Part 4 (1/2)
(_f_) THE CONGRESS OF BERLIN (1878).
Not only were the promises of the Prince of Moldavia not realised, but, during the next twenty years, the Jews of the Princ.i.p.alities were more cruelly persecuted than ever. The persecution extended beyond the frontiers to Servia, and it soon became the leading preoccupation of the Jews throughout the world. Owing to their protests, the Powers frequently intervened.[34] Rumania then took the impudent course of resenting this interference in her internal affairs, on the ground that, by international comity, they were no concern of foreign States. In 1867, this provoked a notable retort from Great Britain. In a despatch sent to Bucharest in that year, the following sentence appears: ”The peculiar position of the Jews places them under the protection of the civilised world.”[35]
When the Congress of Berlin met in 1878, to reconsider the Eastern Question, the situation of the Jews in Eastern Europe, and more particularly in the Balkans, took its place in the front rank of the preoccupations of the Powers. Several long protocols are entirely devoted to it.[36] The result was that the Treaty of Berlin dealt comprehensively with the whole question of religious liberty, and stipulated separately for such liberty in all the States of the Levant.
The Treaty is thus, as the Jewish Conjoint Committee described it, in their important Memorandum of November 1908, ”above all a great charter of Emanc.i.p.ation, especially of civil and religious equality.”[37] This principle is embodied in no fewer than five of its articles, relating to every political division of the vast region with which it deals, and in each case it is a.s.serted as the fundamental basis of the liberties conferred on the various States.[38] In a word, it made it a principle of European policy that no new State or transfer of territory should be recognised unless the fullest religious liberty and civil and political equality were guaranteed to the inhabitants. Thus it marks the triumph of the principle first tentatively laid down for Holland and Belgium in Article II of the Protocol of June 1814. Though applied to Greece in the Protocol of February 1830, it had had to wait nearly fifty years for universal acceptance.
All the States concerned frankly and honestly accepted this principle, and put it into operation, except Rumania. By a repet.i.tion of the specious promises of 1858, she again obtained permission to emanc.i.p.ate her Jews gradually, it being understood that the process would be hastened, and that full emanc.i.p.ation would be accomplished within a reasonable time. Unfortunately the phrasing of the articles embodying the principle left a technical loophole of which Rumania very dexterously availed herself, inasmuch as it did not make provision against the application, under Rumanian law, of the _jus sanguinis_ to the Jews who _qua_ Jews were held to be aliens. The point was not ignored by the Congress, but no attempt was made to satisfy it as the intentions of the Congress were clear enough and reliance was placed on the good faith of Rumania.[39] The result is that for forty years Rumania has evaded both the will of the Congress and her own promises; and to-day the Jews of that country, with the exception of a handful who have been emanc.i.p.ated by individual Acts of Parliament, are the only Jews in Europe who are denied equal rights with their fellow-citizens.
DOc.u.mENTS.
EXTRACTS FROM PROTOCOLS OF THE CONGRESS OF BERLIN.
_Protocole No._ 5.--_Seance du 24 Juin, 1878._
M. Waddington donne lecture de deux Articles Additionnels proposes par les Plenipotentiaires de France, et dont voici le texte:--
”Art. I. Tous les sujets Bulgares, quelle que soit leur religion, jouiront d'une complete egalite de droits. Ils pourront concourir a tous les emplois publics, fonctions et honneurs, et la difference de croyance ne pourra leur etre opposee comme un motif d'exclusion.
”L'exercice et la pratique exterieure de tous les cultes seront entierement libres, et aucune entrave ne pourra etre apportee soit a l'organisation hierarchique des differentes communions, soit a leurs rapports avec leurs chefs spirituels.
”II. Une pleine et entiere liberte est a.s.suree aux religieux et eveques Catholiques etrangers pour l'exercice de leur culte en Bulgarie et dans la Roumelie Orientale. Ils seront maintenus dans l'exercice de leurs droits et privileges, et leurs proprietes seront respectees.”
Le President dit que ces deux propositions seront imprimees, distribuees, et placees a un ordre du jour ulterieur.
Apres un echange d'observations entre le Comte Schouvaloff et M.
Waddington sur la portee des deux propositions de M. le Premier Plenipotentiaire de France, il demeure entendu que la premiere s'applique a la Bulgarie, et l'autre a la Bulgarie et a la Roumelie Orientale ensemble.
(”Brit. and For. State Papers,” vol. lxix., p. 917.)
_Protocole No._ 6--_Seance du 25 Juin, 1878._
L'ordre du jour appelle ensuite les deux propositions Francaises inserees dans le Protocole 5, et relatives a la liberte des cultes.
Sur la premiere, M. Desprez demande la subst.i.tution des mots ”habitants de la Princ.i.p.aute de Bulgarie” a ceux de ”sujets Bulgares”; cette modification est admise, et la proposition acceptee a l'unanimite. Sur la seconde proposition particulierement relative aux eveques et religieux Catholiques, le Comte Schouvaloff propose de subst.i.tuer a ces mots, ”les ecclesiastiques et religieux etrangers.”
Lord Salisbury desirerait que la meme legislation fut, sous ce rapport, etablie pour la Roumelie, et pour les autres provinces de la Turquie.
Caratheodory Pacha declare qu'en effet une proposition concernant le libre exercice du culte dans la province de Roumelie Orientale parait tout-a-fait superflue, cette province devant etre soumise a l'autorite du Sultan, et, par consequent, aux principes et aux lois communs a toutes les parties de l'Empire, et qui etablissent la tolerance pour tous les cultes egalement.
M. Waddington, prenant acte de ces paroles, annonce l'intention d'introduire quelques changements dans la redaction de sa proposition, et demande l'ajournement de la discussion a demain.
(_Ibid._, p. 935.)