HC Deb 23 June 1881 vol 262 cc1096-8
BARON HENRY DE WORMS

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether the Commercial Treaty of 1859 between this Country and Russia, which stipulates that English subjects shall be at liberty to come to all places in Russia to which other foreigners are free to come, has been abrogated; if not, whether the Ukase of 1860, by which the participation of foreign Jews in the immunities of Russian traders was confined to a select number of eminent and wealthy bankers and manufacturers, can in International Law be held to have set aside the above Treaty stipulation; and, whether it is not the fact that no Law existed in Russia in 1859 limiting the period of the stay of a foreign Jewin St. Petersburg to twenty-four hours, so that the saving clause in the Treaty as to— the laws, decrees, and special stipulations regarding commerce, industry, and police in each of the two countries, and generally applicable to all foreigners, cannot apply to the case of Mr. Lewisohn?

SIR CHARLES W. DILKE

Sir, these Questions raise points which are under the consideration of the Law Officers of the Crown, and I am not in a position to reply to them until their Report has been received.

BARON HENRY DE WORMS

said, he desired to ask the hon. Baronet another Question. The last time he addressed him on the subject, the hon. Baronet informed the House that a communication had been made to Mr. Lewisohn, and that, pending an answer from him, no further action could be taken in the matter. What he wanted to know was, Whether that communication to Mr. Lewisohn did not request him to state whether, in fact, he had taken out a licence as a trader at St. Petersburg, under the terms of the Ukase of 1860; and whether it was necessary for a person who did not settle permanently in Russia, but was merely engaged in business transactions of a temporary character, to take out a licence under that Ukase? And he would further ask the hon. Gentleman, Whether the Treaty of 1859 between this country and Russia would, as a matter of International Law, override any subsequent local law made in 1860?

SIR CHARLES W. DILKE

Sir, I shall be happy to answer the Question as to the facts; but I cannot answer the last Question which has been put to me, because that is the very Question which has been referred to the consideration of the Law Officers of the Crown. With regard to the facts, it is the case that the principal question addressed to Mr. Lewisohn was as to whether he took out a licence or not. That question was put to him at the suggestion of the Legal Adviser of the Embassy at St. Petersburg. That question, and the answer to it, will form part of the Papers which have been sent to the Law Officers. The Papers have, I believe, been sent to them in the course of the last few minutes.

BARON HENRY DE WORMS

said, he was sorry to trouble the hon. Baro- net with another Question; but he was anxious to know whether the case was to be submitted to the Law Officers on the premise that it was necessary for Mr. Lewisohn to take out a licence as a trader in St. Petersburg? The whole case turned on that question. The Ukase distinctly stated that anybody who engaged in trade of a permanent nature in St. Petersburg must take out a licence. A similar law existed in Austria. But, of course, if the Law Officers of the Crown were to decide the case on the assumption that Mr. Lewisohn should have taken put a licence and did not do so, such decision would of necessity be incorrect and unfair to Mr. Lewisohn, as based on a wrong premise. He would say no more on this point; but he would like to point out that—[Cries of "Order ! "]—this was really a matter of the greatest importance, affecting, as it did, the liberty of the subject; and he should have thought it would have met with the approval of both sides of the House. He was unwilling to intrude himself on the House; but, if it was necessary, he must conclude with a Motion. He wished to ask the hon. Baronet, Whether the case was to be based on the premise that it was necessary that Mr. Lewisohn should take out a licence as a trader; and whether the Ukase of 1860 did not expressly state that only those persons must take out licences who intended permanently to engage in trade in the Russian Empire? That Mr. Lewisohn had no such idea was shown by previous despatches, and no such intention was ever alleged against him.

SIR CHARLES W. DILKE

Sir, the case referred to the Law Officers is not based on the condition mentioned by the hon. Member, for, if so, there would be no case to refer. The case contains the whole of the statements made by Mr. Lewisohn, all the Russian laws and ordinances bearing on the question, and the opinions of the Legal Advisers of the Embassy at St. Petersburg.

BARON HENRY DE WORMS

said, he would repeat his Question on the earliest possible opportunity. He should like to know when the Law Officers were likely to report?

SIR CHARLES W. DILKE

I cannot say, Sir; but I will inform the hon. Member when they have reported.