Lastly, it is pertinent to ask in what way the publication of the Zinoviev document could possibly have affected the course of foreign exchange. In the case of the French exchange, to which Mrs. Dyne's dealings in October were almost exclusively confined, it is clear that, in fact, it did not do so; and the bankers who gave evidence before us were emphatic in saying that in 1924 it would have been wholly unreasonable to anticipate that political events in this country, even a General Election or change of Government, would have had any effect at all upon foreign currency. In other words, such events, whether natural or engineered, were quite worthless for speculative purposes to a gambler in exchange. It is possible that this consideration might not apply with equal force in the case of speculative transactions in Stock Exchange securities; but there is no indication of any such transactions by Mr. Gregory, and we are satisfied that there were no transactions at or about this period either by himself or by Mrs. Dyne which could in any way be related to the Zinoviev document, or to any information connected with it.

Some suspicion has attached to Mr. Gregory merely because the letter to the Soviet Chargé d'Affaires was signed by him "in the absence of the Secretary of State." This, however, was in conformity with Foreign Office practice, and it is clear to us, after hearing the evidence of Sir William Tyrrell and others, that it would have been unusual for Sir Eyre Crowe or anyone but the head of the department dealing with the matter (in this case the Northern Department) to have signed the letter. The evidence, indeed, satisfies us that Mr. Gregory received direct instructions from Sir Eyre Crowe to sign and despatch the letter, and that to one of his colleagues in the Northern Department Mr. Gregory, after receiving those instructions, repeated a doubt which he had already expressed to Sir Eyre Crowe whether on political grounds the decision was a wise one.

It has also been asked why the letter was handed to the Press and why there was no telephone communication with Mr. MacDonald during the 25th. The answer to the first question is that Sir Eyre Crowe directed that the letter should be published, and it will be seen from what we have said above that it

was

common ground that, if the letter was sent to the Soviet Chargé d'Affaires at all, it was to be published simultaneously in the Press. The answer to the second question appears to be that, as Sir Eyre Crowe seems to have satisfied himself as to the wishes of the Secretary of State, there was no occasion to telephone; but we may observe that it would, in any case, have been for Sir Eyre Crowe to telephone to the Secretary of State if occasion required and not for Mr. Gregory.

It is only necessary after what we have said above to make a few comments on some of the statements contained in the statutory declaration, which it is now possible to view in their proper perspective. In so far as the statements are alleged to have been made by Mrs. Dyne, they are, of course, no evidence against Mr. Gregory. We say frankly that we do not believe that Mrs. Dyne ever said on the 25th October or at any time that "Mr. Gregory did it when the Prime Minister's back was turned," unless she was merely repeating current gossip. Nor could Mrs. Dyne have said on the 27th October that Mr. MacDonald had got thrown out and that Mr. Gregory had made his name." The General Election was not yet over, and the alleged remark, if made at all, looks more like a garbled version of some such observation as that "Mr. MacDonald will be thrown out and Mr. Gregory's name will be connected with it." In any event, both the alleged statements are quite worthless as evidence on which any charge, or even suspicion can be based.

The alleged Russian who called at Mrs. Dyne's house in company with Mr. Gregory was, we are satisfied, not a Russian at all, but a foreign diplomat of another nationality, who had long been a personal friend of Mr. Gregory and

his family. And in connexion with the visit of this gentleman, it is sufficient to say that the laughing remark alleged to have been made by Mr. Gregory, "Come on into the plot," is perhaps as good a proof as any that no plot existed; for so damning an invitation would scarcely have been given in the presence of one of the household staff. If made at all, it was no doubt a jesting reference to rumours which had already begun to circulate.

We are satisfied that there is not the slightest foundation for any of the suspicions which have, in our opinion, most unjustly attached to Mr. Gregory in connexion with the events of the 24th and 25th October, 1924, and we beg to report accordingly.

We think in conclusion that we shall not be travelling outside our terms of reference if, as three Civil Servants of some experience and jealous for the honour and traditions of the Service, we indicate what we conceive to be the principles which should regulate the conduct of Civil Servants-whether engaged in Home Departments or on diplomatic missions—in their relation to the public.

His Majesty's Civil Service, unlike other great professions, is not and cannot in the nature of things be an autonomous profession. In common with the Royal Navy, the Army, and the Royal Air Force, it must always be subject to the rules and regulations laid down for its guidance by His Majesty's Government. This written code is, in the case of the Civil Service, to be found not only in the Statutes but also in Orders in Council, Treasury Circulars, and other directions which may from time to time be promulgated; but over and above these the Civil Service, like every other profession, has its unwritten code of ethics and conduct for which the most effective sanction lies in the public opinion of the Service itself, and it is upon the maintenance of a sound and healthy public opinion within the Service that its value and efficiency chiefly depend.

The first duty of a Civil Servant is to give his undivided allegiance to the State at all times and on all occasions when the State has a claim upon his services. With his private activities the State is in general not concerned, so long as his conduct therein is not such as to bring discredit upon the Service of which he is a member. But to say that he is not to subordinate his duty to his private interests, nor to make use of his official position to further those interests, is to say no more than that he must behave with common honesty. The Service exacts from itself a higher standard, because it recognizes that the State is entitled to demand that its servants shall not only be honest in fact, but beyond the reach of suspicion of dishonesty. It was laid down by one of His Majesty's Judges in a case some few years ago that it was not merely of some importance but of fundamental importance that in a Court of Law justice should not only be done, but should manifestly and undoubtedly be seen to be done; which we take to mean that public confidence in the administration of justice would be shaken if the least suspicion, however ill-founded, were allowed to arise that the course of legal proceedings could in any way be influenced by improper motives. We apply without hesitation an analogous rule to other branches of the public service. A Civil Servant is not to subordinate his duty to his private interests; but neither is he to put himself in a position where his duty and his interests conflict. He is not to make use of his official position to further those interests; but neither is he so to order his private affairs as to allow the suspicion to arise that a trust has been abused or a confidence betrayed. These obligations are, we do not doubt, universally recognized throughout the whole of the Service; if it were otherwise, its public credit would be diminished and its usefulness to the State impaired.

It follows that there are spheres of activity legitimately open to the ordinary citizen in which the Civil Servant can play no part, or only a limited part. He is not to indulge in political or party controversy, lest by so doing he should appear no longer the disinterested adviser of Ministers or able impartially to

execute their policy. He is bound to maintain a proper reticence in discussing public affairs and more particularly those with which his own Department is concerned. And lastly, his position clearly imposes upon him restrictions in matters of commerce and business from which the ordinary citizen is free.

Between the regular investment or management of a private fortune on the one hand, and speculative transactions in stocks, exchange or commodities on the other, there are obviously numerous gradations, and it may often be difficult to draw the precise line of demarcation between what is lawful and what is prohibited; it may even be inadvisable to make the attempt, because many things, though lawful, may yet be inexpedient. But some transactions fall indubitably on one side of the line rather than upon the other. It might well be desirable for a Civil Servant in all circumstances to avoid transactions wholly speculative in character; but where he is employed in any Department to which, whether rightly or wrongly, the public attribute the power of obtaining special information, such as the future course of political or financial events likely to affect the rise and fall of markets, then we assert unhesitatingly that participation in such transactions is not only undesirable or inexpedient, but wrong. The knowledge that Civil Servants so employed are engaged in them could not fail to shock public confidence at home, and, especially if matters of foreign exchange are involved, to produce a deplorable effect upon opinion abroad.

We content ourselves with laying down these general principles, which we do not seek to elaborate into any detailed code, if only for the reason that their application must necessarily vary according to the position, the Department, and the work of the Civil Servant concerned. Practical rules for the guidance of social conduct depend also as much upon the instinct and perception of the individual as upon cast-iron formulas; and the surest guide will, we hope, always be found in the nice and jealous honour of Civil Servants themselves. The public expects from them a standard of integrity and conduct not only inflexible but fastidious, and has not been disappointed in the past. We are confident that we are expressing the view of the Service when we say that the public have a right to expect that standard, and that it is the duty of the Service to see that the expectation is fulfilled.

Treasury Chambers,

Whitehall, S.W.,

February 25, 1928.

MR. RAMSAY MACDONALD'S REPLY TO THE
ZINOVIEFF LETTER

[WE append Mr. MacDonald's letter to M. Rakovsky which
was sent to the Press by Sir Eyre Crowe after having been
submitted to Mr. MacDonald, and altered by him but not
initialled. Sir Eyre Crowe learnt that the Zinovieff letter
was to be published, and thought that Mr. MacDonald's
reply should be published at the same time. Mr. MacDonald
was away electioneering.-EDITOR, N.R.]

MR. RAMSAY MACDONALD TO M. RAKOVSKY.

FOREIGN OFFICE,

October 24, 1924.

SIR,-1. I have the honour to invite your attention to the enclosed copy of a letter which has been received by the Central Committee of the British Communist Party from the Presidium of the Executive Committee of the Communist International, over the signature of M. Zinovieff, the President, dated September 15th. The letter contains instructions to British subjects to work for the violent overthrow of existing institutions in this country, and for the subversion of His Majesty's armed forces as a means to that end.

2. It is my duty to inform you that His Majesty's Government cannot allow this propaganda, and must regard it as a direct interference from outside in British domestic affairs.

3. No one who understands the constitution and the relationships of the Communist International will doubt its intimate connection and contact with the Soviet Government. No Government will ever tolerate an arrangement with a foreign Government, by which the latter is in formal diplomatic relations of a correct kind with it, whilst at the same time a propagandist body organically connected with that foreign Government encourages and even orders subjects of the former to plot and plan revolutions for its overthrow.

Such conduct is not only a grave departure from the rules of international comity, but a violation of specific and solemn undertakings repeatedly given to His Majesty's Government.

4. So recently as June 4th of last year the Soviet Government made the following solemn agreement with His Majesty's Government:

The Soviet Government undertakes not to support with funds or in any other form persons or bodies or agencies or institutions whose aim is to spread discontent or to foment rebellion in any part of the British Empire... and to impress upon its officers and officials the full and continuous observance of these conditions.

5. Moreover, in the Treaty which His Majesty's Government recently con. cluded with your Government, still further provision was made for the faithful execution of an analogous undertaking which is essential to the existence of good and friendly relations between the two countries. His Majesty's Government mean that these undertakings shall be carried out both in the letter and in the spirit, and it cannot accept the contention that whilst the Soviet Government undertakes obligations a political body as powerful as itself is to be allowed to conduct a propaganda and support it with money which is in direct violation of the official agreement.

434

The Soviet Government either has or has not the power to make such agreements. If it has the power it is its duty to carry them out and see that the other parties are not deceived. If it has not this power, and if responsibilities which belong to the State in other countries are, in Russia, in the keeping of private and irresponsible bodies, the Soviet Government ought not to make agreements which it knows it cannot carry out.

6. I should be obliged if you would be good enough to let me have the observations of your Government on this subject without delay.

I have the honour to be, with high consideration, Sir, your obedient servant (in the absence of the Secretary of State),

M. C. RAKOVSKY.

J. D. GREGORY.