Naturalisation of Jews in England
J. M. ROSS, C.B.E., M.A.
In Part VII of the Miscellanies of this Society were not used in England until the end of the was (published with volume XXII of its Trans? sixteenth century, but the idea much older, an actions in 1970) there was printed a list (com? that is to say, the granting to individual a piled by the lateWilfred S. Samuel) of all of the status of liege subject of the Crown. a Jewish persons endenized and naturalised In earlier times person possessing that status, was as a between 1609 and 1799. Those who refer to that whether by birth or by grant, known list may find themselves asking a number of 'denizen', and the conferment of the status can as or questions, not all of which be answered was known denization endenization. There from Mr. Diamond's introductory note. What is no record of grants of denizen status before was the real difference between naturalisation the second half of the thirteenth century, the and denization? If naturalisation granted a reason no doubt being that under feudal so one a a superior status, why did few Jews acquire it ? conceptions could become vassal of an In the first part of this paper attempt will feudal superior simply by doing homage; thus, the be made to explain the legal and historical for instance, Simon de Montfort about can background against which such questions middle of the century received his English be answered. In the second part some account inheritance without any formal grant of was will be given of the naturalisation of Jews denization, although he foreign-born, and an during the period covered by Mr. Samuel's alien at that time could not inherit real list. In the third part the story will be carried estate. Shortly afterwards, however, foreign were on beyond 1800; some account will be given merchants, who not in any feudal rela? some of the grants of naturalisation to Jews by the tionship, felt the need of formal instru? Home Office from 1845 onwards; and the ment freeing them from the considerable were statistics of Jewish naturalisation will be trading disabilities to which aliens subject; considered in relation to the history of Jewish hence there grew up the practice of granting soon immigration. Finally, by way of illustration, denizen status, first by royal charter, the names will be given of some eminent Jews afterwards by letters patent under the Great who have, in the broader sense of the word, Seal, and by the fourteenth century this had been naturalised, whether by letters patent, become the standard procedure. Act of Parliament, or certificate of the Home Secretary. Parliamentary Naturalisation
Until the sixteenth century the only authority I with power to grant denizen status to an individual was the King.1 Normally the grant Legal Background 1 Thus, for instance, a judgment delivered by The of naturalisation and its origins history Hankford, J., in 1413 declared that 'Though an to the seventeenth century contain many alien be sworn in the leet or elsewhere, that does obscurities and have often been misconceived not make him a liege subject of the king, for neither the steward of a lord nor any one else, save the king by writers of legal history. The author of this himself, is able to convert an alien into a subject' has been at to elucidate paper recently pains (Y. B. Hy. 4, Hil. pi. 23, quoted in Holdsworth, a this matter, and the following summary is History ofEnglish Law, IX, 92). There is no evidence result of these researches. to support Holdsworth's statements (ibid. p. 76) that at that time the could 'some The words 'naturalise' and 'naturalisation' King grant only of the incidents of the status' of liege subject, or * on as Paper delivered to the Society 19 January that 'certainly early as, and probably before, 1972. the beginning of the fifteenth century... an 59
Jewish Historical Society of England is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve, and extend access to Transactions & Miscellanies Jewish Historical Society of England ® www.jstor.org 60 J. M. Ross a two of an was by letters patent, but in small number of methods becoming English subject cases between 1406 and 1439, for reasons were operated side by side. The Parliamentary a was which are obscure, the letters patent were method gave slightly superior status but confirmed in Parliament or the grant was less frequently used, doubtless because Parlia? sat made by confirmation of a petition submitted ment irregularly and many naturalisation was that were out other business and through Parliament. It not until 1542 Bills squeezed by at a contrast the there began a regular practice of granting lapsed the end of Session. By denizen status by Act of Parliament; until 1603 machinery for the grant of letters patent, was in cases it was this procedure resorted to only of cumbrous though might be, always was children born abroad to English fathers,2 but in operation. There little to choose between from the accession of James I the Parliamentary the two methods in point of expense; both were in cases avenue into the status of subject was increas? methods very costly, but both the soon after? to each be reduced to ingly used, first by Scotsmen and expense applicant might the ten or if a number of names were wards by foreigners of all kinds. About twenty pounds the same instrument. same time lawyers began to be of opinion that included in a letters patent made the grantee denizen only for the future: could not retro? they operate Naturalisation Bills not make the spectively and therefore could or enable In the 1700 the difference between person's blood capable of inheritance year was others to inherit from or through him. Only denization and naturalisation still further an Act of Parliament could make the person reduced by an Act of Parliament (11 Will. in c. a subject from birth.3 This slight difference 3 6) which enabled any natural-born subject to or from an the status conferred by letters patent and by of the Grown inherit through Act of Parliament was marked by the adoption ancestor born abroad; from then onwards of the term 'naturalisation' for the latter, an endenized foreigner could pass on his pro? to and the leaving 'denization' to be used only for the perty his heirs, only remaining was that himself could not status conferred by Royal letters patent. disability he inherit. It might have been thought that the 1700 would have increased the The Two Methods Side by Side Act of pro? portion of denizations to naturalisations; but the seventeenth these Throughout century in fact the reverse was the case. From 1704 Act of Parliament was needed to to an alien give onwards, until nearly the end of the century, the full status of a subject.' The case in Y.B. 3 the great majority of applicants went to Hen. 6, Trin. pi. 30, which he quotes in support and often went of this latter statement, says nothing about the Parliament, many years by cites that Alice reason powers of the King but merely without a single grant of denization. The Countess of Arundel was authorised Parliament by is not clear, but it may be supposed that as in the reign of Henry IV to purchase lands like Parliament now sat regularly it was easier to any other legal person within the realm. 2 a this method The reason for this may have been that these get Bill through, and since gave were as or was moment grants regarded extensions interpreta? a legally superior status which of tions of a statute in 1351 which acknowledged was passed to a few wealthy applicants, it easier for the rights of inheritance of children born out of the others to save expense by getting their names ligeance of the King, whose fathers and mothers in a naturalisation Bill than to wait are at the time of their birth of the faith and ligeance included an Parliament was in of the King. Since Act of until enough names had accumulated in the issue, it was proper that the status a perhaps thought Signet Office for inclusion in patent of of such children should be settled by an Act of denization. Thus during most of the eighteenth Parliament, not by the Royal prerogative. 3 the to be endenized letters This doctrine first appears in Sir Robert century only people by it was asserted who Brooke's Graunde Abridgment (1568); patent were, for practical purposes, those Sir Francis Bacon in 1608 as Solicitor General by were for Parliamentary was technically disqualified in Calvin's Case (2 St. Tr. 582); it not judicially naturalisation; and this is in the affirmed until 1664 in the case of Collingwood v. important for will be Pace (1 Vent. 418-419). present context, (as shortly shown) Naturalisation of Jews in England 61
the principal categories of people thus disquali? in favour of Isaac Aaron Abensur, Jewish fied were Roman Catholics and Jews. banker in Tangier, who had rendered valuable we come as Before, however, to the specific services interpreter to the British Legation. case of the Jews, it may be useful to complete To complete the background picture it the story of the legal background. The two should be mentioned that in 1844 the cost of was one procedures of naturalisation and denization naturalisation reduced to less than continued until 1844 to be the only ways of pound, and this resulted in a tenfold increase becoming a British subject otherwise than by in the yearly number of foreigners denizated birth. The preponderance of Parliamentary or naturalised. The fee was increased to ?5 cases continued until 1792, when (for reasons in 1880, and with some variations, which will which are not obvious) denization came into be noted later, the fee has been increased at demand again, with the result that from 1800 various times in accordance with the falling as to 1844 more than twice many foreigners value of money, until today it stands at ?30. were endenized than naturalised. (Perhaps the came demand from 1792 from Catholic refugees II from France, and this gave a nucleus to which others could attach their names to save ex? First Jewish Naturalisations
pense.) The stage is now set for some account of the naturalisation of Jews?taking naturalisation in the broadest sense of the conferment of the Home Secretary's Powers status of an English or British subject, whether In 1844 an Act was (7 & 8 Vic. c. 66) passed by the King, Parliament, or the Home empowering the Home Secretary to grant Secretary. certificates of naturalisation. Until 1870 these To begin at the beginning, it is scarcely certificates did not grant the full status quite necessary to mention that there is no record of was of a British subject: the holder not entitled the naturalisation of any Jew before the to be a Privy Councillor or a member of either expulsion of the Jews from England in 1290. House of Parliament; from 1850 the certificate as The Jews at that time were regarded the conferred none of the rights of a British subject King's property and naturalisation would have outside the British dominions, except (from been a meaningless act. 1854) such rights as might flow from the No doubt this conception changed after the grant of a British passport; and from 1858 the expulsion, but it would be unsafe to found certificate ceased to have effect if the holder anything on the endenization by letters patent was absent abroad for more than six months in 1412 of the physician, David de were King's without permission. All these restrictions Nigarellis, from Italy; he has been thought swept away by the Naturalization Act, 1870 to have been a Jew on account of his first & 34 Vic. c. but while were in (33 14), they name, but there is no other evidence.4 force a few people continued to obtain It is well known that Jews began settling in naturalisation from Parliament or denization England in small numbers in the seventeenth by letters patent; the latter had the additional century, and Samuel's list contains the names advantage of exempting from the statutory of seven Jews denizated by letters patent bet? of residence in the United requirement King? ween 1609 and 1655. It was not, however, dom at the time of application with intent until 1661 that Jews were granted denization to settle therein. (This was taken advantage of in any numbers. Charles II was well disposed in 1857 by Moses Santillana, consular inter? towards the Jewish merchants now forming preter at Tunis.) A few Parliamentary natural? a settlement in London, and was ready to isation Bills were introduced after 1870 to 4 A. Hyamson, A History of theJews in England circumvent the new requirement of five years' (1928 edition), pp. 101-102; C. Roth, A History residence in the United previous Kingdom; of theJews in England (third edition, 1964), p. 133, the last such Bill to be enacted was in 1896 n. 4. 62 J. M. Ross to grant them the privileges of his native-born mercantile circles in London, should seek was to of the disabilities of their subjects. Denization thus granted 15 divest themselves Jews in 1661, to 11 in 1662, to five in 1663. alien status. If it is true that by 1663 theJewish community contained 92 heads of families,5 a very high proportion of these must have become English The Oaths Difficulty subjects, for the total granted this status from then had to consider what method 1655 to the end of 1663 adds up to 33. By 1684 They by they should proceed. Should they seek natural? the community numbered 414 souls,6 and by isation Parliament or denization then the total denizated since 1655 had reached by by Royal letters patent? Quite apart from the fact that 93. The 86 Jews denizated between 1661 and King Charles II was more likely than his 1680 formed nearly one-tenth of the 882 aliens Parliament to view their with a or applications naturalised in that period by Parliament friendly eye, there was a fatal obstacle to their by letters patent. naturalisation by Parliament. In 1609, when Parliamentary naturalisation Bills had begun Immigrants' Disabilities to contain the names not only of Scotsmen and the foreign-born children of Englishmen There must have been strong reasons why but of of all and the so of the of the seven? foreigners kinds, gunpowder many immigrant Jews an plot was still a very recent memory, Act teenth century went to the expense of becoming of Parliament7 was are passed forbidding anyone English subjects. These reasons not far to to be naturalised or restored in blood unless seek. At that time aliens were subject to con? within a month before the introduction of his siderable disabilities. An alien could not Bill he had received the Sacrament of the inherit real estate, nor be absolute owner of Lord's Supper, and before the second reading landed property which he had purchased, so of his Bill had taken the oaths of supremacy and that he could not legally bequeath it in his in the Parliament House. This will. various Acts of the fifteenth and allegiance By were Act was directed against Catholics; Jews sixteenth centuries aliens were subject to not at that time in mind: but it effectively severe restrictions on trade; for instance, they debarred all conscientious from Parlia? not sell or take out of the Jews might by retail, gold a was mentary naturalisation, for though Jew realm, or exercise any handicraft, or set up not to at an oath that or of these laws likely boggle declaring any workshop factory; many or no foreign prelate had any ecclesiastical had fallen into disuse, but they were still on spiritual jurisdiction within England, he could the statute-book and might at any time be not take the Sacrament unless he was A prepared enforced, especially against Jews. disability as to live in England as a Marrano he had that was still enforced was the requirement to done in There was no such on Spain. difficulty pay higher Customs duties exported goods, over letters of denization. It is not were patent though these extra charges mitigated in clear what oaths, if any, were required in the 1672 and abolished in 1691. Further, an alien seventeenth as a condition of deniza? could not exercise the franchise or hold century any were no tion, but whatever they were they public office, and there always hung over his barrier to the denization of Catholics such as head the threat of expulsion from the country, of the Catholic wife of this of the Crown Mary Modena, openly though prerogative power a the future James II, who received patent of was falling into disuse. This being the legal denization in 1679; we find, too, in the deniza? position, it can hardly be wondered at if tion lists from 1660 onwards not Italians of the aware of only many early Jewish immigrants, and and Spaniards but also Greeks, Turks, the existence of much anti-foreign and in Indians. If all these could pass the requirements particular anti-Jewish feeling, especially in for denization, so all the more could Jews. 5 Roth, p. 173, quoting Wolf in Trans JHSE, XIX. 6 7 Roth, p. 173, n. 1. 7 Ja. 1 c. 2. Naturalisation of Jews in England 63
Special Treatment of Jews and to our heirs and successors custom and subsidy for his goods and merchandize at the It may be asked at this whether deniza? point rates or which aliens pay ought to pay*. tion was granted to these Jews on the same some no means of terms as to other aliens. The answer is that the Exceptionally, (but by all) the Jews denizated by Charles II and James II terms of the letters patent usually differed from were not subjected to this standard condition; the standard formula in two points: in one some were even from an specifically exempted respect they imposed additional require? paying more than native-born denizens.10 ment; in another respect they put Jews in a more favourable position than other aliens. first concerns the oath of The point allegiance. Encouraging Jewish Merchants Whether or not there was at that time an In this indulgence to Jews we can doubtless administrative practice of requiring this oath, detect the desire of King Charles himself to the letters patent did not normally include a the settlement of merchants as an encourage Jewish specific obligation to take it; but exception in London, as being in the economic interest itwas usual in the reign of Charles II to insert of the nation. Those Jews, however, who had in letters patent granted to Jews an additional been granted this concession were not left proviso that the grantee 'shall not have nor unmolested: an attempt was made in 1685 to enjoy any benefit or advantage from the said prove that their letters patent had expired grant of our denization until he shall have taken with the death of the monarch who had granted the oath of allegiance'.8 No doubt the Jews had them; and in 1690 under pressure from English no difficulty in taking this oath, but the require? merchants the concessions were withdrawn ment illustrates the cautious attitude taken at by order of the Privy Council so far as export that time towards the Jews by English official? duties were concerned. The story has been dom. The second point relates to the Customs told at length elsewhere11 and need not be duties on exports. From about 1630 it had repeated here. Fortunately for the privileged become the almost invariable practice to Jews, the higher export duties were abolished include in patents of denization a condition in the following year. which had often been included before,9 It might be inferred from what has been requiring that the grantee shall 'pay to us said that in the seventeenth century and until 8This is stated Garteret Webb in his by Philip the 1609 Act was repealed no Jews were of 1753 entitled The anonymous pamphlet made letters of . . subjects except by patent QUESTION whether a JEW. ., p. 38; it is but this is not true. Samuel's confirmed by references in William Shaw's list denization, wholly names two in published in Vol. XVIII of the Publications of the list contains the of Jews the of and the Huguenot Society London, by present seventeenth century and a few more in the author's own inspection of sample patents of eighteenth who were naturalised by Act of denization. If the Jew was living in the West these were converts Indies he was required to take the oath before the Parliament; presumably Governor or his delegate. Jacob de Torres, to Christianity. One of them?Marcos dos denizated in was to take not the 1672, required only Santos?is specifically described in his natural? oath of allegiance but also the oath of supremacy isation Bill of 1708 as 'professing the Protestant before the Governor of Jamaica; it is not clear why. 9 and Sir William Herschel, the Court The practice of including this condition grew religion'; 10 up in the fifteenth century; it really became An example of the former is the patent granted unnecessary in 1485, when an Act of Parliament toMenasses Mendez and others in 1687; examples required all foreign-born denizens to pay Customs of the latter are the patents granted to Diego de at aliens' rates, but this Act cannot have been Medina and others in 1672 and to Peter Henriquez were strictly enforced because it was repeated in 1494, and others in 1688. Many others, however, 1530, and 1540. The 1540 Act required all letters subjected to the standard conditions, as is evident patent of denization to contain a proviso expressly from Shaw's list, and this is confirmed by the present requiring the grantee to obey these Acts unless author's own inspection of sample patents. 11 specifically excused in any point by the letters By d'B. Tovey, Anglia Judaica (1738), pp. patent; but such a proviso did not become anything 287-295, and H. S. Q. Henriques in Trans. JHSE like universal in letters patent until about 1630. IX, pp. 58-66. See also Roth, pp. 182, 186. 64 J. M. Ross
astronomer, who was naturalised in 1793, came period, the annual average of Jewish naturalisa? in of a family which had been Christian for two tions, which had been 3-8 the period 1651 next generations. In one case in 1677 Abram de 1700, sank to 2-7 in the half-century and Porto took the oath but his name is not in the to 24 for the period 1751-1800, and rose only was to Bill as passed, perhaps because it found 5-0 for the years 1801-1844. Proportionately he had not taken the Sacrament. to the total Jewish population, fewer Jews got naturalised in the first half of the eighteenth century than at any other time. The reason Cases Among Protestant Refugees may be that most of the Jewish immigrants Before we leave the seventeenth century in this period were poor Ashkenazim from reference must be made to a special procedure central Europe12 who could not afford the or more was to secure which was in operation from 1681 to 1688 to ?10 which needed the facilitate the denization of the thousands of inclusion of one's name in a patent of Huguenot refugees who were then pouring into denization. this country. This scheme was intended only for Protestant and under it Christians, anyone Letters Patent a who produced to the Secretary of State certificate that he had taken the Sacrament Throughout this period denization by letters means could have his name inserted in a patent of patent was practically the only by denization free of charge. Rather surprisingly, which Jews could get naturalised. So unpopular the lists of those endenized in this way in 1687 had this method otherwise become that in the and 1688 include the names of 14 Jews, includ? years 1704-1800, of the 507 persons denizated same as as were ing Ferdinando Mendez, presumably the by letters patent many 203 Jews as Fernando Mendes, who had been physician included in Samuel's list. It is true that, as a names to Charles II. Whether these Jews took the already mentioned, few Jewish appear Sacrament sincerely, or with tongue in cheek, among those naturalised by Parliament; a or were smuggled in without taking it at all, similarly few appear in the 'oath rolls' of never an Act will perhaps be known. those naturalised under of 1709 (7 In the eighteenth century, and until the Anne c. 5), which, until it was repealed three Home Secretary was given powers of natural? years later, authorised the naturalisation isation in 1844, far fewer foreigners were without fee of all Protestants who would swear naturalised (using the word in the broader take the Sacrament, the oaths of allegi? seven? ance an sense to include denization) than in the and supremacy, and sign anti-Jacobite teenth. The annual average of persons natural? and anti-Popish declaration. Presumably the ised from 1651 to 1700was 131, from 1701 to eight Jews naturalised under this procedure 1750 itwas 52, in the next half-century only 20, were converts to Christianity. and from 1801 to 1844 still only 21. (See The question may be asked whether Jews Table I appended to this paper.) This decline in the eighteenth century suffered any real can be attributed to the fact that after the disability by being debarred from Parliament? absorption of the big influx of Protestant ary naturalisation. As has been shown, the was refugees from about 1680 to 1710 immigration legal difference was small, but it thought to this country was on a smaller scale until at that time to be wider than it actually well into the nineteenth century; moreover, was; for instance, it was not until 1834 that after the end of the seventeenth century there the High Court held13 that a 'denizen' could was less pressure for naturalisation because have absolute title to land acquired before deni? a was many of the restrictions on foreigners had been zation. Moreover mere 'denizen' de or had fallen into disuse. The repealed figures 12 Cf V. D. Lipman, Social History of the Jews of Jewish naturalisation follow a similar pattern. in England, 1850-1950 (1954), p. 6. the increase of the !3 Despite steady Jewish In the case Fourdrin v. Gowdey (3 My. and K. population by immigration throughout this 396, 407). Naturalisation of Jews in England 65
barred from membership of certain exclusive it to say that although the Bill was passed into trading companies such as the Levant and the law on 7 June (as 26 Geo. 2 c. 26), no Jew Russia.14 These factors could be important benefited from it, for itwas repealed six months a a to Jewish merchant. In addition, there later by measure introduced by the Govern? was some a doubt whether Jew could hold ment, which thought it prudent to bow before land at all without the sanction of Parliament. the storm.17 were Consequently pleas made from time to time for the removal of this disability from the Jews. Ill
Early Nineteenth Century Without Taking the Sacrament This abortive attempt to put Jews on an This step was urged, for instance, in 1690 equality with other applicants for naturalisation by Sir Josiah Child in his New Discourse of had a curious sequel. In 1825 Lord Melville, Trade, and in 1714 the radical by theologian a a Scottish peer, introduced Bill making it John Toland in his Reasons for naturalizing for . . . unnecessary persons naturalized by Parlia? theJews in Great Britain and Ireland. Already ment or restored in blood to receive the in 1663 an Act Cha. 2 c. had been (15 15) as Sacrament required by the Act of 1609, passed for the easy naturalisation of foreigners and permitting the oaths of allegiance and working in the flax industry, without any to be taken before a local that should take the Sacra? supremacy magistrate requirement they cases in of sickness and bodily infirmity. ment. (Whether this was by inadvertence or Lord Melville was not thinking of Catholics or with the object of including Catholics and Jews, or even of naturalisation: his intention Jews does not appear.) In 1740 an Act (13 was to relieve whose attainder c. was simply Scotsmen, Geo. 2, 7) passed conferring British had been reversed, from taking the Sacrament nationality on all persons who had resided in the Church of England, and to enable them, continuously for more than seven years in the if infirm, to take the oaths in Scotland instead American colonies if they would make a of at the bar of the House. This no doubt and declaration and receive loyal anti-Jacobite the Bill both were explains why passed through the Sacrament; in this Act Jews specifically Houses almost without debate and was carried exempted from the necessity of receiving the into law (as 6 Geo. 4 c. 67). Sacrament and were permitted to omit the On the face of it this Act appeared to open words 'upon the true faith of a Christian' when the door to the Parliamentary naturalisation making the declaration.15 It therefore seemed of and we should to find a a Jews, expect large only short further step when in 1753 a Bill number of Jewish names in the Naturalisation was introduced to enable Jews with more than Acts of the next few the three continuous residence in Great years. Oddly enough, years' no Act had such result. There had previously Britain to be naturalised by Parliament without been a certain number of Jewish names in the receiving the Sacrament. The story of the Naturalisation Acts?at least three such from controversy aroused by this ill-fated Bill can the beginning of the century, no doubt be read in Cecil Roth's History of theJews in converts to Christianity. Another four or England16 and need not be repeated here. Suffice five obviously Jewish names appear in the 14Josiah Tucker, A Letter to a Friend Concerning years 1827-1833, and six more in 1835-1837, Naturalizations (1753). 15 but one more before naturalisation could Many Jews trading in the West Indies took only advantage of this Act: see Roth, p. 241, and be obtained from the Home Secretary in 1845. H. S. Q_. Henriques, The Jews and theEnglish Law 17 (1908), pp. 240-241; some 214 such cases are in The arguments pro and con, many of them Samuel's list. quite fanciful, are neatly and astringently sum? 16 see Pp. 212-223; also Albert Hyamson's paper marised in Vol. Ill, pp. 157-63, of The History, 'The Bill Jew of 1753' in Trans JHSE VI, pp. 156 Debates, and Proceedings of bothHouses of Parliament 188. (1792). 66 J. M. Ross Act of 1844 & 8 Vic. c. without any 'Oath of Abjuration' (7 66) difficulty over the form of oath. For the most part Jews continued to obtain denization by letters patent. It is conceivable that the knowledge of the 1825 Act, which Increases in Naturalisations received no publicity at the time, did not get There are plenty of Jewish names in the through to the Jewish community until some lists19 of naturalised from 1845 on? ten years later; but there is another possible people wards, but the increase in Jewish naturalisa? explanation. It appears from the evidence to tions was no than in naturalisations the Select Committee of 1843 on the Laws greater cases. generally?about tenfold in both Thus Affecting Aliens18 that it had by then become as the annual average of persons naturalised by the practice to require a condition of one means or another from 1801 to 1844 was Parliamentary naturalisation not only the 21, of whom 5 were From oaths of allegiance and supremacy stipulated (or 22%) Jews. 1845 to 1854 the was of by the Act of 1609 (which perhaps a Jew general average 198, whom 44 were Jews, again 22%. From 1854 would not have scrupled at) but also the anti to 1868 the average was 268, of whom 64 were Jacobite 'oath of abjuration' which had been Jews, once again 22%. The figures went on introduced in the early eighteenth century increasing pari passu until 1880, when they and was still required for many official were checked by an increase in the fee, but from purposes, including membership of either 1894 onwards the total number of naturalisa? House of Parliament. It is impossible to say tions rose substantially; by the end of the when this extra requirement was imposed, century it was more than 600 a year, and in for neither House of Parliament ever passed a 1913 it reached a peak of 1,706. There is no resolution on the point, but it effectively doubt that the pressure for this increasing rate prevented the Parliamentary naturalisation of naturalisations came mainly from the large of any conscientious Jew, for it had to be made numbers of Polish and Russian Jews who had 'upon the true faith of a Christian'. Roman were settled in England from the 1870s onwards. Catholic applicants for naturalisation names Thus in the sample year 1891 Jewish administratively allowed by 1843 to take the formed of those in the list; 1901 this three oaths together in the modified form 35% by had risen to 51% and 1911 to 57%. In provided (e.g., for membership of Parliament) by some more than half the natural? by the Roman Catholic Relief Act of 1829 years people ised were Russians, and nearly all of these had (10 Geo. 4 c. 7), but Jews were apparently names.20 still excluded by the words at the end of the German-Jewish oath of abjuration. It is not clear when Jews came to be excused from saying these words; Germans Barred possibly by administrative action in 1835, which would account for the little of crop After the First World War the total number names about that in Jewish time; possibly of naturalisations remained at between one and as 1867 a result of an Act passed that year two thousand a year; until 1931 there was a (30 & 31 Vic. c. 75), which would have made statutory barrier against the naturalisation of possible Mr. Bischoffsheim's naturalisation in 19 that year; possibly not till 1870, when the For particulars of these lists see the notes at the head of Table I below. The of 1609 Act was repealed. But the point is of figures Jews depend on the limited to small because from the author's ability recognise Jewish importance beginning names. of 1845 could naturalisation 20 Jews easily get Typical Russian names are Morris Bernstein, from the Home Secretary under the Aliens Hyman Reuben Gaplan, Samuel Wolf Cohen, Schloima Epstein; a Russian name like Sarah i8 Accounts and Papers, 1843, Vol. V, pp. 145 ff.: Rebecca Doroshoff is unusual. Typical Polish questions 269-289 addressed to Mr Walmisley, names are Lazarus Bloomberg, Mejer Samuel extra clerk in the House of Lords. Elster, Israel Guiwisch. Naturalisation of Jews in England 67 an Germans except in special cases,21 and times as great as that for aliens as a whole, administrative retardation (which will be and of course the ratio would be much greater the described shortly) of naturalisation of ifwe knew how many Jews in this country were no Eastern Europeans. This doubt explains aliens. The ratio rose above 4 in 1861, above why the proportion of Jews naturalised in the 5 in 1901, and reached a peak of 10-5 in sample year 1921 had shrunk to 51% and in 1911; in 1921 and 1931 itwas about three, and 1931 to 42%. By 1951, when the naturalisation in 1961 it had fallen to 0-6. Although the are list had been swollen by large numbers of figures necessarily inexact, they seem to Polish ex-combatants, the Jewish percentage show that from 1850 to 1950 a Jewish alien had fallen to 24, and by 1961 only 5% of the was much more likely to seek naturalisation 5,000 people naturalised had obviously Jewish than other aliens, perhaps because he felt names. a greater need of security. Another way of showing the same trends is to consider the total number of Jews naturalised Results of in Fee as a Changes in sample years percentage of the total at Jewish population the time. The figures The number of Jews naturalised would cannot course be exact because of neither the probably have increased more rapidly after total number of Jews naturalised in any year 1880 had it not been that in that year the fee nor the total number of Jews living in the for a certificate of naturalisation was increased can country at any given time be stated with from ?1 to ?5, and in addition about that precision; nevertheless the figures, for what time stamp duty became payable on the various are same they worth, tell the story. From 1801 declarations, amounting in all to 15s. The to 1844 the annual average of Jewish naturalisa? main reasons for increasing the fee were to put was mean tions 0-33% of the Jewish population it in line with other charges and to pay for during the period?twice what it had been the more extensive inquiries now being made the was during previous half-century. From 1845 into applications, but it also hoped that the to the was 1854 percentage 1-3?evidence of increase would discourage unworthy applica? ease the greater with which naturalisation tions. The following minute was written by now re? could be obtained. The percentage Sir Adolphus Liddell, Permanent Under same mained about the until 1901, the number Secretary of State, to the Home Secretary: of Jews naturalised growing with the growing Jewish population. By 1911 the percentage had T think we are too easy with these certificates. to in it was risen 4; 1921 2-1, in 1931 3-1, in A great portion of the applicants are Polish, 1951 24, but by 1961 it had shrunk to 0-6, Russian and German Jews who only take course a because of by then far smaller pro? them up for protection against their own '22 portion of the Jewish population consisted of Governments. immigrants. It is doubtful whether a great number of Jews at that time wanted British protection abroad, Ratio of Applications and those that did could probably afford Another comparison that can be made is the extra ?4; what the increase did rather was between the percentage of the whole alien to discourage applications from the thousands population that was naturalised in any one of poor Jews who intended to stay in this was year and the percentage of the Jewish popula? country. This why in the spring of 1886, tion so naturalised. Figures of the total alien on the return of a Liberal administration to are not was population available before 1851. At office, strong pressure applied by Members that time the Jewish percentage was three of Parliament for reduction of the fee. Mr 21 Samuel Montagu (later Lord Swaythling) This barrier was imposed by the British 22 Nationality and Status of Aliens Act 1918 (8 & The file is in the Public Record Office under 9 c. sec. Geo. 5, 38), 3 (2). number H.O. 45/1749A/10. 68 J.M. Ross
was to said that, if naturalisation were placed within Dominions, it decided include 'a the means of alien workmen, between 500 sufficient knowledge of the English language* as and 1,000 Liberal votes would be gained in a statutory condition. The Board of Deputies his constituency of Tower Hamlets alone, and of British Jews pressed in 1914 for the omission the seat would thus be secured for the party. of this requirement, fearing that it would fetter a the of to When it was also pointed out that great the discretion of Secretary State in many long-resident aliens were already illegally relax the requirement particular cases, but were on the electoral register and gave rise to costly the Board informed that the Bill would still scrutinies, the Home Secretary gave way and give the Home Secretary discretion to decide was an in with Treasury consent reduced the fee to ?\. what 'adequate knowledge' any case. The was Immediately Liberal agents in the East End particular point raised again of London took active steps, e.g., by public on the Report Stage of the Bill in the Commons that but the of the Bill meetings, to stimulate applications for natural? later year, wording isation; mutual Naturalisation Societies were was allowed to stand.25 started inWhitechapel, the members of which a a paid a shilling week and held weekly draw, Order of Priority the winners of which applied for naturalisation In the Office had to consider through the Society's solicitor. A few months 1920 Home enor? later a Conservative Government was returned in what order of priority to deal with the to power, and at the end of the year the fee mous pile of some 7,500 applications which had as the was restored to ?5 in respect of fresh applica? accumulated the result of virtual tions made from 1 January 1887.23 It would suspension of ordinary naturalisation during war. seem, however, that some 700 applications and since the The Home Secretary above the normal were successful during the directed that Russians and other Eastern be at the bottom of the short period of the reduced fee. Europeans should put In 1907 the Board of Deputies of British list, on the ground that this was not only the a to Prime but also the least assimilable Jews joined in deputation the largest easily In it was Minister asking for a reduction of the natural? category of applicant. 1922 decided isation fee. No action resulted from this, but that 'Russians' could be considered if they had was in 1913 the Cabinet, aware of long-continued twenty years' residence, and this reduced to had to wait pressure on this point, decided that the fee fifteen in 1924. Others normally ten In 1930 the should be reduced to ?3, and it remained at for years. Home Secretary to of the discrimination this figure until 1920.24 agreed the abolition case now against Eastern Europeans; any could be considered after seven years' residence. By Twentieth-Century Complaints 1932 the Home Office had at last got up to all cases were with There are other signs that during the next date with its work and dealt was a on if the minimum of fifty years there feeling that the Home receipt only statutory The Office was too exacting in its requirements five years' residence had been fulfilled. for naturalisation. In 1904 it was made a Home Office files26 show no trace of anti as of the normal requirement that applicants should be semitism such, but the effect policy with Ministerial able to speak, read, and write English, and followed throughout the 1920s was or this of course excluded those Jews who knew approval to delay deny naturalisation was not to a number of of Russian or only Yiddish, though that its object. very large Jews A few years afterwards, when a new Nationality Polish origin. Bill was drafted in consultation with the In 1930 a deputation from the Board of
23 De? H.O. 45/1749A/23, 26, 28, 32, 40, 41, 42, 43, 25H.O. 45/122,229/101B. Parliamentary 46. bates, House of Commons, Vol. LXV, Cols. 1472 24 C. H. L. Emanuel: A Century and a Half of 1479. 26 Jewish History, p. 174. H.O. 45/B. 13326/75, 77. H.O. 45/14736. Naturalisation of Jews in England 69
Deputies to the Home Secretary complained, Statistics of these are not available before 1801, other that the cost of and it among things, high would be unsafe?indeed, often impos? naturalisation prevented many worthy Jews sible?to guess the national origin from the The Home found name. from applying. Secretary Some figures from 1801 are given in to reduce the which himself unable fee, had Table II appended to this paper. They show as a stood at ?10 since 1920, but result of these that until 1870 at least half the Jews naturalised a were representations simplification of the applica? from Germany, but already in the 1860s was made it a were tion form introduced which good number from Poland. By 1879 as to unnecessary for most applicants employ many Russians were getting naturalised as an reduced the six as agent and half-crown Germans, and from 1890 until recently as revenue to at stamps one; since agents that 1951 the great bulk of the Jews naturalised time charged between ?8 and ?15 per case, were from Russia or to a lesser extent Poland. this change must have effectively halved the cost of naturalisation to many applicants, Jewish and other. IV
In conclusion, to illustrate the history both of Countries of Origin naturalisation and of Judaism in this country, A word may be said about the national itmay be of interest to give the names of some origins of Jews who obtained naturalisation. eminent Jews who have been naturalised.
Tear of grant Mode* Name L 1672 Diego (Sir Solomon) de Medina (army contractor) L 1687 Ferdinando Mendez (presumably Fernando Mendes, physician to Charles II) L 1725 Benjamin Mendez da Costa (philanthropist) 1762 L Abraham Prado (army contractor) 1804 L Nathan Meyer Rothschild (financier) S 1854 Solomon Marcus Schiiler-Szinessy (Jewish scholar) P 1856 Samuel Gobat (Anglican Bishop at Jerusalem) S Paul 1857 Julius (Baron) de Reuter (founder of newsagency) 1866 S Marcus Nathan Adler (Chief Rabbi) 1866 S Herman Nathan Adler (later Chief Rabbi) 1866 S John L?wen thai (chess master) 1866 S Baron Ferdinand James Anselm de Rothschild (art patron) 1867 P Henri Louis Bischoffsheim (financier) 1878 S Ernest Joseph Cassel (later Sir Ernest, financier, Privy Councillor, and patron of music) 1880 S Ludwig Mond (chemist, inventor, and art collector) S 1892 Edgar Speyer (later Sir Edgar, Baronet; financier, Privy Councillor, and philanthropist; naturalisation revoked in 1921) S 1901 Felix Semon (later Sir Felix; laryngologist and musician) 1909 S Ignatius Timothy Tribich-Lincoln (known as Trebitsch-Lincoln, afterwards Chao Kung; adventurer; naturalisation revoked in 1918) 1910 S Jacob Epstein (later Sir Jacob; sculptor) 1910 S Haim (known as Charles) Weizmann (Dr. Chaim Weizmann, first President of the State of Israel) 1913 S Louis Bernstein Naymier (later Sir Lewis Namier, historian) 1915 S Joseph Herman Hertz (Chief Rabbi) 1947 S Jakob Jacques Mieses (chess master). * = = = L by letters patent. P by act of Parliament, S by certificate of the Secre? tary of State. 70 J. M. Ross
The following foreign-born Jews were never naturalised: Baron Diego d'Aguilar (financier and philanthropist); Michael Solomon Alexander (firstAnglican Bishop in Jerusalem); Karl Marx (social philosopher); Baron Hirsch de Gereuth (financier and philanthropist); Wilhelm Steinitz (father of modern chess); J. H. Zukertort (chess master); Bernhard Baron (tobacco king and philanthropist). The following eminent Jews were British-born: Samson Gideon (financier); Emmanuel Mendes da Costa (naturalist); Isaac dTsraeli (man of letters); Don Pacifico (trader); Sir Moses Montefiore (philanthropist).
NOTES TO TABLE 1ON OPPOSITE PAGE (71): Notes. The figures in column (c) of Jews who have been naturalised have been compiled as follows. From 1651 to 1800 they have been taken from Samuel's list inVol. XXII of the Transactions. For subsequent years the author has picked out the obviously Jewish names from the following indexes:
1801-1844: alphabetical index in the Long Room at the Public Record Office. 1 January 1845 to 30 April 1854: list presented to Parliament by Home Office (Accounts and Papers 1854, Vol. LIII, p. 631). 3 May 1854 to 30 June 1868; list in Accounts and Papers 1868, LV, 361. October 1879 to October 1880: list in Accounts and Papers 1881, LXXVI, 373. 29 July 1890 to 1August 1891: list in Accounts and Papers 1890-1891, LXIII, 91. Calendar years 1901, 1911, 1921, 1931, 1951, 1961: from the lists published in Accounts and Papers in each of the following years. was The year 1941 was omitted because naturalisation was largely suspended during the war and there no census figure for comparison. an Owing to the rough-and-ready method which was necessarily adopted, the figures omit unknown an number of Jews not possessing obviously Jewish names; on the other hand they include unknown number of persons who had ceased to regard themselves as Jewish. Whatever criterion of Jewishness is adopted, the true figures are unascertainable. as The estimates of total Jewish population in column (f) have been taken from books such Cecil Roth's History of theJews in England (1964), V. D. Lipman's Social History of theJews in England, 1850-1950 an (1954); Lloyd P. Gartner's The Jewish Immigrant in England, 1870-1914 (1960), from article by Prais and Schmool in Jewish Journal of Sociology, X, pp. 5-34 (1968), and from an unpublished paper kindly to are shown to the author by Dr. Lipman. The figures for the three half-centuries from 1651 1800 of the estimated mean population during each period. nearest census The figures of total alien population in column (h) have been taken from the reports. The figures for 1851 to 1901 are not quite comparable with the later figures because they included all enumerated aliens, whereas the later figures gave only resident aliens; for greater accuracy about 2% should be deducted from each total before 1911, but this hardly affects the percentages in column (i). Naturalisation of Jews in England 71
CM^CMCDCOin^CT)CMCO
^ (?)(?)^ O COCO T^COCMCM<^COCpOOO OOOOOOO-1*^*1' 3 a, tuo _. a> TS ^ ?2: o O O O COM COCD OlCT) V vi OOOM-HN(N(NirnD o ton ?^ COcd^ ^ oo co CD ?'CMCMCM*-'^CO'*t<
t3 OOOOOOOOOOOOOO 00000000000000 cd I* cd loo^q^o^o^qqo^o^o^o^o^o^ co ino"io ?~?v?~?"?'v?~?"?"?" 1?icoco^cD'??r^cMinoinin > \? ?< ?1 CMCM CO t}" cdco?iCMcomcocoincM^coLn^H pq cdo\ ~ cd CO*. COO Thr^OCDOCDCMOO roCM".^ThCDCDCMr^COCOCMCDCD?1 3 6 co in^ ?? i\ c/5 Or^^COOO^OCDOCDCMOO CTSCOO^^CMCTlCOCMt^COCOCMCDCD ii 2 ?? ?4 CM CO ?1 CMCO m CTiO CM cd cd^ Dh o ^CNjO-HCOCOCDt^CMX^O^CNlOCD a COtnCMCMCXiCDCOCO^CO^COCOCT) ^ ^cMCMcoinmo^Hcoo >?< 1CM rj-i lO S CM cd d ? inOCMC0CDCT)CDr^CMt? OICMOCD j> s COC^OCOCO^COCOt^cO^COcOCXi in cd in cd co^ct^cmco m o^?^co^o^ cd"cm--^ ^"co" ^-T?TcM^in" cdA b?3 OOO^^coo? omo^mcDcocT) t^r>?cocococococo rHrHrtrtlO^OlO'Hrt'H.Hrtrt ?3 O inomOTjHinr^cno^eMcoLncD CDt^f^C0COC0C0C0C^ct)C^a>cdct) J. M. Ross ^^^00)0(?1MOO CMCO lOOi O CM o ^3 bo ? o ?I SJ 71 CMO 2 S 6^^COOCOO(NCOOO o ^ cm co cr>t}* co co CO CMO O CO LQ rf ^ CM?< 3 o co q> ? CM? O '5b O c o U ?2-S bf OOCMCOCOCOtO^ 32-2 ? ^ *; ^? m cd co cr> 3 CO COCO CO CO c * * m ? * c T77TT < Orhmt^-CT)O^CMeOiO(jO cococococoo)a>c7>a><7>a> PLATE I ^r? JVT8 h @?&fcy?V ny?* im* ?arm* i"* im?ow w *->yy* v* ay -yaT* onunjn m in pr^am tf%* p*^k lyiyumv dSk Wktwwik i?8"iya?n yawi pruywoiK yny?o n p? ou 3?* jy3itonyn?rona ny*nnya? r? oy ,D"n-*pis?ny"y p? jy3ypy:Ayn ji? tyeipynKS|yrn ya^yi) D i^yBoiKwa jw -or?ttnynjnVBt?v? .fe?.i? -toog tm i:*~"k 4*inWiO na 5 Jkbpnjp i*k tuyn??? : pe ^m^kiww ?r--'':->'t?--~5:-vi-?' :.-.n pe oyo*fitth psnjyaR . Cbe SpirairieldsNaturalisation Socktp Offices:-!!?,HANB?BY ST., LONDON, E. Jir. $.[?. LiPSffJTZ; Sterttary. Advertisement offering help, for a fee, to Torrene Yidden' in preparing naturalisation applica? a tions, on the back cover of pamphlet in London 1907. The pamphlet is Unser Arbeit in Palestina (*Our work in Palestine'), by Professor O. Warburg, published by the Palestine Club in London, a *price ha'penny' (Reproduced by courtesy of Mr. A. Schischa)