IN my last Lecture I brought down the history of the Jews in this
country, to the year 1233, the seventeenth of the reign of Henry the
Third. You have heard, that as soon as the government of the country was
taken out of the hands of Hubert de Burgh, the Jews began to experience
very great persecutions and grievous exactions from the king, the most
acquisitive of all English monarchs.¹ They had indeed acquired great
wealth during the administrations of the Earl of Pembroke and Hubert de
Burgh; but they could as much enjoy that wealth as King Damocles the
celebrated banquet. They beheld amid their enormous affluence the sword
which was suspended over their heads by a single hair.
¹ A. Strickland.
All sorts of ridiculous and base calumnies began to be invented against
them, in order to furnish a warrant for inflicting upon them fines,
extortions, imprisonment, banishments, and other unheard of cruelties.
My Lecture this evening commences, as you perceive, by the syllabus in
your hands, with the sufferings of the Jews of Norwich――sufferings which
owe their existence to the venomous calumnies invented by Christians
in order to possess themselves of their Jewish neighbour’s wealth.
In the year 1235, a year when Henry was greatly in need of money, in
consequence of his great outlay on his sister Isabella’s marriage to
the emperor of Germany, as well as his own contemplated marriage with
Eleanor of Provence: poor Count Berenger having positively declined
giving the twenty thousand marks which the mean Henry asked as a dowry,
Henry must, therefore, have been very glad of getting an opportunity, be
it ever so foul, of extorting the required sum from the poor Jews. The
Jews of Norwich were at that time enormously rich. Seven of them were
therefore accused of circumcising a Christian child of that city, and
they were brought before the king himself, whilst he was celebrating his
nativity at Westminster. The poor Jews were condemned to be drawn and
hanged, and, of course, their property confiscated, and thus were the
king’s wants supplied for that time.
You next perceive in the syllabus, briefly noticed, the famous trial
of Jacob of Norwich. The syllabus, however, can give you no idea of
the nature of that _in_famous process, or of the absurd charge which
originated that trial.
In the year 1240, the afore-mentioned rich Jew was accused of stealing
a boy from his parents, and circumcising him. The monkish historians
tell us, that it proved a case of such difficulty, that the _postea_
was thought proper to be returned to parliament.
Parliament could not decide. Indeed, the strangeness of the accusation
would have puzzled any body of men to decide. Four years were allowed
to elapse before the charge was brought, and the principal witness
was a little boy, of about nine years of age, who stated that when he
was about five years old he was playing in a certain street; the Jews
allured him into the house of one Jacob, where they kept him a day
and a night, and then blindfolded him and circumcised him. Yet strange
to say, with his eyes blinded, and amidst the confusion of so painful
an operation, the youthful boy was able to notice several minute
particulars, which he narrated, but which certainly never had any
existence, inasmuch as the particulars he related to have taken place
after the circumcision, have no connexion with that rite.
In addition to the boy’s unlikely story, there were no symptoms whatever
that witness ever underwent such an operation. Under such circumstances,
and with such unsatisfactory evidence, the poor Jews would, doubtless,
have been honourably acquitted. But as this calumny originated, in all
probability, with the ecclesiastics, they could not brook disappointment;
and contrived, therefore, to become accusers, witnesses, and judges
themselves.
The bishops accordingly insisted upon the matter being tried in their
courts; and as soon as the charge was dismissed by parliament, as
incapable of being proved satisfactorily, the professing ministers
of Christianity, who stated that the boy was circumcised in derision
and contumely of their Lord and Master, determined to take the law
into their own hands. They maintained that such questions belonged
exclusively to the jurisdiction of the Church, and that the state had
no right to interfere.
Baptism and circumcision, they argued, being matters of faith, the
ministers of that faith had, therefore, alone the right of deciding
cases of that kind. The poor Jews were therefore once more dragged
before a judge and jury who were most inimical to them, whose avaricious
affections were set on their hard-earned riches. One can easily guess
the result of the judgment seat, and the fate of the unfortunate Norwich
Jews.
William Ralegh, Bishop of Norwich, acted as judge: the archdeacon and
the priests as witnesses, who deposed on oath that they saw the boy
immediately after he was circumcised, and that there were then all
the signs, that such an operation had been performed upon him. Why and
wherefore the archdeacon and priests kept it quiet so long; the judge
did neither ask nor care. How it came to pass that the signs had, in
the short space of four years, totally disappeared, the judge did not
investigate. A certain Maude also deposed, in confirmation of the charge,
that after the boy was taken home, the Jews called upon her to warn her
against giving him any swine’s flesh to eat.
Four of the accused were condemned to be dragged by horses’ tails and to
be hanged.¹ How hateful must the ecclesiastics have rendered themselves
to the Jews! With what a despicable idea have they furnished the
Jews, of the Christian religion! Are we to be surprised that a Jew who
embraced Christianity, and received even holy orders, was induced to
return to Judaism, and to submit to suffer persecution with his brethren,
rather than countenance the religion of such men?² Is it to be wondered
at the paucity of Jews becoming the disciples of a religion, whose
professors were so devoid, not only of any religious feelings whatsoever,
but also of any human feelings? And shall we wonder that the Jew
who embraced Christianity in those days was so dreadfully hated, and
considered altogether such an one as his new co-religionists?
¹ See Appendix A.
² See Appendix B.
The populace, who, as usual, only waited for an opportunity to rob and
plunder, as soon as the verdict was pronounced, set fire to the houses
of the Jews and reduced them to ashes; and so barefaced were those
murderers and robbers, that when the sheriff of Norfolk ventured to
interfere on behalf of the wretched Jews, they complained to the king
of the sheriff’s audacious interference.
The Jews residing then in Newcastle-upon-Tyne were banished from that
place: we are not informed, however, of the cause of that cruel measure;
but simply in consequence of a petition of the inhabitants of that town,
who, in all probability, mortgaged their houses to the Jews, and by the
expulsion of their creditors from amongst them, hoped to rid themselves
of their debts, as no offence whatever is mentioned in the king’s
letter.¹
¹ See Appendix C.
The king began zealously to espouse the conduct of the Church towards
the Jews; and by royal proclamation prohibited Christian women from
entering into the service of Jews as nurses:¹ and the reason given for
this interdict is, that there was an universal custom among the Jews
of obliging their hired Christian nurses to abstain from nursing their
children for three days after Easter, lest the body and blood of Jesus
Christ――which all Christians in those Popish times were obliged to
receive at that holy festival――should by incorporation be transfused
into their children.
¹ See Appendix D.
This abominable instance of blasphemy and folly emanated from the pen
of Pope Innocent the Third, in an epistle to the Bishop of Paris, in
a style unworthy of the polite English ear.¹ How inconsistent! The
Jews are first accused of little faith, or of total unbelief, and then
again of believing too much. The ridiculous reason would imply that the
Jews believed not only in the doctrine of Christ, but also in that of
antichrist, viz.: the doctrines of transubstantiation. If the Jews had
at all such a practice as above alluded to, it would have been because
of Easter generally occurring about the time of the Jewish passover;
and the fear of leaven being introduced into their dwellings, might have
induced them to have recourse to such an expedient.
¹ See Appendix E.
The Christian inhabitants of Southampton, followed the example of those
of Newcastle, and petitioned the king to rid them also of the Jews, and
perhaps with them of their debts, which the king readily granted.
The king’s continual want of money was a never ceasing torment to the
poor Jews, for when he could not obtain any money, to squander away,
from his barons and nobles, he fell upon the Jews and wrung out of them
whatever he wanted.
When Eleanor’s two uncles came over to this country――one of which
having become primate of England, became also a great oppressor of
the Jews――Henry, out of complaisance to his consort, received and
entertained them with such magnificence, that, not knowing how to
support the charge by honest means, he sent word to the Jews, that
unless they presented him with twenty thousand marks, he would expel
them all the kingdom; and thus he supplied himself with money for his
unjust generosity.¹
¹ A. ♦Strickland. M. Paris. Speed.
♦ ‘Stricland’ replaced with ‘Strickland’
The following circumstance is related by Dr. Tovey, on the authority of
Matthew Paris:――
“The next year [the nineteenth year of his reign], the king, keeping his
Christmas at Winchester, sent out writs to all his archbishops, bishops,
barons, abbotts, and priors, that, without any excuse, they should meet
him in parliament upon the octaves of Epiphany at Westminster, to treat
upon matters of the highest consequence. Whither, when they were all
come, William de Keele, the king’s secretary, stood up, and told them
he was commanded by the king to say, ‘that however ill his majesty
might have behaved himself hitherto, in being guided by foreigners,
he was determined to be so no longer; for they had cheated him of all
his money: and that therefore, as he intended for the future to have
no other counsellors but his natural born subjects, he hoped they would
give him a fresh supply.’ The manner of raising it, he said, was to
be left to themselves; and though the king was very necessitous in his
private circumstances, he was willing, if they thought proper, that the
money raised should be disposed of by their own commissioners to the
public advantage. At which speech the barons being greatly surprised,
made answer, that they had already given the king such large sums,
without receiving any return from him, either of good government or
affection, that they thought it inconsistent with their honours to
lay any further tax upon the people till they saw better occasion, and
therefore desired to be excused.
“But the king, who was not so easily to be satisfied, insisting upon
the vast expenses he had been at lately, in marrying his sister to the
emperor (whose portion was three hundred thousand marks),¹ as also from
his own marriage; and likewise, swearing to take their advice in all
things for the future, and forsake his foreigners, they were prevailed
upon to grant him a thirtieth part of all their moveables; and the
clergy did the same. But as the money, by agreement, was not to be
disposed of without their privity and consent, and was, likewise, to
be deposited in some abbey, castle, or other place of security, and
not in his exchequer; the king, finding himself, in a great measure,
disappointed, was resolved to get money by some other means, which he
might call his own, and lavish away at pleasure. He, therefore, fell
to work again upon his Jewish mines, and extracted no less than ten
thousand marks――from the immediate payment whereof no Jew was to be
excused, but by the king’s especial writ.”² Ten of the richest Jews were
obliged to become security for the payment of this unreasonable demand.
Not that the Jews were unable at once to raise the required sum, but
they dared not appear as wealthy as they really were.³
¹ All of which he expended on Eleanor’s coronation.
² See Appendix F.
³ See Dr. Jost.
The wealth which the Jews have accumulated in this country must have
been enormously great; and the ten sureties must have been equal to
raise any sum, be it ever so large, if we may judge from the wealth of
individuals amongst them. From one, Aaron of York――who seems to have
supplied a great part of the necessities both of the king and queen――in
the short space of seven years, the king exacted upwards of 30,000 marks
of silver; and to the queen the same Jew also paid upwards of 200 marks
of gold.¹ Dr. Jost says, “that Aaron’s riches were immeasurable.”² The
same Aaron also entered into a compact with the king to pay him annually,
during the whole period of his life, the sum of one hundred marks,
in order to be free from taxes.³ Nor was Aaron the only one so gifted
with this world’s riches. We read of another Jew of Hereford, Hamon by
name, who must have been equally rich. We do not hear anything about him
during his life-time; but we read, that when he died――which took place
about two years prior to the above exaction――his daughter, Ursula, was
obliged to pay 5,000 marks for a relief.⁴
¹ _Aurum Reginæ_, or queen gold, a due which the queens of
England were entitled to claim on every tenth mark paid to
the king, as voluntary fines for the royal good will. Eleanor
sometimes demanded it in a most unreasonable manner. _Tovey.
A. Strickland._
² “_Sein Reichthum war unermesslich._”
³ “Considering the different values of money, this, I believe,
is as much as the richest nobleman pays at present.”――_Anglia
Judaica_, p. 108.
“When we read or speak of any sum of money in our histories,
from the Saxon times to the year 1344, we are to consider it,
on an average, as about thrice the weight and value of the
like sum in our time.”――_Introduction to the History of
Commerce, by Anderson._
⁴ “Though, by Magna Charta, the relief of an earl’s son, for
a whole county, was settled but at one hundred pounds; of a
baron’s heir, for a whole barony, at but one hundred marks;
and no more than one hundred shillings was to be paid for the
relief of a knight’s fee――all which were called the antiqua,
or accustomed reliefs of the kingdom.”
In order to diminish the enormity of the incessant persecutions the
poor Jews were subject to, recourse was continually had to many mean and
unworthy acts of vilifying them. Some of them were imprisoned at Oxford,
under the pretence of having forcibly taken away a young Jew who had
been converted and baptized――a charge which, as it was unjustly grounded,
was properly opposed, and in which their innocence so plainly appeared,
that the king very soon after commanded them to be released.
No offence was, indeed, too improbable to be laid to their charge. They
were even accused of plotting against the state, and of attempts to
overturn the government; but the most absurd accusation brought against
them was, that a party of them had collected together large quantities
of combustible materials at Northampton, for the purpose of employing
them in the destruction of London, by fire. Upon this incredible charge,
many Jews were burned alive, and their effects seized and delivered into
the king’s hands. Matthew Paris, who lived in this reign, and was an
eye-witness of the oppressions to which the Jews were subjected by the
crown, gives a distressing picture of their sufferings. He concludes
his account of the manner in which the king practised his extortions
with these words: _Non tamen abrando, vel excoriando sed eviscerando
extorsit.¹_
¹ Matt. Paris, p. 831; Blunt, p. 42.
To put a stop to the repeated calumnies which were brought against them,
as clippers and falsifiers of the coin, they came to the conclusion of
paying the king one hundred pounds, in order “that all Jews who should
be _lawfully_ convicted of clipping, robbery, or harbouring of clippers
or robbers, should be for ever banished the realm.”¹
¹ See Appendix G.
We must also notice the memorable _Parliamentum Judaicum_, which
occurred in the twenty-fifth year of Henry’s reign, A.D. 1240. Soon
after this public testimony of their loyalty, as citizens of the state
in which they lived, they were agreeably surprised at hearing that a
certain number of their nation were summoned to attend a parliament at
Worcester, in order, as the writ ran, “to treat with the king as well
concerning his own as their benefit.”¹ Many of them entertained the
most sanguine hopes that such an occurrence would terminate as much to
their honour as to their advantage.² But in this expectation they were
speedily and sorely disappointed; for the purport of his majesty’s most
gracious speech informed them that he wanted money, and that they must
raise, among their own people, twenty thousand marks, half of which
was to be paid at midsummer, and the other half at Michaelmas. This
peremptory command, however, they appeared unable to obey, although they
had the singular privilege of appointing their own collectors; but the
collectors were not able to raise the demanded sum; and the consequence
was, that themselves, their wives and children, were seized, and
incarcerated, and their goods and chattels were taken from them.³
¹ See Appendix H.
² See Appendix I.
³ See Appendix J.
Henry’s expedition against the King of France, two years afterwards, in
order to regain the provinces of Guienne and Poictou, was another reason
for demanding money from his Jewish subjects. You are, however, aware
that Henry was totally unsuccessful in that ill-advised expedition.
After which the king and the queen determined to spend a merry winter at
Bordeaux.¹ Whilst there the king became interested in a certain Jewish
convert, Martyn by name, whom he sent to this country with orders to the
Archbishop of York, whom he had left governor in England, and Walter de
Cantelupe, Bishop of Worcester, to provide some convenient place for the
well educating of the same Jewish convert, and to furnish him with the
means of subsistence.² The king seemed always kindly disposed towards
Jewish converts.
¹ A. Strickland.
The Jewish Converts’ Institution, as a matter of course, must have been
full; and we find it, therefore, soon after augmented. It appears that
Peter Rupibus, Bishop of Winchester, had bequeathed a legacy of one
hundred pounds for the existing Jewish Converts’ Institution.¹
¹ See Appendix K.
From the following circumstance, it would seem that the converts
were expected to join their patrons in their railing accusations
against their unbelieving brethren. The poor converts found themselves,
therefore, very awkwardly situated, as will evidently appear to every
intelligent reader of the following occurrence.
The Jews were again accused of crucifying a child. The story and the
made-up circumstances are so extraordinary, that I shall give you the
whole account, as given by Matthew Paris, and translated by William
Prynne, in his malicious Demurrer.
“Anno 1244 in August, the corpse of a little male child was found buried
in the city of London, in whose thighs and arms, and under whose paps,
there was a regular inscription in Hebrew letters. To which spectacle
when as many resorted, admiring at it, and not knowing how to read
the letters, knowing that the letters were Hebrew, they called thither
converted Jews who inhabited the house which the king had founded in
London, that they as they loved their life or members, for the honour,
love, and fear of their Lord the King, without figment of falsehood,
might declare that writing. For the king’s bailiffs, and conservators of
the peace were present. They likewise believed, neither without cause,
that the Jews had either crucified that little child in obloquy and
contumely of Christ (which was related frequently to have happened) or
had afflicted him with sundry torments to crucify him, and when he had
given up the ghost, they had now cast him there, as unworthy the cross.
Moreover, there appeared in his body blue marks, and rents of rods, and
manifest signs and footsteps of some other torment. And when as those
converts were brought to read those things that were inscribed, and
studied that they might perfectly read them, they found the letters
deformed, and now not legible, being many ways disordered, and tossed
up and down, by reason of the extension and contraction of the skin and
flesh. But they found the name of the father and mother of the little
child, suppressing their surnames, and that the child was sold to the
Jews; but to whom, or to what end, they could not find. In the mean time,
certain of the London Jews took a secret and sudden flight, never to
return again, who by this very thing rendered themselves suspected. And
some affirmed, that the Lord had wrought miracles for the child. And
because it was found that the Jews at other times had perpetrated such
wickedness, and the holy bodies crucified had been solemnly received in
the Church, and likewise to have shined brightly with miracles, although
the prints of the five wounds appeared not in the hands and feet and
side of the said corpse, yet the canons of St. Paul took it violently
away, and solemnly buried it in their church, not far from the great
altar.” To the honour and credit of the then Jewish converts, let this
event be recorded, that though they were stimulated by the Christians to
accuse their unconverted brethren, by whom they were so violently hated,
they brought no accusation whatever against their enemies; and their
total silence respecting the charge of crucifying Christian children
should have convinced the dignitaries of the Church, that that charge
was nothing more but a base and false calumny.
The king, after his return to England, found himself very much
impoverished, having lost his military chest, and his moveable chapel
royal, with all its rich plate, at the battle of Taillebourg. Henry
wishing, however, to celebrate the wedding of his brother Richard with
his sister-in-law, Sancha, in royal style, he called, therefore, upon
the poor Jews to furnish the funds for the splendid festivities. And
Aaron of York alone was compelled to pay no less than four thousand
marks of silver and four hundred marks of gold; and the Jews of London
were mulcted in like proportion.¹ He was still poor, and wanted more
money; he applied, therefore, to his parliament for it. They well
knew, that vast sums had been exacted by him from the Jews; the barons,
therefore, inquired, what became of all their money. The king did
not relish this sort of procedure on the part of those noblemen, and
appeared to refuse an answer to such an ill-timed query. The barons,
in order to be acquainted in future with his revenues derived from the
Jews, insisted on having one, at least, of the justices of the Jews
appointed by parliament. The king found himself obliged to acquiesce
in that bold proposal, and moreover to confirm it by charter. The Jews
were by no means sorry for this baronical step, for it afforded them
a little respite. For in return for the king’s consenting to the new
parliamentary measure, the barons were likewise obliged to yield to his
request, and supply his pecuniary wants, so that the Jews had peace from
him, during the whole of _that_ year. But it was only for _that_ year.
The next one was introduced with another demand.
¹ M. Paris; A. ♦Strickland.
♦ ‘Stricland’ replaced with ‘Strickland’
In consequence of the king’s again wanting money to meet the Welsh
incursions, the Jews were once more applied to and despoiled of, 10,000
marks: transportation to Ireland was the punishment in case of refusal.
Many families removed and hid themselves, fearing Ireland, as it would
seem, more than England;¹ so that the king had recourse to his father’s
measures, and issued a most cruel proclamation respecting their wives
and children: in which, orders were given to the justices appointed
for the protection of the Jews, that they should cause to be proclaimed
throughout all the counties of England, where the Jews were, that if a
Jewess, the wife of any Jew, or their children, fly, or take to flight,
or in any way skulk from the village where they were on the festival
of St. Andrew, in the twenty-ninth year of that reign, up to the year
following: so that if they did not promptly appear, at the summons of
the king, or of his bailiffs, in the bailiwicks in which they dwelt,
that the husband of that Jewess, and even the Jewess herself, and
all their children, shall be presently outlawed; and all their lands,
revenues, and all their chattels, shall come into the hands of the king,
and be sold, for the assistance of the king, and for the future, they
shall not return into the kingdom of England, without the king’s special
orders.
¹ It is a favourite boast on the part of many Irish Christians,
that their countrymen never persecuted the Jews. The above
incidental piece of information may account for it.
Westminster Abbey was about this time rebuilt; and the Jews, who were
prohibited from entering any Christian place of worship, were at the
same time commanded to aid in the rebuilding and ornamenting of that
magnificent church.
Lucretia, widow of David, a Jew of Oxford, was obliged to pay 2590
pounds, which was devoted to that undertaking.
Anderson tells us: “About this time, the beautiful and stately abbey
church of Westminster began to assume the venerable and majestic
appearance which it wears to this day, except the finely rebuilt north
front, reared on the ancient foundation, which is now strengthened and
new cased, where the stone had fallen to decay.” Maddox, in his “History
of Exchequer,” adds: “For this purpose, Henry grants and dedicates to
God and St. Edward, and the Church of Westminster for the re-edifying
of that fabrick, the sum of £2590, which he extracted from Lucretia, the
widow of David, a Jew of Oxford.” Upon which Hunter, in his “History of
London,” remarks: “It is amusing to reflect, that one of our noblest and
most ancient Christian structures owes its renovation and embellishment
to the Jewish nation.”
There was a tallage laid upon the Jews, for that very purpose, which
went by the name of the Jews’ alms; which is evident from the following
passage in Prynne’s Demurrer:
“In the 29th of Henry III. the king sends writs to his justices for the
custody of the Jews, and to his sheriffs to levy the debts due to him
from the heirs of Hamond the Jew of Hereford, and that Crespin, a Jew,
should pay him twenty-eight marks, to be laid out in silk and cloth of
gold for Westminster Church, _as his alms_.”
The most uninteresting part of Jewish history in the annals of this
country, is that during the reign of Henry III. we can scarcely relate
any thing but it is closely connected with the uncontrollable avarice
of the British monarch, as well as that of his subjects. There is a
disagreeable sameness in those annals. I must once more relate, that
Henry extracted again 60,000 marks from the Jews, for which even the
monkish historians find no excuse. In order to keep their treasures
well supplied, usury was permitted to them by act of parliament, which
rendered them most odious in the opinions of their Gentile debtors, who,
generally, as soon as they incurred some large debt, began to scheme
their creditor’s destruction; and which was the means of branding
them with the unobliterable stigmas of “the usurious race,” and “money
brokers,” which polite Gentile writers indulge in even to this very
day.¹
¹ Miss Strickland, in her popular work, “Lives of the Queens
of England,” seems to think such epithets quite elegant. See
vol. i., p. 354.
Whilst treating of this subject, I think it proper to call your
attention to the pope’s usurers in this country, which will show that
the poor Jews got more of the name than of the gain. Their method was
extremely characteristic.
The Jews were very much amused at it. Dr. Tovey, after expatiating
for some time on the usurious practice of the Jews, proceeds, “when
I said the Jews were the sole usurers of the kingdom, I meant to have
excepted the pope; for he, indeed, the pope, was wont to carry on
that infamous trade, in such a shameful manner, by the help of several
Italian merchants, called Caursini, that the Jews themselves might
have profited by his example. For though, according to the strict and
legal acceptation of the word, his contracts were not usurious, yet the
effects of them were the most unheard of usury. His method was this:
if a person wanted a sum of money, which he could not repay under six
months, he would lend it him for three, without any interest at all;
and then covenant to receive fifty per cent. for every month afterwards,
that it should remain unpaid. Now, in this case, said he, I am no usurer:
for I lent my money, absolutely without interest; and what I was to
receive afterwards was a contingency that might be defeated. A bond
of this kind, which surpasses every thing of modern invention, is
transmitted to us by Matthew Paris.”
“To all that shall see this present writing, Thomas the prior, and
the convent of Barnwell wish health in the Lord. Know ye that we
have borrowed and received at London, for ourselves, profitably to be
expended for the affairs of our church, from Francisco and Gregorio, for
them and their partners, citizens and merchants of Millain, a hundred
and four marks of lawful money sterling, thirteen shillings and four
pence sterling being counted to every mark, which said one hundred and
four marks we promise to pay back on the feast of St. Peter ad vincula,
being the first day of August, at the new temple in London, in the
year 1235. And if the said money be not all paid, at the time and place
aforesaid, we bind ourselves to pay to the aforesaid merchants, or any
one of them, or their certain attorney, for every ten marks, forborn
two months, one mark of money, for recompense of damages, which the
aforesaid merchants may incur by the nonpayment of it; so that they
may lawfully demand both principal, damages, and expenses, as above
expressed, together with the expenses of one merchant, for himself,
horse, and servant, until such time as the aforesaid money be fully
satisfied. And for the payment of such principal, interest, damage,
and expenses, we oblige ourselves, our church, and successors, and all
our own goods and the goods of our church, moveable, or immoveable,
ecclesiastical, or temporal, which we have, or shall have, wheresoever
they shall be found, to the aforesaid merchants and their heirs. And do
further recognise, and acknowledge, that we possess, and hold the said
goods from the said merchants, by way of courtesy, until the premises be
fully satisfied. Renouncing also for ourselves and successors, all help
of canon, and civil law, all privileges, and clerkship, the epistle of
St. Adrian, all customs, statutes, lectures, indulgences, and privileges
obtained for the king of England, from the see apostolic, as also the
benefit of all appeal, or inhibition from the King of England; with
all other exceptions, whether real or personal, that may be objected,
against the validity of this instrument. All which things we promise
faithfully to observe, and in witness thereof have set to the seal of
our convent.――Dat. London, die quinto ELPHEGI [24 April.] An. Gratiæ
1235.” Matthew Paris adds――“When the Jews came to understand this
Christian way of preventing usury, they laughed very heartily.”
The king made himself heir of the Jewish possessions, whether houses
or lands, which they should possess or purchase in this realm. Prynne
furnishes us with a clause of the original writ, wherein the king claims
to succeed to the Jewish property.¹
¹ See Appendix L.
It appears that in consequence of the incessant taxation of, and
continual display of ill will towards, the unhappy Jews, they began to
think that England would not remain their home much longer, and were
therefore careless about many things. Their cemetery was about that time
out of repair, and there was a disposition on the part of many to leave
it so; but it seems that their leaders, who were perhaps urged by the
king, insisted on having the burying place repaired, and determined to
compel every one to contribute towards it. To be able to carry their
intentions into effect, they applied to the king for permission to
excommunicate all such who should refuse to co-operate and assist in
the undertaking. The king turned this circumstance to his advantage,
and granted the required license, on the condition that the fines which
might arise out of the excommunications should go to him.
An incident which occurred about this time, of a most awful nature,
furnishes us with an idea of the great animosity which the Jews
manifested towards the religion of their Gentile neighbours――I will not
call it Christianity――image-worship is its proper appellation. It would
seem that they displayed their hatred by treating the dumb Christian
idols with contempt; and any care taken of such an idol, inspired them
with murderous rage even against their nearest and dearest relations, as
the following narrativeshows.¹ The style is altogether popish.
¹ It is to be noticed, however, that the Jew here alluded to
was a most unprincipled man. His hatred did not arise out
of conviction that his religion was the only true one. It
is remarkable, that to this very day, the most ignorant and
wicked Jews are the most hostile to Christianity.
“There was a certain rich Jew, having his abode and house at
Berkhamstede and Wallingford, Abraham by name, not in faith, who was
very dear to Earl Richard, who had a very beautiful wife, and faithful
to him, Flora by name. This Jew, that he might accumulate more disgrace
to Christ, caused the image of the Virgin Mary, decently carved and
painted, as the manner is, holding her son in her bosom, to be put in
an indecent place, and which is a great shame and ignominy to express,
blaspheming the image as if it had been the very virgin herself, threw
all sorts of dirt upon her, days and nights, and commanded his wife
to do the like. But Flora’s delicate feelings so much revolted at the
injunction, that she not only refused to be partner in the indecent act,
but secretly removed the filth from the image as often as it was covered.
Which when the Jew her husband had fully found out, he therefore privily
and impiously strangled the woman herself, though his wife.¹ But when
these wicked deeds were discovered, and made apparent, and proved by
his conviction, although other causes of death were not wanting, he was
thrust into the most loathsome castle of the Tower of London. Whence to
get his freedom, he most certainly promised that he would prove all the
Jews of England to have been most wicked traitors. And when as he was
greatly accused by almost all the Jews of England, and they endeavoured
to put him to death, Earl Richard interceded for him. Whereupon, the
Jews grievously accusing him both of the clipping of money and other
wickedness, offered Earl Richard a thousand marks, if he would not
protect him; which, notwithstanding, the earl refused, because he was
called his Jew. This Jew Abraham therefore gave the king seven hundred
marks, that he might be freed from perpetual imprisonment, to which he
was adjudged, the earl assisting him therein.”
¹ This most impious and wicked man, doubtless, thought he did
God service, and fulfilled a plain positive Mosaic precept,
namely, “If thy brother, the son of thy mother, or thy son,
or thy daughter, or the wife of thy bosom, or thy friend,
which _is_ as thine own soul, entice thee secretly, saying,
Let us go and serve other gods, which thou hast not known,
thou, nor thy fathers; _namely_, of the gods of the people
which _are_ round about you, nigh unto thee, or far off from
thee, from the _one_ end of the earth even unto the _other_
end of the earth; thou shalt not consent unto him, nor
hearken unto him; neither shall thine eye pity him, neither
shalt thou spare, neither shalt thou conceal him: but thou
shalt surely kill him; thine hand shall be first upon him to
put him to death, and afterwards the hand of all the people.”
(Deut. xiii. 6–9.) Poor Flora did not entice him to worship
the image. The whole Jewish congregation, therefore, justly
considered Abraham as a murderer, and worthy of death.”
Whilst this Abraham was imprisoned, he promised to the king that if
his liberty were granted to him, he would discover to his majesty, his
brethren’s misdemeanors, stating that they had a great deal of wealth
concealed from the king. Accordingly, as soon as he was set free,
a royal search was instituted for all the Jewish estates, and was
conducted in the most barbarous manner, inasmuch as that unprincipled
Abraham went along with the commissioners appointed for that purpose,
and urged them to make diligent search, threatening them, if at all lax,
to inform against them to the king. This man proved to them a source of
immense trouble. It is a gratifying fact that no Jewish convert caused
them willingly any trouble whatever.¹
¹ See p. 250. It is an unjust insinuation on the part of Mr.
Moses Samuel, in his “Address on the Position of the Jews in
Britain,” p. 27, that the Jewish converts――as he peevishly
calls them apostates――of that time were “breeding mischief
against the sons of Judea, and vituperating their holy
religion.” Oh, no, Mr. Samuel; the unconverted Jews breeded
mischief against each other, but not the converted ones.
I am almost ashamed to proceed with my monotonous lecture. I have once
more to tell you that the king was in trouble for want of money. He
determined, once more, to see what the Jews could do for him. To begin
with, they were obliged to furnish the king with 5,000 marks previous
to his leaving for Gascony.¹ Whilst there, a match was made up between
Prince Edward and Eleanora of Castille. The intended marriage was
necessarily attended with extravagant expenses. The king, therefore,
commissioned his brother Richard to extort from the luckless Jews the
sum required for the nuptial festivities of his heir.² But Henry was
insatiable; he wanted more money, for which he applied first to the
barons, conjuring up a pitiable tale, viz., that he apprehended a
Spanish invasion. But the barons happily could refuse to be caught with
chaff, and therefore boldly confessed their unbelief, and declined to
give money. The king, therefore, commissioned his brother, once more,
to levy money from the Jews: and a very large sum it was.
¹ W. Prynne.
² “As soon as Henry received the glittering fruits of this
iniquity, he sent for Eleanor to assist him in squandering
it away in the light and vain expenses in which they mutually
delighted, and to grace with her presence the bridal of their
eldest son, Prince Edward. King Henry waited at Bourdeaux to
receive his son’s bride. He had prepared so grand a festival
for the reception of the young Infanta, that he expended 300,
000 marks on her marriage-feast, to the indignation of his
English peers.”――_A. Strickland._
In vain did the Jews remonstrate against these accumulated oppressions;
their remonstrances were only met by a renewal of their hardships. In
vain did they pray for permission to depart from the country, in order
that they might seek an asylum in some other land; this alternative
was also denied them, and proclamations were issued forbidding any Jew
to leave England without the king’s license. Having failed to obtain
redress when sought in terms of humble supplication, they wanted not
the courage to enforce their complaints in language at once bold and
impressive. When the principal men amongst them had been summoned before
the Earl Richard of Cornwall, the king’s brother, and the council,
and were threatened with imprisonment and death, unless they forthwith
supplied the sum required of them, Elias, their senior rabbi, stood up,
and in the name of his brethren addressed the assembly in these words:――
“O noble lords, we see undoubtedly that our Lord the king purposeth to
destroy us from under heaven. We entreat, for God’s sake, that he give
us license and safe conduct to depart out of his kingdom, that we may
seek a mansion in some other land, and under a prince who bears some
bowels of mercy, and some stability of truth and faithfulness, and we
will depart, never to return again, leaving our household stuff and
houses behind us. But how can he spare us miserable Jews, who destroys
his own natural English? He hath people, yea, his own merchants, I say
not usurers, who by usurious contracts accumulate infinite heaps of
money. Let the king rely upon them, and gape after their emoluments.
Verily, they have supplanted us, which the king, however, dissembles to
know; extracting from us those things we cannot give him, although he
would pull out our eyes or cut our throats, when he had first taken off
our skins.” With so much feeling and sincerity was this address made,
that as the orator concluded it, a sudden faintness seized him, from
which he was with much difficulty recovered.¹ The application for leave
to quit this country was refused with as much courtesy and gentleness as
possible. The king’s brother, the Earl of Cornwall, knowing that their
removal would prove injurious to his money-sucking brother, replied to
Rabbi Elias’ application in the following words:――“The king, my brother,
is your loving prince, and ready at all times to oblige you, but in
this matter could not grant your request, because the king of France had
lately published a severe edict against Jews,² and no other Christian
country would receive you; by which means ye would be exposed to such
hardships and difficulties as would afflict the king, who had always
been tender of your welfare.”
¹ The king did not leave Rabbi Elias’ speech unresented; for the
following year, the king deprived him of the high office he
held amongst the Jews, without alleging any offence against
him. See Appendix M.
² See Appendix N.
Next year, when the king and queen returned from Gascony to England, the
Jews had occasion to present a memorial to the king himself, in reply to
another unreasonable request, in which they thus addressed him:――
“Sir king, we see thou sparest neither Christians nor Jews, but
studiest with crafty excuses to impoverish all men. We have no hope of
respiration left us, the usurers of the pope have supplanted us. Permit
us to depart out of the kingdom with safe conduct, and we will seek
for ourselves such a mansion as we can, be it what it will.” “Although
we may admire the boldness,” observes Mr. Blunt, “with which the Jews
(notwithstanding their degraded and dependent situation) demanded relief
from their wrongs, it can in no way excite astonishment to find that the
language they employed had not the effect of procuring them the redress
which they claimed.” When the king received their memorial, and was
informed of the address to the council, he expressed himself in terms
of violent anger. The words which he used on the occasion are recorded:
――“Is it to be marvelled at,” he said, “that I covet money? It is a
horrible thing to imagine the debts wherein I am held bound. By the head
of God, they amount to the sum of 200,000 marks; and if I should say
300,000, I should not exceed the bounds of truth. I am deceived on every
side; I am a maimed and an abridged king――yea, now but half a king.
There is a necessity for me to have money, gotten from what place soever,
and by what means soever, and from whomsoever.”¹
¹ Well might Henry say, “that it would be a greater act of
charity to bestow money on him, than on those who went from
door to door, begging alms.” M. Paris. A. Strickland.
No time was lost in devising measures for procuring a supply, according
to the intention thus expressed. The Duke Richard proposed to provide
the king with the sum which was required, upon condition that the whole
of the Jews should be assigned over to him. The king consented to the
proposal, and forthwith, upon receiving the money, he sold the Jews to
the duke as a security for the sum advanced.¹
¹ M. Paris; Maddox; Prynne; Tovey; Blunt.
The Jews were again accused of crucifying a boy at Lincoln, Hugo by name,
eight years of age. They are reported to have first fattened the boy for
ten days with white bread and milk, in a secret chamber, and then sent
for the principal Jews from all the cities of England, and appointed one
to act as Pilate, others as the tormentors, and then re-enacted all the
indignities mentioned in Scripture; scourged him, cruelly crowned him
with thorns, fastened him to a cross, gave him gall to drink, and lastly,
when dead, pierced his side with a spear. To crown all, they took out
his bowels, as being particularly serviceable in their magic practices,
and then, that the matter might not be known to Christians, diligently
concealed the corpse. The earth, however, vomited forth the innocent
body, worthy of a more honourable sepulchre, and as often as the
Jews tried to bury it, it showed itself again next day above ground.
Terrified beyond measure, they threw it into a well, where the mother
at last found it. The master of the house was seized, and confessing the
whole matter, was tied to horses’ tails, and thus torn to pieces. Ninety
Jews were carried off in chains to London, and received due punishment.
The whole story is thus related by Matthew Paris, and copied by Prynne
into his Demurrer, part first, pp. 29–32:――
“The same year, [_i.e._ when the king wanted so much money, and the Jews
began to remonstrate], about the feast of Peter and Paul, the Jews of
Lincoln stole a child called Hugo, being eight years old; and when as
they had nourished him in a certain most secret chamber, with milk and
other childish aliments, they sent to almost all the cities of England
wherein the Jews lived, that, in contempt and reproach of Jesus Christ,
they should be present at their sacrifice at Lincoln; for they had, as
they said, a certain child hid to be crucified. Whereupon many assembled
at Lincoln. And coming together, they appointed one Lincoln Jew for the
judge, as it were for Pilate. By whose judgment, by the consent of all,
the child is afflicted with sundry torments. He is whipped even unto
blood and lividness, crowned with thorns, wearied with spittings and
strickings; and moreover he is pricked by them all with poniards, made
to drink gall, derided with reproaches and blasphemies, and frequently
called by them with grinding teeth, Jesus the false prophet. And after
they had derided him in divers manners, they crucified him, and pierced
him with a spear to the heart. And when the child had given up the ghost,
they took down his body from the cross, and took the bowels out of his
corpse, for what end is unknown; but it was said it was to exercise
magical arts. The mother of the child diligently sought for her absent
son for some days, and it was told her by neighbours, that the last time
they saw her child whom she sought, he was playing with the children
of the Jews of his age, and entered into the house of a certain Jew.
Whereupon the woman suddenly entered that house, and saw the body of
her child cast into a certain pit. And having warily called the bailiffs
of the city together, the body was found and drawn forth, and there was
made a wonderful spectacle among the people. But the woman, mother of
the child, complaining and crying out, provoked all the citizens there
assembled together, to tears and sighs. There was then present at the
place John de Lexinton, a circumspect and discreet man, and moreover
elegantly learned, who said――‘we have sometimes heard that the Jews
have not feared to attempt such things in reproach of Jesus Christ, our
crucified Lord.’ And one Jew being apprehended――to wit, he into whose
house the child entered playing, and therefore more suspected than
the rest, he saith unto him, ‘O wretch, knowest thou not that speedy
destruction abides thee? All the gold of England will not suffice
for thy deliverance or redemption. Notwithstanding I will tell thee,
although unworthy, by what means thou mayest preserve thy life and
members, that thou mayest not be dismembered. I will save both to thee,
if thou dost not fear to discover to me whatsoever things are done in
this case, without falsehood.’ Whereupon the Jew, whose name was Copin,
believing he had thus found out a way of escape, answered, saying,
‘Sir John, if thou makest thy words good by thy deeds, I will reveal
wonderful things to thee.’ And the industry of Sir John animating and
exciting him thereto, the Jew said, ‘those things are true which the
Christians say. The Jews almost every year crucify one child, to the
injury and contumely of Jesus; but it is not found out every year, for
they do this secretly, and in hidden and most secret places. But this
child whom they call Hugo, our Jews have most unmercifully crucified,
and when he was dead, and they desired to hide him, being dead, he could
not be buried in the earth, nor hid. For the corpse of the innocent was
reputed unprofitable for divination, for he was unbowelled for that end.
And when in the morning it was thought to be buried, the earth brought
it forth, and vomited it out, and the body sometimes appeared inhuman,
whereupon the Jews abhorred it. At last it was cast headlong into a deep
pit; neither as yet could it be kept secret, for the importunate mother
diligently searching all things, at last showed to the bailiffs the body
she had found.’¹ But Sir John, notwithstanding this, kept the Jew bound
in chains. When these things were known to the canons of the church of
Lincoln, they requested the body to be given to them, which was granted;
and when it had been sufficiently viewed by an infinite company of
people, it was honourably buried in the church of Lincoln, as the corpse
of a most precious martyr. The Jews kept the child alive for ten days,
that being fed for so many days with milk, he might living suffer many
sorts of torments. When the king returned from the northern parts of
England, and was certified of the premises, he reprehended Sir John
that he had promised life and members to so flagitious a person, which
he could not give; for that blasphemer and homicide was worthy the
punishment of many sorts of death. And when as unavoidable judgment
was ready to be executed upon this offender, he said, ‘my death is
now approaching, neither can my Lord John preserve me, who am ready
to perish. I now relate the truth to you all. Almost all the Jews of
England consented to the death of this child, whereof the Jews are
accused; and almost out of every city in England wherein the Jews
inhabit, certain chosen persons were called together to the immolation
of that child, as to a Paschal sacrifice. And when as he had spoken
these things, together with other dotages, being tied to an horse’s tail
and drawn to the gallows, he was presented to the æreal Cacodæmons in
body and soul; and ninety-one other Jews, partakers of this wickedness,
being carried in carts to London, were there committed to prison. Who
if so be they were casually bewailed by any Christians, yet they were
deplored by the Caursini (the pope’s Italian usurers), their co-rivals,
with dry eyes. Afterwards, by the inquisition of the king’s justices, it
was discovered and found, that the Jews of England, by common counsel,
had slain the innocent child, punished for many days and crucified.
But after this, the mother of the said child constantly prosecuting
her appeal before the king against them for that iniquity, and such a
death, God, the Lord of revenges, rendered them a condign retribution,
according to their merits; for on St. Clement’s day, eighty-eight of
the richest and greatest Jews of the city of London [what a bountiful
harvest for the needy king], were drawn and hanged up in the air
upon new gibbets, especially prepared for that purpose; and more than
twenty-three others were reserved in the Tower of London to the like
judgment.”²,³
¹ Contrast this again with the conduct of the converted Jews of
that time.
² “Lying wonders form as much a part of the stories concerning
the murdered children, as those which describe bleeding
crucifixes, or flying sacramental wafers. Contemporary
writers may be cited for the one set of facts as well as for
the other. The atrocious and murderous lies which envelope
this charge of using blood, give us strong reason for
suspecting, that it is as devoid of truth, as calumnious,
and as devilish as those image and wafer stories, by means of
which so many thousands of unhappy Israelites were put to the
sword, whose blood still cries to heaven for vengeance.”...
“The mere recital of these follies shows that they are
the offspring of an unenlightened imagination, if not the
invention of a malignant heart.
“The total absence of all credible testimony compels us
to refuse our belief. The only evidence to be had is that
extracted from the victims of the torture. But that mode of
examination would have made the same persons confess that
they were metempsychoses of Judas Iscariot or Pontius Pilate,
that they had caused the ruinous convulsions of an earthquake
or the devastations of the cholera morbus.”――_Dr. M‘Caul’s
Reasons for believing that the Charge lately revived against
the Jewish People is a baseless Falsehood_, pp. 16, 24.
³ See Appendix O.
Earl Richard, having obtained his election as successor to the Emperor
of Germany, he named himself King of the Romans. This exaltation had
no favourable effect upon the unfortunate Jews. Tyranny and cruelty
seem to have been the predominant features of royalty in those dark
ages. He caused them to be arrested, and would not accept of any bail.
The attorneys he employed were Jews, and in all probability of very
indifferent characters――such as his favourite Abraham, the murderer of
his own wife――who made, no effort to alleviate the oppression of their
suffering brethren; perhaps helped forward their affliction by telling
the Roman king they could raise the money at once, if made to do it.
There can be no doubt that the Jews had then able judges and lawyers of
their own, and whom the king’s court considered competent to decide all
sorts of questions, spiritual as well as temporal. This circumstance
annoyed the ecclesiastics not a little, which they did not fail to
resent.
The prelates began to complain that the Jews were protected by the
king’s courts. Alas, for the protection! Boniface, the primate, who was
honoured with the well-merited appellations of “this ruffian, this cruel
smiter ... no winner of souls, but an exacter of money,”¹ convened a
provincial synod, in which the prelates enacted several severe and cruel
edicts respecting the Jews, which are the following:――
¹ M. Paris. A. Strickland.
“That because ecclesiastical judicature is confounded, and the office of
prelates obstructed, when a Jew offending against ecclesiastical persons
and things is convicted of these or other matters, which belong to the
ecclesiastical court of pure right, and yet is not permitted by the
king’s sheriffs or bailiffs to stand to the ecclesiastical law, but
is rather forced to betake himself to the king’s court; therefore all
such Jews shall be driven to make answer, in such cases, before a judge
ecclesiastical, by being forbidden to traffic, contract, or converse
with the faithful: and they who forbid and obstruct them, and distress
judges and others on this account, shall be coerced by the sentences of
excommunication and interdict.”
This primate――“elected by female intrigue”――proved a great source of
trouble and virulent persecution to the poor Jews. He being uncle to
Queen Eleanor――who, in fact, was the sole monarch of England, and even
of her husband――had, as a matter of course, great influence with the
king. Henry, therefore, though he opposed the decrees of the Church
against the Jews during Stephen Langton’s primacy, as you heard on
Friday evening last, entirely concurred with the Church in persecuting
the Jews during the ♦administration of Boniface.
♦ ‘administraton’ replaced with ‘administration’
Accordingly, by an edict enacted in the thirty-seventh year of this
reign, Henry sanctioned Stephen Langton’s decrees; and it was ordained
that “no Jew should remain in England who did not render service to the
king; that there should be no schools for Jews, except in places where
they were wont to be of old; that, in their synagogues, all Jews should
pray in a low voice, according to the rites of their religion, so that
Christians might not hear them; that every Jew should be answerable to
the rector of his parish for parochial dues, chargeable on his house;
that no Christian woman should suckle or nurse the child of a Jew, nor
any Christian serve a Jew, eat with them, nor abide in their houses;
that no Jew or Jewess should eat meat in Lent, or detract from the
Christian faith; that no Jew should associate with a Christian woman,
nor any Christian man with a Jewess; that every Jew should wear a badge
on his breast, and should not enter into any church or chapel, except in
passing to and fro, and then should not stay there, to the dishonour of
Christ. That no Jew should hinder any other who was desirous to embrace
the Christian faith. That they should not abide in any town without the
king’s special license, save in places where they were formerly wont to
reside.” On offending against any of these provisions, their properties
were to be immediately seized.
In the year 1261, unfortunately for the Jews, died the queen’s sister,
Sancha, Countess of Cornwall and Queen of the Romans, for whom the king
and queen made great lamentations, and gave her a magnificent funeral.¹
As usual, the poor Jews had to supply the needful, for the king ordered
that new inventories should be made of all their lands, tenements,
debts, ready money, plate, jewels, and household stuff. The king’s
commissioners were to be assisted in their strict search by all sheriffs,
constables of castles, mayors, &c.
¹ A. Strickland.
The king’s opposition to the barons proved a twofold scourge to the
oppressed Jews. He took away their money, in order to be able to
continue his opposition to the barons; whilst the barons took away
their lives, with the remainder of their wealth, for yielding to the
intolerable pressure of that covetous monarch. It was, therefore, a
cause of joy to the Hebrew congregations, that a truce was established
between the sovereign and his barons, and that the former was prevailed
upon to sign an amicable arrangement with the latter, by which he bound
himself to confirm the provisions of Oxford. Henry, however, was not
a man to abide any length of time by any agreement, and as a matter of
course refused to adhere to the rules of the compact, under the pretence
that his consent and signature were extorted from him. He withdrew to
the tower of London. The offended barons unexpectedly entered the city,
eager for plunder and athirst for blood, raised first a dreadful uproar
there against the luckless Jews, which was the prelude to a personal
attack upon the queen, the most unpopular of all the queens of England.
The following are the particular details of this tumult, as related by
Agnes Strickland, copied from T. Wikes, a contemporary chronicler:――“At
the sound of St. Paul’s great bell, a numerous mob sallied forth, led
on by Stephen Buckrell, the marshal of London, and John Fitz-John, a
powerful baron. They killed and plundered many of the wretched people,
without mercy. The ferocious leader, John Fitz-John, ran through with
his sword, in cold blood, Kokben Abraham, the wealthiest Hebrew resident
in London. Besides plundering and killing five hundred¹ of this devoted
race, the mob turned the rest out of their beds, undressed as they
were, keeping them so the whole night.” During which catastrophe, a
newly-erected synagogue was reduced to ashes.
¹ Others have seven hundred.
The oppressions exercised towards the Jews by the king, rendered them
obnoxious to the inhabitants of the places where they resided. The
continual exactions to which they were subjected had necessarily the
effect of withdrawing large sums from the towns of their abode; and it
could not fail, sooner or later, to be discovered that though the tax,
in the first instance, fell upon the Jews alone, yet that eventually the
wealth of the neighbourhood was thereby considerably diminished. It was,
it is probable, partly with a view to this consequence, that many towns
obtained, during the present reign, from the king, charters or writs,
directing that no Jews should reside within their walls. Charters or
writs to this effect were granted to the towns of Newcastle, Derby,
Southampton, as you have already heard, Wycomb, Newbery, and to other
places; and the Jews were forced to remove with their families and
effects. It would have been happy for the Jews, if the necessity of
changing the places of their residence had been the only hardship to
which, through the popular feeling, they were exposed. In many parts of
the country, the people treated them with open violence; charges of the
wildest description were raised against them, and made excuses for the
exercise of every species of cruelty and extortion; tumults were excited;
their houses were pillaged and burned; and hundreds fell victims to the
frenzy of the populace. At Norwich, on the occasion of some Jews being
executed upon a charge of having stolen a Christian child, which you
have already heard, the citizens broke into the houses of the Jews there,
and stripped them, and then setting fire to them, burned them to the
ground. At Canterbury, the Jews were subjected to a similar violence,
the immediate cause of which is not mentioned; but it is stated, that
the clergy there did not scruple to encourage the outrage, and to take
an active part with the mob on the occasion. At Oxford, the scholars of
the university, having upon some pretext picked a quarrel with the Jews,
broke into their houses and pillaged them of their property.¹
¹ Prynne; Tovey; J. E. Blunt.
When Prince Edward returned from his victorious campaign in Wales,
he was so poor that he could not pay the arrears which he owed to the
troops, and unwilling to disband men whom he foresaw his father’s cause
would require, the king fixed on the expedient of presenting him with
the Jews――the king of the Romans must have got, by this, all he wanted
from them¹――with a new privilege, viz., that of having all writs of
judicature, which had been formerly sealed by the justices of the Jews,
sealed by the chancellor of the exchequer, the profits of which were
to be paid to the prince. Edward, however, did not keep them long in
his grasp; being in want at once of ready cash, he assigned them with
his father’s consent and signature, for two years to the Catercensian
merchants. No more did the latter keep them long, for Edward was soon
after accused of a conspiracy against his father; the king therefore
seized upon the Jews――a trick of olden times in royal trade.
¹ See p. 282.
The battle of Lewes is another melancholy memorable event in the
history of the Jews in this country. This battle, as all of you must be
aware, terminated in the complete discomfiture of the king’s party. The
common people being disbanded and out of employment, betook themselves
to persecute the unfortunate Jews. They pretended that that people
conspired with the king’s party to destroy the barons and the good
citizens of London; which they thought gave them a right to plunder that
defenceless people wherever they were found. They began with London, and
the conduct of the metropolitans was soon followed by the inhabitants
of other places. Lincoln, Northampton, Canterbury, and many other towns
in the kingdom became the scenes of plunder and persecution. The London
Jews were placed in imminent danger, and in all probability, those who
survived the massacre of Montfort and John Fitz-John, would have shared
the fate of their five hundred, or seven hundred, brethren, who perished
there. But the constable of the tower opened the gates, to afford them a
timely refuge.
The king, in conjunction with the barons, endeavoured to quell these
riots, and issued letters patent to the mayor and sheriffs of London,
and to the persons put under authority in all those places where
outrages were committed, to suppress all sorts of disorders; and as
peace had been established throughout the kingdom, the Jews should share
in that peace. A proclamation was therefore to be published, for the
Jews to return peaceably to their homes. Few, indeed, must have been
the number who found homes. It was also announced that any molestation
offered to the Jews would subject the offender to the danger of life and
limb.
The king, being anxious to procure for himself the services of his
friends, after his disastrous differences with his Gentile subjects,
resolved to do so at the expense of his Jewish ones. He remitted the
interest money which was owing to them from several of his friends.
So that, though they were permitted to return to their homes, they
had well nigh been deprived of any means of subsistence in those homes.
Parliament, however, soon met, and enacted that their houses, goods,
and chattels should be restored to them in the same condition they were
in before the battle of Lewes. The Jews, therefore, enjoyed comparative
tranquillity for the period of four years, since that meeting of
parliament. They agreed to pay £1000, to be free from taxes during that
period; under the proviso, however, that neither the king nor the prince
should undertake any crusade during that time: and some few had even
great favours bestowed upon them, especially those who rendered the
king effectual service in his distresses. Yet was their tranquillity
only comparative; they were by no means universally exempt from trouble
and annoyance, and individuals were subject to grievous calumnies and
accusations, as was the case with the Jews of Lincoln during that period.
The dean and chapter of that city would not pay their debts; they
contrived to accuse their Jewish creditor of forging a bond. It is a
faithful picture of the English of those days, “that when churchmen and
laymen, prince and prior, knight and priest, come knocking at Isaac’s
door, they borrow not his shekels with these uncivil terms. It is then,
Friend Isaac, will you pleasure us in this matter, and our day shall be
truly kept, so God save me?――and kind Isaac, if ever you served a man,
show yourself a friend in this need. And when the day comes and I ask
my own, then what hear I, but the curse of Egypt on your tribe, and all
that may stir up the rude and uncivil populace against poor strangers.”¹
¹ Sir Walter Scott.
The Jews in Oxford for a long time seem, upon the whole, to have been
more prosperous than their brethren in many other places. You have heard
that they had schools and seminaries there at an early period of their
history in England.¹ Their occupation there seems to have been almost
altogether in the literary line, so that we do not find any documents
respecting forged bonds. The Jews have always appreciated learning very
much and encouraged it. We read of individuals selling some land at
a very low rate indeed, for the erection of an institution for that
purpose. The celebrated Sir Walter de Merton, the founder of a college
in Oxford bearing his name, purchased a site from a Jew, as appears from
a deed in the college treasury.²
¹ See pp. 87, 109.
² See Appendix P.
Yet they were now and then subject to some accusations: for instance,
we learn from a writ of release, and which has been alluded to already,
that several Jews in that city were imprisoned on a charge brought
against them of taking away a boy belonging to a Jewish convert, and
concealing him. However, it proved a false alarm, the child was soon
found; the prisoners were therefore forthwith released.¹
¹ See Appendix Q.
Prynne briefly notices an investigation respecting the murder of a
certain Jew there, Jacob by name.¹
¹ See Appendix R.
The university, however, was at that time very badly off for a nice
elegant cross; they had no means of erecting it. The authorities
therefore ingeniously contrived to make the Jews erect one for them.
One of them was, therefore accused of having, on Ascension Day――whilst
the chancellor, masters, and scholars of the university were walking in
solemn procession to visit the sainted reliques of Frideswide, bearing
the cross before them――snatched the cross――a _wooden_ one――from its
bearer, and trodden it under his feet in contempt of Christ. A very
likely story!¹
¹ Judging from the Popish customs still existing in the
countries where that religion is national, I should say that
certainly no Jew was permitted to appear in the street during
that or any similar procession-day, as is the case to this
day in Poland, and other Roman Catholic countries. A Jew,
in all probability, ventured out at that time, and thus gave
his enemies an opportunity to fabricate the above adventure,
which ended in the erection of a splendid cross by its
enemies.
Strict search was made after the culprit, but in vain. Of course, there
was evidently no culprit to find; if there were, he could not possibly
have escaped, as no Jew was allowed to travel from place to place
without especial license.
All those, therefore, who could be found within the city, were seized,
and imprisoned until they had provided sufficient funds for the erection
of a cross of white marble, with golden figures of the Virgin and Jesus
Christ, and also a rich silver cross, to be carried before the masters
and scholars of the university, in their processions. The marble cross
was placed in Merton College, and the silver one entrusted to the
Fellows of that society. The large marble cross appears to have existed
till Henry the Sixth, according to John Ross, a contemporary antiquary,
who copied from it, just before it was destroyed, the following
inscription:――
“Quis meus author erat? Judæi. Quomodo? Sumptu. Quis jussit? Regnans.
Quo procurante? Magistris. Cur? Cruce pro fractu LIGNI. Quo tempore?
Festo Ascensus Domini. Quis erat locus? Hic ubi sisto.”
At Brentford, the people rose up against the Jews, and robbed them
of whatever goods they could lay their hands upon. On this occasion,
forty-five of the principal actors in the outrage were apprehended by
the authorities of the place. The whole of these were, however, shortly
after liberated, upon the intervention of the Bishop of Lincoln, because
it was maintained that no man could impeach them of any crime or breach
of the peace.
After the battle of Eversham, when the rebel barons had assembled an
army in the eastern counties, they marched a part of their forces to
Lincoln, broke into the houses of the Jews, and plundered them of their
wealth; then making an excursion to Cambridge, they committed a similar
outrage, and carrying away with them the richest of the Jews, forced
them to pay heavy ransoms for their liberation. These and many other
acts of oppression and cruelty were inflicted upon the Jews by the
populace.
The conduct of the people was the natural result of the unrestrained
extortions practised by the crown. The daily occurrence of these
extortions led the populace to regard the Jews as persons who were not
within the usual protection of the law, and they therefore considered it
no crime to enrich themselves at the expense of those unfortunate people.
But though the king did not hesitate to oppress the Jews himself, yet he
had good reasons for shielding them against the violence and extortions
of his subjects. He considered the Jews and all they possessed as his
own peculiar property, and he consequently looked upon every act by
which they were impoverished, as withdrawing so much from his own wealth.
Measures were therefore taken to prevent a continuance of the outrages
of the people; and directions were issued to twenty-six of the principal
inhabitants of the towns where the Jews resided,¹ to protect them from
any further acts of violence, under heavy penalties for disobedience.²
¹ Dr. Jost observes, how great must their danger have been,
since twenty-six burgesses in each town were necessary to
protect them.
² See Appendix S.
The Jews seem to have been treated by that monarch exactly as slaves,
and were presented as gifts to his children. Prince Edmund was presented
with a rich Jew, Aaron. As it happened, however, Aaron was not the
worse off on that account; for Edmund does not seem to have inherited
much of the avarice and rapacity either of his father or mother. This
Jew, therefore, fared far better than many of his brethren. He was
enfranchised altogether by that prince for the trifling remuneration of
an annual pair of gilt spurs,¹ and had, moreover, the peculiar liberty
of residing wherever he liked in any part of the kingdom. There were
several others who were favoured with the king’s countenance; for
instance, Cressey and two other Jews of London were freed, by the
intercession of the king of the Romans, from all sorts of tallages, for
the space of five years, for the trifling remuneration of one mark and a
half of gold, to be paid by each of them annually. And also to a certain
Jacob le Eveske, by the interference of the queen, an exemption was
conceded from all sorts of tributes and taxes all his life-time; and the
same privilege to his son Benedict after his father Jacob’s death. A few
other instances of that kind are adduced by Prynne.
¹ See Appendix T.
However, the favour bestowed on individuals had only the effect of
exciting the odium of the populace against the whole community, and
thus kindled the flame of persecution in the breasts of the British
Christians to an incredible pitch. In fact, they first pretended that
the crown lavished too many favours on the Hebrews, and then maintained
that the king was not a good Christian in consequence; till they wrought
him up to the pitch they aimed at. Eleanor even, who was as unprincipled
a plunderer of the Jews as the king himself, whenever an opportunity
occurred, was also accused of patronizing them, simply because it was
supposed that when Eleanor was married to Henry, a great number of Jews
followed her to this country, hoping to experience the same favour they
enjoyed in her paternal country. All these pretences pressed heavily
upon the poor Jews. New cruel enactments were devised against them;
and the king was obliged to sanction them, in order to retain the
pretensions to the name Christian. Cruelty to the Jews seems, then,
to have been an infallible feature of a good Christian. Thus, in the
fifty-first year of this reign, when the statute of Pillory passed,
it was enacted, amongst other things, that “no person should purchase
flesh of a Jew.” “The regulations of these statutes,” says Mr. Blunt,
“had reference principally to the conduct of the Jews, and to their
intercourse with the Christians.” If their fury went no further, the
Jews would have had no reason to be sorry; for truth to speak, the less
intercourse the Jews had with _those_ Christians, the safer they were.
But the people did not stop here. Indeed, there were circumstances
arising out of the authority claimed by the crown over the Jews, which
induced the nation to require some regulations with respect to their
property and possessions. The right of the crown with respect to them,
was not unfrequently, in the exercise, oppressive to the Christian
inhabitants. When the king seized the estate of a Jew into his hands, he
claimed to be entitled, as part of his effects, to all the debts which
were at the time owing to him, and the debtor to the Jew thereby became
the debtor of the king――a situation which the wants of the crown in
these times rendered dangerous and oppressive. It was the custom of
the Jews, instead of advancing money on mortgage, to purchase certain
rent-charges on annuities, secured upon the landed estates of the
debtor. These rent-charges had increased to a very large extent, and
by becoming vested in the king, were probably found to give the crown a
dangerous hold upon the landed proprietors of the country. As a further
consequence, also, of the title claimed by the king to the property
and estates of the Jews, an encroachment was made upon the accustomed
rights of the tenure. When a Jew became entitled to any landed property,
the fruits and privileges of the lord of the fee became immediately
endangered or suspended; for, besides that the land was liable at
any time to be seized into the hands of the king, who, upon feudal
principles, could not hold of any inferior, the lord was deprived at
once of his chance of escheat and the advantages of reliefs, as the king
claimed in all cases to succeed to the lands of a Jew upon his death;
and the heir, for permission to take the land of his ancestors, paid his
relief to the king. In cases of outlawry, moreover, the king stepped in
and deprived the lord of his escheat.
In consequence of this state of circumstances, the king was constrained,
towards the conclusion of his reign, to grant the following charter:――
“Henry, by the grace of God, king of England, &c. To all our sheriffs,
bailiffs, and liege subjects, to whom these presents shall come,
greeting. Know ye, that for the honour of God and the universal Church,
for the amendment and advantage of our kingdom, and for relieving
Christians from the damages and grievance which they have suffered by
the freeholds which our Jews claimed to have in lands, tenements, fees,
rents, and other tenures; and that no prejudice may hereafter happen to
us, to the commonweal of our kingdom, or to the kingdom itself, we, by
_the advice of our bishops, nobles, and great men who are of our council,
have provided, ordained, and enacted_, for us and our heirs, that no Jew
shall from henceforth have a freehold in any manors, lands, tenements,
fees, rents, or tenures whatsoever, either by charter, gift, feoffment,
confirmation, or other grant, or by any other means whatever.
“Provided nevertheless, that they may hereafter hold, as in times past
they were accustomed to hold, those houses in our cities, boroughs and
towns, which they themselves inhabit; and likewise that they may let
those houses to lease, which they now hold for that purpose, to Jews
only, but not to Christians.
“Yet nevertheless it is here provided, that it should not be lawful
for our Jews of London to purchase, or by any other method to acquire,
more houses than they now have in our said city of London; by which the
parochial churches of the said city, or their incumbents, may incur a
loss. However, it shall be lawful for the said Jews of London at their
pleasure to repair their houses, and even to rebuild and restore to
their former condition such of their old houses as have fallen down or
been demolished.
“We likewise, by and with the advice of our said council, provide and
enact, that with respect to the said houses so to be inhabited, or let
to lease as aforesaid, no Jew shall sue or be sued by our original writs
out of chancery, but before our justices appointed for taking care of
the Jews, and by the writs of Judaism hitherto used and accustomed.
“But with respect to those lands and tenures in which the Jews were
before _this statute_ infeoffed, and which they now hold, our will is,
that such infeoffments and grants shall be absolutely annulled; and
that the said lands and tenements shall return to the Christians who
granted the same; but upon condition that the said Christians shall make
satisfaction to the Jews, without usury, for the money or consideration
contained in the charters and writings, which was paid by the Jews
to the Christians, for the said feoffments or grants. And also
upon condition, that if the said Christians cannot make immediate
satisfaction for the same, it may be lawful for the said Jews to make
over the said tenements to other Christians, until the consideration
paid by them can, without usury, be raised out of the rents and
profits of the said estate, according to its true value by a reasonable
assessment; saving, however, to such Christians their subsistence; and
so as that the Jew may from thence receive the money or consideration
by the hands of some Christian, and not of any Jew, as aforesaid.
“And if a Jew should hereafter happen to receive from any Christian a
feoffment of any fee or tenement, contrary to this _present statute_,
the said Jew shall absolutely forfeit the said tenement or fee, and
the same shall be taken into, and safely kept in our hands; and the
Christians or their heirs may recover the said lands or tenements out
of our hands; but upon condition that they pay to us the whole money
which they received from the said Jews for such a feoffment. Or if they
have not sufficient wherewithal to do this, they shall then pay yearly
to us and our heirs, at our exchequer, the true yearly value of those
tenements or fees, according to a just and reasonable assessment, until
we have had full satisfaction of the said money or consideration.
“And with regard to the nurses of Jewish children, and the bakers,
brewers, and cooks of the Jews, as they and the Christians are different
in their faith and worship, we provide and enact, that no Christian man
or woman shall presume to serve them in any of these capacities.
“And because the Jews have long since been accustomed to receive, by the
hands of Christians, certain rents something like fee-farm rents, out of
the lands and tenements of Christians, which likewise have been called
fees, we will and ordain that the statute relating to them heretofore
by us made, shall remain in full force, nor shall any way be derogated
from by this present act; therefore _we command_ and strictly charge
you, that you cause the said provision, ordinance, or statute, to be
publicly proclaimed, and duly observed and obeyed, throughout your whole
bailiwick.
“In testimony whereof we have caused to be issued these our letters
patent. Witness self at Westminster, 24th day of July, and of our reign
the 54th year.”¹
¹ I have here borrowed a couple of pages from John Elijah
Blunt.――See Appendix U.
One would have fancied that such a statute as was just read, would have
been the crown’s crowning act of violence towards the poor Jews; and
since they had suffered so much of murder, plunder, and robbery both
from the king and his subjects, a little respite, at least, would have
been granted to them. But various as their oppressions were, so were
they also incessant. Soon after the above decree was proclaimed, Prince
Edward proceeded to the Holy Land, “that grave of immense treasures and
innumerable lives.” His expenses were heavy; the Jews were therefore
taxed at 6,000 marks. Now it was high time, after all their endurances,
to be completely drained of their silver and gold, as they really
were; they were therefore unable to raise the demanded sum with the
promptitude with which it was required. Earl Richard came forward
again, and advanced the money on the security of the Jews. But they
seem to have been mortgaged to him in the present instance for one year
only, for the next year they were again very heavily taxed. Several
individuals were assigned over to Prince Edward, who had to pay £1000.
The Christians of that reign seemed to have cultivated an unaccountable
covetousness for every thing Jewish, not only their money, but also
their public buildings, and particularly their synagogues. We are thus
informed, that this year another synagogue in London――the principal
one――was taken away from the Jewish congregation and given to the Friars
Penitents, who were sadly in want of a church. Unfortunately for the
poor Jews, the Friars’ dark hole of a chapel was standing close to
that magnificent synagogue, upon which those “locusts,” as Tovey calls
them, set their avaricious and malicious affection, and did not rest
till they got the king to sanction their robbery. The pretext they
fixed upon was of a most blasphemous nature. They complained, that in
consequence of the great noise the Jews made in their synagogue during
their worship, _they were not able to make the body of Christ quietly_.
The king thought the reason was a cogent one, and without any further
consideration, ordered the Jewish place of worship to be turned into a
den of thieves. But the king was so gracious as to permit the Jews to
build for themselves another synagogue in some other convenient place,
if they chose. No doubt expecting to get another church for his
_im_pious subjects.
Henry the Third must have been tormented with the torturous
apprehension――as was the tyrannical Herod――that the Jews anticipated
his death with great complacency.¹ Henry began to grow infirm, and did
not expect to enjoy this world much longer: he determined therefore not
to allow the Jews to be glad on that account. The cruelties, therefore,
which he inflicted upon them in his last days, were of so barbarous
a nature as to excite the commiseration of their most venomous foes.
He called upon his unfortunate Jewish subjects to reckon up all their
accounts with him, and pay him in the balance without delay. All arrears
of his arbitrary tallages were to be settled in the short term of four
months, but half of the aggregate sum was to be paid in seventeen days.
Should any one be unable to pay, or give adequate security, he was
forthwith to be imprisoned, and the privilege of bail denied him, except
by body for body. And if any of their sureties should fail to pay in
their whole quota on the appointed days, any sums formerly paid in part
were to be forfeited, and their persons, goods, and chattels to be at
the king’s mercy. Numbers of them upon this occasion were imprisoned
in the Tower of London, and other places. Nothing but weeping and
lamentation were to be seen and heard in every corner of every street.
Dr. Tovey states――“Even the friars, who had so lately taken possession
of their synagogue, as it is said, pitied them; nor were the Caursini
and the Caturcensian brokers (though their rivals in extortion) without
compassion; for nothing could be more rigorous and unmerciful than the
king’s proceedings at this time.”
¹ That savage tyrant, Herod, when he was taken ill in Jericho,
which dreadful illness terminated his life, apprehending
the approach of his dissolution, and remembering the many
cruelties which he inflicted on the poor Jews; he had
every reason to believe that joy instead of mourning would
succeed his death. He ordered, therefore, his sister and
brother-in-law to seize the principal men of the city of
Jericho, and to put them to the sword the moment of his
decease, in order that mourning should be a _sine qua non_.
I ended my last Lecture with the erection of a Jewish converts’
institution, which Henry had established “to deliver his father’s
soul from the flames of purgatory,”¹ and with the same subject will I
conclude my lecture tonight; and I am truly glad that this protracted
Lecture is coming to a close. It seems that at the end of Henry’s reign
there were great numbers of Jewish converts. Before that institution
was established, I doubt not that many were deterred from embracing
Christianity, in consequence of the distressing prospect they had
before their eyes, of being deprived of all they possessed, and without
any means of support.² The provision thus made for the Christian Jews
induced many a one to make public confession of his faith. On one of
the rolls of that reign, about five hundred names of Jewish converts
are registered. But as all institutions, if not diligently looked after,
become in process of time abused, so was that one, in an especial manner.
The revenues were swallowed up by a few of the officers of that house,
and the majority of the poor converts were subject to sheer starvation.³
Henry, therefore, thought that it would be a meritorious thing on
his part――especially as he expected ere long to be called before an
awful tribunal to give an account of his stewardship――to give fresh
encouragement to that asylum, and institute a strict investigation as
to what became of the revenues assigned to that establishment; and he
also enacted, that for the future none should receive any support from
the house, except those who were really in want of it. The regulations
of the house and chapel were also revised and improved. The king’s
commissioners for that purpose were the mayor of London, and John de
St. Dennis, warden of that asylum.⁴ I repeat what I took the liberty to
express in my last Lecture, that such institutions are most important in
our own days, and I venture to cherish the hope, that I shall have the
happiness to see institutions of that kind established in every town in
England where the Jews reside, which, I am convinced, would be the means
of making MANY avow their secret belief in the truth of the Christian
religion.
¹ See p. 210.
² See page 205.
³ See Appendix V.
⁴ See Appendix W.
It is a most gratuitous assertion on the part of Dr. Jost, that only
the impoverished Jews, and such as had to fear any punishment by reason
of some transgression against the laws of the country, took refuge in
that house.¹ The Jewish historian has no authority for such a statement
except his prejudices. There are records existing which prove the
contrary.²
¹ _Es scheint jedoch, dass nur arme Juden, und ♦wohl meist
solche, die gesetzliche strafen zu fürchten hatten, zu diesem
Hause ihre Zuflucht nahmen._――Geschichte der Israeliten, vol.
vii., p. 147.
² See Appendix X.
♦ ‘uohl’ replaced with ‘wohl’