NOTES ON THE DIPLOMATIC HISTORY
OF THE JEWISH QUESTION

NOTES ON

THE DIPLOMATIC HISTORY OF
THE JEWISH QUESTION

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

BY

LUCIEN WOLF

PUBLISHED BY THE
JEWISH HISTORICAL SOCIETY OF ENGLAND
Mocatta Library and Museum
University College
(University of London)
GOWER STREET, LONDON, W.C. 1
1919
All rights reserved

PREFACE.

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

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

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

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

L. W.

Gray's Inn, London.
December 1918.

CONTENTS.

NOTES ON
THE DIPLOMATIC HISTORY OF THE
JEWISH QUESTION.

I. INTRODUCTION.

ON INTERNATIONAL RELIGIOUS LIBERTY GENERALLY.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

II. INTERVENTIONS ON GROUNDS OF HUMANITY.

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

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

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

DOCUMENTS.

Petition to King George II (B. M. Add. MSS. 23,819, f. 63).

To his Most Sacred Majesty

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

Humbly Sheweth

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

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

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

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

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

Moses Hart.
Aaron Franks.

(Endorsed:)

Moses Hart & Aaron Franks Petition in behalf of the Bohemian

sent to Sir Thos. Robinson 27 [sic] Decr. 1744.

Appeal of the Bohemian Jews (Ibid. f. 64).

Prague, 1st Decr. 1744. N.S.

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

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

Simon Spira &c.

• Moses Izaac.
• Simon Cohen.
• Menahem Mendal.
• Abraham.
• Samuel Spira.
• Meyer Moses, &c.

(Endorsed:)

Representation from the Jews at Prague

The Decree of the Empress (Ibid. fol. 66).

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Witness Ourself

Given at Vienna the 18th day of December 1744.

Instructions to the British Ambassador in Vienna (Ibid. fols. 61-61 d.).

Separate.

Whitehall, 28th Decr. 1744.

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

I am, Sir,
Your most obedient humble Servant,
Harrington.

Sir Thomas Robinson.

(b) CONGRESS OF VIENNA (1815).

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

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

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

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

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

DOCUMENTS.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

7. Accessions Urkunde der freien Stadt Frankfurt.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

DOCUMENT.

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

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

Protocole.

Séance du 21 Novembre, 1818.
Entre les cinq Cabinets.

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

(d) THE CONFERENCE OF LONDON (1830).

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

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

DOCUMENT.

Protocol No. 3 of the Conference held at the Foreign Office, London, on 3 February, 1830.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

DOCUMENTS.

Article IX of the Treaty of Paris. March 30, 1856.

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

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

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

Extracts from the Hatti-Humayoun of Feb. 18, 1856.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(Holland: op. cit., pp. 330-332.)

Conferences of Constantinople (1856).—Protocol of Feb. 11.

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

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

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

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

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

Art. XLVI of the Convention of Paris of August 10, 1858.

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

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

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

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

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

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

(f) THE CONGRESS OF BERLIN (1878).

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

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

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

DOCUMENTS.

Extracts from Protocols of the Congress of Berlin. Protocole No. 5.—Séance du 24 Juin, 1878.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Protocole No. 6—Séance du 25 Juin, 1878.

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

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

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

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

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

(Ibid., p. 935.)

Protocole No. 7—Séance du 26 Juin, 1878.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Le Comte Schouvaloff ajoute que le désir de Lord Salisbury de voir étendre la liberté religieuse autant que possible en Europe et en Asie lui semble très justifié. Son Altesse désirerait qu'il fut fait mention au Protocole de son adhésion au 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.

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.

(Ibid., pp. 942-943.)

Protocole No. 8.—Séance du 28 Juin, 1878.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(Ibid. pp. 959-961.)

Protocole No. 10—Séance du 1^er Juillet, 1878.

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

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

Le Comte Andrássy adhère à la proposition Française.

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

Les Plénipotentiaires Italiens font la même déclaration.

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

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

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

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

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

Le Congrès décide le renvoi à la Commission de Rédaction.

(Ibid., pp. 982-983, 989, 990.)

Protocole No. 12—Séance du 4 Juillet, 1878.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(Ibid., pp. 1002-3, 1009-10.)

Protocole No. 17.—Séance du 10 Juillet 1878.

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

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

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

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

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

(Ibid., pp. 1058-1059.)

Extracts from the Treaty of Berlin, signed July 13, 1878.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(Ibid., pp. 764, 766-767.)

Revision of the Rumanian Constitution (1879).

No. 115. Mr. White to the Marquis of Salisbury. (Rec. November 4.)

Bucharest, October 25, 1879.

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

I have, &c.,
W. A. White.

The Marquis of Salisbury.

(Traduction.)

Article Unique.—À la place de l'Article 7 de la Constitution soumis à la revision, on mettra le suivant:—

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

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

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

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

§ 2. Pourront être dispensés du stage:

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

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

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

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

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

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

(Ibid., lxxi. 1176-77.)

The Compact with Rumania (1880).

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

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

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

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

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

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

W. A. White.
Bucharest, February 20, 1880.

(Ibid., p. 1187.)

(g) RUMANIA AND THE POWERS (1902).

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

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

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

DOCUMENTS.

Dispatch from Mr. John Hay (U.S. Secretary of State) to the U.S. Minister at Athens.

Department of State, Washington,
July 17, 1902.

Charles S. Wilson, Esquire, etc., etc., etc., Athens.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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