◆ SpookStack

me ee aero : = ra ei cane pin cena i ant . - 7 ? of their colleagues would have the effrontery to make a false statement to the House. The business of the country could not be catried on if a member” =. of the Government could not accept the word of another i so ™ 7 fe ae beet le. oe bead iF 186. But one or two members of the House did not accept the truth of Mr. Profamo’s statement. And I must deal at this point with a suggestion that the Prime Minister himself knew that the statement was untrue. It appears that early in March, 1963, Mr. Profumo said words to this effect “ve got involved with a girl. I wrote her a letter. The Sunday Pictorial have got it and it can come out any day. I've had to tell Valerie, the P.M. The friend seems to have interpreted this statement as meaning that Mr. Profumo had an illicit association with a girl and had confessed his guilt to his wife and to the Prime Minister. The friend told a Conservative M-P. of the conversation and he interpreted it tikewise. He was so convinced of its truth that, when Mr. Profumo made the personal statement on 22nd March, 1963, he disbelieved it. He whispered to his neighbour, saying of Profumo, “He's a liar”. And in the division on 17th June, 1963, when the Prime Minister’s conduct was under scrutiny, he abstained from voting. 187. I am quite satisfied that both Mr. Profumo's friend and the Conservative M.P. misinterpreted what Mr. Profumo said. All that Mr. Profumo said to his friend was to the effect that he had got into a difficult situation because of his friendship with a girl: and that he had had to tell his wife and the Chief Whip and the Prime Minister's Private Secretary about it. He never confessed to them that he had an illicit association with the girl. Quite the contrary, he assured them that there was no improper association. And he had never spoken to the Prime Minister about it at all. It is, F fear, such misunderstandings as this which have led to most unfounded sugges- tions. There is no ground whatever for suggesting that the Prime Minister knew Mr, Profumo’s statement to be untrue. He believed it to be true. (iii) The Aftermath 188. For a short moment it looked as if Mr. Profumo’s personal statement had been effective. In many quarters (though not in all) his reputation seemed restored. On Friday, 22nd March, 1963, after the statement, he and his wife went to the races at Sandown Park and were photographed there by the newspapers. A few days later Christine Keeler endorsed his statement, thus contradicting her earlier stories to the Press. On being discovered in Spain, she said (in the Daily Express of 26th March, 1963), “ What Mr. Profumo says is quite correct. I have not been in his company since 196 .*. On getting back to England she gave her story to the News of the Wi@rid (Sunday, 31st March, 1963), “Certainly both he and his wife were ids of mine. But it was a friendship no one can criticise ”. She was paid EWGiiae the story. 189, Stephen Ward also seemed to endorse Mr. Profasia’s statement. On 26th March, 1963, he told Mr. George Wigg in the Hovsé of Commons ee es = weer ne eet mee ote