Part 26
_Trans. Jew. Hist. Soc._, vol. i. pp. 73–74; vol. ii. pp. 17–18; Wolf, “Jewish Emancipation in the City” (_Jewish Chronicle_, Nov. 30, 1894); Graetz, _Geschichte_, vol. x. p. 19.
Footnote 48:
Wolf, “Cromwell’s Jewish Intelligencers” (Lond., 1891).
Footnote 49:
S. R. Gardiner in the _Academy_, March 4, 1882.
Footnote 50:
_Vindiciæ Judæorum_, p. 5; _infra_, p. 111; “Humble Addresses,” _infra_, p. 77.
Footnote 51:
Cal. State Papers, Dom. (1651), p. 472.
Footnote 52:
Cal. State Papers, Dom. (1651–52), p. 577; (1652–53), p. 38.
Footnote 53:
Thurloe State Papers, vol. i. p. 387; Clarendon State Papers, vol. ii. p. 233.
Footnote 54:
_Supra_, p. xvii.
Footnote 55:
Wolf, “Resettlement of the Jews in England” (1888), p. 9.
Footnote 56:
For text of these petitions see _Trans. Jew. Hist. Soc._, vol. iii. pp. 88–93.
Footnote 57:
State Papers, Dom. Interregnum, i. 75 (1654), pp. 596, 620.
Footnote 58:
Rawl. MSS., A 260, fol. 57. Text of this letter is given in _Trans. Jew. Hist. Soc._, vol. iii. p. 93.
Footnote 59:
_Trans. Jew. Hist. Soc._, vol. ii. pp. 18, 45–46.
Footnote 60:
Cal. of State Papers, Dom., 1655, p. 585.
Footnote 61:
_Supra_, p. xvii.
Footnote 62:
_Infra_, p. lxxxvii.
Footnote 63:
_Trans. Jew. Hist. Soc._, vol. iii. p. 90.
Footnote 64:
Wolf, “American Elements in the Resettlement” (_Trans. Jew. Hist. Soc._, vol. iii. pp. 95–100); Wolf, “Cromwell’s Jewish Intelligencers,” 1891, pp. 11–12.
Footnote 65:
Cal. of State Papers, Dom., 1655, p. 583.
Footnote 66:
“Cromwell’s Jewish Intelligencers,” _loc. cit._
Footnote 67:
_Trans. Jew. Hist. Soc._, vol. iii. pp. 82–86.
Footnote 68:
Jacob Sasportas, who had acted as a “corrector” in Menasseh’s printing-office in Amsterdam, and was afterwards elected Chief Rabbi in London, was a member of the mission (Graetz, vol. x. notes, p. xix). Raguenet states (_Histoire d’Oliver Cromwell_, p. 290) that two other Rabbis accompanied it, “Rabbi Jacob ben Azahel” and “David ben Eliezer of Prague.” I have not been able to identify these persons, but tentatively I am disposed to think that “Azahel” is a corruption of “Heschel,” and that the person referred to is Rabbi Josua ben Jacob Heschel of Lublin. Menasseh’s elder son lived for some time in Lublin, and it is quite possible that Heschel came to London to lay the case of the persecuted Polish Jews before Cromwell.
Footnote 69:
Wolf, “Menasseh ben Israel’s Study in London,” _Trans. Jew. Hist. Soc._, vol. iii. pp. 144 _et seq._
Footnote 70:
Felgenhauer, _Bonum Nuncium Israeli_, p. 110.
Footnote 71:
_Infra_, p. 47.
Footnote 72:
_Infra_, p. lxxix.
Footnote 73:
Graetz, _Geschichte_, vol. x. pp. 52–82; _Mercurius Politicus_, Dec. 17, 1655; Thurloe State Papers, vol. iv. p. 333.
Footnote 74:
“Annals of England” (1655), vol. iii. p. 31.
Footnote 75:
The interest of the Embassies in the question is illustrated by the frequent reference made to it in the despatches of Chanut (Thurloe, vol. ii. p. 652), Nieupoort (_Ibid._, vol. iv. pp. 333, 338; “New York Colonial MSS.,” vol. i. pp. 579, 583), Sagredo and Salvetti (_Revue des Études Juives_, No. 11, pp. 103–104). Nieupoort’s view is shown by the assurance he extracted from Menasseh that there was no intention to invite Dutch Jews to England (Thurloe, vol. iv. p. 333).
Footnote 76:
“Memorials,” p. 618.
Footnote 77:
_Trans. Jew. Hist. Soc._, vol. i. pp. 70–71, 75.
Footnote 78:
_Ibid._, p. 44.
Footnote 79:
_Infra_, p. 118. _London News Letter_, April 2, 1649 (Cartes Letters, vol. i. p. 275).
Footnote 80:
Jesse, “England under the Stuarts,” vol. ii. p. 297; Tovey, _Anglia Judaica_, p. 275.
Footnote 81:
Violet, “Petition against the Jews,” p. 2.
Footnote 82:
The violence of such tracts as Prynne’s “Demurrer,” Ross’s “View of the Jewish Religion,” and the anonymous “Case of the Jews Stated,” has no parallel in the literature of the time.
Footnote 83:
Paul Isaiah, “The Messias of the Christians and the Jews.”
Footnote 84:
Prynne, “Demurrer,” Part I. p. 73.
Footnote 85:
Copley, “Case of the Jews is Altered,” p. 4.
Footnote 86:
“View of the Jewish Religion.”
Footnote 87:
See especially Prynne’s “Demurrers,” and “Anglo-Judæus,” by W. H. Only three ungrudging defences of the Jews were published—Copley’s “Case of the Jews,” D. L.’s “Israel’s Condition and Cause Pleaded” (a very feeble reply to Prynne), and Collier’s “Brief Answer.”
Footnote 88:
Dury, “A Case of Conscience.” Harl. Misc., vol. vii. p. 256.
Footnote 89:
“Life of Henry Jessey,” pp. 67–68.
Footnote 90:
Philo-Judæus, “The Resurrection of Dead Bones,” p. 102.
Footnote 91:
State Papers, Domestic. Interregnum, vol. i. 76, p. 353.
Footnote 92:
_Ibid._, p. 374. For text of petition, see _infra_, pp. lxxxii-lxxxiv.
Footnote 93:
Harl. Miscellany, vol. vii p. 618.
Footnote 94:
_Infra_, p. lxxxiv.
Footnote 95:
State Papers, Dom. Inter., i. 76, p. 374.
Footnote 96:
State Papers, Dom. Inter., i. 76, p. 375.
Footnote 97:
_Ibid._, pp. 378–379. For text of Circular see _infra_, p. lxxxiv.
Footnote 98:
_Publick Intelligencer_, December 10, 1655.
Footnote 99:
The list of members is given in State Papers, Dom. Inter., i. 76, p. 378.
Footnote 100:
_Publick Intelligencer_, loc. cit.
Footnote 101:
[Henry Jessey.] “A Narrative of the late Proceedings at Whitehall Concerning the Jews, &c.,” Harl. Misc., vii. p. 623. See also Burton (_pseud._ _i.e._ Nathaniel Crouch), _Judæorum Memorabilia_.
Footnote 102:
_Ibid._
Footnote 103:
That the Judges’ decision was given at the first meeting of the Conference is clear from a statement made by Nye to Prynne on the morning of the second meeting (“Short Demurrer,” p. 4).
Footnote 104:
_Publick Intelligencer_, loc. cit.
Footnote 105:
_Ibid._
Footnote 106:
_Judæorum Memorabilia_, p. 170.
Footnote 107:
Barlow, “Several Miscellaneous and Weighty Cases of Conscience” (1692), Fifth Treatise. See also p. 1 of the Bookseller’s Preface. Rev. S. Levy believes (_Trans. Jew. Hist. Soc._, iii. p. 152) that this opinion was drawn up at the request of Robert Boyle. This is improbable, as it is clear from the resemblances between Barlow’s recommendations and the report ultimately drawn up by the Committee of the Council (_infra_, p. lxxxiv), that the opinion was submitted to the Whitehall Conference, and Boyle was not a member of that body. Goodwin, who was President of Magdalen College, is much more likely to have asked Barlow for the opinion, especially as we know that he was in favour of “due cautions” (_Jud. Mem._, p. 174).
Footnote 108:
_Jud. Mem._, p. 174.
Footnote 109:
_Ibid._, pp. 170, 175.
Footnote 110:
State Papers, Dom. Inter., i. 76 (1655), p. 412.
Footnote 111:
This is shown by two letters in the Domestic State Papers (see _Trans. Jew. Hist. Soc._, vol. i. p. 46).
Footnote 112:
Thurloe State Papers, vol. iv. p. 321.
Footnote 113:
_Publick Intelligencer_, loc. cit.
Footnote 114:
Spence’s “Anecdotes,” p. 77.
Footnote 115:
“A Short Demurrer,” Part I. The publication of the pamphlet was hurried to be in time for the Conference. It was written in seven days, and the preface is dated December 14, four days before the last meeting (_cf._ Preface to “Second Demurrer,” 1656).
Footnote 116:
_Jud. Memor._, p. 175; Burton, “Diary,” p. 309.
Footnote 117:
Burton, _loc. cit._
Footnote 118:
Burton, _loc. cit._
Footnote 119:
“Life of Henry Jessey,” pp. 67–68.
Footnote 120:
That Cromwell’s interposition took place under these circumstances is an inference of the present writer’s. The statements in Jessey’s “Life” clearly point to this conclusion.
Footnote 121:
These fragments of Cromwell’s speech are gathered from Jessey’s “Narrative,” Crouch’s _Judæorum Memorabilia_, pp. 175–176, and Spence’s “Anecdotes,” p. 77.
Footnote 122:
Testimony by Rycaut, who was present in the crowd (Spence’s “Anecdotes,” p. 77).
Footnote 123:
Writing to Henry Cromwell about the Conference a week later, Thurloe says, “I doe assure you that his highness is put to exercise every day with the peevishness and wroth of some persons heere” (State Papers, vol. iv. p. 343).
Footnote 124:
_Cf._ Conditions, ii., iii., iv., v., ix., xi., and xvii., in Barlow, “The Care of the Jews,” pp. 67, 68, 70, 71, and 73.
Footnote 125:
_Infra_, p. lxxxiv-lxxxv.
Footnote 126:
In the Calendar of State Papers, Dom. (1655–1656), p. 15, it is hypothetically dated November 13, the day on which Menasseh’s proposals were referred to the Committee. This date is absolutely impossible, as the Committee could not have ascertained the views it reported to the Council in the course of a single afternoon. If it was not drawn up on the 15th, it could not have been drawn up until the Conference was over, as the Conference was specifically summoned to advise the Committee.
Footnote 127:
I have to thank Dr. Gardiner for this ingenious conjecture. It entirely accords with all the known facts.
Footnote 128:
Edit. Bohn, vol. i. p. 327.
Footnote 129:
_Supra_, p. xvii.
Footnote 130:
Guildhall Archives. Remembrancia, vol. ix. No. 44, pp. 1–18. I printed the text of this petition in full in the _Jewish Chronicle_, November 15, 1899.
Footnote 131:
These grants are mentioned in a Jewish petition subsequently presented to Cromwell (_infra_, pp. lxxxv-lxxxvi).
Footnote 132:
Gardiner, “Hist. of the Commonwealth,” vol. i. pp. 396–97.
Footnote 133:
Graetz, _Geschichte der Juden_, vol. x. p. 122.
Footnote 134:
Cal. State Papers, Dom., 1655–56, p. 82.
Footnote 135:
Brit. Mus. Add. MSS. 27962. In a despatch dated January 14, Salvetti refers to the Jewish question, but makes no mention of the arrangement respecting divine worship. On the same date, too, the well-informed Dutch ambassador, Nieupoort, informed the States-General that it was generally understood that the Lord Protector would take no further steps (Thurloe State Papers, vol. iv. p. 328). It would seem, then, that the transaction took place between the 14th and the 28th January.
Footnote 136:
_Ibid._
Footnote 137:
State Papers, Domestic. Interregnum, cxxv., No. 38, i. 76, p. 604; i. 112, p. 289; cxxvi., No. 105.
Footnote 138:
_Ibid._, cxxvi., No. 105, iv.
Footnote 139:
_Ibid._, cxxvi., No. 105.
Footnote 140:
_Trans. Jew. Hist. Soc._, vol. i. p. 63.
Footnote 141:
State Papers, Dom. Interregnum, cxxv., 58. _Infra_, p. lxxxv.
Footnote 142:
See endorsement of the petition. _Infra_, p. lxxxvi.
Footnote 143:
_Infra_, p. 107. The hypothesis that John Sadler was the author of the letter which gave rise to the _Vindiciæ Judæorum_ is based on the facts that he was at the time the go-between in the negotiations with Cromwell, that he was an intimate friend of Menasseh, and that he had already given some thought to the blood accusation and other charges against the Jews (“Rights of the Kingdom,” p. 74).
Footnote 144:
State Papers, Dom. Inter., i. 77, April 1, 1656; cxxvi., No. 105, xi.
Footnote 145:
Carlyle, “Cromwell’s Letters and Speeches,” vol. ii. p. 161.
Footnote 146:
State Papers, Dom. Inter., cxxvi., No. 105, i.; i. 77, No. 11.
Footnote 147:
State Papers, Dom. Inter., cxxvi., No. 105, ii. and iii. Most of the documents in the Robles case have been printed as an appendix to my paper on “Crypto-Jews under the Commonwealth” (_Trans. Jew. Hist. Soc._, vol. i. pp. 76–86).
Footnote 148:
_Ibid._, cxxvi., No. 105, vi.
Footnote 149:
State Papers, Dom. Inter., i. 77, pp. 44, 78; cxxvii., 21, 40; i. 77, No. 19.
Footnote 150:
There is a tradition in the synagogues that written privileges were granted, and this conforms with all the other evidence relating to the campaign. The disappearance of these documents is not surprising, as many of the older documents belonging to the Sephardi congregation in London passed into private hands. Moreover, after the Restoration the congregations would naturally wish to destroy all evidence of their negotiations with the Protector. It is probable that these documents are referred to in the State Papers, where mention is made of “a Jew living in London who has produced great testimonies under the hand of the late Lord Protector.” (Cal. State Papers, Dom., 1659–60, p. 291.)
Footnote 151:
“Tracts on Liberty of Conscience” (Hanserd Knollys Soc.), p. 240.
Footnote 152:
See Endorsement of Petition, _infra_, p. lxxxvi.
Footnote 153:
A similar course had been taken with regard to Protestant refugees in the city on November 13, 1655. (Guildhall Archives: Rep. lxiv. fol. 8^b.)
Footnote 154:
Some of these restrictions are clearly indicated by Menasseh’s disappointment at the settlement. The prohibition of proselytising has always been remembered as one of the conditions of the Readmission, and it was religiously observed until the Rabbinate of the present ecclesiastical chief of the Anglo-Jewish community. In 1752, when certain Ashkenazi Jews were making proselytes in London, the Parnassim of the Portuguese synagogue wrote to the authorities of the German congregation, calling their attention to this condition, and the proselytisers were ordered to desist from “pursuing such unlawful practices.” In 1760 a Jew was expelled from the synagogue and deprived of his burial rights for this offence. (Minute Books of the Duke’s Place Synagogue, 1752, 1760.)
Footnote 155:
Violet, “The Petition Against the Jews” (1661), p. 2: “Cromwell and his Council did give a toleration and dispensation to a great number of Jews to come and live here in London, and to this day they do keep _public worship_ in the City of London, to the great dishonour of Christianity and public scandal of the true Protestant religion.”
Footnote 156:
Abstract of lease in _Jewish Chronicle_, November 26, 1880, communicated by Mr. Israel Davis.
Footnote 157:
Guildhall Archives, Rep. lxxiii. fol. 213.
Footnote 158:
Menasseh had assured Nieupoort that he did “not desire anything for the Jews in Holland” (Thurloe, iv. p. 333). The negotiations with Charles II. are recorded in Brit. Mus. Add. MSS. 4106, fol. 253.
Footnote 159:
_Infra_, p. lxxxvi.
Footnote 160:
Hist. MSS. Com. Rep., viii. pp. 94–95. Fifth Rep. of Dep. Keeper of Public Records, App. ii. p. 253.
Footnote 161:
_Infra_, p. lxxxviii.
Footnote 162:
_Ibid._, p. lxxxvii.
Footnote 163:
_Ibid._ Hist. MSS. Com. Rep., viii. p. 95.
Footnote 164:
Compare frontispiece with portrait at p. 105.
Footnote 165:
Kayserling, “Menasseh ben Israel.” (Misc. of Hebrew Literature, Series ii. pp. 68, 93.)
Footnote 166:
For the condition of the Ashkenazi Jews at this epoch see Graetz’s _Geschichte_, vol. x. pp. 52–82.
Footnote 167:
[Richard Baker], “The Marchants Humble Petition and Remonstrance” (London, 1659). p. 17.
Footnote 168:
Guildhall Archives: Remembrancia, vol. ix. No. 44, pp. 1–18.
Footnote 169:
Violet, “A Petition against the Jews” (London, 1661).
Footnote 170:
State Papers, Dom., Charles II., vol. xxi. p. 140.
Footnote 171:
“Petition,” p. 2.
Footnote 172:
_Trans. Jew. Hist. Soc._, vol. i. pp. 71, 74–75.
Footnote 173:
Brit. Mus. Add. MSS. 4106, f. 253.
Footnote 174:
Journal of the House of Commons, December 17, 1660.
Footnote 175:
State Papers, Dom., Chas. II., Entry Book xviii. (1664), fol. 79.
Footnote 176:
The text of these orders in Council has been printed by Webb, “The Question whether a Jew may hold Lands” (Lond., 1753), pp. 38–40.
Footnote 177:
Some of these patents are printed by Webb in an appendix to “The Question,” pp. 17–19. For Coronel’s knighthood see Le Neve’s “Pedigrees of Knights,” Harl. Soc. Pub. (1869).
Footnote 178:
Wolf, “Jewish Emancipation in the City” (_Jew. Chron._, November 30, 1894).
Footnote 179:
Child, “A New Discourse of Trade” (Lond., 1668), p. 5.
Footnote 180:
Wolf, “Jewish Emancipation,” _loc. cit._
Footnote 181:
Dr. Gardiner has suggested to me, and I agree, that this paragraph is not a recommendation, but the thesis of the report. It is the text of the “reference” to the Sub-Committee by the Council, and the succeeding paragraphs constitute the report upon it. See _supra_, p. xlv.
TRANSCRIBER’S NOTES
1. P. xiv, changed "almost immediataly after" to "almost immediately after". 2. P. xlii, changed "among it signatories" to "among its signatories". 3. P. lxxv, "which caunot be" to "which cannot be". 4. P. lxxxv, changed “from uisnge or applyinge” to “from usinge or applyinge”. 5. P. 6, changed “veiwed those Countryes” to “viewed those Countryes”. 6. P. 26, changed "aud when he" to "and when he". 7. P. 36, changed "Our ancient Rabinsin" to "Our ancient Rabins in". 8. P. 37, chaanged "the paticle (ion)" to "the particle (ion)". 9. P. 43, changed "as Ekekiel, and" to "as Ezekiel, and". 10. P. 100, changed "every on should gain" to "every one should gain". 11. P. 101, changed "6 par Cent" to "6 per Cent". 12. P. 111, changed "Sauls sons" to "Saul’s sons". 13. P. 122, changed "Nehemias, cap. 8.6." to "Nehemias, chap. 8.6.". 14. P. 127, changed "certain fugive Iew" to "certain fugitive Iew". 15. P. 135, changed "or blaspeeme those" to "or blaspheme those". 16. P. 136, changed "thouh that was" to "though that was". 17. P. 176, changed "Pontificus Latine, 147 De disciplinus" to "Pontificios Latine, 147 De disciplinis". 18. P. 176, changed "Drucker, Mordechai ben" to "Drucker, Mardochai ben". 19. P. 176, changed “author of Gangrena” to “author of Gangræna”. 20. P. 177, changed "Eurgetes, Ptolomy" to "Euergetes, Ptolomy". 21. P. 177, changed "Finicus, Marcilius" to "Ficinus, Marcilius". 22. P. 178, changed "Geographie du Talmud" to "Géographie du Talmud". 23. P. 178, changed "Glory of Jehudah" to "Glory of Iehudah". 24. P. 180, changed "dominions at an" to "dominions as an". 25. P. 181, changed "Jurnin" to "Iurnin". 26. P. 181, changed "Kalicout" to "Kalikout". 27. P. 181, changed "Lacto, de" to "Laet, de". 28. P. 181, changed "Leon, Pedro Cieçade" to "Leon, Pedro Cieça". 29. P. 181, changed "Loet, cited" to "Loeb, cited". 30. P. 182, changed "of Elias Montalbo" to "of Elias Montalto". 31. P. 182, changed "Luxa" to "Laxa". 32. P. 182, changed "Marianus, cited" to "Marinus, cited". 33. P. 182, changed "Marracco, King of" to "Maracco, King of". 34. P. 183, changed "Diogo Pires" to "Diego Pires". 35. P. 185, changed "Ornstein, Rev. A. F." to "Ornstien, Rev. A. F." 36. P. 186, changed "Porarius" to "Pomarius". 37. P. 186, changed "Procopius, cited" to "Procopious, cited". 38. P. 186, changed "Psuedo-Messiah, Bar" to "Pseudo-Messiah, Bar". 39. P. 186, changed "Ragusa = Aragusa" to "Ragusa = Araguza". 40. P. 187, changed "Rodriques, Don Daniel" to "Rodrigues, Don Daniel". 41. P. 187, changed "Salamanque, Synagogues of" to "Salaminque, Synagogues of". 42. P. 188, changed "Sasal, Prince of" to "Sasol, Prince of". 43. P. 188, changed "Schemtob de Leon" to "Shemtob de Leon". 44. P. 188, changed "Sepher Eldad Danita" to "Sephar Eldad Danita". 45. P. 188, changed "Sisbuthus, the end" to "Sisibuthus, the end". 46. P. 188, changed "De Quieros enters" to "De Queiros enters". 47. P. 189, changed "Thesoro de los dinim" to "Thesoro de los dirim". 48. P. 189, changed "Tiglath-Pileser" to "Tiglah-Pileser". 49. P. 190, changed "Trask" to "Thrask". 50. P. 190, changed "Villepende, Marquis de" to "Villependi, Marquis de". 51. P. 190, changed "Viterbo, Cardinal Egidio" to "Viterbe, Cardinal Egidio". 52. All other spelling errors were uncorrected. 53. Footnotes have been re-indexed using numbers and collected together at the end of the last chapter. 54. Enclosed italics font in _underscores_. 55. Superscripts are denoted by a caret before a single superscript character or a series of superscripted characters enclosed in curly braces, e.g. M^r. or M^{ister}. 56. Subscripts are denoted by an underscore before a series of subscripted characters enclosed in curly braces, e.g. H_{2}O.