Sir George Jessel, 1824-1883
Israel Finestein
<plain_text><page sequence="1"></page><page sequence="2">Sir George Jessel, 1824-1883 By Israel Finestein, m.a. LECTURE1 is not a biography. My purpose is to give an account of some of the main features and stages in Jessel's life, in so far as they may interest members ^of this Society. For it must be remembered that Jessel's life was the law.2 An accurate picture of his career would devote a fuller description of his attitude to the law and the significance of many of his important judgments than would be appropriate tonight. This concentration on the study and practice of the law perhaps explains why Jessel is a difficult subject for a biographer. There has been no biography of Jessel. He left no text-book or treatise. He never found sufficient leisure to write his memoirs.3 He died at the height of his judicial career. In his concentration on the law he differs greatly from the other leading lawyers in the Anglo-Jewish community of his time. Sir Francis Goldsmid (the first professing Jew to be called to the English bar or to take silk), Serjeant John Simon,4 Professor Jacob Waley, and the redoubtable Arthur Cohen all played substantial parts in public and communal life. Goldsmid was recognised as the "parliamentary champion" of oppressed Jewries and was the active chairman of the influential Rumanian Committee for its first three years until 1875.5 Upon his death in 1878, his place as spokesman in Parliament for Jewish causes was taken by Simon. Waley was the first President of the Anglo-Jewish Association. Cohen was an energetic President of the Board of Deputies for fifteen years at the zenith of his legal career. But in the profession, Jessel was greatly the superior of these men, except possibly Arthur Cohen who, although he lacked the speed which was Jessel's distinctive attribute, enjoyed an unrivalled authority in certain branches of commercial and international law.6 Jessel was born on 13th February, 1824, at 20 Castle Street, Falcon Square, off Aldersgate Street, the home, since 1820, of his father Zadok Aaron Jessel. George was the youngest of three sons. His father, then in his 32nd year, was a rising business man. The children were brought up in comfort and security. ZADOK AARON JESSEL 1 Address delivered to the Jewish Historical Society of England on 19th January 1955. 2 But he was never a lawyer only. "You rightly assume", he wrote to Arthur Hobhouse on 15th April, 1868, "that I have not sunk into a mere lawyer but remain a man and trust always shall. Indeed I make it a rule, not always without exception, to devote one hour a day at least to some branch of non-legal knowledge". (Lord Hobhouse by L. T. Hobhouse and J. L. Hammond, 1905). Jessel thought of himself as a man of the world and student of the sciences. These qualifications made him all the greater as a lawyer, and he knew it. 3 Jessel disliked the operation of writing. He was inclined to physical indolence. He loved to ride in the Park in summer, and winter found him much at the Athenaeum. He enjoyed the theatre. He often went abroad during vacation, usually to Germany or the Tyrol (Annual Register, 1883). One of his particular pleasures was the pursuit of botanical studies at his country-home at Ladham in Kent. 4 Simon, who was the first professing Jew to practise at the Common Law bar, sometimes sat as Acting County Court Judge and in that capacity was the first Jew to perform the function of Judge. The first time was in 1858. Professing Jews had sat as magistrates before that date. Jessel was the first Jew on the High Court Bench. 5 Goldsmid retired from practice on succeeding to his father's title and estate in 1859, a year after taking silk. (Sir Francis Goldsmid by D. W. Marks and A. Lowy (2nd ed. 1882). 6 Jessel and Cohen were firm friends and had a very high mutual regard. Jessel advised his friend to accept the judgeship offered to him in 1881 but Cohen declined it, as Gladstone wished to avoid a by-election in Cohen's uncertain constituency of Southward. 243</page><page sequence="3">244 SIR GEORGE JESSEL, 1824-1883 What do we know of Zadok's parents, and what may we reasonably conjecture about them ? Let me first state the certainties. His parents were named Aaron and Thiresa. The latter died at her home in Lambeth High Street and was buried in Brady Street?in the Orachim section of the ground on 20th May, 1832. Aaron had pre? deceased her. He came from Frankfurt, though whether he was born there I cannot tell. He was generally known as Aaron (of) Frankfurt. The rest is conjecture. Diverse traditions among Aaron's descendants are interesting. One family tradition is that he left Poland after one of the late partitions, that in that country he was a man of standing in his Synagogue, and that he went to Bristol where he was a street trader. Another tradition is that prior to coming to England he held a clerkship in the service of Frederick the Great. These stories are not irreconcilable. Another family tradition attributes the name of Jessel to a place?not ascertained?in or near Frankfurt. But one is not sure which Frankfurt. The customary derivation of the name?much more common, I understand, in Germany of former years than ever in this country?is as a diminutive of Joseph, through Yossel. The best conjecture of identity as well as of the origin of the name is that of Dr. Roth who has drawn my attention to the name of 'TIM pHK *?'T n^TT? in the list of patrons, in the Great Synagogue, contained in the book of Talmud exegesis written by Phineas ben Samuel, rabbi and teacher, entitled Midrash Phineas and published in London in 1795. But this Aaron of 1795 was not a member of the Great in 1791 nor have I found any burial registration in respect of that name in the records of the Great.1 All Aaron's sons took the name of Aaron as well as the patronymic of Jessel. The Jessel family name was originally Aaron(s) (Jewish World 23.3.1883). Joseph Aaron Jessel of Lambeth High Street was known as Joseph Aaron until about 1840, at least in the rate-books, where he is first found (at that address) in 1804. It seems to me probable that Zadok was born in England. There is no trace in the Public Record Office of his becoming endenizened or naturalized. Probably he was the Zadok Aaron who subscribed to S. I. Cohen's Elements of Faith (London, 1815). It appears that Aaron of Frankfurt lived south of the Thames and that it was in Lambeth that his family grew up. The family had a long connection with the Borough congregation. Aaron Jessel (possibly identical with Aaron of Frankfurt's eldest son, Joseph Aaron Jessel; but, more likely, with the latter's son) was among the "earliest members" of the Tent of Righteousness Friendly Society which was founded in 1812. 1 The burial registration for Zadok's mother, which as far as I know has never hitherto been brought to light, is as follows : "Thiresa Jesel, High Street, Lambeth" and, in Hebrew, "ttTispams pna /05k ?s5sre" : Burial Register of Great Synagogue, Vol. 1823-1837. On all occasions in the Synagogue records, Zadok is given as prw /i pis and usually, until the middle of the 1830's, there is inserted after Iiis father's name the word Frankfurt in Hebrew, either in full or by /3>s : his marriage (22nd December, 1819) in the Marriage Register of the Great Synagogue, Vol. 1791-1840 ; the burial by Zadok of two still-births on 10th May, 1825 and 1st August, 1828 ; the birth of his children. The name Theresa occurs frequently in the Jessel family from the middle of the last century. Of Zadok's sons, Henry was unvi >ax and named after the first Henry Harris, Edward was pro* and named after Zadok's father, and George was mm?. The name n5rp in various forms (including 5osp) appears several times in the 18th century membership of the Great Synagogue and among the subscribers to MidrashPhineas. Dr. Roth has kindly drawn my attention to 9rp ma Sa*?? among the patrons of Moses ben Judah's exegesis Even Shoham (London, 1772). It is possible that he was an uncle of Zadok Aaron Jessel. I have also alighted in the Rosenbaum papers upon /s>s pn? >a min? whose son was circumcised on 24th January, 1791, and who could have been Zadok's brother.</page><page sequence="4">TABI Aaron Jesel (Aaron of Frankfurt) Joseph Aaron Jessel = (hatter and tobacconist 45 High St., Lambeth 1774(?) ? Sept. 1849) Amelia (1781-31.xii.1864) Moses Aaron Jessel (rag merchant. 20 Fore St., Lambeth in 1849. Later in High St.) R( (Died an Maria = 25.iii. 1835 Aaron (Sept. 1808 (Edward) Aaron ?12.xii. Jessel 1883. Died in Chicago) Hannah = (died l.iv.1898 at 6 Moreton St., Pimlico) Henry Harris (1797? 28.x. 1880 Died at Vauxhall Walk, Lambeth) Henry Aaron Jessel = 1860 Phoebe (ll.iii.1833 Jacobs (1836 -l.iv.1931) 19.vii.1912) Henry = H Je I Rosetta 13.viii.1851 = Aaron Jacobs, cane dealer of 6 Old Montagu St. Barnett Aaron Jessel (1868 28.iv. 1940. Died in Walworth. Hon. Sec. Hull Old ^ Hebrew Cong. 1905-9) Sarah Solomon Catherine (Died 4.iv. 1897 in Glasgow) Born ai Died ir 26.viii.1863 Joseph Braham (1836-5.xi.1868. Son of John Braham of Bristol) Note As early as 1817, one Michael Aaron Jessel is listed in Directories for Maidstone, Kent. He traded in Middle Row as china, glass and earthenware dealer and ironmonger. I have not been able to ascertain with certainty the relationship between this early Jessel and Aaron of Frankfurt. I.F.</page><page sequence="5">TABLE A. AARON JESEL AND HIS DESCENDANTS Aaron Jesel = Thiresa (Aaron of Frankfurt) (High St., Lambeth. Died 20.V.1832) Rosa = Abraham Harris (Died ante 1864) (clothier, East St., Walworth) Phoebe ; (1836 ii.1912) Henry Harris = Hannah Jessel Leah = 1846 Israel Abraham Zacharias (1815-25.vi.1895) (1817-12.iv.1894) l Solomon th. Joel Zacharias-Jessel (1852-l.viii.1905) = Rebecca Frankenstein (1861-31.X.1934) Michael Aaror (16.viii.1808 7.?.1896. 1 at 24 Hamptoi Bristol) Dr. George Jessel (died in Eccles 23. vi. 1946) Arthur jessel (1891-25.vii.1922) Lt. V ictor Jessel (1896-6.iv.1917 in action) 22.U922 Born at Maidstone. Died in Maida Vale I Rose = ll.ii.1869 23.iv.1840- Bernard Spiers (1829-31.xii.1901) 26.viii.1863 =Joseph Braham (1836-5.xi.1868. Son of John Braham of Bristol) Lizzie (1842 18.viii.1865) John = Berthe Halle Bernberg = Henrietta (1841- Solomons of 23.i.l929) Exeter 31.viii.1864 Jacob A. Alexander of Hackney. 3rd son of Alexander Alexander, optician, of Exeter aded in lin with</page><page sequence="6">Nathaniel Aaron Jessel = Fanny (working jeweller, 16 Jane (6.i. 1783 St., E.l. From 1867, 32 16.U871) Jane St. 19.iii.1786 16.X.1875) Zadok Aaron Jessel (see below) Table B Michael Aaron Jessel = (16.viii.1808 7.?.1896. Died at 24 Hampton Park, Bristol) Mary Isaacs (born 1812 at Newport. Died 21.i. 1891) Aaron (Edward) Aaron Jessel Auctioneer in U.S.A. Maria Jessel Theresa=ante 1857 Isaac Jones (New York) Joseph Aaron Jessel (playwright and salesman. Died 1908) George Jessel Actor (Born 1898 in New York) Henrietta Solomons of Exeter i Annie = 23.xii.1884 Henry Van Gelder of Liverpool Fanny = 2.iii.l870 Julia = Eli Louis = George (Died David Heilbron (b. Barnett N. 25.ii.1914) of Glasgow 1854) Spyer</page><page sequence="7">SIR GEORGE JESSEL, 1824-1883 245 This Society was one of the first of its kind and was closely associated with the first Borough Synagogue. The Jessel family was represented in the Society and its committee for most of the century. In 1913 the Society was amalgamated with the Order Achei Brith which in 1949 was incorporated into the United Jewish Friendly Society, by whose kindness I have examined the rules book and committee names of the Tent of Righteous? ness for 1869 and 1880. (For the Society's early history, see J.C., 1st October, 1913). One of Zadok's brothers was Nathaniel (Zandel) Aaron Jessel, a working jeweller of Jane Street, off Commercial Road.1 In the 1850's, Nathaniel was Vice-President of the Society for the Relief of the Aged Destitute which was described as "managed by persons of the middle and working classes" (J.C. 6th October, 1876). Nathaniel was the father of Michael Aaron Jessel whose children included Rose, who married the Polish born Bernard Spiers (Dayan at the London Beth Din from 1876 to 1901), and Fanny, the mother of Professor Sir Ian Heilbron. M. A. Jessel, a pawnbroker, was a leading figure in Bristol Jewry. He was Treasurer of the Bristol Synagogue at the time of the dedication of the new premises by the Chief Rabbi in 1871 and ten years later was Vice President. In 1890, his son John, the father of Mr. Redvers Jessel, was President and a Trustee of the Synagogue. Zadok became a member of the Great Synagogue on Rosh Chodesh Cheshvan, 1822. He first appears in the Directories as a dealer in precious stones in his own right in 1821. In 1827 he is listed in Pigot's Metropolitan Directory as a "pearl and diamond worker and setter". By 1830 he was a substantial diamond merchant and in 1832 left Castle Street for 8 Finsbury Square, which was a mark of conscious elegance. In 1840, Kelly's names only eight diamond merchants in London, of whom he is one. He entered the lucrative coral trade and made highly profitable investments in property. He ventured into the attractive field of railway speculation, but he was not enticed, as others were, into over-investment or into what has been called the "fashion and frenzy" of railway speculation. He had a financial interest in the Oxford-Worcester-Wolverhampton line whose company was incorporated by statute in 1845 and which until 1850 was controlled by the Great Western Railway. It was a famous firm in its day which despite its "un? paralleled disturbances" (Bradshaw's Shareholders' Manual and Directory, 1855) opened new country to the railway and frequently extended its line. For three years until February 1855 Zadok Aaron Jessel was a Director. It was a period of much rivalry and litigation with the G.W.R. The company joined lustily in the battles of the gauges, as the parliamentary and legal contests between the broad and narrow gauge lines were called.2 George Jessel appeared as counsel in many railway cases, and in his early days acted for the Old Worse and Worser, as his father's company was affectionately called, and such other interests as his father was able to turn in his direction. I have read some of these cases in the Law Reports and in these days of a unified and nationalised 1 Nathaniel occasionally acted as Reader at the Borough Synagogue on the High Festivals in the days of Nathan Henry : History of Borough Synagogue, by M. Rosenbaum, 1917. Another brother, Moses, was the father of Henry Jessel who, after an apprenticeship to Mark and Noah Davis, cigar makers, of Bow Road, volunteered for the Crimea in 1854. He took part in the Battle of Sebastopol and other famous engagements, was slightly wounded in the leg, and enjoyed the rank of corporal. He was attached to the Land Transport Corps. After the war, he visited America and Australia frequently. He preserved his faculties almost to the end, and died in 1931 aged 98. Corporal Jessel married Phoebe Jacobs who had been cook to the Chief Rabbi, N. M. Adler. 2 History of the Great Western Railway by G. A. Sekon, 1895. The Early Railway Age, by (Sir) John Clapham (2nd ed. 1930). For Jews in early British railways, see H. Pollins in Vol. 15, Jewish Social Studies (New York). Q</page><page sequence="8">246 SIR GEORGE JESSEL, 1824-1883 railway system they make extraordinary reading.1 The Old Worse and Worser was eventually incorporated into the G.W.R. In 1819, Zadok married Mary, daughter of Coventry-born Henry Harris. Solomon Hirschell performed the ceremony. The Harris family has been described as of "a good position" in Coventry (J.C. 27th January, 1899). Henry Harris was one of the earliest Jewish solicitors, having been admitted in 1800 (Trinity). From 1800 he practised from his home at 6 Castle Street, Houndsditch?not to be confused with Castle Street, Falcon Square. From 1803 to 1810 he practised in partnership with Samuel Harris (admitted in Hilary, 1803). The latter continued alone till 1813 when he ceased practice, after which he no longer appears in the Law List. Henry Harris ceases to appear in the Law List after 1810. Mary was the brother of George Harris who became a solicitor in 1826 but did not practise and whose son, Henry, was born at 6 Castle Street in 1819. This second Henry Harris (admitted in 1849) was a distinguished City solicitor who in the 1850's assisted in the drawing up of the rules of procedure under the first Common Law Procedure Act. As President of the Maiden Lane Synagogue (with whose founda? tion this wing of the Harris family was closely identified) and as Treasurer of the Board of Deputies, this friend of the Chief Rabbi was for decades, until his death in 1899, a powerful stalwart of orthodox Judaism. The Jessel and Harris families had close connections. Zadok's sister, Rose or Rosa, married Abraham Harris, a clothier of East Street, Walworth, who was one of the earliest members of the Tent of Righteousness Friendly Society. One of Rose's sons, Henry, married Hannah, daughter of Zadok's brother, Joseph Aaron Jessel. A niece of Abraham Harris was the mother of Barney Barnato and the grandmother of Solly Joel. A nephew of Abraham Harris was the father of Colonel Sir David Harris, a famous figure in South African history who died in 1942 aged 90. A daughter of Rose and Abraham Harris, Leah, married Israel Zacharias, an Oxford watchmaker and jeweller, at the Great Synagogue in March 1846. Their son, Joel Zacharias, founded a firm of waterproofers and clothiers which is well-known in Oxford and was an eminent Tory member of the Oxford City Council?the first Jew to sit on that Council. Joel Zacharias, who changed his name to Joel Zacharias-Jessel in his closing years, was a principal founder of the Oxford Hebrew Congregation of which he was President at the time of his death in 1905. Joel Zacharias married Rebecca, daughter of Philip Frankenstein of Manchester and sister of Mrs. Nathan Laski. Their eldest son was Dr. George Jessel, a prominent Unitarian and one of the country's leading authorities on the diagnosis and treatment of T.B. Dr. Jessel lived at Eccles from 1921 until his death in 1946. Zadok Aaron JessePs wife died after a short illness in 1836 aged 44. Their son, George, was then 12. Her early death was a severe loss to Zadok whose affectionate devotion to his wife was reciprocated. The deprivation drew him still closer to his children, of whom he was intensely proud. In 1841, the family moved to 1 Savile Row, Westminster. (A few years after Zadok's death, this house was occupied by the Royal Geographical Society, who remained there till 1913). On 22nd March 1883, The Times described that locality as being in 1841 1 Typical cases are Great Western Railway v. Oxford, Worcester, Wolverhampton Railway, 3 De Gex, Macnaghton and Gordon's Reports, 1853-4. In that case the Solicitor-General led for the Great Western, and on the other side appeared Rolt, Malins and Jessel, all of whom became Judges ', Rogers v. Oxford, Worcester, Wolverhampton Railway, 25 Beavan's Rolls Reports, 1857-8. In that case Roundell Palmer, a future Lord Chancellor, appeared for Rogers, and against him were two future Judges, Selwyn and Jessel.</page><page sequence="9">SIR GEORGE JESSEL, 1824-1883 247 "to the City, what Bayswater is now". Zadok became a member of the near-by Western Synagogue off the Haymarket. The Great Synagogue had not yet opened a branch in the West End. In 1854, he found a country seat, namely Gordon House, Putney, near the junction of the High Street and the Upper Richmond Road. Putney High Street was then famed for its spacious homes and their attractive open settings. Gordon House and its three acres and more were in the countryside. Until their marriage, Zadok's children lived with him. Gordon House passed out of the family's occupation soon after Zadok's death. Zadok set his children a high example of communal service and vigorous action. He was a Life Governor of Jews' College from the inception of the scheme in 1852 and was among the first to respond to the Chief Rabbi's appeal for funds for the College. He was at the centre of the negotiations between the Jewish community and the London Hospital leading to the creation of Jewish wards in the Hospital. On 21st April 1842, under his chairmanship, the Committee of the Institution for the Relief of the Distressed Sick of the Jewish Persuasion finally adopted the necessary resolution and decided to invest funds whose income was to be directed to the maintenance of the Jewish wards. (See J.C. 11th February 1876). Twenty years later, he was among the advocates of a Jewish Hospital. The idea was strongly opposed, notably by the Jewish Chronicle. For many years, from September 1827, Z. A. Jessel was among the group of Privil? eged Members elected each year by the Committee of the Great Synagogue for submission to the general meeting of the Vestry which would select from that number the Overseer of the Poor. After 1828, only ten names were so submitted and they included some of the most influential members of the congregation. In November 1835 and March 1838, he was among those elected to attend forthcoming conjoint meetings. On 22nd Septem? ber 1840, he was for the first time elected to the Vestry. A fortnight later he was unanimously elected Treasurer but declined to accept office. Whether his decision was in some way related to the contemporary secession, I know not. It was not till September 1853 that he was elected Warden. His colleagues were Samuel Moses, a merchant and a widely esteemed communal worker, and Joshua Alexander, a solicitor who was a founder-Treasurer of Jews' College and the father of Lionel L. and David L. Alexander. Z. A. Jessel held office for two years. During that period, there was begun the first revision of the Constitution since 1827, a task which was not completed till 1863. He was a member of the committee which in July 1853 inspected the warehouse site in Great Portland Street where temporary premises were to be establish? ed pending the erection of a permanent structure of the Branch Synagogue, which later became the Central. It was during his Wardenship, on 29th March 1855, that the Branch Synagogue was consecrated. At this time Z. A. Jessel had wider communal aspirations. On 5th June 1853, he stood in a by-election for the appointment of a representative on the Board of Deputies. Of the three candidates, B. S. Phillips polled 82, Aaron Joseph 47 and Z. A. Jessel one solitary vote. This rebuff might have been connected with his comparatively irregular attendance at meetings. Even at his election as Warden, he was absent, though Lewis Jacobs stated that he had authorized him to say that he was ready to accept office. On 5th April 1850, the Jewish Chronicle bemoaned the difficulty of securing a quorum at recent meetings of the Vestry of the Great Synagogue. Z. A. Jessel would appear to have been one of the absentees, to judge from the minutes of the Synagogue. His somewhat rough exterior did not facilitate popularity. But he was certainly assiduous in attendance during his term as Warden. From 1856, his active interest in the management of the Synagogue grew less and he spent more of his</page><page sequence="10">248 SIR GEORGE JESSEL, 1824-1883 time at Putney. On 22nd January 1856, he gave notice that at the next meeting of the Committee he would raise the question of the Chief Rabbi's salary?possibly a reference to the failure of the other conjoint Synagogues to pay their agreed share. But he was not present at the next meeting and does not appear to have raised the question, although the Honorary Officers did pursue the other Synagogues for their share. It was at a meeting of the Vestry presided over by Z. A. Jessel on 19th June 1854, that A. L. Green was appointed Chazan and Preacher at the Branch Synagogue. Z. A. JessePs sons and son-in-law became members of the Great Synagogue. Until about 1860, George Jessel attended service at the Branch regularly. Until his death in 1864, Zadok JessePs name appeared with increasing frequency in the Jewish press as a contributor to the educational and charitable institutions of London Jewry and to appeals on behalf of Jews abroad. The bodies which principally held his attention appear to be the Jews' Free School, the Jews' Infant School, the Westminster Jews' Free School, the Jews' Hospital and the Jews' Orphan Asylum. Father and sons were frequent participants, often as stewards, in the anniversary festivals, as the fund-raising evenings of many of these causes were delicately called in those more sensitive days, and which were usually held in the London Tavern, Bishops gate, or at Willis's Rooms, St. James's. The Jewish press, which invariably gave promi? nence to these Victorian occasions, usually referred to the two or three hundred who attended?they were more or less the same company?as containing the "elite" of the community. From about 1845, Zadok was frequently named in these reports as among the ten or so most prominent gentlemen present. George's name begins to appear regularly in the lists of contributors from about 1845. Z. A. Jessel was a friend of learning.1 He was no scholar but was a man of acute intelligence. He was extremely anxious that his sons should be successful. They all took honours at London University and all became barristers. Henry, whose death in 1870 was a great loss to the leadership of the community, was a prominent member of the Western Synagogue. Matthias Levy included him among its "leading members" as early as 1846. He was a founder of the Westminster Jews' Free School and chairman of its Committee. He was called to the Bar at the Middle Temple in April 1850 and practised on the Midland Circuit. He was appointed Deputy County Court Judge in Paddington, and was also a member of the Statute Law Revision Committee. In 1858 he married Julia, daughter of Louis Cohen, and was thus a brother-in-law of Lionel Louis Cohen (who married Esther Moses, a cousin of George JessePs wife) and of Samuel Montagu. Henry's will confided his children to the guardianship of his widow, Lionel Louis Cohen and George Jessel. Henry's son Albert, became a distinguished K.C. and a Bencher of Lincoln's Inn and wielded much influence in his community as Vice President of the United Synagogue. For twenty-five years, Albert Jessel was President of the Borough Jewish Schools, thereby maintaining the old connection between the Borough community and the family. When Jacob Franklin retired from the control 1 Among the works to which he subscribed were Benjamin FraenkePs The Glory of Eternity (1836), Solomon Bennett's Specimen of a New Version of the Hebrew Bible (1836) and Moses Lissack's Jewish Perseverance, or The Jew at Home and Abroad (1851). He subscribed to the Anglo Jewish press from 1842. He bequeathed to Jews' College "the bible printed by Menasseh ben Israel" (but it remained in the family and is now in the possession of the Rev. Arthur Barnett); "a set of books in six volumes containing the commentaries on the Torah" ; and his collections of fossils and shells with ?50 for their upkeep. He left his grandson, Frederic, the well-known three-volumed Hebrew-English dictionary and Hebrew grammar. Lingua Sacra, by David Levi.</page><page sequence="11">SIR GEORGE JESSEL, 1824-1883 249 ?f the Voice of Jacob in September 1846, the copyright and administration of that journal (still "conservative and independent" and supporting the oral law and only such reforms as touch "minor points, including no principle") came into the hands of a committee headed by Henry Jessel, then only twenty-five. He and Haim Guedalla became the Treasurers of the Anglo-Jewish Press and appealed to the community in noble terms for support.1 Guedalla withdrew in October and the main burden of management and fund-raising fell on Henry Jessel. On 15th November 1847, Henry Jessel wrote to Franklin urging him to act at once to save the Voice of Jacob from expiring or passing into hands whose principles Franklin would not welcome. (This letter, in Henry JessePs hand, was inserted by Asher Myers in his copy of Picciotto's Sketches of Anglo-Jewish History, now in the Mocatta Library). Without Franklin's experience and in the face of financial difficulty and skilful competition, the journal expired in 1848. In 1859 Henry Jessel was one of six Londoners who concerned themselves with raising money for a new Synagogue at Swansea. Edward Jessel, prior to his call to the Bar at the Middle Temple in 1869, practised as a solicitor, having been admitted in 1853. He was articled to Budd and Hayes of Bedford Row and for a time in the 1850's was a partner in Gee and Jessel in the City. He was popular in the profession and on his death in 1883 the Law Times wrote of his "acute perception" and "sound judgement". He did not practise at the Bar. Edward Jessel was a Life Governor of the Norwood Orphanage and a manager of the Russell Literary and Scientific Institution in Bloomsbury, in which locality he lived. THE EDUCATION OF SIR GEORGE JESSEL Zadok Jessel sent his sons to Leopold Neumegen's school, which was first at High gate and from 1842 at Kew. The school was founded in 1799 by Hyman Hurwitz, later Professor in Hebrew at University College, who taught at the school until 1821 when Neumegen succeeded him. Neumegen, who like Hurwitz was born in Posen, came to England in about 1816 at the age of 30. He was a Hebrew scholar, a traditional Jew and a widely respected communal figure. For fifty years until his death in 1875 his name was a household word. "There is scarcely a family of any position," wrote the Jewish Chronicle when he died, "whose members have not received at least a portion of their education" at his school.2 He was much assisted by his wife who after 1875 continued the institution, aided by their daughter Ada, mainly for girls. Mrs. Belinda Neumegen was the daughter of Isaac Lee of Yarmouth, and she died in 1900 aged 90. Neumegen's school was an attractive building at 10 South Grove and faced what is now Pond Square.3 1 They announced in the issues of September 1847, that the paper was "considerably enlarged" and that "superior talent" had been engaged, without raising the price. Their aim was "to assist the enlightened part of the community" in the effort "to raise the religious, intellectual and social condition of their brethren proportionately with their civil advancement". They were to add to the paper a section on "the Literary Intelligence". 2 Among Neumegen's pupils who became distinguished academicians were three future professors, J. J. Sylvester, Jacob Waley and Raphael Meldola. 3 The building was known as Church House and was once the home of Sir John Hawkins, the famous magistrate. Hawkins' son leased the premises to Hurwitz in 1804. An account of this attractive house is given in The Village of Highgate (Vol. XVII of Survey of London), ed. by Sir George Gater and W. H. Godfrey, 1936. The School moved to Kew in 1842 and occupied Gloucester House, formerly the home of the Duke of Gloucester, George Ill's brother. On Neumegen's death, the School was continued mainly as a Girls' School by his widow and daughter Ada who on her mother's death in 1900 remained in charge until her retirement about 25 years ago. She died in 1937,</page><page sequence="12">250 SIR GEORGE JESSEL, 1824-1883 On 28th Kislev 1823, the Chief Rabbi authorised Falk (Walter) Neumegen of Highgate to practise as shochet. This brother of Leopold died in November 1826. Neumegen provided what he called a "liberal and solid education", which included, inter alia, Hebrew, bible, classics and mathematics. At school Jessel was known as "the clever boy" and shone particularly in mathematics which subject is frequently part of the training and interest of lawyers. The story is occasionally found that Jessel was a Hebrew scholar. If that means more than that he had a substantial interest in the language and an ability to read it and understand some of it, I know at present of no evidence to warrant the story. But Jessel had so remarkable a memory and such powers of perception and assimilation that the story may be true. On 23rd March 1883, the Jewish Chronicle wrote that "it is said he had more than a superficial knowledge of Hebrew and rabbinical literature". Indeed, Neumegen added Talmud to the course for those children whose parents wished it. The Spectator on 24th March, 1883, described Jessel as a "considerable Hebrew scholar". J. M. Rigg, writing for the Dictionary of National Biography a few years after Jessel's death, said he was a "lax observer of Jewish religious rites" but a "good Hebrew scholar" and "well read in the critical controversies regarding the Old Testament". Like his brothers, Jessel entered University College, where he matriculated in 1840. He took his B.A. degree three years later, winning honours in mathematics, natural philosophy and botany. He passed "with very distinguished merit", which was a rare citation. In 1844 he took his M.A. with a gold medal in mathematics and natural philosophy, and in May 1847, became a Fellow of the College with an award of ?50 a year. Jessel was the last Flaherty Scholar of the University of London?the scholarship was awarded in mathematics upon his bachelor's degree. Jacob Waley had been the first Flaherty Scholar. Jessel's teacher in mathematics was the renowned Professor Augustus de Morgan whose "contempt for sham knowledge" (D.N.B.) was infectious among his students and who numbered among his pupils a series of distinguished Jews, including Numa Hartog.1 Jessel, Waley and J. M. Solomon were all gold medallists in mathe? matics and headed the M.A.s in their respective years. Jessel did not take a law degree. His travels as a young man included Turkey and the United States. He retained a life-long interest in mathematics and botany. (His last reading, on his death-bed, was a botany book). His scientific training was evident throughout his legal career, in the precision of his thought and the clarity of his distinctions. It is reported that when he was laying out his gardens at his country home at Ladham, Goud hurst, Kent, he paid weekly visits to Kew Gardens to study and to select species and that he read about them with the same care that he devoted to his briefs. But these were diversions. The law was his vocation from the start. Zadok Jessel was always interested in the law. He married into a legal family. I do not know whether it was Zadok or George himself who determined the career of the youngest son. What is certain is that George was a born lawyer. 1 Morgan resigned his Chair in 1867 as he felt the College departed from its liberalism by refusing to appoint to the Chair of Mental Philosophy and Logic a Unitarian Minister (James Martineau) who was admittedly the best candidate. Inher Memoir of Morgan (1882) his widow referred to the letter sent to Morgan on that occasion by eleven former pupils, headed by Waley and including Jessel, declaring their desire to sponsor a bust or portrait of him in the College as a tribute to him as teacher and scholar. Morgan gratefully but with some bitterness of heart declined.</page><page sequence="13">SIR GEORGE JESSEL, 1824-1883 251 JESSEL AS A BARRISTER Jessel was admitted into Lincoln's Inn on 15th April, 1842 and was called on 4th May, 1847. He was the fourth professing Jewish barrister in England, Francis Goldsmid having been called in 1833 and Simon and Waley in 1842. He was one of those who bore out the comment made upon the changing status of the community by the Voice of Jacob on 13th February 1843 : "A Jew is now treated as a man; he shows himself to be one. He is allowed to cultivate his talents; he proves that he has them". Jessel was fortunate in his early training in chambers. After reading with E. J. Lloyd (who later became a County Court Judge in Bristol) who at that early date foretold his pupil's greatness, Jessel became pupil to P. Bellenger Brodie and then to Barnes Peacock. Brodie was among the most eminent conveyancers of his day and one of the master draftsmen of all time, as may be seen from the highly valued legislation which he pre? pared, notably the Fines and Recoveries Act of 1833. Peacock was a distinguished lawyer who became Chief Justice of Bengal and a member of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. JessePs intellectual achievements were cited by the protagonists of Jewish emancipation. His was among the names mentioned by Sir Isaac Lyon Goldsmid to Peel in 1845 (J.C. 8th August 1845). On 2nd March 1849, the Jewish Chronicle referred to him as lawyer and mathematician, and as one of the proofs of the falsity of the charge that Jews are known only as "money dealers". On 20th August 1856, Jessel married Amelia, eldest daughter of Joseph Moses, at her father's house, 33a Montagu Square. The Chief Rabbi performed the ceremony. On 13th Cheshvan of that year Jessel became a member of the Great Synagogue. Joseph Moses, head of a Leadenhall Street firm trading in bristles, ivory and pearl, lived near Zadok Aaron Jessel in Finsbury Square at the time of Amelia's birth in 1835, and later like the Jessels moved to the West End. He was the son of Abraham Lyon Moses, a famous philanthropist of great piety. It was upon Joseph's recovery from illness that A. L. Moses in 1836 founded what became the A. L. Moses and Henry Solomon Alms houses. Joseph Moses' son, Louis (an extensive financier who died in 1874 aged 34) changed his name to Merton, as did three of Joseph's five brothers. Joseph Moses served on the Council of Jews' College, of which his father was a great benefactor, and on the Council of the United Synagogue. Joseph's eldest brother, Jacob Henry Moses, was Lionel Louis Cohen's father-in-law. Amelia's mother, who died in 1889 aged 79, was Caroline Konigswarter of Frankfurt, the sister of the famous Jonas Konigswarter, the Viennese banker and later the lay head of Viennese Jewry. Caroline shared the philanthropic inclination of the Moses family and was widely known for her liberality. Joseph Moses and his wife were conservative in their Judaism and it was in that spirit that their children were reared. Amelia had two sisters, Victoriana, who married Angelo Ugielli of Leghorn and died in Florence in 1892, and Alice Emma, who married A. B. H. Goldschmidt and died in 1922. Amelia's cousin, Louisa Merton (1850-1931), who married (later Sir) Benjamin Cohen, is the subject of a memoir by her daughter, Hannah Cohen. That book, Changing Faces (London, 1937), recalls the atmosphere of the age and society in which George Jessel moved. On his marriage, Jessel lived at 8 Cleveland Square, W., where he stayed until 1869 when he moved to 10 Hyde Park Gardens. Jessel practised at the Bar from spacious chambers on the ground floor at 5 Stone Buildings, Lincoln's Inn, which he retained throughout his career. He moved forward rapidly in the profession. He shared his chambers with his friend George Thomas</page><page sequence="14">252 SIR GEORGE JESSEL, 1824-1883 Jenkins who was called to the Bar in 1844 and who, before becoming Master of the Supreme Court in 1879, was chief secretary to Jessel when on the Bench. Jenkins had an interest in a large estate and had opportunities of turning the attention of solicitors to the abilities of his colleague. Jenkins himself had no inclination for advocacy.1 Despite some diffident remarks often attributed to Jessel in his early years when his progress was not as rapid as he wished, it is clear that his success in the profession was quick and marked. He developed a substantial practice as a conveyancer and equity draftsman. Within two years of call he refused his father's allowance. This may account for a provision in Zadok's will giving George ?2,200 in addition to his ordinary testamentary share.2 There is much testimony to Jessel's prodigious capacity for work and his vast and ready knowledge of case law. By 1860, he appeared or advised in every type of Chancery litigation and was especially notable in patent and will cases. He enjoyed a high reputation in cases on construction?that was also to be his forte on the Bench. It is interesting to observe that in his first reported case (Simon's Cases in Chancery XVII 15) which was heard on 28th May 1849, Jessel was led by Richard Bethell, later Lord Westbury who years afterwards developed a strong dislike of Jessel. An important case of Jewish interest was Re MicheVs Trust (1860. 28 Beavan 39). In that case a Jew left money on trust for the benefit of three persons who were to study daily in the Beth Hamidrash and to say kaddish for him, the trustees to be the "parnosim" of the congregation at Ostrovesy in Poland. Jessel appeared for the trustees and argued that under the Religious Disabilities Act of 1846, which he urged had retrospective effect, this was a valid bequest. And so it was held. In the Deed Box of the Western Synagogue there is an opinion of some interest, in Jessel's hand, dated 4th May 1868. The Synagogue's solicitor, L. H. Braham, had submitted to him the question whether the Trustees required the consent of the Privileged Members before selling a vacant portion of the Brompton burial-ground (to facilitate a road-widening scheme). It was maintained by Privileged Members that the sale would be an infraction of their burial rights. Jessel's opinion was that the Trustees, under the Declaration of Trust of 1817, did not require their consent but merely the approval of a majority of the Elders. This opinion was acted upon, and the sale was effected. This is the only opinion of Jessel's which I have seen. Jessel's son, Sir Charles James Jessel, published in 1926 in an article in Blackwood"s the figures of Jessel's annual income between 1847 and 1873. After Jessel became Queen's Counsel he appeared in every important Chancery case. He dominated the Chancery Bar. He did not dominate the Master of the Rolls, Lord Romilly, as Bethell 1 See Sir Charles James JessePs article in Blackwood's. 2 Zadok Jessel left ?35,000 including property. By his will (26th June, 1863) as amended by a codicil (22nd August 1864), he distributed his personal jewellery among his sons and son-in law, left legacies of up to ?100 to each of a large number of immediate relatives (mainly nieces and nephews, both his and his wife's), and made about a dozen charitable legacies (including ?100 each to the Jewish Board of Guardians, Jews' Free School, the Jews' Hospital at Norwood, University College Hospital, the London Hospital, the Free Hospital, Bishopsgate Street, and the Great Synagogue; ?50 each to the Borough Synagogue and the Western Jews' Free School: and 19 guineas to "the poor in the parish of Putney"). To his daughter Amelia he bequeathed his household effects and "my silver plate engraved with my coat-of-arms, and my portraits and miniatures of my late wife, daughter Sophia, and (my) mother". The rest of his personalty and real estate (which included, in addition to his homes, property in Bishops gate) was to be divided among his four children. His prayer-books were to be distributed by lot among them. He added : "I desire to be buried in the Jewish burial ground at Brompton (i.e. of the Western Synagogue) avoiding however a particular part which I have mentioned to some of my children". See also Note on p. 248. His will is at Prin. Reg. 594. 64.</page><page sequence="15">SIR GEORGE JESSEL, 1824-1883 253 had dominated Vice-Chancellor Shadwell, but there is no doubt that before the mild judges in whose Courts Jessel practised the natural masterfulness of the man found much scope. His practice continued to grow after he became an M.P. in 1868. Shortly before he was appointed Master of the Rolls, JessePs income at the Bar, in addition to his salary of ?6,000 as Solicitor-General (whose office in those days could be combined with private practice), exceeded ?14,000. Jessel left a quarter of a million, and that fortune was largely the result of his practice at the Bar. (By his will, dated 20th December 1878, Jessel left his estate to his widow and children. There were no charitable bequests. His will is at Prin. Reg. 419. 83.) His great success was not due to any charm of manner or any particular courtesy of demeanour. He flattered no one. One friendly critic called him "over-masterful" as an advocate. Nor was it due to any forensic oratory or literary polish. There are different accounts of JessePs appearance at the high point of his life. In one description by an eminent Judge who saw him on the Bench when the observer was a young man, he was "one of the stupidest looking...but really one of the most able judges...".1 He was of average height, dark, broadly built and later rather stout. A strong nose and a fresh complexion gave a picture of vigour. When he spoke his appearance was animated. Manson, who remembered him, stated that a slight obliquity in one eye increased the intellectual cast of his face. A revealing comment was made by the Western Morning News on 9th April 1875 : "Sir George Jessel lacks in a remarkable degree the peculiar? ities both of personal appearance and habits of thought which as a rule belong to his race, and on that very account is qualified to be a representative man of the Jews in their point of contact with the rest of the community." JessePs trace of cockney accent and his alleged inability to pronounce the letter H are the themes of much legend. Sir Charles James Jessel wrote that he did not know his father to drop his aitches. His vigorous assertions of the law which often lit up the complexities of a case were not cocksureness but the result of powerful and rare intellectual qualities. The effect of these qualities was in no way diminished by what one newspaper called JessePs "faults of diction, pronunciation and elocution". Sometimes the judge would resent his vehemence.2 Selborne who knew him well wrote3 that he "pushed his way at the Bar with a resolute hardihood". Selborne compared Jessel in this respect to Disraeli in politics. "His temper was too self-reliant and too little softened by tact ... to gain favour at first, especially from his seniors . . .". Selborne added however that JessePs reputation continually increased and "it was not long before all prejudices against him were conquered, as his genial and essentially honourable nature came to be better under? stood". As counsel it was frequently said that Jessel was more popular with solicitors than with his fellow-barristers. His self-confidence was of a massive quality. But those who knew him felt as Serjeant William Ballantine felt that "... probably no man ever thought so much of his own powers with so much justice".4 In private life Jessel 1 Per Lord Guthrie. See Lord Guthrie, by R. L. Orr, 1923. 2 Examples can be found in William Willis' lecture and in 72 Years at the Bar; A Memoir of H. K. Poland by E. Bowen-Rowlands, 1924, and elsewhere. 3 Memorials, an autobiography by Lord Selborne. Vol. II, p. 92 etc. 4 Some Experiences of a Barrister's Life, by William Ballantine, 1883. Ballantine adds : "JessePs conceit extended to matters where it was not justified. He imagined himself a first-rate whist player, an opinion not joined in by the many members of clubs at which he played. He frequented two to which I belonged, one at Brighton, and the well-known Portland Club at the corner of Stratford Place, Oxford Street". Jessel was also a member of the Athenaeum and the Reform.</page><page sequence="16">254 SIR GEORGE JESSEL, 1824-1883 was full of good humour. In court the nearest he reached to good humour was a form of banter. But it must be remembered that it was only to equals or superiors that he was over-bearing. To young men or to the inexperienced he showed no asperity. Numerous examples are to be found in the writings of the period reflecting his essential kindliness of heart. That was why as a Judge he was loved and not feared. He would be impatient only with the mighty or the pompous. Jessel regarded his profession as highly competitive and believed that such competi? tion was beneficial both to the law and to the public. When he was Solicitor-General he encouraged the formation of the Barristers Benevolent Association to aid the less fortunate members of the profession and the families of the deceased. "There is one essential requisite to success", he declared at the annual meeting of the Association in 1879, "?good luck. The profession may well be called a lottery, and a lottery not prohibited by Act of Parliament". JessePs work on behalf of the Association was long remembered. COMMUNAL ACTIVITIES JessePs attentive interest in the Jewish community flagged as his energies became more and more engaged in one great absorption. But he continued through the 1860's to serve on charitable fund-raising committees. He was often approached for donations for charitable or educational purposes and throughout his career he was known to be responsive. "I never had a refusal from him", said Samuel Montagu.1 Montagu's last correspondence with Jessel was on the erection of larger premises for the Jewish Working Men's Club which Montagu had founded. Jessel replied, "I do approve of the project and I send you ?50". His last donation was of ?100 to the building fund of the Jews' Free School in 1883. Though his active association with communal bodies declined, his status in the community rose. In 1856 he served on a small committee of leading figures including, among others, Montefiore, Benjamin S. Phillips and Sampson Lucas, which was responsible for raising a testimonial to Sir David Salomons in honour of his Lord Mayoralty. The project of presenting some plate to Salomons met with public criticism as it did not seem the most worthy or the most useful form of commemorating the event. This plate was eventually bequeathed by Salomons to the Coopers' Company of which he was Master in 1841. The Lord Mayor's Commemoration Scholarship was instituted at Jews' College in 1858 through the efforts of a group led by Henry Harris and M. H. Picciotto. The two plans were presented to the community by two separate committees. The Jewish Chronicle, commended both types of commemoration and indeed appeals for the respective funds appeared in the same successive issues of the paper at the end of 1858. In a most interesting editorial on 8th November, 1858, the paper gives special praise to the Scholarship?which is awarded to this day. The creation of this Scholarship, wrote the Jewish Chronicle, is "the first successful manifesta? tion of the power of the middle classes, unaided by aristocracy. The mass of the com? munity has come of age". It appears that the committee of which Jessel was a member was deemed to represent an older and an aristocratic layer of the community. On 26th July 1858, at a large public meeting in the London Tavern it was decided to establish a fund to commemorate the admission of Jews to Parliament. Jessel attended with his father, and it was George who seconded the resolution, moved by Louis Nathan, i J.C. 7th March, 1884.</page><page sequence="17">Zadok Aaron (1793-31.vii Amelia = 3.viii.l854 Ignace Cahn (1 .x. 1820- 8th son of Ignace Cahn 28.iii.1895 of Frankfurt/Main 21 Westbourne (I. Cahn and Co., Terrace) Lime Street Square, shippers) Henry = 2.vi.l858 Julia Cohen (6.ix.l821- (15.i.l834-3.ii.l905) 4.iv.l870) 4 Craven Hill Gardens, W., and 4 Paper Bigs. Temple Edw (22.ii.182: 21.V.1883 49 Gordc Square, anc Bushey Frederic Henry (29.vii.1859-26.ix.1934) Author of Bibliography of Works in English on Playing Cards and Gaming (1905), which contains more than 1700 items, including an article in J.Q.R. (1893) by Israel Abrahams. He bequeathed to the Bodleian his 3,500 books on card games. Albert Henry (31.X.1864 2.U917) 17.vi.1889 Elinor (Ella) Raphael 3rd d. of George Raphael of Portland Place and Englefield Green (See below, Table D) Constance = 24.vii. 1883 at West London Syn., (6.x. 1858- Edward David Stern, 22.iv.1918) 2nd son of Viscount de Stern. Knight, 1904. First baronet, 1922. Head of Stern Bros., bankers. (1854-17.iv. 1933)</page><page sequence="18">TABLE B. THE FAMILY OF SIR GEORGE JESSEL Zadok Aaron Jessel (1793-31.viii.1864) 22.xii.1819 Mary Harris (17.iii.1792-17.iii.1836) Edward (22.ii.1822 21.v.1883) 49 Gordon Square, and Bushey aphael 22.iv.1857 Rebecca Julia Levy, only d. of Abraham Levy of 77 Harley St. (See below, Table C) GEORGE - Amelia 7 (2.viii.l8 27.ix.189 at 7 Groi Emma = 27.vi.1877 (27.viii.1857- Ludwig Nathan Hardy 27.vii.1923) (Died 23.ix.1890), Woollen merchant of Bradford and London. Changed from Ludwig Nathan by deed poll 26.iv.1877. Married by Chief Rabbi at 10 Hyde Park Gdns. Charles James = 15.vii. 1890 at West London Syn., (11 .v. 1860- Ed ith, 2nd d. of 15.vii.1928) Sir Julian Goldsmid First baronet, 1883 (Born 20.ix.1870) May Bare Wes London Syn., ;rn, nt de Stern, irst baronet, :ern Bros., 7.iv.l933) I George John, m.c. Second Baronet, (1891-) 1923 Muriel Gladys, d. of Col. J. W. Chaplin, and widow of Major Foster Swetenham. Died 1948. Charles John (1924-) 1948 Elizabeth, Lady Russell, of Liverpool, d. of Dr. David Ewart, m.d., f.r.c.s., of Chichester Nina Dorothy (1893-) Richar (1896 Glac (1896</page><page sequence="19">EL tEORGE - Amelia Moses (2.viii.l835 27.ix.1898. Died at 7 Grosvenor Place) Sophia (17.U827 15.L1839) at West London Syn., d. of 3oldsmid ).ix.l870) J Herbert Merton Born in Brighton (27.x. 1866- I (l.xi.1950) I M.P. 1896-1906 I and 1910-1918 | Mayor of Westminster 1902-31 Baron Jessel of Westminster, 1924 20.xii.1894 at West London Syn., Maud, 5th d. of Sir Julian Goldsmid. I (Born 27.x. 1874) Lucy (25.xi.1870 12.v.1942) Richard Hugh (1896-) 1923 Margaret Ella, = youngest d. of Sir George Henry Lewis. (1899-20.iv.1953) 1954 Daphne d. of W. B. Gladstone and widow of Major T. G. Philipson Marjorie Constance (16.x.1897 26.vi.1940) Gladys Vera Pearl = 1925 Clive Harrison Martyn, Edward Herbert, (1896-) (17.ix.1897- m.c. Second Baron 21.viii.1928) (1904-) Helen Maglona Vane-Tempest Stewart, 3rd d. of 7th Marquis of Londonderry Timothy Edward (1935-) Doreen Maud = 1934 G. W. G. (1909-; Agnew</page><page sequence="20">SIR GEORGE JESSEL, 1824-1883 255 that a committee be appointed to devise the best means of commemoration. In his speech, reported in a supplement to the Jewish Chronicle that week, Jessel spoke of the "ugly appearance and ungracious character" of the "concession" in the legislation of that year. But at least the community had gained the substance as far as the House of Commons was concerned, and he refused to think that the House of Lords would obstruct entry to a Jew when the time came. After paying tribute to those Jews who had striven in the struggle for emancipation, he referred, as was frequently to be his wont, in terms of special praise to the "great liberal party" in the House of Commons and outside. That party had laboured solely for the "great and immutable principles of religious liberty" and had won at last. The victory had been made possible by the "overwhelrning force of public opinion". This speech reflected JessePs belief not only in the virtues of the Liberal Party but also in the progressive character of English public life. Given time and effort, all would come right. As a further example of the "power of public opinion ... in favour of the Jew", Jessel pointed to his own profession. He said that although, "strictly speaking", a Jew practised at the Bar on sufferance there was no record of any Jew in the profession being interfered with, "although every one of them no doubt had enemies for private reasons". This satisfactory position would not have arisen unless it was clear that "public opinion would not tolerate interference". Jessel was a member of the committee set up at this meeting, and in the following month the committee reported. It advised the creation of commemorative scholarships at the City of London School, University College and the Jews' Free School. Jessel was among those charged with raising the necessary funds, of whom Barnard Van Oven was chairman and Salomons and Henry Keeling were treasurers. In April 1864, the community gave thanks for the return of the aged Montefiore from Morocco and expressed its esteem for his beneficial intercession with the Sultan on behalf of his Jewish subjects. Henry and George Jessel joined in the manifestation of regard and were among the sponsors of the great assembly on 13th April at the London Tavern when, under the chairmanship of Salomons and in the presence of many dis? tinguished Christian friends, London Jewry demonstrated its grateful affection. Jessel was interested in the Borough Synagogue. In 1867, he contributed to the building fund for its new premises and at that time promised the treasurers that he would "assist on all occasions". In 1870 he presented to the House of Commons a petition from the Borough Synagogue in favour of the abolition of religious tests at the Universities. On 3rd March 1869, Jessel presided at the biennial dinner of the Jews' Orphan Asylum. In a speech which was unusual for such assemblies, he traced the history of the idea of an orphan asylum from the days of Greece and Rome and its evolution in practice since the 17th century. He warned against a large institution and advocated personal, homely attention for each child. He strongly supported the training in manual skills and the apprenticeship system. He had recently attended the examination of the children at the Asylum and found them "very proficient" in the three R's. The most important episode in JessePs communal career before he entered Parlia? ment was his association with Jews' College. He was a member of the first Council of the College, which was appointed at the inaugural meeting at Sussex Hall on 4th January 1852. He attended the first meeting of the first Council at the home of the Chief Rabbi a week later, at which A. L. Green, who was later to be a friend of Jessel and Minister at the Central Synagogue of which Jessel was for 25 years a member, was appointed Honorary Secretary. At this meeting Jessel and Sampson Samuel, solicitor</page><page sequence="21">256 SIR GEORGE JESSEL, 1824-1883 and secretary to the Board of Deputies, were appointed to draft a letter which the Chief Rabbi was to send to congregations and individuals throughout the country inviting support for the College. This letter which, I think, clearly bears the stamp of Jessel, spoke of the need to lay a permanent basis which could be secured only by "considerable funded capital being obtained in the first instance". At the second meeting, on 22nd January, Jessel and Samuel were invited to prepare a similar appeal to be sent to Jews in British territories overseas. Three months later the Council appointed a committee which included Jessel to consider Adler's plan for the College, and the school to be attached thereto, and to make recommendations for the improvement of the "practical working" of the scheme. This committee made important recommendations on the constitution of the College and on its methods of operation. There is no evidence that Jessel shared Salomons' doubts about the desirability of attaching the day school to the College. The committee's recommendations were adopted by the Council in October and long remained the basis upon which the College and school proceeded. Jessel remained a member of the Council till 1863, when, on the coming into operation of a new constitution, he took the opportunity of retiring. The College was one of those communal causes which his increasing commitments elsewhere obliged him to leave to others. Perhaps his departure from his father's orthodoxy had something to do with it. Jessel remained a member of the orthodox community all his life and frequently declared his pride in his association with what he called the "ancient faith". Both as counsel and as Judge he attended Court on Saturdays. He was in synagogue on the High Festivals. On Yom Kippur, his Court was closed. It is an interesting reflection that Francis Goldsmid, so prominent in Reform, is reported to have been "very strict about not doing any legal work on the Sabbath".1 Nevertheless the Jewish World, in its obituary notice, described Jessel as "orthodox and observant" and the Spectator wrote that he was "absolutely faithful to his hereditary Jewish creed". In an address at the Central Synagogue on 24th March 1883, Hermann Adler eulogising a "righteous judge" referred to JessePs "valuable counsel in the constitution of the United Synagogue". I have not discovered this counsel. The principal Jewish lawyers in the confidence of the United Synagogue were its honorary solictor A. E. Sydney, J. M. Solomon and Jacob Waley. Perhaps Adler knew of some advice given by Jessel to his friend and relative L. L. Cohen, the principal founder of the United Synagogue, when the scheme of the new organisation was before the Charity Commissioners. POLITICS: THE MEMBER FOR DOVER Jessel took silk in March 1865, and quickly assumed the leadership of the Rolls Court. He had first applied for silk in 1861 and it is sometimes alleged that the Lord Chancellor, Lord Westbury, refused to give Jessel his due. In fact, the Queen's Counsel of 1861 were appointed by Westbury's predecessor Lord Campbell, who died on 22nd June 1861. It was the longest list of new Q.C.s on record. It seems that Westbury who took office in July 1861 was for a time more chary in the number of his appointments to this rank. It was at the hands of Westbury that Jessel ultimately received silk. But there is no doubt of Westbury's antagonism to Jessel. Roundell Palmer helped to persuade Westbury to make this appointment. In some accounts it is stated that Jessel 1 "What an old Reporter told me", by Professor Courtney Kenny, in 61 Law Quarterly Review 1927. According to Marks and Lowy, Goldsmid went to the Chancery side as his absence therefrom on Saturdays "would matter less than in the Common Law Courts",</page><page sequence="22">SIR GEORGE JESSEL, 1824-1883 257 had to wait until Westbury had retired. The reason for that mistake is, I think, that Westbury sent his resignation to the Prime Minister, Palmerston, in January 1865, but it was not accepted. Westbury did not resign until July ofthat year, by which time the new silks appointed by him and including Jessel had been announced and sworn. In his Lives of the Chancellors Atlay in a footnote refers to Westbury's "unjust but un? conquerable prejudice against Jessel" as an example of Westbury's numerous animosities. There was certainly no feeling on Westbury's part against Jessel as a Jew. Westbury was an outspoken friend of emancipation with an important role in the parliamentary struggle. The true reason for the relationship was probably that the two men were of the same type, though Westbury was far more cruel and brusque in his sarcasm and repartee. They often encountered one another in cases at the Bar when Westbury was the eminent Richard Bethell and Jessel was the young rising counsel who refused ever to give way or to take BethelPs knocks quietly. Jessel became a Bencher of his Inn in April 1865, and Treasurer shortly before his death. In the General Election of November 1868 Jessel stood as Liberal candidate for Dover. The local Liberals decided to nominate only one candidate and they selected Jessel from four Liberals who presented themselves. The other three were men of greater influence locally and in the country. Joshua Dixon was a director of the London Chatham-Dover Railway Company; Sir Sydney Waterlow was a noted philanthropist and famous as a printer in the City of London, where he had recently held office as Sheriff; J. S. Forbes was general manager of the London-Chatham-Dover Railway Company. From the moment that Jessel made his first statement of his political views in Dover it was apparent to all that here was no ordinary candidate. That Jessel should have been a Liberal is no surprise. He was not a doctrinaire in politics and had no respect for the past as such. His mind was unencumbered by undue reverence for tradition merely because it was old. The Liberals seemed to him the party of common-sense. He had a high respect for the intellect and integrity of Gladstone. Like the vast majority of Jews at the time Jessel felt it should not be for? gotten that the Liberal party was primarily responsible for emancipation. The first Jewish Conservative M.P. was Saul Isaac who was elected at Nottingham in 1874. In 1868 Henry de Worms who stood as Tory at Sandwich was vigorously attacked by the Jewish Record and more delicately upbraided by the Jewish Chronicle for so doing. Jessel held the view of most Jews that both gratitude and interest obliged the Jews to support the Liberals. But he also had other grounds for his choice of party. In his published election address Jessel stressed the need to pacify Ireland, the desir? ability of economy in the public service, and the values of an advance in education. During the election he also urged the abolition of the purchase of commissions in the Army (achieved in 1871) and attacked the dependence upon rating which was a feature of the extention of the franchise in the Second Reform Act of 1867.1 In education2 1 The rating clauses of the Act were a particular target of the Radicals, some of whom looked towards manhood suffrage. Jessel was attacked from the opposing platforms as a Radical. 2 "I am not one of those", declared Jessel in a typically forthright speech during the contest, "who will stand before working men and tell them they are the salt of the earth.?It is the skilled workman, whatever may be the character of his labour, that I hold in honour.?He may be a carpenter or a stone-mason or a barrister or a medical man. But to be a skilled workman in any department, he must have education,?energy,?patience,?perseverance. It is not reading or writing that constitute education. It is education of the mind, the attainment of those qualities which make a man worthy of being called a man. It is the practice of self sacrifice, of abstinence from evil, of resolution, and determination to succeed?that I call education". This kind of speech has a mid-Victorian ring. Its frankness is typical of the speaker.</page><page sequence="23">258 SIR GEORGE JESSEL, 1824-1883 he urged not only the need to establish a national elementary system but also the benefits that would accrue to the State from technical education. Other countries were competing with Great Britain all the more effectively because they had appreciated the value of encouraging technical skills. But the principal issue in the General Election was Gladstone's proposal to disestab? lish and disendow the Church of Ireland. It was this controversy which made the election one of the keenest-fought of the century. Religious passions were aroused. It was feared that disestabHshment in Ireland would be the prelude to a similar measure in respect of the Church of England. Disendowment seemed to the Tories and even to some leading Liberals like Roundell Palmer (as Lord Selborne then was) a threat to property, and was termed by Disraeli an act of socialism. The monarchy seemed affected in that the royal supremacy over the Church as laid down in the Tudor Settle? ment seemed to be challenged. Palmer declined the Woolsack in 1868 because of this issue. Jessel without inhibitions advocated Gladstone's scheme at Dover where local conditions generated particular heat. At a "monster meeting" reported in the Jewish Chronicle on 30th October 1868, Jessel referred to Ireland as a conquered land where "there has been established by that right which is might" an Anglican Church alien to five-sixths of the population. DisestabHshment was not a succumbing to intimidation but was a policy of conciliation between the two countries. In this speech Jessel also criticised Disraeli for seeking to take credit for the recent franchise extension which though enacted by the Tories was, Jessel asserted, largely a Liberal measure. Some of JessePs meetings were so rowdy that it became necessary to limit admission by ticket. There were four candidates at Dover for two seats, both of which had been held by the Tories since 1856. The two sitting members, Major A. G. Dickson and C. K. Freshfield, stood for re-election. Dickson was a local resident and enjoyed the support of powerful friends locally. Freshfield was a member of the well-known firm of City solicitors ofthat name who were solicitors to the Bank of England. The fourth candidate was Israel Abrahams who stood as an independent Liberal and whom no one took seriously.1 1 Israel Abrahams does not deserve his oblivion. This voluble, pushful and successful appraiser, auctioneer and estate agent of 53 Great Portland Street, had political ambitions. He was elected to the Vestry of St. Marylebone and then in 1863 stood for Devizes at a Parliamentary by-election caused by the death of Gladstone's brother, who was a Tory. He presented himself as a Palmerstonian Liberal and an "advanced reformer" and pressed his campaign in the face of a hostile and barbed local press. The references in the Western Morning News to his name and faith provoked the Jewish Chronicle (20th February 1863) to protest. Against him stood a Tory of great local influence and wide repute, W. W. Addington, heir to Lord Sidmouth and grandson of a Prime Minister. There was a second Liberal in the field, one Probyn, described by Abrahams as a "half-and-half Liberal" and therefore worse than an "out-and-out Tory". Among Abraham's virtues which he proudly canvassed during the contest, was his membership of the Odd Fellows, the Druids and the Masons. He boasted of his business success and independent spirit. "I rose by my own energies". He wanted to see more "villas" built in the county?"and how they'd let too, for I never forget the money in all my affairs (a voice : "Jew-like"). But for the money I should not be able to protect my wife and family (hear! hear!)"?from report in Devizes and Wiltshire Gazette of one ofhis speeches. He also took pride in the fact that his cousin was "Chancellor of the Exchequer" in Jamaica? this refers to George Solomon (1825-1910) the Southampton-born Jamaican planter and merchant who was a leading figure in the colony's Assembly and in 1863 was appointed Finance Member of the Executive Committee or Government of the Island. Abrahams' brother-in-law was "the assistant-judge in Jamaica". I cannot identity that relative with certainty. But neither these factors nor his advocacy of the abolition of compulsory church rates and Parlia? mentary reform endeared him to the electors. "He is doubtless more qualified", wrote the Western Morning News, "to discount bills for needy Peers than to introduce bills into the</page><page sequence="24">SIR GEORGE JESSEL, 1824-1883 259 Jessel's religion or "nationality" was an issue in the election. During the nomina tions at the hustings Freshfield's proposer said the opposition "was not Christian" and that it could perfectly be understood that it was their aim "to pull down the Irish Church". In his acceptance speech Freshfield spoke highly of Jessel as a man and of Judaism which he described as "the parent stem" to which "we are only grafted," but he warned against sending a Jew to Parliament when great church issues required decision. In a much more aggressive speech, Dickson declared "I am a Protestant, gentleman; Mr. Jessel is not." I regret to say that one of Dickson's friends in the crowd produced a pig's head dressed in forensic fashion, but I should add that others in the crowd exhibited a cat-o' nine-tails as a reminder of Dickson's vbte in the House of Commons against the abolition of flogging. Jessel showed great restraint and dignity in the face of these tactics. "Some of the electors," he said in his acceptance speech, "would have benefited much if the extension of education which I advocate had been implemented years ago". He also showed his moral courage on the hustings when he refused to second the vote of thanks to the Mayor, who was also the returning officer, because in Jessel's opinion he had announced the show of hands to be in favour of Dickson and Freshfield when clearly it was not so. This public reproof to the Mayor was much used by his opponents who posted the town with bills to the effect that Jessel had insulted the Mayor. Jessel maintained his opinion that the Mayor had been partisan throughout the election. In Parliament, a mutual respect arose between Jessel and Dickson and they collaborated amicably on issues affecting Dover. The show of hands was of no constitutional effect but simply encouraged one side or the other in the course of the poll which then ensued. In those days of open ballot and with the franchise recently extended to household suffrage, the buying of votes and general intimidation were marked features of the electoral system. Indeed the House of Commons appointed a Select Committee to enquire into the conduct of the General Election of 1868 and the result was a measure of purification through the Ballot Act of 1872 and other legislation. Dover was not enquired into by that committee nor was there any petition from Dover against the validity of the election. There had been a Select Committee appointed by the House of Commons in 1860 to examine allegations of bribery and corruption in the election at Dover of 1859 and striking evidence was forthcoming relating to the organising, paying and entertaining of workers from the local docks and railways on behalf of the parties, though it was not proved that this was done with the knowledge or consent of the candidates. Joseph George Churchward, an influential man in Dover's municipal and social life and controlling the Mail Packet Service, was the main figure behind the bribery, according to the witnesses in the enquiry of 1860. Some of the voters were paid or entertained by both sides. Churchward had supported the Liberals but in 1859 had switched to the Conservatives and had tried to switch with Commons". The Tory won easily. There was an aftermath. Abrahams had used a letter from a Baptist Minister in a manner suggesting that he had the support of the Baptist Union. This led to a public disowning of him by the Union. He was also accused of adding the names of some London colleagues to his committee list without authority. They too publicly dissociated themselves-though it appears the error was that of the press in misreporting some of Abrahams's remarks. The Marylebone Mercury ridiculed both his candidature and his policies. But Abrahams had a thick skin and a sense of humour. To the 176 and 88 votes polled by the other two, he had polled 6. Undeterred by the attacks on what the local press in Wiltshire and Marylebone called "vulgarities" or "bombast", he ventured into the arena again in 1868 at Dover. But this time he was of no account-not even for ridicule. His candidature was completely overshadowed.</page><page sequence="25">260 Sir george jessel, 1824-1883 him the votes of the men in his establishment and elsewhere. Dover had a long reputa? tion as a corrupt constituency. In 1868, Churchward, who controlled over 50 votes in his own establishment, was a local Tory leader.1 His acerbity was no doubt sharpened by the decision of the Liberal Government in June 1863, to terminate his cross-channel mail service contract, for which he unsuccessfully sued for ?126,000. A strong feature of the Dover election in 1868 was that the character and integrity of Jessel were so high as to be beyond challenge, and his persistent denunciation of corruption was so strong and sincere that the election turned into more of a fight on issues than the town was accustomed to.2 The Act of 1867 had increased the local franchise by 700 votes and the election result was an open one until a late stage. Jessel refused to court these newcomers in the traditional style. His committees sat in private homes and not in public-houses. He had agreed to stand on condition that it was to be a pure election and he announced that he did not think that entertaining voters or address? ing them in public-houses was compatible with purity of election. He set his face against infringing the law by hiring vehicles to bring the voters to the booth. The election of Jessel in these circumstances is noteworthy, the more so when one recalls the religious issue and that some of the leading members of his party including Gladstone (in his native Lancashire) and Hartington (despite his strong family connections with his constituency) were defeated. Dickson headed the poll with 1,461 votes to JessePs 1,435. Freshfield polled 1,387, and Abrahams 35. Jessel remained M.P. for Dover for five years until his appointment to the Bench. He fought a second election in 1871 on becoming Solicitor-General, to which office he was appointed on 10th November. Not until 1926 did Parliament wholly rescind the legislation of 1705, which made it necessary for an M.P. who accepted office, to submit himself again to his constituents. The election of 1871 was the last occasion of open voting in Dover. Jessel was opposed by only a part of the local Tory leadership. The issues on which the local Tories were divided were mainly personal. Dickson resented the charge, made after the election of 1868, that he had acted dishonourably against Freshfield, from whom, it was alleged, he had deliberately enticed votes. Nor did Dickson think it proper to oppose the re-election of a colleague whom the Queen had appointed to office. Dickson was also incensed that local Tories should have decided to put up a candidate against Jessel without his prior knowledge. Dickson and Church? ward, who was then the chairman of the local Party, announced at a municipal dinner their intention not to oppose Jessel, but it became clear at once that there was strong opposition against their attitude within their Party. The Liberal Government was losing much of its early popularity. Gladstone's Irish policy alarmed many, notably Churchmen. The Education Act of 1870, by permitting the use of public funds to aid Church schools, alienated many Nonconformists. The Licensing Bill of 1871 1 The Liberal Dover News on 21st November 1868, rejoicing over Jessel's election, described that event as the freeing of Dover which had been "too long overridden by an arch-corruptor". 2 After the election, Jessel inserted in the local press a note of thanks to the electors and said that the "unsullied purity" of the Liberal vote "vindicated your borough from the stain which has so long been a reproach to it". His victory was the prelude to the formation in Dover, under JessePs leading local supporter, Alderman Steriker Finnis, of a Liberal Association, on the lines of similar Associations which at that time were becoming a feature of party organization and which sought to organise the new voters. The Dover Liberal Association was founded on 19th December 1868 in the wake of the enthusiasm of Jessel's capture of the seat. (In November 1871, the Liberals won control in the municipality). One of the charges against the local Tories in 1868 was their use of the clergy in the election?a "pastoral letter" was sent out advising parishioners how to vote : Dover News, 28th November, 1868.</page><page sequence="26">TABLE Edward Jessel (1822-1883) Rebecca Julia Levy (1828-23.iv.l Ernest Edward Jessel = (3.i.l858-13.vi.l914) Accountant. Author of The Formation of English Companies (1907). 12.x. 1887 at West London Syn.5 Isabel Annie (3.V.1865-8.V.1906) eldest d. of Frederick Isaac of Queen's Gate Gardens. = 1907 Isabel, d. of Edward Milnes of Bury (1880-6.V.1948) Mary Tl (13.V?.1859-2 TABLE D. Albert Henry Jessel = (1864-1917) Elinor I Kathleen Ella = 1915 Cecil Arthur Vera (1892-1950) Franklin (1887-) (1894 Chairman, Routledge, ? Kegan Paul Ltd. \ ? 1926 C. Alwyn Humphreys ?) I Richard = Win Frederick (d (1902-) VC Cmdr. R.N. (ret.), D.S.O., D.S.C. Robert William Albert (1899-) - 1935 , d. of \ F. S</page><page sequence="27">TABLE C. EDWARD JESSEL AND HIS CHILDREN Edward Jessel = (1822-1883) Rebecca Julia Levy (1828-23.iv.1911) >el, d. of Edward Milnes of Bury 0-6.V.1948) Mary Theresa = 26.v. 1879 Julius Lawrence-Hamilton (13.vii.1859-21.ii.1936) (15.vii.1844-13.vi.1913), eldest son of Lawrence Levy Leonce Laugel (13.vii.1859 10.iv.1936) French diplomat TABLE D. ALBERT HENRY JESSEL AND HIS CHILDREN Albert Henry Jessel (1864-1917) = Elinor Raphael vyn Humphreys i Richard = Winifred Frederick (d. of Major (1902-) W. H. Levy) Cmdr. R.N. (ret.), D.S.O., D.S.C. Penelope Blackwell Philip Aldert (1909-) 1935 Patricia Florence, youngest d. of Leslie Harris 194 r Robert William Albert = 1935 Audrey (1899-) , d. of I F. S. Warburg</page><page sequence="28">L AND HIS CHILDREN nee-Hamilton )> Levy Leonce Laugel (13.vii.1859 10.iv.1936) French diplomat Frank Herbert (4.?.1861 10.xii.1911) Florence Reginald = Lucy Percy McCarthy (19.xii.1868 (Died 22.vi.1923) ?.xii.1926) vi. 1896 Marguerite Frances, d. of James Duncan of Lausanne Clement Edward = Ursula Theodora Buckley Patricia Jessel Actress (Born 1920 in Hong Kong) SSEL AND HIS CHILDREN 1935 Patricia Florence, = 1945 Mary Elizabeth, d. of Ruth Julia = 1932 Henry Lawrence, youngest d. of Dr. Druitt of Petworth (1911-) son of A. Leslie Harris Levy Lawrence</page><page sequence="29">SIR GEORGE JESSEL, 1824-1883 261 (which was withdrawn and which Jessel had opposed because of the inadequate compensa? tion proposed for licensees) and a series of contentious appointments were having their influence. JessePs opponent, Edward William Barnett, an engineer and an Indian railway contractor, who was a stranger to Dover, fanned these discontents.1 He stood as an "Independent Constitutional Candidate" and had the support not only of influential local Tories, including Alderman E. Knocker, the out-going Mayor, and A. G. Lowndes, who headed Barnett's committee, but also of prominent national figures including Edward Clarke, later a distinguished Attorney-General. Barnett's most significant supporter was John Eldon Gorst, the chief national agent of the reviving Tory Party, and a kinsman of Lowndes. Gorst's presence on Barnett's platform, and still more his words, lent colour to the view that Barnett was an official candidate. The Dover Express later described Barnett as "without the slightest political ability" and added that "if expenditure legal or otherwise could have carried the day" Jessel would have lost. "Brains v. Bullion" was how the journal summed up the election. Jessel admitted one of the charges against him, namely that he was ambitious. He reminded his constituents of what he had told them in the election of 1868, that if he were offered, as he had said he thought was prob? able, a Law Office or a judgeship, he would readily accept. At a large meeting in Dover on 8th November 1871, he said : "I was not one of those who went into Parliament with a notion of being party to a self-denying ordinance." Barnett and some of his less conspicuous followers made play with JessePs "national? ity". The jibe of "Jew" was popular in some parts of the electorate. In his published election address, Jessel referred to "the great cause of civil and religious liberty", and his speeches during the contest are noteworthy for his handling of the prejudice against him as a Jew. His religion, declared Jessel on 21st November, had deprived him of the opportunity of studying at Oxford or Cambridge and he had "submitted most reluctantly" to his exclusion; and it was only through the "connivance" of the Benchers of his Inn 1 Barnett, whose meetings were crowded, was an advocate of a tunnel from Dover to France, in which he had long been interested. He also promised to oppose the abolition of compulsory pilotage, which a Bill in the previous session had sought to achieve. The proposal had been withdrawn, but no doubt Barnett's use of this issue won favour. He also took pride in his Anglicanism?"without being a ritualist". He had influential support in London, not only from large national dailies such as the Standard (which attacked the official policy of not opposing Jessel when his party "glories in outraging the most cherished institutions of the land") but also from individual Tories, including (in addition to Clarke and Lowndes) Sir John Hay, Lord John Manners and Lord Claud Hamilton. The Standard made a special point of attacking the Universities Tests Act of 1871. The Daily News stoutly supported Jessel, but it seems to me that, had the Tories been united, this by-election would have gone the way of the others in those difficult years for Gladstone. The Government was not assisted?and Jessel still less ?by the Tichborne marathon then in progress, or by the Court Martial of officers of the Megaera which sank after leaving port for Australia in an unseaworthy state. The officers were acquitted of negligence. It was the Admiralty which was deemed by many to be at fault. The Court Martial?widely reported?was sitting during the election. Much play was made of the association between the Liberal Party and the republicans. Bar nett also made a special effort to attract the working men's votes. The Chairman of the Dover Working Men's Constitutional Association was a prominent supporter. The parallel bodies of Westminster and Bethnal Green were represented on his platforms. This was an example of Disraeli's Tory Democracy at work. Jessel was driven to describe a working-class Tory as a "contradic? tion in terms" and extolled the Trade Union Act of 1871. Jessel's main assets in this election, in addition to the fact of his being appointed to office, were his vigorous personality, his un? impeachable character and his undoubted abilities. The election aroused widespread interest in the country?as a member of the Government, his defeat would have been the severest rebuff to Gladstone. During the campaign, circulars were distributed to the effect that Jessel "is opposed to the doctrines of the New Testament." R</page><page sequence="30">262 SIR GEORGE JESSEL, 1824-1883 that he had been allowed to practise at the Bar without taking a Christian oath.1 He maintained that his appointment to the Government demonstrated the passing of religious disabilities in England, and that Barnett's introduction of a religious issue into the election was out of keeping with the current trend. Barnett had stressed his Anglicanism and had criticised elaborate ritual. Jessel objected that Barnett "should plead his religion as a qualification for your suffrages". Jessel spoke of his own "great reverence for religion" and added that he had "shown it under circumstances which very few of you here ever have been called upon to meet". No one is entitled "to refer to a form of prayer for a political object". At this passage, JessePs speech was interrupted and a fight ensued in the body of the hall which required the intervention of the police. It was a tumultuous election. According to the Dover Express of 24th November, Barnett employed about one hundred persons "of the lowest class" to carry his placards daily through the town, and the journal persistently accused Barnett of buying votes both directly and indirectly through publicly advertised gifts to local charities. Rioting was endemic on voting day and increased when the result was declared. JessePs majority was 91 out of a poll of 2,300. He secured 200 fewer votes than in 1868. Disorders in the streets were allowed to spread through the inefficiency of the police. Indeed, some special constables canvassed for Barnett and even joined in his parades. Following the result, attacks were made not only upon the hotels where Jessel and his principal sup? porters had lodged and upon his Committee Rooms but also on the Liberal Dover Express and Churchward's Dover Telegraph. There were arrests but it became clear that the true promoters of the rioting had escaped. The Watch Committee invited the well known firm of London solicitors, Lewis and Lewis, to conduct a local enquiry into the instigation of the disorders. On 19th December, Lewis's wrote to the Town Clerk that they had carried out "a very full investigation" and had interrogated nearly 400 persons, but that there was "a manifest desire to keep silence on the matter upon all sides". They were therefore unable to make a report. Rewards offered by the Watch Committee for information leading to the arrest of the promoters of the rioting led to no result. On 17th December, the Magistrates dismissed the charges against those arrested in view of the insufficient evidence. The prosecution had been conducted on behalf of the Watch Committee by George Henry Lewis, later the first baronet, whose granddaughter in 1923 married JessePs grandson. The opinion of the Watch Committee was that the rioting had been organised by Barnett's friends, and the Committee refused Barnett's offer to pay one half of the cost of the damage if Jessel met the remainder. JessePs re-election was welcomed throughout the country in many newspapers. The result was in striking contrast with the Government's general tendency at that time to lose seats at the by-elections.2 Jessel was an assiduous member on behalf of his constituency. He advocated the interests of the Dover pilots in the debates on the Pilotage Bill of 1870. Dover was the grand pilot station of the Cinque Ports, and her 75 pilots were an important electoral 1 See The Jews and the English Law, by H. S. Q. Henriques, 1908, pp. 202-5, for Jews and entry into the legal profession. 2 In the by-election of 1873 on JessePs elevation to the Bench, the Liberals lost the seat. J. S. Forbes stood for the party. Clarke conducted the Tory effort as Barnett was out of the country and could not be contacted in time. Clarke secured the largest Tory majority hitherto known in Dover. But within a few weeks Parliament was dissolved. Barnett did not stand again and appears to have disappeared from English political life. For Clarke in the Dover elections of 1871 and 1873 see The Story of my Life by him (1923) and also Sir Edward Clarke by D. Walker Smith and E. Clarke, 1939.</page><page sequence="31">SIR GEORGE JESSEL, 1824-1883 263 group. His annual lectures in Dover on the state of the nation and on world affairs were highly appreciated, lengthily reported locally and were welcomed in the Dover press as important means of educating the electorate and public opinion. His studied and at times critical appraisal of the Government's policies increased his local and national stature. A typical comment was that of the Dover Express which in mourning Jessel described his connection with Dover as "one of the brightest spots in the city's political history". One of the recurring themes in JessePs addresses to his constituents was that of non-intervention. During the Franco-Prussian War he warned against British interference with the proposed cession of Alsace-Lorraine to Germany. He had no sympathy with the policy of German expansion or with Bismarck's methods, but he feared that if Great Britain intervened other nations would follow suit. "We should light a conflagration", he said, "whose result cannot be foreseen except that it would be utterly destructive to civilisation for years to come". The policy of non-intervention found favour in the country. Jessel was expressing his own view and the Government's. He energetically supported the Anglo-American treaty of May 1871. The Americans "are our best friends and our best customers". The small Jewish community at Dover was intensely proud of their Jewish M.P. Jessel interested himself in the sound establishment of the new synagogue in Northampton Street which had replaced the old cramped building in Hawkesbury Street in 1863. According to the Jewish Chronicle of 6th May 1870 he handed Saul Isaac, who represented Dover Jewry on the Board of Deputies (1865-74), ?50 in aid of the synagogue which had not yet paid off the building debt and whose annual expenditure of ?145 was about twice its income. PARLIAMENT In the House of Commons Jessel was not on familiar territory, and he never became a good parliamentarian. He was too sure that he was right. That certainty made debate difficult for him. He was certainly not a "dead failure" as Harold Laski wrote in one of his letters to Justice Holmes.1 His maiden speech was delivered on 5th March 1869 on the Bankruptcy Bill introduced by the Attorney-General who, after Jessel had spoken, said that Jessel "was entitled to speak with great authority on this subject" and that he would welcome Jessel's advice on the details of the Bill. Jessel's contribu? tions to the discussion on bankruptcy law in 1869 attracted wide attention. It was his memorable speech on this subject on 5th April 1869 that first aroused Gladstone's special interest in him and began Gladstone's extreme respect and admiration for Jessel as a lawyer and a man.2 On 9th April, the Jewish Chronicle quoted a usually restrained contemporary paper as comparing this speech to the addresses of Macaulay. Jessel presented an historical survey of bankruptcy law in England and elsewhere. He based his suggestions on his own experience and on what he called "the experience of the whole world". He looked behind accepted notions and, reaching back to their origins, he explained inconsistencies and took the magic out of anomalies. 1 Holmes-Laski Correspondence, 1953. 2 Next to Westbury, Gladstone thought Jessel the cleverest lawyer he had ever known : Personal Papers of Lord Rendel, 1931, p. 120. See also Gladstone's letter to Lady Jessel on 30th March, 1883 : Morley's Gladstone, III, p. 106. Lionel A. Tollemache in his Talks with Gladstone, 1898, quotes Gladstone as saying that lawyers in the Houses of Commons "are too fond of putting their hands into the public purse" and that "the chief exception to this rule was Jessel the Jew".</page><page sequence="32">264 SIR GEORGE JESSEL, 1824-1883 Jessel urged in the House the abolition of imprisonment for debt, advocated the termination of out-of-date practices relating to the forfeiture of a felon's property, and gave powerful support to the contentious Married Women's Property Bill in 1869. In these and in other legal and administrative contexts he gave sound advice. He was a protagonist of the idea of wide statutory powers for interfering in old charitable trusts, in the public interest. On 2nd August 1870, in the debate on the Civil Estimates, Jessel congratulated the Government on behalf of the Bar on the plan to build new Law Courts, though he doubted whether sufficient accommodation had been provided for extra Appeal Courts in the event of the future consolidation of law and equity. On 25th April 1871, he made a typically strong and practical speech on the existing provisions for land settlement and entail. He was not merely a party man. In the middle of 1865 there was discussion in the legal press on the increasing number of lawyers in Parliament. There was a general feeling that such members tend to obey the Whips docilely in the hope some day of preferment to the Bench. If this was so, Jessel was one of the exceptions. If he supported the Government it was through conviction and he did not hesitate to express his disagreement. His speeches on Ireland are of particular merit and significance. He supported Gladstone's Irish Land Act of 1870 which, among other objects, gave legislative sanction to and extended throughout Ireland what was known as Ulster custom,1 and protected tenants against unjust eviction. The measure in regard to Ulster custom achieved what Jessel thought Irish judges should themselves have long sanctioned. That is a clear indication of Jessel's attitude to the role of the Courts. "All who practise in Courts of Justice", he said in the House on 28th March 1870, "know that judges are but men, and naturally participated in and sympathise with the feelings of the order to which they belong". Jessel's anxiety to see the law as a living thing and his fear lest it become a tyrant ruling from the grave, were the hallmarks of his judicial career and explain the frequency with which Jessel is mentioned in the Laski-Holmes correspondence. The great American judge once spoke of the Court's duty to be concerned with realities and not with shibboleths and the function of a judge to legislate, if only in the "interstices". Laski had no sympathy with the economic individualism of Jessel2 but he recognised in him the spirit of creative law. It requires an effort of imagination and courage for a judge, in changing times, to rise above the "feelings of the order to which he belongs". It is because Jessel endeavoured to understand the direction and the needs of his times that he is accounted a great judge as well as a great lawyer. In his speech on Ireland to which I have referred one detects in Jessel a consciousness of his inclination. LAW OFFICER OF THE CROWN But this is to anticipate. Jessel's appointment as Solicitor-General was expected. He succeeded Sir John Duke Coleridge (later Lord Coleridge) who became Attorney General in succession to Sir Robert Collier who had been elevated to the Bench. Jessel 1 By this custom the tenant was deemed to be owner of the land to the extent that the purchaser of his leasehold could enjoy his rights without any fresh contract with the landlord. 2 The extent to which Jessel was child of his age is well indicated by his decision in Printing and Numerical Registry Co. v. Sampson (1875, 19 Eq. 462), in which he held that public policy required that "men of full age and competent understanding shall have the utmost liberty of contracting and their contracts when entered into freely and voluntarily shall be held sacred and shall be enforced by the Courts of Justice". Later judges were less ready to accept the consequences of laissez faire : English Law and its Background by C. H. S. Fifoot, 1932.</page><page sequence="33">SIR GEORGE JESSEL, 1824-1883 265 was knighted at Osborne on 21st February 1872. The choice of Jessel had been rumour? ed for some time?ever since his election to Parliament. As early as 11th December 1868, the Jewish Chronicle referred to a report that he "is the coming Solicitor-General". In the Jewish community the appointment of a Jew for the first time to be a Minister of the Crown was regarded as setting a seal upon Jewish emancipation. A. J. Henriques, a member of the Bar, at a meeting of the Board of Deputies which assembled on 21st November 1871 to congratulate Jessel, expressed the view of the community when he said the event "created an era in Jewish history". In his letter of congratulation, Montefiore hopefully made the point that Jessel might "long enjoy the honours which you so well merit, distinguishing yourself whenever the opportunity may present itself by your attachment to our Religion and to the interests of our Communities". The comment of the Daily News was typical of the general press when it reminded its readers that Jessel was a Jew "by faith and open avowal" and that the appointment was an indication that the prejudice of the past was no feature in English public life. The selection of Jessel was bracketed with the appointment of John Bright to the Board of Trade in 1868 (Bright was the first Nonconformist to achieve Government office) and the elevation (for the first time since 1688) of a Roman Catholic to the Bench in 1863 in the person of William Shee, as heralding a new age. Jessel later pointed out the great difference between religious freedom and religious equality. The Jews had long enjoyed the former. The latter was of recent growth. He regarded his appointment as proof of religious equality. In the profession, JessePs appointment made less stir. "A colourless event as far as the profession is concerned", said the Law Times on 11th November. The legal press was unanimous in their commendation of Jessel's ability and capacity for work, but opinion was much taken up at the time with the public criticisms, on technical grounds, made by some judges, including the Lord Chief Justice, of the mode of elevation of Collier to the Privy Council. But the significance of Jessel's appointment to the profession and to the law was soon apparent. Of the many causes in which Jessel was a protagonist in Parliament and in his profession, I find his proposal for a particular kind of legal education of special interest. His attitude on this subject helps to delineate the man and explain his extraordinary success. Legal education was an issue of intense controversy in the 1860's and early 1870's. In his autobiography, Palmer sought to account for Jessel's "vigorous and effective opposition" to his scheme for the creation of a School of Law. He attributed that opposition partly to "jealously on the part of the University of London" which had its own Law School. Palmer, a former Attorney-General, was the leading figure in the Legal Education Association which has formed in July 1870. With the support ofthat strong body of lawyers and legal academicians, he moved in the House of Commons that a "Legal University" be created in London. An influential supporting petition was presented which included among other names those of Sheldon Amos, Bryce and Arthur Cohen. The principal critic of the scheme was Jessel and he brought into his opposition unusual fervour. I think it was the natural opposition of a hard-working practitioner to whom the law was something to be grasped and acquired by close study, experience, and intuition. To transform the law into a course of academic study which practitioners would be required to undergo repelled him. He made his principal on? slaught on the plan in the House on 24th July 1871. The proposal that no one should practise without a certificate of proficiency after an examination, Jessel was ready to accept. But he would have no truck with the general criticism of the English legal system which, he felt was at the root of much of the discussion then taking place in the</page><page sequence="34">266 SIR GEORGE JESSEL, 1824-1883 press and elsewhere. He rejected the view that the anomalies of the law could be ended by the proper tuition of entrants to the profession. No jurisprudence, he averred, was so loved and revered as was the English law by the English people. It was a law made for the people and by the poeple. English law was "unscientific" because it was "pliable" and grew up to meet wants. It is "not a system that has been manufactured by doctrinaires and jurists . . ." and ". . . one of the many causes (for its defects) is that our legislation is the work of a popular assembly and that we sacrifice to some extent accuracy and science . . .". He often thought that "if judges instead of carping at little details of a statute had enquired into the real meaning of the legislation they would have spared themselves a great deal of trouble and conferred much benefit upon the public for whose benefit those laws were especially made". As for examinations, he did not oppose them. But it was necessary to recall that a barrister passed a severe competitive examination each day that he practised. Clients soon discovered whether counsel had the necessary knowledge and ability. He feared the results of cramming, and he certainly objected to obligatory lectures. The Inns of Court had set up their own School of Law and examining body. The only step that was now necessary was for the Inns to make their examination compulsory. He strenuously defended the Inns of Court and thought it was wise to leave the entrance examination into the profession in the hands of the practitioners who govern the Inns rather than to set up an academic institution. The Law Journal described Jessel's speech as "very able and courageous" and commented that he had sufficient independence to express his ideas without indulging "in a sort of cant which is much too much fashionable in the present day". The Law Times acknow? ledged the persuasive power of Jessel's speech, but maintained that the law was looked upon as "uncertain, dilatory and expensive". The paper thought it imperative to train practitioners adequately and that the industry and ability of Jessel were not typical of the profession. The Law Times had little faith that the Inns of Court would or could grapple with the problem of education. Palmer revived his proposal in 1872. Again he faced the opposition of Jessel who was now Solicitor-General and he found little support in the Inns of Court. Palmer's movement was "disheartened", said The Times, by the elevation of its "ablest opponent". In that year the Council of Legal Education, which had been set up by the Inns in 1851 and whose School of Law was opened in 1852, devised a scheme of education for the Bar which the Inns accepted and which included a compulsory examination and non-obligatory lectures. From 1871 Jessel was a member of the Council of Legal Education, and from 1874 its Vice-Chairman. He had played an important part in staving off an attack which had opened against the existing system of legal education and would undoubtedly have led to an assault upon the position of the Inns. Jessel was a conservative in many departments of public life.1 In addition to his parliamentary duties as Solicitor-General and his practice at the Bar, Jessel was much taken up during his term of office with the famous Alabama arbitra? tion. The United States claimed compensation in respect of depredations committed by British-built Confederacy ships during the Civil War. The British Government admitted liability and the question of damages was submitted to the arbitration of five Powers at Geneva. This was the first time an international dispute of this nature had 1 See also Palmer's speech in the House on 11th July 1871, and his address to the Legal Education Association on 29th November 1871, reported fully in Law Times on 2nd December 1871. In general, see "Legal Education in London" by Sir Thomas Raleigh in 23 Law Quarterly Review, 1907, and English Legal Education by E. Jenks in 51 L.Q.R., 1935.</page><page sequence="35">SIR GEORGE JSESEL, 1824-1883 267 been settled in this way and the event opened a new era an international procedure.1 The tribunal met 32 times, mostly in public. Much of the task of preparing the British case fell on Jessel, although its presentation to the tribunal was the responsibility of Roundell Palmer, with Arthur Cohen as junior counsel. The principal legislative event in the two years of JessePs office was the reform of the judicial system by the Judicature Act of 1873. The main architect was Selborne, but it fell to Coleridge and Jessel to play the central role in guiding the legislation through the House of Commons. It cannot be said that Jessel made very much effort to accommodate the parliamentary critics. He resisted wide charges against the legal system. He derided those who appeared to wish to use the Act to establish a Utopian system. He accused Vernon Harcourt (who on 26th July 1872, moved a resolution castigating the legal system as costly, dilatory and inefficient) of employing phrases "in that vague, general and deceptive manner which was the means usually of acquiring cheap popularity at the expense of utility". Harcourt, a distinguished common lawyer and later a Law Officer, had taken a leading part in the country in urging law reform. His resolution, long debated, was defeated by only 15 votes. JessePs harsh comments did not constitute a good House of Commons performance and embarrassed the Government. It was said on these occasions that he lacked Disraeli's insight into other men. Nor was Jessel at his best in guiding the Ballot Bill through the House.2 Nevertheless his rasping exchanges did not destroy the impression of superlative ability. "Never again", wrote Gladstone to Coleridge on 3rd November 1873, in offering him the Chief Justiceship, "can I expect to see the public interest in some important particulars guarded as they were last session by the vigilance and determination of the Law Officers. At least, I may say that while you and Jessel surpassed all before you in those particulars, I trust you have set an example and fixed a standard for all who may come after you." JessePs great contribution to the Judicature Act came perhaps after his appointment to the Bench when it fell to him time and time again to apply the new legislation. The Act fused the administration of law and equity which were henceforth to be applicable concurrently in all the Courts. There were no longer to be two systems of Courts administering two systems of law. The structure of the system of Courts was also altered, and the modern High Court and Court of Appeal substantially in their present form were introduced. Jessel urged the incorporation into the High Court of the London Bankruptcy Court but that did not come till 1883. The changes served the interests of speedier justice. In his capacity as Master of the Rolls during the years immediately following the legislation Jessel did much to incorporate the new system into the law and living procedure of the Courts. Jessel was chairman of the committee which elaborated the rules of procedure in the Courts, and, in that committee, his was the decisive contri? bution. It is not surprising that until 1941 the Annual Practice, which is the official handbook of those rules, was dedicated each year to his memory. The first volume, which bears his influence, appeared in the year of his death. On 3rd May 1872, Henry Fawcett, the well-known Radical and social reformer, raised in the House of Commons the "grave inconvenience to the public" arising from the fact that the Law Officers may conduct their private practice. Fawcett alleged that during the passage of the Ballot Bill the House asked for a legal interpretation of some 1 Sir Frederick Pollock in 35 Law Quarterly Review, 1919 ; and International Tribunals by M. O. Hudson, 1944. 2 Coleridge to his father on 15th April 1872 ; Lord Coleridge, E. H, Coleridge (1904), Vol. II p. 210,</page><page sequence="36">268 SIR GEORGE JESSEL, 1824-1883 item but that the Solicitor-General "had only made confusion more confounded". The Law Officers replied to these charges. Jessel denied that his private practice was prejudicial to his public duty. He had given up, he said, more than two-thirds of his private practice and always acted upon the rule of placing public business before private. He added that his private practice occupied less than one half of his time, and that the true reason for delay in law reform was the pressure of important political business. But Fawcett's criticism has the ring of truth. One observant journalist (F. H. Hill, Political Portraits, 1872-3) described Jessel as "too much absorbed in his profession to care very much for politics" and commented that he and Coleridge were "seldom" in the House and when present were "usually absent in spirit". THE FIRST JEWISH JUDGE JessePs appointment as Master of the Rolls was not unexpected. In December 1871, the Dover press discussed who might take his seat should he be appointed. When the old Lord Romilly retired in 1873, Gladstone offered the vacant Mastership to Cole? ridge who as Attorney-General had a prior claim. After considerable hesitation1 Coleridge declined, mainly on the grounds that the Mastership was by tradition and convenience in the prerogative of the Chancery Bar. Jessel had no hesitation in accept? ing and his appointment was announced in August. He was the first Jew to be appointed a High Court Judge in this country. The judicial appointments during the Liberal administration of 1868-74 were not always happy. There was much public perturbation from time to time about what one legal journal called the "judicial patronage scandals". JessePs elevation was wholly outside this category. The Law Journal wrote on 16th August 1873, that "the only comment of a disadvantageous character ... is that the appointment has been so long delayed". That paper believed that Jessel would have been appointed earlier in the year but that the Prime Minister needed JessePs services in the House. The Law Times was more cautious. "Jessel", wrote the editor, "possesses all the shrewdness of his race" but, although he has a large practice, "he has not taken the high rank in the profession which most of his predecessors held ... he is not popular with the Bar or with the public . . . but he will be a hard-working and accurate judge". JessePs achievement is all the more remarkable when one contrasts the background of his predecessor who was the son of a famous law reformer, or that of his successor, Lord Esher, whose father was a Anglican clergyman and who had been on the Bench for fifteen years before he became Master of the Rolls. The Jewish Chronicle referred to Romilly's Huguenot ancestry and added that "the Jewish immigration has been in all respects equal to the Huguenot immigration in respect of morality, success, political recognition and social position". The Jewish Chronicle's attempt at sober comment perhaps illustrates the self-consciousness of the newly emancipated community. On 15th August, after expressing pleasure at the appointment, the paper goes on : "... but we do not enlarge on this view because we think that the Jewish subjects of the Queen? Jewish Englishmen?should not be convulsed with ecstacy at the fact of a member of their body having done his duty in exerting his talents ... for the service of his Sovereign and his country. We congratulate the Bar and the country on the elevation of this great lawyer to this high position". The Board of Deputies was nearer the mind of the com? munity when, in its report in September 1873, it described the appointment as "the culminating point in the advancement of the Jews in the service of the State". Jessel 1 Solicitors Journal, 16th August 1873.</page><page sequence="37">SIR GEORGE JESSEL, 1824-1883 269 was sworn into the Privy Council at Balmoral on the 30th August. He was the first Jew so to do and to take his seat at the Board.1 On 24th March 1875, the Master of the Rolls attended the annual dinner in aid of the Jews' Hospital. His friend and schoolmate from Neumegen's, Alderman Sir Benjamin Phillips, presided. Incidentally, this was the last dinner to be held in aid of the Hospital, for in the next year that institution was amalgamated with the Jews' Orphan Asylum to form the Norwood Orphanage, of which Jessel was a Life Governor and annual subscriber. Jessel's speech in reply to the toast to Her Majesty's Judges was widely noted in the legal and general press. It created what the Jewish World calls "a stir" among Christians as well as Jews. Jessel declared that the result of the old objections having been got over, would be to prevent their ever being raised again. The Jews had been "handicapped unfairly in the past". He contrasted the present position with the time when he first attended this annual dinner. The improvement could not have come about without the "goodwill of the governing power". No energy or talent could have made a Jew a Judge without that goodwill. He commended the Government2 on promoting a Jew to the Bench "utterly regardless of any objection on account of my having faithfully adhered to the religion in which I was born". Without doubt, in earlier days it was a "great injury" to a professional man to call himself a Jew. But now "the example of myself can be quoted as a proof that no such objections ought to be of any avail in the future". But Jessel was not blind. "To a certain extent", he added, it was still "a great objection and a great injury to a professional man to call himself a Jew". He spoke of "the objections of prejudice and social objections" against his appointment as Master of the Rolls. Pre? judice had not passed away but was only "very much diminished". But, he added, "when a professional man has fairly gained his spurs and won the confidence of his clients, his religious beliefs, formerly a disadvantage, become an advantage because people say a man must possess more than ordinary ability in as much as he has overcome the dead weight which hung around his neck at the commencement of his career". Some journals thought Jessel understated the degree of acceptance attained by the Jews. The Jewish Chronicle on 2nd April, commenting upon this speech, congratulated Jessel 1 Sir David Salomons (1855) and Sir Benjamin Phillips (1865) were nominal and ex-officio members of the Privy Council on becoming Lord Mayor, but that honorary position did not include the ceremony of swearing-in and installation. 2 This commendation of the Liberals came frequently from Jessel. Three months before, when he made the same point at a City dinner (at the annual banquet of the Fishmongers' Company) the Jewish Chronicle (18th December 1874) referred to the contribution of certain Tories to emancipation and commented adversely on possible implications in JessePs remarks. The journal warned against identifying or seeming to identify the Jewish community with one political party. The leader-writer, perhaps recalling that in earlier decades his journal tended to make the same identification, added that the position would be different "where the vital interests of the community are concerned". The writer's attitude reflected the increasing normalisation of the status of the Jews in the country, and also the emergence in the 1870's of Toryism in a certain layer of communal leadership. It also evidences an anxiety on the part of Jewish communal leadership lest the Church of England be disestablished. On the 50th anniversary of the emancipatory legislation of 1858, The Times wrote that although there was never, on the question of the Church Establishment, a "solid Jewish vote" among Jewish M.P.s, "the weighf of Jewish sympathy has been thrown on the side of the status quo". It is in? teresting to observe that in his election address in Whitechapel in 1885, Samuel Montagu promised to vote "for the separation of Church and State, having due regard for vested interests". In the above-mentioned article in the Jewish Chronicle, the writer also regretted that Jessel was not seen more often at "our communal gatherings, festive or institutional".</page><page sequence="38">270 SIR GEORGE JESSEL, 1824-1883 and the Jewish community on what the paper called the "renewed assurance" that JessePs position "in no way alienated him from his brothers-in-faith . . .". I might here refer to that paper's comments on the occasion of the Barmitzvah of JessePs eldest son two years previously, when Jessel "presided" at the Central Synagogue. "Those of our young aspirants to distinction", declared the editorial, "who disregard religious observ? ance, who hanker after strange gods or flirt with the fashions of other and more modern "creeds" may not only learn from the Solicitor-General that labour and perseverance are the true paths but that it is possible for a man to achieve greatness in the intellectual, the political and the forensic areas and yet follow the ancient traditions of his faith". The fact that a Jew had been appointed to the Bench for the first time was widely commented on. Jessel used to say that had he been passed over there would have been no outcry. The attitude of the Queen, who showed such great antipathy in 1869 to the suggestion that Lionel de Rothschild should be ennobled, was typical of a certain section of public opinion. But once the appointment was made, the religion of the new judge seemed as though it could not possibly have made any difference to the question whether Jessel should have been appointed. The Liberals warmly welcomed the event. The Tories, facing bright electoral prospects and now relishing the fine leadership of Disraeli, were cordial. Men of religion shared the emotion of one clergyman who later was thankful that "our age . . . has been given the honour of doing justice in the person of Jessel to that marvellous race" and that it was to the "everlasting credit" of the reign that "... when other nations joined in a reactionary and barbarous persecution of the Semitic people, that people . . . should in England have so outlived popular aversion as to be exalted to this position of trust and honour . . A GREAT JUDGE Within a few months of his appointment it was clear to all that a great judge had emerged. This was a period of rapid change in English life. The extension of the franchise and the increasing self-consciousness and vigour of the trade unions broadened the basis of government and expanded the area of politics. A greater social awareness and an increasing respect for governmental interference and for the technician distinguish the last quarter of the century. Factory and housing legislation became frequent. The organization of trade and industry became more complex than ever before. Upon the basis of the Companies Acts of 1855 and 1862 the limited liability company was be? coming the paramount form of trading effort. Electricity, the telegraph, cheques, the telephone, the typewriter, and improved means of transport were having marked effects on the business and way of life of the nation. Inventions of great variety opened a new age.2 The increasing emancipation of women was a sign of the dissolution of old ties and rela? tionships, and produced a number of legal reforms in respect of women's property and contractual rights whose significance was wider than merely legal. To Jessel came numerous cases reflecting these massive changes. The Master of the Rolls was at home 1 Memorial sermon at the Rolls Chapel by the Rev. Andrew Milroy on 1st April 1883. The sermon was published under the title The Upright Judge. 2 Jessel, as Master of the Rolls, was also the only permanent Commissioner of Patents and had the duty of superintending registrations under the Trade Marks Acts. For ten years he was "the working head of the Patent Office" (D.N.B.). The Board of Trade took over these duties under the Patent Act of 1883,</page><page sequence="39">SIR GEORGE JESSEL, 1824-1883 271 in deciding them. His scientific training assisted him greatly in the many important technical cases that came before him. He kept up with the latest scientific literature. His knowledge of the world was immense. Nothing seemed new to him. Sir Thomas Paine who was President of the Law Society at this time testified that ". . . whether it was a question of real property, or charter-parties, or the custom of the Stock Exchange, or brokerage in Mincing Lane, he knew them all as if his life had been spent in the City instead of at Lincoln's Inn".1 Litigants with cases involving new categories of thinking or new techniques, whether in science or in organization, preferred to await a decision of Jessel rather than go to another Court.2 They were certain to have speedy justice from him?and speed is often the essence of justice. This rapidity was in striking contrast with the procedure in the Rolls Court under Romilly. In the week of JessePs appointment, The Times foretold this great change. After Jessel's death, although he had permanently introduced a new fashion into the Courts, men sighed for his inimitable handling of the lists. "The business of the Chancery Courts", wrote the Law Journal on 22nd January 1887, "has been hampered by the inability of the Judges to get through the work. . . . ?Oh, for an hour of blind, old Dandolo' is the sigh of the Chancery prac? titioners in which the name of Jessel takes the place of the doge". Combined with the speed and clarity of his judgments, Jessel exhibited an accuracy of fact and of law which enabled him again and again to lay down principles in a superlative manner for future guidance. His knowledge of the details of Chancery practice was unsurpassed. He forgot nothing. He assimilated documentary evidence with a speed which made it appear as though, in the words of a contemporary lawyer, "his papers photographed themselves upon his mind by a process almost instantaneous". This gift, together with his study of the case before it came on,3 made it possible for Jessel to get to the point of the case without delay. He frequently interrupted counsel and, putting questions to both sides, cleared up matters still obscure. Once this was done he was in a position to give judgment there and then, leaving both counsel and their prepared speeches "untroubled", as he would say.4 In his last year or two, Jessel developed a weakness for seeking to startle by his incisiveness and for speaking to the gallery. On 26th August, 1882, the Law Times described his judgments as a "constant source of amusement combined with instruction". His Court was always popular with the public. The gallery was usually full. And his Court was also popular with the profession, both students and practitioners. "It was a true school of law", wrote Augustine Birrell in his Things Past Redress (1937). Birrell described the Court as "crowded not only with practising barristers but with eager students" and added that "there has been nothing like it since". 1 An interesting example of his familiarity with worldly affairs is provided in Smith v. Chadwick (1882 20 Ch. Div. 59). In reply to the argument that valuable goodwill was given for nothing, Jessel commented : "According to my experience that is not the practice of men of business". If nothing was added to the price, that means that the goodwill "was worth nothing". 2 "Few men knew more of everything than the late Master of the Rolls", commented Mr. Justice Kekewich in Court shortly after Jessel's death. (40 Ch. Div. 86). 3 The Standard wrote that this system "worked wonders" (22nd March 1883). 4 This method did not always work. See Lord Haldane's account in his Autobiography (1929), pp. 40-1, of a case heard in Jessel's closing days when he did not get the better of the exchange and when by four o'clock "he looked very ill". Haldane's colleagues "affected to reproach me for having killed Jessel. If I had, it was indeed unwittingly, for I had the highest admiration and deepest regard for that great judge". Haldane says Jessel in that case "could not break me down, for I would not yield an inch."</page><page sequence="40">272 SIR GEORGE JESSEL, 1824-1883 His Court became proverbial not only for its speed1 but also for the rarity of a successful appeal against its decisions. The importance of this feature may be measured by the comment in The Times following the death on 15th January 1882, of Vice-Chancellor Malins, a Chancery Judge from 1866 to 1881 : "The reversal and varying of the decisions (of Malins) were a matter of everyday occurrence ... his Court often became an expensive gate to the Court of Appeal". Rae-Arnott counted 247 appeals against JessePs thousands of judgments. Of that number, 65 were successful and 17 partially so. It has been rightly said that in the cases where he was reversed his fault was in his keen sense of justice. He was a path-finder for new remedies. In Re Canadian Land Reclaiming and Colonizing Co. (1880. 14 Ch. Div. 660), Lord Justice James, overruling Jessel, commented in the Court of Appeal that in constouing the Companies Act of 1862 in that case Jessel became engaged less in constructionr than in "legislating for the purpose of putting a stop to a proceeding which is no doubt wrong". This rarity of reversal was certainly not caused by caution on the part of the Master of the Rolls. Precedents to him were not objects of veneration. He would have been delighted to read The Times' picturesque comment on his contempt for "venerable adages embodying nonsense but accidentally consecrated by some re? spected judicial name". He was the master, not the slave of precedent. It was said he sought to make the consequences of the law accord with its principles. The robust character of his method is well exemplified in Osborne v. Rowlatt (1880. 13 Ch. Div. 785), where his approach elicited a strangely caustic demurrer from at least one leader-writer in the legal press.2 Jessel did not ignore the past and was fully conscious of the binding effect of long established practice and the decisions of superior Courts. But he lent all his authority in the direction of common-sense, reality and simplicity. His orderly mind was irritated as much by clamping derivations from "musty old law-books" as by positive error. As early as 1876, Lord Cockburn, Lord Chief Justice, publicly stated that Jessel's "knowledge, intuitive perception, ability and power would cause posterity to look back on him as unsurpassed" (Law Journal, 3rd June). Except on two occasions (in the Court of Appeal) Jessel never wrote out a judgment. While at first instance, he never reserved judgment, and in the Court of Appeal he reserved judgment no more than nine times. He expressed his judgments with great certainty and Rae-Arnott found only five cases in which he indicated that he found difficulty in reaching a decision?and that was usually due to "embarrassing authorities". He was ready to hear common law actions as much as equity cases, and in the Court of Appeal adjudicated in many divorce suits. Although he had a magnificent confidence in his own powers, it was never alleged that he ignored or treated lightly any criticism of his views which had any merit at all. His pride was not arrogance. He was incapable of being flustered. His calm demeanour and deliberateness perhaps saved him from a wound when a madman called Dodwell fired at him one morning in February 1878^ 1 Morley (Reflections Vol. I, 1917) refers to Jessel's speed. His "rapidity and insight into a case was a miracle?the jest was that he could read both sides of a sheet at once". Jessel once got through more than one hundred short cases before lunch : Remembrance of Things Past by Sir Henry S. Theobald, 1935. He had a passion for disposing of business. In 1879 he refused counsel's request not to sit on the Queen's birthday, a Saturday, though the other Courts were closed. 2 Law Journal, 12th June 1880. "If this is possible, no decision is safe". The leading article was entitled "Bad law in Pursuit of Good",</page><page sequence="41">SIR GEORGE JESSEL, 1824-1883 273 outside the Rolls Court. Dodwell was enraged at the outcome of some litigation in which he was interested. His resort to arms led him to Broadmoor.1 I do not think it is necessary for me to refer here to many of JessePs decisions. Lord Justice Denning has called Jessel one of the "most creative Judges" (66 Law Quarterly Review 1950, p. 412) and it is not surprising therefore that the list of his more important cases should be lengthy. Others have provided convenient commentaries on many of them. Let me refer to two or three of some general interest. In Emma Silver Mining Company v. Grant (1879. 11 Ch. Div. 918) Jessel laid down the fiduciary relationship between the promoter and his company in terms which have ever since illuminated this department of the law and which exemplify the justification of Andrew Milroy's remark that he "raised the tone of commercial morality". In Pooley v. Driver (1876. 5 Ch. Div. 458), Jessel examined the nature of partnership in a manner which makes that case the basis of the modern law on the subject. In Besant v. Wood (1878. 12 Ch. Div. 605), his dicta on the evolving nature of "public policy" and the changing judicial considerations arising therefrom have assisted greatly in establishing the progressive nature of the judicial function. If I now refer to the famous case of Re Hallen's Estate (1880. 13 Ch. Div. 696), it is not because I wish to say anything about the following of trust property but only in order to draw attention to the approach adopted by Jessel towards his function. "It must not be forgotten", he said, "that the rules of courts of equity are not, like the rules of the common law, supposed to have been established from time immemorial. It is perfectly well known that they have been established from time to time, altered, improved and refined from time to time . . .". I should say something about Commissioners of Sewage v. Glasse (1874. 19 Eq. 134), in which after 24 days of hearing and 150 witnesses, but without reserving judgment, Jessel decided that in law the rights of common over Epping Forest prohibited that area from being enclosed or built upon. The result was that Epping Forest re? mained an open space and a public recreation ground. Precedents and charters extending over the centuries were before the Court. Twenty counsel were briefed by fifteen firms of solicitors, but Jessel opened his judgment by declaring that "... to my mind the matter is very plain and very clear ... the issues appear to me to be very simple". Jessel hesitated to try this case as he had been counsel to some of the enclosing lords of the manors. But all parties pressed him to hear the case. Jessel used to say that next to Hardwicke and Cairns, he was the greatest equity judge. It is certain that he became "the very centre of the Judicial Bench", as the Attorney-General, Sir Henry James, described him to the House of Commons a few days after his death. THE OFFICE OF MASTER OF THE ROLLS The Chancellor had been assisted by the Master of the Rolls in his judicial work since the end of the fifteenth century. The Master of the Rolls was simply the principal member of the Chancellor's legal staff. He was the head of the group of officials known as "Masters in Chancery". Those officials were described by a thirteenth century writer known to legal historians as Fleta as "honest and prudent clerks who were sworn to be faithful to the King and who had a full knowledge of the laws and customs of England and whose duty it was to hear and examine the prayers and complaints of petitioners 1 Dodwell's trial at the Old Bailey on a charge of shooting with intent to murder was extensively reported in The Times on 16th March 1878. The Solicitor-General prosecuted and Jessel gave evidence.</page><page sequence="42">274 SIR GEORGE JESSEL, 1824-1883 and by royal writ to give the fitting remedies . . .". The Chancellor appointed the Masters, save for the principal Master who was appointed direct by the King. He took the title of Master of the Rolls when he was placed in charge of the King's papers and the legal records of the Chancellor's office. The "Principal Clerk" or Master of the Rolls was also put in charge of the Domus Conversorum or hostel for Jewish converts which Henry III founded in 1232. It was in that building, which stood near the Chancellor's residence, that the archives or rolls were kept. In 1378, Parliament confirmed the grant of the Domus to the Master of the Rolls, though the union of the two offices of keeper of the rolls and keeper of the Domus had long been the custom. The Domus remained the home of the Master of the Rolls for 500 years. In 1837 Parliament vested the estate in the Crown. The first Master of the Rolls not to live at the Rolls House, as it came to be called, was Lord Lyndhurst who was appointed in 1826. The last Master of the Rolls to live there was Sir John Leach in 1834.1 The jurisdiction of the Master of the Rolls became specialized under the regime of Wolsey as Chancellor. He became the Chancellor's deputy and exercised the jurisdiction of equity which was the traditional province of the Chancellor and whose ultimate source was in the King, the font of all justice. It was a jurisdiction directed towards tempering the letter of law with righteousness. From time to time Parliament defined and extended the Master's jurisdiction. In 1873, the Master still retained the three-fold duties of judge (after the legislation of 1873, of course, the Master of the Rolls could exercise law as well as equity), the caretaker of the public records, and controller of the Domus Conversorum (where the records continued to be stored). Few modern Masters of the Rolls have equalled the interest which Jessel took in the organization and operation of the Public Record Office. This Office was created upon the authority of the Statute passed in 1838 by which Parliament hoped to reduce the inconvenience of scattered public papers, inefficiently kept and often inaccessible to the public. The old Domus had long since ceased to be adequate for this purpose. Twelve years after the Statute, work was started on the Domus and the foundations were laid on its site for a new structure which is now so well known to all. Parliament required the Master of the Rolls to appoint a Deputy Keeper of the Records to be in day-to-day charge, and the Master was authorized to lay down rules for the management and public use of the Office and for the collection and disposal of papers. A convenient account of the Office's progress was given in the Report of the Grigg Committee on Departmental Records (1954. Cmd. 9163). I do not wish in this paper to go over that ground, except to say that it was during JessePs Mastership that important decisions were taken on the working and character of the Office and that JessePs part in these decisions was not a formal one. He was the first Master of the Rolls to pay annual visits of inspection to the Office, and his association with the institution increased its status and established its modern shape. Part of the old Domus was at an early date converted into a Court for the Master of the Rolls and this came to be known as the Rolls Court. Its memory lingers in some of the alleys and commercial buildings off Chancery Lane?Rolls Passage, Rolls Buildings, Rolls House. Long after the erection of the new Public Record Office had been started, part of the old site remained as the Rolls Court. Jessel was the last Master of the Rolls to sit there. Shortly before his death, the Rolls Court and the Appellate Courts which sat in Lincoln's Inn across the road, moved into the new Law Courts in the Strand. 1 History of the Rolls House and Chapel, W. J. Hardy, 1896 ; and Memoirs of Sir John Rolt (1804-71), (pub. 1939), Appendix B therein.</page><page sequence="43">SIR GEORGE JESSEL, 1824-1883 275 Jessel sat in the new Law Courts for the first time on 11th January 1883. As one recalls the original use of the Chancery Lane site and the ancient identity between the Keeper of the Domus and the Master of the Rolls, it is indeed curious to reflect that the first Deputy Keeper of the Records, following the Act of 1838, was Sir Francis Palgrave who was originally Cohen and himself a convert. This fact is commented on in a paper in the first volume of this Society's Transactions by C. Trice Martin who was Assistant Keeper of the Records. Martin remembered JessePs first arrival at the Rolls. He was shown over the building and asked to see the Rolls Chapel. Jessel admired the tombs, commented on their great interest and then added : "As you do us the honour of worshipping a member of our nation here, I shall come in some Sunday morning and see how you do it". Jessel was the first Master of the Rolls whose patent of office did not include the grant of "the Custody of the House of Converts".1 The Public Record Office was completed in its present form in 1895. The old chapel was then taken down and replaced by the museum. All legal trace of the Domus Conversorum was abolished in 1891. By the Supreme Court of Judicature Act of 1881, it was enacted that the Master of the Rolls, who hitherto had sat both at first instance and in the Court of Appeal, should henceforth sit only as an appeal judge. This change was against Jessel's wish as he felt that at first instance he kept in intimate contact with the practical affairs of men. He did not wish to be confined to the purer, merely legal and somewhat remote realm of the Court of Appeal. The present Master of the Rolls has reminded us that with the death of the formidable Lord Justice James the Court of Appeal was bereft of any figure adequate to hear appeals from Jessel. The only thing to do was to stop Jessel acting as judge of first instance.2 Jessel's place at the Rolls was taken by J. W. Chitty who had been the leader there and who became an eminent judge. By virtue of his ancient office and his inherent strength as a judge, Jessel was made President of the Court of Appeal and that is the status still enjoyed by his successors. The Judicature Act of 1875 empowered the Crown to abolish by Order-in-Council certain titular legal dignities. The power was exercised at once, and certain ancient offices ceased to exist. It is .doubtful whether, but for the authority bestowed on his office by Jessel, the Mastership of the Rolls would have survived. "There seems", wrote the Law Journal on 16th July 1881, "to be a sanctity possessed by the Mastership of the Rolls beyond other ancient institutions, so that to lay hands upon it is peculiarly sacrilegious". The Master of the Rolls exercised certain ecclesiastical patronage, namely the appointment of Reader and Preacher to the Rolls Chapel. According to the Jewish Relief Act of 1858 (s.4), the right of presentation during Jessel's term of office auto? matically devolved in law upon the Archbishop of Canterbury. In 1874, when a vacancy in the Readership occurred, Jessel invited Sir Thomas Hardy, Deputy Keeper of the Rolls, to suggest three names which Jessel would submit to the Archbishop who would make the selection. In a letter to The Times, the Rev. A. W. Milroy, who was then appointed, recounted how, when he was later promoted to the Preachership, Jessel, who had received many applications for the Readership, agreed to appoint "a well recommended candidate" who was a friend of Milroy. (See The Times 23rd and 26th March 1883). It was no doubt to this appointment that the Law Journal (31st March 1 History of Domus Conversorum 1290-1891 by Michael Adler in IV Trans. J.H.S.E.; reprinted in his Jews of Medieval England (1939). 2 The Court of Appeal in England, Sir Raymond Evershed, 1950.</page><page sequence="44">276 SIR GEORGE JESSEL, 1824-1883 1883) was referring when it commented that the mode of the choice "is a tribute less to any quality in the late judge than to the breadth and liberality of Archbishop Tait" who gave his sanction. That Jessel took particular care in his appointments is evidenced by an incident described in a letter from Acton to Mary Gladstone on 29th March 1882. Acton, consulted by Jessel on the appointment of a Deputy Keeper, understood from the Master of the Rolls that clergymen were to be excluded. In respect of one name put forward by Acton, Jessel said he was told that the person concerned was a Catholic, and Jessel added that "a Jew was not strong enough to appoint a Catholic Keeper of the Records". (See Letters of Lord Acton to Mary Gladstone, ed. by Herbert Paul, 1904). In fact, the suggested person was not a Catholic but a Broad Churchman. Jessel appointed Sir William Hardy (not included in Acton's list) who became Deputy Keeper in 1878, in succession to his father. THE UNIVERSITY OF LONDON In May 1881, the Liberal Government appointed a Committee under Lord Camper down to enquire into the operation of the Medical Acts. In the previous decade numer? ous Bills had been introduced into Parliament for amending the Acts, but none had been successful owing to the pressure of opposition from medical schools and registering institutions. The general opinion in 1881 was that the Government's readiness to set up the Committee was increased by JessePs agreement to serve thereon. The recom? mendations of the Committee, which resulted in the Medical Act of 1886, were strongly influenced by Jessel who, then and later, was held to be the principal architect of the Report. It was on his suggestion that many of the younger generation of doctors and medical teachers were invited to give evidence before the Committee. This brought him the public thanks of the Lancet. The Committee urged that the General Medical Council, created by statute in 1858, should be made more representative of the profession, and that all entrants into the profession should be required to be examined by a University or medical corporation. No person should be registered as a practitioner unless he passed the test, and the standards of the examination were to be supervised and maintained by the General Medical Council. These principles were embodied in the important Act of 1886, as was the principle that there should not be a sole examining body. Jessel had opposed one of the earlier Bills on June 1871 on the latter score. Monopoly was objectionable to him. "Progressive improvement" in the examination would not come if there were only one body. Jessel, in 1871 as in 1881, stressed that the examination was to test the candidates' qualifications to practise, and ought not to veer far into the theoretical. A few days before his death, he attended a meeting of the Brown Institution Com? mittee, a group set up by the University for the study and treatment of animal diseases. Jessel took a close interest in this work and he prepared for the University an influential report on the subject. One of JessePs abiding interests was the advancement of the University of London. In a most impressive speech delivered from the chair on Presentation Day at his old College on 23rd June, 1875, Jessel reviewed its history and offered his views on the purposes of education. This was the first time a past student had presided on Presenta? tion Day. The address was widely reported. He stressed the need to impart knowledge "for future use", as well as for its own sake. On this and other grounds he justified the departure from the reliance on the classics. Greek and Latin were at one time necessary for the study of theology, law and medicine, but today French and German were of much</page><page sequence="45">SIR GEORGE JESSEL, 1824-1883 277 greater importance for a successful career. On similar grounds he welcomed the growth of scientific studies at the University. The modern age requires these studies. 4cIf we look not to the mere thing that they (in medieval times) did but to their reasons for doing it, we shall see why the same reasons should induce us not to employ those two languages (Greek and Latin) exclusively as a means of education". The force and reasoning power of this remarkable address are only dimly conveyed in a summary. It was the forward looking speech of a man moving with the times but in perfect control. Among the prize? winners?in English law?was Herbert Bentwich, whose mother was a kinswoman of the Jessels. Jessel was the first graduate of the University to be elected Vice-Chancellor. He was also the first Jew to hold that position, to which he was elected in May 1880. He retained the office for the remainder of his life. The only other Jewish member of the Senate was Sir Julian Goldsmid, who in 1880 was also Treasurer of University College. Needless to say, Jessel did not allow his incumbency to be nominal. He had taken an intimate interest in the affairs of the University from his earliest years as a graduate. Lord Granville, the Chancellor of the University, declared on Presentation Day, 1883, that "the whole of JessePs adult life was wrapped up with the University". He was a leading member of the committee of graduates which secured in 1858 recognition of graduates of the University as part of the corporate body of the University with the right to share in its government. He was the main architect of the Charter of that year. Two years later when Convocation met to nominate three persons from whom the Queen was to select a Fellow of the University, Jessel headed the list and was duly appointed to the Fellowship. He was a member of the Senate for over 20 years. Jessel was an influential advocate of a separate science faculty in whose creation at University College in 1871 Sir Francis Goldsmid played a prominent role.1 Jessel also welcomed the admis? sion of women to all prizes and degrees in 1878. The University of London was given representation in Parliament in 1867. Jessel's admirer and fellow-Liberal, William Willis, and others sponsored his candidature but there was little support. He was not then popular, said Willis later. Robert Lowe, an Oxford graduate and later Gladstone's Chancellor of the Exchequer, was proposed by Julian Goldsmid and elected unopposed after several distinguished candidates had withdrawn. Jessel carried the least weight and at that time was the least known among those proposed, one of whom was the widely noted economist, Walter Bagehot. Lowe held the seat until his elevation to the House of Lords in 1880. Again, the possibility of Jessel's candidature was mooted. He allowed it to be known that he was willing to stand and an item to that effect appeared in The Times. That paper urged his suitability to represent the University. This suggestion was widely discussed in the press and elsewhere in the light of a persistent rumour that Jessel was about to be made a Peer. This prospective peerage always seemed near at hand. On his appointment as Master of the Rolls the Spectator remarked that his immediate predecessors had been Peers but the paper added that unless the House of Lords "are ready to reconsider the oaths question and to withhold their discreditable opposition to the ennobling of a Jew, Sir George Jessel?a Jew and an orthodox Jew?will hardly have a seat in either House". The Spectator deplored this exclusion for "his absence will be felt" in important legal debates that lay ahead. The rumour of the coming peerage seemed to be encouraged by widespread doubts on the legality of Jessel's proposed candidature for the House of 1 In 1904, Jessel's daughters presented ?2,000 to the University for the endowment of the Jessel Memorial Scholarship in post-graduate mathematics. s</page><page sequence="46">278 SIR GEORGE JESSEL, 1824-1883 Commons. When Jessel resigned his seat at Dover on his appointment as Master of the Rolls, he did so as he felt it would be against the spirit of the Judicature Act if he stayed? and so he informed his constituents. He did not think it was expressly forbidden. The question was whether Jessel was "an existing judge" within the meaning of the Act. If he came into the definition, he was expressly excluded from the general prohibition against standing. It was a difficult question as he was appointed after the enactment of the Judicature Act but before the Act was due to come into operation. The Law Journal thought he was prohibited from standing and added that if there was a technical loop-hole Jessel would be ill-advised to enter it. "A much better way of recognizing his high claims", thought the paper, "can be found... If Jews are to be admitted to the House of Lords no better representative of his descent and religion could be found. His case would be a good opportunity of getting rid of any legal difficulties that may exist". The preliminaries to the University election attracted much attention in the press. In the absence of a Tory candidate, a ballot was held among those who voted for Lowe at the last election, as a means of selecting one of the four Liberals who had been proposed. The first preference was heavily in favour of Sir John Lubbock, banker and natural scientist, who had been Vice-Chancellor since 1872. To his 769 votes, Jessel secured 192, Sir William Gull 49, and Sir Julian Goldsmid 33. "The result", wrote Lubbock's biographer, "appears to have come as a great surprise" (Sir John Lubbock, H. C. Hutchin? son, 1914). Goldsmid, who had been the chairman of Lowe's committee, had been proposed by Serjeant Simon and commended by the Daily News. William Willis was a strong advocate of JessePs candidature. During the preparations for the ballot, there was canvassing for the respective names in the press and elsewhere. On 11th May, Jessel's committee wrote to The Times, and on the following day there appeared a long letter from Seward Brice, a Bencher of the Inner Temple, again advocating the suitability of the Master of the Rolls both for his past services to the University and as a public figure and scientist. Following the result of the ballot, the three defeated candidates withdrew from the election, and Lubbock was returned unopposed. It is curious that Jessel should have appeared eager to return to the House of Commons at that stage of his career. Perhaps it seemed to him a likely stimulus towards the grant of a peerage, which was the customary dignity of the Mastership. Perhaps he regarded a return to St. Stephens as a strengthening of his claim to the Woolsack, for after the Promissory Oaths Act of 1871 there was no legal bar to a Jew becoming Lord Chancellor. But the physical strain of adding parliamentary duties to his judicial work would have been very great. The expected peerage did not come in time. On his death, it was reported that he was shortly to have been accorded that dignity. On 25th May, 1883, Jessel's eldest son was made a baronet as a tribute to his father's services to the State.1 In November 1880, Jessel was elected a Fellow of the Royal Society for his contribu? tion to the State, the first professing Jew to be so elected under that rule. THE ANGLO-JEWISH ASSOCIATION Jessel was a Vice-President of the Anglo-Jewish Association from July 1871, and by virtue of this office was a member of its Council and of its Executive Committee He had not been associated with the foundation of the movement but had accepted the invitation, 1 The Jessel arms include three eagle heads with a crest showing an eagle in flight holding in its beak a pearl. No doubt the pearl is a reminder of Zadok Aaron Jessel's business and may well be taken to refer to Sir George's powers of advocacy. The motto was "Persevere". The eagle in heraldry symbolises strength.</page><page sequence="47">SIR GEORGE JESSEL, 1824-1883 279 conveyed to each of the eight Jewish M.P.s, to become a Vice-President. Lionel, Nathaniel and Mayer de Rothschild refused, presumably because of the apprehended rivalry between the new body and the Board of Deputies. It does not appear from the minute books of the Association that Jessel attended meetings, though he was present on some of the more formal occasions. On 5th March 1873, he attended the soiree arranged for the Association at the home of F. D. Mocatta in Connaught Place. This was the first evening of its kind and was intended to project the movement into the community. It was a distinguished assembly and the speeches on the work of the Association were extensively reported in the Jewish Chronicle, which described the men as wearing "the sombre costume known as the evening dress of English gentlemen". It must be re? membered that from the end of 1871, Jessel, because of his political and then judicial office, could not easily participate in the political work of a body such as the Anglo Jewish Association. But it may be significant that he was not present at the great public meeting on 2nd July 1871, at which the Association was inaugurated. He was then no more than a prominent back-bencher. It may also be significant that his name does not appear in the list of members or subscribers until 1878, in which year the Association made its treaty with the Board of Deputies and the Joint Foreign Committee was set up. Of the five M.P.s who were Vice-Presidents in the early years only Jessel is absent from the list of members and subscribers. Perhaps Jessel was moved by the letter of 7th March 1878, from the President of the Association congratulating him on his escape and expressing deep interest in his career "by reason of the religious bond which... induced you to take the prominent position of Vice-President of this Association". It is interesting to observe that the Chief Rabbi is also first listed in 1878. I think the treaty with the Board appealed greatly to Jessel. I feel he shared some of the reservations of Lionel Louis Cohen regarding the wisdom of creating an organization which would operate in fields within the province of the Board. Cohen expressed these reservations at the inaugural meeting of the Association and his remarks were widely noted. He asked whether the new body?which was presented in the form of a London branch of the Alliance Israelite Universelle?would duplicate the Board's work. Waley, who presided, did not give an encouraging reply. The new organization, he said, would have no connection with the Board. Cohen continued in the expression of his fears. The true feeling of the sponsors of the meeting was vented by Benisch, who declared that the Board was "fettered" by its machinery and the terms of its constitution. The Association as an unofficial body of influential individuals could move more rapidly in the combating of Jewish disabilities abroad. Cohen stood his ground, though he did not decline to co-operate with the Association in practical matters as needs arose. He thought it would have been wiser to have sought an improvement, if necessary, in the Board than to have founded the new body. The relations between the two institutions were strained until about 1877. It is not generally known that the Association had a higher honour in store for Jessel than a Vice-Presidency. The Provisional Committee formed under Benisch's leadership to conduct the affairs of the proposed body prior to its formal establishment decided on 30th May 1871, to invite Waley to become the first President. If he declined, Jessel was to be invited. We can only guess what his reaction would have been. I do not think he would have accepted until the relations with the Board had been satisfactorily settled. If Waley and Jessel declined, the next to be invited were Sir David Salomons and then Sir Francis Goldsmid. From time to time JesseFs name added weight to approaches made by the Association.</page><page sequence="48">280 SIR GEORGE JESSEL, 1824-1883 While Solicitor-General in 1873 he joined his name to a petition to the Shah on his visit to England, protesting against the legal and economic disabilities of the Jews in Persia. The Grand Vizier replied from Buckingham Palace on 5th July promising some alleviation ?but the promise was not kept. In April 1876, Jessel added his name to the address to Alfonso XII of Spain urging that the new constitution of Spain, then under debate, should not discriminate against the Jews. Three years later he was one of the signatories to a letter to the British Ambassador in Turkey on behalf of Jewish refugees during the Russo-Turkish war.1 Jessel was also a member of the Rumanian Committee which worked for four years until 1876 when it was incorporated in the Anglo-Jewish Association which originally produced it. But I have found no evidence that he was an active member. It is certain that he was deeply moved by outbreaks against Jews. He had long been anxious over the rise of modern anti-semitism in Europe and the violence against the Jews in Russia after 1881 greatly affected him. But his energies were elsewhere. I believe JessePs identification with the Anglo-Jewish Association reflected essentially his independence and his respect for enterprise. Men such as Salomons, Waley and Benisch had from time to time deplored the exclusion from the representative body of the community of a powerful of section of opinion, namely, the membership of the Reform Synagogue. It must have seemed strange and wrong to the practical mind of Jessel that men such as Francis Goldsmid and John Simon should be kept out of the council chamber of the community. The Reform Synagogue was first represented on the Board in 1886. The Anglo-Jewish Association was quick-moving, independent and comprehensive. Those were important qualities in Jessel's estimation. It may not be unrelated to Jessel's prominence in the Association that at the end of 1883 Lord Coleridge, the Lord Chief Justice, should, on the solicitation of the local Honorary Secretary (H. Worms) have become a subscribing member of its Leeds branch. When all is said, the words of the Jewish Chronicle on 23rd March 1883, regarding Jessel's communal commitment are apposite and should not occasion surprise. He "was not often seen at any time, and only on very rare occasions after his elevation to the Bench, taking an active part in communal business . . .". He gave his advice when asked, but there is some truth in the view that he "never set his face to the task of righting the wrongs that oppressed the Jews,... he was never a crusader in the cause of Judaism."2 LAST DAYS During the last few years of his life Jessel felt the strain of his busy life. It is said that his huge responsibilities as Solicitor-General combined with his large practice left lasting effects on his naturally strong constitution. During the final few months he was often in pain on the Bench, though his engrossment in the cases was a relief. He urgently needed a rest and prolonged medical treatment. He suffered for several years from diabetes which had been controlled by care. Now his heart was affected. Among those who near the end pressed him to relax his effort was his fellow-Bencher at Lincoln's Inn, Judah Benjamin, though it is uncertain whether his letter reached Jessel in time.3 Jessel knew he was dying. He told his doctor that his life's work was done and that it 1 Minute books of the Anglo-Jewish Association. 2 29 Canadian Bar Review (1951); see bibliography. 3 Law Times 7th July 1883.</page><page sequence="49">SIR GEORGE JESSEL, 1824-1883 281 was only because of his family that he would have wished to continue.1 He continued in Court until within a few days of his death. He had hoped in the coming Easter vacation to go to Bath and also to stay with his friend and former colleague Lord Coleridge at the latter's country estate at Ottery St. Mary. But he did not live until the Easter recess. He died at home on 22nd March 1883. He was buried in Willesden on Purim (and therefore there was no funeral oration) which coincided with Good Friday. The funeral took place in the presence of a large concourse in which stood, in addition to representatives of the Jewish community, judges, lawyers, politicians and others from many walks of life. At least one newspaper saw significance in an assembly of that size and diversity gathering on Good Friday. "It says much for the religious impartiality of England's public men that distinguished personages of all creeds gathered on that day". The Annual Register described the funeral as "almost a public ceremony". The Bar of England was represented by the Solicitor-General, Sir Farrer Herschell. A few days after his death Henry de Worms proposed the erection of a statue to Jessel in the new Royal Courts of Justice. The suggestion was taken up by a group of friends but in some quarters it aroused a hostile reaction. The Coventry Standard, a Church and Tory newspaper, commented, in its London column, on the speed and super? iority with which the Jews took up the suggestion. The paper criticized what it called "the old tribal pride" of the Jews in their highly-flown praises of the deceased and their attempt to discover distinctively Jewish qualities in his greatness.2 But, added the Coventry Standard, Jewish wealth and influence would no doubt produce the desired memorial. In fact, Jews were not alone in the proposal regarding a memorial. Nor did the memorial come until 1888, and it was brought into being through the enterprise of JessePs Chief Clerk, J. W. Hawkins, and through the good offices of a committee headed by Mr. Justice Chitty. The Law Society was among the earliest protagonists of the scheme,3 which at first was considered by Bench and Bar as an undesirable precedent and likely to introduce invidious distinctions in the future. But the suggestion was revived and a fund was raised by subscriptions from judges, barristers and solicitors. After being exhibited in the Royal Academy, the striking sculptured bust, the work of Walter R. Ingram, was unveiled by Lord Halsbury, the Lord Chancellor, in November 1888, on the site where it now stands, near the Courts of Appeal and facing the Courts of the Chancery Division. The sculpture, said by all who knew him to be a very close likeness of the Master of the Rolls, is cut of best carrara statuary and rests on a pedestal of Sicilian marble. Subscribers to the bust each received a miniature of it, and one of these miniatures stands in the Library of the Law Society. The best indication of JessePs impact on the mind of the Jewish community of his day and also of the whole Victorian approach to the place of the Jews in society is contained in the revealing remarks of Arthur Cohen on the evening of Willis's address on Jessel at the Jewish Working Men's Club on 2nd March 1884. Cohen described 1 See Sir Charles James Jessel's article in Blackwood's. Jessel was a most affectionate husband and father. Despite his many preoccupations he was an unwearying family man. His reaction to the doctor's intimation that he was a dying man was to return home and, concealing the news from all, sport with his children : Pump Court, July 1883. 2 This presumably referred in particular to the phrases of the Jewish Chronicle of 30th March 1883. 3 Jessel had great regard for the profession of solicitor. "The fortunes of the community", he said in Re Le Riehe and Lowe (1878, 22 Sol. Jnl. 248) "are almost entirely at the mercy of the solicitor?no human being is more trusted". His duties as Master of the Rolls relating to the admission of solicitors brought him into close contact with the officers of the Law Society. He was one of the first to raise with the Benchers of his Inn the hardship caused by old rules which excluded former solicitors from being called to the Bar.</page><page sequence="50">282 sir george jessel, 1824-1883 Jessel as "in the highest measure of the word a gentleman". He went on : "There was nothing caddish, nothing snobbish about him ... he never altered his manner to any man ... He was one of the most remarkable illustrations of this fact that in England if the Jews exert themselves, keep their characters high and their hands pure ... the same chances in life are open to them as to the children of their neighbours. The main cause for this universal feeling throughout England in our favour is that we have had great men who have distinguished themselves and proved that Jews can be eminent and patriotic." The topical character of these words is reflected in the comments of the Jewish Chronicle on 6th April 1883. Jessel, wrote the editor, has "solved the question? can Jews be patriots ? in such a way that it can never more be raised in England while his memory remains with the British public. His life is a justification of the Emancipation . . . The Goldwin Smiths and Laisters of the day might reflect a little on the life of Sir George Jessel before they deny that any good can come out of Israel". Jessel was gratified by this effect of his career?though his optimism was never unqualified ?but his compelling motive was ever his large, and worthy, personal ambition. BIBLIOGRAPHY Apsley Petre Peter, Decisions of Sir George Jessel, London, 1883. Summarises over 1000 cases and gives rationes decidendi. Readers of this work should also see critical reviews of it in Sol. Jnl (12th January, 1884) and Law Times (29th December, 1883). Copy of the book in Library of Law Society. Henry Rae-Arnott, ll.d., Index to the Decisions, dicta etc. of Sir George Jessel. c. 1885. This prodigious work lies unpublished in the Library of Lincoln's Inn. It consists of two large packages of foolscap, and is a kind of encyclopaedia of JesseFs words on legal and general matters. Its compilation was a labour of immense patience but not of commensurate utility. William Willis, q.c, Sir George Jessel, London, 1893. Published lecture?delivered at Jewish Working Men's Club, Whitechapel, on 2nd March, 1884. James Bryce, Studies in Contemporary Biography, 1903. pp. 170-83. Edward Manson, The Builders of our Law, 2nd ed., 1904. pp. 224-33. Silas Alward, 38 Canadian Law Times (1918), pp. 410-21. "A Great Master of the Rolls". G. J. Webber, Law Times, 24th March, 1923. "Jessel After 40 Years". Sir Charles James Jessel, Blackwood's, 1926, pp. 47-55. "An Eminent Victorian Lawyer". A. L. Goodhart, Five Jewish Lawyers of the Common Law, 1949. pp. 16-23. Roy St. George Stubbs, 29 Canadian Bar Review (1951), pp. 147-67. An essay on Jessel. W. Summerfield and G. J. Webber, Jewish Chronicle, 30th May, 1924. W. Summerfield, Jewish Guardian, 16th January, 1931. In addition to the above material and various encyclopaedias, directories and news? papers, I have had the benefit of examining certain Jewish communal records. I wish to thank the secretarial staffs of the Anglo-Jewish Association, Jews' College and the United Synagogue for their readiness in aiding me to do so. I also had helpful corres? pondence with the Librarian of the Borough of Wandsworth, the Librarian of the Borough of Lambeth and the Town Clerk of Dover, and am grateful to them. The Records Department of the Law Society was kind. I have also had the advantage ox conversations with the Hon. Mrs. Doreen Agnew (Sir George Jessel's granddaughter)</page><page sequence="51">SIR GEORGE JESSEL, 1824-1883 283 Mrs. Hilda Pizer (a daughter of Dayan Bernard Spiers), Mr. George Jessel of New York (whose father was the Master of the Rolls' second cousin and whose autobiographical So Help Me was published in New York in 1943), and Mr. Bernard Spiers (a grandson of Dayan Spiers). On genealogy, I was much assisted by certain tables and notes of Albert Hyamson and more particularly of Morris Rosenbaum, as well as by the tables of Sir Thomas Colyer-Ferguson and the Jessel file of the Jewish Museum. I am in? debted to my nephew, Mr. Cohn Lang of University College, Oxford for his examination of certain tombstone inscriptions. NOTE ON PORTRAITS AND PRINTS OF SIR GEORGE JESSEL Illustrated London News, 1871, p. 484. Engraving from photograph by Merrick's of Brighton. Portrait by John Collier, c. 1875. At Ladham. Mezzotint engraving therefrom by Richard Josey. Oil portrait from a print, c. 1877. In Lincoln's Inn. Shown at Exhibition of Anglo Jewish Art and History, 1956. Spy's cartoon in Vanity Fair, 1st March, 1879. Entitled "The Law". Copy in Lin? coln's Inn Library. This caricature of Jessel on the Bench misses his essential qualities. Men of Mark, Vol. 5,1881 (Pub. by Sampson Low; short biogs. by Thompson Cooper) : Plate 13?"photographed from life by?Lock and G. C. Whitfield". In British Museum (P.P. 1931.pch.) Manson contains a copy of a fine photograph (profile) in full wig, by London Stereoscopic Society, c. 1880. Lord Haldane's Autobiography contains a fine photograph (front) in full wig. c. 1882. Illustrated London News, 1883, p. 317. Engraving. Profile in full wig from photograph by London Stereoscopic Society Portrait Index (Ed. by W. C. Lane and N. E. Browne; pub. by Library of Congress, Washington) refers to portraits and prints contained in Green Bag (Pub. in Boston), 1893 (Vol. 5), p. 1; 1895 (Vol. 7), p. 69; and 1901 (Vol. 13), p. 526. Jewish Encyclopedia ; and Universal Jewish Encyclopedia.</page></plain_text>