, but they themselves
had to repay the royal loan by means of enormous taxes. When they had
succeeded in cancelling the King's debt to his brother, that necessitous
monarch again mortgaged them, but on this occasion to his son Edward. Soon
after, the son having rebelled against his father, the latter took back
his Jews, and having assembled six elders from each of their communities,
he told them that he required 20,000 silver marks, and ordered them to pay
him that sum at two stated periods. The payments were rigorously exacted;
those who were behind-hand were imprisoned, and the debtor who was in
arrear for the second payment was sued for the whole sum. On the King's
death his successor continued the same system of tyranny against the Jews.
In 1279 they were charged with having issued counterfeit coin, and on this
vague or imaginary accusation two hundred and eighty men and women were
put to death in London alone. In the counties there were also numerous
executions, and many innocent persons were thrown into dungeons; and, at
last, in 1290 King Edward, who wished to enrich himself by taking
possession of their properties, banished the Jews from his kingdom. A
short time before this, the English people had offered to pay an annual
fine to the King on condition of his expelling the Jews from the country;
but the Jews outbid them, and thus obtained the repeal of the edict of
banishment. However, on this last occasion there was no mercy shown, and
the Jews, sixteen thousand in number, were expelled from England, and the
King seized upon their goods.
At the same period Philippe le Bel of France gave the example of this
system of persecuting the Jews, but, instead of confiscating all their
goods, he was satisfied with taking one-fifth; his subjects, therefore,
almost accused him of generosity.
[Illustration: Fig. 363.--Jewish Conspiracy in France.--From a Miniature
in the "Pelerinage de la Vie Humaine" (Imperial Library, Paris).]
The Jews often took the precaution of purchasing certain rights and
franchises from their sovereign or from the feudal lord under whose sway
they lived; but generally these were one-sided bargains, for not being
protected by common rights, and only forming a very small part of the
population, they could nowhere depend upon promises or privileges which
had been made to them, even though they had purchased them with their own
money.
To the uncertainty and annoyance of a life which was continual
|