CHAPTER XXXIX.
TWO CENTURIES AND A QUARTER IN ENGLAND.
(1660–1885.)

1. First Fifty Years.—Manasseh ben Israel’s petition for the return of the Jews to England met, as we have seen, with no formally favourable response; but nevertheless, from the date of his visit, (1656), Jews began to settle in England, and no serious attempts were ever made to dislodge them. In 1662 there was a well-attended little synagogue in King Street, City; and by 1664 the small community had grown sufficiently in numbers and in importance to draw up for itself a regular constitution, and to appoint wardens and a treasurer to administer the laws and the funds of the congregation.These laws, or Ascamoth,[71] were written in Spanish, and it was not till 1819 that they were rendered into English. The Ascamoth settled the service of the synagogue in its spiritual and financial aspects, provided for the raising of the necessary funds, and, under penalty of Cherem, or excommunication, dictated most stringent rules of conduct. A standard of honour as well as of honesty was set up in the congregation, and it was distinctly and authoritatively announced that any member who dropped below this fixed high level, depending on his community to be raised again, would be disappointed.‘No time and no money’ would be expended on the defence of such culprits; they must expect the law of the country to take its course, and to be ‘chastised according to their crimes.’ The Mahamad, or council of the congregation, was endowed with almost despotic powers over it.It could equally interdict a marriage, or interfere in a betting transaction, or prohibit the publishing of a book.[72] At first reading, some of the Ascamoth may seem arbitrary, and at first sight some of the actions of the Mahamad may appear tyrannical, but the circumstances must be remembered. These early settlers in England dwelt ‘in the midst of alarms,’ they were tolerated, not welcomed, and in their precarious position it would not have been wise for frequent appeal to have been made to the law of the country, in cases of dispute or of wrong-doing among themselves. The Mahamad had practically no means of punishment for erring members but moral law and communal opinion. It certainly brought these down, on occasion, rather heavily, and dealt out excommunication and money fines in cases which would, in these days, be adequately met by argument, or even by a gentle policy of letting alone. Such stringent regulations, however, kept up a high, if somewhat narrow, tone in the community, and the general morality of these early Jewish residents left nothing to be desired. Moreover, this heedfulness concerning the thingsthey were not to do, made them by no means neglectful of the things they were to do; and schools, and a society for visiting and relieving the poor and sick, were set on foot by Ben Israel’s countrymen before they had been ten years in England.

The Restoration made no change in the position of the new-comers. The Stuarts, in their light-hearted fashion, took the Jews lightly, and their courtiers seemed to find in the Jewish synagogue a novel and rather amusing sort of entertainment. In ‘Pepys’ Diary,’ under date October 14, 1663, there is a full account of a visit paid by Charles II. and some friends, during the Tabernacle holydays, to the little place of worship in King Street. The fashionable visitors, by degrees, became an interruption both to worship and to decorum, and a law, in 1665, had to be added to the Ascamoth, to the effect that, however flattered members of the congregation might feel at this interest shown in them, they were to give their feelings no outward expression during service by moving from their seats to greet their visitors. In 1673 there was an attempt made to take from the Jews the right of public worship. Strong in their confidence in King Charles’ good nature, and in his freedom from religious prejudices, the community petitioned him on the subject, and an order in council set things right at once. It is possible that Queen Catherine’s influence may have had something to do with this fortunate result. On impersonal matters, and on subjects which did not affect his own pleasures, it is not unlikely that the king was ready to gratify the wishes of his much-enduringconsort; and it is certain that Catherine employed and much valued a Jewish physician, one Antonio de Mendes, who took an interest in the affairs of his co-religionists. James II. was also amiably disposed towards the Jews, and during his reign the alien duties, which required a certain sum to be paid by every ‘alien,’ both on merchandise and on personal property, were remitted. The concession, however, aroused great opposition among the English traders, and William III., though not personally ill-disposed to the Jews, and with all his Holland memories to guide him as to the wisdom of treating them generously, had to yield to the pressure put upon him, and to see this heavy tax re-imposed on Jewish enterprise.

2. Influx of Germans and Poles: how received.—The tolerably secure position to which the Spanish-descended Jews from Holland attained in England tempted, in a short time, less happily placed Jews to join them. The new immigrants, who were mostly persecuted Ashkenazim from Germany and Poland, received but the coldest of welcomes from the Sephardic community, and so little was their fellowship desired, that by the end of the seventeenth century especial restrictive legislation was added to the Ascamoth of the congregation on the subject. It was enacted that no ‘Tedescos’ (Germans or Poles) should vote at meetings or receive religious honours;that they should not be allowed to intermarry with the Sephardim,[73] nor to hold any higher office in theirsynagogue than that of beadle. In fact, socially and religiously, the Spanish and Portuguese Jews ‘boycotted’ their German brethren. Undoubtedly the Ashkenazim were of an altogether lower class than these others—less refined, less cultivated, and less well off, and the Sephardim, in thus holding themselves aloof, probably considered that they were taking the safest course for their own reputation. By this time (1702) the Spanish and Portuguese congregation had erected and consecrated a beautiful synagogue in Bevis Marks,to which building Queen Anne had contributed a beam.[74] The community had imported from Italy an eminent scholar as chief Rabbi ([a]‏חָכָם‎]), and their schools and institutions were liberally supported and wisely administered. The Ashkenazim would willingly have joined in all these good works, but, baffled in their hopes of union, they more or less good-temperedly accepted the situation, and built synagogues, and founded schools and institutions of their own. They increased rapidly in numbers, and gradually spread over the United Kingdom, establishing small congregations in most of the principal towns. Time has now so readjusted things that, in these days, the German-descendedJews of England rival in wealth and in culture, and in numbers far exceed, those who claim ancestry from among the Sephardim. Intermarriage between Sephardim and Ashkenazim is a frequent and welcome occurrence, and all the old feelings of separateness have disappeared with the causes for it.

3. Converts.—In all communities there are individuals who, besides an aptitude for coming to the front, have a very strong liking for that position. They like their voices to be loudly heard, their talents to be widely seen, their wealth to bring them its full social benefit and recognition. For Jews with such tendencies, the conditions of Jewish life for near upon fifteen hundred years had been hard, and the temptation to throw off the cruel, crippling restraints, and to let their light shine out before men, was strong. Some found the temptation impossible to resist, and through the gate of baptism such men and women passed, to gain the open vantage-ground for which they longed. There were many so-called converts to Christianity among the Jews of England in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. Perjurers for position would be perhaps a more accurate if a harsher phrase by which to describe them, for there was very little of religious motive, or even of pretence of it, about these ‘conversions.’ Those who deserted Judaism did so from their keen desire of a career of social and political equality with their Christian countrymen. To this end they took the easiest and quickest road. They would not patiently work, and wait to be emancipated; it was so much simpler to walk into church and be married, or ‘converted.’ Andso they left their posts, these deserters, but Judaism survived their loss, and perhaps was all the stronger and purer for the definite defection of such weak and selfish adherents. It is curious to note how insincere were these ‘converts.’ Sampson Abudiente, who in 1754 changed his name and his religion, may serve as a typical instance. Sampson Abudiente was a very rich man, and his special temptation was to possess a landed estate, which, as a Jew, was in those days impossible. By a special Act of Parliament, obtained through the influence of Sir Robert Walpole, Sampson Gideon, late Abudiente, gained his desire, and to ensure this estate passing to his children, he brought them all up as Christians. His son, under the title of Lord Eardley, subsequently became a member of the Irish peerage. Sampson Gideon lived in great state at Belvedere House, Erith, entertained ‘nobility and gentry,’ cut all connection with his people, and died in 1763, to all outward seeming, a good Christian parvenu. Then came the reading of the will. In it 1,000l. was left to the Spanish and Portuguese synagogue, on the condition, and with the earnest request, that the testator might be buried in the [a]‏בֵּית חַיִּים‎] at Mile End, and that his name might be included in the loving mention of our dead which is made in Jewish synagogues on the Day of Atonement and other holy days. It was further found that ever since his conversion, Sampson Gideon had anonymously kept up all his payments as a member of the congregation, and thus there was no ground for refusing the dead man’s request.

Some twenty years after this incident the processof conversion was, in a remarkable instance, reversed, and Lord George Gordon, a member of a distinguished ducal house, became a Jew. In the earlier part of his career, Lord George had been an enthusiastic, almost fanatic upholder of the State religion, and had incited, if not actually led, the ‘No Popery’ riots of 1780. Quite as vehemently, a year or two later he took up the Jewish cause, and gave a proof of the strength of his new opinions by entering into the covenant of Abraham. He became one of the most observant of Jews; he studied the language, he kept the dietary laws, and followed even Rabbinical regulations. The conversion, however, was received with little welcome or favour by the Jewish community. The sincerity of the convert was not questioned, but his sanity, perhaps, was suspected. Throughout the subsequent short and stormy experiences of Lord George, the Jews, as a body, maintained an attitude which was entirely consistent with their own self-respect; they acted as if they considered a man’s religious opinions were a matter that concerned only himself, and were not a subject to make a fuss over; nor would they for a moment permit the rank of the convert to make any difference in their sensible view of his actions. Lord George Gordon died in 1793, and his wish to be buried among Jews was not acceded to by the authorities of the Synagogue.

4. Progress of Anglo-Jewish Legislation.—In 1723 an Act was passed through Parliament which permitted Jewish evidence to be received in all courts of justice, unprefaced by the words ‘On the true faithof a Christian.’ This was a small but important start on the path of tolerance, that path which was to ‘slowly broaden down from precedent to precedent,’ till English law and English custom gave full rights of all kinds to English Jews. Another step on the right road was made in 1740, when another Act of Parliament granted to foreign Jews, who had for two years served in a British man-of-war, the right of becoming naturalised British subjects.

The attempt of the Stuarts, in 1745, to regain the throne which they had dishonoured, gave the Jews of England an opportunity of showing their capacity for loyalty and patriotism. They helped as soldiers, and they helped as financiers in the defence of the country and the dynasty. Great numbers of Jews enrolled themselves in the hastily raised militia, whilst the older and richer merchants subscribed largely, and on far from profitable terms, towards a loan for the Government. Others, again, formed themselves into an association which agreed to take paper instead of specie in payment so long as money continued scarce in the country, and two Jews, in particular, placed vessels, which they had fitted out at their own cost, at the disposal of the Government. The good feeling which this ready patriotism on the part of the Jews evoked, showed itself in 1753 in a hearty attempt on the part of the ministry to pass through Parliament a bill permitting Jews, who had lived in England three years, to become naturalised Englishmen. The matter was very hotly discussed, and gave rise to a great expenditure both of literature and of eloquence. In Ireland, which at that date had a Parliament of itsown, the Naturalisation Act, as it was called, had twice passed the Irish Commons, in March 1746, and in December 1747. But this partial victory proved almost worse than a defeat, for it attracted so much attention, and provoked so much opposition, and directly the Bill reached the Upper House, it was, on both occasions, violently thrown out. At Westminster, however, in 1753, after a struggle, the Naturalisation Bill passed the House of Lords and became law; but so strong was the feeling against it, that in the very next session (1754) it was repealed by 150 votes to 60. Even something in the way of a reaction of injustice would seem to have set in, for when, a year or two later, a certain Elias de Pass bequeathed 1,200l. for the purpose of erecting a Jewish college, we find the courts of the day deciding, and the Government upholding their decision, that such a bequest was illegal, as tending to perpetuate superstitious practices; finally the money was taken and passed on to the treasurer of the Foundling Hospital, to be applied to the support of a chaplain to preach Christianity to the inmates.

For a while the efforts of the English Jews to obtain general rights of citizenship were abandoned, and their energy was steadily and steadfastly limited to the righting of one wrong in especial. The marriage law of England, which counted no marriage legal unless performed by a Christian priest, pressed very hardly on the Jews. It put difficulties not only in the way of happiness, but also of property, and made both insecure. Years, however, and patience and perseverance were needed to get this seeminglysimple matter set right, and it was not till the reign of William IV. (1830) that an Act was passed which made properly solemnised Jewish marriages in all respects equal, in the eyes of the law, with properly solemnised Christian ones.