Evening Post.

Evening Post, Volume CIX, Issue 41, 18 February 1930, Page 10

Evening Post.

• , In the Assembly of the League of Nations* the genial and benevolent 1 manner of Mr.. Henderson impressed I foreigners so favourably, especially 1 by way of contrast with the charac- < teristically British stiffness of Sir i Austen Chamberlain, that they have ] given him the affectionate title of s "uncle." It is indeed beyond ques-, 1 tioh that at Geneva Mr. Henderson's, t avuncular graces have enabled him f to score a great success, but they are < hardly the qualities to make an s equally favourable impression at ] Moscow. 'It was very much to Sir t Austen Chamberlain's credit that the c rulers, of Russia hated him and were accustomed to parade his effigy for i the execration of the mob on fete b days. If * there was a wholesome ' element of fear mingled with the £ hatred which the Bolsheviks felt for i Sir Austen, there is no reason for i supposing that any vestige of respect , qualifies the complacency with which ' they regard his successor. One of * Mr. Henderson's first oflicial acts | was to open negotiations with the j Soviet Government for the restoration of diplomatic relations, and there was a redeeming touch of firmness in' the benevolence with which he set to work. But the firmness ' was abandoned at the first sign of , resentment from Moscow, and the j result of his unqualified benevolence was deplored by Mr. Baldwin as "a ' humiliating surrender" and welcomed by a Russian Communist J paper as " a victory of Soviet diplo- c uiacy fraught with colossal revolutionary importance." After such a i debut the moral effect which Mr. < Ilendorson's latest .word on-Russia is likely to produce in Russia may ' be easily measured. Replying to a ' question put by Mr. Locker-Lainpso'n ' regarding the persecutions which £ have filled Christendom with horror f and anger, Mr. Henderson said:— ' The House may rest fissured that Ilia Majesty's Government will, when possiblo or compatible with the interests < of those affected, uso all its influence , iv supports of the case of religious liberty and freedom of religious practice. ' The perfect' composure of this . reply was not marred by so much j as a word of conditional sympathy with the alleged victims, nor will the perfect composure of Moscow be , disturbed by the fear that a Govern- . ment whose measure it has already taken on a much simpler issue will exercise "all its influence in support of the cause .of religious liberty" in any inconvenient way. How much ihe Government could have done, j even if it had not thrown away its , bargaining power and disabled itself £ morally at the outset, is not clear, but under the conditions thus estab- , lished its moral influence at Moscow ( may be safely regarded as "nil. There c is, however, some compensation in j the knowledge that the indignation i aroused by the Russian prosecutions, \ largely, no doubt, under the stimulus r of the Pope's letter, has greatly de- : yeloped on the Continent during the r past week, and in Britain has attained to such proportions as to flutter the - B Labour Party, whose minority Gov- c eminent has hitherto fared so well a that such detached critics as "The i Times" predict that it would become c a majority Government if it went to c the country now. v ■'.■'.! During the week throughout Europe, rJ wo were told yesterday, the agitation , against the persecution of Christians in . Eussia has created something like a crisis in the relations between Eussia I and the rest of the world. An important c aspect of the agitation in Britain is' the j.' obvious concern of the Labour Party lost it prove a valuable political asset '■ against Labour as election-winning as 1 the Zinovieff letter. r The Labour Party must, indeed, be J very: badly in need of comfort and i at the same time very easily com- a forted if it can follow the lead of r the "Daily Herald" in accepting the v Sergius interview as "a dramatic v and unequivocal reply to the re- l ligipus persecution stories." Such s absolutely blind faith is worthy of c a better cause. Whether the inter- r view which the Metropolitan Sergius f is said to have given to the Soviet 1 Press is a complete "fake" or was c actually given, the report of it is l entitled to no higher credit than that of the agency which supplies it and of the weak-kneed and utterly dis- J credited prelate to whom it is as- i cribed. Sergius's testimony since \ 1927 is just as valueless as that of i Cranmer after his recantation. Ser- i gius, as the Riga correspondent of ' "The Times" reminds us to-day, was s one of several high ecclesiastics i whose faith was strong enough to ] incur the wrath of the Soviet Gov- f eminent but too weak to face the s ordeal of a long term of imprison- t ment. For what both parties doubt- t less considered to be sufficient 1 reasons, the exact conditions of their s release were not disclosed, but it is < known that on Sergius's release in s

1927 he "publicly declared a promise to support the Soviet." If the statement now attributed to him, by the Soviet Press is genuine, the utmost that it proves is that, whatever may have happened to his ordination vows under the pressure of imprisonment, he is faithfully carrying out the- promise that he gave to his new masters as the price, or part of the price, of his freedom. The sufficiency of the statement for this purpose would be enough to disqualify it completely for every other, but there is strong internal evidence to relieve • Sergius of the responsibility. Archbishop John, head of the Latvian Orthodox Church, and an ex-Bishop of Russia, says that it is difficult to tell what Sergius-really did say, but that "it could not be what is ascribed to him." A Scrgian original touched up by a Soviet forger is evidently the Archbishop's theory. But the internal evidence of the forgery is sufficiently strong without any help from the Archbishop. In fulfilment of his contract Sergius might conceivably have endeavoured to show that the Bolsheviks are not so black as they have been painted, but could he have had the audacity to represent them as angels of light? The very first sentence attributed to him is a denial "that religion is at present or ever has been persecuted" in Russia. Another is that "the churches were not closed by the authorities, but at the request of the population"; and a third that "per*, sons of suitable age are allowed to receive religious instruction." All these statements are not only in conflict with the facts, but too notoriously so to have been made by any sane advocate. On the question of persecution the following information was supplied by cable on Saturday:— •■■... It was stated recently on tho authority, of a high ecclesiastic of the Ruasian Church that 31 bishops, 1560' of the clorgy, and 7000 monks and nuns had been put to deatii. Kerensky said that 2000 churches had been closed last year. In the face of such- testimony it is a sheer farce for Sergius or the pseudo-Sergius to pretend that reli« gion is not and never has been persecuted in Russia. Yet even the hostile figures supply some evidence that, while the confiscation and destruction of church properly are proceeding more rapidly than ever, there are fewer persecutions. At the protest meeting held in the Albert Hall just before Christmas Lord Brentford is credited with the following statement: — In two years, 1918-20, in tho height of tho "terror," 26, archbishops and bishops < and 6775 priests suffered martyrdom, as.well as thousands of laymen. i ~ A comparison of these with the cabled figures shows that 26 prelates were martyred in 1918-20, but only five since. It may be that the destruction has declined for lack of material, but an intelligent Soviet advocate might make good use of the facl, whereas the liar who says there has been no persecution merely provokes ridicule. <<■ The statement of the pseudo-Scr-gius that "persons-of suitable age" may receive religious instruction is one of his very best. As Article 121 of the Criminal Code makes the teaching of religion to minors under 18 punishable with six months' hard labour, we must suppose that"onp effect of his imprisonment is to convince him that the age of 18, is a "suitable age" for the first religious lesson. ''■' ■ ,'.',■