The Jewish Question in Anglo-Swiss Diplomacy

<plain_text><page sequence="1">the jewish question in anglo-swiss diplomacy. 207 The Jewish Question in Anglo-Swiss Diplomacy, By Marcus Lipton, B.A. The particular phase of the Jewish question which forms the subject of this paper deals with the diplomatic efforts made by England during the middle of the nineteenth century to establish the principle of equality in Switzerland without any distinction based upon divergent religious belief. These efforts are the more noteworthy when it is remembered that they were made before the political emancipation of the Jews in England had been fully obtained. The material upon which this paper is based comes from the hitherto unpublished Foreign Office correspondence which is available in manuscript form at the Public Record Office. No use appears to have been made of these original sources, and there is only one reference to the existence of this material in the printed literature on the subject.1 Switzerland came into diplomatic conflict with the U.S.A. and France, besides England, because of the attitude adopted by the Federal Government towards the Jewish citizens of these countries, an attitude which reflected the treatment that was meted out to Jews born within the Swiss Confederation itself. The dispute assumed an international significance as a result of the treaties of commercial reciprocity which Switzerland attempted to negotiate with England, France and the U.S.A. In the course of these negotiations the anti Jewish policy of the Swiss Confederation was clearly disclosed, though, as a matter of fact, the first signs of religious differentiation were to be found in the Franco-Swiss commercial treaty of 1827.2 Not without intention, a clause was inserted which allowed each canton to deal as it pleased with French citizens of the Jewish persuasion, though French? men of other denominations obtained full reciprocal privileges. After the change in government which took place in France in 1830, such discrimination adversely affecting the French Jew was not allowed 1 Wolf, Notes on the Diplomatic History of the Jewish Question, p. 67, quoting from vol. xi. p. 36 of the American Jewish Historical Society's Publications. 2 Wolf, ibid. p. 71.</page><page sequence="2">208 THE JEWISH QUESTION IN ANGLO-SWISS DIPLOMACY. to pass unchallenged. Louis Philippe in 1835 suspended for a short time the 1827 treaty because of the unfair treatment meted out to French Jews in the Bale canton and severed diplomatic relations between the French Government and that particular canton. Ten years later, the attention of French public opinion was again drawn to the status of French Jews in Switzerland, as a consequence of several expulsions which had recently taken place in Chaux-des-Fonds. When, however, the excitement of 1848 threw the whole of Europe into con? fusion, it was the U.S.A. which took up the role of opposing anti Jewish discrimination in Switzerland. The efforts made by the U.S.A. in this matter have been ably described and well documented by Messrs. Stroock and Adler in the publications of the A.J.H.S., who between them supply the greater part of the American official cor? respondence on the subject.3 The senate refused to ratify a treaty between the U.S.A. and Switzerland which was signed at Berne in 1850 because American citizens of the Jewish persuasion were not given the same rights as their Christian fellow-citizens. The Federal Govern? ment made a reciprocal commercial treaty with Sardinia shortly afterwards (1851) which, it was subsequently discovered, excluded Sardinian Jews from the benefits extended to Christian nationals of both countries. At the same time as this treaty was being signed, Switzerland was again embroiled in a dispute with France, which arose from some further expulsions of French Jews from Bale. In the early part of 1854 the attention of the English Foreign Office was drawn to the special taxes imposed on English workmen residing in Switzerland, where many were at this time employed on the rail? ways. On February 27,1854, the Earl of Clarendon wrote to Christie,4 the English representative in Switzerland, asking him to secure some modification in the passport system and the residence-charges imposed on English workmen, as several complaints in regard to these matters had reached the Foreign Office. In his reply, dated March 8, 1854,5 Christie reported that more than two years before he had brought the matter to the notice of the Federal Council, but had been referred to the cantonal authorities, who refused to discuss the matter. Thus in the Canton of Vaud, for instance, Englishmen were compelled to 3 Vide A. J.H.S., vols. xi. and xv ; also Wolf, pp. 66-8. 4 F.O. 100/84/6. 5 F.O. 100/84/9.</page><page sequence="3">THE JEWISH QUESTION IN ANGLO-SWISS DIPLOMACY. 209 pay 4| francs for six months' residence, whereas French and Sardinians only paid 1J francs. Such distinctions, according to Christie's report, existed in all the cantons, and in his opinion could only be removed by arranging a treaty of reciprocity. He mentioned that the Swiss American treaty of 1850 had not yet been ratified owing to certain questions relating to Jewish-American citizens. " I have been lately informed (he writes) by the American Minister here that his Government are likely to waive the point in which they have hitherto made a difficulty and to ratify the treaty." On September 11 Clarendon sent the English representative a draft 6 which he was requested to use as a basis in negotiating a treaty with the Swiss authorities. Clause 1 of the draft stipulated that English citizens should be placed on the same footing as native citizens, in so far as the right of residence was concerned. While Christie was absent on leave, Murray was entrusted with the negotiations, and in his note on Clause 1 of the draft treaty which he enclosed in his des? patch of October 14, 1854,7 he wrote : " It results from a perusal of paragraph 41 of the Federal constitution that the above named facilities for settlement whether for Swiss citizens or for subjects of a foreign nation are limited to persons professing 4 une des con? fessions chretiennes.' Accordingly an English Jew in Switzerland would not legally be entitled to the same privileges of settlement as those enjoyed by a Swiss Jew in England ; in practice he would probably enjoy them, for there are many Jews, French and others, exercising their callings in this city (Berne) and elsewhere in Switzer? land without let or hindrance." He went on to point out that neither nation could call upon the other to violate the fundamental laws of the constitution. Perfect reciprocity was impossible where constitutions were not exactly the same. As an example, Murray mentioned that whereas an Englishman could own land in Switzerland a Swiss could not own land in England. In a further memorandum which Christie sent to Clarendon two days later 8 (October 16) he remarked that an English Jew in Switzerland did not enjoy the same right of domicile as a Swiss Jew in England. Referring to the delayed ratification of the Swiss-American commercial treaty, he said, 44 The U.S. Senate withheld their ratifi 6 F.O. 100/84/28. 7 F.O. 100/86/43. 8 F.O. 100/86/45. VOL. X. P</page><page sequence="4">210 THE JEWISH QUESTION IN ANGLO-SWISS DIPLOMACY. cation of the treaty for three years on account of the distinction made between Christians and Jews, and I have been informed by M. Joctean, now Sardinian Minister here, but under-secretary for foreign affairs at Turin when the Swiss treaty with Sardinia was concluded in 1851, that the Sardinian Government concluded the treaty without being aware of its bearing on Sardinian Jews. The Swiss treaty of reciprocal establishment with France dates from 1826, and French Jews are exempted from the treaty by an express written declaration made by M. de Rayneval 9 the French Minister who negotiated the treaty." In the same despatch Christie supplies some general information regarding the Jews in Switzerland. Their number was estimated at about 3,000, half of whom were to be found in the manufacturing Canton of Aargau. In Bale, Lucerne, and the smaller Catholic cantons, anti-Jewish feeling was strongest. One of the main obstacles in the way of a satisfactory settlement lay in the federal nature of the Swiss constitution, which was based upon the enactment of 1848. Under this constitution, Switzerland was a legal unity in its relations with foreign powers, and questions of war and peace, alliances and commercial or political treaties belonged exclusively to the Federal authority. As Murray pointed out in his despatch of October 14, to which reference has already been made, the right of settlement by paragraph 41 of the constitution was limited to Christians. But what proved an additional complication lay in the fact that the right of domicile was subject to cantonal regulations. An element of confusion was thus inevitably introduced into the negotiations on this matter, and thus we find the American Minister to Switzerland writing to Daniel Webster in 1850 that " any canton can permit an Israelite to become a citizen upon the same condition as a Christian."10 Some cantons as a matter of fact did grant such a concession, but it was as of grace and not as of right. The English representative, however, wanted to establish the principle. Stress was therefore laid by Christie on the limitation imposed by paragraph 41 of the Federal constitution when he expressed the view that there was no probability of the Federal Government conceding the right of establishment to British Jews in Switzerland without a revision of the Federal constitution. In his opinion all that could otherwise be hoped for was the removal of minor trading re 9 Vide Wolf, p. 72. 10 American J.H.S., vol. xi. p. 7.</page><page sequence="5">THE JEWISH QUESTION IN ANGLO-SWISS DIPLOMACY. 211 strictions, as an instance of which he mentioned that the Federal Council had forced the authorities at Lucerne to allow the Jews of Aargau to have access to the markets. " A little pressure," he adds, " might possibly on the occasion of the treaty obtain the removal of all restrictions on Jews which can be removed without interfering with the Federal constitution." 11 In 1855 Gordon was appointed British Minister at Berne, and he was given full powers to negotiate a commercial treaty with Switzer? land. The Earl of Clarendon, who was still Foreign Minister, dealt with the Swiss draft of the treaty in a despatch dated April 30, 1855.12 Clause 1 of the Swiss draft ran as follows : " The subjects of Her Brit? annic 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." This wording would allow an English Jew coming to Lucerne to be treated there in the same way as a Swiss Jew coming from Bale or any other canton, and he would thus be subjected to the same disabilities. Clarendon remarked in his despatch that " Article one contains several points upon which it is necessary to make some observations. H.M. Government have no objection to adopt the terms provided by the Federal Council for the first para? graph of the article provided the words ' without any distinction what? ever as to religious belief ' be added thereto." Clarendon was careful enough to note that " the effect of the stipulation as it stands in the remodelled draft would be to enable the Swiss authorities, whether Federal or Cantonal, to maintain or impose disabilities injuriously affecting a British subject of the Jewish belief in Switzerland, while a Swiss Jew in the British dominions would, in regard to all those points which form the subject of the article, be placed on the same footing as a British subject. This, therefore, is a proposition which would be objectionable even on the ground of fair reciprocity. But the Jews of this country form one of the most peaceable, loyal and industrious classes of the population, and H.M. Government would on general principles be very reluctant to conclude with a foreign power a treaty which would have the effect of placing a British Jew in the territories of that power on a worse footing in any respect than any other British subject. The number of British Jews in 11 F.O. 100/86/45. 12 F.O. 100/90/36.</page><page sequence="6">212 THE JEWISH QUESTION IN ANGLO-SWISS DIPLOMACY. Switzerland is, however, believed to be so very small as to render this question rather one of principle than of practical importance for Great Britain ; and if you find it impossible to induce the Swiss Government to assent to the introduction of the words proposed, you may with? draw them rather than stop the negotiation of the treaty on that account alone. ELM. Government entertain the hope that the Federal Council themselves have no desire to continue the vexatious disabilities and restrictions on persons of the Jewish belief which may yet exist in certain Swiss cantons, but that, on the contrary, they are anxious that such disabilities or restrictions, whether arising from religious prejudice or commercial jealousy, should as speedily as possible be swept away. H.M. Government trust that, whatever may be the terms of the treaty, they shall never hear of any practical difficulty arising in regard to such matters ; but if unfortunately that should be the case, they will feel it their duty to use every exertion in their power to obtain equal privileges for every British subject in Switzer? land without distinction as to creed." Three days afterwards (May 3, 1855) Gordon wrote from Switzer? land to report that the Swiss-American treaty signed in 1850 had at last been ratified " without difficulty with the exception of two of its articles. The one of these related to the establishment of Jews, American subjects, in Switzerland. In this country Jews are not allowed to settle in any of the cantons, and it was at first considered that to maintain this state of the law with reference to American Jews, whereas in the U.S. no such prohibition with regard to Swiss Jews existed, would be to that extent an infringement of reciprocity. I do not propose to enter into this question more particularly at present, but desire merely to report that in this particular, in conformity with the representations made by Mr. Fay, the American Minister here, the U.S. Government and Congress have waived their strict claims in consideration of the state of Swiss law, and agree to make no demands to enforce the full establishment of American Jews in Switzerland." 13 Ina later despatch, dated May 22,14Gordon mentioned that he had submitted the English draft to the Swiss plenipotentiaries, and that they had agreed to all the alterations proposed by Her Majesty's 13 F.O. 100/92/71. 14 F.O. 100/92/84.</page><page sequence="7">THE JEWISH QUESTION IN ANGLO-SWISS DIPLOMACY. 213 Government with the exception of the words " without any distinction whatever as to religious belief," and another matter of less importance regarding marriages between English and Swiss subjects. The Swiss plenipotentiaries were prepared to recommend the treaty for the Federal Council's acceptance exclusive of the two matters already mentioned. Gordon added : "I fear it will be scarcely possible to obtain the concession of either of these points." In his reply, dated a week later, Clarendon said 15:" H.M. Govern? ment would not, as stated in my despatch No. 36 of the 30th ultimo,16 make the conclusion of a treaty dependent upon the admission of the words introduced in the first Article to meet the case of British Jews resident in Switzerland, believing as they do that the number of British Jews in Switzerland is so small as to render the point of no practical importance. You will not, however, conceal from the Swiss Government that if, contrary to the expectation of H.M. Government, any case should occur of a British Jew being harshly treated in Switzer? land in consequence of his religious belief, it would, form the subject of most serious remonstrance on their part with the Government of the Confederation." A personal letter dated May 28 was attached to this despatch, which made it quite clear that the words " without any distinction whatever as to religious belief" were not to be regarded as a sine qua non. The words were proposed, not so much in the hope that they would be accepted by the Swiss Federal authorities, but with a view to " quickening the action of the Federal Government upon the cantons to induce them to rescind all mere cantonal disabili? ties, and forewarning the Federal Government that any well-founded complaint of ill-usage of a British Jew would be a subject of serious remonstrance on the part of Great Britain." On June 9, 1855, Gordon had a conference with Fiirrer, the President of the Swiss Confederation, where he proceeded to fulfil his instructions with regard to the case of British Jews in Switzerland. His report is contained in a despatch dated June 13, and is as follows :17 " In accordance with the instructions contained in your lordship's despatch No. 36 on this point, I had conceived myself authorised to agree to the exclusion of the words proposed to be added to Article 1 of the project, which would have secured their (the Jews) 15 F.O. 100/90/46. 16 F.O. 100/90/36. 17 F.O. 100/92/97.</page><page sequence="8">214 THE JEWISH QUESTION IN ANGLO-SWISS DIPLOMACY. unquestioned admission to establishment all over Switzerland. . . . The fact is that this is a point of cantonal sovereignty, upon which the cantons are especially jealous. Their laws on the subject are distinct, and enable them to refuse permission of domicile to Jews of whatever nation they may be, including those (few though they be) of Swiss origin.18 Persons of this description exist only in the Canton of Argovie, and every other canton of the Confederation may refuse to these, actually Swiss citizens, permission to reside within their limits solely on account of their religious belief." He drew attention to the fact that neither France nor the U.S.A. had been successful in obtaining any modification of the Swiss attitude on this point, and that it would be impossible for England to succeed where these countries had failed. It was not so much religion which was the root cause of the dis? crimination, but the fear of usurious practices for which the Jews of Alsace, just over the border, had acquired an unenviable reputation. In the interview with Gordon, F?rrer attempted to disclaim responsi? bility by saying that he was unable to interfere with the privilege of the cantons in respect of the right of domicile. He promised, how? ever, that no case of injustice affecting a British Jew would ever occur. When this despatch arrived at the Foreign Office, Clarendon referred it to J. B. Bryne, one of the permanent staff, whose view was that the discussion of the matter would obviate any cause for complaint. Clarendon, in a pencilled comment dated June 19, added : " I concur with Mr. B., whose memorandum may be turned into a despatch, and no time should be lost in sending it with the revised draft to Mr. G." On June 21, 1855, the official communication based upon this comment was sent off from the Foreign Office.19 It formally authorised Gordon to withdraw the stipulation relative to the rights of British Jews in case the objections of the Swiss Government were insuperable. " I do not apprehend," he wrote, " that any great practical difficulty is likely to arise, and therefore no further notice need be taken." In the draft which accompanied this despatch Clause 1 ran as follows : " 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 18 The words in italics were underlined by Gordon in his despatch. 19 F.O. 100/90/56.</page><page sequence="9">THE JEWISH QUESTION IN ANGLO-SWISS DIPLOMACY. 215 cantons." In this way the right of domicile was left to the cantonal jurisdiction. There was some slight delay in the final ratification of the treaty, and Clarendon complained of this towards the end of July,20 because he was anxious to secure the immediate removal of all the special charges imposed on British residents in Switzerland. On September 6, 1855, the treaty was finally signed, and was acknowledged by Clarendon in a despatch dated the 14th of that month.21 .The matter as far as England was concerned was now settled, but the difficulties with the United States still remained to be sur? mounted. The American Senate, on the report of the Committee of Foreign Relations, had in 1853 passed a resolution that " it would be just and wise on the part of the Government of the U.S. in future treaties with foreign nations to secure, if practicable, to our citizens residing abroad the right of worshipping God freely and openly by providing that they shall not be disturbed or annoyed on account of their religious belief, nor in the proper exercise of their religion." Senator Cass, speaking a year later in the Senate, said of this resolu? tion that it sought " not merely to protect a Catholic in a Protestant country, a Protestant in a Catholic country, but an American in.all countries, . . . Jew or Gentile, all are equal in this land of law and liberty." Yet, despite the public attention which the negotiations with Switzerland aroused in the U.S., despite the Jewish representa? tions made to the Senate and the official statements of that body, the Swiss-American treaty was ratified on November 6, 1855, less than three months after England had deferred to the refusal of the Federal authorities to extend any concession to British Jews. The first clause of the American treaty, though not worded in exactly the same way as the English, was the same in effect and retained the same connota? tion. " The citizens of the U.S.," it ran, " and the citizens of Switzer? land shall be admitted and treated upon a footing of reciprocal equality in the two countries when such admission and treatment shall not conflict with the constitutional or legal provisions, as well Federal as State and Cantonal, of the contracting parties." 22 20 F.O. 100/90/72, dated July 31, 1855. 21 F. 0.100/90/88. The actual text is given in Wolf, p. 73. 22 Ibid., p. 74.</page><page sequence="10">216 THE JEWISH QUESTION IN ANGLO-SWISS DIPLOMACY. But when the full significance of the American capitulation became manifest, public and official opinion in the United States was again roused. John Appleton, the Assistant Secretary of State at Washington, wrote, on August 13, 1857, in reply to complaints made by the Jews of Baltimore that the Swiss-American treaty did not discriminate against American Jews and that the U.S. Government had no control over the legislation of a foreign state and could only employ its good offices to relieve the difficulties which such legisla? tion might impose in any given case.23 President Buchanan, however, in October of the same year, publicly stated that the treaty contained provisions violative of constitutional privileges that render it unjust, that his predecessor in office was not aware of the intentions of the Swiss Government in this treaty, and had he been aware thereof would certainly not have signed it. Consequently, in November, Fay, the American Minister at Berne, was instructed to use his influence to remove the odious restrictions complained of, which, in Fay's opinion, were " contrary to the Scriptures, to civilisation, and the dignity of the United States." Fay had an interview with Fornerod, President of the Swiss Confederation, in December 1857, which showed that the Swiss attitude was beginning to be modified. Fornerod said that the Federal Government was willing to abolish the anti-Jewish restrictions, but that the cantons were sovereign in this matter, thus rendering any im? mediate constitutional change out of the question. Fay then addressed an official note to the High Federal Council at Berne, a copy of which he gave to Gordon for the information of Lord Clarendon.24 On December 9, two days after he had received a copy of Fay's note, Gordon sent with it a despatch to the Foreign Office, in which he reported that the Jews of the United States had sent deputations to their President, complaining of the inequality sanctioned by the cantonal laws, and that the President had promised to secure the removal of the restrictions complained of.25 Gordon referred to the determined language used by both England and the United States before their respective treaties with Switzerland in 1855 were signed. It would be surprising, he wrote, if "Fay got the laws modified, because the cantonal governments were very jealous of their privileges." Gordon 23 Wolf, p. 74. 24 A.J.H.S., vol. xv. p. 30. 25 F.O. 100/112/191.</page><page sequence="11">THE JEWISH QUESTION IN ANGLO-SWISS DIPLOMACY. 217 thought that it was wrong to suppose that paragraph 41 of the Federal Constitution, which guaranteed full rights only to Swiss of one of the Christian confessions, was the chief obstacle. " My own impression," he said, " is that it is the cantonal legislation against the legal estab? lishment of Jews within their limits which chiefly prevented the Federal Council from agreeing to the stipulation." He pointed out that though there were several foreign Jews established on sufferance in many parts of Switzerland, even Swiss born Jews shared the disabilities of foreign Jews in regard to the right of establishment in any canton but their owrn. " It is very difficult to see," Gordon remarked, " how any foreign government can claim for its citizens exemptions which Swiss citizens in the same position do not enjoy." He nevertheless promised Fay the sympathy of the English Government, the American representative intimating, though not positively, that the United States might exercise the right of reprisals in regard to Swiss pauper immigrants if the Federal Govern? ment remained obdurate. Clarendon wrote back on December 17, 1857, as follows26 : "Her Majesty's Government approve the language held by you to the U.S. Minister at Berne as reported in your despatch No. 191 of the 9th ult. on the subject of the present position of the Jews in Switzerland, and I have to instruct you to take such opportunities as you may think expedient of informing the Federal Government of the sincere satisfaction with which Her Majesty's Government would learn that the disabilities under which Jews labour in Switzerland have been modified, if not entirely removed." With the despatch of this note, a copy of which was forwarded by Fay to Washington, England seems to have withdrawn entirely from the diplomatic struggle, and there is no further record of English intervention in the Foreign Office papers. The U.S. Government persisted in its attempt to secure some amelioration for the Jews in Switzerland, and the rest of the story is told in the collection of American diplomatic documents included in Mr. Cyrus Adler's paper of which mention has already been made. Fay was officially told in May 1858 that any further attempts to obtain the right of establishment for American Jews in Switzerland would be 26 F.O. 100/108/68.</page><page sequence="12">218 THE JEWISH QUESTION IN ANGLO-SWISS DIPLOMACY. useless. Cases subsequently occurred in which Jewish dead had in many cantons to be removed and buried in Austria, which induced Fay to consider the advisability of denouncing the Swiss-American treaty altogether. " The more I study the Israelite question," he wrote in January 1859, " the more I am inclined to believe that the time has arrived to convince the few cantonal authorities which yet hold out that they must now fall into the general current of modern politics and Christian civilisation." In June 1859 he actually published part of his correspondence with the Federal Government on the Jewish question, which was an unusual attempt to influence public opinion in a foreign country. That the Federal Council was not now un? sympathetic is proved by the fact that it actually offered Fay's publi? cation for sale. The effect was seen when the Canton of Zurich passed resolutions in favour of Jewish emancipation in October and the Council of B?le-Campagne, always a hot-bed of anti-Semitism, only rejected Jewish emancipation by 17 votes to 16. The battle, however, was not yet wor# and in April 1860 the favourable intervention of France was secured when Walewsky authorised the French Minister in Switzerland to assist the American representations. Fogg, who succeeded Fay in 1861, was instructed to carry on Fay's work in attempting to remove the restrictions on American Jews, and in 1864 he was able to inform the American Secretary of State that he had been given an assurance by the Swiss Government of its readiness to guarantee equal rights to all American citizens without distinction of religious creed.27 Bernays, an American Jew, had been made consul at Zurich in 1862, in which year also Bale finally granted the right of residence to Jews. France, however, was the first power to take authoritative steps which ultimately settled the question of the Jewish status in Switzerland. When in 1864 a new commercial treaty was being negotiated between the two countries the Government of Napoleon III firmly opposed any kind of discrimination between its citizens on religious grounds. Ferdinand de Lesseps, making a report to the French Senate on this subject, remarked. " No discrimination may be recognised in the enjoyment of civil and political rights between a French Jew and a French Catholic or Protestant. This equality 27 Wolf, op. cit., p. 75.</page><page sequence="13">THE JEWISH QUESTION IN ANGLO-SWISS DIPLOMACY. 219 of rights must also follow a citizen beyond the frontier, and the principles of our constitution do not authorise the Government to afford different protection to an individual according to the faith he professes."28 In the treaty which was finally signed on June 30,1864, France reaped the benefit of the representations made by England and U.S.A. for so many years past, for it stipulated that " all Frenchmen regardless of creed will in the future be admitted and treated in each of the Swiss cantons on the same footing as Christian subjects of the other cantons." 29 Jewish disabilities in the various cantons where they still existed gradually disappeared, and in the new Swiss constitution which was finally promulgated on May 29, 1874, paragraphs 44 and 47 placed the treatment of aliens under Federal jurisdiction, while paragraph 49 declared that liberty of conscience was inviolable : " No one may be forced to undergo penalties of any kind whatever on account of religious belief. The exercise of civil or political rights cannot be withheld by prescriptions of a religious nature. The execution of this principle is reserved for Federal legislation." 30 The late Professor Oechsli, the well-known authority on Swiss history who contributed to the " Cambridge Modern History," regarded the French demand for the right of free settlement in negotiating the 1864 treaty as of the utmost importance in securing the inclusion of the clauses already mentioned in the 1874 constitution. The French demand could not be rejected without foregoing the great advantages of the treaty. Again, it was impossible to treat native-born Jews less favourably than foreign Jews. Nothing remained, therefore, but to modify the constitution in their favour. When the Federal authori? ties submitted this among other defects to a referendum in 1866, of the nine articles submitted only the one ameliorating the Jewish status was approved. The part that the United States and France played in improving the lot of their own Jewish nationals, and incidentally that of native Jews in Switzerland, has received the attention of historical students, 28 In 1841, when a similar question arose between France and Saxony, Carnot said : " Le titre Israelite, qui ne constitue pour le francais de France aucune inca? pacity, ne peut en constituer pour lui lorsqu'il voyage en pays etranger." Vide Moniteur, May 29, 1841. 29 Vide Wolf, ibid., p. 73. 30 Dareste : Constitutions Modernes, vol. i. pp. 550-2.</page><page sequence="14">220 THE JEWISH QUESTION IN ANGLO-SWISS DIPLOMACY. but England also played a creditable part in tbe fight for Jewish rights in Switzerland. If the representations made by this country do not appear so continuous or so persistent as those of the United States, nor so immediately successful as those of France, it must be remembered that it was only in concrete instances of discrimination against French or American Jews of fully recognised civic status in their respective countries that decisive action could be taken. No actual case is on record of any English Jew being actually subjected to ill-treatment at the hands of any cantonal authority, and it was for this reason that the English representations cannot really be compared in duration and frequency with the efforts of France and the United States. But where the attitude of these two countries was based upon concrete instances of hardship, it ought to be borne in mind that England based her case on general principles alone. And in diplomacy and international politics generally greater force usually attaches to concrete grievances than to general assertions of praiseworthy, but abstract, principle. The two together, however, proved an irresistible combination, and the Swiss constitution of 1874 was a concession to the spirit of the age, marking another landmark in the long struggle for Jewish emancipation in Europe, a struggle which, as many less fortunate Jews have reason to know, has continued up to our own day.</page></plain_text>