[23] Sources of the treaties granting special privileges to France are sighted in Note 3, Chapter II. Regarding the origins and nature of the French protectorate over Roman Catholic missions see the article “Capitulations” in the Encyclopedia Britannica, previously cited; J. Brucker, “The Protectorate of Missionaries in the Near East,” in the Catholic Encyclopedia, Volume XII, pp. 488–492; A. Schopoff, Les Réformes et la Protection des Chrétiens en Turquie, 1673–1904 (Paris, 1904); Livre de propagande de l’alliance française, 1883–1893 (Paris, 1894), especially pp. 35 et seq.; Viscomte Aviau de Piolant, La défense des intérêts catholiques en Terre Sainte et en Asie Mineure (Paris, 1886).
[24] Syria and Palestine, pp. 43–45, 54–55; L. Bréhier, “Turkish Empire—Missions,” in Catholic Encyclopedia, Volume XV, pp. 101–102; J. Atalla, “Les solutions de la question syrienne,” in Questions diplomatiques et coloniales, Volume 24 (1907), p. 472.
[25] Bulletin de la Chambre de Commerce française de Constantinople, June 30, 1897, pp. 112–113, November 30, 1897, p. 149.
[26] Brucker, loc. cit., p. 490.
[27] It should be added that the Treaty also stipulated that “the acquired rights of France are explicitly reserved, and there shall be no interference with the statu quo in the Holy Places.” E. Hertslet, The Map of Europe by Treaty, Volume IV (London, 1891), p. 2797.
[28] Revue des deux mondes, Volume 149, (1898), pp. 24–25; Brucker, loc. cit., p. 491.
[29] Catholic Encyclopedia, Volume XII, p. 491. The rôle of the Italians in this controversy is of considerable interest. The desire of the Italian Government to assert its right to protect its own citizens abroad was a manifestation of the Italian nationalism which brought about the establishment of the Kingdom; at the same time it was an expression of that anti-Clerical tendency which characterized Italian politics from the days of Cavour to the outbreak of the Great War. Undoubtedly, also, there was an economic side to the question. It will be recalled that Italian trade with the Ottoman Empire grew more rapidly than that of any other power after the opening of the twentieth century. (Supra, pp. 105–106.) This growth was due, in no small degree, to the earlier rise of Italian missionary activity in Turkey. This growth of missions and schools, as well as of commercial establishments, was irritating to patriotic Frenchmen. Cf. two articles by René Pinon, “Les écoles d’Orient,” in Questions diplomatiques et coloniales, Volume 24 (1907), pp. 415–435, 487–517. Italian missionaries, charged M. Pinon, were encouraged in every way to ignore the French protectorate, appealing only to Italian diplomatic and consular representatives. “Official Italy, Catholic and papal Italy, free-mason Italy and clerical Italy, all are working together in a common great patriotic effort for the spread of the Italian language and the rise of the national power” (p. 500). Annoying as this is, says M. Pinon, it should be “a singular lesson for certain Frenchmen!” That there was no love lost on the Italian side of the controversy may be gathered from an analysis of the Italian press comments which appeared in Questions diplomatiques et coloniales, Volume 37 (1914), p. 495.
[30] Brucker, loc. cit., p. 491. Inasmuch as the protectorate of Catholic missions involved a considerable responsibility for France, one may ask why the French Government should have been so solicitous that no other nation be allowed to share the burden. The answer is suggested by the Catholic Encyclopedia, which states that the system of religious protectorates is almost invariably subject to the abuse that “the protectors will seek payment for their services by trammeling the spiritual direction of the mission or by demanding political services in return.” Volume XII, p. 492.
[31] Supra, pp. 134–135.
[32] Revue des deux mondes, Volume 149 (1898), p. 39. The “pro-German party” was said to consist of Cardinals Ledochowski, Hohenlohe, Galimberti, and Kapp. Ibid., pp. 11–12; Reinsch, op. cit., p. 269.