severe penalty be imposed upon them who shall apostatize from Christianity to Iudaisme 1."

Except as showing the ideas current at the time, the document is of little importance; this cannot be doubted if it is a mere report of the arguments used in the Council or Committee, and even if it is a report, intended to be presented to the Council but never in fact placed before that body, it would not be entitled to any great weight as a constitutional document. Nor would its weight be materially increased if, as there is no reason to believe, it had actually been adopted by the Council of State because the recommendation in favour of the Jews was conditional upon certain matters being first provided for and no such provision was ever during the whole existence of the Commonwealth Government made or attempted to be made either by the legislature or the executive ?."

Let us now turn to a third theory. It is that, though it cannot be proved that any formal concession was publicly made to the Jews, yet the circumstances accompanying the proceedings taken against one Antonio Robles show that the demands made by the Jews had by some secret arrangement been practically granted. To test this theory the proceedings known as the Robles case must be briefly examined. In the spring of 1656 England was at war with Spain, and in accordance with the custom of those times a proclamation had been issued for the seizure of the property of all subjects of the king of Spain that could be found either on the high seas or in the territory of the Commonwealth. In virtue of this proclamation

1 State Papers, Interregnum, ci, No. 118; Calendar, do.; Domestic, p. 15; Neal's History of the Puritans, vol. IV, pp. 141, 142 (ed. of 1738). Gardiner's History of the Commonwealth, vol. III, p. 219 n.; Wolf's Resettlement, p. 16; and Menasseh Ben Israel, pp. xlv, liv, lv.

2 If the document itself is looked at, its precise date is of little importance. Mrs. Everett Green, in the Calendar of State Papers, places it about November 13, 1655, and Mr. Wolf's note on p. lv of his Menasseh Ben Israel seems not to be justified, especially as he himself gives its date as November 13 in his Resettlement of the Jews, p. 11.

an information was laid on March 14, 165%, against Don Antonio Rodrigues Robles, a Spaniard, living in Duke's Place, on the ground that he had lately received a large cargo of wine from the Canaries, and had laden a second ship with woollen goods which he was about to dispatch thither. An order was accordingly made for the arrest and seizure of the said ships and a search of Robles's house, goods and papers. The order was at once executed, and thereupon Robles addressed a petition to the Protector. He stated that he was a Portuguese born and of the Hebrew nation, and hoped that he might partake of the laws and privileges granted to all merchant strangers the rather that he had resided here many years and paid many thousand pounds for customs, and in all things submitted to the laws of this nation. If any accusation were brought against him he asked to be permitted to answer it legally, and prayed that his goods and papers might be restored to him upon sufficient bail being given to answer the charges made against him. The petition was referred to the consideration of the Council, at whose orders a formal inquiry was held and evidence taken by the Commissioners for the Admiralty and Navy.

According to Robles's own account, which was corroborated by the evidence of several of the principal foreign merchants living in London, he was born in the kingdom of Portugal in a town called Fundao, and his family by reason of being Jews had been forced to fly from Portugal to Spain, where they were persecuted by the Inquisition, and some were tortured to death, some burnt, and others sent to the galleys, but Robles himself by God's great mercy fled to the Canary Islands, and by the help of a kinsman, who was treasurer under the king of Spain, acquired some estate, which he could not long enjoy; for, having been advised that orders had been sent by the Inquisition to apprehend him as a Jew, he came to England, where he remained some years; but he afterwards went back to the Canaries, where he recovered a portion of his

property and returned with it to England, where he had lived for the last four years. He confessed that he had attended mass at the Spanish Ambassador's house in London, and that he was not circumcised. Not only was this evidence supported by Robles's friends, but it was hardly impugned by those who had given information against him—namely, John Baptista de Dunnington, a merchant and factor, and Francis Knevett, a clerk and notary of Doctors Commons. The former at his examination said that he had served Robles for eight years, having left his family six months before. That Robles was reputed by some a Portugal, by some a Spaniard; that his wife came out of Portugal, and spoke a little Spanish. That he heard he was lately turned a Jew, having formerly professed himself a Catholic. When he first came to live with Robles he took him to be a Spaniard. That Robles changed his name when he went to the Canaries (from Fererino to Robles), where the deponent had lived with him about a year. That the treasurer there was cousin to Robles, called Duarto an Rigij (Henriques), who rented the office under the king of Spain, and was then in England, being with his family turned Jews. On further examination, being asked specifically whether Robles was a Spaniard, he said: "I answer that I cannot positively say whether he be or not, for I have heard several reports of him; some saying he was a Spaniard and others saying he was a Portugal; but which to believe, I cannot tell. But I did always take him to be a Spaniard."

Knevett, who had apparently been very bitter against Robles as being a Jew dog, and had desired Dunnington to swear against him, did not, when himself examined, give very damaging evidence. He said that he believed Robles "to be a Jew, not a Spaniard; though living in the Canaries he lived as a subject of the king of Spain. That he is a kinsman to one Duarto en Rigis (Henriques) who was treasurer in the Canaries, but is now in England, and lately told the deponent that the king of Spain had seized

his estate in his Dominions on the account of his being a Jew."

In this state of the evidence the Commissioners reported to the Council on May 14, that they did not find any convincing evidence to clear up either the nation or religion of the petitioner. Some affirming him to be a Jew born at "ffundam" in Portugal, which they tender to testify upon oath; others who have known him long, that they always esteemed him a Spaniard, though their testimony seem not so positive as the other; but all agree that "both in the Canaries, where he was employed under one of the farmers of the king's revenue, and in England he hath professed himself a Romanist, having frequented the mass till about six months since, which with the consideration that he is yet uncircumcised induceth us to conceive he is either no Jew or one that walks under loose principles very different from others of that profession." However, upon the whole they were unable to return any satisfying opinion upon the business, but humbly submitted the same to the Council's determination.

After hearing the report read, the Council, as might have been foreseen, on May 16 ordered that the seizures should be forthwith discharged, and that Robles should be at liberty to dispose of his goods and papers notwithstanding the warrants issued against them1.

The case is undoubtedly of great interest as showing the position of the Jews here at the time of the failure of Menasseh's mission, but it in no way points to any legal recognition having been accorded to them. Robles's property was only liable to seizure and confiscation if he was a subject of the king of Spain. As soon as the informa

1 State Papers, Domestic, Interregnum, vol. CXXV, 38. i. 76, p. 604. i. 112, p. 289. Do. CXXVI, Council, Day's Proceedings, No. 18. Do. i. 77, p. 38. Do. CXXVI, 66. Nos. 11, 12, 13, 67, 67 i, 67 ii. Do. 105, 105 i-xi. i. 77, pp. 44, 78. Do. CXXVII, 21. Do. Council, Day's Proceedings, Nos. 19, 40. The most important of these documents are printed at length in Mr. Wolf's valuable Appendix to his Crypto-Jews under the Commonwealth, Transactions Jewish Historical Society, vol. I, p. 77 seq.

tion was laid against him he was ready with his answer, "I am no Spaniard, but was born in Portugal, and am of Jewish parentage." The main difficulty was to explain how it was that he traded with and had property in the Canaries, and had lived there for some time. This question was put to the witnesses examined by the Commissioners, and answered in the words of one of them, that "the Portugals who took part with the king of Spain were free to live in his territories." The plea of Judaism seems to have been set up to show why the defendant had left Portugal and afterwards the Canaries. Whether successful or not, it could entail no injury here; for, as has been already shown, the mere fact of being of Jewish birth or religion was no crime provided that the laws against Recusants were complied with, and no part was taken in a religious service which contradicted or impugned the accepted doctrines of Christianity. In any case this plea the Commissioners, who were the judges of the fact, found not proven, conceiving the defendant either to be no Jew, or very different from others of that profession: so that if he had relied on that plea alone he must have failed. He was successful because it had not been satisfactorily proved that he was a Spaniard, and the Council rightly acted upon the ancient maxim of the English law, that the burden of proof is upon those who desire to exact a forfeiture. We thus see that, months after the holding of the Whitehall Conference, the position of the Jews remained exactly the same as it had been in the time of Charles I. We see from the evidence that Robles had been settled here before the Commonwealth had been established, and some of the Crypto-Jews had been settled here even longer. Moreover no change took place in the condition of the Jews until after the Restoration. Robles, it was proved by Dunnington, "always kept his moneys at a goldsmith's, whose name is Mr. Backwell, who received it and paid it out according to his order"; and the Jews of the Restoration still kept their banking accounts at Mr. Alderman Back