and to let you know, where the Parliament of England have power that will not be allowed of 1." As head of the executive he might forbear to rigidly enforce the laws making attendance at church compulsory, but there is no reliable evidence that he at any time allowed forms of worship contrary to the Protestant religion, and therefore, in breach of the law of the land, to be publicly celebrated. Our English historians have taken Cromwell's hospitable treatment of Menasseh and his summoning of the Whitehall Conference as examples of his Toleration, but all admit that in this instance no practical effect was given to it. Some few writers assert that, though the Conference was a failure, the Protector subsequently formally gave the Jews a legal right of settlement in the country, and permitted them to establish a synagogue here. A statement to this effect was made by Godwin 2, and of recent years much has been written by Jewish writers, and especially by Mr. Lucien Wolf, attempting to prove this statement. Some of the last-mentioned writer's theories are so widely known and have been so skilfully put forward as to call for some comment here. The first of these theories is to the effect that a "tolerance" in the shape of a “public assurance of protection" was granted to the Jews by Cromwell on February 4, 1658. The authority for this is a passage in Burton's Diary, under the abovementioned date, which reads as follows: "The Jews, those able and general intelligencers, whose intercourse with the Continent Cromwell had before turned to a profitable account, he now conciliated by a seasonable benefaction to their principal agent resident in England 3." The authorship of Burton's Diary is very doubtful, nor is the work, especially those parts of it which are not reports of speeches supposed to have been taken down in the House 1 Oliver Cromwell, by Charles Firth, p. 267. 2 History of the Commonwealth, vol. IV, c. xvii, p. 250. H of Commons, of any great authority. Moreover, to the ordinary reader it seems hardly possible that the words used can be brought to bear the interpretation which is thus sought to be placed upon them. They point only to some personal favour, such as a trade licence or money grant, conferred on an individual; not to a public declaration in favour of a religious body—a matter which would have been considered of great political and constitutional importance, and which would not have been described in language of this kind. Mr. Wolf, however, says of it: "The precise terms of this grant, which was doubtless oral, have not been preserved. But as it was preceded by the endenization of Carvajal, in defiance of the recommendation of the Council that the Jews should only be permitted the standing of ordinary aliens, and as it was succeeded by the public celebration of the Feast of Tabernacles, we may assume that it was a kind of informal fays ce que voudras, the Protector relying on the tried discretion of the Jews 1." This passage contains two mistakes; in the first place, if the Council even did make a recommendation, about which more will be said hereafter, Carvajal's endenization was not in defiance of it, because the letters patent were granted to Carvajal on August 17, 16552: whereas the petition of Menasseh Ben Israel, in answer to which the alleged recommendation of the Council is supposed to have been made, was not presented until October in that year. In the second place, this event, whatever its nature, was not succeeded by the public celebration of the Feast of Tabernacles. The authority for this statement is a passage in a letter by Mr. Jo. Greenhalgh, dated April 22, 1662, in which he says, after describing a visit to the Jewish Synagogue, that he had been told that "one year in Oliver's time they did build booths on the other side of Thames, and kept the Feast of Tabernacles in them." Even if such evidence is accepted implicitly, the celebration 1 The Resettlement of the Jews in England, by Lucien Wolf, p. 12. 2 Transactions of the Jewish Historical Society, vol. II, p. 46. the King and Houses of mentioned could not have taken place after February 4, 1658, for Cromwell died on September 3 following-a considerable time before the date for celebrating the Feast of Tabernacles had come round1. Mr. Wolf further supports his theory by a reference to Thomas Violet's Petition against the Jews presented to Parliament in December, 1660. On turning to the document cited we find that the writer is speaking of Menasseh's Petition and the Whitehall Conference; his words are: "Upon several days hearing, Cromwel and his Council did give a Toleration and Dispensation to a great number of Jewes to come and live here in London," &c.2 The statement, whether we regard it as true or untrue, is seen at once on perusing the context beyond all question to refer to the events of December, 1655, and can have no bearing whatsoever upon an alleged grant of Toleration in February, 1658, more than two years afterwards. The theory itself rests upon no sufficient evidence, and the statements which are put forward as corroborating it are either wholly irrelevant or absolutely inconsistent with it; the excuse for dealing with it at such length must be that for a number of years a learned society claiming an important place in the Jewish community has held a public dinner in the early days of February to celebrate what it has been pleased to call "Resettlement Day." The dinner was announced in 1900, but not held, owing to the death of Queen Victoria; it was not revived during the present year, possibly because the organizers have discovered the futility of attempting to create an anniversary for which there is no historical justification. The next theory is, that though the Conference effected 1 If this celebration ever took place, it would probably be in the autumn of 1655, when the question of readmission had not yet been discussed by the Whitehall Conference and was therefore still sub judice. If it was before Menasseh had completed his journey to London, the building of the booths on the other side of Thames would be explained. 2 Violet's Petition against the Jews, p. 2. nothing, the Committee of the Council of State which had been appointed to consider Menasseh's Petition, subsequently reported in favour of admitting the Jews, subject to certain limitations and restrictions. There is no sufficient evidence that such a report was ever made. It is certain that there was no formal report, for there is no notice of one in the Council Order Book. There is, however, an unsigned paper in the state archives, which Dr. Gardiner regards as a resolution agreed on by the Committee but never presented to the Council, but which Mr. Neal calls a report of the answers pro and con, given in the Council when the question was debated. From a careful perusal of the document, the latter seems to me the better view, and it is here subjoined as read in that light, the words in brackets not being in the original. [Proposal] "That the Jews deservinge it may be admitted into this nation to trade and trafficke and dwel amongst us as providence shall give occasion." [The answer of those that were against it, was, that they could not think it lawful, for the reasons marked with Arabic numerals. Those who were of a contrary opinion said] "That as to poynt of conscience we judge lawfull for the magistrate to admit in case such materiall and weighty considerations as hereafter follow be provided for, about which till we are satisfyed we cannot but in conscience suspend our resolution in this case. "1. That the motives and grounds upon which Menasseh Ben Israel in behalfe of the rest of his Nation in his booke lately printed in this English tongue desireth their admission in this commonwealth are such as we conceive to be very sinfull for this or any Christian state to receave them upon. "2. That the danger of seducinge the people of this nation by their admission in matters of religion is very great. "3. That their havinge of synagogues or any publicke meetings for the exercise of their worship or religion is not only evill in itselfe, but likewise very scandalous to other Christian churches. "4. That their customes and practises concerning marriage and divorce are unlawfull and will be of very evill example amongst us. "5. That principles of not makinge concience of oathes made and injuryes done to Christians in life, chastity, goods or good name have bin very notoriously charged upon them by valuable testimony. "6. That great prejudice is like to arise to the natives of this commonwealth in matter of trade, which besides other dangers here mentioned we find very commonly suggested by the inhabitants of the city of London. "7. We humbly represent [that they should not be admitted for the above reasons: others represented that they might be admitted subject to the following limitations] "I. That they be not admitted to have any publicke Judicatoryes, whether civill or ecclesiasticall, which were to grant them terms beyond the condition of strangers. "II. That they be not admitted eyther to speake or doe anythinge to the defamation or dishonour of the name of our Lord Jesus Christ or of the Christian religion. "III. That they be not permitted to doe any worke or anythinge to the prophanation of the Lord's Day or Christian Sabbath. "IV. That they be not admitted to have Christians to dwell with them as their servants. "V. That they bear no publicke office nor trust in this commonwealth. "VI. That they be not allowed to print anything which in the least opposeth the Christian religion in our language. "VII. That so farre as may be they be not suffered to discourage any of their owne from usinge or applyinge themselves to any which may tend to convince them of their error and turn them to Christianity. And that some |