THE ‘ROMAN CATHOLIC QUESTION’ IN THE ANGLO-JEWISH PRESS, 1890-1925

Anglo-Jewish reactions to late 19th and early 20th century Catholic discourses about Jews have received little attention. This article partially fills this gap through an examination of Anglo-Jewish newspapers from 1890 to 1925, a timeframe which includes the Dreyfus Affair, the Hilsner blood libel and the ratification of the British Mandate in Palestine. Three different newspaper editorships have been examined, the Jewish Chronicle edited by Asher Myers, the Jewish Chronicle and Jewish World under the control of Leopold Greenberg, and the Jewish Guardian as the paper of the League of British Jews. It is this article's contention that a more aggressive reaction to Catholic hostility is notable in the Jewish Chronicle and Jewish World when they were controlled by Leopold Greenberg, a political Zionist, than the Jewish Chronicle under Asher Myers or the Jewish Guardian. The Jewish Guardian was unconcerned about Catholic hostility to Zionism though it was occasionally alarmed by generalised anti-Jewish threads that were woven into it. It was also critical of English Catholic writers who argued that Jews could never be proper Englishmen, but whereas Greenberg relished the opportunity to 'hit back' on his own, the Jewish Guardian preferred if possible to allow Christians to defend Jews.

The newspaper under the temporary working editorship of Morris Duparc, from the death of Myers in May 1902 until the change in ownership in 1906, has not been examined in this article. 6 Broadly speaking there were two main varieties of English Zionism. 'Political Zionists' adopted a top-down approach, campaigning for political and legal guarantees for a Jewish Nation State from the main superpowers, believing that the value of colonisation efforts without a solid underlying legal charter was minimal. 'Practical Zionists' adopted a bottom-up approach, supporting and advocating a gradual increase of Jewish colonies in Palestine through Aliyah, accepting that the formal national question could be deferred until there were more Jews living in Palestine. a troublesome hegemony. His willingness, perhaps even eagerness, to criticise communal leaders did little to alleviate such concerns. The second section of this article examines the newspapers under Greenberg, with the primary focus being the Jewish Chronicle, but supplemented with some examples from the Jewish World.
The Jewish Guardian did not have the same success as the Jewish Chronicle in establishing itself as part of the fabric of the Anglo-Jewish community. Whilst for a time it was the Jewish Chronicle's most important and vehement rival, it had a comparatively short lifespan, springing into existence in 1919 and passing away in August 1931. It was produced by the League of British Jews as its principle forum for articulating a Jewish anti-Zionist message specifically to rival that articulated in the newspapers of Leopold Greenberg. 7 Its editor, Laurie Magnus, was a prominent anti-Zionist and member of the League. It was probably coincidental that the paper was wrapped up during the final few months of Greenberg's life, when according to Cesarani a number of medical complaints 'virtually removed him from the affairs of the paper', 8 but certainly the paper's original raison d'être was coming to a natural end. One of the primary financial supporters and contributors to the Jewish Guardian was Claude Montefiore, a co-founder of English Liberal Judaism. 9 Unlike the Jewish World, 10 the Jewish Guardian explicitly avoided making a judgement on the relative authenticity of orthodox, liberal and reform Jewish identities. What concerned the owners of the Jewish Guardian were not religious identity distinctions but the idea 7 According to the minutes of a League of British Jews meeting, Lucien Wolf persuaded the executive of the League to establish the Jewish Guardian as a rival to Leopold Greenberg's pro-Zionist Anglo-Jewish newspapers, the Jewish Chronicle and Jewish World. Minutes of meeting of the literary subcommittee of the League, 18 March 1918, DEPS, League of British Jews, E3/208(1), cited by Stuart A. Cohen, English Zionists and British Jews: The Communal Politics of Anglo-Jewry, 1895(Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1982, 308-9. 8 David Cesarani, The Jewish Chronicle and Anglo-Jewry, 1841-1991(Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1994, 140. 9 Daniel R. Langton, Claude Montefiore: His Life and Thought (London: Vallentine Mitchell, 2002), 14,103. 10 Greenberg viewed '"Liberal" Judaism' with antipathy and according to Cecil Roth, invariably placed the "Liberal" between inverted commas as a sarcastic snipe. Cecil Roth, The Jewish Chronicle 1841-1941(London: The Jewish Chronicle, 1949, 130. In the Jewish World he argued that '"Liberal" Judaism' was too far removed from religious Orthodoxy and national and racial affinity for adherence to it to provide a legitimate 'religious' basis for determining Jewish identity. He suggested in fact that Liberal Judaism demonstrated an opting out of the rigorous commitment required by Judaism. 'Are "Liberal" Jews, Jews? ', The Jewish World, 7 January 1920, 3-4;14 January 1920, 3-4;21 January 1920, 4. that Jewish nationalism could serve as the basis for Jewish identity. 11 The third section of this article examines the Jewish Guardian from 1919 to 1925.
A correlation between the anti-or pro-Zionism of the Jewish newspapers and their attitudes towards Catholic discourse is revealed by this study. A more aggressive reaction to Catholic hostility is notable in the Jewish Chronicle and Jewish World when they were controlled by Leopold Greenberg than the Jewish Chronicle under Myers or the Jewish Guardian, though conversely a more friendly tone was detected when it was thought that Vatican support for Zionism could be elicited. The Jewish Guardian was relatively unconcerned about Catholic hostility to Zionism though it was occasionally alarmed by generalised anti-Jewish threads that were woven into it.
It was however very critical of those English Catholic writers who argued that Jews could never be proper Englishmen.

The Jewish Chronicle under Israel Davis and Asher Myers
During the 1890s the Jewish Chronicle under Davis and Myers reported a number of incidents of Catholics demonstrating a friendly attitude towards Jews. Many of these depictions of Catholic amiability were of a minor nature compared with the occasional incidents of Catholic hostility reported by the paper. One of the main vehicles for these amiable reports was the section entitled the 'Colonial and Foreign News'. This usually consisted of terse news fragments. The Austria-Hungary section of the foreign news was particularly notable for its reporting of minor incidents of Catholic amiability. The following are some examples: A counterblast to anti-Semitism has appeared in Vienna in the form of a pamphlet written by a learned Roman Catholic. The pamphlet discusses two questions: 'Dare a true Catholic be an anti-Semite?' and 'Is not hatred of the Jews a grievous sin?' 12 11 The Jewish Guardian stated that 'we do not distinguish in this sense between orthodox, liberal, or Reform Jews. Zionism without Judaism, we assert, makes no appeal to believing Jews.' 'What is a Jew?', The Jewish Guardian, 29 October 1920, 10. It later argued that 'to the Jewish Guardian, all Judaism is Jewish' and suggested that the 'exponents of Liberal tenets', such as Claude Montefiore, should be accepted by their 'Orthodox brethren'. 'Mr. Montefiore in the "Hibbert."', The Jewish Guardian, 26 May 1922, 1. 12 'Foreign andColonial News: Austria-Hungary', The Jewish Chronicle, 26 December 1890, 11. A Catholic priest, the Rev. Kornel Fabian, has performed a kindly act at Fülek-Püspüki (Hungary). The son of a poor Jew died there, and when the good priest was made acquainted with the poverty of the family, he paid the funeral expenses out of his own pocket. He also visited the house of mourning, where he addressed words of solace to the bereaved father. Another priest at Kunetitz has for several years past supported a destitute aged Jew. 13 A Catholic priest has given 200 crowns towards the building expenses of a synagogue at Janoschida. 14 Dr. Luigi de Pavissia, Catholic priest at Goritz, 15 has written a memoir, which he has published as a pamphlet, of the late Dr. Angelo Levi, who died there recently, and was highly esteemed for his humanitarianism and philanthropy. The author declares that he, as a Catholic priest, has done no wrong in thus honouring a Jew, who prayed to the same God as he. 16 These examples of Catholic amiability are representative of a number of reports for the 1890s found in the Austria-Hungary section of the 'Colonial and Foreign News'.
The paper also reported Vatican support of the Christian Social Party in Austria, a political movement with hostile anti-Jewish inclinations led by Karl Lueger, a Catholic politician who became mayor of Vienna in 1897. 17 This however did little to diminish its reporting of Catholic amiability in the Austria-Hungary section of the foreign news during the final years of the 19th century. It is possible that the Jewish Chronicle was operating under the premise that anti-Jewish hostility, particularly that 13 'Colonial and Foreign News: Austria-Hungary', The Jewish Chronicle, 10 April 1896, 15. 14 'Colonial and Foreign News: Austria-Hungary', The Jewish Chronicle, 25 November 1898, 26. 15 I am grateful to one of the anonymous readers for pointing out that 'Goritz' must refer to Gorizia, a town which was part of Austria-Hungary. This is supported by a note in an earlier issue of the Jewish Chronicle which stated that Dr. Angelo Levi died two years previously in Gorizia. Israel Abrahams, 'Books and Bookmen', The Jewish Chronicle, 5 May 1899, 20. towards Jews. 21 The Jewish Chronicle did devote considerable space to regularly reporting the affair from this point onwards. It also became more critical about Catholic agitators in France. However, whilst the paper started reporting the events of the Dreyfus Affair in great detail, and argued repeatedly that Dreyfus was innocent, it seemed to engage with the drama with at least some reluctance. As Cesarani observed, the paper reported the demands for a retrial but not 'without misgivings.' 22 It was, the paper concluded, better to avoid a specifically Jewish engagement with the agitation and to leave protests to the 'magnificent stand of Gentiles'. 23 Whilst the paper frequently criticised the role of Catholics in the Affair, it also often found a way to soften its reporting of Catholic participation, either by demonstrating exceptions or by suggesting that specific sections were chiefly responsible rather than the Church as a whole. For example, in February 1899, the Jewish Chronicle welcomed 'the return to sanity of certain members of the dominant faith,' praising the founding in France of a Catholic committee, 24 which did not side against Dreyfus. 25 The Jewish Chronicle suggested that Jesuits rather than Catholics per se were largely responsible for the agitations. 26 The paper also depicted British Catholics as a consistent exception to Catholic hostility towards Jews. For example, the paper stated that Catholic hostility in France 'finds no parallel in England' 27 and reproduced extracts from letters by the Archbishop of Glasgow and several Bishops of England to demonstrate that British Catholics opposed the persecution of Jews. 28 However, whilst these Church officials agreed that hostility towards Jews was 'foreign to the Catholic Church,' none of the cited extracts actually contained an acknowledgement that hostility towards Jews in France had any Catholic component. There was also a tone of equivocation in some of the extracts which the Jewish Chronicle did not highlight. these days of enlightenment, the Vatican, true to its ancient traditions and precedents, will certainly not be less just than it was in the Middle Ages, and that history may again record a Papal pronouncement, urbi et orbi, acquitting our people of the odious crime imputed to them. 34 31 For example, in February 1898, The Tablet reported that 'we shall not, we trust, be accused of palliating or condoning the excesses of anti-Semitism, by pointing out that the Jews, in France, Italy, and Austria, the three principal Catholic nations of the continent, exercise a political influence entirely disproportioned to their numbers, and that this influence is always exercised against the religion of the country. In close alliance with the Freemasons … they form the backbone of the party of aggressive liberalism, with war to the knife against the Church as the sum and aim of its policy.' 'Captain Dreyfus and His Champions', The Tablet, 12 February 1898, 238. 32 The Tablet stated that 'some words of La Croix which are less unreasonable than the quotations which have been going the round of the English press may be quoted, not as condoning its faults but in the spirit of giving it its due. Occupying itself with General de Galliffet's Report and the decree of pardon, the Croix says: "The motives which have determined the signature of the decree of pardon are at last known to us. They affirm the guilt of Dreyfus. They at the same time show the President's desire to suppress the internal strife which is ravaging France.… The Dreyfus affair was a source of division and suffering. Let it be closed and let silence follow the vicious agitation which has been aroused amongst us by our worst enemies, the Freemasons and foreign Jews."' The Tablet suggested that these words of La Croix 'may serve as a set-off to the delirious and savage utterance which have appeared in Despite certain popes proclaiming Jews innocent of the blood libel, it seems anachronistic to look back to the Middle Ages to locate a timeframe in which, according to the Jewish Chronicle, 'the Holy See vindicated its claim to be regarded as the representative of Right and Justice'. 35 However, more notable than this lapse into anachronism was the Jewish Chronicle's willingness to overlook the darker elements found within the article in The Tablet. The article in The Tablet did lament what it called the 'unchristian hatred' of the blood libels. Nevertheless, whilst ostensibly defending Jews from the accusation, the same article had no problem with what it called 'a political or economic conflict, which in particular countries or districts may be justifiable enough'. It clarified that no one can complain if in this or that country Jewish attempts to squeeze Christians out of a particular industry are met by organized resistance, or if strenuous opposition is offered to an attempt in whatever country, to obtain exclusive control of the Press or the money market. If in parts of France or Austria or Russia the Jews so conduct themselves as to invite economical or political reprisals they have only themselves to blame. 36 The Tablet thus rejected a particularly unsavoury form of medieval hostility, the blood libel, whilst endorsing social, political and economic conspiracy themes. The article also argued that a refutation of the ritual murder charge in most cases is not inconsistent with 'the admission that in a few individual cases Christian children may have been murdered by Jews, and even murdered in odium fidei, i.e., because they were Christians'. The article in The Tablet suggested that the occasional murder of Related to the strategy of highlighting positive incidents and mitigating or omitting darker attitudes expressed by Catholics was a willingness to accept on behalf of Jews some responsibility for causing hostility. For example, after the conclusion of the Dreyfus retrial, the Jewish Chronicle expressed hope that if this sort of religious strife reoccurs, 'French Jews then, will, we hope, not repeat the error of countenancing, in even a remote way, an anti-clerical agitation in France.' 40 The suggestion that Jews were in some way responsible for stirring up the hostility is disturbingly reminiscent of accusations found in Catholic newspapers such as The Tablet and The Month. 41

The Jewish Chronicle under Leopold Greenberg
Under Greenberg the Jewish Chronicle responded, often in a confrontational way, to a range of incidents that were interpreted as Catholic hostility. One reoccurring theme was the abduction of Jewish children to Catholic monasteries. Such abductions were, as the paper observed, nothing new. As the paper reminded its readers in 1908, fifty years previously the infamous Mortara Affair had seen a young Jewish boy secretly baptised and forcibly removed from his parents by the Church in Rome. 42 However, the article. He stated that 'Judaism as a system can certainly not be held responsible for these outrages. None the less, it is very difficult to waive away the evidence of some Jewish complicity in such murders by declaring them all to be the fabrication of popular prejudice.' Thurston went on to suggest that a belief in sorcery was common in the Middle Ages and 'was practised amongst the Jews' even more than among Christians. He concluded that some Jewish sorcerers may have 'combined this very evil magic with their religious beliefs' leading in some isolated cases to human blood being taken from innocent victims. as the paper reported, similar events still occurred in the early twentieth century. In 1908, a series of reports referred to two cases in which Jewish parents had been unable to recover abducted children from a Roman Catholic Monastery in Warsaw, Poland. 43 The following year the paper reported that 'another Jewish girl, aged fifteen, has been abducted by a Catholic priest at Warsaw' and 'all efforts to recover the victim from his hands have so far proved fruitless'. 44 In 1913, the paper reported that in Grodno, 'two hundred Jewish girls under age have been abducted to a Catholic monastery.' 45 Another reoccurring narrative that Greenberg responded to was the  , 7 February 1908, 9;'Russia', The Jewish Chronicle, 14 February 1908, 9;'Russia', The Jewish Chronicle, 20 March 1908, 11. 44  Bourne's letter stated that the Zionists claimed 'that they had obtained the approval of the Holy City and thereby gained the support of some Catholic bishops in the United States and in England. There is no foundation for this claim. The whole movement appears to be quite contrary to Christian sentiment and tradition. Let Jews live here by all means if they like and enjoy the same liberties as other people; but that they should ever again dominate and rule the country would be an outrage to Christianity and its Divine Founder. It would mean, moreover, most certainly, the controlling influence of Jewish, which is German, finance'. 'Letter from Cardinal Bourne', 25 January 1919, cited in Doreen Ingrams, Palestine Papers, 1917: Seeds of Conflict (London: John Murray, 1972, 59-61. 54 The text of this consistorial allocution can be found in Minerbi,The Vatican and Zionism,131. Catholic newspapers and in response to these incidents the Jewish Chronicle began to re-adopt a combative attitude towards Catholicism.
In August 1918 the paper addressed the anti-Jewish agitations of G.K. Chesterton.
The paper bitterly criticised Chesterton for his suggestion that the Anglo-Jewish community could not be loyal citizens of England. 55 Whilst Chesterton was still technically an Anglo-Catholic until he entered the Roman communion in July 1922, his sympathies and worldview leaned sufficiently towards Rome for Leopold Greenberg to already consider and address him, with at least some justification, 56 as a Roman Catholic. Responding to Chesterton's criticism that Jews could not be loyal citizens of England, Greenberg concluded that these attacks upon our people have, almost without exception, emanated from one section of the population -the section that holds allegiance to the Roman Catholic Church. The foremost anti-Semites in this country, as in many another land, are those who religiously look to Rome. 57 In 1920, still two years before his formal conversion, the Jewish World argued that Bourne's suggestion that Zionism was 'tainted with Bolshevism' is the 'sort of thing he can leave with advantage to the more disreputable anti-Semites among his communion -men like the Chestertons and the Bellocs.' 58 This was, it may be noted, neither the first nor the last time that Greenberg employed the Jewish Chronicle and the Jewish World to respond to and criticise Chesterton. 59 55 Leopold Greenberg, 'In the Communal Armchair: Hit Back! Hit Back! Hit Back!', The Jewish Chronicle, 11 October 1918, 7. 56 Chesterton frequently used Catholics as literary paragons for good Christians. Father Brown was his most popular protagonist appearing in at least fifty short stories from 1910 onwards. One of the two protagonists in The Ball and the Cross (1910) was a staunch Catholic and it is clear throughout the novel that he was the narrator's favoured champion. In November 1911, Chesterton gave a talk to 'The Heretics', a student society at Cambridge University, in reply to a lecture by George Bernard Shaw on 'The Future of Religion'. Chesterton stated that 'he was more than ever inclined to think, though he had not yet admit it, that possibly the claims of the Greek and Anglican Churches were less near the truth than the Roman Catholic Church. ' The Cambridge Daily News, 18 November 1911, 4. When he nearly died in 1915 it was Father John O'Connor, a Roman Catholic priest who he summoned to his deathbed and according to O'Connor, Chesterton had told him during the spring of 1912 that 'he had made up his mind to be received into the Church and was only waiting for Frances to come with him. ' John O'Connor, Father Brown on Chesterton (London: Frederick Muller, 1937), 85, 94-5. 57 Greenberg, 'Hit Back! Hit Back! Hit Back!', The Jewish Chronicle, 11 October 1918, 7. 58  The anxiety of the Vatican in case Jews are allowed to establish for themselves a National Home in Palestine is significant. It is probably accountable for most of the opposition outside Jewry which Zionism has encountered. The fears of Rome are naturally based upon anti-Jewish prejudice of the religious sort, but the pleas that are made by the Papacy that it is anxious to prevent persecution by Jews has its comical aspect when we come to think of its own accord. 64 Chesterton's Antisemitism', 76. The Jewish World also frequently criticised G.K. Chesterton. A long running series of articles from 23 June 1920 through to 22 September 1920 criticised Chesterton for suggesting that the Anglo-Jewish newspapers published the honour rolls of German-Jewish soldiers killed in the war, with the added twist being that Chesterton regarded this as by no means unreasonable of Anglo-Jews considering that Jewry constituted a single separate nation. 60 'Palestine for the Maltese', The Jewish Chronicle, 28 February 1919, 7. 61 'Roman Catholics and Jerusalem', The Jewish Chronicle, 22 August 1919, 16. 62 'Italy and Palestine', The Jewish Chronicle, 31 October 1919, 29. 63 'Anti-Zionist Agitation in Italy', The Jewish Chronicle, 13 February 1925, 16. 64 'Sir Herbert and the Pope', The Jewish World, 30 June 1920 In 1920 and 1921, the paper reported that Cardinal Bourne had again attacked Zionism and the idea of the Holy Places being controlled by Jews rather than Christians. 65 Following comments in an Italian newspaper, Il Secolo, attributed to an unnamed senior cardinal in the Vatican, the Jewish Chronicle angrily concluded that 'the outburst against Zionism by Cardinal Bourne to which we alluded last week, was clearly not any personal opinion but was an exposition of policy dictated from a higher quarter.' It stated that it was now placing on record this evidence of the attitude of Roman Catholicism towards Judaism, so that Jews may know the extent to which these traditional enemies of our people remain hostile to us. Truly Roman Catholicism is a very Bourbon institution -it forgets nothing and it learns nothing. 66 The Jewish World also noted Bourne's hostility towards Zionism and concluded that the real reason for his hostility towards 'Jewish nationalism' is that 'the Movement means the salvation of Judaism, a securing of its maintenance and a strengthening of Invoking the Augustinian idea of an eternal witness people to explain the Vatican's hostility, the Jewish Chronicle suggested a religious explanation, that the Catholic Church must still believe that Jews must be kept, still the wandering and despised of Humanity, the rejected of men, a people torn into segments and prevented from becoming a national entity, so that the doctrine of the Catholic Church shall be proved in the everlasting curse to be marked in the Jew for his alleged doing to death of Jesus and the actual rejection by Jews of his doctrines. 74 When the Mandate finally passed in July 1922 with an accompanying White Paper which allowed for only a small Jewish community and restrictive immigration, Greenberg was, to say the least, unimpressed. He considered the White Paper a betrayal by the British Government and blamed the Vatican for its interference and its 'bitter and historic dislike of Jews' and grieved that the day had not yet been reached when the world would cease to sympathise with the Church's 'dark recidivism' and 'its suspicion and its ill will towards our people.' 75

The Jewish Guardian
The Jewish Guardian regularly reported incidents of antisemitism at home and abroad.
However, the Jewish Guardian's response to incidents of Catholic hostility towards Jews was notably infrequent and mild compared to the Jewish Chronicle. Considering the Jewish Guardian's own hostility towards Zionism, it is not entirely surprising that it did not respond with the same zeal to what the Jewish Chronicle perceived as 'Vatican interference' in Palestine. When the Jewish Guardian did find reason to criticise Catholics, it was conspicuously focused on individuals such as Hilaire Belloc and G.K. Chesterton who attacked the idea that Jews could be Englishmen.
Chesterton's The New Jerusalem, published in 1920, argued that Jews could never be Englishmen. Chesterton suggested that Zionism was a good idea and that Jews who choose to remain in England rather than travel to Palestine should be legally obliged 74 'The Papacy andZionism', The Jewish Chronicle, 16 June 1922, 7. 75 'The Mandate Confirmed', The Jewish Chronicle, 28 July 1922, 7. to go about swathed in the robes of an Arab. 76 The Jewish Guardian responded by stating that Chesterton had 'contrived for once to write a really stupid book.' The paper suggested that Chesterton would probably 'account it a sign of inherited financial preoccupation if one poor Jewish bookman remarks that 12s. 6d is a high price to exact for 300 empty pages'. 77 Neither the Jewish World nor the Jewish Chronicle deigned to take The New Jerusalem sufficiently seriously to bother examining it, which Rapp interpreted as evidence that Greenberg was unimpressed by his supposed support for Zionism. 78  Zangwill that whilst there is a Jewish problem, it 'does not concern Mr. Belloc' who should 'mind his own business.' 81 After he published The Jews, the paper addressed itself to his book on numerous occasions. Rather than criticise directly, the Jewish Guardian preferred to criticise indirectly by reproducing extracts from other periodicals. These quoted responses were for the most part by gentiles. 82 For example, on 12 April 1922, the paper reproduced a lengthy review of Belloc's book taken from a periodical called The Referee. This argued that Jews become good Englishmen even when born in foreign countries and that they often become better English citizens than Frenchmen like Belloc. 83  The Jewish Chronicle and Jewish World, like the Jewish Guardian, also quoted liberally from Dean Inge's refutation. 87 However, Greenberg viewed the use of Inge's article as the basis of an organised Jewish response with passionate antipathy. He believed that Jews should learn to defend themselves rather hiding behind the shields of gentiles. The Jewish Chronicle asked why 'must Jews always rush to shelter themselves behind any amiable words that happen to be said of them by a non-Jew?' Furthermore, the paper reasoned that 'if the Committee came to the conclusion that it was advisable -even thus belatedly -to counter in the manner they determined Mr.
Belloc's book, they could have found some Jew who could have written an effectual pamphlet for the purpose.' 88 The Jewish Guardian conversely argued that it was 83 'The Referee' on Mr. Belloc', The Jewish Guardian, 12 April 1922, 7. 84  On the run up to the ratification of the British Mandate, as the Vatican and Catholic newspapers became more aggressive in their opposition to Zionism, the Jewish Guardian did adopt a slightly more critical posture. The anti-Zionism was not the cause of its concern so much as the anti-Jewish hostility which was woven into much of it. In April 1922, Monsignor Barlassina, the 'Latin Patriarch of Jerusalem,' 92 claimed in a lecture delivered in Rome that the Zionist immigrants had flooded the Holy City with 'five hundred prostitutes.' Even worse, the Latin Patriarch suggested, was the fact that 'several of the new colonies live by the principles of pure communism.' He also accused Herbert Samuel of handing over all 'the interests of ask why Jews do not look after their own concerns. And if the question has to be asked too often, we shall not be listened to when we do pluck up courage to speak, for we shall be regarded merely as a body of poltroons, of whom no serious notice need be taken. ' 'Dumb Dogs', The Jewish Chronicle, 11 July 1913, 11-12. 89 'Dean Inge's Reprint', The Jewish Guardian, 30 June 1922, 3. 90 'Anti-Jewish Conspiracy', The Jewish Guardian, 19 March 1920, 3. 91 Claude Montefiore, 'The Late Baron V. Hügel', The Jewish Guardian, 6 February 1925, 9. 92 The and suggested that what was now needed to calm the situation was a 'more conciliatory attitude on the part of the extreme section of Jewish "nationalists."' 98

Conclusion
The predominant narratives involving Catholics in the Anglo-Jewish press did not represent a deep engagement on a cultural or religious level but were rather reactions to Catholic attitudes and actions towards Jews. This paper has examined these reactions by looking at three different newspaper-editorship combinations: the Jewish Chronicle under the anti-Zionist management of Davis and Myers, the Jewish Chronicle (and Jewish World) under the Zionist control of Leopold Greenberg, and the Jewish Guardian under the League of British Jews. A correlation between the anti-or pro-Zionism of the editors and the tone of each paper's discourse about Catholics is notable. Under the anti-Zionist management of Davis and Myers, the Jewish Chronicle was more concerned about maintaining the image of English Jews as loyal well assimilated Englishmen who do not rock the boat. With some notable exceptions, the paper thus tended to discourage collective Jewish engagement with antisemitism. It often advised Jews to lay low and avoid confrontation, to leave protests to gentiles, and it sometimes blamed Jews for being the cause of anti-Jewish hostility. It did report major incidents of Catholic hostility such as occurred during the Dreyfus Affair but often with some reluctance. While it did report Catholic agitations against Jews, it often attributed them to the intrigues of Jesuits. Perhaps in order to maintain an amicable relationship with English Catholics the paper also tended to over interpret the support of English Catholic newspapers during these agitations.
From December 1906 onwards the paper became much more confrontational. This was not so much a reflection of changing attitudes within Anglo-Jewry but rather the personality and ideological inclinations of the new man at the helm of the paper.
Greenberg was neither worried about rocking the boat nor overly motivated by a desire to shape Jews into an Anglican mould. He seemed to relish the idea of a fight and often employed a biting and sarcastic tone against those he was confronting. He introduced a much more confrontational approach towards Catholic hostility than the previous management of the paper. At times the paper could present a friendly attitude towards Catholics and the Vatican, especially when it was believed that the Church might support Zionism. However, the paper's aggression towards the Catholic Church turned acerbic after the failed attempts to ratify an acceptable British Mandate in Palestine. Greenberg considered the terms of the Mandate a betrayal by the British Government and blamed the Vatican for creating much of the anti-Zionist hostility.
The Jewish Guardian conversely did not share Leopold Greenberg's anxieties about Catholic anti-Zionism. Whilst it was unconcerned about anti-Zionism per se, and largely blamed what it labelled 'extreme Zionism' for creating much of the existing anti-Jewish hostility, it could not ignore the antisemitic caricatures that were often woven tightly into some of the Catholic criticisms of Zionism. Furthermore, like the Jewish Chronicle and Jewish World, the Jewish Guardian could be very critical of