asked the Prime Minister if he will adopt the practice of moving Motions in the House of Commons that would enable the House to express its condolences and respects at the demise of Commonwealth Heads of Government, such as in regard to the late Pandit Nehru.

Miss Lee:

asked the Prime Minister what rules determine the occasions on which the House may pay its respects to leading world statesmen, including Commonwealth Prime Ministers, at the time of their decease.

This is a matter which is governed by the precedents which the House has established over the years and in general I think it is wise for us to be guided on these occasions by the custom of the House.

Does the Prime Minister appreciate that on both sides of the House there is real regret that Parliament, as such, could not express sympathy with India at the recent death of her Prime Minister? Even though there may not be a precedent for this, is that not all the more reason for this matter to be very carefully considered, not only in respect of India but in respect of our other partners in the Commonwealth, so that on occasions of great national calamity, or the death of some eminent statesman, there should be some opportunity in this House for Parliament, as distinct from the Government, to express its sympathy with other Parliaments? Would not he again consider the possibility of devising some means of meeting this situation?

I have said that this is a matter for the House. I went to Mr. Nehru's funeral, and the right hon. Member the Leader of the Opposition accompanied me. I thought that this was the best way of expressing to the Indian nation as a whole the great sympathy of this Parliament and of the whole country. As the House will understand, it would be extremely difficult, upon the death of a Commonwealth Prime Minister, to attempt to judge whether the event warranted tributes in this House. I would remind the House that, in the case of the death of Mr. Mackenzie King, who was Prime Minister for over 21 years, we followed our usual custom, and no such tribute was moved.

Miss Lee:

Does the Prime Minister recall that on the death of President Kennedy the House was privileged—and appreciated the privilege—to pay its respects? Can he explain why the rules of the House enabled us to pay our respects on that occasion and yet, upon the death of someone who was described last night by the ex-Prime Minister, in the Prime Minister's presence, as the doyen of Commonwealth Prime Ministers—indeed, of world statesmen—we could in no way commemorate it in this House as a House?

I am willing that this question should be considered and discussed, if the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition would like to discuss it. But I must point out that if we were to start paying tribute—

We have started.

—to Commonwealth Prime Ministers, it would have to be to all Commonwealth Prime Ministers.

Nevertheless, in spite of the obvious difficulty and all the complications, surely the fact remains that this House would have liked to be associated with the tribute paid by my right hon. Friend and the Leader of the Opposition in going to India on this occasion. Can no way out be found? Surely it is not a problem that it is impossible of human solution?

Mr. H. Wilson:

Is the Prime Minister aware that my hon. Friends and I were prepared to take part in any tributes to Mr. Nehru that could have been arranged in this House? Although one is often wise in following precedents from the past, this House must have the right to create precedents when that seems to be justified. Is the right hon. Gentleman aware, however, that many will feel that the national acts of tribute last night, in which leaders of all parties took part, together with other speakers, will be regarded as speaking for this House and the entire nation? Whatever may have happened last week, and with regard to the future, will the right hon. Gentleman also take it from us that we think it would be right to have talks, so that on a future occasion—although nothing can be done about this one—the House would be prepared to act in accordance with what I am sure would be the feelings of all Members?

The House had ways and means of making such feelings known. Last week, as far as I know, nobody took advantage of them. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] If I am wrong in that, I would only say that I was not myself aware of it. I may have been away. As far as the future is concerned, I would welcome talks on this matter because it is something which I think we ought to discuss.

Will the Prime Minister read the precedents in this matter again? If he does, he will not quote the case of Mackenzie King, who died in the middle of a Recess—and that is why he was not considered for a tribute to be paid. That also applies to many other people. Anybody reading the precedents will see that there is no pattern about them. There is a great deal of caprice in this, sometimes springing from the emotions of the Speaker and sometimes from the emotions of a Prime Minister. There is no pattern which will stand up to a declaration in the House that tribute could not have been paid to Mr. Nehru. How does the Prime Minister square his statement with the facts concerning one Dominion Prime Minister, Mr. Michael Savage, Prime Minister of New Zealand?

This is a question for the House which we should settle by discussions with each other. I look forward to discussions with the right hon. Gentleman.