TO BRITISH NOTE

Evening Post, Volume CXIII, Issue 49, 28 February 1927, Page 9

TO BRITISH NOTE

PROTEST AGAINST TONE

BREACH OF 1923 AGREEMENT

f United Press Association.—Copyright.)

(Eeecived 28th February, noon.) ' MOSCOW, 27th Feb. The Soviet reply to the British Note" refers to the unquestionable fact of the unsatisfactory character of the relations between the Soviet and Britain, and cites the agreement signed by the Soviet in 1923, ' whereby the Soviet undertook not to support with funds or' in any other way persons, bodies, or agencies whose aim was to spread discontent and foment rebellion' in any part of the British Empire. The reply declares that during 31 years since the signing of the agreement the British Government had repeatedly reproached the So,viet with alleged infringements ■' of the agreement, in this way violating the agreement' signed by Marquess Curzon in. 1923, whereby Britain undertook inimediately to inform the Soviet of any, supposed infringement of its " obligations and,not to allow cases to accumulate _ without making charges. The British Government preferred to make general and wholesale reproaches, save in the instance of the so-called ZinoviefE letter during the General Election in Britain in 1924. The Zinovieffi letter was subsequently proved to be a forgery. Thus the only definite charge was based on a forged document, while none of those who misinformed the British Government were punished, though the letter at one time strained Anglo-Eussian relations to the uttermost. . -: The fact that Britain declined to accept the Eussian proposals to submit to arbitration on the question of responsibility regarding international Communist organisations could only ba taken as a withdrawal of the acuusa-' tions against the Soviet. FREEDOM OF SPEECH. The reply points out that there had been no agreements limiting freedom of speech and Press within the borders of either: country. To bring published verbal utterances made within Soviet Eussia into the scope of the 1923 agreement was an arbitrary extension of the limits of the agreement. The Note characterises as delusions the constant references of politicians and members of the British Government to the alleged omnipresence and omnipotence of so-called Soviet agents. The reply deplores the unsatisfactory condition of Anglo-Soviet relations, but expresses belief that explanations cannot be made by means of mutual accusations in the Press. :! The reply alleges that the British; Government communications to the Soviet consciously infringe the usual international forms, customs, and even elementary decency. It says the British Government avoids the settlement of mutual claims, and talks to the boviet in a threatening tone. ■',-"' The Note concludes: "The Soviet will continue to pursue a. peace-loving policy wihch excludes all aggressiveness toward other countries, and will sincerly welcome the British. Government if it comes to meet it in that path.*l The Note cites the speeches of Birkenhead, Churchill, and other-British statesmen as regards Eussia, and refers to, attacks on Soviet representatives in London. It says the British representatives in Moscow were'never subjected to insults on the partuof the Soviet Press. : '. .".';. :.:■"' .■