MONEY FROM RUSSIA

Hawera Star, Volume XLVI, 19 June 1926, Page 5

MONEY FROM RUSSIA

GOVERNMENT POLICY. CAREFUL WATCH KEPT ; GIFTS NOT FORBIDDEN. \ BY CABLE—PBESS ASSOCIATION—COPYBIGHT. LONDON, June 17. In the House of Commons Mr Godfrey Loeker-Lampson asked whether the Government was considering the advisability of withdrawing the recognition of the Soviet Government in view of the offer of money from Moscow for the general strike. Sir W. JoynsomHicks replied that the Government, having protested in the most formal manner to the Soviet Government, did not propose at present to take the steps indicated by Mr Locker - Lampson. The Government was equally indisposed to forbid so-called charity gifts in connection with industrial disputes, but was carefully watching the further action of the Soviet Government and affiliated organisations. It would not hesitate, to act if a change of policy was necessary. He declared that His Majesty’s Government was satisfied that the Soviet Government and various Communist and trade union organisations are under one single controlling authority. He mentioned that £380,000 altogether had been contributed from Russia to the Council of Trade Unions Congress in connection with the miners’ dispute. A discussion developed during which, in reply to Mr Ramsay MacDonald and others/ Sir W. .Joynson-Hicks said the Government would arrange for a discussion of the widest possible character on Anglo-Russian relations. —Reuter.

BRITAIN NOTHING TO GAIN. BY BREAKING OFF RELATIONS. LONDON, June 17. In the House of Lords, 'replying to Lord Newton’s inquiry respecting the Russian strike money, Earl Balfour said that the avowed object of the Soviet Government was to destroy our social system. The presumption was that the money was not contributed by the workers but by tho Soviet Government. He was not quite sure Britain should have recognised the Soviet. That was an arguable point, but there was a great difference between breaking off relations and not entering into relations at all. The first would produce disturbances far beyond the confines of two countries, and was the last course any responsible statesman would like to take. It was one which, without an adequate object, would add a new social disturbance to an already overdisturbed world. What w r as Britain going to gain by breaking off relations? “I am quite unable to see any gain, until the situation develops in a manner in which I hope it will not. I suggest we go on diplomatically, as now. Nothing is to be gained by formal gestures when we cordially disapprove of a Government whose action we can in no manner control. I am in favour of leaving things as they arc. Having quite explicitly explained we are not the dupes of'Russian policy, and with public opinion behind us, we have nothing to fear from the contrivances and intrigues of any nation in the world.”