The Jewry of the Restoration, 1660-1664

<plain_text><page sequence="1">THE JEWRY OF THE RESTORATION. 1660-1664. By LTJOIEN WOLF. [This paper, read before the Society on March 1, 1902, was prepared with a view to examining the theory recently put forward by Dr. Gaster in his history of the Sephardi Synagogue, that there was no organised Jewish community in London previously to 1664, and that the Royal Order of that year constituted the fundamental charter of Jewish residence in England. It must be read as a sequel to the author's Menasseh ben Israel's Mission to Oliver Cromwell.] The closing days of the Protectorate were calm and unclouded for the little Jewish community of London. Before the masterful will of Cromwell the anti-Semites subsided into cowed silence, and while he lived not a voice was raised in protest against the heretical congrega? tion to which he had given the light of his countenance. The battle had been fought and decided, and on both sides the combatants returned to their ordinary avocations. The Jews traded unhindered in the City. They were represented by one of their own body on 'Change.1 They held public worship in their synagogue,2 and before the spring of 1660 five tombstones had been reared in their modest House of Life (Beth Chajim) at Mile End, as mournful witnesses to their hard-won civil and religious rights.3 Relieved of all anxiety for the security of their privileges, they had made considerable pro? gress in the organisation of their congregation when the Protectorate collapsed and Charles II. came by his own. Of the condition of the London Jewish community in the Restoration year we have fortunately a very complete contemporary 1 Solomon Dormido, admitted in 1657 (Guildhall Archives, Rem. lxxiii. p. 213). 2 Statements in petitions of City Corporation and Thomas Violet quoted later. 3 Bevis Marks Synagogue Burial Register. 5</page><page sequence="2">6 THE JEWRY OF THE RESTORATION. picture. This is contained in two lists of Jews which were given by Dr. Charles Chauncey to Emanuel Mendes da Costa in 1765, with the assurance that they were of the years 1658 to 1660.4 The script of both is of the most characteristic mid-seventeenth century type. There is, however, no difficulty in determining their date within a few weeks. They are the work of two different hands operating at the same time, and that time was the year 1660. The first list runs as follows:? Ducks Place. Sr. Durte Henriques. Sr. Antonio Robles. Sr. Augustin Coronell [erased]. Chrechurch Lane. thre famelyes. Sra. Antony Ferdenandes widdow seauerall Spanish [erased] Jewes and Ferdinande's heirs in Leadenhall Street. Sin. Leuey Sin. Perera Sin. Baroa Sin. Mordihay Sin. Jacob Bora Sin. Moses the Prest wer the Sinagoge is. Sin. Dauid The Prest in St. tellens a sinigoge. Beauis Markes. Sin. Samuell Deuega and seaven Lodgers Jewes in his hous. another fameley in Beues markes and lodgers? in showmakers Row by Ducks Place, a great famely. In Grauell Lane, Domingus Rodregous, Francisco Rodregous, by the Jeames Tavern in Boshippgat strett, a great famely of Jewes. Belerman the wine cooper in Sething Laine. Whitt the broker. Samell swinock. Brow the Broker. at Mr. Linger a plumers agfc Church. 4 Brit. Mus. Add. MSS. 29,868, ff. 15, 16. The second of these lists has already been published in the Gentleman's Magazine, vol. lxxxii., whence Picci otto copied it for his Sketches of Anglo-Jewish History. Unfortunately, these transcripts are full of errors.</page><page sequence="3">jAj iltim f%i i ifi /,~ pi,fa fr&gt; fai ^h^tf^yf ^ a?D fiel'Sfc&amp;&lt;s?^Ur&lt;?r~+ THE JEWRY OF 1660 (Brit. Mus. Add. MS. 29,868, fol. 15).</page><page sequence="4">fi*.\ /nA-~y XlUj~4 Vvfllf ^-x-cj} /PfiUJ A- ' fo&amp;y-M*^ fixity ^^Uaa^^^ fin- ' fAy&lt;xA+s^ %C^-xs*ju^ OI^l Jh^*JL THE JEWRY OF 1660 (Brit. Mus. Add. MS. 29,868, fol. 16).</page><page sequence="5">THE JEWRY OF THE RESTORATION. 7 The second list is more explicit:? The List of the Jewry. SRA. The widow Ferdenadoes with her tow sonnea ) _ _ . ? _ and tow seruants. \ Leadenhall Street. Sinor Antony Desousa, Boshipgot street. Sinor M'uell Rodregoes, Chrechurch Laine. Sinor Samuell Deuega in Beues Marks, great jeweller. Sinor Antony Rodregus Robles, Ducks Place. Sinor Josep ) Deoliverous ) , SnorMihell &gt; brothers ] ^uck Place. Sinr Duart Henrycus. Sin Perera ) Brothers at a Plumers Sin Perera S m Chrechurch. ? , , Chrechurch. Smor Dauid Gaby. Three mor Jewes, Merchants at the sam hous. Sin Deego Rodrego Aries, Fanchurchurch street. Sinor Dormedio and \ Sin Solomon, his sonn, f bt" teliens Sin. Solomon Frankhes, fanchurch stret. Sin. Manuell de Costa Brito, ducks Place. Sin. Doctor Boyno, Phision to the Jewes, ducks place. Sin. Steauen Rodregoes, Near Algat. Sin. Fransco Gomes, St. Mary Acts. Sin. Moses Atees, Crechurch Laine, a Jewesh Ribay. Sin. Beniman Leui, in Church Laine. Sin. Aron Gabey, Ducks Place. Sin. Domingoes Deserga, Ducks Place. Sin. Dauid Mier, LeadenHall street. Sin. Moediga, Clark of the synagoge. Most of them have wifes and saruents. The documents are endorsed in the handwriting of Mendez da Costa as follows :? N.B.?Jews resident in London about 1658 or 1660. Gift of Dr. Charles Chauncey, F.R.S., F.S.A., etc. to me, E. M. da Costa, about 1765. N.B.?-15 or 16 loose papers besides pamphlet. The date of these documents is, as I have said, easily fixed. The reference to the Widow of Antony Ferdinando, better known as Antonio Fernandes CarvajaL, shows that they must be later than</page><page sequence="6">8 THE JEWRY OF THE RESTORATION. November 1659, for Carvajal died on the 26th Heshvan, 5420.5 It is also clear that they were compiled before the 19th April 1664, for on that date Moses Athias ceased to be Rabbi of the synagogue.6 In the erasure on the first document we have a clue to the date. Augustine Coronel, whose name is scratched out, became a Christian towards the end of 1660, under circumstances which will presently be related. It was obviously then, because he had ceased to be a Jew, that his name was deleted, and hence the winter of 1660 must be assigned as the period to which these documents belong. They were probably the work of informers performed in connection with the attempt to procure the re-expulsion of the Jews in November and December 1660. From these lists we learn that the community which in 1656 numbered twenty-seven males, mostly heads of families,7 had increased to about thirty-five, notwithstanding losses by death and emigration. The names we no longer meet with are those of Menasseh ben Israel, Antonio Fernandes Carvajal, Abraham Cohen Gonsales, Simon de Caceres, Domingo Yaz de Brito, Isak Lopes Chillon, Antonio de Porto, Manuel da Fonseca Meza, Alonzo da Fonseca Meza, Abraham de Touar, Aron Dormido, David da Costa, Bento de la Coste, and Henrique Jorge Mendes.8 From other sources we know that some of these men were either temporarily absent from London, or had been omitted from the lists by accident. Such are Abraham Cohen Gonsales, who was afterwards an active member of the congregation,9 Antonio de Porto, who was in the same case, but who maintained his Marranism even after the Whitehall Conferences, and probably still hesitated to throw off his mask, Manuel da Fonseca Meza, who was endenizened in 1660, and his brother, Alonzo, and Aron Dormido, who made application for denization in the following year.10 Three?Menasseh ben Israel, 5 Bevis Marks Burial Register. 6 Haham Sasportas accepted the post on this date (see Gaster, History of the Ancient Synagogue, 17, 18). 7 Crypto-Jews under the Commonwealth (Trans. Jew. Hist. Soc, vol. i. pp. 66-72). 8 For biographical particulars of these persons see Crypto-Jews, note 7, supra. Cf. infra, note 46. 9 He was one of the signatories of the Ascamoth in 1664 (Gaster, History, p. 11). 10 Patent Rolls, 13 Car. II., par. 44; Cal. State Papers, Dom., 1661-1662, pp. 42, 214.</page><page sequence="7">THE JEWRY OF THE RESTORATION. 9 Antonio Carvajal, and Domingo Yaz de Brito?were dead. Simon de Caceres' disappearance is accounted for by the zeal and activity with which he had served the Commonwealth. Isaac Lopes Chillon had retired to "Amsterdam, and Henrique Jorge Mendes had taken up his abode in Antwerp. Abraham de Touar must be identical with the English-speaking nephewT of Carvajal whom Philip Skippon, the traveller, met in Venice in 1663, and to whom he was indebted for a valuable account of the Venetian Ghetto.11 Seeing that he was the only one of the relatives of Carvajal, mentioned in his will, who was missing from London in 1660, this identification is irresistible. Of David da Costa and Bento de la Coste nothing can be said. They were both Royalist agents, and it is very likely that the names by which they were known during the Protectorate were not their real names. The new names in the lists are Samuel de Veiga, Joseph and Michael d'Oliveira, the two Pereiras, Moses and Jacob Baruh, Manuel de Costa Brito, Dr. Bueno, Stephen Rodrigues, Franco Gomes, Benjamin Levi, David and Aron Gabey, Solomon Frankes, David Mier, Francisco Rodrigues and Senor Mordecai. To these have to be added four Gentile names, Belerman, Whitt, Brow, and Samuel Swinock. The latter are probably the names of the converts to whom many writers of the period, and especially Violet and Greenhalgh, refer. Samuel Swinock was an old friend of Antonio Carvajal, and was concerned with him in the raid on the Customs House in 1658. Belerman is probably meant for Bellamy the cooper, who also assisted Carvajal on that occasion.12 Solomon Frankes or Franco is not, properly speaking, a new name except in the sense that he has not hitherto been referred to before this society. He was a Jewish Rabbi, and was living in Oxford as far back as 1652, when he taught Hebrew to Elias Ashmole.13 Ten of the names are not given fully or are otherwise inaccurate. Thus, Antony De Sousa should be Simon de Sousa, Manuel Rodrigues should be Manuel Rodrigues Nunes, 11 Skippon, An Account of a Journey made through part of the Loto Countries, Italy, and France (Lond., 1663). 12 " The First English Jew" {Trans. Jew. Hist. Soc, vol. ii. pp. 23, 38-44). 13 Oxoniana, iii. 186. In 1668, Solomon Franco became a Christian. See Truth Springing out of Earth, by R. Solomon Franco. Lond., 1668.</page><page sequence="8">10 THE JEWRY OF THE RESTORATION. Duarte Henriques should be Duarte Henriques Alvares, Moses and Jacob Baruh should have the cognomen Lousada, Senor Dormedio should be David Abarbanel Dormido, Dr. Boyno should be Dr. Joseph Mendes Bueno, Domingo and Francisco Rodrigues should be Domingo and Francisco Rodrigues Francia, and Domingo Deserga should be Domingo de la Gerda. But these lists are not mere catalogues of names. They tell us much that is interesting and valuable about the degree of organisation reached by the community. We learn from them that there were two synagogues in London?one for the Sephardim in Oreechurch Lane, the other for Ashkenazim in St. Helen's. Of the Ashkenazi Synagogue we know as yet nothing except that its Rabbi was named David Mier. Perhaps Solomon Frankes had something to do with it. With the Sephardi Synagogue we are more familiar. Here, probably, the Marranos had worshipped long before the mission of Menasseh ben Israel, for its equipment even in 1662 was still essen? tially that of a secret place of worship. When towards the end of 1656 the Jews had received rights of residence and public worship from Oliver Cromwell, it had been their intention to build a synagogue, and for this purpose John Sadler had obtained for them a special authorisation from the Protector.14 Owing, perhaps, to the smallness of the community this privilege had not been made use of, and the only change that had been made in the services was that they were celebrated without concealment. The author of a pamphlet published in 1660 relates how in the spring of that year he visited the synagogue in the company of the notorious Thomas Violet, " and spoke with one Mr. Moses their High Priest and other J ewes."15 A synagogue that was open to such a man as Yiolet was obviously in no sense a secret resort. Indeed, Violet himself declares in a tract printed towards the end of the same year that the result of Cromwell granting a toleration to the Jews was that " to this day they do keep public worship in the City of London to the great dishonour of Christianity and public scandal of the true Protestant religion." 16 Of 14 Birch MBB. 4223, f. 156. 15 The Great Trapanner (1660), p. 2. 16 Violet, Petition against the Jews, p. 2. This pamphlet is dated 1661, but it was published on Dec. 16,1660.</page><page sequence="9">THE JEWRY OF THE RESTORATION. 11 the appearance and appointments of the synagogue we have a detailed account in the often quoted letter of John Greenhalgh, who visited the building in April 1662. It was a tall private house, and its entrance was protected by three double-locking doors. Two rooms on the first floor were reserved for prayer, the smaller being appro? priated to the women and separated from the larger by a partition fitted with a long and narrow latticed window. In the larger room four long forms?two on each side?were provided for the male worshippers. The banco or warden's pew consisted of a sort of desk raised high above the other seats, and occupying the west end of the room. Six feet in front of the banco and on a slightly lower level was the reading-desk, with two steps on each side, and brass candle? sticks at each corner. The ark was little more than a plain cupboard flanked by " mighty " brass candlesticks. Two perpetual lamps of " christal glass " hung before it. The walls were fitted with drawers in which the worshippers kept their Prayer Books and Talithim?1 Of the internal organisation of the community we have several suggestive glimpses in the Mendez da Costa lists. In the first place, we are told that the Sephardi Synagogue had a Rabbi, Moses Athias by name. He was a cousin of the founder of the congregation, Antonio Carvajal, and he held the post of Rabbi until the appoint? ment of Sasportas in 1663.18 We have another suggestive fact in the mention of the name of Benjamin Levy. His functions are not described, but we know from other sources that he filled the offices of Chazan, Shochet, Bodek and Managing Secretary.19 The congrega? tion also had a clerk, Senor Mordecai, and a special physician, Dr. Bueno. The existence of the latter official points to some machinery for dealing with the communal poor. That there were poor Jews in London we know from the will of Antonio Carvajal, in which a sum of ?30 was bequeathed for their relief.20 Jewish beggars had indeed been numerous in London for some years, owing partly to the persecutions in Poland and Bohemia, and partly to the destitution 17 Ellis, Original Letters, Second Series, vol. iv. pp. 3-21, 18 Trans. Jew. Hist. Soc, vol. i. pp. 70, 87. Gaster, History, pp. 17, 18. 19 First Minute-Book of Bevis Marks Synagogue. See also Gaster, History, p. 18. 20 Trans. Jew. Hist. Sog., vol. i. p. 87.</page><page sequence="10">12 THE JEWRY OF THE RESTORATION. which prevailed in the Holy Land. They were attracted to London not because the local Jewish community had a reputation for wealth or generosity, but because visionary Judeophils, like Henry Jessey, had long made it a practice to collect money on their behalf.21 How the problem weighed on the synagogue is shown by its first published balance-sheet, in which ?26, 5s. 3d. is set down for repatriating immigrants, and ?1, 5s. 4d. for the supply of free Matzoth to the poor.22 Finally, the Congregation had a cemetery at Mile End, and there can be no doubt that in connection with it a society of iC Lavadores " had been formed. To sum up then : The London Jewish community in 1660 was a duly organised public body. It numbered some thirty-five heads of families, or about 150 souls, enjoying rights of residence and public worship. It had two synagogues and a cemetery, two Rabbis, an official discharging the duties of Chazan, Shochet, Bodek and Secre? tary, a clerk and a physician. Moreover, there is reason to believe that it had a poor-fund and a burial society. That it had a Presiding Parnass is shown by the Wardens' pew and by the fact, mentioned by Greenhalgh, that in 1660 this pew was occupied with considerable show of authority. Whether it had Ascamoth (Laws) or not is difficult to say, but it is scarcely likely that a congregation so organised, and which had been in existence for some years, would have been without some set of rules. Indeed, it could not have got on without them. With the Restoration, anxieties began to crowd upon this little community. The death of Oliver Cromwell had already begun to unloose the tongues of the Jew-haters, and one, Richard Baker, had constituted himself their mouthpiece in a petition addressed to Richard Cromwell, in which he prayed for the banishment of the Jews and the confiscation of their property.23 A more sinister sign of the spirit that was abroad was afforded by the activity of the arch 21 E. W., Life and Death of Henry Jessey, passim. 22 First Minute-Book of Bevis Marks Synagogue. A facsimile of the balance sheet is given by Gaster, p. 16, but it has been so reduced by photography that, like most of the documents in this otherwise valuable work, it is almost illegible. 23 The Marchanfs Humble Petition and Remonstrance to His Late Highnesse (London, 1659), p. 17. See Transactions, vol. iv. p. 186.</page><page sequence="11">THE JEWRY OF THE RESTORATION. 13 informer, Thomas Violet. In December 1659 he appeared before Mr. Justice Tyril, and laid before him the case against the Jews as set forth in Prynne's Demurrers. He argued that the settlement by Cromwell was illegal, and he proposed that the law should be set in motion against the intruders. The judge seems to have been sympathetically inclined towards Violet, but he prudently suggested that in the then confused political situation it would be well to await the development of events.24 With this counsel Violet was not satis? fied. If he could not procure the expulsion of the Jews as heretics, he would endeavour to punish them as evil-doers. Accordingly he set himself to trump up a case of coining against them. In this he failed owing to the confession of his confederate, who was to have passed a packet of spurious money on Moses Athias.25 In the following June, Violet, unabashed by his exposure, again made an application to Mr. Justice Tyril. The judge still refused to take any action, but he advised Violet to communicate with the Privy Council. This the informer straightway did. He drew up a violent remonstrance, in which he dwelt on the criminal proclivities of the Jews and called for their banishment, and marching down to Whitehall, personally deli? vered it to the Lords in Council.26 It is probable that no notice would have been taken of Violet's campaign had it not found powerful support in the City Corporation. To the City the action of Cromwell in granting rights of residence to the Jews, and especially in insisting on their trading on an equality with native merchants, had always been a sore grievance. Their wrath found expression as soon as Charles II. was securely estab? lished on the throne. A few days after Violet presented his petition to the Privy Council, the Lord Mayor and Aldermen waited upon the King with a similar prayer. All the extravagant fears they had uttered at the Whitehall Conferences in 1655, they now repeated in the form of complaints. The Jews were a swarm of locusts; they corrupted religion ; they endangered the public security ; they de 24 The facts are given by Violet himself in his Petition against the Jews (1661), pp. 7-8. 25 The Great Trapanner of England (1660). 26 Violet, Petition, p. 8. For text of this Petition see S. P., Dom., Ohas. II., vol. xxi. p. 140. Reprinted in Transactions, vol. iv. pp. 188-192.</page><page sequence="12">14 THE JEWRY OF THE RESTORATION. bauched English women ; they ruined trade. The King was im? plored to advise Parliament to expel 11 all professed Jews out of your Majesty's dominions, and to bar the door after them with such provisions and penalties as in your Majesty's wisdom shall be found most agreeable to the safety of religion, the honour of your Majesty, and the good and welfare of your subjects." 27 This petition is chiefly interesting for the explicit testimony it bears to the privileges granted to the Jews by " the late Usurper." In this respect it is one of the most valuable documents among the materials of Anglo-Jewish history. Had the petitioners been able to say, as Dr. Gaster has recently said, that the idea that Cromwell had granted any " privileges or rights " to the Jews belonged 44 to the domains of romance,"28 we may be sure that they would have gladly and emphatically impressed this fact on the King. Nothing could have served their purpose better than to show that the Jews were unwarranted intruders. That they did not do so was simply due to the fact that the reverse was the truth. The Jews were a scourge, but they had been let loose on the country by the Usurper. He had admitted them to " a free cohabitation and trade in these dominions," and had given them " liberty to profess and practise the Judaical superstition." A statement of this kind made in a formal document by the Lord Mayor and Aldermen of the City of London cannot be ignored or explained away by the most disingenuous critic. The Corporation knew very well of what they were talking; the facts were still fresh in their minds, and, more? over, they had been personally and corporately aggrieved by the privileges of which they complained. Their testimony is consequently conclusive in regard to the question of the Charter given to the Jews by Cromwell. While this anti-Jewish campaign was confined to men like Baker and Yiolet, the Jews had not bestirred themselves to defend their rights. The action of the Corporation, however, caused them the most serious apprehensions. They held a meeting in Leadenhall Street, at the house of Senora Maria Fernandez Carvajal, the widow of the famous Antonio, and drew up a petition to the King praying 27 Guildhall Archives, Remembrancia, vol. ix. pp. 1-18. Text in Transactions, vol. iv. pp. 186-188. 28 Gaster, History, p. 2.</page><page sequence="13">THE JEWRY OF THE RESTORATION. 15 "for His Majesty's protection to continue and reside in his domi? nions."29 This document was signed by Senora Carvajal and the chief members of the community, all being " merchants and Jews by birth." It is clear from its text that no attempt was being made by the signatories to hide or disguise their existence as a Jewish reli? gious body. On December 7th all the petitions were brought before the Privy Council, and after a long debate it was resolved to refer them to the House of Commons with a message from the King " desiring their advice thereon." This action soon became known to the general public, and in order to stir up public opinion and bring pressure to bear on Parliament, Thomas Yiolet promptly published a venomous pamphlet attacking the Jews.30 Ten days after the Council's meeting Mr. Denzil Holies presented the Royal message to the House, but it was in a form strangely different from that adopted by the Privy Council. Instead of asking the advice of the House as to whether the Jews should be banished or not, it desired that the question of "protection for the Jews" should be taken into con? sideration.31 There is no record of anything having been done by the House, and consequently the Cromwellian privileges as enumerated in the petition of the City Fathers remained undisturbed. Thus was defeated the most formidable attack made on the Jews of England during the whole course of their modern history, for never again were their rights contested or was their expulsion demanded by so influential a body as the Corporation of the City of London, although they were later on the objects of not a few conspiracies and persecutions at the hands of more or less responsible Judeophobes. The motives which actuated the King in his action and Parliament in its inaction are not difficult to determine. Influences of a far more powerful kind were working for the Jews than the modest petition of the widow Fernandez Carvajal and her small company of Hebrew merchants. The King himself was already pledged to the Jews. In 1656 Puritans and Royalists had competed for their favour, and both sides had secured a share of their support. The services of Carvajal and De Caceres to the Commonwealth had been 29 Privy Council Registers, Dec. 7, 1660. Infra, Documents, pp. 28-29. 30 This was the so-called Petition against the Jews. See supra, note 16. 31 House of Commons Journals, vol. viii. p. 209, Dec. 17, 1660.</page><page sequence="14">16 THE JEWRY OF THE RESTORATION. rewarded by Cromwell with the settlement of 1656. The King, on his part, had found useful instruments and supporters among the Royalist Jews in Holland and France, and in return had pledged himself in the most formal way to secure for them a liberal toleration in England. The negotiations were entrusted to General Middleton under a Royal Warrant issued by the exiled King at Bruges in Sep? tember 1656. General Middleton approached the Jews of Amsterdam and suggested to them that they would find it to their advantage to supply the King with money, arms, and ammunition. His overtures were so successful that the King assured the Jews that " Wee are very farr from that preiudice to them as to looke on them as enimyes," and " they shall find that when God shall restore us to the possession of our rights and to that power which of right doth belonge to us we shall extend that protection to them which they can reasonably expecte and abate that rigour of the Lawes which is against them in our several dominions."32 Of the actual services rendered to the King by the Jews we have only a few glimpses, but these show us that the Da Costa family and Augustine Coronel were active workers for the royal cause,33 and it is reasonable to assume that they did not stand alone. Moreover, Augustine Coronel was a personal friend of Monk, the King Maker, and this fact and the knowledge that he was a Jew must have helped to restrain prejudices against his co? religionists. But it will be asked why, under these circumstances, did not the King press upon Parliament some positive action for the protection of the Jews in the sense of his message of December 17th, 1660? The reason no doubt is that when the House of Commons came to examine the question, they found that the rights of the Jews were not a mere Cromwellian grant, but that they originated in a state of the law that was independent of the Usurper's protection. The foundation of those rights was the opinion of the Judges given at the Whitehall Conference that " there was no law which forbad the Jews' return into England," and Cromwell in guaranteeing the Jews certain privileges had really not granted them new privileges, but had virtually pledged himself to prevent Parliament from re? stricting the logical consequences of their fundamental legal right of 32 Firth, Scotland and the Protectorate, pp. 342-343. Infra, Documents, pp. 29-30. 33 Trans. Jew. Hist. Soc, vol. i. pp. 71, 75.</page><page sequence="15">THE JEWRY OF THE RESTORATION. 17 settlement. Many of the Royalist lawyers had imagined with Prynne that the order of banishment of 1290 was still in force, and that con? sequently Cromwell's action was illegal. The King, of course, could not validate any acts of the Usurper, and hence his application to Parliament for measures to protect the Jews against what he imagined to be the operative force of the edict of 1290. Once it was shown that the Banishment by Edward I. was no longer valid, all protective measures became unnecessary, and Charles was glad to follow the example of Cromwell in much the same cautious way and for much the same reason. That he formally defined the scope of the Jewish privileges as Cromwell had done there is nothing to show. Probably he did not, as he could not very easily vary them, while to repeat them would necessarily have been offensive to his Royal dignity. As for the Acts of Elizabeth and Edward VI., which enacted penalties for not attending Church, and which might have been used with per? secuting effect against the Jews, it was doubtful whether they were still in force, not because of their repeal by the Long Parliament in 1650, but because of the toleration pledges in the Declaration of Breda. Scarcely had this negative, but not on that account indecisive settlement of the status of the Jews been arrived at, than a new cause of anxiety beset the community. At the end of the year it became known that Augustine Coronel, whose high favour at Court was a solid guarantee for the security of the community, had embraced Christianity. Coronel, or Coronel-Chacon, to give him his full name, was an interesting figure in the Jewry of the Restoration, and de? serves more than a passing notice at our hands. He was a man of many accomplishments, speaking and writing several languages besides his native Portuguese. He was born in Beira, and was a relative of the Mendes family.34 In 1640 he settled in Bordeaux, and four years later in Rouen. Here he was the bosom friend of Antonio Enriques Gomes, the Marrano soldier and poet, to one of whose works he contributed a graceful sonnet. Early in the fifties he was settled in England as a merchant and Royalist agent, being con? cerned with the Mendes' and Da Costas in receiving and distributing 34 Some biographical details will be found in Trans. Jew, Hist. Soc., vol. i. pp. 70, 71, 73, 74,. 75. A reference to him in Brit. Mus. Add. MSS. 29,868 shows that he was a connection of the Mendes da Costa family. VOL. V. B</page><page sequence="16">18 THE JEWRY OF THE RESTORATION. funds for the exiled King. On 'Change he was even then known as " the littell Jue." In London he lost his daughter Blanche, who was buried in St. Dyonis Backchurch.35 On the fall of the Protectorate, he was made Consular and Financial Agent for Portugal, in London, and it was he who first suggested to Monk a match between King Charles and the Infanta Catherine of Braganza.36 This advice greatly increased his influence at Court, and in October 1660 he was knighted.37 It was no doubt in preparation for this dignity that towards the end of 1660 he seceded from the synagogue. Sir Augustine Coronel or Collonel, as he was now called, was not fortunate as a Christian. His financial affairs fell into disorder. He was prosecuted by the Portuguese Ambassador, was expelled the Exchange, and imprisoned in the Fleet. After ineffectually playing the part of informer against some of his former co-religionists, he went abroad and ended his days as a dependant on the bounty of his rich Jewish relatives.38 CoroneFs defection from the community did not change in any way the favourable disposition of the King towards the Jews. In July 1661 three Jews?Bernard and Henrique de Casseres and Jacob Fraso?applied for permission to settle in Barbadoes, notwithstanding that under the new Navigation Act they were excluded. The petition was granted, together with other small favours solicited by various other Jews at this time.39 Charles also showed himself generous in the matter of denizations. Before the end of 1661 nineteen Jews had been made English citizens in this way.40 The truth is that the community still possessed powerful friends at Court. Chief among them were the brothers Duarte and Francisco da Silva, who had been brought to England by the King's marriage, and were both gentlemen of the Queen's household. Duarte da Silva was the " Jew of great wealth," who is inaccurately called Diego Silvas in Clarendon's account of the Portuguese match.41 He was probably a connection of 35 Registers (Harl. Soe.), p. 229. 36 Burnet, History of My Own Times (Edit. O. Airey), vol. i. p. 290. 37 Le Neve, Pedigrees of Knights, p. 145. 38 Cal. S. P., Dom., 1661-62, pp. 172, 241, 270, 611. Ibid., 1664-65, pp. 61, 62. Ibid., 1665-66, pp. 118, 137. 39 Cal. S. P., Col., 1661-68, p. 49. 40 Patent Rolls, 13 Car. II., pars. 17, 44 ; and 14 Car. II., pars. 2, 3, 7, 20. 41 The Life of Edward, Earl of Clarendon (1759), vol. iv. p. 167.</page><page sequence="17">THE JEWRY OF THE RESTORATION. 19 the Dormidos, and through them of Menasseh ben Israel.42 He had been long settled in Amsterdam as a banker and merchant, and when Catherine of Braganza came to England he was appointed to follow her in the capacity of Procurator of the Treasury of the King of Portugal. It was his business to receive, exchange, and disburse the immense dowry which the Queen brought to Charles II. The anxiety of the King to draw on the dowry before the several instalments arrived led to the arbitrary imprisonment of Da Silva for refusing to honour the King's premature drafts. Duarte da Silva, who had embarked in business on a large scale in London, ultimately retired to Antwerp, where he died in 1677.43 The Portuguese marriage brought about a very great change in the London Jewish community. Between the beginning of 1661? when the number of heads of families was only thirty-five?and the end of 1663 fifty-seven fresh names were added to the list of well-to-do Jews in London.44 How many of the poorer class had settled in London during the same period is difficult to say, as there are no means of tracing their names. While increasing in numbers, the community also vastly increased in prosperity. This may be seen in their banking accounts, thirty-eight of which are still preserved in the ledgers of the famous Alderman Backwell for 1663. Some idea of their financial position will be gained from the following turnovers recorded in these accounts, most of which were for a period of about six months:? Jacob Aboab ..... ?13,085 Samuel De Vega ..... 18,309 Duarte da Sylva ..... 41,441 Francisco da Sylva ..... 14,646 Fernando Mendes da Costa .... 30,490 Isaac Dazevedo ..... 13,605 George and Domingo Francia . . . 35,739 Gomes Rodrigues . . . . . 13,124 42 Solomon Dormido's commercial alias was Luis da Sylva (see Will, Lond. Prob. Off., Noel, 177). 43 Clarendon, vol. iv. p. 179; Cal. S. P., Dom., 1661-62, pp. 380, 400, 403, 407, 410, 415, 416, 418, 429, 432, 459; Banking account in Backwell's Ledgers, 1663, &amp;c.; Will, Lond. Prob. Oif., Exton, 68. For references to Francisco see Cal. S. P., Dom., 1661-62, pp. 581, 587. 44 This number has been compiled from the Patents of Denization and from the banking accounts in the ledgers of Alderman Backwell (MSS.).</page><page sequence="18">20 THE JEWRY OF THE RESTORATION. The chief men in the new immigration were wealthy Portuguese Marranos. Some of them came to London to assist Duarte da Sylva in the administration of the Queen's dowry. This must have been a very profitable business, and the Marranos seem to have formed a syndicate to keep it to themselves. The King's drafts and warrants were always running ahead of the instalments of the dowry, and considerable amounts of capital were required to discount them. The provision of this capital was confined to the Jews. Another cause of the Portuguese immigration was the terrible persecu? tion to which the Marranos were subjected in Portugal about this time.45 We have a curious glimpse of this persecution, and how it affected the immigration into England, in a letter sent in 1663 by Fernando Mendes, otherwise Fernando Mendes da Costa, from London, to his brother, Jorge Mendes da Costa, in Rome.46 Fernando, who was the first member of his distinguished family to settle in England, where he was afterwards joined in partnership by his cousin, Alvaro da Costa, was much exercised in his mind for the safety not only of his relatives in Lisbon and Reira, but also of the general body of his Marrano co-religionists in Spain and Portugal. Through Don Francisco Manuel de Mello, the distinguished Portuguese soldier, author, and diplomatist, he interested King Charles and the Pope in the fate of the Marranos. " Don Francisco was here," he writes to his brother, " and was to go from hence by land to that Court (Rome) to treat of certain business of this Kingdom. This gentleman is our friend, and has spoken to us very freely, telling us in secret that his chief object is to seek help for the nation. Please God he may compass it!" From another passage in this letter it appears that Fernando da Costa was organising an emigration of Marranos from Spain and Portugal into Italy and England. Those of you who are familiar with this period of Anglo-Jewish history will be astonished at my omission of the names of D_r. Fernando 45 Kayserling, Geschichte der Juden in Portugal, p. 313; Jewish Quarterly Review, vol. xiv. p. 84. 46 Brit. Mus. Add. MSS. 29,868, f. 1. I am inclined to identify Fernando Mendes da Costa with the "rich Jew named Da Costa," mentioned in the Thurloe State Papers (vol. v. p. 572}, and hence with Ben to de la Coste. (See Trans. Jew. Hist. Soc, vol. i. p. 71, where in error I identified Bento with Alvaro da Costa.) Infra, Documents, pp. 30-32.</page><page sequence="19">THE JEWRY OF THE RESTORATION. 21 Mendes, the favourite physician of Catherine of Braganza, and his brother, Andreas, the Queen's Chamberlain, from among the influential friends of the Jews at Court. You know the story. There are several versions of it which differ in names and details, but the romantic element is constant in all. Lindo first published it in his Jews of Spain and Portugal; Picciotto adopted and embellished it; Kayser? ling repeated it, and Dr. Gaster has recently given it the imprimatur of his high reputation. Dr. Gaster's account is specially worth quoting, because the learned Chacham assures us that his work deals " only with facts that can be proved." It runs as follows:? Dr. Ferdinando Mendez . . . was born in Portugal and educated there as a Marrano. He must have attained a very high reputation at an early age to become a Court Physician to King John the Fourth of Portugal. The King's daughter Catherine was betrothed to King Charles the Second. On her journey from Portugal to London, whilst in New Castile, she was attacked with erysipelas, and Dr. Mendez was sent by the King to heal her. At her request, he accompanied her to London, and became her Court Physician. With him came also his two brothers, Andreas and Antonio Mendez. He as weir as his wife openly embraced Judaism and joined the congregation.47 Well, the reasons for my silence in regard to these persons are that Andreas Mendes never existed, that Fernando Mendes did not come to England until seven years after Queen Catherine's marriage, and was then several years in private practice before he became a Physician-in-Ordinary, and that he never had a brother, Antonio? at least, there is no trace of one in English records. The state? ment that Fernando was Court Physician to King John IY. of Portugal, and that he was sent with the Infanta Catherine to England in 1662, can easily be disproved, for at the time of the marriage he was not in Portugal at all, but was a young medical student at Leyden. The exact date on which Fernando Mendes first set foot in England was October 25th, 1669.48 The further statement that he and his wife openly embraced Judaism on their arrival in England is equally unfounded. Fernando Mendes was not married until 1678, and the lady he married was an excellent Jewess, Isabel or Rachel Marques, one of the daughters of Diego Rodrigues Marques, 47 Gaster, History, p. 97. 48 Brit. Mus. Add. MSS. 29,868, f. 20.</page><page sequence="20">22 THE JEWRY OF THE RESTORATION. of London, and one of the heiresses of her uncle, Abraham Rodrigues Marques, the founder of the Sephardi Dower Fund. So far from Fernando having voluntarily embraced Judaism, he was not at all anxious to throw off his Marranism and enter the synagogue. Indeed, his want of Jewish spirit was a great grief to his relatives, as we may see by the following extract from the will of his wealthy uncle-in-law, which w7as proved in 1688 :? Item, I declare . . . that several times I desired of Doctor Fernando Mendez a sonne to give him my name of Marques, and that if in the space of two yeares he and his sonns will not be circumcised, I exclude the said Fernan Mendez and his said sonns so that they cannot inherit any of my estate.49 The truth is that the whole of this story arose from a clumsy con? fusion of names by Mr. Lindo. He had heard that Queen Catherine was attended on her arrival in England by two brothers, a physician and a Court Chamberlain, who were Marranos, and as he knew that at some period which he could not fix Fernando Mendes was the Queen's Physician, he jumped to the conclusion that he was identical with the Marrano Medico of 1661. The name of the Marrano phy? sician who was the real hero of this story was Antonio Fereira,50 while the Chamberlain was Francisco Fereira.51 There is no evidence of their having joined the synagogue in London, for both returned to Portugal, and died there, but that they were Marranos is very likely. Their surname is indeed not unknown in Bevis Marks. As I have already shown, it did not require a Fernando Mendes to lend distinction to the London Jewish community of 1663. His uncle, Fernando Mendes Da Costa, was a finer character, a more devoted Jew and a wealthier personage, and he was only one of many rich, cultivated, and pious Jews who at this period crowded every Sabbath into the rickety first-floor synagogue in Crechurch Lane. The growing contrast between the improved circumstances of the community and the exiguous and perhaps shabby Esnoga which had suited the handful of modest Marranos in Cromwell's time, now began to make itself felt. Early in 1663, a complete reorganisation of the 49 Lond. Prob. Off., Ent. 10. 50 Barbosa Machado, Biblioteea Lusitana, vol. i. p. 274. 51 Cal. S. P., Dom., 1663-64, p. 552.</page><page sequence="21">THE JEWKY OF THE RESTORATION. 23 congregation was resolved upon. Between the middle of June and the middle of August a large number of exceptionally heavy payments were made to Mr. Benjamin Levy by certain of the leading members of the congregations.52 These payments could not have been by way of business or for Levy's personal use, for he was a paid servant of the synagogue, and his circumstances are sufficiently indicated by the fact that his personal savings in Backwell's Bank amounted only to ?7.m I venture to suggest that the money was for alterations in the synagogue, in view of a renewal of the lease and of the necessity of reorganisation.64 Manuel Musaphia seems to have been the Treasurer, for he paid nearly ?100 to Levy in various amounts between the dates I have mentioned. There was apparently some urgency in the matter, for Musaphia had to raise the money on a bill which he discounted with Samuel da Veiga, and which, when due, was satisfied by a draft handed to Musaphia by Mr. Gomes Rodrigues, better known in the synagogue as Abraham Israel de Sequeira.55 There were other large payments to Levy which did not pass through Musaphia's hands. Thus between July and November, Mr. da Yeiga paid him a few shillings under ??50, and Fernando da Costa gave him ??45 in one sum.56 That all this was preparatory to some reorganisation of the congregation seems clear when we turn to Dr. Gaster's book and note what took place between Sep? tember 1663 and April 1664, that is, immediately after these heavy disbursements. On the 3rd of September there was a meeting of Yehidim (Members), at which the amount of each Yahid's contribution to the maintenance of the synagogue was fixed. Ten weeks later, on the 18th of November, a further meeting was held to compile?is Dr. Gaster quite sure that it was not to revise ??the Ascamoth or Con? stitution of the synagogue, and on the 5th April 1664 the new Con? stitution was promulgated.57 Meanwhile a new Chief Rabbi had been sought to take the place of Moses Athias, and the choice of the congregation had fallen on Haham Jacob Sasportas. He accepted 52 Backwell's Ledger, 1663. Infra, notes 55, 56. 53 Ibid., f. 556. 54 That a lease was taken in 1664 is shown by Gaster, History, p. 7. 55 Ledger, 1663, fs. 132, 524, 5, 6, 102, 123. 56 Ibid., fs. 5, 6, 57, 440, 448, 461. 57 Gaster, History, pp. 9, 10, 11.</page><page sequence="22">24 THE JEWRY OF THE RESTORATION. the post on the 19th April 1664.58 All the other officers were re? placed at the same time, and thus the reorganisation was completed. It is important, in view of what follows, to note that the date of the final completion of this reorganisation, on Dr. Gaster's own showing, was the 19th April 1664. For three months the even tenour of the life of the congregation remained undisturbed. Since the anti-Semitic explosion in the winter of 1660 nothing had happened to lead the Jews to imagine that their rights and privileges were in any danger. During the spring of 1663 there had been some talk of calling in the Jews' patents of denization, and some vexatious trouble about the oath of allegiance and supremacy had been threatened, but it had blown over.59 The publicity and security in which the Jews worshipped is evidenced by Samuel Pepys, in the account he gives of a visit he paid to the synagogue on October 14th, 1663 (Diary, vol. ii. p. 46). This state of things, however, was not destined to endure. The very conspicuous wealth of the com? munity was bound to excite envy; perhaps the bustle of restoring and reorganising the synagogue in Orechurch Lane directed public attention to the prosperity of the swarthy heretics. However that may be, murmurs began to be heard against the Jews, and the old doctrines of Prynne and Yiolet denouncing the Resettlement as illegal were revived. The agitation culminated in a bold piece of chantage attempted by the Earl of Berkshire and Mr. Ricaut. These two gentlemen called on the Wardens of the congregation and told them that the King had verbally committed the Jews to their care, and that unless a good round sum were paid them they would make use of their authority to confiscate the property of their proteges.60 The con? spiracy was of a transparently crude and clumsy kind. The Jews 58 Gaster, History, p. 17. Dr. Gaster gives in every case only the Hebrew dates, which are somewhat confusing. 59 Cal. S. P., Dom., 1663-64, p. 159. 60 S. P., Dom., Ohas. II., Entry Book 18, pp. 78-79. The petition stating these facts and the King's reply to it, were first published by the present writer in the Jewish Chronicle, Nov. 22, 1889, under the title, " A Final Note on the Re? settlement." A facsimile of the original petition as preserved in the Archives of the Bevis Marks Synagogue appears in Dr. Gaster's History, p. 3, but it is quite illegible. Infra, Documents, pp. 32 et seq.</page><page sequence="23">THE JEWRY OF THE RESTORATION. 25 knew well enough what their status in the country was, for their Chief Warden, David Abarbanel Dormido, remembered the judicial decision of the Whitehall Conferences of nine years before, when he himself was one of the suppliants to Cromwell. They knew that no danger could threaten them in the way of expulsion or arbitrary con? fiscation, and that all they had to fear was Parliamentary action against them, and that was exceedingly unlikely. Accordingly they refused to come to terms with the blackmailers, and boldly turned the tables on them by disclosing the whole conspiracy to the King in a petition in which they prayed for a continuance of his protection. The most significant passage in this document is a statement that " your Petitioners are ignorant of any laws which should hinder their residence in this Kingdom." Here we have clearly indicated the fundamental right of the Jews as laid down by Judges Glynn and Steele in 1655. That this is so is shown by a comparison of this petition with the petition of Dormido to Cromwell in 1654 and with Article VII. of Menasseh ben Israel's petition of the following year, in both of which the repeal of laws prohibiting Jews from residing in the country was asked for.61 It is clear from this that what the Jews of 1664 were relying upon was not any supposititious grant from Charles II., but wholely and solely the settlement of 1655-57. Thus we have in this very petition the historical continuity of the Cromwellian and Carolian Jewries illustrated. The reply of the King confirmed this view of his Jewish peti? tioners. " His Majesty," wrote the Clerk of the Council, under date of August 22nd, " having considered this Peticion hath been graciously pleased to declare that hee hath not given any particular order for ye molesting or disquieting ye Petitioners either in their persons or estates, but that they may promise themselves ye effects of ye same favour as formerly they have had so long as they demeane themselves peaceably and quietly with due obedience to His Majesty's lawes and without scandal to his government." 62 In other words the status quo which had originated in 1655, and had been defined in 1657, was confirmed. In referring to " the effects of the same favour as 61 Trans. Jew. Hist. Sog., vol. i. p. 89; "Menasseh ben Israel's Mission," p. Ixxxiii. 62 privy Council Entry Book, loc. cit. Supra, note 60.</page><page sequence="24">26 THE JEWRY OF THE RESTORATION. formerly they have had," the King of course was not ostensibly indicating the Cromwellian Settlement. Had he made use of these words in a reply to the petition of Maria Fernandes Carvajal in 1660 such an interpretation would have been inevitable, and doubtless for this reason no reply was sent. But nearly four years had elapsed since then, and the King could now speak of "former favours" without avowedly carrying his retrospect further back than his own Restoration. The effect is nevertheless the same, for the privileges enjoyed between 1660 and 1664 were a mere continuation, unchanged in any single particular, of those conferred by the Settlement of 1655-57. Had there been any renewals between those years, or had the Jews relied on the King's promises made at Bruges in September 1656, they would not have failed to refer to them. I have thought it necessary to dwell upon this otherwise not very important Order of Charles II. because of the exaggerated signi? ficance recently attached to it by Dr. Gaster in his History of the Sephardi Congregation. Dr. Gaster has called this document the "fundamental Charter of the English Jews," and he has argued that his own Congregation had no public and formal existence pre? viously to its promulgation. Both these contentions are in direct conflict with the facts. By no possible stretch of Carolian enthu? siasm?and the Sephardi Jews of the seventeenth century eclipsed all other courtly eulogists in the ardour of their adoration of the Merry Monarch 63?can this bald and colourless assurance be magnified into a Charter. It is not even an Order in Council, for although the Jewish petition was brought before the Privy Council, that body, in strict adherence to the precedent of 1656,64 declined to enter the fact on their final minutes,65 and left the King to settle personally with the Jews. It was a personal continuation of Cromwell's personal " connivance," and nothing more. It is true that some synagogue 63 In dedicating a pamphlet to the King in 1675, Jacob Templo writes of "the love of Divine worship, that imparalel pietie of your Majestie, known not only to your Brittains but to all Europe " (^1 Relation of the Most Memorable Things, p. v.). 64 Wolf, Menasseh ben Israel's Mission, pp. Ixvi, lxvii. 65 The appearance of the documents in the Entry Book shows that they were considered by the Council, but they are not referred to in the Council's Registers. Indeed, there was no meeting of the Council on August 22nd, when the King's assurance was drawn up.</page><page sequence="25">THE JEWRY OF THE RESTORATION. 27 clerk subsequently entitled it in an endorsement, " The Act of Toleration," but this is in no sense evidence of its true character. It is, indeed, not the only misstatement which disfigures this document, for a marginal note declares it to be the " First petition made by the Spanish and Portuguese Jews to King Charles the Second of glorious memory." 66 This note must have been written at least twenty-one years later, and it is a singular illustration of the mischievous rash? ness with which some people speak and write of things which are beyond their ken. The author of this marginal note knew of no earlier petition from the Sephardi Congregation of London, and so he assumed that there could not have been one. And yet in the pigeon? holes of the Privy Council Office was a petition to King Charles, signed by all the members of the Sephardi body in London, and dated December 1660.67 I cannot think of a more instructive illus? tration of the unwisdom of rushing to conclusions merely because evidence to the contrary is not ready to hand. As for Dr. Gaster's suggestion that his congregation had no settled or formal existence previously to the promulgation of this so called "Charter," let us consider his own facts. The " Charter " is dated August 22nd, 1664. At that time the reorganisation of the synagogue, as we have already seen, had been long completed. The Finta was fixed on September 3rd, 1663, the Ascamoth were com? piled on November 18th, 1663, and promulgated on April 5th, 1664, and Haham Sasportas had accepted the Rabbinate a fortnight later. The " Charter" does not appear until exactly four months and four days later. Is it not clear from this that the organisation of the con? gregation was entirely independent of the u Charter," and that it was carried out ? as the Jewish petition of 1664 itself implies ? in exclusive reliance on the Judicial decision of the Whitehall Con? ference of 1655 ? But this is not all. It is abundantly evident that the Jews of the time, the men who actually received the " Charter," never regarded it in the light in which it has recently been presented to us. Had they done so, they would have hastened to revise their newly adopted synagogue constitution so as to insert in it some 66 Gaster, History, pp. 3-5. 67 Supra, note 29.</page><page sequence="26">28 THE JEWRY OF THE RESTORATION. reference to so important a document. They did nothing of the kind. For thirteen years it slumbered among the ephemerides in the Syna? gogue Archives, a document of historic interest which had served its purpose. Even then, when it was revived in order to be referred to in the new Aseamoth of 1677, it was not regarded as a " Charter," or in any way fundamental to the existence of the congregation, but was cited as a simple " recommendation " of the King to avoid " scandal," the object being to justify an Ascama prohibiting the establishment of dissentient Minyanim, or unauthorised congregations.68 Only after King Charles's'death does it seem to have dawned upon somebody, who was totally unacquainted with the circumstances, that this " recommendation " was " The Act of Toleration," and he took upon himself the responsibility of endorsing it accordingly. Its real significance is roughly indicated by a well-informed contemporary, Edward Chamberlayne, who, writing in his classic Anglice Notitia, in 1667, says of the Jews, " which by the late Usurper were admitted to London," that they were " since continued by the bare permission of the King." 69 I have now arrived at the end of the period which it was the purpose of this paper to consider. The remaining twenty-one years of Charles II.'s reign are not less replete with interest than these four years, and in some respects they are far more important. I must, however, leave their investigation to another time. Mean? while, I hope I have done something to show that the history of the Jews of England during the first four years of the Restoration is not entirely a blank. DOCUMENTS Senora CarvajaVs Petition. [Privy Council Registers.] Order in Council, Dec. 7, 1660.?Upon reading and debate on petition of the merchants and tradesmen of the City of London for the expulsion of the Jews, and also on the petition of Maria Fernandez Carvajal, widow, and others, merchants, Jews by birth, for his Majesty's protection to continue and reside in his dominions; His Majesty judging it a business of great 68 Gaster, History, pp. 6, 14, 127. 69 Anglice Notitia, p. 35.</page><page sequence="27">THE JEWRY OF THE RESTORATION. 29 importance is pleased to refer the said petitions to the consideration of the Parliament desiring their advice thereon, and ordered both the petitions to be delivered to one of his Majesty's most honorable privy councillors (a member of the House of Commons) to be presented to Parliament. Commons Journals, vol. 8, p. 209. 17th December 1660. Jews.?Mr. Hollis presented to this House, an Order made by the Lords of His Majesty's Privy Council, and specially recommended to this House for their advice therein, touching protection for the Jews, which was read. Ordered, That this business be taken into consideration to-morrow morning. Charles II. and the Jews. [Firth, Scotland and the Protectorate, pp. 342-343.] Sept. 24, 1656, Lieut.-General Middle ton sent to Amsterdam to some Jews. He had already been in communication with them and found them friendly. Extract from King's Introductions.] Whereas you have represented to us the good affection which some principle persons of the Hebrew Nacion resyding in Amsterdam have ex? pressed to you towards our Service, and that they have assured you that the application which hath been lately made to Cromwell on their behalfe by some persons of that nacion hath been without their consent, and is utterly disavowed by them, and they are desirous by all offices to express their good will to us and desyre our re-establishment. Wee do hereby appointe you to lett them know how gratiously wee accepte there their professyons, and that wee are very farr from that preiudice to them as to looke on them as enemyes, and that wee shall be gladd to receave any such evidence of their affection to us as may be an argument in better times to us to avow and declare our resolutions in their favour. And wee do heareby give you full power and authority to treate with such of the principle persons of that nacion who for ther interest and discretion are most fitt to be trusted in an affayre of such importance and to assure them that if they shall in this coniuncture be ready by any contributions of money, armes or amunicion to advance that service with which wee have intrusted you, they shall find that when God shall restore us to the possession of our rights and to that power which of right doth belonge to us, wee shall extende that protection to them which they can reasonably expecte, and abate that rigour of the lawes which is against them in our severall dominions, and you shall tell them that if in these our streights, when by our coniuncture with Spayne they cannot but looke upon our affayres as in a hopef ull condicion, they shall lay a signal obligacion upon</page><page sequence="28">30 THE JEWRY OF THE RESTORATION. us, it will naturally dispose us to be gratious to them, and to be willinge to protecte them, but be a small assurance to them that wee shall be able to do whatsoever wee shall be willing when we can iustly publich and declare to all men how much wee have bene beholdinge to them and how farr they have contributed towards our restoration, which no doubt will by all who are well affected to us be valued as it ought to be. And wee do likewise give you full power and authority to receave all summes of money, armes or amunicion as they shall be willinge to furnish you and acknowledgement under your hands shall oblige us to the repayment of the same as soone as wee shall be able in the same manner as if the same were dilivered to ourselfe, and for what you shall do in pursuance of this our commissyon this shall be your warrant. Fernando Mendez [Da Costa], (Brit. Mus. Add. MSS. 29,868, f. 1.) Londres, 10/20 de Abril, 1663. Irm?o Jorge Mendes da Costa. Ha" mtes dias que n?o temos carta uossa e como na ultima que uos escreuemos o fizemos muito largo dando uos conta de tudo, temos poueo de que o fazer nesta; ne* da Beyra temos h? mutos tempos carta; nem de Lisboa; que est?, por nossos pecados o nosso nome t?o apestado que nem para nos escreuerem nos querem tomar na boqua e alg?a que temos s?o para mais sintimento porque vemos dellas as engratidoes eo ficarensenos todos com o mais liquido que tinhamos e te jo?o Guterres se ficou com couza de 3000 cruzados em dinheyro; e Chacao com 5 para 6 sem nemhum nos escreuer carta e a este respeito os mays com que n?o temos mais que ter pasiencia e pedirmos a Ds nola de. Phellippe uai em primeiros de Mayo, Ds querendo, tomar caza a Ru?o e Antonio Mendes com elle a buscar a gente a Bayona ; queira Ds seja em hora bo?, ML de mercado promete fazer aly com nosco negosio, queira Ds emcaminharnos pella sua mizericordia ; a Liorne mandamos 1000 quintais de pimenta que aqui compramos de lance ; est? ssomana tiuemos auizo de chegada a genoua querer? Ds o este a Liorne e confiamos nelle se h? de fazer algum proueyto pa ayuda dos tres ordinarios gastos que fazemos. Ya uos disemos estaua aqui Dom Francisco ML e que daqui hia p(or) terra a essa corte a tratar sobre negocios do Reyno ; he fidalgo nosso amigo e tern falado com nosco com grandes largezas e dis debaxo de segredo que o prinsipal a que uay he sobre algum Remedio da nas?o; querer? Ds o consiga; e t?o bem nos disse que cazo que l? se n?o consigise estaua o Rey rezuluto a dalo; mas primeiro que o fizese queria dar a obediencia; de Lisboa escreuem o mesmo, queira Ds pella sua mizericordia que se consiga pa Liberdade dos pobres prezos e pa Remedio dos que p(or) qua and?o t?o dezanrranyados ; deue sair daqui este fidalgo a ssomana que uem pa entrar nessa em fim de Mayo; tanto</page><page sequence="29">THE JEWRY OF THE RESTORATION. 31 que chegar buscayo logo e cortegayo muito amiudo dando lhe as notisias que alcansardes, e ensitando o a consegir o negosio quese Ds o fizer como dizem q o Key tern uontade de fazelo obrigado da nisisidade que tern de gente (cuido) se os pecados o n?o estrouarem que aueis de bir gozar a uossa fazenda e uer os uossos nettos. Este fidalgo dis que conuem pasar ahy palaura de que uay mandado pella Raynba de este Reyno a negocios seos e que isto aueis de espalhar tendo no mais segredo; nos lhe temos dito que feito lhe seguramos hir?o para aquelle Reyna outo centas ou 900 piss?as que and?o em Castella e fransa e mutas deste norte ; se uos falar nisto siruauos isto (dea)uizo Ds. nos gde en o secretario e Luis meu Primo beyamos a Vms (vossas merces) a ma8 e pedimos a sua bens?. T. Fernao Mendes. S. de Vm. Phelepe Lopes. (Translation.) London, 10/20 April 1663. Brother Jorge Mendes da Costa. It is many days since we had a letter from you, and as in the last we wrote to you we gave you a full account of everything, we have little to say in this. We have not heard from Beyra for some time, nor from Lisbon where, for our sins, our name is held in such detestation that none will mention it even to write to us, and any letters which we receive are but a source of greater sorrow, for from them we see the ingratitude shown us, that all remain with what we had of liquid fortune and they have it; Joao Guterres remains with about 3000 cruzados in money, and Chacao with 5 to 6 without our having received a letter from any one though most [of our letters] were upon this subject, so that nothing remains for us but to have patience and pray God to bestow it upon us. Phellippe is going (D.Y.) on the 1st of May to take a house at Rouen, and Ant? Mendes with him to fetch the people from Bayoime, please God all may go well. M. de Mercado promises to do some business with us there, God guide us in His mercy. We have sent to Leghorn 1000 quintals of pepper which we bought here by auction; this week we heard that it had reached Genoa, please God it is now at Leghorn, we trust in Him that it may be of some profit to help our three ordinary sources of expense. We have already told you that Dom Francisco was here and was to go from hence by land to that court, to treat of certain business of this kingdom ; this gentleman is our friend and has spoken to us very freely, telling us in secret that his chief object is to seek help for the nation, please God he may compass it. He also told us that if it was not to be had there the king was resolved to grant it, but before doing so he wished him to fulfil his instructions. We hear the same from Lisbon, God in His mercy grant it</page><page sequence="30">32 THE JEWEY OF THE RESTORATION. may be obtained, for the liberation of the poor prisoners and those who are there so unprovided. This gentleman is to leave here this week to reach there at the end of May. So soon as he arrives, seek him and show him every courtesy, giving him all the information you can procure, and encour? aging him to conclude this business which please God he may do, as they say the king is willing, moved by his need of men. Remember that unless hindered by our sins you are to go and enjoy your property and see your grandchildren. This gentleman says that it would be well to spread the report there that he is sent thither by the Queen of this kingdom upon matters of her service, and to keep the rest secret. We have told him that when the business is concluded eight or nine hundred people now in Castile and France will go to that kingdom and many from the north here. If he speak to you of this, be guided by this information. God keep you?I the secretary and Luis my cousin kiss your Worship's hands, and beg your Worship's blessing. For Fernao Mendes. Your servant, Phelipe Lopes. Order in Council, 1664. [S. P., Dom., Chas. II., Entry Book 18, pp. 78-79.] August 22, 1664. " To the Kings most Excellent Matie. " The humble peticon of Emanuell Martinez Dormido, Elias de Lima, and Moses Baruh in behalfe of themselves " and others ye Jewes trading in and about yor Maties Citty of London. "Showeth: " That yoer Petrs for some yeares last past as Merchants &amp; ffaetors have traded in yor Maties Kingdome to ye greate increase of yor Maties Customs and ye support &amp; imploym* of many of yor Maties poore Christian Subjects. " That dureing ye time of this their Traffique they have behaved them? selves wth all duty &amp; Obedience to yor Maties Lawes &amp; Endeavoures to the utmost of yeir Power &gt;rt noe Offence or Scandall might bee given to ye meanest of yor Maties Subjects. " That notwithstanding this their demeanour they are clayly threatned by some wth ye seizure of all their estates &amp; are told yfc both their lives &amp; Estates are forfeited to yor Matie by the Lawes of yor Kingdome and particu? larly they are molested &amp; disquieted by one Mr. Richaut And att ye same time they were called by ye Right Honoble ye Earle of Berkshire who told them he had recvd a verhall Order from yr Matie to Protect them and in case they doe not come to a speedy agreemt wth him he will endeavour and prosecute ye seizure of their estates. " Now for as much as yr Petrs are Ignorant of any Lawes now in force wch should hinder their residence in this Kingdome. They most humbly</page><page sequence="31">THE JEWRY OF THE RESTORATION. 33 beseecli yor Matie that untill tliey shall receive from yor Matie some signifi? cation of yor Royall pleasure that they should depart the Kingdome they may remaine heere under the like proteccon wth the rest of yor Maties subjects And yor Petrs shall ever bee ready to serve yor Matie wth their lives and fortunes. " And Dayly pray &amp;c." e6 His Ma*y having considered this Peticon hath been graciously pleased to declare that bee hath not given any particular order for ye molesting or disquieting ye Petrs either in their Persons or Estates, but that they may promise themselves ye effects of ye same favour as formerly they have had so long as they demeane themselves peaceably and quietly with due obedience to his Maties Laws &amp; without scandal to his Government. " Henry Hennett.* VOL. V. C</page></plain_text>