MY last Lecture, which must have been as tedious to you as it was
to myself, finished with the death of Henry the Third. A melancholy
monotony pervaded the whole of that lecture. The principal feature in
Henry’s disposition was, as you are well aware, uncontrollable avarice,
which was the cause of the many cruel persecutions, to which the poor
unfortunate Jews were exposed.
I may just recapitulate, in a few minutes, the sums extracted from the
Jews in the preceding reign. In the years 1230 and 1231, 15,000 marks;
in 1233, 18,000 marks; in 1236, 1800 marks. The amount of taxation in
1237, not mentioned. In 1239, a third part of their goods; in 1241,
20,000 marks; in 1244, 20,000 marks; in 1245, 60,000 marks, which tax
the king received with his own hand; in 1246, 10,000 marks; in 1247,
5,525 marks; in 1249, 10,000 marks; in 1250, a great part of their goods
was taken away; in 1251, 5,000 marks of silver, and 40 of gold; in 1252,
3,500 marks; in 1253, 5,000 marks; in 1259, 5,000 marks; in 1269, 1,000
pounds; in 1271, 6,000 marks; besides many more, of which we have no
records, and also besides the vast sums occasionally extorted from
numbers of individuals.¹
¹ “In Claus. 39, H. 3, pars 2, dors. 16, 17, there is a large
catalogue of the lands, houses, rents, mortgages, real and
personal estate, and debts of Abraham, a Jew, in several
counties, amounting to a vast sum, taking up near two
membrances, which were imbreviated and confiscated to the
king’s use. And a proclamation by the king, that no Jew
should be suffered to depart out of the realm of England.”
――_Prynne._ See also pp. 242, 243.
Lord Coke states, that the crown received from the Jews,
in the short space of seven years, viz., from the 17th
of December, in the 50th year of Henry III., until Shrove
Tuesday, the 2nd of Edward I., the sum of £420,000 15s. 4d.
“Death,” using the words of a quaint writer, “as inexorable as himself,
seized him, and gave the Jews some respite from these afflictions――the
king leaving behind him but a very indifferent character either as a
man, or a prince.”
For nearly two years after, the government of this country remained
in the hands of the Archbishop of York, and the Earls of Cornwall
and Chester, Edward being abroad, engaged in the holy war, as it was
called; during which time the Jews seem to have been left pretty much
unnoticed, and consequently, we may conclude, in peace. Edward’s return,
however, brings them again prominently before our view, and under more
distressing circumstances than ever.
The first public act of his reign which had reference to the Jews, was
in conformity with the example set by his ancestors: he held out to them
hopes of safety and protection. Shortly after the death of the late king,
proclamations of peace and security were issued, extending to the Jews
as well as to the nation in general.¹ It was, however, quickly evident
that, as far as regarded the former, there was no peace for them.
¹ See Appendix A.
Edward knew well that his father’s and mother’s unenviable unpopularity
with his subjects, and the incessant civil wars which distracted the
kingdom during the preceding reign, owed their existence to his royal
parents’ insatiable demands for money from the English barons. Edward,
though equally in want of large sums of money, determined, however, to
obtain those sums from the Jews alone, and not ask anything from his
Christian subjects――an expedient whereby he expected to gain popularity,
as well as the supplies he wanted. Accordingly, the king, soon after
his coronation, began to regulate the Jewish affairs after his father’s
model. Steps were, in a short time, taken to facilitate the levying
of taxes upon them. New officers of their exchequer were appointed;
directions were given to enforce the regulations, by which they were
obliged to confine themselves within particular towns and cities; and
orders were forwarded to the sheriffs of the different places where
they resided, to examine the registers of their debts and possessions,
and make a faithful return of their estates and effects. As soon as the
necessary information upon these orders was received from the sheriffs,
a new tallage was imposed upon the Jews. The children began to be taxed
as well as the parents, which made the tallage enormous; and authority
was given to enforce the payment, together with that of all arrears
due on former assessments, by measures of the greatest severity. The
collectors were directed to levy the sums which were demanded, upon the
goods and chattels of those who hesitated to contribute their proportion;
and if the amount could not by this means be obtained――which, as a
matter of course, proved those impoverished Jews to be useless, since
everything, _indeed_, was taken from them――the king thought best to
change the punishment from imprisonment to transportation. Accordingly,
the sheriffs were empowered to punish the refractory (that is, those who
had not money enough) with banishment from the kingdom; to imprison all
such as common thieves, who should be found in the country after three
days from the time they were, under these orders, directed to leave
it; and the lands, houses, and effects of those who should be banished,
were to be forthwith taken possession of and sold. The persons who
were appointed to carry these directions into effect were, an Irish
bishop――Bishop elect of Waterford――and two friars; and they appear to
have executed the office entrusted to them with such relentless severity,
that the king’s mind was moved to pity, and in many cases he gave orders
to release particular individuals amongst the Jews from a part of the
demands made upon them.
The complaints which had been made, towards the end of the last reign,
of the injuries which were experienced by the people in general, from
the laws and proceedings respecting the Jews, it seems were now again
brought forward. And the extent to which the Jews were permitted to take
interest by the canon law, in order to fill the coffers of the king, was,
it appears, also the subject of increased remonstrance. It must be borne
in mind that the Gentiles were by far the greater usurers than the Jews,
but they could practise the foul profession with impunity, by stating
that they laboured for the pope: for instance, in the thirty-sixth
year of the preceding reign, Henry ordered that the Causini should be
prosecuted with the utmost rigour of the law for their usuries; but
they pleaded that they were the servants of the pope, and employed by
him, and were therefore not only left alone, but countenanced in that
nefarious traffic.
In the third year of this reign, the king, in order to please his
Christian subjects, was pleased to pass the statute which is known by
the name of the STATUTUM DE JUDAISMO. This statute acknowledged that
the king and his ancestors had had great profit from the Jews, yet
that many mischiefs and disinheritances of honest men had happened by
their usuries; and it therefore enacted, that from thenceforth no Jew
should practise usury,――that no distress for any Jew’s debt should be so
grievous as not to leave the debtor the moiety of his lands and chattels
for his subsistence; that no Jew should have power to sell or alien
any house, rents, or tenements, without the king’s leave, but that they
might purchase houses in cities as heretofore, and take leases of land
to farm for ten years; and that they should be at liberty to carry on
mercantile transactions in the cities where they resided; provided,
however, that they should not, by reason of such dealings, be talliable
with the other inhabitants of the cities, seeing that they were only
talliable to the king, as his own bondsmen; and it directed that they
should reside only in such cities and boroughs as were the king’s own;
and that all Jews above the age of seven years should wear a badge, in
the form of two tables of yellow taffety,¹ upon their upper garments;
and that all above twelve years of age should pay to the king, at Easter,
the sum of three pence. Lord Coke recommends that statute as very worthy
to be read. It was drawn up in French, and the following is an English
translation of the same:――
¹ I should not wonder that some royal merchant arrived into this
country to dispose of a certain quantity of yellow taffety,
which perhaps not proving saleable, the merchant procured
the interest of the king or that of his counsellors, and
thus yellow taffety became the Jewish badge. C. White, in his
“Three Years in Constantinople,” relates a circumstance which
gives colour to the above suggestion. He says――“Sometimes
French ambassadors carry their powers of protection to
strange lengths, and apply them to singular purposes. It
is related that one La Rose, first valet-de-chambre to M.
d’Argental, in 1690, was persuaded by some one in Paris to
lay out his savings in wigs, as a good speculation to take to
Turkey. Finding, upon reaching Constantinople, that his stock
remained on hand, and that he had been duped, he fell into
low spirits, and had nigh died of despondency. The ambassador
seeing this, bethought himself of applying to the grand vizir,
to see if he could not devise some plan for getting rid of
the cargo. ‘Nothing can be more easy,’ replied the sultan’s
_alter ergo_; ‘leave the affair to me.’ On the following
day, a firman was issued, and read in the Jewish synagogues,
commanding all Jews to wear wigs. Terrible was the confusion
and running to and fro among the unfortunate Israelites of
Balat and Khass Kouy. Few knew the meaning of wigs: none
knew where to find them. This having quickly reached La
Rose’s ears, he joyously delivered his store to a broker,
who disposed of the whole in a few hours, and the speculator
reaped a rich harvest. He was, however, directed by his
master not to renew the venture. This was not the only
strange proceeding on the part of M. d’Argental: indeed he
carried his vagaries so far, that he was eventually put under
restraint by his own secretaries.”
“Whereas the king having observed, that in times past, many honest men
have lost their inheritances by the usury of the Jews, and that many
sins have from thence arisen, notwithstanding Judaism is, and has been
very profitable to him and his ancestors, yet nevertheless he ordains
and establishes for the honour of God, and the common benefit of the
people, that no Jew hereafter shall in any manner practise usury; and
that no usurious contracts already made, since the feast of St. Edward’s,
last past, shall stand _good_, excepting bonds relating to the capital
sum. Provided also, that all those who are indebted to the Jews, upon
pledges moveable, shall redeem them before Easter next, under pain
of forfeiture. And if any Jew shall practise usury against the intent
of this statute, the king promises neither to give him assistance by
himself or officers in recovering his debts; but, on the contrary, will
punish him for his trespass, and assist the Christians against him in
the recovery of their pledges.
“And it is further enacted, that no distress for any Jew’s debt shall
hereafter be so grievous, as not to leave Christians the moiety of their
lands and chattels for subsistence; and that no distress shall be made
by any such Jew, upon the heir of his debtor named in the bond, or any
other person in possession of the debtor’s lands, before such debt shall
be proved in court. And if the sheriff or other bailiff is commanded
by the king to give possession to any Jew, of lands or chattels to the
value of his debt, the chattels shall first be appraised by the oath of
honest men, and delivered to the Jew or Jewess to the value of the debt.
And if the chattels be not found sufficient to answer it, then the lands
shall be extended by the same oath, according to their separate values,
before seisin is given of them to the Jew or Jewess; to the intent, that
when the debt is certainly known to be discharged, the Christian may
have his land again, saving to the Christian, nevertheless, the moiety
of his lands and chattels, and the chief house for his sustenance, as
before expressed.
“And if anything stolen be found in the possession of a Jew, let him
have his summons, if he regularly may have it; if not, he shall answer
in such a manner as a Christian would be obliged to do without claiming
any privilege. Likewise all Jews shall be resident in such cities
and boroughs as are the king’s own, where the common chest of their
indentures is wont to be kept. And every one of them that is past
seven years of age shall wear a badge, in form of two tables, of yellow
taffety, six fingers long and three fingers broad, upon his upper
garment; and every one that is past twelve years shall also pay annually
to the king, at Easter, the sum of three pence, both male and female.
“And no Jew shall have power to alienate in fee, either to Jew or
Christian, any houses, rents, or tenements, which they have already
purchased, or dispose of them in any manner, or acquit any Christian
of his debt, without the king’s special license, till he hath otherwise
ordained.
“And because holy Church wills and permits that they should live, and
be protected, the king takes them into his protection, and commands that
they should live guarded and defended by his sheriffs, bailiffs, and
other liege people. And that none shall do them harm, either in their
persons or goods, moveable or immoveable, or sue, implead, or challenge
them in any courts but the king’s courts, ♦wheresoever they are.
♦ ‘wheresover’ replaced with ‘wheresoever’
“And that none of them shall be obedient, respondent, or pay any rent
to any but the king or his bailiffs, in his name, excepting for their
houses which they now hold, rendering rent; saving likewise the rights
of holy Church.
“And the king also grants, that they may practise merchandise or live
by their labour, and for those purposes freely converse with Christians.
Excepting that on any pretence whatever they shall not be levant, or
couchant, amongst them: nor on account of their merchandise, be in
scots, lots, or talliage, with the other inhabitants of those cities or
boroughs where they remain: seeing they are talliable to the king as his
own vassals, and not otherwise.
“Moreover the king grants them free liberty to purchase houses, and
curtilages, in the cities and boroughs where they reside: provided
they are held in chief of the king, saving to the lords their due and
accustomed services.
“And further the king grants, that such as are unskilful in merchandise,
and cannot labour, may take lands to farm, for any term not exceeding
ten years: provided no homage, fealty, or any such kind of service or
advowson to holy Church, be belonging to them. Provided also that this
power to farm lands shall continue in force for fifteen years from the
making of this act, and no longer.”¹
¹ It appears that Edward had already contemplated the total
banishment of the Jews in 1290, for fifteen years after that
statute was enacted the Jews were altogether expelled.
The provisions of this act were afterwards rigorously enforced; writs
were at different periods issued to compel the Jews to reside in the
towns prescribed for them, to levy the sum of three pence a head on all
who were above the age of twelve years, and to oblige all who were more
than seven years old, to wear the badge directed by the statute.
The Jews were for a long time silent as regards the merits of the
Christian religion, but they could contain themselves no longer. They
began openly to abuse Christianity, and stated publicly that it could
not be a religion given by a merciful God, since it allowed such
inhumanity.
The king, therefore, with an appearance of pious zeal, which was either
prompted by the dictates of his own conscience, or adopted in deference
to the spirit of the times, commanded steps to be taken to make the
Jews――apparently at least――respect the Christian faith. The first means
adopted with a view to this object were, as might have been expected in
that age, of a compulsory nature. In the seventh year of this reign, the
king issued a proclamation, directing that any Jew who was heard openly
to revile the divinity of Christ, should be forthwith put to death; and
if convicted of being a common blasphemer, should be punished according
to the law in such cases.¹
¹ See Appendix B.
The Jews insisted, however, that they should not be called by the name
of Christian, considering such an epithet, when applied to them, a
defamation of character. Accordingly we find, that when a Jewish woman
was once called a Christian, and affirmed to have been baptized, her
husband joined with her in an action for scandal and defamation, and
appealed to the king for justice. The king actually sent a formal writ,
concerning it, to his justices, commanding them to try the matter by an
inquisition of Christians and Jews, and obtain for the parties redress,
if slandered.¹ To this circumstance may the origin of the new enactment
be ascribed, viz., that Jewish females should also wear distinguishing
badges.
¹ See Appendix C.
For by an edict subsequently issued by the king, the direction with
respect to the wearing of badges was extended to Jewesses as well as to
Jews; and orders were at the same time given to see that no Christian
served any Jew in any menial capacity. In addition to these regulations,
which were solely of a temporal nature, measures were also taken with
respect to the Jews, which had reference to the promotion of their
spiritual welfare. For about the same time, certain friars of the
order of the Dominicans undertook to preach to the Jews, and vouched
to convince them of the truth of the Christian faith, if the Jews could
only be prevailed upon to listen to their preaching. They therefore
petitioned the king to force all the Jews to attend their sermons. To
forward their pious intentions, the king issued writs to the sheriffs
and bailiffs of the different towns where the Jews resided, commanding
that the Jews should be compelled to attend such places as the friars
should appoint, and be forced to listen to the lectures which were
delivered, with attention, and without disturbance.¹ The king, on his
part, conceded a portion of the advantages to which he had heretofore
been entitled, from the power he possessed over the property of the
converted Jews. Letters patent were published, declaring that for the
future seven years, any Jew, who might become a Christian, should retain
the moiety of his property to his own use; the other half was secured to
the house of converts, founded by the late king, to be applied (together
with the deodands which were granted at the same time) towards the
support of that establishment. We do not find on record many benefits
that resulted, from the measures _thus_ taken to induce the Jews to
investigate attentively the claims of the Christian doctrines; and it
would seem that but few were prevailed upon to surmount the stumbling
blocks thrown in the way of their conversion, and to make the sacrifice
which was still incurred by the convert to the Christian creed.
¹ See Appendix D.
The Jewish converts’ institution was also much patronized by the king.
The warden of the house was commanded to elect an able Presbyter to act
as his coadjutor, and who was to reside in the house, together with a
few other ministers, in order regularly to attend to all the regulations
of the house. The king also ordered, that if any of the converts
residing in the house were qualified to act as assistant Chaplains,
they should be preferred to all others, in the Presbyter’s election.
And if any of the convert-inmates appeared likely to become scholars,
they should be sent to efficient schools, and properly educated. And
if any were more fit for business, they should be sent to learn a
trade, but have their board and lodgings in the institution. Should
the literary converts, however, be promoted to the Church, they were to
cease to participate in the benefits offered by the house. The king also
ordered that if after all the expenses of the house were discharged,
there should still remain some balance in the hand of the collector or
treasurer, the whole of that surplus should be applied to the repairing
and beautifying of the chapel belonging to that institution.
But, as I said before, we are not favoured with many records of the
conversion of the Jews in this reign: yet those we have registered are
of a very satisfactory nature. We read of a certain Oxford Jew, Belager
by name, who became a Christian, and from the schedule of his goods,
which was seized for the king in consequence of his conversion, we
have every reason to believe that Belager was a man of learning, for
his moveable goods consisted chiefly of books.¹ His conversion was,
therefore, owing to powerful conviction, as is generally the case with
a Jew when he is led to make a public confession of his faith.²
¹ See Appendix E.
² By this I do not mean to insinuate that there are no
impostors amongst baptized Jews. It is a painful truth
that the human nature of the Jews is as deceitful and as
desperately wicked as that of the Gentiles.
Whilst it is pleasing to register the concessions which were thus made
on the part of the crown in favour of the Jewish converts, it is no less
painful to have to record that the Jews in general still continued to
be subjected to tallages of very heavy amounts, the payment of which
was enforced by seizure of their goods, and by banishment. The king’s
exchequer being completely exhausted, Edward stood greatly in need of
money in consequence of his Welsh war: the rearing of the two castles
in Wales――viz. that of Caernarvon, as also that of Conway――must also
have amounted to a vast expenditure. Then the question arose, where was
all the money to be got? Answer――By orders which were at various times
issued to open and examine the chests in which the Jewish properties and
possessions were enrolled; and great part of their effects were taken,
and the sums which other persons were indebted to them were levied
and appropriated by the king. Accusations were, moreover, at different
periods made against them, of various descriptions of crimes. The
principal offence with which they were now charged, was with clipping
and falsifying the coin of the realm; and many, on account of this
calumny, were condemned to suffer death, and were executed. In the
seventh year of this reign no less than two hundred and ninety-four were
put to death for this imputed crime; and all they possessed taken to
the use of the king. To what extent the Jews were really guilty of this
latter offence for which they suffered, or whether they were guilty at
all, it is impossible now to determine.
It is probable, however, that many of you may decide at once that this
charge must have been true; for Edward the First, who is called the
English Justinian, for the excellency of the laws enacted by him,
caused them to be tried for this offence. You may perhaps suppose,
that under a sovereign, who is to this day celebrated on account of the
laws enacted in his reign, these Jews had all regular trials, and were
justly convicted upon evidence. I candidly confess, that those were
the opinions I entertained at my first reading this accusation, which
induced me to examine the subject rigorously; and the following is the
result of my examination of this subject. It is true that where there
are good laws enacted, we naturally look for an upright administration
of them, but it is possible for a prince to enact good laws for the
government of his people, and yet to be misled by his ministers, to
conduct his government without the least regard to law and justice;
and there are few reigns in which greater acts of oppression, cruelty,
and injustice were committed, than in the reign of Edward the First,
although the brilliancy of his exploits, and the greatness of his
abilities, have thrown an unmerited gloss over his administration. Does
not history declare that the very fountains of justice were polluted,
and that loud complaints were made of the corruption and venality of the
judges in Edward’s reign?¹ Kings are ever entitled to profound respect,
and it is the liberal policy of the present age ever to give them the
credit of uprightness of intention, and to consider every investigation,
as an investigation of the acts of their ministers. We shall, therefore,
consider it in this light, and speak of actions as the actions of the
ministers of state; and surely the actions of the administration in his
reign are very reprehensible. Their conduct towards the Welsh and the
Scotch, their sovereigns and people, and especially the slaughter of
the Welsh bards, will ever be considered by those who are not dazzled by
successful cruelty as disgraceful acts; which would have tarnished the
splendour of this reign, had it been a thousand times more splendid; but
in their conduct towards the Jews, they acted the part of most grievous
oppressors. What evidence was produced against them? We read that
they were suspected of the crime, as were also the Flemings. It would,
therefore, have been the part of a good and active government to have
set its officers to seek for the guilty, whether English, Flemings, or
Jews. Does this appear to have been done? By no means. Mark, I do not
deny, but there might have been Jews as well as Flemings and English
concerned in these malpractices. The Jews are men, and subject to like
temptations and like crimes as the rest of mankind; and as they dealt
in money, and had better opportunities than others, the probability
that some of them were not entirely innocent, is strengthened; but the
suddenness of the inquisition, the great number of those executed, and
the conduct of the government and people at large to those whom they
did not execute, convince me that the Jews had not fair play, but that
by far the majority of them were unjustly convicted. It is curious to
observe in the page of the English historian, first the statement that
“the king’s finances were exhausted,” and the same page ends with an
account of “the vast sums raised by the seizure of the Jews’ houses and
effects, and the fines imposed upon those who escaped death, and the
goldsmiths who were involved in the suspicion of being concerned with
them.”²
¹ Henry’s Britain, vol. vii., p. 75.
² Hume and Smollett.
The only circumstance mentioned by the historian which seems to glance
at the crimination of any of them is, that great sums of clipped money
were found in their houses. Here seems to be something like evidence; we
must therefore pay attention to it. If he had said that there had been
found in their houses great quantities of gold dust of the same standard
with the current coin, it would have amounted to circumstantial evidence,
which, if strongly corroborated with other proofs, might induce an
impartial jury to convict a prisoner; but no such thing is mentioned; it
is only said that great sums of clipped money were found in their houses.
Now this, so far from being evidence against them, was evidence in their
favour, if rightly considered: but what signified evidence in favour
of a Jew, when he was accused upon a general rumour? His judge and jury
composed of those who hated him and his nation, and who would rejoice
and exult in his conviction and sufferings. Who was there to plead his
cause? Is there the least ground to suppose that they had even a single
chance of being acquitted? The very evidence which is considered as
a proof of their guilt should have produced their acquittal; for if
they had been concerned in clipping the coin, they would have hoarded
unclipped money in order to clip it, and put the clipped money
in circulation. And again they dealt in money, and hoarded money;
if, therefore, the money which was in circulation was clipped and
depreciated in value, what could they deal in, what could they hoard
but clipped money? Once more, the Flemings were mentioned as being
implicated with the Jews in the suspicion of being guilty of this crime;
and in the account we are now considering, we find that the goldsmiths
were charged with being their accomplices, although they (being
Christians) were only fined, and not hanged for it. I think there can
be little doubt, but that they were the principal criminals, for if a
goldsmith were not restrained by the detestation of such a crime, but
would become _particeps criminis_, and subject himself to the punishment
of the law, would he admit an accomplice to render his detection the
more probable? would he permit an accomplice to run away with the main
part of the plunder? Surely he would do all the business himself.¹
¹ See also Witherby’s Dialogues, part i., Dialogue II.
Unjust, however, as was the condemnation of the Jews for that imputed
crime, the poor Jews seemed convinced that any thing would be believed
of them, be the story ever so incredible. Sums to a large amount were
therefore extorted from them by the common people through threats
of accusing them of the above crime. To such length was this system
of extortion carried on, that the king found it necessary to issue a
proclamation, declaring that from thenceforth no Jew should be held
answerable for any offence heretofore committed.¹ This act of evident
justice was, however, accompanied by a condition which throws a degree
of doubt upon the real motive by which it was suggested. In order
to bring himself within the security of the proclamation, the person
accused was bound to pay a fine to the king.
¹ See Appendix F.
In the fourteenth year of this reign, the king was taken dangerously
ill. On his bed of sickness he made a vow, if his health should recover,
to undertake another crusade. Accordingly, when he recovered, he took
the cross, but appointed no time for his departure. In fact, he could
not conveniently leave his dominions; he, therefore, compromised his
vow, by directing his zealous fury against the Jews of Guienne, whom he
first plundered, and then banished. Alas! for his boasted laws and the
splendour of his victories. It is a truth, an incontrovertible truth,
that “there is no reign, from the Conqueror inclusive, blotted with
greater violence than his. They were cruelties glossed over by ambition
and thirst of empire, which were pursued at the expense of justice,
humanity, and every other virtue.”¹
¹ Witherby.
The next act relating to the Jews occurred in the sixteenth year of this
reign, when the king was yet on the Continent. In that year it is stated
that the Jews were, on the same night, apprehended throughout England,
and thrown into prison, and were only released upon payment to the
king of the sum of twenty thousand pounds of silver as a ransom. The
celebrated John Selden adduces the following curious evidence of that
event:――
יום יא מי היו
תפוסים כל יהודים
בארצי הזי שנת
מ׳ז לפ׳ לאלף
שישי אני אשר
חקקתי.¹
¹ The inscription, as given by Selden, and copied by Tovey,
is very unlike Hebrew. Dr. Jost’s improvement is ingenious;
but according to his reading, the imprisonment took place in
November, whilst Stow and Prynne state that May was the month.
I propose therefore the above reading as the most likely to
be correct: one could easily mistake י for ו, especially when
scratched on a wall.
That is――“On the 11th day of May, were all the Jews in the counties
of this island imprisoned: in the year of the world 5047 [A.D. 1287],
I, Asher, inscribed this.” The inscription was discovered by Patricius
Junius in an old vault at Winchester. Some historians relate that the
Jews were subjected to this violence, in consequence of a promise made
by the commons to the king, of a fifth of their moveables, provided he
would banish the Jews from the island. When the Jews became acquainted
with the reason of their imprisonment, they caused an intimation to
be conveyed to the king, that they would pay a larger sum than the
amount of the fifth part promised by the commons, if they might be
released from their dungeons, and allowed to remain in England. This
offer had the desired effect, and they were again restored to liberty,
upon payment of the above-mentioned sum. Whether this statement of the
circumstances under which the Jews were imprisoned be correct or not,
it seems certain that from about this time, the clamour against them
became daily more violent. It is not improbable that the edict, by which
the exactions practised upon the Jews by the people were prevented, had
rendered them, with many, still greater objects of hatred. It appears,
however, that the clergy and gentry joined with the nation in general in
desiring the expulsion of the Jews; and it is to inferred that they were
induced entertain this wish, in a great measure, from the heavy debts
they owed to the Jews, and expecting to be relieved of the payment, by
the banishment of the creditors; which gave birth to all the monstrous
accusations brought against them, which were still loudly repeated
against the Jews, not only of their being continually clipping and
depreciating the coin of the country, but also of being the cause of
much hardship through their usurious dealings. But, though this may
have been, in truth, the principal, as in fact, the only avowed reason
for desiring that the Jews should be driven out of England, yet there
can be little doubt that the evils which have been, in a former lecture,
pointed out as resulting to the nation, in general, from the power
continually exercised over the property, persons, and rights of the Jews,
had some effect in increasing the wish to be relieved from the presence
of that people.
Edward’s conduct towards the Jews, into his continental dominions, has
already been noticed: he first fleeced them for the benefit of the state,
and then banished them, to render heaven propitious to his government.
This measure served greatly to raise his popularity; and upon his entry
into London, he was received with every mark of joy and good-will by the
clergy and people. Before this feeling could subside, he was induced to
consent to the decree for the final banishment of the Jews from England,
which his great grand-father, Henry II., was instigated to do, but was
not prevailed upon.¹ In return for this favour, he received from the
Commons the grant of a fifteenth part of their goods; and the clergy, at
the same time, made a gift to him of the tenth part of their moveables.
A very inadequate sum, when compared with the debts they owed to the
Jews. The above-mentioned decree commanded that the Jews, together with
their wives and children, should depart from the realm within a certain
time――namely, before the feast of All Saints. As a matter of grace, on
the part of the king, they were permitted to take with them a part of
their moveables, and sufficient money to defray the expenses of their
journey. Their houses and other possessions were seized by the king,
and appropriated to his own use. The king wanted vast sums of money this
year. Three of his elder daughters were married in the same year that
the Jews were banished. The king’s seizing all the Jewish property will
readily account for the magnificence displayed at the nuptials of these
princesses. Agnes Strickland, in her second volume of “The Lives of the
Queens of England,” expatiates not a little on the effect, but leaves
the cause unmentioned entirely, viz., that of Edward’s banishing the
Jews. She says, “A list of the plate used in the queen’s household will
prove that the court of Eleanora had attained a considerable degree of
luxury. The plate was the work of Ade, the king’s goldsmith, and the
description of the rich vessels of the goldsmith’s company has been
brought to light by modern research.² Thirty-four pitchers of gold and
silver, calculated to hold water or wine; ten gold chalices, of the
value of £140 to £292 each; ten cups of silver gilt, or silver white,
some with stands of the same, or enamelled, more than one hundred and
eighteen pounds each; also cups of jasper, plates and dishes of silver,
gold salts, alms bowls, silver hanapers or baskets; cups of benison,
with holy sentences wrought thereon; enamelled silver jugs, adorned with
effigies of the king, in a surcoat and hood, and with two effigies of
Queen Eleanora. A pair of knives with silver sheaths enamelled, with a
_fork_ of crystal and a silver fork, handled with ebony and ivory. In
the list of royal valuables were likewise combs and looking-glasses of
silver-gilt, and a bodkin of silver, in a leather case; five serpent’s
tongues, set in a standard of silver; a royal crown set with rubies,
emeralds, and great pearls; another with Indian pearls; and one great
crown of gold, ornamented with emeralds, sapphires of the east, rubies,
and large oriental pearls.” I have no hesitation in saying that a great
part of the articles displayed were Jewish. The coincidence of their
banishment with the above display, warrants such a supposition.
¹ See p. 100.
² By Mr. Herbert, city librarian, in his History of City
Companies.
Notwithstanding the harshness and severity of this decree, it seems not
to have been sufficient to excite any commiseration on the part of the
people. Many were still unwilling to allow the Jews to depart in quiet,
but sought to take the last opportunity remaining to them to give vent
to their unchristian hatred and enmity against these unfortunate people,
and to despoil them of the small portion of their wealth which remained
to them. The principal Jews were forced to provide themselves with
letters of safe conduct from the king; and it became necessary, for
their protection, to issue orders to the officers and magistrates of
the towns through which they passed, to guard them against the violence
of the populace. One instance of the barbarities to which they were
subjected, deserves to be particularly noticed, as it affords a just
example of the sentiments entertained by the people towards the Jews. It
is thus related by Hollinshead, and copied by Lord Coke and many other
writers since: “A sort of the richest of them,” he says, “being shipped
with their treasure in a mighty tall ship which they had hired, when
the same was under sail, and got down the Thames, towards the mouth of
the river, towards Quinborough, the master mariner bethought him of a
wile, and caused his men to cast anchor, and so rode at the same, till
the ship, by ebbing of the stream, remained on the dry sand. The master
herewith enticed the Jews to walk out with him on land, for recreation;
and at length, when he understood the tide to be coming in, he got him
back to the ship, whither he was drawn by a cord. The Jews made not so
much haste as he did, because they were not aware of the danger; but
when they perceived how the matter stood, they cried to him for help,
howbeit he told them that they ought to cry rather unto Moses, by whose
conduct their fathers passed through the Red Sea; and, therefore, if
they would call to him for help, he was able enough to help them out
of these raging floods, which now came in upon them. They cried indeed,
but no succour appeared, and so they were swallowed up in the water.
The master returned with the ship, and told the king how he had used
the matter, and had both thanks and rewards, as some have written.
But others affirm (and more truly as should seem) that divers of the
mariners, which dealt so wickedly against the Jews, were hanged for
their wicked practice; and so received a just reward of their fraudulent
and mischievous dealing.”
By the time appointed, all the Jews had left England; the numbers have
been estimated by some at 15,060, by others at 16,511.
The following few particulars are to be met with in the histories
of the Jews themselves, respecting their changes, chances, troubles,
and sufferings in this country. Ben Virga, in his chronicle _Shaivet
Y’hudah_, states: “A.M. 5018, in the island which is now called England,
a great and mighty destruction occurred in all the congregations, great
and powerful in wisdom, knowledge, and honour, which were in those days.
And especially that great city called London, which contained about two
thousand Jewish householders; all of them were possessed of wisdom and
wealth. It was there that Rabbi Abraham Aben Ezra, composed his epistle
which he called, ‘The epistle of the Sabbath.’ The cause of their
destruction was, that they [i.e. the Jews] should change their creed;
and when they insisted on the sanctification of God’s name, they [i.e.
the Gentiles] accused them of counterfeiting the coin. This calumny was
brought before the king; the king examined and investigated the matter,
and found that the false accusers invented that calumny against the Jews;
and they escaped. After a time, the Nazarenes resumed their calumnies,
and sought for persons to witness against the Jews, and they found such
persons as they desired [who stated] how they saw a Jew clipping a coin;
and though the king knew that it was all false, but on account of the
murmuring of the populace, he wished to throw off their displeasure, and
fearing lest the nation should rise with a sword in their hand, as was
generally the case with them, and there would be no one to deliver, he
commanded and banished them [the Jews], and this expulsion took place
A.M. 5020.”
It is my firm conviction that Ben Virga’s account is the true one, as
far as the facts of the case are concerned. There seems certainly to be
a disagreement in the dates.¹
¹ See Appendix G.
Rabbi G’daliah mixed up several incidents together, and also added a
little of the marvellous out of his own vivid imaginations, which give
his narrative altogether the air of fiction, which is the following:――
“A.M. 5020――A priest in England consented to be circumcised in order
to be married to a Jewess, with whom he was desperately enamoured.
The affair became known to the citizens, who were desirous of burning
them. But the king chose to execute the revenge in a different way, and
decreed that within three months, they should change their religion:
those who circumcised the priest were burned, and many of the Jews
changed their religion. And they [i.e. the Gentiles] took all their
children from six years old and downwards, and carried them to the end
of the realm, that they might forget the customs of their fathers, the
Jews. The king died, and his son reigned in his stead, and presently
there came upon his kingdom pestilence and famine, and his counsellors
said to him, that it was because of the Jews [i.e. baptized ones], who
do not sincerely believe, that that calamity came upon them. And he [the
king] made two tents by the banks of the sea; upon one he painted the
figure of Moses, our Rabbi――may peace be upon him――and also his name;
and upon the other he painted their Messiah: and he told them they were
permitted to become Jews, and none of them should be forced to any thing.
But in order that he might ascertain who was a Jew [by creed], he wished
that those who were desirous of becoming Jews should go into the tent
of Moses, our Rabbi――may peace be upon him――and took upon themselves to
do so. Now many of them entered into the tent of Moses, our Rabbi――may
peace be upon him――and after they were gathered there, they were
murdered, and cast into the sea, and thus all of them perished and were
extirpated.”¹
¹ See Appendix H.
Did Rabbi G’daliah write since the days of Sir Walter Scott, one might
be inclined to think that the Jewish historian borrowed a leaf from one
of the volumes of the Scotch novelist, only suppressing the names of
Brian de Bois-Guilbert and Rebeccah, and putting instead “priest” and
“Jewess;” but as Sir Walter flourished when the Hebrew writer was long
since dead and gone, I am inclined to conjecture _vice versa_.
The reason why we are not favoured with more information on their
history in this country, by themselves, has already been hinted at
in the first Lecture.¹ It is certain that the Jews had many valuable
libraries in this country, which were taken from them before they were
driven out of it, and were bestowed on the universities and monasteries.
However, this consideration belongs properly to the second series
of these Lectures, which shall be fully treated when that series is
delivered. Dr. Jost is by no means correct when he says, “There is no
trace of (Jewish) schools in England; no Rabbi of that country occupies
a place in the annals of Jewish scholars; there was no time for study,
and no ambition stimulated and encouraged those who were eager for the
acquirement of knowledge.”² Not only is this statement at variance with
Rabbi Solomon ben Virga’s, but also with his own. He himself says, with
reference to the English Jews, “The learned amongst them prosecuted
the medical sciences, yet more as an art; and they were, through their
acquaintance with some secret means of cures, so celebrated, that the
divines were interrupted in their wonderful cures,” &c.³ Indeed there
are many statements in this historian’s productions, which must be
received with a ♦considerable degree of caution.
¹ See pp. 7–11.
² “_Von Schulen ist keine Spur in England, daher auch nicht
von Gelehrten; kein dortiger Rabbiner hat einen Platz in den
Jüdischen Jahrbüchern der Gelehrten. Zum Studiren war keine
Zeit, und keine Ehre lockte und stärkte den Wissbegierigen_”
――Geschichte der Israeliten, vol. vii., p. 165.
³ For the original refer to Appendix G. of Lecture II.
♦ ‘consirable’ replaced with ‘considerable’
There is, however, a current opinion amongst the modern English Jews,
that especially “the sayings of the wise men of Norwich and of York are
quoted in some of the additions made by the expounders of the Talmud.”¹
I must confess, I cannot vouch for the correctness of that opinion. I
addressed once a letter on this subject to the editor of the “Jewish
Chronicle,”² hoping to elicit from his numerous well-educated readers,
information on the above. The learned editor seems to have mistaken the
purport of my letter to him, and therefore gave an answer not at all to
the purpose. It is the following given in a note:――
¹ See p. 9.
² See Appendix I.
“With every deference due to Dr. Jost, and the research displayed in his
History of the Jews, we are bound in this instance to support Mr. Moses
Samuels’ opinion, that we had great men living in England eight hundred
years ago. Although the Rev. Mr. Margoliouth might have read _through
the Talmud again carefully_ (no easy task!) he must have overlooked the
passage in Josephoth [Tosephoth I suppose] (not having a Talmud at hand,
we must defer the quotation of ‘chapter and verse’ to our next number),
where the חכמי נרוויש (wise men of Norwich) are mentioned. Mr. Samuels’
opinion is also supported by the authority (no small one, even if
compared with Dr. Jost and the Rev. Mr. Margoliouth) of the שלשלת הקבלה
(Chain of tradition), which places ׳ר מאיר מאינגלטירה (Rabbi Meyer of England)
in the same category with Jarchi, Rabenu――Tam, and Maimonides; vide
שלשלת הקבלה fol. 41, p. 2.――Amsterdam Edition, 8vo.”
That the Jews had learned men in this country, I know full well, and the
editor of the “Jewish Chronicle” might have known this by my quotation
from Ben Virga. It is the especial mention of the wise men of Norwich
and of York, that I am anxious to know about. Nearly two months have
passed away, and the promised “quotation of chapter and verse” has not
been given yet.¹ To return, however, to the immediate subject.
¹ It is now about a year since he made this promise, I venture
therefore respectfully to ask him once more for a fulfilment
of the same.
Thus was this unfortunate race, after nearly two centuries of almost
continual persecution, driven from the country and robbed of their
possessions. In the circumstances that attended this last act of
violence, we see displayed a continuance of the same oppression and
cruelty which the treatment they had experienced, both from the monarch
and the people, had ever evinced. If, as was pretended, their banishment
was sought as a relief from the grievances which their usurious dealings
inflicted upon the nation, we cannot find, in this circumstance, any
necessity for their expulsion, or any justification for the rapacity,
that caused their estates to be confiscated to the crown, or, for the
malice that dictated the cruelties to which, on that occasion, they were
exposed, from the populace. The sums which were advanced to the king
by the commons and by the clergy, as the price of their expulsion,
were more than made up to them by the robbery they practised upon the
unfortunate exiles before their leaving the shores of this country. And
the desire that the nation seems to have entertained for their removal
may, without error, be traced principally to _this_ source.
In taking a retrospective view of the facts that were stated in the
preceding Lectures, it must be acknowledged that a spirit of relentless
cruelty pervaded the whole nation; and we cannot but feel that the
exactions and barbarities which were recorded, mark an indelible stain
upon this period of your history. They are blots in the characters of
the successive monarchs, and are painfully indicative of the cupidity,
ferocity, and ignorance of the people. On the other hand, we must
admit that the conduct of the Jews themselves, under their continued
sufferings and oppressions, whilst it furnishes a fresh example of
the characteristic perseverance with which they brave all dangers and
difficulties, in pursuit of riches, affords, at the same time, a further
proof of the resignation, fortitude, and self-devotion, for which that
nation has been ever distinguished. Behold them proceeding to leave
the British Isle in the beginning of winter; see their tender infants
clinging to their mothers, who are scarcely able to support them; see
them laying down when unable to proceed, stripped of all their comforts,
insulted by those called Christians; and when they arrive at the sea
shore, behold numbers of them, in their embarkation, drowned by the
mere wanton barbarity of the English, and the rest stripped of the poor
pittance they were permitted to retain. Oh, the reflections are too much
for _me_. I would rather not think of the past, but look at the present
improved state both of the persecuted and persecutors, which shall be
the pleasing subject of the second series.
It must not be omitted to be mentioned, that in banishing the Jews from
this country, the English have expelled one of the most brilliant stars
of the Reformation, who was a Christian Jew, an Englishman by birth, and
educated in the University of Oxford, the well-known Nicolaus de Lyra,
who wrote a commentary on the Old and New Testament; and being deeply
versed in the ancient tongues, and well read in all the works of the
learned rabbies, he selected their best opinions, and expounded the
holy Scriptures in a manner far above the taste of that age, in which he
showed a greater acquaintance with the principles of interpretation than
any of his predecessors. He was, indeed, a most useful forerunner to
Luther, who made ample use of his commentaries, in which he frequently
reprehended the reigning abuses of the Church――a fact which led Pflug,
Bishop of Naumberg, to say――
“Si Lyra non lyrasset,
Lutherus non saltasset.”