Skip to main content

Adjournment (Summer)

Volume 531: debated on Thursday 29 July 1954

The text on this page has been created from Hansard archive content, it may contain typographical errors.

It may be for the convenience of hon. Members who are interested in the Adjournment Motion tomorrow to know that, owing to the change of business which has been announced, I have had to re-allocate the times. In brief, the only change is that I propose to put down the debate on disarmament as the first item from 11 o'clock until 1.15, and the other subjects I have allotted will be proportionately postponed.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House, at its rising Tomorrow, do adjourn till Tuesday, 19th October."—[ The Prime Minister.]

3.36 p.m.

I beg to move, to leave out "To-morrow," and to insert "on Monday next" instead thereof.

If the Motion should be accepted by the House as it has been moved, we shall adjourn tomorrow for a period of rather more than 11 weeks. I will concede at once to any critic of my Amendment that in those circumstances to defer the Adjournment of the House for only one day might not alter the position very much. Therefore, I explain at once that I am moving this Amendment in order to call attention to the really shocking mismanagement of Parliamentary business which has put the House of Commons this week into a position of confusion and impotence.

The last two days of the Session prior to the Adjournment day were to have been devoted to the Second Reading, subsequent and final stages of the Consolidated Fund Bill. Those days have always been days which have been used by Parliament, and particularly by private Members of Parliament, to deal with the accumulation of small but important matters which are not capable of being regarded as important enough to deserve a whole day's debate or an official Motion on either side, but which nevertheless are matters with which Parliament has always wished to deal. Because of the number of important statements that have been deferred by the Government until the last day—

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I ask you, with respect, to ask the House to give order, because I am trying hard to hear what my hon. Friend is saying and I cannot hear a word.

I was not aware that there was any unusual noise, but I ask hon. Members to conduct their conversations quietly.

I can quite understand, Sir, that there are many hon. Members—perhaps the majority of those on the other side—who do not wish to hear what I have to offer—[An HON. MEMBER: "Absolutely right."]—and they are perfectly entitled to leave the House if they wish. It would be a great convenience to them and would save them a good deal of boredom and mischief if they would all leave together instead of in these organised small groups. I would willingly wait for them to leave, and if they do not come back today or tomorrow or on 19th October, or ever, those of us on this side of the House would not regret their absence.

On a point of order. Could you say, Mr. Speaker, how long an hon. Member can be in possession of the House without making a speech?

I should like to call the attention of the House to the number of important, urgent matters which will be left undiscussed and undealt with if we adjourn tomorrow. One of them was to have been the subject of debate today, and, for reasons with which I shall deal in a moment, it is to be dealt with in private Members' time on the Adjournment tomorrow. That is the question of the conference on disarmament which proceeded in London over a number of weeks and at which this country was represented by the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Minister of State. This is, I suppose, as important a subject as the country and the world are likely to be faced with, and it fits into a pattern of international affairs which are of mounting urgency.

We have never yet had any statement to the House, though it is many weeks since the conference closed, as to what took place. There has been no report and no debate. For that reason, my right hon. Friends were compelled to place on the Order Paper for this afternoon a Motion to debate that subject. It is a matter which ought to have been reported to and dealt with by the House a long time ago. Now it is to be taken on the last day and the rights of private Members are again to be invaded and removed. The assurance which you, Mr. Speaker, gave to me yesterday that private Members' interests were in no way affected by taking the disarmament discussion on Friday, because it would be taken between 4 p.m. and 6 p.m. by the extension for two hours at the normal sitting time of the House on the Adjournment day, has now gone. The disarmament discussion is to take place in the first two hours of the Adjournment day, leaving only three hours of normal time.

I should not like the hon. Member to argue from a misunderstanding. It is still my intention to move the extension of the Sitting tomorrow by two hours and therefore no time will be lost to private Members.

The right hon. Gentleman is quite right, and I appreciate that he intervened in order that I should not make an argument which was falsely based. I recognise that it is the intention to add two hours. If that makes no difference to the rights of private Members, perhaps when the right hon. Gentleman replies he will tell me why the change has been made and the two hours placed at the beginning of the day instead of at the end, as was promised yesterday.

I suggest that the reason is that, for a variety of reasons which we all understand and about which nobody complains, the two hours from 4 p.m. to 6 p.m. on the Adjournment day are likely to be abortive. I suppose that the reason the disarmament discussion comes at the beginning of the day instead of at the end is that it is rightly regarded as an important subject which ought to be debated when there is a reasonably large attendance in the House, and not between 4 p.m. and 6 p.m. when, in the circumstances, it is not likely that there will be so large an attendance.

There is also the question of the proposed concession of full sovereignty to West Germany. The House is being asked to adjourn for 11 weeks without any statement from the Government or discussion by the House as to what that is to involve. Does it, for instance, mean that when we come back on 19th October we shall be faced with a situation in which German rearmament will have been conceded, as it were without discussion and informally? That is to say, shall we come back and be faced with the position that West Germany has been accorded by treaty full sovereignty, which must involve the right to rearm without condition and limitation? Full sovereignty can mean nothing else but that.

One recognises that this is not the time to discuss the merits of the case and I do not propose to do so, but everybody knows that there is keen controversy, which cuts across normal party division, about the desirability of German rearmament at all. Surely, very very few even of the most convinced and enthusiastic supporters of German rearmament within the limits of E.D.C. would be prepared to support German rearmament without such limitations and conditions as the E.D.C. Treaty imposes.

There ought to have been a proper discussion by Parliament long ago of what is intended. The Government ought to have told us what is in their minds and ought to have given us any assurances which might reasonably have been asked for, or which they felt that they could give, in order to make sure that in this important and controversial matter the House of Commons is not faced on 19th October with a fait accompli.

There is another matter connected with international affairs. There was a conference months ago in Berlin about the future of Europe and about security in Europe, involving also necessarily this question of the future of Germany. That conference failed. Proposals were made which were found to be unacceptable. Since then there has been another conference which succeeded, and since that conference new proposals for a new conference on European security have been made.

The House still does not know what is the Government's attitude to those pro- posals. Again, I am not seeking to discuss or even to advert upon the merits of the proposals one way or another. I concede that this is not the time to discuss or debate what the Government's attitude ought to be or what kind of reply the Government ought to send, but we ought not to adjourn for three months without knowing what is in the Government's mind on this matter.

We are entitled to know. They may say, "We are discussing the matter with other nations. We desire to move in step with our friends and those with whom we have been in the habit of acting in concert in these matters." Even so, it is still surely right that the House of Commons itself, before it adjourns for three months, should have some idea of what the Government think about it, what proposals they will make to those friends and what kind of answer they would like to see made.

I should be out of order in repeating it often enough to enable the hon. Member to understand it. Therefore, I shall not attempt to do so. All I am attempting to do is to make the point—I make it again for the sake of clarity—that this is a matter on which the whole future of Western civilisation may well depend. Is there going to be peaceful co-existence or not? The answer to that question may very well depend on what decision is ultimately made about the future of Germany, and that question may well depend on what answer is given to the proposal which has now been made. I say that we are entitled to know, and ought not to disperse for three months unless we know, what is the attitude of the Government to that proposal.

There are one or two other matters. One reason the House of Commons has not been allowed to pursue its normal constitutional right of raising any debate on the Consolidated Fund (Appropriation) Bill, and of raising the variety of questions which normally are raised, is that there is a row going on in the Conservative Party about Egypt. Later this afternoon we shall see those whom I may refer to—I hope without disrespect—as the head hunters, hunting heads. In the course of that there will be a general debate about the Egyptian Agreement. There ought to be such a debate. No one pretends for a moment that there is anything wrong in back benchers disagreeing with Governments. I certainly never complain of that. I do not regard it as an anti-democratic practice that groups of like-minded back benchers should take counsel together in order to see how they can further the causes in which they believe.

I say that with all sincerity and great diffidence, because I have never belonged to such a group myself. Whether what is in issue is a "keep left" group, a "keep right" group, or a "don't care" group, it remains true that there is this difference of opinion, and the proper place to debate such differences of opinion is the Floor of the House of Commons. There is no better and no more proper place for such debates. But why on the last day before the Recess? There has been no shortage of time about this. There is nothing new in the Agreement. The Heads of Agreement which were signed the other day were available to the Government two years ago. They have known that they had a group of their supporters who are not happy about this. There was a time when Members of the Government were not so happy about it themselves.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Is the hon. Member in order in making these arguments on the Amendment he has moved?

I was waiting to see what relevance it had to the Amendment. The hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman) seemed to be discussing the Heads of Agreement with Egypt.

The general point I am making, if I may respectfully explain it, is the one with which I opened the few observations I want to offer to the House as an illustration of the mismanagement of Parliamentary business which has put the House in the difficulty which has led me to move this Amendment. I say there can be no better example of such mismanagement than the necessity to debate on the last day before we adjourn a subject which could have been debated two years ago, or at any time during that two-year period, and that we ought not to be put in that position by such shocking mismanagement.

I am sure that even the hon. Member who interrupted earlier now understands that.

There is a final matter with which I want to deal, without wishing to keep the House too long. There is a question upon which the House would like some information before we adjourn for three months and which, I think, transcends, at any rate in immediate importance, any of those questions to which I have so far referred. It is the state of disintegration, bordering on total collapse, of the Government themselves. We do not even know who the Government are. We are entitled to know, before we adjourn for three months, which right hon. Gentleman or which right hon. Lady will be in charge of each Department when we come back, and during the period before we come back on 19th October.

There have been a number of recent moves whereby one or two Ministries have been abolished altogether. Whilst undoubtedly to that extent confidence in the Government will have been improved, it could have been done so much more speedily and satisfactorily if it had been done collectively. If they had all gone together instead of piecemeal, we would have known what the situation was and how to deal with it. Then we could have gone away for three months or six months with much greater ease of mind than we can as things are. Apart from the Ministries abolished altogether, there have been a number of changes—

Will my hon. Friend forgive me interrupting him? Up to now I have been in full agreement with him. He will have observed that in the most widely distributed Conservative newspaper today far less space, and apparently far less importance, is given to the disappearance of two Members of the Cabinet than to the disappearance of a fast bowler from the forthcoming Test team.

My hon. Friend is quite right to draw my attention and the attention of the House to the sense of importance which Conservative newspapers have for Conservative Governments and for cricket.

I say that we are entitled to know who is likely to be in charge and who is to meet us on 19th October, if any of them do then meet us. We are entitled to know that before we adjourn tomorrow. Such an announcement would not take very long and could be made on Monday, if my Amendment were agreed to. We could then perhaps agree to adjourn for the rest of the period.

The House has sat on Bank Holiday before in a good cause, and no better cause than this could be found. Perhaps we would be told on Monday that the Government had resigned and we could nominate a new one. I am sure that my right hon. Friends would not object if that were done.

I conclude by saying in all seriousness that it must be very many years since the House of Commons was called upon to adjourn for three months with so many fundamentally important questions not merely unresolved but unexplained by the Government. I suppose the last occasion on which the House adjourned in a state of international affairs of greater—but not much greater—anxiety was the summer and autumn of 1939. I have pointed out a large number of weighty matters which will be left unresolved, and with the Government's attitude to them unexplained, if we adjourn in accordance with the Motion now before the House.

4.0 p.m.

I beg to second the Amendment.

I do so briefly because I, too, feel that the House, particularly the Opposition, have been treated with something very near to contempt by the Government in the last couple of weeks. I do not put it so high as to say that the Government have deliberately created the situation which we have run into, but I do say that they have seen it coming and that they have deliberately run the House and the Opposition into it. For at least the last three weeks, the Government must have known that the Geneva Conference was going to come to an end one way or the other. Happily it came to an end which was reasonably satisfactory, but the Government ought surely to have known that, whichever way it came to an end, the House would wish for an opportunity to discuss the vital question, what comes next? We have been entirely deprived of that opportunity.

My hon. Friend the Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman) has said enough on Egypt for the House not to wish me to elaborate on that subject. Clearly the Government have known for a full three weeks that that matter, too, was coming to an end. Can anybody say that, in relation to this great act of Government policy, on which it was known that hon. and right hon. Gentlemen on the Government side of the House had very strong views, anything less than one whole day of Government time would have been appropriate?

They knew, too, that they were on the point of making a new announcement about Cyprus which they had every reason to know was bound to be of a highly controversial nature, and which the House would wish to discuss. Yet they deliberately allow a situation to develop in which the last two days before the Recess—I except the conventional Friday which is available for back-bench Members to raise relatively minor though no doubt locally very important matters—were two days wholly at the disposal of the Opposition.

My memory of past procedure in the House is not always of the brightest and sharpest; therefore I speak subject to correction. I do not, however, seem to remember the Second Reading and the Third Reading of the Consolidated Fund (Appropriation) Bill ever before being put into the last two days before a Recess. My memory of various and vigorous debates—once on the issue of Seretse Khama, once on the issue of arms for the Egyptians—is that those debates took place on the Consolidated Fund Bill a week or two weeks before the Adjournment for the Summer Recess; and that the last few days before the Adjournment were filled with Government business so that, if some emergency arose and a debate about it was imperatively demanded, time for such a debate was not given out of Opposition time but a day of Government time was used.

Yet the Government, with their eyes wide open, knowing that all these great and weighty matters were coming forward and that a demand for a debate on them would arise, have chosen to go on and leave the House and the Opposition in the position in which some of the subjects are not to be discussed at all. One of these is the aftermath of the Geneva Conference. Another great subject mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Nelson and Colne, the future sovereignty of Germany, is not to be debated at all. Steel, on which the Opposition had a justifiable desire to move a Motion of their own, was squeezed out; Cyprus was debated for half a day; and Egypt is to be debated for what everybody in the House will regard as a wholly inadequate time—and all because the Government could not put off, until the autumn, the concluding stages of their Television Bill.

That is all they need have done, seeing, as they must have seen a fortnight or three weeks ago, the red light, or at least the amber light, of all these great world issues piling up against them. But no, they must use up the time of the House on the concluding stages of their Television Bill and other quite unnecessary Measures, to leave us in the position in which we find ourselves today. I hope that my hon. Friend will press this Amendment to a Division to mark our disapproval.

4.6 p.m.

The House should not part with the Motion without hearing a great deal more from the Government about their intentions on a number of matters which have been raised already by my hon. Friends, and also on a number of other questions of great importance on which we entirely lack information either about facts or about Government policy. I intended to put quite a number of questions to the Foreign Secretary, whom I expected to see on the Government Front Bench this afternoon. I am very glad that there is a representative of the Foreign Office here. No doubt the Foreign Secretary himself is drafting his resignation speech in succession to the other Members of the Government.

One matter I wish to put has not been answered. We have been told what are the Heads of Agreement made with Egypt, but we are now left to have a debate on this vital matter sandwiched in between a debate on this Motion and Amendment and a debate on the Committee stage of the Consolidated Fund (Appropriation) Bill. I do not see how much time will be left for the debate on Egypt. I am quite sure that hon. Members opposite who are genuinely anxious to see this vital matter properly discussed will join with us in opposing the Motion and in seeking to ensure that proper time is given for the discussion of these serious questions.

I do not wish to deal any further with Egypt, but I should like to add one or two questions to those put by my hon. Friend the Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman) on the question of the proposal to accord sovereignty to Western Germany. I should like to know, first, when this question is to come up. It seems to me that it will arise very soon after we adjourn, if the Motion is carried. The Government have been less than honest and courteous to the House about this whole matter.

When we had a debate recently I intervened to ask the Prime Minister whether any time limit had been set for the ratification of the E.D.C. by the French Government, and the Prime Minister categorically assured the House that no definite time limit had been set. Yet, on that very same day, Mr. Dulles announced that the French Government had been given until 15th August. Now we learn, not in this House but from a debate in another place, that a time limit of 15th August has in fact been set, according to a statement made yesterday by a noble Lord. That means that the time is very short indeed.

As I understand it—I hope that the Joint Under-Secretary will correct me if I am wrong—the Government will then proceed, in conjunction with the United States Government, to raise immediately this whole question of West German sovereignty. We would like to know in what form that is to be done. For example, is it proposed to amend the Bonn Convention? I think that we should be told, because the Bonn Convention says quite categorically in the first Article that
"The Federal Republic shall have full authority over its internal and external affairs, except as provided in the present Convention."

With respect, Mr. Speaker, I accept your Ruling, but I was trying to show first, that this question falls to be dealt with during the period in which we shall be in Recess, and secondly, that we are asked to disperse without being informed exactly what are the intentions of the Government in this matter. I think that we are entitled to know, before we disperse for the Recess, whether the Government intend to amend the Bonn Convention, and if so, in what form. If they do not intend to amend the Bonn Convention, how is it proposed to place restrictions on the power of the West German Government to have completely unlimited rearmament, an armed force without any control whatsoever?

In another place there were references to undertakings which are to be given. What will be the value of these undertakings? Will any undertakings have any value if they are not part of a solemn contract such as the Bonn Convention? I suggest that it is not treating the House fairly if we are not informed about these vital matters before we disperse.

Finally on this subject I wish to ask one further question. My right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition has on more than one occasion asked for a specific assurance from the Government that this House will be recalled before any decisions are taken in regard to West German sovereignty. We have not had any assurance whatsoever. All we have had from the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the House, is a reference to the Standing Order of the House. We know all about the Standing Order, but what we want is an assurance from the Government that they will pledge themselves to advise Mr. Speaker to recall the House in the event of their being on the point of taking any decision—[HON. MEMBERS: "Before that."]—and before they take any decision regarding West German sovereignty. I hope that we shall have that assurance before we disperse.

I wish to ask some questions about one or two other matters, first affecting the Far East. We have had the ending of the war in Indo-China, and I may perhaps be allowed to say that we are all gratified to see that the cease-fire has been brought about even sooner than had been anticipated. But what is to follow? What about this South-East Asia security organisation? On this matter we have been greeted by dead silence from the Government. We have not had silence from Mr. Dulles. Mr. Dulles told us that there is to be a conference called very soon to confirm a military alliance with South-East Asia.

What is the policy of the Government in this matter? Are they proposing to call such a conference? Are they proposing to join in such a conference? Is a conference to be held? Are we to take part in this conference? Is it to be a conference to draw up a military pact, or to enter into certain specific commitments? And quite apart from the formation of a military alliance or a specific pact, what military commitments are the Government proposing to enter into with regard to South-East Asia?

The hon. Member is getting far away from the question of when we should adjourn. No doubt there are all sorts of questions which might be asked about public affairs, but they cannot be raised within the terms of this Motion.

With respect, Mr. Speaker, I am suggesting, first, that these are matters of the highest state policy, affecting the welfare of the whole country, and possibly the issues of war and peace. Secondly, I am trying to call attention to the fact that these issues fall to be decided by the Government during the period in which they are seeking to disperse hon. Members for three months to their constituencies and to their holiday avocations. It is not treating the House properly that we should be left completely uninformed about the intentions of the Government in these vital matters.

Are they proposing to join in a military alliance with South-East Asia? Are they proposing to enter into any commitments, secret or avowed, with regard to South-East Asia? We ought to know the answers to those questions.

Ought not my hon. Friend to add a request for an assurance by the Government that they will not enter into any final arrangements with anybody on these matters in the absence of the House of Commons?

I am glad to welcome the assistance of my hon. Friend, and to ask that that assurance shall be given.

I wish to turn to another question which falls to be decided possibly within the next two or three weeks, namely, the question of Korea, with which this country is vitally concerned. Recently there was a conference at Geneva, and on 15th June the discussions on the Korean question were abandoned without any agreement being reached. Mr. Syngman Rhee, the President of Korea, has already announced to the world that, 60 days after the decision at the Geneva Conference, he intends to resolve this matter by force of arms. He has already stated that, and repeated the declaration on more than one occasion, that he proposes to use armed force in order to re-unite Korea. I wish to know what the Government propose to do about that situation. Do they propose that a renewal of fighting in Korea, brought about by the actions of the South Korean Government, shall be brought before the Security Council of the United Nations? Or do they propose that the matter should be by-passed, as was the Guatemala question?

These are matters about which the House should b informed. There is a state of acute tension in the whole of the Far East. There have been signs of extreme jitteriness in China—we have seen incidents arising out of it in the last day or two—and there is also something approaching hysteria in the United States which has even invaded the American Congress. I want to know what the Government are doing to protect this country against the possibility of rising tension in the Pacific area leading possibly to a state of war.

Have the Government any plans for preventing this country from being involved in a war which might arise in the Far East? This is a question which is important and urgent. I think that all of us must have been shocked to read the incredible speech made yesterday by Mr. Syngman Rhee to the joint meeting of Congress. What is the Government's attitude on that subject and its implications? What are they proposing to do to protect the interests of this country? It would be very convenient if one could dismiss the statements of Mr. Syngman Rhee as the ravings of an elderly lunatic; but, unfortunately, one reads that what he said was repeatedly applauded by no less a person than Admiral Radford, the chief—

Order. Again I must tell the hon. Member that he is going into far too much detail. He may discuss the importance of the subject, but the hon. Member is going too far into the merits. I think that there is a line between importance and merits which he is quite capable of drawing for himself.

I am trying very carefully to draw that line, and I appreciate your assistance, Mr. Speaker, in drawing me back to the path from which I may have strayed.

I am seeking to show that there is a state of affairs in the Far East which is highly dangerous for this country. We ought not to separate for the Recess without knowing what is the Government's policy in these matters. When we have the leading military man in the United States, the chairman of the American Chiefs of Staff, applauding proposals for a declaration of war against China in which Syngman Rhee and Chiang Kai-shek should join, backed by American military assistance, then I want to know what is being done to protect the interests of this country. Can this country be kept out of a war arising in the Far East from such a development?

I come to another and related matter. The Prime Minister recently visited the United States with one very important matter on his mind, namely, the question of the hydrogen bomb and its implications. This is where the question of a possible conflict in the Pacific area comes right home to this country. There are American bases in this country from which atomic and hydrogen weapons might be launched in the event of war—

On a point of order. Would I be in order in moving the Closure?

Question put, "That the Question be now put."

The House proceeded to a Division—.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I submit that no Motion has been moved. The question asked by the hon. Member was whether he would be in order in moving, "That the Question be now put." He did not move, "That the Question be now put." Therefore, I submit for your Ruling that there is no Question before the House.

Division No. 212.]

AYES

[4.24 p.m.

Allan, R. A. (Paddington, S.)Finlay, GraemeLongden, Gilbert
Alport, C. J. M.Fleetwood-Hesketh, R. F.Low, A. R. W.
Amery, Julian (Preston, N.)Fletcher-Cooke, C.Lucas, Sir Jocelyn (Portsmouth, S.)
Amory, Rt. Hon. Heathcoat (Tiverton)Fort, R.Lucas, P. B. (Brentford)
Anstruther-Gray, Major W. J.Foster, JohnLucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
Arbuthnot, JohnFraser, Hon. Hugh (Stone)Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. O.
Assheton, Rt. Hon. R. (Blackburn, W.)Fraser, Sir Ian (Morecambe & Lonsdale)Macdonald, Sir Peter
Astor, Hon. J. J.Fyfe, Rt. Hon. Sir David MaxwellMackeson, Brig. Sir Harry
Baldock, Lt.-Cmdr. J. M.Galbraith, Rt. Hon. T. D. (Pollok)McKibbin, A. J.
Baldwin, A. E.Gammans, L. D.Mackie, J. H. (Galloway)
Banks, Col. C.Gamer-Evans, E. H.Maclay, Rt. Hon. John
Barber, AnthonyGeorge, Rt. Hon. Maj. G. LloydMaclean, Fitzroy
Barlow, Sir JohnGlover, D.Macleod, Rt. Hon. Iain (Enfield, W.)
Beach, Maj. HicksGodber, J. B.Macmillan, Rt. Hon. Harold (Bremley)
Bell, Philip (Bolton, E.)Gomme-Duncan, Col. A.Macpherson, Wall (Dumfries)
Bell, Ronald (Bucks, S.)Gough, C. F. HMaitland, Comdr. J. F. W. (Horncastle)
Bennett, F. M. (Reading, N.)Gower, H. R.Maitland, Patrick (Lanark)
Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gosport)Graham, Sir FergusManningham-Buller, Rt. Hn. Sir Reginald
Bennett, William (Woodside)Grimston, Sir Robert (Westbury)Markham, Major Sir Frank
Bevins, J. R. (Toxteth)Hall, John (Wycombe)Marlowe, A. A. H.
Birch, NigelHare, Hon J. H.Marples, A. E.
Bishop, F. P.Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye)Marshall, Douglas (Bodmi)
Black, C. W.Harvey, Air Cdre. A. V. (Macclesfield)Maude, Angus
Bossom, Sir A. C.Harvie-Watt, Sir GeorgeMaudling, R.
Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hon. J. A.Hay, JohnMaydon, Lt.-Comdr. S. L. C.
Boyle, Sir EdwardHeald, Rt. Hon. Sir LionelMedlicott, Brig. F.
Braine, B. R.Heath, EdwardMellor, Sir John
Braithwaite, Sir Albert (Harrow, W.)Henderson, John (Cathcart)Molson, A. H. E.
Braithwaite, Sir GurneyHiggs, J. M. C.Monckton, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter
Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W. H.Hill, Dr. Charles (Luton)Moore, Sir Thomas
Brooke, Henry (Hampstead)Hinchingbrooke, ViscountMorrison, John (Salisbury)
Browne, Jack (Govan)Hirst, GeoffreyMott-Radclyffe, C. E.
Buchan-Hepburn, Rt. Hon. P. G. T.Hollis, M. C.Nabarro, G. D. N.
Bullard, D. G.Hope, Lord JohnNeave, Airey
Bullus, Wing Commander E. E.Hopkinson, Rt. Hon. HenryNicholls, Harmar
Butler, Rt. Hon. R. A. (Saffron Walden)Hornsby-Smith, Miss M. P.Nicholson, Godfrey (Farnham)
Campbell, Sir DavidHorobin, I. M.Nicolson, Nigel (Bournemouth, E.)
Carr, RobertHorsbrugh, Rt. Hon. FlorenceNield, Basil (Chester)
Cary, Sir RobertHoward, Gerald (Cambridgeshire)Noble, Comdr. A. H. P.
Channon, H.Howard, Hon. Greville (St. Ives)Nugent, G. R. H.
Churchill, Rt. Hon. Sir WinstonHudson, Sir Austin (Lewisham, N.)Nutting, Anthony
Clarke, Col. Ralph (East Grinstead)Hulbert, Wing Cdr. N. JOakshott, H. D.
Cole, NormanHurd, A. R.Odey, G. W.
Colegate, W. A.Hutchison, Sir Ian Clark (E'b'rgh, W.)O'Neill, Hon. Phelim (Co. Antrim, N.)
Conant, Maj. Sir RogerHutchison, James (Scotsteun)Orr, Capt. L. P. S.
Cooper-Key, E. M.Hyde, Lt.-Col. H. M.Orr-Ewing, Charles Ian (Hendon, N.)
Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne)Hylton-Foster, H. B. H.Orr-Ewing, Sir Ian (Weston-super-Mare)
Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. F. C.Iremonger, T. L.Page, R. G.
Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)Peake, Rt. Hon. O.
Crouch, R. F.Jennings, Sir RolandPerkins, Sir Robert
Crowder, Sir John (Finchley)Johnson, Eric (Blackley)Pickthorn, K. W. M.
Crowder, Petre (Ruislip—Northwood)Johnson, Howard (Kemptown)Pilkington, Capt. R. A
Darling, Sir William (Edinburgh, S.)Jones, A. (Hall Green)Pitman, I. J.
Davidson, ViscountessJoynson-Hicks, Hon. L. W.Powell, J. Enoch
De la Bére, Sir RupertKaberry, D.Price, Henry (Lewisham, W.)
Digby, S. WingfieldKerby, Capt. H. B.Prior-Palmer, Brig. O. L.
Dodds-Parker, A. D.Kerr, H. W.Profumo, J. D.
Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. McA.Lambert, Hon. G.Raikes, Sir Victor
Donner, Sir P. W.Lambton, ViscountRamsden, J. E.
Doughty, C. J. A.Lancaster, Col. C. G.Rayner, Brig. R.
Drayson, G. B.Leather, E. H. C.Redmayne, M.
Drewe, Sir C.Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H.Rees-Davies, W. R.
Duncan, Capt. J. A. L.Lennox-Boyd, Rt. Hon. A. T.Renton, D. L. M.
Duthie, W. S.Lindsay, MartinRidsdale, J. E.
Eccles, Rt. Hon. Sir D. M.Linstead, Sir H. N.Roberts, Peter (Heeley)
Eden, Rt. Hon. A.Llewellyn, D. T.Robinson, Sir Roland (Blackpool, S.)
Eden, J. B. (Bournemouth, West)Lloyd, Rt. Hon. G. (King's Norton)Rodgers, John (Sevenoaks)
Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E.Lloyd, Maj. Sir Guy (Renfrew, E.)Roper, Sir Harold
Erroll, F. J.Lloyd, Rt. Hon. Selwyn (Wirral)Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard
Fell, A.Lockwood, Lt.-Col. J. C.Russell, R. S.

That is not so. I said "Yes" and the hon. Gentleman said "I move." The Chair is quite accustomed to correcting verbal inaccuracies in the form adopted by hon. Members in moving Motions.

Ayes, 264; Noes, 181.

Ryder, Capt. R. E. D.Studholme, H. G.Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)
Sandys, Rt. Hon. D.Summers, G. S.Wakefield, Sir Wavell (St. Marylebone)
Schofield, Li.-Col. W.Sutcliffe, Sir HaroldWalker-Smith, D. C.
Scott, R. DonaldTaylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)Wall, Major Patrick
Scott-Miller, Cmdr. R.Taylor, William (Bradford, N.)Ward, Hon. George (Worcester)
Shepherd, WilliamTeeling, W.Ward, Miss I. (Tynemouth)
Smithers, Peter (Winchester)Thomas, Rt. Hon. J. P. L. (Hereford)Waterhouse, Capt. Rt. Hon. C.
Smithers, Sir Waldron (Orpington)Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)Watkinson, H. A.
Soames, Capt. C.Thomas, P. J. M. (Conway)Webbe, Sir H. (London & Westminster)
Speir, R. M.Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)Wellwood, W.
Spence, H. R. (Aberdeenshire, W.)Thorneycroft, Rt. Hn. Peter (Monmouth)Williams, Rt. Hon. Charles (Torquay)
Spent, Rt. Hon. Sir P. (Kensington, S.)Thornton-Kemsley, Col. C. N.Williams, Gerald (Tonbridge)
Stevens, GeoffreyTilney, JohnWilliams, Paul (Sunderland, S.)
Steward, W. A. (Woolwich, W.)Turner, H. F. L.Williams, R. Dudley (Exeter)
Stewart, Henderson (Fife, E.)Turton, R. H.Wills, G.
Stoddard-Scott, Col. M.Tweedsmuir, LadyWilson, Geoffrey (Truro)
Storey, S.Vane, W. M. F.
Strauss, Henry (Norwich, S.)Vaughan-Morgan, J. K

TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

Stuart, Rt. Hon. James (Moray)Vosper, D. F.Mr. T. G. D. Galbraith and
Mr. Legh.

NOES

Acland, Sir RichardGreenwood, AnthonyPaget, R. T.
Albu, A. H.Grenfell, Rt. Hon. D. R.Palmer, A. M. F.
Allen, Arthur (Bosworth)Grey, C. F.Pannell, Charles
Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)Pargiter, G. A.
Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R.Grimond, J.Paton, J.
Awbery, S. S.Hale, LesliePeart, T. F.
Bacon, Miss AliceHall, Rt. Hon. Glenvil (Colne Valley)Plummer, Sir Leslie
Balfour, A.Hall, John T. (Gateshead, W.)Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)
Bartley, P.Hamilton, W W.Price, Philips (Gloucestershire, W.)
Benn, Hon. WedgwoodHargreaves, A.Proctor, W. T.
Benson, G.Hastings, S.Reeves, J.
Beswick, F.Hayman, F. H.Reid, Thomas (Swindon)
Blackburn, F.Healey, Denis (Leeds, S.E.)Reid, William (Camlachie)
Blenkinsop, A.Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Rowley Regis)Roberts, Rt. Hon. A.
Blyton, W. R.Herbison, Miss M.Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
Boardman, H.Hobson, C. R.Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)
Bowden, H. W.Holman, P.Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)
Bowles, F. G.Holmes, HoraceRogers, George (Kensington, N.)
Braddock, Mrs. ElizabethHolt, A. F.Royle, C.
Brockway, A. F.Hudson, James (Ealing, N.)Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E.
Brook, Dryden (Halifax)Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)Shurmer, P. L. E.
Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper)Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)Silverman, Julius (Erdington)
Burke, W. A.Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)
Burton, Miss F. E.Irving, W. J. (Wood Green)Simmons, C. J. (Brierley Hill)
Callaghan, L. J.Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A.Skeffington, A. M.
Carmichael, J.Jay, Rt. Hon. D. P. T.Slater, Mrs. H. (Stoke-on-Trent)
Chapman, W. D.Jeger, George (Goole)Slater, J. (Durham, Sedgefield)
Clunie, J.Jeger, Mrs. LenaSmith, Norman (Nottingham, S.)
Corbet, Mrs. FredaJenkins, R. H. (Stechford)Sorensen, R. W.
Cove, W. G.Johnson, James (Rugby)Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank
Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)Jones, Frederick Elwyn (West Ham, S.)Sparks, J. A.
Crosland, C. A. R.Jones, Jack (Rotherham)Stokes, Rt. Hon. R. R.
Crossman, R. H. S.Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)Stross, Dr. Barnett
Daines, P.Keenan, W.Summerskill, Rt. Hon. E.
Dalton, Rt. Hon. H.Kenyon, C.Thomas, George (Cardiff)
Darling, George (Hillsborough)Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.Thomas, Iorwerth (Rhondda, W.)
Davies, Rt. Hn. Clement (Montgomery)King, Dr. H. M.Thomas, Ivor Owen (Wrekin)
Davies, Ernest (Enfield, E.)Lee, Frederick (Newton)Thomson, George (Dundee, E.)
Davies, Harold (Look)Lever, Harold (Cheetham)Tomney, F.
de Freitas, GeoffreyLewis, ArthurTurner-Samuels, M.
Delargy, H. J.Lindgren, G. S.Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn
Dodds, N. N.Lipton, Lt.-Col. M.Usborne, H. C.
Donnelly, D. L.MacColl, J. E.Viant, S. P.
Driberg, T. E. N.McGovern, J.Wallace, H. W.
Dugdale, Rt. Hon. John (W. Bromwich)McLeavy, F.Warbey, W. N.
Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A.Weitzman, D.
Edwards, Rt. Hon. John (Brighouse)Mason, RoyWells, Percy (Faversham)
Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W.)Mellish, R. J.Wells, William (Walsall)
Evans, Edward (Lowestoft)Messer, Sir F.Wheeldon, W. E.
Evans, Stanley (Wednesbury)Mitchison, G. R.Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.
Fernyhough, EMonslow, W.Wigg, George
Finch, H. J.Morgan, Dr. H. B. W.Wilcock, Group Capt. C. A. B.
Fletcher, Eric (Islington, E.)Morley, R.Willey, F. T.
Foot, M. M.Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Lewisham, S.)Williams, W. R. (Dreylsden)
Forman, J. C.Moyle, A.Williams, W. T. (Hammersmith, S.)
Freeman, Peter (Newport)Mulley, F. W.Winterbottom, Richard (Brightside)
Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. H. T. N.Noel-Baker, Rt. Hon. P. J.Wyatt, W. L.
Gibson, C. W.Oliver, G. H.Yates, V. F.
Glanville, JamesOrbach, M.Younger, Rt. Hon. K.
Gaoch, E. G.Oswald, T.
Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon P. C.Padley, W. E.

TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

Mr. Wilkins and Mr. John Taylor.

There is no point of order. I am ordered by the House to put the Question. It must be put.

Question put accordingly, "That 'Tomorrow,' stand part of the Question."

The House proceeded to a Division—

Sir CEDRIC DREWE and Mr. VOSPER were appointed Tellers for the Ayes, but no Members being willing to act as Tellers for the Noes, Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER declared that the Ayes had it.

On a point of order. I want to put this to you, Mr. Speaker, as a point of order, but to preface it by saying that the purpose for which I ventured to intervene just now was to seek the leave of the House to withdraw my Amendment, for a reason which I wish to give. You, Sir, ruled that because the Closure Motion had been put and agreed to, you had to proceed at once. Does that mean that if any new Member of the House, possibly not understanding the procedure, chooses to move the Closure without notice and it is carried, the mover of the Motion or an Amendment loses his opportunity to seek leave to withdraw it?

Division No. 213.]

AYES

[4.40 p.m.

Allan, R. A. (Paddington, S.)Bullus, Wing Commander E. E.Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E.
Alport, C. J. M.Butler, Rt. Hon. R. A. (Saffron Walden)Erroll, F J.
Amery, Julian (Preston, N.)Campbell, Sir DavidFell, A.
Amory, Rt. Hon. Heathcoat (Tiverton)Carr, RobertFinlay, Graeme
Anstruther-Gray, Major W. J.Cary, Sir RobertFleetwood-Hesketh, R. F.
Arbuthnot, JohnChannon, H.Fletcher-Cooke, C.
Assheton, Rt. Hon. R. (Blackburn, W.)Churchill, Rt. Hon. Sir WinstonFort, R.
Astor, Hon. J. J.Clarke, Col. Ralph (East Grinstead)Foster, John
Baldock, Lt.-Cmdr. J. M.Cole, NormanFraser, Hon Hugh (Stone)
Baldwin, A. E.Colegate, W. A.Fraser, Sir Ian (Morecambe & Lonsdale)
Banks, Col. C.Conant, Maj. Sir RogerFyfe, Rt. Hon Sir David Maxwell
Barber, AnthonyCooper, Sqn. Ldr. AlbertGalbraith, Rt. Hon. T. D (Pollok)
Barlow, Sir JohnCooper-Key, E. M.Galbraith, T. G. D. (Hillhead)
Beach, Maj. HicksCraddock, Beresford (Spelthorne)Gammans, L. D.
Bell, Philip (Bolton, E.)Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. F. C.Garner-Evans, E. H.
Bell, Ronald (Bucks, S.)Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col O. E.George, Rt. Hon. Maj. G. Lloyd
Bennett, F. M. (Reading, N.)Crouch, R. F.Glover, D.
Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gosport)Crowder, Sir John (Finchley)Godber, J. B.
Bennett, William (Woodside)Crowder, Petre (Ruislip—Northwood)Gomme-Duncan, Col. A
Bevins, J. R. (Toxteth)Darling, Sir William (Edinburgh, S.)Gough, C. F. H.
Birch, NigelDavidson, ViscountessGower, H. R.
Bishop, F. P.Davies, Rt. Hn. Clement (Montgomery)Graham, Sir Fergus
Black, C. W.De la Bére, Sir RupertGrimond, J.
Bossom, Sir A. C.Digby, S. WingfieldGrimston, Sir Robert (Westbury)
Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hon. J. ADodds-Parker, A. D.Hall, John (Wycombe)
Boyle, Sir EdwardDonaldson, Cmdr. C. E. McA.Hare, Hon. J H
Braine, B. R.Donner, Sir P. W.Harrison, Col J. H. (Eye)
Braithwaite, Sir Albert (Harrow, W.)Doughty, C. J. A.Harvey, Air Cdre. A. V (Macclesfield)
Braithwaite, Sir GurneyDrayson, G. B.Harvie-Watt, Sir George
Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W. H.Duncan, Capt. J. A. L.Hay, John
Brooke, Henry (Hampstead)Duthie, W. S.Heald, Rt. Hon Sir Lionel
Browne, Jack (Govan)Eccles, Rt. Hon. Sir D. M.Heath, Edward
Buchan-Hepburn, Rt. Hon. P. G. T.Eden, Rt. Hon. A.Henderson, John (Cathcart)
Bullard, D. G.Eden, J. B. (Bournemouth, West)Higgs, J. M. C.

Amendment or debate, unless I think it is an abuse of the rules of the House, which I did not in this case.

On a point of order. I want to make it clear that when the hon. Member for Broxtowe (Mr. Warbey) says that South Korea—which my own Government supported in the United Nations—was the aggressor, he speaks for himself, and not for hon. Members on this side of the House generally.

claimed, "That the main Question be now put."

Main Question put accordingly.

The House proceeded to a Division—

On a point of order. The hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman) said "Clear the Chair." Is that not a reflection upon Mr. Speaker?

Ayes, 271; Noes, 187.

Hill, Dr. Charles (Luton)Maitland, Comdr. J. F. W. (Horncastle)Ryder, Capt. R. E. D.
Hinchingbrooke, ViscountMaitland, Patrick (Lanark)Sandys, Rt. Hon. D.
Hirst, GeoffreyManningham-Buller, Rt. Hn. Sir ReginaldSchofield, Lt.-Col. W.
Hollis, M. C.Markham, Major Sir FrankScott, R. Donald
Holt, A. F.Marlowe, A. A. H.Scott-Miller, Cmdr. R.
Hope, Lord JohnMarples, A. E.Shepherd, William
Hopkinson, Rt. Hon. HenryMarshall, Douglas (Bodmin)Simon, J. E. S. (Middlesbrough, W.)
Hornsby-Smith, Miss M. P.Maude, AngusSmithers, Peter (Winchester)
Horobin, I. M.Maudling, R.Smithers, Sir Waldron (Orpington)
Horsbrugh, Rt. Hon. FlorenceMaydon, Lt.-Comdr. S. L. C.Soames, Capt. C.
Howard, Gerald (Cambridgeshire)Medlicott, Brig. F.Speir, R. M.
Howard, Hon. Greville (St. Ives)Mellor, Sir JohnSpence, H. R. (Aberdeenshire, W.)
Hudson, Sir Austin (Lewisham, N.)Molson, A. H. E.Spens, Rt. Hon. Sir P. (Kensington, S.)
Hulbert, Wing Cdr. N. J.Monckton, Rt. Hon. Sir WalterStevens, Geoffrey
Hurd, A. R.Moore, Sir ThomasSteward, W. A. (Woolwich, W.)
Hutchison, Sir Ian Clark (E'b'rgh, W.)Morrison, John (Salisbury)Stewart, Henderson (Fife, E.)
Hutchison, James (Scotstoun)Mott-Radclyffe, C. E.Stoddart-Scott, Col. M.
Hyde, Lt. Col. H. M.Nabarro, G. D. N.Storey, S.
Hylton-Foster, H. B. H.Neave, AireyStrauss, Horny (Norwich, S.)
Iremongor, T. L.Nicholls HarmarStuart, Rt. Hon. James (Moray)
Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)Nicholson, Godfrey (Farnham)Studholme, H. G.
Jennings, Sir RolandNicolson, Nigel (Bournemouth, E.)Summers, G. S.
Johnson, Eric (Blackley)Nield, Basil (Chester)Sutcliffe, Sir Harold
Johnson, Howard (Kemptown)Noble, Comdr. A. H. P.Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)
Jones, A. (Hall Green)Nugent, G. R. H.Taylor, William (Bradford, N.)
Joynson-Hicks, Hon. L. W.Nutting, AnthonyTeeling, W.
Kaberry, D.Oakshott, H. D.Thomas, Rt. Hon. J. P. L. (Hereford)
Kerby, Capt. H. B.Odey, G. W.Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)
Kerr, H. W.O'Neill, Hon. Phelim (Co. Antrim, N.)Thomas, P. J. M. (Conway)
Lambert, Hon. G.Orr, Capt. L. P. S.Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)
Lambton, ViscountOrr-Ewing, Charles Ian (Hendon, N.)Thorneycroft, Rt. Hn. Peter (Monmouth)
Lancaster, Col. C. G.Orr-Ewing, Sir Ian (Weston-super-Mare)Thornton-Kemsley, Col. C. N.
Leather, E. H. C.Page, R. G.Tilney, John
Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H.Peaks, Rt. Hon. O.Turner, H. F. L.
Legh, Hon. Peter (Petersfield)Perkins, Sir RobertTurton, R. H.
Lennox-Boyd, Rt. Hon. A. T.Peto, Brig. C. H. M.Tweedsmuir, Lady
Linstead, Sir H. N.Pickthorn, K. W. M.Vane, W. M. F.
Llewellyn, D. T.Pilkington, Capt. R. A.Vaughan-Morgan, J. K.
Lloyd, Rt. Hon. G. (King's Norton)Pitman, I. J.Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)
Lloyd, Maj. Sir Guy (Renfrew, E.)Pitt, Miss E. M.Wakefield, Sir Wavell (St. Marylebone)
Lloyd, Rt. Hon. Selwyn (Wirral)Powell, J. EnochWalker-Smith, D. C.
Lockwood, Lt.-Col. J. C.Price, Henry (Lewisham, W.)Wall, Major Patrick
Longden, GilbertPrior-Palmer, Brig. O. L.Ward, Hon. George (Worcester)
Low, A. R. W.Profumo, J. D.Ward, Miss I. (Tynemouth)
Lucas, Sir Jocelyn (Portsmouth, S.)Raikes, Sir VictorWaterhouse, Capt. Rt. Hon. C.
Lucas, P. B. (Brentford)Ramsden, J. E.Watkinson, H. A.
Lucas-Tooth, Sir HughRayner, Brig. R.Webbe, Sir H. (London & Westminster)
Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. O.Redmayne, M.Wellwood, W.
Macdonald, Sir PeterRees-Davies, W. R.Williams, Rt. Hon. Charles (Torquay)
Mackeson, Brig. Sir HarryRenton, D. L. M.Williams, Gerald (Tonbridge)
McKibbin, A. J.Ridsdale, J. E.Williams, Paul (Sunderland, S.)
Mackie, J. H. (Galloway)Roberts, Peter (Heeley)Williams, R. Dudley (Exeter)
Maclay, Rt. Hon. JohnRobinson, Sir Roland (Blackpool, S.)Wills, G.
Maclean, FitzroyRodgers, John (Sovenoaks)Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)
Macleod, Rt. Hon. Iain (Enfield, W.)Roper, Sir Harold
Macmillan, Rt. Hon. Harold (Bromley)Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard

TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries)Russell, R. S.Sir Cedric Drewe and Mr. Vosper.

NOES

Adams, RichardCallaghan, L. J.Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W.)
Albu, A. H.Carmichael, J.Evans, Edward (Lowestoft)
Allen, Arthur (Bosworth)Castle, Mrs. B. A.Evans, Stanley (Wednesbury)
Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)Chapman, W. D.Fernyhough, E.
Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R.Clunie, J.Finch, H. J.
Awbery, S. S.Corbet, Mrs. FredaFletcher, Eric (Islington, E.)
Bacon, Miss AliceCove, W. G.Foot, M. M.
Balfour, A.Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)Forman, J. C.
Barnes, Rt. Hon. A. J.Crosland, C. A. R.Freeman, Peter (Newport)
Bartley, P.Crossman, R. H. S.Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. H. T. N.
Benn, Hon. WedgwoodDaines, P.Gibson, C. W.
Benson, G.Dalton, Rt. Hon. H.Gooch, E. G.
Beswick, F.Darling, George (Hillsborough)Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.
Blackburn, F.Davies, Ernest (Enfield, E.)Greenwood, Anthony
Blenkinsop, A.Davies, Harold (Leek)Grenfell, Rt. Hon. D. R.
Blyton, W. R.de Freitas, GeoffreyGrey, C. F.
Bowden, H. W.Delargy, H. J.Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)
Bowles, F. G.Dodds, N. N.Hale, Leslie
Braddock, Mrs. ElizabethDonnelly, D. L.Hall, Rt. Hon. Glenvil (Colne Valley)
Brockway, A. F.Driberg, T. E. N.Hall, John T. (Gateshead, W.)
Brook, Dryden (Halifax)Dugdale, Rt. Hon. John (W. Bromwich)Hamilton, W. W.
Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper)Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.Hannan, W.
Burke, W. A.Edwards, Rt. Hon. John (Brighouse)Hargreaves, A.
Burton, Miss F. E.Edwards, W. J. (Stepney)Hastings, S.

Hayman, F. H.Messer, Sir F.Skeffington, A. M.
Healey, Denis (Leeds, S.E.)Mitchison, G. R.Slater, Mrs. H. (Stoke-on-Trent)
Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Rowley Regis)Monslow, W.Slater, J. (Durham, Sedgefield)
Herbison, Miss M.Morgan, Dr. H. B. W.Smith, Norman (Nottingham, S.)
Hewitson, Capt. M.Morley, R.Sorensen, R. W.
Hobson, C. R.Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Lewisham, S.)Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank
Holman, P.Moyle, A.Sparks, J. A.
Holmes, HoraceMulley, F. W.Stokes, Rt. Hon. R. R.
Houghton, DouglasNoel-Baker, Rt. Hon. P. J.Stross, Dr. Barnett
Hudson, James (Ealing, N.)Oliver, G. H.Summerskill, Rt. Hon. E.
Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)Orbach, M.Thomas, George (Cardiff)
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)Oswald, T.Thomas, Iorwerth (Rhondda, W.)
Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)Padley, W. E.Thomas, Ivor Owen (Wrekin)
Irving, W. J. (Wood Green)Paget, R. T.Thomson, George (Dundee, E.)
Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A.Palmer, A. M. F.Tomney, F.
Jay, Rt. Hon. D. P. T.Pannell, CharlesTurner-Samuels, M.
Jeger, George (Goole)Pargiter, G. A.Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn
Jeger, Mrs. LenaParkin, B. T.Usborne, H. C.
Jenkins, R. H. (Stechford)Paton, J.Viant, S. P.
Johnson, James (Rugby)Peart, T. F.Wallace, H. W.
Jones, Frederick Elwyn (West Ham, S.)Plummer, Sir LeslieWarbey, W. N.
Jones, Jack (Rotherham)Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)Weitzman, D.
Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)Price, Philips (Gloucestershire, W.)Wells, Percy (Faversham)
Keenan, W.Proctor, W. T.Wells, William (Walsall)
Kenyon, C.Reeves, J.Wheeldon, W. E.
Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.Reid, Thomas (Swindon)Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.
King, Dr. H. M.Reid, William (Camlachie)Wigg, George
Lawson, G. M.Robens, Rt. Hon. A.Wilcock, Group Capt. C. A. B.
Lee, Frederick (Newton)Roberts, Albert (Normanton)Willey, F. T.
Lever, Harold (Cheetham)Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)Williams, W. R. (Droylsden)
Lewis, ArthurRobinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)Williams, W. T. (Hammersmith, S.)
Lindgren, G. S.Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton)
Lipton, Lt.-Col. M.Royle, C.Winterbottom, Richard (Brightside)
MacColl, J. E.Shackleton, E. A. A.Wyatt, W. L.
McGovern, J.Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E.Yates, V. F.
McLeavy, F.Shurmer, P. L. E.Younger, Rt. Hon. K.
Marquand, Rt. Han. H. A.Silverman, Julius (Erdington)
Mason, RoySilverman, Sydney (Nelson)

TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

Mellish, R. J.Simmons, C. J. (Brierley Hill)Mr. Wilkins and Mr. John Taylor.

Resolved,

That this House, at its rising To-morrow, do adjourn till Tuesday, 19th October.

4.49 p.m.

I ask your leave, Mr. Speaker, to make a personal statement in connection with a statement made by the hon. Member for Houghton-le-Spring (Mr. Blyton) on an alleged point of order. In the course of that statement, possibly due to a misunderstanding, because I believe the hon. Member was not in the House when I made my speech, he said that I had accused South Korea of having committed an act of aggression. I did no such thing.

I have always supported the United Nations Security Council in taking action against the aggression committed by North Korea. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."]What I did in the course of my speech was to ask what action the Government were proposing to take in reference to the threat which has been uttered recently and repeatedly by President Syngman Rhee in connection with a proposed use of force against North Korea. I suggest that the hon. Member who made that statement should now withdraw it.

There cannot be a debate on a personal statement. The hon. Member for Broxtowe (Mr. Warbey) was entitled to correct what he thought to be an aspersion upon himself.

On a different point of order. Your attention, Mr. Speaker, was drawn a little while ago to a remark made by me, which was correctly said to be "Clear the Chair." It was a portmanteau way of trying to express in the circumstances of the moment what I wish to convey to you now more formally, and I hope more properly, and that is that we need some clarification of what the House has been doing during these last 10 minutes.

As I understand the situation, it is that a Motion was made from the Government Front Bench for the Adjournment of the House to a specified date when the House rises tomorrow. Immediately thereafter, when no speeches had been made at all with regard to the Motion—even the right hon. Gentleman who moved it did so formally and without a speech—I was called upon to move an Amendment to it. I moved the Amendment to it, and that, of course, was not enough to propose the Question to the House until the Amendment had been seconded. It was seconded by my hon. Friend the Member for Gravesend (Sir R. Acland). My hon. Friend the Member for Broxtowe (Mr. Warbey) continued the debate, as I understand it, on that Amendment.

He had made part of his speech when another hon. Member, rising as we all thought on a point of order, asked you whether it would be in order if a Motion for the Closure were moved. No one understood at that time—I do not think the hon. Member himself so understood—that he was moving any Motion whatever, but it seems to have been interpreted by you not merely that he had asked whether such a Motion would be in order but that he had, in fact, moved it.

A Division was taken upon it. I am not raising any question upon that Division, but upon what followed. Assume that the Motion had been properly moved but, as I say, without any speech having been made the Closure on the Amendment was then carried and there was a Division upon it, which I suppose disposed of the Amendment, but it did not dispose of the Motion. What I think we are all puzzled about is what has happened since.

In the attempt that some of us were making to clarify the previous procedure, and while that was still going on, the Government Chief Whip got up and mumbled something which you may have heard but which was not heard anywhere else in the House. I do not know what he said to you. He might have been supposed to have said that he would like to take a Division on the main Question. If that is what he was saying, I suppose the Closure could be put. I look at Standing Order 29, under the heading: "Closure of Debate." Paragraph (2) says:
"When the Motion 'That the question be now put' has been carried, and the Question consequent thereon has been decided, any further Motion may be made (the assent of the Chair, as aforesaid, not having been withheld) which may be requisite to bring to a decision any Question already proposed from the Chair."
The Question already proposed from the Chair was no doubt the main Motion, and the Motion that was necessary in order to take a decision upon that was the motion for the Closure.

That Motion for the Closure has never been put to the House at all. What you proceeded to do was, not to put the Motion for the Closure, but to put the main Motion, before the debate upon it had been concluded. That was the point that I wanted to clarify.

There is another point. It has been always thought by most of us that the discretion of the Chair to accept a Motion for the Closure at any time is a judicial discretion and that the Motion is never accepted by the Chair in circumstances where there has not been adequate debate. In the case of the Amendment, the adequate debate consisted of half a speech after the Amendment had been moved and seconded.

The hon. Member is asking for an explanation of what happened. What happened was that, after the Closure had been carried on his Amendment, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury claimed the main Question, which he is quite entitled to do. I then proceeded to put the main Question. As to the rest of the hon. Member's speech, if he has any criticism of my action in putting that Question, he ought to put it in the form of a Motion. I cannot allow it to be put in this way.

I do not think I have had any Ruling on the point I was raising. With all respect, may I say that I should like to have it? It is true that a Minister may claim the main Question, but it does not follow that he is entitled to have it as of right. He is entitled to have it in the discretion of the Chair.

Certainly. It is in the discretion of the Chair. I repeat what I said about the hon. Member's challenging that discretion. I thought that the debate on the Amendment covered the main Question sufficiently to entitle me to put the Question.

I cannot have the matter debated here now. If the hon. Member has any challenge on my action, he must put it in the form of a Motion.

I would not wish to be responsible for putting a Motion on the Order Paper to challenge the action of Mr. Speaker until I was quite certain what Mr. Speaker had done. I am asking these questions in order that I may make up my mind whether any question of challenge arises. It is a little difficult for us to understand without explanation that a debate can be held to have been completed when there has been no speech made for or against the Motion and when the speeches on an Amendment which was held to cover the main Motion had not been replied to by the Government. I think it quite wrong—

The hon. Member is putting the same point as he previously raised. I must again tell him that if he has any criticism to make he must make it in the form of a Motion.

On a further point of order. The hon. Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. G. Thomas) and myself put down an Amendment on which it was our intention to raise the question of the old-age pensioners. You informed me, Mr. Speaker, that I would be able to speak on the main Motion, as you did not intend to call our Amendment. Have we no opportunity now of raising that very important question?

Further to the point of order raised by the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman). I am the hon. Member who raised the question of what the hon. Gentleman opposite said, which was "Clear the Chair." Most of us on this side of the House think that a graceful apology to you, Sir, would be more in keeping with his action than the speech he has now made.

That is a matter for me. I have taken the course which I have taken. The hon. Member for Nelson and Colne did put another construction upon it. I am quite prepared to accept it.