NOTWITHSTANDING the absence of a formal legislative instrument inviting the Jews back to England, as visionaries on both sides had anticipated during the long negotiations, the newest congregation of the Marrano diaspora slowly expanded. Fresh immigrants periodically arrived from abroad—fugitive Marranos from the Peninsula and the Canary Islands, or enterprising merchants from Amsterdam, Hamburg, Leghorn, and the south of France. In 1660 some thirty-five heads of families belonging to the community may be enumerated. Within three years fifty-seven fresh names are added to the roll. 1 By 1663 the community felt itself sufficiently secure to draw up its first body ofAscamotor regulations 2 —modelled on those of the Congregation of Amsterdam, as the latter in turn had been on those of the Ponentine synagogue of Venice—and to bring over from Amsterdam as its first Rabbi the learned Jacob Sasportas at one time Moroccan ambassador in Spain. 3 Its distinctive name the new community adopted the title 'The Gates of Heaven', reflecting faithfully the function which it performed for more than one generation of fugitive Marranos, who obtained here their first experience of the religion of their sires. Outside London there was as yet barely any trace of Jewish settlement in England, but as early as 1660 there was a diminutive colony in Dublin. Its principal member was Manuel Lopes Pereir, alias Jaques Vanderpeere whose family had played an important part in crypto-Jewish life in Rouen, London, and elsewhere. 4 The Dublin community was not, however, to attain any importance for another generation. By now the synagogue in Cree Church Lane was one of the sights of London. A certain John Greenhalgh was taken there one Saturday morning in the spring of 1662 by 'a learned Jew with a mighty bush beard' and gave a minute description of all he saw in a letter to a friend. 5 There were in the synagogue on this occasion, he said, about one hundred 'right' Jews and one proselyte: all gentlemen, and most of them richly clad. Samuel Pepys, who had already indulged his curiosity on one occasion before the Restoration, repeated the experiment on the afternoon of October 14th, 1663. It happened to be the feast of the Rejoicing of the Law, when the Jew traditionally allowed himself some licence even in synagogue. The Diarist, however, was not aware of this fact and could not repress his disdain when evening came and he set down his impressions of the day. In the end, this constant stream of Gentile visitors (especially women) became a nuisance, and the governing body ordered that 'to avoid the scandal and hindrance that it causes in this Holy Congregation—on the occasions when English ladies come to see the ceremonies of our religion, it is forbidden and ordained that from this day henceforth no member of this Holy Congregation may bring them to it, nor rise nor move from his place to receive them'. 6 In 1665, when the Great Plague devastated London, the Jewish community suffered heavily, though not perhaps in the same proportion as their neighbours. Six identifiable burials took place in the newly opened cemetery in Mile End, and between them is space for fifteen other interments of which, in that awful time, no record was made. Jacob Sasportas, the newly appointed Rabbi, fled overseas to avoid the contagion. 7 In the following year the Great Fire of London spared the synagogue area, and the Jews were not molested when violence was offered to Roman Catholics and foreigners in general, who were accused of having attempted to destroy the city. This period of tribulation called attention to one important hiatus in the congregational organization, and just after the outbreak of the Plague, in the spring of 1665, there was founded an Association for Visiting the Sick—the earliest of the network of voluntary organizations which were in time to cluster about the synagogue and fulfil every social requirement of the community. 8 These portents prepared the way for a fever of a different sort. The Messianic craze which swept Jewry in 1666, when Sabbatai Zevi made his comet-like appearance in the Levant and sent a wave of hysteria sweeping throughout the world, did not leave England untouched. Reports were current to the effect that a barque with silken sails and cordage, manned by a crew speaking only Hebrew, had been sighted off Scotland. 9 Benjamen Levy an employee of the congregation, received regular reports through Raphael Supino of Leghorn (an enthusiast who had followed Menasseh ben Israel to England, but on the failure of the Whitehall Conference had returned to his native place). Spanish and Portuguese merchants of New Christian extraction living in London were waited upon by devout compatriots, who begged them to declare themselves Jews in order to have the opportunity to participate in the joys of the Messianic era. Joao d'Ilhao, of Amsterdam (who not long before had led a colonizing venture in Curacao), presented a petition requesting a pass for a Dutch ship which was to transfer him and some fifty Jewish families who desired to go to Palestine. God, he concluded, had at length begun to gather in His scattered people, having raised up a prophet for them, and they would pray for His Majesty when they arrived in Jerusalem. Henry Oldenburg, secretary of the Royal Society, was so impressed by all he heard that he wrote to Spinoza asking his opinion on the recent events. The enthusiasm penetrated even among business men on the Exchange, one of whom wagered large sums, at long odds, that his hero would be recognized within two years by all the princes of the East. Almost the only prominent Jewish leader in the whole of Europe to preserve his sanity was Jacob Sasportas, who, from his refuge in Hamburg, poured scorn on the pretender's Messianic claims, and in the end succeeded in restoring a sense of proportion to the Jewish world. 10 Meanwhile the Jews were beginning to play a part of increasing significance in England. Charles II was liberal in issuing patents of endenization, 11 several score of them being distributed to members of the community in the twenty-five years of his reign. He was on affable terms with Augustin Coronel Chacon,'the little Jue', who had perhaps been useful to him during his exile. On the Restoration the latter became consular and financial agent for the king of Portugal in London, and it was he who first suggested to Monk the match between Charles and Catherine of Braganza. In reward for his services he was raised to the knighthood, though he prepared himself for the dignity by seceding from the synagogue. 12 In Catherine's train, when she arrived from Portugal, there was a distinguished group of Marranos. The most important was Duarte da Silva, an opulent New Christian merchant of Lisbon, whose operations extended to many parts of the New World and the Old, and whose arrest by the Inquisition in 1647 had caused a slump in the Portuguese exchange abroad. 13 He had ultimately been released and was now delegated to accompany the Infanta to England to administer her dowry. This was to have totalled 2,000,000 Portuguese crowns, or about £350,000, one-half to be paid on the princess's arrival and the remainder a year later. In fact she brought with her only a derisory amount, largely in jewels and sugar, the balance being in bills of exchange on Da Silva and Coronel. The king, who had already raised large sums from the London goldsmiths on the security of his expectations, pressed for payment. Coronel was able to meet the demands made only by borrowing from Alderman Backwell, the London banker, thus being driven ultimately into bankruptcy. Da Silva proved less malleable, and in October 1662, to the queen's indignation, was thrown into the Tower for six months to heighten his sense of responsibility. 14 Though Da Silva did not join Judaism officially on his arrival in England, he came into the open as a declared opponent of the intolerant religious policy of Portugal, and from this time London became a principal centre of intrigue against the Inquisition. He professed his readiness to provide his native country with enormous subsidies of money and munitions, including ships of war, in return for some diminution in the power of the Holy Office. It was even rumoured that he requested permission to establish an open synagogue in Lisbon. His attempts were seconded by a more devoted London Jew, Fernando Mendes da Costa, who set on foot independent negotiations through the medium of his brother at Rome in the hope of curbing the worst excesses of the Tribunal. In the result, all this came to nothing, though it paved the way for the activities of Father Antonio Vieira and the suspension of the Portuguese Inquisition from 1674 to 1681. 15 Another Jew who touched the main stream of English history at this period was an adventurer named Francisco de Faria, who, born in America, subsequently lived in Antwerp as an artist, in Holland as an officer in the army, and in England as interpreter to the Portuguese Embassy. In 1680, at the time of the frenzy over the 'Popish Plot', he came forward with some startling disclosures, accusing the Portuguese Ambassador —or having attempted to bribe him to murder the Earl of Shaftesbury an others. In return for these revelations, made with considerable éclat before the Privy Council, he received a government allowance, but, when the popular excitement died down, tactfully disappeared from view. 16 The community comprised many another character who was equally colourful and more creditable. Almost all its members had known the vicissitudes of Marrano existence in Spain or Portugal; hardly one but had some close relative who had been immolated in the flames of the quemadero; and when the news of a fresh auto-da-fè reached London, special services would be held in the synagogue and special prayers recited in memory of the victims. From time to time the Inquisition at Lisbon or the Canary Islands would receive from some shocked Catholic a detailed account of their lives in their place of refuge. The Francias (according to a deposition made by a friar at Las Palmas) 'had left Malaga and come to live in London for fear of the Holy Office which intended to punish them because of their religion, they being Jews professing the creed and following rites and ceremonies of the Jewish Church, whereas in London they can live freely in their religion without fear of the censure or punishments of the said Tribunal, and this he frequently heard from the English in the Bourse'. 17 A Lisbon denunciation of 1659 introduces us to Manuel da Costa de Brito (perhaps a relation of Abraham Israel de Brito one of the signatories to the petition of March 1656), who lived in London and was intriguing to bring his family to join him there: 'and the wife of the said Manuel da Costa said that the God of Israel would bring her children to her, to give them to Judaism and the holy covenant, and she gave thanks to the God of Israel to find herself in a land of liberty, where she might invoke His holy name'. Another person figuring in this denunciation was Abraham Peregrino, 'said to be French and a Capuchin friar, who became a Jew'. 18 Not that these former New Christians, freshly introduced to Judaism, were the only proselytes in the community. Notwithstanding the nervousness which prevailed on this score and the outright prohibition in the communal bylaws, it was impossible to check the ardour of some Puritan enthusiasts who followed their devotion to the Old Testament to its inexorable conclusion. A handful of English converts was therefore to be numbered among the congregation almost from its foundation. 19 Some Marranos, on the other hand, found difficulty in attuning themselves to the Jewish tradition from which they had been so long divorced. A few remained only semi-attached for years, causing no slight perplexity to the official community, who determined that if any person died in such circumstances he should be denied burial in the congregational cemetery. 20 The Canary Inquisition was once informed of a certain member of the Francia family in London who 'being in synagogue dressed in the vestments of his church, said: "Gentlemen, all this is suited either to very great fools or very wise men", saying which he took off his vestment, threw down his book and went out. 21 Meanwhile the legal position of the Jews in England was being elucidated in a series of judicial decisions. In 1667 the Court of the King's Bench pronounced that Jews might give evidence in a court of law and be sworn on the Old Testament in accordance with their own practices (the degrading special formula, which had obtained before the Expulsion and was still applied in almost every part of Europe, was overlooked and henceforth never came into force). In 1677 the venue of a case was altered so as to save a Jewish witness from the necessity of appearing on a Saturday. In 1684 there was a more momentous decision, when Judge Jeffreys refused to entertain the plea that, as the Jews were 'perpetual enemies' in law, the religion of a Jewish plaintiff made it impossible for him to bring an action for the recovery of a debt. Meanwhile, in 1672, an endenizened Jewish burgher of New York, on appeal to the king in Council, had established his right to protection notwithstanding his faith and foreign birth. 22 Not that the period was without its alarms. In February 167o, when the anti-popery craze was at its height, a select committee of the House of Commons was appointed to investigate the causes of the growth of Papistry, with instructions also 'to enquire touching the number of the Jews and their synagogues, and upon what terms they are permitted to have their residence here'. The pressure of public business was too great to permit much time to be spared for this, and the committee's report dealt only with the question of Roman Catholicism. 23 But these complications obviously caused some alarm in Jewish circles, and the accounts record 'various expenses in solicitors and goings and comings to the Parliament and bottles of wine that were presented and £6. 7s. 6d. 7s. 6d. for a paper of the Court of the Aldremans'. 24 A little later the second Conventicle Act was passed, prohibiting assemblies for prayer, except in accordance with the liturgy of the Church of England. The measure was directed, however, only against Christian Dissenters, and, in the event, the Jews were undisturbed. A more serious threat followed. In the spring of 1672 Charles II issued his Declaration of Indulgence, by which the right of public worship was conferred on Papists and Dissenters. The Jews, whose position had been guaranteed by the royal promise of nine years previous, were not directly affected by this. However, the withdrawal of the measure in the following March, as the result of the widespread agitation which it caused, gave an opening to their enemies. At the Quarter Sessions at the Guildhall during the next winter the leaders of the Jewish community were indicted of a riot, on the grounds that they had met together for the exercise of their religion. A true bill was found against them by the Grand Jury. In consternation they petitioned the king, who, on February 11th, 1673-4 issued an Order in Council to the effect that 'Mr. Atturney Generall doe stop all proceedings at Law against The Petitioners'. 25 A disturbance of a different sort followed seven years later, when, learning that a young Dutch Jewess had run away to London with one of her father's employees and become baptized, some friends of the family instituted legal proceedings with a view to having her arrested and returned to her home. A great commotion was caused when the news was generally known. The Bishop of St. Asaph called for steps to vindicate the honour of the Christian religion and the English nation, and the Lord Mayor, thoroughly aroused by this 'affront to the religion and nation of the land', ordered an abstract of the laws on the statute book directed against the Jews to be prepared. 26 These all pointed in one direction: the constitution of the Jews as a juridical entity, accompanied by the medieval prohibition to be'levant and couchant'among the general population, which had developed in contemporary Germany, Italy, and southern France into the Ghetto system. It cannot be a coincidence that immediately afterwards the Bishop of London and Sir Peter Pett, the eminent lawyer, drew up a memorial suggesting that the Jews in England should be segregated on pre-Expulsion lines, under the control of their own Justiciar (the first was to be Pett himself), who was to be responsible for the collection of taxes and to supervise their relations with the Crown. The Lord Privy Seal, Lord Anglesey, was interested in the project, and discussed it in a couple of audiences with the king. The latter, in turn, easy going as ever, submitted the proposals to the Privy Council, which (probably acting under instructions) dropped them completely. No scheme of the sort was ever seriously considered in future. 27 In February 1684-5 Charles II, to whose good-natured indifference the Anglo-Jewish community owed so much, breathed his last, and James II ascended the throne, determined to secure the position of Roman Catholicism in England. The moment was considered propitious to attempt further proceedings against the Jews. A publicist named Hayne prepared the ground with a pamphlet in which he gave an abstract of the various statutes concerning aliens in England, with observations proving that the Jews broke them all. 28 It was above all their exemption from alien duties (granted in the normal course of events in their patents of endenization) that caused resentment, as it put them in a position to compete with native-born merchants on equal terms. The late king had been petitioned in vain to abolish the obnoxious privilege; but an ingenious customs officer named Pennington now suggested that by his death the endenizations which he had granted became void, and that the Jewish merchants (all of whom had been born abroad) were henceforth liable to pay aliens' customs. The Corporation of London joined in the pursuit, maintaining in a petition to the Crown that in any case the exemptions violated the ancient privileges of the City. 29 Though the agitation proved unsuccessful it encouraged a further attack on confessedly religious grounds. One day, in the autumn of 1685, the community was thrown into consternation by the arrest of nearly half of its members, thirty-seven in all, as they were following their occasions on the Royal Exchange. A certain Thomas Beaumont, in conjunction with his brother Carleton, an attorney, had applied for a writ against them and another eleven, who escaped arrest, under an antiquated statute of Queen Elizabeth, which inflicted a penalty of £20 a month for non-attendance at church. Once more the Wardens of the congregation threw themselves on the mercy of the Crown, petitioning His Majesty to permit them to 'abide here free in ye Exercise of their Religion as heretofore'. A douceur of some £300 secured the favour of the Earl of Peterborough, who sponsored the application at court. 30 As a result James followed his brother's example, issuing an Order in Council by which the Attorney-General was instructed to stop all proceedings: 'His Majesty's Intention being that they should not be troubled upon this account, but quietly enjoy the free exercise of their Religion, whilst they behave themselves dutifully and obediently to his Government' (November 13th, 13th, 1685). 31 In the sequel the Jews were nearly involved in the constitutional struggle between the king and his subjects. The very next day the House of Commons protested against the exercise of the royal prerogative to dispense Roman Catholic officers from the operation of the Test Act—the first episode in the drama which was to end in James's loss of his crown. The result was the prorogation of Parliament, on November 20th, and it was never summoned again during the reign. In the following spring, when a collusive action was brought against Sir Edward Hales, a Roman Catholic who had received a military commission, a packed bench decided that it was part of the king's prerogative to dispense with the penal laws as he saw fit and necessary. Meanwhile the two Beaumonts had been emboldened by the general feeling in the country to continue their proceedings, despite the Attorney-General's intervention. Once more appeal was made to the sovereign, and on December 4th, Sir Edward Herbert, the Lord Chief Justice (who was later to give judgement in the Hales Case), was instructed to send for Carleton Beaumont and examine him. 32 The matter was far too trivial to serve to thresh out so vital an issue, for men were interested in the Roman Catholics, and were not particularly interested in the Jews. The confirmation by the courts, not long after, of the legality of the Dispensing Power automatically disposed of the lesser question; and, though the problem of Roman Catholic privileges remained an issue of primary importance in the history of England, the right to practise Judaism was never again seriously questioned. A new chapter in the history of the community opened with the coming of William of Orange in 1688. The expedition which led to the Glorious Revolution, inspired as it was by Englishmen and executed by Dutchmen, was to a large extent financed by Jews. Antonio (Isaac) Lopez Suasso, of The Hague, subsequently raised to the dignity of Baron d'Avernas le Gras, advanced the prince the sum of two million crowns, free of interest, for his adventure. (It is said that he refused a receipt, on the plea that if the enterprise were successful, he would certainly be repaid, whereas if it were not, he would no less certainly lose.) The commissariat of the campaign was supervised by Fracisco de Cordova acting on behalf of Isaac Pereira, who provided bread and forage for the troops. 33 Small wonder that special prayers for the success of the expedition were offered up in the Dutch synagogues, and that the Marrano poets of Amsterdam (who continued the literary tradition of Madrid and Lisbon on the banks of the Amstel) hymned the enterprise in stately Spanish periods. 34 For the next fourteen years England and Holland had their government controlled by the same ruler and pursued the same policy. Relations between London and Amsterdam became closer than ever before, and the community of the former city was swollen by immigrants from the latter, the metropolis of the Marrano diaspora. A number of families who were to play an outstanding role in subsequent Anglo-Jewish history trace their origin to this period. The synagogue established in Cree Church Lane in 1657, which had been drastically remodelled and enlarged in 1674, soon became inadequate. In 1699, accordingly, the congregation acquired a site in Plough Yard, Bevis Marks, upon which a new synagogue—the first specifically constructed for the purpose in England since the thirteenth century—was dedicated in the autumn of 1701. One of the beams in the roof, according to legend, was presented by the sovereign himself. 35 Moreover, on the day or the opening, the builder—a Quaker returned all the profit he had earned from the erection of a fane to the universal God. 36 Developments in London were paralleled on a smaller scale in Ireland. The Duke of Schomberg, 37 in the campaigns before and after the battle of the Boyne, depended to a large extent on the firm of Machado and Pereira, who had supervised the commissariat in the various Dutch campaigns since 1675. 38 The wealthy members of the London community were brow-beaten by the authorities into making a loan to assist this venture, and a number of them settled in Dublin in consequence. 39 Thus the Irish synagogue, the existence of which for the past thirty years had been shadowy, knew a brief period of florescence. Its principal member was David Machado (de Sequeira) a writer of some distinction. We catch a glimpse of him in London, in 1707-8, engaged in a plan for bringing relief to his persecuted brethren in Portugal by diffusing there Father Antonio Vieira's recent attacks on the Inquisition. He even prepared a letter to send to the king of Portugal with the work, but changed his mind on realizing that it might prejudice the position of the Marranos instead of assisting them. 40 Closely connected with the Dublin community was a diminutive settlement at Cork, which had an evanescent existence time when peace was restored, the Dublin community lost its importance and, though it continued to function under the auspices of the London synagogue, it never regained the promise which it had shown at the time of the Campaign of the Boyne. In external matters there were occasional disturbances under the new sovereign: yet now they were disturbances which affected the Jews only incidentally, and not as Jews. That which attracted most attention was connected with the perennial problem of alien duties. On William's accession Pennington had renewed his contention that the exemptions granted in the patents of endenization issued under Charles II were now void, and he entered actions against twenty merchants, all of whom were Jews, for arrears amounting to £58,000. In this he had the encouragement of the king himself, who over-hastily declared that he would not abate a threepenny-bit of what was legally due to him. The Privy Council acted with greater deliberation, and on being petitioned by the other side ordered proceedings to be stopped. The English merchants supporting Pennington refused to acquiesce, spreading rumours that this result had been obtained by bribery, that the Treasury stood to lose £10,000 yearly besides the arrears, and that English trade and English traders were seriously imperilled by this decision in favour of the interlopers: and they enlisted the support of the Commissioners of Customs, who viewed the matter only from the point of view of revenue. Ultimately, on October 14th, 1690, the Privy Council issued instructions for the duties payable by aliens on exported commodities to be levied, notwithstanding previous decisions to the contrary. No mention, however, was made of the arrears; and in the following December the increased duties were abolished by Parliament, making the victory an empty one. 41 It has already been pointed out that, though this attempt mainly affected the Jews, who were the most prominent foreign-born element among the mercantile community, their association was in fact only incidental. This was not the case in connexion with another episode in the financial history of the reign, the outcome of which was of decisive importance in establishing the legal status of the English Jew. In past history the Jews throughout Europe had always been subjected to special taxation, of disproportionate severity, collected by their own authorities, who paid the proceeds over to the government. This was still the case in the Ghettos of Italy and the Judengassen of Germany and the teeming Jewries of Poland and even the enlightened communities of Amsterdam, Hamburg, and Leghorn. 42 The practice was essentially discriminative and thereby prepared the ground for the establishment of an inferior Jewish status in law: yet Menasseh ben Israel had assumed it as a matter of course when he laid his proposals before Cromwell. After the Restoration a Jew of Prague, named Jacob Aszik, had attempted to secure the concession of farming the special taxes which, he considered, could profitably be imposed upon his co-religionists in London; yet, although he offered £3,000 a year for the privilege, nothing was done. 43 The financial exigencies of the country after the Revolution, and the wars which followed in its train, brought the idea forward once more. In the autumn of 1689, in accordance with the recommendations of a special committee which had recently been set up, the House of Commons passed a resolution ordering a bill to be introduced to levy £100,000 from the Jews, apart from their ordinary contributions to taxation and their quota of £10 each, rich or poor, to the newly-instituted poll-tax, for which all Jews were assessed as merchant strangers. In consternation the community prepared a petition indicating the manner in which English commerce benefited from their presence and their inability to support any new burden. The Commons refused to entertain any petition against a financial measure, and the bill was introduced and read a first time on December 30th. The Jews, however, continued to fight strenuously against the innovation, and in the end the unfairness or impracticability of the proposals was realized, and the measure was dropped. The idea of differential treatment in the matter of taxation lingered on a little longer, for in the Act of the same session which fixed the poll-tax for the next year, Jewish merchants were placed in a separate category and assessed at £20 each—twice as high as the rate payable by other merchant strangers. This discrimination disappeared in 1691, when the new Poll Tax Act failed to make any special provision for the Jews—a precedent which was thereafter faithfully observed. 44 Finally, when in 1698 a Bill was introduced into Parliament 'for the more effective suppressing of Blasphemy and Prophaneness', a clause was included exempting the Jews from its provisions. Some objection was raised to this, and in the House of Lords the measure was amended in such a way as to make persons professing Judaism liable to the extremely severe penalties it imposed. By 140 votes to 78, the Commons refused to accept the amendment, and the Bill passed in its original form. Thus the practice of Judaism at last received parliamentary sanction in addition to royal protection. 45 The community set up in 1657 was now in its heyday, its supremacy undisputed as yet by any rival body. Its administration lay in accordance with the Ascamot of 1663-4 in the hands of an executive body called the Mahamad, consisting of the two Parnassim or wardens together with the Gabbay or treasurer. There was little limit to the range of their activities. They appointed officials, issued ordinances, interfered with totalitarian absolutism in the private lives and extra-synagogal activities of members, acted as a court of arbitration to prevent quarrels between Jews from being aired publicly, suppressed commercial practices and speculations which created public prejudice, 46 imposed stringent monetary and social penalties on the recalcitrant, and at times went so far as to appoint their own successors. Their power was in fact all but absolute, and it was sometimes exercised with more vigour than tact. The congregational organization was much like that of any other throughout the Jewish world. It was governed by its own constitution as laid down in the Ascamot, periodically enlarged or renewed. From the very beginning (as seen in the code of 1663) meticulous provisions were enacted to govern communal life. It was prohibited under heavy penalties to establish any rival congregation. The order of Divine service was minutely prescribed in all its details. It was forbidden to make any disturbance in the synagogue, whether by over-vocal piety or by offering physical violence in the sacred precincts. The goodwill of the outside world was courted by prohibiting proselytization or religious disputations. A rigid censorship was established on literature published by members of the community, in order to preserve its faith unsullied (obviously the victims of the Inquisition had learned something from its methods). No member might print any lampoon or defamatory libel against any co-religionist, nor prosecute him in the courts of law for brokerage or similar dues, nor suborn his landlord or his maidservant. Romance was thwarted by a prohibition against participation in a secret marriage ceremony, while intriguers were warned against interfering with political affairs under the pretext of being spokesman of 'the Nation'. All this code was enforced by means of the lavish employment of excommunication—an effective remedy when social life was so painfully restricted: no ritually killed meat was supplied to the recalcitrant, nor would his sons be circumcised, nor if he died would he be buried in consecrated ground. 47 Special attention was, of course, paid to education. It was the duty of the Rabbi or Haham (literally 'sage'), besides acting as Reader when required, 'to declare the Dinim (Jewish laws) on all days continuously and to preach on all Sabbaths and Holydays, and to give lessons to the students of the Talmud'. He was assisted in his labours by at least one assistant teacher, or Ruby. In addition the congregation had its own physician, and it was considered a desirable qualification for the Beadle to be at the same time a Cupper. The communal budget was derived in the main from a tax upon brokerage and commercial operations, ultimately consolidated as the Finta, or income-tax. This was of course supplemented by voluntary offerings. Every Thursday the Beadle went round the congregation, from house to house, to collect their oblations, which were distributed to the needy on the Friday. The members piously preserved the culture of the countries in which they or their fathers had been born. Thus the synagogue of London, like those of Amsterdam, Hamburg, or Leghorn, became a little oasis of Iberian tradition implanted in a foreign soil. Spanish and Portuguese were the official languages. In those tongues sermons were preached, laws were drawn up, literature was composed, and correspondence conducted over half the civilized world. Most of the important families were international, members being settled in each of the greatest mercantile centres of Europe—no small advantage in trade. Though the community was composed in the main of solid merchants and brokers it had to support a large number of indigent poor. One-quarter of the total number were on the borderline of poverty, and a very large proportion of the annual income was utilized in charitable work. So great did the burden become that in May 1669 the congregation lodged a complaint at the Mansion House against the swarm of mendicants by which it was beset and, on receiving a sympathetic hearing, made an order for all indigent strangers to quit the country within five days, in default of which they would be excluded from the Synagogue and its benefits: this was followed a week later by a fresh regulation refusing admission to the congregation henceforth to 'any person, of whatever quality, unless he should bring an order, arrangement or business for a lawful livelihood'. This was only momentarily effective, for within a few years, after a momentary decrease, as much as one-third of the total communal income had to be devoted to charitable purposes. In 1677 the attention of the City authorities was again called to the presence in London of a large number of destitute aliens who pretended to be Jews, and it was enacted by the Court of Aldermen that 'no Jews without good estate be admitted to reside or lodge in London or the liberties thereof'. 48 In contrast to conditions in most other parts of the world, the Jews of England knew only minor annoyances. Anti-semitic sentiment was not indeed dead. Sir Josiah Child, the despotic chairman of the East India Company, might indeed champion the cause of the Jews in his economic pamphlets, and even plead for their naturalization with a view to improving the country's commerce. John Locke could even argue in favour of the removal of all religious disabilities in his Letter Concerning Toleration of 1689. Men might laugh when the German exalte, Holger Paulli, called upon King William to baptize all Jews in his dominions in preparation for the coming redemption under his personal aegis. 49 But the mass of the people, though not violently antagonistic, was by no means benevolently disposed, and accusations of varying credibility were brought up from time to time—occasionally with unpleasant results. It was periodically alleged for instance that the Jews, working in conjunction with their co-religionists in North Africa, were responsible for the deplorable condition of the Englishmen enslaved in Algiers, and for the difficulties in arranging for their ransom on reasonable terms; and wild threats were made that they would be expelled unless conditions improved. 50 Another recurrent complaint, voiced in 1690 by a committee of the House of Commons, was in connexion with the unlicensed export of bullion—a suspicion which the Synagogue tried to suppress by confirming the prohibition under religious sanction. 51 The City of London, hardly reconciled to their presence, was always on the look-out for breaches of privilege, petty illegalities, and undesirable immigration, and from time to time attempted drastic steps. 52 It was found necessary to mollify the authorities by occasional donations, and the communal accounts contain entries relative to pipes of wine presented on occasion to the Lord Mayor, with supplementary gifts for his son and even his sword-bearer. 53 Before long it became customary for the congregation to present each successive Chief Magistrate year by year with a silver salver embossed with the congregational arms, in anticipatory gratitude for his favour and protection. 54 Parish funds were frequently supplemented by the process of electing Jews to the office of Churchwarden: unwilling to serve in this capacity, they had to pay heavy fines in order to escape the unwelcome honour. 55 Occasionally the Jews were compelled to support apostates from their faith; for proselytization was carried on by enthusiastic churchmen with optimistic zeal. In 1702, in consequence of a cause cèlèbre, an act was passed compelling Jewish parents to make adequate provision for any of their children who should embrace the Protestant religion. 56 Meanwhile the Jews were consolidating their economic position. By the close of the seventeenth century they had established themselves securely in English commercial life. Jealously prevented from opening retail shops in the City—a privilege confined to freemen, which they were not allowed to become 57 —they were driven into wholesale commerce. They carried on a considerable trade with foreign parts, particularly with the other great centres of the Marrano diaspora, in the New World and the Old—even with Spain and Portugal, though, for obvious reasons, assumed names were adopted for this purpose. 58 They exported considerable quantities of English woollens, importing in return bullion and staple foreign commodities. Others, newly arrived from Italy, imported Turkish goods via Leghorn, to the resentment of the Levant Company, which claimed the monopoly of the Constantinople trade. 59 Commercial intercourse with Venice, the parent-congregation of the Marrano diaspora, was on a considerable scale, the export to that city and its dependencies of salt fish from England, and the import of Zante currants, being to a large extent in Jewish hands. 60 The first few Jewish settlers brought to England some £1,500,000 in specie, and their assured turnover was estimated at one-twelfth of the total commerce of the United Kingdom. Within thirty years of the Restoration they claimed that they had paid about £200,000 in customs dues alone. 61 In 1677 twenty members of the community were assessed at £20 each as their share in the communal imposts for the half year, representing transactions to the extent of some £32,000 per annum in each case. 62 In the spring of 1690 thirty Jewish merchants contributed (not quite spontaneously) a total of £45,000 to the loan advanced on the security of the twelve-penny aid, Isaac Pereira, the contractor, providing no less than £36,000 of this. 63 Diego Rodrigues Marques started on his career in England With £15,00 capital, and at the time of his death had gold and silver to the value of more than 1,000,000 milreis on the way from Portugal. 64 When in 1672 a ship called the Falcon was captured by the Dutch, it was estimated that £60,000 of the cargo belonged to London Jews. 65 The acquisition of Bombay in 1661 as part of Catherine of Braganza's dowry had brought with it a nucleus of Portuguese Marranos, who were reinforced from London before long; and there was a small community, with its own Rabbi, established also at Fort St. George (Madras) before 1688. It was largely due to the activities of this group that the market for diamonds, which had formerly been situated at Goa, was removed to the English factories. 66 Joseph Cohen d'Azevedo was among the directors of the interloping Scottish East India Company which was set up and suppressed in the reign of William III. 67 Trade with the West Indies, where Jews had been established in the various English possessions since the Protectorate, was also a vital Jewish interest. 68 The Glorious Revolution had (as we have seen) sent to England a handful of Jewish army contractors—a characteristic occupation of the higher economic strata of continental Jewry, demanding as it did not only capital but also trustworthy agencies and powers of organization—and this, too, became for a time an important calling among English Jews. 69 Two members of the Francia family were among the earliest contractors for the lighting of the London streets. 70 Several pillars of the community were sworn brokers on the Royal Exchange, to which one of the pioneers had been admitted as far back as 1657; indeed, a not inconsiderable proportion of the congregational income was derived from a tax upon their operations. Towards the close of the century, however, their position was gravely threatened. From time to time attention had been called to the unauthorized operators who cut brokerage rates and tended to be less punctual in meeting their obligations; in 1680, for example, the Court of Aldermen requested the Lord Mayor Elect 'to consider and direct the prosecution of some speedy and effectual course for the suppressing of all brokers acting on the Royall Exchange without Admission, and Especially Jewes'. 71 At length, in 1697, parliamentary authority was obtained for carrying out a thoroughgoing reform. According to the arrangement first envisaged Jews would have been completely excluded. They were not disposed to accept this fate quietly, and fought hard to regain their footing. In the end the Corporation agreed to admit twelve of them among a total of 124 to the privilege of the Exchange. This figure, though it marked a numerical reduction, was proportionately far higher than the actual numbers of the Jewish population warranted. It equalled the strength of all other alien brokers together; and, while the number of the Christian brokers was reduced by one-half, the Jews suffered a decline to the extent of only one-third, being moreover the only category who could be admitted without being Freemen of the City. It is not without reason that this arrangement has been termed the first step in Anglo-Jewish emancipation. 72 The position of the Jew in the commercial life of the City and of the country was thus officially recognized. The next century and a half were to show the position thus painfully acquiredconsolidated: the extension of this toleration from commercial to social life and finally to political rights, and the evolution of the Anglo-Jewish community as a free and undifferentiated body. FootnotesChapter 8
|