William the Conqueror, as soon as he got the Jews into this country, adopted the policy of Edward the Confessor. The chronicler Hoveden states that in the fourth year of William the Conqueror’s reign, he held a council of his barons, in which, among other things, it was provided “that the Jews settled in this kingdom should be under the king’s protection; that they should not subject themselves to any other without his leave: it is declared that they and all theirs belong to the king; and if any should detain any of their goods, the king might challenge them as his own.”[1]
[1] – See [Appendix D].
The first regular account we meet respecting the Jews in England is during the reign of William Rufus, who, according to the unanimous testimony of historians, seemed to have a mind capable of rising above the superstition and ignorance of the age in which he lived, although not sufficiently enlightened to receive the glorious light of the Gospel; and owing to the distorted exhibition of Christianity by the teachers of the same, he almost fell into infidelity, and from the consistent conduct of the Jews, he was led to believe that Judaism was at least as good as Christianity. He went therefore so far as to summon a convocation at London of Christian bishops and Jewish rabbies, for the express purpose of discussing the evidences of their respective creeds; and the king swore by St. Luke’s face—a favourite oath of his majesty—that if the Jews got the better in the dispute, he would embrace Judaism himself. The Jewish disputants seemed to stand their ground with vigour, for the Christian champions appeared rather apprehensive of the result. At the conclusion, as it is generally the case in public controversy, both parties claimed the victory. The former added, however, publicly that they were overthrown more by fraud than by force of argument. The Christians claimed the victory in consequence of a tremendous thunder-storm and a violent earthquake. All this, however, produced but little effect on the king’s mind.
The conduct of Rufus towards the Church, and his frequent disagreement with the clergy, rendered him an object of dislike to the monkish writers, who were the principal historians of this period. The following is recorded of him by Hollingshed, and if true, his conduct was certainly chargeable with no small measure of guilt:—
“The king being at Rhoan on a time, there came to him divers Jews who inhabited that city, complaining that divers of that nation had renounced their Jewish religion, and were become Christians; wherefore they besought him that, for a certain sum of money which they offered to give, it might please him to constrain them to abjure Christianity, and to turn to the Jewish law again. He was content to satisfy their desires. And so, receiving their money, called them before him; and what with threats, and putting them otherwise in fear, he compelled divers of them to forsake Christ, and to turn to their old errors. Hereupon the father of one Stephen, a Jew converted to the Christian faith, being sore troubled for that his son was turned a Christian (and hearing what the king had done in like matters), presented unto him sixty marks of silver conditionally, that he should enforce his son to return to his Jewish religion; whereupon the young man was brought before the king, unto whom the king said—‘Sirrah, thy father here complaineth that without his license thou art become a Christian: if this be true, I command thee to return again to the religion of thy nation, without any more ado.’ To whom the young man answered—‘Your grace (as I guess) doth but jest.’ Wherewith the king being moved, said—‘What! thou dunghill knave, should I jest with thee? Get thee hence quickly, and fulfil my commandment, or by St. Luke’s face, I shall cause thine eyes to be plucked out of thine head.’ The young man, nothing abashed thereat, with a constant voice answered—‘Truly I will not do it; but know for certain that if you were a good Christian, you would never have uttered any such words; for it is the part of a Christian to reduce them again to Christ which are departed from him, and not to separate them from Him which are joined to him by faith.’ The king, herewith confounded, commanded the Jew to get him out of his sight. But the father perceiving that the king could not persuade his son to forsake the Christian faith, required to have his money again. To whom the king said, he had done so much as he promised to do; that was, to persuade him so far as he might. At length when he would have had the king dealt further in the matter, the king, to stop his mouth, tendered back to him the half of his money, and kept the other himself. All which increased the suspicion men had of his infidelity.”
The state of the Jews in Oxford at that time became very interesting; they were so exceedingly numerous and wealthy in that place, as to become the proprietors of the principal houses, which they let to the students. Their schools were at this time called, from their Jewish proprietors, Lombard Hall, Moses Hall, and Jacob Hall; and the parishes of St. Martin, St. Edward, and St. Aldgate, were designated the Old and New Jewry, because of the great number of Jewish residents there. In one of these parishes they had a synagogue wherein their rabbies instructed not only their own people, but several Christian students of the university.
When a see or living in the gift of this wary king fell vacant, he was in the habit of retaining it in his own hands until he became pretty well acquainted with its revenues, when he sold it to the best bidder.[1] The royal simonist was in the habit of appointing Jews to take care of the vacant benefices, to farm them, and to manage these negociations for his benefit; from this mark of confidence, and from the increasing wealth of the Jews, we may conclude that the reign of Rufus was very advantageous to the interests of his Jewish subjects. This king, however, did not enjoy his kingdom for any long duration. His tragical end is well known.
[1] – When Lanfranc, Archbishop of Canterbury, died, William Rufus appointed no successor for five years after, but kept the possession of the archbishopric in his own hands.
In the long reign of Henry the First, we hear almost nothing of the Jews, which I look upon as evidence that they went on prosperously, and perhaps began to make some progress amongst their Christian brethren. Prynne, a Puritan writer, and the most virulent enemy of the Jews from among Protestants, informs us that the Jews were then beginning to proselytize and even to bribe some Christians with money, in order to induce them to embrace Judaism, which may account for the incident mentioned in this reign, that monks were sent to several towns in which the Jews were established, for the express purpose of preaching down Judaism.
We read in Peck’s “Annals of Stamford,” that “Joffred, abbot of Croyland, in the tenth year of Henry the First, sent some monks from his abbey to Cottenham and Cambridge, to preach against the Jews; and about the same time some ecclesiastics were sent from other parts to Stamford, to oppose the progress of the Jews in that place;” where, as we are told by Peter of Blessens, that “they preaching to Stamfordians, exceedingly prospered in their ministry, and strengthened the Christian faith against Jewish depravity.”