THE " GUARDIAN " AND THE " SPECTATOR " ON

THE RUSSIAN JEWS.

[To THE EDITOR OF THE " SPICTATOB."] SIR,—Since you have not thought it necessary to defend your- self against the Guardian's accusation of "characteristic dogma- tism," and of being a " too ready apologist" for outrages on the Jews in Russia, will you allow me to say, and to give my reasons for saying, that my complaint against you is that you have been a good deal less than just to Russia, and far too gentle to the Guardian ? Let us see how the evidence stands.

I do not possess a copy of the Guardian's first article on the subject ; but the editor has not disputed the accuracy of your ,quotations from that article, and I may therefore assume their correctness. The Guardian, then, made itself responsible for the statement that among the outrages committed in certain parts of Southern Russia " alone" were " twenty-three murders of men, women, and children, seventeen deaths caused by viola- tion, and no fewer than 225 cases of outrages on Jewesses." "It is a terrible catalogue," says the Guardian, "but one that by no means exhausts the sad picture of wretchedness." And your contemporary entered into minuter particulars. He de- clared that, in Elizabethgrad, "thirty-three Jewesses were vio- lated"; in Odessa, there were "eleven cases of violation." Nor was this by any means the worst part of the accusation. Out- breaks of popular fury may take place anywhere, and in such outbreaks deaths and outrages on the honour of women are likely enough to be among the lamentable incidents. But the Guardian not only took all the outrages for granted, without proof or inquiry, it denounced the Russian Government as parliceps scriminunt. " If the authorities did not actually order these -enormities," said the Guardian, "they encouraged them by their connivance, by their refusal to .take the most obvious measures of precaution in anticipation, and even by plain indi- .cations of sympathy with the feeling which brought them about." Among the officials who thus offended, the Guardian included the Governors of Odessa, Warsaw, Elizabethgrad, and Kieff.

When the Guardian wrote thus the only evidence in its pos- session was an anonymous and unverified narrative published in 'the Times, and avowedly compiled in England. A fortnight afterwards the Daily News published a letter of nearly three columns, in leaded type, from " An Englishman and British subject, who has resided sixteen years in Odessa." The writer of that letter declared, on his own personal knowledge as regarded Odessa, and on the knowledge of " unbiassed persons " in some 'other places, " that the narrative in the Times was largely, if not mainly, apocryphal." In regard to Odessa in particular, -the British Resident proved, by a minute examination of facts, that either the Times' narrative was a fiction, or that he himself was a deliberate liar. Did the Guardian call any attention to that letter, as at least suggesting a doubt whether the Times' narrative was quite as trustworthy as the Guardian had so hastily assumed? Nothing of the kind.

Some weeks later, the reports of the British Consuls in Russia were published. They were distributed to the press in the end of the week. All the papers of Monday morning gave a more or less full précis of their contents ; but the Guardian of Wednesday afternoon was dumb. The Spectator of the following Saturday contrasted, in mild and courteous language, the Guardian's accusations with the Consular reports. The Guardian of the following week gave extracts from the Consular reports, and explained that it had no room for them on the previous Wednesday. But had it no room for a brief reference to them in its summary of current events, or else- where ? Were not the reports of British Consuls, including military officers of distinguished careers, and eye-witnesses of what they related, at least as important and as trustworthy as the second-hand hear-say evidence of an anonymous compiler in England P It is on this state of facts that the Guardian calmly accuses the Spectator of being a " too ready apologist " for Russian atrocities, because the Spectator believed the evidence of British Consuls in preference to anonymous and irresponsible ac- cusations !

But it is time to give some reasons for my complaint that the Spectator has been less just to Russia than the evidence warrants. Any lawyer will admit that if you destroy the 'credibility of a witness on one or two cardinal points, you destroy the value of his evidence on all others. Now the narrative in the Times accused the Russian authorities of encouraging the riots. In the language of the Guardian, "They encouraged them by their connivance, by their refusal to take the most obvious measures of precaution in anticipation, and even by plain indications of a sympathy with the feeling which brought them about." Contrast with this the following samples of the evidence furnished by the Consular reports :-

On being appointed to the office of Minister of the Interior, Count Ignatieff issued a circular to the Governors of Provinces on the anti-Jewish riots. In that circular, after denouncing "the agitation against the Israelites," he says that "not only ought disorders of that kind to be severely repressed, but that, moreover, great care ought to be taken to prevent them, for the first duty of a Government is to protect its populations against every kind of violence and arbitrary savagery."

In anticipation of disturbances in the city of Kharkoff, the Acting Governor-General "addressed a proclamation to the inhabitants of that town, warning them against making dis- turbances, and pointing out to them that the Israelites are as much under the protection of the law and of the Government as other faithful subjects of his Majesty, and that their persons and property must be respected." The text of this proclamation is published in one of the Consular reports. The district of Kharkoff includes Kieff and Elizabethgrad, and Prince Mirsky was sent with special powers to protect the Jews. In the proclamation which he issued he denounces the assailants of the Jews as "enemies of the country" and " brigands." "Appointed," he says, "by his Majesty the Emperor for the preservation of order and tranquillity and the prosperity of six provinces, and invested with exceptional powers, I am determined to fulfil my mandate with energy, and to employ all the means at my disposal. The Israelites are under the protection of the law and of the Government, on a footing of equality with all other subjects of the Sovereign. Their persons and properties must be respected." He therefore threatens " measures of extreme severity, and will not shrink from employing the institution and arms of courts-martial against the disturbers of order." This was in May, 1881.

" Very strong repressive measures," says Consul Lowe, " have been taken in the disturbed villages and towns in the district of Berdiansk to quell the disturbances, and the inhabitants are mulcted in the payment of expenses for calling out the soldiers, and for damages done to, or loss of, property, which have created a rebellious feeling among them. Several ringleaders have been arrested and brought into Berdiansk in chains, some of them being of good position."

" At Mariapol, precautionary measures were taken by the authorities to preserve the peace."

"Serious riots have taken place against the Jews in Nieschin, which the troops appear to have had considerable difficulty in suppressing. They had to fire upon the mob, and several per- sons were killed and many wounded."

Consul-General Stanley, of Odessa, says of the Times' narra-

tive :—" This description [of what took place at Odessa] is so incorrect and exaggerated, and the descriptions of what took place at some other of the places mentioned so far exceed in horrors the descriptions given to me by eye-witnesses at those places, that I think very little faith can be given to any part of it, more especially to the accounts of the violations of women As to Odessa, the statement is that the Governor-General took no precautions, though informed of the probable rising The Governor-General took large precautions beforehand, col- lecting and disposing troops and police as he best could ; and he issued a proclamation warning the people against joining in any disturbances, and expressing his determination and ability to suppress them, should any occur."

These are fair samples of the British Consular evidence as to the ' connivance ' of the Russian authorities in the outrages on the Jews. It is, therefore, clear that there is deliberate and organised lying, either on the part of the British Consuls in Russia, or on the part of the fabricators of the horrors in the Times' narrative. Mistake is out of the question. But no fair-minded Englishman will believe our Consuls capable of such infamy. Therefore it follows that the Russian Jews have deliberately invented at least one large, and that the most important, class of their alleged facts. Is it safe, then, to believe their unsupported testimony (it is absolutely unsupported, and also contradicted) about outrages on women, and murders of men, women, and children ? More- over, we are told in the Consular reports that the Jews, on being cross-examined, admitted that they had deliberately told false- hoods in order to get compensation for imaginary wrongs. And Consul-General Stanley, who was an eye-witness of the riot in Odessa, says positively :—" No Jewesses were violated here, nor wftre women in any way assaulted. I have taken pains to ques- tion Jews of all classes, and none know of such a case." The only case of which the Jews. bad any cognisance occurred at Eliza- bethgrad. " Many Jews have mentioned this case to me, but none to whom I have spoken have heard of others, and they say it is incredible they should have occurred without being known to Jews throughout the land."

Yet, in presence of this overwhelming evidence, the Guardian of March 8th reasserts its :original indictment, and accuses the Spectator's article of " a characteristic dogmatism which is probably felt by this time to be premature." And why " premature ?" Because the Russian Jews have supplemented their original accusations with others, which are equally anony- mous and unauthenticated, and in which the Times' first narrative is pronounced " not exaggerated, but greatly under- rated ;" and the reports of the British Consuls are declared to be worthless, as being derived from Russian official sources ; and this in the face of Consul-General Stanley's declaration (for example) that he derived his information from his own personal observation, and from the testimony of Jews.

The misdeeds of the Russian Jeivs are, of course, no justifica- tion for outrages on them ; but their conduct is an element in the equitable consideration of the case. The Jews are, undoubtedly, a demoralising influence in Russia. The dram-shops and brothels are chiefly kept by them, and by these means they have reduced millions of the Russian peasantry to abject slavery. Their lands and labour are mortgaged to the Jews, so that in many districts, if you wish to employ the peasantry, you must apply to some Jew in the village, whose bondmen they are. The Jew tavern-keeper tempts them to drink, and not to pay ready-money. So a bill is run up, till one fine day the wretched man finds that he is no longer the proprietor of his own land, or even of the labour of himself and family ; they have become the serfs of the Jew tempter. The best class of Russian Jews themselves admit all this. One of them has written an able book on the economical condition of the Russian peasantry, and he has frankly owned that the Jews have used each successive relaxation of the laws against them to work the ruin of the simple Russian peasantry. I must not trespass any longer on your space, but I hope I have said enough to convince you that the Spectator has been really unjust to Russia on this question.