1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
191
192
193
194
195
196
197
198
199
200
201
202
203
204
205
206
207
208
209
210
211
212
213
214
215
216
217
218
219
220
221
222
223
224
225
226
227
228
229
230
231
232
233
234
235
236
237
238
239
240
241
242
243
244
245
246
247
248
249
250
251
252
253
254
255
256
257
258
259
260
261
262
263
264
265
266
267
268
269
270
271
272
273
274
275
276
277
278
279
280
281
282
283
284
285
286
287
288
289
290
291
292
293
294
295
296
297
298
299
300
301
302
303
304
305
306
307
308
309
310
311
312
313
314
315
316
317
318
319
320
321
322
323
324
325
326
327
328
329
330
331
332
333
334
335
336
337
338
339
340
341
342
343
344
345
346
347
348
349
350
351
352
353
354
355
356
357
358
359
360
361
362
363
364
365
366
367
368
369
370
371
372
373
374
375
376
377
378
379
380
381
382
383
384
385
386
387
388
389
390
391
392
393
394
395
396
397
398
399
400
401
402
403
404
405
406
407
408
409
410
411
412
413
414
415
416
417
418
419
420
421
422
423
424
425
426
427
428
429
430
431
432
433
434
435
436
437
438
439
440
441
442
443
444
445
446
447
448
449
450
451
452
453
454
455
456
457
458
459
460
461
462
463
464
465
466
467
468
469
470
471
472
473
474
475
476
477
478
479
480
481
482
483
484
485
486
487
488
489
490
491
492
493
494
495
496
497
498
499
500
501
502
503
504
505
506
507
508
509
510
511
512
513
514
515
516
517
518
519
520
521
522
523
524
525
526
527
528
529
530
531
532
533
534
535
536
537
538
539
540
541
542
543
544
545
546
547
548
549
550
551
552
553
554
555
556
557
558
559
560
561
562
563
564
565
566
567
568
569
570
571
572
573
574
575
576
577
578
579
580
581
582
583
584
585
586
587
588
589
590
591
592
593
594
595
596
597
598
599
600
601
602
603
604
605
606
607
608
609
610
611
612
613
614
615
616
617
618
619
620
621
622
623
624
625
626
627
628
629
630
631
632
633
634
635
636
637
638
639
640
641
642
643
644
645
646
647
648
649
650
651
652
653
654
655
656
657
658
659
660
661
662
663
664
665
666
667
668
669
670
671
672
673
674
675
676
677
678
679
680
681
682
683
684
685
686
687
688
689
690
691
692
693
694
695
696
697
698
699
700
701
702
703
704
705
706
707
708
709
710
711
712
713
714
715
716
717
718
719
720
721
722
723
724
725
726
727
728
729
730
731
732
733
734
735
736
737
738
739
740
741
742
743
744
745
746
747
748
749
750
751
752
753
754
755
756
757
758
759
760
761
762
763
764
765
766
767
768
769
770
771
772
773
774
775
776
777
778
779
780
781
782
783
784
785
786
787
788
789
790
791
792
793
794
795
796
797
798
799
800
801
802
803
804
805
806
807
808
809
810
811
812
813
814
815
816
817
818
819
820
821
822
823
824
825
826
827
828
829
830
831
832
833
834
835
836
837
838
839
840
841
842
843
844
845
846
847
848
849
850
851
852
853
854
855
856
857
858
859
860
861
862
863
864
865
866
867
868
869
870
871
872
873
874
875
876
877
878
879
880
881
882
883
884
885
886
887
888
889
890
891
892
893
894
895
896
897
898
899
900
901
902
903
904
905
906
907
908
909
910
911
912
913
914
915
916
917
918
919
920
921
922
923
924
925
926
927
928
929
930
931
932
933
934
935
936
937
938
939
940
941
942
943
944
945
946
947
948
949
950
951
952
953
954
955
956
957
958
959
960
961
962
963
964
965
966
967
968
969
970
971
972
973
974
975
976
977
978
979
980
981
982
983
984
985
986
987
988
989
990
991
992
993
994
995
996
997
998
999
1000
1001
1002
1003
1004
1005
1006
1007
1008
1009
1010
1011
1012
1013
1014
1015
1016
1017
1018
1019
1020
1021
1022
1023
1024
1025
1026
1027
1028
1029
1030
1031
1032
1033
1034
1035
1036
1037
1038
1039
1040
1041
1042
1043
1044
1045
1046
1047
1048
1049
1050
1051
1052
1053
1054
1055
1056
1057
1058
1059
1060
1061
1062
1063
1064
1065
1066
1067
1068
1069
1070
1071
1072
1073
1074
1075
1076
1077
1078
1079
1080
1081
1082
1083
1084
1085
1086
1087
1088
1089
1090
1091
1092
1093
1094
1095
1096
1097
1098
1099
1100
1101
1102
1103
1104
1105
1106
1107
1108
1109
1110
1111
1112
1113
1114
1115
1116
1117
1118
1119
1120
1121
1122
1123
1124
1125
1126
1127
1128
1129
1130
1131
1132
1133
1134
1135
1136
1137
1138
1139
1140
1141
1142
1143
1144
1145
1146
1147
1148
1149
1150
1151
1152
1153
1154
1155
1156
1157
1158
1159
1160
1161
1162
1163
1164
1165
1166
1167
1168
1169
1170
1171
1172
1173
1174
1175
1176
1177
1178
1179
1180
1181
1182
1183
1184
1185
1186
1187
1188
1189
1190
1191
1192
1193
1194
1195
1196
1197
1198
1199
1200
1201
1202
1203
1204
1205
1206
1207
1208
1209
1210
1211
1212
1213
1214
1215
1216
1217
1218
1219
1220
1221
1222
1223
1224
1225
1226
1227
1228
1229
1230
1231
1232
1233
1234
1235
1236
1237
1238
1239
1240
1241
1242
1243
1244
1245
1246
1247
1248
1249
1250
1251
1252
1253
1254
1255
1256
1257
1258
1259
1260
1261
1262
1263
1264
1265
1266
1267
1268
1269
1270
1271
1272
1273
1274
1275
1276
1277
1278
1279
1280
1281
1282
1283
1284
1285
1286
1287
1288
1289
1290
1291
1292
1293
1294
1295
1296
1297
1298
1299
1300
1301
1302
1303
1304
1305
1306
1307
1308
1309
1310
1311
1312
1313
1314
1315
1316
1317
1318
1319
1320
1321
1322
1323
1324
1325
1326
1327
1328
1329
1330
1331
1332
1333
1334
1335
1336
1337
1338
1339
1340
1341
1342
1343
1344
1345
1346
1347
1348
1349
1350
1351
1352
1353
1354
1355
1356
1357
1358
1359
1360
1361
1362
1363
1364
1365
1366
1367
1368
1369
1370
1371
1372
1373
1374
1375
1376
1377
1378
1379
1380
1381
1382
1383
1384
1385
1386
1387
1388
1389
1390
1391
1392
1393
1394
1395
1396
1397
1398
1399
1400
1401
1402
1403
1404
1405
1406
1407
1408
1409
1410
1411
1412
1413
1414
1415
1416
1417
1418
1419
1420
1421
1422
1423
1424
1425
1426
1427
1428
1429
1430
1431
1432
1433
1434
1435
1436
1437
1438
1439
1440
1441
1442
1443
1444
1445
1446
1447
1448
1449
1450
1451
1452
1453
1454
1455
1456
1457
1458
1459
1460
1461
1462
1463
1464
1465
1466
1467
1468
1469
1470
1471
1472
1473
1474
1475
1476
1477
1478
1479
1480
1481
1482
1483
1484
1485
1486
1487
1488
1489
1490
1491
1492
1493
1494
1495
1496
1497
1498
1499
1500
1501
1502
1503
1504
1505
1506
1507
1508
1509
1510
1511
1512
1513
1514
1515
1516
1517
1518
1519
1520
1521
1522
1523
1524
1525
1526
1527
1528
1529
1530
1531
1532
1533
1534
1535
1536
1537
1538
1539
1540
1541
1542
1543
1544
1545
1546
1547
1548
1549
1550
1551
1552
1553
1554
1555
1556
1557
1558
1559
1560
1561
1562
1563
1564
1565
1566
1567
1568
1569
1570
1571
1572
1573
1574
1575
1576
1577
1578
1579
1580
1581
1582
1583
1584
1585
1586
1587
1588
1589
1590
1591
1592
1593
1594
1595
1596
1597
1598
1599
1600
1601
1602
1603
1604
1605
1606
1607
1608
1609
1610
1611
1612
1613
1614
1615
1616
1617
1618
1619
1620
1621
1622
1623
1624
1625
1626
1627
1628
1629
1630
1631
1632
1633
1634
1635
1636
1637
1638
1639
1640
1641
1642
1643
1644
1645
1646
1647
1648
1649
1650
1651
1652
1653
1654
1655
1656
1657
1658
1659
1660
1661
1662
1663
1664
1665
1666
1667
1668
1669
1670
1671
1672
1673
1674
1675
1676
1677
1678
1679
1680
1681
1682
1683
1684
1685
1686
1687
1688
1689
1690
1691
1692
1693
1694
1695
1696
1697
1698
1699
1700
1701
1702
1703
1704
1705
1706
1707
1708
1709
1710
1711
1712
1713
1714
1715
1716
1717
1718
1719
1720
1721
1722
1723
1724
1725
1726
1727
1728
1729
1730
1731
1732
1733
1734
1735
1736
1737
1738
1739
1740
1741
1742
1743
1744
1745
1746
1747
1748
1749
1750
1751
1752
1753
1754
1755
1756
1757
1758
1759
1760
1761
1762
1763
1764
1765
1766
1767
1768
1769
1770
1771
1772
1773
1774
1775
1776
1777
1778
1779
1780
1781
1782
1783
1784
1785
1786
1787
1788
1789
1790
1791
1792
1793
1794
1795
1796
1797
1798
1799
1800
1801
1802
1803
1804
1805
1806
1807
1808
1809
1810
1811
1812
1813
1814
1815
1816
1817
1818
1819
1820
1821
1822
1823
1824
1825
1826
1827
1828
1829
1830
1831
1832
1833
1834
1835
1836
1837
1838
1839
1840
1841
1842
1843
1844
1845
1846
1847
1848
1849
1850
1851
1852
1853
1854
1855
1856
1857
1858
1859
1860
1861
1862
1863
1864
1865
1866
1867
1868
1869
1870
1871
1872
1873
1874
1875
1876
1877
1878
1879
1880
1881
1882
1883
1884
1885
1886
1887
1888
1889
1890
1891
1892
1893
1894
1895
1896
1897
1898
1899
1900
1901
1902
1903
1904
1905
1906
1907
1908
1909
1910
1911
1912
1913
1914
1915
1916
1917
1918
1919
1920
1921
1922
1923
1924
1925
1926
1927
1928
1929
1930
1931
1932
1933
1934
1935
1936
1937
1938
1939
1940
1941
1942
1943
1944
1945
1946
1947
1948
1949
1950
1951
1952
1953
1954
1955
1956
1957
1958
1959
1960
1961
1962
1963
1964
1965
1966
1967
1968
1969
1970
1971
1972
1973
1974
1975
1976
1977
1978
1979
1980
1981
1982
1983
1984
1985
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
2025
2026
2027
2028
2029
2030
2031
2032
2033
2034
2035
2036
2037
2038
2039
2040
2041
2042
2043
2044
2045
2046
2047
2048
2049
2050
2051
2052
2053
2054
2055
2056
2057
2058
2059
2060
2061
2062
2063
2064
2065
2066
2067
2068
2069
2070
2071
2072
2073
2074
2075
2076
2077
2078
2079
2080
2081
2082
2083
2084
2085
2086
2087
2088
2089
2090
2091
2092
2093
2094
2095
2096
2097
2098
2099
2100
2101
2102
2103
2104
2105
2106
2107
2108
2109
2110
2111
2112
2113
2114
2115
2116
2117
2118
2119
2120
2121
2122
2123
2124
2125
2126
2127
2128
2129
2130
2131
2132
2133
2134
2135
2136
2137
2138
2139
2140
2141
2142
2143
2144
2145
2146
2147
2148
2149
2150
2151
2152
2153
2154
2155
2156
2157
2158
2159
2160
2161
2162
2163
2164
2165
2166
2167
2168
2169
2170
2171
2172
2173
2174
2175
2176
2177
2178
2179
2180
2181
2182
2183
2184
2185
2186
2187
2188
2189
2190
2191
2192
2193
2194
2195
2196
2197
2198
2199
2200
2201
2202
2203
2204
2205
2206
2207
2208
2209
2210
2211
2212
2213
2214
2215
2216
2217
2218
2219
2220
2221
2222
2223
2224
2225
2226
2227
2228
2229
2230
2231
2232
2233
2234
2235
2236
2237
2238
2239
2240
2241
2242
2243
2244
2245
2246
2247
2248
2249
2250
2251
2252
2253
2254
2255
2256
2257
2258
2259
2260
2261
2262
2263
2264
2265
2266
2267
2268
2269
2270
2271
2272
2273
2274
2275
2276
2277
2278
2279
2280
2281
2282
2283
2284
2285
2286
2287
2288
2289
2290
2291
2292
2293
2294
2295
2296
2297
2298
2299
2300
2301
2302
2303
2304
2305
2306
2307
2308
2309
2310
2311
2312
2313
2314
2315
2316
2317
2318
2319
2320
2321
2322
2323
2324
2325
2326
2327
2328
2329
2330
2331
2332
2333
2334
2335
2336
2337
2338
2339
2340
2341
2342
2343
2344
2345
2346
2347
2348
2349
2350
2351
2352
2353
2354
2355
2356
2357
2358
2359
2360
2361
2362
2363
2364
2365
2366
2367
2368
2369
2370
2371
2372
2373
2374
2375
2376
2377
2378
2379
2380
2381
2382
2383
2384
2385
2386
2387
2388
2389
2390
2391
2392
2393
2394
2395
2396
2397
2398
2399
2400
2401
2402
2403
2404
2405
2406
2407
2408
2409
2410
2411
2412
2413
2414
2415
2416
2417
2418
2419
2420
2421
2422
2423
2424
2425
2426
2427
2428
2429
2430
2431
2432
2433
2434
2435
2436
2437
2438
2439
2440
2441
2442
2443
2444
2445
2446
2447
2448
2449
2450
2451
2452
2453
2454
2455
2456
2457
2458
2459
2460
2461
2462
2463
2464
2465
2466
2467
2468
2469
2470
2471
2472
2473
2474
2475
2476
2477
2478
2479
2480
2481
2482
2483
2484
2485
2486
2487
2488
2489
2490
2491
2492
2493
2494
2495
2496
2497
2498
2499
2500
2501
2502
2503
2504
2505
2506
2507
2508
2509
2510
2511
2512
2513
2514
2515
2516
2517
2518
2519
2520
2521
2522
2523
2524
2525
2526
2527
2528
2529
2530
2531
2532
2533
2534
2535
2536
2537
2538
2539
2540
2541
2542
2543
2544
2545
2546
2547
2548
2549
2550
2551
2552
2553
2554
2555
2556
2557
2558
2559
2560
2561
2562
2563
2564
2565
2566
2567
2568
2569
2570
2571
2572
2573
2574
2575
2576
2577
2578
2579
2580
2581
2582
2583
2584
2585
2586
2587
2588
2589
2590
2591
2592
2593
2594
2595
2596
2597
2598
2599
2600
2601
2602
2603
2604
2605
2606
2607
2608
2609
2610
2611
2612
2613
2614
2615
2616
2617
2618
2619
2620
2621
2622
2623
2624
2625
2626
2627
2628
2629
2630
2631
2632
2633
2634
2635
2636
2637
2638
2639
2640
2641
2642
2643
2644
2645
2646
2647
2648
2649
2650
2651
2652
2653
2654
2655
2656
2657
2658
2659
2660
2661
2662
2663
2664
2665
2666
2667
2668
2669
2670
2671
2672
2673
2674
2675
2676
2677
2678
2679
2680
2681
2682
2683
2684
2685
2686
2687
2688
2689
2690
2691
2692
2693
2694
2695
2696
2697
2698
2699
2700
2701
2702
2703
2704
2705
2706
2707
2708
2709
2710
2711
2712
2713
2714
2715
2716
2717
2718
2719
2720
2721
2722
2723
2724
2725
2726
2727
2728
2729
2730
2731
2732
2733
2734
2735
2736
2737
2738
2739
2740
2741
2742
2743
2744
2745
2746
2747
2748
2749
2750
2751
2752
2753
2754
2755
2756
2757
2758
2759
2760
2761
2762
2763
2764
2765
2766
2767
2768
2769
2770
2771
2772
2773
2774
2775
2776
2777
2778
2779
2780
2781
2782
2783
2784
2785
2786
2787
2788
2789
2790
2791
2792
2793
2794
2795
2796
2797
2798
2799
2800
2801
2802
2803
2804
2805
2806
2807
2808
2809
2810
2811
2812
2813
2814
2815
2816
2817
2818
2819
2820
2821
2822
2823
2824
2825
2826
2827
2828
2829
2830
2831
2832
2833
2834
2835
2836
2837
2838
2839
2840
2841
2842
2843
2844
2845
2846
2847
2848
2849
2850
2851
2852
2853
2854
2855
2856
2857
2858
2859
2860
2861
2862
2863
2864
2865
2866
2867
2868
2869
2870
2871
2872
2873
2874
2875
2876
2877
2878
2879
2880
2881
2882
2883
2884
2885
2886
2887
2888
2889
2890
2891
2892
2893
2894
2895
2896
2897
2898
2899
2900
2901
2902
2903
2904
2905
2906
2907
2908
2909
2910
2911
2912
2913
2914
2915
2916
2917
2918
2919
2920
2921
2922
2923
2924
2925
2926
2927
2928
2929
2930
2931
2932
2933
2934
2935
2936
2937
2938
2939
2940
2941
2942
2943
2944
2945
2946
2947
2948
2949
2950
2951
2952
2953
2954
2955
2956
2957
2958
2959
2960
2961
2962
2963
2964
2965
2966
2967
2968
2969
2970
2971
2972
2973
2974
2975
2976
2977
2978
2979
2980
2981
2982
2983
2984
2985
2986
2987
2988
2989
2990
2991
2992
2993
2994
2995
2996
2997
2998
2999
3000
3001
3002
3003
3004
3005
3006
3007
3008
3009
3010
3011
3012
3013
3014
3015
3016
3017
3018
3019
3020
3021
3022
3023
3024
3025
3026
3027
3028
3029
3030
3031
3032
3033
3034
3035
3036
3037
3038
3039
3040
3041
3042
3043
3044
3045
3046
3047
3048
3049
3050
3051
3052
3053
3054
3055
3056
3057
3058
3059
3060
3061
3062
3063
3064
3065
3066
3067
3068
3069
3070
3071
3072
3073
3074
3075
3076
3077
3078
3079
3080
3081
3082
3083
3084
3085
3086
3087
3088
3089
3090
3091
3092
3093
3094
3095
3096
3097
3098
3099
3100
3101
3102
3103
3104
3105
3106
3107
3108
3109
3110
3111
3112
3113
3114
3115
3116
3117
3118
3119
3120
3121
3122
3123
3124
3125
3126
3127
3128
3129
3130
3131
3132
3133
3134
3135
3136
3137
3138
3139
3140
3141
3142
3143
3144
3145
3146
3147
3148
3149
3150
3151
3152
3153
3154
3155
3156
3157
3158
3159
3160
3161
3162
3163
3164
3165
3166
3167
3168
3169
3170
3171
3172
3173
3174
3175
3176
3177
3178
3179
3180
3181
3182
3183
3184
3185
3186
3187
3188
3189
3190
3191
3192
3193
3194
3195
3196
3197
3198
3199
3200
3201
3202
3203
3204
3205
3206
3207
3208
3209
3210
3211
3212
3213
3214
3215
3216
3217
3218
3219
3220
3221
3222
3223
3224
3225
3226
3227
3228
3229
3230
3231
3232
3233
3234
3235
3236
3237
3238
3239
3240
3241
3242
3243
3244
3245
3246
3247
3248
3249
3250
3251
3252
3253
3254
3255
3256
3257
3258
3259
3260
3261
3262
3263
3264
3265
3266
3267
3268
3269
3270
3271
3272
3273
3274
3275
3276
3277
3278
3279
3280
3281
3282
3283
3284
3285
3286
3287
3288
3289
3290
3291
3292
3293
3294
3295
3296
3297
3298
3299
3300
3301
3302
3303
3304
3305
3306
3307
3308
3309
3310
3311
3312
3313
3314
3315
3316
3317
3318
3319
3320
3321
3322
3323
3324
3325
3326
3327
3328
3329
3330
3331
3332
3333
3334
3335
3336
3337
3338
3339
3340
3341
3342
3343
3344
3345
3346
3347
3348
3349
3350
3351
3352
3353
3354
3355
3356
3357
3358
3359
3360
3361
3362
3363
3364
3365
3366
3367
3368
3369
3370
3371
3372
3373
3374
3375
3376
3377
3378
3379
3380
3381
3382
3383
3384
3385
3386
3387
3388
3389
3390
3391
3392
3393
3394
3395
3396
3397
3398
3399
3400
3401
3402
3403
3404
3405
3406
3407
3408
3409
3410
3411
3412
3413
3414
3415
3416
3417
3418
3419
3420
3421
3422
3423
3424
3425
3426
3427
3428
3429
3430
3431
3432
3433
3434
3435
3436
3437
3438
3439
3440
3441
3442
3443
3444
3445
3446
3447
3448
3449
3450
3451
3452
3453
3454
3455
3456
3457
3458
3459
3460
3461
3462
3463
3464
3465
3466
3467
3468
3469
3470
3471
3472
3473
3474
3475
3476
3477
3478
3479
3480
3481
3482
3483
3484
3485
3486
3487
3488
3489
3490
3491
3492
3493
3494
3495
3496
3497
3498
3499
3500
3501
3502
3503
3504
3505
3506
3507
3508
3509
3510
3511
3512
3513
3514
3515
3516
3517
3518
3519
3520
3521
3522
3523
3524
3525
3526
3527
3528
3529
3530
3531
3532
3533
3534
3535
3536
3537
3538
3539
3540
3541
3542
3543
3544
3545
3546
3547
3548
3549
3550
3551
3552
3553
3554
3555
3556
3557
3558
3559
3560
3561
3562
3563
3564
3565
3566
3567
3568
3569
3570
3571
3572
3573
3574
3575
3576
3577
3578
3579
3580
3581
3582
3583
3584
3585
3586
3587
3588
3589
3590
3591
3592
3593
3594
3595
3596
3597
3598
3599
3600
3601
3602
3603
3604
3605
3606
3607
3608
3609
3610
3611
3612
3613
3614
3615
3616
3617
3618
3619
3620
3621
3622
3623
3624
3625
3626
3627
3628
3629
3630
3631
3632
3633
3634
3635
3636
3637
3638
3639
3640
3641
3642
3643
3644
3645
3646
3647
3648
3649
3650
3651
3652
3653
3654
3655
3656
3657
3658
3659
3660
3661
3662
3663
3664
3665
3666
3667
3668
3669
3670
3671
3672
3673
3674
3675
3676
3677
3678
3679
3680
3681
3682
3683
3684
3685
3686
3687
3688
3689
3690
3691
3692
3693
3694
3695
3696
3697
3698
3699
3700
3701
3702
3703
3704
3705
3706
3707
3708
3709
3710
3711
3712
3713
3714
3715
3716
3717
3718
3719
3720
3721
3722
3723
3724
3725
3726
3727
3728
3729
3730
3731
3732
3733
3734
3735
3736
3737
3738
3739
3740
3741
3742
3743
3744
3745
3746
3747
3748
3749
3750
3751
3752
3753
3754
3755
3756
3757
3758
3759
3760
3761
3762
3763
3764
3765
3766
3767
3768
3769
3770
3771
3772
3773
3774
3775
3776
3777
3778
3779
3780
3781
3782
3783
3784
3785
3786
3787
3788
3789
3790
3791
3792
3793
3794
3795
3796
3797
3798
3799
3800
3801
3802
3803
3804
3805
3806
3807
3808
3809
3810
3811
3812
3813
3814
3815
3816
3817
3818
3819
3820
3821
3822
3823
3824
3825
3826
3827
3828
3829
3830
3831
3832
3833
3834
3835
3836
3837
3838
3839
3840
3841
3842
3843
3844
3845
3846
3847
3848
3849
3850
3851
3852
3853
3854
3855
3856
3857
3858
3859
3860
3861
3862
3863
3864
3865
3866
3867
3868
3869
3870
3871
3872
3873
3874
3875
3876
3877
3878
3879
3880
3881
3882
3883
3884
3885
3886
3887
3888
3889
3890
3891
3892
3893
3894
3895
3896
3897
3898
3899
3900
3901
3902
3903
3904
3905
3906
3907
3908
3909
3910
3911
3912
3913
3914
3915
3916
3917
3918
3919
3920
3921
3922
3923
3924
3925
3926
3927
3928
3929
3930
3931
3932
3933
3934
3935
3936
3937
3938
3939
3940
3941
3942
3943
3944
3945
3946
3947
3948
3949
3950
3951
3952
3953
3954
3955
3956
3957
3958
3959
3960
3961
3962
3963
3964
3965
3966
3967
3968
3969
3970
3971
3972
3973
3974
3975
3976
3977
3978
3979
3980
3981
3982
3983
3984
3985
3986
3987
3988
3989
3990
3991
3992
3993
3994
3995
3996
3997
3998
3999
4000
4001
4002
4003
4004
4005
4006
4007
4008
4009
4010
4011
4012
4013
4014
4015
4016
4017
4018
4019
4020
4021
4022
4023
4024
4025
4026
4027
4028
4029
4030
4031
4032
4033
4034
4035
4036
4037
4038
4039
4040
4041
4042
4043
4044
4045
4046
4047
4048
4049
4050
4051
4052
4053
4054
4055
4056
4057
4058
4059
4060
4061
4062
4063
4064
4065
4066
4067
4068
4069
4070
4071
4072
4073
4074
4075
4076
4077
4078
4079
4080
4081
4082
4083
4084
4085
4086
4087
4088
4089
4090
4091
4092
4093
4094
4095
4096
4097
4098
4099
4100
4101
4102
4103
4104
4105
4106
4107
4108
4109
4110
4111
4112
4113
4114
4115
4116
4117
4118
4119
4120
4121
4122
4123
4124
4125
4126
4127
4128
4129
4130
4131
4132
4133
4134
4135
4136
4137
4138
4139
4140
4141
4142
4143
4144
4145
4146
4147
4148
4149
4150
4151
4152
4153
4154
4155
4156
4157
4158
4159
4160
4161
4162
4163
4164
4165
4166
4167
4168
4169
4170
4171
4172
4173
4174
4175
4176
4177
4178
4179
4180
4181
4182
4183
4184
4185
4186
4187
4188
4189
4190
4191
4192
4193
4194
4195
4196
4197
4198
4199
4200
4201
4202
4203
4204
4205
4206
4207
4208
4209
4210
4211
4212
4213
4214
4215
4216
4217
4218
4219
4220
4221
4222
4223
4224
4225
4226
4227
4228
4229
4230
4231
4232
4233
4234
4235
4236
4237
4238
4239
4240
4241
4242
4243
4244
4245
4246
4247
4248
4249
4250
4251
4252
4253
4254
4255
4256
4257
4258
4259
4260
4261
4262
4263
4264
4265
4266
4267
4268
4269
4270
4271
4272
4273
4274
4275
4276
4277
4278
4279
4280
4281
4282
4283
4284
4285
4286
4287
4288
4289
4290
4291
4292
4293
4294
4295
4296
4297
4298
4299
4300
4301
4302
4303
4304
4305
4306
4307
4308
4309
4310
4311
4312
4313
4314
4315
4316
4317
4318
4319
4320
4321
4322
4323
4324
4325
4326
4327
4328
4329
4330
4331
4332
4333
4334
4335
4336
4337
4338
4339
4340
4341
4342
4343
4344
4345
4346
4347
4348
4349
4350
4351
4352
4353
4354
4355
4356
4357
4358
4359
4360
4361
4362
4363
4364
4365
4366
4367
4368
4369
4370
4371
4372
4373
4374
4375
4376
4377
4378
4379
4380
4381
4382
4383
4384
4385
4386
4387
4388
4389
4390
4391
4392
4393
4394
4395
4396
4397
4398
4399
4400
4401
4402
4403
4404
4405
4406
4407
4408
4409
4410
4411
4412
4413
4414
4415
4416
4417
4418
4419
4420
4421
4422
4423
4424
4425
4426
4427
4428
4429
4430
4431
4432
4433
4434
4435
4436
4437
4438
4439
4440
4441
4442
4443
4444
4445
4446
4447
4448
4449
4450
4451
4452
4453
4454
4455
4456
4457
4458
4459
4460
4461
4462
4463
4464
4465
4466
4467
4468
4469
4470
4471
4472
4473
4474
4475
4476
4477
4478
4479
4480
4481
4482
4483
4484
4485
4486
4487
4488
4489
4490
4491
4492
4493
4494
4495
4496
4497
4498
4499
4500
4501
4502
4503
4504
4505
4506
4507
4508
4509
4510
4511
4512
4513
4514
4515
4516
4517
4518
4519
4520
4521
4522
4523
4524
4525
4526
4527
4528
4529
4530
4531
4532
4533
4534
4535
4536
4537
4538
4539
4540
4541
4542
4543
4544
4545
4546
4547
4548
4549
4550
4551
4552
4553
4554
4555
4556
4557
4558
4559
4560
4561
4562
4563
4564
4565
4566
4567
4568
4569
4570
4571
4572
4573
4574
4575
4576
4577
4578
4579
4580
4581
4582
4583
4584
4585
4586
4587
4588
4589
4590
4591
4592
4593
4594
4595
4596
4597
4598
4599
4600
4601
4602
4603
4604
4605
4606
4607
4608
4609
4610
4611
4612
4613
4614
4615
4616
4617
4618
4619
4620
4621
4622
4623
4624
4625
4626
4627
4628
4629
4630
4631
4632
4633
4634
4635
4636
4637
4638
4639
4640
4641
4642
4643
4644
4645
4646
4647
4648
4649
4650
4651
4652
4653
4654
4655
4656
4657
4658
4659
4660
4661
4662
4663
4664
4665
4666
4667
4668
4669
4670
4671
4672
4673
4674
4675
4676
4677
4678
4679
4680
4681
4682
4683
4684
4685
4686
4687
4688
4689
4690
4691
4692
4693
4694
4695
4696
4697
4698
4699
4700
4701
4702
4703
4704
4705
4706
4707
4708
4709
4710
4711
4712
4713
4714
4715
4716
4717
4718
4719
4720
4721
4722
4723
4724
4725
4726
4727
4728
4729
4730
4731
4732
4733
4734
4735
4736
4737
4738
4739
4740
4741
4742
4743
4744
4745
4746
4747
4748
4749
4750
4751
4752
4753
4754
4755
4756
4757
4758
4759
4760
4761
4762
4763
4764
4765
4766
4767
4768
4769
4770
4771
4772
4773
4774
4775
4776
4777
4778
4779
4780
4781
4782
4783
4784
4785
4786
4787
4788
4789
4790
4791
4792
4793
4794
4795
4796
4797
4798
4799
4800
4801
4802
4803
4804
4805
4806
4807
4808
4809
4810
4811
4812
4813
4814
4815
4816
4817
4818
4819
4820
4821
4822
4823
4824
4825
4826
4827
4828
4829
4830
4831
4832
4833
4834
4835
4836
4837
4838
4839
4840
4841
4842
4843
4844
4845
4846
4847
4848
4849
4850
4851
4852
4853
4854
4855
4856
4857
4858
4859
4860
4861
4862
4863
4864
4865
4866
4867
4868
4869
4870
4871
4872
4873
4874
4875
4876
4877
4878
4879
4880
4881
4882
4883
4884
4885
4886
4887
4888
4889
4890
4891
4892
4893
4894
4895
4896
4897
4898
4899
4900
4901
4902
4903
4904
4905
4906
4907
4908
4909
4910
4911
4912
4913
4914
4915
4916
4917
4918
4919
4920
4921
4922
4923
4924
4925
4926
4927
4928
4929
4930
4931
4932
4933
4934
4935
4936
4937
4938
4939
4940
4941
4942
4943
4944
4945
4946
4947
4948
4949
4950
4951
4952
4953
4954
4955
4956
4957
4958
4959
4960
4961
4962
4963
4964
4965
4966
4967
4968
4969
4970
4971
4972
4973
4974
4975
4976
4977
4978
4979
4980
4981
4982
4983
4984
4985
4986
4987
4988
4989
4990
4991
4992
4993
4994
4995
4996
4997
4998
4999
5000
5001
5002
5003
5004
5005
5006
5007
5008
5009
5010
5011
5012
5013
5014
5015
5016
5017
5018
5019
5020
5021
5022
5023
5024
5025
5026
5027
5028
5029
5030
5031
5032
5033
5034
5035
5036
5037
5038
5039
5040
5041
5042
5043
5044
5045
5046
5047
5048
5049
5050
5051
5052
5053
5054
5055
5056
5057
5058
5059
5060
5061
5062
5063
5064
5065
5066
5067
5068
5069
5070
5071
5072
5073
5074
5075
5076
5077
5078
5079
5080
5081
5082
5083
5084
5085
5086
5087
5088
5089
5090
5091
5092
5093
5094
5095
5096
5097
5098
5099
5100
5101
5102
5103
5104
5105
5106
5107
5108
5109
5110
5111
5112
5113
5114
5115
5116
5117
5118
5119
5120
5121
5122
5123
5124
5125
5126
5127
5128
5129
5130
5131
5132
5133
5134
5135
5136
5137
5138
5139
5140
5141
5142
5143
5144
5145
5146
5147
5148
5149
5150
5151
5152
5153
5154
5155
5156
5157
5158
5159
5160
5161
5162
5163
5164
5165
5166
5167
5168
5169
5170
5171
5172
5173
5174
5175
5176
5177
5178
5179
5180
5181
5182
5183
5184
5185
5186
5187
5188
5189
5190
5191
5192
5193
5194
5195
5196
5197
5198
5199
5200
5201
5202
5203
5204
5205
5206
5207
5208
5209
5210
5211
5212
5213
5214
5215
5216
5217
5218
5219
5220
5221
5222
5223
5224
5225
5226
5227
5228
5229
5230
5231
5232
5233
5234
5235
5236
5237
5238
5239
5240
5241
5242
5243
5244
5245
5246
5247
5248
5249
5250
5251
5252
5253
5254
5255
5256
5257
5258
5259
5260
5261
5262
5263
5264
5265
5266
5267
5268
5269
5270
5271
5272
5273
5274
5275
5276
5277
5278
5279
5280
5281
5282
5283
5284
5285
5286
5287
5288
5289
5290
5291
5292
5293
5294
5295
5296
5297
5298
5299
5300
5301
5302
5303
5304
5305
5306
5307
5308
5309
5310
5311
5312
5313
5314
5315
5316
5317
5318
5319
5320
5321
5322
5323
5324
5325
5326
5327
5328
5329
5330
5331
5332
5333
5334
5335
5336
5337
5338
5339
5340
5341
5342
5343
5344
5345
5346
5347
5348
5349
5350
5351
5352
5353
5354
5355
5356
5357
5358
5359
5360
5361
5362
5363
5364
5365
5366
5367
5368
5369
5370
5371
5372
5373
5374
5375
5376
5377
5378
5379
5380
5381
5382
5383
5384
5385
5386
5387
5388
5389
5390
5391
5392
5393
5394
5395
5396
5397
5398
5399
5400
5401
5402
5403
5404
5405
5406
5407
5408
5409
5410
5411
5412
5413
5414
5415
5416
5417
5418
5419
5420
5421
5422
5423
5424
5425
5426
5427
5428
5429
5430
5431
5432
5433
5434
5435
5436
5437
5438
5439
5440
5441
5442
5443
5444
5445
5446
5447
5448
5449
5450
5451
5452
5453
5454
5455
5456
5457
5458
5459
5460
5461
5462
5463
5464
5465
5466
5467
5468
5469
5470
5471
5472
5473
5474
5475
5476
5477
5478
5479
5480
5481
5482
5483
5484
5485
5486
5487
5488
5489
5490
5491
5492
5493
5494
5495
5496
5497
5498
5499
5500
5501
5502
5503
5504
5505
5506
5507
5508
5509
5510
5511
5512
5513
5514
5515
5516
5517
5518
5519
5520
5521
5522
5523
5524
5525
5526
5527
5528
5529
5530
5531
5532
5533
5534
5535
5536
5537
5538
5539
5540
5541
5542
5543
5544
5545
5546
5547
5548
5549
5550
5551
5552
5553
5554
5555
5556
5557
5558
5559
5560
5561
5562
5563
5564
5565
5566
5567
5568
5569
5570
5571
5572
5573
5574
5575
5576
5577
5578
5579
5580
5581
5582
5583
5584
5585
5586
5587
5588
5589
5590
5591
5592
5593
5594
5595
5596
5597
5598
5599
5600
5601
5602
5603
5604
5605
5606
5607
5608
5609
5610
5611
5612
5613
5614
5615
5616
5617
5618
5619
5620
5621
5622
5623
5624
5625
5626
5627
5628
5629
5630
5631
5632
5633
5634
5635
5636
5637
5638
5639
5640
5641
5642
5643
5644
5645
5646
5647
5648
5649
5650
5651
5652
5653
5654
5655
5656
5657
5658
5659
5660
5661
5662
5663
5664
5665
5666
5667
5668
5669
5670
5671
5672
5673
5674
5675
5676
5677
5678
5679
5680
5681
5682
5683
5684
5685
5686
5687
5688
5689
5690
5691
5692
5693
5694
5695
5696
5697
5698
5699
5700
5701
5702
5703
5704
5705
5706
5707
5708
5709
5710
5711
5712
5713
5714
5715
5716
5717
5718
5719
5720
5721
5722
5723
5724
5725
5726
5727
5728
5729
5730
5731
5732
5733
5734
5735
5736
5737
5738
5739
5740
5741
5742
5743
5744
5745
5746
5747
5748
5749
5750
5751
5752
5753
5754
5755
5756
5757
5758
5759
5760
5761
5762
5763
5764
5765
5766
5767
5768
5769
5770
5771
5772
5773
5774
5775
5776
5777
5778
5779
5780
5781
5782
5783
5784
5785
5786
5787
5788
5789
5790
5791
5792
5793
5794
5795
5796
5797
5798
5799
5800
5801
5802
5803
5804
5805
5806
5807
5808
5809
5810
5811
5812
5813
5814
5815
5816
5817
5818
5819
5820
5821
5822
5823
5824
5825
5826
5827
5828
5829
5830
5831
5832
5833
5834
5835
5836
5837
5838
5839
5840
5841
5842
5843
5844
5845
5846
5847
5848
5849
5850
5851
5852
5853
5854
5855
5856
5857
5858
5859
5860
5861
5862
5863
5864
5865
5866
5867
5868
5869
5870
5871
5872
5873
5874
5875
5876
5877
5878
5879
5880
5881
5882
5883
5884
5885
5886
5887
5888
5889
5890
5891
5892
5893
5894
5895
5896
5897
5898
5899
5900
5901
5902
5903
5904
5905
5906
5907
5908
5909
5910
5911
5912
5913
5914
5915
5916
5917
5918
5919
5920
5921
5922
5923
5924
5925
5926
5927
5928
5929
5930
5931
5932
5933
5934
5935
5936
5937
5938
5939
5940
5941
5942
5943
5944
5945
5946
5947
5948
5949
5950
5951
5952
5953
5954
5955
5956
5957
5958
5959
5960
5961
5962
5963
5964
5965
5966
5967
5968
5969
5970
5971
5972
5973
5974
5975
5976
5977
5978
5979
5980
5981
5982
5983
5984
5985
5986
5987
5988
5989
5990
5991
5992
5993
5994
5995
5996
5997
5998
5999
6000
6001
6002
6003
6004
6005
6006
6007
6008
6009
6010
6011
6012
6013
6014
6015
6016
6017
6018
6019
6020
6021
6022
6023
6024
6025
6026
6027
6028
6029
6030
6031
6032
6033
6034
6035
6036
6037
6038
6039
6040
6041
6042
6043
6044
6045
6046
6047
6048
6049
6050
6051
6052
6053
6054
6055
6056
6057
6058
6059
6060
6061
6062
6063
6064
6065
6066
6067
6068
6069
6070
6071
6072
6073
6074
6075
6076
6077
6078
6079
6080
6081
6082
6083
6084
6085
6086
6087
6088
6089
6090
6091
6092
6093
6094
6095
6096
6097
6098
6099
6100
6101
6102
6103
6104
6105
6106
6107
6108
6109
6110
6111
6112
6113
6114
6115
6116
6117
6118
6119
6120
6121
6122
6123
6124
6125
6126
6127
6128
6129
6130
6131
6132
6133
6134
6135
6136
6137
6138
6139
6140
6141
6142
6143
6144
6145
6146
6147
6148
6149
6150
6151
6152
6153
6154
6155
6156
6157
6158
6159
6160
6161
6162
6163
6164
6165
6166
6167
6168
6169
6170
6171
6172
6173
6174
6175
6176
6177
6178
6179
6180
6181
6182
6183
6184
6185
6186
6187
6188
6189
6190
6191
6192
6193
6194
6195
6196
6197
6198
6199
6200
6201
6202
6203
6204
6205
6206
6207
6208
6209
6210
6211
6212
6213
6214
6215
6216
6217
6218
6219
6220
6221
6222
6223
6224
6225
6226
6227
6228
6229
6230
6231
6232
6233
6234
6235
6236
6237
6238
6239
6240
6241
6242
6243
6244
6245
6246
6247
6248
6249
6250
6251
6252
6253
6254
6255
6256
6257
6258
6259
6260
6261
6262
6263
6264
6265
6266
6267
6268
6269
6270
6271
6272
6273
6274
6275
6276
6277
6278
6279
6280
6281
6282
6283
6284
6285
6286
6287
6288
6289
6290
6291
6292
6293
6294
6295
6296
6297
6298
6299
6300
6301
6302
6303
6304
6305
6306
6307
6308
6309
6310
6311
6312
6313
6314
6315
6316
6317
6318
6319
6320
6321
6322
6323
6324
6325
6326
6327
6328
6329
6330
6331
6332
6333
6334
6335
6336
6337
6338
6339
6340
6341
6342
6343
6344
6345
6346
6347
6348
6349
6350
6351
6352
6353
6354
6355
6356
6357
6358
6359
6360
6361
6362
6363
6364
6365
6366
6367
6368
6369
6370
6371
6372
6373
6374
6375
6376
6377
6378
6379
6380
6381
6382
6383
6384
6385
6386
6387
6388
6389
6390
6391
6392
6393
6394
6395
6396
6397
6398
6399
6400
6401
6402
6403
6404
6405
6406
6407
6408
6409
6410
6411
6412
6413
6414
6415
6416
6417
6418
6419
6420
6421
6422
6423
6424
6425
6426
6427
6428
6429
6430
6431
6432
6433
6434
6435
6436
6437
6438
6439
6440
6441
6442
6443
6444
6445
6446
6447
6448
6449
6450
6451
6452
6453
6454
6455
6456
6457
6458
6459
6460
6461
6462
6463
6464
6465
6466
6467
6468
6469
6470
6471
6472
6473
6474
6475
6476
6477
6478
6479
6480
6481
6482
6483
6484
6485
6486
6487
6488
6489
6490
6491
6492
6493
6494
6495
6496
6497
6498
6499
6500
6501
6502
6503
6504
6505
6506
6507
6508
6509
6510
6511
6512
6513
6514
6515
6516
6517
6518
6519
6520
6521
6522
6523
6524
6525
6526
6527
6528
6529
6530
6531
6532
6533
6534
6535
6536
6537
6538
6539
6540
6541
6542
6543
6544
6545
6546
6547
6548
6549
6550
6551
6552
6553
6554
6555
6556
6557
6558
6559
6560
6561
6562
6563
6564
6565
6566
6567
6568
6569
6570
6571
6572
6573
6574
6575
6576
6577
6578
6579
6580
6581
6582
6583
6584
6585
6586
6587
6588
6589
6590
6591
6592
6593
6594
6595
6596
6597
6598
6599
6600
6601
6602
6603
6604
6605
6606
6607
6608
6609
6610
6611
6612
6613
6614
6615
6616
6617
6618
6619
6620
6621
6622
6623
6624
6625
6626
6627
6628
6629
6630
6631
6632
6633
6634
6635
6636
6637
6638
6639
6640
6641
6642
6643
6644
6645
6646
6647
6648
6649
6650
6651
6652
6653
6654
6655
6656
6657
6658
6659
6660
6661
6662
6663
6664
6665
6666
6667
6668
6669
6670
6671
6672
6673
6674
6675
6676
6677
6678
6679
6680
6681
6682
6683
6684
6685
6686
6687
6688
6689
6690
6691
6692
6693
6694
6695
6696
6697
6698
6699
6700
6701
6702
6703
6704
6705
6706
6707
6708
6709
6710
6711
6712
6713
6714
6715
6716
6717
6718
6719
6720
6721
6722
6723
6724
6725
6726
6727
6728
6729
6730
6731
6732
6733
6734
6735
6736
6737
6738
6739
6740
6741
6742
6743
6744
6745
6746
6747
6748
6749
6750
6751
6752
6753
6754
6755
6756
6757
6758
6759
6760
6761
6762
6763
6764
6765
6766
6767
6768
6769
6770
6771
6772
6773
6774
6775
6776
6777
6778
6779
6780
6781
6782
6783
6784
6785
6786
6787
6788
6789
6790
6791
6792
6793
6794
6795
6796
6797
6798
6799
6800
6801
6802
6803
6804
6805
6806
6807
6808
6809
6810
6811
6812
6813
6814
6815
6816
6817
6818
6819
6820
6821
6822
6823
6824
6825
6826
6827
6828
6829
6830
6831
6832
6833
6834
6835
6836
6837
6838
6839
6840
6841
6842
6843
6844
6845
6846
6847
6848
6849
6850
6851
6852
6853
6854
6855
6856
6857
6858
6859
6860
6861
6862
6863
6864
6865
6866
6867
6868
6869
6870
6871
6872
6873
6874
6875
6876
6877
6878
6879
6880
6881
6882
6883
6884
6885
6886
6887
6888
6889
6890
6891
6892
6893
6894
6895
6896
6897
6898
6899
6900
6901
6902
6903
6904
6905
6906
6907
6908
6909
6910
6911
6912
6913
6914
6915
6916
6917
6918
6919
6920
6921
6922
6923
6924
6925
6926
6927
6928
6929
6930
6931
6932
6933
6934
6935
6936
6937
6938
6939
6940
6941
6942
6943
6944
6945
6946
6947
6948
6949
6950
6951
6952
6953
6954
6955
6956
6957
6958
6959
6960
6961
6962
6963
6964
6965
6966
6967
6968
6969
6970
6971
6972
6973
6974
6975
6976
6977
6978
6979
6980
6981
6982
6983
6984
6985
6986
6987
6988
6989
6990
6991
6992
6993
6994
6995
6996
6997
6998
6999
7000
7001
7002
7003
7004
7005
7006
7007
7008
7009
7010
7011
7012
7013
7014
7015
7016
7017
7018
7019
7020
7021
7022
7023
7024
7025
7026
7027
7028
7029
|
<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Strict//EN"
"http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-strict.dtd">
<html xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml" lang="en" xml:lang="en">
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html;charset=iso-8859-1" />
<title>
The Project Gutenberg eBook of Notes On The Diplomatic History of
The Jewish Question, by Lucien Wolf.
</title>
<style type="text/css">
p {margin-top:.75em;text-align:justify;margin-bottom:.75em;text-indent:2%;}
.c {text-align:center;text-indent:0%;}
.doc {text-align:center;text-indent:0%;margin-top:5%;}
.hang {text-indent:-2%;margin-left:2%;}
.ind {text-indent:10%;}
.r {text-align:right;margin-right:5%;}
h1 {text-align:center;clear:both;}
h2,h3 {margin-top:15%;text-align:center;clear:both;}
.top5 {margin-top:5%;}
.top15 {margin-top:15%;}
hr.full {width:100%;margin:5% auto 5% auto;border:4px double gray;}
table {margin-left:auto;margin-right:auto;border:none;}
body{margin-left:10%;margin-right:10%;background:#fdfdfd;color:black;font-family:"Times New Roman", serif;font-size:medium;}
ul {list-style-type:none;text-indent:-1em;}
li {line-height:1.5em;}
li.alpha {margin-top:3%;}
a:link {background-color:#ffffff;color:blue;text-decoration:none;}
link {background-color:#ffffff;color:blue;text-decoration:none;}
a:visited {background-color:#ffffff;color:purple;text-decoration:none;}
a:hover {background-color:#ffffff;color:#FF0000;text-decoration:underline;}
.smcap {font-variant:small-caps;font-family:"Times New Roman", serif;font-size:95%;}
.blockquot{margin:5% 1% 5% 1%;font-size:95%;}
sup {font-size:75%;}
.footnotes {border:double 6px gray;margin-top:15%;clear:both;}
.footnote {width:95%;margin:auto 3% 1% auto;font-size:0.9em;position:relative;}
.label {position:relative;left:-.5em;top:0;text-align:left;font-size:.8em;}
.fnanchor {vertical-align:30%;font-size:.8em;}
.pagenum {font-style:normal;position:absolute;left:92%;font-size:75%;text-align:right;color:gray;background-color:#ffffff;font-variant:normal;font-weight:normal;text-decoration:none;text-indent:0em;}
</style>
</head>
<body>
<pre>
The Project Gutenberg EBook of Notes on the Diplomatic History of the
Jewish Question, by Lucien Wolf
This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere at no cost and with
almost no restrictions whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or
re-use it under the terms of the Project Gutenberg License included
with this eBook or online at www.gutenberg.org
Title: Notes on the Diplomatic History of the Jewish Question
Author: Lucien Wolf
Release Date: February 25, 2010 [EBook #31385]
Language: English
Character set encoding: ISO-8859-1
*** START OF THIS PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK THE JEWISH QUESTION ***
Produced by Jonathan Ingram, Chuck Greif and the Online
Distributed Proofreading Team at http://www.pgdp.net
</pre>
<hr class="full" />
<p class="c">NOTES ON THE DIPLOMATIC HISTORY<br />OF THE JEWISH QUESTION</p>
<h2>NOTES ON</h2>
<h1>THE DIPLOMATIC HISTORY OF<br />
THE JEWISH QUESTION</h1>
<h3 class="top5">WITH TEXTS OF PROTOCOLS, TREATY<br />
STIPULATIONS AND OTHER PUBLIC<br />
ACTS AND OFFICIAL DOCUMENTS</h3>
<p class="c top5">BY</p>
<h3 class="top5">LUCIEN WOLF</h3>
<p class="c top5"><span class="smcap">PUBLISHED BY THE</span><br />
JEWISH HISTORICAL SOCIETY OF ENGLAND<br />
<i>Mocatta Library and Museum</i><br />
U<span class="smcap">niversity</span> C<span class="smcap">ollege</span><br />
(<i>University of London</i>)<br />
GOWER STREET, LONDON, W.C. 1<br />
1919<br />
<br />
<i>All rights reserved</i><br />
<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_iv" id="Page_iv">[iv]</a></span></p>
<h3>PREFACE.<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_v" id="Page_v">[v]</a></span></h3>
<p>T<span class="smcap">he</span> 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.</p>
<p>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.</p>
<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_vi" id="Page_vi">[vi]</a></span>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.</p>
<p>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.</p>
<p class="r">L. W.</p>
<p>
<span class="smcap">Gray's Inn, London.</span><br />
<span style="margin-left: 2em;"><i>December 1918.</i></span><br />
</p>
<h3>CONTENTS.<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_vii" id="Page_vii">[vii]</a></span></h3>
<table summary="toc"
cellspacing="0"
cellpadding="4">
<tr valign="bottom"><td colspan="3"> </td><td class="smcap">page</td></tr>
<tr valign="bottom"><td align="right">I.</td><td colspan="3" align="left">INTRODUCTION</td></tr>
<tr valign="bottom">
<td colspan="2"> </td>
<td><span class="smcap">On International Religious Liberty Generally</span></td>
<td align="right"><a href="#Page_1">1</a></td></tr>
<tr valign="bottom">
<td align="right"> <br />II.</td>
<td colspan="2"><a href="#II_INTERVENTIONS_ON_GROUNDS_OF_HUMANITY">INTERVENTIONS ON GROUNDS OF HUMANITY</a></td>
<td align="right"><a href="#Page_6">6</a></td></tr>
<tr valign="bottom">
<td> </td>
<td>(<i>a</i>)</td>
<td><span class="smcap">Persecution of the Jews in Bohemia (1744-1745)</span></td>
<td align="right"><a href="#Page_7">7</a></td></tr>
<tr valign="bottom"><td colspan="2"> </td><td> <span class="smcap">Documents</span>—</td></tr>
<tr valign="bottom"><td colspan="2"> </td><td>Petition to King George II, 1744</td><td align="right"><a href="#Page_7">7</a></td></tr>
<tr valign="bottom"><td colspan="2"> </td><td>Appeal of Bohemian Jews, 1744</td><td align="right"><a href="#Page_9">9</a></td></tr>
<tr valign="bottom"><td colspan="2"> </td><td>The Decree of the Empress, 1744</td><td align="right"><a href="#Page_10">10</a></td></tr>
<tr valign="bottom"><td colspan="2"> </td><td>Instructions to the British Ambassador in Vienna, 1744</td><td align="right"><a href="#Page_11">11</a></td></tr>
<tr valign="bottom"><td> </td><td>(<i>b</i>)</td><td><span class="smcap">The Congress of Vienna (1815)</span></td><td align="right"><a href="#Page_12">12</a></td></tr>
<tr valign="bottom"><td colspan="2"> </td><td> <span class="smcap">Documents</span>—</td></tr>
<tr valign="bottom"><td colspan="2"> </td><td>List from Klüber</td><td align="right"><a href="#Page_14">14</a></td></tr>
<tr valign="bottom"><td colspan="2"> </td><td>Art. XVI of Annexe IX of Final Act of Congress, 1815</td><td align="right"><a href="#Page_14">14</a></td></tr>
<tr valign="bottom"><td> </td><td>(<i>c</i>)</td><td><span class="smcap">The Congress of Aix-la-chapelle (1818)</span></td><td align="right"><a href="#Page_15">15</a></td></tr>
<tr valign="bottom"><td colspan="2"> </td><td> <span class="smcap">Document</span>—</td></tr>
<tr valign="bottom"><td colspan="2"> </td><td>Protocol of Nov. 21, 1818</td><td align="right"><a href="#Page_16">16</a></td></tr>
<tr valign="bottom"><td> </td><td>(<i>d</i>)</td><td><span class="smcap">The Conference of London (1830)</span></td><td align="right"><a href="#Page_17">17</a></td></tr>
<tr valign="bottom"><td colspan="2"> </td><td> <span class="smcap">Document</span>—</td></tr>
<tr valign="bottom"><td colspan="2"> </td><td>Protocol of Feb. 3, 1830</td><td align="right"><a href="#Page_17">17</a></td></tr>
<tr valign="bottom"><td> </td><td>(<i>e</i>)</td><td><span class="smcap">The Congress of Paris (1856-1858)</span></td><td align="right"><a href="#Page_18">18</a></td></tr>
<tr valign="bottom"><td colspan="2"> </td><td> <span class="smcap">Documents</span>—</td></tr>
<tr valign="bottom"><td colspan="2"> </td><td>Art. IX of the Treaty of Paris, 1856</td><td align="right"><a href="#Page_21">21</a></td></tr>
<tr valign="bottom"><td colspan="2"> </td><td>Extracts from the Hatti-Humayoun of Feb. 18, 1856</td><td align="right"><a href="#Page_21">21</a></td></tr>
<tr valign="bottom"><td colspan="2"> </td><td>Conferences of Constantinople: Protocol of Feb. 11, 1856</td><td align="right"><a href="#Page_23">23</a></td></tr>
<tr valign="bottom"><td colspan="2"> </td><td>Art. XLVI of Convention of Paris of Aug. 10, 1858</td><td align="right"><a href="#Page_23">23</a></td></tr>
<tr valign="bottom"><td> </td><td>(<i>f</i>)</td><td><span class="smcap">The Congress of Berlin</span> (1878)</td><td align="right"><a href="#Page_23">23</a><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_viii" id="Page_viii">[viii]</a></span></td></tr>
<tr valign="bottom"><td colspan="2"> </td><td> <span class="smcap">Documents</span>—</td></tr>
<tr valign="bottom"><td colspan="2"> </td><td>Extracts from Protocols of June 24, 25, 26, and 28, and July 1, 4, and 10, 1878</td><td align="right"><a href="#Page_25">25</a></td></tr>
<tr valign="bottom"><td colspan="2"> </td><td>Extracts from Treaty of Berlin: Arts. XLIV and LXII, 1878</td><td align="right"><a href="#Page_33">33</a></td></tr>
<tr valign="bottom"><td colspan="2"> </td><td>Mr. White to the Marquis of Salisbury, Oct. 25, 1879</td><td align="right"><a href="#Page_34">34</a></td></tr>
<tr valign="bottom"><td colspan="2"> </td><td>Identic Note to Rumanian Government, Feb. 20, 1880</td><td align="right"><a href="#Page_35">35</a></td></tr>
<tr valign="bottom"><td> </td><td>(<i>g</i>)</td><td><span class="smcap">Rumania and the Powers</span> (1902)</td><td align="right"><a href="#Page_36">36</a></td></tr>
<tr valign="bottom"><td colspan="2"> </td><td> <span class="smcap">Documents</span>—</td></tr>
<tr valign="bottom"><td colspan="2"> </td><td>Dispatch from Mr. John Hay to U.S. Minister at Athens,</td></tr>
<tr valign="bottom"><td colspan="2"> </td><td>July 17, 1902</td><td align="right"><a href="#Page_38">38</a></td></tr>
<tr valign="bottom"><td colspan="2"> </td><td>American Circular Note to the Great Powers, Aug. 11, 1902</td><td align="right"><a href="#Page_44">44</a></td></tr>
<tr valign="bottom"><td colspan="2"> </td><td>Mr. Bertie to Mr. Choate, Sept. 2, 1902</td><td align="right"><a href="#Page_44">44</a></td></tr>
<tr valign="bottom"><td> </td><td>(<i>h</i>)</td><td><span class="smcap">The Conferences of London, St. Petersburg, And Bucharest (1912-1913)</span></td><td align="right"><a href="#Page_45">45</a></td></tr>
<tr valign="bottom"><td colspan="2"> </td><td> <span class="smcap">Documents</span>—</td></tr>
<tr valign="bottom"><td colspan="2"> </td><td>Conference of Bucharest: Protocol of July 23, 1913
</td><td align="right"><a href="#Page_47">47</a></td></tr>
<tr valign="bottom"><td colspan="2"> </td><td>Jewish Conjoint Committee to Sir Edward Grey, Oct. 13, 1913</td><td align="right"><a href="#Page_48">48</a></td></tr>
<tr valign="bottom"><td colspan="2"> </td><td>Sir Eyre A. Crowe to Conjoint Committee, Oct. 29, 1913</td><td align="right"><a href="#Page_51">51</a></td></tr>
<tr valign="bottom"><td colspan="2"> </td><td>Conjoint Committee to Sir Edward Grey, Nov. 13, 1913</td><td align="right"><a href="#Page_51">51</a></td></tr>
<tr valign="bottom"><td colspan="2"> </td><td>The same to the same, March 12, 1914</td><td align="right"><a href="#Page_52">52</a></td></tr>
<tr valign="bottom"><td> </td><td>(<i>i</i>)</td><td><span class="smcap">The Jewish Question and the Balance of Power</span> (1890 and 1906)</td><td align="right"><a href="#Page_54">54</a></td></tr>
<tr valign="bottom"><td colspan="2"> </td><td> <span class="smcap">Document</span>—</td></tr>
<tr valign="bottom"><td colspan="2"> </td><td>The proposed Anti-Semitic Triple Alliance: Secret Russian Memorandum, Jan. 3, 1906</td><td align="right"><a href="#Page_57">57</a></td></tr>
<tr valign="bottom">
<td align="right"> <br />III.</td>
<td colspan="3"><a href="#III_INTERVENTIONS_BY_RIGHT">INTERVENTIONS BY RIGHT</a></td></tr>
<tr valign="bottom"><td> </td><td>(<i>a</i>)</td><td><span class="smcap">Status of Jews in Foreign Countries</span></td><td align="right"><a href="#Page_63">63</a></td></tr>
<tr valign="bottom"><td colspan="2"> </td><td><span class="smcap"> Document</span>—</td></tr>
<tr valign="bottom"><td colspan="2"> </td><td>Art. XIV, Treaty of Carlowitz, 1699</td><td align="right"><a href="#Page_71">71</a></td></tr>
<tr valign="bottom"><td colspan="2"> </td><td>Interpretation by Austrian Government, Dec. 28, 1815</td><td align="right"><a href="#Page_71">71</a></td></tr>
<tr valign="bottom"><td colspan="2"> </td><td>Arts. I, III, and VI of Franco-Swiss Treaty, 1827</td><td align="right"><a href="#Page_71">71</a><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_ix" id="Page_ix">[ix]</a></span></td></tr>
<tr valign="bottom"><td colspan="2"> </td><td>Secret Note by French Negotiator, Aug. 7, 1826</td><td align="right"><a href="#Page_72">72</a></td></tr>
<tr valign="bottom"><td colspan="2"> </td><td>Speech of King Louis-Philippe, Nov. 5, 1835</td><td align="right"><a href="#Page_73">73</a></td></tr>
<tr valign="bottom"><td colspan="2"> </td><td>Extract from Franco-Swiss Treaty, June 30, 1864</td><td align="right"><a href="#Page_73">73</a></td></tr>
<tr valign="bottom"><td colspan="2"> </td><td>Art. I, Anglo-Swiss Treaty, Sept. 6, 1855</td><td align="right"><a href="#Page_73">73</a></td></tr>
<tr valign="bottom"><td colspan="2"> </td><td>Art. I, American-Swiss Treaty, Nov. 6, 1855</td><td align="right"><a href="#Page_74">74</a></td></tr>
<tr valign="bottom"><td colspan="2"> </td><td>Interpretation by United States, 1857</td><td align="right"><a href="#Page_74">74</a></td></tr>
<tr valign="bottom"><td colspan="2"> </td><td>Mr. Seward to U.S. Minister in Switzerland, Sept. 14, 1861</td><td align="right"><a href="#Page_75">75</a></td></tr>
<tr valign="bottom"><td colspan="2"> </td><td>Art. I, Russo-American Treaty, 1832</td><td align="right"><a href="#Page_75">75</a></td></tr>
<tr valign="bottom"><td colspan="2"> </td><td>Mr. Blaine to U.S. Minister in St. Petersburg, July 29, 1881 </td><td align="right"><a href="#Page_76">76</a></td></tr>
<tr valign="bottom"><td colspan="2"> </td><td>Resolution of U.S. House of Representatives, Dec. 13, 1911</td><td align="right"><a href="#Page_79">79</a></td></tr>
<tr valign="bottom"><td colspan="2"> </td><td>Resolution of U.S. Senate, Dec. 20, 1911</td><td align="right"><a href="#Page_79">79</a></td></tr>
<tr valign="bottom"><td colspan="2"> </td><td>Arts. I and XI, Anglo-Russian Treaty, 1859</td><td align="right"><a href="#Page_80">80</a></td></tr>
<tr valign="bottom"><td colspan="2"> </td><td>Interpretation by Great Britain, 1862 and 1881</td><td align="right"><a href="#Page_81">81</a></td></tr>
<tr valign="bottom"><td colspan="2"> </td><td>The Marquis of Salisbury to Sir Julian Goldsmid, Jan. 29, 1891</td><td align="right"><a href="#Page_82">82</a></td></tr>
<tr valign="bottom"><td colspan="2"> </td><td>Sir Edward Grey to Jewish Conjoint Committee, Oct. 1, 1912</td><td align="right"><a href="#Page_82">82</a></td></tr>
<tr valign="bottom"><td colspan="2"> </td><td>Art. XIII, Anglo-Moorish Treaty, 1856</td><td align="right"><a href="#Page_83">83</a></td></tr>
<tr valign="bottom"><td> </td><td>(<i>b</i>)</td><td><span class="smcap">Consular Protection</span></td><td align="right"><a href="#Page_83">83</a></td></tr>
<tr valign="bottom"><td colspan="2"> </td><td> <span class="smcap">Documents</span>—</td></tr>
<tr valign="bottom"><td colspan="2"> </td><td>Earl Russell to the Jewish Board of Deputies, Feb. 1, 1864</td><td align="right"><a href="#Page_86">86</a></td></tr>
<tr valign="bottom"><td colspan="2"> </td><td>Art. III, Anglo-Moorish Treaty, 1727-28</td><td align="right"><a href="#Page_87">87</a></td></tr>
<tr valign="bottom"><td colspan="2"> </td><td>Art. III, Anglo-Moorish Treaty, 1856</td><td align="right"><a href="#Page_87">87</a></td></tr>
<tr valign="bottom"><td colspan="2"> </td><td>Art. IV, Anglo-Moorish Treaty, 1856</td><td align="right"><a href="#Page_87">87</a></td></tr>
<tr valign="bottom"><td colspan="2"> </td><td>Franco-Moorish Règlement, Aug. 19, 1863</td><td align="right"><a href="#Page_88">88</a></td></tr>
<tr valign="bottom"><td> </td><td>(<i>c</i>)</td><td><span class="smcap">The Conferences of Madrid (1880) and Algeciras (1906)</span></td><td align="right"><a href="#Page_88">88</a></td></tr>
<tr valign="bottom"><td colspan="2"> </td><td> <span class="smcap">Documents</span>—</td></tr>
<tr valign="bottom"><td colspan="2"> </td><td>Madrid: Protocols of May 20 and June 24, 1880</td><td align="right"><a href="#Page_90">90</a></td></tr>
<tr valign="bottom"><td colspan="2"> </td><td>Art. VI, Treaty of Madrid, 1880</td><td align="right"><a href="#Page_91">91</a><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_x" id="Page_x">[x]</a></span></td></tr>
<tr valign="bottom"><td colspan="2"> </td><td>Edict of the Sultan of Morocco, 1864</td><td align="right"><a href="#Page_92">92</a></td></tr>
<tr valign="bottom"><td colspan="2"> </td><td>Madrid: Protocol of June 26, 1880</td><td align="right"><a href="#Page_92">92</a></td></tr>
<tr valign="bottom"><td colspan="2"> </td><td>Algeciras: Protocol of April 2, 1906</td><td align="right"><a href="#Page_98">98</a></td></tr>
<tr valign="bottom">
<td align="right"> <br />IV.</td>
<td colspan="2"><a href="#IV_THE_PALESTINE_QUESTION_AND_THE_NATIONAL">THE PALESTINE QUESTION AND THE NATIONAL RESTORATION OF THE JEWS</a></td>
<td align="right"><a href="#Page_100">100</a></td></tr>
<tr valign="bottom"><td colspan="2"> </td><td> <span class="smcap">Documents</span>—</td></tr>
<tr valign="bottom"><td colspan="2"> </td><td>Russian Memorandum, Oct. 1840</td><td align="right"><a href="#Page_107">107</a></td></tr>
<tr valign="bottom"><td colspan="2"> </td><td>Austrian Memorandum, Oct. 1840</td><td align="right"><a href="#Page_111">111</a></td></tr>
<tr valign="bottom"><td colspan="2"> </td><td>Lord Clanricarde to Lord Palmerston, Feb. 23. 1841</td><td align="right"><a href="#Page_113">113</a></td></tr>
<tr valign="bottom"><td colspan="2"> </td><td>Mémoire of the King of Prussia, Feb. 24, 1841</td><td align="right"><a href="#Page_114">114</a></td></tr>
<tr valign="bottom"><td colspan="2"> </td><td>Baron Bülow to Lord Palmerston, March 6, 1841</td><td align="right"><a href="#Page_116">116</a></td></tr>
<tr valign="bottom"><td colspan="2"> </td><td>Lord Beauvale to Lord Palmerston, March 2, 1841</td><td align="right"><a href="#Page_116">116</a></td></tr>
<tr valign="bottom"><td colspan="2"> </td><td>Lord Palmerston to Lord Beauvale, March 11, 1841</td><td align="right"><a href="#Page_117">117</a></td></tr>
<tr valign="bottom"><td colspan="2"> </td><td>Further Austrian Memorandum, March 31, 1841</td><td align="right"><a href="#Page_117">117</a></td></tr>
<tr valign="bottom"><td colspan="2"> </td><td>Col. Churchill to Sir Moses Montefiore, June 14, 1841</td><td align="right"><a href="#Page_119">119</a></td></tr>
<tr valign="bottom"><td colspan="2"> </td><td>The same to the same, Aug. 15, 1842</td><td align="right"><a href="#Page_121">121</a></td></tr>
<tr valign="bottom"><td colspan="2"> </td><td>Resolution of the Jewish Board of Deputies, Nov. 8, 1843</td><td align="right"><a href="#Page_123">123</a></td></tr>
<tr valign="bottom"><td colspan="2"> </td><td>Col. Churchill to the Board of Deputies, Jan. 8, 1843</td><td align="right"><a href="#Page_123">123</a></td></tr>
<tr valign="bottom"><td colspan="2"> </td><td>Art. V of Agreement between Great Britain, France and Russia, Feb. 21, 1917</td><td align="right"><a href="#Page_124">124</a></td></tr>
<tr valign="bottom"><td colspan="2"> </td><td>Mr. Balfour to Lord Rothschild, Nov. 2, 1917</td><td align="right"><a href="#Page_124">124</a></td></tr>
<tr valign="bottom"><td colspan="4" align="center"> <br /><a href="#APPENDIX">APPENDIX.</a></td></tr>
<tr valign="bottom"><td colspan="2"> </td><td>International Anti-Semitism in 1498</td><td align="right"><a href="#Page_126">126</a></td></tr>
<tr valign="bottom"><td colspan="2"> </td><td> <span class="smcap">Document</span>—</td></tr>
<tr valign="bottom"><td colspan="2"> </td><td>Sub-Prior of Santa Cruz to Ferdinand and Isabella, July 18, 1498</td><td align="right"><a href="#Page_126">126</a></td></tr>
<tr valign="bottom"><td colspan="3" align="left"> <br /><a href="#INDEX">INDEX</a></td><td align="right"><a href="#Page_127">127</a></td></tr>
<tr valign="bottom"><td colspan="4" align="left"> <br /><a href="#FOOTNOTES">FOOTNOTES</a></td></tr>
</table>
<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_1" id="Page_1">[1]</a></span></p>
<h2>NOTES ON<br />
THE DIPLOMATIC HISTORY OF THE<br />
JEWISH QUESTION.</h2>
<h3>I. INTRODUCTION.</h3>
<p class="c">ON INTERNATIONAL RELIGIOUS LIBERTY GENERALLY.</p>
<p>T<span class="smcap">he</span> 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.<a name="FNanchor_1_7" id="FNanchor_1_7"></a><a href="#Footnote_1_7" class="fnanchor">[1]</a></p>
<p>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.<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_2" id="Page_2">[2]</a></span></p>
<p>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.<a name="FNanchor_2_8" id="FNanchor_2_8"></a><a href="#Footnote_2_8" class="fnanchor">[2]</a></p>
<p>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:—</p>
<div class="blockquot"><p>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.</p>
<p>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.<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_3" id="Page_3">[3]</a></span></p></div>
<p>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,<a name="FNanchor_3_9" id="FNanchor_3_9"></a><a href="#Footnote_3_9" class="fnanchor">[3]</a> though in other respects the Congress
did not evince a very generous conception of Religious Liberty.</p>
<p>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.</p>
<p>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.</p>
<p>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.<a name="FNanchor_4_10" id="FNanchor_4_10"></a><a href="#Footnote_4_10" class="fnanchor">[4]</a> It was not,
however, until the Treaty of Tientsin in 1858 that Great Britain and
France secured religious liberty for Christians in China.</p>
<p>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.<a name="FNanchor_5_11" id="FNanchor_5_11"></a><a href="#Footnote_5_11" class="fnanchor">[5]</a> 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.</p>
<p>One of the main objects of the Capitulations, besides personal
security and trading rights, was to assure religious liberty for the<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_4" id="Page_4">[4]</a></span>
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.</p>
<p>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.<a name="FNanchor_6_12" id="FNanchor_6_12"></a><a href="#Footnote_6_12" class="fnanchor">[6]</a></p>
<p>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 <i>raison d'état</i>. 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.</p>
<p>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."</p>
<p>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<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_5" id="Page_5">[5]</a></span>
independence and equality of all States.<a name="FNanchor_7_13" id="FNanchor_7_13"></a><a href="#Footnote_7_13" class="fnanchor">[7]</a> 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.<a name="FNanchor_8_14" id="FNanchor_8_14"></a><a href="#Footnote_8_14" class="fnanchor">[8]</a> 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.<a name="FNanchor_9_15" id="FNanchor_9_15"></a><a href="#Footnote_9_15" class="fnanchor">[9]</a> In all cases, whether of great or
small States, treaty rights or no treaty rights, the real test has almost
always been the frigid <i>raison d'état</i>. 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.<a name="FNanchor_10_16" id="FNanchor_10_16"></a><a href="#Footnote_10_16" class="fnanchor">[10]</a><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_6" id="Page_6">[6]</a></span></p>
<h3><a name="II_INTERVENTIONS_ON_GROUNDS_OF_HUMANITY" id="II_INTERVENTIONS_ON_GROUNDS_OF_HUMANITY"></a>II. INTERVENTIONS ON GROUNDS OF HUMANITY.</h3>
<p>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.<a name="FNanchor_11_17" id="FNanchor_11_17"></a><a href="#Footnote_11_17" class="fnanchor">[11]</a> 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 <i>raison d'état</i>—and probably also a lingering
reluctance to regard Jews as quite within the pale of humanity—too
strong for him.<a name="FNanchor_12_18" id="FNanchor_12_18"></a><a href="#Footnote_12_18" class="fnanchor">[12]</a> 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,<a name="FNanchor_13_19" id="FNanchor_13_19"></a><a href="#Footnote_13_19" class="fnanchor">[13]</a> 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.<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_7" id="Page_7">[7]</a></span></p>
<p class="c top5">(<i>a</i>) PERSECUTION OF THE JEWS IN BOHEMIA (1744-45).</p>
<p>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<a name="FNanchor_14_20" id="FNanchor_14_20"></a><a href="#Footnote_14_20" class="fnanchor">[14]</a> 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.<a name="FNanchor_15_21" id="FNanchor_15_21"></a><a href="#Footnote_15_21" class="fnanchor">[15]</a></p>
<p class="doc">DOCUMENTS.</p>
<p class="c"><span class="smcap">Petition to King George II</span> (<i>B. M. Add. MSS.</i> 23,819, <i>f.</i> 63).</p>
<p>
To his Most Sacred Majesty<br />
</p>
<p class="hang">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.<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_8" id="Page_8">[8]</a></span></p>
<p>Humbly Sheweth</p>
<p>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.</p>
<p>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.</p>
<p>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.</p>
<p>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<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_9" id="Page_9">[9]</a></span>
Guilty and Punish those only who have deserv'd her said Majesty's
Displeasure.</p>
<p>And Your Petitioners as in duty bound shall ever pray &c.</p>
<p class="r">
<span class="smcap">Moses Hart.</span><br />
<span class="smcap">Aaron Franks.</span></p>
<p>(Endorsed:)</p>
<p class="ind"><span class="smcap">Moses Hart & Aaron Franks</span> Petition in behalf of the Bohemian</p>
<table summary="frac"
style="margin-left:10%;"
cellspacing="0"
cellpadding="0">
<tr><td rowspan="2">Jews &c. in Ld. Harrington's of the </td><td align="right" style="border-bottom:1px black solid;">28</td><td style="border-bottom:1px black solid;"> Decr.</td>
<td rowspan="2"> 1745.</td></tr>
<tr><td align="right">8</td><td> Jany.</td></tr>
</table>
<p class="ind">sent to Sir Thos. Robinson 27 [<i>sic</i>] Decr. 1744.</p>
<p class="c"><span class="smcap">Appeal of the Bohemian Jews</span> (<i>Ibid. f. 64</i>).</p>
<p class="r"><span class="smcap">Prague</span>, <i>1st Decr. 1744. N.S.</i></p>
<p>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.</p>
<p>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.</p>
<p class="r"><span class="smcap">Simon Spira</span> &c.</p>
<ul>
<li><span class="smcap">Moses Izaac.</span></li>
<li><span class="smcap">Simon Cohen.</span></li>
<li><span class="smcap">Menahem Mendal.</span></li>
<li><span class="smcap">Abraham.</span></li>
<li><span class="smcap">Samuel Spira.</span></li>
<li><span class="smcap">Meyer Moses,</span> &c.</li>
</ul>
<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_10" id="Page_10">[10]</a></span>(Endorsed:)</p>
<p class="ind">Representation from the Jews at Prague</p>
<table summary="frac"
style="margin-left:10%;"
cellspacing="0"
cellpadding="0">
<tr><td rowspan="2">Sent to Sir Thos. Robinson </td><td align="right" style="border-bottom:1px black solid;">28</td><td style="border-bottom:1px black solid;"> Decr.</td>
<td rowspan="2"> 1744-5.</td></tr>
<tr><td> Jany.</td><td> 8</td></tr>
</table>
<p class="c top5"><span class="smcap">The Decree of the Empress</span> (<i>Ibid. fol. 66</i>).</p>
<p>After Mature Deliberation We have been Induced by many weighty
Reasons and Considerations to resolve and Determine that no <span class="smcap">Jew</span> 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.</p>
<p>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.</p>
<p>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.</p>
<p>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.</p>
<p>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.</p>
<p>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.</p>
<p>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<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_11" id="Page_11">[11]</a></span>
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.</p>
<p>Witness Ourself</p>
<p class="c">Given at Vienna the 18th day of December 1744.</p>
<p class="c"><span class="smcap">Instructions to the British Ambassador in Vienna</span> (<i>Ibid. fols. 61-61 d.</i>).</p>
<p>Separate.</p>
<p class="r"><span class="smcap">Whitehall</span>, <i>28th Decr. 1744.</i></p>
<p><span class="smcap">Sir</span>,—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.</p>
<p><span style="margin-left: 40%;">I am, Sir,</span><br />
<span style="margin-left: 50%;">Your most obedient humble Servant,</span><br />
<span style="margin-left: 70%;"><span class="smcap">Harrington</span>.</span></p>
<p><span class="smcap">Sir Thomas Robinson.</span></p>
<p class="c top5">(<i>b</i>) <span class="smcap">CONGRESS OF VIENNA</span> (1815).<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_12" id="Page_12">[12]</a></span></p>
<p>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 <i>sans-culotte</i>."</p>
<p>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."<a name="FNanchor_16_22" id="FNanchor_16_22"></a><a href="#Footnote_16_22" class="fnanchor">[16]</a> 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.</p>
<p>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<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_13" id="Page_13">[13]</a></span>
rather half a clause—in the Final Act of the Conference providing for
the gradual extension of civil rights to the Jews of Germany.</p>
<p>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 <i>alinea</i> 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 "<i>by</i>" was substituted for "<i>in</i>,"
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.</p>
<p>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.<a name="FNanchor_17_23" id="FNanchor_17_23"></a><a href="#Footnote_17_23" class="fnanchor">[17]</a> 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.<a name="FNanchor_18_24" id="FNanchor_18_24"></a><a href="#Footnote_18_24" class="fnanchor">[18]</a> 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.<a name="FNanchor_19_25" id="FNanchor_19_25"></a><a href="#Footnote_19_25" class="fnanchor">[19]</a><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_14" id="Page_14">[14]</a></span></p>
<p class="doc">DOCUMENTS.</p>
<p class="hang"><i>The following is a list of the documents relating to the Jewish Question
at the Vienna Congress given in Klüber: "Akten des Wiener
Kongresses."</i></p>
<div class="blockquot"><p>1. Unterthänige Vorstellung und Bittschrift der Israelitischen Gemeinde
zu Frankfurt-am-Main an den hohen Kongress zu Wien mit Beilage übergeben
daselbst am 10<sup>ten</sup> Oktober 1814.</p>
<p>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,
12<sup>ten</sup> Mai, 1815.</p>
<p>3. Antwort seiner Durchlaucht des Fürsten von Hardenberg auf
vorstehendes Schreiben. Datiert Wien, 18<sup>ten</sup> Mai, 1815.</p>
<p>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,
9<sup>ten</sup> Juni, 1815.</p>
<p>5. Anmerkung des Herausgebers (Klübers) zu vorstehenden Erlass an
die Deputierten der Israelitischen Gemeinde zu Frankfurt-am-Main.</p>
<p>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, 9<sup>ten</sup> Juni, 1815 mit einer Beilage.</p>
<p>7. Accessions Urkunde der freien Stadt Frankfurt.</p>
<p class="ind">(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.)</p>
<p>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.</p>
<p>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:—<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_15" id="Page_15">[15]</a></span></p>
<p>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.</p>
<p>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.</p>
<p>(British and Foreign State Papers, vol. ii. pp. 132-3.)</p>
<p class="c top5">(<i>c</i>) <span class="smcap">THE CONGRESS OF AIX-LA-CHAPELLE</span> (1818).</p>
<p>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."<a name="FNanchor_20_26" id="FNanchor_20_26"></a><a href="#Footnote_20_26" class="fnanchor">[20]</a> It is interesting to note that in his<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_16" id="Page_16">[16]</a></span>
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.<a name="FNanchor_21_27" id="FNanchor_21_27"></a><a href="#Footnote_21_27" class="fnanchor">[21]</a></p>
<p class="doc">DOCUMENT.</p>
<p>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.</p>
<p>The Protocol of the Congress at which these "Mémoires" were
considered runs as follows:—</p>
<p class="c"><span class="smcap">Protocole.</span></p>
<p class="r"><i>Séance du 21 Novembre, 1818.</i><br />
<i>Entre les cinq Cabinets.</i></p>
<p>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.</p>
<table summary="signe"
style="margin-left:75%;">
<tr><td rowspan="8"
valign="top">Signé:</td><td><span class="smcap">Metternich.</span></td></tr>
<tr><td><span class="smcap">Richelieu.</span></td></tr>
<tr><td><span class="smcap">Castlereagh.</span></td></tr>
<tr><td><span class="smcap">Wellington.</span></td></tr>
<tr><td><span class="smcap">Hardenberg.</span></td></tr>
<tr><td><span class="smcap">Bernstorff.</span></td></tr>
<tr><td><span class="smcap">Nesselrode.</span></td></tr>
<tr><td><span class="smcap">Capodistrias.</span></td></tr>
</table>
<p class="c top5">(<i>d</i>) <span class="smcap">THE CONFERENCE OF LONDON</span> (1830).<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_17" id="Page_17">[17]</a></span></p>
<p>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.</p>
<p>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.</p>
<p class="doc">DOCUMENT.</p>
<p class="c"><span class="smcap">Protocol</span> <i>No. 3 of the Conference held at the Foreign Office, London,
on 3 February, 1830</i>.</p>
<p class="c">Present:<br />
The Plenipotentiaries of Great Britain, France and Russia.</p>
<p>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.<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_18" id="Page_18">[18]</a></span></p>
<p>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.</p>
<p>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.</p>
<p>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.</p>
<table summary="signe2"
style="margin-left:75%;">
<tr><td rowspan="8"
valign="top">Signé:</td><td><span class="smcap">Metternich.</span></td></tr>
<tr><td><span class="smcap">Aberdeen</span></td></tr>
<tr><td><span class="smcap">Montmoren Y-Laval.</span></td></tr>
<tr><td><span class="smcap">Lieven.</span></td></tr>
</table>
<p class="c">(Holland: "The European Concert in the Eastern Question," pp. 32,
33.)</p></div>
<p class="c top5">(<i>e</i>) <span class="smcap">THE CONGRESS OF PARIS</span> (1856-1858).</p>
<p>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<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_19" id="Page_19">[19]</a></span>
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.<a name="FNanchor_22_28" id="FNanchor_22_28"></a><a href="#Footnote_22_28" class="fnanchor">[22]</a></p>
<p>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 <i>Hatti-Humayoun</i> 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-<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_20" id="Page_20">[20]</a></span>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 <i>Hatti-Humayoun</i>. 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.<a name="FNanchor_23_29" id="FNanchor_23_29"></a><a href="#Footnote_23_29" class="fnanchor">[23]</a></p>
<p>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.<a name="FNanchor_24_30" id="FNanchor_24_30"></a><a href="#Footnote_24_30" class="fnanchor">[24]</a> 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.<a name="FNanchor_25_31" id="FNanchor_25_31"></a><a href="#Footnote_25_31" class="fnanchor">[25]</a>
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.<a name="FNanchor_26_32" id="FNanchor_26_32"></a><a href="#Footnote_26_32" class="fnanchor">[26]</a> 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.<a name="FNanchor_27_33" id="FNanchor_27_33"></a><a href="#Footnote_27_33" class="fnanchor">[27]</a> The Report of the Bucharest Commission<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_21" id="Page_21">[21]</a></span>
of 1858 accepted these promises and excluded all references to
Religious Liberty from its scheme.<a name="FNanchor_28_34" id="FNanchor_28_34"></a><a href="#Footnote_28_34" class="fnanchor">[28]</a> The first draft of the Convention
submitted to the Conference of the Powers did likewise,<a name="FNanchor_29_35" id="FNanchor_29_35"></a><a href="#Footnote_29_35" class="fnanchor">[29]</a>
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.<a name="FNanchor_30_36" id="FNanchor_30_36"></a><a href="#Footnote_30_36" class="fnanchor">[30]</a> This concession to the
Rumanians was made on the express pledge that the original scheme
of the Conference at Constantinople would be gradually realised.<a name="FNanchor_31_37" id="FNanchor_31_37"></a><a href="#Footnote_31_37" class="fnanchor">[31]</a>
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.</p>
<p class="doc">DOCUMENTS.</p>
<p class="c"><span class="smcap">Article IX of the Treaty of Paris.</span> <i>March 30, 1856.</i></p>
<div class="blockquot"><p>Art. IX. His Imperial Majesty the Sultan, having, in his constant
solicitude for the welfare of his subjects, issued a Firman<a name="FNanchor_32_38" id="FNanchor_32_38"></a><a href="#Footnote_32_38" class="fnanchor">[32]</a> 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.</p>
<p>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.</p>
<p class="r">
(Holland: "European Concert," &c., p. 246.)<br />
</p>
<p class="c"><span class="smcap">Extracts from the Hatti-Humayoun of Feb. 18, 1856.</span></p>
<p>I. Les garanties promises et accordées à tous nos sujets par le <i>Hatti-cherif</i>
de Gulhané et par les lois du <i>Tanzimat</i>, sans distinction de culte, pour<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_22" id="Page_22">[22]</a></span>
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.</p>
<p>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.</p>
<p>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.</p>
<p>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.</p>
<p>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.</p>
<p>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.</p>
<p>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.</p>
<p>XI. Personne ne sera ni vexé, ni inquiété à cet égard.</p>
<p>XII. Personne ne sera contraint à changer de culte ou de religion.</p>
<p>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.</p>
<p>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.</p>
<p>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.</p>
<p>
(Holland: <i>op. cit.</i>, pp. 330-332.)<br />
</p>
<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_23" id="Page_23">[23]</a></span><span class="smcap">Conferences of Constantinople (1856).</span>—<i>Protocol of Feb. 11.</i></p>
<p>XIII. Tous les cultes et ceux qui les professent jouiront d'une égale
liberté et d'une égale protection dans les deux principautés.</p>
<p>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.</p>
<p>XVI. Tous les Moldaves et tous les Valaques seront, sans exception,
admissibles aux emplois publics.</p>
<p>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.</p>
<p class="r">(Ubicini, "La Question des Principautés," p. 13.)</p>
<p class="c"><span class="smcap">Art. XLVI of the Convention of Paris of August 10, 1858.</span></p>
<p>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.</p>
<p>Leur liberté individuelle sera garantie. Personne ne pourra être retenu,
arrêté, ni poursuivi que conformément à la loi.</p>
<p>Personne ne pourra être exproprié que légalement, pour cause d'intérêt
public, et moyennant indemnité.</p>
<p>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.<a name="FNanchor_33_39" id="FNanchor_33_39"></a><a href="#Footnote_33_39" class="fnanchor">[33]</a></p>
<p>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.</p>
<p class="r">("Brit. and For. State Papers," vol. xlviii. pp. 77-78.)</p></div>
<p class="c top5">(<i>f</i>) <span class="smcap">THE CONGRESS OF BERLIN</span> (1878).</p>
<p>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 perse<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_24" id="Page_24">[24]</a></span>cution
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.<a name="FNanchor_34_40" id="FNanchor_34_40"></a><a href="#Footnote_34_40" class="fnanchor">[34]</a> 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."<a name="FNanchor_35_41" id="FNanchor_35_41"></a><a href="#Footnote_35_41" class="fnanchor">[35]</a></p>
<p>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.<a name="FNanchor_36_42" id="FNanchor_36_42"></a><a href="#Footnote_36_42" class="fnanchor">[36]</a> 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."<a name="FNanchor_37_43" id="FNanchor_37_43"></a><a href="#Footnote_37_43" class="fnanchor">[37]</a> 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.<a name="FNanchor_38_44" id="FNanchor_38_44"></a><a href="#Footnote_38_44" class="fnanchor">[38]</a> 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.</p>
<p>All the States concerned frankly and honestly accepted this
principle, and put it into operation, except Rumania. By a repetition<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_25" id="Page_25">[25]</a></span>
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 <i>jus sanguinis</i>
to the Jews who <i>quâ</i> 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.<a name="FNanchor_39_45" id="FNanchor_39_45"></a><a href="#Footnote_39_45" class="fnanchor">[39]</a> 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.</p>
<p class="doc">DOCUMENTS.</p>
<p class="c"><span class="smcap">Extracts from Protocols of the Congress of Berlin.</span>
<i>Protocole No.</i> 5.—<i>Séance du 24 Juin, 1878.</i></p>
<div class="blockquot"><p>M. Waddington donne lecture de deux Articles Additionnels proposés
par les Plénipotentiaires de France, et dont voici le texte:—</p>
<p>"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.</p>
<p>"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.</p>
<p>"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."</p>
<p>Le Président dit que ces deux propositions seront imprimées, distribuées,
et placées à un ordre du jour ultérieur.<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_26" id="Page_26">[26]</a></span></p>
<p>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.</p>
<p class="r">("Brit. and For. State Papers," vol. lxix., p. 917.)</p></div>
<p class="c"><i>Protocole No.</i> 6—<i>Séance du 25 Juin, 1878.</i></p>
<div class="blockquot"><p>L'ordre du jour appelle ensuite les deux propositions Françaises insérées
dans le Protocole 5, et relatives à la liberté des cultes.</p>
<p>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."</p>
<p>Lord Salisbury désirerait que la même législation fût, sous ce rapport,
établie pour la Roumélie, et pour les autres provinces de la Turquie.</p>
<p>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.</p>
<p>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.</p>
<p class="r">(<i>Ibid.</i>, p. 935.)</p></div>
<p class="c"><i>Protocole No.</i> 7—<i>Séance du 26 Juin, 1878.</i></p>
<div class="blockquot"><p>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.</p>
<p>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.</p>
<p>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.</p>
<p>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<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_27" id="Page_27">[27]</a></span>
Asie, mais il se demande si l'on obtiendrait sur ce point l'assentiment des
Plénipotentiaires Ottomans.</p>
<p>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.</p>
<p>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.</p>
<p>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.</p>
<p>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 vœu 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.</p>
<p>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 vœux 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.</p>
<p class="r">
(<i>Ibid.</i>, pp. 942-943.)</p></div>
<p class="c"><i>Protocole No.</i> 8.—<i>Séance du 28 Juin, 1878.</i></p>
<div class="blockquot"><p>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.<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_28" id="Page_28">[28]</a></span></p>
<p>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:—</p>
<p>"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.</p>
<p>"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."</p>
<p>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.</p>
<p>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.</p>
<p>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.</p>
<p>Le Prince Gortchacow persiste à penser que les droits civils et politiques
ne sauraient être attribués aux Juifs d'une manière absolue en Serbie.</p>
<p>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<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_29" id="Page_29">[29]</a></span>
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.</p>
<p>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.</p>
<p>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.</p>
<p>Le Comte Andrássy s'exprime dans le même sens, et les Plénipotentiaires
Ottomans n'élèvent aucune objection.</p>
<p>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.</p>
<p class="r">(<i>Ibid.</i> pp. 959-961.)</p></div>
<p class="c"><i>Protocole No.</i> 10—<i>Séance du 1<sup>er</sup> Juillet, 1878.</i></p>
<div class="blockquot"><p>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<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_30" id="Page_30">[30]</a></span>
les mêmes conditions d'ordre politique et religieux indiquées pour la Serbie
soient également imposées à l'État Roumain.</p>
<p>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.</p>
<p>Le Comte Andrássy adhère à la proposition Française.</p>
<p>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.</p>
<p>Les Plénipotentiaires Italiens font la même déclaration.</p>
<p>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.</p>
<p>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.</p>
<p>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.</p>
<p>Le Baron de Haymerle lit une motion relative à la liberté des cultes dans
le Monténégro:—</p>
<p>"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."</p>
<p>Le Congrès décide le renvoi à la Commission de Rédaction.</p>
<p class="r">(<i>Ibid.</i>, pp. 982-983, 989, 990.)</p></div>
<p class="c"><i>Protocole No. 12—Séance du 4 Juillet, 1878.</i></p>
<div class="blockquot"><p>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<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_31" id="Page_31">[31]</a></span>
Bismarck croit devoir constater qu'en aucun cas cette réserve ne saurait
infirmer l'autorité des décisions du Congrès.</p>
<p>Le Congrès passe à l'Article XXII du Traité de San Stéfano relatif
aux ecclésiastiques Russes et aux moines de Mont Athos.</p>
<p>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:—</p>
<p>"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.</p>
<p>"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.</p>
<p>"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.</p>
<p>"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.</p>
<p>"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."</p>
<p>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.</p>
<p>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.</p>
<p>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:—</p>
<p>"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<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_32" id="Page_32">[32]</a></span>
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."</p>
<p>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."</p>
<p>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.</p>
<p class="r">(<i>Ibid.</i>, pp. 1002-3, 1009-10.)</p></div>
<p class="c"><i>Protocole No. 17.—Séance du 10 Juillet 1878.</i></p>
<div class="blockquot"><p>Le Président invite le Rapporteur de la Commission de Rédaction
à lire le travail préparatoire du Traité.</p>
<p>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."</p>
<p>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<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_33" id="Page_33">[33]</a></span>
de la Commission de Rédaction. Il est nécessaire que le Congrès s'oppose
à toute tentative de revenir sur le fond.</p>
<p>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.</p>
<p>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.</p>
<p class="r">(<i>Ibid.</i>, pp. 1058-1059.)</p></div>
<p class="c"><span class="smcap">Extracts from the Treaty of Berlin, signed July 13, 1878.</span></p>
<div class="blockquot"><p>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.</p>
<p>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.</p>
<p>Les nationaux de toutes les Puissances, commerçants ou autres, seront
traités en Roumanie, sans distinction de religion, sur le pied d'une parfaite
égalité.</p>
<p>[Articles V, XXVII, and XXXV, relating respectively to
Bulgaria, Montenegro, and Servia, are in the same form with the
exception of the last <i>alinéa</i>, which only appears in the above quoted
article.]</p>
<p>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.</p>
<p>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.</p>
<p>Tous seront admis sans distinction de religion à témoigner devant
les tribunaux.</p>
<p>La liberté et la pratique extérieure de tous les cultes sont assurés à<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_34" id="Page_34">[34]</a></span>
tous, et aucune entrave ne pourra être apportée, soit à l'organisation
hiérarchique des différentes communions, soit à leurs rapports avec leurs
chefs spirituels.</p>
<p>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.</p>
<p class="r">(<i>Ibid.</i>, pp. 764, 766-767.)</p></div>
<p class="c"><span class="smcap">Revision of the Rumanian Constitution (1879).</span></p>
<p class="c"><i>No. 115. Mr. White to the Marquis of Salisbury. (Rec. November 4.)</i></p>
<p class="r"><span class="smcap">Bucharest</span>, <i>October 25, 1879</i>.</p>
<div class="blockquot"><p><span class="smcap">My Lord</span>,—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.</p>
<p class="r">
<span style="margin-right:5%;">I have, &c.,</span><br />
<span class="smcap">W. A. White.</span><br />
</p>
<p><span class="smcap">The Marquis of Salisbury.</span></p>
<p class="c">(<span class="smcap">Traduction.</span>)</p>
<p><i>Article Unique.—À la place de l'Article 7 de la Constitution soumis à la
revision, on mettra le suivant</i>:—</p>
<p>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.</p>
<p>§ 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:</p>
<p>(<i>a</i>) 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.</p>
<p>(<i>b</i>) 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.</p>
<p>§ 2. Pourront être dispensés du stage:</p>
<p>(<i>a</i>) 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.<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_35" id="Page_35">[35]</a></span></p>
<p>(<i>b</i>) 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.</p>
<p>(<i>c</i>) 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.</p>
<p>3. La naturalisation ne peut être accordée que par la Loi, et individuellement.</p>
<p>4. Une Loi spéciale déterminera, le mode d'après lequel les étrangers
pourront établir leur domicile en Roumanie.</p>
<p>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.</p>
<p class="r">(<i>Ibid.</i>, lxxi. 1176-77.)</p></div>
<div class="blockquot">
<p class="c"><span class="smcap">The Compact with Rumania</span> (1880).</p>
<p class="c"><i>English Text of Identic Note presented to the Roumanian Government,
February 20, 1880.</i></p>
<p>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:—</p>
<p>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.</p>
<p>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.</p>
<p>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 conse<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_36" id="Page_36">[36]</a></span>quently
declare themselves ready to enter into regular diplomatic relations
with the Prince's Government.</p>
<p>In bringing the decision come to by his Government to the knowledge of
the Minister for Foreign Affairs, the Undersigned, &c.</p>
<p class="r"><span class="smcap">W. A. White.</span><br />
<span class="smcap">Bucharest</span>, <i>February 20, 1880</i>.</p>
<p class="r">(<i>Ibid.</i>, p. 1187.)</p></div>
<p class="c top5">(<i>g</i>) <span class="smcap">RUMANIA AND THE POWERS</span> (1902).</p>
<p>It must be confessed—and, indeed, it has been avowed by prominent
Rumanians themselves<a name="FNanchor_40_46" id="FNanchor_40_46"></a><a href="#Footnote_40_46" class="fnanchor">[40]</a>—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.</p>
<p>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<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_37" id="Page_37">[37]</a></span>
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.<a name="FNanchor_41_47" id="FNanchor_41_47"></a><a href="#Footnote_41_47" class="fnanchor">[41]</a> 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.<a name="FNanchor_42_48" id="FNanchor_42_48"></a><a href="#Footnote_42_48" class="fnanchor">[42]</a> 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.<a name="FNanchor_43_49" id="FNanchor_43_49"></a><a href="#Footnote_43_49" class="fnanchor">[43]</a> Thus supported, Lord Lansdowne no longer
hesitated. In September he despatched a Circular to the Great
Powers definitely proposing combined representations at Bucharest.<a name="FNanchor_44_50" id="FNanchor_44_50"></a><a href="#Footnote_44_50" class="fnanchor">[44]</a><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_38" id="Page_38">[38]</a></span></p>
<p>As soon as this <i>démarche</i> 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.</p>
<p class="doc">DOCUMENTS.</p>
<div class="blockquot"><p class="c"><span class="smcap">Dispatch from Mr. John Hay (U.S. Secretary of State) to the U.S.
Minister at Athens.</span></p>
<p class="r"><span class="smcap">Department of State, Washington</span>,<br />
<i>July 17, 1902</i>.</p>
<p><i>Charles S. Wilson, Esquire, etc., etc., etc., Athens.</i></p>
<p><span class="smcap">Sir</span>,—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.</p>
<p>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.</p>
<p>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<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_39" id="Page_39">[39]</a></span>
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.</p>
<p>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.</p>
<p>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.<a name="FNanchor_45_51" id="FNanchor_45_51"></a><a href="#Footnote_45_51" class="fnanchor">[45]</a> 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.</p>
<p>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<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_40" id="Page_40">[40]</a></span>
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.</p>
<p>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.</p>
<p>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<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_41" id="Page_41">[41]</a></span>
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.</p>
<p>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.</p>
<p>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.</p>
<p>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.</p>
<p>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<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_42" id="Page_42">[42]</a></span>
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.</p>
<p>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.<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_43" id="Page_43">[43]</a></span></p>
<p>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.</p>
<p>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.</p>
<p>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.</p>
<p class="r"><span style="margin-right:20%;">I am, Sir,</span><br />
<span style="margin-right: 5%;">Your obedient servant,</span><br />
<span class="smcap">John Hay</span>.<br />
</p></div>
<div class="blockquot"><p class="c"><span class="smcap">American Circular Note to the Great Powers.</span><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_44" id="Page_44">[44]</a></span></p>
<p class="r">
<span class="smcap">Department of State, Washington</span>,<br />
<i>August 11, 1902</i>.</p>
<p><span class="smcap">Sir</span>,—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.</p>
<p>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.</p>
<p>(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.")</p>
<p>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.</p>
<p class="r"><span class="smcap">John Hay.</span></p>
<p class="c"><i>Reply of Great Britain.</i></p>
<p class="c">(Mr. Bertie to Mr. Choate.)</p>
<p class="r"><span style="margin-right:5%;"><span class="smcap">Foreign Office</span>,</span><br />
<i>September 2, 1902</i>.</p>
<p><span class="smcap">Your Excellency</span>,—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.</p>
<p>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.</p>
<p>His Majesty's Government will place themselves in communication with<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_45" id="Page_45">[45]</a></span>
the other Powers signatory of the Treaty of Berlin, with a view to a joint
representation to the Roumanian Government on the subject.</p>
<p class="r"><span style="margin-right:10%;">(<span class="smcap">Francis Bertie.</span></span><br />
(<i>In the absence of the Marquis of Lansdowne.</i>)</p>
<p>("Foreign Relations of the United States (1902)," pp. 910 <i>et seq.</i>, 42 <i>et
seq.</i>, and 550).</p></div>
<p class="c top5">(<i>h</i>) <span class="smcap">THE CONFERENCES OF LONDON, ST. PETERSBURG AND BUCHAREST</span>
(1912-13).</p>
<p>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.</p>
<p>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.<a name="FNanchor_46_52" id="FNanchor_46_52"></a><a href="#Footnote_46_52" class="fnanchor">[46]</a> Unfortunately the projected Conference was abandoned,<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_46" id="Page_46">[46]</a></span>
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.</p>
<p>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.<a name="FNanchor_47_53" id="FNanchor_47_53"></a><a href="#Footnote_47_53" class="fnanchor">[47]</a> A long correspondence
ensued between the Conjoint Committee and the Foreign Office, and
eventually Sir Edward Grey agreed to a suggestion of the Committee<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_47" id="Page_47">[47]</a></span>
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.<a name="FNanchor_48_54" id="FNanchor_48_54"></a><a href="#Footnote_48_54" class="fnanchor">[48]</a> 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.</p>
<p class="doc">DOCUMENTS.</p>
<p class="c"><span class="smcap">Extract from the Protocols of the Conference of Bucharest.</span></p>
<p class="c"><i>Protocole No. 6.—Séance du Mardi, 23 Juillet (5 Août), 1913.</i></p>
<div class="blockquot"><p>[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.</p>
<p>"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."</p>
<p>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.</p>
<p>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.</p>
<p>Cette manière de voir de M. le premier délégué de Grèce a recueilli l'assentiment
unanime.</p>
<p>("Le Traité de Paix de Bucarest—Protocoles de la Conférence," Bucarest,
1913, pp. 24-25.)</p>
<p class="doc"><span class="smcap">Extracts from Correspondence between the Conjoint Committee and
Sir Edward Grey.</span><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_48" id="Page_48">[48]</a></span></p>
<p class="r"><span style="margin-right:10%;"><span class="smcap">Conjoint Jewish Committee</span>,</span><br />
<span style="margin-left:5%;"><span class="smcap">19 Finsbury Circus, E.C.</span></span><br />
<i>13th October, 1913</i>.</p>
<p><span class="smcap">Sir</span>,—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.</p>
<p>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.</p>
<p>The question was not ignored at the Peace Conference at Bucharest, but<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_49" id="Page_49">[49]</a></span>
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.)</p>
<p>The Jewish Conjoint Committee regret that they are unable to accept
either the reasoning or the assurances of M. Maioresco for the following
reasons:—</p>
<p>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.</p>
<p>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; <i>cf.</i> Eastern Roumelia Statute,
Article XXIV).<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_50" id="Page_50">[50]</a></span></p>
<p>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.</p>
<p>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.</p>
<p>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.</p>
<p>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<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_51" id="Page_51">[51]</a></span>
Majesty's Government may see their way to propose such a note to the
Great Powers.</p>
<p class="c">
We are, Sir,<br />
Your humble and obedient Servants,<br />
<span style="margin-left:8%;"><span class="smcap">D. L. Alexander</span>,</span><br />
<i>President, London Committee of Deputies of British Jews</i>,<br />
<span style="margin-left: 12%;"><span class="smcap">Claude G. Montefiore</span>,</span><br />
<span style="margin-left: 25%;"><i>President, Anglo-Jewish Association</i>.</span><br />
</p>
<p class="c"><span class="smcap">To The Rt. Hon. Sir Edward Grey, Bart., M.P., K.G., etc., His Majesty's<br />
Principal Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, etc., etc., etc.</span></p>
<p class="r top5">
<span style="margin-right:5%;"><span class="smcap">Foreign Office</span>,</span><br />
<i>October 29th, 1913</i>.</p>
<p><span class="smcap">Gentlemen</span>,—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.</p>
<p>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.</p>
<p class="r">
<span style="margin-right:25%;">I am, Gentlemen,</span><br />
<span style="margin-right:5%;">Your most obedient, humble servant,</span><br />
<span class="smcap">Eyre A. Crowe</span>.</p>
<p><span class="smcap">The Conjoint Jewish Committee.</span></p>
<p class="r"><span style="margin-right:4%;"><span class="smcap">Conjoint Jewish Committee</span>,</span><br />
<span class="smcap">19 Finsbury Circus, E.C.</span><br />
<i>17th November, 1913</i>.</p>
<p><span class="smcap">Sir</span>,—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.</p>
<p>We are desired by the Committee to thank you for this communica<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_52" id="Page_52">[52]</a></span>tion
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.</p>
<p>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.</p>
<p><span style="margin-left:40%;">We, are, Sir,</span><br />
<span style="margin-left:50%;">Your most obedient humble servants,</span><br />
<span style="margin-left:60%;"><span class="smcap">David L. Alexander</span>,</span><br />
<span style="margin-left:50%;"><i>President, London Committee of the Deputies of British Jews</i>,</span><br />
<span style="margin-left:60%;"><span class="smcap">Claude G. Montefiore</span>,</span><br />
<span style="margin-left:70%;"><i>President, Anglo-Jewish Association</i>.</span></p>
<p class="c"><span class="smcap">To The Right Hon. Sir Edward Grey, Bart., M.P., K.G., etc., etc., etc.</span></p>
<p class="r top5"><span style="margin-right:4%;"><span class="smcap">Conjoint Jewish Committee</span>,</span><br />
<span class="smcap">19 Finsbury Circus, E.C.</span><br />
<i>12th March, 1914</i>.</p>
<p><span class="smcap">Sir</span>,—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.</p>
<p>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 <i>alinéa</i> of Protocol No. 3 of the Conference of London of the
3rd February 1830. We beg to suggest that in the extension of these<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_53" id="Page_53">[53]</a></span>
stipulations to the new territories they shall be elucidated by the addition
to each of the following paragraph:—</p>
<div class="blockquot"><p>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.</p></div>
<p>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 <i>alinéa</i> of Article XLIV of
the Treaty of Berlin instead of its addition to that Article.</p>
<p>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 <i>ipso facto</i> 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.</p>
<p>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.)<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_54" id="Page_54">[54]</a></span></p>
<p>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.</p>
<p><span style="margin-left:40%;">We, are, Sir,</span><br />
<span style="margin-left:50%;">Your most obedient humble servants,</span><br />
<span style="margin-left:60%;"><span class="smcap">David L. Alexander</span>,</span><br />
<span style="margin-left:50%;"><i>President, London Committee of the Deputies of British Jews</i>,</span><br />
<span style="margin-left:60%;"><span class="smcap">Claude G. Montefiore</span>,</span><br />
<span style="margin-left:70%;"><i>President, Anglo-Jewish Association</i>.</span></p>
<p class="c"><span class="smcap">To The Right Hon. Sir Edward Grey, Bart., M.P., K.G., etc., etc., etc.</span></p></div>
<p>(For the humanitarian interventions on behalf of the Jews of
Morocco see "The Conferences of Madrid and Algeciras," <i>infra</i>,
pp. 88-99.)</p>
<p class="c top5">(<i>i</i>) <span class="smcap">THE JEWISH QUESTION AND THE BALANCE OF POWER</span>
(1890 <span class="smcap">AND</span> 1906).</p>
<p>It will be noted that none of the diplomatic interventions took
cognizance of the ill-treatment of the Jews in Russia,<a name="FNanchor_49_55" id="FNanchor_49_55"></a><a href="#Footnote_49_55" class="fnanchor">[49]</a> although until
the recent Revolution it afforded, in magnitude and cruelty, the
worst example of religious persecution known to modern Europe.<a name="FNanchor_50_56" id="FNanchor_50_56"></a><a href="#Footnote_50_56" class="fnanchor">[50]</a>
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<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_55" id="Page_55">[55]</a></span>
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 <i>de puissance à puissance</i>, 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.<a name="FNanchor_51_57" id="FNanchor_51_57"></a><a href="#Footnote_51_57" class="fnanchor">[51]</a></p>
<p>Fifteen years later the Jewish question also played a part in the
curious Russo-German <i>rapprochement</i> 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<a name="FNanchor_52_58" id="FNanchor_52_58"></a><a href="#Footnote_52_58" class="fnanchor">[52]</a> and other Russian State documents, notably a
Memorandum on the Jewish question drawn up by Count Lamsdorf
in January 1906.<a name="FNanchor_53_59" id="FNanchor_53_59"></a><a href="#Footnote_53_59" class="fnanchor">[53]</a> Negotiations for the adhesion of Russia to the<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_56" id="Page_56">[56]</a></span>
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.<a name="FNanchor_54_60" id="FNanchor_54_60"></a><a href="#Footnote_54_60" class="fnanchor">[54]</a> 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 <i>surveillance</i> 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 <i>surveillance</i> and extradition of
Anarchists.<a name="FNanchor_55_61" id="FNanchor_55_61"></a><a href="#Footnote_55_61" class="fnanchor">[55]</a> 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,<a name="FNanchor_56_62" id="FNanchor_56_62"></a><a href="#Footnote_56_62" class="fnanchor">[56]</a> 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.<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_57" id="Page_57">[57]</a></span></p>
<p class="doc">DOCUMENT.</p>
<div class="blockquot"><p class="c"><span class="smcap">The Proposed Anti-Semitic Triple Alliance.</span></p>
<p>(The <a href="#NOTES">footnotes</a> appended to the following document are those of Count
Lamsdorf himself. <a href="#FOOTNOTES">Footnotes</a> by the Editor will be found at the end.)</p>
<p><i>Secret.</i></p>
<p class="doc smcap">ON THE ANARCHISTS.</p>
<p>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 <i>internal</i> nature, has
also a quite definite <i>international</i> 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.</p>
<p>This is clearly indicated by the striking phenomenon that the Russian
revolutionists dispose of an enormous quantity of <i>arms</i> imported from abroad,
as well as of considerable <i>pecuniary means</i>, 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.</p>
<p>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 <i>foreign capitalist organisations</i>.</p>
<p>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 (<i>e.g.</i> the Jewish Bund in the Western<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_58" id="Page_58">[58]</a></span>
region), one may assume with certainty that the aforesaid support of the
revolutionary movement from abroad emanates precisely from <i>Jewish</i>
capitalist circles.</p>
<p>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, <i>supported</i> from abroad, but to a certain extent also <i>directed</i> 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 name="FNanchor_A_1" id="FNanchor_A_1"></a><a href="#Footnote_A_1" class="fnanchor">[A]</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.<a name="FNanchor_57_63" id="FNanchor_57_63"></a><a href="#Footnote_57_63" class="fnanchor">[57]</a></p>
<p>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.<a name="FNanchor_B_2" id="FNanchor_B_2"></a><a href="#Footnote_B_2" class="fnanchor">[B]</a></p>
<p>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 <i>via England</i>, 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.<a name="FNanchor_C_3" id="FNanchor_C_3"></a><a href="#Footnote_C_3" class="fnanchor">[C]</a> 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
<span class="pagenum">
<a name="Page_59" id="Page_59">[59]</a></span>
another.<a name="FNanchor_58_64" id="FNanchor_58_64"></a>
<a href="#Footnote_58_64" class="fnanchor">[58]</a>
<a name="FNanchor_D_4" id="FNanchor_D_4"></a>
<a href="#Footnote_D_4" class="fnanchor">[D]</a> 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.<a name="FNanchor_59_65" id="FNanchor_59_65"></a><a href="#Footnote_59_65" class="fnanchor">[59]</a> 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."<a name="FNanchor_60_66" id="FNanchor_60_66"></a><a href="#Footnote_60_66" class="fnanchor">[60]</a></p>
<p>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.</p>
<p>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<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_60" id="Page_60">[60]</a></span>
the obedient organs of that universal organisation.
<a name="FNanchor_61_67" id="FNanchor_61_67"></a>
<a href="#Footnote_61_67" class="fnanchor">[61]</a>
<a name="FNanchor_E_5" id="FNanchor_E_5"></a>
<a href="#Footnote_E_5" class="fnanchor">[E]</a> 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.</p>
<p>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.</p>
<p>It seems, therefore, that the friendly relations which have recently been
brought about so happily between the Imperial Government and the German
Empire,<a name="FNanchor_F_6" id="FNanchor_F_6"></a><a href="#Footnote_F_6" class="fnanchor">[F]</a> 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.</p>
<p>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.<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_61" id="Page_61">[61]</a></span>
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.</p>
<p>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.</p>
<p>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 <i>Deutsche
Tageszeitung</i>, 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.<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_62" id="Page_62">[62]</a></span>
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.</p>
<p>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.</p>
<p class="r">(Signed) <span class="smcap">Count Lamsdorf.</span></p>
<table summary="negotiations"
cellspacing="0"
cellpadding="0">
<tr valign="middle"><td> Negotiations must be entered into <i>immediately</i>.<br />
I share entirely the opinions herein expressed.<br /><br />
<span class="smcap">Tsarskoye Selo</span>,<br />
<i>January 3rd (O.S.) 1906</i>.</td>
<td style="border-top:1px solid black;border-bottom:1px solid black;"> <br /><br /><br /><br /><br /></td>
<td align="center"
style="border-left:1px black solid;"> Endorsement in the<br /> Tsar's handwriting.</td></tr>
</table>
<p>(Translated from the Russian text in vol. vi. of "Secret Documents,"
published by the Soviet Commission of Foreign Affairs.)</p></div>
<p class="c"><span class="smcap"><a name="NOTES" id="NOTES"></a>Notes.</span></p>
<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_A_1" id="Footnote_A_1"></a><a href="#FNanchor_A_1"><span class="label">[A]</span></a> <i>Supra</i>, <a href="#Page_56">p. 56</a> (note).</p></div>
<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_B_2" id="Footnote_B_2"></a><a href="#FNanchor_B_2"><span class="label">[B]</span></a> How these pogroms were organised by the Russian Secret Police will be
found described from authentic documents in Semenoff: <i>The Russian Government
and the Massacres</i>.</p></div>
<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_C_3" id="Footnote_C_3"></a><a href="#FNanchor_C_3"><span class="label">[C]</span></a> 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.</p></div>
<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_D_4" id="Footnote_D_4"></a><a href="#FNanchor_D_4"><span class="label">[D]</span></a> This also is quite untrue, as the published accounts of the Funds show.</p></div>
<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_E_5" id="Footnote_E_5"></a><a href="#FNanchor_E_5"><span class="label">[E]</span></a> 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.</p></div>
<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_F_6" id="Footnote_F_6"></a><a href="#FNanchor_F_6"><span class="label">[F]</span></a> 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
<i>Le Temps</i>, September 15, 1917.)<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_63" id="Page_63">[63]</a></span></p></div>
<h3><a name="III_INTERVENTIONS_BY_RIGHT" id="III_INTERVENTIONS_BY_RIGHT"></a>III. INTERVENTIONS BY RIGHT.</h3>
<p class="c top5">(<i>a</i>) STATUS OF JEWS IN FOREIGN COUNTRIES.</p>
<p>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.</p>
<p>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.<a name="FNanchor_62_68" id="FNanchor_62_68"></a><a href="#Footnote_62_68" class="fnanchor">[62]</a> 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<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_64" id="Page_64">[64]</a></span>
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.<a name="FNanchor_63_69" id="FNanchor_63_69"></a><a href="#Footnote_63_69" class="fnanchor">[63]</a> 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.<a name="FNanchor_64_70" id="FNanchor_64_70"></a><a href="#Footnote_64_70" class="fnanchor">[64]</a></p>
<p>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.<a name="FNanchor_65_71" id="FNanchor_65_71"></a><a href="#Footnote_65_71" class="fnanchor">[65]</a></p>
<p>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<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_65" id="Page_65">[65]</a></span>
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.</p>
<p>The Treaty of Carlowitz by which this case was governed left
very little option to the Austrian Government,<a name="FNanchor_66_72" id="FNanchor_66_72"></a><a href="#Footnote_66_72" class="fnanchor">[66]</a> 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.</p>
<p>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<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_66" id="Page_66">[66]</a></span>
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."<a name="FNanchor_67_73" id="FNanchor_67_73"></a><a href="#Footnote_67_73" class="fnanchor">[67]</a> 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.<a name="FNanchor_68_74" id="FNanchor_68_74"></a><a href="#Footnote_68_74" class="fnanchor">[68]</a> 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
<i>modus vivendi</i>.</p>
<p>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 <i>permis de séjour</i>
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.<a name="FNanchor_69_75" id="FNanchor_69_75"></a><a href="#Footnote_69_75" class="fnanchor">[69]</a> Nevertheless,
French public opinion was aroused, and the Chamber, after a lively
debate, called upon the Government to make suitable representations
to Saxony.<a name="FNanchor_70_76" id="FNanchor_70_76"></a><a href="#Footnote_70_76" class="fnanchor">[70]</a> 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 dis<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_67" id="Page_67">[67]</a></span>criminated
against non-Christians.<a name="FNanchor_71_77" id="FNanchor_71_77"></a><a href="#Footnote_71_77" class="fnanchor">[71]</a> 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."<a name="FNanchor_72_78" id="FNanchor_72_78"></a><a href="#Footnote_72_78" class="fnanchor">[72]</a></p>
<p>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.<a name="FNanchor_73_79" id="FNanchor_73_79"></a><a href="#Footnote_73_79" class="fnanchor">[73]</a> Some mystery attaches to the circumstances in
which these treaties were signed and ratified,<a name="FNanchor_74_80" id="FNanchor_74_80"></a><a href="#Footnote_74_80" class="fnanchor">[74]</a> 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,<a name="FNanchor_75_81" id="FNanchor_75_81"></a><a href="#Footnote_75_81" class="fnanchor">[75]</a> 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.<a name="FNanchor_76_82" id="FNanchor_76_82"></a><a href="#Footnote_76_82" class="fnanchor">[76]</a>
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.<a name="FNanchor_77_83" id="FNanchor_77_83"></a><a href="#Footnote_77_83" class="fnanchor">[77]</a> Her efforts, however, were not
successful, and it was still reserved for France to settle the question.</p>
<p>The opportunity presented itself when in the early sixties, under
the influence of Cobden and Chevalier, France denounced all her<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_68" id="Page_68">[68]</a></span>
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.<a name="FNanchor_78_84" id="FNanchor_78_84"></a><a href="#Footnote_78_84" class="fnanchor">[78]</a> In place of "National treatment," French citizens
in Switzerland "without distinction of creed" were assured the
same treatment as was accorded to "Christians."<a name="FNanchor_79_85" id="FNanchor_79_85"></a><a href="#Footnote_79_85" class="fnanchor">[79]</a> This striking
victory was speedily followed by the abolition of all Jewish disabilities
throughout the Confederation.<a name="FNanchor_80_86" id="FNanchor_80_86"></a><a href="#Footnote_80_86" class="fnanchor">[80]</a></p>
<p>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.</p>
<p>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.<a name="FNanchor_81_87" id="FNanchor_81_87"></a><a href="#Footnote_81_87" class="fnanchor">[81]</a> The case gave rise to no controversy, not only<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_69" id="Page_69">[69]</a></span>
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,<a name="FNanchor_82_88" id="FNanchor_82_88"></a><a href="#Footnote_82_88" class="fnanchor">[82]</a> but later on he
became acquainted with the precedent of 1862, and he declined to
depart from it.<a name="FNanchor_83_89" id="FNanchor_83_89"></a><a href="#Footnote_83_89" class="fnanchor">[83]</a> 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—<i>quâ</i> precedent only.<a name="FNanchor_84_90" id="FNanchor_84_90"></a><a href="#Footnote_84_90" class="fnanchor">[84]</a> 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.<a name="FNanchor_85_91" id="FNanchor_85_91"></a><a href="#Footnote_85_91" class="fnanchor">[85]</a> 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.<a name="FNanchor_86_92" id="FNanchor_86_92"></a><a href="#Footnote_86_92" class="fnanchor">[86]</a></p>
<p>The dispute with the United States pursued a very different<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_70" id="Page_70">[70]</a></span>
course. In its earliest stages it was dealt with by minor diplomatic
and consular officials very much in the spirit of Lord John Russell,<a name="FNanchor_87_93" id="FNanchor_87_93"></a><a href="#Footnote_87_93" class="fnanchor">[87]</a>
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.<a name="FNanchor_88_94" id="FNanchor_88_94"></a><a href="#Footnote_88_94" class="fnanchor">[88]</a> 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.<a name="FNanchor_89_95" id="FNanchor_89_95"></a><a href="#Footnote_89_95" class="fnanchor">[89]</a> 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.<a name="FNanchor_90_96" id="FNanchor_90_96"></a><a href="#Footnote_90_96" class="fnanchor">[90]</a></p>
<p>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.<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_71" id="Page_71">[71]</a></span>
In the following year the restriction was removed.<a name="FNanchor_91_97" id="FNanchor_91_97"></a><a href="#Footnote_91_97" class="fnanchor">[91]</a> 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.<a name="FNanchor_92_98" id="FNanchor_92_98"></a><a href="#Footnote_92_98" class="fnanchor">[92]</a></p>
<p class="doc">DOCUMENTS.</p>
<div class="blockquot"><p class="c"><span class="smcap">Art. XIV.</span>—<span class="smcap">Treaty of Carlowitz between the Emperor and the
Grand Sultan</span>, <i>Jan. 26, 1699</i>.<a name="FNanchor_93_99" id="FNanchor_93_99"></a><a href="#Footnote_93_99" class="fnanchor">[93]</a></p>
<p>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.</p>
<p>("Collection of Treatys of Peace and Commerce," London, 1732,
vol. iv. p. 298.)</p>
<p class="doc"><i>Interpretation by Austrian Government. Instructions to Police of
Lower Austria, Dec. 28, 1815.</i></p>
<p>"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."</p>
<p>(Quoted by M. Carnot in Debate in French Chamber. <i>Moniteur</i>, May 29,
1841.)</p>
<p class="doc"><span class="smcap">Arts. I, III and VI of Franco-Swiss Treaty, May 30, 1827.</span></p>
<p>Article premier.—Les Français seront reçus et traités, dans chaque
canton de la Confédération, relativement à leurs personnes et à leurs pro<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_72" id="Page_72">[72]</a></span>priétés,
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.</p>
<p>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.</p>
<p>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.</p>
<p>(Brisac: "Ce que les Israélites de la Suisse doivent à la France," pp.
10-11.)</p>
<p class="doc"><i>Interpretation by French Negotiator. Secret Note to the Swiss Diet,
August 7, 1826.</i></p>
<p>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.</p>
<p class="r">(Brisac: <i>op. cit.</i>, pp. 12-13.)</p>
<p class="doc"><i>Interpretation by France (1835). Speech by King Louis Philippe to a
Deputation from the Consistoire Israélite, November 5, 1835.</i><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_73" id="Page_73">[73]</a></span></p>
<p>Le roi a répondu:</p>
<p>"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."</p>
<p class="r">(<i>Moniteur</i>, Nov. 12, 1835.)</p>
<p class="doc"><span class="smcap">Extract from Franco-Swiss Treaty of Establishment</span>,<br />
<i>June 30, 1864</i>.</p>
<p>"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."</p>
<p class="r">(Brisac: <i>op. cit.</i>, p. 53.)</p>
<p class="doc"><span class="smcap">Art. I. Anglo-Swiss Treaty</span>, <i>September 6, 1855</i>.</p>
<p>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<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_74" id="Page_74">[74]</a></span>
Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland on the same conditions, and on
the same footing as British subjects.</p>
<p>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.</p>
<p>(Bernhardt, "Handbook of Treaties, &c., relating to Commerce,"
Lond. 1908, pp. 915-916.)</p>
<p class="doc"><span class="smcap">Art. I. American-Swiss Treaty</span>, <i>November 6, 1855</i>.</p>
<p>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.</p>
<p class="r">(<i>Pub. Amer. Jew. Hist. Soc.</i>, vol. xi. p. 15.)</p>
<p class="doc"><i>Interpretation by the United States, 1857. Letter from the Assistant Secretary
of State to the Jews of Baltimore.</i></p>
<p class="r"><i>August 13, 1857.</i></p>
<p>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<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_75" id="Page_75">[75]</a></span>
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.</p>
<p class="r"><span class="smcap">John Appleton.</span><br />
(<i>Ibid.</i>, p. 23.)<br /></p>
<p class="doc"><i>Action by the United States, 1861. Instruction to Mr. Fogg, Minister to
Switzerland.</i></p>
<p class="r"><i>September 14, 1861.</i></p>
<p><span class="smcap">Sir</span>,—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.</p>
<p class="r"><span class="smcap">William H. Seward</span>,<br />
<i>Secretary of State</i>.<br />
<br />
(<i>Ibid.</i>, pp. 47-48.)<br />
</p>
<p class="doc"><span class="smcap">Art. I. Russo-American Treaty</span>, <i>December</i> 18, 1832.</p>
<p>Article I. There shall be between the territories of the high contracting
parties a reciprocal liberty of commerce and navigation.</p>
<p>The inhabitants of their respective states shall mutually have liberty<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_76" id="Page_76">[76]</a></span>
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.</p>
<p class="r">("Brit. and For. State Papers," vol. xx. p. 267.)</p>
<p class="doc"><i>Interpretation by United States, 1881. Dispatch of Secretary of State to the
American Minister in St. Petersburg.</i></p>
<p class="r"><span class="smcap">Department of State, Washington</span>,<br />
<i>July</i> 29, 1881.</p>
<p><span class="smcap">Sir</span>,—...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.</p>
<p>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<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_77" id="Page_77">[77]</a></span>
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....</p>
<p>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.</p>
<p>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....</p>
<p>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.</p>
<p>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.</p>
<p>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<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_78" id="Page_78">[78]</a></span>
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.</p>
<p>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.</p>
<p>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.</p>
<p>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.</p>
<p>You may read this dispatch to the minister for foreign affairs, and
should he desire a copy you will give it to him.</p>
<p class="r"><span class="smcap">James G. Blaine.</span><br />
<br />
("For. Relat. of the U.S.," 1881, pp. 1030 <i>et seq.</i>)<br />
</p>
<p class="doc"><span class="smcap">Denunciation by United States, 1911.</span><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_79" id="Page_79">[79]</a></span></p>
<p class="c"><i>Resolution of the House of Representatives, December 13, 1911.</i></p>
<p>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.</p>
<p class="r">("Congressional Record," xlviii. 280, 304-305.)</p>
<p class="doc"><i>Resolution of the Senate, December 20, 1911.</i></p>
<p>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</p>
<p>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<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_80" id="Page_80">[80]</a></span></p>
<p>Whereas said treaty is no longer responsive in various respects to the
political principles and commercial needs of the two countries; and</p>
<p>Whereas the constructions placed thereon by the respective contracting
parties differ upon matters of fundamental importance and interest to
each; Therefore be it</p>
<p>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.</p>
<p class="r">(<i>Ibid.</i>, pp. 493-522.)</p>
<p class="doc"><span class="smcap">Arts. I and XI, Anglo-Russian Treaty,</span> <i>January 12, 1859</i>.</p>
<p>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.</p>
<p>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.</p>
<p>Article XI. The subjects of either of the two High Contracting Parties,
conforming themselves to the laws of the country, shall have:—</p>
<p>1. Full liberty, with their families, to enter, travel, or reside in any
part of the dominions and possessions of the other Contracting Party.</p>
<p>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.</p>
<p>3. They may carry on their commerce, either in person or by any agents
whom they may think fit to employ.</p>
<p>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.</p>
<p class="r">(Bernhardt: <i>op. cit.</i>, pp. 721, 724-725.)</p>
<p class="doc"><i>Interpretation by Great Britain, 1862 and 1881. Despatch from Lord Granville
to H.B.M. Ambassador at St. Petersburg.</i><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_81" id="Page_81">[81]</a></span></p>
<p class="c"><i>Earl Granville to Sir E. Thornton.</i></p>
<p class="r"><span style="margin-right:4%;"><span class="smcap">Foreign Office</span>,</span><br />
<i>December 28th, 1881</i>.</p>
<p><span class="smcap">Sir</span>,—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.</p>
<p>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.</p>
<p>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.</p>
<p>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.</p>
<p>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.</p>
<p>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 amen<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_82" id="Page_82">[82]</a></span>able
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.</p>
<p>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.</p>
<p class="r"><span style="margin-right:4%;">I am, &c.,</span><br />
<span class="smcap">Granville.</span><br />
("Parl. Paper, Russia," No. 4 (1881), p. 21.)<br />
</p>
<p class="doc"><i>Interpretation by Great Britain, 1891. Letter from the Marquis of Salisbury
to Sir Julian Goldsmid.</i></p>
<p class="r"><span style="margin-right:5%;"><span class="smcap">Foreign Office</span>,</span><br />
<i>January 29th, 1891</i>.</p>
<p><span class="smcap">Sir</span>,—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.</p>
<p>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.</p>
<p>You will find a copy of this despatch on page 21 of the Parliamentary
Paper "Russia No. 4, 1881."</p>
<p class="r">
<span style="margin-right:25%;">I am, Sir,</span><br />
<span style="margin-right:18%;">Your most obedient, humble Servant,</span><br />
<span class="smcap">T. H. Sanderson.</span><br />
</p>
<p><span class="smcap">Sir J. Goldsmid, Bart., M.P.</span></p>
<p class="doc"><i>Interpretation by Great Britain, 1912. Letter from Sir Edward Grey to the
Conjoint Committee.</i></p>
<p class="r"><span class="smcap">Foreign Office</span>,<br />
<i>October 1st, 1912</i>.</p>
<p><span class="smcap">Gentlemen</span>,—Secretary Sir E. Grey has had under his careful consideration
your Memorial of August 2nd last on the subject of the grievances caused<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_83" id="Page_83">[83]</a></span>
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.</p>
<p>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.</p>
<p class="r">
<span style="margin-right:5%;">I am, Gentlemen,</span><br />
<span style="margin-right:2%;">Your most obedient humble Servant,</span><br />
<span class="smcap">Eyre A. Crowe.</span></p>
<p class="hang"><span class="smcap">The Conjoint Jewish Committee,<br />
19 Finsbury Circus, E.C.</span></p>
<p class="r">("Annual Report, Board of Deputies, 1912," pp. 81-82.)<br />
</p>
<p class="doc"><span class="smcap">Art. XIII. Anglo-Moorish Treaty</span>, <i>December 9, 1856</i>.</p>
<p>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.</p>
<p class="r">(Bernhardt: <i>op. cit.</i>, p. 561.)</p>
<p class="c top5">(<i>b</i>) <span class="smcap">CONSULAR PROTECTION.</span></p>
<p>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.<a name="FNanchor_94_100" id="FNanchor_94_100"></a><a href="#Footnote_94_100" class="fnanchor">[94]</a></p></div>
<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_84" id="Page_84">[84]</a></span>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,<a name="FNanchor_95_101" id="FNanchor_95_101"></a><a href="#Footnote_95_101" class="fnanchor">[95]</a> and
this roughly has been the practice of all States exercising Consular
Protection.</p>
<p>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 <i>berats</i> of interpreters
should not issue to "artizans, shopkeepers, bankers and
other persons not acting as interpreters."<a name="FNanchor_96_102" id="FNanchor_96_102"></a><a href="#Footnote_96_102" class="fnanchor">[96]</a> 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.</p>
<p>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<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_85" id="Page_85">[85]</a></span>
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.<a name="FNanchor_97_103" id="FNanchor_97_103"></a><a href="#Footnote_97_103" class="fnanchor">[97]</a></p>
<p>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.<a name="FNanchor_98_104" id="FNanchor_98_104"></a><a href="#Footnote_98_104" class="fnanchor">[98]</a> 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."<a name="FNanchor_99_105" id="FNanchor_99_105"></a><a href="#Footnote_99_105" class="fnanchor">[99]</a> Nevertheless, the old
abuses continued in virtue of the "Most favoured nation" clause,<a name="FNanchor_100_106" id="FNanchor_100_106"></a><a href="#Footnote_100_106" class="fnanchor">[100]</a>
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.</p>
<p>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.<a name="FNanchor_101_107" id="FNanchor_101_107"></a><a href="#Footnote_101_107" class="fnanchor">[101]</a><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_86" id="Page_86">[86]</a></span></p>
<p class="doc">DOCUMENTS.</p>
<p class="doc"><span class="smcap">Protection of Russian Jews in Palestine.—the Agreement of 1849.</span></p>
<div class="blockquot">
<p class="c"><i>Earl Russell to the Jewish Board of Deputies.</i></p>
<p class="r"><span class="smcap">Foreign Office</span>,<br />
<i>February 1st, 1864</i>.</p>
<p><span class="smcap">Sir</span>,—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.</p>
<p>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 <i>primâ facie</i> 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.</p>
<p>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.</p>
<p>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.</p>
<p class="r">
<span style="margin-right:8%;">I am, Sir,</span><br />
<span style="margin-right:4%;">Your most obedient humble Servant,</span><br />
<span class="smcap">I. Hammond.</span></p>
<p><span class="smcap">J. M. Montefiore, Esq.,</span><br />
4 <span class="smcap">Gt. Stanhope St., Mayfair.</span></p>
<p class="r">(Minute Books of Board of Deputies, 1864.)</p>
<p class="doc"><span class="smcap">Art. III. Anglo-Moorish Treaty</span> <i>of January 14, 1727-8</i>.<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_87" id="Page_87">[87]</a></span></p>
<p>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.</p>
<p class="r">("A General Collection of Treaties" (1732), iv. 458.)</p>
<p class="doc"><span class="smcap">Art. III. Anglo-Moorish General Treaty</span> <i>of December 9, 1856</i>.<br/>
<span class="smcap">Extract.</span></p>
<p>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.</p>
<p class="r">(Bernhardt: <i>op. cit.</i>, p. 556.)</p>
<p class="doc"><span class="smcap">Art. IV. Anglo-Moorish Treaty of Commerce</span> <i>of December 9, 1856</i>.<br />
<span class="smcap">Extract.</span></p>
<p>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.</p>
<p class="r">(<i>Ibid.</i> p. 573.)</p>
<p class="doc"><span class="smcap">Franco-Moorish "Règlement" regarding Protection</span>, <i>August 19, 1863</i>.<br />
<span class="smcap">Extracts.</span><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_88" id="Page_88">[88]</a></span></p>
<p>La protection est individuelle et temporaire.</p>
<p>Elle ne s'applique pas en général aux parents de l'individu protégé.</p>
<p>Elle ne peut s'appliquer à sa famille, c'est-à-dire à la femme et aux
enfants demeurant sous le même toit.</p>
<p>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.</p>
<p>Les protégés se divisent en deux catégories:</p>
<p>La première catégorie comprend les indigènes employés par la Légation
et par les différentes Autorités consulaires.</p>
<p>La seconde catégorie se compose des facteurs, courtiers ou agents
indigènes employés par les négociants français pour leurs affaires de
commerce....</p>
<p>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....</p>
<p>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....</p>
<p class="c">(De Card: "Les Traités entre la France et le Maroc" (Paris, 1898), pp. 221-22.)</p></div>
<p class="doc">(<i>c</i>) <span class="smcap">THE CONFERENCES OF MADRID</span> (1800) <span class="smcap">AND ALGECIRAS</span> (1906).</p>
<p>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.<a name="FNanchor_102_108" id="FNanchor_102_108"></a><a href="#Footnote_102_108" class="fnanchor">[102]</a> 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.<a name="FNanchor_103_109" id="FNanchor_103_109"></a><a href="#Footnote_103_109" class="fnanchor">[103]</a> For obvious<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_89" id="Page_89">[89]</a></span>
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.<a name="FNanchor_104_110" id="FNanchor_104_110"></a><a href="#Footnote_104_110" class="fnanchor">[104]</a> 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.<a name="FNanchor_105_111" id="FNanchor_105_111"></a><a href="#Footnote_105_111" class="fnanchor">[105]</a></p>
<p>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.<a name="FNanchor_106_112" id="FNanchor_106_112"></a><a href="#Footnote_106_112" class="fnanchor">[106]</a> 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.<a name="FNanchor_107_113" id="FNanchor_107_113"></a><a href="#Footnote_107_113" class="fnanchor">[107]</a></p>
<p>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 remon<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_90" id="Page_90">[90]</a></span>strances
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."<a name="FNanchor_108_114" id="FNanchor_108_114"></a><a href="#Footnote_108_114" class="fnanchor">[108]</a></p>
<p>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.</p>
<p class="doc">DOCUMENTS.</p>
<div class="blockquot"><p class="doc"><span class="smcap">Extracts from Protocols of the Madrid Conference (1880).</span></p>
<p class="c"><i>Protocole No. 3.—Séance du 20 Mai, 1880.</i></p>
<p>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.</p>
<p>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.</p>
<p>Pareille réserve est faite par les autres Plénipotentiaires.</p>
<p>"La protection n'est point héréditaire. Une seule exception est
maintenue en faveur de la famille Benchimol, comme étant établie dans la
<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_91" id="Page_91">[91]</a></span>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."</p>
<p class="doc"><i>Protocole No. 11.—Séance du 24 Juin, 1880.</i></p>
<p>Le Plénipotentiaire d'Italie demande la parole, et s'exprime en ces
termes:—</p>
<p>"...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.</p>
<p>"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.</p>
<p>"La veuve David Buzaglo et ses deux fils composent la famille d'un
Agent Diplomatique Italien, et jouisse à ce titre de la protection.</p>
<p>"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."</p>
<p class="r">("Brit. and For. State Papers," lxxi. 825-826, 872, 873-874.)</p>
<p class="doc"><span class="smcap">Art. VI. Treaty of Madrid</span>, <i>July 6, 1880</i>.<a name="FNanchor_109_115" id="FNanchor_109_115"></a><a href="#Footnote_109_115" class="fnanchor">[109]</a></p>
<p>VI. La protection s'étend sur la famille du protégé. Sa demeure
est respectée.</p>
<p>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.</p>
<p>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.</p>
<p>Cependant, si le Sultan du Maroc accordait une autre exception,
chacune des Puissances Contractantes aurait le droit de réclamer une
concession semblable.</p>
<p class="r">(<i>Ibid.</i>, pp. 641-642.)<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_92" id="Page_92">[92]</a></span></p>
<p class="doc"><span class="smcap">The Montefiore Edict, 1864.</span></p>
<p class="c">In the Name of God, the Merciful and Gracious. There is no power but<br />
in God, the High and Mighty.</p>
<p>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.</p>
<p>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.</p>
<p>This Decree, blessed by God, is promulgated on the 26th of Shaban,
1280 (15 February 1864). Peace!</p>
<p>(Loewe, "Diaries of Sir Moses and Lady Montefiore," vol. ii. p. 153.)</p>
<p class="doc"><span class="smcap">Further Extract from Protocols of the Madrid
Conference (1880).</span></p>
<p class="c"><i>Protocole No. 12.—Séance du 26 Juin, 1880.</i></p>
<p>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<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_93" id="Page_93">[93]</a></span>
communication importante qui a été adressée par le Saint-Siège au
Gouvernement de Sa Majesté Catholique.</p>
<p>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:</p>
<p>"<span class="smcap">Excellence</span>,—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.</p>
<p>"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.</p>
<p>"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.</p>
<p>"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<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_94" id="Page_94">[94]</a></span>
de décourager, doivent stimuler les cœurs généreux qui n'envisagent que
la grandeur du but à atteindre.</p>
<p>"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.</p>
<p>"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.</p>
<p>"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.</p>
<p class="r"><span style="margin-right:4%;">Je saisis, &c.,</span><br />
"<span class="smcap">L. Card. Nina</span>.</p>
<p>"A son Excellence <span class="smcap">M. Canovas del Castillo</span>."<br />
</p>
<p>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.</p>
<p>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.</p>
<p>Ayant acquis postérieurement la conviction que les Plénipotentiaires<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_95" id="Page_95">[95]</a></span>
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.</p>
<p>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 vœu
comme celui dont vient de prendre l'initiative le Président de la Conférence,
pourvu que ce vœu 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.</p>
<p>C'est dans ce sens, et pour donner une forme plus précise à ce vœu,
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.</p>
<p>Le Plénipotentiaire d'Autriche-Hongrie donne lecture du document
en ces termes:—</p>
<p>"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.</p>
<p>"La Conférence, d'autant plus convaincu que ce vœu 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.</p>
<p>"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.</p>
<p>"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<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_96" id="Page_96">[96]</a></span>
fidèlement leurs devoirs envers le Souverain, doivent jouir d'une parfaite
identité de droits et d'une complète égalité devant la loi.</p>
<p>"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.</p>
<p>"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—</p>
<p>"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;</p>
<p>"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.</p>
<p>"Une pareille manifestation non seulement honorerait le règne de Sa
Majesté Chérifienne, mais inaugurerait aussi pour ses États une ère nouvelle
de prospérité.</p>
<p>"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 vœu exprimé au nom des Puissances que les Soussignés
ont l'honneur de représenter.</p>
<p>"<i>Madrid, le 26 Juin, 1880.</i>"</p>
<p>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 vœux que les Plénipotentiaires viennent
d'exprimer au nom de leurs Gouvernements respectifs.</p>
<p>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.<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_97" id="Page_97">[97]</a></span></p>
<p>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:—</p>
<p>"Louange à Dieu unique! Que la bénédiction de Dieu soit sur Mahomet,
notre Seigneur et Maître, sur sa famille, et ses compagnons!</p>
<p>"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.</p>
<p>"Et puis:—</p>
<p>"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).</p>
<p>"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.</p>
<p>"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.</p>
<p>"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.</p>
<p>"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.</p>
<p>"<i>Le 22 Joumadi premier, an 1297.</i>"</p>
<p>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 senti<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_98" id="Page_98">[98]</a></span>ments
de justice qui animent Sa Majesté Chérifienne à l'égard de ses
sujets Israélites, et l'annonce du prompt accomplissement des vœux
exprimés par la Conférence.</p>
<p class="r">("British and Foreign State Papers," vol. lxxi. pp. 881-887.)</p>
<p class="doc"><span class="smcap">Extracts from Protocols of the Algeciras Conference, 1906</span>.</p>
<p class="c">No. 33. <i>2 Avril, 1906. Dix-septième Séance.</i></p>
<p>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 vœu 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 vœu 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."</p>
<p>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.</p>
<p>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."<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_99" id="Page_99">[99]</a></span></p>
<p>LL. EE. MM. de Radowitz (Allemagne) et Revoil (France) se rallient
également au vœu de M. le premier Délégué des États-Unis.</p>
<p>S. Exc. M. le Marquis Visconti Venosta (Italie) déclare qu'il adhère
au vœu 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 vœu 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.</p>
<p>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.</p>
<p>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.</p>
<p>Le vœu proposé par S. Exc. M. White est adopté par l'unanimité des
Délégués des Puissances.</p>
<p>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 cœur de procéder dans l'espèce de la même façon que feu son père.</p>
<p>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.</p>
<p>("Protocoles et Comptes Rendus de la Conférence d'Algésiras" (Paris,
1906), pp. 246-248.)<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_100" id="Page_100">[100]</a></span></p></div>
<h3><a name="IV_THE_PALESTINE_QUESTION_AND_THE_NATIONAL" id="IV_THE_PALESTINE_QUESTION_AND_THE_NATIONAL"></a>IV. THE PALESTINE QUESTION AND THE NATIONAL<br />RESTORATION OF THE JEWS.</h3>
<p>U<span class="smcap">ntil</span> 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.</p>
<p>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.</p>
<p>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.<a name="FNanchor_110_116" id="FNanchor_110_116"></a><a href="#Footnote_110_116" class="fnanchor">[110]</a> Among other items in Finch's<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_101" id="Page_101">[101]</a></span>
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.<a name="FNanchor_111_117" id="FNanchor_111_117"></a><a href="#Footnote_111_117" class="fnanchor">[111]</a> 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.<a name="FNanchor_112_118" id="FNanchor_112_118"></a><a href="#Footnote_112_118" class="fnanchor">[112]</a> 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.<a name="FNanchor_113_119" id="FNanchor_113_119"></a><a href="#Footnote_113_119" class="fnanchor">[113]</a></p>
<p>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 <i>v.</i> 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."<a name="FNanchor_114_120" id="FNanchor_114_120"></a><a href="#Footnote_114_120" class="fnanchor">[114]</a></p>
<p>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 considera<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_102" id="Page_102">[102]</a></span>tions
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.</p>
<p>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.<a name="FNanchor_115_121" id="FNanchor_115_121"></a><a href="#Footnote_115_121" class="fnanchor">[115]</a> 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.<a name="FNanchor_116_122" id="FNanchor_116_122"></a><a href="#Footnote_116_122" class="fnanchor">[116]</a>
Instead of championing the national aspirations of the<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_103" id="Page_103">[103]</a></span>
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.<a name="FNanchor_117_123" id="FNanchor_117_123"></a><a href="#Footnote_117_123" class="fnanchor">[117]</a> 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.<a name="FNanchor_118_124" id="FNanchor_118_124"></a><a href="#Footnote_118_124" class="fnanchor">[118]</a> 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.<a name="FNanchor_119_125" id="FNanchor_119_125"></a><a href="#Footnote_119_125" class="fnanchor">[119]</a> 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,<a name="FNanchor_120_126" id="FNanchor_120_126"></a><a href="#Footnote_120_126" class="fnanchor">[120]</a> 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.<a name="FNanchor_121_127" id="FNanchor_121_127"></a><a href="#Footnote_121_127" class="fnanchor">[121]</a></p>
<p>Nevertheless, there were two occasions on which the Jewish<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_104" id="Page_104">[104]</a></span>
aspects of the Palestine question did enter the field of practical
international politics.</p>
<p>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 <i>Décade Philosophique et
Littéraire</i>, and was soon after published in the London Press and
reprinted as a twopenny pamphlet by the <i>Courier</i>.<a name="FNanchor_122_128" id="FNanchor_122_128"></a><a href="#Footnote_122_128" class="fnanchor">[122]</a> 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."<a name="FNanchor_123_129" id="FNanchor_123_129"></a><a href="#Footnote_123_129" class="fnanchor">[123]</a> The scheme
collapsed with the battles of Acre and Aboukir.</p>
<p>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.<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_105" id="Page_105">[105]</a></span></p>
<p>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 <i>rayon</i>
of territory. This was to be governed by a Christian municipality,
organised and protected by the Great Christian Powers.<a name="FNanchor_124_130" id="FNanchor_124_130"></a><a href="#Footnote_124_130" class="fnanchor">[124]</a> Russia
raised objections in October 1840, and incidentally took occasion to
ridicule the idea of a National Restoration of the Jews.<a name="FNanchor_125_131" id="FNanchor_125_131"></a><a href="#Footnote_125_131" class="fnanchor">[125]</a> 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.<a name="FNanchor_126_132" id="FNanchor_126_132"></a><a href="#Footnote_126_132" class="fnanchor">[126]</a> Russia opposed the Austrian
scheme.<a name="FNanchor_127_133" id="FNanchor_127_133"></a><a href="#Footnote_127_133" class="fnanchor">[127]</a> Thereupon Prussia put forward a fourth scheme of a
far more ambitious character.<a name="FNanchor_128_134" id="FNanchor_128_134"></a><a href="#Footnote_128_134" class="fnanchor">[128]</a> 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.<a name="FNanchor_129_135" id="FNanchor_129_135"></a><a href="#Footnote_129_135" class="fnanchor">[129]</a> This scheme was strongly<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_106" id="Page_106">[106]</a></span>
opposed by Austria, in whose view Lord Palmerston concurred.<a name="FNanchor_130_136" id="FNanchor_130_136"></a><a href="#Footnote_130_136" class="fnanchor">[130]</a>
Russia also opposed it, but in Paris it was received sympathetically.<a name="FNanchor_131_137" id="FNanchor_131_137"></a><a href="#Footnote_131_137" class="fnanchor">[131]</a></p>
<p>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.<a name="FNanchor_132_138" id="FNanchor_132_138"></a><a href="#Footnote_132_138" class="fnanchor">[132]</a> 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."<a name="FNanchor_133_139" id="FNanchor_133_139"></a><a href="#Footnote_133_139" class="fnanchor">[133]</a> 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:<a name="FNanchor_134_140" id="FNanchor_134_140"></a><a href="#Footnote_134_140" class="fnanchor">[134]</a></p>
<p class="top5">"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).<a name="FNanchor_135_141" id="FNanchor_135_141"></a><a href="#Footnote_135_141" class="fnanchor">[135]</a> So the beginning is made, please God, for
the restoration of Israel."</p>
<p class="top5">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,<a name="FNanchor_136_142" id="FNanchor_136_142"></a><a href="#Footnote_136_142" class="fnanchor">[136]</a> and that in
1878, at the Berlin Congress, Lord Salisbury agreed to recognise the<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_107" id="Page_107">[107]</a></span>
whole of Syria as a French sphere of interest in return for the French
recognition of the Cyprus Convention between Great Britain and
Turkey.<a name="FNanchor_137_143" id="FNanchor_137_143"></a><a href="#Footnote_137_143" class="fnanchor">[137]</a> It is to be assumed from the terms of the Secret Agreement
of February 21, 1917,<a name="FNanchor_138_144" id="FNanchor_138_144"></a><a href="#Footnote_138_144" class="fnanchor">[138]</a> that British interests in the Suez Canal
and other more recent events have modified that arrangement.</p>
<p>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.<a name="FNanchor_139_145" id="FNanchor_139_145"></a><a href="#Footnote_139_145" class="fnanchor">[139]</a> With this promise the
other Entente Powers have since associated themselves.</p>
<p class="doc">DOCUMENTS.</p>
<div class="blockquot"><p class="doc"><span class="smcap">The Great Powers and Palestine, 1840-1841.</span></p>
<p class="c"><i>Memorandum delivered by the Russian Government to the Prussian Government
in October 1840.</i></p>
<p>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'œuvre 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 vœu 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.</p>
<p>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.<a name="FNanchor_140_146" id="FNanchor_140_146"></a><a href="#Footnote_140_146" class="fnanchor">[140]</a><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_108" id="Page_108">[108]</a></span></p>
<p>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'œuvre 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.</p>
<p>Il résulte de l'ensemble de ces informations:</p>
<p>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.</p>
<p>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.</p>
<p>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.</p>
<p>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.</p>
<p>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.</p>
<p>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,<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_109" id="Page_109">[109]</a></span>
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.</p>
<p class="doc"><i>Enclosure in Russian Mem. of October 1840.</i></p>
<p>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.</p>
<p>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.</p>
<p>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.</p>
<p>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.</p>
<p>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.</p>
<p>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<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_110" id="Page_110">[110]</a></span>
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.</p>
<p>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.</p>
<p>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.</p>
<p>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.</p>
<p>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 vœux, 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.</p>
<p>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.</p>
<p>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.<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_111" id="Page_111">[111]</a></span></p>
<p class="doc"><i>Memorandum delivered by the Austrian Government to the Prussian Government
in October 1840.</i></p>
<p>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 vœux 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.</p>
<p>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.</p>
<p>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<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_112" id="Page_112">[112]</a></span>
Grand Seigneur. C'est pour obvier à cette fâcheuse éventualité que le Cabinet
Impérial soumet à ses Alliés les considérations suivantes:</p>
<p>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.</p>
<p>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.</p>
<p>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.</p>
<p>Il paraît donc que l'action tutélaire <i>du centre du Gouvernement</i>, 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 <i>un employé spécial</i>, 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?</p>
<p>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 repré<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_113" id="Page_113">[113]</a></span>sentans
des Gouvernemens Chrétiens nommés ad hoc, qui, sous la dénomination
de <i>Procureurs</i>, 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.</p>
<p>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.</p>
<p class="r">
(F.O. Docs. 64/235.)</p>
<p class="doc"><i>Lord Clanricarde to Lord Palmerston (Extract).</i></p>
<p class="r">
<span style="margin-right:4%;"><span class="smcap">St. Petersburg</span>,</span><br />
<i>February 23, 1841</i>.</p>
<p><span class="smcap">My Lord</span>,—...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....</p>
<p>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.</p>
<p class="r"><span style="margin-right:50%;">I have the Honour to be with the Highest Respect, My Lord,</span><br />
<span style="margin-right:25%;">Your Lordship's most obedient Humble Servant,</span><br />
<span class="smcap">Clanricarde</span>.</p>
<p><span class="smcap">The Viscount Palmerston</span>, G.C.B.</p>
<p class="r">(F.O. Docs. 63/271.)<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_114" id="Page_114">[114]</a></span></p>
<p class="doc"><i>Mémoire of the King of Prussia dated February 24, 1841, delivered to Lord
Palmerston by Baron Bülow.</i></p>
<p>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.</p>
<p>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.</p>
<p>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.</p>
<p>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 vœux qu'il forme à ce sujet, le Roi, notre auguste maître, Leur
fait proposer de faire valoir auprès de la Porte Ottomane les immenses<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_115" id="Page_115">[115]</a></span>
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.</p>
<p>D'après les idées de Sa Majesté l'arrangement à conclure porterait
que</p>
<p>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.</p>
<p>2. Les habitans chrétiens des dites villes cesseraient d'appartenir à
la catégorie de Rayahs; ils seraient à l'avenir <i>exclusivement</i> 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).</p>
<p>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.</p>
<p>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.</p>
<p>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.</p>
<p>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<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_116" id="Page_116">[116]</a></span>
les communautés chrétiennes pussent s'en servir pour mettre en sûreté les
vases sacrés précieux et leurs propriétés en général.</p>
<p>L'ancienne place du temple et la mosquée d'Omar resteraient dans tous
les cas aux Turcs.</p>
<p>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.</p>
<p class="doc"><i>Covering Letter from Baron Bülow to Lord Palmerston, March 6, 1841 (Extract).</i></p>
<p>...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....</p>
<p class="r">(F.O. Docs., 64/235.)</p>
<p class="doc"><i>Lord Beauvale to Lord Palmerston.</i></p>
<p class="r"><span class="smcap">Vienna</span>, <i>March 2nd, 1841</i>.</p>
<p><span class="smcap">My Lord</span>,—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.</p>
<p class="r"><span style="margin-right: 25%;">I have the honor to be with the greatest respect, My Lord,</span><br/>
<span style="margin-right:5%;">Your Lordship's Most Obedient Humble Servant,</span><br />
<span class="smcap">Beauvale</span>.</p>
<p><span class="smcap">The Viscount Palmerston</span>, G.C.B.</p>
<p class="r">(F.O. Docs., 7/298.)<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_117" id="Page_117">[117]</a></span></p>
<p class="doc"><i>Lord Palmerston to Lord Beauvale, (Draft).</i></p>
<p class="r">F.O., <i>March 11th, 1841</i>.</p>
<p><span class="smcap">My Lord</span>,—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>
<p class="r"><span style="margin-right:5%;">P.</span><br />
(F.O. Docs. 1/296.)</p>
<p class="doc"><i>Memorandum of Austrian Government delivered to Lord Palmerston by Prince
Esterhazy, March 31, 1841.</i></p>
<p class="hang">Sur le Mémorandum du 3 Février<a name="FNanchor_141_147" id="FNanchor_141_147"></a><a href="#Footnote_141_147" class="fnanchor">[141]</a> et le mémoire Prussien, relativement
à la protection des Chrétiens en Syrie.</p>
<p>La différence entre le mémorandum du 3 fév. et le mémoire prussien
consiste en ce que le premier fournit un moyen pratique pour <i>porter remède</i>
au mal existant, sans entreprendre une reforme dangereuse, tandis que l'autre
tend à introduire <i>un nouvel ordre de choses</i> en faveur de la représentation de
l'Église évangélique, par des moyens inexécutables.</p>
<p><i>Le travail du 3 fevr.</i> 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.</p>
<p>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 <i>à la vénalité</i> des
Musselims, comme autorités locales.</p>
<p>L'exécution des firmans toujours mise arbitrairement à un prix très
élevé est devenu de la part des Musselims une spéculation financière.</p>
<p>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<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_118" id="Page_118">[118]</a></span>
la confession la plus offrante est sûre d'atteindre son but et rien n'est plus à
désirer que <i>la punition sévère du trafic illicite et honteux</i>, qui se pratique avec
les firmans et l'irrévocabilité <i>de ceux une fois émanés</i>.</p>
<p>C'est donc en parfaite connoissance du véritable siége du mal, que le
mémorandum du 3 février <i>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</i>.</p>
<p><i>Le mémoire prussien</i> tendant à établir sur les lieux une représentation de
l'église évangélique et sa participation aux fondations existantes, suscite une
question <i>toute nouvelle</i>, dont la portée n'est pas à calculer.</p>
<p>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:</p>
<p>A. <i>La propriété des lieux saints à Jérusalem, Bethléhem et Nazareth passerait
aux cinq grandes Puissances.</i></p>
<p>Mais cette propriété est aux différentes confessions, qui déjà jalouses de
la partager entre <i>trois</i>, ne voudraient certainement pas faire une cession de
droits acquis, en faveur d'une <i>quatrième prétendant</i>.</p>
<p>B. <i>Les Chrétiens évangéliques auraient dans l'église du St. Sépulcre à
Jérusalem et dans celle de Bethléhem des parties spécialement destinées à leur
usage.</i></p>
<p>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 <i>seuls</i> 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.<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_119" id="Page_119">[119]</a></span></p>
<p>C. <i>Chaque Puissance, qui nommerait un résident, mettrait à sa disposition
60 soldats.</i></p>
<p>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.</p>
<p class="r">(F.O. Docs. 7/302.)</p>
<p class="doc"><span class="smcap">British Jews and Palestine, 1841-1843.</span></p>
<p class="c"><i>Colonel Churchill to Sir Moses Montefiore.</i></p>
<p class="r"><i>June 14th, 1841.</i></p>
<p><span class="smcap">My dear Sir Moses</span>,—I have not yet had the pleasure of hearing from
you, but I would fain hope that my letters have reached you safe.</p>
<p>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.</p>
<p>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.</p>
<p>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.</p>
<p>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<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_120" id="Page_120">[120]</a></span>
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 <i>must</i> progress, and its various elements of
commercial prosperity <i>must</i> 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 <i>beginning</i>
must be made—a resolution must be taken, <i>an agitation must be commenced</i>,
and where the stake is "Country and Home" where is the heart that will
not leap and bound to the appeal?</p>
<p>I am the Resident Officer at Damascus until further order.<br />
<span style="margin-left: 25%;">Believe me to be, Dear Sir Moses,</span><br />
<span style="margin-left: 40%;">Yours very faithfully,</span><br />
<span style="margin-left: 60%;"><span class="smcap">Chas. H. Churchill</span>.</span></p>
<p>Before closing my letter, I cannot avoid offering one or two further
considerations.<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_121" id="Page_121">[121]</a></span></p>
<p>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.</p>
<p>No doubt, such an undertaking will require <i>Patriotism</i> 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.</p>
<p>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—<i>when</i> and <i>how</i>.</p>
<p>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.</p>
<p>I will keep you "au fait" of all that passes in this country if you wish it.</p>
<p class="r"><i>15th August, 1842.</i></p>
<p><span class="smcap">My dear Sir Moses</span>,—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<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_122" id="Page_122">[122]</a></span>
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.</p>
<p>I have nothing more to add, as my Document, which I enclose, will
express to you all I can say upon the subject.</p>
<p>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.</p>
<p>May I beg you to present my kind regards to Lady Montefiore, and
believe me to be,</p>
<p class="r"><span style="margin-right:15%;">Dear Sir Moses,</span><br />
<span style="margin-right:10%;">Yours most sincerely,</span><br />
<span class="smcap">Chas. H. Churchill</span>.</p>
<p class="doc"><i>Proposal of Colonel Churchill (Extract).</i></p>
<p>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.</p>
<p>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.<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_123" id="Page_123">[123]</a></span></p>
<p>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....</p>
<p>..."God has put into my heart the desire to serve His ancient people.
...I have discharged a duty imposed on me by my conscience."...</p>
<p class="doc"><i>Resolution of the Board of Deputies of British Jews.</i></p>
<p class="r"><i>November 8th, 1842.</i></p>
<p>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.</p>
<p class="doc"><i>Colonel Churchill to the Secretary of the Board of Deputies.</i></p>
<p class="r"><span class="smcap">Beyrout</span>, <i>Jany.</i> 8<i>th</i>, 1843.</p>
<p><span class="smcap">Sir</span>,—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.</p>
<p>It affords me the greatest gratification to learn that the British Jews
would zealously co-operate with the general body of their countrymen in<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_124" id="Page_124">[124]</a></span>
endeavouring to procure the permanent amelioration of the condition of
Jews in Syria and Palestine.</p>
<p>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.</p>
<p>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.</p>
<p class="r"><span style="margin-right:5%;">I have the honour to be, &c.,</span><br />
<span class="smcap">Chas. Churchill</span>.<br />
(Minute-Books of Board of Deputies, 1841-43.)</p>
<p class="doc"><span class="smcap">The Entente Powers and Palestine, 1917.</span></p>
<p class="c"><i>Extract from Agreement between Great Britain, France and Russia, dated
February 21, 1917.</i></p>
<p>"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."</p>
<p class="r">(<i>Manchester Guardian</i>, January 19, 1918.)</p>
<p class="doc"><span class="smcap">Great Britain and Zionism, 1917.</span></p>
<p class="c"><i>Mr. Balfour to Lord Rothschild.</i></p>
<p class="r"><span style="margin-right:4%;"><span class="smcap">Foreign Office</span>,</span><br />
<i>November 2nd, 1917</i>.</p>
<p><span class="smcap">Dear Lord Rothschild</span>,—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:—</p>
<p>"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 under<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_125" id="Page_125">[125]</a></span>stood
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."</p>
<p>I should be grateful if you would bring this declaration to the knowledge
of the Zionist Federation.</p>
<p class="r">
<span style="margin-right:15%;">Yours sincerely,</span><br />
<span class="smcap">Arthur James Balfour</span>.<br />
(<i>Times</i>, November 9, 1917.)<br />
</p></div>
<h3><a name="APPENDIX" id="APPENDIX"></a>APPENDIX.<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_126" id="Page_126">[126]</a></span></h3>
<p class="doc"><span class="smcap">INTERNATIONAL ANTI-SEMITISM IN</span> 1498.</p>
<p>T<span class="smcap">he</span> 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.</p>
<p class="doc">DOCUMENT.</p>
<div class="blockquot"><p class="c"><i>De Carta del soprior de Santa Cruza Sus Alts. (Sub-Prior of Santa Cruz to
Ferdinand and Isabella, July 18, 1498). Extract.</i></p></div>
<div class="blockquot"><p>Acabada nuestra embasada hable al Rey de Inglaterra solo....</p>
<p>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....</p>
<p class="r">(Record Office: "Spanish Transcripts," Series I, vol. I, B. 205.)</p></div>
<h3><a name="INDEX" id="INDEX"></a>INDEX.<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_127" id="Page_127">[127]</a></span></h3>
<ul>
<li>Abdul Medjid, Sultan of Turkey, <a href="#Page_96">96</a></li>
<li>Aberdeen, Earl of, <a href="#Page_18">18</a>, <a href="#Page_123">123</a></li>
<li>Adler, Cyrus, <a href="#Page_67">67</a>, <a href="#Page_70">70</a>, <a href="#Page_71">71</a></li>
<li>Agreement, Anglo-Prussian (1841), <a href="#Page_106">106</a></li>
<li>Alexander I, Tsar, <a href="#Page_12">12</a>, <a href="#Page_15">15</a></li>
<li>Alexander II, Tsar, <a href="#Page_78">78</a></li>
<li>Alexander III, Tsar, <a href="#Page_55">55</a></li>
<li>Alexander, Bishop, <a href="#Page_106">106</a></li>
<li>Alexander, D. L., <a href="#Page_51">51</a>, <a href="#Page_52">52</a>, <a href="#Page_54">54</a></li>
<li>Algeciras, Conference of (1906), <a href="#Page_54">54</a>, <a href="#Page_88">88</a>;
<ul><li>Protocols, <a href="#Page_98">98-99</a></li>
</ul></li>
<li>Allenby, General, <a href="#Page_104">104</a></li>
<li>Alliance Israélite, <a href="#Page_59">59</a>, <a href="#Page_60">60</a>, <a href="#Page_89">89</a></li>
<li>Almodovar del Rio, Duc de, <a href="#Page_98">98</a></li>
<li>American-Jewish Committee, <a href="#Page_89">89</a></li>
<li>American House of Representatives, Resolution, <a href="#Page_79">79</a></li>
<li>American Senate, Resolution, <a href="#Page_79">79-80</a></li>
<li>American-Swiss Treaty (1855), <a href="#Page_74">74</a></li>
<li>"Anabaptisticum et Enthusiasticum Pantheon," <a href="#Page_103">103</a></li>
<li>Anarchists, <a href="#Page_57">57</a></li>
<li>Ancona, Jews of, <a href="#Page_63">63</a></li>
<li>Andrássy, Count, <a href="#Page_30">30</a>, <a href="#Page_93">93</a></li>
<li>Anglo-French Entente, <a href="#Page_56">56</a></li>
<li>Anglo-Jewish Association, <a href="#Page_45">45</a>, <a href="#Page_51">51</a>, <a href="#Page_69">69</a>, <a href="#Page_89">89</a></li>
<li>Anglo-Moorish Treaty (1856), <a href="#Page_78">78</a>, <a href="#Page_83">83</a>, <a href="#Page_87">87</a></li>
<li>Anglo-Prussian Agreement (1841), <a href="#Page_106">106</a></li>
<li>Anglo-Russian Treaty (1859), <a href="#Page_80">80</a></li>
<li>Anglo-Swiss Treaty (1855), <a href="#Page_73">73</a></li>
<li>Anglo-Turkish Treaty (1809), <a href="#Page_84">84</a></li>
<li>Anti-Semitic Triple Alliance, <a href="#Page_57">57-62</a></li>
<li>Appleton, John, <a href="#Page_75">75</a></li>
<li>Austria, <a href="#Page_64">64</a>, <a href="#Page_65">65</a></li>
<li>Austrian Instruction (1815), <a href="#Page_71">71</a></li>
<li>Austrian Jews, <a href="#Page_7">7</a></li>
<li class="alpha">Balance of Power, The, <a href="#Page_54">54</a></li>
<li>Balfour, Arthur James, <a href="#Page_124">124</a>, <a href="#Page_125">125</a></li>
<li>Baltimore, Jews of, <a href="#Page_74">74</a></li>
<li>Bartholomey, Mr., <a href="#Page_77">77</a></li>
<li>Baruch, Jacob, <a href="#Page_12">12</a></li>
<li>Baxter, Nadir, <a href="#Page_101">101</a></li>
<li>Beaconsfield, Earl of, <a href="#Page_30">30</a>, <a href="#Page_103">103</a></li>
<li>Beauvale, Lord, <a href="#Page_106">106</a>, <a href="#Page_116">116</a>, <a href="#Page_117">117</a></li>
<li>Belgium and Holland, Union of, <a href="#Page_2">2</a></li>
<li>Benchimol Family, <a href="#Page_88">88</a>, <a href="#Page_89">89</a>, <a href="#Page_90">90</a>, <a href="#Page_91">91</a></li>
<li>Berlin, Congress of (1878), <a href="#Page_23">23-36</a>, <a href="#Page_52">52</a></li>
<li>Berlin, Treaty of (1878), <a href="#Page_24">24</a>, <a href="#Page_33">33</a></li>
<li>Bernhardt, "Handbook of Treaties, &c.," <a href="#Page_74">74</a>, <a href="#Page_80">80</a>, <a href="#Page_83">83</a>, <a href="#Page_84">84</a>, <a href="#Page_87">87</a></li>
<li>Bernstorff, Count, <a href="#Page_16">16</a></li>
<li>Bertie, Francis, <a href="#Page_44">44</a>, <a href="#Page_45">45</a></li>
<li>Bethlehem, <a href="#Page_105">105</a></li>
<li>Bismarck, Prince, <a href="#Page_25">25</a>, <a href="#Page_26">26</a>, <a href="#Page_27">27</a>, <a href="#Page_28">28</a>, <a href="#Page_29">29</a>, <a href="#Page_30">30</a>, <a href="#Page_32">32</a></li>
<li>Bjoerkoe interview, <a href="#Page_56">56</a>, <a href="#Page_62">62</a></li>
<li>Blaine, James G. (U.S. Secretary of State), <a href="#Page_54">54</a>, <a href="#Page_70">70</a>, <a href="#Page_78">78</a></li>
<li>"Blue Laws," <a href="#Page_77">77</a></li>
<li>Boerne, Ludwig, <a href="#Page_12">12</a></li>
<li>Bohemia, Jews of, <a href="#Page_7">7-11</a></li>
<li>Brisac, J., <a href="#Page_66">66</a>, <a href="#Page_67">67</a>, <a href="#Page_68">68</a>, <a href="#Page_72">72</a>, <a href="#Page_73">73</a></li>
<li>Broglie, Duc de, <a href="#Page_66">66</a></li>
<li>Brothers, Richard, <a href="#Page_101">101</a></li>
<li>Bucharest Commission, <a href="#Page_20">20</a></li>
<li>Bucharest, Treaty of (1913), <a href="#Page_50">50</a></li>
<li>Bulgaria, <a href="#Page_26">26</a>, <a href="#Page_33">33</a></li>
<li>Bülow, Baron, <a href="#Page_105">105</a>, <a href="#Page_114">114</a>, <a href="#Page_116">116</a></li>
<li>Bund, Jewish, <a href="#Page_57">57</a>, <a href="#Page_59">59</a></li>
<li>Bunsen, Baron, <a href="#Page_106">106</a></li>
<li>Buzaglo, David, <a href="#Page_89">89</a>, <a href="#Page_91">91</a><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_128" id="Page_128">[128]</a></span></li>
<li>Canovas Del Castillo, Señor, <a href="#Page_93">93</a>, <a href="#Page_94">94</a></li>
<li>Capitulations, <a href="#Page_3">3</a>, <a href="#Page_4">4</a>, <a href="#Page_83">83</a>, <a href="#Page_100">100</a></li>
<li>Capodistrias, Count, <a href="#Page_16">16</a></li>
<li>Carathéodory Pacha, <a href="#Page_26">26</a>, <a href="#Page_27">27</a>, <a href="#Page_31">31</a>, <a href="#Page_32">32</a></li>
<li>Carlowitz, Treaty of (1699), <a href="#Page_64">64</a>, <a href="#Page_71">71</a>, <a href="#Page_100">100</a></li>
<li>Cassini, Count, <a href="#Page_99">99</a></li>
<li>Castlereagh, Viscount, <a href="#Page_12">12</a>, <a href="#Page_13">13</a>, <a href="#Page_16">16</a></li>
<li>Catharine of Braganza, Queen, <a href="#Page_6">6</a></li>
<li>Catherine of Russia, Empress, <a href="#Page_76">76</a>, <a href="#Page_78">78</a></li>
<li>"Ce que les Israélites de la Suisse doivent à la France," <a href="#Page_66">66</a></li>
<li>Charlemagne, Emperor, <a href="#Page_3">3</a></li>
<li>Charles II, King of England, <a href="#Page_6">6</a></li>
<li>Charles X, King of France, <a href="#Page_65">65</a></li>
<li>Chevalier, Michel, <a href="#Page_67">67</a></li>
<li>China, religious liberty in, <a href="#Page_3">3</a></li>
<li>Choate, Joseph H., <a href="#Page_44">44</a></li>
<li>Christendom, Peace of, <a href="#Page_2">2</a></li>
<li>Christian Missions, protection of, <a href="#Page_3">3</a></li>
<li>Christina, Queen of Sweden, <a href="#Page_6">6</a></li>
<li>Churchill, Colonel, C. H., <a href="#Page_103">103</a>, <a href="#Page_119">119</a>, <a href="#Page_120">120</a>, <a href="#Page_122">122</a>, <a href="#Page_123">123</a>, <a href="#Page_124">124</a></li>
<li>Circular Note to Great Powers, American (1902), <a href="#Page_44">44</a></li>
<li>Clarendon, Earl of, <a href="#Page_19">19</a>, <a href="#Page_67">67</a></li>
<li>Clanricarde, Marquis of, <a href="#Page_113">113</a></li>
<li>Cobden, Richard, <a href="#Page_67">67</a></li>
<li>Cohn, Albert, <a href="#Page_19">19</a></li>
<li><a name="Conferences" id="Conferences"></a>Conferences:—
<ul><li>Algeciras (1906), <a href="#Page_54">54</a>, <a href="#Page_88">88</a></li>
<li>Bucharest (1913), <a href="#Page_45">45</a>, <a href="#Page_47">47</a>, <a href="#Page_48">48</a>, <a href="#Page_49">49</a></li>
<li>Constantinople (1856), <a href="#Page_20">20</a>, <a href="#Page_21">21</a>, <a href="#Page_23">23</a></li>
<li>London (1830), <a href="#Page_17">17</a>, <a href="#Page_52">52</a></li>
<li>London (1912), <a href="#Page_13">13</a>, <a href="#Page_45">45</a>, <a href="#Page_47">47</a></li>
<li>Madrid (1880), <a href="#Page_54">54</a>, <a href="#Page_88">88</a></li>
<li>Ryswick (1697), <a href="#Page_103">103</a></li>
<li>St. Petersburg (1912-13), <a href="#Page_45">45-47</a></li>
<li><span style="margin-left: 2em;"><i>See also</i></span> <a href="#Protocols">Protocols</a> and <a href="#Treaties">Treaties</a></li>
</ul></li>
<li><a name="Congresses" id="Congresses"></a>Congresses:—
<ul><li>Aix-la-Chapelle (1818), <a href="#Page_15">15</a>, <a href="#Page_16">16</a></li>
<li>Berlin (1878), <a href="#Page_23">23</a>, <a href="#Page_25">25-33</a>, <a href="#Page_36">36</a></li>
<li>Paris (1856), <a href="#Page_18">18-23</a></li>
<li>Vienna (1815), <a href="#Page_3">3</a>, <a href="#Page_12">12-15</a></li>
<li><span style="margin-left: 2em;"><i>See also</i></span> <a href="#Protocols">Protocols</a> and <a href="#Treaties">Treaties</a></li>
</ul></li>
<li>Consistoire Israélite, <a href="#Page_66">66</a></li>
<li>Consular Protection, <a href="#Page_4">4</a>, <a href="#Page_82">82-85</a>, <a href="#Page_86">86-88</a></li>
<li><a name="Convention" id="Convention"></a>Convention, Cyprus (1878), <a href="#Page_107">107</a></li>
<li>Convention of Paris (1858), <a href="#Page_20">20</a>, <a href="#Page_21">21</a>, <a href="#Page_23">23</a></li>
<li>Crémieux, Adolphe, <a href="#Page_18">18</a>, <a href="#Page_102">102</a></li>
<li>Cromwell, Oliver, <a href="#Page_4">4</a>, <a href="#Page_6">6</a>, <a href="#Page_102">102</a></li>
<li>Crowe, Sir Eyre, <a href="#Page_51">51</a>, <a href="#Page_83">83</a></li>
<li>Cyprus, <a href="#Page_103">103</a></li>
<li>Cyprus Convention (1878), <a href="#Page_107">107</a></li>
<li class="alpha">Damascus, <a href="#Page_120">120</a></li>
<li>Daudet, Ernest, <a href="#Page_55">55</a></li>
<li>"Décade Philosophique et Littéraire," <a href="#Page_104">104</a></li>
<li>De Card, "Les Traités entre la France et le Maroc," <a href="#Page_88">88</a></li>
<li>Declaration on Palestine, British (1917), <a href="#Page_124">124-5</a></li>
<li>De Launay, Count, <a href="#Page_29">29</a>, <a href="#Page_32">32</a>, <a href="#Page_53">53</a></li>
<li>De Mello, Don Francisco Manuel, <a href="#Page_6">6</a></li>
<li>Deschamps, Emile, <a href="#Page_59">59</a></li>
<li>Despatch, American, to U.S. Minister at Athens (1902), <a href="#Page_38">38</a></li>
<li>Desprez, M., <a href="#Page_26">26</a>, <a href="#Page_32">32</a>, <a href="#Page_33">33</a></li>
<li>Dicey, Professor A. V., <a href="#Page_5">5</a>, <a href="#Page_54">54</a></li>
<li>D'Israeli, "Genius of Judaism," <a href="#Page_101">101</a></li>
<li>Dobrudja, <a href="#Page_50">50</a></li>
<li>Dohm, C. W., <a href="#Page_15">15</a></li>
<li class="alpha">Eastern Roumelia, <a href="#Page_26">26</a>, <a href="#Page_79">79</a></li>
<li>Edict of Sultan of Morocco, <a href="#Page_89">89</a>, <a href="#Page_92">92</a></li>
<li>El Arish, <a href="#Page_104">104</a></li>
<li>Esterhazy, Prince, <a href="#Page_117">117</a></li>
<li class="alpha">Ferdinand and Isabella of Spain, <a href="#Page_126">126</a></li>
<li>Finch, Sir Henry, <a href="#Page_100">100</a>, <a href="#Page_101">101</a></li>
<li>Finn, James, <a href="#Page_86">86</a>, <a href="#Page_102">102</a>;
<ul><li>"Records from Jerusalem Consular Chronicles," <a href="#Page_85">85</a></li>
</ul></li>
<li>Fogg, Mr., <a href="#Page_75">75</a></li>
<li>Foreign Jews Protection Society, <a href="#Page_64">64</a></li>
<li>Foster, J. W., <a href="#Page_70">70</a></li>
<li>France, <a href="#Page_65">65</a>, <a href="#Page_66">66</a></li>
<li>Franchi, Cardinal, <a href="#Page_93">93</a><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_129" id="Page_129">[129]</a></span></li>
<li>Franco-Moorish Règlement (1863), <a href="#Page_88">88</a></li>
<li>Franco-Swiss Treaty (1827), <a href="#Page_71">71</a></li>
<li>Franco-Swiss Treaty (1864), <a href="#Page_73">73</a></li>
<li>Franks, Aaron, <a href="#Page_7">7</a>, <a href="#Page_8">8</a>, <a href="#Page_9">9</a></li>
<li>Freemasons, <a href="#Page_59">59</a>, <a href="#Page_60">60</a>, <a href="#Page_62">62</a></li>
<li>Fuller, "A Pisgah Sight of Palestine," <a href="#Page_100">100</a></li>
<li class="alpha">George II, King of England, <a href="#Page_7">7-9</a></li>
<li>German Jews, <a href="#Page_12">12</a>, <a href="#Page_13">13</a></li>
<li>Goldsmid, Sir Julian, <a href="#Page_82">82</a></li>
<li>Gortchacow, Prince, <a href="#Page_28">28</a>, <a href="#Page_29">29</a>, <a href="#Page_30">30</a>, <a href="#Page_33">33</a></li>
<li>Graetz, "Geschichte der Juden," <a href="#Page_103">103</a></li>
<li>Granville, Earl, <a href="#Page_69">69</a>;
<ul><li>despatch of,<a href="#Page_81">81-82</a></li>
</ul></li>
<li>Greece, Jews of, <a href="#Page_17">17</a></li>
<li>Grey, Sir Edward, <a href="#Page_45">45</a>, <a href="#Page_46">46</a>, <a href="#Page_48">48</a>, <a href="#Page_51">51</a>, <a href="#Page_52">52</a>, <a href="#Page_54">54</a>, <a href="#Page_69">69</a>, <a href="#Page_82">82</a></li>
<li>Grey, Viscount (<i>see</i> Sir Edward)</li>
<li>Guizot, <a href="#Page_66">66</a>, <a href="#Page_105">105</a>, <a href="#Page_107">107</a></li>
<li class="alpha">Halhed, Nathaniel Brassey, M.P., <a href="#Page_101">101</a></li>
<li>Hammond, J., <a href="#Page_86">86</a></li>
<li>Hardenberg, Prince, <a href="#Page_12">12</a>, <a href="#Page_13">13</a>, <a href="#Page_16">16</a></li>
<li>Haroun al-Rashid, Khalif, <a href="#Page_3">3</a></li>
<li>Harrington, Lord, <a href="#Page_11">11</a></li>
<li>Hart, Moses, <a href="#Page_7">7</a>, <a href="#Page_8">8</a>, <a href="#Page_9">9</a></li>
<li><i>Hatti-Humayoun</i> (1856), <a href="#Page_19">19-22</a></li>
<li>Hay, John (U.S. Secretary of State), <a href="#Page_37">37</a>, <a href="#Page_38">38</a>, <a href="#Page_43">43</a>, <a href="#Page_44">44</a>;
<ul><li>despatch on Rumania, <a href="#Page_38">38-43</a></li>
</ul></li>
<li>Hay, Sir John Drummond, <a href="#Page_85">85</a>, <a href="#Page_88">88</a></li>
<li>Haymerle, Baron, <a href="#Page_30">30</a></li>
<li>Henry VII, King of England, <a href="#Page_126">126</a></li>
<li>Hervaille, <a href="#Page_59">59</a></li>
<li>Herzl, Theodor, <a href="#Page_104">104</a></li>
<li>"Histoire Diplomatique de l'Alliance Franco-Russe," <a href="#Page_55">55</a></li>
<li>Holland, <a href="#Page_7">7</a></li>
<li>Holland, Jews of, <a href="#Page_2">2</a>, <a href="#Page_3">3</a></li>
<li>Holland, "The European Concert in the Eastern Question," <a href="#Page_18">18</a>, <a href="#Page_21">21</a>, <a href="#Page_22">22</a></li>
<li>Holy Alliance, <a href="#Page_12">12</a></li>
<li>Holy Roman Empire, <a href="#Page_100">100</a></li>
<li>Hoskier, M., <a href="#Page_55">55</a></li>
<li class="alpha"><i>Izviestia</i>, <a href="#Page_56">56</a></li>
<li>Izvolsky, A., <a href="#Page_56">56</a>, <a href="#Page_62">62</a></li>
<li class="alpha">Jackson, J. B. (U.S. Minister at Bucharest), <a href="#Page_47">47</a></li>
<li>Jaffa, <a href="#Page_85">85</a></li>
<li>James I, King of England, <a href="#Page_101">101</a></li>
<li>Jerusalem, <a href="#Page_101">101</a>, <a href="#Page_104">104</a>, <a href="#Page_108">108</a>, <a href="#Page_109">109</a>, <a href="#Page_115">115</a>, <a href="#Page_117">117</a></li>
<li>Jewish Board of Deputies, <a href="#Page_12">12</a>, <a href="#Page_45">45</a>, <a href="#Page_47">47</a>, <a href="#Page_51">51</a>, <a href="#Page_69">69</a>, <a href="#Page_86">86</a>, <a href="#Page_89">89</a>, <a href="#Page_103">103</a>, <a href="#Page_123">123</a>, <a href="#Page_124">124</a></li>
<li>Jewish Bund, <a href="#Page_57">57</a></li>
<li>Jewish Conjoint Committee, <a href="#Page_24">24</a>, <a href="#Page_45">45</a>, <a href="#Page_46">46</a>, <a href="#Page_48">48</a>, <a href="#Page_49">49</a>, <a href="#Page_50">50</a>, <a href="#Page_51">51</a>, <a href="#Page_52">52</a>, <a href="#Page_69">69</a>, <a href="#Page_82">82</a>, <a href="#Page_83">83</a></li>
<li>"Jewish Disabilities in the Balkan States," <a href="#Page_37">37</a></li>
<li>Jewish Nationalism, <a href="#Page_16">16</a></li>
<li>"Jews and the War," <a href="#Page_24">24</a>, <a href="#Page_45">45</a></li>
<li>Jews in Bohemia, <a href="#Page_7">7-11</a></li>
<li>Jews in Foreign Countries, Status of, <a href="#Page_63">63-83</a></li>
<li>Jews in Morocco, <a href="#Page_83">83-85</a>, <a href="#Page_87">87-99</a></li>
<li>Jews in Rumania, <a href="#Page_28">28-48</a></li>
<li>Jews in Russia, <a href="#Page_54">54</a></li>
<li>Jews in Russia, American Despatch, <a href="#Page_76">76-78</a>, <a href="#Page_81">81-83</a></li>
<li>Jews in Switzerland, <a href="#Page_72">72-73</a></li>
<li>"Jews in the Diplomatic Correspondence of the U.S.," <a href="#Page_70">70</a></li>
<li>Jews, National Restoration of, <a href="#Page_100">100-125</a></li>
<li>Jews of Baltimore, <a href="#Page_74">74</a></li>
<li>Joostens, Baron, <a href="#Page_99">99</a></li>
<li class="alpha">Kamarowsky, <a href="#Page_105">105</a>, <a href="#Page_106">106</a></li>
<li>Klüber, "Akten des Wiener Kongresses," <a href="#Page_14">14</a></li>
<li>Kohler, Max, <a href="#Page_37">37</a></li>
<li>Koutzo-Vlachs, <a href="#Page_50">50</a><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_130" id="Page_130">[130]</a></span></li>
<li>Lamsdorf, Count, <a href="#Page_55">55</a>, <a href="#Page_56">56</a>, <a href="#Page_62">62</a></li>
<li>Lansdowne, Marquis of, <a href="#Page_37">37</a>, <a href="#Page_38">38</a></li>
<li>Lassalle, Ferdinand, <a href="#Page_59">59</a></li>
<li>"Legal Sufferings of Jews in Russia," <a href="#Page_54">54</a></li>
<li>Lemoine, "Napoléon et les Juifs," <a href="#Page_104">104</a></li>
<li>Leopold of Saxe-Coburg, Prince, <a href="#Page_17">17</a></li>
<li>Leven, Narcisse, <a href="#Page_24">24</a>, <a href="#Page_85">85</a></li>
<li>Lewisohn, Leon, <a href="#Page_69">69</a>, <a href="#Page_81">81</a></li>
<li>Lieven, Count, <a href="#Page_18">18</a></li>
<li>Loeb, Isidor, <a href="#Page_24">24</a></li>
<li>Loewe, "Diaries of Sir Moses Montefiore," <a href="#Page_89">89</a>, <a href="#Page_92">92</a></li>
<li>London, Treaty of (1840), <a href="#Page_106">106</a></li>
<li>Louis Philippe, King of France, <a href="#Page_66">66</a>;
<ul><li>speech of (1835), <a href="#Page_73">73</a></li>
</ul></li>
<li>Ludolf, Count, <a href="#Page_95">95</a></li>
<li class="alpha">Madrid, Conference of (1880), <a href="#Page_54">54</a>, <a href="#Page_88">88</a>;
<ul><li>Protocols, <a href="#Page_90">90-98</a></li>
</ul></li>
<li>Madrid, Treaty of (1880), <a href="#Page_91">91</a></li>
<li>Maiorescu, Titu (Rumanian Prime Minister), <a href="#Page_46">46</a>, <a href="#Page_47">47</a>, <a href="#Page_49">49</a>, <a href="#Page_50">50</a></li>
<li>Maria Theresa, Empress, <a href="#Page_7">7-11</a></li>
<li>Marranos (or Crypto-Jews), <a href="#Page_63">63</a>, <a href="#Page_64">64</a></li>
<li>Marx, Karl, <a href="#Page_59">59</a></li>
<li>Mehemet Ali, <a href="#Page_102">102</a></li>
<li>"Memorandum on the Grievances of British Subjects of the Jewish Faith," <a href="#Page_69">69</a></li>
<li>"Memorandum on Treaty Rights of Jews of Rumania" (1908), <a href="#Page_45">45</a></li>
<li>Memorandum (Palestine), Austrian (1840), <a href="#Page_111">111-113</a>;
<ul><li>(1841), <a href="#Page_117">117-119</a></li>
</ul></li>
<li>Memorandum (Palestine), Prussian (1841), <a href="#Page_114">114-116</a></li>
<li>Memorandum (Palestine) of Russian Government (1840), <a href="#Page_107">107-110</a></li>
<li>Menasseh ben Israel, <a href="#Page_6">6</a></li>
<li>Mendes da Costa, Fernando, <a href="#Page_6">6</a></li>
<li>Metternich, Prince, <a href="#Page_12">12</a>, <a href="#Page_13">13</a>, <a href="#Page_16">16</a>, <a href="#Page_113">113</a>, <a href="#Page_116">116</a>, <a href="#Page_117">117</a>, <a href="#Page_118">118</a></li>
<li>Milan, Prince, <a href="#Page_30">30</a></li>
<li>Mohammed Vargas, Cid, <a href="#Page_96">96</a>, <a href="#Page_97">97</a></li>
<li>Moldavia, Jews in, <a href="#Page_19">19</a>, <a href="#Page_21">21</a></li>
<li>Moldavians and Wallachians, <a href="#Page_23">23</a></li>
<li>Montefiore, Claude G., <a href="#Page_51">51</a>, <a href="#Page_52">52</a>, <a href="#Page_54">54</a></li>
<li>Montefiore, Joseph Meyer, <a href="#Page_86">86</a></li>
<li>Montefiore, Lady, <a href="#Page_122">122</a></li>
<li>Montefiore, Sir Moses, <a href="#Page_18">18</a>, <a href="#Page_89">89</a>, <a href="#Page_95">95</a>, <a href="#Page_102">102</a>, <a href="#Page_103">103</a>, <a href="#Page_119">119</a>, <a href="#Page_121">121</a></li>
<li>Montenegro, <a href="#Page_30">30</a>, <a href="#Page_33">33</a></li>
<li>Montmoren y Laval, <a href="#Page_18">18</a></li>
<li>Moravia, Jews of, <a href="#Page_7">7</a></li>
<li>Morocco, Jews of, <a href="#Page_70">70</a></li>
<li>Morocco, Religious Liberty in, <a href="#Page_89">89-99</a></li>
<li>Mount Athos, <a href="#Page_31">31</a></li>
<li>Muley-el-Hassan, Sultan of Morocco, <a href="#Page_97">97</a>, <a href="#Page_98">98</a></li>
<li class="alpha">Nahon, Moses, <a href="#Page_89">89</a>, <a href="#Page_91">91</a></li>
<li>Napier, Lord, <a href="#Page_81">81</a></li>
<li>Napoleon I, Emperor, <a href="#Page_102">102</a>, <a href="#Page_104">104</a></li>
<li>Napoleon III, Emperor, <a href="#Page_19">19</a></li>
<li>Nasi, Donna Gracia, <a href="#Page_6">6</a>, <a href="#Page_63">63</a></li>
<li>Nasi, Don Joseph (<i>see</i> Naxos, Duke of)</li>
<li>"National Treatment," <a href="#Page_65">65</a>, <a href="#Page_68">68</a></li>
<li>Nationality, Jewish, <a href="#Page_64">64</a></li>
<li>Naxos, Duke of, <a href="#Page_63">63</a></li>
<li>Nazareth, <a href="#Page_105">105</a></li>
<li>Neapolitan prison horrors, <a href="#Page_5">5</a></li>
<li>Nelidow, Actual Privy Councillor, <a href="#Page_58">58</a></li>
<li>Nesselrode, Count, <a href="#Page_16">16</a>, <a href="#Page_113">113</a></li>
<li>Nicholas II, Tsar, <a href="#Page_56">56</a>, <a href="#Page_62">62</a></li>
<li>Nicolson, Sir Arthur, <a href="#Page_98">98</a></li>
<li>"Nikky-Willy" correspondence, <a href="#Page_55">55</a></li>
<li>Nina, Cardinal, <a href="#Page_94">94</a></li>
<li class="alpha">Oliphant, Lawrence, <a href="#Page_103">103</a></li>
<li>Omar, Mosque of, <a href="#Page_116">116</a></li>
<li>Ottoman Empire, Jews in, <a href="#Page_3">3</a>, <a href="#Page_4">4</a></li>
<li class="alpha">Palestine Declaration, British (1917), <a href="#Page_124">124-125</a></li>
<li>Palestine, Jews in, <a href="#Page_70">70</a></li>
<li>Palestine Question, <a href="#Page_100">100-125</a></li>
<li>Palestine, Russian Jews in, <a href="#Page_84">84</a>, <a href="#Page_85">85</a><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_131" id="Page_131">[131]</a></span></li>
<li>Palestine, Secret Agreement (1917), <a href="#Page_107">107</a>, <a href="#Page_124">124</a></li>
<li>Palestine Memorandum, Austrian (1840), <a href="#Page_111">111-113</a>; (1841), <a href="#Page_117">117-119</a></li>
<li>Palestine Memorandum, Prussian (1841), <a href="#Page_114">114-116</a></li>
<li>Palestine Memorandum, Russian (1840), <a href="#Page_107">107-110</a></li>
<li>Palmerston, Viscount, <a href="#Page_102">102</a>, <a href="#Page_105">105</a>, <a href="#Page_106">106</a>, <a href="#Page_113">113</a>, <a href="#Page_114">114</a>, <a href="#Page_116">116</a>, <a href="#Page_117">117</a></li>
<li>Paris, Convention of (1858), <a href="#Page_23">23</a></li>
<li>Passarowitz, Treaty of (1718), <a href="#Page_71">71</a>, <a href="#Page_100">100</a></li>
<li>Passport Question in Russia, <a href="#Page_68">68</a></li>
<li>Paul IV, Pope, <a href="#Page_63">63</a>, <a href="#Page_64">64</a></li>
<li>Paulli, Holger, <a href="#Page_103">103</a></li>
<li>Peace of Christendom, <a href="#Page_2">2</a></li>
<li>Peace of Westphalia, <a href="#Page_2">2</a>, <a href="#Page_3">3</a>, <a href="#Page_6">6</a></li>
<li>Petition concerning Jews of Bohemia, <a href="#Page_7">7-11</a></li>
<li>Piggott, Sir Francis, "Exterritoriality," <a href="#Page_84">84</a></li>
<li>Pogroms, <a href="#Page_62">62</a></li>
<li>Poland, Jews of, <a href="#Page_6">6</a></li>
<li>Poland, Protestants of, <a href="#Page_4">4</a></li>
<li>Ponsonby, Lord, <a href="#Page_106">106</a></li>
<li>Pope, the, <a href="#Page_93">93</a>, <a href="#Page_95">95</a></li>
<li>Portugal, Jews of, <a href="#Page_6">6</a></li>
<li>Prince of Wales (Arthur), <a href="#Page_126">126</a></li>
<li><a name="Protocols" id="Protocols"></a>Protocols:—
<ul><li>Anti-Anarchist (1904), <a href="#Page_56">56</a></li>
<li>Algeciras Conference (1906), <a href="#Page_98">98-99</a></li>
<li>Conference of Bucharest (1913), <a href="#Page_47">47</a></li>
<li>Conference of Constantinople (1856), <a href="#Page_20">20</a>, <a href="#Page_23">23</a></li>
<li>Conference of London (1830), <a href="#Page_17">17</a>, <a href="#Page_18">18</a></li>
<li>Conference, Madrid (1880), <a href="#Page_90">90-98</a></li>
<li>Congress of Aix-la-Chapelle (1818), <a href="#Page_16">16</a></li>
<li>Congress of Berlin (1878), <a href="#Page_25">25-33</a></li>
<li>Great Britain, Russia, Prussia and Austria, <a href="#Page_2">2</a>, <a href="#Page_3">3</a></li>
<li><i>See also</i> <a href="#Conferences">Conferences</a>, <a href="#Congresses">Congresses</a> and <a href="#Treaties">Treaties</a></li>
</ul></li>
<li>Prussia, Jews of, <a href="#Page_6">6</a></li>
<li>Prussia, King of, <a href="#Page_114">114</a></li>
<li class="alpha">Radowitz, Herr von, <a href="#Page_99">99</a></li>
<li><a name="Reglement" id="Reglement"></a>Règlement, Franco-Moorish (1863), <a href="#Page_88">88</a></li>
<li>Religious Liberty, <a href="#Page_1">1</a>, <a href="#Page_2">2</a>, <a href="#Page_3">3</a>, <a href="#Page_17">17</a>, <a href="#Page_20">20</a>, <a href="#Page_21">21</a></li>
<li>"Restoration of the Hebrews, The," <a href="#Page_101">101</a></li>
<li>Revoil, M., <a href="#Page_99">99</a></li>
<li>Richelieu, <a href="#Page_16">16</a></li>
<li>Ristitch, <a href="#Page_30">30</a></li>
<li>Robinson, Sir Thomas, <a href="#Page_7">7</a>, <a href="#Page_9">9</a>, <a href="#Page_11">11</a></li>
<li>Roosevelt, Theodore, <a href="#Page_37">37</a>, <a href="#Page_99">99</a></li>
<li>Rothschild, Sir Anthony de, <a href="#Page_19">19</a></li>
<li>Rothschild, Baron James de, <a href="#Page_19">19</a>, <a href="#Page_20">20</a></li>
<li>Rothschild, Baron Lionel de, <a href="#Page_19">19</a></li>
<li>Rothschild, Leopold de, <a href="#Page_13">13</a></li>
<li>Rothschild, Lord, <a href="#Page_36">36</a>, <a href="#Page_37">37</a>, <a href="#Page_55">55</a>, <a href="#Page_56">56</a>, <a href="#Page_58">58</a></li>
<li>Rothschild, Lord (second), <a href="#Page_124">124</a></li>
<li>Rothschild, Nathan, <a href="#Page_13">13</a></li>
<li>Rumania, <a href="#Page_24">24</a>, <a href="#Page_29">29</a>, <a href="#Page_32">32</a>, <a href="#Page_33">33</a>, <a href="#Page_37">37</a>, <a href="#Page_38">38</a>, <a href="#Page_48">48</a></li>
<li>Rumania and the Powers (1902), <a href="#Page_36">36-45</a></li>
<li>Rumania, American Circular Note on, <a href="#Page_44">44</a></li>
<li>Rumania, Identic Note to (1880), <a href="#Page_35">35-36</a></li>
<li>Rumania, Jews of, <a href="#Page_28">28</a></li>
<li>Rumanian Constitution, Art. VII, <a href="#Page_34">34-35</a></li>
<li>Russell, Earl, <a href="#Page_81">81</a>, 86 (<i>see</i> Russell, Lord John)</li>
<li>Russell, Lord John, <a href="#Page_68">68</a>, <a href="#Page_69">69</a>, <a href="#Page_70">70</a></li>
<li>Russia, Jews in, <a href="#Page_54">54</a>, <a href="#Page_76">76-78</a>, <a href="#Page_81">81-83</a></li>
<li>"Russian Government and the Massacres," <a href="#Page_54">54</a></li>
<li>Russian Jews in Palestine, <a href="#Page_84">84</a>, <a href="#Page_85">85</a></li>
<li>Russian Jews, persecution of, <a href="#Page_5">5</a></li>
<li>Russian Revolution, <a href="#Page_54">54</a></li>
<li>Russian Secret Documents, <a href="#Page_62">62</a></li>
<li>Russo-American Treaty (1832), <a href="#Page_75">75</a></li>
<li>Russo-American Treaty (1832), denunciation of, <a href="#Page_79">79-80</a></li>
<li>Ryswick, Conference of (1697), <a href="#Page_103">103</a></li>
<li class="alpha">Sabbathai Zevi, <a href="#Page_103">103</a></li>
<li>Sager, M., <a href="#Page_99">99</a><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_132" id="Page_132">[132]</a></span></li>
<li>Salisbury, Marquis of, <a href="#Page_26">26</a>, <a href="#Page_27">27</a>, <a href="#Page_31">31</a>, <a href="#Page_32">32</a>, <a href="#Page_34">34</a>, <a href="#Page_69">69</a>, <a href="#Page_82">82</a>, <a href="#Page_106">106</a></li>
<li>Samuel, Henry, Case of, <a href="#Page_64">64</a></li>
<li>Sanderson, Sir T. H., <a href="#Page_69">69</a>, <a href="#Page_82">82</a></li>
<li>Santa Cruz, Sub-Prior of, <a href="#Page_126">126</a></li>
<li>Saxony, <a href="#Page_66">66</a></li>
<li>Schiff, Jacob, <a href="#Page_36">36</a>, <a href="#Page_37">37</a></li>
<li>Schouvaloff, Count, <a href="#Page_26">26</a>, <a href="#Page_27">27</a>, <a href="#Page_28">28</a>, <a href="#Page_30">30</a></li>
<li>Secret Agreement (Palestine) (1917), <a href="#Page_107">107</a>, <a href="#Page_124">124</a></li>
<li>Secret Note to Swiss Diet, French (1826), <a href="#Page_72">72</a></li>
<li>Séménoff, M., <a href="#Page_54">54</a>, <a href="#Page_62">62</a></li>
<li>Servia, <a href="#Page_24">24</a>, <a href="#Page_27">27</a>, <a href="#Page_28">28</a>, <a href="#Page_29">29</a>, <a href="#Page_32">32</a></li>
<li>Servia, Jews of, <a href="#Page_28">28</a></li>
<li>Seward, William H. (U.S. Secretary of State), <a href="#Page_75">75</a></li>
<li>Sidi Mohammed, Sultan of Morocco, <a href="#Page_95">95</a></li>
<li>Socialists, <a href="#Page_59">59</a>, <a href="#Page_60">60</a>, <a href="#Page_61">61</a></li>
<li>Solyman the Magnificent, <a href="#Page_63">63</a>, <a href="#Page_64">64</a></li>
<li>Spain, Jews of, <a href="#Page_6">6</a></li>
<li>Stratford de Redcliffe, Lord, <a href="#Page_19">19</a></li>
<li>Straus, Oscar, <a href="#Page_37">37</a>, <a href="#Page_103">103</a></li>
<li>Stroock, <a href="#Page_67">67</a></li>
<li>Sub-Prior of Santa Cruz, <a href="#Page_126">126</a></li>
<li>Suliotis, M., <a href="#Page_36">36</a></li>
<li>Sweden, <a href="#Page_4">4</a>, <a href="#Page_57">57</a></li>
<li>Switzerland, <a href="#Page_65">65</a>, <a href="#Page_66">66</a>, <a href="#Page_67">67</a>, <a href="#Page_68">68</a></li>
<li>"Switzerland and American Jews," <a href="#Page_67">67</a></li>
<li>Switzerland, Jews in, <a href="#Page_72">72-73</a></li>
<li class="alpha">Tatistcheff, M., <a href="#Page_105">105</a></li>
<li>Testa, Jonkheer, <a href="#Page_99">99</a></li>
<li>Thirty Years War, <a href="#Page_2">2</a></li>
<li>Thornton, Sir E., <a href="#Page_81">81</a></li>
<li>Toledano, Isaac, <a href="#Page_89">89</a>, <a href="#Page_91">91</a></li>
<li><a name="Treaties" id="Treaties"></a>Treaties:—
<ul><li>American-Swiss (1855), <a href="#Page_66">66</a>, <a href="#Page_67">67</a>, <a href="#Page_73">73</a></li>
<li>Anglo-Moorish (1727-8), <a href="#Page_87">87</a></li>
<li>Anglo-Moorish (1856), <a href="#Page_83">83</a>, <a href="#Page_87">87</a></li>
<li>Anglo-Russian (1859), <a href="#Page_68">68</a>, <a href="#Page_80">80</a></li>
<li>Anglo-Swiss (1855), <a href="#Page_67">67</a>, <a href="#Page_73">73</a></li>
<li>Anglo-Turkish (1809), <a href="#Page_87">87</a></li>
<li>Berlin (1878), <a href="#Page_24">24</a>, <a href="#Page_37">37</a></li>
<li>Bucharest (1913), <a href="#Page_50">50</a></li>
<li>Carlowitz (1699), <a href="#Page_64">64</a>, <a href="#Page_71">71</a>, <a href="#Page_100">100</a></li>
<li>Franco-Swiss (1827), <a href="#Page_65">65</a>, <a href="#Page_71">71</a></li>
<li>Franco-Swiss (1864), <a href="#Page_68">68</a>, <a href="#Page_73">73</a></li>
<li>London (1840), <a href="#Page_106">106</a></li>
<li>London (1864), <a href="#Page_49">49</a></li>
<li>Madrid (1880), <a href="#Page_91">91</a></li>
<li>Münster (1648), <a href="#Page_2">2</a></li>
<li>Osnabruck (1648), <a href="#Page_2">2</a></li>
<li>Paris (1856), <a href="#Page_20">20-22</a></li>
<li>Passarowitz (1718), <a href="#Page_71">71</a>, <a href="#Page_100">100</a></li>
<li>Russo-American (1832), <a href="#Page_68">68</a>, <a href="#Page_70">70</a>, <a href="#Page_75">75</a></li>
<li>San Stéfano (1878), <a href="#Page_27">27</a>, <a href="#Page_31">31</a></li>
<li>Tientsin (1858), <a href="#Page_3">3</a></li>
<li>Vienna (1815), <a href="#Page_13">13-15</a></li>
<li><i>See also</i> <a href="#Conferences">Conferences</a>, <a href="#Congresses">Congresses</a>, <a href="#Convention">Conventions</a>, <a href="#Protocols">Protocols</a> and <a href="#Reglement">Règlement</a></li>
</ul></li>
<li>Turkey, <a href="#Page_31">31</a>, <a href="#Page_33">33</a>, <a href="#Page_37">37</a>, <a href="#Page_40">40</a>, <a href="#Page_63">63</a>, <a href="#Page_64">64</a>, <a href="#Page_65">65</a></li>
<li>Turkey, Jews in, <a href="#Page_19">19</a></li>
<li class="alpha">Ubicini, "Question des Principautés," <a href="#Page_23">23</a></li>
<li>United States, <a href="#Page_46">46</a>, <a href="#Page_66">66</a>, <a href="#Page_67">67</a></li>
<li>United States, Religious Liberty in, <a href="#Page_38">38-43</a></li>
<li>Universal Suffrage, <a href="#Page_61">61</a></li>
<li class="alpha">Vatican, <a href="#Page_60">60</a>, <a href="#Page_61">61</a></li>
<li>Vaudois, persecution of the, <a href="#Page_4">4</a></li>
<li>Venizelos, M., <a href="#Page_47">47</a></li>
<li>Visconti Venosta, Viscount, <a href="#Page_99">99</a></li>
<li class="alpha">Waddington, M., <a href="#Page_25">25</a>, <a href="#Page_26">26</a>, <a href="#Page_28">28</a>, <a href="#Page_29">29</a>, <a href="#Page_93">93</a></li>
<li>Wallachia, Jews in, <a href="#Page_19">19</a>, <a href="#Page_21">21</a></li>
<li>Wallachians and Moldavians, <a href="#Page_23">23</a></li>
<li>Warsaw, British Jews in, <a href="#Page_68">68</a></li>
<li>Way, Rev. Lewis, <a href="#Page_15">15</a>, <a href="#Page_16">16</a></li>
<li>Wellington, Duke of, <a href="#Page_13">13</a>, <a href="#Page_16">16</a></li>
<li>Westphalia, Peace of, <a href="#Page_2">2</a></li>
<li>White, Henry, <a href="#Page_98">98</a>, <a href="#Page_99">99</a></li>
<li>White, Sir W. A., <a href="#Page_34">34</a>, <a href="#Page_36">36</a><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_133" id="Page_133">[133]</a></span></li>
<li>William II, Emperor of Germany, <a href="#Page_56">56</a></li>
<li>William III, King of England, <a href="#Page_103">103</a></li>
<li>Wilson, Charles S., <a href="#Page_38">38</a></li>
<li>Witte, Count, <a href="#Page_56">56</a></li>
<li>Wolf, Lucien, <a href="#Page_54">54</a>, <a href="#Page_58">58</a>;
<ul><li>"Sir Moses Montefiore," <a href="#Page_89">89</a></li>
</ul></li>
<li>Wolf, Simon, <a href="#Page_37">37</a></li>
<li>"World's Great Restoration, The," <a href="#Page_100">100</a></li>
<li>Wyshnigradski, M., <a href="#Page_55">55</a></li>
<li class="alpha">Zion, Mount, <a href="#Page_116">116</a></li>
<li>Zionism, <a href="#Page_103">103</a>, <a href="#Page_104">104</a>, <a href="#Page_107">107</a>, <a href="#Page_124">124</a></li>
</ul>
<p class="c top15">Printed by <span class="smcap">Spottiswoode, Ballantyne & Co. Ltd.</span>
Colchester, London & Eton, England</p>
<div class="footnotes"><h3><a name="FOOTNOTES" id="FOOTNOTES"></a>FOOTNOTES:</h3>
<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_1_7" id="Footnote_1_7"></a><a href="#FNanchor_1_7"><span class="label">[1]</span></a> <i>Infra</i>, pp. 57-62 and Appendix.</p></div>
<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_2_8" id="Footnote_2_8"></a><a href="#FNanchor_2_8"><span class="label">[2]</span></a> Wolf: <i>Menasseh b. Israel's Mission to Oliver Cromwell</i>, pp. xviii <i>et seq.</i></p></div>
<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_3_9" id="Footnote_3_9"></a><a href="#FNanchor_3_9"><span class="label">[3]</span></a> The Protocol was accepted by the Dutch King on July 21, 1814. Its text
will be found in <i>British and Foreign State Papers</i>, ii. 141-142.</p></div>
<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_4_10" id="Footnote_4_10"></a><a href="#FNanchor_4_10"><span class="label">[4]</span></a> Guasco: "L'Église Catholique et la Liberté Religieuse dans l'Empire
Chinois" (<i>Revue Générale de Droit International Public</i>, x. 53 <i>et seq.</i>)</p></div>
<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_5_11" id="Footnote_5_11"></a><a href="#FNanchor_5_11"><span class="label">[5]</span></a> Verney and Dambmann: <i>Puissances Etrangères dans le Levant</i>, pp. 69-80.</p></div>
<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_6_12" id="Footnote_6_12"></a><a href="#FNanchor_6_12"><span class="label">[6]</span></a> <i>Infra</i>, pp. 83 <i>et seq.</i></p></div>
<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_7_13" id="Footnote_7_13"></a><a href="#FNanchor_7_13"><span class="label">[7]</span></a> The historical and juridical aspects of the question have been fully discussed
by Professor Rougier in the <i>Revue Générale de Droit International Public</i>, xvii. 468
<i>et seq.</i></p></div>
<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_8_14" id="Footnote_8_14"></a><a href="#FNanchor_8_14"><span class="label">[8]</span></a> Martin: <i>Life of the Prince Consort</i>, iii. 510-511.</p></div>
<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_9_15" id="Footnote_9_15"></a><a href="#FNanchor_9_15"><span class="label">[9]</span></a> For a vigorous exposition of the duty of civilised States in such cases, see
Prof. A. Dicey's introduction to <i>Legal Sufferings of the Jews in Russia</i>, p. x.</p></div>
<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_10_16" id="Footnote_10_16"></a><a href="#FNanchor_10_16"><span class="label">[10]</span></a> See Straus: <i>The American Spirit</i> (New York). For documentary examples
relating to the Jews, see Cyrus Adler: <i>Jews in the Diplomatic Correspondence of the
United States</i>.</p></div>
<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_11_17" id="Footnote_11_17"></a><a href="#FNanchor_11_17"><span class="label">[11]</span></a> <i>Infra</i>, pp. 63-64.</p></div>
<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_12_18" id="Footnote_12_18"></a><a href="#FNanchor_12_18"><span class="label">[12]</span></a> Kayserling: "Menasseh b. Israel" (<i>Misc. Heb. Lit.</i> ii. 29); <i>Harleian
Miscellany</i>, vii. 618.</p></div>
<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_13_19" id="Footnote_13_19"></a><a href="#FNanchor_13_19"><span class="label">[13]</span></a> Brit. Mus. Add. MSS. 29,868, <i>f.</i> 1.</p></div>
<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_14_20" id="Footnote_14_20"></a><a href="#FNanchor_14_20"><span class="label">[14]</span></a> Sir Thomas Robinson, "l'infatigable Robinson" of Carlyle's <i>Frederick</i>,
afterwards Lord Grantham.</p></div>
<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_15_21" id="Footnote_15_21"></a><a href="#FNanchor_15_21"><span class="label">[15]</span></a> Graetz: <i>Geschichte der Juden</i>, x. 393-394.</p></div>
<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_16_22" id="Footnote_16_22"></a><a href="#FNanchor_16_22"><span class="label">[16]</span></a> Emanuel: <i>A Century and a Half of Anglo-Jewish History</i>, p. 9.</p></div>
<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_17_23" id="Footnote_17_23"></a><a href="#FNanchor_17_23"><span class="label">[17]</span></a> Graetz: <i>Geschichte</i>, xi. 324-328. See also Kohler: <i>Jewish Rights at
International Congresses</i>, pp. 6-20.</p></div>
<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_18_24" id="Footnote_18_24"></a><a href="#FNanchor_18_24"><span class="label">[18]</span></a> <i>Diary of Sir Moses Montefiore</i>, 1817, p. 192. (Ramsgate Theological College
MSS.) Kohler: <i>op. cit.</i> pp. 25-26.</p></div>
<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_19_25" id="Footnote_19_25"></a><a href="#FNanchor_19_25"><span class="label">[19]</span></a> Communication from the late Mr. Leopold de Rothschild. See also <i>Gentleman's
Magazine</i>, Oct. 1819, p. 362.</p></div>
<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_20_26" id="Footnote_20_26"></a><a href="#FNanchor_20_26"><span class="label">[20]</span></a> <i>Infra</i>, p. 16. The Protocol does not appear in the Protocols of the Congress
published in the <i>British and Foreign State Papers</i>, and is usually excluded from the
official records of the Congress. Its text is, however, given in Way's <i>Mémoires</i>
(Paris, 1819) as an unpaginated Appendix.</p></div>
<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_21_27" id="Footnote_21_27"></a><a href="#FNanchor_21_27"><span class="label">[21]</span></a> <i>Procès-Verbal des Séances de l'Assemblée Juive</i> (Paris, 1806), pp. 47-49;
<i>Actes du Grand Sanhédrin</i>, pp. 65-73, 83, 90-91.</p></div>
<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_22_28" id="Footnote_22_28"></a><a href="#FNanchor_22_28"><span class="label">[22]</span></a> Emanuel: <i>op. cit.</i>, p. 66. The facts are given more fully by Loeb:
<i>Biographie d'Albert Cohn</i> (Paris, 1878), pp. 48-49.</p></div>
<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_23_29" id="Footnote_23_29"></a><a href="#FNanchor_23_29"><span class="label">[23]</span></a> Loeb: <i>op. cit.</i>, p. 49 (supplemented by private sources), Holland: <i>The
European Concert in the Eastern Question</i>, p. 330.</p></div>
<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_24_30" id="Footnote_24_30"></a><a href="#FNanchor_24_30"><span class="label">[24]</span></a> Holland: <i>op. cit.</i>, pp. 233-234, 251.</p></div>
<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_25_31" id="Footnote_25_31"></a><a href="#FNanchor_25_31"><span class="label">[25]</span></a> <i>British and Foreign State Papers</i>, xlviii. 78.</p></div>
<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_26_32" id="Footnote_26_32"></a><a href="#FNanchor_26_32"><span class="label">[26]</span></a> Loeb: <i>Situation des Israélites en Turquie, en Serbie, et en Roumanie</i> (1877),
p. 200.</p></div>
<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_27_33" id="Footnote_27_33"></a><a href="#FNanchor_27_33"><span class="label">[27]</span></a> <i>The Jews and the War</i>, No. 1 (1917), pp. 15-16. (Privately printed by Jewish
Conjoint Committee.)</p></div>
<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_28_34" id="Footnote_28_34"></a><a href="#FNanchor_28_34"><span class="label">[28]</span></a> <i>British and Foreign State Papers</i>, xlviii. 97.</p></div>
<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_29_35" id="Footnote_29_35"></a><a href="#FNanchor_29_35"><span class="label">[29]</span></a> <i>Ibid.</i> p. 113.</p></div>
<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_30_36" id="Footnote_30_36"></a><a href="#FNanchor_30_36"><span class="label">[30]</span></a> <i>Ibid.</i> p. 120.</p></div>
<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_31_37" id="Footnote_31_37"></a><a href="#FNanchor_31_37"><span class="label">[31]</span></a> <i>Jews and the War</i>, No. 1 (1917), pp. 15-16.</p></div>
<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_32_38" id="Footnote_32_38"></a><a href="#FNanchor_32_38"><span class="label">[32]</span></a> The <i>Hatti-Humayoun</i> (see next document).</p></div>
<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_33_39" id="Footnote_33_39"></a><a href="#FNanchor_33_39"><span class="label">[33]</span></a> This <i>alinéa</i> did not appear in the scheme drawn up by the Bucharest Commission,
but was inserted by the Conference.</p></div>
<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_34_40" id="Footnote_34_40"></a><a href="#FNanchor_34_40"><span class="label">[34]</span></a> Loeb: <i>Situation</i>, pp. 139-196. Narcisse Leven: <i>Cinquante ans d'histoire</i>,
pp. 93-146.</p></div>
<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_35_41" id="Footnote_35_41"></a><a href="#FNanchor_35_41"><span class="label">[35]</span></a> <i>British and Foreign State Papers</i>, lxii. p. 705.</p></div>
<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_36_42" id="Footnote_36_42"></a><a href="#FNanchor_36_42"><span class="label">[36]</span></a> <i>Infra</i>, pp. 25-33.</p></div>
<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_37_43" id="Footnote_37_43"></a><a href="#FNanchor_37_43"><span class="label">[37]</span></a> <i>Jews and the War</i>, p. 29.</p></div>
<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_38_44" id="Footnote_38_44"></a><a href="#FNanchor_38_44"><span class="label">[38]</span></a> <i>Infra</i>, p. 33.</p></div>
<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_39_45" id="Footnote_39_45"></a><a href="#FNanchor_39_45"><span class="label">[39]</span></a> <i>Infra</i>, p. 32. Extract from Protocol No. 17.</p></div>
<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_40_46" id="Footnote_40_46"></a><a href="#FNanchor_40_46"><span class="label">[40]</span></a> "Le Traité de Berlin," writes M. Suliotis in the <i>Journal du droit international
privé</i> (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."</p></div>
<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_41_47" id="Footnote_41_47"></a><a href="#FNanchor_41_47"><span class="label">[41]</span></a> 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 <i>Jews and the War</i>, pp. 14 <i>et seq.</i></p></div>
<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_42_48" id="Footnote_42_48"></a><a href="#FNanchor_42_48"><span class="label">[42]</span></a> Private information and documents.</p></div>
<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_43_49" id="Footnote_43_49"></a><a href="#FNanchor_43_49"><span class="label">[43]</span></a> For a detailed and documented account of the American intervention, but
without the full texts of the Notes of Secretary Hay (<i>infra</i>, pp. 38-45), see Kohler
and Wolf: <i>Jewish Disabilities in the Balkan States</i> (the American Jewish Committee,
1916), pp. 80-83, 108-137.</p></div>
<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_44_50" id="Footnote_44_50"></a><a href="#FNanchor_44_50"><span class="label">[44]</span></a> 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.</p></div>
<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_45_51" id="Footnote_45_51"></a><a href="#FNanchor_45_51"><span class="label">[45]</span></a> This is a reference to Russia. <i>Infra</i>, pp. 69-70.</p></div>
<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_46_52" id="Footnote_46_52"></a><a href="#FNanchor_46_52"><span class="label">[46]</span></a> "Memorandum on the Treaty Rights of the Jews of Rumania" (November
1908). Printed for confidential use, 16 pp. fcp. Reprinted in <i>Jews and the War</i>,
pp. 14-30. Also in the Annual Reports of the Board of Deputies and Anglo-Jewish
Association (1909), and in Kohler and Wolf, <i>op. cit.</i></p></div>
<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_47_53" id="Footnote_47_53"></a><a href="#FNanchor_47_53"><span class="label">[47]</span></a> <i>Infra</i>, p. 47.</p></div>
<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_48_54" id="Footnote_48_54"></a><a href="#FNanchor_48_54"><span class="label">[48]</span></a> <i>Infra</i>, p. 51. For a fuller text of the correspondence, see Annual Report of
the Board of Deputies (1913), pp. 54-74.</p></div>
<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_49_55" id="Footnote_49_55"></a><a href="#FNanchor_49_55"><span class="label">[49]</span></a> The United States was a conspicuous exception. See especially Mr. Blaine's
despatch of February 18, 1891. (<i>Foreign Relations of U.S.</i> 1891, p. 737.)</p></div>
<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_50_56" id="Footnote_50_56"></a><a href="#FNanchor_50_56"><span class="label">[50]</span></a> Wolf and Dicey: <i>Legal Sufferings of the Jews in Russia</i> (London, 1912).
Semenoff and Wolf: <i>The Russian Government and the Massacres</i> (London, 1907).</p></div>
<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_51_57" id="Footnote_51_57"></a><a href="#FNanchor_51_57"><span class="label">[51]</span></a> The story is told by M. Ernest Daudet in his <i>Histoire Diplomatique
de l'Alliance Franco-Russe</i>, pp. 261-262, but the present writer is able to confirm
it from other sources.</p></div>
<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_52_58" id="Footnote_52_58"></a><a href="#FNanchor_52_58"><span class="label">[52]</span></a> The famous "Nikky-Willy" correspondence (see <i>Times</i>, September 4,
1917; <i>Daily Telegraph</i>, September 4, 27 and 29, 1917; and <i>Morning Post</i>,
September 15, 1917.)</p></div>
<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_53_59" id="Footnote_53_59"></a><a href="#FNanchor_53_59"><span class="label">[53]</span></a> <i>Infra</i>, pp. 57-62.</p></div>
<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_54_60" id="Footnote_54_60"></a><a href="#FNanchor_54_60"><span class="label">[54]</span></a> 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.</p></div>
<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_55_61" id="Footnote_55_61"></a><a href="#FNanchor_55_61"><span class="label">[55]</span></a> This Protocol is published in vol. vi. of the <i>Secret Documents</i> published by
the Russian Revolutionary Government in February 1918.</p></div>
<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_56_62" id="Footnote_56_62"></a><a href="#FNanchor_56_62"><span class="label">[56]</span></a> Secret letter from the Kaiser to the Tsar published in the Soviet organ
<i>Inviestia</i>, December 19, 1917.</p></div>
<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_57_63" id="Footnote_57_63"></a><a href="#FNanchor_57_63"><span class="label">[57]</span></a> Actual Privy Councillor Nelidow's despatch of December 1-14, 1905.</p></div>
<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_58_64" id="Footnote_58_64"></a><a href="#FNanchor_58_64"><span class="label">[58]</span></a> Communicated by Emil Deschamps in the <i>Journal de St. Pétersbourg</i>, of
December 23, 1905.</p></div>
<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_59_65" id="Footnote_59_65"></a><a href="#FNanchor_59_65"><span class="label">[59]</span></a> Despatch from the Imperial Ambassador at the Hague of October 24, 1905,
No. 22.</p></div>
<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_60_66" id="Footnote_60_66"></a><a href="#FNanchor_60_66"><span class="label">[60]</span></a> Despatch from the Imperial Ambassador at Rome of November 29, 1905,
No. 23.</p></div>
<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_61_67" id="Footnote_61_67"></a><a href="#FNanchor_61_67"><span class="label">[61]</span></a> 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.</p></div>
<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_62_68" id="Footnote_62_68"></a><a href="#FNanchor_62_68"><span class="label">[62]</span></a> Levy: <i>Don Joseph Nasi</i>, <i>Herzog von Naxos und seine Familie</i> (Breslau,
1859). See also Graetz: <i>Geschichte</i>, vol. ix. <i>passim</i>.</p></div>
<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_63_69" id="Footnote_63_69"></a><a href="#FNanchor_63_69"><span class="label">[63]</span></a> The text of the Sultan's letter is preserved in the rare <i>Lettere di Principi</i>
(Venice, 1581), iii. 171.</p></div>
<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_64_70" id="Footnote_64_70"></a><a href="#FNanchor_64_70"><span class="label">[64]</span></a> Graetz: <i>Geschichte</i>, ix. 361, and 571-572.</p></div>
<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_65_71" id="Footnote_65_71"></a><a href="#FNanchor_65_71"><span class="label">[65]</span></a> <i>Transactions, Jewish Historical Society</i>, iv. 478 <i>et seq.</i> 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, <i>Herald</i>, July 22 and 29,
1916.) See also the case of the prosecution of Henry Samuel, <i>Times</i>,
September 19, 1918.</p></div>
<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_66_72" id="Footnote_66_72"></a><a href="#FNanchor_66_72"><span class="label">[66]</span></a> <i>Infra</i>, p. 71.</p></div>
<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_67_73" id="Footnote_67_73"></a><a href="#FNanchor_67_73"><span class="label">[67]</span></a> Brisac: <i>Ce que les Israélites de la Suisse doivent à la France</i> (Lausanne, 1916),
pp. 9-13. <i>Infra</i>, pp. 71-72.</p></div>
<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_68_74" id="Footnote_68_74"></a><a href="#FNanchor_68_74"><span class="label">[68]</span></a> Brisac: <i>op. cit.</i>, pp. 14-15, 16-17.</p></div>
<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_69_75" id="Footnote_69_75"></a><a href="#FNanchor_69_75"><span class="label">[69]</span></a> Jewish disabilities still existed in England, Germany, Austria, Russia, the
Italian States, Spain and Portugal.</p></div>
<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_70_76" id="Footnote_70_76"></a><a href="#FNanchor_70_76"><span class="label">[70]</span></a> May 28, 1841. A full report of the debate will be found in the <i>Moniteur</i>,
May 29, 1841.</p></div>
<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_71_77" id="Footnote_71_77"></a><a href="#FNanchor_71_77"><span class="label">[71]</span></a> Stroock: "Switzerland and American Jews," in <i>Publications of the American
Jewish Historical Society</i>, xi. 7-8, 15.</p></div>
<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_72_78" id="Footnote_72_78"></a><a href="#FNanchor_72_78"><span class="label">[72]</span></a> Brisac: <i>op. cit.</i>, p. 27-33.</p></div>
<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_73_79" id="Footnote_73_79"></a><a href="#FNanchor_73_79"><span class="label">[73]</span></a> <i>Infra</i>, pp. 73-74.</p></div>
<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_74_80" id="Footnote_74_80"></a><a href="#FNanchor_74_80"><span class="label">[74]</span></a> Stroock: <i>op. cit.</i>, p. 15.</p></div>
<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_75_81" id="Footnote_75_81"></a><a href="#FNanchor_75_81"><span class="label">[75]</span></a> Brisac: <i>op. cit.</i>, p. 37.</p></div>
<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_76_82" id="Footnote_76_82"></a><a href="#FNanchor_76_82"><span class="label">[76]</span></a> Stroock: <i>op. cit.</i>, pp. 24-32.</p></div>
<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_77_83" id="Footnote_77_83"></a><a href="#FNanchor_77_83"><span class="label">[77]</span></a> 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 <i>Publications of the American Jewish Historical Society</i>,
xv. 25-39.</p></div>
<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_78_84" id="Footnote_78_84"></a><a href="#FNanchor_78_84"><span class="label">[78]</span></a> <i>Infra</i>, p. 73.</p></div>
<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_79_85" id="Footnote_79_85"></a><a href="#FNanchor_79_85"><span class="label">[79]</span></a> This was not in the Commercial Treaty but in a separate Treaty of Establishment
signed the same day.</p></div>
<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_80_86" id="Footnote_80_86"></a><a href="#FNanchor_80_86"><span class="label">[80]</span></a> Sanctioned by the Referendum of January 14, 1866 (Brisac, p. 54).</p></div>
<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_81_87" id="Footnote_81_87"></a><a href="#FNanchor_81_87"><span class="label">[81]</span></a> <i>Parl. Paper, Russia</i>, No. 4 (1881), p. 21. <i>Infra</i>, pp. 81-82.</p></div>
<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_82_88" id="Footnote_82_88"></a><a href="#FNanchor_82_88"><span class="label">[82]</span></a> <i>Parl. Paper, Russia</i>, No. 3 (1881), pp. 17-18.</p></div>
<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_83_89" id="Footnote_83_89"></a><a href="#FNanchor_83_89"><span class="label">[83]</span></a> <i>Parl. Paper, Russia</i>, No. 4 (1881), pp. 21-22. <i>Infra</i>, p. 82.</p></div>
<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_84_90" id="Footnote_84_90"></a><a href="#FNanchor_84_90"><span class="label">[84]</span></a> Letter from Sir T. H. Sanderson on behalf of the Marquis of Salisbury,
January 29, 1891.</p></div>
<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_85_91" id="Footnote_85_91"></a><a href="#FNanchor_85_91"><span class="label">[85]</span></a> "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.</p></div>
<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_86_92" id="Footnote_86_92"></a><a href="#FNanchor_86_92"><span class="label">[86]</span></a> <i>Infra</i>, pp. 82-83.</p></div>
<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_87_93" id="Footnote_87_93"></a><a href="#FNanchor_87_93"><span class="label">[87]</span></a> Cyrus Adler: <i>Jews in the Diplomatic Correspondence of the United States</i>,
pp. 73-74. See also dispatch from Mr. Foster, October 18, 1880, in <i>Foreign Relations
of the United States</i>, 1881, p. 991.</p></div>
<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_88_94" id="Footnote_88_94"></a><a href="#FNanchor_88_94"><span class="label">[88]</span></a> See dispatches quoted by C. Adler, <i>op. cit.</i>, pp. 75-96 from <i>Foreign Relations</i>
1880 and 1881.</p></div>
<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_89_95" id="Footnote_89_95"></a><a href="#FNanchor_89_95"><span class="label">[89]</span></a> <i>Infra</i>, pp. 76-78.</p></div>
<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_90_96" id="Footnote_90_96"></a><a href="#FNanchor_90_96"><span class="label">[90]</span></a> <i>Infra</i>, pp. 79-80.</p></div>
<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_91_97" id="Footnote_91_97"></a><a href="#FNanchor_91_97"><span class="label">[91]</span></a> Cyrus Adler: <i>op. cit.</i>, pp. 7-19. See also <i>infra</i>, p. 103 (note).</p></div>
<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_92_98" id="Footnote_92_98"></a><a href="#FNanchor_92_98"><span class="label">[92]</span></a> <i>Infra</i>, p. 83.</p></div>
<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_93_99" id="Footnote_93_99"></a><a href="#FNanchor_93_99"><span class="label">[93]</span></a> Confirmed by Art. XIII of the Treaty of Passarowitz, July 21, 1718.</p></div>
<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_94_100" id="Footnote_94_100"></a><a href="#FNanchor_94_100"><span class="label">[94]</span></a> <i>Supra</i>, pp. 3-4.</p></div>
<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_95_101" id="Footnote_95_101"></a><a href="#FNanchor_95_101"><span class="label">[95]</span></a> Piggott: <i>Exterritoriality</i> (Lond. 1907), pp. 67-68.</p></div>
<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_96_102" id="Footnote_96_102"></a><a href="#FNanchor_96_102"><span class="label">[96]</span></a> Bernhardt: <i>op. cit.</i>, pp. 947, 957.</p></div>
<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_97_103" id="Footnote_97_103"></a><a href="#FNanchor_97_103"><span class="label">[97]</span></a> <i>Infra</i>, p. 86. Further details will be found in Mr. Finn's <i>Records from
Jerusalem Consular Chronicles</i> (Lond. 1878), i. 112-114.</p></div>
<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_98_104" id="Footnote_98_104"></a><a href="#FNanchor_98_104"><span class="label">[98]</span></a> <i>Infra</i>, p. 87.</p></div>
<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_99_105" id="Footnote_99_105"></a><a href="#FNanchor_99_105"><span class="label">[99]</span></a> <i>Infra</i>, p. 87.</p></div>
<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_100_106" id="Footnote_100_106"></a><a href="#FNanchor_100_106"><span class="label">[100]</span></a> <i>Memoir of Sir John Drummond Hay</i> (Lond. 1896), pp. 322-323. See also
stipulations of French Treaty (<i>infra</i>, p. 88).</p></div>
<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_101_107" id="Footnote_101_107"></a><a href="#FNanchor_101_107"><span class="label">[101]</span></a> For details of these cases see Leven: <i>Cinquante Ans d'Histoire</i>, pp. 158
<i>et seq.</i> Annual Reports of the Anglo-Jewish Association.</p></div>
<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_102_108" id="Footnote_102_108"></a><a href="#FNanchor_102_108"><span class="label">[102]</span></a> <i>Memoir of Sir J. D. Hay</i>, pp. 321-323.</p></div>
<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_103_109" id="Footnote_103_109"></a><a href="#FNanchor_103_109"><span class="label">[103]</span></a> <i>Ibid.</i>, p. 323.</p></div>
<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_104_110" id="Footnote_104_110"></a><a href="#FNanchor_104_110"><span class="label">[104]</span></a> <i>Infra</i>, pp. 90-91.</p></div>
<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_105_111" id="Footnote_105_111"></a><a href="#FNanchor_105_111"><span class="label">[105]</span></a> <i>Infra</i>, p. 93.</p></div>
<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_106_112" id="Footnote_106_112"></a><a href="#FNanchor_106_112"><span class="label">[106]</span></a> <i>Infra</i>, p. 92. See also Wolf: <i>Sir Moses Montefiore</i> (Lond. 1884), pp. 213-232,
and Loewe: <i>Diaries of Sir M. Montefiore</i>, ii. 148-153.</p></div>
<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_107_113" id="Footnote_107_113"></a><a href="#FNanchor_107_113"><span class="label">[107]</span></a> <i>Infra</i>, p. 97.</p></div>
<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_108_114" id="Footnote_108_114"></a><a href="#FNanchor_108_114"><span class="label">[108]</span></a> <i>Infra</i>, p. 98.</p></div>
<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_109_115" id="Footnote_109_115"></a><a href="#FNanchor_109_115"><span class="label">[109]</span></a> <i>Cf. supra</i>, p. 89.</p></div>
<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_110_116" id="Footnote_110_116"></a><a href="#FNanchor_110_116"><span class="label">[110]</span></a> Fuller: <i>A Pisgah Sight of Palestine</i> (Lond. 1650), bk. iv. p. 194.</p></div>
<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_111_117" id="Footnote_111_117"></a><a href="#FNanchor_111_117"><span class="label">[111]</span></a> D'Israeli: <i>Genius of Judaism</i>, pp. 200-201.</p></div>
<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_112_118" id="Footnote_112_118"></a><a href="#FNanchor_112_118"><span class="label">[112]</span></a> <i>The Restoration of the Hebrews to Jerusalem by the Year of 1798 under the
Revealed Prince and Prophet</i> (Lond. 1794). <i>A letter from Mr. Brothers to Miss
Cott with an Address to the Members of His Britannic Majesty's Council</i> (Lond.
1798). <i>The Curious Trial of Mr. Brothers ... on a Statute of Lunacy</i> (Lond.
1795).</p></div>
<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_113_119" id="Footnote_113_119"></a><a href="#FNanchor_113_119"><span class="label">[113]</span></a> <i>Mr. Halhed's Speech in the House of Commons ... on Monday, May the
4th, 1795</i> (Lond. 1795).</p></div>
<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_114_120" id="Footnote_114_120"></a><a href="#FNanchor_114_120"><span class="label">[114]</span></a> Law Reports: 4 De Gex & Smale, 467.</p></div>
<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_115_121" id="Footnote_115_121"></a><a href="#FNanchor_115_121"><span class="label">[115]</span></a> For details see <i>infra</i>, pp. 104-106.</p></div>
<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_116_122" id="Footnote_116_122"></a><a href="#FNanchor_116_122"><span class="label">[116]</span></a> Finn: <i>op. cit.</i>, 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."</p></div>
<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_117_123" id="Footnote_117_123"></a><a href="#FNanchor_117_123"><span class="label">[117]</span></a> See text of Firman in Loewe: <i>Diaries of Sir M. Montefiore</i>, i. 278-279.</p></div>
<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_118_124" id="Footnote_118_124"></a><a href="#FNanchor_118_124"><span class="label">[118]</span></a> <i>Infra</i>, pp. 119-124.</p></div>
<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_119_125" id="Footnote_119_125"></a><a href="#FNanchor_119_125"><span class="label">[119]</span></a> <i>Memoir of Laurence Oliphant</i>, 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" (<i>Foreign Relations
of U.S.</i>, 1888, p. 1559).</p></div>
<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_120_126" id="Footnote_120_126"></a><a href="#FNanchor_120_126"><span class="label">[120]</span></a> <i>Anabaptisticum et Enthusiasticum Pantheon</i> (1702), <i>Novus in Belgio
Judaeorum Rex</i>, p. 25.</p></div>
<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_121_127" id="Footnote_121_127"></a><a href="#FNanchor_121_127"><span class="label">[121]</span></a> Graetz: <i>Geschichte</i>, x. 207.</p></div>
<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_122_128" id="Footnote_122_128"></a><a href="#FNanchor_122_128"><span class="label">[122]</span></a> "Re-establishment of the Jewish Government, with a letter from a Jew
to his Brethren; copied from the <i>Courier</i>, June 10, 1798."</p></div>
<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_123_129" id="Footnote_123_129"></a><a href="#FNanchor_123_129"><span class="label">[123]</span></a> Lemoine: <i>Napoléon et les Juifs</i> (Paris, 1900), p. 72.</p></div>
<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_124_130" id="Footnote_124_130"></a><a href="#FNanchor_124_130"><span class="label">[124]</span></a> <i>Infra</i>, 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 <i>Revue Générale
de Droit International Public</i>, iii. 423.)</p></div>
<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_125_131" id="Footnote_125_131"></a><a href="#FNanchor_125_131"><span class="label">[125]</span></a> <i>Infra</i>, pp. 107-109.</p></div>
<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_126_132" id="Footnote_126_132"></a><a href="#FNanchor_126_132"><span class="label">[126]</span></a> <i>Infra</i>, pp. 111-113.</p></div>
<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_127_133" id="Footnote_127_133"></a><a href="#FNanchor_127_133"><span class="label">[127]</span></a> <i>Infra</i>, p. 113.</p></div>
<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_128_134" id="Footnote_128_134"></a><a href="#FNanchor_128_134"><span class="label">[128]</span></a> <i>Infra</i>, pp. 114-116.</p></div>
<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_129_135" id="Footnote_129_135"></a><a href="#FNanchor_129_135"><span class="label">[129]</span></a> Covering despatch from Baron Bülow, <i>infra</i>, p. 116.</p></div>
<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_130_136" id="Footnote_130_136"></a><a href="#FNanchor_130_136"><span class="label">[130]</span></a> Despatch from Lord Beauvale and draft of reply by Palmerston, <i>infra</i>,
pp. 116-117.</p></div>
<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_131_137" id="Footnote_131_137"></a><a href="#FNanchor_131_137"><span class="label">[131]</span></a> Kamarowsky, <i>op. cit.</i>, p. 423.</p></div>
<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_132_138" id="Footnote_132_138"></a><a href="#FNanchor_132_138"><span class="label">[132]</span></a> <i>Memoirs of Bunsen</i> (London, 1868), i. 593 <i>et seq.</i></p></div>
<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_133_139" id="Footnote_133_139"></a><a href="#FNanchor_133_139"><span class="label">[133]</span></a> Memorandum of July 15, 1841, presented to Palmerston by Bunsen (F.O.
64/235 Prussia).</p></div>
<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_134_140" id="Footnote_134_140"></a><a href="#FNanchor_134_140"><span class="label">[134]</span></a> Letter from Bunsen to his Wife (<i>Memoirs</i>, i. 608-609).</p></div>
<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_135_141" id="Footnote_135_141"></a><a href="#FNanchor_135_141"><span class="label">[135]</span></a> Bishop Alexander was before his conversion Minister of the Jewish
Synagogue at Plymouth.</p></div>
<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_136_142" id="Footnote_136_142"></a><a href="#FNanchor_136_142"><span class="label">[136]</span></a> Holland: <i>European Concert in Eastern Question</i>, p. 93.</p></div>
<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_137_143" id="Footnote_137_143"></a><a href="#FNanchor_137_143"><span class="label">[137]</span></a> <i>British and Foreign State Papers</i>, lxix. 1342-1353; lxxiii. 438.</p></div>
<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_138_144" id="Footnote_138_144"></a><a href="#FNanchor_138_144"><span class="label">[138]</span></a> <i>Infra</i>, p. 124.</p></div>
<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_139_145" id="Footnote_139_145"></a><a href="#FNanchor_139_145"><span class="label">[139]</span></a> <i>Infra</i>, pp. 124-125.</p></div>
<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_140_146" id="Footnote_140_146"></a><a href="#FNanchor_140_146"><span class="label">[140]</span></a> This was probably the scheme suggested by Guizot (<i>supra</i>, p. 105).</p></div>
<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_141_147" id="Footnote_141_147"></a><a href="#FNanchor_141_147"><span class="label">[141]</span></a> This Memorandum is identical with the Austrian Memorandum of
October 1840, which at the time was only communicated to the Prussian Government
(<i>supra</i>, pp. 111-113).</p></div>
<h3>Notes of the transcriber of this etext:</h3>
<ul
style="margin:auto auto 10% 27%;">
<li>"Religous" changed to "Religious"</li>
<li>"repondu" changed to "répondu"</li>
<li>both "Toldano" and "Toledano" appear</li>
<li>"Etats-Unis" changed to "États-Unis"</li>
<li>"Janaury" changed to "January"</li>
<li>"Cánovas" and "Canovas" appear</li>
<li>"morocain" changed to "marocain"</li>
<li>"qu iont" changed to "qui ont"</li>
<li>"Gortschacow" changed to "Gortchacow"</li>
<li>"Kluber" changed to "Klüber"</li>
<li>"Munster" changed to "Münster"</li>
<li>"parait" changed to "paraît"</li>
<li>"Plenipotentiaire" changed to "Plénipotentiaire"</li>
<li>"reconnait" changed to "reconnaît"</li>
<li>"Bartholomei" changed to "Bartholomey"</li>
<li>"Litteraire" changed to "Littéraire"</li>
<li>"Maioresco" appears in the index as "Maiorescu"</li>
<li>"Séménoff" appears in the index, Semenoff in the notes.</li>
</ul>
</div>
<hr class="full" />
<pre>
End of the Project Gutenberg EBook of Notes on the Diplomatic History of the
Jewish Question, by Lucien Wolf
*** END OF THIS PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK THE JEWISH QUESTION ***
***** This file should be named 31385-h.htm or 31385-h.zip *****
This and all associated files of various formats will be found in:
http://www.gutenberg.org/3/1/3/8/31385/
Produced by Jonathan Ingram, Chuck Greif and the Online
Distributed Proofreading Team at http://www.pgdp.net
Updated editions will replace the previous one--the old editions
will be renamed.
Creating the works from public domain print editions means that no
one owns a United States copyright in these works, so the Foundation
(and you!) can copy and distribute it in the United States without
permission and without paying copyright royalties. Special rules,
set forth in the General Terms of Use part of this license, apply to
copying and distributing Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works to
protect the PROJECT GUTENBERG-tm concept and trademark. Project
Gutenberg is a registered trademark, and may not be used if you
charge for the eBooks, unless you receive specific permission. If you
do not charge anything for copies of this eBook, complying with the
rules is very easy. You may use this eBook for nearly any purpose
such as creation of derivative works, reports, performances and
research. They may be modified and printed and given away--you may do
practically ANYTHING with public domain eBooks. Redistribution is
subject to the trademark license, especially commercial
redistribution.
*** START: FULL LICENSE ***
THE FULL PROJECT GUTENBERG LICENSE
PLEASE READ THIS BEFORE YOU DISTRIBUTE OR USE THIS WORK
To protect the Project Gutenberg-tm mission of promoting the free
distribution of electronic works, by using or distributing this work
(or any other work associated in any way with the phrase "Project
Gutenberg"), you agree to comply with all the terms of the Full Project
Gutenberg-tm License (available with this file or online at
http://gutenberg.org/license).
Section 1. General Terms of Use and Redistributing Project Gutenberg-tm
electronic works
1.A. By reading or using any part of this Project Gutenberg-tm
electronic work, you indicate that you have read, understand, agree to
and accept all the terms of this license and intellectual property
(trademark/copyright) agreement. If you do not agree to abide by all
the terms of this agreement, you must cease using and return or destroy
all copies of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works in your possession.
If you paid a fee for obtaining a copy of or access to a Project
Gutenberg-tm electronic work and you do not agree to be bound by the
terms of this agreement, you may obtain a refund from the person or
entity to whom you paid the fee as set forth in paragraph 1.E.8.
1.B. "Project Gutenberg" is a registered trademark. It may only be
used on or associated in any way with an electronic work by people who
agree to be bound by the terms of this agreement. There are a few
things that you can do with most Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works
even without complying with the full terms of this agreement. See
paragraph 1.C below. There are a lot of things you can do with Project
Gutenberg-tm electronic works if you follow the terms of this agreement
and help preserve free future access to Project Gutenberg-tm electronic
works. See paragraph 1.E below.
1.C. The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation ("the Foundation"
or PGLAF), owns a compilation copyright in the collection of Project
Gutenberg-tm electronic works. Nearly all the individual works in the
collection are in the public domain in the United States. If an
individual work is in the public domain in the United States and you are
located in the United States, we do not claim a right to prevent you from
copying, distributing, performing, displaying or creating derivative
works based on the work as long as all references to Project Gutenberg
are removed. Of course, we hope that you will support the Project
Gutenberg-tm mission of promoting free access to electronic works by
freely sharing Project Gutenberg-tm works in compliance with the terms of
this agreement for keeping the Project Gutenberg-tm name associated with
the work. You can easily comply with the terms of this agreement by
keeping this work in the same format with its attached full Project
Gutenberg-tm License when you share it without charge with others.
1.D. The copyright laws of the place where you are located also govern
what you can do with this work. Copyright laws in most countries are in
a constant state of change. If you are outside the United States, check
the laws of your country in addition to the terms of this agreement
before downloading, copying, displaying, performing, distributing or
creating derivative works based on this work or any other Project
Gutenberg-tm work. The Foundation makes no representations concerning
the copyright status of any work in any country outside the United
States.
1.E. Unless you have removed all references to Project Gutenberg:
1.E.1. The following sentence, with active links to, or other immediate
access to, the full Project Gutenberg-tm License must appear prominently
whenever any copy of a Project Gutenberg-tm work (any work on which the
phrase "Project Gutenberg" appears, or with which the phrase "Project
Gutenberg" is associated) is accessed, displayed, performed, viewed,
copied or distributed:
This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere at no cost and with
almost no restrictions whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or
re-use it under the terms of the Project Gutenberg License included
with this eBook or online at www.gutenberg.org
1.E.2. If an individual Project Gutenberg-tm electronic work is derived
from the public domain (does not contain a notice indicating that it is
posted with permission of the copyright holder), the work can be copied
and distributed to anyone in the United States without paying any fees
or charges. If you are redistributing or providing access to a work
with the phrase "Project Gutenberg" associated with or appearing on the
work, you must comply either with the requirements of paragraphs 1.E.1
through 1.E.7 or obtain permission for the use of the work and the
Project Gutenberg-tm trademark as set forth in paragraphs 1.E.8 or
1.E.9.
1.E.3. If an individual Project Gutenberg-tm electronic work is posted
with the permission of the copyright holder, your use and distribution
must comply with both paragraphs 1.E.1 through 1.E.7 and any additional
terms imposed by the copyright holder. Additional terms will be linked
to the Project Gutenberg-tm License for all works posted with the
permission of the copyright holder found at the beginning of this work.
1.E.4. Do not unlink or detach or remove the full Project Gutenberg-tm
License terms from this work, or any files containing a part of this
work or any other work associated with Project Gutenberg-tm.
1.E.5. Do not copy, display, perform, distribute or redistribute this
electronic work, or any part of this electronic work, without
prominently displaying the sentence set forth in paragraph 1.E.1 with
active links or immediate access to the full terms of the Project
Gutenberg-tm License.
1.E.6. You may convert to and distribute this work in any binary,
compressed, marked up, nonproprietary or proprietary form, including any
word processing or hypertext form. However, if you provide access to or
distribute copies of a Project Gutenberg-tm work in a format other than
"Plain Vanilla ASCII" or other format used in the official version
posted on the official Project Gutenberg-tm web site (www.gutenberg.org),
you must, at no additional cost, fee or expense to the user, provide a
copy, a means of exporting a copy, or a means of obtaining a copy upon
request, of the work in its original "Plain Vanilla ASCII" or other
form. Any alternate format must include the full Project Gutenberg-tm
License as specified in paragraph 1.E.1.
1.E.7. Do not charge a fee for access to, viewing, displaying,
performing, copying or distributing any Project Gutenberg-tm works
unless you comply with paragraph 1.E.8 or 1.E.9.
1.E.8. You may charge a reasonable fee for copies of or providing
access to or distributing Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works provided
that
- You pay a royalty fee of 20% of the gross profits you derive from
the use of Project Gutenberg-tm works calculated using the method
you already use to calculate your applicable taxes. The fee is
owed to the owner of the Project Gutenberg-tm trademark, but he
has agreed to donate royalties under this paragraph to the
Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation. Royalty payments
must be paid within 60 days following each date on which you
prepare (or are legally required to prepare) your periodic tax
returns. Royalty payments should be clearly marked as such and
sent to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation at the
address specified in Section 4, "Information about donations to
the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation."
- You provide a full refund of any money paid by a user who notifies
you in writing (or by e-mail) within 30 days of receipt that s/he
does not agree to the terms of the full Project Gutenberg-tm
License. You must require such a user to return or
destroy all copies of the works possessed in a physical medium
and discontinue all use of and all access to other copies of
Project Gutenberg-tm works.
- You provide, in accordance with paragraph 1.F.3, a full refund of any
money paid for a work or a replacement copy, if a defect in the
electronic work is discovered and reported to you within 90 days
of receipt of the work.
- You comply with all other terms of this agreement for free
distribution of Project Gutenberg-tm works.
1.E.9. If you wish to charge a fee or distribute a Project Gutenberg-tm
electronic work or group of works on different terms than are set
forth in this agreement, you must obtain permission in writing from
both the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation and Michael
Hart, the owner of the Project Gutenberg-tm trademark. Contact the
Foundation as set forth in Section 3 below.
1.F.
1.F.1. Project Gutenberg volunteers and employees expend considerable
effort to identify, do copyright research on, transcribe and proofread
public domain works in creating the Project Gutenberg-tm
collection. Despite these efforts, Project Gutenberg-tm electronic
works, and the medium on which they may be stored, may contain
"Defects," such as, but not limited to, incomplete, inaccurate or
corrupt data, transcription errors, a copyright or other intellectual
property infringement, a defective or damaged disk or other medium, a
computer virus, or computer codes that damage or cannot be read by
your equipment.
1.F.2. LIMITED WARRANTY, DISCLAIMER OF DAMAGES - Except for the "Right
of Replacement or Refund" described in paragraph 1.F.3, the Project
Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation, the owner of the Project
Gutenberg-tm trademark, and any other party distributing a Project
Gutenberg-tm electronic work under this agreement, disclaim all
liability to you for damages, costs and expenses, including legal
fees. YOU AGREE THAT YOU HAVE NO REMEDIES FOR NEGLIGENCE, STRICT
LIABILITY, BREACH OF WARRANTY OR BREACH OF CONTRACT EXCEPT THOSE
PROVIDED IN PARAGRAPH F3. YOU AGREE THAT THE FOUNDATION, THE
TRADEMARK OWNER, AND ANY DISTRIBUTOR UNDER THIS AGREEMENT WILL NOT BE
LIABLE TO YOU FOR ACTUAL, DIRECT, INDIRECT, CONSEQUENTIAL, PUNITIVE OR
INCIDENTAL DAMAGES EVEN IF YOU GIVE NOTICE OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH
DAMAGE.
1.F.3. LIMITED RIGHT OF REPLACEMENT OR REFUND - If you discover a
defect in this electronic work within 90 days of receiving it, you can
receive a refund of the money (if any) you paid for it by sending a
written explanation to the person you received the work from. If you
received the work on a physical medium, you must return the medium with
your written explanation. The person or entity that provided you with
the defective work may elect to provide a replacement copy in lieu of a
refund. If you received the work electronically, the person or entity
providing it to you may choose to give you a second opportunity to
receive the work electronically in lieu of a refund. If the second copy
is also defective, you may demand a refund in writing without further
opportunities to fix the problem.
1.F.4. Except for the limited right of replacement or refund set forth
in paragraph 1.F.3, this work is provided to you 'AS-IS' WITH NO OTHER
WARRANTIES OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO
WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTIBILITY OR FITNESS FOR ANY PURPOSE.
1.F.5. Some states do not allow disclaimers of certain implied
warranties or the exclusion or limitation of certain types of damages.
If any disclaimer or limitation set forth in this agreement violates the
law of the state applicable to this agreement, the agreement shall be
interpreted to make the maximum disclaimer or limitation permitted by
the applicable state law. The invalidity or unenforceability of any
provision of this agreement shall not void the remaining provisions.
1.F.6. INDEMNITY - You agree to indemnify and hold the Foundation, the
trademark owner, any agent or employee of the Foundation, anyone
providing copies of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works in accordance
with this agreement, and any volunteers associated with the production,
promotion and distribution of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works,
harmless from all liability, costs and expenses, including legal fees,
that arise directly or indirectly from any of the following which you do
or cause to occur: (a) distribution of this or any Project Gutenberg-tm
work, (b) alteration, modification, or additions or deletions to any
Project Gutenberg-tm work, and (c) any Defect you cause.
Section 2. Information about the Mission of Project Gutenberg-tm
Project Gutenberg-tm is synonymous with the free distribution of
electronic works in formats readable by the widest variety of computers
including obsolete, old, middle-aged and new computers. It exists
because of the efforts of hundreds of volunteers and donations from
people in all walks of life.
Volunteers and financial support to provide volunteers with the
assistance they need, are critical to reaching Project Gutenberg-tm's
goals and ensuring that the Project Gutenberg-tm collection will
remain freely available for generations to come. In 2001, the Project
Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation was created to provide a secure
and permanent future for Project Gutenberg-tm and future generations.
To learn more about the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation
and how your efforts and donations can help, see Sections 3 and 4
and the Foundation web page at http://www.pglaf.org.
Section 3. Information about the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive
Foundation
The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation is a non profit
501(c)(3) educational corporation organized under the laws of the
state of Mississippi and granted tax exempt status by the Internal
Revenue Service. The Foundation's EIN or federal tax identification
number is 64-6221541. Its 501(c)(3) letter is posted at
http://pglaf.org/fundraising. Contributions to the Project Gutenberg
Literary Archive Foundation are tax deductible to the full extent
permitted by U.S. federal laws and your state's laws.
The Foundation's principal office is located at 4557 Melan Dr. S.
Fairbanks, AK, 99712., but its volunteers and employees are scattered
throughout numerous locations. Its business office is located at
809 North 1500 West, Salt Lake City, UT 84116, (801) 596-1887, email
business@pglaf.org. Email contact links and up to date contact
information can be found at the Foundation's web site and official
page at http://pglaf.org
For additional contact information:
Dr. Gregory B. Newby
Chief Executive and Director
gbnewby@pglaf.org
Section 4. Information about Donations to the Project Gutenberg
Literary Archive Foundation
Project Gutenberg-tm depends upon and cannot survive without wide
spread public support and donations to carry out its mission of
increasing the number of public domain and licensed works that can be
freely distributed in machine readable form accessible by the widest
array of equipment including outdated equipment. Many small donations
($1 to $5,000) are particularly important to maintaining tax exempt
status with the IRS.
The Foundation is committed to complying with the laws regulating
charities and charitable donations in all 50 states of the United
States. Compliance requirements are not uniform and it takes a
considerable effort, much paperwork and many fees to meet and keep up
with these requirements. We do not solicit donations in locations
where we have not received written confirmation of compliance. To
SEND DONATIONS or determine the status of compliance for any
particular state visit http://pglaf.org
While we cannot and do not solicit contributions from states where we
have not met the solicitation requirements, we know of no prohibition
against accepting unsolicited donations from donors in such states who
approach us with offers to donate.
International donations are gratefully accepted, but we cannot make
any statements concerning tax treatment of donations received from
outside the United States. U.S. laws alone swamp our small staff.
Please check the Project Gutenberg Web pages for current donation
methods and addresses. Donations are accepted in a number of other
ways including checks, online payments and credit card donations.
To donate, please visit: http://pglaf.org/donate
Section 5. General Information About Project Gutenberg-tm electronic
works.
Professor Michael S. Hart is the originator of the Project Gutenberg-tm
concept of a library of electronic works that could be freely shared
with anyone. For thirty years, he produced and distributed Project
Gutenberg-tm eBooks with only a loose network of volunteer support.
Project Gutenberg-tm eBooks are often created from several printed
editions, all of which are confirmed as Public Domain in the U.S.
unless a copyright notice is included. Thus, we do not necessarily
keep eBooks in compliance with any particular paper edition.
Most people start at our Web site which has the main PG search facility:
http://www.gutenberg.org
This Web site includes information about Project Gutenberg-tm,
including how to make donations to the Project Gutenberg Literary
Archive Foundation, how to help produce our new eBooks, and how to
subscribe to our email newsletter to hear about new eBooks.
</pre>
</body>
</html>
|
