The Jews In Great Britain:




  ┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐
  │                                                                │
  │                      Transcriber’s Notes                       │
  │                                                                │
  │                                                                │
  │  Punctuation has been standardized.                            │
  │                                                                │
  │  The text may show quotations within quotations, all set       │
  │  off by similar quote marks. The inner quotations have been    │
  │  changed to alternate quote marks for improved readability.    │
  │                                                                │
  │  Characters in small caps have been replaced by all caps.      │
  │                                                                │
  │  Non-printable characteristics have been given the following   │
  │      Italic text:             --> _text_                       │
  │                                                                │
  │  This book was written in a period when many words had         │
  │  not become standardized in their spelling. Words may have     │
  │  multiple spelling variations or inconsistent hyphenation in   │
  │  the text. These have been left unchanged unless indicated     │
  │  with a Transcriber’s Note.                                    │
  │                                                                │
  │  Footnotes are identified in the text with a superscript       │
  │  number and are shown immediately below the paragraph in which │
  │  they appear.                                                  │
  │                                                                │
  │  Transcriber’s Notes are used when making corrections to the   │
  │  text or to provide additional information for the modern      │
  │  reader. These notes are identified by ♦♠♥♣ symbols in the     │
  │  text and are shown immediately below the paragraph in which   │
  │  they appear.                                                  │
  └────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘




                                  THE

                         JEWS IN GREAT BRITAIN:

                                BEING A

                        SERIES OF SIX LECTURES,

                            DELIVERED IN THE

                   LIVERPOOL COLLEGIATE INSTITUTION,

                                   ON

                THE ANTIQUITIES OF THE JEWS IN ENGLAND.


                                 BY THE

                        REV. MOSES MARGOLIOUTH,

                    INCUMBENT OF GLASNEVIN, DUBLIN.




                                LONDON:

                 JAMES NISBET AND CO., BERNERS-STREET.
                  WILLIAM CURRY, JUN. AND CO., DUBLIN.

                                 1846.




          Dublin: Printed by EDWARD BULL, 6, Bachelor’s-walk.




                                   TO

                           THE RIGHT REVEREND

                        JOHN BIRD SUMNER, D.D.,

                        LORD BISHOP OF CHESTER,

                                  AND

            VISITOR OF THE LIVERPOOL COLLEGIATE INSTITUTION,

                            These Lectures,

                                   ON

                THE ANTIQUITIES OF THE JEWS IN ENGLAND,

                  ARE, BY KIND PERMISSION, INSCRIBED,

             WITH FEELINGS OF PROFOUND RESPECT AND ESTEEM,

                                   BY

                       HIS LORDSHIP’S MOST HUMBLE

                          AND OBEDIENT SERVANT,

                                                          THE AUTHOR.




THE following Lectures form a complete History of the Jews in Great
Britain, with reference to their literary, religious, political, and
civil constitution, up to the eighteenth year of Edward I., A.D. 1290.
They are published in deference to, and compliance with, the strong
wishes of many who heard them delivered.




                               CONTENTS.


                               LECTURE I.

  INTRODUCTION.――Lecturer’s Disadvantages.――Importance of Jewish
    History.――the Antiquity of the Jews.――The intense Interest now
    taken in this Subject.――Subject of these Lectures.――Deficiency
    of Information on the Subject.――The Literary Character of
    the Jews.――The Dilemma of the Jewish Historian.――Reasons
    for Historical Deficiency.――The Jews visited Britain before
    the Norman Conquest.――Jews trained to be a wandering Nation.
    ――A maritime Nation.――The Renown of Solomon’s Fame.――the
    Phœnicians’ Marine Expeditions.――Ezekiel’s Description of
    the same.――The Meaning of Tarshish.――Wealth of Spain and of
    Solomon.――Two Monuments found in Spain.――their Inscriptions.
    ――Villalpando institutes an Inquiry.――Adoniram’s tomb-stone.
    ――Decyphered not by Jewish but by Christian Divines.――The
    same Monument noticed by a Jewish Traveller.――Villalpando’s
    Conclusion not premature.――Britain a compound Hebrew Word.
    ――Striking Affinity between the Hebrew and Cornish Languages.
    ――Whole Sentences alike in both Languages.――the Jews Fathers in
    Literature.――Britain one of “the Isles afar off”.――The Terms of
    the Alliance between the Jews and the Romans.――Augustus’s Edict
    in Favour of the Jews in Britain.――A curious ancient Brick
    found.――Richard Waller’s Conjecture respecting it.――St. Peter
    may have visited Britain for the sake of the Jews.――The Success
    a Missionary meets with among unprejudiced Jews.――Wolff’s
    Success in Bokhara, and Stern’s in Persia.――St. Paul’s Visit
    to Britain fully established by Bishop Burgess and many other
    learned Divines.――The British Church established by Jews.
    ――APPENDIX A. A Letter from Mr. Holdsworth, Governor of
    Dartmouth.――B. Bochart on תרשיש.――C. Villalpando’s Account
    of the Inscription on the Monument.――His Opinion respecting
    the Dispersion of the Jews.――D. The Opinions of the Ancients
    respecting the Andalusians.――E. Ancient Gentile Writers were
    not acquainted with Jewish History.――A Chapter from Trogus
    Pompeius.――F. Bochart’s Etymology of Britain.――G. The Scripture
    Names of the Welsh.――H. Josipon’s Account of Augustus’s Edict
    in Favour of the Jews in Britain.――I. Rabbi David Ganz’s
    Account of the same.


                              LECTURE II.

  Objections answered.――Bede the first English Writer who mentions
    the Jews.――Ecgbright’s Edict.――♦Whitglaff’s.――Edward the
    Confessor’s.――William the First invited the Jews.――Two distinct
    Colonies of Jews.――The Conqueror’s Policy.――Rufus’s Convocation
    of Christian and Jewish Divines.――Stephen, the Jewish Convert.
    ――The State of the Jews at Oxford.――Jews prosper in the Reign
    of Rufus and Henry I.――Eum Crescat and St. ♠Frideswide.――There
    was no Peace to the Jews after the Reign of Henry I.――With
    the Reign of Stephen the Jewish Troubles commenced.――The Jews
    accused of crucifying Christian Children.――Absurd Reasons
    assigned for the Use of Christian Blood.――Ecclesiastics already
    Jewish Debtors.――The Ecclesiastics incensed the King against
    the Jews.――Anecdote of a Jew, and Archdeacon Richard ♣Peche,
    and Dean Deville.――The Accusations against the Jews a bountiful
    Revenue to Church and State.――Jews required to support the
    Crusade.――The King’s Death afforded them some respite.――their
    learned Men and their Seats of Learning.――Aben Ezra visits
    England.――Jews distinguished Physicians.――APPENDIX A. 146 and
    149 Paragraphs of Archbishop Ecgbright’s Canonical Excerptiones.
    ――B. The Original of ♦Whitglaff’s Edict.――C. Of Edward the
    Confessor.――D. Of William the First.――E. Dr. M‘Caul’s Remarks
    on the Charge against the Jews of using Christian Blood.――F.
    Aben Ezra’s Preface to his אגרת השכת――Drs. Jost and M‘Caul’s
    Testimonies of Jewish Medical Knowledge.

      ♦ ‘Whitglaf’s’ replaced with ‘Whitglaff’s’

      ♠ ‘Friedswide’ replaced with ‘Frideswide’

      ♣ ‘Peeche’ replaced with ‘Peche’


                              LECTURE III.

  A brief Retrospect of the last Lecture.――Jewish Physicians
    preferred.――The Jews sadly disappointed.――Jewish History of
    that Period a dreary Tale of Woe.――Richard’s Reign ushered in
    with a Massacre of the Jews.――Rabbi Jacob, of Orleans, one of
    the slain.――Benedict feigns to become a Christian――soon after
    avows his unbelief.――The Jews attacked in other Places.――Their
    misplaced Zeal brings them into many Troubles.――Effect of
    the Crusade upon the Jews.――Their Treatment at Stamford.――At
    Lincoln.――The Origin of their Sufferings at York.――They take
    possession of the Castle.――The Rabbi calls a Convocation.――His
    Address.――The Jews in the Castle terminated their Existence
    by murdering each other.――The Cause of that awful Event.――Some
    of the Offenders punished.――Richard establishes the Exchequer
    of the Jews.――Regulations of the same.――APPENDIX A. Rabbi
    Gedaliah’s Account of the Murder of the Rabbi Jacob, of Orleans.
    ――B. The Origin of the Epithet משומד _M‘shoomad_.――C. Henry de
    ♦Knyghton’s Account of one of the Roaming Saints, or Crusaders.
    ――D. The Address of the Rabbi at York.――A Digest of Eleazar’s
    Speeches in the Fort of Masada.――E. The Writ of Ricardus
    ♠Malebisse.――F. Specimens of Hebrew, Latin, and French Starras.
    ――G. Court of Star Chamber.

      ♦ “Knighton’s” replaced with “Knyghton’s”

      ♠ ‘Malbisse’ replaced with ‘Malebisse’


                              LECTURE IV.

      The Jews allured by John to remain in England.――The Charter
        granted by the King to Rabbi Jacob――the Second Charter.――The
        Great Charter of Jewish Privileges.――The English Jews’ especial
        Charter.――English became envious of the Jews.――John’s Letter
        to the Mayor of London.――The King appears in his own Character.
        ――He begins to extract their Wealth by most barbarous Tortures.
        ――Why the Jews are noticed in the Magna Charta.――An ancient
        Tombstone found.――John’s last Act towards the Jews.――The
        Conduct of the Earl of Pembroke towards them.――Hubert de Burgh
        equally kind.――Reasons for the distinguishing Badge.――The
        apparent Kindness allured them again into this Country.
        ――Reasons of the Clerical Hatred towards the Jews.――Stephen
        Langton’s Edict.――The Royal Counter-Edict.――The Jewish Troubles
        commence.――Augustin a Jewish Convert.――Jewish Synagogue turned
        into a Christian Church――the Armenian Bishop and the Wandering
        Jew.――Henry’s cruel Conduct.――The Jewish Convert’s House.
        ――Charter of the same.――APPENDIX A. The State of the Jews
        in Spain.――B. C. D. The original Charters of John.――E. The
        original Indictment against a Bedford Jew.――F. John’s original
        Letter to the Mayor of London.――G. H. Two original royal
        Acquittals of Jewish Debts.――I. The Clause in the Magna Charta
        referring to the Jews.――K. King John affects to become a
        Mahometan.――L. The original Writ of the Cinque Ports.――M. Royal
        Counter-Edict to Stephen Langton’s.――N. Prior of Dunstable’s
        License to Jews to dwell within his Jurisdiction.――O. The
        Writ in Favour of Augustin, a Jewish Convert.――P. The Original
        Charter of the Jewish Convert’s House.


                               LECTURE V.

  The King’s Wants.――The Norwich Jews’ Sufferings.――The infamous
    Trial of Jacob of Norwich.――Parliament could not find the
    accused guilty.――The cruel Conduct of the Christians drove
    the Jews from Christianity.――Jews prohibited keeping Christian
    Nurses.――Jews supply the King’s Wants when the Barons will
    not.――They remonstrate.――The Jews obliged to yield.――The Jews
    were, at the time, extremely rich.――Baseless Calumnies invented
    against them.――Jewish Parliament.――Martyn, a Jewish Convert.
    ――Jewish Converts instigated to accuse their Brethren.――The
    Conduct of the Jewish Converts honourable.――Earl Richard’s
    Wedding.――The Welsh Incursions.――Westminster Abbey.――Jewish
    Alms.――The Pope’s Usurers.――His Method of taking Usury.――Jewish
    Cemetery out of repair.――Jewish Hatred of Images.――Abraham
    murders his Wife Flora.――Accuses his own Nation.――Henry never
    satisfied.――The Remonstrance and Address of Rabbi Elias.――Earl
    Richard’s Reply.――Jewish Memorial――the King’s Reply.――The
    Lincoln Jews.――Calumniated as Crucifiers of the boy Hugo.――A
    false Confession extracted from Copin, the Jew.――Falsely
    accuses his Brethren.――The murderous Effect of that venomous
    Calumny.――Earl Richard ill-treats the Jews.――Ecclesiastical
    Animosity.――Henry sanctions the cruel Edicts of the Church.
    ――Sancha’s Funeral.――Henry breaks his Agreement.――Barons
    massacre the Jews.――Jews banished from many Places.――Epidemic
    Fury against them.――The Jews given to Prince Edward.――The
    Effect of the Battle of Lewes upon the Jews.――Jews enjoy a
    short Respite.――A Jew accused of forging a Bond.――The Oxford
    Jews.――Merton College.――the University in want of a Cross.――The
    Jews obliged to erect one.――The Brentford Jews.――The Lincoln
    and Cambridge Jews.――Aaron given to Prince Edmund.――The Favour
    Individuals experienced stirred up the Envy of the Populace.
    ――Henry’s plundering Jews proved oppressive to the Nation at
    large.――Henry’s Charter against the Jews.――Edward’s Crusade.
    ――Jews mortgage again to Earl Richard.――Another Synagogue taken
    from them and given to the Friars’ Penitents.――The last cruel
    Conduct of Henry towards the Jews elicited Commiseration even
    from their virulent Foes.――The Jewish Converts’ House improved.
    APPENDIX A. The original Record of the infamous Trial of Jacob
    of Norwich.――B. The Relapse of a converted Jew, a Deacon, into
    Judaism.――C. The Writ of the Expulsion of the Newcastle Jews.
    ――D. The Decree forbidding Christian Women serving Jews.――E.
    Pope Innocent’s Reason for the Act.――F. Henry’s Writ for the
    extracting of 10,000 Marks from the Jews.――G. The Memento
    of the Jewish Honesty in the original.――H. The Writ for the
    Assembly of the Jewish Parliament.――I. The Names of the
    Representatives.――J. The Writ given to the Collectors.――K.
    A Clause from Bishop Rupibus’s Will.――L. The original Writ
    respect the King’s heirship to Jewish Property.――M. The Writ
    respecting the Removal of Rabbi Elias from his Office.――N. The
    French King’s Edict against the Jews.――O. A Ballad composed on
    the Story of Jews crucifying Children.――P. The Deed of the Site
    of Merton College.――Q. The Writ of Release of the Oxford Jews.
    ――R. The Inquisition on a Jew murdered in Oxford.――S. Writs of
    Protection towards the Jews.――T. Aaron’s Enfranchisement.――U.
    Henry’s original Charter against the Jews.――V. Charter for
    improving the Jewish Converts’ Institution.――W. A Converted
    Jewess.


                              LECTURE VI.

  An Epitome of the last Lecture.――the Jews treated kindly in the
    Beginning of Edward’s Reign.――The Son soon began to imitate
    his Father.――The Jews accused of Treason.――Their Children began
    to be taxed also.――The Punishment of Imprisonment changed into
    Transportation.――An Irish Bishop and two Friars appointed to
    carry the stern Threat into Execution.――♦_Statutum de Judaismo._
    ――The Colour of their Badges changed.――The probable Reason for
    the Change.――Jews prohibited to blaspheme.――The Jews considered
    their Character defamed, if called Christians.――Jewish Women
    also ordered to wear Badges.――Edward’s Zeal in promoting
    Christianity amongst the Jews.――The Dominican Monks petition
    the King to compel the Jews to listen to their Sermons.――The
    Jewish Converts’ Institution much patronized.――Belager, a
    Jewish Convert of Oxford.――Edward wants Money.――The Jews
    are accused of clipping the Coin.――The Charge of clipping
    the Coin examined.――Edward’s Vow.――The King wanted £20,000;
    he imprisoned, therefore, all the Jews in England.――Asher
    chronicles the Imprisonment on the Walls of the Winchester
    Prison.――The Enmity against the Jews epidemic.――The Clergy
    and the Laity prevail with the King to banish the Jews.――All
    the Jews banished this Country, A.D. 1290.――The Barbarities
    practised upon them.――The King and the Queen profited much
    by their Banishment.――The Mariner’s Stratagem.――Ben ♠Virga’s
    Account of the Banishment of the Jews.――Rabbi G’daliah’s
    Account.――Dr. Jost’s Estimate of the English Jews incorrect.
    ――The _Jewish Chronicle_.――The unjust Cruelty the Jews
    experienced.――A Picture of the Exiles.――De Lyra an English
    Jew.――His Writings.――L’Advocat’s Account of him incorrect.
    ――APPENDIX A. Edward’s first impartial Proclamation.――B. The
    Prohibition of Jewish Blasphemy.――C. Edward institutes an
    Investigation respecting Suetecota.――D. The Writ for compelling
    the Jews to attend Church.――E. Belager’s Goods and Chattels.
    ――F. The Proclamation against accusing the Jews of clipping the
    Coin.――G. The Original of Ben ♠Virga’s Account.――H. Of Rabbi
    G’daliah.――I. Letter to the Editor of the _Jewish Chronicle_.
    ――J. Extract from Bishop Bale.

      ♦ ‘Satutum’ replaced with ‘Statutum’

      ♠ “Verga’s” replaced with “Virga’s”




                                LECTURES

                                   ON

                        THE HISTORY OF THE JEWS.




                               LECTURE I.


BEFORE I begin with the immediate subject which brings me before your
notice this evening, I would venture to crave your indulgence if my
lisping, broken accents, and my limited attainments, should not reflect
the credit upon your noble Institution which it so richly deserves. I
humbly trust, that you will kindly take into consideration that it is
comparatively but a short time since I began to pay attention to your
language and literature.

It is but little more than eight years since I landed on the shores of
England, and eight years to a _day_¹ since I arrived in your town of
Liverpool, at a time when you, in all probability, little thought of
erecting such a magnificent edifice for so laudable a purpose. As for
me, I positively aver that I did not then entertain the least ambition
of ever appearing before you as lecturer in any shape whatever, being
then totally ignorant of your language. I trust, therefore, to your kind
and well-known courtesy, that you will put the best construction you
possibly can on my humble efforts.

      ¹ October 28th, 1845.

Whilst it would be unpardonable presumption in me, seeing as I do before
me such a host of learned and highly-gifted men, to imagine that there
were not those present who, from more extensive reading, were not better
acquainted with several, if not with all the subjects which will come
before them in the progress of these lectures; it would be, at the same
time, regarded as mere affectation and false modesty if I pretended that
there were not others less conversant with these subjects than myself,
and to whom it may be in my power to impart some information which they
may not before have possessed.

The history of the Jews――part of which I purpose bringing before you in
this and five following lectures――stands indeed associated with all that
is sublime in the retrospect of the past, affecting in the contemplation
of the present, and magnificent in the future history of mankind.

No one who has any feeling at all can help manifesting it at the mention
of the name Jew――a name “big with a world of import.” The Jew stands
forth until the present day, in the face of the whole world, a living
and lasting miracle――a mighty, though shattered monument, on every
fragment of which is inscribed, in letters of the brightest gold, the
truth of holy writ. No wonder, therefore, that Lord Rochester, when a
conceited infidel (for such is the character of all infidels), was
obliged to make the following confession: “I reject all arguments with
one single exception, that founded on the existence of the Jews; that
alone baffles my scriptural infidelity.” I say, no one can help feeling
interested in the history of the most ancient and venerable people on
the face of the whole earth. The Jewish people can trace back their
progenitors to the very cradle of the human race: the nations about them
are infantine when compared with their hoary antiquity. The following
are the words, respecting them, of a learned English divine, father
of the celebrated Addison, author of “The Spectator:”――“This people, if
any under heaven, may boldly glory of their antiquity and nobleness of
descent; there being no nation who can prove its pedigree by such clear
and authentic heraldry as the Jews. For, though a ridiculous vanity hath
tempted some to date their original before that of the world, and others,
with great assurance, have made themselves sprung from their own soil,
yet the Jews, by an unquestionable display through all periods since
the creation, can prove their descent from the first man. So that all
other nations must have recourse to the Jewish records to clear their
genealogies and attest their lineage.” The interest in the history of
such a people must at all times be intense, and, if at all times, more
especially so now.

It is a singular fact that, at this present moment, that people
draws the eyes of all the civilized nations with an intensity never
experienced before. The facilities of locomotion have covered Syria and
Palestine with visitors of the curious, or the devout; the claims of the
rightful proprietors of Canaan engage the attention of the statesman;
the tide of worldly interest rolls back upon the shores of Palestine;
and upon a question as to the possession of the land of promise, lately
depended, perhaps still depends, the peace of Europe, the fate of the
habitable world. The dominion of the heathen Roman has long since ceased,
the conquest of the Khosroes is forgotten, the Saracens have passed away,
the Crusaders and the Califs have alike crumbled into dust; all those
are gone, and have left scarcely a vestige behind, whilst the Jews are
once more brought prominently into view. They exist still in very great
numbers, and in all the separatedness of their original character, in
spite of all the persecutions they have gone through. How true did the
Jew speak when he said, “persecution cannot dismay us――time itself
cannot destroy us.” I repeat again, the interest in the history of such
a people must be intense.

The portion of Jewish history to which I wish particularly to call
your attention in this _first_ series of lectures, is _that_ connected
with this country up to the year 1290, when all the Jews were banished
by EDWARD the First. The _second_ series, which I may deliver at some
future period, will form the history of the Jews from the time of Oliver
Cromwell to our own day.

Difficult as the historian may find it to fathom the origin of the
first inhabitants who peopled this country, certain it is that the most
difficult part of the same is that of the Jewish early introduction and
establishment in this realm; which is enveloped almost in impenetrable
obscurity. The sources from which we can draw any information at
all on the subject, are very scanty. English historians afford us
no information whatever, and neither have the ante-expulsion Jews
bequeathed us any records or chronicles of their antiquities in this
country. We are left therefore to conjecture from the glimmering sparks
which we now and then catch in the pages of foreign literature; but
no one can venture to fix a positive date to the first landing of the
dispersed of Judah on the shores of Britain.

In order to prevent erroneous conclusions, however, it may be well just
to state the probable reason why the ante-expulsion Jews yield us no
light on their early history. I am aware that prejudice will readily
exclaim, as a reason, “The Jews had no learned men amongst them to
record their passing events;” or, “They were too much absorbed in money
getting, so that they could not find time to think of anything else.”
But any one acquainted with the national character of the Jews, will
at once produce an array of facts which will prove incontrovertibly the
fallacy of such reasons. I have already demonstrated elsewhere, that
there never has been a period in their history when they were destitute
of first rate genius and learning. It is a striking fact, that there
is _no_ science in which some Jewish name is not enrolled amongst its
eminent promoters. They always entertained a profound love for learning,
and were inspired with an uncontrollable energy in the pursuit of
knowledge. They grace the literary pages of Spain, as pre-eminent
philosophers, philologists, physicians, astronomers, mathematicians,
historians, grammarians, orators, and highly-gifted poets.¹ D’Israeli
does not improperly put the following sentence into Sidonia’s mouth:
“You never observe a great intellectual movement in Europe in which the
Jews do not greatly participate”²――which he illustrates by notorious
facts, and which Dr. Wolff corroborates. But besides all this, we shall
see from their history in this country, even from the little that we can
gather of it, that the ante-expulsion Jews really had learned men, who
were able even to vie with the most learned ecclesiastics of their day,
as I shall show in the progress of these lectures. Mr. Moses Samuel,
a learned Jew of this town, (Liverpool) observes――“Let me tell you,”
addressing his brethren in this country, “that you had great men living
in England eight hundred years ago. The sayings of the wise men of
Norwich and of York are quoted _in_ some of the additions made by the
expounders of the Talmud.”³ A modern Christian writer bears testimony
to the same effect; he says――“Their (_i.e._ Jews’) schools afforded
a far more superior education than those of the Christians, and the
children of the latter were invariably instructed in those schools in
arithmetic and medicine, and also in higher branches of study.”⁴

      ¹ See “the Fundamental Principles of Modern Judaism
        investigated”――“An Address to Christians.”

      ² Coningsby, vol. ii., p. 201.

      ³ “An Address on the Position of the Jews in Britain,” p. 27.

      ⁴ Knight’s London, part 31, p. 5.

But what _then_ may the reason be for the melancholy deficiency of their
own historical records? The probable reason strikes me to be this; the
severe ill-usages which have been their painful lot to encounter. For
the history of the then Jews is an extremely dreary tale of woe.

The Jewish historian finds himself in the same dilemma in which Gildas,
commonly called “the wise,” found himself; who sadly lamented (in
the beginning of his epistle, in which he has undertaken to give
some account of the ancient British Church) the want of any domestic
monuments to give him certain information. “For,” saith he, “if there
were any such, they were either burnt by our enemies, or carried so far
by the banishment of our countrymen, that they no longer appear, and
therefore I was forced to pick up, what I could, out of foreign writers,
without any continued series.” So it is with the Jewish historian.

Fearful in length is the catalogue of the massacres, extortions, and
persecutions which the Jews have sustained in this country during the
dark ages of its annals. Consider how many times they were plundered,
how often fire was set to their houses, which destroyed all their
possessions. Behold them at York, how that before they destroyed their
own persons, they first burnt every thing belonging to them――view them
just before their final banishment, robbed on every side――all which I
shall show more fully in their proper places. I say, take all this into
consideration, and the probable reason will suggest itself――viz., that
the Jewish records perished with their persons and other possessions. It
is not too much to assume, for any one who knows the real character of
the Jews, that they were in possession of valuable documents relative to
their earliest introduction into this country, but which were lost with
the rest of their valuables, by which not only they themselves sustained
a great loss, but also their survivors.

Deprived as we are of the Jewish own information respecting this
important inquiry; and silent as are the ancient English historians
about their first setting foot on Albion’s ground, which put it beyond
the modern historian’s power to ascertain the positive date of their
doing so: still any one who, having paid critical attention to the
subject, must come to the conclusion that those English historians who
fixed the time of their introduction into this country to be coeval with
the Norman conquest, were wrong. It is highly probable that the Jews
visited this country at a very early period.

Be it recollected that the Jewish nation had been trained to be
a wandering nation, to prepare them, no doubt, for their mighty
dispersion. Their progenitor, Abraham, seems to have been a type of the
same, who was commanded (Genesis, xii. 1), “Get thee out of thy country,
and from thy kindred, and from thy father’s house, unto a land that I
will show thee;” and his descendants have ever and anon manifested a
peculiar migratory disposition, as you always find in holy writ.

Methinks, however, I hear some one say, It may be all true that the Jews
betrayed a migratory disposition at a very early period of their history,
which must, however, be confined to the east, for surely it cannot
be imagined that they travelled as far as the west, at a remote age;
especially, when we take into consideration the rudeness of the state of
navigation in those days. I would respectfully call to such objectors’
minds a statement of an eminent ancient writer――I mean Tacitus――who
says that the first colonizing expeditions were performed by water,
not by land;¹ and the result of research into the affinities of
nations seems to have established, that at no time, however remote,
has the interposition of sea presented much obstacle to the migratory
dispositions of mankind.²

      ¹ “Nec terra olim, sed classibus advehebantur, qui mutare
        sedes quærebant.”

      ² See Appendix A.

As I said before, however, that Abraham’s descendants were trained to be
a wandering people, so say I, moreover, now, that they were trained to
be a maritime nation; in which pursuit we find them employed soon after
they entered the land of promise. Not only did they possess the small
sea of ♦Galilee, but they were placed all along the upper border of the
great, or Mediterranean, Sea; and no sooner were they established in
their country than they began to be engaged in maritime affairs, as we
read in sacred history (1 Kings, ix. 26–28)――“And King Solomon made a
navy of ships in Ezion-geber ♦which is beside Eloth, on the shore of the
Red Sea, in the land of Edom. And Hiram sent in the navy his servants,
shipmen that had knowledge of the sea, with the servants of Solomon.
And they came to Ophir, and fetched from thence gold, four hundred and
twenty talents, and brought it to King Solomon.”

      ♦ ‘Gallilee’ replaced with ‘Galilee’

      ♦ ‘whieh’ replaced with ‘which’

As also in chap. x. 22――“For the king had at sea a navy of Tharshish,
with the navy of Hiram: once in three years came the navy of Tharshish,
bringing gold, and silver, &c.”

The Israelites, therefore, had an opportunity of traversing the known
world at a very early period of their history, and thus made known the
wisdom of their heaven-taught monarch; we can, therefore, admit in the
amplest magnitude of signification the narrative contained in verses
23–26 of the same chapter. “So King Solomon exceeded all the kings of
the earth for riches and for wisdom.

“And all the earth sought to Solomon, to hear his wisdom, which God had
put in his heart.

“And they brought every man his present, vessels of silver, and vessels
of gold, and garments, and armour, and spices, horses, and mules, a rate
year by year.

“And Solomon gathered together chariots and horsemen: and he had a
thousand and four hundred chariots, and twelve thousand horsemen, whom
he bestowed in the cities for chariots, and with the king at Jerusalem.”

It will be interesting to our subject to take a brief view of the
navigating expeditions of the Phœnicians at that period, which was their
most prosperous epoch, and who, with far more knowledge of the art of
navigation than modern assumption gives them credit for, were to be seen
in the Mediterranean, the Baltic, the Atlantic――every where upon the
waters; and in doing so, I must refer you to the twenty-seventh chapter
of Ezekiel, where we have a concise, but precise description of their
marine expeditions, which is as follows――“O thou that art situate at
the entry of the sea, which art a merchant of the people for many isles,
thus saith the Lord God; O Tyrus, thou hast said I am of perfect beauty.

“Thy borders are in the midst of the seas, thy builders have perfected
thy beauty.

“They have made all thy ship boards of fir trees of Senir; they have
taken cedars from Lebanon to make masts for thee.

“Of the oaks of Bashan have they made thine oars; the company of the
Ashurites have made thy benches of ivory, brought out of the isles of
Chittim.

“Fine linen, with broidered work from Egypt, was that which thou
spreadest forth to be thy sail; blue and purple from the isles of
Elishah was that which covered thee.

“The inhabitants of Zidon and Arvad were thy mariners: thy wise men, O
Tyrus, that were in thee, were thy pilots.

“The ancients of Gebal and the wise men thereof were in thee thy calkers;
all the ships of the sea with their mariners were in thee to occupy thy
merchandize.

“They of Persia, and of Lud, and of Phut, were in thine army, thy men
of war; they hanged the shield and helmet in thee; they set forth thy
comeliness.

“The men of Arvad with thine army were upon thy walls round about, and
the Gammadims were in thy towers: they hanged their shields upon thy
walls round about; they have made thy beauty perfect.

“Tharshish was thy merchant by reason of the multitude of all kind of
riches; with silver, iron, tin, and lead, they traded in thy fairs.

“Javan, Tubal, and Meshech, they were thy merchants: they traded the
persons of men and vessels of brass in thy market.

“They of the house of Togarmah traded in thy fairs with horses, and
horsemen, and mules.

“The men of Dedan were thy merchants; many isles were the merchandise of
thine hand; they brought thee for a present horns of ivory and ebony.

“Syria was thy merchant by reason of the multitude of the wares of thy
making: they occupied in thy fairs with emeralds purple, and broidered
work, and fine linen, and coral, and agate.

“Judah and the land of Israel, they were thy merchants; they traded in
thy market wheat of Minnith, and Pannag, and honey, and oil, and balm.

“Damascus was thy merchant in the multitude of the wares of thy making,
for the multitude of all riches; in the wine of Helbon, and white wool.

“Dan also and Javan going to and fro, occupied in thy fairs; bright iron,
cassia, and calamus, were in thy market.

“Dedan was thy merchant in precious clothes for chariots.

“Arabia, and all the princes of Kedar, they occupied with thee in lambs,
and rams, and goats: in these were they thy merchants.

“The merchants of Sheba and Raamah, they were thy merchants: they
occupied in thy fairs with chief of all spices, and with all precious
stones, and gold.

“Haran, and Canneh, and Eden, the merchants of Sheba, Asshur, and
Chilmad, were thy merchants.

“These were thy merchants in all sorts of things, in blue clothes, and
broidered work, and in chests of rich apparel, bound with cords, and
made of cedar, among thy merchandise.

“The ships of Tarshish did sing of thee in thy market, and thou wast
replenished and made very glorious in the midst of the seas.

“Thy rowers have brought thee into great waters; the east wind hath
broken thee in the midst of the seas.”――Ezek. xxvii. 3–26.

It would be beside my subject to enter into an investigation, on this
occasion, of all the places mentioned in this portion of Scripture. I
will therefore confine myself to the meaning of _Tarshish_, which bears
close connexion with the object I have in view. After a rigorous and
critical examination of different works written on it, I am led to adopt
the view of the profoundly learned Bochart――viz., that the Tarshish
of the Scriptures was the Tartessus of Spain, with a district around
including Cadiz.¹ Let us view for a moment the state of Spain in
ancient times. Its treasures of gold and silver were immensely vast.
We read in Strabo a description of the natives by Posidonius, who, he
says, used mangers and barrels of gold and silver. Such a country could
not fail being very attractive to the Phœnicians. Indeed, it is a well
authenticated fact that the Phœnicians did trade to Carthage and Spain.

      ¹ See Appendix B.

But we also read of Israel’s monarch (1 Kings, x. 21, 22)――“And all
King Solomon’s drinking vessels were of gold, and all the vessels of the
house of the forest of Lebanon were of pure gold; none were of silver;
it was nothing accounted of in the days of Solomon.

“For the king had at sea a navy of Tharshish with the navy of Hiram:
once in three years came the navy of Tharshish, bringing gold, and
silver, &c.” Now if Tharshish be Spain, the conclusion is inevitable,
the Israelites must have visited the western countries in the days of
Solomon.

The conclusion resulting from the examination of the meaning of Tarshish,
is confirmed by two very ancient sepulchral monuments found in Spain.
As these monuments attracted the attention of the learned Christian
antiquarians about two hundred years ago, it may not be uninteresting to
give a short sketch of their history, and especially since they form an
important link in the chain of evidence of the very early wanderings of
the Jews.

The Duke of Savoy, formerly viceroy of Valencia, presented Francis
Gozanga, Bishop of Mantua and General of the Franciscans, with a
manuscript which was originally dedicated to Alfonso Duke of Segorbe
and Count of Ampurias, written in an antique Spanish dialect, in which
the ruins of Saguntum are noticed. After many Roman monuments being
described, a sepulchral monument, bearing a Hebrew epitaph, is mentioned
as being of far greater antiquity than the Roman monuments; for the
characters were more ancient than the square alphabet now in use,
_which_ must have been the Samaritan, as those characters were used
by the Hebrews prior to their Babylonish captivity. In consequence of
the stone being much fractured and defaced, the following could only be
decyphered, but which gives us still a somewhat correct idea of its date.
It runs thus:

                         זהוא קבר אדונירם עבד המלך שלמה
                        שבא לגבת את־המס ונפטר יום . .¹

of which the following is the Spanish manuscript version:――“De Adoniram
la fossa es esta, que vigne Salomo del Re servent dia, y mori tribut lo
pera rebre....” The following is a literal English translation:――“This
is the grave of Adoniram, the servant of King Solomon, who came to
collect the tribute, and died on the day....”

      ¹ See Appendix C.

The Bishop of Mantua published a history of the Franciscan order, in
which he mentioned, on the authority of the manuscript alluded to,
the existence of the above-menioned monument. Villalpando, a learned
Jesuit and a shrewd critic, read the book, but not being willing to
put implicit confidence in the bishop’s startling assertion, desired
his brethren, the Jesuits, who lived in Murviedro, a beautiful little
place built from the ruins of Saguntum, to make great search for that
particular stone on the site described; his request was complied with;
an investigation was instituted. The Murviedro natives immediately
pointed out a large stone near the gate of the citadel, which was
commonly called by the natives, “The Stone of Solomon’s Collector.”
There was an almost obliterated Hebrew inscription on the self-same
stone, but not corresponding to the one looked for: which we shall
presently notice. There was, however, a manuscript chronicle preserved
in the town, in which they found the following entry: “At Saguntum, in
the citadel, in the year of our Lord 1480, a little more or less, was
discovered a sepulchre of surprising antiquity. It contained an embalmed
corpse, not of the usual stature, but taller than is common. It had,
and still retains on the front, two lines in the Hebrew language and
characters, the sense of which is――‘The sepulchre of Adoniram, the
servant of King Solomon, who came hither to collect tribute.’ Of this
Adoniram, the servant of Solomon, mention is made in the 5th chapter
[14th verse] of the first book of Kings, and more expressly in the 4th
chapter [6th verse] of that book. The Hebrew letters rendered into Roman
are these: ‘Ze hu keber Adoniram ebed ha Melec Selomo, seba ligbot et
hammas, voniptar yom.’”

In page 112 of the same chronicle they found the following: “The marble
mausoleum of surprising antiquity, which was discovered at Saguntum in
the year of our Lord, 1482, and was inscribed with the Hebrew letters
which are these in Roman, ‘Ze hu keber,’ &c. [as above], still exists in
the citadel before the outer gate.” Villalpando did not stop there; he
succeeded in possessing himself afterwards of a careful copy (through
others of his order) of some other manuscript, which makes honourable
mention of the same monument.

Were the rabbies the originators of this circumstance, I would certainly
have hesitated before I brought it before you; not because I think that
_every thing_ rabbinical is of necessity absurd, ridiculous, and false;
but in order to conciliate the strong prejudices of some who do think
so, and treat _every thing_ coming from that quarter with contempt; and
generally, because they do not understand them. Not a word of the whole
transaction is mentioned by any of the rabbies. The investigation was
set on foot by Christian authors of great learning and extensive reading.
Nor can it be said that it was a story conjured up by the Jesuits. There
was no object in their doing so. They were never friendly to any thing
Jewish; and in Villalpando’s time the most venomous animosity prevailed
in their breast against every thing Jewish. Again, if their object was
to deceive, why did they not make out the inscription on the monument
which the natives have pointed out to them, to correspond with the
one recorded in the Duke of Savoy’s ancient manuscript. There is not
the remotest affinity between the two epitaphs. All the incidental
circumstances connected with those monuments seem to me to conspire to
attest that it was not their object to deceive in this matter.

Now, I wish to call your attention for a few minutes to the inscription
which Villalpando’s friends discovered on the stone pointed out to them
by the natives. It is the following, according to their decyphering:――

                             שארן נבח פקוד מרה
                                  לשרו קחו יה
                         ... והדה עד מלך אמציה

The inscription, as thus given, though it makes rhyme, certainly makes
no sense whatever. To say the least, it is very bad Hebrew, if Hebrew at
all; and is enough to puzzle the worst Hebrew scholar to make any sense
of it.¹ Strange to say, however, there were found such bad Hebrew
scholars, who were able to favour the world with a literal translation,
as they think, of the inscription; and it is the following: “Of Oran
Nebahh, the President, who rebelled against his prince. The Lord has
taken him ... and his glory to King Amaziah.” The only words which I
conceive to be Hebrew are מרה _Marah_, which has been translated
“rebelled,” instead of bitter; יה _yah_, the Lord; and מלך אמציה _Melech
Amaziah_, King Amaziah. I candidly confess, that were I asked to
translate the above, I would have humbly acknowledged my ignorance,
without the least compunction. I find, however, in an old Hebrew book,
called דרכי נעם _Darcay Noam_, or “Ways of Pleasantness” (written by R.
Moses, bar Shem Tob, Aben Chaviv, above a century before Villalpando
instituted the inquiry), an account of an epitaph which, I have no doubt,
is none other but the same with the one which the Jesuits attempted to
decypher; and the following is the rabbi’s account of it according to
his own words: “When I was in the kingdom of Valencia, at the synagogue
of Morvitri [Murviedro], all the people at the gate, as well as the
elders informed me, that a sepulchral monument existed there, of a
prince of the army of Amaziah, King of Judah; I hastened, therefore, to
inspect it. The monument stands on the summit of a hill; whither having
ascended with labour and fatigue, I read the inscription, which was in
verse, and as follows:――

                             שאו קינה בקול מרה
                             לשר גדול לקחו יה׃²

             “Raise with a bitter voice, a lamentation
              For the great prince; the Lord has taken him.”

      ¹ The author has met with many indifferent linguists who were
            quicker in making sense of a bad composition than many
            learned philologists.

      ² Any one acquainted with the Samaritan alphabet can easily
            trace the blunders in the Jesuits’ version of the same.

I could not read more; but at the conclusion was the word לאמציה “To
Amaziah.” It seems evident that there was more than one Hebrew monument
at Murviedro.

I hesitate not in saying that, after having examined rigorously these
and various other evidences bearing on the same question, I see no
reason for disbelieving that there were Jews in Spain in the time of
David and Solomon――_startling_ as it may appear. It is easy indeed to
treat the arguments of a young lecturer with a sneer, and to resolve
them into the rashness, or conceit, of inexperience; allow me to
suggest, however, that denial is not answer, and that of all logic flat
contradiction is by far the most illogical.

Villalpando did certainly not arrive hastily at his conclusion; but
it was after mature consideration that he decided that there existed
colonies of Hebrews all over the world, in the reigns of David and
Solomon, and that the Hebrews thus scattered remitted large sums of
money for the erection and support of the temple.¹

    ¹ See Appendix D.

The short time allotted for a lecture of this kind, prevents me
from dwelling much longer now on this subject. To do justice to this
investigation would require a whole series of lectures, exclusively, on
it.¹ I proceed, therefore, at once to trace the probable footsteps of
the Israelites into Britain.

    ¹ See Appendix E.

Taking for granted that it is highly probable that the Jews visited
Spain in the days of David and Solomon, in company with the Phœnician
merchants; may we not extend the probability also to Britain?

Appian tells us, that the Spaniards of his time used to perform the
passage to Britain in half a day.¹ Britain was a place of attraction
to mercantile persons at a very early period, and London was styled by
the ancients, at a remote date, “_nobile emporium_.” There remaineth
now no doubt whatever respecting the early intercourse between the
Phœnicians and the Britons――all historians are unanimous upon it.

    ¹ “Quando in Britanniam, una cum æstu maris transvehuntur quæ
      quidem trajectio dimidiati diei est.”

Sir Isaac Newton tells us, “With these Phœnicians came a sort of men
skilled in religious mysteries.” Might they not have been Jews? True it
is that we cannot appeal to monuments in order to establish our position;
but we can, at the same time, appeal to the languages of the Hebrews and
ancient Britons, which furnish a strong argument that they have known
something of each other.

I begin with the _name_ your country bears, viz. Britain. Various are
the conjectures which antiquarians and philologists advanced in order
to account why this island is so called. Herodotus calls the British
Isles _Cassiterides_, which signifies, the islands of tin. It is a
name whereby the Phœnicians jealously contrived to conceal from their
Mediterranean neighbours the locality of these islands, being the remote
sources of their wealth. Now, Strabo calls Britain Βρετανικη. Bochart,
a profound Oriental scholar, shows that Βρετανικη is a corruption of the
Hebrew words ברת אנך _Barat-Anach_, which are in signification the same
with Cassiterides.¹ Is it not highly probable that Jews came over to
this island with the Phœnicians, and named it according to its peculiar
quality; which designation was ultimately adopted by the aborigines when
they began to have intercourse with the Jews.

    ¹ See Appendix F.

Any one having paid critical attention to the early history of this
country, can scarcely remain in doubt as regards the existence of an
intimate acquaintance between the Jews and the old Britons or Welch.
An eminent Cornish scholar of last century, who devoted a great deal of
his time to prove the affinity between the Hebrew and Welch languages,
observes,¹ “It would be difficult to adduce a single article or form
of construction in the Hebrew grammar, but the same is to be found in
Welch, and that there are many whole sentences in both languages exactly
the same in the very words.” From two columns of quotations, which
he adduces, I select the following for your satisfaction, and shall
translate them according to the Welch:――

    ¹ See Monthly Magazine, 1796, vol. ii., p. 543.

                                 בני אלים
                               Beni Elyv,
                  Reared ones of power.――Ps. xxix. 1.

                                מחיה מתים
                           Mychweii Methion,
               Thou dost quicken those that have failed.

                           בלע אדני את כל נאות יעקב
                  By-llwng adon-ydh holl neuodh Iago,
            The Lord has swallowed up all the tabernacles of
                          Jacob.――Lam. ii. 2.

                               דרך ביתה יצעד
                       Dyrac buth-hi ai-i-sengyd,
            The avenue of her dwelling he would go to tread.
                            ――Prov. vii. 8.

                         דרכי שאול ביתה יורדות אל חדרי מות
          Dyracei sâl buth-hi ea-warededh ill cadeiriau mêth.
         That leads to vileness is her abode, going the descent
                to the seat of failing.――Prov. vii. 27.

                          ברוך אתה יהוה אלהינו מלך העולם
                Barwch wytti iâ el-eini maelog y-hwylma,
      Seat of increase art thou, Supreme, our intellectual power,
                 possessor of the space of revolution.¹

    ¹ The first sentence of almost all Jewish thanksgivings to this
      very day.

                               מגיני על אלהים
                          Meigen-i hwyl elyv.
         My protection is from the intelligences.――Ps. vii. 11.

                    מיהוא זה מלך הכבוד יהוה צבאות חוא מלך הכביד סלה
        Py yw-o sy maeloc y-cavad I-A-YW-YO savwyod yw-o maeloc
                             y-cavad. Sela.

  Who is he that is possessor of attainments? I THAT AM HIM of hosts,
    he is the possessor of attainment――BEHOLD.――Ps. xxiv. 10.¹

    ¹ This passage must have been a great favourite with the Jews.
      The whole of the twenty-fourth Psalm is supposed to have been
      written for, and sung on the occasion of the removal of the
      ark by David to Jerusalem. It is moreover supposed, and very
      justly, that this Psalm had been employed when the ark was
      carried into the majestic temple which Solomon had erected.
      The Levites are regarded as approaching in solemn procession,
      bearing the sacred depository of sacramental treasures. As
      they approached the massive gates, they claimed admission for
      the King of Glory, who was perpetually to dwell between the
      cherubim that should overshadow the ark, in the words of the
      Psalmist, “Lift up your heads, O ye gates, and be ye lift up,
      ye everlasting doors, and the King of Glory shall come in!”
      The keepers of the gates are supposed to have heard the
      summons, and they demanded from within, “Who is this King
      of Glory?” The answer was, “The Lord strong and mighty in
      battle;” and then we are to imagine the ponderous gates
      thrown open, and the gorgeous throng of priests and Levites
      pressing towards the recesses of the sanctuary. Such a
      glorious scene could not fail to make a lasting impression
      on the Israelite’s mind, and cause him to adopt the above
      passage alluded to as a motto for his God, of whom he had
      every reason to be proud. It is not at all unlikely that the
      aborigines Britons ultimately chose the same as their motto.

Now, if the aborigines Britons knew not the Jews, where could they have
got hold of such whole Hebrew, purely Hebrew, sentences? I say, then,
_again_, Is it not highly probable, if not demonstrated, that the Jews
visited this island at a very early period, and tried to teach the
natives the lessons which they have themselves learned?

They possessed already the simple but most sublime Mosaic records,
written above 1000 years before the history of Herodotus; the Psalms
and Proverbs written 1040 years before Horace; and probably Isaiah and
Jeremiah, for they were written 700 years before Virgil. Many Jews were
fathers in literature before any of the present nations, especially
those of Europe, had their existence. Did time permit,¹ I would have
called your attention to some of the proper names which have prevailed
among the aborigines Britons, as _Solomon_, of which name, according
to Lloyd’s Cambria, they anciently had three kings. We read of a Duke
of Cornwall, Solomon by name, openly professing Christianity about the
middle of the fourth century; Daniel, also Abraham, Asaph, and Adam,
from which circumstance some antiquarians attempted to prove that the
Welch are descendants of the children of Israel.² I think that I am very
moderate in endeavouring only to establish a probability of the Jews
mixing with the Britons earlier than it is generally supposed.

    ¹ See Appendix G.

    ² See Jewish Expositor, 1828, pp. 125–130.

It may not be out of place here to state that “The isles afar off” (Jer.
xxxi. 10) were supposed by the ancients to have been Britannia, Scotia,
and Hibernia. The following statement was made by a celebrated and
venerable divine of the Church of England, when pleading the cause of
the “London Society for promoting Christianity amongst the Jews”――I
mean the Rev. Dr. Marsh:――“The command is to declare the Lord’s purpose
concerning Israel ‘in the isles afar off’ (the expression always
used by the Hebrews for _these islands_――known to them through the
reports of the merchants of Tyre――Britannia, Scotia, and Hibernia). The
proclamation is to be made here.” This notion receives additional force
from the command contained in the 7th verse of the same chapter. “For
thus saith the Lord, sing with gladness for Jacob, and shout among the
_chief of the nations_: publish ye, praise ye, and say, O Lord, save thy
people, the remnant of Israel.

“Hear the word of the Lord, O ye nations, and declare it in the isles
afar off, and say, He that scattereth Israel will gather him, and keep
him as a shepherd doth his flock.”

The prophet seems to behold Britain in his vision. There can be no doubt
that Britain is now the _chief of the nations_. Her monarch’s territory
is one upon which the sun never sets. The expression “The end of the
world,” mentioned in Isaiah lxii. 11, is also supposed to mean Britain,
which was a common appellation for this island in remote ages. An
expression which readily brings to our mind the phrase

                         “... ultimos
                          Orbis Britannos.”

I wish now to call your attention to another circumstance, which also
gives colour to the idea, that the Jews visited this country earlier
than is generally supposed.

There existed once a very amicable alliance between the Hebrews and the
Romans. It is a well-known fact, that many Jews served as soldiers in
the Roman army; they resided in great numbers at Rome and other western
countries in the days of the Cæsars. Josephon ben Gorion informs us
that when Julius became Cæsar, Hyrcanus sent messengers to Rome to renew
the alliance, which had just then expired. Now (B.C. 55) Cæsar invaded
Britain twice, and defeated its gallant natives in several battles,
and compelled them to give hostages, and ultimately planted the Roman
standard in this country. Why should it be a thing unlikely that the
Jews went with him as warriors into Gaul, and aided in his conquests,
and from thence accompanied him into Britain, and remained here under
the protection of the Roman banner. For to assist each other in war was
just in accordance with their original agreement, which is preserved
in the 1st book of the Maccabees, viii. 22–29, and which is as follows:
――“This is the copy of the epistle which the senate wrote back again,
in tables of brass, and sent to Jerusalem, that there they might have
by them a memorial of peace and confederacy:――

“Good success be to the Romans, and to the people of the Jews, by sea
and by land for ever: the sword also and enemy be far from them. If
there come first any war upon the Romans, or any of their confederates
throughout all their dominion, the people of the Jews shall help them,
as the time shall be appointed, with all their heart. Neither shall
they give any thing unto them that make war upon them, or aid them with
victuals, weapons, money, or ships, as it hath seemed good unto the
Romans, but they shall keep their covenant without taking any thing
therefore. In the same manner also, if war come first upon the nation
of the Jews, the Romans shall help them with all their heart, according
as the time shall be appointed them. Neither shall victuals be given to
them that take part against them, or weapons, or money, or ships, as it
hath seemed good to the Romans, but they shall keep their covenants, and
that without deceit. According to these articles did the Romans make a
covenant with the people of the Jews.”

A copy of a letter preserved in Josephon ben Gorion, which the Jews of
Asia sent to Hyrcanus and to the nobles of Judah, contains the following
passage:――

“Be it known to you that Augustus Cæsar sent, by the advice of his
ally, Antoninus, throughout all the countries of his dominion, as far
as beyond the Indian Sea, and as far as beyond the British territory,
and commanded that in whatever place there be man or woman of the Jewish
race, servant or handmaiden, to set them free without any redemption
money. By the command of Cæsar Augustus and his ally, Antoninus.”¹

    ¹ See Appendix H.

In the צמח דוד or “Branch of David,” a Jewish chronicle of some importance,
written by Rabbi David Ganz, we have the following paragraph:――

“A.M. 4915.――Cæsar Augustus was a pious and God-fearing man, and did
execute judgment and justice, and was a lover of Israel. And as to that
which is recorded in the beginning of the book, ‘Sceptre of Judah,’ that
Cæsar Augustus caused a great slaughter amongst the Jews, his informant
deceived him, for I have not met even with a hint respecting it in all
the chronicles I have ever seen. On the contrary, in all their [_i.e._
Gentile] annals, and also in the fifteenth chapter of Josephon, it is
recorded that he was a faithful friend of Israel. He also records in the
forty-seventh chapter, that this Cæsar sent an epistle of freedom to the
Jews in all the countries of his dominion; to the east as far as beyond
the Indian Sea, and to the west as far as beyond the British territory
(which is the country Angleterre, and which is designated England in the
_lingua franca_.”)¹

    ¹ See Appendix I.

The Jews in this country chronicle the same event, annually, in their
calendar; in the following words:――“Augustus’s edict in favour of the
Jews in England, C. Æ. 15.”

An ingenious antiquary of the seventeenth century, Mr. Richard Waller
by name, came to the same conclusion in consequence of a curious
Roman brick which was found in his time in London, when digging up
the foundation of a house in Mark-lane. The brick had on one side a
bass-relief, representing Sampson driving the foxes into a field of
corn. The whole circumstance is thus related in Leland’s Collections,
in the preface to the first volume, pp. 70, 71:――

“And now I shall take notice of a very great curiosity found in the
Mark-lane――more properly called Mart-lane, it being a place where the
Romans, and not improbably the ancient Britains, used to barter their
commodities, as tin, lead, &c. with other nations, it may be the Greeks,
who often came into this island to purchase the like goods.... The
curiosity I am speaking of is a brick, found about forty years since
[_i.e._ about 1670], twenty-eight feet below the pavement, by Mr.
Stockley, as he was digging the foundation of an house that he built
for Mr. Wolley.... This brick is of a Roman make, and was a key-brick to
the arch of a vault where a quantity of burnt corn was found. ’Tis made
of curious red clay, and in bass-relief on the front hath the figure of
Sampson putting fire to the foxes’ tayles, and driving them into a field
of corn. This brick is deposited in the museum belonging to the Royal
Society’s house, Fleet-street.” Dr. Leland then gives an extract from
a letter of Mr. Richard Waller, which is the following: “How the story
of Sampson should be known to the _Romans_, much less to the _Britains_,
so early after the propagation of the Gospel, seems to be a great doubt,
except, it should be said, that some _Jews_, after the final destruction
of _Jerusalem_, should wander into Britain; and London being, even in
Cæsar’s time, a port or trading city, they might settle here, and in the
arch of their granary record the famous story of their delivery from
their captivity under the Philistines.”

All these circumstantial evidences are sufficient, to my mind, to
establish a probability, at least, that the Jews visited this country at
a remote age.

Baronius may therefore be right after all, that St. Peter preached
the Gospel in Britain, notwithstanding the learned Stillingfleet’s
opposition. The principal argument which the Bishop of Worcester
advances against St. Peter’s visiting this island for the purpose of
preaching the Gospel, is, that St. Peter was emphatically called the
“Apostle of the Circumcision;” but――argues the learned prelate――as
there were no Jews in Britain at that time, consequently Baronius must
be wrong. With all due deference to the most learned Stillingfleet, I
venture to say, that his lordship took for granted what remains to be
proved. Baronius himself must certainly have been convinced that there
were Jews in this realm in the days of the Apostles, or else he must
have contradicted himself. He states that, until the 65th year of our
Lord, the Gospel was preached to none but to the Jews; but he also tells
us, that A.D. 61, Peter came over to Britain in order to preach the
Gospel. Of course, he must have meant, to the Jews of Britain.

Lippomanus declares, and Nicephorus makes use of his declaration, that
St. ♦Peter preached also to the Britons; “for he carried,” says the
latter, “the same doctrine to the Western Ocean and to the British
Isles.”

    ♦ ‘Petre’ replaced with ‘Peter’

But methinks I hear one say, Suppose there were a few Jews in
this island, would that circumstance afford St. Peter sufficient
encouragement and invitation to visit it. I answer, yes――there was
encouragement and invitation enough for an apostle to the Jews to travel
such a great distance. The Jews, being thus far removed from Jerusalem,
had no opportunity of hearing any thing of the awful scene that was
exhibited on Calvary, they would, therefore, be free from all the
prejudices which prevailed in the breasts of their brethren in Palestine.
The apostle might, therefore, calculate on sure success, for he would
come to them, and preach the things noted in their Scriptures of truth
respecting their Messiah, who was then universally expected by them.
St. Peter would unfold to them the ninth chapter of the Book of the
Prophet Daniel, where the time of Messiah’s first advent was fixed,
as also that He was to “be cut off, but not for himself;” all of which
is, to unprejudiced and unbiassed minds, so self-evident, that the
then British Jews could not but believe, especially when preached by a
holy and pious countryman of their own. Dr. Wolff’s last journal of his
travels to Bokhara convinces me, that where the Jews are ignorant of the
controversy at issue between Jews and Christians, the Gospel meets with
an easy and favourable reception by them, as you will perceive from the
following extract:――

“Here I may as well notice the Jews of Yemen generally. While at Sanaa,
Mose Joseph Alkaree, the chief rabbi of the Jews, called on me. He is
an amiable and sensible man. The Jews of Yemen adhere uniquely to the
ancient interpretation of Scripture in the passage (Isaiah, vii. 14),
‘A virgin shall conceive,’ and they give to the word עלמה the same
interpretation, virgin, that the Christians do, without knowing the
history of Jesus. Rabbi Alkaree asserted, that in Isaiah, liii. the
suffering of the Messiah is described as anterior to his reign in glory.
He informed me that the Jews of Yemen never returned to Jerusalem after
the Babylonish captivity; and that when Ezra wrote a letter to the
princes of the captivity at Tanaan――a day’s journey from Sanaa――inviting
them to return, they replied, ‘Daniel predicts the murder of the Messiah,
and another destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple, and therefore we
will not go up until He shall have scattered the power of the holy
people, until the thousand two hundred and ninety days are over.’ I
demanded, ‘Do you consider these days to be literal days?’ The Alkaree
replied, ‘No; but we do expect the coming of the Messiah from the
commotions now going on at Yemen. We think he begins to come from Teman,
_i.e._, Yemen, for you see the tents of Cushan are now in affliction,
and the curtains of Midian tremble. There is now war in the wilderness
unprecedented in our memory. There are twelve gates at Sanaa. As soon as
one of them――the Bab Alstraan, which is always kept closed――is opened,
we expect Him. Rechab and Hamdan are before it.’ I then expounded Isaiah,
liii., and read him the holy history of Jesus. He said, ‘Your exposition
is in better agreement with the ancient interpretation; I approve
it much more than that of our nation, which ascribes the passage to
Josiah.’ This kind Jew assisted me in the distribution of Testaments
among his people. Sanaa contains 15,000 Jews. In Yemen they amount to
20,000. I conceive the total population of the Jews throughout the world
amounts to 10,000,000. I baptized here sixteen Jews, and left them all
New Testaments.”¹

    ¹ Vol. i., p. 60.

The latest intelligence we received from Persia bears testimony to the
same striking fact. The following is an extract from a letter of the
Rev. H. A. Stern, dated Tehran, June 19, 1845:――

“May 16th, Kermanshah.――We were visited by Hassan Khan Kalentar: he was
very polite, and offered us the use of his house, but we declined his
offer, prefering to remain where we were. We went to the Jewish quarter,
which is situated in the lowest part of the town, and inquired for the
synagogue. A crowd of Jews quickly surrounded us, and conducted us to it.
We had to wait several minutes while a messenger was despatched for the
keys. On entering, we descended into an extremely poor place of worship,
affording the strongest evidence of the poverty and oppression of the
Jews here. They told us that they had repeatedly laid down expensive
carpets, and ornamented the books of the law, but the soldiers had
as often broken in at night, and stolen every article of value. We
then called upon one of the mullahs or rabbies, and preached Jesus
of Nazareth to him. He confessed he had never heard of the message
of salvation, and was entirely ignorant of every thing respecting a
Redeemer. He repeatedly said, ‘Did our forefathers so err?’ During our
conversation the greater part of the Jewish population had crowded round
the door, and the people were anxiously listening to what was said.

“May 17th.――We went again to the synagogue, and had scarcely entered
before we were called up to the oratory. The mullah, with whom we had
the conversation after our former visit, said he was very sorry that we
did not come before the reading of the law, as he would have conferred
the honour upon us. Some of the Jews gave us vases of roses which
were standing near the reading-desk; and at the conclusion of the
service, two of the mullahs and another influential Jew requested the
congregation to remain quiet while we addressed them. We did so, for
some time, on the first advent of the Messiah, his rejection by the
Jewish nation, his sufferings and atonement, the reason of his coming in
humility the first time, and of his future coming in glory. We entreated
them to believe in Christ, and no longer to reject the proffered
salvation.

“ONE OF THE MULLAHS――‘We are in captivity, and groan under oppression.
What can we do?’

“I――‘Believe in Jesus Christ, and he will redeem you. It grieves us much
to see you scattered like sheep without a shepherd――instead of hearing
the lovely songs of Zion, to hear the wailings of affliction. Shall the
gold always remain dim, and the sword always reek with your blood? No:
come to Jesus, hear the blessed Gospel, and you will then find peace
here and life eternal hereafter.’ Upon which, the whole synagogue――men,
women, and children――loudly answered, ‘Amen! speedily, speedily; and
may the blessing of God rest upon your heads!’ We spoke Hebrew, and
the mullahs interpreted all we said to the people. We gave each of the
mullahs a New Testament, and presented a Bible to the synagogue. Thus
were we enabled, by God’s grace, to preach Christ to no less than three
hundred souls, and in a public synagogue.

“As we were on our way home, one of the mullahs sent a messenger to
invite us to his house; but his wife being ill, and he poor, we did not
accept the invitation.”¹

    ¹ See Jewish Intelligence, 1845, pp. 362, 363.

But Dr. Wolff’s late enterprise convinces us, likewise, that it is
possible for a man who is inspired with benevolence and zeal, to travel
5,000 miles, in order to deliver two fellow-creatures only. Considering
the superiority of the Apostle’s mission, there will be no reason to
object to the probability of St. Peter’s visiting the Jews in this
island, few as they may have been, in order to rescue them from that
eternal death which ever dying never dies.

As to St. Paul’s being one of the first heralds of salvation in this
island, there can scarcely be any doubt on the subject. Indeed, if we
do not believe it we must make up our minds to reject all the hitherto
authentic historians. By them we can prove to a demonstration, that St.
Paul did preach the Gospel in Britain. However, as to prove this is not
my object at present, I shall, therefore, only confine myself to a few
writers on the subject.

Dr. Burgess, late Bishop of Sarum, one of the most learned and pious
bishops of our Church, has shown most satisfactorily, in the tracts
he published, that whilst to the Apostles generally――to St. Paul most
particularly is Britain indebted for the foundation of her national
Church. Clemens Romanus, who was an intimate friend and fellow-labourer
of St. Paul, declares in his Epistle to the Corinthians, that “St. Paul
having been a herald of the Gospel both in the east and in the west,
he received the noble crown of faith, after teaching righteousness to
the whole world, and gone even, ἐπὶ τὸ τέρμα τῆς δύσσεως, to the utmost
bounds of the west:” an expression, well known to every scholar, that
always designated, or at least included, the British Islands.

Theodoret, one of the most learned and sound Church historians of the
fourth century, mentions Britain among the nations which had received
the Gospel. He states in his observations on Psalm cxvi., that “Paul
carried salvation to the islands which lie in the ocean.” Jerome shortly
afterwards writes, when commenting on the fifth chapter of Amos, that
“St. Paul’s diligence in preaching extended as far as the earth itself.”
Again, after his ♦imprisonment he preached the Gospel in the _western
parts_” (De Script. Eccl.), in which (as is evident from a passage in
his Epistle to Marcella) he included Britain. Venentius Fortunatus,
Bishop of Poitiers, who lived in the fifth century, states that “Paul
having crossed the ocean, landed and preached in the countries which
the Britons inhabit.” I could multiply quotations on this subject almost
without end; but they would be as tedious, as they are unnecessary. I
may, however, observe, that some of the greatest men of this country,
who spent a great part of their lives in such researches――viz. the most
learned Ussher, Parker, Stillingfleet, Cave, Camden, Gibson, Godwin,
Rapin, and a great many others――have clearly shown that St. Paul was
the founder of the British Church. But Archbishop Ussher proves also,
that St. Paul did not quit this island before he had appointed the
first bishop or bishops, and the other ministers of the Church――that
Aristobulus was the first bishop he had appointed. Some of the old
Welch writers state, that Bran, son of Llyr Llediaeth (who had been a
hostage for several years at Rome, for his son Caradoc or Caractacus),
brought with him as preachers, on his return from Rome, one Aristobulus,
an Italian, and two Israelites, named Ilid and Cynvan (Hughes’ Hora
Britanica, vol. ii., p. 23), which must have taken place soon after
St. Paul left Rome.

    ♦ ‘imimprisonment’ replaced with ‘imprisonment’

As far as the investigation of my subject is concerned, all the above
rays of historical light converge to one point, which is, that some
Jews must have been in this country during the first century; yea, the
government of the British Christian Church was established and set in
proper scriptural order by Jews themselves, be they who they may――Peter,
Paul, Simon Zealotes, Joseph of Arimathea. So that the British Church
actually owes to the Jewish nation a great debt of gratitude, for her
beautiful and scriptural order, and for all her godlike religion.




                         APPENDIX TO LECTURE I.


                                   A.

THE following is an extract from a letter I received from the governor
of Dartmouth, A. H. Holdsworth, Esq., a man of great research and
scientific attainments. I have every reason to believe that its perusal
may prove interesting to some, as well as instructive to others; I offer
no apology, therefore, for giving it so largely. The letter I allude to
was dated “Brookhill, October 15th, ♦1845:”――

    ♦ ‘1485’ replaced with ‘1845’

MY DEAR SIR――I believe that man, as he was created, had a mind in
that state of perfection which we can best understand by the term
‘civilized’――that is, capable of discerning the means of gratifying
every wish and providing for every want, whether bodily or intellectual,
that circumstances brought upon him, until society became so corrupt
that the Almighty found it necessary to destroy the whole human race,
except Noah and his family, whom he preserved in the ark, and that
through them the same civilized mind was transmitted to those that were
born to them, and to those who descended from them; and that all the
heathen nations (as they are now termed) have fallen off from that
state in which their forefathers existed, and that as the local distance
increased which divided their several families from the parent stock, so
did their minds become more degraded and ignorant, until they arrived at
the state in which they are now found, endued with sufficient intellect
to enable them to avail themselves of the means which nature has placed
around them to supply their bodily wants, but continuing from father to
son in the same state of mental ignorance, and devoid of all improvement
or intellectual enjoyment. I was first impressed with this view of the
heathen nations from finding that the same canoes exist at this time,
the same rafts or balzas are seen on the same coasts as were found
there when those coasts or islands were first visited by our earliest
navigators, although our own ships have been so much improved during the
same space of time as to be most sensibly distinguishable.

“These facts induced me to ask myself this question. If we can trace the
same unimproved canoes through such a series of years, how happened it
that ships were ever built? How did those persons who first discovered
the people possessing these canoes, get the ships which conveyed them
to those distant regions? Or why should one set of men turn their canoes
into ships (if our ships grew out of canoes), and other sets of men
never make any improvement in theirs? Why have not the natives of the
coasts of Africa turned their canoes into ships, as well as the natives
of Britain? To solve these questions I had to trace back the history of
shipping from century to century――rising and falling with the nations
to which it belonged, varying in size and form as adopted by newly
civilized countries, but maintaining the same principle of construction;
and when I searched from nation to nation in the Mediterranean, and
thence up the Nile to Thebes, I could not find any period of time
in which it did not appear that ships have existed――that is, vessels
composed of ribs and planks with beams and decks, as are seen at the
present day. We may pass over the more recent time and go back 1000
years before the birth of Christ. We then find Solomon with a fleet
of ships in the Red Sea, and we read in the 1st of Kings――‘And Hiram
sent in the navy his servants, shipmen that had knowledge of the sea,
with the servants of Solomon.’ Hiram, therefore, had long possessed a
fleet; and 450 years before Solomon’s time we find Balaam saying――‘And
ships shall come from the coast of Chittim and shall afflict Asshur,’
from which it is clear that Balaam must have known that those whom he
addressed understood what he meant by ships, or his prophecy would have
been useless. But there is little doubt but that at that time there
was a large fleet of ships in the Red Sea. Sesostris is said to have
had about four hundred sail of war ships, with which he carried his
army to the conquest of various countries down the coast, and which are
represented on the walls of his palace at Thebes. The pictures on the
walls of the tombs also afford much information on this subject, as well
as some on the inside of mummy cases.

“The size of these vessels is to a certain extent ascertained by the
number of men which are represented within them, but more accurately
by the models of two vessels which were found in a tomb, and brought
to England by Mr. Salt. These were bought for the British Museum at
the sale of his Egyptian relics. I have measured them, and taking
the figures on the deck as a scale, and calling them six feet, I make
the vessel to be thirty feet long, six feet wide, and four feet deep;
and when to the size is added the form, which is that of an irregular
half-moon, it is clear that such vessels could not be made out of a
single tree, but must have been regularly built with ribs, planks, and
beams to support the deck. And as these were said to have been found in
an early tomb, it is clear to my mind that the persons who built them
must have been in a state of civilization, that they had a thorough
knowledge of the art, and that it affords a proof that those persons
who established themselves at Thebes at a very short space of time after
the Mosaic flood, had no difficulty in constructing vessels, when such
machines were found necessary to them. If the facts are, as I believe
them to be――viz., that the canoes of the uncivilized nations or tribes
are in the same state as when first seen by our earliest navigators, and
if we cannot find any trace that canoes were used by the Thebans before
they constructed vessels or ships, although we can find boats or smaller
vessels of different sorts existing at the same time with such ships
or vessels upon the waters of the Nile, have we not a right to believe
that the ship is the work of a civilized mind, and that it has been
constructed where it has been required by the civilized inhabitants
of our globe from the earliest periods of its existence? Much might be
added as to the state of shipping at the various periods of history, as
nations rose into eminence and fell again into obscurity, and as nations
became civilized and adopted the usages of those who had preceded them
in civilization; but this is not necessary to the subject at present.
There are a variety of other things which are to be found equally
curious and worthy of notice, indirectly connected with this subject,
but leading to very different considerations; I will not, therefore,
touch upon them.”


                                   B.

“His perlectis non puto quemquam esse qui non videat _Tarsis_, vel
esse Hispaniam, vel Hispaniæ partem, quam Tyrii maxime frequentabant,
Gades nimirum et Tartessum, in loco Ezechielis quo Tyrum ita compellat,
cap. 27, v. 12. _Tarsis negotiatrix tua præ copia omnium divitiarum:
argento, ferro, stanno, et plumbo negotiati sunt in nundinis tuis_; cum
his ipsis metallis divitem fuisse Hispaniam, et hanc illecebram Tyrios
eo terrarum pellexisse, jam abunde probaverimus. Tartessus aliis est
Carteia civitas prope Calpe unde initium freti Herculei, aliis insula
Gades in Oceano, aliis denique insula et urbs interamna inter duo Bætis
ostia, qui et ipse Tartessus dicitur ab Aristotele, Strabone, Pausania
et Avieno. Inde et Straboni Tartessis est regio circa Bætis ostia. Circa
hæc loca videtur fuisse _Tarsis_.

“Quin et nomen Hebræum _Tarsis_ potuit a Phœnicibus mutari in
_Tartessum_, vel prima geminata per pleonasmum, vel in תרשיש _Tarsis_
altero ש id ת mutato, ut cum אתור _Aturia_ dicitur pro אשור Assyria, et
בתנן _Batanæa_ pro בשן _Basan_.”――_Bochart_, vol. i., p. 170.


                                   C.

Villalpando and others have it thus:――

                        זהואכבר אדונירם עבד המלך השלמו
                         . . שבא לגבת את חמס ונפטר יום.

A slight acquaintance with the Hebrew language will show that the
transcribers knew very little or nothing of that language, and it is
therefore natural that they should make such mistakes.


                                   D.

“Ex quibus omnibus aperte demonstrari potest Hebræos olim usque a
Davidis, et Salmonis ætate totum pene terrarum orbem replenisse:
eosdemque tributa, nec pauca, nec parvi precii quot annis manu
supremi tributorum Principis misisse Hierosolymam.”――_Villalpandus
in Ezechielum_, vol. ii., part ii., p. 544.


                                   E.

Polybius, Ptolemy, Pliny, and Strabo have mentioned a people inhabiting
Andalusia and the modern Algarve, differing from all their neighbours,
speaking a peculiar language, using refined grammatical rules, and
possessing inscribed monuments of antiquity, as also poems, and
even laws in verse. Strabo mentions that they say “their laws are of
6,000 years.” Palmerius proposes to read “six thousand verses,” by
♦introducing ἐπῶν instead of ἐτῶν. Men of great erudition and research
maintained that that people was a Jewish population, descendants of
the old colonists in the times of Solomon, Amaziah, and Nebuchadnezzar.
They also maintained that the books of Genesis, Exodus, and Deuteronomy
contained poems, to which may be added the Psalms and Proverbs.
The above-mentioned district also included Tarshish; and many other
arguments were advanced to prove that it was a Jewish colony. However,
the theory is rejected by others, and I must say that I think on
too slender grounds. It is argued that “these people are denominated
Turdetani and Turduli, by authors whose information was extensive upon
national peculiarities, and who were at least so well acquainted with
the Jews as to have been able to pronounce at once, if warranted by
facts, that these Andalusians were of that nation.” Now, it might as
well be argued that the people whom Haman sought to destroy were no Jews,
because he did not pronounce them so at once. He only “said unto King
Ahasuerus, there is a certain people scattered abroad and dispersed
among the people in all the provinces of thy kingdom; and their laws are
diverse from all people, neither keep they the king’s laws, therefore
it is not for the king’s profit to suffer them.”――Esther iii. 8. The
acquaintance of the heathen authors with the history of the Jews, is
nothing more than an assumption. Trogus Pompeius, a writer in the time
of Augustus, professes to have been best acquainted with the Jews,
indeed, at that time he ought to have been so. He wrote the history of
all nations in forty-five volumes, of which we have only an abridgment
by Justin. Judge from the following chapter of the acquaintance which
the heathen had with Jewish history:――

    ♦ ‘iutroducing’ replaced with ‘introducing’

“Namque Judæis origo Damascena, Syriæ nobilissima civitas; unde et
Assyriis regibus genus ex regina Semirami fuit. Nomen urbi a Damasco
rege inditum; in cujus honorem Syrii sepulcrum Arathis uxoris ejus
pro templo coluere, deamque exinde sanctissimæ religionis habent.
Post Damascum Azelus, mox Adores et Abraham et Israhel reges fuere.
Sed Israhelem felix decem filiorum proventus majoribus suis clariorem
fecit. Itaque populum in decem regna divisum filiis tradidit, omnesque
ex nomine Judæ, qui post divisionem decesserat, _Judæos_ appellavit;
colique ejus memoriam ab omnibus jussit, cujus portio omnibus accesserat.
Minimus ætate inter fratres Joseph fuit; cujus excellens ingenium veriti
fratres, clam inceptum peregrinis mercatoribus vendiderunt. A quibus
deportatus in Ægyptum, cum magicas ibi artes solerti ingenio percepisset,
brevi ipsi regi percarus fuit. Nam et prodigiorum sagacissimus erat,
et somniorum primus intelligentiam condidit; nihilque divini juris
humanique ei incognitum videbatur: adeo, ut etiam sterilitatem agrorum
ante multos annos providerit; perissetque omnis Ægyptus fame, nisi
monitu ejus rex edicto servari per multos annos fruges jussisset;
tantaque experimenta ejus fuerunt, ut non ab homine, sed a Deo responsa
dari viderentur. Filius ejus Moses fuit, quem præter paternæ scientiæ
hereditatem, etiam formæ pulcritudo commendabat. Sed Ægypti, quum
scabiem et vitiliginem paterentur, responso moniti, eum cum ægris, ne
pestis ad plures serperet, terminis Ægypti pellunt. Dux igitur exsulum
factus, sacra Ægyptiorum furto abstulit: quæ repetentes armis Ægyptii,
domum redire tempestatibus compulsi sunt. Itaque Moses Damascena antiqua
patria repetita montem Synæ occupat; quo septem dierum jejunio per
deserta Arabiæ cum populo suo fatigatus, cum tandem venisset, septimum
diem more gentis _Sabbatum_ appellatum in omne ævum jejunio sacravit,
quoniam illa dies famem illis erroremque finierat. Et quoniam metu
contagionis pulsos se ab Ægypto meminerant, ne eadem causa invisi apud
incolas forent, caverunt, ne cum peregrinis communicarent: quod ex causa
factum paulatim in disciplinam religionemque convertit. Post Mosen etiam
filius ejus Aruas, sacerdos sacris Ægyptiis, mox rex creatur; semperque
exinde hic mos apud Judæos fuit, ut eosdem, reges et sacerdotes haberent;
quorum justitia religione permixta, incredibile quantum coaluere.”
――_Justini_, lib. xxxvi., cap. ii.


                                   F.

“Et Britanniam Strabo passim appellat Βρεττανικην, et uno T Βρετανικην.
Porro _Bretanica_ mihi quidem nihil videtur esse aliud quam ברת־אנך
_Barat-anac_, id est, _ager_, seu terra _stanni et plumbi_. ברא _bara_,
et in regimine ברת _barat_ Syris agrum esse sciunt omnes, et ex Daniele
abunde notum.... Et אנך _anac_ stannum aut plumbum Hebræi explicant in
Amos 7, 7. Nempe utrumque significat.... Mihi docuisse sufficit ab horum
metallorum fœcunditate has insulas, ut a Græcis Cassiteridas, ita a
Phœnicibus dictas fuisse ברת־אנך _barat anac_ agrum stanni et plumbi.”
――Samuel Bochart, vol. i., col. 647–650.


                                   G.

“I may instance _Rice_ or _Rees_ (written in Greek Ρησα――see Luke,
iii. 27), Davis, Jones, Lewis, &c., which are names greatly abounding in
Wales, and only later corruptions, as I apprehend, of Jewish patronymics.
The final _s_ is, I believe, admitted to be, in _most_ proper names,
not the sign of the plural number, but of the genitive case, and is one
way of signifying the son of the person, and thus we have David’s-son,
David’s, Davis;――Jonah’s-son, Jonah’s, Jones;――Levis’-son, Levis’, or
Lewis.

“Levi, by the writers of the New Testament, is written Λευϊ, and also
Λευις, which is the identical Levvis of the Welch, and possibly a
corruption of the Greek genitive for the nominative, by a similar
process with the above, and perhaps also Ιωνας. The other Welch form of
denoting a man’s son――viz., by the word _ap_, as Davis-ap-Rees, or Rice,
whence it slides into the word itself, and from ap-Rice becomes _Price_,
is probably Hebrew also; since the sacred historian tells us that Ab-ner
is son of Ner. _Ab_ indeed signifies _father_ rather than son, and it
would appear, from many of their names, that they were in the habit of
recognizing a man by the person whom he had for his father; but it comes
practically to the same thing as if it literally meant son: for we can
scarcely avoid saying of him of whom we would speak as having Ner for
his father, he is Ner’s son.”――_Abdiel_ in the Jewish Expositor, 1828,
pp. 126, 127.


                                   H.

ודעו כי שלח אגוסטוס קיסר בעצת אנטונינוס חברו בכל ארצות ממשלתו עד מעבר לים הודו ועד מעבר ארץ בריטאניאה והיא
ארץ ים אוקיאנוס. ויצו את כל מקום אשר בו איש או אשה מזרע היהודים עבד או אמה לשלחם חפשים בלא פדיון במצות
הקיסר אגוסטוס ואטונינוס חברו׃


                                   I.

תשעה תו הקיסר אגושטי היה איש חסיד וירא אלהים והיה עושה משפט וצדקה ואוהב ישראל׃ ומה שכתוב בראש ספר שבט
יהודה שקיסר אגושטי עשה הרג רב ביהודיס הלא המגיד כיחש לו כי לא מצאתי רמז מזה בכל הקרוניקים שראיתי מימי אדרכא
בכל ספרי זכרינתיהם גם ביוסיפין פר טו כתב שהיה אוהב נאמן לישראל גם בפּרק מז כתב שהקיסר הזה שלח כתב לים הודו
ולמערב עד מעבר ארץ בריטוניאה׃ ‏(‏חיא מדינת אנגאלטירה הנקרא בלא ענגל לנד׳‏)‏׃




                              LECTURE II.


WHEN I had the honour of addressing you from this platform on Tuesday
evening last, I endeavoured to establish, by circumstantial evidence,
the probability that the Jews visited this country at a very early
period of their history. I flatter myself, however, that I have
succeeded in demonstrating that some Jews were certainly in this island
in the very first century of the Christian era. How few, or how many,
is doubtful.

It is not too much, however, to expect that some of your minds, at least,
have been exercised on this important inquiry since we last met together.
It is not at all unlikely that some objections against my arguments
suggested themselves to your minds――objections which may at first sight
seem both plausible and natural. For instance, I know that a question
suggests itself on taking my view of the early introduction of the Jews
into this country――why did not Julius Cæsar make any mention of them in
his history of Britain? I meet it by another question. Did Cæsar omit
nothing else? Read his writings and compare them with the works of later
historians, and then tell me whether his silence on the existence of
the Jews in this country furnishes any argument against their having
really been here. If indeed he omitted nothing else but the Jews, there
would then be some force in the argument, but since we know that Cæsar’s
history of Britain affords us but a bird’s-eye view of the state of the
country in his time, what then is the value of such an argument? Again,
supposing that Cæsar wrote a minute and detailed description of Britain,
would there have been any necessity on his part to mention the existence
of the Jews? Certainly not; he wrote for the benefit of his countrymen,
to give them some information respecting the Britons. The Romans knew
who the Jews were; it would have been a waste of time on Cæsar’s part
to have given them information on a subject they were already acquainted
with. He might as well have described the Roman army; especially since
it is supposed that many Jews accompanied him as soldiers to Britain.

Another argument has been advanced against their establishment in this
country at so early a period, which was――“It is not probable that a
total silence respecting them would have prevailed among the British
writers of those days, had any portion of them been then established
in Britain.” I mention those objections because they are the strongest
which have been produced, and you will find them in the eighth volume of
the “English Archæologia,” page 390.

Now, I must meet this again by another question. To what early British
historians does Mr. Caley refer?――for that is the name of the writer
of the article on this subject in the “English Archæologia.”――England
had no literature for a very long period. Gildas, commonly called the
Wise, is the most ancient British historian now extant. Any one who has
ever taken the trouble to read through his “De Calamitate, Excidio, et
Conquestu Britanniæ” (this is the only work of his printed, and probably
existing), will despair of finding in it any thing of importance. Next
to him comes the venerable Bede, who was, indeed, the brightest ornament
of the eighth century, but he confined himself to ecclesiastical history.
Bede, however, does incidentally mention the Jews, as I shall presently
show, which proves that they must have been here anterior to his time.

I wish, however, first to call your attention to a striking feature in
the history of the Jews in this country. The Jews are never mentioned in
the early history of England, except to record some flagrant persecution,
or horrible massacre; to reckon up the amount of sums extorted from them
by kings in distress, or to detail some story about the crucifixion of
infants, got up by their enemies for the sake of making the objects of
their injustice odious as well as unfortunate. And when these subjects
did not occur to the monkish historians of the time――that is to say,
when the Jews were unmolested, peaceably employing themselves in traffic,
and gradually acquiring wealth which was not demanded from them too
largely or too rudely, in return for their safety and opportunities
of commerce――it would be conceived that they were unworthy of mention
on any other account. Historians always find the most prosperous to
be the most barren periods of history; as the richest and most fertile
country affords but an uninteresting landscape to the poet or the artist,
when compared with the wild rocks, rugged precipices, and unproductive
solitudes of mountain scenery. So we may fairly conclude that, until the
reign of Stephen, they were enjoying, without molestation, the benefits
of their traffic, and increasing in riches and wealth, whilst the peace
of their Gentile brethren was all that time rent asunder by different
invasions and seditions.

The first mention I find of the Jews in English works, is that in Bede’s
“Ecclesiastical History,” in connexion with the ridiculous and absurd
controversies which prevailed between the Romish and British monks, viz.,
about the form of the tonsure and the keeping of Easter. The priests of
all the then Christian churches were accustomed to shave part of their
head; but the form given to this tonsure was different in the Britons
from that used by the Roman monks, who came over to this country with
Augustine. The latter made the tonsure on the crown of the head, and
in a circular form, whilst the former shaved the forepart of their
head from ear to ear. The Romish monks, in order to recommend their
own form of tonsure, maintained that it imitated symbolically the
crown of thorns worn by our Lord in his passion. But as to the Britons,
their antagonists insisted that their form was invented by Simon Magus,
without any regard to that representation. The Britons also celebrated
Easter on the very day of the full moon in March, if that day fell on
a Sunday, instead of waiting till the Sunday following. The Britons
pleaded the antiquity of their usages; the Romans insisted on the
universality of theirs. In order to render the former odious, the latter
affirmed that their native priests once in seven years concurred with
the _Jews_ in the time of celebrating that festival.

This incidental circumstance proves that there must have been Jews here
who had synagogues, and observed the feast of Passover. The Jews must
also have had learned men amongst them to arrange their calendars: and
such an arrangement requires a fair astronomical knowledge, or else the
charge would have been totally unintelligible to the Saxons.

The above charge will account for the edict published soon after by
Ecgbright, Archbishop of York, in the “_Canonical Excerptiones_,” A.D.
740, to the effect, that no Christian should be present at any of the
Jewish feasts,¹ which establishes the fact that Jews must have resided
in this country at the time of the Saxon heptarchy, in tolerable numbers,
and celebrated their feasts according to their own law; and what is
more, they desired to live peaceably with their Christian neighbours.

    ¹ See Appendix A.

It also appears from a charter granted by Whitglaff, King of the
Mercians, to Croyland Abbey, ninety-three years after the above edict
was issued, that there were Jews in this country at that period, and
possessed landed property; and what is most remarkable, they endowed
Christian places of worship.

Ingulphus, in his “History of Croyland Abbey,” relates that in the
year 833, Whitglaff, King of the Mercians, having been defeated by
Egbert, took refuge in that abbey, and in return for the protection and
assistance rendered him by the abbot and monks on the occasion, granted
a charter, confirming to them all lands, tenements, and possessions,
and all other gifts which had at any time been bestowed upon them by his
predecessors or their nobles, or by any other faithful Christians, or by
Jews.¹

    ¹ See Appendix B.

The Jews in this country chronicle now in their almanack the following:
――“Canute banished the Jews from England,” A.D. 901.¹ Basnage also
asserts that “they were banished from this country in the beginning
of the eleventh century, and did not return till after the conquest.”
I cannot find the authority upon which these two statements rest,
and moreover it seems to me that some Jews were certainly resident in
England towards the middle of the eleventh century, and prior to the
Norman invasion. By the laws attributed to Edward the Confessor, it is
declared that “the Jews, wheresoever they be, are under king’s guard and
protection; neither can any one of them put himself under the protection
of any rich man, without the king’s license, for the Jews and all they
have belong to the king; and if any person shall detain them or their
money, the king may claim them, if he please, as his own:”² another
proof that the Jews were resident in this country prior to the invasion
of William the Conqueror.

    ¹ This is decidedly erroneous, for we know that Canute did not
      arrive in England before the beginning of the eleventh century.

    ² See Appendix C.

From the time of the Conquest, the information afforded by your
historians respecting the Jews, becomes gradually more extensive.
William the First, soon after he had obtained possession of the throne,
invited the Jews to come over in large numbers from Rouen, and to settle
in England; and he is reported to have appointed a particular place for
their residence.

Of the name of this town we are not accurately informed. But Peck,
in his annals, relates that many of the Jews who came over in this
reign, took up their residence at Stamford. And Wood, in his “History
of Oxford,” shows, upon the authority of some ancient deeds, that in the
tenth year after the Conquest, the Jews resided already in great numbers
in that university.

It appears that there were two distinct colonies of Jews――the one within
the walls of the city of London, the other in the liberties of the
Tower. I am inclined to adopt the idea that the Jews who came to this
country under the encouragement of the Conqueror, settled within the
jurisdiction of the constable of his Palatine Tower; and that the Jews
who settled in England before the Conquest, and who, according to the
laws published by Edward the Confessor, were declared to stand under the
immediate authority and jurisdiction of the king, were found immediately
adjoining that quarter of the city which appears to have been the court
end under the Saxon monarchs. Mathew Paris, a monkish historian, asserts
that St. Alban’s Church, which stands nearly in the middle of a line
drawn from “the Jewerie” within the city, to the angle of the wall at
Cripplegate, was the chapel of King Offa, and adjoining to his palace.
Mund mentions in his edition of Stow, that the great square tower
remaining at the north corner of Love-lane, in the year 1632, was
believed to be part of King Athelstan’s palace. The name of Addle-street
is derived by the same antiquarian from Adel or Ethel, the Saxon for
noble. The original council chamber of the alderman is known to have
stood somewhere in Aldermanbury, which had its name from it. Without
a certain, a positive belief in any one of these statements, their
coincidence seems to render it extremely probable that the royal
residence was in that quarter, which may account for the king’s men――the
Jews――taking up their residence near it.¹

    ¹ See Knight’s London.

William the Conqueror, as soon as he got the Jews into this country,
adopted the policy of Edward the Confessor. The chronicler Hoveden
states that in the fourth year of William the Conqueror’s reign, he held
a council of his barons, in which, among other things, it was provided
“that the Jews settled in this kingdom should be under the king’s
protection; that they should not subject themselves to any other without
his leave: it is declared that they and all theirs belong to the king;
and if any should detain any of their goods, the king might challenge
them as his own.”¹

    ¹ See Appendix D.

The first regular account we meet respecting the Jews in England is
during the reign of William Rufus, who, according to the unanimous
testimony of historians, seemed to have a mind capable of rising above
the superstition and ignorance of the age in which he lived, although
not sufficiently enlightened to receive the glorious light of the
Gospel; and owing to the distorted exhibition of Christianity by the
teachers of the same, he almost fell into infidelity, and from the
consistent conduct of the Jews, he was led to believe that Judaism
was at least as good as Christianity. He went therefore so far as
to summon a convocation at London of Christian bishops and Jewish
rabbies, for the express purpose of discussing the evidences of their
respective creeds; and the king swore by St. Luke’s face――a favourite
oath of his majesty――that if the Jews got the better in the dispute,
he would embrace Judaism himself. The Jewish disputants seemed to stand
their ground with vigour, for the Christian champions appeared rather
apprehensive of the result. At the conclusion, as it is generally the
case in public controversy, both parties claimed the victory. The former
added, however, publicly that they were overthrown more by fraud than by
force of argument. The Christians claimed the victory in consequence of
a tremendous thunder-storm and a violent earthquake. All this, however,
produced but little effect on the king’s mind.

The conduct of Rufus towards the Church, and his frequent disagreement
with the clergy, rendered him an object of dislike to the monkish
writers, who were the principal historians of this period. The following
is recorded of him by Hollingshed, and if true, his conduct was
certainly chargeable with no small measure of guilt:――

“The king being at Rhoan on a time, there came to him divers Jews
who inhabited that city, complaining that divers of that nation had
renounced their Jewish religion, and were become Christians; wherefore
they besought him that, for a certain sum of money which they offered to
give, it might please him to constrain them to abjure Christianity, and
to turn to the Jewish law again. He was content to satisfy their desires.
And so, receiving their money, called them before him; and what with
threats, and putting them otherwise in fear, he compelled divers of
them to forsake Christ, and to turn to their old errors. Hereupon the
father of one Stephen, a Jew converted to the Christian faith, being
sore troubled for that his son was turned a Christian (and hearing
what the king had done in like matters), presented unto him sixty marks
of silver conditionally, that he should enforce his son to return to
his Jewish religion; whereupon the young man was brought before the
king, unto whom the king said――‘Sirrah, thy father here complaineth
that without his license thou art become a Christian: if this be true, I
command thee to return again to the religion of thy nation, without any
more ado.’ To whom the young man answered――‘Your grace (as I guess) doth
but jest.’ Wherewith the king being moved, said――‘What! thou dunghill
knave, should I jest with thee? Get thee hence quickly, and fulfil
my commandment, or by St. Luke’s face, I shall cause thine eyes to be
plucked out of thine head.’ The young man, nothing abashed thereat, with
a constant voice answered――‘Truly I will not do it; but know for certain
that if you were a good Christian, you would never have uttered any such
words; for it is the part of a Christian to reduce them again to Christ
which are departed from him, and not to separate them from Him which
are joined to him by faith.’ The king, herewith confounded, commanded
the Jew to get him out of his sight. But the father perceiving that the
king could not persuade his son to forsake the Christian faith, required
to have his money again. To whom the king said, he had done so much
as he promised to do; that was, to persuade him so far as he might. At
length when he would have had the king dealt further in the matter, the
king, to stop his mouth, tendered back to him the half of his money, and
kept the other himself. All which increased the suspicion men had of his
infidelity.”

The state of the Jews in Oxford at that time became very interesting;
they were so exceedingly numerous and wealthy in that place, as to
become the proprietors of the principal houses, which they let to the
students. Their schools were at this time called, from their Jewish
proprietors, Lombard Hall, Moses Hall, and Jacob Hall; and the parishes
of St. Martin, St. Edward, and St. Aldgate, were designated the Old and
New Jewry, because of the great number of Jewish residents there. In one
of these parishes they had a synagogue wherein their rabbies instructed
not only their own people, but several Christian students of the
university.

When a see or living in the gift of this wary king fell vacant, he was
in the habit of retaining it in his own hands until he became pretty
well acquainted with its revenues, when he sold it to the best bidder.¹
The royal simonist was in the habit of appointing Jews to take care of
the vacant benefices, to farm them, and to manage these negociations
for his benefit; from this mark of confidence, and from the increasing
wealth of the Jews, we may conclude that the reign of Rufus was very
advantageous to the interests of his Jewish subjects. This king, however,
did not enjoy his kingdom for any long duration. His tragical end is
well known.

    ¹ When Lanfranc, Archbishop of Canterbury, died, William Rufus
      appointed no successor for five years after, but kept the
      possession of the archbishopric in his own hands.

In the long reign of Henry the First, we hear almost nothing of the
Jews, which I look upon as evidence that they went on prosperously, and
perhaps began to make some progress amongst their Christian brethren.
Prynne, a Puritan writer, and the most virulent enemy of the Jews from
among Protestants, informs us that the Jews were then beginning to
proselytize and even to bribe some Christians with money, in order
to induce them to embrace Judaism, which may account for the incident
mentioned in this reign, that monks were sent to several towns in which
the Jews were established, for the express purpose of preaching down
Judaism.

We read in Peck’s “Annals of Stamford,” that “Joffred, abbot of Croyland,
in the tenth year of Henry the First, sent some monks from his abbey
to Cottenham and Cambridge, to preach against the Jews; and about the
same time some ecclesiastics were sent from other parts to Stamford, to
oppose the progress of the Jews in that place;” where, as we are told
by Peter of Blessens, that “they preaching to Stamfordians, exceedingly
prospered in their ministry, and strengthened the Christian faith
against Jewish depravity.”

It appears from the history of Philip, prior of St. Frideswide, of
Oxford, that the Jews used then to mock publicly the lying fables of
the priests.

The prior, when writing of the miracles performed by the body of
that famous saint (which was preserved in his monastery), tells us
that “whereas people flocked from all parts of the kingdom to worship
St. Frideswide, and were cured by her of all manner of distempers; a
certain Jew of Oxford called Eum Crescat, the son of Mossey, the Jew,
of Wallingford, was so impudent as to laugh at her votaries, and tell
them that he could cure their infirmities as well as the saint herself,
and therefore hoped they would make him the same offerings. To prove
which he would sometimes crook his fingers, and then pretend he had
miraculously made them straight again; at other times he would halt
like a cripple, and then in a few minutes skip and dance about, bidding
the crowd observe how suddenly he had cured himself. Wherefore (the
most devout amongst them wishing some exemplary judgment might befall
him) St. Frideswide, no longer able to suffer his insolence, caused him
suddenly to run mad and hang himself; which he did with his own girdle,
in his father’s kitchen.” Upon which, says the historian, “he was,
according to custom, conveyed in a cart to London, all the dogs of the
city following his detestable corpse, and yelping in a most frightful
manner.”

The Jews having experienced so much favour and protection from the first
three Norman monarchs, were naturally led to hope that they had found
in this country a permanent asylum from their persecutions. Under this
impression, they had employed the season of their tranquillity in the
acquirement of property. They were, however, soon made to experience the
fallacy of their expectations; for with the accumulation of wealth their
security vanished, and as their riches increased, so, in proportion,
did their oppressions. From the period of this monarch’s death to the
time of their expulsion, your histories abound with details of their
hardships. A melancholy monotony pervades the history of those two
hundred years. Indeed, the treatment which they received in this country,
during that period, was of a nature more disgraceful than that they
received in other parts of Europe; for while elsewhere, as in Spain
and Germany, the monarchs generally exerted themselves to repress the
hostility of the clergy and people, the English kings, scarcely one
excepted, manifested as persecuting a spirit as any of their subjects.
It would be as useless as it would be tedious, to notice each particular
instance of cruelty and tyranny which is mentioned to have been
exercised towards them, for there is scarcely a year without some
records concerning them, and hardly a record which relates to them but
furnishes some evidence of their sufferings. Taxes and contributions
to an exorbitant amount, were continually imposed upon them at the mere
will of the crown, and payment enforced by seizure of their properties,
by imprisonment, and frequently by the infliction of the most cruel and
wanton bodily torture. Crimes of every description――many of a nature the
most absurd and groundless――were laid to their charge, and the severest
penalties inflicted for them. Tumults were, on the most frivolous
pretences, excited against them; their houses pillaged and burned, and
hundreds of them massacred by the populace, without regard to either age
or sex. That, under such an accumulation of misfortunes, the Jews should
not only have continued to reside in England, but greatly to increase in
numbers, cannot fail to excite wonder and surprise.

If Jews were the historians who handed down to us the accounts of their
sufferings, we might doubt the veracity of their statements, or believe
them greatly exaggerated. It is not, however, from themselves that
much of my information is derived, for, as I have already stated in my
last lecture, they did not bequeath us any annals of their own in this
country; my information is derived principally from the testimony of
Christian writers――from authorities which admit of no dispute.

With the reign of the usurper Stephen, the Jewish troubles commenced.
He being solicitous to obtain the good-will of the clergy, the best
means to compass such an end in those days was to inflict cruel injuries
on the poor Jews; and as he gave up the sources of income which his
predecessors had enjoyed――viz., the appropriation of the revenues of the
vacant sees and benefices, he therefore fixed his avaricious eye upon
the wealth of the Jews: and in the fifth year of his reign exacted a
heavy fine, amounting to £2000, from the Jews residing in London, under
pretence that some one of their body had been guilty of manslaughter.

The Empress Maud, to whom, as it was well said, “moderation in
prosperity was a virtue unknown,”¹ during the eight months of her
authority in England, compelled the Jews settled at Oxford to pay her an
exchange of money. Stephen, upon coming again to the possession of power,
followed the example of the empress, and required the Jews at the same
place to give him three and a-half exchanges; threatening on default
of immediate compliance to set fire to their houses. The Jews first
attempted to evade the payment; the king, to show that he was in earnest,
ordered the house of one of the richest of their body to be burned, and
this command having been put into execution, the whole sum was forthwith
produced.

    ¹ Henry’s Britain, vol. v., p. 104.

In the ninth year of this reign, the Jews were for the first time
accused of the crime of crucifying an infant――William by name. The
circumstance in this instance is only shortly noticed by historians, and
is stated to have taken place at Norwich; so that to the England of the
middle ages are the Jews indebted for the many persecutions which they
had to undergo in consequence of that foul calumny in different parts of
the world. Various are the absurd reasons which were advanced to account
for that base and false calumny which was subsequently brought against
the unfortunate Jews, in various countries of their captivity.

Some asserted that the Jews required Christian blood for the celebration
of the Passover. Another set of ignorant fanatics affirmed that they
wanted it to put into their unleavened cakes at Easter. It was also
gravely stated that the Jews used Christian blood to free them from an
ill odour which it was supposed was common to them; others said that of
Christian blood they made love potions; others that with it they stopped
the blood at the circumcision of their children; others that it served
as a remedy for the cure of secret diseases; others that it was required
for the Jewish bride and bridegroom during the marriage ceremony; others
that the Jewish priests were obliged to have their hands tinged with
it when they pronounced the blessing in the synagogues; others that it
helped Jewish women in childbirth, and promoted their recovery; others
that the Jews used blood to make their sacrifices acceptable. But the
most common story was, that the blood was used to anoint dying Jews;
that at the point of death the rabbi anointed his departing brother,
and secretly whispered into his ear these words――“If the Messiah on whom
the Christians believe, be the promised, true Messiah, may the blood of
this innocent murdered Christian help thee to eternal life!” “Pierius
Valerianus assures us that the Jews purchase at a dear rate the blood
of Christians, in order to raise up devils, and that by making it boil,
they obtain answers to all their questions.”¹

    ¹ See Dr. M‘Caul’s excellent pamphlet, entitled “Reasons for
      believing that the Charge lately revived against the Jewish
      People is a baseless Falsehood,” p. 23; Appendix E.

Englishmen now regard such tales as but the vestiges of a long passed-by
period; you listen to it with a smile as belonging to the “olden time;”
and because such base calumnies are no more brought against the Jews
in this your highly-favoured and enlightened country, you may think it
ill-timed to rake up acts of fanatics of the dark ages, which have long
since been buried in oblivion. But it is not so in the other countries
of Christendom; the same incredible charges are even now brought against
the Jews, and are also believed. Not longer than five years ago, the
Jews of Damascus suffered greatly because of such accusations. Only
eighteen months since, a poor Jewish blacksmith in Lithuania, in Poland,
was incarcerated in consequence of such a charge, and was on the point
of being transported to Siberia, when the zealous Christians of the
nineteenth century, of that province, who brought the accusation,
quarrelled amongst themselves, which discovered the real culprit, who
was a Christian by profession, and perpetrated the murder on a young
girl, in order to accuse the Jew.

In the annals of the reign of Henry the Second, we read of the same
charge being brought against the Jews twice. In the sixth year of that
reign, the act is stated to have been perpetrated at Gloucester.

The ecclesiastics were already debtors to the Jews, and therefore began
to charge them with usury, which was on all occasions held up by the
clergy to be a crime of the greatest magnitude; though, when the same
ecclesiastics wanted money, they did not scruple to trust those sinners
with the vessels of their churches; for, in the records of this reign
which have come down to us, we find it stated among other things, that
a Jew of Bury St. Edmund’s, Sancto by name, was fined five marks for
taking in pledge from the monks of that place certain vessels dedicated
to the service of the altar. Another Jew of Suffolk, Benet by name, was
fined twenty pounds for taking some consecrated vestments upon pawn.

A curious story is also related by Hoveden and Brompton, respecting
William de Waterville, the Abbot of Bury. He was deposed for having
entered the church at the head of a band of armed men, and taken thence
the arm of St. Oswald, the martyr, to pawn it to the Jews.

One of the claims advanced by King Henry against Archbishop Thomas à
Becket, was in respect of a sum of £500, for which that prince had been
surety for him to a Jew.

All those things coming to light, however, could not fail to swell that
animosity against the Jews which had already existed in the breasts of
the clergy, who even now regarded them with particular abhorrence. They
seized, therefore, every opportunity of prejudicing the people against
them, and rendering them the objects of general detestation. Fox, the
martyrologist, favours us with a list of admonitions which was given
to King Henry the Second, and in that list we find him required by
the bishops “to banish all the Jews, allowing them to take with them
sufficient property to pay their travelling expenses.” What “tender
mercies!”

During the reign of Henry the Second, the Jews were subjected also to
severe exactions from the crown; on one occasion a tallage of a fourth
part of their chattels was levied upon them. When ambassadors were sent
over to the king by the Emperor Barbarossa, to induce him to take part
against Pope Alexander in a schism which then existed in the Church of
Rome, respecting the right of succession to the papal chair, the sum of
5,000 marks was demanded of the Jews, to be applied for the purpose of
enlisting the emissaries to the king’s interest.¹ This sum was directed
to be paid without delay, and those who refused to contribute were
immediately banished from the country. Besides these demands upon the
body of the Jews generally, individuals amongst them were also compelled
to pay sums to a large amount.

    ¹ Henry II., King of England, and Louis VII., King of France,
      held respectively councils of their clergy in July, 1161, for
      the purpose of taking into consideration the pretensions of
      Alexander III. and Victor IV., both of whom claimed the papal
      throne. The monarchs met at a general council in Thoulouse,
      in August, and agreed to acknowledge Alexander as Pope.――_W.
      Neubrigen_, L. 2, c. 9.

We read of a Jew of Gloucester, Josce by name, who was fined for
supplying the Irish rebels with great sums of money.

However, King Henry, in the twenty-fourth year of his reign, was
pleased to show the Jews some slight indulgence. He allowed them to have
cemeteries at the outside of every town they inhabited, for until that
time they had only one place of interment, which was near London, in the
parish of St. Giles Cripplegate, commonly designated in ancient deeds
“The Jews’ Garden.”

Having experienced such an especial favour from the hands of the king,
their spirits were raised a little, and they even ventured to show
their independence in the presence of their bitterest foes, viz., the
ecclesiastics.

We read in Giraldus Cambrensis of “a certain Jew, who about this time
chanced to travel towards Shrewsbury in company with Richard _Peche_
(Sin), Archdeacon of _Malpas_ (Bad-steps), in Cheshire, and a reverend
dean, whose name was Deville. Amongst other discourse which they
condescended to entertain him with, the archdeacon told him that his
jurisdiction was so large as to reach from a place called _Ill-street_,
all along till they came to _Malpas_, and took in a very wide
circumference of the country. To which the infidel, being more witty
than wise, immediately replied, ‘Say you so, sir? God grant me then a
good deliverance, for it seems I am riding in a country where _Sin_ is
the archdeacon, and the _Devil_ himself the dean; where the entrance
into the archdeaconry is _Ill-street_, and the going forth from it,
_Bad-steps_’――alluding to the French words _peche_ and _mal-pas_.”

It was properly observed, that “it is perhaps too much to judge of the
state and condition of a body of people by a casual jest which fell
from an individual of that body, and yet we would not wish for better
information concerning the actual condition of a small society of men,
dwelling in and at the mercy of an alien country, than the manners and
character of a single person out of the whole community.”¹

    ¹ Retrospective Review, vol. i., p. 207.

Dr. Jost thinks that the above piece of wit owed its existence to the
French schools, and justly observes that it does not follow from it
that the Jews were prone to abuse their fellow-creatures (as Dr. Tovey
intimates), even if they disregarded the clergy. Truth to speak, _they_
merited nothing else from the hands of the Jews but disregard and
contempt.¹

    ¹ “_Vor ihren Hange zur Witzelei, der sich bei allen, die
      aus der frazözischen Schule entsprossen sind und noch
      entspriessen, immer findet, hat uns die Zeit noch eine
      Anecdote erhalten, die wir als characteristisch nicht
      übergehen können.... Daraus folgt nun gerade nicht, was
      der Berichterstatter daraus entnehmen will, dass die Juden
      so gerne ihre Nebenmenschen beleidigten, da sie sogar die
      Geistlichen nicht geschont hätten._”――Jost’s Geschichte der
      Israeliten, vol. vii., p. 114.

The priests, however, did not appreciate the buoyancy of their spirits,
and were not backwards in depressing them, and their indulgence
therefore was but of short duration. They watched every opportunity for
doing so, and the king’s extremity afforded them a convenient season.
The king wanted money, and the monks knew it; they therefore accused
the Jews of crucifying a boy at Bury St. Edmund’s, Robert by name,
which proved a source of great income both to Church and State. Bury
St. Edmund’s had already become famous for its monastic establishments,
and the monks, it seems, who were settled there, did not fail to derive
advantage from the feelings which the belief of the crime excited. They
caused the body of the child to be interred with great ceremony and
every mark of respect; the shrine was declared capable of producing
supernatural effects, and speedily became renowned for the miracles
which it wrought. Persons from all parts, either led by curiosity, or
induced by feelings of superstition, visited the shrine. The offerings
which were made on the occasion could not fail to be productive of
considerable profit to the Church.

The king, on the other hand, took ♦advantage of the supposed crime, and
banished the wealthiest Jews out of this country, and, as a matter of
course, confiscated their properties, and fined heavily those he allowed
to remain.

    ♦ ‘advanvantage’ replaced with ‘advantage’

This alone was enough to damp their spirits, and make them very low; but
the measure of their sufferings was not as yet full in this reign. The
crusading mania revived; King Henry determined to take an active part
in that affair, together with Philip Augustus, King of France; the want
of cash in such an expedition was inevitable. Though the Jews had by
no means either any desire for, or any interest in, the planting of the
cross at Jerusalem, the king saw fit, however, to assess them at £60,000
towards it, whilst the whole Christian population of England were only
required to furnish £70,000. It is easy to imagine in what a state of
consternation this poor, persecuted race must have been thrown.

I can easily conceive a fast-day proclaimed, and an especial
prayer-meeting announced, that God would avert that impending calamity.
Happy for the poor Jews, however, that the then dispensation was
a quarrelsome one: the harmony between Henry the Second of England
and Philip Augustus, soon came to a termination――the British king is
supposed to have died of grief in consequence, and with his death the
Jewish prospects of prosperity revived; the Jews began to hope that
their apprehended troubles had disappeared, and that an era of better
days was on the eve of being introduced into their British annals.

They began again to apply themselves to commerce, of which they were the
masters: they traded with the south of Europe, and thus accumulated vast
sums, which they transferred from one hand to another by means of bills
of exchange――an invention for which commerce is said to be indebted to
them, and which enabled them to transfer their wealth from land to land,
that when threatened with oppression in one country, their treasure
might be secured in another.

The learned amongst them employed themselves in literature and science,
and promoted the same amongst their Christian neighbours. Whilst the
Christians of that period were groping in the darkness of superstition
and ignorance, the Jews enjoyed and improved the sunshine of intellect
and knowledge. They were honoured in Spain by the appellation of
_sapientissimi_. Whilst the Greek authors were totally neglected by
Christians――and even John of Salisbury, though a few Greek words are
to be found in his compositions, seems to have had only the slightest
possible acquaintance with that language――the Jews, however, were
reading, in their own language, several works of Aristotle, Plato,
Ptolemy, Apollonius, Hippocrates, Galen, and Euclid, which they
derived from the Arabic of the Moors, who brought them from Greece
and Egypt, and employed much of their time in writing dissertations
and controversial arguments upon them. They were the means, therefore,
of the old classics being actively disseminated amongst the western
colleges of Christendom.

The Jews also held the principal chairs of mathematics in the Mahommedan
colleges of Cordova and Seville; they came in contact with many
Christians, and spread themselves into various countries; they taught
the geometry, the algebra, the logic, and the chemistry of Spain, in
the universities of Oxford and Paris, while Christian students from all
parts of Europe repaired to Andalusia for such instruction.¹

    ¹ See “the Fundamental Principles of Modern Judaism
      Investigated,” pp. 238, 239. Also “An Apology for the Study
      of Hebrew and Rabbinical Literature,” by the Rev. Dr. M‘Caul.

In this country, the Jews had schools in London, York, Lincoln, Lynn,
Norwich, Oxford, Cambridge, and other towns, which appear to have been
attended by Christians as well as by those of their own persuasion. Some
of these seminaries, indeed, were rather colleges than schools. Besides
the Hebrew and Arabic languages, arithmetic and medicine are mentioned
among the branches of knowledge that were taught in them; and the
masters were generally the most distinguished of the rabbies.¹

    ¹ Knight’s Weekly, volume xvii., p. 64.

In this reign the celebrated Aben Ezra visited England, and wrote his
work אגרת השבת, _Egereth Ha-Shabbath_, or Epistle on the Sabbath. From the
date the rabbi prefixed to that work, which runs thus――“And it came to
pass in the year 4919 [A.M. 1159, A.D.], in the middle of the night,
even on a Sabbath night, on the fourteenth day of the month Tebath
[corresponding to January], and I, Abraham Aben Ezra, the Sephardy [or
Spaniard], have been in one of the cities of the island called ‘the end
of the earth,’”¹――it is evident that that rabbi visited this country
a great deal earlier than Dr. Tovey fancies, who thinks that it was in
King Richard’s time.²

    ¹ See Appendix F.

    ² Anglia Judaica, p. 35.

They practised successfully as physicians in this country; they
possessed a thorough knowledge of the medical science in all its
branches. The monarchs and powerful barons of the time frequently
committed themselves to the charge of some experienced sage amongst them,
when wounded or in sickness; and in consequence of the many cures which
their superior medical skill enabled them to effect, they incurred the
envy of the monks, who pretended to effect cures by the means of sainted
relics. They therefore circulated a report that the Jews were acquainted
with the occult sciences and with the cabalistic art, and therefore
performed their cures by incantations and witchcraft, and a general
belief was soon entertained that the Jews were sorcerers,¹ which proved
a source of no small calamity to them in subsequent reigns. Thus also
the second baseless accusation against the Jews owes its existence to
the British ecclesiastics of that reign, whose morning and evening
delight was to do foul scorn to the poor Jewish nation.

    ¹ See Appendix G.




                        APPENDIX TO LECTURE II.


                                   A.

THE 146th paragraph of the “Canonical Excerptiones” of Archbishop
Ecgbright runs thus:――“_A Laodicean act._――That no Christian presume
to Judaize, or be present at Jewish feasts.” To which Johnson, in
his collection of ecclesiastical laws and canons, adds, “By this one
would suppose there were in this age Jews in the north of England.”
――_Johnson’s Collection of Ecclesiastical Laws._

The following is the 149th paragraph of the same “Canonical
Excerptiones:”――“A canon of the saints. If any Christian sell a
Christian into the hands of Jews or Gentiles, let him be anathema: for
it is written in Deuteronomy, ‘If any man be caught trafficking for
any of the stock of Israel, and takes a price for him, he shall die.’”
――_Johnson’s Collection of Ecclesiastical Laws._


                                   B.

“Omnes terras, et tenementas, possessiones, et eorum peculia, quæ reges
Merciorum, et eorum Proceres, vel alii fideles Christiani, vel Judæi
dictis Monarchis dederunt.”


                                   C.

22. _De Judæis._――“Sciendum quoque quod omnes Judæi ubicunque in regno
sunt sub tutela et defensione Regis ligea debent esse, nec quilibet
eorum alicui diviti se potest subdere sine Regis licentia. Judæi enim
et omnia sua Regis sunt. Quod si quispiam detinuerit eos vel pecuniam
eorum, perquirat Rex si vult tanquam suum proprium.”――_Spelman’s
Concilia Decreta, &c._, vol. i., p. 623.


                                   D.

“Sciendum est quoque, quod omnes Judæi, ubicunque in regno sunt, sub
tutela et defensione Domini regis sunt; nec quilibet eorum alicui diviti
se potest subdere, sine Regis licentia. Judæi, et omnia sua Regis sunt.
Quod si quispiam detinuerit eis pecuniam suam, perquirat Rex tanquam
suum proprium.”


                                   E.

Dr. M‘Caul goes on to say――“Wagenseil gravely undertakes to disprove
most of these charges; but it is to be hoped that the mere mention of
them together is sufficient to show their falsehood. It is rather too
bad to reproach the Jews, on the one hand, with unbelief, hatred, and
contempt for Christians, and then to charge them with such faith in the
wonder-working and soul-saving power of Christian blood, that to obtain
it they expose themselves to the fury of their enemies. The enormous
lying, profound ignorance of Judaism and the Jews, as well as the
degrading superstition involved in some of these charges, throws
discredit upon all. The mere recital of these follies shows that they
are the offspring of an unbelieving imagination, if not the invention
of a malignant heart.”――_Reason, &c._, pp. 23, 24.


                                   F.

ויהי בשנת ארבעת אלפים ותשע מאות ותשע עשרה שנה בחצי הלילה בליל השבת בארבעה עשר לחדש טּבת ואני אברהם
ספרדי אבן עזרא הייתי בעיר אחת מערי האי הנקרא קצה הארץ‏.‏





This work has been published in Prague in 1839, in a learned Hebrew
periodical, called כרם חמד _Kerem Chemed_. In the thirty-fifth volume of
the “Quarterly Review,” in an article headed Hurwitz’s Hebrew Tales,”
p. 113, the following passage is to be met with:――“It may astonish the
inquirer into the literary productions of our country, to be informed
that one of the earliest books written here after the Conquest, was by
one of the most eminent of the rabbies, Aben Ezra. In 1159, the sixth
year of Henry II., he wrote from London a letter on the proper time
of keeping the Sabbath, in verse; and in the same year his Jesod Mora
(the Foundation of Fear), a treatise in twelve sections, on the various
requisites for the study of Scripture and science, &c.... We are afraid
that there is not a copy of it in the British Museum, and yet it ought
to be there as a national curiosity. It would be amusing to speculate on
what were the opinions of the critical and scientific Jew on the state
of civilization and literature which he saw about him.”


                                   G.

“_Die Gelehrten unter ihnen trieben die Arzeneiwissenschaft, doch mehr
als Kunst, und sie sind durch Bekanntschaft mit geheimen Heilmitteln so
berühmt gewesen, dass die Geistlichkeit in ihrem Wunder-Kuren gestört
ward, und nur dadurch einen Ausweg suchte, dass sie die Juden für
Zauberer verschrie. Daher hat das gemeine Volk sich geängstigt Juden ans
Krankenbette zu rufen._”――Jost’s Geschichte der Israeliten, vol. vii.,
pp. 113, 114.

Dr. M‘Caul, after dilating on the Jewish knowledge of astronomy, writes
thus:――“Their attention to medicine is a matter of equal notoriety.
Their medical literature is considerable, and would, no doubt, throw
much light on the history of that science.... For a long list of
Jewish medical writers, see Barlolocii, part iv.; Repertorium libr. per
Materias, p. li.; and the Catalogue of the Oppenheim Library, pp. 171,
497, 645.”――_An Apology for the Study of Hebrew and Rabbinical
Literature_, p. 6.




                              LECTURE III.


IN my last lecture I brought down the history of the Jews in this
country, to the death of Henry the Second. The reign of that monarch
seems, upon the whole, especially when compared with subsequent reigns,
not to have been very unfavourable to the prosperity of the Jews. They
experienced the usual share of imprisonment, fine, and banishment,
which does not seem to have much depressed their general state. From the
nature of some of the fines, which I described to you on Friday evening
last, we may infer the wealth and power of individuals amongst them.
One Josce, it seems, was fined by the king for supplying the rebels
in Ireland with large sums of money; another Jew was fined for taking
in pawn the abbey plate of St. Edmundsbury. When the king intended to
proceed to the Holy Land, after having made an agreement to the same
effect with Philip Augustus, King of France, at the parliament held at
Northampton in the year 1188, the Jews were commanded to supply nearly
half the subsidy requisite for the undertaking――the Christians being
taxed at £70,000, and the Jews at £60,000; and though this money was
never levied, in consequence of a disagreement between the two kings,
and Henry’s subsequent death, as I have already stated,¹ yet these are
facts which clearly prove the flourishing state of the Jewish finances
in England during this reign; and although the Jews had been frequently
subjected to heavy pecuniary exactions under the reign of Henry the
Second, still the vigorous administration of that prince had shielded
them from popular violence. They were still able to carry on their
trades and their professions. In spite of the reports circulated by the
monks, that the Jews were sorcerers (in consequence of their superior
medical skill), Christian patients would frequent the houses of the
Jewish physicians in preference to the monasteries, where cures were
pretended to have been effected by some extraordinary relics, such as
the nails of St. Augustine, the extremity of St. Peter’s second toe, the
breath of our Lord, which Nicodemus secured in a glove, the feathers of
the wings of the archangel Michael, and more such-like relics. I need
hardly add that the cures effected by the Jewish physicians were more
numerous than those by the monkish impostors.

    ¹ From Henry’s History of Great Britain, one would be led to
      believe that the “one hundred and thirty thousand pounds were
      raised.”――Vol. v., p. 182.

Andrews――who was evidently no friend to the Jews――in his continuation
of Henry’s Britain, observes――“The partiality in favour of Jewish
physicians was unaccountable, and probably ill-founded; yet Elizabeth
chose to trust her health in the hands of the Hebrew, Rodrigo Lopez,
rather than have recourse to many English students in medicine,
of considerable abilities, who attended her court.” And in a note
he adds――“The same fantastic preference had made Francis I., when
indisposed with a tedious complaint, apply to Charles V. for an
Israelite, who was the imperial physician. Accordingly, the person
whom he sought for visited Paris; but the king, finding that he had
been converted to Christianity, lost all confidence in his advice, and
applied to his good ally, Soliman II., who sending him a true, hardened
Jew, the monarch took his counsel, drank asses’ milk, and recovered.”¹

    ¹ Vol. ii., p. 63.

When King Henry died, the Jews began to hope for better days. They were
encouraged in their hopes by Richard’s conduct, who, after his return
from Normandy――where he had been as prince――proclaimed liberty to all
prisoners and captives, even to the greatest criminals. The coronation
day, which was to take place in the beginning of the month of September,
A.D. 1189, was proclaimed by the intended king to be an universal day of
joy; and to crown all, that year was believed by all Jews to have been
one of their jubilees.

All these circumstances conspired to flatter the oppressed Jews, and
to raise their expectation that they also would experience mercy from
the lion-hearted monarch, and led them to hope that together with this
reign an era of better days would be introduced into the annals of their
history in this country. But, alas! hope told them a flattering tale.

From the accession of this sovereign to the throne, the Jews had to date
in characters of blood the commencement of a new and most severe series
of sufferings and outrages; their footsteps in this country from the
days of Richard to the days of Edward the First――when they were finally
banished――may be tracked by their blood; against them sympathy has been
steeled, and for their rights justice has had no balances. So far has
the bitterness of their affliction been from exciting commiseration, or
their hopeless prostration from disarming cruelty, that however Norman,
Saxon, Dane, and Briton may have differed in other respects, and however
adverse they were to each other, they concurred in treading down the
Jews, and contended which should look with greatest detestation upon a
people whom it was accounted a point of religion to hate, to revile, to
despise, to plunder, and to persecute.

How truly was it said, that “except, perhaps, the flying fish, there
was no race existing on the earth, in the air, or in the waters, who
were the objects of such an unintermitting, general, and relentless
persecution as the Jews of this period. Upon the slightest and most
unreasonable pretences, as well as upon accusations the most absurd and
groundless, their persons and property were exposed to popular fury.”¹

    ¹ Sir Walter Scott.

It may not be uninstructive, however, to dwell on the history of the
Jews in this realm during that period――though a dreary tale of woe――as
it throws a great measure of light upon the national character of the
people of this country, and the nature of its government during the dark
ages of its annals; and if it be painful to you to hear of massacres,
extortions, and persecutions perpetrated by your ancestors, upon a
defenceless people, it is still a subject of congratulation that you
are permitted to turn your eyes upon the improved state both of the
persecuted and the persecutors――an idea which is naturally reflected
from the opaque surface of these barbarous times with a luminous
brightness, upon your own more happy epoch.

Richard _Cœur de Lion_, whose whole thoughts were engaged in the
contemplated relief of the Holy Land, and the recovery of Jerusalem,
seems to have regarded the Jews with feelings of especial antipathy,
as being the determined and sworn enemies of a religion of which he
professed himself so zealous a champion. The courtiers and the clergy,
especially Baldwin, Archbishop of Canterbury, endeavoured to make
the king believe that the Jews were in general sorcerers, and might
possibly bewitch him if allowed to be present at his coronation.
Actuated by these sentiments, and desirous, perhaps, to give proof
of the _sovereign_ contempt he entertained towards the opponents of
Christianity in general, Richard, as one of the first acts of his reign,
caused a proclamation to be issued, the day before his inauguration,
forbidding any woman or Jew to approach the palace during the ceremony
of his coronation. Both women and Jews were considered by the ministers
of the Church to practice sorcery and witchcraft.¹

    ¹ Miss Strickland gives the following as a reason for the
      exclusion of women:――“As the etiquette of the queen-mother’s
      recent widowhood prevented her from sharing in this splendid
      festival, all women were forbidden to be present at its
      celebration.”――_Queens of England_, vol. i., p. 373.

The issuing of such a proclamation at the commencement of the reign,
was an ill omen of the treatment which the Jews were to expect under
the government of the new monarch. They were desirous, if possible, to
reconcile the mind of the king, and with a view to this purpose, deputed
some of the chief men from amongst them to carry rich presents to him.¹
These persons, hoping that they would be protected by reason of the
gifts of which they were the bearers――which, as Dr. Tovey says, “were
full worthy of his acceptance”――ventured to approach the courtyard of
the palace at the time of the coronation, in order to crave leave of
admittance, but the confluence pressing forward, they were, before
they could obtain permission to enter, forced within the gates. The
attendants who were stationed at the entrance, charged them with
disobedience to the king’s command, and with blows forced them back into
the street. The mob who were assembled at the outside, when they saw
what took place, raised a cry that the king desired the proclamation
he had issued to be enforced, and forthwith fell upon such of the Jews
as were mingled with the crowd, and beating them, many were severely
wounded, some killed, and many were left half dead. A report was now
quickly spread through the city that the king had ordered all the Jews
to be put to death, for the disregard they had shown to his proclamation.
The people lost no time in putting this supposed order into execution.
The Jews were sought out by the populace in every quarter of the city,
and wherever they were found, were slain without mercy. Many took refuge
in their houses, and defended themselves with determined courage, till
the rabble, whose fury was increased by the opposition they experienced,
set fire to their houses and burned them to the ground, the Jews
and their families perishing in the flames. The cruelties that were
inflicted were so atrocious, that the more sober-minded citizens, who
had in vain endeavoured to restrain the mob, sent information at length
to the king of what was taking place. He was at the time seated at the
banquet, but immediately gave directions to Randulph de Grandville,
the Lord High Steward, to quell the tumult. This officer, taking with
him some of the chief nobility, used his endeavours to put a stop to
the outrage; but the populace would pay no regard to his authority,
threatened him with violence, and compelled him to retire. No
interference of the chief justice and his officers, whom the king had
despatched to quell the tumult, availed, until the multitude were gorged
with spoil, and tired with the labour of slaughter. The tumult continued
during the whole night; the houses of all the Jews were plundered, and
most of them burned, and it was not till the next day that an end was
put to the proceedings, by a large force sent into the city by the king.
A few of the most active of the rioters were apprehended, and three of
them were afterwards executed; not, however, for the pillage and murder
of the unfortunate Jews. One of them was hanged because he did not
_confine_ his villany to the Jews, but took advantage of the uproar to
plunder the house of a Christian; and the other two――who also met with
the same fate――because by setting fire to the house of a Jew they had
exposed the dwellings of the neighbouring Christians to destruction. And
we are further informed by another historian, “that the inquiry soon
stopped, as many considerable citizens were involved in the guilt, and
as the priests applauded the pious zeal which destroyed so many enemies
to the Christian faith.”²

    ¹ Those who came from a distance must have been totally ignorant
      of the royal proclamation since it was only one day old.

    ² Noorthouck, p. 34.

The celebrated Rabbi, Jacob of Orleans, was among the great number of
Jews who were slain on this night; as appears from the following short
notice of that awful event, by Rabbi ♦Gedaliah ben Joseph Jachija, in
his _Shalsheleth Hakabbalah_, fol. cxi., col. i.:――“In the year 4930
[A.M. 1190, A.D.] when Richard became new king in the city of London,
which is in England, our Rabbi, Jacob of Orleans, was put to death in
glorification of God’s name, and many other Jews with him.”¹

    ♦ ‘Gedeliah’ replaced with ‘Gedaliah’

    ¹ See Appendix A.

The following circumstance, which occurred during that dreadful uproar,
will give us some idea of the means which the Christian Church of that
period employed in order to bring the Jews to a knowledge of salvation.
Whilst animated by the above-mentioned mad frenzy and murderous rage, a
Jew who was called Baruch (being interpreted, Benedict or Blessed), of
York, was seized, and commanded to choose either to profess Christianity
or to die immediately. This man, to save his life, called out that he
would embrace the Christian faith, whereupon he was carried by the mob
to the Prior of St. Mary of York, and was by him baptized. The king,
hearing of the conversion, or rather of the baptism, commanded the
Jew to be brought into his presence, and catechised him whether he had
sincerely renounced his former faith. He answered that he had not, but
only through fear of death submitted to whatever the Christians required
of him. Richard, who was at the time attended by the chief dignitaries
of the Church, asked the Archbishop of Canterbury what punishment should
be inflicted on the apostate? The archbishop replied――“Not any; for if
he will not be a man of God, let him be a man of the devil.”

“With which answer,” says the author of the Anglia Judaica, “the king
being something surprised, suffered the man to slip away, and there
was no further notice taken of him.” He continues――“This archbishop,
delighting more in carnal than spiritual warfare, had his brains knocked
out, within a few months after, at the siege of Acre.” Poor Benedict,
however, did not survive more than a few days after that.

The Jews, in order to secure the king’s favour, came forward with
large supplies of money towards the holy expedition――profanely so
called――which the king undertook that year, and were therefore declared
by proclamation to be under the king’s especial protection.

But the spirit which had broken out in London against them, was
speedily communicated to other parts of the country. To put an end to
these disorders, the king caused writs to be issued through all the
counties, forbidding any molestation to be offered to the Jews. But
notwithstanding these writs, the Jews were, in many places, subjected to
severe persecutions; they were attacked in so many places at once, that
their utter ruin seemed determined and inevitable. Brompton tells us
that the citizens of Norwich were the first who followed the bad example
of the Londoners, and were soon followed by those of other places. In
Dunstable and some other towns they saved themselves by professing to
renounce the Jewish faith, and by being baptized into the so-called
Church of Christ. In the town of Lynn they were treated with great
severity and cruelty. And here must be remarked――for it is the part of
an impartial historian to state the whole truth, _pro_ and _con_――that
the Jews were themselves the authors of their sufferings at Lynn.

The circumstances under which the tumult there took place, were the
following:――a Jew had been converted to Christianity; his brethren were
enraged at his conduct, and sought to be revenged. They waylaid him, and
one day as he passed through the streets, endeavoured to get him into
their power; he, however, fled, and took refuge in a neighbouring church;
some of the Jews pursued him thither; whereupon the sailors belonging to
a ship then lying in the harbour, raised a cry that it was intended to
put the convert to death, and being joined by the townspeople, under the
plea of saving the man’s life, fell upon the Jews, drove them to their
dwellings, and entering with them, slew many, carried off whatever
valuables they could find, and then set fire to their houses. The
mariners, enriched by the spoil, embarked immediately on board their
vessel, and putting to sea, got clear off. The townspeople were called
to account for the outrage which had been committed, in disobedience to
the proclamation issued by the king, but escaped punishment by laying
the whole blame to the charge of the sailors. Dr. Jost betrays here――as
well as in many other places――no small measure of partiality, when he
takes upon himself, without any reason whatever, to assert that “it was
doubtless _his_ [_i.e._ the convert’s] fault that he was persecuted in
the open street, by his former co-religionists.¹”

    ¹ _Den Anlass dazu gab ein getaufter Jude, der, ohne Zweifel
      durch seine Schuld, von seinen ehemaligen Genossen auf
      offener Strasse verfolgt wurde._ Geschichte der Israeliten,
      vol. vii., p. 119.

The same spirit of animosity still pervades the feelings of the Jews
towards their converted brethren. A circumstance to the same effect
happened in this town (Liverpool) about three years ago. A Jew who
had been groundlessly suspected of inquiring into the doctrines of
Christianity, entered a Jewish shop on the eve of the Passover, and was
accosted by another Jew who was in the shop, by the salutation, you are
an accursed _M’shoomad_,¹ which the accused repudiated with disdain.
The accuser, thinking, I suppose, that he had an opportunity to do God
service, gave his brother a tremendous blow on his face; by which he
almost broke his nose. As I said before, the charge was made without
any ground; the insulted Jew therefore, who was ignorant of the precept,
“pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you,” took
out the offender, on the first day of Passover, from the synagogue, and
brought him before the mayor of this town, and had him duly punished.

    ¹ A nickname given by unconverted Jews to their brethren who
      believe in Christ. See Appendix B.

The Rev. Mr. Pauli, missionary to the Jews at Amsterdam, writes thus
on the eighth of June last:¹――“This moment I hear of the following
extraordinary occurrence. Last night a Jewish gentleman, no doubt from
the country, was passing the Jewish quarter. Some Jews took him for
me, and in a second a tremendous crowd, chiefly Portuguese Jews, was
assembled, and in spite of all remonstrances of the poor man that he was
not ‘Domine’ Pauli, they rushed upon him and beat him unmercifully, and
left him half dead. When the mistake was found out, they did all they
could to prevent the ill-used gentleman from giving notice of the affair
to the police. He complied with their request, only wishing heartily
that his bruises and broken head could be transferred to me.”

    ¹ See Jewish Intelligence for July, 1845, p. 259.

The Rev. H. S. Joseph, formerly a Jewish Rabbi of Bedford, now a
clergyman of the Church of England, was called upon after his conversion
to Christianity, by a Mr. Moses T. Ansell, a connexion of his, who
professed to be friendly disposed towards him, and wishing to discuss
in a quiet manner the doctrines of Christianity, with which Mr. Joseph
readily complied. The discussion lasted for some time, during which Mr.
Joseph endeavoured to prove to his friend that his reasons for embracing
Christianity were cogent ones.¹ Mr. Ansell, finding that he could not
disprove the convert’s arguments from Scripture, said to him――“Now we
are by ourselves; you need not be afraid of me, I will divulge your mind
to nobody. Tell me, then, do you really believe that Jesus of Nazareth,
the crucified one, was the Messiah?” (The unbelieving Jews fancy that
it is impossible for a Jew to be really a believer in Christ, however
powerful the arguments are in favour of Christianity.) Mr. Joseph
replied――“I believe from my heart that Jesus of Nazareth was the true
Messiah, and in him alone do I hope for salvation.” No sooner did he
utter that confession, than his guest laid violent hands on him, and
knocked him down to the ground. What carnal weapons! It was well for
Mr. Ansell that Mr. Joseph was a Christian. To return, however, to the
twelfth century.

    ¹ See a small pamphlet of his, entitled, “Reasons for believing
      that Jesus of Nazareth was the expected Messiah.”

By this time King Richard had passed over to the Continent, to join
the king of France in the crusade to Palestine. Those who had taken the
cross were assembled in most of the principal towns, preparing to follow
him. Of these, the greater number were ill provided with funds to defray
the expenses of their journey to the Holy Land, and their zeal in the
sacred cause readily justified any conduct, whereby the pious object to
which they were pledged might be advanced. They observed with envy that
the Jews were possessed of wealth; they regarded them as infidels, and
worked themselves into a belief that they should render good service
to God, if, by wresting the riches from the hands of unbelievers,
they obtained the means for aiding in the overthrow of the enemies of
Christianity in the East.

On the seventh day of March 1190, a public fair being held at Stamford,
had drawn together to that place great multitudes of people, and amongst
them whole troops of those _roaming saints_, as they were called. These
zealous men, indignant that the enemies of Christ should abound in
wealth, while they, who were His great friends, were obliged to strip
their wives and children of common necessaries, in order to be equipped
with travelling expenses, argued that God would be highly honoured if
they should first destroy all the Jews, and then possess themselves
of their property. “So ready are men to believe what makes for their
worldly advantage”――observes Tovey――“accordingly they flew upon them
with great vigour and resolution, and finding very little resistance
from an oppressed and spiritless enemy, quickly made themselves masters
both of their persons and fortunes; the former of which they treated
with all kinds of barbarity. Some few of them, indeed, were so fortunate
as to get shelter in the castle, whither, as they fled without their
riches, the source of all their misery, they were not earnestly
pursued. And as these devout pilgrims pretended to do all this for the
advancement of God’s glory, to show they were in earnest, they took
shipping as fast as they could, and fled away for Jerusalem; not so much
as one of them being detained by the magistrates, or any further inquiry
made by the king into such a sanctified piece of villany.”¹

    ¹ Anglia Judaica, pp. 19, 20. See Appendix C.

The same outrages were committed in several other parts of the kingdom.
The same spirit prevailed also at Lincoln. An attack was on the point
of being made on the helpless Jews there; but as by that time the
melancholy intelligence was noised abroad, and the Jews were every where
made acquainted that the _faithful (?)_ aimed at their destruction,
they retired, therefore, as soon as possible into the king’s fortress,
which liberty they purchased, with a large sum, of the governor; so that
the majority of them escaped with little damage. At York, the popular
feeling communicated itself to all classes of the inhabitants, and
many of the nobles and principal gentry of the neighbourhood associated
themselves with the soldiers of the cross, and with the knights of the
temple, whose characters were stained with the vilest of human passions.

The origin of their persecution at York was the following. It appears
that Benedict and Jocenus, two of the richest Jews of York, were deputed
by their brethren of that city to carry presents to the king on his
coronation day. The fate of the former you have already heard; the
latter was so far fortunate as to be able to return to York, where he
related the sad catastrophe which had befallen his brethren in London;
but instead of exciting commiseration in the breasts of his Gentile
neighbours, his narrative had the effect of stimulating them to a like
outrage. The houses of the richest of the Jews were accordingly spoiled
and burned, and many, together with their families, were murdered. The
common people, urged by the example of their superiors, fell upon such
as escaped the first assaults, and with savage fury slew them, without
regard to age or sex. Fifteen hundred, with their wives and children,
escaped to the castle, and, by permission of the sheriff and keeper,
took refuge there. Afterwards, thinking――for which they had good
reason――that these officers also had taken part with their assailants,
they refused to allow them to enter, whereupon the sheriff assembled an
armed force, and laid siege to the castle. The mob joined in the attack,
and though they were before sufficiently bent upon destruction and
plunder, they were――to the shame of the ecclesiastics of that day be it
recorded――further stimulated by the exhortations of the clergy. One in
particular, a canon of the order of Præmonstratenses, displayed uncommon
zeal on the occasion. For several days he appeared amongst the people,
dressed in his surplice, after having eaten a consecrated host, and
greatly increased their fury by continually calling out in a loud
voice――“Destroy the enemies of Christ!――Destroy the enemies of Jesus!”
At length the priest received the punishment his conduct justly merited;
for having approached too near the walls, he was crushed to death by a
stone which was rolled down from the battlements.

For a time the Jews defended themselves with desperate bravery; but
the assault being warmly pressed, they found that they had no hopes of
escape, and they offered a large sum of money that their lives might
be spared. This was refused, and they proceeded again to take vigorous
measures for their defence, determining to hold out to the last moment;
calling at the same time――which was right――a council, to take into
consideration what was to be done in case of their being driven to
extremities, which consultation altered their purpose completely. For
when they gathered themselves ♦together into one place, one of their
rabbies, a man of great authority amongst them, and who also made the
convocation, stood up and addressed them in the following words:――“Ye
men of Israel, the God of our fathers, to whom none can say, what doest
thou? commands us at this time to die for his law; and behold! death is
even before our eyes, and there is nothing left us to consider but how
to undergo it in the most reputable and easy manner. If we fall into the
hands of our enemies (which I think there is no possibility of escaping),
our deaths will not only be cruel but ignominious. They will not only
torment us, but despitefully use us. My advice therefore is, that we
voluntarily surrender those lives to our Creator, which He seems to call
for, and not wait for any other executioners than ourselves. The fact
is both rational and lawful; nor do we want examples from amongst our
illustrious ancestors, to prove it so: they have frequently proceeded
in the like manner upon the same occasions.”¹ Thus spoke the old Rabbi,
after which he sat down and wept.

    ♦ ‘toegther’ replaced with ‘together’

    ¹ See Appendix D.

The auditors looked first wistfully at each other, and then gave
utterance to their thoughts――some loudly approving the advice of the
Rabbi, whilst others, with tears in their eyes, avowed their dissent
from the Rabbi’s opinion.

To which the rabbi, standing up a second time, replied――“Seeing,
brethren, that we are not all of one mind, let those who do not approve
of this advice depart from this assembly.” The less courageous departed.
But by far the greater number adhered steadfastly to the leader’s
proposal. And as soon as they perceived themselves alone, which
increased their despair, they first burned every thing belonging to them
that was consumable by fire, and buried the remainder in the earth (to
prevent its falling into the possession of their enemies); they then set
fire to several places of the castle at once, after which each man took
a sharp knife, and first cut the throats of their own wives and children,
and then their own. The persons who remained last alive were this rash
counsellor, and the aforementioned Jocenus, who were possessed of a
strong desire to see everything performed according to their directions;
for they did not survive much longer; as soon as that atrocious work
was over, the Rabbi, out of respect to Jocenus (who was a person of
importance), first slew him, and then himself.¹ When this dreadful act
was completed, those who remained alive took up the dead bodies, and
threw them over the walls, on the heads of the besiegers; and determined
at last upon the expedient of their brethren. They also burned their
clothes, and such of their valuables as would consume, and threw the
rest of their treasures into the sinks and drains of the castle; and
the greater part of those who survived, collecting themselves together
in one of the buildings, set fire to it, and resigned themselves to the
flames. A few only, of less courage than their brethren, still remained.
These, coming forward upon the ramparts, called out to the assailants,
and showed the manner in which their companions had fallen, and offered
to receive baptism, if their lives might be spared. This was granted
to them; but they no sooner passed the gate than the people fell upon
them and slew them, with the exception of one or two who escaped; which
proved that the Rabbi was not far wrong in his calculation. The populace
afterwards betook themselves to the destroying and burning of all the
houses of the Jews in the city which had not been previously demolished.
Thus perished fifteen hundred Jews at York on this occasion, besides
those who fell in the other parts of England.

    ¹ Dr. Jost states, that “Jocenus first strangled his wife
      Hannah with his five children, and then allowed himself to
      be slain by the Rabbi, whose example was followed by all the
      remainder.”

      _Jossen erwürgte seine Frau Hanna mit fünf Kindern, und liess
      sich dann von dem Rabbi ♦niederschlachten. Seinem Beispiel
      folgten alle Uebrigen._

    ♦ ‘niedercshlachten’ replaced with ‘niederschlachten’

Now comes the secret. No sooner did the English make an end of
butchering that unhappy people, than many gentlemen of the province――who
having been their debtors, and took, therefore, the most active part in
the carnage――repaired to the cathedral, where their bonds were deposited,
compelled the officer to deliver those obligations, and burned them in
the church with great solemnity before the altar.

When the account of these outrages reached the king’s ears, he was
exceedingly enraged at this insult upon his authority, which at the
same time affected his revenue; he sent over immediate directions to
the Bishop of Ely, his chancellor, to apprehend and punish the offenders.
The chancellor accordingly proceeded to York with a strong force, to
execute the king’s commands: but the principal actors in the massacres
there, being warned of his approach, made their escape; some of them
taking refuge into Scotland, but the greater number proceeding on their
journey to the Holy Land. The governor of the castle and the sheriff
were, however, apprehended, and not being able to clear their conduct,
were deprived of their respective offices. A heavy fine was also imposed
upon the inhabitants of the city, for which the chancellor took one
hundred hostages with him. Richard, _mala bestia_ (wicked beast), or as
he is called Mallebisse, was obliged to pay twenty marks for the use of
his land, as also for protection to himself and his two esquires,¹ till
the king’s return; but, with these exceptions, it does not appear that
any individual was brought to punishment for the part he had taken in
the late disturbances.

    ¹ See Appendix E.

When Richard returned home, after his captivity, the affairs of the Jews
were again brought under his consideration; and he appointed justices
itinerant to proceed through the different parts of England for the
purpose of making further inquiries concerning the slaughter of the
Jews――who were the murderers?――what lands and chattels belonged to them
at the time they were slain?――who took possession of the same? &c. He
established very curious regulations, professedly for the protection
of the Jews, but really――as it was well observed――“that he might fleece
them at his pleasure.” He established the famous EXCHEQUER of the JEWS.
The revenues arising from them were placed under the care of an office
for the purpose, in which the _justiciaries_ of the _Jews_ presided. To
these places Jews and Christians were indifferently appointed. They had
not only the Jewish revenues under their care, but were also judges of
all civil matters, where a Jew was one of the parties. Lord Coke takes
notice of this court, and calls it the “Court of the Justices of the
Jews.”

“In order to know”――observes Dr. Tovey――“what were the particular monies,
goods, debts, real and personal estates belonging to every Jew in the
nation, he commanded (something after the manner of the Conqueror’s
Domesday) that all effects belonging to Jews should be registered.

“That the concealment of any particular should be forfeiture of body and
whole estate.

“That six or seven public places should be appointed, wherein all their
contracts were to be made.

“That all such contracts should be made in the presence of two assigned
lawyers, who were Jews, and two that were Christians, and two public
notaries.

“That the Clerks of William de Sancta Maria, and William de Chimelli,
should likewise be present at all such contracts.

“That such contracts should likewise be made by indenture: one part of
which was to remain with the Jew, sealed with the seal of him to whom
the money was lent; and the other in a common chest, to which there was
to be three locks and three keys.

“One key whereof was to be kept by the said Jewish lawyers, the other by
the Christian lawyers, and the third by the aforesaid Clerks.

“The chest also was to be sealed with three seals.

“The aforesaid Clerks were also commanded to keep a transcript roll
of all such contracts; which roll was to be altered as often as the
original charters of contract were altered.

“And the fee for drawing every such charter was to be three pence; one
moiety whereof was to be paid by the Jew, and the other moiety by him to
whom the money was lent. Whereof the two writers were to have two pence,
and the keeper of the rolls the third.

“It was ordained likewise, that as no contracts for money, so no payment
of it, or acquittance, or any other alteration in the charters, or
transcript rolls were to be made, but in the presence of the aforesaid
persons, or the greater part of them.

“The aforesaid two Jews were to have a copy of the said transcript roll,
and the two Christians another.

“Every Jew was to take an oath upon his roll,¹ that he would truly and
faithfully register all his estates, both real and personal, as above
directed; and discover every Jew whom he should know guilty of any
concealment; as likewise all forgers, or falsifiers of charters, and
clippers of money.”

    ¹ Parchment MS. of the Pentateuch.

Under those regulations the Jews lived peaceably; for they very seldom,
on their part, violate any regulations established between themselves
and others; and as it was the king’s interest to adhere to the above
regulations on his part, the Jews therefore enjoyed comparative
tranquillity. But at no small expense.

The justices of the Jews at that time were a certain Benedict, and
Joseph Aaron. Their contracts, or, as they were then called, _Shtaroth_,
from the Hebrew, or rather Chaldee, word שטר _Shtar_, were written
either in indifferent Hebrew, or bad Latin, or the same sort of French.¹
That court where all those documents were deposited, obtained the name
of “The Star Chamber.”² It was well remarked that Richard made the Jews
most unfortunate. He used them as a press, with which to squeeze his
subjects. By which they incurred no small degree of animosity from their
Christian neighbours.³

    ¹ See Appendix F.

    ² See Appendix G.

    ³ See Geschichte der Israeliten, vol. vii., p. 130




                        APPENDIX TO LECTURE III.


                                   A.

בשנת דתתק״נ בהיות ריקרדו מלך חדש בעיר לונדריש שבאינגלטירה נהדג בקידוש ה׳ רבינו יעקב מאורליינש ויהודים רבים
אחרים עמו׃

The same Rabbi Gedaliah, author of the _Shalsheleth Hakabalah_, makes
mention of Rabbi Jacob of Orleans, in another part of the same book,
viz., when speaking of the age of the celebrated Maimonides, Jarchi,
&c., he names our Rabbi Jacob, as “a distinguished sage,” and also tells
us that he was one and the same with Rabbi Tam, grandson of the famous
Rabbi Solomon Jarchi, who was one of the authors of the _Tosephoth_. The
following are Rabbi ♦Gedaliah’s own words:――

    ♦ “Gedeliah’s” replaced with “Gedaliah’s”

רבינו יעקב מאורליאינש שבגליל אינגלטירה היה בדור הזה חכם מופלג ינהרג שנת דתתק״נ והוא נקרא בתוספות ר׳ת כאשר
קוראים רבינו יעקב בן בתו דרשי׃

_Shalsheleth Hakabalah_, fol. 50, col. 2:――


                                   B.

משומד _M’shoomad_ literally signifies destroyed one; but it is used by
the Jews to denote a brother Jew who embraced the religion of Jesus. It
is rather curious that the first time the word is made use of, according
to the Jews’ own showing, appears to have been by Jesus, against those
Jews who disbelieved him. The following passage――reproaching the Jews
for their infidelity and blasphemy――occurs in the הולדות ישו _Toledoth
Jeshu_――a most blasphemous production, purporting to give a narrative
of Jesus Christ:――

מי הם אותם המשומדים שאומרים עלי שאני ממזר ופסול הם ממזרים ופסולים

Indeed, whenever a converted Jew gets an opportunity of comparing notes
with an unconverted one, it always appears most palpably that the
epithet משומד _M’shoomad_ is more applicable to the latter than to the
former; for the former generally can prove to demonstration, that he is
a faithful follower of Moses and the Prophets, whilst the latter can do
no such thing.


                                   C.

Henry de Knyghton, in his “De Eventibus Angliæ,” gives us the following
piece of information:――“One John, a most bold Christian, flying from
Stanford with many spoyls of the Jews, to Northampton, was there
secretly slain by his host, to get his money, and thrown without the
city in the night, the murderer flying thereupon. After which, through
the dreams of old women, and fallacious signs, the simple people,
attributing to him the merits of a martyr, honoured his sepulchre with
solemn vigils and gifts. This was derided by the wise men, yet it was
acceptable to the Clerks there living, by reason of the gains.”¹ Strange,
however, Englishmen will attribute avarice and love of money to the
poor Jews, rather than to their own ancestors, who possessed by far the
greater share of both.

    ¹ See Prynne’s Demurrer, Part i., p. 13.


                                   D.

The address of the York Rabbi is evidently a digest of Eleazar’s
speeches in the fort of Masada. After the destruction of Jerusalem
(A.D. 72), a great number of the Jews entrenched themselves in that
fort, and for some time defended themselves so bravely, that it cost
the Romans one bloody battle more. However, when the besieged beheld
that in consequence of the fire which the Roman engines sent into their
fortress, its further defence was impossible, the whole garrison, at
the instigation of Eleazar, their commander, surrendered themselves to
a voluntary death, slaying first their wives and children, and then each
other, to the number of 960, that they might not fall into the hands of
the hated besiegers. As the awful tragedies are so strikingly alike, it
may not be uninteresting to the reader to take a view of both leaders’
addresses at the same time; I therefore give here the speeches of
Eleazar, long though they are:――

“Since we long ago, my generous friends, resolved never to be servants
to the Romans, nor to any other than to God himself, who alone is the
true and just Lord of mankind, the time is now come that obliges us to
make that resolution true in practice. And let us not at this time bring
a reproach upon ourselves for self-contradiction; while we formerly
would not undergo slavery, though it were then without danger, but
must now, together with slavery, choose such punishments also as are
intolerable; I mean this, upon the supposition that the Romans once
reduce us under their power while we are alive. We were the very first
that revolted from them, and we are the last that fight against them;
and I cannot but esteem it as a favour that God hath granted us, that it
is still in our power to die bravely, and in a state of freedom, which
hath not been the case of others who were conquered unexpectedly. It is
very plain that we shall be taken within a day’s time; but it is still
an eligible thing to die after a glorious manner, together with our
dearest friends. This is what our enemies themselves cannot by any means
hinder, although they be very desirous to take us alive. Nor can we
propose to ourselves any more to fight them, and beat them. It had been
proper, indeed, for us to have conjectured at the purpose of God much
sooner, and at the very first, when we were so desirous of defending
our liberty, and when we received such sore treatment from one another,
and worse treatment from our enemies; and to have been sensible that the
same God who had of old taken the Jewish nation into his favour, had now
condemned them to destruction; for had he either continued favourable,
or been but in a lesser degree displeased with us, he had not overlooked
the destruction of so many men, or delivered his most holy city to be
burned and demolished by our enemies. To be sure we weakly hoped to have
preserved ourselves, and ourselves alone, still in a state of freedom,
as if we had been guilty of no sins ourselves against God, nor been
partners with those of others: we also taught other men to preserve
their liberty. Wherefore, consider how God hath convinced us that our
hopes were in vain, by bringing such distress upon us in the desperate
state we are now in, and which is beyond all our expectations; for
the nature of this fortress, which was in itself unconquerable, hath
not proved a means of our deliverance; and even while we have still
abundance of food, and a great quantity of arms and other necessaries
more than we want, we are openly deprived by God himself of all hope of
deliverance; for that fire which was driven upon our enemies did not, of
its own accord, turn back upon the wall which we had built: this was the
effect of God’s anger against us for our manifold sins, which we have
been guilty of in a most insolent and extravagant manner with regard to
our own countrymen; the punishment of which let us not receive from the
Romans, but from God himself, as executed by our own hands, for these
will be more moderate than the other. Let our wives die before they are
abused, and our children before they have tasted of slavery; and after
we have slain them, let us bestow that glorious benefit upon one another
mutually, and preserve ourselves in freedom, as an excellent funeral
monument for us. But first let us destroy our money and the fortress
by fire; for I am well assured that this will be a great grief to the
Romans, that they shall not be able to seize upon our bodies, and shall
fail of our wealth also: and let us spare nothing but our provisions;
for they will be a testimonial when we are dead, that we were not
subdued for want of necessaries; but that, according to our original
resolution, we have preferred death before slavery.”

The above address was not at first approved of by all, and consequently
a second impetuous speech was elicited, which is the following:――

“Truly, I was greatly mistaken when I thought to be assisting to brave
men who struggled hard for their liberty, and to such as were resolved
either to live with honour, or else to die; but I find that you are such
people as are no better than others, either in virtue or in courage, and
are afraid of dying, though you be delivered thereby from the greatest
miseries, while you ought to make no delay in this matter, nor to await
any one to give you good advice; for the laws of our country, and of God
himself, have, from ancient times, and as soon as ever we could use our
reason, continually taught us――and our forefathers have corroborated the
same doctrine by their actions, and by their bravery of mind――that it is
life that is a calamity to men, and not death; for this last affords our
souls their liberty, and sends them, by a removal, into their own place
of purity, where they are to be insensible of all sorts of misery; for
while souls are tied down to a mortal body, they are partakers of its
miseries; and really, to speak the truth, they are themselves dead; for
the union of what is divine to what is mortal is disagreeable. It is
true the power of the soul is great, even when it is imprisoned in a
mortal body; for by moving it after a way that is invisible, it makes
the body a sensible instrument, and causes it to advance farther in its
actions than mortal nature could otherwise do. However, when it is freed
from that weight which draws it down to the earth, and is connected with
it, it obtains its own proper place, and does then become a partaker
of that blessed power and those abilities, which are then every way
incapable of being hindered in their operation. It continues invisible,
indeed, to the eyes of men, as does God himself; for certainly it is not
itself seen while it is in the body, for it is there after an invisible
manner, and when it is freed from it it is still not seen. It is this
soul which hath one nature, and that an incorruptible one also; but yet
it is the cause of the change that is made in the body; for whatsoever
it be which the soul touches, that lives and flourishes; and from
whatsoever it is removed, that withers away and dies: such a degree is
there in it of immortality. Let me produce the state of sleep as a most
evident demonstration of the truth of what I say, wherein souls, when
the body does not distract them, have the sweetest rest depending on
themselves, and conversing with God, by their alliance to him; they
then go everywhere, and foretell many futurities beforehand. And why are
we afraid of death, while we are pleased with the rest that we have in
sleep?――and how absurd a thing it is to pursue after liberty while we
are alive, and yet to envy it to ourselves where it will be eternal! We,
therefore, who have been brought up in a discipline of our own, ought
to become an example to others of our readiness to die; yet if we do not
stand in need of foreigners to support us in this matter, let us regard
those Indians who profess the exercise of philosophy; for these good
men do but unwillingly undergo the time of life, and look upon it as a
necessary servitude, and make haste to let their souls loose from their
bodies; nay, when no misfortune presses them to it, nor drives them upon
it, these have such a desire of a life of immortality, that they tell
other men beforehand that they are about to depart; and nobody hinders
them, but every one thinks them happy men, and gives them letters to
be carried to their familiar friends (that are dead); so firmly and
certainly do they believe that souls converse with one another (in the
other world). So when these men have heard all such commands that are
to be given them, they deliver their body to the fire; and in order to
their getting their soul a separation from the body, in the greatest
purity, they die in the midst of hymns of commendation made to them;
for their dearest friends conduct them to their death more readily than
do any of the rest of mankind conduct their fellow-citizens when they
are going a very long journey, who, at the same time, weep on their own
account, but look upon the others as happy persons, as so soon to be
made partakers of the immortal order of beings. Are not we, therefore,
ashamed to have lower notions than the Indians; and by our own cowardice
to lay a base reproach upon the laws of our country, which are so
much desired and imitated by all mankind? But put the case that we had
been brought up under another persuasion, and taught that life is the
greatest good which men are capable of, and that death is a calamity;
however, the circumstances we are now in ought to be an inducement to
us to bear such calamity courageously, since it is by the will of God
and by necessity that we are to die; for it now appears that God hath
made such a decree against the whole Jewish nation, that we are to
be deprived of this life, which (he knew) we would not make a due use
of; for do not you ascribe the occasion of your present condition to
yourselves, nor think the Romans are the true occasion that this war
we have had with them is become so destructive to us all: these things
have not come to pass by their power, but a more powerful cause hath
intervened, and made us afford them an occasion of their appearing to
be conquerors over us. What Roman weapons, I pray you, were those by
which the Jews of Cesarea were slain? On the contrary, when they were
no way disposed to rebel, but were all the while keeping their seventh
day festival, and did not so much as lift up their hands against the
citizens of Cesarea; yet did those citizens run upon them in great
crowds, and cut their throats, and the throats of their wives and
children, and this without any regard to the Romans themselves, who
never took us for their enemies till we revolted from them. But some may
be ready to say, that truly the people of Cesarea had always a quarrel
against those that lived among them, and that when an opportunity
offered itself, they only satisfied the old rancour they had against
them. What, then, shall we say to those of Scythopolis, who ventured to
wage war with us on account of the Greeks? Nor did they do it by way of
revenge upon the Romans, when they acted in concert with our countrymen.
Wherefore you see how little our good will and fidelity to them profited
us; while they were slain, they and their whole families, after the most
inhuman manner, which was all the requital that was made to them for the
assistance they had afforded the others; for that very same destruction
which they had prevented from falling upon the others, did they suffer
themselves from them, as if they had been ready to be the actors against
them. It would be too long for me to speak, at this time, of every
destruction brought upon us; for you cannot but know that there was
not any one Syrian city which did not slay their Jewish inhabitants,
and were not more bitter enemies to us than were the Romans themselves;
nay, even those of Damascus, when they were able to allege no tolerable
pretence against us, filled their city with the most barbarous slaughter
of our people; and cut the throats of eighteen thousand Jews, with their
wives and children. And as to the multitude that was slain in Egypt, and
that with torments also, we have been informed they were more than sixty
thousand; those, indeed, being in a foreign country, and so naturally
meeting with nothing to oppose against their enemies, were killed in the
manner forementioned.

“As for all those of us who have waged war against the Romans in our
own country, had we not sufficient reason to have sure hopes of victory?
For we had arms, and walls, and fortresses so prepared, as not to be
easily taken, and courage not to be moved by any dangers in the cause of
liberty, which encouraged us all to revolt from the Romans. But, then,
these advantages sufficed us but for a short time, and only raised our
hopes, while they really appeared to be the origin of our miseries;
for all we had, hath been taken from us, and all hath fallen under our
enemies, as if these advantages were only to render their victory over
us the more glorious, and were not disposed for the preservation of
those by whom these preparations were made. And as for those that are
already dead in the war, it is reasonable we should esteem them blessed,
for they are dead in defending, and not in betraying their liberty; but
as to the multitude of those that are now under the Romans, who would
not pity their condition? And who would not make haste to die, before
he would suffer the same miseries with them? Some of them have been put
upon the rack, and tortured with fire and whippings, and so died. Some
have been half devoured by wild beasts, and yet have been reserved alive
to be devoured by them a second time, in order to afford laughter and
sport to our enemies; and such of those as are alive still, are to be
looked on as the most miserable, who, being so desirous of death, could
not come at it. And where is now that great city, the metropolis of the
Jewish nation, which was fortified by so many walls round about, which
had so many fortresses and large towers to defend it, which could hardly
contain the instruments prepared for the war, and which had so many ten
thousands of men to fight for it? Where is this city that was believed
to have God himself inhabiting therein? It is now demolished to the very
foundations, and hath nothing but that monument of it preserved, I mean
the camp of those that have destroyed it, which still dwells upon its
ruins. Some unfortunate old men also lie upon the ashes of the temple,
and a few women are there preserved alive by the enemy for our bitter
shame and reproach. Now, who is there that revolves these things in his
mind, and yet is able to bear the sight of the sun, though he might live
out of danger? Who is there so much his country’s enemy, or so unmanly,
and so desirous of living, as not to repent that he is still alive? And
I cannot but wish that we had all died before we had seen that holy city
demolished by the hands of our enemies, or the foundations of our holy
temple dug up after so profane a manner. But since we had a generous
hope that deluded us, as if we might, perhaps, have been able to avenge
ourselves on our enemies on that account, though it be now become
vanity, and hath left us alone in this distress, let us make haste to
die bravely. Let us pity ourselves, our children, and our wives, while
it is in our power to show pity to them, for we are born to die, as well
as those were whom we have begotten; nor is it in the power of the most
happy of our race to avoid it. But for abuses and slavery, and the sight
of our wives led away after an ignominious manner, with their children,
these are not such evils as are natural and necessary among men;
although such as do not prefer death before those miseries, when it is
in their power so to do, must undergo even then on account of their own
cowardice. We revolted from the Romans with great pretensions to courage;
and when, at the very last, they invited us to preserve ourselves, we
would not comply with them. Who will not, therefore, believe that they
will certainly be in a great rage at us, in case they can take us alive?
Miserable will, then, be the young men who will be strong enough in
their bodies to sustain many torments; miserable also will be those of
elder years, who will not be able to bear those calamities which young
men might sustain! One man will be obliged to hear the voice of his son
imploring help of his father, when his hands are bound! But certainly
our hands are still at liberty, and have a sword in them. Let them, then,
be subservient to us in our glorious design; let us die before we become
slaves under our enemies; and let us go out of the world, together with
our children and our wives, in a state of freedom. This it is that our
laws command us to do; this it is that our wives and children crave at
our hands; nay, God himself hath brought this necessity upon us; while
the Romans desire the contrary, and are afraid any of us should die
before we are taken. Let us, therefore, make haste, and instead of
affording them so much pleasure as they hope for in getting us under
their power, let us leave them an example which shall at once cause
their astonishment at our death, and their admiration of our hardiness
therein.”

This second harangue had the desired effect. The Romans having scaled
the walls, apprehended some treachery, by reason of the death-like
silence that prevailed around the fortress; but soon discovered the
slaughtered bodies and learned the dreadful occurrence from the mouths
of two women and five children, who, by concealing themselves, had
escaped the fulfilment of the fatal compact.――_Josephus’ Wars_, Book
vii., Chaps. 8, 9.


                                   E.

“Ricardus Malebisse, r. c. de XX. Marcis, pro rehabendâ Terrâ suâ
usque ad adventum Domini Regis; quæ saisita fuit in manu Regis, propter
occisionem Judæorum Eborac. Et ut Walterus de Carton and Ricardus de
Kukeneia Armigeri ejus habeant Pacem Regis usque ad adventum ejus.”
Mag. Rot. 4 R. I. Rot. 4. b. Everwich.


                                   F.

The following Hebrew Shtar was adduced by the learned John Selden,
of the sixteenth century, in order to prove that the title “Sir” was
considered part of the possessor’s name, so that the Jews of England
retained it in their contracts without translating it.

אני החתום מטה מודה הודאה גמורה שפטרתי ומחלתי לשי׳ אדאם משטרטונא וליורשיו ולבאים מחמרו כל מן תביעה ועיעור
שיש לי ושיכול להיות ליער המלון כשטנמירא הקטנה בפלך מידלשצע שהאדם הנקו׳ מחזיק זאת לדעת בקרקע ובאהו ובמרעה
ובאגם עם כל האפורטניציע שמקדם היה לשי׳ אשטייבוא מקינדוט בכן שלא אני ולא יורשי ולא שום אחר בעבורי יכולין לתבוע או
לערער על שי׳ אדאם הנקו׳ או על יורשיו או על הבאים מכחו על המלון הנקו׳ עם כל האפורטניצע הנקו׳ בעלילת שום חוב שהיה
אשטייבנא הנקו׳ חייב לי או לשום יהודי אחר מבריאת עולם עד סופו ואם שום יהודי בעולם יבא לתבוע או לערער על שי׳ אדאם
הנקו׳ או על יורשיו או על הבאים מחמרו על המלון משטנמירא הנקו׳ עם האפורטנצע הנקו׳ בעלילת שום חוב שהיה אשטייבנא
מקינדוט הנקו׳ חייב לי או לשום יהודי אחר בעולם מבריאת עולם עד סופו עלי ועל יורשי בתראי להגינם ולהצילם ולפוטרם נגד כל
המעיערים וזאת התמתי היים דניקול

The above _shtar_, or starr, was very indifferently copied by Selden,
and so badly transcribed by Dr. Tovey, that a reference to the original
became absolutely necessary, and which was after a little trouble
obtained. The original has also a Latin note as follows:――

“Istud starrum fecit Hagm. fil. Magistri de London, Domino Adæ de
Stratona, de acquietantia de STANMERE de omnibus debitis in quibus S.
de Cheynduit ei tenebatur. Ita quod idem Judæus nec hæredes sui nihil
exigere possint de prædicto Ada nec hæredibus suis ratione terræ de
Stanmere de prædictis debitis.”

The following specimen of the second kind is a charter of release, made
by one Aaron, a Jew of Lincoln, to William Fossard, so early as 1176,
A.D., or 22 H. 2, long before the exchequer of the Jews was established.

“Sciant omnes legentes et audientes Litteras has, quod ego Aaron Judæus
de Lincolnia, attestatione hujus meæ Cartæ quietum clamavi Willielmum
Fossard de toto debito quod ipse vel pater ejus mihi debuerunt; et
testificor, quod ipse est quietus de debito quod debuit vel mihi vel
Josceo de Eboraco, vel cæteris Judæis subscriptis, viz., Kersun Elyae,
Samsoni, Isaac, Judæo Pulcelle, vel ipsi Pulcelle vel Deuecresse de
Danemarchia, usque ad festum S. Michaëlis anni Incarnationis Domini
millesimi centesimi LXXVI. Hanc quietam clamantiam feci ei pro mille et
CC. et LX. marcis unde Monachi de Mealse adquietaverunt eum versus me.
Et sciendum quod quasdam Cartas hujus debiti jam reddidi, et eas si quas
adhuc penes me habeo quamcitius potero reddam.――Mag. Rot. 9. R. I., Rot.
4. b. Everwichseira.”

Maddox, in his “Formula Anglicana,” gives the following as a specimen
of a Jewish shtar, or starr, in the French language. It is a general
release from a certain Jew, Fitz-Hagyn by name, who acted as attorney
for his father, to a certain John de Say.

“Jeo ke suy ensele de suz, reconnuse verreye reconusaunce et testimoine
pur mon pere Hagyn le fiz mestre Moss, ke Sire Johan de Say et ses
auncestres et ses Heyres quites sunt de mun Pere avaunt dit, et de ses
heyrs, et de tuz ses enfaunz, et de moy, et de mes heirs, et de mes
assignes, de totes dettes, demaundes, chalendes, et plegages, ke eus a
nus esteint tenuz, par Chartre u par nule Cirographe, u autre estrument;
fetes avaunt ke cest Estar, del commencement du Secle dek a la fyn. Et
si seit trove Chartre, u taille, u autre estrument, sur le nun le avaunt
dit Sire Johan, u akeun de ces auncestres, u akeun de ses heires, e
en le nun mun pere avaunt dit, u akeun de ses heires, u akeun de sez
enfaunz, u en mun nun, u akeun di mes auncestres, u de mes heires, en
la Huche nostre Seynur le Rey, u de hors, fetes avaunt ke cest Estar
fu feyt; Je reconus et tesmoyne pur mun pere avaunt dit, et pur tuz ses
heirs, et pur ses enfaunz, et pur moy, et pur mes heires, et pur mes
enfaunz et assignes, ke quites seent a tuz jurz, et ren ne vaylet. E
Jo et mes heires warrantirum aquiterum et defenderum le avaunt dit Sire
Johan de Say, et ses heires, enver mun pere avaunt dit, et envers tuz
ses heires, et ses assignes de tuttes dettes ke la avaunt dit Sire Johan
a eus esteynt tenuz avaunt cest Estar fu fet, du comencement du secle
dek a la fin. Act le Venderdi prochein apres la Seinte Lucy, lan du
Regne le Re Edeward le fiz le Rey Henry, secund. E ceo ke jeo ay reconu,
ai ensele cum aturne mun pere avaunt dit en ceste chose.

                                                “JACOB LE FIZ HAGIN.”


                                   G.

“Court of Star-Chamber (_camera stellata_), a famous, or rather infamous
English tribunal, said to have been so called, either from a Saxon
word, signifying to _steer_ or govern; or for its punishing the _crimen
stellionatus_, or cosenage; or because the room wherein it sat――the old
council-chamber of the palace of Westminster (Lamb. 148), which is now
converted into the lottery-office, and forms the eastern side of the
new palace-yard――was full of windows; or (to which Sir Edward Coke,
4 Inst. 66, accedes), because _haply_ the roof thereof was at the first
garnished with gilded _stars_. As all these are merely conjectures (for
no stars are now in the roof, nor are any said to have remained there
so late as the reign of Queen Elizabeth), it may be allowable to propose
another conjectural etymology, as plausible, perhaps, as any of them. It
is well known that, before the banishment of the Jews under Edward I.,
their contracts and obligations were denominated in our ancient records
_starra_, or _starrs_, from a corruption of the Hebrew word _shetar_,
a covenant. These _starrs_, by an ordinance of Richard the First,
preserved by Hoveden, were commanded to be enrolled and deposited
in chests, under three keys, in certain places; one, and the most
considerable, of which was in the king’s exchequer at Westminster;
and no starr was allowed to be valid, unless it were found in some
of the said repositories. The room at the exchequer, where the
chests containing these starrs were kept, was probably called the
_star-chamber_, and when the Jews were expelled the kingdom, was applied
to the use of the king’s council, sitting in their judicial capacity. To
confirm this, the first time the star-chamber is mentioned in any record,
it is said to have been situated near the receipt of the exchequer at
Westminster (the king’s council, his chancellor, treasurer, justices,
and other sages, were assembled _en la chaumber des esteilles presta
resceipt at Westminster, Clause 41, Edw. III. m. 13_). For in process of
time, when the meaning of the Jewish _starrs_ were forgotten, the word
_star-chamber_ was naturally rendered in law French, _la chaumbre des
esteilles_, and in law Latin, _camera stellata_, which continued to be
the style in Latin till the dissolution of that court.”――_Encyclopædia
Britannica._




                              LECTURE IV.


MY lecture this evening commences with the history of the Jews in
this country, during the reign of King John――the reign of one who
has acquired an unenviable notoriety in the political history of this
country――one who is well known as a disobedient son, an unnatural
brother, and a savage monarch――one who disregarded the rights of all
men――one, in short, who trampled under foot all laws, both Divine and
human.

What could the Jews expect from such a character? The natural effect
of the cruelties to which they had been subjected during the last reign,
under Richard Cœur de-Lion――who, though generous, was yet rash and
romantic, which was the cause of their very great sufferings――I say,
the natural effect would have been to deter them from attempting to
accumulate any more wealth in this country; and it was to be apprehended
that on the accession of such an unprincipled man to the throne, and the
semi-barbarian state of the then people of England, who were continually
quarrelling with each other, and were ready at all times to plunge the
sword or the lance into the breasts of each other: the Jews, under such
circumstances, instead of resorting to England, as holding out to them
inducements for the acquirement of riches, might have been expected to
have quitted this island altogether. It was well put into the mouth of
a Jewish maiden of that age, “Such is no safe abode for the children of
Israel. Ephraim is an heartless dove――Issachar an over-laboured drudge,
which stoops between two burdens. Not in a land of war and blood,
surrounded by hostile neighbours, and distracted by internal factions,
can Israel hope to rest during her wanderings.” It was to be apprehended
that they would have betaken themselves to Spain, where their brethren
were just then highly honoured, and enjoyed great favour at the Spanish
courts.¹ But John was an artful man as well as a wicked one.

    ¹ See Appendix A.

The law which his brother Richard enacted, relative to the Exchequer
of the Jews, permitted the king to exercise unlimited power over the
properties of the Jews. This circumstance afforded him great facilities
for obtaining supplies to a large amount, upon any emergency. John
wanted money continually in consequence of his incessant disagreements
with his people. He saw it necessary, therefore, to devise some measure
which would have the effect of allaying the fears of the Jews; and
therefore began his reign with pretended kindness towards them, holding
out to their view the expectation of greater security in future.

Accordingly, King John, in the first year of his reign, to show the
Jews that they would not be molested by reason of any antipathies which
he entertained towards them on account of their creed, granted them
permission to nominate a person to the office of chief Rabbi of England,
and confirmed the appointment by the following charter:――“The king to
all his faithful, both to all the Jews and English, greeting. Be it
known, that we have granted, and by our present charter confirmed, to
Jacob the Jew, of London, Presbyter of the Jews, the jurisdiction of all
the Jews throughout all England. To be had and to be held by him during
his life-time, freely and quietly, honourably and entirely, so that no
one may presume to molest or trouble him in any way. We wish, therefore,
and firmly command, that the same Jacob, Presbyter of the Jews of all
England, may live secure, shielded, and peaceably defended. And if any
one shall presume to impeach him on that account, that without delay
you cause amends to be made (our interference to be procured for our
protection), as also for our Dominican Jews, whom we keep in our special
service. We also prohibit any plea to be entered in, concerning any
thing that belongs to him, unless before us, or before our chief justice,
as it is appointed by our brother Richard.”¹

    ¹ See Appendix B.

Highly flattering as this appointment must have been to the Jews, the
king complimented them still more by granting Jacob, who was their first
chief Rabbi, a charter of safe conduct through his dominions, honouring
him in the record with the highest terms of love and respect, and
commanding all his subjects to regard his person with the same reverence
and affection as they were bound by their allegiance to pay to the king
himself.

As this was the first time that the Jewish nation was so honourably
mentioned, and so carefully protected, it may not be unacceptable to
hear the whole charter. The original is a mixture of Latin, Saxon, and
French.

“John by the grace of God, &c. To all his faithful subjects, to whom
these letters shall come, as well beyond as on this side the sea. You
are commanded and enjoined, that through whatever village or place, our
well beloved and intimate Jacob the Presbyter of the Jews may pass, that
you allow him and everything belonging to him to pass safely and freely,
and that you make him comfortable; and that you do not suffer any injury,
trouble, or violence, to be offered to him any more than to ourselves;
and if any one should presume to injure him in any wise, that you cause
redress to be made without delay.”¹

    ¹ See Appendix C.

In furtherance of the same purpose of conciliation, the king, also, in
the second year of his reign, granted two other important charters; the
one extended to the Jews of Normandy, as well as to those of England,
the other was confined to England alone. By these charters it was,
amongst other things, granted to the Jews, that they might live freely
and honourably within the king’s dominions, and hold lands and have all
their privileges and customs, as quietly and honourably as they had,
in the time of Henry I.; that if a Jew died, the king would not disturb
his possessions, provided he left behind him an heir who could answer
his debts and forfeitures; that they should be at liberty to go where
they would, with all their chattels and effects, without restraint or
hindrance. Certain regulations were also prescribed for the adjustment
of any differences which might arise between the Jews themselves, or
with Christians; as between themselves, all disputes were to be settled
according to their _own_ laws; if any Christian had a plaint against
a Jew, it was not to be tried in the ordinary manner, but by a jury of
Jews, and before particular judges, as will be seen by the following
literal translation of the same great charter of the Jews.

“John by the grace of God, &c. Be it known that we have granted to
all the Jews of England and Normandy to have a residence freely and
honourably in our land, and they are to hold all things of us, which
they held of King Henry, our great-grandfather; and all those things
which they now lawfully hold in land, bonds, and mortgages, and their
chattels. That they may have all the liberties and customs which they
had in the time of the said Henry, the grandfather of our father, in a
better and more quiet and more honourable manner. And if complaint shall
arise between a Christian and a Jew, let him who shall have appealed
against the other, produce witnesses to substantiate his plaint, viz.,
a lawful Christian and a lawful Jew. And if a Jew shall have a writ
concerning his plaint, his own writ shall be his witness. And if a
Christian shall have a plaint against a Jew, the plaint shall be tried
by the Jew’s peers. And when a Jew dies, his body shall not be detained
above the ground; and let his heirs have his money and his debts, so
that he be not disturbed thence, that is to say, if he have an heir that
would be responsible for him, and do justice as touching his debts and
forfeitures. And let it be lawful for Jews to buy every thing offered
to them and to receive them, except such things as belong to the Church,
and crimson cloth. If a Jew be summoned by any one without a witness,
let him be free from such a summons by his single oath taken upon his
book; and if he be summoned concerning things which belong to the crown,
let him likewise be free by his single oath taken on his roll. If a
difference arise between a Christian and a Jew about the lending of
money, the Jew should prove the capital, and the Christian the interest;
that a Jew may lawfully and quietly sell a mortgage made to him, when he
is certain that he held it a whole year and a day; that the Jew should
not be entered into any plea, except before us, or before the keepers
of our castles, in whose bailiwicks the Jews resided. That the Jews,
wherever they are, may go whither they please, with their chattels, as
if they were our own chattels, nor may any man detain or hinder them.
And we ordain that they should be free throughout England and Normandy,
of all customs, tolls, and modiations of wines, just as much as our own
chattels are. And we command and order you to keep, defend, and protect
them; and we prohibit any one from impleading them in opposition to this
charter touching the things mentioned above, under pain of forfeiture,
as the charter of our father, King Henry the Second, did reasonably
command.”¹

    ¹ See Appendix D.

And as a particular encouragement to the English Jews, he granted,
moreover, by another charter, dated the same day, that all differences
among themselves, which did not concern the pleas of the crown, should
be heard and determined by their Rabbies, according to their own law: a
privilege which must have been of great importance to them, as the Jews
consider it strictly unlawful to go to judgment before Gentiles.

In return for these charters, the Jews paid the sum of 4,000 marks.

The Jews, encouraged by such extraordinary marks of respect and
kindness, fancied once more that they had found in England a home; and
great numbers began to come over from the Continent. The royal favour,
however, tended to excite the envy of their Gentile neighbours, who
began to accuse them again of various crimes, as crucifying children,
and falsifying the coin, &c.

In the fourth year of this reign, a Jew, of Bedford, Bonefand by name,
was indicted for a crime of a very incredible nature; which alleged
crime, however, could not be proved, and the Jew was, therefore,
honourably acquitted.¹

    ¹ See Appendix E.

In the fifth year of this reign, the Jews were subjected to many ill
treatments and indignities from the citizens of London; but the king
still continued to show a desire of affording the Jews protection. They
petitioned him to interfere his authority, and obtain them security from
a recurrence of like grievances: whereupon he immediately wrote a sharp
letter to the mayor and barons of London, in which he told them that,
“as they knew the Jews were under his special protection, he wondered
that any ill had been suffered to come upon them;” and after committing
the Jews to their guard and protection, concluded with saying, that if
any fresh injuries should be allowed to befall them, he should require
their blood at the hands of the citizens.¹

    ¹ See Appendix F.

These measures of conciliation had the desired effect: the Jews, placing
reliance in the protection thus offered them by the king, again applied
themselves, with full confidence, to the acquirement of property; and
before ten years of this reign had passed away, their increasing wealth
rendered them capable of affording a rich harvest to the crown. When the
fickle tyrant found that this was the case, he did not any longer keep
the mask of kindness on his face: he began to throw aside the disguise
he had assumed, and by every means which lay in his power endeavoured
to reap the advantages which his policy had placed within his grasp. It
evidently appears that the reason he lavished so many privileges upon
them, was for the diabolical purpose of alluring them into his power,
that he might plunder and oppress them at pleasure. It was aptly said by
a French historian, that the Jews were used like sponges――allowed for a
time to suck up a large amount of wealth, which was wrung out into the
coffers of the crown.

In the year 1210, he laid a tallage upon the Jews, of 66,000 marks, and
enforced payment by imprisonment, and by the infliction of various modes
of bodily torture. He commanded all the Jews of both sexes throughout
England to be imprisoned, till they would make a discovery of their
wealth, which he appointed officers to receive in every county, and
return to his exchequer. The generality of them had one eye put out. One
Jew of Bristol, who hesitated to pay the sum at which he was assessed
(no less than 10,300 marks of silver) is stated to have been condemned
to the cruelty of having one of his teeth torn from his head each
day, until he had discharged his quota. For seven days he submitted
to the torture: on the eighth day, having lost all his teeth but one,
he produced the amount demanded of him. Both these facts are briefly
noticed in the chronological table of Valentine’s Hebrew and English
Almanack.

The many wars King John was engaged in about that time, pressed him very
hard for money. He not only waged war against France, Ireland, and Wales,
but also against his own barons. Money was indispensable, and the poor
Jews were the sufferers.

The next year a further tallage was levied, in respect of which one
Jew alone paid 5,500 marks. In the sixteenth year of his reign, John
imposed another heavy tax, and compelled its payment by imprisonment and
other measures of violence. Some of the Jews of Southampton were rather
backward in their payments; they were ordered to be imprisoned and sent
to the castle at Bristol.

Besides the sums which were thus raised upon the Jews by means of
taxes affecting their whole community, the king derived considerable
advantages from appropriating the property of individuals amongst them.
Was he desirous of making a handsome wedding-gift to any one? he did so
by sending the favoured party a full receipt of all the debts owed to
the poor Jew, as was the case with a certain Robert.¹ In some instances
he would seize upon their houses, and grant them away to other persons,
as was the case with Isaac of Norwich, who had a house in London,
which the king without ceremony presented to the Earl of Ferrars.² But
the mode which he more generally adopted to turn their acquisitions
to account, was to enter into agreements and compromises with their
debtors――either releasing in full the sum which was due, or discharging
the interest payable upon the amount.

    ¹ See Appendix G.

    ² See Appendix H.

It would appear, that the right which the king thus assumed of treating
the debts due to the Jews as his own, although it brought considerable
advantage to the crown, was found, in some instances, to be grievous
in its effects to the people in general; it placed all persons who were
under engagements to the Jews, in the same situation as the debtors to
the king, and thereby subjected them to liabilities much more extensive
than those to which, in common cases, they would have been exposed. When,
therefore, the barons forced from King John the great charter of liberty,
they included in it two several clauses, which had for their object
the regulation of the claims in respect to these debts, and the twelfth
clause of Magna Charta declares――“If any one have borrowed anything of
the Jews, more or less, and dies before the debt be satisfied, there
shall be no interest paid for that debt, so long as the heir is under
age, of whomsoever he may hold; and if the debt fall into our hands, we
will take only the chattel mentioned in the charter or instrument.” The
thirteenth clause further declares, that “If any one shall be indebted
to the Jews, his wife shall have her dower, and pay nothing for the
debt; and if the deceased leave children under age, they shall have
necessaries provided for them, according to the tenement of the deceased,
and out of the residue the debts shall be paid, saving, however, the
service of the Lord.”¹

    ¹ See Appendix I.

The barons, who had assembled with the view of compelling the king to
grant this charter, collected part of their forces in London; and whilst
they remained there, imitated the king’s conduct, and broke into the
residences of the Jews, and pillaged them of whatever valuables they
could find; and then, pulling down the houses, carried the stones of
which they were built, and used them for the purpose of repairing the
walls of the city. About two hundred and sixty years ago, when Ludgate
was rebuilt and enlarged, a very large stone was discovered, with the
following Hebrew inscription――מצב ר׳ משה בן הרב ר׳ יצחק ח׳ ו׳――“The tombstone of
Rabbi Moses, the son of the Rabbi Isaac the wise and learned.”¹

    ¹ The absurd criticism of Dr. Tovey on the above epitaph
      has been already refuted by Dr. Jost. See _Geschichte der
      Israeliten_, vol. vii., p. 405.

There were some, however, in this reign who were interested in the
spiritual welfare of the poor persecuted Jews. The king himself was
indeed an infidel,¹ and cared for no religion, and loved no God but the
god of money, and therefore cared for nothing but the treasure of the
Jews. There was, however, a prior, Richard by name, of Bermondsey, who,
A.D. 1213, built a house for the reception of Christian Jews, and called
the building “The Hospital of Converts.” The prior did it in honour to
St. Thomas.²

    ¹ See Appendix K.

    ² It appears that there was an institution of that kind much
      earlier in the city of Oxford. See Wood’s History of the
      University of Oxford.

The last act of King John towards the Jews was to employ them in
a barbarous deed, to execute which he could not compel any of his
Christian subjects. Having taken prisoners a great part of the Scotch
army at Berwick, who assisted the barons, he determined to inflict such
a variety of cruel and inhuman tortures upon them, that he could find
none except the Jews whose obedience he was able to command. The Jews in
the neighbourhood were, therefore, reluctantly obliged to become their
executioners. It is not to be supposed that the Jews lamented much his
decease, since even a modern Jew can yet exclaim, at the mention of his
name, “Thank God that there was only one King John!”

When Henry the Third succeeded to the throne, he was only nine years
old; and owing to the impious and arbitrary conduct of the late king,
the country was in a state of general turbulence and discontent. It was
therefore fortunate for the Jews, in common with the nation at large,
that the administration of affairs, in the early years of this reign,
fell successively into the hands of men of distinguished ability and
virtue. The Earl of Pembroke, whilst by his talents and vigour he
reduced the disaffected to respect the power of the crown, reconciled
all ranks of men to his authority, by the equity and impartiality of
his measures. As soon as he entered on his exalted office, as guardian
to the youthful king, he adopted measures for the special relief and
protection of the poor persecuted Jews. Many individuals amongst them
were exonerated from burdens which had been previously imposed upon them;
and numbers were immediately liberated from imprisonments, to which,
upon various pretences, they had under the late king been condemned.
Writs and letters patent were issued, directed to the principal
burgesses of each of the towns where the Jews resided, viz., London,
Lincoln, York, Hereford, Worcester, Stamford, Bristol, Northampton,
Southampton, Winchester, Gloucester, Warwick, and Oxford, in all which
places great numbers of the Jews resided, commanding that they should
be held secure from any injuries, either to their persons or to their
properties; and particularly that they should be guarded against any
violence from the hands of the crusaders. In addition to these measures,
a confirmation of the charter they had obtained in the beginning of
the late reign was granted, by the terms of which it will be remembered
that most important privileges were granted them, and their estates
and persons were shielded from violence. At the same time with this
confirmation of their former charter, the Jews were further exempted
from the jurisdiction of the ecclesiastical courts; and, to secure them
a more strict administration of justice, the judges who in the late
reign had presided over their affairs in the exchequer, and who had
shown themselves unworthy of their trust, were removed from their
office, and persons of character appointed in their place. Hubert de
Burgh, who, upon the death of the Earl of Pembroke succeeded him in the
chief direction of the government, was little inferior to him in the
wisdom and probity of his conduct. During the fifteen years that these
ministers continued in power, no instances are recorded of any acts
of violence having been offered to Jews; but we are, on the contrary,
informed that many unlooked for privileges were lavished upon them. In
conjunction with these measures, the sheriffs of the different places,
where the Jews resided, were directed to require that the Jews should
distinguish themselves by wearing, on all occasions, a particular mark
upon their clothes. The mark was to be attached to their upper garment,
and was to consist of two white tablets of linen or parchment, and
to be affixed to their breasts. Some historians wish to persuade us,
that although this order bore the appearance of being of a nature at
once degrading and oppressive, it had nevertheless been dictated by no
unkindly intention. And it has been remarked, that by making the Jews
thus plainly known from other persons, any one who offended against the
directions given for their protection, would be deprived of the excuse
they might otherwise have made, of being ignorant of their persons. This
certainly sounds plausible; but a critical reader of history will at
once discover that such a reason is a mere gloss. The real reason for
the enactment of that strange order seems to be, that the Jews should
be discernible in the eyes of the king, in order that when he wanted
money he should know where to find it without great search; for we are
informed by Dr. Tovey, that “the next year [of Henry’s reign], the king
being informed of his council that great profit would arise from the
Jews if they were kindly dealt with, sent forth the following writs
to the respective sheriffs and officers, commanding them to elect
twenty-four burgesses out of every town where the Jews resided in any
number, to watch carefully over them that they received no injury, and
particularly guard them against the insults of Jerusalem Pilgrims.” So
that, to my mind, it appears that the government after all watched more
jealously their purses than their persons!

However, the protection which was thus extended to them again inspired
them with confidence: those who had survived the oppressions of the last
reign began afresh to accumulate wealth; and numbers of their nation
were induced to come over from the Continent, and settle in this country.
The new comers were at first treated with violence by the wardens of
the cinque ports where they landed. They were thrown into prison, and
pillaged of their effects. For though the policy of the government
towards the Jews had changed, the hatred and cupidity of the people in
general remained unabated. When, however, information was given at court
of the circumstance, relief was quickly afforded. Writs were issued to
the officers of the different ports, commanding that such Jews as had
been imprisoned should be set at liberty, and be allowed to live freely
and without restraint, upon consenting to enter their names upon the
Rolls of the Justices of the Jews, _and not to depart the country again
without permission!¹_

    ¹ See Appendix L.

The clergy, it would seem, took umbrage at the privileges which the
Jews enjoyed, and resolved to attempt, by an exercise of ecclesiastical
authority, to overbear the effects of the protection which had been
afforded by the measures of government. Stephen Langton, Archbishop
of Canterbury, in conjunction with Hugo de Velles, Bishop of Lincoln,
published a general prohibition, by which all persons were forbidden
to buy anything of the Jews, or to sell them any victuals or other
necessaries, or to have any communication with them; declaring, at the
same time, that they were persons, who, by the laws of the Church, were
excommunicated for their infidelity and usury. Indeed the ecclesiastics
had more cause to be jealous of them then than at any subsequent periods.
The Jews were then a more accomplished and enlightened race, than
centuries of feudal oppression had made them four or five hundred years
later. Benjamin of Tudela, the great Jewish traveller of the preceding
century, informs us, that every association of Jews in the more
important cities of Europe, had its college, or seminary, for training
men learned in their law: whilst on the other hand, Christians were
then groping in the darkness of superstition and ignorance. The laity,
and even the priesthood, were then, in point of enlightenment, as
far inferior to their descendants four hundred years later, as the
Jews were superior to theirs. In England, the balance of learning and
accomplishments decidedly preponderated in favour of the Jews, as I have
shown in the lecture before last.¹ There was a difference, too, in the
relative holds of the two religions upon the minds of their votaries.
Both rested upon one common basis――the Old Testament. The faith which
spiritualises the types and forms of that sacred volume was then
comparatively new in the island; many of its inhabitants had been pagans
only two or three centuries before, and were yet wavering in their faith.
On the other hand, the Jews were stronger in faith then than they are
now. The Jews were then a proselytising race: now they no more seek to
make converts than the Society of Friends. All which tended to excite
emulation on the part of the Church.²

    ¹ See p. 109.

    ² See Knight’s London.

Stephen Langton issued, therefore, the following edict respecting the
Jews, at his provincial synod:――

“That the Jews do not keep Christian servants: and let the servants be
compelled by ecclesiastical censure to observe this, and the Jews by
canonical punishment, or by some extraordinary penalty contrived by the
diocesans. Let them not be permitted to build any more synagogues, but
be looked upon as debtors to the churches of the parishes wherein they
reside, as to tithes and offerings.

“To prevent likewise the mixture of Jewish men and women with Christians
of each sex, we charge by authority of the general council, that the
Jews of both sexes wear a linen cloth, two inches broad and four fingers
long, of a different colour from their own clothes, on their upper
garment, before their breast; and that they be compelled to do this by
ecclesiastical censure. _And let them not presume to enter into any
church._”

Alas, how little solicitous was the Christian Church in the middle ages
to bring the Jews to a knowledge of the truth! The above edict virtually
acknowledges the friendly disposition which pervaded the breasts of the
Jewish people towards their Christian neighbours; nay more, it virtually
maintains that the Jews desired to visit Christian places of worship,
but were forced back by Christian bishops.

The Jews appealed to the crown for protection, and obtained relief.
Directions were sent to the sheriffs of the different counties and
cities, to prevent the prohibitions being enforced; and orders were
given to imprison all persons who, by reason of the commands of the
Church, refused to sell provisions to the Jews.¹ This edict of the
Church was published in the seventh year of this reign.

    ¹ See Appendix M.

In the annals of the succeeding seven years, no mention is made of
the Jews, and we may therefore conclude that during that period they
were permitted to live free from persecution. They experienced marks
of liberality even from some of the clergy. We know an instance in
the conduct of the prior of Dunstable, who granted several of them
permission to reside within his jurisdiction, and to enjoy all the
privileges in common with the Gentiles, for the annual payment of
two silver spoons, each of which was to weigh twelve pennyweights.¹
Unfortunately for them, as well as for the nation in general, the
conduct of public affairs assumed a different aspect; it was after
that time taken out of the hands of Hubert de Burgh, who till then
had continued in power, and was placed under the control of men whose
principles and motives were entirely opposite to those of that minister.
From henceforth the Jews, in place of the security they had previously
enjoyed, were subjected to continued violence and arbitrary exaction.

    ¹ See Appendix N.

The English subjects began to murmur that too much favour had been shown
to the Jews, and consequently charged the king with indifference towards
the Christian religion. The king therefore, wishing to convince them
that he was zealous for Christianity, and thereby quiet the turbulent
minds of his subjects, determined to seize upon the whole effects of any
Jewish convert to Christianity.¹ It is a pleasing consideration, however,
that in spite of such a cruel and anti-Christian conduct, there were
some Jews of some celebrity in this country who hazarded every thing for
the sake of truth. We have an instance in a Jew of Canterbury, Augustin
by name, who about that time embraced Christianity. And the monkish
historians relate as an act of great kindness on the part of Henry, that
he was _actually_ graciously pleased to give him his house again to live
in, notwithstanding that he was converted.²

    ¹ A most impious custom practised by a great many Christian
      monarchs of that period, who justified their infamous conduct
      by a reference to Jesus’ command to the young ruler.

    ² See Appendix O.

The change of feeling on the part of the government towards them, was
first manifested in the fourteenth year of this reign. In this year they
were compelled to give up a third part of their moveables to the crown.
Immediately after the imposition of this tax, the Jews in London were
subjected to another unexpected act of injustice and oppression. By
permission of the king, they had lately completed a synagogue, upon a
scale of great magnificence, which surpassed all the Christian churches
in architectural taste. No objection whatever was made to the work in
its progress; but as soon as it was finished, the king sent directions
to have it seized, and forthwith granted it to the brothers of St.
Anthony of Vienna, to be by them converted into a church. Dr. Jost, a
modern German Jewish historian, who has been often referred to during
these series of lectures, observes, “A folly into which all Jews at all
times suffered themselves to be misled by propitious circumstances; not
considering that this desire of vain self-exaltation stimulated jealousy,
and had the inevitable effect of bringing them down very low.”¹

    ¹ “_Eine Thorheit, zu welcher die meisten Juden zu allen
      Zeiten sich durch gunstige Umstande verleiten liessen, nicht
      bedenkend, dass dieses auf Eitelkeit beruhende Sich-Erheben
      den Neid erwecken und zu ihrem tiefem Sinken Anlass geben
      musse._”――Geschichte der Israeliten, vol. vii., p. 140.

About this time an Armenian bishop arrived in this country with letters
from the pope, in order to see some curious relics; and among other
things which he stated――for the truth of which I cannot vouch――he
related the extraordinary circumstance about the Wandering Jew; and as
at this time the old man is very much talked of, and you see in many
windows in large characters THE WANDERING JEW, I will just give you the
description the prelate gave of him, as it is recorded by Matthew Paris,
a contemporary monkish historian. He tells us seriously that “several
persons examined him about this wonderful Jew, and that the prelate
gave them his word that he was then living in Armenia; and an officer
of his retinue who came along with him, informed the examiners more
particularly, that this Jew had formerly been porter to Pontius Pilate,
and was called Cataphilus; and that standing by when our Saviour was
dragged out of the Judgment hall, he smote him upon the back: at which
Jesus being offended, turned about and said to him, ‘The Son of Man
will go, but thou shalt stay till he come again.’ That afterwards he was
converted to the Christian faith, baptized, and called Joseph, living to
be an hundred years old. But then growing sick and impotent, he fell one
day into a swoon; upon coming out of which he found himself young again,
and as vigorous as a man of thirty the age he was of when Christ was
crucified. The same officer assured them that his master was intimately
acquainted with this strange person, and dined with him not long before
he came into England; that he himself had seen him several times; that
he was a man of great seriousness and gravity, never laughing when
any questions were put to him concerning ancient history, such as the
resurrection of the dead bodies that came out of their sepulchres at the
time of the crucifixion, the apostles’ creed, and other circumstances
relating to those holy persons; that he was very fearful of Christ’s
coming to judge the world, for then he said he was to die; and that
he trembled whenever he called to mind the grievous crime of smiting
the Son of God, yet hoped for salvation, because it was a sin of
ignorance.”¹ A most fit person for examining old relics.

    ¹ A different account of a Wandering Jew was announced about
      five centuries later, which I shall notice in the second
      series.

From this time scarce a year was allowed to pass without taxes to a
grievous amount being exacted. In the seventeenth year of this reign,
the king manifested great zeal for the Christian religion, by taxing the
Jews again to the amount of 18,000 marks of silver.

These taxes were enforced by imprisonment, by seizing the property
and possessions of the Jews, and by taking from them their wives
and children; and punctuality of payment was secured by obliging the
richest of their community to become sureties for the rest, under
similar penalties. In addition to these tallages, extending to the
whole community of the Jews, the title which the crown claimed to their
property was continually enforced against individuals; and on every
succession of property they were constrained to pay fines, often most
exorbitant in amount, to the king, for permission to take possession of
it.

However, the king was seized with a charitable fit this year, and
erected an institution for Jewish converts. The reason of that fit was,
to deliver his father’s soul from the flames of purgatory. Conscious,
as it were, that his father, by his cruel conduct towards the Jews,
deserved a larger share of punishment than any king before him: Henry
thought perhaps doing something for Jews would quench the purgatorial
fire a little. Most important was and is the existence of such an
institution or institutions, since the Jew who was convinced of the
truth of Christianity, experienced at the same time the loss of all
things besides.

The following is the king’s charter:――

“The king to the archbishops, &c. greeting. Be it known that we, by the
institution of God, and for the safety of our soul, and of the souls of
our predecessors and of our heirs, have granted, and by this our charter
confirmed, for us and for our heirs to the house which we caused to be
built in the street which is called New-street, between the old and new
temple of London, for the maintenance of the converted brethren, and
those to be converted from Judaism to the Catholic faith, and for the
aid of the maintenance of these brethren that dwell in the said house,
the houses and lands which belonged to John Herberton, in London, and
are in our possession as forfeited (except the garden which belonged to
the said John in the aforesaid New-street, and which we granted formerly
by our charter to the venerable Father Rudolph, of Chichester, our
Chancellor), and all other forfeitures which in our time, by felony, or
from any other causes, will fall to us in our city, or in the suburbs
of our city, London. Wherefore we wish, and firmly enjoin for us and for
our heirs, that the aforesaid house have and hold freely, and quietly,
and in peace, for the maintenance of the converted brethren, and those
to be converted from Judaism to the Catholic faith, in aid for the
maintenance of these brethren that dwell in the same house, the houses
and lands which belonged to John Herberton, in London, and are in our
possession, as if our forfeiture (except the garden which belonged to
the same John in the aforesaid street, New-street, and which formerly
by our charter we granted to the venerable Father Rudolph, Bishop of
Chichester, our Chancellor), and all other forfeitures which in our time,
by felony, or from whatever other causes, will fall to us in our city,
or in the suburbs within the liberty of our city, London, as we have
beforesaid.”¹

    ¹ See Appendix P.

This is the first royal interest taken in the conversion of the Jews.
Individual cases were known earlier than Henry’s time, even in King
John’s time, as I have already stated in a former part of this lecture.¹
Henry was no loser by this establishment; the house itself belonged to
a Jew, and he took, moreover, care to indemnify himself more than enough
by the exorbitant imposts he put upon the Jewish community from time to
time. I humbly venture to suggest that it would be quite a legitimate
thing to restore those revenues to the purposes for which they were
originally granted.

    ¹ See p. 193.




                        APPENDIX TO LECTURE IV.


                                   A.

Though the Mohammedan dominion began to be on the wane, in Spain,
during this century, the Jews held still high offices and enjoyed great
privileges there. Even the Christian powers, at least the political
rulers, were sensible of the benefit which this people imparted to the
country, not only as teachers of science, physicians, and ministers of
finance, but also by the vigour they excited in foreign and domestic
trade. A Jew was, in this century, fiscal general and treasurer of the
kingdom, Jahudano by name. The sovereign entrusted him with almost all
state negociations.――_See Finn’s Sephardim_, chap. xviii.


                                   B.

Rex omnibus fidelibus suis, et omnibus et Judæis et Anglis salutem.
Sciatis nos concessisse, et præsenti charta nostra confirmasse, Jacobo
Judæo de Londoniis Presbytero Judæorum, Presbyteratum omnium Judæorum
totius Angliae. Habendum et tenendum quamdiu vixerit, libere, et quiete
honorifice, et integre; ita quod nemo ei super hoc molestiam aliquam,
aut gravamen inferre præsumat. Quare volumus et firmiter præcipimus,
quod eidem Jacobo quoad vixerit, Presbyteratum Judæorum per totam
Angliam, garantetis, manuteneatis, et pacifice defendatis. Et si quis
ei super ea foris facere præsumpserit, id ei sine dilatione (salva
nobis emenda nostra de forisfactura nostra) emendare faciatis, tanquam
Dominico Judæo nostro, quem specialiter in servitio nostro retinuimus.
Prohibemus etiam ne de aliquo ad se pertinente ponatur in placitum, nisi
coram nobis, aut coram Capitali Justiciario nostro, sicut charta Regis
Richardi fratris nostri testatur.

Teste S. Bathoniens. Episcopo, &c. Dat. per manum Huberti Cantuariensis
Archiepiscopi, Cancellarii nostri, apud Rothomagum 12. die Julii an.
Reg. nostr. primo.


                                   C.

Johannes Dei Gratia, &c. Omnibus fidelibus suis ad quos literæ præsentes
pervenerint tam ultra mare quam citra. Mandans vobis et præcipiens,
quatenus per quascunque villas et loca Jacobus Presbyter Judæorum,
_dilectus et familiaris noster_ transierit, ipsum salvo, et libere, cum
omnibus ad ipsum pertinentibus, transire, et conduci faciatis; nec ipsi
aliquod impedimentum, molestiam, aut gravamen fieri sustineatis, _plus
quam nobis ipsis_ et si quis ei, in aliquo, forisfacere præsumpserit,
id ei sine dilatione, emendari faciatis.

Teste Willelmo di Marisco &c. Dat. per manum Hu. Cantuar. Archiep.
Cancellarii nostri apud Rothomagum 31. die Julii anno Reg. nostr. primo.


                                   D.

Johannes Dei gratia, &c. Sciatis nos consessisse omnibus Judæis Angliæ
et Normaniæ, libere et honorifice habere residentiam in terra nostra et
omnia illa de nobis tenenda quæ tenuerunt de Rege Henrico, avo patris
nostri; et omnia illa quæ modo rationabiliter tenent in terris et
feodis, et vadiis et akatis suis: et quod habeant omnes libertates,
et consuetudines suas, sicut eas habuerunt tempore prædicti Regis H.
avi patris nostri, melius et quietius et honorabilius. Et si querela
orta fuerit inter Christianum et Judæum, ille qui alium appellaverit
ad querelam suam dirationandam, habeat Testes, scilicet legitimum
Christianum et Judæum. Et si Judæus de querela sua breve habuerit, breve
suum erit ei testis. Et si Christianus habuerit querelam adversus Judæum,
sit Judicata per pares Judæi. Et cum Judæus obierit, non detineatur
corpus suum super terram, sed habeat hæres suus pecuniam suam et debita
sua, ita quod non inde disturbetur, si habuerit hæredem qui pro ipso
respondeat, et rectum faciat de debitis suis et de forisfacto suo. Et
liceat Judæis omnia quæ eis apportata fuerint, sine occasione accipere
et emere, exceptis illis quæ de ecclesiæ sunt et panno sanguinolento. Et
si Judæus ab aliquo appellatus fuerit sine teste, de illo appellatu erit
quietus solo Sacramento suo super librum suum, et de appellatu illarum
rerum quæ ad coronam nostram pertinent, similiter quietus erit solo
Sacramento suo super Rotulum suum. Et si inter Christianum et Judæum
fuerit dissentio de accommodatione alicujus pecuniæ, Judæus probabit
catallum suum et Christianus lucrum. Et liceat Judæo quiete vendere
vadium, postquam certum erit, eum illud unum annum, et unum diem
tenuisse. Et Judæi non intrabunt inplacitum, nisi coram nobis, aut
coram illis qui turres nostras custodierint, in quorum ballivis Judæi
manserint. Et ubicunque Judæi, fuerint, liceat eis ire ubicunque
voluerint, cum omnibus catallis eorum, sicut res nostræ propriæ; et
nulli liceat eas retinere, neque hoc eis prohibere. Et præcipimus
quod ipsi quieti sint per totam Angliam et Normaniam de omnibus
consuetudinibus et Theoloniis et modiatione vini _sicut nostrum proprium
catallum_. Et mandamus vobis et præcipimus quod eos custodiatis, et
defendatis, et manu teneatis, et prohibemus nequis contra Chartam istam
de hiis supredictis eos in placitum ponat super forisfacturam nostram;
sicut Charta Regis H. patris nostri rationabiliter testatur. Teste
T. Humf. filio Petri Com. Essex. Willielmi de Merescal. Com. de Pembr.
Henr. de Bohun Com. de Hereford. Robert de Turnham, Willielmo Brywer,
etc. Dat. per manum S. Well. Archidiac. apud Marleberg, decimo dei
Aprilis Anno Regni nostri secundo.――_Charta 2 John_, n. 49.

The above gracious charter might well have been considered a fabrication
had the following one not been added soon.

Judæi Angliæ dant Domino Regi M M M M. marc, pro Cartis suis
conformandis, et missæ fuerunt Cartæ Gaufrido filio Petri et Stephano
de Pertico, ut eas faciant legi coram se, et coram Dom. Londoniensi et
Norwicensi Episcopis, et cum acceperit securitatem de illis quatuor
mille marcis reddendis, tunc eis illas cartas coram prædictis liberet.
――_Oblata_ 2 Fo. M. 3.


                                   E.

The following original indictment will supply the curious with the
particulars of the accusation.

Placita capta apud Bedeford, a die Sancti Michaelis, in tres sept. coram
Simon de Pateshal et Ric. de Faukenbrig et sociis suis, anno regni Regis
Johannis 4to rot. 5. in dorso.

                         _Hundred de Clipton._

Robertus de Sutton appellat Bonefand Judæum de Bedeford, quod ipse in
pacem Domini Regis, et nequiter, fecit ementulari Ricardum nepotem suum,
unde obiit. Ita quod ipse fecit portari eum usque in Terram suam de
Hacton, quam ipse habet in vadio, et ibi obiit: et hoc offert probare.

Et tunc Bonefand venit, et defendit totum, et offert Domino Regi unam
marcam pro habenda inquisitione, utrum sit inde culpabilis, vel non.

Et Juratores inquisiti dicunt, quod non est culpabilis inde: et ideo
Bonefand sit quietus, et Robertus in misericordia, pro falso appello.


                                   F.

Rex, &c. Majori et Baronibus London. &c. Semper dileximus vos multum,
et jura et libertates vestras bene observari fecimus, unde credimus
vos nos specialiter diligere, et ea quæ ad honorem nostrum, et pacem et
tranquillitatem terræ nostræ eduntur, libenter velle præstare. Verum cum
sciatis, quod Judæi in speciali nostra protectione sint, miramur quod
Judæis in civitate London. morantibus, malum fieri sustinetis; cum id
manifeste sit contra pacem regni, et terræ nostræ tranquillitatem. Ita
quidem magis miramur et movemur, quia alii Judæi, per Angliam ubicunque
moram fecerunt, exceptis illis qui sunt in villa vestra in bona pace
consistunt. Nunc id tamen diximus pro Judæis nostris, pro pace nostra:
quia si cuidam tantum pacem nostram dedissimus, debet inviolabiliter
observari. De cætero autem, Judæos in civitate London. morantes, vestræ
committimus custodiæ, ut si quis eis malum facere attentaverit, vos
manu forti eis subsidium facientes, eos defendatis. Vestris enim manibus
eorum sanguinem requiremus, si forte per defectum vestri aliquid mali
eis acciderit, quod absit. Scimus enim bene quod per fatuos villæ,
et non per discretos, hujusmodi eveniunt; et debent discreti fatuorum
stultitiam compescere.

Teste me ipso, apud Montem fortem, 29 die Julii.――_Pat. 5 Joh._ m. 7,
n. 18.


                                   G.

Rex omnibus, &c. Sciatis quod quietavimus Roberto filio Rogeri, tota
vita sua, de omnibus debitis Judæorum, Willielmi de Chesney, patris
Margaretæ, uxoris ejusdem Roberti; et præcipimus quod inde sit quietus,
tota vita sua, et in hujus rei testimonium, has literas nostras patentes,
ei fieri fecimus.

Teste me ipso 19 die August.――_Pat. 10. Joh._ m. 5.


                                   H.

Rex Majori et Vicecom. London. &c. Sciatis quod dedimus dilecto,
et fideli nostro, Com. de Ferrariis, domum Isaac Judæi de Norw. &c.
in London. in parochia Sanctæ Margaretæ, cum redditibus et omnibus
pertinentiis suis, et cartam nostram ei modo fieri fecimus; ideo vobis
mandamus, quod, secundum tenorem ejusdem cartæ nostræ, ei sine dilatione
plenam seisinam habere faciatis.

Teste me ipso apud Craneborn 8 die Julii.――_Claus. 15 Joh._ m. 3.


                                   I.

Si quis debitum mutuo acceperit aliquid a Judæis plus vel minus et
moriatur antequam debitum illud persolverit, debitum illud non usuret
quamdiu hæres fuerit infra ætatem, de quocunque tenet; et si debitum
illud inciderit in manus nostras, nos non capiemus nisi catallum
contentum in charta. Et si quis moriatur et debitum debuerit Judæis,
uxor eius habeat dotem suam et nil reddat de debito illo. Et si liberi
ipsius defuncti qui fuerunt infra ætatem remanserint, provindeantur
eis necessaria secundum tenementum quod fuerit defuncti; et de residuo
solvatur debitum; salvo tamen servitio Dominorum.


                                   K.

Mathew Paris furnishes us with an idea of King John’s religious
principles: he informs us that when John’s subjects saw no other way
of treating him but by taking up arms against him, whilst the former
appealed to the Pope, the latter appealed to Admirallus, King of Morocco,
a Mahometan, promising to surrender his crown and kingdom to him, and
hold them from him as his vassal; and likewise to renounce the Christian
religion, as vain; and faithfully to adhere to the Mahometan religion.
Admirallus rejected the offer with scorn. See also Prynne and Tovey.


                                   L.

Rex Custodibus Portuum Angliæ salutem. Præcipimus vobis quod Judæos
qui venturi sunt in terram nostram Angliæ, de transmarinis partibus,
ad morandum in terra nostra Angliæ, cum catallis suis, libere, et
sine impedimento in portu nostro accedere permittatis; accepta ab eis
sufficienti securitate, secundum legem Judæorum per fidem eorundem,
quod quam citius poterint, veniant ad justiciarios nostros ad custodiam
Judæorum assignatos, ad inrotulandum nomina eorum in rotulis nostris. Et
si aliquem Judæum, qui de partibus transmarinis venerit, sicut prædictum
est, retinueritis, ipsum, et catalla sua, sine dilatione, deliberari
faciatis. Si quos autem inveneritis Judæos de terra nostra, qui ad vos
venerint ad transfretandum usque ad partes transmarinas, sine literis
nostris de licentia transfretandi, ipsos cum catallis suis arrestari
faciatis, donec a nobis, vel a justiciariis nostris ad custodiam
Judæorum assignatis inde aliud mandatum habueritis.

Teste Petro Winton, Episcopo, West. 13 die Novemb. an. Reg. nostr.
tertio.


                                   M.

Rex Vicecomiti Lincoln, et Majori Cantuariæ salutem. Ostenderunt nobis
Judæi nostri Lincolniæ quod ratione præcepti, Venerabilium Patrum
S. S. Cantuariensis Archiepiscopi, et Episcopi Lincoln, facti, de
Judæis, nequis eis victualia vendat, nec communionem habeat cum eis,
nec inveniant aliquem qui eis aliquid vendet: ideo vobis præcipimus quod
visis literis nostris, præcipi et clamari faciatis ex parte nostra, in
Balliva vestra, quod vendantur eis victulia. Et si quem inveneritis qui
deneget eis victulia et alia necessaria, in civitate Cantuariæ, et alibi,
illum capiatis, et corpus ejus salvo custodiatis, donec aliud mandatum
præcipimus.

Teste Hugone de Burgo apud Westm. 10. die Novemb.――_Claus._ 7, H. 3,
pars 2, m. 29, dors.


                                   N.

Ricardus, Prior de Dunstaple, et totus ejusdem loci conventus. Sciatis
nos concessisse Flemengo Judæo de London. et Leoni filio suo, et suis,
et servientibus eorum, ire, et venire, et manere in villa de Dunstaple,
bene et in pace, quiete et honorifice. Concessimus etiam eisdem Flemeng.
et Leoni omnes libertates et liberas consuetudines villæ de Dunstaple,
sicut aliquis de hominibus nostris de villa eas melius et plenius habet.
Nec nos nec nostri impedimentum faciemus prædictis Judæis, quin lucrum
suum fideliter faciant in villa nostra, secundum consuetudinem Judæorum.
Et nos manutenebimus prædictos Judæos, et suos et eorum servientes, et
res suas in villa rationabiliter, sicut faceremus si de nobis tenerent.
Pro hac autem concessione nostra, dabit nobis prædictus Flemeng, quamdiu
ipse moram fecerit in Villa Dunstapliæ, singulis annis, duo coclearia
argentea; quorum utrumque duodecim denarios ponderabit. Si autem
prædictus Flemengus absens fuerit, prædictus Leo filius ejus eadem
coclearia eisdem terminis persolvet. Hæc autem concessio et conventio
tota vita prædictorum Judæorum durabit.――_Chartular. de Dunstaple_,
fol. 35, 6.

Those Jews are reported, however, to have repaid the kindness of the
prior with base ingratitude; by bringing against him a forged bond. I
must confess, after examining all the evidences respecting the affair, I
am rather inclined to think that the bond was not forged, and, moreover,
that the generous prior was not a just one.


                                   O.

Mandatum est Vicecomiti de Kant. quod habere faciat Augustino converso,
quandam domum in Judaismo in Cant. quæ sua fuit, antequam ad fidem
converteretur; non obstante eo quod conversus est.

Teste Rege apud Red. 17 die Januar.――_Claus._ 11, H. 3, m. 21.


                                   P.

Rex Archiepiscopis, &c. salutem. Sciatis nos intuitu Dei, et pro salute
animæ nostræ, et animarum antecessorum et hæredum nostrorum, concessisse,
et hac charta nostra confirmasse, pro nobis, et hæredibus nostris,
domui quam fundari fecimus in vico, qui vocatur New-street, inter
vetus Templum et novum, London. ad sustentationem fratrum conversorum,
et convertendorum, de Judaismo, ad fidem Catholicam, et in auxilium
sustentationis eorundum fratrum in eadem domo conversantium, domos, et
terras, quæ fuere Johannis Herbeton, in London, et sunt in manu nostra
tanquam eschæta nostra, (except. Gardino quod fuit ejusdem Johannis
in vico prædict. de New-street, et quod prius per chartam nostram
concessimus Venerabili Patri Radulpho Cicestrensi, Cancellario nostro),
et omnes alias eschætas quæ tempore nostro, per feloniam, vel quacunque
alia ex causa nobis accident, in civitate nostra, vel in suburbio
civitatis nostræ London. Quare volumus, et firmiter præcipimus, pro
nobis, et hæredibus nostris, quod prædicta domus habeat, et teneat,
libere, et quiete; bene, et in pace, ad sustentationem fratrum
conversorum, et convertendorum de Judaismo, ad fidem Catholicam, in
auxilium sustentationis eorundem fratrum, in eadem domo conversantium,
domos, et terras quæ fuerunt Johannis Herbeton, in London. et sunt in
manu nostra tanquam eschæta nostra, (excepto Gardino quod fuit ejusdem
Johannis, in vico prædicto de New-street, et quod prius per chartam
nostram concessimus Venerabili Patri Radulpho Cicestrensi Episcopo,
Cancellario nostro), et omnes alias eschætas, quæ tempore nostro per
feloniam, vel quacunque alia ex causa, nobis accident, in civitate
nostra, vel in suburbio, infra libertatem civitatis nostræ London.
sicut predictum est.

Hiis testibus Venerabilibus Patribus W. Kaerl. et W. Exon. Episcopis,
H. De Burgo comite Kantiæ; Radulpho filio Nicolai, Godefrido de
Crancumbe, Johanne filio Philippi, Amaurico de sancto Aumundo; Willelmo
de Picheford, Galfrido de Cauz, et aliis.

Dat. per manum Venerabilis Patris Radulphi, Cicestrensis Episcopi,
Cancellarii nostri, apud Westm. 19. die Aprilis.




                               LECTURE V.


IN my last Lecture I brought down the history of the Jews in this
country, to the year 1233, the seventeenth of the reign of Henry the
Third. You have heard, that as soon as the government of the country was
taken out of the hands of Hubert de Burgh, the Jews began to experience
very great persecutions and grievous exactions from the king, the most
acquisitive of all English monarchs.¹ They had indeed acquired great
wealth during the administrations of the Earl of Pembroke and Hubert de
Burgh; but they could as much enjoy that wealth as King Damocles the
celebrated banquet. They beheld amid their enormous affluence the sword
which was suspended over their heads by a single hair.

    ¹ A. Strickland.

All sorts of ridiculous and base calumnies began to be invented against
them, in order to furnish a warrant for inflicting upon them fines,
extortions, imprisonment, banishments, and other unheard of cruelties.

My Lecture this evening commences, as you perceive, by the syllabus in
your hands, with the sufferings of the Jews of Norwich――sufferings which
owe their existence to the venomous calumnies invented by Christians
in order to possess themselves of their Jewish neighbour’s wealth.
In the year 1235, a year when Henry was greatly in need of money, in
consequence of his great outlay on his sister Isabella’s marriage to
the emperor of Germany, as well as his own contemplated marriage with
Eleanor of Provence: poor Count Berenger having positively declined
giving the twenty thousand marks which the mean Henry asked as a dowry,
Henry must, therefore, have been very glad of getting an opportunity, be
it ever so foul, of extorting the required sum from the poor Jews. The
Jews of Norwich were at that time enormously rich. Seven of them were
therefore accused of circumcising a Christian child of that city, and
they were brought before the king himself, whilst he was celebrating his
nativity at Westminster. The poor Jews were condemned to be drawn and
hanged, and, of course, their property confiscated, and thus were the
king’s wants supplied for that time.

You next perceive in the syllabus, briefly noticed, the famous trial
of Jacob of Norwich. The syllabus, however, can give you no idea of
the nature of that _in_famous process, or of the absurd charge which
originated that trial.

In the year 1240, the afore-mentioned rich Jew was accused of stealing
a boy from his parents, and circumcising him. The monkish historians
tell us, that it proved a case of such difficulty, that the _postea_
was thought proper to be returned to parliament.

Parliament could not decide. Indeed, the strangeness of the accusation
would have puzzled any body of men to decide. Four years were allowed
to elapse before the charge was brought, and the principal witness
was a little boy, of about nine years of age, who stated that when he
was about five years old he was playing in a certain street; the Jews
allured him into the house of one Jacob, where they kept him a day
and a night, and then blindfolded him and circumcised him. Yet strange
to say, with his eyes blinded, and amidst the confusion of so painful
an operation, the youthful boy was able to notice several minute
particulars, which he narrated, but which certainly never had any
existence, inasmuch as the particulars he related to have taken place
after the circumcision, have no connexion with that rite.

In addition to the boy’s unlikely story, there were no symptoms whatever
that witness ever underwent such an operation. Under such circumstances,
and with such unsatisfactory evidence, the poor Jews would, doubtless,
have been honourably acquitted. But as this calumny originated, in all
probability, with the ecclesiastics, they could not brook disappointment;
and contrived, therefore, to become accusers, witnesses, and judges
themselves.

The bishops accordingly insisted upon the matter being tried in their
courts; and as soon as the charge was dismissed by parliament, as
incapable of being proved satisfactorily, the professing ministers
of Christianity, who stated that the boy was circumcised in derision
and contumely of their Lord and Master, determined to take the law
into their own hands. They maintained that such questions belonged
exclusively to the jurisdiction of the Church, and that the state had
no right to interfere.

Baptism and circumcision, they argued, being matters of faith, the
ministers of that faith had, therefore, alone the right of deciding
cases of that kind. The poor Jews were therefore once more dragged
before a judge and jury who were most inimical to them, whose avaricious
affections were set on their hard-earned riches. One can easily guess
the result of the judgment seat, and the fate of the unfortunate Norwich
Jews.

William Ralegh, Bishop of Norwich, acted as judge: the archdeacon and
the priests as witnesses, who deposed on oath that they saw the boy
immediately after he was circumcised, and that there were then all
the signs, that such an operation had been performed upon him. Why and
wherefore the archdeacon and priests kept it quiet so long; the judge
did neither ask nor care. How it came to pass that the signs had, in
the short space of four years, totally disappeared, the judge did not
investigate. A certain Maude also deposed, in confirmation of the charge,
that after the boy was taken home, the Jews called upon her to warn her
against giving him any swine’s flesh to eat.

Four of the accused were condemned to be dragged by horses’ tails and to
be hanged.¹ How hateful must the ecclesiastics have rendered themselves
to the Jews! With what a despicable idea have they furnished the
Jews, of the Christian religion! Are we to be surprised that a Jew who
embraced Christianity, and received even holy orders, was induced to
return to Judaism, and to submit to suffer persecution with his brethren,
rather than countenance the religion of such men?² Is it to be wondered
at the paucity of Jews becoming the disciples of a religion, whose
professors were so devoid, not only of any religious feelings whatsoever,
but also of any human feelings? And shall we wonder that the Jew
who embraced Christianity in those days was so dreadfully hated, and
considered altogether such an one as his new co-religionists?

    ¹ See Appendix A.

    ² See Appendix B.

The populace, who, as usual, only waited for an opportunity to rob and
plunder, as soon as the verdict was pronounced, set fire to the houses
of the Jews and reduced them to ashes; and so barefaced were those
murderers and robbers, that when the sheriff of Norfolk ventured to
interfere on behalf of the wretched Jews, they complained to the king
of the sheriff’s audacious interference.

The Jews residing then in Newcastle-upon-Tyne were banished from that
place: we are not informed, however, of the cause of that cruel measure;
but simply in consequence of a petition of the inhabitants of that town,
who, in all probability, mortgaged their houses to the Jews, and by the
expulsion of their creditors from amongst them, hoped to rid themselves
of their debts, as no offence whatever is mentioned in the king’s
letter.¹

    ¹ See Appendix C.

The king began zealously to espouse the conduct of the Church towards
the Jews; and by royal proclamation prohibited Christian women from
entering into the service of Jews as nurses:¹ and the reason given for
this interdict is, that there was an universal custom among the Jews
of obliging their hired Christian nurses to abstain from nursing their
children for three days after Easter, lest the body and blood of Jesus
Christ――which all Christians in those Popish times were obliged to
receive at that holy festival――should by incorporation be transfused
into their children.

    ¹ See Appendix D.

This abominable instance of blasphemy and folly emanated from the pen
of Pope Innocent the Third, in an epistle to the Bishop of Paris, in
a style unworthy of the polite English ear.¹ How inconsistent! The
Jews are first accused of little faith, or of total unbelief, and then
again of believing too much. The ridiculous reason would imply that the
Jews believed not only in the doctrine of Christ, but also in that of
antichrist, viz.: the doctrines of transubstantiation. If the Jews had
at all such a practice as above alluded to, it would have been because
of Easter generally occurring about the time of the Jewish passover;
and the fear of leaven being introduced into their dwellings, might have
induced them to have recourse to such an expedient.

    ¹ See Appendix E.

The Christian inhabitants of Southampton, followed the example of those
of Newcastle, and petitioned the king to rid them also of the Jews, and
perhaps with them of their debts, which the king readily granted.

The king’s continual want of money was a never ceasing torment to the
poor Jews, for when he could not obtain any money, to squander away,
from his barons and nobles, he fell upon the Jews and wrung out of them
whatever he wanted.

When Eleanor’s two uncles came over to this country――one of which
having become primate of England, became also a great oppressor of
the Jews――Henry, out of complaisance to his consort, received and
entertained them with such magnificence, that, not knowing how to
support the charge by honest means, he sent word to the Jews, that
unless they presented him with twenty thousand marks, he would expel
them all the kingdom; and thus he supplied himself with money for his
unjust generosity.¹

    ¹ A. ♦Strickland. M. Paris. Speed.

    ♦ ‘Stricland’ replaced with ‘Strickland’

The following circumstance is related by Dr. Tovey, on the authority of
Matthew Paris:――

“The next year [the nineteenth year of his reign], the king, keeping his
Christmas at Winchester, sent out writs to all his archbishops, bishops,
barons, abbotts, and priors, that, without any excuse, they should meet
him in parliament upon the octaves of Epiphany at Westminster, to treat
upon matters of the highest consequence. Whither, when they were all
come, William de Keele, the king’s secretary, stood up, and told them
he was commanded by the king to say, ‘that however ill his majesty
might have behaved himself hitherto, in being guided by foreigners,
he was determined to be so no longer; for they had cheated him of all
his money: and that therefore, as he intended for the future to have
no other counsellors but his natural born subjects, he hoped they would
give him a fresh supply.’ The manner of raising it, he said, was to
be left to themselves; and though the king was very necessitous in his
private circumstances, he was willing, if they thought proper, that the
money raised should be disposed of by their own commissioners to the
public advantage. At which speech the barons being greatly surprised,
made answer, that they had already given the king such large sums,
without receiving any return from him, either of good government or
affection, that they thought it inconsistent with their honours to
lay any further tax upon the people till they saw better occasion, and
therefore desired to be excused.

“But the king, who was not so easily to be satisfied, insisting upon
the vast expenses he had been at lately, in marrying his sister to the
emperor (whose portion was three hundred thousand marks),¹ as also from
his own marriage; and likewise, swearing to take their advice in all
things for the future, and forsake his foreigners, they were prevailed
upon to grant him a thirtieth part of all their moveables; and the
clergy did the same. But as the money, by agreement, was not to be
disposed of without their privity and consent, and was, likewise, to
be deposited in some abbey, castle, or other place of security, and
not in his exchequer; the king, finding himself, in a great measure,
disappointed, was resolved to get money by some other means, which he
might call his own, and lavish away at pleasure. He, therefore, fell
to work again upon his Jewish mines, and extracted no less than ten
thousand marks――from the immediate payment whereof no Jew was to be
excused, but by the king’s especial writ.”² Ten of the richest Jews were
obliged to become security for the payment of this unreasonable demand.
Not that the Jews were unable at once to raise the required sum, but
they dared not appear as wealthy as they really were.³

    ¹ All of which he expended on Eleanor’s coronation.

    ² See Appendix F.

    ³ See Dr. Jost.

The wealth which the Jews have accumulated in this country must have
been enormously great; and the ten sureties must have been equal to
raise any sum, be it ever so large, if we may judge from the wealth of
individuals amongst them. From one, Aaron of York――who seems to have
supplied a great part of the necessities both of the king and queen――in
the short space of seven years, the king exacted upwards of 30,000 marks
of silver; and to the queen the same Jew also paid upwards of 200 marks
of gold.¹ Dr. Jost says, “that Aaron’s riches were immeasurable.”² The
same Aaron also entered into a compact with the king to pay him annually,
during the whole period of his life, the sum of one hundred marks,
in order to be free from taxes.³ Nor was Aaron the only one so gifted
with this world’s riches. We read of another Jew of Hereford, Hamon by
name, who must have been equally rich. We do not hear anything about him
during his life-time; but we read, that when he died――which took place
about two years prior to the above exaction――his daughter, Ursula, was
obliged to pay 5,000 marks for a relief.⁴

    ¹ _Aurum Reginæ_, or queen gold, a due which the queens of
      England were entitled to claim on every tenth mark paid to
      the king, as voluntary fines for the royal good will. Eleanor
      sometimes demanded it in a most unreasonable manner. _Tovey.
      A. Strickland._

    ² “_Sein Reichthum war unermesslich._”

    ³ “Considering the different values of money, this, I believe,
      is as much as the richest nobleman pays at present.”――_Anglia
      Judaica_, p. 108.

      “When we read or speak of any sum of money in our histories,
      from the Saxon times to the year 1344, we are to consider it,
      on an average, as about thrice the weight and value of the
      like sum in our time.”――_Introduction to the History of
      Commerce, by Anderson._

    ⁴ “Though, by Magna Charta, the relief of an earl’s son, for
      a whole county, was settled but at one hundred pounds; of a
      baron’s heir, for a whole barony, at but one hundred marks;
      and no more than one hundred shillings was to be paid for the
      relief of a knight’s fee――all which were called the antiqua,
      or accustomed reliefs of the kingdom.”

In order to diminish the enormity of the incessant persecutions the
poor Jews were subject to, recourse was continually had to many mean and
unworthy acts of vilifying them. Some of them were imprisoned at Oxford,
under the pretence of having forcibly taken away a young Jew who had
been converted and baptized――a charge which, as it was unjustly grounded,
was properly opposed, and in which their innocence so plainly appeared,
that the king very soon after commanded them to be released.

No offence was, indeed, too improbable to be laid to their charge. They
were even accused of plotting against the state, and of attempts to
overturn the government; but the most absurd accusation brought against
them was, that a party of them had collected together large quantities
of combustible materials at Northampton, for the purpose of employing
them in the destruction of London, by fire. Upon this incredible charge,
many Jews were burned alive, and their effects seized and delivered into
the king’s hands. Matthew Paris, who lived in this reign, and was an
eye-witness of the oppressions to which the Jews were subjected by the
crown, gives a distressing picture of their sufferings. He concludes
his account of the manner in which the king practised his extortions
with these words: _Non tamen abrando, vel excoriando sed eviscerando
extorsit.¹_

    ¹ Matt. Paris, p. 831; Blunt, p. 42.

To put a stop to the repeated calumnies which were brought against them,
as clippers and falsifiers of the coin, they came to the conclusion of
paying the king one hundred pounds, in order “that all Jews who should
be _lawfully_ convicted of clipping, robbery, or harbouring of clippers
or robbers, should be for ever banished the realm.”¹

    ¹ See Appendix G.

We must also notice the memorable _Parliamentum Judaicum_, which
occurred in the twenty-fifth year of Henry’s reign, A.D. 1240. Soon
after this public testimony of their loyalty, as citizens of the state
in which they lived, they were agreeably surprised at hearing that a
certain number of their nation were summoned to attend a parliament at
Worcester, in order, as the writ ran, “to treat with the king as well
concerning his own as their benefit.”¹ Many of them entertained the
most sanguine hopes that such an occurrence would terminate as much to
their honour as to their advantage.² But in this expectation they were
speedily and sorely disappointed; for the purport of his majesty’s most
gracious speech informed them that he wanted money, and that they must
raise, among their own people, twenty thousand marks, half of which
was to be paid at midsummer, and the other half at Michaelmas. This
peremptory command, however, they appeared unable to obey, although they
had the singular privilege of appointing their own collectors; but the
collectors were not able to raise the demanded sum; and the consequence
was, that themselves, their wives and children, were seized, and
incarcerated, and their goods and chattels were taken from them.³

    ¹ See Appendix H.

    ² See Appendix I.

    ³ See Appendix J.

Henry’s expedition against the King of France, two years afterwards, in
order to regain the provinces of Guienne and Poictou, was another reason
for demanding money from his Jewish subjects. You are, however, aware
that Henry was totally unsuccessful in that ill-advised expedition.
After which the king and the queen determined to spend a merry winter at
Bordeaux.¹ Whilst there the king became interested in a certain Jewish
convert, Martyn by name, whom he sent to this country with orders to the
Archbishop of York, whom he had left governor in England, and Walter de
Cantelupe, Bishop of Worcester, to provide some convenient place for the
well educating of the same Jewish convert, and to furnish him with the
means of subsistence.² The king seemed always kindly disposed towards
Jewish converts.

    ¹ A. Strickland.

The Jewish Converts’ Institution, as a matter of course, must have been
full; and we find it, therefore, soon after augmented. It appears that
Peter Rupibus, Bishop of Winchester, had bequeathed a legacy of one
hundred pounds for the existing Jewish Converts’ Institution.¹

    ¹ See Appendix K.

From the following circumstance, it would seem that the converts
were expected to join their patrons in their railing accusations
against their unbelieving brethren. The poor converts found themselves,
therefore, very awkwardly situated, as will evidently appear to every
intelligent reader of the following occurrence.

The Jews were again accused of crucifying a child. The story and the
made-up circumstances are so extraordinary, that I shall give you the
whole account, as given by Matthew Paris, and translated by William
Prynne, in his malicious Demurrer.

“Anno 1244 in August, the corpse of a little male child was found buried
in the city of London, in whose thighs and arms, and under whose paps,
there was a regular inscription in Hebrew letters. To which spectacle
when as many resorted, admiring at it, and not knowing how to read
the letters, knowing that the letters were Hebrew, they called thither
converted Jews who inhabited the house which the king had founded in
London, that they as they loved their life or members, for the honour,
love, and fear of their Lord the King, without figment of falsehood,
might declare that writing. For the king’s bailiffs, and conservators of
the peace were present. They likewise believed, neither without cause,
that the Jews had either crucified that little child in obloquy and
contumely of Christ (which was related frequently to have happened) or
had afflicted him with sundry torments to crucify him, and when he had
given up the ghost, they had now cast him there, as unworthy the cross.
Moreover, there appeared in his body blue marks, and rents of rods, and
manifest signs and footsteps of some other torment. And when as those
converts were brought to read those things that were inscribed, and
studied that they might perfectly read them, they found the letters
deformed, and now not legible, being many ways disordered, and tossed
up and down, by reason of the extension and contraction of the skin and
flesh. But they found the name of the father and mother of the little
child, suppressing their surnames, and that the child was sold to the
Jews; but to whom, or to what end, they could not find. In the mean time,
certain of the London Jews took a secret and sudden flight, never to
return again, who by this very thing rendered themselves suspected. And
some affirmed, that the Lord had wrought miracles for the child. And
because it was found that the Jews at other times had perpetrated such
wickedness, and the holy bodies crucified had been solemnly received in
the Church, and likewise to have shined brightly with miracles, although
the prints of the five wounds appeared not in the hands and feet and
side of the said corpse, yet the canons of St. Paul took it violently
away, and solemnly buried it in their church, not far from the great
altar.” To the honour and credit of the then Jewish converts, let this
event be recorded, that though they were stimulated by the Christians to
accuse their unconverted brethren, by whom they were so violently hated,
they brought no accusation whatever against their enemies; and their
total silence respecting the charge of crucifying Christian children
should have convinced the dignitaries of the Church, that that charge
was nothing more but a base and false calumny.

The king, after his return to England, found himself very much
impoverished, having lost his military chest, and his moveable chapel
royal, with all its rich plate, at the battle of Taillebourg. Henry
wishing, however, to celebrate the wedding of his brother Richard with
his sister-in-law, Sancha, in royal style, he called, therefore, upon
the poor Jews to furnish the funds for the splendid festivities. And
Aaron of York alone was compelled to pay no less than four thousand
marks of silver and four hundred marks of gold; and the Jews of London
were mulcted in like proportion.¹ He was still poor, and wanted more
money; he applied, therefore, to his parliament for it. They well
knew, that vast sums had been exacted by him from the Jews; the barons,
therefore, inquired, what became of all their money. The king did
not relish this sort of procedure on the part of those noblemen, and
appeared to refuse an answer to such an ill-timed query. The barons,
in order to be acquainted in future with his revenues derived from the
Jews, insisted on having one, at least, of the justices of the Jews
appointed by parliament. The king found himself obliged to acquiesce
in that bold proposal, and moreover to confirm it by charter. The Jews
were by no means sorry for this baronical step, for it afforded them
a little respite. For in return for the king’s consenting to the new
parliamentary measure, the barons were likewise obliged to yield to his
request, and supply his pecuniary wants, so that the Jews had peace from
him, during the whole of _that_ year. But it was only for _that_ year.
The next one was introduced with another demand.

    ¹ M. Paris; A. ♦Strickland.

    ♦ ‘Stricland’ replaced with ‘Strickland’

In consequence of the king’s again wanting money to meet the Welsh
incursions, the Jews were once more applied to and despoiled of, 10,000
marks: transportation to Ireland was the punishment in case of refusal.

Many families removed and hid themselves, fearing Ireland, as it would
seem, more than England;¹ so that the king had recourse to his father’s
measures, and issued a most cruel proclamation respecting their wives
and children: in which, orders were given to the justices appointed
for the protection of the Jews, that they should cause to be proclaimed
throughout all the counties of England, where the Jews were, that if a
Jewess, the wife of any Jew, or their children, fly, or take to flight,
or in any way skulk from the village where they were on the festival
of St. Andrew, in the twenty-ninth year of that reign, up to the year
following: so that if they did not promptly appear, at the summons of
the king, or of his bailiffs, in the bailiwicks in which they dwelt,
that the husband of that Jewess, and even the Jewess herself, and
all their children, shall be presently outlawed; and all their lands,
revenues, and all their chattels, shall come into the hands of the king,
and be sold, for the assistance of the king, and for the future, they
shall not return into the kingdom of England, without the king’s special
orders.

    ¹ It is a favourite boast on the part of many Irish Christians,
      that their countrymen never persecuted the Jews. The above
      incidental piece of information may account for it.

Westminster Abbey was about this time rebuilt; and the Jews, who were
prohibited from entering any Christian place of worship, were at the
same time commanded to aid in the rebuilding and ornamenting of that
magnificent church.

Lucretia, widow of David, a Jew of Oxford, was obliged to pay 2590
pounds, which was devoted to that undertaking.

Anderson tells us: “About this time, the beautiful and stately abbey
church of Westminster began to assume the venerable and majestic
appearance which it wears to this day, except the finely rebuilt north
front, reared on the ancient foundation, which is now strengthened and
new cased, where the stone had fallen to decay.” Maddox, in his “History
of Exchequer,” adds: “For this purpose, Henry grants and dedicates to
God and St. Edward, and the Church of Westminster for the re-edifying
of that fabrick, the sum of £2590, which he extracted from Lucretia, the
widow of David, a Jew of Oxford.” Upon which Hunter, in his “History of
London,” remarks: “It is amusing to reflect, that one of our noblest and
most ancient Christian structures owes its renovation and embellishment
to the Jewish nation.”

There was a tallage laid upon the Jews, for that very purpose, which
went by the name of the Jews’ alms; which is evident from the following
passage in Prynne’s Demurrer:

“In the 29th of Henry III. the king sends writs to his justices for the
custody of the Jews, and to his sheriffs to levy the debts due to him
from the heirs of Hamond the Jew of Hereford, and that Crespin, a Jew,
should pay him twenty-eight marks, to be laid out in silk and cloth of
gold for Westminster Church, _as his alms_.”

The most uninteresting part of Jewish history in the annals of this
country, is that during the reign of Henry III. we can scarcely relate
any thing but it is closely connected with the uncontrollable avarice
of the British monarch, as well as that of his subjects. There is a
disagreeable sameness in those annals. I must once more relate, that
Henry extracted again 60,000 marks from the Jews, for which even the
monkish historians find no excuse. In order to keep their treasures
well supplied, usury was permitted to them by act of parliament, which
rendered them most odious in the opinions of their Gentile debtors, who,
generally, as soon as they incurred some large debt, began to scheme
their creditor’s destruction; and which was the means of branding
them with the unobliterable stigmas of “the usurious race,” and “money
brokers,” which polite Gentile writers indulge in even to this very
day.¹

    ¹ Miss Strickland, in her popular work, “Lives of the Queens
      of England,” seems to think such epithets quite elegant. See
      vol. i., p. 354.

Whilst treating of this subject, I think it proper to call your
attention to the pope’s usurers in this country, which will show that
the poor Jews got more of the name than of the gain. Their method was
extremely characteristic.

The Jews were very much amused at it. Dr. Tovey, after expatiating
for some time on the usurious practice of the Jews, proceeds, “when
I said the Jews were the sole usurers of the kingdom, I meant to have
excepted the pope; for he, indeed, the pope, was wont to carry on
that infamous trade, in such a shameful manner, by the help of several
Italian merchants, called Caursini, that the Jews themselves might
have profited by his example. For though, according to the strict and
legal acceptation of the word, his contracts were not usurious, yet the
effects of them were the most unheard of usury. His method was this:
if a person wanted a sum of money, which he could not repay under six
months, he would lend it him for three, without any interest at all;
and then covenant to receive fifty per cent. for every month afterwards,
that it should remain unpaid. Now, in this case, said he, I am no usurer:
for I lent my money, absolutely without interest; and what I was to
receive afterwards was a contingency that might be defeated. A bond
of this kind, which surpasses every thing of modern invention, is
transmitted to us by Matthew Paris.”

“To all that shall see this present writing, Thomas the prior, and
the convent of Barnwell wish health in the Lord. Know ye that we
have borrowed and received at London, for ourselves, profitably to be
expended for the affairs of our church, from Francisco and Gregorio, for
them and their partners, citizens and merchants of Millain, a hundred
and four marks of lawful money sterling, thirteen shillings and four
pence sterling being counted to every mark, which said one hundred and
four marks we promise to pay back on the feast of St. Peter ad vincula,
being the first day of August, at the new temple in London, in the
year 1235. And if the said money be not all paid, at the time and place
aforesaid, we bind ourselves to pay to the aforesaid merchants, or any
one of them, or their certain attorney, for every ten marks, forborn
two months, one mark of money, for recompense of damages, which the
aforesaid merchants may incur by the nonpayment of it; so that they
may lawfully demand both principal, damages, and expenses, as above
expressed, together with the expenses of one merchant, for himself,
horse, and servant, until such time as the aforesaid money be fully
satisfied. And for the payment of such principal, interest, damage,
and expenses, we oblige ourselves, our church, and successors, and all
our own goods and the goods of our church, moveable, or immoveable,
ecclesiastical, or temporal, which we have, or shall have, wheresoever
they shall be found, to the aforesaid merchants and their heirs. And do
further recognise, and acknowledge, that we possess, and hold the said
goods from the said merchants, by way of courtesy, until the premises be
fully satisfied. Renouncing also for ourselves and successors, all help
of canon, and civil law, all privileges, and clerkship, the epistle of
St. Adrian, all customs, statutes, lectures, indulgences, and privileges
obtained for the king of England, from the see apostolic, as also the
benefit of all appeal, or inhibition from the King of England; with
all other exceptions, whether real or personal, that may be objected,
against the validity of this instrument. All which things we promise
faithfully to observe, and in witness thereof have set to the seal of
our convent.――Dat. London, die quinto ELPHEGI [24 April.] An. Gratiæ
1235.” Matthew Paris adds――“When the Jews came to understand this
Christian way of preventing usury, they laughed very heartily.”

The king made himself heir of the Jewish possessions, whether houses
or lands, which they should possess or purchase in this realm. Prynne
furnishes us with a clause of the original writ, wherein the king claims
to succeed to the Jewish property.¹

    ¹ See Appendix L.

It appears that in consequence of the incessant taxation of, and
continual display of ill will towards, the unhappy Jews, they began to
think that England would not remain their home much longer, and were
therefore careless about many things. Their cemetery was about that time
out of repair, and there was a disposition on the part of many to leave
it so; but it seems that their leaders, who were perhaps urged by the
king, insisted on having the burying place repaired, and determined to
compel every one to contribute towards it. To be able to carry their
intentions into effect, they applied to the king for permission to
excommunicate all such who should refuse to co-operate and assist in
the undertaking. The king turned this circumstance to his advantage,
and granted the required license, on the condition that the fines which
might arise out of the excommunications should go to him.

An incident which occurred about this time, of a most awful nature,
furnishes us with an idea of the great animosity which the Jews
manifested towards the religion of their Gentile neighbours――I will not
call it Christianity――image-worship is its proper appellation. It would
seem that they displayed their hatred by treating the dumb Christian
idols with contempt; and any care taken of such an idol, inspired them
with murderous rage even against their nearest and dearest relations, as
the following narrativeshows.¹ The style is altogether popish.

    ¹ It is to be noticed, however, that the Jew here alluded to
      was a most unprincipled man. His hatred did not arise out
      of conviction that his religion was the only true one. It
      is remarkable, that to this very day, the most ignorant and
      wicked Jews are the most hostile to Christianity.

“There was a certain rich Jew, having his abode and house at
Berkhamstede and Wallingford, Abraham by name, not in faith, who was
very dear to Earl Richard, who had a very beautiful wife, and faithful
to him, Flora by name. This Jew, that he might accumulate more disgrace
to Christ, caused the image of the Virgin Mary, decently carved and
painted, as the manner is, holding her son in her bosom, to be put in
an indecent place, and which is a great shame and ignominy to express,
blaspheming the image as if it had been the very virgin herself, threw
all sorts of dirt upon her, days and nights, and commanded his wife
to do the like. But Flora’s delicate feelings so much revolted at the
injunction, that she not only refused to be partner in the indecent act,
but secretly removed the filth from the image as often as it was covered.
Which when the Jew her husband had fully found out, he therefore privily
and impiously strangled the woman herself, though his wife.¹ But when
these wicked deeds were discovered, and made apparent, and proved by
his conviction, although other causes of death were not wanting, he was
thrust into the most loathsome castle of the Tower of London. Whence to
get his freedom, he most certainly promised that he would prove all the
Jews of England to have been most wicked traitors. And when as he was
greatly accused by almost all the Jews of England, and they endeavoured
to put him to death, Earl Richard interceded for him. Whereupon, the
Jews grievously accusing him both of the clipping of money and other
wickedness, offered Earl Richard a thousand marks, if he would not
protect him; which, notwithstanding, the earl refused, because he was
called his Jew. This Jew Abraham therefore gave the king seven hundred
marks, that he might be freed from perpetual imprisonment, to which he
was adjudged, the earl assisting him therein.”

    ¹ This most impious and wicked man, doubtless, thought he did
      God service, and fulfilled a plain positive Mosaic precept,
      namely, “If thy brother, the son of thy mother, or thy son,
      or thy daughter, or the wife of thy bosom, or thy friend,
      which _is_ as thine own soul, entice thee secretly, saying,
      Let us go and serve other gods, which thou hast not known,
      thou, nor thy fathers; _namely_, of the gods of the people
      which _are_ round about you, nigh unto thee, or far off from
      thee, from the _one_ end of the earth even unto the _other_
      end of the earth; thou shalt not consent unto him, nor
      hearken unto him; neither shall thine eye pity him, neither
      shalt thou spare, neither shalt thou conceal him: but thou
      shalt surely kill him; thine hand shall be first upon him to
      put him to death, and afterwards the hand of all the people.”
      (Deut. xiii. 6–9.) Poor Flora did not entice him to worship
      the image. The whole Jewish congregation, therefore, justly
      considered Abraham as a murderer, and worthy of death.”

Whilst this Abraham was imprisoned, he promised to the king that if
his liberty were granted to him, he would discover to his majesty, his
brethren’s misdemeanors, stating that they had a great deal of wealth
concealed from the king. Accordingly, as soon as he was set free,
a royal search was instituted for all the Jewish estates, and was
conducted in the most barbarous manner, inasmuch as that unprincipled
Abraham went along with the commissioners appointed for that purpose,
and urged them to make diligent search, threatening them, if at all lax,
to inform against them to the king. This man proved to them a source of
immense trouble. It is a gratifying fact that no Jewish convert caused
them willingly any trouble whatever.¹

    ¹ See p. 250. It is an unjust insinuation on the part of Mr.
      Moses Samuel, in his “Address on the Position of the Jews in
      Britain,” p. 27, that the Jewish converts――as he peevishly
      calls them apostates――of that time were “breeding mischief
      against the sons of Judea, and vituperating their holy
      religion.” Oh, no, Mr. Samuel; the unconverted Jews breeded
      mischief against each other, but not the converted ones.

I am almost ashamed to proceed with my monotonous lecture. I have once
more to tell you that the king was in trouble for want of money. He
determined, once more, to see what the Jews could do for him. To begin
with, they were obliged to furnish the king with 5,000 marks previous
to his leaving for Gascony.¹ Whilst there, a match was made up between
Prince Edward and Eleanora of Castille. The intended marriage was
necessarily attended with extravagant expenses. The king, therefore,
commissioned his brother Richard to extort from the luckless Jews the
sum required for the nuptial festivities of his heir.² But Henry was
insatiable; he wanted more money, for which he applied first to the
barons, conjuring up a pitiable tale, viz., that he apprehended a
Spanish invasion. But the barons happily could refuse to be caught with
chaff, and therefore boldly confessed their unbelief, and declined to
give money. The king, therefore, commissioned his brother, once more,
to levy money from the Jews: and a very large sum it was.

    ¹ W. Prynne.

    ² “As soon as Henry received the glittering fruits of this
      iniquity, he sent for Eleanor to assist him in squandering
      it away in the light and vain expenses in which they mutually
      delighted, and to grace with her presence the bridal of their
      eldest son, Prince Edward. King Henry waited at Bourdeaux to
      receive his son’s bride. He had prepared so grand a festival
      for the reception of the young Infanta, that he expended 300,
      000 marks on her marriage-feast, to the indignation of his
      English peers.”――_A. Strickland._

In vain did the Jews remonstrate against these accumulated oppressions;
their remonstrances were only met by a renewal of their hardships. In
vain did they pray for permission to depart from the country, in order
that they might seek an asylum in some other land; this alternative
was also denied them, and proclamations were issued forbidding any Jew
to leave England without the king’s license. Having failed to obtain
redress when sought in terms of humble supplication, they wanted not
the courage to enforce their complaints in language at once bold and
impressive. When the principal men amongst them had been summoned before
the Earl Richard of Cornwall, the king’s brother, and the council,
and were threatened with imprisonment and death, unless they forthwith
supplied the sum required of them, Elias, their senior rabbi, stood up,
and in the name of his brethren addressed the assembly in these words:――

“O noble lords, we see undoubtedly that our Lord the king purposeth to
destroy us from under heaven. We entreat, for God’s sake, that he give
us license and safe conduct to depart out of his kingdom, that we may
seek a mansion in some other land, and under a prince who bears some
bowels of mercy, and some stability of truth and faithfulness, and we
will depart, never to return again, leaving our household stuff and
houses behind us. But how can he spare us miserable Jews, who destroys
his own natural English? He hath people, yea, his own merchants, I say
not usurers, who by usurious contracts accumulate infinite heaps of
money. Let the king rely upon them, and gape after their emoluments.
Verily, they have supplanted us, which the king, however, dissembles to
know; extracting from us those things we cannot give him, although he
would pull out our eyes or cut our throats, when he had first taken off
our skins.” With so much feeling and sincerity was this address made,
that as the orator concluded it, a sudden faintness seized him, from
which he was with much difficulty recovered.¹ The application for leave
to quit this country was refused with as much courtesy and gentleness as
possible. The king’s brother, the Earl of Cornwall, knowing that their
removal would prove injurious to his money-sucking brother, replied to
Rabbi Elias’ application in the following words:――“The king, my brother,
is your loving prince, and ready at all times to oblige you, but in
this matter could not grant your request, because the king of France had
lately published a severe edict against Jews,² and no other Christian
country would receive you; by which means ye would be exposed to such
hardships and difficulties as would afflict the king, who had always
been tender of your welfare.”

    ¹ The king did not leave Rabbi Elias’ speech unresented; for the
      following year, the king deprived him of the high office he
      held amongst the Jews, without alleging any offence against
      him. See Appendix M.

    ² See Appendix N.

Next year, when the king and queen returned from Gascony to England, the
Jews had occasion to present a memorial to the king himself, in reply to
another unreasonable request, in which they thus addressed him:――

“Sir king, we see thou sparest neither Christians nor Jews, but
studiest with crafty excuses to impoverish all men. We have no hope of
respiration left us, the usurers of the pope have supplanted us. Permit
us to depart out of the kingdom with safe conduct, and we will seek
for ourselves such a mansion as we can, be it what it will.” “Although
we may admire the boldness,” observes Mr. Blunt, “with which the Jews
(notwithstanding their degraded and dependent situation) demanded relief
from their wrongs, it can in no way excite astonishment to find that the
language they employed had not the effect of procuring them the redress
which they claimed.” When the king received their memorial, and was
informed of the address to the council, he expressed himself in terms
of violent anger. The words which he used on the occasion are recorded:
――“Is it to be marvelled at,” he said, “that I covet money? It is a
horrible thing to imagine the debts wherein I am held bound. By the head
of God, they amount to the sum of 200,000 marks; and if I should say
300,000, I should not exceed the bounds of truth. I am deceived on every
side; I am a maimed and an abridged king――yea, now but half a king.
There is a necessity for me to have money, gotten from what place soever,
and by what means soever, and from whomsoever.”¹

    ¹ Well might Henry say, “that it would be a greater act of
      charity to bestow money on him, than on those who went from
      door to door, begging alms.” M. Paris. A. Strickland.

No time was lost in devising measures for procuring a supply, according
to the intention thus expressed. The Duke Richard proposed to provide
the king with the sum which was required, upon condition that the whole
of the Jews should be assigned over to him. The king consented to the
proposal, and forthwith, upon receiving the money, he sold the Jews to
the duke as a security for the sum advanced.¹

    ¹ M. Paris; Maddox; Prynne; Tovey; Blunt.

The Jews were again accused of crucifying a boy at Lincoln, Hugo by name,
eight years of age. They are reported to have first fattened the boy for
ten days with white bread and milk, in a secret chamber, and then sent
for the principal Jews from all the cities of England, and appointed one
to act as Pilate, others as the tormentors, and then re-enacted all the
indignities mentioned in Scripture; scourged him, cruelly crowned him
with thorns, fastened him to a cross, gave him gall to drink, and lastly,
when dead, pierced his side with a spear. To crown all, they took out
his bowels, as being particularly serviceable in their magic practices,
and then, that the matter might not be known to Christians, diligently
concealed the corpse. The earth, however, vomited forth the innocent
body, worthy of a more honourable sepulchre, and as often as the
Jews tried to bury it, it showed itself again next day above ground.
Terrified beyond measure, they threw it into a well, where the mother
at last found it. The master of the house was seized, and confessing the
whole matter, was tied to horses’ tails, and thus torn to pieces. Ninety
Jews were carried off in chains to London, and received due punishment.

The whole story is thus related by Matthew Paris, and copied by Prynne
into his Demurrer, part first, pp. 29–32:――

“The same year, [_i.e._ when the king wanted so much money, and the Jews
began to remonstrate], about the feast of Peter and Paul, the Jews of
Lincoln stole a child called Hugo, being eight years old; and when as
they had nourished him in a certain most secret chamber, with milk and
other childish aliments, they sent to almost all the cities of England
wherein the Jews lived, that, in contempt and reproach of Jesus Christ,
they should be present at their sacrifice at Lincoln; for they had, as
they said, a certain child hid to be crucified. Whereupon many assembled
at Lincoln. And coming together, they appointed one Lincoln Jew for the
judge, as it were for Pilate. By whose judgment, by the consent of all,
the child is afflicted with sundry torments. He is whipped even unto
blood and lividness, crowned with thorns, wearied with spittings and
strickings; and moreover he is pricked by them all with poniards, made
to drink gall, derided with reproaches and blasphemies, and frequently
called by them with grinding teeth, Jesus the false prophet. And after
they had derided him in divers manners, they crucified him, and pierced
him with a spear to the heart. And when the child had given up the ghost,
they took down his body from the cross, and took the bowels out of his
corpse, for what end is unknown; but it was said it was to exercise
magical arts. The mother of the child diligently sought for her absent
son for some days, and it was told her by neighbours, that the last time
they saw her child whom she sought, he was playing with the children
of the Jews of his age, and entered into the house of a certain Jew.
Whereupon the woman suddenly entered that house, and saw the body of
her child cast into a certain pit. And having warily called the bailiffs
of the city together, the body was found and drawn forth, and there was
made a wonderful spectacle among the people. But the woman, mother of
the child, complaining and crying out, provoked all the citizens there
assembled together, to tears and sighs. There was then present at the
place John de Lexinton, a circumspect and discreet man, and moreover
elegantly learned, who said――‘we have sometimes heard that the Jews
have not feared to attempt such things in reproach of Jesus Christ, our
crucified Lord.’ And one Jew being apprehended――to wit, he into whose
house the child entered playing, and therefore more suspected than
the rest, he saith unto him, ‘O wretch, knowest thou not that speedy
destruction abides thee? All the gold of England will not suffice
for thy deliverance or redemption. Notwithstanding I will tell thee,
although unworthy, by what means thou mayest preserve thy life and
members, that thou mayest not be dismembered. I will save both to thee,
if thou dost not fear to discover to me whatsoever things are done in
this case, without falsehood.’ Whereupon the Jew, whose name was Copin,
believing he had thus found out a way of escape, answered, saying,
‘Sir John, if thou makest thy words good by thy deeds, I will reveal
wonderful things to thee.’ And the industry of Sir John animating and
exciting him thereto, the Jew said, ‘those things are true which the
Christians say. The Jews almost every year crucify one child, to the
injury and contumely of Jesus; but it is not found out every year, for
they do this secretly, and in hidden and most secret places. But this
child whom they call Hugo, our Jews have most unmercifully crucified,
and when he was dead, and they desired to hide him, being dead, he could
not be buried in the earth, nor hid. For the corpse of the innocent was
reputed unprofitable for divination, for he was unbowelled for that end.
And when in the morning it was thought to be buried, the earth brought
it forth, and vomited it out, and the body sometimes appeared inhuman,
whereupon the Jews abhorred it. At last it was cast headlong into a deep
pit; neither as yet could it be kept secret, for the importunate mother
diligently searching all things, at last showed to the bailiffs the body
she had found.’¹ But Sir John, notwithstanding this, kept the Jew bound
in chains. When these things were known to the canons of the church of
Lincoln, they requested the body to be given to them, which was granted;
and when it had been sufficiently viewed by an infinite company of
people, it was honourably buried in the church of Lincoln, as the corpse
of a most precious martyr. The Jews kept the child alive for ten days,
that being fed for so many days with milk, he might living suffer many
sorts of torments. When the king returned from the northern parts of
England, and was certified of the premises, he reprehended Sir John
that he had promised life and members to so flagitious a person, which
he could not give; for that blasphemer and homicide was worthy the
punishment of many sorts of death. And when as unavoidable judgment
was ready to be executed upon this offender, he said, ‘my death is
now approaching, neither can my Lord John preserve me, who am ready
to perish. I now relate the truth to you all. Almost all the Jews of
England consented to the death of this child, whereof the Jews are
accused; and almost out of every city in England wherein the Jews
inhabit, certain chosen persons were called together to the immolation
of that child, as to a Paschal sacrifice. And when as he had spoken
these things, together with other dotages, being tied to an horse’s tail
and drawn to the gallows, he was presented to the æreal Cacodæmons in
body and soul; and ninety-one other Jews, partakers of this wickedness,
being carried in carts to London, were there committed to prison. Who
if so be they were casually bewailed by any Christians, yet they were
deplored by the Caursini (the pope’s Italian usurers), their co-rivals,
with dry eyes. Afterwards, by the inquisition of the king’s justices, it
was discovered and found, that the Jews of England, by common counsel,
had slain the innocent child, punished for many days and crucified.
But after this, the mother of the said child constantly prosecuting
her appeal before the king against them for that iniquity, and such a
death, God, the Lord of revenges, rendered them a condign retribution,
according to their merits; for on St. Clement’s day, eighty-eight of
the richest and greatest Jews of the city of London [what a bountiful
harvest for the needy king], were drawn and hanged up in the air
upon new gibbets, especially prepared for that purpose; and more than
twenty-three others were reserved in the Tower of London to the like
judgment.”²,³

    ¹ Contrast this again with the conduct of the converted Jews of
      that time.

    ² “Lying wonders form as much a part of the stories concerning
      the murdered children, as those which describe bleeding
      crucifixes, or flying sacramental wafers. Contemporary
      writers may be cited for the one set of facts as well as for
      the other. The atrocious and murderous lies which envelope
      this charge of using blood, give us strong reason for
      suspecting, that it is as devoid of truth, as calumnious,
      and as devilish as those image and wafer stories, by means of
      which so many thousands of unhappy Israelites were put to the
      sword, whose blood still cries to heaven for vengeance.”...

      “The mere recital of these follies shows that they are
      the offspring of an unenlightened imagination, if not the
      invention of a malignant heart.

      “The total absence of all credible testimony compels us
      to refuse our belief. The only evidence to be had is that
      extracted from the victims of the torture. But that mode of
      examination would have made the same persons confess that
      they were metempsychoses of Judas Iscariot or Pontius Pilate,
      that they had caused the ruinous convulsions of an earthquake
      or the devastations of the cholera morbus.”――_Dr. M‘Caul’s
      Reasons for believing that the Charge lately revived against
      the Jewish People is a baseless Falsehood_, pp. 16, 24.

    ³ See Appendix O.

Earl Richard, having obtained his election as successor to the Emperor
of Germany, he named himself King of the Romans. This exaltation had
no favourable effect upon the unfortunate Jews. Tyranny and cruelty
seem to have been the predominant features of royalty in those dark
ages. He caused them to be arrested, and would not accept of any bail.
The attorneys he employed were Jews, and in all probability of very
indifferent characters――such as his favourite Abraham, the murderer of
his own wife――who made, no effort to alleviate the oppression of their
suffering brethren; perhaps helped forward their affliction by telling
the Roman king they could raise the money at once, if made to do it.

There can be no doubt that the Jews had then able judges and lawyers of
their own, and whom the king’s court considered competent to decide all
sorts of questions, spiritual as well as temporal. This circumstance
annoyed the ecclesiastics not a little, which they did not fail to
resent.

The prelates began to complain that the Jews were protected by the
king’s courts. Alas, for the protection! Boniface, the primate, who was
honoured with the well-merited appellations of “this ruffian, this cruel
smiter ... no winner of souls, but an exacter of money,”¹ convened a
provincial synod, in which the prelates enacted several severe and cruel
edicts respecting the Jews, which are the following:――

    ¹ M. Paris. A. Strickland.

“That because ecclesiastical judicature is confounded, and the office of
prelates obstructed, when a Jew offending against ecclesiastical persons
and things is convicted of these or other matters, which belong to the
ecclesiastical court of pure right, and yet is not permitted by the
king’s sheriffs or bailiffs to stand to the ecclesiastical law, but
is rather forced to betake himself to the king’s court; therefore all
such Jews shall be driven to make answer, in such cases, before a judge
ecclesiastical, by being forbidden to traffic, contract, or converse
with the faithful: and they who forbid and obstruct them, and distress
judges and others on this account, shall be coerced by the sentences of
excommunication and interdict.”

This primate――“elected by female intrigue”――proved a great source of
trouble and virulent persecution to the poor Jews. He being uncle to
Queen Eleanor――who, in fact, was the sole monarch of England, and even
of her husband――had, as a matter of course, great influence with the
king. Henry, therefore, though he opposed the decrees of the Church
against the Jews during Stephen Langton’s primacy, as you heard on
Friday evening last, entirely concurred with the Church in persecuting
the Jews during the ♦administration of Boniface.

    ♦ ‘administraton’ replaced with ‘administration’

Accordingly, by an edict enacted in the thirty-seventh year of this
reign, Henry sanctioned Stephen Langton’s decrees; and it was ordained
that “no Jew should remain in England who did not render service to the
king; that there should be no schools for Jews, except in places where
they were wont to be of old; that, in their synagogues, all Jews should
pray in a low voice, according to the rites of their religion, so that
Christians might not hear them; that every Jew should be answerable to
the rector of his parish for parochial dues, chargeable on his house;
that no Christian woman should suckle or nurse the child of a Jew, nor
any Christian serve a Jew, eat with them, nor abide in their houses;
that no Jew or Jewess should eat meat in Lent, or detract from the
Christian faith; that no Jew should associate with a Christian woman,
nor any Christian man with a Jewess; that every Jew should wear a badge
on his breast, and should not enter into any church or chapel, except in
passing to and fro, and then should not stay there, to the dishonour of
Christ. That no Jew should hinder any other who was desirous to embrace
the Christian faith. That they should not abide in any town without the
king’s special license, save in places where they were formerly wont to
reside.” On offending against any of these provisions, their properties
were to be immediately seized.

In the year 1261, unfortunately for the Jews, died the queen’s sister,
Sancha, Countess of Cornwall and Queen of the Romans, for whom the king
and queen made great lamentations, and gave her a magnificent funeral.¹
As usual, the poor Jews had to supply the needful, for the king ordered
that new inventories should be made of all their lands, tenements,
debts, ready money, plate, jewels, and household stuff. The king’s
commissioners were to be assisted in their strict search by all sheriffs,
constables of castles, mayors, &c.

    ¹ A. Strickland.

The king’s opposition to the barons proved a twofold scourge to the
oppressed Jews. He took away their money, in order to be able to
continue his opposition to the barons; whilst the barons took away
their lives, with the remainder of their wealth, for yielding to the
intolerable pressure of that covetous monarch. It was, therefore, a
cause of joy to the Hebrew congregations, that a truce was established
between the sovereign and his barons, and that the former was prevailed
upon to sign an amicable arrangement with the latter, by which he bound
himself to confirm the provisions of Oxford. Henry, however, was not
a man to abide any length of time by any agreement, and as a matter of
course refused to adhere to the rules of the compact, under the pretence
that his consent and signature were extorted from him. He withdrew to
the tower of London. The offended barons unexpectedly entered the city,
eager for plunder and athirst for blood, raised first a dreadful uproar
there against the luckless Jews, which was the prelude to a personal
attack upon the queen, the most unpopular of all the queens of England.
The following are the particular details of this tumult, as related by
Agnes Strickland, copied from T. Wikes, a contemporary chronicler:――“At
the sound of St. Paul’s great bell, a numerous mob sallied forth, led
on by Stephen Buckrell, the marshal of London, and John Fitz-John, a
powerful baron. They killed and plundered many of the wretched people,
without mercy. The ferocious leader, John Fitz-John, ran through with
his sword, in cold blood, Kokben Abraham, the wealthiest Hebrew resident
in London. Besides plundering and killing five hundred¹ of this devoted
race, the mob turned the rest out of their beds, undressed as they
were, keeping them so the whole night.” During which catastrophe, a
newly-erected synagogue was reduced to ashes.

    ¹ Others have seven hundred.

The oppressions exercised towards the Jews by the king, rendered them
obnoxious to the inhabitants of the places where they resided. The
continual exactions to which they were subjected had necessarily the
effect of withdrawing large sums from the towns of their abode; and it
could not fail, sooner or later, to be discovered that though the tax,
in the first instance, fell upon the Jews alone, yet that eventually the
wealth of the neighbourhood was thereby considerably diminished. It was,
it is probable, partly with a view to this consequence, that many towns
obtained, during the present reign, from the king, charters or writs,
directing that no Jews should reside within their walls. Charters or
writs to this effect were granted to the towns of Newcastle, Derby,
Southampton, as you have already heard, Wycomb, Newbery, and to other
places; and the Jews were forced to remove with their families and
effects. It would have been happy for the Jews, if the necessity of
changing the places of their residence had been the only hardship to
which, through the popular feeling, they were exposed. In many parts of
the country, the people treated them with open violence; charges of the
wildest description were raised against them, and made excuses for the
exercise of every species of cruelty and extortion; tumults were excited;
their houses were pillaged and burned; and hundreds fell victims to the
frenzy of the populace. At Norwich, on the occasion of some Jews being
executed upon a charge of having stolen a Christian child, which you
have already heard, the citizens broke into the houses of the Jews there,
and stripped them, and then setting fire to them, burned them to the
ground. At Canterbury, the Jews were subjected to a similar violence,
the immediate cause of which is not mentioned; but it is stated, that
the clergy there did not scruple to encourage the outrage, and to take
an active part with the mob on the occasion. At Oxford, the scholars of
the university, having upon some pretext picked a quarrel with the Jews,
broke into their houses and pillaged them of their property.¹

    ¹ Prynne; Tovey; J. E. Blunt.

When Prince Edward returned from his victorious campaign in Wales,
he was so poor that he could not pay the arrears which he owed to the
troops, and unwilling to disband men whom he foresaw his father’s cause
would require, the king fixed on the expedient of presenting him with
the Jews――the king of the Romans must have got, by this, all he wanted
from them¹――with a new privilege, viz., that of having all writs of
judicature, which had been formerly sealed by the justices of the Jews,
sealed by the chancellor of the exchequer, the profits of which were
to be paid to the prince. Edward, however, did not keep them long in
his grasp; being in want at once of ready cash, he assigned them with
his father’s consent and signature, for two years to the Catercensian
merchants. No more did the latter keep them long, for Edward was soon
after accused of a conspiracy against his father; the king therefore
seized upon the Jews――a trick of olden times in royal trade.

    ¹ See p. 282.

The battle of Lewes is another melancholy memorable event in the
history of the Jews in this country. This battle, as all of you must be
aware, terminated in the complete discomfiture of the king’s party. The
common people being disbanded and out of employment, betook themselves
to persecute the unfortunate Jews. They pretended that that people
conspired with the king’s party to destroy the barons and the good
citizens of London; which they thought gave them a right to plunder that
defenceless people wherever they were found. They began with London, and
the conduct of the metropolitans was soon followed by the inhabitants
of other places. Lincoln, Northampton, Canterbury, and many other towns
in the kingdom became the scenes of plunder and persecution. The London
Jews were placed in imminent danger, and in all probability, those who
survived the massacre of Montfort and John Fitz-John, would have shared
the fate of their five hundred, or seven hundred, brethren, who perished
there. But the constable of the tower opened the gates, to afford them a
timely refuge.

The king, in conjunction with the barons, endeavoured to quell these
riots, and issued letters patent to the mayor and sheriffs of London,
and to the persons put under authority in all those places where
outrages were committed, to suppress all sorts of disorders; and as
peace had been established throughout the kingdom, the Jews should share
in that peace. A proclamation was therefore to be published, for the
Jews to return peaceably to their homes. Few, indeed, must have been
the number who found homes. It was also announced that any molestation
offered to the Jews would subject the offender to the danger of life and
limb.

The king, being anxious to procure for himself the services of his
friends, after his disastrous differences with his Gentile subjects,
resolved to do so at the expense of his Jewish ones. He remitted the
interest money which was owing to them from several of his friends.
So that, though they were permitted to return to their homes, they
had well nigh been deprived of any means of subsistence in those homes.
Parliament, however, soon met, and enacted that their houses, goods,
and chattels should be restored to them in the same condition they were
in before the battle of Lewes. The Jews, therefore, enjoyed comparative
tranquillity for the period of four years, since that meeting of
parliament. They agreed to pay £1000, to be free from taxes during that
period; under the proviso, however, that neither the king nor the prince
should undertake any crusade during that time: and some few had even
great favours bestowed upon them, especially those who rendered the
king effectual service in his distresses. Yet was their tranquillity
only comparative; they were by no means universally exempt from trouble
and annoyance, and individuals were subject to grievous calumnies and
accusations, as was the case with the Jews of Lincoln during that period.

The dean and chapter of that city would not pay their debts; they
contrived to accuse their Jewish creditor of forging a bond. It is a
faithful picture of the English of those days, “that when churchmen and
laymen, prince and prior, knight and priest, come knocking at Isaac’s
door, they borrow not his shekels with these uncivil terms. It is then,
Friend Isaac, will you pleasure us in this matter, and our day shall be
truly kept, so God save me?――and kind Isaac, if ever you served a man,
show yourself a friend in this need. And when the day comes and I ask
my own, then what hear I, but the curse of Egypt on your tribe, and all
that may stir up the rude and uncivil populace against poor strangers.”¹

    ¹ Sir Walter Scott.

The Jews in Oxford for a long time seem, upon the whole, to have been
more prosperous than their brethren in many other places. You have heard
that they had schools and seminaries there at an early period of their
history in England.¹ Their occupation there seems to have been almost
altogether in the literary line, so that we do not find any documents
respecting forged bonds. The Jews have always appreciated learning very
much and encouraged it. We read of individuals selling some land at
a very low rate indeed, for the erection of an institution for that
purpose. The celebrated Sir Walter de Merton, the founder of a college
in Oxford bearing his name, purchased a site from a Jew, as appears from
a deed in the college treasury.²

    ¹ See pp. 87, 109.

    ² See Appendix P.

Yet they were now and then subject to some accusations: for instance,
we learn from a writ of release, and which has been alluded to already,
that several Jews in that city were imprisoned on a charge brought
against them of taking away a boy belonging to a Jewish convert, and
concealing him. However, it proved a false alarm, the child was soon
found; the prisoners were therefore forthwith released.¹

    ¹ See Appendix Q.

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

    ¹ See Appendix R.

The university, however, was at that time very badly off for a nice
elegant cross; they had no means of erecting it. The authorities
therefore ingeniously contrived to make the Jews erect one for them.
One of them was, therefore accused of having, on Ascension Day――whilst
the chancellor, masters, and scholars of the university were walking in
solemn procession to visit the sainted reliques of Frideswide, bearing
the cross before them――snatched the cross――a _wooden_ one――from its
bearer, and trodden it under his feet in contempt of Christ. A very
likely story!¹

    ¹ Judging from the Popish customs still existing in the
      countries where that religion is national, I should say that
      certainly no Jew was permitted to appear in the street during
      that or any similar procession-day, as is the case to this
      day in Poland, and other Roman Catholic countries. A Jew,
      in all probability, ventured out at that time, and thus gave
      his enemies an opportunity to fabricate the above adventure,
      which ended in the erection of a splendid cross by its
      enemies.

Strict search was made after the culprit, but in vain. Of course, there
was evidently no culprit to find; if there were, he could not possibly
have escaped, as no Jew was allowed to travel from place to place
without especial license.

All those, therefore, who could be found within the city, were seized,
and imprisoned until they had provided sufficient funds for the erection
of a cross of white marble, with golden figures of the Virgin and Jesus
Christ, and also a rich silver cross, to be carried before the masters
and scholars of the university, in their processions. The marble cross
was placed in Merton College, and the silver one entrusted to the
Fellows of that society. The large marble cross appears to have existed
till Henry the Sixth, according to John Ross, a contemporary antiquary,
who copied from it, just before it was destroyed, the following
inscription:――

“Quis meus author erat? Judæi. Quomodo? Sumptu. Quis jussit? Regnans.
Quo procurante? Magistris. Cur? Cruce pro fractu LIGNI. Quo tempore?
Festo Ascensus Domini. Quis erat locus? Hic ubi sisto.”

At Brentford, the people rose up against the Jews, and robbed them
of whatever goods they could lay their hands upon. On this occasion,
forty-five of the principal actors in the outrage were apprehended by
the authorities of the place. The whole of these were, however, shortly
after liberated, upon the intervention of the Bishop of Lincoln, because
it was maintained that no man could impeach them of any crime or breach
of the peace.

After the battle of Eversham, when the rebel barons had assembled an
army in the eastern counties, they marched a part of their forces to
Lincoln, broke into the houses of the Jews, and plundered them of their
wealth; then making an excursion to Cambridge, they committed a similar
outrage, and carrying away with them the richest of the Jews, forced
them to pay heavy ransoms for their liberation. These and many other
acts of oppression and cruelty were inflicted upon the Jews by the
populace.

The conduct of the people was the natural result of the unrestrained
extortions practised by the crown. The daily occurrence of these
extortions led the populace to regard the Jews as persons who were not
within the usual protection of the law, and they therefore considered it
no crime to enrich themselves at the expense of those unfortunate people.
But though the king did not hesitate to oppress the Jews himself, yet he
had good reasons for shielding them against the violence and extortions
of his subjects. He considered the Jews and all they possessed as his
own peculiar property, and he consequently looked upon every act by
which they were impoverished, as withdrawing so much from his own wealth.
Measures were therefore taken to prevent a continuance of the outrages
of the people; and directions were issued to twenty-six of the principal
inhabitants of the towns where the Jews resided,¹ to protect them from
any further acts of violence, under heavy penalties for disobedience.²

    ¹ Dr. Jost observes, how great must their danger have been,
      since twenty-six burgesses in each town were necessary to
      protect them.

    ² See Appendix S.

The Jews seem to have been treated by that monarch exactly as slaves,
and were presented as gifts to his children. Prince Edmund was presented
with a rich Jew, Aaron. As it happened, however, Aaron was not the
worse off on that account; for Edmund does not seem to have inherited
much of the avarice and rapacity either of his father or mother. This
Jew, therefore, fared far better than many of his brethren. He was
enfranchised altogether by that prince for the trifling remuneration of
an annual pair of gilt spurs,¹ and had, moreover, the peculiar liberty
of residing wherever he liked in any part of the kingdom. There were
several others who were favoured with the king’s countenance; for
instance, Cressey and two other Jews of London were freed, by the
intercession of the king of the Romans, from all sorts of tallages, for
the space of five years, for the trifling remuneration of one mark and a
half of gold, to be paid by each of them annually. And also to a certain
Jacob le Eveske, by the interference of the queen, an exemption was
conceded from all sorts of tributes and taxes all his life-time; and the
same privilege to his son Benedict after his father Jacob’s death. A few
other instances of that kind are adduced by Prynne.

    ¹ See Appendix T.

However, the favour bestowed on individuals had only the effect of
exciting the odium of the populace against the whole community, and
thus kindled the flame of persecution in the breasts of the British
Christians to an incredible pitch. In fact, they first pretended that
the crown lavished too many favours on the Hebrews, and then maintained
that the king was not a good Christian in consequence; till they wrought
him up to the pitch they aimed at. Eleanor even, who was as unprincipled
a plunderer of the Jews as the king himself, whenever an opportunity
occurred, was also accused of patronizing them, simply because it was
supposed that when Eleanor was married to Henry, a great number of Jews
followed her to this country, hoping to experience the same favour they
enjoyed in her paternal country. All these pretences pressed heavily
upon the poor Jews. New cruel enactments were devised against them;
and the king was obliged to sanction them, in order to retain the
pretensions to the name Christian. Cruelty to the Jews seems, then,
to have been an infallible feature of a good Christian. Thus, in the
fifty-first year of this reign, when the statute of Pillory passed,
it was enacted, amongst other things, that “no person should purchase
flesh of a Jew.” “The regulations of these statutes,” says Mr. Blunt,
“had reference principally to the conduct of the Jews, and to their
intercourse with the Christians.” If their fury went no further, the
Jews would have had no reason to be sorry; for truth to speak, the less
intercourse the Jews had with _those_ Christians, the safer they were.
But the people did not stop here. Indeed, there were circumstances
arising out of the authority claimed by the crown over the Jews, which
induced the nation to require some regulations with respect to their
property and possessions. The right of the crown with respect to them,
was not unfrequently, in the exercise, oppressive to the Christian
inhabitants. When the king seized the estate of a Jew into his hands, he
claimed to be entitled, as part of his effects, to all the debts which
were at the time owing to him, and the debtor to the Jew thereby became
the debtor of the king――a situation which the wants of the crown in
these times rendered dangerous and oppressive. It was the custom of
the Jews, instead of advancing money on mortgage, to purchase certain
rent-charges on annuities, secured upon the landed estates of the
debtor. These rent-charges had increased to a very large extent, and
by becoming vested in the king, were probably found to give the crown a
dangerous hold upon the landed proprietors of the country. As a further
consequence, also, of the title claimed by the king to the property
and estates of the Jews, an encroachment was made upon the accustomed
rights of the tenure. When a Jew became entitled to any landed property,
the fruits and privileges of the lord of the fee became immediately
endangered or suspended; for, besides that the land was liable at
any time to be seized into the hands of the king, who, upon feudal
principles, could not hold of any inferior, the lord was deprived at
once of his chance of escheat and the advantages of reliefs, as the king
claimed in all cases to succeed to the lands of a Jew upon his death;
and the heir, for permission to take the land of his ancestors, paid his
relief to the king. In cases of outlawry, moreover, the king stepped in
and deprived the lord of his escheat.

In consequence of this state of circumstances, the king was constrained,
towards the conclusion of his reign, to grant the following charter:――

“Henry, by the grace of God, king of England, &c. To all our sheriffs,
bailiffs, and liege subjects, to whom these presents shall come,
greeting. Know ye, that for the honour of God and the universal Church,
for the amendment and advantage of our kingdom, and for relieving
Christians from the damages and grievance which they have suffered by
the freeholds which our Jews claimed to have in lands, tenements, fees,
rents, and other tenures; and that no prejudice may hereafter happen to
us, to the commonweal of our kingdom, or to the kingdom itself, we, by
_the advice of our bishops, nobles, and great men who are of our council,
have provided, ordained, and enacted_, for us and our heirs, that no Jew
shall from henceforth have a freehold in any manors, lands, tenements,
fees, rents, or tenures whatsoever, either by charter, gift, feoffment,
confirmation, or other grant, or by any other means whatever.

“Provided nevertheless, that they may hereafter hold, as in times past
they were accustomed to hold, those houses in our cities, boroughs and
towns, which they themselves inhabit; and likewise that they may let
those houses to lease, which they now hold for that purpose, to Jews
only, but not to Christians.

“Yet nevertheless it is here provided, that it should not be lawful
for our Jews of London to purchase, or by any other method to acquire,
more houses than they now have in our said city of London; by which the
parochial churches of the said city, or their incumbents, may incur a
loss. However, it shall be lawful for the said Jews of London at their
pleasure to repair their houses, and even to rebuild and restore to
their former condition such of their old houses as have fallen down or
been demolished.

“We likewise, by and with the advice of our said council, provide and
enact, that with respect to the said houses so to be inhabited, or let
to lease as aforesaid, no Jew shall sue or be sued by our original writs
out of chancery, but before our justices appointed for taking care of
the Jews, and by the writs of Judaism hitherto used and accustomed.

“But with respect to those lands and tenures in which the Jews were
before _this statute_ infeoffed, and which they now hold, our will is,
that such infeoffments and grants shall be absolutely annulled; and
that the said lands and tenements shall return to the Christians who
granted the same; but upon condition that the said Christians shall make
satisfaction to the Jews, without usury, for the money or consideration
contained in the charters and writings, which was paid by the Jews
to the Christians, for the said feoffments or grants. And also
upon condition, that if the said Christians cannot make immediate
satisfaction for the same, it may be lawful for the said Jews to make
over the said tenements to other Christians, until the consideration
paid by them can, without usury, be raised out of the rents and
profits of the said estate, according to its true value by a reasonable
assessment; saving, however, to such Christians their subsistence; and
so as that the Jew may from thence receive the money or consideration
by the hands of some Christian, and not of any Jew, as aforesaid.

“And if a Jew should hereafter happen to receive from any Christian a
feoffment of any fee or tenement, contrary to this _present statute_,
the said Jew shall absolutely forfeit the said tenement or fee, and
the same shall be taken into, and safely kept in our hands; and the
Christians or their heirs may recover the said lands or tenements out
of our hands; but upon condition that they pay to us the whole money
which they received from the said Jews for such a feoffment. Or if they
have not sufficient wherewithal to do this, they shall then pay yearly
to us and our heirs, at our exchequer, the true yearly value of those
tenements or fees, according to a just and reasonable assessment, until
we have had full satisfaction of the said money or consideration.

“And with regard to the nurses of Jewish children, and the bakers,
brewers, and cooks of the Jews, as they and the Christians are different
in their faith and worship, we provide and enact, that no Christian man
or woman shall presume to serve them in any of these capacities.

“And because the Jews have long since been accustomed to receive, by the
hands of Christians, certain rents something like fee-farm rents, out of
the lands and tenements of Christians, which likewise have been called
fees, we will and ordain that the statute relating to them heretofore
by us made, shall remain in full force, nor shall any way be derogated
from by this present act; therefore _we command_ and strictly charge
you, that you cause the said provision, ordinance, or statute, to be
publicly proclaimed, and duly observed and obeyed, throughout your whole
bailiwick.

“In testimony whereof we have caused to be issued these our letters
patent. Witness self at Westminster, 24th day of July, and of our reign
the 54th year.”¹

    ¹ I have here borrowed a couple of pages from John Elijah
      Blunt.――See Appendix U.

One would have fancied that such a statute as was just read, would have
been the crown’s crowning act of violence towards the poor Jews; and
since they had suffered so much of murder, plunder, and robbery both
from the king and his subjects, a little respite, at least, would have
been granted to them. But various as their oppressions were, so were
they also incessant. Soon after the above decree was proclaimed, Prince
Edward proceeded to the Holy Land, “that grave of immense treasures and
innumerable lives.” His expenses were heavy; the Jews were therefore
taxed at 6,000 marks. Now it was high time, after all their endurances,
to be completely drained of their silver and gold, as they really
were; they were therefore unable to raise the demanded sum with the
promptitude with which it was required. Earl Richard came forward
again, and advanced the money on the security of the Jews. But they
seem to have been mortgaged to him in the present instance for one year
only, for the next year they were again very heavily taxed. Several
individuals were assigned over to Prince Edward, who had to pay £1000.

The Christians of that reign seemed to have cultivated an unaccountable
covetousness for every thing Jewish, not only their money, but also
their public buildings, and particularly their synagogues. We are thus
informed, that this year another synagogue in London――the principal
one――was taken away from the Jewish congregation and given to the Friars
Penitents, who were sadly in want of a church. Unfortunately for the
poor Jews, the Friars’ dark hole of a chapel was standing close to
that magnificent synagogue, upon which those “locusts,” as Tovey calls
them, set their avaricious and malicious affection, and did not rest
till they got the king to sanction their robbery. The pretext they
fixed upon was of a most blasphemous nature. They complained, that in
consequence of the great noise the Jews made in their synagogue during
their worship, _they were not able to make the body of Christ quietly_.
The king thought the reason was a cogent one, and without any further
consideration, ordered the Jewish place of worship to be turned into a
den of thieves. But the king was so gracious as to permit the Jews to
build for themselves another synagogue in some other convenient place,
if they chose. No doubt expecting to get another church for his
_im_pious subjects.

Henry the Third must have been tormented with the torturous
apprehension――as was the tyrannical Herod――that the Jews anticipated
his death with great complacency.¹ Henry began to grow infirm, and did
not expect to enjoy this world much longer: he determined therefore not
to allow the Jews to be glad on that account. The cruelties, therefore,
which he inflicted upon them in his last days, were of so barbarous
a nature as to excite the commiseration of their most venomous foes.
He called upon his unfortunate Jewish subjects to reckon up all their
accounts with him, and pay him in the balance without delay. All arrears
of his arbitrary tallages were to be settled in the short term of four
months, but half of the aggregate sum was to be paid in seventeen days.
Should any one be unable to pay, or give adequate security, he was
forthwith to be imprisoned, and the privilege of bail denied him, except
by body for body. And if any of their sureties should fail to pay in
their whole quota on the appointed days, any sums formerly paid in part
were to be forfeited, and their persons, goods, and chattels to be at
the king’s mercy. Numbers of them upon this occasion were imprisoned
in the Tower of London, and other places. Nothing but weeping and
lamentation were to be seen and heard in every corner of every street.
Dr. Tovey states――“Even the friars, who had so lately taken possession
of their synagogue, as it is said, pitied them; nor were the Caursini
and the Caturcensian brokers (though their rivals in extortion) without
compassion; for nothing could be more rigorous and unmerciful than the
king’s proceedings at this time.”

    ¹ That savage tyrant, Herod, when he was taken ill in Jericho,
      which dreadful illness terminated his life, apprehending
      the approach of his dissolution, and remembering the many
      cruelties which he inflicted on the poor Jews; he had
      every reason to believe that joy instead of mourning would
      succeed his death. He ordered, therefore, his sister and
      brother-in-law to seize the principal men of the city of
      Jericho, and to put them to the sword the moment of his
      decease, in order that mourning should be a _sine qua non_.

I ended my last Lecture with the erection of a Jewish converts’
institution, which Henry had established “to deliver his father’s
soul from the flames of purgatory,”¹ and with the same subject will I
conclude my lecture tonight; and I am truly glad that this protracted
Lecture is coming to a close. It seems that at the end of Henry’s reign
there were great numbers of Jewish converts. Before that institution
was established, I doubt not that many were deterred from embracing
Christianity, in consequence of the distressing prospect they had
before their eyes, of being deprived of all they possessed, and without
any means of support.² The provision thus made for the Christian Jews
induced many a one to make public confession of his faith. On one of
the rolls of that reign, about five hundred names of Jewish converts
are registered. But as all institutions, if not diligently looked after,
become in process of time abused, so was that one, in an especial manner.
The revenues were swallowed up by a few of the officers of that house,
and the majority of the poor converts were subject to sheer starvation.³
Henry, therefore, thought that it would be a meritorious thing on
his part――especially as he expected ere long to be called before an
awful tribunal to give an account of his stewardship――to give fresh
encouragement to that asylum, and institute a strict investigation as
to what became of the revenues assigned to that establishment; and he
also enacted, that for the future none should receive any support from
the house, except those who were really in want of it. The regulations
of the house and chapel were also revised and improved. The king’s
commissioners for that purpose were the mayor of London, and John de
St. Dennis, warden of that asylum.⁴ I repeat what I took the liberty to
express in my last Lecture, that such institutions are most important in
our own days, and I venture to cherish the hope, that I shall have the
happiness to see institutions of that kind established in every town in
England where the Jews reside, which, I am convinced, would be the means
of making MANY avow their secret belief in the truth of the Christian
religion.

    ¹ See p. 210.

    ² See page 205.

    ³ See Appendix V.

    ⁴ See Appendix W.

It is a most gratuitous assertion on the part of Dr. Jost, that only
the impoverished Jews, and such as had to fear any punishment by reason
of some transgression against the laws of the country, took refuge in
that house.¹ The Jewish historian has no authority for such a statement
except his prejudices. There are records existing which prove the
contrary.²

    ¹ _Es scheint jedoch, dass nur arme Juden, und ♦wohl meist
    solche, die gesetzliche strafen zu fürchten hatten, zu diesem
    Hause ihre Zuflucht nahmen._――Geschichte der Israeliten, vol.
    vii., p. 147.

    ² See Appendix X.

    ♦ ‘uohl’ replaced with ‘wohl’




                         APPENDIX TO LECTURE V.


                                   A.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


                                   B.

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


                                   C.

Rex _Vicecomiti_ Northumberland _salutem_. _Sciatis quod_ concessimus,
_et charta nostra confirmavimus, probis hominibus nostris_, de villa
Novi Castri super Tynam, _et hæredibus eorum, quod habeant hanc
libertatem_ quod nullus Judæus de caetero tempore nostro, vel hæredum
nostrorum maneat, vel residentiam aliquam faciat in eadem villa; _sicut
plenius continetur in Charta Regis, &c._


                                   D.

_Mandatum, est Vicecomit._ Norf. et _Suff. quod in civitate_ Norwic. et
_singulis bonis villis comitatuum suorum, clamari faciant, quod nulla
fœmina_ Christiana, _de cætero, serviat_ Judæos, _ad alendos pueros suos,
vel in aliquo alio officio_. Teste Rege apud _West._ 20 die _Januar._
――_Claus._ 19, H. 3, m. 14.


                                   E.

_Accepimus autem quod_ Judæi _faciunt_ Christianas, _filiorum suorum
nutrices_: et (_quod non tantum dicere, sed etiam nefandum est
cogitare_), _cum in die resurrectionis Dominicæ illas recipere corpus
et sanguinem Jesu Christi contingit, per triduum ante eos lactent_, lac
_effundere faciunt in_ latrinam.


                                   F.

_Mandatum est Justiciariis ad custodiam_ Judæorum _assignatis, quod de
arreragiis_ tallagii Judæorum _de 10 mille marcis quæ collegi præcipit
Rex, nullos_ Judæos _quietos esse permittant, nisi_ tallagium _illud
ad scaccarium Regis pacaverint, vel literas Regis de quietancia inde
habuerint, vel aliud rationabile warrantum producant, quod eis de jure
sufficere debeat_.

Teste Rege apud _Marleburge_ 13 die _Decemb._――_Claus._ 21, H. 3, pars 1,
m. 19.


                                   G.

Judæi Angliæ _debent_ C. _l. ut_ Judæi, retonsores, latrones, et
_eorum receptatores, per inquisitionem factam per sacramentum legalium_
Christianorum _vel_ Judæorum, _vel alio modo, de prædicta malicia
convicti_, a Regno ejiciantur irredituri.


                                   H.

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

Teste Rege apud Marleberg. 24 die Januar.――_Claus._ 25, H. 3, dors. 19.


                                   I.

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

  _London._――Benedictus Crespin, Jacobus Crespin, Aaron fil. Abraham,
    Aaron Blund, Elias le Eveske, Leo Blund.

  _Ebor._――Aaron fil. Jocei, Leo le Eveske, Joseus nepos Aaron, Joseus
    de Kent, Ursel fil. Sampson, Benedictus nepos Aaron.

  _Linc._――Leo fil. Solomon, Abraham fil. Solomon, Judas de Franceys,
    Joceus de Burge, Abraham de Solitoster, Duelcusce fil. Elie.

  _Cantuar._――Salom. fil. Joce, _Magist._ Aaron. Benomy Copnius, fil.
    Mulkane, Messe fil. Sampson, Abraham fil. Leonis.

  _Winton._――Elias fil. Chere, Deidegrand Lumbard _Senex_, Manasser
    fil. Ursell, Ayaye de Wallingford, Kendone fil. Ursell.

  _Stamford._――Jacob _gener._ Eman, Jacob fil. Elye, Meyer fil. David,
    Samuel fil. Cok, Dusefaut fil. Cok, Aaron _gener._ Pictaum.

  _Norham._――Elias de Pontrefacto, Isaac Pickether, Sampson fil.
    Deulesara, Samps. fil. Samps., Deud fil. Vines, Pech fil. de Sam
    de Ivelcester.

  _Bedeford._――Manser fil. Benedicti, Abraham fil. Benedicti, Ursel
    fil. Isaac Bovenfunt.

  _Cantebrig._――Isaac fil. Samuel, Jacob fil. Deusestra, Aaron fil.
    Isaac Blund, Josce de Wilton, Dyaye fil. _Magistri_ Levi fil.
    Solomon.

  _Norwic._――Henne Jurninus fil. Jacobi, Deulcrese fil. Dyaya de
    Manecroft, Dure de Resing.

  _Warewick._――Benedictus de Kanc, Elias fil. Abraham, Benedictus de
    Evesham, Lion fil. Deule Benete, Dungeun de Warwick, Pettemo fil.
    Mossi.

  _Wigorn._――Hake Isaac _senior_, Hake Mosse fil. Deulo Heneye,
    Abraham fil. Abraham, Isaac _gener_ Samuel, Abraham fil. Jude.

  _Bristol._――Lumbard Bonefi de Bristol, Salom de Ivelcester, Isaac
    fil. Jacob, Mile le Eveske, Isaac de Bath.

  _Colecester._――Aaron de Colecester, Arcel de Colecester, Isaac fil.
    Benedicti, Jacob fil. Vinis.

  _Nottingham._――David Lumbard, Dendone fil. Deule Cresse Sampson
    Leve, Benedictus Pinkennye.

  _Exon._――Jacob de Exon, Benefand fil. Jude, Joce fil. Abraham Doule,
    Cresse le Eveske.

  _Dorset._――Solomon de Dorcester, Benedictus fil. Vivian.

  _Wilts._――Solomon fil. Josse, Isaac de Herleb, Salom de Merleberg,
    Abraham de Battecoke, Isaac fil. Jesse.

  _Oxon._――David de Linc., Bonami fil. Copin, Copin fil. Bonefei,
    Mosse fil. Dyaye, Vinis fil. Copin, Samuel fil. le Franceys.

  _Glouc._――Bonefaund fil. Elye, Garsie _gener_ Belie, Isaac fil.
    Mosse de Paris, Elias fil. Bonefant, Vines fil. Bonenfaund, Elias
    fil. Isaac.

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


                                   J.

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

Teste Rege, apud Westm. 19 Maii.――_Claus._ 25, H. dors. 20.

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

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


                                   K.

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


                                   L.

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

T. R. apud Clarendon 13 die Decembris.


                                   M.

Rex omnibus, &c. Cum Elyas episcopus Judæus noster London. pro
transgressione quam fecit, tam nobis, quam dilecto fratri nostro Regi
Almannorum a sacerdotio communitatis Judæorum Angliæ coram dilectis
et fidelibus nostris Philippo Basset, Phillipo Lovel, Henrico de
Bathonia, Simon Passelew, et cæteris justiciariis ad custodiam Judæorum
assignatis, quos ad transgressionem illam convincendam justiciarios
nostros assignavimus, per judicium eorundem ad scaccarium nostrum
fuerit adjudicatus, et de ejusdem sacerdotii officio, et etiam de
omnimodis aliis officiis, et Ballivis, quas a nobis prius obtinuit
sit depositus, nos de consilio eorundem justiciariorum, concessimus
prædictæ communitati Judæorum nostrorum Angliæ, per finem trium marcarum
auri, quem Cresse et Haginus fratres ejusdem Judæi, nobis pro eadem
communitate fecerunt, quod prædictus Elyas sacerdotium illud nunquam
in posterum habeat, et recuperet: et quod nullus de communitate illa de
cætero sit sacerdos, nisi per communem electionem communitatis ejusdem.
Quodque ille communitas post decessum cujuslibet sacerdotis sic electi,
alium eligendi quemcunque voluerint sacerdotem liberam habeat facultatem,
ac ipsum nobis præsentandi, ut nostrum super hoc assensum obtineat et
favorem. In cujus, &c.

Teste Rege apud Wodestoke 20 die Julii.――_Rot. Pat._ 41, H. 3, m. 4,
m. 6.


                                   N.

“This very year (1252) there came out of the Holy Land a mandate from
the king of France, that all the Jews should be expelled out of the
realm of France, and condemned to perpetual exile, with this clause of
moderation added thereto:――But he who desires to remain, let him be an
artificer or handicraftsman, and apply himself to mechanical artifices.
For it was scornfully objected to the said king by the Saracens, that
we did little love or reverence our Lord Jesus Christ, who tolerated the
murderers of him to live amongst us.”――_Prynne._


                                   O.

Bishop Percy, in his relics of “Antient English Poetry,” gives us
the following ballad, in which he supposes that its composer “had an
eye to the known story of Hugh of Lincoln, a child said to have been
murthered by the Jews in the reign of Henry III. The conclusion of this
ballad appears to be wanting; what it probably contained may be seen in
Chaucer.”

                          THE JEWS’ DAUGHTER.

    The rain rins doun through Mirry-land toune,
      Sae dois it doune the Pa:
    Sae dois the lads of Mirry-land toune,
      Quhan they play at the ba’.

    Than out and cam the Jewis dochter,
      Said, will ye cum in and dine?
    “I winnae cum in, I cannae cum in,
      Without my play-feres nine.”

    Scho powd an apple reid and white
      To intice the zong thing in:
    Scho powd an apple white and reid,
      And that the sweit bairne did win.

    And scho has taine out a little pen-knife,
      And low down by her gair,
    Scho has twin’d the zong thing and his life;
      A word he nevir spak mair.

    And out and cam the thick thick bluid,
      And out and cam the thin;
    And out and cam the bonny herts bluid:
      Thair was nae life left in.

    Scho laid him on a dressing borde,
      And drest him like a swine,
    And laughing said, gae nou and pley
      With zour sweit play-feres nine.

    Scho rowd him in a cake of lead,
      Bade him lie stil and sleip.
    Scho cast him in a deip draw-well,
      Was fifty fadom deip.

    Quhan bells wer rung, and mass was sung,
      And every lady went hame:
    Than ilka lady had her zong sonne,
      But Lady Helen had nane.

    Scho rowd hir mantil hir about,
      And sair sair gan she weip;
    And she ran into the Jewis castel
      Quhan they wer all asleip.

    My bonny Sir Hew, my pretty Sir Hew,
      I pray thee to me speik.
    “O lady, rinn to the deip draw-well,
      Gin ze zour sonne wad seik.”

    Lady Helen ran to the deip draw-well,
      And knelt upon her kne:
    My bonny Sir Hew, an ze be here,
      I pray thee speik to me.

    “The lead is wondrous heavy, mither,
      The well is wondrous deip,
    A keen pen-knife sticks in my hert,
      A word I donnae speik.

    “Gae hame, gae hame, my mither deir,
      Fetch me my windling sheet,
    And at the back o’ Mirry-land toune
      Its thair we twa sall meet.”

Chaucer, in the last stanza of his Prioress’s Tale, has the following
three lines, which are probably the conclusion of the above:――.

   “Oh, young Hew of Lincoln slain also
      With cursed Jews, as it is notable,
    For it n’is but a little while ago.”


                                   P.

Omnibus ad quos præsens scriptum pervenerit, Jacobus filius Magistri
Mosey, Judæi London. et Henna [Anna] uxor ejus salutem. Sciatis nos
ad instantiam discreti viri Domini Walteri de Merton, illustris Domini
H. Regis quondam Cancellarii, et pro triginta marcis quas nobis dedit
præ manibus, dedisse, concessisse, et hac carta nostra confirmasse,
scholaribus, et fratribus domus scholarium de Merton, quam idem Dominus
Walterus fundavit, apud Meaudon [Maldon] in comitatu Surr. ad perpetuam
sustentationem scholarium in scholis degentium, domos nostras, cum
pertinentiis, in parochia S. Johannis Baptistæ, Oxon. infra muros; quæ
quondam fuerunt Johannis Halegood, inter terram Prioris S. Frecheswide,
quæ quondam fuit Alwredi Hereprud, versus occidentem, et terram quæ
fuit Rogeri Orlewyne, versus orientem. Habendas, et tenendas eisdem
scholaribus et fratribus dictæ domus, cum omnibus ad domos prædictas
spectantibus, in perpetuum. Reddendo inde capitalibus Domino feodi
quatuor denarios, per annum, pro omni servitio, consuetudine, et demanda.
Et nos, et hæredes nostri, warantizabimus, acquietabimus, et defendemus,
prædictis scholaribus, et fratribus, domos prædictas, cum omnibus
pertinentiis suis, contra omnes homines, tam Christianos quam Judæos,
per prædictum servitium quatuor denariorum per annum in perpetuum.
Et sciendum quod demisimus nos in plena curia villæ Oxon. ad opus
scholarium, et fratrum prædictorum, de prædictis domibus, et omni
potestate, et jure, quod nobis ullo tempore competere potuit dictas
domos habendi, vel petendi, aut eas cuiquam dandi, vel concedendi. Ita
quod si nos, vel hæredes nostri, contra prædictam donationem nostram,
dictis scholaribus et fratribus factam, aliquo tempore venire præsumamus,
per quod ipsi dampnum, vel impedimentum, sustinuerint, nos eis pecuniam
supradictam duplicatam, una cum dampnis prædictis, refundemus; et
nihilominus salvum erit eis jus suum dictas domos retinendi, seu petendi,
si opus fuerit. Et prædicti scholares, et fratres, ad nostram instantiam
concesserunt, quod Domini Antonius Beker et Thomas frater ejus, dictas
domos tenere possint, et inhabitare, usque a festo S. Michaelis, proximo
futuro, in tres annos completos, pro centum solidis, quos custodi
scholarium, et fratrum prædictorum, solvimus in curia prædicta, pro
prædictis Dominis Antonio et Thoma, nomine Locagii domorum prædictarum.
Et ad perpetuam rei hujus memoriam et securitatem præsenti scripto
sigilla nostra fecimus apponi. Hiis testibus Domino Adam Fetteplace,
tunc Majore Oxon. Johanne de Coleshulle, Philippo de Hou, Waltero
Aurifabro, Adam subtus Murum, Gawfrido Aurifabro, Radulpho Aurifabro,
Alexandro Knyht, Jacobo le Especer, Willelmo le Especer, Hugone de
Burgo, Christianis; Manassero de Enveyse, Mosey Parnat, Jacobo de Exonia,
Lombardo de Krikelade, Judæis, et aliis. Dat. in curia Oxon. die lunæ,
proxima post festum S. Matthiæ Apostoli, anno Regni Regis Henrici, filii
Regis Johannis, quinquagesimo primo.”

Dr. Tovey copied the above from a deed existing in the college treasury.
The doctor was certainly more gifted in copying Latin or French than
in copying Hebrew. There is a Hebrew postscript to the above deed――as
was generally the case in those olden times, when a deed was drawn up
between a Christian and a Jew――but our antiquary copied it so badly,
that it was rendered difficult to make any sense of the writing. Dr.
Jost, however, very likely restored it to its proper reading, which is
the following:――

אני יעקב בן רב משה דלונדרש מודה שכל הכתוב למעלח בלשין לטין בלי מחק והדרה ‮[‭or‬ וחזרה] ‬הודיתי בעבורי ובעבור
יורשי שיחיח שריר וקים וטב ובעבור אשתי הודיתי שיהיה שריר וקים ׃ הזה שהודיתי כתבתי וחתמתי בעבורי ובעבור אשתי חנה
יעקב בן רב משה דלונדרש׃

_Anglia Judaica_, p. 182. _Geschichte der Israeliten_, vol. vii.,
p. 407.

There are two seals attached to that charter, bearing an impression of
some unknown four-footed beast.


                                   Q.

Mandatum est Constab. Oxon: quod omnes Judæos quos cepit et captos tenet
in Castro Oxon: occasione cujusdam parvi Conversi et Baptizati, qui
dicebatur per ipsos Judæos raptus esse, et qui jam inventus est apud
Oxon, sine dilatione deliberet.

Test. R. apud West. 4 die Novem.――_Claus._ 21, H. 3, pars 1, m. 22.


                                   R.

Præceptum fuit Constabulario castri _Oxoniæ_ et _Cyrographo_ Christiano
et Judeo Archæ Cyrograph: ejusdem; quod per sacramentum 12 Judeorum
inquirant, quæ bona et catalla _Jacobus Baseni de Oxon_: Judeus _Oxon._
interfectus, habuit die quo interfectus fuit. Eodem modo præceptum
est Ballivis Oxon: quod per sacramentum 12 Christianorum inquirant quæ
catalla dictus _Jacobus_ habuit die quo interfectus fuit, &c.


                                   S.

Rex Majori et Vicecomitibus London. Salutem. Cum, divina cooperante
gratia, pax in regno nostro ordinata sit, firmata, et ubique per
regnum proclamata; ac de consilio baronum nostrorum provisum sit, ut
ex parte nostra, et ipsorum, publice sit inhibitum, ne quis sub pœna
exhæredationis, et periculo vitæ et membrorum super aliquem currat, nec
homicidia, nec incendia, depredationes, nec roberias, seu alia hujusmodi
faciat enormia, nec cuiquam damnum inferat contra pacem nostram. Cumque
Judæos nostros London. pro timore turbationis nuper habitæ, adhuc
existentes apud turrim nostram London. in nostram protectionem, ac
defensionem suscipimus specialem, una cum familiis, rebus, et omnibus
possessionibus eorundem; ac ipsis Judaeis concessimus, quod ad domos
suas infra civitatem prædict. libere redire, et eas securi, et absque
aliquo impedimento inhabitare possint, sicut prius ante turbationem
prædict. fieri consueverunt. Vobis de consilio baronum prædict. Mandamus,
firmiter injungentes quatenus per totam civitatem prædict. ex parte
nostra, et baronum ipsorum, publice proclamari, et firmiter inhiberi
faciatis, nequis sub periculo vitæ, et membrorum, prædictis Judæis,
et familiis suis, in personis vel rebus eorum, damnum, molestiam, vel
gravamen, inferre præsumat. Vos autem eos de cætero, tam infra civitat.
prædict. quam extra, quantum in vobis est, manuteneatis, protegatis, et
defendatis, pro quo vos specialiter recommendare debeamus.

Teste Rege, apud St. Paulum, Lond. 11 die Junii.――_Pat._ 48, H. 3, m. 11.


                                   T.

Rex omnibus, &c., salutem. Inspeximus cartam quam Edmundus filius noster
fecit Aaron filio Vynes in hæc verba. Omnibus præsentem cartam visuris
vel audituris Edmundus illustris regis Angliæ filius salutem. Cum
dominus rex pater noster dederit et concesserit nobis Aaron filium Vynes
Judæum, cum omnibus bonis, debitis, et catallis suis, liberum et quietum,
de omnibus tallagiis, auxiliis, præstitis, et demandis quibuscunque;
ita quod eum, cum omnibus bonis, et catallis suis habeamus, et teneamus,
cum omnibus libertatibus, legibus, et consuetudinibus Judaismi Angliæ,
prout hujusmodi concessio, in prædictis patris nostri carta, super
hoc confecta, plenius continetur. Nos eidem Aaron Judæo specialem
gratiam facere volentes, ipsum, cum omnibus bonis, debitis et catallis
suis, tenore præsentium, donavimus libertati; concedentes eidem, quod
ipse, toto tempore vitæ suæ, liber sit de nobis, ab omnibus tallagiis,
auxiliis, præstitis et demandis. Reddendo nobis, quamdiu vixerit,
quolibet anno, ad festum Pentecost. unum par calcarium deauratorum,
pro omnibus exactionibus et demandis. In cujus rei testimonium sigillum
nostrum fecimus apponi.――Dat. Winton. 11 die Augusti, ann. reg. patris
nostri prædict. 54. Nos autem prædictam donationem, et concessionem,
pro nobis et hæredibus nostris, quantum in nobis est, concedimus et
confirmamus, &c.――_Pat._ 54, H. 3, m. 1.

The following was also added, to furnish him with safe conduct
throughout England, and to give him liberty to take up his abode in
any place he chose.

“Rex omnibus &c., salutem. Sciatis quod, ad instantiam Edmundi filii
nostri carissimi, concedimus Aaroni, filio Vynes, Judæo, quod in
quocunque burgo regni nostri voluerit, ubi alii Judæi habitant, morari
possit pro voluntate sua; sine contradictione nostra, vel ballivorum
nostrorum quorumcunque. Dum tamen tanquam bonus et fidelis Judæus se
gerat et habeat, in eodem.

In cujus, &c., T. R., apud Windsor, 30 die Octob.”――_Pat._ 55, H. 3,
m. 29.


                                   U.

The original act was copied by the author of the “Anglia Judaica” from a
very ancient MS. in the Bodleian Library, which is the following:――

“Henricus, Dei Gratia, Rex Angliæ, &c. Dilectis et fidelibus Major
et Vicecomitibus suis London. et omnibus ballivis et fidelibus suis,
ad quos, &c. salutem. Sciatis, quod, ad honorem Dei, et Universalis
Ecclesiæ, ac emendationem, et utilitatem, terræ nostræ, et relevationem
Christianorum, de damnis et gravaminibus, quæ sustinuerunt, occasione
liberorum tenementorum, quæ Judæi regni nostri clamabant, habere
in terris, tenementis, feodis, redditibus, et aliis tenuris: et ne
nobis, sive communitati regni nostri, vel ipso regno, possit de cætero
præjudicium generari: _Providimus, de consilio prælatorum, magnatum,
et procerum, qui sunt de consilio nostro, ac etiam ordinavimus,
et statuimus_, pro nobis, et hæredibus nostris quod nullus Judæus
liberum tenementum habeat in maneriis, terris, tenementis, feodis,
redditibus, vel tenuris, quibuscunque, per cartam, donum, feofamentum,
confirmationem seu quamcunque aliam obligationem, vel quocunque alio
modo.

“Ita tamen quod domos suas, quas ipsimet inhabitant in civitatibus,
burgis, seu aliis villis, inhabitent, de cætero, et eas habeant, sicut
habere consueverint, temporibus, retroactis. Et etiam alias domos,
quas locandas habent, licite locare possunt, Judæis tantum, et non
Christianis.

“Ita tamen quod non liceat Judæis nostris London. plures domos quam nunc
habeant emere, sive quocunque alio modo perquirere, in civitate nostra
London: per quod ecclesiæ parochiales ejusdem civitatis, vel rectores
earundem, jacturam incurrant. Poterunt tamen eidem Judæi London. domos
et ædificia sua, antiqua, prius diruta et destructa, reparare, et in
statutum pristinum redigere, ad voluntatem suam.

“_Providimus_ etiam, _et statuimus de eodem consilio nostro_, quod
de domibus suis prædictis, inhabitandis, vel locandis, ut prædictum
est, nullus Judæus implacitet, vel placitare possit, per brevia nostra
originalia de cancellaria, sed tantum coram Justiciariis nostris, ad
custodiam Judæorum assignatis, per brevia Judaismi consueta hactenus
usitata.

“De terris autem et tenuris de quibus Judæi, _ante præsens statutum_,
feofati fuerunt, et quas nunc tenent, volumus quod hujusmodi
infeodationes, et dona, penitus adnullentur: et terræ et tenementa
illa, Christianis, qui sibi ea dimiserint, remaneant. Ita tamen quod
Christiani illi satisfaciant ipsis Judæis, de pecunia, seu catallo,
contenta in cartis, et chyrographis suis, sine usura, quod Judæi pro
hujusmodi dono, vel feodatione, dederint Christianis. Hac etiam adjecta
conditione, ut si Christiani illi, incontinenter, inde satisfacere
non possint, liceat Judæis prædictis tenementa illa aliis Christianis
dimittere, donec inde, per rationabilem extentam, secundum verum
valorem eorundem, catalla sua, sine usura, levari possint. Salvo
tamen Christianis illis herbergagio suo. Ita quod Judæus pecuniam, vel
catallum suum, per manus Christianorum, et non Judæorum, inde recipiat,
ut prædictum est.

“Et si contingat Judæum aliquod feofamentum, à modo, recipere à quovis
Christiano, de aliquo feodo, vel tenemento, _contra præsens statutum_,
Judæus ipse dictum tenementum, vel feodum, penitus amittat; et in manum
nostram capiatur, et salvo custodiatur; et Christiani illi, vel eorum
hæredes, terram illam, vel tenementum illud, de manu nostra rehabeant.

“Ita tamen quod totam pecuniam, quam ab ipsis Judæis pro hujusmodi
feofamento receperent, nobis tunc solvant. Vel si eorum facultates
ad hoc non sufficiant, tunc verum valorem tenementorum, seu feodorum
illorum, nobis, et hæredibus nostris, annuatim reddant, ad Scaccarium
nostrum, per veram et rationabilem extentam eorundem, donec de hujusmodi
pecunia, seu catallo, nobis plene fuerit satisfactum.

“De nutricibus autem parvulorum, pistoribus, et brasiatoribus, et
cocis Judæorum, quia Judæi, et Christiani, in cultu fidei dispares sunt,
providimus, et statuimus, quod nullus Christianis, vel Christiana, eis
ministrari presumat in ministeriis predictis. Et quia Judæi quosdam
redditus, de terris, et tenementis, Christianorum, tanquam perpetuos
dudum recipere solent, per manus Christianorum qui etiam feoda
dicebantur; volumus, et statuimus, quod statutum tunc inde per nos
factum, firmitatis robor obtineat; nec ei per præsens statutum in
aliquo derogetur. Et _ideo vobis præcipimus_ firmiter injungentes quod
provisionem, ordinationem, et statum prædictum, publice, per totam
ballivam vestram, clamari, et firmiter teneri, et observari, faciatis.

“In cujus rei Testimonium has litteras nostras fieri fecimus patentes.
Teste meipso apud Westm. 24 die Julii, anno Regni nostri 54.”


                                   V.

The king, in lieu of the possessions which he robbed the Jewish converts
of, gave them the following begging letter, in which he calls upon his
Christian subjects to support them by corrode:――

“Rex Priori et Conventui Sanctæ Mariæ de Wallingham salutem. Cum
per guerram _nostram quam nuper sustinuimus in_ Wasconia, et _alia
ardua negotia, statum nostrum_, et regni nostri, tangentia, de statu
conversorum adhuc plene ordinare non possumus; devotionem vestram
rogamus attente, quatenus latorem præsentium, adhuc per biennium, in
victualibus et aliis necessariis exhibere velitis: ita tamen, quod si
liberatione sua diurna noluerit esse contentus, tunc, in optione vestra
sit conferendi ei tres obolos per diem tantum, ad sustentationem suam:
nullam super hac petitione nostra prætendentes excusationem, _pro qua
vos debeamus alias inde sollicitare_. Quia volumus modis omnibus preces
nostras, in hac parte, a vobis exaudiri. Quibus exauditis, in negotiis
vestris gratiam et favorem a nobis obtinebitis, cum speciali gratiarum
actione; rescribentes nobis per unum de vestris, qualiter has preces
nostras duxeritis exaudire.

“T. R. apud Merton, 20 die Januar.”――_Rot. Fin._ 39, H. 3, m. 13, dors.

The above letter in some degree had the desired effect; but in a great
many instances the poor Jewish Christians were left to feed on their
papers; the king, therefore, found it necessary to furnish them with
the following second letter:――

“Rex Abbati, et Conventui, de Abendon, salutem. Cum preces nostras nuper
vobis directas pro Ricardo, converso, et Martha uxore ejus, per biennium
in necessariis exhibendis, (nobis existentibus in Anglia), minime
curavistis exaudire, unde plurimum miramur, et movemur; præsumentes ex
hoc, indubitanter, quod si absentes essemus, et in partibus transmarinis
eædem preces nostræ parum, vel nullum, penes vos obtinerent effectum,
maxime cum in præsentia nostra illas admittere recusaveritis: volentes
autem adhuc experiri si erga devotionem vestram in hac parte exaudiri,
vel repulsam pati debeamus pro iisdem conversis; iterato vos duximus
sollicitandos. Rogantes quatenus juxta tenorem priorum litterarum
nostrarum, vobis inde directarum, in necessariis exhibere velitis;
taliter, in hac parte, preces nostras effectui mancipantes, quod dilatio
præcedens per effectum subsequentem penitus expietur: et quod a summo
remuneratore dignam inde remunerationem, et a nobis gratias mereamini.

“T. R. apud West. 6, die Feb.”――_Rot. Fin._ 39, H. 3, m. 12, dors.


                                   W.

Rex dilectis sibi Majori London. et Magistro Johanni de Sancto Dionisio
clerico suo, custodi domus Conversorum London. Salutem. Ex parte
pauperum conversorum nostrorum London. nobis, et consilio nostro, est
ostensum, quod cum nihil habeant unde sustentari possint, nec sit qui
eis in aliquo subveniat, ostiatim mendicare coguntur, et quasi fame
moriuntur; et cum certos redditus ad sustentationem ipsorum in civitate
London. et alibi assignari fecerimus, ipse ex hiis nihil percipiunt; sed
quidam alii conversi divites, alios redditus et possessiones habentes,
qui etiam non morantur, nec conversantur in domo nostra prædicta,
redditus ipsos, pro magna parte percipiunt, et ad usus suos, pro
voluntate sua convertunt, quod ulterius sustinere nolumus, nec debemus;
maxime cum prædictos redditus, dictæ domui, non pro divitibus, sed
pauperibus et egenis, et ex causa necessitatis, fecerimus assignari.
Volentes igitur præmissa in melius reformari: vobis mandamus, firmiter
injungentes, quod per sacramentum proborum et legalium hominum de
civitate et suburbio London diligenter inquiratis, qui sunt redditus,
et bona prædicta? et quantum valeant per annum? et quis vel qui ea
percipiunt? et a quibus, et qualiter, hactenus distributa, et dispensata
fuerunt? et qua super præmissis corrigenda, et reformanda videritis,
sine dilatione corrigatis. Proviso quod bona et redditus domus prædictæ,
præfatis conversis, qui magis indigent, juxta merita necessitatis de
cætero assignentur. De aliis etiam quæ ad servitium, et debitum statum
capellæ nostræ ibidem, ac domus prædictæ in melius reformandum pertinere
noscuntur, provideatis in omnibus, prout melius, et honestius, videritis
expedire. Volumus etiam quod sicut prædicti redditus, dictæ domui, ad
sustentationem commorantium in eadem specialiter assignati sunt; ita
etiam ad domum deferantur, et distribuantur ibidem, sicut prædictum est.
Et si quos vobis, aut ordinationi vestræ resistentes aut contradicentes,
inveneritis, eos per sequestrationes portionum suarum, et aliter, prout
opus esse videritis, compescatis.

“T. R. apud West. 26 die Feb.”――_Pat._ 56, H. 3, pars 1, m. 19.


                                   X.

The following particulars, as registered by Prynne, evidently show that
there were many wealthy persons who, in spite of losing all, embraced
Christianity:――

“This year, a Jew’s wife proving a convert Christian, her husband
was attached for her goods, by the king, as belonging to him upon her
conversion; who thereupon paid a fine to have this new case judicially
determined in the Jews’ Exchequer, as this record attests.”

“Cum _Abraham Batekot_ Judeus attachiatus esset ad respondend. regi
de catallis _Amiciæ_ Judeæ, quæ fuit uxor sua, quæ quidem catalla post
conversionem suam ad regem pertinebant, ut dicitur. Idem Judeus finem
fecit cum rege pro dimid. marc. auri quam regi solvit, ut secundum legem
et consuetudinem Judaismi ad scaccarium Judæorum super hoc deducatur.
Et mandatum est justic. ad custod. jud. assignatis, quod citra festum S.
_And._ ad scaccarium Judæorum, quod justum fuerit de catallis prædictis
fieri faciant, sicut prædict. est T. per R. de Essington.”




                              LECTURE VI.


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

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

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

      Lord Coke states, that the crown received from the Jews,
      in the short space of seven years, viz., from the 17th
      of December, in the 50th year of Henry III., until Shrove
      Tuesday, the 2nd of Edward I., the sum of £420,000 15s. 4d.

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

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

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

    ¹ See Appendix A.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    ♦ ‘wheresover’ replaced with ‘wheresoever’

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    ¹ See Appendix B.

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

    ¹ See Appendix C.

For by an edict subsequently issued by the king, the direction with
respect to the wearing of badges was extended to Jewesses as well as to
Jews; and orders were at the same time given to see that no Christian
served any Jew in any menial capacity. In addition to these regulations,
which were solely of a temporal nature, measures were also taken with
respect to the Jews, which had reference to the promotion of their
spiritual welfare. For about the same time, certain friars of the
order of the Dominicans undertook to preach to the Jews, and vouched
to convince them of the truth of the Christian faith, if the Jews could
only be prevailed upon to listen to their preaching. They therefore
petitioned the king to force all the Jews to attend their sermons. To
forward their pious intentions, the king issued writs to the sheriffs
and bailiffs of the different towns where the Jews resided, commanding
that the Jews should be compelled to attend such places as the friars
should appoint, and be forced to listen to the lectures which were
delivered, with attention, and without disturbance.¹ The king, on his
part, conceded a portion of the advantages to which he had heretofore
been entitled, from the power he possessed over the property of the
converted Jews. Letters patent were published, declaring that for the
future seven years, any Jew, who might become a Christian, should retain
the moiety of his property to his own use; the other half was secured to
the house of converts, founded by the late king, to be applied (together
with the deodands which were granted at the same time) towards the
support of that establishment. We do not find on record many benefits
that resulted, from the measures _thus_ taken to induce the Jews to
investigate attentively the claims of the Christian doctrines; and it
would seem that but few were prevailed upon to surmount the stumbling
blocks thrown in the way of their conversion, and to make the sacrifice
which was still incurred by the convert to the Christian creed.

    ¹ See Appendix D.

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

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

    ¹ See Appendix E.

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

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

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

    ¹ Henry’s Britain, vol. vii., p. 75.

    ² Hume and Smollett.

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

    ¹ See also Witherby’s Dialogues, part i., Dialogue II.

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

    ¹ See Appendix F.

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

    ¹ Witherby.

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

                                יום יא מי היו
                             תפוסים כל יהודים
                               בארצי הזי שנת
                                מ׳ז לפ׳ לאלף
                               שישי אני אשר
                                 חקקתי.¹

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

That is――“On the 11th day of May, were all the Jews in the counties
of this island imprisoned: in the year of the world 5047 [A.D. 1287],
I, Asher, inscribed this.” The inscription was discovered by Patricius
Junius in an old vault at Winchester. Some historians relate that the
Jews were subjected to this violence, in consequence of a promise made
by the commons to the king, of a fifth of their moveables, provided he
would banish the Jews from the island. When the Jews became acquainted
with the reason of their imprisonment, they caused an intimation to
be conveyed to the king, that they would pay a larger sum than the
amount of the fifth part promised by the commons, if they might be
released from their dungeons, and allowed to remain in England. This
offer had the desired effect, and they were again restored to liberty,
upon payment of the above-mentioned sum. Whether this statement of the
circumstances under which the Jews were imprisoned be correct or not,
it seems certain that from about this time, the clamour against them
became daily more violent. It is not improbable that the edict, by which
the exactions practised upon the Jews by the people were prevented, had
rendered them, with many, still greater objects of hatred. It appears,
however, that the clergy and gentry joined with the nation in general in
desiring the expulsion of the Jews; and it is to inferred that they were
induced entertain this wish, in a great measure, from the heavy debts
they owed to the Jews, and expecting to be relieved of the payment, by
the banishment of the creditors; which gave birth to all the monstrous
accusations brought against them, which were still loudly repeated
against the Jews, not only of their being continually clipping and
depreciating the coin of the country, but also of being the cause of
much hardship through their usurious dealings. But, though this may
have been, in truth, the principal, as in fact, the only avowed reason
for desiring that the Jews should be driven out of England, yet there
can be little doubt that the evils which have been, in a former lecture,
pointed out as resulting to the nation, in general, from the power
continually exercised over the property, persons, and rights of the Jews,
had some effect in increasing the wish to be relieved from the presence
of that people.

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

    ¹ See p. 100.

    ² By Mr. Herbert, city librarian, in his History of City
      Companies.

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

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

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

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

    ¹ See Appendix G.

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

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

    ¹ See Appendix H.

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

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

    ¹ See pp. 7–11.

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

    ³ For the original refer to Appendix G. of Lecture II.

    ♦ ‘consirable’ replaced with ‘considerable’

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

    ¹ See p. 9.

    ² See Appendix I.

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

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

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

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

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

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

                     “Si Lyra non lyrasset,
                      Lutherus non saltasset.”

Others have it thus:――

                     “Nisi Lyra lyrasset,
                      Totus mundus delirasset.”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 Frenchifying any 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 own works,¹ in which he gives England as
his native country.

    ¹ Brathering’s 8vo. edition of Lyra’s Disputations against the
      Jews. See Appendix K.




                        APPENDIX TO LECTURE VI.


                                   A.

Rex vicecomiti Mall. Salutem. Cum nuper pacem nostram per totum regnum
nostrum publicè proclamari fecimus, et eam omnibus et singulis de regno
nostro tam Judæis, quam Christianis observari præcepimus, et præcipimus
quod Judæi nostri de Bruges in balliva tua manuteneas, et defendas,
ita quod eis pax nostra, prout ejus per totum regnum nostrum proclamari
fecimus, inviolabiliter observetur. Et non exigas vel exigi permittas ab
eisdem redemptiones vel alias extorsiones ad opus nostrum, vel alicujus
alterius, nisi quatenus ad debita nostra, seu Domini _Henrici_ regis
patris nostri, seu tallagia, aut alia ad quæ de jure tenentur ab eis
levanda, de nostro, aut ejusdem Domini Henr. patris nostri mandato
warrantum habueris. Datum, &c. apud Westm. 15 die Junii.


                                   B.

Rex dilectis et fidelibus suis Stephano de Pentecester, Waltero
de Helynn, et Johanni de Cobham, justiciariis suis ad placita
transgressionum monetæ audienda et terminanda assignatis, et dilecto
clerico suo Philippo de Wylegheby, Salutem. Quia datum est nobis
intelligi, quod quidam Judæi regni nostri, fidem Catholicam, et Sacra
Ecclesiastica, hactenus diversimode blasphemare non formidarunt nec
adhuc formidant, in Divini nominis contumeliam, et totius Christianæ
professionis opprobrium; nos hujusmodi blasphemias, sicut principem
Catholicum decet, reprimi cupientes: volumus, quod nullus Judæus taliter
de cætero blasphemare præsumat; videlicet, aliquod erroneum, detestabile
aut abbominabile dicendo vel faciendo, in blasphemia crucifixi, fidei
Catholicæ, seu beatissimæ matris Mariæ Virginis, seu Ecclesiasticorum
Sacramentorum. Volumus etiam, quod hoc, per omnia loca regni nostri
in quibus Judæi morantur, publice proclamatur; et ne aliquis Judæus
sub periculo vitæ et membrorum talia facere vel dicere præsumat. Et
si quis notorius blasphemator invenietur, ita quod per inquisitionem
per Sacramentum Christianorum bonorum et graviorum inde convinci possit
evidenter; volumus quod quilibet talis puniretur secundum quod in
hujusmodi casibus alias fieri consuevit.――_Claus._ 7. E. 1, m. 6, dors.


                                   C.

Rex Justic. suis ad custodiam Judæorum assignatis, Salutem.
Monstraverunt nobis Mosseus de Hornden et Suetecota, uxor ejus, Judæi
Lond. quod cum ipsa Suetecota Christiana non sit, nec aliquo tempore
fuerat baptizata, quidam emuli eorum, maliciose confingentes ipsam
Suetecotam baptizatam fuisse inter duo bella de Lewes et Evesham, eam
super hoc defamarunt; in ipsorum Mossei et Suetecotæ dampnum non modicum
et gravamen. Et ideo vobis mandamus, quod, inquisita inde plenius
veritate per Christianos et Judæos, sicut mos est; si inveneritis quod
prædicta Suetecota non fuit baptizata, sicut sibi imponitur, tunc iisdem
Mosseo et Suetecotæ, juxta officii vestri debitum, pacem habere inde
faciatis.――_Claus._ 16. E. 1, m. 20.


                                   D.

Rex vicecomitibus et omnibus ballivis et fidelibus suis, Salutem. Cum
dilecti nobis in Christo fratres de ordine Prædicatorum in Anglia,
Judæis, quorum mentes vetustas erroris, et perfidiæ, obnubilat, et
obcæcat, prædicare proponunt Verbum Dei, quo facilius, interveniente
gratia Spiritus Sancti, ad fidei Catholicæ converti valeant unitatem;
et ob hoc, dilectus nobis in Christo, Prior Provincialis ejusdem
ordinis nobis supplicavit, ut vobis demus in mandatis quod omnes Judæos,
ubicunque locorum in ballivis vestris conversantes, efficaciter moneatis,
et inducatis, quod in locis, ubi vobis de consilio fratrum ipsorum
magis expedire videbitur, ad audiendum Verbum Dei conveniant, et illud
ab iisdem fratribus, absque tumultu, contentione, vel blasphemia,
audiant diligenter et benigne: et si forte Altissimus velamen duritiæ
a cordibus eorum auferens aliquibus vel alicui ipsorum Judæorum gratiam
dederit convertendi, quod cæteri Judæi eis super hoc non impediant, nec
per alios impediri procurent: Nos prædictum propositum ipsorum fratrum
pium et salubre attendentes, et precibus prædicti Prioris favorabiliter
annuentes, in hac parte, vobis mandamus, quod omnes efficaciter
moneatis, et eos ad hoc, modis quibus melius sciveritis, inducatis,
prout unicuique vestrum inspiraverit spiritus veritatis. In cujus &c.
quamdiu regi placuerit duraturas. Teste rege apud Winton. 2 die Januar.
――Pat. 8 E. 1. m. 27.


                                   E.

Johannes de sancto Dionysio, Custos Domus conversorum, tulit breve regis,
de magno sigillo, in hæc verba. Edwardus, &c. Justiciariis ad Custodiam
Judæorum, &c. assignatis, Salutem. Ex parte conversorum domus nostræ
London. Nobis est ostensum, quod cum medietas bonorum, et catallorum,
Judæorum conversorum seu convertendorum, ad fidem Catholicam, ad
conversos domûs nostræ prædictae, ratione concessionis nostræ eis inde
factæ pertineat, alia medietate, illis qui sic a tempore concessionis
nostræ prædictæ convertuntur, reservata: ac Belager Judæus Oxon. nuper
ad fidem Catholicam se converterit &c. ideo mandamus &c. T. R. apud
Woodstock, 25 die Aprilis, an. Reg. nostr. nono.――_Rot. placit. term.
Pasche 9. E. 1. r. 7._

Per hoc breve liberantur eidem Johanni, bona, et catalla subscripta,
videlicet, unus Liber Prest. Constit. precii 12d.; unus Græcismus precii
6d.; una Legenda, precii 10d.; unum Doctrinale Magnum, precii 1d.;
quidam Liber Constitutionum, precii 4s.; quidam Codex, precii 16s.;
quoddam Insciatum, precii 16s., &c.


                                   F.

Rex dilectis et fidelibus suis Stephano de Pentecester, Waltero de
Heylin, et Johanni de Cobham, justiciariis ad placita transgressionis
monetæ audienda, Salutem. Quia omnes Judæi nuper rectati, et per certam
suspicionem indictati de retonsione monetæ nostræ, et inde convicti
cum ultimo supplicio puniuntur; et quidam eorum, eadem occasione omnia
bona et catalla sua forisfecerunt, et in prisonam nostram liberantur,
in eadem, ad voluntatem nostram detinendi. Et cum accepimus quod plures
Christiani, ob odium Judæorum, propter discrepantiam fidei Christianæ,
et ritus Judæorum, et diversa gravamina per ipsos Judæos Christianis
hactenus illata, quosdam Judæos nondum rectatos, nec indictatos, de
transgressione monetæ, per leves et voluntarias accusationes, accusare
et indictare, de die in diem, nituntur, et proponunt; imponentes eis, ad
terrorem ipsorum, quod de hujusmodi transgressione culpabiles existunt,
et sic per minas hujusmodi accusationis ipsis Judæis metum incutiunt, ut
pecuniam extorqueant ab iisdem: ita quod ipsi Judæi super hoc ad legem
suam sæpe ponuntur, in vitæ suæ periculum manifestum. Volumus quod omnes
Judæi qui ante primum diem Maii, prox præteritum indictati, vel per
certam suspicionem rectati non fuerunt de transgressione monetæ prædictæ,
et qui facere voluerunt finem, juxta discretionem vestram, ad opus
nostrum, pro sic quod non occasionentur de hujusmodi transgressionibus
factis ante primum diem Maii, propter novas accusationes Christianorum
post eundum diem inde factas non molestentur, sed pacem inde habeant
in futurum. Proviso, quod Judæi indictati, vel per certam suspicionem
rectati de hujusmodi transgressionibus ante prædictum diem Maii,
judicium subeant coram vobis, juxta formam prius inde ordinatam, et
provisam. Et ideo vobis mandamus, quod fines hujusmodi capiatis, et
præmissa fieri, et observari faciatis, in forma prædicta.――Teste Rege
apud Cantuar. 8 die Maii.――_Claus._ 7. E. 1, m. 7.


                                   G.

הי״ח האי אשר נקרא היום אינגלאטירה נעשה שם שמד גדול ועצום בכל אותם קהלות גדולות ועצומות אשר היו שם בימים
ההם בחכמה ובינה וכבוד וביחוד העיר הגדולה הנקראת לונדריש אשר היו שם קרוב לשני אלפים בעלי בתים כלם אנשים
בעלי חכמה ועושר ושם עשה החכם ר׳ אבדהם בן עזרא אגרת קראה אגרת שבת והשמד היה שימירו דתם וכאשר עמדו על
קדושת השם העלילו עליהם שהיו עושים זיוף במטבע ובאה תביעה זו לפני המלך והמלך חקר ודרש ומצא כי המצלילים
המזויפים היו מטילים האשמה על היהורים ונמלטו׃ לימים שבו הנוצרים ובקשו מי שיעיד נגד היהודים ומצאו כרצונם איך ראו
יהודי קוצץ המטבע ואף על פי שידע המלך כי הכל שקר מפניהמיית העם בקש להשליך מעליו תרעומות אלו ושמא יקומו
העם וחרב בידם כדרכם ואין מציל צוה וגרשם והיה הגירוש זה שנת חמשת אלפים ועשרים ליצירה‏.‏
‏

                                   H.

בשנת ה אלפים כ׳ כומר אחד נימול באינגילטרה כדי להנשא עם יהודית שנתלהב באהבתה ויודע הדבר |לבני העיר והיורוצים
לשרפם אבל המלך בחר לעשות הנקמה בדרך אחרת וגזר כי תוך ג׳ חדשים ימירו ואשר מלו הכומר שרפו ורבים מהם המירו
ויקחו כל בניהם מו׳ שנים ולמטה ויוליכום לסוף מלכותו למען ישכחו מנהג אבותיהם היהודים וימת המלך וימלוך בנו תהתיו ותכף
בא על מלכותו דבר ורעב ויאמרו יועציו כי לחטאת היהודים שאינם מאמינים היטיב בא העונש להם ויעש שני אהלים על חוף הים
על א׳ צייר צורת מרעה״ ושמו ועל אחר צייר משיחם ויאמר עליהם כי מרשה להם להתיהד ולא יכריח שום מהם לשום דבר
אמנם כדי להכיר מי יהודי רוצה שהמתיהדים יכנסו באהל מרעה״ וקבלו עליהם לעשותו ורבים מהם נכנסו באהל מרעה״ ואחר
הכנסם היו שם מרצחים אותם ומשליכים בים וכן ספו תמו כלם׃

Both Ben Virga and Rabbi G’daliah apparently fixed the date of the
expulsion of the Jews from this country A.M. 5020, or A.D. 1260,
which is decidedly erroneous. Asher’s inscription on the wall of the
Winchester dungeon controverts it.¹ Selden ingeniously, and I dare say
correctly, proposes to read נ instead of כ, which proposal reconciles
the apparent contradiction. No mistake is more likely to occur with
transcribers, than writing down a כ instead of נ.

    ¹ See pp. 379, 380.



                                   I.

                _To the Editor of the Jewish Chronicle._

DEAR SIR,――As a constant reader of your well conducted Journal, I
venture to hope that you will kindly afford me space in it for the
insertion of these few lines.

I am anxious to know how the following two statements are to be
reconciled:――“But, let me tell you, that you had great men men living in
England eight hundred years ago. The sayings of the wise men of Norwich
and of York are quoted in some of the additions made by the expounders
of the Talmud.”――Moses Samuels’ Address on the Position of the Jews
in Britain, p. 27. “_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 unde stärkte den Wissbegierigen._”――J. M. Jost’s
Geschichte der Israeliten, vol. vii., p. 165.

I know there is a current opinion amongst the Jews of England in favour
of Mr. Samuels’ statement; but after reading through the Talmud again
very carefully, at the expense of a great deal of time, and finding
that “the sayings of the wise men of Norwich and of York” either escaped
my eye, or are omitted in my copy (באמשטרדם לפרט תע׳ו), I bethought me to
apply to you. Perhaps this letter may elicit from some of your numerous
well-educated readers a reconciliation of the above. Ben Virga mentions
the learning of the ancient Jews of Britain, but does not say anything
about Norwich and York. He only says, הי״ח האי אשר נקרא היום אנגלאטירה נעשה שם שמד גדול
ועצים בכל אותם קהלות גדולות ועצמות אשר היו שם בימים ההם בחכמה ובינה וכבוד וביחוד העיר הגדולה לונדרוש אשר היו
שם קרוב לשני אלפים בעלי בתים כלם אנשים בעלי חכמה ועושר וכו׳. An early insertion will greatly
oblige me.

                   I am, dear Sir, yours very truly,

                                                  MOSES MARGOLIOUTH.

Glasnevin, Dublin, August 18, 1845.

                _See Jewish Chronicle, Vol. I., No. 27._


                                   K.

The following brief account of De Lyra is given by Bishop Bale in his
“Illustrium Majoris Britanniæ Catalogus.”

“Nicolaus Lyranus ex Judæorum genere Anglus; atque Hebræorum Rabbinos
in literis Hebraicis ab ipsa pueritia nutritus, illud idioma sanctum ad
unguem, ut loquuntur, novit. Qui mox ut frequentasset scholas publicas,
ac minoritarum quorundam sincerioris judicii audisset conciones;
abhorrere coepit a Talmudicis doctrinis, atque ita a tota sua gentis
insania stultissima. Conversus ergo ad Christi fidem, ac regenerationis
lavacro lotus, Franciscanorum familiæ, se statim adjunxit. Inter quos
scripturis sanctis studiosissimus ac longa exercitatione peritus, Oxonii
et Parisiis, cum insulsissimis Rabbinis, qui plebem Judaicum vana Messiæ
adventuri pollicitatione lactaverant, disputationibus et scriptis,
mirifice conflictavit. Denique contra eorum apertissimas blasphemias,
utrumque Dei testamentum diligentiori examine et elucidatione explanavit.
Si in plerisque, ut ei a multis imponitur, deliravit, tempori est
imputandum, in quo fere omnia erant hypocritarum nebulis obscurata.
Meliorem certe cæteris omnibus per eam ætatem navavit in scripturis
operam. De verborum simplicitate non est quod conqueritentur homines,
cum a vocabulis æstimanda non sit æterni patris veritas. Præclara
scripsit opuscula, ut prædictus Tritemius habet, quibus nomen suum
celebriter devenit ad posteritatis notitiam.――Doctor Martinus Lutherus,
in secundo et nono capitibus in Genesim, se ideo dicit amavisse Lyranum
atque inter optimos posuisse, quod præ cæteris interpretibus diligenter
fuerit historiam prosecutus. Claruit A. C. 1337, quo Danielem exposuit,
ac Parisiis demum obiisse fertur.”


                                THE END.




                               PROSPECTUS
                                 OF THE
                         PHILO-HEBRAIC SOCIETY,

             For Promoting the Study of Hebrew Literature,

     AND ESPECIALLY FOR REPRINTING THOSE WORKS OF HEBREW WHICH HAVE
              NOW BECOME SCARCE AND RARELY TO BE MET WITH.

                   *       *       *       *       *

                               COMMITTEE.

      PRESIDENT――THE REV. THE PROVOST OF TRINITY COLLEGE, DUBLIN.

             REVS. S. HINDS, D.D.    | REVS. C. P. REICHEL.
             REVS. J. WEST, D.D.     | REVS. T. CRADOCK.
             REVS. A. CAMPBELL.      | REVS. M. RAINSFORD.
             REVS. M. MARGOLIOUTH.   | DR. LITTON.
             REVS. G. H. CARROLL.    | G. A. CRAWFORD, Esq.

                   *       *       *       *       *

THE Committee of the above Society beg leave to draw your attention to
the reasons of its establishment, and solicit your co-operation with it.
The beauties of Hebrew literature have been long and fully admitted by
the few whose superior tastes have led them to explore its treasures,
still, we regret to say, too little known. The necessary brevity of a
Prospectus prevents the Committee saying much on the importance of a
knowledge of that literature, especially to those who spend a great deal
of their time in making themselves acquainted with the writings of the
ancients. Suffice it to say, that those who have impartially studied
the compositions of the Greeks, of the Romans, and of the Hebrews,
have found the productions of the latter unrivalled either in beauty or
elegance by those of the two former.

It is a libel on the literary character of the Jews to say, that
they confined themselves to the cultivation of one department of
literature――a supposition which gave rise to the idea, that their
literature is very scanty, and consists only of the Hebrew Bible
and the Talmud.――The Jewish authors grace the literary pages of
Spanish history as pre-eminent philosophers, philologists, physicians,
astronomers, mathematicians, historians, grammarians, orators, and
highly-gifted poets. The Committee have had the privilege of meeting
many of the Hebrew race, highly distinguished in the above attainments,
and the only education they received was a purely Hebrew one. The Jew
spoke the truth when he affirmed, “That no nation in the universe can,
during a continuous period of full five hundred years, produce a line
of men so truly eminent, so universally learned, as can the Jews of
Spain, from the year 980, until their expulsion from that kingdom in
the year 1492.”――(_Heb. Review_, vol. ii., p. 39.)

The object of the PHILO-HEBRAIC SOCIETY is――as has been already stated
at the head of the Prospectus――to promote the study of Hebrew literature
more than has been ever done before, by reprinting the most valuable
treatises and choicest works of the Hebrew sages, such as those of
Saadia Gaon, Ben Gabriol, Samuel Nagid, Kimchi, Aben Ezra, Ralbag,
Maimonides, Joseph Albo, Joseph Pinso, Luzzati Mendelssohn, Weizel,
&c., &c., with translations of the same on opposite pages.

The Society is formed on the principle of the Parker, Camden, and
other similar Societies. Every Subscriber of One Guinea a year
(Subscription to be paid in advance) will be entitled each year to two
volumes, handsomely printed in octavo, and illustrated with prolegomena,
biographies, and notes, by well-qualified editors.

The Committee earnestly solicit the co-operation of the literary public,
and would feel very much obliged for an early favour of the names of
those who are interested in this important undertaking.

                       Signed for the Committee,

                                      MOSES MARGOLIOUTH,

                                                _Honorary Secretary_.

⁂ The Editorial department will be conducted by the Revds. G. H. CARROLL,
M. MARGOLIOUTH, and C. P. REICHEL.

N.B.――All communications to be addressed to the REV. MOSES MARGOLIOUTH,
Incumbent of Glasnevin, near Dublin.




                          BY THE SAME AUTHOR.


                                   I.

                     Just Published, price 7s. 6d.,

          AN EXPOSITION OF THE FIFTY-THIRD CHAPTER OF ISAIAH;

         Being a Series of Six Lectures, preached in the Parish
                          Church of Glasnevin.

       HATCHARD AND SON, London. W. CURRY, JUN. AND CO., Dublin.


                                  II.

                                  THE
                FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLES OF MODERN JUDAISM
                             INVESTIGATED;

       Together with a Memoir of the Author, and an Introduction;

                         TO WHICH ARE APPENDED,

            A LIST OF THE SIX HUNDRED AND THIRTEEN PRECEPTS,
                 AND ADDRESSES TO JEWS AND CHRISTIANS.

          B. WERTHEIM, London. W. CURRY, JUN. AND CO., Dublin.


                                  III.

                            Also, Price 2s.,

                     ISRAEL’S ORDINANCES EXAMINED;

                A REPLY to CHARLOTTE ELIZABETH’S Letter
               to the Right Rev. the Bishop of Jerusalem.

          B. WERTHEIM, London. W. CURRY, JUN. AND CO., Dublin.