[Footnote 1:  The author of these articles was Joseph Jacobs who afterwards settled in New York, where he died in 1916.]

Russian diplomacy was greatly disconcerted by the growth of this anti-Russian agitation in a country, whose Government, headed at that time by Gladstone, endeavored to maintain friendly relations with Russia.  The organ of the Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs, the Journal de St. Petersbourg, published two articles, attempting to refute the most revolting facts contained in the articles of the Times; it denied that there had been cases of rape, and asserted that “murders were exceedingly rare.” [1] The official organ further stated that “the Government has already begun, to consider new legislative measures concerning the Jews,” without mentioning, however, that these “measures” were of a repressive character.  The mouthpiece of Russian diplomacy asked In an irritated tone whether the pro-Jewish agitators wished “to sow discord between the Russian and the English people” and spoil the friendly relations between these two Powers which Gladstone’s Government had established, reversing the contrary policy of Beaconsfield.

[Footnote 1:  It is true that the account in the Times contained a few exaggerations as far as the number of victims and the dimensions of the catastrophe in general are concerned, but the picture as a whole was entirely in keeping with the facts, and the cases of murder and rape, as, for instance, in Kiev, were, on the whole, stated correctly.]

However, these diplomatic polemics were unable to restrain the English political leaders from proceeding with the arrangements for the projected demonstrations.  After a whole series of protest meetings in various cities of England, a large mass meeting was called at the Mansion House in London, [1] under the chairmanship of the Lord Mayor.  The elite of England was represented at the meeting, including Members of Parliament, dignitaries of the Church, the titled aristocracy, and men of learning, A number of prominent persons who were unable to be present sent letters expressing their warm sympathy with the aims of the gathering; among them were Tennyson, Sir John Lubbock, and others.

[Footnote 1:  On February 1, 1882.]

The first speaker, the Earl of Shaftesbury, pointed out that the English people did not wish to meddle in the inner affairs of Russia, but desired to influence it by “moral weapons,” in the name of the principle of the “solidarity of nations.”  The official denials of the atrocities he brushed aside with the remark that, if but a tenth part of the reports were true, “it is sufficient to draw down the indignation of the world.”  It was necessary, in the opinion of Shaftesbury, to appeal directly to the Tzar and ask him “to be a Cyrus to the Jews, and not an Antiochus Epiphanes.”

The Bishop of London, speaking in the absence of the Archbishop of Canterbury, the Primate of the Anglican Church, reminded his audience that only several years previously England had been horrified by the outrages perpetrated by the Turkish Bashi-buzuks[1] upon the Bulgars, who were then defended by Russia, and it had now a right to protest against Christian Russia as it had formerly done against Mohammedan Turkey.