SENIOR members of the Cabinet, including the Prime Minister, are

engaged in an eleventh-hour offensive in an attempt to persuade wavering

Tory MPs to back the Government in Wednesday night's crucial vote on the

Maastricht Treaty.

The anodyne motion for the debate, published last Friday, appeared to

have secured victory for the Prime Minister, but a number of surveys

published over the weekend indicated that the result still is on a

knife-edge.

The motion makes no mention of Maastricht, calls on the House to

recognise that the UK should play a leading role in the development of

Europe, and urges MPs to invite the Government to proceed with the Bill

so that it can be considered in more detail.

However, the signs yesterday were that this relatively bland wording

may not be enough. A survey by the BBC for its World This Weekend

programme showed that 27 Tory MPs would vote against the Government,

with a further six hardliners unable to be contacted.

Mr James Cran, the Tory MP for Beverly and unofficial whip for the

rebels, claimed that on a telephone round he had 37 MPs willing to defy

the Government, with more to come. While Mr Cran's claims will be

treated with some scepticism in Ministerial circles, they make worrying

reading for the hard-pressed Government Whips.

The mathematics of the situation involve endless permutations about

abstentions and so on. Basically, however, the support of the Liberal

Democrats for Mr Major's motion means that if something like 31 or 32

Tory MPs vote against the Government it will lose.

Mr Major, Mr Heseltine, and other senior Ministers spent part of the

weekend -- and will continue over the next few days -- personally

contacting wavering MPs to try to persuade them round to the Government

line. The Prime Minister is expected to see some of them privately at

Westminster today.

In an article in the News of the World yesterday, he said: ''What a

folly it would be if, having persuaded others to accept our ideas, we

walked away from the treaty that put them into effect. We would not just

be breaking Britain's word, we would be breaking Britain's influence in

Europe for good.''

Sir Norman Fowler, the party chairman, and Mr Douglas Hurd, Foreign

Secretary, also weighed in. Sir Norman said on TV-am he was convinced

the Government would win on Wednesday, and accused Labour of exploiting

the situation.

He went on: ''I do not think that if we had put down a motion which

said we believed in motherhood and sliced bread the Labour Party would

have backed us. It is looking for an issue on which it can defeat the

Government. I have no respect for a party which simply fixes on any

issue and is prepared just to tear up its principles.''

Mr Hurd also thought the Government would win and that many MPs would

make up their minds at the last minute. His argument was that the Prime

Minister's hand would greatly be strengthened at the EC summit in

Edinburgh in December if he was able to go to Britain's European

colleagues and say that the process of Maastricht ratification was under

way.

Meanwhile, Labour and the Liberal Democrats continued their slanging

match following the Liberal Democrats' decision over the weekend to

support the Government motion.

Labour's deputy leader, Mrs Margaret Beckett, said the voters would

not forgive the Liberal Democrats for ''propping-up'' John Major.

Liberal Democrat leader Paddy Ashdown hit back, accusing Labour of

''tawdry deceit'' and ''dishonety''.

The chairman of the Scottish Conservative Party, Lord Sanderson, told

the Conservative Women's Scottish Council conference in Perth that those

opposed to the Maastricht Treaty had yet to put forward a credible

alternative.

He said the case of the Euro-sceptics was built on myths and legends,

not a hard, practical assessment of Britain's future prosperity and

influence.

Meanwhile, North Tayside MP Bill Walker renewed his call for a review

of the Maastricht Treaty as it stands, claiming there were dangers to

Scotland if the treaty was implemented.

Mr Walker said: ''I still oppose it in its present form. We should

have a Maastricht Mark II which would restore powers to the EC

parliaments, open up markets and, more importantly, help to reduce

narrow nationalism.''