HC Deb 26 November 1934 vol 295 cc477-8
7. Sir WILLIAM DAVISON

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has now given further consideration to the case of Mr. C. H. Bucknall, now residing in South Kensington, part of whose property, to the value of over £50,000, was deposited at the British Embassy in Petrograd in 1918, and was subsequently, at the request of Mr. A. W. Woodhouse, the British Consul in charge of the Embassy, placed at the disposal of the British Government for Government purposes, thereby differentiating Mr. Bucknall's claim from the claims of other nationals whose property had been stolen but was not held at the disposal of the representative of the British Government?

Sir J. SIMON

I have nothing to add to the statement made by my right hon. Friend the Lord Privy Seal on the 30th July last in reply to my hon. Friend's previous question on this subject. For the reasons then given, this claim cannot be regarded as differentiated from other claims.

Sir W. DAVISON

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that Mr. Woodhouse, the British Consul, has written confirming the statement made in my question that at his request Mr. Bucknall placed his money and jewels, which were used as cash at that time in Russia, at the disposal of the British Government, and does not the British Government recognise their obligation to a British citizen who lent them money and jewels, at a time of great emergency, when they were unable to obtain any cash from Great Britain?

Sir J. SIMON

I must repeat with the greatest clearness that it is not the fact that Mr. Bucknall's property was placed at the disposal of the British Government. The property was voluntarily deposited for safe custody by Mr. Bucknall for his own convenience, and, whatever arrangements may have been subsequently discussed with Mr. Woodhouse as to what might be done in certain eventualities, which did not occur, the property was not, in fact, used, and the character of the deposit was not changed.

Sir W. DAVISON

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, while this property was deposited, as lie says, a month or so afterwards the British Consul specially asked Mr. Bucknall if the British Government could have the use of the money, and is the right hon. Gentleman aware that I have seen a letter from Mr. Woodhouse stating that he would certainly have used it for British purposes if occasion had required, but that meanwhile the property was stolen? Does not the right hon. Gentleman think that an obligation rests on the British Government in this matter?

Sir J. SIMON

That statement appears to agree with what I have just said. The property was deposited with Mr. Woodhouse at the owner's own request, and whatever arrangements were discussed for its possible future use it was not, in fact, so used, and the character of the deposit was not changed, and the position of this gentleman is like that of everybody else.

Sir W. DAVISON

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that a German who deposited roubles in very much the same way has already been paid £8,700?

Sir J. SIMON

I have no knowledge of that case and, with very great respect, I should hesitate to accept the view that the circumstances are exactly the same, because up to the present my hon. Friend has not quite appreciated the circumstances in this case.

Sir W. DAVISON

I beg to give notice that on the first available occasion I shall raise this matter on the Adjournment.