SHOULD BRITAIN INTERVENE?

Timaru Herald, Volume CXXV, Issue 18536, 5 April 1930, Page 17 (Supplement)

SHOULD BRITAIN INTERVENE?

Russia’s War On Religion. CHURCH LEADER’S PROTEST. (British Official Wireless.) RUGBY, April 2. The Archbishop of Canterbury Dr Cosmo Gordon Lang, called attention in the House of Lords to the oppression of religion in Russia. He said it was futile to ascribe it merely to the resentment felt against the Orthodox Church because of its association with the Czarist regime. He had no doubt that there must be angry and resentful memories amongst every form of theistic religion. Church, meeting house, synagogue, mosque, all alike were declared to be the enemies of social reconstruction. In 1928, 359 churches, 78 monasteries, 50 synagogues and 38 mosques were closed, according to reliable statistics, and hundreds more were closed last year. He had received reports of twenty cases of persecution, which he was satisfied were authentic. In these twenty cases seventy-one persons -were sentenced to be shot, and 112 were sentenced to imprisonment for two to twelve years. He did not question the advantage of having a British representative in Moscow and a representative of the Soviet Government in London, but the advantages carried with them special responsibilities. Sooner or later the British Government must convey to the Soviet Government the opinion that, if relations were to be diplomatically satisfactory, the Soviet Government must pay some heed to public opinion in Britain, which, in this matter, he believed to be singularly clear and united. It was for the Government to decide in what time, in what way and within what limits the representations should be made. They could not expect nor even ask the Government to change its attitude toward religion, for that attitude was its own religion, but they had the right to ask that in pursuing it they would pay some heed to the claims of the churches. Attitude of Government. Lord Parmoor, replying for the Government, said that the Government had no intention whatever, unless the condition attached to the establishment of diplomatic relations was infringed, of severing relations with Russia, or of weakening the opportunity that might be afforded through that relationship of influencing conditions in Russia. It was not easy to say what the Government could do to influence those conditions. He was glad to see that some change had taken place. But, in the meantime, the terrors of the i anti-religious movement had undoubtedly prevailed in Russia, though he believed on information supplied to ’him, that they were less terrible now than at any time during the past ten years. The separation of the school from the State, lamentable as it was in Russia, had been the matter of acute differences of opinion in other countries, but surely the attitude of any State towards education was purely the internal concern of each Government and no representation on such an issue could be justified. They all detested the systematic denial of religious tolerance in Russia, he said, but no outside Government could rightly act in such a case unless two conditions were satisfied: Firstly, it would need to have overwhelmingly accurate proof that wrongs were being committed, so grave in their nature and extent that they became the concern of the whole civilised world, the principle that one country should not seek to interfere with the internal affairs of another being the essential condition of relations of any kind between one Government and another; secondly, the Government must have good reason to hope that ite action would really alleviate such wrongs, or, at least, not do more harm than good.

Other Speakers. Viscount Brentford (Conservative), urged that the Government could surely make friendly representations to the Russian Government regarding the suggestions made by the Primate. Lord Buckmaster, Liberal leader in the House of Lords, said that he was in sympathy with the Primate’s desire that they should express their abhorrence at what was taking place in Russia, but, when it was sought to enforce that opinion in some manner by political action, he thought that they were on doubtful and even dangerous ground. The Archbishop of Canterbury expressed gratitude that the debate had been kept free from political controversy. He was not without hope that representations made in a friendly way might have some effect in mitigating the severity of the methods by which the policy of the Soviet Government was being pursued. Foreign Secretary Questioned. Mr Arthur Henderson, Foreign Secretary, was asked in the House of Commons whether he had yet urged upon the Soviet Ambassador the rights of British claimants upon the Soviet' Government, and whether he had pressed for recognition and settlement of the debts due to them. Mr Dalton, Foreign Under-Secrethry, replied in the affirmative. He said that the object of negotiations then proceeding was to agree upon suitable machinery for consideration of these claims. It was hoped that the present stage of negotiations would be completed before Easter, and he would be able to make a statement. Wshrdlu shrdlu