Great Britain, British Jews, and the international protection of Romanian Jews, 1900-1914: a study of Jewish diplomacy and minority rights

 
32 
 
Article 46 of the Paris Convention dealt with the Jewish situation in the 
Principalities: all Moldavians and Wallachians were to be equal before the law 
and equal with regard to taxation and admission to public employment. 
Moldavians and Wallachians of the Christian faith were to enjoy political rights, 
which could later be extended to persons of other religions. This meant that civil 
rights were guaranteed to all inhabitants, but political rights only to the 
Christians.
6
 It had been the original intention of the Powers to emancipate the 
Romanian Jews gradually through Romanian legislation. However, the 
Romanians planned nothing of the sort. On the contrary, the situation of the 
Jews worsened in the second half of the 19th century. 
 
Prince Alexandru Ion Cuza, after having been elected as prince both in 
Moldavia and Wallachia (resulting in a personal union of the Principalities
7
), 
made some promises to the Jewish population on the improvement of their 
legal status. The Civil Code of 1865 implied that there was to be gradual 
emancipation in accordance with the Convention of Paris and gave Jews the 
possibility to acquire citizen’s status.
8
  
 
However, the Civil Code was of no consequence, as Cuza was overthrown 
and a new prince, Carol I, was elected in 1866. Carol I (or Charles I), from the 
German house of Hohenzollern-Sigmaringen, was the Prince of Romania 
between 1866 and 1881, and the King of Romania between 1881 and 1914.
9
 At 
the beginning of Carol’s rule, in 1866, a new Constitution was passed. The 
constitution took a firm stand: it stated bluntly that only Christians could 
become Romanian citizens.
10
  
 
As a rule, accounts and interpretations of the incidents of the 1860s and 
1870s either tend to emphasise the anti-Semitism of the Romanian government 
or, at the other extreme, attempt to explain the government activities as self-
preservation and ‘normal’ measures against vagabond aliens. The situation was 
inflammable between 1866 and 1877; this was a period of frenzied action 
around the Jewish question. The Romanian public engaged in occasional small-
scale anti-Jewish disturbances, while the Romanian government passed anti-
Jewish legislation. Western Jews hurried to help their fellow believers, and the 
United States and West European Powers protested against the treatment of 
Romanian Jews.
11
  
 
Among the most well-known episodes of the era were the notorious 
Brătianu circulars of 1867 which ordered the expulsion of vagabond Jews, the 
                                                           
6
  
Rey 1903, 464; Fink 2004, 11. 
7
  
Prior to the Crimean War, the name Danubian Principalities was generally used. Then, 
in the Convention of Paris 1858, the name United Principalities of Moldavia and 
Wallachia was adopted into international usage. In 1859, the Romanians themselves 
introduced the name Romania in the domestic context, although this name was 
notrecognised internationally. The international community as a whole adopted the 
name only after the Congress of Berlin in 1878.    
8
  
Wolloch 1988, 53-57. 
9
  
For a short overview on this period, see Butnaru 1992, 14-16. 
10
  
Wolloch 1988, 57.   
11
  
For a standard Western overview on Romanian history during this period, see, for 
example, Durandin 1995, 176-182. 

---

 
33
drowning of some expelled Jews in the Danube in 1867, and a series of pogroms 
and arrests of Jews following a theft of church valuables in Southern 
Bessarabia
12
 in 1872.
13
 Adding to the controversy, the United States government 
sent Benjamin F. Peixotto, a Jew himself, to Bucharest as an American consul. 
During his time in Romania, 1870-1876, Peixotto acted vigorously on behalf of 
Romanian Jews.
14
  
 
What were the reasons for the emergence of the Romanian Jewish 
question in the international arena? Lloyd A. Cohen has tried to produce an 
answer. It would seem that the Jewish question should have been of minor 
importance in the era of Romanian nation building. However, according to 
Cohen, it grew out of proportion for three main reasons. The first was the 
frequently mentioned massive influx of Jews to Moldavia. The second 
component was the inability of any Romanian government to find a solution to 
the Jewish question. Finally, the interference of the international Jewry and 
foreign governments complicated the issue.
15
 On the other hand, it was 
precisely because of the newly emerged national framework that the Jewish 
presence seemed more disturbing. 
 
The Jewish question was hence extended from a purely domestic issue to 
an international problem, which further complicated matters. Now, it was not 
only a question of finding a compromise solution within Romania, but also of 
reconciling the outside forces. The Romanian Jews, or rather a vocal minority of 
them, believed that the intervention of their Western coreligionists would be an 
answer to their problems. This led to protests from foreign Jews, who first tried 
to receive assurances from the Romanian leaders. However, the attempts of 
Jewish organisations failed, and they began to request action from their 
respective governments. The Western Jewry indeed managed to persuade the 
governments of their home countries to intervene in the Romanian situation. 
The motivations of the Western governments included, on one hand, genuine 
humanitarian concern and questions of conscience, due to their treatment of 
Jews in their own countries, and, on the other hand, willingness to use the 
Jewish question as a tool to meddle in Balkan affairs.
16
 These motives were to be 
apparent in the early twentieth century as well. 
 
Although Cohen’s observations appear to be accurate for the most part, 
the process of internationalisation was not quite as straightforward as he claims. 
                                                           
12
  
Southern Bessarabia, acquired in 1856, was ceded to Russia again in 1878. The matter 
caused some friction between Russia and Romania. 
13
  
A separate British State Papers volume, Correspondence Respecting the Condition and 
Treatment of the Jews in Servia and Roumania, 1867-1876, discusses the issue from the 
British viewpoint. For a detailed description of the era and for the French viewpoint, 
see Iancu 1978 and Iancu 1980. On the role of the Alliance Israélite Universelle, albeit 
very briefly, there is Chouraqui 1965, 87-100. On the Brătianu circulars, see also Stan  
& Ioşa, 129-133, for a Romanian interpretation. The Romanian Prime Minister was 
Ion C. Brătianu (1821-1891), not to be confused with his son Ion I. C. Brătianu (1864-
1927), also a Romanian politician. 
14
  
Kohler and Wolf 1916, 12-24. On the Peixotto episode, there is also Gartner 1974. 
15
  
L. Cohen 1982, 195, 197. 
16
  
L. Cohen 1982, 200-202. 

---