Labor Party chief whip, Hilary Armstrong, updated British Prime Minister Tony Blair on growing demands for evidence of any weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, and a new U.N. authorization to justify any war, reported The Guardian.

The legislators are warning that "the last time Britain went to war divided - over Suez in 1956 - it ended with disaster and Anthony Eden's fall from power," it added.

"Labor MPs don't trust (U.S. President) George Bush and wonder why Tony is so close to him," The Guardian quoted one influential moderate as saying.

"And the weapons inspectors haven't found anything. With a new U.N. resolution it [war] is manageable, but if Tony wants to do anything without U.N. support there will be serious mega-trouble," he warned.

Westminster is awash with speculation about ministerial resignations, at junior rather than cabinet level, if war starts without U.N. authorization.

But aides to International Development Secretary Clare Short denied she had told a conference of British ambassadors that anything less was "unthinkable".

The fears of Labor legislators and activists appear to be matched by doubts among the wider public, prompting Blair and Foreign Secretary Jack Straw to stress that war is not inevitable.

The government and the Foreign Office said Wednesday, January 8, that the weapons inspection team must have "time and space" to search for proof - or lack of it - that Iraqi President Saddam Hussein is hiding prohibited weapons.

On Wednesday, at the first session of prime minister's question time to be held at noon, Blair was taunted by Iain Duncan Smith for being unable even to unite his cabinet.

The Tory leader accused cabinet ministers of being in open disagreement over the likelihood of war.

He asked Blair if he agreed with Straw's view that the chances of war were 60-40 against or the defense secretary's suggestion that such assessments were unhelpful.

Blair side-stepped the challenge, insisting he was "100% certain" that President Saddam must be disarmed of weapons of mass destruction and that the choice whether or not to do so peacefully was his.

Smith warned Blair would not get public backing for a war if he could not convince his cabinet and if British troops were only "half-prepared for war".

Blair also sidestepped a crucial challenge posed by Charles Kennedy on whether Britain would be "involved" in a U.S. attack if the U.N.'s team found no evidence of WMD, as it has failed to do so far since arriving in Baghdad in November.

Smith warned Blair would not get public backing for a war if he could not convince his cabinet and if British troops were only "half-prepared for war"

As Blair refused to be pinned down, Kennedy pressed him: "Under what circumstances would the U.S. take military action against Iraq in which our country would not choose to support them?"

Though Kennedy leads the Liberal Democrats, his question touched on concerns which were later conveyed to Blair by leaders of the parliamentary Labor party.

Speaker Michael Martin rejected a plea by veteran Labor legislator Tam Dalyell for an emergency debate on Iraq "before any more British servicemen and women are committed to the Gulf".

"If we send British troops to risk their lives they are entitled to know that it is the settled overwhelming conviction of their countrymen that their case is just and that they are doing something that is urgent for Britain," he said.

Fears for the fate of nearly 10 million Iraqi children in the event of a war were voiced in the Lords.

The Bishop of Durham, the Rt Rev Michael Turnbull, asked: "Is the same amount of weight being given to the probability of innocent suffering in Iraq, should war break out, as to the protection of our own people?"

In a related development, London strongly denied a report that it is urging the United States to delay war against Iraq for several months, possibly until autumn, to give U.N. inspectors more time to provide evidence of arms violations by Baghdad, said Agence France- Presse (AFP).

Blair's official spokesman described as "categorically wrong" the report by London's Daily Telegraph.

The paper said that senior diplomats had told the British government there was a good chance of securing United Nations approval for military action later in the year if Saddam could be shown unambiguously to be defying the disarmament conditions set out in Security Council resolution 1441.

But there has been wide belief that a decision on a potential war would be follow hard on the heels of U.N. chief inspector Hans Blix's January 27 report to the Security Council, that war would start by February.

Blix is due to give an interim report to the Security Council Tuesday, updating details of sites inspected so far.

His full report on January 27 is expected to be along the same lines, rather than an assessment that could provide the trigger for war.

But Germany's Tageszeitung daily reported Wednesday that Blix will report that inspectors have found no proof to date that Iraq has acquired or is developing weapons of mass destruction.