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 yo^r Ma^{ties} good subjects by y^e corrupt interest of the
late usurper _y^e admission of Jews to a free cohabition and trade in
these dominions_ was found to be a most heavy pressure on yo^r
Peticon^{rs.}”[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.