Produced by Jonathan Ingram, Chuck Greif and the Online
Distributed Proofreading Team at http://www.pgdp.net









NOTES ON THE DIPLOMATIC HISTORY

OF THE JEWISH QUESTION




NOTES ON

THE DIPLOMATIC HISTORY OF
THE JEWISH QUESTION

WITH TEXTS OF PROTOCOLS, TREATY
STIPULATIONS AND OTHER PUBLIC
ACTS AND OFFICIAL DOCUMENTS

BY
LUCIEN WOLF

PUBLISHED BY THE
JEWISH HISTORICAL SOCIETY OF ENGLAND

_Mocatta Library and Museum_
UNIVERSITY COLLEGE
(_University of London_)
GOWER STREET, LONDON, W.C. 1
1919

_All rights reserved_




PREFACE.


The substance of this volume was read as a Paper before the Jewish
Historical Society of England on February 11, 1918. It has now been
expanded and supplied with a full equipment of documents--Protocols of
Congresses and Conferences, Treaty Stipulations, Diplomatic
Correspondence and other public Acts--in the hope that it may prove
useful as a permanent record, and serviceable to those of our communal
organisations whose duty it will be to bring the still unsolved aspects
of the Jewish Question before the coming Peace Conference.

Besides helping to indicate the lines on which Jewish action should
travel in this matter, the State Papers here quoted may also serve to
remind the Plenipotentiaries themselves that the Jewish Question is far
from being a subsidiary issue in the Reconstruction of Europe, that they
have a great tradition of effort and achievement in regard to it, and
that this tradition, apart from the high merits of the task itself,
imposes upon them the solemn obligation of solving the Question
completely and finally now that the opportunity of doing so presents
itself free from all restraints of a selfish and calculating diplomacy.
It is not only that the edifice of Religious Liberty in Europe has to be
completed, but also that some six millions of human beings have to be
freed from political and civil disabilities and social and economic
restrictions which for calculated cruelty have no parallels outside the
Dark Ages. The Peace Conference will have accomplished relatively little
if a shred of this blackest of all European scandals is allowed to
survive its deliberations.

This collection does not pretend to be complete. The aim has been only
to illustrate adequately the main lines of the theme with a view to
practical questions which may arise in connection with the Peace
Conference. American documents have been only sparely quoted, for the
reason that the American Jewish Historical Society has already published
a very full collection of such documents. (Cyrus Adler: "Jews in the
Diplomatic Correspondence of the United States.") The many generous
interventions of the Vatican on behalf of persecuted Jews have also been
omitted partly for a similar reason (see Stern: "Urkundliche Beiträge
über die Stellung der Päpste zu den Juden") and partly because they have
very little direct bearing on the diplomatic activities of the Great
Powers during the period under discussion.

My grateful acknowledgements are due to the Foreign Office for kindly
permitting me to copy the documents relating to Palestine, which will be
found appended to Chapter IV, and to Lieut. J. B. Morton, who was good
enough to relieve me of much of the work of reading the proof-sheets. I
have also to thank Mr. D. Mitrani for the generous help he gave me in
preparing the Index.

L. W.

GRAY'S INN, LONDON.

_December 1918._




CONTENTS.


                                                                    PAGE


I. INTRODUCTION

    ON INTERNATIONAL RELIGIOUS LIBERTY GENERALLY                       1


II. INTERVENTIONS ON GROUNDS OF HUMANITY                               6

  (_a_) PERSECUTION OF THE JEWS IN BOHEMIA (1744-1745)                 7
      DOCUMENTS--
    Petition to King George II, 1744                                   7
    Appeal of Bohemian Jews, 1744                                      9
    The Decree of the Empress, 1744                                   10
    Instructions to the British Ambassador in Vienna, 1744            11

  (_b_) THE CONGRESS OF VIENNA (1815)                                 12
      DOCUMENTS--
    List from Klüber                                                  14
    Art. XVI of Annexe IX of Final Act of Congress, 1815              14

  (_c_) THE CONGRESS OF AIX-LA-CHAPELLE (1818)                        15
      DOCUMENT--
    Protocol of Nov. 21, 1818                                         16

  (_d_) THE CONFERENCE OF LONDON (1830)                               17
      DOCUMENT--
    Protocol of Feb. 3, 1830                                          17

  (_e_) THE CONGRESS OF PARIS (1856-1858)                             18
      DOCUMENTS--
    Art. IX of the Treaty of Paris, 1856                              21
    Extracts from the Hatti-Humayoun of Feb. 18, 1856                 21
    Conferences of Constantinople: Protocol of Feb. 11, 1856          23
    Art. XLVI of Convention of Paris of Aug. 10, 1858                 23

  (_f_) THE CONGRESS OF BERLIN (1878)                                 23
    DOCUMENTS--
    Extracts from Protocols of June 24, 25, 26,
    and 28, and July 1, 4, and 10, 1878                               25
    Extracts from Treaty of Berlin: Arts. XLIV and LXII, 1878         33
    Mr. White to the Marquis of Salisbury, Oct. 25, 1879              34
    Identic Note to Rumanian Government, Feb. 20, 1880                35

  (_g_) RUMANIA AND THE POWERS (1902)                                 36
    DOCUMENTS--
    Dispatch from Mr. John Hay to U.S. Minister at Athens,
    July 17, 1902                                                     38
    American Circular Note to the Great Powers, Aug. 11,     1902     44
    Mr. Bertie to Mr. Choate, Sept. 2, 1902                           44

  (_h_) THE CONFERENCES OF LONDON, ST. PETERSBURG,
    AND BUCHAREST (1912-1913)                                         45
    DOCUMENTS--
    Conference of Bucharest: Protocol of July 23, 1913                47
    Jewish Conjoint Committee to Sir Edward Grey, Oct. 13, 1913       48
    Sir Eyre A. Crowe to Conjoint Committee, Oct. 29, 1913            51
    Conjoint Committee to Sir Edward Grey, Nov. 13, 1913              51
    The same to the same, March 12, 1914                              52

  (_i_) THE JEWISH QUESTION AND THE BALANCE OF POWER (1890 and 1906)  54
    DOCUMENT--
    The proposed Anti-Semitic Triple Alliance: Secret Russian
    Memorandum, Jan. 3, 1906                                          57


III. INTERVENTIONS BY RIGHT

  (_a_) STATUS OF JEWS IN FOREIGN COUNTRIES                           63
    DOCUMENT--
    Art. XIV, Treaty of Carlowitz, 1699                               71
    Interpretation by Austrian Government, Dec. 28, 1815              71
    Arts. I, III, and VI of Franco-Swiss Treaty, 1827                 71
    Secret Note by French Negotiator, Aug. 7, 1826                    72
    Speech of King Louis-Philippe, Nov. 5, 1835                       73
    Extract from Franco-Swiss Treaty, June 30, 1864                   73
    Art. I, Anglo-Swiss Treaty, Sept. 6, 1855                         73
    Art. I, American-Swiss Treaty, Nov. 6, 1855                       74
    Interpretation by United States, 1857                             74
    Mr. Seward to U.S. Minister in Switzerland, Sept. 14, 1861        75
    Art. I, Russo-American Treaty, 1832                               75
    Mr. Blaine to U.S. Minister in St. Petersburg, July 29, 1881      76
    Resolution of U.S. House of Representatives, Dec. 13, 1911        79
    Resolution of U.S. Senate, Dec. 20, 1911                          79
    Arts. I and XI, Anglo-Russian Treaty, 1859                        80
    Interpretation by Great Britain, 1862 and 1881                    81
    The Marquis of Salisbury to Sir Julian Goldsmid, Jan. 29, 1891    82
    Sir Edward Grey to Jewish Conjoint Committee, Oct. 1, 1912        82
    Art. XIII, Anglo-Moorish Treaty, 1856                             83

  (_b_) CONSULAR PROTECTION                                           83
    DOCUMENTS--
    Earl Russell to the Jewish Board of Deputies, Feb. 1, 1864        86
    Art. III, Anglo-Moorish Treaty, 1727-28                           87
    Art. III, Anglo-Moorish Treaty, 1856                              87
    Art. IV, Anglo-Moorish Treaty, 1856                               87
    Franco-Moorish Règlement, Aug. 19, 1863                           88

  (_c_) THE CONFERENCES OF MADRID (1880) AND ALGECIRAS (1906)         88
    DOCUMENTS--
    Madrid: Protocols of May 20 and June 24, 1880                     90
    Art. VI, Treaty of Madrid, 1880                                   91
    Edict of the Sultan of Morocco, 1864                              92
    Madrid: Protocol of June 26, 1880                                 92
    Algeciras: Protocol of April 2, 1906                              98


IV. THE PALESTINE QUESTION AND THE NATIONAL RESTORATION OF THE JEWS  100

    DOCUMENTS--
    Russian Memorandum, Oct. 1840                                    107
    Austrian Memorandum, Oct. 1840                                   111
    Lord Clanricarde to Lord Palmerston, Feb. 23. 1841               113
    Mémoire of the King of Prussia, Feb. 24, 1841                    114
    Baron Bülow to Lord Palmerston, March 6, 1841                    116
    Lord Beauvale to Lord Palmerston, March 2, 1841                  116
    Lord Palmerston to Lord Beauvale, March 11, 1841                 117
    Further Austrian Memorandum, March 31, 1841                      117
    Col. Churchill to Sir Moses Montefiore, June 14, 1841            119
    The same to the same, Aug. 15, 1842                              121
    Resolution of the Jewish Board of Deputies, Nov. 8, 1843         123
    Col. Churchill to the Board of Deputies, Jan. 8, 1843            123
    Art. V of Agreement between Great Britain, France and Russia,
    Feb. 21, 1917                                                    124
    Mr. Balfour to Lord Rothschild, Nov. 2, 1917                     124


APPENDIX.

  International Anti-Semitism in 1498                                126
    DOCUMENT--
    Sub-Prior of Santa Cruz to Ferdinand and Isabella, July 18, 1498 126


INDEX                                                                127

FOOTNOTES




NOTES ON THE DIPLOMATIC HISTORY OF THE JEWISH QUESTION.




I. INTRODUCTION.

ON INTERNATIONAL RELIGIOUS LIBERTY GENERALLY.


The Jewish Question is part of the general question of Religious
Toleration. Together with the questions relating to the toleration of
"Turks and Infidels," it raises the question of Religious Liberty in its
most acute form. It is both local and international. Locally it seeks a
solution through Civil and Political Emancipation on the basis of
Religious Toleration. Internationally it arises when a State or
combination of States which has been gained to the cause of Religious
Toleration intervenes for the protection or emancipation of the
oppressed Jewish subjects of another State. There have been, however, at
least two occasions when the interventions have taken the contrary form
of efforts to promote the persecution or restraint of Jews as such.[1]

As an altruistic form of international action the principle of
intervention has been of slow growth. It required an atmosphere of
toleration on a wide scale, and, before this atmosphere could be
created, Christian States had to learn toleration for themselves by a
hard experience of its necessity. They had, in the first place, to
secure toleration for their own nationals and the converts of their
Churches in heathen countries where the people could not be coerced or
lectured with impunity. In the next place they had to achieve toleration
among themselves.

Toleration among the Christian Churches--the so-called peace of
Christendom--became necessary owing to the struggle between the
Reformation and the Counter-Reformation; but it took the Thirty Years'
War to prove its necessity. The proof is embodied for all time in the
Peace of Westphalia--chiefly in the Treaty of Osnabruck, which was
signed in 1648, at the same time as the famous Treaty of Münster. The
ostensible effect of the Peace of Westphalia was to place Roman
Catholicism and Protestantism on an equal legal footing throughout
Europe. A secondary effect was to give a very marked stimulus to the
cause of Religious Liberty generally. We may recognise its first fruits
in, among other things, the campaign for unrestricted religious
toleration during the Commonwealth in England, and its application to
the Jews.[2]

It was not until 1814 that this principle was extended by Treaty beyond
the pale of Christendom. This was in the Protocol of the four allied
Powers--Great Britain, Russia, Prussia, and Austria--by which the union
of Belgium with Holland was recognised. The return of the House of
Orange to the Netherlands after the fall of Napoleon had entailed the
promulgation of a new Constitution, which, in view of the democratic
traditions of the French occupation, was necessarily of a liberal type.
Among its concessions was an article granting the fullest religious
liberty. When the Powers were called upon to sanction the union with
Belgium, they did so on condition that the new Constitution should be
applied to the whole country, and, in view of the religious differences
prevailing, emphasised the article on Religious Liberty. This is the
form in which it appears in the Protocol:--

       *       *       *       *       *

Art. I.--Cette réunion devra être entière et complète, de façon que les
2 Pays ne forment qu'un seul et même État régi par la Constitution déjà
établie en Hollande, et qui sera modifiée, d'un commun accord, d'après
les nouvelles circonstances.

Art. II.--Il ne sera rien innové aux Articles de cette Constitution qui
assurent à tous les Cultes une protection et une faveur égales, et
garantissent l'admission de tous les Citoyens, quelle que soit leur
croyance réligieuse, aux emplois et offices publics.

       *       *       *       *       *

Incidentally the legal effect of this stipulation was to emancipate the
Dutch Jews, though, as a matter of fact, the few disabilities under
which they laboured did not immediately disappear. The Protocol was
afterwards ratified by the Congress of Vienna and added to the Final Act
as part of the Tenth Annexe,[3] though in other respects the Congress
did not evince a very generous conception of Religious Liberty.

The conquest of religious liberty for Christians in heathen lands was a
more convincing object lesson than the Peace of Westphalia. It was
difficult for one Christian Church to acknowledge its equality with
another Christian Church and to tolerate heresy, but it was far more
distasteful to have to come to terms with the heathen and to accept
toleration at his hands.

This was not altogether an altruistic form of political action. It was
in some of its aspects part of the elementary duty of every State to
protect its nationals in foreign countries.

The earliest instances of this action we find in China, where, in the
thirteenth century, the Papacy concluded Treaties with the Mongol
Emperors for the protection of Christian Missions.[4] It was not,
however, until the Treaty of Tientsin in 1858 that Great Britain and
France secured religious liberty for Christians in China.

In the Mussulman Levant, toleration for foreign Christians was secured
by the so-called Capitulations. These were, in effect, treaties,
although they were in the form of grants by the Sultans. They gave large
exterritorial jurisdiction to the Ambassadors and Consuls of the States
on whom they were conferred. The earliest grant of this kind occurs in
the ninth century, when the Emperor Charlemagne obtained guarantees for
his subjects visiting the Levant from the famous Khalif Haroun
al-Rashid.[5] Later on, all the leading Christian States negotiated
Capitulations with the Sultans. The existing British Capitulations are
dated 1675, but an earlier grant was made in 1583.

One of the main objects of the Capitulations, besides personal security
and trading rights, was to assure religious liberty for the nationals
of the grantees. This benefited Jews at an early date, as the
Capitulations and similar treaties generally provided for certain
immunities for the native interpreters, servants and other employees of
the privileged foreigners. As Jews were frequently so employed, they
thus acquired protection against Moslem fanaticism.

In this way arose the system of Consular Protection which was long a
boon to Jews in the Ottoman Empire and in the Barbary States.[6]

In spite of these experiences the idea of diplomatic intervention for
the promotion of religious toleration in foreign States, especially on
behalf of non-Christians, has only prevailed within narrow limits. It
has been largely circumvented by the fact that such interventions must,
even with the best will in the world, be more or less conditioned by the
_raison d'état_. Unless they are likely to promote policy, or at any
rate to coincide with policy, the usual course when they are invoked is
to take refuge in the so-called principle of non-intervention.

It was, indeed, not until the seventeenth century that the question was
seriously discussed at all by the jurists, although Cromwell had already
laid down the splendid principle, in the case of the persecution of the
Vaudois, that "to be indifferent to such things is a great sin, and a
deeper sin still is it to be blind to them from policy or ambition." The
first impulses of the international lawyers were much in the Cromwellian
spirit. Bacon, Grotius, and Puffendorff all strongly maintained the
legality not only of diplomatic but also of armed intervention to put
down tyranny or misgovernment in a neighbouring State, and a century
later they were followed by Vattel. Sweden acted upon the principle in
her intervention on behalf of the Protestants of Poland in 1707, and, in
1792, it was given its widest scope, and was formally adopted, by the
French Revolution in the famous decree of the Convention which promised
"fraternity and succour to all peoples who wish to recover their
liberty."

The doctrine, however, lingered only anæmically through the early
decades of the nineteenth century. In face of the growing delicacy of
the international system, it was gradually abandoned for the
conservative principle of non-intervention, based on the independence
and equality of all States.[7] But even this principle has not always
been observed in regard to small States, although, curiously enough,
Russia invoked it against Great Britain for the protection of King
"Bomba" of Sicily, in the case of the Neapolitan prison horrors.[8]
Abstention from intervention in certain glaring cases of inhumanity by
foreign Governments--such as the persecution of the Russian Jews--has
been defended on the ground of absence of treaty rights, but, as a
matter of fact, this argument, too, has not been consistently adhered
to.[9] In all cases, whether of great or small States, treaty rights or
no treaty rights, the real test has almost always been the frigid
_raison d'état_. The United States has been less affected by this
restriction than the European Powers, and on many occasions has shown a
really noble example of the purest altruism in international
politics.[10]




II. INTERVENTIONS ON GROUNDS OF HUMANITY.


Long before the Peace of Westphalia an attempt was made by the famous
Jewess, Donna Gracia Nasi, to obtain protection for her persecuted
co-religionists by diplomatic action, and it proved successful. The
circumstances will be narrated presently.[11] It stood, however, alone
for two hundred years. Even after the Peace eminent Jews, who sought in
a like way to enlist the sympathy and help of European governments,
failed. Menasseh ben Israel made representations in this sense on behalf
of the oppressed Jews of Poland, Prussia, Spain, and Portugal to both
Queen Christina of Sweden and Oliver Cromwell, but although he met with
much and genuine sympathy he found the _raison d'état_--and probably
also a lingering reluctance to regard Jews as quite within the pale of
humanity--too strong for him.[12] A decade later a similar attempt was
made by Fernando Mendes da Costa, one of the founders of the
Anglo-Jewish Community, and a member of a very distinguished Portuguese
Marrano family. From a letter of his which is still extant,[13] it seems
that he was deeply concerned in helping the persecuted Marranos in Spain
and Portugal, and he had a scheme for organising an emigration of his
hapless brethren on a large scale to Italy and England. He received much
help from Don Francisco Manuel de Mello, the distinguished Portuguese
soldier, author and diplomatist, and through him interested Queen
Katharine of Braganza and Charles II in the scheme. It appears, too,
that, with the support of these eminent personages, the scheme was
brought to the notice of the Pope, but of its subsequent fate we know
nothing.


(_a_) PERSECUTION OF THE JEWS IN BOHEMIA (1744-45).

The earliest actual intervention of a Great Power on behalf of the Jews
on humanitarian grounds took place in 1744-45, when Great Britain and
Holland made strong and successful representations to the Government of
the Empress Maria Theresa for the protection of the Jews of Bohemia and
Moravia. The intervening Powers were allies of the Empress in the War of
the Austrian Succession which was then raging. During the war some
prejudice had been caused to the Austrian Jews through the imprudence of
some of their co-religionists in Lorraine, who had obtained "safe
conducts" from the French Military Authorities to enable them to cross
the frontier into France. Reprisals against the Jews in Bohemia and
Moravia were taken by the Empress in the shape of a decree of wholesale
banishment. The decree was enforced with the utmost severity, and over
20,000 Jews were compelled to leave Prague in the depth of winter, with
little or no prospect of finding shelter elsewhere. Appeals for help
were addressed to foreign communities, and among the recipients of them
was Aaron Franks, then presiding Warden of the Great Synagogue in
London. Together with his wealthy and influential relative, Moses Hart,
he at once petitioned King George, who consented to receive him in
personal audience. His Majesty manifested every sympathy with the
persecuted Jews, and the result was that the British Ambassador in
Vienna[14] was instructed to make representations, in concert with the
Dutch Ambassador, to the Austrian Government. The representations were
received in excellent spirit, and, in deference to them, the Empress
consented to revoke the decree and permit the Jews to return to their
homes.[15]


DOCUMENTS.

PETITION TO KING GEORGE II (_B. M. Add. MSS._ 23,819, _f._ 63).

To his Most Sacred Majesty

       *       *       *       *       *

The Petition of Moses Hart and Aaron Franks of the City of London
Merchants In behalf of their Brethren the Distressed Jews of the Kingdom
of Bohemia.

Humbly Sheweth

That your Majesty's Petitioners have receiv'd a Copy of an Edict
published and Issued by Her Majesty the Queen of Hungary from their said
Brethren the Jews of the said Kingdom of Bohemia by which (together with
several letters that have been transmitted to them Requesting them to
Commiserate their distress'd condition and Interceed with his Brittanick
Majesty on their behalf) it appears that their said Brethren are to be
utterly Expelled the said Kingdom and that by the last day of January
next Ensuing No Jew is to be found in any of the Towns belonging to
Prague. That after the Expiration of six Months to be accounted from the
said last day of January No Jew is to be suffered or found in the
Hereditary Dominion of her said Majesty, and in case any should be found
they are to suffer Military Chastisement.

Your Petitioners most humbly beg leave to observe that in the said Edict
there is no reason or cause assign'd for the Expulsion of their said
Brethren who therefore Suspect that it is fomented by their inveterate
enemies for motives which they cannot account for as they have always
acted as dutiful, Faithful and Loyal Subjects to their most Gracious
Sovereign the said Queen of Hungary even during the many Revolutions
that have happened in Prague within these few Years and notwithstanding
the great Devastation and Excesses which Naturally occur'd therefrom
they have continued and still do continue firm and unshaken in their
Principles of Affection & Fidelity to her said Majesty and her most
Illustrious House.

Your Petitioners far from Vindicating any Particular Persons in the
Crimes they may have committed during the last Revolution (if any such
there are) desire Adequate Punishments to be inflicted on them; but
humbly hope that the Innocent will not be permitted to suffer for Crimes
which they have in no wise been Accessary to and humbly Remonstrate that
the Expulsion of fifty thousand Familys and upwards from their Native
Country at so critical a Juncture who (as Your Petitioners are informed
and believe) always Contributed and Concurr'd in strengthening her
Majesty's hands against her Enemies must in its consequences prove
Detrimental and Prejudicial to the true Interest of the common Cause and
more immediately so to her Hungarian Majesty.

In tender Consideration whereof Your Petitioners (in behalf of the
aforesaid distress'd people) most humbly Supplicate your Majesty in your
great & known Equity & Compassion to Interpose Your Majesty's Good
Offices upon this Occasion with the Queen of Hungary in order to prevail
upon her said Majesty to revoke the said Edict or at least to Suspend
the time of the Expulsion of their said Brethren & to establish a
Commission of Enquiry in order to discriminate the Innocent from the
Guilty and Punish those only who have deserv'd her said Majesty's
Displeasure.

And Your Petitioners as in duty bound shall ever pray &c.

MOSES HART.

AARON FRANKS.

(Endorsed:)

MOSES HART & AARON FRANKS Petition in behalf of the Bohemian Jews &c. in
Ld. Harrington's of the 28 Decr./8 Jany. 1745. sent to Sir Thos.
Robinson 27 [_sic_] Decr. 1744.

       *       *       *       *       *

APPEAL OF THE BOHEMIAN JEWS (_Ibid. f. 64_).

PRAGUE, _1st Decr. 1744. N.S._

It is Certainly very Notorious all the Callamities Which have
overwhelm'd us to such a Degree that we had hardly power to Withstand
them. but None were in Competition with this Last. by a Decree from her
Majesty our Sovereign Queen of Hungaria. To Banish all the Jews out of
the Kingdom of Bohemia. Within the Term of 5 Weeks. Which is the Latter
End of January for those in Prague. & those in Bohemia are allow'd 6
Months. as appears by the original Decree of Her Majesty--Therefore What
shall we poor Souls do, in the first place, the Children Women, infirm &
Aged. Which are not in a Condition to Walk. Especially at this present
Juncture Being Cold & frosty Weather. Likewise In the Condition we are
at Present in for the Stripd many Hundreds quite to their shirts. Not
only that. but the World Is Closed to us. by reason all Roads are filled
with Troops. Which way Soever we Turn we Can find no Relief. Neither do
we know the reason for the Decree. Excepting some false persons. Who
Contrive falsities on purpose To breed ill will against us by our Lords
Who Protected us. Which they have Done.

Therefore Brethren. We Humbly Beg you wou'd Commiserate our Condition
Considering the Eminent Danger Many Thousands Souls are in by this
Decree. & Not Delay Interceeding for Recommendations from all Courts
that we may have time allowed us. for a Commission of Inquiry.

SIMON SPIRA &c.

MOSES IZAAC.

SIMON COHEN.

MENAHEM MENDAL.

ABRAHAM.

SAMUEL SPIRA.

MEYER MOSES, &c.

(Endorsed:)

Representation from the Jews at Prague

Sent to Sir Thos. Robinson 28 Decr./Jany 8. 1744-5.

       *       *       *       *       *

THE DECREE OF THE EMPRESS (_Ibid. fol. 66_).

After Mature Deliberation We have been Induced by many weighty Reasons
and Considerations to resolve and Determine that no JEW shall hereafter
be Suffered or permitted to Dwell in our Hereditary Kingdom of Bohemia,
which our Resolution, We Will Shall be put in Execution in Manner
following.

1st. That on the last Day of the Month of January 1745 next Ensuing No
Jew shall be found in any of our Towns belonging to Prague, and in Case
any shall, Military Chastisement shall be inflicted on them.

2nd. They are hereby permitted to Stay and remain in the Kingdom six
Months to be Accounted from the Latter end of December Instant and to
Determine at the latter end of the Month of June 1745 to Settle their
Affairs and in order to Dispose of their Effects Estate and Credit which
they shall not be able to Carry with them by the last Day of January.

That after their retreat from Prague (towards the Country) on the last
day of January as is aforementioned, No Jew shall be permitted to
Reenter the said City by Day (without having a Certificate from the
Commissary appointed to Execute the Contents hereof) and absolutely None
shall be Suffered to Stay a Single Night; And the Said Commissary is
hereby Directed to take the Necessary Precautions for Executing this Our
Will and Pleasure, and due Care that None of his Certificates be
Improperly made use of by Enabling them to Enter the City too frequently
excepting such as he shall grant thro' favour to the Principal Merchants
who will stand in Greater Need than others of entring the City often.

3rd. After the Determination of the said Six Months all the Jews shall
quitt all our Hereditary Kingdom of Bohemia and Shall Never more be
found on the Borders thereof, and in Case any Shall, Military
Chastisement shall be inflicted on them as aforesaid.

4th. Our Meaning and Intention is not only that the Jews of the City of
Prague and all others who live in any Part of our Hereditary Kingdom of
Bohemia shall quitt the Same within the Thirtieth day of June 1745 but
also that No Jew shall on the said Day be found in the said Kingdom or
Settle in any of our Hereditary Countrys.

5th. And we do hereby Ordain and Appoint our Trusty and Well-beloved
Privy Councellor and Vice President of the Royal Bohemian Kingdom The
Right Honourable Philip Knakowsky Count Collowrath punctually to
perform the Contents hereof hereby requiring all and Every Person whom
these Presents or the Execution thereof may Concern to aid and Assist
the said Philip Count Collowrath and Do hereby further Positively Order
that the Contents hereof be Published in the Towns belonging to Prague
and our whole Country to the End that no Intelligence be given thereof
to those who Shall have any Dealings and Transactions with Jews.

Witness Ourself

Given at Vienna the 18th day of December 1744.

       *       *       *       *       *

INSTRUCTIONS TO THE BRITISH AMBASSADOR IN VIENNA (_Ibid. fols. 61-61
d._).

Separate.

WHITEHALL, _28th Decr. 1744._

SIR,--The principal Merchants of the Jewish Nation established here,
having made an humble Application to His Majesty, that he would be
pleased to intercede with the Queen of Hungary for a Reversal of the
Sentence passed upon Their Brethren in Bohemia (amounting, as They
affirm, to no less than Sixty Thousand Families), by Her Majesty's late
Edict, whereby They are ordered to depart that Kingdom in Six Months
time, and His Majesty finding that the States General have already
interposed Their Good Offices in Their Behalf; It is the King's
Pleasure, that you should join with Mor. Burmannia in endeavouring to
dissuade the Court of Vienna from putting the said Sentence in
Execution, hinting to Them in the tenderest and most friendly Manner,
the Prejudice that the World might conceive against the Queen's
Proceedings in that Affair, if such Numbers of innocent People were made
to suffer for the Fault of some few Traytors, and, at the same time,
shewing Them, the great Loss that would accrue to Her Majesty's Revenue,
and to the Wealth and Strength of her Kingdom of Bohemia, by depriving
it at once of so vast Numbers of it's Inhabitants: You will find
inclosed the Petition presented to His Majesty by the Jews here, as
above-mentioned, together with the Representation sent hither to Them
from Those in Bohemia, and I am to add to what is above, that, as His
Majesty does extremely commiserate the terrible circumstances of
Distress to which so many poor and innocent Families must be reduced, if
this Edict takes place, He is most earnestly desirous of procuring the
Repeal of it by His Royal Intercession, in such Manner that the Guilty
only may be brought to Punishment; for obtaining which, you are to exert
yourself with all possible Zeal and Diligence.

I am, Sir,

Your most obedient humble Servant,

HARRINGTON.

SIR THOMAS ROBINSON.

       *       *       *       *       *


(_b_) CONGRESS OF VIENNA (1815).

The next appearance of the Jewish Question in the field of international
politics was at the Congress of Vienna, sixty years later. The Congress
was not favourable to liberal reforms of any kind, either national or
religious. Its aim was to vindicate the vested interests of Legitimism
against the doctrines of the French Revolution. In its final shape the
policy of the Congress was embodied in the Holy Alliance. British
foreign policy, then under the guidance of Castlereagh, was distinctly
favourable to this policy. Nevertheless, there were curious
cross-currents at the Congress, and what liberalism there was came,
strangely enough, in large part from the Russian Tsar, Alexander I. He
had moments of liberalism so pronounced that Metternich called him "the
crowned _sans-culotte_."

It is curious to note that the Jewish Board of Deputies in England did
not move during the Congress. The reason is perhaps not difficult to
understand. They were always timid in regard to high politics, and, in
1783, when it was proposed to address the King on the American Peace,
they actually passed a resolution declaring that it was their duty to
avoid such "political concerns."[16] In the case of the Congress of
Vienna, however, they may well have felt that they could not touch the
question of religious liberty, and especially of Jewish emancipation,
without risking an imputation of Jacobinism. Moreover, the British
Cabinet then in power was a Coalition Cabinet of pro-Catholics and
anti-Catholics, and they could not well listen to any proposals that
they should champion Jewish emancipation in Vienna, while in Downing
Street the question of Roman Catholic emancipation could not even be
discussed.

Fortunately, these considerations did not apply to the German Jews.
Frankfurt and the Hansa towns sent deputations to Vienna to plead the
cause of Jewish emancipation. The Frankfurt deputation was headed by
Jacob Baruch, father of Ludwig Boerne. They managed to secure the
support of both Hardenberg and Metternich, and when it was found that
the Tsar was not averse from some concession to the Jews, they agreed to
propose the insertion of a clause--or rather half a clause--in the
Final Act of the Conference providing for the gradual extension of civil
rights to the Jews of Germany.

Unfortunately for a long time this concession remained a dead letter,
owing not only to the ill-will of the German Governments themselves, but
to an apparently harmless verbal amendment which was introduced into the
clause by the Redaction Committee at the last moment. In the final
_alinea_ it was stipulated that "the rights already conferred on the
Jews in the several Federated States shall be maintained." The object of
this was to secure to the Jews of Germany the liberties granted to them
by Napoleon during the French occupation. This design was frustrated by
the Redaction Committee, at whose instance the word "_by_" was
substituted for "_in_," the result being that the rights secured to the
Jews were not those of the French occupation, but only those which had
been grudgingly, and in very small measure, granted to them by the
Federated States themselves in the dark days before the Napoleonic
irruption.

Thus the provision of the Treaty of Vienna relating to the Jews of
Germany remained a dead letter, partly because of the amendment
introduced into it at the last moment, and partly because the
authorities had no intention of carrying it out. The Jews complained,
and both Prussia and Austria, under the influence of Hardenberg and
Metternich, protested.[17] Nathan Rothschild in London brought the case
of the recalcitrant Frankfurt authorities to the notice of the Duke of
Wellington, who persuaded Castlereagh in 1816 to make representations
with a view to their protection.[18] All these efforts, however, proved
futile, and Nathan Rothschild could only avenge himself by the public
announcement that his firm would refuse to accept bills drawn in any
German city where the Jews were denied their treaty rights.[19]


DOCUMENTS.

       *       *       *       *       *

_The following is a list of the documents relating to the Jewish
Question at the Vienna Congress given in Klüber: "Akten des Wiener
Kongresses."_

       *       *       *       *       *

1. Unterthänige Vorstellung und Bittschrift der Israelitischen Gemeinde
zu Frankfurt-am-Main an den hohen Kongress zu Wien mit Beilage übergeben
daselbst am 10ten Oktober 1814.

2. Schreiben des Deputierten der Israelitischen Gemeinde zu Frankfurt/M
an den Königlichen-Preussischen ersten Herrn Bevollmächtigten Fürsten
von Hardenberg wegen Erhaltung der von dem Grossherzog von Frankfurt
jener Gemeinde bewilligten Rechtzustandes. Datiert Wien, 12ten Mai,
1815.

3. Antwort seiner Durchlaucht des Fürsten von Hardenberg auf
vorstehendes Schreiben. Datiert Wien, 18ten Mai, 1815.

4. Erlass des Kaiserlich-Oesterreichischen ersten Bevollmächtigten und
Kongress-Präsidenten Herrn Fürsten von Metternich an die Deputierten der
Israelitischen Gemeinde der Stadt Frankfurt-am-Main als Antwort auf die
von diesen an den Kongress eingereichte Bittschrift. Datiert Wien, 9ten
Juni, 1815.

5. Anmerkung des Herausgebers (Klübers) zu vorstehenden Erlass an die
Deputierten der Israelitischen Gemeinde zu Frankfurt-am-Main.

6. Note des Kaiserlich-Oesterreichischen Herrn Bevollmächtigten und
Kongress Präsidenten Fürsten von Metternich, wodurch derselbe dem
Bevollmächtigten der freien Stadt Frankfurt Herrn Syndicus Danz die von
dem allerhöchsten verbündeten Mächten, neuerdings erfolgte Bestätigung
der Selbständigkeit und Freiheit der Stadt Frankfurt anzeigt. Datiert
Wien, 9ten Juni, 1815 mit einer Beilage.

7. Accessions Urkunde der freien Stadt Frankfurt.

       *       *       *       *       *

(See also documents relating to the abolition of the Feudal land-tenure
System on the left bank of the Rhine, effected during the domination of
the French revolutionary Government, vol. vi., pp. 396-426.)

       *       *       *       *       *

8. Erlass des Kaiserlich-Oesterreichischen ersten Bevollmächtigten und
Kongress Präsidenten Fürsten von Metternich an den Bevollmächtigten
Israelitischen Gemeinden Deutschland Doktor und Advokaten Carl August
Buchholz aus Lübeck betreffend die Verbesserung des Rechtzustandes der
Juden, vol. 9, p. 334.

       *       *       *       *       *

The Article of the Final Act relating to the Jews is Article XVI of
Annexe IX, "Acte sur la Constitution Fédérative de l'Allemagne." It runs
as follows:--

       *       *       *       *       *

XVI.--La différence des Confessions Chrétiennes dans les Pays et
Territoires de la Confédération Allemande, n'en entraînera aucune dans
la jouissance des droits civils et politiques.

La Diète prendra en considération les moyens d'opérer de la manière la
plus uniforme, l'amélioration de l'état civil de ceux qui professent la
Religion Juive en Allemagne, et s'occupera particulièrement des mesures,
par lesquelles on pourra leur assurer et leur garantir dans les États de
la Confédération, la jouissance des Droits Civils, à condition qu'ils se
soumettent à toutes les obligations des autres Citoyens. En attendant
les Droits accordés déjà aux Membres de cette Religion par tel ou tel
État en particulier, leur sont conservés.

(British and Foreign State Papers, vol. ii. pp. 132-3.)

       *       *       *       *       *


(_c_) THE CONGRESS OF AIX-LA-CHAPELLE (1818).

At the Congress of Aix-la-Chapelle, the question was once more brought
before the Great Powers. This time the initiative was taken by a
well-known English conversionist, the Rev. Lewis Way, of Stanstead,
Sussex. There was, however, no trace of conversionism in his efforts on
this occasion, and there can be no question that the Jewish Community
owe him a great debt of gratitude. He proceeded to Aix some weeks before
the Congress met, and presented to the Tsar Alexander a short scheme of
Jewish emancipation. The Tsar encouraged him to amplify it, and this he
did in two elaborate memoirs, one describing the situation of the Jews,
and the other embodying a scheme under which they might be invested with
civil rights. To this he added a short memorandum drawn up at his
request by Dohm, the veteran champion of the Jews, who came to Aix for
that special purpose. By command of the Tsar, these documents were
presented to the Congress at its sitting on November 21, 1818, and were
made the subject of a special Protocol, in which sympathy was expressed
for "the praiseworthy object of his proposals." The plenipotentiaries
further declared that the solution of the Jewish Question was a matter
which should "equally occupy the statesman and the friend of
humanity."[20] It is interesting to note that in his scheme Way
declares himself to be a believer in Jewish Nationalism, and it is for
this reason that he does not ask for more than civil rights for the
Jews, as he regards their exile in Europe as an intermediate stage of
their history. In this he was probably influenced by the prevalent
anti-French atmosphere, inasmuch as the French Jews, in their compact
with Napoleon, made by the Sanhedrin in 1806, had solemnly repudiated
Jewish Nationalism, and had thus rendered themselves eligible for
political, as well as civil, rights.[21]


DOCUMENT.

For the texts of the documents referred to above see "Mémoires sur
l'état des Israélites, dédiés et présentés à leur Majestés Impériales et
Royales, Réunies au Congrès d'Aix-la-Chapelle" [by the Rev. Lewis Way,
A.M.], Paris, 1819.

The Protocol of the Congress at which these "Mémoires" were considered
runs as follows:--

       *       *       *       *       *

PROTOCOLE.

_Séance du 21 Novembre, 1818._ _Entre les cinq Cabinets._

Messieurs les SS. de Russie ont communiqué l'imprimé ci-joint, relatif à
une réforme dans la législation civile et politique en ce qui concerne
la nation juive. La conférence, sans entrer absolument dans toutes les
vues de l'auteur de cette pièce, a rendu justice à la tendance générale
et au but louable de ses propositions. MM. les SS. d'Autriche et de
Prusse se sont déclarés prêts à donner, sur l'état de la question dans
les deux monarchies, tous les éclaircissements qui pourraient servir à
la solution d'un problème qui doit également occuper l'homme d'état et
l'ami de l'humanité.

    Signé: METTERNICH.
           RICHELIEU.
           CASTLEREAGH.
           WELLINGTON.
           HARDENBERG.
           BERNSTORFF.
           NESSELRODE.
           CAPODISTRIAS.


       *       *       *       *       *


(_d_) THE CONFERENCE OF LONDON (1830).

The growing symptoms of an impending break-up of the Ottoman Empire
visibly extended the practical applications of the doctrine of religious
liberty in the field of international politics. In emancipating the
Christian feudatories of the Porte, account had to be taken of the large
Moslem and Jewish minorities inhabiting those States. It was impossible
to emancipate the Christians and at the same time to place
non-Christians under disabilities, especially where they had governments
of their own faith to whom they might appeal and who might resort to
reprisals. Hence, the parity of all religions in the Levant had to be
recognised.

The point first arose in the settlement of the Greek question in 1830.
In this question it was not only the Moslems who had to be considered.
France renounced in favour of the new Kingdom her Protectorate over the
Catholics, which she derived from her capitulations with Turkey. Hence,
besides the Moslems, guarantees had to be exacted for the religious
liberty of Catholics in Greece. These guarantees were the subject of the
third Protocol of the Conference of London, February 3, 1830. At the
same time it was stipulated that there should be perfect equality for
the subjects of the new State, whatever might be their religion. Neither
Moslems nor Jews were expressly mentioned, but it is in virtue of this
Protocol that the Jews of Greece enjoy their present status as Greek
Nationals. The Jews of Greece were thus the first Jews of the Levant to
be fully emancipated.


DOCUMENT.

       *       *       *       *       *

PROTOCOL _No. 3 of the Conference held at the Foreign Office, London, on
3 February, 1830_.

Present: The Plenipotentiaries of Great Britain, France and Russia.

The Prince Leopold of Saxe-Coburg having been called, by the united
suffrages of the three Courts of the Alliance, to the Sovreignty of
Greece, the French Plenipotentiary requested the attention of the
Conference to the particular situation in which his Government is
placed, relative to a portion of the Greek population.

He represented that for many ages France has been entitled to exercise,
in favour of the Catholics subjected to the Sultan, an especial
protection, which His Most Christian Majesty deems it to be his duty to
deposit at the present moment in the hands of the future Sovereign of
Greece, so far as the provinces which are to form the new State are
concerned; but in divesting himself of this prerogative, His Most
Christian Majesty owes it to himself, and he owes it to a people who
have lived so long under the protection of his ancestors, to require
that the Catholics of the continent and of the islands shall find in the
organization which is about to be given to Greece, guarantees which may
be substituted for the influence which France has hitherto exercised in
their favour.

The Plenipotentiaries of Great Britain and Russia appreciated the
justice of this demand; and it was decided that the Catholic religion
should enjoy in the new State the free and public exercise of its
worship, that its property should be guaranteed to it, that its bishops
should be maintained in the integrity of the functions, rights and
privileges, which they have enjoyed under the protection of the Kings of
France, and that, lastly, agreeably to the same principle, the
properties belonging to the antient French Missions, or French
Establishments, shall be recognized and respected.

The Plenipotentiaries of the three Allied Courts being desirous moreover
of giving to Greece a new proof of the benevolent anxiety of their
Sovereigns respecting it, and of preserving that country from the
calamities which the rivalry of the religions therein professed might
excite, agreed that all the subjects of the new State, whatever may be
their religion, shall be admissable to all public employments,
functions, and honours, and be treated on the footing of a perfect
equality, without regard to difference of creed in all their relations,
religious, civil or political.

    (Signed) ABERDEEN
             MONTMOREN Y-LAVAL.
             LIEVEN.

(Holland: "The European Concert in the Eastern Question," pp. 32, 33.)

       *       *       *       *       *


(_e_) THE CONGRESS OF PARIS (1856-1858).

The Jewish Question was more expressly discussed twenty-six years later,
at the Congress of Paris, and the subsidiary conferences which had to
settle the great political problems arising out of the Crimean War.
Meanwhile, under the influence of Sir Moses Montefiore, and more
especially of his jealousy of M. Crémieux, the Jewish Board of Deputies
had plucked up a measure of courage, and had begun to take a more active
interest in the larger political questions which involved the future of
their foreign co-religionists. In the international discussions of the
question of religious liberty which preceded the outbreak of war, the
Powers only concerned themselves with the Christian communities. The
French Jews at once took alarm, and the Central Consistory addressed the
Emperor Napoleon III and applied to the Board of Deputies in London to
make similar representations to the British Government. Both bodies had,
however, been anticipated by the personal activity of the Rothschilds in
Paris and London. Baron James, through his gifted friend and co-worker,
Albert Cohn, had already entered into direct negotiations with the
Turkish Government, and Baron Lionel and Sir Anthony de Rothschild had
interviewed Lord Clarendon, who, at their instance, had given
instructions to Lord Stratford de Redcliffe to take special note of the
Jewish Question. Thus, when the letter of the French Consistory was read
at the Meeting of the Board of Deputies on April 24, 1854, that body
found that it had little to do. Nevertheless, it addressed a formal
letter to Lord Clarendon on May 10, and, five days later, received an
assurance from him that it might rely on a favourable consideration of
the situation of the Jews of Turkey at the hands of His Majesty's
Government.[22]

Nevertheless, the Treaty of Paris of 1856, which more or less settled
all the questions arising out of the war, does not mention the Jews in
any of its articles. This is not to say that it did not fulfil Lord
Clarendon's pledges. As a matter of fact, it deals with both the
situation of the Jews in Turkey and with that of the Jews in the
liberated Principalities of Moldavia and Wallachia. Thus, Article IX,
which takes note of the Turkish _Hatti-Humayoun_ of February 18, 1856,
is intended to refer to the Jews as well as to all other non-Mussulmans.
The history of this aspect of the Article is a little curious. Shortly
after the outbreak of the war in 1854, Turkey prepared a draft treaty of
peace containing an article providing for the religious liberty of
Christian communities. Through the inter-position of Baron James de
Rothschild of Paris, this article was reconsidered, and another was
inserted granting equal rights to all Ottoman subjects, without
distinction of creed. This was the germ of the famous _Hatti-Humayoun_.
That the latter was intended to deal equally with Jews and Christians is
shown by its Article II, in which the same privileges are expressly
granted to the Turkish Grand Rabbis as to the ecclesiastical heads of
the Christian confessions.[23]

The absence of any direct reference to the Jews, or even to equal rights
for all religious communities in the Principalities, is less
satisfactory. The omission is in the first place due to the circumstance
that the Treaty in itself is incomplete. Articles XXIII, XXIV, and XXV
refer the question of the constitutional reorganisation of the
Principalities to a Commission which was to meet at Bucharest and
consult Divans of the two Principalities with a view to making the
necessary recommendations to the Powers.[24] This Commission did not
report until 1858, when its proposals were considered by a fresh
Conference of the Powers, which based upon them the scheme embodied in
the Convention of Paris of August 19 of that year. The question of
religious liberty is dealt with in Article XLVI of that instrument.[25]
Originally it was intended to assure complete emancipation and equality
for all non-Christian communities in the Principalities, and articles to
this effect were adopted by the preparatory Conference of
Constantinople, in its Protocol of February 11, 1856, with the express
design of relieving the Jews, whose sufferings had already become a
matter of European notoriety.[26] The Rumanians, however, were already
strongly hostile to Jewish emancipation, and the reigning Prince of
Moldavia misled the Powers with specious promises of a type which has
since become bitterly familiar to the Jews all over the world.[27] The
Report of the Bucharest Commission of 1858 accepted these promises and
excluded all references to Religious Liberty from its scheme.[28] The
first draft of the Convention submitted to the Conference of the Powers
did likewise,[29] but ultimately a compromise amendment was introduced
by which the Powers agreed (Art. XLVI) to limit political rights to
Christians, while providing for the extension of these rights to
non-Christians by subsequent legislative arrangements.[30] This
concession to the Rumanians was made on the express pledge that the
original scheme of the Conference at Constantinople would be gradually
realised.[31] Needless to say, the pledge was never fulfilled. In
dealing, however, with the question, the Convention of Paris had one
merit. It lent no support to the subsequent theory of the Rumanians,
that the Jews were foreigners in a secular sense in their own country,
but, on the contrary, assumed that their status was as much that of
Moldavians and Wallachians as was the status of the native Christians.


DOCUMENTS.

ARTICLE IX OF THE TREATY OF PARIS. _March 30, 1856._

       *       *       *       *       *

Art. IX. His Imperial Majesty the Sultan, having, in his constant
solicitude for the welfare of his subjects, issued a Firman[32] which,
while ameliorating their condition without distinction of religion or of
race, records his generous intentions towards the Christian populations
of his Empire, and wishing to give a further proof of his sentiments in
that respect, has resolved to communicate to the Contracting Parties the
said Firman emanating spontaneously from his sovereign will.

The Contracting Powers recognise the high value of this communication.
It is clearly understood that it cannot, in any case, give to the said
Powers the right to interfere, either collectively or separately, in the
relations of His Majesty the Sultan with his subjects, nor in the
internal administration of the Empire.

(Holland: "European Concert," &c., p. 246.)

       *       *       *       *       *

EXTRACTS FROM THE HATTI-HUMAYOUN OF FEB. 18, 1856.

I. Les garanties promises et accordées à tous nos sujets par le
_Hatti-cherif_ de Gulhané et par les lois du _Tanzimat_, sans
distinction de culte, pour la sécurité de leur personne et de leurs
biens, et pour la conservation de leur honneur, sont rappelées et
consacrées de nouveau; il sera pris des mesures efficaces pour que ces
garanties reçoivent leur plein et entier effet.

II. Sont reconnus et maintenus, en totalité, les immunités et privilèges
spirituels donnés et accordés par nos illustres ancêtres, et à des dates
postérieures, aux communautés chrétiennes et autres, non musulmanes,
établies dans notre empire, sous notre égide protectrice.... Les
patriarches, métropolitains (archevêques), délégués et évêques, ainsi
que les grands-rabbins, prêteront serment à leur entrée en fonctions,
d'après une formule qui sera concertée entre notre Sublime-Porte et les
chefs spirituels des différentes communautés.

III....L'administration des affaires temporelles des communautés
chrétiennes et autres, non musulmanes, sera placée sous le sauvegarde
d'un conseil, dont les membres seront choisis parmi le clergé et les
laïques de chaque communauté.

VII. Le gouvernement prendra les mesures énergiques et nécessaires pour
assurer à chaque culte, quel que soit le nombre de ses adhérents, la
pleine liberté de son exercice.

VIII. Tout mot et toute expression ou appellation tendant à rendre une
classe de mes sujets inférieure à l'autre, à raison du culte, de la
langue ou de la race, sont à jamais abolis et effacés du protocole
administratif.

IX. La loi punira l'emploi, entre particuliers, ou de la part des agents
de l'autorité, de toute expression ou qualification injurieuse ou
blessant.

X. Le culte de toutes les croyances et religions existant dans mes
États, y étant pratiqué en toute liberté, aucun de mes sujets ne sera
empêché d'exercer la religion qu'il professe.

XI. Personne ne sera ni vexé, ni inquiété à cet égard.

XII. Personne ne sera contraint à changer de culte ou de religion.

XIII. Les agents et employés de l'État sont choisis par nous; ils sont
nommés par décrét impérial; et comme tous nos sujets, sans distinction
de nationalité, seront admissibles aux emplois et services publics, ils
seront aptes à les occuper, selon leur capacité, et conformément à des
règles dont l'application sera générale.

XIV. Tous nos sujets, sans différence ni distinctions, seront reçus dans
les écoles civiles et militaires du gouvernement, pourvu qu'ils
remplissent les conditions d'âge et d'examen spécifiés dans les
règlements organiques des dites écoles.

XV. De plus, chaque communauté est autorisée à établir des écoles
publiques pour les sciences, les arts et l'industrie; seulement le mode
d'enseignement et le choix des professeurs de ces sortes d'écoles seront
placés sous l'inspection et le contrôle d'un conseil mixte d'instruction
publique, dont les membres seront nommés par nous.

(Holland: _op. cit._, pp. 330-332.)

CONFERENCES OF CONSTANTINOPLE (1856).--_Protocol of Feb. 11._

XIII. Tous les cultes et ceux qui les professent jouiront d'une égale
liberté et d'une égale protection dans les deux principautés.

XV. Les étrangers pourront posséder des biens-fonds en Moldavie et en
Valachie, en acquittant les mêmes charges que les indigènes, et en se
soumettant aux lois.

XVI. Tous les Moldaves et tous les Valaques seront, sans exception,
admissibles aux emplois publics.

XVIII. Toutes les classes de la population, sans aucune distinction de
naissance ni de culte, jouiront de l'égalité des droits civils, et
particulièrement du droit de propriété, dans toutes les formes; mais
l'exercice des droits politiques sera suspendu pour les indigènes placés
sous une protection étrangère.

(Ubicini, "La Question des Principautés," p. 13.)

       *       *       *       *       *

ART. XLVI OF THE CONVENTION OF PARIS OF AUGUST 10, 1858.

XLVI. Les Moldaves et les Valaques seront tous égaux devant la loi,
devant l'impôt, et également admissibles aux emplois publics dans l'une
et l'autre Principauté.

Leur liberté individuelle sera garantie. Personne ne pourra être retenu,
arrêté, ni poursuivi que conformément à la loi.

Personne ne pourra être exproprié que légalement, pour cause d'intérêt
public, et moyennant indemnité.

Les Moldaves et les Valaques de tous les rits Chrétiens jouiront
également des droits politiques. La jouissance de ces droits pourra être
étendue aux autres cultes par les dispositions législatives.[33]

Tous les privilèges, exemptions, ou monopoles, dont jouissent encore
certaines classes, seront abolis; et il sera procédé sans retard à la
révision de la loi qui règle les rapports des propriétaires du sol avec
les cultivateurs, en vue d'améliorer l'état des paysans.

("Brit. and For. State Papers," vol. xlviii. pp. 77-78.)

       *       *       *       *       *


(_f_) THE CONGRESS OF BERLIN (1878).

Not only were the promises of the Prince of Moldavia not realised, but,
during the next twenty years, the Jews of the Principalities were more
cruelly persecuted than ever. The persecution extended beyond the
frontiers to Servia, and it soon became the leading preoccupation of the
Jews throughout the world. Owing to their protests, the Powers
frequently intervened.[34] Rumania then took the impudent course of
resenting this interference in her internal affairs, on the ground that,
by international comity, they were no concern of foreign States. In
1867, this provoked a notable retort from Great Britain. In a despatch
sent to Bucharest in that year, the following sentence appears: "The
peculiar position of the Jews places them under the protection of the
civilised world."[35]

When the Congress of Berlin met in 1878, to reconsider the Eastern
Question, the situation of the Jews in Eastern Europe, and more
particularly in the Balkans, took its place in the front rank of the
preoccupations of the Powers. Several long protocols are entirely
devoted to it.[36] The result was that the Treaty of Berlin dealt
comprehensively with the whole question of religious liberty, and
stipulated separately for such liberty in all the States of the Levant.
The Treaty is thus, as the Jewish Conjoint Committee described it, in
their important Memorandum of November 1908, "above all a great charter
of Emancipation, especially of civil and religious equality."[37] This
principle is embodied in no fewer than five of its articles, relating to
every political division of the vast region with which it deals, and in
each case it is asserted as the fundamental basis of the liberties
conferred on the various States.[38] In a word, it made it a principle
of European policy that no new State or transfer of territory should be
recognised unless the fullest religious liberty and civil and political
equality were guaranteed to the inhabitants. Thus it marks the triumph
of the principle first tentatively laid down for Holland and Belgium in
Article II of the Protocol of June 1814. Though applied to Greece in the
Protocol of February 1830, it had had to wait nearly fifty years for
universal acceptance.

All the States concerned frankly and honestly accepted this principle,
and put it into operation, except Rumania. By a repetition of the
specious promises of 1858, she again obtained permission to emancipate
her Jews gradually, it being understood that the process would be
hastened, and that full emancipation would be accomplished within a
reasonable time. Unfortunately the phrasing of the articles embodying
the principle left a technical loophole of which Rumania very
dexterously availed herself, inasmuch as it did not make provision
against the application, under Rumanian law, of the _jus sanguinis_ to
the Jews who _quâ_ Jews were held to be aliens. The point was not
ignored by the Congress, but no attempt was made to satisfy it as the
intentions of the Congress were clear enough and reliance was placed on
the good faith of Rumania.[39] The result is that for forty years
Rumania has evaded both the will of the Congress and her own promises;
and to-day the Jews of that country, with the exception of a handful who
have been emancipated by individual Acts of Parliament, are the only
Jews in Europe who are denied equal rights with their fellow-citizens.


DOCUMENTS.

       *       *       *       *       *


EXTRACTS FROM PROTOCOLS OF THE CONGRESS OF BERLIN.

_Protocole No._ 5.--_Séance du 24 Juin, 1878._

M. Waddington donne lecture de deux Articles Additionnels proposés par
les Plénipotentiaires de France, et dont voici le texte:--

"Art. I. Tous les sujets Bulgares, quelle que soit leur religion,
jouiront d'une complète égalité de droits. Ils pourront concourir à tous
les emplois publics, fonctions et honneurs, et la différence de croyance
ne pourra leur être opposée comme un motif d'exclusion.

"L'exercice et la pratique extérieure de tous les cultes seront
entièrement libres, et aucune entrave ne pourra être apportée soit à
l'organisation hiérarchique des différentes communions, soit à leurs
rapports avec leurs chefs spirituels.

"II. Une pleine et entière liberté est assurée aux religieux et évêques
Catholiques étrangers pour l'exercice de leur culte en Bulgarie et dans
la Roumélie Orientale. Ils seront maintenus dans l'exercice de leurs
droits et privilèges, et leurs propriétés seront respectées."

Le Président dit que ces deux propositions seront imprimées,
distribuées, et placées à un ordre du jour ultérieur.

Après un échange d'observations entre le Comte Schouvaloff et M.
Waddington sur la portée des deux propositions de M. le Premier
Plénipotentiaire de France, il demeure entendu que la première
s'applique à la Bulgarie, et l'autre à la Bulgarie et à la Roumélie
Orientale ensemble.

("Brit. and For. State Papers," vol. lxix., p. 917.)

       *       *       *       *       *

_Protocole No._ 6--_Séance du 25 Juin, 1878._

L'ordre du jour appelle ensuite les deux propositions Françaises
insérées dans le Protocole 5, et relatives à la liberté des cultes.

Sur la première, M. Desprez demande la substitution des mots "habitants
de la Principauté de Bulgarie" à ceux de "sujets Bulgares"; cette
modification est admise, et la proposition acceptée à l'unanimité. Sur
la seconde proposition particulièrement relative aux évêques et
religieux Catholiques, le Comte Schouvaloff propose de substituer à ces
mots, "les ecclésiastiques et religieux étrangers."

Lord Salisbury désirerait que la même législation fût, sous ce rapport,
établie pour la Roumélie, et pour les autres provinces de la Turquie.

Carathéodory Pacha déclare qu'en effet une proposition concernant le
libre exercice du culte dans la province de Roumélie Orientale paraît
tout-à-fait superflue, cette province devant être soumise à l'autorité
du Sultan, et, par conséquent, aux principes et aux lois communs à
toutes les parties de l'Empire, et qui établissent la tolérance pour
tous les cultes également.

M. Waddington, prenant acte de ces paroles, annonce l'intention
d'introduire quelques changements dans la rédaction de sa proposition,
et demande l'ajournement de la discussion à demain.

(_Ibid._, p. 935.)

       *       *       *       *       *

_Protocole No._ 7--_Séance du 26 Juin, 1878._

Le Président soumet au Congrès l'Article Additionnel présenté par les
Plénipotentiaires Français dans une séance précédente, et relatif aux
religieux Catholiques étrangers en Bulgarie et en Roumélie Orientale.

Lord Salisbury regrette que les Plénipotentiaires de France ne donnent
pas suite à leur proposition en étendant sa portée à toute la Turquie
d'Europe. Son Excellence y aurait vu un important progrès réalisé.

M. Waddington répond que le progrès dont parle Lord Salisbury a été
obtenu par l'acceptation dans la séance d'hier, de la première
proposition Française qui consacre l'entière liberté des cultes.

Lord Salisbury ayant fait remarquer que cette proposition ne concernait
que la Bulgarie, le Président dit que, pour sa part, il s'associe au
désir que la liberté des cultes soit réclamée pour toute la Turquie,
tant en Europe qu'en Asie, mais il se demande si l'on obtiendrait sur
ce point l'assentiment des Plénipotentiaires Ottomans.

Carathéodory Pacha déclare, qu'en répondant hier à M. Waddington, il
s'en est simplement rapporté à la législation générale de l'Empire
Ottoman ainsi qu'aux Traités et Conventions. Son Excellence ajoute que
la tolérance dont jouissent tous les cultes en Turquie ne fait aucun
doute, et qu'en l'absence d'une proposition plus étendue sur laquelle il
aurait alors à s'expliquer, il se croit en droit de considérer comme
superflue une mention spéciale pour la Roumélie Orientale.

Le Président constate que l'unanimité du Congrès s'associe au désir de
la France de prendre acte des déclarations données par la Turquie en
faveur de la liberté religieuse. Tel était le but des Plénipotentiaires
Français, et il a été atteint. Lord Salisbury désirerait aller au delà,
et faire étendre la proposition primitive non seulement à la Bulgarie et
la Roumélie, mais à tout l'Empire Ottoman. En ce qui concerne
l'Allemagne, le Prince de Bismarck, qui a donné son adhésion à la
proposition Française, aurait aussi volontiers admis celle de Lord
Salisbury, mais la discussion d'une question aussi complexe détournerait
le Congrès de l'objet de sa séance présente. Son Altesse Sérénissime
demande toutefois à Lord Salisbury s'il entend présenter à cet égard une
motion spéciale.

M. le Second Plénipotentiaire de la Grande Bretagne se réserve de
revenir sur ce point à propos de l'Article XXII du Traité de San
Stéfano.

Le Comte Schouvaloff ajoute que le désir de Lord Salisbury de voir
étendre la liberté religieuse autant que possible en Europe et en Asie
lui semble très justifié. Son Altesse désirerait qu'il fut fait mention
au Protocole de son adhésion au v[oe]u de M. le Plénipotentiaire
d'Angleterre, et fait observer que le Congrès ayant cherché à éffacer
les frontières éthnographiques, et à les remplacer par de frontières
commerciales et stratégiques, les Plénipotentiaires de Russie souhaitent
d'autant plus que ces frontières ne deviennent point des barrières
religieuses.

Le Président résume la discussion en disant qu'il sera inscrit au
Protocole que l'unanimité du Congrès s'est ralliée à la proposition
Française, et que la plupart des Plénipotentiaires ont formé des v[oe]ux
pour l'extension de la liberté des cultes. Ce point sera compris
d'ailleurs dans la discussion de l'Article XXII du Traité de San
Stéfano.

(_Ibid._, pp. 942-943.)

       *       *       *       *       *

_Protocole No._ 8.--_Séance du 28 Juin, 1878._

Lord Salisbury reconnaît l'indépendance de la Serbie, mais pense qu'il
serait opportun de stipuler dans la Principauté le grand principe de la
liberté religieuse.

M. Waddington admet également l'indépendance de la Serbie, mais sous le
bénéfice de la proposition suivante identique à celle que le Congrès a
acceptée pour la Bulgarie:--

"Les habitants de la Principauté de Serbie, quelle que soit leur
religion, jouiront d'une complète égalité de droits. Ils pourront
concourir à tous les emplois publics, fonctions et honneurs, et exercer
toutes les professions, et la différence de croyance ne pourra leur être
opposée comme un motif d'exclusion.

"L'exercice et la pratique extérieure de tous les cultes seront
entièrement libres, et aucune entrave ne pourra être apportée soit à
l'organisation hiérarchique des différentes communions, soit à leurs
rapports avec leurs chefs spirituels."

Le Prince Gortchacow craint que cette rédaction ne s'applique surtout
aux Israélites, et sans se montrer contraire aux principes généraux qui
y sont énoncés, son Altesse Sérénissime ne voudrait pas que la question
Israélite, qui viendra plus tard, fût prejugée par une déclaration
préalable. S'il ne s'agit que de la liberté religieuse, le Prince
Gortchacow déclare qu'elle a toujours été appliquée en Russie; il donne
pour sa part à ce principe l'adhésion la plus complète et serait prêt à
l'étendre dans le sens le plus large. Mais s'il s'agit de droits civils
et politiques, son Altesse Sérénissime demande à ne pas confondre les
Israélites de Berlin, Paris, Londres, ou Vienne, auxquels on ne saurait
assurément refuser aucun droit politique et civil, avec les Juifs de la
Serbie, de la Roumanie, et de quelques provinces Russes, qui sont, à son
avis, un véritable fléau pour les populations indigènes.

Le Président ayant fait remarquer qu'il conviendrait peut-être
d'attribuer à la restriction des droits civils et politiques ce
regrettable état des Israélites, le Prince Gortchacow rappelle qu'en
Russie, le Gouvernement, dans certaines provinces, a dû, sous
l'impulsion d'une nécessité absolue et justifié par l'expérience,
soumettre les Israélites à un régime exceptionnel pour sauvegarder les
intérêts des populations.

M. Waddington croit qu'il est important de saisir cette occasion
solennelle pour faire affirmer les principes de la liberté religieuse
par les Représentants de l'Europe. Son Excellence ajoute que la Serbie,
qui demande à entrer dans la famille Européenne sur le même pied que les
autres États, doit au préalable reconnaître les principes qui sont la
base de l'organisation sociale dans tous les États de l'Europe, et les
accepter comme une condition nécessaire de la faveur qu'elle sollicite.

Le Prince Gortchacow persiste à penser que les droits civils et
politiques ne sauraient être attribués aux Juifs d'une manière absolue
en Serbie.

Le Comte Schouvaloff fait remarquer que ces observations ne constituent
pas une opposition de principe à la proposition Française: l'élément
Israélite, trop considérable dans certaines provinces Russes, a dû y
être l'objet d'une réglementation spéciale, mais son Excellence espère
que, dans l'avenir, on pourra prévenir les inconvénients incontestables
signalés par le Prince Gortchacow sans toucher à la liberté religieuse
dont la Russie désire le développement.

Le Prince de Bismarck adhère à la proposition Française, en déclarant
que l'assentiment de l'Allemagne est toujours acquis à toute motion
favorable à la liberté religieuse.

Le Comte de Launay dit qu'au nom de l'Italie il s'empresse d'adhérer au
principe de la liberté religieuse, qui forme une des bases essentielles
des institutions de son pays, et qu'il s'associe aux déclarations faites
à ce sujet par l'Allemagne, la France, et la Grande Bretagne.

Le Comte Andrássy s'exprime dans le même sens, et les Plénipotentiaires
Ottomans n'élèvent aucune objection.

Le Prince de Bismarck, après avoir constaté les resultats du vote,
déclare que le Congrès admet l'indépendance de la Serbie, mais sous la
condition que la liberté religieuse sera reconnue dans la Principauté.
Son Altesse Sérénissime ajoute que la Commission de Rédaction, en
formulant cette décision, devra constater la connexité établie par le
Congrès entre la proclamation de l'indépendence Serbe et la
reconnaissance de la liberté religieuse.

(_Ibid._ pp. 959-961.)

       *       *       *       *       *

_Protocole No._ 10--_Séance du 1er Juillet, 1878._

M. Waddington déclare que, fidèles aux principes qui les ont inspirés
jusqu'ici, les Plénipotentiaires de France demandent que le Congrès pose
à l'indépendance Roumaine les mêmes conditions qu'à l'indépendance
Serbe. Son Excellence ne se dissimule pas les difficultés locales qui
existent en Roumanie, mais, après avoir mûrement examiné les arguments
qu'on peut faire valoir dans un sens et dans l'autre, les
Plénipotentiaires de France ont jugé préférable de ne point se départir
de la grande règle de l'égalité des droits et de la liberté des cultes.
Il est difficile, d'ailleurs, que le Gouvernement Roumain repousse, sur
son territoire, le principe admis en Turquie pour ses propres sujets.
Son Excellence pense qu'il n'y a pas à hésiter que la Roumanie,
demandant à entrer dans la grande famille Européenne, doit accepter les
charges et même les ennuis de la situation dont elle réclame le
bénéfice, et que l'on ne trouvera, de longtemps, une occasion aussi
solennelle et décisive d'affirmir de nouveau les principes qui font
l'honneur et la sécurité des nations civilisées. Quant aux difficultés
locales, M. le Premier Plénipotentiaire de France estime qu'elles seront
plus aisément surmontées lorsque ces principes auront été reconnus en
Roumanie et que la race Juive saura qu'elle n'a rien à attendre que de
ses propres efforts et de la solidarité de ses intérêts avec ceux des
populations indigènes. M. Waddington termine en insistant pour que les
mêmes conditions d'ordre politique et religieux indiquées pour la Serbie
soient également imposées à l'État Roumain.

Le Prince de Bismarck faisant allusion aux principes du droit public en
vigueur d'après la Constitution de l'Empire Allemand, et à l'intérêt que
l'opinion publique attache à ce que les mêmes principes suivis dans la
politique intérieure soient appliqués à la politique étrangère, déclare
s'associer, au nom de l'Allemagne, à la proposition Française.

Le Comte Andrássy adhère à la proposition Française.

Lord Beaconsfield dit qu'il donne une complète adhesion, au nom du
Gouvernement Anglais, à la proposition Française. Son Excellence ne
saurait supposer un instant que le Congrès reconnaîtrait l'indépendance
de la Roumanie en dehors de cette condition.

Les Plénipotentiaires Italiens font la même déclaration.

Le Prince Gortchacow, se référant aux expressions par lesquelles a été
motivée la proposition Française et qui donnent la plus grande extension
à la liberté religieuse, se rallie entièrement à cette proposition.

Le Comte Schouvaloff ajoute que l'adhésion de la Russie à l'indépendance
est cependant subordonnée à l'acceptation par la Roumanie de la
retrocession réclamée par le Gouvernement Russe.

Les Plénipotentiaires Ottomans n'élèvent aucune objection contre les
principes présentés par les Plénipotentiaires Français, et le Président
constate que le Congrès est unanime à n'accorder l'indépendance à la
Roumanie qu'aux mêmes conditions posées à la Serbie.

Le Baron de Haymerle lit une motion relative à la liberté des cultes
dans le Monténégro:--

"Tous les habitants du Monténégro jouiront d'une pleine et entière
liberté de l'exercice et de la pratique extérieure de leurs cultes, et
aucune entrave ne pourra être apportée soit à l'organisation
hiérarchique des différentes communions, soit à leurs rapports avec
leurs chefs spirituels."

Le Congrès décide le renvoi à la Commission de Rédaction.

(_Ibid._, pp. 982-983, 989, 990.)

       *       *       *       *       *

_Protocole No. 12--Séance du 4 Juillet, 1878._

Le Président fait mention des pétitions de la liste No. 9, et notamment
de la communication adressée au Congrès par M. Ristitch, faisant savoir
au Congrès que le Prince Milan l'a autorisé à déclarer que le
Gouvernement Serbe saisira la première occasion, après la conclusion de
la paix, pour abolir par la voie légale la dernière restriction qui
existe encore en Serbie relativement à la position des Israélites. Son
Altesse Sérénissime, sans vouloir entrer dans l'examen de la question,
fait remarquer que les mots "la voie légale" semblent une réserve qu'il
signale à l'attention de la haute assemblée. Le Prince de Bismarck
croit devoir constater qu'en aucun cas cette réserve ne saurait infirmer
l'autorité des décisions du Congrès.

Le Congrès passe à l'Article XXII du Traité de San Stéfano relatif aux
ecclésiastiques Russes et aux moines de Mont Athos.

Le Marquis de Salisbury rappelle qu'avant la séance il a fait distribuer
à ses collègues une proposition tendant à substituer à l'Article XXII
les dispositions suivantes:--

"Tous les habitants de l'Empire Ottoman en Europe, quelle que soit leur
religion, jouiront d'une complète égalité de droits. Ils pourront
concourir à tous les emplois publics, fonctions et honneurs, et seront
également admis en témoignage devant les Tribunaux.

"L'exercice et la pratique extérieure de tous les cultes seront
entièrement libres, et aucune entrave ne pourra être apportée, soit à
l'organisation hiérarchique des différentes communions, soit à leurs
rapports avec leurs chefs spirituels.

"Les ecclésiastiques, les pèlerins, et les moines de toutes les
nationalités, voyageant ou séjournant dans la Turquie d'Europe et
d'Asie, jouiront d'une entière égalité de droits, avantages et
privilèges.

"Le droit de protection officielle est reconnu aux Représentants
Diplomatiques et aux Agents Consulaires des Puissances en Turquie, tant
à l'égard des personnes sus-indiquées que de leurs possessions,
établissements religieux, de bienfaisance, et autres dans les Lieux
Saints et ailleurs.

"Les moines du Mont Athos seront maintenus dans leurs possessions et
avantages antérieurs, et jouiront, sans aucune exception, d'une entière
égalité de droits et prérogatives."

Lord Salisbury explique que les deux premiers alineas de cette
proposition représentent l'application à l'Empire Ottoman des principes
adoptés par le Congrès, sur la demande de la France, en ce qui concerne
la Serbie et la Roumanie; les trois derniers alineas ont pour but
d'étendre aux ecclésiastiques de toutes les nationalités le bénéfice des
stipulations de l'Article XXII spéciales aux ecclésiastiques Russes.

Le Président fait également remarquer que la portée de la proposition
Anglaise est la substitution de la Chrétienté tout entière à une seule
nationalité, et commence la lecture du document par alineas.

Sur le premier alinea, Carathéodory Pacha dit que, sans doute, les
principes de la proposition sont acceptés par la Turquie, mais son
Excellence ne voudrait pas qu'ils fussent considérés comme une
innovation, et donne lecture, à ce sujet, de la communication suivante
qu'il vient de recevoir de son Gouvernement:--

"En présence des déclarations faites au sein du Congrès dans différentes
circonstances en faveur de la tolérance religieuse, vous êtes autorisé à
déclarer, de votre côté, que le sentiment de la Sublime Porte à cet
égard s'accorde parfaitement avec le but poursuivi par l'Europe. Ses
plus constantes traditions, sa politique séculaire, l'instinct de ses
populations, tout l'y pousse. Dans tout l'Empire les religions les plus
différentes sont professées par des millions de sujets du Sultan, et
personne n'a été gêné dans sa croyance et dans l'exercice de son culte.
Le Gouvernement Impérial est décidé à maintenir dans toute sa force ce
principe, et a lui donner toute l'extension qu'il comporte."

Le Premier Plénipotentiaire de Turquie désirerait, en conséquence, que,
si le Congrès se rallie à la proposition Anglaise, il fût, du moins,
constaté dans le texte que les principes dont il s'agit sont conformes à
ceux qui dirigent son Gouvernement. Son Excellence ajoute que,
contrairement à ce qui se passait en Serbie et en Roumanie, il n'existe
dans la législation de l'Empire aucune inégalité ou incapacité fondées
sur des motifs religieux, et demande l'addition de quelques mots
indiquant que cette règle a toujours été appliquée dans l'Empire Ottoman
non seulement en Europe, mais en Asie. Le Congrès pourrait, par exemple,
ajouter "conformément aux déclarations de la Porte et aux dispositions
antérieures, qu'elle affirme vouloir maintenir."

Lord Salisbury n'a pas d'objections contre la demande de Carathéodory
Pacha, tout en faisant observer que ces dispositions se rencontrent, en
effet, dans les déclarations de la Porte, mais n'ont pas toujours été
observées dans la pratique. Au surplus, son Excellence ne s'oppose point
à ce que le Comité de Rédaction soit invité à insérer l'addition
réclamée par les Plénipotentiaires Ottomans.

(_Ibid._, pp. 1002-3, 1009-10.)

       *       *       *       *       *

_Protocole No. 17.--Séance du 10 Juillet 1878._

Le Président invite le Rapporteur de la Commission de Rédaction à lire
le travail préparatoire du Traité.

M. Desprez fait connaître à la haute assemblée que le texte du préambule
n'est pas encore arrêté, mai lui sera soumis dans la prochaine séance.
Article V, qui a pour objet l'égalité des droits et la liberté des
cultes, a donné lieu à des difficultés de rédaction; cet Article, en
effet, est commun à la Bulgarie, au Monténégro, à la Serbie, à la
Roumanie, et la Commission devait trouver une même formule pour diverses
situations; il était particulièrement malaisé d'y comprendre les
Israélites de Roumanie, dont la situation est indéterminée au point de
vue de la nationalité. Le Comte de Launay, dans le but de prévenir tout
malentendu, a proposé, au cours de la discussion, l'insertion de la
phrase suivante: "Les Israélites de Roumanie, pour autant qu'ils
n'appartiennent pas à une nationalité étrangère, acquièrent, de plein
droit, la nationalité Roumaine."

Le Prince de Bismarck signale les inconvénients qu'il y aurait à
modifier les résolutions adoptées par le Congrès et qui ont formé la
base des travaux de la Commission de Rédaction. Il est nécessaire que
le Congrès s'oppose à toute tentative de revenir sur le fond.

M. Desprez ajoute que la Commission a maintenu sa rédaction primitive,
qui lui paraît de nature à concilier tous les intérêts en cause, et que
M. de Launay s'est borné à demander l'insertion de sa motion au
Protocole.

Le Prince Gortchacow rappelle les observations qu'il a présenté, dans
une précédente séance, à propos des droits politiques et civils des
Israélites en Roumanie. Son Altesse Sérénissime ne veut pas renouveler
ses objections, mais tient à déclarer de nouveau qu'il ne partage pas,
sur ce point, l'opinion énoncée dans le Traité.

(_Ibid._, pp. 1058-1059.)

       *       *       *       *       *

EXTRACTS FROM THE TREATY OF BERLIN, SIGNED JULY 13, 1878.

XLIV. En Roumanie la distinction des croyances religieuses et des
confessions ne pourra être opposée à personne comme un motif d'exclusion
ou d'incapacité en ce qui concerne la jouissance des droits civils et
politiques, l'admission aux emplois publics, fonctions, et honneurs, ou
l'exercice des différentes professions et industries dans quelque
localité que ce soit.

La liberté et la pratique extérieure de tous les cultes seront assurées
à tous les ressortissants de l'État Roumain aussi bien qu'aux étrangers,
et aucune entrave ne sera apportée, soit à l'organisation hiérarchique
des différentes communions, soit à leurs rapports avec leurs chefs
spirituels.

Les nationaux de toutes les Puissances, commerçants ou autres, seront
traités en Roumanie, sans distinction de religion, sur le pied d'une
parfaite égalité.

       *       *       *       *       *

[Articles V, XXVII, and XXXV, relating respectively to Bulgaria,
Montenegro, and Servia, are in the same form with the exception of the
last _alinéa_, which only appears in the above quoted article.]

       *       *       *       *       *

LXII. La Sublime Porte ayant exprimé la volonté de maintenir le principe
de la liberté religieuse en y donnant l'extension la plus large, les
Parties Contractantes prennent acte de cette déclaration spontanée.

Dans aucune partie de l'Empire Ottoman la différence de religion ne
pourra être opposée à personne comme un motif d'exclusion ou
d'incapacité en ce qui concerne l'usage des droits civils et politiques,
l'admission aux emplois publics, fonctions et honneurs, ou l'exercice
des différentes professions et industries.

Tous seront admis sans distinction de religion à témoigner devant les
tribunaux.

La liberté et la pratique extérieure de tous les cultes sont assurés à
tous, et aucune entrave ne pourra être apportée, soit à l'organisation
hiérarchique des différentes communions, soit à leurs rapports avec
leurs chefs spirituels.

Les ecclésiastiques, les pèlerins, et les moines de toutes les
nationalités voyageant dans la Turquie d'Europe ou la Turquie d'Asie
jouiront des mêmes droits, avantages et privilèges.

(_Ibid._, pp. 764, 766-767.)

       *       *       *       *       *

REVISION OF THE RUMANIAN CONSTITUTION (1879).

_No. 115. Mr. White to the Marquis of Salisbury. (Rec. November 4.)_

BUCHAREST, _October 25, 1879_.

MY LORD,--I have the honour to forward to your Lordship an authorized
French translation of the Constitutional amendment concerning
naturalization and religious equality as promulgated by a Decree this
morning.

I have, &c.,

W. A. WHITE.

THE MARQUIS OF SALISBURY.

       *       *       *       *       *

(TRADUCTION.)

_Article Unique.--À la place de l'Article 7 de la Constitution soumis à
la revision, on mettra le suivant_:--

Article 7. La distinction de croyances religieuses et de confessions ne
constituera point en Roumanie un obstacle à l'acquisition des droits
civils et politiques et à leur exercice.

§ 1. L'étranger pourra, sans distinction de religion, et qu'il soit
soumis ou non à une protection étrangère, obtenir la naturalisation sous
les conditions suivantes:

(_a_) Il addressera au Gouvernement sa pétition de naturalisation, par
laquelle il fera connaître le capital qu'il possède, la profession ou
l'industrie qu'il exerce, et la volonté d'établir en Roumanie son
domicile.

(_b_) À la suite de cette demande il habitera le pays pendant dix
années, et il prouvera, par ses actions, qu'il est utile au pays.

§ 2. Pourront être dispensés du stage:

(_a_) Ceux qui auront introduit dans le pays des industries, des
inventions utiles, ou qui posséderont des talents distingués, ceux qui
auront fondé de grands établissements de commerce ou d'industrie.

(_b_) Ceux qui, nés et élevés dans le pays, de parents y établis,
n'auront jamais joui, ni les uns ni les autres, d'une protection
étrangère.

(_c_) Ceux qui auront servi sous les drapeaux pendant la Guerre de
l'Indépendance, lesquels pourront être naturalisés d'une manière
collective, sur la proposition du Gouvernement, par une seule Loi et
sans autre formalité.

3. La naturalisation ne peut être accordée que par la Loi, et
individuellement.

4. Une Loi spéciale déterminera, le mode d'après lequel les étrangers
pourront établir leur domicile en Roumanie.

5. Les Roumains ou ceux qui seront naturalisés Roumains pourront
acquérir des immeubles ruraux en Roumanie. Les droits déjà acquis seront
respectés. Les Conventions Internationales actuellement existantes
restent en vigueur, avec toutes leurs clauses et jusqu'à l'expiration de
leur durée.

(_Ibid._, lxxi. 1176-77.)

       *       *       *       *       *

THE COMPACT WITH RUMANIA (1880).

_English Text of Identic Note presented to the Roumanian Government,
February 20, 1880._

The Undersigned, British Representative at Bucharest, has the honour, by
order of his Government, to convey to M. Boeresco, the Minister for
Foreign Affairs of Roumania, the following communication:--

Her Britannic Majesty's Government have been informed, through the Agent
of His Royal Highness the Prince of Roumania at Paris, of the
promulgation, on the 25th October, 1879, of a Law, voted by the
"Chambres de Revision" of the Principality, for the purpose of bringing
the text of the Roumanian Constitution into conformity with the
stipulations inserted in Article XLIV of the Treaty of Berlin.

Her Majesty's Government cannot consider the new Constitutional
provisions which have been brought to their cognizance--and particularly
those by which persons belonging to a non-Christian creed domiciled in
Roumania, and not belonging to any foreign nationality, are required to
submit to the formalities of individual naturalization--as being a
complete fulfilment of the views of the Powers signatories of the Treaty
of Berlin.

Trusting, however, to the determination of the Prince's Government to
approximate more and more, in the execution of these provisions, to the
liberal intentions entertained by the Powers, and taking note of the
positive assurances to that effect which have been conveyed to them, the
Government of Her Britannic Majesty, being desirous of giving to the
Roumanian nation a proof of their friendly sentiments, have decided to
recognize the Principality of Roumania as an independent State. Her
Majesty's Government consequently declare themselves ready to enter
into regular diplomatic relations with the Prince's Government.

In bringing the decision come to by his Government to the knowledge of
the Minister for Foreign Affairs, the Undersigned, &c.

W. A. WHITE.

BUCHAREST, _February 20, 1880_.

(_Ibid._, p. 1187.)

       *       *       *       *       *


(_g_) RUMANIA AND THE POWERS (1902).

It must be confessed--and, indeed, it has been avowed by prominent
Rumanians themselves[40]--that Rumania's evasion of the Treaty of Berlin
has been a monument of resourceful duplicity and bad faith. Accomplished
by pretending to regard the native Jews as foreigners, it actually
placed them in a far worse position than they had held in 1858, when at
any rate their national character as Moldavians or Wallachians was not
contested. But, not only have they been refused emancipation and stamped
as foreigners, but, in their character of foreigners, without a State to
protect them, they have been made the victims of special and cruel
disabilities, which in practice do not and cannot affect other
foreigners.

One peculiarly barbarous act of persecution of this kind which was
attempted in 1902 nearly brought about a serious intervention by the
Great Powers to compel Rumania to observe her Treaty obligations. An Act
was passed by the Rumanian Parliament forbidding foreigners to exercise
any handicraft in Rumania unless Rumanians were assured similar
privileges in the parent States of such foreigners. The result of this
Act would have been to deprive all the Jewish artizans in Rumania of the
means of earning their livelihood, as, being foreigners without a parent
State of their own, they could not prove the reciprocity required by the
law. Prompt steps were taken to bring this project to the notice of the
Great Powers, chiefly by the late Lord Rothschild in London and Mr.
Jacob Schiff in Washington. Lord Rothschild was the first to move. In
June 1901 he forwarded to His Majesty's Government an elaborate
Memorandum setting forth the intolerable situation of the Rumanian Jews
and especially emphasising its international dangers as a stimulus of
undesirable immigration in other countries.[41] At the same time he
brought all his great influence to bear privately on individual members
of the Government. From Lord Lansdowne he received the warmest sympathy,
and the Foreign Office at once set inquiries on foot with a view to
ascertaining whether combined action by the Powers signatory of the
Berlin Treaty would be practicable. The responses, however, were not
encouraging.[42] Meanwhile the action of the London Jews had been
communicated to Mr. Oscar Straus in New York, and he persuaded Mr.
Schiff to bring the question to the knowledge of President Roosevelt.
The President, deeply moved by Mr. Schiff's story, acted with
characteristic energy. In July 1902 the Secretary of State, Mr. John
Hay, under the guise of a despatch giving instructions to the United
States Minister at Athens in regard to certain negotiations then pending
for a Naturalisation Treaty with Rumania, formulated a powerful
indictment of the persecutions. Three weeks later the American
Ambassadors in London, Paris, Berlin, Vienna, St. Petersburg, Rome, and
Constantinople were instructed to communicate this despatch to the
Governments to which they were accredited, and to ascertain from them
whether it might not be possible to take some steps to secure from
Rumania the fulfilment of her obligations under Article XLIV of the
Treaty of Berlin.[43] Thus supported, Lord Lansdowne no longer
hesitated. In September he despatched a Circular to the Great Powers
definitely proposing combined representations at Bucharest.[44]

As soon as this _démarche_ got wind Rumania hastened to annul the
offending law, and otherwise to restrain her anti-Semitic zeal. Nothing
more was heard of the proposed collective intervention, but it is now
known that Lord Lansdowne's proposal never took final shape because the
Russian and German Governments refused to associate themselves with it.


DOCUMENTS.

       *       *       *       *       *

DISPATCH FROM MR. JOHN HAY (U.S. SECRETARY OF STATE) TO THE U.S.
MINISTER AT ATHENS.

DEPARTMENT OF STATE, WASHINGTON,

_July 17, 1902_.

_Charles S. Wilson, Esquire, etc., etc., etc., Athens._

SIR,--Your legation's despatch No. 19, of the 13th of February last,
reported having submitted to the Roumanian Government, through its
diplomatic representative in Greece, as the outcome of conference had by
Mr. Francis with him on the subject, a tentative draft of the
naturalization convention, on the lines of the draft previously
submitted to the Servian Government, and Mr. Francis added that His
Excellency the Roumanian Minister had informed him of his hearty
approval of the project, which he had forwarded to his Government with
his unqualified endorsement. Minister Francis was instructed on March 4
that his action was approved. No report of progress has since been
received from your legation, but it is presumed that the matter is
receiving the consideration due to its importance.

For its part, the Government of the United States regards the conclusion
of conventions of this character as of the highest value, because not
only establishing and recognizing the right of the citizens of the
foreign State to expatriate themselves voluntarily and acquire the
citizenship of this country, but also because establishing beyond the
pale of doubt the absolute equality of such naturalized persons with
native citizens of the United States in all that concerns their relation
to or intercourse with the country of their former allegiance.

The right of citizens of the United States to resort to and transact
affairs of business or commerce in another country, without molestation
or disfavor of any kind, is set forth in the general treaties of amity
and commerce which the United States have concluded with foreign
nations, thus declaring what this Government holds to be a necessary
feature of the mutual intercourse of civilized nations and confirming
the principles of equality, equity and comity which underlie their
relations to one another. This right is not created by treaties; it is
recognized by them as a necessity of national existence, and we apply
the precept to other countries, whether it be conventionally declared or
not, as fully as we expect its extension to us.

In some instances, other governments, taking a less broad view, regard
the rights of intercourse of alien citizens as not extending to their
former subjects who may have acquired another nationality. So far as
this position is founded on national sovereignty and asserts a claim to
the allegiance and service of the subject not to be extinguished save by
the consent of the sovereign, it finds precedent and warrant which it is
immaterial to the purpose of this instruction to discuss. Where such a
claim exists, it becomes the province of a naturalization convention to
adjust it on a ground of common advantage, substituting the general
sanction of treaty for the individual permission of expatriation and
recognizing the subject who may have changed allegiance as being on the
same plane with the natural or native citizens of the other contracting
State.

Some States, few in number, be it said, make distinction between
different classes of citizens of the foreign State, denying to some the
rights of innocent intercourse and commerce which by comity and natural
right are accorded to the stranger, and doing this without regard to the
origin of the persons adversely affected. One country in particular,
although maintaining with the United States a treaty which unqualifiedly
guarantees to citizens of this country the rights of visit, sojourn and
commerce of the Empire, yet assumes to prohibit those rights to Hebrew
citizens of the United States, whether native or naturalized.[45] This
Government can lose no opportunity to controvert such a distinction,
wherever it may appear. It cannot admit such discrimination among its
own citizens, and can never assent that a foreign State, of its own
volition, can apply a religious test to debar any American citizen from
the favor due to all.

There is no treaty of amity and commerce between the United States and
Roumania, but this Government is pleased to believe that Roumania
follows the precepts of comity in this regard as completely and
unreservedly as we ourselves do, and that the American in Roumania is as
welcome and as free in matters of sojourn and commerce and legal resorts
as the Roumanian is in the United States. We hear no suggestion that any
differential treatment of our citizens is there imposed. No religious
test is known to bar any American from resorting to Roumania for
business or pleasure. No attempt has been made to set up any such test
in the United States whereby any American citizen might be denied
recourse to the representatives of Roumania in order to authenticate
documents necessary to the establishment of his legal rights or the
furtherance of his personal interests in Roumania. And in welcoming
negotiations for a convention of naturalization Roumania gives proof of
her desire to confirm all American citizens in their inherently just
rights.

Another consideration, of cognate character, presents itself. In the
absence of a naturalization convention, some few States hold
self-expatriation without the previous consent of the sovereign to be
punishable, or to entail consequences indistinguishable from banishment.
Turkey, for instance, only tacitly assents to the expatriation of
Ottoman subjects, so long as they remain outside Turkish jurisdiction.
Should they return thereto their acquired alienship is ignored. Should
they seek to cure the matter by asking permission to be naturalized
abroad, consent is coupled with the condition of non-return to Turkey.
It is the object of a naturalization convention to remedy this feature
by placing the naturalized alien on a parity with the natural-born
citizen and according him due recognition as such. This consideration
gives us added satisfaction that negotiations on the subject have been
auspiciously inaugurated with Roumania. If I have mentioned this aspect
of the matter, it is in order that the two Governments may be in accord
as to the bases of their agreement in this regard; for it is
indispensable that the essential purpose of the proposed convention
should not be impaired or perverted by any coupled condition of
banishment imposed independently by the act of either contracting party.

The United States welcomes now, as it has welcomed from the foundation
of its government, the voluntary immigration of all aliens coming hither
under conditions fitting them to become merged in the body-politic of
this land. Our laws provide the means for them to become incorporated
indistinguishably in the mass of citizens, and prescribe their absolute
equality with the native born, guaranteeing to them equal civil rights
at home and equal protection abroad. The conditions are few, looking to
their coming as free agents, so circumstanced physically and morally as
to supply the healthful and intelligent material of free citizenhood.
The pauper, the criminal, the contagiously or incurably diseased, are
excluded from the benefits of immigration only when they are likely to
become a source of danger or a burden upon the community. The voluntary
character of their coming is essential,--hence we shut out all
immigration assisted or constrained by foreign agencies. The purpose of
our generous treatment of the alien immigrant is to benefit us and him
alike,--not to afford to another State a field upon which to cast its
own objectionable elements. A convention of naturalization may not be
construed as an instrument to facilitate any such process. The alien,
coming hither voluntarily and prepared to take upon himself the
preparatory, and in due course the definite obligations of citizenship,
retains thereafter, in domestic and international relations, the initial
character of free agency, in the full enjoyment of which it is incumbent
upon his adoptive State to protect him.

The foregoing considerations, whilst pertinent to the examination of the
purpose and scope of a naturalization treaty, have a larger aim. It
behoves the State to scrutinize most jealously the character of the
immigration from a foreign land, and, if it be obnoxious to objection,
to examine the causes which render it so. Should those causes originate
in the act of another sovereign State, to the detriment of its
neighbors, it is the prerogative of an injured State to point out the
evil and to make remonstrance; for with nations, as with individuals,
the social law holds good that the right of each is bounded by the right
of the neighbor.

The condition of a large class of the inhabitants of Roumania has for
many years been a source of grave concern to the United States. I refer
to the Roumanian Jews, numbering some 400,000. Long ago, while the
Danubian principalities labored under oppressive conditions which only
war and a general action of the European Powers sufficed to end, the
persecution of the indigenous Jews under Turkish rule called forth in
1872 the strong remonstrance of the United States. The Treaty of Berlin
was hailed as a cure for the wrong, in view of the express provisions of
its 44th article, prescribing that "in Roumania, the difference of
religious creeds and confessions shall not be alleged against any person
as a ground for exclusion or incapacity in matters relating to the
enjoyment of civil and political rights, admissions to public
employments, functions, and honors, or the exercise of the various
professions and industries in any locality whatsoever," and stipulating
freedom in the exercise of all forms of worship to Roumanian dependents
and foreigners alike, as well as guaranteeing that all foreigners in
Roumania shall be treated, without distinction of creed, on a footing of
perfect equality.

With the lapse of time these just prescriptions have been rendered
nugatory in great part, as regards the native Jews, by the legislation
and municipal regulations of Roumania. Starting from the arbitrary and
controvertible premises that the native Jews of Roumania domiciled there
for centuries are "aliens not subject to foreign protection," the
ability of the Jew to earn even the scanty means of existence that
suffice for a frugal race has been constricted by degrees, until nearly
every opportunity to win a livelihood is denied; and until the helpless
poverty of the Jew has constrained an exodus of such proportions as to
cause general concern.

The political disabilities of the Jews in Roumania, their exclusion from
the public service and the learned professions, the limitations of their
civil rights, and the imposition upon them of exceptional taxes,
involving as they do wrongs repugnant to the moral sense of liberal
modern peoples, are not so directly in point for my present purpose as
the public acts which attack the inherent right of man as a bread winner
in the ways of agriculture and trade. The Jews are prohibited from
owning land, or even from cultivating it as common laborers. They are
debarred from residing in the rural districts. Many branches of petty
trade and manual production are closed to them in the over-crowded
cities where they are forced to dwell and engage against fearful odds,
in the desperate struggle for existence. Even as ordinary artisans or
hired laborers they may only find employment in the proportion of one
"unprotected alien" to two "Roumanians" under any one employer. In
short, by the cumulative effect of successive restrictions, the Jews of
Roumania have become reduced to a state of wretched misery. Shut out
from nearly every avenue of self-support which is open to the poor of
other lands, and ground down by poverty as the natural result of their
discriminatory treatment, they are rendered incapable of lifting
themselves from the enforced degradation they endure. Even were the
fields of education open to them, of civil employment and of commerce,
as to "Roumanian citizens," their penury would prevent rising by
individual effort. Human beings, so circumstanced, have virtually no
alternatives but submissive suffering, or flight to some land less
unfavourable to them. Removal under such conditions is not and cannot be
the healthy intelligent emigration of a free and self-reliant being. It
must be, in most cases, the mere transplantation of an artificially
produced diseased growth to a new place.

Granting that, in better and more healthful surroundings, the morbid
conditions will eventually change for good, such emigration is
necessarily for a time a burden to the community upon which the
fugitives may be cast. Self-reliance, and the knowledge and ability that
evolve the power of self-support must be developed, and, at the same
time, avenues of employment must be opened in quarters where competition
is already keen and opportunities scarce. The teachings of history, and
the experience of our own nation, show that the Jews possess in a high
degree the mental and moral qualifications of conscientious citizenhood.
No class of emigrants is more welcome to our shores when coming equipped
in mind and body for entrance upon the struggle for bread, and inspired
with the high purpose to give the best service of heart and brain to the
land they adopt of their own free will. But when they come as outcasts,
made doubly paupers by physical and moral oppression in their native
land, and thrown upon the long-suffering generosity of a more favored
community, their migration lacks the essential conditions which make
alien immigration either acceptable or beneficial. So well is this
appreciated on the Continent, that, even in the countries where
anti-Semitism has no foothold, it is difficult for these fleeing Jews to
obtain any lodging. America is their only goal.

The United States offers asylum to the oppressed of all lands. But its
sympathy with them in no wise impairs its just liberty and right to
weigh the acts of the oppressor in the light of their effects upon this
country, and to judge accordingly.

Putting together the facts now painfully brought home to this Government
during the past few years: that many of the inhabitants of Roumania are
being forced, by artificially adverse discriminations, to quit their
native country; that the hospitable asylum offered by this country is
almost the only refuge left to them; that they come hither unfitted by
the conditions of their exile to take part in the new life of this land
under circumstances either profitable to themselves or beneficial to the
community; and that they are objects of charity from the outset and for
a long time,--the right of remonstrance against the acts of the
Roumanian Government is clearly established in favor of this Government.
Whether consciously and of purpose, or not, these helpless people,
burdened and spurned by their native land, are forced by the sovereign
power of Roumania upon the charity of the United States. This Government
cannot be a tacit party to such an international wrong. It is
constrained to protest against the treatment to which the Jews of
Roumania are subjected, not alone because it has unimpeachable ground to
remonstrate against the resultant injury to itself, but in the name of
humanity. The United States may not authoritatively appeal to the
stipulations of the Treaty of Berlin, to which it was not and cannot
become a signatory, but it does earnestly appeal to the principles
consigned therein, because they are the principles of international law
and eternal justice, advocating the broad toleration which that solemn
compact enjoins, and standing ready to lend its moral support to the
fulfilment thereof by its co-signatories, for the act of Roumania itself
has effectively joined the United States to them as an interested party
in this regard.

Occupying this ground and maintaining these views, it behoves us to see
that in concluding a naturalization convention no implication may exist
of obligation on the part of the United States to receive and convert
these unfortunates into citizens, and to eliminate any possible
inference of some condition or effect tantamount to banishment from
Roumania with inhibition of return or imposition of such legal
disability upon them by reason of their creed, as may impair their
interests in that country or operate to deny them judicial remedies
there which all American citizens may justly claim in accordance with
the law and comity of nations.

I am, Sir,

Your obedient servant,

JOHN HAY.


       *       *       *       *       *


AMERICAN CIRCULAR NOTE TO THE GREAT POWERS.

DEPARTMENT OF STATE, WASHINGTON,

_August 11, 1902_.

SIR,--In the course of an instruction recently sent to the Minister
accredited to the Government of Roumania in regard to the bases of
negotiation begun with that Government looking to a convention of
naturalization between the United States and Roumania, certain
considerations were set forth for the Minister's guidance concerning the
character of the emigration from that country, the causes which
constrain it, and the consequences so far as they adversely affect the
United States.

It has seemed to the President appropriate that these considerations,
relating as they do to the obligations entered into by the signatories
of the Treaty of Berlin of July 13, 1878, should be brought to the
attention of the Governments concerned and commended to their
consideration in the hope that, if they are so fortunate as to meet the
approval of the several Powers, such measures as to them may seem wise
may be taken to persuade the Government of Roumania to reconsider the
subject of the grievances in question.

       *       *       *       *       *

(This note continues in the language of the foregoing despatch from the
words: "The United States welcomes now, etc." down to words: "as an
interested party in this regard.")

       *       *       *       *       *

You will take an early occasion to read this instruction to the Minister
for Foreign Affairs and, should he request it, leave with him a copy.

JOHN HAY.

       *       *       *       *       *

_Reply of Great Britain._

(Mr. Bertie to Mr. Choate.)

FOREIGN OFFICE,

_September 2, 1902_.

YOUR EXCELLENCY,--I have the honour to acknowledge the receipt of your
note of the 23rd ultimo, inclosing a copy of a dispatch from Mr.
Secretary Hay on the subject of the conditions of the Jews in Roumania.

His Majesty's Government joins with the United States Government in
deploring the depressed condition of the Roumanian Jews and in regarding
with apprehension the results of their enforced emigration.

His Majesty's Government will place themselves in communication with
the other Powers signatory of the Treaty of Berlin, with a view to a
joint representation to the Roumanian Government on the subject.

FRANCIS BERTIE.

(_In the absence of the Marquis of Lansdowne._)

("Foreign Relations of the United States (1902)," pp. 910 _et seq._, 42
_et seq._, and 550).

       *       *       *       *       *


(_h_) THE CONFERENCES OF LONDON, ST. PETERSBURG AND BUCHAREST (1912-13).

In connection with the Balkan complications of the last ten years, which
form the overture to the present war, the Jewish organisations in
Western Europe and America--chiefly the London Jewish Conjoint
Committee--lost no opportunity of keeping the grievances of the Rumanian
Jews before the Great Powers and of maintaining the liberties already
won in South-Eastern Europe. The work has been of a more arduous and
far-reaching character than the public suspect, and, although it has not
achieved final success, it has been far from unfruitful. Of this work it
is only possible to speak in a very summary way, as much of it is still
confidential and all of it is directly related to negotiations still
pending and necessarily belonging to the domain of what is invidiously
called secret diplomacy.

In 1908, on the occasion of the annexation of Bosnia and the Herzegovina
by Austria-Hungary, the Conjoint Committee seized the opportunity of
endeavouring to reopen the Rumano-Jewish Question. The annexation was a
technical infraction of the Berlin Treaty and required the sanction of
the Great Powers, for which probably a Conference would be held. The
Conjoint Committee addressed to Sir Edward Grey a request that the scope
of the proposed Conference should be extended to other infractions of
the Treaty, and accompanied it with a review of the Rumano-Jewish
Question, which constitutes one of the most important State Papers
produced in the Jewish community.[46] Unfortunately the projected
Conference was abandoned, but Sir Edward Grey was so impressed by the
statements of the Conjoint Committee that he ordered an investigation to
be made, and he afterwards formally avowed, in a letter to the Conjoint
Committee, that the charges made in the Memorandum were accurate and
that Rumania had not fulfilled her Treaty pledges. This perhaps may not
seem to be a great gain, but those who know anything of international
politics will be aware that an official statement of this kind has
considerable practical importance, and, indeed, it was not lost upon the
Cabinet of Bucharest.

The last occasions on which attempts were made to put an end to the
Rumanian scandal were in connection with the Conferences of London, St.
Petersburg, and Bucharest, which liquidated the various questions
arising out of the Balkan wars in 1912-13. Here two questions confronted
the Conjoint Committee. While the international questions at issue were
confined to the trans-Danubian States, all that was necessary was to
secure for the populations of the transferred territories in that region
a reaffirmation of the clauses of the Treaties of 1830 and 1878, by
which the liberties of racial and religious minorities were guaranteed.
When, however, Rumania joined in the war, this question became of much
greater importance, and it involved the reopening of the whole question
of Rumania's violation of the Treaty of Berlin. In spite of the efforts
of the Conjoint Committee, neither the three Conferences of London, nor
the Conference of St. Petersburg dealt with these questions. At the
Conference of Bucharest the United States Government, at the instance of
the American Jewish Committee, made a suggestion that the civil and
religious liberties of the populations of the territories transferred
under the proposed Treaty should be specially guaranteed. On the
proposal of the Rumanian Prime Minister, however, the Conference agreed
that such securities were not necessary, but expressed their readiness
to give a verbal assurance that the wishes of the United States would be
fully realised.[47] A long correspondence ensued between the Conjoint
Committee and the Foreign Office, and eventually Sir Edward Grey agreed
to a suggestion of the Committee that the Great Powers should be
consulted with a view to making their sanction of the new territorial
arrangements in the Balkans conditional on the guarantee of full civil
and religious liberty to all the inhabitants of the annexed
territories.[48] This important assurance was reaffirmed by the
Secretary of State towards the end of July 1914, within a week of the
outbreak of the present war.


DOCUMENTS.

       *       *       *       *       *

EXTRACT FROM THE PROTOCOLS OF THE CONFERENCE OF BUCHAREST.

_Protocole No. 6.--Séance du Mardi, 23 Juillet (5 Août), 1913._

[Le Président] fait part à la Conférence de la note suivante que lui a
remise S.E. Monsieur Jackson, Ministre des États-Unis d'Amérique à
Bucarest.

"Le Gouvernement des États-Unis d'Amérique désire faire savoir qu'il
regarderait avec satisfaction si une provision accordant pleine liberté
civile et religieuse aux habitants de tout territoire que pourrait être
assujetti à la souverainté de quiconque des cinq Puissances ou qui
pourrait être transféré de la jurisdiction de l'une des Puissances à
celle d'une autre, pourrait être introduite dans toute convention
conclue à Bucarest."

M. Maioresco estime que les délégués sont unanimes à reconnaître
pleinement, en fait et en droit, le principe qui a inspiré la note
précitée, le droit public des États constitutionnels représentés à cette
Conférence en ayant consacré de longue date l'application. Le Président
pense donc que la note des États-Unis d'Amérique ne saurait soulever
aucune difficulté: il est peut-être bon de rappeler quelquefois les
principes, même lorsqu'ils sont universellement admis. Aussi, croit-il
être l'interprète des sentiments de MM. les Plénipotentiaires en
déclarant que les habitants de tout territoire nouvellement acquis
auront, sans distinction de religion, la même pleine liberté civile et
religieuse que tous les autres habitants de l'état.

M. Venizelos considère qu'à la suite des déclarations du Président, qui
seront consignées au Protocole, toute insertion dans le traité à
conclure, d'un principe déjà universellement reconnu serait superflue.

Cette manière de voir de M. le premier délégué de Grèce a recueilli
l'assentiment unanime.

("Le Traité de Paix de Bucarest--Protocoles de la Conférence," Bucarest,
1913, pp. 24-25.)

       *       *       *       *       *

EXTRACTS FROM CORRESPONDENCE BETWEEN THE CONJOINT COMMITTEE AND SIR
EDWARD GREY.

CONJOINT JEWISH COMMITTEE,

19 FINSBURY CIRCUS, E.C.

_13th October, 1913_.

SIR,--The Jewish Conjoint Foreign Committee of the London Committee of
Deputies of British Jews and the Anglo-Jewish Association have had under
their consideration the diplomatic acts--principally the Treaty of
Bucharest--by which the new territorial system in the Near East has been
adjusted, and they have instructed us to invite the attention of His
Majesty's Government to the omission from those documents of provisions
either confirming or repeating on their own account, for the benefit of
the annexed territories, the guarantees of civil and religious liberty
and equality contained in the Protocol No. 3 of the Conference of London
of February 3rd, 1830, and in Articles V, XXVII, XXXIV, XLIV, and LXII
of the Treaty of Berlin.

Owing to the vast changes which have been made in the distribution of
the Jewish communities throughout the region lying between the Danube
and the Ægean, and more especially in view of the annexations to the
Kingdom of Roumania, where hitherto the Civil and Religious Liberty
Clauses of the Treaty of Berlin have been systematically evaded, this
question has caused the Jewish people the gravest anxiety. The Conjoint
Committee are well aware that in four of the annexing States, namely,
Greece, Bulgaria, Servia, and Montenegro, the Constitutions provide for
the equal rights of all religious denominations, and they gratefully
acknowledge that for many years past the Jews in those countries have
had no reason to complain; but in the new conditions of mixed races and
creeds which confront those States, and in face of the symptoms already
apparent of an accentuation of the long-standing inter-confessional
bitterness and strife, they prefer not to relinquish the international
obligations by which the rights of their co-religionists have hitherto
been secured. In this view they find themselves supported not only by
all the Jewish communities of the Balkans, but also by all of the
religious minorities in the dominions which have recently changed hands.
The reasonableness of their view is further supported by the
constitutional changes effected in like circumstances in Moldo-Wallachia
and Servia three-quarters of a century ago to the prejudice of the Jews,
and also by the continued encouragement to religious intolerance
afforded by the legalised oppression of a quarter of a million Jews in
the Kingdom of Roumania.

The question was not ignored at the Peace Conference at Bucharest, but
it failed to receive any contractual solution. At the sitting of August
8th a scheme of religious, scholastic and cultural liberty was
discussed, but no agreement was reached, owing to irreconcilable
differences between the Patriarchists and the Exarchists. Moreover, the
scheme as drawn up was confined to Christian communities (Protocol No.
10). At the sitting of August 5th, the question was raised in its wider
aspects by a communication from the United States Government expressing
the hope that a provision would be introduced into the Treaty "according
full civil and religious liberty to the inhabitants of any territory
subject to the sovereignty of any of the five Powers, or which might be
transferred from the jurisdiction of any one of them to that of
another." This also met with no adequate response. M. Maioresco, the
Chief Roumanian plenipotentiary, expressed the opinion that such a
provision was unnecessary, "as the principle inspiring it had long been
recognised, in fact and in law, by the public law of the Constitutional
States represented at the Conference," but he added that he was willing
to declare on behalf of the plenipotentiaries that "the inhabitants of
any territory newly acquired will have, without distinction of religion,
the same full civil and religious liberty, as all the other inhabitants
of the State." In this view the other plenipotentiaries concurred.
(Protocol No. 6.)

The Jewish Conjoint Committee regret that they are unable to accept
either the reasoning or the assurances of M. Maioresco for the following
reasons:--

1. Even if it were true that the constitutions of all the five
contracting States assure civil and religious liberty to their
inhabitants without distinction of religion--Roumania herself is a
flagrant exception--it would not afford as permanent a guarantee as an
international obligation. The circumstances which render such a
guarantee necessary in the present case have already been referred to
above.

2. In previous territorial changes in the Near East, the liberal
provisions of the constitutions of the annexing States have not been
held sufficient for the protection of religious minorities. Thus, in
1864, when the Ionian Islands were transferred to Greece, the Powers
specifically extended to the new territories the civil and religious
liberty obligations imposed on the Hellenic Kingdom in 1830 (see Article
IV of the Treaty of London of March 20th, 1864). Again in 1881, when
Thessaly was ceded to Greece, the religious liberty obligations of 1830
were repeated in the Treaty of Cession for the benefit of the Mussulman
population (Convention of May 14th, 1881, Article VIII). A similar
course was adopted by the Great Powers in 1886, when Eastern Roumelia
was virtually annexed to Bulgaria (Article IV of Arrangement of April
5th, 1886; _cf._ Eastern Roumelia Statute, Article XXIV).

3. Roumania herself is not content to rely on the national constitutions
of the other Balkan States where the destinies of her own expatriated
brethren in race and religion are concerned. Although she persuaded the
Conference of Bucharest to reject the American proposal to insert
binding guarantees for the equitable treatment of racial and religious
minorities in the annexed territories generally, she insisted on the
adoption of an Annexe to the Protocols of the Conference pledging the
signatory States to grant equal rights and religious and scholastic
freedom to the Koutzo-Vlachs residing within their dominions. It is
difficult to understand why these Treaty guarantees should be required
for communities which have a Government at Bucharest, attached to them
by racial and religious sympathies, to look after their interests, and
not for the Jews, who have no such resource in the event of their rights
being ignored.

4. The terms of M. Maioresco's declaration in regard to "the inhabitants
of any territory newly acquired" are ambiguous, and in the case of the
Jews of the northern districts of Bulgaria, now annexed to Roumania,
might, and no doubt would be, interpreted as assimilating them to the
oppressed Jewish communities of the annexed State. Moreover, in view of
what happened to the Jews of the Dobrudja when that province was
acquired by Roumania in 1878, any unilateral assurances from the Cabinet
of Bucharest on this subject must fail to inspire confidence. The action
of the Roumanian Government on that occasion was dealt with by us in the
letter we had the honour of addressing to you on July 13th last, and it
will consequently suffice to state now that the Jews of the Dobrudja
were deprived of their national rights for thirty years after the
annexation, and even then they experienced great difficulty in obtaining
them. We cannot contemplate without anxiety the possibility of a
repetition of this application of the principle formulated by M.
Maioresco.

For these reasons the Jewish Conjoint Committee regard with grave
apprehension the omission from the Treaty of Bucharest of guarantees of
civil and religious equality for the inhabitants of the territories
which have changed hands in virtue of that instrument, and they trust
they may rely on His Majesty's Government to take such steps as will
assure to those inhabitants the full enjoyment of the high protection
accorded them by the London Protocol of 1830 and the Treaty of Berlin.

They venture to suggest that the objects they have in view might be
attained by a collective note to the States signatory of the Treaties of
London, Bucharest and Constantinople, declaring that the Great Powers
regard the Civil and Religious Liberty clauses of the Protocol of 1830
and the Treaty of Berlin as binding upon all of them within their new
frontiers and throughout all their territories. The Committee hope that
His Majesty's Government may see their way to propose such a note to
the Great Powers.

We are, Sir,

Your humble and obedient Servants,

D. L. ALEXANDER,

_President, London Committee of Deputies of British Jews_,

CLAUDE G. MONTEFIORE,

_President, Anglo-Jewish Association_.

       *       *       *       *       *

TO THE RT. HON. SIR EDWARD GREY, BART., M.P., K.G., ETC., HIS MAJESTY'S
PRINCIPAL SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS, ETC., ETC., ETC.

FOREIGN OFFICE,

_October 29th, 1913_.

GENTLEMEN,--I am directed by Secretary Sir E. Grey to acknowledge the
receipt of your letter of October 13th, and to observe in reply that the
Articles of the Treaty of Berlin, to which you refer, are in no way
abrogated by the territorial changes in the Near East, and remain as
binding as they have been hitherto as regards all territories covered by
those Articles at the time when the Treaty was signed.

His Majesty's Government will, however, consult with the other Powers as
to the policy of reaffirming in some way the provisions of the Treaty of
Berlin for the protection of the religious and other liberties of
minorities in the territories referred to, when the question of giving
formal recognition by the Powers to the recent territorial changes in
the Balkan Peninsula is raised.

I am, Gentlemen,

Your most obedient, humble servant,

EYRE A. CROWE.

THE CONJOINT JEWISH COMMITTEE.

       *       *       *       *       *

CONJOINT JEWISH COMMITTEE,

19 FINSBURY CIRCUS, E.C.

_17th November, 1913_.

SIR,--We have had the honour of receiving the letter of the 29th ult.
addressed to us on your behalf by Sir Eyre A. Crowe, and we have duly
submitted it to our colleagues of the Conjoint Jewish Committee.

We are desired by the Committee to thank you for this communication and
to express their lively satisfaction with the assurances you are good
enough to give them and which appear to them to meet the necessities of
the case they had the honour of placing before you.

The Committee propose, with your permission, to submit to you at a later
stage, for the consideration of His Majesty's Government, an amended
formula of civil and religious liberty in the Balkans, which they think
will more clearly express the intentions of the Conference of London and
the Congress of Berlin than the provisions on the same subject contained
in the Protocol No. 3 of 1830 and the Treaty of 1878. They trust that
His Majesty's Government may find it possible to make this or some
similar amendment the basis for the proposed consultation with the other
Great Powers, as they venture to think that in this way a means may be
found of obviating a repetition of the misunderstandings by which the
Jews of Roumania have hitherto been deprived of the rights sought to be
conferred upon them by the Treaty of Berlin, besides securing the rights
of other religious and racial minorities in the Balkans on a footing of
perfect equality.

We, are, Sir,

Your most obedient humble servants,

DAVID L. ALEXANDER,

_President, London Committee of the Deputies of British Jews_,

CLAUDE G. MONTEFIORE,

_President, Anglo-Jewish Association_.

       *       *       *       *       *

TO THE RIGHT HON. SIR EDWARD GREY, BART., M.P., K.G., ETC., ETC., ETC.

CONJOINT JEWISH COMMITTEE,

19 FINSBURY CIRCUS, E.C.

_12th March, 1914_.

SIR,--Referring to the letter we had the honour of addressing to you on
the 17th November last, we now beg to submit to you, for the
consideration of His Majesty's Government, a revised formula of civil
and religious liberty in the Balkans in the hope that His Majesty's
Government may be able to recommend it to the other Great Powers
signatory of the Treaty of Berlin for application to the territories
which have recently changed hands in the Near East under the provisions
of the Treaties of London and Bucharest, and their subsidiary diplomatic
Acts.

As you are aware, Civil and Religious Liberty in Bulgaria, Montenegro,
Servia and Roumania is at present guaranteed in identic terms by
Articles V, XXVII, XXXIV-V, XLIV of the Treaty of Berlin, and in Greece
by the concluding _alinéa_ of Protocol No. 3 of the Conference of London
of the 3rd February 1830. We beg to suggest that in the extension of
these stipulations to the new territories they shall be elucidated by
the addition to each of the following paragraph:--

       *       *       *       *       *

All persons of whatever religious belief born or residing in the
territories annexed to the Kingdom of---- in virtue of the Treaties of
London and Bucharest, and who do not claim a foreign nationality and
cannot be shown to be claimed as nationals of a foreign state shall be
entitled to full civil and political rights as nationals of the Kingdom
of---- in accordance with the foregoing stipulations.

       *       *       *       *       *

Some slight modification of this paragraph will be required to meet the
special circumstances of each case, as, for example, the omission of the
reference to the Treaty of London in the case of Roumania, and perhaps,
the insertion of the paragraph before the final _alinéa_ of Article XLIV
of the Treaty of Berlin instead of its addition to that Article.

In making this proposal we are chiefly actuated by a desire to obviate
as far as may be possible a repetition in the territories annexed to the
Kingdom of Roumania of the cruel evasion of Article XLIV of the Treaty
of Berlin by which the native Jews of Roumania have hitherto been
deprived of their civil and political rights. It will be within your
recollection that this evasion was contrived by arbitrarily declaring
all the native Jews to be _ipso facto_ foreigners and by submitting them
in that capacity to harsh disabilities which, while apparently
applicable to all foreigners, in reality only affected them. We are
further impressed by the fact that Bulgaria, Servia and Greece have each
acquired a considerable addition to their Jewish populations and,
although we acknowledge most gratefully the fidelity with which those
States have hitherto performed their obligation in regard to civil and
religious liberty, we think it wise, in view of the evil precedent
created by Roumania, to strengthen the hands of their rulers and
statesmen by extending those obligations in the form we now suggest to
the territories they have recently acquired.

Our aims will, we think, be attained by the formula suggested above
without in any way enlarging the scope of the original stipulations, as
those stipulations were understood by their authors and the majority of
the States to which they have hitherto been applied. It is to be noted
that a similar amendment of Article XLIV was actually suggested by the
Italian representative, the Count de Launay, at the Berlin Congress,
with a view to obviating the very evasion of the Treaty subsequently
effected by Roumania, and it was only rejected by the Congress because
it was desired to adopt an identic formula for all the Balkan States and
because it was felt that the formula as it stood "paraît de nature à
concilier tous les intérêts en cause." (British and Foreign State
Papers, vol. lxix. pp. 1058-9.)

Now that it has been shown that this anticipation was illusory, we
venture to hope that His Majesty's Government may see their way to
realize the intentions of the Berlin Congress by suggesting to the Great
Powers the amendment we have proposed, and that their recognition of the
territorial changes in the Near East will be made conditional upon its
adoption by all the annexing States, and more particularly by the
Kingdom of Roumania.

We are, Sir,

Your most obedient humble servants,

DAVID L. ALEXANDER,

_President, London Committee of Deputies of British Jews_,

CLAUDE G. MONTEFIORE,

_President, Anglo-Jewish Association_.

TO THE RIGHT HON. SIR EDWARD GREY, BART., M.P., K.G., ETC., ETC., ETC.

       *       *       *       *       *

(For the humanitarian interventions on behalf of the Jews of Morocco see
"The Conferences of Madrid and Algeciras," _infra_, pp. 88-99.)


(_i_) THE JEWISH QUESTION AND THE BALANCE OF POWER (1890 AND 1906).

It will be noted that none of the diplomatic interventions took
cognizance of the ill-treatment of the Jews in Russia,[49] although
until the recent Revolution it afforded, in magnitude and cruelty, the
worst example of religious persecution known to modern Europe.[50] The
cynical reason has already been indicated. But if international politics
has affected to ignore the Jewish question in Russia, that question has
not been without a very distinct influence on the evolution of the
European international system. No survey of the Jewish problem in
international politics would be complete without a reference to the
curious part played by the Russo-Jewish question in the orientation of
Russian policy which made for the alliance with France and through it
for the Triple Entente. It is well known that even after the termination
of the Russo-German secret treaty of mutual neutrality in 1890, the Tsar
Alexander III remained for a long time reluctant to come to terms with
Republican France. Towards the end of 1890 there was a fresh outbreak of
official anti-Semitism in Russia, and the bitter cry of the persecuted
Jews was heard all over Europe. At that moment it happened that
negotiations for a large loan had been entered into by the Russian
Treasury with the house of Rothschild, and a preliminary contract had
actually been signed. As soon as the news of the persecutions reached
New Court, Lord Rothschild resolved to break off the negotiations. At
his instance, M. Wyshnigradski, the Russian Finance Minister, was
informed by the Paris House that unless the oppression of the Jews were
stopped they would be compelled to withdraw from the loan operation.
Deeply mortified by this attempt on the part of a Jewish banking firm to
deal with him _de puissance à puissance_, the Tsar peremptorily
cancelled the contract and ordered that overtures should be made to a
non-Jewish French syndicate headed by M. Hoskier of Paris. Thus was
forged the main financial link in the chain of common interests which
soon after led to the Dual Alliance. Incidentally, it may be mentioned
that one of the effects of the Alliance was to secure to the Tsar a much
larger immunity from criticism in his persistent ill-treatment of the
Jews.[51]

Fifteen years later the Jewish question also played a part in the
curious Russo-German _rapprochement_ which nearly wrecked the Dual
Alliance. Much light has been shed upon this incident by the recent
publication of the late Tsar's secret correspondence with the German
Emperor[52] and other Russian State documents, notably a Memorandum on
the Jewish question drawn up by Count Lamsdorf in January 1906.[53]
Negotiations for the adhesion of Russia to the Anglo-French Entente had
been opened in the winter of 1903, but owing to the war with Japan and
the revolutionary outbreak in Russia the Tsar's views on the subject had
changed. Worked on by the German Emperor, he imagined himself a victim
of English intrigue, and he concluded with the Kaiser at Bjoerkoeon July
23, 1905, the bases of a new Triple Alliance to consist of Russia,
Germany, and France. While the Treaty was still unratified certain
reactionaries in Russia seized the opportunity of endeavouring to give
it a specially anti-Jewish bias. On the one hand the bureaucracy had
persuaded themselves that the Jews were the main authors of the October
Revolution, and on the other Count Witte and his colleagues in the
Cabinet were furious at the renewed rebuffs they had received at the
hands of the House of Rothschild in their efforts to raise new loans on
the Paris and London markets.[54] It was in these circumstances that
Count Lamsdorf prepared a Memorandum proposing to the Tsar that an
agreement should be concluded with Germany providing for the special
_surveillance_ of Jewish activities on the lines of a secret Protocol
which had been drawn up by the two Powers on March 14, 1904, for the
similar _surveillance_ and extradition of Anarchists.[55] At the same
time the Count suggested that the Pope should be asked to adhere to this
new Holy Alliance. This strange proposal was approved by the Tsar, who
ordered the immediate initiation of negotiations with the
Wilhelmstrasse. In due course this instruction was acted upon,[56] but
in the following May Count Lamsdorf fell, and with the entry of M.
Izvolsky into the Russian Foreign Office a new and saner direction was
given to Russian Foreign policy. Nothing more was heard either of the
Bjoerkoe Treaty or of the proposed Triple Alliance against the Jews.


DOCUMENT.

       *       *       *       *       *

THE PROPOSED ANTI-SEMITIC TRIPLE ALLIANCE.

(The footnotes appended to the following document are those of Count
Lamsdorf himself. Footnotes by the Editor will be found at the end.)

_Secret._

ON THE ANARCHISTS.

The events of the year 1905, which became particularly acute at the
beginning of October last, and, after a number of so-called "strikes,"
culminated in an armed revolt at Moscow and in other cities and
localities of the Empire, show quite clearly that the Russian
revolutionary movement, apart from its deep social economic causes of an
_internal_ nature, has also a quite definite _international_ character.
This side of the revolutionary movement, which deserves very serious
attention, manifests itself chiefly in the fact that it is supported to
a large extent from abroad.

This is clearly indicated by the striking phenomenon that the Russian
revolutionists dispose of an enormous quantity of _arms_ imported from
abroad, as well as of considerable _pecuniary means_, since there can be
no doubt that the revolutionary movement hostile to the Government,
including the organising of various kinds of strikes, must have cost the
revolutionaries large sums of money.

Since it must be recognised that such support of the revolutionary
movement with arms and money could hardly be set to the account of
foreign governments (with the exception of certain isolated cases, as
for instance, the support of the Finnish movement by Sweden, and perhaps
the partial support of the Polish movement by Austria), one inevitably
arrives at the further conclusion that the support of our revolutionary
movement enters into the calculations of some _foreign capitalist
organisations_.

This result must be coupled with the fact that the Russian revolutionary
movement is altogether distinguished by an alien racial character, since
it was precisely the various allogenes--the Armenians, Georgians, Letts,
Esthonians, Finns, Poles, etc.--who rose one after another against the
Imperial Government for the purpose of obtaining, if not complete
political autonomy, at least equal rights with the native population of
the Empire. When one considers, moreover, that, as is established with
sufficient certainty, among these allogenes a most important part is
played by the Jews, who have figured and still figure as a specially
active and aggressive element of the revolution, whether as individuals,
or as leaders of the movement, or in the shape of entire organisations
(_e.g._ the Jewish Bund in the Western region), one may assume with
certainty that the aforesaid support of the revolutionary movement from
abroad emanates precisely from _Jewish_ capitalist circles.

In this respect one cannot ignore the coincidence of several phenomena
which could hardly be accidental. This coincidence rather logically
leads to the further result that our revolutionary movement is not only,
as already stated, _supported_ from abroad, but to a certain extent also
_directed_ from there. The strikes broke out with particular force
precisely in October last, that is to say, at a time when our Government
was making the attempt to bring about a large foreign loan without the
participation of the Rothschilds,[A] and just in the nick of time for
the frustration of the realisation of that financial scheme. The panic
provoked by it among the holders of Russian securities and the hurried
sale of those securities could not but procure in the end, as was safely
to be expected, new profits for the Jewish capitalists and bankers, who
speculated consciously and openly, as in Paris for instance, on the fall
of Russian securities.[57]

On the other hand, the hostile movement against the Government, which
flared up immediately after the promulgation of the Manifesto of October
30th, assumed for a time milder forms as soon as the bulk of the Russian
people, of whom the revolutionists had taken no account at first,
responded to the hostile manifestations against the Government by
pogroms upon the Jews.[B]

This connexion between the Russian revolutionary movement and the
foreign Jewish organisations is, moreover, confirmed in an obvious
manner by some significant facts which have even percolated through the
Press. Thus, for instance, the above-mentioned wholesale importation of
arms into Russia, which, as it transpires from the Agency reports, is
carried on very largely from the continent of Europe _via England_,
becomes quite intelligible when one considers that already in June 1905,
precisely in England, an Anglo-Jewish Committee for collecting donations
for the equipment of fighting groups among Russian Jews was openly
organised with the most active co-operation of the well-known Russophobe
publicist Lucien Wolf.[C] On the other hand, on account of the
melancholy consequences of the revolutionary agitation, which recoiled
upon the Jews themselves, in the very same England a Committee of Jewish
capitalists was founded under the presidency of Lord Rothschild, which
concentrated enormous sums of money, collected by way of subscriptions
in France, England and Germany, for the ostensible purpose of granting
relief to the Jewish subjects of Russia who had suffered by the pogroms.
Lastly, the Jews in America are organising collections both for the
victims and for the arming of the Jewish youths, without formally
separating these two aims from one another.[58][D] There is thus no
room for doubt as to the close connexion of the Russian revolution with
the Jewish question in general, and with the foreign Jewish
organisations in particular, which connexion is already perfectly clear
from the point of view of its fundamental principles, since the founders
of the Socialist doctrine, Lassalle and Marx, who wield so great an
influence on the present mind of the Russian University youth, were
notoriously both of Jewish origin. Nor can it be in any way doubted that
the practical direction of the Russian revolutionary movement is in
Jewish hands. While our newspapers pass over, no doubt intentionally,
the leading part played by them in almost complete silence, it is no
longer deemed necessary to make a secret of it abroad, even in Socialist
circles. A member of the Jewish Working-men's Union (Bund), named
Hervaille, thus declared openly at a meeting of the Dutch Socialists at
Amsterdam on the 22nd October (November 4th) that in spite of the
persecutions to which they were subjected, it is precisely the Jews who
are standing at the head of the Russian revolutionary movement.[59] In
Italy, numerous meetings of sympathy with the said movement, which in
the course of last November were organised at Rome, Milan, Turin, etc.
ostensibly, "Pro liberta Russa," ended in manifestations "Pro ebrei
Russi."[60]

Thus, with the evident promotion of the Russian revolution by the Jews
of all countries, in one form or another, to a larger or smaller extent,
providing it above all with intelligent leaders, arms and pecuniary
means, the so-to-say international side of our revolutionary movement
becomes perfectly clear, and at the same time reveals those forces which
the Imperial Government must combat, as well as the factors of State and
public life abroad, on which it must rely in this struggle.

Starting from the idea set out above, namely, that our revolutionary
movement is being actively supported and partly directed by the forces
of universal Jewry, we also discover with great probability the
organising and intellectual centre where the main supports and feeding
organs of the militant hostility to the Government in Russia are hiding
themselves. That is the famous pan-Jewish universal union established in
the year 1860, the "Alliance Israélite Universelle," with a Central
Committee in Paris, which possesses gigantic pecuniary means, disposes
of an enormous membership, and is supported by the Masonic lodges of
every description (according to some reports, they have again been
carried into Russia in recent years), which represent the obedient
organs of that universal organisation.[61][E] The principal aim of the
"Alliance Israélite Universelle"--the all-round triumph of
anti-Christian and anti-monarchist Jewry (which has already taken
practical possession of France) by means of Socialism which is to serve
as a bait for the ignorant masses--could not but find the State system
of Russia--a land of peasants, Orthodoxy and monarchism--an obstacle in
its path. Hence the fight against the existing Government, which was
started with consummate calculation at the very moment of our greatest
weakness brought about by the Japanese war. That is also why the chief
watchword of this inexorable campaign at the present moment is
universal, equal, direct and secret suffrage; that is to say, it fights
for a principle which if recognised by the Government would bring about
immediately, even before the meeting of the State Duma, the complete
removal of the existing historical-legal impediments to the triumph of
Jewry in Russia, though their complete abolition is not likely to be
welcome to the future chosen men of the Russian land either.

The said factors, which support the fight of the revolutionary elements
against the Imperial Government from abroad, also afford on the other
hand the opportunity of recognising those forces by whose joint work a
favourable soil for a successful struggle with international
revolutionary Socialism might be created. As a matter of fact, there can
be no doubt that, in accordance with the main considerations set out
above, the universally organised international revolutionary Jewry must
be confronted by other enemies, apart from Russia, who by that alone
must become the friends and allies of the Imperial Government.
Anti-monarchist Jewry, sustained by money, cannot help undermining in
every way the Monarchical German Empire, sustained by its material
power. On the other hand, owing to a tradition centuries old, the
universally organised anti-Christian Judaism cannot help seeing an
irreconcilable enemy in the only Christian community that is likewise
organised on a universal and centralised basis, viz. the Roman Catholic
Church.

It seems, therefore, that the friendly relations which have recently
been brought about so happily between the Imperial Government and the
German Empire,[F] as well as the Holy See, are destined to exercise a
very beneficent influence with regard to the anti-monarchical and
anti-Christian revolutionary movement in Europe.

As for the Vatican, it must be remembered first of all that the
Protestant Government of Germany has recognised long ago the full
importance of the Holy See for the defence of the traditional
foundations of European culture. While in its internal policy, it is
leaning on the Catholic Centre-party, it has necessarily arrived at a
friendly accord with the Pope in its foreign policy as well. As for
Russia, the friendly assistance of the Vatican might likewise prove to
be of supreme importance just in the sense indicated above. Even apart
from the authoritative influence of the Holy See, through the medium of
the local clergy, especially in our Polish affairs--in this respect, the
latest Encyclical of the Pope to the Bishops of Poland presents a
significant step in meeting the wishes of the Russian Government--the
Vatican could render us an invaluable service by communicating
matter-of-fact data on the dissolving Jewish freemasonry organisation
and its branches, whose threads converge in Paris--an organisation about
which our Government is unfortunately but little informed, whereas the
Vatican is sure to watch its activity in the most attentive manner.

As for Germany, on the other hand, any further approach of its
Government towards Russia--and one of a still closer nature than the
agreement founded on the Protocol of March 1st, 1904, on combating
Anarchism--would meet with unqualified sympathy at Berlin, since it
cannot be overlooked that, next to Russia, Germany is undoubtedly the
first State that will have to sustain the struggle with the
Social-Revolutionary party. Both the Government and Society in Germany
already take note at the present moment with the greatest apprehension
of the indubitable effect of the Russian events on the Social-Democratic
and Labour question, not to mention the movement of specific hostility
to the Government in the Provinces of Prussian Poland.

Indeed, the West-European Socialists of various nationalities do not
consider it any longer necessary to make a secret of their intention to
inaugurate in this very month of January 1906, a movement hostile to the
Government of Germany--which is to reach its highest development on the
1st of May 1906--and has already started it in Prussia and in Saxony
with the self-same watchword of "Universal Suffrage." It could hardly be
doubted that behind this movement--which they intend to organise, in
accordance with the resolutions passed by the Socialist Congresses held
at Jena and Breslau, by the same means as in Russia--there stand in
reality the above indicated international aims and considerations of
principle, that is to say, the same anti-Christian and anti-monarchical
factors which had likewise been and are still in operation in the
Russian revolutionary movement. At any rate, according to an observation
by the _Deutsche Tageszeitung_, which has made it its special aim to
organise the fight against the impending general European revolution,
the more candid publicists of Social-Revolutionary tendencies are
already expressing unceremoniously their hope that the Russian movement
of hostility to the Government only presents a prelude to that general
European upheaval which, among other things, is to destroy utterly the
monarchical order of contemporary Europe. When one places oneself on
this standpoint, one cannot help perceiving in everything said above
nothing else but partial manifestations of a general revolutionary
scheme the menace of which is not confined to Russia, and which,
according to the formula of the well-known Liebknecht, consists
essentially in realising a Republic in politics, Socialism in economics,
and Atheism in the domain of religion.

In view of the considerations set forth above, no doubt can remain as to
the absolute necessity of a confidential and sincere exchange of views
on our part, in the sense indicated above, with the leading spheres both
at Berlin and Rome. It could become the foundation of a most useful
joint action, first, for the purpose of organising a vigilant
supervision, and then also for an active joint struggle against the
common foe of the Christian and monarchical order of Europe. As a first
step in the said direction, and for the purpose of elucidating the main
principles for a future programme of joint action, it seems to be
desirable to confine ourselves for the present to a quite confidential
exchange of views with the German Government.

(Signed) COUNT LAMSDORF.

    Negotiations must be entered into _immediately_.     }
    I share entirely the opinions herein expressed.      } Endorsement in the
                                                         } Tsar's handwriting.
    TSARSKOYE SELO,                                      }
    _January 3rd (O.S.) 1906_.                           }

(Translated from the Russian text in vol. vi. of "Secret Documents,"
published by the Soviet Commission of Foreign Affairs.)

       *       *       *       *       *


NOTES.

[A] _Supra_, p. 56 (note).

[B] How these pogroms were organised by the Russian Secret Police will
be found described from authentic documents in Semenoff: _The Russian
Government and the Massacres_.

[C] This is not quite accurate. The object of the Committee was to
assist the Self-Defence groups of Russian Jews in resisting the pogroms.
No arms were exported to Russia, as the groups in question, and indeed
the Russian Revolutionists themselves, found it quite easy to purchase
arms from the Imperial Russian magazines.

[D] This also is quite untrue, as the published accounts of the Funds
show.

[E] Freemasons will be able to judge of the accuracy of this statement.
It will suffice to say here that it is as untrue as it is ludicrous. The
same remark applies to the absurd reference to the Alliance Israélite.

[F] This is clearly a reference to the Bjoerkoe interview and shows that
M. Izvolsky was in error when he stated that the Agreement resulting
from the interview was disapproved by Count Lamsdorf. (See interview
with M. Izvolsky in _Le Temps_, September 15, 1917.)




III. INTERVENTIONS BY RIGHT.


(_a_) STATUS OF JEWS IN FOREIGN COUNTRIES.

Not all the diplomatic interventions on behalf of Jews have proceeded on
humanitarian grounds. Through the political assimilation of the Jews
with the populations among whom they dwell, and more particularly
through their emancipation in the various countries of Western Europe
and America, they have acquired the same rights in foreign countries
under International Law and treaties as their Christian fellow-citizens.
Unfortunately this has not been universally recognised, and it has
frequently happened that, when they travelled into countries where
Jewish disabilities still lingered, they were held liable as Jews to
ill-treatment from which their Christian fellow-countrymen were free.
The question of the legality of this ill-treatment arose at an early
date.

In 1556, the Jews in the Papal States suffered a terrible persecution at
the hands of the fanatical Pope Paul IV. This culminated in the
imprisonment of all the Marranos or Crypto Jews of Ancona, and their
sentence to the stake. At that time the most influential Jews in Europe
were the Mendes or Nasi Family of Portugal and the Low Countries, the
head of which was the famous Donna Gracia Nasi. Her son-in-law, who
afterwards became Duke of Naxos in the service of the Porte, for whom he
conquered Cyprus, was the Rothschild as well as the Disraeli of his
day.[62] The Italian Jews sent piteous appeals to Donna Gracia, who was
then settled in Constantinople. She at once addressed herself to the
reigning Sultan, Solyman the Magnificent, and entreated his
intervention, on the ground that the Marrano Jews in Ancona were for the
most part Turkish subjects. The appeal was well conceived, for the
Sultan was outraged by the idea that subjects of his could be maltreated
by a foreign potentate. He promptly responded (March 9, 1556) by sending
an ultimatum to the Pope, demanding the immediate release of his
unjustly accused lieges, under pain of reprisals on the foreign
Christians within his own dominions.[63] The Turk in those days was not
in the habit of treating Christian States with an excess of ceremony,
and the Pope realised the wisdom of complying with the ultimatum. He
revenged himself, however, by burning those of the prisoners who could
not be shown to be Turkish subjects.[64]

This incident is of peculiar interest for its bearing on the still much
debated question of the political status of Jews in the lands of their
"Dispersion." The Turkish Jews in 1556 seem to have had no doubt that
they were full nationals of the Ottoman Porte and as such entitled to
the protection of the Turkish Sultan. The precedent, however, was far
from decisive. In other circumstances other views have prevailed. Thus
in 1655, when the Commonwealth declared war on Spain, and an order was
issued for the confiscation of the property of Spaniards in England,
some of the Spanish Crypto Jews, then resident in London, appealed
against the order on the ground that their national status was that of
Jews and not that of Spaniards. This plea was allowed by the Admiralty
Commissioners, to whom it was referred, and they discharged the orders
made against the appellants.[65]

The question slumbered for a century and a half, and when it reappeared
the Turk was again on the side of the light. In 1815, there was a
dispute on this subject between Austria and Turkey. At that time the
Jews of Turkey were treated better than the Jews of Austria. Austria
applied to Turkish Jews visiting her territories the disabilities
imposed upon her own Jews. Turkey protested on the ground that,
according to the treaties--mainly the Treaty of Carlowitz--in force
between the two powers, Austria had no right to make any distinction
between Turkish Jews and other subjects of the Ottoman Porte. This
contention was held to be valid by the Austrian Government, and the
incident was terminated by the issue of an instruction to the police of
Lower Austria, where the disabilities complained of were in force,
ordering them to treat all Turkish subjects alike without distinction of
race or creed.

The Treaty of Carlowitz by which this case was governed left very little
option to the Austrian Government,[66] inasmuch as the reciprocity for
which it stipulated was not based, as in other treaties, on what is
known as "National treatment," that is to say that the nationals of each
contracting party visiting the territories of the other shall be treated
on the same footing as the nationals of the territories they visit. The
reason, no doubt, was that the racial and religious heterogeneity of
both Empires, and the differential treatment to which it gave rise in
their respective internal administrations, could not be recognised
internationally without grave risk of friction and controversy. The
lesson was not lost on other States, especially those which desired to
maintain their differential treatment of Jews as against the doctrine of
undenominational Nationality which was chiefly championed by France. The
result was a strengthening of the "National treatment" clause of
commercial treaties, and this, with the progress of religious liberty,
led to a succession of fresh international disputes.

For many years, curiously enough, the chief offender was the democratic
Swiss Confederation, the Federal constitution of which was exclusively
Christian, while the Cantonal legislation was in many cases frankly and
even aggressively anti-Semitic. Until 1827 the Swiss Commercial Treaties
contained no hint of religious differentiation, but in that year,
availing themselves of the reactionary and clerical sympathies of the
government of Charles X, the Federal Authorities negotiated a Treaty
with France containing a "National treatment" clause, under which the
powers of the separate Cantons to deal as they pleased with Jews were,
in effect, reserved. But this was not all. Lest the clause should be
misinterpreted, the French Minister at Berne was authorised to address a
secret Note to the President of the Swiss Diet acknowledging that it
implied the desired restriction, on "the Jewish subjects of the
King."[67] The transaction was obviously one which could not stand the
light of the Revolution of 1830, and when three years later the
Government of the Canton of Basle applied the Treaty in all its rigour
to French Jews, the Duc de Broglie, then French Minister for Foreign
Affairs, issued an Ordinance suspending the operation of the Treaty in
regard to the offending Canton, and followed this up by severing
diplomatic relations and by placing a military cordon on the
frontier.[68] The King himself approved the action of his Minister in an
energetic speech to a deputation of the Consistoire Israélite. However,
in 1835 the Ordinance was withdrawn, and until 1850 the peace was more
or less preserved by a tacit _modus vivendi_.

The resistance of France was rendered difficult, partly by perplexities
of general politics, but more immediately by the fact that the question
was a larger one than it had at first appeared. In February 1840 a
French Jew had been refused a _permis de séjour_ by the police of
Dresden on the ground that Jews were not permitted to reside in the
city. The case was precisely similar to that of Switzerland, and M.
Guizot, who was then Foreign Minister, hesitated to take up a strong
attitude as he was afraid that the precedent might involve him in
complications with other countries.[69] Nevertheless, French public
opinion was aroused, and the Chamber, after a lively debate, called upon
the Government to make suitable representations to Saxony.[70] In 1850 a
Commercial Treaty between the United States and Switzerland was signed
at Berne, but the American Senate, on the advice of the President,
refused to ratify it because it discriminated against
non-Christians.[71] This was followed almost immediately by a revival of
the anti-Semitic activity of the Basle police, chiefly at the expense of
French Jews resident in the Canton. The French Government again
protested energetically and insisted on the withdrawal of the police
measures. The demand was sulkily complied with, the Cantonal Government
reserving what they called "the principle."[72]

In 1855 a new phase of the conflict was opened by the negotiation of two
further Commercial Treaties with Switzerland--one by Great Britain and
the other by the United States--in both of which the invidious
reservations, substantially as in the French Treaty of 1827, were
retained.[73] Some mystery attaches to the circumstances in which these
treaties were signed and ratified,[74] but the probable explanation is
that the Swiss negotiators promised in effect that there should be no
discrimination. This conjecture is confirmed by the action of the
Federal Assembly in the following year, in proposing a modification of
the Constitution by which equal rights should be accorded to the Jews in
all the Cantons. Unfortunately not all the Cantons agreed,[75] and in
1857 American public opinion became much excited at the discovery that
in the Canton of Neufchatel American citizens of the Jewish faith could
not be protected by American passports.[76] From this time until 1861
the United States took the place of France as the champion of Religious
Liberty in Switzerland, and was strongly supported by Great Britain.[77]
Her efforts, however, were not successful, and it was still reserved for
France to settle the question.

The opportunity presented itself when in the early sixties, under the
influence of Cobden and Chevalier, France denounced all her Commercial
Treaties. In negotiating the new Treaty with Switzerland she resolutely
set her face against all discriminations, or possibilities of
discrimination, between French citizens on the score of religion. The
result was that she obtained in her new Treaty (June 30, 1864) a form of
article without precedent in instruments of the kind.[78] In place of
"National treatment," French citizens in Switzerland "without
distinction of creed" were assured the same treatment as was accorded to
"Christians."[79] This striking victory was speedily followed by the
abolition of all Jewish disabilities throughout the Confederation.[80]

A series of more formidable cases of the same kind arose at a later
period out of the disabilities imposed on Jews in Russia. The Powers
mainly affected were the United States and Great Britain. Both had
Treaties of Commerce with Russia, the American Treaty having been
concluded in 1832 and the British in 1859. Both Treaties contained, in
substantially the same form, articles guaranteeing reciprocal "National
treatment" to the subjects of the High Contracting parties. There is,
however, an extraordinary contrast in the interpretation of these
Treaties by the British and American Governments respectively.

The question first came up for consideration in 1862. Certain British
Jews resident in Warsaw complained that the disabilities imposed upon
native Jews were also imposed upon them, and they appealed to Her
Majesty's Government for protection. Lord John Russell held that the
articles of the Treaty of 1859, by which British subjects in Russia and
Russian subjects in England were to be treated on an equal footing with
the nationals of those countries, did not mean that British Jews in
Russia should be treated as British subjects, but that they should only
have equal treatment with their oppressed co-religionists. He
accordingly declined to seek any relief for the petitioners.[81] The
case gave rise to no controversy, not only because the British and
Russian Governments were at one in their interpretation of the Treaty,
but because the facts were not made public at the time. It proved,
however, a fatal and humiliating precedent. In 1880 a terrible era of
persecution was inaugurated for the Jews of Russia, and it soon reacted
on their foreign brethren visiting the country. Towards the end of the
year a naturalised British Jew named Lewisohn was expelled from St.
Petersburg because he was a Jew, and he invoked the protection of his
Government. Lord Granville, who was then Foreign Secretary, was at first
disposed to regard the expulsion as a violation of the Treaty,[82] but
later on he became acquainted with the precedent of 1862, and he
declined to depart from it.[83] In 1890, at the instance of the Jewish
Conjoint Committee, Lord Salisbury submitted the question to the Law
Officers of the Crown, with the result that the precedent set by Lord
John Russell was confirmed on its merits and not--as in the case of Lord
Granville--_quâ_ precedent only.[84] The last occasion on which an
effort was made to obtain a reversal of this decision was in 1912. The
Conjoint Committee addressed to the Secretary of State, Sir Edward Grey,
an elaborate Memorandum reviewing the history and legal aspects of the
question.[85] The reply was in effect a reaffirmation of the previous
decisions, but the grounds on which it was rested were different. Sir
Edward Grey did not discuss the reasonableness of the established
interpretation, but he pleaded that any departure from it would only
lead to the termination of the Treaty, and that this would serve neither
British nor Jewish interests.[86]

The dispute with the United States pursued a very different course. In
its earliest stages it was dealt with by minor diplomatic and consular
officials very much in the spirit of Lord John Russell,[87] but when in
1880 the Russian Government began to expel American Jews from St.
Petersburg, the question was taken in hand by the Secretary of State as
one of gravity. It was at once recognised that a religious
discrimination between American citizens could not be tolerated in any
American Treaty. This was quite apart from the question of the legal
interpretation of the Treaty of 1832.[88] That question, however, was
dealt with vigorously by Mr. Blaine in July 1881. He took the broad view
that the intention of the United States in 1832 was not, and could not
have been, that which the Russian Government read into the Treaty, that
the Russian interpretation was indefensible on moral grounds, and that
on such questions local law cannot be permitted to override the express
terms of a Treaty.[89] On this basis the United States patiently sought
a reversal of the Russian view, but without success. The fight lasted
thirty years. Eventually American public opinion became agitated, an
organised movement for the termination of the obnoxious treaty was set
on foot, and in December 1911 the House of Representatives at Washington
sent a strongly worded joint resolution to the Senate declaring that
Russia had violated the Treaty and calling upon the President to
denounce it. The Russian Ambassador in Washington expressed official
disapproval of the resolution, but President Taft acted upon it without
waiting for the Senate, and denounced the Treaty on December 15.
Thereupon the Senate contented itself with a joint resolution approving
the action of the President.[90]

The question of the status of Jews in foreign lands has also arisen in
Palestine and Morocco. In 1882 the Turkish Government, fearing a Zionist
propaganda, prohibited the settlement of foreign Jews in the Holy Land.
The United States protested, and in 1887 and 1888 similar action was
taken by Great Britain and France. In the following year the
restriction was removed.[91] In the case of Morocco, Great Britain
solved the question in advance by stipulating in her Treaty with that
country, negotiated in 1855, that her Christian, Mohammedan, and Jewish
subjects visiting and residing in Morocco should be treated on an equal
footing.[92]


DOCUMENTS.

       *       *       *       *       *

ART. XIV.--TREATY OF CARLOWITZ BETWEEN THE EMPEROR AND THE GRAND SULTAN,
_Jan. 26, 1699_.[93]

XIV. Trade shall be free for the Subjects of both Partys, in all the
Kingdoms and Dominions of both Empires, according to the antient sacred
Capitulations. And that it may be carry'd on by both Partys with Profit
and without Fraud and Deceit, the same shall be settled by Stipulations
between Commissarys deputed on both sides, well vers'd in Merchandize,
at the time of solemn Embassys on both sides, and as has been observ'd
with other Nations in Friendship with the Sublime Empire, so his
Imperial Majesty's subjects of what Nation soever, shall enjoy the
Security and Advantage of Trade in the Kingdoms of the Sublime Empire,
as well as the usual Privileges in a fitting manner.

("Collection of Treatys of Peace and Commerce," London, 1732, vol. iv.
p. 298.)

       *       *       *       *       *

_Interpretation by Austrian Government. Instructions to Police of Lower
Austria, Dec. 28, 1815._

"All differences established between Turkish Jews and other subjects of
the Ottoman Porte appear contrary to the spirit of the Treaties. These
speak of 'Turkish subjects' without making any exception. It is
consequently to this quality only that one must have regard, and not in
any case to the religion or profession of individuals."

(Quoted by M. Carnot in Debate in French Chamber. _Moniteur_, May 29,
1841.)

       *       *       *       *       *

ARTS. I, III AND VI OF FRANCO-SWISS TREATY, MAY 30, 1827.

Article premier.--Les Français seront reçus et traités, dans chaque
canton de la Confédération, relativement à leurs personnes et à leurs
propriétés, sur le même pied et de la même manière que le sont ou
pourront l'être à l'avenir les ressortissants suisses des autres
cantons. Tout genre d'industrie et de commerce permis aux ressortissants
suisses des divers cantons le sera également aux Français et sans qu'on
puisse exiger d'eux aucune condition pécuniaire ou autre plus onéreuse.
Lorsqu'ils prendront domicile ou formeront un établissement dans les
cantons qui admettent les ressortissants de leurs co-états, ils ne
seront également astreints à aucune autre condition que ces derniers.

Art. 3.--Les Suisses jouiront en France des mêmes droits et avantages
que l'article premier assure aux Français en Suisse, de telle sorte qu'à
l'égard des cantons qui, sous les rapports spécifiés audit article
premier, traiteront les Français comme leurs propres ressortissants,
ceux-ci seront, sous les mêmes rapports, traités en France comme les
nationaux. Sa Majesté Très Chrétienne garantit aux autres cantons les
mêmes droits et avantages dont ils feront jouir ses sujets.

Art. 6.--Les Français établis en Suisse, de même que les Suisses établis
en France en vertu du traité de 1803, continueront à jouir des droits
qui leur étaient acquis. Toutes les dispositions de la présente
convention leur seront d'ailleurs applicables.

(Brisac: "Ce que les Israélites de la Suisse doivent à la France," pp.
10-11.)

       *       *       *       *       *

_Interpretation by French Negotiator. Secret Note to the Swiss Diet,
August 7, 1826._

Le premier point qui a paru avoir besoin de quelques éclaircissements
est relatif aux israélites sujets du roi, lesquels, en cette dernière
qualité, pourraient se croire autorisés à réclamer, dans tous les
cantons suisses, le bénéfice de l'article 5 du projet de traité arrêté
entre la commission de la Diète et moi. Je ferai observer à cet égard
que, cet article premier n'accordant aux Français que les droits qui
sont accordés par chaque canton suisse aux ressortissants des autres
cantons, il s'ensuit nécessairement que, dans ceux des cantons où le
domicile et tout nouvel établissement serait interdit, par les lois du
canton souverain, aux individus de la religion de Moïse, les sujets du
roi qui professent cette religion ne sauraient se prévaloir de l'article
en question pour réclamer une exception à la règle générale du canton
suisse. Il est toutefois bien entendu que c'est une conséquence directe
de l'article 6 du projet de traité, que ceux d'entre les israélites
d'origine française qui se seraient établis sur le territoire de la
Confédération sous le régime de l'acte de médiation et en vertu du
traité de 1803, continueront à jouir des droits qui leur étaient acquis.

(Brisac: _op. cit._, pp. 12-13.)


       *       *       *       *       *

_Interpretation by France (1835). Speech by King Louis Philippe to a
Deputation from the Consistoire Israélite, November 5, 1835._

Le roi a répondu:

"Oui, dans tous les temps j'ai regardé comme injustes et impolitiques
les mesures qui établissaient entre les citoyens d'une même nation des
différences de qualifications sociales fondées sur la diversité des
croyances religieuses. Comme roi j'ai soutenu ce principe, et je vous ai
déjà témoigné plusieurs fois combien j'avais joui qu'il m'eût été
réservé de vous en faire l'application. J'espère qu'elle deviendra
générale, je le désire beaucoup. Je crois que c'est dans l'intérêt bien
entendu de tous les peuples, et la raison doit finir par l'emporter sur
les préjugés, comme l'eau qui tombe goutte à goutte finit par percer le
plus dur rocher. Tels sont au moins mes désirs et mes espérances; mais
je ne puis me mêler de ce qui se passe dans les autres États, à moins
que les intérêts français n'en soient lésés, ainsi que cela est arrivé
dans le canton de Bâle campagne. J'avoue que j'ai été bien aise d'avoir
cette occasion de bien établir que sous mon règne tous les Français
jouissent des mêmes droits et que tous obtiennent la même protection de
la part de mon gouvernement. J'espère que mes efforts ne seront pas
infructueux et que, dans l'affaire même dont vous m'entretenez, le
canton reviendra sur une détermination aussi contraire à nos traités
avec la Suisse qu'à l'esprit du siècle où nous vivons. Pour moi, je suis
heureux d'avoir donné l'exemple de votre complète émancipation, et je
vous remercie de la justice que vous rendez à mes actes et à mes
intentions; je suis bien touché de ce que vous venez de m'exprimer."

(_Moniteur_, Nov. 12, 1835.)

       *       *       *       *       *

EXTRACT FROM FRANCO-SWISS TREATY OF ESTABLISHMENT, _June 30, 1864_.

"Tous les Français sans distinction de culte seront reçus et traités à
l'avenir dans chacun des Cantons suisses sur le même pied que les
ressortissants chrétiens des autres Cantons."

(Brisac: _op. cit._, p. 53.)

       *       *       *       *       *

ART. I. ANGLO-SWISS TREATY, _September 6, 1855_.

Article I. The subjects of Her Britannic Majesty shall be admitted to
reside in each of the Swiss Cantons on the same conditions, and on the
same footing, as citizens of the other Swiss Cantons. In the same
manner, Swiss citizens shall be admitted to reside in all the
territories of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland on the
same conditions, and on the same footing as British subjects.

Consequently, the subjects and citizens of either of the two Contracting
Parties shall, provided they conform to the laws of the country, be at
liberty, with their families, to enter, establish themselves, reside,
and remain in any part of the territories of the other. They may hire
and occupy houses and warehouses for the purposes of residence and
commerce, and may exercise, conformably to the laws of the country, any
profession or business, or carry on trade in articles of lawful commerce
by wholesale or retail, and may conduct such trade either in person or
by any brokers or agents whom they may think fit to employ, provided
such brokers or agents shall themselves also fulfil the conditions
necessary for being admitted to reside in the country. They shall not be
subject to any taxes, charges or conditions in respect of residence,
establishment, passports, licences to reside, establish themselves, or
to trade, in respect of permission to exercise their profession,
business, trade, or occupation, greater or more onerous than those which
are or may be imposed upon the subjects or citizens of the country in
which they reside; and they shall, in all these respects, enjoy every
right, privilege, and exemption which is or may be accorded to subjects
or citizens of the country, or to subjects or citizens of the most
favoured nation.

(Bernhardt, "Handbook of Treaties, &c., relating to Commerce," Lond.
1908, pp. 915-916.)

       *       *       *       *       *

ART. I. AMERICAN-SWISS TREATY, _November 6, 1855_.

Art. I. "The citizens of the United States of America and the citizens
of Switzerland shall be admitted and treated upon a footing of
reciprocal equality in the two countries, where such admission and
treatment shall not conflict with the constitutional or legal
provisions, as well Federal as State and Cantonal, of the contracting
parties.

(_Pub. Amer. Jew. Hist. Soc._, vol. xi. p. 15.)

       *       *       *       *       *

_Interpretation by the United States, 1857. Letter from the Assistant
Secretary of State to the Jews of Baltimore._

_August 13, 1857._

In compliance with your request, I enclose herewith a copy of the treaty
between the United States and Switzerland which was proclaimed in 1855.
It was originally concluded in 1850, but was amended with a view to
avoid some objections which were made on the very subject to which you
refer. In its present form, although it may not remove some
difficulties with reference to those who profess the Israelitish faith,
yet I do not see that it discriminates against this class of our
citizens in any mode whatever. Undoubtedly in some portions of the
Confederation the local laws are less liberal to Israelites than to
others, and this is deeply to be regretted; but the Government of the
United States has no control over the legislation of a foreign State and
can only employ its influence and good offices to relieve the
difficulties which such legislation may impose in any given case.

JOHN APPLETON.

(_Ibid._, p. 23.)

       *       *       *       *       *

_Action by the United States, 1861. Instruction to Mr. Fogg, Minister to
Switzerland._

_September 14, 1861._

SIR,--Among the important instructions addressed to your predecessor are
those concerning the restrictions of certain of the Swiss Cantons
against citizens of the United States professing Judaism--a subject
which received at Mr. Fay's hands a large share of earnest attention and
upon which he addressed the department repeatedly and at much length. It
is very desirable that his efforts to procure the removal of the
restrictions referred to, which, though not completely successful, have
no doubt had much effect in smoothing the way to such a result, should
be followed up by you. You will therefore, after having fully acquainted
yourself with what Mr. Fay has done in the premises and with the views
of the department as expressed to him in the despatches on file in the
Legation, take such steps as you may deem judicious and legal to advance
the benevolent object in question. It is not doubted that further proper
appeals to the justice and liberality of the authorities of the several
Cantons whose laws discriminate against Israelitish citizens of the
United States, will result in a removal of the odious restrictions and a
recognition of the just rights of those citizens.

WILLIAM H. SEWARD,

_Secretary of State_.

(_Ibid._, pp. 47-48.)

       *       *       *       *       *

ART. I. RUSSO-AMERICAN TREATY, _December_ 18, 1832.

Article I. There shall be between the territories of the high
contracting parties a reciprocal liberty of commerce and navigation.

The inhabitants of their respective states shall mutually have liberty
to enter the ports, places and rivers of each party wherever foreign
commerce is permitted. They shall be at liberty to sojourn and reside in
all parts whatsoever of said territories, in order to attend to their
affairs; and they shall enjoy, to that effect, the same security and
protection as natives of the country wherein they reside, on condition
of submitting to the laws and ordinances there prevailing, and
particularly to the regulations in force concerning commerce.

("Brit. and For. State Papers," vol. xx. p. 267.)

       *       *       *       *       *

_Interpretation by United States, 1881. Dispatch of Secretary of State
to the American Minister in St. Petersburg._

DEPARTMENT OF STATE, WASHINGTON,

_July_ 29, 1881.

SIR,--...The case would clearly be one in which the obligation of a
treaty is supreme and where the local law must yield. These questions of
the conflict of local law and international treaty stipulations are
among the most common which have engaged the attention of publicists,
and it is their concurrent judgment that where a treaty creates a
privilege for aliens in express terms it cannot be limited by the
operations of domestic law without a serious breach of the good faith
which governs the intercourse of nations. So long as such a conventional
engagement in favor of the citizens in another State exists, the law
governing natives in like cases is manifestly inapplicable.

I need hardly enlarge on the point that the Government of the United
States concludes its treaties with foreign States for the equal
protection of all classes of American citizens. It can make absolutely
no discrimination between them, whatever be their origin or creed. So
that they abide by the laws at home or abroad it must give them due
protection and expect like protection for them. Any unfriendly or
discriminatory act against them on the part of a foreign power with
which we are at peace would call for our earnest remonstrance, whether a
treaty existed or not. The friendliness of our relations with foreign
nations is emphasized by the treaties we have concluded with them. We
have been moved to enter into such international compacts by
considerations of mutual benefit and reciprocity, by the same
considerations, in short, which have animated the Russian Government
from the time of the noble and tolerant declarations of the Empress
Catherine in 1784 to those of the ukase of 1860. We have looked to the
spirit rather than to the letter of those engagements, and believed that
they should be interpreted in the broadest way; and it is therefore a
source of unfeigned regret to us when a Government, to which we are
allied by so many historical ties as to that of Russia, shows a
disposition in its dealings with us to take advantage of technicalities,
to appeal to the rigid letter and not the reciprocal motive of its
international engagements in justification of the expulsion from its
territories of peaceable American citizens resorting thither under the
good faith of treaties and accused of no wrong-doing or of no violation
of the commercial code of the land, but of the simple adherence to the
faith of their fathers....

I can readily conceive that statutes bristling with difficulties remain
unrepealed in the volumes of the law of Russia as well as of other
nations. Even we ourselves have our obsolete "blue laws," and their
literal enforcement, if such a thing were possible, might to-day subject
a Russian of freethinking proclivities, in Maryland or Delaware, to the
penalty of having his tongue bored through with a red-hot iron for
blasphemy. Happily the spirit of progress is of higher authority than
the letter of outworn laws, and statutory enactments are not so
inelastic but that they relax and change with the general advancement of
peoples in the path of tolerance.

The simple fact that thousands of Israelites to-day pursue their
callings unmolested in St. Petersburg, under the shadow of ancient
proscriptive laws, is in itself an eloquent testimony to the principle
of progress. And so, too, in Spain, where the persecution and expulsion
of the Jews is one of the most notable and deplorable facts in history,
and where the edicts of the earlier sovereigns remain unrepealed, we see
to-day an offer of protection and assured right of domicile made to
Israelites of every race....

I had the honor in my letter of the 20th ultimo to Mr. Bartholomey to
acquaint him with the general views of the President in relation to this
matter.

I cannot better bring this instruction to a close than by repeating and
amplifying those views which the President so firmly holds, and which he
so anxiously desires to have recognized and responded to by the Russian
Government.

He conceives that the intention of the United States in negotiating the
treaty of December 18, 1832, and the distinct and enlightened reciprocal
engagements then entered into with the Government of Russia, give us
moral ground to expect careful attention to our opinions as to its
rational interpretation in the broadest and most impartial sense; that
he would deeply regret, in view of the gratifying friendliness of the
relations of the two countries which he is so desirous to maintain, to
find that this large national sentiment fails to control the present
issue, or that a narrow and rigid limitation of the construction
possible to the treaty stipulation between the two countries is likely
to be adhered to; that if, after a frank comparison of the views of the
two Governments, in the most amicable spirit and with the most earnest
desire to reach a mutually agreeable conclusion, the treaty stipulations
between the United States and Russia are found insufficient to determine
questions of nationality and tolerance of individual faith, or to secure
to American citizens in Russia the treatment which Russians receive in
the United States, it is simply due to the good relations of the two
countries that the stipulations should be made sufficient in these
regards; and we can look for no clearer evidence of the good will which
Russia professes toward us than a frank declaration of her readiness to
come to a distinct agreement with us on these points in an earnest and
generous spirit.

I have observed that in your conferences on this subject heretofore with
the minister of foreign affairs, as reported in your dispatches, you
have on some occasions given discreet expression to the feelings of
sympathy and gratification with which this Government and people regard
any steps taken in foreign countries in the direction of a liberal
tolerance analogous to that which forms the fundamental principle of our
national existence. Such expressions were natural on your part and
reflected a sentiment which we all feel. But in making the President's
views known to the minister I desire that you will carefully subordinate
such sentiments to the simple consideration of what is conscientiously
believed to be due to our citizens in foreign lands. You will distinctly
impress upon him that, regardful of the sovereignty of Russia, we do not
submit any suggestions touching the laws and customs of the Empire
except where those laws and customs conflict with and destroy the rights
of American citizens as assured by treaty obligations.

You can further advise him that we can make no new treaty with Russia
nor accept any construction of our existing treaty which shall
discriminate against any class of American citizens on account of their
religious faith.

I cannot but feel assured that this earnest presentation of the views of
this Government will accord with the sense of justice and equity of that
of Russia and that the questions at issue will soon find their natural
solution in harmony with the noble spirit of tolerance which pervaded
the ukase of the Empress Catherine a century ago, and with the
statesmanlike declaration of the principle of reciprocity found in the
late decree of the Czar Alexander II in 1860.

You may read this dispatch to the minister for foreign affairs, and
should he desire a copy you will give it to him.

JAMES G. BLAINE.

("For. Relat. of the U.S.," 1881, pp. 1030 _et seq._)


       *       *       *       *       *


DENUNCIATION BY UNITED STATES, 1911.

_Resolution of the House of Representatives, December 13, 1911._

Resolved, etc., That the people of the United States assert as a
fundamental principle that the rights of its citizens shall not be
impaired at home or abroad because of race or religion; that the
Government of the United States concludes its treaties for the equal
protection of all classes of its citizens, without regard to race or
religion; that the Government of the United States will not be a party
to any treaty which discriminates, or which by one of the parties
thereto is so construed as to discriminate, between American citizens on
the ground of race or religion; that the Government of Russia has
violated the treaty between the United States and Russia, concluded at
St. Petersburg, December 18, 1832, refusing to honor American passports
duly issued to American citizens, on account of race and religion; that
in the judgment of the Congress the said treaty, for the reasons
aforesaid, ought to be terminated at the earliest possible time; that
for the aforesaid reasons the said treaty is hereby declared to be
terminated and of no further force and effect from the expiration of one
year after the date of notification to the Government of Russia of the
terms of this resolution, and that to this end the President is hereby
charged with the duty of communicating such notice to the Government of
Russia.

("Congressional Record," xlviii. 280, 304-305.)

       *       *       *       *       *

_Resolution of the Senate, December 20, 1911._

Whereas the treaty of commerce and navigation between the United States
and Russia concluded on the 18th day of December, 1832, provides in
Article XII thereof that it "shall continue in force until the first day
of January in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and
thirty-nine, and if one year before that day one of the high contracting
parties shall not have announced to the other by an official
notification its intention to arrest the operation thereof this treaty
shall remain obligatory one year beyond that day, and so on until the
expiration of the year which shall commence after the date of a similar
notification"; and

Whereas on the 17th day of December, 1911, the President caused to be
delivered to the Imperial Russian Government by the American Ambassador
at St. Petersburg an official notification on behalf of the Government
of the United States announcing intention to terminate the operation of
this treaty upon the expiration of the year commencing on the 1st day of
January 1912; and

Whereas said treaty is no longer responsive in various respects to the
political principles and commercial needs of the two countries; and

Whereas the constructions placed thereon by the respective contracting
parties differ upon matters of fundamental importance and interest to
each; Therefore be it

Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States
of America in Congress assembled, That the notice thus given by the
President of the United States to the Government of the Empire of Russia
to terminate said treaty in accordance with the terms of the Treaty is
hereby adopted and ratified.

(_Ibid._, pp. 493-522.)

       *       *       *       *       *

ARTS. I AND XI, ANGLO-RUSSIAN TREATY, _January 12, 1859_.

Article I. There shall be between all the dominions and possessions of
the two High Contracting Parties, reciprocal freedom of commerce and
navigation. The subjects of each of the two Contracting Parties,
respectively, shall have liberty freely and securely to come, with their
ships and cargoes, to all places, ports and rivers in the dominions and
possessions of the other, to which other foreigners are or may be
permitted to come; and shall, throughout the whole extent of the
dominions and possessions of the other, enjoy the same rights,
privileges, liberties, favours, immunities and exemptions in matters of
commerce and navigation, which are or may be enjoyed by native subjects
generally.

It is understood, however, that the preceding stipulations in no wise
affect the laws, decrees, and special regulations regarding commerce,
industry, and police, in vigour in each of the two countries, and
generally applicable to all foreigners.

Article XI. The subjects of either of the two High Contracting Parties,
conforming themselves to the laws of the country, shall have:--

1. Full liberty, with their families, to enter, travel, or reside in any
part of the dominions and possessions of the other Contracting Party.

2. They shall be permitted, in the towns and ports, to hire or possess
the houses, warehouses, shops and premises, which may be necessary for
them.

3. They may carry on their commerce, either in person or by any agents
whom they may think fit to employ.

4. They shall not be subject, in respect of their persons or property,
or in respect of passports, licences for residence or establishment, nor
in respect of their commerce or industry, to any taxes, whether general
or local, nor to imposts or obligations of any kind whatever, other or
greater than those which are or may be imposed upon native subjects.

(Bernhardt: _op. cit._, pp. 721, 724-725.)



       *       *       *       *       *

_Interpretation by Great Britain, 1862 and 1881. Despatch from Lord
Granville to H.B.M. Ambassador at St. Petersburg._

_Earl Granville to Sir E. Thornton._

FOREIGN OFFICE,

_December 28th, 1881_.

SIR,--In my preceding despatch of to-day I have discussed the question
whether Mr. Lewisohn, in the arbitrary expulsion from Russia to which he
was subjected in September of last year, was treated in accordance with
the Russian law as applied to foreign Jews. It now remains to be
considered whether Her Majesty's Government are entitled to claim for a
British subject of the Jewish faith immunity from the operation of these
laws, under the Treaty between Great Britain and Russia of 1859.

It will be seen that Article I of that Treaty secures to foreigners the
same rights as are enjoyed by native subjects generally, but the
stipulations of that Article are not to affect the laws, decrees, and
special regulations regarding commerce, industry and police in vigour in
each of the two countries, and applicable to foreigners generally; and
again, by Article XI, they are not to be subjected to imposts or
obligations of any kind whatever other and greater than those which are
or may be imposed on native subjects.

The Treaty is no doubt open to two possible constructions: the one, that
it only assures to British subjects of any particular creed the same
privileges as are enjoyed by Russian subjects of the same creed; the
other that the privileges accorded to British subjects are accorded to
all alike, without regard to the religious body to which they belong.

If the latter construction be adopted, British Jews in Russia would be
entitled to be relieved from the disabilities to which native Jews are
liable, but such a construction would also involve the supposition that
Russia had agreed to create a state of things inconsistent with the
traditions of her Government, which could not fail to be a source of
embarrassment to her.

Upon an examination of the archives of this Department, it has been
found that the position of the Jews in Russia formed the subject of a
complaint from certain British subjects of that religion at Warsaw in
1862, and that Her Majesty's Government then came to the conclusion that
they would not be justified in claiming exemption for British Jews in
Russia from disabilities to which their Russian co-religionists were
liable by law.

On that occasion Earl Russell informed Lord Napier, then Her Majesty's
Ambassador at St. Petersburgh, that the effect of the 1st and 11th
Articles of the Treaty was to place British subjects on the footing of
Russian subjects before the law, each class being alike, and one not
more than the other amenable to all general laws applicable in like
cases; that as Russian subjects, being Jews, incurred certain
disabilities, the equality intended and provided for by the Treaty was
not infringed by British subjects who were Jews and resident in Russia
sharing the same disabilities. The despatch went on to say that it would
seem to be beyond the scope and general intent of a Treaty of Commerce
and Navigation if it were to be held to repeal in the persons of
foreigners the legal disabilities to which, for reasons of general State
policy, particular classes of individual natives of the country had been
subjected, and it was hardly to be supposed that such an interpretation
would be accepted or adopted by an independent Government as against
itself.

Her Majesty's Government feel that they cannot now insist upon a
construction of the Treaty at variance with that which was placed upon
it in 1862.

I am, &c.,

GRANVILLE.

("Parl. Paper, Russia," No. 4 (1881), p. 21.)

       *       *       *       *       *

_Interpretation by Great Britain, 1891. Letter from the Marquis of
Salisbury to Sir Julian Goldsmid._

FOREIGN OFFICE,

_January 29th, 1891_.

SIR,--With reference to the letter from this office of the 16th ultimo
and to previous correspondence respecting the position of British Jews
in Russia, I am directed by the Marquis of Salisbury to inform you that
the question has been fully considered in communication with the Law
Officers of the Crown.

Her Majesty's Government are advised that, so long as the disabilities
to which British and Russian Jews are subjected are substantially the
same, it is not open to Her Majesty's Government to depart from the
interpretation of Treaties laid down in Lord Granville's despatch of
December 28, 1881.

You will find a copy of this despatch on page 21 of the Parliamentary
Paper "Russia No. 4, 1881."

I am, Sir,

Your most obedient, humble Servant,

T. H. SANDERSON.

       *       *       *       *       *


SIR J. GOLDSMID, BART., M.P.

_Interpretation by Great Britain, 1912. Letter from Sir Edward Grey to
the Conjoint Committee._

FOREIGN OFFICE,

_October 1st, 1912_.

GENTLEMEN,--Secretary Sir E. Grey has had under his careful
consideration your Memorial of August 2nd last on the subject of the
grievances caused by the restrictions imposed in Russia on British
subjects of the Jewish faith in regard to the interpretation of Articles
I and XI of the Treaty of Commerce between this country and Russia of
January 12th, 1859.

I am to inform you that, inasmuch as the construction which should be
placed on the Articles of the Treaty was carefully considered by His
Majesty's Government in 1862, and again in 1881, His Majesty's
Government would not now be able to reverse the decision then arrived
at, and that an attempt to do so, or to interpret and utilise the Treaty
in a sense contrary to the spirit of that decision, would only lead to
its termination by formal notice as provided for by the Treaty at the
end of twelve months. Such result would in no way advance the interests
of those whom you represent, and would in other respects be
disadvantageous to British interests. Sir E. Grey, therefore, regrets
that he is unable to approach the Russian Government in the sense
desired.

I am, Gentlemen,

Your most obedient humble Servant,

EYRE A. CROWE.

THE CONJOINT JEWISH COMMITTEE,

19 FINSBURY CIRCUS, E.C.

("Annual Report, Board of Deputies, 1912," pp. 81-82.)

       *       *       *       *       *

ART. XIII. ANGLO-MOORISH TREATY, _December 9, 1856_.

Article XIII. All British subjects, whether Mahometans, Jews, or
Christians, shall alike enjoy all the rights and privileges granted by
the present Treaty and the Convention of Commerce and Navigation which
has also been concluded this day, or which shall at any time be granted
to the most favoured nation.

(Bernhardt: _op. cit._, p. 561.)

       *       *       *       *       *


       *       *       *       *       *

(_b_) CONSULAR PROTECTION.

Besides natural born and naturalised Jewish subjects of intervening
States, there is another class of Jews on whose behalf protective
interventions have been exercised on grounds of right. These are native
Jews who for one reason or another have acquired Consular Protection
under the Capitulations and other exterritorial privileges enjoyed by
foreign States in Oriental and semi-barbarous countries. The origin of
this protection has already been briefly described.[94]

       *       *       *       *       *

The exact national status of the persons on whom it is conferred is not
easy to define, but in the Foreign Jurisdiction Orders in Council they
are assimilated with "British subjects" so far as British exterritorial
jurisdiction is concerned,[95] and this roughly has been the practice of
all States exercising Consular Protection.

The system lent itself easily to abuse and fraud, chiefly because
exterritoriality in the countries in which it was exercised generally
carried with it immunity not only from arbitrary exactions but also from
ordinary taxation. Moreover, in the case of native Jews who often
suffered from Moslem fanaticism--chiefly in Morocco and Persia--Consular
Protection was exercised from motives of humanity, and for that purpose
more or less fictitious qualifications were found for them. We get a
curious glimpse of the loose way in which Consular Protection was
granted from the Anglo-Turkish Treaty of 1809. Under the Capitulations
(Arts. LIX and LX) native interpreters and servants of the Embassy were
free of taxes and indeed of Turkish jurisdiction generally. By the
Treaty of 1809 (Art. IX) it was agreed that in future the _berats_ of
interpreters should not issue to "artizans, shopkeepers, bankers and
other persons not acting as interpreters."[96] Owing to this stipulation
and the sensitiveness of the Porte in regard to its jurisdiction over
its own subjects, irregular Protections were discontinued in Turkey.
This, however, was not a source of serious grievance to Jews, as on the
whole they have been extremely well treated in the Ottoman Empire.

It is not generally known--and the fact may prove of peculiar importance
at the present moment--that all Russian Jews settled in Palestine are,
on certain conditions, entitled to claim British protection and so much
of the status of British subjects as this privilege implies. In 1849,
when there was a considerable influx of Russian Jews into Jerusalem, the
Russian Government, having no Consul in the city and for other reasons,
desired to get rid of the responsibility of protecting them. Accordingly
an arrangement was arrived at between the British and Russian
authorities permitting such Jews, on receiving papers of dismissal from
their Russian allegiance from the Vice-Consul at Jaffa, to register at
the British Consulate as British protégés. A large number availed
themselves of the privilege. There is nothing to show that the Agreement
of 1849 was ever cancelled.[97]

In Morocco the Consular Protection System affected Jews more closely
than in Turkey. It was for many years their sole protection against the
oppressions of the Bashaws and the cruel fanaticism of the people, and
on this ground there was much to be said for its so-called abuses and
irregularities. The right of protection seems to have been derived from
a very loosely worded article of the Anglo-Moorish Treaty of 1728,
granting immunity from taxation to all the native servants of British
subjects, whether Moors or Jews.[98] This Treaty was abrogated by the
general Treaty of 1856 (Article XXXVIII) and a more definite scope was
given to British Consular jurisdiction (Article III), but in a Treaty of
Commerce signed on the same day, it was expressly stipulated (Article
IV) that native agents employed by British subjects "shall be treated
and regarded as other subjects of the Moorish dominions."[99]
Nevertheless, the old abuses continued in virtue of the "Most favoured
nation" clause,[100] and a very large number of native Jews received
protection at the hands of the Consuls of all the Powers, partly on
account of their usefulness and partly on account of the insecurity of
their lives and property under the Moorish authorities.

It was, however, difficult to restrain Moorish fanaticism, and the
Consuls were frequently called upon to protect their Jewish protégés or
to avenge outrages of which they became victims.[101]


DOCUMENTS.

       *       *       *       *       *

PROTECTION OF RUSSIAN JEWS IN PALESTINE.--THE AGREEMENT OF 1849.

_Earl Russell to the Jewish Board of Deputies._

FOREIGN OFFICE,

_February 1st, 1864_.

SIR,--I am directed by Earl Russell to acknowledge the receipt of your
two letters of the 29th of December and 22nd inst., in the former of
which you enclose a Memorial to His Lordship from the Jews of Safed and
Tiberias, praying that they may again be placed under British
protection, of which they assert that they were deprived by Mr. Consul
Finn under the circumstances stated by them.

I am now to state to you in reply for the information of the
Memorialists that Her Majesty's Government have every disposition to
give effect to the arrangements which were made with the Russian Consul
General in 1849, namely to afford British protection to those Jews who,
having declined to return to Russia, have divested themselves of their
Russian Nationality, and so forfeited the protection to which _primâ
facie_ they were entitled to look. But I am to add that it must be
distinctly understood that this can only be done by the production on
the part of the individual seeking British protection of the formal
letter of Dismissal from the Russian Consulate, shewing that he has been
cast off from Russian protection, and would thus be left otherwise
unprotected. If he can produce no such letter, Her Majesty's Consular
Officers will not be entitled to grant to such individual British
protection.

Mr. Finn acted erroneously in originally supposing that British
protection could be granted to Russian Jews without the production of
formal letters of dismissal, and it was in consequence of instructions
from Her Majesty's Government that he withdrew British Consular
protection from those persons who could not produce such letters. Lord
Russell, however, is of opinion that Mr. Finn has shewn satisfactorily
that his good offices have nevertheless not unfrequently been extended
to the Jewish Communities at Safed and Tiberias, and that they have no
just reason to complain of him.

A delay has been occasioned in answering your first letter by the
necessity of communicating with Mr. Finn and of making other inquiries
with regard to the statements contained in the Memorial.

I am, Sir,

Your most obedient humble Servant,

I. HAMMOND.

J. M. MONTEFIORE, ESQ.,

4 GT. STANHOPE ST., MAYFAIR.

(Minute Books of Board of Deputies, 1864.)


ART. III. ANGLO-MOORISH TREATY _of January 14, 1727-8_.

III. That the Menial Servants of his Britannic Majesty's Subjects, the
Natives of the Country, either Moors or Jews, be exempt from Taxes of
all kinds.

("A General Collection of Treaties" (1732), iv. 458.)

       *       *       *       *       *

ART. III. ANGLO-MOORISH GENERAL TREATY _of December 9, 1856_.

EXTRACT.

Article III....The British Chargé d'Affaires shall be at liberty to
choose his own interpreters and servants, either from the Mussulmans or
others, and neither his interpreters nor servants shall be compelled to
pay any capitation tax, forced contribution, or other similar or
corresponding charge. With respect to the Consuls or Vice-Consuls who
shall reside at the ports under the orders of the said Chargé
d'Affaires, they shall be at liberty to choose one interpreter, one
guard, and two servants, either from the Mussulmans or others; and
neither the interpreter, nor the guard, nor their servants, shall be
compelled to pay any capitation tax, forced contribution, or other
similar or corresponding charge. If the said Chargé d'Affaires should
appoint a subject of the Sultan of Morocco as Vice-Consul at a Moorish
port, the said Vice-Consul, and those members of his family who may
dwell within his house, shall be respected, and exempted from the
payment of any capitation tax, or other similar or corresponding charge;
but the said Vice-Consul shall not take under his protection any subject
of the Sultan of Morocco except the members of his family dwelling under
his roof.

(Bernhardt: _op. cit._, p. 556.)

       *       *       *       *       *

ART. IV. ANGLO-MOORISH TREATY OF COMMERCE _of December 9, 1856_.

EXTRACT.

Article IV. The subjects of Her Britannic Majesty within the dominions
of His Majesty the Sultan shall be free to manage their own affairs
themselves, or to commit those affairs to the management of any persons
whom they may appoint as their broker, factor or agent; nor shall such
British subjects be restrained in their choice of persons to act in such
capacities; nor shall they be called upon to pay any salary or
remuneration to any person whom they shall not choose to employ; but
those persons who shall be thus employed, and who are subjects of the
Sultan of Morocco, shall be treated and regarded as other subjects of
the Moorish dominions.

(_Ibid._ p. 573.)


       *       *       *       *       *


FRANCO-MOORISH "RÈGLEMENT" REGARDING PROTECTION, _August 19, 1863_.

EXTRACTS.

La protection est individuelle et temporaire.

Elle ne s'applique pas en général aux parents de l'individu protégé.

Elle ne peut s'appliquer à sa famille, c'est-à-dire à la femme et aux
enfants demeurant sous le même toit.

Elle est tout au plus viagère, jamais héréditaire, sauf la seule
exception admise en faveur de la famille Benchimol, qui, de père en
fils, a fourni et fournit des censaux interprètes au port de Tanger.

Les protégés se divisent en deux catégories:

La première catégorie comprend les indigènes employés par la Légation et
par les différentes Autorités consulaires.

La seconde catégorie se compose des facteurs, courtiers ou agents
indigènes employés par les négociants français pour leurs affaires de
commerce....

Le nombre des courtiers indigènes jouissant de la protection française
est limité à deux par maison de commerce. Par exception, les maisons de
commerce qui ont des comptoirs dans différents ports pourront avoir des
courtiers attachés à chacun de ces comptoirs et jouissant à ce titre de
la protection française....

Il est entendu, que les cultivateurs, gardiens de troupeaux ou autres
paysans indigènes au service des Français ne pourront être l'objet de
poursuites judiciaires sans que l'Autorité consulaire compétente en soit
immédiatement informée, afin que celle-ci puisse sauvegarder l'intérêt
de ses nationaux....

(De Card: "Les Traités entre la France et le Maroc" (Paris, 1898), pp.
221-22.)

       *       *       *       *       *


(_c_) THE CONFERENCES OF MADRID (1800) AND ALGECIRAS (1906).

Through the efforts of the British Minister at Tangier, Sir John
Drummond Hay, who had negotiated the Treaties of 1856 and who was
strongly opposed to the abuses of the Protection system, a Conference of
the Powers and other interested States was held at Madrid in 1880 with
the object of introducing reforms.[102] A new Convention, containing a
few fresh restrictions, was agreed upon, but, as a matter of fact, the
Conference was a failure, owing to the reluctance of France to abandon a
system which gave her an advantage against Great Britain in promoting
her influence in Morocco.[103] For obvious reasons, Jewish influence
was also largely used to the same end. The Jewish factor of the problem
came out very prominently in the debates of the Conference. All the
protégés referred to by name were Jews, such as the families of
Benchimol, Moses Nahon, David Buzaglo, and Isaac Toledano.[104] One of
the few reforms carried out by the Conference was the abolition of
hereditary protection. An exception was, however, made in the case of
the Jewish family of Benchimol, whose rights in this respect had been
guaranteed in the Convention of 1863 with France, and a special
reservation to this effect was inserted in the new Treaty.[105]

The Conference also dealt with the general questions of Religious
Liberty in Morocco and of the treatment of native Jews. In 1864 Sir
Moses Montefiore, as President of the Jewish Board of Deputies and with
the support of the British Government, had undertaken a mission to
Morocco in order to secure an improvement in the treatment of the
non-Mohammedan population, and more particularly the Jews. He succeeded
in obtaining from the Sultan a remarkable Edict assuring to the Jews a
perfect equality of treatment with all the other subjects of the
Sultan.[106] This Edict had not been observed, and, at the instance of
the Pope, the Madrid Conference adopted a Declaration calling upon the
Shereefian Government to give effect to it and at the same time to
assure Religious Liberty to all its subjects. The result was to extract
from the Sultan a formal reaffirmation of the Montefiore Edict.[107]

A similar course was pursued by the Conference which met at Algeciras in
1906 to consider the Moorish question in its wider political aspects.
The intervening quarter of a century had been as barren of reforms as
the period which elapsed between the granting of the Edict of 1864 and
the meeting of the Madrid Conference. The maltreatment of the Jews had
continued, and had been the subject of frequent complaints by the
Alliance Israélite, the Anglo-Jewish Association, and the American
Jewish Committee, and of remonstrances by their respective Governments.
Accordingly at the instance of the United States Government, the
question was brought before the Algeciras Conference, and, at the
sitting of that body on April 2, 1906, a resolution was adopted, again
calling upon the Sultan of Morocco to see "that the Jews of his Empire
and all his subjects, without distinction of faith, were treated with
justice and equality."[108]

No steps, however, were taken to enforce this resolution, and it was not
even made a treaty obligation. That, however, was of little consequence,
for, very shortly after, the Moorish Empire virtually disappeared, and a
French Protectorate was proclaimed. The Jews of Morocco are now in the
same situation as their brethren in Algiers and Tunis, which, however,
is not to say that it is entirely satisfactory.


DOCUMENTS.

       *       *       *       *       *

EXTRACTS FROM PROTOCOLS OF THE MADRID CONFERENCE (1880).

_Protocole No. 3.--Séance du 20 Mai, 1880._

Sur la question de la protection héréditaire, le Plénipotentiaire de
France rappelle que la Convention de 1863 accorde formellement cette
protection à la famille Benchimol. Les raisons qui ont motivé cette
exception ont été dûment appreciées à cette époque par le Gouvernement
Marocain; elles ont conservé toute leur force, et il est impossible au
Gouvernement Français d'abandonner une famille qui jouit depuis 17 ans
de la plus juste considération. Il demande le maintien de cette
exception si légitime.

Le Plénipotentiaire du Portugal, tout en maintenant dans toute son
étendue le droit au traitement de la nation la plus favorisée, reconnu
toujours au Portugal et récemment encore lors des Ambassades spéciales
envoyées par sa Majesté Chérifienne en 1875 et 1877, admet que la France
puisse alléguer des motifs spéciaux en faveur d'une exception qui, selon
lui, n'invalide pas le principe. Il accepte donc sans reserve que la
protection ne soit pas héréditaire, avec l'exception unique établi
nominativement dans la Convention de 1863. Seulement pour le cas où le
Gouvernement Marocain accorderait par la suite d'autres exceptions de
cette nature, il réserverait le droit du Gouvernement Portugais de
réclamer une exception analogue.

Pareille réserve est faite par les autres Plénipotentiaires.

"La protection n'est point héréditaire. Une seule exception est
maintenue en faveur de la famille Benchimol, comme étant établie dans la
Convention de 1863; mais elle ne saurait créer un précédent. Cependant
si le Souverain du Maroc accordait une autre exception, toutes les
Puissances représentées à la Conférence auraient le droit de réclamer
une exception pareille."

       *       *       *       *       *

_Protocole No. 11.--Séance du 24 Juin, 1880._

Le Plénipotentiaire d'Italie demande la parole, et s'exprime en ces
termes:--

"...L'Italie a toujours maintenu inaltérable son droit consuétudinaire
sans jamais en abuser. En effet, en examinant le chiffre de 108, auquel
montent ses protégés, on trouvera que 11 seulement sont protégés en
vertu du droit consuétudinaire.

"Six sont d'anciens Vice-Consuls et interprètes des États Italiens
composant actuellement le Royaume d'Italie. Le nombre de ceux qui ont
rendu ainsi des services à l'Italie est de six et non d'un seul (M.
Moses Nahon), comme M. le Ministre des Affaires Etrangères du Maroc
avait cru pouvoir l'affirmer dans la séance du 19 Juillet, 1879, des
Conférences de Tanger.

"La veuve David Buzaglo et ses deux fils composent la famille d'un Agent
Diplomatique Italien, et jouisse à ce titre de la protection.

"La veuve Isaac Toldano et 8 autres personnes appartiennent à la famille
de Joseph Toldano, Interprète de la Légation d'Italie, famille qui
jusqu'à présent a joui de la protection héréditaire comme la famille
Benchimol, protégée par la France."

("Brit. and For. State Papers," lxxi. 825-826, 872, 873-874.)

       *       *       *       *       *

ART. VI. TREATY OF MADRID, _July 6, 1880_.[109]

VI. La protection s'étend sur la famille du protégé. Sa demeure est
respectée.

Il est entendu que la famille ne se compose que de la femme, des
enfants, et des parents mineurs qui habitent sous le même toit.

La protection n'est pas héréditaire. Une seule exception, déjà établie
par la Convention de 1863, et qui ne saurait créer un précédent, est
maintenue en faveur de la famille Benchimol.

Cependant, si le Sultan du Maroc accordait une autre exception, chacune
des Puissances Contractantes aurait le droit de réclamer une concession
semblable.

(_Ibid._, pp. 641-642.)


       *       *       *       *       *


THE MONTEFIORE EDICT, 1864.

In the Name of God, the Merciful and Gracious. There is no power but in
God, the High and Mighty.

Be it known by this our Royal Edict--may God exalt and bless its purport
and elevate the same to the high heavens, as he does the sun and
moon!--that it is our command, that all Jews residing within our
dominions, be the condition in which the Almighty God has placed them
whatever it may, shall be treated by our Governors, Administrators, and
all other subjects, in manner conformable with the evenly balanced
scales of Justice, and that in the administration of the Courts of Law
they (the Jews) shall occupy a position of perfect equality with all
other people; so that not even a fractional portion of the smallest
imaginable particle of injustice shall reach any of them, nor shall they
be subjected to anything of an objectionable nature. Neither they (the
Authorities) nor any one else shall do them (the Jews) wrong, whether to
their persons or to their property. Nor shall any tradesman among them,
or artizan, be compelled to work against his will. The work of everyone
shall be duly recompensed, for injustice here is injustice in Heaven,
and we cannot countenance it in any matter affecting either their (the
Jews') rights or the rights of others, our own dignity being itself
opposed to such a course. All persons in our regard have an equal claim
to justice; and if any person should wrong or injure one of them (the
Jews), we will, with the help of God, punish him.

The commands hereinbefore set forth had been given and made known before
now; but we repeat them, and add force to them, in order that they may
be more clearly understood, and more strictly carried into effect, as
well as serve for a warning to such as may be evilly disposed towards
them (the Jews), and that the Jews shall thus enjoy for the future more
security than heretofore, whilst the fear to injure them shall be
greatly increased.

This Decree, blessed by God, is promulgated on the 26th of Shaban, 1280
(15 February 1864). Peace!

(Loewe, "Diaries of Sir Moses and Lady Montefiore," vol. ii. p. 153.)

       *       *       *       *       *

FURTHER EXTRACT FROM PROTOCOLS OF THE MADRID CONFERENCE (1880).

_Protocole No. 12.--Séance du 26 Juin, 1880._

Le Président observe que la Conférence, ayant accompli, et au delà, la
tâche qu'elle s'était proposée, est à la veille de se dissoudre. Mais il
doit porter à la connaissance de ses membres, avant qu'ils ne se
séparent, une communication importante qui a été adressée par le
Saint-Siège au Gouvernement de Sa Majesté Catholique.

M. Canovas del Castillo donne lecture de la production suivante d'une
lettre, en date du 4 Mai, 1880, qu'il a reçue de son Eminence le
Cardinal Nina:

"EXCELLENCE,--Le Saint-Père, obéissant au devoirs de sa mission
apostolique, ne peut que mettre à profit toutes les occasions qui se
présentent de veiller aux intérêts du Catholicisme, sur n'importe quel
point du globe. Ayant appris que dans le courant de ce mois un Congrès
Diplomatique doit se réunir sous votre présidence pour s'occuper des
affaires du Maroc, Sa Sainteté, tout en reconnaissant que parmi les
questions qui seront soumises à la délibération de la Conférence, celle
qui se rapporte à la liberté religieuse dans l'Empire Marocain n'a pas
été particulièrement désignée, croit cependant que rien n'interdirait
aux Plénipotentiaires réunis à Madrid de porter leur attention sur un
sujet si important pour le bienêtre des habitants du Maroc, quand même
il ne serait considéré qu'au point de vue matériel.

"Il n'est point douteux que, de même qu'au dernier Congrès de Berlin les
appels faits par mon illustre prédécesseur, le Cardinal Franchi, aux
Représentants de la France et de l'Autriche, MM. Waddington et Andrássy,
eurent pour résultat de faire accueillir et voter, avec l'approbation
générale, les demandes de Sa Sainteté relatives à la liberté de la
religion Catholique pour les sujets de la Sublime Porte et des États qui
l'avoisinent, de même la proposition que je fais en ce moment trouvera
un accueil non moins favorable de la part des dignes Représentants à la
veille de se réunir dans la capitale d'une nation si dévouée au
Saint-Siège, et liée par tant d'intérêts à l'Empire du Maroc. D'autre
part, il n'est pas permis de présumer que le Gouvernement Marocain, uni
par un lien si étroit au Représentant suprême de l'Islamisme, puisse se
réfuser à suivre l'exemple qui lui a été offert par l'adhésion de
l'Empereur des Ottomans aux Articles stipulés dans le Congrès de Berlin,
lorsque la Conférence qui va se réunir lui proposera d'adopter une
résolution analogue.

"Obéissant à ces considérations, le Saint-Père m'a chargé de m'adresser
à votre Excellence, digne Président de l'Assemblée, et de faire appel,
en son nom Pontifical, à ses sentiments comme Catholique et comme
Espagnol, afin quelle veuille bien se charger de proposer et de défendre
au sein du Congrès la proposition sus-indiquée, qui porte que les sujets
du Sultan, ainsi que les étrangers, jouiront au Maroc du libre exercice
du culte Catholique, sans que par ce motif ils aient à souffrir tort ou
préjudice dans leurs droits civils ou politiques.

"Le Saint-Père ne méconnait point les obstacles qu'oppose l'état actuel
du Maroc à la réalisation de cette liberté; mais ces obstacles, loin de
décourager, doivent stimuler les c[oe]urs généreux qui n'envisagent que
la grandeur du but à atteindre.

"Du reste, une fois que le Gouvernement Marocain aura accepté le
principe en question, et pris vis-à-vis des Puissances étrangères
l'engagement de s'y conformer, si ces Puissances, d'accord avec
l'Espagne, dont les relations avec le Maroc présentent un caractère tout
spécial, voulaient prendre une attitude semblable à celle qu'elles ont
adoptée en Orient, on pourrait avec raison espérer que le progrès de la
civilisation améneraient bientôt, par des voies pacifiques, le libre
exercice du culte Catholique dans ces régions Africaines.

"En me conformant aux ordres de l'auguste Pontife, je dois en même temps
vous faire savoir que le Saint-Père est animé d'une conviction intime
que vous répondrez à son appel paternel et que les Représentants des
autres Puissances seconderont vos efforts, en accueillant avec faveur
une demande conforme aux principes aujourd'hui admis du droit public
international.

"Le Saint-Père croit également qu'en agissant ainsi, votre Excellence
répondra aux sentiments bien connus de Sa Majesté le Roi, son auguste
Souverain, en faveur de notre sainte religion.

Je saisis, &c.,

"L. CARD. NINA.

"A son Excellence M. CANOVAS DEL CASTILLO."

M. Cánovas del Castillo a eu l'honneur de répondre à Mgr. le Nonce
Apostolique à Madrid, avec lequel il s'est entretenu à ce sujet, que le
Plénipotentiaire d'Espagne était prêt à présenter, et à appuyer au sein
de la Conférence, la proposition du Saint-Siège, aussitôt qu'il serait
avéré que les Représentants des autres Puissances pourraient consentir à
traiter des questions en dehors de celles qui avaient motivé leur
réunion; il devrait, en particulier, consulter son collègue le
Représentant de la Grande-Bretagne, dont le Gouvernement a pris
l'initiative de la convocation des Plénipotentiaires, sur l'opportunité
qu'il y aurait à saisir la Conférence de cette proposition. M. Cánovas a
ajouté que, si la Conférence admettait en principe la possibilité de
traiter des questions étrangères au but déterminé qu'elle s'était
proposé, le Plénipotentiaire d'Espagne tiendrait à honneur de remplir la
mission que le Saint-Siège daignait lui confier, et qu'il était persuadé
que la communication du Saint-Père serait accueillie, en ce cas, avec
toute la déférence due à sa haute origine.

Il a rappelé en même temps que le Traité de 1861 assure la liberté
religieuse aux Catholiques Espagnols au Maroc, et que d'autre part le
Traité Anglais de 1856 stipulait également, pour les sujets
Britanniques, le libre exercice de leur culte.

Ayant acquis postérieurement la conviction que les Plénipotentiaires
sont disposés à examiner cette question, le Président estime que la
Conférence devra faire une déclaration érigeant en règle générale le
principe que le Maroc a déjà admis par des Traités.

Le Plénipotentiaire d'Autriche-Hongrie prend alors la parole, et dit que
le Gouvernement de Sa Majesté Impériale et Royale Apostolique, à la
suite d'une démarche analogue du Saint-Siège, a pu s'assurer, de son
côté que les autres Cabinets seraient, en effet, disposés à se joindre à
un v[oe]u comme celui dont vient de prendre l'initiative le Président de
la Conférence, pourvu que ce v[oe]u fut exprimé en faveur de tous les
habitants non-Musulmans du Maroc, et que la Conférence recommandât en
même temps à la sagesse du Sultan du Maroc l'abolition des incapacités
qui pèsent encore sur certaines classes de ses sujets en raison de leurs
croyances.

C'est dans ce sens, et pour donner une forme plus précise à ce v[oe]u,
que M. le Comte Ludolf a été chargé de préparer le projet d'Adresse au
Souverain du Maroc qu'il a l'honneur de soumettre à la Conférence.

Le Plénipotentiaire d'Autriche-Hongrie donne lecture du document en ces
termes:--

"La Conférence, au moment de se dissoudre, informée par son Président de
la demande exprimée en faveur de l'Église Catholique par Sa Sainteté le
Souverain Pontife, dans le lettre dont lecture vient d'être fait,
demande de son côté que le libre exercice de tous les cultes soit
reconnu au Maroc.

"La Conférence, d'autant plus convaincu que ce v[oe]u trouvera un
accueil favorable auprès de Sa Majesté Chérifienne que l'illustre
Souverain du Maroc a déjà donné une preuve manifeste de sa tolérance et
de sa sollicitude pour le bien-être de ses sujets non-Musulmans, en
confirmant en 1874 le Décret accordé par Sa Majesté le Sultan Sidi
Mohammed, sous le 26 Chaban de 1280 (Février 1864) à Sir Moses
Montefiore, Décret qui proclame que tous les sujets de l'Empire du Maroc
doivent avoir le même rang devant la loi: que par conséquent les Juifs
du Maroc doivent être traités conformément à la justice et à l'équité,
et qu'aucune violence ne doit être exercée à l'égard de leurs personnes
ni de leurs biens.

"A la suite de ce Décret, bien des lois humiliantes, édictées contre les
non-Musulmans dans des temps antérieurs, ont été mises hors de pratique,
et le sort des races non-Musulmans au Maroc est devenu plus supportable.

"Toutefois, ces lois ne sont pas encore toutes formellement révoquées,
et quelques-unes même continuent à être en vigueur dans plus d'un
endroit de l'intérieur de l'Empire. De même, le libre exercice de leurs
cultes n'est pas encore accordé d'une manière légale aux sujets
non-Musulmans de Sa Majesté Chérifienne, et beaucoup de restrictions
existent encore pour ces derniers qui sont contraires à l'esprit du
Décret du 26 Chaban, 1280, et à cette règle si élémentaire et si
universellement respectée, que les sujets d'un même pays, de quelque
race ou de quelque religion qu'ils soient, des qu'ils accomplissent
fidèlement leurs devoirs envers le Souverain, doivent jouir d'une
parfaite identité de droits et d'une complète égalité devant la loi.

"Le Sultan Abdul Medjid, Empéreur des Ottomans, à déjà, en 1839, par le
Hatti-Chérif de Gulhané, reconnu spontanément et inscrit dans la
législation de son pays ce même principe, qui a été développé et
consacré depuis par ses successeurs, en 1856 et dernièrement encore en
1878, de façon qu'on ne saurait douter qu'il ne se laisse parfaitement
concilier avec la loi Mahométane.

"Quoique persuadée que l'illustre Souverain du Maroc est animé, non
moins que le Sultan de la Turquie, d'intentions bienveillantes envers
ses sujets non-Musulmans, la Conférence croirait manquer à un devoir si
elle ne témoignait le vif et profond intérêt qu'elle prend à la prompte
amélioration de leur sort. A cet effet, la Conférence, au nom des Hautes
Puissances représentées dans son sein, fait appel à Sa Majesté
Chérifienne afin que, fidèle à ses sentiments de justice et de
générosité, elle manifeste sa ferme volonté--

"1. De faire respecter dans ses États le principe que tous ceux qui y
habitent et qui y habiteront à l'avenir pourront professer et exercer
sans entraves leurs cultes;

"2. De préscrire à son Gouvernement, comme base immuable de la
législation du Maroc, la maxime, déjà adoptée dans le Décret du 26
Chaban, 1280, et d'après laquelle ni la religion ni la race ne pourront
jamais être un motif pour établir une différence dans le traitement par
et devant la loi entre ses sujets Musulmans et non-Musulmans, ni servir
de prétexte pour imposer à ces derniers des humiliations, pour les
priver d'un droit civil quelconque, ou pour les empêcher d'exercer
librement toutes les professions et industries qui sont permises aux
sujets Musulmans de l'Empire.

"Une pareille manifestation non seulement honorerait le règne de Sa
Majesté Chérifienne, mais inaugurerait aussi pour ses États une ère
nouvelle de prospérité.

"Les Soussignés, en deposant le présent acte entre les mains de son
Excellence Cid Mohammed Vargas, prient M. le Plénipotentiaire du Maroc
de le soumettre à Sa Majesté Chérifienne, qui ne lui réfusera certes pas
la sérieuse attention que mérite un v[oe]u exprimé au nom des Puissances
que les Soussignés ont l'honneur de représenter.

"_Madrid, le 26 Juin, 1880._"

Ce texte est approuvé par les Plénipotentiaires, à l'exception du
Représentant de Sa Majesté Chérifienne, qui ne peut que s'engager à
porter à la connaissance de son Souverain les v[oe]ux que les
Plénipotentiaires viennent d'exprimer au nom de leurs Gouvernements
respectifs.

Cid Mohammed Vargas croit cependant devoir rappeler qu'au Maroc les
Musulmans, les Chrétiens, et les Juifs suivent leur religion, sans qu'il
y soit mis d'empêchement ni d'obstacle.

Le Plénipotentiaire du Maroc n'a pas d'instructions de son Souverain qui
lui permettent de traiter cette question ou toute autre qui, comme elle,
ne se rattacherait pas directement à l'objet de sa mission à Madrid.
Néanmoins, en vue de l'Adresse que vient d'adopter la Conférence, il
croit devoir lui communiquer une lettre qu'il a reçu de Sa Majesté le
Sultan Muley-el-Hassan, et qui a trait aux Juifs ses sujets. Il en donne
lecture en ces termes:--

"Louange à Dieu unique! Que la bénédiction de Dieu soit sur Mahomet,
notre Seigneur et Maître, sur sa famille, et ses compagnons!

"A notre estimé serviteur, le Taleb Mohammed Vargas. Que Dieu te soit
propice, et que la paix soit sur toi, ainsi que la bénédiction de Dieu
Très Haut et sa miséricorde.

"Et puis:--

"Il est parvenu à notre connaissance que certains Juifs de nos sujets se
sont plaints à plusieurs reprises à leurs frères résidant en Europe et
aux Représentants étrangers à Tanger, de ce qu'ils ne parviennent pas à
obtenir justice dans leurs réclamations relatives à meurtres, vols, &c.
Ils prétendent que les Gouverneurs montrent de l'indifférence à leur
faire avoir satisfaction des personnes qui les attaquent, et que leurs
demandes n'arrivent jamais à notre Majesté Chérifienne, si ce n'est par
l'entremise de personnes (les Juifs résidant en Europe et les
Représentants étrangers).

"Notre volonté Chérifienne est qu'ils obtiennent justice sans
l'intervention des Puissances ni des Représentants, parce qu'ils sont
nos sujets et nos tributaires, ayant par là les mêmes droits que les
Musulmans devant nous, et tous abus contre eux étant défendu par notre
religion.

"C'est pourquoi nous t'ordonnons d'accepter la réclamation de tout Juif
qui se plaindra de ne pas obtenir justice d'un Gouverneur, et de nous en
donner connaissance lorsque tu ne trouveras pas le moyen d'y faire
droit.

"Nous avons envoyé des ordres en ce sens aux Gouverneurs des villes, des
ports, et de la campagne, afin qu'ils en donnent connaissance aux Juifs,
et en même temps nous les avons prévenus que si quelqu'un d'eux s'oppose
ou met des difficultés à ce que la plainte d'un Juif parvienne à toi,
nous le punirons très sévèrement.

"Nous t'ordonnons de traiter leurs affaires avec toute justice et de ne
rien nous cacher sur l'arbitraire des Gouverneurs à leur égard, car tous
les hommes sont égaux pour nous en matière de justice.

"_Le 22 Joumadi premier, an 1297._"

Le Président donnant acte au Représentant du Maroc de cette
communication, constate, au nom de tous les Plénipotentiaires, la vive
satisfaction avec laquelle la Conférence accueille les déclarations qui
viennent de lui être faites. Les Plénipotentiaires voient dans le
principe, qu'elles établissent, d'un appel au Ministre des Affaires
Étrangères, à la fois une preuve des sentiments de justice qui animent
Sa Majesté Chérifienne à l'égard de ses sujets Israélites, et l'annonce
du prompt accomplissement des v[oe]ux exprimés par la Conférence.

("British and Foreign State Papers," vol. lxxi. pp. 881-887.)

       *       *       *       *       *

EXTRACTS FROM PROTOCOLS OF THE ALGECIRAS CONFERENCE, 1906.

No. 33. _2 Avril, 1906. Dix-septième Séance._

S. Exc. M. White (États-Unis) prononce ensuite les paroles suivantes:
"Le Gouvernement des États-Unis d'Amérique a toujours considéré comme un
devoir de s'associer à tout ce qui pourrait contribuer au progrès des
idées d'humanité et assurer le respect dû à toutes les croyances
religieuses. Animé par ces sentiments et par l'amitié qui a si longtemps
subsisté entre lui et l'Empire marocain dont il suit le développement
avec un profond intérêt, mon Gouvernement m'a chargé d'invoquer le
concours de la Conférence, au moment où elle est sur le point de
terminer ses travaux, en vue de l'émission d'un v[oe]u pour le bien-être
des israélites au Maroc. Je suis heureux de constater que la condition
des sujets israélites de S.M. Chérifienne a été de beaucoup améliorée
pendant le règne de feu le Sultan Mouley-el-Hassan et que le Sultan
actuel paraît, autant qu'il lui a été possible, les avoir traités avec
équité et bienveillance. Mais les agents du Makhzen, dans les parties du
pays éloignées du pouvoir central ne s'inspirent pas toujours
suffisamment des sentiments de tolérance et de justice qui animent leur
souverain. La Délégation americaine vient donc prier la Conférence de
vouloir bien émettre le v[oe]u que S.M. Chérifienne continue dans la
bonne voie inaugurée par son père et maintenue par Sa Majesté elle-même
par rapport à ses sujets israélites et qu'elle vise à ce que son
Gouvernement ne néglige aucune occasion de faire savoir à ses
fonctionnaires que le Sultan tient à ce que les israélites de son Empire
et tous ses sujets, sans distinction de croyance, soient traités avec
justice et équité."

S. Exc. Sir Arthur Nicolson (Grande-Bretagne) déclare que, conformément
aux instructions de son Gouvernement, il est heureux de se rallier à la
proposition du premier Délégué des États-Unis.

S. Exc. M. le Duc de Almodovar del Rio (Espagne) s'exprime en ces
termes: "Je m'associe, au nom de S.M. Catholique, aux hauts sentiments
de tolérance religieuse qui viennent d'être exprimés par S. Exc. le
premier Délégué des États-Unis; et je tiens d'autant plus à me rallier à
sa proposition que le sort des populations israélites au Maroc,
rattachées à l'Espagne par des liens de descendance et dont la langue
habituelle continue à être la langue castillane, qui fut naguère celle
de leurs ancêtres, est particulièrement intéressant aux yeux du peuple
espagnol d'aujourd'hui."

LL. EE. MM. de Radowitz (Allemagne) et Revoil (France) se rallient
également au v[oe]u de M. le premier Délégué des États-Unis.

S. Exc. M. le Marquis Visconti Venosta (Italie) déclare qu'il adhère au
v[oe]u dont S. Exc. le premier Délégué des États-Unis a pris
l'initiative. Il reconnaît que, dans ces derniers temps, les Souverains
du Maroc ont donné de preuves de tolérance vis-à-vis de leurs sujets
non-musulmans; mais il ne reste pas moins à désirer que les conditions
des juifs dans l'intérieur de l'Empire soient mises au même niveau et
entourées des mêmes garanties que dans les villes et ports de la côte.
La Conférence, dans le cours de ses travaux, s'est toujours préoccupée
du progrès et de la prospérité du Maroc; elle restera fidèle au même
esprit en exprimant à S.M. le Sultan le v[oe]u que tous ses sujets,
quelle que soit leur religion, soient appelés à jouir des mêmes droits,
ainsi que du même traitement devant la loi et que les ordres que S.M.
Chérifienne a donnés ou donnera à cet effet soient fidèlement exécutés.
L'assentiment de l'Italie est toujours acquis à l'affirmation des
principes de liberté religieuse qui sont une des bases de ses
institutions politiques et sociales.

S. Exc. le Baron Joostens (Belgique) déclare que la Délégation belge
s'associe entièrement à la déclaration que vient de faire S. Exc. M. le
Marquis Visconti-Venosta.

LL. EE. le Jonkheer Testa (Pays-Bas), M. le Comte Cassini (Russie) et M.
Sager (Suède) adhèrent aussi aux sentiments exprimés par MM. les
premiers Délégués des États-Unis et d'Italie.

Le v[oe]u proposé par S. Exc. M. White est adopté par l'unanimité des
Délégués des Puissances.

LL. EE. MM. les Délégués marocains expliquent qu'ils ne manqueront pas
de faire connaître cette décision à S.M. le Sultan, qui certainement
aura à c[oe]ur de procéder dans l'espèce de la même façon que feu son
père.

S. Exc. M. White (États-Unis) remercie MM. les Délégués des Puissances
d'une adhésion qui répond si entièrement aux vues du Gouvernement des
États-Unis et aux sentiments personnels du Président Roosevelt.

("Protocoles et Comptes Rendus de la Conférence d'Algésiras" (Paris,
1906), pp. 246-248.)

       *       *       *       *       *




IV. THE PALESTINE QUESTION AND THE NATIONAL RESTORATION OF THE JEWS.


Until quite recently the question of the national restoration of the
Jews to Palestine did not play a conspicuous part, or, indeed, much of a
part at all, in practical international politics. This is not a little
strange in view of the great mass of religious opinion which has always
been deeply interested in it. It may be profitable to indicate some of
the reasons.

In the first place, from the middle of the second down to the middle of
the nineteenth centuries the Palestine problem, as a political problem,
was exclusively concerned with the custody of the Holy Places of
Christendom. After the failure of the many attempts to oust the Turk,
the question became one of diplomatic accommodation, and under the
Capitulations with France and the Treaties of Carlowitz and Passarowitz
between the Holy Roman Empire and the Grand Signior, various expedients
were adopted by which Christian interests in Jerusalem might be
reconciled with the local political rights of the Ottoman Porte. This
difficult problem absorbed the Oriental activities of European diplomacy
until after the Crimean War, and it left no room for the consideration
of Jewish claims.

In the second place the question during the whole of this period was
always primarily one of eschatology rather than of practical politics.
Even when the Millenarian mystics sometimes crossed the border-line, the
case they presented was not calculated to conciliate sovereign princes.
We have a curious instance of this in the first Zionist book published
in London, "The World's Great Restoration, or Calling of the
Jewes"--(London, 1621)--which was written by Sir Henry Finch, the
eminent serjeant-at-law, although his name does not appear on the title
page.[110] Among other items in Finch's programme was one to the effect
that all Christian princes should surrender their power and do homage
"to the temporal supreme Empire of the Jewish nation." When James I read
the book he was furious. He said he was "too auld a King to do his
homage at Jerusalem," and he ordered Finch to be thrown into gaol.[111]
In 1795 an exactly similar proposal was made by an ex-naval officer, one
Richard Brothers, who announced himself as King of the Jews. He also was
prosecuted, but was found to be a lunatic.[112] A certain political
interest attaches to the case of Brothers; inasmuch as his scheme for
the National Restoration of the Jews was brought before the House of
Commons by one of his adherents, Mr. Nathaniel Brassey Halhed, M.P.,
with a motion for the printing and distribution of Brothers's proposal.
The motion failed to find a seconder.[113]

In the third place, unless the Restoration were favoured by the Ottoman
Government, all schemes to compass it in normal times ran counter to
international law and the comity of nations. This point was actually
decided in this sense by the Law Courts some seventy years ago in the
case of Habershon _v._ Vardon. The case related to a bequest by one
Nadir Baxter for the political restoration of the Jews in Jerusalem. The
bequest was held void, and the Vice-Chancellor, in giving judgment,
said: "If it could be understood to mean anything it was to create a
revolution in a friendly country."[114]

In the fourth place the idea was likely to weaken the doctrine of the
integrity of Turkey, and, for this and other reasons, was inconsistent
with the interests and traditional policy of Great Britain and other
Western States. It was all the more inconsistent because this policy
originally shaped itself in deference to religious considerations far
more precious to Englishmen than the national cause of the Jews. In the
sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, when the struggle between the
Reformation and the Counter-Reformation was at its height, the naval
balance of power in the Mediterranean rested between Spain and Turkey.
Hence a bias towards Turkey on the part of Protestant States was
inevitable. Curiously enough, the Jews, who were then hostile to Spain,
supported the pro-Turkish policy of England, as they did in 1876-78 on
account of their antipathy to Russia. In the time of Cromwell this
consideration was reinforced by our trade interests in the Levant and in
India. A century later the tradition became again imperative owing to
the fear of Russia and afterwards of Napoleon. All this rendered a
strong and friendly Turkey necessary to us, and hence to entertain the
idea of a National Restoration of the Jews to Palestine was to risk
offence to a valued ally.

A fifth reason was the indifference of the Jews themselves. Until the
Zionist movement was founded twenty years ago there was scarcely any
symptom of a Jewish desire for international action on their behalf in
the Palestine question. This was not for want of opportunity or even for
want of suggestion from others. In 1840, when Mehemet Ali was driven out
of Palestine and Syria by the Powers, the future of Palestine was open
for discussion.[115] The country, with all its Hebrew and Christian
shrines, was in the hands of Christendom, who could have done with it as
it pleased. Not a voice was raised among the Jews for the restoration of
the land to them. And this, be it remembered, was when Sir Moses
Montefiore and M. Crémieux were busy in the East in connection with the
Damascus Blood Accusation, and when Lord Palmerston was proposing to
take the Jews under British protection as a separate nationality.[116]
Instead of championing the national aspirations of the Jews, they
contented themselves with obtaining the famous Hatti-Humayoun, or
Charter of Liberties for the Jews of Turkey, by which they were more
nearly assimilated to Turkish Nationals.[117] In the following year the
Powers were actually discussing the future of Palestine, but the Jews
again made no move. Even while the negotiations were in progress, a
scheme for restoring the Jews as the political masters of the country
was drawn up by a Christian, Colonel Churchill, then British Consul in
Syria, and submitted by him to Sir Moses Montefiore and the Board of
Deputies. Its reception was curiously frigid. Whilst piously blessing
Colonel Churchill's proposals, the Board declined to take any
initiative.[118] It was the same in 1878 when Lord Beaconsfield annexed
Cyprus and secured a British Protectorate over Asiatic Turkey. No
opportunity could have seemed better for the promotion of Zionist aims,
but when Laurence Oliphant pointed this out he found scarcely an echo
beyond a small circle of obscure Jewish dreamers in Southern
Russia.[119] Indeed, until the time of Herzl all the most prominent
protagonists of Zionism were Christians. The Dane, Holger Paulli, who in
1697 presented a Zionist scheme to King William III of England with a
view to its submission to the Peace Conference of Ryswick, was a
Christian,[120] and even the notorious Jewish pseudo-Messiah, Sabbathai
Zevi, who raised the flag of Jewish nationality in Syria thirty years
earlier, owed more of his inspiration to English Fifth Monarchy teaching
than to Jewish tradition.[121]

Nevertheless, there were two occasions on which the Jewish aspects of
the Palestine question did enter the field of practical international
politics.

The first was in 1799, when Napoleon carried out his audacious raid on
British interests in the East by his expedition to Egypt and Syria. A
scheme for enlisting the support of the Jews by founding a Jewish
Commonwealth in Palestine formed part of the plans for the expedition
secretly prepared by the Directory in 1798, and French public opinion
was familiarised with it by a good deal of propagandist literature. The
Jews were alleged to be anxious to support the French in the Levant, and
a bogus Zionist scheme--very much on the Herzlian lines--supposed to be
written by an Italian Jew--was widely circulated in France. It embodied
an appeal to the Jews of the world to form a representative council
through which they could negotiate with the Directory for Palestine. It
was supported in a very soberly reasoned article by the _Décade
Philosophique et Littéraire_, and was soon after published in the London
Press and reprinted as a twopenny pamphlet by the _Courier_.[122] Ten
months later Napoleon, marching from El Arish on the road which has
lately been traversed by General Allenby, published a proclamation
inviting the Jews of Asia and Africa to rally to his standard "for the
restoration of the ancient kingdom of Jerusalem."[123] The scheme
collapsed with the battles of Acre and Aboukir.

The second occasion was in 1841, when the Powers had to decide on the
fate of Syria and Palestine wrested by them from Mehemet Ali. It is true
that the Jewish element in the question received very scanty attention
and evoked no positive sympathy, but, at any rate, it was mentioned, and
this fact indicates that the Powers had begun to realise that the future
of Palestine was not exclusively a Christian question. The exchange of
views which then took place is, however, interesting for other reasons.
The documents, which are now published for the first time, comprise four
separate schemes for solving the Palestine problem, and the
considerations discussed in connection with them constitute a body of
material which may be usefully studied at the present moment.

The first scheme, apparently suggested by France, contemplated the
creation of a small autonomous Ecclesiastical State, consisting of
Jerusalem, constituted as a Free City, with a limited _rayon_ of
territory. This was to be governed by a Christian municipality,
organised and protected by the Great Christian Powers.[124] Russia
raised objections in October 1840, and incidentally took occasion to
ridicule the idea of a National Restoration of the Jews.[125] Both
Russia and Austria were anxious to preserve the Turkish domination, and
to that end made counter-proposals. The Russian scheme proposed that
Palestine should become a separate Pashalik, that the Church of the
Orient should be restored, that the Greek Patriarch should resume his
residence in Jerusalem, and that an special Church and Monastery should
be founded for the use of the Russian clergy and pilgrims. The Austrian
scheme proposed to leave the Turkish administration untouched except in
regard to jurisdiction over Christians. This was to be confided to a
high Turkish official directly responsible to Constantinople and advised
by a Council of Procureurs appointed by the Great Powers.[126] Russia
opposed the Austrian scheme.[127] Thereupon Prussia put forward a fourth
scheme of a far more ambitious character.[128] It provided for a
European Protectorate of the Holy Cities of Jerusalem, Bethlehem, and
Nazareth, and a sort of national autonomy for the various Christian
sects which might be extended to the Jews, the whole to be governed by
three Residents appointed by the Christian Powers. Each Resident was to
have a small military guard. The Protestant Church, under the joint
protection of Great Britain and Prussia, was to be recognised as on an
equal footing with the other Churches, and to establish its headquarters
and other institutions--including schools for Jews--on Mount Zion, which
was to be fortified.[129] This scheme was strongly opposed by Austria,
in whose view Lord Palmerston concurred.[130] Russia also opposed it,
but in Paris it was received sympathetically.[131]

In the end all these schemes were dropped, and Palestine was handed back
to the Porte practically without any new conditions. Prussia, however,
continued her negotiations with Great Britain, both with a view to
general reforms and to the recognition of the Protestant Church in
Jerusalem. For this purpose she sent Baron Bunsen to London on a special
embassy.[132] Among the reforms proposed by him were facilities for the
purchase of land, "as many persons in Protestant Germany, Jews and
Christians, are desirous of settling in Palestine."[133] Eventually he
negotiated with Palmerston the Anglo-Prussian Agreement for the
establishment of a Protestant Bishopric in Jerusalem. There is a curious
reference to the Restoration of the Jews in Bunsen's account of this
transaction:[134]

       *       *       *       *       *

"Monday, 19th July, 1841.--This is a great day. I am just returned from
Lord Palmerston; the principle is admitted, and orders to be transmitted
accordingly to Lord Ponsonby at Constantinople, to demand the
acknowledgement required. The successor of St. James will embark in
October; he is by race an Israelite,--born a Prussian in Breslau,--in
confession belonging to the Church of England--ripened (by hard work) in
Ireland--twenty years Professor of Hebrew and Arabic in England (in what
is now King's College).[135] So the beginning is made, please God, for
the restoration of Israel."

       *       *       *       *       *

It should be added that probably one of the reasons why, during recent
years, the British Government has held aloof from the Palestine question
is that by the Treaty of London of July 15, 1840, Palestine was
recognised as an integral part of Syria,[136] and that in 1878, at the
Berlin Congress, Lord Salisbury agreed to recognise the whole of Syria
as a French sphere of interest in return for the French recognition of
the Cyprus Convention between Great Britain and Turkey.[137] It is to be
assumed from the terms of the Secret Agreement of February 21,
1917,[138] that British interests in the Suez Canal and other more
recent events have modified that arrangement.

During the present war the growing strength of the Zionist movement, and
the energy of its leaders, have forced the Restoration idea on the
attention of the Great Powers. In November 1917 Great Britain led the
way with a promise to give sympathetic consideration to the aims of the
Zionists.[139] With this promise the other Entente Powers have since
associated themselves.


DOCUMENTS.

       *       *       *       *       *

THE GREAT POWERS AND PALESTINE, 1840-1841.

_Memorandum delivered by the Russian Government to the Prussian
Government in October 1840._

Des opinions diverses et pour la plupart contradictoires, ont circulé
récemment en Europe, et surtout en France, sur les facilités que les
grandes Puissances intervenues dans les affaires de l'Orient, auraient,
dans ce moment, pour accomplir l'[oe]uvre que les Croisés d'autrefois
avaient vainement tentée dans leurs longues et sanglantes guerres. Le
projet d'ériger une Souveraineté Chrétienne en Palestine, a été mis, si
non sérieusement discuté. D'autres ont pensé à la possibilité de faire
revivre l'ancien ordre des Chevaliers du St. Sépulcre pour lui confier
la garde de ce sanctuaire. Il y a eu même quelques individus qui ont
exprimé le v[oe]u d'appeler dans la ville de Salomon les Juifs dispersés
dans différents pays pour tenter la conversion sociale et religieuse de
ce peuple d'antique et coupable origine.

Il serait superflu de discuter ici tous ces projets, on ne s'arrêtera
qu'à l'examen d'une autre combinaison dont la réalisation serait
désirable, si elle était possible. Il s'agirait de l'assentiment de la
Porte et d'une entente entre les principales cours de l'Europe pour
ériger Jérusalem une ville libre, avec un rayon de territoire convenable
et sous une administration municipale organisée sous les auspices des
Puissances qui se déclareraient les protectrices et les garanties de ce
petit état ecclésiastique.[140]

Un pareil arrangement doit assurément réunir beaucoup de suffrages.
Cependant, avant d'aborder la question d'une manière sérieuse, soit avec
les autres Cabinets, soit avec le Divan il importe de calculer d'avance
les moyens dont on disposera pour mener l'[oe]uvre à bon terme, les
difficultés locales qu'on aura à surmonter dans la réalisation du plan
convenu et les probabilités qui s'offrent pour le maintien du nouvel
ordre de choses qu'on parviendrait à établir. Sous tous ces rapports on
peut consulter avec profit les renseignements et les donnés que le
Ministère de Sa Majesté possède, et qui lui ont été fournis en partie
par les indigènes, mais plus particulièrement par deux employés du
service de S.M. qui ont visité la terre sainte à des époques
différentes, et recueilli sur les lieux mêmes des informations dont on
ne saurait revoquer en doute l'exactitude.

Il résulte de l'ensemble de ces informations:

1. Que la ville de Jérusalem, située entre la Syrie, l'Egypte et le
désert, a été de tout temps exposée d'une part aux incursions des Arabes
Bédouins et de l'autre aux vexations des Pachas voisins.

2. Que sa population, composée d'environ 15/m. âmes, parmi lesquelles on
compte à peine un millier de Chrétiens appartenant à diverses
communions, n'offre guère d'éléments propres à la formation d'une
administration municipale indigène, digne de quelque confiance, sous le
rapport politique ou religieux.

3. Que l'éloignement des côtes de la mer, distantes de la ville de près
de deux journées de marche à travers une route escarpée et déserte, ne
permettrait pas aux bâtiments de guerre Européens de prendre sous la
protection de leurs canons la défense de la cité et de ses habitants.

4. Que la population Musulmane et Arabe établie depuis des siècles dans
le pays et qui possède dans la seule ville de Jérusalem plus de trente
mosquées, ainsi que le fameux temple de Salomon que les premiers califes
conquérants ont rebâti, s'assujettiraient difficilement à un
Gouvernement Chrétien quelconque, qui ne disposerait pas de beaucoup de
ressources et d'une forte garnison, pour en imposer aux hordes des
Bédouins et pour réduire par les armes tout ce qui s'opposerait au
nouvel ordre de choses.

Les mêmes rapports signalent, sous les plus tristes couleurs, la
désunion profonde et la rivalité incessante qui existe entre les
Chrétiens des diverses communions, admis à l'adoration du St. Sépulcre
et dont les scandaleuses dissensions, loin d'être amorties ou contenues
par la sainteté du lieu, y ont éclaté souvent avec une vivacité haîneuse
et une obstination fanatique que la présence des autorités Musulmanes
pouvait seule contenir dans de certaines bornes.

Nous savons enfin de manière à ne pas pouvoir en douter que les
religieux Latins, pour la plupart Espagnols et Portugais d'origine, et
qui, durant leur mission en terre sainte, se trouvent sous la protection
spéciale de la France, sont les principaux fauteurs de cette rivalité
si peu évangélique, en s'élevant sans cesse des prétentions sur la
possession exclusive et la garde du St. Sépulcre et en invoquant en leur
faveur les traités de François I avec la Porte et même les souvenirs des
Baudouin et de Godefroi.

       *       *       *       *       *

_Enclosure in Russian Mem. of October 1840._

1. Publication d'un nouveau Hatti Schérif avec pleine confirmation de
tous ceux qui ont été émanés sous les règnes antérieurs en faveur de
l'Église et du Clergé de Jérusalem.

2. Nomination d'un Pacha ou moschir de la Palestine, homme de sens et de
justice, qui fixerait sa résidence, soit à Jérusalem, soit à Jaffa, avec
une autorité civile et militaire, suffisante pour y maintenir le bon
ordre et pour faire respecter les lieux de sa jurisdiction par les
Bédouins du désert qui, n'étant plus contenus par la crainte des troupes
Égyptiennes, recommenceront probablement bientôt leurs brigandages
habituels sur les couvents Chrétiens des environs de Jérusalem et sur
les caravanes des pèlerins que la dévotion appelle des pays les plus
éloignés.

3. Défense positive au Clergé Grec comme à celui des Catholiques et des
Arméniens, de renouveler leurs dissensions anciennes et souvent puériles
en cherchant à se calomnier mutuellement et à s'exclure des églises et
des oratoires, dont les Hatti Chériffs précités ont fixé la possession à
chacune de ces communautés.

4. Défense sévère au Mollah et au Cadi de Jérusalem de rançonner les
religieux et les supérieurs des couvens, toutes les fois que ces
ecclésiastiques ont recours à la justice locale, ou qu'ils cherchent à
se disculper de quelque avanie.

5. La crainte de ces mêmes avanies et les frais considérables
d'installation, auxquels étaient exposés les patriarches de Jérusalem
toutes les fois qu'ils se rendaient dans leur diocèse, ayant obligé
depuis quelques années ces prélats à séjourner à Constantinople, en
laissant à leurs vicaires le gouvernement de leur église, la Porte
ferait aujourd'hui un acte de politique et d'équité à la fois, en
accordant au patriarche actuel d'autorisation et les facilités dont il
peut avoir besoin, pour se rendre sur les lieux de sa jurisdiction
spirituelle, et veiller de près à la discipline de ses subordonnés et au
redressement des désordres ou des abus, que les troubles récens et les
changemens politiques survenus dans ces contrés, peuvent y avoir
introduits.

6. Toute innovation dans l'antique hiérarchie de l'église d'Orient
serait rejeté comme dangereuse et inutile et toute réclamation de
priorité ou de privilège de la part des religieux des autres communions,
ne serait admise qu'après un examen impartial et approfondi de la
question. Dans les cas de cette nature, il semblerait que le tribunal
le plus compétent, à en juger, serait une commission ou conseil du
Gouverneur de la province, du patriarche de Jérusalem, ou en son
absence, de son vicaire, du supérieur des ecclésiastiques Arméniens et
d'un commissaire ad hoc, choisi et nommé par la Porte parmi les prélats
les mieux réputés de la nation Grecque établis à Constantinople.

Ce conseil pourrait aussi fixer aux deservans des cultes respectifs, les
heures des prières et des cérémonies, en régularisant d'une manière
équitable et définitive ce point qui a été souvent un sujet de litige et
qui a même occasionné des rixes scandaleuses dans l'enceinte d'un
Temple, où l'union et l'humilité devraient règner constamment.

7. La réparation des églises et des couvens ruinés ou endommagés par le
temps et les incendies, sera permise par les autorités locales, toutes
les fois que les supérieurs de ces communautés en demanderont
l'autorisation, et le Gouvernement n'exigera pas dans ces occasions des
cadeaux ou des bénéfices arbitraires.

8. Défense sévère serait faite aux soldats Turcs préposés à la garde des
portes de l'église qui renferme le Saint Sépulcre, de s'introduire dans
l'antérieur du temple, sous prétexte d'y faire la police. Ces gardiens
recevraient également l'ordre de témoigner tous les égards et tout le
respect qui sont dûs au patriarche et à ses délégués.

9. Pour ce qui concerne plus spécialement les pèlerins Russes qui
visitent chaque année les lieux saintes, la sublime Porte serait invitée
à prescrire à ces officiers civils et militaires de leur accorder toute
protection et assistance. Et afin que ces voyageurs, étrangers pour la
plupart aux usages et à la langue du pays, ne soient exposés à des
avanies ou à des retards dans l'accomplissement de leurs v[oe]ux, le
consul de S.M. Impériale résidant à Jaffa aura l'autorisation
d'accompagner, toutes les fois qu'il le jugera nécessaire, la caravane
des pèlerins de sa nation et de veiller sur eux pendant le tems de leur
séjour à Jérusalem.

10. Les religieux de la plupart des nations chrétiennes possèdent à
Jérusalem des établissements pieux où ils se réunissent, soit pour y
demeurer, soit pour y célébrer les cérémonies de leur rit dans leur
propre langue.

Les ecclésiastiques Russes sont seuls privés de cet avantage, et doivent
par conséquent recourir, toutes les fois qu'ils visitent la terre
sainte, à l'hospitalité et à l'assistance spirituelle de leurs
co-religionaires les ecclésiastiques Grecs. Il serait de toute justice
que la Porte autorisât le Patriarche d'assigner une des églises ou
monastères de la ville à l'usage exclusif du clergé et des pèlerins
Russes, et que les autorités civiles et militaires du pays eussent
l'ordre précis de reconnaître et de respecter cet établissement, comme
étant placé sous la protection spéciale de la Russie et sur le
surveillance de son Consul.

       *       *       *       *       *

_Memorandum delivered by the Austrian Government to the Prussian
Government in October 1840._

Les succès obtenus en Syrie qui ont amené la soumission de Méhémet Ali
et la détermination de Sa Hautesse de la faire suivre par l'investiture
du Pacha d'Egypte du Gouvernement héréditaire de cette Province viennent
de mettre au grand jour le résultat vers lequel tendaient les
transactions de Londres, dictées par les v[oe]ux uniformes des
Puissances Chrétiennes, d'assurer la paix politique de l'Europe par le
maintien de l'indépendance et de l'intégrité de l'Empire Ottoman qui
devait ressortir du règlement définitif des rapports entre la Sublime
Porte et le Gouvernement de l'Egypte. La Syrie qui avait été placée
pendant quelque tems sous la domination de ce dernier et avait offert
aux étrangers une sécurité analogue à celle qu'ils trouvaient en Egypte,
pendant que la population indigène Syrienne se voyant assimilée à celle
de cette province et menacée de perdre toutes les conditions d'un état
social tout différent et basé sur des lois positives, des transactions
historiques et des habitudes gouvernementales garantissant la propriété,
la liberté du commerce, &c., &c.; la Syrie rentrée maintenant par les
succès des armées du Sultan et de ses alliés sous la domination du Grand
Seigneur, réclame les soins les plus assidus du Gouvernement Ottoman,
afin d'ôter tout prétexte raisonnable à ceux qui voudraient déverser un
blâme sur les résultats obtenus en 1840, en alléguant que la condition
de cette Province intéressante, aurait empiré à leur suite.

Les Puissances qui ont prêté leurs conseils et leurs secours à S.H. dans
le but invariable d'assurer l'indépendance de son pouvoir et l'intégrité
de son Empire contre les usurpations d'un sujet rebelle, doivent
abandonner maintenant au Sultan le soin de faire participer ses sujets
en Syrie aux bienveillantes dispositions pour ses peuples, énoncées dès
le commencement de son règne par le Hat de Gulhané; et si leurs conseils
doivent tendre à hâter leur réalisation, elles auront dans les voies
d'une sage politique, à en surveiller l'exécution.

Mais le fait même, nouveau dans l'histoire, du secours porté par des
Puissances Chrétiennes au Grand Seigneur contre un sujet rebelle, auquel
l'opinion publique attribuait le mérite d'avoir procuré, dans les pays
soumis à sa domination de fait, aux Chrétiens tant indigènes
qu'étrangers plus de sécurité pour leurs personnes et une plus grande
tolérance que celles qu'ils y trouvaient auparavant, impose à ces
Puissances comme devoir de conscience de peser mûrement les moyens pour
épargner tant au Grand Seigneur, leur allié, qu'à Elles-mêmes, le blâme
qui pourrait ressortir pour Elles, si la condition des Chrétiens en
Syrie allait se présenter sous un jour moins favorable, à la suite de la
réintégration de cette Province sous la domination directe du Grand
Seigneur. C'est pour obvier à cette fâcheuse éventualité que le Cabinet
Impérial soumet à ses Alliés les considérations suivantes:

Les Chrétiens en Syrie sont ou fixés dans le pays, ou ils y résident
temporairement. Les premiers constitués en corps de nations, comme
Maronites, Arméniens, &c., &c., jouissent d'une existence politique
découlant de capitulations, traités, privilèges, &c., &c., et se
trouvent sous des Chefs ressortant de ces derniers; la Sublime Porte
vient d'énoncer sa ferme volonté de donner à cet état de choses, les
développements et la fixité qu'il réclame et pour lequel ces Populations
ont acquis un nouveau titre à la suite du dévouement qu'elles viennent
de montrer pour rentrer sous la domination légitime.

Une autre partie de la population sédentaire Chrétienne est répandue
dans le reste du pays, soumise aux lois générales et protégée par le Hat
de Gulhané. Elle ne saurait demander que la stricte observation de ces
dispositions par les autorités locales, et toute la tendance du
Gouvernement Ottoman est là pour la leur assurer dans l'avenir.

La population Chrétienne transitoire se compose en partie de ceux qui y
arrivent comme étrangers pour leurs affaires de commerce, les traités
existant avec les différentes Puissances et la protection consulaire
assurent leur condition. Mais la Syrie renferme les lieux que l'origine
de la Religion Chrétienne a sanctifiés pour toujours et où la piété des
fidèles a établi de nombreuses fondations et qui ont attiré de tous tems
de nombreux pèlerins; ces fondations et ces pèlerins ont joui depuis
l'occupation Mahométane de nombreux privilèges, qui, à partir de 1059
jusqu'en 1803, se sont succédés et dont l'effet n'a pu être suspendu ou
contrarié que par le fait des autorités locales Musulmanes, qui, au lieu
de se conformer aux dispositions souveraines et à l'esprit de la
législation et du centre, gardiennes de la foi jurée, et favorables à
une tolérance conforme aux principes du Coran et à un Gouvernement
éclairé, se sont laissées égarer par un esprit de lucre et de
partialité.

Il paraît donc que l'action tutélaire _du centre du Gouvernement_, qui
doit vouloir le maintien des concessions faites, des privilèges donnés,
&c., &c., a manqué jusqu'ici d'organes propres pour obvier à ces abus,
et que le but spécial, dont ils sont l'objet, la protection des lieux
saints et des pèlerins de toute la Chrétienté qui vont les visiter, ne
saurait être atteint, tant qu'il ne formerait qu'une des attributions
des administrations ordinaires; ne serait-ce pas ici le cas pour que la
Porte se décidât à nommer _un employé spécial_, afin d'assurer le
maintien des anciens privilèges et l'exécution des dispositions du Hat
de Gulhané à l'égard des lieux saints, et les Chrétiens qui forment la
population sédentaire et mouvante Chrétienne de ces lieux?

Cet employé d'un rang assez élevé pour assurer sa position et garantir
les attributions de sa place vis-à-vis l'autorité du Pacha revêtu du
Gouvernement civil et militaire, cet employé chargé directement de tout
ce qui aurait rapport aux lieux saints et aux pèlerins et mis en contact
avec les représentans des Gouvernemens Chrétiens nommés ad hoc, qui,
sous la dénomination de _Procureurs_, auraient à soutenir les droits de
leurs nationaux sous le point de vue confessionnel; cet employé placé
pour sa personne en rapport direct avec le centre du Gouvernement à
Constantinople, ne recevant d'ordres que de là où toute réclamation
possible contre lui et tout appel en dernière instance s'adresserait
également par les organes diplomatiques des Puissances Chrétiennes,
répondrait à un besoin qu'il est facile de pressentir dès ce jour, et
dont l'expérience démontrera ou l'utilité, s'il est nommé à tems, ou la
nécessité si l'on tarde à y pourvoir.

Il ne s'agit pas de faire du nouveau pour le fond; il s'agit de
maintenir des privilèges, et de régulariser de nouveau ce qui a existé
et ce qui est tombé en désuétude dans le cours des siècles. Le pèlerin
religieux est respectable aux yeux du croyant, le gardien des lieux
saints ne l'est pas moins, le Gouvernement central et l'esprit religieux
du peuple le reconnaissent et le sentent également; ce n'est que les
abus des passions et des positions subalternes qui ont fait et qui font
le mal et auxquels il s'agit d'opposer la digue d'une entente entre les
Puissances et la Porte qui aurait pour objet de régulariser l'action
d'une autorité bien organisée dépendant directement du centre de
l'Empire, autorité qui ne saurait avoir un autre intérêt que celui de
répondre au but de son institution.

(F.O. Docs. 64/235.)

       *       *       *       *       *

_Lord Clanricarde to Lord Palmerston (Extract)._

ST. PETERSBURG,

_February 23, 1841_.

MY LORD,--...The memorandum of Prince Metternich, suggesting the
establishment of a Turkish Commissioner in the Holy Land, for the
protection of Christian Pilgrims, and Travellers, and proposing a joint,
or simultaneous application from the European Powers to the Porte, in
which France might take a part, and thus be drawn out of her isolated
position, has been coldly received by the Russian Government. Count
Nesselrode said it did not appear to him a necessary or desirable
measure, and that the Consuls in Syria were adequate to protect the
Europeans, whom Commerce, piety, or curiosity might attract to that
Country....

The Emperor and his Ministers seem to think that age, and a great sense
of the responsibility that is upon him, have of late much increased
Prince Metternich's natural caution and timidity.

I have the Honour to be with the Highest Respect, My Lord,

Your Lordship's most obedient Humble Servant,

CLANRICARDE.

THE VISCOUNT PALMERSTON, G.C.B.

(F.O. Docs. 63/271.)


       *       *       *       *       *

_Mémoire of the King of Prussia dated February 24, 1841, delivered to
Lord Palmerston by Baron Bülow._

Les événements importants qui viennent de s'accomplir en Orient, ont
replacé sous l'autorité souveraine du Sultan la Palestine et y ont
rétabli l'état politique qui existait avant l'occupation de Méhémet Ali.
Ce n'est pas par ses propres moyens que le Sultan a réussi à expulser
son vassal rebelle de cette contrée, berceau du christianisme et cher à
toutes les communions de la grande Eglise chrétienne. Le chef de la
religion musulmane doit ce succès à un Traité que quatre des Puissances
chrétiennes ont conclu avec lui et qui a reçu son exécution par la
valeur chevaleresque de militaires chrétiens. Plus le noble
désintéressement des Puissances qui ont porté secours à l'Empereur des
Ottomans, leur fournit des titres à sa reconnaissance moins il peut être
douteux que ces mêmes Puissances sont pleinement en droit de réclamer de
ce souverain des concessions dans un but purement spirituel et
uniquement destinées à relever l'exercice du culte chrétien de la triste
condition où il se trouve dans la contrée même qui l'a vu naître.

Le Roi, notre auguste maître, a saisi cette idée. Profondément attaché à
ses convictions religieuses et pénétré de ses devoirs comme Prince
chrétien, Sa Majesté se reconnaît dans le concours de la Prusse aux
stipulations du 15 Juillet 1839 un droit et se sent la vocation de
signaler à l'attention des autres Puissances chrétiennes l'opportunité
du moment actuel et les précieuses facilités qu'il offre, pour obtenir
du Grand-Seigneur l'amélioration du sort des chrétiens qui habitent la
Terre sainte, l'affranchissement de leur culte et l'établissement
d'institutions qui garantissent à l'avenir aux Chrétiens de toutes les
confessions le libre accès des lieux, objets de leur vénération et
témoins des événemens sur lesquels repose l'espérance de leur salut
éternel.

Sa Majesté est persuadée que les autres Souverains partageront les
sentiments qu'Elle professe Elle-même. D'ailleurs il est incontestable
que depuis une demi-siècle, les esprits les plus élevés ont déjà plaidé
la cause que le Roi, notre auguste maître, recommande à la sollicitude
des grandes Cours Européennes. Il serait superflu de citer des noms,
mais le nombre et la qualité des voyageurs de toutes les nations et de
toutes les confessions chrétiennes, qui affluent à Jérusalem, attestent
déjà que la Chrétienté prend toujours un vif intérêt aux lieux saints et
que cet intérêt, loin de se refroidir, se ravive avec le progrès que
l'esprit religieux fait en Europe.

En comptant avec une entière assurance sur les sympathies de SS.MM.
l'Empereur d'Autriche, de Russie et de la Reine de la Grande Bretagne
pour les v[oe]ux qu'il forme à ce sujet, le Roi, notre auguste maître,
Leur fait proposer de faire valoir auprès de la Porte Ottomane les
immenses services qu'elles viennent de lui rendre, pour l'engager à
conclure avec les grandes Puissances Européennes un arrangement qui
place les villes saintes de Jérusalem, Bethléhem et Nazareth, sauf les
droits de souveraineté du Sultan, sous la protection commune de ces
Puissances.

D'après les idées de Sa Majesté l'arrangement à conclure porterait que

1. Les populations chrétiennes des dites villes, les églises, couvents,
hospitaux qui en dépendent, ainsi que les pèlerins, les savants, les
artistes, les artisans chrétiens, &c., &c., qui y feraient un séjour
passager, obtiendraient des immunités et des franchises telles que
l'intervention des autorités turques dans leur administration intérieure
fût exclue. Ces immunités et franchises seraient cependant accordées
sans préjudice des droits de Souveraineté du Sultan.

2. Les habitans chrétiens des dites villes cesseraient d'appartenir à la
catégorie de Rayahs; ils seraient à l'avenir _exclusivement_
justiciables, quant à leur personnes et quant à leur propriétés, des
Résidents des cinq grandes Puissances Européennes, de manière que leurs
obligations envers la Porte se réduiraient à un tribut dont le montant
annuel serait acquitté par la communauté (non par les individus).

3. Le propriété des lieux saints à Jérusalem, Bethléhem et Nazareth
passerait aux cinq grandes Puissances chrétiennes et ferait l'objet d'un
arrangement spécial à conclure avec ceux qui se trouvent maintenant en
possession de ces localités.

4. Les chrétiens habitant soit pour toujours soit temporairement les
villes saintes, se formeraient d'après les différentes confessions, en
autant de corps spéciaux, catholiques-romains, grecs, évangéliques. Les
Arméniens et les Syriens se joindraient au premier ou au second de ces
corps, selon leur rit actuel. Chacun de ces corps serait considéré comme
une communauté spéciale légalement constituée. Toutes les communautés
jouiraient de droits fixés d'avance à l'égard des lieux saints; la
communauté évangélique serait autorisée à établir un culte selon ses
rits, à fonder un hospital, &c., &c. Les Chrétiens de cette confession
seraient admis à faire leur dévotion dans l'église du St. Sépulcre et
dans la Basilique de Bethléhem, dont les parties seraient spécialement
destinées à leur usage.

5. La direction des communautés serait confiée à trois Résidents. Celui
de la communauté catholique serait à la nomination de l'Autriche et de
la France, la Russie nommerait le Résident pour la communauté grecque;
la Grande Bretagne et la Prusse celui des protestants. Chaque Puissance
qui nommerait un résident, mettrait à sa disposition un garde de 60
soldats. La formation de ses gardes ferait l'objet d'une stipulation
ultérieure.

On choisirait quelques points pour les fortifier autant qu'il le
faudrait, pour les mettre à l'abri d'une incursion subite de hordes
arabes et pour que les communautés chrétiennes pussent s'en servir pour
mettre en sûreté les vases sacrés précieux et leurs propriétés en
général.

L'ancienne place du temple et la mosquée d'Omar resteraient dans tous
les cas aux Turcs.

On pourrait encore soumettre à une délibération commune, si les cinq
Puissances ne stipuleraient pas également en faveur des Juifs domiciliés
à Jérusalem et de ceux qui s'y rendent en pèlerinage, des immunités
analogues à celles à obtenir pour les Chrétiens.

       *       *       *       *       *

_Covering Letter from Baron Bülow to Lord Palmerston, March 6, 1841
(Extract)._

...Il faudra donc faire obtenir aux membres de l'église évangélique
(sans distinction des communions spéciales qui la composent) la
propriété exclusive d'une place distincte près du St. Sépulcre de
Jérusalem et dans l'église du même nom pour y faire leurs prières et
pour y célébrer leur culte. Cette place serait mise sous la protection
spéciale des deux Puissances qui en garantiraient la possession paisible
à la communauté protestante. Il s'agira aussi d'acquérir pour cette
communauté le mont Sion afin d'y bâtir un hospice pour tous ceux qui
visiteront ces contrés par des motifs religieux ou scientifiques,
d'établir des presbytères et des hospitaux, de fonder des écoles pour
les enfans de la population protestante (peut-être aussi pour les enfans
juifs), enfin de construire des ouvrages de fortification dont la faible
garnison, mentionnée dans le mémoire, aura besoin pour se défendre....

(F.O. Docs., 64/235.)

       *       *       *       *       *

_Lord Beauvale to Lord Palmerston._

VIENNA, _March 2nd, 1841_.

MY LORD,--The King of Prussia has sent His Minister at this Court a
proposition for regulating the position of the Christians in Syria,
which, if it were acted upon, would in Prince Metternich's opinion throw
that Country into inextricable confusion. His Highness transmitted a few
days back a memorandum on the subject to London which He persists in
regarding as establishing the only advantageous mode of treating the
question, and as He purposes drawing up a statement of his objections to
the Prussian proposition, He earnestly entreats that no acquiescence may
be given to any part of it on behalf of the British Government until
those objections have been submitted to Your Lordship.

I have the honor to be with the greatest respect, My Lord,

Your Lordship's Most Obedient Humble Servant,

BEAUVALE.

THE VISCOUNT PALMERSTON, G.C.B.

(F.O. Docs., 7/298.)


       *       *       *       *       *

_Lord Palmerston to Lord Beauvale, (Draft)._

F.O., _March 11th, 1841_.

MY LORD,--With reference to Your Excellency's despatch No. 38 of the 2nd
instant reporting Prince Metternich's objections to the Prussian scheme
for regulating the position of the Christians in Syria, I have to inform
Your Excellency that H.M.'s Government agree very much with Prince
Metternich's as to that scheme.

P.

(F.O. Docs. 1/296.)

       *       *       *       *       *

_Memorandum of Austrian Government delivered to Lord Palmerston by
Prince Esterhazy, March 31, 1841._

Sur le Mémorandum du 3 Février[141] et le mémoire Prussien, relativement
à la protection des Chrétiens en Syrie.

La différence entre le mémorandum du 3 fév. et le mémoire prussien
consiste en ce que le premier fournit un moyen pratique pour _porter
remède_ au mal existant, sans entreprendre une reforme dangereuse,
tandis que l'autre tend à introduire _un nouvel ordre de choses_ en
faveur de la représentation de l'Église évangélique, par des moyens
inexécutables.

_Le travail du 3 fevr._ se base sur la vérité, que ni les populations
chrétiennes sédentaires et mouvantes, ni les couvens des trois
confessions, catholique, grecque et arménienne, n'ont jamais eu à se
plaindre d'un manque de tolérance musulmane. C'est un témoignage
irrécusable qu'on peut recueillir sur les lieux auprès de ceux même qui
y sont les plus intéressés.

Des firmans sans nombre, relatifs à des privilèges et à la donation de
lieux saints aux environs de Jérusalem, Bethléhem et Nazareth se
trouvent déposés aux archives des différens couvens, et s'ils n'ont
point été mis en exécution et forment le sujet de disputes continuelles
entre les trois confessions, la faute n'en est pas au Gouvernement Turc,
mais uniquement _à la vénalité_ des Musselims, comme autorités locales.

L'exécution des firmans toujours mise arbitrairement à un prix très
élevé est devenu de la part des Musselims une spéculation financière.

La désunion regrettable qui règne entre les confessions, ou comme on les
appelle sur les lieux, les trois nations, exploite cette corruptibilité,
tantôt pour suspendre l'exécution d'un firman jalousé, tantôt pour
obtenir moyennant l'intervention du Musselim un second firman annullant
le premier, ce qui a surtout lieu, lorsqu'il s'agit de la donation d'un
lieu saint. En pareil cas la confession la plus offrante est sûre
d'atteindre son but et rien n'est plus à désirer que _la punition sévère
du trafic illicite et honteux_, qui se pratique avec les firmans et
l'irrévocabilité _de ceux une fois émanés_.

C'est donc en parfaite connoissance du véritable siége du mal, que le
mémorandum du 3 février _a cherché le remède dans le renfort de l'action
tutélaire du Gouv. par un employé sultanique spécial d'un rang assez
élevé pour être placé à côté des Musselims; employé qui serait chargé
directement de tout ce qui aurait rapport aux lieux saints et aux
pèlerins--qui serait mis en contact avec les Représentans des
Gouvernement Chrétiens nommés ad hoc, sous la dénomination de procureurs
et qui ne recevrait d'ordres que de Constantinople où les plaintes
élevées contre lui seraient portées à la connoissance du Gouvernement
dans la voie diplomatique_.

_Le mémoire prussien_ tendant à établir sur les lieux une représentation
de l'église évangélique et sa participation aux fondations existantes,
suscite une question _toute nouvelle_, dont la portée n'est pas à
calculer.

Sans considérer l'opposition de Rome, du St. Synode de St. Pétersbourg,
et du Patriarchat grec à Constantinople le mémoire suggère des moyens
qui, loin de porter remède au mal existant, feraient naître des
nouvelles complications et accroître la désunion parmi les confessions
chrétiennes. Ce regrettable résultat serait surtout amené par les points
suivans du mémoire prussien:

A. _La propriété des lieux saints à Jérusalem, Bethléhem et Nazareth
passerait aux cinq grandes Puissances._

Mais cette propriété est aux différentes confessions, qui déjà jalouses
de la partager entre _trois_, ne voudraient certainement pas faire une
cession de droits acquis, en faveur d'une _quatrième prétendant_.

B. _Les Chrétiens évangéliques auraient dans l'église du St. Sépulcre à
Jérusalem et dans celle de Bethléhem des parties spécialement destinées
à leur usage._

Mais dans ces deux églises chaque pouce de terrain est disputé par les
trois confessions. Toute la Basilique de Bethléhem fut adjugée, il y a
80 ans, aux Grecs; en vertu d'un firman obtenu par des sommes
considérables, eux et les Arméniens possèdent _seuls_ la propriété de la
Grotte de la Nativité; les moins franciscains n'osent point y dire la
messe, et il n'y a que l'autel de la Ste. Crèche qui appartienne à ces
derniers. Dans le temple de Jérusalem existent les mêmes subdivisions
exclusives. Chaque chapelle forme pour ainsi dire une monopole; celle du
Calvaire est partagée en deux--l'autel des Grecs occupant la place de
l'exaltation de la croix, celui des Catholiques celle du crucifiement.
Comment faire entrer une quatrième confession dans un partage déjà si
contesté? La répartition toute faite de localités dont la propriété est
aussi hautement appréciée par la confession qui la possède qu'enviée par
la confession qui voudrait l'usurper, s'opposerait du reste à une
pareille entreprise.

C. _Chaque Puissance, qui nommerait un résident, mettrait à sa
disposition 60 soldats._

A part d'autres considérations qui rendent ce moyen inadmissible, il
fournirait des armes à une guerre de religion en petit qui, vu les
élémens de jalousie et de discorde déjà existans, ne manquerait pas
d'éclater.

(F.O. Docs. 7/302.)

       *       *       *       *       *

BRITISH JEWS AND PALESTINE, 1841-1843.

_Colonel Churchill to Sir Moses Montefiore._

_June 14th, 1841._

MY DEAR SIR MOSES,--I have not yet had the pleasure of hearing from you,
but I would fain hope that my letters have reached you safe.

I enclose you a petition which has been drawn by the Brothers Harari, in
which they state their claims and their earnest desire to be immediately
under British protection. I am sorry to say that such a measure is much
required even now, not only for them, but also for all the Jews in
Damascus.

They are still liable to persecutions similar to those from which,
through your active and generous intervention, they have so lately
escaped. The Christians still regard them with malevolence, and the
statement in the petition enclosed is perfectly correct.

I cannot conceal from you my most anxious desire to see your countrymen
endeavour once more to resume their existence as a people. I consider
the object to be perfectly attainable. But, two things are indispensably
necessary. Firstly, that the Jews will themselves take up the matter
universally and unanimously. Secondly, that the European Powers will aid
them in their views. It is for the Jews to make a commencement. Let the
principal persons of their community place themselves at the head of the
movement. Let them meet, concert and petition. In fact the agitation
must be simultaneous throughout Europe. There is no Government which can
possibly take offence at such public meetings. The result would be that
you would conjure up a new element in Eastern diplomacy--an element
which under such auspices as those of the wealthy and influential
members of the Jewish community could not fail not only of attracting
great attention and of exciting extraordinary interest, but also of
producing great events.

Were the resources which you all possess steadily directed towards the
regeneration of Syria and Palestine, there cannot be a doubt but that,
under the blessing of the Most High, those countries would amply repay
the undertaking, and that you would end by obtaining the sovereignty of
at least Palestine. That the present attempt to prop up the Turkish
Empire as at present constituted is a miserable failure, we who see
what is going on around us must at once acknowledge. What turn events
will take no one can possibly tell, but of this I am perfectly certain
that these countries must be rescued from the grasp of ignorant and
fanatical rulers, that the march of civilisation _must_ progress, and
its various elements of commercial prosperity _must_ be developed. It is
needless to observe that such will never be the case under the
blundering and decrepit despotism of the Turks or the Egyptians. Syria
and Palestine, in a word, must be taken under European protection and
governed in the sense and according to the spirit of European
administration. It must ultimately come to this. What a great advantage
it would be, nay, how indispensably necessary, when at length the
Eastern Question comes to be argued and debated with this new ray of
light thrown around it, for the Jews to be ready and prepared to say:
"Behold us here all waiting, burning to return to that land which you
seek to remould and regenerate. Already we feel ourselves a people. The
sentiment has gone forth amongst us and has been agitated and has become
to us a second nature; that Palestine demands back again her sons. We
only ask a summons from these Powers on whose counsels the fate of the
East depends to enter upon the glorious task of rescuing our beloved
country from the withering influence of centuries of desolation and of
crowning her plains and valleys and mountain-tops once more, with all
the beauty and freshness and abundance of her pristine greatness." I say
it is for the Jews to be ready against such a crisis in diplomacy. I
therefore would strenuously urge this subject upon your calm
consideration, upon the consideration of those who, by their position
and influence amongst you are most likely to take the lead in such a
glorious struggle for national existence. I had once intended to have
addressed the Jews here in their Synagogue upon the subject, but I have
reflected that such a proceeding might have awakened the jealousy of the
local Government. I have, however, prepared a rough petition which will
be signed by all the Jews here and in other parts of Syria, and which I
shall then forward to you. Probably two or three months will elapse
first. There are many considerations to be weighed and examined as the
question develops itself--but a _beginning_ must be made--a resolution
must be taken, _an agitation must be commenced_, and where the stake is
"Country and Home" where is the heart that will not leap and bound to
the appeal?

I am the Resident Officer at Damascus until further order.

Believe me to be, Dear Sir Moses,

Yours very faithfully,

CHAS. H. CHURCHILL.

Before closing my letter, I cannot avoid offering one or two further
considerations.

Supposing that you and your colleagues should at once and earnestly
interest yourselves upon this important subject of the recovery of your
ancient country, it appears to me (forming my opinions upon the present
attitude of affairs in the Turkish Empire) that it could only be as
subjects of the Porte that you could commence to regain a footing in
Palestine. Your first object would be to interest the Five Great Powers
in your views and to get them to advocate your view with the Sultan upon
the clear understanding that the Jews, if permitted to colonise any part
of Syria and Palestine, should be under the protection of the Great
Powers, that they should have the internal regulation of their own
affairs, that they should be exempt from military service (except on
their own account as a measure of defence against the incursions of the
Bedouin Arabs), and that they should only be called upon to pay a
tribute to the Porte on the usual mode of taxation.

No doubt, such an undertaking will require _Patriotism_ in the fullest
sense of the word, energy and great perseverance. It will require large
capital at the outset, but with good prospect of remuneration, returned
after the lapse of a few years.

In all enterprises men must be prepared to make great sacrifices,
whether of time, health or resources. To reflect calmly before
commencing an undertaking and once begun to carry it through,
vanquishing, surmounting, triumphing over every obstacle, this is worthy
of man's existence and carries with it its own reward, if the judgment
is sound, the head clear and the heart honest. I humbly venture to give
my opinion upon a subject, which no doubt has already occupied your
thought--and the bare mention of which, I know, makes every Jewish heart
vibrate. The only question is--_when_ and _how_.

The blessing of the Most High must be invoked on the endeavour.
Political events seem to warrant the conclusion that the hour is nigh at
hand when the Jewish people may justly and with every reasonable
prospect of success put their hands to the glorious work of National
Regeneration. If you think otherwise I shall bend at once to your
decision, only begging you to appreciate my motive, which is simply an
ardent desire for the welfare and prosperity of a people to whom we all
owe our possession of those blessed truths which direct our minds with
unerring faith to the enjoyment of another and better world.--C. H. C.

I will keep you "au fait" of all that passes in this country if you wish
it.

       *       *       *       *       *

_15th August, 1842._

MY DEAR SIR MOSES,--I have delayed until now sending to you a written
statement of my proposition regarding the Jews of Syria and Palestine
partly because I knew you were absent last week from England and partly
because I wished to keep the document by me for a few days previous to
committing it finally to your care. The subject, I am sure, must in your
eyes appear most worthy of consideration, and I trust that when you have
perused my paper and matured the contents in your mind, you will come to
such a decision as will induce you to give my proposition your warmest
support. It appears to me that it might with advantage be brought under
the notice of the Jews on the Continent, and if this be your opinion,
perhaps you could get my paper, which, as you will perceive, I have
drawn up in the shape of an "address," translated into German and
forwarded to your friends in Prussia and Germany. I do sincerely believe
that were the Jews as a body, both in England and on the Continent of
Europe, to so arrange as to present a joint application to the British
Government in the sense I propose, they would have reason to rejoice
hereafter that they had taken such a step.

I have nothing more to add, as my Document, which I enclose, will
express to you all I can say upon the subject.

The only question that remains for your personal consideration is
whether you possess the power of having the proposition laid before the
leading Jews, abroad as well as in England for their deliberate
judgment.

May I beg you to present my kind regards to Lady Montefiore, and believe
me to be,

Dear Sir Moses,

Yours most sincerely,

CHAS. H. CHURCHILL.

       *       *       *       *       *

_Proposal of Colonel Churchill (Extract)._

Human efforts preceded by prayer and undertaken in faith the whole
history of your nation shows to be almost invariably blessed. If such
then be your conviction it remains for you to consider whether you may
not in all humility, but with earnest sincerity and confiding hope
direct your most strenuous attention towards the land of your Fathers
with the view of doing all in your power to ameliorate the conditions of
your brethren now residing there and with heartfelt aspiration of being
approved by Almighty God whilst you endeavour as much as in you lies to
render that Land once more a refuge and resting-place to such of your
brethren scattered throughout the world as may resort to it.

Hundreds and thousands of your countrymen would strain every effort to
accomplish the means of living amidst those scenes rendered sacred by
ancient recollections, and which they regard with filial affection, but
the dread of the insecurity of life and property which has rested so
long upon the soil of "Judea" has hitherto been a bar to the
accomplishment of their natural desire.

My proposition is that the Jews of England conjointly with their
brethren on the Continent of Europe should make an application to the
British Government through the Earl of Aberdeen to accredit and send out
a fit and proper person to reside in Syria for the sole and express
purpose of superintending and watching over the interests of the Jews
residing in that country. The duties and powers of such a public officer
to be a matter of arrangement between the Secretary of State for Foreign
Affairs and the Committee of Jews conducting the negotiations. It is, I
hope, superfluous for me to enlarge upon the incalculable benefit which
would accrue to your nation at large were such an important measure to
be accomplished, or to allude more than briefly to the spirit of
confidence and revival which would be excited in the breasts of your
fellow-countrymen all over the world were they to be held and
acknowledged agents for the Jewish people resident in Syria and
Palestine under the auspices and sanction of Great Britain....

..."God has put into my heart the desire to serve His ancient people.
...I have discharged a duty imposed on me by my conscience."...

       *       *       *       *       *

_Resolution of the Board of Deputies of British Jews._

_November 8th, 1842._

That the President be requested to reply to Colonel Churchill to the
effect that this Board, being appointed for the fulfilment of special
duties and deriving its pecuniary resources from the contributions to
the several congregations it represents, is precluded from originating
any measures for carrying out the benevolent views of Colonel Churchill
respecting the Jews of Syria, that this Board is fully convinced that
much good would arise from the realisation of Colonel Churchill's
intentions, but is of opinion that any measures in reference to this
subject should emanate from the general body of the Jews throughout
Europe, and that this Board doubts not that if the Jews of other
countries entertain the proposition those of Great Britain would be
ready and desirous to contribute towards it their most zealous support.

       *       *       *       *       *

_Colonel Churchill to the Secretary of the Board of Deputies._

BEYROUT, _Jany._ 8_th_, 1843.

SIR,--I have the honour to acknowledge the receipt of the official
Communication which the Board of Deputies of British Jews has been
pleased to address to me.

It affords me the greatest gratification to learn that the British Jews
would zealously co-operate with the general body of their countrymen in
endeavouring to procure the permanent amelioration of the condition of
Jews in Syria and Palestine.

I humbly venture to express a hope that the Board of Deputies will still
continue to entertain this subject, and that it will not think it
inexpedient to endeavour to ascertain the feelings and wishes of the
Jews in the rest of Europe on a question so interesting and important,
one in which is necessarily involved that of the prospective
regeneration of their long-suffering and afflicted country.

I beg leave to offer my best thanks and warmest acknowledgements to the
Board of Deputies for the kind manner in which it has been pleased to
receive my previous communication, and to assure it that my services are
ever at its command.

I have the honour to be, &c.,

CHAS. CHURCHILL.

(Minute-Books of Board of Deputies, 1841-43.)

       *       *       *       *       *

THE ENTENTE POWERS AND PALESTINE, 1917.

_Extract from Agreement between Great Britain, France and Russia, dated
February 21, 1917._

"5.... With a view to securing the religious interests of the Entente
Powers, Palestine, with the Holy Places, is separated from Turkish
territory and subjected to a special régime to be determined by
agreement between Russia, France and England."

(_Manchester Guardian_, January 19, 1918.)

       *       *       *       *       *

GREAT BRITAIN AND ZIONISM, 1917.

_Mr. Balfour to Lord Rothschild._

FOREIGN OFFICE,

_November 2nd, 1917_.

DEAR LORD ROTHSCHILD,--I have much pleasure in conveying to you, on
behalf of His Majesty's Government, the following declaration of
sympathy with Jewish Zionist aspirations which has been submitted to,
and approved by, the Cabinet:--

"His Majesty's Government view with favour the establishment in
Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, and will use their
best endeavours to facilitate the achievement of this object, it being
clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the
civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in
Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any
other country."

I should be grateful if you would bring this declaration to the
knowledge of the Zionist Federation.

Yours sincerely,

ARTHUR JAMES BALFOUR.

(_Times_, November 9, 1917.)


       *       *       *       *       *




APPENDIX.

INTERNATIONAL ANTI-SEMITISM IN 1498.


The earliest appearance of the Jewish Question in international European
politics--or rather the earliest reference to it in the British State
Papers--happened in 1498, shortly after the great expulsion of the Jews
from Spain. In that year Ferdinand and Isabella of Spain sent a mission
to England on business connected with Prince Arthur's marriage. The
mission was apparently instructed to deal with the Jewish Question. The
envoys expressed to the King their sorrow that, while Spain had been
purged of infidelity, Flanders and England were infested by that
scourge. Thereupon, according to a dispatch from the chief of the
mission, Henry VII, laying both hands on his breast, swore that he would
persecute without mercy any Jew or heretic that the King or Queen of
Spain might point out in his dominions.


DOCUMENT.

       *       *       *       *       *

_De Carta del soprior de Santa Cruza Sus Alts. (Sub-Prior of Santa Cruz
to Ferdinand and Isabella, July 18, 1498). Extract._

       *       *       *       *       *

Acabada nuestra embasada hable al Rey de Inglaterra solo....

Al otro cabo que le dixe que en su Reyno y en Flandes estaban muchos
conversos de los Reynos de V.A. y algunos fuydos por miedo de la
Inquisicion y quan firmes V.A. estaban en su amistad y hermandad y que
los sobredichos siempre procuraban el contrario que le avisaban dello,
holgo mucho de tal avis y dixo la mano puesta en los pechos que por la
fe de su coraçon que no decia el de marranos mas del mejor de su Reyno
si contra lo que yo le decia algo le dixiese, no le oiria ni le ternia
por suyo, y que si S.A. le mandaien airsar si en su tierra hay algun
judio o herege que por la fe de su corazon et los castigaria bien. Fue
esta habla larga y por ser nuevo oficial abrevie, huelga mucho el Rey de
Inglaterra en fablar de la Princesa de Gales....

(Record Office: "Spanish Transcripts," Series I, vol. I, B. 205.)


       *       *       *       *       *




INDEX.


Abdul Medjid, Sultan of Turkey, 96

Aberdeen, Earl of, 18, 123

Adler, Cyrus, 67, 70, 71

Agreement, Anglo-Prussian (1841), 106

Alexander I, Tsar, 12, 15

Alexander II, Tsar, 78

Alexander III, Tsar, 55

Alexander, Bishop, 106

Alexander, D. L., 51, 52, 54

Algeciras, Conference of (1906), 54, 88;
  Protocols, 98-99

Allenby, General, 104

Alliance Israélite, 59, 60, 89

Almodovar del Rio, Duc de, 98

American-Jewish Committee, 89

American House of Representatives, Resolution, 79

American Senate, Resolution, 79-80

American-Swiss Treaty (1855), 74

"Anabaptisticum et Enthusiasticum Pantheon," 103

Anarchists, 57

Ancona, Jews of, 63

Andrássy, Count, 30, 93

Anglo-French Entente, 56

Anglo-Jewish Association, 45, 51, 69, 89

Anglo-Moorish Treaty (1856), 78, 83, 87

Anglo-Prussian Agreement (1841), 106

Anglo-Russian Treaty (1859), 80

Anglo-Swiss Treaty (1855), 73

Anglo-Turkish Treaty (1809), 84

Anti-Semitic Triple Alliance, 57-62

Appleton, John, 75

Austria, 64, 65

Austrian Instruction (1815), 71

Austrian Jews, 7


Balance of Power, The, 54

Balfour, Arthur James, 124, 125

Baltimore, Jews of, 74

Bartholomey, Mr., 77

Baruch, Jacob, 12

Baxter, Nadir, 101

Beaconsfield, Earl of, 30, 103

Beauvale, Lord, 106, 116, 117

Belgium and Holland, Union of, 2

Benchimol Family, 88, 89, 90, 91

Berlin, Congress of (1878), 23-36, 52

Berlin, Treaty of (1878), 24, 33

Bernhardt, "Handbook of Treaties, &c.," 74, 80, 83, 84, 87

Bernstorff, Count, 16

Bertie, Francis, 44, 45

Bethlehem, 105

Bismarck, Prince, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 32

Bjoerkoe interview, 56, 62

Blaine, James G. (U.S. Secretary of State), 54, 70, 78

"Blue Laws," 77

Boerne, Ludwig, 12

Bohemia, Jews of, 7-11

Brisac, J., 66, 67, 68, 72, 73

Broglie, Duc de, 66

Brothers, Richard, 101

Bucharest Commission, 20

Bucharest, Treaty of (1913), 50

Bulgaria, 26, 33

Bülow, Baron, 105, 114, 116

Bund, Jewish, 57, 59

Bunsen, Baron, 106

Buzaglo, David, 89, 91

Canovas Del Castillo, Señor, 93, 94

Capitulations, 3, 4, 83, 100

Capodistrias, Count, 16

Carathéodory Pacha, 26, 27, 31, 32

Carlowitz, Treaty of (1699), 64, 71, 100

Cassini, Count, 99

Castlereagh, Viscount, 12, 13, 16

Catharine of Braganza, Queen, 6

Catherine of Russia, Empress, 76, 78

"Ce que les Israélites de la Suisse doivent à la France," 66

Charlemagne, Emperor, 3

Charles II, King of England, 6

Charles X, King of France, 65

Chevalier, Michel, 67

China, religious liberty in, 3

Choate, Joseph H., 44

Christendom, Peace of, 2

Christian Missions, protection of, 3

Christina, Queen of Sweden, 6

Churchill, Colonel, C. H., 103, 119, 120, 122, 123, 124

Circular Note to Great Powers, American (1902), 44

Clarendon, Earl of, 19, 67

Clanricarde, Marquis of, 113

Cobden, Richard, 67

Cohn, Albert, 19

Conferences:--
  Algeciras (1906), 54, 88
  Bucharest (1913), 45, 47, 48, 49
  Constantinople (1856), 20, 21, 23
  London (1830), 17, 52
  London (1912), 13, 45, 47
  Madrid (1880), 54, 88
  Ryswick (1697), 103
  St. Petersburg (1912-13), 45-47
    _See also_ Protocols and Treaties

Congresses:--
  Aix-la-Chapelle (1818), 15, 16
  Berlin (1878), 23, 25-33, 36
  Paris (1856), 18-23
  Vienna (1815), 3, 12-15
    _See also_ Protocols and Treaties

Consistoire Israélite, 66

Consular Protection, 4, 82-85, 86-88

Convention, Cyprus (1878), 107

Convention of Paris (1858), 20, 21, 23

Crémieux, Adolphe, 18, 102

Cromwell, Oliver, 4, 6, 102

Crowe, Sir Eyre, 51, 83

Cyprus, 103

Cyprus Convention (1878), 107


Damascus, 120

Daudet, Ernest, 55

"Décade Philosophique et Littéraire," 104

De Card, "Les Traités entre la France et le Maroc," 88

Declaration on Palestine, British (1917), 124-5

De Launay, Count, 29, 32, 53

De Mello, Don Francisco Manuel, 6

Deschamps, Emile, 59

Despatch, American, to U.S. Minister at Athens (1902), 38

Desprez, M., 26, 32, 33

Dicey, Professor A. V., 5, 54

D'Israeli, "Genius of Judaism," 101

Dobrudja, 50

Dohm, C. W., 15


Eastern Roumelia, 26, 79

Edict of Sultan of Morocco, 89, 92

El Arish, 104

Esterhazy, Prince, 117


Ferdinand and Isabella of Spain, 126

Finch, Sir Henry, 100, 101

Finn, James, 86, 102;
  "Records from Jerusalem Consular Chronicles," 85

Fogg, Mr., 75

Foreign Jews Protection Society, 64

Foster, J. W., 70

France, 65, 66

Franchi, Cardinal, 93

Franco-Moorish Règlement (1863), 88

Franco-Swiss Treaty (1827), 71

Franco-Swiss Treaty (1864), 73

Franks, Aaron, 7, 8, 9

Freemasons, 59, 60, 62

Fuller, "A Pisgah Sight of Palestine," 100


George II, King of England, 7-9

German Jews, 12, 13

Goldsmid, Sir Julian, 82

Gortchacow, Prince, 28, 29, 30, 33

Graetz, "Geschichte der Juden," 103

Granville, Earl, 69;
  despatch of, 81-82

Greece, Jews of, 17

Grey, Sir Edward, 45, 46, 48, 51, 52, 54, 69, 82

Grey, Viscount (_see_ Sir Edward)

Guizot, 66, 105, 107


Halhed, Nathaniel Brassey, M.P., 101

Hammond, J., 86

Hardenberg, Prince, 12, 13, 16

Haroun al-Rashid, Khalif, 3

Harrington, Lord, 11

Hart, Moses, 7, 8, 9

_Hatti-Humayoun_ (1856), 19-22

Hay, John (U.S. Secretary of State), 37, 38, 43, 44;
  despatch on Rumania, 38-43

Hay, Sir John Drummond, 85, 88

Haymerle, Baron, 30

Henry VII, King of England, 126

Hervaille, 59

Herzl, Theodor, 104

"Histoire Diplomatique de l'Alliance Franco-Russe," 55

Holland, 7

Holland, Jews of, 2, 3

Holland, "The European Concert in the Eastern Question," 18, 21, 22

Holy Alliance, 12

Holy Roman Empire, 100

Hoskier, M., 55


_Izviestia_, 56

Izvolsky, A., 56, 62


Jackson, J. B. (U.S. Minister at Bucharest), 47

Jaffa, 85

James I, King of England, 101

Jerusalem, 101, 104, 108, 109, 115, 117

Jewish Board of Deputies, 12, 45, 47, 51, 69, 86, 89, 103, 123, 124

Jewish Bund, 57

Jewish Conjoint Committee, 24, 45, 46, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 69, 82, 83

"Jewish Disabilities in the Balkan States," 37

Jewish Nationalism, 16

"Jews and the War," 24, 45

Jews in Bohemia, 7-11

Jews in Foreign Countries, Status of, 63-83

Jews in Morocco, 83-85, 87-99

Jews in Rumania, 28-48

Jews in Russia, 54

Jews in Russia, American Despatch, 76-78, 81-83

Jews in Switzerland, 72-73

"Jews in the Diplomatic Correspondence of the U.S.," 70

Jews, National Restoration of, 100-125

Jews of Baltimore, 74

Joostens, Baron, 99


Kamarowsky, 105, 106

Klüber, "Akten des Wiener Kongresses," 14

Kohler, Max, 37

Koutzo-Vlachs, 50

Lamsdorf, Count, 55, 56, 62

Lansdowne, Marquis of, 37, 38

Lassalle, Ferdinand, 59

"Legal Sufferings of Jews in Russia," 54

Lemoine, "Napoléon et les Juifs," 104

Leopold of Saxe-Coburg, Prince, 17

Leven, Narcisse, 24, 85

Lewisohn, Leon, 69, 81

Lieven, Count, 18

Loeb, Isidor, 24

Loewe, "Diaries of Sir Moses Montefiore," 89, 92

London, Treaty of (1840), 106

Louis Philippe, King of France, 66;
  speech of (1835), 73

Ludolf, Count, 95


Madrid, Conference of (1880), 54, 88;
  Protocols, 90-98

Madrid, Treaty of (1880), 91

Maiorescu, Titu (Rumanian Prime Minister), 46, 47, 49, 50

Maria Theresa, Empress, 7-11

Marranos (or Crypto-Jews), 63, 64

Marx, Karl, 59

Mehemet Ali, 102

"Memorandum on the Grievances of British Subjects of the Jewish Faith," 69

"Memorandum on Treaty Rights of Jews of Rumania" (1908), 45

Memorandum (Palestine), Austrian (1840), 111-113;
  (1841), 117-119

Memorandum (Palestine), Prussian (1841), 114-116

Memorandum (Palestine) of Russian Government (1840), 107-110

Menasseh ben Israel, 6

Mendes da Costa, Fernando, 6

Metternich, Prince, 12, 13, 16, 113, 116, 117, 118

Milan, Prince, 30

Mohammed Vargas, Cid, 96, 97

Moldavia, Jews in, 19, 21

Moldavians and Wallachians, 23

Montefiore, Claude G., 51, 52, 54

Montefiore, Joseph Meyer, 86

Montefiore, Lady, 122

Montefiore, Sir Moses, 18, 89, 95, 102, 103, 119, 121

Montenegro, 30, 33

Montmoren y Laval, 18

Moravia, Jews of, 7

Morocco, Jews of, 70

Morocco, Religious Liberty in, 89-99

Mount Athos, 31

Muley-el-Hassan, Sultan of Morocco, 97, 98


Nahon, Moses, 89, 91

Napier, Lord, 81

Napoleon I, Emperor, 102, 104

Napoleon III, Emperor, 19

Nasi, Donna Gracia, 6, 63

Nasi, Don Joseph (_see_ Naxos, Duke of)

"National Treatment," 65, 68

Nationality, Jewish, 64

Naxos, Duke of, 63

Nazareth, 105

Neapolitan prison horrors, 5

Nelidow, Actual Privy Councillor, 58

Nesselrode, Count, 16, 113

Nicholas II, Tsar, 56, 62

Nicolson, Sir Arthur, 98

"Nikky-Willy" correspondence, 55

Nina, Cardinal, 94


Oliphant, Lawrence, 103

Omar, Mosque of, 116

Ottoman Empire, Jews in, 3, 4


Palestine Declaration, British (1917), 124-125

Palestine, Jews in, 70

Palestine Question, 100-125

Palestine, Russian Jews in, 84, 85

Palestine, Secret Agreement (1917), 107, 124

Palestine Memorandum, Austrian (1840), 111-113; (1841), 117-119

Palestine Memorandum, Prussian (1841), 114-116

Palestine Memorandum, Russian (1840), 107-110

Palmerston, Viscount, 102, 105, 106, 113, 114, 116, 117

Paris, Convention of (1858), 23

Passarowitz, Treaty of (1718), 71, 100

Passport Question in Russia, 68

Paul IV, Pope, 63, 64

Paulli, Holger, 103

Peace of Christendom, 2

Peace of Westphalia, 2, 3, 6

Petition concerning Jews of Bohemia, 7-11

Piggott, Sir Francis, "Exterritoriality," 84

Pogroms, 62

Poland, Jews of, 6

Poland, Protestants of, 4

Ponsonby, Lord, 106

Pope, the, 93, 95

Portugal, Jews of, 6

Prince of Wales (Arthur), 126

Protocols:--
  Anti-Anarchist (1904), 56
  Algeciras Conference (1906), 98-99
  Conference of Bucharest (1913), 47
  Conference of Constantinople (1856), 20, 23
  Conference of London (1830), 17, 18
  Conference, Madrid (1880), 90-98
  Congress of Aix-la-Chapelle (1818), 16
  Congress of Berlin (1878), 25-33
  Great Britain, Russia, Prussia and Austria, 2, 3
  _See also_ Conferences, Congresses and Treaties

Prussia, Jews of, 6

Prussia, King of, 114


Radowitz, Herr von, 99

Règlement, Franco-Moorish (1863), 88

Religious Liberty, 1, 2, 3, 17, 20, 21

"Restoration of the Hebrews, The," 101

Revoil, M., 99

Richelieu, 16

Ristitch, 30

Robinson, Sir Thomas, 7, 9, 11

Roosevelt, Theodore, 37, 99

Rothschild, Sir Anthony de, 19

Rothschild, Baron James de, 19, 20

Rothschild, Baron Lionel de, 19

Rothschild, Leopold de, 13

Rothschild, Lord, 36, 37, 55, 56, 58

Rothschild, Lord (second), 124

Rothschild, Nathan, 13

Rumania, 24, 29, 32, 33, 37, 38, 48

Rumania and the Powers (1902), 36-45

Rumania, American Circular Note on, 44

Rumania, Identic Note to (1880), 35-36

Rumania, Jews of, 28

Rumanian Constitution, Art. VII, 34-35

Russell, Earl, 81, 86 (_see_ Russell, Lord John)

Russell, Lord John, 68, 69, 70

Russia, Jews in, 54, 76-78, 81-83

"Russian Government and the Massacres," 54

Russian Jews in Palestine, 84, 85

Russian Jews, persecution of, 5

Russian Revolution, 54

Russian Secret Documents, 62

Russo-American Treaty (1832), 75

Russo-American Treaty (1832), denunciation of, 79-80

Ryswick, Conference of (1697), 103


Sabbathai Zevi, 103

Sager, M., 99

Salisbury, Marquis of, 26, 27, 31, 32, 34, 69, 82, 106

Samuel, Henry, Case of, 64

Sanderson, Sir T. H., 69, 82

Santa Cruz, Sub-Prior of, 126

Saxony, 66

Schiff, Jacob, 36, 37

Schouvaloff, Count, 26, 27, 28, 30

Secret Agreement (Palestine) (1917), 107, 124

Secret Note to Swiss Diet, French (1826), 72

Séménoff, M., 54, 62

Servia, 24, 27, 28, 29, 32

Servia, Jews of, 28

Seward, William H. (U.S. Secretary of State), 75

Sidi Mohammed, Sultan of Morocco, 95

Socialists, 59, 60, 61

Solyman the Magnificent, 63, 64

Spain, Jews of, 6

Stratford de Redcliffe, Lord, 19

Straus, Oscar, 37, 103

Stroock, 67

Sub-Prior of Santa Cruz, 126

Suliotis, M., 36

Sweden, 4, 57

Switzerland, 65, 66, 67, 68

"Switzerland and American Jews," 67

Switzerland, Jews in, 72-73


Tatistcheff, M., 105

Testa, Jonkheer, 99

Thirty Years War, 2

Thornton, Sir E., 81

Toledano, Isaac, 89, 91

Treaties:--
  American-Swiss (1855), 66, 67, 73
  Anglo-Moorish (1727-8), 87
  Anglo-Moorish (1856), 83, 87
  Anglo-Russian (1859), 68, 80
  Anglo-Swiss (1855), 67, 73
  Anglo-Turkish (1809), 87
  Berlin (1878), 24, 37
  Bucharest (1913), 50
  Carlowitz (1699), 64, 71, 100
  Franco-Swiss (1827), 65, 71
  Franco-Swiss (1864), 68, 73
  London (1840), 106
  London (1864), 49
  Madrid (1880), 91
  Münster (1648), 2
  Osnabruck (1648), 2
  Paris (1856), 20-22
  Passarowitz (1718), 71, 100
  Russo-American (1832), 68, 70, 75
  San Stéfano (1878), 27, 31
  Tientsin (1858), 3
  Vienna (1815), 13-15
  _See also_ Conferences, Congresses, Conventions, Protocols and Règlement

Turkey, 31, 33, 37, 40, 63, 64, 65

Turkey, Jews in, 19


Ubicini, "Question des Principautés," 23

United States, 46, 66, 67

United States, Religious Liberty in, 38-43

Universal Suffrage, 61


Vatican, 60, 61

Vaudois, persecution of the, 4

Venizelos, M., 47

Visconti Venosta, Viscount, 99


Waddington, M., 25, 26, 28, 29, 93

Wallachia, Jews in, 19, 21

Wallachians and Moldavians, 23

Warsaw, British Jews in, 68

Way, Rev. Lewis, 15, 16

Wellington, Duke of, 13, 16

Westphalia, Peace of, 2

White, Henry, 98, 99

White, Sir W. A., 34, 36

William II, Emperor of Germany, 56

William III, King of England, 103

Wilson, Charles S., 38

Witte, Count, 56

Wolf, Lucien, 54, 58;
  "Sir Moses Montefiore," 89

Wolf, Simon, 37

"World's Great Restoration, The," 100

Wyshnigradski, M., 55


Zion, Mount, 116

Zionism, 103, 104, 107, 124


Printed by SPOTTISWOODE, BALLANTYNE & CO. LTD. Colchester, London &
Eton, England


FOOTNOTES:

[1] _Infra_, pp. 57-62 and Appendix.

[2] Wolf: _Menasseh b. Israel's Mission to Oliver Cromwell_, pp. xviii
_et seq._

[3] The Protocol was accepted by the Dutch King on July 21, 1814. Its
text will be found in _British and Foreign State Papers_, ii. 141-142.

[4] Guasco: "L'Église Catholique et la Liberté Religieuse dans l'Empire
Chinois" (_Revue Générale de Droit International Public_, x. 53 _et
seq._)

[5] Verney and Dambmann: _Puissances Etrangères dans le Levant_, pp.
69-80.

[6] _Infra_, pp. 83 _et seq._

[7] The historical and juridical aspects of the question have been fully
discussed by Professor Rougier in the _Revue Générale de Droit
International Public_, xvii. 468 _et seq._

[8] Martin: _Life of the Prince Consort_, iii. 510-511.

[9] For a vigorous exposition of the duty of civilised States in such
cases, see Prof. A. Dicey's introduction to _Legal Sufferings of the
Jews in Russia_, p. x.

[10] See Straus: _The American Spirit_ (New York). For documentary
examples relating to the Jews, see Cyrus Adler: _Jews in the Diplomatic
Correspondence of the United States_.

[11] _Infra_, pp. 63-64.

[12] Kayserling: "Menasseh b. Israel" (_Misc. Heb. Lit._ ii. 29);
_Harleian Miscellany_, vii. 618.

[13] Brit. Mus. Add. MSS. 29,868, _f._ 1.

[14] Sir Thomas Robinson, "l'infatigable Robinson" of Carlyle's
_Frederick_, afterwards Lord Grantham.

[15] Graetz: _Geschichte der Juden_, x. 393-394.

[16] Emanuel: _A Century and a Half of Anglo-Jewish History_, p. 9.

[17] Graetz: _Geschichte_, xi. 324-328. See also Kohler: _Jewish Rights
at International Congresses_, pp. 6-20.

[18] _Diary of Sir Moses Montefiore_, 1817, p. 192. (Ramsgate
Theological College MSS.) Kohler: _op. cit._ pp. 25-26.

[19] Communication from the late Mr. Leopold de Rothschild. See also
_Gentleman's Magazine_, Oct. 1819, p. 362.

[20] _Infra_, p. 16. The Protocol does not appear in the Protocols of
the Congress published in the _British and Foreign State Papers_, and is
usually excluded from the official records of the Congress. Its text is,
however, given in Way's _Mémoires_ (Paris, 1819) as an unpaginated
Appendix.

[21] _Procès-Verbal des Séances de l'Assemblée Juive_ (Paris, 1806), pp.
47-49; _Actes du Grand Sanhédrin_, pp. 65-73, 83, 90-91.

[22] Emanuel: _op. cit._, p. 66. The facts are given more fully by Loeb:
_Biographie d'Albert Cohn_ (Paris, 1878), pp. 48-49.

[23] Loeb: _op. cit._, p. 49 (supplemented by private sources), Holland:
_The European Concert in the Eastern Question_, p. 330.

[24] Holland: _op. cit._, pp. 233-234, 251.

[25] _British and Foreign State Papers_, xlviii. 78.

[26] Loeb: _Situation des Israélites en Turquie, en Serbie, et en
Roumanie_ (1877), p. 200.

[27] _The Jews and the War_, No. 1 (1917), pp. 15-16. (Privately printed
by Jewish Conjoint Committee.)

[28] _British and Foreign State Papers_, xlviii. 97.

[29] _Ibid._ p. 113.

[30] _Ibid._ p. 120.

[31] _Jews and the War_, No. 1 (1917), pp. 15-16.

[32] The _Hatti-Humayoun_ (see next document).

[33] This _alinéa_ did not appear in the scheme drawn up by the
Bucharest Commission, but was inserted by the Conference.

[34] Loeb: _Situation_, pp. 139-196. Narcisse Leven: _Cinquante ans
d'histoire_, pp. 93-146.

[35] _British and Foreign State Papers_, lxii. p. 705.

[36] _Infra_, pp. 25-33.

[37] _Jews and the War_, p. 29.

[38] _Infra_, p. 33.

[39] _Infra_, p. 32. Extract from Protocol No. 17.

[40] "Le Traité de Berlin," writes M. Suliotis in the _Journal du droit
international privé_ (xiv. 563), "a cru faire merveille en faveur des
étrangers, mais la Roumanie a su habilement éluder les inconvénients qui
pouvaient resulter de l'application de l'article VII. dans le sens du
Traité de Berlin, qui n'a eu d'autres résultats que de rendre plus
difficile la situation des étrangers."

[41] Dated June 13, 1901. It is not printed. Its argument is largely
reproduced in the Memorandum of the Conjoint Committee of November 1908,
for full text of which see _Jews and the War_, pp. 14 _et seq._

[42] Private information and documents.

[43] For a detailed and documented account of the American intervention,
but without the full texts of the Notes of Secretary Hay (_infra_, pp.
38-45), see Kohler and Wolf: _Jewish Disabilities in the Balkan States_
(the American Jewish Committee, 1916), pp. 80-83, 108-137.

[44] Semi-official communiqué to the newspapers through Reuter's Agency,
September 23, 1902. The fact was also privately communicated by Lord
Lansdowne to Lord Rothschild at the time.

[45] This is a reference to Russia. _Infra_, pp. 69-70.

[46] "Memorandum on the Treaty Rights of the Jews of Rumania" (November
1908). Printed for confidential use, 16 pp. fcp. Reprinted in _Jews and
the War_, pp. 14-30. Also in the Annual Reports of the Board of Deputies
and Anglo-Jewish Association (1909), and in Kohler and Wolf, _op. cit._

[47] _Infra_, p. 47.

[48] _Infra_, p. 51. For a fuller text of the correspondence, see Annual
Report of the Board of Deputies (1913), pp. 54-74.

[49] The United States was a conspicuous exception. See especially Mr.
Blaine's despatch of February 18, 1891. (_Foreign Relations of U.S._
1891, p. 737.)

[50] Wolf and Dicey: _Legal Sufferings of the Jews in Russia_ (London,
1912). Semenoff and Wolf: _The Russian Government and the Massacres_
(London, 1907).

[51] The story is told by M. Ernest Daudet in his _Histoire Diplomatique
de l'Alliance Franco-Russe_, pp. 261-262, but the present writer is able
to confirm it from other sources.

[52] The famous "Nikky-Willy" correspondence (see _Times_, September 4,
1917; _Daily Telegraph_, September 4, 27 and 29, 1917; and _Morning
Post_, September 15, 1917.)

[53] _Infra_, pp. 57-62.

[54] The statement in the Memorandum that Messrs. Rothschild had been
excluded by the Russian Government from these loan operations is
inaccurate. The exclusion had come from the other side, and at the very
time that the Memorandum was being prepared Count Witte had sent
representatives of the Finance Ministry to London to endeavour to
overcome Lord Rothschild's reluctance.

[55] This Protocol is published in vol. vi. of the _Secret Documents_
published by the Russian Revolutionary Government in February 1918.

[56] Secret letter from the Kaiser to the Tsar published in the Soviet
organ _Inviestia_, December 19, 1917.

[57] Actual Privy Councillor Nelidow's despatch of December 1-14, 1905.

[58] Communicated by Emil Deschamps in the _Journal de St. Pétersbourg_,
of December 23, 1905.

[59] Despatch from the Imperial Ambassador at the Hague of October 24,
1905, No. 22.

[60] Despatch from the Imperial Ambassador at Rome of November 29, 1905,
No. 23.

[61] According to the rules of French Freemasonry, promotion to the
eighteenth degree makes the recipient automatically a member of the
"Alliance Israélite Universelle," while out of the nine members of the
Secret Supreme Council of Freemasonry five must be Jews.

[62] Levy: _Don Joseph Nasi_, _Herzog von Naxos und seine Familie_
(Breslau, 1859). See also Graetz: _Geschichte_, vol. ix. _passim_.

[63] The text of the Sultan's letter is preserved in the rare _Lettere
di Principi_ (Venice, 1581), iii. 171.

[64] Graetz: _Geschichte_, ix. 361, and 571-572.

[65] _Transactions, Jewish Historical Society_, iv. 478 _et seq._ The
plea has been revived during the present war, but with less success. It
was largely used by Russian Jews in order to escape conscription under
the Anglo-Russian Convention of 1916. (See Petition of Foreign Jews
Protection Society, _Herald_, July 22 and 29, 1916.) See also the case
of the prosecution of Henry Samuel, _Times_, September 19, 1918.

[66] _Infra_, p. 71.

[67] Brisac: _Ce que les Israélites de la Suisse doivent à la France_
(Lausanne, 1916), pp. 9-13. _Infra_, pp. 71-72.

[68] Brisac: _op. cit._, pp. 14-15, 16-17.

[69] Jewish disabilities still existed in England, Germany, Austria,
Russia, the Italian States, Spain and Portugal.

[70] May 28, 1841. A full report of the debate will be found in the
_Moniteur_, May 29, 1841.

[71] Stroock: "Switzerland and American Jews," in _Publications of the
American Jewish Historical Society_, xi. 7-8, 15.

[72] Brisac: _op. cit._, p. 27-33.

[73] _Infra_, pp. 73-74.

[74] Stroock: _op. cit._, p. 15.

[75] Brisac: _op. cit._, p. 37.

[76] Stroock: _op. cit._, pp. 24-32.

[77] Lord Clarendon on December 17, 1857, instructed the British
Minister at Berne to make representations to the Swiss Government
(Stroock: p. 36). The bulk of the official correspondence of the United
States on the subject is printed by Cyrus Adler in _Publications of the
American Jewish Historical Society_, xv. 25-39.

[78] _Infra_, p. 73.

[79] This was not in the Commercial Treaty but in a separate Treaty of
Establishment signed the same day.

[80] Sanctioned by the Referendum of January 14, 1866 (Brisac, p. 54).

[81] _Parl. Paper, Russia_, No. 4 (1881), p. 21. _Infra_, pp. 81-82.

[82] _Parl. Paper, Russia_, No. 3 (1881), pp. 17-18.

[83] _Parl. Paper, Russia_, No. 4 (1881), pp. 21-22. _Infra_, p. 82.

[84] Letter from Sir T. H. Sanderson on behalf of the Marquis of
Salisbury, January 29, 1891.

[85] "Memorandum on the grievances of British subjects of the Jewish
faith in regard to the interpretation of Articles I and XI of the
Anglo-Russian Treaty of Commerce and Navigation of January 12, 1859"
(August 2, 1912). Printed for confidential use, 9 pp. fcp. The text
together with further correspondence has been reprinted in the Annual
Reports of the Board of Deputies and the Anglo-Jewish Association for
1912.

[86] _Infra_, pp. 82-83.

[87] Cyrus Adler: _Jews in the Diplomatic Correspondence of the United
States_, pp. 73-74. See also dispatch from Mr. Foster, October 18, 1880,
in _Foreign Relations of the United States_, 1881, p. 991.

[88] See dispatches quoted by C. Adler, _op. cit._, pp. 75-96 from
_Foreign Relations_ 1880 and 1881.

[89] _Infra_, pp. 76-78.

[90] _Infra_, pp. 79-80.

[91] Cyrus Adler: _op. cit._, pp. 7-19. See also _infra_, p. 103 (note).

[92] _Infra_, p. 83.

[93] Confirmed by Art. XIII of the Treaty of Passarowitz, July 21, 1718.

[94] _Supra_, pp. 3-4.

[95] Piggott: _Exterritoriality_ (Lond. 1907), pp. 67-68.

[96] Bernhardt: _op. cit._, pp. 947, 957.

[97] _Infra_, p. 86. Further details will be found in Mr. Finn's
_Records from Jerusalem Consular Chronicles_ (Lond. 1878), i. 112-114.

[98] _Infra_, p. 87.

[99] _Infra_, p. 87.

[100] _Memoir of Sir John Drummond Hay_ (Lond. 1896), pp. 322-323. See
also stipulations of French Treaty (_infra_, p. 88).

[101] For details of these cases see Leven: _Cinquante Ans d'Histoire_,
pp. 158 _et seq._ Annual Reports of the Anglo-Jewish Association.

[102] _Memoir of Sir J. D. Hay_, pp. 321-323.

[103] _Ibid._, p. 323.

[104] _Infra_, pp. 90-91.

[105] _Infra_, p. 93.

[106] _Infra_, p. 92. See also Wolf: _Sir Moses Montefiore_ (Lond.
1884), pp. 213-232, and Loewe: _Diaries of Sir M. Montefiore_, ii.
148-153.

[107] _Infra_, p. 97.

[108] _Infra_, p. 98.

[109] _Cf. supra_, p. 89.

[110] Fuller: _A Pisgah Sight of Palestine_ (Lond. 1650), bk. iv. p.
194.

[111] D'Israeli: _Genius of Judaism_, pp. 200-201.

[112] _The Restoration of the Hebrews to Jerusalem by the Year of 1798
under the Revealed Prince and Prophet_ (Lond. 1794). _A letter from Mr.
Brothers to Miss Cott with an Address to the Members of His Britannic
Majesty's Council_ (Lond. 1798). _The Curious Trial of Mr. Brothers...
on a Statute of Lunacy_ (Lond. 1795).

[113] _Mr. Halhed's Speech in the House of Commons... on Monday, May the
4th, 1795_ (Lond. 1795).

[114] Law Reports: 4 De Gex & Smale, 467.

[115] For details see _infra_, pp. 104-106.

[116] Finn: _op. cit._, i. 106. The passage is worth quoting: "In 1839,
Lord Palmerston's direction to his first Consul in Jerusalem was 'to
afford protection to the Jews generally.' The words were simply those,
broad and general, as under the circumstances they ought to be, leaving
after events to work out their own modifications. The instruction,
however, seemed to bear on its face a recognition that the Jews are a
nation by themselves and that contingencies might possibly arise in
which their relations to Mohammedans should become difficult, though it
was impossible to foresee the shape that future transactions might
assume upon the impending expulsion of the Egyptians from Syria."

[117] See text of Firman in Loewe: _Diaries of Sir M. Montefiore_, i.
278-279.

[118] _Infra_, pp. 119-124.

[119] _Memoir of Laurence Oliphant_, ii. 179. As late as January 1888
Mr. Oscar Straus, the United States Minister in Constantinople and
himself a Jew, assured the Grand Vizier, with regard to the
establishment of a Jewish State in Palestine, "that no such purpose
actuated the Jews throughout the world" (_Foreign Relations of U.S._,
1888, p. 1559).

[120] _Anabaptisticum et Enthusiasticum Pantheon_ (1702), _Novus in
Belgio Judaeorum Rex_, p. 25.

[121] Graetz: _Geschichte_, x. 207.

[122] "Re-establishment of the Jewish Government, with a letter from a
Jew to his Brethren; copied from the _Courier_, June 10, 1798."

[123] Lemoine: _Napoléon et les Juifs_ (Paris, 1900), p. 72.

[124] _Infra_, p. 107. There is no trace of this scheme in the Foreign
Office papers except in the reference here quoted from the Russian
Memorandum, but Tatistcheff, who saw the Russian set of these papers in
the Petrograd Foreign Office, describes a scheme submitted by Guizot to
Palmerston and Metternich which seems to be the one referred to here.
(Kamarowsky: "La Question d'Orient," in _Revue Générale de Droit
International Public_, iii. 423.)

[125] _Infra_, pp. 107-109.

[126] _Infra_, pp. 111-113.

[127] _Infra_, p. 113.

[128] _Infra_, pp. 114-116.

[129] Covering despatch from Baron Bülow, _infra_, p. 116.

[130] Despatch from Lord Beauvale and draft of reply by Palmerston,
_infra_, pp. 116-117.

[131] Kamarowsky, _op. cit._, p. 423.

[132] _Memoirs of Bunsen_ (London, 1868), i. 593 _et seq._

[133] Memorandum of July 15, 1841, presented to Palmerston by Bunsen
(F.O. 64/235 Prussia).

[134] Letter from Bunsen to his Wife (_Memoirs_, i. 608-609).

[135] Bishop Alexander was before his conversion Minister of the Jewish
Synagogue at Plymouth.

[136] Holland: _European Concert in Eastern Question_, p. 93.

[137] _British and Foreign State Papers_, lxix. 1342-1353; lxxiii. 438.

[138] _Infra_, p. 124.

[139] _Infra_, pp. 124-125.

[140] This was probably the scheme suggested by Guizot (_supra_, p.
105).

[141] This Memorandum is identical with the Austrian Memorandum of
October 1840, which at the time was only communicated to the Prussian
Government (_supra_, pp. 111-113).

       *       *       *       *       *

    Notes of the transcriber of this etext:

    "Religous" changed to "Religious"
    "repondu" changed to "répondu"
    both "Toldano" and "Toledano" appear
    "Etats-Unis" changed to "États-Unis"
    "Janaury" changed to "January"
    "Cánovas" and "Canovas" appear
    "morocain" changed to "marocain"
    "qu iont" changed to "qui ont"
    "Gortschacow" changed to "Gortchacow"
    "Kluber" changed to "Klüber"
    "Munster" changed to "Münster"
    "parait" changed to "paraît"
    "Plenipotentiaire" changed to "Plénipotentiaire"
    "reconnait" changed to "reconnaît"
    "Bartholomei" changed to "Bartholomey"
    "Litteraire" changed to "Littéraire"
    "Maioresco" appears in the index as "Maiorescu"
    "Séménoff" appears in the index, Semenoff in the notes.