3 , 24 . 17 ^ 
 
 DSI35 
 .ELSE 6 
 
>» 
 
 i 
 
 % 
 
 ip 
 
 

 
 
 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
A HISTORY 
 
 OF THE 
 
 ESTABLISHMENT AND RESIDENCE 
 
 OF 
 
 THE JEWS IN ENGLAND 
 
 WITH 
 
 AN ENQUIRY 
 
 INTO THEIR 
 
 CIVIL DISABILITIES. 
 
 OF 
 
 y 
 
 BT JOHN ELIJAH BLUNT, 
 
 Lincoln’s inn, esq., m. a., barrister, at law. 
 
 LONDON: 
 
 PRINTED FOR SAUNDERS AND BENNING, 
 (successors to j. butterworth and son,) 
 
 43 , FLEET-STREET. 
 

 
 y 
 
 London : 
 
 Printed by Littlewood & Co. 
 Old Bailey. 
 
INTRODUCTORY REMARKS. 
 
 Whoever has directed his thoughts to the con¬ 
 sideration of the present state of the law, with re¬ 
 spect to the Jews in England, must have observed 
 that a considerable degree of doubt and uncertainty 
 exists upon the subject. 
 
 Most persons appear to entertain the opinion, that 
 the Jews labour under some disabilities; but of their 
 nature and extent there are, probably, very few 
 who can give any distinct or accurate account. 
 
 It will be the object of the following pages to 
 remove, as far as possible, the uncertainty and diffi¬ 
 culty by which this question is surrounded—to 
 shew the former as well as the actual situation of 
 the Jews in this country—and to point out the 
 foundation and nature of the law, as it regards them 
 at the present moment. 
 
 The peculiarity of the history of the Jews, as con¬ 
 nected with our own, renders it necessary, for the pur¬ 
 pose of coming to a certain conclusion upon their exist¬ 
 ing condition, to carry back the enquiry into the state 
 
IV 
 
 In t rodnctorij R an a rks . 
 
 of the law to a very remote period. It will be seen, 
 from the following narrative, that it is about a century 
 and a half since the Jews returned to England, after 
 being totally absent from the Island for nearly four 
 hundred years. The opinions which prevail at the 
 present day, with regard to the nature of the disa¬ 
 bilities under which the Jews are thought to labour, 
 for the most part, are similar to those entertained at a 
 very early period after their return to this country. 
 As to these disabilities, therefore, it is clear that if 
 the opinion of their existence is well-founded, they 
 must result from laws which were in force during 
 the former abode of the Jews in England. Hence 
 a necessity arises for examining, with minuteness, 
 into their situation, prior to their banishment in the 
 eighteenth year of Edward the First. It will be 
 seen by reference to the enquiry at the latter end of 
 this work, that this examination has been carefully 
 pursued — and, notwithstanding a very general opi¬ 
 nion to the contrary, the result will appear to be, 
 that the only disability under which the Jews 
 now labour, by reason of any laws anciently in 
 existence, is an incapacity of acquiring landed pro¬ 
 perty. They were formerly under much more extern 
 sive disabilities : the whole of these, however, arose 
 out of the circumstance of their being then considered 
 as villeins or serfs of the crown; and, as such a 
 
Introductory Remarks . 
 
 v 
 
 condition cannot at the present day exist, it tollows 
 that those disabilities no longer continue. 
 
 The incapacity of the Jews to acquire landed pro¬ 
 perty, at the time of their banishment, rested upon a 
 statute which was passed in the fifty-fifth year of 
 Henry the Third ; and it is upon the operation of this 
 statute alone, that their present incapacity in this 
 respect rests. The authority and force of this sta¬ 
 tute, it will be found, are much doubted—it is de¬ 
 nied that it ever was of legislative force—or, sup¬ 
 posing that it was formerly effective to that extent» 
 yet it is contended that it is at present inopeiative. 
 The whole of the evidence which could be collected 
 in support of the original power of this statute is pre¬ 
 sented in the following treatise; and an attempt is 
 there also made to meet the arguments which are 
 put forward to shew that the statute, if ever in foice, 
 has ceased now to have any effect. It is proper to 
 state that the course which is thus pursued, was not 
 taken through any desire to maintain the existence 
 of a disability to the prejudice of the Jews, but from 
 a belief that it would be to their advantage, that the 
 full strength of the case which could be made out in 
 support of this disability, should be made public ; in 
 order that, if there was any ground for the opinion 
 that they cannot hold land, the subject might, in the 
 
VI 
 
 Introductory Remarks. 
 
 event of an application to the legislature for the re¬ 
 moval of their other disabilities, be well considered.*' 
 It will be seen that the only other disabilities 
 under which the Jews labour, arise out of the neces¬ 
 sity which the law imposes in certain cases, of taking 
 the Oath of Abjuration, and subscribing to the Declar¬ 
 ation established by the statute of the 9th of George 
 the Fourth—as both the Oath, and Declaration con¬ 
 tain the words, “ upon the true faith of a Christian” 
 A Jew is of course shut out from filling any situation 
 where these are required: from this cause he is 
 prevented from sitting in Parliament, from holding 
 
 * A very clever pamphlet has lately appeared, written by Mr. Gold- 
 smid, in which, as a part of the general subject of the Jewish disa¬ 
 bilities, the question of the present force of this statute is skilfully 
 handled. It is principally to the arguments that are adduced by him 
 upon this point that the observations on this head, which will be 
 found in the following treatise, are directed. After the explanation 
 given above of the motives which induced the author to pursue 
 the course that he has taken, it is perhaps unnecessary for him 
 to say that he is by no means desirous of being thought to have 
 the best of the argument. He would, however, press it upon the con¬ 
 sideration of those who have undertaken to advocate the cause of the 
 Jews, whether such a case of doubt, at least, is not raised upon this 
 matter, as renders it advisable that some direct legislative declaration 
 should be made upon the subject. Whether there is not still a 
 danger, in the present daily discoveries that are made of ancient docu¬ 
 ments and records, that some conclusive evidence may still be found 
 which may establish the fact, that the Ordinances in question were 
 of legislative force. 
 
Introductory Remarks. vii 
 
 any Office Civil or Military under the Crown, and 
 from filling any situation in Corporate Bodies; and 
 may be excluded from practising at the Bar, or as 
 an Attorney, Proctor, or Notary, from voting at elec¬ 
 tions, from enjoying any exhibition in either Univer¬ 
 sity, and from filling some other offices of minor im¬ 
 portance. 
 
 Such is a short summary of the disabilities to which 
 it will be seen, the Jews at the present day are sub¬ 
 jected in this country. 
 
 It is proposed very briefly to enquire, whether 
 these disabilities should be any longer continued. 
 
 In considering this subject, it is proper to bear in 
 mind the circumstances which produced the laws 
 that imposed these disabilities. 
 
 First, As regards the law which prevents a Jew 
 from holding landed property. It will be shewn in 
 the following treatise, that the statute which raised 
 the disability in this respect, was passed for the 
 purpose of obviating evils which can no longer exist. 
 At the time when the statute was made the Jews 
 were regarded as the villeins of the king, and the 
 crown became entitled, immediately to whatever 
 property they acquired. The object of the statute 
 was to remedy the inconvenience which this right 
 of the king produced; and not to afford secuiity 
 against any evils which were experienced from the 
 
Vlll 
 
 Introductory Remarks. 
 
 Jews themselves holding land. But the king at the 
 present day, has no such right to the property of 
 the Jews, as that formerly possessed. And, there¬ 
 fore, the cause which made the law in question 
 originally necessary, is at an end. Consequently, 
 even in this contracted view of the subject, it is 
 just, that the statute should be repealed. 
 
 Secondly, With reference to the laws, by which 
 the Jews are excluded from the situations and offices 
 that have been above-mentioned. It is to be re¬ 
 marked, that their exclusion in these cases, is the 
 effect of chance, and not of design. None of the 
 statutes which incapacitate the Jews, in this respect, 
 were passed with the intention of imposing any re¬ 
 strictions upon them. When those acts were made, 
 their case was never contemplated or considered. 
 No grounds were adduced, to shew that they should 
 be included within the operation of the restrictive 
 laws —they were never even thought of, and conse¬ 
 quently, no care or attention was paid to their rights 
 or interests. 
 
 Under these circumstances, in considering whether 
 the disabilities, to which, by these acts the Jews 
 are exposed, the only fair way of meeting the 
 subject, is to treat the case, as though it were now 
 intended, for the first time, to impose the restrictions 
 which the laws already in force produce: unless 
 
Introductory Remarks . 
 
 IX 
 
 such a case can be made out as would justify the 
 imposition of these civil disabilities, if they did not 
 already exist; then, in justice to the Jews, they 
 ought to be without any delay removed. 
 
 Having made these preliminary remarks, let us 
 proceed to the more particular consideration of the 
 subject under inquiry. 
 
 It is not intended, for a moment, to deny the right 
 of the legislature to exclude any class or description 
 of men from the power of acquiring property in this 
 country, or from filling any particular civil offices or 
 situations in consequence of their religious faith, or 
 on other grounds, provided it is satisfactorily shewn 
 that such an exclusion is essential to the general 
 well-being of the community. It is the duty of every 
 government to support and protect the happiness and 
 safety of the great body of the governed. And, it is 
 by no means impossible, that particular individuals 
 may, by means of their religious faith, or of theii 
 established habits or opinions, be so cleaily danger- 
 ous to the security of the state, that they ought to 
 be subjected to restrictions and disabilities. But, 
 admitting, to the fullest extent, the right of govern¬ 
 ment to impose disabilities in such instances, yet it 
 must be allowed, that every case where this right is 
 sought to be exercised, must be regarded as a case 
 of exception ; and, therefore, whenever it is pio- 
 
X 
 
 Introductory Remarks. 
 
 posed that any class of persons should be subjected 
 to restrictions for the general welfare of the society 
 of which they form a part; it must rest with those 
 who contend for the restrictions, to prove the neces¬ 
 sity for their imposition. 
 
 Applying these principles to the present subject, 
 it is admitted to be possible, that under some state of 
 circumstances, a necessity might exist for depriving 
 the Jews of the right to hold land, or for excluding 
 them from all or any of the offices from which they 
 are now shut out. But then it would be the duty of 
 those who contended for the necessity of imposing 
 restrictions in this respect, to make out their case ; 
 so here it is incumbent upon those who would main¬ 
 tain that a Jew should continue to be prevented from 
 holding land, to shew the danger that would result to 
 the community in general from their being relieved 
 Irom this disability. If on the ground of religious 
 faith, they ought to shew what there is in the Jewish 
 religion, which would make it necessary that those who 
 profess it should be excluded from a right that is open 
 to persons of every other persuasion, and which is not 
 even denied to the infidel or to the atheist; — if on 
 the ground of any general habits or fixed opinions, 
 it ought to be shewn what there is of peculiarity or 
 danger in the habits or opinions of the Jews, which 
 renders it expedient to maintain a disability which. 
 
Introductory Remarks. 
 
 xi 
 
 except in their case, is confined to the traitor, the 
 felon, or the outlaw. 
 
 Again, it is for those who contend that a Jew 
 ought to be disqualified from filling the offices, and 
 performing the various civil duties from which he is 
 now shut out, to shew upon what ground the neces¬ 
 sity of this exclusion is founded,—to demonstrate 
 that by reason of his religious faith, his connexions, 
 his habits, or fixed opinions, the Jew, if admitted to the 
 Senate or to the Bar, to Civil or to Military Office, 
 or if allowed to exercise his talents in the various 
 other situations from which he is now excluded, 
 would necessarily work some damage to society or 
 injury to the state. 
 
 It is believed that no such case can, in any of the 
 above instances, be established against the Jews; 
 but, on the other hand, there are obvious reasons for 
 the restrictions, of which he has to complain, being 
 removed. 
 
 As a general proposition, no one, it is apprehended, 
 will deny that the safety and well-being of a state 
 is best preserved by giving to every class of the 
 community the fullest possible interest in its pios- 
 perity; for there is no class of men so small or so 
 insignificant, but that occasions may occur when the 
 general good may be advanced by a resignation of 
 their immediate individual interests, oi by theii well- 
 
xii Introductory Remarks. 
 
 applied exertions ; but it cannot be expected that 
 any class of men will exert their energies or relin¬ 
 quish their private advantage for the support of a 
 society, in the permanent benefits of which they are 
 not allowed to participate, and from the honours 
 and distinctions of which they are excluded. 
 
 Under the existing state of the law, the Jews have 
 no direct interest in supporting the general welfare. 
 They are prevented from acquiring the only species 
 of property which can give them any permanent inte¬ 
 rest in the country, or by which they may hope to 
 transmit with security the fruits of their industry to 
 their posterity; they are shut out from the acquirement 
 of all honours and distinction in the state, and are 
 forced to rest any consequence they may obtain in 
 society upon the mere ground of accumulated wealth. 
 It cannot, therefore, be supposed that the Jews will, 
 to any extent, exert themselves for the general good, 
 or that they will abandon, for the benefit of others, 
 any individual advantages which they may possess. 
 Their whole claim to consequence and consideration 
 as far as the law has any effect, is confined to their 
 riches; to this object alone, therefore, their energies 
 will be naturally applied. And, in their exertions 
 for the acquisition of this single source of distinction 
 that is open to them, it is too much to expect that they 
 will resign any advantages for the prosperity of a 
 
Introductory Remarks. 
 
 XUl 
 
 community, whose restrictive laws exclude them from 
 the possibility of obtaining counterbalancing benefits. 
 
 But, when we consider the qualifications and 
 powers which every day’s experience proves that the 
 Jews possess, can any doubt be entertained that 
 there are many occasions when their exertions, if 
 well applied, may conduce to the general welfare of 
 the community ; or when a resignation of their indi¬ 
 vidual interests may be of general service. Though 
 comparatively small in number, the Jews, as a class, 
 are, in proportion to their numerical strength, pos¬ 
 sessed of more wealth than any other body of men 
 as a people they are united ; — by nature and by 
 habit they are capable of great exertions ; and 
 their patience and perseverance under hardships 
 and difficulties are almost proverbial. In commer¬ 
 cial matters, their ready command of money and 
 their extensive foreign connexions afford them most 
 important and peculiar facilities; and there are no 
 persons who are more capable, if they desire it, of 
 turning these facilities to advantage. 
 
 In one particular class of transactions, it is a sub- 
 ject of complaint, that the Jews at the present day 
 avail themselves of the peculiar powers which they 
 possess—that they secure advantages, and acquire 
 riches-without any regard to the general interests 
 of the country. They are accused of tampering with 
 
XIV 
 
 Introductory Remarks. 
 
 the Public Funds, and with the Foreign Exchanges, 
 and thereby bringing great profit to themselves, 
 though at the same time, they often draw down ex¬ 
 tensive ruin on others. It is believed, that this ac¬ 
 cusation is not fairly made against the Jews ; and that 
 in their operations and dealings, they do no more than 
 other persons would do, if placed in their situation. 
 But admitting the charge to be well-founded, it 
 must be evident to every one, that the best course to 
 be pursued for preventing or mitigating this evil, or 
 any others of a similar description, is by opening to 
 the Jews a fresh channel for the employment of their 
 capital—by giving them the means to acquire a per¬ 
 manent interest in the country, and by directing their 
 minds to new and higher objects of ambition. Re¬ 
 move all doubts and difficulties which stand in the 
 way of a Jew acquiring land ; and a large portion 
 of the capital which is now necessarily con¬ 
 fined to commercial pursuits, will probably be laid 
 out in the purchase of real property. If the 
 charge above alluded to be true, the value of the 
 Funds and the Foreign Exchanges will by this means 
 become less subject to variation—and the proprietor 
 of land will derive a proportionable benefit from the 
 fresh capital which will be set at liberty, to be ap¬ 
 plied in the purchase of landed estates. 
 
 For the purpose of securing to ourselves the na- 
 
Introductory Remarks. 
 
 xv 
 
 tional advantage to be derived from this desirable 
 appropriation of Jewish capital—it is requisite that 
 all the civil incapabilities of the Jew should be re¬ 
 moved. Under present circumstances, he would 
 have but slight inducement to resign the advantages 
 which are to be derived from always holding his 
 capital at his immediate command, or for making 
 the sacrifices which may result from a fixed and 
 comparatively unavailable investment of his money. 
 It can not be expected that he will withdraw his 
 wealth from the more profitable operations of com¬ 
 merce, and lay it out in the purchase of laige 
 landed estates, if, when possessed of those estates, 
 he is debarred from acquiring the distinctions and 
 the honours, to which other persons who hold that 
 species of property naturally aspire. If shut out 
 from representing his county in parliament; Irom 
 filling the honourable situations of sheriff, or of a 
 magistrate, and even from having a voice in the 
 election of the person who is chosen to protect the 
 interests of his neighbourhood in the Senate, can 
 he hope, be his possessions as extensive as they 
 'may, that he will ever be looked up to, by his neigh¬ 
 bours, with the full respect that his property would 
 enable him to command, if he were under no disabi¬ 
 lities ; and as he cannot stand in the same situation 
 as his Christian brethren, in this respect, is it to be 
 
XVI 
 
 Introductory Remarks. 
 
 supposed, that lie will feel an equal desire to be¬ 
 come a landed proprietor ? 
 
 In the adjoining nations of Europe, and in Ame¬ 
 rica, the Jew is free from disabilities. In France, 
 and in Holland, for nearly twenty years, he has stood 
 on an equality with the other natives,—in America, 
 for more than forty years,—and no inconvenience, has 
 been experienced. What reason, therefore, can there 
 be to apprehend, that, if a similar indulgence were 
 extended to the Jews in this country, any danger 
 would be the result. On the other hand, however, 
 may not the continuance of the disabilities under 
 which the Jews are now placed be productive of 
 much actual loss? Under the present laws the Jews 
 may continue to resort to England, for the purpose 
 of accumulating riches ; but their wealth when ac¬ 
 quired, will, in all probability, for the most part be 
 expended in countries where their state is, not one 
 of degradation, but of freedom and equality. 
 
 The preceding are the more immediately obvious 
 remarks—which a consideration of this subject would 
 present; but there are many other powerful induce¬ 
 ments for the repeal of the existing laws relating to 
 the Jewish people, to detail which would, however, 
 much exceed the limits of an introductory chapter. 
 
A HISTO RV 
 
 OP THE 
 
 ESTABLISHMENT AND RESIDENCE 
 
 OF THE 
 
 JEWS IN ENGLAND. 
 
 Much difference of opinion has prevailed with re¬ 
 spect to the time at which the Jews first established 
 themselves, in this country. Some authors have 
 imagined, that traces of their residence here might 
 be discovered as early as the dominion of the Ro¬ 
 mans ; whilst others have assigned the period of the 
 Norman Conquest as the date of their first arrival in 
 England. The former of these opinions does not 
 seem to rest upon any satisfactory authority*, and 
 the latter, it will be shown, is clearly erroneous. 
 
 * The principal, if not only, reason for this supposition is, that about the 
 middle of the seventeenth century, there was found, in digging the foundation 
 of a house in Mark-lane, a curious Roman brick, having on one side a bas- 
 relief representing Sampson driving the foxes into a field of corn. The 
 brick was the key of an arched vault, which was discovered to be full of 
 burnt corn ; and as Hercules (the Sampson of the Jews) was the guardian 
 of the Roman granaries, it is supposed that the story of Sampson was 
 
 B 
 
2 History of the Jews in England. 
 
 The first mention that we find made of the Jews, 
 in any document connected with English history, is 
 in the Canons of Ecbright, Archbishop of York, 
 which contain an ordinance, that “No Christian 
 shall judaize or presume to eat with a Jew.” * * These 
 canons were issued in the year 750, and having been 
 promulgated for the government of the province of 
 York alone, shew that the Jews were, even at that 
 early period, already resident in this country. 
 
 Ingulphus, in his History of Croyland Abbey,"j' 
 relates that, in the year 833, Whitglaff, king of the 
 Mercians, having been defeated by Egbert, took re¬ 
 fuge in that abbey; and, in return for the pro¬ 
 tection and assistance rendered him by the abbot 
 and monks on the occasion, granted a char¬ 
 ter, 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.”J The notice which is taken of the 
 
 applied to him; and as the Romans, at this early period, were very unlikely 
 to have been acquainted with the story of Sampson, it is conjectured that 
 some Jews, after the final destruction of Jerusalem, wandered into Britain, 
 and in the arch of their granary recorded on this brick the story of their 
 delivery from the Philistines. See Leland, Collect, p. 71. Tovey Anglia 
 Judaica, p. 4. 
 
 * Ex MSS. Cotton. Nero, A. fol. 131. See Wilkins’ Concilia Mag. Brit, 
 vol. i. p. 11. Johnson’s Coll, of Ecclesiastical Law, vol. iii. 
 
 f Page 9. 
 
 J Confirmo etiam dicta monasterio omnes terras et tenementa, possessiones, 
 et eorum peculia et omnia alia donaria, quae praedecessores mei reges Mer- 
 ciorum, et eorum proceres, vel alii fideles Christiani vel Judaei, dictus mo- 
 narchis dederunt, vendiderunt, vel invadiaverunt aut aliquo alio modo, in 
 perpetuam possessionem tradiderunt. 
 
Before the Conquest. 3 
 
 Jews, in this charter, affords a proof that, previously 
 to the time when it was granted, there were some 
 Jews established in England. But the circumstance 
 of their being distinctly mentioned would, at the 
 same time, induce a belief that they were then con¬ 
 sidered as standing in a different situation, with re¬ 
 spect to property, from the Christian inhabitants. 
 
 It has been supposed, by some writers, that it may 
 be inferred from this document, that the Jews were, 
 in those days, possessed of landed property in Eng¬ 
 land * ; but as the grant extends to “ other gifts,” as 
 well as to lands and possessions, if its construction 
 be carefully attended to, it will be found not to 
 afford conclusive evidence of this fact. 
 
 Basnaget, in his History of the Jews, asserts, 
 that “ they were banished from this country in the 
 beginning of the eleventh century, and did not return 
 till after the Conquest.” The authority upon which 
 Basnage rests his account of their banishment, does 
 not distinctly appear; and it would seem, that some 
 Jews were certainly resident in England, towards the 
 middle of the eleventh century, and prior to the Nor¬ 
 man invasion. By the laws attributed to Edward the 
 Confessor, it is declared J that “ The Jews where- 
 
 * See Ang. Jud. p. 3. 
 
 f Tom. vii. c. 10 sec. 18. French edition, tom. v. p. 1660. 
 
 J Sciendum est quoque quod omnes Judaei ubicunque in regno sunt, sub 
 tutela et defensione Domini Regis sunt, nec quilibet eorum alicui diviti se 
 potest subdere, sine regis licentia. Judaei et omnia sua regis sunt. Quod 
 si quispiam detinuerit eis pecuniam suam, perquirat Rex tanquam suum 
 proprium. Hoved. Ann. pars post 604. Spelm. Concil. p. 623. Lambard. 
 And see, on the authenticity of this law, the observations in the note, at the 
 commencement of the following treatise on the civil disabilities of the Jews. 
 
 ' B 2 
 
4 History of the Jews in England. 
 
 soever they be, are under the king s guard and pro¬ 
 tection ; neither can any one of them put himself 
 under the protection of any rich man without the 
 king’s licence, 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.” 
 
 Excepting the Canons of Archbishop Ecbright, the 
 Charter to Croyland Abbey, and the Ordinance of 
 Edward the Confessor, history furnishes no materials 
 from which we can form any conjecture, respecting 
 the Jews in England, anterior to the Conquest. All 
 that can be collected, from this limited information, 
 is, that some Jews were resident here as early as the 
 year 750, and that under the reign of Edward the 
 Confessor, they were regarded as the mere villeins or 
 bondsmen of the crown. "With respect to their num¬ 
 bers, their wealth, their habits of life, their civil rights 
 or disabilities, and the estimation in which they were 
 held by the inhabitants, we remain totally ignorant. 
 
 FROM THE NORMAN INVASION TO THE REIGN 
 OF KING STEPHEN. 
 
 From the time of the conquest, the information 
 afforded by our historians respecting the Jews be¬ 
 comes gradually more extensive. William* the 
 
 * Magd. Cent. II. chap. xiv. 686. Chron. Hoi. lib. ii. 15. Stow, Ann. 
 x. 103. Antoninus Chron. tit.xvi. c. 5. Holinshed, vol. iii. p. 15. Baker’s 
 Chton. p. 37. 
 
From the Conquest to king Stephen. 5 
 
 first, soon after he had obtained possession of the 
 throne, encouraged the Jews to come over in large 
 numbers from Rouen, and to settle in England; and • 
 is reported to have appointed a particular place for 
 their residence. 
 
 Of the name of this town we are not accu¬ 
 rately informed. But Peek*, 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, shews 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. And it appears, that 
 not long afterwards, they became possessed of most 
 of the houses in the parishes of Saint Edward and 
 Saint Aldgate there, which were, from this circum¬ 
 stance, called the Great and Little Jewries. They 
 also erected a synagogue ; and some of their houses 
 being resorted to by the scholars, for purposes of 
 instruction, they, in process of time, came to be 
 distinguished by the name of halls, as Moyses’ Hall, 
 Jacob’s Hall, and Lumbard’s HalLf 
 
 Whatever may have been the motives which in¬ 
 duced William the Conqueror to favour the settle¬ 
 ment of the Jews in England:—whether he was 
 prevailed upon by payment of a large sum of 
 money, as the Magdeburg Centuries assert, or by 
 any other consideration, it is certain that, from the 
 time of the Conquest, the Jews encreased rapidly in 
 numbers in this country. Under the three first 
 
 * Peck, Ann. of Stamford, lib. iv. p. 
 
 f Wood’s Ann. and Antiq. Oxon. . 
 
6 History of the Jews in England. 
 
 Norman kings, they appear to have lived here 
 without molestation. It is probable that they had 
 not yet accumulated sufficient wealth to make them 
 objects of attraction, to the avarice of the crown. 
 Although both Rufus and Henry the first, on several 
 occasions, had recourse to various measures of vio¬ 
 lence, in order to extort money from their subjects, 
 the Jews do not appear to have been subjected by 
 them to any exactions. When ten thousand marks 
 were required to complete the purchase of the 
 dukedom of Normandy from Robert, it was with 
 the greatest difficulty that William was enabled to 
 procure that sum ; and we are informed that even 
 the convents were forced to melt down their plate, 
 in order to furnish the quota demanded of them. 
 Within the next few reigns we frequently find a 
 small number of Jews, and sometimes a single indi¬ 
 vidual of that community, contributing, at one pay¬ 
 ment, a sum greater than the whole amount of this 
 purchase money ; and yet, on this occasion, it does 
 not appear that any demand whatever was made 
 upon the Jews. Historians agree in complaining of 
 the heavy and arbitrary taxes imposed by Henry the 
 first upon his English subjects; but no mention is 
 made of the Jews having been subjected to any ex¬ 
 action, by that monarch. 
 
 There were two circumstances, in the reigns of 
 William Rufus and Henry the first, that may pro¬ 
 bably have contributed materially to lay the founda¬ 
 tion of the wealth which the Jews in England sub¬ 
 sequently accumulated. It was during this period 
 that the Crusades first began to occupy the minds of 
 
7 
 
 From the Conquest to king Stephen. 
 
 the different nations of Europe. In England, as in 
 other countries, the nobles and men of rank, im¬ 
 pelled by the romantic spirit of the age, sold and 
 mortgaged their estates and possessions at terms the 
 most disproportionate to their value, in order to pro¬ 
 vide themselves with money to defray the expense 
 of their journey to the Holy Land. Many also, from 
 amongst the less elevated classes of society, parted 
 with and pledged their goods and property for the 
 same purpose. The Jews, from the ready com¬ 
 mand of money which they have ever been found to 
 possess, would not, it may naturally be supposed, 
 fail to turn such a state of things to their advan¬ 
 tage. Another source of wealth was opened to them 
 by the appropriation which Rufus made to himself, 
 during his whole reign, of the property of the church. 
 When a bishopric fell vacant, it was the custom 
 with this king to delay the nomination of a pi elate, 
 that he might retain the temporalties of the See in 
 his own hands. On such occasions, the persons 
 whom he employed to farm the vacant benefices, 
 and to treat for their disposal when, as was not un- 
 frequently the case, he sold them to the highest 
 bidder, were generally Jews.* There was probably 
 good reason for selecting the Jews for this employ¬ 
 ment. Amongst his Christian subjects, king William 
 might have had difficulty in meeting with any 
 other persons equally ready to aid him, in his usurp- 
 ationsonthe property of the church. Respect for 
 the establishments of their religion, or the dread of 
 
 * Pet. Bles. cont. ad an. 1100. 
 
8 
 
 History of the Jews in England. 
 
 ecclesiastical penalties, would deter the Christians 
 The Jews would not be influenced by any such 
 restraints. 
 
 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; and 
 they have not failed to accuse him of impiety and 
 open profaneness, and to record instances of his dis¬ 
 respect for Christianity. By them we are told that 
 he obtained the advance of considerable sums of 
 money from the Jews, under the promise of obliging 
 such of their body as had embraced the Christian 
 faith to revert to Judaism.f And they state, that 
 on one occasion in particular, a Jew, whose son had 
 been converted to Christianity, paid the king sixty 
 marks, upon an agreement that he would induce the 
 lad to embrace the Jewish faith. The youth was 
 summoned to the king’s presence, when both per¬ 
 suasion and threats were employed ; but he per¬ 
 sisted in holding steadfast to his new religion ; and 
 William, finding he could not bring about the point, 
 returned the father the half of his money, saying', 
 “ That as he had not fulfilled his engagement, he 
 could not, in justice, retain the whole sum; but 
 that, at the same time, it was only equitable he 
 should keep a part, for the trouble he had taken in 
 the affair.” The same historians J inform us, that on 
 
 * Chron. Baker, 34. f Chron. Holinshed, lib. ii. c. 27. s.20. 
 
 t Antonin. Chron. Pars II. tit.xvi. c.5. says, the king swore by St. Luke’s 
 face, that he would turn Jew if they overcame the Christians. See Stow, 
 Hist. Lond. 288. W. Malmesbury, lib. iv. p. 123. s. 52. 
 
f From the Conquest to king Stephen. 9 
 
 another occasion, the Jews were induced by king 
 William to engage in an open controversy with cer¬ 
 tain of the bishops and clergy upon the merits of 
 their respective religions, upon a promise that he 
 would give impartial attention to the dispute; and 
 if the Jews had the best of the argument, would 
 himself embrace their faith : whereupon, to use the 
 words of Hoveden *, “ The controversy was carried 
 on with great fear on the part of the bishops and 
 clergy, and pious solicitude by those who feared the 
 Christian faith would be shaken; and from this com¬ 
 bat the Jews brought nothing but confusion, although 
 they would many times boast that they were rather 
 overcome by force, than by argument.” However 
 this may have been, the church, it seems, became 
 alarmed at the progress the Jews were making 
 amongst their Christian brethren ; for in the next 
 reign we find it mentioned, that monks were sent to 
 several towns in which the Jews were established, 
 for the express purpose of preaching down Ju¬ 
 daism. 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 Jewsf ; 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 we are told by Peter of BlesensJ, that “ they 
 preaching often to Stamfordians, exceedingly pios- 
 
 * And see W. Malmesbury, Will. II. lib. iv. cap. 52. p. 123. Holmshed, 
 lib. ii. 27. s. 20. 
 
 f Peck, Annals of Stamford, lib. iv. p. 18. 
 
 \ Peter of Blesens, p. 115. 
 
JO 
 
 History of the Jews in England. 
 
 pered in their ministry, and strengthened the Chris¬ 
 tian faith against the Jewish depravity.” 
 
 FROM THE REIGN OF KING STEPHEN TO THE 
 REIGN OF RICHARD THE FIRST. 
 
 The countenance and protection whicli the Jews 
 had enjoyed, during the three first reigns after the 
 Conquest, might naturally lead them to hope, that 
 they had found in England, a permanent asylum from 
 their persecutions. Under this impression, they had 
 employed the season of their tranquillity in the ac¬ 
 quirement of property. They were, however, soon 
 made to experience the fallacy of their expectation; 
 for with the accumulation of wealth their security 
 vanished; and as their riches encreased, so in pro¬ 
 portion did their oppressions. From this period to 
 the time of their expulsion, our histories abound 
 with details of their hardships. It would be as 
 useless, as it would be tedious, to notice each par¬ 
 ticular instance of cruelty and tyranny which is 
 mentioned to have been exercised towards them; for 
 there is scarcely a year without some records con¬ 
 cerning them, and hardly a record v 'h relates 
 them but furnishes some evidenr V suffe 
 
 ings. Taxes and contributions, tc 'fitai 
 
 amount, were continually imposed upon . 
 mere will of the crown; and payment enu 
 seizure of their properties, by imprisonment, 
 frequently by the infliction of the most cruel ai. 
 
11 
 
 From Stephen to Richard I. 
 
 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 frivo¬ 
 lous pretences, excited against them — their houses 
 pillaged and burnt—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 have not only continued to reside in 
 England, but greatly to increase in numbers, cannot 
 fail to excite our surprise: and if the account of 
 their sufferings had been handed down to us, by 
 writers of their own nation, we might doubt the 
 truth of their statements, or believe them greatly 
 exaggerated. It is not, however, from the Jews 
 themselves, that any part of our information is 
 derived—for it may be noticed as singular, that they 
 do not appear to have preserved any details of their 
 
 misfortunes—our information rests wholly upon the 
 testimony of our own writers, — upon authorities 
 
 which admit of no dispute. 
 
 King Stephen*, in the fifth year of his reign, ex¬ 
 acted 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, during the short continuance 
 of her authority in England, compelled the Jews 
 settled at Oxford to pay her an exchange of money-t 
 Stephen, upon coming again to the possession of 
 power, followed the example of the empress, and re- 
 
 * Madox, Hist, of the Exchequer, p. 153. 
 
 f Wood, Hist. Ant. Oxon. 
 
12 
 
 History of the Jews in England, 
 
 quired the Jews at the same place to give him three 
 and a half exchanges ; threatening, on default of im¬ 
 mediate compliance, to set fire to their houses. 
 The Jews at first attempted to evade the payment— 
 the king, to shew he was in earnest, ordered the 
 house of one of the richest of their body to be burnt— 
 and this command having been carried into execu¬ 
 tion, the whole sum was forthwith produced. 
 
 In the ninth year of this king, the Jews are for the 
 first time accused of the crime of crucifying an in¬ 
 fant.* The circumstance, in this instance, is only 
 shortly noticed by historians, and is stated to have taken 
 place at Norwich. In the following reigns, our his¬ 
 torians represent, on several occasions, the recurrence 
 of this barbarity ; and assert that it was perpetrated, 
 with the view of holding up to derision the suffering 
 of Jesus Christ on the cross. Notwithstanding the 
 confidence with which these accusations are stated, 
 it is impossible to bring the mind to believe them 
 w ^“^ un ded, that an individual, or a body of per¬ 
 sons, acting from sudden impulse, or excited by reli¬ 
 gious frenzy, should, on a single occasion, be guilty of 
 an act of equal, or, if it be possible, of even greater 
 cruelty, one may conceivehistory, indeed, fur¬ 
 nishes too many sad examples of such acts, to allow 
 a doubt of their occurrence. But that different bo¬ 
 dies of men, at distant intervals of time, uninflu¬ 
 enced by any sudden excitement, and for no other 
 purpose than that of mere derision, should, with de- 
 
 * Brompton, Chron. s. 28. in dec. Script, p.1013. Matt, of Westm. lib. 
 p. 39. Tempore etiam istius regis Steph. an. regni sui nono puer quidam 
 Wilhelmus nomine Norwich a Judahs cruci figitur. Anna!. Waver. 1154. 
 
13 
 
 From Stephen to Richard I. 
 
 liberate coolness, practise the cruelty which is thus 
 attributed to the Jews, is without parallel in history ; 
 and one cannot avoid feeling it much easier to 
 suggest motives for the crime having been falsely 
 laid to their charge, than to bring oneself to credit 
 that the offence was really committed. A writer 
 of considerable research and authority asserts, as 
 the result of his enquiries upon the subject, that 
 they were seldom accused of the crime, but at times 
 when the king was in want of money.* In the an- 
 
 * Fuller, book iii. p. 87. It should be noticed that the accusation against 
 the Jews of crucifying children was not confined to England; the same 
 charge was at various times brought against them in nearly every country m 
 Europe (see Modern Universal History, vol. xiii.) It seems, however that 
 the evidence of the crime was, in all these cases, as weak as that upon whic i 
 the charge was supported in this country; still the fact would appear to 
 have received credit with many, and, what is even more extraordinary, 
 there seem to be those in the present day who believe that the Jews of t is 
 age are guilty of the barbarity, as will be seen from the following extract 
 from a work lately published. Dr. Walsh, in his Narrative of a Journey from 
 Constantinople says, « The Christians of Constantinople charge the Jews 
 with purloining their children and sacrificing them as paschal lambs at their 
 passover. I was one day at Galata, a suburb of Pera, where a great com¬ 
 motion was just excited. The child of a Greek merchant had disappeared, 
 and no one could give any account of it. It was a beautiful boy; and it was 
 imagined it had been taken by a Turk for a slave ; after some time, however 
 the body was found in the Bosphorus ; its legs and arms were bound, and 
 certain wounds in its side indicated that it had been put to death m some 
 extraordinary manner and for some extraordinary purpose. Suspicion im¬ 
 mediately fell upon the Jews ; and, as it was just after their pascfial feast, 
 suspicion, people said, was confirmed to certainty. Nothing could be dis¬ 
 covered to give a clue to the perpetrators; but the story was umversa ly 
 talked of, and generally believed all over Pera. The prejudice has also 
 Teen greatly increased by a book written by a Jewish rabbi converted to 
 Christianity, which is a great curiosity. It is entitled, - A Confute.,on of 
 fte Religion of the Jews, by Neophytus, a Greet monk, formerly a Jew h 
 rabbi ” The original work was in the Moldavian language, and was prmted 
 [„ the year .803 f but it is said that the Jews at that time gave a large sum 
 
14 
 
 History of the Jews in England. 
 
 nals of the reign of Henry the second, the same 
 charge is twice repeated. On one occasion, the act 
 is stated to have been perpetrated at Gloucester*, 
 on the other, at Bury St. Edmund’s.! The latter 
 place 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 ex¬ 
 cited. They caused the body of the child to be 
 intened with great ceremony and every mark of 
 respect;—the shrine was declared capable of pro¬ 
 ducing supernatural effects, and speedily became re- I 
 nowned for the miracles which it wrought. Persons 
 fiom all parts, led by curiosity or induced by feel¬ 
 ings of superstition, visited the shrine. The offer¬ 
 ings which were made on the occasion, could not fail 
 
 of money to the Ilospodar, and the book was suppressed and destroyed. 
 A copy, however, escaped, which was translated into modern Greek and 
 printed at \ asi in 1818, of which I had a copy at Constantinople. The first 
 chapter is entitled, Ke K pv m voi vw Ss airoKiKaXv^ivoi—^ The 
 
 concealed mysteries now made public.” The subject is, “ The blood which 
 the Jews take from Christians, and the purposes to which they apply it.” 
 After detailing a number of the most extraordinary particulars, he concludes- 
 in the following words; « When I was thirteen years old, my father revealed 
 to me the mystery of the blood, and cursed me by all the elements of heaven 
 and earth if ever I should divulge the secret even to my brethren; and when 
 I was married and should even have ten sons, I should not discover it to all, 
 but only to one, who should be the most prudent and learned, and at the 
 same time firm and unmoved in the faith; but to a female I should never 
 disclose it on any account. ‘ May the earth,’ said he, ‘ never receive thee if 
 thou revealest these secrets/ So said my father; but I, since I have taken 
 as my father the Lord Jesus Christ, will proclaim the truth in every place 
 and, as the wise Sirac says, 4 even unto death strive for the truth.’” 
 
 * Brompton, ann. 1160. 
 
 t Chron. Gervasii, script, dec. 1458. c. 23. 
 
15 
 
 From Stephen to Richard I. 
 
 to be productive of considerable profit to the church. 
 
 - It can hardly be supposed that any great care 
 was taken to examine into the truth of the circum¬ 
 stance upon which the benefit was founded. It is 
 moreover to be remembered, that the clergy, in those 
 days, regarded the Jews with particular abhorrence ; 
 and would not be backward in seizing an opportu¬ 
 nity of propagating the belief of an act, which would 
 tend to make them the objects of general detestation. 
 The wealth which the Jews in this country possessed 
 was already considerable, and enabled them to real¬ 
 ize large profits by lending out money upon interest. 
 This practice was one which incurred the severe 
 censures of the church. The Jews were charged 
 with being guilty of usury, which was on all occa¬ 
 sions held out by the clergy to be a crime of the 
 greatest magnitude. The feelings which the eccle¬ 
 siastics entertained upon this subject, probably also 
 at this time, received additional force from the con¬ 
 duct of some unworthy members of their own body, 
 of which the Jews were no doubt considered as the 
 cause ; for in the records of this reign, which have 
 come down to us, we find it stated among other 
 things, that the Jews of Bury St. .Edmund s weie 
 fined five marks * for taking in pledge from the 
 monks of that place certain vessels appropriated to 
 the use of the altar. Benet, the Jew of Suffolk, was 
 fined 20/. for taking some consecrated vestments 
 upon pawn. And William de Waterville, the Abbot 
 
 * Mag. Rot. 29 Hen. II. Rot. 2, b. Novof. and Sudf. 
 
16 
 
 History of the Jews in England . 
 
 of Burg, 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 *, (pro 
 denariis ad Judaeos invadendis), to pawn them to 
 the Jews. One of the claims advanced by King 
 Henry against Archbishop Beckett, was in respect 
 of a sum of 500/. which that prelate had borrowed 
 of a Jew.J 
 
 During the reign of Henry the second, the Jews 
 were subjected to severe exactions from the crown ; 
 on one occasion a tallage of a fourth part of their 
 chattels was levied upon them, and immediately after¬ 
 wards they were forced to raise the sum of 30,000/. 
 for the purpose of defraying the expenses of the king’s 
 intended journey to the Holy Land J, the rest of Eng¬ 
 land for the same object was taxed at 70,000/. When 
 ambassadors were sent over to the king by the Em¬ 
 peror 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 5000 marks was demanded 
 of the Jews to be used for the purpose of buying- 
 over the envoys to the king’s interest. 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 constrained to pay sums to a large 
 
 * Hoveden, Brampton. f Fitz-Steph. p. 360. 38. 
 
 J Stow Chron. ad an. 1188. § Gervas. Dorobor. 1458. S. 13. 
 
17 
 
 From Stephen to Richard I. 
 
 amount to the king, thus Jurnett a Jew of Nor¬ 
 wich, was mulct at the sum of 5525 marks, and at 
 another time in the sum of 2000 marks. * 
 
 In the twenty-fourth year of the reign of Henry 
 the second, the Jews were relieved from a grievance 
 which they had hitherto endured. Up to this time, 
 notwithstanding their number, and that they were 
 dispersed over most parts of the kingdom, they were 
 not permitted to have more than one place of burial 
 in England; this was situated in the outskirts of 
 London f; hither they were forced to bring their 
 dead from all parts of the country. The Jews, in the 
 last-mentioned year, obtained permission to purchase 
 grounds for the purpose of interment in the neigh¬ 
 bourhood of the different towns where they resided ; 
 this favour was not granted to the Jews until they 
 had made repeated solicitations to the king — and it 
 is a fact which marks the general feeling then en¬ 
 tertained towards them, that their application was 
 
 * Mad. Hist. Excheq. Mag. Rot. 32 Hen. II. Rot. 14. 
 f Stow, in his Survey, gives the following account of the situation of this 
 ground “ In Redcross-street,” he says, “ on the west side from St. Giles’ 
 Churchyard up to the said Cross be many fair houses builded outward, with 
 divers alleys, turning into a large plot of ground, of old time called the 
 Jews’ Garden, as being the only place appointed them in England wherein 
 to bury their dead till the year 1177, the 24th Hen. II. The plot of ground 
 remained to the said Jews till the time of their final banishment out of Eng¬ 
 land, and is now turned into fair garden-plots and summer-houses for 
 pleasure. It is now called Jewen-street, being a continued street of con¬ 
 tiguous houses on each side of the way and leadeth out into Aldersgate- 
 street. This place with the appurtenances was anciently called Leyrestowe, 
 which King Edward I. granted to William de Monte-forte, Dean of St. 
 Paul’s, London, at 40s. per annum.”—Book iii. p. 89. 
 
 C 
 
18 
 
 History of the Jews in England . 
 
 strongly opposed by most of the great men and 
 nobles of the day.* 
 
 OF THE JEWS DURING THE REIGN OF RICHARD 
 
 THE FIRST. 
 
 From the accession of this monarch to the throne, 
 the Jews had to date the commencement of a new 
 series of sufferings. Under the reign of Henry the 
 Second, although they had been frequently subjected 
 to heavy pecuniary exactions, the vigorous admi¬ 
 nistration of that prince had shielded them from 
 popular violence. King Richard, whose whole 
 thoughts were taken up in the contemplated relief 
 of the Holy Land, and the recovery of Jerusalem, 
 seems to have regarded the Jews with feelings of 
 much antipathy, as being the sworn enemies of a 
 religion of which he professed himself so zealous a 
 champion. Actuated by these sentiments, and de¬ 
 sirous, perhaps, to give proof of the hatred he en¬ 
 tertained towards the opponents of Christianity in 
 general; Richard, as one of the first acts of his reign, 
 caused a proclamation to be issued forbidding any 
 Jew to approach the palace, during the ceremony of 
 
 * Hoved. 568. Brompt. 1129. Pol. Virg. 236. Holinsh. lib. ii. 101. 
 The place allotted to them, at Oxford, was where the tower and south side of 
 Magdalen College now stands. This ground was afterwards taken from 
 them, and they then used for the same purpose a piece of land which is now 
 occupied by the Botanical Garden. Tovey, 12. Wood’s Hist, et Antiq. 
 Oxon. 
 
19 
 
 In the reign of Richard I. 
 
 his coronation.* 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 soften 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.J These persons hoping that they 
 would be protected, by reason of the gifts which they 
 bore, ventured to approach the court-yard of the 
 palace, at the time of the coronation, and the crowd 
 pressing forward, they were, before they could ob¬ 
 tain permission to enter, forced within the gates. 
 The attendants who were stationed at the entrance, 
 charged them with disobedience to the king’s com¬ 
 mand, and with blows forced them back into the 
 street. The mob, who were assembled on the out¬ 
 side, when they saw what took place, raised a cry 
 that the king desired the proclamation, he had is¬ 
 sued, to be enforced, and forthwith fell upon such of 
 the Jews as were mingled with the crowd, and 
 beating them, several were severely wounded, and 
 some killed. A report was now quickly spread 
 through the city that the king had ordered all the 
 Jews to be put to death, for the disobedience they 
 had shown to his commands. The people lost no 
 time in putting this supposed order into execu¬ 
 tion. The Jews were sought out by the populace 
 in every quarter of the city, and wherever they were 
 
 * Matth. Paris, p. 108. Triv. ad an. 1190. Chron. Holinshed, lib. xi. 
 c. 118. p. 60. 
 
 f Holinshed, 118. b xl. 
 
 c 2 
 
20 History of the Jews in England. 
 
 found were slain, without mercy. Many took refuge 
 in their houses, and defended themselves with deter¬ 
 mined courage, till the rabble, whose fury was en- 
 creased 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.* 
 Information was at length carried to the king of 
 what was taking place ; he was at the time seated 
 at the banquet, but immediately gave directions to 
 Ranulph de Granville, 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 forced him to retire. The tumult con¬ 
 tinued during the whole night, the houses of all the 
 Jews were plundered, and most of them burnt, and 
 it was not till the next day that an end was put to 
 the proceedings, by a large force sent into the city 
 ■jrjy tfle king. A few of the most active of the rioteis 
 were apprehended, and three of them were after¬ 
 wards executed, not however for the pillage and 
 murder of the unfortunate Jews but one of them, 
 because, during the tumult, he had robbed the resi¬ 
 dence of a Christian ; and the other two, because by 
 setting fire to the house of a Jew, they had exposed 
 the dwellings of the neighbouring Christians to de¬ 
 struction. t 
 
 The historians in whose writings the details of 
 these outrages are preserved, relate an anecdote of a 
 
 * Chron. Holinshed, lib. 2. c. 118. s. 40, &c. 
 
 ! Gulielm. Neubrigensi, 313. Ann. Waver. 
 
In the reign of Richard I. 21 
 
 Jew who was called Benedict of York. This man 
 having fallen into the hands of the populace, during 
 the tumult, to save his life, called out that he would 
 turn Christian, 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 
 commanded the Jew to be brought into his presence, 
 and questioned him whether he had sincerely re¬ 
 nounced his former faith, he answered that he had not, 
 but only, through fear of death, submitted to what¬ 
 ever 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.” 
 Shortly after the Jew died, and Hovenden says, was 
 denied the rights of a Jewish burial for having de¬ 
 serted the Hebrew faith, and for having returned to 
 Judaism, was refused the privilege of a Christian 
 interment. * 
 
 The spirit which had broken out in London against 
 the Jews, 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 persecu¬ 
 tions;—in Dunstable and some other towns, they 
 
 * Other historians state that this Jew afterwards went to York, and fell a 
 prey, with the rest of his unfortunate nation there, to the fury of the popu¬ 
 lace. 
 
22 History of the Jews in England. 
 
 saved themselves, by professing to renounce the 
 Jewish faith, and by being baptized into the church 
 of Christ. In the town of Lynn they were treated • 
 with great severity and cruelty. The circumstances 
 under which the tumult there took place were the 
 following; a Jew had been converted to Christi¬ 
 anity—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—thereupon 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 imme¬ 
 diately on board their vessel, and putting to sea got 
 clear off. The townspeople were called to ac¬ 
 count for the outrage which had been committed, in 
 disobedience to the proclamation issued by the king ; 
 but escaped punishment by laying the whole affair 
 to the charge of the sailors.* 
 
 By this time. King Richard had passed over to 
 the continent, to join the King of France in the cru¬ 
 sade to Palestine. Those who had taken the Cross 
 were assembled in most of the principal towns, prepar- 
 
 * Walteri Ilemingford. Chron. cap. 42. Holinshed, vol. ii. p. 
 
23 
 
 In the reign of Richard I. 
 
 ing to follow him ; of these, the greater number were 
 ill provided with funds, to defray the expences 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 persuaded themselves that they should 
 render good service to God, if, by wresting the riches 
 from the hands of unbelievers, they obtained the 
 means of aiding in the overthrow of the enemies of 
 Christianity.* In Stamford, Lincoln, and Norwich,-f 
 the houses of the Jews were plundered by the cru¬ 
 saders, and many Jews were slain. The same outrages 
 were committed in several other parts of the king¬ 
 dom. 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. 
 The houses of the richest of the Jews were spoiled 
 and burnt, and many together with their families were 
 murdered. The common people, urged by the ex¬ 
 ample of their superiors, fell upon such as escaped 
 the first assault, and with savage fury slew them, 
 without regard to age or sex: five hundred, with their 
 wives and children, escaped to the Castle, and, by 
 permission of the sheriff and keeper, took refuge 
 there. Afterwards, thinking that these officers also 
 had taken part with their assailants, they refused to 
 
 * Chron. Walt. Hem. cap. 43. Holinshed, vol. ii. p. 482. 
 
 f Chron. Walt. Hem. cap. 43. p. 515. Polyd. Virg. lib. xiv. 
 
24 History of the Jews in England. 
 
 allow them to enter; whereupon the sheriff assem¬ 
 bled 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 plun¬ 
 der, were (to the shame of the Church) further 
 stimulated by the exhortations of the clergy. One 
 in particular, a canon of the order of Praemonsta- 
 tenses, shewed his zeal on the occasion; for several 
 days he appeared amongst the people dressed in his 
 surplice, and greatly increased their fury by continu¬ 
 ally calling out in a loud voice, “ Destroy the ene¬ 
 mies 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 pro¬ 
 ceeded again to take vigorous measures for their 
 defence ; determining to hold out to the last moment. 
 Of a sudden, however, their purpose was altered : 
 one of their elders, a man of great authority amongst 
 them, having called them together, stood up and 
 addressed them in the following words:—“Ye men 
 of Israel, hearken unto my counsel. It is better for 
 us to die for our law by our own hands, than to fall 
 into the hands of the enemies of the law, and we are 
 
 * Chron. Walt. Ileraing. cap. 44. 
 
25 
 
 In the reign of Richard I. 
 
 so commanded by the law.” Almost unanimous 
 consent was instantly given to this counsel; and 
 with a determination to which it would be possible to 
 find but few parallels in history *, every master of a 
 family, taking a knife, cut the throats of his wife and 
 children, and then of the other members of his house, 
 and lastly, destroyed himself. When this dreadful 
 act was completed, those who remained alive, taking 
 up the dead bodies, threw them over the walls, on to 
 the heads of the besiegers.. Afterwards they burnt 
 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. The greater part 
 of those who survived, collecting themselves together 
 in one of the buildings, set fire to it, and perished in 
 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 
 shewed 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. Afterwards the populace 
 
 * A parallel is indeed furnished in the history of the Jews themselves. 
 It is related, that after the taking of Jerusalem, some Jews fled to Massada, 
 where they were besieged by the Romans; finding themselves unable to 
 withstand their attack, they, at the instigation of Eleazar their commander, 
 destroyed themselves, their wives and children, to the number of 960, A.C. 72. 
 Vide Millm. Hist. Jews. The whole relation of what took place, on this 
 occasion, is so singularly similar to the occurrence mentioned in the text, that 
 little more than a change of names is necessary, to make the history of one 
 event a faithful account of the other. 
 
26 History of the Jews in England. 
 
 burnt and destroyed all the houses of the Jews in the 
 city which had not been previously demolished, and 
 running to the cathedral, where the charters and 
 bonds of the Jews were deposited, took them out, 
 and destroyed them.* * * § Fifteen hundred Jews are 
 stated to have perished at York on this occasion, 
 besides those who fell in the other parts of England.f 
 When the account of these outrages reached the 
 king’s ears, he sent over immediate directions to the 
 Bishop of Ely, his chancellor, to apprehend and 
 punish the offenders. The chancellor accordingly 
 set forward 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 flying into Scotland, but 
 the greater number proceeding on their journey to 
 the Holy Land.J The governor of the castle was, 
 however, apprehended; and not being able to clear 
 his conduct, was deprived of his office. A heavy 
 fine was also imposed upon the inhabitants of the 
 city ; 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.§ 
 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 
 
 * Stow. Ann. 159. Walt. Hera. e. 44. 
 
 f Fox Mart. vol. i. p. 305. 
 
 J; Gul. Neubrigensi, p. 240. 
 
 § Chron. Walt. Hem. cap. 45. Chron. Holinshed, lib. xi. c. 145. s. 20. 
 
27 
 
 In the reign of Richard I. 
 
 the disturbances which had taken place, during his 
 absence. These justices were also directed to as¬ 
 certain the nature, and extent of the properties, and 
 possessions of the Jews who had been slain, and 
 particularly to take an exact account of all the debts 
 which were owing to them, either upon mortgages, or 
 other securities. In the same year, certain ordi¬ 
 nances were also instituted, for the registration of 
 the estates and possessions of the Jews.* By these 
 it was directed that all their debts, mortgages, lands, 
 and possessions, should be registered upon oath, and 
 that in all contracts entered into by Jews, indentures 
 of two parts should be made ; of which one part was 
 to be deposited in chests provided for the purpose, to 
 be placed under the charge of certain officers, before 
 whom also the indentures were to be previously 
 executed; and all Jews were called upon to make 
 oath, that they would secretly give information, to 
 the justices, of all falsifiers and forgers of charters, 
 and clippers of money, who were known to them.j' 
 Whatever may have been the avowed intention for 
 which these laws were framed, it is clear, that the 
 regulations which they imposed rendered the pro¬ 
 perty of the Jews more easily available, to the pur¬ 
 poses of the crown ; and though the records, of the 
 few remaining years of this reign, do not furnish us 
 
 * See these ordinances at length in the Appendix. 
 
 f Out of these ordinances, and the charters of King John, mentioned 
 afterwards, arose the Exchequer of the Jews, which was a court where all 
 the affairs concerning that people, and the revenue which the crown derived 
 from them were regulated. See in the following Treatise “ Upon the Civil 
 Disabilities of the Jews.’' 
 
28 History of the Jews in England. 
 
 with any instances of their being turned to purposes 
 of oppression, yet it will be found, that succeeding 
 monarchs continually took advantage of the power, 
 thus placed in their hands, to seize upon, and appro¬ 
 priate to their own use, the possessions of the Jews. 
 
 OF THE JEWS DURING THE REIGN OF KING JOHN. 
 
 The natural effect of the cruelties to which the 
 Jews had been subjected, during the last reign, would 
 be to deter them from attempting to accumulate 
 wealth, in this country; and it was to be appre¬ 
 hended, that instead of resorting to England, as 
 holding out to them inducements for the acquirement 
 of riches, they would withdraw themselves altogether 
 from the island, or devise means of transporting their 
 gains to other parts; but the unlimited power which 
 the law permitted the king to exercise, over the pro¬ 
 perties of the Jews, and the facility which this cir¬ 
 cumstance afforded, of obtaining supplies, to a large 
 amount, upon any emergency, made it of importance 
 to the crown that some measures should be devised, 
 which would have the effect of allaying the fears of 
 the Jews, and holding out to them the expectation of 
 greater security in future. Accordingly, King John, 
 in the first year of his reign, to shew the Jews that 
 they would not be prejudiced, by any antipathies 
 which he entertained towards them, on account of 
 their religious faith, granted them permission to 
 nominate a person to the situation of High Priest of 
 
29 
 
 During the reign of John. 
 
 England, and confirmed the appointment by a char¬ 
 ter under his own hand. This charter, which se¬ 
 cured to James, the Priest of London, the person 
 named, the enjoyment of the office during his life, at 
 the same time provided him a safe conduct through¬ 
 out the kingdom, for the exercise of his duties, and 
 was couched in language of singular affection and 
 respect.* 
 
 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 Eng¬ 
 land, 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 honor¬ 
 ably within the king’s dominions, and hold lands, and 
 have all their privileges and customs, as quietly and 
 
 r 
 
 * The words of the charter of safe-conduct are sufficiently curious to war¬ 
 rant their being shortly stated. They were as follows :—“ Johannis, Dei 
 gratia &c. omnibus fidelibus suis ad quos &c. Mandans vobis etprsecipiens. 
 Quatenus per quascunque villas et loca Jacobus, presbyter Judseorum dilec- 
 tus etfamiliaris noster, transient, ipsum salvo et liberh cum omnibus ad ipsum 
 pertinentibus transire, et conduci faciatis ; nec ipsi aliquod impedimentum, 
 molestiam, aut gravamen fieri sustineatis, plusquam nobis ipsis. Et si quis 
 ei in aliquo foris-facere prsesumpserit, id ei sine dilatione emendari faciatis. 
 Teste, &c. It should be remarked that a difference of opinion has existed, 
 whether the office of presbyter to which the appointment was, in the above 
 case made, was the same as that of high priest. Lord Coke and Mr. Selden 
 were of opinion that the office was purely ecclesiastical; but Prynne, from 
 finding that the same person who was presbyter acted sometimes as comp¬ 
 troller in the Exchequer, thought the duties of the office were wholly of a 
 civil nature. Dr.Tovey agreed with Lord Coke and Mr. Selden; and this 
 seems the better opinion, as the two offices appear to have been sometimes 
 held by different persons, though there does not occur an instance, where the 
 person who was appointed presbyter, was not previously a priest. 
 
30 
 
 History of the Jews in England . 
 
 honorably as they had, in the time of Henry the 
 Second; 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 customs; 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.* In return for 
 these charters, the Jews paid the king the sum of 
 4000 marks.f 
 
 In the fifth year of this reign, the Jews were sub¬ 
 jected to ill treatment, from the citizens of London. 
 As the king still continued to shew a desire of afford¬ 
 ing them protection, they petitioned him to use his 
 authority, and obtain them security from a recur¬ 
 rence of the grievance : whereupon he immediately 
 wrote a sharp letter to the mayor and barons of 
 London,J 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 befal them, he 
 
 * Vide Appendix, B. 
 
 I Matthew Paris and Stow. 
 
 f Madd. Excheq. 155. 
 
During the reign of John. 31 
 
 should require their blood at the hands of the citi¬ 
 zens.* 
 
 These measures of conciliation had the desired 
 effect, the Jews placing reliance in the protection 
 thus offered them by the king, again applied them¬ 
 selves, 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 king found that this was the case, he began 
 to throw aside the disguise he had assumed, and 
 by every means which lay in his power endeavoured 
 to reap the advantages, his policy had placed within 
 his grasp. 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; many were deprived of 
 sight']'; one, a Jew of Bristol, who hesitated to pay 
 the sum at which he was assessed, 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 found the means of providing 
 for the amount demanded of him. J 
 
 * Pat. Rot. 5 John, ra. 7. Tovey, p. 68. 
 f Stow. Trivet. 154. Pol. Virg. 274. 
 
 X Chron. Holinshed, lib. xi. s. 30. p. 174. Holinshed concludes his 
 account of this torture with these quaint observations :—“ He paid the 
 money,” he says, “ to save that one tooth, who, with more wisdome and 
 lesse paine, might have done so before, and have saved his seven teeth, 
 which he loste with such torments, for those homelie tooth-drawers used no 
 great cunning in plucking them forth (as may be conjectured).” 
 
32 
 
 History of the Jews in England. 
 
 The next year a further tallage was levied, in 
 respect of which one Jew alone paid 5500 marks.* 
 Tn the eighteenth year of his reign John imposed 
 another heavy tax, and compelled its payment by 
 imprisonment and other measures of violence.! 
 
 Besides the sums which were thus raised upon 
 the Jews, by means of taxes affecting their whole 
 community, the king derived considerable advan¬ 
 tages from appropriating the property of individuals 
 amongst them; in some instances he would seize 
 upon their houses, and grant them away to other 
 persons J; but the mode which he more generally 
 adopted to turn their acquirements 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.§ 
 
 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 advan¬ 
 tage 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, there¬ 
 fore, the barons forced from King John the great 
 charter of liberty, they included in it two several 
 
 * Mag. Rot. 13 John, Rot. 22. f Claus. Rot. 18 John, m. 4. 
 
 J Claus. Rot. 15 John, m. 3. 
 
 § Fine Rot. 17 John, p. 1. And see in the following Treatise. 
 
33 
 
 During the reign of John. 
 
 clauses, which had for object the regulation of the 
 claims in respect of these debts, and the twelfth 
 clause of Magna Charta declares : “If any one 
 have borrowed any thing 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. 1 
 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 ser¬ 
 vice of the Lord.” 
 
 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 re¬ 
 mained there, broke into the residences of the 
 Jews, and pillaged them of whatever valuables they 
 could find; and then, pulling down the houses, 
 carried off the stones of which they were built*, and 
 used them for the purpose of repairing the walls of 
 the city. 
 
 * Some years ago, when Ludgate was pulled down, one of these 
 stones was found with a Hebrew inscription upon it—“ The house of R. 
 Moseh, the son of R. Isaac, the wise and the learned. 7 ' Stow, agreeing 
 with other antiquarians, says, in his Survey, that this stone served for part 
 of the front of a house. Lord Coke, however, supposes it was used as a 
 grave-stone, 3 Inst. Dr. Tovey seems to prove that Stow’s account is the 
 correct one. 
 
 D 
 
34 
 
 History of the Jews in England 
 
 HENRY THE THIRD. 
 
 A.D.1216. 
 
 When Henry the third succeeded to the throne 
 he was still in his minority; and owing to the weak, 
 but arbitrary conduct of the late king, the country 
 was in a state of general turbulence and discon¬ 
 tent. It was, therefore, fortunate for the Jews, in 
 common with the community at large, that the ad¬ 
 ministration of affairs, in the early years of this reign, 
 fell successively into the hands of men of distin¬ 
 guished ability and virtue. The Earl of Pembroke, 
 whilst by his talents and vigor he reduced the dis¬ 
 affected to respect the power of the crown, recon¬ 
 ciled all ranks of men to his authority by the equity 
 and impartiality of his measures. Hubert de Burg, 
 who, upon the death of the Earl of Pembroke, suc¬ 
 ceeded 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 re¬ 
 corded of any acts of violence having been offered 
 to the Jews ; but we are, on the contrary, informed 
 that measures were, at an early period, adopted for 
 their special relief, and protection. Many indi¬ 
 viduals amongst them were exonerated from bur¬ 
 dens which had been previously imposed ; and 
 numbers were immediately liberated from imprison¬ 
 ments, to which upon various pretences they had, 
 under the late king been condemned/ Writs and 
 letters patent were issued, directed to the principal 
 
 * See various writs commanding their release, given in Prynne, 2Dem. 16 b, 
 
35 
 
 During the reign of Henry III. 
 
 burgesses of each of the towns where the Jews re¬ 
 sided, 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 con¬ 
 firmation was granted of the charter they had ob¬ 
 tained in the beginning of the late reign, by the 
 terms of which it will be remembered that most 
 important privileges were secured to them, and 
 their estates and persons were protected from vio¬ 
 lence. 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 jus¬ 
 tice, the judges who in the late reign had presided 
 over their affairs in the Exchequer, and who had 
 shewn themselves unworthy of their trust, were 
 removed from their office, and persons of character 
 appointed in their place.'}' In conjunction with these 
 measures, the sheriffs of the different places where 
 the Jews resided were directed to require that they 
 should distinguish themselves by wearing, on all 
 occasions, a particular mark upon their clothes. J 
 The mark was to be attached to their upper gar¬ 
 ment, and was to consist of two white tablets of 
 linen or parchment, and to be affixed to their 
 breasts. This order, although it certainly bears the 
 
 * Claus. 2 H. III. pars ii. m. 9. 10. And see the writs given by Prynne, 
 2 Dem. 17. 
 
 -f- Pat. Rot. 2 H. III. pars i. m. 3, &c. 
 
 | Prynne Dem. 18. Claus. 2 H. III. m.10. 
 
 D 2 
 
36 
 
 History of the Jeivs in England 
 
 appearance of being of a nature, at once degrading 
 and oppressive, has nevertheless been considered as 
 dictated by no unkindly intention. And it has 
 been remarked, that by making the Jews thus 
 plainly known from other persons, any who offend¬ 
 ed against the directions given for their protection, 
 would be deprived of the excuse, they might other¬ 
 wise have made, of being ignorant of their persons.* 
 The protection which was thus extended to the 
 Jews 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 Con¬ 
 tinent, and settle in this country. The first of these 
 latter who arrived were treated with violence by 
 the wardens of the 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, how¬ 
 ever, information was given at court of the circum¬ 
 stance, 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.']' 
 
 The clergy, it would seem, took umbrage at the 
 countenance which the Jews enjoyed, and resolved 
 
 * Tovey, Angl. Jud. 79. 
 
 f Pat. Rot. 3 H. III. p. 2. m. 6. Prynne, Dem. 18. 
 
37 
 
 During the reign of Henry III. 
 
 to attempt, by an exercise of ecclesiastical autho¬ 
 rity, to overbear the effects of the security which 
 had been afforded, by the measures of government. 
 The Archbishop of Canterbury, in conjunction with 
 the Bishop of Lincoln, published a general prohibi¬ 
 tion, by which all persons were forbidden to buy 
 any thing 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. The 
 Jews appealed to the crown for protection, and ob¬ 
 tained relief. Directions were sent to the sheriffs 
 of the different counties and cities, to prevent the 
 prohibition being enforced ; and orders were given 
 to imprison all persons who, by reason of the com¬ 
 mands of the church, refused to sell provisions to 
 the Jews.* This edict of the church was published, 
 in the seventh year of this reign. 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. Unfortunately for them, as well 
 as for the nation in general, the conduct of public 
 affairs was, after that time, taken out of the hands 
 of Hubert de Burg who till then had continued in 
 power, and was placed under the controul 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, 
 
 * Pars ii. Claus. 7 Hen. III. Prynne, Dem. 19. 
 
33 
 
 History of the Jews in England 
 
 were subjected to continual violence and arbitrary 
 exaction. The change of feeling, on the part of the 
 government towards them, was first manifested in 
 the fourteenth year of the 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 an unexpected act of injustice and op¬ 
 pression. By permission of the king, they had lately 
 completed a synagogue, upon a scale of great magni¬ 
 ficence. 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 forth¬ 
 with granted it to the brothers of St. Anthony of 
 Vienna, to be by them converted into a church, 
 
 From this time, scarce a year was allowed to pass 
 without taxes to a grievous amount being exacted. J 
 
 * Matt. Paris. Matt, of Westm. Holingshed, lib. ii. p. 211. 
 
 t Stow, Ann. 182. The building was, by Edward IV., annexed to Wind¬ 
 sor College. 
 
 + In the years 1230 and 1231 the tallages levied upon the Jews amounted 
 to 15,000 marks ; Prynne Dem. 21, b. In 1233 they were taxed at 18,000 
 marks: Tovey Angl. Jud. p.91. In 1236 to the same amount: lb. p.26. 
 The next year they are again mentioned to have been taxed, but the amount 
 is not stated; Madox, p. 152. Prynne, Dem. 27. In 1239 they were forced 
 to pay a third part of their goods, and in 1241 to raise 20,000 marks; Dem.25. 
 Madox, p. 152. In 1244, 20,000; lb. p. 153. In 1245, 60,000; lb. 
 Matt. Paris says, the king received this tax with his own hand, p. 605. In 1246, 
 10,000 marks ; Dem. 36. In 1247, 5525 marks were levied; Mad. In 1249, 
 10,000 marks; Dem. 38. In 1250, a great part of their goods were taken ; Hoi. 
 p.242. In 1251, 5000 marks of silver and 40 of gold; Mad. p. 154. In 1252, 
 3500 marks; Prynne, Dem. 42. claus. 36 to 3. In 1253 the Jews gave the 
 king 5000 marks in July to be exempt from taxes till the Easter following; 
 lb. p. 42, b. In 1259, 5000 marks ; lb. p. 4C, b. In 1269 the Jews agreed 
 to pay the king 1000Z. a year to be exempt from tallage for three years. In 
 1271 they were again forced to raise the sum of 6000 marks; Rot. Pat. 
 55 Hen. III. m. 12. Tovey, 192. There were probably other tallages than 
 
39 
 
 During the reign of Henry HI. 
 
 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 oblig¬ 
 ing the richest of their community to become sure¬ 
 ties for the rest, under similar penalties.f In addition 
 
 those which are mentioned in the text, though we have not now evidence of 
 them. In the latter years of the reign, however, the money which was ex¬ 
 acted from the Jews seems to have been, commonly, raised by mortgaging 
 the whole community : we may well suppose that the mortgagees would not 
 fail to make the most that they could by the bargain. The following author¬ 
 ities on the value of money at the time these taxes were imposed will enable 
 us the better to estimate their burthen. Bishop Fleetwood says, in his Chro- 
 nicum Preciosum, that “ since the Norman conquest, a mark has been only a 
 denomination, and early after that period was, as at present, 13s. 4 d. From 
 the Norman conquest the pound weight of silver contained twenty merely 
 nominal shillings.” Anderson, in his Introduction to his History of Com¬ 
 merce, says, “ When we read or speak of any sum of money in our histories, 
 from the Saxon times to the year 1344, we are ever to consider it, on an 
 average, as about thrice the weight, and value of the like sum in our time. ’ 
 
 * Claus. 25 Hen. III. m. 5. Ib. 36 Hen. III. m. 26. dorso. Pat. 43 
 Hen. III. m. 4. Memor. 28Hen. III. Rol. 14. Mad. Excheq. 152. Pat. 
 Pot. 56 Hen. III. m. 10. 
 
 f On one occasion, in particular, writs were issued to the sheriffs, com¬ 
 manding them to summon six of the principal Jews, from their several 
 counties and cities, to come and treat with the king at Worcester, “ as well 
 concerning his as their advantage(ad tractandum nobiscum, tarn de nos¬ 
 tra quam suh utilitate). From the wording of these writs, the Jews might 
 probably hope, that they were to assemble for the purpose of devising means 
 for bettering their condition. They were, however, not kept long in suspense, 
 as to the reason of their presence being required ; for they were no sooner 
 met, than the king informed them, that he had called them together to de¬ 
 mand, from them, the sum of 20,000 marks, to be paid within the year; that 
 they were to assist the sheriffs in the collection of that sum, under penalty, 
 in case of default, of forfeiture of their goods and estates, and other severe 
 punishment. One of the writs which were, thereupon, issued to authorise the 
 Jews to proceed in the collection, ends in these extiaordinary woids . 
 
 “ Sciatis quod a vobis requiremus, si quid de prcedicto tallagio nostro, in 
 
40 
 
 History of the Jews in England 
 
 to these tallages extending to the whole commu¬ 
 nity 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 ex¬ 
 orbitant in amount, to the king, for permission to 
 take possession of it * *. Large sums were, more¬ 
 over, exacted as penalties for offences charged to 
 have been committed. The accusation of crucify¬ 
 ing the children of Christians was again renewed, f 
 At one time in particular, when the scene of the 
 offence was laid at Lincoln, it was reported that 
 one of the Jews who was apprehended for the crime 
 disclosed the names of his accomplices, and con¬ 
 fessed, upon his life being promised to him, that this 
 barbarity was repeated every year; and that some 
 of the principal Jews from each town always at¬ 
 tended on the occasion. Upon the foundation of this 
 confession which, however, did not save the life 
 of the accuser J, eighteen of the richest Jews were 
 
 terminis nostris deficerit, et tam graviter contra vos manum nostram aggra- 
 vabimus, quod poena vestra erit omnibus ad terrorem.” Claus. 25 Hen. III. 
 Prynne, Dem. 29, where the names of the Jews summoned are given. Prynne 
 calls the meeting a parliament. 
 
 * Fin. Rot. 19 H. III. p. 1. m. 3. And see in the following treatise, p.80. 
 
 f Chron. Holfnshed, lib.xi. 253. 50. 
 
 J He was dragged at a horse’s tail to the place of execution, and there 
 hanged in chains; as Trivet expresses it, “ His body and soul were made a 
 present to the demons of the. air.” Amongst other things, he is stated to have 
 confessed, that the child was fed for some time on milk to make him more 
 susceptible of pain ; that in the assembly, one of the Jews was appointed to 
 act, as Pontius Pilate, and pronounce sentence of death against the children; 
 that the child was then whipped, till the blood gushed out; that he was 
 crowned with thorns, buffeted, and spit upon ; that every one present 
 
41 
 
 During the reign of Henry III. 
 
 hanged as accomplices, and their properties for¬ 
 feited ; numbers of others were also imprisoned in 
 the Tower for different periods.* * * * § Another sin im¬ 
 puted to the Jews, and for which heavy fines were 
 imposed, was, that they were in the habit of steal¬ 
 ing Christian infants, and performing upon them 
 the operation of circumcision.'}' No offence was, 
 indeed, too improbable to be laid to their charge. 
 They were even accused of plotting against the 
 state J, and of attempts to overturn the govern¬ 
 ment; but the most absurd accusation brought 
 against them was, that a party of them had col¬ 
 lected together large quantities of combustible ma¬ 
 terials at Northampton, for the purpose of employing 
 them in the destruction of London by fire.§ Upon 
 this incredible charge, many Jews were burnt alive, 
 and their effects seized 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 ac¬ 
 count of the manner in which the king practised his 
 extortions, with these words : Noti tumen ctbrundo , 
 
 plunged a knife into him; that he was then made to drink vinegar, and was 
 crucified by the name of Jesus; that a spear was pierced into his heart after 
 he was dead; and that his entrails were taken out and used in magic oper¬ 
 ations. Matth. Paris. The probability of this last accusation affords a fair 
 criterion, of the truth, of the rest of the story. 
 
 * Stow, Ann. 190. Holingshed, vol. ii. p. 253. 
 
 f Mad. Hist, of Excheq. 155. Placit. 19 Hen. III. vol. xxi. 
 
 X Matth. Paris. 
 
 § Fox, Acts and Mon. vol. i. p.423. 
 
42 History of the Jews in England 
 
 vel excoriando sed eviscerando extorsit.* As an in¬ 
 stance of the enormous sums which individual Jews 
 were made to pay, the same author relates that 
 he was told by one Aaron, the Jew of York, that 
 he alone had been forced, at different times, to pay 
 sums, equal in amount to 30,000 marks of silver, to 
 the use of the king, and 200 marks of gold for the 
 queen’s service. 
 
 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 licence.^ 
 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 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, un¬ 
 less they forthwith supplied the sum, required of 
 them, Elias, their High Priest, 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 
 
 * Matt. Paris, p. 831. 
 
 f 2 Dem. 45. 
 
43 
 
 During the reign of Henry III. 
 
 licence and safe conduct to depart out of his king¬ 
 dom, 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’ll depart never to return again, leaving our house¬ 
 hold 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 heap 
 up infinite heaps of money. Let the king rely upon 
 them and gape after their emoluments; verily, they 
 have supplanted us, which the king, however, dis¬ 
 sembles to know; exacting 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.” * Afterwards, in a memorial presented 
 to the king himself, they thus addressed him : “ Sir 
 king, we see thou sparest neither Christians nor 
 Jews, but studiest with crafty excuses to impover¬ 
 ish all men. We have no hope of respiration left us , 
 the usurers of the Popef have supplanted us. Per- 
 
 * Matth. Paris. Baker Chron. p. 132. Mad. Exch. p. 156. 
 f The Pope used to employ certain Italian merchants, called causini, to 
 carry on the trade- of usury, in England for him. The method which these 
 persons used, to avoid the charge of usury, was this : if a person wanted a 
 sum of money which he could not repay, under six months, the merchants 
 would lend it him, for three months, without any interest, and covenant that 
 they should receive 50 1. per cent, every month, after the six months that the 
 sum should remain unpaid. It was contended, that this could not amount 
 to usury, for that the money was lent absolutely free from interest, and that 
 what was received, afterwards, depended upon a contingency that might nevex 
 happen, or might be defeated. Henry, in the_ 36th year of his reign, ordeied 
 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 
 were employed by him. Matth. Paris, p. 286. lovey, 123. 
 
44 
 
 History of the Jews in England 
 
 mit us to depart out of the kingdom with safe con¬ 
 duct ; and we will seek for ourselves such a mansion 
 as we can, be it what it will.” Although we may 
 admire the boldness with which the Jews (notwith¬ 
 standing 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 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.”* 
 
 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, mortgaged the 
 Jews to the Duke as a security for the sum ad¬ 
 vanced.! 
 
 * Matth. Paris. f Mad. Exch. 156. 
 
45 
 
 During the reign of Henry III. 
 
 The oppressions exercised towards the Jews by the 
 king, rendered them obnoxious to the inhabitants of 
 the places where they resided. The continual exac¬ 
 tions 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 eventu¬ 
 ally the wealth of the neighbourhood was thereby 
 considerably diminished. It was, it is probable, with 
 a view chiefly 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, t Southampton,J 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 wild¬ 
 est description were raised against them, and made 
 excuses for the exercise of every species of cruelty 
 and extortion; tumults were excited; then houses 
 were pillaged and burnt; and hundreds fell victims 
 
 * Rot. Claus. 18 Hen. III. m. 16. 
 
 f Rot. Original. 45 Hen. III. Parliament. Collec. p.17. 
 
 X Claus. Rot. 20 Hen. III. m. 10. § Claus. 19 Hen. III. m. 3. p. 1- 
 
 || Claus. 28 Hen. III. m.17. 
 
46 History of the Jeivs in England 
 
 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, the citizens broke 
 into and stripped the houses of the Jews there, and, 
 setting fire to them, burnt them to the ground.* At 
 Canterbury, the Jews were subjected to a similar 
 violence, the immediate cause of which is not men¬ 
 tioned ; 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.j' At Ox¬ 
 ford, the scholars of the University, having upon 
 some pretext picked a quarrel with the Jews, broke 
 into their houses and pillaged them of their pro¬ 
 perty.;); At the same place, on another occasion, 
 the Jews were accused of having, during the time 
 of a solemn procession, thrown down and broken 
 the cross which was carried before the University 
 authorities. All those 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 Uni¬ 
 versity in their processions. The marble cross was 
 placed in Merton College,^ and the silver one in- 
 
 * Holinshed, lib. xi. Matt. Paris, p. 360. 
 t Holinshed, ad ann. 1262. Stow, Chron. ib. 
 
 J Chron. Thom. Wikes, cap. 1244. Chron. Holinshed, lib.xi. p. 238. s. 10. 
 
 § Dr. Tovey says, that the cross was erected where the brewhouse of the 
 college stood in his time, and, upon the authority of Ross the antiquarian, 
 that it remained till the time of Hen. VI., when it fell down. Anglia’ 
 Judaica, p.174. 
 
47 
 
 During the reign of Henry III. 
 
 trusted to the fellows of that society.* * * § At Brent¬ 
 ford, f the people rose upon 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 au¬ 
 thorities of the place. The whole of these were, 
 however, shortly after liberated, upon the interven¬ 
 tion of the Bishop of Lincoln ; because it was main¬ 
 tained, that no man could impeach them of any 
 crime or bi'each of the peace. £ In London, upon 
 pretence that a Jew had wounded a Christian, for 
 refusing to pay interest upon a sum of money which 
 he had borrowed, the populace, in conjunction with 
 the soldiers from the army ot the barons, then in the 
 neighbourhood, fell upon the Jews, demolished their 
 synagogue, plundered their houses, and slew nearly 
 seven hundred. § Two years after this, they were 
 charged with having devised treason against the 
 barons and citizens of London; and, under pretence 
 of this charge, such of these unhappy people as 
 could be found in London were murdered by the 
 inhabitants, and all their goods and effects seized. || 
 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 
 
 * Claus. 53 Hen. III. m. 10. 18. Prynne, Dem. p. 60. Wood’s Hist, 
 and Antiq. Oxon, ad ann. 1268. 
 
 f Holinshed, vol. ii. 
 
 I 31 Hen. III. Mad. Hist. Excheq. 
 
 § Chron. Holinshed, lib. xi, p. 60. 263. Stow, Ann. 192.J 
 || Matt. West. 
 
48 His tori/ of the Jews in England 
 
 their wealth ;* then, making an excursion to Cam¬ 
 bridge they committed a similar outrage, and, carry¬ 
 ing 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 po¬ 
 pulace 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 them¬ 
 selves at the expense of those unfortunate people. 
 But though the king did not hesitate to oppress 
 the Jews himself, yet he had good reason for pro¬ 
 tecting them against the extortions of his subjects. 
 He regarded 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 con¬ 
 tinuance of the outrages of the people; and direc¬ 
 tions were issued to twenty-six of the principal 
 inhabitants of the towns where the Jews resided, to 
 protect them from any further acts of violence, under 
 heavy penalties for disobedience. J 
 
 In this reign, several ordinances were issued for 
 regulating the conduct, as well as the properties, of 
 the Jews. By an edict made in the thirty-seventh 
 
 * Chron. Holinshed, lib. ii. p. 20. 272. Trivet. Chron. p. 620. 
 f Ann. Waver, p. 222. •} Pat. 48 II. III. in. 11, 12, &c. 
 
49 
 
 .During the reign of Henry III. 
 
 year of the reign, 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 asso¬ 
 ciate with a Christian woman; nor any Christian 
 man with a Jewess.f 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 de- 
 
 * The reason of prohibiting Christians from suckling the children of Jews, 
 may be collected from an Epistle of Pope Innocent the Third, written to 
 Hick, Bishop of Sens, and the Bishop of Paris, not many years before 
 these ordinances were promulgated. Amongst other things, the Epistle 
 states, “Accepimus autem quod Judasi faciunt Christianas filiorum suorum 
 nutnces: et (quod non tantum dicere, sed etiam nefandum est cogitare) 
 cum in die resurrectionis Dominicse illas recipere corpus et sanguinem 
 Jesu Christi contingit, per triduum ante eos lactent, lac effundere faciunt 
 in latrinam. 7 ’ Decret I. lib.v. tit. 6. cap. 13. The glossator of the Epistle 
 states the cause of this custom amongst the Jews to be, because “ cre- 
 debant, scilicet, Corpus Christi, descendere in stomachum et incorporari,” 
 and then gravely proves this to be impossible by many learned arguments. 
 See Tovey. 104. 
 
 f Quod nullus Judeus habeat secretam familiaritatem cum aliquti Chris¬ 
 tiana, nec aliquis Christianus cum Judseh. 
 
 E 
 
50 History of the Jews in England 
 
 sirous to embrace the Christian faith.—That they 
 should not abide in any town, without the king s spe¬ 
 cial licence, save in places where they were formerly 
 wont to reside.” On offending against any of these 
 provisions, their properties were to be immediately 
 
 seized.* 
 
 By the statute of Pillory, passed in the fifty-first 
 year of this reign, it was enacted, amongst other 
 things, that “ no person should purchase flesh of a 
 Jew.” The regulations of these statutes had refe¬ 
 rence principally to the conduct of the Jews, and to 
 their intercourse with the Christians. There were, 
 however, 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 inhabit¬ 
 ant. 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 t; a situation which 
 tha wants of the crown in those days rendered dan¬ 
 gerous 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 
 
 * Claus. Rot. 37 Hen. III. m.18. Mad. p. 169. 
 
 f The tallages of the Jews were also levied upon their debts, &c. See 
 Rot. Pat. 2 Ed. I. m. 3. 
 
During the reign of Henry III. 5] 
 
 give the crown a dangerous hold, upon the landed 
 pioprietors 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 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 de¬ 
 prived at once of his chance of escheat, and the advan¬ 
 tages 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 ances¬ 
 tor, paid his relief to the king. In cases of outlawry, 
 moreover, the king stept 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 give his consent to two several ordinances. 
 By the first of these it was provided, that all the 
 debts of the Jews, secured as rent-charges upon the 
 lands of the debtor should be void; and that, in future, 
 it should be unlawful to create any such charge, under 
 pain of death in the Jew, and forfeiture of the land 
 in the Christian.—By the second ordinance, it was 
 enacted, that no Jew should from thenceforth have 
 a freehold in any manors, lands or tenements, what¬ 
 ever, excepting that they might, as theretofore, 
 hold houses for their habitations in the towns and 
 boroughs where they resided ; that all feoffments 
 
 e 2 
 
52 History of the Jews in England 
 
 and grants, by which any Jew then held land, should 
 be annulled, and the lands revert to the Christian 
 from whom they had passed, upon payment back of 
 the money given for them ; and that if, at any time 
 thereafter, a Jew should take any lands or tene¬ 
 ments, the same should be immediately taken by the 
 king, till the Christian should redeem the same. It 
 is singular, that in this latter ordinance is contained 
 a clause, by which it is expressly forbidden to any 
 Christian to serve a Jew, in the capacity of baker, or 
 brewer, or as a nurse. 
 
 Before concluding the annals of this reign, one im¬ 
 portant measure with regard to the Jews, lemains to 
 be noticed. Previous to this period, the Jews who 
 had been induced to renounce the errors of their 
 faith, and embrace Christianity, had universally, both 
 in this country, and in the neighbouring cities of Eu- - 
 rope, been forced to give up all their property to the 
 king, and subsist on the charity and compassion of 
 the clergy and laity ; the consequence was, that 
 most converts were reduced to a state of penury and 
 wretchedness, a circumstance which was supposed 
 materially to impede the progress of conversion. In 
 order, therefore, to afford some remedy against this 
 evil, and, by the appearance of greater comfort and 
 security, to induce the Jews to renounce their errors. 
 King Henry, in the seventeenth year of his reign, 
 established the House of Converts in London *, and 
 
 * This house was situated in New-street, now Chancery-lane, and was 
 built upon the spot where the Rolls now stands; the person, to whom the 
 care of this house was intrusted, was called Custos or Warden. In the 45th 
 year of Edward I., William Burstall, the Master of the Rolls, was appointed 
 
53 
 
 During the reign of Edward I. 
 
 built a church for their use, and at different periods 
 endowed it with lands and other grants, and made 
 regulations for the better maintenance and support of 
 converts. 
 
 EDWARD THE FIRST. 
 
 A. D. 1272. 
 
 The first public act of this reign, which had re¬ 
 ference to the Jews, was in conformity with the 
 example set by preceding monarchs; it held out 
 the hopes of safety and protection. Shortly after 
 the death of the late king, proclamations of peace 
 and security issued, extending as well to the 
 Jews, as to the nation in general.* It was, how¬ 
 ever, quickly evident that, as far as regarded the 
 Jews, these proceedings were little more than mere 
 matters of form. Steps were, in a short time, taken 
 
 to the office, and expended a large sum of money in the repairs of the 
 building. In consideration of this expense, the king was prevailed upon to 
 annex the custody of the house to the office of the Master of the Rolls, for 
 ever, upon condition of keeping the building in repair : all future Masters 
 of the Rolls were to have possession given them by the Lord Chancellor. 
 This grant of the king was confirmed by parliament in the first year of 
 Richard II. It appears to have .been considered that, notwithstanding this 
 grant, converted Jews were still entitled to an allowance, out of the revenues 
 of the house; in 5 Rich. II. two-pence a day for life was granted to a con¬ 
 vert; in the reign of Hen. IV. a convert obtained an allowance of a penny a 
 day; and even so late as the second year of James II. two Jewish converts 
 received three-halfpence a day, for an allowance. See Tovey’s Anglia Jud. 
 p. 91. 224. 
 
 * Claus. 1 Edward I. m. 7. 
 
54 
 
 History of the Jews in England 
 
 to facilitate the levying of taxes, upon them. New 
 officers of their exchequer were appointed ;* * * § direc¬ 
 tions were given to enforce the regulations, by which 
 they were obliged to confine themselves within par¬ 
 ticular towns, and cities and orders were forward¬ 
 ed 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 es¬ 
 tates and effects. J As soon as the necessary inform¬ 
 ation, upon these orders, was received from the 
 sheriffs, a new tallage was imposed upon the Jews : 
 and authority was given to enforce the payment, 
 together with that of all arrears due on former as¬ 
 sessments, 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, 
 they were empowered to punish the refractory, 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 appear to have executed 
 the office, entrusted to them, with such relentless 
 
 * Claus. 1 Edw. I. m. 10, &c. Just. Judsborum. 
 
 f Claus. 1 Edw. I. m. 7. De Judaeis Anglici inhabitantibus villas. 
 
 I Pat. 1 Edw. I. m. lft. 
 
 § Pat. 2 Edw. I. in. 3. 5. 
 
 •• _s____ 
 
During the reign of Edward 1. 55 
 
 •severity, that the king’s mind was moved to pity; 
 and, in many cases, he gave orders to release par¬ 
 ticular 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 renewed. And the extent to which 
 the Jews continued to practise a system of usurious 
 dealings was, it appears, also the subject of in¬ 
 creased remonstrance. In the third year of this 
 reign,f the king was forced to pass the statute 
 which is known by the name of the Statute de 
 Judaismo,J this statute set forth that the king and 
 his ancestors had had great profit from the Jews, 
 yet that many mischiefs and disherisons of honest 
 men had happened by their usuries; and it therefore 
 enacted, that from thenceforth no Jew should prac¬ 
 tise usury,—that no distress for any Jews debt, 
 should be so grievous, as not to leave the debtor the 
 moiety of his lands and chattels, for his subsistence ; 
 
 * Claus. 3 Edw. I. m. 12, 13, &c. 
 
 f Lord Coke attributes this act to the 18th Edw. I. and supposes that the 
 departure of the Jews from this country was occasioned by its having been 
 passed. Prynne, in his 2d Dem., gives many documents, which prove that 
 Lord Coke’s opinion was erroneous. In the parliamentary edition of the 
 statutes, the act is attributed to the 3d of Edward I. In an ancient MS. 
 collection of the statutes, apparently of the fourteenth century, in the Uni¬ 
 versity Library at Cambridge (lib. iv. 17.), this statute follows the statute 
 of Wynton, and immediately precedes the stat. of Acton Burnel in another 
 ancient MS. collection in the same library, m. m. 1. 27. It follows the stat. 
 of Westminster, and precedes the statutes of Gloucester and Acton Burnel. 
 
 I Chron. Wikes. Ann. Waver. 
 
56 
 
 History of the Jews in England 
 
 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 thereto¬ 
 fore, and take leases of land to farm for ten years; 
 and that they should be at liberty to carry on mer¬ 
 cantile transactions in the cities where they resided, 
 provided, however, that they should not, by reason 
 of such dealings, be talliable with the other inha¬ 
 bitants of the cities, seeing that they were only tallia¬ 
 ble to the king, as his own bondsmen ; and it directed 
 that they should reside only in such cities and bo¬ 
 roughs 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, upon 
 their upper garments; and that all above twelve 
 years of age, should pay to the king at Easter, the 
 sum of three pence. The provisions of this act were 
 afterwards strictly 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 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.J By 
 an edict subsequently issued by the king, the di¬ 
 rection with respect to the wearing badges was ex¬ 
 tended to Jewesses as well as to Jews and orders 
 were at the same time given to see that no Chris¬ 
 tian served a Jew in any menial capacity.|| In ad- 
 
 * 12 Edw. I. claus. 8. 
 
 f 5 Edw. 1. claus. m. 13. dorso. Rymer Feed, 
 
 J lb. Claus. 10 Edw. I. m. 8. 
 
 § Claus. 6 Edw I. m. 6. Dem. 79. Pat. 10 Edw. I. Rym. Feed. 599. 
 
 || Ibid. 
 
57 
 
 During the reign of Edward I. 
 
 dition to these regulations which were solely of a 
 temporal nature, other measures were taken with 
 respect to the Jews, which had reference to their 
 religious observances. The king, with an appearance 
 of pious zeal, which was either prompted by the 
 dictates of his own conscience, or adopted in defer¬ 
 ence to the spirit of the times, commanded steps to 
 be taken to induce the Jews to respect, and embrace 
 the Christian faith. The first means adopted with 
 a view to this object were, as might have been ex¬ 
 pected in that age, of a compulsory nature, though 
 those which followed were of a somewhat different 
 character. In the 7th year of his 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.* About the 
 same time, certain friars of the order of Dominicans 
 undertook to preach to the Jews, and to convince 
 them of the errors of their religion. To forward their 
 pious intentions, the king issued writs, to the sheriffs 
 and bailiffs of the different towns where the Jews 
 resided, commanding that they should be compelled 
 to repair to such places as the friars should appoint, 
 and be forced to listen to the lectures which were 
 delivered with attention, and without disturbance.! 
 The king, on his part, conceded a portion of the ad¬ 
 vantages to which he had heretofore been entitled, 
 from the power he possessed over the property of 
 
 * Rym. Fosd. p. 570. 
 
 f Hot. Pat. 8 Edw. I. m. 37. 
 
58 History of the Jews in England 
 
 the Jews. In England, as in most other countries, 
 a custom prevailed by which, upon the conversion 
 of a Jew to Christianity, the king seized and dis¬ 
 posed of the whole of his property and effects. As 
 the convert was in this manner deprived at once of 
 all he possessed, it was not likely that many would 
 abjure their ancient faith : letters patent were there¬ 
 fore published, declaring, that in future, 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 produce 
 of all deodands which were granted at the same 
 time) towards the support of that establishment.* 
 Historians do not record any benefits that resulted 
 from the measures thus taken to induce the Jews to 
 renounce the errors of their faith ; and it would seem 
 that but few, and those of the lower classes, were pre¬ 
 vailed upon to make the sacrifice which was still 
 incurred by the convert to the Christian creed. 
 Notwithstanding the concessions which were thus 
 made on the part of the crown in favor of the Jewish 
 converts, the Jews still continued to be subjected to 
 tallages of a heavy amountf, the payment of which 
 was enforced by seizure of their goods and by 
 banishment. Orders were at various times issued to 
 open and examine the chests in which their proper¬ 
 ties and possessions were enrolled and great part 
 of their effects were taken, and the sums in which 
 
 * Post? p. 80. f Claus. 3 Edw. I. Pat. 5 Edw. I. 
 
 1 Claus. 3 Edw. I. m. 13. m. 23. Pat. 14 Edw. I. m. 20. 
 
59 
 
 During the reign of Edward I. 
 
 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 of¬ 
 fence with which they were now charged, was with 
 clipping and falsifying the coin of the realm ; and 
 many for this were condemned to suffer death, and 
 were executed, j; In the 7th year of this reign no less 
 than 294 were put to death for this cause ; and all 
 they possessed taken to the use of the king.J To 
 what extent the Jews were really guilty of this lat¬ 
 ter offence for which they suffered it is impossible 
 now to determine. Historians, however, mention 
 that sums to a large amount were exacted from them 
 by the common people through threats of accusing 
 them of the crime.§ To such length was this sys¬ 
 tem of exaction carried, that the king found it ne¬ 
 cessary to issue a proclamation, declaring that from 
 thenceforth no Jew should be held answerable for 
 any offence, theretofore, committed. This act of evi¬ 
 dent justice was, however, accompanied by a con¬ 
 dition 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. 
 
 The next act relating to the Jews, of which men¬ 
 tion is made in our history, occurred in the sixteenth 
 
 * Claus. 5 Edw. I. m. 6. 
 
 f Pat. 12 Edw. I. m. 4. Pat. 11 Edw. I. m. 22. Claus. 7 Edw. I. 
 m. 7. Ann. Waver. 
 
 \ 2 Dein. 81. 
 
 § Claus. 7 Edw. 1. m. 7. 2 Dem. 81. 
 
60 
 
 History of the Jews in England 
 
 year of this reign. In that year, it is stated that the 
 Jews were, on the same night, apprehended through¬ 
 out England, and thrown into prison ; and were only 
 released upon payment to the king of 12,000 pounds 
 of silver as a ransom.* Some historians relate that 
 the Jews were subjected to this violence, in conse¬ 
 quence 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.f When the Jews 
 became acquainted with the reason of their deten¬ 
 tion, they caused an intimation to be conveyed to 
 the king, that they would pay a larger sum than the 
 amount of the fifth promised by the Commons, if they 
 might be released from their imprisonment, and al¬ 
 lowed to remain in England. J 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 impro¬ 
 bable 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 
 
 * Stow, Chron. 203, 204. Survey, 289. A curious piece of evidence of 
 this imprisonment is given by Mr. Selden. (De Jure Nat. lib. 2. c. 6. 
 p. 215. Edit. Wilk.) In an old vault at Winchester there was, some years 
 ago, discovered an Hebrew inscription cut in the wall, which, when 
 translated, was as follows : “ All the Jews of this notion were imprisoned in 
 the pear 5047. I. Asher wrote this.” 
 
 f Holinshed, vol. iii, p. 283. j lb. 
 
61 
 
 During the reign of Edward I. 
 
 the expulsion of the Jews ; and it is to be inferred, 
 that they were induced to entertain this wish, in a 
 great measure from a belief in the accusations, which 
 were still loudly repeated, against the Jews, not 
 only of their being continually guilty of 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 it was 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, on a former page of 
 this history, pointed out as resulting to the nation in 
 general from the power the king continually exer¬ 
 cised over the property, persons, and rights of the 
 Jews, had some effect in encreasing the wish to be 
 relieved from the presence of that people.'* 
 
 Edward, who had been of late residing in France, 
 shortly prior to his return in the year 1290, in com¬ 
 pliance with the desire of his subjects' in Gascony 
 (who it appears, at this time, participated with the 
 English in their hatred to the Jews), had published 
 a proclamation banishing all Jews from his dominions 
 on the Continent.^ 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 
 
 * It is quaintly remarked by the writer of an old pamphlet, entitled 
 Anglo-Judseus, that the kings of England used the Jews as a sponge, by 
 which they sucked up the wealth of their subjects, and then squeezed it out 
 for their own use. 
 
 f Ann. Waver. 242. 
 
62 
 
 History of the Jews in England. 
 
 decree for the final banishment of the Jews from 
 England.* 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 a tenth part of their moveables, j" The 
 above-mentioned decree commanded that the Jews, 
 together with their wives and children, should de¬ 
 part from the realm withm 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.J Notwith¬ 
 standing the harshness and severity of this decree, it 
 seems not to have been sufficient to excite any com¬ 
 miseration, 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, which remained 
 to them, to give vent to their unchristian hatred and 
 enmity, against these unfortunate people, and to 
 
 Item Judaeorum exasperans multitude), quae per diversas urbes et castra 
 regionis Anglicans, per retroacta tempora habita confidenter, procurante 
 Domina Alienora matre dicti Regis Angliae, jussa est per edictum regium, 
 cum boms suis mobilibus unh cum uxoribus et parvulis, sub poena foris- 
 facturae omnium bonorum quae in regno haberent, ab Anglia recedere ater- 
 naliter; circa Festum Omnium Sanctorum nunquam ad dictam terram 
 iterum reversuri. An. Waver, ad ann. The Annals of Waverly, which 
 would appear to have been the work of several succeeding hands, end the 
 >ear after the expulsion of the Jews; and as the account given above was 
 probably written at the time, it may be considered as evidence that the 
 banishment was intended to be perpetual. 
 
 f Trivetus, 257. Walt. Hem. p. 21. See Parliamentary Writs, 1. The 
 collection lately published by the authority of Parliament. Vol. i.’ p. 15 . 
 t See following Treatise, post. 
 
63 
 
 During the reign of Edward I. 
 
 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 popu¬ 
 lace. * One instance of the barbarities to which 
 they were subjected deserves to be particularly 
 noticed, as it affords a just example of the senti¬ 
 ments entertained by the people towards the Jews;— 
 it is thus related by Holinshed: “ 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 
 Queenborough; 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 under¬ 
 stood 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 then 
 fathers passed through the Red Sea; and therefore, 
 
 * W ike’s Chron. p. 122. 
 
 f P. 289. 
 
64 
 
 History of the Jews in England 
 
 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 swal¬ 
 lowed 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 1 .” * 
 
 * Wike’s Chron. ad ann. 1290. Some Jewish historians (Solomon* Ben 
 Mirga, Ghedaliah) have fixed the time of the banishment, from England, 
 at an earlier period than that which is mentioned in the text. According 
 to them, the event took place A. M. 5020, or A. D. 1260. The facts which 
 have been stated in the preceding pages shew this date to be erroneous. 
 Selclen (De Jure Gent. lib. 2. c. 6. p. 190.) states that the error must have 
 arisen from the Hebrew letters having been wrongly written; and that the 
 date ought to stand 5050, instead of 5020. It is further to be mentioned, 
 that the annals of the Dominicans of Colmar affirm that the event happened 
 about the year 1291. All our historians fix the time about the same 
 period. Vide Magd. Cent. Pol. Virg.lib.xvii. Gilb. Genebrard. lib.iv. 
 p. 652. Fabian, part vii. p. 133. Fox, Acts and Mon. Lond.«1650. lib. i. 
 p. 443. Nich. Triv. lib. vi. Hollinshed. lib. ii. p. 285. Ann. Waver. 242. 
 Stubb’s Act. Pont. Ebor. 
 
 A variety of accounts have been given, by Jewish writers, of the causes 
 which led to the banishment of their nation from England. Two of these 
 accounts shall be mentioned. By one it is stated, that they were falsely 
 accused of counterfeiting the coin, by the persons who were themselves in 
 fact guilty of the offence. That the measures which were taken against 
 them were of so violent a nature, that the king, to save them from more 
 cruel punishment, forced them to leave the kingdom. (Solom. Ben. Wiro-. 
 p. 140. Shalsheleth, fo. 113.)—Another account is, that a Catholic priest, 
 having fallen in love with a beautiful Jewess, and not being able to compass 
 his desires by other, means, abjured Christianity, and suffered himself to 
 be circumcised; that this circumstance being made public, the Christians 
 insisted that all the Jews in London should be burnt alive. But the king, 
 
65 
 
 During the reign of Edward I. 
 
 By the time appointed, the whole of the Jews had 
 left England; their numbers have been estimated by 
 some at 15,060, by others at 16,511.—The records 
 of the following years of this reign contain many 
 grants of their houses and possessions by the king; 
 and it has been stated that the convents and monas¬ 
 teries were enriched by appropriating to themselves 
 many valuable libraries of which they were pos¬ 
 sessed,* * and that the learned Roger Bacon derived 
 considerable assistance from their Hebrew books 
 which came into his hands.']' 
 
 Thus was this unfortunate race, after nearly two 
 centuries of almost continual persecution, driven 
 fiom 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 circum¬ 
 stance of necessity for their expulsion, any justi¬ 
 fication for the rapacity that caused their estates 
 to be confiscated to the crown—or, for the malice 
 
 willing to spare the Jews that were innocent, permitted those only to be 
 executed who had been concerned in the matter, and sent the rest from the 
 country. Ghedalia Mod. Univers. Hist. 
 
 * Peck’s Annals of Stamford. 
 
 f Tovey’s Angl. Jud. 245. Wood’s Antiq. Oxon, 132. 
 
 F 
 
66 History of the Jews in England 
 
 that dictated the cruelties to which, on the occa¬ 
 sion, 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 theii 
 expulsion, may induce a belief, that the evils, ex¬ 
 perienced from their residence, were greatly the result 
 of the power which the crown possessed over their 
 property and persons. And the desire that the 
 nation seems to have entertained for their removal 
 may, perhaps without much error, be traced princi¬ 
 pally to this source. In throwing back a glance 
 over the facts that are stated in the few pages of 
 the preceding narrative, it must be acknowledged 
 that a spirit of relentless cruelty pervades the whole ; 
 and we cannot but feel that the exactions and 
 barbarities, which are there recorded, mark an in¬ 
 delible stain upon this period of our 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 them¬ 
 selves, under their continued suffering and oppres¬ 
 sions, whilst it furnishes a fresh example of the cha¬ 
 racteristic 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 their nation 
 has been ever distinguished. 
 
From the time of Cromwell. 
 
 67 
 
 FROM THE BANISHMENT OF THE JEWS IN THE 
 YEAR 1290 TO THE PRESENT TIME. 
 
 More than 350 years elapsed, without the Jews 
 making any attempt to re-establish themselves in 
 this country. The tyranny and oppression to which 
 then ancestors had been subjected, by the former 
 kings of England, was, no doubt, kept alive in their 
 remembrance, and prevented them from making any 
 efforts to return. The progress of civilization would 
 probably have shielded them from a recurrence of the 
 cruelties which their forefathers had experienced; 
 but they had no sufficient security against a revival 
 of the power, which preceding monarchs had claimed 
 to have over their property and possessions. When, 
 however, the royal authority had ceased to exist, the 
 great object of their apprehensions was removed ; and 
 they hoped, under the government which was esta¬ 
 blished in its place, to meet with security and pro¬ 
 tection. In an address which they published during 
 the commonwealth, they say “ Our people did, in 
 their own minds, presage that, the kingly govern¬ 
 ment being changed into that of a commonwealth, 
 the ancient hatred towards them would be changed 
 into good-will; and that the rigorous laws made, under 
 the kings, against so innocent a people, would be 
 happily repealed.”* 
 
 The earliest measures towards a re-admission, which 
 seem to have been taken by the Jews, followed 
 
 * See the Address of Rabbi Menasseh Ben Israel to Oliver Cromwell. 
 
 F 2 
 
68 
 
 History of the Jews in England 
 
 almost immediately upon the death of King Charles 
 the First. Overtures were made to the parliament 
 and council of war, through the medium of two of 
 the popular adherents of the parliamentary faction.* 
 
 If the nature of the negociation which took place 
 upon the subject be truly stated, the circumstances 
 attending it are curiously illustrative of the correct 
 estimation entertained by foreigners of the venality of 
 the existing government, and of the total subversion of 
 respect which had taken place tor the ancient insti¬ 
 tutions of the country. The Jews asked that all the 
 laws which were in force against them might be 
 repealed; and offered to pay, in return, the sum of 
 500,000/., provided, at the same time, they had made 
 over to them the Bodleian library at Oxford, and 
 were allowed to take possession of the cathedial of 
 St. Paul’s for a synagogue. The proposal was enter¬ 
 tained; and it would appear that several debates took 
 place on the subject.t The parliament, however, 
 required that the Jews should pay 800,000/. for what 
 they demanded, instead of 500,000/.—The Jews re¬ 
 fused to increase the sum; and the negociation was, 
 in consequence, eventually broken off.J 
 
 The next attempt seems to have been made, after 
 Cromwell was elevated to the rank of protectoi. 
 The French ambassador in Holland, in a letter 
 written in the year 1654 to the minister of France 
 in England, says, “ A Jew of Amsterdam hath in- 
 
 * Monteth’s Hist, of Gt. Brit. p. 473. 
 
 f See an intercepted letter in the Thurloe State Papers, of the 29th July 
 1653. Thurl. State Papers, vol. iii. p.357. 
 
 X Monteth’s Hist, of Gt. Brit, p.473. 
 
 
69 
 
 From the time of Cromwell. 
 
 formed me for certain, that the three generals of the 
 fleet have presented a petition to his highness the 
 protector, to obtain that their nation may be received 
 in England to draw the commerce thither.* The re¬ 
 sult of this application was, that permission was 
 given to Rabbi Menasseh Ben Israel, who had 
 been chosen on the part of the Jews as their nego- 
 ciator, to come over from Holland and take up his 
 residence in London. Soon after his arrival, he pre¬ 
 sented a petition to Cromwell, praying that the Jews 
 might be allowed the free exercise of their religion, 
 and be permitted to erect synagogues for the pur¬ 
 pose's of public worship ; and he, at the same time, 
 published a declaration to the commonwealth of Eng¬ 
 land, in which he exhibited the great profit which 
 would result to the country from the return of his 
 nation.t In consequence of this petition, a council 
 was summoned to take the matter into considera¬ 
 tion. The mode in which the subject was here 
 discussed, is stated in a letter from Secretary Thur- 
 loe to H. Cromwell.J “ We have had,” he writes, 
 “ very many disputations concerning the admittance 
 of the Jews to dwell in this commonwealth, they 
 having made an earnest desire to his highness to be 
 admitted ; whereupon he hath been pleased to advise 
 with some of his judges, merchants, and divines. 
 The point of conscience hath been only controverted 
 
 * Thurl. St. Pap. vol. ii. 652. 
 
 f An original copy of this declaration is in the possession of the author, 
 by “ Rabbi Menasseh Ben Israel, a Divine and Doctor in Physic, in the 
 Strand, over against the New Exchange, in London.” 
 
 X Thurloe State Pap. vol.i. p. 321. date 17th Dec. 1653. 
 
70 
 
 History of the Jews in England 
 
 yet, namely, Whether it be lawful to admit the Jews 
 now out of England to return into it. The divines 
 do very much differ in their judgments about it, some 
 being for their admittance on fitting cautions; others 
 are, in express terms, against it, upon any terms 
 whatsoever. The like differences I find in the 
 council, and so amongst all Christians abroad. The 
 matter is debated with great candour and ingenuity, 
 and without any heat. What the issue thereof will 
 be, I am not able to tell you, but am apt to think, 
 that nothing will be done therein.” Whatever may 
 have been the result of these deliberations, it does 
 not appear that they led to any definite step. And 
 no public measure was taken to authorize the return 
 of the Jews. Amongst the people, the feeling seems 
 to have been most commonly opposed to their re-ad¬ 
 mission.* 
 
 One of the most vehement opponents of the mea¬ 
 sure was the notorious Prynne, who, in two learned 
 publications,! collected a variety of records, to shew 
 the situation of the Jews prior to their banishment, 
 and entered into lengthened arguments to prove the 
 danger and impropriety of their re-establishment. 
 This general feeling of hostility was probably increased 
 by the discovery of the intentions of another party of 
 Jews, who appear to have arrived in England about 
 the same period. The achievements of Cromwell and 
 his renown had, it seems, become known to the 
 
 * See Preface to Pry one’s First Demurrer. 
 
 f The First ancl Second Demurrer, to which works the author has 
 been indebted for a very considerable portion of the ancient records, by 
 which the facts stated in this history, and the following treatise, are verified. 
 
71 
 
 From the time of Cromwell, 
 
 Jews who resided in the western parts of Asia; and 
 they were induced to conceive the hope of being able 
 to derive advantages from his elevation. A deputa¬ 
 tion was sent over by them, at the head of which 
 was one of their most learned rabbis. The ostensible 
 design of their mission was the establishment of a com¬ 
 pany, to trade to the Levant; but, at a private audience 
 with Cromwell, they negociated the purchase of the 
 valuable library of the University of Cambridge, and 
 probably disclosed to him the main object of their 
 visit. This object, as it afterwards turned out, was 
 to inquire into the pedigree of the Usurper, in hopes 
 that they might be able to trace him to a Jewish 
 origin, and prove him to be the promised Messiah. 
 They obtained permission to repair to Cambridge, 
 and, in the presence of the Librarian, examined and 
 took a catalogue of the most valuable books. After¬ 
 wards they established themselves for a time at 
 Huntingdon, the birth-place of Cromwell, and en¬ 
 tered upon the examination of his descent. Their 
 investigation was, however, not conducted with the 
 necessary caution, and the purpose of their inquiries 
 became public. The account quickly spread to Lon¬ 
 don. Cromwell was suspected of being privy to 
 their designs, and was exposed to raillery. ihe 
 Jews were commanded to return to the metropolis; 
 and at a meeting of the council, to which they were 
 summoned, were warmly upbraided and ordered to 
 depart the country.*' 
 
 As the circumstances above related are all that is 
 
 Histoire (^Oliver Cromwel pai Raguenet, p. 290. 
 
72 History of the Jews in England 
 
 known of the proceedings that took place with respect 
 to the Jews under the Commonwealth, there seems 
 no sure foundation for the assertion which is frequently 
 made, that Cromwell first permitted the re-establish¬ 
 ment of the Jews in England. 
 
 After the Restoration, however, they seem to have 
 begun, by degrees, to take up their residence in 
 this country; and in the latter end of the year 1660, 
 an order of the Lords of the Council was pre¬ 
 sented to the House of Commons, recommending 
 to the house to take into their consideration, 
 measures for the protection of the Jews.* And 
 as early as the year 1662, they had a synagogue 
 in London. Still, their numbers were not yet 
 very considerable, as Dr. Chamberlain, who wrote 
 in this reign, states they did not in his time, ex¬ 
 ceed thirty or forty families, at most.f However, 
 in the year 1670, they were considered to be of suffi¬ 
 cient importance to induce the House of Commons, 
 upon the appointment of a committee to bring in a 
 bill to prevent the growth of popery, to direct that 
 the committee should at the same time inquire into 
 the number of the Jews and their synagogues, and 
 upon what terms they were permitted to have resi¬ 
 dence here.J The report of this committee is not 
 published. Under James the Second, the Jews 
 were relieved from payment of the alien duty. In 
 the reign of King William, upon the petition of the 
 merchants of London, they were again subjected 
 
 * Journals of House of Commons, 17th Dec. 1660. 
 
 f Anglia Notrtia. 
 
 J Journals of House of Commons, 6th Feb. 1670. 
 
73 
 
 From the time of Cromwell. 
 
 to this impost. Their numbers at this time (1689) 
 must have become considerable; as the amount of 
 loss to which the government was subjected, by not 
 levying the export alien duty on their goods, was 
 estimated at the sum of 10,000/. a year. 
 
 In the first year of Queen Anne, the Jews became the 
 subject of an exclusive act of the legislature, for the 
 purpose of securing provision for such of their children 
 as became converts to the Christian faith. By statute 
 1 Ann. c. 30., it was enacted, that “ if the child of any 
 Jewish parent is converted to the Christian religion, 
 or is desirous of embracing it, upon application to the 
 Lord Chancellor, he may compel any such parent to 
 give his child a sufficient maintenance in proportion 
 to his circumstances.” 
 
 In the year 1753, a bill was introduced into parlia¬ 
 ment, to enable foreigners who were Jews to be na¬ 
 turalized,without being obliged to take the sacrament. 
 The bill passed the House of Lords without opposi¬ 
 tion ; but the popular feeling was, from the first, averse 
 to the measure. Petitions against the act were pre¬ 
 sented from the city of London and other parts, and 
 a very warm discussion took place in the Commons, 
 upon the subject. The bill, however, was, in the 
 end, allowed to pass, and received the royal assent. 
 Still, in the country, the hostility to the measure 
 continued to gather strength. The ancient animosity 
 against the Jews seemed again revived ; and though 
 the act was applicable to foreigners alone, those 
 Jews who were natives of the country shared in the 
 general ill-will of the people. The ministry, at whose 
 instigation the bill was introduced, were loaded 
 with reproaches, and remonstrances poured in from 
 
74 History of the Jews in England 
 
 all parts of the country. The discontent which pre¬ 
 vailed was further heightened by the machinations 
 of a party who hoped to derive advantage, in the 
 contests of an approaching general election, from the 
 hatred infused by the measure into the minds of 
 the people against the government. The ministry 
 felt themselves unable to stand up against the po¬ 
 pular feeling, which their support of the act had 
 raised against them; and on the first day of the 
 ensuing session they yielded to the clamour of the 
 nation, and introduced a bill for the repeal of the 
 obnoxious ordinance. Emboldened by the success 
 ol their opposition, the party who were most hostile 
 to the Jews attempted to carry still further their 
 resentment. An act had been passed in the 13th 
 year of the king, whereby persons professing the 
 Jewish religion, who had resided seven years in any 
 ol His Majesty s American Colonies, were enabled 
 to be naturalized without receiving the sacrament. 
 An address was moved in the House of Commons 
 to his Majesty, requesting he would give directions 
 for laying before the house a list of the names of all 
 such persons professing the Jewish religion, who had 
 since the 1st of June 1740, entitled themselves to 
 the benefit ol the last act. The papers were accord¬ 
 ingly laid before the house ; but it appeared that 
 very few persons had availed themselves of the pro¬ 
 visions of the statute. Notwithstanding, Lord Harley 
 moved for leave to bring in a bill to repeal this act. 
 The motion occasioned a warm debate, but was re¬ 
 jected.* 
 
 * See Parliamentary Register. 
 
75 
 
 From the time of Cromwell. 
 
 From the time of the discussion upon the na¬ 
 turalization act, to the present moment, the history 
 of the English Jews is not distinguishable from that 
 of the other natives of the island. No measures 
 have been taken, of which they were particularly the 
 objects ; and they have been permitted to live here 
 without molestation or hindrance. The animosities 
 which the act of 1753 engendered or revived, were 
 probably, for a time remembered, and might have 
 the effect of impeding the progress which the Jews 
 would otherwise have made, in overcoming the pre¬ 
 judices of the people against them. Happily for 
 them, however, and for the credit of the age, those 
 prejudices, are now nearly worn away ; and the Jew 
 of the present day is allowed, without being regarded 
 with either antipathy or disrespect, to take the station 
 in society to which from his wealth or his acquire¬ 
 ments he is entitled. Their numbers are reckoned, 
 in London at about 18,000, and in the rest of En¬ 
 gland about 9,000,* they have several synagogues 
 in the metropolis, and others in different towns in 
 the kingdom.! They are masters of very consider- 
 
 * See the table given at the end of Mr. Goldsmid’s Pamphlet. From 
 inquiries which the author has made, he should have thought that the Jews 
 in England, exclusively of those in London, were nearly double the number 
 stated in the text. As, however, Mr. Goldsmid’s means of information on 
 this head must be far superior to any professed by the author, he has adopted 
 the lesser number. The same inquiry which would have induced the author 
 to place the Jews in the rest of England, besides London, at between 
 17,000 and 18,000, would have led him to rate the number in London at 
 about 20,000. 
 
 f The principal congregations of Jews are at Canterbury, Rochester, 
 Hull, Liverpool, Bristol, Norwich, Yarmouth, Plymouth, and Portsmouth. 
 The two principal sects of Jews are the German and the Portuguese. 
 
76 History of the Jews in England. 
 
 able wealth, employed, for the most part, in objects 
 of commerce ; but it is said that many of them have 
 also acquired extensive landed possessions.* They 
 still labor under some disabilities, the nature of 
 which it is the intention of the following treatise to 
 point out. The experience of more than a century, 
 since their re-establishment, has shewn nothing in 
 their conduct, or habits which proves them unworthy 
 to stand on an equality with their Christian bre¬ 
 thren, and the time would seem to have arrived when 
 the greater part, at least, of their disabilities will be 
 removed,f and when the Jew will have as full an in¬ 
 terest, as the rest of the nation, in supporting, by his 
 talents and his fortune, the prosperity and well-being 
 of the country. 
 
 * The question of their power, legally to hold land, is discussed in the 
 subsequent treatise. 
 
 f Petitions have been, since the meeting of Parliament, presented to both 
 Houses of the legislature, for the removal of these disabilities; and a bill 
 will, in a short time, be brought in, with the view of carrying their object 
 into effect. 
 
AN ENQUIRY 
 
 INTO 4 
 
 THE CIVIL DISABILITIES 
 
 / 
 
 OF THE 
 
 JEWS IN ENGLAND. 
 
 In the following treatise it is proposed to consider 
 —first, the state of the law generally, with respect 
 to the Jews, and then to enquire, more particulaily, 
 into the laws respecting their rights with regard to 
 land, and real property. In each branch of this 
 enquiry, the reader’s attention will be directed to the 
 state of the law, prior to the banishment of the Jews, 
 in the reign of the Edward the First, and also to the 
 extent of their disabilities, at the present time. 
 
 The facts which are recorded in the foregoing- 
 history, and the account which is there given of 
 the arbitrary power continually exercised by the 
 king over the Jews, shows, clearly, that they were 
 considered and treated as the mere bondsmen or 
 
78 
 
 On the Civil Disabilities 
 
 villeins of the crown. That such was their condi¬ 
 tion is also evident, from the language of many re¬ 
 cords which are preserved to us, and which extend 
 from the earliest known period of their residence 
 here, down to the time when they were banished 
 from the country. The laws of Edward the Con¬ 
 fessor declared that “ the Jews, and all they possess 
 belong to the king.”* The statute 3 Edward I., of 
 which more particular notice will be taken hereafter, 
 declares that “ The Jews shall not be in tallage with 
 the other inhabitants of the cities where they reside, 
 seeing that they are talliable to the king as his own 
 bondsmen, and not otherwise.”! 
 
 * See ante P- 3 - n 4 The authority of this clause of the ordinances of 
 Edward the Confessor has been called in question by Prynne, (see 2 Dem. 
 p. 7 .) on the ground that it is not to be found in the copy of the Con¬ 
 fessor’s laws, given by Ingulphus, in his History of Croyland Abbey. 
 The clause has, however, received the high sanction of Sir H. Spelman, 
 who also states that the laws of the Confessor, as published in Hoveden, 
 agree with an ancient manuscript copy of those ordinances, in his posses¬ 
 sion. (Spelm. Concil. vol. i. p. 275. and see Lambarde Leg. Sax. p.183. 
 Wilkin’s Concil. vol. i. p. 313.) It is not, perhaps, very material for the 
 present purpose, whether the ordinance in question was in fact promul¬ 
 gated by Edward the Confessor, or not; for the account given by Hoveden ; 
 must, at all events, be regarded as an authentic statement of what was re¬ 
 garded to be the ancient laws of the country, at the time when Hoveden 
 lived; that is to say, during the reign of Hen. II. and Rich. I. 
 
 t See Appendix C. In Prynne’s Dem. p. 64, is the copy of a patent 
 of Henry III., confirming the enfranchisement of a Jew by Prince Edward, 
 to whom the Jew had been previously granted. 
 
 Madox, in his History of the Exchequer, says, “ In sum, the king seemed 
 to be absolute lord of their estates and effects, and of the persons of them, 
 their wives and children. It is true, he let them enjoy their trade and ac¬ 
 quests. But they seemed to trade and acquire for his profit, as well as 
 their own. For at one time or other their fortunes, or great part of them, 
 came into his coffers.” p. 150. 
 
79 
 
 of the Jews in England. 
 
 The natural consequence of the Jews being con¬ 
 sidered as standing in this relation to the crown, 
 was to give the king, their lord, complete power 
 over their persons and property ; and this power was 
 frequently exercised in an entirely arbitrary manner. 
 Tallages to an exorbitant and ruinous extent were 
 continually imposed, at the mere will of the king, and 
 payment enforced by imprisonment,* * * § by seizing 
 their wives and children, and by confiscation of their 
 whole property and effects, f Orders regulating their 
 conduct, and restraining their intercourse with the 
 rest of the nation, were, from time to time, issued 
 upon the sole authority of the crown, and obedience 
 enforced by the most severe and cruel penalties. J 
 The king at his pleasure released their debtors from 
 the payment of the whole, or parts of the sums in 
 which they were bound, and commanded the secu¬ 
 rities to be cancelled. § On many occasions, indivi¬ 
 duals amongst them were granted to other persons, || 
 and sometimes their whole community was made 
 
 * See foregoing history, particularly p. 38. 
 
 f Claus. 25 Hen. III. m. 5. Dem. 39. Claus. ?6 Hen. III. m. 26. Man- 
 datum est Vic. Ebor. quod distringat Aaron de Ebor. Judeurn et omnes 
 alios JudeosEbor. per terras, et tenementa, catalla, uxores et filios, et omni¬ 
 bus aliis modis quibus melius poterit ad reddend. reg. tallagium, turn, &c. 
 
 J See the preceding history. 
 
 § See post, p. 83 n.J See Pat. 46 Hen. III. m. 14. Dem. 51. Fines, 
 49 Hen. III. m. 1. Dem.55b. Claus. 50 Hen. III. And the king would some¬ 
 times grant to other persons the debts which were due to the Jews. Claus. 
 3 Edw.I. m. 13. Claus. 4 Edw. I. m. 7. 
 
 || Thus Edward granted Cok, the Jew of London, with all his chattels, 
 to Eleanor his queen. Mad. Exchequer, 157. And the same king granted 
 Aaron, the Jew, to his brother, ib. 
 
80 
 
 On the Civil Disabilities 
 
 over by way of mortgage or security, for sums bor¬ 
 rowed by the crown.* * * § 
 
 Besides these instances of purely arbitrary exer¬ 
 tion of the power of the crown over the persons and 
 property of the Jews, there were certain cases in 
 which that power was continually and systematically 
 enforced. Thus, upon the death of a Jew, the king 
 asserted his right to the whole of the property and 
 effects of which the deceased was possessed'!'; if he 
 left a wife or children, they were permitted to suc¬ 
 ceed to the estate, only upon payment of heavy and 
 arbitrary fines. J Upon the conversion of a Jew to 
 Christianity, the king, up to the reign of Edward the 
 First, seized all his estate, and applied it to his own 
 use. Edward the First granted that from thence¬ 
 forth only half of the estate should in such cases be 
 taken. § Certain towns were appointed for the re- 
 
 * Thus Henry III. assigned over to Richard, his brother, all the Jews in 
 England, to secure payment of a debt of 5000 marks, with full power to 
 distrain them, by their goods and bodies; and bound himself until the same 
 was paid, not to release any of the debts of the Jews, or allow any extents 
 to issue for them. Pat. Rot. 39 Hen. III. m. 13. 1 Ecedera, Parliamentary 
 Edit. p. 215. And see post. 
 
 t App. E. And see Pat. 5 Hen. III. m. 6. 8.10. &c. Dem. 56. In 
 the Abbrevatio Rotulorum Originalium, lately published by authority of 
 Parliament, p. 30, is the following abridgement of a writ in 6 Edw. I. : 
 “ ^ ic - Glouster de bonis et catallis David de Carleton — eo quod bona 
 Judaeorum ad regem pertinent post mortem eorum,” &c. 
 
 I See Appendix F. And see Prynne’s Dem. 36. Pat. 30 Hen. III. 
 m. 7. The king received a fine of 3,000/. of Masse, son of Hammon, the 
 Jew, pro habendis catallis et bonis of his deceased father. 
 
 § See Rot. Pat. 8 Edw. I. And see Rot. Plac. 9 Edw. I. m. 7. The 
 custom of seizing the property of a Jew, upon his conversion, seems to 
 have prevailed in many parts of Europe. The reason usually given for the 
 
81 
 
 of the Jews in England. 
 
 sidence of the Jews ; and they were not permitted to 
 dwell in any other places. These towns were fixed 
 upon by the king, and varied at his pleasure.* * 
 
 With the view of facilitating the exercise of the 
 king s authority over their estates and effects, 
 Richard the first, after his return from captivity, 
 issued certain provisions for the registration of the 
 property of the Jews.f These ordinances directed 
 that all the debts, pawns, mortgages, lands, houses, 
 rents, and possessions of the Jews, should be re¬ 
 gistered upon oath. Certain places were appointed 
 where all contracts made by them were to be exe¬ 
 cuted in the presence of particular officers. In all 
 cases of advances of money made by them on mort¬ 
 gage or otherwise, indentures of two parts were to 
 be executed, the one part to be held by the bor¬ 
 rower, the other to be deposited in chests provided 
 for the purpose; and every Jew was commanded 
 secretly to reveal to the king’s justices any conceal¬ 
 ment by another Jew, with which he was acquainted. 
 These ordinances continued to be rigorously en¬ 
 forced during the residence of the Jews in England. 
 Shortly after they were promulgated, a particular 
 
 practice is, that the sincerity of the conversion might be thereby clearly 
 shewn. The more probable cause would seem, however, to have been this: 
 that as the Jew, upon becoming Christian, was rendered capable of liold- 
 ing, free from any power of the crown, unless the king immediately as¬ 
 serted the right which had already attached upon the property which the 
 person when a Jew possessed, he might lose his right to it in the hand of 
 a true convert. 
 
 * See post. And see Claus. 53 Hen. III. pars i. m. 8. Prynne, 63. Claus. 
 1 Edw. I. m. 83. 
 f Appendix (B). 
 
 G 
 
82 
 
 On the Civil Disabilities 
 
 court was also constituted for the pupose of carrying 
 into execution the claims and demands of the crown 
 over the estate and effects of the Jews, and for 
 directing and controlling the revenue derived from 
 this source; this court was called the Court of Ex¬ 
 chequer of the Jews. 
 
 THE COURT OF EXCHEQUER OF THE JEWS. 
 
 This was considered a branch of the principal ex¬ 
 chequer, but had its particular judges, who were called 
 the justices of the Jews. There were also other 
 officers attached to it, namely, the chirographers and 
 the cofferers, who were entrusted with the custody of 
 the chests directed to be kept by the ordinances of 
 King Richard, and also with the chirographs and 
 charters of the Jews. These latter officers were 
 stationed in all the towns where the Jews were per¬ 
 mitted to reside.* The acts and proceedings of the 
 justices and officers of this court were subject to the 
 control and authority of the justiciar, and treasurer, 
 and barons of the exchequer, as superior directors or 
 governors of the king’s revenue.'!' After the establish¬ 
 ment of this court of exchequer, the power of the 
 crown over the Jews and their property, was almost 
 
 * Mad. Hist, of Excheq. 
 
 f Thus, in the reign of Edward I., the treasurer and barons of the prin¬ 
 cipal Exchequer went and sat in the Exchequer of the Jews; and finding 
 that two of the justices of this latter court had been guilty of malpractices, 
 turned them out of their offices, and committed them to prison. Mad. 
 Hist. Excheq. 
 
83 
 
 of the Jews in England. 
 
 entirely enforced through its medium. When a tal¬ 
 lage was imposed, directions were issued to the 
 justices of the Jews to see that it was levied. When 
 any fresh regulation was made respecting the Jews, 
 the king issued his writ to the justices of the Jews, 
 commanding that they should see them enforced.* 
 If any Jews were found to have taken up their abode 
 in other parts than those fixed upon by the king, 
 writs were directed to the justices, to compel those 
 who had wandered from the appointed cities to 
 return.j' When the debt due to a Jew was released 
 by the crown, the same officers were commanded by 
 precept to acquit the debtor, and to deliver up to 
 him all the charters and chirographs remaining in the 
 chests, by which he was bound .X Where the king- 
 granted any individual Jew to another person, inti¬ 
 mation was given to the court of exchequer; and the 
 
 * Post, p. 94. 
 
 f Claus. 26 Hen. III. p. i. m. 19. De Judaeis removend. ab uno loco ad 
 alium. Denun. 30. In Claus. Rol. 11 Edw. I. a writ “ De Judaeis a vella 
 Windes amovendii,” recites, “ Quia secundum consuetudinem Judaeismi 
 nostri, Judaei nostri in alis civitatibus burgis, aut villis habitare vel morari, 
 non debent quam in illis in quibus archa chirographum Judaeorum existit, 
 et in quibus antiquitus habitare consueverunt morari;” and then commands 
 the Jews who had come to reside there to be removed. Rym. Feed. 634. 
 So Hen.III., in the 28th year of his reign, commanded the Jews from certain 
 towns to be removed to Winton. “ Mandatum est Vic. Berks, quod Judaeos 
 qui manent in villa Nubury et in villa de Spenhamland remittat, sine dela- 
 tione, usque Winton, et ibi maneant sicut prius solent, nec de caetero mane- 
 ant in villis praedictis. Claus. 36 Hen. III. m. 6. Dem. 40, b. 
 
 X King John released William, Earl of Arundel, from all the debts which 
 he owed to the Jews; and, by his writs, commanded the justices of the Jews 
 to acquit him thereof, and deliver up to him all the charters and chirographs 
 which were in the chests. Mad. Hist. Excheq. See Fin. Rolls, 17 John, 
 p.l. Dem. p. 16. Fine, 16 Hen. III. m. 7. Ib. p. 18. Claus. 27 Hen. 
 111. m. 10. Dem. 33. Claus. 56 Hen. III. m. 1. Dem. 67. And see Ap,(F). 
 
84 
 
 On the Civil Disabilities 
 
 Jew, who was the subject of the grant, was exempted 
 from the authority of the justices and collectors of 
 the court, in respect of any tallages which might be 
 afterwards imposed upon his community. In cases 
 where the king made over the whole body of the 
 Jews to other persons, the authority of the court of 
 exchequer was, during the continuance of the grant, 
 exercised in favor of the grantee, in the same manner 
 as it would have been for the king himself; and the 
 person to whom such grant was made was, it seems, 
 considered to have the power of imposing fines and 
 tallages, and of enforcing the collection through the 
 medium of this court.* 
 
 This court, which was originally constitued for the 
 purpose of enforcing the rights of the crown, soon, 
 it appears, began to exercise exclusive jurisdiction in 
 all cases where the property of the Jews, or their 
 contracts, came into question. As the Jews were 
 considered to hold whatever they possessed at the 
 mere will of the crown, many rules and customs 
 were allowed to prevail, with regard to them, and 
 their property and rights, which were of a peculiar 
 nature, and different from the general law of the 
 land. These were, for the most part, in conformity 
 with the general customs of the Jews; and in such 
 cases, if a doubt arose upon the custom, it was re¬ 
 ferred to a chapter of Jews.t In some cases, how- 
 
 * Henry III., in the 46th year of his reign, granted all the Jews to his 
 son Edward, with the use of the seals of his Exchequer, for the purpose of 
 sealing writs, &c. and also a prison for the confinement of the Jews. See 
 Appendix (G). 
 
 t Moses Judas, a Jew of Bristol, paid a fine of two ounces of gold that 
 it might be referred to a chapter of Jews to certify whether a Jew might 
 
85 
 
 of the Jews in England. 
 
 ever, the mode of proceeding was regulated by 
 special charters, granted by the king. The most 
 remarkable of these were granted by King John, 
 who, in the 2nd year of his reign, ordained, that 
 in all cases which arose between Christians and Jews, 
 the plaintiff should support his plaint by the testi¬ 
 mony of two witnesses, namely, a Jew and a Chris¬ 
 tian ; that if a Jew obtained a writ concerning his 
 plaint, his writ should be his witness ; and if a Chris¬ 
 tian had a plaint against a Jew, it should be judged 
 by a jury of Jews ; that if a Jew be summoned 
 without winesses, he should be discharged his sum¬ 
 mons on his own oath, taken upon his book; and if 
 summoned in respect of any things which apper¬ 
 tained to the crown, he should in like manner be 
 discharged, on his oath taken on his roll; and if any 
 dispute arose between a Christian' and a Jew, con¬ 
 cerning the loan of any money, the Jew should prove 
 the principal, and the Christian the interest.* * 
 
 The contracts of the Jews were, as has been al¬ 
 ready mentioned, regulated in the Court of Exche¬ 
 quer. These contracts were sometimes called Charta 
 and chirographa, like the charters of other people, but 
 generally, they were called starra, or stars.f These 
 
 take usury of a Jew, (Mag. Rot. 4 Ric. I. Rot. 6. Mad. Excheq.): and 
 Aaron, the Jew of Lincoln, paid twenty marks for an inquiry whether 
 Ursell, a Jew of the same place, was a forger in such sort as it was usual to 
 convict a Jew of forgery. (Mag. Rot. 5 John, Rot. 9. Lincoln. Madox.) 
 
 * See Appendix (B). 
 
 f Mr. Selden says, that “ in ancient time, when a contract was made, 
 two deeds were written, one containing the contract at full, with all cove¬ 
 nants and conditions, which was folded up and sealed with the buyer’s 
 
86 
 
 On the Civil Disabilities 
 
 stars were written, for the most part, in Hebrew 
 alone, or else in Hebrew on the one side, or on the 
 top of the parchment, and in Latin on the other side, 
 or on the bottom of the deed after the Hebrew.— 
 Sometimes they were written in French, and some 
 had a Latin superscription. 
 
 The part of the contract which, according to the 
 ordinances of Richard, was to be laid up in the pub¬ 
 lic chest, was called the Pes Chirographi; if any 
 Christian became indebted to a Jew, by star or writ¬ 
 ing put up and reserved in the chest in manner be¬ 
 fore mentioned, and paid not his money at the day 
 appointed with the interest thereon, the Jew sued 
 forth letters, by way of process, against the debtor, 
 both for the debt and interest, under the notary’s or 
 register’s hand, to appear before the justices in the 
 exchequer of the Jews, to answer for the same. A 
 Jew, however, could not obtain such letters of pro¬ 
 cess, until he had paid a fine to the king of one be- 
 
 seal; the other containing a general recital of what thing only the contract 
 was, and this last was shewn open to witnesses, who inscribed their names 
 * on the back of both, that so the witnesses or standers-by might not know 
 the sum, time of redemption, or such like, yet be able to justify the instru¬ 
 ment, comprehending them by the inscription of their names. The seal 
 they called chethour, and the deed or instrument written sepliar, which is a 
 book also : but the Rabbins express their deeds, releases, and obligations, 
 the like by the name of shetar or setar, whence the word sterim or starr is 
 used for acquittance or written testimonies of contract.” Seld. Tit. of 
 Honour, 4to. 1614. p.328. Mr. Justice Blackstone, Comment, vol.iv. p. 
 266, has given it as his opinion that the court of Star-Chamber took its name 
 from the circumstance of its holding its sittings, after the expulsion of the 
 Jews, in the chamber which had formerly been appropriated to the depository 
 of the chests in which the contracts of the Jews were kept. 
 
87 
 
 of the Jeivs in England. 
 
 santine for every pound. If it happened that any 
 Christian denied a deed entered into with a Jew, the 
 matter was tried by the testimony of two Jews and 
 two Christians. If a charter made to a Jew were 
 lost, or could not be found in the chest, it was usual 
 for the Jew to whom it was made, when he had re¬ 
 ceived the money due upon it, to come and make an 
 acknowledgment in the Exchequer, by way of re¬ 
 lease to the parties. Where a contract was made 
 from a Christian to a Jew by a chirograph, if the 
 counterpart or pes chirographi of such charter, was 
 not found in the chest of the king’s chirographer the 
 Jew was to lose the debt on such contract. So if a 
 Jew made a star or release secretly, it was held to 
 be invalid.* The stars of the Jews, were in the na¬ 
 ture of judgments upon which extents were sued 
 forth, and the land of the debtor was seized, although 
 after the debt was contracted it had passed into 
 other hands. t The statute of Merton, provided that 
 the usury on the debt of the Jew should not iuii 
 
 * See Mad. Hist, of Excheq. 
 
 f Fin. 9 John, m. 5. Mandatum est Baronibus de Scacario quod 
 omnes terras quas Jollarius de Amundevil habuit tempore quo ipse mutuo 
 accepit debita de Aaron Judseo capiantur in manum Dom. Reg., quicunque 
 illas teneat pro 200 et 72 libris quas ipse Domino Regi debuit de debito 
 Aaron; et similiter districtionem faciatis de omnibus aliis quae Dom. Regi 
 tenentur de debeto Aaron. See also Pat. 3 Hen. III. m. 6. Claus. 32 
 Hen. III. m. 11. Claus. 22 Hen. III. pars 1. m. 17. Claus. 22 Hen. III. 
 pars 2, m. 9. Fines, 23 Hen. III. m. 3. Claus. 24 Hen. III. m. 1. Prynne 
 Dem. 14. 22. 28. 37. Mad. Hist. Excheq. The circumstance of the 
 lands of the Jew’s debtor being considered as liable to extent for the sum 
 due is another strong proof that the Jews were considered as the bondsmen 
 or villeins of the crown, inasmuch as it can only be upon the ground that 
 whatever was theirs belonged to the king ; and that therefore their debtors 
 were, in fact, the king’s debtors, that we can account for the custom. 
 
88 
 
 On the Civil Disabilities 
 
 against the heir until his full age. The statute de Ju- 
 daismo enacted, that no Jew should thenceforth in any 
 manner practise usury; that no Jew’s debt be so 
 grievous, as not to leave Christians the moiety of 
 their lands and chattels for subsistence. 
 
 The reader’s attention has now been called to 
 nearly every thing that is extant, which can throw 
 light upon the general laws and customs which for¬ 
 merly prevailed in this country with respect to the 
 Jews. From the contracted means of informa¬ 
 tion which are open to us, the account which has 
 been given is unavoidably very imperfect; there 
 seem, however, to be sufficient data to enable us to 
 come with a reasonable confidence, to this conclu¬ 
 sion :—namely, that the whole property of the Jews 
 was held by them at the will and mercy of the crown, 
 but that this disability was not founded upon any di¬ 
 rect law or ordinance, but arose wholly out of the 
 circumstance of their being considered in those days 
 as the bondsmen or villeins of the king. 
 
 We will now proceed to the second branch of the 
 enquiry, namely, What were the disabilities under 
 which the Jews stood with regard to land and real 
 property ? 
 
 'I'HE DISABILITIES OF THE JEWS WITH REGARD 
 TO LAND AND REAL PROPERTY. 
 
 In order to come to a correct conclusion upon this 
 subject, it will be necessary to enquire what the 
 state of the law was prior to the banishment of the 
 
89 
 
 of the Jews in England. 
 
 Jews, both independently of any statutory enact¬ 
 ments* ; and also in consequence of any express 
 laws which may have been made upon the subject. 
 
 It has been shewn, in the former part of this Trea¬ 
 tise, that the Jews were considered as standing in 
 the situation of bondsmen or villeins of the king.—■ 
 The state of the law with respect to their real pro¬ 
 perty, prior to any statutory provisions, as with 
 respect to their personal estates, seems to have been 
 the natural result of the existence of this relation ; 
 as the villeins of the king, they would not be under 
 any disability as to their power of purchasing and 
 taking lands from other persons, but would necessa¬ 
 rily be incapable of holding as against the crown :— 
 and this will be seen to have been precisely the ex¬ 
 tent of their incapacity, prior to the statute 55 Hen. 3. 
 which will be hereafter mentioned. 
 
 Bracton, who wrote in the time of Henry the 
 Third, expressly lays it down, that the Jews are 
 capable of purchasing and taking land.f In consider¬ 
 ing to whom a grant may be made ; he says, “ also 
 
 * As the act of 55 Hen. III., which will be referred to hereafter, expressly 
 declares that the Jews shall not take lands; the inquiry into the state of the 
 law, prior to that statute being passed, would probably be unnecessary, if 
 no doubt had been thrown upon its authenticity. As, however, it will be 
 seen that it has been denied that any such act ever existed, it was necessary 
 to consider how the law stood, independently of its operation ; in order 
 that the present state of the Jews, in respect to their right to hold land, 
 might be considered as well independently of the statute, as upon the sup¬ 
 position that it was once in force. 
 
 f Craig lays it down, that the Jews were incapable of taking a feud : 
 « Ita tamen hoc intelligendum est, ut neque Judseis, neque hereticis, neque 
 apostate, neque similibus personis, feuda concedantur: neque enim hi 
 feudorum sunt capaces. Lib. i. p. 14. s. 2. 10. History of Feuds. 
 
90 
 
 On the Civil Disabilities 
 
 a grant may be made as well to religious persons as to 
 others to whom one may grant also to Jews, as well 
 as to Christians, unless the form of the grant imports 
 to the contrary; for instance, that it shall be lawful to 
 the grantee to grant away or sell the thing granted to 
 whom he pleases, except to religious persons and 
 Jews; and that he should not grant it to them as well 
 as to others, is supported by no reason, save only the 
 terms of the grant.”* 
 
 In corroboration of the authority of Bracton, 
 several records are preserved which afford instances 
 of the Jews being allowed to take real estate. 
 In the 35th of Henry the Second, anno 1189, a final 
 concord was acknowledged before John, Bishop of 
 Norwich, and Ranulphus de Glanvil the king’s chief 
 justice, and others in the king’s court in a real action 
 depending before them between William de Curzun, 
 plaintiff, and Jornet a Jew of Norwich, terre tenant 
 of a messuage, with the appurtenances in Norwich ; 
 whereby the said William granted the said messuage 
 with the appurtenances to the said Jornet and his 
 heirs, by the service of five shillings yearly^—again 
 in the ninth of King Richard the First, anno 1199, a 
 final concord was acknowledged before Simon de 
 
 * Item fieri poterit donatio tam viris religiosis quam aliis quibus dare 
 poterit. Item tam Judaeis quam Christianis, nisi modus donationis'inducat 
 contrarium. Scilicet quod licitum donatorio rem datam dare, vel vendero 
 cui voluerit, exceptis viris religiosis et Judaeis; et quod talibus personis 
 dari non poterit sicut aliis nulla ratio vel necessitas illud inducit, nisi 
 tantum modus donationis. Lib. ii. cap. 5. s. 6. 
 
 f Lansd, MSS. No. 215. p.77. where the following note is added: 
 
 “ N. B. There are but four fines, of the reign of king Henry II., now re¬ 
 maining in the king’s treasury of the receipt of the Exchequer.” 
 
91 
 
 of the Jews in England. 
 
 Patteshall and several other of the king’s justices, in 
 a cause depending before them between Philip, son 
 of Walter, plaintiff, and Jacob a Jew, son of Samuel 
 of .Northampton, terre tenant of a messuage with the 
 appurtenances in Northampton, whereby the said 
 Philip granted the said messuage with the appur¬ 
 tenances, to hold to the said Jacob and his heirs in 
 fee and inheritance (sibi et hwredibus suis in feodo et 
 hereditate) paying fourteen-pence annually to the 
 grantor and his heirs in full of all services.* In 
 the 10th year of King John, a final concord was ac¬ 
 knowledged before the same Simon de Patteshall 
 and other the king’s justices, between Robert of Nor¬ 
 folk and his wife, and Isaac the Jew, concerning a 
 messuage with the appurtenances in London, whereby 
 the said Robert and his wife conveyed the said tene¬ 
 ment to Isaac and his heirs for ever.j' 
 
 In addition to these proofs of the Jews having 
 been considered capable of purchasing and taking 
 lands, ample evidence to the same effect will be 
 afforded, in the authorities which will be produced 
 to shew the right which the king possessed over their 
 real estates. 
 
 Let us now therefore proceed to examine the evi¬ 
 dence which exists of the king having had this right. 
 —Bracton in his chapter on warranty says, “ if any 
 one, either Christian or Jew, be called to warranty 
 who does not hold land by which he may be dis¬ 
 trained, the sheriff shall be directed to take his body; 
 because in that case, land cannot be taken in recom- 
 
 f lb. 
 
 * Lansd. MSS. No. 215. p. 77. 
 
02 
 
 On the Civil Disabilities 
 
 pense. But, indeed, a Jew cannot have any thing 
 of his own, because whatever he acquires, he acquires 
 not for himself, but for the king; because they live 
 not for themselves but for others, and thus they ac- 
 quire not for themselves but for others.* 
 
 The ordinances ot King Richard which have been 
 before mentioned, compelled the Jews upon oath to 
 register with the justices of the Jews all their lands 
 and real estate. This provision may be considered 
 to afford evidence of a right claimed by the crown in 
 respect of that prosperity, and was no doubt made 
 with the view of facilitating the exercise of it. Many 
 records are preserved, which shew that this right 
 which the crown possessed over the lands of the 
 
 Cum quis ad Warrantum vocatus fuerit Cliristianus vel Judaeus qui 
 terram non tenuerit in feodo quae capi possit in manum Domini Regis, vel 
 per quam distringi possunt precipiatur vicecomiti quod habeat corpora 
 eorum quia ibi non poterit captio terrae fieri ad valentiam. Judeeus vero 
 nihil proprium habere potest, quia non vivunt sibi ipsis, sed aliis et sic aliis 
 ucquirunt et non sibi ipsis. Bract. Lib. v. cap. 6. s. 6. Mr. Webb suspected 
 the latter part of this passage to be an interpolation; and upon examining 
 a MS. copy of Bracton, in Lincoln’s-inn Library, (No. 136.) he found 
 a confirmation of his conjecture, as the passage is not in the MS. The 
 author has also examined the MS., and finds Mr. Webb’s statement to be 
 correct. Of eight MS. copies of Bracton, in the British Museum, three 
 only have the passage. Mr. Caley, in a paper, « On the Origin of the Jews 
 in England,” read to the Society of Antiquaries in the year 1787, notices 
 tins circumstance ; but adds, “ upon careful examination of the MS., I am 
 inclined to think the reading in the printed copies to be right; since, 
 though, of the eight, three only have this exceptionable part extant; yet, in 
 point of antiquity, these are much to be preferred to the others, in which 
 it is omitted.” The author has also examined the MS. in the British 
 Museum; and, as far as he is able to judge, concurs in opinion with Mr. 
 Caley. In a MS. copy in the University Library at Cambridge, which the 
 author has looked through, the passage does not occur. This copy is, how¬ 
 ever, in many respects imperfect. There are other MS. copies of the same 
 work in this library, but which have not been examined. 
 
93 
 
 of the Jews in England. 
 
 Jews was continually exercised in a most oppressive 
 and arbitrary manner. The king at his pleasure 
 seized their houses and lands. 
 
 Thus it appears by the clause rolls,* that King 
 John, in the 15th year of his reign, granted to the 
 Lord Ferrars, the house of a Jew in St. Margaret s 
 parish, London. And that King Henry the Third, in 
 the 16th year of his reign, granted away the house of 
 a Jew situated in Paternoster-street, London.')' 
 
 Tallages were imposed at the mere will of the 
 king; and payment was enforced by seizing the 
 houses and lands of the Jews, and selling them to the 
 king’s use. Henry the Third, in the 36th year of 
 his reign, having imposed a tax of 3,500 marks upon 
 the Jews, directed that it should be raised by dis¬ 
 training them per terras et tenementa catalla uxores et 
 jilios et omnibus aliis rnodisf And the same monarch, 
 in the 43rd year of his reign, directed that the sum 
 of 500 marks should be raised in the same manner.§ 
 
 So when the king promulgated any fresh regula¬ 
 tions with respect to the Jews, he inforced their ob¬ 
 servance amongst other means by seizure of their 
 
 * Claus. 15 Jno. m. 3. Prynne, Dem. 15. Fa. Rym. Feed. 118. A grant 
 in same year, 15 Jno. of a Jew s house to Thomas de Neville. 
 
 f Claus. 16 Hen. III. m. 7. De domo cujusdam Judsei in London, dato 
 Rico Capellse Dem. 22. And see Fines, 46 Hen. III. m. 14. ib. 7 Hen. IIT. 
 mem.2. p.l. Ebor in Moloy de Jure Maritimo and Claus. 15 Jno. m.13. 
 in ibid. Prynne in his Dem. p. 18. says, “ It appears by many Rolls of 
 the 2, 3, 4 & 5 Hen. III. that king John seised and gave away to others the 
 houses of divers Jews, both in Gloucester, Oxford, and Northampton. And 
 see ib. p.45. 51. and Claus. 50 Hen. III. m. 10. 
 
 J Claus. 36 Hen. III. m. 26. See ante, p. 79, note. 
 
 § Pat. 43 Hen. III. m. 3. 
 
94 
 
 On the Civil Disabilities 
 
 lands. King Henry the Third issued an order, that 
 the wives and children of the Jews should not remove 
 themselves from the towns where they severally 
 resided; and the justices of the Jews were directed 
 to compel obedience to the order, if necessary, by the 
 seizure of the lands and rents of the Jews; and to sell 
 them to the king’s use.* 
 
 Upon the death of a Jew, the king enters upon his 
 estate; and if the wife or children were allowed to 
 take it, it was only upon payment of a heavy fine for 
 the privilege of so doing. Thus, in the 23rd of H. III. 
 the heirs of Samuel the Jew paid the king a fine 
 of 100/. to have the lands of the said Samuel; j' and 
 in the 26th year of the same reign, it appears by the 
 claus. rolls, that Moses, the son of Jacob the Jew, 
 paid a fine to the king for permission to take his 
 father’s lands. J And in the 19th year of Henry the 
 Third, Ursula, the daughter of Hamon, the Jew of 
 Hereford, paid the king 5,000 marks to have the 
 lands, houses, debts and chattels, of her deceased 
 father. § 
 
 In case a Jew desired to convey away his land, he 
 was obliged first to obtain a licence from the crown 
 to do so. Thus it appears from the Patent Rolls, 
 
 * Claus. 29 Hen. III. m. 7. Dem. 35. ‘ 
 
 f Appendix (E). J Claus. 26 Hen. III. m. 2 . 
 
 § See Appendix (E). Prynne, 2 Dem. p. 38, b. mentions many in¬ 
 stances from the Fine Rolls of sums paid to the king by Jews : pro terris et 
 catallis patris eorum ratione relevii regi contigentibus. These fines, or reliefs, 
 will appear most exorbitant, when we remember that, by Magna Charta, the 
 relief of an earl’s son for a whole county was settled at 100/.; of a baron’s 
 heir for a whole barony, at but 100 marks; and no more than 100 shillings 
 was to be paid for a knight’s fee. 
 
95 
 
 of the Jews in England. 
 
 that Edward the first granted a licence to Samuel 
 the Jew of York, to sell his house in London ; and 
 the same monarch also gave a like licence to a Jewess, 
 to sell a garden belonging to her in London. 
 
 Besides these evidences of the power of the crown 
 over the lands of the Jews, as shewing a direct asser¬ 
 tion of the right, there is another circumstance which, 
 taken in conjunction with what has been aheady 
 stated, may be considered to afford a proof that they 
 held their lands at the will of the crown; and it is 
 this, that the rules which applied to this species of 
 property in general, did not operate with regard to 
 their possessions; but where they were permitted to 
 enjoy their estates, their own rules and customs were 
 allowed to prevail and be put in force. Thus in 
 cases where they held lands, the eldest son did not 
 inherit to his father, but all the sons succeeded 
 equally. By the Fine Bolls of Heniy the third, it 
 appears that the king upon a fine paid to him, 
 granted permission to Ursello the son of Hamon, 
 the Jew of Hereford, and to his brother, to inherit 
 the lands of their father* Again, the same king, 
 upon the death of Samuel the Jew, on a fine paid to 
 him, directed that Aaron and Benedictus, sons of Jessei, 
 should be put in possession of the lands of the said 
 Samuel as his heirs.t And in the 26th year of the 
 same king, the justices of the exchequer, were 
 directed to give possession of the land of Jacobs the 
 Jew to Moses and Isaac his two sonsf 
 
 In like manner, the widow of a Jew leceived hei 
 
 * Append. (F). 
 
 t Ibid. 
 
 t Ibid. 
 
96 On the Civil Disabilities 
 
 dower according- to the customs of the Jews, and 
 not in conformity with the general law of the land. 
 Thus, the above mentioned writ, directing possession 
 to be given to the heirs of Samuel the Jew, secures 
 to the widow her dower, secundem legem et consuetu- 
 dinem Judceorum.* 
 
 It is conceived, that sufficient evidence has been 
 now produced to prove, that though the Jews for¬ 
 merly were allowed to hold lands in this country, 
 yet, that they held them at the mere will Of the 
 crown ; and further, that the power which the king- 
 claimed to have over their landed estates was, as 
 with respect to the said property, founded upon the 
 circumstance of their being considered as his villeins 
 or bondsmen. 
 
 It will be proper now to inquire, whether any alte¬ 
 ration was made in the situation of the Jews, with 
 respect to this species of property, by means of any 
 statutory enactment. 
 
 It will be shewn, it is apprehended, that two sta¬ 
 tutes were passed, previously to the expulsion of the 
 Jews, which made a most material change in the law 
 in this respect, inasmuch as the Jews were thereby 
 rendered incapable of taking land, whereas they were 
 before only unable to hold as against the king. 
 
 These statutes, as before observed, were most pro¬ 
 bably exacted from the king, by the nobles and great 
 men of the nation, with a view to their own relief rather 
 
 * If a Jew who was converted to Christianity had previously purchased 
 lands and married a Jewess, she was not allowed her dower. Judams natus 
 in Anglia purchase terre, marry Jewes, il est convert ad Christianitatem, et 
 nemy eb navera dower. Jenks. Co. Litt. Tovey, Angl. Jud. 230 . 
 
97 
 
 of the Jews in England. 
 
 than with any intent of further oppressing the Jews ; 
 inasmuch as the title which the king claimed to the 
 landed, as well as other property of the Jews, mate¬ 
 rially interfered with the rights and immunities of 
 the feudal Jords, by depriving them of their escheats 
 and reliefs. 
 
 The two statutes which made the alteration in the 
 law applicable to this subject were passed, the 1st 
 in the 54th or 55th year of Henry the third, and the 
 other in the 3d year of Edward the first. 
 
 With regard to the latter of these statutes, which 
 is generally known by the title of the statute de 
 Judaismo , no doubt has been entertained as to its 
 authenticity : it has been commented upon by Lord 
 Coke, and by him acknowledged to be a statute, and 
 it is published, as an act of parliament, in the edition 
 of the statutes lately compiled by the order of govern¬ 
 ment. With respect to the statute attributed to the 
 55th year of Henry the third, very considerable objec¬ 
 tions have been raised. It has been denied that any 
 such statute was ever passed; and much argument has 
 been used to prove, that the document supposed to 
 be a statute, was in fact no more than a simple ordi¬ 
 nance of the king. 
 
 Before we enter upon the consideration of these 
 arguments, and of the evidence by which the exist¬ 
 ence of the statute in question is supported, it will be 
 more convenient to point out the general effect and 
 nature of both the acts. 
 
 The 55th of Henry the third declared,* that from 
 thenceforth no Jew should have a freehold in any 
 
 * See Appendix (C). 
 
 H 
 
98 
 
 On the Civil Disabilities 
 
 manors, lands, tenements, rents, or tenures whatso¬ 
 ever, either by charter, gift, feoffment, confirmation, 
 or other grant whatsoever; that it should not be lawful 
 for them to purchase, or by any other method ac¬ 
 quire, any more houses in the city of London than 
 those they then possessed ; but that they might hold, 
 as in time past they were accustomed to hold, houses 
 in the cities, boroughs, and towns where they resided; 
 that, with respect to those lands and tenements in 
 which they were before enfeoffed, and which they 
 then held, such feoffments and grants should be 
 absolutely annulled; and that the said lands anu 
 tenements should return to the Christians who 
 granted the same : but upon condition that the said 
 Christians should make satisfaction to the Jews, 
 without usury, for the money or consideration con¬ 
 tained in the charters, and which was paid by the 
 Jews to the Christians for the said feoffments or 
 grants ; and also upon condition, if the said Clnis- 
 tians could not make immediate satisfaction foi the 
 same, that it might be lawful for the said Jews to 
 make over the said tenements to other Christians, 
 until the consideration paid by them could be raised 
 out of the rents and profits of the said estate, ac¬ 
 cording to its true value, by a reasonable assessment: 
 saving, however, to such Christians, their subsistence. 
 That if a Jew should thereafter happen to receive 
 from any Christian a feoffment, or any fee or tene¬ 
 ment, contrary to the said act, then that the said 
 Jew should absolutely forfeit the said tenement or 
 fee, and the same should be taken into and safely 
 kept in the king’s hands ; and that the Christians, 
 
99 
 
 of the Jews iu England. 
 
 or their heirs, might recover the said lands or tene¬ 
 ments, upon payment to the king of the whole money 
 which they received from the said Jews for such 
 feoffment; or pay yearly to the king the true yearly 
 value of those tenements or fees, according to a just 
 and reasonable assessment, until full satisfaction of 
 the said money or consideration should be made. 
 
 By the statute 3 Edward I. it was further de¬ 
 clared, that no Jews should have power to alienate in 
 fee, either to Jew or Christian, any houses, rents, or 
 tenements, which they had already, or dispose of 
 them in any manner without the king’s special licence; 
 that they should not pay any rent to any but the 
 king or his bailiff in his name, excepting for the 
 houses they then held, rendering rent; that they 
 might be at liberty to purchase houses and curti¬ 
 lages in the cities and boroughs where they resided, 
 provided they held in chief of the king; saving, how¬ 
 ever, to the lords, their due and accustomed services ; 
 that such as were unskilful in merchandize, and could 
 not labour, might 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; and provided also that 
 this power to farm lands should continue in force for 
 fifteen years from the making of the act, and no 
 longer. 
 
 Having now stated the general nature of these 
 several ordinances, let us consider whether or not 
 the first of them, namely, that which is attributed 
 
 * Appendix (D). 
 
 H 2 
 
100 
 
 On the Civil Disabilities 
 
 to the 55th of Henry III. ought to be considered as 
 having had the force of an act of the legislature ; or 
 whether it was not a mere ordinance of the king, 
 promulgated by his sole authority. 
 
 The principal arguments which have been relied 
 upon, to shew that the ordinance in question was not 
 an act of parliament, are, 1 st. that historians make 
 no mention of such an act having been passed ; 2dly, 
 that no such act is contained in any known collection 
 of the statutes, either printed or in manuscript; 3dly, 
 that it is impossible that any act could have been 
 passed at the time to which this is attributed, inas¬ 
 much as no parliament assembled in the reign of 
 Henry III. after the 52d year of his reign : 4thly, 
 that the document which is relied upon as the statute, 
 is evidently, from its form, not an act of parliament, 
 but merely an ordinance of the crown.* 
 
 With respect to the first of these objections, it is 
 to be observed, 1st. that though the silence of his¬ 
 torians might, in the absence of any evidence in 
 favor of the act, raise a suspicion against its authen¬ 
 ticity, yet that it is at most a suspicion, and must 
 immediately give way upon the production of any 
 thing like direct proof; 2dly, that the objection is 
 not of much force, is evident from this fact—that 
 though no doubt exists of the ordinance in question 
 having been issued by the king, (even supposing it 
 was not sanctioned by parliament), yet the same 
 historians who are silent with respect to any Act 
 having been passed, omit equally to make any men¬ 
 tion whatever of the Ordinances. 
 
 * See particularly Mr. Webb’s pamphlet. 
 
101 
 
 of the Jews in England. 
 
 In answer to the second objection, it is to be re¬ 
 marked, that the earliest edition of entire statutes 
 was printed at the latter end of the fifteenth century, 
 and began with the statutes of Edward III. ; that 
 the statutes of Henry III. and Edward I. were not 
 printed entire until the beginning of the sixteenth 
 century ; that there are very few, if any, manuscript 
 collections of statutes, that are not of later date than 
 the reign of Edward I. ; and that no parliamentary 
 records of statutes are known to be extant, prior to 
 the statute 6 Edward I.* As, therefore, the first 
 printed collection of the statutes in which this act 
 could have appeared was not published until two 
 hundred years after the Jews had been banished; 
 and the manuscript collections are also of a date sub¬ 
 sequent to their expulsion, the circumstance of the 
 act not being found in any of the collections, can 
 surely have but little weight; inasmuch as there was 
 no good reason for preserving the transcript of a sta¬ 
 tute which, from the circumstance of the entire 
 absence of the Jews from the country, had become 
 wholly inoperative. 
 
 * The third objection, namely, that no parliament 
 was held after the 52d of Henry 111, would indeed, 
 if founded in fact, be unanswerable: the assertion is, 
 however, not only not supported by any direct au¬ 
 thority, but is clearly most erroneous ; for it appears 
 that a parliament was holden in the year 1270, and 
 another in 1271,t in either of which the ordinance 
 
 * See the Introduction to the parliamentary edition of the Statutes, 
 f It is to be remarked that much doubt has been entertained whether the 
 statutes of Marlebridge were not passed in the 54th year of this reign. The 
 
102 
 
 On the Civil Disabilities 
 
 in question might have been sanctioned.* * This fact 
 is plainly stated in the Annals of Waverley, under 
 the years 1270 and 1271 : this objection also, must 
 therefore be considered to fall to the ground. 
 
 Let us now consider the weight of the 4th objec¬ 
 tion, namely, that the document produced is plainly, 
 from its form, not an act of parliament, but an ordi¬ 
 nance of the king. In answer to this objection, the 
 following authorities will, it is conceived, be sufficient 
 to show that though the instrument in question is 
 indeed in the form of a writ or of letters patent, yet 
 that this circumstance is not in any manner conclu¬ 
 sive against its authority, as an act of parliament. 
 
 In the introduction to the parliamentary edition of 
 the Statutes lately published, the learned compilers 
 of that work state that, “ it has been observed by 
 Lord Coke, 2nd Institute 525, that acts of parlia¬ 
 ment are many times in the form of writs and let¬ 
 ters patent,” and they add that, “ many such have 
 been inserted in all editions of the Statutes.”t 
 
 Lord Coke, in 2nd Institute, p. 639, in his Expo- 
 
 commencement of the act states it to be of the 52d year; but the ninth 
 chapter states that thirty-nine years and a half had then passed since the 
 first voyage of the king into Brittany, whieh was in April, 1230, and would 
 make the time 1269 or 1270, the 54th of Henry III. In the continuation 
 of the history of Matthew Paris, under the year 1269, it is stated, “ Hoc 
 anno Rex Anglise in octavis Sancti Martini parliamentum tenuit apud 
 Marlber. in quo de assensu comitum et baronum edita sunt statuta, qua de 
 Marlberwe vocantur.” 
 
 * Henry III. commenced his reign in the autumn of the year, conse¬ 
 quently part of the 55th year of his reign was in each of the years 1770 and 
 1771. 
 
 t Page 31. See also Prince’s Cases, 8 Co. Rep. 13.. 
 
103 
 
 of the Jews in England. 
 
 sition on the statute 18 Edw. 3. c. 7, respecting 
 tithes, notices that objections had been taken to it 
 as an act of parliament, because it was in the form 
 of letters patent, viz. “ That it should be no act of 
 parliament, but an ordinance made by the king only 
 at the request of the prelates ; and that the king to 
 these letters had put his seal, and the test and date 
 as done by the king onlyand he then goes on and 
 shews, from other evidence, that notwithstanding the 
 form in which the document is drawn up, yet that 
 it was, in fact, an act of the legislature. 
 
 The cause of many statutes being extant in this 
 form only, will be understood from the account 
 that is given in the preface to the statutes, to 
 which allusion has already been made, of the mode 
 in which acts of parliament were formerly framed. 
 The statement is as follows : “ the statute was 
 penned by the king, and a council of judges, and 
 others who were called in to assist therein ; the usual 
 time for making a statute was after the end of every 
 parliament; and after the parliament roll was en¬ 
 grossed, except in some extraordinary cases, the 
 statute was drawn out of the petition and answer, 
 and penned in the form of the law. The statute 
 being thus drawn out, it was shewn to the king, and 
 upon his Majesty’s approbation thereof, it was en¬ 
 grossed, sometimes with a preamble to it, and a clause 
 obsevvavi volumus at the conclusion, and sometimes 
 without any preamble at all, and then by writs sent 
 into every county to be proclaimed. 
 
 Having now disposed of the objections which have 
 been raised against the act in question, it remains to 
 be enquired what evidence there is in support of it. 
 
104 
 
 On the Civil Disabilities 
 
 First, it appears from the records in the Tower, as 
 given in the parliamentary edition of Rymer’s Foedera 
 lately published, that writs or letters patent, similar 
 to the one given in the Appendix, were, in the fifty- 
 fifth year of Henry the third, sent to the sheriffs of 
 all the different counties. That writs in this form 
 and to this effect, therefore, were issued at the time 
 at which the act is said to have been passed, is 
 no longer a matter of doubt.* Let us, therefore, 
 examine whether these instruments bear any in¬ 
 ternal evidence that they were issued for the pur¬ 
 pose of promulgating an act of parliament; or whe¬ 
 ther, on the other hand, they appear to have been 
 simple ordinances of the king. Now that these in¬ 
 struments were not, in fact, simple ordinances of the 
 king, but really rested their authority on an act of 
 the legislature, is plain from the language in which 
 they are framed. They commence as follows: 
 “ Henricus dei Gratiae Rex Angliee, &c. Delictis 
 et fidelibus vicecomitibus, &c. Sciatis, quod, ad 
 Honorem dei, &c. Providimus , de consilio Prcelato- 
 rum , Magnatum , et Procerum, quisunt de concilio nostro , 
 ac etiam ordinavimus et statuirnus pro Nobis et Heere- 
 dibus, nostris quod nullus Judaeus liberum tenemen- 
 tum habeat in maneriis, 8c c. Again they proceed 
 
 * The document in question was first discovered by Dr.Tovey in the 
 Bodleian Library ; and much suspicion has been thrown upon the autlien- 
 1 1 city of the instrument, fiom the circumstance of its not being known to be 
 in existence anywhere else. This objection is now done away with, as it 
 appears, as mentioned in the text, that a transcript is preserved in the Tower. 
 A copy is also given in Lord Hale’s MSS. vol.cxiii. p. 619, from the Patent 
 Rolls, 5 Hen. III. m.10. Lord Hale’s MSS. are in Lincoln’s Inn Library. 
 And see also the Cottonian MSS. in the British Museum, tit. Vespasian, 
 
 p. 281. 
 
105 
 
 of the Jews in England. 
 
 “ Providimus etiam et statuimus de eodem concilio nostro 
 quod de domibus suis, &c.” and “ De terris autem 
 et tenuris de quibus Judaei, ante prcesens statutum 
 feofati fuerunt, &c.” again, “ Si contingat Judaeum 
 aliquod feofamentum recipere, &c. contra presens sta¬ 
 tutum, &c.” And then they conclude as follows : 
 “ Et ideo vobis prcecipimus firmiter ingungentes, quod 
 provisionem ordinationem et statutum praedictum, pub- 
 lice et per totam ballivam vestram, camaii et firmiter 
 teneri et observari faciatis.” 
 
 It will be observed that the ordering part of this 
 instrument; that is the only part in which the king 
 speaks in his own person, is, as one would expect 
 to find it, in the present tense, “ prcecipimus , &c.” We 
 command you to see this statute observed ; whereas 
 the whole of the rest of the instrument is in the past 
 tense, “ Providimus ordinavimus et statuimus we 
 have provided, ordained and enacted. Now surely this 
 is not the form in which the instrument would have 
 run, if the authority of the ordinance rested upon 
 the simple will of the king; but it would have run 
 thus, we hereby do provide, ordain and enact. It is clear, 
 therefore, that the instrument has reference to some 
 provisions and enactments which had been previously 
 made, and the words of the document itself shew 
 how made; namely, by the counsel of the “prelates, 
 nobles, and great men who are of our council.” The 
 prelates, nobles, and great men here spoken of, were 
 merely of the king’s privy council; but this assertion is 
 contradicted by the ordinance which was made by their 
 advice being termed, throughout the writ, a statute, 
 statutum, which word would not have been applied 
 
106 On the Civil Disabilities 
 
 to an act done simply by the king and his privy 
 council. Moreover, it appears from the authority of 
 Lord Coke, that the words concilium regis were 
 often applied to the great council of the nation or 
 the parliament.* In his exposition of the articuli 
 cleri, 2 Inst. 624, commenting on the words Per 
 concilium domini regis used in that statute, he says, 
 “ there concilium domini regis is taken for commune 
 concilium regni, as it is termed in original writs and 
 in other legal records ; and so it is taken in other acts 
 of parliament, and in the preamble of this act also, 
 where it is said ac nuper parliamento nostro apud Lin¬ 
 coln , fyc. et corcim concilio nostro It is submitted, 
 therefore, that the form of this instrument clearly 
 shews, that it was not a simple ordinance of the king 
 any further than in the direction which it gave to 
 see the provisions contained in it observed ; but it 
 was intended to promulgate a law which had been 
 otherwise enacted ; — the circumstance of that law 
 being stated to have been made by the counsel 
 of the prelates, great men and nobles of the council; 
 and the word statutum being applied throughout to 
 the enactments, shew clearly that the ordinances re¬ 
 ceived the sanction of legislative authority. 
 
 In addition to the internal evidence to be derived 
 from these instruments, strong presumptive proof is 
 also afforded by the provisions of the statute 3 Edw. I. 
 
 * The form of the stat. of Acton Burnel, 11 Edw. I. is as follows :—“ Le 
 Rei par luy e par son conseil ad ordine e etabli qe,” &c. In the stat. of 
 Merchants, 13 Edw. I. this Ordinance is clearly spoken of as a Statute. u Le 
 lley par lay e par sun conseil a sun parkmerit que il tint a Acton Burnel le 
 an de son regne unizme fut e orclina.” 
 
107 
 
 of the Jews in England. 
 
 of this act, or some one to a like effect having been 
 previously passed. The statute 3 Edw. I. grants 
 permission to the Jews to take lands to farm for any 
 term not exceeding ten years; provided that such 
 power to farm lands should not continue in force for 
 more than fifteen years after the passing of the act. 
 Now, it is plain, that if no act had been in existence, 
 restraining Jews from taking lands, there would have 
 been no necessity for this permission. And further, 
 can it be doubted, that as the legislature were care¬ 
 ful to restrain the Jews from taking lands to farm for 
 more than ten years, they would, unless some law 
 to that effect had already existed, have gone on to 
 enact, that they should not take any lands in fee.t 
 
 There is another circumstance which goes a great 
 way to prove that the statute in cjuestion was passed, 
 namely, that though the Jews without doubt, pre¬ 
 viously to the time when it is said that it was made, 
 held lands here. Yet it would seem, that at the time 
 of their banishment, about twenty years afterwards, 
 they did not possess any land whatever; for out of 
 about a hundred grants of the property which es¬ 
 cheated to the king upon their expulsion, which are 
 preserved to us*, there is not mention made of one 
 
 * The same statute also prohibits the Jews from alienating in fee any 
 houses, rents, or tenements which they had already purchased. If they had 
 been capable of holding lands, it cannot be surely conjectured why the pro¬ 
 hibition did not extend to restrain the alienation of them also. 
 
 + See Rot. Original. 20 Edw. I. Parliamentary Edit. p. 73, 74, 75. All 
 these grants are de domibus illis cum pertinentiis, in different towns, with 
 the exception of one or two instances of ground in the neighbourhood of 
 cities, stated to have been burying grounds. In the Lansdowne MS. ccxv. 
 is the copy of a writ of 19 Edw. I. to certain persons, to set a value upon, 
 
108 
 
 On the Civil Disabilities 
 
 single acre of land ; all the grants apply to houses 
 and tenements in cities, which, it will be borne in 
 mind, they were by the provisions of the act, per¬ 
 mitted to hold. 
 
 If sufficient has not already been stated to shew 
 that these ordinances had the force of legislative 
 enactments, still it is conceived, that the record 
 about to be noticed must be admitted, to afford di¬ 
 rect proof of their having been formerly recognized 
 as a statute. In a suit instituted on behalf of the 
 crown, in 9th Ed w. I., the pleadings in which are given 
 in the parliamentary edition of the placita de quo war¬ 
 ranto (p.815), the king claimed certain lands as his es¬ 
 cheat, because they were formerly in the seizin of a 
 Jew; and in answer to this demand, it is pleaded, that 
 the king could have no escheat of the lands, because 
 the fees of the Jews were abolished by a statute 
 made in the time of Henry the Third. The words 
 of this record are as follows : 
 
 “ Dominus Rex, per Will, de Gizelham, qui se- 
 quitur pro eo, alias ad placita corone, petiit, versus 
 Walt, de Kancia, unum messuagium: sexaginta acras 
 teirse, duas acras prati, et viginiti octo solidi, reddi- 
 tus cum pertinensiis in Drayton in Com. Suth. ut jus 
 et escheatam suam; eo quod quidem Benedictus de 
 Winton, Judaeus, fuit inde seisitus, ut de feodo, die, 
 quo tenementa ilia dimisit cuidam Jacobo Cok, te- 
 
 and sell the possessions of the exiled Jews. In this writ, the words house 
 and tenements are used; no mention is made of any lands. Per omnibus, 
 &c. Cum assign, dilectum nostrum H. de Kendal ad domos redditus et 
 tenementa quae fuerunt Judaeorum nostrorum in Angliam appretienda, 
 extendenda et vendenda, &c. 
 
109 
 
 of the Jews in England 
 
 nend. ad voluntatem ipsius Judsei: sic patitur in pla- 
 citis corone, per presentationem hundred, de Sal- 
 Ion in Com. Suth. 
 
 “ Et Wallerius venit, et alias vocat inde, ad war¬ 
 rant. Jacob. Cok., qui modo venit per sum. et ei 
 warrant, et dicit quod predictus Benedictus Ju¬ 
 daeus, aliquo tempore, fuit seisitus, de predicto tene- 
 mento, ut de feodo. Et dicit quod, eo tempore, 
 dimisit ipse predictum tenementum, ipsi Jacobo, in 
 in feodo. Unde precise dicit, quod postquam feoda 
 Judceorum aholita fuerunt, per statutum Domini Hen- 
 rici Reg 'is patris domini Regi. Nunc, predictus Ju¬ 
 daeus nunquam aliquid habuit, in tenemento predicto, 
 per quod tenementum illud possit esse escheata Do¬ 
 mini Regi. Et de hoc ponit se super patriam. Et 
 Will, de Gizelham scilicet. Preceptum est Vic. 
 Suth. quod veniri fac. apud Exon, in octob. Sancti 
 Martin, xii. et per quos, etc.” 
 
 In these pleadings then, direct reference is made 
 to a statute passed in the time of Henry the Third, 
 by which the power of the Jews to hold lands was 
 taken away : both in substance and date this accords 
 with the ordinances in question ; and as no other sta¬ 
 tute, of a similar effect, is any where stated to have 
 been passed, it may be safely assumed, that it was 
 these ordinances upon which it was intended as a 
 statute to rely. 
 
 Again, in the pleadings in a suit in the 19th year 
 of Edward the Second, reference would seem also 
 to be made to these ordinances, although the refer¬ 
 ence in this case is not so distinct as in the case just 
 mentioned In this suit, it appears that a lease had 
 
110 
 
 On the Civil Disabilities 
 
 been made to two Jews. One of the counsel, to shew 
 the invalidity of this lease, pleads that “ de leur 
 tenants il avoit certain ley ordeyne,” &c. of their 
 tenants (i. e. the Jews,) a certain law was ordained ; 
 and the judge then says, “la Jewrie est defet, et la 
 ley ordeyne sur ceo aussi defet” — Judaism is a de¬ 
 fect, and the law also upon it ordains a defect.* 
 
 Assuming that enough has now been said to shew 
 that the ordinances in question ought to be considered 
 to have had the force of legislative enactments, then 
 by force of these ordinances, and of the statute of 
 18 Edw. 1., the state of the law with respect to the 
 Jews at the time of their banishment stood thus : — 
 they were incapable of taking any lands or tenements 
 in fee,—and in case they should have any conveyance 
 made to them of any lands or tenements, the same 
 was to be taken into the king’s hands, who was to 
 hold the same, subject to be redeemed by the Chris¬ 
 tian, upon payment to the king of the whole purchase 
 money receive—they were at liberty to purchase 
 houses in the cities where they resided, provided 
 they held in chief of the king, but could not alienate 
 their houses without the king’s special licence; but 
 it would appear to have prohibited the purchase of 
 any more houses in the city of London than those 
 which they already held. 
 
 The situation of the Jews, and the nature and 
 extent of their disabilities, prior to their banishment, 
 having been pointed out, it remains to be considered 
 what is the present state of the law as regards them. 
 
 * Appendix (H). 
 
Ill 
 
 of the Jews i/i England. 
 
 If the supposition which has been advanced be cor¬ 
 rect, namely, that the disabilities under which the 
 Jews formerly laboured, (independently of their title 
 to land,) arose entirely out of the circumstance of 
 their standing in the relation of villeins or serfs to 
 the king, there can, it is apprehended, be no ground 
 for asserting that they are, in this respect, under any 
 disabilities at the present day, owing to the former 
 state of the law; for it can never be contended that 
 they are at present the villeins of the king. Any 
 restraints, therefore, which now attach upon them, 
 must be the effect of some more recent provisions. 
 As far as regards their general rights of property, (as 
 distinguished from their right to hold or take real 
 estates), no law whatever has been passed, which has 
 reference to them, more particularly than to other 
 persons ; and as to those rights, therefore, they are 
 on an equality with the rest of the nation. 
 
 But though there are no existing impediments in 
 this respect, the Jews nevertheless labour under very 
 considerable disabilities, as to their capacity to fill a 
 great variety of offices and duties. These disabilities 
 are occasioned by the necessity which the law im¬ 
 poses upon persons filling those duties and offices, to 
 take the Oath of Abjuration, as finally settled by the 
 6th of Geo. III., and to make the Declaration sub¬ 
 stituted in the place of the Sacramental Test, by the 
 statute 9 Geo. IV. Both the Oath of Abjuration and 
 the Declaration contain the words, “ upon the true 
 faith of a Christian,” and of course, therefore, can¬ 
 not be subscribed to by a Jew. The offices and 
 duties from which Jews are excluded, by the neces- 
 
112 
 
 On the Civil Disabilities 
 
 sity of subscribing either to the Oath or the Declara¬ 
 tion, will be best understood by pointing out the 
 cases in which either the Oath or the Declaration, or 
 both, are required. The Declaration* and the Oath 
 of Abjurationf are both required from all persons 
 holding any office, civil or military, or any place of 
 emolument or trust under the crown. The Oath of 
 Abjuration, but not the Declaration, must be taken 
 by all persons filling offices in either of the Universi¬ 
 ties of Oxford or Cambridge ,\ and by all members 
 of colleges there that are on the foundation, or enjoy 
 any exhibition ; also by all persons teaching in those 
 Universities or elsewhere, by all Schoolmasters and 
 Ushers, by Serjeants at law, Barristers, Attorneys, 
 Solicitors, Proctors, or Notaries, or Clerks practising 
 in any of the courts of law in England ; by all High 
 and Chief Constables,§ by all persons voting at elec¬ 
 tions for members of parliament,|| and by all Mem¬ 
 bers of either house of Parliament.The Declara¬ 
 tion, but not the Abjuration Oath, is required from all 
 persons who shall fill any office, or be employed in 
 any Corporation. 
 
 With respect to those cases in which the Oath of 
 Abjuration alone is required, (as it is, in most cases, 
 not demanded before admission, and six months time 
 after entering upon the office is, by the acts, allowed 
 for taking the oathA the annual act of indemnity 
 generally affords a protection; but with regard to 
 
 * 25 Ch. II. c. 2. 9 Geo. IV. c. 17. 
 
 f 1 Geo. I. st. 2. c.13. s. 2. 2 Geo. II. c. 31. 9 Geo. II. c. 26. 6 Geo. 
 
 III. c. 53. 
 
 t lb. 
 
 || 6 Ann. c. 23. s. 13. 
 
 § lb. 
 
 IT 1 Geo. I. c.13. 6 Geo. III. c.53. 
 
113 
 
 of the Jews in England. 
 
 cases where the Declaration is required, it is a total 
 bar to entering upon any office, as by the statute 
 9 Geo. 4. it is required to be taken before admission.* 
 In addition to these disabilities which the neces¬ 
 sity of taking the oath, and of subscribing to the de¬ 
 claration impose upon the Jews, it is imagined by 
 some persons, that they are still subjected to the 
 penalties from which it was the object of the Act of 
 Toleration, of the first of William and Mary to afford 
 relief. These penalties were imposed, by certain 
 statutes, passed in the time of Elizabeth, and James 
 the First, upon persons refusing or neglecting to at¬ 
 tend divine service in churches, or some other places 
 of common prayer. The Toleration Act, which was 
 entitled “ An Act for exempting their majesties’ 
 Protestant subjects dissenting from the church of Eng¬ 
 land, from the penalties of certain laws,” enacted 
 
 * The statute of 9 Geo. IV., which was passed for the purpose of afford¬ 
 ing relief to Dissenters, and certainly not with any reference to the Jews, 
 has, in fact, placed persons of this latter persuasion in a much worse con¬ 
 dition than they were before. The Declaration was substituted in place of 
 the sacramental test, in cases where that was previously necessary : by 
 the statutes requiring the Sacramental Test, six months after entering upon 
 the office was allowed for taking the sacrament, and the Annual Indemnity 
 Bill, in fact, relieved in all cases where the Test was required. The stat. 
 9 Geo. IV., instead of allowing six months , after entering on the office (for 
 the Declaration being made), requires that it should be taken before entering 
 upon the situation, and it therefore operates as a total exclusion of Jews 
 from any office where it is necessary. The Act, however, contains an ex¬ 
 ception, in favour of persons taking office under the crown; six months 
 being allowed to them to take the oath. And naval officers, below the 
 rank of rear-admiral, and military officers, below the rank of major- 
 general, are excepted from the act; as are also commissioners of the cus • 
 toms, excise, stamps, or taxes, and all persons holding office under them, 
 or under the postmaster-general. 
 
 I 
 
114 On the Civil Disabilities 
 
 that neither any of the abovementioned acts ot 
 Elizabeth or James, or any other law or statute, 
 made against Popish recusants, except the Test Act 
 and acts requiring oaths from members of parliament, 
 should be construed to extend to any person or per¬ 
 sons dissenting from the church of England, who 
 would take the oath of allegiance and supremacy, 
 and make the declaration against transubstantiation ; 
 and that all and every the person and persons that 
 should take the said oaths, and make the said decla¬ 
 ration, should be free from any pains, and penalties, 
 and forfeitures, mentioned in another act of Queen 
 Elizabeth, and in an act of 22 Charles 2.— By the 
 seventeenth clause, it was enacted that the Act, or 
 any thing therein contained, should not extend, or be 
 construed to extend, to give any ease, benefit, or ad¬ 
 vantage, to any Papist or Popish Recusant, or to any 
 person that should deny in his preaching or writing, 
 the doctrine of the Trinity, as declared in the thirty- 
 nine articles.—By the statute 53 Geo. 3. c. 160. so 
 much of the Toleration Act of William and Mary as 
 provides that it should not extend, or be construed 
 to extend, to give any ease, benefit, or advantage, to 
 persons denying the Trinity, as therein mentioned is 
 repealed. 
 
 The reason upon which it has been contended 
 that the act of first of William and Mary, as ex¬ 
 tended by 53 Geo. 3. does not afford relief to the 
 Jews is this, that the act of first William and Mary, 
 was intended for the relief of Protestant Dissenters 
 only, and that therefore, Jews cannot come within its 
 operation. This supposition is founded on the words 
 
315 
 
 of the Jews in England. 
 
 of the title of the act, which are “ An Act for exempt¬ 
 ing his majesty’s Protestant subjects dissenting from 
 the church of England from the penalties of certain 
 laws.” Upon reference, however, to the statute, it 
 will be found that the words “ Protestant Dissenters” 
 are not used in the enacting parts of the statute (ap¬ 
 plicable to the question) ; its operation, therefore, 
 unless controlled by the title, would be sufficient to 
 comprehend all persons dissenting from the church 
 of England, excepting such as deny the Trinity, 
 whether Protestant Dissenters or not. The whole 
 question therefore must turn upon this, whether the 
 intention of the act is to be considered as controlled 
 by the wording of the title ; for if not, then the act 
 as extended by this statute of 53 Geo. 3. is applic¬ 
 able to Jews as well as to all other dissenters. The 
 following opinion of Lord Hardwicke will, it is con¬ 
 ceived, be sufficient to shew that it ought not to be 
 so considered, inasmuch as it is a general rule that 
 the operation of a statute is not to be controlled, by 
 the wording of its title. The learned judge, in com¬ 
 menting upon the statute of Mortmain, 9 Geo. 3. 
 said “ I think the intent of the act is taken up much 
 too short; for the title is no part of the act, and has 
 often been determined not to be so ; nor ought it to 
 be taken into consideration in the construction of 
 this act, for originally there were no titles to the 
 acts, but only a petition and the king’s answer, and 
 the judges thereupon drew up the act into form, and 
 then added the title ; and such title was only a 
 direction to find it out by amongst the Rolls of Par- 
 
 i 2 
 
116 
 
 On the Civil Disabilities 
 
 liament, and at this day the title does not pass the 
 same forms as the rest of the act; only the Speaker, 
 after the act is passed, mentions the title and puts 
 the question upon it: therefore the meaning of this 
 act is not to be inferred from the title, but we must 
 consider the act itself. * 
 
 But further, it would appear, from the pro¬ 
 visions of the seventeenth section of the act of 
 William and Mary, that the legislature at the time 
 it was passed, conceived that the words of the 
 title were not sufficient of themselves, so to con- 
 troul the operation of the statute as necessarily 
 to confine it to Protestant Dissenters ; because, the 
 words of this section declare, that “ nothing therein 
 contained shall extend to the relief of Papists or 
 Popish Recusants”—a provision which would not have 
 been necessary if the controlling force of the title 
 of the act had been acknowledged. It is conceived 
 therefore, that there is no good ground for the sup¬ 
 position that the Jews are not within the operation 
 
 of the act of Toleration.”t 
 
 The whole of the legal disabilities under which 
 the Jews now labour, (independently of the question 
 as to their power to hold landed property) have, it is 
 believed, been pointed out; unless, indeed, the pro¬ 
 visions of the statute of Anne, by which they were 
 
 * Ambler’s Rep. Second Edit. p. 22. in the case of Attorney-General v. 
 Lord Weymouth. 
 
 f This subject is very cleverly treated by Mr. Goldsmid in his Pamphlet; 
 where the same opinion, as to the operation of the Act, which is contended 
 for in the text, is ably maintained, but upon somewhat different grounds 
 from those here advanced. 
 
117 
 
 of the Jews in England. 
 
 compelled to provide for their children who may be 
 converted to Christianity, is to be considered as im¬ 
 posing a disability upon them.* 
 
 There is, however, one peculiarity in the law with 
 respect to the Jews which remains to be mentioned, 
 namely, that they are excluded from the operation of 
 the marriage act, and therefore all their marriages are 
 celebrated according to the rites of their own reli¬ 
 gion. The legality of marriages so solemnized, has 
 been often recognized ; and if any question arises 
 upon them, it is determined by the Jewish law, 
 
 * See ante, p. 73. A Jew’s daughter turned protestant; the Jew died, 
 leaving several legacies in charities, and Iris personal estate to his executor, 
 but nothing to his daughter. The daughter petitioned Lord Chancellor 
 Parker for maintenance under this act; it was objected that she was forty- 
 five years old, and so the care of her education was over ; secondly, that she 
 was married, and therefore to be provided for by her husband ; thirdly, that 
 the parent was dead, and therefore could not be said to refuse to provide for 
 her. But the Lord Chancellor said, he inclined strongly to think the case 
 within the act for the reasons he stated, and possibly the charities given by 
 the will might be under some secret trust for the child, if she should turn 
 Jew, and therefore sent it to the Master for an inquiry. Vincent v. Fer¬ 
 nandez, 1 P. Wms. 524. Vin. Abr. tit. Jew. sect. 12. It does uot appear, 
 that any order was, however, made in the above cause.—The Court of 
 Chancery will not interfere with the education of the children of Jew s, far¬ 
 ther than is required by the statute. See Villareal v. Mellish, 2 Swanst. 538. 
 And a Jew may devise the guardianship of his children, under the statute 
 of 12 Car. II. c. 24. Ibid.—In the above-mentioned case of Villareal 
 v. Mellish (Chancery, March, 1737), The daughter and widow of a 
 Jew, having agreed with her father that he should have the care of 
 the persons and estates of her infant children, and, in the event of their 
 death during minority, receive a moiety of their property, and having ab¬ 
 jured Judaism and married a Christian, on the petition of the children, 
 the Court ordered that they should be delivered to their mother, guardian¬ 
 ship not being assignable; the agreement not purporting to be an assign¬ 
 ment, and the right of the mother to be guardian continuing, notwithstanding 
 her second marriage. 
 
3 18 
 
 On the Civil Disabilities 
 
 whicli is ascertained in the same way as a foreign 
 law, by the testimony of its professors.* 
 
 Before concluding the present brancli of this trea¬ 
 tise, it should be noticed that as the law now stands, 
 the Jewish religion seems to a certain extent to be 
 considered illegal. For it has been decided, that a 
 legacy cannot be supported which is given to establish 
 a Jesuba lor the instruction of Jews in their religion,'}' 
 or to maintain a synagogue.^ It is, however, no ob¬ 
 jection to a charitable bequest, that the objects to be 
 benefited are Jews.§ And in a late case,|| where an 
 action was brought, an objection taken on the behalf 
 of the defendant, that such an establishment was 
 contrary to law, was overruled by the present Lord 
 Tenterden then Mr. Justice Abbot. And on a very 
 
 See Roper (Husband and \\ ite), Addenda by Mr. Jacob, vol.ii. p. 476. 
 See Lindo v. Belisario, 1 Hagg. Cons. Rep. 216. Anciently it was felony 
 for a Christian, either man or woman, to marry a Jew, and the party offend¬ 
 ing was to be burned alive. Coke, 3 Inst. 89. Fleta, lib. i. cap. 35. 
 
 t Da Costa v. De Paz, Ambler’s Rep. 228. And see per Lord Eldon, in 
 re the Masters of the Bedford Charity, 2 Swanst. Rep. p. 522. 
 
 1 Isaac v. Gompertz, Ambler’s Rep. 2d edit. p. 228. note (1). 
 
 § See lb. in which case an annuity of 20/. to be given away every new year’s 
 day among poor Jews, and an annuity of 30/. for teaching and instructing ten 
 poor Jews’ children in London, were supported. In the same case, an annuity 
 of 40/,, given to the gabas of a synagogue in London was established, the 
 Master having certified that the gabas are persons, annually chosen by those 
 frequenting the synagogue, as treasurers of the synagogue; they collect the 
 annual subscription for the support of the poor Jews belonging to the 
 synagogue ; it is their duty to apply the money received by them in payment 
 of the expenses of the synagogue, and in the maintenance of poor Jews and 
 their families; that they may not become a burden to the parish in which they 
 reside. The parties were directed to lay a.scheme before the Master for the 
 expenditure of the annuity.—It has been decided that Jews are not entitled 
 to the benefit of the Bedford charity. 2 Swanst. 470. 
 
 || Israel v. Simmonds, 2 Starkie, p. 356. S. C. 3 Meriv. p. 393. n . (a). 
 
of the Jews in England. 110 
 
 recent occasion, where the right of electing the vicar 
 of a parish was vested in the parishioners, it is under¬ 
 stood that Lord Eldon was of opinion that Jews were 
 entitled to vote in the election, but that Roman Ca¬ 
 tholics were not.* * * § 
 
 It seems formerly to have been doubted whether a 
 Jew could be a good witness.! This doubt is how¬ 
 ever now exploded, and the testimony of a Jew is 
 admitted, on his being sworn upon the Old Testa¬ 
 ment. J 
 
 By the bye-laws of the city of London, Jews were 
 unable to take up their livery or freedom in that 
 city. § 
 
 We come now to consider whether the Jews, at 
 the present day, are disabled either from taking, or 
 from holding lands. Now, as it is certain that no 
 impediments on this head are imposed by any enact¬ 
 ments made, subsequently to the time of the banish¬ 
 ment of the Jews, in the 18th of Edward the First, 
 the question of their capacity at this day must depend 
 entirely upon the present operation and effect of the 
 laws which were then in force. If it be determined 
 
 * Edenborough v. Bishop of Canterbury, 2 Russ. 11. \ 
 
 f See Hale’s Pleas of the Crown, vol. ii. p. 279. 1 Atk. Rep. 24. 
 
 J Omychund v. Baker, 1 Atk. 44. Facinu v. Sabine, 2 Stra. 1104. So a 
 Jewis sy'Orn, to an answer put in by him in Chancery upon the Pentateuch. 
 Anon. 1 Vern. p. 263. 
 
 § In the city of London there are twelve Jew brokers, who are licensed 
 by the Court of Aldermen. They are generally allowed to transfer then- 
 privilege, upon payment of a fine to the Lord Mayor ; but, in case of 
 death, the appointment falls into the city, and is disposed of by them. It 
 has been decided, that the place of Jew broker is not saleable under a com¬ 
 mission of bankrupt. Ambler’s Rep. p.188. 
 
120 
 
 On the Civil Disabilities 
 
 that the ordinances of 55 H. 3. were not of legisla¬ 
 tive authority, and that the stat. de Judaismo is not 
 in force, then it is apprehended, that the Jews are 
 now under no disabilities in this particular—because, 
 independently of those several ordinances, their 
 former incapacity, as has been shewn, rested merely 
 upon the fact of their being the serfs or villeins of 
 the king. And, as previously observed, it cannot be 
 contended that they are to be considered at the pre¬ 
 sent day as standing in that situation. The only ma¬ 
 terial question therefore is, whether the above men¬ 
 tioned ordinances of 55 H. 3. and the act de Judaismo, 
 are now in force. This must depend upon the simple 
 fact, whether they have been repealed by any sub¬ 
 sequent act of the legislature. Because, if they were 
 formerly in force by legislative sanction, then thev 
 cannot have been abrogated by any thing short of 
 the same power. As regards the stat. 55 H. 3., it is 
 not surmised by any one, that any statute has passed, 
 which has had the effect of operating as a direct re¬ 
 peal of its provisions. It is, however, supposed, that 
 the legislature has indirectly recorded its apprehen¬ 
 sion, that no impediments exist to Jews holding 
 lands; and it is therefore contended, that the ordi¬ 
 nances in question cannot now be considered in force. 
 
 In the 9th year of Geo. 1. an act was passed, 
 having for object the registration of the landed estates 
 of the Popish Recusants: the registration was to be 
 inforced against all persons who refused to take a 
 particular oath , this oath contained the words Ci upon 
 the faith of a Christian.” In the 10th year of Geo. 1. 
 another act was passed, to amend and explain the 
 
121 
 
 of the Jews in England. 
 
 provisions of the last mentioned statute, and amongst 
 other amendments, enabled the Jews, in case they 
 were called upon to take the oath, to omit the words 
 “ upon the faith of a Christian.” It is said, that 
 these two acts were intended to operate solely with 
 respect to real property, and that therefore they 
 afford evidence of the apprehension of the legisla¬ 
 ture, that the Jews were capable of holding landed 
 estates. 
 
 In answer to the arguments which are founded 
 upon the operation of these two acts of 9 Geo. 1. and 
 10 Geo. 1. it may be remarked, in the first place, that 
 a prior statute can never be 7'epealed by a mere con¬ 
 structive inference of the understanding of the legis¬ 
 lature, drawn from the wording of a subsequent act 
 of parliament;—and secondly, that the inference upon 
 which the argument is founded does not, in fact, ne¬ 
 cessarily arise ; because, under the statute of 55 H. 3. 
 the Jews were, as it will be remembered, capable of 
 holding houses in cities, which, as they are real 
 estate, are sufficient to satisfy the words of these 
 later acts, even supposing it to be clear that the Jews 
 could not hold a single acre of land. It is conceived, 
 therefore, that the statutes in question had no effect 
 upon the operation and force of the act of the 55th 
 of Henry the Third. 
 
 There is another statute which has also been referred 
 to for the purpose of proving, that the legislature 
 have acknowledged the right of the Jews to hold 
 lands. This statute was passed in the 13th of George 
 the Second, and enacted, that all persons born out 
 of his majesty’s legiance, who should reside seven 
 
122 
 
 On the Civil Disabilities 
 
 years in the American colonies, and take the Oath of 
 Abjuration, See., should be deemed natural-born sub¬ 
 jects, to all intents and 'purposes as if they had been 
 born within the kingdom; and in cases of Jews avail¬ 
 ing themselves of the act, the words “ on the true faith 
 of a Christian” were to be omitted, out of the Abjura¬ 
 tion Oath. It is contended that, under the words of 
 this act, a Jew who complies with its provisions is 
 capable of holding land, as one of the consequences 
 of being deemed a natural-born subject to “ all intents 
 and purposes whatsoever —and, assuming this to be 
 the true construction of the act, it is then insisted, 
 that the legislature when they passed it, must have 
 apprehended that the native Jews were capable of 
 holding lands in this country. This conclusion is 
 probably arrived at by contending, that if the native 
 Jew was not capable of holding land, then an incon¬ 
 ceivable anomaly would have been introduced by 
 the new act into the law, inasmuch, as it enabled 
 a foreign Jew, by a short residence in the colonies, 
 to acquire a right, which, native-born Jews not only 
 do not possess, but which as the act applies only to 
 foreigners, they are incapable of acquiring. With 
 respect to this mode of reasoning, it is to be observed, 
 that the assumption of the construction contended 
 for is what alone introduces the difficulty; because 
 if the intention of the legislature were to place the 
 foreign only in the same situation as the native Jew, 
 no difficulty would arise: and that this last is the 
 true construction of the intention of the legislature, 
 is supported by very high authority. Mr. Justice 
 Black stone seems clearly to have been of this opi- 
 
123 
 
 of the Jews in England. 
 
 nion. Speaking of the privileges which the persons 
 availing themselves of this act acquire, he says — 
 
 “ They therefore are admissible to all other privileges 
 which Protestants or Jews born in this kingdom are 
 entitled to. What those privileges are, with respect 
 to Jews in particular, was the subject of very high 
 debates, about the time of the famous Jew bill, which 
 enabled all Jews to prefer bills of naturalization in 
 parliament, without receiving the sacrament, as or¬ 
 dained by statute of 7 James 1.” But even admitting 
 the construction contended for to be correct, still the 
 same reasoning which has been used with respect to 
 the force which an inference of the apprehension of 
 the legislature can have upon a previously express 
 act, must in this case also prevail. 
 
 These latter observations also, apply equally to 
 the inference which has been drawn, from the legis¬ 
 lature having passed the statute of the 26 Geo. 2. ; 
 by that statute any Jew who should reside three 
 years in Great Britain or Ireland, was enabled to 
 obtain an act of naturalization without taking the 
 sacrament;—but a clause was introduced into the act, 
 by which persons professing the Jewish religion were 
 disabled from purchasing any advowson or ecclesias¬ 
 tical presentation. With reference to this exception 
 it is contended, that “ as advowsons are a species of 
 real estate, the clause with respect to them would have 
 been useless, if it had been true that Jews, even though 
 naturalized or born in this country, were incapable 
 of possessing that kind of property. And further, to 
 suppose that it could be intended to continue such an 
 incapacity with respect to persons permitted to be 
 
124 
 
 On the Civil Disabilities 
 
 naturalized, would be a contradiction in terms; since 
 a clause enabling to hold land is constantly inserted 
 in naturalization bills.’' 
 
 Now in addition to the reasons applicable to this 
 act, in common with the statutes before referred to, 
 there is a circumstance which goes a great way to prove 
 that the inference drawn from it, of the apprehension 
 of the legislature that native Jews are capable of hold¬ 
 ing land is not well founded. It appears that at the 
 time the last mentioned act was repealed, it was still 
 a question in the House of Lords, what the right ol 
 Jews in this respect was; and a motion was made 
 in that house, that the opinion of the judges should 
 be taken upon the subject. 
 
 The following is an extract from Mr. Coxe's MSS. 
 in Lincoln’s Inn Library* :—“ Mich. 27 Geo. II. A 
 question having been started on occasion of the late 
 act of parliament, concerning the naturalization of 
 the Jews, which act was repealed this session, whe¬ 
 ther Jews are entitled to purchase and hold lands in 
 England ; Lord Temple, after the repeal of the act, 
 moved in the House of Lords, that some method 
 might be taken to ascertain this question, and that 
 for this purpose, the judges might be desired to at¬ 
 tend and give their opinions upon it, which was 
 opposed, and the motion rejected for many reasons, 
 but particularly, because the judges are not obliged 
 to give their opinions to the House upon such extra¬ 
 judicial questions, where no bill is depending ; and 
 the Duke of Argyle mentioned a case, in Queen 
 
 * See 2 Swanst. p. 508. 
 
125 
 
 of the Jews in England. 
 
 Anne’s time, where such a question being put to the 
 judges, Lord Chief Justice Holt, in the name of 
 himself and the rest, insisted that they were not 
 obliged to give their opinions on any such questions, 
 and his objections were allowed by the House. 
 
 The same arguments which have been used with 
 respect to the operation of the above-mentioned sta¬ 
 tute of the 55 Hen. 3., are equally applicable to 
 their effect upon any of the provisions of the statute 
 of the 18 Edw. 1. With respect, however, to the 
 last-mentioned statute, it has been supposed, that a 
 statute passed in the time of Hen. 8., rendered nu¬ 
 gatory the whole of its provisions. The act of Hen. 8. 
 was as follows: “Where before this time, diveis 
 and sundry acts and laws have been ordained, had 
 and made, within this realm, for the avoiding and 
 punishment of usury, being a thing unlawful, and of 
 other corrupt bargains, &c. which acts have been 
 so obscure, that by reason thereof, little or no punish¬ 
 ment hath ensued to the offenders of the same, but 
 rather hath encouraged them to use the same: for 
 reformation thereof, be it enacted, &c. that all and 
 every the said acts heretofore made, of or concerning 
 usury, shifts, corrupt bargains, chevisances, &c., and 
 every of them, and all pains, forfeitures, and penal¬ 
 ties concerning the same, and every part thereof, 
 shall from henceforth be utterly void, and of no ef¬ 
 fect.” Now, as it is only necessary to read the 
 
 * Upon the observations made in the text, upon the effect of the modern 
 statutes on the previous state of the law, as applicable to the right of the 
 Jews to hold land in this country,-see the Introductory Chapter to this 
 
 work. 
 
126 
 
 On the Civil Disabilities 
 
 words of this statute, as given above, to see that the 
 views of the legislature in passing it, were confined 
 simply to laws relative to usury ; it must, it is ap¬ 
 prehended, be conceded, that its operation could not 
 extend to repeal any statutory enactments which had 
 not that subject for their object. It cannot be doubt¬ 
 ed, that the legislature might in terms have repealed 
 so much of the act of the 2 Edw 1. only, as related 
 to usurious dealings, and if it is plain, that the legis¬ 
 lature had not the intention to repeal more than such 
 parts, then it is conceived that the effect of the re¬ 
 pealing statute is as much confined as though its 
 operation had in terms been limited to that portion 
 only; and if this be the case, then the statute of 
 Henry the 8th leaves the law as far as regards the 
 question of the present enquiry, untouched. 
 
 If the view which has been taken upon this sub¬ 
 ject is correct, the Jews of the present day stand 
 precisely in the same condition, as regards their right 
 to take or to hold landed property, as they did at 
 the time of their banishment in the 18th of Edward 
 the First. That is to say, they are incapable of either 
 holding or taking land. 
 
 It ought to be observed, that in the early part 
 of the last century, the opinions of the most emi¬ 
 nent lawyers of the day were taken upon the 
 question, whether or not a Jew was under any 
 incapacity with respect to landed property.* They 
 were unanimous in stating, that they were not 
 
 * These opinions are published by Mr. Goldsmid, in his pamphlet, from 
 Mr. Webb’s Book, and they will be also found in the Gentleman’s Maga¬ 
 zine. 
 
127 
 
 of the Jews in England. 
 
 aware of any law which disqualifies a Jew in this 
 respect. But in the view which the author has 
 taken, these opinions cannot be considered as bear¬ 
 ing against the conclusion to which he has come: 
 inasmuch as it is certain, that the very eminent 
 persons who gave these opinions, were not in posses¬ 
 sion of any of the facts upon which the view here 
 expressed is founded. It was not till after those 
 opinions were given, that the ordinances of Henry 
 the Third were discovered by Dr. Tovey; and it is 
 only very lately that the unquestionable existence of 
 those ordinances has been established, by their hav¬ 
 ing been discovered in the Tower, and published in 
 the parliamentary edition of Rymer's Foedera. 
 
 It would not be right to close this treatise, without 
 noticing an opinion, which, however erroneous it may 
 be, is certainly very prevalent—namely, that Jews, 
 whether born in this country or not, are by law 
 considered as aliens ; and, on this account, are in¬ 
 capable of holding lands : when the only grounds 
 upon which, as it is believed, this opinion can be 
 founded, are examined, it will at once be seen, that 
 it does not rest upon any sufficient authority. Sir 
 Edward Coke, in his writings, speaks of the Jews as 
 infidels : “ Thus this noble king (Edward the First) 
 banished for ever these infidel usurious Jews and 
 in another place he speaks of infidels as alien ene¬ 
 mies, and says they are perpetui inimici; for between 
 them, as with the devil, whose subjects they are, 
 and the Christian, there is a perpetual enmity, and 
 can be no peace.” From these two assertions, 
 namely, that Jews are infidels, and that infidels are 
 
128 
 
 On the Civil Disabilities 
 
 perpetual enemies, it is concluded, as a necessary 
 inference, that Sir Edward Coke was of opinion that 
 the Jews were to be considered as perpetual aliens. 
 Supposing this really to have been the opinion of Sir 
 Edward Coke, yet his bare opinion, high as his au¬ 
 thority may be, would not of itself be sufficient to 
 establish so outrageous a proposition. But, further, 
 the position has been directly denied by Lord Hard- 
 wicke, and by Chief Justice Willes, who, in the 
 case of Omychund and Baker, gave their unqualified 
 dissent to the whole reasoning of Sir E. Coke upon 
 the subject. The only other authority to be met with, 
 is an assertion made by the Attorney General, Sir 
 Robert Sayer, in an argument in the Court of King’s 
 Bench, in the case of the East India Company v. Sands 
 (2 Show. Rep. 370.) in the 36th year of Charles 2. 
 He is reported to have said, that “ the Jews are here 
 by an implied licence, but on a proclamation of ba¬ 
 nishment : it is like a determination of letters of safe 
 conduct to an alien enemy, who was here by virtue 
 of such letters, before,” See. In support of this 
 assertion, no authority whatever was cited, nor was 
 any sanction given to it by the Court; it could not, 
 therefore, it is conceived, under any circumstances, 
 be considered of any weight, much less can it be 
 held to have any force in support of the opinion, that 
 the native Jews are in the situation of aliens, when it 
 is remembered, that at the time when the assertion 
 was made, the Jews had so lately obtained re-admis¬ 
 sion into this country ; that there could have been but 
 few, if any, adult Jews who were born in England. 
 Such of that nation, therefore, who were resident 
 
129 
 
 of the Jews in England. 
 
 here, were at the time really aliens, and might pro¬ 
 bably with truth be stated to be resident here under 
 an implied licence. 
 
 When it is known that this is the whole amount of 
 the authority for the assertion, that all Jews are 
 aliens, it will not, it is conceived, be thought neces¬ 
 sary that any arguments should be gone into, to shew 
 that the assertion is without foundation. 
 
 K 
 
APPENDIX. 
 
 A. 
 
 CAP ITULA DE JUDiElS. 
 
 Omnia debitaet vadia Judseorum imbrevientur, terrae, domus, 
 redditus, et possessiones. Judaeus vero qui aliquid horum 
 celaverit, sit in forisfactura Domini Regis de corpore suo, et 
 concelamento, et de omnibus possessionibus suis et omnibus 
 catallis suis, nec unquam concelamentum Judaeo recuperare 
 licebit. Item provideantur sex vel septem loca, in quibus 
 facient praestita sua, et provideantur duo legales Christiani et 
 duo legales Judaei et duo legales scriptores, et coram illis et 
 clericis Willielmi de St. Marise Ecclesia, et Willielmi de 
 Chimilli fiant praestita, et Chartae praestitorum fiant in modum 
 Chirographi. Et altera pars remaneat Judaeo sigillata sigillo 
 illius, cui pecunia traditur; et altera pars remaneat in area 
 communi, in qu& sunt tres serrurae: unde duo Christiani ha- 
 beant unam clavem et duo Judaei unam et clerici Willielmi de 
 S. Mariae Ecclesia, et Magistri Willielmi de Chimilli habeant 
 tertiam ; et praeterea tria sigilla et qui claves habuerint sigilla 
 apponent; clerici autem praedictorum Willielmi, et Willielmi 
 habeant rotulum de transcriptis omnium Chartarum et sicut 
 chartae mutabuntur, mutetur et rotulus, de singulis chartis 
 dentur tres denarii, medietas a Judaeo et medietas ab eo cui 
 pecunia creditur unde duo scriptores habeant duos denarios, 
 
 k 2 
 
132 Appendix. 
 
 et custos rotuli tertium, et de caetero nullum fiet praestitum, 
 nulla Judaeis fiet solutio, nulla fiet Chartarum mutatio, nisi 
 coram praedictis vel majori parte, si omnes interesse nequi- 
 verint. Et praedicti duo Christiani habeant unum rotulum de 
 recepta Judaeorum solutionis eis de caetero faciendae et duo 
 Judaei unum ; et custos rotuli unum. Item quilibet Judaeus 
 jurabit super rotulum suum, quod omnia debita sua, et vadia, 
 et redditus, et omnes res et possessiones suas imbreviari 
 faciet, et quod nihil celabit, ut praedictum est. Et si scire 
 poterit quod aliquis aliquid celaverit illud justitiis ad eOs 
 missis secreto revelabit, et quod falsonarios chartarum et re- 
 tonsores denariorum, ubi eos scient, detegent et monstrabunt 
 et de falsis chartis similiter.—Hoveden, Pars. Poster, p. 743. 
 
 B. 
 
 CHARTA JUDJEORUM ANGLIC ET NORMANIA). 
 
 Johannes Dei gratia, &c. Sciatis nos consessisse omnibus 
 Judaeis Angliae et Normaniae, libere et honorifice habere resi- 
 dentiam in terra nostra et omnia ilia de nobis tenenda quae 
 tenuerunt de Rege Henrico avo patris nostri; et omnia ilia 
 quae modo rationabiliter tenent in terris et feodis, et vadiis et 
 akatis suis et quod habeant omnes libertates et consuetudines 
 suas sicut eas habuerunt tempore predicti Regis H. avi 
 patris nostri, melius et quietius et honorabilius. Et si querela 
 orta fuerit inter Christianum et Judaeum, ille qui alium appel- 
 laveritad querelam suam dirationandam, habeat Testes, scilicet 
 legitimum Christianum et Judaeum. Et si Judaeus de querela 
 sua breve habuerit, breve suum erit ei testis. Et si Christianus 
 habuerit querelam ad versus Judaeum sit Judicata per pares 
 Judaei. Et cum Judaeus obierit non detineatur corpus suum 
 
133 
 
 Appendix. 
 
 super terram sed habeat hseres suus pecuniam suamet debita sua, 
 ita quod mihi non disturbetur, si habuerit haeredem qui pro ipso 
 respondeat et rectum faciatde debitis suis et de forisfacto suo ; 
 et liceat Judaeis omnia quae eisapportata fuerint sine occasione 
 accipere et emere, exceptis illis quae de ecclesiae sunt et panno 
 sanguine lento. Et si Judaeus ab aliquo appellatus fuerit sine 
 teste de illo appellatu erit quietus solo Sacramento suo super 
 librum suum et de appellatu illarum rerum quae ad coronam 
 nostram pertinent: similiter quietus erit solo Sacramento suo 
 super Rotulum suum. Et si inter Christianum et Judaeum 
 fuerit dissentio de accommodatione alicujus pecuniae Judaeus 
 probabit catallum suum et Christianus lucrum. Et liceat 
 Judaeo quiete vendere vadum, postquam certum erit, eum illud 
 unum annum et unum diem tenuisse. Et Judaei non intra¬ 
 bunt implacitum nisi coram nobis, aut coram illis qui turres 
 nostras custodierint, in quorum ballivis Judaei manserint. Et 
 ubicunque Judaei fuerint liceat eis ire ubicunque voluerint,cum 
 omnibus catallis eorum sicut res nostrae propriae, et nulli liceat 
 eas retinere, neque hoc eis prohibere. Et praecipimus quod 
 ipsi quieti sint per totam Angliam et Normaniam de omnibus 
 consuetudinibus et Theoloniis et modiatione vini sicut nos¬ 
 trum proprium catallum. Et mandamus vobis et praecipimus 
 quod eos custodiatis et defendatis, et manu teneatis, et prohi- 
 bemus nequis contra Chartam istam de his 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 Turn- 
 ham, Willielmo Bryvver, etc. Dat. per manum S. Well. Archi- 
 diac, apud Marleberg, decimo dei Aprilis Anno Regni nostri 
 secundo.—Charta 2 John, n. 49. 
 
 CONFIRMATIO JUDjEORUM DE LI B ERT ATI BU S SUIS. 
 
 Johannes De Gratia, See. Sciatis nos concessisse, et pre¬ 
 sent carta nostra confirmasse Judahs nostris in Anglia, ut 
 
134 
 
 Appendix. 
 
 \ 
 
 excessus qui inter eos emerserint, exceptis hiis qui ad coronam 
 et justitiam nostram pertinent, et de morte hominis et mahe- 
 mio et de assaltu prsemeditato, et de fractura domus et de 
 raptu et de latrocinio, et de combustione, et de thesauris inter 
 eos deducantur secundum legem suam, et emendentur et Jus¬ 
 titiam suam inter seipsos faciant. Concedimus etiam eis, 
 quod si quis eorum alium appellaverit de querela quae ad eos 
 pertineat, nos neminem compellemus ad testimonium cuiquam 
 eorum contra alium exhibendum sed si appellator rationabilem 
 et idoneum testem habere poterit, eum secum adducat. Si 
 quod vero opus sceleratum et apertum inter eos emerserit 
 quod ad coronam nostram vel ad justitiam pertineat; sicut de 
 praedictis placitis coronae licet nullus eorum noster appellator 
 fuerit, nos ipsam querelam faciemus per legales Judaeos nos¬ 
 tros Angliae inquiri, sicut Charta Regis H. Patris nostri ra- 
 tionabiliter testatur. Teste G. filio Petri Com. Essex. Willielmo 
 Mareschallo Com. de Pembr. Hen. de Bohun Com. de Here¬ 
 ford, Petro de Pratell. Roberto de Turnham, Willielmo de 
 Waren, Hugo de Nevil, Roberto de Veteri Ponte, Dat. per 
 Manum S. Well. Archidiac, apud Merleberg decimo die 
 Aprilis, Anno Regni nostri secundo.—Charta 2 John, n. 53. 
 
 c. 
 
 Henricus, Dei Gratia, Rex Anglia, &c. Dilectis et fideli- 
 bus Major et Vicecomitibus suis London, et omnibus ballivis 
 et lidelibus suis, ad quos, &c. Salutem. Sciatis, quod, ad 
 honorem Dei, et Universalis Ecclesiae, ac emendationem et 
 utilitatem terrae nostrae et relevationem Christianorum de dam- 
 nis et gravaminibus quae sustinuerunt occasione liberorum 
 tenementorum quae Judei Regni nostri clamabant habere in 
 
135 
 
 Append lv. 
 
 terris, tenements, feodis, Redditibus, et aliis tenuris : et ne 
 nobis seu communitati Regni nostri vel ipso Regno, possit de 
 csetero praejudicium generari: Providimus de consilio proda- 
 torum magnatum et procerum qui sunt de concilio nostro ac etiam 
 ordinavimus et statuimus pro nobis et haeredibus nostris quod 
 nullus Judaeus liberum tenementum habeat in maneriis, terris, 
 tenementis, feodis, redditibus, vel tenuris, quibuscunque per 
 cartam, donum, feofamentum, contirmationem seu quamcunque 
 aliam obligationem, seu quocunque alio modo. 
 
 Ita tamen quod domos suas, quas ipsimet inhabitant in 
 civitatibus, burgis, seu aliis villis inhabitent, de caetero, et eas 
 habeant, sicut habere consiieverint temporibus, retroactis. Et 
 etiam alias domos suas quas locandas habebunt, licite locare 
 possint Judseis tan turn, et non Christianis. 
 
 Ita tamen quod non liceat Judaeis nostris London plures 
 domos quam nunc habeant emere, sive quocunque alio modo 
 perquirere, in civitate nostra London : per quod ecclesiae paio- 
 chiales ejusdem civitatis, vel rectores earundem, jacturam m- 
 currant. Poterunt tamen eidem Judaei London, domos et 
 aedificia sua antiqua, prius diruta et destructa reparare, et in 
 statutum pristinum redigere, ad voluntatem suam. 
 
 Providimus etiam et statuimus de eodem concilio nostro quod 
 de domibus suis praedictis inhabitand. vel locand. ut praedic- 
 tum est, nullus Judaeus placitet, vel placitare possit, per 
 brevia nostra originalia de cancellaria, sed tantum coram Jus- 
 ticiariis nostris, ad custodiam Judaeorum assignatis, per brevia 
 
 Judaismi consueta et hactenus usitata. 
 
 De terris autem et tenuris de quibus Judaei, ante prasens 
 statutum feofati fuerunt, et quas nunc tenent, volumus quod 
 liujusmodi infeodationes et dona penitus adnullentur : et terrae 
 et tenementa ilia, Christianis, qui sibi ea dimiserint remaneant. 
 Ita tamen quod Christiani satisfaciant ipsis Judaeis de pecuma 
 seu catallo, contenta in cartis, et chyrographis suis, sine usura 
 quod Judaei pro hujusmodi dono vel feodatione, dederm 
 Christianis. Hac etiam adjecta condition, ut si Christiani 
 illi, incontinenter, inde satisfacere non possint, hceat Judaeis 
 
136 
 
 Appendix. 
 
 praedictis tenementa ilia aliis Christianis dimittere, donee inde 
 per rationabilem extentara, secundum verum valoremeorundem, 
 catalla sua, sine usura, levari possint. Salvo tamen Chris¬ 
 tianis illis herbergagio suo. Ita quod Judaeus pecuniam seu 
 catallum suum per manus Christianorum, et non Judaeorum, 
 inde recipiat sicut praedictum est. 
 
 Et si contingat Judaeum aliquod feofamentum a modo re- 
 cipere a quovis Christiano, de aliquo feodo, seu tenemento 
 contra prasens statutum, Judaeus ipse dictum tenementum seu 
 feodum penitus amittat; et in manum nostram capiatur, et 
 salvo custodiatur; et Christiani illi vel eorum haeredes, terram 
 vel tenementum illud de manu nostra rehabeant. 
 
 Ita tamen quod totam pecuniam, quam ab ipsis Judaeis pro 
 hujusmodi feofamento receperent nobis tunc solvant. Vel si 
 eorum facultates ad hoc non sufficiant tunc verum valorem 
 tenementorum seu feodorum illorum, nobis ethaeredibus nostris 
 annuatim reddant, ad Scacarium nostrum, per veram et ra¬ 
 tionabilem extentam eorundem, donee de hujusmodi pecunia, 
 seu catallo, nobis plene fuerit satisfactum. 
 
 De nutricibus autem parvulorum pistoribus et brasiatoribus 
 et cocis Judaeorum quia Judaei et Christiani in cultu fidei 
 dispares sunt, providimus et statuimus quod nullus Christianis 
 vel Christiana, eis ministrari presumat in ministeriis predictis. 
 Et quia Judaei 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, firmi- 
 tatis robor obtineat; nec ei per praesens statutum in aliquo 
 derogetur. Et ideo vobis pracipimus firmiter injungentes quod 
 provisionem, ordinationem, et statutum praedictum publice, 
 per totum ballivam vestram clamari, et firmiter teneri et ob- 
 servari faciatis. 
 
 ^ In cujus et Teste Rege apud Westm. 25 die Julii, anno 55 
 Eodem modo mandatum est singulis Vicecomitibus per Angl. 
 T. ut supra. 
 
137 
 
 Appendix. 
 
 Henry, by the grace of God, king of England, &c. To all 
 our sheriffs, bailiffs, and liege subjects, to whom these pre¬ 
 sents shall come greeting. Know ye, that for the honour of 
 God and the universal church, for the amendment and advan¬ 
 tage of our kingdom, and for relieving Christians from the 
 damages and grievance which they have suffered by the free¬ 
 holds 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, tene¬ 
 ments, 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, pro¬ 
 vide 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 jus- 
 
138 
 
 Appendix. 
 
 tices 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 ab¬ 
 solutely annulled ; and that the said lands and tenements shall 
 return to the Christians who granted the same ; but upon con¬ 
 dition 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 im¬ 
 mediate 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 tene¬ 
 ment 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 satisfac¬ 
 tion 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 
 
139 
 
 Appendix. 
 
 Christians are different in their faith and worship, we pro¬ 
 vide and enact, that no Christian man or woman shall pre¬ 
 sume 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 Chris¬ 
 tians, 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. 
 
 [n testimony whereof we have caused to be issued these 
 our letters patent. Witness myself at Westminster, 24th 
 day of July, and of our reign the 54th year. 
 
 D. 
 
 STATUTUM OE JUD^ISMO. 
 
 Pur ceo que le Roy ad viewe, que multz de males, et dis- 
 heritesons de prodes hommes, de sa terre, sont avenus per les 
 usuries, que les Jews ont fait ceo en arrere, ut que multz des 
 peches ent sont surd de ceo; mes que luy et ses ancestors 
 eient eu grande preu de la Jewrie tout en ceo en arrere: ment 
 purquant en lonour de Dieu, et pour la comen preu del people, 
 ordeigne le Roy et establie, que nul Jew desoremes ne preste 
 rien a usurie sur terres, rents ne sur autres choses; et que nul 
 usure ne courge del Seint Edward procheinment passe en 
 availt. Mes que les covenants avant faitz soient tenus, sauve 
 
140 
 
 Appendix. 
 
 qe les usuries rues cessent: raes que touts que deivent dette 
 a Jewes sur gages moebles, les acquitent entre cy et la Pasche 
 a pluis tard; et si non, soit encorus. Et si nul Jewe preste a 
 usure, contre cest establishment; le Roy pur luy ne pur nul 
 de soens ne se entermetra, de faire luy recoverer son prest, 
 eins luy punira a sa volunte pur la trespass, et au Christien 
 fra droiture de son page recoverer. 
 
 Et purveu est, que les distresses pur deste des Jewes ne 
 soient desoremes si grievouses, qe la moyte de la terre, et des 
 chateux as Christiens ne demorge a lour sustenance. Et que 
 nul distress ne soit fait pur det de la Jewrie sur le heure au 
 dettour nosme en la chartre de Jew, ne sur autre que teigne la 
 terre que fuit a dettour avant que la dette soit dereigne et 
 conue en court. Et si viscount ou autre Bailliff per com- 
 mandement le Roy deive faire seisin au Jewe, a un ou plu- 
 sours, pur lour dette, de chateux ou de terre a la value de la 
 dette, les chateux soient prises par serement de prodes homes, 
 et soient bailiz au Jewe ou a Jewes, ou a lour message, a la 
 mountance de la dette ; et si les chateux ne suffieent, lez terrez 
 soient extendus par mesme le serement, avant qe la seisin 
 soit liverrie au Jewe ou a Jewes, a chescun solonc son afferant, 
 issent que leur puisse saver certeinement qe la dette soit quite, 
 qe le Christien puis adonques avoir sa terre: saufe a touts 
 jours au Christien la moitee de la terre et de ses chateux a sa 
 sustinance, come avant est dit, et la chefe mees. 
 
 Et si nul chose emble apres cest heure soit trove en la seisin 
 de Jew, et ascun voudra suer, le Jewe eyt son garant, si aver 
 le poet, et si non, respoigne; issint que de ceo unques ne soit 
 privilege auterement que Christien. 
 
 Et que touts les Jewes soient manantz en les cities et en les 
 boroughes propres le Roy, ou les houches cyrograffes de la 
 Jewrie soient estre. Et que chescun Jewe, puis que il averoit 
 passe vii ans, port un signe en son sovereigne garnement, cest 
 ascavour en forme de deux tables joyntz de feutre tandue de 
 la longure de vi pous et de la lature de iii pous; et que 
 chescun, puis que il avera passe xii ans, paie iii deniers de 
 
Appendix. 
 
 141 
 
 chief age par an au Roy, que serfs il sont, a la pasche : et ceo 
 soit entende auxibien de femmes come de homes. 
 
 Et que nul Jewe eit poier, de feoffer autre Jewe ne Chris- 
 tien de lour mesons rentes ou tenements, que ils eient apri- 
 voises, ne de aliener en nul maner, ne de faire acquitance a 
 nul Christien de sa dette, sans la conge le Roy especial; tant 
 que le Roy eit autre chose ordeigne. 
 
 Et pur ceo qe seynt esglise voet et soeffre, que ils vivent, et 
 soient gardez ; le Roy les prent en sa protection, et lour doigne 
 sa peax, et voet que ils vivent, et soient gardez et defendus 
 per ses viscountes et les autres bailliffes et par si foialx; et 
 commande que nul lour face male tort ne fort en lour corps ne 
 en lour biens moebles ou non moebles, et que ils ne pledent 
 ne soient empledes travailles ne challenges en nulle courte 
 forsque en le court le Roy, que serfs ils sont. 
 
 Et que nul soit obesant, respoignant, ne rent rendant forsque 
 au Roy ou a ses bailliffes en son nome, si ceo ne soit de lour 
 measons, que ils teignent ore pur rent rendant ; sauve le droit 
 de saint esglise. 
 
 Et le Roy lour grant, que ils vivent de lour merchandises 
 loialx et par lour labour, et que ils communent ovesque les 
 Christiens, pur loialment merchander en vendant, et en acha- 
 tant: mes que per cest encheson ne autre ne nul Christien 
 soit couchant de levant enter eux. Ex ne voet le Roy, que 
 par encheson de lour marchandise, que soient en lottes ne en 
 escotes nen tallage ove ceux de cities ne de boroughes ou ils 
 meignent; de sicome ils sont tayllables au Roy come les soens 
 serfs, et a nul autre. 
 
 Derechiefe le Roy lour grant, que ils puissent achater mesons 
 et curtilages en les cities ou en les boroughes, ou ils meignent; 
 issent que ils les tiegnent en chief du Roy. Sauve au Seignor- 
 ages les. services dues et customes. 
 
 Et que ils puissent prendre terres a ferme a terme de dix 
 ans, ou a meins, sans prender homages et foialties ne tiel 
 maner dobeissance de Christien, etsans avoir avouson de saint 
 esglise, pur gagner en le secle lour vivre, si ils ne scavent mar- 
 
142 
 
 Appendix. 
 
 chaunder, ou ne poient labourer. Et cest poiar, pur prender 
 terres a ferme, ne lour durera forasque xv. ans de cest heure 
 an avant. 
 
 Whereas the king has 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; although 
 Judaism is and has been very profitable to him and his ances¬ 
 tors, 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, last past, shall stand good, excepting covenants 
 relating to the principal 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 practice 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 con¬ 
 trary, will punish him for his trespass, and assist the Chris¬ 
 tians against him in the recovery of their pledges. 
 
 And it is further enacted, that no distress for any Jew’s debt, 
 snail 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 posses¬ 
 sion 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 seisin or possession to any Jew of lands or 
 chattels to the value of his debt, the chattels shall first be ap¬ 
 praised 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 
 
Appendix. 143 
 
 Christian may have his lands again. Saving to the Christian, 
 nevertheless the moiety of his lands and chattels, and the chief 
 house for his sustenance, as is before expressed. 
 
 And if any thing 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, 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 men and women. 
 
 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 
 licence, 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 shall 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 chal¬ 
 lenge them in any courts but the king s courts, wheresoever 
 they are. 
 
 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 the holy church. 
 
 And the king also grants, that they may practice merchan¬ 
 dise, or live by their labour, and for those purposes, freely con¬ 
 verse with Christians. Excepting that upon any pretence 
 whatever, they shall not be levant, or couchant, amongst 
 
144 
 
 Appendix'. 
 
 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 serfs, 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. 
 
 E. 
 
 OUTLAWRY. 
 
 Rex Vicecom. Norf. Scil: Licet cle consuetudine longeva 
 dicatur obientum in regno nostro quod nos in domibus et aliis quas 
 acquisiverint Jndai in regno nostro succedere debeamus ipsis 
 Judceis aures tamen nostras precibus Edmundi Kake de Nor¬ 
 wich Capellani misericorditer inclinantes concessimus eidem 
 Edmundo, de gratia nostra quod non obstante consuetudine 
 praedicta habeat messuagium illud in Norwic. de quo nuper 
 seisinam fieri fecimus majistro Benedicto, et quod Seigumet 
 Judseis utlagatus tenuit de praedicto Edmundo in eadem villa 
 de Norwic. Et ideo tibi praecipimus, quod eidem Edmundo 
 de praedicto messuagio, sine dilatione plenam seisinam habere 
 facias.—Claus. 34 H. 3. in. 19. dorso. 
 
Appendix. 145 
 
 Juratores super sacrum suum dicunt quod praedictum mes- 
 suagium fuit quondum Eliae le Bland qui ad diem clausit ex¬ 
 tremum et quia mos est Judaismi quod Dominus Rex omnia et 
 catalla Judai mortui de jure dare poterit cui voluerit nisi pro ■ 
 pinquior hares ejusdem Judai jinumfecerit pro eisdem: dicunt 
 quod dominus Rex dictum messuagium dare poterit cui 
 voluerit sine injurid alicui facienda si ita quod sit haeres dicti 
 Eliae finem non fecerit pro catallis ejusdem Eliae habendis.— 
 Escheata Ann. 52 H. 3. num. 31.;—Molloy de Jure Maritimo, 
 380. 
 
 Aaron Judaeus Ebor et Benedictus filius Jossei haeredes 
 Samuelis fil. Joscei Judei finem fecerunt cum rege pro ha¬ 
 bendis terris et catallis quae fuerunt praedicti Samulis pro 
 centum libris et quibus reddit xxl. per ann. et sic de anno in 
 annum et de termino in terminum donee predic. 100£ plene 
 fuerint solutae. Et mandatum est justic. ad custod. Judaeorum 
 assignatis quod ita irrotulari et omnes terras et catalla prae- 
 dicta eisdem Aaron et Benedicto deliberari faciant; salvo 
 uxori ejusdem Samuelis rationabile dote sua secundum legem 
 et consuetudinem Judaeorum, quam quidem dotem idem jus¬ 
 ticiar. ei sine dilatione faciant assignari. T. R. apud Wood- 
 stock.—Claus. 26. H. 3. p. 1, m. 3. 
 
 Rex Bar. suis de scac. salutem mandamus vobis quod dis- 
 tringatis Mayden quae fuit uxor Jacob. Crespin. ad reddend. 
 Moss. fil. praedict Jacob, et Isaac, fratri suo terras domos red- 
 ditus catalla et omnia debita quae fuerunt praedicti Jacob, 
 patris sui pro quibus ipse Moss, et Isaac, finem fecerunt nobis 
 cum sicut per alias literas nostras vobis significavimus. Et 
 cum praedicti Moss, et Isaac, seisinam habuerint de praedict 
 terris domibus redditibus catal. et debitis tunc eidem May¬ 
 den rationabilem dotem suam a praedict. Moss, et Isaac, faciatis 
 assignari. T. R. apud Mercedet 2 die Maii.—Claus. 26 H. 3. 
 p. 1. m. 3. 
 
 L 
 
146 
 
 Appendix. 
 
 F. 
 
 RexJustic. ad custod. Judseorum assign, saluteni. Sciatis Nos 
 de gratia nostra speciali remisisse dililectis et fidelibus nostiis 
 Rogero Bertram, &c.—Ut nobis devotiores et ad obsequium 
 nostrum promptiores efficiantur omnia feoda in quibus ipsi 
 anteorum antecessor teneb. quibuscunque Judeis nostris Anglise 
 pardonavimus etiam prefatis R. &c. fidelibus nostris prsedict. 
 omnes usUras et poenas in quibus ipsi vel sui antecessores 
 eisdem Judeis per cartas suas teneantur ita videlicet quod in 
 pecunia quam prsedict. R. &c. a prefatis Judeis mutuo cepe- 
 runt eisdem Judeis reddere teneantur super qua quiaem pe¬ 
 cunia prefat. R. &c. sacramento suo coram vobis prestito et 
 aliorum fide dignorum ad hoc juratorum credantur. Et ideo 
 vobis mandamus quod omnes Judeos qui in regno nostro 
 existunt presentes vel hseredes eorum qui mortui sunt quibus 
 eidem fideles nostri in aliquo debito .tenebantur certis diebus 
 et locis coram vobis venite et omnes cartas per quas omnibus 
 Judeis Anglise tenebantur in aliquibus debit is vel feodis ab 
 archis Cyrograph. Judeorum extrahi et eisdem liberati et ipsos 
 de prsedict. feodis de poenis et usuris quietos esse et sic fieri et 
 irrotula re faciatis ita tamen quod diet, pecunia sic a Judeis 
 prsefat. mutuo accepta prsedicti R. &c. eisdem Judeis ad ra- 
 tionabiles terminos quos eis assignabitis satisfaciant ita quod 
 dicta pecunia sic mutuata non usuret et si prsefati Judei vel 
 aliqui ex ipsis fuerint mortui ita quod catalla sua sunt nostra 
 escaeta tunc prsedicti R &c. nobis inae satisfaciant ad scac. 
 nostrum T,R. apud Westm. 28 die Octob.—Fines 48 H. 3. 
 m. 1. &c. 2 Dem. 54. 
 
 G. 
 
 Rex Thesaur. et Camerariis suis salutem Quia Edwardus 
 fil. in cui Judaismum nostrum sicut nostris ad tempus com- 
 
147 
 
 Appendix. 
 
 missimus nostro prorsus ac magnatum et fidelium nostrorum 
 spreto consilio subito et ex inopinatojam recessitad quosdam 
 rebelles nostros se transferendo qui nos gravare et pacem 
 Regni nostri perturbare proponunt dictum Judaismum capimus 
 in manum nostram. Et ideo vobis mandamus quod assumpto 
 Vobiscum Magistro Thom, de Cantelupo Cancellario nostro si 
 adhuc Londini existat tatlagium naper assessum super ■ Judais- 
 mum predict, per Tho. de Irpergue ad hoc assignat per predict, jil. 
 nostr. videri et illud ad opus nostrum colligi et salvo custodiri 
 fac donee aliud inde praeciperimus Adam, vero de Winton so- 
 cium Roberti de Crep ab officio suo amoveatis et loco ejus 
 Will, de Hachelbeche substituatis ita quod idem Willielmus 
 et Robertus officio justiciaries Judeorum amodo intendant 
 donee aliter inde duxerimus ordinand. et eisdem justic. firmiter 
 injungatis ex parte nostra ne praefato til. nostro vel suis in 
 aliquo intendant et quod ab omnibus Judeis Anglia, hoc 
 idem scire faciant. Et hoc non omittatis T. R. apud Hereford 
 30 die Maii—Claus. 49. Hen. 3. m. 4. De Judaismo capiend. 
 in Manum Regis. Prynne 2d Dem. 55. 
 
 Rex Thesaur et Baron suis de Scac. salutem Sciatis quod 
 concessimus Edwardo fil. nostro cui Judaismum nostrum com- 
 missimus quod justic. sui ad custod. Judeorum assignat ha_ 
 beant Sigillum Scac. nostri Judeorum penes se, et quod omnia 
 brevia et mandata ad Judaismum ilium spectantia sub sigillo 
 Scac. nostri Judeorum mittant, ad sigilla nostra de cancellaria, 
 vel de Scaccario nostro. Ita quod brevia et mandata predict, 
 ibi sine difficultate consignantur, et mandamus Magistro T. 
 de Chishal Cancellario Scac. nostri, quod brevia et mandata 
 ilia sine difficultate consignari fac. et attornatos ejusdem filii 
 nostri omnes denar, inde provenient. percipere permittat ad 
 opus ejusdem fil. nostri. Volumus etiam quod idem fil. noster 
 habeat prisonam ad Judeos et alios distringendos et justici-* 
 andos, prout secundum legem et consuetudinem regni nostri 
 fieri debet, et consuevit. Et ideO sic fieri faciatis T. R. 12 die 
 Julii. Claus. 46 H. 3. pais. 1. m. 4. 2 Dem. 52, 
 
148 
 
 Appendix. 
 
 H 
 
 Entre en le post.—Un William porta son breve vers John 
 et demanda certeins ten s - et dit que son ael fuit seisi en temps 
 le Roy Henry, &c. et dit en les queux Johns n’voit entr’ si 
 noun puis le leese qe un ael fist a Abraham le Jew et Geoffrey 
 le Jew a terme qe passe est. Schard. Scire vous vees bien 
 coment il suppose le leese estre fet a Abraham et Geoffrey qe 
 fuerent Jewes per qui nentendons pas que vous volez de les fet 
 a eux conustre quar de leur tenante il avoit certain ley ordeyne, 
 &c. Ber. La Jewerie est defet et la ley ordeyne sur ceo auxi 
 defet et vous dye qe auxibien avera home recoveryr par reson 
 de leese fet a eux come a autres, &c. par qi responez. Schard. 
 Scire nous vous dyoins qe puis le temps qe il assigne le leese 
 estre a eux son ael fuit seisi de mesme les ten s - et les lessa a 
 un Ric. par qi nentendions pas qe nous puissez par cesti breve 
 action avoir. Scarshill donque conussey vou le leese estre fet 
 selon ceo qe nostre breve suppose et nous voloins averrer qe 
 nostre ael ne fuit pas seisi, &c. puis cel leese, &c. Schard. il 
 tuit seisi puis de et les lepa a Ric. qi estat nous avions prest, 
 &c. et sic ad patriam.—March 19. Ed. 2. p. Y. B. 632. 
 
 
 London : 
 
 Printed by Littlewood and Co. 
 Old Bailey. 
 
 

 
 
Date Due 
 
 
 mm 
 
 
 
 
 84 
 
 
 
 ' 
 
 A 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 * 
 
 
 
 
 -—I 
 
 
 
 
 ' 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 . 
 
 <f>