56. Mr. L'ESTRANGE MALONEasked the Prime Minister whether his attention has been called to the negotiations and communications which have taken place between the Secretary of State for War and certain persons who have taken part in the campaign against Soviet Russia; and if the policy outlined therein received the consideration and approval of His Majesty's Government, or whether the policy of the Secretary of State for War was carried out without the approval or knowledge of the Cabinet?
§ 62. Captain W. BENNasked the Lord Privy Seal whether his attention has been drawn to the report made by General Golovin of his interviews last year with the Secretary of State for War; and whether the Cabinet was at any time aware of these negotiations or approved them?
§ Mr. BONAR LAWI have seen the statements which appear to have been published in several newspapers. They refer to a conversation which is said to have taken place between my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for War and a Russian general in May of last year. My right hon. Friend informs me that the report gives a very inaccurate account of the conversation, especially as regards the actual words and expressions employed. The statements, for instance, that my right hon. Friend said that he was carrying out Admiral Koltchak's orders and that the sending of reinforcements for the purpose of withdrawal was a pretext are obviously absurd, and my right hon. Friend informs me quite untrue. On the other hand, the policy which the Government pursued throughout last year of aiding the anti-Bolshevik forces is well known and has often been debated in Parliament. Very full statements were made by my right hon. Friend, the Secretary of State for War, in regard to the whole of these operations on the 29th July and also on the 5th November of last year. Anyone who cares to read the reports of those speeches in the OFFICIAL REPORT will see that the policy then being pursued by His Majesty's Government was stated quite clearly.
§ Captain BENNWere the negotiations between the Secretary of State for War and General Golovin carried on with the assent of the Cabinet?
§ Mr. BONAR LAWThat is a surprising question to me. The general policy of the Government was well known and was carried out. Of course, my right hon. Friend saw many generals connected with the anti-Bolshevik forces, and I should have been very sorry if he had to inform the Cabinet of every conversation.
§ Captain BENNAre we to understand that the Cabinet gave the Secretary of State for War carte blanche to carry on negotiations or were the decisions and pledges that he may have given to those generals referred to the Cabinet for approval.
§ Mr. BONAR LAWThere is no question of pledges. This, as I understand, was a general connected with one of the anti-Bolshevik forces. At that time we were openly assisting those forces. Of course, my right hon. Friend would speak to any of them who came to give him information.
§ Captain BENNWill the right hon. Gentleman kindly answer the question I put. Were the pledges given by the Secretary of State for War on his own responsibility or were they given on the responsibility of the Cabinet?
§ Mr. BONAR LAWIf the hon. and gallant Gentleman wants to put a question of that kind he had better define what pledges he refers to. I have heard no definition of such pledges up to now.
§ Lieut.-Colonel Sir S. HOAREIs the right hon. Gentleman aware that the general referred to was the military representative of Admiral Koltchak accredited to this country, that there was no secrecy whatever about the interviews that he had with either the generals or the War Office, that the policy that he proposed was a policy totally in harmony with the policy of the Government, and that the report as published in the Press is full of inaccuracies from beginning to end?
§ Colonel WEDGWOODWill the Leader of the House or the Secretary of State for War tell us that there is a distinct 1008 denial of the assertion in that interview that the troops that were sent to Archangel in May and June were not sent t assist in the withdrawal, but were to be used in assisting Koltchak's expedition against the Bolsheviks?
§ Mr. BONAR LAWThe hon. and gallant Gentleman did not hear my answer. I said quite distinctly in regard to that, "the statements for instance that the sending of reinforcements for the purpose of withdrawal was a pretext are obviously absurd, and my right hon. Friend informs me quite untrue."
§ Colonel WEDGWOODWas it not admitted by the Secretary of State for War himself that these troops were used not for withdrawal but to hold out a left hand to Koltchak coming from Siberia?
§ Mr. BONAR LAWWhere is the mystery and where is the secrecy? That statement was made in the House of Commons itself.
§ Colonel WEDGWOODIt was made afterwards.
§ Mr. BONAR LAWIt seems to me this whole catechism to-day is due to the feeling of hon. Members that we were in the same state of policy last year as we are this year. It would not be easy to give time, but I am sure my right hon. Friend would like nothing better than to deal with a case so easy as this.