SOVIET PERSECUTION.

Manawatu Herald, Volume XLIV, Issue 2473, 29 August 1922, Page 1

SOVIET PERSECUTION.

TUEATAIENT OF THE CLERGY. PROTEST FROM BRITAIN. PROPOSED INQUIRY REFUSED. LONDON, July 13. Recently a joint protest from representatives of the Christian Churches in Great Britain in connection with the attack on the authorities of the Russian Church was forwarded to the Soviet Government. On June 7 tt request was made that a small body of representatives of the various churches responsible for the remonstrance might he permitted by the Soviet Government to visit Russia to inquire into the subject. ■ 'llio Archbishop of Canterbury has now received a communication from M. Karakhan, Assistant Commissioner for Foreign Allah's. The letter is addressed to the Archbishop’s chaplain, ami reads: “I beg to inform you that my -Government dots not- see any grounds for insisting upon the withdrawal of the statements made by the Archbishop of Canterbury in the House of ixu-ds on Max 25, since these statements clearly emanate front sources which, in the eyes of tile labouring masses of Russia and the whole world, do not merit, any confidence. They merely servo to illustrate the class solidarity of the ‘princes’ of the various churches, wliich solidarity is known to he directed against the labouring masses. “The suggestion made by the Archbishop of Canterbury to send to Russia a body o! ‘representatives oi various churches’ in order to investigate the situation on the spor constitutes a claim even less justifiable than would be a suggestion made by the Soviet Government to send to England a small commission to investigate to wlittt extent the labouring masses are exploited materially and spiritually by the hierarchy ot the various English churches, in order to maintain the domination of the exploiting classes.” ihe following letter has been sent in reply:—“The Archbishop of Canterbury has' considered carefully the communication transmitted to him in reply to his request that a small hotly of representatives of the various churches responsible for the remonstrance of Alay 31 might he permitted by the Soviet Government to visit Russia. The reply received refusing this request does not, as the Archbishop notes, challenge the statement made as to the arrest and prosecution of leading clergy of the Russian Church, nor does it elucidate the obvious contradiction between the detailed account of these arrests and prosecutions given at first hand to the Archbishop of Canterbury, and the account given on behalf of the Soviet Govern ment. “The allegation that the representatives of the Church of England and of the other Christian denominations who signed the protest were actuated by political or class considerations is devoid of foundation. They were actuated simply by elementary considerations ol humanity and of C.ln*i--tian feeling. The Archbishop deplores the refusal of the Soviet Government to allow this information to be obtained. Net) main people in Great Britain are anxious to promote the friendliest relation between the Russian people at large and the peoples of the English-speaking countries, and the letters which the Archbishop receives from America show a similar desire. The present action of the .Soviet Government is calculated to retard or prevent the realisation of such a hope. If the announcement respecting the death sentence passed upon religious leaders in Russia proves to be well founded, the elioct will be one of indignation and horror among civilised people of all classes.’*