© Created in January 2001, Last revised: March 2001
|
|
Site designed and created by Razvan Paraianu. © Created in January 2001, Last revised: March 2001 |
Lucien Wolf
Note
on the Diplomatic History of the Jewish Question
Internet Modern Jewish History Sourcebook for Central and Eastern Europe
SOURCE OF MATERIAL:
Wolf, Lucien. Notes on the Diplomatic History of the Jewish Question with Texts of Protocols, Treaty Stipulations and other Public Acts and Official Documents. London: Spottiswoode, Ballantyne & Co. Ltd. 1919.NOTES:
Lucien Wolf (1857-1930) was the British born son of Bohemian Jewish refugees. He had a career as journalist and diplomat for the Jewish cause. He wrote for a number of publications in the Jewish and national press. He was an early exponent of Anglo-Jewish history. Between 1912-1914 he was the editor of "Darkest Russia: a weekly record of the struggle for freedom". This was a propaganda paper directed against the Russian Government and concerned particularly with Jewish rights. As well as reporting on international affairs, Wolf had an advisory role as he had many diplomatic contacts. He was a leading member of the Conjoint Foreign Committee of British Jews. He was an exponent of the Balfour declaration of 1917 and a co-architect of the Minorities Treaties after the First World War which set the framework for the rights of European Jewry.Lucien Wolf was born on 20 January 1857 in London. He was educated at private schools, the Athenee Royale in Brussels, and in Paris. He worked as a sub-editor and leader-writer for Jewish World, 1874-1893, and was later Editor there, 1906-1908. He also worked as an assistant editor for Public Leader, 1877-1878; foreign editor for the Daily Graphic, 1890-1909; and was London correspondent for Le Journal, Paris, 1894-1898. He was President of the Jewish History Society of England eight times. In 1919 he represented the Anglo-Jewish community at the Paris Peace Conference. He was Secretary of the Jewish Joint Foreign Committee from 1917. He was founder of and delegate to the Advisory Committee of the High Commissioner for Refugees of the League of Nations. Wolf's many publications are mainly concerned with Jews and Judaism. Wolf died on 23 August 1930. (UCL - Wolf Collection)
Lucien Wolf was also the author of The Myth of
the Jewish menace in world affairs (The Truth About 'The Protocols': A Literary
Forgery). The Times of August 16, 17, and 18, (London: Printing House
Square, 1921); and The Jewish Bogey and the Forged Protocols of the Learned
Elders of Zion. (London: Press Committee of the Jewish Board of Deputies,
1920); ; "The First English Jew", "Crypo-Jews under the Commonweath", "The
Jewery of the Restoration", "Maria Fernandez de Carvajal," "Jews of the Canary
Islands", The Jews and the Coral Trade (1900), Jewish Ideals and the War.
An Address Delivered by Lucien Wolf, Vice-President of the Jewish Historical
Society of England, on December 7th, 1914. (London: Central Committee for
National Patriotic Organizations, 1915); The Legal Sufferings of the Jews in
Russia. A Survey of Their Present Situation, and a Summary of Laws, (London: T.
F. Unwin, 1912); Sir Moses Montefiore. A Centennial Biography. With Extracts
from Letters and Journals. (London: J. Murray, 1884); with C. G. Montefiore,
What is Judaism? (New York: Living Books, 1964).
The content of the whole book:
CONTENTS. CONTENT
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 Kluber 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 THB 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) 46
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 0F POWER (1890 and 1906) 54
DOCUMENT—
The proposed Anti-Semitic Triple Alliance: Secret Russian Memorandum, Jan. 3,
190657
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
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 JEWS100
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 Billow 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
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 76
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
(6) CONSULAR PROTECTION 83
DOCUMENTS—
Earl Russell to the Jewish Board of Deputies, Feb. 1, 1864 86
Art. Ill, Anglo-Moorish Treaty, 1727-28 87
Art. Ill, 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
Chapters I & II
NOTES ON THE DIPLOMATIC HISTORY OF THE JEWISH QUESTION
WITH TEXTS OF PROTOCOLS, TREATY STIPULATIONS AND OTHER PUBLIC ACTS AND OFFICIAL DOCUMENTS
LUCIEN WOLF
PRINTED FOR THE SOCIETY BY SPOTTISWOODE, BALLANTYNE & CO. LTD.
1 NEW-STREET SQUARE, LONDON, E.G.
1919
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 religieuse, 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'etat. 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 Fernande 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 geokge II (B.M. Add. MSS. 23,819, /. 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
28 Decr.
Jews &c. m Ld. Harrington's of the ———— 1746.
8 Jany.
sent to Sir Thos. Robinson 27 [sic] Decr. 1744.
appeal of the bohemian jews (Ibid. f. 64).
prague, 1st Deer. 1744. N.8.
It is Certainly very Notorious all the Callamities Which have over-whelm'd us to such a Degree that we had hardly power to Withstand them. but None were m 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 1744-5.
Jany 8.
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 1746 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.
lNSTRUCTIONS to the british ambassador IN vienna (Ibid. fols. 61 -61d.).
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.
(6) 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 Castle -reagh, 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 Eedaction 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 Kluber: "Akten des Wiener Kongresses."
1. Unterthänige Vorstellung und Bittschrift der Israelitischen Gemeinde zu Frankfurt-am-Main an den hohen Kongress zu Wien mit Beilage über-geben daselbst am 10ten Oktober 1814.
2. Schreiben des Deputierten der Israelitischen Gemeinde zu Frank-furt/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 semer Durchlaucht des Fürsten von Hardenberg auf vorstehendes Schreiben. Datiert Wien, 18ten Mai, 1815.
4. Erlass dea 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 dea 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 Selbstandigkeit 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—126. )
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 Federative 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 aus 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 declares 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.
habdenberg.
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 hia 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) abbedeen
montmoeen Y-LAVAL
LlEVEN.
(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 interposition 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 XL VI 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 Religous 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 dea 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 décret 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 gouvemement,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 lea 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 qua 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