CHAPTER X.
1830-1831.
INTERVIEW WITH THE DUKE OF WELLINGTON IN FURTHERANCE OF THE JEWISH CAUSE—THE DUKE'S DILATORY TACTICS—LAYING THE FOUNDATION-STONE OF THE SYNAGOGUE AT HERESON.
Resuming the thread of our narrative, we find that Mr N. M. Rothschild promised to see the Duke of Wellington. On the 7th of February this interview with the Duke took place. Mr N. M. Rothschild, having addressed him on financial subjects connected with the affairs of Government, said to him, "God has given your grace power to do good—I would entreat you to do something for the Jews," to which the Duke replied, that God bestowed benefits moderately, but that he would read over the petition that day, and Mr N. M. Rothschild might call any morning for his answer. Mr Rothschild then began to speak of Prince Polignac, the minister of Charles X. (who, a few months later, had to fly from the country with all the other members of the ministry, in consequence of the conflicts in Paris between the populace and the army), but the Duke instantly stopped him, saying he did not wish to know anything of foreign politics.
"The next day," writes Mr Montefiore, "Charles Grant declined to present the petition in favour of the Jews, and Mr N. M. Rothschild thought it would be better to defer calling on the Duke for his answer, as, he was much plagued by the unsettled state of parties in the House of Commons. This determination, however," observes Mr Montefiore, "is greatly against the wishes of I. L. Goldsmid and those whom he has consulted on the subject."
February 12th.—Mr Montefiore went with Messrs N. M. Rothschild, I. L. Goldsmid, and Lionel Rothschild to the Duke, who told them that he would not commit the Government on the question of the Jews, and advised them to defer their application to Parliament, or, if they did not, he said, it must be at their own risk, and he would make no promise. Mr Montefiore thought the answer on the whole favourable, that is, that the Duke had no determined prejudice against the removal of the civil disabilities of the Jews, but would, nevertheless, take no active steps in their favour. Should the Commons suffer it to pass quietly, Mr Montefiore had no doubt the Duke would take no part against them.
The 19th of the same month Mr Montefiore says: "Robert Grant gave notice last night in the House of Commons that he would on Monday next present a petition in favour of the Jews." It was accordingly presented on February 22nd. It was tolerably well received, W. Ward and D. O'Connell speaking in its favour, Sir R. Inglis against it.
A few months later Mr Grant desired to be informed whether the Jews insisted on obtaining the privilege of sitting in Parliament, and if they would refuse all other privileges if this was not obtained. It was Mr Montefiore's opinion that they should take what they could get.
April 14th.—Mr N. M. Rothschild and his son Lionel came to report that they had seen Mr Herries, who informed them that the Government had determined to consult Dr Lushington and R. Grant on the following morning. I. L. Goldsmid, they said, had declared he should prefer losing all, than to give up Parliament. "I," observed Mr Montefiore in return, "decidedly differ with him; we should accept all we can get."
Two days later he writes: "I returned from the House of Commons delighted with the speeches of Robert Grant, Mr Macaulay, Sir James Mackintosh, Lord Morpeth, and Mr W. Smith, in our favour. Sir Robert Inglis, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and the Solicitor-General (Sugden) were against us. The numbers were—For, 115; against, 97,—majority, 18. We called to congratulate N. M. Rothschild and Hannah on the result of last night's debate."
On the 21st, at a dinner given by Mr I. L. Goldsmid, he met Lord Holland, Sir Robert Wilson, A. J. Robarts, —— Tooke, John Abel Smith, Macaulay, Easthope, Robinson (the member for Worcester), Dr Lushington, and Lord Nugent, all of them most friendly to the cause.