But, as I said before, we are not favoured with many records of the conversion of the Jews in this reign: yet those we have registered are of a very satisfactory nature. We read of a certain Oxford Jew, Belager by name, who became a Christian, and from the schedule of his goods, which was seized for the king in consequence of his conversion, we have every reason to believe that Belager was a man of learning, for his moveable goods consisted chiefly of books.[1] His conversion was, therefore, owing to powerful conviction, as is generally the case with a Jew when he is led to make a public confession of his faith.[2]
[1] – See [Appendix E].
[2] – By this I do not mean to insinuate that there are no impostors amongst baptized Jews. It is a painful truth that the human nature of the Jews is as deceitful and as desperately wicked as that of the Gentiles.
Whilst it is pleasing to register the concessions which were thus made on the part of the crown in favour of the Jewish converts, it is no less painful to have to record that the Jews in general still continued to be subjected to tallages of very heavy amounts, the payment of which was enforced by seizure of their goods, and by banishment. The king’s exchequer being completely exhausted, Edward stood greatly in need of money in consequence of his Welsh war: the rearing of the two castles in Wales—viz. that of Caernarvon, as also that of Conway—must also have amounted to a vast expenditure. Then the question arose, where was all the money to be got? Answer—By orders which were at various times issued to open and examine the chests in which the Jewish properties and possessions were enrolled; and great part of their effects were taken, and the sums which other persons were indebted to them were levied and appropriated by the king. Accusations were, moreover, at different periods made against them, of various descriptions of crimes. The principal offence with which they were now charged, was with clipping and falsifying the coin of the realm; and many, on account of this calumny, were condemned to suffer death, and were executed. In the seventh year of this reign no less than two hundred and ninety-four were put to death for this imputed crime; and all they possessed taken to the use of the king. To what extent the Jews were really guilty of this latter offence for which they suffered, or whether they were guilty at all, it is impossible now to determine.
It is probable, however, that many of you may decide at once that this charge must have been true; for Edward the First, who is called the English Justinian, for the excellency of the laws enacted by him, caused them to be tried for this offence. You may perhaps suppose, that under a sovereign, who is to this day celebrated on account of the laws enacted in his reign, these Jews had all regular trials, and were justly convicted upon evidence. I candidly confess, that those were the opinions I entertained at my first reading this accusation, which induced me to examine the subject rigorously; and the following is the result of my examination of this subject. It is true that where there are good laws enacted, we naturally look for an upright administration of them, but it is possible for a prince to enact good laws for the government of his people, and yet to be misled by his ministers, to conduct his government without the least regard to law and justice; and there are few reigns in which greater acts of oppression, cruelty, and injustice were committed, than in the reign of Edward the First, although the brilliancy of his exploits, and the greatness of his abilities, have thrown an unmerited gloss over his administration. Does not history declare that the very fountains of justice were polluted, and that loud complaints were made of the corruption and venality of the judges in Edward’s reign?[1] Kings are ever entitled to profound respect, and it is the liberal policy of the present age ever to give them the credit of uprightness of intention, and to consider every investigation, as an investigation of the acts of their ministers. We shall, therefore, consider it in this light, and speak of actions as the actions of the ministers of state; and surely the actions of the administration in his reign are very reprehensible. Their conduct towards the Welsh and the Scotch, their sovereigns and people, and especially the slaughter of the Welsh bards, will ever be considered by those who are not dazzled by successful cruelty as disgraceful acts; which would have tarnished the splendour of this reign, had it been a thousand times more splendid; but in their conduct towards the Jews, they acted the part of most grievous oppressors. What evidence was produced against them? We read that they were suspected of the crime, as were also the Flemings. It would, therefore, have been the part of a good and active government to have set its officers to seek for the guilty, whether English, Flemings, or Jews. Does this appear to have been done? By no means. Mark, I do not deny, but there might have been Jews as well as Flemings and English concerned in these malpractices. The Jews are men, and subject to like temptations and like crimes as the rest of mankind; and as they dealt in money, and had better opportunities than others, the probability that some of them were not entirely innocent, is strengthened; but the suddenness of the inquisition, the great number of those executed, and the conduct of the government and people at large to those whom they did not execute, convince me that the Jews had not fair play, but that by far the majority of them were unjustly convicted. It is curious to observe in the page of the English historian, first the statement that “the king’s finances were exhausted,” and the same page ends with an account of “the vast sums raised by the seizure of the Jews’ houses and effects, and the fines imposed upon those who escaped death, and the goldsmiths who were involved in the suspicion of being concerned with them.”[2]
[1] – Henry’s Britain, vol. vii., p. 75.
[2] – Hume and Smollett.
The only circumstance mentioned by the historian which seems to glance at the crimination of any of them is, that great sums of clipped money were found in their houses. Here seems to be something like evidence; we must therefore pay attention to it. If he had said that there had been found in their houses great quantities of gold dust of the same standard with the current coin, it would have amounted to circumstantial evidence, which, if strongly corroborated with other proofs, might induce an impartial jury to convict a prisoner; but no such thing is mentioned; it is only said that great sums of clipped money were found in their houses. Now this, so far from being evidence against them, was evidence in their favour, if rightly considered: but what signified evidence in favour of a Jew, when he was accused upon a general rumour? His judge and jury composed of those who hated him and his nation, and who would rejoice and exult in his conviction and sufferings. Who was there to plead his cause? Is there the least ground to suppose that they had even a single chance of being acquitted? The very evidence which is considered as a proof of their guilt should have produced their acquittal; for if they had been concerned in clipping the coin, they would have hoarded unclipped money in order to clip it, and put the clipped money in circulation. And again they dealt in money, and hoarded money; if, therefore, the money which was in circulation was clipped and depreciated in value, what could they deal in, what could they hoard but clipped money? Once more, the Flemings were mentioned as being implicated with the Jews in the suspicion of being guilty of this crime; and in the account we are now considering, we find that the goldsmiths were charged with being their accomplices, although they (being Christians) were only fined, and not hanged for it. I think there can be little doubt, but that they were the principal criminals, for if a goldsmith were not restrained by the detestation of such a crime, but would become particeps criminis, and subject himself to the punishment of the law, would he admit an accomplice to render his detection the more probable? would he permit an accomplice to run away with the main part of the plunder? Surely he would do all the business himself.[1]
[1] – See also Witherby’s Dialogues, part i., Dialogue II.
Unjust, however, as was the condemnation of the Jews for that imputed crime, the poor Jews seemed convinced that any thing would be believed of them, be the story ever so incredible. Sums to a large amount were therefore extorted from them by the common people through threats of accusing them of the above crime. To such length was this system of extortion carried on, that the king found it necessary to issue a proclamation, declaring that from thenceforth no Jew should be held answerable for any offence heretofore committed.[1] This act of evident justice was, however, accompanied by a condition which throws a degree of doubt upon the real motive by which it was suggested. In order to bring himself within the security of the proclamation, the person accused was bound to pay a fine to the king.