Jews had the best of the argument, would himself embrace their faith: whereupon, to use the words of Hoveden, The controversy was carried on with great fear on the part of the bishops and clergy, and pious solicitude by those who feared the Christian faith would be shaken; and from this combat the Jews brought nothing but confusion, although they would many times boast they were rather overcome by force than by argument.' However this may have been, the church, it seems, became alarmed at the progress the Jews were making among their Christian brethren; for in the next reign we find it mentioned, that monks were sent to several towns in which the Jews were established, expressly for the purpose of preaching down Judaism. Jaffred, abbot of Croyland, in the tenth year of Henry I., sent some monks from his abbey to Cottenham and Cambridge to preach against the Jews; and about the same time some ecclesiastics were sent from other parts to Stamford, to oppose the progress of the Jews in that place; where we are told by Peter of Blessans, They, preaching often to Stamfordians, exceedingly prospered in their ministry, and strengthened the Christian faith against the Jewish depravity.' The hatred nourished against the Jews was irrational and unchristian, but the fault was not altogether on the side of the Christians. The Jews were men-no worse, it may be, but no better, than their neighbours. They felt themselves, as a body, a more civilised, a more literary, race than the mass of the inhabitants of England under the Norman princes-they piqued themselves upon peculiar skill and dexterity in business-they were buoyed up at times by royal protection and countenance. It was human nature to grow insolent on the strength of such advantages; and doubtless the Jews did at times draw down upon their own heads, by their own impertinence, the misfortunes they met with. But, if the fault was in part on both sides, the folly was all on the side of the English, who drove from their shores those who mainly contributed to set their infant industry in motion. From the year 1290 to the year 1655 a long interval elapses during which, though there were doubtless individual Jews to be found in England, there was no Judaismus-no organised body of Jews. It is probably for this reason that the Jew was turned to so little account in the dramatic literature of the Elizabethan age. At this moment we can only call to memory two Jewish characters in the drama of that period-Shakspere's Shylock and Marlowe's Barnabas. In the Jew of Marlowe one is not surprised to find little individuality of character. He is a terrible incarnation of passion, but wants all those traits which stamp the passionate being as akin to the men of every-day life. This might pass for being only characteristic of Marlowe's peculiar genius. But even Shakspere's Jew, though it has traits of human individuality, has few traits of Jewish individuality. His Hebraisms-and he has some noble ones-are such as any Christian might be supposed to have incorporated with his imagination, as well as a Jew. Shylock is every inch a man, as Othello is every inch a man; but Shylock betrays as little knowledge of the natural history of Jewish morale, as Othello of the natural history of Moorish physique-and for the same reason: that Englishmen were never brought into habitual contact either with Jews or Moors. Both Shylock and Barnabas belong more to the legendary world than to the real. They were not produced, as some have idly thought, to gratify an audience prejudiced against Jews; but to strike with awe, from their terrific passion, an audience which knew little about Jews, and cared less. In countries where Jews have abounded and been objects of popular odium, the dramatists who have pandered to prejudice, have uniformly made their Jews mean and ludicrous as well as hateful. You may hate Barnabas and Shylock, but you cannot despise them. Shakspere and Marlowe found their Jews in the legends of other lands, not in real life, nor even in popular apprehension. In 1655 the Jews again emerge into the public life of England. Cromwell's statesmanlike spirit had recognised the advantages which the nation might derive from inviting this intelligent and wealthy people to settle in it. He might also have an eye to the advantages this affiliated body might afford him in procuring early and authentic information from abroad, an object to which Cromwell directed much attention. Whatever his reasons, he invited, or at least encouraged overtures from, some Jews of Amsterdam for leave to settle in England. The petition of the agent or envoy of these Jews-the distinguished Rabbi ManassehBen-Israel of Amsterdam-to Cromwell is a remarkable document : "These are the graces and favours which, in the name of my Hebrew nation, I, Manasseh-Ben-Israel, do request of your Most Serene Highness, whom God make prosperous and give happy success to in all your enterprises, as your humble servant doth wish and desire. "1. The first thing I desire of your Highness is, that our Hebrew nation may be received and admitted into this puissant commonwealth, under the protection and safeguard of your Highness, even as the natives themselves. And, for greater security in time to come, I do supplicate your Highness to cause an oath to be given (if you shall think it fit) to all the heads and generals of arms to defend us upon all occasions. 2. That it will please your Highness to allow us public synagogues, not only in England, but also in all other places under the power of your Highness, and to observe in all things our religion as we ought. 3. That we may have a place or cemetery out of the town to bury our dead, without being troubled by any. 4. That we may be allowed to traffic freely in all sorts of merchandise, as others. 5. That (to the end those who shall come may be for the utility of the people of this nation, and may live without bringing prejudice to any, and without giving offence) your Most Serene Highness will make choice of a person of quality, to inform himself of and receive the passports of those who come in; who, upon their arrival, shall certify him thereof and oblige themselves, by oath, to maintain fealty to your Highness in this land. 6. And (to the intent they may not be troublesome to the judges of the land, touching the contests and differences that may arise betwixt those of our nation) that your Most Serene Highness will give license to the head of the synagogue to take with him two almoners of his nation to accord and determine all the differences and process, conformable to the Mosaic law; with liberty, nevertheless, to appeal from their sentence to the civil judges; the sum wherein the parties shall be condemned being first deposited. 7. That in case there have been any laws against our Jewish nation, they may in the first place, and before all things, be revoked; to the end that, by this means, we may remain with the greater security under the safeguard and protection of your Most Serene High ness. "Which things your Most Serene Highness granting to us, we shall always remain most affectionately obliged to pray to God for the prosperity of your Highness, and of your illustrious and sage council, and that it will please Him to give happy success to all the undertakings of your Most Serene Highness. Amen." There are some passages in this document which would seem to imply that it had, at least, been revised by a British lawyer. Whoever its framer, however, there is a grave sagacity about it worthy of the representative of a portion of the most ancient nation on earth concluding a treaty of protection with the head of a powerful state. It is interesting, too, to note the unchanged character of the Jews during the long period of their exile from England. Manasseh-Ben-Israel and his friends do not appear to have possessed even a tradition of the former possessions of their tribe in England, yet the first arrangement they contemplate is the organisation of a special jurisdiction under the immediate protection of the chief magistrate as under the Norman princes, and "a place out of the town to bury their dead," like "the Jews' garden" near Cripplegate. Cromwell and the Jews having come to an understanding, the next step was to try whether the national prejudices would admit of its being carried into execution. The Protector first sounded "divers eminent ministers of the nation," who were summoned to meet him and his Council, at Whitehall, on the 4th of December. The petition of the Jews of Amsterdam was read in their hearing; when, as the authorised narrative published by Henry Hills, printer to his Highness the Lord Protector, has it-"The ministers having heard these proposals read, desired time to consider of them, and the next day was spent in fasting and prayer." Adjourned conferences of the Council and Ministers were held on the 7th, 12th, and 14th of December, but nothing was resolved upon. Another meeting, on the 18th of December, "broke up without coming to any resolution, or even a farther adjournment." The narrative concludes with this remark: "That his Highness, at these several meetings, fully heard the opinions of the ministers touching the said proposals, expressing himself thereupon with indifference and moderation, as one that desired only to obtain satis faction in a matter of so high and religious concernment; there being many glorious promises recorded in Holy Scripture concerning the calling and conver· sion of the Jews to the faith of Christ: but the reason why nothing was concluded upon was, because his Highness proceeded in this, as in all other affairs, with good advice and mature deliberation." - The object of publishing this narrative was, probably, to try whether the general public might not be more favourably disposed to the admission of the Jews than the ministers. But if Cromwell looked for support in that direction he reckoned without his host. Prynne forthwith opened a battery against the proposal, in a publication whose mere title-page almost equals a modern.pamphlet: "A short Demurrer to the Jews' long-discontinued Remitter into England. comprising an exact chronological relation of their first admission into, their ill deportment, misdemeanours, condition, sufferings, oppressions, slaughters, plunders by popular insurrections and regal exactions in, and their total, final banishment, by Judgment and Edict of Parliament, out of England, never to return again. Collected out of the best historians. With a brief collection of such English laws and Scriptures as scem strongly to plead and conclude against their re-admission into England, especially at this season, and against the general calling of the Jewish nation. With an answer to the chief allegations for their introduc tion." This thundering manifesto, in which the sufferings of the Jews in England in the olden time are classed along with their misdemeanours, and equally insisted on as reasons for continuing their exclusion, was followed up by such a burst of popular clamour, and such an inundation of lampoons, that Cromwell silently relinquished his project. Though nothing was directly done in this matter, however, by government, the Jews and their friends appear to have thought that they might with safety come and settle in England, without the formality of a legal sanction. It was probably the idea of a legislative sanction being given to the exercise of the Jewish religion that startled the public. There had been too little personal intercourse between Jews and Englishmen for many centuries, to admit of a very rancorous prejudice existing between them. Accordingly we find, in the very next year, 1656, the first Portuguese synagogue erected in King Street, Duke's Place. The Rabbi, Manasseh-Ben-Israel, was not of the number of those Jews who ventured to settle in England. Born in Portugal, about the year 1604, and forced to emigrate by the persecutions of the Inquisition, he succeeded Rabbi Isaac Usiri in the synagogue of Amsterdam, while yet only in his eighteenth year. He engaged in trade, but much of his time was devoted to superintending the printing of his own works at his private press, and to the discharge of his official duties. After the failure of his negotiation with Cromwell, he retired to Middleburg, in Zealand, where he died in the course of the year 1657. He died poor, he and his family having been in a great measure supported by a brother settled in Brazil. The Jews of Amsterdam testified their respect for him by having his body conveyed to that city, and buried at their expense in their cemetery. The care taken by the Jews who settled in England, from their first arrival, to secure the due celebration of divine service, and the education of their families, has been most laudable. We have seen that their synagogue was built in the first year of their settlement; in 1664-only seven years later a school was founded by them to afford instruction to the children of their poorer brethren. This school was originally called "the Tree of Life." It consisted of two branches: in the junior branch, instruction in the rudiments of Hebrew and English was given, preparatory to admission into the superior school, where the more advanced branches of moral and religious education were imparted till the pupil attained the age of fourteen. On leaving the school, the scholars received a small grant of money to assist them in commencing the world. This institution still exists, though under another name. The management had been entrusted to a large committee, and, as usual, it was found that "everybody's business was nobody's business." In 1821, Moses Mocatta, Esq., undertook a reform of the school. By his exertions the management was transferred to a select committee; an additional annual subscription was raised for its support; the advanced school was called the Gates of Hope;" and a preparatory school on a new foundation added. Since that time an annual average of forty-five boys have received in the advanced school a good solid education in the higher branches of Hebrew, English grammar, arithmetic, book-keeping, &c.; and on leaving the establish ment each has been presented with a premium for apprenticeship, or a sum sufficient to enable them to seek a livelihood abroad. The Portuguese Congregation was the only organised body of Jews in London till 1691, when the first German Synagogue was built-also in Duke's Place. The cheapness of the ground in that district, and its proximity to the district in which most of the foreign traders settled in London had fixed their domiciles, were probably the circumstances that originally induced the Jews to settle in that quarer. The first synagogue was an additional attraction: and the second secured the permanent residence of the German Jews, between whom and those of Spain and Portugal difference of language, and also some slight difference of ritual, keep up a trifling shade of distinction. The present Portuguese Synagogue in Bevis Marks was built in 1701; and in 1723 the Hamburgh Synagogue was erected in Fenchurch Street. Though not exposed to such fierce persecutions as during the time of their first settlement in Britain, the Jews did not pass altogether unscathed through the period, during which they were striking root in London. In 1678 several of the wealthier members of their body were indicted at the instance of some busybodies, for meeting to celebrate public worship. Again, in 1685, some of thein were arrested for not attending church. The attempt to pass a Jews' Naturalisation Bill stirred up a violent opposition among some narrow-minded sectarians, and also among some more worldly-minded but equally silly alarmists, who dreamed that such a measure would necessarily bring about a transfer of the whole commercial wealth, and ultimately of all the landed property in England, to the Jews. This may seem an exaggerated account of the language of those members of Parliament and politicians who opposed the Jewish Naturalisation Bill, but any one who will take the trouble to peruse Sir John Barnard's speech on the occasion will find it literally correct. In 1723 the decision of a Court of Law recognised the Jews born in Great Britain as British subjects. Since that time the only disabilities under which they labour are those imposed by Acts of Parliament levelled against Christian sectarians which have accidentally hit the Jews. The Act of 9 Geo. IV., c. 17, which substitutes for the sacramental test a declaration by the holders of certain corporate offices, "upon the true faith of a Christian," necessarily though indirectly incapacitates Jews from filling those offices. The Abjuration Act in like manner excludes them from Parliament and from holding any office under Government except in so far as they may be relieved by the annual Indemnity Act. Some doubt exists as to whether the Jews are legally entitled to hold real estate. Those who maintain the negative side of the question rest upon an Act of the 55th of Henry III., which declares Jews incapable of purchasing or taking a freehold interest in land; their opponents allege that the so-called Act is not properly an Act of Parliament, but merely an ordinance of the king. De facto, some Jews do hold real estate. It is the general opinion that the Jews are within the benefit of the Toleration Act of the 1st of William and Mary as extended by the 53rd of George III, c. 160. One disability under which they Jabour presents a curious anomaly in the law. It has been decided that a legacy given for the instruction of Jews in their religion is not one which will be sup |
