The House Of Rothschild Part 5

Just two months later, James was already boasting of his influence with the Duke, whom he had "already given various things."

Wellington, however, was not the most senior British political figure to whom the Rothschilds "gave things." It is extraordinary to find that the family's interest in the financial affairs of King George IV predated his accession to the throne by as much as fifteen years. The earliest doc.u.ment referring to "bills of exchange from Prince George to the nominal amount of 150,000 Frankfurt gulden" is in Mayer Amschel's hand and is dated 1805. Two years later they figure in one of his earliest surviving balance sheets, entered with a discounted value of just over 127,784 gulden-though even this figure he regarded as questionable. For, even as the heir to the throne and Prince Regent, George was regarded as a singularly unreliable debtor. How did Mayer Amschel, then the father of an obscure Manchester textile merchant, come to acquire a bill on the Prince Regent? The likeliest answer is that he bought it from the Elector of Hesse-Ka.s.sel, who had made a number of loans to the sons of George III in the 1790s. Ten years later, with Nathan firmly established as a banker in London, the sons of Mayer Amschel turned to these other royal debts with the intention of making Nathan-in Amschel's somewhat old-fashioned phrase-"court banker" in England. All told, the Prince Regent owed 109,000, the Duke of York 55,000 and the Duke of Clarence 20,000, making a total of 184,000. Only the Prince Regent had ever paid interest on his loan. After protracted negotiations with the Elector's advisers-and despite the objections of Buderus-the Rothschilds succeeded in buying these debts in return for the equivalent of their face value in consols. Superficially, this was far more than they were worth. In reality, it was an inspired investment-another of Nathan's "master-strokes." As Salomon commented: "This makes me a very powerful man." "There is luck attached to everything English," he enthused. "Everything touching them turns out happily. So it is with the court of our Elector. The two courts fit together."

The value of these old royal debts was that, by making Nathan one of the Prince Regent's creditors, they brought him into direct contact with the officials charged with managing the future King's troubled financial affairs. And not only his financial affairs: by the end of 1817 Nathan was asking Salomon and James to gather information which might be of a.s.sistance to the so-called "Milan commission," set up to gather evidence against "the great man's wife"-Princess Caroline of Brunswick-whom he was determined to divorce. In 1822, just after George had finally ascended the throne, a loan of 50,000 was arranged with Nathan, secured on the revenues of his Hanoverian possessions. A year later a further 125,000 was requested. It was at around this time that he came into contact with Sir William Knighton, though the key figure in the loan negotiations was George Harrison, who a.s.sured the King of Nathan's "great loyalty and honesty towards your Majesty . . . in everything relating to this transaction." As we have seen, Harrison himself borrowed several thousand pounds from Nathan not long after this.

Nor was George IV the only member of the British royal family to whom Nathan lent money in the 1820s. In 1824, for example, he lent 10,000 to the Duke of York on the security of some jewels, as well as giving him 100 complimentary shares in the Alliance a.s.surance Company.7 The Rothschilds also looked ahead to the next generation. In 1816 the only child of the Prince Regent, Princess Charlotte, was betrothed to a minor German prince, Leopold of Saxe-Coburg, the youngest son of Duke Francis Frederick. The brothers at once recognised Leopold's potential importance (his new father-in-law was, after all, in his fifties and notoriously sybaritic). When he pa.s.sed through Frankfurt on his way to England for the wedding, Carl made his move: "We went to see him. He is a good man. We gave him a bill for 700 on you against gold as well as a letter of credit . . . He intends to buy jewellery. Please offer him your services." Nathan needed no further prompting. By April he was being entrusted with delivery of Leopold's private correspondence to Germany, and by August a loan of 10,000 gulden was being discussed. The Rothschilds also looked ahead to the next generation. In 1816 the only child of the Prince Regent, Princess Charlotte, was betrothed to a minor German prince, Leopold of Saxe-Coburg, the youngest son of Duke Francis Frederick. The brothers at once recognised Leopold's potential importance (his new father-in-law was, after all, in his fifties and notoriously sybaritic). When he pa.s.sed through Frankfurt on his way to England for the wedding, Carl made his move: "We went to see him. He is a good man. We gave him a bill for 700 on you against gold as well as a letter of credit . . . He intends to buy jewellery. Please offer him your services." Nathan needed no further prompting. By April he was being entrusted with delivery of Leopold's private correspondence to Germany, and by August a loan of 10,000 gulden was being discussed.

Only the effort Nathan put into cultivating Leopold can explain the brothers' extraordinary reaction in May the following year to the news that Princess Charlotte had died, apparently extinguishing Leopold's hopes of power in Britain. "We are unable to write you fully today," wrote Salomon to Nathan, because of the heartbreak caused by that disaster, the death of Princess Charlotte. We lost our heads. I still cannot make myself believe that the n.o.ble woman died. We received the bad news on Sat.u.r.day afternoon at five o'clock. We were negotiating with Baring for another million of rentes and we arranged with him that we are going to give him a final answer on Sunday . . . But when he came on Sunday for the answer, our consternation was so great that we told him that we could do nothing for the time being, we are far too confused for it. Unfortunately, we are losing terribly much, my dear Nathan. It is terrible, my heart breaks when I speak about it . . . I can't write anything about business. We did not do any. We should . . . draw the moral of it: money, honours are worth nothing, we are all only dust; man should give up his pride . . . he should not make himself believe anything; we are mud and dust. It pains me very badly, this unfortunate event.

"Believe me," Salomon added two days later, "I was so horrified [at the news], that since then I have had no appet.i.te. It is as if my stomach has shrunk and I have never-ending pains in the joints." Nathan, he a.s.sumed, would also be "thrown off his feet" and "made ill" by the news. Yet the brothers were always quick to come to terms with adversity. "n.o.body is immortal," reflected Salomon, "and we have to get over this . . . Unfortunately, our sorrow and sadness cannot bring her back."

Another bank might have been tempted to end Leopold's privileged status now that he was a mere widower. Salomon urged Nathan to do the reverse: "According to the English papers the Prince of Coburg will stay in England and is going to remain an important person there. We should show even more friendship towards a man who fell on hard times than before. I ask you to show him more feeling than hitherto." This accounts for the subsequent efforts of Nathan to arrange life insurance not only for Leopold but for his father, and for the fact that Carl happily put Leopold up at his Naples villa in 1826.

It was to prove an extremely shrewd strategy. For the link forged in these years between Nathan and the man James called "your Coburg" was to prove enduring and mutually beneficial. Not for nothing did one anti-Rothschild writer of the 1840s point out the similarity between the House of Rothschild and the House of Saxe-Coburg-Gotha, those two extended German families which were to rise from obscurity to glory in the course of the nineteenth century. Indeed, theirs was to be an almost symbiotic relationship. The 3.5 million gulden lent to the Saxe-Coburgs by the Frankfurt house between 1837 and 1842 was only one aspect of the connection. Of greater importance was the support which the Rothschilds gave to those members of the family who left Coburg in search of new thrones elsewhere.

Not that the Rothschilds lost interest in the question of the British succession following Princess Charlotte's death. When the Prince Regent's brother, the Duke of Kent, set off for Germany to marry Victoria of Saxe-Coburg, he took with him a letter of credit on the Frankfurt Rothschilds. When the marriage produced a daughter, Victoria-who at once became next-in-line to the throne-Nathan hastened to offer the proud father financial advice and his exclusive messenger service. In 1823 he also lent a substantial sum (400,000 gulden) to the Prince of Leiningen, the d.u.c.h.ess of Kent's son by her first marriage. Nathan's sons continued to act as the d.u.c.h.ess's banker after the Duke's death, occasionally relaying money to her brother Ferdinand of Saxe-Coburg.

Yet even the English royal family were not the most influential of the Rothschilds' clients and "friends" in this period. For, as historians generally agree, this was an era in which European politics were to a large extent dominated not by Britain but by Austria. As we have seen, the man who made Austrian policy between 1809 and 1848 was Metternich; and he too banked with Rothschilds. Indeed, the relationship which developed between Metternich and Salomon Rothschild may be seen as in some respects the prototype for the relationship which later developed between Bismarck and the Rothschilds' a.s.sociate in Berlin, Bleichroder-except that Metternich came to feel far closer to his banker emotionally and intellectually than Bismarck ever did.

Although he came from an aristocratic family with estates in the Mosel valley, Prince Klemens Wenzel Nepomuk Lothar von Metternich-Winneburg was "cash-poor" for much of his long political career. Within a year of their first meetings with him-in Paris during the 1815 peace negotiations-he raised the possibility of a loan of 300,000 gulden with Amschel and Carl in Frankfurt. Metternich had already proved a useful ally to the brothers, supplying political news in Paris, supporting their efforts to secure Austrian financial business and apparently also sympathising with their campaign for Jewish emanc.i.p.ation in Frankfurt. The arrangement he now proposed was that the Rothschilds should advance him 100,000 gulden and sell a further 200,000 gulden of 5 per cent bonds to other investors, all secured on the new estate at Johannisberg which the Austrian Emperor had just given him. However, Carl was reluctant to lend so much to a single individual, no matter how wealthy, recalling how unsatisfactory similar loans had been for Prince Wilhelm. Despite the fact that Metternich continued to prove himself "a great friend of ours"-supporting the requests for n.o.ble and consular status-the brothers preferred at this stage to limit their generosity to routine banking services and occasional gifts, like the Wedgwood china Nathan sent him in 1821.

It was in October of that year that Metternich-accompanied by his mistress, Princess Dorothy de Lieven-first publicly accepted an offer of Rothschild hospitality, "taking soup" with Amschel in Frankfurt on his way back to Vienna from Hanover.8 This was interpreted by some observers as a calculated gesture of support for the Frankfurt Jewish community at a time when conflict over the civil rights question was at its height. Less than a year later, Metternich received his thanks: a loan of 900,000 gulden, agreed just six days before the brothers received the t.i.tle of "baron" from the Emperor. This loan sealed the "friendship" between Metternich and the Rothschilds. At Verona in 1823, Salomon furnished Metternich with cash to meet his (considerable) personal expenses. In Paris two years later, James played host to Metternich, throwing a lavish dinner for "the representatives of the Holy Alliance" which greatly impressed the This was interpreted by some observers as a calculated gesture of support for the Frankfurt Jewish community at a time when conflict over the civil rights question was at its height. Less than a year later, Metternich received his thanks: a loan of 900,000 gulden, agreed just six days before the brothers received the t.i.tle of "baron" from the Emperor. This loan sealed the "friendship" between Metternich and the Rothschilds. At Verona in 1823, Salomon furnished Metternich with cash to meet his (considerable) personal expenses. In Paris two years later, James played host to Metternich, throwing a lavish dinner for "the representatives of the Holy Alliance" which greatly impressed the Const.i.tutionnel Const.i.tutionnel newspaper. It commented ironically: newspaper. It commented ironically: Thus does the the power of gold reconcile all the ranks and all the religions. One of the more curious spectacles our time-rich as it is in contrasts-is that of the representatives of the Holy Alliance established in the name of Jesus Christ attending a banquet given by a Jew on the day that the law of sacrilege is being debated in the chambers.9 A year later James was present at another equally grand soiree. It was in this period that Metternich began to make use of the Rothschilds' courier service for important correspondence. From this point onwards, he and Salomon shared political news on a regular basis, Metternich informing Salomon of Austrian intentions while Salomon provided him with news he received from his brothers in London, Paris, Frankfurt and Naples. By the end of the 1820s the Rothschilds had begun to provide Metternich-or "Uncle," as they often called him-with an unofficial diplomatic channel, through which he could relay his political views indirectly and discreetly to other governments.

All of this puts the bitter accusations of David Parish on the eve of his suicide in a new light. The Rothschilds, Parish complained to Metternich, had "understood better than I how to draw you into their [sphere of] interest" and how to secure "your special protection." It was, he insisted in his letter to Salomon, "the new alliance" between Metternich and the Rothschilds which had ruined him. "Under the protection of Prince Metternich, you succeeded in securing exclusive control over numerous transactions in which I had a moral and legal claim to a substantial share." If Salomon had given him his rightful cut of the profits from the Austrian and Neapolitan loans, he might have been able to rescue Fries & Co. "But you found it easier and more advantageous to come to an agreement with the Prince over the old rentes operation and in this way to put him wholly on your side."

Although Parish's allegations cannot be taken at face value, there was real substance to his claim that an alliance had developed between Metternich and Salomon Rothschild. This can be demonstrated with reference to the contents of the silver box, recently rediscovered in Moscow, in which Salomon kept Metternich's accounts and private financial correspondence. These long-lost bank statements show that between 1825 and 1826 Metternich was in a position to repay much of the loan of 1822. However, no sooner had the loan been paid off-ahead of schedule-than a new loan for 1,040,000 gulden (c. 110,000) was arranged, roughly half of which Metternich used to purchase a new estate at Pla.s.s, and the rest he took as cash. The balance sheet of the Vienna house shows that Salomon retained some 35,000 gulden of the bearer bonds issued by Metternich for the purchase of Pla.s.s, on top of which the Prince owed an additional 15,000 gulden. His total private debt to the Rothschilds grew in the succeeding two years to nearly 70,000 gulden. In addition, the Frankfurt house advanced over 117,000 gulden to Metternich's son Viktor. When Metternich married again in 1831, Salomon was on hand to help resolve the financial difficulties of his third wife, Countess Melanie Zichy-Ferraris.

Nor did the Rothschilds confine themselves to loans and overdrafts. "Our friend Salomon's devotion always touches me," remarked Princess Melanie in her diary in May 1841, on receiving a present from him of American deer for their estate near Frankfurt. A few months later she described a visit by "Salomon and James, their nephew Anthony and Salomon's son and finally Amschel, who made a great point of our coming to dine with him at Frankfurt next Tuesday. James brought me a pretty mother-of-pearl and bronze box from Paris, filled with sweets, which was all to the good." At Christmas in 1843 Salomon visited the Metternichs at Ischl, bringing "lovely things to the Metternich children, such as tempted their mother to play with them herself."

Metternich was not the only eminent Austrian to put his private financial affairs in Salomon's hands. In 1821-in a cla.s.sic example of financial speculation based on inside information-a senior Austrian commander, General von Wolzogen, asked Salomon to purchase 100,000 gulden worth of metallic bonds on his behalf. His calculations provide a fascinating insight into the dispa.s.sionate att.i.tude of one senior military figure to the Austrian military intervention in Italy: My reasoning is as follows: either it will stay cold, or it will get hot. In the first case, [metalliques] will immediately go up anyway. If it turns hot, then it is probable that the [army?] will march into Naples and in that case I believe they [metalliques] will rise too . . . If peace remains, one can expect high prices. The only question is therefore whether to buy now or after the declaration of war. I am inclined to buy soon . . . But I leave it to you to do as you think best, and indeed not to buy at all if you do not think it advantageous. My reasoning is as follows: either it will stay cold, or it will get hot. In the first case, [metalliques] will immediately go up anyway. If it turns hot, then it is probable that the [army?] will march into Naples and in that case I believe they [metalliques] will rise too . . . If peace remains, one can expect high prices. The only question is therefore whether to buy now or after the declaration of war. I am inclined to buy soon . . . But I leave it to you to do as you think best, and indeed not to buy at all if you do not think it advantageous.

Other political figures who feature in the accounts of the Vienna house include Stadion and the influential diplomat Apponyi, as well as a number of the most important families of the Austro-Hungarian aristocracy. Of these, the Esterhazys, with their immense estates in Hungary and links to the still wealthier Thurn und Taxis family, were the most important-and problematic. Beginning with 10,000 in 1820 and 300,000 gulden in 1822, the Esterhazys borrowed often from the Rothschilds. Three years later Salomon went into partnership with two leading Vienna houses, Arnstein & Eskeles and Simon G. Sina, to float a large 6.5 million gulden loan (at 6 per cent). This was secured on Prince Esterhazy's estates and was intended "definitively to reorder" the family finances. However, balance sheets for the succeeding years show Esterhazy continuing to run overdrafts with Rothschild houses in London and Vienna: 28,000 in London in 1825, 2,300 gulden in Vienna three years later. By 1831 matters were bad enough for Esterhazy to approach Salomon (through Metternich) for another loan. Although Salomon was hesitant, the Vienna accounts for 1832 put Esterhazy's total debts at 827,000 gulden, and three years later the debt was larger still. When the Prince was succeeded by his son Paul in 1836, there was another attempt at stabilisation in the form of a 7 million gulden lottery loan, issued jointly by Salomon and Sina. Yet another loan (for 6.4 million gulden) followed eight years later-one of a spate of major loans to the aristocracy floated by Rothschilds and Sina in the 1840s. Small wonder Esterhazy "spoke very flatteringly of the family" to third parties. As in the case of Metternich, financial ties were inseparable from social and political ties. In London, Prince Esterhazy dined regularly with Nathan while serving as Austrian amba.s.sador and received much of his correspondence from Metternich via Rothschild couriers. In Vienna, the relationship appeared so close that in 1822 unfounded rumours appeared in the press suggesting that Esterhazy had persuaded Salomon to abandon Judaism.

The strategy of extending credit and other financial facilities to influential but profligate figures like Metternich and Esterhazy was a highly effective way of ensuring political goodwill and "friendship." Of all the private financial relationships of this era, none ill.u.s.trates this better than that between Salomon and Metternich's secretary, Friedrich von Gentz. Gentz was an intelligent, conservative and thoroughly venal man of letters-a kind of Central European Edmund Burke gone wrong-who had acquired the habit of selling the influence he had in Vienna for cash long before he came into contact with the Rothschilds. Indeed, for a time it was David Parish whom he regarded as "the matador, the pearl of the merchant cla.s.s of all Christendom"-a view which was not unrelated to the 100,000 gulden stake Parish had given him in the 1818 Austrian loan. It did not take the Rothschilds long to purchase Gentz's fickle allegiance. After an initial encounter in Frankfurt, he, Carl and Salomon met at Aix in 1818. On October 27 Gentz recorded in his diary that Salomon had handed him 800 ducats, supposedly the proceeds of a successful speculation in British stocks. A few days later there were more "pleasant financial dealing with the brothers." Gentz was soon paying regular visits to his new friends, whose apparently instinctive ability to make money deeply impressed him. He had regular business dealings with Salomon thereafter: a minor transaction in late 1820, a small loan at Laibach in 1821, a share in the Neapolitan loan of the same year which earned him 5,000 gulden within a year. His diaries in this period make repeated references to "very agreeable communications" from Salomon; "important financial arrangements" with him; "a proof of real friendship" over breakfast; "matters which, although not so elevated [as diplomacy], were far more pleasant"; and "highly welcome financial transactions with the excellent Rothschild." The pattern continued throughout the decade. In 1829 Salomon lent Gentz 2,000 gulden "with the most amiable readiness," bringing his total debts to Salomon and other bankers to over 30,000 gulden. To Gentz, such loans were to be regarded as "donations pure and simple." Indeed, according to one account, Salomon finally dispensed with the fiction that the money would ever be repaid by paying Gentz an annual retainer, though this did not prevent Gentz from pleading for yet another loan of 4,500 gulden from Salomon, and gratefully settling for 500 gulden to tide him over.

Gentz performed a number of valuable services in return for his money: supplying news and facilitating access to Metternich, for example. In addition, he was responsible for the Rothschilds' first real foray into public relations. At a time when the brothers were the objects of an increasing volume of negative comment in the press, an experienced and politically influential journalist like Gentz was a useful ally. In 1821 he wrote twice to the editor of the Allgemeine Zeitung Allgemeine Zeitung to express his "grave dissatisfaction" about recent articles by the paper's Frankfurt correspondent which had been critical of the Rothschilds. "The constant attacks upon the House of Rothschild," he argued, "invariably, and sometimes in the most outrageous manner, reflect upon the Austrian government by necessary implication, since, as everybody knows, it is transacting important financial matters with that House, which is not only unimpeachable, but is honourable and thoroughly respectable." Facing the threat of a ban throughout Austrian territory, the editor of the newspaper was obliged to "promise not to accept . . . anything in future relating to the value of Austrian public securities, or to express his "grave dissatisfaction" about recent articles by the paper's Frankfurt correspondent which had been critical of the Rothschilds. "The constant attacks upon the House of Rothschild," he argued, "invariably, and sometimes in the most outrageous manner, reflect upon the Austrian government by necessary implication, since, as everybody knows, it is transacting important financial matters with that House, which is not only unimpeachable, but is honourable and thoroughly respectable." Facing the threat of a ban throughout Austrian territory, the editor of the newspaper was obliged to "promise not to accept . . . anything in future relating to the value of Austrian public securities, or anything whatever anything whatever relating to the House of Rothschild (at least affecting its relations with Austria)." When Salomon heard that he had been awarded a Russian decoration in 1822, he immediately asked Gentz to arrange for a newspaper article on the subject. Four years later, at Salomon's request, Gentz himself put pen to paper, writing the first "official" account of the family's history-or , as he described it, an attempt "briefly and I hope not infelicitously to explain the phenomenon of the greatness of this House." After Gentz had read it to one of Salomon's senior clerks and received his "actual pay" from Salomon, it was published in the Brockhaus relating to the House of Rothschild (at least affecting its relations with Austria)." When Salomon heard that he had been awarded a Russian decoration in 1822, he immediately asked Gentz to arrange for a newspaper article on the subject. Four years later, at Salomon's request, Gentz himself put pen to paper, writing the first "official" account of the family's history-or , as he described it, an attempt "briefly and I hope not infelicitously to explain the phenomenon of the greatness of this House." After Gentz had read it to one of Salomon's senior clerks and received his "actual pay" from Salomon, it was published in the Brockhaus Encyclopaedia Encyclopaedia. These were the first Rothschild attempts to exert some influence on a generally hostile press, and far from the last. In 1831, with Gentz's influence waning, Salomon made overtures to the satirist Saphir in the hope of winning his services as a pro-Austrian-and implicitly also pro-Rothschild-publicist.

Money Makes Money The evidence that the Rothschilds established a network of private financial relationships with key public figures in Restoration Europe is therefore compelling. Yet the conspiracy theorists of this and later periods misunderstood the role of such relationships when they portrayed them as the key to Rothschild power. The image of the Rothschilds at the centre of a web of "corruption" would become a recurrent one in the years after 1830. But it was not, in reality, the bribes, loans and other favours they bestowed on men like Metternich which made them the dominant force in international finance after 1815. It was the sheer scale-and sophistication-of their operations.

In 1822 their old rival Simon Moritz von Bethmann "heard from a reliable source that Salomon Rothschild has stated that the annual balance-sheet of the 5 brothers showed a net profit of 6 million gulden." As he observed, "This is certainly a case where the English proverb applies: 'Money makes money.' Having regard to their industry and judgement, we may expect their business to continue to flourish; indeed, one hopes so, since the overthrow of this Colossus would be terrible." The evidence now available from the firm's accounts amply confirms this judgement. In 1815 the combined capital of the Rothschild houses in Frankfurt and London was at most 500,000. In 1818 the figure was 1,772,000; in 1825 4,082,000; and in 1828 4,330,333. The equivalent figures for the Rothschilds' nearest rival, Baring Brothers, were 374,365 in 1815, 429,318 in 1818, 452,654 seven years later and 309,803 in 1828. In other words, having been on a more or less equal footing with Barings in 1815, the Rothschilds' resources had grown to be more than ten times greater than their princ.i.p.al compet.i.tor's in as many years. While Barings' capital had actually declined in size, the Rothschilds had increased theirs by a factor of eight. These are astonishing figures.

The explanation for this disparity is not just that the Rothschilds made bigger profits. Just as importantly, they ploughed the bulk of these profits back into the business. Here, the contrast with Barings, which tended to distribute profits to the partners (even in years when the bank made a loss) rather than allowing capital to acc.u.mulate, is impressive. Nor did the Rothschilds lose momentum in the succeeding years. In 1836-the next time the partners met to settle accounts and renew their contractual agreement-the capital had increased again to 6,007,707. Such figures as are available for the profits of the individual houses in this period confirm the broad impression of rapid and sustained growth. Even in the relatively sluggish years between 1825 and 1828, the Paris house alone made profits totalling 414,000. Between 1823 and 1829 the profits of the Naples house totalled 7,390,742 ducats (924,000).

These figures explain the dominance of the Rothschilds on the international capital market in the 1820s; perhaps the only thing that is surprising is that they were not more dominant. Between 1818 and 1832 it has been estimated that N. M. Rothschild accounted for seven out of twenty-six loans contracted by foreign governments in London, and roughly 38 per cent (37.6 million) of their total value. This was more than twice the value of their nearest rivals, B. A. Goldschmidt. Moreover, the bank's own figures suggest that this may be an underestimate: according to Ayer, the value of loans issued by Nathan in this period was in fact 86 million. The equivalent total for loans issued by the Frankfurt house in this period was 28 million gulden (c. 2.5 million). In Paris, James came to exercise a near monopoly over French government finance, issuing seven loans with a nominal capital of 1.5 billion francs (60 million) between 1823 and 1847.

In a sense therefore the French journalist Alexandre Weill was not exaggerating when, looking back in 1844, he declared: The house of Rotschild [sic] is merely a necessary consequence of the principle of state which has governed Europe since 1815; if it had not been a Rotschild, it would simply have been someone else . . . it is this system . . . dominant throughout Europe, which has created, produced and elevated the house of Rotschild . . . Rotschild reigns and governs on the bourse and in all the cabinets . . .

This was too deterministic a view, of course. There had been moments in the 1820s when the "principles" governing the European states had come close to calling the Rothschilds back out of existence, and it is hard to imagine any other contemporary financier easily taking their place. But Weill was closer to the mark than Richelieu: if there was a sixth great power in the 1820s, it was no longer Barings, but Rothschilds. Small wonder there was such a hue and cry about them.

SIX.

Amschel's Garden.

Oh what joy to be in the open air and draw breath easily!

Here alone, here alone there's life.

. . . Speak softly! Restrain yourselves!

There are ears and eyes upon us.

-FIDELIO, ACT 1, FINALE

The Jew, who may have no rights in the smallest German states, decides the fate of Europe.

-BRUNO BAUER

Nothing symbolised the Rothschilds' escape from the gloomy confines of the Frankfurt ghetto better than their acquisition of real estate outside it. In 1815 virtually all the family's wealth was held in the form of paper-bonds and other securities-and precious metal. Such "immovable property" as they possessed was all in Frankfurt; everywhere else, the brothers still lived in rented accommodation. Inside the old Judenga.s.se, there was of course the old Stammhaus Stammhaus "zum grunen Schild" where the brothers had grown up. It was a matter of public curiosity that their mother Gutle continued to live there until the end of her life; her sons, however, felt no such attachment. By 1817 Carl had had enough of his old room on the third floor of his mother's house: "Of course, you will say that in the ghetto we slept on the fourth floor. Yes, but one is getting old. Also [it is galling] that one should make much money and live a dog's life while others who have not a tenth of our fortune live like princes." By this time the first steps out of the Judenga.s.se had already been taken. Although the plot they had acquired in 1809-10 for their new offices was technically in the Judenga.s.se, the sandstone neo-cla.s.sical building they built there had its entrance in the Fahrga.s.se, the main thoroughfare off which the Judenga.s.se ran. (In the absence of its old gates, the Judenga.s.se itself was now increasingly referred to as the Bornheimer Stra.s.se.) Salomon had already been given permission to move his residence to a house in the Schaferga.s.se in 1807; but the real escape came when Amschel bought a house in the suburbs on the road to Bockenheim in 1811 (10 Bockenheimer Landstra.s.se). For the first time, he found himself living in fresh air. "zum grunen Schild" where the brothers had grown up. It was a matter of public curiosity that their mother Gutle continued to live there until the end of her life; her sons, however, felt no such attachment. By 1817 Carl had had enough of his old room on the third floor of his mother's house: "Of course, you will say that in the ghetto we slept on the fourth floor. Yes, but one is getting old. Also [it is galling] that one should make much money and live a dog's life while others who have not a tenth of our fortune live like princes." By this time the first steps out of the Judenga.s.se had already been taken. Although the plot they had acquired in 1809-10 for their new offices was technically in the Judenga.s.se, the sandstone neo-cla.s.sical building they built there had its entrance in the Fahrga.s.se, the main thoroughfare off which the Judenga.s.se ran. (In the absence of its old gates, the Judenga.s.se itself was now increasingly referred to as the Bornheimer Stra.s.se.) Salomon had already been given permission to move his residence to a house in the Schaferga.s.se in 1807; but the real escape came when Amschel bought a house in the suburbs on the road to Bockenheim in 1811 (10 Bockenheimer Landstra.s.se). For the first time, he found himself living in fresh air.

Almost as soon as he had acquired the house, Amschel became consumed with the desire to buy the garden next to it. It should be stressed that the object of his desire was no country estate, merely a small suburban plot of at most a few acres, similar to those owned by Gentile banking families like the Bethmanns and the Gontards. Nor was Amschel merely bidding for social status. He seems genuinely to have fallen in love with the garden. After all, he had spent virtually all of his forty-two years cooped up in the ghetto, working, eating and sleeping in its cramped and dingy rooms, walking up and down its crowded and pungent thoroughfare. It is not easy for a modern reader to imagine how intoxicating fresh air and vegetation were to him. On a spring night in 1815-in an act as pregnant with emanc.i.p.atory symbolism as the prisoners' release into the "free air" in Beethoven's Fidelio Fidelio (1805)-he decided to sleep there. He described the experience in an excited and moving postscript to his brother Carl: "Dear Carl, I am sleeping in the garden. If G.o.d allows that the accounts work out as you and I want them to, I will buy it . . . There is so much s.p.a.ce that you, G.o.d willing, and the whole family can comfortably live in it." As that implied, Amschel regarded his purchase of the garden as dependent on the outcome of the brothers' business activities, which Napoleon's return from Elba just weeks before had thrown into turmoil. He was also torn between his love of open s.p.a.ce and his brother Carl's preference for a large and respectable town house in which visiting dignitaries could be entertained. Fortunately for Amschel, Nathan categorically rejected Carl's arguments as "a lot of nonsense," but accepted the need for a garden for the sake of Amschel's health. By April 1816 part of the garden had been bought and Amschel was bidding to add a further two-thirds of an acre to it. Now when he slept outside-in a garden he could call his own-it was "like paradise." Finally, more than a year after his first night under the stars, he bought the remainder. "From today onwards the garden belongs to me and to my dear brothers," he wrote exultantly. "There is therefore no need to remind you of what you could contribute to make it more beautiful. I would not be in the least surprised if Salomon were to buy all sorts of seeds and plants at the very first opportunity, as this garden will be inherited by the family Rothschild." (1805)-he decided to sleep there. He described the experience in an excited and moving postscript to his brother Carl: "Dear Carl, I am sleeping in the garden. If G.o.d allows that the accounts work out as you and I want them to, I will buy it . . . There is so much s.p.a.ce that you, G.o.d willing, and the whole family can comfortably live in it." As that implied, Amschel regarded his purchase of the garden as dependent on the outcome of the brothers' business activities, which Napoleon's return from Elba just weeks before had thrown into turmoil. He was also torn between his love of open s.p.a.ce and his brother Carl's preference for a large and respectable town house in which visiting dignitaries could be entertained. Fortunately for Amschel, Nathan categorically rejected Carl's arguments as "a lot of nonsense," but accepted the need for a garden for the sake of Amschel's health. By April 1816 part of the garden had been bought and Amschel was bidding to add a further two-thirds of an acre to it. Now when he slept outside-in a garden he could call his own-it was "like paradise." Finally, more than a year after his first night under the stars, he bought the remainder. "From today onwards the garden belongs to me and to my dear brothers," he wrote exultantly. "There is therefore no need to remind you of what you could contribute to make it more beautiful. I would not be in the least surprised if Salomon were to buy all sorts of seeds and plants at the very first opportunity, as this garden will be inherited by the family Rothschild."

As this ill.u.s.trates, Amschel insisted that he had bought the garden for the family as a whole, a sense of collective experiment which his brothers were happy to encourage, sending him the seeds and plants he asked for (including African seeds from Alexander von Humboldt) and agreeing to his plans to enlarge the plot or build greenhouses. Their mother Gutle also made frequent visits there. But there was little doubt that it was really Amschel's garden-a place where he could potter, study and sleep, in peace and in fresh air. Revealingly, he could not help regarding it as a personal indulgence-hence his need to seek his brothers' approval for what were often quite trivial expenditures, and his almost apologetic promises to earn the money back in business. After much agonising about the cost, he added a greenhouse and a winter garden and, during the 1820s, had the house substantially enlarged and improved in the neo-cla.s.sical style by the architect Friedrich Rumpf. Later it acquired a pond, a fountain and even a medieval folly-an early (and rare) Rothschild venture into the romantic genre.

Amschel's garden was the first of many Rothschild gardens; and its story does much to illuminate the family's enduring pa.s.sion for horticulture. Its significance was partly religious: now the Tabernacles feast could be celebrated properly in a tent amid the greenery. But the full meaning of Amschel's pa.s.sion for what was, by later Rothschild standards, a tiny patch of land becomes manifest when his purchase is set in its political context. For, as we shall see, the period after 1814 saw a concerted effort by the re-established Frankfurt authorities once again to remove the civil rights which had been won by the Jewish community from Napoleon's Prince-Primate Dalberg. Under the terms of the old statute governing the position of Jews, not only had the ownership of property outside the Judenga.s.se been forbidden; Jews had even been barred from walking in public gardens. Amschel therefore fretted that the Senate would either prevent his purchase of the garden altogether, or compel him to relinquish it if the purchase went ahead-anxieties which were only exacerbated by the appearance of abusive crowds outside the garden at the time of the "Hep" riots. When he was allowed to keep it, he still suspected "a kind of bribe" to keep him from leaving Frankfurt, or even a sop to avoid more general concessions to the Jewish community as a whole. It became, in short, a symbol of the much bigger question of Jewish emanc.i.p.ation. Something of its significance in this regard can be inferred from a guidebook description from the mid-1830s, which described the garden in semi-satirical terms: The flowers are glittering in gold and the beds are fertilised with crown thalers, the summer houses are well papered with Rothschild bonds . . . A magnificent wealth of foreign flora spreads across the garden and each flower twinkles with ducats from Kremnitz rather than with leaves; golden figures glow from within the buds . . . To my mind, in his garden Amschel von Rothschild resembles a lord in his seraglio.

"Good Jews"

It would, of course, have been a good deal easier for Amschel to have acquired his garden if he and his brothers had converted to Christianity. The fact that they did not is of the greatest significance for the history of both the family and the firm. As Ludwig Borne observed with grudging admiration, they had chosen the surest means of avoiding the ridicule that attaches to so many baronised millionaire families of the Old Testament: they have declined the holy water of Christianity. Baptism is now the order of the day among rich Jews, and the gospel that was preached in vain to the poor of Judaea now flourishes among the wealthy.

The Rothschilds, however, remained resolutely Jewish-a fact which also impressed Disraeli, himself (like Borne) born a Jew. Disraeli's Younger Sidonia in Coningsby Coningsby-a character partly inspired by Lionel-is "as firm in his adherence to the code of the great Legislator as if the trumpet still sounded on Sinai . . . proud of his origin, and confident in the future of his kind." Eva (a character based in part on Carl's daughter Charlotte) declares in Tancred: Tancred: "I will never become a Christian!" "I will never become a Christian!"

Such a defiant repudiation of conversion could well have come from a real Rothschild. "I am a Jew in the depths in my heart," wrote Carl in 1814, commenting on the extent to which Jewish families in Hamburg were converting to Christianity. When he encountered the same thing in Berlin two years later, he was scornful: "I could marry the richest and most beautiful girl in Berlin; but I am not going to marry her for all the world because, here in Berlin, if [one is] not converted [then] one has a converted brother or sister-in-law . . . We have made our fortune as Jews and we want nothing to do with such people . . . I prefer not to mix with the meshumed meshumed [converted] families." The brothers regarded the Bavarian banker Adolph d'Eichthal with considerable suspicion precisely because he was a convert (a mere "goy" would have been less objectionable). As James put it, "It is a bad thing when one has to deal with an apostate." When the Hamburg banker Oppenheim had his children baptised in 1818, the Rothschilds were scandalised. "The only reason I find these people contemptible," Carl sneered, "is that when they convert to Christianity they adopt only what is bad but nothing that is good in it." By converting, Oppenheim had "brought about a revolution in Hamburg": "He is sorry about it. He was weeping when I left . . . after speaking to him about it . . . However, I foresee that Oppenheim's lead will be followed. Well, we are no custodians of others' souls. I will remain what I am, and my children too . . ." [converted] families." The brothers regarded the Bavarian banker Adolph d'Eichthal with considerable suspicion precisely because he was a convert (a mere "goy" would have been less objectionable). As James put it, "It is a bad thing when one has to deal with an apostate." When the Hamburg banker Oppenheim had his children baptised in 1818, the Rothschilds were scandalised. "The only reason I find these people contemptible," Carl sneered, "is that when they convert to Christianity they adopt only what is bad but nothing that is good in it." By converting, Oppenheim had "brought about a revolution in Hamburg": "He is sorry about it. He was weeping when I left . . . after speaking to him about it . . . However, I foresee that Oppenheim's lead will be followed. Well, we are no custodians of others' souls. I will remain what I am, and my children too . . ."

The brothers saw themselves as "role models" in this regard. The more they could achieve socially without converting, the weaker the arguments for conversion would seem, given that the majority of conversions were a response to continuing legal discrimination against Jews. "I am quite ready to believe that we have enough money to last us all our life," wrote James in 1816. "But we are still young and we want to work. And [as] much for the sake of our prestige as Jews as for any other reason." This was the way Amschel saw Nathan's appointment as Austrian consul in London. "Though it may mean nothing to you," he wrote, "it serves the Jewish interest. You will prevent the apostasy of quite a few Vienna Jews." When a newspaper reported that Salomon himself had been baptised, he hastened to publish a denial. When the allegation was repeated in a French encyclopaedia fourteen years later, he insisted it be corrected in all subsequent editions.

However, while their adherence to Judaism was unbending, the brothers were far from uniformly strict in their religious observance. In Frankfurt, Amschel retained his "old-Hebrew customs and habits," invariably eschewing work on the Sabbath, keeping kosher strictly and fasting and feasting on the appropriate holy days. At banquets, noted a contemporary journal, he sat "in true penance, as he never touches any viands or dishes that have not been cleansed or prepared in the Jewish fashion. This strict and unaffected observance of the religious injunctions of his faith is greatly to his honour; he is regarded as the most religious Jew in Frankfurt." By the 1840s he had built a synagogue in his own house. Salomon always ate his own specially prepared kosher food, even when he invited Austrian grandees like the Metternichs to dine with him; and refused to write letters on the Sabbath and holy days.

Their brother Nathan too was mindful of his religious duties. We know that even when he was in Manchester, where the majority of Jews were relatively poor shop-keepers and pedlars, Nathan "conformed to all the rites and ceremonies of our faith, his dinner being cooked by a Jewess and taken to him at his warehouse every day" and the shamas shamas "bringing him the palm branch and citron daily during the Tabernacle festival." "bringing him the palm branch and citron daily during the Tabernacle festival."1 When Prince Puckler tried to engage him in a religious argument, he found Nathan unexpectedly well informed, reflecting afterwards that he and "his co religionists are of older religious n.o.bility than we Christians; they are the true aristocrats in this sphere." Nathan's wife Hannah later subscribed to the Holy Society of the House of Learning of the Ashken.a.z.im in London (Hevrah Kadisha Beit Ha-Midrash Ashken.a.z.im Be-London), a thoroughly Orthodox inst.i.tution, and kept a close watch on her children's religious conduct. When he went up to Cambridge in 1837 Mayer was warned to "avoid everything possible in infringing upon our religious duties," specifically, to "abstain from these indulgencies such as riding on Horseback on Sat.u.r.days" and to refuse to attend chapel services in college; while his brother Nat felt the need to apologise profusely to her for missing the Day of Atonement during a trip to Switzerland four years later. James too always kept a When Prince Puckler tried to engage him in a religious argument, he found Nathan unexpectedly well informed, reflecting afterwards that he and "his co religionists are of older religious n.o.bility than we Christians; they are the true aristocrats in this sphere." Nathan's wife Hannah later subscribed to the Holy Society of the House of Learning of the Ashken.a.z.im in London (Hevrah Kadisha Beit Ha-Midrash Ashken.a.z.im Be-London), a thoroughly Orthodox inst.i.tution, and kept a close watch on her children's religious conduct. When he went up to Cambridge in 1837 Mayer was warned to "avoid everything possible in infringing upon our religious duties," specifically, to "abstain from these indulgencies such as riding on Horseback on Sat.u.r.days" and to refuse to attend chapel services in college; while his brother Nat felt the need to apologise profusely to her for missing the Day of Atonement during a trip to Switzerland four years later. James too always kept a mahzor mahzor (prayer book for the holidays) in his office. When a new baby boy was circ.u.mcised, James "thank[ed] G.o.d . . . we have one more good Jew in the family." (prayer book for the holidays) in his office. When a new baby boy was circ.u.mcised, James "thank[ed] G.o.d . . . we have one more good Jew in the family."

However, the younger brothers were regarded by Amschel as lapsing dangerously in a number of respects. When the need arose, Nathan, Carl and James all read and wrote business letters on the Sabbath-covertly if they happened to be with Amschel. And one by one they abandoned the strict kosher diet (though not completely: the English family still avoided pork). When Carl was trying to find himself a wife in 1814, Amschel and Salomon objected to his choice of Adelheid Herz on the ground that her family did not keep kosher. The issue was the source of constant arguments. "As to piety," wrote Carl in response to yet another complaint on the subject from Amschel, "when I am old I will be pious too. In my heart I am nothing but a Jew. I don't wish to take care of your soul, but you wrote me once that I should find means to enable you to come occasionally to my house to eat there. That [the lack of kosher food] does not mean that I am not pious." In 1814 James complained bitterly from Berlin: "I am really fed up with the food here, I think it is the worst one could possibly have anywhere. [Amschel] is still concerned about eating only kosher food, as he is still pious and he knows that I am not; yet he will insist that I eat with him." Some years later Heine joked that although James had "not gone over to the Christian Church," he had "gone over to Christian cooking." The younger brothers also abandoned all sartorial vestiges of the ghetto.

The religious differences between-and within-branches of the family grew more acute in the next generation. In London, Nathan's elder children continued to worship more or less as their parents had done. Although not deeply spiritual, they were fundamentally conservative in their habits of worship. Indeed, they found their uncle's family in Paris rather too lax. Lionel pointedly refused to work when he was in Paris for Pa.s.sover in 1829, though James continued to write letters as usual. Nat too, despite sharing his uncle's aversion to kosher food,2 found it surprising that during Pa.s.sover "although we go to found it surprising that during Pa.s.sover "although we go to shul shul and eat and eat matzot matzot, in Paris it is impossible to shut up shop." The ascendancy of the Reform movement in Frankfurt (which essentially sought to remodel the rabbinate and Jewish forms of worship along Protestant lines) perturbed them too, accustomed as they were to Amschel's old-fashioned ways. "They have a new Rabbi here who preaches uncommonly well," reported Anthony ambivalently in 1844. "He preached on Friday for the first time, I did not like anything that he said-but perhaps it was the fault of the Reformers here. They go a good deal further than they do in England. I should like to hear a man who could preach as well in England . . . I was very disquieted with the whole service."

The influence of Reform on Carl's daughter Charlotte was strong, judging by the way she later critically compared Jewish practices in England with those of some Christian denominations. Yet when her brother Wilhelm Carl went to the other extreme, outdoing even Amschel in his Orthodoxy, the English Rothschilds were even more disconcerted. His aunt Hannah reported to Lionel on his condition rather as if "his enthusiasm in observing all the stricter duties of the Jewish religion" were a sign of possible mental imbalance: I have seen him twice, he came to his Brother one Evening and remained an hour, and as much as propriety allowed I remarked his manner &c. which is very rational and not in any way different from others of his age and situation, tranquil and civil, plain in his dress[,] not conspicuous either for much attention to it . . . There is nothing in my opinion to fear, that this religious devotion will be followed by fanaticism. I saw him again at Baron A. de Rothschild['s] . . . he accompanied us to look at the same things and took as much interest in all as any of us . . . [H]e said, I am determined to be firm and will always be so. Should he be fortunate to find proper and sensible Instructors, no ill can be antic.i.p.ated from his present good principles.3 When Amschel withdrew a substantial donation (150,000 gulden) intended to finance the building of a new synagogue because "they [the Jewish community's board] have chosen a new [deputy] Rabbi for the synagogue who is not an Orthodox one," Anthony could only shake his head: "You have no idea what a parcel of Donkeys . . . the Jews are here."

To most members of the family, the conflicts between Reformers and Orthodox Jews-which had only a muted echo in England-were an unwelcome nuisance. Internecine theological and liturgical controversies held little interest for them; and any weakening of Jewish unity struck them as self-defeating in a hostile world. Thus Mayer Amschel's sons and grandsons followed his example in accepting lay offices within their communities, but rarely intervened in religious disputes, save to appeal for harmony. Nathan was Parna.s.s Parna.s.s (warden) of the Great Synagogue in Duke Place, and was almost certainly behind a scheme for "an organisation of Jewish charity" to combine the efforts of the three major Ashken.a.z.i synagogues of the metropolis (the Great, the Hambro' and the New)-a move foreshadowing the later emergence of the United Synagogue. For the Rothschilds, religious activism was primarily about giving practical, material a.s.sistance to a stable Jewish community-not defining the community, much less the nature of its faith, which they tended to regard as an immutable given. (warden) of the Great Synagogue in Duke Place, and was almost certainly behind a scheme for "an organisation of Jewish charity" to combine the efforts of the three major Ashken.a.z.i synagogues of the metropolis (the Great, the Hambro' and the New)-a move foreshadowing the later emergence of the United Synagogue. For the Rothschilds, religious activism was primarily about giving practical, material a.s.sistance to a stable Jewish community-not defining the community, much less the nature of its faith, which they tended to regard as an immutable given.

Of course, the relationship between the Rothschilds and the wider, poorer Jewish community has long been the subject of myths and jokes. In the cla.s.sic anecdotes on the subject a stereotyped "Rothschild" is the target for a range of ingenious bids for alms from Schnorrer Schnorrer-those distinctively unabashed scroungers and spongers of the folkloric Jewish community. "Rothschild" is their long-suffering but ultimately indulgent victim, sometimes even entering into the spirit of the game-as when a begging letter thrown through a window onto the dinner table is thrown back with a coin. ("Placiert"-"sold"-mutters Rothschild to himself, as if selling a bond to an investor, when he sees the Schnorrer Schnorrer catch the coin.) catch the coin.)4 Such stories-which continue to be republished in anthologies of Jewish humour today-are not entirely fanciful: they are echoes of the era when the Rothschilds, because of their great wealth and apparent political power, had a mythic, talismanic status in the eyes of other Jews: not only "the Jews of the Kings" but also the "Kings of the Jews"-at once exalted by their wealth, Such stories-which continue to be republished in anthologies of Jewish humour today-are not entirely fanciful: they are echoes of the era when the Rothschilds, because of their great wealth and apparent political power, had a mythic, talismanic status in the eyes of other Jews: not only "the Jews of the Kings" but also the "Kings of the Jews"-at once exalted by their wealth,5 and yet mindful of their own lowly origins. As such, they were the focus of all kinds of aspiration, ranging from the mercenary to the visionary. The Rothschild archives contain numerous unsolicited letters requesting a.s.sistance from Jews and Jewish communities all over the world: the Dublin Hebrew Congregation; the friends of a Jewish doctor in reduced circ.u.mstances; the St Alban's Place Synagogue; the New Hebrew Congregation at Liverpool. These were the real and yet mindful of their own lowly origins. As such, they were the focus of all kinds of aspiration, ranging from the mercenary to the visionary. The Rothschild archives contain numerous unsolicited letters requesting a.s.sistance from Jews and Jewish communities all over the world: the Dublin Hebrew Congregation; the friends of a Jewish doctor in reduced circ.u.mstances; the St Alban's Place Synagogue; the New Hebrew Congregation at Liverpool. These were the real Schnorrer Schnorrer-rarely the c.o.c.ky figures of legend, more often humble supplicants.

Because copies of outgoing correspondence were either not kept or subsequently destroyed at New Court, it is far from easy to tell which of these pleas were heeded, and therefore even harder to detect a pattern in Rothschild charitability. We know that Nathan subscribed to a number of charities for the poor and sick: the Bread, Meat and Coal Society (Meshebat Naphesh); the Jews' Hospital (Neve Zedek) at Mile End, of which he was vice-president and later president; the Holy Society for the a.s.sistance of the Poor for the Needs of the Sabbath in London; the charitable fund of the Great Synagogue, and the Bethnal Green Society for the Relief of the Sick Poor. He also became a Governor of the London Hospital, which had a tradition of providing for Jewish patients, in 1826. But education seems to have been his main charitable interest. He subscribed to the Talmud Torah in London Society in 1820 and a year later donated 1,000 guilders to a society for the education of poor Dutch Jews. In particular, he supported the Jews' Free School, donating 10 guineas to the building fund in 1817 and helping to pay for the new schoolhouse in Bell Lane, Spitalfields. The school was "a charity he took so decided an interest in" that his widow made a further substantial donation to mark the third anniversary of his death. It has been calculated that the firm of N. M. Rothschild & Sons gave the school an average of 9,500 a year throughout the nineteenth century, a figure which is more than doubled when individual family members' benefactions are added.

In all this, Nathan may have been consciously following his father's example; but he was also falling in with the priorities of his Cohen and Montefiore relations. It was one of his sisters-in-law who made him "promise . . . to give to the poor" in 1814; and it was probably his brother-in-law Joseph Cohen who involved him in the Jews' Free School, of which Hannah herself became a Life Governor in 1821. When Lionel became a trustee of the Bread, Meat and Coal Society, the board was already dominated by Cohens; indeed, his mother was later described as "a zealous advocate of its prosperity & a munificent Contributor to its funds"-not surprisingly, as her father had been one of its founders. Another of Hannah's pet charities was the Jewish Lying-in Charity. By the later 1830s her sons were actively involved in the Jews' Hospital, of which Lionel was president and Mayer later steward, and the Jews' Free School. At the same time, they continued to disburse small amounts to societies like the (Jewish) Society for Relieving the Aged Needy and, through the Great Synagogue, to unfortunate individuals like a mother whose child had a club-foot.

In Frankfurt, Mayer Amschel's legacy still made itself felt. Like his father, Amschel routinely gave 10 per cent of the Frankfurt house's running costs (not its income) to the poor. And in 1825 Amschel and his brothers donated 100,000 gulden to the two Jewish insurance funds in Frankfurt to build a new hospital for the community in the Reichneigrabenstra.s.se, "in accordance with the wishes of their late father . . . [and] as a memorial to filial respect and fraternal harmony." Curiously, James preferred to keep a much lower profile within the Paris Jewish community, channelling his contributions indirectly through Salomon Alkan, president of Societe de Secours, and Albert Cohn, his sons' tutor (and later a leading light of French Jewry). In 1836 he even stipulated that his donations to the new synagogue in the rue Notre-Dame-de-Nazareth should be kept secret.

At least one contemporary cartoonist suggested that, having made their millions, the Rothschilds were indifferent to the plight of their "poorer co-religionists" (a favourite phrase). In A King bestowing favors on a Great Man's Friends A King bestowing favors on a Great Man's Friends (1824) (ill.u.s.tration 6.i), a group of ragged Jews-labelled "The Old Stock Reduced"-can be seen to the right of Nathan as he prepares to ascend in a balloon "to receive my Dividends." One exclaims: "The Lord will surely hear the (1824) (ill.u.s.tration 6.i), a group of ragged Jews-labelled "The Old Stock Reduced"-can be seen to the right of Nathan as he prepares to ascend in a balloon "to receive my Dividends." One exclaims: "The Lord will surely hear the Cries Cries of the of the poor poor." Another pleads, "O! Look down from heaven and behold that we are become a mockery and derision to be buffeted and reproached." A third cries: "O Lord, have mercy on us for we are overwhelmed with contempt; overwhelmed is [sic] our Souls with the Scorn of those who are at ease and with the contempt of the proud." This accusation was unfounded.

Yet it is important to stress that the Rothschilds did not confine their charitable activities exclusively to the Jewish community. At times of economic hardship-1814 in Germany, 1830 in France, 1842 in Hamburg, 1846 in Ireland-they donated money to the poor without religious distinction. Nathan contributed to a number of apparently non-denominational establishments, including the Society of Friends of Foreigners in Distress (though it is likely that some of the "foreigners" in question were poor Jewish immigrants). His children also lent their support to the London Orphan Asylum, the London Philanthropic Society and the Buckinghamshire General Infirmary. Especially unexpected is the fact that in 1837 either Hannah or Charlotte-more probably the latter-was "one of the most liberal contributors" to a new Church of England school at Ealing and Old Brentford. It was not only Jews who applied for a.s.sistance to the Rothschilds: the Schnorrer Schnorrer even included the early socialist Robert Owen and a congregation of the secessionist Scottish Free Church! even included the early socialist Robert Owen and a congregation of the secessionist Scottish Free Church!

6.i: T. Jones, A King A King bestowing favors on a bestowing favors on a Great Man's Friends-Scene near the Great Man's Friends-Scene near the Bank Bank (1824). (1824).

"A Heavenly Good Deed": Emanc.i.p.ation.

Although their wealth and influence allowed them to achieve what was in many respects a privileged social status, the Rothschilds never lost sight of the fact that they and their co-religionists remained subject to a wide range of discriminatory laws and regulations after 1815. They remembered Mayer Amschel's injunctions to "bring