A.D. 1800-1885.
THE JEWS IN OTHER EUROPEAN COUNTRIES.
In Spain, until quite within the last few years, there was no
material change in the condition of the Jews from what it had been
during the eighteenth century. In 1808, when Spain fell under the
authority of Napoleon, the Inquisition was suppressed. It was revived
again when the country returned, in 1814, to the dominion of its
native sovereigns, but only to last for a few years, being finally
put down by the Cortes in 1820. The old intolerance, however, the
iron legislation of Ferdinand and Isabella, still continued virtually
in force. Jews, as such, could not reside with any safety in Spain,
until—as it has been before observed—quite recently, when the example
shown everywhere in civilized Europe has at last had its effect,
and the Jews have been permitted to return to a country for which,
notwithstanding the persecutions of many generations, they have ever
cherished a warm attachment. In 1881, the Spanish Ambassador at
Constantinople so far reversed the traditional policy of his country,
as to offer a shelter in Spain for some Jewish fugitives from
Russia; and in some of the principal Spanish towns Jewish worship is
now publicly celebrated.
The same is the case in Portugal. In 1821 the Cortes abolished the
Inquisition, restored the ancient rights possessed by the Jews
previously to the reign of King Emmanuel, and decreed that Jews might
everywhere settle in Portugal.
In Holland and Belgium there is perfect freedom and equality. This
dates from 1796, when the French gained possession of the country,
and introduced the same regulations which existed among themselves.
These were not at first entirely acceptable to the Jewish residents,
because, while on the one hand they removed many restrictions
hitherto imposed upon them, they also restrained the power of the
Rabbins, and required Jews to take part in all public duties and
burdens. But the rights of citizenship were found to be a boon more
than compensating these drawbacks; and there is now no distinction
between them and the native inhabitants of the countries in question.
In Denmark, Sweden, and Norway, the number of Jews is insignificant,
and but little attention appears to be paid to them. In Switzerland
they were long treated with extreme harshness. French influence, so
efficient in other contiguous countries, did very little for them.
It is only within the last ten years that religious freedom has been
conceded to them by the State.
To pass to a more important country, Austria, the Jews, early in
this century, were somewhat severely dealt with. The successors of
their great patron and friend, Joseph II., annulled many of the
privileges he had granted them. Indeed, for the greater part of the
present century they have been subject to what must be regarded as
unreasonable restrictions. They were not allowed to rent or purchase
land, nor could they remove from one place to another without the
special permission of the Government, and a heavy capitation tax was
exacted of them. This, however, was reduced in 1848, and twenty years
afterwards they obtained from the Government the entire freedom
which they now enjoy. Several Jews, we are told, are now members of
the legislature.
These regulations have the force of law in Hungary as well as in
Austria proper; but neither the Government nor the people accord
them the perfect liberty and equality which the law professes to
secure. The antipathy to them all over Central Europe is well known.
In Hungary, within the last few years, this has been painfully
illustrated by the trial at Nyireghyaza, which for many weeks
attracted the attention of all Europe. As it illustrates, more
forcibly than any comment could do, the true status of the Hungarian
Jews, it will be proper to give an outline of the occurrence here.
In March, 1882, a young girl named Esther Solymosi suddenly
disappeared. She was discontented with her situation, and had
quarrelled with her mistress. A few weeks afterwards, a Jew named
Scharf, together with one or two other of his countrymen, was
charged with having murdered her, in order to use her blood for
ritual purposes. At first, the sole evidence was a Jewish child,
five years old, who said that he had seen his father and brother cut
the girl’s throat, and catch her blood in a basin. The brother, a
boy of fourteen, at first denied any knowledge of the transaction,
but afterwards retracted the denial. He now said that he had not
been present when the deed was done, but he had seen it through the
key-hole of the door of the tabernacle. There was no corroborative
evidence of his tale, and, in addition to the fact that it was in the
teeth of his first evidence, it was proved that it was impossible to
see through the key-hole of the door in the way he had described.
Six weeks afterwards a body, which was sworn to be that of Esther
Solymosi, was found in the river Theiss. It was dressed in her
clothes, and identified by means of a peculiar scar. It was pretended
that the body of another person had been dressed in Esther’s clothes,
in order to frustrate inquiry. But the case broke down, and the Jews
were fully acquitted. The verdict was accompanied by an official
declaration that the oft-repeated charge made against the Jews,
of using Christian blood in their services, is a baseless calumny.
But the popular outcry with which the acquittal was received shows
how deeply seated the prejudice of the Hungarian people on this
subject still is. The inquiry, in fact, revealed a mass of ignorance,
prejudice, and uncharity which would have been bad enough in the
twelfth century, but which in the nineteenth is almost incredible.
The lower classes, indeed, are, in most European countries,
still steeped in ignorance. But what are we to think of men of
education—mayors, commissioners of police, lawyers holding high
offices—who could believe that the Jews made use of Christian blood
in the performance of their religious rites? What are we to think of
a public prosecutor who could declare that the Jews wanted Christian
blood, and could not have wanted it except for ritual purposes? It is
an astonishing instance of how far inveterate prejudice can influence
the minds of even educated men.[226]
In Russia, as has been before remarked, the number of the Jews is
greater, and the treatment they experience more harsh, than in any
other country in the world. From Russia proper—‘Holy Russia,’ as it
is styled—they have been for many generations excluded, nor are they
by the law allowed to remain there now. The law is often evaded,
and great misery frequently results from it. Some idle or malicious
story gains currency, and stirs the populace to a fierce fanatical
outbreak, in which pillage, outrage, and massacre are perpetrated on
a large scale; or else the authorities are suddenly stirred up to a
real or pretended zeal for the vindication of the law, and thousands
of Jewish families are all at a moment required to emigrate from the
country. In 1846, the Czar Nicholas issued a new ukase, requiring
all Jews who dwelt within five-and-thirty miles of the German and
Austrian frontier to remove into the interior. The ground alleged
for this edict was, that large quantities of goods had been smuggled
across the frontier. The English Board of Deputies, among whom were
Montefiore and Rothschild, laid a statement before Lord Aberdeen,
then Foreign Minister, pointing out the terrible suffering and ruin
which this measure would occasion. Lord Aberdeen pleaded their cause
with the emperor, who was induced to suspend his ukase, at first for
three years, and after that again for four more. Finding that he
could not succeed in obtaining its entire revocation, Montefiore made
a personal expedition to St. Petersburg, where he was kindly received
by the Czar, and succeeded in inducing him to cancel the edict. Under
Alexander II. the grievances were in some degree alleviated. A few
have been allowed to leave the old over-crowded settlements, and
establish new commercial centres in other provinces of the empire.
But their condition is still extremely miserable. They are loaded
with special imposts, and subject to all manner of restrictions: they
are excluded from many professions, or are only enabled to follow
them by paying bribes to officials, who have them completely at
their mercy. Fanatical risings against them also are frequent, being
connived at, if not actually encouraged, by the authorities.
In Servia, their condition is somewhat better. Forcible emigrations
have occasionally occurred, but not to the same extent as in
neighbouring countries. Much the same is the case in Moldavia, where
they were allowed to follow most handicrafts. It is said that the
roofs and pinnacles and churches throughout the country are the work
of Jews, and almost every inn has a Jewish landlord. Of late years,
however, their privileges have been abridged, and they have been
subjected to a good deal of harsh usage.
In Roumania their treatment has been even worse. It may be doubted
whether even in Russia the Jews have undergone so many and such
undeserved wrongs. It will be remembered that Roumania is the most
recently established of all the European kingdoms, having been
recognised as an independent State by the Treaty of Berlin in 1878.
One of the conditions of their admission to the list of European
sovereignties was embodied in Article 44 of the Treaty:—
‘In Roumania the difference of religious creeds shall not be alleged
against any person as a ground of exclusion from civil and political
rights, admission to public employments, and the exercise of
professions and industries in any locality whatsoever.’
But the congress had hardly been broken up, when the Roumanians
endeavoured to escape from the obligation thus laid upon them.
Instead of conferring the privilege of naturalization on the whole of
the Jews throughout the country by one sweeping measure, they granted
it only to such individuals as applied for it, and required of those
certain conditions with which it would be difficult for many Jews,
and impossible for many more, to comply.[227] The consequence has
been that although there are said to be more than two hundred and
fifty thousand Jews in Roumania, who have been for many generations
past resident in that country,[228] little more than a thousand
have been naturalized; and even in the instance of these, the
naturalization is only personal, the children of such persons being
reckoned as aliens. In 1884 no single Jew obtained the privilege. In
short, the condition on which Roumania was admitted by the Congress
of Berlin to rank as a sovereign State has been deliberately and
systematically evaded. This has, indeed, been pointed out to the
Roumanian Government by some of the Signatory Powers, but without
effect.
It must not be supposed that the withholding of naturalization is
merely a sentimental grievance. It entails disabilities of the
gravest character, debarring them from most professions and trades,
and hampering the Jews seriously in such as they are allowed to
follow. No Jew can be a government, a railway, or a sanitary
official, a director of a bank, a broker, a clerk, or a chemist. They
are excluded from all places of public education; in many places
the right of keeping inns has been withdrawn from them; there is
a continual agitation in progress to deprive them of the power of
carrying on the few trades still allowed them. Only in the year 1884
what was called the ‘Hawking Law’ was passed, by which hawkers were
liable to prosecution if they traded without a licence, and this
licence is invariably refused to Jews. Nor does the tale of their
wrongs end with their exclusion from all privileges of citizenship.
They are exposed to insults and wrongs of all kinds, for which there
is practically no redress; no court of law would venture to give an
impartial judgment in any suit between a Christian and a Jew.[229]
Any attempts to bring the question of their rights before the Senate
inevitably fail, permission even to discuss the question being
refused. The press, in most countries the advocate of toleration and
freedom, is here the bitterest and loudest supporter of injustice
and oppression. In fact, the worst intolerance of the worst periods
in France, Spain, and Germany is displayed in the Roumania of the
present day. It is surprising that the European Powers who imposed
their conditions on the Roumanian Government at the Berlin Congress
have not felt themselves bound in honour to see them loyally carried
out. It may surely be hoped that they will before long awake so far
to a sense of their responsibility as to do so.
FOOTNOTES:
[226] See Appendix V., Blood Accusation.
[227] They were required to present petitions, in which the applicant
stated the amount of the capital he possessed, and the profession or
calling which he followed. After the presentation, he was obliged to
reside for _ten years_ in the country, during which he must prove
himself a useful member of society. It is obvious that in these
stipulations there is ample opportunity for refusing naturalization
to any Jew whom the Government might dislike.
[228] They are chiefly Sephardim fugitives from Spain in the
fifteenth and sixteenth centuries.
[229] At Botouschani, in 1885, five Roumanians were charged with
murdering a Jew. The evidence was clear, but the defence was,
that a Christian could not be punished for killing a Jew; and a
verdict of acquittal was given, but coupled with an order to pay a
thousand francs to the Jew’s family for the murder. Quite recently
an illustrated newspaper issued a large engraving, of which the
murder of a Christian child by Jews—the old, shameless, worn-out, a
thousand-times-disproved, calumny—was the subject. It is impossible
to believe that the proprietors of the paper knew perfectly the
falsehood and calumny which they were circulating; but they knew that
the bitter hate entertained towards the Jews would ensure them a
remunerative sale.