CH. IX.] The "Reform" Movement.

123

promises were concerned. So extensive had his influence in the East become at this time, that when Colonel Stoddart and Captain Conolly were thrown into prison by the Emir Nazrullah, of Bokhara, the British Government made strenuous efforts to convey a letter from him to the Jews of the Khanate, asking them to interest themselves in the fate of the English emissaries. Unfortunately the letter only arrived after they had been put to death, but in one sense it had the desired effect. The warm terms in which it was couched led the Bokhara Jews to imagine that the English officers were fellow Israelites, and they

"interested themselves in their fate" to the extent of mourning their loss in the synagogues.

In work of this description Sir Moses Montefiore not only gratified his philanthropic tastes, but found relief from the cares and anxieties which at this time, more than at any other period of his career, beset his position in the Anglo-Jewish community. Towards the middle of 1841, a schism had taken place among the English Jews, and a congregation in the west end of London had been started on lines differing somewhat from those which had guided the foundation of the City synagogues two hundred years before. Sir Moses Montefiore, whose orthodoxy has ever been of the most rigid type, strongly opposed the new movement, and the community became a prey to the bitterest dissensions. In comparing to-day the so-called "Reform " synagogue with the orthodox Jewish congregations, it is difficult to understand how such a

movement could have caused the commotion it did at the time of its inception. Sir Moses Montefiore himself was not uncompromisingly wedded to the old order of things, notwithstanding that he led the orthodox party on this occasion. We have seen, for example, how he disapproved of the ancient differences between the Spanish and German congregations, and he gave a further and emphatic illustration of his opinion on this subject in 1845, by proceeding to Dover to receive, on behalf of the Jews of England, the new German Chief Rabbi, Dr. N. M. Adler, on his arrival in this country. One of the grounds, too, on which the new synagogue was opposed, was, that it violated an ancient statute of the Bevis Marks congregation, prohibiting the establishment of district synagogues; and yet, in 1844, Sir Moses himself promoted the establishment of a Western branch of the Spanish and Portuguese Synagogue, by offering £5,000 towards the expense of its erection. The fact seems to have been, that the orthodox party was actuated rather by vague fears of what might take place if a dissatisfied section of the community were to establish a synagogue independent of the constituted authorities, than of disapproval of what was actually contemplated by the seceders-fears that have been amply justified by the dangerous course since pursued by Jewish Reform in America and elsewhere. The "Reform movement in England, however, turned out to be little more than a premature anticipation of the natural progress of forty years. of forty years. How mild it was is evidenced

CH. IX.]

A United Community.

125

by the fact, that when Dr. Fränkel, the reforming Chief Rabbi, of Dresden, was asked to place himself at its head, he declined on the score that it did not contemplate changes of a sufficiently radical character; and, a few years ago, Professor Marks, the Chief Minister of the West London congregation of British Jews-as the new synagogue called itself-publicly declared, in the presence of the Rev. Dr. Hermann Adler, the Delegate Chief Rabbi, that there would have been no secession in 1841 had the orthodox

synagogue then been as it is now. At the present time, there is little appreciable difference between the various synagogues of Great Britain. The Jews of England, as a body, are the most orthodox and united of Occidental Jewish communities; and it is in no complimentary spirit, but as indicative of an important and undeniable fact, that all classes among them. concur to-day in paying homage to Sir Moses Montefiore. They recognise in him the most representative of English Jews-a thorough embodiment of their views and aspirations.

CHAPTER X.

THE JEWISH QUESTION IN RUSSIA.

Oppressed condition of the Jews of Russia-Seriousness of the RussoJewish Question-Its origin religious not secular-The modern charges refuted by history-Review of Russo-Jewish historyFirst settlements of the Jews in the South - Conversion of the Khozars to Judaism-A Jewish Kingdom in Russia-The civilizing influences of the Jews-Inroads of the Tartars and extinction of the Khozars-Jewish settlements in the WestTheir privileges-Gratifying results of Jewish colonizationNumerousness of the Polish Jews a source of congratulation by native historians-The Russian Prince Sviatopolk invites the Jews into his dominions-The Jews held in high esteem by the people-They serve in the army-They proselytise on an extensive scale-Judaism embraced by the Metropolitan of the Greek Church-With the rise of the power of the Church the privileges of the Jews are curtailed-Three centuries of Ghetto life— Four millions of Jews still oppressed.

THE sessions of the Board of Deputies (1841—46), referred to in our last chapter, were particularly notable for their connection with the Jewish Question in Russia -the most serious question of modern Jewish history. Through a correspondence opened with Sir Moses Montefiore in 1842, the Western Hebrews were for the first time made aware of the terrible condition of their Russian co-religionists; and, in the subsequent action of the Board of Deputies, the foundations were laid of

CH. X.] The Russo-Jewish Question.

127

the movement for their relief which has ever since been gallantly carried on in the happier countries of Europe. The Russo-Jewish Question is something more than a Jewish or even a Russian Question. It is one of the most extraordinary problems presented by the complex phenomena of modern society; and it appeals loudly to the humanitarian sense of civilised Europe for a speedy and equitable solution.

The ostensible reason for the oppression and persecution of the Jews of Russia is that they constitute a pernicious element in the Empire; as a matter of fact, they are the victims of religious hatred. The struggle between Judaism and Christianity has been more serious in Russia than in any other country; and, consequently, the hatred of the Jew has become more deeply rooted in the national sentiment. How unfounded is the popular theory of the Russo-Jewish Question is shown by the fact that, whenever the Jews in Russia were politically unrestricted, they exerted a distinctly beneficial influence on the country. Their history is, indeed, at every step a refutation of the charges now brought against them.

About the year 726 Leo the Isaurian, Emperor of Byzantium, published at Constantinople his celebrated Edict against Image Worship. The clergy and monks rebelled, and the Emperor was on all sides denounced as a Jew. In order to show that, notwithstanding his enlightened opposition to miracle-working fetishes he was in other respects a good Christian, Leo attempted to persecute the Jews into embracing the Cross. Many