HC Deb 19 May 1881 vol 261 cc803-6
BARON HENRY DE WORMS

asked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether, with reference to a statement that Her Majesty's Government had received no invitation from Foreign Governments to interfere in the question of the outrages committed on the Jews in Russia, it is the present policy of Her Majesty's Government not to remonstrate in cases of oppression of Jews in Foreign Countries, except on receiving an invitation from another power to do so; and, whether it is not the fact that since the year 1869 representations have been repeatedly made by Her Majesty's Government, without waiting for such invitation, on behalf of oppressed Jews in Roumania, Servia, Morocco, Tunis, Tripoli, and Persia?

SIR CHARLES W. DILKE

Sir, the principal consideration which would regulate the action of Her Majesty's Government would be that of whether interference on their part would be likely to be efficacious; and, in answer to the next Question, I fear that I may have to show that it is not probable that that would be the case in the present instance.

BARON HENRY DE WORMS

asked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, What is the Russian Law which, as stated by him in the House on Monday last, forbids Foreign Jews to remain in St. Petersburg; whether he will obtain a copy of such Law through Her Majesty's Ambassador in the Russian capital, and lay it upon the Table of the House; if such Law is enforced by the Russian Government, whether he can explain why the Russian Consul General in London viséd the passport of Mr. Lewisohn, a British subject of the Jewish faith; and, whether public notice will be given in the "London Gazette" that Jews who are British subjects of Her Majesty are not allowed to visit or remain in the Russian Empire, but are liable to be expelled at a day's notice, by the Russian Police, even when provided with a duly viséd British passport?

SIR CHARLES W. DILKE

Sir, the laws referred to are couched in the following terms:— Jews who come to Russia on business can remain for one year in those places where Jews are allowed to settle. Then here follows a long list of the governments in which they may settle, one of which is St. Petersburg:— Jews who are foreign subjects arriving in Russia from abroad, who have come on business or for the purpose of extending their business transactions, are allowed to carry on business and to open banks in Russia, provided they obtain a special permission to trade as members of the first guild, issued by the Ministers of Finance, of the Interior, and of Foreign Affairs, to be specially applied for in each ease. Combined complaints have been addressed by the Governments of Germany, Austria, and the United States, as well as by Her Majesty's Government in Mr. Lewisohn's case, against the harsh treatment of their subjects under the provisions of these laws, and the United States Congress requested the Executive "to take immediate action to have the Treaties so amended as to remedy the Jewish grievance in Russia." The Government of the United States, which had always been on peculiarly friendly terms with that of Russia, protested, in 1880, against the expulsion from St. Petersburg, under circumstances of peculiar hardship, of an American citizen of Jewish faith; but neither in this case nor in that of another American expelled under circumstances exactly similar to those in Mr. Lewisohn's case, were they able to obtain redress. I may add that more than a year ago all foreign Jews were ordered at once to leave St. Petersburg and certain other large towns by order of General Loris Melikoff. With regard to the visa given by the Russian Consulate-General in London, it may have been given in ignorance of Mr. Lewisohn's faith, or under the impression that he was proceeding to Russia, and not specially to the Government of St. Petersburg. With regard to the public notice which the hon. Member suggests, perhaps the publicity given by this reply will meet the requirements of the case.

BARON HENRY DE WORMS

Is it to be understood that, in the case of Governments of importance like Russia, Her Majesty's Government do not intend to protest in cases of oppression, but that their protests are only to be directed against weak Governments?

SIR CHARLES W. DILKE

Sir, the Government has not come to any conclusion as to addressing any protest to Russia in this matter. The essential consideration in these matters is whether any protest is likely to be of use, and have shown that in the cases of the protests of the United States, Germany, and Austria no good has come. But I may say that we have protested strongly with regard to the case of Mr. Lewisohn.

SIR H. DRUMMOND WOLFF

The Question of my hon. Friend refers to the persecution generally, and not to the second question. Will the Government protest on this question?

SIR CHARLES W. DUKE

Sir, I have said that the Government have not come to any final determination, but that the essential consideration is whe- ther representations will be efficacious; and, frequent representations having been made in vain, I fear a protest would not be efficacious.

MR. J. COWEN

wanted to know how the Government could tell whether their representations would be efficacious or not? The present Government was a special friend of Russia.