PROTECTION AND RESTORATION
The _Don_ Pacifico case――Admiral Sir William Parker――Lord
Stanley――Mr. J. A. Roebuck――Lord Palmerston’s policy attacked
――Peel and the Opposition――Plans for colonization of Palestine
――Mordecai Manuel Noah――Warder Cresson――Rev. A. G. H.
Hollingsworth――Colonel George Gawler――“The Final Exodus”――Dr.
Thomas Clarke.
A SERIOUS conflict broke out between England and Greece, and
consequently in England itself, in 1850. The cause was Lord
Palmerston’s quarrel with the Greek Government, which had failed
to protect _Don_ David Pacifico (1784‒1854), a Gibraltar Jew and a
British subject, from the violence of the Athenian mob. The British
fleet, under Admiral Sir William Parker (1817‒1866), was ordered to
the Piræus and seized a number of Greek ships to enforce compensation.
A vote of censure upon this high-handed proceeding was moved and
carried by Lord Stanley¹ (1775‒1851) in the House of Lords. The
majority against the Government was thirty-seven. In the House of
Commons Mr. J. A. Roebuck (1801‒1879) moved a counter-resolution,
expressing confidence in the Government, and Lord Palmerston defended
himself in a speech five hours long. He uttered upon that occasion the
celebrated phrase “Civis Romanus sum,” and declared that, wherever a
British subject might be, the watching eye and the strong arm of
England would protect him.
¹ Edward (Smith-Stanley), Baron Stanley of Brokestaffe
(1832‒1851), thirteenth Earl of Derby, K.G. (1834‒1851).
Gladstone, on the other side, pointed out the dangers of this policy.
“What, sir,” he asked, “was a Roman citizen? He was the member of a
privileged class; he belonged to a conquering race, to a nation that
held all others bound down by the strong arm of power. For him there
was to be an exceptional system of law, for him principles were to
be asserted, and by him rights were to be enjoyed that were denied to
the rest of the world. Is such the view of the noble lord as to the
relation which is to subsist between England and other countries?”
Such, at all events, was the view of the House of Commons, for Mr.
Roebuck’s motion was carried by a majority of forty-six. However,
on both sides of the controversy, protection was considered as an
obligation involving great and far-reaching responsibilities. This
conflict gives us an idea of the difficulties with which the question
of the protection of the Jews in the Ottoman Empire was beset.
At the conclusion of this memorable debate, which took place on June
24th, 1850, [Sir Robert] Peel [Bart.] (1788‒1850), in a brief speech
of singular eloquence and wisdom, expressed his “reluctant dissent”
from the motion, and uttered his final caution against perverting
diplomacy, “the great engine used by civilized society for the purpose
of maintaining peace, into a cause of hostility and war.”
Needless to say, the Opposition had no intention whatever of blaming
the Government for undertaking the protection of the Jews. There
was only a difference of attitude, not one of principle, between
the Palmerston Government and the Opposition. The Opposition became
alarmed about the dangerous consequences which they thought likely
to result from certain steps taken by the Government; the Government,
on the other hand, had to consider carefully every new scheme of
protection for the Jews, particularly after the conflict with Greece
in the _Don_ Pacifico case.
Reviewing the whole period and all the petitions, projects and
experiments in connection with the colonization of Palestine by Jews,
we see that Great Britain’s protection was considered a “conditio
sine qua non” for their success――at least as far as English Jews were
interested in the movement. It is the same idea which modern Zionism
expressed half a century later in the Basle Programme (1897) by
demanding the consent of the Powers in the form of a legal guarantee
or public recognition. The formula was different; but the fundamental
idea is the same. It means security. The “Civis Romanus” system of
Palmerston, a Government which sends a fleet to demand satisfaction
for one protected Jew, was justly considered a sufficiently reliable
guarantee of security. It is therefore quite clear that when the
opponents of modern Zionism half a century later endeavoured to
draw a line between the old schemes and efforts on the one hand, and
political Zionism on the other, apparently approving of the former and
anathematizing the latter, they were merely playing with words, and
had no notion of the real facts.
Why did the plans for the Restoration of the Jews to Palestine remain
unfulfilled? Was it through political changes, for want of preparation,
or through the absence of adequate organization on the part of the
Jewish people? It is not our business to criticize the past. Let us
deal instead with the further development of the idea, which in fact
was never dropped, but, on the contrary, continually gained ground.
In 1844 it was proposed to encourage the settlement of the Jews in
Palestine by giving them employment on the land. Lady Montefiore
writes in her journal:――
“General satisfaction was expressed at the suggestion of a plan which
might enable them to obtain an honourable independence. Energy and
talent, they said, existed. Nothing was needed but protection and
encouragement.” In another letter, referring to the same subject, she
writes:――“Our high-spirited nationality, under a judiciously exercised
protectorate, might be assisted to work out, in due time, its own
civilization, and to become a flourishing autonomous community with
an extending commerce.”¹
¹ Notes from a private journal of a visit to Egypt and
Palestine, by way of Italy and the Mediterranean. [Not
Published.] London:... 1844. (8º. 2 _ll._ + 410 _pp._
+ folded leaf), _p._ 249.
From this it is evident that Sir Moses was continuing his efforts
under the new circumstances. His correspondence with the Chief
_Rabbi_, Dr. Nathan Marcus Adler (1803‒1890) shows that this famous
Ecclesiastic was also greatly in sympathy with the idea (Appendix lvi).
At the same time the notion of establishing a Jewish Commonwealth
found ardent champions among another section of English-speaking Jews
and among Christians of Puritan aspirations in America.
Major Mordecai Manuel Noah was one of the most prominent American Jews.
He was Consul of the United States to Morocco from 1813 to 1816. On
his return he established the _National Advent_ and afterwards the
_New York Enquirer_, subsequently also a weekly paper, _The Times_.
He was Surveyor of the Port and Sheriff. In 1819 he published a book
of his travels in England, France, Spain, and the Barbary States.
His attempt to establish a Jewish city of refuge on Grand Island, near
Buffalo, is the one incident in his career that caused some sensation;
but there was a great deal more of interest in the Major’s life than
that famous episode. It would be a great pity indeed were the rest
of his career allowed to pass into oblivion. Major Noah would have
deserved to be remembered had he never gone to Buffalo, and there
dedicated the City of _Ararat_ in the Episcopal Church. It was on
the dedication of the _Shearith Israel_ Synagogue in New York City
in 1818, seven years before the _Ararat_ episode, that Noah said:
“The Jews will possess themselves once more of Syria, and take their
rank among the governments of the earth.” Again, in 1844, nineteen
years after Ararat, he delivered a public discourse in New York, in
which he expressed to an audience of Christians his firm belief in
the Restoration of Israel to the Promised Land. The tenacity with
which Noah held to his Jewish nationalistic ideas is all the more
remarkable in view of the fact that he was so thoroughly American. His
great-great-grandfather, he said in one of the addresses referred to,
was buried in the Cemetery at Chatham Square. He himself was a great
literary and political personality in New York. It was said that he
told the best story, rounded the best sentence and wrote the best play
of all his contemporaries. He was one of the most prominent editors of
the City. He held, at different times, the offices of Consul-General
at Tunis, Sheriff of New York County, Surveyor of the Port, and Judge
of the Court of Sessions. “No man of his day had a better claim to the
title of ‘American,’ yet all his life he cherished the idea of a
Restoration of the Jews to Palestine.”¹
¹ M. M. Noah. The First American Zionist, by Dr. Abraham
Lipsky. The Maccabean, New York, December. 1908, _p._ 231 f.
In 1845 he published a _Discourse on the Restoration of the Jews_,
delivered at the Tabernacle on October 28th and December 2nd, 1844. In
the Preface to his book he refers to some Christian supporters of the
idea, and says:――
“True, the efforts to evangelize them (the Jews) contrary, as I think,
to the manifest predictions of the prophets, continue to be unceasing,
yet even in this there is charity and good feeling, which cannot fail
to be reciprocally beneficial.” He then quotes the letter of the late
President of the United States, Mr. Adams, to which we referred above
(see Chapter IX.), and draws the attention of the Americans to the
idea of Restoration in most forcible and often eloquent language.
Another American, Warder Cresson (1798‒1860), United States Consul in
_Jerusalem_, was a great Zionist in his time. He wrote a book¹ on the
subject, in which he says:――
¹ Jerusalem――the centre and joy of the whole earth.... By
Warder Cresson, United States Consul at Jerusalem....
Second Edition. London.... M.DCCC.XLIX., _p._ 3.
“All the different nations have appointed consuls in _Jerusalem_, as
in anticipation of some very important and general movement; which
is regarded with a jealous eye by the Turks, as well as the other
European Powers. ‘Britain has had a consul in _Jerusalem_ three years
before any other nation, except Prussia; but no sooner did she send
a bishop, than France, Russia and Austria sent consuls forthwith;
and thus in _Jerusalem_――which is, in a commercial point of view,
but a paltry inland Eastern town, without trade or importance of any
kind――sit the five consuls of the Great European powers (as well as
one appointed by the United States of America), looking at one another,
and it is difficult to say why and wherefore.’ To use the words of Dr.
Alexander Keith (1791‒1880): ‘A country which for previous centuries,
_no man inquired after_, excites anew the liveliest interest among the
greatest of earthly potentates.’”¹
¹ The Land of Israel.... By Alexander Keith, D.D.,
Edinburgh:... 1843. _p._ 476.
Having devoted some considerable time to Biblical study, Cresson
embraced the Jewish faith, and after his conversion was named Michael
Boaz Israel. He founded a colony in Palestine which was one of the
pioneer enterprises of its kind.
Meanwhile, the propaganda in England made considerable progress. The
Rev. A. G. H. Hollingsworth aroused public opinion and appealed to the
British Government for help for the Jews to regain the land of their
fathers. He says:――
“Such objects are worthy of the efforts of a great people. These
designs are to be brought into maturity by the settlement and the
protection of the Jew in Palestine. It is his native climate and home.
There he can feel the deathless energies of his race, and the high
destinies of his future. He is poor, he is powerless, he is alone;
scattered like iron amid the clay of surrounding nations. But let
him ask in peace for the common rights of a subject of Turkey, in a
country where the very hills have voices to remind him of what he has
been and may be; and under the protecting flag of Victoria, he will be
able, divinely permitted, to prove himself possessed of heroic virtues
in all that makes man great, noble, religious and free.”¹
¹ Remarks upon the Present Condition and Future Prospects of
the Jews in Palestine. By the Rev. A. G. H. Hollingsworth,
M.A., Rural Dean, and Vicar of Stowmarket and Stowupland....
London:... MDCCCLII. _p._ 14.
Another famous Englishman, Colonel George Gawler (1796‒1869),
Governor of South Australia (1838‒1841), who devoted his whole life to
religious and philanthropic pursuits, was more of a political Zionist,
and dealt with the question from the standpoint of British politics.
He declared:――
“Divine Providence has placed Syria and Egypt in the very gap between
England and the most important regions of her colonial and foreign
trade, India, China, the Indian Archipelago and Australia. She does
not require or wish for increase of territory――already has she (that
dangerous boon) more direct dominion than she can easily maintain; but
she does _most urgently_ need the shortest and the safest lines of
communication to the territories already possessed.... Egypt and Syria
stand in intimate connection. A foreign hostile power mighty in either,
would soon endanger British trade and communications through the other.
Hence the providential call upon her, to exert herself energetically
for the amelioration of the condition of both of these Provinces.
Egypt has improved greatly by British influence, and it is now for
England to set her hand to the renovation of Syria, through the only
people whose energies will be extensively and permanently in the work,
――the real children of the soil, the sons of _Israel_.”¹
¹ Syria, and its near prospects; the substance of an Address
delivered ... on Tuesday, 25th January, 1853 ... By Colonel
George Gawler, K.H., F.R.G.S., Late Governor and Resident
Commissioner of the Province of South Australia. London:...
(_pp._ 48‒49).
An anonymous author considers it a sign of the times that
extraordinary events are announced to take place in regard to Jews.
He is the writer of some of the most beautiful passages in Zionist
literature by a Christian Englishman¹ (Appendix lvii).
¹ The Final Exodus; or, the Restoration to Palestine of
The Lost Tribes, ... with a description of the Battle of
Armageddon, ... as deduced wholly from prophecy. London:...
1854....
Dr. Thomas Clarke, author of _Palestine for the Jews_, wrote: “Any
one who has studied the features of the past, and watched intently the
signs of the present, can see that a terrible convulsion is coming;
and if, out of the chaos, Poles, Huns, Magyars, Sclaves and Italians――
... are to be resuscitated, is not also that nation through whom
we as Gentiles derive a title to our blessings, and whose ancestor,
above four thousand years ago, was the friend of God? And I, as an
Englishman, cannot blind myself to the fact that, while it would be
an inestimable boon to the house of _Israel_, it would be also of the
greatest possible advantage to us; for if it has been a necessity in
times past that the kingdom of Turkey shall exist as a neutral power,
and that its boundaries should remain intact as a defence and barrier
... surely, ... the occupation of Palestine by ... the Jews, under the
protection of England, must be a greater necessity than ever.... If
England, again, is ... relying upon its commerce as the corner-stone
of its greatness; if one of the nearest and best channels of that
commerce is across the axis of the three great continents; and if the
Jews are essentially a trading ... people, what so natural as that
they should be planted along that great highway of ancient traffic?
Is not the mind struck with astonishment at the contemplation of such
a possibility? How the cycles of ages seem to be but the revolutions
of the giant wheel of time, and how the past is but the seed ... of
the future,... For, in the realisation of what is certainly more than
a probability, the now almost forgotten and long buried cities of
Palmyra, Babylon, Bagdad and especially of ancient Balsorah (_sic_),
at the junction of the two great Eastern rivers――a position scarcely
second to Constantinople itself,――must again become emporiums (_sic_)
of wealth, and rise to a splendour and importance equal, or superior,
to what they were in the acme of their glory.―― ... Syria must be
occupied by a trading ... people――it lies in the great route of
ancient commerce; and were the Ottoman Power to be displaced, that old
commercial route would immediately re-open. Trade would flow once more
in its old channel across Syria and along the valley of the Euphrates
... and in what more skilful hands could the exchanges betwixt the
East and the West be placed? In his harbours would the ships of
Europe discharge the fabrics and manufactures of the industrious
West, and return laden with the wine and oil, and silks and gems of
the East. In fine, Syria would be safe only in the hands of a brave,
independent, and spirited people, deeply imbued with the sentiment of
nationality,... Such people we have in the Jews.... Restore them their
nationality and their country once more, and there is no power on
earth that could ever take it from them.”¹
¹ India and Palestine: or, the Restoration of the Jews, viewed
in relation to The Nearest Route to India.... By Thomas
Clarke, M.D.... Manchester: ... (_pp._ 12‒15). _p._ vi.,
Wilmslow, July, 1861.