clearly published as any of the ambitions of Hitler. I suppose that on most of those points there is a good deal of agreement.
  Now I come to the real point of the division of opinion. I would put it this way: that the Government have had to face in their minds the danger of allowing: us to be the prisoners of ineffective peace machinery. Both in the last debate on Suez and, to some extent, in this, although to a lesser degree, there has been

  1283
  an underlying suggestion in many of the Opposition speeches that there is here a conflict between those who believe in the rule of law and those who do not.
  LORD OGMORE: No.
  EARL. DE LA WARR: I believe that to be a complete travesty of the facts. After all, nationally. we all know where we are: we have our police; we have our law courts and our judges; and we have our defined system, more or less. of what is right and wrong. But internationally—and I do not think this fact is sufficiently faced—that system just does not exist. The noble Lord, Lord Silkin. mentioned this point, and I am sure that we all welcomed his suggestion that the sooner we can apply ourselves to the problem of building up some more effective machinery for dealing with cases of this character, which really demand short-term police action, the better. But certainly, up to now, the machinery has failed. Nobody made that clearer, when we debated Suez earlier in the summer, than the noble and learned Lord, Lord McNair. If we are to accept his interpretation of the Charter of the United Nations, I do not think I should be going too far in saying that that Charter is a Charter for every Mossadeq, every Nasser and every pocket dictator to do as he likes, relying on the restrictions, the discussions, the delays and the Vetoes inherent in the present machinery of the United Nations Organisation to give them time to establish the position achieved by their aggression. Let us at least agree that we are all equally anxious and determined to evolve a rule of law. But where no adequate machinery exists. individuals and nations must ensure their own survival, the safety of their ships and of their citizens, and. indeed, we have the duty laid down in the Charter itself of ensuring justice as well as peace.
  Perhaps I may turn for a moment to the last great difficulty or hard fact that Her Majesty's Government have had to face—it has been referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Burleigh, and also by the noble Earl, Lord Home. There is no doubt that, for good or bad reasons, our closest friends and Allies, the United States, have not felt themselves able to be as vitally interested in this problem as we are. We may
  1284
  explain that partly by the fact that this is Election year there, and partly by the fact that they are a long way off and Suez is not of such direct importance to them. But I welcome, as I am sure all noble Lords do, the fact that hardly a single word—though I believe the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, did say something—has been said in this debate against the United States. I am glad of that, because, whatever we may feel about the present disagreements, we are fundamentally together and we must be. We have to recognise that we cannot always agree. I believe strongly that only if this fact is faced is there any hope of satisfactory friendship with any individual or nation. Incidentally, it may well ultimately prove to be all to the good. if the United States come to realise that we are a friend, a strong and virile nation able to make up our own minds, and not a satellite. That, however, is by the way. The real point I am trying to make is that the disinterestedness of the United States, undoubtedly tended all the more to drive us into feeling that we had to take action, either on our own, or with France.
  What do all these points add up to? Surely, that the alternatives that faced Her Majesty's Government were either to let the Middle East drift steadily into chaos—possibly with a resulting world war, but certainly chaos in the Middle East—or for someone, at the appropriate moment, which was immediately, to cry, "Halt." And that is what Great Britain and France have done. Now that they have taken this line, I believe it is quite unnecessary to express the hope that, whatever criticism there is, nothing will cause Her Majesty's Government to weaken. They have nailed their colours to the mast, and they will get the worst of all worlds unless they keep them there until they have achieved their result, which may well include giving U.N.O. time to function on a long-term basis—a task which most of us would agree they are highly fitted to operate.
  By all means let the Government make it clear, as the Prime Minister has done, and as my noble friend Lord Home did to-day, that these operations are temporary; and the more temporary they are, the better. I think I am right in saying that the noble Earl made that quite clear to-day (perhaps he will correct me if I am wrong) when he said that our actions will

  1285
  persist (I think these were his words) only so long as hostilities persist. But do let us tell the world, and tell it loudly, what we are doing, and why. I say this because I believe that we sometimes have a national tendency to think that, if we do the right thing, everybody else is going automatically to sit up and think we are wonderful.
  In face of criticism and abuse, Great Britain and France are performing a task which, if such a thing as an adequate peace machinery existed, it would have to perform. Do not let us apologise for that; let us be proud of it. It may be, as I think the noble Viscount, Lord Bridgeman, said, that politicians and lawyers may dig their way into Charters and other legal documents and say that in their considered opinion we are wrong. But I myself, speaking as a layman, believe that there are millions of people, not only in this country but throughout the world, who will sigh with relief at the thought that someone is prepared to stand for justice and good behaviour. Whether they sigh with relief or not, they will certainly benefit. I repeat: let the Government say this, and say it loudly. Now that we are engaged on certain operations of force, success depends, first and foremost, on the successful organisation of the work of our forces. In the long run, however, we have to prove to the conscience of the world that we are right. Therefore, I close by saying that I hope Her Majesty's Government are giving full attention to their present (to my mind) frequently inadequate and unsatisfactory machinery for stating our national case and objective, not only to our own country but to the world.
  2.35 p.m.
  VISCOUNT SAMUEL: My Lords, earlier in the debate to-day my noble friend Lord Rea stated the reasons why he, for his part, could not support the Government in their present policy. I think those reasons are conclusive; I share them and have been obliged, regretfully, to come to the same conclusion that he, to his regret, had to come: that on an occasion of great national emergency it is impossible for us to give active support to the Government of the day. The situation is confused, surprising and, indeed, one might say, topsy-turvy, for, owing to the action of the Government, President Nasser, who is a typical military dictator, full of arbitrariness and
  1286
  belligerence; whose book is as frank a statement of his ambitions as Hitler's Mein Kampf, and whose speeches are almost an echo of those of Mussolini, is now made to appear in the eyes of the whole world as the victim of a wanton aggression, and his people as a small nation, entirely innocent, who are made the objects of attack by two powerful military nations, their airfields destroyed and their ships, when they come in their own waters into the neighbourhood of our warships, sunk. Yet all the time, through the whole of this long controversy. Colonel Nasser has been flagrantly in the wrong—with one exception, the matter of the Aswan Dam.
  He was in the wrong, because, eight years after the cessation of hostilities, he persists in declaring that Egypt is at war with Israel. In speech after speech, and in article after article, he makes it plain that—and these are his own words:
  "Egypt refuses to admit the existence of Israel."
  He justifies, by being in a state of war, maintaining a blockade, against the trade of Israel through the Canal. And, while we and all the countries of Europe and the world are loudly proclaiming the absolute right of all nations to transit through the Canal—and Colonel Nasser proclaims his willingness to agree to that principle—no ship belonging to Israel is permitted to pass the Canal; and, not only that, but through the important international waterway of the Gulf of Aqaba, acces. to which is of vital importance to Israel, since it opens up the whole of the markets arid supplies of Asia and Africa. An Egyptian battery, situated in that international waterway, fires shots across the bows of an Israeli ship that comes forward, and prohibits their passage.
  Furthermore, in the poignant matter of the Arab refugees from Palestine, whose plight arouses the heartfelt sympathy of the whole world, hundreds of thousands of them left their own homes and lands when the Arab armies invaded Israel on the foundation of the State. They were asked by their leaders to withdraw ill the expectation of coming back in a few weeks, not only to recover their own lands but all those of the Jews. These refugees have been made a plaything of by Arab League politics. No effective steps are taken by any of

  1287
  the Arab countries to find them homes, and while the Israel Government have again and again offered to pay full compensation for the lands and houses which they had abandoned, and which were subsequently occupied by the refugees from Germany, the Arab States will make no agreement of any kind and will not even discuss the receipt of any payment of compensation.
  On another matter they are equally in the wrong. As all your Lordships who are acquainted with the conditions in the Middle East are aware, water is the vital factor in the development of all those lands, and great efforts have been made by the United Nations to arrive at a full development of the water supplies from those rivers and their fair division among Israel and all the States abutting. The other countries have refused to accept the plan prepared by American engineers and agreed to by Israel, because it provides that Israel should share in those waters. They will not discuss even whether it is fair or unfair. They will make no agreement of any kind, and the sufferers are the refugees who might have been settled on irrigated lands.
  Furthermore, the later developments have been that Colonel Nasser has appointed an Egyptian General as commander-in-chief of the armies not only of Egypt but of Jordan and of Syria, avowedly with a view to attacking Israel and destroying its work. Many of your Lordships have visited Israel, and all who have been there realise that the constructive work that has been done there—agricultural, industrial and, above all, cultural —is worthy of the highest praise and ought not in any circumstances to be offered to destruction. Furthermore—and this the final coup in the whole matter—the Egyptian Government, although purporting to be a civilised Power, has avowedly organised its gangs of saboteurs, called Fedayeen, who start from their own Egyptian military bases and carry out outrages in any part of Israel. murdering farmers in their fields, blowing up vehicles by concealed mines, holding up omnibuses and shooting all the passengers. Last week alone it has been officially stated that there have been twenty-four casualties. And this goes on indefinitely. All
  1288
  these matters had to be taken into account before the recent action of the Israeli 'Government against the bases of these Fedayeen.
  I would ask your Lordships what you think the Israeli Government ought to do in order to meet these murderous onslaughts. The police cannot cope with them. These men come from the South in the night or in the day; they assassinate the farmers in their fields; as I have said, they commit their outrages and they go forward, not on their tracks where they may be discovered, but right through to Jordan, not far away, where they disappear. The police cannot cope with them. Reprisals which have been undertaken as a penalty are forbidden and regarded as improper and a brutal form of penalty. The United Nations Commission condemns reprisals but does nothing to prevent the crimes.
  All these circumstances account for the fact that the initiative lately was taken by the Israeli Government. The Times, in a leading article when the incursion against the desert bases was first announced, wrote at the beginning of the article:
  "Let it be said at once that the provocation to Israel has been great and deliberate."
  It has been found intolerable. I think that, wisely, Her Majesty's Government and. so far, the United Nations have not endeavoured to define who is the aggressor in these later events. Indeed, one party declares that it is in a state of war with another party, even eight years after the termination of hostilities, and the second party says, "Well, I take you at your word. If you are at war with me, if you are blockading access to my ports, if you are sending, as an act of war, saboteurs into my country, I will take you at your word. If you are making war, you must expect to be attacked." That is the reason why I, for one, although I disapprove of violence, cannot condemn offhand the Israeli Government as being an aggressor and in breach of International Law when they attack across their own frontiers to the neighbouring or distant centres from which these saboteurs make their incursions.
  That being the general situation—I am a strong partisan of the United Nations and always have been—I am bound to say that I think the United Nations (that is to say, the nations composing it) have

  1289
  been greatly remiss in proclaiming freedom of transit through the Canal as a vital principle, while they have done nothing beyond issuing some years ago a mild rebuke to Egypt, which publicly and avowedly is in breach of that International Convention. I would extend that also to the case of Aqaba. What have they done with regard to the saboteurs? Nothing. All that they do is to condemn the incursions and attacks on neighbouring military or police installations belonging to Jordan or to Egypt.
  I have never criticised the present Prime Minister since he acceded to his difficult office, and I am loth to do so now, but I am bound to say that I think it was a speech made by Sir Anthony Eden some time ago on the question of the Middle East which has proved a great strain as foreshadowing a great danger to the people of Israel. He said that the time had come to arrive at a settlement: of the situation in that part of the world, and that it should take the form of reopening the question of the present armistice lines. That was understood to mean that the present frontiers of Israel. which had been settled after the Arab attack of five nations on Israel had been defeated, should be reopened and the line reverted to what it was prior to that time.
  —That might involve—I do not say necessarily would involve—that Israel would be deprived of the new city of Jerusalem, with all its institutions, which she has built up on the outskirts of the old Jerusalem. It might also mean that she would be deprived of a large part, or even the whole, of the vast expanse of what is now desert country to the south, all or most of which could be redeemed, as in the case of other desert countries. Some part of it already has been redeemed, and to it Israel attaches the greatest possible importance with a view to the future. That speech of the Prime Minister caused great alarm and almost despondency, and has been the cause of the greater and stronger rearmament of the Israel people, who are making great sacrifices to maintain an extremely powerful army because they are determined in no circumstances whatever to consent to such a readjustment of their boundaries.
  Again, the Prime Minister, in dealing with the immediate issue of the Suez
  1290
  Canal, started off, if I may say so without disrespect:, on the wrong foot. His first speeches said that we were bound to take action with regard to the freedom of the Suez Canal and its efficient management, because it was a matter of life and death for us that we should get oil supplies freely and regularly through that Canal. In the first place, I think that that is an exaggeration; it is not a matter of life and death. If the Suez Canal had never existed, or if some earthquake were completely to destroy it, it does not mean that the whole economic life of this country would be brought to a standstill. As a matter of fact, a technical movement is now being undertaken to provide for the transport of oil in enormous tankers of the size of the "Queen Elizabeth" or the "Queen Mary", which it is considered would afford as cheap and, in the long run, as quick a passage as smaller tankers passing through the Suez Canal. Therefore, I do not think it is a question of life and death. Although our interests are concerned, it is also our interest to keep the peace of the world, and it is to our interest to keep collective security. All these things are national interests as well as transit through the Canal.
  Nevertheless, it is of great importance not only to us but to Europe and to other countries as well—India and others—that the Canal should be properly managed and in good hands. Again, Colonel Nasser is to be condemned as being entirely in the wrong in the way in which he suddenly nationalised the Canal and refused to accept the recommendations of the eighteen Powers which had met in conference. He was in the wrong; but, on the other hand, he has been ready to enter into negotiations, and, thanks to the devoted efforts of the Government of India, it may be that we were just on the point of coming to a settlement (which might not he perfect, but at all events would he better than nothing), on the management of the Canal and some accommodation between the Egyptian Government and the Users' Association.
  THE EARL OF HOME: I do not want to interrupt the noble Viscount, because everybody listens with great interest to what he says. But there is no foundation for the suggestion that we were on the point of coming, to a settlement over the Canal issue. Really no progress had been made.
  VISCOUNT SAMUEL: I am sorry to hear that; it is not what the public had been led to believe. But there was no reason to suppose that the outstanding points, which could not have been very numerous or important, would justify what is in effect a declaration of war. So I still hold to the point that we ought to have made further efforts, and, even if we could not get 100 per cent. of what we desired, if we got 70 or 80 per cent. it would be better than a situation such as the present.
  My Lords, I think the Government should make it more plain than it has yet been made in the course of the debate—perhaps the noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor will do so when he replies—what it is precisely that we are now fighting to obtain: not in general terms or ultimate objects, but the immediate purpose. We are told it is to protect the Canal from being interrupted and to safeguard the lives of British subjects in that region. But who is going to interrupt or attack the Canal? The Israelis have no intention of establishing a base on the Canal. They never intended to do so; they intended to destroy the frontier posts from which they themselves are being attacked, and no doubt to make a threatening demonstration towards the nearer frontiers of Egypt. But they could never have imagined that they could establish themselves in perpetuity on the Canal, hundreds of miles away from their bases and in the centre of a population, strongly hostile, of some 20 million inhabitants with considerable armaments.
  Nor would they have the smallest interest in interrupting or blowing up the Canal or doing any damage to it. That would only set everyone against them and they would gain no benefit from it. So it certainly is not the Israelis who are likely to threaten the Canal. Indeed, when they were called upon to stop ten miles away they immediately agreed to do so, and to stop fighting, provided that the Egyptians would do the same. It is not the Egyptians themselves who are likely to interrupt or to stop the Canal. They are profuse in their undertakings to prevent:interruption, and certainly since their nationalisation the Canal has not been interrupted until now. It is only since the incursion of the British force there that ships going through the Canal have in fact been diverted and kept away from it.
  1292
  We are told that the purpose of our being there is purely temporary. The Prime Minister emphasised, underlined and repeated the word "temporary". What is meant by "temporary"? What are we waiting for on the line? For what purpose are we reoccupying the Base? Are we likely to achieve any result merely by that occupation? Meantime, world opinion is undoubtedly turning against us, and I think that the people of this country are not ready to slip into a war which may be prolonged—for it is very easy to get into a war, but it is often much harder to get out of it. The opinion of the Commonwealth is very much divided. India strongly protests, and the other Asiatic countries in the Commonwealth are showing no signs of support. The President and, so far as can be judged. public opinion in the United States is strongly against us, and, above all else, the United Nations is being completely alienated too.
  The noble Earl, Lord Home, speaking this afternoon, repeated the assurances that this country's policy was based upon loyal participation in the United Nations. If I remember rightly, in many of the Speeches from the Throne on the opening of Parliament—King's Speeches hitherto and now the Queen's Speech—there have been paragraphs to the effect that the Sovereign's relations with various countries were friendly and that the foreign policy of this country was based upon the principle of the United Nations. Yet now we find that France and ourselves are almost isolated in the Security Council. Whilst we have been protesting for years against the practice of the Russian Soviets in vetoing the decisions of the Security Council whenever they were disagreeable to them, we are now doing the same. Furthermore, we are making the strongest efforts to prevent the Assembly of the United Nations from even discussing the subject. I think yesterday or the day before our representative there said that if the Assembly insisted upon discussing this question it might have the gravest consequences. What is meant by the "gravest consequences"? What consequences can there be? What can we do, unless it means that we should withdraw from the United Nations? I am quite certain that this country would never permit any Government to do that on any such grounds as this.

  1293
  It is to be hoped then that this temporary occupation of the Base and these acts of open war between ourselves and Egypt will indeed be brief in duration. What is meant by "temporary"? A year, months or weeks? It must depend, no doubt, on events. What events? The world ought to know what we mean by "temporary"? and what will be the conditions that will bring our occupation to an end. For I am sure that the people of this country will not permit that they should he held up to obloquy throughout the world even if, in substance, in many points, we are in the right.
  On an issue of this kind we older ones will remember, though the younger generation does not, how the same situation arose in South Africa sixty years ago. Then we slipped into war when the matter was brought to a climax by a declaration of war, not by us but by the Transvaal. We do not want to be again in a position such as we were in during the Boer War, and if this Government persists there will he such a reaction of public opinion in this country as will have, for them, catastrophic results.
  3.2 p.m.
  THE LORD ARC IIBISHOP OF CANTERBURY: My Lords, the noble Viscount. Lord Samuel, ended his speech with a series of questions which, to my knowledge, are pressing themselves upon the hearts and minds and consciences of a vast number of citizens of this country. What the answer to those questions may be, if there be an answer, I do not know; and I am not going to attempt to-day to explore those questions or to see what kind of answers I can give. For many reasons I want to say very little. The obvious reason is that when matters come to such a perilous pass as this, full of confusion, passion and distress, any attempt to isolate and express a Christian judgment upon them must be full of danger that it may, in fact, only increase the confusion and release all kinds of misunderstandings. Yet it is demanded of me and of my office that I should make an attempt, very briefly, to isolate from all other considerations what may be the peculiar and limited Christian judgment on this matter. What I say, I say with fear and trembling.
  The only helpful thing that any one of us can do at this moment is to stick severely to the single point of immediate
  1294
  relevance. Most of the troubles in this world arc clue to the fact that people will not stick to the one point that has to be dealt with, but bring into consideration, and therefore into confusion, every other conceivable related point. The single point is that Israeli troops are deep in Egyptian territory, and that the British and French Governments, with the sincere desire to limit the struggle, arc in process of sending their own troops into Egyptian territory. The only question that we, as a responsible nation have to ask ourselves is: Are we doing the right thing by the highest and wisest standards that we, as a nation, know?
  It is perfectly obvious that all other parties to this dispute and to this situation have done wrong things—whether we begin with the seizure of the Canal by Colonel Nasser, whether we go on to Israel and the Arabs, to the indeterminate course of American policy, or whether we go on to the United Nations: all, in one way or another, have added to the confusion by their own mistakes, short-sightedness and shortcomings. Some of them have done so out of good will, others out of; but they are all in it. What about ourselves? The only question that we have the right to ask is: Are we now doing the right thing?
  LORD WILMOT OF SELMESTON: Arid in the right way.
  THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY: And in the right way, certainly. Are we doing the right thing and in the right way? Here, surely, we are wise, for it is mere common sense, to see what other people think of us. We cannot ignore the fact that the President of the United States thinks that we have made a grave error. We cannot ignore the fact, which the noble Viscount, Lord Samuel, has mentioned, that world opinion on the whole, or almost entirely, is convinced that we have made a grave error; and we have to accept the fact that, whatever the arguments may be on the other side, there is a strong case for saying that our action is a contravention of the spirit and the letter of the United Nations Charter. I am not saying that there is not a good argument on the other side, but merely that there is a very strong case for that view. It is the simple fact that this policy has not commended itself anywhere except in France and to the Government

  1295
  side of this country. It has produced the heartbreaking spectacle of the British Government in the Security Council vetoing a motion when, on the other side, there were the United States and Russia—and when Australia abstained from voting.
  THE EARL OF HOME: My Lords, I am sorry to interrupt the most reverend Primate, but as he was not here may I say that at an earlier stage of the debate, I quoted a speech by Mr. Menzies giving full approval to the action taken by Her Majesty's Government.
  THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY: My Lords, that does not remove the fact that Australia refrained from voting in the Security Council, which is the only point I was making. I am sticking merely to objective facts. and if Australia now wishes that she had not abstained it is an interesting point.
  THE EARL OF HOME: It is rather significant.
  LORD WILMOT OF SELMESTON: Why did Australia abstain?
  THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY: My Lords, at that moment we had the heartbreaking spectacle of the British Government vetoing a motion which was supported by Russia and the United States, while Australia abstained. If Australia is now trying to mend its heart that is another matter; but it has produced a total political cleavage in this country, and something far worse than that—of this I am sure. It has produced a perplexed people, perplexed and alarmed; often people who have nothing to do with Party politics and who. I may say, hate what happened in another place in this matter. Every person whom I meet—and I meet people who touch this nation in many quarters and of many kind—says: "We simply do not know what this means."
  The point to which the Christian conscience must acutely address itself is whether or no we are standing to the spirit of the United Nations Charter. Talk about our vital interests is not the main point, any more than (if I may say so) talk about the vital interests of Israel, on which the noble Viscount spoke, is the main point. It is not. Talk about international interests in general is beside
  1296
  the point, since under the United Nations Charter, we, like every other nation, have bound ourselves in honour not to claim to be judges in our own cause nor to presume to constitute ourselves the sole guardian of the interests of other nations or sole guardians, with France, of international order. It is impossible to feel that on this field we are on secure ground —again I speak from such contacts as I have had. Most people seem to me to feel sure that here we are standing on slippery ground and not on secure ground: and even if the Government could prove that we are, in fact, standing on the letter of the United Nations Charter, that would not really satisfy any of the spritual challenge of this day and hour with which we are confronted.
  I do not wish to say more. I trust that I have said enough to show what I know to be the fact: that Christian opinion in the country, Christian opinion of those whose duty it is to concentrate on that one aspect, is terribly uneasy and unhappy. I suggest that even those most convinced that the Government have taken the right action would be wise to give heed not only to this uneasiness in the country but to the hostile reactions which the Government's action has evoked in all parts of the world. It is said that nothing succeeds like success, and I saw in one paper the view that, if this comes off, all will be well. But in this case, even if the Government's action does succeed, in separating the combatants, it will leave a legacy all over the world which temporary success can never obliterate, a legacy which will cause us to be regarded for years to come as all that our worst enemies have been saying about us for many years past.
  Is there nothing, my Lords, that can be done? I look at the bare situation, and I speak as a fool, knowing none of the details of these things. Our call was to Israel and to Egypt to withdraw ten miles from the Canal, and the request was declared to be for the sole purpose of protecting the Canal. The simplest, the most obvious, the most imperative way of securing the safety of the Canal is that Israel should withdraw within its own borders. Then the temporary situation is saved and the Canal is no longer tinder threat.
  Can we now, as a nation, led by the Government, make a new proposal?

  1297
  Objectively regarded, Egypt is at present within her own borders. Israel is out of bounds, and the British and French Governments propose to be out of bounds also. The immediate task is to bring everybody back within his own rightful place, so that nobody is trespassing. Can we say to Israel that, if they will withdraw their forces within their own bounds, France and ourselves will not intrude ourselves into Egypt? And can we say to Israel that the whole world is demanding that, both of Israel and ourselves, and that therefore we are willing to do it? With that standstill arrangement we can securely say, taught by this terrible experience, that all the statesmen of the world will Olen see to it that Israel shall not suffer for its obedience or longer have to live under continuous threats.
  3.14 p.m.
  LORD COLYTON: My Lords, I do not think there can be anyone in your Lordships' House, or, indeed, in the country, who is in any doubt whatever about the gravity or the danger of the situation in which we find ourselves. On October 29, Israeli forces crossed the frontier of Sinai and penetrated deep into Egyptian territory. We know now, as presumably the Government knew then, that two columns were advancing directly on the Canal in the vicinity of Suez and Ismailia. In those circumstances, Her Majesty's Government. in agreement with the French Government, took the action which we are debating to-day and which is the subject of a Motion of censure in another place.
  The question we must have all have asked ourselves is: can the action of the Israeli Government be properly regarded as an act of aggression? That was the sense, if not the wording, of the resolution proposed by the United States in the Security Council which was vetoed on October 30. I do not believe, however, that the position is as simple as that. The Israeli Government's action cannot be looked upon in isolation. Against it must be set the whole series of acts and statements of provocation which have been made by the Egyptian Government in the past few years, including the open threat to exterminate the Israeli State. 'There can be no doubt, I think, that had that action not been checked, it would have led to fighting on, around and over the Canal and even, possibly, to an inva-
  1298
  sion of the Nile Delta. In those circumstances, Her Majesty's Government, with the French Government, took action to halt and localise hostilities. Had they not done so, we might now well be faced with a conflagration in the Middle East which might have led, in turn, to the out- break of a Third World War. That is a fact we must always have in our minds, and this action which was taken was, therefore, essentially preventive and of an emergency nature.
  Both my right honourable friends, the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary, have made it quite clear that the presence of British and French troops in this area is purely temporary and that we intend to withdraw them at the earliest possible moment. It was argued here today, and in another place, and indeed elsewhere, that we should have awaited a decision of the United Nations before taking action. I think we all know, in our hearts, especially those of us who worked for many long hours and days inside the United Nations itself, that whatever action might have been taken by the Security Council would not in itself have been such as to prevent the continuation of hostilities or prevent the risk of a general war. Nor would it have safeguarded the free transit of ships through the Canal or the lives of our merchant seamen, engaged in those ships. So, my Lords, world peace, the security of the Canal and the safety of our ships and men, demanded immediate action; and that action was taken by Her Majesty's Government, and thank God that they did so!
  The United Nations, as at present constituted, is not a perfect or an infallible instrument. The very existence of the Veto presupposes the possibility of situations arising in which, with the great Powers not in agreement among themselves, no action is possible, and that is the situation which would have arisen here. Thanks to Soviet intransigence the military arrangements which were to have put "teeth" into the Charter, were never carried out, and example after example could be given of cases where the Soviet Veto has been employed to prevent action. Who can doubt that had the Soviet representative been taking part in the deliberations of the Security Council in June, 1950, they would have vetoed the United Nations resolution on Korea

  1299
  and the military steps subsequently taken in the name of the United Nations? Who can doubt that had such a Veto been given, the United States Government at that time would have proceeded on its own to support the South Korean Government against aggression from the North? Not only that, but on that occasion President Truman himself ordered the United States forces into action, without waiting for any decision on military action to be taken by the United Nations Security Council. That action on the part of President Truman was accepted without any question by the then Labour Government of this country.
  A great deal has been made by the Opposition in another place of the point that we should not have acted without the United States, but should have taken action under the Tripartite Agreement Apart from the fact that Egypt never recognised that Agreement, and would no doubt have been quite unwilling to agree to accept the presence of British, French and American forces, that very Agreement was intended to function outside of, and irrespective of, any decision by the United Nations. That declaration was drawn up when the Labour Government wore in power here, and the Labour Party are now questioning the action of Her Majesty's Government in not dissimilar circumstances. It is clear that had we acted on that declaration to-day —as was certainly suggested in the speech of the member of the official Opposition winding up last night —we should have done so outside the Security Council.
  As I see it, my Lords, in this situation Britain has four aims which we are seeking to pursue. The first and foremost is to preserve peace. If, by speedy action, Britain and France have prevented the outbreak of a general conflagration, with the real danger of its turning into a Third World War, I believe that they will have earned the gratitude of mankind. Our second aim is to safeguard the security of the Canal, freedom of transit, and the safety of our ships and our men. Our third objective— paradoxically, one may say, in present circumstances—must be to demonstrate and maintain our friendship with the Egyptian people and, indeed, with the Arab peoples as a whole.
  Here, I would say. it is essential to differentiate between the Egyptian people
  1300
  and their present Government, and particularly Colonel Nasser himself. By a whole series of actions, ranging over the past two or three years, Colonel Nasser has proved that his aim is not merely to destroy Israel but, by fomenting trouble throughout the whole Arab world, and by playing off East against West, to make himself the undisputed dictator over territory ranging from the Indian Ocean to the Atlantic. In spite of the outbursts in the Egyptian Press, and the clatter of a noisy minority in that country, I do not believe that these aims represent the real wishes or the views of the Egyptian people. From my knowledge of them, the mass of the Egyptian people are peace-loving and they desire only to seek to improve their present lamentable standards of living. I doubt very much whether they support Colonel Nasser even in the situation as it exists today. I am told, on good authority, that the present Egyptian régime, with its Police State. is hated by the people as a whole and that they would be only too glad to see its disappearance.
  The fourth objective of Her Majesty's Government must be to preserve the existence of the Israeli State—to get the Arab nations to recognise that Israel is there to stay. I do not think that anyone, either in your Lordships' House or elsewhere, would disagree on that point. But we must face this fact—and the Israeli people and Government must face it too. I will not pursue or develop the point —that, ultimately, Israel, with its tiny population and its small territory, can exist and prosper only with the good will of its neighbours. In the long run, they must secure that good will, one way or another.
  I trust that I am not being overoptimistic in expressing the hope that, once the present immediate crisis is over, steps may be taken, with the great Powers acting in harmony in the Security Council and the General Assembly, to work out a permanent settlement for the Middle East. The present situation, tragic and perilous though it may be, may prove to be the turning point in this unhappy affair, which has bedevilled the whole situation in that area for the past nine years. Ever since that, to my mind, ill-starred day. September 26, 1947 (I am not seeking to make any Party point here), when the representative of the British Government at the General Assembly stated that his

  1301
  Government were not prepared to undertake the task of imposing the United Nations resolution on Palestine by force, and that in the absence of a settlement the British Government must withdraw their forces, nothing but war, tension, incidents and crises have succeeded one another in the Middle East. Some of us who have lived for many years in Egypt and other parts of the Middle East may remember only too well a rather unpleasant ailment which is known as a "Nile boil". It is a complaint which, goes on and on, apparently interminably, until one day it comes to a head. Then it can be lanced and it disappears. I wonder whether, perhaps, in this tragic situation to-day, something of the same sort may not turn out to be the case in the Middle East.
  I reserve until the end of my speech an issue which has caused me personally great distress and pain. That is the temporary—I underline the word "temporary"—estrangement and misunderstanding between ourselves and the United States Government. With my close affiliations with the United States, and my implicit belief in the Anglo-American Alliance as the very basis of world peace, it could hardly be otherwise. But the very fact that I have so many friends and relations over there emboldens me to speak quite frankly.
  On Tuesday next, the people of the United States will elect a new President. In these culminating days of the Election campaign, this Middle East issue—with the oil interests, on the one hand, balanced against the Jewish vote, on the other—could very easily become the football of electoral manœuvres. That is why I believe that no American Government, of any Party whatever, however much they might, in fact, sympathise with the motives of the British and French Governments in taking urgent and effective action in this matter, could have associated themselves with this task or, indeed, refrained from criticising. I think we were right to recognise that and to go ahead on our own, taking our own decision. I do not for one moment accept the allegations of the Opposition —not in your Lordships' House, but made frequently in another place—that the action of Her Majesty's Government and the French Government was taken in this matter in order to secure by other means the control of the Suez Canal
  1302
  which has been the subject of such acute controversy in recent months. It is quite a separate issue, and it is only due to the fact that it has been so much in our minds recently that we tend to connect the two issues.
  My Lords, through a set of fortuitous circumstances, quite unconnected with the Suez Canal dispute, Britain has now been given an opportunity, not of her seeking, to take a leas in events in the Middle East. I am proud that Her Majesty's Government have assumed that leadership, with all its very heavy responsibilities. I believe that, contrary to what has been stated by the Opposition in another place. and in spite of the inconveniences and hardships which it may cause them, this is the view of the vast majority of our people. I have some reason for thinking that that view is held not only in Conservative and independent circles, but also among Socialists as well. I could only wish that there could be complete unanimity of thought and action in Parliament and in the country on this subject. But as that is not so I feel hound, with al respect and modesty, to express to Her Majesty's Government my admiration that they have not allowed themselves to be in any way deflected from their purpose. It seems to me that in this way they are showing a clarity and breadth of vision, and a willingness to put national before Party advantage, for which they deserve the gratitude of us all.
  3.30 p.m.
  THE EARL OF BESSBOROUGH: My Lords, I shall be commendably brief because most of die points that I wished to make have already been most admirably stated by the noble Lord, Lord Colyton. I speak fully in support of Her Majesty's Government. Like many other noble Lords during the past years, I have been a consistent and active supporter of the Atlantic Alliance and have considered it to be, with the British Commonwealth, the main bulwark in the defence of the free world. The action of Her Majesty's Government. and of the French Government therefore comes as an especial shock to all those who ardently wish to maintain the integrity of that Alliance. All of us who have friends in Canada and the United States must feel shaken by the present events. We must remember, however, that there is no provision in the

  1303
  United Nations Charter, or in the North Atlantic Treaty, which precludes the kind of police action which the British and French Governments have now taken to separate the two protagonists in this conflict and to protect the Canal. If I may be allowed a simple analogy, if two policemen, one English, perhaps, and one French, were standing at a street corner, and observed two men fighting in a lifeand-death struggle farther down the street, should these policemen stand idly by and refer the matter back to their headquarters to get police to come from miles away before taking action to separate them?
  However strongly we may wish to maintain the integrity of the Atlantic Alliance—and that is of paramount importance—in this case I do not see how else Her Majesty's Government and the French Government could have acted. They are acting. in fact, on behalf of all the nations of the free world which use the Suez Canal, even if it has not yet been practicable to obtain the approval of all these countries. There is certainly an analogy here, so well expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Colyton, between the remarkable action that President Truman took at the outbreak of the Korean war. Someone must take the lead, as President Truman did then. Now it is Britain and France who have done so. It is indeed good to know that we have resumed our leadership in the world. Here are France and Britain standing together, in the spirit of the Franco-British Alliance.
  Having visited the Middle East four times this year, I should also like to say one word about the reactions there to present events. I cannot believe that this Anglo-French action will alienate our true friends in the Middle Eastern countries. Our enemies there, of course, will become even more vituperative, but they will abuse us whatever we do. There is not much to lose in that sector. On the other hand, our friends will be greatly reassured that we are not abdicating our rights and influence in that part of the world. Therefore, as a strong supporter of the Atlantic Alliance, and with a number of friends in the Arab world, I none the less support the action taken.
  There is little more I would wish to say, except that I hope that the United States, Canada and our other friends and Allies throughout the world may be
  1304
  brought to see our point of view; and that if, as I believe, the operations undertaken are successful, the policies of Her Majesty's Government will be fully vindicated. The Opposition's contention that this matter should be left entirely to the Security Council of the United Nations or to the Assembly is utterly futile. Everyone knows that no solution satisfactory to any party could be achieved by that means. It seems to me, however, that, in addition to active and continuous consultation with the Commonwealth, there may soon be an advantage to be gained by Britain and France explaining fully their point of view in a closed meeting of one of the regular meetings of the North Atlantic Council in Paris. I believe that full discussion within the cadre of the Western Alliance will be necessary.
  In any case, in this present crisis, we must bend all our efforts to re-achieving unity within the Atlantic Alliance. The achievement of the maximum possible amount of political unity within it is indispensable. The Alliance must not be allowed to crack up on the airfields of Egypt. The future of that Alliance is an even wider issue than that of the Suez Canal, and all our efforts must now go to filling in the dangerous cleavages which. we must admit, have appeared in it. There has been exasperation on all sides. Let us now, with cool heads, carefully and earnestly explain to our Allies why we have acted as we have done, and not allow the folly of the Opposition's attack in another place to move us from our line of action. I am glad to see that already this morning some responsible opinion in the United States—I understand Mr. Adlai Stevenson himself—advises that the British and French action in this matter should not be judged too hastily. This is most reassuring, as is also Mr. Menzies' statement. Let us therefore carry on and implement our plans. Wise men will ultimately come to see the long-term wisdom of our action.
  3.37 p.m.
  LORD WINSTER: My Lords, the Motion we are debating was moved by my noble friend Lord Henderson and supported by my noble friend Lord Silkin in terms of characteristic moderation and fair-mindedness—in fact tribute has been paid to this from the other side of the House. But I feel that the Motion is worded in vague terms and is not directed

  1305
  to any specific point. It seems to me to be a Motion of that type which we so frequently debate, a Motion which is put down in order to provoke a debate, usually of a most useful character, and then, in the end, is withdrawn. I feel that this is a Motion of that kind, one which will go far to clear the mind of the Government on several of the points which have been spoken about. If it were pressed to a Division, I do not see that any useful purpose would be served by dividing on it— in fact. I feel that a Division might prove something of an anti-climax, from our point of view. For that reason, I should not take part in a Division, though the fact that I abstain must certainly not he taken to imply that I approve of the policy of the Government which has led up to the distressing situation with which we find ourselves confronted to-day. In fact I may have wearied your Lordships at times in making it perfectly clear how strongly I disapproved of those policies. Like everybody else, I am saddened and distressed by the hazardous situation, and I earnestly long that, even at this time, some honourable solution may be found for an honourable way out of the situation with which we are confronted.
  There are only three matters to which I wish to refer, and I shall be brief, because I realise that there are a number of other speakers to come. First, I should like to support as strongly as I can the forceful and important remarks mace by my noble friend Lord Ogmore on the fact that the Commonwealth was not consulted about the policy decision which Her Majesty's Government have taken. I cannot accept the excuse put forward by the noble Earl, Lord Home, that there was not time to consult the Leaders of the Commonwealth. Here we are, landed in a situation which, quite conceivably, may spread into a disastrous war, in which the Commonwealth will be involved, and we are told that there was not time to consult the Commonwealth Leaders.
  What was the urgency? What was the nature of the information which led the Government to believe that the danger of an attack upon our shipping in the Suez Canal was so urgent and pressing that there 'was not time to take another twenty-four hours in order to consult the Leaders of the Commonwealth? Was it perhaps that they were rather apprehensive as to the replies that they might
  1306
  receive from some of the members of the Commonwealth? We gave Israel and Egypt l2 hours, expiring at half-past four in the morning, to make up their minds and to give us an answer about this ultimatum—for it was an ultimatum that we were putting before them—yet we could not find time, it is said, to consult the Commonwealth Leaders to find out what they thought about it. To my mind, that is one of the most inexcusable things that Her Majesty's Government have done in dealing with this situation.
  The second thing I want to say is about something that has already been referred to in the debate. I see that a correspondent in the Daily Telegraph, in a despatch from Amman, says this:
  "Arabs here are convinced that the Israeli thrust on Egypt was inspired by Britain and France as a ruse to recover control of the Canal under the pretext of landing forces to intervene between the belligerents."
  That story has already been repudiated from both sides of your Lordships' House this afternoon. It is a shocking thing to suggest. My differences with the Government are wide and deep upon an immense variety of subjects, bat I should never suspect this or any other British Government of soiling their hands with such a plot and an intrigue as that. I mention it because I deeply deplore that in speeches in another place colour has been given to that rumour, and given, I regret to say, even by ex-Ministers. I think that is most deplorable.
  The other thing I want to mention has reference to America. it arises from another passage that I see in the Daily Telegraph this morning, of remarks attributed to the President of the United States. He is reported to have said:
  "In all the recent troubles in the Middle East there have indeed been injustices suffered by all nations involved. But I do not believe that another instrument of injustice, war, is the remedy for these wrongs."
  I think it would help if the President of the United States were to tell us what he thinks is the remedy. My noble friend Lord Henderson, in his speech, said that this situation in Egypt had been boiling up for eight years. During those eight years every attempt has been made to solve it by peaceful and reasonable schemes, and America has contributed her efforts in that respect. But all these efforts have totally failed. I think that after these eight years it is a little late

  1307
  for the President to come forward and say: "But, you know, we have to find a remedy for all this". He has not been President of the United States for eight years; nevertheless, I think my criticism holds that it is rather late in the day to talk about finding a remedy when after eight years of trying to find it we have totally failed to do so. I think we must make some allowance for the President. who is confronted with an election. He won his first election largely, if not mainly, on the cry. "Bring the boys home from Korea": and he may well feel that it would not be appropriate to fight this election on the cry of "Send the boys to Egypt". As I say, I think it is only fair to make allowance for that.
  The other matter to which I want to refer, speaking about America, is this. I feel that, with all his many virtues, the Secretary of State, Mr. Dillies, must be a most difficult man for our Prime Minister and our Foreign Secretary to deal with. I follow American news very closely, and I have over a long period found that the two great difficulties where Mr. Dulles is concerned are: first. that it is often difficult to understand what he means; and secondly, that in the long run, it frequently turns out that he did not mean what he said. And it is not I alone who make these criticisms, because I can assure your Lordships that they are widespread in the United States in the most reputable newspapers and by men of great standing indeed. They. his own countrymen. find these two difficulties in dealing with Mr. Dulles, so I have considerable sympathy with our Prime Minister and Foreign Secretary when they have to deal with him in such involved, complicated and tortuous matters as these affairs of the Middle East have been.
  I have only one last point to make, and it has reference to the speech of the noble Earl, Lord De La Warr. He concluded his speech by saying to my noble friends who had spoken from this side: "What would you do?" I always think that that is rather a cheap remark, which bears some relation to the old question: "Have you stopped beating your wife?" I have no doubt that Conservative speakers, when in Opposition, have had it addressed to them by members of the Government, but that does not do away with the fact that I regard it as not a very worthy remark. After all, if you consider
  1308
  such a situation as that with which we are confronted to-day, you will find that it has been led up to over months and months by a series of actions and a series of decisions taken by the Government, about each of which, I feel sure, the Opposition have proffered their advice, none of which advice has ever been taken. In addition, the Government act upon information which is not available to the Opposition. So when you address to the Opposition the question: "What would you do?" you are asking them what they would do although they have not been consulted and their advice has not been taken about a whole series of actions, and when they are not in possession of the information which Her Majesty's Government have had to act upon.
  To my mind, a quite fair retort to that question of, "What would you do?". is the old answer: "I will prescribe when I am called in." But what has happened on more than one occasion—although doctors, I know, would not admit it—is that a second opinion has been called for when the doctors who previously had charge of the case have let the patient get into such a condition that no doctor living could save him. I think that is the answer to the question of the noble Earl, Lord De La War. We will prescribe if and when we are called in, but we may find it the case that the patient has been so mishandled that not even another Government will he able to rescue the situation.
  3.51 p.m.
  LORD BIRDWOOD: My Lords, in rising to support the action which Her Majesty's Government have taken, I shall detain your Lordships for only a few moments. I shall hope to define the terms under which such action has been taken. and I shall hope to show that not only was that action justified but, indeed, it was an obligation. Three reasons have been advanced for taking action: first, the protection of British lives; secondly, the protection of the Canal; and, thirdly. and perhaps more obliquely, action under the Tripartite Declaration of 1950. I see no profit in assuming in our mind which of those three reasons took precedence in the mind of Her Majesty's Government. Indeed, to argue out the precedence of one reason over another is perhaps to lead to confusion.

  1309
  My view is that collectively they present an overwhelming case for action to be taken. Take the first point, the protection of British lives. There is a precedent for that, and experience has shown that if action is not taken then, indeed, grave risk occurs. As to the second point, the protection of the Suez Canal itself. I would clam that those who have opposed this action ignore entirely the time factor. Thirty years ago, when it took three or four days for an army to travel the Sinai Peninsula from the borders of Palestine up to the Canal. and when such movement would have been preceded by a mobilisation which would have been under public scrutiny, one might in those circumstances have argued that to refer it to the Security Council and have a discussion would represent sonic reality. But to-day, when a modern army can, within twenty-four hours, move from the border of Israel to the Suez Canal, and when Egyptian forces are on the Canal already as an invitation to create a situation of war on and around the Canal, then, indeed, to think that resolutions passed thousands of miles away in the Security Council are going to be effective in protecting the Canal is. I suggest, to think in terms of a fool's paradise. Only immediate intervention on the Canal itself can, as I see it, prevent the Canal from being surrounded in a war situation and prevent ships from being sunk, and can uphold the terms of the 1888 Convention.
  As to the third point, the execution of the 1950 Tripartite Declaration, it is true that Egypt never recognised that Declaration, and I presume that that is the reason why no specific reference was made to the Tripartite Declaration in the Prime Minister's speech on October 30. But we were told that President Eisenhower called for a tripartite discussion in Washington on October 28 when it was first known that Israel was mobilising, and that during October 28 and 29 the Israelis crossed the frontier. Immediate action therefore became imperative, with or without United States acceptance, if the situation was to be brought under control. May I remind your Lordships of the kind of language which the Prime Minister used? On, I think, more than one occasion he speaks of "separating, the belligerents", and Sir Pierson Dixon, before the Security Council, was more emphatic when he said:
  1310
  "The United Kingdom was well informed and it had adjudged that the danger of a major clash between Israel and its neighbours was greater than at any time since the signing of the Armistice Agreement."
  There, surely, is just such a situation as the Tripartite Guarantee was framed to cover.
  May I remind your Lordships of the wording of that Guarantee? It says:
  "The three Governments, should they find that any or these States "—
  that is, Israel or the Arab States—
  "was preparing to violate frontiers or armistice lines, would, consistently with their obligations as members of the United Nations, immediately lake action both within and outside the United Nations to prevent such violation."
  Now I suggest that if ever those conditions for action have existed, they could not have been more apparent and obvious than was the case three days ago.
  The circumstances in which we were asked to take action under the Tripartite Guarantee I have always been shrouded in some mystery. There has always been doubt arid difficulty as to how to know who would be the aggressor; how we would sort Out the situation; how we were to define an aggressor, and so on. Here was the one occasion when, if ever this Guarantee applied, its application could be regarded as valid. It is therefore in amazement that one notes that one signatory to the Guarantee, the United States, has adopted this attitude of opposition. I ask those who oppose action to be regarded as falling within the Guarantee to answer this question: if the circumstances for action under the Tripartite Guarantee did not exist on October 30. will they define when such circumstances do exist and, indeed, will they say what constitutes those circumstances? If the circumstances do not exist now, then that Guarantee was a farce, always was a farce, and should never have been signed. The Guarantee, always contemplated the use of force and action to be taken. Therefore, if that action under the Guarantee is contrary to the spirit of the Charter of the United Nations, those who regard it in this light should have said so a long time ago.
  We have found some curious combinations against us in these last few days. Both President Eisenhower and The Yugoslav resolution at the Security Council have specifically spoken of action

  1311
  taken against Egypt, and the familiar Article 2 (4) of the Charter is quoted:
  "All members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any State."
  I suggest that to regard this action as action against Egypt is a complete misrepresentation. We have emphasised that action is temporary. There is no challenge to Egypt's territorial integrity or her political independence. I would ask our American friends to recall the words of an American, and judge this matter in its perspective. Walter Page, writing to President Wilson many years ago, said:
  "I once heard you say it took twenty years to recover from your legal training—from the habit of mind that is bent on making a case rather than on seeing the large facts of a situation in their proportion."
  I suggest that it is in failing to see those facts in their proportion that we should equally fail in our obligations to international justice and permanent peace.
  4.0 p.m.
  LORD TEVIOT: My Lords, I intend. as usual, to be quite short, but there are certain questions that have arisen out of this debate on which I should like to give your Lordships a different point of view. The question of time urgency has been raised on various occasions. I want your Lordships to consider this. Supposing we had done nothing. I wonder what the position might have been, even to-day, after a very few days. It must be remembered that there were about £50 million worth of ships in the Canal, with. I suppose, a few thousand people, and there is no doubt in my mind that, as things were progressing in that area, there would have been a battle royal going on between the Israelis and the Egyptians across the Canal. In my view it is a most dreadful thing to think that here we are, again faced with the necessity of saving the world from a major disaster. We have saved the world against aggressors on three occasions. First, we had to deal with the Kaiser, in what is described as the First World War; then we had to deal with Hitler, and now we have a very much smaller, but still very dangerous person, Nasser.
  I should like to mention one point that is continually cropping up—the most reverend Primate mentioned it—that the
  1312
  Colonies and the Dominions are not supporting us. It is now quite clear that Australia is: Mr. Menzies has made a forcible statement in that direction. I have no doubt that our own people in other parts of the world and Empire will. on consideration, take the same line, or more or less the same line, as Mr. Menzies takes. Noble Lords on the other side of the House, Members of the Opposition in another place, and some people throughout the country have been shouting at us in the last few years. "Oh, yes: there you are again, being dragged by the nose by the United States." Surely to goodness on this occasion that cannot be held against us! We have acted quite properly on our own for something we consider to be right and the only thing to do in the circumstances.
  Let me take India. What right has India to talk, remembering the terrible situation in Kashmir and the way they have behaved in that area? Nearly everybody, certainly on the Opposition side of the House. and the most reverend Primate, has said. "I am bound to say that I do not know what I should do self." That is not very helpful. I remember that on many occasions in the Press and here, I asked a similar question with regard to Munich. I asked the critics of what took place at Munich what they would have done if they had been in the same position. But I have never yet had an answer.
  LORD SHERWOOD: What you did.
  LORD TEVIOT: Does the noble Lord wish to interrupt? It is curious how the opinions of some people changed. The Opposition, of course, as we know, were very critical of us on this side of the House because we did not support Israel. Now they, or some of them at least, from what I have heard, seem to be suggesting that we should do something to help Nasser. Certainly, Mr. Gaitskell began well, but in the latter stage of his political oration on this subject he appears to have forgotten completely our country's interests and, indeed, the world's interests. If only this House to-day could speak with one voice! I am just imagining Nasser, reading the debate in the other place yesterday and that in this House to-day, being rather cheered by certain things that have been said in both Houses. Could we not, somehow or

  1313
  other, to-day—I believe we are going to divide on this dreadful subject—bury the hatchet, and look at this question with a total disregard of Party politics? Because I am afraid that this is developing into a Party political question.
  Then there has been some criticism of the fact that we did not again go to the Security Council or the United Nations, particularly in regard to Israel. For dealing with the question of Israel's ships being banned going through the Canal they were quite hopeless. The Security Council could take no action and were no good at all. What was the good, at a critical moment like this. of our trying to get them to do something that would influence Nasser? Israel has complied with our request. There was something that I have in mind to mention in your Lordships' House which has never been denied: that there is an appalling concentration camp in Egypt run by Nasser in the same way as Hitler ran such camps in Germany. That is the type of man we are up against. For goodness' sake, let us "wash out" expecting anything decent, expecting any fair dealing from a man of that description. We have an enormous responsibility, not only to our own people but to the world, to work as hard as ever we can for straight dealing and conformity with the law and order of International Law.
  I wish the noble Viscount, Lord Samuel, were here for a moment as I want to refer to something that he said. I was distressed that what I may term my erstwhile colleagues should be going, apparently, to vote against the Government. That is what I gathered from the noble Viscount, Lord Samuel. I hope that the only noble Lord on those Benches will go out, find the noble Viscount and try to persuade him to vote with a heart which is strongly in favour of straight dealing and is always tackling the wicked man when he is against the interests of our country and the interests of the world. I most heartily support the Government in the action that they have taken.
  4.10 p.m.
  THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: My Lords, as I listened to the noble Lord, Lord Birdwood, talking about the Tripartite Declaration, I could not help wondering why his criticism was not directed against the Government rather than against us, because we are most anxious that the Government should reaffirm its adherence
  1314
  to the obligations undertaken in the Tripartite Declaration and that it should consult its partners about the action that might be undertaken. The Government refused to do this. The Government have by-passed the Tripartite Declaration just as completely as they have by-passed the Charter of the United Nations.
  I speak this afternoon with a greater sense of sadness and anxiety than I have ever felt before in addressing your Lordships—and I have addressed your Lordships more often than I, and I daresay sonic Members of your Lordships' House, would care to remember. Whatever may be said in criticism of the Government—and a great deal has been said and will be said—and whatever the Government may now do, if it does anything, to alter its course, I believe that the use of force against Egypt has already done irreparable harm to our influence and prestige in the outside world. It has also, I fear, lessened the prospect of maintaining international peace by respect for treaty obligations. The extent of this damage will become apparent only in the course of time. I think, further, that any unbiased person—by "unbiased person" I mean any person who is not completely blinded by Party loyalty—who considers the likely consequences of the Government's action in Egypt, cannot fail to be appalled by the risks that they are taking and by the dangers to which the country will be exposed. Even the Government's strongest supporters, if they consider the prospect in a dispassionate fashion, must feel some anxiety about the future.
  Of course, it is difficult at this stage of the debate not to repeat what has already been said, and my noble friends have made it perfectly clear why we differ from the Government on this vital issue. But as I have just returned from a visit to a part of North Africa where war between the Arabs and Europeans has been going on for the last two years. I should like, if I may—because this has not been said as yet this afternoon—to, say something about the attitude of the French to Egypt, and to draw some tentative, but possibly profitable, conclusions from their experience. I think there is no doubt at all that Egypt has been supplying the insurgents in Algeria with a great deal of army and other military equipment. We saw in Algiers Harbour one of the ships that was used to convey this equipment, and other ships have

  1315
  passed and have not been intercepted by the French Navy. This material support has, of course, been aggravated by the incitement to violence and moral encouragement broadcast from Cairo to the Moslem population of Algeria, and this has added tremendously to the difficulties of the French Administration in restoring order.
  Whatever our views may be about French policy, I think that this continuous provocation and interference in French domestic affairs has certainly given France a far better reason than any we can put forward for desiring the downfall of the Nasser Government. I think the experience of France in Algeria shows the enormous military and financial effort required to keep order in a large country where most of the Arab population is hostile or indifferent to the Administration. At the moment the bulk of the French Army, 400,000 men is being pinned down by about 15,000 guerillas at a cost of something like £1 million a day. Is there not a serious risk that we may find ourselves in a somewhat similar position in relation to Egypt? I ask the Government this question—I do not know whether they can reply, or whether they have made their plans and, if so, whether they can divulge them—what do we do if Colonel Nasser does not capitulate, but continues, after we have occupied the key positions in the Canal Zone. to harass our forces—in other words, if he indulges in the familiar technique of guerrilla warfare? Is it not possible that we also may be involved in a long-drawn-out guerrilla war, and have to police Egypt to prevent acts of violence and sabotage against our troops and our property and installations? I wonder whether the Government have counted the cost to this country, in men and money, of controlling another country when everyone's hand would be against us.
  Moreover, we should not be dealing with Egypt alone. I know it is untrue—and I need not labour this point—that there has been collusion. But the impression we have given the Arab world of helping Israel will place even our best friends on the side of Egypt. Their support for Egypt, whatever form it may take, may spread the war or interrupt our oil supplies, and, in that event, increase enormously both the military and
  1316
  economic difficulties with which we should be faced. This is one matter to which perhaps the Government might direct its mind and about which they might give the House some information at the end of the debate.
  LORD HANKEY: My Lords, may I interrupt the noble Earl for a moment before he leaves that topic? Would he say whether or not he is appalled at what might happen if Nasser is let alone and is allowed to continue these things that he has spoken of—the stopping of Israeli ships, the interference with the French and the seizure of the Canal? Is not the noble Earl appalled at what an example that may set to other people of the same complexion?
  THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: The noble Lord will appreciate that I was dealing with what in my view we should not do. But I do not want to be negative, and I certainly propose to say what we should do and what we could have done, although I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Winster, that it is impossible for the Opposition to do that in more than broad outline. Like so many other speakers. I am particularly saddened—I feel this rather especially acutely because my noble friend Lord Ogmore and I have been connected for many years with different Departments concerned with the Commonwealth—at the rift that our action has caused between us and our fellow members of the Commonwealth. I entirely agree with the noble Lord, Lord Winster, that it was extremely regrettable that we were unable to inform and, indeed, to consult with our Commonwealth partners before the decision about the ultimatum was taken. I think that the few hours that would have been necessary for an exchange of telegrams on a Prime Minister to Prime Minister level—which is the way these things are dealt with—would have meant only a very slight delay, and might well have given us Commonwealth co-operation.
  I regard this machinery of intergovernmental consultation as, in these days, the lifeblood of the Commonwealth. We are undermining the very existence of the Commonwealth by ignoring this machinery in the formulation of decisions that obviously vitally affect every other Commonwealth country. if the Government really believe in their case, as I am sure they do, they should have tried their

  1317
  best to get the support of the other Commonwealth countries. As it is, we appear to have failed to secure the approval of any country other than Australia. I cannot recall any previous occasion when a policy of this importance has failed to find more than one voice in the Commonwealth to support it. I must say I was astonished to find that even in little New Zealand, where feelings for the "Old Country" are so warm, and which hitherto has always taken our lead, the Prime Minister has expressed regret at our action in Egypt.
  THE EARL OF HOME: I am sorry to interrupt the noble Earl, but he should understand that we have kept the Commonwealth fully informed right up to the last second. The only thing we could not do was consult, because time simply did not allow it; but they were certainly informed of the situation. We could not consult on the last emergency because there was not time. When the noble Lord says that the Prime Minister of New Zealand has said that he regrets that there is a difference of opinion between the United Kingdom and the United States, so do we. I have said so to-day. The New Zealand Press arc strongly in support of the United Kingdom attitude.
  LORD SHERWOOD: My Lords, the noble Earl said "the last second"; surely a second is rather a short time.
  THE EARL OF HOME: My Lords. I do not think the noble Lord quite understood me.
  THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: My Lords, I must still emphasise that I deeply regret it, and I believe in all our history it is the only time that we have not been able to consult the Commonwealth before going to war. What I regret more than anything else, in the long run, is the setback to the United Nations, because the best safeguard for peace, in the long term, is the acceptance by all countries of international obligations which prevent them from using armed force to further their national interests. Such obligations were accepted by the signatories to the Kellogg Pact, the Covenant of the League of Nations and, of course, the Charter of the United Nations. Disregard of these obligations by the Great Powers has led to one war after another in the last thirty years. Before the last world war it was Japan, Italy and Germany who violated
  1318
  the Covenant of the League when they attacked other countries and overthrew their Governments. Their successful aggression discredited the League of Nations: it could neither prevent nor stop aggression by a powerful nation. Now we are doing the same thing, certainly in the eyes of the outside world. By attacking Egypt in violation of the Charter of the United Nations, we are taking the first step in discrediting the United Nations, which stood up so splendidly in Korea. What security is there for any small country in the world if great Powers take the law into their own hands?
  We shall oppose the policy of Her Majesty's Government, as my noble friend and leader Lord Silkin has said, by every constitutional means at our disposal. We believe that most of our fellow countrymen, when they know the facts, will disapprove of what has been done in their name. We also believe that we are speaking for all people, in the Commonwealth and outside, who condemn aggression. I am sure that that is the attitude of the ordinary man and woman who respect the example we have set, in times past, in our international conduct.
  One further thing: I hope that Her Majesty's Government will take very seriously the plea made by the most reverend Primate the Archbishop for the withdrawal of the invading forces to their own territories. That, surely, is the first step in putting an end to one war and stopping another. I understand that Her Majesty's Government have two objectives—to stop:he war and to protect British lives and property—but that to stop the war is their main object. If that is so, surely this is the obvious and simple step to take. I am sure it will have general approval from my noble friends. I must not presume to speak for noble Lords on the Liberal Benches. I feel fairly certain, however, that such a step would have the approval of both Opposition Parties, and I hope it would appeal to reasonable men in any Party as the simple and straightforward way of putting an immediate end to hostilities in the Middle East. The next step. clearly, is to work out between the Great Powers a permanent settlement in the Middle East. But the necessity at this moment is to stop the war, and I commend the suggestion of the most reverend Primate, if I may venture to do so, as

  1319
  the most constructive proposal put forward for that purpose in the course of this debate.
  4.25 p.m.
  LORD SALTER: My Lords, my words will be brief. When I indicated that I wished to address your Lordships I did not know—none of us knew—what we have since learned, partly from the announcement of the Foreign Secretary last night, partly from what my noble friend Lord Home has said to-day, and partly from other sources. about the actual engagement of British Air Forces on military targets in Egypt. In the present circumstances, I shall not make the speech I should otherwise have made. I shall limit myself to a few remarks that bear upon the choices of policy which are now open to us or which may be likely to be open to us in the near future. I shall say nothing in criticism or appraisal of what Her Majesty's Government have already done, and I hope that I shall say nothing which, even if millions of others said it. would in any way reduce the chances which Her Majesty's Government may have of attaining their stated objectives.
  My first preliminary remark is that I am not among those who think that the signatories of the United Nations Charter can never use force except when specifically enjoined by the United Nations so to do. The Charter itself contemplates action in emergency, without, or before, reference to the Security Council. Moreover, as I argued in another context in September. my own view (which I do not think has been seriously disputed by any legal authorities) is that if the United Nations fail to arrive at a valid decision, through for example. the interposition of the Veto, then signatory members are free to act as they would have been had the Charter not existed. I am not going to argue tonight whether I believe those conditions are satisfied in the present case. Perhaps the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack will deal later with that point.
  But, of course, within the area of what is legally permissible there remains the question of what is politically desirable and morally right. Here again, I am saying nothing about the past; I am going to speak only about the future. I wish to express the earnest hope that Her
  1320
  Majesty's Government will take every possible step and seize every possible opportunity to repair the damage that has been done, and to reduce the strain upon our unity within our own country, and the Commonwealth. I am not now discussing who is to blame for the fact that damage has occurred. Her Majesty's Government should, I urge, strive to restore the solidarity of the Commonwealth. the continuance and full effectiveness of our Alliance with the United States as a principal partner, and to repair damage to our relations with past and potential friends among the Arab countries and to our relations with the vast part of the world at present uncommitted on the principal political issue of the post-war world.
  In relation to that objective, I want to make two suggestions. One is that we should, without any question of hurt pride or other such feelings, welcome any opportunity that may occur for utilising the good offices of our friends who are not parties to the present action—the United States, for example—in helping to resolve this present situation. Incidentally, may I say that I thought the reference to the United States by my noble friend Lord Colyton was not very well-timed. In the week before the great Presidential Election, President Eisenhower has, I think (as I believe all who have heard or read what he has just said will recognise) spoken and acted with great political courage and spoken to us as a sincere, if candid, friend. I trust that if there should be an opportunity for the utilisation in this situation of the good offices of such friends as America it will be at once welcomed and used.
  The other suggestion I want to make is that the Government should define more clearly and closely what was meant when the Prime Minister said that this intervention was "temporary." Here. I heartily welcome what the noble Viscount, Lord Samuel, said a little earlier. We went in, on this occasion, not for the purpose of dealing with the long-term problem of the management of the Canal: we went in because actual hostilities between Israel and Egypt were threatening the Canal, our ships on the Canal and British lives; and also, apart from our own special national interests, to do our best to stop hostilities. Those were our stated purposes. I hope that they were our only purposes.

  1321
  I am encouraged to think, from some words that my noble friend Lord Home used a little earlier to-day, that the Government may be able to say a little more than they have yet done in defining what our purpose is, what is the limit of our purpose, and the condition upon which our temporary intervention will cease. Of course, a precise date cannot be given. But what are ale events on the occurrence of which our action may stop and the processes which were previously in operation. of negotiation combined with economic pressure, may be again left to deal with the long-term problem of the management of the Canal? If a clear answer could be given to this question. —and perhaps the Lord Chancellor may be able to say something later this evening—it would make a great difference, I think, to the impact of our action and our policy upon all parts of the world, on our partners in the Commonwealth, on our partners in the Alliance, on Arab countries and on the uncommitted world. I appeal, therefore, to the Government if it is possible to say more than they have done so far on the definition of "temporary," as they have used the word in this context.
  4.34 p.m.
  VISCOUNT ASTOR: My Lords, I cannot help feeling that a spectator to this debate may have come to the conclusion that it is Colonel Nasser who has mounted a massive invasion into the territory of Israel and whom we are condemning as the aggressor and the invader, rather than the other way about. From the tone of Lord Home's speech, and others, one cannot help asking oneself what is the object behind our action. Is it to displace Colonel Nasser from his position in Egypt, or is it genuinely to safeguard our shipping through the Canal? Because Egypt has not been stopping our ships through the Canal. The flow of traffic has continued since nationalisation in a remarkable way, in spite of all the warnings from the Canal Company that it would not be possible.
  LORD KILLEARN: Not from the Company, I think. I think the Company were very careful. were they not?
  VISCOUNT ASTOR: I thought from quarters, circles, close to the Company. We had every hope that the six-point agreement on principle which had been
  1322
  reached by the United Nations was going to produce an acceptable compromise.
  What has brought about this situation is this massive Israeli mobilisation and invasion. I am sure that there are rights and wrongs on both sides, but surely Israel, when it refused recently to co-operate with the United Nations Joint Commission in the investigation of these border incidents, put herself somewhat in the wrong. Our experience is that the person who will riot co-operate with the umpire has probably not too good a case on the merits. It seems clear from what has been said by prominent Israelis that they have seized this present international situation, the American Presidential Election and other things, to bring matters to a climax; and they have given substance to the fear which all the Arabs have had that Israel now has a population that cannot be supported within its limited area. It keeps going at the moment through great and generous gifts from the United States and from German reparations; but eventually those gifts may end, and then Israel will be driven by population pressure to go outside its present boundaries to seize more land to support its population. That has been the genuine, sincere fear of all the neighbouring Arab countries: that Israel, because of its population problem, was going to seize land and not retire. If we were thinking solely about the Canal, would it not have been right to put pressure on Israel to retire within her own borders? I am sure that if we had let it be known that there might be a naval demonstration off the coast of Israel, and possibly a blockade, they would have gone back very quickly, and then no danger to the Canal would have arisen at all.
  I think we can also criticise the form of this ultimatum. Did we really expect that it was an ultimatum which Egypt could accept, either in its timing or its contents? If, when we were fighting the German invasion in the Western Desert, at the critical moment, the Egyptian Government had said, "There is a danger of this war hurting our citizens and our communications; the British Army must evacuate a zone twenty miles on each side of, say, the Alexandria-Cairo road." should we conceivably have been able to accept it? If, as the noble Earl, Lord Home, said in answer to my question, it

  1323
  might have meant Egyptian troops remaining to the East, would they be left there fighting without support if this invasion continued, or would convoys have been allowed to cross the demilitarised zone? One could not help feeling that it was a badly-phrased ultimatum to secure the objectives which were proposed.
  We may accept—I am sure we all do—what the Government have said, that there is no question of collusion between Israel and ourselves. The trouble is going to be that the Arab States will not believe that and what many intelligent Jews are worrying about is that this situation will make the Arab States feel that Israel is a Western strategic pawn which we can move if it suits us in connection with other disputes. This is entirely wrong, no doubt, but that is thee grave danger, and one which may produce harm to Israel itself in settling down eventually, as we all hope it can and must, as a member of the Middle East community. I think that going in with the French at this moment is not likely to produce the effect for which we might wish in the Arab world. We might perhaps note what happened shortly after the French seized those five rebel leaders. Those who think that the Arabs understand only force might look at what happened in Morocco, where the French used overwhelming force, and yet. because of the pressure of guerrilla warfare and the economic strain and world opinion, they had eventually to evacuate.
  In my view, it is a great tragedy that we are separated from America in this matter. As one who is descended from Americans on both sides, perhaps I can say certain things to America and tell them that they should consider more the British point of view as to American diplomacy in the Middle East during the last few years. American diplomacy there has not shown the co-operation and good will which it has shown in other parts of the world. We have had an American Ambassador in Cairo who was more or less anti-British. working to diminish British influence. We have seen the way in which the American oil companies took advantage of our trouble in Persia to get a bigger share than they would otherwise have had. Americans should remember that no-one is cleverer than the Arab at playing the far foreigner off against the near one. We saw that in Syria in the
  1324
  war. We saw how extremely smart they were in playing the British off against the French, and how they seriously convinced the French that the British wanted to take over the Lebanon. I used to say to my French friends: "My dear chaps, look! Here we are giving up an empire of 350 million people in India. What on earth should we want the Lebanon for?" So astute can the Arab mind be in playing off one against another that there was this ridiculous suspicion between two countries in the Middle East.
  Americans should beware. The leaders of the great oil companies are very correct, but one finds that the junior ranks of Americans allow themselves to fall very easily for this type of disruptive propaganda put out by Arabs who want to play off one against another. I hope that America will look at the beam in her own eye in the Middle East before she comes out too strongly in attacking us. I think it is a tragedy that these things should have happened now because they have diverted attention from Eastern Europe. where the Russian position has been beginning to crumble in a remarkable way and where world opinion was having its effect. This action has had the extraordinary effect of bringing America and Russia together against Great Britain. It sounds hard to believe that the case is really as had as that.
  But whatever criticisms we may make of the British Government's action, they have taken it. What is the right policy for the future? It seems to me that the British Government must formulate immediately the terms they are trying to enforce. the lines of Middle Eastern negotiation and settlement. It will be no use either Jews or Arabs saying: "We are not going to give an inch of ground, or give up anything at all." It has got to be a question of give-and-take. Our only hope of getting world opinion back on our side is to produce an outline of terms of settlement so that people of reasonable and neutral opinion will see that there is something to be said for the action we have taken. I hope that the noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor. when he replies to the debate, will give the House some idea of the lines on which the minds of Her Majesty's Government are working with regard to an ultimate Middle Eastern settlement. I am afraid that most of us—certainly it is the case

  1325
  with myself and my friends—are extremely worried about what has happened in the past. We hope and believe, however, that good will now come out of this if something really constructive is put forward.
  4.45 p.m.
  VISCOUNT DE L'ISLE: My Lords, I intend to make only a short intervention in this important debate, but as I support the action of Her Majesty's Government, I thought it my duty to rise in my place and say so. I have listened not to the whole debate but to several speeches. and it has struck me that there has been an atmosphere of unreality about some of them. War broke out on October 29 in the Middle East and the causes and the back history are extremely complex. In my evaluation of the situation it is clear that whatever the tactical outcome of the struggle of the Israeli forces and those of Egypt, in the long run and in the shorter run (I think in the shorter), the whole of the nations in the Middle East will become involved. Since Russia and her satellites have supported the Arab cause, in my view, considering the forces available and the manpower, it is only a matter of time before we see Israel struggling for her very existence against a combination of the Arab Powers.
  I have never been a Zionist. I have no particular partiality for those who profess the Mohammedan faith or for those who are adherents of the Jewish religion, but I do say that both the United States and Great Britain. rightly or wrongly. have created the State of Israel. Could they therefore stand back and watch that creation destroyed? I think not. Arc we then to wait until there is an alignment of great Powers on either side, inevitably leading to humiliation or to a third world war? That. I believe, is the situation as it is to-day. It is idle to try to assess who is immediately responsible for the present situation. When Colonel Nasser seized the Suez Canal—as is acknowledged by all Parties, quite illegally —the Leader of the Opposition in another place, in a speech delivered, I think, on August 2, said that if Colonel Nasser got away with this. his next target would be Israel. That was widely read. I expect it was read and pondered in Jerusalem Does it lie in the mouths of Her Majesty's Opposition, when a warning of that character has been given, to say to the
  1326
  Israeli Government: "You must wait. until you have been attacked"?
  Israel is a little country with very small room to manœuvre on her borders. She has a population of perhaps 1,500,000 and she is surrounded by 30 million hostile Arabs. I submit that, whatever the rights and wrongs of the situation, no Party in this country has the right to say to "You must wait until you have been attacked". You may say, of course, that Israel should have relied on the United Nations. A great deal has been said about our duty to observe the Charter. The noble Earl, Lord Listowel, in his speech gave us some very interesting information about Egyptian intrigues in Algeria. I have already referred to the Egyptian seizure of the Suez Canal.
  All these are examples of international lawlessness. Are the United Nations to be used, to be manipulated, by small Powers, to gain their objects, and is lawlessness not to be visited by retribution or those confusions remedied? Nothing has more degraded the currency of international affairs in recent times than the fact that Colonel Nasser was able to seize the Canal illegally and so far no remedy for the seizure has been offered. It is not a question of preserving the prestige of the United Nations because, alas! I fear that a great deal of its prestige is already lost. Surely our duty is to look at the underlying situation, which is that if no Power intervenes in the Middle East, the course is set for a general conflagration and a third world war.
  When the Charter of the United Nations was drawn up, did any of the nations then contemplate that its terms laying down international relations would become the plaything of American internal politics? if that is the case, then nobody cart doubt that nothing has given Colonel Nasser more encouragement than the Republican Party's slogan, "Peace with prosperity". Colonel Nasser was a shrewd judge and took his opportunity. Therefore l say that, whether or not the general opinion of other nations is with us—and I cannot follow the most reverend Primate's argument that that, so to speak, is an equation with Christianity—
  THE: LORD ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY: My Lords, I never said any such thing. I said that any wise people, judging themselves, would take account

  1327
  of what their friends and other people thought of them. That is just a piece of common sense. not Christianity.
  VISCOUNT DE LISLE: My Lords, I do not want to misinterpret the most reverend Primate, but he started off by saying that he was evaluating the situation from a Christian point of view.
  THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY: Your Lordships will remember that I came to a point when I said that what the Christian conscience must seize upon was our relation to the United Nations Charter and how we stand with regard to that. That was the point which I specially said the Christian must consider. There are several answers to that, but at least I put forward one.
  VISCOUNT DE LISLE: My Lords, the impression that the most reverend Primate gave is that world opinion is in some way connected with Christian opinion. I listened to the most reverend Primate's speech and he must allow me to debate it. I cannot accept that the Charter of the United Nations is in itself a part of the Christian credo.
  THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY: My Lords, I am sorry to rise again, but I never said that the United Nations Charter was part of the Christian Faith. I said that we had pledged our word and our honour to stand by the United Nations Charter. I thought we had.
  VISCOUNT DE LISLE: My Lords, we are talking here about the Christian credo and about political affairs and what is right in political affairs. There are certain connections between the two, but I think that the most reverend Primate, speaking with all his authority as leader of the Church of England, ought to be particularly careful not to confuse the Christian ethic with the to and fro of political life.
  THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY: My Lords, if the noble Viscount will read the debate, he will see that I was extremely careful to do just that one thing.
  VISCOUNT DE LISLE: My Lords, I hope that the most reverend Primate will re-read the debate and he will see, in all fairness, how easily he would give the impression, speaking with all the authority of the leader of a Christian
  1328
  Church, that the Government are guilty of some unchristian act, and I deny that absolutely. I believe that one of the virtues of the Christian religion is courage, and courage very often means doing things that are unpopular. The fact that what we are doing now is unpopular—I admit it—does not deter me in the slightest, and I am afraid that I cannot accept the implied rebuke from the most reverend Primate.
  THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY: My Lords, I am afraid we are going to keep this going for a long time. What I said was that it was my business to isolate the particular Christian point, apart from all other questions—that is, leaving aside political conditions or self-interest or anything else. I froze on the point that we are committed by our own words to the United Nations Charter. That is a perfectly right thing for me to say as a Christian, and, as one with a Christian conscience, I ask how far we are sticking to our pledged word.
  VISCOUNT DE LISLE: My Lords, I am grateful for the intervention of the most reverend Primate. Perhaps he has redefined his point, but I still maintain that in his speech he said that there was a grave danger that the Government would be condemned from a Christian standpoint because they were doing things that were unpopular. The Charter of the United Nations is a man-made affair and is admitted by all to be imperfect. If it has been manipulated in the interests of lawbreakers, the Charter suffers and international relations and the whole currency of international conduct suffer. If we waited until the full procedure of the United Nations was carried out. can anybody say, using his ordinary common sense, that the conflagration would not have spread? I believe that it is our duty, first to the United Nations and then to the whole community of nations, to see that this terrible difficulty in the Middle East, this struggle of interests and races, is brought to rest as soon as possible. For that reason, I commend the action of Her Majesty's Government.
  4.58 p.m.
  LORD MILVERTON: My Lords, like all speakers at this time in the debate. I do not propose to make the speech I might have made earlier, because so

  1329
  many of the things that one would wish to say have already been better said. Nevertheless, I feel that there is one aspect which might be mentioned, seeing the length to which opposition to the action of the. Government is being carried —that is, tile outlook of the ordinary citizen of this country who has no claim to expert knowledge. I would claim to speak in that capacity. After all, there are millions of us, and it is upon our support, ultimately, that the Government: must rely in any action they take in an emergency of this nature. What is it that we citizens expect of our Government? We expect them, apart from the normal duties of government, to defend the interests of their nationals; to see that their lives and property arc defended; and to see that, as a nation, our reputation and our position in the world, which is founded upon certain principles for which we stand, is properly upheld.
  Speaking as an ordinary citizen, l would say that during. the past few years we have seen many sacrifices to the cause of peace and to unified action amongst the nations. We have seen the retirement from the Sudan and from Egypt. the seizure of the Suez Canal, with no apparent contingent—I hesitate to say punishment; shall I say action, to put in practical form the displeasure of the United Nations. Now we come to a position, which the Government have told us they foresaw might arise, in which immediate action must be taken or no action at all. This House does not need to be reminded, because it is full of noble Lords who have themselves held positions of authority. that "there is a tide in the affairs of men," especially those in positions of authority and bearing national responsibility; and action which is not immediate is often valueless. That, I take it, is the position in which we have been placed in recent days. The ordinary citizen is, of course, confused and shocked —indeed we all are. But we should never forgive a Government who were confused. It is their duty not to he confused; it is their duty to act.
  I personally, with all my doubts, could ask questions, as could others who are ordinary citizens, but we necessarily lack that information and knowledge which only the Government can produce. In a situation like this. when our Government have taken action, while it is appropriate, perhaps, to ask questions and to
  1330
  express misgivings, in my view— and again, I think I speak for millions of fellow-citizens of ordinary knowledge in this country—it is not appropriate to carry one's doubts, in fact to carry one's ignorance, because one does not know all the facts, to the point of presenting the world with the spectacle of a disunited nation. Disunity at such a moment may sacrifice all the things for which we are all fundamentally agreed we stand.
  The noble Lord who opened this debate said that an end must be put to Egypt's provocation of Israel. That is all very well—of course it must. But how is it to be done? We have seen utterly ineffectual attempts made through the United Nations. I should be the last to throw unnecessary stones at the United Nations, but in its present stage of development it does not provide effectual machinery for taking action. It comes down to this: that words can never be a substitute for action. I suggest that we are drifting into a position in which many of us seem to think that words are a substitute for action. And theories are never any use when face to face with incontrovertible facts which have to be dealt with at once and on the spot.
  I have said that a united nation is needed in face of an emergency like this, and I am confident that, whatever may be the view of the. Houses of Parliament. in the nation itself there is a large majority of ordinary citizens, like myself, who, in spite of doubts and misgivings in some respects, are prepared to trust the Government. Is it not part of our system of democracy that we choose a Government and put into their hands the duty and responsibility of acting for us, which involves taking action, even though they cannot previously acquaint the nation with the issues at that moment at stake? They must take the action, and then ask for support. which they almost invariably get. That is why I feel there is a certain amount of unreality about a debate such as this. The responsibility, after all, is that of the Government; their decision is the one that must be taken immediately; and it times of doubt, I feel that, if we examine our own feelings, we know in our own hearts that it is only the Government who can take that decision.
  Much has been made of the alleged disunity created in the Commonwealth. I personally do not believe it. We have

  1331
  had the answer of Australia, and in due course we shall have the answers of the other members of the Commonwealth. As soon as the issues have become plain in all their dreadful verity. I am sure that we shall get the support of most of the remaining members. It may be that members of the Commonwealth of the status of India will not give their support. because we know that Mr. Nehru has taken certain high-minded attitudes over the use of force. If I may say so, without wishing to give offence, it is often easy to be clear-sighted at a distance, but apparently when it comes to home affairs, when it comes to, say, Kashmir, some of those principles do not seem to have been observed with such unfaltering conviction. I believe that we not only have the support of the bulk of the citizens of this country but that, when these issues become plain, we shall probably have also the support of the bulk of the citizens of America.
  5.6 p.m.
  LORD BARNBY: My Lords. my reason for intervening is because I arrived back last night from the United States. and five days on a ship gives one the opportunity to reflect on many of the leading articles one has read in going about the United States, and on the many conversations one has had, some with people of no little commercial importance, though I make no claim to having spoken to anybody of political or diplomatic importance. First of all. I should like to associate myself—I could not have said it in anything like such happy words—with what the noble Lord who has just sat down said in his admonishment of the disunity which is being shown by some of the Opposition speeches. For myself. I thought the noble Lord, Lord Henderson, presented his case with great moderation, and for that we must be indebted to him. However, I was puzzled to know on what authority he claimed that the action taken by the Government did break a Treaty. I hope that the noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor, when he comes to reply, will deal with those points, because, in spite of the fact that we all heard him make a clear presentation of the angle of International Law on September 12, I was impressed, speaking to many businessmen in Canada, by their presumption in alleging that Egypt had broken no treaty or in any way offended any Inter-
  1332
  national Law. It is a misfortune that there is insufficient presentation of the British case.
  My noble friend Lord Balfour of Burleigh laid emphasis on the fact that there was probably, and indeed actually, an exaggerated impression given of disagreement between the United Kingdom and the United States of America. I am glad that I landed back to hear the personal reminiscences of the noble Earl. Lord Home. in relation to Hitler; and it was quite impressive that in leading articles in newspapers in the United States one saw much reference to the similarity between Nasser's action and that of Hitler. One sometimes wonders whether the British Information Services, with all the money that is voted to them by Parliament, do their job effectively—and I hope that that matter may be the subject of a discussion in this House some time early in the course of the new Session.
  The noble Earl, Lord Home, emphasised the unity of the Commonwealth. Surely, generally speaking, on this and on other matters, we cannot, for purely doctrinaire reasons, abandon our position while the security of the whole of the near East, and probably the whole of the Western World, is at stake. It seemed to me that the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, paid insufficient tribute to the fact that there was unity on the part of Australia and New Zealand. As for Canada. we all know they have a political eye on Quebec, and a pronouncement by Mr. Lester Pearson on a situation like this must be made "with his tongue in his mouth"—I suppose the proper thing would be to say. "in his cheek". Nevertheless, he does have it in his mouth, and it sometimes stops him from saying the right thing.
  The remarks of the noble Lord. Lord Ogmore, reminded me of an occasion when I was speaking to an American whom I heard laying down the law with emphasis and conviction. He would have it that the Aswan Dam was on the Canal, and that the two were physically related. I repeat that the Opposition speeches have been regrettable. If they were repeated verbatim in the Arabic Press in Cairo at the present moment and throughout the Arabic world, as being representative of British opinion, it would certainly not be helpful. I would go further. Can we not consider the effect

  1333
  of many of these speeches, published, as they are, in Central Europe, where peoples are struggling to regain their freedom—something which certainly the Opposition support entirely? It is absurd to continue to permit the Soviet Union to assume the position of the friend of freedom and the leader of nationalism. More steps should be taken to expose the fraudulence of this position. Surely, to leave the anti-colonialism issue, which we hear so much about, insufficiently answered, is to play directly into the hands of the Soviet Union.
  LORD SILKIN: Would not the noble Lord agree that a debate of this kind. in these circumstances, is the finest tribute one could have to democratic freedom?
  LARD BARNBY: My reply to the noble Lord is that free expression of opinion in advance of action is a different thing from what is needed in getting behind the Government when a crisis arises.
  LORD SILKIN: But that is exactly what the Soviet Union have been saying right the way through.
  LORD BARNBY: I will not disagree with what the noble Lord has said, hut I find it difficult to associate that with the Soviet Union. Does the noble Lord dispute what I said about the Soviet Union? Because I understand that they are representing themselves as the champions of freedom and have the hypocrisy to proclaim in the United Nations that we are opposing freedom and are breakers of the peace, when their soldiers are slaughtering innocent civilians in Hungary and elsewhere. What hypocrisy! I am glad the noble Lord gave me the opportunity to emphasise it.
  On a visit to the United States one is reminded how high a place platform speeches in this House occupy in that country. They are published throughout the United States. Many noble Lords are familiar with the United States, and they will agree that at times some remarkable speeches get published in the Western part. I spoke with a great number of people during the weeks I was there, and I was surprised how frequently people said, "If only treat Britain and France had moved in quickly and occupied the installations the moment Nasser used aggression there would have been a howl
  1334
  of criticism, but it would have been over in eight days and everybody would have been thankful that such a situation had been happily solved." There is perplexity at the handling of the situation by Mr. Dulles and at the many inconsistencies. We all know the necessities of Election Year, and a situation of this kind is exaggerated and over-emphasised for election purposes. As your Lordships know. the Election takes place on Tuesday, November 6. Many noble Lords will have been present in the United States on Election Day. and will know how it works. How could it be expected, four days before the Election, that the United States would make any statement other than a disapproving one? But that is not to be taken seriously. I am sure my noble friend Lord Halifax will agree that one thing that is certain about the United States is that nothing succeeds like success. Right or wrong, you have got to succeed.
  Before I sit down, I wish to say one more thing. I have lived a great deal of time in the United States, and I am married to an American. I say nothing offensive about the United States. But supposing this had been the Panama Canal. What would have been the action by the United States? On the ship coming across, I took the opportunity to turn up the Encyclopœdia Britannica to refresh my memory of what happened when Theodore Roosevelt acted in the Panama Canal. It will be in the minds of many in this House, but I am certain that it is not in the minds of an enormous number of leader writers in the United States, although. of course. in our country they are all well-informed. The Encyclopœdia Britannica states:
  "Columbian troops landed at Colon intending to cross the Isthmus and engage the revolutionists, bat they were stopped by Marines from the U.S. cruiser "Nashville" on the ground that, under the Treaty of 1846. the United States had guaranteed to keep the Isthmus open, and civil war would close it. Meanwhile on November. 13th a Panaman representative"—
  the Encyclopœdia Britannica is doubtless correct, although many of us would have said "Panamanian"—
  "was received at Washington and Panaman independence was formally recognised.… The haste with which President Theodore Roosevelt recognised the revolutionary government was the subject of criticism and the payment to Columbia in 1923 of 25 million dollars was

  1335
  taken in some quarters as acknowledgement of culpability, even though officially it was in settlement of claims for use of Columbian property."
  I end with this additional quotation from the Encyclopœdia Britannica:
  "The Treaty between the United States and Columbia in 1846 allowed the United States the right of transport across the Isthmus with a guarantee by the United States of the sovereignty of Columbia on the Isthmus."
  I think those are interesting reminiscences to bring up at this stage, and I hope that they will commend themselves to sonic of Her Majesty's Opposition.
  5.19 p.m.
  LORD WILMOT OF SELMESTON: My Lords, this debate has gone on long enough for most of what needs saying to be said, and therefore I will be very brief. I am sure the noble Lord, Lord Barnby, does not seriously contend that, in a nation which has so long had the privilege and honour of a free Legislative Assembly, those who do not think the Government are right when they have taken action must remain silent or be branded as traitors. If he says that. then what is the use of Parliament? That seems to me to assent to the basic principles of dictatorship and authoritarian government. I am sure that upon reflection the noble Lord will not main-fain the position which he seems to have taken up to-day.
  LORD BARNBY: My Lords, if the noble Lord will allow me to interrupt him, I must seek his indulgence, having landed only last night from America. Not having read the papers, I am under the impression that for several days there has been much discussion, but that within the last forty-eight hours Her Majesty's Government decided on definite action. Therefore, we are no longer in the stage of discussion; we are in the stage of action. I must ask the noble Lord to accept that there is a marked difference between those two.
  LORD WILMOT OF SELMESTON: There is this difference: that the action which has been taken is, we think, wrong action. I myself would not say that it has been taken for the wrong reasons but I think the action which may have been taken for the right reasons is the wrong action. Surely it is our duty in
  1336
  this House to examine not only what has been done but what results are likely to follow from it, and if we find ourselves in a difficult or, as I believe, an indefensible position, to try to find some way of remedying or mitigating the wrong that has been done.
  It seems to me that the best thing to do at this stage in this debate is to make the most earnest entreaty we can to the Government to explore the suggestion made by the most reverend Primate. It seemed to me that he was speaking for all reasonable and right-thinking people when he begged the Government to examine the situation which they have created, or which has been created, and to find a way out. For I wonder whether noble Lords will agree with me when I say that, looking back over the pages of recent history in the Middle East, we may well find ourselves not the victors in a sharp. small encounter. but bogged down in a long guerrilla warfare when the origins will be forgotten and when the civilised world will regard us as invaders and aggressors, which indeed we are not but which we shall certainly be judged to be. This is a serious thing, however right or wrong the causes may be, if we solidify the Arab world behind Nasser and against us. That may well be the result of this, in my view. ill-considered and wrong action.
  It is said that we have gone into this to separate the warring parties and primarily to maintain traffic in the Canal. but is this report which appears on the Exchange Telegraph tape in the Lobby true: that our bombers have sunk a ship which has now blocked the Canal to all traffic? Because, if that is so, it is a pretty serious comment upon the action which we have taken. I believe that we have no right to call upon the Israelis to withdraw into their own territory unless we are prepared to offer to do the same. If we are prepared to make that request and to back it up with that offer on our part. there may be a means of finding our way out of this situation.
  There is another, to my mind, very important consideration, and I should like to ask the noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor whether he will deal with it when he comes to reply. We have not declared war upon Egypt. We have invaded the territory of Egypt without

  1337
  any declaration of war. What is the position, in international status, of our soldiers or airmen who may be shot down in that territory? They are not soldiers engaged upon a lawful warfare. They may be bandits, they may be spies, so judged. What is their position if they are captured? I really think the Government must answer this. It is a serious thing that at this very day Great Britain may be, and will be, arraigned before the Assembly of the United Nations and branded aggressor. It is a very serious thing that a large part of the Commonwealth finds itself entirely unable to support us in this matter. It is a very serious thing to listen to the voice of President Eisenhower this morning, condemning the action which we have taken.
  LORD BARNBY: Politics.
  LORD WI LMOT OF SELMESTON: I have given some part of my time and energy to do what little I could to cement the relations between ourselves and the Americans. I know the people well. It will he a long time before they forget or understand this situation. I beg the Government seriously to consider and explore the proposals which the most reverence Primate has made. it is the most practical and the most charitable contribution. that has been made to this debate. I beg the Government to consider it.
  5.27 p.m.
  LORD LAYTON: My Lords, I am not going to intervene— indeed, I think most of us would hesitate very much to intervene—in the slight controversy that took place a few moments ago between the noble and gallant Viscount. Lord De L'Isle, and the most reverend Primate. but I think there would be a better understanding of the position of those who are critics, and very deep critics, of the Government if it could be appreciated what: the United Nations means to the people of this country. There is a moral aspect. but it goes the whole distance between a deep and, if you like, religious feeling right through to the question of pure self-preservation. Because, unless there is international order of some kind—I am not talking of a kind of Government—brought into the affairs of the world, a world which contains the atom bomb and the tremendous possibilities for human destruction which exist, unless somehow we can get some sort of order and control. it is quite certain that sooner or later
  1338
  civilisation is doomed. That thought really is the background of the reaction of the people of this country—there is no doubt about that.
  The use of force outside the inadequate but the only international organisation which exists at the present time was a shock to our people. It was on that point that the debate last September turned, on the use of force. It is not a pacifist view. It is that there has grown up in the country, and in many other countries too, a concept that, if one can have a private war when one is strong enough to wage one. and if that is to be permitted in the world, there is certain to be chaos. Hence the pressure to consult the United Nations by all sorts of people who use the United Nations a great deal and who realise all the difficulties connected with it. We were wrong to use force except with the concurrence of the United Nations or some collectivity of the free world.
  There is no need to repeat the grounds for that feeling. Any private war was to the people of this country an unwanted war. It had its risks. As I say, there was the atom bomb behind. Were we to start a private war of that kind. we would be the first country to insist that we must retain the right of judging in our own affairs. For my part. I cannot help feeling that the risks involved have been rather underrated and have attracted less attention than they would have done had they not been, as it were, overlaid by the very rapid movement of events.
  I wonder whether the Lord Chancellor would give us some indication whether he believes that in this sort of war, perhaps under the plea of saving lives or of shortening some military operation. we should be the first country to use tactical nuclear weapons. Are we going to introduce them into the Middle East? Is there any reason why we should not? Is there any thing that the Government can say to set at rest that kind of suspicion? We all remember the argument in our previous debate. That argument, as it were from the common sense point of view, was fortified when we came to examine the legal implications. The debate was a very restrained affair, and the Government committed themselves to refer the issue to the Security Council if circumstances allowed. With some misgivings, those who had been critics of

  1339
  the Government accepted that as substantially, and with intent, meeting the feeling that was at the back of their minds. The noble Earl. Lord Home, says that the issue was so referred; but equally the noble Earl says that we have made no progress on the Canal question. I think that that is an overstatement and is not a view that we need to take. First of all, the principles were agreed, were accepted and had the support of all the countries on the Security Council except Russia and Jugoslavia.
  But is it also quite certain that there would be a failure in regard to getting a solution to this issue through the United Nations? That is certainly not what President Eisenhower said this morning. On the contrary, in reply to the suggestion of the use of force, he said:
  "We insistently urged otherwise, and our wish prevailed—through a long succession of conferences and negotiations for weeks and months, with participation by the United Nations. And there. only a short while ago, on the basis of agreed principles, it seemed that an acceptable accord was within our reach."
  He may have been right or the noble Earl may have been right, but at least there is confidence there —the issue was not finished. In that connection. may I say how glad I was to hear my noble friend Lord Samuel remark that really it is an exaggeration to say that this issue is a matter of life and death for us. That is a gross exaggeration. and it is not something upon which we should run immense risks in order to get a settlement tomorrow morning. The cost of a war, if it should develop, is in any case infinitely disproportionately high compared to such material disadvantage that we might suffer.
  But the present issue is a different one. I quite accept—and I think the whole House accepts—that what has happened is not a subterfuge merely to get our way about the Canal. The Government have made it clear that they regard this occupation as something temporary. and I think they are entitled to ask that we should accept their bona fides on that issue, and also the view, again put forward by the Deputy Leader of the House in reply to a speech from the Opposition, that the primary purpose was to stop the fighting—I think quote his words correctly.
  1340
  But here exactly the same point arises as arose in September. Is it for us, alone. to act as self-appointed policemen—and incidentally judge. too? The answer that a large part of this country gives is that we should do that if, and only if, we have the support of the United Nations. It may be said that the Government accept that view and that they have referred the matter to the United Nations. But what sort of reference is it when, at the same time, you announce that you are taking action. and when the action prejudges anything that might happen in the reference to the parties concerned? The only excuse which might be pleaded for that, although it has not been specifically pleaded in the House to-day so far as I have heard. is that the Government should command our support because last September they had provided for an emergency. I think we should all agree that this is an emergency. But is it possible seriously to argue that it is an emergency of such a kind that we could not allow the Security Council, to whom it has been referred, a sufficient number of hours to consider the matter?
  Furthermore, surely the Government is much open to criticism, such as has been levelled to-day, about the fact that they vetoed the proposition put forward by the United States, and which, unless I am mistaken. was almost identical to the one which has just been mentioned by the most reverend Primate. In other words, his proposal is that we should think again and accept that resolution. I personally entirely agree. We also vetoed the suggestion that the matter should be taken to the Assembly. The only possible comment on that is surely that it is a most astonishing and staggering diplomatic feat in so short a time to get the United States and Russia into the same lobby and to ensure that two of your best friends abstain.
  My Lords, in pressing this case for the United Nations and for acting on our belief that these matters should be collectively determined, we are not blind to the difficulties of these international institutions, no matter what they may be. These organisations are inadequate for many purposes. But it is easy to criticise them, while sometimes forgetting that they consist merely of the component nations, and that these institutions will be what

  1341
  the nations will make of them. The greatest task before the world at the present time is not to think out some new institution, but to make the existing ones work.
  At this moment it would be most inappropriate to develop that theme, although there is a great deal to he said on it; but I cannot let this discussion pass without saying that, in my personal opinion, Her Majesty's Government—and I am afraid it is true of both Governments—if they had looked forward. could have carried forward the development. power and authority of those international institutions which exist in the world field, and in regional fields, had they more forcefully endeavoured to develop those institutions. I, too, like the last speaker, have come back from three weeks in Strasbourg and three weeks in New York, including attendance at the first meeting of the Security Council on this question, and I have seen some of the defects of organisation. I do not know what would be the noble Lord's opinion, but in the United Nations I gathered from many of those who think most about it that one of the difficulties of the operation of the United Nations is that, whereas there are several very powerful groups—the United States, the Soviet Union. the South American group. the Arabian group and the Asiatic group —there is no European group and it is only this country which could have created one. This is the only group of countries which does not hold a regional meeting. Obviously, I cannot develop this theme but there have been grave defects in relation to both the international world-wide organisation and the European organisation.
  In conclusion, I revert to the point with which I started. I associate myself with all that has been said about the moral aspect of this issue. We cannot exaggerate the gloom, embarrassment and shame that has been aroused in the hearts and minds of millions of people in this country in the last two or three weeks. For that reason, if for no other, I shall feel in any circumstances compelled to vote against Her Majesty's Government at this moment.
  5.44 p.m.
  LORD PAKENHAM: My Lords, there are in your Lordships' House many experts on international affairs, but I suppose there is no one. unless it be the noble
  1342
  Lord, Lord Strang, who speaks with more authority than the noble Lord, Lord Layton, who has just addressed your Lordships. Certainly I do not think that anybody, whatever his point of view on this question, can have failed to be impressed, and perhaps influenced, by his remarks. There have been a number of speeches to-day strongly critical of Her Majesty's Government: five speeches already from our own Front Bench, besides speeches from other distinguished noble Lords, such as the noble Viscount Lord Samuel, and one or two speeches from Benches opposite, which implied, and sometimes actually stated, a point of view that cannot have been welcome to Her Majesty's Government. I hope, therefore, that I shall not detain your Lordships too long. I must first express my apologies to the House and to the noble Earl the Acting Leader of the House, in particular, for not being here to hear his remarks. As he knows, this debate was, quite rightly, arranged at rather short notice, and I could not be present to hear his speech.
  During this debate there has been a certain amount of talk, and very relevant talk, about bipartisanship in foreign policy. I think some noble Lords went much too far — the noble Lord. Lord Barnby, for instance, who argued, in an interesting speech. that. in effect, we ought to keep quiet on this side, however strongly we disagreed with the view of Her Majesty's Government, rather than allow any misunderstanding to reach foreign countries, or, rather, to prevent any full understanding of our point of view reaching foreign countries which might endanger the position of Her Majesty's Government. The noble Lord, Lord Teviot, spoke to the same effect. I sympathise with some of the remarks made about bipartisanship. It would, of course, be much more satisfactory if we could provide a united nation behind the Government at this time of great difficulty—and I do not think anyone on this side will underestimate the difficulties of Her Majesty's Government. It would be absurd for any noble Lord, wherever he sits, to do so, and I do riot think that either on this side or anywhere else we have fallen into that trap this afternoon. No-one has got up to suggest that there is some magic cure and that, given a little common sense, good

  1343
  will and study, the whole problem could be disposed of.
  I cannot, in my experience, remember a more difficult situation, taking it all for all, than that with which Her Majesty's Government have been faced this week—I say that without reference to the question of whether wiser steps could have been taken earlier. In that situation, the natural instinct of noble Lords on this side of the House is to go a long way in trying to find justification for the policy of Her Majesty's Government. We do appreciate the position. A good many of us have been in office, and may even shortly find ourselves in office again. We realise that Britain to-day, in relation to the largest Powers. is not as strong, materially, as she was. The amount of our influence depends almost directly on the amount of unity behind the foreign policy of Her Majesty's Government. The House knows where we place the blame, but at the moment I am not concerned with that point. It is certainly a sad thing that the gap beween the main Parties in the State has widened even since we started these debates in the last two days.
  Having been present at the Labour Conference, when I read of the Conservative Conference and found the leaders of the two great Parties had been loudly applauded by their supporters in stating completely opposing points of view, I felt that that was something which was not going to bring consolation to the man in the street. I agree with the noble Lord who said to-day that the man in the street would like to see as much unity in foreign policy as possible. But I do not think noble Lords opposite, certainly not the most experienced noble Lords, would, on reflection, argue that there is a duty on the Opposition automatically to support Her Majesty's Government in every major problem. We should be betraying our own trust, which is as considerable as that of anybody else, if, when we thought Her Majesty's Government were pursuing an evil course, we condoned it, or appeared to condone it. I think we all know each other well enough to know that when I refer to an evil course" I am not speaking in a personal sense about any noble Lord or any member of Her Majesty's Government. When I say "evil course" I am not thinking primarily of
  1344
  the diplomatic ineptitude which, on the face of it, has been revealed.
  It has been said that to have united Russia with America against us is itself surely a feat that would secure an Omega mark in any diplomatic examination. It would have seemed incredible a few weeks ago to expect that, however stupid their advisers were, they could land us in that predicament; and to have split the Commonwealth is something on which no one is going to offer any diplomatic congratulations. Nor do I think it would be quite honest to say that this is simply a diplomatic failure. I think the failure is one of foresight and statesmanship. But even if we are dealing only with:errors of judgment of that kind—and very far-reaching and dangerous they may be—I believe that the Opposition will always hesitate a long time before voting against Her Majesty's Government in a moment of national crisis.
  We feel. however, that there is a deeper issue, which has been brought out in the debate this afternoon in another place, and for that reason I know that I can speak on behalf of all my colleagues; and I hope I am not saying something embarrassing, and certainly not patronising, if we say that we pay deeply respectful tribute to the most reverend Primate the Lord Archbishop of Canterbury for his magnificent speech this afternoon. I am not going to come between him and the noble and gallant Viscount, Lord De L'Isle, who has placed himself behind the most reverend Primate —with what purpose I cannot tell; he has moved from his customary position. I am not going to come between those two eminent Members of the House. They are both very quick on the draw, as we saw, and I have no doubt that I should be shot down in flames very early in any cross-firing.
  The most reverend Primate surely made one thing abundantly plain: that his criticism of the Government, or one very severe criticism, is that they have given their word to honour the Charter of the United Nations. We shall all concede—certainly the noble Viscount, Lord De L'Isle, who is, I know, a most strict man in his religious observance will concede—that it is a Christian duty to keep one's word. As I understood the main burden of that part of the most reverend Primate's observations, it was

  1345
  that we were breaking a Christian duty because we were not honouring the spirit of our obligation to the United Nations.
  THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY: May I say one word in my defence? I was extremely careful not to judge anybody. What I said on that matter was that we were not on secure ground, and were even on slippery ground. I did not go further than that. I did not accuse anybody of having broken his word.
  LORD PAKENHAM: I think that, now that everybody is on record, the point will be clear to posterity, if not to everyone in the House at the moment.
  My Lords, we feel that the course the Government are taking is in violation to the spirit of the Charter of United Nations. I am not going to involve myself, as I did last time, with arguments about the fundamental attitude of our Conservative friends to the United Nations. I am not going to get bogged down in that kind of discussion. I am simply speaking to the facts. I am not going to attempt—I should be ill-advised. to do so with so many lawyers in front of me and behind me—to argue the strictly legal point. There is a view strongly held that the Government's action is illegal, contrary to International. Law, and, therefore, in a legal sense is wrong. The Lord Chancellor may give us another opinion, and no doubt the lawyers can argue it out. I have been advised that it is, strictly speaking, illegal. Others say that one needs to know the facts more fully before one can offer an opinion on that point.
  Now, my Lords, let us ask ourselves whether any of us is happy about the attitude we have taken up, in the light of our obligations under the Charter of the United Nations. Certainly we have not pursued a course the Government could have welcomed. They could have adopted it only in the last resort, and with reluctance. We raise an issue in the United Nations. Before the Security Council has had time to deal with it, we send out an ultimatum and say that we are going to make war unless it is responded to in the way on which we insist. We veto the resolution brought. forward by the United States and try to prevent discussion in the Assembly of the United Nations. I say. deliberately, whatever may be the precise legal position, we
  1346
  have gone behind the back of the United Nations in our action. We have acted in a way calculated to bring that Organisation into contempt and certainly do it damage for many years to come.
  The question that arises is: what can be done about it? I think that all of us must wish to study the practical suggestion made in the very thoughtful speech of the most reverend Primate, which has been supported by the noble Lords, Lord Listowel, and Lord Wilmot of Selmeston from these Benches: the suggestion that we should say we will withdraw if the Israeli forces withdraw behind their own frontier. The most reverend Primate attached that to a constructive solution of the whole situation, and in that constructive solution I should myself venture to think— and I believe the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, has already made this point —that the United Nations themselves might well supply an International Police Force to preserve the peace. I feel that if that particular solution could be arrived at, good could well come out of the evil course followed by the Government. It is no good pinning one's hopes in one's speech to something which may be impracticable, but that idea, as a solution, is one which will appeal. I think, to most Members of the House.
  Another practical suggestion, in the not only very interesting but very careful speech by the noble Lord, Lord Salter, was the suggestion that Her Majesty's Government should make it absolutely plain what was meant by the "temporary" occupation. They should make it plain beyond all doubt that we were embarking on this invasion for the reason stated, to keep the Egyptians and the Israelis apart; that we were not going there to achieve the purpose, our own legitimate purpose, if you like to call it that, of trying to secure the international control of the Canal. We were going in for what I might call this week's purpose and not the purpose discussed in earlier debates. I feel that if the noble Viscount the Lord Chancellor who is to wind up, would say something about the word "temporary", he might do a little, at any rate, to relieve the anxieties arid cares of many, not only in this House but in far wider circles; and it may be that other practical suggestions will emerge.
  But I am bound to say that, whatever solution can he found (and we must all

  1347
  hope that this disaster can somehow or other be turned to some benefit to mankind; we can never despair, never say that some occurrence that has been allowed to happen in the world must, on balance, necessarily do harm, however much we condemn it) whatever outcome may be extracted from this situation, we on this side must make it plain, now and for all time, that we condemn utterly the action of the Government as a violation of the spirit of the Charter and therefore tending to undermine what, to many of us, is the main hope of world peace.
  These arguments are of course arguments within the family. There is an actual war going on between our country and Egypt. There is the metaphorical war between the Parties in this country—I count it as a disaster comparable to the actual war taking place. We regard the Government as having been faced with an exceptional difficulty, but I would say that they have made a blunder of exceptional magnitude. With the noble Lord, Lord Layton, we hang our heads with shame, and we shall go into the Division Lobby as part of the exertion to persuade Her Majesty's Government to forsake this evil course, a course whose end no man can foresee and whose outcome for good none of us can anticipate at the present time.
  5.58 p.m.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR (VISCOUNT KILMUIR): My Lords, I think it would be convenient if, before I came to the arguments in my speech. I gave the House two pieces of information which have been foreshadowed earlier in the debate. 'The first is a statement about the military situation in Egypt based on the most recent information available to me. Last night, bombing attacks were made on four Egyptian airfields. Almaza and Inchass, Abu Sueir and Kabrit. First reports show that bombing results were accurate. There was some heavy and light flak but no damage to our aircraft. One aircraft was intercepted by a night fighter but no damage resulted. Ground attack aircraft, shore and carrier-based, carried out attacks on a total of nine Egyptian air-fields early this morning H.M.S. "Newfoundland sank the Egyptian frigate Domiat" approximately 80 miles South of Suez.
  1348
  My Lords, we have no direct information about Israeli-Egyptian operations. Reports indicate that the Israeli attack is on two axes. In the south paratroops are holding the high ground twenty miles east of Suez, supported by a brigade. A second brigade is reported further to the east. To the north the Israelis claim to have over-run the Egyptian position at Qasseina with an armoured brigade. Reports indicate that Egyptian armoured units which were deployed west of Cairo began to move eastwards on October 31. This force includes one armoured group of up to two armoured regiments, both light and heavy anti-aircraft units, and infantry in armoured personnel carriers. It was moving eastwards along the Cairo—Suez and Cairo—Ismailia roads.
  The other matter upon which I promised to give information to your Lordships was the question of prisoners. The position is as follows. There has been no declaration of war by us, but the Geneva Conventions apply to any state of armed conflict. We have received a formal inquiry from the President of the International Red Cross asking whether we will ratify the 1949 Conventions which we have already signed. We are replying that although certain legislation is required before we can ratify the Conventions, Her Majesty's Government accept the Conventions and have every intention of applying their provisions should the occasion arise. The Egyptian and Israeli Governments have both signed and ratified the Conventions and we shall consider ourselves entitled to receive from them the treatment provided for by the Conventions.
  Having dealt with these questions, may I try to answer the debate which has continued for the last six hours? In my reply, I shall try to answer the main criticisms made of Her Majesty's Government, and in doing so I shall seek to co-ordinate the different arguments used on these main points. But I ask your Lordships not to draw any wrong conclusions from my meeting the critics on their own ground. That is the function of a closing speech. I am not here to apologise for the action of Her Majesty's Government but to defend it and to commend it to your Lordships with all the power that I can. It has been suggested by some noble Lords that there is no legal justification for the action that we have

  1349
  taken. In my view we are completely justified. May I, therefore, first give the grounds of our justification and. secondly, demonstrate why our critics are wrong.
  The noble Lord, Lord Henderson, and the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, both said that we had acted in breach of the Charter. On the other hand, my noble friend Lord De La Warr expressed fear as to how the position of the Charter might limit or compromise our action. The position is that the combined effect of the Pact of Paris, the Charter of the United Nations and the General Assembly's "United for Peace" resolution of 1951 is that force may lawfully be used or threatened only, first, with the express authority of the United Nations (that is, of the Security Council), and, secondly, in self-defence. But self-defence undoubtedly includes a situation in which the lives of a State's nationals abroad are threatened and it is necessary to intervene on that territory for their protection. As a matter of interest, it is recorded that the United States of America intervened on no fewer than forty-six occasions in some eighty-six years.
  Now the tests of whether such intervention is necessary under customary international law are, first, whether there is an imminent danger of injury to nationals; secondly, whether there is a failure or inability on the part of the territorial Sovereign to protect the nationals in question. and, thirdly, whether the measures of protection of the intervener are strictly confined to the object of protecting those nationals against injury. It has been argued that there is a great distinction between the protection of human lives and the protection of property. That is not a proposition to which I would give absolute concurrence. I take the view that if really valuable and internationally important foreign property is in danger of irreparable injury, through the breakdown of order, entry by a foreign State for the sole purpose of securing the safety of that property is excusable. I take the view that, since we can show that the blocking of or interference with the Canal for a considerable period would cause—and here I disagree with one or two of your Lordships—irreparable damage and suffering to a number of nations, for which it would be difficult to see adequate compensation being afforded, our intervention
  1350
  is also justified by the danger to the Canal.
  We have therefore three good grounds of intervention: the danger to our nationals (for example, to those at Ismailia); the danger to shipping in the Canal, which shipping carries many hundreds, at least, if not thousands, of people in their crews; and the danger to the enormously valuable installations of the Canal itself and the incalculable consequential effect on many nations if the Canal were blocked.
  LORD WILMOT OF SELMESTON: My Lords, I hesitate very much to interrupt the noble and learned Viscount but I should like to—
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, it is very important that I should give a clear exposition of the legal position and I shall be glad if the noble Lord would wait until I have given it. There has been considerable discussion on this point and I think it is right and proper that I should state the position as I understand it.
  The noble Viscount, Lord Samuel, was inclined to take a more optimistic view of the possible damage. There is no one for whom I have greater respect, after a friendship of forty years, and I ask the noble Viscount to corsider the tide of modern war—guns, planes, all the unpredictable consequences that may result. He would be a rash man who, after battle had been joined, would say where it will stop. That is the position. As a Government, we requested that the threat of these dangers should cease. Our request was refused, with the clear indication from Egypt that they would resist any British or French measures. Although the measures of protection which we are entitled to use are limited to what is necessary for their purpose—namely, the protection of our nationals, shipping and the Canal installations—they must clearly also be proportionate to the resistance offered to them. If the Egyptians say that they will resist with all their land, sea and air forces any attempt at intervention. then we are entitled to use such forces as will defeat that force which the Egyptians threaten to deploy.
  The noble Lord, Lord Silkin. raised the question of the Pact of Paris, the Briand-Kellogg Pact, as one of the matters which he thought !night affect the legality of this

  1351
  action. In my view, it is absolutely clear that the Pact of Paris does not forbid the use of force in self-defence, including the particular form that I have mentioned. That was universally agreed at the time when the Pact was signed. In the negotiations leading. to the Pact of Paris, several countries made a declaration emphasising that self-defence is a natural right inherent in every State and was untouched by the Pact. As I indicated when I last addressed your Lordships' House on this subject, the mischief stated in the Preamble is the promotion of national interests by recourse to war. As the noble and learned Lord, Lord McNair, said in the last debate, Great Britain made a declaration that in certain regions of the world the conditions of peace were her special and vital interest and that their protection against attack was to the British Empire a measure of self-defence. I hasten to assure my noble friend that I am not using that declaration any further than to underline the words that I have just read. The United States, for their part, declared for the right of countries to use force in self-defence from attack or the invasion of their territories, and for the countries attacked alone to decide for themselves the circumstances in which force would be justified. That declaration was made by Mr. Kellogg himself.
  The next point, which was argued before your Lordships on the last occasion, is that if Article 51 of the Charter makes provision for self-defence in special circumstances, that was the only applicable rule. Again it is essential to remember that the right of individual self-defence was regarded as automatically excepted from both the Covenant of the League of Nations and the Pact of Paris without ally mention of it, and clearly the same would have been true of the Charter of the United Nations had there been no Article 51. As your Lordships well know, Article 51 was not inserted in the Charter for the purpose of destroying the individual right of self-defence, but for the purpose of clarifying the position in regard to collective understandings for mutual self-defence, particularly the Pan-American Treaty, known as the Act of Chapultepec. These understandings were concerned with defence against external aggression and
  1352
  it was natural for Article 51 to be related to defence against attack.
  I would remind the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, if he wishes to pursue this matter, that Article 51 must be read in the light that it is part of Chapter VII of the Charter and concerned with defence against grave breaches of the peace. It would be an entire misreading of the whole intention of Article 51 to interpret it as forbidding forcible self-defence in resistance to an illegal use of force not constituting an armed attack. In my view, it is equally clear that Article 51 does not cut down the customary right by restricting forcible self-defence in cases where the attack provoking it has actually been launched. I think that every one of your Lordships will appreciate that if that were done it would be a travesty of the purpose of the Charter, to compel a defending State to allow its opponent to deliver the first fatal blow. The same applies to the form of self-defence with which I am dealing to-day. That is the legal position. If the noble Lord, Lord Wilmot of Selmeston, wishes to ask me anything, he can ask me, now that I have come to the end of my explanation.
  LORD WILMOT OF SELMESTON: My Lords, it is difficult to follow the argument of the noble and learned Viscount about preserving the right of free passage through the Canal in the light of the news that the first material effect of our intervention is to block the Canal by bombing and sinking a ship in the Canal.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I can only say that I have not received confirmation that that is the position. As your Lordships will have seen, I have been on the Woolsack the whole afternoon, except for the minimum periods necessary for human sustenance, so I have not been able to make full inquiries; but I have made inquiries and I have no confirmation that that is the effect of the sinking of the ship.
  THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF CANTER-BURY: My Lords, the noble and learned Viscount referred to the attacking Power against which we have to exercise self-defence. Who is the attacking Power?
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I said that self-defence extended to the protection of nationals on someone else's territory. In that case, we have the right to intervene and use force in that territory to protect our nationals. Then the second point arises—I hope I made this clear; I intended to put it entirely fairly—first, we make a peaceful landing; then, if the Power into whose territory we are going says that they will resist with all their force, the force which we have the right to use is automatically extended to that sufficient to repulse the force threatened.
  THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF CANTER-BUR: Which is the attacking Power in this case?
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: In the case that I have mentioned, the person who threatens to use force in answer to a profferred peaceful intervention.
  THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF CANTER-BURY: Here is the Canal; here are our nationals here is our property. There is an attack upon them which you have to resist.. Who is making the attack?
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I set., now. The most reverend Primate is asking me a question of fact.
  THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF CANTER-BURY: Yes.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: Then I will deal with that. The threat of force is made by the person who refuses to stop the hostile operations that are threatening the people and the installations. really must be allowed to continue—perhaps after just one more interruption.
  THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF CANTER-BURY: Who is this attacking Power in this case?
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I should have thought the most reverend Primate might have guessed that for himself. It obviously Egypt, who has refused to stop.
  THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF CANTER-BURY: This is terribly important, and perhaps I might ask the Lord Chancellor this. Where does the operational force originate? should have thought that the attacking force, whether you like it or not, was Israel. Is that not so?
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: Yes. I explained the law, and I was going to proceed to the facts. But in applying that to this case, our nationals, our ships and the Canal itself are in danger from the conflict between Israel and Egypt. We then. with, I believe, complete moral propriety and rightness, ask them both to stop the conflict which is threatening our nationals, our ships and the Canal. The most reverend Primate really must not interrupt again.
  SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: Order. order!
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: The Israelis agreed to stop hostilities and to retire. but Egypt refused, and indicated that they would use force to prevent the steps which we proposed for a peaceful stoppage of the fighting. That is the sense in which I used it. Perhaps now the most reverend Primate will allow me to continue my speech.
  THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF CANTER-BURY: May I say this? I entirely accept everything I hat the Lord Chancellor has said. I was not criticising it nor attacking it. I was merely asking a question: where did the force originate? That, he says, is Israel; and that is all I wanted to establish.
  A NOBLE LORD: No; he did not say that.
  THE LORID CHANCELLOR: The most reverend Primate has, I am sure entirely unintentionally, sought to confuse two situations. There is the first situation, which attracted cur peace-making intention, which was started when Israel crossed the border. Then there is the second situation, which I have been at sonic pains to explain, when the Egyptians refused our peaceful measures. I hope that I have now made that clear.
  THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF CANTER-BURY: I merely said that there are two states, one and two. You omitted to mention the first. I have now inserted it.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I am always happy to have the co-operation of the most reverend Primate in making a speech. I have always said, both in public and privately, that he is one of the best speakers in London, and I am sure that any speech of mine will be greatly improved by his interruptions.
  LORD SILKIN: I hope the noble and learned Viscount will allow me to make one point. I fully appreciate that he is trying to explain a difficult point of law, and I do not think it is altogether fair for him to be cross-examined in the course of his argument. But I do want to say that. in my view, this is a great straining of the doctrine of self-defence. I think we should go on record as saying that, I should like to ask the Lord Chancellor this question. On his own doctrine, would it not have been justifiable for us to intervene long before this present crisis arose'?
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: The doctrine that I have put forward is an old and well-established doctrine. It was established at least 100 years ago in the case of the "Caroline", which was a matter discussed between the United States and ourselves. The foundation of the doctrine was accepted as "imminent threat to your nationals". The doctrine arises, and that form of self-defence becomes legal, when the imminent threat is made. I hope I have made it quite clear that that is the doctrine on which I am standing.
  The most reverend Primate put his assertion in a wider form. He was not disposed to say that we were wrong in law. But then he put the moral problem: that, even if we were right in law, were we within the spirit of the Charter? If the legal position is as I understand it is, there is then a duty to protect the lives of your nationals and property, with the limitation, as I say. that it must be internationally important property. I do not find the escape from that duty an easy matter. and especially so when the only way of carrying out that duty is to halt a war that is in its commencing stages. The most reverend Primate said: "Who are you, a British Government, to assume that responsibility for policing the world? Who are you to take the risk of that protection?" I say, with all humility, but at the same time with that sense of duty which every member of every British Government would have, that if the British Government did not assume that responsibility they would be failing in their duty, not only to this country but to the world. I cannot see how you can minimise the loss of the lives of British people: and certainly so long as I am a member of a British
  1356
  Government I shall never minimise my duty to see that British people are protected from such dangers. It is a difficult point, but the most reverend Primate will not misunderstand me if I put it to him in the form of this question: "When are you entitled to wash your hands?" That is one of the fundamental problems. All that has been said to-day, every difficulty that has been raised, is enormously increased and multiplied if that question is answered wrongly.
  Let me say one word more on the allegation of the noble Viscount. Lord Samuel. and, indeed, of the most reverend Primate, too—I have indicated the point—that nothing has happened. in fact, to endanger British or French nationals. Again, I find it difficult to see the basis of the suggestion. The Israeli advance was directed towards Port Said and Ismailia. Ismailia, of course, is where many of our nationals are. It was clearly an advance towards the Canal. The advance was approaching the Canal, and troops were in its neighbourhood when the French and ourselves stated our requirements. As I have said to your Lordships before, when battle is joined it is impossible to say which way it will roll. It is impossible to say when air attacks may become necessary. The Canal itself might be used in operations, and might be blocked. These facts constitute a real danger to shipping in the Canal and those in the ships, to our nationals and to the Canal itself.
  If I heard my noble friend Lord Home correctly when he quoted Mr. Menzies, I think Mr. Menzies' words were that the position might have fallen into irretrievable disaster. Again, if innocent people were to be in danger of being killed, what would any of your Lordships have said to a British Government who did not deal with that situation? I ask your Lordships to put that question honestly to yourselves, and if your Lordships say that you would have done nothing, then you must accept the logical consequence, which is that justice goes by the board and the security of ordinary people is lost. Again I say—I do not want to be melodramatic about it—that if any of your Lordships are prepared to accept that risk, I am not; and I would not be a member of a Government who would.

  1357
  That is the position, and I want (I hope that this will help and not arouse the most reverend Primate again) to say this. It is alleged, and therefore I should like to make the point quite clear, that although this position might justify our rescue operations, it does not justify an attack on Egypt. I think that has been one of the lines of criticism. I entirely reject the conception that we have attacked Egypt. We have—and I repeat it—intervened to protect our people, our ships and the installations of the Canal. As my right honourable friend explained on Tuesday in another place—[OFFICIAL REPORT (Commons), Vol. 558 (No. 2141, col. 13471]—and I quote his words, as I have been asked to deal with this point:
  "…the purpose of that intervention is to seek to separate the combatants, to remove the risk to free passage through the Canal, and to reduce the risk, if we can, to those voyaging through the Canal."
  I have explained that and, as I say, I do not believe that if the noble Viscount, Lord Samuel, had been a member of a Government he would have been prepared to let British people he in that danger.
  My right honourable friend prefaced his statement by an exceedingly important declaration. He had been asked whether British troops and other troops would be withdrawn once the present hostilities ceased. He said [col. 1347]:
  "Of course, that will be so; certainly. It is our intention that they will be withdrawn as soon as possible. The last thing that we want is an enduring commitment of that kind —the last thing."
  I have indicated to your Lordships why the forces must be proportionate to the resistance offered, and that is the answer both to the speech and to the interjection which the noble Viscount made a moment ago. If the Egyptians say that they will use all their force, which includes their bombers, then we are entitled to deal adequately with the force threatened.
  Let me take a simple example from intervention as it occurred in less difficult days. In the ordinary way the intervention happened. Many of the forty-six interventions of the United States of America began by the landing of marines in order to protect American nationals. But supposing the landing of the marines was met by bombardment from shore batteries. Then, of course, these batteries would have to be engaged. If they were met by aircraft. then the aircraft would
  1358
  have to be dealt with. That is how the extent of the force remains proportionate to the objective that is being carried out.
  Towards the beginning of this debate I think it was made clear that the motives of Her Majesty's Government are not being questioned in this House. I am glad that that is so, and therefore if I do not deal with that aspect of the matter the House will not hold it against me, because I should not detain your Lordships on a matter which is not in issue between our critics and ourselves. I have stated what our object is, and I think that in the circumstances it is unnecessary for me to go back over the happenings of the last few weeks, as I should have done with pleasure had that been a more live issue in the debate.
  I was asked one question by both the noble Lord. Lord Henderson, and the noble Lord, Lord Silkin. with regard to the Tripartite Declaration, and I think it would be useful if I dealt with that point. The Egyptian Government have taken the stand that the Tripartite Declaration is a unilateral Declaration giving rise to no contractual obligations and giving the three Powers no right to interfere. A Government-controlled Egyptian Press has said that. Egypt wants no foreign troops on her soil to defend her. It is worth remembering that Egypt insisted that, under the Treaty of 1954, the United Kingdom should have no right to reactivate our base in the case of an attack by Israel. As the noble Lord, Lord Birdwood, indicated in his most interesting speech. if you look at the Tripartite Declaration as a whole, and apply the test of the most reverend Primate, the separation of the combatants seems an admirable way of carrying out the spirit of the Declaration.
  It is said—and I think this is the next part of the criticism it logical order—that we should not have taken any action before a decision was come to by the Security Council. The basis of our action, as I have said, was the threat to our people, our skips and to the Canal itself. An imminent threat of force, and the protection of these people, ships and the Canal must be a paramount consideration. Nothing but immediate action could guarantee the safety of the Canal and of these people. As my right honourable friend the Prime Minister has pointed out this afternoon, Israel and Egypt are

  1359
  locked in conflict in the area of the Canal. The first and urgent task is to separate the combatants and to stabilise the position. That is our purpose. If the United Nations were then willing to take over the physical task of maintaining peace in the area, no-one would be better pleased than we. Surely that is the reasonable way. Let us separate the combatants and then, if the United Nations will take over the task, we shall be very pleased. I think that is a fair approach to the problem as I see it and as I have stated it. Before that position can be reached, there must be police action to separate the belligerents and to prevent a resumption of hostilities.
  VISCOUNT ASTOR: My Lords, I really do not understand the Government's position on this matter, because the noble Earl, Lord Home, said that Egyptian troops could remain either to the east or to the west of the Canal. If they remained, as they would be entitled, to the east in the Sinai Desert by the Canal, they would be going on fighting and there would be no question of the separation of the combatants.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: Surely the noble Viscount. Lord Astor, can give no guarantee—I have dealt with that point more than once—as to where the conflict will be. The difference between us is that I think it is a paramount duty that we should take that police action and separate the combatants. I must be allowed to say that that is my view and the view of Her Majesty's Government.
  VISCOUNT ASTOR: My Lords. I hate to interrupt the noble and learned Viscount, but he said the question is to separate the combatants. If, as the noble Earl. Lord Home, said, the Egyptian army, under our proposals, could remain on the east of the Canal in the desert of Sinai, there would be nothing between them and the Israeli army. They would still be fighting with each other in the desert and in no way separated one from the other.
  LORD WILMOT OF SELMESTON: What is the noble Viscount asking the Egyptians to do?
  THE EARL OF HOME: My Lords, perhaps I may intervene for a moment. The first condition was that hostilities
  1360
  should cease altogether and then they should withdraw at least ten miles each side of the Canal, to sterilise the area from fighting. The first condition was that hostilities should cease. We cannot guarantee that. That is the condition.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I am grateful to my noble friend because he has cleared up the misunderstanding from which the noble Viscount suffered. The first point and the essential point is the ceasing of hostilities and the separation of the combatants. That is the position and I think that what I have said about our readiness that the United Nations should take over the job as soon as the conflict is settled is important.
  I have been asked—the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, devoted his speech to this point—about the position of the members of the Commonwealth. As he very fairly said, it is too early to make a final assessment of the Commonwealth reaction as a whole, but it is immensely heartening to learn this afternoon that Her Majesty's Governments in Australia and New Zealand believe that the action taken by us was right. I welcome, too, the statement of the noble Lord. Lord Malvern. that the Federation of Rhodesia and Nyasaland will be behind the Mother Country, and the support which Sir Roy Welensky has declared for us. Mr. Menzies has stated that in the Australian Government's opinion Great Britain was correct in proceeding upon her own judgment and accepting her own responsibility. Mr. Holland said that he and his Government have full confidence in the United Kingdom's intentions in moving forces into the Suez Canal Zone.
  I want to say only a word about consultations. It is the fact, as my noble friend said, that there has been continuous contact and consultation for months between Her Majesty's Government and the Governments throughout the Commonwealth. In sudden emergency created by the clash of arms there was no time to consult before action had to be taken, as Mr. Menzies himself put it,
  "to keep combatants out of the Canal area and afford it proper protection."
  Again, to use Mr. Menzies' words, there are instances like the present one in which events move too fast for normal processes. I do not think that I could give the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, an answer

  1361
  in more weighty words than those of the Prime Minister of Australia.
  Noble Lords have mentioned the position of Anglo-American relations. For many years there has been close co-operation in all fields of policy, but there are no treaty commitments, and each country has at times followed an independent line of action. Thus, the United States pursued an independent policy over China and Formosa and felt unable to support our negotiations at Geneva which brought peace to Indo-China. These divergencies and disagreements are not fatal to the practice of co-operation between our two countries, which is, I am quite sure, necessary to both of us and in which we both believe.
  We are well aware that no lasting settlement in the Middle East or elsewhere can be obtained unless the United Kingdom and the United States collaborate closely. But if our policy of co-operation is to succeed, it must be on a two-way basis. We are still entitled to hope for American support in our attempt to prevent the frightful consequences of a major clash in the Middle East and the possible destruction of one of the world's lifelines. It is essential that our friends in the United States should not misconstrue our action as a reversion to the old concepts of colonialism. On the contrary, we regard it as a chance for constructive work in our common task of strengthening the line against Communism. We hope that after an opportunity for calmer reflection our friends in the United States will realise that our action has been emergency "fire brigade" action, designed to minimise the damage, and that we are animated by the same purposes as themselves, although at present we may appear to be employing different means.
  It has been said, also, that the Government's action in stating the requirement of Tuesday will prevent Parliament from having an effective say or securing national unity. I have really put the answer to that. I do not want to repeat it over and over again, but it is our view that there was a situation requiring immediate action, and that no Government could refrain from taking action. To refrain would be to abdicate from the first duty of protecting its subjects and international obligations.
  1362
  I think the next line of criticism was that the ultimatum was so framed that compliance would have been unduly unfavourable to Egypt. Well, the main point is our first requirement that hostilities between the two nations should cease. As I have said. it is from hostilities and the unpredictable results of fighting that our people, ships and the Canal must be protected; the danger area is the area of the Canal. it is surely right that both should agree to withdraw out of range of 25-pounder guns from the Canal. I said "should agree to withdraw". I repeat "agree", because we never suggested that the withdrawal should be completed within the time limit of twelve hours. What was necessary was that both Powers should agree to do so.
  As my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary said in another place, the circumstances in which this unhappy conflict arose must be dispassionately examined and debated. it is interesting to note that early in the debate the noble Lord, Lord said that we should be circumspect in using the word "aggression." although he was inclined to indicate that he thought it technically existed. As I understood the noble Viscount, Lord Samuel, he would not have admitted that the aggression was on the side of Israel. I only quote that because I think all your Lordships will agree that those views came from two highly respected members of your Lordships' House, and I am putting the intermediate view, as I said, that the circumstances should be dispassionately examined and debated.
  My Lords, the noble Viscount, Lord Samuel, gave us the circumstances from the Israeli point of view with great force and eloquence, and it is enough for me simply to summarise what they are. Within the last few days the situation deteriorated, and we saw a joint military command established for Egypt, Jordan and Syria; we saw also the renewed raids of the guerrillas, culminating in the incursion of an Egyptian commando on last Saturday night. As I said, it is significant that in the 1954 Treaty the Egyptians insisted on the provision that the United Kingdom could not re-activate the base in the case of an Israeli attack, presumably because they did not want our moderating influence there. Moreover. Egypt has long been in breach of the United Nations resolution to allow Israeli

  1363
  ships to pass through the Canal, and the noble Viscount, Lord Samuel, gave us in graphic language the pronouncement which Colonel Nasser had made.
  More recently, Egypt was, as I demonstrated without contradiction in your Lordships' House during the debate in September, guilty of a breach both of her obligations under the 1888 Convention and of International Law by her arbitrary expropriation of the Company. But having said that shortly, I venture to remind your Lordships of this point. In that debate I spoke to your Lordships, I am afraid at length and with some force, as to the dangers to the world if countries abandoned their duty of seeing that international agreements were kept. This Israeli action is just the sort of thing that is bound to happen if the sanctity of international bargains is forgotten, and justice is postponed to a short-term case.
  I am well aware that there are those, both in this House and elsewhere, who disagree profoundly with the action taken by Her Majesty's Government. I have no wish to question their sincerity or their motives: on the contrary. I know that most of them are both patriotic and sincere. But let it not be thought for a moment that the Government have not throughout been perfectly well aware of all the dangers and difficulties involved. Far from it. All the arguments which have been used, and all the fears which have been expressed by our critics were most carefully weighed before any decision was taken. Her Majesty's Government have acted as they did for a very simple reason—in spite of all these arguments, they think that what they have done is the right thing to do. And, after all, it is the Government who are answerable to the nation for the conduct of our affairs, and it would be an abdication from their responsibility if, convinced as they are of what is right, they did not do it, merely because others who do not share that responsibility happened to disagree.
  It is one of the tragedies of world politics that ever and anon the receiving sets of foreign statesmen seem attuned to receive only the words of those who criticise and not of those who have both to formulate a policy and to carry it out.
  1364
  On these occasions they seem utterly to fail to realise that just because the people of Britain are tardy to resent pin-pricks and slow to rouse, when they have come to the conclusion that they have had enough, it is then an occupational risk, which the people of Britain calmly accept, that they should maintain that view, if necessary alone in the world. That point clearly comes when British lives, ships and an international necessity for the livelihood, not only of this country but of many other nations, is threatened by force. My Lords, we have this consolation, however: that these views, slowly formed, and that determination, reluctantly arrived at, have invariably been proved right by history, and that those who criticised us in the time of trial have been the first to applaud us in the hour of success. It is my earnest wish that those who differ from us to-day will think again of these lessons of history and keep them in mind, and will find it possible to join us in securing a speedy peace and the long-term security of a troubled quarter of the world.
  7.1 p.m.
  LORD HENDERSON: My Lords, I think it will be agreed that this debate has been carried on in a sober and serious atmosphere in discussing the very great issues that have been before us. The noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack has defended the policy of Her Majesty's Government with great skill and persuasiveness. I listened to his clear legal interpretation of the position, but I must confess I found myself very confused, and if we had more time there are certain points that would have been worth raising to clarify the position. All I will say is this: the noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor said that we on these Benches disagreed profoundly with the honest policy of Her Majesty's Government. We started with profound disagreement and I must say, at the end of the debate we still have profound disagreement. In those circumstances, instead of rising to ask leave to withdraw the Motion, I must press for the Motion to be divided upon.
  On Question: Whether there shall be laid before the House Papers in regard to the Egypt-Israeli situation?
  Their Lordships divided:—
  Contents, 30; Not-Contents, 82.

  CONTENTS

  Coventry, E.

  C'horley, L.

  Ogmore, L.

  Jowitt, E.

  Colwyn, L.

  Pakenham L.

  Listowel, E.

  Darwen, L. [Teller.]

  Pethick-Lawrence. L.

  Lucan, E. [Teller.]

  Faringdon, L.

  Rea, L.

  Harmsworth, L.

  Rochester, L.

  Astor, V.

  Harvey of Tasburugh, L.

  Sherwood, L.

  Samuel, V.

  Henderson, L.

  Silkin, L.

  Kershaw, L.

  Simon of Wythenshawe, L.

  Amulree, L.

  Layton, L.

  Wilmot of Selmeston, L.

  Archibald, L.

  Macpherson of Drumochter, L.

  Wrenbury, L.

  Boyd-Orr, L.

  Morrison, L.

  NOT-CONTENTS

  Kilmuir, V. (L. Chancellor.)

  Furness, V

  Grantley, L.

  Goschen, V.

  Grenfell, L.

  Sutherland, D.

  Hailsham, V.

  Hampton, L.

  Long, V.

  Hankey, L

  Cholmondeley, M.

  Margesson, V.

  Hawke, L.

  Reading, M.

  Ridley, V.

  Hore-Belisha, L.

  Ruffside V.

  Howard of Glossop, L.

  Beauchamp, E.

  Waverley, V.

  Killearn, L.

  Bessborough, E.

  Leconfield, L.

  Buckinghamshire, E.

  Balfour of Burleigh, L.

  Lloyd, L.

  Carlisle, E.

  Barnby, L.

  Lyle of Westbourne, L.

  De La Warr, E.

  Birdwood, L.

  McCorquodale of Newton, L.

  Fortescue, E. [Teller.]

  Blackford, L

  Mancroft, L.

  Gosford, E.

  Broughshane, L.

  Melchett, L.

  Halifax, E.

  Bruntisfield, L.

  Merriman, L.

  Home, E.

  Cawley, L.

  Milverton, L.

  Howe, E.

  Chesham, L.

  Monk Bretton, L.

  Inchcape, E.

  Colgrain, L.

  Palmer, L.

  Limerick, E.

  Colyton, L.

  Rennell, L.

  Lindsay, E.

  Conesford, L.

  Rochdale, L.

  Malmesbury, F.

  Cottesloe, L.

  Salloun, L.

  Onslow, E. [Teller.]

  Croft, L.

  Sandford, L.

  St. Aldwyn, E.

  Denham, L.

  Strathcona and Mount Royal, L

  Selkirk, E.

  Dovercourt, L.

  Stratheden and Campbell, L

  Swinton, E.

  Ebbisharn, L

  Teviot, L.

  Winrerton, E.

  Ellenborough, L.

  Teynham, L.

  Fairfax of Cameron, L.

  Thurlow, L.

  De L'Isle, V.

  Fraser of North Cape, L.

  Tweedsmuir, L.

  Falmouth, V.

  Gilford, L.

  Wolverton, L.

  Resolved in the negative, and Motion disagreed to accordingly.

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
  THE EARL, OF HOME: My Lords, there is another item of Business on the Paper, but before most of your Lordships go may I say that it is suggested, if convenient to your Lordships, that the House should meet at 4 o'clock on Monday, because it is almost certain that the Government will be able to make a statement that day.
  LORD SILKIN: My Lords, I understand there will be a statement at 4 o'clock, but there will be no other Business except the Commission at 5 o'clock. Unless the statement takes an
  1366
  hour there will be a considerable gap between the statement and the Commission.
  THE EARL OF HOME: Perhaps we might make it 4.30 on Monday.

  WILTON PARK INSTITUTION
  7.17 p.m.
  LORD PAKENHAM LORD PAKENHAM rose to ask Her Majesty's Government whether, in view of the valuable work done at Wilton Park, as acknowledged by the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs on 29th October, they will consider the continuance of this most successful Institution on a wider European bas s. The noble Lord said: My Lords, I had put down the Unstarred

  1367
  Question standing in my name before I knew we were going to have this debate of first importance. I attempted to withdraw it, but for one reason or another that did not come about, and therefore I will not, if the House will forgive me, deploy my main arguments on this subject this evening.
  I think many of the House are aware that Wilton Park has done a wonderful job in Anglo-German relations. The House is probably aware that the Government has recognised that recently in a statement in another place, or at any rate has paid tribute to the work done. Many of us feel that if this institution is to be brought to an end as a purely Anglo-German affair, it could very profitably be converted into a European institution. I think I am right in saying that at least one European country other than Germany, and I rather think more than one country, has shown interest in Wilton Park with a view to the taking place of some change of that kind. To-night, therefore, I venture simply to put the Question as it stands to the noble Marquess, begging the permission of the House to raise the matter on another occasion when we are fresher and more equipped to deal with the subject, which does not compare with the topic we have been discussing but which, in its own way, is of far from negligible significance.
  VISCOUNT ASTOR: My Lords, I should like to back up what the noble Lord, Lord Pakenham has said. I know Wilton Park, as I live quite near it and I have spoken there. I know the remarkable principal it had and the extraordinary work it did for German prisoners, and then the opinion-forming sections of the American nation who were brought over and given education and not propaganda. It is one of the really successful institutions we have had for creating good will and I hope the Government will pay out the very small sums needed to keep this magnificent institution going.
  THE MINISTER OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (THE MARQUESS OF READING): My Lords, noble Lords need make no appeal to me on the basis of the success which Wilton Park has achieved in the past. I am perfectly
  1368
  conscious of it. I have had the privilege of attending Wilton Park myself on more than one occasion and I have great admiration for the work which has been done there and for the enterprise and success with which Doctor Koeppler and his staff have coped with the obviously not very easy situation with which they were faced in the early days.
  It has been found necessary, I fear, to bring the existing arrangement to an end and not any longer to conduct the institution as a centre of exchange for Anglo-German relations. That decision has been conveyed to the Federal Government, and though no doubt they regret it they have accepted it. I think it would be the general hope—certainly I know it would be the hope and part of the work of the noble Lord, Lord Pakenham —to see that other exchanges are conducted which are not less conducive to Anglo-German relations. The present proposition is a little different. I cannot say more at the moment than this: that we have had a number of suggestions from different sources as to possible variants on the Anglo-German theme in the method in which we can use Wilton Park in future. The examination of those various suggestions is still in a not very advanced state, and frankly I am not sure at this stage whether, for financial and perhaps other reasons, it will be possible to carry out any new proposal on those lines. The examination will continue, and if the noble Lord likes to raise the matter at some future date I will give him any further information which by then may be in my possession.
  LORD OGMORE: My Lords, I rise to support my noble friend Lord Pakenham. Other noble Lords on this side of the House and I feel strongly on the subject. We hope that something can be done to save the work of this valuable institution and possibly, as the noble Marquess has said, to extend it. We are encouraged by the words of the noble Marquess. We hope that the inquiries which are being made will result in a successful conclusion. We reserve the right to come back to this question at a later date, if necessary, when perhaps the position will be clearer than it is at the present time.
  House adjourned at twenty-one minutes past seven o'clock.