§ 14. Mr. R. MACDONALDasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the Government has any official diplomatic means of communication with the Council of People's Commissioners which is the Government of Russia; whether any diplomatic official has been sent to the British Embassy at Petrograd; whether he is exercising the usual privileges of an Ambassador as regards couriers and other means of communication; and whether he is yet in a position to make any statement regarding the recognition of the Government at Petrograd?
§ 15 Mr. KINGasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (1) whether Constantine Nabokoff is still in communication with the Foreign Office as in October, 1917; whether he will state the exact diplomatic relations existing with Russia; (2) whether M. Litvinoff, Russian Plenipotentiary in London, is recognised in any official capacity by the Government; if not, whether the Government has any channel of official communication with the Russian Government; what is that channel; (3) whether it is due to any decision of the War Cabinet that M. Litvinoff, Russian Plenipotentiary in London, is not allowed to receive telegrams from Russia; that his cables to Russia are held up; and that he is not allowed the usual courtesies given to other international representatives; and whether M. Litvinoff will now be allowed the facilities needed by his accredited mission to the British nation?
Mr. BALFOURThe question of the hon. Member for Leicester is the first of a series of four questions on the subject of our diplomatic relations with the Administration at Petrograd, and a single answer will perhaps suffice.
294 We have not recognised that Administration as being de facto or de jure the Government of the Russian people, but we carry on necessary business in an unofficial manner through an agent acting under the direction. of our Embassy at Petrograd.
The Bolshevik Administration have appointed M. Litvinoff as their representative in London, and we are about to establish similar unofficial relations with him.
M. Nabokoff, who was the Chargé d'Affaires under the late Republican Russian Government, will presumably remain in London until he is either confirmed or superseded in his post by a Government recognised as representing the Russian people.
The present arrangement is obviously both irregular and transitory. Though it cannot be fitted into any customary diplomatic framework, it is, in our opinion, the best that can be devised to meet the necessities of the moment.
§ Mr. KINGCan the right lion. Gentleman tell us exactly the position of M. Nabokoff; whether he will be able to tender communications, or even advice, to His Majesty's Government, although he has been officially superseded by the authorities now in power?
Mr. BALFOURI cannot say that he has been officially superseded, but I do not think I can really add anything to the statement in the answer, which I attempted to make clear, and which I think was clear.
§ Mr. KINGIn view of the attempt being made by the party to which M. Nabokoff belongs to foster revolt against the present authorities in Petrograd, can the right hon. Gentleman not make it clear that we have no part with persons who are plotting against the existing power in Russia?
§ Mr. LYNCHWill the right hon. Gentleman endeavour to follow the lead given by President Wilson, and the Government cultivate good relations with this Government, which, whether we wish it or not, is, de facto, ruling Russia? May I ask —
§ Mr. SPEAKERThe right hon. Gentleman has said that he can add nothing to, his answer.
§ 16. Mr. KINGasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the 295 statement that Mr. George Tchitcherine was sent back to Russia at the personal request of Mr. Trotsky was made on the authority of the Foreign Office; if so, by what channel was this personal request of Mr. Trotsky communicated; whether any subsequent communications have been received from him; and whether such communications have been returned to him simply acknowledged or diplomatically considered?
Mr. BALFOURThe answer to the first part of the question is in the negative. The release of Mr. Tchitcherine was decided on the recommendation of His Majesty's Ambassador at Petrograd, who had been informed by an official attached to the Embassy of the attitude adopted by Mr. Trotsky in the matter. As far as I am aware, Mr. Trotsky has not, since the early days of his assumption of office, endeavoured to open diplomatic intercourse with His Majesty's Embassy in Petrograd.
§ Mr. KINGIs the right hon. Gentleman aware that the first part of the answer, denying that Mr. Tchitcherine was sent back at the personal request. of Mr. Trotsky, is in direct opposition to the information given to Mr. Tchitcherine himself by the Home Office?
§ 52. Mr. KINGasked the Prime Minister on what date and on what grounds the decision was taken to return to Russia Mr. George Tchitcherine, Mr. Peter Petroff, and Mrs. Petroff?
§ 64. Mr. WHITEHOUSEasked the Secretary for Scotland what arrangements have now been made to reimburse parishes in Scotland for the cost of maintaining the dependants of Russian subjects who have returned to Russia under the recent convention?
§ The SECRETARY for SCOTLAND (Mr. Munro)I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply given to my hon. Friend the Member for West Fife on the 20th December. The whole cost of maintaining the dependants of Russian subjects is reimbursed to parish councils from public funds.