§ 45. Colonel WEDGWOODasked the Prime Minister whether the Fisher Board of Inquiry took any evidence from the newspaper which first published the Zinovieff letter as to whether it was communicated to them by any civil servant?
§ The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Baldwin)So far as I am aware, no newspaper published the Zinovieff letter in advance of the official communiqué. The suggestion implied by the question that a copy of the letter was improperly communicated by a civil servant is a completely novel one. If I am to infer that the right hon. and gallant Member has at his disposal any information appearing to him to support such an allegation, I greatly regret that he did not take steps to convey it to the Board of Inquiry; and I trust that he will repair his omission, if such there has been, by bringing it instantly to my notice.
§ Colonel WEDGWOODIs the right hon. Gentleman not aware that this 595 suspicion has been aroused by the Report of the Fisher Board? The Fisher Board publishing for the first time that statutory declaration, and at the same time showing that these gambling transactions were going on at that date, have raised the question, "How did the 'Daily Mail' get hold of that letter?" and are we not justified in asking the right hon. Gentleman whether the Committee, when considering this question, did ask the "Daily Mail," or any other newspaper, the very simple question which should settle the problem once for all as to how they got hold of that letter?
§ The PRIME MINISTERNo, Sir. I am not aware of any such suspicion having been raised anywhere.
§ Colonel WEDGWOODSurely the right hon. Gentleman, if he has read the Report, must be aware that that suspicion stands out on the face of it.
§ Captain DIXEYDoes the right hon. Gentleman agree that great service was rendered by the "Daily Mail" in publishing that letter?
§ Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHYHas the right hon. Gentleman not read in the Board's Report that one of the suppositions put forward for Sir Eyre Crowe publishing this letter was possibly the knowledge that a certain newspaper had it? That is in black and white in the Report, is it not?
§ The PRIME MINISTERI do not think the hon. and gallant Member's supplementary question has anything to do with the point raised by the right hon. and gallant Gentleman sitting next to him.
§ Colonel WEDGWOODI am sorry to be persistent, but that point was raised in the Report of the Board, and I would like to ask whether the right hon. Gentleman, before drafting that answer, read the Board's Report—that part of it which refers definitely to the prior possession by a newspaper of that letter?
§ The PRIME MINISTERYes, Sir, and I adhere to every word of my answer.
§ 61. Colonel WEDGWOODasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the statutory declaration alleging that Mr. Gregory was gambling in 596 francs, communicated in 1925 to the right hon. the Member for Aberavon, the right hon. the Member for Derby, and the late Sir Eyre Crowe, was communicated also to the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs; and, if so, why no inquiry was made then?
§ The SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Sir Austen Chamberlain)Until I received the Report of the Board of Inquiry I had no knowledge of the existence of the declaration to which the right hon. and gallant Gentleman refers, or of its contents, and there is nothing in the records at the Foreign Office, official or unofficial, relating to it. Sir Eyre Crowe did, however, inform me some time early in 1925 that his attention had been drawn by the right hon. Gentleman, the Leader of the Opposition, to some allegation affecting Mr. Gregory, based upon information furnished by a discharged servant, but that Mr. Gregory's explanations had satisfied the right hon. Gentleman and, I understand, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby (Mr. Thomas), and that I might regard the matter as at an end. In these circumstances, I did not think it necessary to inquire what had been the character of the allegation.
§ Mr. RAMSAY MacDONALDAs a matter of accuracy, may I ask whether the record says that it satisfied Sir Eyre Crowe or satisfied my right hon. Friend and myself?
§ Sir A. CHAMBERLAINI have no record, and nothing that I can say is to be put against the personal recollection of the right hon. Gentleman. I can only speak of my recollection, now long after the event, of the conversation with Sir Eyre Crowe. I think I am right in saying that Sir Eyre Crowe believed that the explanation given by Mr. Gregory satisfied the right hon. Gentleman and his colleague, and he certainly represented to me that the question was at an end, and that there was no occasion for him to pursue it any further.
§ Colonel WEDGWOODDo the records show that Sir Eyre Crowe himself asked Mr. Gregory whether there was any truth in that allegation, or in any of the allegations?
§ Sir A. CHAMBERLAINI have told the right hon. and gallant Gentleman 597 that there is no record of it, and the only information I have is drawn either from the Report of the Board of Inquiry which is before the House, or from recollections of this conversation with Sir Eyre Crowe now three years ago.
§ Colonel WEDGWOODIs it conceivable that an accusation against one of his Department of gambling in francs could have been made without Sir Eyre Crowe asking the man whether he was guilty or not guilty?
§ Sir A. CHAMBERLAINI cannot of my own personal knowledge say what passed between Sir Eyre Crowe and Mr. Gregory.
§ Colonel WEDGWOODBut surely Mr. Gregory himself could have been asked?
§ Sir A. CHAMBERLAINDoes the right hon. and gallant Gentleman suggest that after this inquiry I should send for Mr. Gregory to put questions to him?
§ Colonel WEDGWOODA public inquiry.
§ Sir A. CHAMBERLAINSir Eyre Crowe was informed that certain allegations affecting Mr. Gregory had come to the notice of the right hon. Gentleman. I believe that Sir Eyre Crowe scouted the allegations, which were based on information supplied by a discharged servant, as wholly incredible, but that he thought it right to inform Mr. Gregory, and, as a consequence, Mr. Gregory saw the right hon. Gentleman and his colleague. The right hon. Gentleman (Mr. MacDonald) will correct me if anything I say is incorrect, but I am speaking to the best of my knowledge. Sir Eyre Crowe derived the impression that those right hon. Gentlemen were at that time satisfied that there was nothing in the incident, and he informed me that the matter was at an end, and therefore I did not think it my duty to make any inquiry.
§ Mr. MacDONALDAgain, for the sake of accuracy, would the Foreign Secretary try and recollect whether Sir Eyre Crowe said that in the end the matter was left totally to him; and, secondly, whether Sir Eyre Crowe did or did not say to him that, so far as the allegations were concerned, the financial part was so exceedingly vague 598 and small that without the subsequent revelations they practically meant nothing?
§ Sir A. CHAMBERLAINThe answer to those questions is in the negative. I am not saying that, as between the right hon. Gentleman and Sir Eyre Crowe, the right hon. Gentleman may not have intended to leave it to Sir Eyre Crowe, but Sir Eyre Crowe did not report it to me. I had no knowledge of what those allegations had been—none whatever—and I never knew that there had been a suggestion of speculations in francs until I read the report of the trial which led to subsequent investigations.