Sheffield Times 17 January 1848
Report on Sheffield Town Council Meeting 14 January 1848
JEWISH DISABILITIES
Councillor J.W. SMITH proposed the following motion: – “That petitions from this Council be presented to both Houses of Parliament, praying for the removal of all civil and political disabilities affecting Her Majesty’s Jewish subjects; and that a copy of the said petition be entered on the minutes of the Council’s proceedings”.
He begged that he might be allowed to express his satisfaction that this, his first motion in that Council, should be for the promotion of civil and religious liberty. (Hear, hear.) He was quite sure that it was a principle that did not need the aid of powerful argument to enforce it in that Council, for he had no doubt it was adequately appreciated by all present, and therefore it would be unnecessary for him to make any extended observations for the enforcement of his motion but notwithstanding all that had been done towards this end in past ages – and very much had been accomplished by successive parliaments for the removal of all disqualifications on account of religious opinions, still there remained disabilities which affected some of Her Majesty’s subjects – the Jews in particular – and by which, on account of certain oaths which they were required to take they were prevented from sitting in parliament, and holding important offices under government.
In 1843, an Act was passed which enabled persons professing the Jewish religion to take seats in municipal corporations; in virtue of which, they (the Town Council) were enabled to welcome one of that body among them – (Cheers.) – and the Town Council of Sheffield, if he was not mistaken, were the first to do this. In the following year, the Jews were placed on an equality with Protestants, with regard to schools and places of worship, and charitable institutions; and if the present proposal should be successful in giving them the right to seats in the legislature and places in government, then little would remain to be done, and it might be hoped that one long, perfect religious equality for the Jews would be attained. (Cheers.) They (the Council) were all sensible, that as Britons, and as Christians, they owed a large debt of restitution to the Jews. (Hear, hear.) From a very ancient time they peopled this country, and by their diligence, their industrious arts, their learning and especially by their talent of accumulating wealth, they contributed in no inconsiderable degree to the interests and prosperity of this country. But from the time of the early Plantagenets to the latter part of Edward the First’s reign the Jews endured great persecution and frequently banishment to distant countries – they were compelled to seek homes among barbarians in order that they might escape the mischief and the evils which fanaticism engendered. (Hear, hear.) Thus it was that for a period of 360 years, not a Jew was to be seen – unless here by stealth – in this island.
But about the year 1655, Oliver Cromwell – that man of glorious memory – (Mr. Ironside, “Hear, hear, hear.”) – that man who was distinguished as a Christian and as a statesman beyond any ruler that this country ever knew – invited the Jews to this country; he patronised them and showed them every kindness and consideration; and they continued from that time to the present day to enjoy many privileges. And even the later Stuarts showed them kindness and consideration in opposition to the influence of innumerable petitions and strenuous endeavours that were made to procure their suppression and removal from this country. Gradually, down to the present day, the state of the Jews had undergone progressive amelioration. Not long ago it was doubted whether they ought not to be trusted as allies, and whether they ought to be allowed to possess freehold property. Happily, that question was now settled, and they were now placed on an equality with the other subjects of the realm. And when we considered the character of the Jews – the extraordinary patience which they had uniformly shown under the alternate persecution and tolerance which was shown to them during the time of the Plantagenets, and subsequently, it would surely prove that they were entitled beyond almost any other people to the patronage and consideration of the State. It has long been the fashion to represent the Jews as invariably avaricious and so forth; and that charge had been repeated as often that a projection of that nature had become interwoven into the Englishman’s creed. But in framing this estimate, the exceptions duly had been taken into account.
He (Mr. Smith) for many years had had abundant opportunity of observing for himself, and he felt bound to say, there was not a more hospitable, a more faithful, or a more honest class of people to be found. In his business transactions with them, he had always found them laborious, upright and intelligent. Surely, there could no longer be any reason for disqualifying them. They paid their proportion of the public taxation; they discharged their share of civil duties; and there was a maxim of the Congress of Vienna that those who performed civil duties were entitled to civil rights (Mr. Ironside, “Hear, hear”.) He (Mr. Smith) held this as a maxim of justice, and one which ought always to be maintained, that all persons who pay taxes and contribute to the public burdens (being qualified by intelligence and integrity, so as to be worthy of public confidence) ought always to be considered eligible to exercise the franchise, and all the immunities which British subjects could possess (Cheers.)
The staple argument against the admission of the Jews to Parliament was, that it would destroy the Christian character of the legislature; but he thought they would all agree that the character of the legislature would be best increased by actions and not by outward protections; and he trusted the according of equal justice to all would be considered the best expression of Christian practice and Christian feeling on the part of the British legislature. And as he said before, he believed it was a principle of Christian equity and justice that all persons who contributed to the public burdens and to civil duties, should be entitled to civil rights; therefore he had great pleasure in moving the resolution now before the Council.
Councillor MATTHEWS – I have very great pleasure in seconding the motion, Mr Mayor.
Councillor IRONSIDE – I rise to propose an amendment in the shape of a rider to the motion. I propose that these words be added to Mr. Smith’s resolution – “And as the carrying into effect of this measure would be certain to place the entire Government of the country in the hands of the Jews who never produce any wealth but live entirely on the labours of the people, in consequence of having the complete control of the money of all civilized nations – that the petition do also pray for the enfranchisement of the people as a necessary counteracting power”. (Hear, hear.) Of all the humbugs of the day, this present humbug is to me the most complete. I do not accuse the mover of the resolution – my friend Mr. Smith – of being knowingly part of the puppetry by which this movement is to be worked, but, nevertheless, I am surprised at his want of discernment. I don’t blame the Jews in this matter. Having said this much, I will simply state the facts that are necessary to the elucidation of my views. It is not for me to say why it is that the Jews, in all ages of the world never did nay bodily labour, from Rothschild down to the humble old [….] dealers but buying and selling money and carrying on other sorts of traffic. But labour and work – not a bit of it will they do.
Jesus Christ was pretty plain-spoken when He drove the money changers out of the Temple. He did not approve of those men who never dug a potato-plot nor rendered a shoe nor stitched a coat but who got all they had from other people, by shuffle and [ ]. (Laughter). Mr Smith has said that there is a prejudice in existence against the Jews. Is it not universally said when a man is known to be a cheat that he is a “regular Jew?” Everybody says so. Now the consequence of the Jew’s occupation being as it is and as it ever has been – for we none of us never knew a Jew to labour – the consequence is, that the Jews are a narrow-minded cramped set. And the lower order of the Jew population in London are the most ill-favoured set of men I ever saw.
But mark you, I except the Jewesses. (Laughter.) Providence or Nature does counter-balance them by the Jewesses for they are more lovely than the generality of women and in their manners too they are in advance of their sex. The Jews are banded together throughout the country – throughout the world; and they have complete control of the money everywhere. They know how to work it; the people do not. The consequence is that wherever a Jew has the power, he takes care to place another Jew. All the crowned heads of Europe are their debtors; and if it were their interest to put down a power, they could and would do it.
Now, as the Jews do not labour, and therefore produce nothing, if we were to be governed by the Jews, there is no possibility whatever that the people have anything. Everything would be taken from them if the Jews managed for them. Why, Baron Rothschild all but rules in this country. It is the money that rules in these days and the Jews have money. Perhaps Lord John Russell wants money for the defences of the country, and perhaps it’s a bargain. There is something behind the scenes. We are not to be hum-bugged with the notion that this movement springs from a love of civil and religious liberty. But my friend Mr Smith says that we, as Christians, ought to release them, yet was one who refused to discuss the claims of the great body of Christians at the last meeting of the Council.
Councillor J.W. SMITH – I beg your pardon: I voted against the amendment.
Councillor IRONSIDE, after briefly noticing the interruption, proceeded – Mr Smith observed also that at one time a Jew could not be seen in this country except by stealth. But it is not so now. We are all Jews together – jewing one another. (Laughter.) Scheming is on the increase – anything but work. We are all following the fashion. Supposing this measure should be carried – and I don’t doubt that it will be – there will be a power set up that will be greater than the throne itself. But it will not do to let this go on the ground upon which my friend Mr. Smith has placed it – on the ground of civil and religious liberty. It is a money question; and, I say, treat it as such. Freedom is a good thing, no doubt; but it may be abused. Fire is good; but fire that burns up our property is not good. But if this is to be done, then enfranchise the people; let the representatives of the people also go into the House of Commons and then I shall be satisfied. With these observations I shall conclude. I am not going to discuss any particular form of enfranchisement of the people; that would not be legitimate. At present, therefore, I will say no more and move the amendment as a rider to the motion.
Councillor PAYNE said he had great pleasure in seconding Mr Ironside’s amendment. Money ought not to be the standard of a man’s qualification but virtue; for “Virtue alone is happiness below”. After condemning the manner in which Mr. Briggs’s motion was swamped at the previous meeting, Mr Payne continued: – What does Pope say: –
“To be given to the fool, the vain, the mad, the evil
To Ward, to Waters, Chartres and the Devil”
Councillor I. SCHOFIELD pointed out that acceding to the wording of Mr Smith’s motion “for the removal of all civil and political disabilities” from the Jews, it might be understood to mean the granting to all Jews the electoral franchise. According to the literal and common-sense meaning of the words, the prayer of the petition was just what the Chartists wanted – the very thing which constituted the special object of Mr. Griggs’s motion proposed at the last meeting of the Council.
Councillor SMITH replied that the removal of a disability did not confer an ability.
Councillor I. SCHOFIELD. – The removal of a civil disability must confer the right of exercising a civil ability.
Councillor SMITH. – What I wish is for the Jews to be put on an equality with all other of Her Majesty’s subjects (Hear, hear.)
Councillor I. SCHOFIELD then commented upon the remark of Mr. Ironside that the Jews were not workers. He demurred to that statement. The accumulation of wealth was an up-hill affair and required a man to work. The accumulators of wealth were always workers – (Hear, hear.) – although they might not be workers in the same way as men who forged files or table knives or those who “mended shoes or stitched garments”. There been far too much said in the way of distinction between workers and non-workers. (Hear, hear.) There were many men that were hard and industrious workers, but who, by the parties using that term, had not credit given them for being anything but drones. (Hear, hear.) He (Mr Schofield) was not going to throw any impediment in the way of the object and design of Mr Smith’s motion. I do not think (added Mr. Schofield), because I differ from Mr. Bright on the doctrine of Christ’s Messiahship that I am therefore bound to persecute him, and that he is bound to persecute me. I see nothing in the character of the Jews, or in their past history, to warrant the supposition that the safety of the community will be placed in jeopardy by giving them all that Mr. Smith asks for on their behalf, (Cheers.) The resolution might have been so worded as to render it more definite, but nevertheless I shall vote in favour of it.
Councillor PAYNE – And not for the Charter?
Councillor SCHOFIELD answered that to a certain extent he went along with the Chartists and when the opportunity offered, he would so far support them.
Councillor BRIGHT (a Jew), then rose and in a tone which evinced deep caution, spoke as follows: Mr Mayor, I have been hesitating whether in this instance it would best become me to give a silent vote in favour of the amendment or to give expression to my sentiments. If, in my peculiar situation, I had adopted the former method, I fear it would have appeared as if I was ungrateful to the gentlemen who has kindly brought this motion forward.
To these gentlemen, I beg to render my sincere acknowledgements. With respect to the amendment that has been moved, I will make no other comment that I think it would be better for us to send the resolution as it is. (Hear, hear.) I do not ask the support of the Council to the prayer of the petition as a favour – (Hear, hear.) – I ask it as an act of justice – (Cheers.); – for I think there ought to not be any religious disabilities, so long as all the duties of the subject are duly and faithfully performed. (Cheers.) Can anyone stand up in this Council and say that persons of the Jewish persuasion are less loyal? – (Loud applause.) – Can any one charge them with grudging to pay their contributions to the public burdens or with paying less respect to the love of their country, than any other sect or class? I unhesitatingly say no. (Applause.)
I am connected with many influential persons of our faith not only in this country but abroad and I feel myself justified in saying that they are remarkable for the possession of the highest virtues and the most unbounded charity; the display of which is not confined to persons of their own denomination. And the Jews, too, are always ready to defend the country that succours them. This much I can say of them, in all truth, although I do not mean to build up the Jews as a paragon of perfection; it is enough to show that they are not worse than their fellow-men although, stigmatised as they are in the eyes of the law we should have no room for surprise if they were. It is not to be supposed that a coercive policy can be pursued by the legislature without producing its effects. But if gentlemen of the Jewish persuasion were once permitted to take their seats in Parliament, it would at once appear that they were in every respect fully qualified for the discharge of the highest legislative functions. Let the screen be once removed, and it will soon be shown how very unjustly they have been treated. (Cheers.) The public are becoming alive to this fact. Does not any position in this town prove this? Yes; my being enabled to address you in this Council shows that liberal opinions prevail in this town. (Loud cheers.)
But in my time I have been made to feel keenly – though I have borne it in silence – the injustice and the indignities of religious prejudice – (Loud cheers.) – and I trust it has never influenced me in the discharge of my duty but that I have ever done my duty as an Englishman, a townsman and as a neighbour. (Cheers.) This is not the place in which to argue the subject on religious grounds; but I will say this, that an educated Jew will always respect the religious opinions of those who differ from him; and in asking the Council to sanction this petition, I only ask them to follow that golden maxim – “Do unto others as you would wish others to do to you” (Loud applause.) I can hardly think that the present Parliament will oppose the wish of the great body of the people whose view, happily is being raised in our behalf.
An example of liberality in this respect has been set by the electors of the City of London, and one which I think will not be lost upon the country. If it were necessary on this occasion I could bring before you numerous proofs of the patriotism and courage displayed by the Jews in defence of the countries where they were located. It is known to many now present that I have resided many years in Germany; and I can assure you that although at one time it was considered in that country a disgrace to be a Jew, yet the avidity that they have evidenced and the service that they have rendered, in the defence of their country, have won them general esteem] and goodwill. Even Napoleon, wherever he effected a conquest invariably struck off the shackle of the Jews. In conclusion, I will just […] that I regard all civil and religious disabilities as essentially wrong and if Jews are to be admitted to parliament altogether by the removal of their conscientious scruples. (Hear, hear.) I would rather that the Jews should be excluded from parliament altogether than that they should open door of perjury – a door at which they would enter. (Loud applause.)
Alderman DUNN – I feel highly gratified that the last speaker did not content himself on this occasion with giving a silent vote; for I believe that these sentiments coming from a Jew, will find a hearty and a general response. I did not intend to say a single word on this question, for it appears to me to be a question so plan and so just and so entirely adapted to the time that I anticipated that it would be passed as a matter of course. But one word I beg to say, in reply to a remark that fell from Mr Schofield. There is no intention, in the bill brought in by Lord John Russell, to give the Jews any greater privileges than Christians. The intention is to put the Jew and the Christian on the same footing. Parliament is not going to pass a bill for the purpose of giving power to the whole body of Jews to vote for Members of Parliament.
Councillor I. SCHOFIELD – I merely referred to the wording of Mr. Smith’s motion – – Alderman DUNN. – The bill in question is merely to allow the electors, if they think fit, to return a Jew to Parliament. We can have Jew magistrates and Jews can vote for Members of Parliament but there is yet this inconsistency that although they are allowed to vote for Members they are not allowed to be members themselves. If I had wished for a speech to set forth this question in the right light, I could not have desired a better one than that of Mr Ironside. I pray the Council to think of that speech again. For my part, I feel no disgrace, but a pride in saying that the Jews on whose neck Mr. Ironside planted his foot are descendants of that race from whom “as concerning the flesh, Christ came.” (Cheers.)
Alderman WILKINSON, after animadverting on the injustice and the many indignities which the Jews had, in earlier times, received in this country from so-called Christians, went on to say – The only argument of any weight that I have heard against Lord John Russell’s bill is that it would have a tendency to unchristianise us. Now, I think that this argument is most fallacious. If you want a sect to abide by what you esteem its errors, persecute that sect. (Hear, hear.) If you hope to bring the Jews to Christianity, begin by doing them justice. (Cheers.)
Councillor J.W. SMITH, as proposer of the motion, then rose to reply. He said it was needless to assign any reason why he could not adopt the words of the amendment; but he was surprised that any opposition should have been offered to the motion by Mr. Schofield, for certainly his speech was directed most completely against the principle of the motion. In reply to Mr. Schofield’s objection to the wording of the motion, he (Mr. Smith) needed only to state that he had adopted Lord John Russell’s words in the passage referred to.
But it was hardly creditable in Mr. Ironside to speak as he did. His excellent father gave him good instruction, and he was some time in a Sunday school, where he might have learnt that was one of the maxims of the ancient Jews that all their children should be brought up to some manual occupation. Hence we found that the apostle Paul was a tentmaker; and every person of eminence among the Jews had some manual occupation. Even up to the present day we never found an idle Jew. (Hear, hear.) And although they might not appear to labour with their heads so much, yet in general their labour was for the accumulation of wealth. The best guarantee that could have for removing any fear of apprehension that the Jews would exercise their influence in an improper manner would be place them in a respectable situation. The notion that this measure would unchristianise the country – affecting as it did, only some 50,000 Jews – was to him quite idle.
The MAYOR then put the amendments in favour of which only five voted but a much greater number of hands being held up against it. The votes were then taken on the original motion, and it was carried by a large majority.
Councillor PAYNE – I told you, Mr Ironside that we should have to “wait a little longer.” Never mind: the righteous are never forsaken.
The following is the petition as agreed to: –
To THE HONOURABLE THE COMMONS OF THE UNITED KINGDOM OF GREAT BRITAIN AND IRELAND IN PARLIAMENT ASSEMBLED.
The humble petition of the Mayor, Aldermen and Burgesses in Council of the Borough of Sheffield, in the County of York
[ ] – That your petitioners have learnt with much satisfaction that a bill has been introduced into your Honourable House by Her Majesty’s Ministers for the removal of all civil and political disabilities affecting Her Majesty’s Jewish subjects.
That your petitioners consider that political rights belong equally to all Her Majesty’s subjects, without regard to distinguishing religious opinions so long as they inculcate due respect for public law, and all private obligation to person and property; and they are persuaded that the fullest extension of this principle will confirm loyalty to the throne and to the legislature, and establish good fellowship among all classes of the people.
That your petitioners believe that the abolition of the laws which exclude Jews from seats in the legislature and from offices of state is [ ] to the spirit of the British constitution and the laws of the Christian religion; and that it will gratify the majority of their fellow countrymen, more especially since the electors of the metropolis of the empire have declared their judgement on the impolity and injustice of those laws, and their confidence in the character and worth of persons professing the Jewish religion, by electing as one of their representatives in the present parliament a gentleman of that religion – no less eminent for every political qualification of a legislator and a statement, than for wealth and rank.
That your petitioners would more particularly rejoice in the repeal of these disabling laws as a mark of respect and an act of justice due to a people who, while they claim professional veneration for their ancestral dignity and distinction, were for ages in Britain as in other lands, a proscribed race, the victims of prejudice, calumny and repression; and as a fitting expression of Christian charity which may be an example to other nations by whom the Jews are still cruelly limited and persecuted.
That your petitioners therefore humbly pray that your Honourable House, will, with all practicable speed pass into a law the bill now before your Honourable House for removing the civil and political disabilities affecting Her Majesty’s Jewish subjects
And your petitioners will ever pray.
Sheffield Times 22nd January 1848
Correspondence
Sir,-
I find in your valuable paper of last Saturday that Mr. Councillor Ironside made use of slanderous assertions about the Jews.
As a member of that community, I cannot forego the privilege of showing to the public that his statements are equally as void of truth as of reasons and as no man has any right to heap calumny and insult on any portion of the community without making himself amenable to that grand justiciary – public opinion, I trust you will insert the following in your widely-spread journal and thereby confer a favour on your most obedient servant,
B SAMUEL.
TO MR COUNCILLOR IRONSIDE
Sir, If in showing the public that your statement at the last Council Meeting against the Jews were not founded on truth, I am more personal than I should be, the extraordinary position you have placed me in by accusing a whole body of men as the most indolent, ignorant, ill-favoured and I do not know what else, must be my apology for being so: in fact, the whole of your speech is one mass of the vilest vituperation and such as only the most malignant schooled can give utterance to.
Were I in return to accuse the party whom you pretend to represent as slanderers &c, &c. I should be guilty of as great an outrage against society as you were; therefore the only position I can take is to be a little personal.
As I am not politician, I will not go through the whole of your remarks, but only allude to those having reference to the credit and character of my creed.
You stated that the Jews, in all ages of the world, never did any bodily labour. It is lamentable to see an individual who has the pretensions to be a public man and with his eye fixed on the seat of chief magistrate of this enlightened borough, so ignorant of both Biblical and other history. On reference to the Bible you will find that the Jews were builders, (1) tailors (2) Jewellers, (3), agriculturists (4) &c &c. Nor is the present generation less industrious, as you will find on visiting populous towns they are tailors, sailors, shoemakers, cabinet-makers, watch-makers printers, &c &c (5). But it seems to me that manual labour has not all the charms with you that you would wish others to believe it has, as you prefer indolence and an office to industry with a workshop. (6)
You further state that none of us ever knew a Jew to labour and the consequence is that the Jews are a narrow-minded set. Pray by what magic means have you been enabled to encompass their minds? It cannot be by the magic light of their past history. No; for that tells us that we are greatly indebted to some of the Jews for our civilisation: (7) therefore history has not opened their minds to you. You can have no other authority but personal experience; you find your mind shallow and you attribute it to not having laboured enough; ergo those who do not labour must be narrow-minded. No; let this console you:
“the axe may labour till doomsday
if he should live so long and still remain an axe”.
And to show you that on your part it was the cuckoo’s cry, I need but refer you to the following part of your speech: – “The Jews are banded together throughout the country a- throughout the world; and they have the complete control of the money everywhere, and they know how to work it”. Does that show narrow-mindedness, to be able successfully to control all the money in the world? No; it shows the narrow mind of the twaddler who says one thing in one sentence and contradicts it in the next.
You then state the lower orders of Jews in London are the most ill-favoured set you ever saw. As you are personally unknown to me, I am not in a position to say whether you are or are not the beau ideal of manly beauty. To me they seem like the objections of a mincing young lady in her teens, who would prefer to see the benches of St Stephen’s filled with, (instead of the collective wisdom of the nation,) and transformed into a living gallery of masculine beauty. Pray what standard of masculine beauty would you establish to possess all civil rights?
Would any one believed that in this enlightened age there could be found a man who would be foolhardy enough to say in a public assembly, “I refuse my fellow-subject his civil rights because he is not as good-looking as I am?”
Then you state that all the crowned heads in Europe are debtors to the Jews and that if it were their interest to put down a power they could and would do so. Pray how many powers have the Jews put down during the last 1,700 years, though many a power during that period has persecuted them to the utmost?
I am almost ashamed to quote so great an authority against so vile a slanderer. Caesar speaks in the most eulogizing terms of the great fidelity and integrity of the Jews. (8)
As you have no historical fact for your assertion, it merely implies a suspicion on your part; and the best answer to the suspicions is the following passage from the immortal Shakspere: –
“Suspicion ever haunts the guilty mind;
The thief doth fear each brush an officer.”
In conclusion, where you are speaking of yourself and friends, saying, “we are all Jews together” – “Jewing each other” – “scheming is on the increase” – “anything but work,” by which you mean to convey your propensity for taking others in, as I have no historical facts to contradict your statement, I must give you credit for speaking from honest conviction; and as they say confession is good for the soul, I trust you will receive the benefit therefrom.
If you yet require a mirror to see yourself to perfection, make one out of the following slightly amended words of Byron:-
“Of orators and politicians, you’re above,
A charlatan – a coxcomb; and have been
At best not better than a go-between”
Sheffield, Jan. 17, 1848. B SAMUEL
Exodus, chaps. 26, 27, 28,
- The Jews built the Tabernacle.
- The Jews made the priests’ garments
- The Jews made the Ephod.
- The Book of Ruth proves that the Jews were agriculturists.
- Narrative of a Mission of Inquiry to the Jews from the Church of Scotland, vol. (ii) – Edinburgh, 1839. – “In Galatz all (Jews) appear to be either mechanics or moneychangers. The people are very industrious and the women share in the general industry.” Page 163. Of another town it is observed, “most of the Jews are mechanics” Page 196. “At Jassy, they follow all trades except a smith: most are tailors, shoemakers carpenters and watchmakers.” Page 210. At Cracow, they (the Jews) follow all trades.” Page 300. “At Corfu, the better class of Jews are merchants and shopkeepers; the middle class artizans; and the lower class dealers in clothes, common porters and seamen.” Page 368.
- Ironside was brought up as a stove grate fitter.
- Voltaire says, ii his Age of Louis XIV, that “Ozanham (James), a Jew was the first that wrote a Mathematical Dictionary and the Mathematical Recreation. Died 1717.”
- “I Julius Caesar, Imperator, second time, and High Priest with the approbation of the Senate. Whereas Hyrcanus, the Jew hath both demonstrated his fidelity and diligence about our affairs and this both now and in former times, both in peace and in war as many of my generals have borne witness” – Josyphus, Book xiv, chap.10 of Antiquities.