LECTURE V.

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.

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 infamous 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?

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

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.

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.

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

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

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

“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.

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

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

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

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.1 The king seemed always kindly disposed towards Jewish converts.

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

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.

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.

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

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

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.

“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.”

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

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.

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.”

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

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

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

“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.

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:—

“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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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

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

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

Prynne briefly notices an investigation respecting the murder of a certain Jew there, Jacob by name.1

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

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

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.

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

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 impious 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.”

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.

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

APPENDIX TO LECTURE V.

A.

This is the record respecting that infamous affair, transmitted unto us in bad Latin as well as in bad French. The perusal of the original may interest some.

“Placitum loquelæ de Judæis Norwich qui sunt in prisona apud London.

“Benedictus physicus appellat Jacobum de Norwich, Judæum, quod cum Edoardus, filius suus, puer ætatis 5 annorum, ivit ludendo in via villæ Norwich, vigilia sancti Ægidii 4 annis elapsis; venit idem Jacobus, Judæus, et cepit eundem Eodardum, et eum portavit usque ad domum suam, et circumcidit eum in membro suo, et voluit ipsum facere Judæum, et eum retinuit per unam diem et unam noctem in domo sua, quousque per clamorem vicinorum Benedictus venit ad domum, et illum invenit in manibus ipsius Jacobi, et sic ipsum puerum circumcisum monstravit officiali archidiaconi, et coronatoribus, ipso die; qui praesentes simul; et hoc idem testantur. Qui dicunt, quod viderunt prædictum puerum circumcisum, et quod habuit membrum suum grossum, et valde inflatum, et ita aturnatum, sicut prædictum est. Et quod hoc nequitur fecit, et in felonia, et in despectu crucifixi, et Christianitatis, et in pacem domini regis; et quod ipse non potuit habere eum nisi per forciam Christianorum, offert disrationare sicut curia consideraverit. Et postquam circumciderat eum vocavit eum Jurnepin. Et puer visus est coram justiciariis, et liquidum est quod circumcisus erat.

“Idem appellat de forcia, et consilio, Leonem, filium Margeriæ senioris, et filium Josce Bodon, et plures alios Judæos; qui omnes venerunt præter Dedone Joppe, Benedictum Moses, et Isaac; et hi totum defendunt, sicut Judæi versus Christianum.

“Postea, prædictus puer, qui tunc fuit ætatis 5 annorum, et nunc est ætatis 9 annorum, requisitus quomodo circumciderunt eum? dicit, quod ceperunt eum, et adduxerunt eum, usque ad domum ipsius Jacobi; et unus illorum tenuit eum, et cooperuit oculos suos; et quidam alius circumcidit eum, quodam cultello, et postea ceperunt peciam illam quam scinderant de membro suo, et posuerunt in quodam vacyno cum sabelone, et quæ siverunt peciam illam cum parvis sufflatis, quousque quidam Judæus qui vocabatur Jurnepin invenit eum primo; tunc vocaverunt eum Jurnepin.

“Et officialis archidiaconi venit coram justiciariis, cum magna secta sacerdotum, qui omnes dixerunt in verbo Dei, quod prædictus puer ita circumcisus fuit sicut prædictum est, et per prædictos Judæos, et quod viderunt prædictum puerum recenter circumcisum, habentem membrum suum grossum, et valde inflatum et sanguinolentum.

“Et coronatores de comitatu, et coronatores de civitate Norwici, et 36 homines de villata de Norwic; jurati venerunt, et trove (inveniunt) ut fuit circumcisus &c. Et quod juxta ripam Norwic. il fuit trove (fuit inventus) ululans, et plorans, per unam Maude de Barneham, et sa file, et que ils luy amesniont a lour maison; et que tout esteaut les Jewes veigne, et dioit que il fuit Judæum suum, et vocaverunt eum Jurnepin, &c. Et quando Judæi non potuerunt eum habere propter Christianos, prohibuerunt eidem Matildæ, ne daret ei carnem porcinam ad manducandam; quia dixerunt ipsum esse Judæum. Ita quod per vim venerunt Christiani, et abstulerunt puerum prædictum, a manibus Judæorum.

“Et Maude exmyne confesse ceo tout &c. Et omnes Judæi sunt in prisona apud Norwich, præter illos qui fuerunt apud London, quando hæc inquisitio facta fuit. Et omnes juratores requisiti, qui interfuerunt ad circumcisionem illam? Dicunt quod omnes prædicti Judæi fuerunt consentientes facto illo, præter Mossi filius Saloni. Hæc autem omnia facta fuerunt in curia Domini Regis apud Norwic. Fratribus prædicatoribus, et fratribus minoribus, et pluribus aliis tam clericis, quam laicis, præsentibus. Et tout ceo fuit testify per Ric. de Tresingfield constable de Norwich, et auters.

“Postea coram Domino Rege, et Domino Cantuar. et majori parte episcoporum, et baronum Angliæ, quia casus iste nunquam prius accidit in curia Domini Regis, et præterea quia factum illud primo tangit Deum, et sanctam ecclesiam, eo quod circumcisio et baptismus sunt pertinentia ad fidem; et præterea quia non est ibi talis felonia, nec amissio membri, nec mahemium, nec plaga mortalis, vel alia felonia laica quæ possit hominem damnare, sine mandato sanctæ ecclesiæ: consideratum est, quod istud in primo tractetur in sancta ecclesia, et per ordinarium loci inquiratur rei veritas.

“Et mandatur Domino Regi una marca auri, per sic quod puer videatur coram justiciariis, si circumcisus fuit, vel non; et recipitur. Et visus est puer; et membrum ejus visum est pelle coopertum, ante in capite: et in tali statu liberatur patri suo, ut eum habeat coram judicibus ecclesiasticis; et ipsi Judæi remanent in prisona.”—Placit. 19, H. 3, rot. 21.

B.

Matthew Paris in Hist. Angl. says—“Similiter et quidam apostata Judæus, factus ex Christiano diaconus; qui similiter est judicialiter punitus; quem Falco statim arreptum suspendi fecit.” Bracton asserts that the apostate was burned to ashes.

C.

Rex Vicecomiti Northumberland salutem. Sciatis quod concessimus, et charta nostra confirmavimus, probis hominibus nostris, de villa Novi Castri super Tynam, et hæredibus eorum, quod habeant hanc libertatem quod nullus Judæus de caetero tempore nostro, vel hæredum nostrorum maneat, vel residentiam aliquam faciat in eadem villa; sicut plenius continetur in Charta Regis, &c.

D.

Mandatum, est Vicecomit. Norf. et Suff. quod in civitate Norwic. et singulis bonis villis comitatuum suorum, clamari faciant, quod nulla fœmina Christiana, de cætero, serviat Judæos, ad alendos pueros suos, vel in aliquo alio officio. Teste Rege apud West. 20 die Januar.—Claus. 19, H. 3, m. 14.

E.

Accepimus autem quod Judæi faciunt Christianas, filiorum suorum nutrices: et (quod non tantum dicere, sed etiam nefandum est cogitare), cum in die resurrectionis Dominicæ illas recipere corpus et sanguinem Jesu Christi contingit, per triduum ante eos lactent, lac effundere faciunt in latrinam.

F.

Mandatum est Justiciariis ad custodiam Judæorum assignatis, quod de arreragiis tallagii Judæorum de 10 mille marcis quæ collegi præcipit Rex, nullos Judæos quietos esse permittant, nisi tallagium illud ad scaccarium Regis pacaverint, vel literas Regis de quietancia inde habuerint, vel aliud rationabile warrantum producant, quod eis de jure sufficere debeat.

Teste Rege apud Marleburge 13 die Decemb.—Claus. 21, H. 3, pars 1, m. 19.

G.

Judæi Angliæ debent C. l. ut Judæi, retonsores, latrones, et eorum receptatores, per inquisitionem factam per sacramentum legalium Christianorum vel Judæorum, vel alio modo, de prædicta malicia convicti, a Regno ejiciantur irredituri.

H.

Rex Vic. Northampt. Salutem. Præcipimus tibi, quod sicut teipsum et omnia tua diligis, et sicut vis quod ad te non gravissime capiamus, venire facias coram nobis apud Wigorn. die Dominica prima ante cineres, sex de ditioribus, et potentioribus Judæis nostris Northampt. et de singulis villis comitat. tui, in quibus Judæi manent, vel duos Judæos, secundum numerum eorum. Ad tractandum nobiscum, tam de nostra quam sua utilitate. Sciturus quod nisi illuc ad terminum præfatum venerint, ita manum nostram tam erga corpus, quam catalla tua aggravabimus, quod tu perpetuo te senties non mediocriter prægravari.

Teste Rege apud Marleberg. 24 die Januar.—Claus. 25, H. 3, dors. 19.

I.

The following is a list of the Jewish representatives who went up to Worcester to attend that memorable parliament. From the foregoing writ, it is evident that that parliament was appointed to be held on a Sunday: Dr. Tovey, therefore, reasonably conjectures that the Jews may have anticipated that the king was about to renounce Christianity and embrace Judaism himself.

London.—Benedictus Crespin, Jacobus Crespin, Aaron fil. Abraham, Aaron Blund, Elias le Eveske, Leo Blund.

Ebor.—Aaron fil. Jocei, Leo le Eveske, Joseus nepos Aaron, Joseus de Kent, Ursel fil. Sampson, Benedictus nepos Aaron.

Linc.—Leo fil. Solomon, Abraham fil. Solomon, Judas de Franceys, Joceus de Burge, Abraham de Solitoster, Duelcusce fil. Elie.

Cantuar.—Salom. fil. Joce, Magist. Aaron. Benomy Copnius, fil. Mulkane, Messe fil. Sampson, Abraham fil. Leonis.

Winton.—Elias fil. Chere, Deidegrand Lumbard Senex, Manasser fil. Ursell, Ayaye de Wallingford, Kendone fil. Ursell.

Stamford.—Jacob gener. Eman, Jacob fil. Elye, Meyer fil. David, Samuel fil. Cok, Dusefaut fil. Cok, Aaron gener. Pictaum.

Norham.—Elias de Pontrefacto, Isaac Pickether, Sampson fil. Deulesara, Samps. fil. Samps., Deud fil. Vines, Pech fil. de Sam de Ivelcester.

Bedeford.—Manser fil. Benedicti, Abraham fil. Benedicti, Ursel fil. Isaac Bovenfunt.

Cantebrig.—Isaac fil. Samuel, Jacob fil. Deusestra, Aaron fil. Isaac Blund, Josce de Wilton, Dyaye fil. Magistri Levi fil. Solomon.

Norwic.—Henne Jurninus fil. Jacobi, Deulcrese fil. Dyaya de Manecroft, Dure de Resing.

Warewick.—Benedictus de Kanc, Elias fil. Abraham, Benedictus de Evesham, Lion fil. Deule Benete, Dungeun de Warwick, Pettemo fil. Mossi.

Wigorn.—Hake Isaac senior, Hake Mosse fil. Deulo Heneye, Abraham fil. Abraham, Isaac gener Samuel, Abraham fil. Jude.

Bristol.—Lumbard Bonefi de Bristol, Salom de Ivelcester, Isaac fil. Jacob, Mile le Eveske, Isaac de Bath.

Colecester.—Aaron de Colecester, Arcel de Colecester, Isaac fil. Benedicti, Jacob fil. Vinis.

Nottingham.—David Lumbard, Dendone fil. Deule Cresse Sampson Leve, Benedictus Pinkennye.

Exon.—Jacob de Exon, Benefand fil. Jude, Joce fil. Abraham Doule, Cresse le Eveske.

Dorset.—Solomon de Dorcester, Benedictus fil. Vivian.

Wilts.—Solomon fil. Josse, Isaac de Herleb, Salom de Merleberg, Abraham de Battecoke, Isaac fil. Jesse.

Oxon.—David de Linc., Bonami fil. Copin, Copin fil. Bonefei, Mosse fil. Dyaye, Vinis fil. Copin, Samuel fil. le Franceys.

Glouc.—Bonefaund fil. Elye, Garsie gener Belie, Isaac fil. Mosse de Paris, Elias fil. Bonefant, Vines fil. Bonenfaund, Elias fil. Isaac.

The above persons were also compelled to become the tax-masters of their brethren.

J.

Rex Ursello fil. Ham. Leoni fil. Ham. Mosse fil. Ham. Jacobo fil. Jacobi, Manasser Leveske, Jacobo de Moster Judæis Hereford, salutem. Sciatis quod constituimus vos ballivos nostros una cum vic. nostro Hereford cui idem mandavimus, ad distringend. omnes Judæos de balliva vestra ad solvend. nobis tallagium nostrum de parte quæ vos et illos contingit de hoc ultimo tallagio nostro, viginti millia marcarum. Et ideo vobis firmiter præcipimus, quod sicut corpora vestra, uxorum et puerorum vestrorum, et omnia catalla tua diligitis, talem districtionem faciatis, &c.

Teste Rege, apud Westm. 19 Maii.—Claus. 25, H. dors. 20.

The author of Anglia Judaica justly observes, “Such inhumanity in a Christian country ought to have voucher. Take it, therefore, as it stands upon the Claus. Roll. 25. H. 3. m. 9.

“Rex W. de Havershall salutem. Scire facias omnibus Vic. qui Judæos habent in balliva sua, quod omnes Judæos de balliva sua qui manuceperunt solvere nobis tallagium suum, una cum uxoribus et infantibus suis, habeant Londini a die Sancti Mic. ad unum mensem: respondendum nobis de arreragiis tallagii sui &c. Sciturus, quod, si in aliquo defeceris, tam graviter contra vos manum nostram aggravabimus, quod pœna vestra erit omnibus in terrorem.”

K.

The following are the original words of the bishop’s will: “Ad terras emendas, ad opus CONVERSORUM, Lond. ad sustentationem eorundem.”

L.

Rex Vicecomiti Norff. salutem. Licet de consuetudine longeva dicatur obtentum in regno nostro, quod nos in domibus et aliis quas acquisiverint Judæi in regno nostro succedere debeamus ipsis Judæis; aures tamen nostras precibus Edmundi Kake de Norwic. Capellani misericorditer inclinantes, conprimus eidem Edmundo, de gratia nostra, quod non obstante consuetudine prædicta, habeat messuagium illud in Norwic: de quo nuper seisinam fieri fecimus Magistro Benedicto, et quod Seigumet Judæus ut lagatus tenuit de prædicto Edmundo in eadem villa de Norwic. Et ideo tibi præcipimus, quod eidem Edmundo de prædicto messuagio, sine dilatione plenam seisinam habere facias.