A.D. 1700-1800.
THE JEWS IN ENGLAND.
During this century no marked change of any kind took place in the
position of the English Jews, though their affairs several times
came before the notice of the legislature. They had obtained under
the Stuarts liberty to carry on their public worship, to practise
all trades and professions, and hold all property, except such as
was not permitted to aliens. None of these privileges were withdrawn
or modified during the eighteenth century. On the other hand, the
Jews were not naturalized, could not possess land, could not hold
any public office of whatsoever kind—were not, in any real sense,
English citizens. Yet it was evident they regarded themselves as
permanent settlers in the country. They began to build synagogues,
and to establish schools, hospitals, and other charitable foundations
for the benefit of their community. It should be noted that, as in
Holland, so in England also, there were two classes of Jews—the
German and Polish (called the Ashkenazim), and the Spanish and
Portuguese (the Sephardim).[207] These agree in their religious
opinions, but in other matters differ considerably from each other,
and it is said that intermarriages between them were for a long time
rare. The last-named were the first to erect a synagogue, which was
opened in 1662, in King Street, Aldgate. In 1676, a larger synagogue
had to be provided, and a third was built three years later. This
stands in Bevis Marks, and remains to this day, but little changed
in appearance. In 1703 the Jews’ Hospital was opened, which now
stands in Mile End Road. In 1730 a girls’ school was built by Isaac
da Costa, and called after his name; and in 1735 another school for
general education was set up and endowed by Ruez Lamego.
The German and Polish Jews did not settle in England for a generation
later. They were, on the whole, inferior in respect of culture and
education, as well as less wealthy, than their Spanish brethren.
They provided themselves with a place of worship about the beginning
of the last century. It was enlarged in 1722. The present Hamburg
synagogue was erected in 1726; and the Great Synagogue, in Duke
Street, in 1763.
The first legislation of the century respecting the Jews was in
1703, when an Act was carried obliging the Jews to make provision
for any members of their family who might become converts to
Christianity. This was passed in consequence of the action of a
wealthy Jew, whose daughter had been baptized; immediately after
which he turned her out of doors in a state of entire destitution.
Not long afterwards, the question of their naturalization began for
the first time to be agitated. A proposal was made to the Treasurer
Godolphin, in Queen Anne’s time, to purchase the town of Brentford
for their occupation, the purchase carrying with it the full rights
of citizenship. Godolphin was urged by influential persons to accept
it. But he foresaw the opposition which both the merchants and the
clergy would offer to it, and declined the proposal. A few years
afterwards a pamphlet was issued by the notorious John Toland,[208]
who has very generally been branded as an infidel, but who appears
to have been really guilty of nothing worse than eccentricity. He
urged the wisdom and justice of naturalizing the Jews. But John
Toland, one of whose works had been ordered to be burnt by the public
hangman, was not a very likely person to be listened to on such a
subject. It appears to have drawn forth a pamphlet, written in 1715,
deprecating in strong language the proposed naturalization. It is
curious to read this pamphlet, which may be seen at the British
Museum. The writer repeats with unabated acrimony the charges which
had been made for centuries against the Jews, but which the English
people had now happily ceased to act upon. It says the reasons why
Edward I. expelled them from England were, first, their crucifying
and torturing Christian children; secondly, their betraying the
secrets of the State to foreign enemies; thirdly, their tampering
with and debasing the coinage; fourthly, the hatred which they bore
to Christian men; and, lastly, their extortionate usuries. Of these,
the first two could hardly be expected to obtain any credit, and
must have been repeated merely for form’s sake, like the preamble of
a deed. The fourth, too, almost all men at that day would reject
as absurd in itself; because, if the Jews really entertained this
bitter hate against Englishmen, why should they be so anxious to
dwell among them? The third and fifth undoubtedly have some truth,
though the charge of debasing the coinage was never satisfactorily
proved, and at all events could not reasonably be charged on the Jews
of the eighteenth century. With the last we have more than once dealt
in this history. The idea, again, that the Jews are the enemies of
Heaven, and that showing favour to them is disloyalty to Almighty
God, already belonged only to the past. The writer’s real ground for
objecting is, no doubt, the injury supposed to be done to English
trade by the competition of the Jews, whose presence in England he
is anxious to prove does not increase the wealth of the community.
No Naturalization Bill was introduced, but in 1723 another step was
taken towards improving their condition. It was then enacted that
when any one of His Majesty’s subjects professing the Jewish religion
shall present himself to take the customary oath of abjuration of the
Pretender’s supposed rights in England, he shall be permitted to omit
the words ‘On the true faith of a Christian.’ This is the first time
that any regard for a Jew’s conscience or feelings was manifested
in any public document. In 1740 another Act of Parliament conceded
to foreign Jews who had served for two years on board a British
man-of-war the privilege of British citizenship.
In 1753 Mr. Pelham, at that time Premier, brought forward his
famous Act for the naturalization of the Jews. One reason for it is
said to have been the loyal services rendered by the Jews to the
Crown during the attempt of Charles Edward, in 1745, to regain the
throne.[209] The Bill was introduced into the House of Lords early
in the session, and passed without opposition,[210] almost without
remark. It provided for the naturalization of all Jews who had
resided in England for three years consecutively. But it should be
noted that it did not permit them to hold any public offices, not
even of the most petty character. They could not even be excisemen
or custom-house officers. Nevertheless, notwithstanding the extreme
moderation of the Bill, when it was brought into the Commons, an
angry debate ensued. Some members declared that to admit Jews to
the privilege of citizenship was an insult to the Christian faith.
The inspired Word, it was said, had declared that they should be
scattered over the face of the earth, having nowhere any fixed
abode; to give them a permanent home, therefore, was to fly in the
face of God and of prophecy. It would deluge the kingdom with Jew
usurers, brokers, and beggars. The Jews would buy up advowsons, and
so ruin the Church! Pelham answered, that the fears expressed were
idle and chimerical, that the Jews were too few and uninfluential
to work any of the mischief that had been predicted; and, as they
could not take any part in our religious services, or even enter
our churches, it was impossible they could injure the Church. As
for any supposed opposition to the will of God, if there had been
any such Divine decree as was represented, it would be impossible
for man to overthrow or even to modify it. The Bill passed by a
majority of ninety-five, only sixteen being found to vote against
it. But the Bill, though accepted by Parliament, excited out of
doors a perfect storm of indignation. The peers, and especially the
bishops,[211] were pursued by mobs with insult and rancour. The
common people filled the streets with cries of ‘No Jews—no wooden
shoes!’ ‘The wooden shoes’ were typical of the French peasants, who
ordinarily wore them. The popular _brocard_ ‘No wooden shoes’ thus
meant ‘Nothing French.’ There was no kind of connection between the
Jews and the French, but the rhyme between ‘Jews’ and ‘shoes’ hit the
popular fancy, and so the two cries were combined in one.
The members of the House of Commons were threatened with the loss
of their seats; and, as Parliament was near its last session, this
was no idle menace. As the autumn advanced, the agitation increased.
A clergyman named Tucker, who had written a pamphlet in defence of
the measure, was attacked and maltreated by the mob. The Bishop of
Norwich, Thomas Gooch, also an advocate of the measure, when he went
down to his diocese on his confirmation circuit, was everywhere
insulted. At Ipswich the boys whom he was about to confirm shouted
out to him that they wished to be circumcised; and on the door of one
of the churches a paper was found, announcing that the bishop would
confirm the Jews on the Saturday, and the Christians on the Sunday
next ensuing.
It was not by the mob only that these clamours were raised. The Lord
Mayor and Corporation of London, actuated, it is to be feared, by
commercial jealousy, publicly denounced the measure as an inroad on
the Constitution and an insult to the Christian religion, and the
country clergy everywhere preached the same from their pulpits.
The ministry found that they could not withstand the popular fury.
On the very first day of the ensuing session, immediately after the
Peers had agreed to the usual address to the Crown, the Duke of
Newcastle made an harangue, declaring that disaffected persons had
made use of the Act passed last session in favour of the Jews to
raise discontent among His Majesty’s subjects. As the Act itself was
of little importance, it had better be repealed. As little opposition
was offered to this proposal as to the original Bill. Some few did
indeed protest against this concession to mob clamour; amongst them
the Bishop of St. Asaph and Lord Temple. But in the Lower House both
parties seemed to vie with each other in expressing their aversion to
this unfortunate measure.
Even this ready compliance with the popular will did not allay the
ferment that had been excited. There was, it appeared, an Act in
existence, by virtue of which any Jew who had resided for seven years
in any of His Majesty’s American plantations might become a free
denizen of Great Britain. It was discovered that this was fraught
with almost as much danger to the interests of the English people as
the obnoxious measure which had just been removed from the statute
book. A member of the Lower House moved that a list of the Jews who
had availed themselves of the benefit of this Act since 1740 should
be laid on the table for the perusal of the members of the House. It
was found that, as claiming the privilege in question was attended
by a good deal of expense and trouble, very few Jews had availed
themselves of it. Nevertheless, as the _possibility_ still remained
that Jews in great numbers would at some future time take advantage
of the Act in question, and so deluge England with Jews, whose
presence would be in the highest degree prejudicial to the interests
and even the safety of Great Britain, Lord Harley asked for leave to
bring in a Bill to strike out of the Act its obnoxious clauses. But
at this point Government refused to concede any further to out-door
clamour. Lord Harley’s motion was seconded by Sir James Dashwood,
and supported by other influential persons. But Mr. Pitt made one
of his great speeches against it, and it was rejected by a decisive
majority. The whole affair is a curious instance of how easily the
English people may be stirred up to loud and clamorous indignation
upon the most trivial subjects, in which neither their safety nor
their convenience are in any way concerned;[212] though they cannot,
like their Continental neighbours, be induced to proceed to acts
of violence, unless where some real danger threatens them or some
important interest is at stake.
During the remainder of the century, and indeed for a large part
of that which followed, no new attempt was made to accomplish the
naturalization of the Jews. It was probably felt by their friends
that the angry and unreasonable prejudice which had been roused
by the proposed measure of 1753 would in all likelihood break out
as virulent as ever,[213] if a similar Bill should be brought
into Parliament. It is also a singular fact that many of the Jews
themselves were not anxious for the measure to pass, as they feared
that the conversion of many of their communion to the Christian faith
might follow from it.
But there were not wanting signs that the feeling towards the Jews
was gradually growing more considerate and kindly. In 1781, when the
island of St. Eustatia was captured by Rodney, a complaint was made
in Parliament that undue severity had been shown the Jews in seizing
their property, and transporting them from the island. General
Vaughan, who commanded the land forces, represented that he had shown
the Jews the greatest consideration, had caused their persons to be
respected, and, on finding that their property had been seized by
mistake, had immediately ordered it to be restored to them. No more
had been done for them than justice required; but the tone of both
parties, when speaking of the Jews, was strikingly different from
what it probably would have been had the occurrence taken place some
generations earlier.
Towards the close of the century, a body known as the Board of
Deputies was formed, which gave the Jews the means of expressing in
an official manner the wants and sentiments of the Jewish residents
in Great Britain. It was originally appointed for the purpose of
conveying to George III. the congratulations of the Jews in England
on his accession to the throne. Once established, it renewed its
meeting when occasion required, and has frequently played an
important part in Jewish affairs.
FOOTNOTES:
[207] Ashkenaz, the son of Gomer (Gen. x. 3), is traditionally
reported to have settled in Germany. Zarephath and Sephared (Obad.
20) in France and Spain. Hence the German and Spanish Jews have
been styled Ashkenazim and Sephardim. These being at one time the
principal countries in which the European Jews were found, have
caused the whole of the nation to be classed under one head or the
other.
[208] John Toland, as he was called, though his true baptismal names
were James Julius, was born in Londonderry in 1669. His parents were
Roman Catholics, but he seems early to have rejected Romish teaching.
He studied successively at Glasgow, Leyden, and Oxford. At the
last-named university he seems to have obtained the reputation of a
freethinker; and his book, _Christianity not Mysterious_, excited a
ferment which there is little or nothing to justify. It was condemned
by the Irish Parliament, and burnt by the hangman. Leland ranks him
among Deistical writers; but he hardly seems to deserve, and is
certainly not worth, Leland’s censures.
[209] The Jews had given the Government valuable help. They lent a
large sum on very liberal terms, and agreed to take the Government
paper as long as gold continued to be scarce. Two Jews fitted out
vessels at their own cost, which they placed at the service of the
king. Great numbers of Jews also enrolled themselves in the volunteer
troops hastily raised by the ministry.
[210] Lord Lyttelton, the author of the _Life of Henry II._, is said
to have declared on this occasion that ‘the man who hated another
because he was not a Christian, was no Christian himself’—a sentiment
worthy of him.
[211] It is a singular fact that, although the bishops had nothing
to do with the promotion of this Bill, the principal odium of it was
cast upon them. It was held that they were bound in conscience to
prevent its passing, or at all events to do their best to prevent
it. William Romaine affirmed, in a pamphlet which attracted much
attention, that ‘the set of bishops then on the bench were the
only ones from the time of Christ who would have countenanced so
anti-Christian a measure.’ The general charge made against bishops is
that of intolerance. It is curious to observe that, if they ever are
in advance of the laity in tolerance, it is at once made the subject
of bitter reproach to them.
[212] It is a most curious illustration of this that, up to the
middle of the present century, although all bequests made by Jews to
their countrymen for charitable purposes, such as building hospitals,
endowing almshouses, etc., were held valid, and would be enforced, if
necessary, by the Court of Chancery, any provision for the education
of their children in their own faith was accounted void. A bequest
made about the middle of the century, by a Jew named De Pass, of
£1,200 for the purpose of building a college for Jews, was similarly
declared void by the Law Courts, because it tended to propagate a
false belief, and the money was given to the Foundling Hospital.
[213] During the No Popery riots of 1780, the Jews in Houndsditch,
fearing that the violence of the mob would be attracted to them, as
it had so often been on occasions of popular tumult, wrote up each
on his door front: ‘This is the house of a true Protestant.’ The
father of Grimaldi, the clown, is said to have exercised a still more
comprehensive caution, and to have inscribed on _his_ door, not ‘No
Popery,’ but ‘No Religion.’ Lord George Gordon, the leader of the
riots, consummated his erratic career by professing the Jewish faith,
in which he died.