NOTES ON THE DIPLOMATIC HISTORY OF THE JEWISH QUESTION. (continued 2)

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

(Francis Bertie. (In the absence of the Marquis of Lansdowne.)

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

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

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

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

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

DOCUMENTS.

Extract from the Protocols of the Conference of Bucharest.

Protocole No. 6.—Séance du Mardi, 23 Juillet (5 Août), 1913.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Extracts from Correspondence between the Conjoint Committee and Sir Edward Grey.

Conjoint Jewish Committee, 19 Finsbury Circus, E.C. 13th October, 1913.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

We are, Sir, Your humble and obedient Servants, D. L. Alexander, President, London Committee of Deputies of British Jews, Claude G. Montefiore, President, Anglo-Jewish Association.

To The Rt. Hon. Sir Edward Grey, Bart., M.P., K.G., etc., His Majesty's Principal Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, etc., etc., etc.

Foreign Office, October 29th, 1913.

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

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

I am, Gentlemen, Your most obedient, humble servant, Eyre A. Crowe.

The Conjoint Jewish Committee.

Conjoint Jewish Committee, 19 Finsbury Circus, E.C. 17th November, 1913.

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

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

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

We, are, Sir, Your most obedient humble servants, David L. Alexander, President, London Committee of the Deputies of British Jews, Claude G. Montefiore, President, Anglo-Jewish Association.

To The Right Hon. Sir Edward Grey, Bart., M.P., K.G., etc., etc., etc.

Conjoint Jewish Committee, 19 Finsbury Circus, E.C. 12th March, 1914.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

We, are, Sir, Your most obedient humble servants, David L. Alexander, President, London Committee of the Deputies of British Jews, Claude G. Montefiore, President, Anglo-Jewish Association.

To The Right Hon. Sir Edward Grey, Bart., M.P., K.G., etc., etc., etc.

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

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

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

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

DOCUMENT.

The Proposed Anti-Semitic Triple Alliance.

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

Secret.

ON THE ANARCHISTS.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(Signed) Count Lamsdorf.

Negotiations must be entered into immediately. I share entirely the opinions herein expressed. Tsarskoye Selo, January 3rd (O.S.) 1906. Endorsement in the Tsar's handwriting.

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

Notes.

III. INTERVENTIONS BY RIGHT.

(a) STATUS OF JEWS IN FOREIGN COUNTRIES.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

DOCUMENTS.

Art. XIV.—Treaty of Carlowitz between the Emperor and the Grand Sultan, Jan. 26, 1699.[93]

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

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

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

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

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

Arts. I, III and VI of Franco-Swiss Treaty, May 30, 1827.

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

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

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

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

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

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

(Brisac: op. cit., pp. 12-13.)

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

Le roi a répondu:

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

(Moniteur, Nov. 12, 1835.)

Extract from Franco-Swiss Treaty of Establishment, June 30, 1864.

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

(Brisac: op. cit., p. 53.)

Art. I. Anglo-Swiss Treaty, September 6, 1855.

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

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

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

Art. I. American-Swiss Treaty, November 6, 1855.

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

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

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

August 13, 1857.

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

John Appleton. (Ibid., p. 23.)

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

September 14, 1861.

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

William H. Seward, Secretary of State. (Ibid., pp. 47-48.)

Art. I. Russo-American Treaty, December 18, 1832.

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

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

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

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

Department of State, Washington, July 29, 1881.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

James G. Blaine. ("For. Relat. of the U.S.," 1881, pp. 1030 et seq.)

Denunciation by United States, 1911.

Resolution of the House of Representatives, December 13, 1911.

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

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

Resolution of the Senate, December 20, 1911.

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

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

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

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

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

(Ibid., pp. 493-522.)

Arts. I and XI, Anglo-Russian Treaty, January 12, 1859.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Earl Granville to Sir E. Thornton.

Foreign Office, December 28th, 1881.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I am, &c., Granville. ("Parl. Paper, Russia," No. 4 (1881), p. 21.)

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

Foreign Office, January 29th, 1891.

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

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

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

I am, Sir, Your most obedient, humble Servant, T. H. Sanderson.

Sir J. Goldsmid, Bart., M.P.

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

Foreign Office, October 1st, 1912.

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

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

I am, Gentlemen, Your most obedient humble Servant, Eyre A. Crowe.

The Conjoint Jewish Committee, 19 Finsbury Circus, E.C.

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

Art. XIII. Anglo-Moorish Treaty, December 9, 1856.

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

(Bernhardt: op. cit., p. 561.)

(b) CONSULAR PROTECTION.

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

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

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

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

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

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

DOCUMENTS.

Protection of Russian Jews in Palestine.—the Agreement of 1849.

Earl Russell to the Jewish Board of Deputies.

Foreign Office, February 1st, 1864.

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

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

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

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

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

J. M. Montefiore, Esq., 4 Gt. Stanhope St., Mayfair.

(Minute Books of Board of Deputies, 1864.)

Art. III. Anglo-Moorish Treaty of January 14, 1727-8.

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

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

Art. III. Anglo-Moorish General Treaty of December 9, 1856. Extract.

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

(Bernhardt: op. cit., p. 556.)

Art. IV. Anglo-Moorish Treaty of Commerce of December 9, 1856. Extract.

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

(Ibid. p. 573.)

Franco-Moorish "Règlement" regarding Protection, August 19, 1863. Extracts.

La protection est individuelle et temporaire.

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

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

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

Les protégés se divisent en deux catégories:

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

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

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