§ THE DUKE OF SOMERSETasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, If he has any recent information relating to the treatment of the Jews in Russia which he could give to the House? The noble Duke remarked that the whole country had regarded with horror the reports of the outrages committed on Russian Jews. It seemed almost that one of the worst phases of mediaeval times had been revived. He should like particularly to be informed whether the Secretary of State could say that the officers of the Russian Government had endeavoured to prevent those outrages, or, as was reported, had looked upon the perpetration of those barbarities by Christians upon Jews with indifference, and whether the Provincial Governors had not interfered to stop them? He did not ask the Foreign Secretary to interfere in the internal affairs of an independent Power by any remonstrance, which he believed would be prejudicial 226 to the merciful result which was desired; he therefore limited his Question to obtaining information on this painful subject.
§ EARL GRANVILLEMy Lords, in answer to the Question of the noble Duke, I must say that I feel a sense of responsibility which does not attach to those who are not in Office. I am perfectly aware of—and I am not surprised at—the public manifestations which have taken place in this country on the subject referred to. It is our custom to speak with freedom on all subjects. Count Montalembert said we were the only nation who laid ourselves on the surgeon's table and dissected ourselves before the whole world. If we thus speak of our own misfortunes and our own faults, it is not to be expected that silence will be observed with regard to things in any part of the globe that stir the feelings of the community. I have not had time to read all the speeches which have been delivered at the numerous meetings in this country; but I certainly did read and noted with respect to the remarkable meeting at the Mansion House that, while the speakers—eminent men—spoke with the greatest indignation of the persecutors and the greatest sympathy with the sufferers, yet all seemed to desire to avoid saying anything which could give just umbrage either to the Emperor of Russia or to the people of that country. My Lords, I venture to claim for my Colleagues and myself that we are not less sensitive to oppression or cruelty anywhere than any other persons in this country; and I think it may be conceded that we are not likely to be less so with regard to that industrious, that orderly, and that highly intellectual race who profess the Hebrew faith. For years we struggled to obtain for them equal political privileges with their Christian fellow-subjects. We succeeded practically, as far as the House of Commons was concerned, although the House of Lords has not yet decided to remove what appears to me to be a relic of illiberality and intolerance. But as to any intervention with an independent foreign Government in our official capacity, the reasons against it seem to me to be conclusive. This country has always resented, and I hope will continue to do so, the slightest interference on the part of foreign Governments in our internal affairs. During my first short 227 tenure of the Foreign Office, I took the very unusual and, I believe, discourteous step of returning two Notes to the Austrian Government without any answer, on the subject of harbouring rebels in this country, the Notes having been transmitted to Her Majesty's Government by Prince Schwarzenberg; and if we apply this rule to ourselves, it is perfectly impossible to apply another rule to other countries; and, even putting aside the question of right, I believe that nothing would be more inexpedient than to do so. We should either irritate the foreign Governments or weaken them with regard to their own subjects in dealing with the question. It has been strongly suggested, by some who acknowledge that diplomatic interference would be a mistake, that we should privately and confidentially use our influence on this point. Now, I imagine that no person placed in the position which I happen to occupy would not avail himself of any proper opportunity, when it was likely to have effect, to refer in an unofficial manner to any subject that affects the good of humanity or the friendly relations between the two countries, although the question might not be properly one for diplomatic interference. But I beg to point out that if such a Minister were either to boast he had done so, or publicly promise he would do so, it would at once entirely change the character of unofficial and private communications, which sometimes, though not always, may be of the greatest value. I am, therefore, not prepared to make such a declaration as has been suggested, and I believe that to do so would be hurtful to the object which I have as much at heart as the noble Duke. With regard to the information for which the noble Duke asks, it must be remembered that we have no right and no means of instituting anything like a searching or judicial inquiry into these matters; but our Consuls report to us, as it is their duty to do, the facts, so far as they come to their knowledge, with reference to this and any other occurrences of importance. My Lords, I think it is better for me not to give a long statement of my own opinion as to the result of these Exports. I feel that I have no right, and I certainly have no wish, to withhold any information which Her Majesty's Government have received; and I therefore have the honour 228 of laying on your Lordships' Table the Consular Correspondence connected with these outrages.
THE MAEQUESS OF SALISBURYIn all we say on this subject there is but one object which everyone will have in view, and that is that no words uttered in this country shall have any tendency to increase the terrible sufferings which have aroused our sympathy, and which we all so deeply deplore; but rather that whatever is said or done here should tend to diminish them. Speaking strictly from that point of view, I am not surprised at the conciseness with which the noble Earl has replied to the Question or at the reticence which he has observed. I confess I could have wished he would have shown some other mode of reticence than that of diverting the discussion to the question of the Parliamentary Oath of this country; and I do not think it was necessary to advertise his own discourtesy to the Government of Austria.
§ EARL GRANVILLEMay I interrupt the noble Marquess to apologize to the House for having made a mistake? I was not aware of it; but, to my great satisfaction, I learn that there is no law prohibiting Jews sitting here, so that we are no longer exposed to the reproach which I indirectly threw on the House.
§ THE MARQUESS or SALISBURYThat was my suspicion at the time; but I did not like to interrupt the noble Earl; and, at all events, it rather heightens the irrelevancy of the allusion. I wish also he had abstained from advertising what he was pleased to call his own discourtesy to the Government of Austria, for that is a matter in respect of which the reputation of Her Majesty's Government does not require to be heightened. I quite concur with the noble Earl that official representations and even unofficial representations in matters of this kind are of very doubtful utility. I believe they are of doubtful utility in the case of Governments much less strong and independent than that of Russia. In fact, four or five years ago, when we were keenly pressed to make representations to another Government guilty of considerable cruelty, we had experience of the inefficacy of the kind of diplomatic action to which we were urged by those then in Opposition. The truth is, with respect to Russia we 229 have had experience in these matters before. Nearly 20 years ago, Lord Russell tried to interfere on behalf of the Poles, who were suffering under great oppression. On that occasion our interference was not diplomatically without justification, because a clause in the Treaty of Vienna undoubtedly gave us a locus standi for remonstrance. Yet it is well within the recollection of the House, whether we were justified or not justified, that our interference brought no mitigation of the sufferings of the unhappy inhabitants of Poland. If in the discussion of this subject or at any meeting those who represent in this country the political Party to which I belong have thought it, on the whole, better not to make a prominent appearance, it is because we have been actuated by much the same feelings as those which guide the noble Earl. We were afraid that the motive for our interference might be mistaken, and that this, which is a question of pure humanity, might be mixed up with others which are purely political questions; and we thought it better, on the whole, that the voice of the people of England should be heard in some less official form than, it can receive within the walls of this building. We felt that the more voluntary and the less official it is the more likely it is to have influence upon those who govern in Russia, and the more likely it is to have the effect which it is our great object to attain, which is that of alleviating the sufferings of those on whose behalf our sympathies are enlisted.
§ THE EARL OF SHAFTESBURYThe noble Earl is, I think, perfectly right in what he has said, and that it is judicious for him in his position not to say more. I was the mover of the first Resolution at the Mansion House meeting; and I said, as regarded any interference on the part of the Government, I doubted whether it was possible for us to do much more than exercise our moral influence. I recognized the difference between expression of opinion on the part of the people and representations by official persons. But with regard to facts which are notorious and which appeal to the common feelings of humanity, private individuals, even in this House, are not only justified in expressing their opinions, but are called upon to express them. While official 230 interference might not only be unwise, but might injure the cause we have at heart, great good may follow the few words spoken this night by both the noble Earl and the noble Marquess. The very silence of your Lordships is more condemnatory than the strongest language. The people will be glad to hear that their Leaders in this House unite with them in the expression of their sympathy. The Hebrew race will feel great satisfaction at what has taken place to-night. Although the noble Earl or the noble Marquess may not say it, I may say that it is the feeling of the whole world—you have it in what has reached us from America and from all parts of the United Kingdom—that the events which have occurred in Russia have brought lasting shame on the Christianity and the civilization of the 19th century.
§ EARL GRANVILLEI trust your Lordships will allow the irregularity of my speaking a second time, as I wish to make a personal explanation. The noble Marquess opposite seems to be convinced that I am burning with hatred of Austria; whereas, in point of fact, my feelings for Austria are of the most friendly and cordial character. With regard to the historical fact which I mentioned, I desire to point out that it is no recent occurrence, having taken place 30 years ago.
§ THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYI never had any suspicion that the noble Earl had any hostility to Austria.. What I said was that the Government of which he is a Member had a reputation in that respect which his words might tend to heighten.