Petitions against the Jews at the time of ration. VII. AT the time of the Restoration there were some thirty families of Jews in England1, and these naturally awaited with expectation the promise of the king, given through the Resto- General Middleton, "to abate that rigour of the law which was against them," and welcomed the declaration of a Liberty to tender Consciences which had been made at Breda. But they had many enemies to reckon withreligious fanatics at a time when no one was thought religious unless fanatical, and trade rivals who, thinking that every transaction of the newly-settled foreign merchants was a loss to themselves, looked with a jealous eye on the large and increasing foreign and colonial trade of the Jews, especially that with the recently-acquired colonies in the West Indies. Accordingly it creates no surprise to find that a number of petitions were presented to the king and the Privy Council praying that the laws against the Jews should be enforced, and that, if necessary, new ones should be enacted. At the meeting of the Privy Council on November 30 such a petition from Sir William Courtney and others was read, and it is plain from the Council's minutes that several other petitions had also been received. The petition of Sir William Courtney is probably the document preserved in the State Papers under the title "Remonstrance concerning the Jews," and dated November, 1660. It recites, apparently taking Prynne's Demurrer as a guide, the mischief said to have See the Da Costa lists published in Wolf's Jewry of the Restoration, P. 4. been done by the Jews in former times and their banishment under Edward I, and how they have "by little and little and by degrees crept and stolen into England again, and together, some as Jewes aliens and others as English, are become of late exceeding numerous, and how they became so is conceived to be by the means of the late Usurper, who most apparently did protect and countenance them in their affairs and actions," and suggests the issue of a commission to inquire into their state, the imposition of heavy taxes, seizure of their property, and their banishment for residing here without a licence from the crown 1. The Council having heard this petition read resolved that it, together with others on the same subject, should be taken into consideration again on December 7. On that day there were read at the Council a petition of the merchants and tradesmen of the City of London for the expulsion of the Jews, and also a petition of Maria Fernandez Carvajal (widow of Antonio Fernandez Carvajal already mentioned, who had died in November, 1659) and other merchants, Jews by birth, for his majesty's protection to continue and reside in his dominions. The latter petition has unfortunately been lost; the former is probably the petition of the Lord Mayor and Aldermen preserved in the Guildhall archives; it requested the king " to cause the former laws made against the Jews to be put in execution, and to recommend to the Two Houses of Parliament to enact such new ones for the expulsion of all professed Jews out of your Majesty's dominions, and to bar the door after them with such provisions and penalties as in your Majesty's wisdom shall be found most agreeable to the safety of Religion, the Honour of your Majesty, and the good and welfare of your subjects 2." The Council, judging the business of very great importance, referred all the petitions to the consideration of Parliament, desiring advice therein, and ordered them to be delivered to a member of 1 S. P. Dom. Car. II, vol. XXI, p. 140; Calendar, 1660, p. 366. the House of Commons to be accordingly presented to the Parliament1. Though the Privy Council did not itself come to any decisive conclusion on the subject, it seems that the intention was to uphold the king's promise and not to molest the Jews, for on December 17 Mr. Hollis, no doubt under orders from the Council, presented the above-recited order to the House of Commons as specially recommended to them for their advice therein, touching Protection for the Jews. The House thereupon decided to take the business into consideration the next morning 2. The next morning, however, the matter seems to have been shelved, for there is no entry in the journal of anything having been done, and a few days afterwards (Dec. 24) Parliament was dissolved without ever having given their advice on the Jewish problem as they had been requested by the Council. From the general temper of the House of Commons on religious questions during this reign it is clear that no relaxation of the law was to be effected by legislation in favour of the Jews, and the subject was not again brought forward in Parliament for a period of more than ten years. The position of the Jews, though unsatisJews after factory, was by no means intolerable; the laws against the Resto- Recusants were not very strictly enforced against them, Position of the ration. and their place of worship, if they had already one, was 1 Privy Council Register, Charles II, vol. II, pp. 57, 67. The Navigation Act is 12 Car. II, cap. 18. See sec. 2, which, being passed by the Convention Parliament, was expressly confirmed by the following Parliament. See 13 Car. II, cap. 14. Mr. Webb, in an appendix to the Question, &c., gives a list of 105 Jews who received letters of denization in this and the following reign, and this list is not exhaustive. gogue. to erect a synagogue. There is the doubtful reference to a The first synagogue in The Great Trapanner of England Discovered, synapublished in 1660, which has already been referred to; but in a letter dated April 22, 1662, and written by Jo. Greenhalgh to his worthy friend Thomas Crompton, minister of Astley chapel, we have the description of a visit to the Jews' synagogue and the form of worship held there. It is plain that the synagogue was a separate building formed no doubt out of a private house and arranged in very much the same manner as synagogues are at the present day, the service also being very similar, lasting some three hours and conducted wholly in Hebrew. It was necessary to observe the strictest secrecy, nor was any one admitted to the building, which was in "a private corner of the city," and had three doors, one beyond another, except very privately. Mr. Greenhalgh himself had some difficulty in going to it. He had an idea that the Jewish merchants in the city must have some place of meeting together for divine worship, and was curious to see it. "Whereupon as occasion offered me to converse with any that were likely to inform me, I enquired hereof, but could not of a long time hear or learn whether or where any such thing was;" but, having taken to the study of Hebrew, he obtained as a teacher a learned rabbi named Samuel Levi, who gave him a ticket of admittance to the synagogue. We may judge the size of the congregation by the writer's statement that in the synagogue he counted "about or above a hundred right Jews and one proselite amongst them 1." It soon became no longer necessary to maintain this strict secrecy. In There is a curious petition for naturalization of about this date (1661) of Jacob Joshua Bueno Henriques among the State Papers Colonial, vol. XV, No. 74. He says he had heard of a gold mine in Jamaica, and desired permission to go there and develop it, giving the king ten per cent. He also asks for naturalization for himself and his brothers Joseph and Moses, and that they may follow their own laws and have synagogues. (See Calendar, S. P. Colonial, 1661-8, p. 48, and Jews in the British West Indies, by Dr. Friedenwald: pub. American Jewish Hist. Soc., No. 5, p. 45 seq.) 1 Ellis's Original Letters, 2nd series, vol. IV, Letter cccix, pp. 3-22. L The se crecy sur gogue dis 1662 or be 1663. the absence of any documentary evidence it is not safe to assume that a special dispensation was given by the king rounding the syna- to the Jews by reason of that dispensing power which he carded at conceived to be inherent in him, but it may well have been given, and if not it is most reasonable to suppose that ginning of reliance was placed on the king's declaration to all his loving subjects, which, as before stated, was published on December 26, 1662. At any rate it is quite certain that the worship of the synagogue, which had hitherto been conducted with the greatest privacy, was shortly after this time no longer concealed, but open to the public; and for a time at any rate without any evil consequences to the worshippers. On October 14, 1663, Samuel Pepys and his wife and his friend Mr. Rawlinson paid a visit to the synagogue after dinner, where they were present at what was evidently the afternoon service for the rejoicing of the law. There was no difficulty as to admission, and no attempt at concealment. The clerk of the acts of the navy remarks upon the disorder, want of attention and confusion in the service, and observes that he could not "have imagined there had been any religion in the whole world so absurdly performed as this 1." It was in the An organ- course of this year that the hitherto isolated Jewish ized com- families formed themselves into a community. Henceforth munity formed. regular records were kept; the synagogue, in addition to being made public, was renovated and improved, and in 1664 a lease was taken; in September, 1663 the Finta, or contributions of the individual members of the synagogue, was fixed, and in the following November the Ascamoth, 1 Diary of Samuel Pepys, Oct. 14, 1663, Wheatley's edition, vol. III, p. 303. This description of a visit to the Synagogue gives an impression which was shared by other Christian observers; see the autobiography of Henry Newcome, M.A., A.D. 1686, “June 26. We went to the Jews' Synagogue. I could not have believed, but that I saw it, such a strange worship, so modish and foppish; and the people not much serious in it as it is. And I was affected to think, that many likely men of understanding should be without Christ, and live in the denial of him." Chetham Society's Publications, vol. XXVII, p. 262. |