[Communicated to the Members C. 273. 1925. I of the Council.]

41/41456/17190 41/44164/17190 Geneva, May 20tli, 1925.

LEAGUE OF NATIONS

JEWISH MINORITIES IN

COMMUNICATION WITH ANNEXES BY Mr LUCIEN WOLF CONCERNING THE HUNGARIAN LAW No XXV, 1920, ON THE “NUMERUS CLAUSUS”

Note by the Secretary-General : On September 30th, 1922, the Council adopted a report submitted by the representatives of Spain, Belgium and China regarding a petition signed by Mr. Lucien W o l f on behalf of the Joint Foreign Committee of the Jewish Board of Deputies and the Anglo-Je wish Association on the Hungarian Law No. XXV, 1920, which introduced the “ Numerus Clausus ” into higher educational institutions in Hungary. In this report, these three representatives, after expressing the opinion that it was first of all necessary to ascertain how' the Law was applied and whether in practice the legitimate rights of the minorities were prejudiced, proposed to the Council that it should request the Hungarian Government to supply the necessary information in order that it might be possible to study the applica­ tion of the Law in question over a certain period. Count Banffy, at that time Minister of Foreign Affairs in Hungary, who was present at the meeting of the Council, stated that the Hungarian Government would supply the Council with all the necessary information on the application of this Law and, in accordance with this statement, the Hungarian Government has on two occasions furnished the Members of the Council with statistical information on the matter. The Secretary-General now has the honour to circulate, for the information of the Members of the Council, a further communication on the same subject, together with annexes, also signed b y Mr.W o l f on behalf of the Joint Foreign Committee of the Jewish Board of Deputies and the Anglo-Je wish Association. This communication was forwarded to the Hungarian Government for its observations on January 28th, 1925. The Hungarian Government’s observations, which have just reached the Secretariat, are also circulated for the information of the Members of the Council.

S. d. N. 175 (F) S6U (A) + ttUU ( I ) 22 >

COMMUNICATION BY Mr. LUCIEN WOLF

2, Verulam Buildings, Gray’s Inn, London. Jan u ary 1st, 1925.

1. This Committee has lately had under its earnest consideration the deplorable situation created in Hungary and in other countries by the Hungarian Law No. XXV of the year 1920, known as the “Numerus Clausus” (Annex I). It has formed the opinion that the time has arrived when some definite step should be taken to decide whether the Law in question is or is not an infraction of the Minorities Clauses of the Treaty of Trianon.

2. I am accordingly directed to ask you to be good enough to communicate this view to the Council of the , and to express the hope that the Council may see fit to submit the question of the validity of the Law to the Permanent Court of International Justice for an Advisory Opinion, in accordance with the provisions of the third paragraph of Article 14 of the Covenant.

3. I am to remind you that this question has been pending before the Council for more than three years, and that, it was the subject of a resolution adopted by the Council on September 30th, 1922. The Joint Foreign Committee, with whom is associated the kjAlliance Israélite universelle” of Paris, had contended that the Hungarian Law constituted an infringement of Articles 56, 57 and 58 of the Treaty of Trianon, and the “Alliance toraélite” had furthermore protested against the application of the Law to , on the ground that they did not come within its provisions (Annex II). The Committee of the Council which considered the question in the first instance postponed the legal issues raised by the Joint Foreign Committee and the “Alliance Israelite”, and recommended the Council to enquire into the application of the Law and as to “whether in practice the legi­ timate rights of minorities are disregarded” (Annex III). This recommendation was adopted by the resolution referred to above, and the Hungarian Government was requested to supply the necessary information (Annex IV). On January 24th, 1923, the Hungarian Government forwarded to the Secretary-General of the League a statistical return which appeared to show that the Jews did not suffer by the application of the Law. Since then nothing has been done. 1 11 4. The grounds on which the Joint Foreign Committee now asks that the validity 6f the Hungarian Law shall be decided by the Permanent Court of International Justice &re as follows : ii (a) The Committee has been advised by Counsel, whose opinion is annexed that the Hungarian Law is in direct conflict with the Minorities Provisions of the Treaty of Trianon (Annex V).

(b) Even if the application of the Law in Hungary caused no actual suffering to Hungarian Jews, a decision of the legal question would be necessary because the immunity enjoyed by Hungary in this respect has encouraged other countries in Central and to contemplate similar legislation avowedly aimed at Jews, and has actually given rise to popular agitations which have caused much suffering among them (Annex VI).

(

5. The Joint Foreign Committee ventures to suggest that the questions to be sub­ mitted to the Permanent Court should be in the following form :

(a) Is the Hungarian Law No. XXV of the year 1920 an infraction of the Minorities Clauses of the Treaty of Trianon, and more particularly of Articles 56, 57 and 58 of th at T reaty ?

( b) If the answer is in the negative, that is, if the Court hold that the Law is not in itself an infraction of the Treaty, is the Law so applied in practice as to constitute such an infraction (see Annex VIII) f 6. The Joint Foreign Committee thinks it desirable to state that, in making this application to the Council of the League, it has no definite mandate from the Hungarian Jewish community as an organised body, although many appeals have reached it from Jewish Societies and individual Jews in Hungary, as also from the Jewish students expatriated through the operation of the “Numerus Clausus” Law. The grounds on which the leaders of the Hungarian Jews decline to appeal to the League of Nations have been recently set forth in speeches of the President and Vice-President of the Community (see Annex VII b). But in view of the virulence of the anti-Semitic agitation in Hungary, it will be readily understood that the Jewish community are scarcely free agents in this matter. However that may be, the international reactions of the Hungarian “Numerus Clausus” Law are so serious as to render it impossible for the Joint Foreign Committee to avoid seeking a judgment of the Permanent Court.

7. In elucidation of the case set forth above, various documents and memoranda are annexed. These documents have, however, been mainly selected with a view to assisting the Council of the League in arriving at a conclusion on the question whether the case should be submitted to the Permanent Court. If this question is decided in the affirmative, the Joint Foreign Committee trusts that it may be afforded an opportunity of submitting further arguments on the main question for the consideration of the Court.

(Signed) Lucien W o lf. Secretary.

LIST OF ANNEXES

T. Text of the “Num erus Clausus” L aw ...... 4

II. The Jewish Appeals to the League of Nations...... 5

III. Report on the “Numerus Clausus”, submitted to the Council of the League of Nations by the Representatives of Belgium, China and Spain, Septem ber 27th, 1922...... 6

IV. Extract from the Minutes of the Twenty-first Session of the Council of the League of Nations...... 7

V. Opinion of Dr. Hugh B e l l o t on the Validity of the “Numerus Clausus” Law ...... 7

VI. Note on the ‘‘Numerus Clausus” in Austria, Poland, Boumania, etc.... 9

VII. How the Minorities suffer under the “Numerus Clausus” Law : (a) Statement of the Budapest Jewish Community...... 10 (b) Speeches at a Conference of Hungarian Jewish Communities on October 23rd, 1924...... 14

V III. The Method of Applying the Law to Jew s...... 15 — 4 —

Annex I.

TEXT OF THE “NUMERUS CLAUSUS” LAW.

[ Translation. ]

L a w X X V o f 1920, r e l a t iv e to M atriculation at t h e U niversities , t h e P o l y t e c h n ic S c h o o l , t h e B u d a p e s t U n i v e r s it y of E c o n o m ic S c ie n c e s , a n d t h e A c a d e m ie s (F a c u l t ie s ) o f L a w .

(Promulgated in the Hungarian Law Gazette on September 26th, 1920.)

To all whom it may concern, I hereby declare that the National Hungarian Assembly has enacted the following Law : I. From the beginning of the academic year 1920-21, only those persons may matriculate at the Universities, the Polytechnic School, the Budapest University of Economic Sciences and the Academies (Faculties) of Law who present incontrovertible guarantees of loyalty to the State and moral character. Only a limited number of such persons may matriculate, with a view to ensuring that their education may be thorough. The number of students admitted to the various faculties shall be determined by the Minister of Public Worship and Education in consultation with the Faculty concerned (the Council in the case of the Polytechnic). Non-regular students (permitted to attend lectures) may only be admitted provided that the number of regular students is not exceeded, and the latter number must not exceed the figure laid down. The foregoing regulation shall not apply in any way to students desiring to matriculate in the Faculties of Law and Political Science (Academies of Law), or in Public Accountancy classes. The Minister of Public Worship and Education may, in agreement with the Minister of Finance, also fix the number of non-regular students, after consulting the Faculties concerned. II. The provisions of Section I shall not affect the matriculation rights of students who have already matriculated in previous academic years, or the admission of non-regular students to the Faculty of Philosophy (Philosophy, Science of Language, History, Mathe­ matics and Physics), or to the Faculties of Medicine, if they are in possession of a certificate attesting a satisfactory standard of education, and provided that they are in all respects reliable persons as regards loyalty to the State and moral character.

III. Students desiring to matriculate, in accordance with the provisions of Section I, must apply to the Faculties concerned (the Council in the case of the Polytechnic School) in order to obtain a matriculation permit. The professors of the Faculties concerned (the Council in the case of the Polytechnic) shall finally decide at a full meeting whether to grant or refuse matriculation permits to students, in accordance with the number laid down in Section I. In granting a permit, there shall be taken into consideration, in addition to the requirements laid down as to loyalty to the State and moral character, the capacity of the applicants. Moreover, the number of students belonging to each different race and nationality must be proportionate to the number of the population belonging to the different races and nationalities in Hungary, and each race or nationality must be represented to an extent corresponding to at least nine-tenths of its total numbers in the country. Further, those desiring to matriculate, in accordance with the provisions of Section II, can only do so if they are in possession of the permit granted at a full meeting of the Faculties concerned (the Council in the case of the Polytechnic). The regulations for these students will be laid down in a decree issued by the Minister of Public Worship and Education. IV. The present Law shall come into force on the day of publication, and shall be put into application by the Minister of Public Worship and Education. I hereby order the publication of the present Law in accordance with the wishes of the people. I shall observe the Law and I will cause it to be observed by others.

(Signed) Count Paul T e l e k i , Prime Minister oj Hungary. Budapest, September 24th, 1920. (Signed) H o r t h y , Regent of Hungary. Annex II.

THE JEWISH APPEALS TO THE LEAGUE OF NATIONS.

Mr. Lucien Wolf, Secretary of the Joint Foreign Committee, to Sir Erie Drummond. 2, Verulam Buildings, Gray’s Inn, London, W.C. November 3rd, 1921. I am instructed by the Presidents of this Committee to ask you to be good enough to submit to the Council of the League of Nations the following complaint which has been communicated to us 011 behalf of the Jewish Minority in Hungary. The Hungarian National Assembly have lately enacted a Law in which Hungarian Nationals belonging to non-Magyar racial minorities are subjected to differential treatment in regard to the number of such nationals who may be admitted to the superior schools. It is notorious that the object of this Law is to impose educational disabilities on Jews, and, as a matter of fact, owing to their being overwhelmingly an urban middle class, its effect will be to deny to Jews all equality of opportunity in regard to admission to the educational establishments referred to. This Law constitutes a direct infraction of Articles 56 and 57 (Section VI : Protection of Minorities) of the Treaty of Peace with Hungary signed at Trianon on June 4th, 1920, and also of Article 58 of the same Treaty. These articles admit and declare to be Hungarian nationals all persons possessing rights of citizenship, or who have been born within Hunga­ rian territory who are not nationals of another State, and they further declare such Hunga­ rian nationals to be equal before the Law and entitled to the same civil and political rights without distinction as to race, language, or religion. It will be noted that, even if the proportions in which the various races are to be admitted to the superior schools under the new Law were calculated in good faith, the distinction of races on which they are based would none the less be contrary to the terms of the Treaty. In view of the guarantee of the Minority Clauses of the Treaty of Trianon by the League of Nations, I am instructed to ask that the Council of the League will bring to the notice of the Hungarian Government the inadmissibility of the above-mentioned Law and will take such other steps as they may think proper to protect the rights of the Hungarian Jews under the Treaty. I beg to attach to the present letter a copy of the Hungarian Law of which complaint is made. (Signed) Lucien W o l f . M. Bigart, Secretary of the World Jewish Alliance, to Sir Eric Drummond. I Translation. | Paris, November 11th, 1921. On September 24tli, 1920, the Hungarian Government promulgated a Law regulating the conditions of matriculation for students at the Universities and higher educational institutions in Hungary. Under Article III, this Law lays down that the number of students belonging to “each different race and nationality” must be proportionate to the number of inhabitants belong­ ing to these “races and nationalities”. It would appear that this expression should be taken to mean exclusively the non- Magyar national groups which formed part of Old Hungary or may have been incorporated in it under the Treaty of Trianon, and that it certainly does not apply to Hungarian Jews, who, while constituting a religious minority, are none the less purely Hungarian, equal before the law and enjoying the same civil and political rights as their fellow-countrymen. The clauses of the Treaty of Trianon relative to the protection of minorities, more especially Article 58, confirm these rights, which, moreover, are in conformity with all previous Hungarian legislation since 1867. The “Numerus Clausus” Law has, however, been conceived and applied in a very different spirit and, although it does not explicitly mention Jewish Hungarians, is never­ theless, in point of fact, directed against them. The thesis has been maintained that, as they represent 3 per cent, of the country’s total population, Jewish students in the higher educational establishments must not number more than 3 per cent. The result is that, although at the beginning of the last academic year 1,400 young Jews applied for admis­ sion to Budapest University, hardly thirty applications were granted. We learn from a good source that this percentage is at present actually being extended to secondary educational institutions. We consider that this very serious violation of the spirit and letter of the Treaty signed by Hungary with the Allied and Associated Powers should be brought to the attention of the League of Nations, and we have the honour to request you to bring the question before the Council. (Signed) J . B ig a r t , Secretary. — 6 —

Annex III.

REPORT ON THE “NUMERUS CLAUSUS”, SUBMITTED TO THE COUNCIL OF THE LEAGUE BY THE REPRESENTATIVES OF BELGIUM, CHINA AND SPAIN, ON SEPTEMBER 27TH, 1922.

The Joint Foreign Committee of the Jewish Board of Deputies, and the Anglo-Jewish Association, and the Alliance Israélite universelle, in November 1921, addressed petitions to the League of Nations with regard to the Hungarian Law XXV of 1920 (“Numerus Clausus”). These petitions were communicated for the observations of the Hungarian Government and the Government replied in January, 1922. The petitions may be summarised as follows : (a) The Hungarian Law XXV of the year 1920 lays down in Article I that only the names of such persons shall be inscribed on the rolls of Universities and other institutions for higher education as are known to be of absolutely unim­ peachable national loyalty and morality; and only a limited number of these may be enrolled with a view to ensuring their thorough training. In Article III the Law stipulates that, in addition to the requirement regarding national loyalty and morality, the intellectual capacity of the candidates shall be taken into consideration; and, further, that care shall be taken that the number of students of different races and nationalities shall be in proportion to the number of inhabitants of the races and nationalities of the country, and that each race or nationality shall be represented in a proportion of at least nine-tentlis of its respective proportion in the country. (b) The petition of the Joint Foreign Committee states that this Law clearly constitutes an infringement of Articles 56, 57 and 58 of the Treaty of Trianon. These articles recognise as Hungarian nationals all persons who had, at the date of the coming into force of the Treaty, their rights of citizenship within Hungarian territory, or who were born in that territory and were not born nationals of another State, and these Articles declare that all Hungarian nationals shall be equal before the Law and shall enjoy the same civil and political rights, without distinction of race, language or religion. (c) The petition of the Jewish Alliance protests against the application of this Law to Jews, and points out that the Law in question only mentions students of different race and nationality, and that, therefore, it does not apply to Jews who, in the opinion of the petitioners, only constitute a religious minority. The replies of the Hungarian Government states that Law XXV, 1920, has a twofold object in view : (а) To reduce the number of the intellectual proletariat. (б) To guarantee the rights of minorities. In view of the fact that the territory of Hungary has been greatly reduced since the war, it has become necessary to limit the number of students in Hungary, and especially the number of those who are studying with a view to entering the service of the State. In reducing the number of students, the following considerations in addition to the question of mental capacity are taken into account : 1. In consequence of the events which occurred during the period of the dictatorship of the working classes, the State wished to obtain guarantees of the patriotic loyalty of its future officials.* 2. The number of young men belonging to the various races and natio­ nalities which inhabit the territory of the country to be admitted to the Univer­ sities should, as far as possible, be in proportion to the number of the inhabitants of the races of nationalities in question. So far from constituting an infringement of the provisions of the Treaty regarding the rights of minorities, the last point is, in the opinion of the Hungarian Govern­ ment, more in the nature of a codification of those rights in respect of freedom of instruction. The Hungarian Government emphasises the fact that the Jews have in reality received very favourable treatment as regards admission to the Universities of the country. In pursuance of the resolution of the Council of October 25th, 1920, the Belgian repre­ sentative, who was then President of the Council, invited the Spanish and Chinese represen­ tatives to join him in investigating this question. The members of this Committee felt that they ought primarily to obtain information as to the manner in which the law is applied, and whether, in practice, the legitimate rights of minorities are disregarded. The Hungarian Government asserts that that is not the case, and that it intends to apply the Law in accordance with the imperative needs of the Hungarian nation, but with full regard for the rights and interests of minorities. In these circumstances, we recommend that the Council should request the Hungarian Government to supply it with the necessary information in order that it may be in a position to follow closely for a certain time the application of Law XXV of 1920. Annex IV.

EXTRACT FROM THE MINUTES OF THE TWENTY-FIRST SESSION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE LEAGUE OF NATIONS.

S i x t e e n t h M e e t in g ( P u b l i c ) o p t h e S e s s io n held at Geneva on Saturday, September 30th, 1922, at 5.30 p.m.

Present : All the Representatives of the Members of the Council, and the Secretary- General.

Jew ish M inorities in Hungary.

The P r e s i d e n t invited Count Banffy, representative of Hungary, to come to the Council table. A report submitted by M. Q u i n o n e s d e L e o n , M. H y m a n s and M. T a n g T s a i-F ou was read to the Council. The Rapporteurs recommended that the Council should request the Hungarian Government to supply it with the necessary information in order that it might be in a position to follow closely for a certain time the application of Law XXY of 1920.

Count B a n f f y (Hungary) stated that the Hungarian Government would furnish the Council with all necessary information as to the application of Law XXV. He wished, however, to state at once that, although the Jewish population of Hungary did not amount to more than 6 per cent, of the total population, at the University of Szeged, for example, 33.3 per cent, of the students were Jewish by nationality and religion; while at the Elizabeth University at Pecs, the percentage was 45.2. In these circumstances, it could not be said that the legitimate rights of the Jewish minority were infringed. The Council adopted the report submitted to it, and noted the statement of the represen­ tative of Hungary. (Count Banffy then withdrew.)

Annex V.

OPINION OF D r . HUGH BELLOT ON THE VALIDITY OF THE “NUMERUS CLAUSUS” LAW.

The provision in Article III of the Hungarian Law XXV of September 26th, 1920, providing that “care shall be taken that the number of students of different races and nationalities shall be in proportion to the number of inhabitants of the races and nationalities of the country, and that each race or nationality shall be represented in a proportion of at least nine-tenths of its respective proportion in the country”, is in my opinion in direct conflict with the provisions of Articles 56, 57 and 58 of the Treaty of Trianon, 1920. Hungarian nationality is clearly defined in Articles 56 and 57 and neither race nor religion is a qualification for, or a bar to, political status. By Article 58 all Hungarian nationals are declared to be equal before the law and entitled to enjoy the same civil and political rights without distinction as to race, language or religion. The Hungarian Govern­ ment is no doubt entitled to limit the number of candidates for admission to the superior schools and Universities and even to impose tests of loyalty, moral character or intellectual ability, provided such tests are of general application, but it is not, in view of the Treaty of Trianon, entitled to discriminate against any race or nationality. In fact, under the Treaty there is only one nationality, and any discrimination by reason of race, language or religion is expressly prohibited. The provision above cited from Article III of Law XXV does in fact set up a distinction of race or nationality, and in its application discrimination is applied by way of a religious or, it may be, of a racial character. The number of candidates to be admitted is to be in proportion to the population of each race or nationality in the country, and, since Jews are only about 5 per cent, of the population, the number of Jewish candidates to be admitted must not be less than nine-tenths of 5 per cent, of the total number of candidates admitted. But, under the Treaty, the Hungarian Government is not entitled to impose any test of race, language or religion in the enjoyment of civil and political rights upon its nationals. It is not entitled to exclude any national from the superior schools or Universities upon the ground that he is a Magyar or a non-Magyar, a Christian or a Jew. There is only one nationality or political status. It may, as I have said, limit the total number to be excluded and it may reject a candidate who is avowedly hostile to the Government, such as persons holding communist or Bolshevist opinions, but it is not entitled to say that the number of this or that race to be admitted shall be in proportion to its population in the country. The reasons advanced by the Hungarian Government in defence of the policy underlying Law XXV may be perfectly sound, although I confess that, to my mind, to restrict the number of admissions to higher education in order to limit the number of applicants for posts in the civil service appears to be illogical and retrograde, and not the best method of meeting this difficulty. In most countries the number of applicants exceeds the number of posts in the civil service and the question is settled by competitive examination. Moreover, I understand that in some instances the number allotted to Magyar applicants is not reached owing to lack of Magyar applicants, and yet the vacancies thus caused are not filled although there is a surplus of Jewish applicants. Consequently, I am forced to the conclusion that this is not the real reason. In the letter of January 18th, 1922, from M. Zoltan Baranyai to the Secretary-General of the League of Nations the real motive of the Hungarian Government is apparent. Before Law XXV came into operation, the percentage of Jews in the superior schools was very high, running to 27, 41 and 37. This was considered by the Hungarian Government to be “an unreasonable proportion”. It has now under the Law been reduced to 11.3 per cent, and the Government takes credit for this as being more than double the minimum demanded by the Law. The proportion of intellectuals is far higher among the Jews, who mostly reside in the towns, than among the Magyars, who are mainly landowners and peasants. These Magyar landowners formerly constituted the ruling class. It is this class which fears “an unreasonable proportion” of Jewish nationals in the civil service, which is conceived as a menace to its political power. The Government further declares it has nothing to do with the selection of the candidates. This is true, but by the Law XXV the tests are laid down and the proportion to be admitted is fixed. By these tests and limitations the selectors in the superior schools are bound. The argument of the Government that, because the minimum is fixed and is in fact exceeded, the Government is protecting the rights of the minorities is entirely fallacious, since it is not entitled to impose any such ratio. The Advisory Opinion of the Permanent Court of International Justice upon the construction of the Minority Clauses in the Polish Treaty forms a useful analogy. By Article 5 of the Polish Law of July 14th, 1920, the Polish State was empowered to demand the expulsion without compensation of all persons occupying certain lands in Poland. This law purported to be, and was in form, of a general character, and was to be applied generally without any discrimination. In fact, it was directed against a certain class, known as the German colonists in Poland. These had become Polish nationals, but were as a whole of German origin. In its application only one colonist of Polish origin was affected. Strictly, therefore, the Law was of general application, but the Permanent Court found that, although the Law did not expressly declare that the persons to be ousted from the lands were persons of the German race, the inference that they were was to be drawn even from the terms of the Law. Substantially, the persons whose rights were affected were persons of the German race, and although the Polish policy of de-Germanisation was comprehensible, it was precisely this which the Minorities Treaty was intended to prevent. The intention of the Treaty was to eliminate a dangerous source of oppression, recrimination and dispute, to prevent racial and religious hatreds from having free play and to protect the situations established upon its conclusion, by placing existing minorities under the impartial protection of the League of Nations. By the Minorities Treaty, Poland had agreed that all Polish nationals should enjoy the same civil and political rights, and the same treatment and security in law as well as in fact. The action taken by the Polish authorities under the Law of July and particularly under Article 5 was undoubtedly a virtual annulment of the rights which the settlers acquired under their contracts and therefore an infraction of the obligations concerning their civil rights. It was contrary to the principle of equality in that it subjected the settlers to a discriminating and injurious treatment to which other citizens holding contracts of sale or lease were not subject. See Advisory Opinions, Series B, No. 6. I cannot help feeling that, in the present case, the Permanent Court would come to a similar conclusion and find the Hungarian Law XXV to be an infraction of the Minorities Clauses 56, 57 and 58 of the Treaty of Trianon. It will be noticed that the Court is insistent that the minorities are entitled to the same treatment and security in law as well as in fact. Whether the Jews in Hungary are treated fairly or not is beside the question. It is claimed by the Hungarian Government that they are treated with unusual generosity ; it is alleged by the Jewish minority that they are treated unfairly. The only question, however, is whether their treatment, fair or unfair, is according to the law. As I am clearly of opinion that Article III of Law XXV is an infraction of the Minorities Clauses of the Treaty their treatment is not within the law. It is both contrary to the Treaty and to the Law XXV itself, inasmuch as it introduces into that Law discrimination against a religious minority which is not contained in that Law. — 9 —

Finally, it would, in my opinion, constitute a danger to Jewish minorities, not only in Hungary, but in other States, to accept Law XXV as valid on the ground that its applica­ tion is not for the moment unfair. If not already unfair as applied in Hungary (which is not, I understand, admitted), there is no guarantee that, if adopted in other States, it might not be applied unfairly and with even more discrimination against Jewish Minorities.

(Signed) Hugh II. L. B e l l o t . 2, King’s Bench Walk, Temple, August 14th, 1924.

Annex VI.

NOTE ON THE “NUMERUS CLAUSUS” IN AUSTRIA, POLAND, ROUMANIA, ETC.

The example of the Hungarian “Numerus Clausus” Law, and more especially the hesitation of the League of Nations to declare the Law invalid under the Minorities Clauses of the Treaty of Trianon, gave rise almost immediately to anti-Semitic agitations in other countries to enact a similar Law. This was the case in Austria, Poland, Roumania, Latvia and even in Germany. Only in one of these countries, viz., Poland, did the agitation come near to obtaining a legislative response from the Government. In 1923 a Bill was drafted by the Education Committee of the Seym and was adopted by the Government. It was, however, shortly after withdrawn under circumstances with which the Council of the League are familiar. Nevertheless, in Poland, as in all the other above-mentioned countries, attempts, in many cases successful, were made by the anti-Semitic organisations to prevail upon the University authorities to introduce an unofficial “Numerus Clausus” without the sanction of their respective Governments, although in all cases these Universities were State institutions. The action in this sense of the Polytechnic Institute led to an official protest by the High Commissioner for Refugees of the League of Nations on April 22nd, 1923, and the boycott of the Jews was stopped through the private intervention of the Government. Nevertheless, this unofficial “Numerus Clausus” has continued and has even extended. The Joint Foreign Committee have good reason for stating that this is almost entirely due to the absence of any decision on the subject from the League of Nations, as the Governments of the countries concerned, being in most cases weak, find it embarrassing to incur the reproach of interpreting the Minorities Treaties more strictly than the League itself. The result is that Jewish students have been compelled in large numbers to seek the hospitality of foreign Univer­ sities, and many of them have become dependent on the charity of the Jewish communities of the countries to which they have thus betaken themselves. The following is an approxi­ mate statement of the numbers of expatriated Jewish victims of the “Numerus Clausus” Law who have become chargeable on Jewish public funds :

Germany (in 12 towns o n l y ) ...... 1,000 V i e n n a ...... 800 P r a g u e ...... 250 Briinn ...... 350 I t a l y ...... 600 S w itz e r la n d ...... 100 F r a n c e ...... 200 T o tal...... 3,300

At the present moment an appeal is before the British and American Jewish communities for a sum of £5,000 to enable the Jewish community of Berlin to provide for the destitute Jewish students who are following the courses of the local University. The above figures are a very conservative estimate, and are liable to be increased, partly because the immigration continues from day to day and, owing to the economic depression in the countries whence the students come, their relations find it more and more difficult to send money for their support. The total number of Jewish students expatriated through the various “Numerus Clausus” agitations and the action of the Hungarian Law does not fall far short of 10,000. — 10 —

Annex VI!.

HOW THE MINORITIES SUFFER UNDER THE “NUMERUS CLAUSUS” LAW.

(a) S t a t e m e n t o f t h e B u d a p e s t J e w i s h Co m m u n it y .

The statistics filed by the Hungarian Government are not only delusive in themselves, but they afford no answer to the enquiry of the Minorities Committee of the Council of the League of Nations as to “whether in practice the legitimate rights of minorities are disregarded”. This will be seen from the following abstract of a pamphlet published last year in Budapest by M. G a b o r , the Secretary of the local Jewish community. “Law XXV of 1920 deals with ‘the regulation of admission into the Universities of Science, the Polytechnic, the Budapest Faculty of Economic Studies, and the Academies of Law’, and is commonly termed the Law establishing the ‘Numerus Clausus’. The Bill was introduced by the Minister for Public Worship and Education on July 22nd, 1920. In August the Committees for Finance and Education of the National Assembly presented their joint report and, after the report had been discussed on seven occasions during Sep­ tember, the Bill was adopted, with the addition of an amendment proposed by Deputy N. B e r n o l a k . “The Law comprises four sections. Section IV is ‘common form’, containing the usual provisions for the validity and application of the Law, so that the substance of the Law is contained in only three sections. Nevertheless, seven days were devoted to its discussion. This was not because the Bill was formidably opposed. Fourteen members spoke for the Bill, in addition to the Minister for Education and the mover of the Bill, one member criticised it as not being sufficiently thorough, and only six members spoke against it. It must be thought that the Assembly considered that the Bill required a good deal of justi­ fying, for, indeed, it reversed certain fundamental constitutional principles—equality before the law, freedom of education, and the important principle embodied in Law XLIV/1868, dealing with equal rights of nationalities, viz., the idea of an ‘undivided Magyar nation’. “During the discussions there was almost no mention of legal principles. One might say that the subject of debate was the . “What is the object of the ‘Numerus Clausus’ Law ? “From Section I it would appear that its object is to ensure thoroughness of education. But the only obstacles to this are insufficiency of institutions and of teachers. Now, post­ war Hungary contains no more than one-third of its former population, and nearly all the higher educational institutions which existed in Hungary before the Treaty of Trianon were in Little Hungary and still continue to function—their number has, in fact, been increased by the establishment of a Faculty of Economics at Budapest. It is not credible that all the students of the lost territories will apply for admission to the Universities of Little Hungary. “The terms of the Law itself dispose of an argument of this nature, for it states that : ‘at present... when four Universities of Science, a Polytechnic, as well as the Budapest Economic Faculty which is to be opened in September ... and besides these, five Law Schools are left to us, we have no reason to assume that we shall have too few qualified persons, but rather have to fear that we shall educate too many—an intellectual proletariat.’ If this is the object of the Law, then it ought to be clearly stated, but at present the Law seems to be based on two distinct and irreconcilable principles. “The truth is that neither of the two principles is the true raison d'etre of the Law. Its real object is that it shall serve as the thin end of the wedge which will rid Hungary of the Jews, for the Jew cannot exist when he is deprived of the opportunity for intellectual expansion, and in Hungary, where for centuries the Jews have been excluded by legisla­ tion from agriculture and industry, exclusion from free participation in education facilities would be calamitous. “The Law itself may be ambiguous, but speakers in the National Assembly declared without disguise that the Law was aimed at the Jews. One speaker, indeed, said that the Law was not aimed at the Jews—but he went on to say that the overcrowding in the Universities was largely due to the Jews, who exceeded their due proportions, and the Minister for Education spoke on the same lines, pointing out that the Jews would consequently suffer most. “When the amendment was moved apportioning the quota according to races and nationalities, one speaker was at great pains to point out that the supporters of the measure were determined that the Law should be applied justly; that, in fact, its object was to safeguard the rights of all nationalities and races. But the statistics show how the Law has been applied. 11 —

“Calendar of the Pâzmdny University, Budapest. Total Number of Students Jews Non-Jews “ First Term 1913-14...... 7,513 2,598 4,915 about 31 per cent. Jews. “Second Term 192]-22...... 7,140 558 6,582

— 373 —2,040 +1,667 about 8 per cent. Jews. “How is the increase of 1,667 non-Jewish students compatible with the principle of limitation of numbers on which the Law is said to be based ! “Before the * Numerus Clausus ’ Bill was discussed in the Assembly, the Minister for Education and Public Worship issued, without any legal authority, secret instructions (No. 78020 IV. a—I of August 6th, 1920) providing that the following numbers of students were to be admitted to Budapest University : Faculty of Theology...... 50 L a w ...... 500 M edicine...... 400 P h a r m a c y ...... 100 P hilosophy...... 300

“At this rate, the total output for the four-years academic course would be as follows : T h e o lo g y ...... 200 L aw ...... 2,000 Medicine (5 y e a r s ) ...... 3,000 Philosophy...... 1,200 Pharm acy (2 years)...... 200

Total. . . . 6,600

“Since in the last pre-war term at Budapest there were 7,513 students, on the basis of the above figures the total reduction after the first complete course of study would be only 913. Allowance must be made for a certain number of students dropping out, but as a set-off to this there is the new Economic Faculty of Budapest to be taken into account —it had 820 students in the first term of 1920-21, 873 in the second term—at a very moderate estimate this gives 3,000 students for the four-years course. In the face of this, can it be contended that a serious effort is being made to reduce the ‘ intellectual proletariat ’! “It may be argued that the post-war figures are swollen by the large number of students whose studies were interrupted by the war and returned afterwards. But this is not true. Most of these students returned in 1918-19, some in 1919-20, and those who returned in 1920-21 were subjected to the ‘Numerus Clausus’—that is to say, the Jewish students were. 1921-22 was a normal year, and certainly 1922-23 ought to have shown a decrease compared with 1920-21. “But the following are the figures : “Budapest Pdzmdny University : Average attendance for 1920-21 ...... 5,959.5 „ „ „ 1921-22 ...... 6,883.5

Increase . . 924.- “ Polytechnic : Average for 1920-21...... 3,986.5 „ „ 1921-22...... 4,492.-

Increase . . . 505.5

“The only University which shows a decrease is Szeged ( Kolosvàr) : 1921-22 : First T e rm ...... 1,007 Second T erm ...... 970

D e c r e a s e ...... 37 “Is it merely a coincidence that the 37 are Jews i “Since the effect of the ‘Numerus Clausus’ Law is to limit the number of students allowed to enter higher educational institutions, a certain number of students who have received at secondary schools the ‘testimonium maturitatis’, apparently giving them the right to enter a higher institution, find themselves unable to exercise that right. Thus two fundamental principles of the Hungarian Constitution are violated : (1) impartial partici­ pation in educational facilities, and (2) equality before the law. — 12

“ (1) Impartial participation in educational facilities.

“In the National Assembly, there was some discussion as to whether the ‘testimonium maturitatis’ really conferred the right of admission to a higher institution, or whether it was not simply declaratory of the possessor’s having fulfilled a necessary preliminary condition. But there ought to have been no dispute on this point, for Section 25 of Law XXV/1883 states that the final examination of a gymnasium entitles the successful candidate to admission to all higher institutions, that of the ‘Real-School’ entitling only to admission to a polytechnic. The doubt has been settled by the passing of a new law declaring that the ‘testimonium maturitatis’ does not confer a right of entry to a higher institution. This is an illustration of the retrograde tendency that the passing of the ‘Numerus Clausus’ Law has initiated in all educational regulations. “The ‘Numerus Clausus’ Law means that chance is to determine which of two persons, both belonging to the same racial or national category and possessing the same qualifications, is to secure admission to a higher institution. Yet all citizens alike have to pay taxes, without which the institutions could not function.

“ (2) Equality before the law.

“The ‘Numerus Clausus’ Law violates the principle of equal rights of nationalities, laid down in Law XLIV/1868; the test of nationality in that Law is the use of a particular language. “The principle of apportioning quotas among the various races or nationalities was not in the original text of Law XXV/1920, but was added as an amendment. It would have been just as logical to take some other basis, as the occupations or the incomes of the students’ parents. “The text of the Law says ‘race or nationality’. Is ‘or’ co-ordinative or disjunctive ! If ‘or’ is not co-ordinative, then ‘race’ and ‘nationality’ are two different categories. This makes nonsense of the Law, as will be apparent if, for one of them, is substituted some other category, as ‘occupation’—‘between the different races or occupations’ is plainly nonsense. Again, who is to decide whether the quota is to be allotted according to ‘race’ or according to ‘nationality’? It is nowhere provided for. No law defines what is a race. The census particulars contain no such heading. How, then, can such an indeterminate classification be taken as a basis for the enjoyment of civil rights ? There is likewise no law which deter­ mines the nature of a ‘nationality’: and there is no such heading in the census returns. Law XLIV/1868 has only the test of the use of a particular language. If the principle of the ‘Numerus Clausus’ is justifiable, then it could be applied throughout the whole sphere of civic rights and duties. The enjoyment of all rights might be made to depend on a ‘Numerus Clausus’, e.g., the distribution of land under an agrarian law—and so might the fulfilment of all duties, e.g., payment of taxes or conscription for the army. But Law XLIV/1868 was expressly designed to meet such claims as these, which were then being made by the various sub-nationalities. It is thus a fundamental principle of Hungarian constitutional law that only individuals and not bodies of individuals can be subjects of civic rights and duties. “But suppose the quota to be allotted according to nationality. The only possible criterion is that of the mother-language. What, then, of the Jews ? Nearly all speak Hungarian—and in the censuses of 1910 and 1920 not a soul claimed Hebrew as the mother-tongue. “Before the ‘Numerus Clausus’ Law was passed, and without any legal authorisation, Haller, the Minister of Education, issued secret regulations to the educational authorities, giving instructions for the application of a ‘Numerus Clausus’, and laying down rules for the allotment of the quotas. These expressly state that Jews are to be treated as a separate nationality and, after enumerating the number and percentage of the population according to the Magyar, German, Slovak, Boumanian, Croat, Serb, and ‘other’ languages, add ‘Jews’. ‘Jews’ is the only category which does not respond to the language test, and perhaps here is the secret of the use of the phrase ‘nationality or race’. “Another instruction, as a matter of fact, speaks of ‘Israelites’. But the term ‘Israelite’ is used in Laws XVIII/1867 and XLIII/1895 to indicate religion. The term ‘Jew’, however, has not been so restricted, and is therefore used in the ‘Numerus Clausus’ instructions to designate race, which is unchanged by baptism. Thus for the purpose of the ‘Numerus Clausus’, ‘Jews’ may include baptised Jews (cf. infra, Annex VIII). “The petition of the Alliance israélite to the League of Nations (supra, Annex II) was based on the fact that the ‘Numerus Clausus’ Law provides for differential treatment of racial and national groups, but that, nevertheless, the Law is applied to Jews although the Jews of Hungary are merely a religious group, and there is no mention in the Law of religious groups. The argument was ignored both in the reply of the Hungarian Government and in the oral statements of Count Banffy. “The Jews of Hungary have completely assimilated the national sentiments of their Magyar neighbours ; they regard themselves as Magyars, and are, in fact, so regarded by Law XVII of 1867. The present generation of Hungarian Jews speak, practically without — 13 — exception, the Magyar language : Hebrew is regarded only as the language of divine wor­ ship, or, at most, as a subject for literary study—certainly no one considers it as a mother - tongue. There is all the difference in the world between the Jews and the linguistic minorities of Hungary. The Jews did their utmost to become Magyarised, while the national minorities did their utmost to secure the recognition of their own languages in place of Magyar : German, Slovak, Roumanian, Serb, Ruthenian, etc., are, in fact, allowed to be used for official and educational purposes. This concession was granted in response to the demands of national sentiments. But the Jews have made no such demands, and the treatment of the Jews as a national minority, without the slightest demand for it on their part, can only be regarded as a deliberate attempt to separate the Jews from the Magyar nation. It is the first step towards the abolition of equal rights granted to the Jews by Law XVII of 1867. “So far as the national minorities are concerned, they certainly consider that their differential treatment is to their advantage, but there is no advantage to the Jew when he is treated on a racial or national basis ; for, of course, in computing their numbers for the purpose of allocating quotas under the ‘Numerus Clausus’ Law, apostate Jews are included in their number, as many, in fact, as 40 per cent of the total. “This is precisely why the ‘Numerus Clausus’ Law does not mention religious groups, although such a classification could have been justified by the precedent of the census returns. “On the above lines, it will be very easy hereafter to show that the Jews of Hungary occupy a particularly favoured position, for it will not be difficult to prove that they fill most of the important positions and own an undue proportion of land, despite the appli­ cation of the agrarian law—it will merely be necessary to find out all those whose grandfathers apostatised, and the information is readily available in the Semi- Gotha. In point of fact, of those posts which are filled either by nomination or election, the Jews never obtained anywhere anything like their fair proportion, and were quite unable to secure appointments to any public positions. “One consequence of the ‘Numerus Clausus’ Law is that Jews are deprived of the right which they had hitherto enjoyed, in common with all other religious denominations, of establishing autonomous educational institutions. But it is the Jews alone whose exercise of the right is prevented by the ‘Numerus Clausus’ Law, for all higher educational institutions are within the scope of that Law, and therefore, even if the Jews established and maintained at their own expense a University, the number of Jewish students admitted would be only the quota allotted to Jews, viz., 6 per cent, or a total in each year of between 90 and 100 students. Christian denominations are obviously not so affected. “It has thus been demonstrated that the ‘Numerus Clausus’ Law is legally unjustifiable. Year by year the number of students who go to universities abroad increases, and this involves not only a weakening of their patriotism but the loss to the country of the sums sent abroad for their maintenance. Furthermore, Jews who secure foreign qualifications will not return to Hungary, knowing that they will not be allowed to practise there. “This system will certainly lead many Jews in the future to adopt manual occupations, but if a Jew wishes to adopt a profession, how can he be prevented ? If these conditions were common to all sections of Hungarians, Jews would not object, but at present it is only Jews who receive such treatment. “The economic results of the war mean that savings accumulated as a provision against old age have dwindled to nothing. Parents must therefore look to their children to support them in old age. This, it is true, applies to all Hungarians, but while young non- Jews can remain in Hungary, the ‘Numerus Clausus’ drives young Jews abroad, and prevents their return. This will lead to emigration of Jewish parents to join their children. “The University of Pecs is merely the former Poszony (Presburg) University. In 1920- 21, its Law Faculty remained at Presburg, and its Medical Faculty was transferred to Budapest. Now the Pétér Pâzmâny University of Budapest had in 1913-14 an average of 1,597 Jewish medical students, but in 1920-21 only 286 (including baptised Jews). There were thus 1,311 Jewish medical students displaced, and they applied for admission to the Medical Faculties of Szeged and Pecs. As this was before the ‘Numerus Clausus’ Law and those two Universities were in financial straits, the Jews were admitted. If it had not been for these Jewish students the University of Pecs would certainly have had to close down.

“The figures are as follows :

University of Pécs :

1920-21, First Term : Total number of medical students ...... 395 J e w s ...... 193

“If there had been no Jews, there would only have been ...... 202

“The figures for the Faculty of Philosophy at Pecs merit consideration : — 14 —

“The proportion of Jewish first-year students was 20 per cent—but the total number of first-year students was only 5, one being a Jew. There were no Jews in the second, third and fourth years. “Szeged University did have a high percentage of Jews, but this was entirely due to the admission of those students who had been excluded from Budapest. “But why did Count Banffy refer only to these two exceptionally circumstanced Universities ? The facts as to the other Universities must be considered. “It is true that the proportion of Jewish students was high, but this was because Jews were more ready to take advantage of educational facilities than non-Jews, and it is not true to say that there was any overcrowding. “Granting, then, that the proportion of Jews was high before 1920, from Government statistics it appears that in 1920-21 the proportion of Jews admitted was as follows : Budapest 7.6 per cent, Debreczen 4.9 per cent, the Polytechnic 7.8 per cent, the Faculty of Economics 3.9 per cent. These percentages were continued when the ‘Numerus Clausus’ Law was put in force. How can the sudden decrease be explained ? “The percentage at the Polytechnic in the last year before the war was 32.7. Now, Law XXV/1920 lays down that the ‘Numerus Clausus’ is not to affect the students who had already secured admission. It would therefore be assumed that there would be a gradual decline in the percentage, starting from 32.7 per cent, and after five years, the period of a complete course, reaching the quota, 6 per cent. Therefore the drastic reduction to 7.8 per cent in 3920 can only mean that students were illegally deprived of the right of entry they had already acquired. ‘The same phenomenon was to be observed at the University of Budapest. “It may be replied that, at the beginning of the year 1921-22, Jews did not seek admittance in such large numbers. There may be some truth in this, for those students who had already been driven to pursue their studies abroad could hardly be expected to sacrifice the four terms they may have spent abroad since 1919. “What are the real facts as to the alleged overcrowding ? By this time all the ex-Service students have completed their courses. In the Medical Faculties, the number of students is not even up to the quota. In the Law Faculty, the quota is almost filled— but in this Faculty it is not necessary to attend the lectures before taking the examinations. “The only higher institution where the quota is actually filled is the Polytechnic— but this is because there is no Polytechnic in the ceded territories. “In the Medical Faculty of the Pâzmâny University, the quota laid down was 600. The number of applications for admission (including foreigners and inhabitants of the ceded territories) was rather more than half this number. “In brief, it is considered preferable to keep a State-provided University empty rather than to admit Jews. “Some Faculties are misinterpreting Law XXV by establishing a ‘Numerus Clausus’ not according to the quota allotted to the University, but on the basis of the number of students actually admitted. For example, in the Faculty of Philosophy at Pecs University in 1920, there were only 16 students, and it was therefore ruled that no Jews could be admitted, since 5 per cent of 16 is 0.8 of a student.”

(b) Speeches at a Conference of Hungarian Jewish Communities on October 23rd, 1924.

Dr. Lederer, President of the Jewish Community of Budapest, said that there could be no Jewish question in Hungary, for they were all Hungarians, with equal rights. If the Jews recited their grievances, it was to ask, not for protection, but only that their rights should be recognised. From the economic point of view, also, there was no Jewish question. The Jews had caused no unemployment ; they had taken up work from which others shrank. They had created in Hungary industry and commerce, and thus had laid the first stone of the nation’s material prosperity. They would continue to work for their country when it was in adversity as they had done in its days of glory. They owed all to their country, and all they had they would give to it. But, nevertheless, there was a Jewish question—the “Numerus Clausus”. It was claimed that this Law was not aimed at the Jews. But the Jews said, and could demonstrate, that it had been enacted solely against them and it was applied only to them. The Jews would toil incessantly until the schools were open to them equally with others. Those of them who were driven abroad to study they exhorted to learn diligently, in order to be of use to their country, which would have so much need of their knowledge. The Jews of Hungary would not let these exiles be overwhelmed with misery and privation. They would exhort them, too, to preserve their faith that better days would come for their Fatherland, when they would rejoice in the fact that their knowledge would make them useful citizens. 15 —

There was yet, he said, another Jewish question. Ten thousand Hungarian Jews had fallen in the war, had given their lives for their country, when it was asked of them. But now their memory was insulted; it was denied that they had shed their blood. The Ministers of their religion were not allowed to bless their memory. But God would extend his blessing over their tombs, and he adjured the dead to sleep in peace and join with the living in praying that God would bless their country.

M. V a s z o n y i, late Hungarian Minister of Justice : “...We continue to live in oppression: the day of liberty has not yet dawned for us. Let our thoughts therefore turn before all else to those who sleep in the tomb, victims of hatred, martyrs of our faith. Let us think also of those who, because they were adherents of Judaism, have lost their daily bread and their Fatherland ; of our sons, of our brothers who, abroad, in the midst of privations, are acquiring the knowledge with which, when they return one day, they will benefit the Fatherland which drove them away. Each day continues to bring us new sufferings, for daily we must endure humiliation by men who are in intellect and moral value much inferior to us. They desire to relegate us to the rank of second-grade citizens. “...We do not indulge in political intrigue, and we shall never admit that equality of rights and religious liberty can be the stake in a game of political dice. We are good Hungarians, but we wish to be also good Jews. We shall loyally fulfil our duties towards our Fatherland and towards our religion: we entrench ourselves behind the bastions, solid as a rock, of the Hungarian Constitution, which assures to us equality of civil and political rights and has recognised our religion. We do not invoke the Treaty of Trianon; we do not under­ stand how to be a national minority, which would place itself under the protection of Geneva... We do not seek alliances abroad. We leave that to the racialists, who wish not to enumerate Hungarian citizens professing the Jewish religion in the number of Hungarians... and to arouse sympathy for the country while tyrannising over us and persecuting us. It is not on the basis of the Treaty of Trianon, but on that of Hungarian legislation, that we shall continue the struggle in the spirit of the Constitution. We owe it to the liberalism of Franz Deâk, of Ludwig Kossuth, of Joseph Eotvôs. These noble minds wished that, on an equality with our fellow-citizens, we should proclaim the ideas of liberty. The flame of liberty will not be extinguished in the Hungarian nation—it is its vital element... The Hungarian nation can regain all that it has lost, not by violence, but only by legal weapons. We work not for ourselves alone, but for the liberation of the country. Hatred engenders death—love alone can beget life.”

Annex VIII.

THE METHOD OF APPLYING THE LAW TO JEWS.

The “Numerus Clausus” Law does not relate to religious minorities—only to racial and national minorities. In order to apply it to Jews, the Jews are held to be a separate nationality, although such a nationality is unknown to Hungarian Law and repudiated by the Jews themselves. One of the reasons of this classification is that it becomes possible under it to reduce the number of Jews in the quota reserved to them by Article III of the Law, as it enables the authorities to classify as Jews, not only all members of the Jewish religious community, but also all baptised Jews and descendants of baptised Jews in the third generation, who are assumed to belong to a Jewish nationality. As there are no statistics of these baptised Jews and Jews by descent, they are all crowded into the quota reserved for Jews, and it has been calculated by the Budapest Jewish community that they represent at least 40 per cent of the so-called Jewish students in the Universities, of whom a return was made to the League of Nations on January 24th, 1923 (supra. Annex VII). This is clearly not in accordance with the intentions of the Minorities stipulations of the Treaty of Trianon. The minorities protected under that Treaty are not minorities which may be artificially created by any particular Government, but persons who, by race, language or religion, claim to constitute such minorities. The claim may perhaps not always be justified, but at any rate persons who have definitely renounced member­ ship of such minorities cannot be counted among them. Whether outside Hungarian law there is, or there is not, a Jewish nationality may be a disputed point, but it is very doubtful whether the baptised Jews and descendants of baptised Jews, whom the Hungarian Govern­ ment count as belonging to that nationality, themselves claim to belong to it or have ever so claimed. In any case, they are not a portion of the Jewish religious minority, and their inclusion in the quota reserved for Jews under the “Numerus Clausus” would be an infraction of the provisions of the Minorities stipulations, even if the proportional method of the “Numerus Clausus” Law were held to be a fulfilment of those stipulations. — 16 —

There is another ground for claiming that the method of applying the Law is an infraction of the Minorities stipulations. Whether there is a Jewish nationality or not, there is unquestionably a Jewish religious community, duly recognised by law and by itself, and registered in the census returns and, under the Treaty, it cannot be brought within the scope of a Law which deals only with races and nationalities, unless all other religious minorities are treated in the same way. But this is not the case. Neither Roman Catholics nor Protestants nor Baptists nor Unitarians nor Mohammedans are affected as such by the “Numerus Clausus” Law. Hence the application of the Law to Jews constitutes a disability imposed on the Jewish religious minority in violation of the Treaty of Trianon. In case the Permanent Court should think it necessary to ascertain what exactly constitutes the Jewish minority, the text of a judgment of the Hungarian Supreme Court, given on October 9th, 1924, is here appended. The case was an appeal against a judgment of a Court of Second Instance which had acquitted a person charged with stirring up hatred against the Jewish religious community, on the ground that the attack was not made on a religious community, but on the Jewish race or nationality :

[Translation.]

“The Royal Court (Court of Appeal), in quashing the judgment which declared the accused guilty, acquitted him on the ground that the article in respect of which the charge was made was not likely to stir up hatred against Judaism within the meaning of Article 172 of the Penal Code. According to the Court, the accused had consderied the Jews neither as a religious community nor as a social class or nationality, but solely and exclusively as a race. As such, and, in particular from an economic standpoint, the Jewish race caused him anxieties as regards Hungarian society and the Hungarian State, and, therefore, also as regards the Hungarian people. The Court of Appeal considered that the article really contained only a criticism and a warning, that the accused desired to urge Hungarians to be on their guard, to organise themselves and to defend themselves against competitors who were, in his opinion, both politically and economically dangerous. He had not, however, had any intention of stirring up hatred against a religious community or of doing anything that might be considered an incitement to disturbance. In writing and publishing his article, he had, therefore, no intention of committing an offence, and the Court thought that, in these circumstances, the facts in the case did not justify a penal sentence. “The grounds given are entirely erroneous. The application for the annulment of the said judgment submitted by the Public Prosecutor must therefore be considered as justified. “One of the grounds mentioned in the judgment of the Court of Appeal, namely, that the accused in his article had only considered Judaism from the point of view of race, cannot be held to constitute a reason for acquittal on the pretext that there is no reference to ‘race’ in Article 172 of the Penal Code. “A race may be termed a distinct nationality, social class, or even religious community, if its constituent elements have, when regarded as a whole, charac­ teristic features enabling us to establish this distinction of nationality, social class or religious community. “Although, in the article in question, the accused pillories Hungarian Jews as a separate race, we must, in the case submitted to us, examine the charge based on Article 172 of the Penal Code and consider whether the term ‘Judaism’ employed in the newspaper article to designate a race can be considered as meaning a group of persons within the meaning of Article 172 of the Code. “Although the two lower Courts were agreed that, in the present case, they were not called upon to prove an incitement against a class or a nationality, yet, in order that the point may be made clear, the Royal Court of Appeal thinks fit to declare that it subscribes to this view, since, according to Hungarian law, Judaism in Hungary does not constitute a distinct nationality or separate social class. “Article 44 of the Law of 1868, which grants equal rights to the citizens of different nationalities in Hungary, distinguishes nationalities according to their mother-tongue, so that by distinct nationalities may be understood races which have preserved their language as the root of their past history and which cling to this language as to the common bond uniting all their members. Jews, however, always use the language of the country where they are settled, and there is no one language which all Jews employ as their mother-tongue. “Accordingly, this essential characteristic which serves to distinguish nationalities from one another is wanting in Jews, regarded as a human group. “There is, of course, a Jewish language, which was the mother-tongue of Jews in ancient days, when they constituted a separate State, or at any rate a special community, with its own political frontiers. But, since the dispersion of the Jews — 17 — over all the countries of the earth, the use of this language has become more and more restricted. In Hungary, it has not been used for many decades except for religious purposes, and it is a well-known fact that the vast majority of Hungarian Jews do not even understand it, still less speak it. Accordingly, it is not, and cannot be, in current use in daily life. It is therefore impossible to describe Hebrew as the mother-tongue of Jews, and consequently to regard Jews as a separate nationality. From the juridical point, of view, there can be no question of a Jewish nation in Hungary. “In the same way it is impossible to consider Jews as forming a distinct social class. Article 17 of the Law of 1867, by granting equal rights to Jews, removed the social disabilities which for centuries had weighed upon Hungarian citizens of Jewish faith as compared with other citizens. Since then, Hungarian Judaism has no longer constituted an economic group distinguished by common occupations, history, fortune, education, and to which can be given a single name or which can be regarded as a body separated from the rest of the population by reason of these alleged characteristics. On the contrary, Jews devote themselves to almost all branches of economic life, and are therefore not bound together by any such common interests as would entitle them to be regarded as a separate social class. “As a religious community, Judaism does, no doubt, stand apart. Tolerated in earlier days, it was officially recognised by Article 42 of the Law of 1895. Judaism is a conservative faith; its ancient laws and customs influence not only the religious sentiments of its followers, but in many respects also their private life and their social habits of mind; to such an extent, indeed, that the term Jew is generally understood to denote an individual of the Jewish faith, and never a person belonging to a particular nationality or social class. “The word ‘Jew’, as generally understood, embraces the Mosaic religion and those who profess it. It has no other meaning. Accordingly, when anyone writes or speaks of Jews, he can, according to the generally accepted meaning, only refer to persons obeying the Mosaic law and who, in accordance with our laws, therefore belong to the Israelite religious community. Thus the term ‘Jews’ can only describe persons of Jewish faith and, consequently, the collective word ‘Judaism’ cannot mean anything else but the whole body of believers forming the Jewish religious community, to the exclusion of all considerations of occupation or nationality. “It follows from the above that anyone who attacks Judaism as a community and accuses it of undermining public morality, of unpatriotic and disloyal conduct, is guilty of incitement against the Jewish community. To hold up to contempt the members of a religion as a whole is to attack the group to which they belong. “From this it is clear that the article in question, by aiming at Judaism in general, has slandered it as a religious body, although it does not expressly say so. There only remains to decide whether the article was calculated to arouse hatred against Jews in the hearts of Hungarian citizens not belonging to the Jewish faith. “After an examination of the facts, the Courts of the First and Second Instance both considered—and the Court of Appeal shares their view—that the article in question was first and foremost liable to arouse in those who read it hatred against Judaism as a religious community, especially in these days when unthinking elements of the population lend themselves easily to extreme political opinions. The accused asserts that the object of his article was to arouse the non- Jewisli population, and particularly Hungarians, to defend and organise themselves. This is no extenuation of his offence, but on the contrary emphasises the inciting purpose of his acts. “In this article the accused charges Jews with having been bribed by a foreign enemy to bring about the ruin of the country and of having combined with that enemy to cause the dismemberment of Hungary. He accuses Judaism of treachery. He claims that the Jews sought, by the help of foreign States, to seize the reins of power, to poison men’s minds, to paralyse the intellectual forces of the country, to disintegrate the moral factors of the nation and thus to bring Hungary to her ruin. He represents the Jews as the Allies of the Succession States and as seeking only to ensure their own social, political and ethnical supre­ macy over other Hungarian citizens. In addition, he heaps terms of contempt and abuse upon the Jews and concludes his article by a threat so grave that it alone constitutes incitement to revolt. “The accused wrote this article in the full possession of his faculties. A journalist and a man of education, he must have been perfectly aware when he published it of the effect which his words would have. He acted deliberately, and his conduct, whatever its motive, has all the features of a premeditated act within the meaning of Article 75 of the Penal Code. — 18 —

“By bringing such grave accusations, by pointing out to non-Jewish citizens in Hungary the worst dangers, the moral and material ruin of their country— all under the cloak of patriotic indignation—and by denouncing Judaism as responsible for these terrible events, the accused was deliberately committing an act calculated in all its aspects to let loose the hatred of a part of the Christian population against citizens of the Jewish persuasion. According to Article 172 of the Penal Code, it is sufficient, for an act of this kind to be punishable, that it should, when made public, be liable to rouse hatred and that it should be premeditated. “The Court of the Second Instance was therefore wrong in deciding that the act in question did not fulfil all the conditions necessary to render it punishable. Accordingly, the judgment pronounced by that Court is cancelled and the Court of Appeal confirms the judgment given by the Court of the First Instance.”

(Pester Lloyd, October 10th, 1924.) — 19 —

II

OBSERVATIONS OF THE ROYAL HUNGARIAN GOVERNMENT

Budapest, May 19th, 1925. [Translation.] In your letter No. 41/41 456 17190, dated January 28th, 1925, you were good enough to forward to the Director of the Royal Hungarian Secretariat accredited to the League of Nations a communication, together with annexes, which had been sent to you by M. Wolf on behalf of the Joint Foreign Committee of the Jewish Board of Deputies and the Anglo-Jewish Association regarding the Hungarian Law No. XXV of 1920. In your letter you asked the Director of that Secretariat to inform you whether the Royal Government desired to make any comments on the communication referred to before it was circulated to the Members of the Council. The Royal Hungarian Government gladly avails itself of this opportunity of once again explaining its point of view and of commenting on M. Wolf’s communication. In this memorandum, M. Wolf suggests that the following questions should be laid before the Permanent Court of International Justice : (a) Does the Hungarian Law No. XXV of the year 1920 constitute an infringement of the clauses of the Treaty of Trianon regarding the protection of minorities and, in particular, of Articles 56, 57 and 58 of that Treaty ? (b) Should the reply be in the negative, that is to say should the Court decide that this law does not in itself constitute an infringement of the Treaty ! Is this law in practice applied in such a way as to constitute an infringement of the Treaty ! In support of the allegations on which this suggestion is based, M. Wolf submits various documents and memoranda as annexes to the communication referred to. The Royal Hungarian Government does not intend to enter into a controversy on the arguments contained in all these documents: it merely desires to present its observations on the main points of the questions which M. Wolf desires to submit to the Permanent Court of International Justice. Before doing so, however, it must refute two of the allega­ tions contained in M. Wolf’s communication. He alleges : 1. That the statistical tables submitted by the Royal Hungarian Govern­ ment on January 24th, 1923, are misleading; 2. That, in view of the activity of the anti-Semitic movement in Hungary, the Jewish community enjoys little liberty of action.

The statistical tables which the Royal Hungarian Government publishes or submits are always compiled with the utmost accuracy. If, by the observation referred to, M. Wolf means to deny this fact, the Royal Hungarian Government formally protests. As regards liberty of action, the Jewish community in Hungary enjoys the same guarantees as all other citizens. There undoubtedly exists in the majority of the Hungarian people a fairly strong anti- Semitic feeling, which is accounted for by the part played by the Jews during the revolu­ tionary movements after the war. They have incurred general dislike owing to the fact that, during the Bolshevik terror, they occupied all the more prominent posts. The Royal Government, however, faithful to its duty of ensuring that the laws shall be respected by all citizens alike, does not permit anyone to be deprived of the free and full exercise of their legal rights. With reference to the question whether the Hungarian Law No. XXV of 1920 constitutes an infringement of Articles 56, 57 and 58 of the Treaty of Trianon, the Royal Government could not admit the justification for an affirmative reply. Before setting forth its point of view, it desires to draw your attention to the circum­ stances which made this law necessary. The dismemberment of Hungary in consequence of the Treaty of Trianon upset all the conditions of life in the territory left under Hungarian sovereignty. During the period following upon the disastrous rule of the Bolsheviks, the Royal Government had to cope with the extremely difficult task of reconstructing upon these ruins the polity of a well- ordered State. In exceptional circumstances, it is necessary to have recourse to extraordi­ nary measures. The two revolutions have shown that the existence among the population of a numerous intellectual proletariat constitutes a great danger for the tranquillity and the peaceful development of the nation. Under normal circumstances, it is no doubt in the interest of every country that it should include a numerous class of highly educated persons. But after upheavals such as Hungary has had to endure it is the duty of the Government to see first of all that the complete equilibrium of the national life should be restored and that each citizen should have the possibility of earning his livelihood. The — 20 — number of persons who can find intellectual occupation in any country is necessarily limited, especially when the economic situation is profoundly shaken. Under such circum­ stances. over-production of intellectuals obviously greatly increases the number of malcontents. In weighing the reasons which finally led the Eoval Government to lay the law in question before the National Assembly, it had to consider not only the fact that Hungary, as delimited by the Treaty of Trianon, was no longer able to provide occupation for as many intellectuals as the former Hungary but it also had to take into account the fact that it was mainly the intellectuals who had had to leave the territories detached from Hungary and to return to the mother- country. In order to cope with this situation, which has raised very serious problems from the point of view of the re-establishment of normal conditions in public life, the Eoyal Government, to its great regret, was obliged to limit the number of young people admitted to higher studies. In taking this decision, which was forced upon it by circumstances, the Eoyal Government endeavoured to find the fairest possible solution of the problem. The population of Hungary also includes several racial, religious and linguistic mino­ rities. The Eoyal Government desired that the restriction of the number of students admitted to higher education should cause no serious injustices and, for this reason, it included in the law referred to the following provision :

“That the number of students of different races and nationalities should be proportionate to the number of inhabitants of each respective race and nationality in the country ; but each race and nationality must be represented to the extent of at least nine-tenths of its respective proportion in the country”.

The question whether the Jews constitute a race, a religion or a nation is a highly controversial one; the various points of view have been attacked and defended with great spirit and supported by detailed arguments. The Eoyal Government is of opinion that, in order to solve the question at issue, there is no need to enter into all the intricacies of the problem. With the Jews, race, religion and nationalities are merged, and they appear in different aspects in the different countries. It is often difficult to compress the realities of life into a short definition, and yet these realities can and, indeed, must be taken into account. In the law under discussion, all mention of religious minorities was deliberately omitted, for religion is something over which the individual has control, since he has the power to change it. Religion is therefore not a characteristic sufficiently constant to determine a minority without excluding the possibility of abuses. The assertion that any group of individuals can be considered a minority only if it so desires would appear to be entirely indefensible. If this view were accepted, all the citizens of a country which differed from the other inhabitants in race, religion or language could claim to be a minority whenever they thought it would be to their advantage, and would deny the fact in all cases in which less favourable consequences were to be feared. Law No. XXV of 1920 cannot constitute an infringement of the article of the Treaty of Trianon referred to, since in this law the Eoyal Hungarian Government has made special provision for the exceptional situation of minorities. The associations on behalf of which Mr. Wolf approached the League of Nations are no doubt actuated by the best possible intentions in endeavouring to serve the cause they have at heart, but the information on which their representations were based are inaccurate, and the Eoyal Hungarian Government cannot admit their right to judge of the interests of Hungary and to criticise a law which the Hungarian National Assembly has considered it necessary to pass in order to relieve a situation which might have serious consequences for the internal peace of the country. As regards the application of this law, I would refer to the remarks already made concerning the controversial question whether the Jews constitute a race, a religion or a nation. The provisions of the law are applied in accordance with the views set forth above and therefore do not constitute an infringement either of law No. XLIV of 1868 regar­ ding equality of nationalities (linguistic minorities) or of Article 2 of Law No. XXIX of 1848 concerning liberty of education; so that the provisions of Law No. XXV of 1920 and those of the afore-mentioned articles of the Treaty of Trianon are not in any way conflicting. As I have already had the honour of explaining, Jewish minority cannot be defined in the same way as other minorities, in view of the unique position occupied by the Jews throughout the world. Nor, therefore, can the general laws be applied to them in this respect with the same precision as to other minorities. In this case, it is not the words but the meaning of the laws which must be observed. The principal question is whether, as regards admission to higher studies, the Jews are treated on an equal footing with other citizens of the country. The reply must be in the affirmative, since the proportion in which they are admitted to higher studies is fixed according to the same principles as for other Hungarian citizens. Not only is there no distinction drawn in this respect by the law, which includes no provisions specially applicable to the Jews, but, in actual fact, it is the Jews alone who show a higher percentage of students in the educational institutions in question than their percentage of the population of the country as a whole. 21 —

According to the last census returns (1920), the Jews represent approximately 6(5.9) per cent, of the population. In the academic year 1924-1925, the percentage of Jewish students at the higher educational institutions to which the law in question applies, amounts to 11.41 per cent.; it will be seen, therefore, that the number of Jewish students is nearly double that to which they would be entitled on the basis of the proportion of Jews to the inhabitants of the country. I venture to submit as annexes the following statistical tables :

A. Number of students at the universities and colleges between 1910-1911 and 1917-1918, according to universities and colleges, giving the number and proportion of Jewish students. B. Number of students at the universities and colleges between 1918-1919 and 1923-1924, according to universities and colleges, giving the number and proportion of Jewish students. C. Principal data regarding students of the University of Pécs in the second half of the academic year 1923-1924. D. Data regarding the first half of the academic year 1924-1925.

There still remains the question whether the law under consideration is compatible with the liberty of education guaranteed by Article 2 of Law No. XIX of 1848. This article provides “that the students shall be free to choose the subjects they desire to study and the professors whose lectures they desire to attend”. That means liberty of education, but this law contains no provisions which might be interpreted in the sense that students having acquired the necessary qualifications shall also have the right to be admitted to higher education. As will be seen froni the foregoing, the Hungarian Law No. XXV of 1920 was made necessary by extraordinary circumstances, and the whole object of its provisions is to avoid unfairness. These regulations would seem to be the only fair means of preventing the restriction of the number of students at higher educational institutions affecting one group of citizens more than another. In applying this law, these are the principles that are strictly observed. As the information contained in the various statistical tables annexed to the present letter will show, the Jews are given very favourable treatment, since the number of Jewish students represents a much higher percentage than they are entitled to according to their relative proportion to the inhabitants of the country. The Eoyal Hungarian Government feels confident that the Council of the League of Nations will, on the basis of these facts, conclude that Mr. Wolf’s complaints lack justi­ fication. I would request you to be so good as to communicate the foregoing to the Members of the Council of the League of Nations, and have the honour to be, etc.

(Signed) W a l k o . dimmer oi students at universities and Academies from 1 «23/24, according to Universities and Academics (Faculties), showing the number and proportion of Jewish students.

Scholastic Year Scholastic Year Scholastic Year Scholastic Year Scholastic Year Scholastic Year Scholastic Year Scholastic Year 1910-11 1911-12 1912-13 1913-14 1914-15 1915-16 1916-17 1917-18 Name of University o o o Jews "o *o ‘o o (Academy) or Faculty ô -g o "g Jews Jews Jews Jews Jews . 3 Jews • -2 Jews S t S. a A "5 h° a ;Zi !§| k ^ £ J No. Percen­ No. Percen­ H Percen­ 3 5 Percen­ Percen­ Percen­ 11 tage 11 tage No. o <*> No. No. No. $ 2 iPercen- Percen- tage tage 11 tage ?1 tage o “ No. tage o ® No. tâge H H H H Universities of Budapest Faculty of Law 3.249 952 29.3 3.049 867 28.4 2.905 766 26.4 3.046 741 24.3 1.908 511 26.8 1.093 242 22.1 1.052 233 22.1 3.570 972 27.2 ” of Medecine 2.120 1.094 51.6 2.403 1.097 2.717 1.335 45.7 49.1 2.944 1.556 51.8 1.934 1.076 55.6 1.109 639 57.6 1.446 833 57.6 5.153 2.815 54.6 ” of Philosophy 1.078 185 17.2 1.073 159 14.8 1.076 175 16.3 1.115 210 18.8 870 196 22.5 762 189 24.8 884 214 24.2 1.551 369 23.8 Pharmacy Department 316 130 41.1 338 121 35.8 321 116 36.1 252 91 36.1 96 37 38.5 66 25 37.9 70 21 30.0 360 132 36 71 Totals 6.763 2.361 34.9 6.863 2.244 7.019 32.7 2.392 34.1 7.407 2.598 35.1 4.808 1.820 37.9 3.030 1.095 36.2 3.452 1.301 37.7 10.634 4.288 Kolozsvar (now at Szeged) 40.3 Faculty of Law 1.370 199 14.5 1.413 210 1.265 149 168 13.3 1.202 149 12.4 578 76 13.2 287 29 1 0 . 1 175 24 137 879 96 109 ” of Medecine 343 73 21.3 388 80 20.6 487 83 17.1 530 90 17.0 267 50 18.7 131 40 30.5 123 41 33.3 563 132 23.4 ” of Philosophy 286 5 1.8 266 4 265 1.5 6 2.3 262 3 1.2 202 3 1.5 145 5 3.4 111 3 2.7 195 4 2.1 Pharmacy Department 108 18 16.7 90 17 18.9 107 23 189 125 24 ! 9.2 30 9 30.0 20 6 30.0 11 2 18.2 93 22 23.7 Totals 2.107 295 14.0 2.157 2.124 311 14.4 280 13.2 2.119 266 12.6 1.077 138 12.8 583 80 13.7 420 70 1.730 254 Debrecen 16.7 14.7 Faculty of Law 198 ” of Medecine 19 9.6 133 12 9.2 160 22 13.8 486 65 13.4 ” of Philosophy 29 30 1 3 3 37 3 8.1 81 3 3.7 Totals 227 19 8.4 163 13 8.0 197 25 12.7 567 68 1 Ï . 0 Pozsony (now at Pées) — Faculty of Law — — 184 ” of Medecine 18 9.8 127 15 11.8 152 13 8.6 389 51 13.1 ” of Philosophy elle chomlait 24 3 12.5 Totals 184 18 9.8 127 15 11.8 152 13 8.6 413 54 13.1 Total for Universities 8.870 2.656 30.0 9.020 2.555 9.143 2.672 28.3 29.2 9.526 2.864 30.1 6.296 1.995 31-7 3.903 1.203 308 4.221 1.409 33.4 13.344 4.664 35.0 Joseph Polytechnic School Chemical Engineering Department 162 71 43.8 147 59 40.1 53 146 363 148 44 29.7 100 22 22.0 67 27 40.3 60 26 43.3 322 117 36.3 ' Architecture 158 47 29.7 213 69 32.4 102 265 38.5 321 137 42.7 191 90 47.1 76 34 44.7 69 31 44.9 366 162 44.3 ) Engineering 724 326 45.0 809 337 370 41.7 882 41.9 1.015 446 45.9 551 273 49.5 197 109 55.3 213 119 55.9 945 465 49.2 G 1 Applied Engineering ” 632 133 21.0 699 120 17.2 822 150 17.0 966 188 604 Political Economy 19.5 139 23.0 244 79 32.4 283 102 36.0 1.380 374 27.1 39 16 41.0 35 10 28.6 36 17 47.2 102 39 38.2 Totals 1.676 577 34.4 1.868 585 31.3 2.115 675 31.9 2.450 815 33.3 1.485 540 36.4 619 259 41.8 661 295 39.2 3.115 1.157 Total for Universities and 37.2 Polytechnical School 10.546 3.233 30.7 10.888 3.140 28.9 11.258 3.347 29.7 11.976 3.679 30.7 7.781 2.535 326 4.522 1.462 32.3 4.882 1.704 34.9 16.459 5.821 35.4 Academies of Law 1.380 237 17.2 1.386 228 16.5 1.350 187 1.511 139 179 11.8 775 111 14.2 554 78 14.1 715 108 15.1 1.292 206 15.9 Veterinary School 156 57 36.5 194 46 23.7 190 39 20.5 216 39 School of fine Arts 18. ! 122 12 9.8 76 8 10.5 68 12 17.6 173 42 24.3 283 26 9.2 341 27 7.9 391 37 9.5 429 37 8.6 Royal Hungaria School ol Mines and Forets 248 24 9.7 279 37 13.3 312 44 14.1 > ) Minery Section 190 16 8.4 219 20 9.1 226 27 11.9 215 23 10.7 80 8 10.0 17 82 3 3.7 158 19 Q '( Forestry ” 352 405 12.0 369 363 216 8 3.7 14 54 374 Totals 542 16 624 3.0 20 3.2 595 27 4.5 578 23 4.0 296 16 5.4 31 136 3 2.2 532 3.6 Academy of Rural Economy 345 14 I ® / 4.1 387 16 4.1 400 21 5.3 341 22 6.5 133 11 8.3 64 I 0.6 71 7.4 645 51 7.9 Grand Total J13.252 3.583 2 7 . 0 13.820 3.477 2 5 . 2 14.184 3.658 2 5 . 9 15.051 3.979 2 6 . 4 9.107 2.685 2 9 . 5 5.495 1.573 2 8 . 6 1 6.161j 1.8661 30.3 19.4131 6 . 183 31.9 ______, — 23 — Appendix B. Number of students at Universities and Academies from 1918/19 to 1923/24, according to Universities and Academies (Faculties), showing the number and proportion of Jewish students. » ■''---- — ■ Scholastic Year Scholast.Year Scholastic Year Scholastic Year Scholastic Year Scholastic Year [ 1918/19 1919/20 1920/21 1921/22 1922/23 1923 24

dont S a m e of University ® m Years o ® ° a Years « = Years ® OQ = » Years c g 0 g juifs o g Years ( A c a d e m y ) or Faculty £i £ 2: g Ï5 g S i !§ 1 1 1 _ -a — "O — T! — "O _ T3 15 "5 c8 5 a s 6 3 5 5 Percen Per­ Percen­ Percen­ Percen­ Percen­ No No cent, O "tfl No tage No tage No tage II No tage H tage g * H H Eh * Eh

Universities of Budapest , Faculty of Law 3.312 942 28.4 909 1.329 111 8.4 1.828 197 10 8 2.323 240 10.3 2.143 229 10.7 ” of Medecine 6.526 3.336 51.1 2.787 3 0.1 3.130 280 8.9 3.233 227 7.4 3.010 171 5.7 2.443 130 5.3 ” of Philosophy 2.003 513 25.6 873 2 0.2 1.072 58 5.4 1.153 76 6 6 1.151 88 7.6 947 79 8.3 Pharmacy Department 297 120 40.4 116 7 6.3 172 10 285 25 88 320 26 8.1 283 18 6.4

Totals. 12.138 4.911 40.5 4.685 12 0.3 5.703 459 8.1 6.499 525 8.8 6.804 525 7.7 5.816 456 7.8

Faculty of Econ. and Social sciences 873 35 4 .0 1.774 90 5 1 2.308 158 6 8 1.805 146 8. 1 Szeged (form, at Kolorsvari) Faculty of Law 128 7 5.5 379 38 10.0 328 37 It.3 413 51 12.4 438 51 II.S ” Medecine Coarsss abondened 744 346 46.5 484 161 33.3 488 119 24.4 400 69 17.3 No liaur y avallah e on 75 112 13 11.6 84 24 28.6 89 23 25.8 95 21 22. 1 ” Philosophy account ol occupaUrn. 13 173 Pharmacy Department 1 56 10 17.9 75 18 24.0 113 IS 19.5 99 11 I I .1

Totals 204 20 9.8 1.291 407 31.5 971 240 24.7 1.103 211 19.1 1.032 152 14.7

Debrecen Faculty of Law 518 64 12.4 399 35 8.8 289 28 9.7 309 37 9.7 301 50 16.6 286 55 19 - 2 ” of Medecine 211 43 204 352 51 14.5 364 46 12.6 101 138 9 103 3 2.9 90 8 8.9 86 9 10.5 73 7 9.6 ” of Philosophy 11 109 6.5 _____

Totals 619 75 12.1 537 44 8.2 392 31 7.9 CIO 88 144 739 110 14.9 723 108 14.9 Pées (form, a t Pozsonyi) Faculty of Law He d oi l'occupied t< rritory 221 44 18.1 274 48 17.5 291 55 18.9 ” Medecine No iijur es avallab le on Courses aba nd ned 629 368 59.0 1.204 763 63.4 1.189 735 61.8 885 522 59.0 account ol occopaIon, ” Philosophy 21 17 2 11.8 64 28 46.4 67 22 32.8 41 16 39.0

Totals 21 646 370 57.3 1.489 835 56.1 1.530 805 52.6 1.217 593 48.7! 11.343 1.455 13.7 Total for Universities 12.757 4.986 39.1 5.447 76 14 8.905 1.302 14.6 1.778 15.1 12.484 1.809 145 10.593

Joseph Polytechnic School Chemical Engineering 487 31 7.4 285 22 7.7 656 249 37.9 469 58 124 490 24 4.9 36 7.4 406 ; Department 432 344 36 10.5 585 231 39 5 391 52 133 399 28 7.2 37 8.6 399 39 9.8 ,5 ^ Architecture 59 10.9 1.164 536 46.1 788 154 195 877 89 10.2 914 114 12.5 742 80 10.8 540 i Engineering 146 8.4 2.104 550 26. 1 1.590 139 8.7 1.879 7.3 2.055 156 7.7 2.184 169 7-7 1.735 2 / Applied Engineering ” '% 315 29 9.2 129 8 6.2 ! Political Economy ” 218 104 47.7 204 19 93 206 3 9 23 7.3 317

4.203 3.033 271 8.9 Totals 4.727 1.670 35.3 3.442 422 123 3.851 286 7.4 366 8.7 4.04S 348 8.6

Total for Universities and 1.58S 12.4 15.546 2.144 16.532 2.157 13.1 13.626 1.726 12.7 Polytechnical School 17.481 6.656 38.1 8.889 498 5.6 12.756 13.8

72 10 2 411 50 12.2 592 71 118 791 125 15.8 963 163 169 1.037 71 165 705 Academics of Law 11 3.8 314 <15 30.3 101 8 7.9 226 13 5.8 242 10 4.1 285 13 4.6 287 | Veterinary School 337 33 9.8 School of fine Acts 545 62 11.4 360 401 15 3.7 337 12 36 360 27 7.5 Royal Hungarian School of Mines and Forets 126 150 154 18ft 22 11.6 110 4 36 134 1 0.6 .fc i Minery Section 219 1V2 120 1 Forestry ” 485 252 346

Totals 674 22 3.3 362 4 II 480 —— 345 —— 342 1 0 3 274 — — , Academies of Rural Eco­ 615 59 9.6 636 820 1.150 2 0.2 1.164 4 0.3 1.052 6 0.& nomy Seminaries for Se­ condary School Teachers 167 16 9.6 128 158 1 0.6 123 2 1.6 110 1 0 9 98 1 1 2 State Training School for Secondary School Teachers (male) State Training School for Secondary School Teachers 157 7 3.6 108 2 1.9 77 1 13 5li 1 IS __(female) 5 3.2 196 6 3 1 197

Totals 324 21 6.5 324 6 19 355 8 2.3 231 4 1.7 187 2 1.1 154 2 1 3

Grand total 20.367 6.965 34.2 11.264 587 5.2 15.355 1.749 11.4 18.814 2.335 12.4 19.907 2.375 119 16.435 1.850 11.3 — 24 — Appendix C 1. Main facts concerning the total number of students at the University of Pest in the 2nd half of the Scholastic Year 1923/1924.

Students

regu­ Religion Nationality lar 5 c 1 a Faculty, a oS

o Greek Year, c P5 Sex of Students e — foreigners j Other .Jewish women Calvinist Jugoslav Austrian J Lutheran Unitarian Hungarian Number Number of Students Roumanian No No religion Czecho-Slovak mother tongue not Hungarian not tongue mother Greek Greek orthodox men Other Other women Catholic total total number of students Percentage of Jews to the

Faculty of t men 63 59 4 l 31 3 2 26 . 41.3 57 2 2 1 l medecine I. ' women 22 — 21 — i — 14 — 2 1 —— 5 —— 22.7 22 ————— total 85 59 21 4 i l 45 — 5 3 — — 31 1 — 36.5 79 2 2 1 — l II. i men 58 55 3 _ 23 1 1 2 1 30 —. 51.7 52 1 5 ' women 34 — 34 — — — 17 — 9 2 1 — 5 — 14.7 28 3 3 — — — total 92 55 34 3 — — 40 1 10 4 1 1 35 — 38.4 80 4 8 — — — III. ) men 127 127 4 29 1 5 2 1 1 88 — __ 69.3 115 7 5 ' women 74 — 74 — — — 39 — 9 1 1 — 24 — — 32.4 72 1 ——— i total 201 127 74 —— 4 68 1 14 3 2 1 112 — 55.7 187 8 5 —— i IV. , men 149 149 _ 42 3 11 5 _ 88 — 59.3 136 5 6 2 _ ' women 97—97—— 1 54 — 14 5 1 — 23 — — 23.7 92 3 — 1 — l total 246 149 97 — — 1 96 3 25 10 1 — 111 — — 45.1 228 8 6 3 — l » V. V men 218 218 1 15 5 2 196 — 89.5 207 7 1 3 _ ' women 43 — 43 ——— 4 — 1 1 —— 37 —— 86.2 35 1 2 4 — l total 261 218 43 —— 1 19 — 6 3 — — 233 — — 88.9 242 8 3 7 — l Total for the Fa- \ men 615 608 7 _ 5 140 5 25 13 1 2 428 1 69.5 567 22 19 6 l culty of medec. ' women 270 — 269 — i 2 128 — 35 10 3 — 94 — — 34.8 249 8 5 5 — 3 total 885 608 269 7 i 7 268 5 60 23 4 2 522 1 — 59 816 30 24 11 — 4

Faculty of t men 10 6 4 7 1 2 __ 20 10 philosophy I. women 8 — 3 — 5 — 1 — 2 ——— 5 —— 62.5 8 total 18 6 3 4 5 — 8 — 2 1 — — 7 — — 38.9 18 » II. V men 3 3 3 2 1 __ women 5 — 5 1 1 3 60 4 1 ———— total 8 3 a ——— 4 — — 1 — — 3 — — 37.5 6 2 —— —— » III. i, men 2 2 1 1 50 2 ' women 5 — 5 ——— 2 ————— 3 —— 60 5 total 7 2 5 ——— 3 — ———— 4 — — 57.2 7 » IV. i men women 8 — 7 — 1 — 6 ————— 2 —— 25 8 total 8 — 7 — 1 — 6 — —— — — 2 —— 25 8 Total for the Fa- , men 15 11 _ 4 _ 11 1 3 20 14 1 _ culty of philos. ' women 26 — 20 — 6 — 10 — 2 1 —— 13 — — 50 25 ] ———— total 41 11 20 4 6 — 21 — 2 2 — — 16 — — 39 39 2 — — — — Faculty \ men 116 87 29 1 79 16 3 _ _ 18 15.5 114 1 1 _ of Law I. 1 women 1 1 1 1 total 117 87 — 29 1 1 80 — 16 3 —— 18 —— 15.4 115 1 — 1 — — II. « men 91 86 — 5 — — 51 3 14 3 — 1 19 —— 20.9 90 1 — — — — women total 91 86 — 5 — — 51 3 14 3 — 1 19 —— 20.9 90 1 — — — —

III. ) men 55 55 32 5 4 1 1 12 21.8 54 1 — 1 women 2 — 2 ————————— 2 —— 100 2 total 57 55 2 — — — 32 — 5 4 1 1 14 — — 24.6 56 1 —— — —

IV. V men 26 26 ——— — 15 — 5 1 — 1 4 — — 11.5 25 — 1 — — — women ____ total 26 26 — — —— 15 — 5 1 — 1 4 —— 11.5 25 — 1 — — — Total for th? Fa- \ men 288 254 34 1 177 o 40 11 1 3 53 __ 18 283 3 1 1 culty of Law ' women 3 — 2 — 1 — 1 ————— 2 —— 66.7 3 total 291 254 2 34 1 1 178 3 40 11 1 3 55 — — 18.9 286 3 1 1 — —

The 3 Faculties of ) men 918 873 45 5 319 8 65 25 2 5 484 1 _ 52.6 864 26 20 7 1 the Univ.Pest. ' women 299 — 291 — 8 — 139 — 37 11 3 — 109 —— 36.5 277 9 5 5 — 3 Total (both sexes) 1.217 873 291 45 8 5 458 8 102 36 5 5 593 1 48.7 1.141 35 25 12 — 4 — 25 — Appendix C 2. Main facto concerning Jewish students at the University of Pesl in the second half of the scholastic year 1923/1924 Distribution of the Jewish students parents of the Jewish lewi h students who have previously studied students accor. domicile nationals mother domiciled as above In Several Schools langue elsenhere. viz : namely at In another Faculty. tor* in ie e Buda­ present-day detached abroad Year. M territory flS 68 pest Hungary S E? a c ti ti > > c6 > e I à i 5 _o = s Sex of Students _o — ed jti e Z k 3 X 'I T % cd t 5 S 53 .1 at a University ■=]§ 3 S sc E 0 «2 bt M if6 6 i f e J3 s if 3 g £ C S i 9 9 o s B o "ÛCj § 5 « s pH .a £ O 33 K £ -8 S S II Ô Â c 2 5 £ i O s o o g o studies medecine

Faculty of « men 25 i 26 35 1 medecine I. I women b total 30 i --- 31 30 1

II. \ men 26 — 4 --- —— 30 --- 25 5 — --- —— 2 1 — __ 2 __ 1 __ __ j ( women 4 — 1 total 30 — 5 — — 35 — 30 5 — --- — — 2 1 —— 2 — 1 — — — — III. j men 81 4 3 88 76 6 4 __ 2 18 1 3 3 10 1 _ J 1 women 24 —— --- —— 24 — 23 — — 1 —— 2 --- 1 — 1 — 2 ———— _ j total 105 4 3 — — 112 — 99 6 — 5 — 2 20 1 4 — 4 — 12 — — 1

» IV. < men 82 2 4 —— 88 --- 77 9 — 2 —— 43 --- 3 — 4 — 17 __ 2 3 J women 23 —— --- —— 23 --- 22 - ——— 1 7 --- 1 —— — 6 — 1 —— __j total 105; 2 4 —— 111 — 99 9 — 2 — 1 50 — 4 — 4 — 23 — 3 — 3 i » V. men 187 ft 1 3 196 __ 176 8 5 7 __ — 85 26 3 35 6 14 4 / women 29 2 1 4 l — 37 --- 30 1 5 1 — — 21 --- 1 — 1 — 6 — 2 2 ——I total 216 7 2 7 l — 233 --- 206 9 10 8 — — 106 — 27 — 4 — 41 — 8 16 — 4

Total for the Fa­ ( men 401 12 12 3 __ — 428 — 379 29 5 13 — 2 148 2 32 __ 12 63 8 15 3 4- culty of medec. I women 85 * 2 4 l — 94 --- 85 1 5 2 — 1 30 — 3 — 2 — 14 — 3 2 —— Total 486 14 14 l — 522 --- 464 30 10 15 — 3 178 2 35 — 14 — 77 11 3 7 17 4j ! Faculty of phi- men 2 * ! losophy I. i women 5 total 7

II. ' men 3 I women total 3

III. men 1 women 3 total 4

» IV. men ) women 2 V — 2 total 2 •? 1

, Total for the Fa- \ men 6 6 6 eultéof philos. women 10 10 --- 10 1 total 16 16 16 1

Faculty \ men 17 1 18 17 1 1 of Law J. t women total 17 1 — — 1 » II. men 19 ( women total 19 1 -\

» III. \ men 12 1 ( women 2 total 14

IV. S men 4 4 4 ( women total 4

Total for the Fa s men 52 1 __ _ 53 _ 52 _ _ 1 ___ 1 _ 1 1 culty of Law 2 2 I women 2 _ 1 total 54 1 — —— 55 — 54 —— 1 ————— 2 — 1 — 1 — — — — The 3 faculties of men 459 13 12 3 487 437 29 5 14 2 148 2 32 1 12 1 63 1 9 15 3 4! jthe Univers. Pest * women 97 2 2 4 l — 106 --- 97 1 5 2 — 1 30 — 3 1 2 1 14 1 3 2 — — 1 2 Total (both snxes) 556 15 14 7 l — 593 — 534 30 10 16 — 3 178 2 35 14 2 77 2 12 17 3 *\ Annex D.

INFORMATION REGARDING THE FIRST HALF OF THE ACADEMIC YEAR 1924-25

The total numbrc of students registered in the four faculties (Roman Catholic Theology, Law, Philosophy, Medicine) at the Royal Hungarian '‘Pierre Pâzmâny” University at Buda­ pest was 5,808, of whom 447 were Jews, i.e., 7.69 per cent. The total number of students registered in the four faculties (Law, Medicine, Philo­ sophy, Languages and History, Mathematics and Natural History) at the Royal Hungarian “Francis Joseph” University at Szeged was 1,090, of whom 152 were Jews, i.e., 13.9 per cent. The total number of students registered in the four faculties (Calviiiistic Theology, Law, Medicine, Philosophy) at the Royal Hungarian “Etienne Tisza” University at Debreczen was 894, of whom 111 were Jews, i.e., 12.41 per cent. The total number of students registered in the four faculties (Lutheran Theology, Law, Medicine and. Philosophy) at the Royal Hungarian “Elizabeth” University at Pécs was 1,200, of whom 432 were Jews, i.e., 36 per cent. The total number of students registered in the faculty of Economic Science at Budapest was 1,617, of whom 173.wrere Jews, i.e., 10.7 per cent. The total number of students registered in the College of Roman Catholic Archiépis­ copal Law at Eger was 150, of whom 13 were Jews, i.e., 8.66 per cent. The total number of students registered at the Lutheran Law College at Miskolcz was 337, of whom 36 were Jews, i.e., 10.68 per cent. The total number of students registered at the Calviiiistic Law College at Keczkemét was 344, of whom 24 were Jews, i.e., 6.98 per cent.