(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.