Thursday, October 17, 2013

Jewish Money Lenders in George III's England ~ An Introduction to Jacob Rey (aka John King)


by Regina Jeffers



This month, I have released the next book in my highly popular Realm series, A Touch of Love. In it, I have ventured into territory many Regency era writers avoid: the question of religious practices during the Regency. Georgette Heyer’s portrayal of Jews during the reign of George III has often been met with criticism as perpetuating stereotypes. 

As I considered adding several Jewish characters to this book, I wished for a more honest portrait of not only the prejudice practiced against the Jewish race, but also the prejudice existing between the two “nations” occupying Georgian England. I sought the assistance of many of my Jewish friends and acquaintances for accurate portrayals of the Jewish experience. What I discovered was a bit shocking: the Jewish population held more freedoms than I would have as a practicing Catholic. My novel addresses the question of conversion to the Church of England’s tenets.

That said, today, I mean to speak of the Jewish “influence” I avoided in this latest novel: the life of Jacob Rey, the “Jew King” and those like him. “Jewish money lenders” were the source of the criticism directed upon Heyer.

In 1800, London was the most populated city (900,000 people) in Europe. It offered an exceptional opportunity for the advancement of motivated Jews who had shed the limitations of traditional Judaism. At the time, there were few legal barriers to success in both the social and economic realms. London’s complex and largely unfettered patterns of municipal life permitted those ambitious enough to succeed a step up. There was a certain mutability present among those of various groups in the arena of social interactions. The wealthy landowners’ self-indulgent moral values resting in pleasure and entertainment made London a sanctuary for those who knew how to satisfy patrician needs and manipulate their weaknesses.

Jacob Rey (later known as John King) flourished as a non-interventionist moneylender during late-Georgian London. Although he was far from being a leader of the Jewish community, Rey was one of the more well-known Jews of the period (1780-1820). Truthfully, I do not think of King’s career as being representative of the period, but I do see his “maneuverings” as indicative of the culture perpetuated by English society.

Rey’s father, Moses, was a self-effacing street merchant. According to several sources, Moses referred to himself as “Sultan” and dressed in “Turkish” garb, leading to the assumption he was of North African ancestry. Other sources claim the elder Rey misspent his fortune and was forced to peddle “bawdy” wares across the English countryside. Unlike many of his fellow tradesmen, however, Moses continued to see to Jacob’s education, an advantage, which assisted Jacob’s efforts to move within English Society.

In 1764, Jacob entered the Spanish and Portuguese Jewish charity school. This Sephardic school offered its students instruction in both religious and secular subjects. English, for example, was taught and many of the traditional Hebrew writings were translated into English. When Jacob departed the school in 1771, the wardens of the charity paid a premium of five pounds to apprentice him as a clerk in a Jewish house in the City. Within a few years, Rey anglicized his name, going by John King. Such name changes were not usual business among the Jews of Georgian England, which indicates Rey meant to leave behind both his Jewish and his Spanish ancestries.

Following his clerkship, King became articled to an attorney for a short period. Attorneys were “men of business.” They were not attorneys in the modern sense in the U.S. They drew up wills, bills of exchange, mortgages, etc. They also operated an informal credit system, which brought creditors and debtors together. Remember there were no well-developed credit and investment institutions present at the time. King learned his lessons well with in apprenticeship.

By the age of one and twenty, King was a very active moneylender. In Profiles in Diversity: Jews in a Changing Europe 1750 – 1870, Todd Endelmann writes, “The association of Jews with money-lending was hoary, dating back to the High Middle Ages, when it was the single most important pursuit in the Jewish communities of England, northern France and Germany. Long after money-lending had ceased to play a critical role in the Ashkenazic economy, the myth of the Jew as grasping and usurious, hard-hearted and hard-dealing, remained alive. Even in so commercially sophisticated a society as Georgian England, critics of Jews continued to view them en bloc as usurers, sometimes literally but more often in the sense that they transferred the standards of usury to other trades in which they had become active.”

Whatever the “stigma,” King rose quickly as one of the Jewish communities most identifiable citizens. In 1775, he sent a donation of 100 pounds to the Sephardic charity school in appreciation for his education. In 1776, he married Sara, daughter of Benjamin Nunes Lara and sister of Moses Nunes Lara, future patron of the Sephardic synagogue.

One must understand lending money to aristocrats was a dangerous and very risky business. Gentlemen of the ton thought speaking and handling money matters quite disdainful. They also thought nothing of abandoning their commitments. Therefore, King contracted debts in an atmosphere which encouraged both borrower and lender to take advantage of each other’s weaknesses. We know little of King’s business practices other than the accounts of some of his “borrowers.” Charles James Fox, the Prince of Wales, the third Earl of Orford and the fourth Earl of Sandwich were among the well-known clients of Jewish money-lenders.

King frequently functioned as a money broker, rather than as a lender. Those with money to lend often wished a higher than legal interest rate (above 5%) in their transactions. King served as a middle man, who bargained loans for others, taking a fee for himself. To be successful in the role, King aggressively developed the social contact of members of the haut ton. He entertained copiously and regularly. King also had made a meticulous analysis of the peerage. He learned the names and connections of each family, the value of the associated properties, the mortgaged estates, and the impediments on the title.

King also operated money-lending offices and even advertised his business in the London newspapers, all under assumed “Christian” names, for example, Messrs John Dear and Company, an office in Three Kings Court.

King acquired a despicable reputation early on and was never able to shake it. He was known to take advantage of certain clients. He became entangled in numerous lawsuits stemming from his business ventures; his name appeared frequently in newspapers and journals, usually in an unflattering context. On two occasions, once in 1784 and again in 1802, he fled the country to avoid imprisonment. 

On Christmas Day 1790, The Times described King, with heavy-handed sarcasm, as “without any matter of doubt one of the most respectable characters in this country, and until the later attack on him, the breath of infamy never blew on his reputation. In all his dealings with mankind he has been the strict, upright, honest man. He never took advantage of the distresses of a fellow creature , in order to rob him of his property – he never extracted exorbitant interest for discounting a bill – he was justly paid every debt he contracted to the uttermost farthing; and in a domestic line of life has proved himself a fond – faithful – loving husband – a tender affectionate and praiseworthy parent, and a feeling steady and sincere friend. Chaste in all his actions – virtuous in every sentiment – and unsullied in his reputation as a Man, a Money Lender, a Jew, and a Christian.”

Although an unsavory reputation clung to King, he never suffered from a lack of clients. Gentlemen and ladies of the beau monde clamored for his services. Surprisingly, King’s Jewish background played little in his public persona. His ancestry was not held accountable for his wickedness. “Similarly, attacks on King did not degenerate into condemnations of Anglo-Jewry as a whole, nor did they call for the imposition of special laws to restrain Jews as a body, as had happened earlier in the century. Of course, King’s carryings-on reinforced the popular image of the Jew as untrustworthy in money matters, but they did not provoke generalized discussions of Jewish avarice or misanthropy. This may have been due, in part, to the relatively high degree of tolerance already enjoyed by English Jews, at least in comparison to conditions on the Continent, and, in part, to the absence of a rigorous code of commercial ethics at many levels of society. In short, King may have been thought of as a rogue among many, his Jewishness as incidental to his shortcomings, or, at least, as not responsible for them.”


Note! King’s daughter, Charlotte Dacre, was an English author of Gothic novels, who first wrote under the pseudonym Rosa Matilda. 

~~~~~~~~~~~~

The Realm has returned to England to claim the titles they left behind. Each man holds to the fleeting dream of finally knowing love and home, but first he must face his old enemy Shaheed Mir, a Baloch warlord, who believes one of the group has stolen a fist-sized emerald. Mir will have the emerald’s return or will exact his bloody revenge..

Aristotle Pennington has groomed SIR CARTER LOWERY as his successor as the Realm’s leader, and Carter has thought of little else for years. He has handcrafted his life, filled it with duties and responsibilities, and eventually, he will choose a marriage of convenience to bolster his career; yet, Lucinda Warren is a temptation he cannot resist. Every time he touches her, he recognizes his mistake because his desire for her is not easily quenched. To complicate matters, it was Mrs. Warren’s father, Colonel Roderick Rightnour, whom Sir Carter replaced at the Battle of Waterloo, an action which had named Carter a national hero and her father a failure as a military strategist.

LUCINDA WARREN’s late husband has left her to tend to a child belonging to another woman and has drowned her in multiple scandals. Her only hope to discover the boy’s true parentage and to remove her name from the lips of the ton’s censors is Sir Carter Lowery, a man who causes her body to course with awareness, as if he had etched his name upon her soul. A cruel twist of Fate has thrown them together three times, and Lucinda prays to hold off her cry for completion long enough to deny her heart and to release Sir Carter to his future: A future to which she will never belong.

“The first fully original series from Austen pastiche author Jeffers is a knockout.”
- Publishers Weekly

Meet Regina Jeffers: 

Regina Jeffers, a public classroom teacher for thirty-nine years, considers herself a Jane Austen enthusiast. She is the author of nine Austen-inspired novels, including Darcy’s Passions, Darcy’s Temptation, Vampire Darcy’s Desire, Captain Wentworth’s Persuasion, The Phantom of Pemberley, Christmas at Pemberley, The Disappearance of Georgiana Darcy, Honor and Hope, and the upcoming The Mysterious Death of Mr. Darcy. She also writes Regency romances: The Scandal of Lady Eleanor, A Touch of Velvet, A Touch of Cashémere, A Touch of Grace, A Touch of Love and The First Wives’ Club. A Time Warner Star Teacher and Martha Holden Jennings Scholar, Jeffers often serves as a consultant in language arts and media literacy. Currently living outside Charlotte, North Carolina, she spends her time with her writing, gardening, and her adorable grandson. 

2 comments:

  1. At the beginning of this post the author states that she was shocked to learn Jews had more freedom than Catholics in England in the 18th century, but does not elaborate on this statement, which is a shame. Certainly, it is an unexpected historical find. The author also states that King charged a 5% lending rate, but failed to compare this to todays money lending rate of 30% (Wonga), which makes King seem rather tame, which makes me wonder if King really was 'wicked' despite his reputation.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Kudos for the facts contained in the well-written article, mostly about this colorful scoundrel who made it big, but I do object to some of the conclusions drawn. I've been researching the Regency for the last year, intensely, and still feel I need a few more years to understand this complex and unique period. But I have to say what hit me first, in journals and diaries of the period, was the blatant anti-Semetic remarks. They were just stunning, and ubiquitous. No wonder Napoleon was a hero of the Jews, for tearing down the gates of the ghettos. I find it a bizarre statement to say prejudice against Catholics was worse, when a big part of the Whig platform was Catholic Emancipation, a struggle that never ended until it was won. Mustn't be blinded by the Gordon Riots, or the constant and petty laws such as Test Acts and Marriage Acts aimed at Catholics; the fact is, though the prejudice against both is incessant (even period travel books speak of buildings as being constructed "in the period of superstition") the hatred of Catholics seems a fear of a return to "popery," while Jews are viewed in these same sources as virtually sub-human. Another species. I've just begun researching moneylending of the period. There's not much out there, and "the Jew King" overshadows all of it. I have learned much of the Jewish goldsmiths and jewelers of Hatton Gardens, as this job, like moneylending, was historically open to them. This isn't a "hoary" legend. Jews were twice expelled from medieval England, and they were pushed into certain professions that had no guild, like rag-dealers. Still trying to find out, but I assume the powerful liveries and guilds of London shut out Jews. These jewelers often lived in the nearby rookery of Saffron Hill rather than the Jewish enclaves of the East End. And Oliver is set in Saffron Hill. The book just reeks of anti-Semetism, and it would be some time before Dickens felt the need to "apologize" for the character of Fagin by writing an angelic Jewish character, in Our Mutual Friend, in I think 1864, long after Jews finally began to achieve a few rights, such as Rothschild becoming the first Jewish MP. But the world of moneylending seems shrouded in mystery. It's going to be a slog. As for Georgette Heyer, I just finished Grand Sophy, and I think she tried her best not to go too far over the top, knowing full well the attitudes of the period, which were far, far uglier than anything she wrote. I think she was only trying to walk a line between historical accuracy and racism.

    ReplyDelete