The Jews in Great Britain / Being a Series of Six Lectures, Delivered in the Liverpool Collegiate Institution, on the Antiquities of the Jews in England.

by Moses Margoliouth

[1] – A. Strickland.

All sorts of ridiculous and base calumnies began to be invented against them, in order to furnish a warrant for inflicting upon them fines, extortions, imprisonment, banishments, and other unheard of cruelties.

My Lecture this evening commences, as you perceive, by the syllabus in your hands, with the sufferings of the Jews of Norwich—sufferings which owe their existence to the venomous calumnies invented by Christians in order to possess themselves of their Jewish neighbour’s wealth. In the year 1235, a year when Henry was greatly in need of money, in consequence of his great outlay on his sister Isabella’s marriage to the emperor of Germany, as well as his own contemplated marriage with Eleanor of Provence: poor Count Berenger having positively declined giving the twenty thousand marks which the mean Henry asked as a dowry, Henry must, therefore, have been very glad of getting an opportunity, be it ever so foul, of extorting the required sum from the poor Jews. The Jews of Norwich were at that time enormously rich. Seven of them were therefore accused of circumcising a Christian child of that city, and they were brought before the king himself, whilst he was celebrating his nativity at Westminster. The poor Jews were condemned to be drawn and hanged, and, of course, their property confiscated, and thus were the king’s wants supplied for that time.

You next perceive in the syllabus, briefly noticed, the famous trial of Jacob of Norwich. The syllabus, however, can give you no idea of the nature of that infamous process, or of the absurd charge which originated that trial.

In the year 1240, the afore-mentioned rich Jew was accused of stealing a boy from his parents, and circumcising him. The monkish historians tell us, that it proved a case of such difficulty, that the postea was thought proper to be returned to parliament.

Parliament could not decide. Indeed, the strangeness of the accusation would have puzzled any body of men to decide. Four years were allowed to elapse before the charge was brought, and the principal witness was a little boy, of about nine years of age, who stated that when he was about five years old he was playing in a certain street; the Jews allured him into the house of one Jacob, where they kept him a day and a night, and then blindfolded him and circumcised him. Yet strange to say, with his eyes blinded, and amidst the confusion of so painful an operation, the youthful boy was able to notice several minute particulars, which he narrated, but which certainly never had any existence, inasmuch as the particulars he related to have taken place after the circumcision, have no connexion with that rite.

In addition to the boy’s unlikely story, there were no symptoms whatever that witness ever underwent such an operation. Under such circumstances, and with such unsatisfactory evidence, the poor Jews would, doubtless, have been honourably acquitted. But as this calumny originated, in all probability, with the ecclesiastics, they could not brook disappointment; and contrived, therefore, to become accusers, witnesses, and judges themselves.

The bishops accordingly insisted upon the matter being tried in their courts; and as soon as the charge was dismissed by parliament, as incapable of being proved satisfactorily, the professing ministers of Christianity, who stated that the boy was circumcised in derision and contumely of their Lord and Master, determined to take the law into their own hands. They maintained that such questions belonged exclusively to the jurisdiction of the Church, and that the state had no right to interfere.

Baptism and circumcision, they argued, being matters of faith, the ministers of that faith had, therefore, alone the right of deciding cases of that kind. The poor Jews were therefore once more dragged before a judge and jury who were most inimical to them, whose avaricious affections were set on their hard-earned riches. One can easily guess the result of the judgment seat, and the fate of the unfortunate Norwich Jews.

William Ralegh, Bishop of Norwich, acted as judge: the archdeacon and the priests as witnesses, who deposed on oath that they saw the boy immediately after he was circumcised, and that there were then all the signs, that such an operation had been performed upon him. Why and wherefore the archdeacon and priests kept it quiet so long; the judge did neither ask nor care. How it came to pass that the signs had, in the short space of four years, totally disappeared, the judge did not investigate. A certain Maude also deposed, in confirmation of the charge, that after the boy was taken home, the Jews called upon her to warn her against giving him any swine’s flesh to eat.