HC Deb 04 July 1911 vol 27 cc1090-9

Motion made and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."— [Mr. Gulland.]

11.0 P.M.

Mr. MORRELL

I desire on this Motion for the adjournment to call the attention of the House and of the Foreign Office to the case of Miss Malecka, a British subject who is now shut up in a prison at Warsaw. It is a case which has attracted great attention in this country, and I must say I am sorry the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Sir E. Grey) did not think it necessary to come down to the House in order to give us his views. I am glad to see my right hon. Friend the Undersecretary (Mr. McKinnon Wood) is here. The first point is as to the nationality of this lady. I assume it is now admitted by the Foreign Office that under the British law there is no question whatever as to this lady being a British subject; just as much a British subject as any Member in this House tonight. Her father was a Pole naturalised in England; her mother was an English woman. She was born at Folkestone in the year 1864, and she has lived practically all her life in England. Two years ago, after the death of her father, whom she had supported, she went abroad to Warsaw to earn her living as a teacher of music. There can be no doubt that as regards English law she is entitled to the protection which the Foreign Office can give to a British subject abroad, although I am quite aware that the Russian Government deny that she is still a British subject after she has got to Russia. That is a point I will deal with presently.

I want to say that the duty of the Foreign Office is clear in this matter. I am not claiming that any British subject is entitled to go into a foreign country and break the law with impunity. But I think we are entitled to say that a British subject ought not to be kept in prison in a foreign country without some definite charge being made against her. In the second place, if she is retained in prison until trial she should be treated in the best possible way according to the rules of the country, and full access should be given to the British Consul, the British representative, and accredited persons in order to advise her as to the course to be taken. If no definite charge can be made against Miss Malecka, the Foreign Office should use their utmost influence to secure her immediate release. That is the least we can ask for, and unless the Foreign Office is prepared to do that then British nationality abroad is a mockery; and we have no right to naturalise a foreigner as we did in the case of this lady's father. I want to ask as regards the three points I have raised, first, has a definite charge been made against this lady? We have been told vaguely that she is conspiring against the Russian Government. We have also been told, in answer to a question, that she expressed herself strongly on political matters. That is what many of us do at times. Further we have been told that she is said to be a Socialist, and a member of the Polish Socialist party. Do the Foreign Office remember that this lady has been in prison for three months, and have they yet ascertained any particulars of the charge made against her? My next point is to ask how far her friends have been allowed to communicate with her and visit her, and how far British representatives have access to her? I understand that for a long time the Russian Government absolutely refused to allow the British Consul to visit her in the prison, but I am told now that in response to representations made by the British Ambassador in St. Petersburg that refusal has been withdrawn and the British Consul has seen her. I am also told on the authority of this lady and her friends in England that even now the British Consul may only communicate with her in German, although she is an Englishwoman and he is an Englishman. They meet together in the prison, but they have still to communicate in German in order that the Russian authorities may understand what they are saying to each other. When she writes to her friends in England she has to write her letters in German in order that they may be understood by the Russian authorities. That is my information, and I shall be glad to know whether my right hon. Friend (the Under-Secretary for Foreign Affairs) can substantiate it.

Further, I should like to know, assuming that the Foreign Office have not yet obtained any particulars of the charge brought against her, what efforts have they made directly to obtain her release? I understand that they have made representations asking that her trial should be expedited. With all due deference to the Foreign Office, my own view is that the time has come to make a rather different demand from that. It is all very well to ask for a trial, but unless definite charges can be brought against a British subject I think the natural things is to ask for release. As an hon. Friend near me reminds me two others who were not British subjects, and were arrested at the same time as she was have since been released by Royal order, and therefore I should like to know whether the Foreign Office have made any demand or representations to the Russian Government for the release of this lady, of course, on condition that she should not return to Russia. In replying to a question on the 26th April the Under-Secretary for Foreign Affairs said:— According to the Consul's information she will be conducted across the frontier after the matter has been investigated, and forbidden to re-enter the country."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 26th April, 1911, vol. xxiv., col. 1774.] Therefore at that time that seemed to be the line the Foreign Office thought fit to pursue. What I want to know is whether they have done anything else or made any further representations to obtain the release of this lady, or whether they are simply asking that the matter may be brought before the courts. Here is a case it seems to me where we may fairly press now immediately for the release of a British subject.

I want to take up a moment or two in an examination of the claim that is made by the Russian authorities, that this lady is not a British subject, and that she has become a Russian by reason of the fact that she is now in Russia. I venture to say that that is a very doubtful claim, and I shall be glad to know whether the Foreign Office have yet asked for full evidence to be furnished to them upon that claim, as regards the proofs which the Russian Government bring forward for it. I suggest it is doubtful on this ground. It is quite true that if the marriage is by Russian law a valid marriage then the lady takes the nationality of her father, who under Russian law was still a Russian subject, because the father became naturalised without the permission of the Russian Government. As I understand it she may be still considered by Russian law to be a Russian subject, but that is assuming that the marriage was valid according to Russian law. The marriage was solemnised on 10th April, 1860, at St. Jude's Church, between a Russian Roman Catholic and an English Protestant. By Russian law such a marriage is not valid unless the permission of the Catholic Church or the police has been obtained.

I wish to know whether the Russian Government has satisfied the Foreign Office that such permission was obtained and the marriage is valid. If not, then the lady is not legitimate according to Russian law, and takes the nationality of her mother, and is still by Russian law a British subject. In any case, apart from these technicalities, surely the time has come when we might press the Russian Government to release the lady who can- not be a great danger to the safety of the Russian State. The relations between Russia and this country are fortunately friendly. A little while ago we entertained the Tsar at the public expense in this country. A successful effort has been made to obtain an alliance between Russia, and this country. For the sake of the relations between the two countries, is it worth the while of the Russian Government to insist on retaining this lady in prison against the feeling of the mass of the people of this country? Already she has suffered a great deal. Already we are told by her relations that her life is in danger. She herself writes that in consequence of the anxiety, the hardships she has undergone, it is very doubtful whether her health will hold out much longer. I believe if the Foreign Office really make representations to the Russian Government asking for her release, even now the Russian Government will take the course of humanity and commonsense by releasing this lady on condition that she does not again enter Russia.

Mr. NOEL BUXTON

I understand this English lady, who is very well known to a large number of people, particularly in the artistic world in London, has been in prison now for more than three months, and English opinion is rather widely aroused on the subject, and has just begun to wake up to the fact that something of a scandal is happening. It is true that opinion is aroused, but there can be no question that if Lord Palmerston were at the Foreign Office the lady would have been liberated some weeks ago. Three points have been raised by way of question and answer. There has been the question of the lady's nationality, the question of permission for the Consul to visit her, and there has been reference to the nature of her offence, and we have been told that the Consul reports that she rather rashly announced herself to be a Socialist. No doubt it was rash, but to be a Socialist and to avow that she is a Socialist is not a crime readily apprehended in this country. I think these questions are really superseded by another. The best course for the Foreign Office is to ask for the release on condition of deportation forthwith. The question is whether this is a reasonable demand by the Russian Government? I speak as a friend of the Anglo-Russian entente, and I think it is from the point of view of the interest of the entente that a very strong case can be made. We certainly ought to consider the point of view of the Russian Government, but at the same time if the entente is to be a real thing, the Russian Government is also bound to consider the point of view of the English. I wish very much that the entente should foe a real thing. From the Russian point of view there is the question of the lady's offence. We are hardly agreed with the Russian view of what a political offence is. We do not approve of a delay of three months, or it may be, as happens in many cases, three years before a prisoner is brought to trial, or knows even the charge. Thirdly, it is very well established that Russian prisons are very often in such places as in the view of Englishmen a lady ought not to be kept for a great length of time. Fourthly, there is the factor in the Russian situation which we must recognise as excusing delay, namely, the loose relations between the Russian Home Office and the local authorities. But on that point we are also naturally impatient, and I think it is only friendly and fair in the interest of the entente that the Russian Government should understand the depth and intensity of the feeling on these matters.

Our object in raising this question is to inform the Foreign Secretary of the strong feeling which has been aroused in the country. Those of us who have touched on this question in the House are getting a great quantity of correspondence from people in various parts of the country who are interested in the matter. I think we ought to say that if anything untoward were to happen, or if any great delay were to occur, the entente would be in some danger of falling into unpopularity. The entente has some enemies now, but I am not one of them. I think it is very possible that if any shocking of English opinion occurred the interests of the entente would be seriously damaged. We ought to warn the Russian Government that there might be a great outburst of feeling here—a considerable clamour for the reversal of the sentence. It is a fact that in more than one case convictions in Russian courts have been reversed at the instigation apparently of adverse opinion in this country. That is not a dignified position for the Russian Government to be placed in, but it might be placed in such a position in connection with this question. I think the only true position for a friendly Government to take up is that the Foreign Office should warn the Russian Government to that effect. Longer delay in requesting the release and deportation of the lady might lead to a great deal of trouble for both parties. I think from the point of view of the Russian constitutional democrats—a party with great influence in the Duma—it is very desirable indeed that the case should be settled as soon as possible, and that English opinion should not be aroused in a hostile sense. On these grounds I desire to support my hon. Friend in asking that the Foreign Office might busy itself to obtain the release and deportation of the English lady who is imprisoned at Warsaw, and in doing so I do so with the desire not of complaining or making an unreasonable demand, but in order to strengthen the hands of the Foreign Office in urging upon the Russian Government what is really true to the interests of the Anglo-Russian entente.

Sir WILLIAM BYLES

I should like to associate myself with what my hon. Friends have said. I asked a question on this subject yesterday, and in answer I was informed that this lady was travelling under a British passport. A British passport is a very solemn document, and involves a duty upon the Government of this country, and I think that the Foreign Office should treat this matter seriously and vigorously. It is not a thing to be regretted that the British House of Commons should stand up in defence of British subjects, and this lady travelling under a British passport is entitled to all the protection which she can get from the Government.

Mr. WATSON RUTHERFORD

I want to ask one question. If this lady is a British subject, what is the use of the Foreign Office?

The UNDER-SECRETARY for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. McKinnon Wood)

I do not understand the point of the hon. Gentleman's question. I think it is a question without a point. Does the hon. Member suggest that a British subject can go into a foreign country, and, as you must assume for the moment, though I do not want to assume it as a fact, break the laws of that country in the eyes of the authorities of that country, and that the Foreign Office must demand her release? Because if he does not mean that there is no point in his observation. [An HON. MEMBER: "Has she been tried?"] The position is this, that this lady travelling under a British passport, as the hon. Member says, is according to the contention of the British Government a British subject, because her father was a naturalised Englishman, and she was born in this country. But the House is well aware that our views on naturalisation are not the views of all foreign countries. For instance, our views on naturalisation do not obtain in France or Russia. The question is whether she is in the eyes of the Russian Government properly considered as a Russian subject. It is not a very simple question, and I should like to tell the House—I think it is the only bit of new information I have got to give—that our Embassy has taken up this matter with great energy, and is obtaining the opinion of Russian lawyers on the question as to whether the Russian authorities are right in regarding her as a Russian subject. We have not got the opinion yet. When that opinion comes it will be our business to consider what is the right thing to be done. Even then it is not at all a clear matter. I think every Member of this House will realise if he considers the matter closely that it is not a clear thing that we have the right to demand the release of a British subject accused of what the Russian authorities regard as a serious offence simply because she is a British subject.

Mr. WATSON RUTHERFORD

What about the trial?

Mr. McKINNON WOOD

Will the hon. Member say that the time which has elapsed is very much greater than the time that has elapsed sometimes even in this country? The Russian Government have not met us in an unfriendly spirit. While maintaining that she is a Russian subject they have allowed as a matter of goodwill to this country our Consul at Warsaw, who has dealt also with great energy with this case, to visit Miss Malecka. Her friends are allowed to assist her, and to supply her with necessities. There is no ground for saying that the Russian Government has not treated us in a friendly way, or treated this matter in a harsh way. The only point made by my hon. Friend was that we ought to demand her release.

Mr. MORRELL

No charge is brought against her.

Mr. McKINNON WOOD

A charge is brought against her. The Russian Government bring a very serious charge. It is not my business to say whether the charge is justified or not. The charge is one of conspiring against the State.

Mr. MacVEAGH

Has she been told?

Mr. McKINNON WOOD

Of course she has been told. She is allowed to correspond with her friends, and to converse with our Consul. I am not acquainted with, and it is no part of my duty to be acquainted with prison practice in that country, but I understand that if a visitor is allowed to see a prisoner a gaoler is present. The prison authorities are supposed to know what goes on. I do not know that that is a very great hardship, or anything on which to make a very serious charge against the Russian Government.

Mr. WATSON RUTHERFORD

The charge is against you, and not against the Russian authorities.

Mr. McKINNON WOOD

There is no charge against us—no charge that any reasonable man could bring against us. Here is a lady rightly or wrongly charged with a very grave offence. If she were a British subject we could not demand her release. What should we say to the Russian Government if it demanded the release of a Russian prisoner charged with a serious offence in this country. My hon. Friend is unreasonable in his accusation against the foreigner.

Mr. MORRELL

Why do they not bring her to trial?

Mr. McKINNON WOOD

It was only yesterday I replied that our representations that this lady should be brought to trial had been answered by the Russian acting Minister for Foreign Affairs, who promised to do his best to see that this should be done. What more can we reasonably ask for? Really to hear hon. Members talk you would imagine that whenever anyone who claims to be a British subject, whether the claim is allowed by the foreign Government or not, we ought to demand from the Russian Government, or the Government concerned, that the prisoner should be released and deported. [An HON. MEMBER: "NO."] I beg pardon, the hon. Member who moved the Motion, and the hon. Member who seconded it, both asked that in view of the entente we ought to demand from the Russian Government the release of this lady on the condition that she should be deported. We have asked that the trial shall come on within a reasonable time. What more can the British Government do? We have raised the question as to whether she is a British subject. We have taken every step possible to get the question settled by-taking legal opinion, and we have acted on the advice of the British Embassy, and of those acquainted with the Russian law. That opinion is on its way, and I cannot say anything about it. We also proposed that the lady should be brought to trial within a reasonable time.

And, it being half-past Eleven of the clock, Mr. Speaker adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned at Half after Eleven o'clock.