Sir,—The Duke of Westminster is perfectly right in saying that I did not object to the 1876 meeting at St. James’s-hall, over which he presided, and which was organised by Mr. Gladstone and his party. I did more than “not object.” I willingly admit that the next time I saw the Duke I expressed to him, as well as to Mr. John Bright, to Mr. W. Forster, and to the other conveners of that meeting when they called upon me, my deep gratitude for the part they played on that occasion. I could not have done less. A few months before I had lost my deeply-loved brother, Nicolas Kireeff, who lived, fought, and died for the Christian cause, as the first Russian volunteer to the Balkans. That meeting, whilst one of the noblest, was, at the same time, one of the wisest steps that could have been taken by the English Liberals. For, of course, Mr. Gladstone and his followers, in raising their protest against Lord Beaconsfield’s anti-Christian policy, did so for the honour of their own country, in necessary recognition of agreements, conventions, and treaties, uniting England to the “Sick Man,” rendering the former responsible for the latter’s performance of promised reforms. Gratitude and satisfaction would be equally the feeling of Russians if England were to be now organising meetings to compel her own Government to interfere on account of the unfortunate Armenians, whose welfare was guaranteed by Great Britain at the Berlin Congress. Meetings of this kind, with the object of fulfilling a clearly designated duty, admitted in the face of Europe, could only evoke feelings of sympathy and respect.

I am at a loss to understand what the Duke of Westminster means by my “antecedents and my known sympathies with the most odious form of persecution.” My sympathies manifested themselves in 1876 when I, with my friends, worked for the Red Cross Society. When my brother was killed I tried to the utmost of my ability to serve the cause for which he so gloriously died, in front of a small, poorly-armed detachment, which was surrounded by an overwhelming force of Turkish troops. He having been devoted to the national and Slavonic cause, as is also my other brother, Alexander Kireeff, I endeavoured to acquaint the English public with the views, the aims, and the sympathies of our doctrine. The close union of orthodoxy, autocracy, and nationalism forms the basis of the: so-called Slavophile creed, referred to with some sarcasm by Mr. Joseph. It is simply hopeless for me to enter into a detailed polemic with that gentleman, even supposing that my letters were all accepted by The Times, which I could not expect, as he bases all his knowledge of Russia on the tissue of absurd inventions published in one of your monthly reviews, which no Russian could have patience to read, and which could only be tolerated in England, where no story seems too grotesque to be rejected. If one of those Nihilist murderers, who seem so popular in England, were to write that all Russian husbands kill their wives and all Russian mothers eat their children, I make no doubt such interesting statements would be published with avidity, and would, perhaps, necessitate other meetings at Guildhall.

The real difficulty (though I must thank you, Sir, for the present exception) is to introduce into the English Press a word of truth about Russia, and any correspondent, be he English or Russian, plucky enough to commit that indiscretion is, my experience shows me, liable to dismissal.

This happened to one of my English friends not very long ago. He called on me one day in St. Petersburg, looking rather sorrowful. “Do you know, I think, unless I invent some horrors about Russia, I shall have to give up my post,” said he. A short time after he was recalled. Nothing pays worse than the truth about Russia. Some 60 years ago the fashion in England was to denounce French imaginary misdeeds. Let us hope that Russia may also get fairplay here some 60 years hence.

The Duke of Westminster finds Mr. Joseph’s letter “unanswerable,” and in that I agree with him, so far as it is based upon sensational canards. I am quite willing to trust Mr. Joseph to the extent of his own experience. Speaking of the Jewish children who come over here, he assures us that “After a few months, sometimes even weeks, they practically become English children,” and that “the Jews here become soon Anglicized.” Well, this only shows that England has no cause to fear the threatened influx of more Jews. Besides, nobody can deny that a Jewish workman is cheaper and less exacting than an English workman. In Russia it certainly takes more than that time to acclimatize Jews. Moreover, the Russian workman sometimes is even cheaper than the Jew. Therefore, although they may be useful here, they, unfortunately, are seldom so with us. As moneylenders they are simply fatal; and there is another peculiarity in Russian Talmudists, which to a military country like Russia, is to the last degree antipathetic—viz., their dread of military service. Incredible numbers either desert or mutilate themselves to avoid enlistment. In giving the immigration returns at the London docks last week I quoted my authority.

I do not know the Jewish daily Prayer Book, which the Duke of Westminster had before him whilst writing his reply to me. The lex talionis is no invention of mine. It permeates all the Old Testament:—“Eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot. Burning for burning, wound for wound, strife for strife.” (Exodus, xxi., 24, 25.) Then, again:—“And thine eye shall not pity, but life shall go for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot” (Deuteronomy, xix., 21), &c. “A doctrine like this needed the coming of Jesus Christ himself in order to be reversed, as it is by Christianity.”

I know still less about the uniformity of Jewish rituals. According to Allioli’s “Handbuch der Biblischen Alterthumskunde,’’ “It is only amongst European Jews that the Rabbi Gerschon Ben Yehuda had introduced monogamy. In the East polygamy is frequent amongst their race even now.” Thus it seems there must be a very important dissemblance, indeed, amongst the 12 tribes. The law does not abolish polygamy even now.

The Duke of Westminster says that Lord Beaconsfield was never brought up in the faith in which he was born. But I referred less to his actual baptism than to his professed sympathies, which obviously inclined towards the Christian Church, without which he could not at that time have obtained access to English political life. Whether England may soon be governed by a Talmudist Prime minister, or how far that might be desirable, is a question of which the English people are the only judges, and upon which I venture no opinion.

Referring to the Guildhall meeting, I must say again that it cannot bring the results expected from it by the Lord Mayor and his party. The agitation of the Jewish Press, with all its unscrupulous legends and calumnies, has made Russia very indifferent to oratorical displays. I repeat that a great military Power, having at her disposal an army of two millions of well-disciplined and drilled soldiers, whom no European country dares to attack single-handed, can face calmly, and even good-humouredly, both the wild attacks of unscrupulous publicists and mistaken protests of philanthropic meetings, though these be as imposing and brilliant as the Lord Mayor’s Show itself.

OLGA NOVIKOFF.

Claridge’s Hotel, Brook-street, Dec. 7.