are mentioned in the laws of Edward the Confessor, wherein it is laid down, that "the Jews and all they possess belong to the king." And "in a charter of Witglaff, king of Mercia, made to the monks of Croyland, we find confirmed to them, not only such lands as had at any time been given to the monastery by the kings of Mercia, but also all their possessions whatever, whether they were originally bestowed on them by Christians or Jews."* This charter was granted A.D. 833; but we have farther proof that the Jews were settled in England 143 years before the date of this grant. In the Canonical Excerptions, published by Egbricht, archbishop of York, in A.D. 740, Christians are forbid to be present at the Jewish feasts. This is the earliest mention of the Jews in the annals of Great Britain. When they did enter Great Britain, it is impossible to ascertain. There have been antiquaries, who have concluded that the Jews lived in England during the first settlements of the Romans. A Roman brick, it seems, was found in digging the foundation of a house in London, having on one side a bas relief, representing Sampson driving the foxes into a field of corn. Without relying upon so slender an authority thus afforded, it is by no means improbable that the Jews, after the final destruction of Jerusalem, should wander into Britain, and settle in London, which was, even in Cæsar's time, a port and trading city, celebrated for the beauty of its situation, and for being the residence of a multitude of merchants.

Dr. Tovey seems to think, that the historians are silent concerning the Jews, from their introduction by the Conqueror till the reign of his successor. The chronicler, Hoveden, however, states, that in the fourth year of his reign, the first William held a council of his barons, in which, among other things, it was provided, "that the Jews, settled in this kingdom, should be under the king's protection; that they should not subject themselves to any other without his leave: it is declared, that they and all theirs belong to the king; and if any should detain any of their goods, he might challenge them as his own."+ This seems to have been the only tenure this miserable people ever held on this country before their banishment: the king vindicated them as his own property, lest they should become the prey of any other; their claim to protection was, that as long as the king preserved them from the aggressions of others, they would yield the richer prey to himself. Their whole history, in England, represents them in the light of plunder, contended for between two parties-sometimes dragged within the

clutches of one, and again snatched by the no less dangerous fangs of the other. By extorting usurious interest, and by taking advantage of the wants of needy borrowers, they fattened upon the land and acquired immense wealth, which they were periodically required to disgorge by the party in whose hands they happened to be. The measures which the king and the powerful barons were compelled to resort to, for the purpose of wringing the hard earned riches from the tenacious grasp of avaricious Jews, were, we may be sure, by no means of a gentle nature. We shall see, in the course of this article, that from the time of William the Conqueror to the 18th of Edward I. the period of their final banishment, the unfortunate Israelites of this country were alternately indulged with privileges that they might get rich; calumniated, abused, and massacred by the people, whose hard creditors they were; and, in due time, that is to say, when the king wanted money, tortured, imprisoned, and executed by their protector, into whose presiding care they fled for refuge, and who, like a good shepherd, guarded them from the wolves till their fleeces were grown, and their carcases ready for the butcher. "Dealing with them as sponges," says the author of an old pamphlet (the Anglo-Judæus) we have before quoted, "suffering them to suck up the English treasure, which they then squeeze out into their own coffers."

The first mention made of the Jews, in the reign of William Rufus, is on the occasion of a very singular transaction: whether it was that the king's conscience was troubled with scruples, or whether he was prevailed upon by the handsome presents of the Jews, or, what is more probable than either, in utter carelessness of all religion, he wished to make sport, by bringing the professors of two diametrically opposite ones into close contest, for the amusement of himself and courtiers; however this may be, he determined to hold a solemn conference of Jews and Christians, to dispute on the evidences of Christianity -and the heartless king declared, by the face of St. Luke, that he would abide by the result, and adhere to the faith of the victorious party. The chief leaders, on both sides, met in the city of London;

66

'And, after the matter had been for some time strenuously debated, it pleas'd God that victory appear'd, very plainly, in behalf of the Christians, whose arguments could not possibly be withstood: tho' the Jews oppos'd them with so much vigour and resolution, that the bishops and clergy were not without some pious fear and solicitude how the disputations might terminate:* yet so insolent were the Jews, after all was over, (knowing how secure a friend they had in the king,)

* 1 Will. Malm. de Gestis, p. 122.

that they did not stick to boast publickly, they were overthrown more by fraud than force. Stow,* after having mention'd this wickedness of Rufus, observes, that it was follow'd with such dreadful claps of thunder, and so violent an earthquake, that the like was scarce ever observ'd in England. And notwithstanding, also, what must necessarily have been so clearly and convincingly urg'd in behalf of Christianity, upon such a solemn occasion, we find the king's heart still continuing harden'd, and his majesty no otherwise a Christian than in profession."

The king's perfect impartiality and freedom from all religious bias is farther illustrated, by a story told by Hollingshed, and which we will give in the words of the chronicler himself.

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

other himself. All which increas'd the suspicion men had of his infidelity."

When a see or living, in the gift of this wary king, fell vacant, he was in the habit of retaining it in his own hands until he became pretty well acquainted with its revenues, when he sold it to the best bidder. The royal simonist was in the habit of appointing Jews to take care of the vacant benefices, and to manage these negociations for his benefit: from this mark of confidence, and from the increasing wealth of the Jews, we may conclude, that the reign of Rufus was very favorable to the interests of this class of his subjects. In Oxford it appears, more particularly, that the Jews had obtained possession of considerable property; many of the students were their tenants, and three of the hostels, or places of reception for scholars, were called after their Jewish proprietors, viz. Lombard Hall, Moses Hall, and Jacob Hall.* At this time so jealous were the English of being polluted by a Jew, that only a single buryingplace was allowed them in the whole kingdom. In whatever place the Jew died, he was gathered to his fathers in a place which was then in the neighbourhood of London, now in the heart of the metropolis, and called, after its former proprietors, Jewen Street.

During the long reign of Henry I. and until the 10th year of King Stephen, we hear nothing of the Jews. Dr. Tovey expresses his surprise, that " such a turbulent sort of people" should not have attracted the notice of chroniclers, who are sufficiently minute in other respects. Though it is true we have no direct accounts of this persecuted race, during this space of 45 years, yet it is by no means difficult to guess the reason of the deficiency, nor impossible to supply it. The Jews are never mentioned in our early history, except to record some flagrant persecution or horrible massacre; to reckon up the amount of sums extorted from them by kings in distress, or to detail some story about the crucifixion of infants, got up by their enemies for the sake of making the objects of their injustice odious as well as unfortunate. And when these subjects did not occur to the notice of the monkish historians of the time, that is to say, when the Jews were unmolested, peaceably employing themselves in traffic, and gradually acquiring wealth, which was not demanded from them too largely or too rudely in return for their safety and opportunities of commerce, it would be conceived they were unworthy of mention on any other account. Historians always find the most prosperous, the most barren

* Wood's Hist. and Antiq. ad ann.

periods of history; as the richest and most fertile country affords but an uninteresting landscape, when compared with the wild rocks, rugged precipices, and unproductive solitudes of mountain scenery: so we may fairly conclude, that during the interval of the death of Rufus, in whose sight the Jews found favour, to the next mention of them under Stephen, they were enjoying, without molestation, the benefits of their traffic, and increasing in wealth and accumulating their merchandize, till they became too tempting a prey to escape any longer the alternate avarice of king, lords, and commons.

In the tenth of King Stephen (1135, A.D.) the Jews are again mentioned, for the purpose of being accused of the crucifixion of a boy at Norwich. The fact rests on the authority of Brompton, the Latin chronicler. Our author very justly ob

serves:

"The reader will do well to suspend his judgment, till he comes, hereafter, to read how often this same crime is objected, and observes, that the Jews are never said to have practic'd it, but at such times as the king was manifestly in great want of money."

This crucifixion of infants is the very charge that is made against the early Christians of Rome, by the unconverted Pagans, with this difference only, that the Christians were accused of doing it in honor of Christ, and the Jews in mockery of him. Both calumnies doubtless had the same foundation-the malice of enemies and the imprudence of friends.

The reign of Henry II. seems, upon the whole, not to have been very unfavorable to the prosperity of the Jews. They experienced the usual allowance of imprisonment, fine, and banishment, which does not seem to have much depressed their general state. From the nature of some of the fines, which may be seen in the records, we may infer the wealth and power of individuals among them. them. One Josce, it seems, was fined by the king for supplying the rebels, in Ireland, with large sums of money: another Jew, called Sancto, was fined for taking in pawn the abbey-plate of St. Edmondsbury. When the king intended to proceed to the Holy Land, the Jews were appointed to supply nearly half the subsidy requisite for the undertaking, the Christians being taxed seventy thousand pounds, and the Jews at sixty thousand; and, though this money was never levied, yet these are facts which clearly prove the flourishing state of the Jewish finances in England, during this reign. This was not the only great impost laid upon them. The monk of Canterbury tells us, that the king, being in want of money, banished the wealthiest of the Jews from England, and fined those whom he suffered to remain five thousand marks. If we may judge from the free humour of the following jest, which is at