HC Deb 27 October 1920 vol 133 cc1720-2
52. Lieut.-Colonel Sir F. HALL

asked the Lord Privy Seal if his attention has been called to the allegation that Messrs. Krassin and Kameneff, the Russian delegates, had used their position in this country to bribe the Press and to carry on a campaign of Bolshevist propaganda; If the Government possess proofs bearing cut this statement; and, if so, whether in these circumstances it is proposed to continue the negotiations with Krassin and to allow him to remain in this country and to be at liberty to carry on such propaganda work?

Mr. BONAR LAW (Leader of the House)

For the reasons stated in the question, the Government were compelled to ask M. Kameneff to leave the country, but did not find it necessary to take the same course in regard to the rest of the Russian Trade Delegation. As I stated yesterday, the Government propose to resume the negotiations when the conditions laid down have been fulfilled.

Sir F. HALL

Has the right hon. Gentleman seen a plucky speech recently made by a member of the Cabinet dealing with this important matter; and on the strength of that information does not my right hon. Friend think it necessary and advisable that every care should be taken to see that this propaganda is stopped?

Mr. BONAR LAW

Oh, yes; I fully appreciate the necessity of stopping the propaganda, but there are so many plucky speeches made by members of the Cabinet that I cannot remember the one to which reference is made.

Mr. DEVLIN

Who was the plucky man?

Lieut.-Colonel CROFT

Is it not the fact that there was no evidence whatever that M. Krassin had taken part in this propagandist work in conjunction with M. Kameneff?

Mr. BONAR LAW

As my answer states, the matter was carefully considered by the Government, and we thought it was necessary to tell M. Kameneff to go; but it was not thought necessary in the case of the other members of the mission.

Lieut.-Colonel CROFT

My question was: Is it not the fact that there was no evidence that M. Krassin had been taking part in this work?

Mr. BONAR LAW

The answer I have given is surely sufficient. We did think there was ground for the action taken against M. Kameneff; we did not think there was any ground for taking action against M. Krassin.