The religious developments of the seventeenth century brought to their climax an unmistakable philo-semetic tendency in certain English circles. Puritanism represented above all a return to the Bible, and this automatically fostered a more favourable frame of mind towards the people of the Old Testament with this was intermingled the hope that the Jews, so long deaf to popish or Episcopal blandishments, would be unable to withstand a pure form of Christianity, once they had the opportunity of becoming acquainted with it at close quarters. There were not lacking those who carried their new-found biblical enthusiasm to, or beyond, its logical conclusion. Certain extremists regarded the 'old' dispensation as binding, and even reverted to its practices of circumcision and the observance of the seventh-day Sabbath. In 1600 the Bishop of Exeter complained of the prevalence of ‘Jewism’ in his diocese, 1 and such views were comparatively common in London and the Eastern counties. Numerous persons were prosecuted here for holding what were termed Judaistic' opinions, based on the literal interpretations the Old Testament. 2 As late as 1612, two so-called Arians at the stake (the last persons to suffer capital punishment in England purely for their religion) for teaching views regarding the nature of God which approximated to those of Judaism. The followers of Puritan extremist, John Traske, went so far on the path of literalism that they were imprisoned in 1618-20 on a charge of Judaizing. In thus case, the accusation was so far from being exaggerated that a number of them settled in Amsterdam and formally the Synagogue. 3 In certain cases the tendency took a bizarre form. Some of the so-called Saints and others (such as Everard the Leveller, or Robert Rich the Quaker philanthropist) styled themselves Jews while a few ‘ranters’ actually claimed that they were designated to lead the Jewish people, providentially converted and renewed, back to the Promised Land. 4 A distinguished lawyer, Sir Henry Finch suffered imprisonment for his remarkable treatise, The World's great Restauration, or Calling of the Jews (London, 1621), in which he invited the ancient people of God to reassert their claim on the Promised Land and Christian monarchs to pay homage to them. Apart from this philo-semitic tendency, there was an incipient movement in favour of religious toleration as such. As separatist sects multiplied, the adherents of those which could never hope for a majority began to clamour that the principle of rigid uniformity should be modified. Generally speaking, it was not disputed that allegiance to the universally accepted principles of Christianity was a necessary prerequisite. Among the Baptists, however, more generous views prevailed, and it was urged that religious tolerance should be extended to all, without any restriction whatsoever. A number of writers belonging to this sect thus found themselves logically compelled to plea for a toleration that should extend even to Jews, and inferentially for the readmission of the Jews to the country. 5 As early as 1614 a member of the body, Leonard Busher, published for presentation to James I a memorable tract entitled Religions Peace, or, a Plea for Liberty of Conscience (reprinted in 1646). In this, the earliest English publication in which religious liberty in its fullest sense was advocated, the point was made for the first time that, by the exclusion of the Jews, their conversion was impeded; and the author went so far as to suggest not only that they should be readmitted, but that they should be allowed to engage in religious disputations (which could only end in their defeat) without hindrance. The lead was followed in the next year by another Baptist, John Murton, in an anonymously produced work, Objections answered by way of dialogue, wherein is proved . . . that no man ought to be persecuted for his religion (1615). This tract, the popularity of which is shown by its frequent republication (1620, 1630, 1662), insisted on the validity of private judgement in matters of religion, with the corollary that Jews should be converted by argument only, and no longer submitted to persecution. John Wemyss, writing in 1636 (A Treatise of the Foure Degenerate Sonnes), argued that the Jews should be permitted to live and maintain their synagogues in a Christian commonwealth, so long as they behaved modestly and refrained from disseminating their religion. In his striking monograph, The Bloudy Tenent of Persecution for cause of conscience discussed in a conference between Truth and Peace (1644), Roger Williams similarly voiced the plea that the Jews could be good citizens even though they were unbelievers, and must be given the opportunity to demonstrate it. The tract was publicly burned by the Common Hangman in August—just after its author had sailed for America with his charter for Rhode Island, conceived on the same tolerant principles. Nevertheless, the tide of sympathy continued to rise. 6 The Civil War was giving it a strong impetus, some persons being convinced that the country's tribulations were in punishment for its maltreatment of the Jews in the past. 7 The Baptists found themselves reinforced by persons such as Hugh Peters, one of the most influential of the Puritan ministers, in his pamphlet, A Word for the Army, and Two Words to the Kingdom (1647), in which he set down as one of the remedies for the evils which were afflicting the country that 'strangers, even Jews, be admitted to trade and live with us'. This development was not due only to the fact that sympathetically inclined sectaries were now in the ascendant, but also to its corollary—the collapse of the national church, the only body which hitherto had sufficient strength to persecute those who held minority views in the matter of religion. Henceforth, no single element was physically capable of carrying on the tradition, though the Presbyterians displayed a strong inclination to do so. An ordinance passed in 1648, during the period of their greatest political influence, declared the denial of the Trinity, of the divinity of Jesus, or of the inspiration of Scripture, punishable by death; but it was never acted upon, perhaps because the abolition of the Court of High Commission seven years before had left no tribunal competent to deal with such cases. 8 Moreover, attention was now diverted from the Jews not only by numerous bizarre Independent bodies, but also by such minorities as the Roman Catholics, who, besides being unpopular were, at this stage, politically dangerous. It was hence not so much that the Jews became more acceptable, as that the unacceptability which was once theirs alone was now shared with many others. Thus, after the parliamentary triumph, the sympathy which had previously been academic became active; and, in the experiments for a constitutional settlement—which at the same time had to be a religious settlement—the position of the Jews assumed a symbolic prominence. It was in the winter of 1648-9 that the question first came up in a practical form 9 Immediately after 'Pride's Purge' had swept away the Presbyterian dominance in Parliament, the Council of Officers began to discuss a new constitution based upon what was known as the Agreement of the People. This had been drawn up by a committee representing the army and different sects included in the Republican party, under the inspiration of such advanced theorists as John Lilburne, and stipulated that there should be a wide measure of liberty for all men to preach and advance their opinions in a peaceable manner. Clearly, considerable latitude was possible in the practical application of this. The Council of Mechanics, meeting at Whitehall, boldly passed a resolution in favour of universal tolerance for all religions 'not excepting Turkes, nor Papists, nor Jewes'. 10 This policy was endorsed by the Council of War when it met on Christmas Day 11 and it was apparently suggested that a clause to this effect should be embodied in the new constitution. But opposition developed, and the utmost that the champions of the proposals in the Council of Officers could obtain was a petition asking Parliament to consider the repeal of the banishment of the Jews, 'in regard it was not held fit for mention in the Agreement'. Nevertheless the agitation continued. At the beginning of the New Year the Council of Officers received through Lord Fairfax a petition from two Baptists from Amsterdam, Joanna Cartwright and her son Ebenezer, requesting the readmission of the Jews 'to trade and dwell in this land, as they now do in the Netherlands'. 12 It was agreed that this should be taken into consideration immediately the present urgent public affairs were dispatched—not a very imminent contingency in the month of the king's execution. Meanwhile there was in the press a more elaborate plea. An apology for the honourable nation of the Jews, and all the sons of Israel, by Edward Nicholas, who spoke of the tribulations that the country had suffered in punishment for her past maltreatment of the people of God, and averred that it was only by making amends that she could hope to enjoy the Divine blessing again as she had done in former times. The body of opinion in the Council of Officers remained lukewarm, its members being unable to envisage the possibility of toleration outside the bounds of Christianity. It was in vain that William Erbury, the chaplain of Skippon's Regiment, demonstrated that this attitude made a favourable reply to the Cartwright petition impossible ('To what purpose', he asked, 'will you give that liberty to the Jews and others to come in, unless you grant them the exercise of their religion?'), and that Captain Butler inveighed against the principle of attempting to define truth and error. On January 20th, the modified Agreement of the People was laid before Parliament, reserving religious freedom for such only as should 'profess faith in God by Jesus Christ'. The ideal of universal toleration thus received what was to prove a final setback, and with it the Gentile movement for the recall of the Jews to England on finely conceived idealistic grounds. 13 The question now entered a new phase. Though the disinterested champions of religious liberty did not give up hope, the movement was overshadowed henceforth by another, narrower in scope, in which mysticism and material considerations were oddly interwoven, and Jews and Christians were equally involved. The Puritan theologians found a kindred spirit alias Manuel Dias Soerio. He had been born in Madeiria in 1604 of crypto-Jewish parentage, but had been brought early in life to Amsterdam. Here he made a name while still a very young man as one of the most productive, if by no means most profound, theological writers of his age. Gentiles as well as Jews thronged to hear him preach, and when Henrietta Maria; queen of England visited the Amsterdam synagogue in 1643, it was he who gave the address. Savants and statesmen, both at home and abroad (including many in England) were in the habit of consulting him on matters of Jewish scholarship He thus became a representative figure in Gentile eyes, and considered himself qualified to speak to those in authority on behalf of his people as a whole. In common with the other members of the group to which he belonged, he considered the salient fact in contemporary Jewish life to be the tragedy of the Marranos of Spain and Portugal, persecuted with unrelenting severity by the Inquisition. To this was added in 1648 the trail of massacre which followed the Cossack rising against the Poles. The whole of central Europe was filled with penniless fugitives, fleeing from the scene of slaughter. 14 It was the culminating disaster in contemporary Jewish history, and the opening of a land of refuge became desperately important. A curious episode set Menasseh ben Israel's mind at this juncture on England. A Marrano traveler named Antonio de' Montezinos recently returned from America, claimed that a about 1641 he had discovered near Quito, in Ecuador, certain natives belonging to the lost Hebrew tribes of Reuben and of Levi, who practised various Jewish ceremonies. On his return to Holland he embodied his account in an affidavit executed under oath before the authorities of the Amsterdam community—including Menasseh himself, who was immediately bombarded with inquiries on the subject by his English correspondents. These communications forced on him the more remote implications of the report. The prophet Daniel had intimated (xii. 7) that the final Redemption would begin only when the scattering of the Jewish people was complete. On the other hand the book of Deuteronomy plainly stated (xxviii. 64) that the dispersion was to be universal 'from one end of the earth even unto the other. Hebrews had now been found in America: they were missing only in Great Britain. Moreover, the classical name for English Medieval Jewish literature, was the end of the earth'—an over-literal translation of the FrenchAngleterre.It followed that if they were introduced into the British Isles, the prophesied Dispersion would be completed, and the messianic Deliverance would begin. Under the impetus of this idea, Menasseh produced in 1650 a treatise in Latin, in which he dealt with the recent discoveries and their implications. This he entitled The Hope of Israel ('Spes Israelis'). 15 The book proved an instantaneous success. Before the year was out, it had been published in English, dedicated to Parliament, whose favour and good-will were respectfully solicited for the scattered-Jewish nation: the translation running through three editions in as many years. It occasioned a spate of publications. John Sadler, town clerk of London; Sir Hamon l'Estrange, the father of English journalism; and the Sabbatarian pastor Henry Jessey, an accomplished Hebrew and rabbinic scholar and former correspondent of Menasseh's, were among the many who rushed into print. But the most memorable contribution to the discussion was written by Sir Edward Spenser, knight of the shire for Middlesex, who, as a member of tie body to which the work had been directed in the first instance, took it upon himself to compose a formal answer. It was entitled: An Epistle to the learned Menasseh ben Israel, in answer to his, dedicated to the Parliament London, 1650; and following the cue given by Menasseh himself in his Dedication, it discussed seriously the conditions, of somewhat ludicrous severity, upon which the settlement of the Jews in England might be allowed. The question thus entered into the sphere of more or less practical politics. Early in 1651 an English mission headed by Chief Justice Oliver St. John, one of the outstanding Republican stalwarts, arrived at the Hague to negotiate an alliance between England and the United Provinces. During a trip to Amsterdam its secretary, John Thurloe, seized the opportunity to become acquainted with the famous Rabbi, whom he apparently advised to make formal application to the English government for the object he had at heart. It was on October 10th—the morrow of the passage of the Navigation Act—that the Council of State took into consideration the communication which resulted, appointing an influential committee (of which the Lord General, Oliver Cromwell, was a member) to answer it. It presumably reported that direct conversations should be opened up in order to discuss terms. Before Menasseh could set out for London, war broke out between England and Holland; but though he allowed himself to be persuaded by his friends to turn back (‘for certain political reasons', as he afterwards recorded) he did not give up hope. Immediately the news of the assembly of Barebone's Parliament reached the Low Countries he addressed this new body in the same sense as he had its predecessor. A petition to a similar effect was simultaneously submitted at Westminster by one Samuel Herring; and a formal motion 'that the Jews might be admitted to trade as well as in Holland' was discussed by the House. Nothing practical, indeed, was done: though the three 'Generals of the Fleet' became interested in the project, and were reported to have presented to the government a petition endorsing it. As, owing to the war and subsequent sickness, Menasseh was still unable to follow up his advantage in person, his place was now taken by a Marrano merchant named Manuel Martinez Dormido, 16 ruined by the recent Portuguese re-conquest of Brazil, who was accompanied by the other's son, Samuel Soeiro. Immediately he arrived in London, he submitted two petitions to Oliver Cromwell, who, since the last days of 1653, had been ruling England as Lord Protector, with more absolute power than any recent monarch had possessed. One recounted his personal history, and requested that diplomatic representations should be made to assist him in recovering his fortune. The other, after a vivid description of the tyrannies of the Inquisition calculated to make Protestant blood run cold, went on to recount the sufferings of the Marranos, their constant flight to northern Europe, and their potential value to national finance and commerce. On the strength of this Dormido pleaded that the government should readmit the Jews to England, 'graunting them libertie to come with their families and estates, to bee dwellers here with the same eaqualinese and conveniences which your inland subjects doe enjoy'. Cromwell was a realist. Though his Puritan background naturally stimulated his interest in the people of the Old Testament, he had little sympathy for the mystical tendencies that had hitherto coloured the movement for their readmission to England, and consistently opposed both the millenarians and the literalists who based religious observance on the Mosaic code. Though in advance of his age in his spirit of tolerance he confined it theoretically to Christians and in practice only to Protestants (though for political reasons not Episcopalians). It was preposterous, he maintained, that toleration should be 'stretched so far as to countenance those who denie the divinity of our Saviour, or to bolster up any blasphemous opinions contrary to the fundamental verities of religion'. Religion did not, however, weigh with him in this matter so much as practical considerations. A primary factor in the foreign policy of the Commonwealth was the protection and encouragement of English commerce. This was the cause of the war with Holland, and it played its part in that with Spain. But negative steps to protect trade were not sufficient. It was patent that Jewish merchants had been very largely responsible for the recent growth and prosperity of Leghorn, of Hamburg, and especially Amsterdam. Were they persuaded to settle in London, they might do as much there as well. Fugitives from Spain and Portugal would transfer their capital thither, instead of to the Low Countries, and perhaps some of the Amsterdam colony might be persuaded to follow them. With them they would bring, not only their wealth and their ability, but also their world-wide commercial connexions, which must inevitably enrich their country of residence. In the West Indian trade also Jewish influence was strong, and their introduction might prove no less useful than naval and military action in making English commerce supreme in the Spanish Main. The whole question of the readmission of the Jews was, from one point of view, simply an episode in the Anglo-Dutch and Anglo-Spanish rivalry. It is impossible to fathom the entire complex of reasons that drove Cromwell himself in this direction, but the intensity of his personal interest in the question of the readmission of the Jews is certain. 17 The ordinary Englishman realized only imperfectly what the Protector knew very well, that infiltration had already begun on a small scale. The recovery in English commerce under the Commonwealth had resulted in the formation in London once more of a settlement of Spanish and Portuguese merchants, many of whom were New Christians—especially so after 1630, when the recrudescence of persecution in Portugal drove hundreds of that category into exile. Moreover, the formation of open communities in the other great commercial centres of northern Europe made it natural for agents, correspondents, or rivals to settle beyond the North Sea. An impetus was given to the process in 1632, when, in consequence of internal dissensions, the crypto-Jewish congregation which had sprung up at Rouen was denounced to the authorities and temporarily broken up. 18 One of its principal members had been Antonio Ferdinando Carvajal a native of Fundáo in Portugal, but long resident in the Canary Islands. He, with perhaps one or two others, had settled in London. Notwithstanding at least one prosecution for recusancy owing to his failure to attend church, 19 it did not take him long to establish his position in his new home. Before many years had passed, he was among the most prominent merchants in the City. He possessed his own ships, trading with the East and West Indies, as well as the Levant, in a large variety of commodities. He imported gunpowder and munitions on an extensive scale, brought large quantities of bullion from abroad, and during the Civil War was grain contractor for Parliament. When in 1650 informal hostilities began with Spain his goods were expressly exempted from seizure by the Council of State, and he was given facilities for continuing his commercial operations. 20 After Carvajal the most interesting character in the Marrano colony was Simáo de Caceres, a fiery merchant formerly settled in Hamburg, who supplied Cromwell with valuable information and was anxious to be avenged on the Spaniards for their cruelty towards his co-religionists: a little later he laid before the government a plan for an expedition against Chile, in which a Jewish contingent was to take part, and another for the fortification of Jamaica. Other members of the group came from Amsterdam, whence, according to the Venetian envoy, a number of Jews had been brought over in 1643, at the outset of the Civil War, when there was difficulty in exporting goods from England, to smooth the process of trade. Thereafter more than one Dutch Jewish house maintained its representative in London. 21 The Marrano group lived for the most part as titular Catholics, attending Mass in the chapel of the French or Spanish ambassador. It was pretty notorious, however, that their sympathies with any form of Christianity were lukewarm, and in view of recent developments it was less necessary for them to conceal the fact than had formerly been the case. 'Touching Judaism', James Howell wrote in 1653 to a friend in Amsterdam, 'some corners of our city smell as rank of it as doth yours there'. 22 With all this Cromwell was quite familiar. He knew that a large proportion—perhaps a majority—of the Spanish and Portuguese merchants in the City were in sympathy with Judaism. Yet Judaism was no more obnoxious to him than Papistry. Besides, he was finding the reports from abroad provided by some of the group—thanks to their widespread connexions—invaluable in certain of his political projects. 23 He was accordingly predisposed to give a benevolent hearing to Dormido's petitions. They were immediately referred to the Council, which appointed a small committee to consider the matter. A month later it reported, but unfavourably; and in the Protector's absence the Council decided that 'there was no cause to make any order'. Cromwell's attitude towards this decision may be deduced from the fact that, early in the next year, he went out of his way to write to the king of Portugal, requesting compensation for the losses which Dormido had suffered in Brazil. Seeing that the latter was a foreigner and a Jew (he was even referred to as such in the letter), and had been resident in the country for no more than a few months, it was an extraordinary proceeding, and showed plainly in which direction the Protector's personal sympathies lay. It would appear that at the same time he intimated to Dormido that he was completely in favour of his project, but considered it desirable for Menasseh to come over and treat of the matter in person. Samuel Soeiro returned to Amsterdam to lay the matter before his father. The latter, though not yet fully recovered from his illness, was now no longer to be kept back. In the middle of September (just before the Jewish New Year festival, which was celebrated in London in due form on this occasion, for the first time probably for 365 years), Menasseh arrived. With him he brought, ready for distribution, a little English pamphlet which he had prepared some time before, To His Highnesse the Lord Protector of the Commonwealth of England, Scotland, and Ireland. The Humble Addresses of Menasseh ben Israel, a Divine, and Doctor of Physick, in behalfe of the Jewish Nation, in which he eloquently pleaded that the newly constituted English government would 'with a gracious eye have regard unto us, and our Petition, and grant unto us free exercise of our Religion, that we may have our Synagogues, and keep our own publick worship, as our brethren doe in Italy, Germany, Poland, and many other places '. This was presented at Whitehall together with a personal petition requesting that all laws against the Jews should be repealed; that the principal public officers should take an oath to defend them; that synagogues and cemeteries should be permitted in all parts of the English dominions; that they should have unrestricted rights of trade; and that they should be allowed internal jurisdiction, subject to appeal to the civil judges. On the other hand, a special official was to be appointed to maintain control over immigration, and those who were admitted were to swear allegiance to the government and to be kept under strict surveillance. On November 12th, 1655, Cromwell brought this petition with him to a meeting of the Council of State, resolved to secure its acceptance with the minimum of delay, and a motion was tabled to the effect that 'the Jewes deservinge it may be admitted into this nation to trade and trafficke and dwel amongst us as providence shall give occasion'. To the majority the question appeared too complicated to be decided there and then. Accordingly a sub-committee was appointed to take the matter into consideration. This body, not over-enthusiastic, recommended that outside opinion should be consulted. The course of the negotiations was watched with the utmost interest both at home and abroad, and the printing-presses were kept busy pouring out a flood of literature on the subject. The balance of opinion was hardly cordial. It was alleged that the Jews had made an offer of half a million pounds for St. Paul's Cathedral in London, which they proposed to convert into a synagogue, and that the bargain would have been carried through had not Parliament insisted on the increase of the purchase price to £800,000. A messenger, ostensibly sent to purchase the Cambridge University library, was rumoured to have stopped on the way at Huntingdon, Cromwell's birthplace, to inquire into his genealogy, so as to confirm the report that he was the promised Messiah. A Russian Jewish apostate named Eliezer bar Jesse or Paul Isaiah, who had served in Rupert's house and who experimented in all gradations of Christianity from Catholic to Anabaptist, was encouraged to write a succession of pamphlets (1652-5) indicating the incorrigible hatred of the Jews for Jesus, and the extreme unlikelihood of their conversion. Above all, William Prynne, who had lost his ears for his virulence against the queen twenty years before, was prompted by what he saw and heard in the streets of London to compose what was to be one of the most effective pamphlets of the period, a monument of learning as well as of acerbity: A Short Demurrer to the Jewes Long discontinued Remitter into England. 24 It was in this atmosphere that a representative conference, comprising some of the finest brains in the political, legal, theological, and business life of the country, met in the Council Chamber in Whitehall on Tuesday, December 4 th , 1655. The opening meeting was presided over by the Lord Protector himself, who, with characteristic clarity and common sense, narrowed down the questions before the Conference to two: first, whether it was lawful to admit the Jews, and secondly, if it were lawful, on what terms it was 'meet' to receive them. The first point was purely technical. The two juristic experts in attendance, Sir John Glynne, Chief Justice of the Upper Bench, and William Steele, Chief Baron of the Exchequer, pronounced that, contrary to the general impression, there was no law which forbade the return of the Jews to England (for the Expulsion of 1290 had been an act of royal prerogative, and applied only to the persons immediately concerned). The issue before the Conference thus resolved itself into a discussion of the second point, to which the remaining sessions (December 7 th , 12 th , 14 th , 18 th ,) were devoted. As the debates continued, a stubborn body of reactionary opinion manifested itself. The theologians professed to regard the public exercise of the Jewish religion in a Christian country as nothing less than blasphemous, and to dread the possibilities of proselytization, while seeing little prospect of compensatory victories for the Gospel. With unbelievable credulity, some went so far as to envisage a revival of Moloch-worship in England. Only a small minority supported the political representatives in their plea for unconditional readmission. On the occasion of the fifth meeting (Friday, December 18th) the doors of the Council Chamber were thrown open, and the debates were listened to by a none-too-orderly mob, keyed up to a considerable pitch of excitement by Prynne's recently published Demurrer, which was now in every hand. The argument centred around the commercial and economic aspects of the problem. In this the narrow outlook of individuals carried more weight than the larger interests of the country. Merchant after merchant added his voice to the tide of protest, hinting darkly that the admission of the Jews would enrich foreigners at the expense of the natives, and cause the decline of English trade. Sir Christopher Pack, a former lord mayor, eloquently voiced the apprehensions of the City of London, his speech being one of the most effective delivered during the whole course of the discussions. Even those who favoured readmission agreed that it could be permitted only under stringent conditions, inspired by a hasty re-reading of the medieval codes : Jews were not to be admitted to any judicial function, to be allowed to speak or act to the dishonour of Christianity, to profane the Christian Sabbath, to employ Christian servants, to hold public office, to print anti-Christian literature, to convert Christians to Judaism, or finally, to discourage persons who attempted to propagate the Gospel amongst them. The night was far advanced when, rising from his chair of state, Cromwell intervened in the discussion. ('I never heard a man speak so well', one who was present subsequently recorded.) It was clear, he said, that no help was to be expected from the Conference, and that he and the Council would have to take their own course. He hoped that he would do nothing foolishly or rashly, and now asked only that those present would give him the benefit of their prayers, that he might be directed to act for the glory of God and the good of the nation. With these words he stepped down abruptly from the dais, and the Conference was brought to an end. The anticipated sequel failed to materialize. Christmas passed. The days lengthened into weeks and the weeks into months; but still the Lord Protector did not announce his decision. Public opinion was too strong: the Council, if consulted, was unhelpful. Accordingly he determined simply to maintain the state of affairs that he had found, permitting such Jews as were established in London to observe their ancestral rites undisturbed as they had hitherto done. 25 Matters were at this stage when the little group of London Marranos was alarmed by a new development in foreign affairs. In the autumn of 1655, war had broken out between England and Spain. Early in the following March, the Council of State issued a proclamation declaring all Spanish moneys, merchandise, and shipping to be lawful prize. The possible repercussions on the nascent community were obvious. Its members had been born, almost without exception, in Spain, or else in Portugal when that country had been under the Spanish yoke. They had indeed fled, for the most part, from the rigours of the Inquisition, and had no thought of returning. Nevertheless, they were Spanish subjects in the eyes of the law. One of the most affluent among them after Carvajal (recently endenizened and therefore safe from molestation) was Antonio Rodrigues Robles, a wealthy merchant of Duke's Place. A jealous compatriot, incited by a scrivener named Francis Knevett, denounced him to the authorities; and orders were immediately issued for the seizure and sequestration of all his property, including two ships lying in the Thames. The entire group was thrown into consternation. If Robles's property was confiscated, few could consider themselves safe. It was agreed even by those who had previously been satisfied with their anomalous status that the best course was to throw themselves upon Cromwell's mercy, declaring themselves openly as Jews, and requesting his protection. On March 24th—only ten days after the first steps had been taken against Robles—a petition was presented to him, requesting written permission to meet for private devotion according to Jewish rites in their houses without fear of molestation, as they had hitherto done, and to have a burial-place for their dead. Cromwell immediately referred the request to the Council for decision. Even at this, his third attempt, he could not have his way—it is an interesting sidelight on his imagined omnipotence. Only on June 24th did the Council consider the question on which the Lord Protector had set his heart, and even then it refused to take action. Nevertheless the lead given by his associates indicated to Robles what was the wisest course to follow. On the same day that they presented their petition he submitted a request for the restitution of his property on the grounds that he was not a Spaniard, but a Portuguese 'of the Hebrew nation'. On April 15th he followed this up by a fresh memorandum in which he recounted his life-story—how he was a Jew, born in Portugal; how his family had been driven from place to place by reason of the Inquisition; how his father had lost his life, his mother been maimed, and many of his kindred burned alive, in consequence of its persecutions; how he himself had come after many vicissitudes to England, hoping to find peace and security at last. The whole document was admirably calculated to arouse the sympathy of the pope-hating, Inquisition-fearing Englishman of the period. In the following week affidavits confirming his statement that he was 'of the Hebrew nation and religion' were sent in by a number of his Marrano associates, who thus ranged themselves at his side. In the subsequent investigations it transpired that there were in London over twenty such families, some of whom had resided there for a considerable time. Consideration of the case did not take long. The Council of State sent the papers to the Admiralty Commissioners, requesting a prompt decision. The latter, after summoning the witnesses, reported that they were unable to give any definite opinion on the question of nationality. The affair thus had to be decided from the other angle—that of religion. On May 16th the Council of State ordered all the warrants to be discharged, and reinstated Robles in the possession of his property. As a Spanish Catholic his position had been open to question. As a refugee Jew he was safe. Thus, by a typical test-case, the legality of the residence of Jews in England was recognized. The forecast which foreign observers had made after the Whitehall Conference turned out to be correct. Unwilling on the one hand to put himself in opposition to the obvious desire of his country, or on the other to deprive it of the advantages for which he hoped, Cromwell had determined to follow an oblique policy: to 'connive' at the settlement of the Jews without formally authorizing it. It appears, however, that he must have intimated informally to the leading members of the London community that there was no objection to their acting as though their petition of March 24th had been granted. In any case, in December 1656 a house in Cree Church Lane was rented for use as a synagogue. 26 A couple of months later a piece of ground at Mile End was leased by Carvajal and Caceres as a cemetery. Not very long after, a son of Manuel Martinez Dormido was admitted to the Exchange as a licensed broker without having to take the prescribed Christological oath; and a Jerusalem Rabbi, Nathan Spira came to England by invitation to collect funds among Gentile sympathizers for the distressed Jews of the Holy Land. 27 The settlement of the Jews in the country may not have been authorized; 28 but it was a fact, and not even one which had to be kept secret. The debate on the Jewish question had spluttered on meanwhile in a running fire of pamphlets, for and against, culminating in 1656 in James Harrington's plea in his Oceana for settling distressed Jews in Ireland, and in Menasseh ben Israel's noble Vindiciae Judaeorum refuting the superstitious allegations which had been brought up in the course of the polemic. This was the latter's last production before he returned to Holland to die, broken-hearted at the apparent ruin of his hopes. For such exiguous toleration as had been won, wholly dependent upon the benevolence of one man, was very far from that ample, formal recall for which the Amsterdam dreamer had worked, and Jews throughout Europe hoped. By reason of this informality, the Lord Protector's death in September 1658 was a serious menace to the position of the little community. Hardly was the breath out of his body when London merchants recommenced their intrigues, and a certain Richard Baker presented to Richard Cromwell in their name The Merchants' Humble Petition and Remonstrance, in which he solicited the expulsion of the Jews and the confiscation of their property. Meanwhile, Thomas Violet, 'the great Trappaner of England', who eked out his living alternately as an informer and an exporter of contraband bullion, was ferreting around the City, and discovering all that he could about the mysterious foreign colony which centred in Cree Church Lane. In December 1659 (six months after Richard Cromwell's withdrawal into private life) he made an application before the courts for the law to be set in motion against the intruders, only to be told that, in the present delicate state of political affairs, consideration had better be postponed. 29 Not long afterwards, the exiled Charles Stuart heard the church bells frenziedly pealing as he landed at Dover. Soon the reaction was complete. It was only to be expected, in such circumstances, that the readmission of the Jews by 'the late execrable Usurper' would have been reversed, with so much of his other work. His connivance at the Resettlement had been a characteristic and unpopular item in his policy. Moreover, many of the persons who had taken a prominent share in the movement and in the Whitehall Conference—Peters, Rowe, Lisle, and others—were among the Regicides, a fact which cannot have escaped notice. In the reaction against Puritanism as a religious system the sympathy for the Jews which it engendered not only lost its appeal, but might well have been changed to a deeper hatred. It would therefore have been natural had the precarious advantages, won so painfully during the course of the past three or four years, shared the fate of the remaining policy of the Commonwealth. Popular opinion certainly expected this. The Lord Mayor and the Corporation of the City of London lost no time in presenting a petition complaining in exaggerated terms of the great increase of Jews in England, their interference with the trade of the citizens, and their treasonable correspondence with their co-religionists in other states, and beseeching the king 'to cause the former laws made against the Jews to be put into execution, and to recommend to your two Houses of Parliament to enact such new ones for the expulsion of all professed Jews out of your Majesty's dominions, and to bar the door after them with such provisions and penalties, as in your Majesty's wisdom shall be found most agreeable to the safety of religion, the honour of your Majesty, and the good and welfare of your subjects'. Thomas Violet (who had meanwhile attempted without success to discredit the community by passing a packet of counterfeit foreign coins upon its newly appointed minister) could not remain inactive in such circumstances, and renewed his application in the courts, by which he was advised to lay the matter before the Privy Council. He did so, in a petition of extreme virulence, in which he asserted that it was felony for any Jew to be found in England, and suggested that those who had broken the law should be arrested at prayer on Saturday morning, have their property confiscated, and be kept in prison until they were ransomed by their wealthy brethren abroad. Petitions to a similar effect were presented at the same time by some other zealots, such as Sir William Courtney. 30 The little London community, which had already begun to take precautions ('since the King's coming in', wrote an interested contemporary, 'they are very close, nor do admit any to see them but very privately'), was thrown into panic and hastily prepared a counter-petition. But meanwhile other influences had been at work. Charles II was essentially tolerant in a manner in which Cromwell was not, simply because religion was to him a matter of minor consequence. On conscientious grounds, he had no objection whatsoever to the presence of Jews in his dominions. He realized, too, that he might find them useful in the future, as he had in the past, when he had received advances from the King of Portugal through the medium of Jeronimo Nunes da Costa) his agent in the Low Countries. The readmission of the Jews to England had been present in his mind even at that period. During the course of the discussions in England, he had attempted to raise a loan from the Jews of Amsterdam, assuring them that if they were amenable 'they shall find that when God shall restore us to the possession of our rights and to that power which of right doth belonge to us we shall extend that protection to them which they can reasonably expecte and abate that rigour of the Lawes which is against them in our several dominions'. The results were not as satisfactory as he had hoped. Yet the pronouncement indicated the direction of his personal sympathies, and gave the Jews a prospect of success whatever party was victorious. 31 Nothing but a strong expression of opinion on the part of the sovereign can explain the action of the Privy Council when the petitions of the City and merchants and counter-petition of the Jews were read before it on December 7th. No order was made, but instead the rival documents were referred to Parliament—not for adjudication, but so that measures might be taken into consideration for safeguarding those concerned, the desirability of whose presence in the country was assumed to be beyond discussion. On December 17th, Denzil Holles, the spokesman of the Council, presented the documents before the Commons, 'as specially recommended to them for their advice therein, touching protection for the Jews'. The House determined to consider the matter at an early opportunity. A week later, before anything was done, the Convention Parliament was dissolved, and it does not appear that the City of London even received a reply to its address. But the Crown's attitude was clearly defined; on the question of tolerating the Jews Charles II had taken up much the same position as Oliver Cromwell. 32 Other alarms were in store. On February 26th, 1663, the House of Commons voted 'that a Committee be appointed to prepare and bring in laws to prevent encroachments in trade by the Jews or French or any other foreigners'. Thanks again perhaps to the royal protection, nothing resulted. In the following year (July 1st, 1664) the Conventicle Act came into force, prohibiting assemblies for prayer except in accordance with the liturgy of the Church of England. Though this was aimed only against Christian nonconformists, it put an obvious weapon into the hands of mischief-makers, of which they were not slow to take advantage. Immediately afterwards a certain Mr. Rycaut interviewed the heads of the congregation and informed them that by continuing to hold services in their synagogue they had made themselves liable to all manner of penalties and forfeitures. Almost simultaneously (in all probability by collusive arrangement) the Earl of Berkshire intervened, saying that he had been verbally instructed by the king to protect them; he would not do so, however, unless they came to an arrangement with him, in default of which he would himself commence proceedings and confiscate their property. 33 The Jews, instead of falling into the trap, addressed the king himself, asking to be allowed to remain in the realm under the same protection as the rest of his subjects. The petition was referred to the Privy Council and elicited a written assurance that no instructions had been given for disturbing them and that they might 'promise themselves the effects of the same favour as formerly they have had, so long as they demeane themselves peaceably & quietly with due obedience to his Maties Lawes & without scandall to his Governement' (August 22nd. 1664). 34 Thus the residence in England was authorised, for the first time, in writing. In this manner there was obtained easily—almost casually—from Charles Stuart that formal instrument which Menasseh ben Israel had despairingly endeavoured to procure from the all-powerful Lord Protector. 35 It was paradoxical; but it is not, after all, surprising. The only legislation of the Commonwealth which was maintained after the Restoration was the Navigation Act, intended to foster English trade. Cromwell's Jewish policy was actuated in part by the same motives; and if only for this reason, it would not have been wise or statesmanlike to reverse it. This indeed was not decisive. Stuart promises were short-lived, and, at a period of general reaction such as burst upon England in 1660, it was not normally to be expected that considerations of equity, gratitude, or advantage would be preponderant. That the resettlement of the Jews escaped the same fate as the Commonwealth and everything associated with it was, in fact, because of what Menasseh ben Israel had considered his failure. Nothing had been formally affected. There was nothing, therefore, to reverse; and the Cromwellian settlement was allowed to remain simply because it was so casual, and so elusive, as to defy attack. Even had this not been the case, the success of the negotiations of 1655 would have left the Jews in England, a few years later, in a much worse position than that which they actually achieved. Menasseh's proposals had been considered extravagant by contemporary opinion. Nevertheless they were based upon the principle of differentiation, and were removed only in degree from the repressive system that obtained in the less enlightened parts of the Continent. With the slightest modification in public sentiment, the Ghetto might have been introduced in all its German or Italian severity. But the characteristic feature of the subsequent period of Anglo-Jewish history was the utter absence of this spirit. (What disabilities there were—and these were relatively trivial at their worst—were shared with a large body of nonconformists, Protestant as well as Catholic, among the general population.) That this was so was due entirely to the unobtrusive and informal manner in which the Resettlement was effected. The fruits of failure proved more generous in the end than those of success could possibly have been. FootnotesChapter 7
|