1

Russia than has Great Britain. The fact already quoted, moreover, viz., that the value of British imports into Russia increased in 1910 by no less than one and a half million pounds sterling proves that the Russian customs tariff is far from being prohibitive to British goods.

None the less, Englishmen often indulge in grumbling at the system of protection by a customs tariff which is in force in Russia and which they consider unfair from the point of view of English Free Trade and of international reciprocity. Are these complaints well founded? Out of the total area of the British Empire of nearly 11,400,000 square miles, with a population of 410,000,000, only England, Wales, Scotland, Ireland, the Isle of Man, and the Channel Islands, comprising an area of not more than 121,000 square miles, with a population of 44,100,000, observe Free Trade, or what is called by that name, while the rest of the British Empire adheres to a system of customs tariffs of which many are avowedly protective. In other words, only one per cent. of the area of the British Empire, and only 107 per cent. of her population, admit the importation of goods on the principle of Free Trade.

Let us now see what, in practical international intercourse, the application of Free Trade in Great Britain means in comparison with the strongly denounced enforcement of a protective tariff in Russia. It is a well-known fact that in Great Britain the annual amount of customs duties levied on the importation of goods exceeds very considerably that levied in Russia. Moreover, the customs duty annually levied in Great Britain constitutes a much larger proportion of the total State revenue than it does in Russia. Thus free-trading Great Britain relies for its revenue on the proceeds of the customs to a much larger extent, both absolutely and relatively, than does protective Russia. English Free Traders would probably meet this statement by pointing out that the raison d'être of the customs duties in Great Britain is of a purely fiscal, and not of a protective nature. Russian exporters of goods to Great Britain can, therefore, they would argue, have no cause for complaint. It is, however, difficult to see how a Russian merchant who pays the duty on the goods he imports into Great Britain can find consolation in whatever motive the British authorities may have in levying such duty. He would hardly be ready to admit that it makes any difference to him whether the duty he pays is levied for fiscal or protective purposes. He might even have very grave doubts as to the fiscal nature of the British customs duties on alcoholic beverages, tobacco, sugar, &c., which, to his mind, are of a pronouncedly protective nature. It appears, therefore, that from a practical business point of

view the methods of the English and Russian Governments in dealing with international commerce are not very much at variance, and that Englishmen have little or nothing to complain of in the way that they are treated in Russia.

But what about the "iniquitous" passport system, the "outrageous" tax that has to be paid by commercial travellers for being allowed to do business, and the other peculiarities of Russian State rule which are not relished by Englishmen? The other day a well-intentioned but rather too outspoken Englishman, when paying the fee of 4s. 10d. for the consular visa of his passport, declared that such a charge was "robbery."

There is a Russian proverb that says, "You cannot enforce your own rule when entering a strange monastery." In England, as well as in Russia, there is a type of narrow-minded people whose discontent is aroused as soon as they find in a foreign country that its laws and customs differ from those that they are accustomed to. These differences are then put under a magnifying glass, and are spoken of as instances of gross injustice. It must, however, be admitted by everybody that each independent State has the right to have its own laws, to which foreigners, when sojourning in the territory of that State, must submit. But apart from this generally recognised principle, the passport system in Russia, and the particular taxes to be paid there, can hardly be considered as hampering Anglo-Russian intercourse. If it were so, the number of Englishmen who travel there would not steadily increase as it does, and there would not be the present continuous advance in business relations between the two countries. After all, taxation in Russia is small in comparison with that levied on his fellow-citizens, save those of the privileged labouring classes, by Mr. Lloyd George.

I cannot leave my subject without uttering a warning against a danger to Anglo-Russian progress. I refer to the propaganda carried on by Russian Jews in Great Britain and directed against Russia. These people indulge the morbid taste of certain classes of the British public for sensational accounts of crime, misgovernment, and all sorts of horrors in Russia, and exert themselves to spread false information about Russia for the purpose of arousing in the British public distrust, ill-feeling, and antipathy against that country. For instance, it is alleged that Englishmen are debarred from sending to Russia their most capable and trusted business representatives if these happen to be of the Jewish faith, that the Jews in Russia are hampered and persecuted at every step and indeed are not allowed to do business at all outside the "pale" or in "villages." In the face of such allegations it may be stated that the Russian Government places no

obstacle in the way of the entry of Jewish business representatives of foreign commercial and industrial houses into Russia. Their passports are provided with a visa by Russian State consular officers under the same regulations as the passports of Christians, and, in both cases, the visa is valid for six months.

The alleged "persecution" of the Jews in Russia deserves even more careful examination in the light of facts.

England is justly proud of her tradition of having been from time immemorial an asylum for political and religious refugees, but those Jews who nowadays emigrate from Russia to England have no cause to appeal to such noble tradition. It is true that some of them have fled to England as the result of a pogrom, that is to say, a riotous outburst of popular anger against their nefarious practices and peculiar habits, but since Great Britain has had her own genuine Jewish pogrom in Wales, brought about by identically the same causes which produced such regrettable excesses in Russia, it is really useless for Jews to come to this country to avoid them. If some of the Russian Jews emigrate to Great Britain, it is generally the result of their extravagance in producing an excessive and ever-increasing number of offspring, who cannot find adequate means of subsistence at home and are therefore compelled to seek a livelihood in other countries where Jews are not so numerous. The rate of increase of the Jewish population in Russia is nearly double that of the Russian population taken as a whole (2.5 per cent. against 1.5 per cent.).1 Of all the States of the world Russia has, both relatively and absolutely, by far the largest number of Jews. Their number in Russia amounts to the appalling figures of 6,000,000, forming not less than 42 per cent. of the total population of the country. In Great Britain and Ireland the Jewish community numbers not more than 180,000, forming only per cent. of the total population. Moreover, the special influence which the Jews in Russia exercise on the State is rendered more serious by the fact that they are not found except in inconsiderable numbers among what is the largest section of the population-the peasantry—and that they evade, as far as possible, military service. They feel themselves to be foreigners among the population of the land in which they dwell and strangers to its national aims, and they have but one leading idea, to thrive for their own narrow tribal purposes while at the same time benefiting by the existence of the State and social order which have been built up by the labour and blood of other races. In England these well-known characteristics of the Jews are much less apparent owing to their small

(1) A. P. Liprandi, Equality of Rights and the Jewish Question, in the Russian language. Charkoff, 1911, p. 96.

numbers, but nevertheless this country has already deemed it advisable to restrict the tide of Jewish immigration by the Aliens Act of 1905, which, in its practical effect, is chiefly directed against Israelites.

It is true that Jews in Russia do not enjoy all the rights which belong to Christians, and that their position is far from being as easy as it is in England; their activity is restrained in Russia by the law and by administrative measures, but this does not mean that they are under the ban of political or religious persecution. There are many States where an absolute equality of the different races which form their population does not exist. For instance, in France and its Colonies persons who do not belong to European races are restricted in their rights as compared with Frenchmen. In North America, the Indians and Negroes are not looked upon as the equals of white men. India and other Colonies of the British Empire also exhibit instances of inequality in the rights of the different races which compose their population. In Germany the Jews are de facto not eligible for every kind of employment. Russia is therefore not the only country where differences exist in the rights of subjects of different races. Moreover, it is important to note that in Russia the differences in the rights of Jews, as compared with those of Christians, have not been imposed upon the former as exceptional measures, but are merely the result of the growth of the Russian Empire, and are maintained to the present day as an act of necessary selfdefence. If Russia were to give to the Jews all the rights which are enjoyed by her other subjects, she would expose the most numerous class of her population, the millions of good-natured, easy-going, unsuspecting, and hard-working peasants, to a merciless exploitation and subjugation by the Jews. It is precisely for these reasons that the majority of the Jews in Russia are kept within certain territorial limits and are not allowed to wander all over the Empire. This restriction does not, however, apply to those Jews who are merchants of the first guild, i.e., who are not small traders, nor to persons employed by them, nor to artisans, graduates, or undergraduates preparing for their examinations; professional persons, such as doctors, lawyers, and dentists; and such persons as chemists, assistants of chemists, midwives, and so forth. In the case of all those Jews who can prove that they are engaged in useful and self-supporting occupations, no limitation exists to their rights of settling in whatever part of the Empire they may choose. Jews may be members of the Duma for any constituency in Russia. Only the unproductive classes, the host of middlemen of all kinds and those persons who

have not qualified for a particular trade recognised by law, are confined to certain territorial limits.

These limits are often described as comprising only a small stretch of land, where the Jews are crowded together and have no possibility of earning an honest livelihood. Let us see if this is really the case.

Since the time of Vladimir Monomach, Jews have been forbidden to enter Russian territory, but they were allowed to settle in the kingdoms of Poland and Lithuania. It was only on the incorporation of these States into her dominions that Russia in the seventeenth century acquired a large number of Jewish subjects. They were allowed to remain where they were, but they did not obtain the right to enter Russia proper. Since that time the limits of the territory open to them has been steadily increased.

This territory comprises at present twenty-six provinces, with an area of 896,000 square versts (one square verst=044 of a square mile), a territory which surpasses in size the largest States in Western Europe; it is double the size of both France and Germany, one and a half times larger than Austria-Hungary, and two and a half times the size of Great Britain. It can therefore hardly be said that the Jews in Russia are crowded together. Within the same territorial limits dwell 44,000,000 Christians, a number eight times as large as that of the Jews, without suffering from any congestion.

The Jews in Russia have in course of time obtained more and more ample rights, and their present position will certainly continue to improve provided they refrain from revolutionary propaganda, and that they identify themselves with the interests of the Russian State as a whole. The only possible solution of the so-called Jewish question in Russia is that the Jews should make, wholeheartedly, common cause with the rest of the population of the Empire. If they do this the last trace of the restrictions on their rights as compared with those of Christians is bound to disappear automatically.

In any event, the controversial question of the way a State should manage its Jewish subjects must not stand between Russia and Great Britain. The two great Empires have to do with each other as a whole. British and Russian State interests in the domains of international politics and commerce must not depend on any questions whatever of home policy. Other issues are at stake, other aims are in view. Mutual interference in the domestic affairs of the two nations, whether it be with a view of benefiting the cause of the Jews or for some other reason, is entirely outside the scope of Anglo-Russian progress.

A. HEYKING.