This resolution was duly reported to the Council on the following day, when Cromwell was again present. How little the Protector estimated the difficulties in his path is shown by the fact that the Committee’s recommendation was at once acted upon. John Lisle, Sir Charles Wolseley, and Sir Gilbert Pickering, three members of the Committee notoriously devoted to Cromwell, were instructed to meet the Lord President the same afternoon, and draw up a list of the personages to be summoned to the proposed Conference.[96] The list was duly presented to the Council on the following morning, and, under the vigilant eye of the Protector, approved. At the same time the terms of a circular convening the Conference were agreed upon, and the 4th December was fixed for the meeting.[97]
Nothing is more significant than the rapidity with which these steps were taken. On Tuesday the 13th November Menasseh’s petition was sprung on the reluctant Council. On the following Thursday summonses to a National Conference were being sent out from Whitehall, the Council having meanwhile held three meetings, at all of which the Jewish question was discussed, and a Committee specially charged with the question having held two further meetings. In all this we may clearly trace the personal insistence of the Protector.
Bruited abroad through the congregations of the divines and the constituents of the politicians and merchants to whom the summonses to the Conference had been addressed, the question of the Readmission of the Jews now came to the forefront of national politics. Amid considerable popular excitement, the Conference met in the Council Chamber at Whitehall[98] on the first Tuesday in December.
It was a notable gathering—one of the most notable in the whole history of the Commonwealth. The statesmen present were the most eminent on the active list of the moment. There was Henry Lawrence, the Lord President, with four of his civilian colleagues on the Council, Sir Gilbert Pickering, Sir Charles Wolseley, Lisle the regicide, and Francis Rous. Close by was Walter Strickland, the diplomatist, who had represented the Commonwealth at the Hague, and had shared with Oliver St. John the honours and mortifications of the famous mission of 1651. In the same inner circle were John Lambert, “the army’s darling,” and one of the most brilliant of Cromwell’s veterans, and William Sydenham, one of the founders of the Protectorate. The law was represented by Sir John Glynne, Chief Justice of the Upper Bench, and William Steele, Chief Baron of the Exchequer. Lord Chief Justice St. John had also been invited, but he astutely stayed away. Those who knew St. John must have regarded his absence as ominous. On behalf of the mercantile community there appeared Alderman Dethick, the Lord Mayor of London, Alderman Cressett of the Charterhouse, Alderman Riccards, and Sheriff Thompson. These men were official nonentities, for the real representatives of Commerce were Sir Christopher Pack, the late Lord Mayor and the leading mercantile authority in the country, William Kiffen, the wealthy merchant-parson, and the regicide Owen Rowe, now deputy-governor of the Bermuda Company.
It was, however, on the religious side that the Conference was strongest. Sixteen theologians and divines, the flower of Puritan piety and learning, responded to Cromwell’s invitation. There was Dr. Cudworth, Regius Professor of Hebrew, the philosophic opponent of atheism, whose “Intellectual System” is an English classic. There, too, were Dr. Owen, most famous of Independent divines and most fearless of the champions of religious liberty, and John Caryll, the great Puritan Bible commentator. Oxford University sent Dr. Goodwin, President of Magdalen College, and Henry Wilkinson, Canon of Christ Church. Cambridge appeared in the person of the learned Dr. Whitchcote, Provost of King’s. Among the preachers were William Bridge of Yarmouth; Daniel Dyke, one of Cromwell’s chaplains in ordinary; Henry Jessey, the Baptist Judeophil and friend of Menasseh; Thomas Manton, mildest and most genial of Presbyterians, “the prelate of the Commonwealth,” as Wood calls him; Dr. Newcomen, one of the authors of “Smectymnuus”; Philip Nye, the sturdy Independent and champion of toleration; Anthony Tuckney, one of the most prominent divines of the Westminster Assembly, and three lesser lights, William Benn of Dorchester, Walter Craddock of All Hallows the Great, London, and Samuel Fairclough. John Carter, the vehement enemy of Presbyterianism and monarchy, could not attend, for he was on his deathbed at Norwich when the invitation reached him.[99]
It is not difficult to see that the Conference had been carefully organised with a view to a decision favourable to the Jews. The great majority of the members were conspicuous for their attachment to the cause of religious toleration, while not a few of the laymen were equally notorious for their devotion—some for their subservience—to Cromwell. And yet its upshot proved very different from what the Protector anticipated.[100]
The first meeting was chiefly concerned with the legal problem. After the proposals of Menasseh ben Israel had been read, Cromwell himself laid down the programme of the proceedings in two questions.
(1) Whether it be lawful to receive the Jews?
(2) If it be lawful, then upon what terms is it meet to receive them?[101]
The first question was purely technical, and only the lawyers were competent to pronounce an opinion on it. Accordingly, the two Judges present, Glynne and Steele, were called upon to speak. After an elaborate review of the status of the Jews in the pre-expulsion period, and the circumstances under which they were banished in 1290, both expressed the opinion that “there was no law which forbad the Jews’ return into England.”[102] The grounds of this decision are nowhere stated. It was probably based on the fact that the banishment in 1290 was an exercise of the royal prerogative in regard to the personal “chattels” of the King and not an Act of Parliament, and that the force of the decree expired with the death of Edward I. At any rate, Cromwell had gained his first point,[103] and he joyfully adjourned the Conference to the following Friday, adjuring the divines meanwhile to ponder well the second question.[104]
What happened at the two following meetings, which were held on the 7th and 12th December,[105] we do not know in detail. The records of the time only afford us scanty glimpses of the opinions expressed, without any indication of the days on which they were respectively uttered. It is clear, however, that the feeling of the clergy turned out to be on the whole unfavourable to Menasseh’s petition. The calumnies of the pamphleteers had done their work. The idea of public religious services at which Christ might be blasphemed stayed the hands of the most tolerant. Others feared that unrestricted liberty of Jewish worship would create in the Synagogue a nucleus round which the Judaical sectaries would rally. Dr. Newcomen drew a harrowing picture of English converts to Judaism joining the immigrants in offering children to Moloch.[106] The moderate majority, impressed, probably, by a weighty and elaborate opinion drawn up by Dr. Barlow, librarian of the Bodleian, and presented to the Conference by Dr. Goodwin,[107] were strongly in favour of an admission under severe restrictions. Even the level-headed Nye, who was ready to tolerate all religious follies so long as they were peaceable, asked for “due cautions warranted by Holy Scripture.”[108] It was in vain that Lawrence and Lambert, supported by the learned commentator Caryll, combated these opinions.[109]
On the eve of the third meeting Cromwell sought to strengthen the Judeophils by adding to the Conference Hugh Peters, the oldest of the advocates of unrestricted Readmission, together with his favourite chaplain, Peter Sterry, and Mr. Bulkeley, the Provost of Eton.[110] This, however, did not improve matters, for Peters had meanwhile heard something of the Marranos in London and their papistical dissimulation of their religion, and he vigorously denounced the Jews as “a self-seeking generation” who “made but little conscience of their own principles.”[111] This discourse seems to have produced a considerable impression on the Conference, for Thurloe, writing to Henry Cromwell on the 17th, expressed the shrewd opinion that “nothing will be done.”[112]
So far, however, the essential point for which Cromwell had been striving had not been jeopardised. He was desirous of securing the admission of the Jews on liberal terms, but at a pinch he would no doubt have agreed to religious and civil restrictions, provided the commercial activity of the immigrants was not unduly fettered. Hence the terms favoured by the majority of the clergy did not trouble him very seriously.
At the final meeting, which was held on the 18th December,[113] the commercial question was broached. On this occasion the doors of the Council Chamber were, for some sinister reason, thrown open to the public,[114] and an excited crowd, armed with copies of Prynne’s newly published tract on the Jewish question,[115] collected to hear the debate. The proceedings were tempestuous from the beginning, and gradually they took the form of a vehement demonstration against the Jews. Merchant after merchant rose and violently protested against any concessions, declaring that the Hebrews were a mean and vicious people, and that their admission would enrich foreigners and impoverish the natives.[116] Even strangers took part in these tirades, and a Mr. Lloyd, who was not a member of the Conference, distinguished himself by a “fierce” harangue.[117] The climax was reached when Sir Christopher Pack, the most eminent citizen of his day, and a devoted adherent of the Protector, ranged himself with the opponents of Menasseh, in an address which is said to have been the most impressive delivered during the whole course of the Conference.[118]
The advocates of out-and-out exclusion were, however, as little likely to carry the day as the champions of unrestricted admission, for the majority of the members of the Conference were divines who were anxious that the Jews should be converted, and for that reason desired that they should be somehow or other brought into the country. Moreover, since the decision of the Judges, the question was no longer whether exclusion should be persisted in, but only on what terms admission should be sanctioned. This was probably pointed out to the merchants, and an attempt to arrive at a compromise was made. After some private confabulations, Henry Jessey rose to announce the terms that had been agreed upon. The appearance of Jessey, the profound Rabbinical student, the friend of Menasseh, and one of the veterans of the Readmission cause, seemed to betoken a Jewish victory. What must have been the astonishment of his friends when he stated, with naïve satisfaction, that the basis of the compromise was that the Jews should only be admitted to decayed ports and towns, and that they should pay double customs duties on their imports and exports![119]
Cromwell now saw his whole scheme crumbling to pieces. That, if put to the vote, Jessey’s compromise would be adopted by an overwhelming majority was patent to everybody. In that case not only would the commercial design which Cromwell had at heart be defeated, but the Marranos in London, who had served him so well, would be practically banished. At all hazards a vote had to be prevented.[120] Cromwell acted with characteristic promptness and audacity. Rising from the chair of state, he addressed the Assembly. Ingeniously ignoring the proposed compromise, he began his speech with a review of the differences of opinion revealed by the various speakers. They were, he scornfully declared, a babel of discordances. He had hoped that the Preachers would have given him some clear and practical advice, but they had only multiplied his doubts. Protesting that he had no engagements to the Jews but what the Scriptures held forth, he insisted that “since there was a promise of their conversion, means must be used to that end, which was the preaching of the Gospel, and that could not be done unless they were permitted to dwell where the Gospel was preached.” Then, turning to the merchants, he harped sarcastically on the accusations they had brought against the Jews. “You say they are the meanest and most despised of all people. So be it. But in that case what becomes of your fears? Can you really be afraid that this contemptible and despised people should be able to prevail in trade and credit over the merchants of England, the noblest and most esteemed merchants of the whole world?” It was clear, he added sharply, 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 he should do nothing foolishly or rashly, and he asked now only that the Conference would give him the benefit of their prayers, so that he might be directed to act for the glory of God and the good of the nation.[121] So saying, he vacated the chair in token that the proceedings were at an end.
The speech was a fighting speech, delivered with great animation, and is said to have been one of the best Cromwell ever made.[122] It achieved its object, for the Conference broke up without a word of protest, and the crowds dispersed in cowed silence. Cromwell left the Council Chamber in a towering passion, and it was some days before he recovered his equanimity.[123]
The battle was, however, not yet over. Cromwell had dismissed the Conference, but the Committee of the Council of State had yet to report. It could not well, in sober writing, take the view of the Protector’s strategic speech, nor could it ignore the instruction of the Council to which it owed its existence. Accordingly it set itself to the drafting of a report which should express the obvious views of the Conference without conflicting too violently with Cromwell’s equally obvious design. The report accepted the view of the Judges that there was no law against the Readmission, and then proceeded to set forth under six heads the views urged by the Conference, including the view of the merchants, that “great prejudice is likely to arise to the natives of this Commonwealth in matters of trade.” Finally, it laid down seven conditions, apparently borrowed from Barlow’s opinion,[124] by which the Readmission should be governed. The Jews should have no autonomous jurisdiction; they should be forbidden from blaspheming Christ; they should not profane the Christian Sabbath; they should have no Christian servants; they should be ineligible for public office; they should print nothing against Christianity, and they should not discourage those who might attempt to convert them, while the making of converts by them should be prohibited. No restriction on their trading was suggested.[125]
What became of this document is not clear. A clean copy of it, undated and unendorsed, is preserved in the State Papers, but there is no reference to it in the Order Book of the Council of State.[126] And yet it is certain that the Committee presented it to the Council, for the Conference was only a means of enlightening the Committee, and the Council still looked to it for advice. It is probable that it was never formally accepted by the Council. When it was in due course brought up, Cromwell most likely objected to its presentation. After his experience of the Conference, it was clear to him that whatever was done would have to be done more or less unofficially. The acceptance of the report would have involved legislation, in which case the proceedings of the Conference would have been repeated in a form far more difficult to control, and perhaps impossible to defeat. Gratified by the omission of trade restrictions from the report, and feeling the necessity of retaining the support of the Council in the further steps he might take, the Protector probably assured them that he was in agreement with them on most points, and that he would do nothing unwarranted by the views they had expressed. At the same time he doubtless pointed out that many other important questions claimed the attention of Parliament, and that it would be well if men’s minds were not further disturbed by the Jewish question. Accordingly he advised that the report should be ignored and the matter allowed to drop.[127]
Here the question rested at the end of 1655. The result was not encouraging, but at any rate one important point had been gained. The prevailing idea that the incoming of Jews and their sojourn in the land were illegal had been completely and finally shattered. This was the thin end of the wedge, and it had been so securely driven in, that John Evelyn entered in his Diary under date of December 14th: “Now were the Jews admitted.”[128]
V. Cromwell’s Action
Had the Diarist waited until the close of the Whitehall Conferences he would probably have modified his opinion. Although the technical question of the right of incoming had been decided, the cause of the Readmission had not been materially advanced. The universal demand for restrictions rendered it impossible for the Jews to avail themselves of their legal right without an assurance of protection from the Government. As late as the following April no complete settlement on this point had been reached, for in the passage from the Vindiciæ already quoted, Menasseh wrote on the 10th of that month, “As yet we have had no finall determination from his most Serene Highnesse.”[129]
What happened after the Conferences is somewhat obscure, owing to the reticence of the public records on the Jewish question. It is certain, however, that before Cromwell’s death a favourable decision was arrived at, and that an organised Jewish community came into the light of day in London, protected by definite rights of residence, worship, and trade. This is proved by the petitions for the re-expulsion of the Jews presented to Charles II. on his arrival in London in 1660, and especially by a statement in a petition of the Lord Mayor and Aldermen of the City of London, that “in that grand Complicacon of mischeifs brought on yor Maties good subjects by ye corrupt interest of the late usurper ye admission of Jews to a free cohabition and trade in these dominions was found to be a most heavy pressure on yor Peticonrs.”[130]
How had this free settlement been brought about? It is not altogether impossible to reconstruct the story, although the materials are scanty and vague.
Cromwell’s parting speech to the Whitehall Assembly, and the continued residence of Menasseh in London, must have excited apprehension among the extreme Judeophobes. The decision of the Judges and the Protector’s threat that he and the Council would take their own course rendered a formal proclamation of Readmission by no means improbable. On the other hand, the great bulk of the nation had shown itself unfavourable to the scheme, and there was just a chance that this might stay Cromwell’s hand. This popular ill-feeling the anti-Semitic pamphleteers now set themselves to inflame. It was probably hoped by this means, if not to intimidate the Protector, at any rate to strengthen the Council in their resistance to his original programme.
The new year had scarcely dawned when the indefatigable pen of Prynne was again at work on an enlarged edition of his “Demurrer.” In this work he especially devoted himself to the legal question, amplifying by some twenty pages his argument that the expulsion by Edward I. remained valid, and could only be reversed by an Act of Parliament. In February he published Part II. of the “Demurrer,” containing a further instalment of documents relating to the history of the Jews in England in the twelfth and thirteenth centuries. The object of this work, which is a monument of research, and which until a generation ago was the chief printed source of our knowledge of the mediæval history of the English Jews, was to show that the Jews had never lived in England except under severe disabilities, and that they were a people of phenomenal viciousness, clippers of coin, crucifiers of children, and the blaspheming devotees of a ghastly blood cultus. Less learned, but not less virulent, was Alexander Ross, whose calumnious “View of the Jewish Religion” was published about the same time. Several anonymous pamphleteers followed suit. The campaign does not seem to have excited much agitation, but it probably had the effect of deciding Cromwell not to attempt a public solution of the question in the sense of his own private wishes and of Menasseh’s petition.
All that was urgent he had, indeed, already done. Shortly after the termination of the Whitehall Conferences he had verbally assured the London Marranos of his personal protection, and had given them permission to celebrate divine worship after the Jewish fashion, on condition that the services were held in private houses.[131] These favours were conveyed through John Sadler, no doubt in order to avoid any further apprehensions of a reopening of the Jewish question that might be aroused by granting an audience to Menasseh. The restriction in regard to the privacy of the services shows that Cromwell had definitely resolved to adhere to his compromise with the Council and to respect the spirit of their report. Legally the Jews were entitled to celebrate divine worship in public, for, by the repeal of the Recusancy Acts by the Long Parliament in 1650, the practice of every kind of religious duty, “either of prayer, preaching, reading or expounding the Scriptures,” had been legalised, the celebration of mass being alone excepted.[132] It would, however, have been dangerous for the Jews to claim this right, and Cromwell no doubt pointed out to them that, in that case, it would be necessary to apply to Parliament for legislation, which could only have taken the form of enacting the oppressive recommendations of the Whitehall Conferences. Under these circumstances the Marranos could not but acquiesce. That their desire for synagogue services was entirely due to their Jewish piety, or was animated by a craving for martyrdom, is, moreover, very unlikely. The outbreak of war with Spain had rendered it impossible for them to continue, in their guise of Nuevos Cristianos, to attend the services in the Spanish Ambassador’s chapel, and as they were bound by the Act of 1650 to resort to some place “where the service or worship of God is exercised,” they were confronted by the necessity of either posing as pseudo-Protestants or frankly practising Judaism. The former course was out of the question, especially after Hugh Peters’s condemnation of their hypocrisy at Whitehall. Hence their request to be permitted to worship as Jews. By Cromwell’s acquiescence in this request and his promise of protection a secret beginning in the way of Readmission had been informally accomplished.
This arrangement was, however, not destined to endure. It was an evasion of the will of the Whitehall Conferences—an attempt, as Graetz has well said, to readmit the Jews “nicht durch das grosse Portal sondern durch eine Hinterthür.”[133] It was condemned to failure, too, because its secret could not be kept. Even before the end of 1655 Cromwell’s intentions were known. In a scrap of a Royalist letter of intelligence, dated December 31, and preserved in the State Papers, the writer says, “The Jews, we hear, will be admitted by way of connivancy, though the generality oppose.”[134] The secret arrangement with regard to divine worship was also soon bruited abroad. In a despatch dated January 28, 1656, Salvetti, the diplomatic agent of the Grand Duke of Tuscany, informed his master that “the affair of the Jews continues in the state I have already described; meanwhile they may meet privately in their houses, but they have not yet established a synagogue.”[135] In a later despatch (February 4) he confirms this information and amplifies it. “It is thought,” he writes, “that the Protector will not make any declaration in their favour, but tacitly he will connive at their holding private conventicles, which they already do, in their houses in order to avoid public scandal.”[136]
From the Royalist spies and the diplomatists the news was quickly conveyed to the anti-Semites in the City. Although the dangers of a Jewish immigration en masse and the scandal of a public synagogue had been averted, the enemies of the Jews—especially their competitors in trade—were not inclined to acquiesce without a struggle in the tacit toleration of even a small community of Hebrew merchants. But what could be done? As Jews the position of the intruders was legal, and any attempt to persecute them in that capacity would probably be resented in a disagreeable fashion by the masterful Protector. Moreover, as the most serious evils of the Jewish problem had been provided against, and the public mind was preoccupied with the war with Spain, it might be difficult to enlist a large measure of support in an agitation against the strangers. An opportunity for showing their teeth soon presented itself to the City merchants, and they were not slow to avail themselves of it.
Early in March 1656 a proclamation was issued by the Privy Council declaring all Spanish monies, merchandise, and shipping to be lawful prize. The ink of this document was scarcely dry—indeed it had not been formally published—when, on the denunciation of an informer, the house of Don Antonio Rodrigues Robles, a wealthy Spanish merchant and Marrano of Duke’s Place, City, was entered by bailiffs armed with a Privy Council warrant instructing them to “seize, secure, and keep under safe custody all the goods and papers therein found.” On the same day the Commissioners of Customs, acting under a similar warrant, took possession of two ships in the Thames, the Two Brothers and the Tobias, which were believed to be Robles’s property.[137] On the face of it, this action seemed to have no connection with the Jewish question. The fact that the information on which the warrants were based was presented to the Council by so staunch a friend of the Jews as Thurloe suffices to show that its Jewish bearing was at first quite unsuspected. It was apparently the private enterprise of a perfidious scrivener named Francis Knevett, who, after obtaining the confidence of several members of the Marrano community in his professional capacity, had discovered that under the new proclamation he might betray them with advantage to himself.[138] This seems also to have been the view of Robles, for in a petition he immediately addressed to the Protector he disputed the validity of the seizures on the purely legal ground that he was a Portuguese and not a Spaniard, and that his rights as a Merchant Stranger, which were consequently unaffected by the war with Spain, had been unjustly invaded.[139] On this point the Council, to whom the petition was referred, ordered an inquiry, and one of its members, Colonel Jones, was deputed to take evidence.
Meanwhile some suspicion that the case was aimed at the newly acquired privileges of the Marranos seems to have got abroad. Many of the Jews in London were of Spanish birth, and others, though natives of Portugal, were probably endenizened Spaniards, since in their guise of Nuevos Cristianos they had held high office under the King of Spain.[140] It was clear, then, that if the case against Robles was established other prosecutions would follow, and in that way the small Jewish community would be broken up. The danger was all the greater since the protection and privileges so recently acquired by the Jews had only been granted verbally, and might easily be repudiated if public opinion proved too strong for the Protector. There was, however, no immediate reason why the leading Marranos, who had hitherto been in negotiation with Cromwell, should take up Robles’s cudgels, for he belonged to a party in the Synagogue which had imbibed strong Royalist sympathies in Holland and France, and which, consequently, had kept itself aloof from Menasseh’s Readmission campaign. They accordingly confined themselves to the presentation of a petition to the Protector, in which they asked that the “favours and protection” accorded to them, including the right of worship, might be confirmed in writing. At the same time they prayed for a license to acquire ground for a Jewish cemetery. This document was signed by Menasseh ben Israel, Antonio Fernandez Carvajal, and five other Marranos, but Robles was not among its signatories.[141]
Cromwell at once referred this petition to the Council, but the Lord President, apparently recognising that the Jewish question was coming up in a new form, held it back until the Robles case had been dealt with.[142] The fact that Robles was a Jew had, indeed, already been ascertained, and the belief that the prosecution was aimed at all his co-religionists was gaining ground owing to a new outburst of activity on the part of the anti-Semites. The anxiety of the Marranos at the shelving of their petition became accentuated by this agitation, and especially by the doubts which it seemed to be producing in the minds of some of their best friends. The wavering feeling in high places was made disagreeably manifest to them by a letter addressed to Menasseh ben Israel by John Sadler, in which that friend of the Jews pointed out that the charges of ritual murder and quasi idolatry preferred by Prynne and Ross were being widely discussed, and that a public answer to them was urgently necessary.[143] Before Menasseh’s reply was written Colonel Jones presented an interim report to the Council, from which it appeared inter alia that Knevett had filed a further information denouncing other Marranos as Spanish subjects.[144]
It was now no longer possible to ignore the existence of an anti-Jewish conspiracy. The first action of the Jews was to hurry forward the publication of Menasseh’s reply to Prynne and Ross. This took the form of the famous Vindiciæ Judæorum—the third tract printed in the present volume. It was described merely as “A Letter in Answer to certain Questions propounded by a Noble and Learned Gentleman touching the reproaches cast on the Nation of the Jewes.” The date of its appearance, however, fixes its relation to the Robles crisis, for it was published ten days after Colonel Jones’s report, while the seriousness of that crisis is strikingly illustrated by the urgent and earnest tone of the pamphlet. Menasseh evidently felt that not only his own grandiose idea of a new asylum for Israel was at stake, but that even the small progress that had been achieved towards that end was threatened by a more rigid exclusion of the Hebrew nation. He threw his whole soul into this fresh vindication of his people and their claims. Nothing, indeed, that had come from his facile pen had been more dignified, more impressive, more convincing. The vanity, the superficiality, the pretentious mysticism of his former works had gone. He was no longer playing a part even to himself. He was merely the champion of his people in a moment of their sore trial, writing from a heart whose every throb was for their welfare and their honour. The simple eloquence of this essay, its naïve garrulousness, the glimpses it yields of a pious, gentle, self-denying character, made it one of the most effective vindications of the Jews ever written. The best tribute to its value is afforded by the fact that it has since been frequently reprinted in all parts of Europe when the calumnies it denounced have been revived.
The Vindiciæ Judæorum was a fitting prelude to the dénouement that followed. With this certificate in their hands the Marranos felt that they might risk claiming their legal rights as Jews, and thus at once repudiate their Spanish nationality and challenge a settlement of their status in the country. The decision was a bold one, but there was shrewd method in its apparent rashness. If the Marranos were technically Spanish subjects, they were in reality testimonies to the intolerance of Spain which made that country, in Cromwell’s words, “the natural, the providential enemy of England,”[145] and which was one of the grounds of the war. Like the Protestant traders whose liberty of conscience had been trampled on in Spain they also had been persecuted, though in a worse form. They were fugitives from the Inquisition, and consequently had a peculiar claim on the indulgence and consistency of the English people, who at that moment were filled with righteous horror at the religious policy of the “Popish enemy.”
In pursuance of this idea Robles now addressed a fresh petition to the Protector, which reached the Council of State on the 15th April,[146] five days after the publication of the Vindiciæ. In this document the purely legal question of nationality was dropped, and Robles confined himself to reciting how he and his kindred had been persecuted by the Inquisition in Portugal and Spain, how his father had died under torture, how his mother had been crippled for life, and other members of his family burnt or sent to the galleys because they were Jews. He related that he had sought refuge in England, “intending therein to shelter himselfe from those tiranicall Proceedings and injoy those Beneffitts and Kindnesse which this Com̄onwth ever aforded to aflicted strangers.” He appealed to Cromwell’s notorious sympathy for “afflicted ones,” and especially “owr nation the Jews,” and skilfully suggested that a continuance of his prosecution would be tantamount to the introduction of the Inquisition into England. A week later affidavits confirming the statements in this petition were signed by all the leading Marranos and handed to Colonel Jones.[147] Thus the Crypto-Jews threw off their disguise. In the investigations which followed, the existence of over twenty Jewish families in London was revealed, and it was given in evidence that many of them had resided for years in the country.
These tactics produced dismay in the ranks of the anti-Semites. Knevett made a last despairing effort to construct a fresh case against the Jews by trying to bribe Robles’s servants to assist him in framing a new information. In this he failed.[148] The case was now quickly disposed of. On April 25th the Council of State, still anxious to avoid responsibility for a decision, sent all the papers to the Admiralty Commissioners, with a request for a prompt report. On May 11th the Commissioners summoned the witnesses before them, but extracted little else from them than that Robles was believed to be Portuguese, and that they were all victims of the Inquisition. On May 14th the Commissioners reported that they were unable to give a definite opinion on the question of nationality. Two days later the Council screwed up their courage to a decision, and, without giving any reasons, ordered all the warrants to be discharged, and reinstated Robles in the possession of his goods, premises, and ships.[149]
The Jewish battle was won, and nothing now remained but to secure the fruits of victory in an inexpugnable form. What followed is, in detail, a matter of conjecture, but the broad lines of the settlement we know from the petition of the Corporation of the City of London, already quoted. Rights of “cohabitation and trade in these dominions” were formally accorded to the Jews in writing.[150] That this happened before the end of 1656 we may gather from a statement of Cromwell’s intimate friend, Samuel Richardson, who, in his “Plain Dealing,” published in that year, says of the Protector, “He hath owned the poor despised people of God, and advanced many of them to a better way and means of living.”[151] The first steps were probably taken on the 26th June, when the longdeferred petition of the Marranos for a license to acquire a burial-ground and for a confirmation in writing of their rights of residence and worship came up for consideration.[152] The Council, still reluctant to engage their responsibility, made no entry of the discussion in their Order Book, and it was probably arranged that Cromwell should personally confirm the Jewish right of residence, subject to an understanding that the spirit of the recommendations presented to the Council after the Whitehall Conferences should be observed. The right to acquire a cemetery was certainly granted. Cromwell probably further engaged himself to instruct the London city authorities to place no impediments in the way of the Jews trading on an equality with other citizens.[153] On their side, the Marranos must have agreed not to assist in an indiscriminate immigration of their co-religionists, not to obtrude their worship and ceremonies on the public, not to engage in religious controversy, and not to make converts.[154] The restriction with regard to worshipping in private houses was also probably revised, and the maintenance of a synagogue, subject to the other conditions, sanctioned.[155] In February 1657 Antonio de Carvajal and another leading Marrano, Simon de Caceres, signed the lease for a Jewish cemetery in Mile End.[156] Shortly afterwards another result of the settlement was made public. Solomon Dormido, a son of David Abarbanel Dormido and nephew of Menasseh ben Israel, was admitted to the Royal Exchange as a duly licensed broker of the City of London, the authorities waiving in his favour the Christological oath essential to the induction of all brokers.[157] As wholesale trading in the City was transacted exclusively through brokers, the admission of a Jew to that limited fraternity is a substantial proof of the acquisition of untrammelled trading rights by the new community.
The victory, it will be observed, secured to the local Marranos all they required, and in a measure realised the aims of Cromwell’s own policy. To Menasseh ben Israel, however, it was no victory: it was a compromise of a purely selfish nature, which left his idea of a proclamation of a free asylum to the persecuted and scattered remnants of Israel as remote as ever. We may be certain that he did not hide his grief or his indignation. There is indeed abundant reason for believing that he quarrelled over it with the new Jewish community. His hopes of returning to his old position in Amsterdam were shattered, for the Dutch Jews, who had always shared the Stuart sympathies of their Christian compatriots, had formally abandoned him when they found they had nothing to gain from his mission, and had opened negotiations on their own behalf with the exiled king at Bruges.[158] He might, perhaps, have secured his future by becoming Rabbi of the London community had he been content to abide by the terms of the new settlement. This, however, he sturdily refused, and although he was deserted by all his friends, and his monetary resources were exhausted, he continued from his lodging in the Strand to urge on Cromwell the issue of the proclamation on which he had set his heart.
That he must have quarrelled with the London Marranos immediately after the settlement is shown by a letter he addressed to Cromwell towards the end of 1656, in which he asked for pecuniary help, and stated that he (the Protector) was “the alone succourer of my life in this land of strangers.”[159] Cromwell responded with a gift of £25, and in the following March granted him a pension of £100 a year, dating from February, and payable quarterly.[160] Unfortunately this pension was never paid, and Menasseh became overwhelmed with cares.[161] Nevertheless, for six months longer he doggedly pursued his mission. In September 1657 his only surviving son, Samuel ben Israel, who had remained with him in England, died.[162] Then his spirit broke. Begging a few pounds from the Protector[163] he turned his steps homewards, carrying with him the corpse of his son.
A broken and beggared man he met his family at Middelburg, in Zeeland. He was now bent with premature age. The comely, good-tempered face, with its quizzing eyes and dandyish moustache, so familiar to us in Rembrandt’s etching, had become hollow-cheeked and hollow-eyed. From the crow’s-feet under the temples the whiskers had grown wildly until they formed a white patriarchal beard.[164] It was the wintering touch of the hand of death. Two months later Menasseh died of a broken heart at the house of his brother-in-law, Ephraim Abarbanel, in the fifty-third year of his age.[165]
VI. The Real “Vindiciæ”
One more question remains to be elucidated. How did the seemingly precarious settlement of the London Jews manage to survive the wreck of the Commonwealth?
Both Menasseh and Cromwell had builded more solidly than they knew. If the solution of the Jewish question arrived at towards the end of 1656 was not wholly satisfactory, it was precisely in that fact that its real strength lay. Experimental compromise is the law of English political progress. From the strife of wills represented in its extremer forms by Cromwell’s lofty conception of religious liberty on the one hand, and by the intolerance of the sectaries on the other, had emerged a compromise which conformed to this law, and which consequently made the final solution of the question an integral part of English political evolution. The great merit of the settlement was that while it disturbed little, it gave the Jews a future in the country on the condition that they were fitted to possess it.
The fact that in its initial stage it disturbed so little rendered it easy for Charles II. to connive at it. Had Menasseh ben Israel’s idea been realised in its entirety, the task of the restored Monarchy would have been more difficult. London would have been overrun by destitute Polish and Bohemian Jews driven westward by persecution, some fanaticised by their sufferings, others plying the parasitic trades into which commercial and industrial disabilities had driven the denizens of the Central European Jewries.[166] Many of them would have become identified with the wild Judaical sectaries who were the bitterest enemies of the Stuarts, while the others would have given new life to the tradition of Jewish usury, which for nearly four hundred years had been only an historical reminiscence in the country. Under these circumstances, we can well conceive that a re-expulsion of the Jews might have been one of the first tasks of the Restoration.
From this calamity England and the Jews were saved by the restricted character of the compromise of 1656. When the Commonwealth fell to pieces the Jewish community of London consisted only of some forty or fifty families of wealthy and enterprising merchants, scarcely distinguishable in their bearing and mode of life from the best kinds of merchant-strangers hailing from Amsterdam, Bordeaux, Lisbon, Cadiz, and Leghorn.
Nevertheless, efforts to procure their expulsion were not wanting. Royalists who recognised in them a relic of the hated Commonwealth, merchants whose restricted economic science resented their activity and success, and informers who imagined that their toleration was a violation of English law, set to work early to denounce them. These manœuvres began, indeed, as soon as the breath was out of Cromwell’s body. Only a few weeks after the Protector’s death a petition was presented to Richard Cromwell demanding the expulsion of the Jews and the confiscation of their property.[167] At the same time, Thomas Violet, the notorious informer and pamphleteer, made a collection of documents bearing on the illegality of the Jewish settlement, which he submitted to Mr. Justice Tyril, together with an application that the law should be set in motion against the intrusive community. The worthy Justice shrewdly suggested to Mr. Violet that in the then confused political situation he would do well to take no action. It would, he opined, be only prudent to await the establishment of a stable Government before moving in so serious a matter.
A few months later Charles II. re-entered London, and the Commonwealth was at an end. Naturally, everybody looked to the new régime to redress the particular grievance or grievances he harboured against “the late execrable Usurper,” and the anti-Jewish party was particularly prompt in its representations under this head. Scarcely had Charles arrived in the Metropolis when the Lord Mayor and Aldermen of the City of London presented to him a humble petition, bitterly complaining of the action of Cromwell in permitting the Jews to re-enter the land, and asking the King “to cause the former laws made against the Jews to be put in 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 should be found most agreeable to the benefits of religion, the honour of your Majesty, and the good and welfare of your subjects.”[168] The long pent-up wrath of the City found full expression in this petition, which must be read in its entirety to be appreciated. Thomas Violet followed with another petition, which was equally violent.[169] He declared that by law it was a felony for any Jew to be found in England. He did not, however, propose their expulsion, as he did not think that would be the best way of turning them to profitable account. His suggestion was in the first place that all their estates and properties should be confiscated, and then that they should be cast into prison and kept there until ransomed by their wealthy brethren abroad. A third petition, dated November 30, 1660, is preserved among the Domestic State Papers, but the names of the authors are not given. It runs very much on the lines of the City petition, but it admits the hypothesis of Jews residing in England under license, provided they were heavily taxed.[170]
No direct reply to any of these petitions is recorded. The views of the new Government are, however, no mystery. In the first place, there was no real Jewish question in the country, inasmuch as the Jews were very few, their character was above reproach, and the practice of their religion was conducted with so much tact and prudence that it was impossible in sober truth to be moved by Violet’s impassioned complaint of “a great dishonour of Christianity and public scandal of the true Protestant religion.”[171] Consequently the Government were free to consider the question exclusively from the point of view of secular politics. Once regarded in this light the conclusion could not be long in doubt. Cromwell’s maritime and commercial policy had been adopted by the statesmen of the Restoration, and the success of this policy—represented by the re-enacted Navigation Act—depended to no inconsiderable extent on toleration of the Jews.
Moreover, Charles was under personal obligations to the Jews, and had assured them of his protection even before he came by his own. The Jews of Amsterdam, and some of the wealthier Jews in London, had assisted him during his exile, especially the great family of Mendez da Costa and Augustin Coronel, the agent for Portugal and a personal friend of Monk.[172] Shortly after the mission of Menasseh ben Israel to Cromwell these Jews had approached Charles II. at Bruges and had assured him that they had neither assisted nor approved the Rabbi’s negotiations. Thereupon General Middleton had been instructed to treat with them for their support to the Royalist cause, and Charles had promised that “they shall find when God shall restore his Majesty that he would extend that protection to them which they could reasonably expect, and abate that rigour of the law which was against them in his several dominions.”[173] That these negotiations were not without practical result is beyond question, for the Da Costas and Coronels, as well as several other Jewish families, were exceedingly active on Charles’s behalf during the last few years of the Commonwealth.
It must not be imagined that this Royalist activity represented any double-dealing on the part of the Jews. Those who, like Carvajal and De Caceres, had fled direct from the Inquisition to England, were faithful to Cromwell to the end. The Royalist Jews were men who had acquired their Cavalier sympathies in France and Holland, and shared them with their Christian fellow-citizens in those countries. None of them were parties to the negotiations with Cromwell in 1655–56, and none had ever affected Puritan sympathies. They probably had conscientious objections to Republicanism, for they were of the aristocratic Sephardi branch of Israel, with some of the bluest blood of Spain in their veins and immense wealth in their strong-boxes. Their dissent from their Puritan brethren was an early illustration of the falsity of the hypothesis of Jewish political solidarity, which is to this day a cherished delusion of the anti-Semites.
Charles II. did not confine himself to ignoring the anti-Semitic petitions. Having made up his mind that the Jews should be protected, he sought, like Cromwell, to throw the responsibility for his decision on the Constitutional Government. Before the end of 1660 an Order of the Lords in Council was sent to the House of Commons, recommending that measures should be taken for the protection of the Jews.[174] There is no record of any such measures having been adopted. It was probably felt that the most convenient course to pursue was to continue the policy of personal connivance inaugurated by Cromwell, as by that means men’s minds would be least disturbed, and an experiment which was likely to produce good results would not be hampered. Moreover, should the experiment fail, it would be all the easier to deal with it if it had not received any legislative sanction.
Accordingly, the Jews passed from the personal protection of Cromwell to that of Charles. In 1664, when an attempt was made by the Earl of Berkshire and Mr. Ricaut to obtain their expulsion, the King in Council disavowed the scheme, and assured the Jews “that they may promise themselves the effects of the same favour as formerly they have had so long as they demean themselves peaceably and quietly with due obedience to his Majesty’s laws and without scandal to his Government.[175]” A similar course was taken by the Privy Council in 1673 and 1685, when attempts were made by informers to prosecute the Jews for the exercise of their religion.[176] Finally the King marked his personal gratitude to the Jews by knighting Coronel soon after the Restoration, and by a generous distribution of patents of denization among the members of the Synagogue.[177]
Thus the Cromwellian settlement was confirmed, and the path was definitely opened by which the Jews might win their way to the citizenship of the United Kingdom.
How that path was successfully trodden is a story which cannot be told in detail here. Its main feature, however, must be briefly referred to, for it supplies the justification for the campaign which Menasseh ben Israel and Oliver Cromwell waged so gallantly on behalf of the Hebrew people in the first half of the seventeenth century.
The Jews won their way to English citizenship not because they remained the servi cameræ, which had been their status under the Norman and Angevin kings, and which they had practically resumed under the Protectorate and the Restoration, but because they literally realised the portraiture of the Hebrew citizen which Menasseh ben Israel vainly placed before the British nation in 1655 in his tract, De Fidelitate et utilitate Judaicæ Gentis. In this way they gradually substituted for the personal protection of the Crown the sympathy and confidence of the nation.
Their old enemies in the City of London were their first converts. The wealth they brought into the country, and their fruitful commercial activity, especially in the colonial trade, soon revealed them as an indispensable element of the prosperity of the City.[178] As early as 1668 Sir Josiah Child, the millionaire governor of the East India Company, pleaded for their naturalisation on the score of their commercial utility.[179] For the same reason the City found itself compelled at first to connive at their illegal representation on ’Change, and then to violate its own rules by permitting them to act as brokers without previously taking up the Freedom.[180] At this period they controlled more of the foreign and colonial trade than all the other alien merchants in London put together. The momentum of their commercial enterprise and stalwart patriotism proved irresistible. From the Exchange to the City Council Chamber, thence to the Aldermanic Court, and eventually to the Mayoralty itself, were inevitable stages of an emancipation to which their large interests in the City and their high character entitled them. Finally the City of London—not only as the converted champion of religious liberty but as the convinced apologist of the Jews—sent Baron Lionel de Rothschild to knock at the doors of the unconverted House of Commons as parliamentary representative of the first city in the world.
Jewish emancipation in England was, in short, the work of the English democracy—almost of the same democracy which in the thirteenth century had spued the Hebrews forth, when their kingly protectors had made their residence in the land conditional on their acting as the usurious instruments of the Royal Exchequer, and which in the seventeenth had resented their readmission under the influence of deeply rooted prejudices, inherited from that dark age. It was no mere homage to the abstract principle of Religious Liberty like the emancipations on the Continent which, in the name of the Rights of Man, suddenly called forth the oppressed Jews from their Ghettos and bade them take up a new life, from which they were sundered by centuries of mediæval seclusion. Religious Liberty in England broadened on more cautious lines. Dissenters, Roman Catholics, and Jews have each been taken into the bosom of the nation by separate legislative action, and as the result of practical demonstrations of the futility, nay, the disadvantage, of their exclusion. The gradual emancipation of the English Jews, first socially and then in the municipalities, enabled them to show that their civic qualities entitled them to the fullest rights of citizenship; and it was the realisation of this fact—not by statesmen or philosophers, but by their neighbours and fellow-citizens themselves—that eventually gave them the position they now enjoy.
The story of Jewish emancipation in England is the true Vindiciæ Judæorum—the avenging of Menasseh’s broken heart and the vindication of his touching trust in his people. It is something more. It is one of many justifications of that fine conception of statecraft, deeply rooted in infinite sympathy with human freedom, which is the secret of Britain’s greatness, and of which Oliver Cromwell must ever be regarded as the typical exponent in English history.
VII. Documents
The following is a selection of the documents referred to in the foregoing narrative. They have been selected chiefly on account of their personal bearing on Menasseh’s efforts:—
1. Fragment of a letter from Menasseh ben Israel to an unknown correspondent in London (Harl. Miscel., vol. vii. p. 623). The original was probably in French or Latin:—