Evening Post. MONDAY, MAY 16, 1927. A DRAMATIC RAID

Evening Post, Volume CXIII, Issue 113, 16 May 1927, Page 8

Evening Post. MONDAY, MAY 16, 1927. A DRAMATIC RAID

Apart from their context, the details supplied to-day of labourers hard at work with picks and shovels protected by hundreds of policemen and watched by an excited crowd would have seemed more appropriate to the tapping of a levee or the reparation of a “crevasse” in the neighbourhood of New Orleans than to anything that could possibly be happening in the heart of London. Yet it is to London and not to New Orleans that the report relates, and the enemy is not the flooded Mississippi but the propaganda which under the guise of diplomacy it is believed has been carried on by the representatives of a so-called friendly nation. From the standpoint of the police the organisation of the raid upon Soviet House is a matter for unqualified congratulation. In the secrecy and thoroughness of the preparations the enterprise recalls the raiding of the Communist headquarters in London and the simultaneous seizure of ringleaders in other places which resulted in the conviction of eight of them in November, 1925. That a “Daily Herald” reporter was one of the few strangers present when the police arrived at Soviet House suggests at the first glance that the organ of the Labour Party knew that something was about to happen and had a representative there waiting fop a “scoop.” But the inference is negatived by the conclusive evidence of complete secrecy, and appears quite# superfluous when one remembers that the strange fraternity existing, in spite of frequent tiffs, between British Labour and Russian Bolshevism may reasonably make the attendance of a “Herald” reporter at Soviet House an almost every-day matter. The success of the police is, However, a relatively small incident in a most dramatic, surprising, and risky procedure. The success of the undertaking in its broader aspects is still uncertain. We have not yet even any definite information as to its object. According to the political correspondent of the “Daily Telegraph” the object is the recovery of official documents. The “Daily Chronicle’s” correspondent mentions “the theory that important secret official documents have, been stolen, and are believed to •be in the possession of persons connected with Arcos.” The theory that the Arcos Company has been financing the Soviet propaganda in Britain is also mentioned by the same correspondent, and he expresses no preference between the two. The “Daily Mail” does not bother about theories, being perfectly satisfied on general grounds that “there is every possible justification for the raid.” Tho wonder is, says the “Mail,” it was so long delayed after tho open, impudont intervention of Soviet agents during tlio general and coal strikes, and Moscow’s systematic malicious antiBritish propaganda in China and tho incitement of organised mobs to rob and murdor foreigners. The country will wclcomo the Government’s vigour, especially if it moans turning out Moscow plottors bag and baggage. ' What is sufficient from the standpoint of the “Daily Mail” would not, however, necessarily satisfy either the Government or a majority of the nation. As the “Daily Mail” has long been advocating the breakingoff of all relations with Russia, even a mare’s nest which brought about that result would doubtless be welcome as a small mishap justifying itself by a devoutly to be desired consummation. But a mare’s nest would be a very nasty rebuff for the Government. In his grave and almost menacing Note of 23rd February, Sir Austen Chamberlain complained of “the continuous breach” by the Soviet Government of its solemn engagement not “to spread discontent or to foment rebellion in any part of the British Empire” or to support, either financially or otherwise, organisations designed for that purpose. But he did not break off relations with Russia on that account, and his Note was accordingly, denounced by the “Daily Mail” as “a display of feebleness and faith which makes the blood of every self-respecting Briton tingle in his veins.” To the “Daily Mail” the Soviet cup which was full in February is of course full in May, but on the eve of the raid Sir Austen Chamberlain had evidently not come to the conclusion that there had been a sufficient change to justify a rupture, or he would have said so. Much, therefore,. depends on the result of the raid. A mare’s nest would put the Government in the wrong, give the Bolsheviks an invaluable opportunity of posing before the world as injured innocents, and further inflame the bitterness between the two countries without providing Britain with any additional ground for a breach of relations. The success of the search would, on the other hand, be a big prize, whether or not it was put to the use that the “Daily Mail” has in view.

The most disturbing point of all is that mentioned by the diplomatic correspondent of the “Observer.” All that was disclosed by Sir W. JoynsonHicks in his answer to Mr. Arthur Henderson’s question about the re-' sponsibility for the raid was that he had authorised it as the result Pf information which he had received on Wednesday. As the Minister in charge of the police the Home Secretary was the proper authority to deal with the issue of a search warrant, but accord,ing to the “Observer’s” correspondent

the Minister whose Department was ultimately far more deeply concerned than the Home Office had no say in the matter at all.

The raid, he says, caused embarrassment in Downing street. The Foreign Office was not consulted before the rind, though it was bound to be diplomatically important and serious. Official quarters admit that the raid has forced the Foreign Office to declare for the police against Eussia at a moment when it had special reasons for lettincr sleeping dogs lie. ° 1

It seems almost incredible diat the Home Secretary should not have consulted first tlie Foreign Office, and then the whole Cabinet, before taking action on a question which, though formally one of law enforcement and police procedure, went in substance to the root of the gravest issue m Britain s.ioreign policy. A year ago ‘Jix ’ won great credit by the moderation and discretion which he displayed during the General Strike. Is it possible that, in the words of tho “Observer’s” correspondent, the old controversy within the Cabinet has been forced to a climax” by an indiscretion which reduces all its predecessors to insignificance?