"In the House of Commons on Wednesday Mr. Peake referred to my letter printed in your issue of May 18. His principal charge was 'that the Bishop made no attempt to indicate what was the programme of rescue which he suggested'. He added that he had searched Hansard for the House of Lords ever since December 17, but had failed to find any speech by myself on the subject. I was present at the debate opened by the Archbishop of Canterbury on March 23 and was prepared to speak. But owing to the number of speakers, representing all shades of opinion, on that occasion I, with others, stood down. It is not, however, true to say that I have made no suggestions as to a programme of rescue. In a letter in your columns on December 28, 1942, I referred to the suggestion made by Sir Neill Malcolm in his letter of December 22, and made further suggestions, such as the obtaining of facilities from the protecting Power for the transportation of Nazi victims from Germany and German occupied territories to the nearest frontier, with a view to entry into places of refuge; a guaranteeing to neutral Governments willing to give sanctuary to such victims of an evacuation of as many as possible after the war; and the establishment of reception areas in lands outside Europe. I am also a member of the Parliamentary Committee, and I support the 12-point programme for immediate rescue measures drawn up by the National Committee for Rescue from Nazi Terror, and widely published. I am glad to hear of the extension of categories of individuals eligible for visas, which forms a portion of the first of these points. I entirely agree that a programme of rescue must be a programme of victory. But this is not inconsistent with a determination by the Government to do everything possible for temporary sanctuary. There is a great difference between the spirit of a Government which says, 'We are resolved to do everything in our power, we wish we could do more, but such and such steps shall be taken at once in spite of all the difficulties', and the pessimistic attitude which simply repeats, 'We are filled with burning indignation at the horrors perpetrated by the Nazis against these people. We are determined to punish the guilty when the war is over. But for the present these people are beyond possibility of rescue." [548] <253>
On July 28, 1943, the Bishop of Chichester strongly supported the plea for urgent government action in a speech in the House of Lords which was very critical of official policy and action. He contended that:
"…in the matter of the systematic mass murder of the Jews in the Nazi- occupied territories of Europe, which was the reason why the Bermuda Conference was called, there has been a deterioration in the determination to grapple with the problem."
After quoting earlier promises made on behalf of the Government, he criticized the achievement of this Conference.
"…On April 19-29 the Bermuda Conference took place. It began in a spirit of pessimism. Its official pronouncement at the end said that the delegates 'had examined the refugee problem in all its aspects'. The Jews were not mentioned. Agreed confidential recommendations were made which were designed to lead to the relief of a substantial number of refugees of all races and nationalities. Not a word was said about 'temporary asylum'…"
Particularly the Bishop emphasized the obligation to give priority to the persecuted Jews, and the responsibility of both neutral countries and of the Allied Governments to find temporary asylum for Hitler's victims.
"… It is in the face of this systematic murder, especially in the last twelve months, that I and so many others plead with the Government to act in a new way. With the appeal of the stricken people ringing in our ears, we would be false to our tradition if we failed to do everything we can." [549]
e. Towards the End
As far as we know, few statements were issued during the last period of the war. Significant was the Archbishop of Canterbury's warning, on Dec. 8, 1943, that "the sufferings of the Jews be kept in full view of all people so that the spirit of indignation and compassion in them will not die out". <254>
"It is one of the most terrible consequences of war that the sensitiveness of people tends to become hardened, "Dr.Temple said. "We could hardly live these days if we felt the volume of suffering of others in the world as acutely as we felt in peacetime". "There is a great moral danger in the paralysis of feeling that is liable to be brought about. It is most important for our own moral health and vigor that we express horror at the persecution of the Jews." Dr. Temple said the persecution of Jews on the Continent, and particularly in Poland, "almost baffles imagination and leaves one horrified at the power of the evil that can show itself in human nature." [550]