The history of the Jews: From the war with Rome to the present time

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.