asked the Prime Minister whether he will move to establish an inquiry under the Tribunals of Inquiry (Evidence) Act, 1921, into the circumstances in which the contents of the State paper handed by the then Prime Minister, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bromley, to Her Majesty the Queen on Friday 18th October, 1963, were divulged to Mr. Randolph Churchill.

No, Sir. There is no need for any Tribunal of Inquiry since I can tell the hon. Member now that my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley (Mr. H. Macmillan) has not divulged what personal advice if any he tendered to the Queen.

Is it not of the utmost importance, not only to the Government but to the House, that the facts of this matter should be established, for if the former Prime Minister was acting as a private hon. Member of this House, then, in fact, he was divulging information about the political opinions of hon. Members to the Sovereign? If the former Prime Minister was acting in the capacity of a former Prime Minister, or as a Privy Counsellor, is it not perfectly clear that he must have divulged information, which it was improper to divulge, otherwise the only conclusion to be drawn is that Mr. Randolph Churchill was not speaking the truth?

I do not mind what conclusions the hon. Member draws, but I know perfectly well that my right hon. Friend did not divulge any advice which he gave to the Queen.

Is the Prime Minister aware that the former Leader of the House has referred to this book as a trailer of the memoires of the former Prime Minister? Will the right hon. Gentleman not persuade his right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley (Mr. H. Macmillan) to hurry up with the first instalment of his memoires before the General Election?

I dare say that the hon. Member will not have long to wait.

Will the right hon. Gentleman be good enough to tell the House how he knows, how he can be so certain, that no information was given to Mr. Randolph Churchill?

I would not come to the House to answer Questions from the hon. Member without having satisfied myself of the facts.

asked the Prime Minister if he will move to refer to a tribunal of inquiry under the Tribunals of Inquiry (Evidence) Act, 1921, recent disclosures to unofficial persons of Cabinet documents relating to the appointment to the office of Prime Minister in October 1963.

No, Sir.

As a result of the various points which have been put to him at Question Time, does not the Prime Minister think that there is genuine anxiety about the way in which these documents have been revealed, and will he think the matter over over the weekend and give us a more satisfactory answer?

There is no need for me to think it over during the weekend. I am not going to tell the hon. Gentleman or anyone else what documents are involved. It is perfectly clear, as I think it has always been to all parties, that Cabinet documents are not disclosed.

Mr. H. Wilson:

In answer to a previous Question the right hon. Gentleman said quite emphatically that a certain document had not been disclosed. He said it with full authority and, obviously, was repudiating the claims which Mr. Randolph Churchill had been making on this matter. In answer to this Question, will the right hon. Gentleman say with similar authority that nothing was disclosed to Mr. Randolph Churchill; that is, on the point raised in this Question?

The Question asks about a document. I will not disclose to the right hon. Gentleman or anyone else whether or not there was a document. [Hon. Members: "Oh."] No one has ever disclosed what documents go into the Cabinet, come out of the Cabinet, or what documents exist. I will certainly repeat what I said in answer to an earlier Question; that neither my right hon. Friend nor anyone else disclosed what advice was given to Her Majesty.

Mr. H. Wilson:

Why is it that the Prime Minister in the first case is so categorical—and we welcome his giving the lie to Mr. Randolph Churchill in this way—while in the other case, on the other document, he is so coy about the last Question? Will he now tell us whether or not Mr. Randolph Churchill was given information on this second point?

Of course he was not, but I am not going to say, to satisfy the right hon. Gentleman's question, whether or not there was a document in existence.

Is it clear from his replies, apart from the question of showing Mr. Churchill a document, that he was not told in any way what advice was tendered by the former Prime Minister to the Queen?

That is what I said in answer to an earlier Question, I thought quite plainly.

asked the Prime Minister whether he will request the Security Commission to investigate and report upon the circumstances in which the contents of the State paper handed by the then Prime Minister, the right honourable Gentleman the Member for Bromley, to Her Majesty the Queen on Friday, 18th October, 1963, were divulged to Mr. Randolph Churchill.

No, Sir.

Does the Prime Minister realise that he owes it to himself, the House and the country to clear up, if he can, the murky circumstances in which he emerged as Prime Minister? Or does he want to meet the wishes of his hon. Friends and go down in history as the Prime Minister of murk?