SINS OF THE SOVIET.

Manawatu Times, Volume XLVI, Issue 2648, 17 May 1923, Page 5

SINS OF THE SOVIET.

DEBATED IN HOUSE OF COMMONS. PROPAGANDA HAD NEVER CEASED. SOME CONCRETE CASES. [By Electric Cable—Copyright.] [Aust. and N.Z. Cable Association.] LONDON, May 15. In Committee of Supply on Foreign Office vote, the Leader of the Labour Party (Mr Ramsey Macdonald), moved a reduction and initiated a debate on the Note to Russia. M. Krassin, the Russian delegate, occupied a seat in the distinguished strangers’ gallery. Mr Macdonald stated that in view of the Soviet's reply the Government .ought to make an immediate statement hs to its future policy towards Russia. He hoped the Government was not pursuing the old defeated policy of the Coalition Government of opposition to Russia merely because Britain did not agree with Russia's actions. Many of Britain’s grievances agamst her -would never have arisen if Britain had recognised her diplomatically by an international conference. Altogether the reply was entirely unsatisfactory, and contained no sort of assurance for the future. The British Government had negotiated until it was sick of negotiating. It was ready to discuss matters with M. ICrassin but it -would not be satisfied with anything less than compliance -with its (Cheers.) Mr Macdonald said he agreed that if some of th e charges made by the British against the Russian Govern, ment were proved the country was fully entitled to protest, but many of the charges had been found to b e un. true. This country could not afford to take action unless it was certain that its position was unassailable. That meant a conference, and the Govern, ment should say it was prepared to go into the whole matter with Russia, be. cause it wanted to’ settle the question once and for all. He urged the Government to use the Soviet reply as a base for negotiations. The question of religious persecution required examination.

Mr Macdonald said ho did not alto.gether accept the Soviet’s statement that their action had taken the form of political punishment and not religious persecution the two things wer e often mixed up. The mere tearing up of the trade agreement was “cutting off our nose to spite our face”: and the existence of the agreement would smooth the way for further developments, and keep th e door open for more sympathetic relations between the two countries. If the agreement was revoked a state of incipient war would be created.

DESIRE TO PRESERVE HARMONY,

Mr M’Neill, Undersecretary of Foreign Affairs, in reply, deprecated

“wild talk” about the possibility of war. The whole matter had been talk, cd out of its proper perspective. Every, one desired to preserve harmonious relations with all foreign nations, in. eluding Russia. The British people would not easily forget Russia’s heroic sacrilicos in the war. and the Government was not proposing ta tear up the trade agreement. The object was to see its provisions observed. The sole question was whether, in the circumstances which had now arisen, this agreement was one that could bo continued by one party when the other party persistently violated it. (Cheers.) In any case, the most expert business opinion strongly heid the view that th e termination of the agreement would not harmfully affect Britain’s trade. ANTI-BRITISH ACTIVITY. Mr M’Neill said the fact was that Russia had never observed the agreement for the stoppage of propaganda, which was an essential part of the agreement, and although, as a result of notes of complaints, propaganda had slackened, it had never stopped. In the great majority of cases the propaganda complained of was derived from the Soviet’s own wireless messages. They were only a small selection out of a vast amount of evidence in the Government's possession showing that propaganda was persistently carried on. Up to the present the Government had acted with extraordinary patience. As a matter of fact, there were no less than 116 cases of British subjects wrongly imprisoned by the Russian Government. One woman, during eight months, was in 29 different prisons. Some of these people died owing to the prison privations. Despite the British Note, the Soviet Government refused to meet these cases. With regard to the trawlers, some satisfaction was offered, but there was no suggestion of compensation, and the Government could not accept the position that an invasion, of - its subjects’ rights could be met.

COMMUNIST MEMBER OFF-SIDE. LEAVES CHAMBER AMID UPROAR (Received Wednesday, 7 p.m.) LONDON, May 16. Sir P. Lloyd Graeme, replying to the debate, sharply criticised Russian propaganda methods. Mr Newbold (Communist) jumped up excitedly and cried, “The honourable member is telling falsehoods. Then turning to Captain Fitzroy, chairman of commi ~s, said: “You have allowed charges to be made against me all the evening without giving me a chance to reply.” Captain Fitzroy: “That is not a Parliamentary expression and I must ask the honourable member to withdraw from the House.” Several Labour members appealed to the chairman to give Mr Newbold a chance of withdrawing the expres-

sion, but the chairman again asked Mr New'bold to lea.ve the House, Mr Newbold declined and the Ser-geant-at-Arms was called in.

Mr Newbold shouted: “I am here in the name of the Communist Internationale, take any steps you like.”. The Labour uproar continued, and the Speaker attempted to stop the commotion. Mr Buchanan shouted: “It is most unfair for you not to give us a show.” Mr Lanabury cried: ‘‘Mr Newbold is being treated brutally.”

Mr MacDonald appealed to the Speaker to give Mr Newbold a chance of withdrawing.

The Speaker: “Perhaps if the honourable member withdraws the expression, the House will make an exception in this case.” (Loud and continued cries of “No” from the Government benches.) Mr Newbold tried to make an explanation, but was unable to proceed. The Speaker then ruled: “If any members object, I must proceed under Standing Orders, but perhaps the House will later take into account that the member was not given a chance of withdrawing.” The Speaker, amidst further Labour interruptions, put the motion from the chair that Mr Newbold be suspended from the service of the House, This was carried. Mr Newbold said that out of respect for the Speaker, he would leave and withdrew, amidst loud Labour cheers. The House then adjourned.

M. Krassin, after the debate, said he had asked Lord Curzon to meet him. “It ought to be possible for us to reach an understanding. Itussia %vants to do business with Britain on a vastly increasing scale.” 1 THE RETORT COURTEOUS. ANSWER TO SOVIET NOTE. (Received Wednesday, 7 p.m.) LONDON, May 15. The Cabinet will consider the details of the Soviet’s reply this evening. It is understood that its reply will be couched in a courteous tone, and will be unexpectedly conciliatory in many respects, although it will state that the statements ■> about propaganda are based on inaccurate information. M. Litvinoff, replying to Mr Ramsay Macdonald in connection with the Labour Party’s protest, states that the decision to release the trawlers was evidence of Russia’s desire to settle her differences with Britain in a conciliatory manner.

OPINION IN SWEDEN. FAVOURABLE TO REPLY. STOCKHOLM, May 15. It is understood that political circles favourably regard the Russian reply. The general opinion is that the Government is willing to afford facilities for a conference. M. Krassin, who has arrived "and is awaiting the making known of the British Government's Intentions, has absolute power to negotiate within the scope of the Soviet’s reply*