(3) An ordinance of King Edward the Confessor, entitled "De Judeis "—Sciendum quoque quod omnes Fudæi, ubicum que in regno, sunt sub tutela et defensione regis, Fudæi enim et omnia sua regis sunt. (See "Ancient Jewish Councils,' p. 619.)

In the great roll of the Exchequer of the 31st year of the reign of Henry I. we obtain our first glimpse of the Jews of York. In the accounts of Bertram de Bulmer who was vice-comes or Sheriff of Yorkshire, A.D. 1130, it is recorded that "Benedict, the son of Aldret of York, rendered account of 15 marks of silver for the lands and debts of his father." Nobody will gainsay the fact that the personal names Benedict and Aldret are of Jewish origin.

According to the system of legal extortion which at this date (8th-9th century), says a writer, prevailed, one subject was not permitted to commence a suit at law against another without paying a fine to the King.

Among the entries upon this roll for the year ending 29th September, 1130, Jews are named. Richard FitzGilbert, son-in-law of Ranulph, Earl of Chester, had become indebted to Gottsee, a Rabbi of London, and two other Jews, Jacob and Manasseh. They had to pay six marks of gold to the King, as a sort of 6s. 8d., previous to commencing an action against the powerful Earl of Chester's son, who, unfortunately for them, offered the King a higher bribe; in consequence of which, as the father-in-law, Earl Ranulph, who also was largely indebted to them, was proceeded against on their payment to the King of ten marks of gold.

In those times it was worth while to be a king, for on the death of a Jew his property escheated to the Crown, unless

the heir paid to the King (on the personality) a fine bearing a due proportion to its value. As nobody ever saw a poor Jew, this must have been a grand source of revenue. Thus, when Aldret of York died, Benedict, his son, paid a fine of fifteen marks of silver that he might be entitled to enjoy his inheritance.

From the public records of the reign of Henry II., it is shown that at that date colonies of Jews had settled at Canterbury, Oxford, Cambridge; and at Norwich, as also at Bungay, Bury St. Edmund's, Colchester, Worcester, Northampton, and Lincoln. But as we are chiefly concerned with the Israelites of York, it may be noted that Doncaster and York are the only places in Yorkshire where they settled. North of the Tweed they dwelt not; amidst the "canny" Scots there was no footing for the race.

In the historical account of the disturbance occasioned by the presence of the Jews at the coronation of Richard I., the only persons whose names are recorded as of York are the two Jews, Benedict and Joses, or Jocenus. William of Newburgh, a writer of the time, informs us that these two were very wealthy, and largely engaged in the business of lending money on usury. The mansion of Joscous, Joses, or Jocenus, was not far from the church of St. Martin in Cuningstrete, now Coney Street, originally Kenig or King Street. The site of the house is now covered by the stores of Messrs. Leak and Thorp. The subject of the massacre of the Jews of York is briefly referred to in the "Records of York Castle." Both Jocenus and Benedict attended the coronation. Benedict died, from the injuries he received from the London mob, at Northampton; Jocenus reached York to die even more sadly.

There are three contemporary chroniclers accepted as giving succinct accounts of the York massacre of the Jews in 1190. (See post.)

In the reign of Henry III., Haslewood, the estate of the Vavasours, was in pledge to Aaron, the Jew of York, for £330. (Archæologia, vi. 339.)

The Jews have always been a mighty people for rolling up the dollars, maybe as a compensation for the sins of their forefathers—but it is reversing the edict that the sin of the father shall be visited on the innocent children unto the third and fourth generation. We may suppose that the third and fourth generation suffered for the sins of their forefathers, and that the remainder are receiving the balance in their favour. No one in these days who knows what a so-called Christian shark is will deny that a good Jew is better than a Christian shark. For instance, they take care of their honest poor, and of their rascals. No one ever sees a Jew begging, or in a workhouse; nobody ever saw a dead donkey, or an old postillion. It is quite exceptional (in percentage to the population) to find a Jew in a prison. For all that is known Jews may be in the background, but those who come forward as agents to throw people into prison for debt in these days answer to the name of Christians. As to the absurd effect in these days of imprisonment for debt, see Chap. III.

WHAT IS A TRAMP BUT A

CO-EQUAL?

THE SAVAGE NEVER WORKS IF HE CAN HELP IT.

CHAPTER III.

F this country cannot maintain, in decent homes, the people we breed, why not give them emigration? Is a person called a tramp to be sent to prison for seven days for sleeping in a limekiln or a farmer's outhouse, because he will not take the shelter offered him in the workhouse? The foundation of our present administration by the Poor Law Board and the Workhouse educates the people to poverty.

As a rule the work consists of the tread-wheel, equal to walking up Mount Ararat (6,000 feet) every day; or in turning a crank having a pressure of so many pounds on the square inch. The crank is harder labour than the wheelfor the wheel revolves by itself, the crank will not.

It is a fact that when a person with no pluck or honest pride has once seen and felt what happens on a seven days'

sentence and one month to three or six-he, being what he is, decides to go next time for six months.

When once any such great question arises as to the laws relating to the detention—the reformation of the great mass of people who are classed by others as criminals-other points verging to the one issue will invariably draw attention to themselves.

If the way of the transgressor is hard-and if example of punishment by hanging or imprisonment is of any use as a deterrent warning to others not to go and do likewise—why do they go and repeat the same offences?

It would take a volume to explain the "superstition and force" leading to large and small crimes, even at this date, in England, Wales, and Ireland. Few read the facts.

Perhaps the following may be of interest:

The best managed prison or workhouse is an empty one. It should prove that the state and feeling of the people is healthy; not that they are driven to murder, suicide, or death in a ditch, by the rules of the workhouse.

But then I fear the Lords of the Treasury will overlook the fact of our work, and in turn reduce us to tramps.

The workhouse should not be retained as a "house of call." Children and the aged ought to be treated on a more generous system than they are. But the 2,000,000 tramps should (1) take care of themselves; (2) or be sent to prison for two years, and be compelled to learn a trade; (3) or accept emigration; (4) but if sent to prison, then the tramp becomes a criminal and costs £36 a year. Emigrate him at a cost of £8, he will be useful in the colonies. He is not a ruffian or a wild beast from his own fault.

The proper time to aid is before crime has been com