By the Rev. Abraham De Sola
(Continued from p. 211)
4. It is surprising to find,
how some authors persist in modernizing this event,
notwithstanding that most clear and irrefragable evidence exists
in confutation of their assertions. It would almost appear, that
they were possessed by some “secret
dread,” that the difficulty of the subject would increase in the
same ratio with its antiquity, and that they therefore studiously
avoided what appeared likely to become a most unpromising inquiry.
It is, perhaps, as resulting from this feeling, that some have
placed the event no earlier than the Norman Conquest, (about 1066,
C. E.) |
Latest period assigned
for the first settlement of Jews in England. |
But it can be shown that the grounds
whereupon they form their opinion, are far less satisfactory and
conclusive, than those upon which the anteriority of the event is
based; since the principal, if not sole reason for this assertion,
is founded upon that venality of disposition, so freely attributed
to the foreign conqueror. King William, say they, first
brought the Jews over from Normandy into England, and this for a
pecuniary consideration. But this assertion is most incorrect;
because, not only does there not exist the least warrant for this
supposition, but it is clearly disproved by facts.* |
Norman Conquest. |
|
In the first place, the dictum of the
Centuriators, <<248>>to which it owes its existence, can never be
regarded with the same consideration as that which is founded upon
the teachings of authoritative laws and enactments, not that we
would hereby impugn the veracity of their motives, but we think
that they have too readily and too blindly adopted an opinion
already propagated, but which, as might be clearly and easily
shown, originated entirely in Saxon prejudice. It is not at all
necessary for our inquiry, that this be proved at any great
length; but we would |
Magdeburg Centuries |
observe, that whatever tended to cast
a stigma on the name of Norman, at the period immediately
preceding the Conquest, was seized upon by the subjugated and
oppressed Anglo-Saxons, and used by them with the greatest
avidity. There exists not the least doubt that the cause of this
inveterate hatred was sufficiently ample. That tyrannical cruelty,
which rendered Anglo-Saxon but another name for oppression and
degradation, was but little calculated to enlist the respect, or
sympathies, of those against whom it was exercised.* From these
considerations, therefore, would it not be unreasonable to infer
that a proceeding of so unpopular a character, and so entirely
repugnant to all classes, as bringing over, or rather encouraging
to come over, into England, even a few of a people, should have
been styled <<249>>their first introduction by Norman means, and
that all the misfortunes and disasters, which afterwards came upon
the nation in consequence, as they believed, of this act, should
have been most readily referred to the same hated agency? |
Assertion probably
founded on Saxon prejudice. |
|
5. But let us suppose that
this case, intended to show that a “a
pecuniary consideration” was not “the principal of action” with
William, be not made out, and that we, therefore, dismiss
it, with a verdict of “not proven,” (which we, however, do not:)
other evidence can be adduced, to show that there were Jews
resident in England, anterior to the Conquest, and this we shall
find in the following quotation, from the laws and statistics of
Edward the Confessor. |
|
* “Be it
known, says the law, that the Jews, in whatever part of the
kingdom they be, are under the guard and protection (tutela et
defensione) of the King; nor shall any one of them, put himself
under the protection of any rich man without royal license. For
the Jews and all they have belong to the King.† Therefore, if any
one shall detain either them, or their money, the King may claim
them if he will, as his own.” This law, proving as it does, that
there were Jews (and in all probability great numbers too) settled
in England, nearly a quarter of a century before the Conquest,
supplies us with the additional information, that it is as early
as this period (the early part of the eleventh century) that we
can date that ancient vassalage of British Jews, which rendered
them, as the villains, or serfs, of the monarch, a property and
not a people, and which was the sole warrant, if any such there
could be, for the numerous exactions, and bloodthirsty
persecution, they afterwards endured. |
Statute of Edward the
Confessor |
|
<<250>>6. It is of small importance,
that the genuineness of this law, should have been questioned by
Prynne,* when it is supported by the high authority of Spelman.†
Were it not that it becomes of interest, as being one of the few
items of information, which have reached us concerning the Jews of
England at this period, we might consider as superfluous anything
now said on the matter, especially as the fact of the Jews having
been settled in England at this time, is entirely independent of
the proof afforded by this ordinance.‡ But it is, because it
does become of interest, as forming part of the scanty
information we possess of the early history of British Jews, and
that, “without such a law, it would be very difficult, if not
impossible, to account for their ancient vassalage,Ӥ that we will
now adduce those reasons, why this law may, and does, lay claim to
the title of genuineness, and why the opinion of Sir Henry Spelman
should be preferred to that of Mr. William Prynne. |
Its genuineness. |
|
In the first place, because
“this law is the only one we know
of that vests the crown with the property of the Jews.”
Secondly, Prynne as an authority, cannot be regarded with the same
respect as Spelman, both because on account of the vast contrast
between the acquirements of the two, generally, and more
particularly, because Spelman was a
<<251>>Saxon scholar,* which Prynne
was not. Thirdly, because Sir Henry Spelman has declared, that the
laws of Edward the Confessor as published in Hoveden, agree with a
MS. copy, in his own possession. Fourthly, because of the mere
ipse dixit of Prynne, cannot at all compete with the weighty
and respectable character of the evidence produced by Spelman and
others. And lastly, because, although William Prynne has denied
the genuineness of this law, he has neglected to furnish us with
the satisfactory solution of a question which must naturally arise
from the adoption of his theory, viz.: how we are otherwise to
account, on authoritative grounds, for the ancient vassalage of
the Jews in England. Had he supplied us with satisfactory
information on this important and interesting point, his assertion
might be more deserving our attention, but failing this, we cannot
but think the opinion of Sir Henry Spelman and his followers as
deserving most credit. |
Opinions of Spelman
and Prynne thereon. |
|
(To be continued.) |
|