RUSSIA. (Hansard, 13 November 1917)

§ 3. Mr. OUTHWAITE
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, 189 on the occasion of the Prime Minister seeking to convey to the Labour party congress that M. Kerensky was opposed to the sending of delegates to Stockholm, he conveyed these alleged views of the Russian Premier to the Prime Minister?

§ Lord R. CECIL
I have nothing to add to the full statement which the Prime Minister made on the Motion for Adjournment of the 13th of August last.

§ Mr. OUTHWAITE
As the statement of the Prime Minister is not exactly the same thing, may I ask if the information came from the Foreign Secretary, or through the ordinary diplomatic channels, or is he working behind their back?

§ Lord R. CECIL
I have nothing to add to the answer I have given.

§ 4. Mr. OUTHWAITE
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, in view of the fact that the statement of the Prime Minister at the time of the Labour Party Congress that M. Kerensky was opposed to the sending of delegates to Stockholm alienated the supporters of the Russian premier and caused him to issue a denial of the statement, whether he took any steps to make amends to M. Kerensky for the injury that had been done him?

§ Lord R. CECIL
The Prime Minister never stated that the Russian Government were opposed to the Conference, and this was explained to the Russian Government at the time.

§ Mr. OUTHWAITE
Did not the Prime Minister state that M. Kerensky was not in favour of holding a Conference, and did not that statement give Lenin his chance?

§ Lord R. CECIL
No, Sir; that is a ridiculous suggestion.

§ 5. Mr. OUTHWAITE
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, in view of the fact that the overthrow of the Kerensky Government is attributable to the Allies having refused to discuss war aims at the Paris Conference, steps will be taken to remove the impression that the British Government has no regard for the views of the Russian people and seeks to impose upon them a war policy which they cannot fulfil owing to internal conditions of famine, bankruptcy, and disorganisation?

§ Lord R. CECIL
There is no foundation for any of the suggestions made in the hon. Member's question, a fact with which I should have supposed him to be well acquainted.