LECTUREVI.

LECTUREVI.Mylast Lecture, which must have been as tedious to you as it was to myself, finished with the death of Henry the Third. A melancholy monotony pervaded the whole of that lecture. The principal feature in Henry’s disposition was, as you are well aware, uncontrollable avarice, which was the cause of the many cruel persecutions, to which the poor unfortunate Jews were exposed.I may just recapitulate, in a few minutes, the sums extracted from the Jews in the preceding reign. In the years 1230 and 1231, 15,000 marks; in 1233, 18,000 marks; in 1236, 1800 marks. The amount of taxation in 1237, not mentioned. In 1239, a third part of their goods; in 1241, 20,000 marks; in 1244, 20,000 marks; in 1245,60,000 marks, which tax the king received with his own hand; in 1246, 10,000 marks; in 1247, 5,525 marks; in 1249, 10,000 marks; in 1250, a great part of their goods was taken away; in 1251, 5,000 marks of silver, and 40 of gold; in 1252, 3,500 marks; in 1253, 5,000 marks; in 1259, 5,000 marks; in 1269, 1,000 pounds; in 1271, 6,000 marks; besides many more, of which we have no records, and also besides the vast sums occasionally extorted from numbers ofindividuals.11– “In Claus. 39, H. 3, pars 2, dors. 16, 17, there is a large catalogue of the lands, houses, rents, mortgages, real and personal estate, and debts of Abraham, a Jew, in several counties, amounting to a vast sum, taking up near two membrances, which were imbreviated and confiscated to the king’s use. And a proclamation by the king, that no Jew should be suffered to depart out of the realm of England.”—Prynne.See alsopp.242, 243.Lord Coke states, that the crown received from the Jews, in the short space of seven years,viz., from the17thof December, in the50thyear of HenryIII., until Shrove Tuesday, the2ndof EdwardI., the sum of £420,000 15s.4d.“Death,” using the words of a quaint writer, “as inexorable as himself, seized him, and gave the Jews some respite from these afflictions—the king leaving behind him but a very indifferent character either as a man, or a prince.”For nearly two years after, the government of this country remained in the hands of the Archbishop of York, and the Earls of Cornwall and Chester, Edward being abroad, engaged in the holy war, as it was called; during which time the Jews seem to have been left pretty much unnoticed, and consequently, we may conclude, in peace. Edward’s return, however, brings them again prominently before our view, and under more distressing circumstances than ever.The first public act of his reign which had reference to the Jews, was in conformity with the example set by his ancestors: he held out to them hopes of safety and protection. Shortly after the death of the late king, proclamations of peace and security were issued, extending to the Jews as well as to the nationingeneral.1It was, however, quickly evident that, as far as regarded the former, there was no peace for them.1– SeeAppendix A.Edward knew well that his father’s and mother’s unenviable unpopularity with his subjects, and the incessant civil wars which distracted the kingdom during the preceding reign, owed their existence to his royal parents’ insatiable demands for money from the English barons. Edward, though equally in want of large sums of money, determined, however, to obtain those sums from the Jews alone, and not ask anything from his Christian subjects—an expedient whereby he expected to gain popularity, as well as the supplies he wanted. Accordingly, the king, soon after his coronation, began to regulate the Jewish affairs after his father’s model. Steps were, in a short time, taken to facilitate the levying of taxes upon them. New officers of their exchequer were appointed; directions were given to enforcethe regulations, by which they were obliged to confine themselves within particular towns and cities; and orders were forwarded to the sheriffs of the different places where they resided, to examine the registers of their debts and possessions, and make a faithful return of their estates and effects. As soon as the necessary information upon these orders was received from the sheriffs, a new tallage was imposed upon the Jews. The children began to be taxed as well as the parents, which made the tallage enormous; and authority was given to enforce the payment, together with that of all arrears due on former assessments, by measures of the greatest severity. The collectors were directed to levy the sums which were demanded, upon the goods and chattels of those who hesitated to contribute their proportion; and if the amount could not by this means be obtained—which, as a matter of course, proved those impoverished Jews to be useless, since everything,indeed, was taken from them—the king thought best to change the punishmentfrom imprisonment to transportation. Accordingly, the sheriffs were empowered to punish the refractory (that is, those who had not money enough) with banishment from the kingdom; to imprison all such as common thieves, who should be found in the country after three days from the time they were, under these orders, directed to leave it; and the lands, houses, and effects of those who should be banished, were to be forthwith taken possession of and sold. The persons who were appointed to carry these directions into effect were, an Irish bishop—Bishop elect of Waterford—and two friars; and they appear to have executed the office entrusted to them with such relentless severity, that the king’s mind was moved to pity, and in many cases he gave orders to release particular individuals amongst the Jews from a part of the demands made upon them.The complaints which had been made, towards the end of the last reign, of the injuries which were experienced by the peoplein general, from the laws and proceedings respecting the Jews, it seems were now again brought forward. And the extent to which the Jews were permitted to take interest by the canon law, in order to fill the coffers of the king, was, it appears, also the subject of increased remonstrance. It must be borne in mind that the Gentiles were by far the greater usurers than the Jews, but they could practise the foul profession with impunity, by stating that they laboured for the pope: for instance, in the thirty-sixth year of the preceding reign, Henry ordered that the Causini should be prosecuted with the utmost rigour of the law for their usuries; but they pleaded that they were the servants of the pope, and employed by him, and were therefore not only left alone, but countenanced in that nefarious traffic.In the third year of this reign, the king, in order to please his Christian subjects, was pleased to pass the statute which is known by the name of theStatutum de Judaismo. This statute acknowledged that the king andhis ancestors had had great profit from the Jews, yet that many mischiefs and disinheritances of honest men had happened by their usuries; and it therefore enacted, that from thenceforth no Jew should practise usury,—that no distress for any Jew’s debt should be so grievous as not to leave the debtor the moiety of his lands and chattels for his subsistence; that no Jew should have power to sell or alien any house, rents, or tenements, without the king’s leave, but that they might purchase houses in cities as heretofore, and take leases of land to farm for ten years; and that they should be at liberty to carry on mercantile transactions in the cities where they resided; provided, however, that they should not, by reason of such dealings, be talliable with the other inhabitants of the cities, seeing that they were only talliable to the king, as his own bondsmen; and it directed that they should reside only in such cities and boroughs as were the king’s own; and that all Jews above the age of seven years should wear abadge, in the form of two tables of yellowtaffety,1upon their upper garments; and that all above twelve years of age should pay to the king, at Easter, the sum of three pence. Lord Coke recommends that statute as very worthy to be read. It was drawn up in French, and the following is an English translation of the same:—1– I should not wonder that some royal merchant arrived into this country to dispose of a certain quantity of yellow taffety, which perhaps not proving saleable, the merchant procured the interest of the king or that of his counsellors, and thus yellow taffety became the Jewish badge. C. White, in his “Three Years in Constantinople,” relates a circumstance which gives colour to the above suggestion. He says—“Sometimes French ambassadors carry their powers of protection to strange lengths, and apply them to singular purposes. It is related that one La Rose, first valet-de-chambre to M. d’Argental, in 1690, was persuaded by some one in Paris to lay out his savings in wigs, as a good speculation to take to Turkey. Finding, upon reaching Constantinople, that his stock remained on hand, and that he had been duped, he fell into low spirits, and had nigh died of despondency. The ambassador seeing this, bethought himself of applying to the grand vizir, to see if he could not devise some plan for getting rid of the cargo. ‘Nothing can be more easy,’ replied the sultan’salter ergo; ‘leave the affair to me.’ On the following day, a firman was issued, and read in the Jewish synagogues, commanding all Jews to wear wigs. Terrible was the confusion and running to and fro among the unfortunate Israelites of Balat and Khass Kouy. Few knew the meaning of wigs: none knew where to find them. This having quickly reached La Rose’s ears, he joyously delivered his store to a broker, who disposed of the whole in a few hours, and the speculator reaped a rich harvest. He was, however, directed by his master not to renew the venture. This was not the only strange proceeding on the part of M. d’Argental: indeed he carried his vagaries so far, that he was eventually put under restraint by his own secretaries.”“Whereas the king having observed, thatin times past, many honest men have lost their inheritances by the usury of the Jews, and that many sins have from thence arisen, notwithstanding Judaism is, and has been very profitable to him and his ancestors, yet nevertheless he ordains and establishes for the honour of God, and the common benefit of the people, that no Jew hereafter shall in any manner practise usury; and that no usurious contracts already made, since the feast ofSt.Edward’s, last past, shall standgood, excepting bonds relating to the capital sum. Provided also, that all those who are indebted to the Jews, upon pledges moveable, shall redeem them before Easter next, under pain of forfeiture. And if any Jew shall practise usury against the intent of this statute, the king promises neither to give him assistance by himself or officers in recovering his debts; but, on the contrary, will punish him for his trespass, and assist the Christians against him in the recovery of their pledges.“And it is further enacted, that no distress for any Jew’s debt shall hereafter be so grievous, as not to leave Christians the moiety of their lands and chattels for subsistence; and that no distress shall be made by any such Jew, upon the heir of his debtor named in the bond, or any other person in possession of the debtor’s lands, before such debt shall be proved in court. And if the sheriff or other bailiff is commanded by the king to give possession to any Jew, of landsor chattels to the value of his debt, the chattels shall first be appraised by the oath of honest men, and delivered to the Jew or Jewess to the value of the debt. And if the chattels be not found sufficient to answer it, then the lands shall be extended by the same oath, according to their separate values, before seisin is given of them to the Jew or Jewess; to the intent, that when the debt is certainly known to be discharged, the Christian may have his land again, saving to the Christian, nevertheless, the moiety of his lands and chattels, and the chief house for his sustenance, as before expressed.“And if anything stolen be found in the possession of a Jew, let him have his summons, if he regularly may have it; if not, he shall answer in such a manner as a Christian would be obliged to do without claiming any privilege. Likewise all Jews shall be resident in such cities and boroughs as are the king’s own, where the common chest of their indentures is wont to be kept. And every one of them that is past sevenyears of age shall wear a badge, in form of two tables, of yellow taffety, six fingers long and three fingers broad, upon his upper garment; and every one that is past twelve years shall also pay annually to the king, at Easter, the sum of three pence, both male and female.“And no Jew shall have power to alienate in fee, either to Jew or Christian, any houses, rents, or tenements, which they have already purchased, or dispose of them in any manner, or acquit any Christian of his debt, without the king’s special license, till he hath otherwise ordained.“And because holy Church wills and permits that they should live, and be protected, the king takes them into his protection, and commands that they should live guarded and defended by his sheriffs, bailiffs, and other liege people. And that none shall do them harm, either in their persons or goods, moveable or immoveable, or sue, implead, or challenge them in any courts but the king’s courts,♦wheresoever they are.♦‘wheresover’ replaced with ‘wheresoever’“And that none of them shall be obedient, respondent, or pay any rent to any but the king or his bailiffs, in his name, excepting for their houses which they now hold, rendering rent; saving likewise the rights of holy Church.“And the king also grants, that they may practise merchandise or live by their labour, and for those purposes freely converse with Christians. Excepting that on any pretence whatever they shall not be levant, or couchant, amongst them: nor on account of their merchandise, be in scots, lots, or talliage, with the other inhabitants of those cities or boroughs where they remain: seeing they are talliable to the king as his own vassals, and not otherwise.“Moreover the king grants them free liberty to purchase houses, and curtilages, in the cities and boroughs where they reside: provided they are held in chief of the king, saving to the lords their due and accustomed services.“And further the king grants, that such asare unskilful in merchandise, and cannot labour, may take lands to farm, for any term not exceeding ten years: provided no homage, fealty, or any such kind of service or advowson to holy Church, be belonging to them. Provided also that this power to farm lands shall continue in force for fifteen years from the making of this act, and nolonger.”11– It appears that Edward had already contemplated the total banishment of the Jews in 1290, for fifteen years after that statute was enacted the Jews were altogether expelled.The provisions of this act were afterwards rigorously enforced; writs were at different periods issued to compel the Jews to reside in the towns prescribed for them, to levy the sum of three pence a head on all who were above the age of twelve years, and to oblige all who were more than seven years old, to wear the badge directed by the statute.The Jews were for a long time silent as regards the merits of the Christian religion, but they could contain themselves no longer.They began openly to abuse Christianity, and stated publicly that it could not be a religion given by a merciful God, since it allowed such inhumanity.The king, therefore, with an appearance of pious zeal, which was either prompted by the dictates of his own conscience, or adopted in deference to the spirit of the times, commanded steps to be taken to make the Jews—apparently at least—respect the Christian faith. The first means adopted with a view to this object were, as might have been expected in that age, of a compulsory nature. In the seventh year of this reign, the king issued a proclamation, directing that any Jew who was heard openly to revile the divinity of Christ, should be forthwith put to death; and if convicted of being a common blasphemer, should be punished according to the law in suchcases.11– SeeAppendix B.The Jews insisted, however, that they should not be called by the name of Christian,considering such an epithet, when applied to them, a defamation of character. Accordingly we find, that when a Jewish woman was once called a Christian, and affirmed to have been baptized, her husband joined with her in an action for scandal and defamation, and appealed to the king for justice. The king actually sent a formal writ, concerning it, to his justices, commanding them to try the matter by an inquisition of Christians and Jews, and obtain for the parties redress, ifslandered.1To this circumstance may the origin of the new enactment be ascribed,viz., that Jewish females should also wear distinguishing badges.1– SeeAppendix C.For by an edict subsequently issued by the king, the direction with respect to the wearing of badges was extended to Jewesses as well as to Jews; and orders were at the same time given to see that no Christian served any Jew in any menial capacity. In addition to these regulations, which weresolely of a temporal nature, measures were also taken with respect to the Jews, which had reference to the promotion of their spiritual welfare. For about the same time, certain friars of the order of the Dominicans undertook to preach to the Jews, and vouched to convince them of the truth of the Christian faith, if the Jews could only be prevailed upon to listen to their preaching. They therefore petitioned the king to force all the Jews to attend their sermons. To forward their pious intentions, the king issued writs to the sheriffs and bailiffs of the different towns where the Jews resided, commanding that the Jews should be compelled to attend such places as the friars should appoint, and be forced to listen to the lectures which were delivered, with attention, and withoutdisturbance.1The king, on his part, conceded a portion of the advantages to which he had heretofore been entitled, from the power he possessed over the property of theconverted Jews. Letters patent were published, declaring that for the future seven years, any Jew, who might become a Christian, should retain the moiety of his property to his own use; the other half was secured to the house of converts, founded by the late king, to be applied (together with the deodands which were granted at the same time) towards the support of that establishment. We do not find on record many benefits that resulted, from the measuresthustaken to induce the Jews to investigate attentively the claims of the Christian doctrines; and it would seem that but few were prevailed upon to surmount the stumbling blocks thrown in the way of their conversion, and to make the sacrifice which was still incurred by the convert to the Christian creed.1– SeeAppendix D.The Jewish converts’ institution was also much patronized by the king. The warden of the house was commanded to elect an able Presbyter to act as his coadjutor, and who was to reside in the house, together with a fewother ministers, in order regularly to attend to all the regulations of the house. The king also ordered, that if any of the converts residing in the house were qualified to act as assistant Chaplains, they should be preferred to all others, in the Presbyter’s election. And if any of the convert-inmates appeared likely to become scholars, they should be sent to efficient schools, and properly educated. And if any were more fit for business, they should be sent to learn a trade, but have their board and lodgings in the institution. Should the literary converts, however, be promoted to the Church, they were to cease to participate in the benefits offered by the house. The king also ordered that if after all the expenses of the house were discharged, there should still remain some balance in the hand of the collector or treasurer, the whole of that surplus should be applied to the repairing and beautifying of the chapel belonging to that institution.But, as I said before, we are not favouredwith many records of the conversion of the Jews in this reign: yet those we have registered are of a very satisfactory nature. We read of a certain Oxford Jew, Belager by name, who became a Christian, and from the schedule of his goods, which was seized for the king in consequence of his conversion, we have every reason to believe that Belager was a man of learning, for his moveable goods consisted chiefly ofbooks.1His conversion was, therefore, owing to powerful conviction, as is generally the case with a Jew when he is led to make a public confession of hisfaith.21– SeeAppendix E.2– By this I do not mean to insinuate that there are no impostors amongst baptized Jews. It is a painful truth that the human nature of the Jews is as deceitful and as desperately wicked as that of the Gentiles.Whilst it is pleasing to register the concessions which were thus made on the part of the crown in favour of the Jewish converts, it is no less painful to have to recordthat the Jews in general still continued to be subjected to tallages of very heavy amounts, the payment of which was enforced by seizure of their goods, and by banishment. The king’s exchequer being completely exhausted, Edward stood greatly in need of money in consequence of his Welsh war: the rearing of the two castles in Wales—viz.that of Caernarvon, as also that of Conway—must also have amounted to a vast expenditure. Then the question arose, where was all the money to be got? Answer—By orders which were at various times issued to open and examine the chests in which the Jewish properties and possessions were enrolled; and great part of their effects were taken, and the sums which other persons were indebted to them were levied and appropriated by the king. Accusations were, moreover, at different periods made against them, of various descriptions of crimes. The principal offence with which they were now charged, was with clipping and falsifying the coin of the realm; and many, on account of thiscalumny, were condemned to suffer death, and were executed. In the seventh year of this reign no less than two hundred and ninety-four were put to death for this imputed crime; and all they possessed taken to the use of the king. To what extent the Jews were really guilty of this latter offence for which they suffered, or whether they were guilty at all, it is impossible now to determine.It is probable, however, that many of you may decide at once that this charge must have been true; for Edward the First, who is called the English Justinian, for the excellency of the laws enacted by him, caused them to be tried for this offence. You may perhaps suppose, that under a sovereign, who is to this day celebrated on account of the laws enacted in his reign, these Jews had all regular trials, and were justly convicted upon evidence. I candidly confess, that those were the opinions I entertained at my first reading this accusation, which induced me to examine the subjectrigorously; and the following is the result of my examination of this subject. It is true that where there are good laws enacted, we naturally look for an upright administration of them, but it is possible for a prince to enact good laws for the government of his people, and yet to be misled by his ministers, to conduct his government without the least regard to law and justice; and there are few reigns in which greater acts of oppression, cruelty, and injustice were committed, than in the reign of Edward the First, although the brilliancy of his exploits, and the greatness of his abilities, have thrown an unmerited gloss over his administration. Does not history declare that the very fountains of justice were polluted, and that loud complaints were made of the corruption and venality of the judges in Edward’sreign?1Kings are ever entitled to profound respect, and it is the liberal policy of the present age everto give them the credit of uprightness of intention, and to consider every investigation, as an investigation of the acts of their ministers. We shall, therefore, consider it in this light, and speak of actions as the actions of the ministers of state; and surely the actions of the administration in his reign are very reprehensible. Their conduct towards the Welsh and the Scotch, their sovereigns and people, and especially the slaughter of the Welsh bards, will ever be considered by those who are not dazzled by successful cruelty as disgraceful acts; which would have tarnished the splendour of this reign, had it been a thousand times more splendid; but in their conduct towards the Jews, they acted the part of most grievous oppressors. What evidence was produced against them? We read that they were suspected of the crime, as were also the Flemings. It would, therefore, have been the part of a good and active government to have set its officers to seek for the guilty, whether English,Flemings, or Jews. Does this appear to have been done? By no means. Mark, I do not deny, but there might have been Jews as well as Flemings and English concerned in these malpractices. The Jews are men, and subject to like temptations and like crimes as the rest of mankind; and as they dealt in money, and had better opportunities than others, the probability that some of them were not entirely innocent, is strengthened; but the suddenness of the inquisition, the great number of those executed, and the conduct of the government and people at large to those whom they did not execute, convince me that the Jews had not fair play, but that by far the majority of them were unjustly convicted. It is curious to observe in the page of the English historian, first the statement that “the king’s finances were exhausted,” and the same page ends with an account of “the vast sums raised by the seizure of the Jews’ houses and effects, and the fines imposed upon those who escaped death, andthe goldsmiths who were involved in the suspicion of being concerned withthem.”21– Henry’s Britain,vol. vii.,p. 75.2– Hume and Smollett.The only circumstance mentioned by the historian which seems to glance at the crimination of any of them is, that great sums of clipped money were found in their houses. Here seems to be something like evidence; we must therefore pay attention to it. If he had said that there had been found in their houses great quantities of gold dust of the same standard with the current coin, it would have amounted to circumstantial evidence, which, if strongly corroborated with other proofs, might induce an impartial jury to convict a prisoner; but no such thing is mentioned; it is only said that great sums of clipped money were found in their houses. Now this, so far from being evidence against them, was evidence in their favour, if rightly considered: but what signified evidence in favour of a Jew, when he was accused upon a general rumour? Hisjudge and jury composed of those who hated him and his nation, and who would rejoice and exult in his conviction and sufferings. Who was there to plead his cause? Is there the least ground to suppose that they had even a single chance of being acquitted? The very evidence which is considered as a proof of their guilt should have produced their acquittal; for if they had been concerned in clipping the coin, they would have hoarded unclipped money in order to clip it, and put the clipped money in circulation. And again they dealt in money, and hoarded money; if, therefore, the money which was in circulation was clipped and depreciated in value, what could they deal in, what could they hoard but clipped money? Once more, the Flemings were mentioned as being implicated with the Jews in the suspicion of being guilty of this crime; and in the account we are now considering, we find that the goldsmiths were charged with being their accomplices, although they (being Christians)were only fined, and not hanged for it. I think there can be little doubt, but that they were the principal criminals, for if a goldsmith were not restrained by the detestation of such a crime, but would becomeparticeps criminis, and subject himself to the punishment of the law, would he admit an accomplice to render his detection the more probable? would he permit an accomplice to run away with the main part of the plunder? Surely he would do all the businesshimself.11– See also Witherby’s Dialogues, parti., DialogueII.Unjust, however, as was the condemnation of the Jews for that imputed crime, the poor Jews seemed convinced that any thing would be believed of them, be the story ever so incredible. Sums to a large amount were therefore extorted from them by the common people through threats of accusing them of the above crime. To such length was this system of extortion carriedon, that the king found it necessary to issue a proclamation, declaring that from thenceforth no Jew should be held answerable for any offence heretoforecommitted.1This act of evident justice was, however, accompanied by a condition which throws a degree of doubt upon the real motive by which it was suggested. In order to bring himself within the security of the proclamation, the person accused was bound to pay a fine to the king.1– SeeAppendix F.In the fourteenth year of this reign, the king was taken dangerously ill. On his bed of sickness he made a vow, if his health should recover, to undertake another crusade. Accordingly, when he recovered, he took the cross, but appointed no time for his departure. In fact, he could not conveniently leave his dominions; he, therefore, compromised his vow, by directing his zealous fury against the Jews of Guienne,whom he first plundered, and then banished. Alas! for his boasted laws and the splendour of his victories. It is a truth, an incontrovertible truth, that “there is no reign, from the Conqueror inclusive, blotted with greater violence than his. They were cruelties glossed over by ambition and thirst of empire, which were pursued at the expense of justice, humanity, and every othervirtue.”11– Witherby.The next act relating to the Jews occurred in the sixteenth year of this reign, when the king was yet on the Continent. In that year it is stated that the Jews were, on the same night, apprehended throughout England, and thrown into prison, and were only released upon payment to the king of the sum of twenty thousand pounds of silver as a ransom. The celebrated John Selden adduces the following curious evidence of that event:—יום יא מי היותפוסים כל יהודיםבארצי הזי שנתמ׳ז לפ׳ לאלףשישי אני אשרחקקתי.11– The inscription, as given by Selden, and copied by Tovey, is very unlike Hebrew.Dr.Jost’s improvement is ingenious; but according to his reading, the imprisonment took place in November, whilst Stow and Prynne state that May was the month. I propose therefore the above reading as the most likely to be correct: one could easily mistakeיforו, especially when scratched on a wall.That is—“On the11thday of May, were all the Jews in the counties of this island imprisoned: in the year of the world 5047 [A.D.1287], I, Asher, inscribed this.” The inscription was discovered by Patricius Junius in an old vault at Winchester. Some historians relate that the Jews were subjected to this violence, in consequence of a promise made by the commons to the king, of a fifth of their moveables, provided he would banish the Jews from the island. When the Jews became acquainted withthe reason of their imprisonment, they caused an intimation to be conveyed to the king, that they would pay a larger sum than the amount of the fifth part promised by the commons, if they might be released from their dungeons, and allowed to remain in England. This offer had the desired effect, and they were again restored to liberty, upon payment of the above-mentioned sum. Whether this statement of the circumstances under which the Jews were imprisoned be correct or not, it seems certain that from about this time, the clamour against them became daily more violent. It is not improbable that the edict, by which the exactions practised upon the Jews by the people were prevented, had rendered them, with many, still greater objects of hatred. It appears, however, that the clergy and gentry joined with the nation in general in desiring the expulsion of the Jews; and it is to inferred that they were inducedentertain this wish, in a great measure, from the heavy debts they owed to the Jews, and expecting to be relieved of the payment, by the banishment of the creditors; which gave birth to all the monstrous accusations brought against them, which were still loudly repeated against the Jews, not only of their being continually clipping and depreciating the coin of the country, but also of being the cause of much hardship through their usurious dealings. But, though this may have been, in truth, the principal, as in fact, the only avowed reason for desiring that the Jews should be driven out of England, yet there can be little doubt that the evils which have been, in a former lecture, pointed out as resulting to the nation, in general, from the power continually exercised over the property, persons, and rights of the Jews, had some effect in increasing the wish to be relieved from the presence of that people.Edward’s conduct towards the Jews, intohis continental dominions, has already been noticed: he first fleeced them for the benefit of the state, and then banished them, to render heaven propitious to his government. This measure served greatly to raise his popularity; and upon his entry into London, he was received with every mark of joy and good-will by the clergy and people. Before this feeling could subside, he was induced to consent to the decree for the final banishment of the Jews from England, which his great grand-father, HenryII., was instigated to do, but was not prevailedupon.1In return for this favour, he received from the Commons the grant of a fifteenth part of their goods; and the clergy, at the same time, made a gift to him of the tenth part of their moveables. A very inadequate sum, when compared with the debts they owed to the Jews. The above-mentioned decree commanded that the Jews, together with theirwives and children, should depart from the realm within a certain time—namely, before the feast of All Saints. As a matter of grace, on the part of the king, they were permitted to take with them a part of their moveables, and sufficient money to defray the expenses of their journey. Their houses and other possessions were seized by the king, and appropriated to his own use. The king wanted vast sums of money this year. Three of his elder daughters were married in the same year that the Jews were banished. The king’s seizing all the Jewish property will readily account for the magnificence displayed at the nuptials of these princesses. Agnes Strickland, in her second volume of “The Lives of the Queens of England,” expatiates not a little on the effect, but leaves the cause unmentioned entirely,viz., that of Edward’s banishing the Jews. She says, “A list of the plate used in the queen’s household will prove that the court of Eleanora had attained a considerable degree of luxury. The plate was the work of Ade, the king’sgoldsmith, and the description of the rich vessels of the goldsmith’s company has been brought to light by modernresearch.2Thirty-four pitchers of gold and silver, calculated to hold water or wine; ten gold chalices, of the value of £140 to £292 each; ten cups of silver gilt, or silver white, some with stands of the same, or enamelled, more than one hundred and eighteen pounds each; also cups of jasper, plates and dishes of silver, gold salts, alms bowls, silver hanapers or baskets; cups of benison, with holy sentences wrought thereon; enamelled silver jugs, adorned with effigies of the king, in a surcoat and hood, and with two effigies of Queen Eleanora. A pair of knives with silver sheaths enamelled, with aforkof crystal and a silver fork, handled with ebony and ivory. In the list of royal valuables were likewise combs and looking-glasses of silver-gilt, and a bodkin of silver, in a leather case; five serpent’stongues, set in a standard of silver; a royal crown set with rubies, emeralds, and great pearls; another with Indian pearls; and one great crown of gold, ornamented with emeralds, sapphires of the east, rubies, and large oriental pearls.” I have no hesitation in saying that a great part of the articles displayed were Jewish. The coincidence of their banishment with the above display, warrants such a supposition.1– Seep. 100.2– ByMr.Herbert, city librarian, in his History of City Companies.Notwithstanding the harshness and severity of this decree, it seems not to have been sufficient to excite any commiseration on the part of the people. Many were still unwilling to allow the Jews to depart in quiet, but sought to take the last opportunity remaining to them to give vent to their unchristian hatred and enmity against these unfortunate people, and to despoil them of the small portion of their wealth which remained to them. The principal Jews were forced to provide themselves with letters of safe conduct from the king; and it became necessary, for their protection, toissue orders to the officers and magistrates of the towns through which they passed, to guard them against the violence of the populace. One instance of the barbarities to which they were subjected, deserves to be particularly noticed, as it affords a just example of the sentiments entertained by the people towards the Jews. It is thus related by Hollinshead, and copied by Lord Coke and many other writers since: “A sort of the richest of them,” he says, “being shipped with their treasure in a mighty tall ship which they had hired, when the same was under sail, and got down the Thames, towards the mouth of the river, towards Quinborough, the master mariner bethought him of a wile, and caused his men to cast anchor, and so rode at the same, till the ship, by ebbing of the stream, remained on the dry sand. The master herewith enticed the Jews to walk out with him on land, for recreation; and at length, when he understood the tide to be coming in, he got him back to the ship, whither he was drawn by a cord. TheJews made not so much haste as he did, because they were not aware of the danger; but when they perceived how the matter stood, they cried to him for help, howbeit he told them that they ought to cry rather unto Moses, by whose conduct their fathers passed through the Red Sea; and, therefore, if they would call to him for help, he was able enough to help them out of these raging floods, which now came in upon them. They cried indeed, but no succour appeared, and so they were swallowed up in the water. The master returned with the ship, and told the king how he had used the matter, and had both thanks and rewards, as some have written. But others affirm (and more truly as should seem) that divers of the mariners, which dealt so wickedly against the Jews, were hanged for their wicked practice; and so received a just reward of their fraudulent and mischievous dealing.”By the time appointed, all the Jews had left England; the numbers have been estimatedby some at 15,060, by others at 16,511.The following few particulars are to be met with in the histories of the Jews themselves, respecting their changes, chances, troubles, and sufferings in this country. Ben Virga, in his chronicleShaivet Y’hudah, states: “A.M.5018, in the island which is now called England, a great and mighty destruction occurred in all the congregations, great and powerful in wisdom, knowledge, and honour, which were in those days. And especially that great city called London, which contained about two thousand Jewish householders; all of them were possessed of wisdom and wealth. It was there that Rabbi Abraham Aben Ezra, composed his epistle which he called, ‘The epistle of the Sabbath.’ The cause of their destruction was, that they [i.e.the Jews] should change their creed; and when they insisted on the sanctification of God’s name, they [i.e.the Gentiles] accused them of counterfeiting the coin. This calumny wasbrought before the king; the king examined and investigated the matter, and found that the false accusers invented that calumny against the Jews; and they escaped. After a time, the Nazarenes resumed their calumnies, and sought for persons to witness against the Jews, and they found such persons as they desired [who stated] how they saw a Jew clipping a coin; and though the king knew that it was all false, but on account of the murmuring of the populace, he wished to throw off their displeasure, and fearing lest the nation should rise with a sword in their hand, as was generally the case with them, and there would be no one to deliver, he commanded and banished them [the Jews], and this expulsion took placeA.M.5020.”It is my firm conviction that Ben Virga’s account is the true one, as far as the facts of the case are concerned. There seems certainly to be a disagreement in thedates.11– SeeAppendix G.Rabbi G’daliah mixed up several incidents together, and also added a little of the marvellous out of his own vivid imaginations, which give his narrative altogether the air of fiction, which is the following:—“A.M. 5020—A priest in England consented to be circumcised in order to be married to a Jewess, with whom he was desperately enamoured. The affair became known to the citizens, who were desirous of burning them. But the king chose to execute the revenge in a different way, and decreed that within three months, they should change their religion: those who circumcised the priest were burned, and many of the Jews changed their religion. And they [i.e.the Gentiles] took all their children from six years old and downwards, and carried them to the end of the realm, that they might forget the customs of their fathers, the Jews. The king died, and his son reigned in his stead, and presently there came upon his kingdom pestilence and famine, and his counsellors said to him, that it was becauseof the Jews [i.e.baptized ones], who do not sincerely believe, that that calamity came upon them. And he [the king] made two tents by the banks of the sea; upon one he painted the figure of Moses, our Rabbi—may peace be upon him—and also his name; and upon the other he painted their Messiah: and he told them they were permitted to become Jews, and none of them should be forced to any thing. But in order that he might ascertain who was a Jew [by creed], he wished that those who were desirous of becoming Jews should go into the tent of Moses, our Rabbi—may peace be upon him—and took upon themselves to do so. Now many of them entered into the tent of Moses, our Rabbi—may peace be upon him—and after they were gathered there, they were murdered, and cast into the sea, and thus all of them perished and wereextirpated.”11– SeeAppendix H.Did Rabbi G’daliah write since the daysof Sir Walter Scott, one might be inclined to think that the Jewish historian borrowed a leaf from one of the volumes of the Scotch novelist, only suppressing the names of Brian de Bois-Guilbert and Rebeccah, and putting instead “priest” and “Jewess;” but as Sir Walter flourished when the Hebrew writer was long since dead and gone, I am inclined to conjecturevice versa.The reason why we are not favoured with more information on their history in this country, by themselves, has already been hinted at in the firstLecture.1It is certain that the Jews had many valuable libraries in this country, which were taken from them before they were driven out of it, and were bestowed on the universities and monasteries. However, this consideration belongs properly to the second series of these Lectures, which shall be fully treated when that series is delivered.Dr.Jost is by no means correct when he says, “There is no trace of(Jewish) schools in England; no Rabbi of that country occupies a place in the annals of Jewish scholars; there was no time for study, and no ambition stimulated and encouraged those who were eager for the acquirement ofknowledge.”2Not only is this statement at variance with Rabbi Solomon ben Virga’s, but also with his own. He himself says, with reference to the English Jews, “The learned amongst them prosecuted the medical sciences, yet more as an art; and they were, through their acquaintance with some secret means of cures, so celebrated, that the divines were interrupted in their wonderful cures,”&c.3Indeed there are many statements in this historian’s productions,which must be received with a♦considerable degree of caution.1– Seepp.7–11.2– “Von Schulen ist keine Spur in England, daher auch nicht von Gelehrten; kein dortiger Rabbiner hat einen Platz in den Jüdischen Jahrbüchern der Gelehrten. Zum Studiren war keine Zeit, und keine Ehre lockte und stärkte den Wissbegierigen”—Geschichte der Israeliten,vol. vii.,p. 165.3– For the original refer toAppendix G.of LectureII.♦‘consirable’ replaced with ‘considerable’There is, however, a current opinion amongst the modern English Jews, that especially “the sayings of the wise men of Norwich and of York are quoted in some of the additions made by the expounders of theTalmud.”1I must confess, I cannot vouch for the correctness of that opinion. I addressed once a letter on this subject to the editor of the “JewishChronicle,”2hoping to elicit from his numerous well-educated readers, information on the above. The learned editor seems to have mistaken the purport of my letter to him, and therefore gave an answer not at all to the purpose. It is the following given in a note:—1– Seep. 9.2– SeeAppendix I.“With every deference due toDr.Jost, and the research displayed in his History of the Jews, we are bound in this instance to supportMr.Moses Samuels’ opinion, that we had great men living in England eight hundredyears ago. Although theRev.Mr.Margoliouth might have readthrough the Talmud again carefully(no easy task!) he must have overlooked the passage in Josephoth [Tosephoth I suppose] (not having a Talmud at hand, we must defer the quotation of ‘chapter and verse’ to our next number), where theחכמי נרוויש(wise men of Norwich) are mentioned.Mr.Samuels’ opinion is also supported by the authority (no small one, even if compared withDr.Jost and theRev.Mr.Margoliouth) of theשלשלת הקבלה(Chain of tradition), which places׳ר מאיר מאינגלטירה(Rabbi Meyer of England) in the same category with Jarchi, Rabenu—Tam, and Maimonides; videשלשלת הקבלהfol.41,p. 2.—Amsterdam Edition, 8vo.”That the Jews had learned men in this country, I know full well, and the editor of the “Jewish Chronicle” might have known this by my quotation from Ben Virga. It is the especial mention of the wise men of Norwich and of York, that I am anxious to know about. Nearly two months have passedaway, and the promised “quotation of chapter and verse” has not been givenyet.1To return, however, to the immediate subject.1– It is now about a year since he made this promise, I venture therefore respectfully to ask him once more for a fulfilment of the same.Thus was this unfortunate race, after nearly two centuries of almost continual persecution, driven from the country and robbed of their possessions. In the circumstances that attended this last act of violence, we see displayed a continuance of the same oppression and cruelty which the treatment they had experienced, both from the monarch and the people, had ever evinced. If, as was pretended, their banishment was sought as a relief from the grievances which their usurious dealings inflicted upon the nation, we cannot find, in this circumstance, any necessity for their expulsion, or any justification for the rapacity, that caused their estates to be confiscated to the crown, or, for the malice that dictatedthe cruelties to which, on that occasion, they were exposed, from the populace. The sums which were advanced to the king by the commons and by the clergy, as the price of their expulsion, were more than made up to them by the robbery they practised upon the unfortunate exiles before their leaving the shores of this country. And the desire that the nation seems to have entertained for their removal may, without error, be traced principally tothissource.In taking a retrospective view of the facts that were stated in the preceding Lectures, it must be acknowledged that a spirit of relentless cruelty pervaded the whole nation; and we cannot but feel that the exactions and barbarities which were recorded, mark an indelible stain upon this period of your history. They are blots in the characters of the successive monarchs, and are painfully indicative of the cupidity, ferocity, and ignorance of the people. On the other hand, we must admit that theconduct of the Jews themselves, under their continued sufferings and oppressions, whilst it furnishes a fresh example of the characteristic perseverance with which they brave all dangers and difficulties, in pursuit of riches, affords, at the same time, a further proof of the resignation, fortitude, and self-devotion, for which that nation has been ever distinguished. Behold them proceeding to leave the British Isle in the beginning of winter; see their tender infants clinging to their mothers, who are scarcely able to support them; see them laying down when unable to proceed, stripped of all their comforts, insulted by those called Christians; and when they arrive at the sea shore, behold numbers of them, in their embarkation, drowned by the mere wanton barbarity of the English, and the rest stripped of the poor pittance they were permitted to retain. Oh, the reflections are too much forme. I would rather not think of the past, but look at the present improved stateboth of the persecuted and persecutors, which shall be the pleasing subject of the second series.It must not be omitted to be mentioned, that in banishing the Jews from this country, the English have expelled one of the most brilliant stars of the Reformation, who was a Christian Jew, an Englishman by birth, and educated in the University of Oxford, the well-known Nicolaus de Lyra, who wrote a commentary on the Old and New Testament; and being deeply versed in the ancient tongues, and well read in all the works of the learned rabbies, he selected their best opinions, and expounded the holy Scriptures in a manner far above the taste of that age, in which he showed a greater acquaintance with the principles of interpretation than any of his predecessors. He was, indeed, a most useful forerunner to Luther, who made ample use of his commentaries, in which he frequently reprehended the reigning abuses of the Church—afact which led Pflug, Bishop of Naumberg, to say—“Si Lyra non lyrasset,Lutherus non saltasset.”Others have it thus:—“Nisi Lyra lyrasset,Totus mundusdelirasset.”11– See the Fundamental Principles of Modern Judaism Investigated,p. 241.Geschichteder hebräischen Sprache und Schrift,p. 105.Wickliife has also profited much by De Lyra’s writings: he used them frequently when translating the Bible. Indeed, his writings were formerly very famous. Pope, in giving a catalogue of Bay’s library, in his Dunciad, finds—“De Lyra there a dreadful front extend.”It appears that soon after the banishment of the Jews from this country, De Lyra embraced Christianity in Paris. The French biographers have a particular talent of Frenchifyingany learned man who passes through the towns and streets of France. Accordingly, L’Advocat, in his biographical dictionary, made a Frenchman of him. But that is disproved by the title-page of one of De Lyra’s ownworks,1in which he gives England as his native country.1– Brathering’s 8vo. edition of Lyra’s Disputations against the Jews. SeeAppendix K.

Mylast Lecture, which must have been as tedious to you as it was to myself, finished with the death of Henry the Third. A melancholy monotony pervaded the whole of that lecture. The principal feature in Henry’s disposition was, as you are well aware, uncontrollable avarice, which was the cause of the many cruel persecutions, to which the poor unfortunate Jews were exposed.

I may just recapitulate, in a few minutes, the sums extracted from the Jews in the preceding reign. In the years 1230 and 1231, 15,000 marks; in 1233, 18,000 marks; in 1236, 1800 marks. The amount of taxation in 1237, not mentioned. In 1239, a third part of their goods; in 1241, 20,000 marks; in 1244, 20,000 marks; in 1245,60,000 marks, which tax the king received with his own hand; in 1246, 10,000 marks; in 1247, 5,525 marks; in 1249, 10,000 marks; in 1250, a great part of their goods was taken away; in 1251, 5,000 marks of silver, and 40 of gold; in 1252, 3,500 marks; in 1253, 5,000 marks; in 1259, 5,000 marks; in 1269, 1,000 pounds; in 1271, 6,000 marks; besides many more, of which we have no records, and also besides the vast sums occasionally extorted from numbers ofindividuals.1

1– “In Claus. 39, H. 3, pars 2, dors. 16, 17, there is a large catalogue of the lands, houses, rents, mortgages, real and personal estate, and debts of Abraham, a Jew, in several counties, amounting to a vast sum, taking up near two membrances, which were imbreviated and confiscated to the king’s use. And a proclamation by the king, that no Jew should be suffered to depart out of the realm of England.”—Prynne.See alsopp.242, 243.Lord Coke states, that the crown received from the Jews, in the short space of seven years,viz., from the17thof December, in the50thyear of HenryIII., until Shrove Tuesday, the2ndof EdwardI., the sum of £420,000 15s.4d.

1– “In Claus. 39, H. 3, pars 2, dors. 16, 17, there is a large catalogue of the lands, houses, rents, mortgages, real and personal estate, and debts of Abraham, a Jew, in several counties, amounting to a vast sum, taking up near two membrances, which were imbreviated and confiscated to the king’s use. And a proclamation by the king, that no Jew should be suffered to depart out of the realm of England.”—Prynne.See alsopp.242, 243.

Lord Coke states, that the crown received from the Jews, in the short space of seven years,viz., from the17thof December, in the50thyear of HenryIII., until Shrove Tuesday, the2ndof EdwardI., the sum of £420,000 15s.4d.

“Death,” using the words of a quaint writer, “as inexorable as himself, seized him, and gave the Jews some respite from these afflictions—the king leaving behind him but a very indifferent character either as a man, or a prince.”

For nearly two years after, the government of this country remained in the hands of the Archbishop of York, and the Earls of Cornwall and Chester, Edward being abroad, engaged in the holy war, as it was called; during which time the Jews seem to have been left pretty much unnoticed, and consequently, we may conclude, in peace. Edward’s return, however, brings them again prominently before our view, and under more distressing circumstances than ever.

The first public act of his reign which had reference to the Jews, was in conformity with the example set by his ancestors: he held out to them hopes of safety and protection. Shortly after the death of the late king, proclamations of peace and security were issued, extending to the Jews as well as to the nationingeneral.1It was, however, quickly evident that, as far as regarded the former, there was no peace for them.

1– SeeAppendix A.

Edward knew well that his father’s and mother’s unenviable unpopularity with his subjects, and the incessant civil wars which distracted the kingdom during the preceding reign, owed their existence to his royal parents’ insatiable demands for money from the English barons. Edward, though equally in want of large sums of money, determined, however, to obtain those sums from the Jews alone, and not ask anything from his Christian subjects—an expedient whereby he expected to gain popularity, as well as the supplies he wanted. Accordingly, the king, soon after his coronation, began to regulate the Jewish affairs after his father’s model. Steps were, in a short time, taken to facilitate the levying of taxes upon them. New officers of their exchequer were appointed; directions were given to enforcethe regulations, by which they were obliged to confine themselves within particular towns and cities; and orders were forwarded to the sheriffs of the different places where they resided, to examine the registers of their debts and possessions, and make a faithful return of their estates and effects. As soon as the necessary information upon these orders was received from the sheriffs, a new tallage was imposed upon the Jews. The children began to be taxed as well as the parents, which made the tallage enormous; and authority was given to enforce the payment, together with that of all arrears due on former assessments, by measures of the greatest severity. The collectors were directed to levy the sums which were demanded, upon the goods and chattels of those who hesitated to contribute their proportion; and if the amount could not by this means be obtained—which, as a matter of course, proved those impoverished Jews to be useless, since everything,indeed, was taken from them—the king thought best to change the punishmentfrom imprisonment to transportation. Accordingly, the sheriffs were empowered to punish the refractory (that is, those who had not money enough) with banishment from the kingdom; to imprison all such as common thieves, who should be found in the country after three days from the time they were, under these orders, directed to leave it; and the lands, houses, and effects of those who should be banished, were to be forthwith taken possession of and sold. The persons who were appointed to carry these directions into effect were, an Irish bishop—Bishop elect of Waterford—and two friars; and they appear to have executed the office entrusted to them with such relentless severity, that the king’s mind was moved to pity, and in many cases he gave orders to release particular individuals amongst the Jews from a part of the demands made upon them.

The complaints which had been made, towards the end of the last reign, of the injuries which were experienced by the peoplein general, from the laws and proceedings respecting the Jews, it seems were now again brought forward. And the extent to which the Jews were permitted to take interest by the canon law, in order to fill the coffers of the king, was, it appears, also the subject of increased remonstrance. It must be borne in mind that the Gentiles were by far the greater usurers than the Jews, but they could practise the foul profession with impunity, by stating that they laboured for the pope: for instance, in the thirty-sixth year of the preceding reign, Henry ordered that the Causini should be prosecuted with the utmost rigour of the law for their usuries; but they pleaded that they were the servants of the pope, and employed by him, and were therefore not only left alone, but countenanced in that nefarious traffic.

In the third year of this reign, the king, in order to please his Christian subjects, was pleased to pass the statute which is known by the name of theStatutum de Judaismo. This statute acknowledged that the king andhis ancestors had had great profit from the Jews, yet that many mischiefs and disinheritances of honest men had happened by their usuries; and it therefore enacted, that from thenceforth no Jew should practise usury,—that no distress for any Jew’s debt should be so grievous as not to leave the debtor the moiety of his lands and chattels for his subsistence; that no Jew should have power to sell or alien any house, rents, or tenements, without the king’s leave, but that they might purchase houses in cities as heretofore, and take leases of land to farm for ten years; and that they should be at liberty to carry on mercantile transactions in the cities where they resided; provided, however, that they should not, by reason of such dealings, be talliable with the other inhabitants of the cities, seeing that they were only talliable to the king, as his own bondsmen; and it directed that they should reside only in such cities and boroughs as were the king’s own; and that all Jews above the age of seven years should wear abadge, in the form of two tables of yellowtaffety,1upon their upper garments; and that all above twelve years of age should pay to the king, at Easter, the sum of three pence. Lord Coke recommends that statute as very worthy to be read. It was drawn up in French, and the following is an English translation of the same:—

1– I should not wonder that some royal merchant arrived into this country to dispose of a certain quantity of yellow taffety, which perhaps not proving saleable, the merchant procured the interest of the king or that of his counsellors, and thus yellow taffety became the Jewish badge. C. White, in his “Three Years in Constantinople,” relates a circumstance which gives colour to the above suggestion. He says—“Sometimes French ambassadors carry their powers of protection to strange lengths, and apply them to singular purposes. It is related that one La Rose, first valet-de-chambre to M. d’Argental, in 1690, was persuaded by some one in Paris to lay out his savings in wigs, as a good speculation to take to Turkey. Finding, upon reaching Constantinople, that his stock remained on hand, and that he had been duped, he fell into low spirits, and had nigh died of despondency. The ambassador seeing this, bethought himself of applying to the grand vizir, to see if he could not devise some plan for getting rid of the cargo. ‘Nothing can be more easy,’ replied the sultan’salter ergo; ‘leave the affair to me.’ On the following day, a firman was issued, and read in the Jewish synagogues, commanding all Jews to wear wigs. Terrible was the confusion and running to and fro among the unfortunate Israelites of Balat and Khass Kouy. Few knew the meaning of wigs: none knew where to find them. This having quickly reached La Rose’s ears, he joyously delivered his store to a broker, who disposed of the whole in a few hours, and the speculator reaped a rich harvest. He was, however, directed by his master not to renew the venture. This was not the only strange proceeding on the part of M. d’Argental: indeed he carried his vagaries so far, that he was eventually put under restraint by his own secretaries.”

“Whereas the king having observed, thatin times past, many honest men have lost their inheritances by the usury of the Jews, and that many sins have from thence arisen, notwithstanding Judaism is, and has been very profitable to him and his ancestors, yet nevertheless he ordains and establishes for the honour of God, and the common benefit of the people, that no Jew hereafter shall in any manner practise usury; and that no usurious contracts already made, since the feast ofSt.Edward’s, last past, shall standgood, excepting bonds relating to the capital sum. Provided also, that all those who are indebted to the Jews, upon pledges moveable, shall redeem them before Easter next, under pain of forfeiture. And if any Jew shall practise usury against the intent of this statute, the king promises neither to give him assistance by himself or officers in recovering his debts; but, on the contrary, will punish him for his trespass, and assist the Christians against him in the recovery of their pledges.

“And it is further enacted, that no distress for any Jew’s debt shall hereafter be so grievous, as not to leave Christians the moiety of their lands and chattels for subsistence; and that no distress shall be made by any such Jew, upon the heir of his debtor named in the bond, or any other person in possession of the debtor’s lands, before such debt shall be proved in court. And if the sheriff or other bailiff is commanded by the king to give possession to any Jew, of landsor chattels to the value of his debt, the chattels shall first be appraised by the oath of honest men, and delivered to the Jew or Jewess to the value of the debt. And if the chattels be not found sufficient to answer it, then the lands shall be extended by the same oath, according to their separate values, before seisin is given of them to the Jew or Jewess; to the intent, that when the debt is certainly known to be discharged, the Christian may have his land again, saving to the Christian, nevertheless, the moiety of his lands and chattels, and the chief house for his sustenance, as before expressed.

“And if anything stolen be found in the possession of a Jew, let him have his summons, if he regularly may have it; if not, he shall answer in such a manner as a Christian would be obliged to do without claiming any privilege. Likewise all Jews shall be resident in such cities and boroughs as are the king’s own, where the common chest of their indentures is wont to be kept. And every one of them that is past sevenyears of age shall wear a badge, in form of two tables, of yellow taffety, six fingers long and three fingers broad, upon his upper garment; and every one that is past twelve years shall also pay annually to the king, at Easter, the sum of three pence, both male and female.

“And no Jew shall have power to alienate in fee, either to Jew or Christian, any houses, rents, or tenements, which they have already purchased, or dispose of them in any manner, or acquit any Christian of his debt, without the king’s special license, till he hath otherwise ordained.

“And because holy Church wills and permits that they should live, and be protected, the king takes them into his protection, and commands that they should live guarded and defended by his sheriffs, bailiffs, and other liege people. And that none shall do them harm, either in their persons or goods, moveable or immoveable, or sue, implead, or challenge them in any courts but the king’s courts,♦wheresoever they are.

♦‘wheresover’ replaced with ‘wheresoever’

“And that none of them shall be obedient, respondent, or pay any rent to any but the king or his bailiffs, in his name, excepting for their houses which they now hold, rendering rent; saving likewise the rights of holy Church.

“And the king also grants, that they may practise merchandise or live by their labour, and for those purposes freely converse with Christians. Excepting that on any pretence whatever they shall not be levant, or couchant, amongst them: nor on account of their merchandise, be in scots, lots, or talliage, with the other inhabitants of those cities or boroughs where they remain: seeing they are talliable to the king as his own vassals, and not otherwise.

“Moreover the king grants them free liberty to purchase houses, and curtilages, in the cities and boroughs where they reside: provided they are held in chief of the king, saving to the lords their due and accustomed services.

“And further the king grants, that such asare unskilful in merchandise, and cannot labour, may take lands to farm, for any term not exceeding ten years: provided no homage, fealty, or any such kind of service or advowson to holy Church, be belonging to them. Provided also that this power to farm lands shall continue in force for fifteen years from the making of this act, and nolonger.”1

1– It appears that Edward had already contemplated the total banishment of the Jews in 1290, for fifteen years after that statute was enacted the Jews were altogether expelled.

The provisions of this act were afterwards rigorously enforced; writs were at different periods issued to compel the Jews to reside in the towns prescribed for them, to levy the sum of three pence a head on all who were above the age of twelve years, and to oblige all who were more than seven years old, to wear the badge directed by the statute.

The Jews were for a long time silent as regards the merits of the Christian religion, but they could contain themselves no longer.They began openly to abuse Christianity, and stated publicly that it could not be a religion given by a merciful God, since it allowed such inhumanity.

The king, therefore, with an appearance of pious zeal, which was either prompted by the dictates of his own conscience, or adopted in deference to the spirit of the times, commanded steps to be taken to make the Jews—apparently at least—respect the Christian faith. The first means adopted with a view to this object were, as might have been expected in that age, of a compulsory nature. In the seventh year of this reign, the king issued a proclamation, directing that any Jew who was heard openly to revile the divinity of Christ, should be forthwith put to death; and if convicted of being a common blasphemer, should be punished according to the law in suchcases.1

1– SeeAppendix B.

The Jews insisted, however, that they should not be called by the name of Christian,considering such an epithet, when applied to them, a defamation of character. Accordingly we find, that when a Jewish woman was once called a Christian, and affirmed to have been baptized, her husband joined with her in an action for scandal and defamation, and appealed to the king for justice. The king actually sent a formal writ, concerning it, to his justices, commanding them to try the matter by an inquisition of Christians and Jews, and obtain for the parties redress, ifslandered.1To this circumstance may the origin of the new enactment be ascribed,viz., that Jewish females should also wear distinguishing badges.

1– SeeAppendix C.

For by an edict subsequently issued by the king, the direction with respect to the wearing of badges was extended to Jewesses as well as to Jews; and orders were at the same time given to see that no Christian served any Jew in any menial capacity. In addition to these regulations, which weresolely of a temporal nature, measures were also taken with respect to the Jews, which had reference to the promotion of their spiritual welfare. For about the same time, certain friars of the order of the Dominicans undertook to preach to the Jews, and vouched to convince them of the truth of the Christian faith, if the Jews could only be prevailed upon to listen to their preaching. They therefore petitioned the king to force all the Jews to attend their sermons. To forward their pious intentions, the king issued writs to the sheriffs and bailiffs of the different towns where the Jews resided, commanding that the Jews should be compelled to attend such places as the friars should appoint, and be forced to listen to the lectures which were delivered, with attention, and withoutdisturbance.1The king, on his part, conceded a portion of the advantages to which he had heretofore been entitled, from the power he possessed over the property of theconverted Jews. Letters patent were published, declaring that for the future seven years, any Jew, who might become a Christian, should retain the moiety of his property to his own use; the other half was secured to the house of converts, founded by the late king, to be applied (together with the deodands which were granted at the same time) towards the support of that establishment. We do not find on record many benefits that resulted, from the measuresthustaken to induce the Jews to investigate attentively the claims of the Christian doctrines; and it would seem that but few were prevailed upon to surmount the stumbling blocks thrown in the way of their conversion, and to make the sacrifice which was still incurred by the convert to the Christian creed.

1– SeeAppendix D.

The Jewish converts’ institution was also much patronized by the king. The warden of the house was commanded to elect an able Presbyter to act as his coadjutor, and who was to reside in the house, together with a fewother ministers, in order regularly to attend to all the regulations of the house. The king also ordered, that if any of the converts residing in the house were qualified to act as assistant Chaplains, they should be preferred to all others, in the Presbyter’s election. And if any of the convert-inmates appeared likely to become scholars, they should be sent to efficient schools, and properly educated. And if any were more fit for business, they should be sent to learn a trade, but have their board and lodgings in the institution. Should the literary converts, however, be promoted to the Church, they were to cease to participate in the benefits offered by the house. The king also ordered that if after all the expenses of the house were discharged, there should still remain some balance in the hand of the collector or treasurer, the whole of that surplus should be applied to the repairing and beautifying of the chapel belonging to that institution.

But, as I said before, we are not favouredwith many records of the conversion of the Jews in this reign: yet those we have registered are of a very satisfactory nature. We read of a certain Oxford Jew, Belager by name, who became a Christian, and from the schedule of his goods, which was seized for the king in consequence of his conversion, we have every reason to believe that Belager was a man of learning, for his moveable goods consisted chiefly ofbooks.1His conversion was, therefore, owing to powerful conviction, as is generally the case with a Jew when he is led to make a public confession of hisfaith.2

1– SeeAppendix E.2– By this I do not mean to insinuate that there are no impostors amongst baptized Jews. It is a painful truth that the human nature of the Jews is as deceitful and as desperately wicked as that of the Gentiles.

1– SeeAppendix E.

2– By this I do not mean to insinuate that there are no impostors amongst baptized Jews. It is a painful truth that the human nature of the Jews is as deceitful and as desperately wicked as that of the Gentiles.

Whilst it is pleasing to register the concessions which were thus made on the part of the crown in favour of the Jewish converts, it is no less painful to have to recordthat the Jews in general still continued to be subjected to tallages of very heavy amounts, the payment of which was enforced by seizure of their goods, and by banishment. The king’s exchequer being completely exhausted, Edward stood greatly in need of money in consequence of his Welsh war: the rearing of the two castles in Wales—viz.that of Caernarvon, as also that of Conway—must also have amounted to a vast expenditure. Then the question arose, where was all the money to be got? Answer—By orders which were at various times issued to open and examine the chests in which the Jewish properties and possessions were enrolled; and great part of their effects were taken, and the sums which other persons were indebted to them were levied and appropriated by the king. Accusations were, moreover, at different periods made against them, of various descriptions of crimes. The principal offence with which they were now charged, was with clipping and falsifying the coin of the realm; and many, on account of thiscalumny, were condemned to suffer death, and were executed. In the seventh year of this reign no less than two hundred and ninety-four were put to death for this imputed crime; and all they possessed taken to the use of the king. To what extent the Jews were really guilty of this latter offence for which they suffered, or whether they were guilty at all, it is impossible now to determine.

It is probable, however, that many of you may decide at once that this charge must have been true; for Edward the First, who is called the English Justinian, for the excellency of the laws enacted by him, caused them to be tried for this offence. You may perhaps suppose, that under a sovereign, who is to this day celebrated on account of the laws enacted in his reign, these Jews had all regular trials, and were justly convicted upon evidence. I candidly confess, that those were the opinions I entertained at my first reading this accusation, which induced me to examine the subjectrigorously; and the following is the result of my examination of this subject. It is true that where there are good laws enacted, we naturally look for an upright administration of them, but it is possible for a prince to enact good laws for the government of his people, and yet to be misled by his ministers, to conduct his government without the least regard to law and justice; and there are few reigns in which greater acts of oppression, cruelty, and injustice were committed, than in the reign of Edward the First, although the brilliancy of his exploits, and the greatness of his abilities, have thrown an unmerited gloss over his administration. Does not history declare that the very fountains of justice were polluted, and that loud complaints were made of the corruption and venality of the judges in Edward’sreign?1Kings are ever entitled to profound respect, and it is the liberal policy of the present age everto give them the credit of uprightness of intention, and to consider every investigation, as an investigation of the acts of their ministers. We shall, therefore, consider it in this light, and speak of actions as the actions of the ministers of state; and surely the actions of the administration in his reign are very reprehensible. Their conduct towards the Welsh and the Scotch, their sovereigns and people, and especially the slaughter of the Welsh bards, will ever be considered by those who are not dazzled by successful cruelty as disgraceful acts; which would have tarnished the splendour of this reign, had it been a thousand times more splendid; but in their conduct towards the Jews, they acted the part of most grievous oppressors. What evidence was produced against them? We read that they were suspected of the crime, as were also the Flemings. It would, therefore, have been the part of a good and active government to have set its officers to seek for the guilty, whether English,Flemings, or Jews. Does this appear to have been done? By no means. Mark, I do not deny, but there might have been Jews as well as Flemings and English concerned in these malpractices. The Jews are men, and subject to like temptations and like crimes as the rest of mankind; and as they dealt in money, and had better opportunities than others, the probability that some of them were not entirely innocent, is strengthened; but the suddenness of the inquisition, the great number of those executed, and the conduct of the government and people at large to those whom they did not execute, convince me that the Jews had not fair play, but that by far the majority of them were unjustly convicted. It is curious to observe in the page of the English historian, first the statement that “the king’s finances were exhausted,” and the same page ends with an account of “the vast sums raised by the seizure of the Jews’ houses and effects, and the fines imposed upon those who escaped death, andthe goldsmiths who were involved in the suspicion of being concerned withthem.”2

1– Henry’s Britain,vol. vii.,p. 75.2– Hume and Smollett.

1– Henry’s Britain,vol. vii.,p. 75.

2– Hume and Smollett.

The only circumstance mentioned by the historian which seems to glance at the crimination of any of them is, that great sums of clipped money were found in their houses. Here seems to be something like evidence; we must therefore pay attention to it. If he had said that there had been found in their houses great quantities of gold dust of the same standard with the current coin, it would have amounted to circumstantial evidence, which, if strongly corroborated with other proofs, might induce an impartial jury to convict a prisoner; but no such thing is mentioned; it is only said that great sums of clipped money were found in their houses. Now this, so far from being evidence against them, was evidence in their favour, if rightly considered: but what signified evidence in favour of a Jew, when he was accused upon a general rumour? Hisjudge and jury composed of those who hated him and his nation, and who would rejoice and exult in his conviction and sufferings. Who was there to plead his cause? Is there the least ground to suppose that they had even a single chance of being acquitted? The very evidence which is considered as a proof of their guilt should have produced their acquittal; for if they had been concerned in clipping the coin, they would have hoarded unclipped money in order to clip it, and put the clipped money in circulation. And again they dealt in money, and hoarded money; if, therefore, the money which was in circulation was clipped and depreciated in value, what could they deal in, what could they hoard but clipped money? Once more, the Flemings were mentioned as being implicated with the Jews in the suspicion of being guilty of this crime; and in the account we are now considering, we find that the goldsmiths were charged with being their accomplices, although they (being Christians)were only fined, and not hanged for it. I think there can be little doubt, but that they were the principal criminals, for if a goldsmith were not restrained by the detestation of such a crime, but would becomeparticeps criminis, and subject himself to the punishment of the law, would he admit an accomplice to render his detection the more probable? would he permit an accomplice to run away with the main part of the plunder? Surely he would do all the businesshimself.1

1– See also Witherby’s Dialogues, parti., DialogueII.

Unjust, however, as was the condemnation of the Jews for that imputed crime, the poor Jews seemed convinced that any thing would be believed of them, be the story ever so incredible. Sums to a large amount were therefore extorted from them by the common people through threats of accusing them of the above crime. To such length was this system of extortion carriedon, that the king found it necessary to issue a proclamation, declaring that from thenceforth no Jew should be held answerable for any offence heretoforecommitted.1This act of evident justice was, however, accompanied by a condition which throws a degree of doubt upon the real motive by which it was suggested. In order to bring himself within the security of the proclamation, the person accused was bound to pay a fine to the king.

1– SeeAppendix F.

In the fourteenth year of this reign, the king was taken dangerously ill. On his bed of sickness he made a vow, if his health should recover, to undertake another crusade. Accordingly, when he recovered, he took the cross, but appointed no time for his departure. In fact, he could not conveniently leave his dominions; he, therefore, compromised his vow, by directing his zealous fury against the Jews of Guienne,whom he first plundered, and then banished. Alas! for his boasted laws and the splendour of his victories. It is a truth, an incontrovertible truth, that “there is no reign, from the Conqueror inclusive, blotted with greater violence than his. They were cruelties glossed over by ambition and thirst of empire, which were pursued at the expense of justice, humanity, and every othervirtue.”1

1– Witherby.

The next act relating to the Jews occurred in the sixteenth year of this reign, when the king was yet on the Continent. In that year it is stated that the Jews were, on the same night, apprehended throughout England, and thrown into prison, and were only released upon payment to the king of the sum of twenty thousand pounds of silver as a ransom. The celebrated John Selden adduces the following curious evidence of that event:—

יום יא מי היותפוסים כל יהודיםבארצי הזי שנתמ׳ז לפ׳ לאלףשישי אני אשרחקקתי.1

יום יא מי היותפוסים כל יהודיםבארצי הזי שנתמ׳ז לפ׳ לאלףשישי אני אשרחקקתי.1

יום יא מי היותפוסים כל יהודיםבארצי הזי שנתמ׳ז לפ׳ לאלףשישי אני אשרחקקתי.1

1– The inscription, as given by Selden, and copied by Tovey, is very unlike Hebrew.Dr.Jost’s improvement is ingenious; but according to his reading, the imprisonment took place in November, whilst Stow and Prynne state that May was the month. I propose therefore the above reading as the most likely to be correct: one could easily mistakeיforו, especially when scratched on a wall.

That is—“On the11thday of May, were all the Jews in the counties of this island imprisoned: in the year of the world 5047 [A.D.1287], I, Asher, inscribed this.” The inscription was discovered by Patricius Junius in an old vault at Winchester. Some historians relate that the Jews were subjected to this violence, in consequence of a promise made by the commons to the king, of a fifth of their moveables, provided he would banish the Jews from the island. When the Jews became acquainted withthe reason of their imprisonment, they caused an intimation to be conveyed to the king, that they would pay a larger sum than the amount of the fifth part promised by the commons, if they might be released from their dungeons, and allowed to remain in England. This offer had the desired effect, and they were again restored to liberty, upon payment of the above-mentioned sum. Whether this statement of the circumstances under which the Jews were imprisoned be correct or not, it seems certain that from about this time, the clamour against them became daily more violent. It is not improbable that the edict, by which the exactions practised upon the Jews by the people were prevented, had rendered them, with many, still greater objects of hatred. It appears, however, that the clergy and gentry joined with the nation in general in desiring the expulsion of the Jews; and it is to inferred that they were inducedentertain this wish, in a great measure, from the heavy debts they owed to the Jews, and expecting to be relieved of the payment, by the banishment of the creditors; which gave birth to all the monstrous accusations brought against them, which were still loudly repeated against the Jews, not only of their being continually clipping and depreciating the coin of the country, but also of being the cause of much hardship through their usurious dealings. But, though this may have been, in truth, the principal, as in fact, the only avowed reason for desiring that the Jews should be driven out of England, yet there can be little doubt that the evils which have been, in a former lecture, pointed out as resulting to the nation, in general, from the power continually exercised over the property, persons, and rights of the Jews, had some effect in increasing the wish to be relieved from the presence of that people.

Edward’s conduct towards the Jews, intohis continental dominions, has already been noticed: he first fleeced them for the benefit of the state, and then banished them, to render heaven propitious to his government. This measure served greatly to raise his popularity; and upon his entry into London, he was received with every mark of joy and good-will by the clergy and people. Before this feeling could subside, he was induced to consent to the decree for the final banishment of the Jews from England, which his great grand-father, HenryII., was instigated to do, but was not prevailedupon.1In return for this favour, he received from the Commons the grant of a fifteenth part of their goods; and the clergy, at the same time, made a gift to him of the tenth part of their moveables. A very inadequate sum, when compared with the debts they owed to the Jews. The above-mentioned decree commanded that the Jews, together with theirwives and children, should depart from the realm within a certain time—namely, before the feast of All Saints. As a matter of grace, on the part of the king, they were permitted to take with them a part of their moveables, and sufficient money to defray the expenses of their journey. Their houses and other possessions were seized by the king, and appropriated to his own use. The king wanted vast sums of money this year. Three of his elder daughters were married in the same year that the Jews were banished. The king’s seizing all the Jewish property will readily account for the magnificence displayed at the nuptials of these princesses. Agnes Strickland, in her second volume of “The Lives of the Queens of England,” expatiates not a little on the effect, but leaves the cause unmentioned entirely,viz., that of Edward’s banishing the Jews. She says, “A list of the plate used in the queen’s household will prove that the court of Eleanora had attained a considerable degree of luxury. The plate was the work of Ade, the king’sgoldsmith, and the description of the rich vessels of the goldsmith’s company has been brought to light by modernresearch.2Thirty-four pitchers of gold and silver, calculated to hold water or wine; ten gold chalices, of the value of £140 to £292 each; ten cups of silver gilt, or silver white, some with stands of the same, or enamelled, more than one hundred and eighteen pounds each; also cups of jasper, plates and dishes of silver, gold salts, alms bowls, silver hanapers or baskets; cups of benison, with holy sentences wrought thereon; enamelled silver jugs, adorned with effigies of the king, in a surcoat and hood, and with two effigies of Queen Eleanora. A pair of knives with silver sheaths enamelled, with aforkof crystal and a silver fork, handled with ebony and ivory. In the list of royal valuables were likewise combs and looking-glasses of silver-gilt, and a bodkin of silver, in a leather case; five serpent’stongues, set in a standard of silver; a royal crown set with rubies, emeralds, and great pearls; another with Indian pearls; and one great crown of gold, ornamented with emeralds, sapphires of the east, rubies, and large oriental pearls.” I have no hesitation in saying that a great part of the articles displayed were Jewish. The coincidence of their banishment with the above display, warrants such a supposition.

1– Seep. 100.2– ByMr.Herbert, city librarian, in his History of City Companies.

1– Seep. 100.

2– ByMr.Herbert, city librarian, in his History of City Companies.

Notwithstanding the harshness and severity of this decree, it seems not to have been sufficient to excite any commiseration on the part of the people. Many were still unwilling to allow the Jews to depart in quiet, but sought to take the last opportunity remaining to them to give vent to their unchristian hatred and enmity against these unfortunate people, and to despoil them of the small portion of their wealth which remained to them. The principal Jews were forced to provide themselves with letters of safe conduct from the king; and it became necessary, for their protection, toissue orders to the officers and magistrates of the towns through which they passed, to guard them against the violence of the populace. One instance of the barbarities to which they were subjected, deserves to be particularly noticed, as it affords a just example of the sentiments entertained by the people towards the Jews. It is thus related by Hollinshead, and copied by Lord Coke and many other writers since: “A sort of the richest of them,” he says, “being shipped with their treasure in a mighty tall ship which they had hired, when the same was under sail, and got down the Thames, towards the mouth of the river, towards Quinborough, the master mariner bethought him of a wile, and caused his men to cast anchor, and so rode at the same, till the ship, by ebbing of the stream, remained on the dry sand. The master herewith enticed the Jews to walk out with him on land, for recreation; and at length, when he understood the tide to be coming in, he got him back to the ship, whither he was drawn by a cord. TheJews made not so much haste as he did, because they were not aware of the danger; but when they perceived how the matter stood, they cried to him for help, howbeit he told them that they ought to cry rather unto Moses, by whose conduct their fathers passed through the Red Sea; and, therefore, if they would call to him for help, he was able enough to help them out of these raging floods, which now came in upon them. They cried indeed, but no succour appeared, and so they were swallowed up in the water. The master returned with the ship, and told the king how he had used the matter, and had both thanks and rewards, as some have written. But others affirm (and more truly as should seem) that divers of the mariners, which dealt so wickedly against the Jews, were hanged for their wicked practice; and so received a just reward of their fraudulent and mischievous dealing.”

By the time appointed, all the Jews had left England; the numbers have been estimatedby some at 15,060, by others at 16,511.

The following few particulars are to be met with in the histories of the Jews themselves, respecting their changes, chances, troubles, and sufferings in this country. Ben Virga, in his chronicleShaivet Y’hudah, states: “A.M.5018, in the island which is now called England, a great and mighty destruction occurred in all the congregations, great and powerful in wisdom, knowledge, and honour, which were in those days. And especially that great city called London, which contained about two thousand Jewish householders; all of them were possessed of wisdom and wealth. It was there that Rabbi Abraham Aben Ezra, composed his epistle which he called, ‘The epistle of the Sabbath.’ The cause of their destruction was, that they [i.e.the Jews] should change their creed; and when they insisted on the sanctification of God’s name, they [i.e.the Gentiles] accused them of counterfeiting the coin. This calumny wasbrought before the king; the king examined and investigated the matter, and found that the false accusers invented that calumny against the Jews; and they escaped. After a time, the Nazarenes resumed their calumnies, and sought for persons to witness against the Jews, and they found such persons as they desired [who stated] how they saw a Jew clipping a coin; and though the king knew that it was all false, but on account of the murmuring of the populace, he wished to throw off their displeasure, and fearing lest the nation should rise with a sword in their hand, as was generally the case with them, and there would be no one to deliver, he commanded and banished them [the Jews], and this expulsion took placeA.M.5020.”

It is my firm conviction that Ben Virga’s account is the true one, as far as the facts of the case are concerned. There seems certainly to be a disagreement in thedates.1

1– SeeAppendix G.

Rabbi G’daliah mixed up several incidents together, and also added a little of the marvellous out of his own vivid imaginations, which give his narrative altogether the air of fiction, which is the following:—

“A.M. 5020—A priest in England consented to be circumcised in order to be married to a Jewess, with whom he was desperately enamoured. The affair became known to the citizens, who were desirous of burning them. But the king chose to execute the revenge in a different way, and decreed that within three months, they should change their religion: those who circumcised the priest were burned, and many of the Jews changed their religion. And they [i.e.the Gentiles] took all their children from six years old and downwards, and carried them to the end of the realm, that they might forget the customs of their fathers, the Jews. The king died, and his son reigned in his stead, and presently there came upon his kingdom pestilence and famine, and his counsellors said to him, that it was becauseof the Jews [i.e.baptized ones], who do not sincerely believe, that that calamity came upon them. And he [the king] made two tents by the banks of the sea; upon one he painted the figure of Moses, our Rabbi—may peace be upon him—and also his name; and upon the other he painted their Messiah: and he told them they were permitted to become Jews, and none of them should be forced to any thing. But in order that he might ascertain who was a Jew [by creed], he wished that those who were desirous of becoming Jews should go into the tent of Moses, our Rabbi—may peace be upon him—and took upon themselves to do so. Now many of them entered into the tent of Moses, our Rabbi—may peace be upon him—and after they were gathered there, they were murdered, and cast into the sea, and thus all of them perished and wereextirpated.”1

1– SeeAppendix H.

Did Rabbi G’daliah write since the daysof Sir Walter Scott, one might be inclined to think that the Jewish historian borrowed a leaf from one of the volumes of the Scotch novelist, only suppressing the names of Brian de Bois-Guilbert and Rebeccah, and putting instead “priest” and “Jewess;” but as Sir Walter flourished when the Hebrew writer was long since dead and gone, I am inclined to conjecturevice versa.

The reason why we are not favoured with more information on their history in this country, by themselves, has already been hinted at in the firstLecture.1It is certain that the Jews had many valuable libraries in this country, which were taken from them before they were driven out of it, and were bestowed on the universities and monasteries. However, this consideration belongs properly to the second series of these Lectures, which shall be fully treated when that series is delivered.Dr.Jost is by no means correct when he says, “There is no trace of(Jewish) schools in England; no Rabbi of that country occupies a place in the annals of Jewish scholars; there was no time for study, and no ambition stimulated and encouraged those who were eager for the acquirement ofknowledge.”2Not only is this statement at variance with Rabbi Solomon ben Virga’s, but also with his own. He himself says, with reference to the English Jews, “The learned amongst them prosecuted the medical sciences, yet more as an art; and they were, through their acquaintance with some secret means of cures, so celebrated, that the divines were interrupted in their wonderful cures,”&c.3Indeed there are many statements in this historian’s productions,which must be received with a♦considerable degree of caution.

1– Seepp.7–11.2– “Von Schulen ist keine Spur in England, daher auch nicht von Gelehrten; kein dortiger Rabbiner hat einen Platz in den Jüdischen Jahrbüchern der Gelehrten. Zum Studiren war keine Zeit, und keine Ehre lockte und stärkte den Wissbegierigen”—Geschichte der Israeliten,vol. vii.,p. 165.3– For the original refer toAppendix G.of LectureII.

1– Seepp.7–11.

2– “Von Schulen ist keine Spur in England, daher auch nicht von Gelehrten; kein dortiger Rabbiner hat einen Platz in den Jüdischen Jahrbüchern der Gelehrten. Zum Studiren war keine Zeit, und keine Ehre lockte und stärkte den Wissbegierigen”—Geschichte der Israeliten,vol. vii.,p. 165.

3– For the original refer toAppendix G.of LectureII.

♦‘consirable’ replaced with ‘considerable’

There is, however, a current opinion amongst the modern English Jews, that especially “the sayings of the wise men of Norwich and of York are quoted in some of the additions made by the expounders of theTalmud.”1I must confess, I cannot vouch for the correctness of that opinion. I addressed once a letter on this subject to the editor of the “JewishChronicle,”2hoping to elicit from his numerous well-educated readers, information on the above. The learned editor seems to have mistaken the purport of my letter to him, and therefore gave an answer not at all to the purpose. It is the following given in a note:—

1– Seep. 9.2– SeeAppendix I.

1– Seep. 9.

2– SeeAppendix I.

“With every deference due toDr.Jost, and the research displayed in his History of the Jews, we are bound in this instance to supportMr.Moses Samuels’ opinion, that we had great men living in England eight hundredyears ago. Although theRev.Mr.Margoliouth might have readthrough the Talmud again carefully(no easy task!) he must have overlooked the passage in Josephoth [Tosephoth I suppose] (not having a Talmud at hand, we must defer the quotation of ‘chapter and verse’ to our next number), where theחכמי נרוויש(wise men of Norwich) are mentioned.Mr.Samuels’ opinion is also supported by the authority (no small one, even if compared withDr.Jost and theRev.Mr.Margoliouth) of theשלשלת הקבלה(Chain of tradition), which places׳ר מאיר מאינגלטירה(Rabbi Meyer of England) in the same category with Jarchi, Rabenu—Tam, and Maimonides; videשלשלת הקבלהfol.41,p. 2.—Amsterdam Edition, 8vo.”

That the Jews had learned men in this country, I know full well, and the editor of the “Jewish Chronicle” might have known this by my quotation from Ben Virga. It is the especial mention of the wise men of Norwich and of York, that I am anxious to know about. Nearly two months have passedaway, and the promised “quotation of chapter and verse” has not been givenyet.1To return, however, to the immediate subject.

1– It is now about a year since he made this promise, I venture therefore respectfully to ask him once more for a fulfilment of the same.

Thus was this unfortunate race, after nearly two centuries of almost continual persecution, driven from the country and robbed of their possessions. In the circumstances that attended this last act of violence, we see displayed a continuance of the same oppression and cruelty which the treatment they had experienced, both from the monarch and the people, had ever evinced. If, as was pretended, their banishment was sought as a relief from the grievances which their usurious dealings inflicted upon the nation, we cannot find, in this circumstance, any necessity for their expulsion, or any justification for the rapacity, that caused their estates to be confiscated to the crown, or, for the malice that dictatedthe cruelties to which, on that occasion, they were exposed, from the populace. The sums which were advanced to the king by the commons and by the clergy, as the price of their expulsion, were more than made up to them by the robbery they practised upon the unfortunate exiles before their leaving the shores of this country. And the desire that the nation seems to have entertained for their removal may, without error, be traced principally tothissource.

In taking a retrospective view of the facts that were stated in the preceding Lectures, it must be acknowledged that a spirit of relentless cruelty pervaded the whole nation; and we cannot but feel that the exactions and barbarities which were recorded, mark an indelible stain upon this period of your history. They are blots in the characters of the successive monarchs, and are painfully indicative of the cupidity, ferocity, and ignorance of the people. On the other hand, we must admit that theconduct of the Jews themselves, under their continued sufferings and oppressions, whilst it furnishes a fresh example of the characteristic perseverance with which they brave all dangers and difficulties, in pursuit of riches, affords, at the same time, a further proof of the resignation, fortitude, and self-devotion, for which that nation has been ever distinguished. Behold them proceeding to leave the British Isle in the beginning of winter; see their tender infants clinging to their mothers, who are scarcely able to support them; see them laying down when unable to proceed, stripped of all their comforts, insulted by those called Christians; and when they arrive at the sea shore, behold numbers of them, in their embarkation, drowned by the mere wanton barbarity of the English, and the rest stripped of the poor pittance they were permitted to retain. Oh, the reflections are too much forme. I would rather not think of the past, but look at the present improved stateboth of the persecuted and persecutors, which shall be the pleasing subject of the second series.

It must not be omitted to be mentioned, that in banishing the Jews from this country, the English have expelled one of the most brilliant stars of the Reformation, who was a Christian Jew, an Englishman by birth, and educated in the University of Oxford, the well-known Nicolaus de Lyra, who wrote a commentary on the Old and New Testament; and being deeply versed in the ancient tongues, and well read in all the works of the learned rabbies, he selected their best opinions, and expounded the holy Scriptures in a manner far above the taste of that age, in which he showed a greater acquaintance with the principles of interpretation than any of his predecessors. He was, indeed, a most useful forerunner to Luther, who made ample use of his commentaries, in which he frequently reprehended the reigning abuses of the Church—afact which led Pflug, Bishop of Naumberg, to say—

“Si Lyra non lyrasset,Lutherus non saltasset.”

“Si Lyra non lyrasset,Lutherus non saltasset.”

“Si Lyra non lyrasset,

Lutherus non saltasset.”

Others have it thus:—

“Nisi Lyra lyrasset,Totus mundusdelirasset.”1

“Nisi Lyra lyrasset,Totus mundusdelirasset.”1

“Nisi Lyra lyrasset,

Totus mundusdelirasset.”1

1– See the Fundamental Principles of Modern Judaism Investigated,p. 241.Geschichteder hebräischen Sprache und Schrift,p. 105.

Wickliife has also profited much by De Lyra’s writings: he used them frequently when translating the Bible. Indeed, his writings were formerly very famous. Pope, in giving a catalogue of Bay’s library, in his Dunciad, finds—

“De Lyra there a dreadful front extend.”

It appears that soon after the banishment of the Jews from this country, De Lyra embraced Christianity in Paris. The French biographers have a particular talent of Frenchifyingany learned man who passes through the towns and streets of France. Accordingly, L’Advocat, in his biographical dictionary, made a Frenchman of him. But that is disproved by the title-page of one of De Lyra’s ownworks,1in which he gives England as his native country.

1– Brathering’s 8vo. edition of Lyra’s Disputations against the Jews. SeeAppendix K.

Back to IndexNext