A Hospitaller and the Jews: Brother Joseph de Chauncy and English Jewry in the 1270s

<plain_text><page sequence="1">A Hospitaller and the Jews: Brother Joseph de Chauncy and English Jewry in the 12705^ ZEFIRA ENTIN ROKEAH Among the many entries touching on matters of Jewish interest in the memoranda rolls of the English exchequer in the late-13th century1 is a pair of entries dating from December 1273. They record orders issued by the treasurer, Brother Joseph de Chauncy,2 and sent to various sheriffs. The sheriffs were to have it proclaimed that all Jews resident in their shires were to come to, and remain in, the principal (or possibly, the archa) town of each shire from December 1273 until the following Easter (1 April 1274). The reasons for their forced migration and residence, as for the penalties with which any Jews who did not obey were threatened, are not given in the memoranda roll.3 It is likely, however, that the treasurer wished to facilitate the collection of the 'great tallage' of one-third of the Jews' movable goods, which Roth indicates had been imposed by 'the Council of Regency during the new king's [Edward Fs] absence, with the severe methods that had become recognized as normal',4 by forcing the Jews to remain within easy reach of the collectors - acting on the principle that a flock may be more efficiently fleeced if gathered together before the shearers arrive. The texts of these consecutive entries read roughly as follows: (King's Remembrancer's Memoranda Roll, E 159/48, m. 4 [1273-4]):5 The sheriff of Cambridgeshire and Huntingdonshire has been ordered, as soon as he shall see these letters, to have it proclaimed - franchises notwithstanding - in every city, borough, and vill/town where any Jews abide in his bailiwick, that all the Jews are to come to Cambridge and remain there until the coming Easter [1 April 1274]. No Jew of Cambridge or of the vills [towns] outside of Cambridge is to leave Cambridge within this period, unless he wish to forfeit his life or members, as well as all his movable and immovable property. Should any Jew flee or absent himself from Cambridge after this proclamation, the sheriff is to seize him and detain him in the king's prison. He is also to take into the king's hand all of that Jew's goods and chattels, movable and immovable, as being the king's forfeit, and is to safeguard them until etc. [he receive further orders about the prisoner and the disposition of his property]. Witnessed by brother Joseph [de Chauncy] on 9 December [1273]. Similar orders have been sent to the sheriffs of Kent, Hampshire, Somerset [and] Dorset, Nottinghamshire [and] Derbyshire, Essex [and] Hertfordshire,6 Surrey and Sussex, Warwickshire and Leicestershire, Yorkshire, Shropshire and Staffordshire, Norfolk and * Paper presented to the Society on 7 December 1995. 189</page><page sequence="2">Zefira Entin Rokeah Suffolk, Northamptonshire, Bedfordshire [and] Buckinghamshire, Worcestershire, Cornwall,7 Devonshire, Lincolnshire, and Gloucestershire.8 Let us consider the background of these orders. Henry Ill's son, the Lord Edward, had set forth on crusade in 1270, with his father's blessing, and with a systematically organized fighting force, the funds for which had been raised, inter alia, from English Christians and English Jews for the purpose.9 When Henry died on 16 November 1272 Edward was in Sicily on his way back to England. It took him nearly two more years - until August 1274 - to reach England, passing through Rome, Orvieto, Savoy, Burgundy, Paris and Gascony, and dealing with the excommunication of the murderers of his cousin, Henry of Almain, slain at Viterbo; with the homage due from him to King Philip III of France; and with a serious rebellion in Gascony. Apparently news he received from England before his return, both written and oral, kept him from worrying about the state of affairs at home and allowed him to make his dispositions on the Continent in an unhur? ried fashion.10 Before he left for the crusade Edward had appointed agents to look after his children and his interests at home.11 Among their other activities, these agents sent money to Acre for Edward's use during the crusade.12 The royal finances were in a 'wretched' - even 'pathetic' state - in these last years of Henry Ill's reign, and Edward and his advisers found money for his crusade only with great difficulty, finding themselves obliged to resort to various moneylenders when it became clear that the income of the crusading and other taxes was insufficient to cover costs.13 It was in these circumstances that steps were taken to collect tallages imposed on the Jews in the late 1260s and early 1270s, and their arrears.14 The details of these tallages are beyond our scope here; various attempts have been made to clarify their timing and amounts, but much spadework remains to be done. What is clear is that there were ceaseless efforts in the early 1270s to extract as much money as possible from an increasingly impoverished Jewish community. Such efforts included the 'great tallage' referred to above, which the exchequer's personnel optimistically hoped would yield 25,000 marks (?16,666 13s 4d) for the hard-pressed king. It seems that their hopes were not realized.15 A table of income from various Jewish tallages of the 1270s compiled recently by Robin Mundill indicates that payments recorded in the Jewish receipt rolls between 1272 and 1275 were between ?1200 and ?1500 per annum, and then dropped drastically until after September 1276, when nearly ?1000 was received (possibly indicating a new tallage imposed in that year). If the years 1274 and 1275 are seen as the main years for the payment of the 'great tallage', only a disappointing ?3000 or so - some 4500 marks - of the anticipated 25,000 marks, less than one-fifth, were collected.16 Cecil Roth commented that this tallage's 'arrears were so great that, on 1 November 1274, it was found necessary to appoint a special commission to exact them', and that Jews 'unable to pay were banished, in conformity with the old idea that Jews were tolerated in England only if they could be of merit to the 190</page><page sequence="3">A Hospitaller and the Jews Crown'.17 The patent rolls show that Jews were granted licences to sell their houses and rents in February 1274, so that they might then be able to pay their tallage.18 H. G. Richardson, in his The English Jewry under Angevin Kings, says that the order for this Callage of extraordinary severity, unknown since 1241' seems to be absent from the records, until the February 1274 entries in the patent rolls which mention the tallage.19 No specific orders for the imposition of this 'great tallage' of one-third of the Jews' movable property are known to exist today. However, the ambiguous orders in the memoranda roll of 1273-4, which we noted at the outset, seem to be part of the missing materials about this tallage, although they do not specify the size of the tallage imposed nor, indeed, even mention a tallage at all. There is no imaginable justification for the sheriffs being told to round up all the Jews in December 1273 if not to provide for a more efficient mulcting of the Jews. One might think that this related to anti-usury activity, but the anti-usury legislation of 1275 was still two years in the future. Similarly, one might suggest that this action was related to alleged coinage viola? tions, but the trials of English Jews on charges of money-clipping and other coinage violations were five years in the future, in 1278-9.20 It seems that only the levying of money from the community can explain this action. We indicated above why so much money had to be raised: we mentioned Edward's crusade of 1270, which may have cost as much as ?100,000, to which must be added his father's chronic inability to reconcile his income with his expenditure. Let us consider the orders themselves - including the explicit threats in them - and their issuer, Brother Joseph de Chauncy, the treasurer of King Edward I. It was quite usual in 13th-century England for the imposition of a tallage on the Jews to be preceded by an examination or 'scrutiny' of the contents of the archae.21 This enabled the king's officials to know what resources the Jews had, at least potentially, and facilitated the assessment of any proposed tallage. In the time of Henry III, Jews were sometimes imprisoned in order to force them to agree to pay their shares of the tallages by certain dates; on other occasions those failing to pay on time were imprisoned in order to 'encourage' them to pay.22 However, threats of torture or of the loss of life or of body parts such as eyes, limbs, or teeth, seem to have been employed in the time of Henry's father, King John, rather than in that of Henry himself.23 Apparently there is a return to early-13th-century threats in these December 1273 orders for the enforced resid? ence, one might even say house arrest, of the Jews in the principal (or archd) towns of England. It is tempting to try to explain this threatened reversion to the harshness of the reign of King John by guessing at the character of the man who sent the orders, Brother Joseph de Chauncy, who was prior of the Hospital of St John of Jerusalem in England, and royal treasurer, from early October 1273 until mid-June 1280.24 I have deliberately used the term 'guessing', since so very little is known about the life of Joseph de Chauncy. This is a case which illustrates the comment of Agnes Sandys, that the ordinary public records of England - voluminous and 191</page><page sequence="4">Zefira Entin Rokeah packed with information though they be - are 'often bafflingly uncommunicative and almost lacking in human interest'.25 They, like modern telephone directories, may provide much precise factual detail, but like them they reveal almost nothing of the personalities of those appearing in them. There are numerous references to Brother Joseph in the memoranda rolls and other government records of the 1270s, but almost nothing of his personality is revealed other than the fact that he made small loans from time to time to various individuals, most of whom paid him back. (I should note here that clerks working in the exchequer frequently made loans - not always small ones - and did quite well out of the practice.26) Joseph de Chauncy seems to have been a member of a family of that name, members of which held lands in Yorkshire and in Lincolnshire.27 If he followed the usual pattern of the Hospitallers, he was probably a younger son of the knightly or noble family involved, and aware of the fact that he could carve out a more successful career within this military Order than any he might otherwise anticip? ate. He would have entered a house of the Order in the land of his birth and, once he had reached the age of twenty, would have been sent out to the Convent in Acre, which was the main house of the Order of St John of Jerusalem in the East. There he would have performed military and/or caravan service in addition to his religious duties in the Convent. After several years of such service he might become a commander in his native land, or, if he remained in the East, after fifteen years of service in the Order - at least ten of them at the Convent - he might become one of the five capitular bailiffs of the Convent or a prior in his native land.28 Such being the usual course of events we can only assume that Brother Joseph had been born by 1213 at the latest, had joined the Hospitallers in England before 1233 - in what seems to be the period of the greatest expansion of the English Order29 - and was sent out to Acre by 1233 or I23&amp; at the latest in order to complete his fifteen years of service to the Order before he was appointed treasurer (and thus a capitular bailiff) in or by 1248. He held the office of (international) treasurer of the Order for some twenty-five years, until about 1271, before he was sent to England by the Order to be its grand prior there, in 1273.30 Various documents in the monumental cartulary of the Order, edited by Delaville LeRoulx, refer to Brother Joseph's activities in Acre during the 1250s and 1260s.31 Relatively few of them, however, which name brothers of the Acre Convent as witnesses in these years, mention Brother Joseph, for some unknown reason. We do glimpse Brother Joseph as a person in a letter he sent in 1252 to the English Dominican, Walter of St Martin, who apparently asked to be informed of developments in the Holy Land after he had left it. In this letter, Brother Joseph reports to Walter about the peace concluded between Louis IX of France and the sultan of Egypt, and notes that the Turcomans had devastated the territories of Crac des Chevaliers and of Tripoli.32 This was a time of unsuccessful military endeavours by the Christians in the Holy Land: Jerusalem had fallen in 1244, and thousands of Christians had been killed, while many of 192</page><page sequence="5">A Hospitaller and the Jews the Templars and Hospitallers fell at the battle of Gaza shortly thereafter. The downhill slide of the Christian kingdom continued: the Hospitaller fortress at Ashkelon was lost in 1247; there was a crushing defeat in 1250 at Mansurah in Egypt which few knights survived; in 1266 the Templars' supposedly impregnable fortress of Safed was lost; in 1268 Jaffa, Beaufort and Antioch fell; the great fortress of Crac des Chevaliers was surrendered by the Hospitallers in 1271; the Hospitaller fortress of Margat (Marqab) surrendered in 1285 and Tripoli in 1289. The final disaster for the Hospitallers and the Kingdom of Jerusalem was the loss of Acre in 1291.33 It may be that Brother Joseph did not live until this disaster of 1291, or that he did not survive it by many years. It is clear from the 1252 letter written by Brother Joseph, and from other letters he sent to Edward I following his return to Acre after 1280, that he was deeply concerned about the Christian cause in the Holy Land.34 He could not have avoided being aware of the series of disasters that befell the Christian kingdom in the mid-13th century - not least because the Hospitallers, Templars and other Christian lords preferred jockeying for position to working together for their common cause. From the vantage point of his long service in the Holy Land, Brother Joseph saw hundreds of his fellow Hospitallers and thousands of Chris? tians slaughtered, and the proud fortresses of the crusader realm fall one by one until almost nothing was left. In one poignant letter of the early 1280s Brother Joseph told Edward I 'that never in our remembrance was the Holy Land in such poor estate as it is at this day', because of drought, disease, the paynim (payenine, 'pagans') and the lack of provisions from abroad. He added that 'the Holy Land was never so easy of conquest as now, with able generals and store of food. . ,'.35 The Holy Land, however, would not have been easy to hold after such a conquest, because of its wrecked fortresses.36 But the pleas of Brother Joseph, and those of the grand-master of the Hospital, for men and materiel to facilitate the reconquest of the Holy Land were never responded to by Edward or anyone else, nor did Edward himself ever return to the East despite his hope of doing so and his repeated crusading vow. Nonetheless, it is clear that the Lord Edward's crusade of 1270 had been crucial for future developments. It was during this crusade that Edward met men of similar mind. Edward seems to have met one of them in connection with the loans he received while in Acre, at least some of which were guaranteed by the Hospital - whose long-term treasurer in Acre was Brother Joseph de Chauncy.37 (Further evidence of their meeting there is provided by PRO C 62/51, rot. 4, an issue roll of 1274-5, which records that ?233 6s 8d of a loan made to the Lord Edward in Acre by Brother Joseph was to be repaid.) Another fellow crusader of Edward's was Payn of Chaworth, an intimate of both Henry III and Edward I; he was associated with Brother Joseph in assessing the tallage of 1274 on the Jews.38 A third such crusader in the Holy Land in 1270 was the archdeacon of Liege, Tedaldo Visconti, the future Pope Gregory X (elected 1271, died 1276), all 193</page><page sequence="6">Zefira Entin Rokeah of whose efforts were directed to furthering the crusading cause. It was Gregory X who finally persuaded the English clergy to grant a tenth for crusading expenses, and who called the second Council of Lyons in 1274 - whose main goals were promoting the crusading cause (unsuccessfully), and bringing about a 'short-lived union of the churches' of East and West.39 It is probable, if not certain, that Edward would have given Brother Joseph, as a crusader with a similar cast of mind to his own, oral or written orders about how he was to act on taking up office as royal treasurer of England (which he did on 2 October 127340); the two are known to have corresponded when apart, and it is very likely that any additional directions Edward wished to pass on to him would have reached Brother Joseph in the form of letters or oral messages entrusted to the various churchmen and laymen known to have acted as 'informal bearers of news'.41 That the two had at least one more meeting near the beginning of the reign is clear: Stephen de Pencestre, the keeper of Dover Castle, shows in his expenses for 1272-4 that ?9 18s 4d was spent 'for the passage of Brother Joseph de Cancy, king's treasurer, in coming from the king, then overseas, to England, as well as for the passage of Robert Burnell, who had travelled to the king and returned from seeing him'.42 Brother Joseph was certainly acting on Edward's behalf as early as May of 1273 - when he seems to have been on his way to England from the Holy Land. He was lent more than ?1000 by Luke de Lucca, the Italian merchant so deeply involved in Edward's financial affairs, at the May fair of St Ayoul held in the town of Provins (now in the department of Seine-et-Marne), so that he might 'expedite the king's business' there. (Fairs served then for the receipt and payment of money owed, as well as for trading in goods.) He also seems to have been about Edward's business at another place - 'Myli' or 'Mily' in the records - possibly Myli in Greece, through which he may have passed on his way to England in 1273. However, it may equally have been while he was abroad in 1274; the issue roll records an order of 5 November 1275 for the repayment of ?576 us 5d that Brother Joseph had lent in order to 'expedite our [the king's] difficult business' at Myli (ad ardua negocia nostra inde expedienda). Pope Gregory X failed to persuade Edward I to attend the Council of Lyons in 1274 in person, but many Englishmen did appear there.43 In March 1274 the prior of the order of St John of Jerusalem in England - Brother Joseph de Chauncy - was granted letters of protection until the end of September 1274 as he was going overseas.44 It seems reasonable to suppose that he was on his way to Lyons for the well-attended Church council that ran from 7 May to 17 July 1274. Brother Joseph - if he did indeed attend it - left early, for we find him acknowledging the receipt of 8000 marks of the papal tenth on 18 July 1274.45 He may have fitted in a brief visit to Edward I, still on his travels in France, on his way to or from the council, in order to report to him about the actions he had taken since entering office; the expenditure reported by Stephen de Pencestre may have been made in this context. 194</page><page sequence="7">A Hospitaller and the Jews We cannot know who was directly responsible for the various anti-Jewish meas? ures taken in England in the 1270s - the king himself, his clerks, or his closest associates (ranging from his mother, Eleanor of Provence, and his wife, Eleanor of Castile, to fellow crusaders such as Otto de Grandison, and long-term intimates such as Robert Burnell). We cannot assign specific responsibility to this or that person for the anti-Jewish measures of 1269-71 that forbade fee-rents and the sale of Jewish debts to Christians without royal permission; for the 'great tallage' of 1274; for the Statute of Jewry of 1275 that forbade Jewish usury; or for the viciously anti-Jewish coinage trials of 1278-9 that resulted in the execution of at least 269 Jews (and only 29 Christians) on trumped-up charges of coin-clipping and counterfeiting - of which only a few of those hanged may have been guilty. There is no evidence of Brother Joseph's direct involvement in these anti-Jewish measures, other than what we have noted above; only an assumption that, as one of the inner, royal circle holding opinions similar to Edward's own about the need to purify Christian society, he was probably their enthusiastic supporter. Brother Joseph was not in England for the last, most drastic step of all - the expulsion of 1290 - but he was certainly that expulsion's supporter in spirit, a spirit reflected in the harsh measures with which English Jews were threatened in the two memor? anda roll entries with which we began this study. One last glimpse of Brother Joseph is provided for us on the eve of his return to the Holy Land. Early in 1280 he impleaded a London wine-broker who had brought about the cancellation of an order for two kegs of wine for Brother Joseph's benefit. The broker had insulted Brother Joseph's servant, saying that 'neither he nor his master with the long beard should . . . drink any of that wine'.46 Brother Joseph and the wine-broker were reconciled in the end, but we do not know whether Joseph ever drank his wine, shown in the margins of the exchequer of pleas roll as flowing from two kegs tipped onto their sides into a large goblet.47 NOTES i I have prepared a collection of such entries in the memoranda rolls of 1266-93, the twenty-seven regnal years before and just after the expulsion of the Jews from England in 1290, under the auspices of the Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities. May I express my thanks to the Academy for sponsoring this project. Thanks are also due to the staff of the Public Record Office (Chancery Lane) and to Ms Pamela Willis, curator of the library at St John's Gate, Clerkenwell, London, who allowed me to consult H. W. Fincham's manuscript 'Notes on the Grand Priors of the Order of the Hospital of St John of Jerusalem in England', dating from 1902 and thereafter; Cecil Humphery-Smith, Hugh Revel: Master of the Hospital of St John of Jerusalem, 1258-1277 (Chichester 1994); and other relevant material. The Crown Copyright materials in the Public Record Office, London (hereafter, PRO), referred to or quoted in this paper are presented by kind permission of the Controller of Her Majesty's Stationery Office. Abbreviations used in the notes for PRO records include the following: C 47 Chancery miscellanea C 62 Liberate/issue rolls of the chancery E 101 Exchequer, accounts various E 159 King's Remembrancer's memo E352 E368 randa rolls Chancellor's rolls Lord Treasurer's R brancer's memoranda rolls Remem 195</page><page sequence="8">Zefira Entin Rokeah E 372 E 401 E 403 Pipe rolls Receipt rolls of the exchequer Liberate/issue rolls of the exchequer H, M, P, T Hilary term, Michaelmas term, 2 Brother Joseph de Chauncy (Cancy/ Kauncy), prior of the Hospital of St John of Jeru? salem in England, was the treasurer of England from 1273 to 1280; see Handbook of British Chro? nology (3rd ed. 1986) 104. See also ns 24 and 30 below. 3 The archae were the official chests in which documents recording debts to the Jews were kept in various towns and cities. The two entries we will consider appear in the king's remembrancer's memoranda roll, E 159/48; they seem to be absent from the parallel lord treasurer's remem? brancer's memoranda roll, E 368/47. Both rolls cover the period from M 1273 to T 1274. Paul Brand has suggested (in a private communication used here by permission) that the towns referred to may have been those where there was an archa, rather than the principal towns of the various shires. See Appendix I for the Latin text of these entries. 4 Cecil Roth, A History of the Jews in England (3rd ed. Oxford 1964) 68. Henry III died on 16 November 1272; his son Edward I returned to England from his crusading ventures only in August 1274. On the 'severe methods' used in 13th-century England to extort money from unwilling Jews, such as imprisonment, hanging, the threat of expulsion, torture and the loss of teeth or eyes, see Salo W. Baron, A Social and Religious History of the Jews, X (New York, London, Philadelphia 1965) 94-5, 345 n. 48; XII (1967) 232-3, 356-7 n. 44. Such methods seem to have been in use in England in the earlier part of the 13th century. In the last years of Henry Ill's reign, however, imprisonment rather than torture seems to have been a preferred sanction against Jews who did not pay what they had prom? ised on time or who were reluctant to bind them? selves to pay by a reasonable date; see Roth, His? tory (see above) 67; H. G. Richardson, The English Jewry under Angevin Kings (London i960) 214. 5 The margin of the first entry has 9 dots arranged in three rows of three dots each, in loz? enge form. Paul Brand suggests that the nine dots 'were of a significantly later date than the entry (perhaps of 16th- or 17th-century date) and may indicate a later antiquarian interest in the entry'. The first entry also has a sign similar to a lower SC Easter term, and Trinity term, respectively Ancient correspondence case letter q with a long descender. The same elongated q sign appears alongside the second entry of the pair. The manuscript of E 159, which has many such marginal markings, also has many erasures, insertions and cases of inexact mar gination, which suggest that the scribe(s) involved may have been inexperienced. 6 The manuscript has Herefordshire instead of the correct Hertfordshire. Certain counties - such as Essex and Hertfordshire - were customarily paired under one sheriff. 7 An effaced letter precedes both Worcester? shire and Cornwall in the manuscript. 8 Why centres of Jewish settlement such as Oxford and London are omitted from this list is unclear; it may be due to a clerical oversight. It was normal practice to record only one writ in full of many similar ones, and then to list the other shires to which the latter had been sent. The Calendar of the Close Rolls (hereafter, CCloseR) 1273, 62-3, has two lists - apparently dating from December of 1273 - of sheriffs, mayors and the heads of various religious houses, to be sent writs in connection with the collection of (an unspeci? fied and possibly Jewish) tallage in twenty-two cities. The cities listed there (which include Oxford and London) correspond almost exactly with the cities in which archae of the Jews are known to have existed in this period; see H. G. Richardson (see n. 4) 14-19, and the map of J. Hillaby, 'Hereford Gold: Irish, Welsh and English Land . . . Part I', Trans of the Woolhope Naturalists' Field Club XLIV (1984) III: 360. It is tempting to think that these close roll lists may indeed relate to the Jewish tallage imposed in or just after December 1273, although another imposition may have been meant. In any case, payment was ordered for the assessing of the tall? age; see Appendix II. 9 The Jewish community had fined with Henry III in May 1269 for ?1000, in order to be free of tallage for the next three years - unless a tallage proved necessary for Henry's proposed crusade; see Close Rolls 1269, 53-4, and E 159/ 43, rot. i2r (1268-9). A tallage seems to have been imposed three years later, as references were made to the 'present tallage' in June-July 1272; Henry III granted Edward ?1000 of its proceeds, to be raised from a dozen Jews (see Close Rolls 1272, 493, 498-9). Edward's crusade has received detailed attention recently from Simon Lloyd, English Society and the Crusade, 1216-130J (Oxford 1988) chap. 4, pp. 113-54. Lloyd indicates (144) that 'the precise cost of Edward's crusade cannot be computed, but it was clearly considerable and placed a severe strain 196</page><page sequence="9">A Hospitaller and the Jews upon royal finances for some years'. (See his p. 145 and n. 151, and p. 146 n. 153, for biblio? graphy about the financing of the crusade.) Michael Prestwich says that 'the total cost [of Edward's 1270 crusade] may well have approached ?100,000 . . .' (his Edward I [London 1988] 79-81 gives details of the sums involved., including some loans Edward incurred after reaching Acre). In addition to funds from the English 'twentieth of 1269-70, the fifteenth of 1275, the clerical biennial tenth of 1273, and . . . moneys from the Holy Land subs.dy' (Lloyd, 145), Edward borrowed about ?17,500 from the French king, Louis IX, in 1269, as w ;11 as smaller sums from the Hospital of St John )f Jerusalem in Acre and Paris, from the Temp e, and from merchants of Narbonne, Pisa and Venice. He borrowed much larger sums from a variety of Ital? ian merchants. English Jews owed 6000 marks granted at their expense to Edward by Henry III for the crusade, some 4000 marks of which had been paid by the Jews by mid-1271 (the balance of 2000 marks was advanced by Richard of Cornwall who was to recoup this amount from the Jewry); see Calendar of the Patent Rolls (hereafter, CPR) 1271, 545-6; CPR 1272, 671; Prestwich 72, 80-1; Lloyd 144-5. 10 For Edward's return journey, see Prestwich (see n. 9) 82-5. E 403/1230, m. 2 (P 1273) notes the payment ordered of 35 marks for the expenses of the clerk sent to Lines, Yorks, Durham, Carlisle, Scotland, Ireland and Wales, in order to 'promulgate' the papal sentence imposed on Guy de Montfort. The order is dated 2 August 1273. 11 Edward's uncle, Richard of Cornwall, was appointed guardian of the children; he was to act together with Walter Giffard (the archbishop of York), Philip Basset, Roger Mortimer and Robert Burnell to watch over Edward's interests in Eng? land and Ireland during the crusade. F. M. Pow icke indicates that these men were the 'most powerful element in council and parliament' in the last years of Henry III; see his King Henry III and the Lord Edward (Oxford 1950 [1947]) II: 583 n. 1, 586. Giffard, Mortimer and Burnell acted as Edward's 'caretaker government' after Henry III died, and were instrumental in the smooth transition from one reign to the next (ibid., 586, 589, 593) 12 See Prestwich (see n. 9) 80. 13 The adjectives are those of Simon Lloyd, English Society (see n. 9) 147 and n. 163. See n. 9 for the crusade's financing. 14 R. B. Dobson noted in 1979, in 'The Decline and Expulsion of the Medieval Jews of York', Trans JHSE XXVI (1979) 49 n. 16, that the 'lists of Jewish tallages imposed by Henry III . . . printed by Roth, History of the Jews, p. 273, and P. Elman, 'The Economic Causes of the Expulsion of the Jews in 1290', Economic History Review, ist series, vii (1937) 153-4; ? . . still await detailed correlation with the original tallage accounts in PRO, E. 101/249 an^ E.401 passim'. Roth based his list on Elman, and on Hilary Jenk inson, 'The Records of Exchequer Receipts from the English Jewry', Trans JHSE Mill (1918) 32 7, which lists income from the Jewry into the 1290s. (Jenkinson's list in 'Medieval Sources for Anglo-Jewish History . . .' Trans JHSE XVIII (1958) 291-3 gives current PRO call numbers for these records, but is otherwise similar to his earlier one.) Dr Robin Mundill examined these records recently, in his 1987 dissertation (University of St Andrews), 'The Jews of England 1272-1290', 56-78, 101-4 (notes), along the lines suggested by Dobson; see n. 15 below. For the earlier period, see Robert C. Stacey's Politics, Policy, and Finance under Henry III, 1216-1245 (Oxford 1987); his 'Royal Taxation and the Social Structure of Medieval Anglo-Jewry: The Tallages of 1239-1242', Hebrew Union College Annual LVI (1985) 175-249, esp. 176 and its ns 3, 4, 5; and his '1240-1260: A Watershed in Anglo-Jewish Relations?' Historical Research LXI, no. 145 (June 1988) 135-50. Its pp. 136-7 pre? sent an emended list of tallages imposed on English Jews between 1186 and 1260 (without indicating the evidence used in its compilation). Paul Brand has promised a revised list of tallages for the 1260S-90S in his introduction to the JHSE's expected sixth volume of the Calendar of the Plea Rolls of the Exchequer of the Jews (hereafter, CalJExch). In the interim, see Appendix II below for some of the manuscript records related to Jewish tallages of the early 1270s. 15 See Richardson, The English Jewry (see n. 4) 215 and n. 6. Mundill (see n. 14) 59 and 70 has noted that 'Between . . . "tallage assessed" and "tallage collected" there is a whole range of intricate dealings, mystery, and unanswered questions'. Tallage payments were not always specified as being such, appeared in a variety of records, and were hidden on occasion in lump payments or in transfers of debt bonds from Jews to the Crown. Powicke, King Henry III (see n. 11) I: 311 and n. 1 comments on the difficulty of compiling 'an exact total of the exactions' from the Jews .... 'The difficulty is to separate the various payments from each other. Thus the "great tallage" of 1245 was spread over several years, and is sometimes referred to in terms of 197</page><page sequence="10">Zefira Entin Rokeah the payment due in a particular year or half-year. A "tallage of 10,000 marks" may simply be the annual payment of the great tallage of 60,000, and must not be counted over again [when one compiles a list of Jewish tallages imposed].' (For Robert Stacey's careful work on the tallages of the 1240s and 1250s, see now the studies noted above in n. 14.) Mundill suggests that the pay? ments received at the New Temple in 1274 (recorded in PRO E 101/249/16), amounting to ?1434 6s 7d, were of a Jewish tallage preceding the so-called 'great tallage' (62-3), and that the latter, the most fully documented of (late) 13th century tallages, is recorded in a variety of lists and memoranda (Mundill 64 and n. 46 on 102 3, referring to Jewish receipt rolls, E 401/1568 1571; and to exchequer accounts, various, E 101/ 249/18-22). He notes (75) that between 1272 and 1278 'the Jews of England had paid at least ?5301 -8s-8 i/2d into Edward's coffers' (out of the ?18,000 asked for). Powicke is right in saying that it is difficult to distinguish arrears of one tallage from payments towards another. Some receipts of the 1270s clearly belong to tallages of Henry Ill's reign; see, for example, the payments specifically designated as being for the 5000 mark tallage (imposed c. 1272) in the M 1273 roll, E 401/68, mm. 3, 11, 12, 13; or E 401/70, mm. 4, 7, 11 (P 1273); E 4OI/7T&gt; mm- 4&gt; 8, 11 (P 1274); and E 401/73, mm. 4, 12 (M 1274). E 401/74, m. 4, has one entry, underlined for cancellation and marked 'because [it is] of tallage'. (This may herald a proposed, but apparendy abandoned, change in practice: recording entries about Jewish tallage only on the Jewish receipt rolls.) E 401/ 75, m. 4 (P 1275), has a Lincolnshire entry mar ginated 'Jewish tallage', but fails to specify which tallage is meant. E 401/76 recto, a three columned roll of particulars (M 1275), has pay? ments specifically noted as being 'of tallage', by two (named) Jews of Wiltshire, but without speci? fying which tallage is intended. E 401/77 (M 1275), m. 6, has a Lincolnshire entry marginated 'Jewish tallage' about the same Jew, Leo son of Benjamin, who appears in E 401/75, m. 4, but - like it - fails to specify which tallage is meant. Thereafter, until M 1276 at least, there are no such notations that payments were made in con? nection with (Jewish) tallage. I think that the 1274 New Temple payments, and at least some of those assigned by scholars to other, later tallages, should be assigned to the 'great tallage' imposed after de Chauncy sent his orders in December of 1273. Mundill himself notes that orders were issued in 1278 for the collection of arrears of the great tallage of 1274, and indicates that the 'amounts recorded' in the Jewish receipt rolls (E 401/1568-1571) 'were not the total of the tallage collected' (69). The ward? robe account of Philip de Wylughby [Willoughby] for 4 November 1272-18 October 1274 reports the receipt of ?66 13s 4d of a 'gift' from Master Elias of London (Elijah Menahem son of Master Moses), as well as of ?468 5s od received from Brother Stephen de Fuleburn of 'the last Jewish tallage'; this seems to be in addition to the roughly ?5300 of the Jewish receipt rolls and various exchequer accounts noted by Mundill (above) for 1272-8. (The Tower account for December 1276-April 1278 adds a further ?1590 paid, of the 3000 mark tallage assessed on the English Jewry in the fifth year of the reign, 1276 7.) It should be remembered that many other pay? ments recorded in general and Jewish receipt rolls of the period may also be related to tallage payments due, even though this fact is not noted in the relevant entries. 16 See Mundill (see n. 14) table 7: 'Tallage payments received under Edward ist', facing p. 77. E 403/1235, m. 2, notes that Master Thomas Bek', keeper of the king's wardrobe, was to be paid a total of 294 marks for the expenses of the king's household provided that the money were paid out of money 'coming from the Jewry'. (The two orders date from 24 October 1274.) 17 Roth, History (see n. 4) 68. 18 See CPR 1274, 42-3. For the forced abjuration, 'never to return', ordered in Nov? ember 1274 for those Jews who failed to pay, see its 62-3. 19 (Above, n. 4) 214-15. 20 Paul Brand comments that 'I think it likely that you are right to connect the order with the "great tallage" but also part of the context (and an alternative, if less plausible, explanation for the order) lies in a pre-existing tradition of con? trols over Jewish residence in England. These go back to at least 1239 .. . .' He notes the clause in Liber de Antiquis Legibus 237-8 stating that each Jew was to remain, together with his family, for the whole year in the place he was on Michaelmas (29 September) unless he received special royal authorization to do otherwise. Dr Brand thinks that the 1253 provision (Close Rolls, 1251-3, 312 13) that Jews were not to be received in any town other than those where Jews were wont to dwell, unless by special royal licence, might still have been in force, and that 'it alone might provide good reason for the 1273 order'. This would seem more likely if 1 April had not been specified as the end of the period of forced residence in these orders. If the aim of the orders were to 198</page><page sequence="11">A Hospitaller and the Jews force Jews to return to the approved places of residence, most of which were in the archa towns in any case, there would not be much point to allowing them to leave in April (unless one posits an intention to collect further sums from Jews wishing to live outside the usual places). But this could be done with ease by the sheriffs without there being any need to corral Jews who lived inside these recognized places of residence together with those who did not. 21 For the customary scrutiny, see Mundill (see n. 14) 59 and 101-2 n. 20, and Stacey, 'Royal Taxation' (see n. 14) 182 and n. 35. Some later (1270s) scrutiny records are printed in Cal JExch IV: 13fr. See Appendix II below for other relevant records. 22 For example, Lumbard and Isaac of Bris? tol, ordered to be imprisoned in 1238 until they paid their shares of tallage and provided security that they would not flee the kingdom; see Michael Adler, Jews of Medieval England (London 1939) 211. See also Stacey, 'Royal Taxation' (see n. 14) 179-80 for the suggestion that the 'punitive' tallage of one-third imposed on the Jews in 1239, which may have been 'provoked by some real or imagined criminal charge of which the entire Jewish community was held to be guilty, and for which they were therefore liable to forfeit all their property to the king', was seen as a 'relief or redemption of Jewish 'bonds and possessions from royal confiscation by paying the king a com? munal relief amounting to a third of their value' as well as queen's gold (an additional 10 per cent of the fine). For the imprisonment of Jews in 1240 for nonpayment of the Third, see ibid. 183? 4; for the imprisonment of Jewish 'hostages' for, apparently, the appropriate implementation of 'the earliest administrative stages' of a new tax in 1241, see ibid. 193. 23 See n. 4 above. See also Vivian D. Lipman, The Jews of Medieval Norwich (London 1967) 104, for the coercive imprisonment of, and extreme extortion of money from, Isaac (son of Jurnet) of Norwich, as well as the hanging of his contem? porary, Isaac of Canterbury, in connection with the Bristol tallage of 1210. Adler, Jews of Medieval England (see n. 22) 201-3 casts doubt on the story of the 'violent dentistry' attributed to King John in this connection. Torture may also have been used in order to force a detailed 'confession' from a Jew about the well-known alleged ritual murder of 1255 in Lincoln. 24 For the dates, see J. Delaville LeRoulx, Les Hospitallers en Terre Sainte et ? Chypre (1100 ijio) (Paris 1904) 427; CCloseR 1273, 32; CPR 1280, 381-2. There is no entry for Brother Joseph de Chauncy in the Dictionary of National Biography; there will be one in the forthcoming New DNB. Paul Brand suggests that one should not 'take overseriously what sounds more like an empty, if rather unpleasant, threat. There is certainly no evidence of any such unpleasantness actually being carried into effect in 1273-74.' The Jews of England in the 1270s, however, might not have been as sure of this as we can be today, looking back at the extant records. 25 See 'The Financial and Administrative Importance of the London Temple in the Thir? teenth Century', Essays in Medieval History pre? sented to Thomas Frederick Tout, eds A. G. Little and F. M. Powicke (Manchester 1925) 148. There may be a reflection of Brother Joseph's attitude towards regalian and ecclesiastical rights and privileges in an entry in a 1274 memoranda roll, which stresses that among the things that adorn the royal dignity is the king's right of long standing to collect money owed him from both secular and ecclesiastic individuals (or their executors). However, at the end of this long writ sent to an official of the archbishopric of Canter? bury, in Brother Joseph's name, it is noted that he and the barons of the exchequer do not intend to infringe, violate, diminish or otherwise disturb the liberty of the Church nor to oppose canon law (E 159/49, rot. 4r). Paul Brand indicates that these phrases 'sound like commonplaces of later thirteenth-century government, and [are] much more likely to be the work of a competent clerk or at most one of the barons of the exchequer than of Chauncy himself. This is probably so, but I think that this writ - sent in his name and most probably at his direction - does indicate that both royal and ecclesiastical interests were dear to Chauncy's heart. 26 See Richard H. Bowers, 'From Rolls to Riches: King's Clerks and Moneylending in 13th-century England', Speculum 58 (1983) 60 71, which notes the rapid increase 'in number and importance' of king's clerks in the 13th cen? tury, most of them in minor orders, and the 'extraordinary profits ... in money and in titles to lands encumbered with debt' that moneylending brought them in an age of very limited 'sources of credit'. His table (65) shows the great growth in the number of recognizances of debt to royal clerks in the late 1270s and 1280s. See also his p. 67 for moneylending 'on a grand scale' by Robert Burnell, Edward I's chancellor and dear friend. For typical loans made by Brother Joseph de Chauncy, see, e.g., E 159/49, rot. 25d (P 1275; 30 marks owed); E 159/52, rot. nd (M 1278; 199</page><page sequence="12">Zefira Entin Rokeah 20 marks owed); E 159/53, rot. i6r (P 1280; ?25 owed); there are many more such debts in the rolls. 27 See [William B. Sanders,] 'A Crusader's Letter from "The Holy Land". [1281.]' (London: Palestine Pilgrims' Text Society, V, 1896) 5-6; see also Liber Feodorum: The Book of Fees . . . (Nendeln, Liechtenstein 1971 [London 1931] III (Index): 138, s. v. Chauncy. See I. J. Sanders, English Baronies (Oxford i960) 78-9, for the des? cent of the Skirpenbeck barony. Joseph, a fairly unusual name in 13th-century English records, does not seem to have been one of the usual de Chauncy family names. The saints' days con? nected with the Virgin Mary's husband and with Joseph of Arimathaea seem to have been observed only many years after Brother Joseph's birth, so that it is unlikely that he was born on a St Joseph's day. Humphery-Smith, Hugh Revel (see n. 1) 61-5, suggests that Revel was himself of English origin, and that the Hugh de Chauncy of Northamptonshire in Edward I's service in 1277 may have been Revel's nephew. Humphery Smith also indicates (56) that Brother Joseph de Chauncy came from the same district as Revel and that Revel was, in trying to 'reorder the dis? cipline and financial support of the order, greatly aided by his kinsman, Joseph de Chauncy . . .', but he gives no reference concerning either point. Sir Henry Chauncy's The Historical Antiquities of Hertfordshire ... I (Bishops Stortford and London 1826 [1700]): in, suggests that the family name derived from 'Chauncy near Amiens in France, [and] came into England with William the Conqueror . . .' and his followers; the eldest son of Chauncy de Chauncy 'purchas'd the Mannor of Scirpenbeck in the County of York, of Odo Balistarius, a great Norman . . .'. No one named Joseph appears in the family tree he pro? vides (120). E 368/52, rot. i9d, has a writ of Easter term 1279 telling the sheriff of Lin? colnshire to distrain William de Cauncy, son and heir to Philip de Cauncy, and have him on the octave of the Nativity of St John (1 July 1279) to pay the king the relief he owed for the lands and tenements he held in chief of the king by barony. (The order was based on the pipe roll of 1263-4.) William was granted respite until 30 September 1279. The writ was issued by the treasurer, Brother Joseph de Chauncy; it may reflect Brother Joseph's desire to help a relative. A less sympathetic writ issued on 9 December 1280 said that since William de Chauncy (apparently Phil? ip's father) owed the king various debts at his death, his lands and tenements were to be seized and their income answered for at the exchequer (see E 159/54, m. 28a!). It should be noted that the latter writ is dated after Brother Joseph had left the office of treasurer. 28 [Colonel Edwin J. King,] The Rule, Statutes and Customs of the Hospitallers iogg-ijio (London 1981 [1934]) 147-9- Joseph de Chauncy was not, apparently, a student at Oxford or Cambridge before going to the East; I am indebted to Professor Amnon Linder of Jerusa? lem for this information. It seems he acquired the expertise which enabled him to act as the Order's long-term, competent treasurer within the Order itself. Helena Chew, 'The Priory of St John of Jerus? alem, ClerkenwelP, in Victoria County History: A History of the County of Middlesex, eds J. S. Cockburn, H. P. F. King and K. G. T. McDon? nell, I (1969): 194, notes that 'The principle was early asserted that priors and commanders should normally be natives of the country in which their houses were situated', but adds (194 n. 23) that 'As late as 1235 a German, Thierry de Nussa, was appointed prior'. Chew also notes (195) that 'In general, the English knights seem to have been recruited from the country gentry, rather than from the aristocracy'. 29 See Michael Gervers, The Hospitaller Car? tulary! in the British Library (Cotton MS Nero E VI) (Toronto 1981) 3; he suggests, on the basis of the Essex Hospitaller cartulary, that the Order's growth in England was greatest from about 1200 50, somewhat less in 1250-1300, and much less after 1300 or so. Gervers indicates (4-5) that the order rarely worked its lands in Essex, 'so few were its members and so scattered the lands . . .'. He adds that little documentary evidence for the English Order has survived - in part because of the burning of the Clerkenwell priory in the Peas? ants' Revolt of 1381 (n. 1). 30 LeRoulx, Les Hospitallers . . . (see n. 24) 412; his Cartulaire Generale de VOrdre des Hos? pitallers de S. Jean de Jerusalem (noo-ijio) (Paris 1897, x899) IE 673-5, no. 2482 (7 August 1248), and III: 259-60, no. 3433 (20 October 1271) includes the first and last documents referring to Brother Joseph as treasurer of the Order. He may, of course, have acted before or after these dates. Humphery-Smith, Hugh Revel (see n. 1) 102-3 n- 44 Quotes Porter's 1858 History of the Knights of Malta (II: 314) to the effect that, in 1237, 'a body of three hundred [sic, for Matthew Paris's 'thirty', triginta; see Chronica majora, Rolls Series, III: 406] Knights headed by the Prior, Theodoric de Nussa, left ... Clerkenwell ... accompanied by a considerable body of armed stipendaries' and nobles for the Holy Land in 200</page><page sequence="13">A Hospitaller and the Jews order to fill the 'diminished ranks' of the Hospital there. It is not impossible that Brother Joseph was one of the party. Edwin J. King suggested in The Knights Hospitallers in the Holy Land (London 1931) 277, 284, that Chauncy 'returned again to the East' in 1280 'to resume his old office [of treasurer] in the Convent', but offers no evidence that, once he had arrived in Acre (by September 1281), he did indeed resume that office. Before Brother Joseph left England he had the 'prior's chapel' built at Clerkenwell; see Helena Chew (see n. 28) 198. 31 See, for example, Cart. Generale (see n. 30) II: 749-50, no. 2661 (1253, naming him as de Cauci)\ 772-3, no. 2714 (1255); 886-8, no. 2949 (1260); III: 60-1, no. 3047 (1263 X 1269); 195 6, no. 3334 (1269). 32 Cart. Generale (see n. 30) II: 726-7, no. 2605; M. Paris, Chron. maj. (see n. 30) VI: 205. Lloyd, English Society ... (see n. 9) 27 and n. 83; 249 (his Appendix I), shows that Walter also received two letters from the master of the Hos? pital in 1251. Lloyd suggests that he may have been involved in promoting the crusade in Eng? land, and may have received such letters in this connection. 33 King, Knights Hospitallers (see n. 30) 232 4; King, The Rule (see n. 28) 9; E[dwin] J. King, The Knights of St. John in the British Empire (London 1934) 28-38; Jonathan Riley-Smith, The Knights of St. John in Jerusalem and Cyprus c. 1050-1310 (London and New York etc. 1967) 91. See also Hans E. Mayer, The Crusades (trans. John Gillingham) (Oxford 1972 [Stuttgart 1965]) 254-5, 266, 269-70, 273-4. 34 For letters sent by de Chauncy and others to English correspondents about the crusades, see Lloyd, English Society ... (see n. 9) Appendix I, 248-52. On the eve of his departure from Eng? land, Brother Joseph delivered four sets of letters (of the king of France, the king of England, and the master of the Temple) at the wardrobe (see C 47/3/21/49, of 2 June 1280). 35 See Cart. Generale (see n. 30) III: 424-8, esp. 427, no. 3782; Sanders, 'Crusader's Letter' (see n. 27) 13. 36 See King, Knights Hospitallers (see n. 30) 284. 37 For the cost of the crusade, and loans related to it, see n. 9 above. We have noted a loan made by Brother Joseph to Edward I in Acre. 38 See Lloyd, English Society .. . (see n. 9) 120, 269. See also the references to the tallage assessed on the Jews by Brother Joseph de Chauncy and Payn de Cadurciis (Chaworth) in the memoranda rolls: E 368/48, rot. 3r (M 1274); E 159/50, rot. id (M 1275); and in the barely legible SC 1/13/42. 39 See Lloyd, English Society . . . (see n. 9) 146, and Mayer (see n. 33) 270-1. 40 See CCloseR 1273, 32. 41 See Lloyd, English Society . . . (see n. 9) 36, 251 42 For the ?9 18s 4d, see E 352/67, rot. 3r; E 372/118, rot. i8r (both of 1273/4); and the allocate order of 1274-5 in C 62/51, m. nr. See Lloyd, English Society .. . (see n. 9) 37 and n. I3?&gt; 233 and n. 150. See also Councils and Synods with Other Documents Relating to the English Church, II: 1205-1307, eds. F. M. Powicke and C. R. Cheney (Oxford 1964), pt. II: 811-14, for instructions to those attending the council. The Hospital's grand master, Hugh Revel, may have attended the Council of Lyons in 1274; see Humphery-Smith, Hugh Revel (see n. 1) 56. However, L. Carolus-Barre, 'Essai de reconstitu tion d'une liste nominative des peres du IP con cile de Lyon', 1274: Annee charniere: mutations et continuities (Paris: CNRS 1977) 393, 403-4, 413 416, who names 217 churchmen known to have attended the council of 1274 out of the 1024 - possibly as many as 1224 - 'mitred' men (including abbots) who attended it, includes nei? ther Revel's nor Chauncy's name; both are among the 800-1000 not specifically named in the records. (Carolus-Barre does note the pres? ence of the Acre Hospitaller, Master/Brother William [?de Courcelles], who may have repres? ented Revel at the Council; see his 411 n. 216.) E 403/1233, m. ir includes payments to eleven named men going to the Council of Lyons from England; Joseph de Chauncy is not among them. For Provins and 'Myli' respectively, see E 403/ 23, m. ir, C 62/49, m. 3r, and CPR 1276, 132; and E 403/1238, m. ir, and C 62/51, m. 3r. Brother Joseph de Chauncy paid merchants of Acre 2000 marks (?1,333 6s 8d) at Provins on behalf of Edward I. 43 See CPR 1274, 44. 44 CPR 1274, 54. 45 An order for ?10 to be paid for horses, etc., taken for the king's use overseas, dated 23 November 1273 - i.e. before the return of Edward I to England - refers to Robert Burnell, Brother Josep', and Master Ralph de Frenyngham, as having been present when Edward I ordered that payment to be made (C 62/50, m. 8r; 1273-4). 46 H. Jenkinson and B. Formoy, eds. Select Cases in the Exchequer of Pleas (London 1932; Seiden Society XLVIII) 103. 47 In October 1277 and January 1278 various sums (?11; ?6 1 os 4zd) were repaid to Joseph de 201</page><page sequence="14">Zefira Entin Rokeah Chauncy for his expenses in moving the exchequer's rolls and tallies, and the personnel of the chamber (as well as paying the removals men), between Westminster and Shropshire; see E 403/1240, m. ir; C 62/53, m. ir. A liberate roll of 1280 (E 403/1243, m. 2r) orders the payment of ?65 16s 8d to Brother Joseph de Chauncy. This sum included ?52 1 os od to be paid to the master of the Hos? pital in Acre to cover the arrears of money he had spent on building a tower there at Edward Fs request. It also included 20 marks to be repaid that master in Acre for his loan to master Arnaldo Lupy when the latter was in Acre on Edward's service. Apparently Brother Joseph was to make the payment on his return to the East, as the order for payment is dated 8 June 1280. For addi? tional notices of Brother Joseph, see these rolls of 1275-6: C 62/52, m. 6r; and E 403/1239, m. ir, and C 62/52, m. 6r, which include: 1) permission from Edward I to Brother Joseph to go overseas; 2) 2000 marks to be paid to Joseph, the prior, and the brothers of the Hospital for payment to master Raymond de Nogeriis (papal chaplain and nuncio) and Brother John de Der(e)lington' - in return for the 2000 marks the Hospitallers had borrowed from them in order to expedite 'urgent business' of the king (dated 9 June 1276). E 352/65, m. 4od (1271-2) includes a special entry, for the inclusion of which brother Joseph was supposed to pay 6s 8d (see E 372/119, m. 38r [1274-5], London-Middlesex account). It records that Richard de Thany had quitclaimed and granted in perpetuity to Brother Joseph and the brothers of the Hospital the 5 marks of yearly rent from 'Parva Fetlinge' that he and his ancestors had been accustomed to receive each year from the treasurer of the Hospital at Clerkenwell. Sir Henry Chauncy, Historical Antiquities . . . (see n. 27) 436, notes that Joseph de Chauncy, prior of the Hospital, with the brothers' assent, granted in 1280 a messuage, a croft and three acres of land in Standon to the vicar of Standon, the grantee paying the Hospital 6s 8d for this. (No source is supplied by Sir Henry.) Appendix I E 159/48, rot. 4r Cantfebrigia] [et] Huntfedonia]p[roJ R[ege] Mandatum est eidem q[uo]d statim visis litt[er]is aliqua lib[er]tate no[n] obstante p[ro]clamar[i] fac[iat] in singul[is] Ciuit[ atibus] burg[is] et villfis] vbi aliqui Judei sint manentes in balli[u]a sua q[uo]d om[n]es et singuli Judei illi veniant ad villam Cantebr[igiam] ibi moraturi usque ad Pascha p[ro]ximo futur[um]. Et q[uo]d nullus Judeus de villa p[re]d[ic]ta neq[ue] de vill[is] forincecis a p[re]d[ic]ta villa Cant[ebrigia] recedat infra p[re]d[ic]t[u]m tempus sup[er] forisfacturam vite et membro[rum] et omniu[m] Cat[allorum] suo[rum] mobiliu[m] et immobiliu[m]. Et si aliquis Judeus post p[re]d[ic]tam p[ro]clamac[i]o[n]em fug[er]it uel se absentau [er] it a p[re]d[ic]ta villa Cantebr[igia]; tune ip[su]m capiat et in p[ri]sona Regfis] detineat et omnia bona et Cat[alla] sua mobilia et im[m]obilia in manu[m] R[egis] cap[iat] tan q[u]a[m] Cat [alia] R[egis] forisfacta et ea saluo custodfiat]; donee etc [Rex aliter inde preeeperit]. T[este] f[rat]re Joseph etc. ix. die Decfembris]. Eodem modo mand[atum] vic[ecomitibus] Kane', Suht', Sum[er]s', Dors', Notingh', Derbi, Essex', Heref', Surr' et Sussex', Warr' et Leye', Ebor', Salop' et Staff, Norff' et Suff, Norht', Bed', Buk', Wygorn',1 Cornub',2 Deuon'. Line' et3 Glouc'.4 202</page><page sequence="15">A Hospitaller and the Jews NOTES 1 A letter has been erased before Wygorn '. 2 A letter has been erased before Cornub'. 3 et is interlined. 4 About 4 cms is left blank before the next entry, rather than the usual 7-1 omm. Appendix II Records about early 1270s tallages 6000 mark tallage of 1271-2? E 401/68, m. or (M 1273) records two payments towards the 6000 mark tallage, as does E 401/70, m. 7r (P 1273). (Cf. Elman [see n. 14] 154, re the 6500 mark tallage of Michaelmas 1271, based on CPR, 1266-72, 671; Foedera, I: 489.) ^000 mark tallage of 1272? E 401/68, mm. 3r, nr, i2r, i3r (M 1273) refers to the 5000 mark tallage four times, as does E 401/70, mm. 4r, nr; E 401/71, mm. 4r, 8r, and nr (P 1274), refers to this tallage six times, E 401/73, mm. 4r, i2r (M 1274) does so twice. (Cf. Elman's 5000 mark tallage, based on E 401/1567; CalJExch, III: 296.) /ooo mark tallage of 1273? E 403/1230, m. id, and C 62/49, m. 4r (P 1273) include 5 marks to be paid for the expenses of Adam de Winton', sent 'recently' to examine the archae of Bristol, Exeter, Hereford, Worcester, Warwick and Gloucester, and to enroll the debts contained therein; the payment order, signed by the chancellor W[alter] de Merton', is dated 22 May 1273. E 401/1231, m. ir; E 403/1232, m. ir; C 62/49, m. 2r (1272-4) direct the payment of 50 marks for their expenses in office as justices of the Jews to Hamon Hauteyn and Robert de Ludham, as well as for their scrutiny of the 'chests and coffers' (cistarum et cojfrorum) of our (the king's) Jews in England; the payment order is dated 3 August 1273. (^n C 62/49, dated 2 August, over an erasure.) E 143/1/3, piece 4r (among the extents and inquisitions of the king's remem? brancer, a class of documents to which Kay Lacey drew my attention). This lists twenty debts to be brought by the Jewish and Christian chirographers of Hereford to the justices of the Jews on 6 October 1273. This order, of 2 August 1273, refers to the scrutiny of all the chattels in all the archae in the kingdom, ordered 'a short time ago' (dudum) by the (king's) council. It adds that the council later directed that there be a puramentum (clearing or liquidation of these debts), whereby some debts were given to the king, others taken into the king's hand, and yet others acquitted. (Cf. Elman, based on CalJExch II: 13, 19-21, etc. and on F. Devon, Issues of the Exchequer . . . [London 1837] 81.) 203</page><page sequence="16">Zefira Entin Rokeah The great tallage of 1275/4? C 62/52, m. 8r (1275-6) notes that John de Akle/Akele, son of Reginald de Acle (sic), was to receive credit in the account of Reginald's custody of the bishopric of Hereford for 22 marks that Reginald had spent on carrying the tallage of the Jews of Gloucester from those parts to the New Temple, London, in year 2 (Edward I; 1273-4), unless he or his father had already received credit for this. (The order is of 7 May [1276].) E 352/70, rot. 2r (1276-7): The wardrobe account of Philip de Wylughby for 4 November 1272-18 October 1274 reports the receipt of ?66 13s 4d of a 'gift' from Master Elias of London, as well as ?468 5 s od received from Brother Stephen de Fuleburn of 'the last Jewish tallage'. E 101/350/20, m. ir ('3rd roll of accounts'; receipts after 18 October 1273 by Master Thomas Bek', keeper of the wardrobe) notes the receipt of ?80 of 'money of the Jewry, by the hand of J. de Reda' (on 25 April 1274); of a further ?14 of 'money of the Jewry' from the same J. (on 28 May 1274); and of ?93 6s 8d from Master Elias, Jew, of his tallage. E 352/68, rot. ir (1274-5), in the account for 1273-4 of Master Thomas Bek', keeper of the wardrobe, records the receipt of ?94 'of the tallage of the Jews at the New Temple London, from Garin [Warin/ Warren], treasurer of that place', and also the receipt of ?93 6s 8d from Master Elias, Jew of London, of his tallage. The two entries refer, obviously, to the same receipts (total, ?187 6s 8d) of this tallage. E 403/1235, m. 2r, and C 62/50, m. 2r (M 1274) note that Master Thomas Bek', keeper of the king's wardrobe, was to be paid a total of 294 marks for the expenses of the king's household, provided that the money were paid out of money 'coming in from the Jewry'. (The two orders involved were issued on 24 December 1274.) The same rolls and rotulets direct the payment of money to Brother Stephen de Fulburn, to cover the following expenses, among others: ?2 to a clerk who visited Colchester twice in order to assess the Jewish tallage there; 30s to a clerk who went to Norwich for the same tallage; 9s 3d to another clerk going to Sudbury for that purpose; and ?2 for a clerk going to Cambridge for the same reason. They also mention ?11 2s 9d for: three clerks staying in London about the said business (of the tallage) from 29 December 1273 to 3 August 1274, i.e., for thirty-one weeks, at 3d each per day (total: ?8 2s 9d), and for three other clerks involved in the same at various times, the sum of ?3 (i.e., 20s each). They also authorized the expenditure of 4 marks for four robes for four clerks. (The order is dated 17 October 1274.) Another order there directs the payment of ?21 18s 4d to the chaplain, Nicholas de Hereford, 'of the arrears of our last tallage of the Jews'; he had paid ?10 to William de Middelton', keeper of the rolls of the Jewry, of his fee for 1272-3, granted to sustain him in that office; he had also paid the sum of ?5 13s 4d to six royal clerks going for the 'tallage of our Jews' to Bedford, Lincoln, Stamford, 204</page><page sequence="17">A Hospitaller and the Jews York, Warwick, Worcester, Gloucester, Hereford, Bristol and Oxford, in the week before Christmas of 1273, and an additional ?4 for the said clerks' expenses in this connection. (This order, too, is dated 17 October 1274.) SC 1/13/42. This writ, sent by Edward I to Stephen [de Fuleburn], bishop of Waterford, William de Midelton', and Brother Luke de Hemington', informs them that the king wishes all business (negocia) connected with the tallage recently assessed by Joseph de Kaunci and Payn de Cadurciis (Chaworth) to be completed only before the justices of the Jews. They are to deliver all rolls, writs, and tallies they have without delay to those justices. E 403/1236, m. 2r (P 1275); also in C 62/51, m. 7r, directs that ?4 19s od be paid to William de Dereby and Nicholas de Kyngeston', sergeants in the Jewry, for their services in connection with the Jewish tallage assessed by Brother Joseph de Chauncy and Payn de Cadurciis (Chaworth), between 29 September 1274 and 23 May 1275. (The order is dated 28 May 1275.) C 62/51, m. 4r (1274-5) directs that the former sheriff of Oxfordshire Berkshire, Gilbert de Kyrkeby, was to be allowed credit in his account for 2 marks he spent on the carriage of money from the tallage last assessed on the Jews of Oxford from the town of Oxford to the New Temple, London, for delivery to the king's treasurer there. (The order is of 23 October [1274].) 4000 mark tallage of 1274? (See Elman; based on CalJExch II: 126, and III: 66-8.) Third of movables: 12,500 marks? of 1274-6 E 401/75, m. 4r (P 1275) records the payment, under a Lincoln rubric, from (i.e., for) Leo son of Benjamin, of 40s of the debt of Peter son of Geoffrey; the money was paid in by Andrew Arkerel, 'of Jewish tallage'. Calendar of Fine Rolls 1272-1307, 43: Brother Luke de Hemington and William de Middelton, 'deputed to levy a tallage assessed of late on the Jews of England', are to take security from [the Jew] Vives de Clare for the payment of his fine of ten besants on the quindene of Easter [28 April 1275], and of ?20 of the arrears of the 'tallage, last assessed upon him' (half of it due on the quindene of Easter next, half on the quindene of Midsummer [8 July 1275] thereafter). They are to grant him this respite, as well as peace concerning 'his body and chattels on that account'. E 401/76 recto, centre column (M 1275) records the following payments 'of tallage' by Jews: from Moses Babelard, 2 id; from Moses son of Bella de Wilton, 8s 1 id and also ?6 13s 4d. E 401/77, m. 6r (M 1275) notes, under a Lincoln rubric, 40s from Leo son of Benjamin, of the debt of Peter son of Geoffrey; the money was paid in by Andrew Asketel (sic; cf. E 401/75), 'of tallage'. 205</page><page sequence="18">Zefira Entin Rokeah (Cf. Elman, based on 'KRE' [E ioi?]/24o/i8; E 9/33, m. 3d; E 401/1568, 1569, 1570, 1571, 1573.) /500 mark tallage of Michaelmas, 1276? C 62/52, m. 4r (1275-6): pay Philip de Wileghby 10 marks for his expenses in making a scrutiny of the London archa with Ralph de Broghton, and for Philip's scrutiny of writings at Thornton' Abbey about Holdernesse lands. This entry, dated 3 August 1276, is deleted by cross-hatching, as the payment order was returned and payment made by Luke de Lucca. (CPR 1276, 168, has an entry of 13 November 1276 authorizing Luke de Luka and his associates to pay Philip de Wileby 10 marks for his expenses concerning the London archa scrutiny and the examination of writings in Thorneton Abbey in Holdernesse.) E 403/1238, m. ir (P 1276) notes in an order of 25 June 1276 that Ralph de Brouhton' was to be paid 6 marks for his expenses in examining the London archa. C 62/52, m. 4r (1275-6) says that the sheriffs of London were to be credited for 5 marks they gave Ralph de Brougthon' for his expenses related to some business (negocia) about the Jewry; the order is dated 8 August 1276. C 62/ 53, m. 4r (1276-7) says that the sheriffs of London were to be credited in their account for 100s (i.e., 20s more than 6 marks) that they gave Ralph de Broghton', sent recently to make a scrutiny of the London Jews' archa', this was to cover his expenses in making the scrutiny as well as in dealing with various matters about which the king had previously given him orders. The order is dated on 25 May (apparently 1277). C 62/52, m. 4r (1275-6) says that the sheriff of Oxon-Berks was to receive credit for 100s he had paid to Robert de Ludham for his and William Gereberd's expenses in connection with making a scrutiny of the archae of Winchester, Oxford, Wilton and Devizes; the entry is dated 1 September (1276). C 62/53, m. 6r (1276-7) notes that the sheriff of Norfolk should receive credit for 10 marks he gave to Robert de Ludeham, justice of the Jews, for his expenses in making a scrutiny of the London archa and a liquidation of the debts (puramentum debitorum) of the said (London) Jews in that archa. The order is dated 9 February 1277. C 62/53, m. 7r (1276-7) records that the sheriff of Wiltshire should receive credit for 100s paid to William Gereberd' who was assigned recently to open the archae of various (Jewish) communities and make a full scrutiny of them, for his expenses in this connection and for the time he was the king's inquisitor in Hampshire and Wiltshire. The order is dated 4 February (1277). C 62/53, m. 3r directs that Bartholomew de Castello, keeper of the mints of London and Canterbury, was to receive credit, inter alia, for 5 marks that he had given William de Middelton, keeper of the rolls in Banco (court of common pleas), for his expenses in assessing tallage on the Jews of the realm as the king had ordered him to do. (The order is of 2 June 1277.) The same roll directs (m. ir) 206</page><page sequence="19">A Hospitaller and the Jews that Hugh de Digneneton' was to receive credit in his account of the collection of the chevage of the king's Jewry for ?10 worth of expenses incurred in connec? tion with the collection of the said chevage, unless he had received credit for it earlier. (The order is of 16 October 1277.) C 62/54, m. 2r (1277-8) says that Hugh de Digneneton' was to receive credit for the ?40 he paid on 31 January (1278) of the chevage of the Jews to the keeper of the wardrobe, Thomas Bek'; the entry is dated 1 February 1278. E 352/72, rot. i8d (1278-9), in the wardrobe account for 1277-8 rendered by Master Thomas Bek', also records the receipt of ?40 of the 'chevage of the Jews' from Hugh de Dyngyeneton'. (Cf. Elman, based on CCIR 1272-9, 264, 265, 308, 317; E 9/26, rot. 4r; E 401/1572.) Tallage of 5 Edward 7, 1276-7 E 352/70 (1276-7), in the account of Giles de Audenard of operations at the Tower of London, December 1276 - 17 April 1278: the community of the Jews of London paid ?46 3s 4d of a fine of ?50 so as not to be impleaded before the justices last in eyre at the Tower (1276); ?1590 16s 5d was received of the tallage of 3000 marks assessed on the entire community of the Jews of England in year 5 [Edward I; 1276-7]. Calendar of the Fine Rolls 1272-1307, 66-7: records the ?10 fine of the Jews of London, and the ?40 fine of all the Jews, both of them in connection with the eyre held at the Tower (1276). (Dated [21/2/1276]; 2/3/1276, respectively.) Calendar of the Fine Rolls 1272-1307, 72: The sheriff of Oxford is to take security from Isaac Palet [sic, for 'Polet'/'Pulet'], Jew of Oxford, to pay (on 13 October 1276) ?26, his share of the tallage of ?1000 'assessed last on the Jews'; the sheriff is also to relax the distraint imposed upon him for this. (Dated 15 September 1276.) 207</page></plain_text>