British Court Bars Deportation of Refugees; Times Urges Aid to Exiles

“It is not the policy of this country to recommend deportation of Jews to Germany,” a police court magistrate commented here today in ordering further investigation of an Austrian-Jewish defendant who was charged with entering the country illegally. Detectives informed the court that Germany would accept the defendant and urged his deportation as a deterrent to others.

The Times editorially supported a statement by the British Trades Union Congress protesting against allegations that admission of refugees would complicate the unemployment situation in Great Britain.

“It is a tribute to the good sense and humanity of a body whose main duty it is to safeguard the employment and chances of employment of British trade unionists that they have given short shrift to that mischievous illusion,” The Times said. “In fact, since the beginning of last July only 4,547 adults and 3,003 children have been admitted from Germany and Austria. There is no question of allowing permanent settlement here of the vast numbers of adult refugees, Jewish or Christian. That would clearly be impossible and the Home Office regulations merely reflect a desire to avoid conditions which would be prejudicial to the refugees themselves. No one in fact objects openly to the temporary admission of children and the number of children actually admitted must appear startlingly small when compared with the number still awaiting rescue. The latter figure cannot be less than 100,000 and may well prove to be more when the number of ‘non-Aryans’ affected by the present persecutions has been more definitely ascertained.”

The Times said the public would be astonished to learn that after all offers of private hospitality, the subscription of more than £400,000 to the Baldwin Fund and the firm and repeated declarations of official sympathy only 3,000 children have been admitted since last July and only about 500 more are expected in the near future.

“But the reasons are clear,” the editorial continued. “Not a penny of public money has in fact been forthcoming either for the present needs or future prospects of child refugees coming directly from Germany or Austria. This means that private organizations have to allot for each child money enough to bring it here, keep it and train it for a period of years and prov- ide for its ultimate emigration elsewhere. There is an impression that private hospitality is relieving organizations to some extent. That is true, but a study of the forms which the prospective host is required to fill in will reveal the tremendous liability to which he is exposed. For those children for whom hospitality under these onerous conditions can be found it would be imprudent to allot less than £200 a head. These are considerations which have led to frequent assertions in these columns that the refugee problem is far beyond the strength of private charity or private organizations.”

In a speech broadcast from a meeting of the Trades Union Congress, Harold Nicholson, National Laborite M.P., last night denounced “ill-intended persons” who are spreading rumors against the refugees in Great Britain. Mr. Nicholson stressed that Home Office regulations prevented displacement of workers by refugees and pointed out that the T.U.C. supported the movement to aid refugees. Similar views were expressed by H.V. Tewson, assistant secretary of the Congress, in an address explaining the attitude of the trade union movement to the refugee problem. Declaring the movement was concerned with regulations and methods of placing a small number of refugees in industry as specially skilled workers or for training purposes, Tewson said the unemployed resented being used to bolster up prejudice against refugees. He asserted Home Office regulations protected and insured workers from displacement by refugees.