The readmission of the Jews to England in 1656, in the context of English economic policy* EDGAR SAMUEL Oliver Cromwell's decision in 1656 to allow Jews to settle in England and to meet privately for prayer, marks the foundation of the modern Jewish community in this country. Itwas, therefore, a most important event in our one even history and which has been fully researched and discussed. Yet a though the topic is not new one, I feel it deserves further examination. The development of English philo-Semitism, which made the idea of the readmission acceptable to Englishmen, has been investigated expertly and in great detail. Professor Theodore Rabb's study of Richard Hooker's a Ecclesiastical Politie1 pinpointed sixteenth-century Anglican theologian whose attitude towards Jews was unprejudiced and sympathetic and who influenced Anglican opinion. Dr David Katz's book Philo-Semitism and the Readmission of the Jews to England 1603-1655 (Oxford 1982) is a thorough study of the various strands of Christian philo-Semitism, which made the idea seem theologically acceptable to seventeenth-century English Puritans. Since the theological context has been examined so expertly, I propose to concentrate mainly on the background of English economic policy, which led to Cromwell's invitation toMenasseh ben Israel to come to England to petition for the readmission of the Jews and then to his decision, in 1656, to a license it on modest scale. It is a curious fact that although the Puritan Revolution produced some very important tracts, setting out ways inwhich none English trade could be reformed and improved, of these proposed the admission of Jewish merchants.2 All proposals to readmit Jews to England are presented in tracts on religious, rather than on economic, topics. A good example is that of Henry Robinson, whose tracts for the improvement of were English trade very influential, but whose advocacy of religious was a toleration published anonymously in different pamphlet from those in which he urged reforms of commercial policy. This is typical of the seventeenth century, when religious policy was at the eye of the storm. Control of the Church meant control of the media and of education, and Anglicans sought a single hierarchically controlled Church government. Presbyterians were a Church controlled not by the king or by bishops, but by a classis organization dominated by the Puritan gentry and citizens. * on Paper presented to the Society 20 October 1988. 153 Jewish Historical Society of England is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve, and extend access to Jewish Historical Studies ® www.jstor.org Edgar Samuel The Independents, who won the day in 1648, favoured congregational autonomy with as much individual liberty of conscience as was consistent with public order. Since the only sound reasons for excluding Jews, Turks or Catholic merchants from England were religious, itwas natural that the matter should be debated as a religious issue, even though it looks to us today as though itwas a secular one. Most of the facts of the readmission are clear. In 1647 Rev. Hugh Peters - published A Word for theArmy and two Words for the Kingdom to clear the one and cure the other, in which he proposed that 'strangers, even Jews, to be admitted to trade and live with us'. After Pride's Purge, in December 1648, the Council of Mechanics resolved that all religions should be tolerated in England 'not excepting Turkes nor Papists nor Jewes'3 and the Council of War endorsed this policy. But then, in The Agreement of the People, they decided to limit their toleration to Christians.4 - In 1648 a strange tract was published An Apology for the honourable - nation of the Jews and all the sons of Israel ostensibly by Edward Nicholas, gentleman, but in my opinion almost certainly by a Puritan divine. The argument, to cite Dr David Katz's resume, is as follows. England's present troubles derived in part from the 'strict and cruel Laws now in force against themost honourable Nation in theworld, theNation of the Jews, a people chosen by God' unless the Jews were readmitted to England with all possible rights and privileges, '(God putting their tears into his bottle) God will charge their sufferings upon us, and will avenge them on their He that he was to persecutors.' claimed persuaded publish this short tract 'not upon any man's motion of the JewsNation, but a thing that I have long and deeply revolved within my heart'. His effortswere intended 'for the glory of God, the comfort of those his afflicted people, the love ofmy own sweet native country of England, and the freeing ofmy own soul in the day of account'.5 The author's sincerity is manifest. The tract was translated into Spanish in the next year, apparently for the benefit of the Jews of Amsterdam. The author of the Apology refers to the Israelites, not, as is usual in English, as - the 'children of Israel' the phrase made idiomatic by the Geneva Bible - and by the Authorized Version but as the 'sons of Israel', which suggests was either that he accustomed to reading his Bible in Bishop Morgan's - Welsh version, where Bnei Yisrael is translated as Mebion Israel 'sons of Israel',6 or that he was a Hebraist who made his own translation. He does, however, state that he is a native of England. His other characteristic is a certain carelessness about historical dates. The expulsion of the Jews from Spain is stated to have taken place in 1493 instead of 1492. I have only 154 The readmission of the Jews to England in 1656 been able to identify one Puritan gentleman named Edward Nicholas. He was the son of Sir Oliver Nicholas, who was admitted to the Middle was Temple as a law student in 1650. Since he then probably aged seventeen or eighteen, he is not likely to have been the author of this a tract, which is obviously the work of mature writer; but it is quite possible that its author sought permission to use his name for the purpose. was I think that he was probably the Rev. Henry Jessey, who Yorkshire born, an excellent Hebraist,7 and a correspondent of Menasseh ben Israel. In January 1649 the Council of Officers considered the first practical proposal for the readmission of the Jews: the petition of 'Johanna Cartenright, widdow, and Ebenezer Cartwright, her son, freeborn of England, and now Inhabitants of the City of Amsterdam,' who Luden Wolf were states, without citing his source, Baptists,8 'that the inhumane cruel statute of banishment made against them may be repealed, and they under the Christian banner of charity and brotherly love, may again be received and permitted to trade and dwell amongst you in this Land, as they do now in the Netherlands.'9 There are signs that the Cartwrights' petition was drafted by the same as person wrote the Apology for the honourable nation of the Jews. Jews are referred to not as the 'children of Israel' but as 'Israel's sons and daughters' - a - again perfectly correct translation of Bnei Yisrael perhaps Johanna Cartwright insisted on including the daughters. The carelessness about historical dates reappears, the York massacre being attributed to the reign of Richard II instead of Richard I. The argument of the petition is much same as in more more the the Apology, but concisely stated and with on move emphasis the need to convert the Jews and help them to to the Promised Land when the time is ripe. The fact that the petition was favourably received and ordered to be printed, and that the policy it advocated was eventually adopted by the revolutionary regime, shows that the Cartwrights' voices were not crying in the wilderness, but that their viewpoint had solid support among the officers of theNew Model Army. It was in this climate of opinion that in 1650 Haham Menasseh ben Israel published his Latin translation of his Spanish book Esperanza de Israel, 'The Hope of Israel', dedicated to the English Parliament and Council of State.10 The text concerns a claim by one Antonio Levi Montezinos to have discovered an Indian tribe in Ecuador, who were was descended from the Israelites of old and practised Judaism. Its effect cause a to Englishmen to regard Menasseh as representative leader and political spokesman of the Jews. When the army officers turned to Presbyterian majority out of 155 Edgar Samuel Parliament in December 1648, their first aim was to execute the king and an establish a republic. In doing so they sought to replace inept, unreliable and extravagant government with one which would reform the nation and a pursue its interests. In theory England was ruled by collective leadership In provided by Parliament, and by Parliamentary Committees. practice, policy seems to have been decided primarily by two men, whom the - Leveller, John Lilburne, described as 'two covetous earthworms' Sir - Henry Vane Jnr and Chief Justice Oliver St John with much debate and discussion to assist or impede their government. The main and most noticeable achievements of Commonwealth economic policy were the Navigation Act of October 1651 and the First Dutch War which followed it in 1652. During the latter part of the Thirty Years War most of the trade between Spain and Flanders had been carried in English ships, and the English merchant marine had greatly expanded.11 The end of the war and the need to transport Spanish troops and war supplies, led to a European surplus of ships and a general slump in freight rates. This hit England, and especially London, very hard because after the Peace of Westphalia of 1648, Dutch convoys of large, cheap, unarmed, lightly manned fluijts