asked the Prime Minister if he will appoint an official historian to write the history of the Suez operation.

Official histories deal primarily with the strategy and tactics of military operations in major wars.

Students of military history would have nothing to learn from any official history of these military operations, except what to avoid. On the wider question of the responsibility for the initiation of the operations, common humanity would suggest we should not further embarrass the right hon. Gentlemen opposite.

Is the Prime Minister aware that this is carrying humanity a little too far, that he is really too considerate to the Ministers responsible for Suez? Does he not realise that it is time a good many of the skeletons were brought out for careful inspection?

It really would be, of course, a rather costly and, I think, long drawn out operation to appoint a historian to do this job merely for the purpose of finding out what the then Foreign Secretary got up to at Villacoublay, because the then Foreign Secretary could end all uncertainty by making a short statement here and now.

Could not such an official historian at the same time write a history of "The 100 days"? Would not this be of assistance to future Chancellors of the Exchequer in how to avoid placing sterling in jeopardy for party political purposes?

The Question on the Order Paper related to the activities of military historians. I am not at all certain that anything that has happened in the past 40 days or so will be of any interest to military historians. As to the other question, I have a feeling that my right hon. Friend may be making a statement.