[127]. I have to thank Dr. Gardiner for this ingenious conjecture. It entirely accords with all the known facts.
[128]. Edit. Bohn, vol. i. p. 327.
[129]. Supra, p. xvii.
[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.
[131]. These grants are mentioned in a Jewish petition subsequently presented to Cromwell (infra, pp. lxxxv-lxxxvi).
[132]. Gardiner, “Hist. of the Commonwealth,” vol. i. pp. 396–97.
[133]. Graetz, Geschichte der Juden, vol. x. p. 122.
[134]. Cal. State Papers, Dom., 1655–56, p. 82.
[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.
[136]. Ibid.